Sunday, October 13, 2013

經濟政策差異

華府預算政策 應借鏡英日
美國為預算僵持不下、全球一旁乾瞪眼之際,不少國家的財政政策已開始轉向,最明顯的例子是日本和英國,而華府和全球各國都可從中學到教訓。
先從壞的一面說起:安倍晉三決定明年4月起把消費稅由5%升到8%,這波大幅增稅和2015年的另一波,都相當不利於日本指望明年由消費帶動的經濟成長,因為安倍顯然不太可能靠刺激措施來維持民生消費力道,藉以抵銷這種形同財政大幅緊縮的措施。儘管安倍含糊承諾要以降低企業稅補償,但這只會更加惡化長期扭曲日本經濟的過度投資和企業坐擁現金現象。同時,日本政府甘願為財政紀律賠上經濟復甦的風險,也等於讓大家明白,別把安倍無條件承諾不計一切達成復甦的話當真。如今預算撙節勢力抬頭,將大大降低日本結束長年停滯性通膨的可能性。
再從好的一面來看:對舉債的態度改變,讓英國由七大工業國(G7)表現次差的經濟體(僅次義大利)轉變為全球經濟成長模範生。國際貨幣基金(IMF)首席經濟學家今年4月才抨擊英國大拚減赤「是在玩火」,上周IMF發布的世界經濟展望報告卻讚揚英國迅速提升經濟,並上修英國今年經濟成長預測0.5個百分點至1.4%。這看起來或許不多,但在幾乎所有經濟體都被下修、且英國去年成長率僅0.2%的情況下,如此表現已稱得上榮景。
這證明英國首相卡麥隆堅持減支、增稅和撙節財政的計畫是對的嗎?有兩個理由可否定這個結論。
首先,英國政府口頭雖說財政撙節,實際上卻放鬆縮減預算赤字的力道,形同放棄原先平衡預算的承諾。據IMF分析,英國今年幾乎未再進一步縮減赤字,所以英國明年不但不會接近平衡預算,預算赤字占國內生產毛額(GDP)比率仍將是已開發西方國家中最高的5.8%。美國是4.6%、法國3.5%、義大利2.1%。因此,英國經濟表現較佳所反映的,根本不是努力減赤,而是財政撙節態度軟化、最後接受高於歐美所能容忍的赤字上限。
其次,更重要的是,英國今年恢復成長,是大膽支持高槓桿房貸政策的結果。這項房貸支持計畫從總體經濟角度來看,相當於政府大幅擴大舉債。英國財相歐斯本今年3月宣布,財政部對房貸成數95%的抵押貸款提供史無前例的擔保,使英國經濟局面立即改觀。
這個政策也代表歐斯本終於接受凱因斯經濟學派的根本原則:一國要擺脫衰退,非但不該減少舉債,反而應擴大舉債,直到超額儲蓄被充分運用為止。至於增加的舉債是由政府或由民間來承擔,則是次要問題。當政府因政治理由不容擴大舉債,企業也因需求低迷不太可能大規模舉債時,由家庭擴大舉債也能有同樣效果。
卡麥隆政府做此決定,可能基於有利2015年大選的政治理由,卻因此展現他比許多經濟學家更懂經濟學。經濟衰退是過度儲蓄所致,這表示提高借貸——不論是政府藉由財政政策,或是私部門藉由房市——是經濟復甦的必要條件。凡嘗試同時降低公共和民間債務的國家,都難逃停滯性通膨,況且利率已接近零,貨幣政策也無能為力。英國如今認清這點,日本顯然沒有,是不是有人也能向華府的預算鬥士解釋一下?
(作者Anotole Kaletsky是路透專欄作家/編譯劉忠勇)


全文網址: 路透專欄/華府預算政策 應借鏡英日 | 美國債限協商 | 全球觀察 | 聯合新聞網 http://udn.com/NEWS/WORLD/WOR1/8220834.shtml#ixzz2hYn01X3n
Power By udn.com 

