The edited article was published on Felix, Imperial College Student newsletter.
It seems that i have a lot to improve in term of wording and structuring.
An Analyst of Apple Iphone’s Stand in Current Market
- By Shiang Jin, Chin
Just before the Black Berry service collapse at 10 october, the analyst firm Enterprise Management Associates (EMA) have conducted an extensive research regarding the trend in enterprise mobile device management. The research concluded that more than 30% of blackberry users in large enterprises are expected to move to different platform within a year , due to the lack of user satisfaction. Despite the growing popularity of the device in UK teenager market (due to BlackBerry Messenger which allow users to save a lot for instant messaging), the recent blackberry “black out” will only accelerated the declining of RIM’s market share at enterprise level. The question is whether Apple Iphone and IOS platform, after the death of his founder Steve Jobs, will take over BlackBerry place, or following the Blackberry footsteps in its own key market.
Recent stats from Kantar Worldpanel ComTech’s smartphone OS market share news showed that while Nokia Symbian’s platform and RIM’s market share in major country are being fade out, Apple IOS failed to take the opportunity. Apple IOS only have significant gained in US market share, while their market share in UK, Japan, Germany and France drops drastically. On the contrary, Android operating system outperformed Apple IOS in every market, with Samsung, HTC, Nokia and Motorola as key players competing with Iphone for smartphone market.
On the other hand, apple still maintained its dominance in global mobile application store market, generating $1.8 billion in revenue, which is 82.7% of the total market. A recent user satisfaction survey by J.D. Power and Associates showed that Apple topped the other smartphone manufacturer with 838 point, topping every key area like performance, ease of operation, features and physical design. As the Kantar report suggested, Apple and Android’s user are quite loyal when choosing upgrade, due to the amount they already invest in mobile application. Hence, Apple might be losing ground in attracting new customers, especially when their latest product is just an upgraded version of Iphone 4s instead of a much anticipated Iphone 5. However, Apple’s hold on their original customers is quite firmed, which guarantee a constant stream of revenue for near future.
As more companies coming out with smartphone devices with similar and matching functionality to Apple’s Iphone, what is differentiating Iphone from the rest will be the operating system (OS) that it used. In that case, Apple’s weakness is actually what contributes to their strength. They have a highly rigid combination of operating system (IOS) and devices (Iphone), complement by the app store which required approval from Apple to sell the application. Hence, while new customers might be pushing away for lack of variability of product, little integration with the Window’s operating PC, and expensive application compare to android , Apple still managed to rake a high profit margin from their products. According to Horace Dediu from asymco , apple shipped only 5.6% of the mobile phone unit in second quarter 2011, but their share on Global Mobile market profit was about two third (66.3%).
While Android OS is more popular than IOS, the application developers are more satisfied with Apple market’s ecosystem. A recent survey from US Yankee group and Skyhook shows that developers were dissatisfied with the lack of regulation in Android application market, as piracy is eating away their profit. Another survey from research firm IDC and mobile software company Appcelertor showed that developers are shying away from Android as they viewed the platform still too fragmented, and they can gain more profit in Apple market place . Statistic from Furry confirmed the view, in which out of 10200 application project developed in second quarter, 2011, 72% were for Apple IOS while only 28% were for Android, this means more good apps will stay and developed in IOS platform.
Hence, the ultimate fate of Iphone and IOS might depends on the outcome of the tug of war between the developers and the consumers, whether the consumers will be attracted by the good application make by developers, or the developers forced to follow the consumer choice. The news so far isn’t good for Apples, as latest estimates from Ovum, an telecom analyst group projected that Android Applications will outsell Apple Apps this year . As history always showed, bad money drives out good money, Android OS with its openness and vast popularity will eventually dominated Apple IOS in every aspect, the only question is when. It took 6 years for Window-Intel Pc to overthrow Apple’s Macintosh machine. As current customers and developers satisfaction still high, it will take years for Android-HTC/Samsung/LG/Motorola/Nokia to defeat Apple in amount of profit make.
Reference:
http://mobileenterprise.edgl.com/news/Analyst--RIM-Losing-Market-Share-Faster-Than-Expected76379
http://www.emausa.com/research/asset.php/2101/Enterprise-Mobile-Device-Management:-How-Smartphones-and-Tablets-are-Changing-Workforce-IT-Requirements
http://www.mobileindustryreview.com/2011/07/apple-iphone-uk-market-share-halves-to-18-3.html
http://www.directv666.com/?p=395
http://mashable.com/2011/09/09/apple-customer-satisfaction-survey/
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/11/apple-users-buying-61-more-apps-paying-14-more-per-app/
http://www.mobilemarketingwatch.com/fiksu-android-users-2x-more-likely-than-ios-users-to-open-an-app-ten-times-or-more-19052/
http://www.asymco.com/2011/07/29/apple-captured-two-thirds-of-available-mobile-phone-profits-in-q2/
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/app-piracy-is-hurting-android-developers-bottom-lines-2011-09-08
http://www.businessinsider.com/developer-interest-in-android-and-apple-2011-4#ixzz1bpAgkPYy
http://www.androidauthority.com/android-apps-outselling-apple-apps-24227/
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
100 articles on Economic- (3): On Uk latest round of Quantitative Easing
Quantitative Easing Two – How will it works? And Why the BoE doing it?
By Shiang Jin, Chin
Part of the article published on Felix , the imperial college student newsletter
When I read the book “Money Mischief – episodes in monetary history” by Milton Friedman borrowed from Imperial college central library, I was puzzled by the hypothesis story of money dropping out from Helicopter.
The story goes like this:
Suppose, there is a hypothetical community where the average annual income is ￡20,000 per person, and people like to keep a cash balance equal to 5.2 weeks of consumptions, which is about ￡2000.
At one day, a helicopter flies over one hypothetical community and drops additional printed paper of money equal to the amount already in circulation – say, ￡2000 per person, and people believe that the event is unique and will never happened again.
Now, what will the people do? Clearly, nothing have changed that made if more desirable to hold more cash balance than before, hence, people will like to increase their consumption and reducing cash balances until it is back to former level.
However, as the income of the people remains the same, he/she will eventually spend more than he/she receives.
But one person’s expenditure is another person receipt. The community cannot spend more than what they originally receipt, unless, they bid up the price of goods and services. At the end, the nominal income will be doubling the original income, while the number of real goods and services effectively remain the same.
Hence, Friedman concluded that “the usefulness of the money to the community as a whole does not depend on how much money there is, doubling or halving the number of dollars simply means that the numbers written on price tags are doubled or halved.”
If central bank can stimulate real growth simply by printing out more money, they will have already done so long time ago. The recent Bank of England (BoE) research report affirmed Friedman theory. While Quantitative Easing of ￡200bn may have an initial macroeconomic impact of 1.5% to 2% , it was quickly followed by the increase in CPI ( consumer price index, key index for inflation) about 1.5%, as shown in the graph below. Inflation may help reduced unemployment according to Keynesian doctrine, but it will not benefit the underlying economic at the long term.
Figure 1: the qualitative impact of QE, Source : Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 2011 Q3
Hence, one would wonder why the Bank of England, fully aware of the benefits and danger of Quantitative easing program, still pressed ahead a new round of QE by creating £75 bn of “money” electronically to buy gilt (Uk government bond). My guesstimate for the reason behind Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee’s decision is that, despite lack of immediate threats that needed to use such desperate measure, approving this round of quantitative easing, was a logical , but not certainly right thing to do.
First, the negative effect of QE (inflation) appeared to be smaller than what we have feared. Although the BoE had injected capital equivalent of 14% of GDP into the economy, the inflation accounted by the QE so far, was 1.5% max, which is small compare with the money injected. Besides, since the broad money aggregate M4, reached its peaked at January 2010, the growth of broad money (M4) had been stagnant, and even declined since then. This suggested that given the velocity of circulation for Money unchanged, we will soon facing the deflationary pressure instead of an inflationary one. Hence, the inflation effect of second round of QE (QE2) will be small and offset by the deflationary pressure that we now facing.
Second, whether originally intended or not, QE2 will buy more time for the coalition government, for George Osborne fiscal consolidation plan and austerity measure to work. As the coalition government is freezing spending, cutting civil servant jobs, and reducing social welfare payments, UK economy, measured by gross domestic product figure (GDP), had grown slower than expected. This will hurt the growth of tax revenue, and delaying George Osborne timetable for deficit reduction. QE2 can help in 2 ways, on one hand it can create a positive impact on GDP growth in short time horizon, on the other hand it can inflate the economy, thus reducing the cost of any tax reduction the coalition government implement before ( such as the income tax allowance, if inflation caused the wages and price rise in nominal term, the actual income tax allowance that the workers get in real term will be smaller in real term). Besides, by lowering the yield on 10 year government bond through QE2, the BoE managed to reduce the borrowing cost for the coalition government, when interest payment for government debt already accounted for 7% of the budget expenditure.
Thirdly, QE simply distribute the price that we have to pay for the pass mistake we made regarding the UK economy. We decided to have a national insurance program that has funding deficit problem, we decided to have a trident weapon program, best of the thing that we would buy like we shopping in Harrods , when both the military strength and nuclear warfare threat is declining. We committed ourselves into war in Iraq and Afghanistan, when the royalists paramilitary group from Ireland had committed more terrorist acts to UK than Al-Qaeda and Taliban. We decided that finance sector is the future of the city and nation, hence adopting policy that gradually results in the declined of UK manufacturing sector. We voted that everybody should have right to access food, shelter, minimum expense for living, that we created a social welfare system to taxed the working class in order to feed those lazy to work. We are too optimistic that boom time will never end, house price will never fall, until we failed to fixed the budget and save for future during good year.
Hence, unless we want to shed more public sector jobs, significantly reduce the funding for school and hospital, or cutting off the support for those relied on public pension scheme and social benefits, everybody have to share the burden. Therefore, the BoE is simply making the decision for us. Unfortunately, middle-income class is always suffered worst when austerity measure or inflation is happening. The best advice is, think for the cost before we vote, cause we will need to pay for it at the end, one way or another.
Reference Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 2011 Q3
Bank of England website
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/
HM Treasury spending review 2010
Friedman, Milton. Money mischief: episodes in monetary history. 1. ed. Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1992. Print.
By Shiang Jin, Chin
Part of the article published on Felix , the imperial college student newsletter
When I read the book “Money Mischief – episodes in monetary history” by Milton Friedman borrowed from Imperial college central library, I was puzzled by the hypothesis story of money dropping out from Helicopter.
The story goes like this:
Suppose, there is a hypothetical community where the average annual income is ￡20,000 per person, and people like to keep a cash balance equal to 5.2 weeks of consumptions, which is about ￡2000.
At one day, a helicopter flies over one hypothetical community and drops additional printed paper of money equal to the amount already in circulation – say, ￡2000 per person, and people believe that the event is unique and will never happened again.
Now, what will the people do? Clearly, nothing have changed that made if more desirable to hold more cash balance than before, hence, people will like to increase their consumption and reducing cash balances until it is back to former level.
However, as the income of the people remains the same, he/she will eventually spend more than he/she receives.
But one person’s expenditure is another person receipt. The community cannot spend more than what they originally receipt, unless, they bid up the price of goods and services. At the end, the nominal income will be doubling the original income, while the number of real goods and services effectively remain the same.
Hence, Friedman concluded that “the usefulness of the money to the community as a whole does not depend on how much money there is, doubling or halving the number of dollars simply means that the numbers written on price tags are doubled or halved.”
If central bank can stimulate real growth simply by printing out more money, they will have already done so long time ago. The recent Bank of England (BoE) research report affirmed Friedman theory. While Quantitative Easing of ￡200bn may have an initial macroeconomic impact of 1.5% to 2% , it was quickly followed by the increase in CPI ( consumer price index, key index for inflation) about 1.5%, as shown in the graph below. Inflation may help reduced unemployment according to Keynesian doctrine, but it will not benefit the underlying economic at the long term.
Figure 1: the qualitative impact of QE, Source : Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 2011 Q3
Hence, one would wonder why the Bank of England, fully aware of the benefits and danger of Quantitative easing program, still pressed ahead a new round of QE by creating £75 bn of “money” electronically to buy gilt (Uk government bond). My guesstimate for the reason behind Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee’s decision is that, despite lack of immediate threats that needed to use such desperate measure, approving this round of quantitative easing, was a logical , but not certainly right thing to do.
