<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>        <title><![CDATA[世事無奇]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/goodchessclub]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[曾是將亦是，曾作必再作，天地之間無新事。－－《聖經》]]></description>
        <language>zh-tw</language>
        <lastBuildDate>2009/12/16 22:30:54</lastBuildDate>         <item>
            <title><![CDATA[「因為」莫輕說]]></title>
            <link><![CDATA[http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/goodchessclub/article?mid=3484]]></link>
            <description><![CDATA[人敍述事情時，總喜歡為事情加上一個解釋。例如：「今天股市下挫，是因為中東某國出現財政危機。」或：「Ａ君被解僱，是因為他與上司不合。」請看著名的心理學大師 B. F. Skinner如何批評這種習慣：“When we say that a man eats because he is hungry, smokes a great deal&nbsp; because he has the tobacco habit, fights because of the instinct of pugnacity, behaves brilliantly because of his intelligence, or plays the piano well because&nbsp; of his musical ability, we seem to be referring to causes. But on analysis these phrases prove to be merely redundant descriptions. A single set of facts is described by the two statements: “He eats” and “He is hungry.” A single set of facts is described by the two statements: “He smokes a great deal” and “He has the smoking habit.” A single set of facts is described by the two statements: “He plays well” and “He has musical ability.” The practice of explaining one statement in terms of the other is dangerous because it suggests that we have found the cause and therefore need search no further. Moreover, such terms as “hunger,” “habit,” and “intelligence” convert what are essentially the properties of a process or relation into what appear to be things. Thus we are unprepared for the properties eventually to be discovered in the behavior itself and continue to look for something which may not exist.”資料來源：B. F. Skinner (1953). Science and Human Behavior (p.31). New York: Macmillian.]]></description>
            <pubDate>2009/12/17 11:50:16</pubDate>
            <guid><![CDATA[「因為」莫輕說:3484]]></guid>
         </item>         <item>
            <title><![CDATA[炒股情報天外來？]]></title>
            <link><![CDATA[http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/goodchessclub/article?mid=3507]]></link>
            <description><![CDATA[Back in the late 1960s, I was a young commodity broker at E. F. Hutton and Co. Our office was a brand-new high-tech office (for its time) that was considered the &quot;flagship office&quot; for E.F. Hutton.  In this office about 30 brokers and as many clients shared one very large boardroom, and there were no private offices. The brokers had elegant and expensive desks, and the clients had a comfortable seating area in the front of the office where they could hang out and watch the tapes and monitor our state of the art commodity &quot;clacker board.&quot;  Sitting at my desk near the front of the boardroom, I could read my Wall Street Journal and keep track of the commodity markets without looking at the board. By just listening to the rhythm and tempo of the mechanical clicks as the prices changed, I could easily tell when anything important was going on, because the tempo of the clicks would increase noticeably.    Just in front of my desk were a half-dozen comfortable sofas facing a high mahogany-paneled wall with the tapes and the &quot;clacker board.&quot; A gallery of traders, mostly retired &quot;old-timers&quot; who were trading real commodities like grains and pork bellies, lounged around on the sofas plotting their charts and talking about life and the markets. They typically arrived early to get a good seat in their usual spot and then spent the day trading, exchanging commentaries and offering unsolicited advice to one another on any subject.  For the most part, they were a very sociable group who would take coffee breaks together and greeted each other on a first-name basis. These traders enjoyed the elegant atmosphere and treated our well-appointed boardroom as their private men&#39;s club. (Were you aware that women were not allowed to trade commodities back in those days? My, how times have changed!)   One of these &quot;old-timers&quot; kept to himself and was not interested in becoming a member of the friendly and often boisterous social circle. He usually sat quietly by himself, intently watching the price changes on the commodity board and holding an old glass Coke bottle up near his ear.  The vintage-shaped Coke bottle had been emptied many years before and now contained only a 12-inch tube of bent and broken radio antennae, which extended awkwardly out of the top of the bottle.   Keep in mind that in the 1960s no one had yet heard of cellphones, so the purpose of this Coke bottle was a real mystery to everyone. When the trader would talk to the bottle from time to time, all the heads would turn, and the traders nearby would try to listen to the conversation. But the trader spoke very softly, and no one was able to eavesdrop on his conversations with the bottle.   The traders knew that the fellow with the Coke bottle was a client of mine, and eventually a representative of the group came to me and said they were extremely puzzled about this guy and his Coke bottle and asked me if I knew what was going on. I didn&#39;t know the purpose or meaning of the Coke bottle, but I was as curious as anyone was, and I promised I would find out. The next time the client came back to my desk, I promptly placed his order and then politely asked him about the Coke bottle.   With a serious expression and no embarrassment, he explained to me that the Coke bottle was an inter-planetary communication device that had been given to him by aliens. He said the aliens were very interested in our commodity markets and they often gave him trading advice from their various observation points on other planets. He said he had just had a message from Mars and they were buying soybeans, so he had also purchased soybeans. After revealing his unique trading methodology, he returned to his seat and resumed his whispered conversations with the Coke bottle.   