主题：【原创】关于陈经 -- 红绿
- 复 看看我的短文再说
家园 有问题您可以直接和陈经讨论。 他应该是很欢迎的。其实陈大在河里的头炮就是和愚蠢小猪的系列讨论贴，有兴趣可以搜索一下。您要也能来个精彩的讨论贴出来，我第一个送花欢迎。陈经从来没有说过自己支持官办经济，这不过是他对即有现象的解释和根据这种解释做的分析预测，当然有对有错。
估计您也不是“科班”，而对经济和您问题里的其他经济相关说法，陈大包括河里一些人可能比您想象的知道的要多一些。每个有相应见识有独立思考能力的人都会有自己的看法，这些看法也不尽相同。同样的现象，每个人看的角度和想到的东西可能都不一样，这并不妨碍互相尊重和讨论。仅就这两点来说，在陈经和拍他的人之中，那边态度更好呢？
股市就更没什么可说的了。自己的钱，自己都不上心，“人家说什么什么”，亏了应该是自己的问题吧。
家园 这位恐怕不是陈经吧 陈经欢迎不欢迎不是你说了算，当然我的目的本来就不是要和他争论什么高低，只是我一直提醒大家而已。当然无用功成分较大。
我讨论的帖子不多。我查了一下以下是一些，有兴趣你可以看看。
这位也不要把我推到这里‘大家’的对立面，我从来没有想象大家是无知或着怎样。我没有这么自大和傲慢。我问的问题，我想是很实在的了。我也不是裁判，各人有各人表达的方式，只要互相尊重就好。
你的最后一句，我就不知道什么意思了。
- 复 【原创】关于陈经
家园 事后的批判与评论似乎价值不大 若是当初能够对官办经济和格子组的股票操作提出这类中肯的意见，个人会非常佩服楼主，不过嘛，现在根据股市的沉浮结果来倒推，做些事后的批判与评论，似乎价值不大。个人以为，基于现在的客观现实提一些对将来有帮助的前瞻性的建议远比单纯的事后批判要有价值。建议楼主不妨基于自己的专业能力和独立思考，对今后的股市走向提些自己的见解，甚至对格子组的股票操作提些自己的建议，这样或许更有价值一些。
另外，个人建议不到万不得已，尽量不要点名批判，毕竟说明自己的观点未必非要揪出一个具体的人来当靶子的。不点名的说明自己观点，一方面能够让楼主的观点更容易被河友接受，另一方面也能保持河里融洽的氛围，我想真正吸引广大河友的还是河里的氛围吧。
家园 【原创】回复以下 这位可以简单查一下我在这里发东西的纪录。首先，老拙的分析我从来就说有价值的。第二，我来这个地方看时，大盘大概4-5000点（如果没记错的话），我就是这么说的，说这个不是要你的佩服，但如果这位要批评我的马后炮嫌疑，务必作些调查先。第三，说别人的名字我看不回伤害什么，至少我是这样行事的。如果一个论坛，一个id叫另外一个id的名字都是禁忌，而且只有如此才能维护‘气氛’，你觉着这样脆弱的生态平衡很健康？叫陈经不意味我对他没有尊敬。当然有朋友一定要叫‘政委’或者‘陈大’才能表达他们的敬意，我不反对。
- 复 【原创】关于陈经
家园 此帖有寶，謝謝樓主 恭喜：你意外获得【通宝】一枚
鲜花已经成功送出。
此次送花为【有效送花赞扬，涨乐善、声望】
- 复 【原创】关于陈经
家园 陈经的同意者说话的声音比较大而已 我也来说几句废话。这里大多都是陈经的同意者，我也不期望能改变什么，只是偶尔来说几句不吐不快的话陈大的不同意者,大都因为态度不好,言辞不够尊敬,或者动机有问题,给赶走了或者干脆直接封了.呵呵.
不过你还好,只给人发现错别字多而已
家园 切中要害
- 复 【原创】关于陈经
家园 建议陈经做做外汇 喜欢看陈经的经济分析（因为不懂经济），看不懂陈经的操作。因为他没有止损。
- 复 【原创】关于陈经
家园 尝试回答一下 熊仔不同意陈经的观点，到现在也没开户。
a.懂不懂经济要看和谁比，熊仔是关注国计民生的工科生。
b.增加了一点，比如令熊仔佩服的郎教授经常讲的二元经济，其中的一元不就是陈大所言的官办经济吗？陈大讲的更生动更具体。
c.没预测性的。也不是用来预测的。《投资学》一书上讲，价值投资难就难在如何在别人看不出价值的地方发现价值。陈大的理论就是发现价值的指导理论。所以熊仔觉着不对没问题，因为价值投资者应该就是和大家不一样的（所以去年陈大一发贴众人来捧才是问题，价值大家都看到了时还有什么好赚的）陈大是盈亏自负的，却无偿的与我们分享了经验。
- 复 【原创】关于陈经
家园 【文摘】你自己懂经济么？ 家园 我不是‘专业’人士 受过基本的经济系大学训练。
懂经济谈不上，懂一些经济知识。
家园 关于经济学的道听途说 我听过经济系的朋友们讨论，都说，经济学本来就是wishful的东西，任何一个经济理论都是给出一大堆前提条件，任何一个条件不符合，结果都可能不成立。。。所以，我觉得不必从严格经济学名词上来考虑官办经济，本来官办经济就是一种西方经济学涉猎不多的东西，而政治经济学大概很难说符合严格的西方经济学的架构。。。
PS，我不是专业人士，不过那些朋友们，勉勉强强是入门的博士。。。
家园 研究经济可能需要借鉴教育孩子的方法 幼儿心理学有用吗？当然有。但是，每个孩子都是不同的，即使是同卵多胞胎，性情都有差异，有的随和，有的倔强；有的冲动，有的沉稳，不一而足。
所以，老邓是仅次于老毛的牛人，“一摸二猫”，走出了中国的强国之路。
家园 你的朋友不错 比较诚实也愿意自我解嘲。我的看法是，量化的经济学差不多在你朋友说的和读本科的信奉者想象的之间。
西方经济学并不是一个封闭的体系。关于政府政策和体制，还有其他譬如贿赂，国际之间的干预等等都有研究，而且是热点，可惜是难点永远是相对客观的观察。
对经济学的无能，有个法国的物理学家/经济学家有一个essay在本期的自然上，有兴趣可以去看看。简单明了地说了经济学面对的困难和方法论的缺陷。
Financial engineers have put too much faith in untested axioms and faulty models, says Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. To prevent economic havoc, that needs to change. Economics needs a scientific revolution
Compared with physics, it seems fair to say that the quantitative success of the economic sciences has been disappointing. Rockets fly to the Moon; energy is extracted from minute changes of atomic mass. What is the flagship achievement of economics? Only its recurrent inability to predict and avert crises, including the current worldwide credit crunch.
