2008-12-28

light reading:

Happy Holidays!

Here is the transcript of the 2 panda chatting in Taipei Zoo:

圓圓:老公,爲什麽老家叫我們“熊貓”,台灣叫我們“貓熊”?
  
團團:都一回事,親愛的,從左到右念就是“熊貓”,台灣人習慣從右往左念,所以是“貓熊”。


  圓圓:那我們究竟是“貓”還是“熊”?
  團團:國際上普遍將我們列爲熊科、大熊貓亞科,中國則將我們單列爲大熊貓科,所以嚴格地說,我們既不叫“熊貓”也不叫“貓熊”,而是叫“大熊貓”。


  圓圓:這麽說,臭名昭著的“熊貓燒香”案不是我們的人幹的?
  團團:那當然,又不是“大熊貓燒香”。


  圓圓:但台灣有人說我們是特洛伊木馬。
  團團:誣陷,絕對是誣陷,我們演出都安排不過來,哪有時間上網?


  圓圓:人類最無聊的發明就是彩色相機,我們的藝術照、結婚照統統是黑白的,比彩照更出色,一樣的恩恩愛愛。
  團團:還有比這更無聊的呢。民進黨說妳是紅的我是藍的,台北市仁愛路圓環我們倆的塑像被深綠色的人偷偷塗成暸全黑色,典型的“抹黑”手段。


  圓圓:爲什麽民進黨阻撓我們去台灣?
  團團:平時叫妳多吃點胡蘿蔔偏不聽,多簡單的問題!妳叫“圓圓”,他們的帶頭大哥叫“扁扁”,自然是尿不到一個壺裏。


  圓圓:如果台灣回贈“扁扁”和“珍珍”,妳說大陸放什麽地方圈養才能讓台灣人放心?
  團團:塔克拉瑪幹最合適,30萬平方公裏,享有充分的人身自由,再要嫌地方小就只能放撒哈拉,不過要先撤銷對他們的境管,撒哈拉不在中國境內。


  圓圓:我這個大陸新娘到台灣會不會要居住滿6年後才允許找工作?
  團團:那個歧視條款指的是男方在台灣,女方來自大陸,而我們兩個都是來自大陸,故不受限制,據說年前我們就可以持證上崗。


  圓圓:有些民進黨人說禁止家人和我們見面,如果他們家的小朋友背著父母偷偷來我們家玩兒,我們見還是不見?
  團團:來的都是粉,還是熱情接待吧,世界級的腕兒不能和他們家長一般見識。


  圓圓:在演藝圈我呆膩暸,想換換口味從政,要不妳也從政吧?
  團團:正合我意,憑我們的聲望,參加明年的縣市長選舉那還不是小菜一碟!


  圓圓:要參選就得先入黨,我們入什麽黨好呢?
  團團:我們一個入中國國民黨,一個入台灣共産黨,咱也來一回“國共合作”。


  圓圓:好極暸!將來我們的Baby就入民進黨,分別代表3個政黨參加2012年的總桶大選,確保肥水不流外人田。
  團團:婦人之見。Baby應該入少先隊,孫子才入民進黨!

2008-12-18

Norman Bethune from Paris

1)  The life and death in Rongshui of Francoise Grenot-Wang

2) 广西融水发生火灾死亡1人 一法国女士失去联系
 
3) fangfang (Francoise Grenot-Wang's blog - it seems to be blocked by the freaking GFW!!!)

-- donation account in comment under Black & White Cat's post, and fangfang's site.

2008-12-05

Stephen Ng-sheung Cheung: On the current crisis in China《多难登临录》,三之一

Professor has another post discussing how the Chinese government should cope with the current economic problems. There aren't many innovative ideas compared with what has been said, he just went in to explain it with more explicit examples and illutrations.

