繼Youtube 在中國被全面封殺之後, Plurk 現在也在中國被"合諧"掉了, 下一個可能是Twitter?
ps/po這個是為了測試新加入的版面小工具, 不過並沒有出現啊? 真是失敗....再來研究看看
PPS/抄一段"奴才"送給喜歡當奴才的人
---------魯迅 燈下漫筆-----------
任憑你愛排場的學者們怎樣舖張，修史時候設些什么“漢族發祥時代”“漢族發達時代”“漢族中興時代”的好題目，好意誠然是可感的，但措辭太繞灣子了。
有更其直捷了當的說法在這里——
一，想做奴隸而不得的時代；
二，暫時做穩了奴隸的時代。
這一种循環，也就是“先儒”之所謂“一治一亂”那些作亂人物，從后日的“臣民”看來，是給“主子”清道辟路的，所以說：“為圣天子驅除云爾。”
現在入了那一時代，我也不了然。但看國學家的崇奉國粹，文學家的贊歎固有文明，道學家的熱心复古，可見于現狀都已不滿了。然而我們究竟正向著那一條路走呢？百姓是一遇到莫名其妙的戰爭，稍富的遷進租界，婦孺則避入教堂里去了，因為那些地方都比較的“穩”，暫不至于想做奴隸而不得。總而言之，复古的，避難的，無智愚賢不肖，似乎都已神往于三百年前的太平盛世，就是“暫時做穩了奴隸的時代”了。
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
轉載: Jackie Chan's China comments prompt backlash (AP)
這是我記得的,成龍所講過的第二次公開笑話,或是說,他第二次公開向中國輸誠..
只要對照前兩天我post 的WSJ的那段摘錄:
human rights isn't an either-or trade between wealth and freedom. Economic prosperity rests on the protection of basic civil liberties such as the right to free speech, free association and equal protection under law.
與Huang Wei-che(黃偉哲)對成龍笑話的批評:
Huang Wei-che said Chan himself "has enjoyed freedom and democracy and has reaped the economic benefits of capitalism. But he has yet to grasp the true meaning of freedom and democracy."
就可知道誰頭腦有問題. 還記得他偷腥曝光後說什麼他犯了全天下男人都會犯的錯嗎? 拜託, 請不要拉全天下男人下水. 說自己管不住自己的下半身就好了. 現在也是,說成龍奴性重可能還太便宜他了, 他應該把妻兒接回需要被"控制"(control)的中國住啊, 妻兒住加拿大算什麼呢? 趕快把妻兒接去住在屬於她們被管制的地方啊! 還是他沒有辦法管住妻兒讓她們去住在他口中應該被管制的地方呢?
的確, 這對一個連自己半身都管不住的人來講真的太難了, 自己都管不了了還要他管誰? 是的, 他的確需要被控制，只是習慣性的又要拖一堆人如香港和台灣下水!
還好我是台灣人,不是中國人,我不需要被"控制". 還好我本來對他的電影就沒什麼興趣, 從此拒看一點都不困難啊!
還有,那些要來跟我講什麼台灣人也是中國人的人,請省了, 驗了DNA之前確認自己完全沒有平埔族南島血統的話你個人可以開心宣示你是純種中國人, 但是請不用把你自己的想法強加到我頭上, 就像喜歡被控制的成龍請不用拖別人下水一樣.
------------
Jackie Chan's China comments prompt backlash (AP)
Source: AP Sun Apr 19, 2009, 4:20 am EDT
HONG KONG - Action star Jackie Chan 's comments wondering whether Chinese people "need to be controlled" have drawn sharp rebuke in his native Hong Kong and in Taiwan .
Chan told a business forum in the southern Chinese province of Hainan that a free society may not be beneficial for China 's authoritarian mainland.
"I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan said Saturday. "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want."
He went on to say that freedoms in Hong Kong and Taiwan made those societies "chaotic."
Chan's comments drew applause from a predominantly Chinese audience of business leaders, but did not sit well with lawmakers in Taiwan and Hong Kong.
"He's insulted the Chinese people. Chinese people aren't pets," Hong Kong pro-democracy legislator Leung Kwok-hung told The Associated Press. "Chinese society needs a democratic system to protect human rights and rule of law."
Another lawmaker, Albert Ho, called the comments "racist," adding: "People around the world are running their own countries. Why can't Chinese do the same?"
Former British colony Hong Kong enjoys Western-style civil liberties and some democratic elections under Chinese rule. Half of its 60-member legislature is elected, with the other half picked by special interest groups. But Hong Kong's leader is chosen by a panel stacked with Beijing loyalists.
In democratically self-ruled Taiwan, which split from mainland China during a civil war in 1949, legislator Huang Wei-che said Chan himself "has enjoyed freedom and democracy and has reaped the economic benefits of capitalism. But he has yet to grasp the true meaning of freedom and democracy."
Chan's comments were reported by news outlets in Hong Kong and Taiwan, but were ignored by the mainland Chinese press.
Although Chan was a fierce critic of the brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Beijing's Tiananmen Square in June 1989, which killed at least hundreds, he has not publicly criticized China's government in recent years and is immensely popular on the mainland.
He performed during the opening and closing ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics and took part in the Olympic torch relay .
Chan also is vice chairman of the China Film Association, a key industry group.
___
Associated Press writer Annie Huang in Taipei contributed to this report.
只要對照前兩天我post 的WSJ的那段摘錄:
human rights isn't an either-or trade between wealth and freedom. Economic prosperity rests on the protection of basic civil liberties such as the right to free speech, free association and equal protection under law.
與Huang Wei-che(黃偉哲)對成龍笑話的批評:
Huang Wei-che said Chan himself "has enjoyed freedom and democracy and has reaped the economic benefits of capitalism. But he has yet to grasp the true meaning of freedom and democracy."
就可知道誰頭腦有問題. 還記得他偷腥曝光後說什麼他犯了全天下男人都會犯的錯嗎? 拜託, 請不要拉全天下男人下水. 說自己管不住自己的下半身就好了. 現在也是,說成龍奴性重可能還太便宜他了, 他應該把妻兒接回需要被"控制"(control)的中國住啊, 妻兒住加拿大算什麼呢? 趕快把妻兒接去住在屬於她們被管制的地方啊! 還是他沒有辦法管住妻兒讓她們去住在他口中應該被管制的地方呢?
的確, 這對一個連自己半身都管不住的人來講真的太難了, 自己都管不了了還要他管誰? 是的, 他的確需要被控制，只是習慣性的又要拖一堆人如香港和台灣下水!
還好我是台灣人,不是中國人,我不需要被"控制". 還好我本來對他的電影就沒什麼興趣, 從此拒看一點都不困難啊!
還有,那些要來跟我講什麼台灣人也是中國人的人,請省了, 驗了DNA之前確認自己完全沒有平埔族南島血統的話你個人可以開心宣示你是純種中國人, 但是請不用把你自己的想法強加到我頭上, 就像喜歡被控制的成龍請不用拖別人下水一樣.
------------
Jackie Chan's China comments prompt backlash (AP)
Source: AP Sun Apr 19, 2009, 4:20 am EDT
HONG KONG - Action star Jackie Chan 's comments wondering whether Chinese people "need to be controlled" have drawn sharp rebuke in his native Hong Kong and in Taiwan .
Chan told a business forum in the southern Chinese province of Hainan that a free society may not be beneficial for China 's authoritarian mainland.
"I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan said Saturday. "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want."
He went on to say that freedoms in Hong Kong and Taiwan made those societies "chaotic."
Chan's comments drew applause from a predominantly Chinese audience of business leaders, but did not sit well with lawmakers in Taiwan and Hong Kong.
"He's insulted the Chinese people. Chinese people aren't pets," Hong Kong pro-democracy legislator Leung Kwok-hung told The Associated Press. "Chinese society needs a democratic system to protect human rights and rule of law."
Another lawmaker, Albert Ho, called the comments "racist," adding: "People around the world are running their own countries. Why can't Chinese do the same?"
Former British colony Hong Kong enjoys Western-style civil liberties and some democratic elections under Chinese rule. Half of its 60-member legislature is elected, with the other half picked by special interest groups. But Hong Kong's leader is chosen by a panel stacked with Beijing loyalists.
In democratically self-ruled Taiwan, which split from mainland China during a civil war in 1949, legislator Huang Wei-che said Chan himself "has enjoyed freedom and democracy and has reaped the economic benefits of capitalism. But he has yet to grasp the true meaning of freedom and democracy."
Chan's comments were reported by news outlets in Hong Kong and Taiwan, but were ignored by the mainland Chinese press.
Although Chan was a fierce critic of the brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Beijing's Tiananmen Square in June 1989, which killed at least hundreds, he has not publicly criticized China's government in recent years and is immensely popular on the mainland.
He performed during the opening and closing ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics and took part in the Olympic torch relay .
Chan also is vice chairman of the China Film Association, a key industry group.
___
Associated Press writer Annie Huang in Taipei contributed to this report.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
克魯曼說簽ECFA是好事, 真的嗎?
兩三天前(台灣時間4/15時),我在咖啡館注意到這則新聞,一直按耐不寫, 因為找了一下發現聯合報沒報導,就算了(按: 我不看中時很久了,所以...).
中廣的報導是這樣的:
克魯曼：兩岸簽署ECFA是好事
時間： 2009/04/15 撰稿‧編輯：楊明娟 新聞引據：廣電媒體 (中國時報)
"簽署這樣的協議還是好事，也是一件應該做的好事。"
不過, 如果去看美國的原文, 卻發現是這樣的:
QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Professor. John Zang (ph) with CTI-TV of Taiwan. I have two questions for you. I have come from Washington for you for this occasion. Sir, you are going to Taiwan next month for a visit. People in Taiwan, a lot of them, will be looking to you for advice and probably for suggestions as to how best to come out of this economic abyss.
Second question: The government of President Ma Ying-jeou is thinking about signing or negotiating a baby FTA in the name of economic cooperative framework agreement. But the opposition party has concerns about possible jeopardy to Taiwan's sovereignty. What do you think about that? Thank you very much, sir, appreciate it.
MR. KRUGMAN: Okay. About the second, I don't really – unless I know – knew something more about it. I mean, there is – you know, free trade agreements, all – all such agreements do involve some sacrifice of national autonomy. They – we do this all the time. Now it's usually been a good thing. It sort of depends on what. I mean, there – so I can't really – can't really comment on that without knowing something more about it.
正確來講,克魯曼說的是簽署貿易協定通常是好事, 但也的確必須犧牲一些國家自主性. 但是, 對於ECFA, 他沒有太多了解因此無法評論.
結果, 簽署貿易協定通常是好事到了台灣媒體筆下就變成了--克魯曼說: 兩岸簽署ECFA是好事,而且還是一件應該做的事
像這種移花接木, 還有顛倒次序(如莎朗史東的報應說事件), 或是擅自竄改把有的說成無,把沒有的說成有(例如之前的選舉公投), 或是亂解讀英文, 在台灣特定媒體似乎都是常事. 甚至被抓包了還可以再編一個更大的或是更無俚頭的來掩藏錯誤(如毒奶事件對歐盟標準亂報), 就是死不認錯(說什麼"由於全球仍以英文為主要溝通語言，因此英國食品標準局網頁公布的訊息，常被視為具代表性。"----拜託英國的標準是英國,歐盟的標準是歐盟, 不要亂扯好咩).
希望不要繼白樂崎敎英文後, 又要被克魯曼經濟學家敎英文啊! 那可是更糗更丟臉ㄟ
中廣的報導是這樣的:
克魯曼：兩岸簽署ECFA是好事
時間： 2009/04/15 撰稿‧編輯：楊明娟 新聞引據：廣電媒體 (中國時報)
"簽署這樣的協議還是好事，也是一件應該做的好事。"
不過, 如果去看美國的原文, 卻發現是這樣的:
QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Professor. John Zang (ph) with CTI-TV of Taiwan. I have two questions for you. I have come from Washington for you for this occasion. Sir, you are going to Taiwan next month for a visit. People in Taiwan, a lot of them, will be looking to you for advice and probably for suggestions as to how best to come out of this economic abyss.
Second question: The government of President Ma Ying-jeou is thinking about signing or negotiating a baby FTA in the name of economic cooperative framework agreement. But the opposition party has concerns about possible jeopardy to Taiwan's sovereignty. What do you think about that? Thank you very much, sir, appreciate it.
MR. KRUGMAN: Okay. About the second, I don't really – unless I know – knew something more about it. I mean, there is – you know, free trade agreements, all – all such agreements do involve some sacrifice of national autonomy. They – we do this all the time. Now it's usually been a good thing. It sort of depends on what. I mean, there – so I can't really – can't really comment on that without knowing something more about it.
正確來講,克魯曼說的是簽署貿易協定通常是好事, 但也的確必須犧牲一些國家自主性. 但是, 對於ECFA, 他沒有太多了解因此無法評論.
結果, 簽署貿易協定通常是好事到了台灣媒體筆下就變成了--克魯曼說: 兩岸簽署ECFA是好事,而且還是一件應該做的事
像這種移花接木, 還有顛倒次序(如莎朗史東的報應說事件), 或是擅自竄改把有的說成無,把沒有的說成有(例如之前的選舉公投), 或是亂解讀英文, 在台灣特定媒體似乎都是常事. 甚至被抓包了還可以再編一個更大的或是更無俚頭的來掩藏錯誤(如毒奶事件對歐盟標準亂報), 就是死不認錯(說什麼"由於全球仍以英文為主要溝通語言，因此英國食品標準局網頁公布的訊息，常被視為具代表性。"----拜託英國的標準是英國,歐盟的標準是歐盟, 不要亂扯好咩).
希望不要繼白樂崎敎英文後, 又要被克魯曼經濟學家敎英文啊! 那可是更糗更丟臉ㄟ
Monday, April 13, 2009
關於問卷(2) (last updated: 10/05/2010)
昨天才寫關於問卷, 今天就看到這笑話一則, 簡直是太天兵了...
我之前的批評還真是太抬舉當局了.
