Chapter 5 Why are "mainstream economists" criticized?

With the arrest of Gu Chujun, chairman of Kelon Electric, a new wave of controversy surrounding "mainstream economists" has emerged in China.If you think that China's "mainstream economists" are economists represented by the winners of the "First China Economics Award" in March this year, then you are wrong.In fact, most of today's "mainstream economists" should be the next generation or two of those old winners. They believe in free markets and economic efficiency, which is completely different from the old generation. They love to quote Yes, the West has Friedman, and the East has Zhang Wuchang.However, if you think that their trendy and westernized thinking will be universally sought after, then you are wrong again.

In fact, the two upsurges of online comments following last year's "Lang Xianping whirlwind" and this year's "Gu Chujun incident" were mostly ordinary netizens' criticism and denunciation of "mainstream economists". To make matters worse, the term "mainstream" has become a derogatory term in China today.Just browse the headlines of popular posts in the two waves of online crusades last year and this year, and you will be able to know the negative effects of the prefix "mainstream": "Mainstream Economists Have Been Defendants", "Mainstream Economists' Embarrassing Situation" , "The Mainstream Economic Tongue Is Trembling", "Why Do Mainstream Economists Lose the Public?" "... Even the "mainstream economists" themselves are unwilling to use the word "mainstream" to refer to themselves.What is even more telling is that their academic opponents freely refer to themselves as "non-mainstream economists".

Why did the "mainstream economists" who once "mastered the hegemony of discourse" (netizens' language) in Chinese economic theory and practice fall into this situation today?China's "International Finance News" published an article signed by "Fu Yong", explaining this phenomenon as follows: "The infinite admiration for efficiency makes mainstream economics ignore the attention of vulnerable groups to a considerable extent. Ignores fairness. In the eyes of the public, mainstream economics advocates a logic of dislike the poor and love the rich, and always seems to be on the side of the vested interests.”

On some blog sites, the "List of Capital Interest Groups to which Famous Mainstream Economists Belong" was posted, listing in detail the list of companies where some of the most famous "mainstream economists" served as independent directors, in an attempt to prove that they " The impetus for disliking the poor and loving the rich.A long article titled "The Crisis of China's Mainstream Economics" circulated on the Internet believes that the crisis of mainstream economics stems from its three fatal weaknesses: opportunism, elitism, and market fundamentalism.Netizen "Lao Tian" was even more unkind: "China's mainstream economists are a unique group of extreme elitists in the world, and they can better reflect the characteristics of 'capitalization' than Chinese capitalists."

Amidst the crusade, some people defended "mainstream economists".A lawyer named "Wang Jie" wrote an article on the Internet: "Compared with more than 20 years before the reform, the life of the people is not what it used to be. Who can deny this? Of course, who can Say, the current achievements of China's economy are not related to the economic reform theoretical contributions of the mainstream economists who are now specially approved by us?" Even the above-mentioned article signed by "Fu Yong", after criticizing the "arrogance" of "mainstream economists", also believed that many crusades on the Internet were "biased": "For the public to privatize China When there are accusations of asset loss, mainstream economists usually ask back: Is there a better solution? Lang Xianping said nationalization, which runs counter to the logic of mainstream economics—under the arrangement of the state-owned property rights system, being ' Wouldn't insider-controlled' state assets melt away like popsicles in the summer? Aren't they also drains? As a result, the obsession with purpose (efficiency) is enough for mainstream economists to ignore flaws in the process (unfairness ). If people can believe that the above analysis is indeed the logic of mainstream economics, then it is not biased to question the conscience of mainstream economists, or even accuse them of opening the door to Gu Chujun for their own interests. You can say There is a problem with a person’s logical reasoning, but you can’t think that the speaker has benefited from someone based on who his conclusion is beneficial to, and represents a certain kind of benefit.”

In all fairness, the debates surrounding "mainstream economists" are actually a microcosm of China's reform dilemma. It reflects the differences between fairness and efficiency, poverty and wealth, masses and elites, left-wing and right-wing in the process of economic reform in contemporary China. opposition and conflict.Some people believe that the dilemma of China’s reform is that China’s economic reform has passed the start-up period when everyone benefits, and has entered a transition period where interests are divided. Everyone knows that the deepening of China’s economic reform cannot bypass the reform of state-owned enterprises, but the reform of state-owned enterprises must It will touch the original pattern of interests and harm vested interests.How to solve these problems in the process of China's economic system reform cannot be found in the long-standing western private ownership economic theory.

Due to the unique path of reform chosen by China, economics has become more important than any other discipline in contemporary China. However, it is precisely because economic issues are closely related to people’s livelihood and interests that economists have In a sense, they are all "public figures", and there is no "academic ivory tower" to hide from. With the deepening of China's economic reform, economics and economists have increasingly become the focus of social debate. To be fair, China’s “mainstream economists” are indeed commendable for their innovative awareness of abandoning outdated and rigid ideologies and absorbing the most cutting-edge academic achievements in the West. Their spirit and efforts to actively promote China’s market-oriented reforms are indeed respectable. In the eyes of a small number of people, some economists "see things but don't see people", and their worship of the market and efficiency are too much, and they have become the so-called "market fundamentalism", "efficiency supremacy" and "social Darwinism". doctrine".If the reform of state-owned enterprises in China makes the majority of employees "benefited and harmed first", then the philosophy of "seeing things but not people" is bound to make "mainstream economists" go to the opposite side of the people.

In recent years in China, "non-mainstream economists" and ordinary netizens have challenged "mainstream economists". This is a diverse debate and a normal social phenomenon.Although academically, I agree with the "mainstream" point of view far more than the "non-mainstream".The only worry is that this kind of normal, healthy, and vigorous debate will fall into the ending of "either or not": either the "mainstream" regains its discourse hegemony, and the "mainstream" becomes "individual"; or "Non-mainstream" turned into "mainstream", and in the end only one flower remained.