Oh my gosh, 國父是計劃經濟支持者?!

下文節錄自國父的 <<建國方略>>:

商业战争，亦战争之一种，是资本家与资本家之战争也。此种战争，无民族之区分，无国界之限制，常不顾人道，互相战斗。而其战斗之方法即减价倾轧，致弱者倒败，而强者则随而垄断市场，占领销路，直至达其能力所及之期限而止。故商业战争之结果，其损失、其残酷亦不亚于铁血竞争之以强力压迫也。此种之战争，自采用机器生产之后，已日见剧烈。

彼司密亚丹派之经济学者，谓竞争为最有利益之主因，为有生气之经济组织；而近代之经济学者，则谓其为浪费，为损害之经济组织。然所可确证者，近代经济之趋势，适造成相反之方向，即以经济集中代自由竞争是也。美国自有大公司出现，即有限制大公司法律，而民意亦以设法限制为然。盖大公司能节省浪费，能产出最廉价物品，非私人所能及。

不论何时何地，当有大公司成立，即将其他小制造业扫除净尽，而以廉价物品供给社会，此固为社会之便利。但所不幸者，大公司多属私有，其目的在多获利益，待至一切小制造业皆为其所压倒之后，因无竞争，而后将各物之价值增高，社会上实受无形之压迫也。

大公司之出现，系经济进化之结果，非人力所能屈服。如欲救其弊，只有将一切大公司组织归诸通国人民公有之一法。故在吾之国际发展实业计划，拟将一概工业组成一极大公司，归诸中国人民公有，但须得国际资本家为共同经济利益之协助。若依此办法，商业战争之在于世界市场中者，自可消灭于无形矣。　

Puzzle of the Day

My sister in law has a Ph.D. from Cambridge. Whenever she dispenses her opinion, my wife and her parents (my inlaws were both graduates from Peking University back in the late 1950s, no small feat indeed) listen.

It doesn't matter what topic is being discussed, it does not matter that my wife and my inlaws start with different views on the same matter, they will automatically switch side and accept my sister in law's view without hesitation.

And the question is why?

Is it because she has her Ph.D.? But isn't it the case that her Ph.D. only represents her expertise in certain area of study not in all areas.

Is it because the fact that she has got her degree signals to others that she is smart (like higher IQ), so people who have received less education believe that in matters that they are not completely sure how to deal with themselves, it is better to delegate the task of workng out a solution to those who have higher IQ. The presumption is that higher IQ people have a better chance of figuring out the best course of action. Is there any basis on this claim?

Is it because higher level of educational attainment indicates higher level of IQ and problem-solving ability as well?

Those readers who are knowledgable in neuroscience and psychology, educate me.