Why do economists often interact with other scholars silly X 嘿嘿taxi

Why do economists often interact with other scholars "silly X"? Wen Deng Xinhua yesterday several people chat, a scholar said in a discussion, debt, other people in debt to the benefit of economic development "as the premise, to discuss how to operate, only the scholars said that the debt is not to let the people pay for the enterprise? We argue. Finally, everyone in the hearts of each other "silly X" and not. Like this, it is common in the economics community. The outcome of the debate between the market economy and the government intervention is often "X"". Support the market economy will think: such a simple truth, how do you think impassability? The intervention will think: how can the world be as simple as you think? Don’t you know that the market is always out of order? In the market economy and other academic disciplines between scholars, mutual way silly X is more common. As a World War I argue, often in the heart say "stupid". And I also know that the other side of the heart must also look at me. Why is this happening? This is because everyone’s thinking paradigm is different. The paradigm is a bit difficult to understand. Recently, I saw an example, it can be used to explain a side of the problem. Yan Feng, a professor of Chinese Studies at Fudan University, said on the micro-blog the other day: "this is a century of addiction…… What is not addiction? Reading is addictive, fry is addictive, it is addictive, the tiger will become addicted, square ball addiction, brush micro-blog addictive, Taobao is addictive, love is addictive… "… I was just thinking, this is the difference in thinking. What do I think of this passage? The so-called addiction, is nothing more than a great preference for utility, and this is bound to occur in every era, but the content of preference is not the same, not only this century is the century of addiction". But as the economy grows, people in the 21st century are more able to pay, and people can behave more clearly on preferences. I have also experienced Yan Feng’s stage of thinking, that is, there is no systematic framework, intuition alone from a large number of phenomena summed up in a number of local features, and then feel that they have made a major discovery. For example, from the stock market, slot machines, square dance summed up this is a century of addiction". With such a summary, there will always be a kind of "I found the characteristics of the times," a deep sense of the so-called Wen qing. However, the economic thinking of the so-called "characteristics of the times" into a systematic framework. You said: "this is an addiction of the century" or you say "this is an era of entertainment to death" or from the point of view of economics, is nothing more than the utility of a word. The sense of separation, in a systematic framework, disappeared without a trace. Of course, the utility analysis is not very impressive. This is not to say that economics is not the pursuit of profound. Economics, of course, is a deep pursuit, but it does not pursue the sense of separation, but the pursuit of a profound system. There are too many deep sense of separation, the economics of these discrete sense of separation, in order to save the cost of thinking operations. Your "addiction century", "entertainment to death" of the era, a lot of out of order or other summary, all the simplified out of utility analysis. Save energy to do? To find more systematic rules. Than)相关的主题文章: