这才是经济学：经济学的误解与真相 – 纳瑞蒙·贝尔拉夫什
文章类别：
- 19 9 月, 2022
- 3 条评论
(0 次顶, 0 人已投票)你必须注册后才能投票！
Loading...快捷索引
简介:
《这才是经济学:经济学的曲解与真相》专爲寻求当今经济真相的读者预备！经济情况是当今最抢手的话题，经济学也成了人人皆知的“显学”。但是，我们接触到的关于经济学的知识中，成见和曲解比真相要多得多。由于不同派系（左或右）、不同身份（评论家、官员和媒体）的人，都在抓住机遇，就经济成绩宣布过度复杂化的解释，分布最新的错误见地和偏激言论。
他们鼓吹着本人的主张，吸引着群众的眼球，却让我们莫衷一是，离真相越来越远。
我们能否解脱那些高傲或成见的解释？
我们能否客观剖析经济对你我的影响？
我们怎样才干看法到当今经济的实质？
答案是：关掉电视，合上杂志，加入互联网，来读读《这才是经济学:经济学的曲解与真相》。
《这才是经济学:经济学的曲解与真相》作者不偏不倚，不带任何政治成见，以敏锐的察看，对当今最突出、争议最多的经济成绩，给出了最客观公正的解释，说明了经济学的中心思想，廓清了许多广爲传播的曲解，对经济规律及进步经济运转效率提出了独到的见地。
在右派、左派、幻想家等或偏或倚的言论中，《这才是经济学:经济学的曲解与真相》无异于一缕新颖空气，让人耳目一新。
作者: 纳瑞蒙·贝尔拉夫什
译者: 麻勇爱
出版年: 2010-1
页数: 277
定价: 38.00元
ISBN: 9787111286523
文章类别：
本文链接: https://www.books51.com/791.html
【点击下方链接，复制 & 分享文章网址】
这才是经济学：经济学的误解与真相 – 纳瑞蒙·贝尔拉夫什 → https://www.books51.com/791.html |
上一篇: 酷玩经济学 – 尤伦·鲍曼,格兰迪·克莱恩
下一篇: 生活中的经济学 – 茅于轼 + 金明善版
(0 次顶, 0 人已投票)你必须注册后才能投票！
Loading...
不只是经济学，在社会上的各个学科都存在着许多在外行人看来难以理解的现象，多看看，可以帮助我们拓宽视野！！
《Spin- Free Economics》英文书摘
BBF注：本文起初只是放在本人转摘集（需翻墙）中的个人书摘，今天才知道网上说此书是“曼昆叔叔给哈佛大一新生推荐的书目”之一。不管是不是真的，那就放在这里吧。感兴趣就看看，我没精力做颜色和字体上标记了。再次重申，个人的书摘不能当成是本书的概览，有我的个人摘取倾向在内。比如我没摘录我觉得很简单的，不感兴趣的，早就知道的观点理论等等。所以仅供参考。
《Spin-Free Economics》书摘《Spin- Free Economics》是一本讨论讨论国际上的热点经济问题的书。作者Nariman Behravesh是经济与金融分析企业IHS全球通视公司的首席经济学家，曾任标准普尔公司首席国际经济学家。
书评可以看这个新华网链接：http://news.xinhuanet.com/book/2009-11/28/content_12554858.htm
有对应的中文版，翻译的如何，俺就不知道了，名字是《这才是经济学：经济学的误解与真相》。我看的是英文，用词相当的简单，比那啥《Economist》和《Wall Street Journal》要易读多了。这里的“易读”指对我这种连经济学入门都谈不上的人而言。所以，有条件的看英文吧。
————————————–
Shortsightedness is a serious affliction that plagues both politicians and the media (and the public at large).
Seven Big Trends:
* The rise in living standards has been unprecedented.
* Free markets have triumphed.
* Technological advances have rapidly transformed our lives.
* Developed economies have become “deagriculturalized” and “deindustrialized”.
* There has been no shortage of natural resources.
* Poverty level have fallen, but income inequality has not always narrowed.
* Financial volatility is no longer synonymous with economic depression.
One of the remarkable attributes of markets is that they spring up in the most unlikely places — and often where they are prohibited.
