Re: 来根烟? - 未名空间MITBBS历史存档

国际科技财经博客移民网络热点娱乐民生时事公众号

Redian新闻

>未名空间

>Economics - 经济

Re: 来根烟?

Re: 来根烟?# Economics - 经济

s*z2004-08-17 07:08

1 楼

我倒觉得从纯经济学的角度，毒品的存在和蔓延是合理的。
禁毒是完全出于政治，人文的目的，毕竟毒品对社会的危害太大，与吸烟不可相提并论。
这倒让我联系到我一直在思考的一个问题：
比人类低等的所有生物都遵循着优胜劣汰的法则，只有人类有能力去打破这一平衡，从某
种程度上掌握自己的命运。我觉得经济学其实是这一法则在人类社会中的体现，按照经济
学的原理，从全人类的角度，那些贫穷的不懂得合理分配自己资源的国家都应该灭亡，强
者更强，弱者消亡。而政治学以及其他的一些学科是在削弱经济学的作用。
不知道我这个观点是否正确，如果正确，那么如何在经济学与政治学中的找到一个平衡也
应该是一个很用价值的课题。

禁
最
鬼
死
让
投
往
产
其
移
见
有
加
实
呢？事实上商品交换的确增加财富。商品交换的作用，在于把商品分配到边际享受（Marg
更
的
减

k*g2004-08-17 07:08

2 楼

这种说法没有错误啊。。。
吸毒虽然在短期可以增加happiness,
但是长期却会带来痛苦，一个理性的人对于未来的expectation 会影响到现在的决策，如
果现在的happiness不能outweigh未来的痛苦(given some discount factor)，那么他自
然不会去吸毒。。。

禁
最
鬼
死
让
投
往
产
其
移
见
有
加
实
呢？事实上商品交换的确增加财富。商品交换的作用，在于把商品分配到边际享受（Marg
更
的
减

k*g2004-08-17 07:08

3 楼

呵呵，North写那本书的最核心的两个问题之一不就是：为什么没有效率的institutions(
包括国家）can survive over time?并且重新定义了allocative efficiency和adaptive
efficiency。
某个国家或许有一个“贫穷的不懂得合理分配自己资源的”制度，也就是说这个制度的al
locative efficiency非常低，但是这个制度却可能恰恰有着adaptive efficiency，能很
好的存在。而与此相反，一个可以很好分配资源的制度未必是一个生命力旺盛的制度，非
洲这样的例子车载斗量。。。

。
某
济
强
也
去
，
烟
匀
学
该
往
际
尤

【在 s*******z 的大作中提到】

: 我倒觉得从纯经济学的角度，毒品的存在和蔓延是合理的。
: 禁毒是完全出于政治，人文的目的，毕竟毒品对社会的危害太大，与吸烟不可相提并论。
: 这倒让我联系到我一直在思考的一个问题：
: 比人类低等的所有生物都遵循着优胜劣汰的法则，只有人类有能力去打破这一平衡，从某
: 种程度上掌握自己的命运。我觉得经济学其实是这一法则在人类社会中的体现，按照经济
: 学的原理，从全人类的角度，那些贫穷的不懂得合理分配自己资源的国家都应该灭亡，强
: 者更强，弱者消亡。而政治学以及其他的一些学科是在削弱经济学的作用。
: 不知道我这个观点是否正确，如果正确，那么如何在经济学与政治学中的找到一个平衡也
: 应该是一个很用价值的课题。
:

S*t2004-08-17 07:08

4 楼

We are actually not talking about smoking or using drugs. We are talking about
whether increased utility in commodity exchange will increase the social
wealth.
By checking the following example, we can see how ridiculous the argument is:
Person A hold a good valued at $10 (market)
Person B hold b good valued at $10 (market)
Person A's utility for b is $11
Person B's utility for a is $11
After A exchanges a with B's b, the total social wealth is still 20 or
increased to 22?
If utility could chang

【在 k***g 的大作中提到】

: 这种说法没有错误啊。。。
: 吸毒虽然在短期可以增加happiness,
: 但是长期却会带来痛苦，一个理性的人对于未来的expectation 会影响到现在的决策，如
: 果现在的happiness不能outweigh未来的痛苦(given some discount factor)，那么他自
: 然不会去吸毒。。。
:
: 禁
: 最
: 鬼
: 死

g*b2004-08-17 07:08

5 楼

If the products in a society does not increase, how can social wealth in real
terms increase? It is the price level that increases. However, social
'welfare' rather than social wealth would be a better criterion to evaluate
the efficiency of an economy.

about
is:
，
他
会
限

【在 S********t 的大作中提到】

: We are actually not talking about smoking or using drugs. We are talking about
: whether increased utility in commodity exchange will increase the social
: wealth.
: By checking the following example, we can see how ridiculous the argument is:
: Person A hold a good valued at $10 (market)
: Person B hold b good valued at $10 (market)
: Person A's utility for b is $11
: Person B's utility for a is $11
: After A exchanges a with B's b, the total social wealth is still 20 or
: increased to 22?

w*g2004-08-17 07:08

6 楼

u r assuming that products' wealth or welfare is the same across all member
of the society. wealth or welfare can be realized only by being consumed.
therefore, different people have different utility or welfare for the same
physical product. when products transfer from people with lower utility to
those with higher, how can social wealth in real terms not increase?

【在 g******b 的大作中提到】

: If the products in a society does not increase, how can social wealth in real
: terms increase? It is the price level that increases. However, social
: 'welfare' rather than social wealth would be a better criterion to evaluate
: the efficiency of an economy.
:
: about
: is:
: ，
: 他
: 会

S*t2004-08-17 07:08

7 楼

Your interpretation of utility and market price for the same good is wrong. On
Valentine’s Day, your utility for a bunch of rose may be very high, say $100
[You would pay $100 for the bunch of rose to happy someone]. But the market
price is $40 and you pay $40. The social wealth will not increase to $100
because of your high utility. Social wealth is increased by $40 of the market
price. If no purchase happened, the GDP will not be increased by $40.

real
evaluate
argument

【在 w*****g 的大作中提到】

: u r assuming that products' wealth or welfare is the same across all member
: of the society. wealth or welfare can be realized only by being consumed.
: therefore, different people have different utility or welfare for the same
: physical product. when products transfer from people with lower utility to
: those with higher, how can social wealth in real terms not increase?

S*t2004-08-17 07:08

8 楼

The following definition of utility is quoted from
http://www.brainydictionary.com/words/ut/utility236216.html
Utility
(n.) The quality or state of being useful; usefulness; production of good;
profitableness to some valuable end; as, the utility of manure upon land; the
utility of the sciences; the utility of medicines.
(n.) Adaptation to satisfy the desires or wants; intrinsic value. See Note
under Value, 2.
(n.) Happiness; the greatest good, or happiness, of the greatest number, --
the founda

【在 S********t 的大作中提到】

: Your interpretation of utility and market price for the same good is wrong. On
: Valentine’s Day, your utility for a bunch of rose may be very high, say $100
: [You would pay $100 for the bunch of rose to happy someone]. But the market
: price is $40 and you pay $40. The social wealth will not increase to $100
: because of your high utility. Social wealth is increased by $40 of the market
: price. If no purchase happened, the GDP will not be increased by $40.
:
: real
: evaluate
: argument

w*g2004-08-17 07:08

9 楼

hehe.
gdp as measured by transaction price can measure social wealth only under the
assumption that utility or welfare is homogeneous across social member.
think about household services; they r not measured in gdp but they contribute
to social welfare by all means. every macro book mentions this caveat in
gdp measurement.

【在 S********t 的大作中提到】