First, the negative effect of QE (inflation) appeared to be smaller than what we have feared. Although the BoE had injected capital equivalent of 14% of GDP into the economy, the inflation accounted by the QE so far, was 1.5% max, which is small compare with the money injected. Besides, since the broad money aggregate M4, reached its peaked at January 2010, the growth of broad money (M4) had been stagnant, and even declined since then. This suggested that given the velocity of circulation for Money unchanged, we will soon facing the deflationary pressure instead of an inflationary one. Hence, the inflation effect of second round of QE (QE2) will be small and offset by the deflationary pressure that we now facing.
Second, whether originally intended or not, QE2 will buy more time for the coalition government, for George Osborne fiscal consolidation plan and austerity measure to work. As the coalition government is freezing spending, cutting civil servant jobs, and reducing social welfare payments, UK economy, measured by gross domestic product figure (GDP), had grown slower than expected. This will hurt the growth of tax revenue, and delaying George Osborne timetable for deficit reduction. QE2 can help in 2 ways, on one hand it can create a positive impact on GDP growth in short time horizon, on the other hand it can inflate the economy, thus reducing the cost of any tax reduction the coalition government implement before ( such as the income tax allowance, if inflation caused the wages and price rise in nominal term, the actual income tax allowance that the workers get in real term will be smaller in real term). Besides, by lowering the yield on 10 year government bond through QE2, the BoE managed to reduce the borrowing cost for the coalition government, when interest payment for government debt already accounted for 7% of the budget expenditure.
Thirdly, QE simply distribute the price that we have to pay for the pass mistake we made regarding the UK economy. We decided to have a national insurance program that has funding deficit problem, we decided to have a trident weapon program, best of the thing that we would buy like we shopping in Harrods , when both the military strength and nuclear warfare threat is declining. We committed ourselves into war in Iraq and Afghanistan, when the royalists paramilitary group from Ireland had committed more terrorist acts to UK than Al-Qaeda and Taliban. We decided that finance sector is the future of the city and nation, hence adopting policy that gradually results in the declined of UK manufacturing sector. We voted that everybody should have right to access food, shelter, minimum expense for living, that we created a social welfare system to taxed the working class in order to feed those lazy to work. We are too optimistic that boom time will never end, house price will never fall, until we failed to fixed the budget and save for future during good year.
Hence, unless we want to shed more public sector jobs, significantly reduce the funding for school and hospital, or cutting off the support for those relied on public pension scheme and social benefits, everybody have to share the burden. Therefore, the BoE is simply making the decision for us. Unfortunately, middle-income class is always suffered worst when austerity measure or inflation is happening. The best advice is, think for the cost before we vote, cause we will need to pay for it at the end, one way or another.
Reference Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 2011 Q3
Bank of England website
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/
HM Treasury spending review 2010
Friedman, Milton. Money mischief: episodes in monetary history. 1. ed. Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1992. Print.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
介绍米尔顿·弗里德曼其书之引文
考虑以下两个情况。
有个富人， 本身就是个花钱的大款。 出门坐头等舱， 吃饭必选米其林三星餐厅， 兴趣是收集豪车， 买礼物给女友必选LV, GUCCI， 衣服必须是 Armani , 电子产品必须是 Iphone, Ipad, I mac 系列最好品牌， 等等等等。。。。。。
另一个富人， 生性节俭。 出门只坐经济舱， 吃饭只选路边摊， 座驾十年不变。衣服是从夜市场， 百货公司拣的， 电子产品是 老牌 Nokia 3300 , mp3 之类。 但是， 他每年捐了一大笔钱给慈善机构。
前者， 我们称之为奢侈， 严重点叫炫富。
后者， 我们称之为节俭的慈善家。
