My Facebook 新增面書 心空海嶽 by the inner space 歡迎光臨 Welcome in

「我離港前到過一間精神科醫院。當時有位病人禮貌地問,一個以作為世上最悠久民主政體而自傲的國家,如何能夠將此地交給一個政治制度非常不同的國家,且既沒諮詢當地公民,又沒給予他們民主的前景,好讓他們捍衞自己的將來。一個隨行同事說,奇怪,香港提出最理智問題的人,竟在精神科醫院。」彭定康 金融時報

“During a visit to a mental hospital before I left Hong Kong, a patient politely asked me how a country that prided itself on being the oldest democracy in the world had come to be handing over his city to another country with a very different system of government, without either consulting the citizens or giving them the prospect of democracy to safeguard their future. Strange, said one of my aides, that the man with the sanest question in Hong Kong is in a mental hospital.”Chris Patten Financial Times

Non Chinese literate friends, please simply switch to English Version provided by LOUSY Google Translation

Please participate in the unregistered demography survey of visitors at the right hand side bar. You are: ?

敬請參與在右下方的不記名訪客分佈調查問卷,你是: ?

Monday, February 02, 2009

刺激 spending 和 multiplier effect

刺激 spending 和 multiplier effect




奧巴馬倡導的八千億元刺激經濟方案,已得到眾議院通過,但還需要在參議院進行辯論,最快都要多等一個禮拜,相信在二月初上遁左右,便可落實推出。


而另一邊廂,美國又提出新的2萬億美元約15.6萬億再救銀行,可知道美國經濟,還是在水深火熱之中。


《明報專訊》消息人士方透露,美國政府正討論再動用1萬億至2萬億美元(15.6萬億港元),重新制訂拯救銀行計劃。

美國《華爾街日報》報道,奧巴馬政府正考慮如何解決金融業信心崩潰的問題,政府已將去年8千億美元的問題資產紓緩計劃中部分款項,用作拯救汽車業及按揭業主。

消息人士稱,新的拯救銀行計劃將於日內公布,暫時尚未有最終決定,細節將有改變,而官員考慮的問題是如何修補已破壞的金融機構,避免將它們國有化,其目標是希望鼓勵銀行重新借貸,而投資者願向銀行業重投資金。



咁即喺再有共二萬八千億拋出市場,不過呢二萬八千億不是 windfall,由個天跌落嚟,由啲搖錢樹生出來嘅噃。 又是靠借錢,發行國債,但估計美國國債,今時今日已經接近十三萬億,發債好啲呢?還是加印 fiat money 紙幣較容易呢?


正在水深火熱中的美國,忽然又傳來,華爾街的大銀行員工,收到大筆的花紅。


《明報專訊》美國總統奧巴馬轟銀行高層蝕錢仍領取花紅,是可恥及不負責任。而他的政府正考慮全面應付金融危機計劃。

奧巴馬與財長蓋特納開會後,會見記者,他批評華爾街高層,銀行蝕錢,但仍領取高額花紅,是高度不負責任及可恥的。他指出,銀行未來可創造盈利,到時才可領取花紅,但不是現在。

奧巴馬對花紅的批評,顯示政府將對銀行,實行更強的監管,但這亦有一個政治目的,就是希望獲得公眾支持政府拯救銀行計劃,因所需資金龐大。



《CNN》President Obama: "When I saw an article today indicating that Wall Street bankers had given themselves $20 billion worth of bonuses, the same amount of bonuses they gave themselves in 2004, at a time when most of these institutions were teetering on collapse and they are asking for taxpayers to help sustain them and when taxpayers find themselves in the difficult position that if they don't provide help that the entire system could come down on top of our heads, that is the height of irresponsibility.


銀行發花紅,啲員工有多餘錢使,咁都喺用啲錢嚟刺激 spending 啫!


