在另一线中与先知无名大师谈波普尔的证伪谈到真理,好象是说放之
四海而皆准的真理,那也太大了一些。当时无名大师说有,就没有再
提具体的了。我个人对“真理”还真很执衷,这里放小一些范畴,望
无名大师能提一些自己了解到的具体的“真理”。
但不要是诡辩式的,非科学性的,或者是文化开拓型。
哪怕是政治经济学领域内的都受益。先谢了!
- posted on 08/24/2009
第一个真理是:真的平实之人之间是不互称大师的,无论是否真的大师。我即使见到
Thomas Jefferson, 我也如他所愿地称他为 Mr. Jefferson. (据说Thomas Jefferson在
他所建大学里规定了,别人只能称他为Mr. Jefferson. 我想,象Thomas Jefferson
那样的大...,那种做法并不是姿态,而是真的。)
当然,那未必是真理。
说正格的:
世上怎么能不存在真理呢?例如,一个简单的:all other things
being equal, 交换过程中money 数量的增加必定引起物价增长(无论那money是黄金
还是纸币)。
只要有indirect exchange (based on money)的地方和时期,那就是真理。当然,
若不存在money, 那还是真理,不能因为那真理的条件不存在就不是真理了,只是,
那真理在不存在money的地方是无用处的。
世上怎么能不存在真理呢?
有人说世上不存在终极的真理。那句话不是那么简单的一句话。那句话是什么意思?
我的理解(未必对):世上的任何一个真理A(包括上面我列举的关于money的真理)都
有一个原因B,那原因B又有一个原因C,那原因C又有一个原因D,如此类推,一直可
以推下去,一直推到一面墙,到那一面墙后就再也推不下去了,因为那面墙是介于
可知的和不可知的之间的一面墙,人们的认识进步了之后,那一面墙可能被往原来
不可知的方向挪动了一点,但还是未被挪动到终极的原因。那就是我对于“终极”
的理解。在那意义上来说,迄今,世上不存在终极的真理。一些人认为终极在抽象
的上帝那里。我同意那样的抽象上帝的说法。但那已经超出这里所说的了。
我总结:迄今,世上不存在终极的真理,但是世上是存在真理的,我至少举出了一
个例子如上。 - Re: 关于真理posted on 08/24/2009
为了避免有漏洞,上面那个真理的措辞应是这样的:
All other things being equal, 基于money 的间接交换(indirect exchange)过程
中money 数量的增加必定引起物价增长(无论那money是黄金还是纸币)。
(把上贴里的“交换”改成了“基于money 的间接交换(indirect exchange)”。) - Re: 关于真理posted on 08/24/2009
我知道,我知道,一些人在忙着写草稿来证明我上面被当作例子举出的那个真理不是
真理。我知道。他们用的方法论将包括 empirical 的方法论,用历史来证明那不是
一个真理。我知道。
但历史里是不存在 “all other things being equal”那样的条件的。整个人类的
历史里是不存在“all other things being equal”那样的条件的。人类历史不是
实验室。人类历史只是一个随机过程的一个realization。
预先写下这个帖子在这里,以预先省一些口舌。 - Re: 关于真理posted on 08/24/2009
有人会说:既然人类历史里不存在“all other things being equal”那样的条件,
为何你作例子举的那个“真理”里还用那样的条件呢?
我说:若不那样,用什么方法才能揭示出那些真理呢?用"mutually determined"的
浆糊方法?;-) - Re: 关于真理posted on 08/24/2009
no name wrote:
但历史里是不存在 “all other things being equal”那样的条件的。整个人类的
历史里是不存在“all other things being equal”那样的条件的。
条件本身存在与否只是一种认知,佛家的心、万物、众生皆佛就是这样一种"all (other)
things being equal"的认知。no name的“人类历史里是不存在all other things being
equal那样的条件的”也是一种认知。 - posted on 08/24/2009
谢谢你所说的。
“人类历史里是不存在all other things being equal那样的条件的”也是一种认
知。
你启发我问:那是一种什么认知呢?
是一种基于empirical 观察的 empirical 认知?还是一种所谓的“先验”的认知?
我不知道。
rzp wrote:
no name wrote:条件本身存在与否只是一种认知,佛家的心、万物、众生皆佛就是这样一种"all (other)
但历史里是不存在 “all other things being equal”那样的条件的。整个人类的
历史里是不存在“all other things being equal”那样的条件的。
things being equal"的认知。no name的“人类历史里是不存在all other things being
equal那样的条件的”也是一种认知。 - posted on 08/24/2009
那要看是在说谁了,或许是对于有的人是前者,对有的人是后者,对有的人是两者。从结果上看
是不同人的选择和认同。如果你自己不确定你的认知是由何而来,那也许结果更重要。如果你觉
得弄清楚认知何来,那过程也许更重要, 而不是你所认知的内容。
只是顺着思路瞎掰。跑题了,对不起。
no name wrote:
谢谢你所说的。
“人类历史里是不存在all other things being equal那样的条件的”也是一种认
知。
你启发我问:那是一种什么认知呢?
是一种基于empirical 观察的 empirical 认知?还是一种所谓的“先验”的认知?
我不知道。
rzp wrote:
no name wrote:条件本身存在与否只是一种认知,佛家的心、万物、众生皆佛就是这样一种"all (other)
但历史里是不存在 “all other things being equal”那样的条件的。整个人类的
历史里是不存在“all other things being equal”那样的条件的。
things being equal"的认知。no name的“人类历史里是不存在all other things being
equal那样的条件的”也是一种认知。 - Re: 关于真理posted on 08/24/2009
关于大师:
大师的名号有什么用呢?从逻辑的角度来说,一说“appeal to authority”那个逻
辑谬误的名字,大师的汽球就瘪了。
大师的名号是可以用来行骗的。那是大师名号的唯一用处,我还想不出其他的用处。
- posted on 08/24/2009
no name wrote:
第一个真理是:真的平实之人之间是不互称大师的,无论是否真的大师。我即使见到
Thomas Jefferson, 我也如他所愿地称他为 Mr. Jefferson. (据说Thomas Jefferson在
他所建大学里规定了,别人只能称他为Mr. Jefferson. 我想,象Thomas Jefferson
那样的大...,那种做法并不是姿态,而是真的。)
当然,那未必是真理。
我更正了,谢谢提示!
说正格的:
世上怎么能不存在真理呢?例如,一个简单的:all other things
being equal, 交换过程中money 数量的增加必定引起物价增长(无论那money是黄金
还是纸币)。
只要有indirect exchange (based on money)的地方和时期,那就是真理。当然,
若不存在money, 那还是真理,不能因为那真理的条件不存在就不是真理了,只是,
那真理在不存在money的地方是无用处的。
世上怎么能不存在真理呢?
有人说世上不存在终极的真理。那句话不是那么简单的一句话。那句话是什么意思?
我的理解(未必对):世上的任何一个真理A(包括上面我列举的关于money的真理)都
有一个原因B,那原因B又有一个原因C,那原因C又有一个原因D,如此类推,一直可
以推下去,一直推到一面墙,到那一面墙后就再也推不下去了,因为那面墙是介于
可知的和不可知的之间的一面墙,人们的认识进步了之后,那一面墙可能被往原来
不可知的方向挪动了一点,但还是未被挪动到终极的原因。那就是我对于“终极”
的理解。在那意义上来说,迄今,世上不存在终极的真理。一些人认为终极在抽象
的上帝那里。我同意那样的抽象上帝的说法。但那已经超出这里所说的了。
这一段推理倒还真是谈真理的样式。这个不仅佛陀是这样,列维斯特
劳斯也这样。圣经点得更明,就是那个创世纪吧。
终究是语言的范畴,知觉的范畴,还是人类源初,婴孩知觉,都有些
相通的地方。看来相对真理很可贵,我也只看到真理的相对性。
我总结:迄今,世上不存在终极的真理,但是世上是存在真理的,我至少举出了一
个例子如上。
其实,就是有终极真理,手把握终极真理,也没有求索来得更真。就
比如我一直以为佛陀说的“业转法轮”是终极的,这个与西方原罪说
类似。十二因缘,苦集灭道,常乐我静,但这些空说说又有何益?
一般的高僧大德,还是要讲转轮圣王,讲来世成菩萨成佛生王贵之家
作王子公主当活佛的,还是要讲究地狱。我现在认识的“真理”还是
硬行规定。象“薄伽梵歌”中说的,你信什么,你就是什么。
- Re: 关于真理posted on 08/24/2009
谁说空说无益?空说仍然是说,仍然能让人知道自己会说,或者让人知道自己不知道自己在说什么。
空是无比大的东西,佛就是空,难道记不得了?空说到了境界,就是说空了,那是世界的本源都包含在其中了,相当于大爆炸的原点。
xw wrote:
十二因缘,苦集灭道,常乐我静,但这些空说说又有何益?
- Re: 关于真理posted on 08/24/2009
我不懂你说的“相对真理”是什么。真理就是真理,没有相对不相对的。我说的那个
例子,是相对的真理吗?“相对”是什么意思?只有两种alternatives:
1. 在那样的条件下,物价下降。
2. 在那样的条件下,物价的改变和那样的条件无因果关系。
若任何一个alternative是对的,那个alternative 就是真理,我原来说的就不是真
理。这里有“相对”吗?
xw wrote: - Re: 关于真理posted on 08/24/2009
我说的关于终极真理的那段话,是从Mises的书里学来的,他未必用了"终极真理"那
样的词(也许用了,但我未记住)。
一些人又要火冒三丈了。hoho. ;-) - posted on 08/24/2009
LDS Church
这样讨论就非常高端了....
我看不懂理论的书,看不懂弯弯绕的句子,更不懂逻辑。看得懂的书大多是小人书童话书级别的。圣都、touche,阿比等诸位理论家原谅我只用经历来谈点观察。
南加州有一个很显眼的地标建筑,就是在5号公路边的这个地方。这是一个摩门教的temple,他们不称教堂,称temple。十年来,5号公路上上下下很多次,我常被这个白色的建筑物吸引,总错过机缘,很长一段时间只知道是个气派的教堂,十分风格。这个星期,终于转进去看了看。我星期一去的时候,里面没有一个人,星期六下午去,有一对老夫妻在那里派宣传。
咖啡这么久,大家都该知道我相信的东西跟摩门教的信条出入非常大的,摩门教很邪乎,大家也都多少了解的,是很邪的,起码比法轮功邪乎,不提他们在犹他的polygamy,单说他们公然地对女性的歧视就够恶心,完全的非理性妄想。我耐心听了半个小时这对老夫妻的宣传,从book of mormon to Joseph smith, 她还给我看那12个金刚的照片。不知大家是否知道摩门教的厉害,在世界政治经济领域里的渗透。具体数字我手头没有,但知道有数量惊人的银行与连锁企业是被摩门教徒控制的,最近在印尼被穆斯林炸掉的Marriot连锁酒店就是个著名的摩门教企业。有兴趣的可以去参考wiki以及相关资料。
摩门教还有一套筛选严格的制度,入会不是成为教友fellowship,而是一种membership,他们严格地登记你的来龙去脉,你的社会关系,他们上门走访你,观察你的亲友以及社交群。我记得中国最早开放的时候,就有杨百翰去中国演出,开放后最早的秘密传教士也都是魔门教徒。我在咖啡里讲过,摩门教有非常庞大的信息库,资料可能比FBI的还详细。他们一直在追踪耶稣的血脉下落。
世界上怕就怕认真的人。任何的信仰、理论还有书,认真读进去,入脑入心,就会成精的,天下没有几个人把一本书读懂了的。 我惊讶,摩门教这么邪的东西,居然已经成了这样强大的妖怪精了。它之所以这样强大,就是有一群这样的devotees, 有人把这个原本粗鄙的教义弄深了。到达这个层次的信仰,那些说教信条本身可能就没那么重要了,因为它会聚了相当的能量与心力,就能成就事情,我希望无名继续认真他信仰的东西,即使成为萨德那样的,也毫不后悔,粉身碎骨。成痴成魔。
希望咖啡能汇聚这样认真的人,无论你读的是圣贤书还是垃圾书,信的是耶稣还是撒旦,是厨房还是卧房,信仰四平八稳的安泰还是原教旨的极端,这些都不要紧,深入进去,放弃cynicism,多点傻瓜笨蛋神经病,当然更需要不被label为神经病的:),有fanatics 也有平平常常的,这样的论坛才是有精神能量的。每个人埋头给自己挖坟墓还来不及呢,说三道四,还是少点吧,那一点都不幽默。
无名认真读遍一本书,即便读成魔,也是读进去了的。
这张照片有股邪气的霞彩,妖气十足。
- posted on 08/24/2009
在那个条件下,一者。硬性规定,二者。人文发现,三者。自然拟合
,四者。可证伪!
