無間道風雲

記得積尼高遜在戲內講過一句，大概說大部分人都甘受環境支配，他不想被環境改變，所以他要改變環境。

昨晚搭港島線地鐵回家，在想李嘉欣靚還是張曼玉靚的途中，思維突受電子樂曲擾亂。原來遠處的阿伯不斷在玩電話，播放擾人的電子樂曲。

阿伯在銅鑼灣上車，西灣河落車。我見到週圍乘客不多不少都受打擾，但是沒有人（包括本人）去勸阿伯將聲浪收細。短途乘客只坐三四站，沒出聲正常，可是在太古或之後落車的長途乘客
都沒有出聲叫阿伯將聲浪收細，就可以發現，大家的容忍力十分之高。

是不是我們大部分人都諗經讀佛，所以特別有容忍力？還是我們都是積尼高遜所講甘受環境支配的大多數？

政府拆天星碼頭前幾日，我見到有很多人影相留念。電視上受訪問的幾位都說不捨天星碼頭，因為有很多美好的回憶。但為何遊行反對政府拆天星碼頭時，很多到天星影相留念的，都沒有行動？

我們都是甘受環境支配的大多數。

10個人飲啤酒 —— 1個劫富濟貧的故事

從美國經濟學家 Greg Mankiw 的 Blog讀到一個劫富濟貧的經濟學故事：

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

讀股神年報看股神智慧

剛剛讀過股神畢飛特 (Warren Buffett) 的致股東信，獲益良多，以下節錄一些與大家分享：

1. 評論旗下NetJets的服務：
'Once you’ve flown NetJets, returning to commercial flights is like going back to holding hands.'

各位男性朋友，相信大家都明白有好多事，真的是做了便不能回頭的。

2. 評論基金經理怎樣‘協助’其客人賺錢

'When someone with experience proposes a deal to someone with money, too often the fellow with money ends up with the experience, and the fellow with experience ends up with the money.'

'2-and-20 crowd：a manager who achieves a gross return of 10% in a year will keep 3.6 percentage points – two points off the top plus 20% of the residual 8 points – leaving only 6.4 percentage points for his investors. On a $3 billion fund, this 6.4% net “performance” will deliver the manager a cool $108 million. He will receive this bonanza even though an index fund might have returned 15% to investors in the same period and charged them only a token fee.'

還有太多不能儘錄，自已讀啦：畢飛特 (Warren Buffett) 的致股東信

發展經濟為了什麼！？

之前說不明白香港的經濟發展程度(人均國民生產總值計)已位列全球前列，為何‘領導’還要不斷強調發展經濟。

其實香港一直都受惠於經濟發展-->財富製造-->生活水平上升這條方程式。

只是當我們已經相當富裕之時還要強調經濟發展，好像混淆了什麼是手段，什麼是最終目的。經濟發展方程式的最終目的當然是'生活水平上升'。

怎樣量度生活水平是否上升呢？無可否認，有人會覺得由買A貨LV到與同胞一齊排隊買真LV是生活水平的上升。但我認為最好的量度是看看我們現今生活在香港的選擇是否比從前多，例如住屋的選擇；職業的選擇；食物的選擇；讀書的選擇；電影的選擇；閱讀的選擇；衣服的選擇。

大家看看香港最近幾年的變化，你會否認同香港人的生活水平在上升當中？

陶傑評特首選舉的辯論

之前寫中國人不善辯論，不是陶傑所講DNA的問題，但一直找不到陶傑的原文。多謝生果報現在的免費網上報，終於給我找到：

星期天休息：為甚麼選舉電視辯論是一場溫馨的三贏

發展香港經濟！？

常常都聽到曾特首話要發展經濟。

不論是之前天水圍濕地公園的開幕，或者新政府總部的興建，每次都聽到曾特首話這個那個項目、政策可以發展經濟、製造就業機會。甚至去年發表的施政報告，曾特首的發言首先都提到要著重發展經濟，然後才是創造財富；然後才是改善民生；然後才是提高生活質素。

究竟香港的經濟發展去到什麼程度，要曾特首不時提起呢？

看完世界貨幣基金組織的網頁，我發現香港的經濟發展已到了全球前列：

第一，世界貨幣基金組織已把香港歸納到先進國家的類別。這類別內的亞洲國家成地區只有五個：香港、日本、新加坡、台灣和韓國。其他先進國家包括美國、英國、澳洲、意大利和芬蘭等。

第二，看一個國家或地區的經濟民生，經濟學家會用一個重要的經濟指標：國民人均生產總值( GDP per capita）。

2005年香港的國民人均生產總值為25,000美元。祖國是多少？中國雖然已進身為全球第四大的經濟體系，但是其國民人均生產總值只是1,700多美元。

這些數字代表當我們香港人可以買十幾隻假Rolex帶，內地同胞只夠錢買一隻；當我們香港人可以買十幾個A貨LV，內地人只能夠買一個；當我們香港人可以買十幾套Wii連一個Ｇａｍｅ，內地人只夠錢買一套，可能還不夠錢買另外Player２的手掣要找朋有夾錢。

當香港人的普遍生活水平已經這樣高，與歐美等國家差不多的時候，為何我們的‘領導人’還念念不忘發展經濟？是不是曾特首覺得香港人十幾隻假Rolex不夠帶，要廿幾三十隻每個月日日不同先夠？

關小農DNA啥事

記得之前陶傑評特首選舉的辯論 (陶傑的文章)，說中國的小農DNA沒有辯論，然後舉了明朝朱元璋殺諫臣的例子。其實與DNA有什麼關係呢?

秦始皇統一中國後，中國大部份時間都是中央集權，只有一個皇帝，讀書人如果想上位，就只有為中央政府效力。反觀秦之前，周朝沒落，各王群起，讀書人如果想建立功名，有很多名主可以選擇。陶傑提的商鞅，在說服秦孝公用他之前亦曾打過魏王的工，只是魏王沒有重用他。

再提明朝朱元璋殺諫臣的例子。如果明朝不是只有一個皇帝，不是中央集權，朱元璋根本就不會，亦不可能殺諫臣。

試想想如果朱元璋知道讀書人可以‘東家唔打打西家’，他還敢一言不合殺諫臣嗎？不怕沒有人材幫他治理國家嗎？

所以中國人不善辯論，根本與DNA沒有什麼關係，是秦之後中央集權沒有選擇下的結果。

特首論壇問答

三個字：悶悶悶

問得悶，答又悶。

不過，第一條問題反應出一個近年纏繞香港的問題：有問題找政府。

什麼有位男士甲做地盤沒有工開，並聽曾特首講生了三個孩子，但只得十圓買飯，問政府要點幫男士甲。

第一，香港幾時變成沒有工開就要找政府求救，問這個問題的人，好像都忘記了以前逃離大陸紅禍到香港的老一輩是怎樣謀生，怎樣開創天地。

第二，如果只得十圓買飯還要生三個孩子，我相信男士甲需要為自已的選擇負責，而不是要政府幫忙。

正正是以前的香港人不會問第一條問題，自力更生，香港才有這三十年來的經濟起飛，香港人才有今日的生活水平。