The first premise. The purpose of using this premise is to remind people not to forget that all the political economics we have studied are works under political authority. This kind of works is bound to be distorted in the description of objective reality because it caters to the needs of politics, or because of personal prejudice and limitations.
At the same time, I put forward the proposition that human needs are limited. Then it refutes the premise of "scarcity of resources" in economics! Because our understanding of human psychology and behavior has entered the era of molecular level. But economics has not put these achievements into its own theoretical framework, so this theory is far from objective, correct and advanced! If these advanced psychological theories are included, the absurdity and abnormality of economics will be highlighted.
Secondly, we all know that social division of labor is a sign of the development and progress of modern society. If there were no social division of labor, there would be nothing we have today! However, the role of social division of labor has not been embodied in Marx's labor theory of value and Keynes's western economic theory relying on marginal analysis; Based on the analysis of this problem and the role of modern management in economic development, I put forward the "management effect in the production process" to explain the rationality of "capitalist" and "exploitation"! In particular, this leads to the "natural" reason for capitalists to "pay taxes"!
Because, since everything is reasonable, then what is reasonable should have reasonable premises! With this premise, in our country, the "compulsory" nature of "paying taxes" has become an acceptable "should" nature, and it is easy to be deeply rooted in the hearts of the people! This is of great practical significance in China at present.
one
When writing this topic, I can't help but think of what a famous person said: Economics is only a tool of politics. This sentence describes the embarrassing situation of economics in real life.
For example, the history of political economics-especially the sharp opposition between bourgeois economics and Marxist proletarian political economics in modern history, can prove that "the state is a tool for one class to oppress another class" in Marx's original words-economics has to have a distinct political (and class) nature, and because of this, economists in the past have to crawl under political authority to serve politics!
Therefore, the political system and political system of the national government must be its first premise!
In any case, it is the dialectical thoughts of great men such as Marx and Mao Zedong that teach us to look at problems from the perspective of class analysis. Let us fully realize that the original intention of western Marxist political economy is to serve the poor (proletariat) (whether it can achieve its goal is beyond my discussion); The so-called mainstream economists such as Keynes in the west only serve the rich (capitalists and rulers) (the result of the service is that the economic crisis still occurs, but the poor are educated and can correctly accept the reality that 1% of the rich have 70% of the world's wealth! );
At this point, I think no economist in our country will object to this view-political system and political system are the first premise of economic theory!
On this premise, I have to question:
First, if a political economist (no matter how great) only creates a political and economic theory that serves some people (even 99%) but not all people (people), what is the probability that his theory is correct?
Second, will the sharply opposed political economy theory be distorted because of its "opposition"? And can the distorted political economy theory fully reflect the truth of the real world?
Third, is there such a condition that they can move towards some kind of integration?
two
"If there is a problem with orthodox economics, its disease will not lie in its superstructure, but its premise is not clear enough and not universal enough-the superstructure is always rarely criticized logically". John maynard keynes wrote in the preface of his masterpiece "General Theory of Employment Interest and Money", which subverted the field of economics! If I can deal with a man as he deals with you, and their economic theory has failed in the face of reality, then the "premise" of their economic theory must be "sick" and "sick"!
On the other hand, a generation of giants has the demeanor of a generation of giants! It is not difficult for us to understand Keynes's good intentions in economics: first of all, he emphasized and attached importance to the premise of economics, thinking that the premise of economics is not clear enough and not universal enough, which will make economics intolerant and incompetent! Second, he clearly realized that economics is only a vassal tool of politics Without politics, economists will be useless. Therefore, he dare not "criticize" the steering wheel of economic development-superstructure-he is one of them;
In this article, I want to learn to carry forward the Chinese sentence and do the opposite. I need to talk a little about the superstructure! Because politics is always the first premise of economic theory. No matter who admits it or not! Criticism is not criticism!
In fact, although economic theory is a vassal tool of politicians, it is an indispensable tool. In the era of small farmers in China, there was no economic theory. Because the society is poor, people should be taught to endure, so the royal rulers advocate Confucianism-let everyone "preserve justice and destroy human desires" and accept the luxurious rule of royal centralization!
Now, times have really changed, and "human desire" equals "justice"! If politicians leave the tool of western economics, which can quell the workers' movement in full swing, they may really lose their rake like pigs-they can only rely on one mouth! This will confuse politicians with the policy of developing the economy, or it will change many government decrees! In this way, politicians can't satisfy the hungry poor with "human desires"!
