按人发钱是最稳健、最有效率、最公平的

以下是引用求心在2008-11-16 21:33:00的发言：

公平与效率从来就不是对立的，只不过这几年主流经济学为了配合资本家压榨人民，故意把他对立起来，然后强迫大家做出选择。

公平促进效率。

我觉得更是因为  现有制度的特权阶层故意把他们对立起来的.

公平促进效率。

以下是引用金戈一杰在2008-11-17 15:41:00的发言：

......你们咋这样欺负人家........干吗锁定人家呢?

虽然我也不支持楼主的观点,但是我还是支持他有在本论坛发贴的权力.

你从哪儿看出，他们没有“发帖的权力”啦，

他们这种连续灌水，绕来绕去，不敢正面回答问题，蛊惑人心的“发帖”，

难道是因为我们限制他的权力造成的吗？

至于锁定HWD99的原因，我想13楼和29楼已经解释的很清楚了，希望你不要偏听偏信。

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-11-17 16:09:09编辑过]

以下是引用求心在2008-11-17 15:41:00的发言：

黄伟东博士hwd99是科大的教授。他给我打电话说，你们坛子不让讨论这个话题，我感到震惊，于是就来看一下。2000年的时候，我们在北大教育科研网上讨论这个话题，大家热情很高，但后来都被封了帐号，把我们赶走了，我的帐号至今还在冻结。人大的论坛一直以来比较自由，我偶尔到马克思版和宏观版上个帖子，从来没有被封过。学术自由是很重要的。即使你不同意人家的观点，但要让人家讲话嘛！

1、您是哪位？

难道这位号称是黄卫东老师的HWD99受了委屈，还要向别人倾诉？

2、您想说什么？

从11月11日起，HWD99网友在论坛上连续发出9个核心内容基本一致的帖子，

（H网友已经自己承认了其中两个是一致的）并在帖子上大量灌水。

而且其中几个帖子的标题，有对论坛网友的智力羞辱和道德绑架的意思，如：

“这道理如此简单，只有笨蛋官僚和资本家才会反对” “外星人怎样帮助中国人现代化”

3、您认为HWD99和您自己的帖子，是在“讨论”问题吗？

仔细看看，我和很多版主以及网友，从11日起，就对这些帖子的内容和形式上的诸多错误提出意见。

但除了少数几次无力的推搪之外，两位的回答大都是把什么大会主页上的东西，拿来“灌水”。 

以下是引用猫爪在2008-11-16 12:39:00的发言：

你就不要“平和中正”的为他圆谎啦。

如果真正追求公平，就应该支持对于农机化肥种子农村公共设施，城市低保医保太阳能之类的补贴。

而不是说什么一人一份，那叫追求公平？

可惜上次我写的那个反驳帖子没了。

那里面我很清楚的表明了，在目前的经济形势下，我完全支持首先满足公平，真正的公平。

我提醒大家，社会很复杂，有些人打着“公平”的旗号，装出一副伪善的外貌， 

其实是想把中央的“以民为本”的思想推向一个荒谬无比的结论， 

从而使善良的人民对中央的某些决策产生怀疑和动摇。 

这样的伎俩在任何时候都是有市场的，比如地震期间，写那首“肉麻诗”的文联主席， 

我认为不是真想表达他的一片赤胆忠心，而是刻毒无比，否则他为何说：

“既然已经写出，一切任人评说。 ”

（类似的，还有发“猪坚强”之类的媒体。）

这个帖子多有不妥。除了正规的学术研究，批评和评论政策，也是学术自由的一个重要组成部分。你可以反对别人的意见，但不要轻易怀疑别人的动机。克鲁格曼那样批布什，不但没被抓起来，还获得诺奖。

我来就是看一下，知道很多人对该课题并不了解，就顺便介绍一下国内外研究的状况。我在尽最大努力争取各界人士的支持，当然也包括您的支持。

以下是引用求心在2008-11-17 16:59:00的发言：

这个帖子多有不妥。除了正规的学术研究，批评和评论政策，也是学术自由的一个重要组成部分。

你可以反对别人的意见，但不要轻易怀疑别人的动机。

克鲁格曼那样批布什，不但没被抓起来，还获得诺奖。

1、您当然有说“我的帖子不妥”的自由，但是我也有“怀疑别人动机”的自由。

只要我没有用不合适的手段来表达这种怀疑，对某些奇怪观点的“质疑”，难道也能成为您批评我的借口吗？

2、您举的例子十分可笑：

H网友和克鲁格曼有何关系？

克鲁格曼那样批布什，H网友又没有批评我。

他只是批评中央的投资政策还不如发钱，如果他被安全局抓起来，这样比还是合适的。

批布什和诺奖有何关系？

难道克鲁格曼得到诺奖，是因为布什不计前嫌吗？

不过，我可以向你保证，如果H网友能得到诺奖，绝对不是因为我不计前嫌发给他的。

[em01][em01]

