送交者: mangolasi 于 2006-1-11, 13:39:21:
回答: good thoughts 由 pp 于 2006-1-11, 09:15:10:
Spring and Autumn might be a good counterexample of my point. But might not be as Spring and Autumn is in distant acient time hence the tech level is low (I agree whole heartedly the real growth is--at least should be--driven by technology).
My basic point is the virture cycle in Friedman (as presented in Stiglitz and DeLong) of prosperity->progressiveness->prosperity won't have the energy to go automatically long enough (It's also Wu the Gifted's worry if my interpretation is right). Good economic fortune from technology (the jargon is shock, but in classical economic, we use autoregressive model to say good tech today->some reason->good tech tomorrow) for some time might push the pendant. However, in a bad institution, you have a high friction (suppose very thick air???), the pendant will stop very quickly, statisticall speaking. Because even growth factor generated by growth itself is not for sure always positive and big, and if it comes weak or negative, then the effect of the friction environment will be obvious, the kinetics will be consumed quickly. What Friedman argue is that the friction will go away as the volecity of the pendant is high enough. I don't share it. Friction and the pendant might be a bad analouge as in economic, the degree of friction definitely depends on the pendant. My disagreement with Friedman is that Friedman thinks the institution is more close to the pendant itself, while I am thinking it is more close to the friction. Hence to propagate the current good economic fortune, a less frictional environment would be better. And to ensure this enviornment we need some push (or clean up) like QEI.
Will take a careful look at Song. I guess it's a very important point.