談美國10月份失業率再創新高

美國10月份失業率,堂堂來到兩位數。

我們看美國底下這張曲線圖。

深藍色的線是Obama政府宣稱採用大幅舉債的刺激經濟方案後,會有的失業率走勢。
淺藍色的線,是Obama政府宣稱不採用他們的凱因斯學派方案後,會有的後果。
而深紅色的點,則是真實失業率統計數字。

stimulus-vs-unemployment-october-dots

很顯然,Obama政府跟台灣的馬英九政府一樣,只剩一張嘴。

經濟學家Greg Mankiw認為有兩種解讀:一是Obama的刺激經濟方案失效了;另一種則是情況比政府原本預估的還更糟糕。(What does this mean? One interpretation is that the fiscal stimulus has failed to achieve what Team Obama thought it would. Another interpretation is that the baseline was worse than they believed at the time.)

只是這兩種解讀都很糟,前者證明了政府面對不景氣推出的方案毫無成效,選舉支票跳票;後者則表示政府根本連狀況都搞不清楚。事實上政府也不可能搞得清楚,因為市場上的資訊太多了,政府不可能能同時掌握所有的資訊。如果可以,則這世界就不需要市場了。共產主義也就行得通了。

9月時,Gary Becker一篇「Productivity, Unemployment, and the End of the Recession」,談到為何景氣復甦,失業率依然持續上升
雖然我認為Becker大師的論點,邏輯上沒有錯處,但我懷疑實際上是否真的能完整解釋真實狀況。

而我個人採取的解讀,則是來自於美國社會福利與工會、最低工資等限制過強,使得工資的調整遠比亞洲國家來得更為困難。

工資調整困難,則失業率不高也難。特別在經濟不景氣之時又碰上全球新興市場廉價勞力的競爭。

閱讀全文 談美國10月份失業率再創新高

三論美國牛肉–淺文章背後的深理論

有位翻譯名人顯然看不懂我的文章,直言我談開放美國牛肉進口一文過於「淺薄」、「論理差到把進口美國牛肉說成是人民選擇自由的論點」

該篇文章,的確寫得很淺顯與口語。

但整篇文章卻也環扣著三個湛深且精采的理論,以及一個哲學理念,我在此簡述一下,免得讀者真以為淺薄而不願深入思考,那就可惜了。

一. 產權制度與自由

所有念過法學院的人都知道,在私有產權制度下,所有權有三大內涵:使用權、收益權與處分權。

現今政府禁止人民進口美國牛肉的某些部位,無論是憲法上或經濟學上的觀點,人民的財產自由權都受到了限制與干涉。

因為人民無法自由的將自身的財產透過交易的方式換取他想要的某些部位的美國牛肉。

你不開放進口,這個自由就是被限制了(在不同群體上,三種權利內涵都部分或全部被限制了)。

但是你開放進口,人民要不要行使這個自由權利,是保留在人民身上。

這,才是自由權的基本概念。

把這種自由權跟言論自由混為一談,程度之差由此可見。況且,言論自由是對抗政府的,不是對抗其他人民的,這種基本常識是法律系一年級的層次了。我在這邊也解釋過數次,有興趣的人可以自己用言論自由當關鍵字搜尋一下。

如果把上面的解說轉成白話,即:

政府不開放牛肉進口,人民根本連選擇的自由都沒有。
政府開放了,人民才有選擇吃或不吃的自由。

產權在台灣的法學院叫「物權法」,是門上下學期共6學分的課。
很淺顯嗎?去問問那些念得哀哀叫的台政大法律系高材生,念謝在全大法官所著之三大本教科書的感想吧!

二. Coase Theorem (高斯定律)

這個高斯定律並非物理學上的那個,而是經濟學上,由諾貝爾獎得主Ronald Coase所提出的一個石破天驚的理論!