In light of the need of further elaboration, I will try to paraphrase in my own words (which, I believe, are essentially consistent with what Professor Cheung advocates)
  • Government spending is okay, especially since it was stated they are for infrastructures that will have to be built sooner or later (now they all moved into the category of "sooner")
  • The key is "capacity utilization", as long as there is extra capacity and the new projects are needed in future, these projects should move ahead, because the incremental cost (for the whole economy in total) is less than what it seems -- as the idle capacity (labor, machine) are utilized
  • However, Cheung stressed that one must not forget private enterprises are the customers of these infrastructure, without private businesses the assumption of infrastructure needs become fallible. Therefore, the government needs to a) avoid competing for resources with private business, b) support the growth of private business even more strongly than before
  • (a) how to avoid taking resources away from private sector? remember the objective of these 4Tr RMB projects are to leverage cheap idle capacity, so one should not spend for the sake fo spending. Instead one should only spend when there is extra capacity. How could this be done? A price cap for these projects, which should be a bit lower than the historic price. This is to (1) allow private enterprise who could bid higher the resource they needed and not overbid the price away from the private sector, (2) minimize corruption in the process of these projects
  • (b) support private enterprise by simplifying tax/VAT structure, like what the government did for corporate profit tax (equalize policy for domestic enterprises and FIE, to all policies). i.e. reduce/waive tariff for raw material import instead of VAT rebate (so that the cost for domestic and export are the same). The objective is to enhance efficiency (meanwhile reduce the exposure to corruption) and make the environment more business friendly in general. This is what really contribute to "domestic demand"

---
p.s. Cheung seems to be happy with people crossposting his writings. His objective to to get his ideas seen and heard, so I will not worry about copyright issues now :)

鼓励内供远胜鼓励内需——《多难登临录》,三之一

By 张五常作品 on 经济评论

万方多难此登临——杜工部说的。中国的文化传统,是有所感慨时总要「登临」一下。可不是吗?北宋王荆公写《桂枝香》,起笔是「登临送目,正故国晚秋」;清人孙髯翁为大观楼写联,其中有「骚人韵士,何妨选胜登临」之句。是悲是喜,登临远眺,一舒胸怀,让脑子清醒一下,是好文化。这传统历久不衰,反映着炎黄子孙的确有点能耐。

今天神州多难,也让我来「登临」一下吧。评论经济政策,无可避免地要表达自己的建议。这是头痛问题。人家不接受,无所谓,跟读者过瘾一下算了。人家接受,没有谁知道出自何方,建议得对,沾沾自喜。麻烦是人家接受,天下皆知出处,建议出错,害人无数,不知要躲到哪里才对。

这解释了为什么这些日子经济专栏那么难写。招牌挂了出去,偶一失手,金漆岂不是变为黑漆了?招牌事小,民生事大,尤其是神州大地还有无数穷人,看不到明天有什么希望的。任何政策建议不可能一起顾及各个阶层。只顾穷人,只顾增加他们自力更生的机会,可不是要做一个互联网上的侠盗罗宾汉,而是因为我熟知神州,把我掌握的所有经济理论放进去,结论是只要能改善穷人的前景,其它一切大致上可以不管。

世界经济大乱,花钱救市的言论五花八门,一般是凯恩斯学派(多年前由哈佛创立,与凯氏之见有别)的言论了。北京推出两年四万亿投资抢救,我不反对,认为不是该学派的发明:提早及加速政府预定的基建及其它项目,在目前的情况下是不应该反对的。然而,当我读到北京要鼓励「内需」的言论——四万亿也是鼓励内需——凯恩斯学派的味道明显。四万亿的推出看来没有错,但想法却是错了。

我要再说分析《四万亿》时提到的「第八点」,因为太重要了。经济学的第一课永远是说,如果一个国家要多产出武器,就要少产出面包;多种苹果,少种橙是代价。两年四万亿投资政府项目,私营工业不可能不付出代价。争用同样的资源,用同样的生产要素,此长彼落是无可避免的。这就是问题:不反对政府项目四万亿,但又认为私营的工业发展是中国的经济命脉,怎可以自圆其说呢?绝对是难题,为之我想了多天了。

