Games Animation Forum

返回   Games Animation Forum > 其他 > ~清談館~

回覆
 
主題工具 顯示模式
舊 03-25-10, 08:59 PM   #251
JoeII
Crazy Gamer
白痴、煩,請收嗲!
 
註冊日期: Nov 2005
文章: 1,831
PSN  IDJoeII_Sawa
XBox Live GamertagJoeII
明報)2010年3月25日 星期四 05:10
【明報專訊】自由黨 立法會 議員張宇人 因「最低工資時薪20元」言論而受千夫所指,輿論愈炒愈烈,自由黨評估形勢開始失控,甚至影響黨的地區工作後,張宇人昨日終收起氣焰急召開記者會,就言論引起的誤會及爭議向公眾道歉,「好唔好意思,對唔住」,但他堅持自己及自由黨從沒倡議把最低工資時薪定在20元。
職工盟李卓人 質疑張宇人的道歉沒有誠意,只是僱主用來「測試水溫」及爭取較低水平最低工資的策略。
照稿宣讀 記者會僅4分鐘
上周四(18日)政府統計處 公布首個全港工資分布調查,張宇人當時回應記者時分析,「若最低工資定在時薪20元,殺傷力不大」,這番言論隨即引起打工仔不滿,質疑張宇人「無良」。數日後,他出席城市論壇 時,更說「若飲食業界調查結果是低過20元,不排除向政府建議最低工資時薪20元以下」。這番話引起更大反彈,網民更以「張廿蚊」諷刺他。這場火其後更由張宇人燒到他所屬的自由黨,黨主席劉健儀 本周一急開記者會澄清,劃清界線,強調沒有建議時薪20元。
直至昨午,張宇人召開記者會交代事件。記者會歷時只約4分鐘,向來意氣風發的張宇人收起笑容,照稿宣讀,沒有回答記者提問便匆匆離開。
他先表示,「我張宇人、飲食業、自由黨都從來沒有倡議將最低工資定在20元」,但他表示,明白及留意這些言論已在社會引起不少誤解和爭議,因此「同大家講句好唔好意思,對唔住」,隨後微微點頭致歉。
張:業界完成工資調查前不評論
張宇人說,大家現在應理性及客觀討論最低工資水平,希望可以對低收入員工有一份保障,在不會影響企業競爭力之間取得平衡,避免令中小企倒閉。他表明,直至飲食業界完成工資調查報告前,不會再就最低工資水平評論。最後,他說「非常抱歉」便離開。
連日來張宇人從「力撐」言論沒錯及拒絕收回,至昨日在傳媒面前道歉,據本報了解,「20元最低工資」事件發酵後,雖然張宇人已多番為言論解釋,但社會仍然群情洶湧,輿論不留情面狠批,加上網民惡搞及電台「烽煙」節目的言論,極速令自由黨形象盡毁。
近日有自由黨成員落區就政改諮詢市民,反遭市民不斷唾罵,「市民覺得我們是由24元(最低時薪 )轉去20元,市民鬧得好厲害,我們都不知如何回應」。
黨友被質問至「口啞啞」,遂向領導層施壓,昨午,主席劉健儀急急拉著張宇人開會,兩人評估形勢,認為局面失控,最終決定開記者會救火,圖為事件畫上句號。自由黨領導層深明張宇人的道歉未必可即時改變大眾看法,但至少可以讓市民冷靜下來,使得外界不再攻擊,把傷害減至最低。「今次張宇人的確是輕率,把平日與記者閒聊、未必作準的說話,竟在電視台鏡頭前說了出來,今次真是禍從口出。」有自由黨領導說。
局面失控 劉健儀急拉張開會
不過,張宇人是自願或是被迫道歉有不同說法,有說今次是自由黨前主席田北俊 加上劉健儀「雙劍合璧」逼他出來道歉。但與張宇人是當年拔萃男書院 同班同學的自由黨常委田北辰 表示,張宇人為人硬頸,除非他自己覺得出了問題,否則絕對不會道歉,更不可能有人可以向他施壓。
香港餐飲聯業協會會長黃家和表示,今次事件在業界引起很大爭議,但強調給予工人時薪20元的只是少數,相信「市民眼睛是雪亮」。他表示,該會亦進行一個有關最低工資調查,不擔心結果會與張宇人的調查有衝突。



食蕉啦!
JoeII 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 03-25-10, 09:00 PM   #252
Busconcamp
The One
紅魔鬼閃耀GAF
 
註冊日期: Jan 2003
文章: 75,709
"誤導"?...又係小市民既錯...a


__________________
避免"殘酷一BAN"...請謹慎出POST~
偶體內流住GAF
曼聯成功拿下頂級聯賽20冠軍!
流胃兄x民賤聯.無恥黨x禮義廉......
250311.3975.12363
Busconcamp 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 03-25-10, 10:27 PM   #253
某F
God of Gamer
我的歌聲裡
 
註冊日期: Jun 2002
文章: 16,473
引用:
作者: メソウサ 查看文章
殺雞取卵係利己行為
等隻雞生蛋生一世都係利己行為

我唔明點解有人睇自私呢樣野係咁單向
係人都知香港呢隻雞就黎死架啦
趁而家仲有利用價值梗係搾盡佢

到隻雞死個陣就移民啦


__________________
守護良知是需要付出成本和代價
珍惜為你的自由而走上街頭抗爭的人
某F 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 03-25-10, 10:30 PM   #254
某F
God of Gamer
我的歌聲裡
 
註冊日期: Jun 2002
文章: 16,473
引用:
作者: 怪盜小G 查看文章
有人肯出份唔合理既糧頂你個位呢

諗野諗死一面

一味話剝削同高地價引致低人工

唔諗埋依家好多低學歷職位隨住有人黎頂爛市變成供過於求

到我講一d無咁受影哩方面響既職位,人工待遇都唔錯時就避而不談

咁叫討論??你敢講我上面講既唔係依家貧富懸殊既原因??歪理??
有無諗過而家管理層判上判,肥上瘦下既問題?
而家香港到底有乜工先可以分享經濟成果?

