经济解释

by 张五常

张五常经典学术著作经济解释系列从经济学理论的角度清晰地阐释了需求的本质、缺乏与竞争的关系、价与量的关系等需求定律的重要观点和概念准则。经济解释系列还用通俗的语言、生动的生活案例阐释了重要的经济理论和概念，如收入、投资、财富、利润、租值、交易费用、利息理论、成本、盈利等。张五常学术逻辑严密，浅入深地以一个经济学人客观的思维和科学的方法论述了市场和非市场环境下的供需关系、价格控制理论，并结合具体的案例进行分析，对解释现实世界具有深刻的启发意义。张五常告诉同学们读经济解释系列时要读得开心，最好能把卷一《科学说需求》与卷二《收入与成本》多读一遍。这对两卷有足够的掌握。卷三《受价与觅价》是好玩的。

那是关于真实世界的市场运作，是张五常老人家跑遍街头巷尾的收获。读卷三同学们会体会到经济学真的可以解释，真的可以推断，真的是一门实证科学。社会成本——私人成本与社会成本分离的话题——还没有深入地讨论过，这是经济解释卷四的时候讨论的话题了。本次张五常教授首次推出四卷合订本，并对卷一进行了大修，卷二、卷三、卷四均有小修，并增加了合订本序言。对《经济解释》系列的学习者、爱好者以及收藏者来说，都是不可多得的宝贵版本。

张五常，香港经济学家，新制度经济学代表人物之一。他于1967年获博士学位后，先后任教于芝加哥大学、西雅图华盛顿大学。他进一步发展产权理论及交易费用概念，主张只要产权得到完善界定，即可令资源最有效运用。他以《佃农理论》和《蜜蜂的神话》两篇文章享誉学界。自20世纪80年代回到香港大学经济系任教，开始在香港报界以产权理论分析时局，在内地和香港两地引发强烈的学术反响。曾出版作品：《佃农理论》、《五常学经济》、《经济解释》、《中国的前景》、《中国的经济制度》、《卖桔者言》、《中国的前途》等。

Paperback

Published February 1, 2015

Reviews

[Barack Liu · Rating 5 out of 5]

245-Economic Explanation-Steven Cheung-Economy-2000
Barack
2019/11/23
2020/06/28


- Economics is the scientific explanation of human behavior.

"Economic Interpretation" was first created in 2000. It expounds some of the core economic principles in the field of economics, and discards most of the complicated economic theoretical models. Since the author believes that economics is the science of explaining phenomena, this book lists a large number of examples without showing any mathematical formulas or symbols.

Zhang Wuchang was born in Hong Kong in 1935. Studied in the Department of Economics at the University of California, Los Angeles. He is one of the representatives of new institutional economics and has made important contributions to the creation of modern new institutional economics and modern property rights economics. Representative works: "Tenancy Farmer Theory", "Economic Interpretation", "China's Economic System", etc.

Part of the catalog
1. Scientific demand
1. 1. The scientific method
1. 2. Start with selfishness
1. 3. Lack of competition
2. Act of supply
2. 1. Interest theory
2. 2. Cost , rental value and profit
2. 3. Cost of production
3. Choice of system
3. 1. Gauss's law
3. 2. Property structure and contract structure
3. 3. Rent value dissipation and price control
4. Five permanent economics

In the process of exploring the world, human beings have created various theories to explain the phenomena in life in order to explain the actual situation that has already been encountered and predict the events that have not yet occurred. The doctrines dedicated to explaining problems in different fields have formed different disciplines. Which can be roughly divided into three categories.

One type of discussion of "why" is basic science , which is devoted to talking about methods of explaining the problem . One type of discussion "what to do" is engineering , which is dedicated to solving practical problems . A class discussion of "good", is ethics , which we then discuss, on the moral life of the definition .

Zhang Wuchang believes that the value of economics should lie in explaining the "why". It's just that the research object has changed from nature to human behavior. I agree with this point. There is scientific research on animal behavior, so is there any essential difference between this and human behavior ?

Around the time of junior high school, I was often confused by the question, "Did mathematics be discovered or invented?" According to my current point of view, the various symbols and formulas used in mathematics were invented by humans; But the laws studied by mathematics exist objectively and are discovered by humans.

There are rules behind almost any phenomenon. In order to meet the needs of production and life, we can predict the phenomenon that has not yet appeared. From ancient divination witchcraft (shì) to modern disciplines, in essence, they are all tools developed by mankind to "interpret" and "predict".