关于马克思或弗洛伊德或他们的源祖卢梭的社会科学实验一说,这里
有一线,我一直蛮欣赏的。咖啡里还敲了不少:
http://www.mayacafe.com/forum/topic1sp.php3?tkey=1058993708
http://www.mayacafe.com/forum/topic1sp.php3?tkey=1231693017
http://www.mayacafe.com/forum/topic1sp.php3?tkey=1238598733
etc.
no name wrote:
我不懂你说的“相对真理”是什么。真理就是真理,没有相对不相对的。我说的那个
例子,是相对的真理吗?“相对”是什么意思?只有两种alternatives:
1. 在那样的条件下,物价下降。
2. 在那样的条件下,物价的改变和那样的条件无因果关系。
若任何一个alternative是对的,那个alternative 就是真理,我原来说的就不是真
理。这里有“相对”吗?
xw wrote: - posted on 08/24/2009
关于“证伪”,是很值得讨论的。
若“证伪”的方法论适用于世上所有真理 而且 只有能被证伪的命题才有可能被称
为真理,世上就只存在 tentative 真理,不存在其他的真理,因为照那种认识,被
证伪是随时可能发生的,就象一把悬在头上的大铡刀,随时会把那 tentative 真理
的头斩掉。
那种认识在物理科学里是没有问题的。但是把那种认识扩展到其他领域,就未必对
了。若扩展到经济科学里(先不说其他的社会研究领域),就造成了 relativism,后
果就是在实质上宣告:在经济学里根本就不存在真理,此时此刻的真理在明天可能
就被“证伪”的悬刀斩首了。
那种宣告是不对的。“证伪”的方法论是不能到处乱用的。里面有深刻的道理,只
有自己读了书才能明白。
xw wrote: - Re: 关于真理posted on 08/24/2009
1+1=2 那样的陈述是 能被证伪的陈述吗?
若是,how so?
若不是,是真理吗?
有人说:数学和逻辑学是特殊的。
我说:不仅数学和逻辑学是特殊的。 - Re: 关于真理posted on 08/25/2009
多年前一朋友入了摩门,当时觉得摩门很邪门,后来跟那家朋友不住在一个地区,也就没有再接触到摩门。
我现在的对门邻居是摩门教的,先生还是主持宣道的。我们先是成了好邻居,才开始了解进一步的摩门教的的事,也包括摩门教的信息库。仍然不完全了解,但邪乎的标签是不会在用上了。
- Re: 关于真理posted on 08/25/2009
但邪乎的标签是不会在用上了。
wow,你够邪!知道他们的入门仪式Baptism for the dead吗?知道他们的那12位金刚都是什么东西吗?知道他们当今的先知的所作所为吗? - Re: 关于真理posted on 08/25/2009
maya wrote:
但邪乎的标签是不会在用上了。wow,你够邪!
嘿嘿,清者见清,浊者见浊啊。至于我的魔邻的观点和态度,我再问问。
- posted on 08/25/2009
no name wrote:
1+1=2 那样的陈述是 能被证伪的陈述吗?
若是,how so?
若不是,是真理吗?
有人说:数学和逻辑学是特殊的。
我说:不仅数学和逻辑学是特殊的。
1+1=2怎么会是真理?二进制里1+1=10,也没2什么事。
进一步说,1+1=2是什么东西?一条狗加一只猫等于什么?哦,要同类才能相加。那么一条哈巴狗加一条德国牧羊犬等于什么?两条狗?说这是两条狗传达了什么真相?还是丢掉了真相?
数学是抽象,抽象就是失真,失真就是假,假的就不是真理。自然界里没有两粒沙子是一模一样的,也没有两条狗是一模一样的。抽象分类是人为的,付出的代价是失真。一旦作了抽象,作了分类就不再跟真有缘,更不可能是真理。
再说了,真理是什么?英文怎么说?truth 肯定不是真理的意思。中文古文里好像也没有真理这个词,天理、道都不是真理。不知有没有人考证过真理这个词的出处?怀疑这个词跟马恩列斯毛有些干系。 - Re: 关于真理posted on 08/25/2009
行人说的太妙!
真伪善恶,真理谬误这样近呢..... - posted on 08/25/2009
记得都德一线谈科学与人文,还有工具理性什么的。我当时写了一篇
长文,也是抄抄摘摘而已。当时把几本波普尔的书和斯卡托斯等都聚
到一起,还有尼采。昨晚想翻翻回应无名先生的质问,书一时找不到
了,再加上写赤道逸事,也只能翻翻旧稿子,摘录一小节,在此回应
一下,详者后续。
====
人到中年,明白了一些理。也深知所知有限,力不从心,要能不避免
圣都德批评的“小资”情趣,幸好能借贷:
尼采在“善恶之彼岸”第一章谈哲学家的偏见中说:现在也许五六个
人已渐渐领悟到,物理学也只是一种世界解释和世界构想(在我们看
来!如果允许我这么说的话),而并非一种世界说明。但是,就它置
身于对诸感官的信仰而言,它被看作更多的,并必须自长久以来必须
还被看作更多的,即被看作说明。它有它自己的眼睛和手指,它有它
自己的印象和了如指掌的东西:它以粗野的基本趣味,使人着魔地、
说服人地、使人确信地对一个时代产生影响,--实际上,它本能地
追随了永远通俗的感觉论的真理标准。什么东西是清楚的,什么东西
得到“说明”?首先是可以被看和被触摸的东西,--直到人们必须
在如此程度上从事于任何问题。相反,柏拉图思维方式的魔术恰恰在
于反对感性机能,他的思维方式,--也许在一些人之中,这些人甚
至享有比我们同时代人更强大的和更不易满足的感性器官,但这些人
知道在对这些感性器官保持为主宰时才找到一个更高的胜利。而这借
助于一些苍白的、冷酷的、单调的概念之网,他们把这些网撒在杂驳
的感性漩涡之上,--撒在感性的乌合之众之上,像柏拉图所说的。
这是按照柏拉图的风格而在征服世界和解释世界中的一种享受,它不
同于今天的物理学家提供给我们的享受,诸如在生理学的工作者中的
达尔文主义者和反目的论者,以他们的原则的最小可能的力量和最大
可能的愚蠢。“凡是人不再有什么东西可看和可抓之外,人也不再有
什么东西可寻求”--这当然是一个与柏拉图的命令不同的命令,但
它却对于未来的健壮和勤劳的一代机工以及桥梁建筑工会恰恰是恰当
的命令,这些人干的是纯粹的粗重活。
尼采怕是人文的,有点疯,言不足信。关于尼采说的五六个人,我可
以以波普尔的言论佐证:
http://www.mayacafe.com/forum/topic1sp.php3?tkey=1200666607
在我作为家具木工的学徒期间还有更多的一些想法使我分心和干扰我制作那些写字台。那时我正在反复阅读康德的第一个《批判》。我很快就断定他的中心思想是:科学理论是人造的,而且我们试图把它们强加于世界:“我们的智力不是从自然界引出规律,而是把规律强加于自然界。”把这个思想与我自己的思想结合起来,就得出了如下一些结论。
我们的理论始于原始神话,而进化为科学理论,确实如康德所说,是人造的。我们确实企图把它们强加于世界,而且,如果我们希望的话,我们能够永远教条地坚持它们,尽管它们是假的(看起来不仅大多数宗教神话是假的,而且就连在康德心目中的牛顿理论也是假的),但是虽然起初我们不得不坚持我们的理论——如果没有理论,我们甚至不能开始,因为没有别的东西可依照——随着时间的推移,我们就能对理论采取一种更为批判的态度。如果我们借助于理论已经了解它们在何处使我们失望,那么我们就能试图用更好的理论代替它们。因此,就可能出现一个科学的或批判的思维阶段,而这个思维阶段必然有一个非批判的阶段作为先导。
我认为,当康德说知识似乎不可能是实在的摹本或印模时,他是对的。他相信知识在发生学上或心理学上是先验的,这也是对的;但他认为任何知识都能先验地正确,他就大错特错了。我们的理论是我们的发明;但它们可能只是不合理的猜测,大胆的猜想、假说。我们用这些猜测、猜想、假说创造一个世界:不是实在的世界,而是我们自己试图捕捉这个实在世界的网。
如果是这样的话,那么我原先所认为的发现的心理学在逻辑上就有了基础:由于逻辑上的理由,不存在别的进入未知世界的通道。
&
看来尼采还是明白的。当然康德,马赫,普波尔,还有他的弟子斯卡
托斯等。前面引用书目的几位作者当然都明白。
斯卡托斯是研究数学哲学的,在这个领域,他有超出其师,也针对罗
素的罗辑主义和希尔伯特的元数学作了终结性的结论,当然,过程中
最关健的一步还是哥德尔的证明。
斯卡托斯认为,希尔伯特元数学跟罗素逻辑主义一样,都属于欧几里德式的事业,
也是为了“争夺从顶部注入真值的权利。”希尔伯特的形式广义主要想解决“数学
的真理性到底体现在什么地方”这个问题。形式主义认为,在数学的公理系统中,
基本概念都是没有意义的,公理也只是一行行符号,无所谓真假。只要能证明该公
理系统是相容的,不互相矛盾的,该系统就是成立的,它便代表了某一方面的真理。
也就是说,公理系统是没有内容的,它只是依形式上的相容性作为数学真理性的标
准。但是,自从对悖论的研究以来,人们都知道对于任何一个系统,要想在本系统
内证明它的相容性是不可能的。形式主义解决这个问题是采用了分层理论的办法,
把理论分为两层,一层要求证明其相容性的那个系统,叫做对象理论;另一层是作
为证明工具的那个系统,叫做元理论。元理论必须简单清晰,正确可靠,没有任何
疑问。这样,尽管对象理论可以很复杂,但经过证明其相容性以后,也就可以放心
使用了。
但是哥德尔证明,要在元理论内证明某个对象理论的相容性,元理论一定不能比对
象理论更简单;元理论应该比对象理论更复杂、更强有力,这也就意味着,元理论
一定比对象理论更可疑、更不可靠。因此,从理论上说,希尔伯特的元数学是行不
通的。
斯卡托斯由此认为:哥德尔的不完备性定理“对欧几里德元数学的这
种希望是一个决定性的打击。
斯卡托斯认为,只有放弃在数学中寻求永恒真理的企图,承认数学的
可错性,才能从根本上结束无穷回归。这就标志着希望能从某些自明
性基础更深的层次中推出全部数学的欧几里德主义是行不通的,在数
学中不存在最终的检验或最终的权威。无论罗素将数学基础追溯到逻
辑,还是希尔伯特将数学基础追溯到元数学,充其量不过是以他们的
逻辑直观和元数学直观取代其前辈而已,而直观这种东西是靠不住的
,既然如此,”为什么不老老实实地承认数学的可错性呢?“
这一点斯卡托斯是胜出其师波普尔的,也更符合事实常理。波普尔重
理论推绎,完全否定归纳,并以为数学是完备体系而将之放在科学门
类之外。我个人重视归纳,象培根,看来斯卡托斯替我解了恨。
- Re: 关于真理posted on 08/25/2009
其实,就是有终极真理,手把握终极真理,也没有求索来得更真。
xw的这句话我听懂了,最明白的,深合我意。
- posted on 08/25/2009
There is little chance for the majority of human being to get a glimpse of the "truth" discussed here.
