網友羅安尼問了一個好有趣的問題:
"如果一個人o係商場執到個銀包，佢一般黎講有三個選擇：
1) 拎到差人 / 商場既管理人員作 lost & found紀錄
2) 據為己有
3) 視而不見，由佢擺o係原地
想問下，可否用「自由經濟」理論去解釋，邊個選擇最為合理？"
據茶怪對「自由經濟」理論的理解，這個人可以自由選擇以上三個動作。他可以根據自己的價值觀去決定，只要是他的個人選擇，就是合理。
現在的香港不是走自由的方向，一旦「路不拾遺」成為社會議提，便會有政黨、議員，組織起巡邏隊，到各個商場檢查有沒有遺失銀包，如果有，就會前仆後繼地將之物歸原主，途中不昔用「大聲公」大聲廣播，騷擾幾千人的家居清淨。
跟著，政府便會開一個新部門，請一隊人，成立「路不拾遺」巡邏隊，一方面增加就業，另一方面，改善形象。
跟著，又有人說，這些巡邏成本不應由公眾負擔，商場管理公司是大商家大財團，應該負起社會責任，於是，政府又立法要求所有商場，自行組織巡邏隊。
政治透過有效監管去維護「路不拾遺」這項社會公義。到頭來，無人再懂得照顧自己的財物(因為無咁既必要)，亦唔會再有自發性地「路不拾遺」的好人。
2008/05/20
十八樓C座的道理
內地兩位著名資主家王石和馬雲，對捐款振災有這樣的想法:
王石的企業捐二百萬元，企業員工每人不得捐錢多於十元; 馬雲只捐一元。據說，他們都認為企業的錢是股東的錢，救災的成本應由政府負擔。
茶怪想，企業家維護股東的錢是很合理的。王石企業捐二百也嫌多，王石請客，要股東埋單，說不通，王石自己私人捐二百萬就冇問題。除非他能確認，企業捐二百，在改善企業形象或其他方面，可以間接為股東帶來合理回報。限制員工捐十元，就不合理。如果為免群眾壓力，可以不設捐款安排。讓員工以私人方式捐款。但不應限制員工捐款，因為員工的薪水怎樣花，有他們的自由。
最錯的，是救災應由政府付款。政府的錢從何而來? 答案是納稅人 -- 即是人民。茶怪想，資本主義鼓勵慈善，不單只是資本主義社會的人民較富裕，所以捐得起錢，更重要的，是人民培養慈善的文化，以慈善減低公共開支，即是減低不自願的納稅。曾蔭權政府捐三億，是慷他人(納稅人)之慨。馬英九自己掏荷包捐四萬，更可敬。
王石和馬雲的想法看來，反映內地資本家將資本主義看成「自私自利」的代名詞，是認識不深。
王石的企業捐二百萬元，企業員工每人不得捐錢多於十元; 馬雲只捐一元。據說，他們都認為企業的錢是股東的錢，救災的成本應由政府負擔。
茶怪想，企業家維護股東的錢是很合理的。王石企業捐二百也嫌多，王石請客，要股東埋單，說不通，王石自己私人捐二百萬就冇問題。除非他能確認，企業捐二百，在改善企業形象或其他方面，可以間接為股東帶來合理回報。限制員工捐十元，就不合理。如果為免群眾壓力，可以不設捐款安排。讓員工以私人方式捐款。但不應限制員工捐款，因為員工的薪水怎樣花，有他們的自由。
最錯的，是救災應由政府付款。政府的錢從何而來? 答案是納稅人 -- 即是人民。茶怪想，資本主義鼓勵慈善，不單只是資本主義社會的人民較富裕，所以捐得起錢，更重要的，是人民培養慈善的文化，以慈善減低公共開支，即是減低不自願的納稅。曾蔭權政府捐三億，是慷他人(納稅人)之慨。馬英九自己掏荷包捐四萬，更可敬。
王石和馬雲的想法看來，反映內地資本家將資本主義看成「自私自利」的代名詞，是認識不深。
2008/05/14
2007/12/23
Atlas Shrugged
Ayn Rand是自由主義的倡導者，前美國聯儲局主席格林斯平也是她的學生，其小說Atlas Shrugged，講述社會如何利用仁義道德去壓制有能者的成就，荷里活剛剛開拍其電影版，女主角是Angelina Jolie。小說其中一節，說到一位母親，要求其當鋼材企業家的兒子，聘請一事無成的胞弟，企業家拒絕，說胞弟對公司沒有好處，母親直指他冷血、自私和唯利是圖，不顧兄弟之情，罵道: "That's your cruelty, that's what's mean and selfish about you. If you loved your brother, you'd give him a job he didn't deserve, precisely because he didn't deserve it -- that would be true love and kindness and brotherhood. Else what's love for? If a man deserves a job, there's no virtue in giving it to him. Virtue is the giving of the undeserved."企業家聽罷，嚇呆了，然後說: "Mother, you don't know what you're saying. I'm not able ever to despise you enough to believe that you mean it." Rand認為，人應該為自己的利益發揮自己的所長，就是對社會最大的貢獻，過程中，物質回報是必須的，這樣才令付出和接受者活得有尊嚴。
2007/10/09
Fool no one
Hong Kong's calm toward the government's market intervention surprised me. The media celebrated the intervention, not criticized it. Many newspapers recommended readers follow suit -- buy HKEx, as the government had bought it and would probably buy more. Many people just could not resist the idea when a government official revealed that the purchase of HKEx was to prepare an alliance between the stock markets in Shanghai and Hong Kong.
When the stock market hit all-time high, we cared less about the West Kowloon project and democracy movements overseas than they used to. We asked fewer questions for the intervening government than we did in 1998, the last time the government intervened to defend our financial system. Indeed, we should have now asked more.
Last time, i mentioned that a discretionary intervention would cause more problems than a forced one. The government interfered our freedom of pricing, distorting the pricing function of market.
Many people believe that the financial sector is our future. That maintenance of Hong Kong's status of a global financial center is our top priority has become the consensus. If we are to strengthen our position, and if a cooperation with Shanghai is what it takes, the government officials' logics follows, we got to deal with Shanghai in the Shanghai way -- cooperation through government bureaucrats.
i believe this is illogical for three reasons.