呢D工係咪你諗得咁單純?

仲有工會既問題你又無回應我


__________________
守護良知是需要付出成本和代價
珍惜為你的自由而走上街頭抗爭的人
某F 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 03-25-10, 10:59 PM   #255
緋村 光
Crazy Gamer
 
註冊日期: Aug 2002
文章: 1,106
中左計!!
嘈得兩嘈最高工時就冇左件事啦



__________________
GvsG next、Aranca Heart 2、旋光(SP/DUO)、BlazBlue、Guily Gear 愛好者,歡迎約戰

個人blog:極地白犬(更新再開!!)
緋村 光 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 03-25-10, 11:27 PM   #256
stcdavidhk
God of Gamer
 
註冊日期: Dec 2006
文章: 7,840
引用:
作者: 緋村 光 查看文章
中左計!!
嘈得兩嘈最高工時就冇左件事啦

一開始就冇打算提呢件事,其實政府連最低時薪都唔想提
stcdavidhk 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 03-26-10, 12:58 AM   #257
lwl
God of Gamer
 
註冊日期: Feb 2006
文章: 6,020
PSN  IDlwlworld
XBox Live GamertagLWLWORLD


__________________
Chelsea
lwl 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 03-26-10, 10:11 AM   #258
藍莓咖啡
守護天使
輔助系
 
註冊日期: Feb 2004
文章: 3,310
大家有冇JOIN FACEBOOK果個叫佢用廿蚊生活比大家睇的GROUP


__________________
\/\/

Lost In Paradise
藍莓咖啡 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 03-26-10, 10:32 AM   #259
雷火武
God of Gamer
ワールド・エンド
 
註冊日期: Feb 2005
文章: 14,393
link>?
雷火武 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 03-26-10, 10:53 AM   #260
藍莓咖啡
守護天使
輔助系
 
註冊日期: Feb 2004
文章: 3,310
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php...2293903&ref=nf


__________________
\/\/

Lost In Paradise
藍莓咖啡 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 03-26-10, 12:04 PM   #261
westpat
God of Gamer
Jayjey
 
註冊日期: May 2007
文章: 5,207
PSN  IDwestmead
引用:
作者: 小特特 查看文章
對GAF黎講,派字算係粗口
所以你比人陰左
岩岩追post先睇到
你話緊我?

有人講粗話,之後上天台報告,唔想GAF變到同出面一樣
大大個post,光明正大
點樣"陰"呢?
願聞其詳

想玩大,我奉陪到底


__________________
Apple is Apple. ain't Orange.
westpat 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 03-26-10, 12:26 PM   #262
小特特
God of Gamer
薔薇騎士団
 
註冊日期: Jan 2004
文章: 7,765
3DS Friend Code1805 2977 8497
PSN  IDardnades-jpn
引用:
作者: westpat 查看文章
岩岩追post先睇到
你話緊我?

有人講粗話,之後上天台報告,唔想GAF變到同出面一樣
大大個post,光明正大
點樣"陰"呢?
願聞其詳

想玩大,我奉陪到底
唔想人講粗口你可以先當面叫佢改變用詞
(老實講我覺得果隻字已經變左普及潮語用,唔太算粗口,但GAF不接受我亦明白)
佢亦都唔係真係想用粗口去攻擊人
但你直接跳過呢一步,一下要人被ban,我個人觀點算係陰招
為免再OT我答埋你呢次就算了


__________________
Chested

Blog

pixiv
小特特 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 03-26-10, 12:47 PM   #263
westpat
God of Gamer
Jayjey
 
註冊日期: May 2007
文章: 5,207
PSN  IDwestmead
引用:
作者: 小特特 查看文章
唔想人講粗口你可以先當面叫佢改變用詞
(老實講我覺得果隻字已經變左普及潮語用,唔太算粗口,但GAF不接受我亦明白)
佢亦都唔係真係想用粗口去攻擊人
但你直接跳過呢一步,一下要人被ban,我個人觀點算係陰招
為免再OT我答埋你呢次就算了
提點什麼?
新會員嗎?況且又唔係
就算係,唔係應該"睇下"有咩rules嗎?

有幾潮?擺明係諧音粗話
試下同長輩講呢個字兼解釋埋呢個字其實係代表咩
會點
自找借口
同出面是但求其找借口玩版打機,有咩分別

fin


__________________
Apple is Apple. ain't Orange.
westpat 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 03-28-10, 07:49 PM   #264
Paptimus
Ultimate Gamer
 
註冊日期: Aug 2005
文章: 3,541
PSN  IDpaptimuslun
http://news.mingpao.com/20100328/vzb1h.htm

周日話題﹕說的是生存,笨蛋!