論證內容我不詳談,有興趣的朋友自行查閱Coase的論文即可。

該定律內容最簡單的層次是:「產權制度的存在是市場的先決條件。」第二層次是:「明確了產權界定,在市場交易下資產的使用會導致最高的資產價值。」第三層次是:「不變定律–產權明確下,假設交易費用不存在,市場會以交易的方法使得侵權者的增值與被侵權者的損害在邊際上相同。」

從高斯定律的啟發,就是如果考量所有的交易費用之後,Pareto 最優情況永遠會達到。

先前有人留言談到prion有外部性成本,我說沒有。

原因在於一個人選擇吃牛肉,那個風險完全是自負。就算有人效法那個台大博士生,把吃了美國牛肉的人拉出來的屎也拿來吃,這個風險也是自負的。

當然你可以爭執,人拉出來的屎進入食物鏈之後會有一天讓沒有打算吃牛肉的人也吃到這種prion。可惜目前我沒看到有論文支持這種說法。

既然外部性不存在,則產權的利益與風險劃定是明確的。接著我們要引進第三個經濟學理論,也是本站最常運用的:

閱讀全文 三論美國牛肉–淺文章背後的深理論

再論美國牛肉

有位tsaiking網友提到有趣的現象:

純粹的牛肉還好啊。
現在是要開放帶骨的牛肉、內藏與絞肉。
依照泛中國系台灣人嗜吃內臟的習慣,這玩意在台灣應該很好賣。絞肉則是天曉得廠商絞了啥玩意進去,只要便宜就好。內臟跟絞肉席捲台灣市場是可以期待的。
以前美帝就有強迫台灣進口火雞了,我外公很高興買了一堆火雞腿跟翅膀,來重溫以前在美國受訓的舊夢一下。雖然不貴,不過真的很難吃,又乾又硬,跟木柴一樣,沒幾個台灣人捧場。

後來台灣有進口美國的肉雞腿,這個就真的把台灣雞農給打殘了,因為實在夠便宜,在超市賣價錢大概是本土的半土雞腿的六折。外面自助餐跟團膳業者幾乎都很愛用。
以前再成功嶺的替代役訓練中心,伙食為興農承包,用的就是 TYSON 的冷凍雞腿,記得是興農自己進口的。早上進去伙房就可以看到壯觀的雞腿山正在用流水法解凍,伙食主菜常常有雞腿吃。

上述主要是從美國進口到台灣,遠比台灣更有成本優勢的農產品的現象。
這是好事,代表臺灣人民可以用更便宜的代價取得相關肉品的消費。
好不好吃,這是主觀問題。但客觀上,連軍隊也能常常吃到雞腿,這肯定是好事一件。我也是在成功嶺受訓,聽連長說過,一餐的餐費每人才10幾塊錢(約三年前)。

軍隊裡每人10幾元可以煮出有2~3樣蔬菜,配上一支雞腿的餐點,全靠台灣自產的土雞哪有可能?

但我很懷疑美國牛肉進口會有跟tsaikin印象中美國火雞、冷凍雞一樣的現象。

原因在於,美國牛肉在全世界的肉品市場上都屬於搶手商品,就我手上查到的資料,美國牛肉平均每一磅(不管部位)的出口價均高於紐西蘭、澳洲。

就連你提到的牛絞肉,台灣區的進口價也是美國的高於紐奧的。

價高則需求量低。因此遠比紐奧貴的美國牛絞肉會席捲市場?我抱持否定的態度。

而很多台灣的媒體、政客都說美國人不吃牛內臟。這點我也很質疑,因為我自己去幾家美國常見的食品超市–Safeway、Whole Foods,都有看到牛肉內臟、牛舌之類的產品。

真的不吃?那這些超市是進貨進心酸的?

