含有〈政策〉标签的文章(83)

疫苗接种策略

【2021-02-28】

看了眼各国疫苗进度,发现执行广度优先策略(即让尽可能多的人先打上一针)的只有英国,智利,摩洛哥,巴林,马尔达夫等少数几个国家,绝大部分执行的都是深度优先策略,可是据说,两针的防护率只比一针高了3个百分点(95%:92%),这种情况下显然应该广度优先,

这可能是公共卫生机构在权衡得失时常犯的*视域谬误*的又一个变种,所谓*视域谬误*,是指计算得失时,用的分子和分母,都局限于他们主动做的事情所影响的人数,而不考(more...)

标签: | | | |
8453
【2021-02-28】 看了眼各国疫苗进度,发现执行广度优先策略(即让尽可能多的人先打上一针)的只有英国,智利,摩洛哥,巴林,马尔达夫等少数几个国家,绝大部分执行的都是深度优先策略,可是据说,两针的防护率只比一针高了3个百分点(95%:92%),这种情况下显然应该广度优先, 这可能是公共卫生机构在权衡得失时常犯的*视域谬误*的又一个变种,所谓*视域谬误*,是指计算得失时,用的分子和分母,都局限于他们主动做的事情所影响的人数,而不考虑因他们的不作为而影响的人数, 比如批准一种新药,可能200人吃了,治好了100个,吃死了5个,在他们的得失权衡中,只有这两个数字会被考虑,可与此同时,若该药不被批准,每年因某病等死的或许有几万人,那不归他们管,不予考虑, 同理,执行深度优先策略,显然可以提高实际打了疫苗的那些人的防护率,至于因拖慢疫苗覆盖进度而死掉的那些人,不归他们管,不予考虑,
赌局

【2020-04-03】

@whigzhou: 浑水的这个成功案例又一次演示了我9年前讲过的一个道理:设立赌局是目前人类已发现的收集关于未来事件的真实且负责的看法的唯一有效手段。Robin Hanson和我所见略同,所以他提议,国会的每个法案都应给出一组可第三方测量的量化目标,并且在赌博市场上设局。 ​​​​

@whigzhou: 这样,当教授公知们在纽约时报评论版夸夸其谈时,读者就可以问他们:你押了多少,押在哪边?

@棋谱比乐谱靠谱:完全正确。股市与期货实质也是赌局,美帝之前还设想开设“反恐赌局”。

@whigzhou: DARPA的这个项目( 标签: | | | |

8198
【2020-04-03】 @whigzhou: 浑水的这个成功案例又一次演示了我9年前讲过的一个道理:设立赌局是目前人类已发现的收集关于未来事件的真实且负责的看法的唯一有效手段。[[Robin Hanson]]和我所见略同,所以他提议,国会的每个法案都应给出一组可第三方测量的量化目标,并且在赌博市场上设局。 ​​​​ @whigzhou: 这样,当教授公知们在纽约时报评论版夸夸其谈时,读者就可以问他们:你押了多少,押在哪边? @棋谱比乐谱靠谱:完全正确。股市与期货实质也是赌局,美帝之前还设想开设“反恐赌局”。 @whigzhou: [[DARPA]]的这个项目([[Policy Analysis Market]])就是按Robin Hanson的预测市场理论设计的 @polyhedron:大家都知道賭球集團會通過賄賂參賽者及裁判來影響球賽的結果,其中會有很多不可見的利益輸送。如果有政客哪怕是執行的公務人員被參賭者賄賂而造成政策實施的偏差是極爲可怕的。 @whigzhou: 想象一下,几百万赌徒整天盯着那些能影响政策结果的人在干啥,我觉得很欢乐,一点不可怕 @whigzhou: 就像浑水一样,会冒出一大堆民间自带干粮反腐队  
UBI

【2020-03-08】

@whigzhou: 最近发现越来越多自称libertarian的人在赞同universal basic income,捉急,且不论UBI在伦理上能否站住脚,也不论其长期的文化/社会后果是否可接受(这些以后有空再说),政策构想本身就幼稚的可笑。

不像福利主义者,libertarian们支持UBI的前提是它必须取代其他福利项目,而不是在福利清单上新添一项,因为他们的主要支持理由是效率,和其他有条件专项福利相比,直接发钱既方便,又很少负面(more...)

标签: | | | | |
8183
【2020-03-08】 @whigzhou: 最近发现越来越多自称libertarian的人在赞同universal basic income,捉急,且不论UBI在伦理上能否站住脚,也不论其长期的文化/社会后果是否可接受(这些以后有空再说),政策构想本身就幼稚的可笑。 不像福利主义者,libertarian们支持UBI的前提是它必须取代其他福利项目,而不是在福利清单上新添一项,因为他们的主要支持理由是效率,和其他有条件专项福利相比,直接发钱既方便,又很少负面激励、寻租机会和中间损耗,这些都没错。 问题是,有了UBI,其他福利项目真的能取消吗?根本不可能,你想想,比如一个人每月领2000美元,吃喝嫖赌吸花个干净,家里孩子还是营养不良,生了病照样没钱看,到时候奶妈们能看着不管?议员们会袖手不do something?岂不被良心媒体骂死?这种时候,当初推动福利制度的那些力量照样全部释放出来,一切重来一遍。 指望UBI成功取代其他福利的前提假设是,福利领取者会对自己和孩子的福利持一种负责任的建设性态度,可是,这种人在美国会怎么会成为领福利者呢?到最后你还是发现必须替他们管着钱,控制怎么花,那就和专项福利没差别。 @慕容飞宇gg:Yang 的提议并不取代其它福利项目。其实各种福利项目的开销总和与 UBI 相比小到可以忽略不计。UBI 取代其它福利的确是完全不可行的。 @whigzhou: 所以Yang不是libertarian啊
负所得税

【2019-05-15】

@密西西比量子猪 贫穷最大的问题是缺钱[喵喵] 女士提问弗里德曼,美国贫穷买不起医疗保险的人怎么办。弗里德曼创造的一套负所得税,已经提上国会。但政客要捆绑上其他福利如住房补贴这些,弗里德曼死活不同意,最后一拍两散撤掉提案,留下一句名言穷人只是缺钱[doge]
弗里德曼强调种种的其他补贴只会导致腐败和低效率,唯一可行的是算清楚要补的钱,越贫穷的人越要有自己选择之权利

@密西西比量子猪:#ECON101# 负所得税=(收入保障数-个人实际收入)×负所得税率。比如负所得税率为50%,三口之家年收(more...)

标签: | | | |
8103
【2019-05-15】 @密西西比量子猪 贫穷最大的问题是缺钱[喵喵] 女士提问弗里德曼,美国贫穷买不起医疗保险的人怎么办。弗里德曼创造的一套负所得税,已经提上国会。但政客要捆绑上其他福利如住房补贴这些,弗里德曼死活不同意,最后一拍两散撤掉提案,留下一句名言穷人只是缺钱[doge] 弗里德曼强调种种的其他补贴只会导致腐败和低效率,唯一可行的是算清楚要补的钱,越贫穷的人越要有自己选择之权利 @密西西比量子猪:#ECON101# 负所得税=(收入保障数-个人实际收入)×负所得税率。比如负所得税率为50%,三口之家年收入保障数为1万美金,一分钱收入都没有的话,政府就补贴(1万-0)*50%=5千。要是实际收入为5千,政府就补你2500,你的总收入就成了7500,依次类推,收入过1万就无补贴。 @whigzhou: 相比其他福利政策,负所得税方案可能是效率最高的,然而其激励效果仍然是灾难性的 @whigzhou: 1968-80年之间美国曾在相当大规模上做过这样的实验,涉及一万多家庭,在三到五年实验期中,与控制组相比,受助夫妻中丈夫工作小时数降低7%,妻子降低20%,未婚男青年降低43%,且这些降低与受教育无关,与此同时,婚姻破裂率提高36-84%,参见Charles Murray: Losing Ground,第11章 @whigzhou: 对就业倾向的激励效果在另一个指标上表现的更直接,与控制组相比,从失业到再就业之间的延迟,丈夫们提高了27%,妻子们42%,单身母亲们60% @whigzhou: 所以说,福利政策的最大坏处不是它给纳税人带来的负担,也不是它创造的官僚机器和腐败机会,而是通过负面激励坑害受援群体。 ​​​​ @细雨润石:不,正因为认识到人群的多样性、经济基础对个人发展的正反馈机制,和普遍的人道主义精神,所以福利才成为高中低收入者共同的选项。而反对福利者,要么认识不到,要么缺乏共情能力,要么仅仅是借反福利立场以证明自己不是最弱的弱鸡(实际上是刚刚摆脱贫困的自私鬼)。 @whigzhou: 是啊,共情能力健全者一般都乐见穷人没工作,家庭破裂,16岁怀孕,孩子没爹,课堂骂老师,街头吃枪子 @StimmungtheMad:所以说UBI 就是好 @whigzhou: UBI比NIT激励效果略好,但也好不到哪里去,UBI避免了『越工作钱越少』的情况,但没避免『不工作照样有吃有喝有妞泡』的情况,而奉行『只要有吃有喝有妞泡就绝不工作』的人并不少,而且其规模会随这一条件的持续成立而增长
神奇钢板