-------------------
國防部問卷查貪「誰敢承認」
鴕鳥心態
國軍買官、賣官及貪瀆案持續延燒，國防部長陳肇敏親自編成「國防部廉政建設行動專案編組」，針對人事、財務、採購等單位及將級軍官進行「自清問卷調查」，全面展開國軍自清行動。但此舉卻遭部分官員譏諷「誰會這麼白目敢承認自己買官、賣官」，國防部的作法、心態簡直是「鴕鳥」。
應納入外界公正人士 國防部軍事發言人虞思祖證實，國防部已納編人事次長、主計局長、軍備局長、保防處長、監察處長，組成人事紀律、財務紀律、採購紀律、軍法事務、防貪情蒐、反貪策劃等六大組，由陳肇敏親任召集人，每周開會檢討，「只要有任何不法，立即移送偵辦。」對國防部展開自清，國民黨立委周守訓大表贊成，他說，本周國防委員會由他擔任輪值召委，因此今天會議他將變更議程，要求國防部、國安局親自向民眾說明後續防貪、防弊工作。民進黨立委蔡同榮也說，他贊成陳肇敏好好查一查是否真有買官行為，但該專案小組應納入外界公正人士，否則，他擔心扁政府時代「求官不成」的陳肇敏，領軍的「陳家班」調查小組會藉機清除異己或亂戴歪帽，這樣就有失公允。記者王烱華
-----------
PS/關於資料要用primary versus secondary data的爭議, 又可以寫文章了. 不過就免啦!
extended reading:
台北市長選舉民調，中時偏頗的取樣四年如一日
我之前的批評還真是太抬舉當局了.
-------------------
國防部問卷查貪「誰敢承認」
鴕鳥心態
國軍買官、賣官及貪瀆案持續延燒，國防部長陳肇敏親自編成「國防部廉政建設行動專案編組」，針對人事、財務、採購等單位及將級軍官進行「自清問卷調查」，全面展開國軍自清行動。但此舉卻遭部分官員譏諷「誰會這麼白目敢承認自己買官、賣官」，國防部的作法、心態簡直是「鴕鳥」。
應納入外界公正人士 國防部軍事發言人虞思祖證實，國防部已納編人事次長、主計局長、軍備局長、保防處長、監察處長，組成人事紀律、財務紀律、採購紀律、軍法事務、防貪情蒐、反貪策劃等六大組，由陳肇敏親任召集人，每周開會檢討，「只要有任何不法，立即移送偵辦。」對國防部展開自清，國民黨立委周守訓大表贊成，他說，本周國防委員會由他擔任輪值召委，因此今天會議他將變更議程，要求國防部、國安局親自向民眾說明後續防貪、防弊工作。民進黨立委蔡同榮也說，他贊成陳肇敏好好查一查是否真有買官行為，但該專案小組應納入外界公正人士，否則，他擔心扁政府時代「求官不成」的陳肇敏，領軍的「陳家班」調查小組會藉機清除異己或亂戴歪帽，這樣就有失公允。記者王烱華
-----------
PS/關於資料要用primary versus secondary data的爭議, 又可以寫文章了. 不過就免啦!
extended reading:
台北市長選舉民調，中時偏頗的取樣四年如一日
Saturday, April 11, 2009
也說問卷調查
這不是政治文, 雖然都是從政治新聞說起.
話說我先後在不開放的部落格寫了兩篇[1]最近看到幾篇問卷調查的結果的感想. 簡單摘要如下:
(1)關於問卷的信度(reliability)與效度(validity): 主要是從這篇新聞(搶救馬聲望 研考會民調加問支持度 )開始.
March 20
more about survey validity
Let's first read the following news article.
搶救馬聲望 研考會民調加問支持度 〔記者黃維助、王貝林／台北報導〕馬英九總統就職後，施政滿意度低檔徘徊，研考會已規劃參考國外的元首「政治聲望」民調模式，擬將總統的施政表現滿意度與政治聲望（支持度）進行切割調查，藉此營造馬總統個人的高聲望支持度。 擬與施政滿意度切割 (後略)
I want to briefly point out a couple of things, not from a political viewpoint, but from a research viewpoint.
First of all, whether it is necessary, or valid, to separate "satistication" and "support" into two constructs( or some may even argue that it is just an index) are worth study. It usually takes a lot of effort to verify the validity of the scale. Adding one or dropping one item from the survey is not as cheap as it goes.
Second, the time interval between survey is another thing worth mention. I have no idea about how the survey is administrated. However, whether some of the samples are repeated may or may not (it needs further verification) impact the result.
Third, when there is a big gap between two items that are supposed to correlate in a certain way (in this example, 表現滿意度僅四成三，支持度卻高達六成四的落差成績) , it should lead us to be caution about the survey results. In other words, the reliability of the scale is highly questionable.
Last but not least, it is a big step (and in right direction in my viewpoint) that the newly developed item (i.e. support) is added to facilitate cross samples (cross countries) analysis.
(2) 如何算是一個合理的解釋? 這是從同一個調查兩篇不同報導的對照而來.
其中一段提到:
"小朋友眼中父母親不幸福的原因，「不景氣失業、缺錢」，「常吵架、爸爸喝酒」是孩子最憂心的。有22%表示同住家人生活有困難，也有21%的小朋友表示，學校繳費有困難。
蔡文哲表示，全球性金融風暴的整體壓力，似乎還沒有很明顯壓迫到孩子，可能有些父母工作時間減少、放無薪假，陪伴孩子的時間增加，反而使得今年整體幸福感較去年提升。但已經有孩子開始反應「怕家裡沒錢」，尤其在東部、南部的孩子心中，沈重的經濟壓力也替孩子帶來煩惱，預估明年這種現象會更明顯。"
實證研究者最擔心的就是當資料分析結果1)不顯著,2)與原先預測相反, 那如何提出合理的解釋來自圓其說.
是的,關鍵就在於合理兩字. 上面那段解釋合理嗎? 我不認為.
In my opinion, it is not because
1) lacks internal consistency: It first argues that the financial crisis appears not hit the children yet (全球性金融風暴的整體壓力，似乎還沒有很明顯壓迫到孩子), but later it argues the opposite (但已經有孩子開始反應「怕家裡沒錢」), so which one should we believe? Another contradictory statement/example is also available--on the one hand, it said "就區域而言，小朋友感受到幸福的比例，南部地區小朋友占85.6%最高；最低為東部地區占78.6%；而北部地區占83.5%，" but on the other hand, it showed "尤其在東部、南部的孩子心中，沈重的經濟壓力也替孩子帶來煩惱". Again, which one should we believe?
2) lacks convincing evidence to prove why the explanation (i.e. 可能有些父母工作時間減少、放無薪假，陪伴孩子的時間增加，反而使得今年整體幸福感較去年提升) is plausible. To make a valid argument, one would have to show that the assumption is warranted, and the reasoning is correct. The assumption here is 有些父母工作時間減少、放無薪假，陪伴孩子的時間增加.
Is there any evidence to support this assumption? To support this assumption, one would have to show that when parents do not work and/or on leave, they spend all their extra time to company the children. If the extra time is spent on, say finding a job or being depressed or having fight or drinking problem (常吵架、爸爸喝酒」), then the assumption is not warranted. An invalid asssumption would not lead to a plausible argument.