但是， 我们先想想， 就经济效益而言， 这两者有区别吗？
奢侈富人的每个活动， 都是在创造经济效益。
坐头等舱， 赚的是航空公司， 空服人员， 卖票的中介。
吃米其林， 餐厅老板， 大厨， 服务员都受益
豪车， LV , Armani, Iphone, 都有各自的 店员， 老板， 中介。
而这时 老板， 店员， 中介， 转过头来， 能用花来的钱消费。 更多的中介， 店员， 老板会因此而受惠。 而这些一个个的中介， 店员， 老板， 就是我们社会的普罗大众。
只不过， 这种方式， 不如节俭老板直接捐钱 ， 来得直接。
__________________________________________
也许你会说， 因为富人买的都是国外的商品， 所以在购买过程中， 等于财富流向国外。
在这样指责前， 有必要先想清楚， 财富的概念是什么？
财富（实体为钞票）， 是购买东西的能力， 这个能力如果不使用， 和废纸无疑。
对一个国家来说， 出口是它挣取财富（美钞）的成本。 进口是它用财富购买 到的东西。
所以一个国家如果只出口， 不进口。 只劳动， 不享受， 这和政府花钱雇人在路上挖洞无疑， 徒劳无功。
一个国家累积太多外汇（美钞）， 其货币必然要升值。 如果货币不按市场要求升值， 只会发生以下事情。
1． 手中的美钞， 必然会贬值。 未来的损失更大。
2． 国内货币供应大于商品供应， 通货膨胀， 老百姓手中货币会贬值。
3． 国际贸易失衡， 一旦遭遇金融危机， 出口为导向的经济会遭遇重挫。
避免上述问题的唯一方法是多消费， 多用美钞买外国货。
所以， 奢侈富人购买昂贵舶来品的过程， 其实是帮了国家的大忙。
____________________________________________________
同样能创造经济效益， 奢侈富人和节俭慈善富人的行为， 还有两点不同。
1． 奢侈富人创造的经济效益纳税， 节俭慈善富人创造的经济效益不纳税。
姑且不论 政府是否廉洁有效的问题， 在政府开支一定的情况下，
富人纳税越多， 分摊到 穷人身上的纳税负担就越少。
有能力者 纳税越多， 政府越能免除没能力者的纳税责任。
2． 奢侈富人创造的经济效益强调 等价交换。 鼓励人们用劳力/智力/任何有生产价值的东西， 去赚取属于自己的报酬。
节俭慈善富人的捐款， 重点在于单方面的给与和付出。 长此以往， 本来值得感激零涕的善心， 会被视为理所当然。
一旦这个善心因为被视为理所当然而制度化， 人们就会从 劳有所得的心理 转向 按需分配的心理。
这产生的社会制度， 是很危险的。
上面谈的， 就是集体主义者 和 个人主义者的区别。
也就是， 我下次要介绍的。米尔顿·弗里德曼 （milton friedman）（不是那个写世界是平的 的托马斯. 弗里德曼( Thomas Friedman) ） 的主要思想。
有个富人， 本身就是个花钱的大款。 出门坐头等舱， 吃饭必选米其林三星餐厅， 兴趣是收集豪车， 买礼物给女友必选LV, GUCCI， 衣服必须是 Armani , 电子产品必须是 Iphone, Ipad, I mac 系列最好品牌， 等等等等。。。。。。
另一个富人， 生性节俭。 出门只坐经济舱， 吃饭只选路边摊， 座驾十年不变。衣服是从夜市场， 百货公司拣的， 电子产品是 老牌 Nokia 3300 , mp3 之类。 但是， 他每年捐了一大笔钱给慈善机构。
前者， 我们称之为奢侈， 严重点叫炫富。
后者， 我们称之为节俭的慈善家。
但是， 我们先想想， 就经济效益而言， 这两者有区别吗？
奢侈富人的每个活动， 都是在创造经济效益。
坐头等舱， 赚的是航空公司， 空服人员， 卖票的中介。
吃米其林， 餐厅老板， 大厨， 服务员都受益
豪车， LV , Armani, Iphone, 都有各自的 店员， 老板， 中介。
而这时 老板， 店员， 中介， 转过头来， 能用花来的钱消费。 更多的中介， 店员， 老板会因此而受惠。 而这些一个个的中介， 店员， 老板， 就是我们社会的普罗大众。
只不过， 这种方式， 不如节俭老板直接捐钱 ， 来得直接。
__________________________________________
也许你会说， 因为富人买的都是国外的商品， 所以在购买过程中， 等于财富流向国外。
在这样指责前， 有必要先想清楚， 财富的概念是什么？
财富（实体为钞票）， 是购买东西的能力， 这个能力如果不使用， 和废纸无疑。
对一个国家来说， 出口是它挣取财富（美钞）的成本。 进口是它用财富购买 到的东西。
所以一个国家如果只出口， 不进口。 只劳动， 不享受， 这和政府花钱雇人在路上挖洞无疑， 徒劳无功。
一个国家累积太多外汇（美钞）， 其货币必然要升值。 如果货币不按市场要求升值， 只会发生以下事情。
1． 手中的美钞， 必然会贬值。 未来的损失更大。
2． 国内货币供应大于商品供应， 通货膨胀， 老百姓手中货币会贬值。
3． 国际贸易失衡， 一旦遭遇金融危机， 出口为导向的经济会遭遇重挫。
避免上述问题的唯一方法是多消费， 多用美钞买外国货。
所以， 奢侈富人购买昂贵舶来品的过程， 其实是帮了国家的大忙。
____________________________________________________
同样能创造经济效益， 奢侈富人和节俭慈善富人的行为， 还有两点不同。
1． 奢侈富人创造的经济效益纳税， 节俭慈善富人创造的经济效益不纳税。
姑且不论 政府是否廉洁有效的问题， 在政府开支一定的情况下，
富人纳税越多， 分摊到 穷人身上的纳税负担就越少。
有能力者 纳税越多， 政府越能免除没能力者的纳税责任。
2． 奢侈富人创造的经济效益强调 等价交换。 鼓励人们用劳力/智力/任何有生产价值的东西， 去赚取属于自己的报酬。
节俭慈善富人的捐款， 重点在于单方面的给与和付出。 长此以往， 本来值得感激零涕的善心， 会被视为理所当然。
一旦这个善心因为被视为理所当然而制度化， 人们就会从 劳有所得的心理 转向 按需分配的心理。
这产生的社会制度， 是很危险的。
上面谈的， 就是集体主义者 和 个人主义者的区别。
也就是， 我下次要介绍的。米尔顿·弗里德曼 （milton friedman）（不是那个写世界是平的 的托马斯. 弗里德曼( Thomas Friedman) ） 的主要思想。
米尔顿·弗里德曼 《天下没有免费的午餐》书介绍 上
米尔顿·弗里德曼(Milton Friedman) 是个不折不扣的自由主义者。
他生命中的一半， 奉献给了经济学， 奉献给了 货币供应理论及历史， 以及政府或央行在经济动荡时的稳定政策的影响，
他生命中的另一半， 则奉献给对政府政策的批评， 为自由主义进行的斗争， 以及， 尽个人之力阻止美国往大政府的方向前进， 最后一项， 在六七十年代西方掀起的福利主义浪潮中， 殊为不易。
但弗里德曼是幸运的，
一，他健康长寿， 足够时间见证美国， 见证世界资本主义的发展， 波折， 重起。
二， 他有个知心且长培在旁的好妻子， 罗丝·弗里德曼( Rose Friedman )。
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/米爾頓·佛利民
_____________________________________________________________________________________
人类社会在发展过程中， 随着工业化的进程， 生产效率的提高， 教育的普及， 文明的进步， 开始面临一个非常大的难题。
首先， 不管人类再怎么有文化， 他身上依旧残留着动物的本性， 是动物， 就会自私。
但随着人类的开化， 开始有了社会的观念后， 他有了， 怜悯之心。 有怜悯之心， 就自然会想要帮助， 社会上的老弱残幼， 贫贱困苦的其余人。
因此， 只要能力所及，在满足个人私欲后， 人们都会尽力帮忙周遭不幸的人群。 古时中国在天灾时捐款救济的乡绅富豪， 中世纪文艺复兴时期的教会， 到19世纪资本主义突飞猛进时的大富豪变身大慈善家， 莫过于如此。
但是，
1929年到1933年间的在西方国家发生的大萧条， 宣布了资本主义的失灵，
经济的衰退， 很多人失去工作的同时， 社会也丧失了对穷人的救济能力。
于是， 1933年罗斯富上台后， 推行了新政， 提出免于贫瘠， 免于饥饿的自由。
另一边厢，以打倒资本主义阶级为己任， 以实现社会分配为目标的共产主义上台，
其他欧洲国家， 即使没有被共产化， 也全面左倾， 变成社会主义福利国家。
刚开始时， 一切看起来是那么美好。 二战后， 欧美经济飞速增长， 人们生活得到极高改善， 工人的劳动时间缩短， 平均时薪却提高了， 社会上的老弱残幼有政府专门照顾， 甚至， 六零年代民权运动后， 少数民族的权益也获得极大改善， 社会， 看起来变得更加公平。
只是， 一如弗里德曼（milton friedman)的书名一样， “世上没有免费的午餐”
____________________________________________________________________________
福利国家运作良好的假设是，
一， 每个人都有对社会的责任感， 奉献者有怜悯之心， 会不计较报酬的付出， 获取者有羞耻感， 不会索取多于短暂救济所需。
二， 负责抽取和分配的中介（政府） 非常廉洁且高效率。
但是，
当慈善变成制度，救济变成权利，自愿捐助变成强迫纳税， 而且采用累进税率， 奉献者和获取者的连接给制度， 政府切断时， 人们的自利之心， 就会逐渐大于它的社会责任感。
特别是， 当获得社会福利救济的人们， 感谢的， 是政府， 是伟大的领导， 而不是那些努力工作创业， 尽其所能纳税的人时，
特别是， 所有富人都被套上财富的原罪， 赚取越多， 反而付出的比例更大时， 别指望， 这个制度不会崩溃。
