发帖
雷达卡
有坛友在回“经济学穷途末路”的帖子时说：“再有LZ说“经济学的穷途末路”，但是经济学不知包括宏观（论坛上批判宏观的太多了，挺无聊的），还有微观、计量，好像说计量“穷途末路”的人还不多，LZ不妨谈谈这个吧，也算有点新意。”
盛情难却，下面先贴一个博弈论大家的告解：
Some excerpts from "Dilemmas of an Economic Theorist", by Ariel Rubinstein, Econometrica, Vol. 74, No. 4 (Jul., 2006), pp. 865-883
What on earth am I doing? What are we trying to accomplish as economic theorists? We essentially play with toys called models. We have the luxury of remaining children over the course of our entire professional lives and we are even well paid for it. We get to call ourselves economists and the public naively thinks that we are improving the economy's performance, increasing the rate of growth, or preventing economic catastrophes. Of course, we can justify this image by repeating some of the same fancy sounding slogans we use in our grant proposals, but do we ourselves believe in those slogans? I recall a conference I attended in Lumini, France, in the summer of 1981 that was attended by the giants of the game theory profession. They were standing around in a beautiful garden waiting for dinner after a long day of sessions. Some of us, the more junior game theoreticians, were standing off to the side eavesdropping on their conversation. They loudly discussed the relevance of game theory and one of them suggested that we are just "making a living." I think he merely intended to be provocative, but nonetheless his response traumatized me. Are we no more than "economic agents" maximizing our utility? Are we members of an unproductive occupation that only appears to others to be useful?
我到底在干些什么？我们这些经济理论家到底想得到什么？我们其实是在玩一种叫做”模型“的玩具。我们很幸运能够在整个职业生涯都像孩子一样地玩，而且还有人付高薪。我们管自己叫经济学家，老百姓傻傻的还以为我们能让经济良好运行，增加GDP，防止经济危机。当然，我们可以不断重复一些fancy的口号以保住头上的光环，可我们自己相信这些口号吗？记得有次开会，博弈论的大牛们都来了。他们等晚饭时在聊天，我偷听了一下。他们在谈博弈论是否有用，其中有一个说搞博弈论的不过是为了”养家糊口“。我以为他开玩笑，不过他是说真的，这让我很受伤。难道我们只是一些最大化自己效用的经纪人吗？难道我们是一个看起来有用实际没有的行当里的一员吗？
Models in economic theory are also used to suggest regularities in human behavior and interaction. By regularities I mean phenomena that appear repeatedly in similar environments at different points in time and at different locations. I have the impression that as economic theorists, we hope that regularities will miraculously emerge from the formulas we write leisurely at our desks. Applied economists often feel the need for a model before they mine data for a pattern or regularity. Do we really need economic theory to find these regularities? Would it not be better to go in the opposite direction by observing the real world, whether through empirical or experimental data, to find unexpected regularities? Personally I doubt that we need pre- conceived theories to find regularities.
We have now arrived at the dilemma of modelless regularities. We would like a model to produce interesting conclusions that are consistent with observed regularities so we can claim that the model provides an explanation of those regularities, but are complicated theoretical models really necessary to find interesting regularities?
It is true that I would like to change the world. I want people to listen to me, but as an economic theorist, do I have anything to say to them? One of my earliest interests as an economic theorist was in bargaining theory. There were two reasons for this: First and foremost, bargaining theory involves the construction of models that are simple but nevertheless rich in results that have attractive interpretations. Indeed, the possibility of deriving meaningful statements through the manipulation of mathematical symbols was something that attracted me to economics in the first place. Second, as a child I frequented the open air markets in West Jerusalem and later the Bazaar in the Old City of Jerusalem, and as a result, bargaining had an exotic appeal for me. I came to prefer bargaining theory over auction theory, because auctions were associated with the rich whereas bargaining was associated with the common people. However, I never imagined that bargaining theory would make me a better bargainer. When people approached me later in life for advice in negotiating the purchase of an apartment or to join a team planning strategy for political negotiations, I declined. I told them that as an economic theorist I had nothing to contribute. I did not say that I lacked commonsense or life experience that might be useful in such negotiations, but rather that my professional knowledge was of no use in these matters. This response was sufficient to deter them. Decision makers are usually looking for professional advice, rather than advice based on commonsense. They believe, and perhaps rightly so, that they have at least as much commonsense as assertive professional economists. Nevertheless, I am a teacher of microeconomics. I am a part of the "machine" that I suspect is influencing students to think in a way that I do not particularly like. 我是一个微观经济学老师。我感觉自己像是一个”机器“上的一分子，我怀疑这个机器正让学生们忘记了常识，变成了书呆子。
This brings me to the fourth dilemma. I believe that as an economic theorist, I have very little to say about the real world and that there are very few models in economic theory that can be used to provide serious advice. However, economic theory has real effects. I cannot ignore the fact that our work as teachers and researchers influences students' minds and does so in a way with which I am not comfortable. Can we find a way to be relevant without being charlatans?
京公网安备 11010802022788号