想出来的解决办法与理由有四点。一、四万亿的推出可以接受,但只能限于提早及加速项目。二、鼓励私营工业的发展有鼓励内供之能,更重要,要大手推出,希望可以抵消部分鼓励内需的四万亿的竞争压力。三、中国目前有多项压制内供的法例或政策。要一起废除——这是要废除所有妨碍私营工业发展的法例,希望私营工业因而增加的产出效率,足以可观地弥补部分四万亿竞争带来的私营损失。

第四点。北京的朋友说过,中国是大国,人口多,可以单靠自己而发展。这看法大致上不错,但要从内供而不是从内需这方面看。今天内需之说盛行,是看错了问题的重心,不可取。是的,像四万亿那类投资,是鼓励内需,大国小国、人多人少没有分别,但鼓励内供人多势众有大着数。

记得八十年代回港工作后不久,一家国际大机构请我作座上客,听他们的一位研究员讲解他的研究所获。该研究员先说结论:一个国家愈小,对外贸易在国民收入的百分比愈高。我立刻回应:「如果整个地球只有一个国家,对外贸易一定是零!」该研究员不容易多说下去,草草收场。

北京的朋友今天认为,地球的金融灾难对中国的出口为害不小,中国要发展自己国内的可以是很庞大的市场。这想法没有错,但从鼓励内需的角度入手却是错了。要鼓励内供才对。

我说的内供,是鼓励私营的工业转向为供给国内的市场而产出。不是说对外贸易不重要,而是面对出口大减,向国内市场打主意绝对是正着。困难是北京的政策历来鼓励出口,不鼓励内销,是麻烦,也是蠢政策,面对目前的国际形势,这政策是更蠢了。

先说鼓励内供的好处吧。有三点。一、凡是鼓励私营内供就是鼓励私营工业,而内供有看头必然增加内需,用不着政府操心。二、鼓励内供,让私营者作决策,有市价的指引,出错的机会大减,而就是出错,私营的错失一般比政府的庞大项目小。三、鼓励内供是鼓励每个人主动地积极参与产出,是中国经改有成的要点,但从鼓励内需的角度出发,是由政府花钱鼓励,人民产出的性质是被动的——无可奈何地用作过渡协助可以,长此下去中国的改革前功尽废矣。

理由充分,目前要怎样鼓励内供才对呢?有八项,全部做足大有可为。三项容易做,两项难度中性,三项难度比较高,要多费思量了。

先谈容易的三项吧。一、立刻撤销所有原料进口税,就是由政府补贴一点原料进口,在目前的情况下我不会反对。过渡可以考虑。这里要补充的,是出口退税,就是不久前提升了,也退不足,何况手续麻烦,地方政府往往拖欠一年半载。一律撤销原料进口税清楚了当,是正着。二、撤销「来料加工」这项工业安排。当年为鼓励出口而设,有点说不通,而今天出口兵败如山倒,还搞这一套蠢到死也。与其让「来料加工」的倒闭失踪,倒不如让他们产出自由内销,为增加内供而卖力,增加就业,因而增加内需。厂房、机械,及更重要的生产知识,可以因为有内销之机而保存下来。目前的情况,是工厂转性质要先关门清数。三、任何人在中国投资设厂,或经营企业,只要正当合法,皆拍手欢迎,可以内外皆销,不需要再论国籍了。外资的优惠大可取缔,取而代之的是所有投资产出的人都受到同样的优惠。多年以来,说是优惠外资,其实内资门路多,较为着数。是内外不分、一视同仁的时候了。

转谈两项难度中性的。一、说过了,三十年代的大萧条,国际贸易暴跌是一个主要原因。今天是大手推广国际贸易的时候。我从来不反对中国单方面取消关税,但目前的情况,北京不妨拿出自己的本钱来要胁一下:选择某国取消中国货的进口税,中国就取消某国货的进口税。其它我不敢说,但北京处理这种外交历来了得。吴仪、薄熙来躲到哪里去了?

