Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Minimalist experiments; The Wayward Cloud -- a flim by Tsai Ming-liang
蔡明亮(Tsai Ming-liang, one of the greatest directors in Taiwan) 的天邊一朵雲。 This article appeared in Village Voice. To say the least, finally, something can be proudly said about Taiwan's advance to the sexually liberated as far as the film content is concerned. Before, Taiwan is far behind Japan, South Korean even China. I mean, very few major actresses (or actors) in Taiwan are willing to do sexually explicit performances even in the art-house film.
李康生 as penis
李康生 as penis
Monday, February 14, 2005
my little thought about Social Security
Does Social Security need to fix?
Why did Bill Clinton declare to "Save Social Security First"? And now Bush's new fix is controvertial?
That is before the Internet Bubble (2000) and a looming surplus to use for setting up an ad hoc scheme (letting workers contribute a portion of their wages ON TOP of the current payroll tax, and government matches dollar-for-dollar)...
It was then. Now the simple math is, as illuminouly pointed out by Michael Kinsley (here, free registration required, or see the end of this post), the new system (private account which is diverted from a portion of social security) must be producing more than the existing social security, otherwise there is no point....
* * *
The Meathead Proposition
Another Irrefutable Argument Against Privatizing Social Security
By Michael KinsleySunday, February 13, 2005; Page B07
Try to forgive my obsession, but here is another proof that President Bush's designs for Social Security cannot work. This one's not mine. I first heard it from the actor and liberal activist Rob Reiner. Like the argument I have been hawking (see www.latimes.com/proof), this one doesn't merely suggest that Bush is making bad policy. It demonstrates with near-mathematical certainty that the idea he endorses can't work. Period.
Bush might as well be proposing legislation that two plus two is five. And if that happened, there would be no shortage of Republicans prepared to endorse this view, experts on arithmetic to declare that it is a very difficult question, research to indicate that the answer may lie anywhere between 2.3 and 7.09, moderate Washington sages to urge caution, media to report both sides of the question, and media critics to accuse the media of a subtle bias in favor of two plus two is four.
The Meathead Proposition (in honor of Reiner's most famous role) is this. The case that there is a Social Security crisis and the proposal to address it through "personal retirement accounts" both depend on assumptions about the course of the economy over the next few decades. These assumptions are highly speculative, but that's okay. What's not okay is to assume one thing when you claim there is a problem and something different when you claim that you've got the solution.
Actually, Bush abruptly gave up his claim that privatization will solve the problem of a looming shortfall in Social Security funds. The truth is that privatization schemes assume that the shortfall will be addressed -- by borrowing trillions of dollars -- as part of the "transition" to privatization. But Bush still claims that letting people keep and invest for themselves part of what they now pay into Social Security during their working years will leave them better off than if they get the benefits they are now entitled to.
How much better off depends on how much your government benefits will be reduced for every dollar you choose to keep and invest for yourself. That is one of the little details the White House hasn't yet enlightened us about. But this new system as a whole -- Social Security plus the private accounts -- must somehow produce more money than Social Security alone, or there is no point.
My previous argument, in a nutshell, was that even if these private investments do better than the government bonds in which the current Social Security surplus is invested, this won't change the total amount being invested in the private economy, or increase the economic growth that comes from private investment, because the government will just have to go out and borrow elsewhere to replace the dollars it isn't able to borrow from Social Security. And that means that every time someone puts a Social Security dollar into a private account, someone else must be persuaded to take a dollar currently invested in the private economy and put it in government bonds.
To get the scheme enacted, Bush must convince Americans of the exact opposite: that private-sector investment will make them better off than fuddy-duddy old government bonds. Basically, privatization schemes assume that the alleged inferiority of government bonds can be our little secret for the next few decades -- just us folks in the Social Security system. And so we can just unload a few trillion in government bonds on all those two or three Americans who aren't in Social Security, plus maybe some hapless foreigners.
Privatization schemes assume that this will have no effect on how much interest the government will have to pay, or what kind of long-term return you can expect on investments in the private economy. For example the right-wing Heritage Foundation, a major thumper for privatization, assumes that private accounts can earn a long-term, risk-free return of 4.7 percent after inflation, which they say is based on history.
But if free markets work the way they are supposed to -- and I would like to hear the Heritage Foundation say that they do not -- the effect of the government's announcing that government bonds are a bad investment and officially pushing people to put their money elsewhere will be to make it more expensive for the government to borrow money. So even if private stocks and bonds are a better long-term investment than government bonds (after factoring in risk and so on), they won't stay that way for long. Meanwhile, in their latest report, the Social Security trustees assume that growth in the nation's gross domestic product will slow from 4.4 percent to 1.8 percent in 2015 and will stay there for the next six decades. They predict productivity growth of 1.6 percent and average unemployment of 5.5 percent. From this and other data, the trustees predict that the trust fund will earn 3 percent a year (5.8 percent interest minus 2.8 percent inflation). This is their "intermediate" assumption, from which Bush concludes that the shortfall will hit the fan in 2042.
