分類: 經濟分析

From the surface level, groups with resources are moving towards learning machines, which is closely related to Mainland China’s gradually improving copyright protection system.
Below the surface, based on my observations in Beijing with my child attending local primary school, the most common exit for tutoring teachers is to break down their services into smaller parts, resulting in an inability to scale economically. This leads to a significant increase in the cost of after-school tutoring for parents, just as economics would predict.
I originally thought that new education policies would greatly increase the influence of family financial resources on children’s competitive advantage in academic examinations. However, conversely, the aforementioned learning machines on the surface level are reducing the overall cost of after-school tutoring in a more economical way.
In other words, due to government intervention, the after-school tutoring market in Mainland China is polarizing. The general public is turning to learning machines and online education, which reduces costs, while wealthy families are paying higher fees for more customized and private educational services. The latter seems to be less related to the policy itself; there is always a supply when there is money.
One thing for certain is that over a decade ago, I explained in a column for the Southern Newspaper Group using economics that the pressure and competition level in education stem from the competitive pressure in the terminal labor market. Therefore, those so-called “human-centered education experts" who blindly call for adopting relaxed Western education methods are either foolishly unaware of the real world or intentionally pretending to be ignorant to deceive people for money.
Delving deeper, we can discuss the differences in intensity and quality between Western elite education and public education, and how the West relies on many artificially created monopolies to enjoy premium labor costs (e.g., patent and copyright systems). This topic is complicated and troublesome to discuss in detail. However, broadly speaking, the nearly 50-year catch-up by East Asian countries has inevitably led to a situation where the workforce in catching-up countries faces far greater intensity and pressure than those in so-called “advanced Western countries" who enjoy more monopolistic benefits. Thus, for a considerable time, we will see East Asian workers experiencing longer work hours and more pressure, yet seemingly having lower “nominal marginal productivity" compared to Western workers, which is a paradox that actual participants in the production line cannot discern.
Therefore, until per capita income levels out, the average work intensity/pressure in catching-up economies, along with the learning intensity/pressure passed down to all age groups, will remain relatively high. This level will be inversely proportional to the aforementioned difference in actual per capita income.
Hence, we see that Japan, which became wealthy earlier among the catching-up countries, is relatively early in adopting a laid-back attitude and experiencing phenomena such as the hikikomori (social withdrawal) culture in society.

(translated by ChatGPT)

1913年發明汽車流水線生產的Ford T型車初始上市售價850美元，遠比同時期其他品牌汽車2000~4000美元價格區間便宜非常多，因此市場競爭力特別強大，很快從富裕階層向中產階層拓展客源，而更廣大的市場反哺規模經濟下的流水線生產，使得生產成本進一步降低，到了1927年Ｔ型車售價不斷下壓至290美元。

靠著成本優勢獲得強大市場競爭力，在福特汽車上是載入史冊的近現代工業傳奇。

但到了現今中國新能源汽車上，同樣的成本優勢成為兩棲動物口中「滯銷品」、「賣越多越失敗」啦～

Adam Smith經典「國富論」為經濟學開山之作，書中清楚解釋市場廣度決定專業分工的程度 (“The division of labor is limited by the extent of the market”)。同時，專業分工的程度決定生產成本優勢。更重要的是，專業分工下的成本優勢又會進一步拓展市場廣度（”the division of labor gives rise to market institutions and expands the extent of the market. “）。

中國擁有世界數一數二，同文同種高度統一法規的巨大市場，必然可以容納小市場難以生存的專業分工型態，並以此取得巨大成本優勢拓展國際市場。

上述根本就是Adam Smith這位經濟學祖師爺早已闡述清楚的經濟現象：適用於20世紀初的福特汽車，當然也適用於21世紀初的中國新能源車。

偏偏總有些兩棲動物連這最基本的經濟學感受都不具備。到了他們口中，具備價格競爭力反倒是要亡國滅種囉。

In 1913, the Ford Model T, which introduced assembly line production, had an initial market price of $850. This was significantly cheaper than other brands of cars at the time, which ranged between $2,000 and $4,000, thus offering a strong competitive edge in the market. It quickly expanded its customer base from the affluent to the middle class. The broader market, in turn, fueled the economies of scale in assembly line production, further reducing production costs. By 1927, the price of the Model T had been driven down to $290.