The curious mind has found superstitious/religious, logic/philosophic, mathematical, and scientific ways of looking around us and at ourselves over the history. Most would only capable the superstitious/religious way even after a fortune has been spent in education. For a society, thus it is important to indoctrinate less evil a superstitious truth/world view to its members.
Maybe there also exists a poetic category of "truth", which predates superstitions/religions and to which "其实,就是有终极真理,手把握终极真理,也没有求索来得更真。" belongs.
"空是无比大的东西,佛就是空,..... 空说到了境界,就是说空了,那是世界的本源都包含在其中了,相当于大爆炸的原点。" Although 大爆炸 from modern cosmology is involved, this statement is at best a superstitious one.
Superstitions/religions were useful in human development and are still useful today, providing a stable framework for a chaotic and uncertain biological existence. - posted on 08/26/2009
不好意思。过路的,插一句嘴。
世上怎么能不存在真理呢?例如,一个简单的:all other things
being equal, 交换过程中money 数量的增加必定引起物价增长(无论那money是黄金
还是纸币)。
这应该是典型的把定义当作定律(或“真理”). "All other things being equal", 总物价的定义是所有用来购物的money 除以所有被购买的物品。简单定义而已。
再举个例子。“All other things being equal", 那么,给定距离,如果提高行进速度,达到目的地的时间一定会缩短。但这是对速度定义的简单重复。对发现科学定律没有新贡献。
请继续讨论。
- posted on 08/26/2009
Exactement! ;)
All other things being not him, this must be him. Yeah, a lot of truth in it. ;)
WuYing wrote:
不好意思。过路的,插一句嘴。
世上怎么能不存在真理呢?例如,一个简单的:all other things这应该是典型的把定义当作定律(或“真理”). "All other things being equal", 总物价的定义是所有用来购物的money 除以所有被购买的物品。简单定义而已。
being equal, 交换过程中money 数量的增加必定引起物价增长(无论那money是黄金
还是纸币)。
再举个例子。“All other things being equal", 那么,给定距离,如果提高行进速度,达到目的地的时间一定会缩短。但这是对速度定义的简单重复。对发现科学定律没有新贡献。
请继续讨论。
- posted on 08/26/2009
WuYing wrote:
这应该是典型的把定义当作定律(或“真理”). "All other things being equal", 总物价的定义是所有用来购物的money 除以所有被购买的物品。简单定义而已。
即使这样,米大师也不见得对。他这是假设物价跟流通货币量简单正相关。经济系统要是有这么简单,共产主义早就实现了。
我们可以设想一个简单的案例:某时某市,工厂产能严重过剩,大量库存积压,同时消费者没钱,流通货币不足。这时候如果适当增加流通货币,就有可能增加工厂开工率,减低库存,从而降低成本,引起物价下降。 - posted on 08/26/2009
咖啡有这许多人关心“真理”,也真是可贵。我不喜欢学院派的霸道
,好象咱老百姓就不配关心真理,简直是岂有此理。记得古希腊的弟
欧根尼,他大白天打灯笼找人,一个也找不到。我想,他如果能到咖
啡来找一找,估计能找到一帮人,这个就了不起了。
我昨晚温习列维斯特劳斯的一席真理谈,缘于佛教的逻辑,只是我个
人解得还不够,不知道读了多少遍了。有空我再将之敲出来,有助于
各位仔细地讨论。只觉得真理是一回事,个人修行也很重要。比如你
谈数学的真理,而个人的高等数学都考不及格,这就不好。
- posted on 08/26/2009
First to clarify what we are talking about. In my opinion, truth is a huge collection accumulated over human history.
Some newer parts of it are inaccessible to those who高等数学都考不及格:-)
But there are plenty which even a lay person can comprehend. Thus, you are more than welcomed to search for "truth". But don't expect to find it in a few sentences carved on a gold plate by some master. That is only spacious enough for poetic or superstitious truth, which were discovered when human could hardly write. (Don't underestimate the intelligence of illiterate people. Muhhamed could not read neither write, but he could compose excellent poetry. So was the case of Homer.)
What I try to remind is to avoid 盲人摸象. Like it is very hard for those who are only capable to reach religious truth to understand Darwin. It is impossible, in my opinion, for people who don't learn necessary mathematics to comprehend the truth about structure of matter and universe as revealed in high energy physics. Popular science on modern physics only help creating philosophic cults. If what you said "波普尔重理论推绎,完全否定归纳" is true, then the rumor that he was a failed theoretic physicist
before he become a cult leader in "modern philosophy" makes sense. In this situation, debate about 象(truth) is pretty much like what happened in the Indian story.
On economy theory which prompt this discussion, I doubt that a logically consistent comprehensive theory is possible at this time, from my experience with much simpler systems. We are at this time mostly hapless with systems of non-linear feedbacks. But it may be possible to have rather accurate understanding on some small particular cases, and on some gross "sum-rule" type of predictions, like the total capacity of US economy, certain limit to growth of GDP/population/etc.
Due to the lack of good understanding, it gives politicians/demagogues a lot of playing rooms in economic affairs. For example, a lot of Krugman says these days are of the demagogue type for his role as a "public intellectual" to push for what he believe is good for the country. Put it in another way, "truth" in economic science has a rather low confidence level in general. Or not every "truth" is created equal.
xw wrote:
咖啡有这许多人关心“真理”,也真是可贵。我不喜欢学院派的霸道
,好象咱老百姓就不配关心真理,简直是岂有此理。记得古希腊的弟
欧根尼,他大白天打灯笼找人,一个也找不到。我想,他如果能到咖
啡来找一找,估计能找到一帮人,这个就了不起了。
我昨晚温习列维斯特劳斯的一席真理谈,缘于佛教的逻辑,只是我个
人解得还不够,不知道读了多少遍了。有空我再将之敲出来,有助于
各位仔细地讨论。只觉得真理是一回事,个人修行也很重要。比如你
谈数学的真理,而个人的高等数学都考不及格,这就不好。
- posted on 08/27/2009
“从而降低成本,引起物价下降”
成本(cost)和价格之间没有什么关系。价格是由于消费者们各自的主观价值判断而
引起的,不是由于成本而引起的。即使一个商品生产出后其成本本身也是主观的,不是客观的。
行人 wrote:
WuYing wrote:即使这样,米大师也不见得对。他这是假设物价跟流通货币量简单正相关。经济系统要是有这么简单,共产主义早就实现了。
这应该是典型的把定义当作定律(或“真理”). "All other things being equal", 总物价的定义是所有用来购物的money 除以所有被购买的物品。简单定义而已。
我们可以设想一个简单的案例:某时某市,工厂产能严重过剩,大量库存积压,同时消费者没钱,流通货币不足。这时候如果适当增加流通货币,就有可能增加工厂开工率,减低库存,从而降低成本,引起物价下降。 - posted on 08/27/2009
你这个帖子里的观点有趣。我理解的真理是“a statement of truth”. 当然那个定
义也还是太松,例如,我若刚吃完饭,我说一句话:“我刚吃完饭”,那是“a statement
of truth”,照我那定义,那就是真理。但是没有人对那种真理感兴趣。
数学中没有真理,那个想法也是有趣的。但我不同意。一条狗加一只猫等于什么?
等于两个独立的实体。
行人 wrote:
no name wrote:1+1=2怎么会是真理?二进制里1+1=10,也没2什么事。
1+1=2 那样的陈述是 能被证伪的陈述吗?
若是,how so?
若不是,是真理吗?
有人说:数学和逻辑学是特殊的。
我说:不仅数学和逻辑学是特殊的。
进一步说,1+1=2是什么东西?一条狗加一只猫等于什么?哦,要同类才能相加。那么一条哈巴狗加一条德国牧羊犬等于什么?两条狗?说这是两条狗传达了什么真相?还是丢掉了真相?
数学是抽象,抽象就是失真,失真就是假,假的就不是真理。自然界里没有两粒沙子是一模一样的,也没有两条狗是一模一样的。抽象分类是人为的,付出的代价是失真。一旦作了抽象,作了分类就不再跟真有缘,更不可能是真理。
再说了,真理是什么?英文怎么说?truth 肯定不是真理的意思。中文古文里好像也没有真理这个词,天理、道都不是真理。不知有没有人考证过真理这个词的出处?怀疑这个词跟马恩列斯毛有些干系。 - posted on 08/27/2009
我在思考行人说的定义,就比如真,真相,真理。得先把定义弄明白
些,思考才能更对路。英文中有狭隘的Truth,也有广义的。当然是
有终极的,不然这么多哲学家探讨“真理”岂不成了原义反复?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
The word truth has a variety of meanings, from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular.[1] The term has no single definition about which a majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree, and various theories and views of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history.
幸好有中文对应:http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9C%9F%E7%90%86
真理通常被定义为与事实或实在相一致。然而,并没有任何一个真理
的定义被学者普遍接受。许多不同的真理定义一直被广泛争论。许多
与真理定义相关的主题同样无法获得共识。什么能被适当地称为真或
假?什么检验能够确立真理?我们如何认识真理?真理,如果存在的
话,是主观的还是客观的,相对的还是绝对的?真理,作为一个概念,
有严格的定义吗,抑或其定义的模糊无可避免?
