前文提過地產商在政府土地拍賣會上為免「爭堋頭」，有機會在某些情況下「點到即止」。據報，日前在拍賣會上中途，信和與南豐代表「咬耳朵」，即場達成合成協議，共同發展大家志在必得的土地。本來可以以更高價成交的土地，即場協議令競價停止，有損拍賣價高者得的原意，減少了政府庫房收入，更重要的是，在沒有充滿競爭下，有限的資源無法分配到購買意欲最高的買家。茶怪想，即場協議應該禁止。
地產發展商合作發展土地是自由商業活動，不應干預。關鍵是合作協議何時達成。拍賣會舉行前，沒有人知道誰購買意欲最高，你和某某相好組織聯盟去投地，說不定到時有願意出更高價者，所以競爭仍然存在。拍賣會舉行後，貨物出門，賣家無權過問。偏偏在拍賣會舉行時，有一個狹窄的時空，讓參與者逃避競爭。
在一輪叫價之後，競投者的數目很快就減少，到只餘下兩位，他們便是購買意欲最高的買家。其他的參與者雖然表面上仍有權舉牌，但由於當時叫價已高過他們願意承受的水平，所以不會再舉牌，同時兩大競爭者終於知道對方的身份，即場協議就可那時達成，最後的兩大競爭者就不用再爭。
如果茶怪有一天不幸要當拍賣官，拍賣自己的家當，冒必想盡辦法阻止即場協議。
2007/02/17
最悲哀的美譽
時常說香港有世界上最自由的市場，奶茶怪想這會否是一個最悲哀的美譽? 我們再沒有進步的空間，倫敦自八十年代開放金融業給外資和將國企私有化，澳門99年回歸後開放賭業，今天兩個地方經濟更上一層樓，中國大陸經濟受惠於自七十年代末的市場開放，是更明顯的例子。回看香港，這一招用不著，因為我們市場已是最自由的了，自由貿易，外資自由投資，幾乎沒有國企，外商要來的，已來了，不來的，再沒有甚麼辦法誘它來。
從以上的邏輯，地產業是最有「前途」的，地產業是封閉的，地產商長期維持豐厚利潤，每次參與土地競投的都是那幾個本地地產商，如果各地產商互相競爭，競價到最後一口，地價理應只有足以補償風險的微利，而不至於地產商長期維持約二至三成的利潤。從表面看，競爭未至於十分激烈，未能達到官地以最高市場價出售的效果。根據搏奕論，即使是一個「互相殘殺」的遊戲，遊戲無止境的重複，參與者就會「點到即止」，這對各方有利。但究竟地產市場制度上有甚麼可以改善之處，去促進競爭? 茶怪沒有答案。
從以上的邏輯，地產業是最有「前途」的，地產業是封閉的，地產商長期維持豐厚利潤，每次參與土地競投的都是那幾個本地地產商，如果各地產商互相競爭，競價到最後一口，地價理應只有足以補償風險的微利，而不至於地產商長期維持約二至三成的利潤。從表面看，競爭未至於十分激烈，未能達到官地以最高市場價出售的效果。根據搏奕論，即使是一個「互相殘殺」的遊戲，遊戲無止境的重複，參與者就會「點到即止」，這對各方有利。但究竟地產市場制度上有甚麼可以改善之處，去促進競爭? 茶怪沒有答案。
2006/12/11
Penny Thoughts before Christmas
According to the Bible, the Virgin Mary, inspired by Holy Spirit, gave birth to Jesus in a stable in Bethlehem, a city south of Jerusalem. Three "wise men" from Persia saw the star, later known as the Star of Bethlehem, followed it and came to the place. They believed there was a new born King and brought three gifts -- gold, frankincense and myrrh. Frankincense and myrrh were valuable incense at that time, and gold was as expensive as ever. Joseph was said to be a carpenter. and i never heard of Jesus having a maid. So i suspect the Joseph family led a not-too-luxurious life, although Joseph was a descendant of King David many generation away. Where did those treasures go afterward? If Joseph and Mary invested wisely, the family would have been rich before Jesus's crucifixion some thirty years later.
i loved listening to stories of Jesus when i was a kid. Such stories as the Good Samaritan and the Lost Son were very interesting, music to the ears, and easily understandable. The Samaritan taught us help people in need. The Lost Son told us to correct our wrongdoings. Children doesn't need to be particularly smart to understand these stories because Jesus intentionally made them simple for everyone.