发钱问题上，小学时候《小白兔和小灰兔》的课文就说过了！
你是要白菜还是菜种子——不要说现在不发钱就会饿死的理由哦
授人以渔？授人以鱼？

主贴是黄卫东教授转帖的，原文是我写的。所以，被封以后，他才电话告诉我。

黄教授的博客：http://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/huangwd99.htm

http://hwd.caogen.com/

我的博客

http://dam.caogen.com/

http://www.dqjj.com/bbs/list.asp?boardid=74

以下是引用toroam在2008-11-17 18:09:00的发言：
发钱问题上，小学时候《小白兔和小灰兔》的课文就说过了！
你是要白菜还是菜种子——不要说现在不发钱就会饿死的理由哦
授人以渔？授人以鱼？

资本是最好的渔。把本来属于全国人民的公有资本，归还给人民，就是授渔。

把本来属于人民的印钞权归还给人民，就是授渔予民。

近年，有个美国人写书说在未来20年，机器人将取代一半的就业岗位。那时，想通过上班的“渔”来谋生，估计很难。因此，他主张按人发钱，每人每年25000美元。

Question 6 - Why do you believe that a $25,000 per year stipend for every citizen is the solution to the problem?

A $25,000 stipend will give people some level economic freedom for the first time in human history. With robots doing all the work, we finally have the opportunity to do that. A $25,000 stipend is the only equitable way to distribute the benefits of the robotic revolution to every citizen.

Question 7 - Won't your proposals cause inflation?

Think about President Bush's tax rebates. The government sends out tax rebate checks in order to stimulate and grow the economy. A $25,000 stipend is simply an extension of the tax rebate concept. Consumers will spend the money, and the economy will grow.

Right now, the federal government takes in over $2 trillion in taxes and spends it in a variety of ways. That does not cause inflation. The Robotic Freedom proposal simply takes money and distributes it directly to citizens rather than politicians. Citizens spend the money in a variety of ways. In the process each citizen achieves economic freedom.

Or look at the Social Security system. It is paying a stipend to tens of millions of people, and the number of people is increasing. Yet inflation is low.

Question 7a - OK, maybe it won't cause inflation. But there is no way to give everyone $25,000 per year. The GDP is only $10 trillion.

It is not the case that we would start on Day 1 paying $25,000 per year to every citizen. It will phase in gradually, over the course of one to two decades. In the process, the economy will grow.

Imagine that we create the central account in 2004 and choose several different techniques to generate $150 billion in the account. $150 billion really is not that much money. For example, the total cost of the war in Iraq and reconstruction in 2003 might hit that number, and we spent that money in Iraq without much hesitation. The federal deficit in 2003 has ballooned to more than $500 billion, again without much hesitation.

$150 billion works out to $500 for every man, woman and child in the United States. We send a check for $500 to everyone, and they spend the money. The economy grows.

In 2005, we choose several more techniques to generate $300 billion in the account. That works out to $1,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. We send a check for $1,000 to everyone, and they spend the money. The economy grows again. And so on. Soon the GDP is $20 trillion instead of $10 trillion.

Note that there is a multiplier. When consumers spend $300 billion, it ricochets through the economy as businesses spend money with other businesses, pay employees, etc. $300 billion in consumer spending increases the GDP by much more than $300 billion.

Note also that the federal government currently collects and spends more than $2 trillion. That works out to approximately $7,000 per man, woman and child in the U.S., or $20,000 per U.S. household. It is very easy to imagine a system that pays U.S. citizens $25,000 per year.

Question 7b - Is $25,000 enough? Why not more?

$25,000 is the initial goal. As the economy grows, so should the stipend.

Question 8 - Why can't you see that robots will bring dramatically lower prices? Everyone will be able to buy more stuff at lower prices.

Robots will increase productivity and help to reduce prices. However, current trends clearly show that a good part of the savings will concentrate in wealthy shareholders rather than being reflected in lower prices. In addition, lower prices are meaningless if you are unemployed. If you have $0, the fact that a loaf of bread costs 25 cents less is meaningless.

Instead of letting prices fall precipitously as robots create productivity gains, or instead of letting most of the money from productivity improvements flow inexorably to the wealthy, we can channel the productivity improvements into creating the $25,000 stipend. In that way every citizen benefits from the robotic revolution.

Question 9 - Won't a $25,000 per Year Stipend Create a Nation of Alcoholics?

Amazingly, this is a common question asked by readers. There is a perverse fear that, if we give each citizen of the United States a stipend of $25,000 per year, and give each citizen the freedom to use that money in any way he or she chooses, that somehow we will create a nation of lazy alcoholics. For example, take this reader comment:

The majority of the people will (given the chance) sit on their duffs eating junk food and rotting their brains with TV.

Or this one:

given the chance most people will do nothing, they will laze around and be blights on society.

