New York Times, 4/21/2012, "Venezuela Faces Shortages in Grocery Staples", by WILLIAM NEUMAN
這篇文章談 Venezuela 因物價上漲所以政府管制物價，因而造成了商店缺貨，民眾大排長龍的景象。
最近台灣因為汽油和電價資費調漲，引發了通膨的壓力。很遺憾的，我們的內閣所提出的對策還是將近一個世紀以前蔣經國上海打老虎那套，試圖打擊奸商囤積居奇，並且嚴禁聯合漲價。舉例來說，下面這一則是上個月初的報導：
經濟日報, 4/7/2012, "主計處：今年物價成長 可控制2%內", 記者陳美君報導
行政院由副院長領軍組織了一個「穩定物價小組」會議來嚴密監控民生物價，並且『若有大幅飆漲或聯合哄抬，將採取有效作為』。副院長講了話，主計長也講了話，但是對於壓制通貨膨脹最重要的負責貨幣政策的央行在哪裡？
過了半個多月之後，我們看到央行的發言如下：
經濟日報，4/26/2012，"央行副總裁：抑制物價 應採降稅手段"，記者陳美君台北報導
如果把央行副總裁所說的偽經濟學放在一邊（增加貨物供給唯一的方式是漲價，不是政府政策，也跟這裡的政策目標不符，同時也沒有防止貨物囤積哄抬價格這回事)，他其實只是對行政院放話，要他們把自己捅的馬蜂窩自己清理乾淨，央行不淌這趟混水。
我們回到最前面引的那篇談 Venezuela 的 New York Times 文章。他們的總統 Chavez 一向以他的左派政策為傲，認為他的政策是為了照顧貧苦的中下階層人民。不過市場並不是他一廂情願就能控制的，當政府用盡各種手段壓制物價，後果就是生產者發現無利可圖，以致於減產甚至停產。
最近這幾年每當 Apple 推出新一代的 iPad 或 iPhone 時都會有很多人在門口排隊等著買，這是因為需求大於供給。當市場均衡物價較先前為高時，設定低於均衡價格的公訂物價本來就會造成需求高於供給，而當公訂物價低到連生產者都不願參與後，需求和供給之間的缺口只會更大。
這是唸過經濟學原理就應該有的知識。
10 comments:
對一些國內高科技代工公司聯合競爭對手搞的一些價格操控、 聯合哄抬等傷害消費者的行為怎麼就不見政府嚴密監控, 真是奇怪哉也。
so you are implying the central bank should let TWD appreciate to increase the buying power of import? once the import cost is down, then it'll offset the up-rising prices?
To 楊大寶，
沒問題，有美國人代勞，人家罰的又兇又猛，不用我們自己政府傷腦筋。
To Unknown,
I don't know what I said would give you that impression. Appreciation is usually not a viable approach to tame inflation. In fact, it is better not to use exchange rate as a tool of monetary policy.
When the inflation hikes, the central bank can dial up the interest rate a few notches. It doesn't need to be much this time because they might induce a new round of slow down or even recession easily.
CCLU大，
最近聯進來您的BLOG，我電腦的防毒 (卡巴斯基)都會說偵測到木馬程式。不知是否是軟體太敏感了還是啥問題。sorry，因為沒有您的email，所以只好po留言告知，如有打擾請見諒。
To Realist,
我沒有加什麼 script 在這個頁面裡，理論上應該不會有木馬才對。
Kaspersky 在 2008 年曾經把所有的 blogspot.com 網站都當成是 phishing 網站了，不知道這次是不是類似的問題。你如果上其他的 Google Blogger 網站如果也有問題的話那確定是 Kaspersky 的錯。如果只有我這裡出問題的話，那就很難說了。
我還是很難想像我這裡怎麼會有木馬。:p
On behalf of the Federal Reserve(a totally unauthorized and unofficial representation), I apologize for exporting our inflation to Taiwan and other developing export-driven countries. Please export it right back to us.