3) mistaken "correlation" as "causality": Even above is a valid argument, it only proves that "父母工作時間減少、放無薪假，" appears to be positively related to "整體幸福感較去年提升". It did not prove that it is "父母工作時間減少、放無薪假" which leads to "整體幸福感較去年提升".
[1]其實有三篇,另一篇是更早的從台灣民眾統獨立場看統計: some thoughts about survey, 講到的是meta-analysis, temporal effect 還有measurement and analysis
--------
延伸閱讀:
統計是沒有立場的嗎?
也談民意調整的方法
話說我先後在不開放的部落格寫了兩篇[1]最近看到幾篇問卷調查的結果的感想. 簡單摘要如下:
(1)關於問卷的信度(reliability)與效度(validity): 主要是從這篇新聞(搶救馬聲望 研考會民調加問支持度 )開始.
March 20
more about survey validity
Let's first read the following news article.
搶救馬聲望 研考會民調加問支持度 〔記者黃維助、王貝林／台北報導〕馬英九總統就職後，施政滿意度低檔徘徊，研考會已規劃參考國外的元首「政治聲望」民調模式，擬將總統的施政表現滿意度與政治聲望（支持度）進行切割調查，藉此營造馬總統個人的高聲望支持度。 擬與施政滿意度切割 (後略)
I want to briefly point out a couple of things, not from a political viewpoint, but from a research viewpoint.
First of all, whether it is necessary, or valid, to separate "satistication" and "support" into two constructs( or some may even argue that it is just an index) are worth study. It usually takes a lot of effort to verify the validity of the scale. Adding one or dropping one item from the survey is not as cheap as it goes.
Second, the time interval between survey is another thing worth mention. I have no idea about how the survey is administrated. However, whether some of the samples are repeated may or may not (it needs further verification) impact the result.
Third, when there is a big gap between two items that are supposed to correlate in a certain way (in this example, 表現滿意度僅四成三，支持度卻高達六成四的落差成績) , it should lead us to be caution about the survey results. In other words, the reliability of the scale is highly questionable.
Last but not least, it is a big step (and in right direction in my viewpoint) that the newly developed item (i.e. support) is added to facilitate cross samples (cross countries) analysis.
(2) 如何算是一個合理的解釋? 這是從同一個調查兩篇不同報導的對照而來.
其中一段提到:
"小朋友眼中父母親不幸福的原因，「不景氣失業、缺錢」，「常吵架、爸爸喝酒」是孩子最憂心的。有22%表示同住家人生活有困難，也有21%的小朋友表示，學校繳費有困難。
蔡文哲表示，全球性金融風暴的整體壓力，似乎還沒有很明顯壓迫到孩子，可能有些父母工作時間減少、放無薪假，陪伴孩子的時間增加，反而使得今年整體幸福感較去年提升。但已經有孩子開始反應「怕家裡沒錢」，尤其在東部、南部的孩子心中，沈重的經濟壓力也替孩子帶來煩惱，預估明年這種現象會更明顯。"
實證研究者最擔心的就是當資料分析結果1)不顯著,2)與原先預測相反, 那如何提出合理的解釋來自圓其說.
是的,關鍵就在於合理兩字. 上面那段解釋合理嗎? 我不認為.
In my opinion, it is not because
1) lacks internal consistency: It first argues that the financial crisis appears not hit the children yet (全球性金融風暴的整體壓力，似乎還沒有很明顯壓迫到孩子), but later it argues the opposite (但已經有孩子開始反應「怕家裡沒錢」), so which one should we believe? Another contradictory statement/example is also available--on the one hand, it said "就區域而言，小朋友感受到幸福的比例，南部地區小朋友占85.6%最高；最低為東部地區占78.6%；而北部地區占83.5%，" but on the other hand, it showed "尤其在東部、南部的孩子心中，沈重的經濟壓力也替孩子帶來煩惱". Again, which one should we believe?
2) lacks convincing evidence to prove why the explanation (i.e. 可能有些父母工作時間減少、放無薪假，陪伴孩子的時間增加，反而使得今年整體幸福感較去年提升) is plausible. To make a valid argument, one would have to show that the assumption is warranted, and the reasoning is correct. The assumption here is 有些父母工作時間減少、放無薪假，陪伴孩子的時間增加.
Is there any evidence to support this assumption? To support this assumption, one would have to show that when parents do not work and/or on leave, they spend all their extra time to company the children. If the extra time is spent on, say finding a job or being depressed or having fight or drinking problem (常吵架、爸爸喝酒」), then the assumption is not warranted. An invalid asssumption would not lead to a plausible argument.
3) mistaken "correlation" as "causality": Even above is a valid argument, it only proves that "父母工作時間減少、放無薪假，" appears to be positively related to "整體幸福感較去年提升". It did not prove that it is "父母工作時間減少、放無薪假" which leads to "整體幸福感較去年提升".
[1]其實有三篇,另一篇是更早的從台灣民眾統獨立場看統計: some thoughts about survey, 講到的是meta-analysis, temporal effect 還有measurement and analysis
--------
延伸閱讀:
統計是沒有立場的嗎?
也談民意調整的方法
Thursday, March 19, 2009
轉載: 台灣官員的親中發言造成社會一片嘩然 (Official's pro-China claim causes uproar in Taiwan) (2nd revised)
我一直想看外國人對郭冠英事件的看法(報導), 現在終於有一篇,轉載如下. 這裡有中文翻譯
至於我自己的看法? 沒有太多想表示的, 關於自認為高級一事, 還是借鐵娘子的老話一句--
Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't.
擁有權利的人就像淑女,如果你需要告訴別人你是, 那麼你就不是. 將此話的powerful改成高級,
如果一個人需要自己吹噓或是告訴別人自己是高級人,那麼他/她就不是[1].
-----------
Official's pro-China claim causes uproar in Taiwan, The Associated Press
Published: March 18, 2009
TAIPEI, Taiwan: President Ma Ying-jeou's efforts to build a diverse communal coalition have taken a hit after an official was alleged to have called Taiwan's majority population "primitive" and suggested China should use force to seize the island.
The affair is a huge embarrassment to Ma, who has worked hard to unite Taiwan's fractious communal groups to support his ambitious China engagement program, despite continuing Chinese threats to take over democratic Taiwan by force.
While it is unlikely to delay the program's implementation — it still enjoys strong support — it could cost Ma's party votes in this year's local elections, as so-called "native Taiwanese" return to the communally conscious — and anti-China — opposition, the Democratic Progressive Party.
The affair burst into the limelight late last week when Kuo Kuan-ying of Taiwan's representative office in Toronto admitted he described himself in a newspaper essay as a "superior mainlander" — a politically charged reference to the 2 million people who came to the island in 1949 after the Chinese civil war and dominated its institutions for the next 50 years.
Amid growing local outrage, Kuo denied more serious charges of referring to the majority population of native Taiwanese as "primitives," and writing that "China should use force to take over" Taiwan, even though the island "was not qualified" to unite with Beijing.