當永續議題遇到經濟問題會轉彎.乃普世價值

德英密商互保汽車、金融業
英國泰晤士報報導,英國與德國正密商,針對歐盟研擬中的二氧化碳排放及金融業管理法規,各自發揮影響力,使德國的汽車業和英國的金融業不致受到重大衝擊。
泰晤士報報導,英國首相卡麥隆派出代表到柏林,與德國總理梅克爾的代表秘密協商這項由德國提出的交易。德國希望英國協助,設法使歐盟延後對二氧化碳排放量制定上限,以免使德國的寶馬、賓士及奧迪等車廠受損。
英國為保護本國的銀行業,希望德國能遊說歐盟,使歐盟對金融業所制定的新規範,不致對英國金融業造成重大衝擊。兩國官員所研議的措施,包括歐盟各國銀行需揭露繳稅資料,並修改歐盟執委會針對避險基金業所研擬的監理法規。英國也要求德國協助保護英國的納稅人,讓英國不必貢獻基金來協助歐元區的困難銀行。
英國自由民主黨的消息人士透露,英國還要求德國協助,推翻歐盟對銀行業主管分紅所訂,不得超過薪資兩倍的上限。
一位參與談判的自民黨議員透露,有關汽車排碳量議題,如果最後能使新規定延後實施,英國對本國汽車業的排放量超標也可以不必處罰,對英國而言實屬一舉兩得。


全文網址: 德英密商互保汽車、金融業 | 國際財經 | 全球觀察 | 聯合新聞網 http://udn.com/NEWS/WORLD/WOR2/8221003.shtml#ixzz2hYc8uwEa
Power By udn.com 

失敗為成功之母

Scott Adams' Secret of Success: Failure

What's the best way to climb to the top? Be a failure.

