的士價格管制方法"板凳刻"

年多前本博已曾建議香港的的士價格計算方法需要改變了。

今天知日部屋提出了京都的板凳刻(benchmarking),其實并不新鮮，比如雅加達(Jakarta),便有銀鳥、藍鳥（此二鳥同屬PUKASA公司)等'的'，價格各不一樣。北京的士起步價和每公里價也有多種選擇（跟公司無關）。吉隆坡（KL)也有Premier Taxi。有選擇有競爭當然好。可是這些改變沒有根治香港的士價格的根本問題。

香港的的士定價的問題出于其忽略了的士接客過程所需的固定成本，而形成了目前的不合理性。也就是說，的士每接一客，中間所費的時間空轉及其相關油費租金成本沒有反映在計價系統內。難怪司機會拒載短程客。

大家可知道，當你打的送朋友回家的話，假如要在朋友家門寒暄幾句的話（超過一分鐘)，重新叫一輛的士比讓同一的士等待較省錢？（假如附近不難找的士的話）因為的士的起步價（$15/2km）比起每公里價（$7/km)相差無幾。（除非你家離朋友家的距離是在2公里內）

因此，價格改革的關鍵在于使這固定成本能反映到價格系統里。例如以下方案，就同時解決了長途的士折扣和短途拒載的問題。

EditGrid Spreadsheet by user/sunbin.

其實上表的計價方法非常簡單，只是把每公里價按里程往下調。每增加一公里則新增公里價格減低一毫，直到略比邊際成本高一點為止。更重要的是，根據價格彈性的計算，的士司機的總收入其實增加了。詳細解釋見年前拙文，恕不贅述。

以前電腦技術昂貴，的士計價表只能用簡單的計價方法。現在，要做到上述的計價表成本是幾乎相同的了。是電腦技術為我們解決了經濟問題，請運輸處諸公，不要墨守成規，也不要等甚麼顧問公司的研究。這些三流顧問公司，不是McKinsey,BCG,很難靠他們真正解決問題。

A google bomb experiment to promote corporate governance (on 鍾斌銓 鍾金榜 鍾燊榮)

the result now is 3 2 2 1.

so i addition to linking to this OP, i am copying the whole html down here as well. and try to boost the laggers a bit

鍾斌銓 3 鍾金榜 2 鍾燊榮 2

below is the OP:

---

對付無良大股東 初見成效
繼續連結榮豐！繼續推！Search 鍾斌銓 As of this moment, 3rd result.Search 鍾金榜 As of this moment, 5th result.Search 鍾燊榮 As of this moment, 6th result.Search 鍾斌盛 As of this moment, 1st result. 1st!要揭榮豐(063)無良大股東的所作所為！認識他們的人，告訴他們這個後果！

How I learned to be not troubled by the re-militarization of Japan

It is not because I know that most people in Japan are peace-loving, or that Japan is a democracy or things like that.

The Weimar Republic was a democracy, so is the USA. (caveat here) The people in USA are definitely mostly peace-loving and benevolent, anyone who studied the history of the last century knows how USA has saved the world, twice. But look at what a mess it has created in Iraq today.

India is said to be the largest democracy in this world, look at how many wars it fought against Pakistan, how Sikkim, Goa, and the Andaman Isles were annexed, and how it detonated a nuke with no provacation or threat.

Now back to Japan. Read this IHT coverage of its remilitarisation.

Japan has accumulated the the economic power and the technology such that it can modernize militarize in just a few years whenever it wants to (or it has already done so), perhaps even faster that how Hitler has militarized Germany in the early 1930s.

The reason I think we should not worry about Japan's re-militarization is as below

• If it wants to build an aggressive force. It can always do it in a few years
• If it is doing it too early before it acts, the chances are that these resources are most likely wasted (as I explained in an earlier post regarding China), and be turned into obselete equipment in the future. Less than optimized timing in investment in military often lead to less than optimal deployment of resources, and hence affect its over economic progress (and generalized "power" per Paul Kennedy), a la USSR in 1970-80s

For years Japan has been able to flourish under the umbrella of US protection. Let it waste its resources if it chooses to do so. The gap between Japan and its neighbour is much narrower than it was in 1937 or 1941. Moreover, it is very unlikely that US would let Japan bully around.