再者,美國最大的牛肉出口市場,第一名是墨西哥(2007年佔總出口量45%)、第二名是日本(2003年佔36%)、第三名是南韓(2003年佔20%)(註)
台灣根本就是小咖,要跟這三大市場搶美國牛肉,價格當然沒多大down下來的空間。

所以很多人擔心賣不掉的美國牛肉會怎樣氾濫在台灣次級肉品市場或加工市場,未免想太多(或是想得不夠多)

有人會把搶手貨丟在你這邊爛?當然是馬上轉往其他出高價的客人去!

所以我更相信我猜想的,台灣5大牛肉進口商(樹森開發、美福國際、伸格食品、金煜實業及貴族世家)試水溫動作肯定會做;小量試單,哪個商人不懂這道理?

既然量不大,真賣不好,哪來能氾濫台灣市場的美國牛肉呢?

反之,如果賣得好,顯然證明台灣人愛吃美國牛遠勝過擔心美國牛潛在風險。既然如此,為何不開放?只是因為少數人的神經質?
少數人這樣侵害多數人的權益,這就好笑了。

註:根據我找的文章,BSE之前,第一、二名分別是日本;墨西哥僅佔25%。但BSE之後,墨西哥就攀升到第一名位置,2006年還一度來到美國牛肉總出口量的60%。

從上空女郎談競爭準則,兼談Ticketmaster案

這不算是「新」聞了。

日前全運會找來了一個年輕可愛,身材勻稱的運動員(鄭淑支)在活動現場上空,展現人體彩繪與身體線條美。

這樣的活動馬上引來了台中市議員陳淑華與賴佳微以及現代婦女基金會姚叔文的指責。

陳:「這個做法非常誇張,而且女性半裸,尤其現場又是運動場合。」
賴:「她這樣上空貼胸貼,全運會上空貼胸貼彩繪的行為,不應該放在這樣子活動宣傳上。」
姚:「這種宣傳手法與運動會關連性不大,不僅失焦也引人非議,身為行政機關,應更注意兩性平權。」

關於兩性平權,我倒挺想問問,這位鄭姓運動員是被人拿槍抵著頭逼迫上台?還是自願的?若是出於自願,又與兩性平權何干?

過去我曾經寫過「從「殺很大」談言論自由」,裡頭我談到

…在婚姻市場、性相關市場(如酒店、阻街女郎、成人影片或遊戲)裡,訴求服務出售者(男女均可能)的青春肉體、性感體態、G奶、肌肉、英俊瀟灑亦或沉魚落雁,甚至更進一步訴求男性的才華、鈔票、資產,女人的貞操、純潔、幫夫運,都是真實世界常見的擇偶標準。

也就是說,在男女雙方各自採取了一些擇偶標準之後,這些標準也自然成為競爭的標準;為了取得美嬌娘、為了覓得好夫婿、為了生意興隆,無論男女都會在這樣的競爭標準之下想盡辦法讓自己能夠脫穎而出。

出神入化的化妝術、脫胎換骨的整型手術、不實用的跑車、擺明敲男人竹槓的情人節大餐….這些手段就會被採用。…

…不過在經濟學「自私的假設」之下,一個標準被選定了,不見得人人都會去遵守。通常會有兩種表現:一者嘗試鑽制度漏洞,另一者則是跳出來反對或試圖推翻該制度。…

…從經濟誘因角度來看,這些婚姻市場、性交易市場上後段班的人,是不是最有誘因去抨擊、反對這樣的競爭準則?

換言之,越是在某種競爭準則下難以勝出的人,就越有誘因去反對那個準則!(反之,越能佔到便宜的,就越會支持該準則)

下面是簡單的練習:

閱讀全文 從上空女郎談競爭準則,兼談Ticketmaster案

Review of “Lor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.(1959)"

With the progress on economics, we could find a lot of judgments, or even the law itself, were based on some erroneous and misguided legal and economic concepts, such as predatory pricing, competition, market definition, cost concept, etc.

Take “Lor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. 359 U.S. 207, 79 S. Ct. 705, 3 L.Ed.2d 741 (1959)” as an example.