【2018-03-09】

@whigzhou: 川普总是吹嘘他的政策又吸引来多少资本流入美国,无论真假,这至少说明他是喜欢资本净流入的,可同时他又哭着喊着要消灭贸易赤字,问题是资本净流入和贸易赤字根本就是一回事,这个道理经济学家早就讲的嘴皮子都磨破了,可惜川普和川普粉是永远也弄不懂的。 ​​​​

@学经济家: 对。不过资本流入包括直接投资(建厂买房)、股权投资(增持股票)、债权投资(增持美债),川普想把第三种榨成对美采购,以拉动就业、薪酬、投资和税收。不过仍会逆差因为直接投资和股权投资会(more...)

标签: | |
8014
【2018-03-09】 @whigzhou: 川普总是吹嘘他的政策又吸引来多少资本流入美国,无论真假,这至少说明他是喜欢资本净流入的,可同时他又哭着喊着要消灭贸易赤字,问题是资本净流入和贸易赤字根本就是一回事,这个道理经济学家早就讲的嘴皮子都磨破了,可惜川普和川普粉是永远也弄不懂的。 ​​​​ @学经济家: 对。不过资本流入包括直接投资(建厂买房)、股权投资(增持股票)、债权投资(增持美债),川普想把第三种榨成对美采购,以拉动就业、薪酬、投资和税收。不过仍会逆差因为直接投资和股权投资会再次流入,除非中印等大幅开放分流投资。 @whigzhou: 说的好像有两块神奇钢板能把这三种投资隔离开似的 @whigzhou: 你增持了美国企业的股权,美国企业就有更多融资能力可用于直接投资,你增持了美国企业债,美国企业更是直接得到了资本,你增持了美国国债,美国政府就能在同等财政开支水平下减税……没有神奇钢板。 ​​​​ @whigzhou: 当然,事实上即便资产价值被资本流入所推高,美国企业也未必增加直接投资,但这是因为他们看不到更多机会,可如果是这样,无论怎么做都没用,你不可能逼着他们去做预期亏本的投资。 @whigzhou: 最高法院正在审理的Janus v AFSCME案,被告方的辩护理由也用到了神奇钢板,原告说工会从他口袋里强行收取的会费被用于其政治宣传,损害了他的第一修正案权利,工会说他们的政治活动经费账目是分开的,非会员的会费不会用于政治活动,这说法当然很可笑,很好演示了什么叫神奇钢板。 ​​​​ @whigzhou: 许多西方国家的政府和NGO其实长期以来都在资助中东的恐怖组织,比如哈马斯,但他们也用神奇钢板来辩护,说我们有严格的机制确保我们给的钱只会用于特定目的,表面看好像没错,可是既然哈马斯在你指定的那些用途上省下了那么多钱,难道不是可以多买好多莱阳钢管了吗?  
[译文]复兴中的可再生能源

Europe’s “Green” Power Fueled by Burning Wood
欧洲的“绿色”能源——烧木头

作者:Jamie @ 2017-02-24
译者:eGregius (@eGregius)
校对:龙泉
来源:The American Interest,http://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/02/23/europes-green-power-fueled-by-burning-wood/

Nearly two-thirds of the Europe’s renewable energy comes from burning wood. No, this isn’t some time capsule report from 500 years ago—that’s actually what the European Union is doing to meet its vaunted climate targets. The BBC reports:

欧洲近三分之二的可再生能量来自于木材燃烧——这可不是出自500年前时间胶囊中的记述,而是欧盟为了达到它吹嘘的气候目标所正在做的。据BBC报道:

While much of the discussion has focused on wind and solar power, across Europe the biggest source of green energy is biomass. It supplies around 65% of renewable power – usually electricity generated from burning wood pellets. EU Governments, under pressure to meet tough carbon cutting targets, have been encouraging electricity producers to use more of this form of ener(more...)

标签: | |
7560
Europe’s “Green” Power Fueled by Burning Wood 欧洲的“绿色”能源——烧木头 作者:Jamie @ 2017-02-24 译者:eGregius (@eGregius) 校对:龙泉 来源:The American Interest,http://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/02/23/europes-green-power-fueled-by-burning-wood/ Nearly two-thirds of the Europe’s renewable energy comes from burning wood. No, this isn’t some time capsule report from 500 years ago—that’s actually what the European Union is doing to meet its vaunted climate targets. The BBC reports: 欧洲近三分之二的可再生能量来自于木材燃烧——这可不是出自500年前时间胶囊中的记述,而是欧盟为了达到它吹嘘的气候目标所正在做的。据BBC报道:
While much of the discussion has focused on wind and solar power, across Europe the biggest source of green energy is biomass. It supplies around 65% of renewable power – usually electricity generated from burning wood pellets. EU Governments, under pressure to meet tough carbon cutting targets, have been encouraging electricity producers to use more of this form of energy by providing substantial subsidies for biomass burning. 尽管有大量的议题集中在风能和太阳能,生物质能仍然是目前整个欧洲最主要的绿色能源。它提供了约65%的可再生能量——以木屑颗粒燃烧发电为主。在严苛的减碳目标压力之下,欧盟各国政府为电力生产商制定了大量的补贴政策以激励他们采用此类能源。
If cutting down trees and burning them doesn’t sound green to you, that’s because, well, it’s not. It only becomes “climate neutral” when you include some clever accounting: if foresters replant a tree for every one they cut down, then from a “life-cycle” perspective, the emissions involved in burning that wood is offset by the carbon captured by the new forests. 如果你觉得伐木烧柴听起来并不那么“绿色”的话,那是因为,它确实不。哪怕你引入一些精明的算计:如果每伐一株木,护林人都会进行再种植,那么从“生命循环”的角度来看,烧柴所导致的碳排放会被新种树木的光合作用抵消,这也仅仅导致“气候中和”。 But a new report from Chatham House scrutinizes that calculus as little more than fuzzy math: 但来自Chatham House的一项最新报道仔细审视了上述算计,发现那仅仅是含糊的数学:
“It doesn’t make sense,” said [Duncan Brack, the report’s author], who is also a former special adviser at the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. “The fact that forests have grown over the previous 20 or 100 years means they are storing large amounts of carbon, you can’t pretend it doesn’t make an impact on the atmosphere if you cut them down and burn them…You could fix them in wood products or in furniture or you could burn them, but the impact on the climate is very different.” “那说不通,”报道的作者Duncan Brack表示——他同时也是英国能源与气候变化部的前任特别顾问——“无论过去20还是过去100年,森林面积都在增长,这一事实表明森林存储了大量的碳,你没有办法假装砍伐和燃烧它们对气候不会产生任何影响……你可以把这些碳继续固定闸木制品或家具里,你也可以把它们烧掉,但两种做法对气候的影响是很不同的。” Mr Brack says the assumption of carbon neutrality misses out on some crucial issues, including the fact that young trees planted as replacements absorb and store less carbon than the ones that have been burned. Brack先生表示碳中和的设想遗漏了一些重要的问题,包括新种植小树苗的贮碳能力并不及那些被烧掉的树。
This dodgy carbon accounting has come under fire (no pun intended) before, and for good reason: it doesn’t pass the common sense test. Even if you claim that the carbon capturing abilities of felled trees are offset by new forests, you need to consider that those new trees will take decades to reach full maturity—decades in which they won’t be sequestering carbon. Then too, consider that every step of the biomass production process—cutting trees down, trucking them out, machining them into pellets, and then shipping those pellets to the power plants where they’ll be burned—all entail emissions of their own. 这种鸡贼的碳核算方法此前就曾经受舆论炙烤(无意双关),这也理所应当,因为它并不符合常识。即使你声称新种植的木头会替代被伐木贮碳,你也需要考虑到这些替代者需要几十年的时间才能完全成熟——而在这几十年间,它们不怎么会吸碳。此外,想想生物质能生产的各个环节——伐木、运输、加工成颗粒再被运到发电厂(燃烧它们的地方)——都会产生排放。 There’s another big problem here, too. Europe buys much of their wood pellets from outside the bloc, and there’s little in the way of regulatory oversight to ensure felled trees are replanted, opening the door to opportunists looking to make a quick buck. And, as the BBC explains, the vagaries of international carbon accounting are producing some odd numbers for Europe: 还有一个不小的问题。欧洲大量的木屑颗粒采购于欧洲之外,没有多少监管措施去保证被伐木材会有新的树木取代,这为只想着快速捞一笔的机会主义者敞开了大门。正如BBC所解释的,国际间碳核算领域的奇招妙术正在给欧洲制造一些奇怪的数据:
[U]nder UN climate rules, emissions from trees are only counted when they are harvested. However the US, Canada and Russia do not use this method of accounting so if wood pellets are imported from these countries into the EU, which doesn’t count emissions from burning, the carbon simply goes “missing”. 根据联合国制定的气候规则,燃烧木材的排放只在被砍伐时记录一次,然而美国、加拿大和俄罗斯并不采取这样的计算方法,这样一来从这些国家进口到欧盟的木屑颗粒所导致的碳排放便不会被记录,就这么消失了。
With 65 percent of Europe’s renewable energy coming from biomass, you’d think this would be a bigger scandal. Perhaps the Eurocrats in Brussels are unwilling to examine the problem too closely, fearful that an in-depth investigation might kill the region’s best chance at meeting the climate targets it set for itself. Countries in Europe seem to be doubling down on biomass, too, a decision some observers say is “disastrous” for the environment. The longer this goes on, the more apparent it is that the EU cares more about appearing to be green than it does about actually tackling the issues it makes such a big to-do about on the international stage. 若再考虑到欧洲65%的可再生能源由生物质能组成,你会愈发觉得这是一桩丑闻。也许布鲁塞尔的欧盟官员们更愿意与这些调查保持距离,他们害怕深入的调查会让他们达到为自己设定的气候目标的希望落空。同时,欧洲各国在生物质能使用上似乎正在变本加利,一些观察家认为,对生态环境来说,这是“灾难性”的决定。这样的局面持续越久,欧盟的心思就愈发明显——相比应对让他们真正费力的气候问题,他们更在意台面上的“绿色”。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]税法创造的两朵奇葩