【明報專訊】哈佛大學政治哲學家Michael Sandel曾在演講時說過這充滿洞見的話﹕
「如果經濟學被用來指點我們應該做什麼,它就是謬誤的科學,因為在政治或社會層面,

我們該做什麼無可避免地是道德與政治性的問題,而不僅僅是經濟問題,因此它們需要一些關乎根本價值的民主辯論」。這短短的引言,

或許解釋了何以即使功能組別議員張宇人日前有關最低工資的「二十元」論惹來眾怒,那些隨後在媒體湧現的「加三元加五元」的言論,

依舊完全搔不癢處。似乎香港社會還未弄清那個兩位數字背後還欠一個問題﹕關於最低,我們說的其實是?

而這,才是Sandel所說那「關乎根本價值的民主辯論」所要的辯題。

近年在英美冒起且取得廣泛政治成果的生存工資運動(living wage campaign),清晰地把生存這概念貫注成定立工資底線的倫理論述,使「生存」成為具有動員力量的流行辭彙,正好提醒我們現有最低工資討論的盲點何在。那些在二十多元水平「加把口」的種種論調,側重了「最低」這空洞的形容,而那空洞就被「有多少百分比人受惠」、「市場能消化什麼水平」、「商界的意見大概怎樣」等問題所填滿。這堆問題卻從來沒問,拿取你所提議金額的勞動者,實際上可以維持一種怎樣的生活?是否能賴之以生存?這些問題才應該是為工資立下底線的政治與道德考量,所謂的最低,說的是我們要見到活在這個城市的公民最低限度要如何生存。任何就「最低」說三道四的提議,一旦失去了對生存的關注,就變成了空殼一個。

上海世博行將揭幕,其口號是「城市,讓生活更美好」;城市裏的人如何過活,才是形塑整個城市願景的脈搏。讓我們煞有介事地說句,一旦重新被框定為生存的問題,最低工資的水平勢將成為香港回歸以來前所未見的重要爭辯。因為它讓我們直面這個城市裏的人是如何過活,質問我們希望內裏的人最低限度要怎樣生存。如果貧富懸殊、堅尼系數和社會正義等都太抽象,而《窮富翁大作戰》這類電視節目又太煽情的話,政府統計處為立法而作的全港工資分布調查與那些中位數,就活靈活現地展示了最易讓普羅大眾明白的圖像﹕在這個城市,每六位勞動者就有一人每小時用勞力換到不多於三十三元的工資。假設他每星期受薪四十小時,他一個月才得到不足六千元。五千多元是否可以讓這位低收入工人與他的家人維持生存所需,而他們的生活又是否一個經常以國際都會自居的城市裏的公民所能認同?

生存工資的前世今生

其實用生存狀作為決定工資最低水平的理想,歷史由來以久。一八七○年代在英國中部,已有勞工運動首次以「生存論述」挑戰「供求論述」,要求給予工人的工資不由市場狀所擺布,而給予他們足夠購買食物、住房和衣服等生存必需品的金額,更重要的,是要讓他們有足夠的精神盡公民的義務,參與社群,過有尊嚴的生活。及至上世紀初,工業家Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree已在約克市作大量研究,記下各類生存必須品的價格,發展計算生存工資的算式工具,並向各行業提倡這計算方法。時至今日,依然有以他名字命名的非政府團體,進行計算生存工資的研究。至一九三一年,英國下議院有議員開宗明義提出以工人生存狀作關注對象的生存工資議案。意外地,這次議案不獲通過後,生存工資在七十年後的廿一世紀初,才再一次成為備受關注的政治訴求,在倫敦動員了一浪接一浪非常成功的社會運動。

接手戴卓爾夫人遺留下來的新自由主義經濟,新工黨在一九九七年上台後立刻面對勞工低收入問題,在兩年後通過全國最低工資。然而決定最低工資水平的機制依舊參考市場狀,而不是上述概念中,勞工的生存需要,工資只反映了市場願意接納多少而非工人要多少而過活。也許難以想像,倫敦市政府現在每年會發表官方研究報告,調查要在倫敦不同地區維持基本生活所需,要多少時薪,最新一年的研究結果是要比法定最低工資再多三成。但報告更提出,由於在計算時只是假設勞工住在公共房屋,領到所有福利,而且除自己外沒有伴侶孩子要養活,所以在實際操作中,有許多低收入工人,尤其是移民勞工,要比法定最低工資再多近七成的金錢,才能購得存活所需。

面對這情,一方面受美國城市(如巴爾的摩)的成功例子啟發,一方面亦受該城市本身的經濟結構(大量移民勞工、工作不斷被外判、住房價格快速上升)影響,在二○○一年跨組織的社會運動陣線London Citizens展開了一場大規模的生存工資運動。參與者一如Rowntree,先計算城市裏各地區的生存工資,然後開始針對一些內部收入差距特別大與利潤必然足夠支付生存工資的機構,如大學、藝廊、酒店和銀行等,組織起當中低收入得無法維持基本生活的工人(特別是清潔工人、保安員工),聯繫不同社區的聲音,共同以「生存」為理據向那些機構施壓,爭取生存工資。這個運動,連結非常多元的組織,以生存這鐵一般的狀為號召,逐一向商界領袖、政客與大型機構僱主問責﹕你們,還要不要讓這個城市的勞動者生存了?至今,在倫敦已有超過二萬五千名工人因生存工資運動而脫貧,在不同機構再分配(redistribute)了三億多元港幣的工資。