二、也是难度中性的。因为目今的工厂倒闭潮,懂得做厂的人材散失严重。做厂是难度非常高的一门专业。我见过不少无能的经济学家,见过无能的律师,也见过无能的医生──但从来没有见过一个做厂生存三几年而是不能干的人。假设一间工厂平均有三几个这样的人材,因倒闭而散失的可能近百万大军了。我认为北京要不论既往,不管是否欠债逃亡,要出些优惠鼓励这些专材再做厂。我恨不得那些口口声声说剥削工人的官员或政客或学者,去做厂表演一下剥削给我看。

谈了五项,还有三项难度比较高的,重要。篇幅所限,这里先谈其一。只能略谈,因为我懂得不多。这就是要大手地简化税制。鼓励内需,长远地看要加税。鼓励内供是倒过来,要减税。我认为在目前的情况下,鼓励内供,简化税制比减税更重要。曾经找中国的税务专家求教过,考虑到多方面,我想到单抽营业税,不累进,不同行业或可采用不同的营业税率,可能是适用于目前的中国的最简单税制。这是因为单抽营业税,工厂或企业容易算成本,左避右瞒的法门不多,税局比较容易运作,而没有所得税是对私营拼搏的大鼓励了。说过,我不是税务专家,只提出这有点新意的简单税制给北京的朋友考虑。不管怎样说,税制要简化。

还有两项难度比较高的。是什么呢?不用说,读者一猜就中。

2008-12-04

China Population Geography



This is a great book. There are so many interesting informations that I will probably use a few posts to show them. I am also surprised that the book isn't available at Amazon China -- it probably reflects this verture is in pretty bad shape here.

The datamining in China's population geography yields many interesting observation such as this one, the plot of blood-types by the latitude of the residents, which show clear trends in different blood type as we move north. I scanned the whole page as the discussion also include that for Rh factors and some explicit comments on some ethnic groups.

There are other features such as eye-lid, curly hair, etc., which differs according to the different locations in China. These data are consistent with the theory that Chinese people have mixed in the past thousands of years. The people in each area may still retain some of the original features of the dominant ethnicity in the early (pre-mix) days but today the boudary is blurred but statistically one can still recognize the traces. This supports the theory that the so called "Han" ethnicity is more of a cultural entity (rather than genetic). Since we are indeed from the same big family (well, one could extend this to discussion beyond a state boundary) what is the point of fighting against one another'?

2008-12-01

Nov 2008 reading list




Price elasticity in HK Taxi industry

The issue of HK taxi pricing is one of the most interesting cases in microeconomic problems. It is one of those that would deserve a Cheung Ng-sheung style analysis like he did for the theatre pricing.

The HK government, more than 2 years after my proposal of tiering pricing, finally implemented the price rationalization. However, the timing is very bad, amidst the economic recession. Bureaucracy has made poorly timed policy inevitably in many goverments, HK is of no exception.

The new pricing involves a 7% rise in short distance (i.e.about 10km), which represents probably 65-70% of the incomes for taxi drivers. So the net effect is a 5% hike in average price.

Early reports claimed that total revenue decreased by about 20%, which I think is exxagerated (and partial data plus overshoot/overreact by passengers), more likely though it would be a 10% decrease, if I can extrapolate from the very limited data points in my previous post -- which is bad enough for the taxi drivers, epecially this incremental 10% are mostly net incomes as the fixed costs such as rent and time are constant.

In short, the pricing change, if implemented a year ago while the economic was robust, would have been welcomed. The new scheme, unsatisfactory as it is, is stil way more "rational" than the old one, although I would still prefer a more continuous change in price per km.