股通地下室

中国以外的投资机会,股市汇市商品地产

版主: blackHawk_UpYAHOO

头像
forest
President
President
帖子: 4511
注册: 09/01/09 18:53
联系:

Re: 股通地下室

帖子forest » 04/01/15 01:31

李光耀的基因决定论又被证实一把。你的家庭基因决定你的地位。高大上家庭能保持三百年。
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201503311000

Podcast

上次由 forest 在 04/01/15 14:47,总共编辑 2 次。

头像
Omega
Associate
Associate
帖子: 781
注册: 12/17/10 12:56

Re: 股通地下室

帖子Omega » 04/01/15 09:08

how can one connect this to genetics? ludicrous
to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Bull markets are born on pessimism, grow on skepticism, mature on optimism and die on euphoria

头像
forest
President
President
帖子: 4511
注册: 09/01/09 18:53
联系:

Re: 股通地下室

帖子forest » 04/01/15 15:31

不管怎么说这期节目真是好,烙印还要elite 300年,是选种的结果。 :puke:
不过我又想起AMY CHUA和她老公的那本书,否定基因决定论,崇尚文化决定论,他们的data表明华人三代后,就融入,也随之平庸。不会elite 300年。
尼玛什么统计,什么大数据,都是随意让狗教授们打扮的小姑娘。
Darth Shemp 写了:how can one connect this to genetics? ludicrous
to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

头像
forest
President
President
帖子: 4511
注册: 09/01/09 18:53
联系:

Re: 股通地下室

帖子forest » 04/01/15 15:32

发信人: 阿普 (骆驼123456), 信区: History
标 题: 文革重来?
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Wed Apr 1 10:59:33 2015, 美东)