“Dilbert” creator Scott Adams talks to WSJ editor Gary Rosen about how to draw lessons, skills and ideas from your failures—and why following your passion is asking for trouble. Photo: Scott Adams
If you're already as successful as you want to be, both personally and professionally, congratulations! Here's the not-so-good news: All you are likely to get from this article is a semientertaining tale about a guy who failed his way to success. But you might also notice some familiar patterns in my story that will give you confirmation (or confirmation bias) that your own success wasn't entirely luck.
If you're just starting your journey toward success—however you define it—or you're wondering what you've been doing wrong until now, you might find some novel ideas here. Maybe the combination of what you know plus what I think I know will be enough to keep you out of the wood chipper.
Let me start with some tips on what not to do. Beware of advice about successful people and their methods. For starters, no two situations are alike. Your dreams of creating a dry-cleaning empire won't be helped by knowing that Thomas Edison liked to take naps. Secondly, biographers never have access to the internal thoughts of successful people. If a biographer says Henry Ford invented the assembly line to impress women, that's probably a guess.
Scott Adams
But the most dangerous case of all is when successful people directly give advice. For example, you often hear them say that you should "follow your passion." That sounds perfectly reasonable the first time you hear it. Passion will presumably give you high energy, high resistance to rejection and high determination. Passionate people are more persuasive, too. Those are all good things, right?
Here's the counterargument: When I was a commercial loan officer for a large bank, my boss taught us that you should never make a loan to someone who is following his passion. For example, you don't want to give money to a sports enthusiast who is starting a sports store to pursue his passion for all things sporty. That guy is a bad bet, passion and all. He's in business for the wrong reason.
My boss, who had been a commercial lender for over 30 years, said that the best loan customer is someone who has no passion whatsoever, just a desire to work hard at something that looks good on a spreadsheet. Maybe the loan customer wants to start a dry-cleaning store or invest in a fast-food franchise—boring stuff. That's the person you bet on. You want the grinder, not the guy who loves his job.
For most people, it's easy to be passionate about things that are working out, and that distorts our impression of the importance of passion. I've been involved in several dozen business ventures over the course of my life, and each one made me excited at the start. You might even call it passion.
The ones that didn't work out—and that would be most of them—slowly drained my passion as they failed. The few that worked became more exciting as they succeeded. For example, when I invested in a restaurant with an operating partner, my passion was sky high. And on day one, when there was a line of customers down the block, I was even more passionate. In later years, as the business got pummeled, my passion evolved into frustration and annoyance.
On the other hand, Dilbert started out as just one of many get-rich schemes I was willing to try. When it started to look as if it might be a success, my passion for cartooning increased because I realized it could be my golden ticket. In hindsight, it looks as if the projects that I was most passionate about were also the ones that worked. But objectively, my passion level moved with my success. Success caused passion more than passion caused success.
So forget about passion. And while you're at it, forget about goals, too.
Just after college, I took my first airplane trip, destination California, in search of a job. I was seated next to a businessman who was probably in his early 60s. I suppose I looked like an odd duck with my serious demeanor, bad haircut and cheap suit, clearly out of my element. I asked what he did for a living, and he told me he was the CEO of a company that made screws. He offered me some career advice. He said that every time he got a new job, he immediately started looking for a better one. For him, job seeking was not something one did when necessary. It was a continuing process.
This makes perfect sense if you do the math. Chances are that the best job for you won't become available at precisely the time you declare yourself ready. Your best bet, he explained, was to always be looking for a better deal. The better deal has its own schedule. I believe the way he explained it is that your job is not your job; your job is to find a better job.
This was my first exposure to the idea that one should have a system instead of a goal. The system was to continually look for better options.
Throughout my career I've had my antennae up, looking for examples of people who use systems as opposed to goals. In most cases, as far as I can tell, the people who use systems do better. The systems-driven people have found a way to look at the familiar in new and more useful ways.
To put it bluntly, goals are for losers. That's literally true most of the time. For example, if your goal is to lose 10 pounds, you will spend every moment until you reach the goal—if you reach it at all—feeling as if you were short of your goal. In other words, goal-oriented people exist in a state of nearly continuous failure that they hope will be temporary.
If you achieve your goal, you celebrate and feel terrific, but only until you realize that you just lost the thing that gave you purpose and direction. Your options are to feel empty and useless, perhaps enjoying the spoils of your success until they bore you, or to set new goals and re-enter the cycle of permanent presuccess failure.
I have a friend who is a gifted salesman. He could have sold anything, from houses to toasters. The field he chose (which I won't reveal because he wouldn't appreciate the sudden flood of competition) allows him to sell a service that almost always auto-renews. In other words, he can sell his service once and enjoy ongoing commissions until the customer dies or goes out of business. His biggest problem in life is that he keeps trading his boat for a larger one, and that's a lot of work.
Observers call him lucky. What I see is a man who accurately identified his skill set and chose a system that vastly increased his odds of getting "lucky." In fact, his system is so solid that it could withstand quite a bit of bad luck without buckling. How much passion does this fellow have for his chosen field? Answer: zero. What he has is a spectacular system, and that beats passion every time.
As for my own system, when I graduated from college, I outlined my entrepreneurial plan. The idea was to create something that had value and—this next part is the key—I wanted the product to be something that was easy to reproduce in unlimited quantities. I didn't want to sell my time, at least not directly, because that model has an upward limit. And I didn't want to build my own automobile factory, for example, because cars are not easy to reproduce. I wanted to create, invent, write, or otherwise concoct something widely desired that would be easy to reproduce.
