2008/10/21
2008/07/30
2008/05/01
快樂
在先人出殯時，有一位陌生人對靈堂拜祭，他帶著微笑鞠躬，坐下，繼續微笑，沒有人知道他是誰。後來發現他是一個傻子，在靈堂白撞相信不是第一次，他的快樂，就是建基於別人的死亡之上，他坐在一旁，驕傲地看著先人的遺照，慶幸自己還活著。
近年，社會流行說追求快樂，說經濟發展令人不快樂，原因是人之間有比較，例如比較收入、財富和社會地位，這樣比較促使人不斷競逐，不斷比較，引發妒忌，最後沒有人勝出，所有人都不快樂。快樂論者倡議，每個人一齊慢下來，讓大家快樂一點。
要壓低別人讓自己快樂，其實好簡單，茶怪建議快樂論者學那個傻子一樣，每天早上，到殯儀館送殯，和死人比一比，就知道自己多幸福，未死得，快樂的感覺尤然而生，但這樣又有何意義呢?
近年，社會流行說追求快樂，說經濟發展令人不快樂，原因是人之間有比較，例如比較收入、財富和社會地位，這樣比較促使人不斷競逐，不斷比較，引發妒忌，最後沒有人勝出，所有人都不快樂。快樂論者倡議，每個人一齊慢下來，讓大家快樂一點。
要壓低別人讓自己快樂，其實好簡單，茶怪建議快樂論者學那個傻子一樣，每天早上，到殯儀館送殯，和死人比一比，就知道自己多幸福，未死得，快樂的感覺尤然而生，但這樣又有何意義呢?
2007/12/14
2007/05/29
毅行力量
蔡東豪的新書<<毅行者>>細說這個一百公里競賽的故事。從每個毅行發燒友的的經歷，探索毅行者精神。茶怪想，毅行者這股由眾人集結而發揮出的力量，不計酬勞，不談資本主義原則，就像太陽能和其他取之不盡的天然資源一樣，能否將之轉化成更大的力量，對社會作出更大的貢獻?
今日，但凡有自由市場解決不來的社會問題，如福利、醫療、教育、文化、藝術、電影、保育等，社會人士第一時間將責任推到政府身上。政府也好像是義不容辭地，積極向立法會申請撥款，加福利，攪文化活動。政府好像相信，「市場來不了的，我來。」慷的卻是納稅人的慨。可是，要資源有效地再分配，茶怪想，政府是次選。較佳的選擇是循慈善。徵稅會影響生產力，削弱經濟活動，更重要的是，稅款的用途取決於政治考慮多於「實際需要」。
究竟何謂有「實際需要」，究竟攪「維港巨星匯」、資助電影業、還是資助粵劇，還是保護雀鳥生態較好? 還是幫助窮人? 茶怪唔知，政府亦不應話事。最好由付錢的人決定。由慈善團體籌款，捐款人各自選擇幫助的對象。如果社會整體認為保護雀鳥生態較發展電影業重要，保護雀鳥生態能吸引的捐款自然比較多。你可能問，在經濟掛帥的香港，哪裡更多的善長仁翁?