于是， 因为感谢的对象， 是给人强大印象， 是要对选民负责的政府， 人们会开始贪得无厌， 即使本身不是好吃懒做， 在看到周遭的人即使不工作， 收入依然比自己高， 生活比自己更轻松时，每个人都会开始放弃自己的工作， 开始领社会救济。
于是， 因为政府很强大， 自己不纳税， 也有别人纳税的侥幸心理， 以及为了平衡被冠上 财富原罪的 社会道德谴责， 富人会开始想办法逃税。 即使自己不是奸诈狡猾之徒， 看到政府财政收入不断增长， 自己的生活因为过度征税没有改善， 反而街上一群人嚷嚷着 富人是社会资源的劣夺者， 多数人投票通过对富人增税的法案时， 每个人不能移民， 都会开始逃税。
福利制度影响最大的本来只是穷人和富余阶层。 但在领取社会救济的人越来越多， 富人却开始逃税的情况下， 税负的重担， 势必会落在中产阶级身上， 直到，把他们压垮。
于是，我们看到， 七十年代， 欧美福利国家纷纷破产， 自那以后， 西方社会呈现两级化， 中产阶级逐渐消失。
在马来西亚， 中产阶级还能天天上馆子， 即使进口税抬高车价，仍能负担起一车一房， 仍能在放假时去旅游兜风，
但在英国， 中产阶级， 变成每天逛 Sainsbury ( 廉价超市）， Primark ( 廉价衣服）的人。
于是， 弗里德曼提出了一个问题，
给定人类都是自私的，给定世界上没有免费的午餐， 政府应该实行什么样的政策，才能兼顾效率和公平， 实现社会和谐？ 或者， 那些政策是可行的， 那些政策注定失败， 投入远大于产出？
他生命中的一半， 奉献给了经济学， 奉献给了 货币供应理论及历史， 以及政府或央行在经济动荡时的稳定政策的影响，
他生命中的另一半， 则奉献给对政府政策的批评， 为自由主义进行的斗争， 以及， 尽个人之力阻止美国往大政府的方向前进， 最后一项， 在六七十年代西方掀起的福利主义浪潮中， 殊为不易。
但弗里德曼是幸运的，
一，他健康长寿， 足够时间见证美国， 见证世界资本主义的发展， 波折， 重起。
二， 他有个知心且长培在旁的好妻子， 罗丝·弗里德曼( Rose Friedman )。
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/米爾頓·佛利民
_____________________________________________________________________________________
人类社会在发展过程中， 随着工业化的进程， 生产效率的提高， 教育的普及， 文明的进步， 开始面临一个非常大的难题。
首先， 不管人类再怎么有文化， 他身上依旧残留着动物的本性， 是动物， 就会自私。
但随着人类的开化， 开始有了社会的观念后， 他有了， 怜悯之心。 有怜悯之心， 就自然会想要帮助， 社会上的老弱残幼， 贫贱困苦的其余人。
因此， 只要能力所及，在满足个人私欲后， 人们都会尽力帮忙周遭不幸的人群。 古时中国在天灾时捐款救济的乡绅富豪， 中世纪文艺复兴时期的教会， 到19世纪资本主义突飞猛进时的大富豪变身大慈善家， 莫过于如此。
但是，
1929年到1933年间的在西方国家发生的大萧条， 宣布了资本主义的失灵，
经济的衰退， 很多人失去工作的同时， 社会也丧失了对穷人的救济能力。
于是， 1933年罗斯富上台后， 推行了新政， 提出免于贫瘠， 免于饥饿的自由。
另一边厢，以打倒资本主义阶级为己任， 以实现社会分配为目标的共产主义上台，
其他欧洲国家， 即使没有被共产化， 也全面左倾， 变成社会主义福利国家。
刚开始时， 一切看起来是那么美好。 二战后， 欧美经济飞速增长， 人们生活得到极高改善， 工人的劳动时间缩短， 平均时薪却提高了， 社会上的老弱残幼有政府专门照顾， 甚至， 六零年代民权运动后， 少数民族的权益也获得极大改善， 社会， 看起来变得更加公平。
只是， 一如弗里德曼（milton friedman)的书名一样， “世上没有免费的午餐”
____________________________________________________________________________
福利国家运作良好的假设是，
一， 每个人都有对社会的责任感， 奉献者有怜悯之心， 会不计较报酬的付出， 获取者有羞耻感， 不会索取多于短暂救济所需。
二， 负责抽取和分配的中介（政府） 非常廉洁且高效率。
但是，
当慈善变成制度，救济变成权利，自愿捐助变成强迫纳税， 而且采用累进税率， 奉献者和获取者的连接给制度， 政府切断时， 人们的自利之心， 就会逐渐大于它的社会责任感。
特别是， 当获得社会福利救济的人们， 感谢的， 是政府， 是伟大的领导， 而不是那些努力工作创业， 尽其所能纳税的人时，
特别是， 所有富人都被套上财富的原罪， 赚取越多， 反而付出的比例更大时， 别指望， 这个制度不会崩溃。
于是， 因为感谢的对象， 是给人强大印象， 是要对选民负责的政府， 人们会开始贪得无厌， 即使本身不是好吃懒做， 在看到周遭的人即使不工作， 收入依然比自己高， 生活比自己更轻松时，每个人都会开始放弃自己的工作， 开始领社会救济。
于是， 因为政府很强大， 自己不纳税， 也有别人纳税的侥幸心理， 以及为了平衡被冠上 财富原罪的 社会道德谴责， 富人会开始想办法逃税。 即使自己不是奸诈狡猾之徒， 看到政府财政收入不断增长， 自己的生活因为过度征税没有改善， 反而街上一群人嚷嚷着 富人是社会资源的劣夺者， 多数人投票通过对富人增税的法案时， 每个人不能移民， 都会开始逃税。
福利制度影响最大的本来只是穷人和富余阶层。 但在领取社会救济的人越来越多， 富人却开始逃税的情况下， 税负的重担， 势必会落在中产阶级身上， 直到，把他们压垮。
于是，我们看到， 七十年代， 欧美福利国家纷纷破产， 自那以后， 西方社会呈现两级化， 中产阶级逐渐消失。
在马来西亚， 中产阶级还能天天上馆子， 即使进口税抬高车价，仍能负担起一车一房， 仍能在放假时去旅游兜风，
但在英国， 中产阶级， 变成每天逛 Sainsbury ( 廉价超市）， Primark ( 廉价衣服）的人。
于是， 弗里德曼提出了一个问题，
给定人类都是自私的，给定世界上没有免费的午餐， 政府应该实行什么样的政策，才能兼顾效率和公平， 实现社会和谐？ 或者， 那些政策是可行的， 那些政策注定失败， 投入远大于产出？
Saturday, September 10, 2011
100 articles on Economic- (2): Should George Osborne stick to his austerity plan?
When a saver deposit ￡100 in bank x, the money will not sit still in the bank. Instead, the bank will try to lend some of money, where amount only limited by the capital reserve requirement set by the central bank. If the bank decided to lend the 90% of the money to company A, company A will eventually deposit a fraction ( let say 90%) of the money into bank y, bank y will then try to lend 90% of the money to company B.
At the end, a ￡100 primary deposit will end up in total of ￡100 + ￡90 + ￡72.9 = ￡262.9 in the economy. This is how the economy expands in financial term.
What happened during financial crisis was, when the primary depositor trying to call back ￡50 of the money he deposited, bank x have to recall ￡45 of the money it lend.As company A withdraw deposit to pay back loan, bank y have to recall the loan it made with the same portion to the deposit withdraw by company A.
Hence, an initial withdrawal of ￡50 will reduced the amount of money available in the economy by ￡45 + ￡22.5 = ￡67.5 . (provided company A decided to hold same amount of cash)