As soon as I revealed my discovery of the meaning of the Coke bottle to the other traders, all attention was immediately focused on the Coke bottle trader and the soybean market. The soybean market proceeded to go the wrong way, and the trade from Mars was eventually closed out at a loss. The other traders had no sympathy and were quick to begin ridiculing the trader and to poke fun at his beliefs.  The next trade, however, turned out to be a big winner, and the Coke bottle trader went from sofa to sofa telling his story and pointing to the clacker board while waiving his Coke bottle and bragging about the profitability of his most recent message from outer space. Because he was making money now, his previous critics had to endure his bragging about his success on the current winning trade.   After a few winning and losing trades later, a clear pattern of behavior began to emerge. The Coke bottle trader was ridiculed unmercifully on his losing trades but was able to get his revenge and the last laugh during the winning trades. This trader might have been a little bit crazy, but he wasn&#39;t stupid. He soon learned that his only defense against ridicule was to hold on to winning trades as long as possible and to quickly get out of his losses.  As long as he was sitting on his sofa with a winning trade, no one could tell him he was crazy and make cruel jokes about his messages from Mars. In fact, while he was winning he was quick to wander around the room and ridicule the methods of the other traders who were not making as much money as he was. He displayed the profits in his trading account as hard evidence of the validity of his methods and offered copies of his statements as irrefutable proof that he was getting valuable advice from his alien contacts. Who could argue when his advice from other planets was obviously working?   For a young broker, this experience and the firsthand observation of the Coke bottle trader who suddenly became profitable gave me my first important lesson about the importance of exits. I knew the entry signals had nothing at all to do with his success. His batting average was not any better than that of any other trader. However, this crazy old trader seemed to be able to make money consistently, while other traders with more &quot;sanity&quot; and more valid entry methods were losing.  Before long I was able to recognize that this man had become a successful trader simply by his efforts to avoid ridicule. He knew he was vulnerable during his losing trades, so he closed them out very promptly. His winning trades became his shield against the ridicule of the other traders, and he kept his winners much longer than before his unorthodox methods were revealed.   In the many years since this experience, I have encountered many claims of success for entry methods that probably have even less validity than the Coke bottle messages. I have learned to look only briefly at the entries of winning traders and to examine their exit strategies very carefully. I am very fortunate that more than 30 years ago I learned from the Coke bottle trader that success in trading depends on our exits and not our entries. 資料來源：Chuck LeBeau (2009, Feb 02). Trading Messages from Mars. From: http://www.traderclub.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50:trading-messages-from-mars&amp;catid=35:chuckarticles&amp;Itemid=58]]></description>
            <pubDate>2009/12/14 11:38:09</pubDate>
            <guid><![CDATA[炒股情報天外來？:3507]]></guid>
         </item>         <item>
            <title><![CDATA[奮拼一方]]></title>
            <link><![CDATA[http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/goodchessclub/article?mid=3470]]></link>
            <description><![CDATA[If you ask a thousand people if they want to be rich, every one except the poet and the mystic will say yes. When you explain what is needed to become rich, maybe 600 of that initial 998 will say, “No problem, I can do that.” But when push comes to shove, when they have to sacrifice everything else in their lives–having a spouse and children, a social life, possibly a spiritual life, maybe every pleasure–to meet their goal, almost all of them, too, will fall away. Only about six of the original thousand will continue on the hard path.Most of us don&#39;t have the discipline to stay focused on a single goal
for five, ten, or twenty years, giving up everything to bring it off,
but that&#39;s what&#39;s necessary to become an Olympic champion, a world
class surgeon, or a Kirov ballerina. Even then, of course, it may be
all in vain. You may make a single mistake that wipes out all the work.
It may ruin the sweet, lovable self you were at seventeen. That old
adage is true: You can do anything in life, you just can&#39;t do
everything. That&#39;s what Bacon meant when said a wife and children were
hostages to fortune. If you put them first, you probably won&#39;t run the
three-and-a-half-minute-mile, make your first $10 million, write the
great American novel, or go around the world on a motorcycle. Such
goals take complete dedication.REFERENCE: Jim Rogers (2003). Investment Biker (pp. 115-116). New York: Random House.]]></description>
            <pubDate>2009/12/11 11:07:45</pubDate>
            <guid><![CDATA[奮拼一方:3470]]></guid>
         </item>         <item>
            <title><![CDATA[身兼兩職亦不夠]]></title>
            <link><![CDATA[http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/goodchessclub/article?mid=3480]]></link>
            <description><![CDATA[For Richard Crane, the &quot;new normal&quot; in the labor market began when
he was laid off from a New Jersey battery plant in the summer of 2006.
Mr. Crane had been earning more than $100,000 a year operating heavy
machinery at Delco, a former unit of General Motors. He worked there
for 23 years, since graduating from high school. But when he lost his
job he was thrust into a netherworld of part-time gigs: working the
registers at Taco Bell, organizing orders at McDonald&#39;s, whatever he
could find.
&quot;I thought it would be temporary,&quot; says Mr. Crane, 49 years old.
Three years later, he is selling outdoor furniture by day and pumping
gas by night, while worrying about his skills atrophying and spending
scant time with his teenage son. He makes about a third of his former
pay.
Mr.
Crane is part of a growing group of underemployed -- people in