從毅行者活動的成功，可見慈善不是一個如納稅一樣的「零和遊戲」。善款可以較經濟增長快，而且不會阻礙經濟增長。因為是自由捐贈的，不可被視為個人或企業的生產成本，不會損害他們賺錢的誘因，反而，做善事令人開心，本身是一種「好東西」(goods)。籌款活動成敗視乎主辦機構能否令捐款人快樂。慈善團體之間是有競爭的，但他們從競爭過程之中提升他們的籌款活動的吸引力，令捐款人開心，籌款總額就愈來愈多。社會提倡公益慈善，較推行福利為佳，這樣每個人捐錢增多，交稅減少，付出的感覺更具意義。
今日，但凡有自由市場解決不來的社會問題，如福利、醫療、教育、文化、藝術、電影、保育等，社會人士第一時間將責任推到政府身上。政府也好像是義不容辭地，積極向立法會申請撥款，加福利，攪文化活動。政府好像相信，「市場來不了的，我來。」慷的卻是納稅人的慨。可是，要資源有效地再分配，茶怪想，政府是次選。較佳的選擇是循慈善。徵稅會影響生產力，削弱經濟活動，更重要的是，稅款的用途取決於政治考慮多於「實際需要」。
究竟何謂有「實際需要」，究竟攪「維港巨星匯」、資助電影業、還是資助粵劇，還是保護雀鳥生態較好? 還是幫助窮人? 茶怪唔知，政府亦不應話事。最好由付錢的人決定。由慈善團體籌款，捐款人各自選擇幫助的對象。如果社會整體認為保護雀鳥生態較發展電影業重要，保護雀鳥生態能吸引的捐款自然比較多。你可能問，在經濟掛帥的香港，哪裡更多的善長仁翁?
從毅行者活動的成功，可見慈善不是一個如納稅一樣的「零和遊戲」。善款可以較經濟增長快，而且不會阻礙經濟增長。因為是自由捐贈的，不可被視為個人或企業的生產成本，不會損害他們賺錢的誘因，反而，做善事令人開心，本身是一種「好東西」(goods)。籌款活動成敗視乎主辦機構能否令捐款人快樂。慈善團體之間是有競爭的，但他們從競爭過程之中提升他們的籌款活動的吸引力，令捐款人開心，籌款總額就愈來愈多。社會提倡公益慈善，較推行福利為佳，這樣每個人捐錢增多，交稅減少，付出的感覺更具意義。
2006/12/11
Happiness
In a supermarket, when you push the shopping cart (with food and stuff) to the cashier, you are given two choices:
1A) A plastic bag
1B) A gain of 10 cents
Which one will you choose?
Alternatively, under the same situation, if you are given another set of choices:
2A) A plastic bag
2B) Avoiding losing 10 cents
Which one will you choose?
For the first set of choices, i would choose 1A. For the second, i would choose 2B.
Hong Kong is debating about how to discourage the consumption of plastic bags, for the sake of the environment. Supermarkets are offering a cash rebate of 10 cents for each plastic bag saved. The scheme has not yet been, and will not ever be, popular because most people do not care about the gain of a few coins, and tend to choose 1A (Take the bag and forget about the rebate) rather than 1B (Not taking the bag and receiving a rebate).
Now, the Secretary of the Environment, Transport and Works Sarah Liao Sau-tung proposes that supermarkets should charge 10 cents a plastic bag, following similar measures taken in Taiwan. i guess that this scheme would work much more effectively because most people would tend to choose 2B (Not taking the bag and not charges) rather than 2A (Take the bag with a charge). The sense of losing something, however little, causes pain.
Suppose, if the supermarket set up two lines, queuing for each of the plastic bag policies. Those who choose 2B (Not taking the bag, and no rebate) would probably switch to the line for the first policy, as they won't take the bags anyway. But now, they may even collect some coins, available though the choice of 1B (Not taking the bag and receive a rebate). They would pick 1B. That's contradictory to the results mentioned earlier.
We are loss averse. We dislike a loss and we like a gain, but the magnitude is different. We hate a loss twice as much as they admire a gain, a survey by Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University suggests.
We defend what belongs to us, whether it being some coins or even respects from other people. However, our possessions hardly please us, as we easily get bored with them. To keep us happy, we need to constantly upgrade our possessions. Richard Layard, an economist at the London School of Economics, has his points. In his new book, "Happiness: lessons from a new science" raised the radical questions. What makes us happy? Is it higher income?
You are given the choices between living in two imaginary worlds, in which prices were the same:
3A) You get HK$32,500 a month, while other people get HK$16,250 on average
3B) You get HK$65,000 a month, while other people get HK$162,500 a month.