However, during the financial meltdown, the bank tends to horde more cash reserve by recalling more loan. Company A will forced to liquidate some of its assets if the amount recalled by bank is more than the amount of liquidity company A have. The fire sell of assets ( such as house price or equities) will drive down the values , forcing more company to go into negative balance and hence had to withdraw more deposit to maintain liquidity. This vicious spiraling cycle is precisely what happened during global financial meltdown of 2008.
Even if somehow, the primary depositor feel safe to keep their money in their bank (because of deposit insurance), and the central bank is pumping more ￡100 into commercial bank, the multiplication effect of the money is determined by the willingness of the bank to lend, and the willingness of the company to borrow. If the bank is unwilling to make riskier loan to avoid worsening their own balance sheets, and creditworthy companies decided to borrow less amid by economy uncertainty, the bank might end up loaning less fraction of the money, creating less money in the economy. This is precisely what happening now when UK facing the potential threat of double dip recession.
The key here is restoring the confidence of the market, by restoring economic growth through increasing government spending throught keeping large budget deficit. Ie, when the government acted as the borrower of the last resort, absorbing the cash reserve save by the bank, to recycle the money back in the economy. However, as I will try to show, this action came with huge costs of inefficiency and increasing government debt.
If the government decided to pay off a public servant( or funding a project that hired worker) about ￡100, the immediate tax revenue that the government can generated back, is 20% ( including income tax and National insurance contribution).
Out of the ￡80 that the worker receive, some will be paid to local council, some will pay back to government when they spent on tobacco and fuel, some will be save by them/ or used to pay loan to finance purchased of house, some will pay as rent. Only a fraction of it(lets say 50%, will be spent on goods that incurred VAT.)
Hence, the government only receive about ￡30 of each ￡100 spent immediately. ( including income tax, NI, VAT and tax on income gained from financial assets
). Out of the ￡70 , only ￡40 will be recirculate at the economy for further taxation. An amount of ￡30 will be untaxable.
The idea is that if you put the total money in recirculation as a sum of infinite GP series, with r as the fraction of money recirculate, t is the tax rate. And imposing the condition, r+t <= 1 ( the sum of income taxed and income spent to be recirculate in economy could not be greater than 1) .
The total tax return that a government can get from what it spend is t*(￡100/1-r), which could only equal to ￡100 if r+ t = 100. ( extremely unlikely as people will save some of the money, or spent it on way that is taxed at lower rate/non taxable such as rent and interest on mortgage payment.)
Hence, the conclusion, the government can never taxed the money back from its own spending. It will have to eventually financed it by borrowing ( or deficit ). You can never grow an economy in sustainable path simply rely on government spending. The only benefits of increasing gov spending and keeping budget deficit, is to create a false hope/confidence/demand that stimulate the economy, so that the economy can start its own hope/confidence/demand that will be sustainable.
Furthermore, the only two reason developing can keep budget deficit without much trouble, is by selling government bond to foreign investor as a way to attract foreign capital into local economy, and glowing themselves out of debt burden. ( As long as GDP growth rate is higher than debt accumulation rate, a debt to GDP ratio of 100% with total debt growth at 5% per year, will down to debt to GDP ratio of 63% in 10 year as long as the GDP growth rate is 10% a year).
The reason that the developing country can growth out of their debt burden, are they have faster population growth and pyramid demographic structure which have growth in total demand, combined with untapped efficiency potential in current productivity practiced, coupled with the catch up effect due to the lack of their economy compared with the developed one.