In this case, the plaintiff, which was an independent electronic products retail store, claimed that manufacturers and distributors of many well-know brands as GE, RCA, Emerson, etc. refused to sell or sold their products at so-called “discriminatory price.” The reason was the manufacturers or distributors of these well-known brands sold their products to the chained stores in lower prices than to them.

The Supreme Court held this common commercial behavior as a violation of Sherman Act. Obviously, the court just showed their lack of cost concept.

All the meaningful costs shall be “opportunity costs.” Thus the costs between selling products to chained stores and to an independent retail store are tremendously different. The factors, like predictable constant purchase, reliable payments, and the vast amount of quantity, make the manufacturers or distributors less cost to sell their products to chained stores. There are some costs existing in setting up and maintaining a transaction channel between two parties. Sometimes the costs are absorbed by the seller, sometimes are paid by the buyers. However, it does exist. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Since the difference of cost structures, discriminatory pricing would be very popular in most businesses.

Formosa Plastic Corporation, a Taiwan company and the largest manufacturer of PVC resins in the world, made their revenue more than 5 billion US dolor last year. They require a substantial deposit and highest purchasing quota to any new customer. The amount of PVC that is exceeded the quota won’t be sold even the buyer is voluntary to pay more.

I also had a similar experience. The company, which I worked for, refused to sell products to a new customer who wanted to buy more than ten machines at one time in the first several deals unless they were willing to pay cash before we deliver.

Because there are some uncertain risks that cost us too much to do business with an unfamiliar new customer. We didn’t know whether the credit of the new customer was good. We didn’t know what the real purpose they had. To sell our products or to try reverse-engineering? That’s a question to us. I believe the situation would be similar to Formosa Plastic Corporation and other companies around the world.

It is the concern of cost, not of “anti-competition,” causes a businessman much prefer to sell his goods to a customer he knows in lower prices or larger volumes, especially in B2B relationships.

This common commercial phenomenon can be explained perfectly by the correct cost concept. Unfortunately, the court in Lor’s case was unable to distinguish the costs on economics form the costs on accounting. No wonder the court came out a decision that sounded so surreal to normal businessmen.

The judges, scholars, and people who believe in the function of antitrust laws are just unable to see the real world clearer.

Why the unemployment still climbs at recovery?

Gary S. Becker, a Nobel Prize laureate, wrote an article — Productivity, Unemployment, and the End of the Recession— on September 9th.

He talked about his op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal (“We’re Not Head for a Depression”) in which he possessed an optimism about the future economy of the United States. Otherwise, he also brought out an interesting point.

Dr. Becker supposes that most pessimism comes from erroneous interpretation of the unemployment.

Some people argue about the decline of unemployment is not satisfying; and some argue that the real unemployment is getting severe. Some other people even claim that we should include the underemployment.

Actually, no matter what number you apply, the growth of unemployment would not turn around so fast.

The reason that Becker expressed is the “productivity per person.”

The total domestic productivity is actually accumulated by countless individual productivity. Dr. Becker noticed that the productivity per person continues growing, no matter how severe the economy is. Therefore, when facing a decrease in total domestic output, say, a recession or a depression, the increasing individual productivity will cause more people lose their jobs (or make them turn to part-time ones). It’s just a simple arithmetic question.

Unless the number of total domestic output passes the prior highest record, we would hardly notice the improvement of the job market.

Conclusively, the economists who only focus on the statistics of unemployment may just make a mistake in the economics logic.

Dr. Becker’s viewpoint is not only interesting but persuasive.

Nonetheless, I wrote an article about the law growth of wages in Taiwan and the U.S. through the “Comparative advantages theorem.” See, “開放大陸勞工來台會降低台灣人薪資水平?.”Considering the social-welfare regulations, unions, and the minimum-wage limitation, the wages in the U.S. and Europe are more difficult to be adjusted in the downturn. This may be why their unemployment situation has been severer than Asian countries.