* Markets are the best aggregators of information.
* Markets represent a process of constant trial and error.
Famines, environmental damage, and financial crises: how government failures have often been more damaging than market failures.
Corporate welfare comes in three flavors: government spending on subsidies, tax breaks, and protectionism. Each comes with a large price tag.
The world is a naturally competitive place. Fierce competition delivers steady improvements in goods and services, ofter at lower prices.
Governments can play an important role in keeping markets competitive by enforcing antitrust laws and regulating markets when necessary.
* Competition keeps prices low and limits profit margins.
* In competitive markets, there also is a strong incentive for companies to compete by continuously improving quality and service.
* The downward pressure on prices and profit margins forces companies to keep improving their efficiency — they have no choice if they not to go out of business.
* As a result, competitive markets are more innovative and enjoy stronger productivity growth than markets in which competition is weak.
* Finally, competition reduces the scope for corruption and influence peddling, and this can enhance the democratic process.
Why are US universities so good, but US primary and secondary schools so bad? In a word: competition — and the lack thereof.
The threat posed by large companies has often been exaggerated and is even less of a problem now than it was a century ago. Consider the following facts:
* Monopolists don’t always raise prices.
* Many industries that were once classified as “natural monopolies” have since been privatized and/or deregulated.
* The market concentration in most U.S. industries has diminished over the past century.
The bottom line: What matters is the “contestability” of markets.
Here are some of the more important ingredients of Asia’s success.
* Rising labor-force participation, especially among women.
* Rising educational attainment.
* High level of savings and investment.
* Resource mobility.
* Globalization.
* Technology transfer.
* Low inflation and fiscal prudence.
* Good (or better) governance.
* Peace.
Economists typically take a more dynamic view of the world — one in which a shortage of any raw material will raise its price, boosting the incentives to develop alternatives or new technologies and to use the scarce resource more efficiently.
Longer lives, better health, and greater wealth are not synonymous with happiness, which also depends on love, friendship, respect, family, social standing, and fun.
Technology and globalization are positive-sum forces (like love), rather than zero-sum forces (like war).
Low-skilled immigrants do more good than harm.
The benefits of letting in more high-skilled immigrants are even greater.
We should increase the number of skilled immigrants, rather than limit them, as we do now.
History shows that immigration is more of a solution than a problem, and more of a blessing than a curse.
Think outside the box: offshoring helps many US companies — and, believe it or not, American workers.
Here is an even remarkable statistic: during the 1980s and 1990s, the US population (including immigrants) grew about 25 percent. But the number of employed Americans increased about 40 percent! So, there were plenty of jobs for men and women, immigrants and natives, legals and illegals.
Stop worrying about the rise of China, India, and other emerging markets.
from Financial Times:
When politicians suggest that the benefits of globalization go primarily to low-wage countries, they are playing into people’s fears. In fact, globalization benefits every country that maximizes its strategic advantages — and no country has more strategic advantages than the US. We are blessed with many of the best universities in the world; an enormous domestic consumer market; the most cutting-edge technological, medical and scientific research communities; deep capital markets that offer financing to businesses of every kind; and a level of freedom, opportunity and diversity that is unmatched.
Protectionism is little more than pandering to special interests, cloaked in nationalistic/xenophobic terms.
What should governments do? Protect people, Not jobs!
* A far better solution is to increase the skills and mobility of workers so that they can take advantage of all the new (and higher-skill) jobs that are being created.
* During 1990s, only 1.5 percent of the job losses resulting from mass layoffs had anything to do with import competition.
Good policies to help displaced workers should have two key elements:
1. They should address the insecurities of workers who are facing possible lay-offs as a result of technology and globalization, and
2. They should neither limit labor mobility and flexibility nor slow the evolution of the economy to higher-skilled and higher-value-added industries.
Adjustment assistance should have the primary goals of improving labor mobility and increasing the ease with which workers can make the transition from jobs that are being destroyed by technology and globalization to the vast number of new jobs that are being created by those same forces.
Trade, Not Aid, is the best way to help the world’s poor.
* None of the rich countries of the world has reached that position because of aid and debt forgiveness. They became rich through being successful market economies.