First, the forming of any alliance between the Hong Kong and Shanghai exchanges is not necessarily beneficial. The alliance would deter competition between the two exchanges. It is through the rivalry race between each other that the two cities simultaneous improve the efficiency of fundraising and safeguarding of assets.
Second, even if the alliance is beneficial, an arragement among private sector is more appropriate. If Hong Kong serves its political role as a special administrative region to show capitalism for China, which is on its own way to opening up, we should show Shanghai how market works -- cooperation through private sector, not the other way around.
Above all, a government intervention is fixing an agenda that doesn't even exist all at. Free market is necessary for a sustained economic development. A ticket to economic evolution outweighs a trophy of the financial sector. If we were made to choose between the two, we'd better make no mistake.
Even though the financial sector is important to us, it doesn't mean that the government has to do anything on it. Free market will decide whether or not the financial sector will remain as important tomorrow. Any bureaucratic measure runs the risks misleading the economy.
It is amazing to see how easy it is for human beings predicting the future to overestimate the continuity of the present situation and underestimate the variables down the road. Every year, when the English football season ends, a survey is conducted to ask people to predict the champion for the next season. It almost always turns out that the most-hopeful team is exactly the champion for the past reason. The survey is pointless, useless in prediction.
Nobody knows which industry will be the most important two decades from now, as nobody knew in 1987 the financial sector would become what it is today.
Use the Hang Seng Index as a proxy to the Hong Kong economy. The index constituents are Hong Kong's largest listed companies, and composition of this elite class has changed dramatically over the past twenty years.
Out of the 33 index constituents in October 1987, only 16 have stayed since. More than a half has gone. Those faded stars included a cement company, an aircraft engineering company, a dairy company, television broadcaster and a pair of bus operators. Some of those having stayed have also changed their business focus. For instance, PCCW, formerly known as HK Telephone, operates not only telephone lines, as it used to, but also computer broadband, mobile phone networks and cable-television.
Yes, the Hong Kong economy has experienced "structural changes", as government officials put it. Since 1987, factories moved across the border, the property market collapsed and China boomed. Hong Kong economic structure has changed during that period. When didn't it?
However awkward it seemed for the past two decades, the preceding 20-year period, from 1967 through 1987, marked yet another long list of historic events. And the change of HSI constituents was just as dramatic. During that period, again, a total of 16 big boys dropped out from the then-32-constituent index. They included a beer brewer, a tram operator, a dock and a pair of cross-harbor ferry operators.
If half of the current index constituents will go in the next two decades, what are the new companies and what opportunities will they create? How will the current index constituents shift its business and how will new technology shape our economy?
Uncertainty is the only certainty there is. Free market doesn't provide perfect foresight either. But free market provides the flexibility and guidance for changes that government planning cannot.
Imagine the government in 1967 mistook beer brewery industry as the winner and devoted all resources to it. The government's favoritism would attract many school graduates into the bartender career. Hong Kong would have built an extended Lane Kwai Fong, and that's it.
Is the global financial center status the ultimate destination for every modern city? Not necessarily, Boston, the 19th-century financial center, has evolved to foster some of the world's best universities and technology research institutes. And the living standards there are among the world's best.
Now, it doesn't looks as catastrophic as the government suggests for Hong Kong to lose the status of global financial center. Let the market decide. By doing so, people preserve the freedom to price assets so that resources, capital and human, are directed to the best ends.
If Hong Kong strives for an even greater global financial center, the details for how it actually works require business minds and entrepreneurial guts from the private sector, not the government.
Hong Kong's future is anybody's imagination, but the road of planning is likely to lead to a dead end.
HSI Constituents in 1967
Allied Inv
China Light
China Provident
City Hotels
Dairy Farm
G I Cement
HK & China Gas
HK & S Hotels
HK Aircraft
HK Bank
HK Dock
HK Electric
HK Land
HK Realty 'A'
HK Telephone
HK Tramways
HK Wharf
HK Yaumati
Hutchison
Jar Matheson
Jar Securities
Kln Motor Bus
Lane Crawford 'A'
Nanyang
San Miguel
S-Sea Textile
Star Ferry
Swire Pacific 'A'
Tex Alliance
W Marden 'A'
W Maritime 'A'
Watsons
Copyrights Quamnet
When the stock market hit all-time high, we cared less about the West Kowloon project and democracy movements overseas than they used to. We asked fewer questions for the intervening government than we did in 1998, the last time the government intervened to defend our financial system. Indeed, we should have now asked more.
Last time, i mentioned that a discretionary intervention would cause more problems than a forced one. The government interfered our freedom of pricing, distorting the pricing function of market.
Many people believe that the financial sector is our future. That maintenance of Hong Kong's status of a global financial center is our top priority has become the consensus. If we are to strengthen our position, and if a cooperation with Shanghai is what it takes, the government officials' logics follows, we got to deal with Shanghai in the Shanghai way -- cooperation through government bureaucrats.
i believe this is illogical for three reasons.
First, the forming of any alliance between the Hong Kong and Shanghai exchanges is not necessarily beneficial. The alliance would deter competition between the two exchanges. It is through the rivalry race between each other that the two cities simultaneous improve the efficiency of fundraising and safeguarding of assets.
Second, even if the alliance is beneficial, an arragement among private sector is more appropriate. If Hong Kong serves its political role as a special administrative region to show capitalism for China, which is on its own way to opening up, we should show Shanghai how market works -- cooperation through private sector, not the other way around.
Above all, a government intervention is fixing an agenda that doesn't even exist all at. Free market is necessary for a sustained economic development. A ticket to economic evolution outweighs a trophy of the financial sector. If we were made to choose between the two, we'd better make no mistake.
Even though the financial sector is important to us, it doesn't mean that the government has to do anything on it. Free market will decide whether or not the financial sector will remain as important tomorrow. Any bureaucratic measure runs the risks misleading the economy.
It is amazing to see how easy it is for human beings predicting the future to overestimate the continuity of the present situation and underestimate the variables down the road. Every year, when the English football season ends, a survey is conducted to ask people to predict the champion for the next season. It almost always turns out that the most-hopeful team is exactly the champion for the past reason. The survey is pointless, useless in prediction.
Nobody knows which industry will be the most important two decades from now, as nobody knew in 1987 the financial sector would become what it is today.
