kaxton's Xanga

還是25、26歲？

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:16:06 GMT

今天和幾個在澳洲識的Freind 去食飯，佢地個個都重讀近undegrad, 有一個重未讀U, 跟住又係問我幾多歲。。。。

唉。。。。我重申，我唔係25歲，亦唔係26歲，我而家29歲，四個月後會三張野!

都唔知係好定唔好，我成日都比人誤會我25歲。但25歲時的我，是我人生最不快樂的一年！

究竟是不是我身體有問題呢，我中一時就已經係咁既樣（當時比學校社工話我早熟 -_-||| )，到中三時就無論面貌和身材都和現在的一模一樣（難道現在是遲熟？）。

在寫呢個post 之前，check 左facebook, 見到25歲時自己曾溺愛過既舊愛竟然好像老了十年似的，殘了很多！

原來，愛情真係會變質，當你四、五年前看一個人，你會覺得佢好好，好吸引；但幾年過後，你反而會覺得佢好平凡、無咩特別。

但有一樣野是不會變的，無論你和你既舊愛分手了多久，你總會心思思去看下佢xanga, facebook, 看下佢近況。這種心理和行為想必很多人都有，查實我自己都做唔少。

你問我係咪放唔低，唔係囉；但係咪完全放低哂，咁又唔係囉，真是矛盾！

或許我勁過黑格爾同馬克思，我懂得將辯證法用係愛情度－－每一段感情都係之前一次的anti-thesis，而每一次新感情又係之前所有矛盾的感情的synthesis! (哈哈! 博君一笑，不要信真，我只是拿黑格爾和馬克思來開玩笑！）

中國政府沒有操控人民幣？

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:46:33 GMT

先來一個有趣的經濟學問題：

1。究竟人民幣（Renmenbi）和元(yuan)有什麼分別？

（Hints: 可参考一下Sterling 和 Pound 有什麼分別？）

2。以下那一個才是正確？

a) RMB/ dollar
b) yuan/ dollar

答案在我講完第二件趣事揭曉！

中國政府沒有操控人民幣？

有看下新聞的人都知，美國政府因為與中國之間存在巨大貿易逆差，已經在過去幾年不斷喊打喊殺，話要人民幣要升值，叫中國政府不要操控人民幣價格。有少少國際貿易常識的人都知：如果中國政府肯比人民幣自由浮動（隨之而來必定是大幅升值），中國進口美國的產品便會大幅升值。屆時，中美貿易逆差便得以減少。

但中國政府過去一直透過（1）管制資金流進出國外，和（2）在國際貨幣巿場大量賣出人民幣和買入美金，使人民幣一直與美金保持相對穩定的匯率，令其出口貨品一直保持廉價，在國際巿場保持競爭力。這種情況，你說中國政府無操控人民幣價格，點都講唔通。

但奇怪的是，上星期，美國財政部竟然向國會報告「中國政府沒有操控人民幣價格」！此話完全一反常態。極為有趣！究竟為何美國財政部會作出這些的宣稱？

原來，美國政府是這樣盤算的：很多國家都會在經濟差時大賣本國貨幣，使其貶值，從而增加競爭力，降低生產成本，吸引外資，推動經濟復甦。然而，美國礙於外交關係（試想想大量美金落入索羅斯，拉登或伊朗政府手上），不能大賣美金。故此，美國政府只能寄望手握大量美金作儲備的中國政府出手相助，大賣美金，助美國經濟復甦。這樣，人家中國以白武士身份相助，美國政府又豈能再駡人家「操控」哩！

但究竟中國政府是否真的會出手相助？何時出手？這仍是未知之數（如果知的話，我便一定會狂入澳紙，從中賺番筆！）

答案：

1。人民幣(RMB)是中國的貨幣(currency)，而元(yuan)是人民幣的單位(unit of currency); 同理，Sterling 是英國的currency, 而pound 是Sterling 的單位；

2。所以單位要對單位，正確答案是(b) yuan/dollar!

Socialist is ever a socialist!

