主题：【讨论】关于茅于轼 -- phyllis

他们没有办法给普通大众具体的解释特定的经济理论成立的条件，或者自己的能力不足以把这些条件具体化，这些条件会因为不同的情况而变化，要有具体的数据才行。老茅这些人没这个能力和精力去做这些事情，就剩了一张大嘴，开口就成了胡说八道了。他的经济学专业训练我个人感觉也不是很严格。我一直把他当成宋缺德一样的人物对待的，不能说他错了，但是都是些没边没沿的说法。老了，不能要求太多。

才发现宋*祖*德在西西河被禁了，哈哈。老铁有趣。

so the dog is a mathematician.You're absolutely right? Math is that simple. Mathematicians are not so great at all.

What do you do for living? Let's assume you're a computer technician, so if a dog can punch the keyboard then he is a computer technician just like you en! Computer is just that simple! en.

so according to your logic,you=computer technician,and dog = a computer technician en, is that right?

any economists who ever tried, tries or trying to explain the economics to society. Because mathematicians won't explain their jobs to the society, physicians don't either, and philosophers don't, chemists don't, computer technicians don't, painters don't, why do economists do that? It is almost guaranteed that people without economic training won't understand, but they do believe they do understand. Even Strongly believe they have the same understanding as the professional economists, their confidence are so strong, strong enough to accusing the professionals. Lol. what bunch of jerks? don't get me wrong, the jerks I mean the economists. why do they do that? why? i don't know?

As I said I have never read 茅's theory or his entire paper completely, why? because he or his theories don't deserve my attention, I've got something better to read, thus I don't support him. It would be hard to support a person without basic understanding of his work. But I don't deny him either because it would be even harder, at least to me, to blame a person without basic understanding of his work. does what I said above make any senses to you so far?

流于偏激,how did you figure this from what I said? I have read it again and again, can't feel you at all. So instead thanks me to inspire you, you accuse me for something I didn't do? It is hard to conduct a meaningful and pleasant discussion at cchere now.

And by the way, the best way to learn is not here but school.

I just stated the truth, the truth is most people don't know economics but dare to question the best economists, and even doubt their qualification. isn't it odd?

But not one ordinary person dares to question even the worst mathematician's qualification, isn't it odd?

The worst mathematician can scream to all the ordinary people:"you are not qualified to talk math with me." And most people would think he is qualified to say so,at some level at least. it is odd, isn't it?

But even the best economist would be screamed by the ordinary people:"you are not qualified to be an economist. your job could be done by a parrot or a dog."

isn't it odd?

don't take it too serious, I am not blaming you but inspire you.

just curious, when was your last time asked the same question about 陈景润's study,e.g. 1+1=2,if you ever did ask.

I said:" what the hell? ",when I 1st time heard about this,"why does anybody pay him to do things like that? "

but I never dare to ask the question like yours:"does his study make any senses at all, mathematically?"

because I was so afraid that people would think less of me.

and the last thing, to me: the journey of the explore the truth or acquire the knowledge, is always bitter and sour. I can't walking without wiping.