近日与数位国内的中层人士交流,他们不约而同地感到政治整肃突然离自身很近,心理
不安。这种紧迫感,甚至几个月前还没有。我这里谈些看法,很简单粗略,希望能抛砖
引玉。
目前的形式,假想你是习近平和王岐山,下一步怎么办?薄熙来,周永康,几个军头,
外加他们最紧密的党羽,已经家破人亡,但他们的幕后老板,和众多党羽还位居要职。
仇恨已经种下,多年前曾共存并制衡的各派,已经变成你死我活的敌人。
1.不管是自己主动选择还是因阻力过大而被迫,如果习和王现在停战,社会中下层可能
对这场运动继续无感。新一场文革 ,即使已经进行了几年,因为主要局限于高层,社
会中下层还可以继续忽视,或假装不知道。但如果现在终止反腐,习和王未来退位后,
自己身家可能难保。目前当权派的众多追随者,有些身居要位,将在对手复仇中被清洗
。政治绞肉机一旦开动,很难停下。对国家而言,如果反腐停顿,政治大局悬于几派间
的恐怖平衡,贪腐还会大踏步前进,可能中国社会和老百姓心理也承受不了。
2.为保自身和羽翼的安全,如果习和王加码“反腐”,去打倒敌人的幕后老板和党羽,
政治斗争打击面会更广,仇恨会更多更深。社会里会被更大面积人员卷入,上至前最高
领导,下至政府和企业中层的局,处,科级。在中下层老百姓眼里,那就是文革重演。
以上1和2是两个大方向。实际情况可能是它们的某种排列组合。
3.问题的核心是反腐的“毛式政治运动”本质。杀人犯被枪毙,家属很少因此报复社会
,因为大多数人能接受“杀人偿命”的逻辑。薄周等以贪腐之名被打倒,很多人不信不
服。根本原因是政治力凌驾了司法,使法律不能独立公正。即使是坏人,也应该得到司
法的公正对待。因为只有这样,当一个好人被怀疑有罪时,才有可信的制度依靠,重获
清白。这本是文革给中国的教训,但当下中国选择了遗忘。没有公正司法,反腐就变成
了政治迫害,人们就内心不服。海外多次传出习、温、朱等巨额财富的详细证据,就是
这种不服的人,不服的心理造成的:“你们说我们贪腐,你们比我们更贪腐”。
4.在政治大浪来时,国内一般中层,人人都有小辫子(2012年的某场饭局,就足够打倒
几个局长和处长了)。这个制度设计的目的,就是要人人有罪,这样在位者就可以按自
己需要,随时打倒任何人。这样的共犯体系里,一般中层生存的基本原则就是:“熊来
了,我肯定跑不过熊,但我只要比我的同伴跑得更快就胜利了”。政治运动就是熊。熊
肯定要吃人。一般国人不想阻止熊,只想自己不被吃。言外之意就是,“熊,你去吃我
身边的人吧”。中国人际关系的本质如此,所以与别国人相比,中国大陆人之间更互相
猜忌,互相利用,互相坑害。
5.我们40到50岁的这代人,在1980-90年代成长时得益的邓氏开明环境,可能消失。邓
小平的主要政治遗产包括,最高领导任期制,党内派系共存,权力轮流坐庄等。目的就
是,杜绝毛式“恶斗”政治,让社会能和平,才能搞经济。除非有体系外突发事件,很
难想象当前这样的反腐运动后,习和王还敢按制度正常退位,把最高权力交给团派、或
上海帮、或任何外人。交出权力等同自杀。习和王的算计可能是普金模式:任期到时,
或赖着不离位,或传位给绝对死党,或把权力交给傀儡,或过一段时间自己再出马。但
中国的后果可能远不如俄罗斯,因为俄罗斯至少有一个形式部分民主的政府,而中国没
有。中国政治可能陷入长期黑暗残忍的宫廷内斗,而社会大众将身不由己被殃及。
6.阻止中国滑向黑暗的最大力量,是经济上的对西方开放。与美、欧、日等的产品、金
钱、人员、信息往来,使社会保持有限文明,使本质上没有底线的政治内斗,面对来自
境外关注的目光,有一些顾忌。这就是1972年尼克松和基辛格敲开封闭的中国大门的主
要原因之一。黑暗贫穷的社会里,老百姓对自己的幸福和生命不在乎,容易追随极端暴
力势力,挺身走险,做破坏性的事,如当年中国鼓励的挺身炸碉堡,朝鲜的为领袖画像
牺牲生命,阿富汗和ISIS的自杀炸弹等。十几亿人的中国,如果极度封闭贫穷,对世界
的潜在破坏力太大,所以美国为自身未来的安全,要帮中国保持开放。中国几十年的“
改革开放”,目前看来“改革”很少很浅。如沙滩作画,一个浪头就被夷平。而对西方
开放,硕果累累(如INTERNET,PM2.5等)。对中国一般老百姓的个人幸福,“开放”
有根本性推动作用。
7.邓自己在政治绞肉机里度过了一生,终于看清了毛的道路行不通,所以发明了不成理
论的邓理论。89年的本质是,一半人对他说,“你的邓理论也不行,中国要走民主自由
之路”。而包括邓本人的另一半人说“邓理论就是最好!”。邓政治构想的核心是权力
轮流坐,和平地按程序交接。这个想法,在他自己那代没有实现,但他寄希望于身后的
各代来实现。现在回头看,江泽民从来没有真正把权力给胡景涛。究其原因,最可能是
江害怕被后任清算。而习未来也有可能因为怕被清算,而不能不敢按规则按时放权。其
实所有独裁者,都面临类似问题。文革就是毛极度害怕出现中国的赫鲁晓夫,而把权力
从自己选的接班人手中再抢回来。邓的政治构想,曾被认为解决了这个共产制度的死结
。但高层几十年来的行为表明,他们早已背离邓的计划。邓理论过去从没有真正实现过
,未来也走不下去了。
打击腐败,大快人心。反腐的康庄大道,也是习和王免于被报复的保障,就是推行独立
并严谨的司法制度。公正的法制可以消除罪与罚过程中产生的、无休止的派系与阶层间
的怨恨、猜忌和倾轧。司法独立,当权者会面对短期危险。不受政治控制的司法,它的
刀口可能砍向任何人和派系,包括当权派。但改革的决心,加上政治技巧,可以兴利抑
弊,最后成功。而拒绝司法独立,短期看似安定,长期来看,国家与习王个人都没有出
路。大而言之,虽然没有人能保证民主自由法制之路在中国一定能行得通。任何社会理
论的成功,都需要大量的人,长期的努力和奉献。但现在看来,这条路是中国唯一还有
希望的方向。以上是我粗略的想法,希望得到大家批评指教。

头像
Omega
Associate
Associate
帖子: 781
注册: 12/17/10 12:56

Re: 股通地下室

帖子Omega » 04/01/15 15:55

forest 写了:不管怎么说这期节目真是好,烙印还要elite 300年,是选种的结果。 :puke:
不过我又想起AMY CHUA和她老公的那本书,否定基因决定论,崇尚文化决定论,他们的data表明华人三代后,就融入,也随之平庸。不会elite 300年。
尼玛什么统计,什么大数据,都是随意让狗教授们打扮的小姑娘。
Darth Shemp 写了:how can one connect this to genetics? ludicrous
to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

aren't you the one who choose to believe chua's shitty book?
Bull markets are born on pessimism, grow on skepticism, mature on optimism and die on euphoria