The Power of Taxes To Bend Behavior, Often in Unexpected Ways
税收扭曲行为——以你意想不到的方式

时间:2017-02-12
译者:Luis Rightcon
校对:龙泉
来源:http://www.coyoteblog.com,http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2017/02/the-power-of-taxes-to-bend-behavior-often-in-unexpected-ways.html

Taxes are incredibly powerful things.  Tax something and you will get less of it.  But you might also get more of something you did not expect.  Taxes are the king of generating unintended consequences.  A huge part of human ingenuity (unfortunately) seems to be constantly geared towards evading taxes.  This is one reason I favor completely eliminating the corporate income tax — way too many otherwise productive resources are marshaled towards managing the consequences of these taxes.

税收具有无穷魔力。如果你向某物征税,那么它就会变少。不过你也会得到一些意外收获。税收是非意图后果的制造之王。人类的很大一部分聪明才智看起来都(很不幸的)用在了逃避税收上。这是我为什么倾向于完全废除公司所得税的一个原因。太多生产性资源被配置于对付这些税收造成的后果了。

Last weekend I was in Cabo visiting a few friends and practicing my Spanish. (more...)

标签: |
7556
The Power of Taxes To Bend Behavior, Often in Unexpected Ways 税收扭曲行为——以你意想不到的方式 时间:2017-02-12 译者:Luis Rightcon 校对:龙泉 来源:http://www.coyoteblog.com,http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2017/02/the-power-of-taxes-to-bend-behavior-often-in-unexpected-ways.html Taxes are incredibly powerful things.  Tax something and you will get less of it.  But you might also get more of something you did not expect.  Taxes are the king of generating unintended consequences.  A huge part of human ingenuity (unfortunately) seems to be constantly geared towards evading taxes.  This is one reason I favor completely eliminating the corporate income tax -- way too many otherwise productive resources are marshaled towards managing the consequences of these taxes. 税收具有无穷魔力。如果你向某物征税,那么它就会变少。不过你也会得到一些意外收获。税收是非意图后果的制造之王。人类的很大一部分聪明才智看起来都(很不幸的)用在了逃避税收上。这是我为什么倾向于完全废除公司所得税的一个原因。太多生产性资源被配置于对付这些税收造成的后果了。 Last weekend I was in Cabo visiting a few friends and practicing my Spanish.  Many of the buildings in town (at least away from the resort areas) look like this: 上周末我去Cabo城【译注:位于墨西哥下加利福尼亚半岛的一座城市】拜访一帮朋友顺便练习西班牙语。许多建筑(至少远离度假村的地方)看起来像这样: DSC_0726 This is a small retail commercial building with going concerns on the first floor (actually finished pretty nicely) but rebar and stuff sticking up from what looks like an unfinished second floor.   This is just one of many, many buildings that look like this.  My friend, who has run a resort in Cabo for decades, asked me what I thought was going on.  I said I assumed it was some sort of third world thing, perhaps a lack of financing that meant the first floor has to operate to generate cash flow for the second floor. 这是一栋一楼正在营业的小商业建筑(实际上一楼做的很棒),但是屋顶朝天戳着的钢筋和其他建筑材料使得二楼看起来没有完成。这只是许许多多同类建筑中的一个。我那位在Cabo开了几十年零售店的朋友问我:你觉得这是怎么回事?。我说我觉得这像一个第三世界的产物,资金短缺使得需要用一楼产生的现金流来支持二楼的工程。 He answered that yes, there was very little financing for small business and real estate development so that sort of thing did happen.  But what was really going on here is tax management.  Until construction is completed, this structure is taxed as raw land rather than as a valuable commercial building.  It was typical practice to get approved for a two story building in the original plans, then stop construction after completing the first floor (which was all that was wanted anyway) and act like the building is still under construction.   Voila (ed: lol, oops) -- ugly building but hefty tax reduction. 他答道,小型企业和小房地产开发商的很少融资,所以这种事情确实会发生。但是在这里,真正的原因是避税。直到完工之前,这个地块都会被当作未开发土地而不是按有价值商业建筑征税。这栋建筑是个典型案例:最初获批时规划了两层,在完成第一层后停工(本来就是这么打算的),这栋建筑就像是仍然在施工一样。啊哈,丑陋但是可以躲掉很多税负的建筑。 For those of you who want to write this off as a third world phenomenon, I will offer a similar example from personal experience.  Some years ago, because I did not have enough value-destroying investments in my life, I bought some raw land in Hawaii.  It is actually in a gated community, about half-built-out, but if you drive past my land you will likely see a cow on it. 假如你认为这是第三世界特有现象,那我再举个相似的例子。若干年前,在我还没做那么多亏本投资之前,我在夏威夷买了一块荒地。它实际上位于一个封闭社区内,大概建好了一半,但是如果你开车经过我那块地,你会发现上边有一头奶牛。 What is a cow doing in a gated community on residential land?  Well, that is the point.  Without the cow, the land gets taxed as residential land.  With the cow, the land gets taxed as ranch land at perhaps a tenth the rate.  The homeowners association helps those of us with raw land to split the cost of the cows. 在建于住宅用地之上的封闭社区里放一头奶牛干啥呢?嗯,这个才是重点。如果没有这头奶牛的话,我这块荒地会被当成住宅用地征税。而有了这头奶牛,这块地则会被当成税率只有住宅用地十分之一的牧场征税。业主协会帮助我们这样的业主分担奶牛养殖的费用。 DSC_0065 Update:  Here are the Hawaiian cows, next to one of my neighbor's front gate.  While they are more attractive than the exposed rebar on the building in Cabo, they serve the same purpose. 更新:这些就是夏威夷的奶牛,旁边是我邻居的前门。虽然这些牛比Cabo城里那些裸露钢筋要好看一点,但是它们的作用却是一样的。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

Obamacare Lite

【2017-03-07】

照这个替代方案,Obamacare被保留了一大半,去掉的主要是当初引发各州诉讼、涉嫌违宪的条款,保留的是迫使许多保险公司退出的负面激励条款,和最初的声势相比,这是很糟糕的结果。

这个『Obamacare Lite』(不是我取的名字)在有些方面好像比原版更糟,所以(1)福利果子派出去就是很难收回来,无论是真果子还是假果子,2)对本届国会共和党的预期需要调低一点了。

 (more...)