Lawmakers identified with the interests of native Taiwanese have led the public criticism against Kuo. They say a pen name he is known to have used was on an essay that contained those inflammatory anti-Taiwan, pro-China statements.
Ma, whose parents were born in China, is particularly vulnerable on that issue, because he is struggling against a widespread perception that many mainlanders favor unity with China. Taiwan split from the mainland amid civil war in 1949, and has been self-governing ever since.
Relations between mainlanders and native Taiwanese — people whose ancestors came to the island from China in the 17th and 18th centuries — have long delineated a crucial political fault line on Taiwan. Native Taiwanese struggled hard against the pro-mainlander policies of Chiang Kai-shek and son Chiang Ching-kuo until 1987 when they were finally able to form a political party of their own.
That party came to power in Taiwan's second free presidential elections in 2000, but was soundly defeated by Ma's Nationalists eight years later. A major advantage for Ma, who took office 10 months ago, was his success in shedding the Nationalists' exclusive mainlander image and adopting a more bi-communal personna in its place.
The lawmakers are demanding that Kuo be stripped of his job at the Government Information Office — rather than his actual punishment of being demoted and transferred back to Taipei.
Even rival lawmakers from the ruling Nationalist Party — long identified with mainlander interests — say Kuo's punishment is not enough.
"It is unreasonable that the government is not sanctioning him more severely," said Tsao Erh-chang. National Taipei University political scientist Hou Han-jyun said Monday that Kuo's relatively light punishment was "stirring up communal hatred" and that the matter "needs quick government intervention."
Political commentator Chung Nien-huang said, "Kuo Kuan-ying simply said what Ma and (his government) are really thinking — that they are superior mainlanders."
[1]我以前就常跟朋友講,那種名片上要印一堆抬頭的其實都不是什麼了不起的名人. 王永慶的名片只要印王永慶就夠了, 完全不需要靠抬頭來告訴別人他是誰.
---------
延伸閱讀:
很有趣的一篇. 范蘭欽的受害者
3/23:
事情演變真是有趣, 有新聞局等自動跑出來幫忙捍衛公務員的權利, 公務員的義務好像不重要; 還有人自己跑出來對號入座(上面那篇延伸閱讀), 結果現在好了, 那些當初幫腔說郭冠英不是范藍欽的,現在郭都自己承認了, 不知這些幫腔的人要說什麼? 出來道歉一下嗎? 郭冠英真是厲害, 這樣輕易就耍蘇俊賓,彭蕙仙等幫腔者一圈. 台灣的政治新聞簡直比綜藝新聞還高潮迭起啊!
3/29: "潘舜昀25日投書聯合報民意論壇，發表「我的同事郭冠英」一文(http://udn.com/NEWS/OPINION/X1/4808899.shtml)，今天有媒體報導，這篇文章實際上出自郭冠英，潘舜昀看過之後，同意署名。" 自誇不夠還要借別人之名來誇 然後最好笑的是還有人願意借名. 現在潘被調查中, 看來受到池魚之殃的還不止彭小姐一位啊!
至於我自己的看法? 沒有太多想表示的, 關於自認為高級一事, 還是借鐵娘子的老話一句--
Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't.
擁有權利的人就像淑女,如果你需要告訴別人你是, 那麼你就不是. 將此話的powerful改成高級,
如果一個人需要自己吹噓或是告訴別人自己是高級人,那麼他/她就不是[1].
-----------
Official's pro-China claim causes uproar in Taiwan, The Associated Press
Published: March 18, 2009
TAIPEI, Taiwan: President Ma Ying-jeou's efforts to build a diverse communal coalition have taken a hit after an official was alleged to have called Taiwan's majority population "primitive" and suggested China should use force to seize the island.
The affair is a huge embarrassment to Ma, who has worked hard to unite Taiwan's fractious communal groups to support his ambitious China engagement program, despite continuing Chinese threats to take over democratic Taiwan by force.
While it is unlikely to delay the program's implementation — it still enjoys strong support — it could cost Ma's party votes in this year's local elections, as so-called "native Taiwanese" return to the communally conscious — and anti-China — opposition, the Democratic Progressive Party.
The affair burst into the limelight late last week when Kuo Kuan-ying of Taiwan's representative office in Toronto admitted he described himself in a newspaper essay as a "superior mainlander" — a politically charged reference to the 2 million people who came to the island in 1949 after the Chinese civil war and dominated its institutions for the next 50 years.
Amid growing local outrage, Kuo denied more serious charges of referring to the majority population of native Taiwanese as "primitives," and writing that "China should use force to take over" Taiwan, even though the island "was not qualified" to unite with Beijing.
Lawmakers identified with the interests of native Taiwanese have led the public criticism against Kuo. They say a pen name he is known to have used was on an essay that contained those inflammatory anti-Taiwan, pro-China statements.
Ma, whose parents were born in China, is particularly vulnerable on that issue, because he is struggling against a widespread perception that many mainlanders favor unity with China. Taiwan split from the mainland amid civil war in 1949, and has been self-governing ever since.
Relations between mainlanders and native Taiwanese — people whose ancestors came to the island from China in the 17th and 18th centuries — have long delineated a crucial political fault line on Taiwan. Native Taiwanese struggled hard against the pro-mainlander policies of Chiang Kai-shek and son Chiang Ching-kuo until 1987 when they were finally able to form a political party of their own.
That party came to power in Taiwan's second free presidential elections in 2000, but was soundly defeated by Ma's Nationalists eight years later. A major advantage for Ma, who took office 10 months ago, was his success in shedding the Nationalists' exclusive mainlander image and adopting a more bi-communal personna in its place.
The lawmakers are demanding that Kuo be stripped of his job at the Government Information Office — rather than his actual punishment of being demoted and transferred back to Taipei.
Even rival lawmakers from the ruling Nationalist Party — long identified with mainlander interests — say Kuo's punishment is not enough.
"It is unreasonable that the government is not sanctioning him more severely," said Tsao Erh-chang. National Taipei University political scientist Hou Han-jyun said Monday that Kuo's relatively light punishment was "stirring up communal hatred" and that the matter "needs quick government intervention."
Political commentator Chung Nien-huang said, "Kuo Kuan-ying simply said what Ma and (his government) are really thinking — that they are superior mainlanders."
[1]我以前就常跟朋友講,那種名片上要印一堆抬頭的其實都不是什麼了不起的名人. 王永慶的名片只要印王永慶就夠了, 完全不需要靠抬頭來告訴別人他是誰.
---------
延伸閱讀:
很有趣的一篇. 范蘭欽的受害者
3/23:
事情演變真是有趣, 有新聞局等自動跑出來幫忙捍衛公務員的權利, 公務員的義務好像不重要; 還有人自己跑出來對號入座(上面那篇延伸閱讀), 結果現在好了, 那些當初幫腔說郭冠英不是范藍欽的,現在郭都自己承認了, 不知這些幫腔的人要說什麼? 出來道歉一下嗎? 郭冠英真是厲害, 這樣輕易就耍蘇俊賓,彭蕙仙等幫腔者一圈. 台灣的政治新聞簡直比綜藝新聞還高潮迭起啊!
