soli

上面既咪就係對自由巿場既一廂情願~
自由巿場破產已經唔係第一次﹐狡辯無用~
相反﹐Keynes個套既失敗就真係人為因素(中東班友唔賣油﹐無計)﹐死得冤枉﹐其實係work 既.
睇返香港﹐金融風暴/SARS 之後﹐董伯伯減社會福利﹐減開支﹐裁公務員﹐凍薪減薪﹐搞到香港扑街﹐周街都係跳樓斬人消炭﹐呢D咪係自由市場主義囉﹐如果唔係大陸打救﹐香港就bye bye 啦。
相反﹐而加煲呔反其道而行﹐增加生果金(需然係被逼)﹐增加開支搞機建﹐請多7千個公務員等等﹐大家就睇下結果會係點啦。
(不過無論特首財爺點做﹐阿力哥都會反對到底﹐呢個叫做逢中必反也~ )

BiscottiGelato

原帖由 soli 於 2009-2-16 13:36 發表
上面既咪就係對自由巿場既一廂情願~
自由巿場破產已經唔係第一次﹐狡辯無用~
相反﹐Keynes個套既失敗就真係人為因素(中東班友唔賣油﹐無計)﹐死得冤枉﹐其實係work 既.
睇返香港﹐金融風暴/SARS 之後﹐董伯伯減社會福利﹐減開 ...

Free market do not equal up market. It's just efficient in terms of global economy. If any local competitive advantage is fundamentally eroded, then it is going to go down, just a fact of life.

We know HK's competitive advantage was eroded due to the opening up of China. Mainland shoving money and business op to artificially allow HK to stay afloat is what's inefficient. When a lot of the same work can slowly be done out of Shanghai, etc at lower cost/better efficiency, we know HK's position will relatively go down slowly. There's no denying that. And as a whole for China, I am sure things got more expensive when many of the opportunity is done out of HK instead. We are sacrificing the big picture when we choose a non-free market approach to support local growth. That's what I mean free market is always the most efficient.

Putting US back in perspective, we are sacrificing US as a whole when we bail out individual companies, etc. One might argue there'll be lot more bankruptcy, executive suicides, etc happening all over America if the Fed don't shove money up people's hand. But many of these companies, which would otherwise go bankrupt etc were simply badly ran, managed or positioned in the market. Getting rid of these burdens allows the country to reposition itself for better efficiency and productivity. Government intervention only prevents this natural adjustment from happening. Allowing bad comapnies to leech off successes of others, if not prevent others from succeeding.

Government intervention always prevent efficient economic growth as a whole. The only reason I see for the government is as Lik have said, for humanitarian reasons. People that cannot compete will perish in free market, and the government is there to allow these people to maintain a minimum quality of life. But when government intervention go overboard, ie:

- Give money from productive tax payers and well ran company to uncompetitive companies which will drag the country down, aka. GM/Chrysler in the US, etc
- Hand out anything stimulus for short term pain relief
- Unrealistically relaxed monetary policy to allow artificial economic bubbles to proliferate, etc.

Then we are not just aiding the poor, but we are taxing the public for aiding a small group of people who have failed to perform. This, is what's inefficient and will cause even greater pain in the long run.

peter236

阿力兄對香港，愛之深，責之切, 真係可歌可泣。

fibbi

原帖由 peter236 於 2009-2-15 04:10 發表
我無叫佢收聲，佢有言論自由。不過佢上得呢道就預左有人爭論，係佢自己理由唔夠，又點極都唔明。
我叫佢不如叫蝦帕政府減人工，同派錢俾我地啦，佢又冇得答。

佢話對香港中國愛之深，責之切，但係佢愛嘅邏輯有問題,大部分人都不同意佢。

爭論還爭論, 你當然有權話佢唔講嘅野唔arm聽, 但係話人地賤格就點講都係過咗啲火位.
大部分人同意邊個我就唔知, 不過就算唔同意Lik，都未必一定同意老兄你啦.

mcjohnjohn

原帖由 peter236 於 2009-2-16 19:10 發表


You said we should learn from Singapore where all people cut their salaries.

我係話香港人乍woh, 係"我", 而唔係"我地".
你係唔係香港人丫? 如果係, 就預埋你law, 好唔好?

soli

經濟efficient有屁用?  社會和諧先係最重要。
巿場越自由, 貧富懸殊只會越嚴重﹐  個個窮人由朝做到晚都兩餐不繼﹐  已擁有財富既既得利益者只要不斷剝削工人﹐ 就可以富貴萬代﹐  80% +財富集中于1%人手裡, 仲衰過以前D皇朝﹐  而且周不時就黎個大衰退﹐ ﹐ 搞到民不聊生, 周街都失業跳樓﹐  呢D o甘既主義﹐ 要黎把鬼.