Use the Hang Seng Index as a proxy to the Hong Kong economy. The index constituents are Hong Kong's largest listed companies, and composition of this elite class has changed dramatically over the past twenty years.
Out of the 33 index constituents in October 1987, only 16 have stayed since. More than a half has gone. Those faded stars included a cement company, an aircraft engineering company, a dairy company, television broadcaster and a pair of bus operators. Some of those having stayed have also changed their business focus. For instance, PCCW, formerly known as HK Telephone, operates not only telephone lines, as it used to, but also computer broadband, mobile phone networks and cable-television.
Yes, the Hong Kong economy has experienced "structural changes", as government officials put it. Since 1987, factories moved across the border, the property market collapsed and China boomed. Hong Kong economic structure has changed during that period. When didn't it?
However awkward it seemed for the past two decades, the preceding 20-year period, from 1967 through 1987, marked yet another long list of historic events. And the change of HSI constituents was just as dramatic. During that period, again, a total of 16 big boys dropped out from the then-32-constituent index. They included a beer brewer, a tram operator, a dock and a pair of cross-harbor ferry operators.
If half of the current index constituents will go in the next two decades, what are the new companies and what opportunities will they create? How will the current index constituents shift its business and how will new technology shape our economy?
Uncertainty is the only certainty there is. Free market doesn't provide perfect foresight either. But free market provides the flexibility and guidance for changes that government planning cannot.
Imagine the government in 1967 mistook beer brewery industry as the winner and devoted all resources to it. The government's favoritism would attract many school graduates into the bartender career. Hong Kong would have built an extended Lane Kwai Fong, and that's it.
Is the global financial center status the ultimate destination for every modern city? Not necessarily, Boston, the 19th-century financial center, has evolved to foster some of the world's best universities and technology research institutes. And the living standards there are among the world's best.
Now, it doesn't looks as catastrophic as the government suggests for Hong Kong to lose the status of global financial center. Let the market decide. By doing so, people preserve the freedom to price assets so that resources, capital and human, are directed to the best ends.
If Hong Kong strives for an even greater global financial center, the details for how it actually works require business minds and entrepreneurial guts from the private sector, not the government.
Hong Kong's future is anybody's imagination, but the road of planning is likely to lead to a dead end.
HSI Constituents in 1967
Allied Inv
China Light
China Provident
City Hotels
Dairy Farm
G I Cement
HK & China Gas
HK & S Hotels
HK Aircraft
HK Bank
HK Dock
HK Electric
HK Land
HK Realty 'A'
HK Telephone
HK Tramways
HK Wharf
HK Yaumati
Hutchison
Jar Matheson
Jar Securities
Kln Motor Bus
Lane Crawford 'A'
Nanyang
San Miguel
S-Sea Textile
Star Ferry
Swire Pacific 'A'
Tex Alliance
W Marden 'A'
W Maritime 'A'
Watsons
Copyrights Quamnet
2007/09/24
An intervention worse than 1998
The recent government intervention in the Hong Kong stock market will cause far deeper damages than what it did in 1998.
This month, the government said it had bought shares in HKEx, which owns the city's sole stock exchange, and had become the largest shareholder of it. That was the first time the government actively bought any Hong Kong-listed stock since the Asian Financial Crisis in 1998.
That year, the government, in a novel move, bought Hong Kong stocks and successfully defend its financial system. Years on, Hong Kong had left the turmoil behind and restored its reputation of a free market. In retrospect, the government intervention did no harm. How could the recent purchase of a single stock go wrong?
The difference is -- this time, the government chose.
Unlike last time when it bought all blue chips, of which the benchmark Hang Seng Index was composed, the government chose what to buy, when to buy, how many shares to buy. This discretion creates ambiguity. And ambiguity leads the power of coercion.
Now, the government intervention distracted corporate management from its focus on earnings. CEO of listed companies would ask: "What does the government like?" Will my company become the government's next target? Yes, every CEO, who takes his or her responsibility for optimizing shareholders' return seriously, ought to think about this question.
The next question the CEO should ask would be -- what could my company do to win the government's affection? Today, there are many cooperation opportunities between mainland China and Hong Kong. Stock and futures trading is one of them. Other possible arrangements could happen in infrastructure, utilities, transportation and technology. "What is the next big thing (for the government)?"
The corporate management would be busy developing businesses that they think the government would like. These businesses are not necessarily the most profitability or most efficient for the economy.
The distortion effort will multiply when investors join the guessing game. Investors would ask the same question: "What does the government like?" HKEx share price ended more than 20% higher on the day after the government's disclosure of its holding. They will buy stocks in anticipation of the government's action, rather than based on earnings prospects.
What does the government like? Somebody inside the government must have the answer. If not property regulated, that would create room for the government officials to give favoritism. Merely a public comment by government officials can move share prices up and down. That would create conflicts of interest between the public and private sectors.
This discretionary intervention would open the door for possible bailout for financial troubled corporations, especially those big ones with strong relationship with the government. All the government needs to justify a stock purchase is certain cooperation proposal between mainland China and Hong Kong, whether or not it will be realized in the future.
Therefore, the government holds the arbitrary power overshadowing the interest of investors and businesspeople, including incumbent industry players. Relationship with the government becomes more powerful than ever before.
Entrepreneurship will be compromised. Those start-up companies that experiment new products and services will not get financiers' attention they deserve. Being innovative and adventurous, those entrepreneurs cannot be the government's next pick. They cannot fairly compete with the incumbents that have maintained close relationship with the government.
If the government's intention mandates social activities, talents cannot contribute to the advancement of individual's living.
Hong Kong's success depends on entrepreneurship that enables its economy to transform flexibly from a trading harbor to a manufacturing base, to now a financial center. Hong Kong has long had favorable laws for business activities, for example low taxes and free ports. Above all, Hong Kong entrepreneurs are keen hunters for business opportunities. And a free market, without government intervention, is pivotal to allow investors to reward winners, and in turn encourage further newcomers and new ideas.
Should the government invested in a prominent local factory in the 1970's, when everyone believed that Hong Kong couldn't survive without manufacturing industry, Hong Kong could probably not be able to develop the financial industry as it is today.
In the future, will Hong Kong's success depend on some forms of bureaucratic alliance with mainland China? I don't know. But Hong Kong is destined to fail without entrepreneurship. The government's discretionary action is threatening the vitality of entrepreneurship.
