Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Content

一,「你對事物,有唔同嘅睇法。」首先,多謝鼓勵;既然有咁嘅睇法,我亦靜悄悄咁將呢個園地僭建成「Rethink by 利世民」。忽然間,一切好似順眼好多。亦有朋友叫我講多啲關於經濟嘅題目,我亦恭敬不如從命,寫吓經濟學。

二,從前讀 AL Econ,第一年係 micro,第二年就 macro。Microecon 畀我嘅感覺,係茅塞頓開,好似掌握咗一把無堅不摧嘅武器,忽然間世事都變得可以合理解釋。Macroecon 就剛好相反;好多疑問,好多嘢,只係為考試而死記。入大學之後,除咗因為 major econ 必修嘅 intermediate macroeconomics (402) 之外,就一科 macro 都無讀過。係,我認我對 macroecon 有恐懼。呢科攞咗個 B,好氣餒,甚至係我放棄走學術路線嘅原因之一。另一個原因,就係我從來都無讀過 econometrics 。當時呢科竟然唔係 major 嘅必修,諗返轉頭都有啲出奇。

三,學院嘅環境,數理計量嘅路線確係比較容易行,我認為最主要原因係第二次世界大戰後,運算嘅成本大降;大戰期間已經開始嘅電子工程,戰後就軍轉民用。研究人員有理無理,都將大堆數據攞去計一餐。

四,數理計量嘅應用,公共衛生研究就最明顯。最經典又影響最大嘅一個研究,就係 1948 年開始嘅 Framingham Study。由 Framingham Study 推出出 risk factor 呢個概念,又衍生出 preventive medicine 。今時今日去睇醫生,唔理你係乜嘢病痛,第一個問題永遠都係:「你有冇食煙?」

五,不過,數據計量嘅應用,亦有本末倒置嘅情況。有人計完數見到參數之間有少少關連,然後穿鑿附會搵個解釋;更嚴重嘅扭曲,就係有人見數據唔合符預測,就索性將數據隱瞞。當年對飽和脂肪同冠心病嘅研究,得到嘅數據其實係 inconclusive。但稍為整理之後,去除某啲 outliers 之後,viola !飽和脂肪、膽固醇同冠心病就忽然間,好似有直接關係。雖然後來,飽和脂肪得到平反,但好多人仍然好條件反射咁認為:「食肥肉,因住心臟病呀!」

六,數理計量另一個大行其道嘅原因,係意識形態。話說,歐洲自十七世紀,漸漸取代信仰成為主流意識形態嘅,一曰科技理性,二曰自由平權。

 【現代社會之前世今生】偽科學與假平等 

七,廿世紀主流嘅經濟學,亦我哋成日講新古典經濟學,其實最基礎嘅假設係:(1)人係理性嘅;即係行為係有意識,有目的,而且行為同目的兩者係關連嘅(2)條件限制之下,人作出嘅選擇,係基於對自己最大嘅價值(3)價值係內在而主觀,但價格就係係客觀嘅社會標準。甚至乎,以上嘅假設係咪真都唔緊要,最重要係建基於呢啲假設嘅理論,可以解釋得到世間現象。新古典嘅另一個特色,就係圖象化。呢點,真係要多得 Alfred Marshall 嘅 Principle of Economics。大家都認識嘅個條 demand curve,就係因為呢本書而聞名於世。新古典經濟學刻意擺脫政治哲學,要進入科學嘅領域;好多經濟學概念都非常近似物理學。

八,經濟學家入世,鍾意參與改造社會;當披上咗科學嘅外衣之後,經濟學亦順理成章亦成為廿世紀主流中嘅主流。經濟學,雖然好希望甩咗政治同哲學嘅包袱,但實情係廿世紀嘅經濟學,偏偏係更政治,更加意識形態主導。凱恩斯,就算你唔知佢實際有乜嘢主張,都應該聽過吓佢嘅大名;佢嘅名句更加係好似為自己度身訂造一樣:

Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.

