这位仁兄可能对中国几千年的历史不懂吧。中国缺乏市场经济（商品经济）的传统吗？不缺！

中国缺什么？是市场与政府之间的关系的制衡机制。好好看看历史吧！

有人曾经讲过，中西方对待市场经济的观念的最大差别在于对于公权与私权的认识不同，中国总是把政府做为最后的救命草，而西方则是尽量限制政府的权力和权利。

我想这才是解决中国市场经济问题的本源。其实讲到历史，大家都知道中国近代商人是如何通天的，如红顶商人，目前中国也有大批这样的人。因此，问题不在于市场经济体制本身，而在于我们到现在尚没有学到如何解决政府与市场的关系。

《两种傲慢都要不得》这篇文章，比较客观，我以为值得一看。

鄢烈山 　　 　　香港社会学教授丁学良先生关于“国内真正意义上的经济学家不超过五个”的言论，一石激起千层浪，据说引发了网民新一轮“对所谓经济学家的批评和谩骂”。站出来回应的，与经济学家搭界的人，我看到的有几位，包括哈佛大学经济学博士、世界银行研究部研究员、武大和北大等大学的博导邹恒甫，近期《南方人物周刊》发表的对他的访谈，可以说是对丁学良观点的论证和补充；还有是《经济学消息报》的总编高小勇和《中国改革》杂志的主编新望，与我一样本职是传媒人。高小勇为“中国最好的经济学家”们受到的恶评鸣不平，不仅认为他们有“捍卫科学和理性”的大智大勇，而且断言“其实，贫富差距拉大是市场化改革的必然结果”；新望也是为中国的主流经济学家说话，正面评价他们，但他的评价与中国改革、发展的实践进程相联系，在肯定中国经济学家“独有的幸运”和三大贡献，为他们“洗冤”的同时，也承认中国当下存在形成一个“坏的市场经济”框架的危险，呼吁矫正偏差，实行“民主的改革，公平的改革，大众参与的改革”。（参见《财经时报》） 　　本文不拟从我的视角详细评点上述四人的观点，限于篇幅只想谈一点比较明显的感受。 　　一种是学院派的傲慢与偏见。它指向直接参与中国改革开放社会实践的知识分子，特别是经常在传媒上就重大政策、决策向公众发表意见的人；邹恒甫讥之为“新闻媒体经济学家”。 　　应当承认，致力于学术研究，争取多出学术成果，是所有学者、教授安身立命的根本，他们应当像邹恒甫所说的那样“耐得住寂寞”；邹先生说“书生自有嶙峋骨”，他最厌憎“权钱交合”，这是非常难得的；至于邹先生抨击“国内现在出名的经济学家，都是学者型官僚和官僚型学者”，这个全称判断是否允当可以讨论，其反对“官、商、学通吃”的初衷也不乏针对性；而他致力于引进国际上先进的经济学教材，在数理金融、数理经济方面开国内之先河更是功不可殁。但是，他不该用在国际一流学术刊物上发表了多少论文做惟一的尺度，来评价中国的经济学家。邹恒甫在上海财大演讲时说：“他们著名，著名在哪里呢？都发过些什么文章呢？都摆出来看看嘛！”国内发的，中文写的，当然都是不算数的。他瞧得起张五常，因为他在美国有些论文；他比较瞧得起林毅夫，因为“林毅夫有两篇有价值的文章”；他敢于睥睨中国经济学界，也是“知道我在国外还有点文章”，“所以，我说我和林毅夫是三五流，张维迎是九流，大多数人都不入流”。 　　我觉得这不是狂不狂的问题，只要真是了不起，不仅是中国不可多得的而且是中国不可或缺的才智之士，态度狂傲一点，我们就该“笑纳”。然而，在海外发表几篇英文论文就真的那么了不起吗？中国当下最需要的是学术象牙塔的顶尖人物，还是脚踏实地，有力推动中国转型，加速市场经济制度建设的人物？我认为后者更重要，或者说需要更多的后者。我们出一两个经济学大师为中国争光为学术锦上添花那当然是求之不得的好事。但中国是后发国家，中国面临的大量经济学问题，都是人家探讨过的；中国面对的由计划经济向市场经济转型的问题，未必是国际经济学界所关心的、至少不是“前沿”的问题。中国当下最需要的是向官员与民众普及经济学常识（所谓“更新观念”），“经世致用”同时也是中国知识分子宝贵的文化传统。因此，参与中国当前的改革开放实践，对公共政策发表意见，不论是以公民的身份还是专家的身份，都是值得尊敬的。对于中国经济学家对推动中国经济体制改革与经济发展的贡献，新望先生已有令人信服的论述，本文不必重复。 　　这里，不仅涉及到如何历史地、现实地评价一个学者的学术成就，而且关涉到中国需要什么样的经济学家，或者说，经济学家在中国的发展进步中如何定位的大问题。我的结论是，经济学家群体可以有不同偏好，甘坐冷板凳的与积极参与社会实践的应当互相包容、互相尊重，不要文人相轻、唯我独尊。 　　另一种傲慢与偏见，我不知如何命名贴切。 　　在我看来，一些经济学家之所以不大像经济学家，主要是没有“明晰”自己的身份：一、你可以像余秋雨那样认为自己“为企业利益代言”（或为别的特殊群体、集团）代言很正常，但应明示是企业的形象大使、公关代理而不能以经济学家的身份发表貌似公允的言论来混淆视听，公与私、显与隐两种身份不能模糊。二、你是学者，就应当坚持真理多讲理想的模式，为社会树立一个正义的值得不懈追求的目标；你不是幕僚，不能只为“主公”思谋当前的对策，不能将“最优选择”视为虚幻而抽象肯定具体否定之，将所谓“次优选择”合理化为实际上的“最优选择”，并使之合法化、定型化。有位经济学博士说：“深受现代经济学理念熏陶的当代经济学界，对任何没有现实可行性的政策主张都缺乏兴趣”，我怎么听都觉得不像学者而像“上书”干谒者讲的话。三、你的术业有专攻，经济学领域的事你也不可能一通百通，不能包打天下越界发表“专家”意见；如果越界就要像我一样，只是以一个普通公民和读书人的身份讲话。 　　现在有学者在呼吁反对“民粹主义”，我也认为应当警惕“民粹主义”；但同时要警惕将民粹主义与民主主义混为一谈，假反“民粹”之名而反对“四大民主”（即十六大讲的“民主选举、民主决策、民主管理、民主监督）。 　　本文讲的反对两种傲慢与偏见，不仅是针对经济学界的，法学、社会学、政治学等各学科都一样。