"沒問題，有美國人代勞，人家罰的又兇又猛，不用我們自己政府傷腦筋。"
CCLu, I think you are referring to the AUO pricing fixing case here. I don't have all the details, but it is my belief that AUO didn't receive the best legal advice possible. AUO's guilt is not in question, but AUO should have settled with DOJ.
Actually it's more than just AUO. You have boys doing display such as AUO(2409), CPT(2475), Hannstar(6116), Chimei Innolux(3481), and boys doing auto lamps such as Depo(6605) and TYC(1522). The tickers are provided so you know what's on my un-watchlist of stocks.
For some reasons, some companies like to portray themselves as victims, as innocent businessmen that didn't know what they did were wrong. I guess that leaves you an impression of "AUO didn't receive the best legal advice possible".
However, I guess the case is more like they know what they were doing in the first place, and when they talk to the media, they under emphasize their criminal acts.
For example, take a look in this article: http://goo.gl/MGNq1
公平會聲明說：「它們共謀訂定面板最低價格、每種產品型號的定價政策、價格調漲時機，以及禁止使用現金折扣。」公平會指出，這些涉及聯合壟斷行為的公司有關人員，在這六年間約舉行兩百次秘密會議，協議面板減產或暫停生產，以防止價格下跌，並交換機密資訊，如銷售計畫。
And also in this article (http://goo.gl/LzQ0Z), former CEO of Chimei Innolux said:
"以往，在台灣，我們以為是人情世故的握手、寒喧、聊天、套交情，或商場文化視為理所當然的事，都可能因為牽涉到市場價格，而被認為是違反反托拉斯。即使只是閒聊，講一講，並未必會真的照做，更何況，有時候，這還是商場上慣用的「欺敵政策」或「引蛇出洞技倆」都會被「羅織入罪」。因為，只要講過就會有事，就算最後沒有做，還是違法，所以，這事，關於價格的事，是連講都不能講。"
Well I guess companies really do secretly meet over 200 times just to say hi and shake hands.
Also, when asked to cooperate with the authority, Chimei Innolux chose a clumsy strategy to try to get away with the law, which of course yields no help:
我們原先想，我就給你中文的資料，這麼多，看你能怎麼辦？沒想到，美國人一個字一個字，一頁一頁的全部都翻出來，而這些翻的費用最後都會由你買單。律師費用也高得嚇人，那段日子，公司氣氛與員工士氣大受打擊，大家都擔心，公司可以撐的下去嗎？因為，他們知道有很多公司因美國反托拉斯法而關閉。
It's just a complete display of ignorance, stupidity and disregard to the law.
It is a human tendency to skip over our faults and talk about how we were unfairly treated. However, even if they were ignorant of what they were doing, they still hurt their customer, clients, retailers, and shareholders. How they are able to generate sympathy from media and general public is beyond belief.
To Ben,
Please see 楊大寶's comment, I couldn't have said better.
AUO and others may not be well-represented, but that is probably their own fault. They simply had no idea of where the line is and they didn't or refuse to believe the severity of their crime.
I can't even say I felt sorry for them.
CCLu and 楊大寶,
Oh, I think you guys misunderstood me. I am not defending AUO at all. On the contrary, I think the management compounded their own woes by not getting the best lawyers that money could buy. A competent law firm, IMHO, would have never let the case gone to trial. I apologize that my writing was not clear on this point.
I am not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV. But the U.S. price-fixing laws are notoriously complex, and no lay person should pretend that he/she has a good grasp of the laws without having his/her anti-trust lawyer(s) present. Ignorantia juris non excusat!!!
And many thanks for all the background info on the price-fixing issue from a Taiwanese point of view. I learned something new today. I guess AUO's management never watched the movie, The Informant:)
One final thought, a very wise man once told me - if the U.S. government ever came knocking on your door, your first phone call should never be to your loved ones, but to your lawyers and/or lobbyists.....
Post a Comment