These assumptions about the unknowable are not unreasonable. Nor are the assumptions of the Heritage Foundation. What is unreasonable is using both sets of assumptions at the same time. Can a conservative investment in stocks and bonds grow by 4.7 percent a year, for decades, while productivity is growing by 1.6 percent and the economy by 1.8 percent? Theoretically possible, perhaps. But likely? On average?
If you start by assuming that one investment pays better than another, it's not very surprising (or persuasive) if this is also your conclusion. A dollar a year invested for 37 years (now until 2042) at 3 percent interest produces $66. At 4.7 percent, it's $95. If the Heritage Foundation is right, there is no crisis to fix. And if the Social Security trustees are right, the Heritage fix won't work.
If Meathead can figure this out, why can't W?
The writer is editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times.
Why did Bill Clinton declare to "Save Social Security First"? And now Bush's new fix is controvertial?
That is before the Internet Bubble (2000) and a looming surplus to use for setting up an ad hoc scheme (letting workers contribute a portion of their wages ON TOP of the current payroll tax, and government matches dollar-for-dollar)...
It was then. Now the simple math is, as illuminouly pointed out by Michael Kinsley (here, free registration required, or see the end of this post), the new system (private account which is diverted from a portion of social security) must be producing more than the existing social security, otherwise there is no point....
* * *
The Meathead Proposition
Another Irrefutable Argument Against Privatizing Social Security
By Michael KinsleySunday, February 13, 2005; Page B07
Try to forgive my obsession, but here is another proof that President Bush's designs for Social Security cannot work. This one's not mine. I first heard it from the actor and liberal activist Rob Reiner. Like the argument I have been hawking (see www.latimes.com/proof), this one doesn't merely suggest that Bush is making bad policy. It demonstrates with near-mathematical certainty that the idea he endorses can't work. Period.
Bush might as well be proposing legislation that two plus two is five. And if that happened, there would be no shortage of Republicans prepared to endorse this view, experts on arithmetic to declare that it is a very difficult question, research to indicate that the answer may lie anywhere between 2.3 and 7.09, moderate Washington sages to urge caution, media to report both sides of the question, and media critics to accuse the media of a subtle bias in favor of two plus two is four.
The Meathead Proposition (in honor of Reiner's most famous role) is this. The case that there is a Social Security crisis and the proposal to address it through "personal retirement accounts" both depend on assumptions about the course of the economy over the next few decades. These assumptions are highly speculative, but that's okay. What's not okay is to assume one thing when you claim there is a problem and something different when you claim that you've got the solution.
Actually, Bush abruptly gave up his claim that privatization will solve the problem of a looming shortfall in Social Security funds. The truth is that privatization schemes assume that the shortfall will be addressed -- by borrowing trillions of dollars -- as part of the "transition" to privatization. But Bush still claims that letting people keep and invest for themselves part of what they now pay into Social Security during their working years will leave them better off than if they get the benefits they are now entitled to.
How much better off depends on how much your government benefits will be reduced for every dollar you choose to keep and invest for yourself. That is one of the little details the White House hasn't yet enlightened us about. But this new system as a whole -- Social Security plus the private accounts -- must somehow produce more money than Social Security alone, or there is no point.
My previous argument, in a nutshell, was that even if these private investments do better than the government bonds in which the current Social Security surplus is invested, this won't change the total amount being invested in the private economy, or increase the economic growth that comes from private investment, because the government will just have to go out and borrow elsewhere to replace the dollars it isn't able to borrow from Social Security. And that means that every time someone puts a Social Security dollar into a private account, someone else must be persuaded to take a dollar currently invested in the private economy and put it in government bonds.
To get the scheme enacted, Bush must convince Americans of the exact opposite: that private-sector investment will make them better off than fuddy-duddy old government bonds. Basically, privatization schemes assume that the alleged inferiority of government bonds can be our little secret for the next few decades -- just us folks in the Social Security system. And so we can just unload a few trillion in government bonds on all those two or three Americans who aren't in Social Security, plus maybe some hapless foreigners.
Privatization schemes assume that this will have no effect on how much interest the government will have to pay, or what kind of long-term return you can expect on investments in the private economy. For example the right-wing Heritage Foundation, a major thumper for privatization, assumes that private accounts can earn a long-term, risk-free return of 4.7 percent after inflation, which they say is based on history.
But if free markets work the way they are supposed to -- and I would like to hear the Heritage Foundation say that they do not -- the effect of the government's announcing that government bonds are a bad investment and officially pushing people to put their money elsewhere will be to make it more expensive for the government to borrow money. So even if private stocks and bonds are a better long-term investment than government bonds (after factoring in risk and so on), they won't stay that way for long. Meanwhile, in their latest report, the Social Security trustees assume that growth in the nation's gross domestic product will slow from 4.4 percent to 1.8 percent in 2015 and will stay there for the next six decades. They predict productivity growth of 1.6 percent and average unemployment of 5.5 percent. From this and other data, the trustees predict that the trust fund will earn 3 percent a year (5.8 percent interest minus 2.8 percent inflation). This is their "intermediate" assumption, from which Bush concludes that the shortfall will hit the fan in 2042.