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:33:35 GMT

在坎城留學的日子差不多四個月，想像到的文化衝擊沒有來之前想像的那麼大。然而，坎培拉始終是一個小城巿。習慣生活在國際都會的香港的我確實在過去幾個月內感到很多的不適應。

在香港，你可以半夜還可以跑到七仔買即食面，在坎培拉，假如那晩你的雪櫃真的是空的，那你就只得捱餓。

但最大的不同仍是人際關係，在香港，人人都可能會做到夜晚八九點才會收工，很多人兩至三點還開著MSN 跟Friend 聊天。假若你有剎那的孤獨，你可以一個Message便可找三五知己到BAR喝酒大吐苦水。然而，在坎培拉，人們的生活真的十分刻板，沒有什麼夜生活，而且我住的地方不是學校宿舍，是在校外的一間小屋。雖然路程不遠，但卻很少有在香港那種三五知已通頂的經驗。

另一個不同是思想交流，無可否認，雖然香港是國際都會，但人們的思想還是頗狹隘的。這方面是我在坎培拉参與一些社會主義團體的討論時發現的。在香港，雖然同是有社會主義傾向的NGO, 但旦凡討論都離不開香港本土的議題，極其量只是中國內地的議題。然而，在坎城的社會主義團體，每星期都有聚會，每星期都會有讀書會，而每次的討論內容都很少和澳洲本土有關，而且参與討論的人所提出的例子都是十分global 的。在香港，我很少會想過在加沙以色列和巴勒斯坦的問題，亦很少會運用我的馬克思主義框架來分析奧巴馬的伊朗政策，不是不會，而是該議題從沒有在我腦海中逗留超過可以分析的所需時間。

差不多在十年前，我開始認識馬克思，開始鑽研他的鉅著，斷斷續續都有参與過和發起過一些讀書組，亦運用過他的框架來分析香港勞工的狀況。接著，我可以說我確實有幾年人生的空白期，茫茫然，混混亂亂的過日子，而且那幾年間，連當初社關的熱情也差不多消失殆盡。

然而，當我來到坎培拉之後，很奇怪，我第一個目標就是要找當地的社會主義組織。其實這也不難理解，對一個知識分子來說，最大的痛苦是不能和別人作思想交流。而作為一個抱著馬克思主義的知識分子而言，生活在一個退休理想地方的坎培拉，是一種折磨。就如馬克思所講，資本主義的矛盾都在這些「和諧」的表象中存在，當一個知道社會背後運作原則的人來說，他真的巴不得向全世界人揭露這地方的虛偽。

突然間，腦海中有著一句話：

Wherever you are, a socialist is ever a socialist.

學富五車捱騾仔

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:49:27 GMT

學富五車捱騾仔不學無術嘆世界

It was the guys who went off to investment banks who were buying the third homes,
while the top students were trying to eke out their incomes with an occasional consulting gig.

Paul Krugman

2008 年諾貝爾經濟科學獎得主Paul Krugman 早前在自己的blog 中慨嘆現時的畸型情況－－

學富五車的人，永遠仍為三餐捱騾仔；不學無術的人，要擔心的已是自己的第三個物業！

Smart guys and Wall Street (By Paul Krugman)

I’m a little late on this great Calvin Trillin piece, but it accords with my own more specialized memories from grad school. The year I got my PhD (1977), there was a very clear ranking of desirable career paths. The best economics grad students went into academic jobs; the middle went to the Fed or the IMF; the bottom went, poor souls, to Wall Street.

Even then this meant an inverse relationship between academic ranking and income, since new assistant professors were paid only around $15,000, equivalent to a bit more than 50K today. But the prestige differences more than offset the pay differentials, at least as we saw it then. And one thing that’s hard to convey is how boring business seemed in the 1960s and 1970s. (”I’ve got just one word for you: plastics.”)

But even a decade later, it was the guys who went off to investment banks who were buying the third homes, while the top students were trying to eke out their incomes with an occasional consulting gig. And it wasn’t just the money: business stopped being so boring, and was even getting to be fun for some people. The old conviction that the academic life was the ideal definitely began to fray at the edges.

Did the influx of smart people bring on disaster? That’s a longer story. But the change in who went where is utterly real.

