Concerning the debate motion "政府不应干预市场", I think we have to clarify what "干预市场" refers to.
(1) If "干预市场" means any kind of intervention, then the side for the motion is in disadvantage. Because we know that, by assuming all agents maximizing utility, any equilibrium allocation is efficient when all relevant constraints are taken into consideration (at least Chicago economists agree). However, we do observe government intervention in any country. Therefore, having some amount of gov't intervention is efficient.
(2) If "干预市场" means further intervention than what we already observed, then the side against the motion is in disadvantage.Because, the equilibrium amount of intervention is efficient, therefore any further intervention is not optimal.
(3) I don't want to involve in the debate (after all, it exists since Adam Smith). But I guess it is more or less a methological issue rather than an economic one. My conjecture is that the "self-referring" problem of "Russell’s paradox" tricks again in this issue. In neo-classical economics, all agents in the system are asserted to be self interest. However, we have something called "governemt" which is assumed to be maximizing social welfare. But the "governemt" is part of the system! So the Paradox applies when this gov't tries to use economic theory to analyse.
(4) My impression is that, to resolve this issue, the black box "government" has to be disclosed -- as in the case of new political economy.
Re:政府不应干预市场 -- Russell’s paradox?
作者：oscarwong 发表时间：2001-3-15 0:39:00
The such case is not a Russell's paradox.this case just can say"self-contradiction(X={-X})"..cause the term "self-contradiction" is not includ any meanings about"self-referring".
Anyway,i am very glad to see you,and get an opportunity to discuss the problom!
Re:政府不应干预市场 -- Russell’s paradox?
作者：bear 发表时间：2001-3-15 12:05:00
In fact, if all divided porpertity rights are defined clearly, a government could be esitablished in order to reduce the institution cost and information cost. In this case, the functions and roles are defided in a contract. It is the agreement between a special firm(the government) and other firms and individuals. Sometimes the contract calls the constitution. Because of the information cost and institution cost, the contract may not be carried out properly. That is, the government is not functional or overdo.