Which one will you choose?
i would choose 3A because that makes me feel more comfortable. If you do the same, please don't feel embarrassed. This question is put to a group of Harvard students (i converted the currency.) and a majority picked 3A.
People are no happier today than they were fifty years ago, even though average incomes have more than doubled. People are stressed out with the heavy workload and competing in the rat race of social status. The economy has improved, and people's living standards have improved, but people do not feel happier.
Layard argues that our happiness depends on what other people are doing. An employee who works until late in the evening gives pressure to other colleagues. A pay-rise for that employee makes him better-off, and at the same time, makes everybody else worse-off, even though no body gets a pay-cut. The one who works in longer hours are producing "pollution". The situation is like in a stadium, one watcher stands up to gain a better view. The ones behind him need to stand up too to keep watching. Eventually, everyone stands up. They all get the same view as if they all sit down, but they are all worse-off due to the extra efforts.
After work, people compete in consumption. A person who buys a BMW feels good in front of his friends, who drive Toyotas. Later, when all his friends upgrade to BMW, the happiness of the one who have bought the first BMW falls back to the initial level when all of them drive Toyotas.
People work excessively hard and consume more than necessary, just to chase one another. Take a break. If everyone stops the race, everyone will become happier.
Apart from the information and entertainment it brings, Layard says, TV brings discontent. In a typical drama, there are far more millionaires and beautiful ladies than in reality. Audiences automatically feel dissatisfied about their own wealth, body shapes and spouses.
Advertisement has its problems. Sweden bans commercial advertising targeting children under the age of twelve. Ads push us to buy more. It is often said that capitalism depends on advertising to achieve full employment. Without ads, less would be bought and there would be less production. Overall, we would have lower incomes. But, in return, we do not need to spend as much. That sounds not bad.
Apart from the peer comparison, our happiness depends on what we have in the past. It is often heard that people were happier in the 1960's and 70's, even though materials were less abundant than now. They were happy with a colorless TV.
Layard says our happiness about a new car and a new house lasts only one or two years. A couple of years later, we would be just happy as we used to be with the previous car and house. We overestimate the lasting effects of happiness, and that makes us pay too much for it.
GDP growth has been the major objective of many countries' economic policies. A policy inevitably has different impacts on different people. Economists would say the policy is all right if it would increase the overall income, because the beneficiaries could always compensate the sufferers to arrive in a win-win situation. But, when losses are valued higher than gains, as mentioned in the supermarket case, wealth reallocation, through taxation, would be a priority to increase the overall happiness of the society, although that might affect the incentives of wealth creation.
Is there anything wrong with mainstream economics that says the more income and consumption the better?
i agree with most of Layard's points. But his book seems to offer more questions than answers. As the book's title states, this is a new science, which is to be explored.
Apr 13, 2005
Copyright Quamnet
1A) A plastic bag
1B) A gain of 10 cents
Which one will you choose?
Alternatively, under the same situation, if you are given another set of choices:
2A) A plastic bag
2B) Avoiding losing 10 cents
Which one will you choose?
For the first set of choices, i would choose 1A. For the second, i would choose 2B.
Hong Kong is debating about how to discourage the consumption of plastic bags, for the sake of the environment. Supermarkets are offering a cash rebate of 10 cents for each plastic bag saved. The scheme has not yet been, and will not ever be, popular because most people do not care about the gain of a few coins, and tend to choose 1A (Take the bag and forget about the rebate) rather than 1B (Not taking the bag and receiving a rebate).
Now, the Secretary of the Environment, Transport and Works Sarah Liao Sau-tung proposes that supermarkets should charge 10 cents a plastic bag, following similar measures taken in Taiwan. i guess that this scheme would work much more effectively because most people would tend to choose 2B (Not taking the bag and not charges) rather than 2A (Take the bag with a charge). The sense of losing something, however little, causes pain.