BiscottiGelato

原帖由 soli 於 2009-2-17 06:13 發表
經濟efficient有屁用?  社會和諧先係最重要。
巿場越自由, 貧富懸殊只會越嚴重﹐  個個窮人由朝做到晚都兩餐不繼﹐  已擁有財富既既得利益者只要不斷剝削工人﹐ 就可以富貴萬代﹐  80% +財富集中于1%人手裡, 仲衰過以前D皇朝 ...

Society overall usually advance as a whole much more rapidly under capitalism than socialism... go figure.... The rich gets a lot richer, but the poor also get a better living standard because society moved as a whole. Yes rich poor disparity widens, but why should the poor care when they are getting a better standard of living quicker?

This is just like the argument against two-tier health care. The poor don't want the rich to receive health care quicker by spending their own money. Heck, but two-tier also allows the poor to have better access to health-care services. So two-tier widens the gap in service quality between the rich and poor, but both the rich and the poor got better service level in the end. Two tier, which is more of the capitalistic approach, allows a win-win situation, what's the wrong in that? Relating back, free-market capitalism essentially is a win-win, while heavy socialistic intervention is lose lose. Stop the envy and start the productivity!

Also, that's why I say the government's only role should be to protect the poor to have a min living standard. Any more than that, like the stupid bail out which is actually bailing out the rich, or stimulus packages which is expensive and doesn't really help the poor anyways, is over-intervention, which interrupts the efficiency of society's progress as a whole.

[ 本帖最後由 BiscottiGelato 於 2009-2-17 11:17 編輯 ]

peter236

That's why Hong Kong's public and private health care system is better than many other places. Both rich and poor get what they need. Hong Kong's financial system is also better than Canada's overly conservative approach and the uncontrolled capitalism in the US.

Lik

原帖由 peter236 於 2009-2-17 12:00 發表
That's why Hong Kong's public and private health care system is better than many other places. Both rich and poor get what they need.

Except that HK hardly pumps any $$ into their public healthcare system, thus effectively creating a system of have's and have not's:

(from the HK 明愛 incident back in December)
http://www.mingpaonews.com/20081223/gaa2.htm

公立醫生嘆資源少﹕10元預算交20元貨 2008年12月23日

【明報專訊】瑪麗醫院有肝癌病人出現頭暈、氣促、嘔吐、抽搐及大腿痛等病發徵狀，家屬向病房醫護求助3小時才獲實習醫生檢查，結果證實不治，有公立醫院的醫生感嘆﹕「平均來說，我們用美國30%(國民醫療平均開支)或英國50%的價錢，做100%醫護的服務，即是給你10元，卻要20元貨，就這次事件而言，如果要做到有專科醫生第一時間搶救病人，要增加好幾倍資源才行！」

該醫生指出，「醫院管理」已成為「專業項目」，「所謂『專業』，就是要減省開支，但管理層從來不理前線救人工作，『閂埋門』想像外界事，脫節，不出事才怪」。

醫生爭做管理層 前線充斥實習生

他直斥公立醫院資源錯配﹕「坦白說，現時好多醫生都不想跑前線，考到專科牌就想往上爬做管理層，不用面對SARS之類風險。但個個都做指揮的將軍，誰做衝鋒的卒子？不就是那些實習生，於是，醫院變成了訓練實驗室，醫療水平怎會高？」

李國麟﹕醫護價值觀出問題

立法會衛生事務委員會主席李國麟則批評事件「非常嚴重，簡直令人驚奇，院方有責任詳細交代一切」。他指這種現象已不是資源問題，而是醫護對人命的價值觀問題。他認為醫療系統連番出現類似延誤救治的情況，反映在僵化體制下，醫護缺乏人之常情及應變智慧，沒有以理性及專業角度去關懷有需要的病人，「原本可能無事，但怎可能等3個鐘才有醫生？院方不應再官僚回覆，一定要詳細解釋，事主兒子也可以到院方上訴委員會上訴」。

If you don't know shxt about HK's system, STFU la.

-Lik

peter236

原帖由 Lik 於 2009-2-17 13:21 發表

Except that HK hardly pumps any $$ into their public healthcare system, thus effectively creating a system of have's and have not's:

(from the HK 明愛 incident back in December)
http://www.mingpaone ...

You are the one who should STFU now. Hong Kong's tax rates are way lower than in the US, UK and Canada. They don't even have GST/PST. With tax rates so low, how are they going to pump adequate money into public health care and welfare?