讨论问题就讨论问题，别上来就怀疑动机。开列数据论述问题是很好的方式，但是有没有客观的开列，有意的忽略就是带有偏见的论述。（比如，有没有考虑到中国这样的国家数量巨大的政府各部门非税收入？）

   懒得说了，就说结论吧！“

   中国太多的收入和资产财富掌握在国家手中，而不是将更多收入、更多资产由私人去消费、去投资，使跟民生贴近的服务业难以发展，老百姓享受到的收入和资产财富份额极低”

   告诉我这个结论是错的吗？

我们的政府有多大？根据我的感觉——就是感觉，没有什么客观依据——大到不可想像

当然，美国政府也很大，同样大到不可想像

楼主用了较多的数据来说明陈教授的的数据有误差，切不说楼主的数据是否真实，就GDP的统计方法上中美两国就不同，即使说客观的数据的确如楼主所说，那能说明个什么？？

“中国太多的收入和资产财富掌握在国家手中，而不是将更多收入、更多资产由私人去消费、去投资，使跟民生贴近的服务业难以发展，老百姓享受到的收入和资产财富份额极低”

陈教授的结论错了吗？

而楼主却和陈教授的具体数据叫真儿，居心何在？你难道能反驳这个不争的事实吗？

而说到动机，陈教授是为广大老百姓着想，你尼？怎么没见你站出来为老百姓说话！

god damn it!!

根据你提供的网路地址，我看到了如下的东西：陈志武教授本人对<能力不足还是别有用心>的回应 大家可以看看陈志武对此文的反驳（我不明确其真实性&如原文作者不愿转载，请删除）

地址：http://www.ccthere.com/article/1777087 原发帖者：pxpxpx

Sorry, I don't know your name or background.http://www.ccthere.com/article/1777087


       About the data, it is true that I made a mistake by not realizing that the US data I used is for the Federal government, whereas the China data is for all levels of government. But, the person who wrote the comment you forwarded did not want to pay attention to the fundamental differences between China and the US. When I wrote my article, I only used the officially published data on the Budgetary Revenue (Yu Suan Nei Shou Ru), as a point of discussion. I mentioned this in my article, because this officially known revenue number is really a small fraction of the Chinese government's total income. Note the following:
http://www.ccthere.com/article/1777087
       1. In the U.S., the governments at all levels do not own factories or assets (less than 1% of GDP), so the tax revenues are pretty much the only revenues for them. On the other hand, China's government has four sources of income: official Budgetary Revnue (taxes and fees), extra-budgetary revenues, profits of state-owned enterprises (such as PetroChina, Bank of China and so on), and value increases in state-owned enterprise shares and state-owned land and collectively-owned land. Therefore, the 5.1 trillion Yuan Budgetary Revenue in 2007 was only a fraction of the actual income total for the government of all levels. See for a summary of some of these aspects. You can also search on the internet for Yu Suan Wai Shou Ru.

       As an example, last year, the total profits of the 150 Central Government SOEs were about 1.5 trillion Yuan. No body knows exactly how much the governments of all levels received from selling state-owned land for real estate development and from selling state-owned enterprises. At one point when PetroChina's A-shares were listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, the total market value of PetroChina alone was more than US$1 trillion. Such wealth owned by the state and capital gains from such state asset ownership are all at the Chinese government's disposal. With such vast wealth owned by the state and not privatized or owned by the people, why should the government raise any taxes at all, in order to provide welfare benefits to the people?
http://www.ccthere.com/article/1777087
       Without any published data about such Yu Suan Wai income amounts, it is difficult to get any exact number for how much actual income the Chinese government really received in 2007. Therefore, I had to make assumptions about how much the productive assets owned by the state should have risen in value in relation to the GDP growth rate, which gave me a total of 15.7 trillion Yuan for China's governmenal income (including taxes, fees, SOE profits, SOE asset value gains, and state-owned land value gains). But, that is just a rough estimate. So, I chose to focus only on the published official number for the Budgetary Revenue (or, Yu Suan Nei Shou Ru, or revenues within the fiscal plan).

       2. The sad thing is that China started nationalization of land and enterprises in the 1950's, with the official goal of spreading and sharing wealth among the people and managing the economy for the people, but the reality is that the government in China has spent less as a percentage of government revenues (even when we use just the 5.1 trillion Yuan as the basis) on items related to people's lives, than in the U.S. All the state-owned assets have not done much to boost people's welfare., which is part of the reason why the SOEs should be privatized.
http://www.ccthere.com/article/1777087
       3. The person who wrote the comment below says in his Point 5 that asset value appreciation of state-owned enterprises and state-owned land is not spendable or disposable income. That is a lack of basic understanding of economics. He says ＂难道因为我的房子今年增值了10万元，就说我今年的可支配收入是10万以上么？＂（此处及下面中文在陈教授电子邮件里是乱码，现在的内容是根据乱码里的数字和上下文猜测的）.  Yes, of course, you can. You can either sell the house to realize the gain or borrow a home equity loan to cash out part of the gain and then spend, which means that you can spend the gain (but it does not mean you will need to spend it). The point is that you can spend it if you really want to. ＂那么明年房子跌价了20万元，难道可支配收入就变成负值了？＂. The same logic in the opposite direction. Yes. The fact that the Chinese government did not need to take in the 1.5 trillion Yuan of SOE profits last year and did not need to sell much of the SOE shares or state-owned land suggests that the government had too much tax income already, so it did not need to use the capital gains.

       The minor differences in other data points are due to different sources of data and to the fact that it usually takes several rounds of revision for government statistical bureaus (both in the US and China) to modify and finalize macro-economic numbers. So, depending on which version you use, you can get different numbers. Because of time shortage, I don't want to go through each of them here. But the basic conclusions are the same as in my article: that is, China's government has taken in much taxes and fees in addition to state-owned assets and other productive wealth, but has not done much for its people, not even as much as governments in totally privately-owned economies.
http://www.ccthere.com/article/1777087
       Thank you for your pointing out this comment. I had known about it before, but thought that readers could see what the basic picture and message is. As to the personal attacks on me, I don't really care.


       Chen Zhiwuhttp://www.ccthere.com/article/1777087

中国政府规模过大是一般公认的，但陈志武原文论证的方法确实有严重瑕疵，引用的数据错误或是不具有可比性。

陈志武回复（如果是真的）中加入了国企利润、土地收入等来论证，方向是不错的，但估算过于粗略，虽然与直觉一致，但未必精确。比如国企利润问题，垄断国企利润高是人所共知的，但也有亏损国企，且企业所报利润是否真实也是有争议的。我个人认为这种论证是很弱的。

关于可支配收入，宏观经济学定义中是不把未交易的资产升值部分计算进来的，陈志武的说法不对。当然也许他说的并不是宏观经济学中的“可支配收入”的概念。

写完11楼的内容再去西西河看了一下帖子http://www.ccthere.com/thread/1777087，发现我说的这几点已经被指出了。如果真是陈志武的回复，只能说他糊涂了。