九,由企業行政管理到政府同公共行政,都有經濟學家嘅手影。1937年 Simon Kuznets 為羅斯福政府撰寫報告 National Income, 1929 - 1935;何謂經濟增長,何謂國民生產總值,就係由呢份報告一槌定音。

【延伸閱讀】National Income, 1929-1932 by Simon Kuznets  

十,戰後嘅 Bretton Woods,重點一係美金本位嘅貨幣秩序,二係自由貿易,但最重要係三,發展是硬道理。各國都認同經濟增長係政府嘅KPI,計算GDP 亦變成一種執迷。1960年代,經濟學家 Arthur Okun 甚至提出 Okun’s Law,即係 GDP 上升 3%,失業率就跌 1%。

十一,可以大膽講,任何社會現象,必然係多因,多果(multiple causes, multiple effects);而且參數之間,往往互為因果,所以數學上嘅關係,唔會係線性。所以,社會現象亦唔會好似 Okun’s Law 係咁簡單,咁 linear,one-to-one。實情係,社會現象必然係複雜;Complexity,意思就好簡單嘅規律,但可以有難以預測嘅軌跡;參數嘅些微差別,可以令結果有好大分別。甚至參數都只係得幾個,好似 double pendulum ,結果可以好複雜。

十二,撇除科學方法,「發展是硬道理」都有意識形態嘅挑戰,最常聽到嘅一句就係:「GDP增長,唔等於人人有份,要睇埋 Gini coefficient 之類嘅指標。」但既然係大家都耳熟能詳嘅論點,恕我唔再重複。不過我想指出,讓一部份人先富起來,就算最終唔係所有人都富起來,咁都唔代表富起來嘅一定係不仁不義。貧窮,係咪因為有啲人相對富裕呢?平等地共貧,又係咪真係更理想呢?

十三,雖然我亦知,一定有人會話:「產生出來嘅財富,其實只要平均咁分配,世界根本唔會有貧窮問題。」但我更加有興趣嘅題目係:「何謂財富?」

十四,「財富咪係錢囉,股票囉;有價嘅物品囉,有形無形都唔緊要。」呢個用例子組成嘅答案,你滿唔滿意呢?財富嘅定義,最重要嘅概念係價值。但價值又係乜?正如之前所謂,價值係主觀嘅;主觀,意思係因人而異。記唔記得 Water Diamond Paradox?價值就係咁主觀。經濟學,古典又好,新古典又好,好強調 self-interest;好多人將呢個命題,誤解成不理別人死活。對唔住,真係唔係咁解。Self interest 嘅意思係:「價值係我哋每個人對一件事、一件物品,願意付出嘅代價。」甚至乎,好多時哋唔係到最後一刻,我哋都唔知自己為咗一件事、一件物品,願意付出幾多,付出啲乜嘢。

十五,價值因人而異,所以同一個市場價格之下,有人買,有人賣。價格,只係一個 reference。甚至乎可以話,市場價格所代表嘅唔算係一個好強嘅共識,而且經常轉變。幾十億個主願嘅意識,透過成千上萬個唔同嘅價格,形成一個市場體系,呢個 vision,可能係經濟學最令人著迷嘅課題。

十六,將所有品物平均分配,each in according to his needs,結果係點?如果純粹係食品、空氣同水,咪就係最低限度嘅生存囉。但人類係咪生存以外,就冇其他嘅目的?均分其他嘅物品,基本上越係徹底,錯配就越嚴重:「你畀架車我,好呀,但我要 Bugatti 喎。我手車得唔得?唔得㗎,但我想要喎⋯⋯」結果係,好多人會得到自己唔需要嘅品物,又或者得物無所用。之後,係咪容許佢哋交易?咁所謂嘅均分,即係一次大抽獎啦。

十七,好多人認為,隨機,就係公平。所以,出現供不應求嘅時候,最少有四個處理方法,一,價高者得;二,先到先得。三,抽獎。四,其他形式嘅競賽,爭寵。經濟學就話,價高者得嘅好處,唔單止係價格,亦都係反映價值。好明顯,能夠付出最高價格,又唔一定等於反映最高價值。

十八,其實市場都已經好盡力咁,去容許更多人先駛未來錢。信貸嘅出現,令到我哋可以做三十年按揭;呢個現象,都係廿世紀先至出現。從前,只有教廷同貴族先至條件講「還得到先好借」,因為佢哋有資產可以抵押變賣,再唔係就出兵去打過(出兵,又係要借錢)。一般人,就算借到錢,最終都係賣田賣地賣老婆仔女賣身為奴。所以,古代放數嘅人,往往成為社會公敵。