Quam Copyright
This month, the government said it had bought shares in HKEx, which owns the city's sole stock exchange, and had become the largest shareholder of it. That was the first time the government actively bought any Hong Kong-listed stock since the Asian Financial Crisis in 1998.
That year, the government, in a novel move, bought Hong Kong stocks and successfully defend its financial system. Years on, Hong Kong had left the turmoil behind and restored its reputation of a free market. In retrospect, the government intervention did no harm. How could the recent purchase of a single stock go wrong?
The difference is -- this time, the government chose.
Unlike last time when it bought all blue chips, of which the benchmark Hang Seng Index was composed, the government chose what to buy, when to buy, how many shares to buy. This discretion creates ambiguity. And ambiguity leads the power of coercion.
Now, the government intervention distracted corporate management from its focus on earnings. CEO of listed companies would ask: "What does the government like?" Will my company become the government's next target? Yes, every CEO, who takes his or her responsibility for optimizing shareholders' return seriously, ought to think about this question.
The next question the CEO should ask would be -- what could my company do to win the government's affection? Today, there are many cooperation opportunities between mainland China and Hong Kong. Stock and futures trading is one of them. Other possible arrangements could happen in infrastructure, utilities, transportation and technology. "What is the next big thing (for the government)?"
The corporate management would be busy developing businesses that they think the government would like. These businesses are not necessarily the most profitability or most efficient for the economy.
The distortion effort will multiply when investors join the guessing game. Investors would ask the same question: "What does the government like?" HKEx share price ended more than 20% higher on the day after the government's disclosure of its holding. They will buy stocks in anticipation of the government's action, rather than based on earnings prospects.
What does the government like? Somebody inside the government must have the answer. If not property regulated, that would create room for the government officials to give favoritism. Merely a public comment by government officials can move share prices up and down. That would create conflicts of interest between the public and private sectors.
This discretionary intervention would open the door for possible bailout for financial troubled corporations, especially those big ones with strong relationship with the government. All the government needs to justify a stock purchase is certain cooperation proposal between mainland China and Hong Kong, whether or not it will be realized in the future.
Therefore, the government holds the arbitrary power overshadowing the interest of investors and businesspeople, including incumbent industry players. Relationship with the government becomes more powerful than ever before.
Entrepreneurship will be compromised. Those start-up companies that experiment new products and services will not get financiers' attention they deserve. Being innovative and adventurous, those entrepreneurs cannot be the government's next pick. They cannot fairly compete with the incumbents that have maintained close relationship with the government.
If the government's intention mandates social activities, talents cannot contribute to the advancement of individual's living.
Hong Kong's success depends on entrepreneurship that enables its economy to transform flexibly from a trading harbor to a manufacturing base, to now a financial center. Hong Kong has long had favorable laws for business activities, for example low taxes and free ports. Above all, Hong Kong entrepreneurs are keen hunters for business opportunities. And a free market, without government intervention, is pivotal to allow investors to reward winners, and in turn encourage further newcomers and new ideas.
Should the government invested in a prominent local factory in the 1970's, when everyone believed that Hong Kong couldn't survive without manufacturing industry, Hong Kong could probably not be able to develop the financial industry as it is today.
In the future, will Hong Kong's success depend on some forms of bureaucratic alliance with mainland China? I don't know. But Hong Kong is destined to fail without entrepreneurship. The government's discretionary action is threatening the vitality of entrepreneurship.
Quam Copyright
災難處理方案
當遇上電影《明日之後》的場面，地球氣候急劇改變，溫度驟降，全香港冰天雪地，你會到哪裡避難? 會否像男主角一樣，藏到圖書館，就地取材，燃燒圖書作取暖之用? 怕到時人人抄襲電影情節，迫爆圖書館，茶怪建議你到更安全暢適的地方，就是任何一間投資銀行，因為那裡存放大量招股書，每本幾百頁厚，可應付不時之須。
《28週後》又如何? 到處都是饑餓如狼的食人喪屍，如果你是故事中的美軍，開槍都開到手軟，你會怎麼辦? 茶怪想，最佳方法是向喪屍送上手槍、機關槍、手榴彈，讓他們自相殘殺。因為要決定一個可愛小孩，究竟將成為喪屍甲、乙還是丙的豐富午餐，暴力是唯一的解決方法，你打我、我打你的情況下，喪屍自然傷亡慘重，那個無辜的小孩或可趁亂脫險。人類與喪屍一樣自私，但人類較聰明，懂得制造武器，但更聰明的，是懂得制定法律，保障產權，以交易解決問題，和平共存。
2007/09/14
2007/07/26
再見 利是啡
Laissez-faire自由放任政策，普遍被視受香港經濟成功的基石，六十年代擔任財政司郭伯偉亦因大力推行此政策而廣受傳誦，可是，前政府政策顧問顧汝德在其卸任後撰寫的《香港政經》(Uneasy Partners) 一書，力陳香港政府之所以實行自由放任政策，並非為了促進經濟發展，而是基於政治上的考慮，求其管治方便之權宜計。
顧汝德說，英國佬管治香港多年，由於語言和文化的障礙，始終無法理解港人的思想行為，加上英國佬在港數目遠低於本地人，所以對自己的管治權威欠缺信心，他說，有英藉高官在街上迷路都嚇餐飽，感到獨立無援。於是，英國佬便找上一批本地商界精英，希望透過他們的影響力去管治香港。於是，例如去政策傾向支持本地商人，即使是鄉里英國商人也不予特權，港人以為，政府是幫助本地商人白手興家，但其實也有不少干預的政策，例如將紡織出口配額分配予小數大型紡織商和貿易公司，以及眼見樓價飊升、地產發展業缺乏競爭而袖手旁觀。
董建華年代，政府拋棄植民地時代的包袱，學新加坡攪計劃經濟，結果顧汝德不說，你都知。
2005年出版的《香港政經》，沒有提及曾蔭權的施政，茶怪想，按照顧汝德的推論，曾蔭權政府不用像英國佬怕港人作反，怕的是北京官威。他沒有巴結本地大商家的誘因，卻需要爭取的是北京領導人的信心，送香港更多經濟利益，中國政府是國企的大股東，國企主導股市，股市主導香港經濟。從政治角色看，香港將背離自由市場的路，且愈走愈遠。
顧汝德說，英國佬管治香港多年，由於語言和文化的障礙，始終無法理解港人的思想行為，加上英國佬在港數目遠低於本地人，所以對自己的管治權威欠缺信心，他說，有英藉高官在街上迷路都嚇餐飽，感到獨立無援。於是，英國佬便找上一批本地商界精英，希望透過他們的影響力去管治香港。於是，例如去政策傾向支持本地商人，即使是鄉里英國商人也不予特權，港人以為，政府是幫助本地商人白手興家，但其實也有不少干預的政策，例如將紡織出口配額分配予小數大型紡織商和貿易公司，以及眼見樓價飊升、地產發展業缺乏競爭而袖手旁觀。
董建華年代，政府拋棄植民地時代的包袱，學新加坡攪計劃經濟，結果顧汝德不說，你都知。
2005年出版的《香港政經》，沒有提及曾蔭權的施政，茶怪想，按照顧汝德的推論，曾蔭權政府不用像英國佬怕港人作反，怕的是北京官威。他沒有巴結本地大商家的誘因，卻需要爭取的是北京領導人的信心，送香港更多經濟利益，中國政府是國企的大股東，國企主導股市，股市主導香港經濟。從政治角色看，香港將背離自由市場的路，且愈走愈遠。
2007/06/29
他們才是上市委員?