贴一个克鲁格曼为经济学家的辩护吧。不过对于多数中国的事件而言，是不适用的，因为大部分中国经济学家的学术独立性值得考量。但是市场经济的确是要坚持的。

The implausible pundits SYNOPSIS: Krugman's first article on the economic culture wars: economists versus literati Late in the summer of 1992 I received the page proofs of an article I had written for a liberal intellectual American magazine. I phoned in a few corrections; only one of them was really important. Editors always change your title - and the new title was snappier than my own pedestrian proposal. But the editor had added a subtitle that horrified me. It was, I thought, utterly inappropriate for a plainly written article that was distinctly populist in its implications. I pleaded with him to drop the subtitle, but when the article came out there it was: 'The rich, the right, and the facts: deconstructing the income distribution controversy'. 'Deconstructing'? Why would an editor (who, incidentally, regarded himself as a champion of ordinary working Americans) insist on using a buzzword that means nothing to most people and alienates most of the rest? Was he not gratuitously playing into the hands of his (and my) political opponents? I was baffled. But I now think I understand his motives - and I believe that this seemingly trivial incident offers an insight into a hidden conflict that lies behind many of the confusions that bedevil the public discussion of economics. Every economist who ventures beyond the confines of the academic world gets used to facing a certain amount of hostility. Some of that hostility comes from people who hold strong political views and do not want them challenged; some of it comes from people who want more from economists than they can deliver - easy answers to hard problems, accurate predictions of the inherently unpredictable. What I have gradually come to realise, however, is that there is an extra reason why certain people, namely literary intellectuals, are hostile to economists. Their hostility is not so much political as cultural. My point is a familiar one: that our society remains divided between C. P. Snow's two cultures; or perhaps to put it differently, there is a continuing struggle between two ideas of what it means to be an intellectual. One culture is humanist and literary; the other mathematical and scientific. The editor of my article, I now believe, was perhaps unconsciously using the language of critical theory as a way of declaring his allegiance in that struggle; he was saying: 'I may write about quantitative stuff like GDP and real wages, but my sensibility is literary.' In this particular case, the harm done by the culture war was minor: the audience for my article was probably reduced only marginally. But I have become convinced that the divide between two kinds of intellectuals - those who feel comfortable with a more or less mathematical approach to the world and those who do not - is a hidden but powerful force confusing and garbling the public discussion of many issues. In a way, economics can be regarded as one of the humanities. Like history or sociology, it is concerned with human beings and what they do. And it is therefore a subject in which many humanist intellectuals are interested. But, as a discipline, economics is firmly on the mathematical side of the great divide. It is, indeed, a field in which ideas are mainly expressed in the form of mathematical models. This means that humanist intellectuals, even when they are deeply interested in economic affairs, generally find what mainstream economists have to say repellent if not incomprehensible. And because such intellectuals are uncomfortable with the way economists think, they systematically favour economic thinkers and ideas that most economists, with good reason, regard as unworthy of serious attention. The result is that the wider public debate about economics, a debate that is largely filtered through publications edited by people who are or would like to be literary intellectuals, is deeply distorted: facts and concepts that research has established beyond a reasonable doubt are rejected or ignored, while views that are flatly wrong but that appeal to a literary imagination remain stubbornly in circulation. And these misguided views directly shape debates over real economic policy. Consider The Atlantic Monthly - one of America's most influential intellectual magazines, and one with more coverage of economic affairs than most of its rivals. I recently did a quick review of The Atlantic's articles from mid-1993 to date. Over that period, there were by my count 16 articles dealing mainly with economics, about one every other month. Eight dealt with international trade (a surprisingly high proportion for the United States, where imports are only 13 per cent of national income); every one of those articles, and most of the others, expressed views that no serious researcher would support, and explicitly denigrated the economics profession as a whole. Admittedly, this record is at least partly a reflection of the personal preferences of The Atlantic's editors. Still, a similar hostility to economics may be found in many other publications. Of course, one might argue that this hostility is a mark, not of the prejudices of intellectuals, but of their perceptiveness. Maybe economics really is a 'failed profession', and literary intellectuals just happen to be clever enough to realise it. But this explanation does not survive a close inspection: whenever one looks at an issue on which the views of mainstream economists and those of the economic thinkers favoured by the literati diverge, one finds that the opposition to economic orthodoxy rests not on a reasoned critique but on a failure to understand basic concepts. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the discussion of international trade. Free trade is an idea intellectuals love to hate. As I said earlier, The Atlantic has devoted half of its economics articles in recent years to international trade - a far higher proportion than the intrinsic importance of the subject can justify. And without exception these articles conclude that the economists' case for free trade is all wrong. Similar attacks on conventional views of trade have appeared in virtually every intellectual magazine in the English-speaking world. What is it about mainstream economic views on international trade in particular that inspires such hostility? It cannot be that these views are particularly stupid: the modern theory of international trade is nothing if not subtle, and its distinguished lineage includes some pretty impressive intellectuals (David Hume, John Stuart Mill). It also cannot be that conventional trade theory is excessively dogmatic: on the contrary, economists have long recognised a variety of qualifications and exceptions to the classical case for free trade. So why not emphasise these qualifications, rather than attack the whole intellectual structure built up over the past two centuries? The answer, I would argue, is that what literary intellectuals dislike about the conventional economic analysis of trade is that it is necessarily expressed in a language they do not understand or want to understand. For someone who is comfortable with even low-level mathematical thinking, the classical analysis of international trade as John Stuart Mill developed it can seem trivially simple. But to get that analysis across without the maths - to explain the basic story entirely in plain English - is, as seven generations of economists can attest, nearly impossible. Simple as they are, the basic concepts of conventional international trade theory turn out to be as inaccessible to the anti-mathematical intellectual as those of quantum mechanics. And so the same ideas that seem clear, beautiful and compelling to most economists seem like obscure mumbo-jumbo to many highly intelligent people. Conversely, ideas that seem evidently absurd to mainstream economists can seem plausible to many other intellectuals. For example, any economist who picked up Sir James Goldsmith's manifesto The Trap, which has received attention in several magazines and newspapers, quickly realised that Goldsmith's ideas about the world economy were not merely open to question, but the very same classic confusions that have been the source of exam questions on a thousand undergraduate midterms. And now we come to my final point: the peculiar way in which the hostility of humanist intellectuals to mainstream economics has ended up giving aid and comfort to some rightwing politicians. For Goldsmith is not just a billionaire author; he is also a leading voice in a political movement that has recently begun to flex its muscles on both sides of the Atlantic. There is a new kind of rightwinger abroad in the land, one who mixes harsh social conservatism with protectionism and nativism. Where does this ideology come from? A few months ago, when the initial electoral successes of Patrick Buchanan had stunned America's political commentators, The Wall Street Journal asked the candidate about the sources of his ideas. Given the belligerent populism of his campaign, one might have expected Buchanan to disclaim any intellectual influence, to insist that he was simply preaching native common sense. But instead he offered an extensive intellectual pedigree for his ideas, citing not only modern authors like Goldsmith but 19th-century predecessors. In particular, he cited the protectionist doctrines of Friedrich List. How did a late 20th-century American populist become a disciple of a confused early 19th-century German economist? Well, Buchanan did not discover List on his own: he was led there by the books and articles of James Fallows, the Washington editor of, yes, The Atlantic, who has in recent years attempted to promote List as an iconic figure, a sort of anti- Adam Smith. In short, here is a case in which the hostility of a literary intellectual to conventional economics has helped to provide an intellectual gloss to ideas that every educated citizen should instantly recognise as nonsense. It would be silly to suppose that we can bring the war between the two cultures to an end. After all, that conflict has raged for at least two centuries. But it is possible for the educated individual to become aware of what is going on; to recognise that the negative things intellectuals say about economics may have less to do with content than with culture and style.