标签: | | |
7664
【2017-03-07】 照这个替代方案,Obamacare被保留了一大半,去掉的主要是当初引发各州诉讼、涉嫌违宪的条款,保留的是迫使许多保险公司退出的负面激励条款,和最初的声势相比,这是很糟糕的结果。 这个『Obamacare Lite』(不是我取的名字)在有些方面好像比原版更糟,所以(1)福利果子派出去就是很难收回来,无论是真果子还是假果子,2)对本届国会共和党的预期需要调低一点了。  
border-adjustment

【2017-02-26】

@whigzhou: 越想越觉得border-adjustment是个好东西,最好的地方是它可能会把川普糊弄过去(或者帮川普把他的支持者糊弄过去?),以他(和他的支持者)对经济问题的理解能力,这很可能。 ​​​​

@史搞特:这个border adjustment tax跟关税有啥不同

@whigzhou: 差别是:关税是对跨境交易额外征了一笔税,因而会提高税负,降低贸易额,而BA只是改变了跨境交易的税负分布(more...)

标签: | | | |
7673
【2017-02-26】 @whigzhou: 越想越觉得border-adjustment是个好东西,最好的地方是它可能会把川普糊弄过去(或者帮川普把他的支持者糊弄过去?),以他(和他的支持者)对经济问题的理解能力,这很可能。 ​​​​ @史搞特:这个border adjustment tax跟关税有啥不同 @whigzhou: 差别是:关税是对跨境交易额外征了一笔税,因而会提高税负,降低贸易额,而BA只是改变了跨境交易的税负分布,后者对贸易的影响会被汇率杠杆重新撬回来,最终效果只是提高了美元币值,总体上的贸易均衡位置不会改变。 @whigzhou: BA表面上看起来好像会减少美国的贸易逆差,其实不会,因为贸易逆差只跟境外对美元资产的投资需求有关,和其他因素统统无关,只要这一需求不变,逆差仍会延续,所有其他因素造成的影响都会被汇率杠杆撬回来。  
分配效应

【2017-02-23】

@研二公知苗 不少人在讲移民问题时,都忽略社会,文化和政治成本,只讲纯经济收益。讲经济收益时,理论上,无论是受高等教育的合法移民还是从事低端工作的非法移民带来的纯经济收益理论上都是正的。但是这种收益不是一些人描绘的帕累托改进。相反,这种收益实际上带有很强的再分配性质。尤其是考虑到非法移民增加了低端工作岗位的供给,压低了低端岗位的工资,实际上是一种带有劫贫济富性质的再分配。

@whigzhou: 你说的是分配效应,distributive effec(more...)

标签: | | |
7675
【2017-02-23】 @研二公知苗 不少人在讲移民问题时,都忽略社会,文化和政治成本,只讲纯经济收益。讲经济收益时,理论上,无论是受高等教育的合法移民还是从事低端工作的非法移民带来的纯经济收益理论上都是正的。但是这种收益不是一些人描绘的帕累托改进。相反,这种收益实际上带有很强的再分配性质。尤其是考虑到非法移民增加了低端工作岗位的供给,压低了低端岗位的工资,实际上是一种带有劫贫济富性质的再分配。 @whigzhou: 你说的是分配效应,distributive effect,不是再分配,后面这个词要难听得多 @whigzhou: 贸易开放、技术进步、资源发现,都有很强的分配效应,但不是再分配,后者是对由市场机制分配的要素报酬通过非市场手段进行人际转移 @whigzhou: 制度和政策上无视分配效应,是自由市场原则的要点之一,否则贸易保护、卢德分子、行会特权、工会垄断,就都有了位置 @研二公知苗: 但现实中,自由市场的运行还是需要政治上的保障。对受损者的补偿就是为了使得自由市场的基本原则在政治上具有可持续性。 @whigzhou: 妥协让步当然可以,但让步不能通过修改自己的是非观来进行,『你欠我100,还不起?好吧,那就免掉你30』vs『你欠我100,还不起?好吧,那就算你只借了70』  
2016

说说川普吧。平时懒得说这些事情,过年集中说几句。

先说好的。

【亮点】

从已报道的人事安排看,川普的国内政策看起来不错,至少会比希拉里好很多,特别是教育部、劳工部、环保局、卫生部的人选,是其中几大亮点。

从这些人选,加上共和党在国会的多数,有几项前景比较肯定:

1)联邦最低工资不会提高,大好事;

2)势头正盛的特许学校不会受阻挠;

3)暖球党在联邦政府内将全面失势,气候与环境相关的管制会有松动,甚至许多预算和职位会被取消;

4)页岩革命的势头将不会在联邦层面受阻挠,此事的国际后果比国内后果意义更大;

【医保】

川普说要废Obamacare,但具体怎么弄不太明确,不过他挑了个重量级共和党国会大佬掌管卫生部,此人有医生背景,且此前在医保案上投入很多,提了个替代方案,貌似这事情会是川普的一个政策重点。

废Obamacare自然是好事,不过替代方案会怎么样很难说,推不推得动也大为可疑。

医保是个大坑,消耗政治资源极多,收获却很渺茫,弄不好的话,川普的势头和共和党团结很可能都被它拖垮。

【移民】

边境控制会加强,难民配额会减少甚至取消,这是好事。

不过,对于造成问题的拉丁移民,移民动力比司法控制的影响重要得多,而实际上,拉丁移民的动力近些年正在削弱,所以这件事情上川普其实没有多大发挥余地。

同时,他可能去削减技术移民,那是坏事,而且不像非法移民难控制,削减合法移民配额会有立竿见影的效果。

两类移民有着完全不同的选择机制,限制后一类属于自残。

【大法官】

稍乐观,川普提名的大法官肯定比奥巴马和希拉里的好,但也不必期望太高,我稍稍乐观是因为我觉得他可能对这事情不太感兴趣,所以会听从共和党主流意见。

【金融管制】

相比环境方面的管制,金融管制的后果严重的多,比如Sarbanes-OxleyDodd-Frank,但从川普的民粹倾向和他对待企业的态度看,不太能指望他在放松金融管制方面有多大作为。

【政治正确】

(more...)