There is a role for effective, targeted aid programs that complement and reinforce the beneficial impact of trade:
* Health care
* Education
* Infrastructure
* Technology transfer
Free trade is much more powerful than aid as a way of boosting growth and reducing poverty in the world’s poorest countries. Moreover, the goal of rich countries’ aid programs should be to help poor countries grow rapidly, so that they don’t need aid anymore!
In the area of economics, the single biggest challenge for governments is to know how much or how little intervention is needed — in other words, to balance the social benefits of market interference against the social costs.
by Pulitzer Prize winner Daniel Yergin and his coauthor Joseph Stanislaw:
* What will be the new role of government? After all, there is no market without a government to define the rules and context. The state accepts the discipline of the market; government moves away from being producer, controller and intervener, and becomes the referee, setting the rules of the game to ensure competition and opportunity.
These good and bad experiences point to some necessary preconditions for the success of privatization.
* Privatization provides the largest efficiency gains and cost savings when it is undertaken in a locally or globally competitive market.
* To ensure a competitive environment, governments should deregulate the affected markets, lower barriers to entry, and remove or reduce import protection.
* The gains from privatization can be undermined if other externalities and spillovers, such as pollution, play a big role in the industries involved.
Finally, the gains from privatization should be widely dispersed.
While no panacea, well-executed privatizations have been very beneficial for consumers and for the overall efficiency and productivity of the economy. The trick is knowing what to privatize and how. Pure public goods, such as national defense, public safety, and clean air, can’t be privatized. Mixed public-private goods, such as airports, bridges, toll roads, and postal services, can be — if the privatization is done well.
Education and health care are, in fact, a blend of private and public goods. In very simple terms, more market forces are needed on the supply side of both, while continued government involvement is required on the demand side. In other words, both health care and education will benefit from more competition.
More money does not necessarily translate into better performance.
Competition is as beneficial in education as it is in other parts of the economy.
Vouchers help the poor as much as, if not more than, the rich.
Consumption inequality is much less than income inequality, and has actually decreased in recent years.
The best antidote for poverty is growth; the best antidote for inequality is equal access to education and jobs.
Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. — by Milton Friedman (Nobel Prize Winner economist)
Legitimate national security concerns aside, it does seem illogical for rich countries to buy Middle eastern oil and Chinese goods with few qualms, while at the same time refusing to allow those same countries to buy the assets of the rich countries in return. This is especially true since sovereign wealth funds have, to date, been a source of stability in global financial markets.
Financial stability is hard to achieve. In fact, financial crises may be the price that must be paid for financial innovation. It is far more important to insulate that economy from financial instability. On this score, there is room for modest optimism, and no need to fix what isn’t broken.
Nine economic lessons for a polarized world:
* Embrace and trust markets.
* Remove distortions to economic incentives.
* Reduce the concentration of economic and market power and the potential for theft from the public.
* Adopt growth-friendly policies.
* Accelerate economic integration with the rest of the world.
* Focus government programs on areas where they can be most beneficial, and assist free-market forces without interfering with them.
* Help the disadvantaged, without hurting the rest.
* Develop macroeconomic policies that reduce economic uncertainty and volatility.
* Encourage the development of innovative financial markets that help growth, while reducing the risk of boom-bust cycles.
Markets really do work — if we let them and (when needed) help them.
内容都是当下的热点问题，我对作者的大部分观点也都认同，特别是自由的市场环境，市场的竞争，支持全球化，但其中部分对发展中国家经济政策的评论过于单一，作者只是从经济的角度来说了这样做的后果，而没有从整个的层面来分析问题。
比方说，一个好的经济政策背后需要有很多相应配套的政策来扶植它，例如政府政策和财政的支持，相应的法律监管体系，政府在其中所扮演的角色，以及如何应当执行过程中的突发事件要有一个相应的管理体系，以保证它的顺利实施，最后就是看它的实施过程是否损害了国家利益。
再打个比方，如果中国开放了通讯市场，无意于是多本国通讯行业的冲击，由于这样的行业在我国基本属国有，这是会损害国家利益，所以我国没有开放通讯行业，或设置了很高的门槛，为的是保护本国的利益，但这么做确实是对经济没有什么帮助的，没有了竞争力，单靠国家来保护长远的看反而是不利的。