3/29: "潘舜昀25日投書聯合報民意論壇，發表「我的同事郭冠英」一文(http://udn.com/NEWS/OPINION/X1/4808899.shtml)，今天有媒體報導，這篇文章實際上出自郭冠英，潘舜昀看過之後，同意署名。" 自誇不夠還要借別人之名來誇 然後最好笑的是還有人願意借名. 現在潘被調查中, 看來受到池魚之殃的還不止彭小姐一位啊!
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
spring break -part 2(春假) (revised on 4/5)
輪到我放春假. 這是紀錄春假的流水帳.
之一: 土耳其咖啡
第一天........哦,好吧,週末不算後的第一天去喝下午茶. 因為最近迷上土耳其咖啡, 到這裡就開始找哪裡有賣土耳其咖啡.....找到了
詳見此連結
之一: 土耳其咖啡
第一天........哦,好吧,週末不算後的第一天去喝下午茶. 因為最近迷上土耳其咖啡, 到這裡就開始找哪裡有賣土耳其咖啡.....找到了
詳見此連結
之二: 藤籃麵包vs. 山寨麵包
看到網路上有人利用洗菜籃的條紋來做藤籃麵包, 小孩子個性又發作,左暗示右明示跟DG說我也想做耶! 因為我們也有洗菜籃....結果出來完全不像藤籃,卻像飛碟啊!!
不甘心重做後把藤籃麵包正名為山寨麵包. 詳見此連結.
------
added on 3/22
之三: MSU訪友
看過墰子專門收集問題學生的灰燼嗎? 看此篇就對了
之四: 大餅與關於發酵一二事
我果然是作empirical induction以及experiment的,連麵包的發酵都是這樣歸納出來的....
之五: 關於房子的兩件事
Sunday, March 8, 2009
[轉載] EDITORIAL: More tricks in the Chen legal circus
Saturday, Mar 07, 2009, Page 8
The trial of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) brings disrepute to the judicial system with every passing week.
For those non-plussed at why prosecutors have not been thoroughly investigated for leaking material to the media, there is always the smorgasbord of other bizarre circumstances to consider: ludicrous arguments for keeping Chen in detention; a switching of judges that put Chen back in detention; faulty recording or informal summaries of “testimony” by witnesses who likely made deals with the prosecution; mandatory taping of meetings between Chen and his legal team by detention center officials; prosecutors mocking their target in theatrical skits; prejudicial comments by Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) and at least two members of the legislature’s judiciary committee; threats by legislators against dissenting judges elsewhere in the legal system; and so on, and so on. It's a genuine feast.
This week saw a few more morsels of legal incredulity added to the heap. On Thursday, prosecutors objected to defense requests for the calling of witnesses because, among other reasons, doing so might benefit the defendants of the day. That this nonsensical component of the objection was not immediately overruled by the judges is most interesting.
It should come as no surprise, then, that Chen's office wants to bring international attention to the issue. With massive pressure on defense counsel coming from the largely pro-blue-camp media, a foreign perspective could give Chen’s team a more solid footing in the media war against his political foes.
This newspaper has also concluded that international attention is necessary — not for Chen's sake, but for the sake of a credible, independent judiciary. The proceedings to date in this most vital of trials have been so badly compromised that expert analysis from the International Council of Jurists, for example, may be essential to demonstrate the gravity of the problem.
For a government that basks in international attention when it occasionally graces our shores, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration seems awfully reticent when it comes to receiving criticism from expert quarters. Such was the case with Professor Jerome Cohen, an eminent jurist who came to castigate elements of Taiwan’s judicial system. We can only assume that his close relationship with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) spared him from the genuine wrath of the KMT legislative caucus.
With intellectual property rights law playing such an important part in relations with the US, for example, it is ironic that the justice minister would object to expert overseas scrutiny of the judiciary on any pertinent case. Yet this is exactly what Wang did, warning Chen’s office that any complaint to the foreign press would discredit the nation.
Meanwhile, one of those legislative committee members, convicted criminal Chiu Yi (邱毅), warned — in all seriousness — that holding such a press conference could result in the judges extending Chen's detention. The ramifications of a person of Chiu’s visibility being able to say things as contemptuous of natural justice as this, and with impunity, are frightening, though few seem to care.
Wang need not be concerned about Chen's office discrediting the judiciary, because in light of the circus involving so-called professionals and officials — not least this relentlessly inept minister — Chen's men simply cannot compete.
延伸閱讀:
告洋狀會出洋相嗎?
The trial of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) brings disrepute to the judicial system with every passing week.
For those non-plussed at why prosecutors have not been thoroughly investigated for leaking material to the media, there is always the smorgasbord of other bizarre circumstances to consider: ludicrous arguments for keeping Chen in detention; a switching of judges that put Chen back in detention; faulty recording or informal summaries of “testimony” by witnesses who likely made deals with the prosecution; mandatory taping of meetings between Chen and his legal team by detention center officials; prosecutors mocking their target in theatrical skits; prejudicial comments by Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) and at least two members of the legislature’s judiciary committee; threats by legislators against dissenting judges elsewhere in the legal system; and so on, and so on. It's a genuine feast.
This week saw a few more morsels of legal incredulity added to the heap. On Thursday, prosecutors objected to defense requests for the calling of witnesses because, among other reasons, doing so might benefit the defendants of the day. That this nonsensical component of the objection was not immediately overruled by the judges is most interesting.
It should come as no surprise, then, that Chen's office wants to bring international attention to the issue. With massive pressure on defense counsel coming from the largely pro-blue-camp media, a foreign perspective could give Chen’s team a more solid footing in the media war against his political foes.
This newspaper has also concluded that international attention is necessary — not for Chen's sake, but for the sake of a credible, independent judiciary. The proceedings to date in this most vital of trials have been so badly compromised that expert analysis from the International Council of Jurists, for example, may be essential to demonstrate the gravity of the problem.
For a government that basks in international attention when it occasionally graces our shores, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration seems awfully reticent when it comes to receiving criticism from expert quarters. Such was the case with Professor Jerome Cohen, an eminent jurist who came to castigate elements of Taiwan’s judicial system. We can only assume that his close relationship with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) spared him from the genuine wrath of the KMT legislative caucus.
With intellectual property rights law playing such an important part in relations with the US, for example, it is ironic that the justice minister would object to expert overseas scrutiny of the judiciary on any pertinent case. Yet this is exactly what Wang did, warning Chen’s office that any complaint to the foreign press would discredit the nation.
Meanwhile, one of those legislative committee members, convicted criminal Chiu Yi (邱毅), warned — in all seriousness — that holding such a press conference could result in the judges extending Chen's detention. The ramifications of a person of Chiu’s visibility being able to say things as contemptuous of natural justice as this, and with impunity, are frightening, though few seem to care.
Wang need not be concerned about Chen's office discrediting the judiciary, because in light of the circus involving so-called professionals and officials — not least this relentlessly inept minister — Chen's men simply cannot compete.
延伸閱讀:
告洋狀會出洋相嗎?