标签: | | | | |
7500
说说川普吧。平时懒得说这些事情,过年集中说几句。 先说好的。 【亮点】 从已报道的人事安排看,川普的国内政策看起来不错,至少会比希拉里好很多,特别是教育部、劳工部、环保局、卫生部的人选,是其中几大亮点。 从这些人选,加上共和党在国会的多数,有几项前景比较肯定: 1)联邦最低工资不会提高,大好事; 2)势头正盛的特许学校不会受阻挠; 3)暖球党在联邦政府内将全面失势,气候与环境相关的管制会有松动,甚至许多预算和职位会被取消; 4)页岩革命的势头将不会在联邦层面受阻挠,此事的国际后果比国内后果意义更大; 【医保】 川普说要废[[Obamacare]],但具体怎么弄不太明确,不过他挑了个重量级共和党国会大佬掌管卫生部,此人有医生背景,且此前在医保案上投入很多,提了个替代方案,貌似这事情会是川普的一个政策重点。 废Obamacare自然是好事,不过替代方案会怎么样很难说,推不推得动也大为可疑。 医保是个大坑,消耗政治资源极多,收获却很渺茫,弄不好的话,川普的势头和共和党团结很可能都被它拖垮。 【移民】 边境控制会加强,难民配额会减少甚至取消,这是好事。 不过,对于造成问题的拉丁移民,移民动力比司法控制的影响重要得多,而实际上,拉丁移民的动力近些年正在削弱,所以这件事情上川普其实没有多大发挥余地。 同时,他可能去削减技术移民,那是坏事,而且不像非法移民难控制,削减合法移民配额会有立竿见影的效果。 两类移民有着完全不同的选择机制,限制后一类属于自残。 【大法官】 稍乐观,川普提名的大法官肯定比奥巴马和希拉里的好,但也不必期望太高,我稍稍乐观是因为我觉得他可能对这事情不太感兴趣,所以会听从共和党主流意见。 【金融管制】 相比环境方面的管制,金融管制的后果严重的多,比如Sarbanes-OxleyDodd-Frank,但从川普的民粹倾向和他对待企业的态度看,不太能指望他在放松金融管制方面有多大作为。 【政治正确】 川普带来的最好前景可能是政治正确紧箍咒的打破,许多人们敢怒不敢言的烂事将得到遏制,一些蒙尘已久的常识正义得以恢复,西方传统价值观有机会再次扬眉吐气。   再说坏的。 【宪政传统】 川普不是个尊重宪法和宪政传统的人,远远不是,在这一点上,除罗斯福外,我想不出比他表现更差的美国总统,其他政客藐视宪法还会偷偷摸摸遮遮掩掩,他连遮掩都不会,这是他最令我反感的地方。 我曾反复说过,宪法≠《宪法》,复制宪法文本、议事程序、政府结构很容易,但达致宪政均衡却很难,既有的均衡依靠参与各方对传统的尊重以及对违背传统之后果的预期。均衡一旦打破很难恢复,川普很可能是个破坏者。 以候选人身份公然威胁媒体,勒令制造企业回迁,暗示不接受选举结果……,有些恶劣做法(第三项尤其恶劣)虽不会有短期后果,但会改变人们的预期——原来这么没下限的事情也是可以被接受的啊? 【经济政策】 川普人选中最烂的一个就是[[Peter Navarro]],此人要么是蠢蛋,要么是哗众取宠的投机分子,对Navarro的青睐最清楚的展示了川普对经济问题的理解力。 【基础设施建设】 蠢。暴露了骨子里的国家干预主义。 【跨国公司】 现在还不清楚川普会如何拿跨国公司下手,如果贸易保护法案通不过或者不起作用,会不会从其他方面下阴招?比如海外利润,避税问题,EB5配额,其他管制陷阱?如果川普果真把制造业回归当成重点,跨国公司估计没好日子过。 【贸易保护】 从专门为Navarro设立新机构(National Trade Council)这个动作看,川普的保护主义看来不会是空话了。 废[[NAFTA]]的后果之一将是正在退潮的墨西哥移民猛增,这我之前说过。 假如贸易保护是专门用来打击中国的,那倒还说得过去,但必须明白这是为打击中国而付出的代价,不是收益,判断他是否明白这一点,可以看他是否为此而从其他方面寻求弥补,比如向盟友和潜在盟友提供更好的贸易条件,从川普对待TPP的态度看,不太可能。 乐观点是,国会大概不会同意将关税提至两位数,大概也不会废NAFTA和WTO,而川普能做的主要是停止推动更多自由贸易协定,在行政分支的权限内展开贸易战,设置一个个双边壁垒,推动贸易相关的管制,果若如此,其伤害将小于Smoot-Hawley法案。 【西方联盟】 川普可能做出的最坏事情将在外交方面,具体说就是:挫伤盟友,毁掉联盟。 美国总统在内政上推动能力有限,尤其是那些利益牵扯广泛的事情(比如税收、医保和最低工资),但在国际事务上行动能力要强得多,而这恰恰是川普最危险的地方。 打击中国,强挺以色列,踢开联合国,这些都很好,问题是,毁掉西方联盟这一件事,足以抵消其他全部好处百倍不止。 停掉TPP的前景已经挫伤了不少亚太盟友,未来假如在南海问题上甩手,西方联盟的这条腿就折了。 从川普对待普京的态度看,他很可能抛弃东欧和GUAM的盟友(后者实际上已经破裂了)。 最重要也最令人痛惜的被挫伤者或许将是英国,本来,英国退欧是强化盎格鲁联盟并以此为基础重建世界秩序的一次良机,但川普极可能毁掉这个机会,在这一点上他比希拉里更指望不上。 【总结】 从截止目前的表现看,川普将带来许多好东西,但不幸的是,他在最重要问题上极可能犯的错误,将让这些好处全部黯然失色。 当然,也可能我看错了,他或许不会犯下我所预料的错误,他过去的姿态或许只是一种姿态,果若如此,将是美国之幸,文明之幸。 所以我在此设定一个开关:假如未来的进展证明他的贸易保护政策仅仅用来打击文明的敌人,假如他积极拥抱退欧后的英国,不抛弃盟友,不牺牲其利益,不将他们推向敌人怀抱,我会立即黑转粉,并满心喜悦的承认自己看错了。  
[译文]一所杰出黑人中学的毁灭

Dunbar High School After 100 Years
百年后的Dunbar 高中

作者:Thomas Sowell @ 2016-10-04
译者:鳗鱼禅(@鳗鱼禅)
校对:龙泉(@L_Stellar)
来源:RealClearPolitics,http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/04/dunbar_high_school_after_100_years_131956.html

One hundred years ago, on October 2, 1916, a new public high school building for black youngsters was opened in Washington, D.C. and named for black poet Paul Laurence Dunbar. Its history is a story inspiring in many ways and appalling in many other ways.

一百年前,1916年10月2日,一座为年轻黑人而设的公立高中教学楼在华盛顿特区投入使用。这座教学楼以非洲诗人 Paul Laurence Dunbar 的姓氏命名,它的历史是个令人既振奋又惊骇的故事。