Suppose, if the supermarket set up two lines, queuing for each of the plastic bag policies. Those who choose 2B (Not taking the bag, and no rebate) would probably switch to the line for the first policy, as they won't take the bags anyway. But now, they may even collect some coins, available though the choice of 1B (Not taking the bag and receive a rebate). They would pick 1B. That's contradictory to the results mentioned earlier.
We are loss averse. We dislike a loss and we like a gain, but the magnitude is different. We hate a loss twice as much as they admire a gain, a survey by Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University suggests.
We defend what belongs to us, whether it being some coins or even respects from other people. However, our possessions hardly please us, as we easily get bored with them. To keep us happy, we need to constantly upgrade our possessions. Richard Layard, an economist at the London School of Economics, has his points. In his new book, "Happiness: lessons from a new science" raised the radical questions. What makes us happy? Is it higher income?
You are given the choices between living in two imaginary worlds, in which prices were the same:
3A) You get HK$32,500 a month, while other people get HK$16,250 on average
3B) You get HK$65,000 a month, while other people get HK$162,500 a month.
Which one will you choose?
i would choose 3A because that makes me feel more comfortable. If you do the same, please don't feel embarrassed. This question is put to a group of Harvard students (i converted the currency.) and a majority picked 3A.
People are no happier today than they were fifty years ago, even though average incomes have more than doubled. People are stressed out with the heavy workload and competing in the rat race of social status. The economy has improved, and people's living standards have improved, but people do not feel happier.
Layard argues that our happiness depends on what other people are doing. An employee who works until late in the evening gives pressure to other colleagues. A pay-rise for that employee makes him better-off, and at the same time, makes everybody else worse-off, even though no body gets a pay-cut. The one who works in longer hours are producing "pollution". The situation is like in a stadium, one watcher stands up to gain a better view. The ones behind him need to stand up too to keep watching. Eventually, everyone stands up. They all get the same view as if they all sit down, but they are all worse-off due to the extra efforts.
After work, people compete in consumption. A person who buys a BMW feels good in front of his friends, who drive Toyotas. Later, when all his friends upgrade to BMW, the happiness of the one who have bought the first BMW falls back to the initial level when all of them drive Toyotas.
People work excessively hard and consume more than necessary, just to chase one another. Take a break. If everyone stops the race, everyone will become happier.
Apart from the information and entertainment it brings, Layard says, TV brings discontent. In a typical drama, there are far more millionaires and beautiful ladies than in reality. Audiences automatically feel dissatisfied about their own wealth, body shapes and spouses.
Advertisement has its problems. Sweden bans commercial advertising targeting children under the age of twelve. Ads push us to buy more. It is often said that capitalism depends on advertising to achieve full employment. Without ads, less would be bought and there would be less production. Overall, we would have lower incomes. But, in return, we do not need to spend as much. That sounds not bad.
Apart from the peer comparison, our happiness depends on what we have in the past. It is often heard that people were happier in the 1960's and 70's, even though materials were less abundant than now. They were happy with a colorless TV.
Layard says our happiness about a new car and a new house lasts only one or two years. A couple of years later, we would be just happy as we used to be with the previous car and house. We overestimate the lasting effects of happiness, and that makes us pay too much for it.
GDP growth has been the major objective of many countries' economic policies. A policy inevitably has different impacts on different people. Economists would say the policy is all right if it would increase the overall income, because the beneficiaries could always compensate the sufferers to arrive in a win-win situation. But, when losses are valued higher than gains, as mentioned in the supermarket case, wealth reallocation, through taxation, would be a priority to increase the overall happiness of the society, although that might affect the incentives of wealth creation.
Is there anything wrong with mainstream economics that says the more income and consumption the better?
i agree with most of Layard's points. But his book seems to offer more questions than answers. As the book's title states, this is a new science, which is to be explored.
Apr 13, 2005
Copyright Quamnet
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)