part-time jobs who want full-time work or people in jobs that don&#39;t
employ their skills. Since the recession began two years ago, the
number of people involuntarily working part-time jobs has more than
doubled to 9.3 million, according to the federal Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the highest number on record.
The proliferation of underemployed could represent a profound
reordering of the employment structure. Many people who had comfortable
full-time jobs with benefits and advancement opportunities now are
cobbling together smaller jobs often at lower pay, in a shift that
economists say could become permanent for many individuals stuck in the
cycle. Underemployment, along with unemployment, is widely seen as a
force slowing the economic recovery.
The trend has been building for years, says Robert Reich, who served
as labor secretary under President Bill Clinton and now is a professor
of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley. &quot;For
decades, workers have been watching their salaries and benefits erode,&quot;
says Mr. Reich, who took an 8% pay cut last week, along with the rest
of the Berkeley faculty.
&quot;We are subjecting millions of people to a standard of living below
that which they could achieve if the economy were at full capacity,&quot; he
says. &quot;Underemployment means that many more people who can&#39;t spend as
much as they otherwise would.&quot;
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke last week lamented in a speech
to the Economic Club of New York that the number of underemployed is
rising much faster than during previous recessions. And the average
workweek has fallen to 33 hours, the lowest level in the post-World War
II period.
&quot;These data suggest that the excess supply of labor is even greater
than indicated by the unemployment rate alone,&quot; Mr. Bernanke said. The
unemployment rate is now 10.2%.&nbsp;Among
the underemployed is Marty Rasmussen of Walnut Creek, Calif., who was a
banking executive for more than 15 years. He and his wife earned a
combined income of more than $250,000 a year. As a hobby, he built
cabinets and furniture.
Two years ago, he was laid off by a big bank in San Francisco. While
job-hunting, he volunteered to build cabinets for a local Lutheran
church, and some fellow parishioners hired him to do work. His onetime
hobby became his sole source of income. In the last year, he earned
more than $10,000 replacing windows and installing crown molding. He
just finished a pair of nightstands commissioned by a friend paying
$700. His wife also lost her job this year and is collecting
unemployment benefits. &quot;It is hard transitioning from hobbyist, because
I&#39;m used to giving my work as gifts,&quot; he says.
State labor officials and economists generally label the
underemployed as those who are working part-time when they would prefer
full-time work, as well as people who are working beneath their skill
level.
Federal
figures on the underemployed, however, don&#39;t count that second group --
those who are overqualified for their jobs. Still, the government&#39;s
broadest measure of labor underutilization -- known as the U6 -- has
more than doubled in the two years since the recession began to 17.5%,
and it is up from 12% just a year ago, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. This means that nearly one in five people are either
unemployed, involuntarily working part-time or &quot;marginally attached&quot; --
they want jobs but haven&#39;t searched in at least a month. It also counts
&quot;discouraged workers&quot; who have stopped searching.
&quot;The number would be much higher if we included the mechanical
engineers working at 7-Eleven,&quot; says Heidi Shierholz, who studies
underemployment at the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning
Washington think tank.
Melanie Donahoe might be one of them. The 56-year-old mother of
three who lives in Stuyvesant, N.Y, has watched her gross income as a
self-employed jeweler shrink from a peak of $55,000 to $40,000 when the
recession set in, to perhaps $25,000 this year. &quot;Between the recession
and the high price of gold, it just keeps slipping and slipping,&quot; she
says. This summer, she signed on for work as a government census taker,
which paid $15 an hour and tided her over for a few months. Then, she
joined a local Lowe&#39;s as a part-time cashier, earning $9 an hour. She
hopes it leads to full-time work.
After being laid off by the New Jersey battery plant in 2006, Mr.
Crane took a job stocking shelves at Costco in the fall of 2006. His
pay was $10.76 an hour -- the same money he earned when he was hired by
Delco in 1983, just out of high school. &quot;It&#39;s sad,&quot; says Mr. Crane, who
had been earning about $28 per hour at Delco, before overtime.
In late 2007, he took a job at Lowe&#39;s while working at a series of
fast-food jobs on the side, as well as a stint at Pathmark supermarket.
He still works at Lowe&#39;s, earning $15.96 an hour selling lawnmowers,
outdoor furniture and Christmas ornaments. At night, he pumps gas at a
Quick Check for $13.70 an hour.
Typically, he works between 61 and 63 hours per week. It wouldn&#39;t be
so bad, he says, if the hours were consecutive. But with the gap
between jobs, he can only sleep a few hours a night now -- sometimes
just an hour. Last week, he managed to clock 87 hours and barely saw
his son.
&quot;That&#39;s all I do -- every day -- I just keep working,&quot; he says. &quot;I&#39;ve got to. I&#39;m not going to lose everything I have.&quot;
His wife, who had been a stay-at-home-mother, also took a job. She earns about $20,000 working at a nursing home.
Last year, they collectively earned of about $42,000. This year, they expect between $48,000 and $50,000.
Mr. Crane has applied for hundreds of jobs, among them sanitation
worker, bridge painter, tree cutter and transit worker. There were some
factory openings, he says, but they pay less than Lowe&#39;s.
Over the summer, Mr. Crane&#39;s electricity was shut off, he says. He
paid the bill and had it restored. But he didn&#39;t pay the gas, which is
about $175 per month. Instead, all summer, they cooked on the grill