關於最低,要說的其實是……生存

上述運動提醒我們,一方面低收入的勞動者,特別是清潔和飲食業的工人,在不斷再生產(reproduce)一個城市的經濟運轉,但在市場運作之中,這些工人卻經常得不到足夠工資去再生產自己與家人的勞動力與生活。這是個道德問題,一個近日在最低工資議論聲中依然未浮上水面,但香港必定要面對的道德問題。低收入工作在過去一段時間中不斷被外判,甚至判上判,更是令這些道德問題能進一步逃離那些僱主意識的主要原因﹕外判令「真正的」僱主與勞工幾近全無關係,遠離了他們賴以運作的勞工所面對的工作與生存狀,讓他們更遠離這些道德問題。

把最低工資中「最低」二字的視線轉到生存問題,同時也讓所有人參與進一場「關乎根本價值的民主辯論」中,思考我們要讓經濟上最弱勢的成員最低限度過什麼形式的生活。正因為市場決定的工資可以讓僱主無情地拒答「你們,還要不要讓這個城市的勞動者生存」如此根本的質問,社會才要藉最低工資來把生存的問題登上政治舞台上。過去一星期那些依舊用經濟與市場因素作首要理據,甚至無厘頭「個數」的工資底線水平提議,說明的是有關最低工資的辯論,根本還未開始。克林頓在一九九二年美國總統選舉中針對對手老布殊而用了句家傳戶曉政治口號:「說的是經濟,笨蛋」(It's the economy, stupid!)。 面對刻下的討論,現在我們恰好要把這句倒置過來﹕說的不是經濟,是生存,笨蛋!

從今天開始,說工資底線時,讓我們從生存說起。

延伸閱讀﹕

倫敦瑪麗皇后學院地理系「生存工資」研究資訊

http://www.geog.qmul.ac.uk

London Citizens組織官方網頁

http://www.londoncitizens.org.uk/

文 黃宇軒

編輯 梁詠璋

$20係生存工資? 定係僱主生存工資? 抑或其實攪緊共產分僱主身家?


__________________
fd code of mkds: 429556-619704
fd code of diamond: Paptimus/イ夕チ/2663 6779 5264

此篇文章於 03-28-10 07:57 PM 被 Paptimus 編輯。
Paptimus 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 03-28-10, 08:24 PM   #265
メソウサ
The One
 
註冊日期: Oct 2003
文章: 30,579
3DS Friend Code5069 4259 0235
講到尾
冇工會集體談判
拖壓真係壓條毛


__________________
メソウサ 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 03-28-10, 09:10 PM   #266
歌絲˙暮斯
The One
一擊格神
 
註冊日期: Feb 2003
文章: 21,203
PSN  IDKENZHAYA
前排我起呢度話學經濟不如學風水, 有人指胡說八道, 要麼預測地震天氣的科學家都是白幹.

早就想開個曲線 topic, 不過咁岩有 post 起度講起, 貼埋一份啦.

林行止 「經濟學家得獎 諾貝爾獎蒙污」


諾貝爾獎創設者阿佛烈.諾貝爾的侄孫彼德.諾貝爾博士(瑞士聖嘉蘭大學商業法教授、諾獎學術委員),連同兩位仕而優則教的瑞典學者(一為前環境部長、現為科技高級講師,一為前國會議員、現為經濟學教授)及一名瑞典皇家科學院數學院士,去年十二月十日在斯德哥爾摩的《每日新聞》(Dagens Nyheter)發表長文,反對瑞典中央銀行從一九六九年開始,假借諾貝爾之名,頒發「瑞典銀行紀念諾貝爾的經濟學獎」。法國《世界外交月刊》(Le Monde Diplanatique,網上英文版)今年二月號摘要譯出諾貝爾等這篇大作的精要,不僅令人對經濟學的「科學性」再生疑慮,亦予人以諾貝爾經濟學獎會漸漸不受知識界重視不久後可能有疾而終的聯想。

彼德.諾貝爾指出在阿佛烈的眾多文件及日記中,從未提及經濟學遑論有設獎的意圖,「瑞典央行有如產卵於其他鳥巢的布榖鳥,侵犯了諾貝爾的聲譽;約三分之二的經濟學獎頒給美國芝加哥學派的學者,他們建立投機股票和期權的計量模型,與阿佛烈設獎的目的在提高人類生活素質風馬牛不相及」。這是意氣之言,卻亦說出一點事實。

更有甚者,諾貝爾經濟學獎得主的學術成就只有極少數人認同,而以普通常識的角度考量,可能很平庸。彼德以去年聯合得主普利斯各特及祈蘭德(見去年十月十二日本欄)為例,指出他們建立複雜計量模型的目的在證明中央銀行不應受民選議員(elected legislators)的影響,才有獨立的貨幣政策。彼德認為央行必須獨立於政治影響之外,固有先例可援,亦已是眾所周知的常識,經濟學家有充分資源(如獲得公、私慈善基金會的資助),可以做任何他們喜歡做的研究,但像上述的研究得大獎,只會沾污諾貝爾之名,令諾貝爾獎地位下降。

經濟學家特別是新古典學派(亦稱劍橋學派,其鼻祖馬歇爾的所謂「剪刀式價格理論」,指出價格決定於產品的市場供求)經濟學家根據與現實脫節的「假設」(inaccurate assumptions)撰成「空中樓閣」的經濟學理論,充塞在教科書之中;在研究成果必須不斷驗證才為學界接受的自然科學家眼裏,傳統經濟學以至近年漸成顯學的旁支如環保經濟學、行為經濟學、資源經濟學及生物經濟學,都不該貼上諾貝爾的標籤─諾貝爾獎應和經濟學劃清界線,經濟學獎應該取消。