[image]Scott Adams
My system of creating something the public wants and reproducing it in large quantities nearly guaranteed a string of failures. By design, all of my efforts were long shots. Had I been goal-oriented instead of system-oriented, I imagine I would have given up after the first several failures. It would have felt like banging my head against a brick wall.
But being systems-oriented, I felt myself growing more capable every day, no matter the fate of the project that I happened to be working on. And every day during those years I woke up with the same thought, literally, as I rubbed the sleep from my eyes and slapped the alarm clock off.
Today's the day.
If you drill down on any success story, you always discover that luck was a huge part of it. You can't control luck, but you can move from a game with bad odds to one with better odds. You can make it easier for luck to find you. The most useful thing you can do is stay in the game. If your current get-rich project fails, take what you learned and try something else. Keep repeating until something lucky happens. The universe has plenty of luck to go around; you just need to keep your hand raised until it's your turn. It helps to see failure as a road and not a wall.
I'm an optimist by nature, or perhaps by upbringing—it's hard to know where one leaves off and the other begins—but whatever the cause, I've long seen failure as a tool, not an outcome. I believe that viewing the world in that way can be useful for you too.
Nietzsche famously said, "What doesn't kill us makes us stronger." It sounds clever, but it's a loser philosophy. I don't want my failures to simply make me stronger, which I interpret as making me better able to survive future challenges. (To be fair to Nietzsche, he probably meant the word "stronger" to include anything that makes you more capable. I'd ask him to clarify, but ironically he ran out of things that didn't kill him.)
Becoming stronger is obviously a good thing, but it's only barely optimistic. I do want my failures to make me stronger, of course, but I also want to become smarter, more talented, better networked, healthier and more energized. If I find a cow turd on my front steps, I'm not satisfied knowing that I'll be mentally prepared to find some future cow turd. I want to shovel that turd onto my garden and hope the cow returns every week so I never have to buy fertilizer again. Failure is a resource that can be managed.
Before launching Dilbert, and after, I failed at a long series of day jobs and entrepreneurial adventures. Here are just a few of the worst ones. I include them because successful people generally gloss over their most aromatic failures, and it leaves the impression that they have some magic you don't.
When you're done reading this list, you won't have that delusion about me, and that's the point. Success is entirely accessible, even if you happen to be a huge screw-up 95% of the time.
My failures:
Velcro Rosin Bag Invention: In the 1970s, tennis players sometimes used rosin bags to keep their racket hands less sweaty. In college, I built a prototype of a rosin bag that attached to a Velcro strip on tennis shorts so it would always be available when needed. My lawyer told me it wasn't patentworthy because it was simply a combination of two existing products. I approached some sporting-goods companies and got nothing but form-letter rejections. I dropped the idea.
But in the process I learned a valuable lesson: Good ideas have no value because the world already has too many of them. The market rewards execution, not ideas. From that point on, I concentrated on ideas that I could execute. I was already failing toward success, but I didn't yet know it.
Gopher Offer: During my banking career, in my late 20s, I caught the attention of a senior vice president at the bank. Apparently my b.s. skills in meetings were impressive. He offered me a job as his gopher/assistant with the vague assurance that I would meet important executives during the normal course of my work, which would make it easy for him to strap a rocket to my backside—as the saying roughly went—and launch me up the corporate ladder.
On the downside, the challenge would be to survive his less-than-polite management style and do his bidding for a few years. I declined his offer because I was already managing a small group of people, so becoming a gopher seemed like a step backward. I believe the senior vice president's exact characterization of my decision was "[expletive] STUPID!!!" He hired one of my co-workers for the job instead, and in a few years that fellow became one of the youngest vice presidents in the bank's history.
I worked for Crocker National Bank in San Francisco for about eight years, starting at the very bottom and working my way up to lower management. During the course of my banking career, and in line with my strategy of learning as much as I could about the ways of business, I gained an extraordinarily good overview of banking, finance, technology, contracts, management and a dozen other useful skills. I wouldn't have done it any differently.
Webvan: In the dot-com era, a startup called Webvan promised to revolutionize grocery delivery. You could order grocery-store items over the Internet, and one of Webvan's trucks would load your order at the company's modern distribution hub and set out to service all the customers in your area.
I figured Webvan would do for groceries what Amazon had done for books. It was a rare opportunity to get in on the ground floor. I bought a bunch of Webvan stock and felt good about myself. When the stock plunged, I bought some more. I repeated that process several times, each time licking my lips as I acquired ever-larger blocks of the stock at prices I knew to be a steal.
When the company announced that it had achieved positive cash flow at one of its several hubs, I knew that I was onto something. If it worked in one hub, the model was proved, and it would surely work at others. I bought more stock. Now I owned approximately, well, a boatload.
A few weeks later, Webvan went out of business. Investing in Webvan wasn't the dumbest thing I've ever done, but it's a contender. The loss wasn't enough to change my lifestyle. But boy, did it sting psychologically. In my partial defense, I knew it was a gamble, not an investment per se.
What I learned from that experience is that there is no such thing as useful information that comes from a company's management. Now I diversify and let the lying get smoothed out by all the other variables in my investments.
These failures are just a sampling. I'm delighted to admit that I've failed at more challenges than anyone I know.
As for you, I'd like to think that reading this will set you on the path of your own magnificent screw-ups and cavernous disappointments. You're welcome! And if I forgot to mention it earlier, that's exactly where you want to be: steeped to your eyebrows in failure.
It's a good place to be because failure is where success likes to hide in plain sight. Everything you want out of life is in that huge, bubbling vat of failure. The trick is to get the good stuff out.
Mr. Adams is the creator of Dilbert. Adapted from his book "How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big," to be published by Portfolio, a member of Penguin Group (USA), on Oct. 22.

