Thanks to Yeung Wai-hong at the Next Magazine for letting me publish his editorial in the next issue of the magazine here first! Enjoy!
說梁展文一案的癥結是他的「酌情權」，殆無異議。要是沒有「酌情」沽售（或不 沽售）紅灣半島的權力，他又何來輸送利益給新世界發展之嫌？可是「酌情權」這 問題核心又來自哪裡？那無疑是伴隨政府干預市場而來的孿生兄弟了。
政府不插手干預市場則已，一插手則必然賦與主責官僚若干酌情空間，（政策是死 的， 人才是活的；無權酌情，何以推行政策？）從而衍生私相授受的機會。故此 根絕貪污之道不是增加監管規條而是減少干預，否則擴大廉署編制一百倍、一萬倍 仍將歸於徒然。像太史公說的，利字當頭，「刀鋸之誅」又豈嚇得倒「舞文弄法」 之輩？
眾所周知，涉案的紅灣半島是個干預樓市的居屋項目 —— 以低於市價給中下家庭 提供居屋。這更不是一般的居屋，而是有私人發展商參與的計劃（新世界是政府的 拍檔）；故此政府有責任在限期內為發展商提供買家，否則要賠償。
不巧，紅灣半島建成，為了救樓市，董建華先是判了八萬五突然死亡，進而停售居 屋。跟新世界訂定的合同又如何是好？按協議，要麼真金白銀賠償其損失；要麼便 按個公平價格出售紅灣半島給新世界；捨此之外，別無他途。當時梁展文為房屋及 規劃地政局的常任秘書長，率領地政總署、屋宇署及律政署的專家談判出賣物業； 事出突然，無先例可援，你說他的酌情空間又有多大？
事後孔明可能會說這是個不平等協議，然而不可不知者，引入私人發展商建造居 屋，其主旨乃在加快居屋供應以平抑樓價。居屋價格既然由官家訂定，利潤有限； 不加入多重保障，頭腦正常的發展商肯參與嗎？倘若買入紅灣半島新世界真的得享 「暴利」，關鍵是政策反覆，從壓抑樓價一百八十度轉為停售公屋救市，製造了上 下其手的酌情空間。
若然沒有政府干預樓市在先，若然干預沒有在壓抑樓價的洶湧群情下升級，引入私 人發展商參建居屋；若然政策一以貫之，沒有建華之亂炮製的反反覆覆，那麼高官們又何來混水摸魚的空間？
於此可見，要是梁展文確有濫用酌情權之嫌，問題的根源是干預政策不斷升級變 質，製造出愈來愈大私相授受的灰色地帶。不從減少（甚至廢除）干預市場入手對 付貪污，一味增加監管，疊床架屋，重重監管那又伊于胡底？
事實亦然。香港不是有個威名遠播、專門對付貪污的廉政公署嗎？爆發這般觸發公 眾關注的大案，廉政公署至今不吭一聲，難道我們的貪污??星沒有絲毫角色？再 者，防止貪污是廉署的主要職責之一。干預升級、政策反覆炮製出偌大的酌情貪污 空間，敢問廉署又可有治亂於源，從減少干預入手積極預防貪污？
尸位素餐，嚴格而言可能算不上是貪污，然而食公眾之祿而葬送公眾利益，那又與 貪污何異？
Showing posts with label Economics at Work. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics at Work. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Best Line I Have Read Today
In general, I think that the economy's fate hinges on its ability to adapt to changes in relative prices. If there are few large shocks, then full employment will not be disturbed. With large shocks, then people need to respond to incentives to exit some occupations and industries in order to enter others.
Here's more from Arnold Kling.
My hunch is that with large shocks to the economy, people start to panic as uncertainty looms. Instead of figuring out ways to respond to massive shifts in relative prices (that's what large shocks mean to me anyway), people's brain is hardwired (a legacy of our tribal past as Hayek has argued in Fatal Conceit) to immediately seek help from some saviour, God may be, government definitely (as a surrogate God?). And that's what makes Keynesian economics so appealing I think.
Here's more from Arnold Kling.
