送交者: mangolasi 于 2006-1-10, 15:46:34:
回答: My 2 cents 由 吴礼 于 2006-1-10, 13:07:29:
It's not 2 cents. It's million-dollared treat! (Thank you for providing me a tinfoil helmet to put on while reading the book.)
I share lots of your opinions. But before I go on, it might be worthy to state our difference which might be the source of our (likely very rare) divergence. I sense that you are a person with veyr strong sense of justice, the sense of right and wrong. While what I hope is just less suffering because I am too pessimistic on the nature of human being.
1. a. I did not read the review in that degree of detail. But it would be difinitely wrong if they use the year rather than the year piror to the transition (because the transition might not neccessarily take place at the end of the year). However, using the year piror to the transition is only a second best one (better than the exact year), but it's only better for turmoil than for peaceful transition because turmoil needs a bigger grassroot anger which needs more time to accumulate (because greater transition cost). Rather, in a peaceful transition, people might be more short-memory (smaller transition cost). As we don't specify when the event took place (beginning or the end of the year), the year piror would be a better approximation for the turmoil taking place at the year end than the peaceful transition at the same time. Without monthly data, some dummy var would be helpful.
1.b. I don't know too much about the political arena during the great depression. But difinitely socialism/communism was active that time, as "Road to the Wigan Pier" suggests.
2. I agree with you on all these 3 points. But about a and b I actually don't care that much because those people more or less have choice between leisure and self-fulfillment. To be honest, I have antipathy on those kind of anti-modernization whine "capitalism make human not human", "captialism is driving people into cold money machine, more material but less happiness" etc.etc. I don't deny there is some grain of truth in those argument because victim to our weakness towards peer pressure is still a victim. But it's difficult to gain my sympathy (espeically I don't think it's likely to change the institution to something better). And there is still big difference between "human" resource and natural resource. It's easy to put a stop sign if people are exhausted. And even this generation of people are weak in health, it's easier to catch it up in the next generation. So it's more reversible than the damage done in the environment. Moreoever, that kind of laboriousness was a norm rather than an exception for our ancestors (quoted from DeLong:"Man’s work is from sun to sun, and woman’s work is never done.”). Regression from the golden 50s for sure, but not really a big deal.
2.c."The world does not need more wealth, but it needs a better distribution. "Your belief, my belief, but not that the guys with great wealth. And moreoever, the people in the poor country are not some material machines waiting for the patronage from the rich country. They are human too. They need self-realization too. They (especially those decently above the survival line) have their pride. Even "giving", needs more subtlety than at the first sight. Not to mention it will be bad for their survival in the long run.
3.a.Not really knowing the history because information about it is almost blank in my education. But I agree this openning theme that the problem is just hidden, not disappears.
3.b.Can not agree more! Actually Stiglitz (see above) talked about the problem in US. I think the perception (er...I am reluctant to use expectation as expection is something, technically speaking, is what likely come true) of higher growth and higher upward mobility is what make the society tolerating unjustice and iniquity. (again, this is through both the calming effect and the effect of ethical standard--with application of Rawls' idea on how ethical standard should be made--or are made).
3.c.I really couldn't say too much about it. This kind of interaction is really too complicated to me. Wondering whether there is a simple answer of yes and no in every country.
3.d.I also hope you are wrong. But I am afraid that you are right.
Let me have some comments of my own. My feeling is that the effect of economic conditions (growth included) on progressive ideas are asymmetric. When economy is bad, with rare exceptions, progressive ideas recede. However, when economy is booming (especially this booming is shared widely), it might not be a good force for progressive ideas. Uneven booming is particularly dangerous to progressive idea: poor people have nothing to be proud of except for national prestige. This illusion is the cheapest cheap luxury (borrowed from "Road to the Wigan Pier") a ruling class can provide to the ruled. Good contemporal examples from both China and America.
This is also my feeling on the relationship of growth and environment. When you are pushed to the edge, you don't care about the animal, the environment. You don't care about the people around you. You even don't care about your own future. You just want to survive this every moment. Hence bad for substantiable growth. However, will an economic growth (especially at not very wealthy stage) be good to the environment? Very doubtful. As Cantonese being more and more economically well-off, the demand of wild animal on the dinner table was increasing. As economic growing, many developing countries are experiencing worse pollution. Will a countinous growth eventually change people's mind on the environment? Definitely. Environment is a normal good, the wealthier you are, the more you desire. However, as it's difficult to reverse, the price of a good environment might grow faster of several order of magnitude than the economy. You want to change. You could not.