< (more...)
标签: | |
7478
Dunbar High School After 100 Years 百年后的Dunbar 高中 作者:Thomas Sowell @ 2016-10-04 译者:鳗鱼禅(@鳗鱼禅) 校对:龙泉(@L_Stellar) 来源:RealClearPolitics,http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/04/dunbar_high_school_after_100_years_131956.html One hundred years ago, on October 2, 1916, a new public high school building for black youngsters was opened in Washington, D.C. and named for black poet Paul Laurence Dunbar. Its history is a story inspiring in many ways and appalling in many other ways. 一百年前,1916年10月2日,一座为年轻黑人而设的公立高中教学楼在华盛顿特区投入使用。这座教学楼以非洲诗人 Paul Laurence Dunbar 的姓氏命名,它的历史是个令人既振奋又惊骇的故事。 Prior to 1916, the same high school had existed under other names, housed in other buildings -- and with a remarkable academic record. 在1916年前,这所高中以其它名字运营,在另外的建筑中教学,教学成果显著。 In 1899, when it was called "the M Street School," a test was given in Washington's four academic public high schools, three white and one black. The black high school scored higher than two of the three white high schools. Today, it would be considered Utopian even to set that as a goal, much less expect to see it happen. 1899年,当时学校还叫“ M 街学校”,华盛顿特区四所公立高中进行学业测试,三所白人高中,一所黑人高中。黑人高中的成绩高于其中两所白人高中。如今,人们会认为设立这样的目标本身就是做白日梦,更别说指望其变为现实。 The M Street School had neither of two so-called "prerequisites" for quality education. There was no "diversity." It was an all-black school from its beginning, and on through its life as a high quality institution under the name Dunbar High School. 优质教育所需的两项所谓“前提条件”,M街学校通通没有。没有“多样性”。一开始就是全黑人学校,直到保持高质量教学水平的Dunbar高中时期,依然如此。 But its days as a high quality institution ended abruptly in the middle of the 1950s. After that, it became just another failing ghetto school. 然而,这首优质教学之歌在1950年代中期戛然而止。之后,Dunbar 高中沦为又一所溃败的贫民窟学校。 The other so-called "prerequisite" that the M Street School lacked was an adequate building. Its student body was 50 percent larger than the building's capacity, a fact that led eventually to the new Dunbar High School building. But its students excelled even in their overcrowded building. 另一项所谓的“前提条件”——一座适宜教学的大楼——M街学校也没有。全校学生数量超过建筑物设计容纳人数50%,因此才兴建新的Dunbar高中教学楼。尽管如此,学生成绩依然优秀。 Some students at the M Street School began going to some of the leading colleges in the country in the late 19th century. The first of its graduates to go to Harvard did so in 1903. Over the years from 1892 to 1954, thirty-four of the graduates from the M Street School and Dunbar went on to Amherst. 在19世纪晚期,M街学校开始有学生考上国内顶尖大学。1903年,该校首次有学生考入哈佛大学。1892至1954年间,M街学校和Dunbar高中合共有34名毕业生考入 Amherst 学院【译注:位于马萨诸塞州的一所精英男校】 Of these, 74 percent graduated from Amherst and 28 percent of these graduates were Phi Beta Kappas. Other graduates from M Street High School and Dunbar became Phi Beta Kappas at Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and other elite institutions. 这些学生中,74%顺利从Amherst 学院毕业,其中28%毕业生为最高荣誉优等生。其他M街学校和Dunbar 高中的一些毕业生,在哈佛、耶鲁、达特茅斯和其它精英院校成为最高荣誉优等生。 Graduates of this same high school pioneered as the first black in many places. These included the first black man to graduate from Annapolis, the first black woman to receive a Ph.D. from an American institution, the first black federal judge, the first black general, the first black Cabinet member and, among other notables, a doctor who became internationally renowned for his pioneering work in developing the use of blood plasma. 这一所高中的毕业生在多个领域都是首次取得杰出成就的黑人。包括第一名从美国海军学院毕业的黑人男生,第一名从美国高等院校获得博士学位的黑人女性,第一名黑人联邦法官,第一名黑人将军,第一名黑人内阁成员。在众多取得不凡成就的黑人中,特别值得一提的是,在保存血浆以供使用方面做出开拓性工作的一名享誉全球的黑人医生【译注:Charles Drew】 How could all of this come to an abrupt end in the 1950s? Like many other disasters, it began with good intentions and arbitrary assumptions. 这一切怎么会在1950年代突然完结?跟很多灾难一样,一切以善意和武断的假设前提开始。 When Chief Justice Earl Warren declared in the landmark 1954 case of "Brown v. Board of Education" that racially separate schools were "inherently unequal," Dunbar High School was a living refutation of that assumption. And it was within walking distance of the Supreme Court. 1954年里程碑式的“ 布朗诉教育委员会” 一案宣判,Earl Warren大法官代表的多数判词称种族隔离的学校‘ 在本性上就是不平等的’,Dunbar高中是对这一假设前提活生生的反驳。学校就位于最高法院的步行距离之内。 A higher percentage of Dunbar graduates went on to college than the percentage at any white public high school in Washington. But what do facts matter when there is heady rhetoric and crusading zeal? Dunbar高中毕业生考入大学的比例高于华盛顿特区内任何一所白人公立高中。但在令人头脑发热的修辞和运动式的热情面前,事实又有什么用呢? There is no question that racially segregated schools in the South provided an inadequate education for blacks. But the assumption that racial "integration" was the answer led to years of racial polarization and turmoil over busing, with little, if any, educational improvement. 毋庸置疑,南部各州的种族隔离学校未能为黑人提供足够的教育。但种族“融合”才是解决之道的假设导致连年的种族极化和骚乱,用几近于无的教育成果提升来代替种族隔离的校巴。 For Washington, the end of racial segregation led to a political compromise, in which all schools became neighborhood schools. Dunbar, which had been accepting outstanding black students from anywhere in the city, could now accept only students from the rough ghetto neighborhood in which it was located. 对华盛顿特区而言,种族隔离的结束导致一项政治让步。所有学校都转为就近入学的学区学校。Dunbar 高中此前一直在全市范围内招收学业突出的黑人学生,现在只能从学校周边的贫民窟社区招收学生。 Virtually overnight, Dunbar became a typical ghetto school. As unmotivated, unruly and disruptive students flooded in, Dunbar teachers began moving out and many retired. More than 80 years of academic excellence simply vanished into thin air. 几乎一夜之间,Dunbar高中变为一所典型的贫民窟学校。没有学习动力、没有规矩和爱捣蛋的学生涌入学校后,原先的教师开始离开、退休。80多年的教学成果随风飘逝。 Nobody, black or white, mounted any serious opposition. "Integration" was the cry of the moment, and it drowned out everything else. That is what happens in politics. 不论黑人或白人,没有人提出任何严肃的反对意见。“融合”是当红的口号,让其它都沉没于海底。这就是政治领域正在发生的事情。 Today, there is a new Dunbar High School building, costing more than $100 million. But its graduates go on to college at only about half the rate of Dunbar graduates in earlier and poorer times. Politics can deliver costly "favors," even when it cannot deliver quality education. 如今,Dunbar新高中教学楼耗资超过1亿美元。但学校毕业生的大学入学率仅为早期贫穷世代的一半。哪怕政治无法提供优质的教育,一样可以提供昂贵的“惠泽”。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

长了脚的资产

【2016-09-08】

@海德沙龙: 《为何影视业拿了这么多税务补贴? ​​​​》 好莱坞无论如何都算不上贫困户或弱势群体,但奇特的是,美国各州争相为影视制片商提供税务补贴,以说服他们在本州拍摄外景,相互攀比之下,补贴额越来越高,据说这可以提升当地旅游业,可实际上并没有任何经验证据支持这一点,那么这事情究竟为何会发生呢?

@whigzhou: 说明一个小道理:长了脚的资产/生意很难征到税

@海德沙龙: 嗯,我们一篇旧译文《农作物类型如何影(more...)

标签: |
7611
【2016-09-08】 @海德沙龙: 《为何影视业拿了这么多税务补贴? ​​​​》 好莱坞无论如何都算不上贫困户或弱势群体,但奇特的是,美国各州争相为影视制片商提供税务补贴,以说服他们在本州拍摄外景,相互攀比之下,补贴额越来越高,据说这可以提升当地旅游业,可实际上并没有任何经验证据支持这一点,那么这事情究竟为何会发生呢? @whigzhou: 说明一个小道理:长了脚的资产/生意很难征到税 @海德沙龙: 嗯,我们一篇旧译文《农作物类型如何影响制度进化》中有个概念叫『可收夺性(appropriability)』,说的也是这个道理 @whigzhou: 嗯嗯,James Scott写了一整本书《逃避统治的艺术》讲的全是这个道理~  
[译文]好莱坞如何改编故事

好莱坞的误导历史
Hollywood’s misleading history

作者:Peter J. Wallison @ 2016-2-29
译者:Luis Rightcon(@Rightcon)
校对:Tankman
来源:American Enterprise Institute,http://www.aei.org/publication/hollywoods-misleading-history/

The film called The Big Short differs in a significant way from the book of the same name on which it is based, and this difference reveals how the film-makers made it more politically charged in order to blame Wall S(more...)