富豪們有機會優先購入新股，毋須與散戶投資者一同抽籤以待分配合，如果該新股是熱門股，上市後藉著供不應供的關係，股價上升，認購落空的散戶唯有以較高的價錢買股，這樣，富豪們變相可以低於市價買股，做成不公平。蘋果日報今日的設計圖片真的可圈可點，以幾位富豪扮演電影「盜海豪情」的主角，是喻意他們一擲千金的豪情，還是指他們是盜賊? 茶怪無意作道德判斷，只是制度不健全，容許不公平發生。
茶怪想，這個優先認購安排最大的禍害，不是誰賺多少，而是富豪們竟然成為真正的上市審批委員，有權決定哪一家公司集資成功與否，通過港文所上市委員會評審的公司當然可以上市，但要集資成功，愈來愈需要幾位富豪們的認可，市場愈來愈依靠他們的指引，他們可能是投資有道的，但即使排除個人利益因素，單憑幾個人去決定一間公司的價值，當然不及市場集群眾智慧去決定的客觀，再者他們的買入價較一般投資者低，其實跨大了他們的投資信心。這樣，令市場無法有效反映公司的價值，亦阻礙了交易所作為有效集資渠道的功能。
2007/06/20
紅眼症
用堅尼系數去推斷貧富懸殊有三個問題，早前的文章已說明其中兩個，一、人的一生制遇，年青時期是差不多，年紀愈大，差距愈遠，就像馬拉松長跑，首十公里，各跑手都相距不遠，到終點，一頭一尾可以相差幾個小時。香港的嬰兒潮的一代的馬拉松，就反映在堅尼系數上。二、堅尼系數算的，是結果，不是因由。一個自由社會，人有權選擇買誰的產品服務，有權選擇不買，每人的收入不一，成敗得失有好多因素，包括運氣，但結果有高低，不代表不公平。
這裡茶怪想說的是三，貧富懸殊擴大，顯示整個社會的經濟水平在移動中。因為經濟活動是由個體組成，當一個經濟擴張，一定先有一個行業或一批人受惠，將這個看成是問題的，大概是患了「紅眼症」。撇掉心理因素，先有一批人受惠，其實是好事，因為他們富起來，自然帶動其他行業的生產。如果沒有這批「好彩」的人，大家一齊冇運行。
澳門近年急速發展，人才需求一下子颷升，人人都加入賭場服務了，沒有人開公共車，沒有人去提供基本服務。很多人認為澳門今日經濟發展過快，可能導致失衡，學歷不高的年青人，只要跑進賭場工作，收入較大學畢業生還高，令到辛苦耕耘的人不高興。茶怪想，這種不滿情緒在香港也有。
茶怪想，一分耕，一分收獲這種理想烏托邦固然好，但在現實生活是不可能的，因為如果這樣，必須有一個無上權威去決定誰比誰「值得」賺得多，這個無上權威由誰做? 再者，如果規定小學畢業生永遠不能賺得比中學畢業生多，而中學畢業生的收入又永遠不能超過大學畢業生，這樣的社會又怎能令每個人奮發圖強呢? 說澳門發展需慢慢來，如果設身處地去想你是澳門人，你希望明日加人工，還是明年? 你想你的客人是有錢人還是窮人? 你想你的子女到賭場酒店工作，還是看士多賣鳥結糖?
這裡茶怪想說的是三，貧富懸殊擴大，顯示整個社會的經濟水平在移動中。因為經濟活動是由個體組成，當一個經濟擴張，一定先有一個行業或一批人受惠，將這個看成是問題的，大概是患了「紅眼症」。撇掉心理因素，先有一批人受惠，其實是好事，因為他們富起來，自然帶動其他行業的生產。如果沒有這批「好彩」的人，大家一齊冇運行。
澳門近年急速發展，人才需求一下子颷升，人人都加入賭場服務了，沒有人開公共車，沒有人去提供基本服務。很多人認為澳門今日經濟發展過快，可能導致失衡，學歷不高的年青人，只要跑進賭場工作，收入較大學畢業生還高，令到辛苦耕耘的人不高興。茶怪想，這種不滿情緒在香港也有。
茶怪想，一分耕，一分收獲這種理想烏托邦固然好，但在現實生活是不可能的，因為如果這樣，必須有一個無上權威去決定誰比誰「值得」賺得多，這個無上權威由誰做? 再者，如果規定小學畢業生永遠不能賺得比中學畢業生多，而中學畢業生的收入又永遠不能超過大學畢業生，這樣的社會又怎能令每個人奮發圖強呢? 說澳門發展需慢慢來，如果設身處地去想你是澳門人，你希望明日加人工，還是明年? 你想你的客人是有錢人還是窮人? 你想你的子女到賭場酒店工作，還是看士多賣鳥結糖?