Saturday, March 7, 2009
轉載: 看戲的心情(2)
我甚少在公開部落格講個人對經濟的一些看法,原因很簡單, 它不是我的專長. 之前我在不開放的部落格講到一些個人對Obama當選後的感想 (需要密碼,因為是不開放的), 當時(2008年11月八日寫的)我提到我對經濟悲觀的看法, 節錄如下
2. 美國經濟不會好. 不會好的原因有幾個. 第一個,民主黨向來是主張大政府的(特別此次民主黨也在國會佔優勢,總統+國會........我看大政府是跑不掉了). (後略) 第二個原因是, 歐巴馬主張管制經濟與保護主義. 不相信自由貿易,不相信市場機制(其實很諷刺!) 管制經濟的下場是處以凌遲,慢慢死的那種. (後略) 第三個原因是,歐巴馬如果是極端或說傳統的民主黨, 那公司稅一定會加稅. 公司稅增加的結果最後羊毛出在羊身上,倒楣的是員工啦. 美國的公司稅現在已經偏高了(35%),...新加坡一開始獨立給外商7年免稅! 相比之下美國的公司稅已經這麼高了,還加,會好到哪啊? 為什麼加公司稅?(後略)
現在看到這篇史丹佛大學經濟教授的文章, 真是深得我心啊!
------------------
[轉載開始]
前一篇才講到美國貨條款對美國經濟的影響, 現在就有這篇新聞.
Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow A financial crisis is the worst time to change the foundations of American capitalism
By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN
It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.
Martin Kozlowski
The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown.
看到沒,就說民主黨當選增稅的可能性遠大過於減稅. 實在不是我烏鴉嘴啊! 之前也講過要是希拉蕊出線,美國經濟不會這麼慘的原因....
Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.
看吧! 就說民主黨向來主張大政府... ...(有興趣可看這篇英文的報導; 還有這個....後面這個直接提到"The president has not explained to Americans that if they want bigger government, they will have to pay for it")
To be fair, specific parts of the president's budget are admirable and deserve support: increased means-testing in agriculture and medical payments; permanent indexing of the alternative minimum tax and other tax reductions; recognizing the need for further financial rescue and likely losses thereon; and bringing spending into the budget that was previously in supplemental appropriations, such as funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The specific problems, however, far outweigh the positives. First are the quite optimistic forecasts, despite the higher taxes and government micromanagement that will harm the economy. The budget projects a much shallower recession and stronger recovery than private forecasters or the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are projecting. It implies a vast amount of additional spending and higher taxes, above and beyond even these record levels. For example, it calls for a down payment on universal health care, with the additional "resources" needed "TBD" (to be determined).
Mr. Obama has bravely said he will deal with the projected deficits in Medicare and Social Security. While reform of these programs is vital, the president has shown little interest in reining in the growth of real spending per beneficiary, and he has rejected increasing the retirement age. Instead, he's proposed additional taxes on earnings above the current payroll tax cap of $106,800 -- a bad policy that would raise marginal tax rates still further and barely dent the long-run deficit.
Increasing the top tax rates on earnings to 39.6% and on capital gains and dividends to 20% will reduce incentives for our most productive citizens and small businesses to work, save and invest -- with effective rates higher still because of restrictions on itemized deductions and raising the Social Security cap. As every economics student learns, high marginal rates distort economic decisions, the damage from which rises with the square of the rates (doubling the rates quadruples the harm). The president claims he is only hitting 2% of the population, but many more will at some point be in these brackets.
經濟上的鐵律: people respond to incentives. 之前就講過, 違反人性的制度是不會持久的....美國開始走向共產制度了嗎? 好啦,是社會主義, 還沒到共產主義,可以吧?!
As for energy policy, the president's cap-and-trade plan for CO2 would ensnare a vast network of covered sources, opening up countless opportunities for political manipulation, bureaucracy, or worse. It would likely exacerbate volatility in energy prices, as permit prices soar in booms and collapse in busts. The European emissions trading system has been a dismal failure. A direct, transparent carbon tax would be far better.
Moreover, the president's energy proposals radically underestimate the time frame for bringing alternatives plausibly to scale. His own Energy Department estimates we will need a lot more oil and gas in the meantime, necessitating $11 trillion in capital investment to avoid permanently higher prices.
The president proposes a large defense drawdown to pay for exploding nondefense outlays -- similar to those of Presidents Carter and Clinton -- which were widely perceived by both Republicans and Democrats as having gone too far, leaving large holes in our military. We paid a high price for those mistakes and should not repeat them.
The president's proposed limitations on the value of itemized deductions for those in the top tax brackets would clobber itemized charitable contributions, half of which are by those at the top. This change effectively increases the cost to the donor by roughly 20% (to just over 72 cents from 60 cents per dollar donated). Estimates of the responsiveness of giving to after-tax prices range from a bit above to a little below proportionate, so reductions in giving will be large and permanent, even after the recession ends and the financial markets rebound.
A similar effect will exacerbate tax flight from states like California and New York, which rely on steeply progressive income taxes collecting a large fraction of revenue from a small fraction of their residents. This attack on decentralization permeates the budget -- e.g., killing the private fee-for-service Medicare option -- and will curtail the experimentation, innovation and competition that provide a road map to greater effectiveness.
The pervasive government subsidies and mandates -- in health, pharmaceuticals, energy and the like -- will do a poor job of picking winners and losers (ask the Japanese or Europeans) and will be difficult to unwind as recipients lobby for continuation and expansion. Expanding the scale and scope of government largess means that more and more of our best entrepreneurs, managers and workers will spend their time and talent chasing handouts subject to bureaucratic diktats, not the marketplace needs and wants of consumers.
Our competitors have lower corporate tax rates and tax only domestic earnings, yet the budget seeks to restrict deferral of taxes on overseas earnings, arguing it drives jobs overseas. But the academic research (most notably by Mihir Desai, C. Fritz Foley and James Hines Jr.) reveals the opposite: American firms' overseas investments strengthen their domestic operations and employee compensation.
看吧! 就說美國的公司稅已經過高了,之前我就講過馬侃的經濟政策(減公司稅)是比較好的,可惜叫好不叫座. 之前也講過新加坡建國初期如何利用海外投資增強自己的經濟實力...看我沒說錯吧
New and expanded refundable tax credits would raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%. This is potentially the most pernicious feature of the president's budget, because it would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government.
From the poorly designed stimulus bill and vague new financial rescue plan, to the enormous expansion of government spending, taxes and debt somehow permanently strengthening economic growth, the assumptions underlying the president's economic program seem bereft of rigorous analysis and a careful reading of history.
Unfortunately, our history suggests new government programs, however noble the intent, more often wind up delivering less, more slowly, at far higher cost than projected, with potentially damaging unintended consequences. The most recent case, of course, was the government's meddling in the housing market to bring home ownership to low-income families, which became a prime cause of the current economic and financial disaster.
On the growth effects of a large expansion of government, the European social welfare states present a window on our potential future: standards of living permanently 30% lower than ours. Rounding off perceived rough edges of our economic system may well be called for, but a major, perhaps irreversible, step toward a European-style social welfare state with its concomitant long-run economic stagnation is not.
Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.