最近在蛇竇內,聽到一個理論,是宏觀經濟學的 multiplier effect,打個比喻:政府攞一百萬出來,在市場打轉,當一年內轉了一百次,除掉了儲蓄外,打個八折,即是80x1百萬=8千萬,只要平均抽5%《註》的稅款,就已經有4百萬收返,是當初政府拿出來的一百萬的4倍強,多收了3百萬的稅款,這是否十分化算呢?這個理論真喺咁正?在公司內的蛇竇內轉來轉去,吵過不休!


咁奧巴馬今次提出新的共兩萬八千億,豈不是可以把美國國家十幾萬億的負債,一次過減半?郁吓仲有賺添?


我無咁樂觀,我是 skeptically pessimistic!



《註》歐美稅率高,又有 Sales tax 消費稅,平均值應比香港的高,若加諸香港就要減低了。


後記:
《明報專訊》美國奧巴馬政府不擬收緊華爾街金融機構花紅的規定。奧巴馬周五就華爾街花紅問題,狂轟大行「無恥及不負責任」。他的政府將於下周推出新的拯救銀行計劃,消息人士稱,雖奧巴馬不滿大行分紅的做法,但他們不會對公司花紅施加更嚴格的限制,將保留布殊政府較寬鬆的做法。官員表示,如施加更嚴緊的限制,將令公司不願接受援助,令問題惡化。


一上任奧巴馬簽處行政命令,凍結白宮人員薪酬,頒令禁止政府人員收受說客禮物,及限制說客干政。未幾就被爆出提名 William Lynn 為國防部長的 deputy defense secretary,說是一個exception 例外。奧巴馬剛剛狂轟華爾街的柄架,在接受政府 bailout之余,領取巨額花紅,轉眼又說不擬施加嚴緊的限制,避免令公司不願接受援助,令問題惡化。哈哈哈! 今次又畀佢攪到 ROTFLMAO!


上次說是例外,今次話恐怕公司不願意接受援助,咁都可以成為直口,出議反議,看來白宮內有兩個權力中心,奧巴馬說的一套,另外的又說另一套,恐怕情況並不簡單!


後後記:
Feb 2 是每年一度的“Ground Hog Day" 『土撥鼠日』,傳說美國有隻土撥鼠,可以預言今年的嚴冬,可否提早結束。在二月二日的早晨,Punxsutawney 的土撥鼠 Phil,在 Groundhog Day 土撥鼠日大會中,告訴大家北美洲會否有個早來的溫暖春天,還是繼續多六個星期的風雪,嚴寒冬季。


今年美國點祇是嚴冬,美國和全球經濟被『金融大海嘯』清洗完,進入『Ice Age 冰河時期』,睇嚟 土撥鼠 Phil 都睇唔通,幾時才有春天!


結果二月二日美國早晨,Punxsutawney 的土撥鼠 Phil,預測繼續多六個星期的風雪,嚴寒冬季。而加拿大的 Wiarton Willie 亦作出相同預測,繼續更長的嚴寒天氣。


伸延閱覽:
Wall Street bonuses are outrageous Campbell Brown CNN anchor
Barack Obama shames banks on bonus splurge ABC.net
Obama calls Wall Street bonuses 'shameful' usatoday.com
Obama to WS Companies: It is shameful & irresponsible msn.com
New Bank Bailout Could Cost $2 Trillion wsj.com
美眾院通過刺激經濟方案 明報
美擬再用近16萬億救銀行 明報
奧巴馬轟銀行高層領花紅可恥 明報
美不擬收緊華爾街花紅規定 明報
美國可能推遲公布救市計劃 明報
經濟學者批美國壞銀行計劃 明報
土撥鼠日 維基百科
Groundhog Day 土撥鼠日 Punxsutawney Phil official site
Punxsutawney Phil sees shadow, winter to continue iht.com
Six more weeks of winter, Punxsutawney Phil says post-gazette.com
Wiarton Willie sees shadow, heralding more winter ctv.ca

我地舊文:
奧巴馬出議反議?
又是 土撥鼠日



10 comments:

imak said...