2007/06/06
民主自由存檔
施永青早前在其報紙社評談民主，批評英美的民主制度阻礙普羅市民的參政機會，末段有幾句神來之筆: 「我對民主政制幻想不多，我寧願政府無為一些，不要管得那麼多，好讓人民可以有多點自主空間。投票幾年才可以行使一次，但自主空間則天天可享用。我願意以民主換自主。」茶怪將施老闆的「自主」理解為「自由」，自己為自己的事情做主。
很多人將民主和自由混為一談，像是兩種分不開的東西，上述的節錄正說明兩者之間的衝突。凡事以大多數人的意願決定，聽來好合理，但若果樣樣都要跟大隊，少數族群的利益自然受損。十九世紀末至二十世紀初，英國對愛爾蘭的迫害，就是民主的陰暗面。
如果投票表決的議案愈多，每個人都要遵循表決結果一至行事，這樣就變成沒有任何人有自由，因為你同我總會在某些範疇上屬於小數族群。雖然香港在政治上沒有民主，但在道德價值問題上，例如藝術創作、性傾向，好像很人都訴諸於少數服從多數，以此為金科玉律，就這樣限制了個人的獨特性。
有人說，民主不是一個目標，只是一條途徑，去保障人民的自由。茶怪同意。人民以個人的意願填form (無須打仗) 去決定誰執政，政府制定公平的法律和提供公共服務，就不用管甚麼。政府之所以可以袖手旁觀，前題是社會有自由市場和慈善力量。
很多人將民主和自由混為一談，像是兩種分不開的東西，上述的節錄正說明兩者之間的衝突。凡事以大多數人的意願決定，聽來好合理，但若果樣樣都要跟大隊，少數族群的利益自然受損。十九世紀末至二十世紀初，英國對愛爾蘭的迫害，就是民主的陰暗面。
如果投票表決的議案愈多，每個人都要遵循表決結果一至行事，這樣就變成沒有任何人有自由，因為你同我總會在某些範疇上屬於小數族群。雖然香港在政治上沒有民主，但在道德價值問題上，例如藝術創作、性傾向，好像很人都訴諸於少數服從多數，以此為金科玉律，就這樣限制了個人的獨特性。
有人說，民主不是一個目標，只是一條途徑，去保障人民的自由。茶怪同意。人民以個人的意願填form (無須打仗) 去決定誰執政，政府制定公平的法律和提供公共服務，就不用管甚麼。政府之所以可以袖手旁觀，前題是社會有自由市場和慈善力量。
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。
2007/05/12
經濟人談情
看了網上一篇有趣的文章愛情經濟學，茶怪希望參與討論:
有趣，談情時說經濟學的確大殺風景。如果茶怪是高先生所說的那位崇尚自由主意經濟學家，聽了愛人說:「甜心,我是屬於你的,甚麼都依你。」，會對她說:
1. 那我真的是全世界最幸福的人了! 其他女士們都愛財、講條件，但你是不一樣的，每人有自由選擇的權利，你置機會成本於不顧，選擇了我，我實在太幸福了。
2. 現在沒有奴隸制，我也不會當你是奴隸看待。
3. 兩人相處要互相幫忙，如果你將來和我一同生活，我也不要你做所有家務，我要分擔一部分家務。
4. 你愛我要付出那麼多心思和時間，還要付出上述的機會成本，甜心，我也愛你，同樣願意為你付出，努力賺錢，不去泡妞，讓你做世上最幸福的女人。
將愛情說成交易，的確好難聽，茶怪想，其實錢是一張紙，人如何賺、如何用，才是值得思考的地方，經濟學的研究對象並非錢，而是人。例如，一個人為了家人的生活水平，放棄安逸，選擇每日努力地工作，去賺錢，賺了錢，他又選擇了給家人用，而不是給了二奶或別人。這整個過程的背後在於情，錢只是一個中介媒體。 而只有在產權清晰劃分和人有自由選擇權時，為別人付出才有意義。
至於「世上沒有免費午餐」，極富爭議性，亦讓人有笑柄，說經濟學是功利主義，不近人情，「我經常請朋友吃飯，不要求有任何物質上或非物質上的回報，哪不是免費午餐，是甚麼?」
茶怪會問: 「你有能力請全世界幾十億人吃一個免費午餐嗎? 」不能，那麼，你的免費午餐的對象必有取捨，選一必失一，那就是成本。茶怪沒有看過佛利民本人就他的名言的註解，純粹從日常生活去設想。所謂免費午餐，吃的人不用付錢，不代表它是免費。請客的人之所以請你吃而不請別人吃，對他來說就是成本，不可能是免費的，付出成本的原因不一定是為回報的，可以是為情。
有趣，談情時說經濟學的確大殺風景。如果茶怪是高先生所說的那位崇尚自由主意經濟學家，聽了愛人說:「甜心,我是屬於你的,甚麼都依你。」，會對她說:
1. 那我真的是全世界最幸福的人了! 其他女士們都愛財、講條件，但你是不一樣的，每人有自由選擇的權利，你置機會成本於不顧，選擇了我，我實在太幸福了。
2. 現在沒有奴隸制，我也不會當你是奴隸看待。
3. 兩人相處要互相幫忙，如果你將來和我一同生活，我也不要你做所有家務，我要分擔一部分家務。
4. 你愛我要付出那麼多心思和時間，還要付出上述的機會成本，甜心，我也愛你，同樣願意為你付出，努力賺錢，不去泡妞，讓你做世上最幸福的女人。
將愛情說成交易，的確好難聽，茶怪想，其實錢是一張紙，人如何賺、如何用，才是值得思考的地方，經濟學的研究對象並非錢，而是人。例如，一個人為了家人的生活水平，放棄安逸，選擇每日努力地工作，去賺錢，賺了錢，他又選擇了給家人用，而不是給了二奶或別人。這整個過程的背後在於情，錢只是一個中介媒體。 而只有在產權清晰劃分和人有自由選擇權時，為別人付出才有意義。
至於「世上沒有免費午餐」，極富爭議性，亦讓人有笑柄，說經濟學是功利主義，不近人情，「我經常請朋友吃飯，不要求有任何物質上或非物質上的回報，哪不是免費午餐，是甚麼?」
茶怪會問: 「你有能力請全世界幾十億人吃一個免費午餐嗎? 」不能，那麼，你的免費午餐的對象必有取捨，選一必失一，那就是成本。茶怪沒有看過佛利民本人就他的名言的註解，純粹從日常生活去設想。所謂免費午餐，吃的人不用付錢，不代表它是免費。請客的人之所以請你吃而不請別人吃，對他來說就是成本，不可能是免費的，付出成本的原因不一定是為回報的，可以是為情。
2007/05/05
你知道自己想要甚麼?