However, some "tools" of economic theory often wear the hands of politicians. Because politicians' promises to their subjects according to economic theory often become empty words. For example, Keynesian theory and supply-side theory, these "tools" will be abandoned by politicians. However, such a result may be good; If politicians poke holes because they use certain economic theories (such as repeated economic crises), politicians need to wipe the bottoms of economists-how can decent politicians save face?
In fact, if there are no so-called economists in the world, as long as politicians slowly put away their overbearing faces in front of reality and consider the needs of all (rich) people, the world will be peaceful! For example, Roosevelt's "New Deal"-Keynes's "General Theory" did not appear before Roosevelt's "New Deal" in history. Because politicians know best: "water can carry a boat, but it can also overturn it." However, at these times, if most poor people sink into the sediment (because they generally don't know the general idea-they won't float, and they don't have much right to speak-they can't afford to turn over any waves), the reality will be as calm as a stagnant pool; But I want to remind politicians that with so much sediment, it is as difficult for the country's "big ship" to walk as it is to turn the rudder. This is what politicians should really worry about! Now Brazil and Argentina are not such realistic examples!
On the other hand, the difficulty for economists to put forward their own economic theories depends on the political trend, and they often cut their own theories to meet their own needs, which is full of the servility of imperial scholars. Oh! How should economic theory serve politics? Under what conditions does politics allow the free exploration of economic theory?
If we say that the reason why economic theory shows excessive "incompetence" in the face of reality is inextricably linked with the "doll" of the rich-politics!
Sometimes, I have to admit that there are many things that ordinary people don't understand. Politicians may be most afraid that we know everything, because if ordinary people know everything, what should we ordinary people do?
For example, there is a self-evident premise in economics that resources are scarce!
three
The so-called resources should generally include human resources, natural resources, scientific knowledge, technical resources, material wealth resources and so on. If no one objects to my overview of resources, then where is the scarcity of resources? For example, is our country reflected in our human resources, with only1300 million people, not unlimited? Or is it that there is no potential for scientific and technological resources to be tapped? Perhaps the common sense of many people is that natural resources are scarce. I just want to ask, are the products on our land enough to feed our China1300 million people? Ten years ago, no one dared to say so, but now, if China's products can feed and clothe China/Kloc-0.3 billion people, and there is a certain surplus. I don't think anyone will refute this point-because Premier Zhu said it as early as 1998. At the same time, it also announced that China entered the threshold of "well-off society" in 2 1 century.
If someone says that there are not enough gold and silver resources to make every man wear gold and silver like a woman (not every woman), I admit that gold and silver are scarce; If there is not enough uranium in the world for everyone to carry atomic bombs for self-defense, I also admit that uranium is scarce; If it is impossible for everyone to own a Lincoln car, I admit it is impossible, but I don't think it is "impossible" because the source of materials and manufacturing technology are "scarce". I just admit that it is "impossible" for everyone to own a Lincoln car, because "people's needs are limited"! In fact, it can be said that even if not every woman wears gold and silver, even if everyone does not have a Lincoln car, these will not affect other aspects of human beings-especially the improvement of the main quality of life!
Can we conclude that all resources are scarce according to the scarcity of some resources?
People often say that we only have one earth, so its resources are limited, that is, scarce. The previous sentence is right, we only have one earth! However, this earth has made people in western countries live a relatively rich life-but there is no sign of exhausting all the resources on the earth. Can we live a rich life like them and use up "scarce" resources?
I can't help but speculate that we only have one earth. Even if there are ten or eight human beings, if they are controlled by a few people, the resources owned by ordinary people are equally scarce. However, in that case, we can easily see the evil of "master"! Now, there is only one earth. Even if there are more rich people, can you deny the "scarcity" of resources?
Further thinking, there is another truth in it. Politicians can't solve the contradiction that socialized mass production can greatly create wealth (management effect of production), but it is extremely occupied by private individuals (capitalists). Then, the poor and the rich need a theoretical support, that is, the economic theory of scarce resources. Because there must be poor people under scarce resources; Although there are many poor people, there is nothing we can do'-no wonder bourgeois defenders have preached for more than 100 years! It has become a self-evident premise of economics!