标签: | |
7382
好莱坞的误导历史 Hollywood’s misleading history 作者:Peter J. Wallison @ 2016-2-29 译者:Luis Rightcon(@Rightcon) 校对:Tankman 来源:American Enterprise Institute,http://www.aei.org/publication/hollywoods-misleading-history/ The film called The Big Short differs in a significant way from the book of the same name on which it is based, and this difference reveals how the film-makers made it more politically charged in order to blame Wall Street for the financial crisis. 《大空头》这部电影与其同名报告文学在历史叙事上有着很明显的不同,而且这一差异揭示了电影制作者是如何使这部影片更充满政治意味,从而把金融危机归咎于华尔街。 In the book, the Wall Street experts who were approached to bet against the housing market almost all refused. 在那本书中,几乎所有被问及是否做空房产市场的华尔街专家们都给出了否定答案。 This showed something that was true, and for that reason interesting: that even people on Wall Street, always on the lookout for a money-making opportunity, could not believe the housing market was in any danger of collapse. In the film, this was demonstrated by the skepticism of the FrontPoint group that was initially approached as investors, as well as the eagerness of the financial firms such as Goldman Sachs and others to take the other side of the bet against the housing market. 这显示了一些有趣的事实,那就是,即使是成天盯着捞钱机会的华尔街精英也无法相信(当时的)房市会有任何崩溃的风险。而在电影中,这被演绎成投资者FrontPoint集团的怀疑立场,以及像高盛集团那样的金融机构们对于做多房地产市场的渴望。 In the book, the tension in the narrative was created when the book’s protagonists — the first people to bet against the housing market — had persuaded their investors to place bets against the housing market many months before the coming failures actually became evident. As a result, in the book their financial backers became impatient. The predictions of a collapse did not happen fast enough, and they sought to withdraw their funds. Some of this impatience was present in the film, but the context was changed. 在书中,整个故事的紧张之处体现在主人公——作为第一个开始做空房地产市场的人——在金融海啸变成现实之前很多个月,就说服了他们的投资者来做空房市。结果,他们的财务支持者们变得不耐烦了,预言中的崩塌没有足够快的发生,于是他们计划撤资。电影中部分展现了这一不耐烦的情节,然而其情境却被改写了。 In the film, the collapse actually occurred, but the there was no movement in the market prices of the privately-issued mortgage-backed securities or the credit default swaps that were used to bet against them. This was attributed in the film to a conspiracy among the big banks on Wall Street: they somehow kept the market from moving against them while they sold off their holdings to less informed buyers. 在影片中,房产市场的崩溃如期发生了,但是私下发行的MBS(住房抵押贷款证券)和用来做空他们的CDS(信用违约掉期)的市场价格并没有变化。这在影片中被归结于华尔街上大银行的共谋:他们以某种方式稳定住了市场,直到把自己持有的资产卖给那些知情较少的买家。 It should be obvious that a conspiracy like this is impossible. There are too many buyers and sellers in the financial markets for something like the price of mortgage-backed securities or credit defaults swaps to be rigged. In reality, as soon as an index of housing defaults began to signal danger, investors fled the market. 显然像这样的阴谋是不可能成功的。在金融市场像CDS和MBS这类金融工具所涉及到的买家和卖家实在是太多了,以至于其价格很难被操纵。事实上,一旦房贷违约的指数开始发出危险信号,投资者马上就逃离了这个市场。 If the film had simply followed the book, it would have been a tale about how some very smart and gutsy traders outwitted Wall Street and faced down investors who had lost faith in them to win big in the end. It could have been an uplifting story that would have shone an unflattering light on the supposedly smart guys on Wall Street. 如果该影片只是简单地遵循同名报告文学的叙事,那将只会是一个某些既聪明绝顶又胆大包天的交易员以其聪明才智胜过华尔街,以及让那些对他们失去信心的投资者羞愧万分,从而在最后赢得巨额回报的故事。这或许会成为一个真实报道华尔街上的聪明伙计的励志故事。 But that was not enough for Hollywood. In Hollywood’s telling, the bad guys had to be villains, not just dumb. So the film-makers concocted a plot in which Wall Street successfully kept the market from moving against them in order to save themselves. 但这对好莱坞来说可远远不够。在好莱坞的通常叙事中,坏家伙们必须是十足的恶棍,而不是随便冒出来的草包。所以电影制作人们编造了一个情节:为了拯救自身,华尔街成功阻止了不利于自身的市场运动。 In reality, of course, Wall Street was not saved. Many of the major firms got into serious trouble when the housing bubble collapsed. Several failed and others suffered major losses. 当然,实际上华尔街并没有被拯救。房产泡沫崩溃时很多主要金融机构陷入了严重的困境。有一些破产了,剩下的也遭受到了极其严重的损失。 The lesson here is to approach Hollywood’s versions of real life events with caution. They can be good entertainment, but badly misleading history. 这里的教训是要对好莱坞版本的现实事件保持警惕。他们可以是很好的娱乐,但同时可能会严重的误导历史。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]为何影视业拿了这么多税务补贴?

No Matter Who Wins at the Oscars, Taxpayers Lose on Film Subsidies
不管奥斯卡花落谁家,纳税人在电影补贴上都是输

作者:Jared Meyer @ 2016-02-26
译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
校对:辉格(@whigzhou)
来源:Reason ,http://reason.com/archives/2016/02/26/no-matter-who-wins-at-the-oscars-taxpaye

Big screen and small get big benefits at taxpayer expense.
纳税人埋单,荧屏业大获其利

Sunday night brings the 89th Academy Awards, and many are wondering what film will take home the Oscar for Best Picture. No matter what film wins, one group of people should be thanked during the acceptance speech—taxpayers.

本周日将举办第89届奥斯卡金像奖,许多人都在猜测最佳影片将会花落谁家。但不管哪部影片得奖,获奖感言里都应该感谢一个群体:纳税人。

Film is a heavily subsidized industry, and the majority of states have tax incentive programs that lower the cost of production. These tax credits are determined by production costs, not profits, and many credits are transferrable or refundable. When a film’s tax liabilities are below its allotted refundable credits, taxpayers end up directly paying film companies the difference.

电影行业得到的补贴极大,大部分州都设置有税收激励计划,以降低制片成本。这类税收抵免额度由制片成本而非影片收益决定,而且其中许多都可以转移或补差【译注:指如果抵免额高于应税额,纳税人不但不用纳税,还能倒拿差额】。如果一部影片的应税额低于它所得的可补差抵免额,那就相当于纳税人直接向电影公司支付差额。

The Big Short, one of this year’s nominees, cost $28 million to produce and was filmed in California, Nevada, and Louisiana. All three states have film tax credit programs, but Louisiana’s 40 percent partially-transferable credit is the largest. The film’s producers made a movie about Wall Street greed, but they clearly had no problem making taxpayers pay for their production costs.

今年获提名的影片《大空头》制作成本为2800万,在加利福尼亚、内华达和路易斯安那三地拍摄。三个州都有电影业税收抵免计划,不过,路易斯安那的40%部分可转移税收抵免仍属其中翘楚。制片人拍摄了一部讲述华尔街之贪婪的电影,但在让纳税人为其制片成本埋单的时候,他们显然心安理得。

New York’s fully-refundable 30 percent film tax credit is the most generous in the nation, with an annual limit of $420 millionBrooklyn and Bridge of Spie(more...)