Leveraging cost advantages for competitive strength in the market, Ford’s approach became a modern industrial legend recorded in history. However, in today’s Chinese new energy vehicle sector, the same cost advantage is paradoxically seen by some as indicative of “unsold goods" and “the more you sell, the more you fail."

Adam Smith’s seminal work, “The Wealth of Nations," lays the foundation for economics, clearly explaining that the scope of the market determines the extent of the division of labor (“The division of labor is limited by the extent of the market"). In turn, the degree of specialization determines cost advantages. More importantly, the cost advantages under specialized division further expand the market scope (“the division of labor gives rise to market institutions and expands the extent of the market").

China, with one of the world’s largest markets characterized by a unified language, race, and highly unified regulations, can naturally accommodate specialized divisions of labor that small markets cannot sustain, thereby gaining significant cost advantages to expand into the international market.

The aforementioned is fundamentally the economic phenomenon clearly explained by Adam Smith, the father of economics: applicable to Ford cars in the early 20th century and equally applicable to Chinese new energy vehicles in the early 21st century.

Yet, there are always some who lack even this basic economic sense. In their view, having competitive pricing is somehow equated with national doom.

1. 約莫15年前，經濟學大師張五常曾預測幾年內中國內需市場重要性將會大過出口市場，到時即便被美國貿易制裁也大可置之不理。

一個重要的經濟理論是Adam Smith 就提出的「專業分工的限度事由市場的廣度決定（Specialization is limited by the extent of the market）」

中國目前是世界140多個國家最大貿易夥伴，同時中國也是全世界唯一擁有聯合國定義所有工業項目產出的國家。Adam Smith的智慧由此可證，反之也證明中國在供應面的強大已非同日而語。

市場夠大，專業分工就可以夠細且全面；反之，夠細且全面的分工本身可以帶來巨大的成本優勢，利於更進一步拓展市場。這是一個正向循環過程。

比如中國2023年前十月新車銷售量接近3000萬輛，是第二大市場美國的2倍。這充分解釋為何中國產電動車售價相對世界多數國家物美價廉，以及銷往歐美售價高過國內售價。

2. 2019年川普政府發動貿易戰初起，我就預測美國此舉會加速中國工業升級，美國在貿易戰上只會付出巨大成本而徒勞無功。都是經濟學基本定律的應用。

如今看中國在電動車的競爭力，以及美國現今真實貿易依然高比例依賴中國（無論是made in China或made by China，帳面數據上似乎美國從中國進口少了一點，但大幅增加的墨西哥或東南亞國家供應者背後幾乎都有高比例中國企業的影子），也再次證明經濟學的科學預測力。

3. 中國市場本身自由度越高，則面對貨幣緊縮/通膨的能力越強。

換言之，坊間誇誇其談中國通縮風險如何嚴重的人，99%都是經濟低手，其言論不值一看。

如同張五常多年文章反覆提及，改革開放以來中國曾面臨長時間嚴重通貨緊縮，卻在同一段時間享有高度經濟成長，其關鍵在於市場自由度夠高，各種複雜的契約關係都能快速變換、定價。

因此只要中國繼續維持開放自由市場路線，則面對貨幣波動的韌性肯定是遠超市場相對非常不自由的歐美市場。

筆記：

商务部：10月社会消费品零售总额4.3万亿元 同比增长7.6%

人民网北京11月22日电 （记者孙红丽）11月22日，商务部消费促进司负责人谈2023年10月我国消费市场情况时表示，10月份，社会消费品零售总额4.3万亿元，同比增长7.6%，增速比9月份加快2.1个百分点，连续3个月回升；1-10月累计38.54万亿元，同比增长6.9%。

