主题：大投资（一） -- 陈经
家园 违约是必然的，但就是违约了 也很能有新一轮的大投资。土鳖硬件，世界第一了吧。GDP应该也是大大低估了。没有什么大的投资潜力了，从增速的角度。日本70年东京还有不少人家要倒马桶呢，据说2/3城区没有下水道（据时代周刊，70年关于日本大阪世博会的封面文章）。
家园 老无所依？？？？？ 可以深信，如果还再有一轮“大投资”，那一定是先一轮的剥削人民。最有可能的就是全民养老金的违约吧
家园 养老金不会违约的！ 法子多的是，通胀的法子更好！
家园 花赞宝推。值得庆幸的是， 三轮剥削，三批人付出了巨大的代价，但是万幸的是这些代价都换来了大发展。大多数老百姓多多少少都喝到了些汤。
真正的杯具是付出了代价，球毛都得不到。
家园 合着老百姓拼死拼活干了几十年就是喝点汤 人活的有尊严，财富是人民创造出来的，就给了人民这点汤
家园 喝点汤，在我老家，就是大部分家庭有套房，好点的还有车。 老家房子不贵，2000一平米，二十万就能买套不错的房子，或者三十万可以自己盖两层小楼房。对沿海打工族而言，这笔钱集合全家之力并不是很难攒。
至于车，国产的也不贵，几万就够了，我觉得他们至少对现状是比较满足的。唯一可虑的，是青年打工族们步入中年，中年打工族步入老年之后的农村家庭怎么办，打工毕竟不是长久之计。
如果国家能给广大农民工找一条职业上升的出路，那么未来几十年的远虑也可以消除了。
对易于满足愿意踏实过日子的普通人来说，有房有车基本就实现人生目标了，我觉得，您的口号离他们有点远，不接地气。
家园 合着老百姓在49年以前都懒得跟猪一样 以至于连汤都没有
家园 合着解放前什么样解放后什么样 不是我说的，是周总理说延安地区的
不和好的比就和差的比，还不如和原始社会比
家园 只是希望执政党兼顾效率与公平 三公经费砍掉一半，三农问题就解决了；直属央企上缴利润多10%，破产国企的下岗工人的历史问题也解决了。不过眼看延迟退休一再讨论，看来全民养老金问题已经是挽回不了了，就算开源节流了也要优先填这个窟窿。
家园 TG=超級人精, 把钱用刀刃上 as my guess:
刀刃=1, 自己的队伍;
刀刃 =2, folks like 华为
我从92年就开始接触华为，华为的情况我还是很清楚的， [ 老成都 ]
http://www.ccthere.com/article/3906214
as to those 三农, 破产国企的下岗工人,
TG calculates that they will support TG, like 淮海战役是小车推出来, Chinese people will still do that, more or less, in a more twisted way of working with TG together as an odd couple ;
3. globally, TG thinks TG as a 执政党 is much better than those white 执政党, those white 执政党 don't really know what they are doing, in TG's eye, and TG has 制度优势, and "most" Chinese people somehow buys that theory;
-----------------
Paul Krugman - New York Times Blog
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 18, 2013, 3:06 pm 28 Comments
The New Growth Fizzle
A sort of side-thought inspired by Brad DeLong on the end of Malthusian economics and all that, plus what looks like deja vu all over again on the payoff or lack thereof to Big Data: whatever happened to New Growth Theory?
For a while, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, theories of growth with endogenous technological change were widely heralded as the Next Big Thing in economics. Textbooks were restructured to put long-run growth up front, with business cycles (who cared about those anymore?) crammed into a chapter or two at the end. David Warsh wrote a book touting NGT as the most fundamental development since Adam Smith, casting Paul Romer as a heroic figure leading economics into a brave new world.
And here we are, a couple of decades on, and the whole thing seems to have fizzled out. Romer has had a very interesting and productive life, but not at all the kind of role Warsh imagined. The reasons some countries grow more successfully than others remain fairly mysterious, with most discussions ending, as Robert Solow remarked long ago, in a “blaze of amateur sociology”. And whaddya know, business cycles turn out still to be important.
My own sense is that NGT never really had the elements needed to turn it into an intellectual success story; too much of it involved making assumptions about how unmeasurable things affected other unmeasurable things. It took off, briefly, partly because the subject is so important, and people wanted to be able to say something about it; meanwhile, business-cycle macro was then, as it is now, a deeply disputatious area riven by politics, and people were eager to talk about something else. In short, it was an intellectual bubble that eventually deflated of its own accord.
But it’s still amazing, for someone who remembers the excitement of the time, how completely it has all vanished from the economics landscape.
家园 遍地的豆腐渣都是人精捞钱的载体