标签: |
7371
No Matter Who Wins at the Oscars, Taxpayers Lose on Film Subsidies 不管奥斯卡花落谁家,纳税人在电影补贴上都是输 作者:Jared Meyer @ 2016-02-26 译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 校对:辉格(@whigzhou) 来源:Reason ,http://reason.com/archives/2016/02/26/no-matter-who-wins-at-the-oscars-taxpaye Big screen and small get big benefits at taxpayer expense. 纳税人埋单,荧屏业大获其利 Sunday night brings the 89th Academy Awards, and many are wondering what film will take home the Oscar for Best Picture. No matter what film wins, one group of people should be thanked during the acceptance speech—taxpayers. 本周日将举办第89届奥斯卡金像奖,许多人都在猜测最佳影片将会花落谁家。但不管哪部影片得奖,获奖感言里都应该感谢一个群体:纳税人。 Film is a heavily subsidized industry, and the majority of states have tax incentive programs that lower the cost of production. These tax credits are determined by production costs, not profits, and many credits are transferrable or refundable. When a film’s tax liabilities are below its allotted refundable credits, taxpayers end up directly paying film companies the difference. 电影行业得到的补贴极大,大部分州都设置有税收激励计划,以降低制片成本。这类税收抵免额度由制片成本而非影片收益决定,而且其中许多都可以转移或补差【译注:指如果抵免额高于应税额,纳税人不但不用纳税,还能倒拿差额】。如果一部影片的应税额低于它所得的可补差抵免额,那就相当于纳税人直接向电影公司支付差额。 The Big Short, one of this year’s nominees, cost $28 million to produce and was filmed in California, Nevada, and Louisiana. All three states have film tax credit programs, but Louisiana’s 40 percent partially-transferable credit is the largest. The film's producers made a movie about Wall Street greed, but they clearly had no problem making taxpayers pay for their production costs. 今年获提名的影片《大空头》制作成本为2800万,在加利福尼亚、内华达和路易斯安那三地拍摄。三个州都有电影业税收抵免计划,不过,路易斯安那的40%部分可转移税收抵免仍属其中翘楚。制片人拍摄了一部讲述华尔街之贪婪的电影,但在让纳税人为其制片成本埋单的时候,他们显然心安理得。 New York’s fully-refundable 30 percent film tax credit is the most generous in the nation, with an annual limit of $420 millionBrooklyn and Bridge of Spies, two of this year’s nominees, were filmed in New York, and their budgets were $12 million and $40 million, respectively. 要论慷慨,全国之最当数纽约的30%全额可补差电影业税收抵免,每年最高限额是4.2亿。本年度有两部提名电影在纽约拍摄,《布鲁克林》和《间谍之桥》,费用分别达到1200万和4000万。 States are starting to realize that the economic benefits of film tax credits are pure fantasy, like some movie plots. In 2012, 40 states offered tax incentives, at a total cost of $1.4 billion, but since then some states have decided that maintaining roads, funding schools, staffing police departments, and letting residents keep more income are better uses of funds. Since last year’s Oscars, Alaska, Michigan, and Illinois all ended their film tax credit programs. (See my testimony for the Alaska Senate on the false promise of film tax credits here). 许多州已经开始意识到,电影业税收抵免的经济利好效应就跟某些电影情节一样纯属空想。2012年,有40个州提供此类税收激励,总共耗费14亿。但自此以后,一些州已经决定,维护公路、资助学校、充实警力以及让居民手中存留更多收入才是对资金的更好使用。上届奥斯卡以来,阿拉斯加、密歇根和伊利诺伊等州都已经终止了电影业税收抵免计划。(可参考我在阿拉斯加州议会上就电影业税收抵免之虚假承诺所做的证言) In contrast, California tripled its non-refundable film tax credit budget to $330 million in an effort to lure more film production back to Hollywood. 加利福尼亚则反其道行之,为吸引更多影片返回好莱坞制作,该州已经将其用于不可补差电影业税收抵免的预算增加了三倍,达到3.3亿。 It is not only Oscar-nominated movies that receive sweetheart tax deals. Television shows, including HBO’s VEEP and Netflix’s House of Cards, are two examples. 获得这种甜蜜的减税待遇的并不是只有奥斯卡提名影片。电视剧也是如此,HBO的《副总统》和Netflix的《纸牌屋》就是其中两个例子。 When Maryland did not increase its fully-refundable film tax incentive program in 2014, Netflix executives went all Frank Underwood on former governor Martin O’Malley and threatened to leave the state. Political pressure, including a Kevin Spacey visit to Annapolis, convinced Maryland to raid other funds in order to double its film tax credit budget to $15 million. This does not include the $4 million in annual lost revenue from sales tax exemptions for film production companies. 2014年,在马里兰州尚未在其全额可补差电影业税收激励计划上增加力度之际,Netflix的总监们就在前任州长Martin O’Malley面前扮演“弗兰克·安德伍德”(译注:《纸牌屋》主角,马基雅维利式政客),并且威胁要撤离该州。凯文·史派西(译注:安德伍德的扮演者)到访安纳波利斯,在诸如此类的政治压力之下,马里兰州将其电影业税收抵免预算增加一倍,达到1500万,为此砍掉了许多其他方面的资金。这还没把电影制片公司所享受的营业税免征额包含在内,每年因此少征的税收可是有400万。 Even though film tax credits are often sold as a way to help small producers, 98 percent of Maryland’s film tax credit budget over the last three years has been taken up by House of Cards and VEEP. The increased tourism argument that film tax credit proponents constantly use clearly does not apply for two shows that are set in Washington, D.C. Similarly, no one thinks of Louisiana while they are watching The Big Short. 尽管电影业税收抵免经常顶着帮助小制片公司的名头做游说,但在过去三年中,马里兰州98%的电影税收抵免款都进了《纸牌屋》和《副总统》的兜里。电影业税收抵免的鼓吹者们经常使用的抵免带动旅游业的论证,显然在这里也并不适用,因为两部剧的背景都设定在华盛顿特区。同样,在观看《大空头》时,根本没人会想起路易斯安那州。 Maryland’s handouts were still not enough to convince HBO executives to keep filming VEEP in Maryland. VEEP’s production moved to California after the state offered the show a $6.5 million tax credit. 即便如此,马里兰州的馈赠仍然不足以说服HBO的总监们继续在该州拍摄《副总统》。该片将搬到加利福利亚制作,因为加州将为该剧提供650万的税收抵免。 The Maryland Department of Legislative Services found that the state’s film tax incentive program only returns 6 cents for every dollar spent. While this return is particularly poor, the best return in any state is still less than 30 cents on the dollar. 马里兰州立法服务部发现,该州的电影业税收激励计划每花掉1美元,只能收回6美分。这么低的回报当然很极端,但各州回报表现最好的也仍然不到每美元30美分。 Jobs in the film industry are highly skilled and mobile, which means they do not create lasting economic benefits. If another state rolls out an even more generous tax credit, film production can simply pack up and leave for another soundstage. States that decide to shower the film industry with taxpayer funds are in a race to the bottom, as no credit is high enough to satisfy Hollywood executives. 电影行业所提供的工作都是技术岗位,且流动性很高,这就意味着该行业并不能创造持久的经济效益。如果另外一个州推出了更为慷慨的税收抵免计划,电影制片商只需要打个包,就能换个摄影棚。各州如果决心花纳税人的钱来馈赠电影行业,它们就是加入了一场竞相逐底的比赛,因为抵免额度无论多高都无法满足好莱坞的总监们。 Maryland’s experience of losing film productions and wasting taxpayer dollars on its program is not unique. Every independent study of film tax credits have found that the programs come nowhere close to paying for themselves. But this reality has not stopped proponents from making fanciful predictions. The Maryland Film Industry Coalition—a group dedicated to promoting the film industry—claims that each dollar in tax credits leads to $1.03 in tax revenue. 马里兰州遭制片公司抛弃、在补贴计划上浪费纳税人税金的上述经历并不罕见。所有关于电影业税收减免的独立研究都已发现,各种补贴计划均远远无法实现收支平衡。但这一事实并没能阻止其鼓吹者提出各种白日梦般的预测。“马里兰州电影行业联盟”——一个旨在促进电影行业发展的组织——宣称,税收抵免每花1美元都能带来1.03美元的税收。 The Tax Foundation’s Joseph Henchman points out that if these fanciful projections were taken seriously, the United States could pay off its national debt by simply giving the film industry $1 trillion. “税务基金会”的Joseph Henchman指出,如果我们拿这种白日梦似的测算当真,那么美国只需要给电影行业派送1万亿,就能偿清它的全部国债了。 One study that was funded by the Motion Picture Association of American assumes that every dollar in tax credits creates $17.75 in economic activity, which leads to $1.88 in new tax revenue for the state. These claims are less realistic than the science-fiction films the credits support. 由“美国电影协会”赞助实施的一项研究提出,税收抵免每花掉1美元,就能创造出17.75美元的经济活动,而这又会为所在州形成1.88美元的新税收收入。这类说法比那些获得税收抵免补贴的科幻电影还要不切实际一些。 Film tax credit programs do not pay for themselves. They do not create long-term jobs, nor do they have tourism benefits. All film tax incentives do is provide opportunities for politicians to rub elbows with movie stars. 电影业税收抵免计划无法实现收支平衡。他们无法创造长期岗位,也不会带来旅游收益。电影业税收激励所能做的,无非是给政客们提供了和电影明星亲密往来的机会。 With the hundreds of millions of dollars that taxpayers gift the film industry each year, perhaps it is time for the Academy Awards to create an Oscar for Best Tax Break. If nothing else, taxpayers at least deserve a shout-out during Sunday’s award ceremony. 纳税人每年都向电影行业派送数亿美元的礼包,也许金像奖是时候设立一个“奥斯卡最佳减税奖”了。如果啥都没有,那么纳税人至少也应出现在周日颁奖典礼的致谢词中。 Jared Meyer is a fellow at Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. You can follow him on Twitter here. Jared Meyer是曼哈顿政策研究所Economics21分部的研究员。你可以到这里关注他的Twitter账号。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——