現代經濟學建立於阿當.史密斯的「無形之手」和達爾文的「物競天擇、優勝劣敗」的基礎上;前者是先利己後利人(經濟增長社會進步)、後者是「自由放任」的理論根據。長期以來,經濟學家堅信讓「無形之手」引導「自由放任」的市場,經濟社會便會不斷創造財富,而且在所謂「社會達爾文主義」(Social Darwinism)的指引下,財富會由上而下(trickle down),令全民受惠。

這種理論衍生了眾多大家常見慣聞的「有效率市場」、經濟人的理性行為和理性預期、市場競爭可創造最大利潤以至無所不在的「華盛頓共識」(Washington Consensus─自由貿易、公開市場、私有化、撤銷管制、出口導向及浮動率),可是,世界並不如經濟學家的預期因此可達致長期沒有通脹的增長及全民就業。近年大家經歷的是金融危機、經濟泡沫、拖欠債務(最後要債權國債權人「一筆勾銷」或折成收款;請參閱三月十四日「財進才俊」版「原是物語」的〈大剪髮〉)及失業率居高不下(目前歐盟諸國的失業率仍企於百分之十水平)。在這種情況下,經濟學家卻認為他們的計量模型無懈可擊,經濟學成為科學,「無形之手」已從理論變成「科學原理」。諾貝爾獎令經濟學躋身科學之林 。

在經濟學如日中天的現在,行為經濟學家(本欄二月二十四日)和心理學家(本欄三月九日)均指出人類行為並不完全符合經濟人凡事理性地考慮利己的假設,人類的互信、合作、分享和人與人之間的親密關係,不一定與斤斤計較私利有關,而是由與生俱來的利他傾向促致(試想在原始社會人類怎會考慮私利?)。

事實上,不必行為經濟學家的實證,我們在日常生活特別是與友人交往中,不難發現人的行為與經濟學家的「模範理性經濟人」(rational-actor model)大有不同,人經常做出非理性的事,這即是說,人的行為並不純然受「無形之手」所牽引,凡事先考慮私利。筆者向來認同自利動機是重要的人類天性,但像有些經濟學家(如屠洛克〔G. Tullock〕)指「平均而言,人的行為百分之九十五出於自利動機」,則是言過其實。沒有宗教信仰的人會以無名氏的名義捐款做善事、當義工,有同情心的人會留小賬給他路過、肯定不會再光顧的鄉間餐廳侍應……。這類利他行為,都不在經濟學家計算之中。

人類非理性行為的普遍性,令那些假設理性行為而建立的計量經濟模型失卻分析及預測能力,然而,經濟學家不必為其錯判付出代價(預測百分之一點五增長結果增幅百分之一,誤差達百分之五十,預測者理應為此付出代價),這與醫生斷錯症開錯藥被病者控告招致名譽及金錢損失(現在連氣象學家錯誤預測天氣亦會受罰)不同。在這種情況下,諾貝爾的後人力說瑞典央行應該停止以諾貝爾之名頒發經濟學獎,便顯得大有道理且有公義了。


Hazel Henderson: "Abolish the “Nobel”in Economic”Many Scientists Agree!"
The widely-touted, so-called “Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics” isn’t a proper Nobel Prize at all. For many years, I and others have sought to correct this widespread error by reminding people of its actual name: The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Science in Memory of Alfred Nobel. The Bank set up this $1 million prize in 1969, as I have held, in order to legitimize the economics profession as a science.

Since then, economists with their claims of knowing how to manage national economies, have wrought untold damage, from the “shock treatment” they advocated for Russia to their “Washington Consensus” formulas for economic growth (free trade, privatization, floating currencies, opening to global capital flows, etc), which contributed to financial instabilities and excessive debts. As I pointed out in “G-8 Economists in Retreat” (IPS, June 2003) economics is now being undermined by new research in many other scientific studies.

Now, in an exclusive interview with me, Peter Nobel, Alfred Nobel’s descendent, emphasized that “there is no mention in the letters of Alfred Nobel that he would appreciate a prize for economics. The Swedish Riksbank, like a cuckoo, has placed its egg in another very decent bird’s nest. What the Bank did was akin to trademark infringement – unacceptably robbing the real Nobel Prizes.” Nobel added, “Two thirds of these prizes in economics have gone to US economists, particularly of the Chicago School – to people speculating in stock markets and options. These have nothing to do with Alfred Nobel’s goal of improving the human condition and our survival – indeed they are the exact opposite.”

As this years Nobel Prizes were awarded last week, a number of scientists went public criticizing the mis-labeled “Nobel” Memorial Prize in Economics” as an embarrassment which is diminishing the value of all other Nobel Prizes. In an Op-Ed in Sweden’s main newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, December 10, 2004, Swedish mathematicians, Mans Lonnroth and Peter Jagers, a member of the Swedish Academy of Sciences, proposed that the prize in economics should either be broadened in scope or abolished. They reiterated similar criticisms of the economics prize by other mathematicians and physicists, because it is often given to economists who mis-use mathematics to claim that they have optimal ways of organizing societies. Lonnroth and Jagers cite this year’s economics prize, which was awarded to Finn E. Kydland and Edward C. Prescott as typical of this mis-use of mathematics.
Prescott and Kydland’s work in a 1977 paper, describes a mathematical model which purports to show that this model can be used for guiding whole economies (and therefore, societies). The implication is that such political guidance is best left to economists rather than trusted to elected politicians. The statement of Sweden’s Royal Academy of Science, which selected Kydland and Prescott, states that “Already, in their 1977 article, the Laureates …..work has had a far-reaching impact on reforms carried out in many places (such as New Zealand, Sweden, Great Britain and the Euro area) aimed at legislated delegation of monetary policy decisions to independent central bankers.”