I have no idea of which factor matterring more. But it’s a question worthy of thinking.

為何景氣復甦,失業率仍然會攀升?

諾貝爾經濟學獎得主Gary S. Becker 在9月9日寫了這篇文章「Productivity, Unemployment, and the End of the Recession」。裡頭除了談到他在去年底於華爾街日報投稿的「我們才不會走向蕭條(We’re Not Head for a Depression)」一文中,對美國經濟的樂觀預測維持不變之外,還提出了一個相當有趣的論點,值得記一下。

Becker提到目前許多對美國經濟依然感到悲觀的看法,多半不脫對於美國失業率的解讀。

有些人看到失業率數字下降得並不令人滿意;有人則認為政府的失業率數字不可靠,實際情況是失業率仍在微幅上升;更有人主張要把做part time工作的人也算成失業才行。

Becker則提出一個論點,解釋為何經濟復甦時,失業率可能會繼續攀升。

其關鍵點在於「生產力」。

一國的產出,其實是由無數個人的生產所累積而成。而每人每單位時間的產出,我們稱之為個人生產力。

Becker觀察到即便在去年,景氣跌到谷底之時,其實美國的個人生產力仍然是在上升的。換句話說,每個在工作崗位上的勞工生產的效率還是一年勝過一年。

(這個數字,也是過去我在文章或回覆網友強調過的,證明資本主義讓我們生活更好的一個事實)

但是所謂的不景氣,或是衰退,某方面可以看成是總產出(output)大幅衰退的現象。那麼根據簡單的數學運算,總產出下降,但個人生產力卻上升,這即意味著 — 失業率要上升!

換言之,即便總產出開始回穩或緩步上升,但只要個人生產力還大過於先前,則我們會看到失業率仍居高不下,直到總產出追過先前數字才會有所改善。

因此,一些總體經濟學家抓著失業率未下跌這事,來反推說經濟情況仍不佳,很可能是犯了經濟學思維上的錯誤了。

Becker的論點相當有趣,我覺得也具有某種程度的說服力。

但過去我曾經寫過一篇文章(開放大陸勞工來台會降低台灣人薪資水平?),從「比較優勢定律」來解釋為何美國、台灣等國家近年來薪資成長有限。

如果加進社會福利與工會、最低工資限制等侷限條件來看,新興市場的廉價勞力也會造成先進國家的失業率上升(因為工資調整的剛性很強)。

換言之,是比較優勢定律所著重的點,影響歐美失業率更甚?亦或Becker所提的「個人生產力上升」?

我沒有答案,但我相信值得大家好好想想。

About Conspiracy

Many people imagine that businessmen could set in a room and come to a conspiracy decision to raise the prices up then increase their profits.

However, it’s really only an imagination.

It’s always not easy to form a cartel or collusive group in any business. There are some obstacles must be overcome with a critical tactic.

I wrote them down as following:

1. To form a cartel or a collusive group, the first problem the founder must face is that it’s hard to figure out who are all the possible competitors?
For example, if medical doctors successfully raise their treatment fee as high as they want, then people would turn to get medical advices from their druggists, god, or themselves.
This phenomenon did happen in Taiwan in 1950’s.

2.The second natural obstacle to form a collusive group is that each competitor has their own unique cost curve. And this fact will cause them has different motives to choose to get in or to get out the group.
This critical fact will still impact how successful a collusive group can be after its formation.

3.The third is the difference between the single-quality products and multiple-quality products.
There are only few products in the world can be classified as single-quality products, such as pure gold, silver, aluminum, or other chemical elements.
Even a diamond, usually has four major qualities to form a price. They are size, color, tarnish, and cutting. A consumer see only one price, however, it’s formed by the combination of four measured elements.
The more complexity of a product, the more rent value could be created by differentiating the product. That’s why most business always emphasize how different their products are from other competitors’. That’s also why we have so many brands. It is the most common phenomenon in the real world.
This would not only make people to apply unique way to maximize their interest, but also form different cost structures to every supplier.