Why is this premise self-evident? Because this premise is not only the incompetence of politicians and the cover-up of social contradictions, but also can not stand the test of reality: according to the theory of scarce resources, the earth should have been desolate and desolate long ago, because it was plundered by capitalism and the population expanded rapidly on it. But the earth didn't! The earth is not only barren, but also overproduced in capitalist countries and even in developing countries like ours. Now most products are overproduced!
four
In my opinion, the fact that resources are no longer "scarce (of course not universally abundant)" is complementary to my other argument that human needs are limited. They can be said to be two keys to understand the turbulent trend of the world economy today! In other words, the proposition that resources are no longer scarce and people's needs are limited is two in one, or it is divided into two, which becomes the second premise of my economic theory!
For example, why did the Japanese economy "fall into" a decade-long stagnation? Can the American economy break through the brink of recession and develop rapidly?
As long as people's needs are limited, people in Japan, the United States and other countries have reached the limit of the general needs that human beings can bear! Unless a new country needs human beings!
In fact, the rapid economic development of the United States in the 1990 s relied on the emergence of new human demand for computers! Interested people can compare at the same time, whether the ratio of gross national product (GNP) to national population in richer western countries tends to the same value?
Especially in the United States, the war machine is also running at high speed; The 9 1 1 incident can also be regarded as a "broken window" for American economic development; Under the "perfect" political system and economic policy, should there be perfect development according to western economic theory?
It is clear to each of us that people are the main body of the economy. If you leave the understanding of human nature, what can you talk about?
Because each of us can only enjoy life if we work hard on one hand. The time, object and result of labor are limited; The results of labor need time to exchange; There are also restrictions on the time and place of exchange; The number of exchanges is also limited; This series of "limited" problems are only ignored by whether people in economics are "rational people" or "economic people", without considering the impact on economic theory!
On the other hand, if a person is a "rational person", a rational person's consumption is generally within his means; Because a rational person's consumption is to meet his own physiological and pleasure needs; Then a person with limited income just proves that his needs are limited!
Because there is no man with unlimited income in this world, his consumption can't be unlimited-this also shows that his demand will not be unlimited. No one will agree with my metaphysical reasoning. Because many people will say: even if you give me 10 million yuan, it can't meet my needs. How can I say that my needs are limited?
What I can answer here is: no one can give you 10 million yuan-you need to earn the money you want yourself-the skill of making money is what you need to learn; When you learn the skills of earning 10 million, you still have time to earn 10 million; I think, if you earn10 million, your life (except the "rich" generation in China) will soon be over, and you certainly don't need to spend10 million at one time.
Also, human life is limited, and there is still one-third time to rest in the limited life; At other times, a person who plays too much is very tired and eats too much is very supportive; What's more, you need to make money? ..... I don't talk much, and if I talk too much, you will be annoyed; I just want to tell you, don't confuse your "infinite desire" with your "limited need"! Because even Bill Gates, his daily needs and uses are sometimes not what you want in your desires-better and more exciting; I believe Bill Gates can do whatever he wants, but he doesn't, because his needs are limited-I think he meets the needs of ordinary people.
On the other hand, in modern society, although the time, objects and results of a person's labor are limited, with the improvement of social productivity and productivity, the fruits of his labor have been greatly surplus to the amount he can consume. In Keynes's tone, under the condition of continuous technological progress, personal demand and personal creation are increasing, but personal demand is not even worse than personal creation! -So, is there such an equilibrium: individual demand is equal to or less than the value created by individuals; So that everyone's life "needs are limited", even if they are addicted to consumption?
I don't want to build a mathematical model here to prove it! I just want to say that in our country, the needs of a farmer are very simple; The needs of a worker are also simple and clear; Yes, just for survival, physiology and safety! Why can't you admit that a person's needs are limited? Perhaps under the condition that "one's own needs are limited", the lie of "scarce resources" will be punctured! At this time, ordinary people will ask: since "resources are not scarce", where are the resources that belong to "me"? Why is my life still below the poverty line? Who stole my cheese?
five
Although I deny the premise of "resource scarcity" economics, I don't think resources are extremely rich-they can be destroyed, wasted and corrupted at will. I just think that resources are no longer scarce under the condition that science and technology become the primary productive force! So I also think that it is very important to make rational use and optimize the allocation of resources. So I put forward the third premise of economics: the management effect of production! Only in this way can social wealth increase day by day!