Wage, Time-wages, Piece-Wages and Labor Intensity

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:50:28 GMT

Wage, Time-wages, Piece-Wages and Labor Intensity

Kaxton Siu

Since the emergence of economic science, wage determination, methods of payments and labor productivity have been the discipline’s subject matters. The significance of the subject matters is evident. Classical political economists (Smith, Ricardo and Marx) paid great attention to develop different versions of “labor theory of value” in the 18th and 19th centuries. Notably, Karl Marx developed his “theory of labor value” by inventing the notion of “labor-power”. Labor-power is the commodity sold by worker and defined as socially necessary labor time for production. Marx devoted three chapters (chapter 19 to 22) in his masterpiece, Capital, to analyze “wages”: (1) the transformation of value of labor-power into wages, (2) two contrasting methods of payments (time-wages vs. piece-wages) and (3) national differences of wages. In the three chapters, Marx defined:

Wage: the form in which payment for labor-power is made;

Hourly-wage: the price of a days' labor-power divided by the normal number of hours worked per day;

Time-wages: having defined hourly-wage, time-wages is the natural extension that wages are paid according to labor time expanded in normal hours worked per day. The lengthening of hours worked means the reduction of hourly-wage;

Piece-wage: time time-wages wasn't the only method of payments. Piece-wage, defined as “the normal wage per piece is the daily labor of labor power divided by the number of pieces produced per day under average conditions in one normal working day time”, is another method often used in capitalist mode of production (Brewer, p. 65). Marx argued that piece-wage system can help increase labor productivity and is “the form of wages most in harmony with the capitalist mode of production” (Capital, p.556). Piece-wage reduces the need of superintendence and, as a result, suits appropriately to domestic industries and subletting (subcontracting) of labors.

Although Marx's theory of labor value has been rejected by mainstream economists ssince the “marginalist revolution” in early 20^th century, the debate around wages has never ended. Retrospectively, Marx's definition of wage -- by using socially necessary labor time expanded in a working day and used hourly-wage as measurement yardstick -- is still relevant in today's capitalist mode of production. More important, the issue further gains weight in developing countries where large scale factory productions is still prevailing.

As a matter of fact, the longstanding issue across three centuries can be understood from two areas of uncertainties come out from Marx's definitions:

Determination of Wages: In defining wage, the term “normal number of hours worked per day” is used. But to what number of hours worked should be classified as “normal”? For hourly-wage is the wage measurement yardstick, to what level should hourly-wage be “enough” for a worker to live? If wage is not defined through hourly-wage, what are the consequences?

Methods of Payment: Piece-wages is described as the most “harmonious” method of payments in capitalism for it helps increase labor intensity (hence, productivity) and eliminates the need of superintendence. But in what way does piece-wages system increase productivity and reduce superintendence costs in production?

The aforementioned areas of uncertainties have been taken up and encountered one by one by government, economists and labor activists in the last two centuries. First, for wage determination, almost in all countries, the questioning of “normalcy” of number of hours worked in a working day and the “sufficiency” of hourly wage has been the major battlefields between labor and capitalist in the last century. It has engendered series of campaigns of “maximum working hours” and “minimum wage”. In most developed countries, various bargaining mechanisms and legal institutions (such as cross industry or national wide trade unions) have been developed to overcome the issue. Besides, in developed countries like United States and United Kingdom, hourly-wages has been accepted as standard measurement yardstick for minimum wage. However, there is a wide gap between developed and developing countries in these bargaining mechanisms and legal institutions. In particular, in China, where independent trade unions are prohibited to establish, these collective mechanisms and legal institutions are often underdeveloped.

Second, for methods of payments, the issue of uses of time-wages, piece-wages or the mix of them has also been the focal point in the economic discipline in last century. Between the last decade of the 19th century and the beginning decade of the 20th century, piece-wage system has been analyzed by sociologists, industrial relations theorists and even government officials in developed countries. However, at that time, the piece-wages system has reputed so badly as “the sweating system”. Piece-wage system was identified as “problem of modern industries”.