outside. Mr. Crane bought an electric hot water heater for baths and
laundry. They lived that way for three months before finally turning
the gas back on.
Ultimately, many economists expect the underemployment situation to
improve, but not for a few years. Companies are cutting back hours, so
as they pick up, they are likely to return hours to current staff
before hiring new people. &quot;This whole pool of people with reduced hours
means recovery of employment is that much farther off,&quot; says Ms.
Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute.
Eventually, employment will pick up. But for people like Mr. Crane, the current situation could become permanent.
As they work part-time, they have less time to look for work. Their
résumés, meanwhile, become spotty. &quot;If you have a string of jobs
beneath your skills, it erodes your resume and marketability,&quot; says Ms.
Shierholz.
Mr. Crane no longer sees his new life as temporary. He no longer
dreams of going and fixing equipment at the factory and operating big
machines.
&quot;My new goal is to become a manager at Lowe&#39;s,&quot; he says. &quot;That will
pay $17 an hour. I&#39;m hoping this happens in the next couple of years,
by the time my son is in high school.&quot;REFERENCE: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125962111284270397.html]]></description>
            <pubDate>2009/12/08 11:04:28</pubDate>
            <guid><![CDATA[身兼兩職亦不夠:3480]]></guid>
         </item>         <item>
            <title><![CDATA[再讀也多餘]]></title>
            <link><![CDATA[http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/goodchessclub/article?mid=3479]]></link>
            <description><![CDATA[In response to How Being The Slightest Bit Overqualified Can Cost You A Job I received several interesting Emails.Here
is an Email from &quot;PhD In Distress&quot; about overqualified candidates fresh
out of college with nowhere to go, competing for jobs that essentially
do not exist.&quot;PhD In Distress&quot; writes:Dear Mish,I very much enjoyed your article today “How Being The Slightest Bit Overqualified Can Cost You A Job”.
Although it seemed you and those giving comments seemed to focus on the
overqualification of experienced workers, I would like to bring the
plight of overqualified students (particularly PhD students) to your
attention. I say this as a PhD science student myself.In case
you are not familiar, the “typical” PhD undergoes the following path:
BS (usually adding significant debt) then PhD (most programs I know of
skip masters level and pay about $20000/year and take 5-7 years) then
postdoctoral experience (essentially you do the same work as your PhD
for an additional 2-3 years in a different lab except you only make
$35000/year) then you can attempt to get a job in either academia,
industry or government. I should also mention that student loans can be
put on hold while in a PhD program but not during a postdoc.The
postdoctoral experience has not been traditionally necessary for my
field to get a job in industry and I am attempting to do so sans
postdoc as I have no academic inclinations.The problem that I see is that when I look for a job using keywords in my field is that I get one of two postings:1) BS required, MS preferred (making up about 60% of postings)2) PhD with 5+ years experience (making up 20% of postings and sometimes academic experience such as postdoc won’t even count)This
means that I am overqualified for over half the positions that are
posted. Even worse, most of the positions for my level require
experiences that I cannot even obtain after my PhD.My plight is
no company in this economy will spend money on an entry level, unproven
PhD that will need 2+ years training before he/she is adding
significant value to the company.That leaves me and many others
with the only option being a postdoc. However, there has been a glut of
postdocs building since the 90s. More and more students are chasing
fewer and fewer academic positions (which require a postdoc).Many
of them simply give up and start looking for industrial positions. This
has not gone unnoticed by industry and has resulted in more and more
companies requiring experience for what should be entry level positions.The
great recession has only exacerbated the problem and now I know of
people on their third or fourth postdoc (mostly looking for academic
experience but still well into their 30s and making $35000 with a PhD).
This makes it even harder for recent grads just to get their first
postdoc. Again, why would a professor hire a new grad when he/she can
get someone with 3+ years experience and pay them the same?So
here I am highly educated with no place for a job. I’m overqualified
and overspecialized for 60% of the work yet simultaneously
underqualified for the other 40%. Moreover, there seems to be no way to
rectify the situation.Therefore, it should come as no surprise
that more and more domestic (US) students have begun to realize what a
raw deal a science PhD has become. This is reflected in lower numbers
of domestic PhD students over the past couple decades. Though this is
particularly bad for the US in the long run as foreign science PhD’s
increasingly return home to work in available and relatively well paying jobs.I feel particularly bad for the spike of new students entering a PhD program now to avoid the recession. If we will have structurally high unemployment for a decade
(for which you have made a compelling case) then we will have 2 more
“generations” of PhDs in an increasingly bleak situation. Even if the
economy improves it would take massive growth just to get through the
backlog of experienced postdocs and laid off scientists seeking
positions.In either case, my approaching graduation has made me
more aware and thoughtful of my situation and thought your article was
timely and informative. Keep up the great work spreading the word about
real recovery through sound money and policy!Just in case you
would like to share this, please do not use my name or initials.
Science is a very small and intellectually inbred community and not
very open to criticism.Thank you again,PhD In DistressPlight of the PhDThanks