一般認識奧國學派在於其「無為而治」的施政理念，將之等同laissez-faire自由市場主導經濟政策，曾蔭權的書架上，據說也有奧派學者海耶克的著作。但奧派在學術界一向被視為非主流派系，普遍大學的經濟學課程隻字不提奧派。有人甚至將奧派與UFO人外來客之說以及據說Tom Cruise崇拜的科學教派混為一談，歸類為邪門異端。海耶克曾跑到經濟學馳名的芝加哥大學覓教職，竟被其經濟學系拒諸門外，於是他只得在芝大教社會學。奧派之所以被定為「邪派」，筒中「離經叛義」之處，在於奧派否定經濟學主流的根本假設 -- 你知道自己想要甚麼。
你有沒有試過很想吃一樣東西，例如乾炒牛河，到茶餐廳點菜時卻叫了叉燒飯? 心明明想要一樣東西，心猿意馬，但最後又選擇了別的。你大概對自己的工作不太滿意，後悔入錯行，入錯公司，想原先若選擇了別的就好了。甚至有個很流行的說法: 「你的老公/老婆，99%不是你最愛的人。」人總覺得，為什麼明明是自己的選擇，總不是自己想要的? 是選擇本身出了問題嗎?
經濟行為就是源於選擇行為，經濟學主流所謂「後經典派」主張，你在選擇的考慮過程中，腦中有條方程式，有晒圖表，經過一輪快速而精確的混算後，答案便出來。後經典派假設，你知道自己要甚麼，然後作出選擇。
奧派則反對這個假設，其堅持的原則，是你根本不知道你自己想要甚麼，直至你作出選擇。你可能以為自己知，但其實唔知。當你選定了，選擇的結果說明了你想要甚麼。這一套茶怪好buy。明明有乾炒牛河，你揀咗叉燒飯，說明你鍾意叉燒飯多過乾炒牛河。茶怪想，靠這個觀念，可以幫人掃除很多無病呻吟。
至於奧派怎樣將這個觀念引伸至「無為而治」? 就是即使科技再先進，沒有一部超級電腦可以計算出甚麼你最想要，從而平衡所有人的要求。問也沒用，問卷調查是錯的，包括消費者信心調查、商業信心調查、產品滿意度調查都不可能反映事實。最佳的經濟政策是靠市場運作，讓市場說明人們想要甚麼。
你有沒有試過很想吃一樣東西，例如乾炒牛河，到茶餐廳點菜時卻叫了叉燒飯? 心明明想要一樣東西，心猿意馬，但最後又選擇了別的。你大概對自己的工作不太滿意，後悔入錯行，入錯公司，想原先若選擇了別的就好了。甚至有個很流行的說法: 「你的老公/老婆，99%不是你最愛的人。」人總覺得，為什麼明明是自己的選擇，總不是自己想要的? 是選擇本身出了問題嗎?
經濟行為就是源於選擇行為，經濟學主流所謂「後經典派」主張，你在選擇的考慮過程中，腦中有條方程式，有晒圖表，經過一輪快速而精確的混算後，答案便出來。後經典派假設，你知道自己要甚麼，然後作出選擇。
奧派則反對這個假設，其堅持的原則，是你根本不知道你自己想要甚麼，直至你作出選擇。你可能以為自己知，但其實唔知。當你選定了，選擇的結果說明了你想要甚麼。這一套茶怪好buy。明明有乾炒牛河，你揀咗叉燒飯，說明你鍾意叉燒飯多過乾炒牛河。茶怪想，靠這個觀念，可以幫人掃除很多無病呻吟。
至於奧派怎樣將這個觀念引伸至「無為而治」? 就是即使科技再先進，沒有一部超級電腦可以計算出甚麼你最想要，從而平衡所有人的要求。問也沒用，問卷調查是錯的，包括消費者信心調查、商業信心調查、產品滿意度調查都不可能反映事實。最佳的經濟政策是靠市場運作，讓市場說明人們想要甚麼。
2007/05/01
「劏客」一問
五一黃金周又開始，相信繼續有很多內地旅客來港受騙，旅遊業界推出的保護旅客權益的措施，如延長退貨期和店舖黑名單，相信效力有限，要有效打擊「劏客」行為，茶怪想，第一是執法，海關應做他們的本分，掃蕩冒牌貨，嚴徵以假亂真的欺詐惡行，犯法固然要拉，至於大部分的「劏客」行為是「合法」的 -- 以超高賣真貨，這又怎麼禁?
如果每個內地旅客都清楚「市價」，那就沒有問題，如果業界能自律，那又不用多講，報章上的類似評論都是不設實際的「憑良好意願，一人行一步，令世界更美好」的空談，人人都要吃飯嘛。罪惡根源在於「回佣」制度，約定好了，旅行社便只會帶團友到指定的鐘表珠寶店，令旅客不能到不同店舖去比較服務水平和價格，以作出自由的購物決定，「回佣」制度是反競爭的。
叫同胞應提高資訊水平以求自保，是不負責任的說法，因為同胞要了解市場，最有效的途徑是親身走到市場裡看，收受回佣的旅行團根本不准許他們這樣做。
茶怪的疑問，是法例上有所謂合法和非法的回佣，究竟是怎樣介定的? 很多行業嚴禁回佣，例如股票分析員，他們推介某股份後，不准向發行該股的公司收取任何利益，地產經紀、建築工程招標也一樣，如有收受回佣者，屬「枱底交易」，廉政公署有咖啡供候，為什麼旅行社又可以有回佣? 回佣的合法性為何在不同的行業有雙重標準?