商务部消费促进司负责人指出，10月份，各级商务主管部门按照“2023消费提振年”总体安排，抓住国庆假期消费旺季有利时机，加快落实各项促消费政策措施，积极组织开展金秋购物节、家居焕新消费季、新能源汽车消费季等活动，优化消费供给，创新消费场景，提振消费信心，促进消费持续恢复和扩大。

商品消费增速加快。10月份，商品零售额同比增长6.5%，增速比上月加快1.9个百分点。户外运动、新型电子产品、新能源汽车、智能家电等升级类商品增势较好。限额以上单位体育娱乐用品、通讯器材、汽车、家电零售额同比分别增长25.7%、14.6%、11.4%和9.6%，比上月分别加快15.0、14.2、8.6和11.9个百分点。新能源汽车销量同比增长33.5%，占新车销量比重达33.5%。

服务消费较快增长。1-10月,服务零售额同比增长19.0%。在节日效应等因素带动下，住宿餐饮、文化旅游、交通出行等服务消费需求集中释放。10月份，餐饮收入4800亿元，同比增长17.1%；电影票房收入超36亿元，增长约七成；铁路旅客运输量、城市轨道交通客运量同比分别增长195.6%和55.8%。

网上零售增势较好。1-10月,网上零售额12.3万亿元，同比增长11.2%，其中实物商品网上零售额10.3万亿元，增长8.4%，占社会消费品零售总额的比重达26.7%。

实体零售持续恢复。1-10月,限额以上实体店零售额同比增长4.3%，增速比1-9月加快0.3个百分点。其中，便利店、百货店、专业店、品牌专卖店零售额同比分别增长7.3%、7.2%、4.7%和3.6%。国庆期间，全国示范步行街日均客流量同比增长87.4%，36个大中城市重点商圈日均客流量同比增长1.6倍。

城乡消费稳步增长。10月份，城镇消费品零售额3.7万亿元，同比增长7.4%；乡村消费品零售额5854亿元，增长8.9%。1-10月,城镇、乡村消费品零售额分别为33.39万亿元和5.16万亿元，同比分别增长6.8%和7.6%。

1. About 15 years ago, the esteemed economist Steven N.S. Cheung predicted that within a few years, the importance of China’s domestic market would surpass that of its export market. By then, even if subjected to trade sanctions by the United States, China could afford to disregard them. An important economic theory proposed by Adam Smith is that “the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market." Currently, China is the largest trading partner for over 140 countries and is the only country in the world that produces all industrial categories defined by the United Nations. This validates Adam Smith’s wisdom and also demonstrates that China’s supply-side capabilities have significantly evolved.

A large market allows for finer and more comprehensive specialization; conversely, such detailed and comprehensive division of labor can bring significant cost advantages, facilitating further market expansion. This creates a positive feedback loop. For instance, China’s new car sales in the first ten months of 2023 approached 30 million units, double that of the second-largest market, the United States. This adequately explains why Chinese electric vehicles are relatively more affordable compared to most countries worldwide and why they are sold at higher prices in Europe and America than in China.

2. At the onset of the trade war initiated by the Trump administration in 2019, I predicted that this move would accelerate the industrial upgrading of China and that the United States would only incur substantial costs in vain. This is all the application of basic economic laws. Today, looking at China’s competitiveness in electric vehicles, and the United States’ continued high reliance on China for trade (whether it’s made in China or made by China, although the official data may show a slight decrease in imports from China, the significantly increased supply from Mexico or Southeast Asian countries almost always involves a high proportion of Chinese enterprises), once again proves the predictive power of economics.
3. The higher the degree of market freedom in China, the stronger its ability to cope with monetary tightening/inflation. In other words, those who widely discuss the severe risk of deflation in China are 99% economically illiterate, and their statements are not worth considering. As Steven N.S. Cheung has repeatedly mentioned in his articles over the years, China has faced severe deflation for a long time since the reform and opening-up, yet it enjoyed high economic growth during the same period. The key lies in the high degree of market freedom, where various complex contractual relationships can be rapidly changed and priced. Therefore, as long as China continues to maintain an open and free market approach, its resilience to monetary fluctuations will undoubtedly far exceed that of the relatively unfree markets in Europe and America.