Yes, there is concern on Japan's re-militarization, but the country that should most worry about Japan should be the one which has been most active in encouraging it to do so, because that country has humiliated Japan 62 years ago and nuked two of its cities. If you watch the pop arts (manga, animation, movie) you will understand why this is so.

What we really need to take out from Japan is, its enormous stockpile of Uranium and Plutonium, and make sure that US has the ability and the reason to "contain" Japan when it went out of control (i.e. to the right wing such as Isihara).

原來影視處官僚都是小和尚

影視處（其實主要是旗下的淫審處）最近似乎越來越白癡 ([068])。其處長鄭美施一出面就更越描越黑。

鄭當然犯了推卸責任的錯誤。可是，作為一個傳統的AO官僚Technocrat，他們到底是無能，是無知，是盡責，還是顢頇？

---
這里是TELA網頁里的“使命”(mission statement)

• 理 想
• 作 為 廣 播 和 娛 樂 事 務 監 管 機 構 ， 本 處 以 充 分 滿 足 市 民 需 要 和 社 會 期 望 為 己 任 。
  
• 使 命
• 我 們 承 諾 ， 必 定 會 -
• 緊 密 依 隨 社 會 的 品 味 和 道 德 尺 度 考 慮 各 有 關 事 宜 ， 並 據 此 準 則 作 出 決 定 ；
• 有 效 監 察 廣 播 服 務 和 刊 物 ；
• 就 電 影 檢 查 、 娛 樂 中 心 /遊 戲 活 動 發 牌 ， 以 及 本 地 報 刊 註 冊 工 作 ， 提 供 快 捷 妥 當 的 服 務 ；
• 協 助 推 動 電 影 業 發 展；
• 確 保 本 處 監 管 機 制 可 充 分 配 合 社 會 需 要 、 科 技 發 展 ， 以 及 海 外 的 做 法； 和
• 不 斷 提 高 本 處 專 業 水 準。
  
• 信 念
• 言 論 自 由 與 社 會 責 任
• 專 業 水 準
• 公 正 不 偏
• 透 明 公 開
• 積 極 回 應
• 優 質 服 務

In English

• VISION
• To be a broadcasting and entertainment regulatory agency that fully satisfies the needs and expectations of the community.
  
• MISSION
• We are committed to -
• following closely standards for taste and decency accepted by the community and reflecting them in our decision making;
• effectively monitoring broadcasting services and publications;
• providing an efficient service for film censorship, entertainment centre and gaming activity licensing, and local newspaper registration;
• facilitating the development of the film industry;
  maintaining the relevance of our regulatory framework with regard to community needs, technological development and international practices; and
• continuously enhancing our professionalism.
  
• VALUES
• Freedom of expression with social responsibility
• Professionalism
• Impartiality
• Openness
• Responsiveness
• Quality Service

---

似乎TELA的問題根本出在其“使命書”上。“緊密依隨社會的品味和道德尺度考慮各有關事宜”，其實是很難做好的一件事。TELA是應該"緊密依隨社會的品味和道德尺度"去放行呢？還是要"緊密依隨社會的品味和道德尺度"去限制？很明顯，目前TELA選擇了后者。這就跟只要陪審團里只要有一票認為被告有罪，就得判死一樣。若凡事都要討好社會各方的“品味和道德角度”，而且還要“緊密地”，勢必會變得所有事情都不可為。而且，所謂的“社會的品味和道德尺度”，根本是無法進行客觀定義的一件事。

（影視處據聞乃廣管局的行政部門，為何兩者的使命完全不一樣？）

更可怕的，是其“信念”里的第一項，把“言論自由與社會責任”來了一個大捆綁。前者比較容易理解，可是"社會責任"卻一點不簡單。每個人對社會責任都有不一樣的定義。比如說，有些人就認為船頭尺說了一句“福佳”就毀滅了我們的社會。

要根本解決TELA的問題。政府應該重新考慮TELA的使命和價值（“信念”）宣言，回歸憲法（基本法？），和依法辦事（presumed innocent, 依據判例,如前些年大衛像）。否則，香港在國際社會出洋相的日子，無日無之。