If it is to become a science, it must have three foundations. If we compare one by one, we can discover whether a doctrine can be called a science.

1. Subjective phenomena must be objectively recognized and shared. For example, I said that this horse is white, but you said that it is black; then the discussion below is of little value. Assuming that we are unable to reach agreement on objective phenomena, let alone continue to use logical means to deductive reasoning.

2. All the phenomena recognized by the public are traceable and regular. For example, I said that natural snow is white, is cold; even though you might On this 've never seen snow before, but you can go to a place snow to validate my point of view. Assuming that a phenomenon is nowhere to be found and undetectable, just like the "invisible fire-breathing dragon" assumed by Carl Sagan, it will be difficult for us to conduct further discussions based on it.

3. Believe that anything happens without a reason. For example: when an apple is ripe, it falls to the ground instead of flying into the air; only those who think that there is a reason behind it will think about what the reason is, and even find it out; and for those who think it should be so, there is no reason, At most I walked over and picked up the apple and ate it.

And economics wants to study this kind of problem. First of all, a person’s choice of behavior is objective, and the observer can reach a consensus on whether he chose A or B; second, given the constraints, we have reason to believe that a person’s choice is regular, such as A is 100 yuan, and B is 10 yuan. Under the same circumstances, it should be the same whether a person chooses A or B. Finally, we believe that there is a certain rule behind a person's decision. It is based on this belief that economics has created various theories to fit this rule.

"For a long time, the market supply-demand relationship and the market price at the so-called equilibrium point mentioned in the books have been based on the "scissors" theory of the nineteenth century economist Alfred Marshall. When I was a student, I always didn't understand what the pressure of the "scissors" was and what they were "cutting". Later, I became a teacher and taught students that I still didn't understand it. My colleague at BGI knew that I had always admired Marshall, but the manuscript denied Mars’ "scissors" and asked me if I had changed my view of Marshall. I said that I admire Ma's five bodies, he is my basic mentor, but Ma's theory is sometimes muddle-headed, and he doesn't know enough about the world. Many things can be improved. I think Marshall is great because his economic analysis has a complete structure and content. A top-level master, integrated the thoughts of his predecessors, and created a framework with his unparalleled talents, so that my generation has an outline of thinking. I am going to make changes on the subsection of this structure, it should be. "

Every generation has its own living environment. Their thoughts must be influenced by the level of research they were exposed to at the time and the actual production and living environment. A theory over a century, or even just a few decades , more than a decade , it is possible because of the many changes in the actual environment and need to be modified. Or are descendants because richer as a reference material, and be able to understand was more fully than their predecessors, thus able to explore the truth has taken a further step along the way. Human exploration of the natural world and human society are like this, step by step, a step even one step, generation take a generation before the trip. Without the previous link, the next link would hardly happen.

" The name "economic explanation" was invented from Kana's teachings. His class made a clear explanation of the word "explanation", repeatedly mentioned "scientific explanation" (scientific explanation), and introduced the unattainable Theory of Knowledge. With expert guidance, learning is so charming. As the name suggests, "economic explanation" refers to the use of scientific methods to explain phenomena or human behavior from an economic perspective. In the context of science, there is only one question that comes and goes: why? Yes, "what to do?" is an engineering issue, and "good?" is an ethical issue. Science does not ask "what to do" or "good or bad". "

“ Even though economy is an empirical science, it is based on explaining phenomena, but there are not many economists who write in a concentrated way. In fact, I learned about economics from friends and teachers. My contribution is to remove the waste, and then recombine the rest. Most of the examples cited are my own observations. I like to use simple theories to explain world events. I think the world is extremely complicated. You can succeed without simple theories. The chance of explaining world events is zero. Having said that, "Economic Explanation" is not easy to read. This is because simple theories often have to be used quite deeply if you want to really explain world events. For example, all students who take economics in middle school The well-known law of demand—the price drops and the quantity of demand increases—the entire "Economic Explanation" almost comes and goes like that, although I don't use the term "law of demand" frequently. It's very simple, but you need to be very thorough before you can really use it. Therefore, readers should be a little psychologically prepared: I may write thousands of words for concepts that are not superficial. "