to &quot;PhD In Distress&quot; for explaining the sorry plight of those seeking
higher degrees. When hiring does start, it will likely be with those
having a fresh degree than those who had been seeking employment for
years.These two posts should put a solid kibosh to the Obama
Administration&#39;s notion that education is the key to success and all we
have to do is give people more training.If corporations are not
hiring, all the education in the world will not do any good. In fact,
as these posts show, it can be a detriment.As I have stated before &quot;If everyone has a PhD, then PhD&#39;s will be driving trucks, mowing grass, and greeting at Walmart&quot;.Here is the lotto-like process described in “How Being The Slightest Bit Overqualified Can Cost You A Job”.500 résumés came in for an administrative assistant for a trucking company 61 were selected out of the first 271 for review The rest were not even looked atHighly overqualified candidates were weeded out on the first passSlightly overqualified candidates were weeded out in the second pass8 were selected for a one hour interview2 were invited back for a second one hour interview1 said she would try and grab a fly ball at a stadium ballpark in response to a random  question, the other would notWhen it came down to the final two candidates, the lucky lotto winner was the candidate willing to grab a fly ball.Escalating Costs Out Of Line The
cost of a US education seems enormously out of whack for what it
provides. Currently all that education buys you is a chance to enter a
lottery for the few jobs available where &quot;To land a job you have
to be the perfect candidate, near the top of the stack of résumés,
neither underqualified nor the slightest bit overqualified and you have
to be willing to grab at a fly ball&quot;With an education, you are forced to play Résumé Lotto hoping to be on the top of the stack, hoping for an interview, hoping for second interview, then hoping for an offer.However, without an education you will most likely be fighting for trade jobs, retail jobs, or government jobs.The education system has clearly broken down.College Price Comparison FlashbackIn 1971-1976 I attended the University of Illinois graduating with a B.S. in Civil Engineering.I
financed my way through college working at the Danville, Illinois
Holiday IGA grocery store in the summer, and by playing poker on
weekends against farmers in Cayuga Indiana and various other places. A
big night was making $100 as that was a whole week&#39;s wages at the
grocery store.Tuition was $250 a semester, and the U of I was
one of the best engineering schools in the country. Tuition was
something like $400 a semester my final year.University of Illinois Tuition is now in excess of $6,000 a semester.Whole
chickens on sale, and a loss leader at that were $.21 lb. You can
sometimes find them on sale for $.49 lb. You can easily find them for
$.69 lb on sale.Since 1971, chicken prices on sale have approximately tripled, the minimum wage has roughly quadrupled and the cost of tuition at the University of Illinois has gone up by a factor of 24.Something
is out of whack and it is not chicken prices or the minimum wage.
Currently, I do not think I could finance myself through college
playing poker on weekends against farmers in Cayuga Indiana, nor do I
think anyone else could either.With the cost of education up 24
times (and that is tuition only, not room and board) the trend in
education costs is simply not sustainable.REFERENCE: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/10/phds-in-distress-and-unsustainable-cost.html]]></description>
            <pubDate>2009/12/05 11:14:50</pubDate>
            <guid><![CDATA[再讀也多餘:3479]]></guid>
         </item>         <item>
            <title><![CDATA[「我要先打天下」]]></title>
            <link><![CDATA[http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/goodchessclub/article?mid=3468]]></link>
            <description><![CDATA[Diogenes [of Sinope] was a famous and very wise man. He found that owning things impaired his enjoyment of life. He narrowed his possessions down to only the clothes on his back and a bowl. Then one day he saw a dog drinking in the river and decided he really did not need a bowl. He became famous throughout the land. So famous that the most powerful man in the world at that time heard of him. Alexander the Great went to the river where Diogenes spent much time to meet him. They struck up a conversation and Alexander was extremely impressed. Toward the end of this conversation Alexander said to Diogenes. “I admire you more than any man on the face of this earth. One day I would like to be like you. To really relax and know myself.”Diogenes asked, “Why not do it now?”Alexander said, “No, I can’t. First I must conquer the world and then I will come back here and we will spend much time together.”Diogenes replied, “I never conquered the world, why don’t you stay now?”Alexander answered, “No, first I conquer the world, then I will come back.”Diogenes said, “You will never come back, you will die first.”Alexander did finish conquering the known world. His last conquest was India and sure enough he died on the way back from India.REFERENCE: Bill Williams and Justine Gregory-Williams (2004). Trading Chaos (2nd Ed., p.37-38). Hoboken: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc.]]></description>
            <pubDate>2009/12/02 11:51:21</pubDate>
            <guid><![CDATA[「我要先打天下」:3468]]></guid>
         </item>         <item>
            <title><![CDATA[貨幣泡沫]]></title>
            <link><![CDATA[http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/goodchessclub/article?mid=3466]]></link>
            <description><![CDATA[有官員提醒市民，要小心資產泡沫的形成，因為一旦爆破可能引發另一次金融危機。我不認同資產泡沫的說法，我認為現時在世界各地出現的是貨幣泡沫，不是資產泡沫；應該是先有貨幣泛濫，才引至資產價格上升。如果市民聽了政府官員的這番話，誤以為資產價格已升得太多，而不敢增持資產，最終可能無法保住辛勤努力所積累起來的成果。金融海嘯後，各國政府都落重藥，以免出現經濟蕭條。對那些大到不容倒閉的公司，政府會貸款給他們，或直接入股，把他們國有化。政府又從市場上買入毒資產，把個別企業的資產負債表上的問題，轉變成為全民的問題。此外，政府又減息，又放寬銀行的資本充足率。總之，要令市場不愁資金缺乏。可惜，實體經濟早已產能過剩，過多的資金根本沒有流入實體經濟的途徑。拿到資金的人，在生意不好的時候，怎會再去擴充業務？這樣必然會招至虧損。於是他們只好把資金拿去投資市場碰運氣。投資市場的特色是只要有新的資金流入，而流入的資金又比流出的多的話，資產價格就會上升。而價格上升正好證明之前的投資決定是正確的。於是吸引更多的資金流入，造成自我完成的良性循環，令資產價格升個沒完沒了。由於實體經濟根本沒有好轉，一般人的收入沒有增加，他們沒有條件去增加消費。在這種情況下，消費物價就沒法上升，升的只是資產價格。很多人因而覺得資產價格有點升得不合理，因而稱之為資產泡沫。然而，持這種看法的人，沒有注意到造成資產泡沫的原因，是貨幣有泡沫；如果政府沒有具體的行動去退出市場，依然推出寬鬆的貨幣政策，那資產價格就一定升完還會再升。如果不把手上的貨幣換成資產，將來只會換得更少。因此，把貨幣換成資產是投資者的理性自保行為，今天就叫人小心資產泡沫，可能為時太早，結果可能累到投資者先是走失機會，繼而「臨天光瀨尿」，損失更加慘重。我認為，這股把現金換成資產的熱潮正方興未艾，不會這麼快就爆煲。在投資市場上，一種趨勢一旦形成，就非要走到極端，才會有掉頭的機會。所謂走到極端，就是市場出現非理性亢奮，完全失去理性。今天的市場仍相對理性，投資者心目中仍有不少憂慮，故不似會這麼快就逆轉。全世界現時以中國的經濟前景最為樂觀，資金都想投入中國，但中國有外匯管制，故資金只好先來香港等機會。此之所以，今年流入香港的資金超過六千億元，創了歷史紀錄。在資金泛濫的情況下，無論官員一再警告，亦將無法阻擋資產價格一升再升。資料來源：施永青（2009, Nov 27）。是貨幣泡沫非資產泡沫。am730，p.06。]]></description>