头像
forest
President
President
帖子: 4511
注册: 09/01/09 18:53
联系:

Re: 股通地下室

帖子forest » 04/01/15 16:09

Darth Shemp 写了:
forest 写了:不管怎么说这期节目真是好,烙印还要elite 300年,是选种的结果。 :puke:
不过我又想起AMY CHUA和她老公的那本书,否定基因决定论,崇尚文化决定论,他们的data表明华人三代后,就融入,也随之平庸。不会elite 300年。
尼玛什么统计,什么大数据,都是随意让狗教授们打扮的小姑娘。

aren't you the one who choose to believe chua's shitty book?

If you must believe someone, it is better to believe Amy or Clark than someone who always dust off other people in the same trade, but has no wisdom of his own. /bana3

头像
Omega
Associate
Associate
帖子: 781
注册: 12/17/10 12:56

Re: 股通地下室

帖子Omega » 04/01/15 16:21

She has no expertise in statistics, no expertise in humanity, no expertise in genetics, no expertise in culture - she may even be a total illiterate in Chinese - and you choose to believe her crap? It is on YOU. It is you who can not judge based on evidence and have you seek after her bull shit.
Bull markets are born on pessimism, grow on skepticism, mature on optimism and die on euphoria

头像
forest
President
President
帖子: 4511
注册: 09/01/09 18:53
联系:

Re: 股通地下室

帖子forest » 04/01/15 16:23

原来选种大师早七年就有类似结果。英国的工业革命是选种的结果。 8-)
August 7, 2007
In Dusty Archives, a Theory of Affluence

By NICHOLAS WADE
For thousands of years, most people on earth lived in abject poverty, first as hunters and gatherers, then as peasants or laborers. But with the Industrial Revolution, some societies traded this ancient poverty for amazing affluence.

Historians and economists have long struggled to understand how this transition occurred and why it took place only in some countries. A scholar who has spent the last 20 years scanning medieval English archives has now emerged with startling answers for both questions.

Gregory Clark, an economic historian at the University of California, Davis, believes that the Industrial Revolution — the surge in economic growth that occurred first in England around 1800 — occurred because of a change in the nature of the human population. The change was one in which people gradually developed the strange new behaviors required to make a modern economy work. The middle-class values of nonviolence, literacy, long working hours and a willingness to save emerged only recently in human history, Dr. Clark argues.

Because they grew more common in the centuries before 1800, whether by cultural transmission or evolutionary adaptation, the English population at last became productive enough to escape from poverty, followed quickly by other countries with the same long agrarian past.

Dr. Clark’s ideas have been circulating in articles and manuscripts for several years and are to be published as a book next month, “A Farewell to Alms” (Princeton University Press). Economic historians have high praise for his thesis, though many disagree with parts of it.

“This is a great book and deserves attention,” said Philip Hoffman, a historian at the California Institute of Technology. He described it as “delightfully provocative” and a “real challenge” to the prevailing school of thought that it is institutions that shape economic history.

Samuel Bowles, an economist who studies cultural evolution at the Santa Fe Institute, said Dr. Clark’s work was “great historical sociology and, unlike the sociology of the past, is informed by modern economic theory.”

The basis of Dr. Clark’s work is his recovery of data from which he can reconstruct many features of the English economy from 1200 to 1800. From this data, he shows, far more clearly than has been possible before, that the economy was locked in a Malthusian trap — each time new technology increased the efficiency of production a little, the population grew, the extra mouths ate up the surplus, and average income fell back to its former level.

This income was pitifully low in terms of the amount of wheat it could buy. By 1790, the average person’s consumption in England was still just 2,322 calories a day, with the poor eating a mere 1,508. Living hunter-gatherer societies enjoy diets of 2,300 calories or more.

“Primitive man ate well compared with one of the richest societies in the world in 1800,” Dr. Clark observes.

The tendency of population to grow faster than the food supply, keeping most people at the edge of starvation, was described by Thomas Malthus in a 1798 book, “An Essay on the Principle of Population.” This Malthusian trap, Dr. Clark’s data show, governed the English economy from 1200 until the Industrial Revolution and has in his view probably constrained humankind throughout its existence. The only respite was during disasters like the Black Death, when population plummeted, and for several generations the survivors had more to eat.