2. 美國經濟不會好. 不會好的原因有幾個. 第一個,民主黨向來是主張大政府的(特別此次民主黨也在國會佔優勢,總統+國會........我看大政府是跑不掉了). (後略) 第二個原因是, 歐巴馬主張管制經濟與保護主義. 不相信自由貿易,不相信市場機制(其實很諷刺!) 管制經濟的下場是處以凌遲,慢慢死的那種. (後略) 第三個原因是,歐巴馬如果是極端或說傳統的民主黨, 那公司稅一定會加稅. 公司稅增加的結果最後羊毛出在羊身上,倒楣的是員工啦. 美國的公司稅現在已經偏高了(35%),...新加坡一開始獨立給外商7年免稅! 相比之下美國的公司稅已經這麼高了,還加,會好到哪啊? 為什麼加公司稅?(後略)
現在看到這篇史丹佛大學經濟教授的文章, 真是深得我心啊!
------------------
[轉載開始]
前一篇才講到美國貨條款對美國經濟的影響, 現在就有這篇新聞.
Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow A financial crisis is the worst time to change the foundations of American capitalism
By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN
It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.
Martin Kozlowski
The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown.
看到沒,就說民主黨當選增稅的可能性遠大過於減稅. 實在不是我烏鴉嘴啊! 之前也講過要是希拉蕊出線,美國經濟不會這麼慘的原因....
Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.
看吧! 就說民主黨向來主張大政府... ...(有興趣可看這篇英文的報導; 還有這個....後面這個直接提到"The president has not explained to Americans that if they want bigger government, they will have to pay for it")
To be fair, specific parts of the president's budget are admirable and deserve support: increased means-testing in agriculture and medical payments; permanent indexing of the alternative minimum tax and other tax reductions; recognizing the need for further financial rescue and likely losses thereon; and bringing spending into the budget that was previously in supplemental appropriations, such as funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The specific problems, however, far outweigh the positives. First are the quite optimistic forecasts, despite the higher taxes and government micromanagement that will harm the economy. The budget projects a much shallower recession and stronger recovery than private forecasters or the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are projecting. It implies a vast amount of additional spending and higher taxes, above and beyond even these record levels. For example, it calls for a down payment on universal health care, with the additional "resources" needed "TBD" (to be determined).
Mr. Obama has bravely said he will deal with the projected deficits in Medicare and Social Security. While reform of these programs is vital, the president has shown little interest in reining in the growth of real spending per beneficiary, and he has rejected increasing the retirement age. Instead, he's proposed additional taxes on earnings above the current payroll tax cap of $106,800 -- a bad policy that would raise marginal tax rates still further and barely dent the long-run deficit.
Increasing the top tax rates on earnings to 39.6% and on capital gains and dividends to 20% will reduce incentives for our most productive citizens and small businesses to work, save and invest -- with effective rates higher still because of restrictions on itemized deductions and raising the Social Security cap. As every economics student learns, high marginal rates distort economic decisions, the damage from which rises with the square of the rates (doubling the rates quadruples the harm). The president claims he is only hitting 2% of the population, but many more will at some point be in these brackets.
經濟上的鐵律: people respond to incentives. 之前就講過, 違反人性的制度是不會持久的....美國開始走向共產制度了嗎? 好啦,是社會主義, 還沒到共產主義,可以吧?!
As for energy policy, the president's cap-and-trade plan for CO2 would ensnare a vast network of covered sources, opening up countless opportunities for political manipulation, bureaucracy, or worse. It would likely exacerbate volatility in energy prices, as permit prices soar in booms and collapse in busts. The European emissions trading system has been a dismal failure. A direct, transparent carbon tax would be far better.
Moreover, the president's energy proposals radically underestimate the time frame for bringing alternatives plausibly to scale. His own Energy Department estimates we will need a lot more oil and gas in the meantime, necessitating $11 trillion in capital investment to avoid permanently higher prices.
The president proposes a large defense drawdown to pay for exploding nondefense outlays -- similar to those of Presidents Carter and Clinton -- which were widely perceived by both Republicans and Democrats as having gone too far, leaving large holes in our military. We paid a high price for those mistakes and should not repeat them.
The president's proposed limitations on the value of itemized deductions for those in the top tax brackets would clobber itemized charitable contributions, half of which are by those at the top. This change effectively increases the cost to the donor by roughly 20% (to just over 72 cents from 60 cents per dollar donated). Estimates of the responsiveness of giving to after-tax prices range from a bit above to a little below proportionate, so reductions in giving will be large and permanent, even after the recession ends and the financial markets rebound.
A similar effect will exacerbate tax flight from states like California and New York, which rely on steeply progressive income taxes collecting a large fraction of revenue from a small fraction of their residents. This attack on decentralization permeates the budget -- e.g., killing the private fee-for-service Medicare option -- and will curtail the experimentation, innovation and competition that provide a road map to greater effectiveness.
The pervasive government subsidies and mandates -- in health, pharmaceuticals, energy and the like -- will do a poor job of picking winners and losers (ask the Japanese or Europeans) and will be difficult to unwind as recipients lobby for continuation and expansion. Expanding the scale and scope of government largess means that more and more of our best entrepreneurs, managers and workers will spend their time and talent chasing handouts subject to bureaucratic diktats, not the marketplace needs and wants of consumers.
Our competitors have lower corporate tax rates and tax only domestic earnings, yet the budget seeks to restrict deferral of taxes on overseas earnings, arguing it drives jobs overseas. But the academic research (most notably by Mihir Desai, C. Fritz Foley and James Hines Jr.) reveals the opposite: American firms' overseas investments strengthen their domestic operations and employee compensation.
看吧! 就說美國的公司稅已經過高了,之前我就講過馬侃的經濟政策(減公司稅)是比較好的,可惜叫好不叫座. 之前也講過新加坡建國初期如何利用海外投資增強自己的經濟實力...看我沒說錯吧
New and expanded refundable tax credits would raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%. This is potentially the most pernicious feature of the president's budget, because it would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government.
From the poorly designed stimulus bill and vague new financial rescue plan, to the enormous expansion of government spending, taxes and debt somehow permanently strengthening economic growth, the assumptions underlying the president's economic program seem bereft of rigorous analysis and a careful reading of history.
Unfortunately, our history suggests new government programs, however noble the intent, more often wind up delivering less, more slowly, at far higher cost than projected, with potentially damaging unintended consequences. The most recent case, of course, was the government's meddling in the housing market to bring home ownership to low-income families, which became a prime cause of the current economic and financial disaster.
On the growth effects of a large expansion of government, the European social welfare states present a window on our potential future: standards of living permanently 30% lower than ours. Rounding off perceived rough edges of our economic system may well be called for, but a major, perhaps irreversible, step toward a European-style social welfare state with its concomitant long-run economic stagnation is not.
Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.
Friday, March 6, 2009
玉山在哪裡?
看到這個投票我就一肚子火, 什麼叫做玉山位於亞洲(Asia)的中華台北(Chinese Taipei)啊? Chinese Taipei會比台灣有知名度或是更會吸引選票? 拜託! 那請以後發的護照改放 Chinese Taipei好了, 而我要申請 Taiwanese Tainan的護照,可以吧?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)