十九,錢,其實只係交易嘅媒體,係咪?剛才話,分配物品最終會造成浪費,咁,分配嘅如果係錢,結果又會係點?咁,不如再簡單啲,就咁印錢,人人有份喇。其實,過去都唔知發生過幾多次量化寬鬆,結果係貧者越貧,點解?因為錢唔等於財富呀!啱啱先講,錢,只係交易嘅媒體,唔記得咗喇乜嘢?畀錢你,但樣樣嘢都貴晒,你嘅生活係好咗,定差咗?順帶一提,自從疫情又發作,美國政府又派錢,唔止 Bitcoin 嘅兌換率升穿US$33000;我見車用汽油都即升。

二十,GDP 雖然都有所謂嘅 Real GDP,即係扣除通脹。但係,資產價格同消費物價,雖然理論上長遠係會 converge。但實際上因為競爭同科技進步,消費物價好多時都升得慢啲,甚至乎滯脹嘅時候,都會有將貨就價嘅情況。咁,又點去度量通脹呢?政府越多干預,經濟又越差,社會就越多黑市同各種非市場嘅經濟活動,例如偷呃拐騙之類,咁又點計呢?據說,意大利嘅黑市,差唔多係 GDP 嘅 12% 。

廿一,GDP 究竟反映緊啲乜嘢?所謂通脹數字又究竟反映緊啲乜嘢?甚至 Bitcoin 價格反映乜嘢?金價又反映乜嘢等等?以上各種疑問,其實都指向一個結論:「我哋知道市場經濟係咩,但唔代表我哋可以好精準咁掌握佢嘅狀態。」呢個亦都係任何經濟預測,都係唔科學;既然無得預測,又點樣可以進行計劃經濟呢?

廿二,【題外話】中國大陸自1949年都用蘇維埃嘅國民經濟統計方法,一直要去到1993年,先正式採納國際通用嘅 GDP 定義,亦係呢期開始,中國大陸就好積極咁宏觀經濟調控。1999年,美國商務部宣佈,GDP 係廿世紀最偉大發明。

廿三,將 GDP 呢個概念發揚光大嘅 Kuznets,1971年獲得諾貝爾經濟學獎。呢個獎係由 1969年開始,首屆得獎者 Ragnar Frisch 同 Jan Tinbergen (我唔識,亦唔扮識),根據資料係 econometricians 。第二屆得獎者 Paul Samuelson,好多代 econ major 都係讀佢寫嘅教科書,但更重要係,佢好積極參與公共政策。所以,呢個獎唔止係講學術貢獻,亦都睇對社會有幾大影響。

廿四,1973年,Bretton Woods 崩潰,美元同黃金脫勾,之後就係石油危機;1974年,海耶克獲頒諾貝爾經濟學獎,佢老人家嘅得獎發言,就好坦白咁講:

We have indeed at the moment little cause for pride: as a profession we have made a mess of things… It seems to me that this failure of the economists to guide policy more successfully is closely connected with their propensity to imitate as closely as possible the procedures of the brilliantly successful physical sciences – an attempt which in our field may lead to outright error. It is an approach which has come to be described as the “scientistic” attitude – an attitude which, as I defined it some thirty years ago, “is decidedly unscientific in the true sense of the word, since it involves a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed.”

… Why should we, however, in economics, have to plead ignorance of the sort of facts on which, in the case of a physical theory, a scientist would certainly be expected to give precise information? It is probably not surprising that those impressed by the example of the physical sciences should find this position very unsatisfactory and should insist on the standards of proof which they find there. The reason for this state of affairs is the fact, to which I have already briefly referred, that the social sciences, like much of biology but unlike most fields of the physical sciences, have to deal with structures of essential complexity, i.e. with structures whose characteristic properties can be exhibited only by models made up of relatively large numbers of variables. Competition, for instance, is a process which will produce certain results only if it proceeds among a fairly large number of acting persons.

【延仲閱讀】:The Pretence of Knowledge by FA von Hayek  

Files

Comments

Vincent Lau

What's your view on behavioral science?

利世民

In one word, alchemy. In two words, nice try. Alchemy, in a way, is proto-science; it does experiments that are repeatable and looks for exceptional cases, but it never finds what the practitioners promises. Nevertheless, it is a nice try. The mind is a complex phenomenon. The problem of the "observer effect" is even more profound when it comes to anything that has to do with the mind. I admire what they try to achieve in behavioral studies - at least they confirm that mind is not a perfectly predictable clockwork.

Frankie

Hayek 的講法很好,認同了經濟學的限制。神奇的是,即使經濟學不是表面看起來那般科學,經濟學家仍然是可以擁有很多權力的。