Saturday, October 12, 2013

都市化

都市化的力量

雲端的承諾 給不了偏鄉幸福
政府提出的「五都十七縣」國土規畫帶給不少國人期待,希望透過改制,解決區域發展差距、國土開發過當、產業北部傾斜等沉疴。但3年多下來,五都所產生的人口磁吸效應,卻使偏鄉更凋零,產業、經濟發展更傾斜。
明年開始,台灣要成為六都了。桃園縣明年升格,人口從2001年的200萬2006人,增加到今年9月的204萬0629人,以一年一萬人的速度成長。雙北兩市人口更已多達663萬餘人,成了超級大都會,引來自各地青壯人口。
六都的迅速壯大,使得原已凋零的鄉村人口流失更嚴重:其中尤以屏東縣最慘烈,急速蒸發了2萬人;第2、3、4名的嘉義縣、嘉義市、彰化縣也都少了1萬多人,基隆市則出走8700多人。人口往城市移動的結果造成虹吸效應深化,商業活動、經濟發展傾斜,也使小鄉小村落幾乎處於停滯狀態。
當初推動改制時聲稱的1加1大於2並未發生,雲端上的國土規畫所承諾台灣城市發展的幸福沒有來到,六都之外16縣的災難卻已悄悄侵襲,政府對這股改變台灣在地的移民潮有任何警覺嗎?六都前的狀況既已回不去了,對現況有對策嗎?
以選舉角度看,六都人口占全國6成以上。或許這也正是藍綠都不想改變人口結構的原因,但長此以往,所衍生出的各種問題,恐怕不是只想拿下執政權者,可以忽略的。


全文網址: 雲端的承諾 給不了偏鄉幸福 | 綜合 | 國內要聞 | 聯合新聞網 http://udn.com/NEWS/NATIONAL/NAT5/8219986.shtml#ixzz2hW3pYOAS
Power By udn.com 

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

檢察官詢問長官

北檢約談楊榮宗 不排除傳周占春中國時報

特偵組組長楊榮宗。(張鎧乙攝)
特偵組組長楊榮宗。(張鎧乙攝)
台北地檢署偵辦特偵組涉濫權監聽、洩密案昨日首度約談特偵組組長楊榮宗,就關說案偵辦過程、監聽程序及開車載檢察總長黃世銘夜奔總統官邸面報細節訊問,庭訊約1小時結束;據指出,全案關鍵人物一一到庭,檢察官不排除傳喚核發監聽票的台北地院法官周占春,全力還原真相,釐清責任歸屬。
據悉,全案目前仍為「他」字案,北檢會以行政簽結或刑事偵結結案,外界正等著看。
檢方認為,楊榮宗身為鄭深元的直屬組長負督導辦案之責,對鄭的辦案手法、程序自有把關義務;而楊在關說案爆發時正好輪值代理發言人,又在8月31日晚間冒雨開車載黃世銘夜奔官邸,在整起關說案的偵辦、新聞發布、密會等過程均扮演關鍵角色,因此有到案說明的必要。
承辦檢察官日前發出傳票要求楊榮宗出庭,庭訊時間還安排在上午8點的上班前,並由張介欽親自訊問;由於黃世銘前日主動爆料,8月31日晚間由楊榮宗載他赴官邸,回程途中他接到馬英九總統來電要求翌日再到官邸報告,還指楊「可以作證」,張介欽也就此訊問楊榮宗,楊則如實還原當天情況。
另外,法務部「監聽事件調查小組」因調查需要發函立法院,請求提供包含調查立院配給立委的公務手機狀況,及0972小總機節費電話行「實機監錄」測試等協助,但朝野協商昨天以「國會自主」為由,否決法務部要求。