如果每個內地旅客都清楚「市價」，那就沒有問題，如果業界能自律，那又不用多講，報章上的類似評論都是不設實際的「憑良好意願，一人行一步，令世界更美好」的空談，人人都要吃飯嘛。罪惡根源在於「回佣」制度，約定好了，旅行社便只會帶團友到指定的鐘表珠寶店，令旅客不能到不同店舖去比較服務水平和價格，以作出自由的購物決定，「回佣」制度是反競爭的。
叫同胞應提高資訊水平以求自保，是不負責任的說法，因為同胞要了解市場，最有效的途徑是親身走到市場裡看，收受回佣的旅行團根本不准許他們這樣做。
茶怪的疑問，是法例上有所謂合法和非法的回佣，究竟是怎樣介定的? 很多行業嚴禁回佣，例如股票分析員，他們推介某股份後，不准向發行該股的公司收取任何利益，地產經紀、建築工程招標也一樣，如有收受回佣者，屬「枱底交易」，廉政公署有咖啡供候，為什麼旅行社又可以有回佣? 回佣的合法性為何在不同的行業有雙重標準?
2007/04/27
走向自由之路
多謝 leo 在前文的留言，問茶怪對「通往奴役之路」(The Road to Serfdom) 一書的看法。
茶怪從這本書上得到很多啟發，亦在此向大家推介。作者海耶克是位經濟學家兼政治哲學家，也是在英語世界的奧國學派代言人。經濟學之中有所謂非主流的奧國學派，原於奧地利，他們跟隨傳統阿當史密斯的自然市場理論，政府愈小干擾愈好，與現時主流之別，在於奧國學派反對以數學抽象方式去研究經濟學，其認為經濟行為是人性的多變之結果，難以代入公式，他們的理論著重經濟活動的過程，由於承認人的個性，他們亦專重人的選擇權利。
「通往奴役之路」就是以追求自由為旨的書，在海耶克筆下，資本主義由很多人抗拒的「市儈」「俗套」學問，變成追求自由的哲學。於1944年出版，此書的針對英國讀者，警告英人社會主義最終走向獨裁，步德國和意大利的後塵。戰後，英國沒有採納海耶克的意見，擴大政府規模以主導經濟發展。較為人熟識的凱恩斯學派是奧國學派的宿敵，兩者差不多同時興起，凱恩斯學派提倡政府帶頭攪活經濟，成為當時經濟學的主流，派頭凱恩斯名言: 「In the long run, we are all dead.」激到奧國學派紮紮跳，兩派之爭，茶怪覺得奧國學派蝕底在於其起源地為非英語世界。 後來的歷史演變卻傾向奧國學派的一方，海耶克在1974年獲得諾貝爾經濟學獎。1970年代全球經濟衰退，英國國企霸佔市場，美國徵重稅，英美在80年代進行經濟改革，朝自由市場方向，將國企私有化和減稅，經濟才復甦。
「通往奴役之路」是海耶克最暢銷的書，其中講，基於平等的法律，人的利益純粹由市場決定，人的制遇固然有得有失，也有幸有不幸，但由市場去決定總好過由別人決定，誰是「別人」? 就是社會主義的政府，其根據所謂道德價值去決定資源的分配，但道德價值是主觀的取捨，同時各種價值亦互相排斥，即使政治領導是民選的，他也不可能滿足所有道德價值的要求，不由市場話事，就甚麼都關政府事，令政府有過大權力，最後，權力使人腐化，希特勒就是這樣誕生。
今日，很少人質疑自由市場的好處 (博友量子例外，但這是好的。)，但海耶克所謂的「計劃經濟」仍然有「市場」，以香港為例，市民有甚麼不如意的事都歸咎政府，助長風氣的，又是政治領袖自己，他們將經濟發展的功勞都歸功政府，這樣，有起事上來，市民不找政府找誰? 事實上，人民是信任他們支持的領袖的，而領袖就自己也一定充滿信心，為自己仕途也好，為造福人民也好，總希望憑自己的信念以振興經濟，茶怪認為，他們應先參考這本書。
茶怪從這本書上得到很多啟發，亦在此向大家推介。作者海耶克是位經濟學家兼政治哲學家，也是在英語世界的奧國學派代言人。經濟學之中有所謂非主流的奧國學派，原於奧地利，他們跟隨傳統阿當史密斯的自然市場理論，政府愈小干擾愈好，與現時主流之別，在於奧國學派反對以數學抽象方式去研究經濟學，其認為經濟行為是人性的多變之結果，難以代入公式，他們的理論著重經濟活動的過程，由於承認人的個性，他們亦專重人的選擇權利。
「通往奴役之路」就是以追求自由為旨的書，在海耶克筆下，資本主義由很多人抗拒的「市儈」「俗套」學問，變成追求自由的哲學。於1944年出版，此書的針對英國讀者，警告英人社會主義最終走向獨裁，步德國和意大利的後塵。戰後，英國沒有採納海耶克的意見，擴大政府規模以主導經濟發展。較為人熟識的凱恩斯學派是奧國學派的宿敵，兩者差不多同時興起，凱恩斯學派提倡政府帶頭攪活經濟，成為當時經濟學的主流，派頭凱恩斯名言: 「In the long run, we are all dead.」激到奧國學派紮紮跳，兩派之爭，茶怪覺得奧國學派蝕底在於其起源地為非英語世界。 後來的歷史演變卻傾向奧國學派的一方，海耶克在1974年獲得諾貝爾經濟學獎。1970年代全球經濟衰退，英國國企霸佔市場，美國徵重稅，英美在80年代進行經濟改革，朝自由市場方向，將國企私有化和減稅，經濟才復甦。
「通往奴役之路」是海耶克最暢銷的書，其中講，基於平等的法律，人的利益純粹由市場決定，人的制遇固然有得有失，也有幸有不幸，但由市場去決定總好過由別人決定，誰是「別人」? 就是社會主義的政府，其根據所謂道德價值去決定資源的分配，但道德價值是主觀的取捨，同時各種價值亦互相排斥，即使政治領導是民選的，他也不可能滿足所有道德價值的要求，不由市場話事，就甚麼都關政府事，令政府有過大權力，最後，權力使人腐化，希特勒就是這樣誕生。
今日，很少人質疑自由市場的好處 (博友量子例外，但這是好的。)，但海耶克所謂的「計劃經濟」仍然有「市場」，以香港為例，市民有甚麼不如意的事都歸咎政府，助長風氣的，又是政治領袖自己，他們將經濟發展的功勞都歸功政府，這樣，有起事上來，市民不找政府找誰? 事實上，人民是信任他們支持的領袖的，而領袖就自己也一定充滿信心，為自己仕途也好，為造福人民也好，總希望憑自己的信念以振興經濟，茶怪認為，他們應先參考這本書。
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。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)