My hunch is that with large shocks to the economy, people start to panic as uncertainty looms. Instead of figuring out ways to respond to massive shifts in relative prices (that's what large shocks mean to me anyway), people's brain is hardwired (a legacy of our tribal past as Hayek has argued in Fatal Conceit) to immediately seek help from some saviour, God may be, government definitely (as a surrogate God?). And that's what makes Keynesian economics so appealing I think.
Friday, March 14, 2008
What is the Commonality Between George Mason and Chicago
Economists at those two institutions live economics according to David Friedman. More here.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Best Working Paper I Have Read Today
The paper borrows ideas from IO and applies it in the political arena. Best bits of the paper:
Perhaps constitutions or other political institutions designed to police the amount of political
competitiveness better serve the public by monitoring entry barriers and markups than monitoring the number of competitors.
The monopolistic competition model suggests that the product mix and design , such as the composition of taxes, spending, and economic regulations are functions of economics and demographics, but not regime Although we do not deny that a dictator prefers more money to less, the fact that his taking is limited by the threat of entry means that he has an important reason to spend much of the tax revenue in the public interest: it buys him popular support and thereby regime longevity. Nondemocracies may collect more revenue, but they are not leviathans.
More here. One of the authors, Kevin Tsui now teaching at Clemson is from Hong Kong!
Perhaps constitutions or other political institutions designed to police the amount of political
competitiveness better serve the public by monitoring entry barriers and markups than monitoring the number of competitors.
The monopolistic competition model suggests that the product mix and design , such as the composition of taxes, spending, and economic regulations are functions of economics and demographics, but not regime Although we do not deny that a dictator prefers more money to less, the fact that his taking is limited by the threat of entry means that he has an important reason to spend much of the tax revenue in the public interest: it buys him popular support and thereby regime longevity. Nondemocracies may collect more revenue, but they are not leviathans.
More here. One of the authors, Kevin Tsui now teaching at Clemson is from Hong Kong!
Friday, February 29, 2008
My Co-Blogger Challenges Bill Gates' "Creative Capitalism" Idea
While not as troubled as George Bailey from “It’s A Wonderful Life”, Bill Gates is clearly in need of Clarence’s assistance. For those who did not catch the movie this past Christmas, Clarence was the angel who reminded George Bailey how much he contributed to the world. Bill Gate’s speech at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos shows just how little he appreciates all that he has done.
Bill Gates wants businesses to be more responsive to society’s greatest concerns. Mr. Gates faults capitalism for not caring about the world’s poor and disparages the “heartless” economic system that only serves the interests of the rich. His solution is to foster a system he calls “creative capitalism”. Creative capitalism would redirect the focus of corporations away from profits towards philanthropy. For those familiar with the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) movement, Gates’ creative capitalism will sound hauntingly familiar – his arguments also parallel the 2008 Democratic Presidential platform, but that is the topic for another editorial.
Ironically, the life of Bill Gates exemplifies the potential of capitalism to transform the world, reduce poverty, and create wealth for hundreds of millions of people...
Read more here.
Bottomline:
Like George Bailey, the world would certainly be a worse place if not for the efforts of Microsoft and Bill Gates. Before Bill decides to deride the ability of capitalism to help the world again, perhaps he should review his own past achievements and reflect on how much better off we all are (rich and poor) because of Bill Gates.
Bill Gates wants businesses to be more responsive to society’s greatest concerns. Mr. Gates faults capitalism for not caring about the world’s poor and disparages the “heartless” economic system that only serves the interests of the rich. His solution is to foster a system he calls “creative capitalism”. Creative capitalism would redirect the focus of corporations away from profits towards philanthropy. For those familiar with the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) movement, Gates’ creative capitalism will sound hauntingly familiar – his arguments also parallel the 2008 Democratic Presidential platform, but that is the topic for another editorial.
Ironically, the life of Bill Gates exemplifies the potential of capitalism to transform the world, reduce poverty, and create wealth for hundreds of millions of people...
Read more here.