Note:
Ministry of Commerce: The total retail sales of consumer goods in October reached 4.3 trillion yuan, an increase of 7.6% year-on-year
People’s Daily, Beijing, November 22 (Reporter Sun Hongli) – On November 22, a spokesperson from the Department of Consumer Promotion of the Ministry of Commerce discussed China’s consumer market situation in October 2023, stating that in October, the total retail sales of consumer goods reached 4.3 trillion yuan, an increase of 7.6% year-on-year, accelerating by 2.1 percentage points from September and rebounding for three consecutive months; from January to October, the cumulative total was 38.54 trillion yuan, an increase of 6.9% year-on-year.

The spokesperson from the Department of Consumer Promotion pointed out that in October, commercial authorities at all levels, in accordance with the overall arrangements of the “2023 Year of Consumption Promotion", seized the favorable opportunity of the National Day holiday consumption peak season, accelerated the implementation of various consumer promotion policies and measures, actively organized and carried out activities such as the Golden Autumn Shopping Festival, Home Renewal Consumption Season, and New Energy Vehicle Consumption Season, optimized the supply of consumption, innovated consumption scenarios, boosted consumer confidence, and promoted the continuous recovery and expansion of consumption.

The growth rate of commodity consumption accelerated. In October, the retail sales of goods increased by 6.5% year-on-year, accelerating by 1.9 percentage points from the previous month. Upgraded products such as outdoor sports equipment, new electronic products, new energy vehicles, and smart home appliances performed well. The retail sales of sports and entertainment goods, communication equipment, automobiles, and home appliances in above-designated-size units increased by 25.7%, 14.6%, 11.4%, and 9.6% year-on-year, respectively, accelerating by 15.0, 14.2, 8.6, and 11.9 percentage points from the previous month, respectively. The sales volume of new energy vehicles increased by 33.5% year-on-year, accounting for 33.5% of new car sales.

The growth of service consumption was relatively fast. From January to October, the retail sales of services increased by 19.0% year-on-year. Driven by the holiday effect and other factors,

service consumption demands such as accommodation and catering, cultural tourism, and transportation were released intensively. In October, catering revenue reached 480 billion yuan, an increase of 17.1% year-on-year; movie box office revenue exceeded 3.6 billion yuan, increasing by about 70%; railway passenger transport volume and urban rail transit passenger transport volume increased by 195.6% and 55.8% year-on-year, respectively.

Online retail sales performed well. From January to October, online retail sales reached 12.3 trillion yuan, an increase of 11.2% year-on-year, of which online retail sales of physical goods reached 10.3 trillion yuan, increasing by 8.4%, accounting for 26.7% of the total retail sales of consumer goods.

Physical retail continued to recover. From January to October, the retail sales of above-designated-size physical stores increased by 4.3% year-on-year, accelerating by 0.3 percentage points from January to September. Among them, retail sales of convenience stores, department stores, specialty stores, and brand stores increased by 7.3%, 7.2%, 4.7%, and 3.6% year-on-year, respectively. During the National Day holiday, the average daily passenger flow of national demonstration pedestrian streets increased by 87.4% year-on-year, and the average daily passenger flow of key business districts in 36 large and medium-sized cities increased by 1.6 times year-on-year.

Urban and rural consumption grew steadily. In October, urban consumer goods retail sales reached 3.7 trillion yuan, an increase of 7.4% year-on-year; rural consumer goods retail sales reached 585.4 billion yuan, an increase of 8.9% year-on-year. From January to October, urban and rural consumer goods retail sales reached 33.39 trillion yuan and 5.16 trillion yuan, respectively, an increase of 6.8% and 7.6% year-on-year, respectively.