            <pubDate>2009/11/30 11:35:49</pubDate>
            <guid><![CDATA[貨幣泡沫:3466]]></guid>
         </item>         <item>
            <title><![CDATA[不知也禪]]></title>
            <link><![CDATA[http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/goodchessclub/article?mid=3458]]></link>
            <description><![CDATA[The heart of Zen is the koan, a question with no rational answer, such as why does ice cream have no bones? Observe your mind as you focus on such a question. Does it strive for an answer or does it reject it as ridiculous? A feeling of “don’t know” is generally uncomfortable for most Westerners. But just let it be okay to “don’t know.” Look for that open spacious feeling of the don’t-know mind. The don’t-know mind has room for absolutely anything and everything.Choose a situation in your trading whose outcome cannot be predicted. Focus your attention on the question, while trying to maintain a sense of “don’t know” in your mind. Notice the attempts to make rational predictions. Is it in a fifth wave? Is there a conjunction of Jupiter and Mars? Watch your mind as it vacillates between answer seeking and “don’t know.” Try incorporating more of “don’t know” into your daily life. Will I catch that plane? Don’t know. Will the bus be on time? Don’t know. Will the bonds go up tomorrow? Don’t know.[...] Remember that how we respond to whatever happens is more important, in the long run, than what happens. This approach teaches us that how we respond to our thoughts is more important than the thoughts themselves. We are learning to watch the process of the mind, instead of getting caught up in the content of each thought that passes through. And we know that the process of learning to deal skillfully with whatever occurs is far more important than attempting to control the outcome or content of each particular incident in our lives.If we practice living in the now, with awareness of and compassion for our daily fears and desires, we can deal powerfully and effectively with whatever happens in our lives. Painful thoughts, even unpleasant events, can be used to remind us of the meditative work that is our most real and important job on this Earth. In this way we can turn all that happens, painful or pleasant, into grist for our meditative mill. We will be building our bridges from the very boulders that seem to block our path.&nbsp;REFERENCE: Bill Williams and Justine Gregory-Williams (2004). Trading Chaos (2 Ed., p.80-81). Hoboken: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc.]]></description>
            <pubDate>2009/11/27 11:36:46</pubDate>
            <guid><![CDATA[不知也禪:3458]]></guid>
         </item>         <item>
            <title><![CDATA[梅鐸封殺Google？]]></title>
            <link><![CDATA[http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/goodchessclub/article?mid=3453]]></link>
            <description><![CDATA[
梅鐸擬伙微軟阻Google「偷新聞」 搜尋器搶新聞大戰一觸即發 【明報專訊】全球報業在互聯網挑戰下危機日深，傳媒大亨梅鐸最近便公開點名抨擊Google新聞檢索服務，形同「偷新聞」。英美傳媒透露，梅鐸旗下新聞集團正與微軟&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;洽談結盟對付Google，若成事，Google將不能再檢索新聞集團旗下傳媒的網上新聞，而微軟則可透過支付巨款，令梅鐸傳媒王國的新聞內容，成為微軟網站的轉載或檢索內容。分析指協議可能為全球報業帶來重生曙光。
微軟付費 不讓Google檢索
新聞集團旗下報章，包括美國&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;最高銷量的《華爾街日報》，以至英國暢
銷小報《太陽報》。消息稱，新聞集團跟微軟的談判仍處初步階段，談判內容重點之一，是把新聞集團的新聞內容，從Google的大規模索引目錄系統中移除，
意味這些報道內容將不會出現在Google的搜索結果中。在網頁加入特定指令後，任何網站都能阻止在Google被搜索到。
雙方還討論了一些敏感議題，包括微軟就新聞集團提供的新聞內容，應怎樣付款。暫未知結盟談判會否還包括新聞集團旗下報章以外的媒體，例如社交網站MySpace或霍士電視&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;新聞等。
跟網上出版機構洽談類似協議
英國《金融時報》稱，微軟除了和新聞集團洽談，亦同時接洽其他大型傳媒機構，希望他們同意將旗下網站內容，從Google搜尋引擎中移走。微軟正大
力推擴旗下的Bing搜尋器，今次拉攏其他傳媒機構聯手封殺Google，意味網上搜尋器爭奪新聞網站內容的大戰一觸即發。一間獲微軟接洽的網上出版機構
表示，「如果搜尋引擎準備給我們付錢，以換取將網站內容寫入索引目錄，這將意味資訊內容的價值可大增。」
美聯社及新聞集團等多間傳媒，都批評Google和一些大網站，未經授權羅列他們的新聞內容連結，甚至節錄新聞的部分內容，形同偷竊。但
Google和一些入門網站堅稱，列出新聞報道摘要是他們的合法權利，而且網站提供了超連結，能讓網民點擊進入相關新聞機構的網站報道，有助增加一眾新聞
機構網站的人流。
梅鐸早前已揚言，會採取法律手段阻止Google再「盜用」新聞集團旗下網站的新聞內容。梅鐸直指：「若他們肯向全世界所有人和所有報紙，為他們（Google）所挪走的東西付款，他們將沒有利潤可剩。」
Google發言人表示，他們在資料檢索上有「明確政策」，Google尊重版權持有人，版權持有者有方法避免自己的內容在Google搜索結果中
顯示。發言人說：「我們相信搜索引擎會讓報紙真正受益，並將有價值的流量引導到其網站，協助他們與全球各地的新讀者聯繫起來。」
華爾街日報/華盛頓&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;郵報合作模式倘成功 全球報業或有救 
 【明報專訊】自互聯網興起，報業在如何建立一套可牟利的網上商業模式上，始終毫無頭緒。美國報業廣告收入今年第3季下跌了28%，至只有64.4億美元&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;（約500億港元），多間傳媒機構都計劃向網上訂戶收費，但成效難料，反而當前的搜尋器大戰，卻可能幫報業殺出一條賺錢血路。
拜Google所賜，人們現時輸入網址的機會已極少。若網頁在Google搜尋不到，就像一個城鎮通往外邊的橋樑全被拆掉。更何况在網上資訊氾濫下，除非新聞內容極獨到，否則這邊一收錢，網民大可去別的地方瀏覽。這正是網上新聞一直難以收費的原因。
搜尋器連結助新聞網增流量
Google會羅列從各大新聞網站所抓得的新聞條目，讓用家一口氣瀏覽搜尋，當用家按下連結，就會連到該篇新聞所在的網站，由於夠方便，吸引了大量
網民，廣告收入自然也水漲船高。但問題是Google沒有跟這些新聞網站版權持有人，有任何瓜分廣告利潤的協議，這意味Google的廣告收入全數「自己袋」。
美國主要媒體，包括《華爾街日報》及美聯社，都炮轟Google等網站。梅鐸&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;早前便抨擊他們是竊取報業勞動成果的「竊賊」，傳統媒體需要花很多錢才能拿出上佳的內容和報道，但「一些人只是四處搜掠，竊取了我們的新聞故事」。梅鐸表明旗下媒體如《泰晤士報》和《太陽報》等的網站，將逐步改為收費網站。
梅鐸封殺Google 恐失大量讀者
今次梅鐸與微軟洽
談「付錢換新聞檢索」合作協議，將是一場賭博，若Google用戶無法再搜尋到新聞集團的新聞內容，集團將面臨流失大量讀者的風險，但如果成功，全球報業
便有機會找到新聞賣錢的法門。Google最近正試圖淡化報章內容對網站的重要性，強調不需要新聞內容來生存，因為它不是公司產生利潤的主要部分。資料來源：http://hk.news.yahoo.com/event/fc/20091124/inmurdochms.html (明報 A21版, 24-11-2009)]]></description>
            <pubDate>2009/11/24 19:26:37</pubDate>
            <guid><![CDATA[梅鐸封殺Google？:3453]]></guid>
         </item>         <item>
            <title><![CDATA[為何股市會再插]]></title>
            <link><![CDATA[http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/goodchessclub/article?mid=3447]]></link>
            <description><![CDATA[The trillions squandered on &quot;stabilization&quot; is not leading to &quot;recovery&quot; of the 
real economy; it is only life support keeping a sick economy from imploding. The
stock market rally rests on rapidly crumbling sand.

