我不知道你是什么年代的人，也不知道你是大陆人抑或台湾人。但是我要告诉你的是，就是在毛时代，中国人的生活水平也是一步步提高着的，虽然速度不是很快。现在的中国人的生活水平比那个时候提高的速度快多了，但还是不断有人抱怨、咒骂。还是不断有人造谣生事，目的无非就是否定中华人民共和国的一切。中国在毛时代，穷的厉害，但是外国人不知是中了什么邪，没有谁敢与中国再打一次象样的战争，即便是世界头号强权美国人，也只是派几架侦察机偷窥偷窥，也只是怂恿蒋介石派十几只小分队登陆解救中国人民，结果却是被公安和民兵全部捕获。1958年之后，大陆解放军海空军初始阶段即发兵沿海，将蒋记国军对大陆的威胁彻底遏制。援朝援越两场战事，使任何一个美国总统再不敢轻视毛泽东的态度。几场边界战争，印度至今伤痛隐隐，为了麦线未来惴惴不安。流亡缅甸的蒋记国军残余大部被接至台湾，金三角反共基地被放弃。毛时代的两弹一星不光是在发挥武器的作用，它们让世界看到的是中国的精神与勇气，中国人做事的决心与毅力，中国人的不惧死亡与牺牲的崭新气魄！毛时代的尾声是美国总统来中国北京听了一通他永远也弄不明白的毛氏哲学。现在的中国人，没有谁愿意再回到毛时代的艰苦岁月，以前那个穷横穷横的中国不在了，百炼钢化作绕指柔，JB日本、越南、菲律宾、印度，在JB美国的支持怂恿下，争先恐后地向中国呲牙，踹门叫骂，若在毛时代，一句北京骂“你个姥姥的。”再来一句“勿谓言之不预也”，全他妈闭嘴！毛时代开创了新纪元，现在的中国应该知道感恩，不要做那无父无母，数典忘祖的杂碎。现在的中国稍稍缺了那么一点大道之气。无妨，再有点刺激就行，这个刺激很快就要来了，锣不敲不响，拭目以待看谁是敲响铜锣的槌子。明明一个步步强盛的中国从磕磕绊绊到大步流星地赶来，有人却只记得他曾经衣衫褴褛并一再嘲讽，明明一个弓箭草鞋的士兵换上了全新的甲胄火器，却还有人继续着某先人的话“不打活着，开打必死。”新中国从成立伊始，就在诅咒与流言中搏击，人走了一代代，恶习臭毛病仍然遗传。基因低劣？血液混杂？搞不懂。也许是中国的历史与文化造就了这一类糟粕与垃圾。无论你与其他人怎么想，而我与其他一些人对中国的过去心存敬畏，对现在的中国给与支持，对以后的中国抱有真挚的希望。我喊一声“中华人民共和国万岁！”你和你的伙伴不用附和。
更多楼层已隐藏，3楼本文内容于
18:10:28 被肖苏纯3编辑 中美在工业化时期与工业化之后经济发展和生活水平趋势的对比----主流经济学家们：请你们尊重历史！作者：monologchen改革开放后，许多精英尤其是主流经济学家在各种媒体上批评毛泽东时代糟得很，特别是经济方面很糟，直接证据是那个时代人们生活水平很低，建国快三十年了，才勉强维持温饱，象自行车、手表、缝纫机等在毛泽东时代快要结束了都还没有普及，更不要提象电视、冰箱、洗衣机、计算机、汽车了，等等。据此，他们批评毛泽东不懂经济，经济搞不上去又主要是因为政治方面束缚和限制，也由此彻底否定了毛泽东的时代。他们的推理和辩证逻辑，很长时间以来没有得到有力的反驳。顶多论证毛泽东时代起点低，取得当时那样的发展实属不易，或者论证改革开放后取得的成就是建立在毛泽东时代打下的基础上。但普通百姓不在乎数据，切身的感受的确是现在比那个时代财富要丰富了，日子要好过多了，这一无可否认的事实也让普通人很困惑，这其中的奥秘到底在哪里呢？笔者无意中在网上看到美国加州大学伯克利分校经济学系德隆写的一篇文章《聚宝盆：20世纪的财富增长》，该文分析论证二十世纪在美国技术革命引起的财富增长与生活水平改善到底有多大，与19世纪的人比起来，现在的人们生活水平到底有多么不同，19世纪人们为什么会争论工业革命值不值，工业革命到底是提高了人们生活水平还是降低了人们的生活水平。我发现作者的例举的事实、论述的经济发展历史以及结论非常有意义，能为解决当前国内关于毛泽东时代的某些争论提供一些参考。于是，我又用搜索引擎查找有关二十世纪经和技术济发展带来生活水平改善的文章，发现有许多类似的文章。下面，我将德隆1998年的一篇《缓慢靠近乌托邦》AN EXPLOSION OF MATERIAL WEALTH 一章摘译如下：“在标志着中世纪结束的农业发明和商业革命期间，财富和技术的进步实在很缓慢。中世纪历史学者讲述那时人们用了几个世纪才使水车、重型犁具等关键性发明得到广泛传播使用。而且，在这个时期，技术进步引起了人口的增加，结果几乎没有改善人们的生活水准。甚至在工业革命早期，在生活水准方面产生的还仅仅是“改良性”而不是“革命性”的变化。除了象铁路、纺织、织布等工具的发明是个特例外，绝大多数该时期的发明革新是关于产品如何生产和运输的革新发明，是一种新型的资本出现，而不是消费品的出现。人们的生活水平得到改善，但那时人们的生活方式仍然没有什么变化。18世纪和19世纪见证了一个更快而且完全不同的变化。人类有史以来第一次技术能力增长走出了人口的增长和自然资源的限制。在19世纪最后的25年里，在发达国家，如英国，比利时，美国或澳大利亚，普通居民的生活水平已经是工业化前的三倍。然而，变化步子如此缓慢以至于人们，或者说至少是那些贵族知识分子，可能会认为他们一千年以前的祖先的效率与他们那个时代一样。西塞罗，一个罗马时代的贵族，作家和政治家，如果在汤马斯.杰弗逊（译者注：美国第三任总统、《独立宣言》的写作者汤马斯·杰弗逊）的厂子里生活也许感觉上几乎和在罗马时代没有什么区别。只不过是杰弗逊时代的犁更好一些罢了，帆船也得到了一些改进。但是这些还不足以让精英产生一种生活方式上实质改变的感觉。而且，当杰弗逊家的一个奴隶可能和当西塞罗家的一个奴隶没什么两样。变化的步子如此缓慢以至于引起了19世纪早期的知识分子争论工业革命是否值得，它是改善了还是降低了人们的生活水准。结果观点截然不同，象约翰这样的乐观的自由派与悲观的一方一直争论到19世纪四十年代。但是，到了二十世纪，人们的生活水平发生了翻天覆地的变化。物质财富增长如此之大以至于几乎难以衡量。以1895年蒙哥马利沃德消费品样本为例，当时单速自行车价格为65美元（笔者注：蒙哥马利沃德是上世纪之交美国最大的邮购零售商），从那以后，自行车价格以“名义”美元计算已经翻了一番（实际上是通货膨胀的结果）。但是今天自行车按实际价值算的话，已经便宜得许多了。它的“真实”价格应当是：为生产它花费的工作量和工作时间。在1895年，大概要花费普通美国工人260小时的工作量来积攒下足够多的钱来购买一辆单速自行车。今天，一个普通美国工人用不到八个小时的工作成果就可以买到一辆性能更好的自行车。以自行车作为标准，通过计算能买多少辆自行车来衡量财富，今天一个美国工人比1895年时的工人要富裕36倍了。如果以其它一些商品来作标准，结果可能会完全不一样。一把办公室椅子如果按花费普通工人工作日去购买它已经便宜了12.5倍，一架史蒂文钢琴仅仅便宜2倍，而一个银的茶匙还贵了25%。因此，回答“今天的我们比一个世纪前富了多少？”这样一个问题取决于你看重哪些商品。对于许多个人服务来说--比如请一个人来给你开门或擦亮你家的银茶匙 --你可能会发现在1895年和在1990年的平均财富没有什么变化，当时的一个小时的服务的价值和现在是一样的。但对于大规模制造的商品--比如自行车 --我们今天已经富了36倍。”看到这里，如果我用查找替换功能把该文中的“美国”替换成“中国”，把“工业革命”替换成“毛泽东时代”，把“今天”或“当代美国”替换成“改革开放后 ”，我们会发现替换后，文章照样能读下来。这是一个很有意思的类比：与毛泽东时代相比，改革开放后中国经济的极大发展带来的生活水平提高的原因和过程，跟美国相较于十九世纪，在二十世纪经济技术发展带来的生活水平提高的原因和过程几乎是一模一样的，除了美国在工业革命用了近百年的时间而中国只用了近三十年时间这一个差异。美国精英分子在十九世纪感觉不到工业革命带来生活水平和生活方式有明显的改善与中国当今精英分子指责毛泽东时代没有极大改善人们生活水平情形差不多。美国在工业革命期间人口增长导致生活水平没有得到明显改善与中国在毛泽东时代的情形也几乎一致，只不过是中国人口在工业化之前基数更大一些。如果我把美国1890年到1990年实际GDP发展曲线的时间轴线压缩成60年，当你看到二者是如此近似时，你也不要感到非常吃惊。甚至连争论都是如此相似：美国在十九世纪争论工业革命到底值不值，是提高了还是降低了美国人的生活水准等“历史往事”与我们今天讨论毛泽东时代到底有没有是好还是坏，人们生活水平有没有改善也如出一辙，只不过是我们国内的争论里面掺杂着政治因素，仅仅因人们生活水平没有得到明显的提高而全盘否定毛泽东时代的经济发展过程，显然是精英们在这个问题上并没有表现出讲求客观与公正的学术原则。中国和美国在工业化时期与工业化之后经济发展和生活水平趋势存在如此多的一致，说明了什么呢？我认于至少说明毛泽东时代的中国仅仅用了30年走完了美国用了近一百年才完成的工作化，其效率应值得嘉许而不是批评。而且，在毛泽东时期，中国在完成工业化过程人们生活水平没有得到足够的改善并不是什么例外，正象美国1895年时的普通人感觉生活和一千年前相比也没有什么提高和改善一样，都不能成为指责的对象，也不应成为否定美国工业革命和中国工业化重要意义的依据；中国改革开放后人们生活水平提高，大部分应归因于技术进步和工作化的完成，这就跟美国在二十世纪人们财富增加的原因一样。经济技术发展给人类带来的影响和意义是深远的，人类究竟向前发展得更好还是变得更坏，这些问题已经引起许多人的关注。在网上，普通人都不难看到西方经济学家有关这方面的文章，我相信，中国所谓的著名经济学者尤其是那些留洋的经济学家就更不难看到类似于这样的经济发展历史的文章或研究，为什么这些著名的“学者”，如厉以宁、张维迎等，从来没有发表一个公正客观的研究文章？我们不需要你们给毛泽东时代定调，只要有一个稍微严谨的分析、推理过程就可以了。最后要对那些自视为主流、坐在宝塔尖上的学者和精英们说一声：请你们尊重历史，否则历史就不会尊重你们。附德隆原文和网址：http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/nerr/rr1998/q3/delo98_3.htmAN EXPLOSION OF MATERIAL WEALTHBetween the invention of agriculture and the commercial revolution that marked the end of the Middle Ages, wealth and technology developed slowly indeed. Medieval historians tell of the centuries it took for key inventions like the watermill or the heavy plow to diffuse across the landscape. And, during this period, increases in technology led to increases in the population, with little if any appearing as improvements in the median standard of living.Even the early years of the Industrial Revolution produced more "improvements" than "revolutions" in standards of living. With the railroad and the spinning and weaving of textiles as important exceptions, most innovations of that period were innovations in how goods were produced and transported, and in new kinds of capital, but not in consumer goods. Standards of living improved, but styles of life remained much the same. The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw a faster and different kind of change. For the first time, technological capability outran population growth and natural resource scarcity. By the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the typical inhabitant of the leading economies — a Briton, a Belgian, an American, or an Australian — had perhaps three times the standard of living of someone in a preindustrial economy.Still, so slow was the pace of change that people, or at least aristocratic intellectuals, could think of their predecessors of a thousand years before as effectively their contemporaries. Marcus Tullius Cicero, a Roman aristocrat, author, and politician, might have felt more or less at home in the company of Thomas Jefferson. The plows were better in Jefferson's time. Sailing ships were much improved. But these might have been insufficient to create a sense of a qualitative change in the order of life for the elite. And being a slave of Jefferson was probably a lot like being a slave of Cicero.So slow was the pace of change that intellectuals in the early nineteenth century debated whether the Industrial Revolution was worthwhile. Was it an improvement or a degeneration in the standard of living? And opinions were genuinely divided, with as optimistic a liberal as John Stuart Mill coming down on the side of the "pessimists" as late as the end of the 1840s. But, in the twentieth century, standards of living exploded. The growth in material wealth has been so great as to make it nearly impossible to measure.Consider a sample of consumer goods available through Montgomery Ward in 1895, when a one-speed bicycle cost $65. Since then, the price of a bicycle measured in "nominal" dollars has more than doubled (as a result of inflation). But the bicycle today is much less expensive in terms of the measure that truly counts, its "real" price: the work and sweat needed to earn its cost. In 1895, it took perhaps 260 hours' worth of the average American worker's production to amass enough money to buy a one-speed bicycle. Today, an average American worker can buy one of higher quality for less than 8 hours' worth of production.On the bicycle standard, measuring wealth by counting up how many bicycles it can buy, the average American worker today is 36 times richer than his or her counterpart was in 1895. Other commodities would tell a different story. An office chair has become 12.5 times cheaper in terms of the time it takes the average worker to produce enough to pay for it. A Steinway piano or an accordion is only twice as cheap. A silver teaspoon is 25 percent more expensive.Thus, the answer to the question "How much wealthier are we today than our counterparts of a century ago?" depends on which commodities you view as important. For many personal services — having a butler to answer the door and polish your silver spoons — you would find little difference in average wealth between 1895 and 1990. An hour of a butler's time costs about the same then as now. But for mass-produced manufactured goods — like bicycles — we are wealthier by as much as 36 times.THE RANGE OF GOODS AND SERVICESSuch calculations substantially understate the improvement in our material well-being, for they fail to consider the enormous expansion in the range of goods and services we can consume.So when we are told that the standard of living in the United States in 1900 was roughly equal to $12,000 per worker per year (at today's prices), we tend to think about what we could buy today with $12,000. But that is not at all what material standards of living were like then. Imagine, instead, what our life would be if we had $12,000 to spend, but we were required to spend it all on commodities that were around in 1900: no fluoridated toothpaste, electric toaster ovens, clothes-washing machines, dishwashers, synthetic fiber-blend clothes, radios, plastic bottles, intercontinental telephones, xerox machines, notebook computers, automobiles, airplanes, or steel-framed skyscrapers. How would we calculate the impact on our living standards?And here I believe we can gain insight by looking not at economic statistics, but at one of the best-selling novels of the 1890s, Looking Backward, by Edward Bellamy — a wooden, poorly-written book that sold in extraordinary numbers because it offered the late nineteenth century a vision of Utopia.In Looking Backward, the narrator, who is living in the year 2000, is asked by his host: "Would you like to hear some music?"He expects his host to play the piano — a social accomplishment of upper-class women of the time. Instead, the narrator is stupefied to find that, in the year 2000, his host need merely touch "one or two screws," and immediately the room was " filled, not flooded, for, by some means, the volume of melody had been perfectly graduated to the size of the apartment. 'Grand!' he cries. 'Bach must be at th but where is the organ?'"His host has called the orches in fact he has a choice of orchestras, four playing at any moment. At the end of the nineteenth century, this was considered Utopia — the choice of four orchestras played through a speakerphone. To Bellamy's narrator, this was "the limit of human felicity already attained . . ." What if someone were to take him to Tower Records? Or Blockbuster Video? His heart would stop.We do not think of our ability to listen to high-fidelity, go-anywhere, listen-to-anything music as remarkable. We do not daily give thanks for our cassette players and genuflect in front of our CD collections. We do not reflect that they have brought us to the limit of human felicity. We do not think about it at all.This is the most important piece of the history of the twentieth century. In the twentieth century, the human race passed from the realm of necessity, where providing basic food, clothing, and shelter took up the lion's share of economic productive potential, to the realm of economic freedom: in which our collective production is largely made up of conveniences and luxuries.A VAST AND GROWING ECONOMIC GULFThis upward jump in productivity and wealth has not been confined to the industrial core of the world economy. In 1987, about 97 percent of households in Greece owned a television set. In Mexico, there was one automobile for every sixteen people, one television for every eight, one telephone for every ten.Nonetheless, while economies that were relatively rich at the start of the twentieth century have, by and large, seen their material wealth and prosperity explode, those nations and economies that were relatively poor have grown richer, but more slowly. A country that was 10 percent richer than another in 1870, was (on average) likely to be about 15 percent richer in 1995. A country that was 30 percent richer in 1870, was (on average) likely to be about 45 percent richer in 1995. Thus, the relative gulf between rich and poor economies has grown steadily over the past century.本文内容于
19:55:13 被小编a36编辑
我KAO,这么会指鹿为马颠倒黑白，你祖上是姓赵名高吧？建国后，中国没有“一门心思搞经济、一门心思搞建设”吗？大跃进不就是“一门心思搞经济、一门心思搞建设”嘛，除了农业失败外，中国的工业基础就是那时奠定的，结果被尔类诋毁了半个多世纪；以阶级斗争为中心的年代，中国经济年均增长率在8%左右，设计师的年年均增长率是9%，表面上略比前者快一点，但这段时间爆发过多次较严重的通货膨胀，把经济增长减去通膨增长后，实际增长率远不如改开前的增长速度。况且，改开后的GDP里面有大量产值为外资所创造，这些产值并不属于中国，人家要拿走的。综合起来，改开的那些泡沫式的所谓经济增长跟改开前的真实增长比起来就是个渣。至于国防，我都懒得喷你了。一边拿着人家的两弹一星盾牌长矛挥舞，一边大喊“再也不会害怕神马xxx 国境线上陈兵百万”；一边叫曰“再也不用‘深挖洞广积粮’了”，一边又高举“韬光养晦”大旗使劲挥舞；本文内容于
17:02:07 被heluo编辑
没有毛泽东打下的底子，老邓拿什么改革？按郎咸平的话，把邓放到非洲，非洲会不会有如今中国的成就？毛去世时候，整个国家工业布局都已经完成，人民识字率大幅上升，农业能养活10亿人，毛的时代是休养生息的年代，人口从民国5亿人翻了一倍，中国持续100年战乱入侵时代结束。毛有犯过错误，但是绝对不是你们这些人说的一无是处，只会玩枪不会搞经济。
3楼本文内容于
18:10:28 被肖苏纯3编辑 更多楼层已隐藏，4楼然而，变化步子如此缓慢以至于人们，或者说至少是那些贵族知识分子，可能会认为他们一千年以前的祖先的效率与他们那个时代一样。西塞罗，一个罗马时代的贵族，作家和政治家，如果在汤马斯.杰弗逊（译者注：美国第三任总统、《独立宣言》的写作者汤马斯·杰弗逊）的厂子里生活也许感觉上几乎和在罗马时代没有什么区别。只不过是杰弗逊时代的犁更好一些罢了，帆船也得到了一些改进。但是这些还不足以让精英产生一种生活方式上实质改变的感觉。而且，当杰弗逊家的一个奴隶可能和当西塞罗家的一个奴隶没什么两样。变化的步子如此缓慢以至于引起了19世纪早期的知识分子争论工业革命是否值得，它是改善了还是降低了人们的生活水准。结果观点截然不同，象约翰这样的乐观的自由派与悲观的一方一直争论到19世纪四十年代。但是，到了二十世纪，人们的生活水平发生了翻天覆地的变化。物质财富增长如此之大以至于几乎难以衡量。以1895年蒙哥马利沃德消费品样本为例，当时单速自行车价格为65美元（笔者注：蒙哥马利沃德是上世纪之交美国最大的邮购零售商），从那以后，自行车价格以“名义”美元计算已经翻了一番（实际上是通货膨胀的结果）。但是今天自行车按实际价值算的话，已经便宜得许多了。它的“真实”价格应当是：为生产它花费的工作量和工作时间。在1895年，大概要花费普通美国工人260小时的工作量来积攒下足够多的钱来购买一辆单速自行车。今天，一个普通美国工人用不到八个小时的工作成果就可以买到一辆性能更好的自行车。以自行车作为标准，通过计算能买多少辆自行车来衡量财富，今天一个美国工人比1895年时的工人要富裕36倍了。如果以其它一些商品来作标准，结果可能会完全不一样。一把办公室椅子如果按花费普通工人工作日去购买它已经便宜了12.5倍，一架史蒂文钢琴仅仅便宜2倍，而一个银的茶匙还贵了25%。因此，回答“今天的我们比一个世纪前富了多少？”这样一个问题取决于你看重哪些商品。对于许多个人服务来说--比如请一个人来给你开门或擦亮你家的银茶匙 --你可能会发现在1895年和在1990年的平均财富没有什么变化，当时的一个小时的服务的价值和现在是一样的。但对于大规模制造的商品--比如自行车 --我们今天已经富了36倍。”看到这里，如果我用查找替换功能把该文中的“美国”替换成“中国”，把“工业革命”替换成“毛泽东时代”，把“今天”或“当代美国”替换成“改革开放后 ”，我们会发现替换后，文章照样能读下来。这是一个很有意思的类比：与毛泽东时代相比，改革开放后中国经济的极大发展带来的生活水平提高的原因和过程，跟美国相较于十九世纪，在二十世纪经济技术发展带来的生活水平提高的原因和过程几乎是一模一样的，除了美国在工业革命用了近百年的时间而中国只用了近三十年时间这一个差异。美国精英分子在十九世纪感觉不到工业革命带来生活水平和生活方式有明显的改善与中国当今精英分子指责毛泽东时代没有极大改善人们生活水平情形差不多。美国在工业革命期间人口增长导致生活水平没有得到明显改善与中国在毛泽东时代的情形也几乎一致，只不过是中国人口在工业化之前基数更大一些。如果我把美国1890年到1990年实际GDP发展曲线的时间轴线压缩成60年，当你看到二者是如此近似时，你也不要感到非常吃惊。甚至连争论都是如此相似：美国在十九世纪争论工业革命到底值不值，是提高了还是降低了美国人的生活水准等“历史往事”与我们今天讨论毛泽东时代到底有没有是好还是坏，人们生活水平有没有改善也如出一辙，只不过是我们国内的争论里面掺杂着政治因素，仅仅因人们生活水平没有得到明显的提高而全盘否定毛泽东时代的经济发展过程，显然是精英们在这个问题上并没有表现出讲求客观与公正的学术原则。中国和美国在工业化时期与工业化之后经济发展和生活水平趋势存在如此多的一致，说明了什么呢？我认于至少说明毛泽东时代的中国仅仅用了30年走完了美国用了近一百年才完成的工作化，其效率应值得嘉许而不是批评。而且，在毛泽东时期，中国在完成工业化过程人们生活水平没有得到足够的改善并不是什么例外，正象美国1895年时的普通人感觉生活和一千年前相比也没有什么提高和改善一样，都不能成为指责的对象，也不应成为否定美国工业革命和中国工业化重要意义的依据；中国改革开放后人们生活水平提高，大部分应归因于技术进步和工作化的完成，这就跟美国在二十世纪人们财富增加的原因一样。经济技术发展给人类带来的影响和意义是深远的，人类究竟向前发展得更好还是变得更坏，这些问题已经引起许多人的关注。在网上，普通人都不难看到西方经济学家有关这方面的文章，我相信，中国所谓的著名经济学者尤其是那些留洋的经济学家就更不难看到类似于这样的经济发展历史的文章或研究，为什么这些著名的“学者”，如厉以宁、张维迎等，从来没有发表一个公正客观的研究文章？我们不需要你们给毛泽东时代定调，只要有一个稍微严谨的分析、推理过程就可以了。最后要对那些自视为主流、坐在宝塔尖上的学者和精英们说一声：请你们尊重历史，否则历史就不会尊重你们。附德隆原文和网址：http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/nerr/rr1998/q3/delo98_3.htmAN EXPLOSION OF MATERIAL WEALTHBetween the invention of agriculture and the commercial revolution that marked the end of the Middle Ages, wealth and technology developed slowly indeed. Medieval historians tell of the centuries it took for key inventions like the watermill or the heavy plow to diffuse across the landscape. And, during this period, increases in technology led to increases in the population, with little if any appearing as improvements in the median standard of living.Even the early years of the Industrial Revolution produced more "improvements" than "revolutions" in standards of living. With the railroad and the spinning and weaving of textiles as important exceptions, most innovations of that period were innovations in how goods were produced and transported, and in new kinds of capital, but not in consumer goods. Standards of living improved, but styles of life remained much the same. The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw a faster and different kind of change. For the first time, technological capability outran population growth and natural resource scarcity. By the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the typical inhabitant of the leading economies — a Briton, a Belgian, an American, or an Australian — had perhaps three times the standard of living of someone in a preindustrial economy.Still, so slow was the pace of change that people, or at least aristocratic intellectuals, could think of their predecessors of a thousand years before as effectively their contemporaries. Marcus Tullius Cicero, a Roman aristocrat, author, and politician, might have felt more or less at home in the company of Thomas Jefferson. The plows were better in Jefferson's time. Sailing ships were much improved. But these might have been insufficient to create a sense of a qualitative change in the order of life for the elite. And being a slave of Jefferson was probably a lot like being a slave of Cicero.So slow was the pace of change that intellectuals in the early nineteenth century debated whether the Industrial Revolution was worthwhile. Was it an improvement or a degeneration in the standard of living? And opinions were genuinely divided, with as optimistic a liberal as John Stuart Mill coming down on the side of the "pessimists" as late as the end of the 1840s. But, in the twentieth century, standards of living exploded. The growth in material wealth has been so great as to make it nearly impossible to measure.Consider a sample of consumer goods available through Montgomery Ward in 1895, when a one-speed bicycle cost $65. Since then, the price of a bicycle measured in "nominal" dollars has more than doubled (as a result of inflation). But the bicycle today is much less expensive in terms of the measure that truly counts, its "real" price: the work and sweat needed to earn its cost. In 1895, it took perhaps 260 hours' worth of the average American worker's production to amass enough money to buy a one-speed bicycle. Today, an average American worker can buy one of higher quality for less than 8 hours' worth of production.On the bicycle standard, measuring wealth by counting up how many bicycles it can buy, the average American worker today is 36 times richer than his or her counterpart was in 1895. Other commodities would tell a different story. An office chair has become 12.5 times cheaper in terms of the time it takes the average worker to produce enough to pay for it. A Steinway piano or an accordion is only twice as cheap. A silver teaspoon is 25 percent more expensive.Thus, the answer to the question "How much wealthier are we today than our counterparts of a century ago?" depends on which commodities you view as important. For many personal services — having a butler to answer the door and polish your silver spoons — you would find little difference in average wealth between 1895 and 1990. An hour of a butler's time costs about the same then as now. But for mass-produced manufactured goods — like bicycles — we are wealthier by as much as 36 times.THE RANGE OF GOODS AND SERVICESSuch calculations substantially understate the improvement in our material well-being, for they fail to consider the enormous expansion in the range of goods and services we can consume.So when we are told that the standard of living in the United States in 1900 was roughly equal to $12,000 per worker per year (at today's prices), we tend to think about what we could buy today with $12,000. But that is not at all what material standards of living were like then. Imagine, instead, what our life would be if we had $12,000 to spend, but we were required to spend it all on commodities that were around in 1900: no fluoridated toothpaste, electric toaster ovens, clothes-washing machines, dishwashers, synthetic fiber-blend clothes, radios, plastic bottles, intercontinental telephones, xerox machines, notebook computers, automobiles, airplanes, or steel-framed skyscrapers. How would we calculate the impact on our living standards?And here I believe we can gain insight by looking not at economic statistics, but at one of the best-selling novels of the 1890s, Looking Backward, by Edward Bellamy — a wooden, poorly-written book that sold in extraordinary numbers because it offered the late nineteenth century a vision of Utopia.In Looking Backward, the narrator, who is living in the year 2000, is asked by his host: "Would you like to hear some music?"He expects his host to play the piano — a social accomplishment of upper-class women of the time. Instead, the narrator is stupefied to find that, in the year 2000, his host need merely touch "one or two screws," and immediately the room was " filled, not flooded, for, by some means, the volume of melody had been perfectly graduated to the size of the apartment. 'Grand!' he cries. 'Bach must be at th but where is the organ?'"His host has called the orches in fact he has a choice of orchestras, four playing at any moment. At the end of the nineteenth century, this was considered Utopia — the choice of four orchestras played through a speakerphone. To Bellamy's narrator, this was "the limit of human felicity already attained . . ." What if someone were to take him to Tower Records? Or Blockbuster Video? His heart would stop.We do not think of our ability to listen to high-fidelity, go-anywhere, listen-to-anything music as remarkable. We do not daily give thanks for our cassette players and genuflect in front of our CD collections. We do not reflect that they have brought us to the limit of human felicity. We do not think about it at all.This is the most important piece of the history of the twentieth century. In the twentieth century, the human race passed from the realm of necessity, where providing basic food, clothing, and shelter took up the lion's share of economic productive potential, to the realm of economic freedom: in which our collective production is largely made up of conveniences and luxuries.A VAST AND GROWING ECONOMIC GULFThis upward jump in productivity and wealth has not been confined to the industrial core of the world economy. In 1987, about 97 percent of households in Greece owned a television set. In Mexico, there was one automobile for every sixteen people, one television for every eight, one telephone for every ten.Nonetheless, while economies that were relatively rich at the start of the twentieth century have, by and large, seen their material wealth and prosperity explode, those nations and economies that were relatively poor have grown richer, but more slowly. A country that was 10 percent richer than another in 1870, was (on average) likely to be about 15 percent richer in 1995. A country that was 30 percent richer in 1870, was (on average) likely to be about 45 percent richer in 1995. Thus, the relative gulf between rich and poor economies has grown steadily over the past century.本文内容于
19:55:13 被小编a36编辑 英雄，强烈建议你把这个做主贴，我一定要顶。毛主席时代进行重工业个人才的积累，如果没有重工业和知识的普及，改革开放就是空话。像印度那种国家，大部分人文化水平不高，科研能力差，就算是新的技术过去，他们也学不会，而我们的人只是远远看到，就会去想怎么研制出来，基本也能研发出来。
这个台巴子，屁都不懂就在这里胡咧咧。知识分子在毛时代，一直都划为工人阶级的一部分，连这都不知，就少丢人了。而臭老九，不过腐儒文人的自嘲罢了，哪里是什么骂人。至于为何建国那么多年人民依然贫困，上面我2楼的回帖和4楼“中美在工业化时期与工业化之后经济发展和生活水平趋势的对比----主流经济学家们：请你们尊重历史！”一文，已经讲得很清楚，你看不到？
你说民国时期连一支步枪都造不了，显示出你的思维偏激到了极至，而且民国时除了大灾之年，部分地区死亡人数较多外，饿殍遍地只不过是个形容极端的词语。你若这样看待民国时期，我不与你争辩，只希望你还是唱两句“两只老虎跑得快”吧，这样起码能突显你的单纯。至于说和西方比，就拿现在来说，拿大陆台湾一块儿说，你认为何时，如何才能赶上或超过美国及其西方发达国家。献计献策，别藏着掖着。毛时代吃窝头造氢弹，我只说了是个功绩，体现了一种精神，应该敬畏，我何时吹嘘了那个时代？中国大陆什么时候把知识分子定义为剥削阶级了？要想批判一个理论，就要先了解这个理论，熟悉这个理论。毛泽东时代并未把知识分子归为无产阶级，但也未把知识分子归为资产阶级或地主阶级。毛时代是把知识分子归类为“服务员”！所谓无产阶级与资产阶级是由生产资料掌握的数量与方式来定义的，是出自政治经济学的定义。而“知识分子”不是政治经济学范畴的理论词汇，它是社会形态学的理论词语。知识分子存在于各个阶级或阶层，知识分子也服务于各个阶级或阶层，“皮之不存，毛将焉附”就是说知识分子的立场决定其生存的位置。知识分子是“毛”，而其依附给予服务的阶级或阶层是“皮”，皮存则毛固，皮腐则毛落。文革后期知识青年上山下乡，并非是对知识分子的惩罚，而是解决城市里存在的大批无法进入就业岗位的闲散劳动力带给社会的安全威胁。同时让大批城市青年去体验一下中国农村和城市，农民和工人以及城市干部的巨大生活差距，了解知道中国需要什么，应该干什么。凡从此路获得了真知的，就会成为以后中国的奉献者和创造者，反之就成了以后中国的破坏者和绊脚石。那些因为家里有孩子上山下乡而怀恨于毛泽东者，那些因自己失势孩子下乡而痛惜者，尽管苦情哀哀，但起码一条，就是他们自己把自己与广大的劳动人民分开了，把自己主动地与艰苦生存的人民分开了。简单一句话，人家行，你为啥不行？人家的儿女能如此，你家的儿女就不能？你家比百姓高贵吗？屁！毋庸讳言，毛时代尤其是文革时期，发生了许多令“革命”、“正义”、“民主”蒙羞的事情与现象，应该批判，应该揭露，应该有人负责。但是是否也应该实事求是？如果任凭诬陷造谣，肆意谩骂，其本质与文革又有什么区别？台湾在经历了将证券初始年代的高压整肃时代以后，在美国扶持与监督下，发达了一下变成了“小龙”，和西方发达国家比比，就没有差距吗“成了英国还是法国甚或是瑞典、挪威？以服务业和加工业，旅游业发展起来的底子有多厚？几千万人口的地区可以在某些方面成为榜样，但若说是可以成为十几亿人口大国的榜样，未免坐井观天了。一个大陆边远山区的农民，不可能敢于和台北市的土豪金们比生活水平。但是台北市的土豪金能和大陆北上广的土豪金或山西的黑煤金们比吗？土豪金与农村人都代表不了大陆与台湾！谁都不用沾沾自喜，把牛逼挂在脸上。你说你对大陆五毛的无耻吹嘘感到愤怒，这个我不反对，但是你也在说一些极端的话，讲一些不实事求是的话，就不许别人反感你吗？道理都会讲，不容易的是坚持同一标准》
真是狗嘴吐不出象牙，“挖地道、搞三线建设”明明是积极进取的备战应敌谋略，经尔狗嘴吐出后，就完全走了样！照尔之意，面对美苏赤裸裸的军事威胁和核讹诈，我们是否要学蒋该死那样，啥都别干，任由鬼子肆无忌惮杀进来，再来个X京大屠或三光什么的，你才满意，你才会不“呸”？！
您可能对这些帖子感兴趣
53楼86楼88楼本文内容于
11:33:13 被老息编辑 老毛刚开始是有功绩，但六十年代以前取得的成绩，基本在文革十年就被废了，得不偿失啊，老百姓尤其是农民的好日子也就土改刚完成那几年，后来一搞土地公有制和人民公社化运动，农民没有积极性，又过上了水深火热的生活
57楼这可是有名的日狗，你还不认识吧！看他的发言就知道了。
53楼86楼笑话，德国日本韩国这些国家如果和中国一样被封锁，只怕加起来连中国一般都不到。你丫脑子是用来装大便的吗。
101楼“超发货币的后果就是物价飞涨，”你自己都这样说了。 进过超市的人都有体会。你没进过超市？？？ 你也知道 美国印钞是盘剥全球，朝廷超发纸币就不是盘剥全国了？？？你可以无知，你不可以无耻！
50楼你对美国很熟悉嘛，小鬼！！！
自己没本事就去种田，股市涨的时候你怎么不说。校长没有坏人么?一样米养百样人，哪里都有坏人。基本生活物品价格高吗？你是吃不起还是喝不起，是米贵还是菜贵的买不起啊。说到底你除了在电脑面前喷一下粪，撸一下管还能干什么。你有这点时间多去读书充实自己，或是去工作也行。没本事的人到哪里都是要饭的主。你说国家只会印钞票，经济上去了，流通货币增加了不够了怎么办。都写白条？还是全部电子银行代替？超发货币的后果就是物价飞涨，一天涨几次，你丫什么时候见过。自己屁都不懂还在这里唧唧歪歪，那你怎么不去说美国，那是靠印钞来搜刮全世界的主，你有种去美国抗议啊。一个发展中国家有问题那是正常的，能改正就好。如果我们象东欧那种国家一样变成国家领导人层面的集体贪腐，不要你说，早就有人站起来揭竿而起了，里面绝对有我。
77楼79楼80楼只有深爱自己国家的人才会痛惜上述问题。希望朝廷 痛改前任的错误，真正让人民群众老有所养，过上有尊严的生活，不要再用财产性收入来忽悠百姓了。83楼我说过上述现象是改开前的 吗？ 您的回复 有些 莫名其妙。
再说建国之初百废待兴，又有一群野心狼在周围环伺，再加上“国际制裁”“经济封锁”，容易吗？
你不要提森林，因为大炼钢时中国森林覆盖率有11.9%，比解放前的8.6%高得多； 你不要使用简体字，因为停课的你，应该是个文盲才对； 你不要回家见父母，工厂 全民停工养不起你这种白眼狼； 你不要冒充专家 人才 知识分子，因为真正的受不了你污蔑给气死了； 你不要再喊饿了，咱们决不会给骗子乞丐一个工分。
脑残，老三线建设至今作用你知道个P。大西南大山沟公路铁路发展，养活那么多山区职工都靠三线建设，攀枝花钢铁厂就是建立在山沟里，现在全世界铁路用的铁轨都是攀钢产的。没老三线，四川贵州不知道现在还穷什么样。
53楼86楼德国、法国、俄、日本什么国家？你文盲吧！庚子赔款10亿两白银中国赔偿给8个老牌工业化帝国主义国家，万把士兵就可以跑中国首都紫禁城阅兵，赶跑中国皇帝。日本用中国战争赔款加速自己工业化进程，清朝末年中国就向日本购买军舰，日本那时候工业进程就超过中国。毛泽东最大贡献，就是完成中国工业化布局。德国、法国、俄、日本，英，美工业化都是靠盘剥殖民地和侵略别的国家筹集工业资金，中国建国封锁下工业化资金一是靠苏联那点贷款，最大头还是靠盘剥中国农民和居民轻工业获得资金，所以才有80年代前中国买轻工日用品凭票供应。改革开放后，中国资金往轻工业倾斜，这才取消供应制。最简单的问下你，建国后10大钢铁基地是谁弄起来的，西南老三线建设至今还起大作用。一个重工业钢铁厂所需要资金和产生效应对比一个纺织厂哪个大？
真是狗嘴吐不出象牙，“挖地道、搞三线建设”明明是积极进取的备战应敌谋略，经尔狗嘴吐出后，就完全走了样！照尔之意，面对美苏赤裸裸的军事威胁和核讹诈，我们是否要学蒋该死那样，啥都别干，任由鬼子肆无忌惮杀进来，再来个X京大屠或三光什么的，你才满意，你才会不“呸”？！
你挺会扣帽子，我说了一些事实，你就这么难受？组图:大跃进时期的主要建设成就（上）/bKFLD组图:大跃进时期的主要建设成就（下）/bKFOp本文内容于
19:31:35 被heluo编辑
53楼86楼德国、法国、苏联、日本在二战前就是发达国家，二战中虽然伤了元气，但底子雄厚，能很快恢复过来，而韩国在二战中受到的破坏不大，战后又大搞独裁，实现“汉江奇迹”。而中国呢，从1840年开始外战、内战没断过，足足打了百余年，曾经充足的财富早打得精光不说，还欠了外国一屁股巨额外债，自洋务运动后积累的一点重工业也被老蒋的黄金十年给废了，更不用说日本侵华对中国造成的巨大破坏。老百姓更是困苦不堪，死亡率高，文盲率高，土地集中在少数人手里。在这样的国家实现工业化，难度可想而知。老毛能在不足三十年的时间里让中国基本实现工业化，已经是了不起的成绩了，换成其他人是根本不可能实现的。本文内容于
11:33:13 被老息编辑
53楼86楼要比你也得和印度比啊，人日本德国造大和和俾斯麦的时候中国能造什么？东西打没了可科技人员还保留这，你中国要嘛没有，不得一步一步的走过来
53楼按照你这个理论，秦始皇应该是功劳最大吧？没有他哪有今天的中国？同时期从二战废墟上建国的不止只有中国吧？执行其他政策的国家在六七十年代水平咋样？德国、法国、苏联、日本、韩国。。。。。比当时的中国如何？你不会是色盲吧？！
建国前是绝对贫穷，全社会阶层都很难生活，住的不咋样，吃都不够吃，后来还搞的配额制度，就是粮票制度。那时候你想吃肉还真不是容易的事情，住的多是茅房、瓦房，那有那么多楼房给你住。现在是相对贫穷，只要身体机能正常而又不太懒的人，你想吃肉还真是不难。大部分人即使在城市没房子，在家乡怎么都会有一间两间或宅基地，虽然廉租房比较虚，但确实也是有保护到某些低收入人群。问题的关键只是富人貌似就比以前富得太夸张，是贫富差距大的问题。
77楼79楼80楼只有深爱自己国家的人才会痛惜上述问题。希望朝廷 痛改前任的错误，真正让人民群众老有所养，过上有尊严的生活，不要再用财产性收入来忽悠百姓了。你说的这些现象改开前貌似都没有呀！
77楼79楼80楼只有深爱自己国家的人才会痛惜上述问题。希望朝廷 痛改前任的错误，真正让人民群众老有所养，过上有尊严的生活，不要再用财产性收入来忽悠百姓了。每个国家都有各种问题，不可能一次性全部解决，你说的物价是什么物价我不知道，我知道的是吃喝这些东西物价并不高，更可况市场规律是这样的，你总不能要别人亏本吧，不是那种非买不可的东西你嫌贵就不要买呗。至于股票么，我只能呵呵了。你想股票涨到什么样?像小日本广岛协议前那样？自己不会炒股被套牢能怪谁。至于你说的其他问题，难道没有解决或是解决中吗？你想怎么样，公交全部停开？把校长全部杀光？至于其他问题，国家不也在解决么。
77楼79楼朝廷先把 物价降下来、股市搞上去吧！我多么 希望 天价房、120多万亿钞票发行量、空账社保、天价医疗、天价教育、拆迁自焚、地沟油、有毒奶粉、公交伤人、城管暴虐小贩、校长OX小学女生、贪官肆虐、雾霾天气种种问题都是 造谣、挑拨。只有深爱自己国家的人才会痛惜上述问题。希望朝廷 痛改前任的错误，真正让人民群众老有所养，过上有尊严的生活，不要再用财产性收入来忽悠百姓了。
77楼那你其实错了，苏联解体，颜色革命甚至伊朗动乱都是日积月累的挑拨造谣才达到那样的效果，普通人所谓的眼睛去看，看什么，各种渠道的信息。对某一样东西的坏印象不是一下就会形成的，如果攻击自己的祖国.造谣先辈的事迹和推翻我们的民族英雄变成了常事，那我们国家离动乱也不远了。毕竟大部分人都是跟风的，网络上前一段时间流行调侃杨幂的脚，过一段时间流行调侃李某某，又过一段时间又换成了别人，你自己看看有多少人跟风。
这位高人 揶揄的很巧妙！ 5毛 与 美分 之争 实在可笑。我们老百姓自己会思考、观察。2派2B以为自己的观点 能 起到洗脑的效果，拼命在 网络上 对抗。老百姓 看着 2伙 2B 瞎忙活 只好躲在旁边 偷笑。
28楼现在的中国人，没有谁愿意再回到毛时代的艰苦岁月，以前那个穷横穷横的中国不在了，百炼钢化作绕指柔，JB日本、越南、菲律宾、印度，在JB美国的支持怂恿下，争先恐后地向中国呲牙，踹门叫骂，若在毛时代，一句北京骂“你个姥姥的。”再来一句“勿谓言之不预也”，全他妈闭嘴！毛时代开创了新纪元，现在的中国应该知道感恩，不要做那无父无母，数典忘祖的杂碎。现在的中国稍稍缺了那么一点大道之气。无妨，再有点刺激就行，这个刺激很快就要来了，锣不敲不响，拭目以待看谁是敲响铜锣的槌子。明明一个步步强盛的中国从磕磕绊绊到大步流星地赶来，有人却只记得他曾经衣衫褴褛并一再嘲讽，明明一个弓箭草鞋的士兵换上了全新的甲胄火器，却还有人继续着某先人的话“不打活着，开打必死。”新中国从成立伊始，就在诅咒与流言中搏击，人走了一代代，恶习臭毛病仍然遗传。基因低劣？血液混杂？搞不懂。也许是中国的历史与文化造就了这一类糟粕与垃圾。无论你与其他人怎么想，而我与其他一些人对中国的过去心存敬畏，对现在的中国给与支持，对以后的中国抱有真挚的希望。我喊一声“中华人民共和国万岁！”你和你的伙伴不用附和。无法正视自己国家历史错误的 人是在把国家及民族推向 灭亡的深渊。历史经验之所以宝贵，是后人以前人的错误为戒，不求 创新吧，起码不要重复前人的错误。 粉饰太平、歌功颂德 历来都是奸臣的勾当。
3楼本文内容于
18:10:28 被肖苏纯3编辑 4楼然而，变化步子如此缓慢以至于人们，或者说至少是那些贵族知识分子，可能会认为他们一千年以前的祖先的效率与他们那个时代一样。西塞罗，一个罗马时代的贵族，作家和政治家，如果在汤马斯.杰弗逊（译者注：美国第三任总统、《独立宣言》的写作者汤马斯·杰弗逊）的厂子里生活也许感觉上几乎和在罗马时代没有什么区别。只不过是杰弗逊时代的犁更好一些罢了，帆船也得到了一些改进。但是这些还不足以让精英产生一种生活方式上实质改变的感觉。而且，当杰弗逊家的一个奴隶可能和当西塞罗家的一个奴隶没什么两样。变化的步子如此缓慢以至于引起了19世纪早期的知识分子争论工业革命是否值得，它是改善了还是降低了人们的生活水准。结果观点截然不同，象约翰这样的乐观的自由派与悲观的一方一直争论到19世纪四十年代。但是，到了二十世纪，人们的生活水平发生了翻天覆地的变化。物质财富增长如此之大以至于几乎难以衡量。以1895年蒙哥马利沃德消费品样本为例，当时单速自行车价格为65美元（笔者注：蒙哥马利沃德是上世纪之交美国最大的邮购零售商），从那以后，自行车价格以“名义”美元计算已经翻了一番（实际上是通货膨胀的结果）。但是今天自行车按实际价值算的话，已经便宜得许多了。它的“真实”价格应当是：为生产它花费的工作量和工作时间。在1895年，大概要花费普通美国工人260小时的工作量来积攒下足够多的钱来购买一辆单速自行车。今天，一个普通美国工人用不到八个小时的工作成果就可以买到一辆性能更好的自行车。以自行车作为标准，通过计算能买多少辆自行车来衡量财富，今天一个美国工人比1895年时的工人要富裕36倍了。如果以其它一些商品来作标准，结果可能会完全不一样。一把办公室椅子如果按花费普通工人工作日去购买它已经便宜了12.5倍，一架史蒂文钢琴仅仅便宜2倍，而一个银的茶匙还贵了25%。因此，回答“今天的我们比一个世纪前富了多少？”这样一个问题取决于你看重哪些商品。对于许多个人服务来说--比如请一个人来给你开门或擦亮你家的银茶匙 --你可能会发现在1895年和在1990年的平均财富没有什么变化，当时的一个小时的服务的价值和现在是一样的。但对于大规模制造的商品--比如自行车 --我们今天已经富了36倍。”看到这里，如果我用查找替换功能把该文中的“美国”替换成“中国”，把“工业革命”替换成“毛泽东时代”，把“今天”或“当代美国”替换成“改革开放后 ”，我们会发现替换后，文章照样能读下来。这是一个很有意思的类比：与毛泽东时代相比，改革开放后中国经济的极大发展带来的生活水平提高的原因和过程，跟美国相较于十九世纪，在二十世纪经济技术发展带来的生活水平提高的原因和过程几乎是一模一样的，除了美国在工业革命用了近百年的时间而中国只用了近三十年时间这一个差异。美国精英分子在十九世纪感觉不到工业革命带来生活水平和生活方式有明显的改善与中国当今精英分子指责毛泽东时代没有极大改善人们生活水平情形差不多。美国在工业革命期间人口增长导致生活水平没有得到明显改善与中国在毛泽东时代的情形也几乎一致，只不过是中国人口在工业化之前基数更大一些。如果我把美国1890年到1990年实际GDP发展曲线的时间轴线压缩成60年，当你看到二者是如此近似时，你也不要感到非常吃惊。甚至连争论都是如此相似：美国在十九世纪争论工业革命到底值不值，是提高了还是降低了美国人的生活水准等“历史往事”与我们今天讨论毛泽东时代到底有没有是好还是坏，人们生活水平有没有改善也如出一辙，只不过是我们国内的争论里面掺杂着政治因素，仅仅因人们生活水平没有得到明显的提高而全盘否定毛泽东时代的经济发展过程，显然是精英们在这个问题上并没有表现出讲求客观与公正的学术原则。中国和美国在工业化时期与工业化之后经济发展和生活水平趋势存在如此多的一致，说明了什么呢？我认于至少说明毛泽东时代的中国仅仅用了30年走完了美国用了近一百年才完成的工作化，其效率应值得嘉许而不是批评。而且，在毛泽东时期，中国在完成工业化过程人们生活水平没有得到足够的改善并不是什么例外，正象美国1895年时的普通人感觉生活和一千年前相比也没有什么提高和改善一样，都不能成为指责的对象，也不应成为否定美国工业革命和中国工业化重要意义的依据；中国改革开放后人们生活水平提高，大部分应归因于技术进步和工作化的完成，这就跟美国在二十世纪人们财富增加的原因一样。经济技术发展给人类带来的影响和意义是深远的，人类究竟向前发展得更好还是变得更坏，这些问题已经引起许多人的关注。在网上，普通人都不难看到西方经济学家有关这方面的文章，我相信，中国所谓的著名经济学者尤其是那些留洋的经济学家就更不难看到类似于这样的经济发展历史的文章或研究，为什么这些著名的“学者”，如厉以宁、张维迎等，从来没有发表一个公正客观的研究文章？我们不需要你们给毛泽东时代定调，只要有一个稍微严谨的分析、推理过程就可以了。最后要对那些自视为主流、坐在宝塔尖上的学者和精英们说一声：请你们尊重历史，否则历史就不会尊重你们。附德隆原文和网址：http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/nerr/rr1998/q3/delo98_3.htmAN EXPLOSION OF MATERIAL WEALTHBetween the invention of agriculture and the commercial revolution that marked the end of the Middle Ages, wealth and technology developed slowly indeed. Medieval historians tell of the centuries it took for key inventions like the watermill or the heavy plow to diffuse across the landscape. And, during this period, increases in technology led to increases in the population, with little if any appearing as improvements in the median standard of living.Even the early years of the Industrial Revolution produced more "improvements" than "revolutions" in standards of living. With the railroad and the spinning and weaving of textiles as important exceptions, most innovations of that period were innovations in how goods were produced and transported, and in new kinds of capital, but not in consumer goods. Standards of living improved, but styles of life remained much the same. The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw a faster and different kind of change. For the first time, technological capability outran population growth and natural resource scarcity. By the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the typical inhabitant of the leading economies — a Briton, a Belgian, an American, or an Australian — had perhaps three times the standard of living of someone in a preindustrial economy.Still, so slow was the pace of change that people, or at least aristocratic intellectuals, could think of their predecessors of a thousand years before as effectively their contemporaries. Marcus Tullius Cicero, a Roman aristocrat, author, and politician, might have felt more or less at home in the company of Thomas Jefferson. The plows were better in Jefferson's time. Sailing ships were much improved. But these might have been insufficient to create a sense of a qualitative change in the order of life for the elite. And being a slave of Jefferson was probably a lot like being a slave of Cicero.So slow was the pace of change that intellectuals in the early nineteenth century debated whether the Industrial Revolution was worthwhile. Was it an improvement or a degeneration in the standard of living? And opinions were genuinely divided, with as optimistic a liberal as John Stuart Mill coming down on the side of the "pessimists" as late as the end of the 1840s. But, in the twentieth century, standards of living exploded. The growth in material wealth has been so great as to make it nearly impossible to measure.Consider a sample of consumer goods available through Montgomery Ward in 1895, when a one-speed bicycle cost $65. Since then, the price of a bicycle measured in "nominal" dollars has more than doubled (as a result of inflation). But the bicycle today is much less expensive in terms of the measure that truly counts, its "real" price: the work and sweat needed to earn its cost. In 1895, it took perhaps 260 hours' worth of the average American worker's production to amass enough money to buy a one-speed bicycle. Today, an average American worker can buy one of higher quality for less than 8 hours' worth of production.On the bicycle standard, measuring wealth by counting up how many bicycles it can buy, the average American worker today is 36 times richer than his or her counterpart was in 1895. Other commodities would tell a different story. An office chair has become 12.5 times cheaper in terms of the time it takes the average worker to produce enough to pay for it. A Steinway piano or an accordion is only twice as cheap. A silver teaspoon is 25 percent more expensive.Thus, the answer to the question "How much wealthier are we today than our counterparts of a century ago?" depends on which commodities you view as important. For many personal services — having a butler to answer the door and polish your silver spoons — you would find little difference in average wealth between 1895 and 1990. An hour of a butler's time costs about the same then as now. But for mass-produced manufactured goods — like bicycles — we are wealthier by as much as 36 times.THE RANGE OF GOODS AND SERVICESSuch calculations substantially understate the improvement in our material well-being, for they fail to consider the enormous expansion in the range of goods and services we can consume.So when we are told that the standard of living in the United States in 1900 was roughly equal to $12,000 per worker per year (at today's prices), we tend to think about what we could buy today with $12,000. But that is not at all what material standards of living were like then. Imagine, instead, what our life would be if we had $12,000 to spend, but we were required to spend it all on commodities that were around in 1900: no fluoridated toothpaste, electric toaster ovens, clothes-washing machines, dishwashers, synthetic fiber-blend clothes, radios, plastic bottles, intercontinental telephones, xerox machines, notebook computers, automobiles, airplanes, or steel-framed skyscrapers. How would we calculate the impact on our living standards?And here I believe we can gain insight by looking not at economic statistics, but at one of the best-selling novels of the 1890s, Looking Backward, by Edward Bellamy — a wooden, poorly-written book that sold in extraordinary numbers because it offered the late nineteenth century a vision of Utopia.In Looking Backward, the narrator, who is living in the year 2000, is asked by his host: "Would you like to hear some music?"He expects his host to play the piano — a social accomplishment of upper-class women of the time. Instead, the narrator is stupefied to find that, in the year 2000, his host need merely touch "one or two screws," and immediately the room was " filled, not flooded, for, by some means, the volume of melody had been perfectly graduated to the size of the apartment. 'Grand!' he cries. 'Bach must be at th but where is the organ?'"His host has called the orches in fact he has a choice of orchestras, four playing at any moment. At the end of the nineteenth century, this was considered Utopia — the choice of four orchestras played through a speakerphone. To Bellamy's narrator, this was "the limit of human felicity already attained . . ." What if someone were to take him to Tower Records? Or Blockbuster Video? His heart would stop.We do not think of our ability to listen to high-fidelity, go-anywhere, listen-to-anything music as remarkable. We do not daily give thanks for our cassette players and genuflect in front of our CD collections. We do not reflect that they have brought us to the limit of human felicity. We do not think about it at all.This is the most important piece of the history of the twentieth century. In the twentieth century, the human race passed from the realm of necessity, where providing basic food, clothing, and shelter took up the lion's share of economic productive potential, to the realm of economic freedom: in which our collective production is largely made up of conveniences and luxuries.A VAST AND GROWING ECONOMIC GULFThis upward jump in productivity and wealth has not been confined to the industrial core of the world economy. In 1987, about 97 percent of households in Greece owned a television set. In Mexico, there was one automobile for every sixteen people, one television for every eight, one telephone for every ten.Nonetheless, while economies that were relatively rich at the start of the twentieth century have, by and large, seen their material wealth and prosperity explode, those nations and economies that were relatively poor have grown richer, but more slowly. A country that was 10 percent richer than another in 1870, was (on average) likely to be about 15 percent richer in 1995. A country that was 30 percent richer in 1870, was (on average) likely to be about 45 percent richer in 1995. Thus, the relative gulf between rich and poor economies has grown steadily over the past century.本文内容于
19:55:13 被小编a36编辑 无耻的马屁! 今天的人民群众已经习惯独立思考了。你以为搞一个洋人说的东西来 偷梁换柱就能 改变人民自己的判断？？？
28楼现在的中国人，没有谁愿意再回到毛时代的艰苦岁月，以前那个穷横穷横的中国不在了，百炼钢化作绕指柔，JB日本、越南、菲律宾、印度，在JB美国的支持怂恿下，争先恐后地向中国呲牙，踹门叫骂，若在毛时代，一句北京骂“你个姥姥的。”再来一句“勿谓言之不预也”，全他妈闭嘴！毛时代开创了新纪元，现在的中国应该知道感恩，不要做那无父无母，数典忘祖的杂碎。现在的中国稍稍缺了那么一点大道之气。无妨，再有点刺激就行，这个刺激很快就要来了，锣不敲不响，拭目以待看谁是敲响铜锣的槌子。明明一个步步强盛的中国从磕磕绊绊到大步流星地赶来，有人却只记得他曾经衣衫褴褛并一再嘲讽，明明一个弓箭草鞋的士兵换上了全新的甲胄火器，却还有人继续着某先人的话“不打活着，开打必死。”新中国从成立伊始，就在诅咒与流言中搏击，人走了一代代，恶习臭毛病仍然遗传。基因低劣？血液混杂？搞不懂。也许是中国的历史与文化造就了这一类糟粕与垃圾。无论你与其他人怎么想，而我与其他一些人对中国的过去心存敬畏，对现在的中国给与支持，对以后的中国抱有真挚的希望。我喊一声“中华人民共和国万岁！”你和你的伙伴不用附和。我来附和！骂得痛快！
65楼我。。。我还需在观望一会儿。。。。再掂量。。掂量。。。我。。我得去算算1美分能换算多少个五毛。。。。。再瞅瞅 再瞅瞅。
你可以当中庸派，取众家之长，看到落后之处用美分标准严格要求，看到污蔑之处用五毛的精神奋力澄清。
反例如印度 文盲比例高 现在的经济发展达到一定程度就会受限如当需要解放农村劳动力的时候 没有接受过基本教育的人 无法成为工业时代的人力资源人口不等于人力资源 而人力资源的进一步是人才资源其实通过人力资源 人才资源 和整体人口的比例 就知道一个国家的发展程度 和发展潜力
你说民国时期连一支步枪都造不了，显示出你的思维偏激到了极至，而且民国时除了大灾之年，部分地区死亡人数较多外，饿殍遍地只不过是个形容极端的词语。你若这样看待民国时期，我不与你争辩，只希望你还是唱两句“两只老虎跑得快”吧，这样起码能突显你的单纯。至于说和西方比，就拿现在来说，拿大陆台湾一块儿说，你认为何时，如何才能赶上或超过美国及其西方发达国家。献计献策，别藏着掖着。毛时代吃窝头造氢弹，我只说了是个功绩，体现了一种精神，应该敬畏，我何时吹嘘了那个时代？中国大陆什么时候把知识分子定义为剥削阶级了？要想批判一个理论，就要先了解这个理论，熟悉这个理论。毛泽东时代并未把知识分子归为无产阶级，但也未把知识分子归为资产阶级或地主阶级。毛时代是把知识分子归类为“服务员”！所谓无产阶级与资产阶级是由生产资料掌握的数量与方式来定义的，是出自政治经济学的定义。而“知识分子”不是政治经济学范畴的理论词汇，它是社会形态学的理论词语。知识分子存在于各个阶级或阶层，知识分子也服务于各个阶级或阶层，“皮之不存，毛将焉附”就是说知识分子的立场决定其生存的位置。知识分子是“毛”，而其依附给予服务的阶级或阶层是“皮”，皮存则毛固，皮腐则毛落。文革后期知识青年上山下乡，并非是对知识分子的惩罚，而是解决城市里存在的大批无法进入就业岗位的闲散劳动力带给社会的安全威胁。同时让大批城市青年去体验一下中国农村和城市，农民和工人以及城市干部的巨大生活差距，了解知道中国需要什么，应该干什么。凡从此路获得了真知的，就会成为以后中国的奉献者和创造者，反之就成了以后中国的破坏者和绊脚石。那些因为家里有孩子上山下乡而怀恨于毛泽东者，那些因自己失势孩子下乡而痛惜者，尽管苦情哀哀，但起码一条，就是他们自己把自己与广大的劳动人民分开了，把自己主动地与艰苦生存的人民分开了。简单一句话，人家行，你为啥不行？人家的儿女能如此，你家的儿女就不能？你家比百姓高贵吗？屁！毋庸讳言，毛时代尤其是文革时期，发生了许多令“革命”、“正义”、“民主”蒙羞的事情与现象，应该批判，应该揭露，应该有人负责。但是是否也应该实事求是？如果任凭诬陷造谣，肆意谩骂，其本质与文革又有什么区别？台湾在经历了将证券初始年代的高压整肃时代以后，在美国扶持与监督下，发达了一下变成了“小龙”，和西方发达国家比比，就没有差距吗“成了英国还是法国甚或是瑞典、挪威？以服务业和加工业，旅游业发展起来的底子有多厚？几千万人口的地区可以在某些方面成为榜样，但若说是可以成为十几亿人口大国的榜样，未免坐井观天了。一个大陆边远山区的农民，不可能敢于和台北市的土豪金们比生活水平。但是台北市的土豪金能和大陆北上广的土豪金或山西的黑煤金们比吗？土豪金与农村人都代表不了大陆与台湾！谁都不用沾沾自喜，把牛逼挂在脸上。你说你对大陆五毛的无耻吹嘘感到愤怒，这个我不反对，但是你也在说一些极端的话，讲一些不实事求是的话，就不许别人反感你吗？道理都会讲，不容易的是坚持同一标准》
更不要说政治上，建国初期打了几仗全胜，出了人民压抑百年的耻辱，面对西方的封锁，中国依然取得重大成就，恢复联合国地位，打开了中美关系，为后来的发展打下核心基础。反观现在，当年建立的科研体系基本损失光了，各项产业均无核心技术，不过是和平了几天，修了路，建设了几个高楼，有什么可吹的？喷子请饶行
这不就成了传说中的墙头草？
你知道“严打”的时候中国收缴了多少枪支弹药吗？你知道中国禁枪的因缘吗？如果你没经历过８０年代那混乱的社会治安，可以回去问一下你的父母，看看那时候的人们想不想能自由持枪。
没有毛泽东打下的底子，老邓拿什么改革？按郎咸平的话，把邓放到非洲，非洲会不会有如今中国的成就？毛去世时候，整个国家工业布局都已经完成，人民识字率大幅上升，农业能养活10亿人，毛的时代是休养生息的年代，人口从民国5亿人翻了一倍，中国持续100年战乱入侵时代结束。毛有犯过错误，但是绝对不是你们这些人说的一无是处，只会玩枪不会搞经济。
点击加载更多