(translated by ChatGPT)

中國前三季出口年增0.6%

進口年減1.2%

用電量年增加5.6%

聲稱GDP增長 5.2%

美國2023年前三季出口年增1.1％

進口年減4.3％

用電量年減少5.37%

聲稱GDP增加 2%

關於GDP對應國家經濟增長的觀點，我以前已經詳談過，不再重複。簡單說三個重點：

1. 現代GDP計算方法有幾種，主流概念不外乎：
   C + I + G + (X – M)
   私人支出＋投資＋政府支出＋（出口-進口）
   
   我批評過，此公式內涵「重商主義」的偏見，錯認「出口比進口好」。
   
   但我也談過，其實統計方法與魔鬼細節事實上讓GDP的絕對數值本身並沒有太多經濟學意義可供討論，例如就有論者認為，中國如果套用美國統計方式，現有GDP要翻倍，因為有太多中國不列入GDP計算項目，但美國是列入的，例如
   
   可是一者現在似乎沒有更好的國家層面經濟統計方式；再者，GDP統計在長期趨勢上還是有相當參考性。
   
2. 同樣照骨科小腿脛骨腓骨X光，根據最近一起會議的美國醫師表示大約$1000美元，而在中國三甲醫院費用約$100人民幣。前者是後者約70倍價格，但在真實經濟活動產出真的有70倍嗎？換言之，稍有經濟邏輯者都會發現，前者存在高比例通貨膨脹與制度費用於其中，並非美國醫生同樣的一次診療活動就真的產出70倍於中國醫生。
   （三年前我所知美國此費用約在$250~400美元之間）
   
   這也代表美國GDP產出存在多少「澎風」現象？是值得思考的問題。
   
   而對經濟學了解更多一點的人會想到，根據要素平價理論、比較優勢定律等思維，這意味著在國際貿易活動下，兩地價格如果不能趨近，就會反應在「貨幣價格」與「交易數量」二者上。降低整體交易費用有助減輕這樣的動態平衡中可能的死傷，但美國一系列反自由市場的制裁舉措，增加的整體交易費用最後幾乎都必須由美國人民來買單大部分。這樣的論點我也反覆談了好幾年，許多實證研究也支持美國人民的確負擔更重。（例如此篇研究就指出美國進口商負擔了93%的對中貿易戰關稅）
   
3. 實際用電量在某些角度是觀察一個國家經濟活動更好的指標，因為電力幾乎是現今社會幾乎所有經濟活動的必須生產要素之一。
   
   我們可以數據圖看到美國從2000年之後事實電力消費成長是近乎停滯的。同時期中國電力消費卻仍相對高速增長。
   

此外2020~2022年，美國政府支出佔GDP高達48%、44%、37%，考量美國政府還有很多作帳隱瞞政府開支的壞記錄，我相信前述比例只會更高不會低。

相對中國政府支出佔GDP 2012年以來始終徘徊在15~16%。

簡單總結，我住在北京所觀察到的一般民眾食衣住行價格變化與人潮，看不出來經濟崩潰可能性。反之，我在美國的同學朋友所分享描述，我相當懷疑拜登政府任內的美國經濟數字真實性。姑且不談美國政府是否造假（雖然美國政府此類劣跡罄竹難書），但現在可見的數字，應該是與真實經濟樣貌相去甚遠。

回顧我在2018年寫下的經濟預測，佐以近日華為Mate 60 pro 國產7nm晶片、自行開發EDA、自行開發大型ERP，以及中國電動汽車不但橫掃全球市場，而且外銷價甚高於競爭激烈的國內市場來看，此項經濟學預言不斷地成真。

尤其「…美国联邦商务部7日发布统计：2022年，美中贸易额为6900亿美元，其中，美国自中国进口总额为5388亿元，中国自美国进口1538亿美元；美国对华贸易逆差从2021年的3535亿美元增至3829亿美元。」