"避免令公司不願接受援助,令問題惡化" <--- 呢d 野只會係美國發生!!! 咁都得? 依家邊個要人救呀?

imak said...

re your 蛇竇理論, i don't quite get it. the multiplier effect works under a normal circumstance, but now the money is to buy banks’ troubled assets. how can this effect runs as mentioned?

the inner space said...

Imak 姐 多謝捧場!
唉!奧巴馬就噴班友,不多時就傳出:『美國政府不擬收緊華爾街金融機構花紅的規定。官員表示,如施加更嚴緊的限制,將令公司不願接受援助,令問題惡化。』

睇嚟白宮同美國政府內,有兩個權力中心,各說各的,這事情不簡單。

the inner space said...

Furthermore, Imak 姐
First be specific, I am skeptically pessimistic about this so call multiplier effect.

According to the Snake Den talks,
when the US govt buys the toxic assets from the banks,

the banks
Dr. Cash or bank account
Cr. Toxic assets

be particular, it will be a purchase of totally 2 trillion dollars(兩億)not simply a transfer of assets without value. If we including the formerly 80million 八千萬 = 2.8 trillion or 兩億八千萬 美元。

Those banks will receive liquid assets i.e. cash in their accounts, the banks can: either pay out handsome bonuses to their employees, pay their utilities expenses, buy new corporate jets, renovate new offices, or lend out as corporate loans(增加信貸).... whatever!

There will be new MONEY injected into the market/ system, and so the multiplier effect takes place.

Those money gets from Wall Street into the mainstreets of the community, and so it stimulates spending.

IF they turnover many many times in the mainstreets, less the propensity to save, it will generate multiples of times in commercial transactions and so by Taxing these transactions the govt gets back what they initially give out!

imak said...

thanks for the explanation~

but i still don't understand why the US govt is writing all these blank cheques to the banks. i think the "bad banks" are more reasonable to the taxpayers, what do you think?

Anonymous said...

Imak 姐:
今次輪到我唔喺好明白,what you meant by
“i think the ‘bad banks’ are more reasonable to the taxpayers ”

or by guessing, you were saying "it is more reasonable that the blank cheques (money) go directly to the taxpayers?"

please elaborate a bit more,thanks!



Space

imak said...

yes that's what i meant, the bad banks solution at least gives the time for these toxic assets to regain value, which may make it an investment for the taxpayers one day (maybe)!

the inner space said...

噢!imak 姐:
我在伸延閱覽有個連結:
『經濟學者批美國壞銀行計劃』
可能就是你要的答案。

但我個人認為,派錢畀納稅人或減稅退稅,儲蓄的propensity較高,不及買掉toxic assets,讓銀行重新上路,增加銀行信貸給中小企,攪活經濟刺激spending創咗就業來得effective罷。

我同意啲 toxic assets,也有機會在longterm 可能有返啲 value,依家由美國政府持有,等候時機,可以賣返出嚟嘅!

香港特首曾蔭權咪成日提醒啲市民,佢當年點威幾威,政府入市買股票,穩定香港,之後再以出售官股盈富基金方式,還富于民。

imak said...

do you find this workable?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/opinion/01holmes.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=bad%20banks&st=cse

the inner space said...

imak 姐:
就最近消息傳,啲 terms 是要受惠機構,購買美國本土貨,揭開貿易保護主義的一頁。加拿大首先呱呱嘈了,相信牽起一場全世界保護主義的序幕,情況可憂!可悲!可慮!
若跟著來的拯救金融銀行機構方案,設有若干條款,加入保護元素,連金融都管埋,咁真喺該燴囉!

這是否bipartisan互扯貓尾呢?據聞奧巴馬政府會再加入共和黨人。

先多謝給我的連結,至于這位 Max Holmes 寫了這篇名為:Good Bank, Bad Bank的文章,裡面提議建議都冇咩新意,不過起碼他反對:國有化過度監管,背棄自由市場,任何保護主義,同警告引發通漲。


查:Max Holmes is an adjunct professor of finance at the Stern Graduate School of Business at New York University and the chief investment officer of an asset management firm

申佈利益:我之前沒有讀過 Max Holmes 這篇鴻文!