However, there was an exception. One teaching of Jesus was very harsh. This teaching would only make a laughter among kids, even adults, as they treat it as a joke. i thought it was stupid when i first heard it. But still, i cannot fully understand it. That is "Turn The Other Cheek".
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye', and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.", (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV) Jesus told his followers on a mountainside.
"If someone strike you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Listen, Jesus told us to do this not to innocent people or your barbaric girlfriend, but to an "evil person". Some people simply reject this idea, say this is ridiculous, stupid and even unjustice, in a sense that it allows the evil person to do whatever he likes without receiving punishment. Even sincere Christians say not to take this teaching on the face value and it should be taken in a spiritual, conceptual manner. They interprete Jesus words as an emphasis of pacifism. Even though i am not a Christian, i respect the Bible as the Bible, not a restaurant menu or a dim sum order sheet from which you can freely select what you like and can afford, and take the others "spiritually".
Also, Jesus must have realized that the audience were ordinary people. He told the other stories in the most easy-to-understand way. i don't think he would choose to suddenly transform into an Alan Greenspan to entertain the sodoku addicts.
Does "Turn The Other Cheek" (TTOC) really work? Has anyone ever tried?
i have no idea if TTOC work or not. But i know the opposite, competing, tactic "An Eye For An Eye" (AEFAE) hasn't ever work well.
US President Goerge W Bush, the most powerful man at present and also a Christian, called Iraq, Iran and North Korea the Axis of Evil, for they allegedly sponsor terrorism. A month after the tragic 9-11 attacks in New York, the U.S. launched a war against the Afghani Taliban regime aimed at Osama bin Laden. In 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq, claiming that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapn of mass destruction, a threat of the world's peace.
An AEFAE, in the most fearless form, and what? Terrorism stays. This year alone, bombing took place in Britain, Indonesia, Jordan and Iraq, killing hundreds of innocent people.
AEFAE was nothing new when Jesus raised his TTOC, and has been much well received. American economist Thomas Schelling, together with Israeli mathematician Robert Aumann, won a Nobel Prize in Economics for related theories. Schelling used Game Theory to explain how two parties in conflicting position can avoid a fight by swearing to take a revenge, a concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD). According to MAD, each side will hold fire to avoid getting revenge. It is said that MAD explains why the Cold War didn't lead to a real war -- both the US and Soviet Union knew it would be the end of the world if one of them pushed the button.
It theoretically works only when a dozens of assumptions stand, one of them being perfect rationality of which people are most incapable. Even if all the assumptions hold, the best MAD can do is to deter the fight, but not to root the conflicts.
Jesus didn't rely on any theoretical assumptions. TTOC was to apply universally. The most admirable interpretations for TTOC is that that Jesus was right and people just do not live up to that -- the world has been so spoiled that the heavenly value doesn't work here.
i enjoyed listening to stories about Jesus's miracles too. Once, he healed a blind man from birth. In another day, he fed five thousand people with five loaves and two fish. We all love hearing about miracles because they give hopes. This Christmas, may miracles be among us so that we learn to appreciate trust, respect and consideration of one another.
Nov 17, 2005
Copyright Quamnet
i loved listening to stories of Jesus when i was a kid. Such stories as the Good Samaritan and the Lost Son were very interesting, music to the ears, and easily understandable. The Samaritan taught us help people in need. The Lost Son told us to correct our wrongdoings. Children doesn't need to be particularly smart to understand these stories because Jesus intentionally made them simple for everyone.
However, there was an exception. One teaching of Jesus was very harsh. This teaching would only make a laughter among kids, even adults, as they treat it as a joke. i thought it was stupid when i first heard it. But still, i cannot fully understand it. That is "Turn The Other Cheek".
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye', and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.", (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV) Jesus told his followers on a mountainside.
"If someone strike you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Listen, Jesus told us to do this not to innocent people or your barbaric girlfriend, but to an "evil person". Some people simply reject this idea, say this is ridiculous, stupid and even unjustice, in a sense that it allows the evil person to do whatever he likes without receiving punishment. Even sincere Christians say not to take this teaching on the face value and it should be taken in a spiritual, conceptual manner. They interprete Jesus words as an emphasis of pacifism. Even though i am not a Christian, i respect the Bible as the Bible, not a restaurant menu or a dim sum order sheet from which you can freely select what you like and can afford, and take the others "spiritually".