Bottomline:
Like George Bailey, the world would certainly be a worse place if not for the efforts of Microsoft and Bill Gates. Before Bill decides to deride the ability of capitalism to help the world again, perhaps he should review his own past achievements and reflect on how much better off we all are (rich and poor) because of Bill Gates.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Best Newspaper Article I Have Read Today
It's a WSJ editorial on rating agencies. Here is the most amazing bit:
Since 1975, the Securities and Exchange Commission has limited competition in the market for credit ratings by anointing only certain firms as "Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations" (NRSROs). A 2006 law has begun to lead to faster approvals of new entrants, but this follows decades of protection for the incumbent firms.
The SEC went an entire decade, beginning in 1992, without allowing a single new competitor into the market. Thomson reports that in 2007 Moody's rated 95% of corporate bonds, while S&P rated 93%. (Corporate bonds usually carry at least two ratings, so offerings often feature ratings from both S&P and Moody's.) Fitch, at 37%, is the only other firm with significant market share.
More here.
Bottomline:
The key to better ratings is for Congress to make the rating agencies compete in a market where no one is required to hire them.
Since 1975, the Securities and Exchange Commission has limited competition in the market for credit ratings by anointing only certain firms as "Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations" (NRSROs). A 2006 law has begun to lead to faster approvals of new entrants, but this follows decades of protection for the incumbent firms.
The SEC went an entire decade, beginning in 1992, without allowing a single new competitor into the market. Thomson reports that in 2007 Moody's rated 95% of corporate bonds, while S&P rated 93%. (Corporate bonds usually carry at least two ratings, so offerings often feature ratings from both S&P and Moody's.) Fitch, at 37%, is the only other firm with significant market share.
More here.
Bottomline:
The key to better ratings is for Congress to make the rating agencies compete in a market where no one is required to hire them.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
社企
Fellow free marketeer Ming wrote;
其實企業無恆利(profit is windfall)，所謂盈利不過是資本家資金和企業家能力的回報，社企正由兩者放棄部分或全部收入回饋社會而成。政府資助在市場無法籌措資金的社企，無非是把公帑「回饋」社會，如此社企也不過是福利項目。
A deeper question is:
If the so called social enterprise can survive only through government subsidies, why the government does not just hand out the money to the recipients in the first place? Transactions costs considerations alone would certainly support my thesis that the goverment money should be handed out directly. Why not?
How different is a social enterprise from a state-owned enterprise if it has to pursue "social objective" on top of securing a decent return. When the two objectives clash, which one gets chosen (my guess is social objective) and by whom (my guess is the government which hands out the subsidy). If my hunch is correct, social enteprise may be more like an SOE than you think.
I have to admit that I am not familiar with the actual operations of social enterprise nor the literature covering the topic. My case against the idea of social enterprise is solely motivated by conceptual considerations.
Social enterprise advocates, convince me if I am wrong and I am ready to be convinced.
其實企業無恆利(profit is windfall)，所謂盈利不過是資本家資金和企業家能力的回報，社企正由兩者放棄部分或全部收入回饋社會而成。政府資助在市場無法籌措資金的社企，無非是把公帑「回饋」社會，如此社企也不過是福利項目。
A deeper question is:
If the so called social enterprise can survive only through government subsidies, why the government does not just hand out the money to the recipients in the first place? Transactions costs considerations alone would certainly support my thesis that the goverment money should be handed out directly. Why not?
How different is a social enterprise from a state-owned enterprise if it has to pursue "social objective" on top of securing a decent return. When the two objectives clash, which one gets chosen (my guess is social objective) and by whom (my guess is the government which hands out the subsidy). If my hunch is correct, social enteprise may be more like an SOE than you think.
I have to admit that I am not familiar with the actual operations of social enterprise nor the literature covering the topic. My case against the idea of social enterprise is solely motivated by conceptual considerations.
Social enterprise advocates, convince me if I am wrong and I am ready to be convinced.
International Trade: The Culprit of Global Income Divergence?
I am not totally convinced. But the argument is here:
The last 200 years saw a ‘Great Divergence’ in per capita income, as some countries industrialised while others remained less developed. This column attributes the divergence to international trade. Comparative advantage encouraged industrialising economies to invest in human capital, while non-industrial economies experienced population growth.