This is exactly what many democratically-elected legislators oppose .The Swedish Central Bank’s Prize in Economic Science, in its continuing subtle campaign to legitimate the economics profession as a “science”, still hopes to portray economics as politically neutral. It is precisely these claims as a science, clothed in apparent “value-free” objectivity and mathematical precision that has given economists their mystique and predominant role in public policy-making worldwide.

In my Politics of the Solar Age, published in Swedish in 1982 as False Priests, I documented the evolution of the economics profession and how it came to colonize other disciplines and dominate public policy in Chapter 8, “Three Hundred Years of Snake Oil”. I showed how the theories of economists were largely unprovable hypotheses --- quite different from those in other hard sciences, which could be empirically verified or refuted. For example, the equations which guide spaceships to the moon or in constructing a bridge must be correct. Or the bridge will collapse and the spaceship self-destruct. On the other hand, economists’ so-called principles are mere concepts, which often conceal political or social ideologies behind smokescreens of fancy mathematics.

Other scientists joining the critical mass denouncing the Swedish Bank Prize include noted physicist, Prof. Dr. Hans Peter Durr, of the famed Max Planck Institute for Physics, who told me that “economics is not even bad science, it is incorrect in many of its basic assumptions”. I had previously asked Prof. Durr “how could such a scandalous mis-use of other sciences have continued unchallenged for over 40 years?” Durr replied that academic etiquette usually restrained scholars from other fields from straying into other disciplines, especially with such criticisms. Austrian physicist, systems theorist and best-selling author, Fritjof Capra told me that “The dimension of meaning, purpose, values and conflicts is critical to social reality. Any model of social organization that does not include this critical dimension is inadequate. Unfortunately, this is true for most theoretical models in economics today.”

Mathematician and chaos theorist, Prof. Ralph Abraham at the University of California, Santa Cruz adds, “The prize in economics should be broadened in line with the full spectrum of social sciences to which it belongs and it should be distanced from the Nobel awards, like the Fields Medals in mathematics.” Yet Peter Nobel maintains that economics is not a science. Riane Eisler, systems scientist and author of the best-seller, The Chalice and the Blade, agrees.

Psychologist, David Loye, author of Darwin’s Lost Theory of Love goes further and shows how Charles Darwin’s great work was co-opted in Victorian Britain to emphasize “the survival of the fittest” and justify class divisions and competition, which Darwin mentioned only briefly. This model of human nature was adopted by economists as their “rational economic man” who maximized his self-interest in competition with all others (still taught in economics). Darwin focused instead on the evolution of altruism, cooperation, bonding, sharing and trust as one of the bases of human success (for more, visit www.thedarwinproject.com)

It seems that a major scientific scandal is emerging, with historians of science including Robert Nadeau, author of The Non-Local Universe, and his devastating dismissal of economics as full of assumptions that have little basis in reality. Stay tuned!
歌絲˙暮斯 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 03-30-10, 08:28 AM   #267
メソウサ
The One
 
註冊日期: Oct 2003
文章: 30,579
3DS Friend Code5069 4259 0235
有冇人拎jor廿蚊張?


__________________
メソウサ 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 03-30-10, 11:35 AM   #268
雷火武
God of Gamer
ワールド・エンド
 
註冊日期: Feb 2005
文章: 14,393
引用:
作者: 歌絲˙暮斯 查看文章
前排我起呢度話學經濟不如學風水, 有人指胡說八道, 要麼預測地震天氣的科學家都是白幹.

早就想開個曲線 topic, 不過咁岩有 post 起度講起, 貼埋一份啦.

林行止 「經濟學家得獎 諾貝爾獎蒙污」


諾貝爾獎創設者阿佛烈.諾貝爾的侄孫彼德.諾貝爾博士(瑞士聖嘉蘭大學商業法教授、諾獎學術委員),連同兩位仕而優則教的瑞典學者(一為前環境部長、現為科技高級講師,一為前國會議員、現為經濟學教授)及一名瑞典皇家科學院數學院士,去年十二月十日在斯德哥爾摩的《每日新聞》(Dagens Nyheter)發表長文,反對瑞典中央銀行從一九六九年開始,假借諾貝爾之名,頒發「瑞典銀行紀念諾貝爾的經濟學獎」。法國《世界外交月刊》(Le Monde Diplanatique,網上英文版)今年二月號摘要譯出諾貝爾等這篇大作的精要,不僅令人對經濟學的「科學性」再生疑慮,亦予人以諾貝爾經濟學獎會漸漸不受知識界重視不久後可能有疾而終的聯想。

彼德.諾貝爾指出在阿佛烈的眾多文件及日記中,從未提及經濟學遑論有設獎的意圖,「瑞典央行有如產卵於其他鳥巢的布榖鳥,侵犯了諾貝爾的聲譽;約三分之二的經濟學獎頒給美國芝加哥學派的學者,他們建立投機股票和期權的計量模型,與阿佛烈設獎的目的在提高人類生活素質風馬牛不相及」。這是意氣之言,卻亦說出一點事實。