2 对于真理的哲学探讨
2.1 主要的真理理论
2.1.1 实质(强)理论
2.1.1.1 融贯论
2.1.1.2 符合论
2.1.1.3 构造论
2.1.1.4 共识论
2.1.1.5 实用主义理论
2.1.2 最小(紧缩)理论
2.1.2.1 履行论
2.1.2.2 冗余论及相关理论
2.1.3 其他关于真值谓词的理论
2.1.3.1 克里普克真理理论
2.1.3.2 真理语义学理论
2.1.3.3 马克思主义真理理论
2.1.3.4 其它
3 科學的真理 - posted on 08/27/2009
no name wrote:
“从而降低成本,引起物价下降”
成本(cost)和价格之间没有什么关系。价格是由于消费者们各自的主观价值判断而
引起的,不是由于成本而引起的。即使一个商品生产出后其成本本身也是主观的,不是客观的。
价格是一个有力的企业竞争武器,企业决定价格的时候并不光取决于消费者愿意付什么价格,很多情况下企业制定价格要看对竞争对手造成什么冲击。当一个企业能减低成本时,他们常常会主动以低于当前市场的价格出售产品,以期扩大市场占有率。Wal-Mart 就经常使用这个办法。这时候成本和价格之间有非常重要的关系,当企业决定用价格作武器打击竞争对手的时候,决定价格最重要的依据就是成本(企业不可能长时间大量低于成本销售),而不是消费者们各自的主观价值判断。 - Re: 关于真理posted on 08/27/2009
no name wrote:>成本(cost)和价格之间没有什么关系。价格是由于消费者们各自的主观价值判断而
引起的,不是由于成本而引起的。即使一个商品生产出后其成本本身也是主观的,不是客观的。
beautiful! - Re: 关于真理posted on 08/27/2009
Agreed, it is the poetry :-)
ben ben wrote:
no name wrote:
成本(cost)和价格之间没有什么关系。价格是由于消费者们各自的主观价值判断而
引起的,不是由于成本而引起的。即使一个商品生产出后其成本本身也是主观的,不是客观的。
beautiful! - Re: 关于真理posted on 08/27/2009
建议无名读读这本书:
The Strategy and Tactics of Pricing: A Guide to Growing More Profitably
http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Tactics-Pricing-Growing-Profitably/dp/0131856774/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251390119&sr=1-1
可以帮助了解真实世界中的价格是怎么产生的。 - posted on 08/27/2009
这样片面看问题的思考和读书方式,让人哭笑不得。
有的时候,成本和价格背离或者没有关系,但你能因此说“成本(cost)和价格之间没有什么关系”这样的话吗?难道逻辑是这样炼成的?
July wrote:
Agreed, it is the poerty :-)
ben ben wrote:
no name wrote:
成本(cost)和价格之间没有什么关系。价格是由于消费者们各自的主观价值判断而
引起的,不是由于成本而引起的。即使一个商品生产出后其成本本身也是主观的,不是客观的。
beautiful! - posted on 08/27/2009
这是白痴经济学主观论的致命伤之一。价格是主观的,成本也是主观的,跟意淫毫无区别。问一问自己,为什么一加仑牛奶有价格,你希望一加仑牛奶的价格为两分钱,甚至免费,行么?你对牛奶产商和运销商说,我希望你们一加仑牛奶的成本为一分钱,甚至为零,怎么样?
你对你的雇主说,不用付我工资了,因为工资就是我的劳动力的价格,是主观的,我没干活只是意淫而已。
价格是众多因素的产物,包括供需,而供需中是有客观因素的。
beautiful, huh? ;)
ben ben wrote:
no name wrote:
成本(cost)和价格之间没有什么关系。价格是由于消费者们各自的主观价值判断而
引起的,不是由于成本而引起的。即使一个商品生产出后其成本本身也是主观的,不是客观的。
beautiful! - Re: 关于真理posted on 08/27/2009
不,我是真的。行人的道理可以讲给小学生听。无名的道理讲给小学生听,就是错的。我走了。:)
July wrote:
Agreed, it is the poerty :-)
ben ben wrote:
no name wrote:
成本(cost)和价格之间没有什么关系。价格是由于消费者们各自的主观价值判断而
引起的,不是由于成本而引起的。即使一个商品生产出后其成本本身也是主观的,不是客观的。
beautiful! - posted on 08/27/2009
Therefore the search for common ground in Truth at the poetic or religious/superstitious level is actually very ambitious. In fact much harder than in mathematical, logic or scientific level.
Let us see how far this debate about 象 goes. xw's wiki link have shown some light on this. And the messy history highlights how important to allow tolerance, especially for those who search for "absolute" sort of Truth in a few doctrines. Reason for indoctrinating some less evil truth to the society in large, stated previously.
A useful outcome of this forum could be what are these, which can be taught to 小学生。 The golden rule is one. "No free lunch" is another.
壹 wrote:
这样片面看问题的思考和读书方式,让人哭笑不得。
有的时候,成本和价格背离或者没有关系,但你能因此说“成本(cost)和价格之间没有什么关系”这样的话吗?难道逻辑是这样炼成的?
July wrote:
Agreed, it is the poerty :-)
ben ben wrote:
no name wrote:
成本(cost)和价格之间没有什么关系。价格是由于消费者们各自的主观价值判断而
引起的,不是由于成本而引起的。即使一个商品生产出后其成本本身也是主观的,不是客观的。
beautiful! - Re: 关于真理posted on 08/27/2009
ben ben wrote:
不,我是真的。行人的道理可以讲给小学生听。无名的道理讲给小学生听,就是错的。我走了。:)
这话我得先收起来,等以后上了中学再翻出来看看能不能懂。 - posted on 08/27/2009
我回来看看讨论的进展,觉得不少网友的讨论方式是中肯的,有利于避免转牛角尖或抬杠。但是象如下的断言就觉得很难接受。
no name wrote:
“从而降低成本,引起物价下降”
成本(cost)和价格之间没有什么关系。
这也是一个真理,不需要证伪呢?相当大胆的断言哟!反例在现实生活中难道不是比比皆是?
价格是由于消费者们各自的主观价值判断而
引起的,不是由于成本而引起的。
消费者对汽油价格的主观价值判断是怎么形成的呢?为什么去年这么多人抱怨但汽油价格,但那价格依然故我“直上重霄九”呢?(Sorry for a little poetry.)
即使一个商品生产出后其成本本身也是主观的,不是客观的。是谁的主观呢?生产者的,还是使用者的?
我感觉这里人讨论事情总的来说是试图作一些有益的探讨,互相启发。但是如果在形式逻辑和基本语义这个层面都不能一致,那我对参与者表示深切同情。
- Re: 关于真理posted on 08/27/2009
我看可以钉棺材钉了。再说下去有什么用?外面网站都是这个样,白痴云集?
壹 wrote:
这样片面看问题的思考和读书方式,让人哭笑不得。
有的时候,成本和价格背离或者没有关系,但你能因此说“成本(cost)和价格之间没有什么关系”这样的话吗?难道逻辑是这样炼成的?
- posted on 08/27/2009
行人 wrote:
WuYing wrote:即使这样,米大师也不见得对。他这是假设物价跟流通货币量简单正相关。经济系统要是有这么简单,共产主义早就实现了。
这应该是典型的把定义当作定律(或“真理”). "All other things being equal", 总物价的定义是所有用来购物的money 除以所有被购买的物品。简单定义而已。
我们可以设想一个简单的案例:某时某市,工厂产能严重过剩,大量库存积压,同时消费者没钱,流通货币不足。这时候如果适当增加流通货币,就有可能增加工厂开工率,减低库存,从而降低成本,引起物价下降。
情况确实这样。He can't have it both ways. 想要引入一个不可证伪的命题,但又不逃脱定义重复,或者一个公理化系统内部的封闭性演绎(如数学),太难了吧?但是一旦离开"All other things being equal" 这样一个保护伞,那么就要接受被“证伪”的可能性。就像您说的,物价,总产品,货币都不是封闭的,静态的。他提出来的命题甚至在历史上都已经有反例。比如,John Law (“臭名昭著”)在法国推动纸币发行,从而inject money的最初两年,commodity price 非但没有上扬,甚至有下跌。
顺便想倒,今天早上上班路上听NPR广播, Panel中一个就seriously doesn't think inflation will be a threat in spite of the money and credit that have been released in recent efforts, because the US has such an over-capacity for producing goods.
我未必会立马同意这个panelist 的断言(we'll see), 但是起码可以看到even serious economists would not readily accept the simple statement that "more money will certainly introduce high price (isn't price increase the definition of inflation?)" 所以那个命题不是一个不可证伪的"真理".
Since I'm here, let's move on to "1+1=2".
看似简单,但是如果我们仔细想想这个"1+1=2"是什么意思,应该不难理解,或者接受,这是对自然数"2"作的一个定义.由此类推,定义"3 = 2+1", etc. 康托尔试图将数学公理化完备起来,后人用数理逻辑演示了这是不可实现的.(How limited our power of thinking is!)
很多玄学上的论辩困难,往往可以寻根寻到语义的混淆.近现代语义学家的很大一个贡献就是让我们认识到这一点.
这里许多人对这个问题的讨论和认识比我深刻得多.我只是表明一下基本态度以避免不必要的误会. - posted on 08/27/2009
WuYing wrote:
Since I'm here, let's move on to "1+1=2".
看似简单,但是如果我们仔细想想这个"1+1=2"是什么意思,应该不难理解,或者接受,这是对自然数"2"作的一个定义.由此类推,定义"3 = 2+1", etc. 康托尔试图将数学公理化完备起来,后人用数理逻辑演示了这是不可实现的.(How limited our power of thinking is!)
很多玄学上的论辩困难,往往可以寻根寻到语义的混淆.近现代语义学家的很大一个贡献就是让我们认识到这一点.
这里许多人对这个问题的讨论和认识比我深刻得多.我只是表明一下基本态度以避免不必要的误会.
Ya
Mathematical truths are something like ruler, template. Absolutely true but lacks content, albeit useful as ruler and template etc in constructing a system of knowledge.
For "truth" of content, one can only ask for less, with varying degrees of confidence level/reliability tested by facts. This is the domain of sciences, which has liberated us from 玄学上的论辩 since its birth or rebirth in modern age.
国师 seems to believe that he can have an economic science as reliable as in math., which I cannot believe that is possible. Ancient Greeks and 19th century mathematicians have shown that.
An accessible presentation of mathematics for general intellectuals is the book "What is Mathematics" by a master mathematician, Richard Courant.
An enlightening presentation of the history of mathematics as a part of human evolution is "Number, the language of science" by mathematician Tobias Dantzig.
思而不学则殆?;-)
- posted on 08/28/2009
真理线转成价钱线,看来我空谈真理无益,也跟着谈谈钱。
刚看了“一大跳”中的'钱',打开字幕看,精确多了。大伙在钱眼中谈
价钱,我就跳出一点,再把这“一大跳”的钱转一下:
1 Giant Leap - Money
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cCqQsi48H4 - Re: 关于真理posted on 08/28/2009
看得我瞠目结舌,真有敢说的!真是越无知,越无畏。 - posted on 08/28/2009
我前面说的这句话“一条狗加一只猫等于什么?等于两个独立的实体”是不对的,我
自己看出来了。自己先说一下。
至于我说的价格和成本的关系,看见你们的讪笑,若换了别人早就吓尿裤子了.
当一个产品制成后,其成本已经没有什么意义了,因为其成本不是花了多少钱的意
思,而是因制那产品而不能制另一个产品(未制时生产者以为其所得会低于他将制造
的那个但高于其他产品的那个产品)而可能不能赚取的毛回报,而制成以后,生米已
经煮成熟饭了。在市场竞争的情况下,无论一个产品的成本是什么,一个生产者不
得不按照市场价或低于市场价的价格才能卖掉其产品,有的时候,市场上那个产品
的所有价格都使得生产者亏本,因为其所谓的成本对他们已经没有任何意义了,他
们有时不得不salvage whatever they can get. 成本和价格之间是没有什么关系的。
一个类似的道理是投在产品里的劳动时间和价格是没有关系的(和Adam Smith 及从
Adam Smith 学来那理论的马克思的劳动价值说相反)。
讪笑是容易的,OK?
请你们接着讪笑,谁笑到最后,谁就过了一辈子的欢笑生活,也不错嘛。无知?谁
是无知,不学就傻傻地讪笑的是不无知的,因为他们天生就知晓了不学就能知晓的
道理,他们的道理是天生就长在他们的脑子里的。真是太羡慕死我这个无知者了。
那就是我来这个论坛的目的之一,和你们这些天生脑子里就长满了各种道理的人们
学习。希望你们这些天生脑子里就长满了各种道理的人们不要嫌弃我这个无知者,
谢谢! - posted on 08/28/2009
ben ben wrote:
不,我是真的。行人的道理可以讲给小学生听。无名的道理讲给小学生听,就是错的。我走了。:)
别说完就跑,坐下.给我壮壮胆.捍卫真理人人有责. 我同意你的意思, 只是心里不是很有数. 诗人的表达方式不是中小学,其意思是行人, 还有后来的壹,touche, WuYing等只是看到了现象,无名看到的是本质, 是真理.