只是再次證明掌握關鍵侷限條件，經濟學的科學預測力就是這麼強。

1. Birdgewater最新一份報告指出1960年以來所有的熊市反轉都是發生在Fed貨幣寬鬆時期。

而且超過一半是Fed轉入貨幣寬鬆政策相當時間後，股市才開始底部翻身。換言之，現在是熊市反轉的可能性相當低。

還記得我在今年初對美國投資市場提出的預想說明，2022年投資市場主軸就是通膨與利率上升，貨幣因素將是最關鍵因子。

目前看來年也差不多如此，而且就貨幣因素本身來說，並沒有太多樂觀理由。

2. MBS 住房債券無人購買，房貸違約率可能提高，FED成為目前持有最多MBS的機構，自然也成為房貸違約下最大風險承擔者。

美國房市也陷入寒冬。還記得2020年WFH帶來一場瘋狂地房地產追高，如今雖然尚未有明顯房地產價格崩盤，但買氣縮手卻是不爭事實。

Fed過去幾年一直是MBS最大買家。但如今Fed自己在縮減資產負債表的政策目標下，怎麼可能做到又要印錢買MBS同時又要回收貨幣？一旦這最大買家收手，美國房地產失去持續住資的水龍頭，當前價格又如何在上漲超過三倍的房貸利率下繼續維持？目前美國房貸利率來到7%，為20年來最高點。

根據Black Knight Inc. 調查，美國房產已經因房市價格下修資不抵債的數量約佔整體2022年交易房產的8%。一旦美國出現更多資不抵債而放棄繼續繳納房貸（斷供），則因房地產又起的金融風暴恐怕成形。

3. BIS第四季報告指出全球隱藏債務風險高攀

根據國際清算銀行（Bank for International Settlements ）報告指出，全世界存在高達＄65兆美元的隱藏債務，藏在外匯互換（foreign-exchange swaps ）這個項目裡，但因為某些會計準則與法律因素，這些債務並未出現在各國銀行或公司的財務報表上。可說是隱形炸彈。

多國退休基金與保險公司都可能與該外匯互換有高度風險聯繫。例如歐洲退休基金借了歐元之後，透過外匯互換拿到美元，再投資美元計價的金融資產。抵押品就是這些歐元。同理，日本等世界許多國家都存在類似的操作方式。這就造成，假熱短期匯率大波動亦或美國利率上升到某個閾值都可能觸發某國貨幣對美元的流動性枯竭，從而引發骨牌效應，許多資產、虛擬或連動性金融商品被迫斷頭，一場金融風暴可能由此而生。但國際清算銀行特別指出，糟糕的是沒有人弄得清楚這太複雜的金融遊戲，就像是一團亂七八糟的毛線，每一根露出的線頭都可能牽一髮動全身地導致大樓坍塌。

而這一切跟美元牽連的金融亂局，肇因跟Fed長年人為低利率環境有關，偏偏多發生在美國以外的地區。因此Fed很可能無法承擔「最後債務人」的角色，即便2008年金融風暴後，Fed特別設立對他國的緊急美元窗口也救不了火。國際清算銀行認為，一旦風險發生，Fed將被迫抵上美元信譽與美國人民稅金來救場，但這對已經搖搖欲墜的美元霸權以及債務超過GDP的美國政府財務健康是雪上加霜。

有鑑於Fed現在滿眼只有美國國內通膨與就業數字，恐怕對BIS提出的警告，不說視若無睹也該說是有心無力。

於是BIS自己也說我們就坐在一個不定時炸彈上，每天只能慶幸今日運氣夠好，炸彈沒爆。

英國金融時報長篇報導2022年以來，英國有大量女性迫於生計從事賣淫。文章開頭女主角Tiffany原是公務員，現今迫於英國衰敗的經濟與窘困的生計，每天由丈夫接送到嫖客處所賣淫。