These assumptions about the unknowable are not unreasonable. Nor are the assumptions of the Heritage Foundation. What is unreasonable is using both sets of assumptions at the same time. Can a conservative investment in stocks and bonds grow by 4.7 percent a year, for decades, while productivity is growing by 1.6 percent and the economy by 1.8 percent? Theoretically possible, perhaps. But likely? On average?
If you start by assuming that one investment pays better than another, it's not very surprising (or persuasive) if this is also your conclusion. A dollar a year invested for 37 years (now until 2042) at 3 percent interest produces $66. At 4.7 percent, it's $95. If the Heritage Foundation is right, there is no crisis to fix. And if the Social Security trustees are right, the Heritage fix won't work.
If Meathead can figure this out, why can't W?
The writer is editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Happy Lunar New Year!
Today is the last day of the chinese year. Wish all of you have a brand new (yawn, and more cliche) and exuberant new year!
Friday, February 04, 2005
蘋果日報的標準示範
常愛笑說,打開電視看新聞是要看它有多八卦,(其實是"愛看假小字", 台語)
今天的Apple's Daily Taiwan, (如下), 其考證之詳細,其語氣之嚴正,如果在公共政策上有這種考究的功夫,唉.......
meaning: 記者說, 看她有多黃,我把它逐條... 讀者有知的權利。
舌吻,向男"襲胸"...唉... 真是個守禮教,男女一律平等的好社會風俗...誰說男人(馬大哥)露上半身就不能大驚小怪, 哼。我愛Taiwan。
2005/2/4
今天的Apple's Daily Taiwan, (如下), 其考證之詳細,其語氣之嚴正,如果在公共政策上有這種考究的功夫,唉.......
meaning: 記者說, 看她有多黃,我把它逐條... 讀者有知的權利。
舌吻,向男"襲胸"...唉... 真是個守禮教,男女一律平等的好社會風俗...誰說男人(馬大哥)露上半身就不能大驚小怪, 哼。我愛Taiwan。
2005/2/4
| 小Ｓ又說又摸女黃帝
襲胸掐臀看內褲 《康熙來了》秀老套 | |
| |
男藝人到《康熙》，必定遭小S「上下其手」，如對蔣友柏、陶?、五月天的阿信等襲胸，對姚崑崙摸臀，對主播李四端撫臉，還直接剪下費翔和立威廉的胸毛來， 甚至對大S男友藍正龍索吻，還正面緊抱陳昭榮，周杰倫彈琴時則從背後「強抱」他，郭品超做仰臥起坐時，她摸他腹肌叫好，大以鹹濕為樂趣。 | |
| 鹹豬手男女都摸
不只是男性遭小S鹹豬手，就連女性也逃不過，蕭薔被她摸大腿，蕭亞軒被她摸得尖叫連連，天心也和她玩互摸，她還拉林心如躺在她雙峰中，田麗則在她提議下， 同意讓她勾引，兩人三貼，大演同志親熱秀。這些鏡頭都是超越該時段的限制級。厲害的是，平日形象嚴肅的政治人物，她也能沒大沒小，和連戰示範手牽手逛街， 和總統府秘書長蘇貞昌擁抱，令人噴飯。 另一項小S的老套是「看內褲」，尤其是男藝人的內褲，有時她乾脆直接看，於是觀眾都知道伍佰愛穿黑色四角褲，蔣友柏的三角褲除了紫色外，其他顏色都能接受，就連對「音樂教父」羅大佑，她都跑到他身後看，然後說：「白色的，很乾淨ㄟ。」不知觀眾知道這項資訊有何意義。 | |
| 和名模平起平站
節目內容老套多多，例如女藝人走台步，許純美、王筱蟬、熊海靈、林志玲都走過，身高只有一百五十八公分的小S，超愛在模特兒中間走台步，被蔡康永封為「勇敢的哈比人」，為了和名模「平起平站」，她乾脆站在箱子上。 | |
| 哈比人秀國標舞
另一老套是，自稱為「小阿妹」的小S，只要一有天王天后到，就要獻唱一番，讓天王天后打分數，舉凡張學友、周杰倫、張惠妹、蔡琴等，都曾「洗耳恭聽」她的 歌聲，同時，她熱愛國標舞，碰到舞林高手，一定要秀一段，不過，也有踢到鐵板時，經紀人王偉忠上節目時，帶著她大跳他年輕時用來吃女孩子豆腐的「三貼 舞」，把她轉的暈頭轉向，大呼吃不消。 |
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
普雷特涅夫, (Mikhail Pletnev, Pianoist)
是枝裕和 (Kore-eda Hirokazu)
Kore-eda Hirokazu's "Nobody knows" will be shown in Taipei in Friday (Feb. 4).