Nevertheless, in the second half of the 20th century, the whole academic atmosphere has changed to favour piece-wage system. It was particularly evident since the rise of neo-classical economists. Neo-classical economists set aside the “sweating” issue and tried to direct the issue to a new language under “efficiency”, “incentive” and “productivity”. The whole new problematic under neo-classical formulation then became: how to increase productivity by using appropriate methods of payments to boost workers' incentives to produce? Under this problematic formulation, time-wages and piece-wages are subject to comparison on productivity basis. Series of studies by correlating productivity output with methods of payments are conducted empirically. Further studies by correlating abilities of workers and productivity outputs were also followed. After these empirical studies, two widespread consensuses, at least in economics and management studies, have reached: First, piece-wage system can boost workers' incentive and hence increase productivity output. Second, workers with high ability (higher productivity rate) would likely choose to work under piece-wage system while less able workers would likely choose time-wage system.

The methods of payments have attracted concerns from economists, governments and labor activists in developing countries. They also find the issue complicated, troublesome and difficult to handle. While developing labor regulations, the uses of piece-wages and the mix of time-wages and piece-wages, in contrast to time-wages, pose great difficulty for government in developing countries to regulate industries by using hourly minimum wage. Labor activists also face difficulties when new discourse from management side arises – it is workers who opt voluntarily to the piece-wages system and who would like to work longer hours a day to earn more money. The new discourse puts workers' interests (that workers would like to work longer hours) and labor activists' demand (that working hours should be reduced in developing countries so as to match the standard in developed countries) in opposition.

So long as we consider development as a process of perfecting social, economic and legal frameworks as well as institutions in developing countries for allowing citizens to have decent quality of lives, the issues of wage determination and methods of payments are relevant to today’s situations in many developing countries.

Paul Krugman: Misguided Monetary Mentalities

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:54:22 GMT

我一直都有追開Paul Krugman（2008年諾貝爾經濟科學獎得主）的文，不論是他的blog (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/)、暢銷書（例如他的The Return of Depression economics，我絕對覺得是了解經濟危機的經典），還是他的教科書（他的International Economics已出到第七版，成了教授國際經濟學的指定教科書）。

Paul Krugman 屬新凱恩斯主義一派（或近來練乙錚和林行止所說的「醎水派」，想知美國經濟學中的醎淡水分別或前世今生，可詳看昨日林行止專欄：http://rayswchiu-ej.blogspot.com/），研究專長包括國際貿易、國際金融、地理經濟學。此人文筆是經濟學家中少有的簡潔，易明。他的書往往不會使用艱深的數學公式。

日前，我在New York Times 看到了他以下一篇文章，覺得他所說的「新拜金主義」很有趣，故在此貼出來和大家分享：

Misguided Monetary Mentalities, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: One lesson from the Great Depression is that you should never underestimate the destructive power of bad ideas. And some of the bad ideas that helped cause the Depression have, alas, proved all too durable: in modified form, they continue to influence economic debate today.

What ideas am I talking about? The economic historian Peter Temin has argued that a key cause of the Depression was ... the “gold-standard mentality.” By this he means not just belief in the sacred importance of maintaining the gold value of one’s currency, but a set of associated attitudes: obsessive fear of inflation even in the face of deflation; opposition to easy credit, even when the economy desperately needs it, on the grounds that it would be somehow corrupting; assertions that even if the government can create jobs it shouldn’t, because this would only be an “artificial” recovery.

In the early 1930s this mentality led governments to raise interest rates and slash spending, despite mass unemployment, in an attempt to defend their gold reserves. And even when countries went off gold, the prevailing mentality made them reluctant to cut rates and create jobs.

But we’re past all that now. Or are we? ...[A] modern version of the gold standard mentality ... could undermine our chances for full recovery.

Consider first the current uproar over the declining international value of the dollar. The truth is that the falling dollar is good news. For one thing, it’s mainly the result of rising confidence: the dollar rose ... as panicked investors sought safe haven in America, and it’s falling again now that the fear is subsiding. And a lower dollar is good for U.S. exporters...

But if you get your opinions from, say, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, you’re told that the falling dollar is a ... sign that the world is losing faith in America (and especially, of course, in President Obama). ...