I&#39;m not saying the stock market will crash, only that if it had any relation
to the real  U.S. economy that it should crash, and soon.

The current politics of experience (a key concept in Survival+) is so warped by 
misleading statistics and orchestrated propaganda that it feels strange to
state the obvious and find it is &quot;that which cannot be spoken&quot;: the 
credit-dependent, consumer-dependent U.S. economy is going down, and going down
hard, and the trillions of dollars borrowed and spent by the U.S. government and Federal 
Reserve to crank up a recovery have failed completely, utterly and totally.

The basic idea of Keynesian policy is simple: when the wheels fall off the private,
quasi-free enterprise economy, then the government borrows and  spreads mountains
of money around like fertilizer which will stimulate &quot;green shoots&quot; of recovery.

The forgotten key to successful Keynesian policy is a government which has not been 
borrowing and spending trillions of dollars even during an era of so-called &quot;prosperity.&quot;  When a
government like the U.S. has been propping up &quot;prosperity&quot; with trillions in borrowed
money for a decade, then doubling or tripling the &quot;stimulus&quot; in the hopes that the green shoots
will be enduring is truly farcical.

If the economy needed several trillion dollars in deficit spending to eke out the meager
jobless growth of 2001-2007, then why does anyone think that doubling or tripling
that deficit spending will create an enduring boom?

