转自CENET

Re:我所知道的张五常（李俊慧）（之三） 作者:bear　　发表时间:2001年5月18日 11:25 我开始明白爱因斯坦当年对量子力学的怀疑了。 LAWS DEFINE THE BOUNDARY OF FREEDOM.FREEDOM IS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Re:我所知道的张五常（李俊慧）（之三） 作者:sa1　　发表时间:2001年5月18日 11:31 不要怀疑批评者的智力。 我想许多人都没有把他的人品同见解联系起来。 我以为他一味的区分现象和问题， 其实就是在误导经济学。 我思故我在，我在故我思！ Re:我所知道的张五常（李俊慧）（之三） 作者:bear　　发表时间:2001年5月18日 11:46 sal: 再看吧，一种方法是否有用可是不能争论出来的。实践才能检验理论。就象伐树，你用斧而我用锯，谁能达到预期目标，是要看结果的。这是科学与其它学问的一个不同之处了。 LAWS DEFINE THE BOUNDARY OF FREEDOM.FREEDOM IS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Re:我所知道的张五常（李俊慧）（之三） 作者:sa1　　发表时间:2001年5月18日 11:48 是的。就象伐树，你用斧而我用锯。 可是你能说我用锯是错的，你用斧是对的吗？ 我思故我在，我在故我思！ Re:我所知道的张五常（李俊慧）（之三） 作者:Ah sa　　发表时间:2001年5月18日 12:16 " 怀孕产子的费用是交易费用吗?一人世界里没有啊！" Just paste some related discussion to elaborate this point. It would be really nice if Professor Cheung can give some comments: 作者:Ah sa　　发表时间:2001年4月27日 10:38 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you like you can rephrase the question as: Is the cost of talking/playing tennis/fighting a transaction cost? The point is that: not all activities involving two agents are transaction, but all these activities are not conceivable in an one man economy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 作者:Ah sa　　发表时间:2001年4月27日 12:01 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't mean to say that "transaction cost" is not a good concept. It is perfectly intuitive and useful. The problem is that Cheung's definition is very poor. As transaction cost has a central role in Cheung's analysis, it deserves a precise definition. And as I have argued, it is too vague to define it as "comprising all those costs that cannot be conceived to exist in a Robinson Crusoe".Certainly, we don't want to accept that the cost of chatting, playing tennis and fighting are transaction cost. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 作者:Ah sa　　发表时间:2001年4月27日 21:24 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "the cost of chatting, playing tennis and fighting are transaction cost.有什么问题？" - In principle, no problem. I can define transaction cost as "any cost conceivable when you are alone in the toilet" No one can say that this is wrong/false. - Whether this is a good definition is another matter. In this case, whether the things we commonly think of transaction cost coincides with what Cheung's definition refers to? I guess very few economists will agree that "the cost of chatting, playing tennis and fighting are transaction cost". One may ask, "if cost of playing tennis is a transaction cost, does it imply that playing tennis is a kind of transaction? Talking is transaction? Marriage is transaction? Should I charge my wife before I go to bed with her, professor?" Of course, it's just a question of terminology, but as I have mentioned before, one of the problems of Cheung is that he loves to redefine terms in an idiocyncratic way and most people will disagree. It's just creating ambiguity, no? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 作者:Ah sa　　发表时间:2001年4月27日 23:42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Under Cheung's definition, talking, fighting and playing tennis are all transactions. (2) Definition is no right or wrong. But his definition is not a good one. May be even misleading. What I want to point out is that (1) I guess most economists will refuse to use a definition that consider "talking, fighting and playing tennis" as transactions. Not because it is wrong, but it is a poor definition in the sense that it leads to ambiguity. But the purpose of defining things is clarification, not creating confusion!!! (2) I don't think it is a minor problem, because in Cheung's model, transaction cost is an important exogenous variable that leads to institutional change. Clarification of the term is essential for evaluating the model's predictive power. (3) I raise this example to attack on Cheung's habit to create idiocyncratic definition. Not saying this is a logical flaw, but very misleading! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 作者:Ah sa　　发表时间:2001年4月29日 01:58 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't have a good definition for institutional cost, too. (maybe the concept is just too vague to be precise) But if you ask me, I would prefer to define institutional cost as the additional cost incurred due to the presense of incentive compatability constraint. In an one man economy, we have no incentive problem, so no institutional cost. Also, when two people talk/fight with each other, we have no incentive problem, so no institutional cost as well. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 学无新旧，学无中西，中国今日实无学之患，而非中学西学偏重之患 -- 王国维 学无新旧，学无中西，中国今日实无学之患，而非中学西学偏重之患 -- 王国维 Re:我所知道的张五常（李俊慧）（之三） 作者:bear　　发表时间:2001年5月18日 12:18 sa1: 我不能。但张多少用过或知道其它人用的结果。他看过高手与庸手用一工具对同一现象处理的结果，看了好多年了，有点心得，要说也无妨。把他说的看成是自己的经验之谈，正如听一个有经验的伐木人说用什么伐怎样伐要好，尤其是当这伐木人曾伐下其它人伐不下的木，这经验多少有点价值。这经验仅是个人经验，我不赞成他直指其它方法是对是错。他说其它方法用处不大，这是个较准的表达；他说他十多年来没看到GAME THEORY有什么精彩的理论出现，是精准的表达。科学理论是工具，无对错之对，用途却有大小之分。　　 LAWS DEFINE THE BOUNDARY OF FREEDOM.FREEDOM IS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Re:我所知道的张五常（李俊慧）（之三） 作者:Ah sa　　发表时间:2001年5月18日 12:44 "3、贝克对张五常那句批评的话，是张五常在瑞典一次经济学主讲时，科斯和贝克作为他的评述人发表意见时说的。张五常表示很奇怪那人怎幺会有这篇文章，他说那本书只在瑞典发行，现在已经很难找到那本书了。他希望那人告诉他可以到哪里找到这本书。" I got that paper from the book "Contract Economics" edited by Lars Werin & Hans Wijkander (published by Blackwell,1992). 学无新旧，学无中西，中国今日实无学之患，而非中学西学偏重之患 -- 王国维 Re:我所知道的张五常（李俊慧）（之三） 作者:oh　　发表时间:2001年5月18日 13:19 请问:哪里可看到《解读张五常》一文? Re:我所知道的张五常（李俊慧）（之三） 作者:DNKM　　发表时间:2001年5月18日 13:26