更有甚者,諾貝爾經濟學獎得主的學術成就只有極少數人認同,而以普通常識的角度考量,可能很平庸。彼德以去年聯合得主普利斯各特及祈蘭德(見去年十月十二日本欄)為例,指出他們建立複雜計量模型的目的在證明中央銀行不應受民選議員(elected legislators)的影響,才有獨立的貨幣政策。彼德認為央行必須獨立於政治影響之外,固有先例可援,亦已是眾所周知的常識,經濟學家有充分資源(如獲得公、私慈善基金會的資助),可以做任何他們喜歡做的研究,但像上述的研究得大獎,只會沾污諾貝爾之名,令諾貝爾獎地位下降。

經濟學家特別是新古典學派(亦稱劍橋學派,其鼻祖馬歇爾的所謂「剪刀式價格理論」,指出價格決定於產品的市場供求)經濟學家根據與現實脫節的「假設」(inaccurate assumptions)撰成「空中樓閣」的經濟學理論,充塞在教科書之中;在研究成果必須不斷驗證才為學界接受的自然科學家眼裏,傳統經濟學以至近年漸成顯學的旁支如環保經濟學、行為經濟學、資源經濟學及生物經濟學,都不該貼上諾貝爾的標籤─諾貝爾獎應和經濟學劃清界線,經濟學獎應該取消。

現代經濟學建立於阿當.史密斯的「無形之手」和達爾文的「物競天擇、優勝劣敗」的基礎上;前者是先利己後利人(經濟增長社會進步)、後者是「自由放任」的理論根據。長期以來,經濟學家堅信讓「無形之手」引導「自由放任」的市場,經濟社會便會不斷創造財富,而且在所謂「社會達爾文主義」(Social Darwinism)的指引下,財富會由上而下(trickle down),令全民受惠。

這種理論衍生了眾多大家常見慣聞的「有效率市場」、經濟人的理性行為和理性預期、市場競爭可創造最大利潤以至無所不在的「華盛頓共識」(Washington Consensus─自由貿易、公開市場、私有化、撤銷管制、出口導向及浮動率),可是,世界並不如經濟學家的預期因此可達致長期沒有通脹的增長及全民就業。近年大家經歷的是金融危機、經濟泡沫、拖欠債務(最後要債權國債權人「一筆勾銷」或折成收款;請參閱三月十四日「財進才俊」版「原是物語」的〈大剪髮〉)及失業率居高不下(目前歐盟諸國的失業率仍企於百分之十水平)。在這種情況下,經濟學家卻認為他們的計量模型無懈可擊,經濟學成為科學,「無形之手」已從理論變成「科學原理」。諾貝爾獎令經濟學躋身科學之林 。

在經濟學如日中天的現在,行為經濟學家(本欄二月二十四日)和心理學家(本欄三月九日)均指出人類行為並不完全符合經濟人凡事理性地考慮利己的假設,人類的互信、合作、分享和人與人之間的親密關係,不一定與斤斤計較私利有關,而是由與生俱來的利他傾向促致(試想在原始社會人類怎會考慮私利?)。

事實上,不必行為經濟學家的實證,我們在日常生活特別是與友人交往中,不難發現人的行為與經濟學家的「模範理性經濟人」(rational-actor model)大有不同,人經常做出非理性的事,這即是說,人的行為並不純然受「無形之手」所牽引,凡事先考慮私利。筆者向來認同自利動機是重要的人類天性,但像有些經濟學家(如屠洛克〔G. Tullock〕)指「平均而言,人的行為百分之九十五出於自利動機」,則是言過其實。沒有宗教信仰的人會以無名氏的名義捐款做善事、當義工,有同情心的人會留小賬給他路過、肯定不會再光顧的鄉間餐廳侍應……。這類利他行為,都不在經濟學家計算之中。

人類非理性行為的普遍性,令那些假設理性行為而建立的計量經濟模型失卻分析及預測能力,然而,經濟學家不必為其錯判付出代價(預測百分之一點五增長結果增幅百分之一,誤差達百分之五十,預測者理應為此付出代價),這與醫生斷錯症開錯藥被病者控告招致名譽及金錢損失(現在連氣象學家錯誤預測天氣亦會受罰)不同。在這種情況下,諾貝爾的後人力說瑞典央行應該停止以諾貝爾之名頒發經濟學獎,便顯得大有道理且有公義了。


Hazel Henderson: "Abolish the “Nobel”in Economic”Many Scientists Agree!"
The widely-touted, so-called “Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics” isn’t a proper Nobel Prize at all. For many years, I and others have sought to correct this widespread error by reminding people of its actual name: The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Science in Memory of Alfred Nobel. The Bank set up this $1 million prize in 1969, as I have held, in order to legitimize the economics profession as a science.

Since then, economists with their claims of knowing how to manage national economies, have wrought untold damage, from the “shock treatment” they advocated for Russia to their “Washington Consensus” formulas for economic growth (free trade, privatization, floating currencies, opening to global capital flows, etc), which contributed to financial instabilities and excessive debts. As I pointed out in “G-8 Economists in Retreat” (IPS, June 2003) economics is now being undermined by new research in many other scientific studies.