The truth is the U.S. economy has been dependent on Federal stimulus for years, both
the indirect stimulus of artificially low interest rates and unlimited liquidity,
and the direct spending of hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars.

Even before the financial crisis, the Federal government was borrowing and spending
$400 billion a year to prop up &quot;prosperity.&quot;  All that spending simply
papered over the rot at the core of the economy:

1.  The primary support of the U.S. economy is consumer spending which is ultimately based on
household income and assets.

Earned income has been flat to down for most Americans for years. The median
income has been skewed upwards by the top 10% whose earnings have risen significantly.
According to the 
Bureau of Economic Analysis, real disposable personal income--
income adjusted for inflation and taxes--declined 3.4 percent in the third quarter 
after increasing 3.8 percent in the second quarter.

In an economy dependent on consumer spending for 70% of GDP, how can GDP rise by 3.5%
while personal income plummeted by 3.4%? Assuming that boost in GDP is real and not 
just statistical legerdemain, then where did it come from? From borrowed money, of course--
the Federal government borrowed and spent over $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2009.

In the good old days of 2002-2007, households would have borrowed and spent hundreds of
billions as well. But the consumer, beset by declining assets ($13 trillion lost in
the past two years), declining income (see above), falling housing values and 
worrisome employment trends (17% unemployment/underemployment, broadly measured), is actually cutting
back on borrowing:
Revolving Consumer Credit Drops 13.1% in August.

Consumer credit decreased at an annual rate of 5-3/4 percent in August 2009.  
Revolving credit (credit cards) decreased at an annual rate of 13 percent, and 
nonrevolving credit decreased at an annual rate of 1-1/2 percent--the  longest decline 
in consumer debt since 1991.

So while households are still burdened with almost $2.5 trillion credit card and 
nonrevolving debt (auto loans, etc.), they are paying debt down, not adding more.

And let&#39;s not forget that homeowners pulled out about $5 trillion in home equity in
2001-2007, and the home equity ATM is closed for good. That brings us to:

2. The primary asset in most U.S. households is a home, and home values are still dropping,
foreclosures are still rising and the only force keeping the market from falling faster
is the Federal government&#39;s defacto nationalization of the entire U.S. mortgage market.

Of the $1.5 trillion mortgage securities issued in 2009,
a mere 1% ($15 billion) have been issued by banks 99% are backed by the government.
The government owns over half the nation&#39;s $10 trillion in mortgages via its defacto
ownership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it has guaranteed virtually all the mortgages 
originated in the past year via FHA or VA.

The residential mortgage market is now effectively owned lock, stock and barrel by the Federal government
and its private &quot;central bank&quot;, the Federal Reserve.

Should the Fed and Treasury reduce their subsidies (that wonderful $8,000 giveaway
tax credit to new home buyers or anyone claiming to be one), guarantees and outright
purchases of mortgages ($1.2 trillion this year alone), then the mortgage market
would instantly freeze up or start pricing in the very real risk that housing is
not &quot;recovering&quot; and that anyone holding a mortgage could suffer huge losses if real estate
continues declining in value.

Here are a few charts to ponder:
















Credit Creaks into Gear: 
With a big boost from the feds, investors again like securities backed by assets 
like car loans—but it&#39;ll take years for lending to flow freely.


Cracks in the Foundation of the Fed&#39;s Housing Fix
A Wall Street power broker worries about what happens when government aid ends


Foreclosures Continue to Put a Damper on Home Prices.

3. So how have companies &quot;surprised&quot; with higher profits? By slashing payrolls, R&amp;D and 
various accounting tricks. Actual revenue growth is missing in action. So how do you
keep &quot;surprising to the upside&quot; after you&#39;ve slashed headcount, burned R&amp;D and turned every
accounting trick in the book?

The GDP Mirage
By overlooking cuts in research and development, product design, and worker training, 
GDP is greatly overstating the economy&#39;s strength


You don&#39;t. A stock market rising on the hopes of an actual, real, tangible recovery
in household income, home equity and creditworthiness is seeing mirages and 
hallucinating that the lake just ahead is deep and wonderful and stretches to the horizon.

Only we never reach the &quot;lake,&quot; do we? &quot;Stabilization&quot; is a chimera;
the reality is the government is propping up the economy via unprecedented
borrowing and spending, and there is absolutely no evidence that private capital,
credit or spending are rising from the &quot;stabilization.&quot;

 We are walking through the desert, kept alive by the sugar-water drip
of Federal stimulus, guarantees and subsidies.  The &quot;so near, yet so far&quot; mirage 
of &quot;recovery&quot; has been propping up the stock market for
nine months, and when a slight breeze blows away the thermal illusion,
then the market will crash back to the March lows, or perhaps even lower. 
That crash will simply reflect the state of the real economy. REFERENCE: Charles Smith (2009, Nov 16).&nbsp; Stating the Obvious: Why the Stock Market Should Crash. From: http://www.oftwominds.com/blognov09/market-should-crash11-09.html]]></description>
            <pubDate>2009/11/22 16:27:33</pubDate>
            <guid><![CDATA[為何股市會再插:3447]]></guid>
         </item>        </channel>
        </rss><!-- w4.blog.hk2.yahoo.com compressed/chunked Fri Dec 18 05:33:36 HKT 2009 -->