In international trade, or any trade for that matter, some traders may get a larger share of the gains, while others get a smaller cut of the gains. The bottom line, however, is that trade generates gain for both sides. For otherwise, there will be no incentive to trade in the first place.
What the scholars of the research result reported above worry about, the concerns of the how the gains from trade are distributed to the parties engage in trade, should come secondary to the more fundamental concern of how could we generate further gains from trade to start with. No?
The last 200 years saw a ‘Great Divergence’ in per capita income, as some countries industrialised while others remained less developed. This column attributes the divergence to international trade. Comparative advantage encouraged industrialising economies to invest in human capital, while non-industrial economies experienced population growth.
In international trade, or any trade for that matter, some traders may get a larger share of the gains, while others get a smaller cut of the gains. The bottom line, however, is that trade generates gain for both sides. For otherwise, there will be no incentive to trade in the first place.
What the scholars of the research result reported above worry about, the concerns of the how the gains from trade are distributed to the parties engage in trade, should come secondary to the more fundamental concern of how could we generate further gains from trade to start with. No?
The Most Intriguing Economic Analysis I Have Encountered So Far Today
And the winner goes to:
Tax Men More Than Women
According to the advocates of this idea, "this is not a policy for women against men but a policy that may favour households as a whole by helping realise a possibly more efficient allocation of duties and market activities across genders, which will increase overall household disposable income."
More here.
Hmmm, our next budget is due out next Wednesday and tax changes are expected, guess it is too late for you to do anything now, isn't it John?
Tax Men More Than Women
According to the advocates of this idea, "this is not a policy for women against men but a policy that may favour households as a whole by helping realise a possibly more efficient allocation of duties and market activities across genders, which will increase overall household disposable income."
More here.
Hmmm, our next budget is due out next Wednesday and tax changes are expected, guess it is too late for you to do anything now, isn't it John?
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Best Line I Have Read So Far
Indeed, I have yet to see a sources-of-growth decomposition which answers a useful and relevant economic or policy question.
Read more here.
Read more here.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Adjustment at Multiple Margins
In today's edition of the HK Standard, a research study tells us that:
" [A] City University survey of more than 10,000 people last summer, found that overall consumer satisfaction last year hit a record high of 70.2 percent, up 0.1 percent from the previous year."
This is not the case for fast food because the survey found that consumers' satisfaction index for such food category fell last year.
According to the author of the study, the drop in satisfaction is attributable to the fact that "[t]he prices for those items went up but the quality remained the same or even deteriorated," he said. "Consumers may have felt they suffered a loss."
Everybody knows from reading newspapers that costs of materials needed for fast food industry like beef, pork as well as flour have increased a lot of late. Sometimes, you just can't pass on these cost increases through price adjustments, other margins exist for adjustments as well. And in this particular case, quality or/and portions of the food served.
In fact, customers of the fast food chain are partially to blame for the need to adjust prices, quality and serving portion. If less of them go to eat at those fast food restaurants, demand for inputs needed in the production of fast food will become less, and this in turn will probably lower the pressure for the fast food chains to raise prices in the first place!
" [A] City University survey of more than 10,000 people last summer, found that overall consumer satisfaction last year hit a record high of 70.2 percent, up 0.1 percent from the previous year."
This is not the case for fast food because the survey found that consumers' satisfaction index for such food category fell last year.
According to the author of the study, the drop in satisfaction is attributable to the fact that "[t]he prices for those items went up but the quality remained the same or even deteriorated," he said. "Consumers may have felt they suffered a loss."
Everybody knows from reading newspapers that costs of materials needed for fast food industry like beef, pork as well as flour have increased a lot of late. Sometimes, you just can't pass on these cost increases through price adjustments, other margins exist for adjustments as well. And in this particular case, quality or/and portions of the food served.
In fact, customers of the fast food chain are partially to blame for the need to adjust prices, quality and serving portion. If less of them go to eat at those fast food restaurants, demand for inputs needed in the production of fast food will become less, and this in turn will probably lower the pressure for the fast food chains to raise prices in the first place!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)