However, developed countries won’t have these three growing factors, thus if their debt burden growing too fast, they will not be able to grow themselves out of the debt burden. The only reason, that the US, and UK are keeping large government deficit, is to prevent the economy from collapsing.
Hence, cutting spending might reduced tax revenue generated from the spending alone, but the overall effect will improve the government balance sheet. Increasing taxation will reduced disposable income in the economy, but depending on which tax is increased, the increased should have zero to positive impact on government balance sheet. The only costs of doing it, is by reducing the size of the government in economy, it will produce a false fear/lost in confidence/collapse in demand that might initiated a real one in the underlying economy.
The need to improve government balance sheet, stems from the costs bear by rising government debt burden. First, it competes with private sector for the same source of capital, driving up interest rate unless the central bank decided to finance it by printing more money (or quantitative easing ) . However, when central bank started printing money to finance government deficit, inflation started. Second, when government debt burden is too high, private sector will deemed the government to be insolvent and start demanding higher interest rate, which worsening the government balance sheet due to increasing interest payment for debt. Thus, forcing the government debt burden into unsustainable path that the government will be forced to default (Like what happening in Greece now).
The default could be less painful, if the debt is denominated in local currency brought by foreign investor, the government can simply deflated its currency( like the USA). However, whether the burden can be reduced or not, a sovereign default will have a devastating effect on the economy, which initiates recession for several years.
As mentioned before, given the UK economy can never grow rigorously like the developing country again ( at least not without a big recession), the danger of sovereign default, far exceed the danger of potential double dip recession caused by government austerity measures. The key is , you can’t avoid the pain after the labour badly managed the public finance during the boom year, the only thing you can do is making it less painful at a time, avoiding extra pain induced.
Hence, Ms largade would be right to comment that UK fiscal consolidation plan was appropriate,
. The Welsh economist would be wrong to urge the government stop austerity plan now, when using the “if …” clause of Ms Largade,
Martin Wolf article on FT argued that the market is begging the government to borrow more, but I will agree with Stephen King on FT, that the low bond yield cannot justify higher government borrowing.
The key question,whether you should accept the inevitable GDP stagnation/shrunk followed by government austerity measure is, whether the part of the role that the government play in economy, is justified or just a waste of resource to create a false demand.
At the end, a ￡100 primary deposit will end up in total of ￡100 + ￡90 + ￡72.9 = ￡262.9 in the economy. This is how the economy expands in financial term.
What happened during financial crisis was, when the primary depositor trying to call back ￡50 of the money he deposited, bank x have to recall ￡45 of the money it lend.As company A withdraw deposit to pay back loan, bank y have to recall the loan it made with the same portion to the deposit withdraw by company A.
Hence, an initial withdrawal of ￡50 will reduced the amount of money available in the economy by ￡45 + ￡22.5 = ￡67.5 . (provided company A decided to hold same amount of cash)
However, during the financial meltdown, the bank tends to horde more cash reserve by recalling more loan. Company A will forced to liquidate some of its assets if the amount recalled by bank is more than the amount of liquidity company A have. The fire sell of assets ( such as house price or equities) will drive down the values , forcing more company to go into negative balance and hence had to withdraw more deposit to maintain liquidity. This vicious spiraling cycle is precisely what happened during global financial meltdown of 2008.
Even if somehow, the primary depositor feel safe to keep their money in their bank (because of deposit insurance), and the central bank is pumping more ￡100 into commercial bank, the multiplication effect of the money is determined by the willingness of the bank to lend, and the willingness of the company to borrow. If the bank is unwilling to make riskier loan to avoid worsening their own balance sheets, and creditworthy companies decided to borrow less amid by economy uncertainty, the bank might end up loaning less fraction of the money, creating less money in the economy. This is precisely what happening now when UK facing the potential threat of double dip recession.
The key here is restoring the confidence of the market, by restoring economic growth through increasing government spending throught keeping large budget deficit. Ie, when the government acted as the borrower of the last resort, absorbing the cash reserve save by the bank, to recycle the money back in the economy. However, as I will try to show, this action came with huge costs of inefficiency and increasing government debt.
If the government decided to pay off a public servant( or funding a project that hired worker) about ￡100, the immediate tax revenue that the government can generated back, is 20% ( including income tax and National insurance contribution).
Out of the ￡80 that the worker receive, some will be paid to local council, some will pay back to government when they spent on tobacco and fuel, some will be save by them/ or used to pay loan to finance purchased of house, some will pay as rent. Only a fraction of it(lets say 50%, will be spent on goods that incurred VAT.)
Hence, the government only receive about ￡30 of each ￡100 spent immediately. ( including income tax, NI, VAT and tax on income gained from financial assets
). Out of the ￡70 , only ￡40 will be recirculate at the economy for further taxation. An amount of ￡30 will be untaxable.
The idea is that if you put the total money in recirculation as a sum of infinite GP series, with r as the fraction of money recirculate, t is the tax rate. And imposing the condition, r+t <= 1 ( the sum of income taxed and income spent to be recirculate in economy could not be greater than 1) .
The total tax return that a government can get from what it spend is t*(￡100/1-r), which could only equal to ￡100 if r+ t = 100. ( extremely unlikely as people will save some of the money, or spent it on way that is taxed at lower rate/non taxable such as rent and interest on mortgage payment.)
Hence, the conclusion, the government can never taxed the money back from its own spending. It will have to eventually financed it by borrowing ( or deficit ). You can never grow an economy in sustainable path simply rely on government spending. The only benefits of increasing gov spending and keeping budget deficit, is to create a false hope/confidence/demand that stimulate the economy, so that the economy can start its own hope/confidence/demand that will be sustainable.
Furthermore, the only two reason developing can keep budget deficit without much trouble, is by selling government bond to foreign investor as a way to attract foreign capital into local economy, and glowing themselves out of debt burden. ( As long as GDP growth rate is higher than debt accumulation rate, a debt to GDP ratio of 100% with total debt growth at 5% per year, will down to debt to GDP ratio of 63% in 10 year as long as the GDP growth rate is 10% a year).
The reason that the developing country can growth out of their debt burden, are they have faster population growth and pyramid demographic structure which have growth in total demand, combined with untapped efficiency potential in current productivity practiced, coupled with the catch up effect due to the lack of their economy compared with the developed one.