Malthus’s book is well known because it gave Darwin the idea of natural selection. Reading of the struggle for existence that Malthus predicted, Darwin wrote in his autobiography, “It at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. ... Here then I had at last got a theory by which to work.”

Given that the English economy operated under Malthusian constraints, might it not have responded in some way to the forces of natural selection that Darwin had divined would flourish in such conditions? Dr. Clark started to wonder whether natural selection had indeed changed the nature of the population in some way and, if so, whether this might be the missing explanation for the Industrial Revolution.

The Industrial Revolution, the first escape from the Malthusian trap, occurred when the efficiency of production at last accelerated, growing fast enough to outpace population growth and allow average incomes to rise. Many explanations have been offered for this spurt in efficiency, some economic and some political, but none is fully satisfactory, historians say.

Dr. Clark’s first thought was that the population might have evolved greater resistance to disease. The idea came from Jared Diamond’s book “Guns, Germs and Steel,” which argues that Europeans were able to conquer other nations in part because of their greater immunity to disease.

In support of the disease-resistance idea, cities like London were so filthy and disease ridden that a third of their populations died off every generation, and the losses were restored by immigrants from the countryside. That suggested to Dr. Clark that the surviving population of England might be the descendants of peasants.

A way to test the idea, he realized, was through analysis of ancient wills, which might reveal a connection between wealth and the number of progeny. The wills did that, but in quite the opposite direction to what he had expected.

Generation after generation, the rich had more surviving children than the poor, his research showed. That meant there must have been constant downward social mobility as the poor failed to reproduce themselves and the progeny of the rich took over their occupations. “The modern population of the English is largely descended from the economic upper classes of the Middle Ages,” he concluded.

As the progeny of the rich pervaded all levels of society, Dr. Clark considered, the behaviors that made for wealth could have spread with them. He has documented that several aspects of what might now be called middle-class values changed significantly from the days of hunter gatherer societies to 1800. Work hours increased, literacy and numeracy rose, and the level of interpersonal violence dropped.

Another significant change in behavior, Dr. Clark argues, was an increase in people’s preference for saving over instant consumption, which he sees reflected in the steady decline in interest rates from 1200 to 1800.

“Thrift, prudence, negotiation and hard work were becoming values for communities that previously had been spendthrift, impulsive, violent and leisure loving,” Dr. Clark writes.

Around 1790, a steady upward trend in production efficiency first emerges in the English economy. It was this significant acceleration in the rate of productivity growth that at last made possible England’s escape from the Malthusian trap and the emergence of the Industrial Revolution.

In the rest of Europe and East Asia, populations had also long been shaped by the Malthusian trap of their stable agrarian economies. Their workforces easily absorbed the new production technologies that appeared first in England.

It is puzzling that the Industrial Revolution did not occur first in the much larger populations of China or Japan. Dr. Clark has found data showing that their richer classes, the Samurai in Japan and the Qing dynasty in China, were surprisingly unfertile and so would have failed to generate the downward social mobility that spread production-oriented values in England.

After the Industrial Revolution, the gap in living standards between the richest and the poorest countries started to accelerate, from a wealth disparity of about 4 to 1 in 1800 to more than 50 to 1 today. Just as there is no agreed explanation for the Industrial Revolution, economists cannot account well for the divergence between rich and poor nations or they would have better remedies to offer.

Many commentators point to a failure of political and social institutions as the reason that poor countries remain poor. But the proposed medicine of institutional reform “has failed repeatedly to cure the patient,” Dr. Clark writes. He likens the “cult centers” of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to prescientific physicians who prescribed bloodletting for ailments they did not understand.

If the Industrial Revolution was caused by changes in people’s behavior, then populations that have not had time to adapt to the Malthusian constraints of agrarian economies will not be able to achieve the same production efficiencies, his thesis implies.

Dr. Clark says the middle-class values needed for productivity could have been transmitted either culturally or genetically. But in some passages, he seems to lean toward evolution as the explanation. “Through the long agrarian passage leading up to the Industrial Revolution, man was becoming biologically more adapted to the modern economic world,” he writes. And, “The triumph of capitalism in the modern world thus may lie as much in our genes as in ideology or rationality.”

What was being inherited, in his view, was not greater intelligence — being a hunter in a foraging society requires considerably greater skill than the repetitive actions of an agricultural laborer. Rather, it was “a repertoire of skills and dispositions that were very different from those of the pre-agrarian world.”

Reaction to Dr. Clark’s thesis from other economic historians seems largely favorable, although few agree with all of it, and many are skeptical of the most novel part, his suggestion that evolutionary change is a factor to be considered in history.