Why is this so? Of course, to paraphrase Isaac Newton, modelling the madness of people is more difficult than modelling the motion of planets. But statistical regularities should emerge in the behaviour of large populations, just as the law of ideal gases emerges from the chaotic motion of individual molecules. To me, the crucial difference between modelling in physics and in economics lies rather in how the fields treat the relative role of concepts, equations and empirical data.
Classical economics is built on very strong assumptions that quickly become axioms: the rationality of economic agents (the premise that every economic agent, be that a person or a company, acts to maximize his profits), the 'invisible hand' (that agents, in the pursuit of their own profit, are led to do what is best for society as a whole) and market efficiency (that market prices faithfully reflect all known information about assets), for example. An economist once told me, to my bewilderment: "These concepts are so strong that they supersede any empirical observation." As economist Robert Nelson argued in his book, Economics as Religion (Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 2002), the marketplace has been deified.
Classical economics has no framework through which to understand 'wild' markets.Physicists, on the other hand, have learned to be suspicious of axioms. If empirical observation is incompatible with a model, the model must be trashed or amended, even if it is conceptually beautiful or mathematically convenient. So many accepted ideas have been proven wrong in the history of physics that physicists have grown to be critical and queasy about their own models.
Unfortunately, such healthy scientific revolutions have not yet taken hold in economics, where ideas have solidified into dogmas. These are perpetuated through the education system: students don't question formulas they can use without thinking. Although numerous physicists have been recruited by financial institutions over the past few decades, they seem to have forgotten the methodology of the natural sciences as they absorbed and regurgitated the existing economic lore.
The supposed omniscience and perfect efficacy of a free market stems from economic work done in the 1950s and 1960s, which with hindsight looks more like propaganda against communism than plausible science. In reality, markets are not efficient, humans tend to be over-focused in the short-term and blind in the long-term, and errors get amplified, ultimately leading to collective irrationality, panic and crashes. Free markets are wild markets.
Picture imperfect
Reliance on models based on incorrect axioms has clear and large effects. The Black–Scholes model, for example, which was invented in 1973 to price options, is still used extensively. But it assumes that the probability of extreme price changes is negligible, when in reality, stock prices are much jerkier than this. Twenty years ago, unwarranted use of the model spiralled into the worldwide October 1987 crash; the Dow Jones index dropped 23% in a single day, dwarfing recent market hiccups. Ironically, it was the very use of a crash-free model that helped to trigger a crash.
This time, the problem lies, in part, in the development of structured financial products that packaged subprime risk into seemingly respectable high-yield investments. The models used to price them were fundamentally flawed: they underestimated the probability that multiple borrowers would default on their loans simultaneously. These models again neglected the very possibility of a global crisis, even as they contributed to triggering one.
Surprisingly, classical economics has no framework through which to understand 'wild' markets, even though their existence is so obvious to the layman. Physics, on the other hand, has developed several models that explain how small perturbations can lead to wild effects. The theory of complexity shows that although a system may have an optimum state, it is sometimes so hard to identify that the system never settles there. This optimum state is not only elusive, it is also hyper-fragile to small changes in the environment, and therefore often irrelevant to understanding what is going on. There are good reasons to believe that this paradigm should apply to economic systems in general and financial markets in particular. We need to break away from classical economics and develop completely different tools. Some behavioural economists and econo-physicists are attempting to do this now, in a patchy way, but their fringe endeavour is not taken seriously by mainstream economics.
While work is done to enhance models, regulation also needs to improve. Innovations in financial products should be scrutinized, crash-tested against extreme scenarios outside the realm of current models and approved by independent agencies, just as we have done with other potentially lethal industries (chemical, pharmaceutical, aerospace, nuclear energy).
Crucially, the mindset of those working in economics and financial engineering needs to change. Economics curricula need to include more natural science. The prerequisites for more stability in the long run are the development of a more pragmatic and realistic representation of what is going on in financial markets, and to focus on data, which should always supersede perfect equations and aesthetic axioms.