“ I’m sitting at the desk, picking up a pen, thinking about the amazing achievements of mankind in science. Science is the knowledge of systematically explaining phenomena, which is very interesting. People are the spirit of all things, and it’s not bad: our brains are developed, and Compared with other creatures, distance cannot be calculated. The expression of feelings is art; the analysis of reason is scientific. But human feelings are often confused with reason. In this way, scientific inferences may be swayed by feelings. But it can also be wonderful, making people feel wonderful. Yes, science can have the beauty of art. It is human nature to seek beauty, so science also has "aestheticism." But the essence of science is not art. The former is based on explaining phenomena. On the other hand, human beings are human beings, and they shouldn’t be cold and emotional. Therefore, to say that a certain scientific theory is a work of art is a compliment. The problem is that what is only beautiful but cannot explain the phenomenon is the shortcomings in the beauty, which loses the function of science. Since scientists are humans, we cannot expect them to be exceptions to humans and have no emotions, but emotions cannot be abused in science. The principle is simple: scientific works can combine objective analysis and subjective feelings, but the two must be clearly distinguished. As long as this can be done, scientific text can be embellished with emotional words to reduce boredom and increase its readability. "

" Whether it is natural or man-made phenomena, there are laws to be found. In fact, we can't find any phenomena. There are no laws at all. Although some phenomena, the laws need to be studied in depth. Both are true . We know what is happening, but we don’t necessarily know why . Now that we know what is happening, we want to know why. This is human curiosity. We have to explain, and science will start from this. ”

Some people study the laws of things , hoping to use them to bring objective benefits to themselves. Some people study things the law , mainly from the heart of the truth interested in and explore. As students, it is easy for us to understand this. When we figure out a problem that has plagued us in the past, the sudden joy of joy can hardly be expressed in words. These pioneers of truth, as Newton as described in general , they found that happy spirit of truth when acquired, just as the feelings of a child at the beach picked up a beautiful shell , like .

" The formation of science is based on three important beliefs, which anyone interested in science must abide by. First, the existence of any phenomenon or behavior depends on subjective judgments, and everyone must not be subjectively Disagreement. I said that the sun is rising is my personal subjective judgment. If you disagree and think that the sun is falling, then it is impossible for me and you to explain the phenomenon of the sun scientifically. What I see is flowers, what you see It is also a flower; I said it rains, and you agree that rain is the first condition for the generalization of science. Of course, there are some people in the world who disagree with anything. These people must be insulated from science. "

A scientist is not a skeptic. Scientists are very particular about evidence. The inferences he made may lack factual basis, but his conclusions must have solid factual basis as the premise. This is the so-called bold assumption, carefully verify it.

" The second belief of science is mentioned in the previous article: all phenomena recognized by the public are traceable and regular. The law of certain phenomena requires great effort to discover or be discovered. Confirmation. Experience tells us that the laws of phenomena have always adhered to the rules, so although the laws of a new phenomenon are not easy to find, people engaged in scientific research will surely believe in the existence of this law and pursue it with perseverance. "

In fact, for students studying computer, there should be a profound experience. That is, in the process of debugging, the most critical point is to reproduce the bug. In other words , it is necessary to know under what conditions the program error will reappear. If we know exactly know the bug appears the precise conditions, it is relatively easy to solve.

" This brings us to the third necessary belief. People engaged in scientific research must firmly believe that anything happens without a reason. Speculation (not prediction) and explanation are the same thing. If we speculate In some cases, due to some reason, a certain phenomenon will occur, so the occurrence of this phenomenon can be explained. For example, the flying speed of flies is not as fast as airplanes, but because of Newton’s universal gravitation, flies in the cabin It can fly forward. Explaining that flies can fly forward in the cabin, and inferring that flies are not as fast as airplanes when flying outside the cabin, use the same theory. If the speed of the fly and the airplane is irregular, or the speed of both There is no way to compare in different situations, so we have no way to explain the flight phenomenon inside or outside the plane. Where does science start? "

" Explanation of phenomena requires non-factual abstract theories. Why does the interpretation of facts involve abstract thinking? The answer is: the law of facts cannot be self-explanatory and self-explanatory. It is raining and there must be clouds in the sky-this is The law of the phenomenon-but the presence of rain cannot explain the existence of clouds. Wheat grows in the soil-this is the law-but the soil cannot explain the wheat. Private property rights bring economic prosperity-this is also the law-but prosperity cannot explain Why is there private property? To put it backwards, there is no explanatory power. The law of fact can only make us know, but it cannot make us know why. If the occurrence of a phenomenon will be accompanied by the occurrence of another phenomenon, and we follow Say that A explains B, or B explains A, we will have two difficulties. First, there are so many phenomena in the world.

[CP Hu · Rating 4 out of 5]

张写这本书的心态是接受自己大师假定的，许多讨论架子多了点，准确与效力不足