I could go on and on -- This is a common theme.

I have no idea where this fear comes from. Let me give you several quick examples to demonstrate that it is completely unfounded:

• My wife is a stay-at-home mom. She has a masters degree in operations research and used to have a high-paying job as an engineer, but now she takes care of the kids. I support her completely. She has not become an alcoholic. Neither have millions of other stay-at-home moms.
• Her parents are retired. They live off of Social Security and a modest government pension. They come to visit the grandkids, take lots of trips together and garden. They are having the time of their lives. Millions and millions of elderly citizens are living off of Social Security -- a stipend -- without any ill effects.
• I have rich friends who are independently wealthy. They don't ever have to work again. They volunteer with charitable organizations. They start new businesses. They take long vacations with their families. None of them have become alcoholics.
• I know and have known a number of students on full scholarships. None of them have become alcoholics.
• Similarly, millions of GIs since WWII have gone through college using a government stipend (the GI bill) to pay for their educations. Most have benefited tremendously from the opportunity.
• Military pilots and astronauts are given, for free, millions of dollars in training. They do not become alcoholics.

And so on.

Let me make the question more personal. If you had a stipend of $25,000 per year, what would you do? Would you become an alcoholic blight on society? Chances are that you would not.

Instead, there are a million things you would likely do if you had the freedom provided by a $25,000 per year stipend. If you have children or grandchildren, you might spend more time with them (you or your spouse might quit work to be home with the kids). If you have always wanted to start your own small business or go back to college, you would do that. If you have been wanting to write your novel, start a new career or research an invention, you would do that. You would use the freedom provided by a $25,000 stipend to make your life better. That is why we should enact the $25,000 per year stipend.

Question 9a - [a follow-on to Question 9] Yes, stay-at-home moms and retirees are not alcoholic parasites, but they are exceptions. They also are not productive members of the economy. Society will collapse if we do what you are talking about.

The people mentioned in Question 9 all participate in the economy in a fundamental way -- they spend money. People who have started businesses sell them products. Without consumers to spend money, we have no economy. Stay-at-home moms and retired people play an incredibly important role in the economy.

Where does money come from in the economy? It comes from businesses that give their employees paychecks. Where do businesses get the money for the paychecks? It comes from consumers who buy products. Where do the consumers get the money? From paychecks. Where do the paychecks come from? Consumers. Where... The economy is one big cycle. Unless consumers have money to spend, the cycle stops.

Whether we give them a stipend or not, businessmen and businesswoman will always want to create businesses so they can make more money. Whether we give them a stipend or not, creative people will want to create. Whether we give them a stipend or not, inventors will want to invent. And so on. With the stipend in place, the businesspeople, creative people and inventors have a consistent pool of consumers who will buy their products.

Will some people become alcoholics? Sure. They become alcoholics now, without a stipend. The stipend won't change that. If we give them enough money to live decent, dignified lives, we may very well have fewer alcoholics.

Question 10 - Why not let capitalism run itself? We should eliminate the minimum wage, eliminate welfare, eliminate child labor laws, eliminate the 40-hour work week, eliminate antitrust laws, etc.

The reason why we must have a minimum wage law and these other laws in our economy is because of the power of economic coercion. The reality of today's economy is that if you are unable to find a job, you become homeless and destitute. Under this system, the job that an employer holds in his/her hand means survival. If you cannot get a job, you starve.

In an environment where there are millions of unemployed people, an employer can enter the job market and play starving people off of one another to drive wages down. It's as simple as that. That's why corporations are able to go to third world nations and pay employees a dollar or two a day for their labor.

By giving everyone a $25,000 stipend, we give everyone economic independence and eliminate this form of economic coercion. Many capitalists and politicians do not like this idea because it eliminates the power that economic coercion gives them. We, The People, should enact the stipend to give ourselves true economic independence.

以下是引用sungmoo在2008-11-16 6:54:00的发言：

大家讨厌贫富差距，主要是讨厌由部分人“不劳而获”带来的贫富差距。

“按人发钱”这种“均贫富”的作法，同样是在制造另一种不公平。

将西经中偷换概念的本事学到家了。贫富差距不是讨厌的问题，而是它带来的社会整体效率下降。党爱民显然是说按人发钱可以提高社会整体效率，所以要按人发钱，而不是说因为大家讨厌贫富差距，所以要按人发钱。

党爱民的问题是用词不当，他明明是说给穷人发钱，但是他却用了按人发钱这个词。

至于公平，我可以明确说我讨厌书本上这个教条。怎样才算公平？国家图书馆里的所有经学课本就没有一本能告诉你。当西方经济学用“公平”批判别人时，说明它是站在道德至高点批判别人，它总是对的。这说明西方经济学已经无赖到了极点。经济学的任务是找出评价公平的标准，告诉实际怎样才是公平，而不是用公平批判实际。