However, developed countries won’t have these three growing factors, thus if their debt burden growing too fast, they will not be able to grow themselves out of the debt burden. The only reason, that the US, and UK are keeping large government deficit, is to prevent the economy from collapsing.
Hence, cutting spending might reduced tax revenue generated from the spending alone, but the overall effect will improve the government balance sheet. Increasing taxation will reduced disposable income in the economy, but depending on which tax is increased, the increased should have zero to positive impact on government balance sheet. The only costs of doing it, is by reducing the size of the government in economy, it will produce a false fear/lost in confidence/collapse in demand that might initiated a real one in the underlying economy.
The need to improve government balance sheet, stems from the costs bear by rising government debt burden. First, it competes with private sector for the same source of capital, driving up interest rate unless the central bank decided to finance it by printing more money (or quantitative easing ) . However, when central bank started printing money to finance government deficit, inflation started. Second, when government debt burden is too high, private sector will deemed the government to be insolvent and start demanding higher interest rate, which worsening the government balance sheet due to increasing interest payment for debt. Thus, forcing the government debt burden into unsustainable path that the government will be forced to default (Like what happening in Greece now).
The default could be less painful, if the debt is denominated in local currency brought by foreign investor, the government can simply deflated its currency( like the USA). However, whether the burden can be reduced or not, a sovereign default will have a devastating effect on the economy, which initiates recession for several years.
As mentioned before, given the UK economy can never grow rigorously like the developing country again ( at least not without a big recession), the danger of sovereign default, far exceed the danger of potential double dip recession caused by government austerity measures. The key is , you can’t avoid the pain after the labour badly managed the public finance during the boom year, the only thing you can do is making it less painful at a time, avoiding extra pain induced.
Hence, Ms largade would be right to comment that UK fiscal consolidation plan was appropriate,
. The Welsh economist would be wrong to urge the government stop austerity plan now, when using the “if …” clause of Ms Largade,
Martin Wolf article on FT argued that the market is begging the government to borrow more, but I will agree with Stephen King on FT, that the low bond yield cannot justify higher government borrowing.
The key question,whether you should accept the inevitable GDP stagnation/shrunk followed by government austerity measure is, whether the part of the role that the government play in economy, is justified or just a waste of resource to create a false demand.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
100 articles on Economic- (1): On Uk inflation.
7 month ago, i wrote an article expressing my view on the BoE monetary policy, stating that the bank shouldnt raise the interest simply because inflation caused by soaring international commodities price.
7 month have passed, and on recent BoE monetary policy committee meeting (MPC), the BoE sill voted to keep the interest rate low at 0.5 %.
The recent year to year monthly inflation index might look worried a bit,however, if we taking the VAT increased effect out, the overall inflation rate is actually quite moderate.
According to the golden rule of Monetary discipline, MV=PT.
where
M= nominal quantity of money
V= velocity of circulation
P= price level
T= total quantity of goods.
The product of P and T determined GDP. Given the UK GDP only growth moderately, and inflation rising fast, this means the total quantity of goods being purchased is declining。 （this should be worrying sign)
Milton Friedman once argued that the central bank should target the money aggregate instead of interest rate to control the inflation.
The money aggregate , whether M1, M2, M3 or M4. had been contracting since january. And contractionary since 2008 if we ignore the effect of the Quantitative Easing.
Hence, my guesing is that, the current inflation mainly stem from the VAT rise, global commodities rise, depreciation of pound causing rise of price for foreign goods, and the temperory effect of the Quantitative easing.
There is no immediate pressure for inflation judging from the change in money aggregate. Hence, the BoE shouldnt raise interest rate now just to tackle the inflation.
What the low interest rate might do is reduced the incentive of people to hold money, hence increase the velocity of circulation, which might initiated another round of inflation. However, there are many other factors that influence the people desires to hold money. One is the worrying economic downturn, which required more cash for emergency. Another is the increasing price of essential expenditure ( such as food and energy), forcing people to horde more money now for the use of future even though the real interest rate is negative.
Thus, in my opinion , the BoE should keep the interest low, until the economic show strong sign of recovery, and money aggregate start to reversing its downward trend.
However, i do not personally support the BoE action which hurt the saver to help the debtor. Lowering the interest rate, is just one of the least painful action which we need to take now, at least from what i known now.
The graph. Data taken from Bank of England and National office of statistic website
7 month have passed, and on recent BoE monetary policy committee meeting (MPC), the BoE sill voted to keep the interest rate low at 0.5 %.
The recent year to year monthly inflation index might look worried a bit,however, if we taking the VAT increased effect out, the overall inflation rate is actually quite moderate.
According to the golden rule of Monetary discipline, MV=PT.
where
M= nominal quantity of money
V= velocity of circulation
P= price level
T= total quantity of goods.
The product of P and T determined GDP. Given the UK GDP only growth moderately, and inflation rising fast, this means the total quantity of goods being purchased is declining。 （this should be worrying sign)
Milton Friedman once argued that the central bank should target the money aggregate instead of interest rate to control the inflation.
The money aggregate , whether M1, M2, M3 or M4. had been contracting since january. And contractionary since 2008 if we ignore the effect of the Quantitative Easing.
Hence, my guesing is that, the current inflation mainly stem from the VAT rise, global commodities rise, depreciation of pound causing rise of price for foreign goods, and the temperory effect of the Quantitative easing.
There is no immediate pressure for inflation judging from the change in money aggregate. Hence, the BoE shouldnt raise interest rate now just to tackle the inflation.
What the low interest rate might do is reduced the incentive of people to hold money, hence increase the velocity of circulation, which might initiated another round of inflation. However, there are many other factors that influence the people desires to hold money. One is the worrying economic downturn, which required more cash for emergency. Another is the increasing price of essential expenditure ( such as food and energy), forcing people to horde more money now for the use of future even though the real interest rate is negative.
Thus, in my opinion , the BoE should keep the interest low, until the economic show strong sign of recovery, and money aggregate start to reversing its downward trend.
However, i do not personally support the BoE action which hurt the saver to help the debtor. Lowering the interest rate, is just one of the least painful action which we need to take now, at least from what i known now.
The graph. Data taken from Bank of England and National office of statistic website
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)