Also, Jesus must have realized that the audience were ordinary people. He told the other stories in the most easy-to-understand way. i don't think he would choose to suddenly transform into an Alan Greenspan to entertain the sodoku addicts.
Does "Turn The Other Cheek" (TTOC) really work? Has anyone ever tried?
i have no idea if TTOC work or not. But i know the opposite, competing, tactic "An Eye For An Eye" (AEFAE) hasn't ever work well.
US President Goerge W Bush, the most powerful man at present and also a Christian, called Iraq, Iran and North Korea the Axis of Evil, for they allegedly sponsor terrorism. A month after the tragic 9-11 attacks in New York, the U.S. launched a war against the Afghani Taliban regime aimed at Osama bin Laden. In 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq, claiming that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapn of mass destruction, a threat of the world's peace.
An AEFAE, in the most fearless form, and what? Terrorism stays. This year alone, bombing took place in Britain, Indonesia, Jordan and Iraq, killing hundreds of innocent people.
AEFAE was nothing new when Jesus raised his TTOC, and has been much well received. American economist Thomas Schelling, together with Israeli mathematician Robert Aumann, won a Nobel Prize in Economics for related theories. Schelling used Game Theory to explain how two parties in conflicting position can avoid a fight by swearing to take a revenge, a concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD). According to MAD, each side will hold fire to avoid getting revenge. It is said that MAD explains why the Cold War didn't lead to a real war -- both the US and Soviet Union knew it would be the end of the world if one of them pushed the button.
It theoretically works only when a dozens of assumptions stand, one of them being perfect rationality of which people are most incapable. Even if all the assumptions hold, the best MAD can do is to deter the fight, but not to root the conflicts.
Jesus didn't rely on any theoretical assumptions. TTOC was to apply universally. The most admirable interpretations for TTOC is that that Jesus was right and people just do not live up to that -- the world has been so spoiled that the heavenly value doesn't work here.
i enjoyed listening to stories about Jesus's miracles too. Once, he healed a blind man from birth. In another day, he fed five thousand people with five loaves and two fish. We all love hearing about miracles because they give hopes. This Christmas, may miracles be among us so that we learn to appreciate trust, respect and consideration of one another.
Nov 17, 2005
Copyright Quamnet
Brotherhood -- In A John Woo's Way
Game theory is the funnier part in economics.
Have you seen "The Good, The Bad And The Ugly"? It is a classic cowboy film starring the invincible Clint Eastwood. In the climax, the good guy, the bad guy and the ugly guy stand in a circle, each holding a gun. All want to shoot one another.
If you were Eastwood, what would you do? Will you be the first to open fire?
Let's jump to a John Woo action film, any one of them. There must be a plot in which two heroes point guns at each other. Would you be the first to pull the trigger, if you were the hard-boiled Chow Yun-fat?
These were no games. They were dead-or-alive situations.
The Eastwood "trio" plot was very clever. The only way to get out of this situation unwounded, if you cannot shoot both the others all at once, was to be the second one to shoot. All three guys paused, and waited for any one of the other two guys to shoot first.
The best strategy is to pray for the possibility that the one who opens fire doesn't aim at you and shoot that guy once he fires the bullet toward the third guy. No matter what, the first who opens fire must die. Everyone knows that and therefore no one wants to shoot first. The most probable outcome is that all three guys stand still and nothing happens forever, although the film had to have an ending.
The John Woo's "duel", the "gun-to-the-head" situation, is different. Who pulls the trigger first will live. It would be too late if you let the other pull the trigger first. The best solution would be to shoot immediately. However, if the heroes do that, the stories would be much shorter than 90 minutes, and tasteless, and Woo would not be the beloved director that he is.
In most of the time in this "gun-to-the-head" situation, the two heroes are good friends, "brothers", or at least, they respect each other, although there must have been some betrayals or revenges.
As the "gun-to-the-head" gestures go, the audience gets thrilled and Woo keeps us guessing: "Who will shoot first? Will the brothers kill each other?"
But i can predict that, once the first second has gone and there has not yet been any shooting, there will be none.
Let's split the long-holding gesture into seconds. The strategy is like this:
(1) If your opponent shoots in the next second, you better shoot now.
(2) If your opponent does not shoot in the next second, you better not shoot. He used be to your "good brother". You look for a live/live outcome, although you put your own life on the top priority. At least, holding the fire saves you from troubles and future revenges against you.
Your opponent has the same idea.
Once the first second has past, you know that your opponent expects you to hold fire in the next second. And your opponent knows your same expectation too.
