李子旸：拆迁是双边垄断交易，即你只能从我这里买，而我也只能卖给你，双方都别无选择。缓解拆迁困局的唯一办法就是设法改变双边垄断交易的局面。有的双边垄断交易是无法改变的。但拆迁这种双边垄断交易，完全是现行的、不合理的、甚至可以说是畸形的土地制度造成的，是人为造成的，也是完全可以改变的。改变的办法就是放弃畸形的土地制度和农地控制制度，让土地供应多元化。到那时，拆迁就将成为城市发展的极大动力，而不是人们之间互相争斗的源泉（见这里）。
大规模的排队，如中国的春运，是学习价格理论和研究公共政策的优良范本，值得每一位对经济、舆论、政策等领域感兴趣的朋友深思。本站以明快的方式回答各种常见问题，包括：（1）回家过年是不是刚性需求；（2）车票提价有没有增加乘客负担；（3）黄牛党有没有责任；（4）垄断产业的产品涨价合理吗；（5）春运难题与铁路垄断的关系；（6）火车票低价造成的浪费在哪里；（7）应该如何有效地帮助穷人；（8）租和寻租的经济学概念；（9）关于排队的理论文献等。欢迎浏览！
科斯（Ronald H. Coase）：“我被反垄断法烦透了。假如价格涨了，法官就说是‘垄断定价’；价格跌了，就说是‘掠夺定价’；价格不变，就说是‘勾结定价’”。(Ronald Coase said he had gotten tired of anti-trust because when the prices went up the judges said it was monopoly, when the prices went down they said it was predatory pricing, and when they stayed the same they said it was tacit collusion. — Source: William Landes, “The Fire of Truth: A Remembrance of Law and Econ at Chicago”, JLE (1981)) 详见这里和这里。
布坎南（James M. Buchanan）：需求量和价格之间的反向关系，是经济科学的核心命题，它体现了这样的预设，即人类的选择行为足够理性，以致是可以预测的。没有一个物理学家会说“水往上流”，也没有一个自重的经济学家会说“提高最低工资可以增加就业”。这种说法，要是认真地生发下去，将无异于全盘否定了经济学，使其科学含义荡然无存；要是这样，经济学家除了撰写迎合意识形态偏好的文章，就别无可为了。值得庆幸的是，只有一小撮经济学家愿意背弃两个世纪的经济学教诲；我们尚未堕落成一群随营的娼妓（详见这里）。
Gary Becker: The claim that the crisis was due to an insufficient level of regulation is not convincing. For example, commercial banks have been more regulated than most other financial institutions, yet commercial banks performed no better than other classes of financial institutions. At the other extreme, hedge funds have been the least regulated, and on the whole they did better than most others in the financial sector. One major problem with regulations is the regulators themselves. See here.
Benjamin Powell at Washington Times: America’s move to act swiftly and boldly misses the point. Bank bailouts and fiscal stimulus bills don’t work because they strive to maintain the status quo. But the status quo is the problem and exactly what needs to be corrected. The U.S. housing bubble drew too many workers and too much capital into construction and related industries. So funding public works projects to keep those companies in business is the wrong solution. See here. (HT: EconLog)
给作者留言（不公开）：