Historians used to accept changes in people’s behavior as an explanation for economic events, like Max Weber’s thesis linking the rise of capitalism with Protestantism. But most have now swung to the economists’ view that all people are alike and will respond in the same way to the same incentives. Hence they seek to explain events like the Industrial Revolution in terms of changes in institutions, not people.

Dr. Clark’s view is that institutions and incentives have been much the same all along and explain very little, which is why there is so little agreement on the causes of the Industrial Revolution. In saying the answer lies in people’s behavior, he is asking his fellow economic historians to revert to a type of explanation they had mostly abandoned and in addition is evoking an idea that historians seldom consider as an explanatory variable, that of evolution.

Most historians have assumed that evolutionary change is too gradual to have affected human populations in the historical period. But geneticists, with information from the human genome now at their disposal, have begun to detect ever more recent instances of human evolutionary change like the spread of lactose tolerance in cattle-raising people of northern Europe just 5,000 years ago. A study in the current American Journal of Human Genetics finds evidence of natural selection at work in the population of Puerto Rico since 1513. So historians are likely to be more enthusiastic about the medieval economic data and elaborate time series that Dr. Clark has reconstructed than about his suggestion that people adapted to the Malthusian constraints of an agrarian society.

“He deserves kudos for assembling all this data,” said Dr. Hoffman, the Caltech historian, “but I don’t agree with his underlying argument.”

The decline in English interest rates, for example, could have been caused by the state’s providing better domestic security and enforcing property rights, Dr. Hoffman said, not by a change in people’s willingness to save, as Dr. Clark asserts.

The natural-selection part of Dr. Clark’s argument “is significantly weaker, and maybe just not necessary, if you can trace the changes in the institutions,” said Kenneth L. Pomeranz, a historian at the University of California, Irvine. In a recent book, “The Great Divergence,” Dr. Pomeranz argues that tapping new sources of energy like coal and bringing new land into cultivation, as in the North American colonies, were the productivity advances that pushed the old agrarian economies out of their Malthusian constraints.

Robert P. Brenner, a historian at the University of California, Los Angeles, said although there was no satisfactory explanation at present for why economic growth took off in Europe around 1800, he believed that institutional explanations would provide the answer and that Dr. Clark’s idea of genes for capitalist behavior was “quite a speculative leap.”

Dr. Bowles, the Santa Fe economist, said he was “not averse to the idea” that genetic transmission of capitalist values is important, but that the evidence for it was not yet there. “It’s just that we don’t have any idea what it is, and everything we look at ends up being awfully small,” he said. Tests of most social behaviors show they are very weakly heritable.

He also took issue with Dr. Clark’s suggestion that the unwillingness to postpone consumption, called time preference by economists, had changed in people over the centuries. “If I were as poor as the people who take out payday loans, I might also have a high time preference,” he said.

Dr. Clark said he set out to write his book 12 years ago on discovering that his undergraduates knew nothing about the history of Europe. His colleagues have been surprised by its conclusions but also interested in them, he said.

“The actual data underlying this stuff is hard to dispute,” Dr. Clark said. “When people see the logic, they say ‘I don’t necessarily believe it, but it’s hard to dismiss.’ ”

图片

头像
forest
President
President
帖子: 4511
注册: 09/01/09 18:53
联系:

Re: 股通地下室

帖子forest » 04/01/15 16:31

well, how about you have no expertise in judging the capabilities of well-established professors in top universities?
Darth Shemp 写了:She has no expertise in statistics, no expertise in humanity, no expertise in genetics, no expertise in culture - she may even be a total illiterate in Chinese - and you choose to believe her crap? It is on YOU. It is you who can not judge based on evidence and have you seek after her bull shit.
上次由 forest 在 04/01/15 20:53,总共编辑 1 次。

头像
imagine
VP
VP
帖子: 1332
注册: 08/29/09 13:51

Re: 股通地下室

帖子imagine » 04/01/15 19:41

:yea:
Darth Shemp 写了:She has no expertise in statistics, no expertise in humanity, no expertise in genetics, no expertise in culture - she may even be a total illiterate in Chinese - and you choose to believe her crap? It is on YOU. It is you who can not judge based on evidence and have you seek after her bull shit.
阿普:如果GGL回国了,what next?
Jrun:到郑州火车站二十分钟就给卖到山区去了
狗狗狸:My hometown India is ranked very high on the list of "most honest cities".


回到 “股市汇市”

在线用户

用户浏览此论坛: 没有注册用户 和 3 访客