我同意无名的说法. 消费品的价格,首先都是由消费者出于需求而追逐所决定的. 当价格决定以后,其原料和劳力的成本才被决定. 也就是说,因为我们要吃饭,才有农民的劳动.否则农民在田地里劳动毫无意义, 只是在自己锻炼身体. 同样, 因为我们要喝牛奶, 农民才养牛产牛奶. 为了把问题说得更清楚, 再假设一例. 假如有一天,比尔盖茨说他要在10年内登月, 出价500亿. 这就是消费者出于需要(为什么需要我们不去管,天才人物总是和常人不一样)所开出的价格. 这时候,还没有登月的原料和劳动力成本这些生产要素呢,但价格已经有了. 那么,也许有这么一个精明的商人(或者组织或者国家), 考虑了一下, 估计了工程和获利的可行性. 召集了100个最好的科学家,年薪每人1百万,1000个最好的工程师年薪每人2百万, 1万个最好的技术工人年薪10万…加上其它成本,10年总成本是400亿. 他净赚100亿. 值得干.于是有了运载火箭/航天飞机的生产. 可以看出整个过程是, 消费者的需求决定价格,价格决定成本, 成本确定生产…所以, 无名说的正是这个意思, 他的原话:
成本(cost)和价格之间没有什么关系。价格是由于消费者们各自的主观价值判断而引起的,不是由于成本而引起的。
经济学最最基本的基本定律只有两条. 第一条需求定律(law of demand)也把这个道理说的很清楚:价格上升,需求减少, 价格下降, 需求增加. 历史上不知有多少人试图找出反例来证伪,从而否定经济学是一门严肃学问. 比如用股票的股价上升, 需求增加等, 但最后都被一一解释了. 所以, 需求定律是颠真不破的真理. 在价格和需求的关系图上, 需求曲线总是向右下倾斜的. 价格表现为什么会这样? 因为人就是这样的, 人的行为使之.
不是十分懂奥派经济学. 只能很小资地说一句, 我认同奥派经济学. 有古典味, 哲学味和人性味. 其理论可能粗糙些, 但是真理的表达就是简单的.只是希望无名在谈经济的时候, 多提奥地利,少提奥巴马. - posted on 08/28/2009
st dude wrote:
ben ben wrote:别说完就跑,坐下.给我壮壮胆.捍卫真理人人有责. 我同意你的意思, 只是心里不是很有数. 诗人的表达方式不是中小学,其意思是行人, 还有后来的壹,touche, WuYing等只是看到了现象,无名看到的是本质, 是真理.
不,我是真的。行人的道理可以讲给小学生听。无名的道理讲给小学生听,就是错的。我走了。:)
dude也有怕的时候?我跟benben的感觉一样,谢谢你阐发的那么好。大家批评的那些,no name在说那番话之前早就知道了而且考虑过了,但no name说的,别人却未必想到。真理跟谬误的模样长得很像的。 - Re: 关于真理posted on 08/28/2009
那你要早发言啊. 早知这样, 有两位妹妹一左一右为我撑腰,我还怕谁.
雪 wrote:
dude也有怕的时候?我跟benben的感觉一样,谢谢你阐发的那么好。大家批评的那些,no name在说那番话之前早就知道了而且考虑过了,但no name说的,别人却未必想到。真理跟谬误的模样长得很像的。 - Re: 关于真理posted on 08/28/2009
从图线看是,需求减少,价格上升,需求增加,价格下降。那就还是说价格是客观的,为什么你又说无名的“价格是主观的”是对的?
需求增加,价格下降的原因是不是因为生产量大,单个成本就低?另外一条基本定律是什么?
st dude wrote:
经济学最最基本的基本定律只有两条. 第一条需求定律(law of demand)也把这个道理说的很清楚:价格上升,需求减少, 价格下降, 需求增加. - posted on 08/28/2009
我同意无名的说法. 消费品的价格,首先都是由消费者出于需求而追逐所决定的.
影响价格的不仅是需求。Supply and demand. You forgot the supply side. Supply 下降,在同等需求下,价格乃上涨。是需求首先,还是supply首先, it is a moot point. 因为人的很多需求是动态的。比如,食品。“无鱼肉亦可,无鸡鸭亦可。唯菜蔬不可少。”是一种需求。“无鱼,肉亦可。无鸡,鸭亦可。”是另一种需求。Supply 会影响人的需求。
什么导致supply 下降,cost 是一个重要因素。还以油价为例子。地壳底下含的油据地质学家探测与估计足够下个世纪的消费。可是开采与冶炼的代价越来越高。包括战争威胁(think Iraq),环保要求,海底钻探等等等等代价的提高。如此,加上需求的增长,价格就不能不提高。还有一方面,如果alternative energy能够低价产出,取代石油的话,人们就不用去高价买汽油, 因为从消费的角度出发,它不值得那个价钱。
引进“真理”,而不看现象的一个误区,就是把参数一厢情愿的理想化。把一个系统人为地界定成一个静态的东西。
- posted on 08/28/2009
st dude wrote:
经济学最最基本的基本定律只有两条. 第一条需求定律(law of demand)也把这个道理说的很清楚:价格上升,需求减少, 价格下降, 需求增加. 历史上不知有多少人试图找出反例来证伪,从而否定经济学是一门严肃学问. 比如用股票的股价上升, 需求增加等, 但最后都被一一解释了. 所以, 需求定律是颠真不破的真理. 在价格和需求的关系图上, 需求曲线总是向右下倾斜的. 价格表现为什么会这样? 因为人就是这样的, 人的行为使之.
真的都被一一解释了吗?
讨论到这个深度,估计你我这些外行的知识都不够用了。需要听听专家怎么说了。
耶鲁开放课程里有一门经济学101,其中请 Larry Summers 做过个个专题讲座,建议去听一下。不用听整门课,就听萨默斯的讲座,一共两次,大概两个小时。
萨默斯特地讲了这条供需曲线,真实世界里不是这样的。第一,供需线的斜率可以是正的,也就是说,价格上升,需求增加。第二,曲线不一定是直线,可以是一条复杂曲线,有很多拐点。
你真的相信人的行为就是一条几何直线?
- posted on 08/28/2009
no name wrote:
至于我说的价格和成本的关系,看见你们的讪笑,若换了别人早就吓尿裤子了.
不尿裤子能说明什么?尿不出的人也有不少。;)
当一个产品制成后,其成本已经没有什么意义了,因为其成本不是花了多少钱的意
思,而是因制那产品而不能制另一个产品(未制时生产者以为其所得会低于他将制造
的那个但高于其他产品的那个产品)而可能不能赚取的毛回报,而制成以后,生米已
经煮成熟饭了。在市场竞争的情况下,无论一个产品的成本是什么,一个生产者不
得不按照市场价或低于市场价的价格才能卖掉其产品,有的时候,市场上那个产品
的所有价格都使得生产者亏本,因为其所谓的成本对他们已经没有任何意义了,他
们有时不得不salvage whatever they can get. 成本和价格之间是没有什么关系的。
一个类似的道理是投在产品里的劳动时间和价格是没有关系的(和Adam Smith 及从
Adam Smith 学来那理论的马克思的劳动价值说相反)。
在决定产品价格时,成本不是唯一因素,但这不等于说成本价格都是主观的。你生产了人家不要的东西,市场价格为零,这不等于说生产投入为零。
讪笑是容易的,OK?
请你们接着讪笑,谁笑到最后,谁就过了一辈子的欢笑生活,也不错嘛。无知?谁
是无知,不学就傻傻地讪笑的是不无知的,因为他们天生就知晓了不学就能知晓的
道理,他们的道理是天生就长在他们的脑子里的。真是太羡慕死我这个无知者了。
那就是我来这个论坛的目的之一,和你们这些天生脑子里就长满了各种道理的人们
学习。希望你们这些天生脑子里就长满了各种道理的人们不要嫌弃我这个无知者,
谢谢!
不必客气。 - posted on 08/28/2009
他的原话:
成本(cost)和价格之间没有什么关系。价格是由于消费者们各自的主观价值判断而引起的,不是由于成本而引起的。经济学最最基本的基本定律只有两条. 第一条需求定律(law of demand)也把这个道理说的很清楚:价格上升,需求减少, 价格下降, 需求增加. 历史上不知有多少人试图找出反例来证伪,从而否定经济学是一门严肃学问. 比如用股票的股价上升, 需求增加等, 但最后都被一一解释了. 所以, 需求定律是颠真不破的真理. 在价格和需求的关系图上, 需求曲线总是向右下倾斜的. 价格表现为什么会这样? 因为人就是这样的, 人的行为使之.
您如果好好比较他的原话,应该会看到你们两位说的是两码事儿。他说价格是消费者的主观价值判断引起的。您说需求是价格变化引起的。我假定他的意思是消费者的主观价值判断直接影响需求(应该不会是生产者猜测消费者的主观价值判断从而调整价格吧?那可就神了。),或者他假定需求直接影响消费者的主观价值判断, either way,
那么,
Are you contradicting him? 他阐述的因果关系是:消费者的主观价值判断 -〉需求-〉价格。或者:需求-〉消费者的主观价值判断 -〉价格。
您的因果关系呢? 价格-〉需求。
You can't be both right, can you? :-)
So, if you are saying that the demand depends on the price, instead of the other way around, then what does the price depend on? The supply? Then aren't you actually on my side? :-)
This is more fun than I anticipated ...
- posted on 08/28/2009
st dude wrote:
我同意无名的说法. 消费品的价格,首先都是由消费者出于需求而追逐所决定的.
错了。在最简单的情形下,市场产品价格由供需两方决定。
当价格决定以后,其原料和劳力的成本才被决定.
这有点像:儿子被决定了以后,妈才被决定。;) 本句从关系学上说还有点小道理,但从发生学上讲就本末倒置了。而你那句话是纯粹本末倒置。
也就是说,因为我们要吃饭,才有农民的劳动.否则农民在田地里劳动毫无意义, 只是在自己锻炼身体. 同样, 因为我们要喝牛奶, 农民才养牛产牛奶. 为了把问题说得更清楚, 再假设一例. 假如有一天,比尔盖茨说他要在10年内登月, 出价500亿. 这就是消费者出于需要(为什么需要我们不去管,天才人物总是和常人不一样)所开出的价格. 这时候,还没有登月的原料和劳动力成本这些生产要素呢,但价格已经有了. 那么,也许有这么一个精明的商人(或者组织或者国家), 考虑了一下, 估计了工程和获利的可行性. 召集了100个最好的科学家,年薪每人1百万,1000个最好的工程师年薪每人2百万, 1万个最好的技术工人年薪10万…加上其它成本,10年总成本是400亿. 他净赚100亿. 值得干.于是有了运载火箭/航天飞机的生产. 可以看出整个过程是, 消费者的需求决定价格,价格决定成本, 成本确定生产…
这段话像三岁毛孩子的废话。我问你,为什么盖茨出价500亿,而非400亿或600亿呢?他是随意出的么?还是估价的后果?如果是估价的后果,那不就不太随意了么?假定尚无登月市场,那我们的讨论就是毫无意义的。那个“精明的商人(或者组织或者国家)”为什么要估价呢?他凭什么估价呢?是随意的么?在市场上,是随意的价格决定一切的?