---

話說回來，影視處官僚冤不冤？也不全冤。

• 使命不是包括“配合科技發展”嗎？為什么連超連接都要告？
• 不是說“公正不偏”嗎？為什么都偏向了明光社？

是不是有無間道進入了淫審處？

---

這里我想起了這麼一個故事，色由心生也。。。

• 一個老和尚帶著一個小和尚過河，發現河邊也有一名年輕女子正在發愁如何過河。老和尚二話不說，抱起女子就過了河。過河後老和尚放下就走，跟在老和尚後面的小和尚非常納悶，對師父的做法百思不得其解。終於，小和尚忍不住問師父：「我們是出家人，你平常教導我不應該近女色，可剛才你怎麼能抱她呢？」
  老和尚驚訝道：「我已經把她放下了，你怎麼還抱著？」

讓老和尚掌管TELA吧。TELA 諸位官僚，還有明光的神棍們，大概自己是小和尚，便想當然地以為廣大民眾也是小和尚吧？

Ah, WSJ! ... and why I knew they must reach a deal

Look at the lower right corner: "he may expand this section". via The Big Picture.

I had been puzzled about the Bancroft's family's complaint about Murdoch from the start. Haven't they been in the same camp all the time? Fox and the op-ed pages. This comic tells all. There is no question that there will be a deal.



related: the shameless defense for Wolfowitz on WSJ.

Taiwan License: how to define "愛臺灣"

reading list Q2 2007

曾蔭權謀略了得
好文不怕百回看：李斯 - 諫逐客書
王小魯﹕中國的“灰色收入”到底有多大規模
The ugly fact under the Education Institute Controversy
Is Christine Luk stupid, or ?
Stephen Cheung: why Han Chinese is incapable of expansionism
一葉而知秋
The Seven Waves of Immigration in Taiwan
没有兄弟姊妹的社会
難兄難弟
崔少明：六四bkp，民主copy
釣魚城 (scroll down)
Made in China (slide show via ESWN)
Taiwan Lesson: 1988
胡鞍钢：中国应适当适时调整人口政策
地震不在日本國
Everybody loves Salinger (in Chinese)

Pushing Ginnie Mae to China (當中國系水魚）

Related: from Big Picture

US teaches the Chinese Capitalist Party Economics 101:

• "Mortgage-backed securities yield a higher rate of return than a traditional U.S. Treasury bond with [the] same credit risk," U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson said.

Mr. Jackson must have thought that with the GFW China is not aware of the housing bubble and the sub-prime problems in US, and that all the Chinese who understands the relationship between risk and return are already hired by Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley. Or is the 'credit risk' Mr Jackson referred to a different concept from what we would normally refer to as 'risk'?

Anyway, this is the most entertaining piece of news of the day.

Related
1) Michael Sesit of Bloomberg wrote about takeover hypocrisy.
2) look at the charts there.

-----
China Is UrgedTo Invest MoreIn Ginnie Mae (WSJ)

By AARON BACKJuly 16, 2007

BEIJING -- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson Friday encouraged China to increase its investments in mortgage-backed securities in the U.S., especially Ginnie Mae securities, which are fully backed by the U.S. government.

"Mortgage-backed securities yield a higher rate of return than a traditional U.S. Treasury bond with [the] same credit risk," Mr. Jackson said.

The Government National Mortgage Association, or Ginnie Mae, is a U.S. government-owned corporation. It issues mortgage-backed securities that are fully backed by the U.S. Treasury.
China is seeking to earn a higher return on its massive foreign-exchange reserves, which reached $1.33 trillion at the end of June. Beijing is in the process of creating an agency that will invest $200 billion of those reserves in higher-yielding assets overseas.

China has invested its reserves mainly in U.S. Treasury bonds, and that has helped to keep down U.S. interest rates, making housing and other loans more affordable.

According to U.S. housing-department figures, Chinese investors held less than $3 billion in U.S. mortgage-backed securities in June 2003, but by June 2006 that number had risen to $107.5 billion. The June 2006 total includes securities issued by Ginnie Mae and those issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association, or Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., or Freddie Mac, which are overseen by the Department of Housing and Urban Development but not backed by the U.S. Treasury.

Figures weren't available on what portion of the securities held by China are issued by Ginnie Mae, but Mr. Jackson said "we have not been a major player in that area."

Mr. Jackson was speaking to reporters during a visit to China, where he met government officials, including the heads of the People's Bank of China and the Ministry of Construction.