And ... there are worrying signs of a misguided monetary mentality within the Federal Reserve system itself. In recent weeks there have been a number of ... Fed officials ... calling for an early return to tighter money... What’s ... extraordinary ... is the idea that raising rates would make sense any time soon. After all, the unemployment rate is a horrifying 9.8 percent and still rising, while inflation is running well below the Fed’s long-term target. This suggests that the Fed should be in no hurry to tighten — in fact, standard policy rules ... suggest that interest rates should be left on hold for the next two years or more, or until the unemployment rate has fallen to around 7 percent.

Yet some Fed officials want to pull the trigger on rates much sooner. To avoid a “Great Inflation,” says Charles Plosser of the Philadelphia Fed, “we will need to act well before unemployment rates and other measures of resource utilization have returned to acceptable levels.” Jeffrey Lacker of the Richmond Fed says that rates may need to rise even if “the unemployment rate hasn’t started falling yet.”

I don’t know what analysis lies behind these itchy trigger fingers. But it probably isn’t about analysis, anyway — it’s about mentality, the sense that central banks are supposed to act tough, not provide easy credit.

And it’s crucial that we don’t let this mentality guide policy. We do seem to have avoided a second Great Depression. But giving in to a modern version of our grandfathers’ prejudices would be a very good way to ensure the next worst thing: a prolonged era of sluggish growth and very high unemployment.

異國懷鄕既悲且憂

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:48:00 GMT

身在異國，遙望祖國如此盛大的興祝「國慶六十年」，心裡總是戚戚然的。。。。。。

沒錯！根本就沒有什麼好藉得慶祝的！原因簡單：一九四九年成立的新中國實在對不住有太多的人了：

六十年前，中國大陸共產黨執政，很多平民伯姓，尤其是那些農民，更是認為「大翻身」的一天來了。可是，觀看六十年來新中國對農民的「貢獻」：雖曾推行不少次土改，但依然未能解決農民溫飽的問題。在這方面，對農民來說，新中國是對不住他們的。

且不說農民，那看一看工人。一個共產主義國家的主人應是工人階級。可是，自開放改革全面走資以來，工人階級再不是什麼國家的主人，搖身一變，變成（曾是共產主義國家視之如敵的）先進資本主義國家的搖錢樹。中國工人階級便不斷地被先進資本主義國家的跨國資本家在中國境內剝削，有的更每天工作十二至十四小時，一個月也可能得不到一天休息日，有的還被拖欠工資，在工廠內被虐打。而以工人階級為立國之本的新中國，不單對工人階級的慘況視若無睹，有地方官員工参與剝削。這方面，對工人來說，新中國也是對不住他們的。

上世紀的共產實驗，沒出現馬克思所想像「人類終極解放」的共產主義理想國度。生活在共產主義政權下的黎民伯姓，雖然社會間的貧富差距拉近了，但大家所生活的境況，不是「均富」，而是「均貧」！這情況在過去六十年的中國大陸，也是如此。中國伯姓更不幸的是，他們因政治鬥爭和當權者的不斷「忽發狂想」而遭遇十年文化大革命和人為的大飢荒。這方面，對被無辜批鬥致死和飢荒致死的人來說，新中國也是對不住他們的。

更不幸的是共產主義國家成為極權國家或落後國家的代名詞。從此，社會主義和共產主義的理想被推到意識型態的邊陲，（新）自由主義抬頭，更被誇張為「歷史終結」的理想型態。自從蘇聯瓦解以來，依然以社會主義國家之名當道的新中國，亦走向世界的潮流。向世人展示具中國特色的社會主義。一時間，那些打從十九世紀以來，一直為社會主義運動家及其思想，全被沽空。人類從此失去以互助合作、相互尊重為基礎的理想，取而代之的是以自私、貪婪、競爭和掠奪為基礎的「美麗新世界」。這方面，對那些曾為社會主義思潮盡力的思想家和運動家，新中國也是對不住他們的。

Marx's (Ideal) Description of Unalienated Labor and the Future of Communist Society

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:06:18 GMT

Marx talked a lot on alienated labor but he didn't talk much on "unalienated labor" and his version of "communist society". Luckily, the late discovered "1844 Economic and Philosophical Manuscript", which Marx wrote in Paris, contains a few passages where he described in any detail his picture of the future communist society. It is therefore worth quoting at length:

"Supposing that we had produced in a human manner; in his production each of us would have doubly affirmed himself and his fellow men.