Now, in an exclusive interview with me, Peter Nobel, Alfred Nobel’s descendent, emphasized that “there is no mention in the letters of Alfred Nobel that he would appreciate a prize for economics. The Swedish Riksbank, like a cuckoo, has placed its egg in another very decent bird’s nest. What the Bank did was akin to trademark infringement – unacceptably robbing the real Nobel Prizes.” Nobel added, “Two thirds of these prizes in economics have gone to US economists, particularly of the Chicago School – to people speculating in stock markets and options. These have nothing to do with Alfred Nobel’s goal of improving the human condition and our survival – indeed they are the exact opposite.”

As this years Nobel Prizes were awarded last week, a number of scientists went public criticizing the mis-labeled “Nobel” Memorial Prize in Economics” as an embarrassment which is diminishing the value of all other Nobel Prizes. In an Op-Ed in Sweden’s main newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, December 10, 2004, Swedish mathematicians, Mans Lonnroth and Peter Jagers, a member of the Swedish Academy of Sciences, proposed that the prize in economics should either be broadened in scope or abolished. They reiterated similar criticisms of the economics prize by other mathematicians and physicists, because it is often given to economists who mis-use mathematics to claim that they have optimal ways of organizing societies. Lonnroth and Jagers cite this year’s economics prize, which was awarded to Finn E. Kydland and Edward C. Prescott as typical of this mis-use of mathematics.
Prescott and Kydland’s work in a 1977 paper, describes a mathematical model which purports to show that this model can be used for guiding whole economies (and therefore, societies). The implication is that such political guidance is best left to economists rather than trusted to elected politicians. The statement of Sweden’s Royal Academy of Science, which selected Kydland and Prescott, states that “Already, in their 1977 article, the Laureates …..work has had a far-reaching impact on reforms carried out in many places (such as New Zealand, Sweden, Great Britain and the Euro area) aimed at legislated delegation of monetary policy decisions to independent central bankers.”

This is exactly what many democratically-elected legislators oppose .The Swedish Central Bank’s Prize in Economic Science, in its continuing subtle campaign to legitimate the economics profession as a “science”, still hopes to portray economics as politically neutral. It is precisely these claims as a science, clothed in apparent “value-free” objectivity and mathematical precision that has given economists their mystique and predominant role in public policy-making worldwide.

In my Politics of the Solar Age, published in Swedish in 1982 as False Priests, I documented the evolution of the economics profession and how it came to colonize other disciplines and dominate public policy in Chapter 8, “Three Hundred Years of Snake Oil”. I showed how the theories of economists were largely unprovable hypotheses --- quite different from those in other hard sciences, which could be empirically verified or refuted. For example, the equations which guide spaceships to the moon or in constructing a bridge must be correct. Or the bridge will collapse and the spaceship self-destruct. On the other hand, economists’ so-called principles are mere concepts, which often conceal political or social ideologies behind smokescreens of fancy mathematics.

Other scientists joining the critical mass denouncing the Swedish Bank Prize include noted physicist, Prof. Dr. Hans Peter Durr, of the famed Max Planck Institute for Physics, who told me that “economics is not even bad science, it is incorrect in many of its basic assumptions”. I had previously asked Prof. Durr “how could such a scandalous mis-use of other sciences have continued unchallenged for over 40 years?” Durr replied that academic etiquette usually restrained scholars from other fields from straying into other disciplines, especially with such criticisms. Austrian physicist, systems theorist and best-selling author, Fritjof Capra told me that “The dimension of meaning, purpose, values and conflicts is critical to social reality. Any model of social organization that does not include this critical dimension is inadequate. Unfortunately, this is true for most theoretical models in economics today.”

Mathematician and chaos theorist, Prof. Ralph Abraham at the University of California, Santa Cruz adds, “The prize in economics should be broadened in line with the full spectrum of social sciences to which it belongs and it should be distanced from the Nobel awards, like the Fields Medals in mathematics.” Yet Peter Nobel maintains that economics is not a science. Riane Eisler, systems scientist and author of the best-seller, The Chalice and the Blade, agrees.

Psychologist, David Loye, author of Darwin’s Lost Theory of Love goes further and shows how Charles Darwin’s great work was co-opted in Victorian Britain to emphasize “the survival of the fittest” and justify class divisions and competition, which Darwin mentioned only briefly. This model of human nature was adopted by economists as their “rational economic man” who maximized his self-interest in competition with all others (still taught in economics). Darwin focused instead on the evolution of altruism, cooperation, bonding, sharing and trust as one of the bases of human success (for more, visit www.thedarwinproject.com)

It seems that a major scientific scandal is emerging, with historians of science including Robert Nadeau, author of The Non-Local Universe, and his devastating dismissal of economics as full of assumptions that have little basis in reality. Stay tuned!
咁講都無錯..有時見到自己認識既人/自己做既野.的確係唔乎合利己既原則..
呢個應該係正常人都會有的吧?

反而下下做任何野都要利己先反而係不太正常的感覺...
雷火武 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 03-30-10, 11:59 AM   #269
メソウサ
The One
 
註冊日期: Oct 2003
文章: 30,579
3DS Friend Code5069 4259 0235
林行止佢自己已經係右佬
點會覺得薪酬調節係需要


__________________
メソウサ 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
回覆

主題工具
顯示模式

論壇跳轉


現在的時間是 01:20 PM


手機版 | APP版
Powered by vBulletin® 版本 3.8.3
版權所有 ©2000 - 2024,Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. map
Games Animation Forum