经济学最最基本的基本定律只有两条. 第一条需求定律(law of demand)也把这个道理说的很清楚:价格上升,需求减少, 价格下降, 需求增加. 历史上不知有多少人试图找出反例来证伪,从而否定经济学是一门严肃学问. 比如用股票的股价上升, 需求增加等, 但最后都被一一解释了. 所以, 需求定律是颠真不破的真理. 在价格和需求的关系图上, 需求曲线总是向右下倾斜的. 价格表现为什么会这样? 因为人就是这样的, 人的行为使之.
你这一段说明什么,和上面一段有联系么?
不是十分懂奥派经济学. 只能很小资地说一句, 我认同奥派经济学. 有古典味, 哲学味和人性味. 其理论可能粗糙些, 但是真理的表达就是简单的.只是希望无名在谈经济的时候, 多提奥地利,少提奥巴马.
我看你不通经济学,你为阿斗辩护,阿斗还得脸红,阿斗是不是? - posted on 08/28/2009
我居然错过了这一段。
no name wrote:
在市场竞争的情况下,无论一个产品的成本是什么,一个生产者不
得不按照市场价或低于市场价的价格才能卖掉其产品,
Come on, buddy, 这个生产者不得不低价卖出,因为别人的成本比他低 (unless they do dumping -- then there's anti-dumping laws against them), 可以比他卖得低还挣钱。
有的时候,市场上那个产品
的所有价格都使得生产者亏本,因为其所谓的成本对他们已经没有任何意义了,他
们有时不得不salvage whatever they can get. 成本和价格之间是没有什么关系的。
所有价格都使得生产者亏本,因为别人的产品以更低的成本取代了他们。手擀面,是不错。但所有手擀面生产者恐怕都out of business, you have to go to some restaurant to have it if you insist. 虽然吃面的需求可以不变, 机器制作的面取而代之。
嗨,既然还有几个人不是很清楚。再举一个例子。
计算机硬盘存储,人们的需求应该是一直在增长吧?但是价格是越来越低。Bytes per dollar increases exponentially over the last decades.
Do we need to go on?
嗯,这里又漏掉一段 (by another person):
假如有一天,比尔盖茨说他要在10年内登月, 出价500亿. 这就是消费者出于需要(为什么需要我们不去管,天才人物总是和常人不一样)所开出的价格. 这时候,还没有登月的原料和劳动力成本这些生产要素呢,但价格已经有了. 那么,也许有这么一个精明的商人(或者组织或者国家), 考虑了一下, 估计了工程和获利的可行性. 召集了100个最好的科学家,年薪每人1百万,1000个最好的工程师年薪每人2百万, 1万个最好的技术工人年薪10万…加上其它成本,10年总成本是400亿. 他净赚100亿.
OK, 如果算出来,不好了,总成本500亿。那怎么行?What is this guy to do, after so much effort? If he is the only contractor who is in this business, is he gonna get into bed and cry his heart out? What stops him to go back to Mr. Gates:"OK, sir, would you consider paying 600亿,咱们小本生意也赚点,您老还在乎 这点钱吗? Mr. Gates:"OK, ... what the heck, 600亿, here is the money, but make it quick, I'm growing too old if you don't hurry ..." :-)
Now, if he is not the only guy in the business, and another contractor, say XYZ, can deliver the nice space ride for 300亿 only。Then, too bad, I guess XYZ might get the deal. The first guy has to go into bed and cry, I guess ...
- posted on 08/28/2009
I'm not sure if I'm having too much fun at the expense of someone's hurt feeling -- after all I'm just a stranger here. Also, in case I've contributed to the digression on this otherwise serious thread, my apology to the owner, Mr. xw.
To lighten it up a little bit, and so we don't feel a waste of time, please allow me to tell a little joke to make it up for you. Jokes for jokes' sake, since this is Friday, and we should feel good about it ---
You might have heart it before, but here it goes:
A may walks up to a bakery:" Mister, I'm really in the mood for some nice bread. How much is a loaf?" (I have a 需求)
The baker, "five dollars."
"Five dollars!!!" The man sounds indignant, "the shop next to you sells for just two dollars!"
"Really? Why didn't you buy from them then?"
"But they are out of stock ..."
"Oh! ---- ", the baker said meaningfully, "well, when *we* are out of stock, our price is *much* better than that. We sell a loaf for 50 cents only!"
:-) Have a nice weekend!
- posted on 08/29/2009
There is price; there is value. Price and value are different. Price is objective; value is subjective. Economic calculation is only done in price, not in value.
All prices (of either capital goods or consumer goods) are "imputed" to consumers' subjective valuation.
Classical economists, including Adam Smith and David Ricardo, were wrong in their value theories. They concentrated on the businessman side when they thought about value. Labor theory of value is one example. Marx inherited the labor theory of value from Adam Smith.
All this controversy in this thread comes from the discussion of the law I described about the relationship between money supply and price. There is logical derivation that lead to that law. I don't have time to describe that derivation here.
Of course, those who am enamored with the mainstream economics are afraid of those logical derivations. They must find a refuge. They must hide in something that they feel comfortable.
As for those sneerers, let them sneer. Whom do they think I am? A frightened pretentious chicken?
I invented a new "quote" the other day. I share it with you:
"It's not whom you associate with that distinguishes you from others; It's you yourself."
That new "quote" is another blow to the pretentious ones. - posted on 08/30/2009
There is price; there is value. Price and value are different. Price is objective; value is subjective. Economic calculation is only done in price, not in value.
All prices (of either capital goods or consumer goods) are "imputed" to consumers' subjective valuation.
Classical economists, including Adam Smith and David Ricardo, were wrong in their value theories. They concentrated on the businessman side when they thought about value. Labor theory of value is one example. Marx inherited the labor theory of value from Adam Smith.
All this controversy in this thread comes from the discussion of the law I described about the relationship between money supply and price. There is logical derivation that lead to that law. I don't have time to describe that derivation here.
Of course, those who am enamored with the mainstream economics are afraid of those logical derivations. They must find a refuge. They must hide in something that they feel comfortable.
As for those sneerers, let them sneer. Whom do they think I am? A frightened pretentious chicken?
I invented a new "quote" the other day. I share it with you:
"It's not whom you associate with that distinguishes you from others; It's you yourself."
That new "quote" is another blow to the pretentious ones. - posted on 08/30/2009
Some persons like to talk about compromise, compromise among members of different interest groups. They think that is one of the fundamental features of the democratic process.
A distinction must be made with respect to compromise. There are two kinds of compromises: one is with respect to the objective truth; the other is with respect to subjective value judgment.
Compromise in truth is treason to one's own sovereignty. Compromise in subjective values among persons is a least-bad process to reach a least-bad end for all the persons involved.
Treason in the sense above brings about serious consequences. The least-bad democratic bargaining is an unavoidable means to making the "society" a peaceful one.
There two kinds of compromises. One is treason; the other is a least-bad means to some ends. - posted on 08/30/2009
There is logical derivation that lead to that law. ***I don't have time to describe*** that derivation here.
That new "quote" is another blow to the pretentious ones.
Look at what you just wrote and re-think who must be the pretentious one :-) The term "pretentious" is usually reserved for those who wave some big flag of theory which they could not defend. When confronted with counter examples, they would choose to simply ignore them.
Of course, those who am enamored with the mainstream economics are afraid of those logical derivations. They must find a refuge. They must hide in something that they feel comfortable.
Who? Afraid of logical derivations? Give us a break. We haven't seen any logical derivations yet. The only thing we have seen from you so far is full of self-contradictions and dubious claims. Please -- don't let people wait for so long.
- posted on 08/30/2009
The following is a quote from what Murray Rothbard wrote. ERE stand for "evenly rotating economy".
"8. Money Costs, Prices, and Alfred Marshall
In the ERE, therefore, every good sold to consumers will sell at a certain “final equilibrium” price and at certain total sales. These receipts will accrue in part to capitalists in the form of interest income, and the remainder to owners of land and labor. The payments of income to the producers have also been popularly termed “costs.” These are clearly money costs, or money expenses, and obviously are not the same thing as “costs” in the psychic sense of subjective opportunity forgone. Money costs may be ex post as well as ex ante. (In the ERE, of course, ex ante and ex post calculations are always the same.) However, the two concepts become linked when psychic costs are appraised as much as possible in monetary terms. Thus, payment to factors may be 95 ounces and recorded as a cost, while the capitalist who earns an interest of five ounces considers 100 as an opportunity cost, since he could have invested elsewhere and earned five (actually, a bit higher) percent interest.
If, for the moment, we include as money costs factor payments and interest,[19] then in the ERE, money costs equal total money sales for every firm in every line of production. A firm earns entrepreneurial profits when its return is more than interest, suffers entrepreneurial losses when its return is less. In our production process, consumers will pay 100 ounces (money sales), and money costs are 100 ounces (factor plus interest income) and there will be similar equality for all other goods and processes. What this means, in essence, is that there are no entrepreneurial profits or losses in the ERE, because there is no change of data or uncertainty about possible change. If total money sales equal total money costs, then it evidently follows that total money sales per unit sold will equal total money costs per unit sold. This follows from elementary rules of arithmetic. But the money sales per unit are equal to the money price of the good, by definition; while we shall call the total money costs per unit the average money cost of the good. It likewise follows, therefore, that price will equal average money cost for every good in the ERE.
Strange as it may seem, a great many writers on economics have deduced from this a curious conclusion indeed. They have deduced that “in the long run” (i.e., in the ERE), the fact that costs equal sales or that “cost equals price” implies that costs determine price. The price of the good discussed above is 100 ounces per unit, allegedly because the cost (average money cost) is 100 ounces per unit. This is supposed to be the law of price determination “in the long run.” It would seem to be crystal clear, however, that the truth is precisely the reverse. The price of the final product is determined by the valuations and demands of the consumers, and this price determines what the cost will be. If the consumers value the product mentioned above so that its price is 50 ounces instead of 100 ounces, as a result, say, of a change in their valuations, then it is precisely in the “long run,” when the effects of uncertainty are removed, that “costs of production” (here, factor payment plus interest payment) will equal the final price. We have seen above how factor incomes are at the mercy of consumer demand and fluctuate according to that demand. Factor payments are the result of sales to consumers and do not determine the latter in advance. Costs of production, then, are at the mercy of final price, and not the other way around. It is ironic that it is precisely in the ERE that this causative phenomenon should be the clearest. For in the ERE we see quite evidently that consumers pay and determine the final price of the product; that it is through these payments and these payments alone that factors and interest are paid; that therefore the amount of the payments and the total “costs of production” are determined by price and not vice versa. Money costs are the opposite of a basic, determining factor; they are dependent on the price of the product and on consumer demands.
In the real world of uncertainty it is more difficult to see this, because factors are paid in advance of the sale of the product, since the capitalist-entrepreneurs speculatively advance money to the factors in the expectation of being able to recoup their money with a surplus for interest and profit after sale to the consumers.[20] Whether they do so or not depends on their foresight regarding the state of consumer demand and the future prices of consumers’ goods. In the real world of immediate market prices, of course, the existence of entrepreneurial profit and loss will always prevent costs and receipts, cost and price, from being identical, and it is obvious to all that price is solely determined by valuations of stock—by “utilities”—and not at all by money cost. But although most economists recognize that in the real world (the so-called “short-run”) costs cannot determine price, they are seduced by the habit of the individual entrepreneur of dealing in terms of “cost” as the determining factor, and they apply this procedure to the case of the ERE and therefore to the inherent long-run tendencies of the economy. Their grave error, as will be discussed further below, comes from viewing the economy from the standpoint of an individual entrepreneur rather than from that of an economist. To the individual entrepreneur, the “cost” of factors is largely determined by forces outside himself and his own sales; the economist, however, must see how money costs are determined and, taking account of all the interrelations in the economy, must recognize that they are determined by final prices reflecting consumer demands and valuations.