The problem of Ma Ying jeou

闾丘露薇一語中的

• 至于陈水扁，他批评马英九，当年在美国读书的时候，编辑“波士顿通讯”，批评美丽岛事件的当事者，还批评解严，站在了历史错误的一边，而他和谢长廷当年站在了历史正确的一边。但是问题是，当年站在历史正确一边，并不意味着之后就不会犯错，而曾经站在错误一边，并不意味着现在所站的地方是正确的。只可惜马英九缺乏反省的精神，其实承认自己过去的错误，并不会因此付出代价，不敢面对历史的领导者，才会更让台湾民众担忧，这样的领导人会带领台湾怎样走向未来。

Even though DPP look wrecked these day, I am veyr skeptical of Ma Ying-jeou's ability to win the election in 2008. The reason couldn't be better put by what Luqiuluwei said in her blog.

• Chen Shui Bian accused Ma was on the wrong side with history while he studied at Boston, when Ma was the editor for a (Chinese) journal called Boston Communication. The journal accused those involved with the Formosa incident, and criticized the lifting of martial law. While Chen himself was on the "right side" with history.
• But the problem is, making a mistake in the past does not neccessarily mean one is wrong today. On the contrary, making it right is the past does neccessarily mean one is right today. The shame for Ma is he does not have the courage to reflect. As a matter of fact, admitting a mistake in the past, does not neccessarily mean that one has to pay for it now. The political leaders who cannot face his own history will be cause of concern for the people in Taiwan. How can a leader as such lead Taiwan to the future?

Well, Ma has a lot of baggages to disown. Not just those of himself. His own mistake can be explained, but the consequence is that he would have opened a whole can of "worms", i.e., there are a lot more he needs to explain and that might put off the old guards in KMT.

Ma is carrying the baggages of Soong, Lien, KMT, and even that of Chiang Kai-shek. He needs to disown them one by one. He should not have the illusion that defending the wrongs of the old Chiang dynasty will help with his political career or increase a single vote for him, or distanting or even disowning the traditional KMT values will cost him a single vote. Precisely the opposite, the old guards in KMT ("deeo Blue") have no better choice than voting for him, even if he is courageous enough to criticize Chiang.

Unless Ma does that, DPP may win the next election again in 2008. Because DPP is right, that the alternative is not to be trusted. Moving to the middle (between Blue and Green) is the right strategy. But that is not enough.

Ma Ying-jeou needs to listen to Luqiu, and do the right thing. Let the old guards go to PFP, they will not vote for DPP because you denounce the wrong's of the Chiang dynasty.

Brad Delong on China: No matter if you are a RED cat or white cat...

Update
1) Twofish's comment on some issues in DeLong's post, which I largely agree
2) Commentator Bobby Fletcher alerted me that DeLong actually said "red cat". Well, we might as well just change that saying with DeLong's, since there are still people who refer to China (the government, the Chinese Capitalist Party, and often a blanket statement toward all its citizens) as the "Chinese Communist", apparently in an attempt to instill certain type of McCarthyistic terrorism bu more likely simply being confused.

---
via ESWN comes this link - a must read for any one who is interested is China, its economic "miracle", or even those who thought he already has understood China.

It is such a great one that I would make it a separate post (vs on the reading list up the right corner).

DeLong prasied Deng Xiaoping in such words!

• "And in 1978 China had its first piece of great good luck in a long, long time--perhaps the first time some important chance broke right for China since the end of the Sung dynasty. China acquired as its paramount ruler one of the most devious and effective politicians of this or indeed any age, a man who was quite possibly the greatest human hero of the twentieth century: Deng Xiaoping. Deng sought to maintain the Communist Party oligarchy's control over China's politics while also seeking a better life for China's people, and he is guided by two principles: (i) be pragmatic ("what matters is not whether the cat is red or white, what matters is whether the cat catches mice), and (ii) be cautious ("cross the river by feeling for the stones at the bottom of the ford with your feet")."

I may not go so far as DeLong about Deng. I still cannot forgive him for what happened in 1989. But I could only concur. A great man is still a great man even if he has done something terrible.

The 2 points Delong mentioned was indeed the essence of Deng'ism. The cat principle and the feeling stone principle. A few centuries from now, these 2 principles will be honored in the same rank as Sun Zi's "Winning a 100 battle is not the best, the best of the best is winning without fighting". The cat principle is about strategy, and putting a simple criteria on what good strategy should qualify for. The stone principle is about execution, the execution instruction for someone who has no idea what lies ahead of him. Therefore, these 2 principles are universal, and eternal.

And it is probably the only thing the other hero of the past century, Lee Kuan Yew, might not be able to reach.

Related: 炎黄春秋 头条文章批当局搁置邓小平政改