我讀到George Mason University（薛兆豐母校）的經濟學教授Donald J. Boudreaux這幾天的一篇文章，裡頭指出：「…當整體社會發展得越富裕，富裕到足以支撐越來越多的知識份子整天無所事事地發表撰寫反對自由市場的言論，而偏偏是這個經濟系統提供他們各種平台與資源，他們才有機會吹噓他們如此統一的對市場經濟的憎恨…（… As society grows ever richer as a result of the workings of free markets – as result, that is, of what Deirdre McCloskey calls “innovism” – it supports and equips larger and larger numbers of intellectuals who speak and write (and now also blog and tweet) against the very economic system that makes their existence possible and that provides them with the platforms and tools they use to trumpet their uninformed hostilities. …）」
It’s self-contradictory to say that someone is optimistic about the long-run future economy of the US but pessimistic about the airline industry. The number of the airline passengers is positively related to the GDP growth.
The economy shutdown caused by the governments, not the pandemics, is temporary.
There were two serious nova influenzas in 1957 and 1968 spreading in the US and had caused equivalent deaths more than separately 230,000 and 165,000. Comparing to these records, the Covid-19 has costed 57,000 lives. Yes, the number would increase, however, the damage to the economy has been much worse than the two flu had caused.
According to the Fisher’s interest theory, the wealth equals to the accumulation of the future discounted incomes. If the impact is temporary, how come the wealth of the airlines is half priced now?
Considering the monetary distortion created by the Fed due to its massively increase of the M0 after 2008, the retreat of the stock market in the beginning of 2020 is actually a kind of rebalance of the nominal prices and the intrinsic values of the true productivity.
People who are familiar with economics know that the crazy monetary policies that have been adopted by the Fed will cause hyper-inflation after all. And we all know it’s more damaging to holding cash during inflation.
However, the amount of cash Berkshire holds just climbs up to the historical peak. I am wondering if Mr. Buffett has plan B or there existing some other constraints I don’t know, like the legal requirements of its risk-bearing abilities of his re-insurance companies.
As long as he sold out all of the airline shares Berkshire had owned, then there is no concern of interest conflicts. I will not be surprised if any agreement comes between Berkshire and some of the airline companies involving special debt-stock schemes that benefit Berkshire more than purchasing the stocks from the market.
b. 我們看到很多台灣所謂的「醫療專業」跟你談偽陽性問題，卻沒跟你談西醫的「誤診率」其實並不低。根據哈佛醫學院的研究，醫生在可預防診斷錯誤（preventable erros）有17%，又根據長達40年的遺體解剖回推研究得知醫生誤診率有9％，進一步看重大錯誤率中位數是23.5%，第一型錯誤率中位數是9%。 所謂「重大錯誤」是指醫生對死者的死因根本搞錯了。 所謂第一型錯誤是指醫生判定患者沒得什麼疾病，但事實上有。
（As he once described it in a 2011 interview with LEADERS magazine, “I made my fortune by turning right when everyone else was going left. In the late ’80s and early ’90s, I was buying office buildings at 50 cents on the dollar. I kept looking over my shoulder to see who my competition was, but there was no one. I could not help but question whether I was wrong. Fear and courage are very closely related.”）
「…..2020年2月股神巴菲特（W. Buffett）在年度財務報告股東信中起筆就提及：1924年的經濟學家Edgar Lawrence Smith本想寫書證明「通貨膨脹時期股票表現優於債券；反之通縮時期債券會優於股票（Going in, he planned to argue that stocks would perform better than bonds during inflationary periods and that bonds would deliver superior returns during deflationary times. That seemed sensible enough. But Smith was in for a shock.）」，但研究後發現事實並非如此。 其實，如果具備正確通貨膨脹觀念就會知道通貨膨脹時期股票表現不見得會優於債券，反之亦然。 單純以「股票vs.債券」是錯誤的切入點，庖丁解牛的關鍵在於股票背後的企業是何種貨幣身分。 而且，「xxxxxx」才是財富移轉主因，這是說我們有可能預先判斷哪些公司在通膨或通縮時期會有更好的股票表現。不容易，但不是做不到。這點xxxxxx在1959年的研究指出了經濟學上的可能性。 接著，巴菲特又繼續引述著名經濟學家凱因斯：「長期以往，一家堅實企業的資產真實價值會複利增長，不同於支付給股東的股利。（Over a period of years, the real value of the property of a sound industrial is increasing at compound interest, quite apart from the dividends paid out to the shareholders.）」 同樣地，如果正確理解經濟學與通貨膨脹概念，就能理解「企業保留盈餘的複利效應」之力量是怎麼從兩個方向而來匯聚交互作用，並經過怎樣的機制反應到股價。……」