The source of the error will become clearer below when we consider a world of nonspecific as well as specific factors. However, the essentials of our analysis and its conclusion remain the same in that more complex and realistic case.
The classical economists were under the delusion that the price of the final product is determined by “costs of production,” or rather they fluctuated between this doctrine and the “labor theory of value,” which isolated the money costs of labor and picked that segment of the cost of production as the determinant of price. They slurred over the determination of the prices of such goods as old paintings that already existed and needed no further production. The correct relation between prices and costs, as outlined above, was developed, along with other outstanding contributions to economics, by the “Austrian” economists, including the Austrians Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, and Friedrich von Wieser, and the Englishman W. Stanley Jevons. It was with the writings of the Austrian School in the 1870’s and 1880’s that economics was truly established as a science.[21]
Unfortunately, in the science of economics, retrogression in knowledge has taken place almost as often as progression. The enormous advance provided by the Austrian School, on this point as on others, was blocked and reversed by the influence of Alfred Marshall, who attempted to rehabilitate the classicists and integrate them with the Austrians, while disparaging the contributions of the latter. It was unfortunately the Marshallian and not the Austrian approach that exerted the most influence over later writers. This influence is partly responsible for the current myth among economists that the Austrian School is effectively dead and has no more to contribute and that everything of lasting worth that it had to offer was effectively stated and integrated in Alfred Marshall’s Principles.
Marshall tried to rehabilitate the cost-of-production theory of the classicists by conceding that, in the “short run,” in the immediate market place, consumers’ demand rules price. But in the long run, among the important reproducible goods, cost of production is determining. According to Marshall, both utility and money costs determine price, like blades of a scissors, but one blade is more important in the short run, and another in the long run. He concludes that
as a general rule, the shorter the period we are considering, the greater must be the share of our attention which is given to the influence of demand on value; and the longer the period, the more important will be the influence of cost of production on value. . . . The actual value at any time, the market value as it is often called, is often more influenced by passing events and by causes whose action is fitful and shortlived, than by those which work persistently. But in long periods these fitful and irregular causes in large measure efface one another’s influence; so that in the long run persistent causes dominate value completely.[22]
The implication is quite clear: if one deals with “short-run” market values, one is being quite superficial and dwelling only on fitful and transient causes—so much for the Austrians. But if one wants to deal with the “really basic” matters, the really lasting and permanent causes of prices, he must concentrate on costs of production—pace the classicists. This impression of the Austrians—their alleged neglect of the “long period,” and “one-sided neglect of costs”—has been stamped on economics ever since.
Marshall’s analysis suffers from a grave methodological defect—indeed, from an almost hopeless methodological confusion as regards the “short run” and the “long run.” He considers the “long run” as actually existing, as being the permanent, persistent, observable element beneath the fitful, basically unimportant flux of market value. He admits (p. 350) that “even the most persistent causes are, however, liable to change,” but he clearly indicates that they are far less likely to change than the fitful market values; herein, indeed, lies their long-run nature. He regards the long-run data, then, as underlying the transient market values in a way similar to that in which the basic sea level underlies the changing waves and tides.[23] For Marshall, then, the long-run data are something that can be spotted and marked by an observer; indeed, since they change far more slowly than the market values, they can be observed more accurately.
Marshall’s conception of the long run is completely fallacious, and this eliminates the whole groundwork of his theoretical structure. The long run, by its very nature, never does and never can exist. This does not mean that “long-run,” or ERE, analysis is not important. On the contrary, only through the concept of the ERE can we subject to catallactic analysis such critical problems as entrepreneurial profit, the structure of production, the interest rate, and the pricing of productive factors. The ERE is the goal (albeit shifting in the concrete sense) toward which the market moves. But the point at issue is that it is not observable, or real, as are actual market prices.
We have seen above the characteristics of the evenly rotating economy. The ERE is the condition that comes into being and continues to obtain when the present, existing market data (valuations, technology, resources) remain constant. It is a theoretical construct of the economist that enables him to point out in what directions the economy tends to be moving at any given time; it also enables the economist to isolate various elements in his analysis of the economy of the real world. To analyze the determining forces in a world of change, he must construct hypothetically a world of nonchange. This is far different from, indeed, it is the reverse of, saying that the long run exists or that it is somehow more permanently or more persistently existent than the actual market data. The actual market prices, on the contrary, are the only ones that ever exist, and they are the resultants of actual market data (consumer demands, resources, etc.) that themselves change continually. The “long run” is not more stable; its data necessarily change along with the data on the market. The fact that costs equal prices in the “long run” does not mean that costs will actually equal prices, but that the tendency exists, a tendency that is continually being disrupted in reality by the very fitful changes in market data that Marshall points out.[24]
In sum, rather than being in some sense more persistent and more real than the actual market, the “long run” of the ERE is not real at all, but a very useful theoretical construct that enables the economist to point out the direction in which the market is moving at any given time—specifically, toward the elimination of profits and losses if existing market data remain the same. Thus, the ERE concept is especially helpful in the analysis of profits and losses as compared to interest. But the market data are the only actual reality.
This is not to deny, and the Austrians never did deny, that subjective costs, in the sense of opportunity costs and utilities forgone, are important in the analysis of production. In particular, the disutilities of labor and of waiting—as expressed in the time-preference ratios—determine how much of people’s energies and how much of their savings will go into the production process. This, in the broadest sense, will determine or help to determine the total supply of all goods that will be produced. But these costs are themselves subjective utilities, so that both “blades of the scissors” are governed by the subjective utility of individuals. This is a monistic and not a dualistic causal explanation. The costs, furthermore, have no direct influence on the relative amount of the stock of each good to be produced. Consumers will evaluate the various stocks of goods available. How much productive energy and savings will go into producing stock of one particular good and how much into producing another, in other words, the relative stocks of each product, will depend in turn on entrepreneurial expectations of where the greatest monetary profit will be found. These expectations are based on the anticipated direction of consumer demand.
As a result of such anticipations, the nonspecific factors will move to the production of those goods where, ceteris paribus, their owners will earn the highest incomes. An exposition of this process will be presented below.
Marshall’s treatment of subjective costs was also highly fallacious. Instead of the idea of opportunity costs, he had the notion that they were “real costs” that could be added in terms of measurable units. Money costs of production, then, became the “necessary supply prices” that entrepreneurs had to pay in order “to call forth an adequate supply of the efforts and waitings” to produce a supply of the product. These real costs were then supposed to be the fundamental, persisting element that backstops money costs of production, and allowed Marshall to talk of the more persisting, long-run, normal situation.[25]
Marshall’s great error here, and it has permeated the works of his followers and of present-day writers, is to regard costs and production exclusively from the point of view of an isolated individual entrepreneur or an isolated individual industry, rather than viewing the whole economy in all its interrelations.[26] Marshall is dealing, of necessity, with particular prices of different goods, and he is attempting to show that alleged “costs of production” determine these prices in the long run. But it is completely erroneous to tie up particular goods with labor vs. leisure and with consuming vs. waiting costs, for the latter are only general phenomena, applying and diffusing throughout the entire economic system. The price necessary to call forth a nonspecific factor is the highest price this factor can earn elsewhere—an opportunity cost. What it can attain elsewhere is basically determined by the state of consumer demand elsewhere. The forgone leisure-and-consumption costs, in general, only help to determine the size—the general stock—of labor and savings that will be applied to production. All this will be treated further below." - posted on 08/30/2009
The following is from the same source (Murray Rothbard).
Please do two things if you have the patience: 1) point out the discrepancy between what I said and what Rothbard said; 2) point out what is wrong in what Rothbard said.
Either of those two things will help me. Thanks!
"8. The Determination of Prices: The Goods Side and the Money Side
We are now in a position to draw together all the strands determining the prices of goods. In chapters 4 through 9 we analyzed all the determinants of the prices of particular goods. In this chapter we have analyzed the determination of the purchasing power of money. Now we can see how both sets of determinants blend together.
A particular price, as we have seen, is determined by the total demand for the good (exchange and reservation) and the stock of the good, increasing as the former increases and decreasing as the latter increases. We may therefore call the demand a “factor of increase” of the price, and the stock a “factor of decrease.” The exchange demand for each good—the amount of money that will be spent in exchange for the good—equals the stock of money in the society minus the following: the exchange demands for all other goods and the reservation demand for money. In short, the amount spent on X good equals the total money supply minus the amount spent on other goods and the amount kept in cash balances.
Suppose we overlook the difficulties involved and now consider the price of “all goods,” i.e., the reciprocal of the purchasing power of money. The price of goods-in-general will now be determined by the monetary demand for all goods (factor of increase) and the stock of all goods (factor of decrease). Now, when all goods are considered, the exchange demand for goods equals the stock of money minus the reservation demand for money. (In contrast to any specific good, there is no need to subtract people’s expenditures on other goods.) The total demand for goods, then, equals the stock of money minus the reservation demand for money, plus the reservation demand for all goods.
The ultimate determinants of the price of all goods are: the stock of money and the reservation demand for goods (factors of increase), and the stock of all goods and the reservation demand for money (factors of decrease). Now let us consider the obverse side: the PPM. The PPM, as we have seen, is determined by the demand for money (factor of increase) and the stock of money (factor of decrease). The exchange demand for money equals the stock of all goods minus the reservation demand for all goods. Therefore, the ultimate determinants of the PPM are: the stock of all goods and the reservation demand for money (factors of increase), and the stock of money and the reservation demand for goods (factors of decrease). We see that this is the exact obverse of the determinants of the price of all goods, which, in turn, is the reciprocal of the PPM.
Thus, the analysis of the money side and the goods side of prices is completely harmonious. No longer is there need for an arbitrary division between a barter-type analysis of relative goods-prices and a holistic analysis of the PPM. Whether we treat one good or all goods, the price or prices will increase, ceteris paribus, if the stock of money increases; decrease when the stock of the good or goods increases; decrease when the reservation demand for money increases; and increase when the reservation demand for the good or goods increases. For each individual good, the price will also increase when the specific demand for that good increases; but unless this is a reflection of a drop in the social reservation demand for money, this changed demand will also signify a decreased demand for some other good, and a consequent fall in the price of the latter. Hence, changes in specific demands will not change the value of the PPM.
In a progressing economy, the secular trend for the four determining factors is likely to be: the money stock increasing gradually as gold production adds to the previous total; the stock of goods increasing as capital investment accumulates; the reservation demand for goods disappearing because short-run speculations disappear over the long run, and this is the main reason for such a demand; the reservation demand for money unknown, with clearing, for example, working to reduce this demand over a period of time, and the greater number of transactions tending to increase it. The result is that we cannot precisely say how the PPM will move in a progressing economy, though the best summary guess would be that it declines as a result of the influence of the increased stock of goods. Certainly, the influence of the goods side is in the direction of falling prices; the money side we cannot predict.
Thus, the ultimate determinants of the PPM as well as of specific prices are the subjective utilities of individuals (the determinants of demand) and the given objective stocks of goods—thereby vindicating the Austrian-Wicksteedian theory of price for all aspects of the economic system.