Trust was built after the first second. The two heroes would hold their positions, keep staring at each other and start talking about their past battles and struggles. i believe Woo has a message on killing as well as not killing. And it was often the latter that struck me.
Trust, or, put it in a more romantic word, brotherhood, does make better returns. In the money world, cheating would work for quick profits only.
In a classic prisoner's dilemma, a game, which requires two players operate with each other to get the best outcomes, each of the two players will cheat because:
If the other cheats, he had better cheat to avoid the greatest suffering; and
If the other doesn't cheat, he would still rather cheat to exploit the benefits.
The game suggests that people are so cruel, provided that the game is played only once.
But if the game has an unpredictable number of rounds, the best strategy is to operate in every round of the game. It is because, if a player cheats, he will lose the benefits from operation in the future rounds. This can be applied to our daily lives as to how we can operate with other people to get better results.
In a world that has a finite lifespan, the situation would be like the blind survival game in Kinji Fukasaku's movie "Battle-Royale". Fortunately, we have a future and hence there are reasons for brotherhood.
Apr 27, 2005
Copyright Quamnet
Have you seen "The Good, The Bad And The Ugly"? It is a classic cowboy film starring the invincible Clint Eastwood. In the climax, the good guy, the bad guy and the ugly guy stand in a circle, each holding a gun. All want to shoot one another.
If you were Eastwood, what would you do? Will you be the first to open fire?
Let's jump to a John Woo action film, any one of them. There must be a plot in which two heroes point guns at each other. Would you be the first to pull the trigger, if you were the hard-boiled Chow Yun-fat?
These were no games. They were dead-or-alive situations.
The Eastwood "trio" plot was very clever. The only way to get out of this situation unwounded, if you cannot shoot both the others all at once, was to be the second one to shoot. All three guys paused, and waited for any one of the other two guys to shoot first.
The best strategy is to pray for the possibility that the one who opens fire doesn't aim at you and shoot that guy once he fires the bullet toward the third guy. No matter what, the first who opens fire must die. Everyone knows that and therefore no one wants to shoot first. The most probable outcome is that all three guys stand still and nothing happens forever, although the film had to have an ending.
The John Woo's "duel", the "gun-to-the-head" situation, is different. Who pulls the trigger first will live. It would be too late if you let the other pull the trigger first. The best solution would be to shoot immediately. However, if the heroes do that, the stories would be much shorter than 90 minutes, and tasteless, and Woo would not be the beloved director that he is.
In most of the time in this "gun-to-the-head" situation, the two heroes are good friends, "brothers", or at least, they respect each other, although there must have been some betrayals or revenges.
As the "gun-to-the-head" gestures go, the audience gets thrilled and Woo keeps us guessing: "Who will shoot first? Will the brothers kill each other?"
But i can predict that, once the first second has gone and there has not yet been any shooting, there will be none.
Let's split the long-holding gesture into seconds. The strategy is like this:
(1) If your opponent shoots in the next second, you better shoot now.
(2) If your opponent does not shoot in the next second, you better not shoot. He used be to your "good brother". You look for a live/live outcome, although you put your own life on the top priority. At least, holding the fire saves you from troubles and future revenges against you.
Your opponent has the same idea.
Once the first second has past, you know that your opponent expects you to hold fire in the next second. And your opponent knows your same expectation too.
Trust was built after the first second. The two heroes would hold their positions, keep staring at each other and start talking about their past battles and struggles. i believe Woo has a message on killing as well as not killing. And it was often the latter that struck me.
Trust, or, put it in a more romantic word, brotherhood, does make better returns. In the money world, cheating would work for quick profits only.
In a classic prisoner's dilemma, a game, which requires two players operate with each other to get the best outcomes, each of the two players will cheat because:
If the other cheats, he had better cheat to avoid the greatest suffering; and
If the other doesn't cheat, he would still rather cheat to exploit the benefits.
The game suggests that people are so cruel, provided that the game is played only once.
But if the game has an unpredictable number of rounds, the best strategy is to operate in every round of the game. It is because, if a player cheats, he will lose the benefits from operation in the future rounds. This can be applied to our daily lives as to how we can operate with other people to get better results.
In a world that has a finite lifespan, the situation would be like the blind survival game in Kinji Fukasaku's movie "Battle-Royale". Fortunately, we have a future and hence there are reasons for brotherhood.
Apr 27, 2005
Copyright Quamnet
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)