That is one reason why we can find very few successful cartels in the real world.

4.Once a collusive group was formed, the member who has a highest marginal cost will has the strongest incentive to violate their agreement.
Because with fixed-price or fixed-quality rule, the biggest beneficiary would be the one who enjoys the lowest marginal and average cost. On the contrary, the one with higher marginal or average cost would eventually figure out that he can maximize his interest by breaching the rule.

5. How to enforce the agreement will be a huge challenge to the one who tries to maintain the collusive group.
There are two major costs to enforce an agreement successfully. One is to detect who violates the rule; and the other one is effective punishment.

OPEC, the most famous cartel in the world, is constantly unable to enforce their decisions completely for decades. (If they could, there will not be as much fluctuation in oil prices as observed.)

M&A might be an effective way to achieve this goal, however, it still cannot prevent the group from potential or new competitors which might be formed by the company seller or your employees. Even there are some contractual ways to deal with these problems, they don’t work as well as lawyers’ imagination.

According to commercial history, the most effective method is to introduce legal power or authorization to prevent possible breaches of members and new entrants, like a license system.

Conclusively, the fundamental problem of most collusive behaviors is not what a cartel intends to do, but the authorization makes them able to achieve their intentions.

Therefore, in the cases we read such as “FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists,” Federal Trade Commission v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association,” I think Sherman Act and judges both tried to find out the right answer in a wrong place.

On the other hand, there are some superficially collusive behaviors without legal power or authorization, mostly are caused by information cost of measurement or property maintenance cost, for example, “Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.” and “Fashion Originators’ Guild of America v. FTC case.” The courts apparently had different degree of awareness of social cost in these two cases.

Somehow, in “Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. (1959),” the Federal Supreme Court showed distinguished lack of cost concept. I will talk about it in the next article.

蠢官員的蠢作為

Dell標錯價一案,沒想到當大家以為逐漸風平浪靜之時,卻又跑出愚蠢的台北縣市消保官,硬生生地對Dell開罰100萬。

消保官斬釘截鐵地咬定,Dell沒有處理問題的誠意。

但消保官卻無法說明,或者無法給出定義,究竟「如何才算有展現誠意」?

事實上,消保官說不清、講不白的還更多,更讓人為他們的無知愚蠢感到羞愧:

1.先從法律面談:「北市消保官必須證明,消費者究竟損失了什麼?」

這是整個行政處分最詭異的地方。

我們攤開整部「消費者保護法」,從頭到尾所規範者,主要集中在兩大部分:

(1)企業經營者設計、生產、製造商品或提供服務可能對消費者產生的生命、身體、健康、財產之侵害。

(2)資訊揭露義務與契約上權利義務分擔是否符合平等互惠原則

我們再看看消費者保護法中,能讓行政機關消保官開罰上百萬的二個法條:

第 36 條
直轄市或縣 (市) 政府對於企業經營者提供之商品或服務,經第三十三條之調查,認為確有損害消費者生命、身體、健康或財產,或確有損害之虞者,應命其限期改善、回收或銷燬,必要時並得命企業經營者立即停止該商品之設計、生產、製造、加工、輸入、經銷或服務之提供,或採取其他必要措施。

第 37 條
直轄市或縣 (市) 政府於企業經營者提供之商品或服務,對消費者已發生重大損害或有發生重大損害之虞,而情況危急時,除為前條之處置外,應即在大眾傳播媒體公告企業經營者之名稱、地址、商品、服務、或為其他必要之處置。

Dell拒絕出貨,有卻有損害消費者生命、身體、健康或財產?或可能造成這樣的損害?或者已經發生重大損害?或可能發生重大損害?