A final note of warning: It is necessary to remember that money can never be neutral. One set of conditions tending to raise the PPM can never precisely offset another set of factors tending to lower it. Thus, suppose that an increase in the stock of goods tends to raise the PPM, while at the same time, an increase in the money supply tends to lower it. One change can never offset the other; for one change will lower one set of prices more than others, while the other will raise a different set within the whole array of prices. The degrees of change in the two cases will depend on the particular goods and individuals affected and on their concrete valuations. Thus, even if we can make an historical (not an economic-scientific) judgment that the PPM has remained roughly the same, the price relations have shifted within the array, and therefore the judgment can never be exact." - posted on 08/30/2009
I know there exist some persons who would like to bring me the person down once and for all. The problem for them is that it is impossible to bring me down because I have nothing to defend and because I avoid making personal comments. Because I have nothing to defend, I cannot be defeated. Because I avoid making personal comments, I do not need to defend what I said in that regard and thus I cannot be defeated.
Those who have been trying to bring me the person down have failed and will fail again and again. Upright persons like I will remain upright. - posted on 08/30/2009
OK, very well. Since your way of logical derivation is to re-post some quotes. Let's do the same.
Please do two things if you have the patience: 1) point out the discrepancy between what I said and what Rothbard said;
I don't care to find if you two have said the same. Let's go directly to 2). And keep in mind that how this whole "discussion" started, i.e. you claimed some 颠扑不破,不可证伪的真理。
2) point out what is wrong in what Rothbard said.
For people who don't know what this so-called ERE is, let me also quote someone, since you started. This is from "Mises on the Evenly
Rotating Economy" by Patrick Gunning (Note that, your dear Rothbard is a student of Mises):
"For an economy, the ERE is an analogous hypothetical point in time when
everyone stops deliberating and proceeds to perform the behavior specified by
some general plan of action."
"The ERE is an imaginary state in which all of the essential economic functions—production, saving, consumption, and factor supply—are performed by automatons. Unless an economist constructs an image of such a state, he finds it impossible to comprehend the full range of entrepreneurship in economic interaction."
How can you call a theory that is based on an "imaginary state" and a "hypothetical point in time" a 颠扑不破,不可证伪的真理? As people here keep trying to remind you, you can't have both ways. You either need to prepare to test a theory in practice, maybe for a long long time, as long as there exists a possibility that it might fail. Or you'll have to hide the theory behind some hypothesis, and then the hypothesis itself will need to be tested.
Now, only within such a artificial closed system which satisfies his hypothesis does Rothbard's reasoning make any sense, i.e. he is simply restating trivial definitions, slightly more complex than the mere definition that price = money spent on goods divided by the amount of goods.
As soon as one leaves his closed system based on his hypothesis, one will immediately lose the comfortable assumption that the amount of goods is *fixed*, yes, *fixed*. His reasoning does not account for the fact that the amount of available goods has everything to do with the cost, yes, the cost, of acquiring the goods. Need I go on?
Since you single-mindedly followed his reasoning without looking at his assumptions, you failed to see why the price in reality cannot move independent of the cost of producing goods. This is perhaps also why you never could, or never bothered, to refute the simple counter examples people here have pointed out to you, e.g. the price of magnetic storage continues to go down tremendously while the demand increases steadily.
Your failure to see the obvious is perhaps yet another example of danger of blindly following a fancy theory. It is always important to understand the assumptions and hypothesis behind a theory, then one has to 1) check to see whether the reasoning is sound, and 2) where lies the limit of the assumptions.
- posted on 08/30/2009
Now, let's move on to this later paragraph that you quoted from Rothbard:
"In a progressing economy, the secular trend for the four determining factors is likely to be: the money stock increasing gradually as gold production adds to the previous total; the stock of goods increasing as capital investment accumulates; the reservation demand for goods disappearing because short-run speculations disappear over the long run, and this is the main reason for such a demand; the reservation demand for money unknown, with clearing, for example, working to reduce this demand over a period of time, and the greater number of transactions tending to increase it. The result is that we cannot precisely say how the PPM will move in a progressing economy, though the best summary guess would be that it declines as a result of the influence of the increased stock of goods. Certainly, the influence of the goods side is in the direction of falling prices; the money side we cannot predict."
You see, he is much more modest than you in his claim when he says "is likely to be:" He has the sense not to claim that his is an absolute law that defies any test. When he says, "the stock of goods increasing as capital investment accumulates;", he is again making a big assumption by ignoring the possibility that the stock of goods can increase simply because people have more efficient ways to produce them -- you don't have to *increase* the capital investment than you previously did to produce the same amount of goods."
Lastly, let me state seriously that I don't know anyone else here and I doubt there is anyone here who has a personal agenda to bring you down as a person. One can only bring himself or herself down if one does not show sufficient courtesy to explain oneself well (what your assumptions are, e.g.). One wins respect by admitting limitations when they become clear, so people don't waste time trying to figure out what you really want to say. It is my opinion that you sometimes show a certain degree of sincerity and therefore deserve a serious response when you ask for it. But please, in the future, if you could stay on the message and respond directly to people's counter examples.
Yours truthfully - posted on 08/30/2009
Let's clarify the meaning of "cost" here. In your posts, cost = money expense of the producer.
Let me give an example: The final consumer's good is A, it was produced with producer's goods B1, B2, B3 by producer PA. Producer's good Bi was produced with Ci1, Ci2, Ci3 by producer PBi.
PA paid money expense to buy B1, B2 and B3. PBi paid money expense to buy Ci1, Ci2, and Ci3.
Those money expenses are represented by the prices of B1, B2, B3, etc. So we have the price of the consumer's good, the prices of the producer's goods.
What causes what?
What I said is that the consumers' subjective value judgment determines the price of the consumer's good. When I say that, I do not mean that in a quantitative way. I just mean that all the prices (including the prices of the producer's goods) are a result of the consumers' subjective value judgment.
A producer of the producer's goods do not produce those producer's goods blindly. He produces those goods in anticipation of the demand from the producers like PA who either buys his producer's goods to produce another producer's good or a consumer's good. The anticipation process exists in all the producers' mind. That anticipation chain end at the anticipation of the producer who produces the final consumer's good A. He anticipates the consumers' demand. The consumers' demand is based on their subjective value judgment.
Based on the above reasoning, all prices are caused by the consumers' subjective value judgment. The producers at all stages of the production process act purposefully to anticipate demands of the buyers of their products and those demands ends at the consumers' subjective value judgment.
As for why the prices of digital media keeps dropping in face of the alleged increased demand of consumers, I didn't say anything that is quantitative. The cause of the price is still the consumers' subjective value judgment. Because of the producers' anticipation of the consumers' subjective value judgment, they may have produced far more digital media than what can sustain a higher price or the producers improved their method of production so that they can produce the more units at the same money price they pay. Even in the later case, the producers act purposely to anticipate the consumers' subjective value judgment and do not blindly improve their method of production.
Going back to the original topic that triggered this discussion, namely, the law that governs price and money supply. What I said was "all other things being equal". That is a very strong condition. When some other things are not equal, the condition does not hold, but that does not mean that that law is false. Particularly, when a producers uses the new money to improve his method of production, the condition "all other things being equal" does not hold any more.
All economics laws are simple. The congregate of the simple economics laws makes up the human findings of the logical structure of human action.
Please keep raising questions. Questions like yours do help me think. I like this kind of discussion more than those empty ones.
I hope to read more posts by you. I hope this discussion will keep going.
WuYing wrote:...
OK, very well. Since your way of logical derivation is to re-post some quotes. Let's do the same.
- posted on 09/01/2009
Excuse my absence. No impoliteness was intended. For curiosity, I went through some other threads here so I could better understand the undercurrent in this "debate".
I'm not sure whether your pursuit on this topic is for your career or just a hobby. If the former, there should be other forums run by professional societies and special interest groups, like most other academic disciplines. With some luck, you might even find fan clubs for Mises's theory. If the latter, it seems you've already got some audience who apparently are quite sympathetic to your views. If you express your thoughts more clearly, perhaps you'll find an even stronger following.
Anyway, let me comment briefly on what you just posted. I think the way you separate the supply chain into multiple levels is a good start to help you clarify your thought. Focusing on the OEM (which serves as the link between the consumers and all other suppliers) is also a step in the right direction. If you are willing to further accommodate the dynamic feedback among various quantities involved (i.e. prices, demands, supplies, etc), you might be able to set up a numerical system to model this complicated monster. You probably won't have the fortune to be able to establish a system solely based on continuous variables, unfortunately, as most often the case in social sciences. If you don't care to prove that the feedback will converge, at least you'll have a computational model, provided that you get rid of the "subjective value judgment" (see below).
This "subjective value judgment" you introduced troubles me the most. If you intend it to be a variable on one hand, but refuse to quantify it on the other hand, then, in my humble opinion, any attempt to set up a solvable system (analytically or computationally), will be futile. If I were you, I would either (1) use the famous "razor" to cut off the concept of "subjective value judgment" because otherwise your pursuit will most likely degenerate to a metaphysical status (I use the word "degenerate" out of my obvious bias); or (2) try, instead, to define consumer's demand as a function of both consumer's needs and the current price (introducing the obvious recursion), where the "needs" can be more safely defined as some constants or stochastic variables, for lack of better approaches. The choice of (2) would require a rather formidable undertaking, because you'll have to define needs at various levels. Further, you will need to back up your modeling of the demand by citing historical data. But, hey! Who says research is easy?
Apparently you are a nonbeliever of Karl Popper's methodology, which won't make you too popular here, but, if it doesn't impede your survival (either professionally or biologically), then by all means follow whatever methodology you believe in :-) One comes to the internet primarily to relax, don't we? I must say bye, now. I followed a "friendly" link to this place and already found myself too deep in the rabbit's hole. - posted on 09/02/2009
Please do not go away so soon, at least not until you have read my response to your posts.
Tonight I just came back from a short vacation. Understandably a vacation should be vacant of any forum discussions. After I recuperate from my vacation, I'll go through this thread, think about all the serious points made by various persons, then respond to those points.
WuYing wrote:
Excuse my absence. No impoliteness was intended. For curiosity, I went through some other threads here so I could better understand the undercurrent in this "debate".
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
- xw
- #1 no name
- #2 no name
- #3 no name
- #4 no name
- #5 rzp
- #6 no name
- #7 rzp
- #8 no name
- #9 xw
- #10 壹
- #11 no name
- #12 no name
- #13 maya
- #14 xw
- #15 no name
- #16 no name
- #17 rzp
- #18 maya
- #19 rzp
- #20 行人
- #21 maya
- #22 xw
- #23 maya
- #24 hbai
- #25 WuYing
- #26 touche
- #27 行人
- #28 xw
- #29 hbai
- #30 no name
- #31 no name
- #32 xw
- #33 行人
- #34 ben ben
- #35 July
- #36 行人
- #37 壹
- #38 touche
- #39 ben ben
- #40 hbai
- #41 行人
- #42 WuYing
- #43 touche
- #44 WuYing
- #45 hbai
- #46 xw
- #47 liaokang
- #48 no name
- #49 st dude
- #50 雪
- #51 st dude
- #52 CNDer
- #53 WuYing
- #54 行人
- #55 touche
- #56 WuYing
- #57 touche
- #58 WuYing
- #59 WuYing
- #60 no name
- #61 no name
- #62 no name
- #63 WuYing
- #64 no name
- #65 no name
- #66 no name
- #67 WuYing
- #68 WuYing
- #69 no name
- #70 WuYing
- #71 no name
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation