What is a hypocrite?

Read Mr. Zuo's What is a Pseudoeconomist? After this article, I will follow Mr. Zuo to write an article entitled "What is a hypocrite? 》。

First of all, Mr. Zuo said that "economics is a science, not the taste of the people", so we should make clear what is economy, what is economics and what is economist. Otherwise, how can we conclude that "economics" is not the taste of the people? As for the logic of Mr. Zuo's "economics", it is different from people's daily life. As a result, there seems to be a lot of logical relations in this world, which has to remind people of the word "robber logic". Mr. Zuo did not explain what the logic of his "economics" was in his article. In order to illustrate my different views, I can only use the logical relationship that most people use and the way that most people understand. First of all, I will briefly describe "economy", "economics" and "economist".

From the dictionary, the meaning of "economy" has multiple meanings.

First of all, it is a large system, which expresses "helping the people and governing the country". At this point, I think many economists who fled to the mainstream level of society should basically belong to this explanation.

The second is what we often call a "cost-effective" process, which is manifested in the process of exchange, whether the exchange party is cost-effective in interests and whether there are losses. For the second point, most people ignore it, and almost everyone ignores it. This is the process of "let some people get rich first" and "let some people get good deals first", but many people didn't know what the secret was at that time. On the road to prosperity, everyone is equal and has equal opportunities. When one day I suddenly understand, I will fall into the category of what economists call "vulnerable groups"

The third is that the essence of economy is a social relationship. In this regard, there is a view that "social relations" are also productive forces. Many people, especially most people in China, don't want to seek "productivity". There is really no "productivity". This economy determines the process of consciousness, and I think people nowadays should understand it very realistically and thoroughly. But in this respect, economists don't want to go on. This is also the social moral construction that only came later in society. An arrogant person is actually moral. For those who do not have a certain economic foundation, it is natural to strengthen the process of moral construction. People are always so forgetful, but after forgetfulness, they will go over and look at the actual process of that history. I think the third point will be further understood from reality.

The fourth is this economy, which can refer to the output of everything created by society. Since it is created by society, it will inevitably be consumed and occupied by society. At this time, someone came out and said, "Get rich through honest labor." Of course, isn't this process of getting rich just to get a slice of the total economic output of this society? However, in all the concrete processes of reality, people don't know why, but they don't get much from this social and economic aggregate. Therefore, the people were originally the result of "dishonest labor", and they deeply realized the economist's "distributing society according to production factors". From this point of view, all the actions of these economists do not meet the "taste" of the people in the final distribution of benefits.

So, let's learn more about what economics is.

Generally, the normal understanding is described in words: Economics is the study of various economic relations and the laws of economic activities. Since it is learning, I think it is somewhat different from the meaning of science we understand. Because what we generally call science is more a concept that conforms to the facts, an effective means that can be verified, and an attitude of treating the world equally. However, in the wave of market economy, when gold and gold are swaying in front of these eyes that have fled to the mainstream of society, can their flustered souls not tremble? At this point, I don't know if Mr. Zuo can give a concrete proof to stop these people from doing anything frightening. When all the great economists know that "one share is good", they are talking about the bright future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. How can Mr. Zuo forget that their specific virtues are difficult to describe?

How can the economics of these pets wagging their tails like dogs make the people "taste" together when the economic process of dividing up this society makes the dignitaries get the greatest benefits?

To say what an economist is now seems to be the best explanation. Directly speaking, it is a famous researcher engaged in economic theory. So from the current reality, the so-called economists are those celebrities floating in the mainstream of society and branded with "economics". If not, how to produce a combination word of "pseudo-economist"?

When the base people are also engaged in the economic behavior of the market economy, then the memorial archway should also be an act of mastering the general economic relations and laws of society. If bitches don't have the brains of economists in this process, I think it is a great injustice to their talent and wisdom. But the common people think that this behavior of being a bitch and building a memorial arch is a hypocrite's behavior.

I sincerely safeguard the glorious image of economists, but I do associate them with hypocrites step by step, no matter how careful I am. So, what is a hypocrite?

The dictionary describes what a hypocrite is: a person who pretends to be a good person and deceives the world.

I have always thought that man is actually a beast, but after reading the explanation of hypocrite in the dictionary, I think the explanation in the dictionary is wrong. Because "man" and "beast" were replaced, it became like this. "A hypocrite is a beast disguised as a kind beast to deceive the world." But we all look at other beasts in the world. Are there good beasts and bad beasts in the same beast? For example, when we are faced with jackals, we can say that some jackals are good jackals, and some are deceitful jackals, which seems to be inconsistent with the standards of other mammals in the world. Facing the reality, I think the explanation of hypocrite should be changed, and it should be-"A hypocrite is a person who pretends to be a good person and tries to gain benefits by deceiving the world and stealing a name." This definition of hypocrite shows that this species is definitely not among the people, it belongs to parasitic species, and it basically makes a living by the meanest means in the world.

There are thousands of attitudes towards the process of human society, which precedes this process first. That is to say, for the study of human self, attitude is the first, and the result is the second, and the purpose is the core of all established knowledge systems.

At first, I used to be an economist as a teacher, and later I became a street fortune teller. Now, since they all fled to the nobility gloriously, I regard them as hypocrites.

In fact, economists do not need to point out that the earth will explode in the future. The common people all know that economists who have just floated to the mainstream of society always like to be unconventional. For example, about the explosion of the earth, they say that it is the result of their research, just like people will eventually die, and it is also a great achievement of their research. So many similar so-called economic views are put in front of the people all day, can the people have good taste?

Since you economists floating in the mainstream of society are so great, why didn't anyone tell jokes about the absurd story of "soft landing" in those days? Aren't you immortals? You'd better tell your own fortune and see how long you can live.

As for economists being misunderstood by the public, it is because people's understanding of hypocrites in different eras always takes a lagging time process. When "fairness and efficiency, the gap between the rich and the poor, free trade, state-owned enterprise reform, non-tradable shares, real estate prices and other issues" exposed the virtue of hypocrites, the people's appetite was all stirred by these scum. Obviously, it has aroused the appetite of ordinary people, but it is not "tasteless", as if ordinary people are idiots. As for today's people, you, Mr. Zuo, look down on the whole world. A powerful "country" and a wealthy "people" should not talk about the Harbin complex of economists, because people don't like these hypocrites.

When Mr. Zuo treats the people as fools and expects that "when the national market economy awareness and economic literacy (similar to the scientific literacy mentioned above) are generally improved, mainstream economists will be understood and accepted by the public", I finally said:

Economists floating on the mainstream level in China are hypocrites in essence, and staying in society is a piece of shit.