(1) I would have objectified in my production my individuality and its peculiarity, and would thus have enjoyed in my activity an individual expression of my life and would have also had -- in looking at the object -- the individual pleasure of realizing that my personality was objective, visible to the senses and therefore a power raised beyond all doubt; [more...]

Contrasts between Formal and Real Subsumptions of Labor to Capital

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:39:34 GMT

Kaxton Siu (18^th September, 2009)

Reference:

- Marx’s Capital Vol. 1 & Results of the Immediate Process of Production (attached as appendix of Capital Vol. 1)

- Harry Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital

- Michael Burawoy, The Politics of Production, chapter 1 & 2

- David Harvey, The Limits of Capital, Chapter 4, part II: The Labour Process

Recently, I have been encountering more and more misuse of the concepts of formal and real subsumptions of labor to capital. Some of them, sadly, are my mentors. Very often, the misuse of these two concepts lies in the confusion of the defining characteristics of two types of labor subjections. In fact, Marx has elaborated these two types of labor subordinations in great detail in Capital vol. 1 (The part of “The production of relative surplus value). By using handicraft production and machinery production, Marx has illustrated the differences between two types of labor subordination. Besides, Marx also detailed how labor process in England has transited from formal to real subsumption of labor, how formal subsumption established the conditions for the emergence of real subsumption of labor, and how the transition from formal to real subsumption of labor can never be completed. To Marx, the transition becomes possible as capitalists introduced machinery and the organization of the factory system into labor process – machine can be used to increase the physical productivity of labor at the same time as it permits the capitalists to control the intensity and rhythm of the labor process through regulating the speed of the machine.

The issue of subsumptions of labor has been revived since Harry Braverman’s study of “deskilling” in his Labor and Monopoly Capital. Braverman saw Taylorism’s scientific management as a continuation and perfection of real subsumption of labor via technological and scientific revolutions.

Here, to avoid dwelling too much into the whole bulk of literature on labor process, I only table the key characteristics of the two concepts in the hope of helping others not to misuse them again:

	Formal Subsumption	Real Subsumption
Example Marx Used in Capital Vol.1	Handicraft production / Co-operation	Machinery and Large-Scale Industry
Primary strategy of surplus-value production	Absolute surplus value (i.e. lengthening of working hours)	Relative surplus value (i.e. increasing labor intensity)
Separation of means of subsistence and means of productions from workers (i.e. existence of wage-labor)	Yes	Yes
Workers retain control over their traditional skills and over the methods employed (i.e. No reduction of skilled to simple labor; separation of conception from execution)	Yes	No
Workers’ role in element of production	Subjective	Objective
Extent of Workers working under same roof by the same capitalist	Small Scale	Large Scale
Capital’s control on labour process (i.e. direct and supervise workers' activities)	Yes	Yes

論質性比較研究方法 3

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:56:45 GMT

On Qualitative Comparative Methodology (Part 3)

[previous sections: Part 1 & Part 2]

3. Multiple and Conjunctural Causation in Qualitative/ Case-oriented Research

In light of the above discussion, we realized that both Mill’s method of agreement and indirect method of difference are incapable of handling multiple and conjunctural causation. Nonetheless, we still observe that a lot of case-oriented social researches still go along Mill’s logics of comparison. Thus, questions arise: “Why should these case-oriented techniques remain popular? What explains their continued use?” [more ...]

kaxton's Xanga

還是25、26歲？

中國政府沒有操控人民幣？

Socialist is ever a socialist!

學富五車捱騾仔

Smart guys and Wall Street (By Paul Krugman)

Wage, Time-wages, Piece-Wages and Labor Intensity

Paul Krugman: Misguided Monetary Mentalities

日前，我在New York Times 看到了他以下一篇文章，覺得他所說的「新拜金主義」很有趣，故在此貼出來和大家分享：

異國懷鄕 既悲且憂

Marx's (Ideal) Description of Unalienated Labor and the Future of Communist Society

Contrasts between Formal and Real Subsumptions of Labor to Capital

論質性比較研究方法 3

On Qualitative Comparative Methodology (Part 3)

異國懷鄕既悲且憂