FT調查發現2022年加入賣淫產業的婦女人數是2019年的三倍。

一個專門援助賣淫女性毒品施用的慈善組織Sheffield Working Women’s Opportunities Project 指出，與過去高比例為了繼續購買毒品而賣淫的現象不同，2022年下海從事賣淫者大多數就是為了支付通膨漲價下一般家庭開銷。

一名叫Jodie，現年52歲，已經站街賣身30年的女士表示，今年以來，她的老客戶們紛紛試圖殺價，而她也欣然接受，因為她知道大家生活都不容易。價格從疫情前￡20～30降到現在￡10～15，約莫是50%。

同時服務內容，需要口交跟肛交的客戶需求也開始增加。這在經濟學上表示買方具有較高壟斷性，恰好符合第一線妓女的觀察：「因為客人知道女孩子很缺錢（"…because they must know girls are hard up…"）」。交易內容的改變往往是價格以外，更重要的經濟學訊號。

當然這也意味著賣淫的女孩們將面對更暴力的客戶需求。

這點我在2018年的文章也簡略討論過：經濟好壞本身會直接影響妓女工作上面對的人身風險。根據統計，2004年妓女被殺害的比率是204人/每十萬人；而伐木工人死亡率是118人/每十萬人。賣淫是一個比伐木死亡率還要高的危險職業。

但Scott Cunningham、Gregory DeAngelo與John Tripp這三名經濟學家研究發現美國人常用的地區型線上分類目錄廣告Craigslist在2002～2010提供色情廣告刊登服務的期間內，降低妓女被殺害死亡率約17.4%，同時也顯著降低一般女性的被強暴率。

反過來，有些原本在家接客的妓女，疫情後被迫投靠妓院。Audrey Caradonna 表示一樣的收入，過去在家每日只要接三個，現在在妓院每日得接到10個。她擔心某個嫖客在交易過程涉嫌絞死妓女，疫情前一樓一鳳模式她可以拒絕，但在妓院卻有可能碰上。

該篇報導還談到立法將性交易入罪化會大幅度提高妓女的工作人身風險，這一點我也在好幾年前的文章中從法律經濟分析角度談過。性交易除罪化正常化才是保障底層低收入女性無論是收入或基本人身安全最好的解決方案，特別是可以大幅降低幫派掌控之妓院逼良為娼的現象。

因為當從事賣淫的行為成本降低（例如不再有刑事責任），則賣淫的邊際租值會降低，造成幫派掌握賣淫的總體利益會因為失去法律保護之壟斷性與競爭增加二者影響之下而減少。當邊際租值降低，使用暴力經營的邊際成本就會增加。不善經營，只會靠暴力的經營模式在市場競爭下自然淘汰。

同理，因法律禁止賣淫而生的警方黑幫勾結或警察向妓女索賄也會因此減少與消失。

2003年紐西蘭將賣淫除罪化後，2008年的研究指出該國妓女數量並未顯著增加，但妓女收入與人身安全得到顯著改善。面對不受歡迎的嫖客，紐西蘭妓女可以報警處理是一大關鍵。反之，未除罪化之前，相當數量嫖客看準妓女不敢報警，而在一樓一鳳模式中入室後強暴、強盜、搶劫。