消保官證明了嗎?沒有!我們沒看到消保官提出任何這方面法律上必要的說明。

我們只看到北市消保官在媒體上氣呼呼地大吼:「戴爾毫無誠意!」可是有沒有誠意,根本就不是個法律問題,更不應該成為法律上行政處分或舉措的依據。受過專業法律訓練的消保官,跟台灣的不少司法官一樣可悲;論理除了訴諸八股的道德情感之外,就沒料了。
閱讀全文 蠢官員的蠢作為

關於戴爾標錯價事件的再討論

先前一篇刊出後,有網友留言表示不同意見,更多的是e-mail給我。

我列舉其中一個,因為具有代表性的觀念錯誤(我是針對內容而言。我並不認識來信的朋友,所以並非對人)。

系統自動發出->是需要人去設計的
也就是沒人去寫這段程式碼機器是無法有所謂自動的行為
系統會發出這樣的信 相信業者的預設立場是願意交易的 才會去設計
不然等人工確認後再給資料(消費者寄送個資信用卡號及DELL匯款帳號等)即可
但是訂型化契約的保留等等敘述說白了是一道給業者犯錯時避責的自設防火牆
也因此 他才能短時間內連續出錯 就如您之前那篇PCHOME所述
要避免這種錯誤並絕無可能 甚至要設計這種機制沒有任何技術上的困難
(個人本身也是屬於IT產業也寫程式和系統的)
再者 那麼明顯的價格錯誤 如果大家都看的出來 DELL卻沒看出來還安心上網
這種內控不會太匪夷所思?? 那麼個人可能推論為是仗著 保留這樣的文字
來放心的犯錯
至於美國 說實在 如果美國可以養這麼多怪獸企業和銀行
甚至讓消費者習慣標價錯誤為常態的方式 個人真的難以茍同
企業的能力原本就高於個人 如果能如此簡單逃避責任
那麼讓犯錯如此理所當然 而且最好是債大不愁的處理方式 看來應該是在美國經營大企業的不死仙丹
而且在美國看來還真的有效 然後把美國經驗搬來台灣再玩一次

分幾點討論:

1.再看以下討論之前,請先把這篇文章看過。

許多網友談到戴爾事件問題,最常丟出來的大帽子就是「貪得無厭的大企業」與「剝削消費者」這兩個錯得離譜的觀念。

而這兩點我在上述文章中已經講得清楚:

1)哪個人做生意不是出於為了賺錢這目的?為什麼企業規模就會影響你的邏輯判斷?Dell貪得無厭,那夜市賣臭豆腐的又怎麼說?
再者,貪婪哪裡不好?你如何證明貪婪不好?
事實上持此論點者,多半連基本的「倫理學」訓練都不夠,只是純粹直觀地、情感上反對別人看似貪婪的行為。但卻離真相有十萬八千里遠。

2)企業賣產品與服務給消費者,消費者自願掏錢購買。
這中間到底是誰被剝削了?哪來的剝削?剝削的定義又是什麼?
如果說剝削的定義是「收了不合理的價錢」,那請問「合理的價格」又該怎麼決定?由誰來決定?
況且,Dell事件中照此定義,應該是「消費者剝削了Dell」!

2.Dell企業的規模在法律上與經濟學上的處理,根本不是重點。
許多網友的討論都放在這邊,其實都是搞不清楚狀況。

今天假如因為Dell企業規模大,就得套用不一樣的法理原則的話,那麼假若今天用錯誤價格下定螢幕的是GE這類比Dell更大上數倍的企業或國家政府時,持這種論點的網友又該如何解釋?

這時候此類網友的「剝削定義」又該如何運作?又是誰剝削誰了?

可惜的是,消基會的蠢律師跟許多台灣法官,都忘了憲法第7條:「中華民國人民,無分男女、宗教、種族、階級、黨派,在法律上一律平等。」

閱讀全文 關於戴爾標錯價事件的再討論