By management effect, I mean: in production, through proper management (planning, guidance, leadership, innovation, etc. ), a certain number of people, money and things can be rationally allocated, which can create and realize greater value than the original wasted resources such as people, money and things. That is:
Revenue-expense > 0
Here, I admit the role of capitalists and managers in the production process! Because the fact is there-if there is no Bill Gates, there is obviously no Microsoft! And all other assumptions should be empty talk. Also in our country, there is no Zhang Ruimin, that is, there is no Haier! This is the management effect! This is the role of "capitalists"! Reasonable and appropriate management of the production process can create or produce several times, dozens or even hundreds of times of material wealth on the basis of the original materials-this is what I call the management effect of production!
In fact, the management effect of production I am talking about is actually another expression that Adam Smith said that social division of labor and cooperation can improve production efficiency in modern socialized mass production!
Marx has already discussed that modern social production is socialized mass production. That is, modern production is no longer the individual handicraft production under perfect competition as mentioned in Adam Smith's era. Socialized mass production itself means some management work such as planning, organizing and leading production. The so-called enterprise management is not to rationally allocate the resources owned by the enterprise and properly divide the human resources within the enterprise. On the other hand, through the proper management of socialized large-scale production process, it can produce greater production benefits than individual handicraft production (than individual agricultural production)! It is also the management realm pursued by modern management science!
In this sense, capitalists have not "exploited" the "surplus value" created by workers' labor! If we combine certain property and manpower to form certain productivity, we will certainly create more wealth than scattered property and personal manpower! As Adam Smith said, no matter how skilled a nail maker is, he can't make many nails in one day. By combining several skilled nail makers, he can produce several times more nails than a few people alone. So which worker created the "surplus value" of these overproduced nails?
As Mr. Yang Xiaokai said, the equilibrium analysis method used by economists in the past ignored the classic problem that Adam Smith's social division of labor can improve production efficiency! In fact, I think that the equilibrium analysis of western mainstream economics and Adam Smith's assertion that social division of labor can improve social productivity are essentially contradictory. Because western bourgeois economists can't "explain" Ricardo and Marx's labor theory of value, the so-called capitalists "exploit" the surplus value created by workers, so they have to use marginal analysis theory to confront it.
In fact, capitalists only occupy the "surplus value"-profit, which is greater than the social cost (workers' wages and raw material value) generated by enterprises (factories) through social division of labor within enterprises, while reducing some social transaction costs (such as the exchange of' products' between upper and lower processes). Of course, capitalists are also suspected of possessing the surplus value created by laborers for free-but not all laborers have created it! So, what is the crime of capitalist "exploitation"?
However, because enterprises are socialized large-scale production, part of wealth is jointly created by "collectives". Enterprises have sufficient "natural" reasons to pay certain taxes to the national government representing the "collective", rather than the compulsory deprivation of capitalists (or enterprises) by the state! On the contrary, enterprises and individuals who do not pay taxes are free possessors of wealth created by "collectives". At this time, the capitalists will be "exploited"! It's a natural crime!
In the past, we thought that labor theory of value and marginal analysis theory were just "off-track rockets" that were hated for a long time! Although it is mixed with endless good wishes, it is eagerly watched by people falling into the fallacy space! If we seriously reflect on the past theories of political economy, they are all deformed products formed under the influence of political ideology!
Fortunately, Deng Xiaoping left us with the idea of the only criterion for testing truth! In fact, for a family, if certain resource management is adopted, on the original basis, it will definitely increase the wealth of this family; For a factory, through certain management, we can make a factory create (or save) more wealth; Then, through certain management, for a country, the common prosperity of the country and the family can also be realized! In other words, the management effect of the production process is real. On this basis, we can put the sharply opposed socialist and capitalist economic theories
But why can't the state planned economy, the most systematic management, make the country rich? In fact, this is the problem of "management cost". When poor management information, coupled with "beware" of human greed, forces the government management institutions to be bloated, and the value created by the management effect of social mass production is internalized into management costs, who can appreciate the benefits of planned economy? This is just one of the reasons why the planned economy failed. Another reason for the failure of planned economy is that planned economy can never plan "humanity" perfectly! For example, in our country, using "morality" to restrain human nature is like tying the horns of a cow with a rope, which seems to grasp the key to the problem, but it has nothing to do with human suffering! When a newspaper publicized China's achievements in fighting corruption and promoting honesty, it said that China had arrested more than 65,438+5,000 corrupt elements. I think this is not the government's anti-corruption achievements, but the government's failure-because what makes so many outstanding national cadres in a corrupt and degenerate situation? Isn't this a wasteful and resounding social "management cost"?