這也說明為何妓院抽成高，可能有黑道幫派掌握，但在賣淫有罪的社會中，多數妓女還是被迫選擇進入妓院。

英國政府自己也清楚各地方警察對於賣淫執法有很大的不同與選擇性。許多地區的警察並不願意逮捕他們眼中「其實是弱勢的賣淫女」。

前述的風險，也多發生在「阻街賣淫」模式上。

誠如我前述三位經濟學家的研究發現，讓線上賣淫廣告合法化，就能大大降低從業者的人身風險。

經濟邏輯： 

1. 透過線上廣告，許多阻街女郎毋須在深夜徘徊於街道上，基本上就避免掉碰到隨機殺人等各種情況。  

2. 相較於上街找妓女幾乎可以不留任何證據痕跡，透過線上廣告找性服務多多少少會留下電子足跡，警方未來要追查相對容易。這份擔憂（成本）過濾掉許多殺人行為的可能性。  

3. 反之，妓女透過線上廣告的資訊與評價（包含女郎間的資訊傳遞），能更有效地過濾「可能不安全」的客人。  

4. 透過線上系統安排到的安全客人，日後再透過線上溝通機制繼續交易的機率大增。這也進一步降低服務提供者接觸陌生客人的次數，從而降低碰上「不安全客人」的機率。  

三位經濟學家也指出，如果要透過增加警力（以舊金山灣區為例）的方式來達到同樣的死亡率降低效果，納稅人需要每年多負擔$200億美元用來增聘警察。換言之，允許Craigslist這種線上廣告刊登色情服務，不但一年救了2150位妓女，也替納稅人省掉200億美元。

結論：

誠如我在過去兩年多篇文章中反覆強調，全球性通貨膨脹乃至於停滯性通膨將大大影響中低層人民的收入與生活。

現實的殘酷是，許多人面臨的財務風險，很可能來源於他們弄不懂也控制不了的貨幣因素。

經濟學大師A. A. Alchian幾篇論文所證明「通貨膨脹必然帶來財富移轉效果」之現象，升斗小民該憂懼的，是自己將是否淪為「被移轉財產」的一員。而這也是我過去兩年多反覆撰文呼籲讀者注意防範自保的重點。

從宏觀角度看，我很常說：沒有錢就沒有人權可言。

其實從個人微觀角度何嘗不然？財富安全係數高低，也大大影響個人的身心健康、高風險工作選擇乃至於預期壽命長短。豈可不慎乎？

黑石基金發佈新聞稱旗下資產達$690億美元的REITs（不動產信託基金）資金凍結，限制贖回。

此基金屬於封閉式基金，投資者無法在證券交易市場賣出，只能由黑石基金贖回。而根據黑石的基金說明，該REITs本身就附帶嚴格的贖回限制：每月贖回總額不得超過淨值2%、每季不可超過5％。

有趣的是，黑石自稱該基金今年以來報酬率高達9.3%，顯然與公開交易的REITs指數今年以來下跌20%相差將近30％！這讓許多投資人不得不懷疑黑石自我估價的價值增長背後有沒有水分。黑石目前拒絕透露自己如何算出不動產估值。

十月以來黑石該基金贖回請求激增但只有43%成功拿到錢。根據上述限制，此季度上限額度已經到達，所以黑石宣佈暫停12月所有贖回請求。

無論如何，黑石聲稱的報酬率有多麼優於大盤，現在的擠兌必然逼迫黑石要賣房地產套現，例如它已經賣掉該基金持有的Las Vegas兩大賭場（MGM Grand 和 Mandalay Bay）。我高度懷疑的是短期流動性不足的現實存在且將逐漸在不同金融領域蔓延。

一者，面臨贖回壓力的REITs不只黑石，其他類似基金從十月以來都有相同問題。在利率提升，資產價格根據利息理論必須下修的環境下，越來越多REITs被迫賣房賣地換現金時，會出現什麼現象呢？

特別是當下美國Overnight Repo rate來到近年最高點3.85%，逼近幾次股災（如2008年）前水位。美國TED例差亦然，在在說明市場短期流動性逐漸緊縮的現狀。（見圖）

加之近日FTX等加密貨幣交易所破產或經營者涉嫌捲款潛逃等狀況發生，資金流動性可能會是近期股債市的最大影響因子。但美國Fed有任何本錢取消QT重啟QE嗎？

想我當年在政大法律系時，REITs這類資產重新包裹證券化是我們財經法組的熱門議題，當然牽連更複雜的信用對賭（如信用交換合約credit default swap）或其他金融衍生商品在2008年闖下大禍，今年十月以來美國REITs又面臨的短期流動問題，會不會又是某個見證歷史的開端呢？