Once again, I firmly deny the premise of western economics that wages are equal to the marginal product of labor. Because it also does not recognize the management effect of production. Under this premise, economic theory can't explain the cause of the economic crisis, so how to avoid it?
Some principles of economics should be simple: buy and sell; The seller makes money and the buyer pays the bill; Buyers may sell it again and make more money; Sellers such as production owners, buyers such as consumers; So I can get the same conclusion as above:
(Seller) Revenue > Expense (Seller)
At the same time, as a consumer, or because of consumption tendency, or personal life cycle problems:
(Buyer's) expenses
It is not difficult to see that aggregate demand function and aggregate supply function are not equal! Business is never equal-effective demand is definitely insufficient. To solve the problem of insufficient effective demand, in fact, it should be how the government returns the money (or even part of it) earned by the earners to the buyers through taxation and other means, or how to improve the personal consumption tendency, or how to turn over the money saved by people because of their life cycle-what does this have to do with the government's fiscal policy? However, some people just link them together. Not only that, but some people also associate it with the rigidity of workers' wages. It seems that the effective demand is insufficient, and the market cannot be cleared, just the rigidity of workers' wages!
Sometimes, just because it is a simple truth, people dare not easily believe that it is correct. Others just like to complicate things-I don't know who tied the knot Caesar met. But I know who has an indissoluble bond in economics-Old Master Q in mathematics. Because the more economists can't justify themselves economically, the more they have to live by unfathomable mathematics.
six
Perhaps, Marx's labor theory of value is because it overemphasizes the value of (physical) labor, which not only denies that "capital" is the initial condition of commodity production in the process of economic development, but also plays a role in allocating and optimizing resource allocation; It also denies the inevitability that proper management (leadership) of resources by indispensable capitalists can create more value in the process of creating value-I mean "management effect". This is really the biggest shortcoming of Marx's political economy! The mode of production he studied lacks a solid cornerstone of economics in the modern sense-the lack of research on the initial conditions of socialized large-scale production process and the management effect of production process!
In the mainstream economics of western capitalism, there is also a lack of understanding and research on "the management effect of production process" Although modern management has grown into a "person", it does not need to admire the "gasp" of economics and become an independent discipline. Instead, it proves that management is becoming more and more important in today's society! It is modern management that has become a winning weapon for modern manufacturers to pursue the maximization of economic benefits in reality, while the western economic theory behind closed doors ignores the study of its "management effect" in the production process of enterprises, which makes many economists unable to find the north in economic theory!
For example, economic theory, western macroeconomics and microeconomics all use the so-called equilibrium theory to analyze everything! First, let's look at two basic premises of their theory:
(1) Wage equals the marginal product of labor.
(2) When employment remains unchanged, the utility of wages is equal to the marginal negative utility of employment.
These two premises are really the standards of Keynes and other western economic theories. Without them, all equilibrium theories will not be established!
However, what is the reality? Wages (earned by producers) will never be equal to the marginal products of their labor, whether in the past or today! This is determined by the nature of capitalists (enterprises) pursuing profit maximization! In the vernacular, even any factory (capitalist) will not use all the profits earned by the factory to pay the workers, but "exploit" the workers, thus accumulating capital and making new investments.
It is precisely because western economists can't explain Marx's assertion that capitalists occupy and exploit the surplus value created by laborers for free, but for the purpose of defending the capitalist mode of production (which can be used to "overthrow Ricardo-Marx's theory"-Keynesian language) that such an obvious fallacy is said to be truth-because the marginal product of labor is "paid"-so the laborers get all their own labor results-so the capitalists don't extract it. We don't look at whether equilibrium analysis is a kind of apologist tone to defend the capitalist system from the background of equilibrium marginal analysis theory.
Especially in modern society, after all, the capitalist system won in the first socialist country! Therefore, everything in capitalism is more precious. Otherwise, Keynes's foot-binding cloth, which was abandoned by the governments of western capitalist countries, has been used in China and is very popular among economists in China. Because many people do not pay attention to the correctness of these two premises in western economics.
However, Keynes himself admitted: "If the market and competition are not complete, wages are not equal to the marginal product of labor. However, in this case, there are still principles to follow: under the condition of constant employment,
Attachment: