(開啟字幕) 貧窮的原因：基因、思維和選擇-《窮人經濟學》（Poor Economics）和《自然》期刊的研究，左派政黨的盲點

趙氏曾任教於美國Bryant University 、北京理工大學珠海學院、深圳大學、香港樹仁大學、臺灣中央研究院近史所，歷任客座教授、副教授、研究員、助理教授、高級訪問學者；現任國立中山大學臺港研究中心研究員（兼任）。
2018年獲中國經濟思想史優秀（一等）著作獎，研究題目包括經濟思想、經濟史、政治經濟學，出版著作二十一部，論文三十餘篇。英國權威出版社 Routledge給予 "中國和西方頂尖學者（leading Chinese and Western scholar）" 的評價。
《趙氏讀書生活》，一個歷史學者的平台，分享學術、社會、政治經濟觀察，請以每月5元美元獲取收費平台Patreon的參考資料、獨家專欄、史學和哲學短講分享：
/ chiusreading
或於KZbin 上按加入成為會員，可獲影片的參考資料
/ @gctalk
/ drgavinchiu
PayPal.me/chiusreading
工作洽談：[e-mail]
Wise開戶連結：wise.com/invite/u/sinc262
virgin 上網連結：aklam.io/lRJws0
octopus電媒連結：share.octopus.energy/straw-li...
Gavin Sin Hin Chiu (趙善軒) is a well-known academic with expertise in the areas of economic thought, economic history, and political economy. He has taught at several universities, including Bryant University in the United States, the Zhuhai College of Beijing Institute of Technology, Shenzhen University, Hong Kong Shue Yan University, and the Institute of Modern History at the Taiwan Central Research Institute. He has also served as a visiting professor, associate professor, researcher, assistant professor, and senior visiting scholar.
In 2018, Dr. Chiu was awarded the first-class award for outstanding works in the history of Chinese economic thought. He has published twenty-one books and more than thirty papers, and the UK's authoritative publisher, Routledge, has evaluated him as a "leading Chinese and Western scholar."
In his book, "The Political Economy of the Han Dynasty and Its Legacy," Dr. Chiu and co-author S.C. Kwan examine monetary thought in the Han Dynasty and Three Kingdoms period (220-280 BCE). In the article, "The 'Cold War' between Ho Ping Ti and Academia Sinica. The Changing Political Identity of the Overseas Chinese," Dr. Chiu examines the political and intellectual conflict between Professor Ho Ping Ti and Academia Sinica during the period of 1967-1990.
Dr. Chiu is also the co-author of "The Income of the Customs during Late Ming and Early Qing," a book review of the "Note of the Customs Duties in the Qing Dynasty, 1644-1911," and the editor of "Search from the Beginning: The Intellectual Thought and Education in pre-Qin and Qin-Han Dynasties."

[@gctalk]

《趙氏讀書生活》，一個歷史學者的平台，分享學術、社會、政治經濟觀察，請以每月5元美元獲取收費平台Patreon的參考資料、獨家專欄、史學和哲學短講分享： www.patreon.com/Chiusreading

[@Yuenming-Tao-TX]

趙博,如果你想多勞多得就可能要返香講。新香講人好多都是打幾份工,月入三~四萬(不過一日做十八個鐘)。 好多人就是不接受社會貧富是有不公平,左膠及共燈都會有市場。因為這可以將d財富再洗牌。(又是人類他者福佳主義)。

[@Yuenming-Tao-TX]

13:57 唔好忘記, 香講d人教育好高, 都不打申冠針了。因為d人怕疫苗會過敏反而早"史"。這是他者福佳主義。

[@Yuenming-Tao-TX]

14:30 香講較少d人去食物銀行。英角多左人去食物銀行其中一個原因是 收多了很多窮移民。

[@Yuenming-Tao-TX]

16:05 歷史的淘淵明不是躺平。他是想去一個桃花源記的世界。

[@Yuenming-Tao-TX]

16:52 想d子女懂理財, 得一招, 唔好炒股票。股票從來8~9成人是輸錢。贏的永遠是莊家及大岳。(香講仁永遠忘記點輸錢，努力工作又搵得番,永遠當"坐艇"是"長線投資", 實則是安慰自己輸錢心態) 。現在又玩加密貨幣, 又是別類賭的方式。

[@joanchan1287]

不平等是程度上的問題，極端的不平等是主要問題。貧窮也有惡性循環的問題。我出身非常貧窮家庭，怎麼努力也跳不出這個惡性循環的圈圈內，祇是生活改善一些，更不要說上一層次的教育機會。後來結婚，幸運是丈夫家境比我好很多，我們有一些積蓄，我們用它來投資，而且我們非常節省，如今也算是中上階層人士。想跳出貧窮的圈子，是需要外來的幫助，教育和自身的意識。政府要教育人民如何維生，而不是直接給予。

[@carlosgg90116]

😂原來靠男人

[@joanchan1287]

補充： 當年我先生的人工和積蓄可以養活一家四口. 我的收入可以幫助媽媽那邊. 當時父親已經過新. 後來我的人工可以用作投資.這不是誰靠誰, 是共同經營. 女人要獨立, 靠誰都是低下.

[@dcar6530]

好似港英時代 free economy 咪幾好. 有上游機會.

[@Meilam2]

靠賣🐔脫窮就唔好講出黎啦

[@saichungching8011]

@@Meilam2 你身邊無屋企人做家庭主婦嗎？ 尊重自己尊重別人

[@JORDANANDLONDON]

平時都有聽開趙博既CHANNEL, 好多觀點同角度都好中肯, 惟今次實在不敢苟同 你所窮人既問題係因為係佢地既思維、腦部發展以及缺乏長遠規劃既問題 如果套用係發展中國家，或者還講得過去 但如果係已發展國家，例如日本、台灣、英美、香港、南韓等地 我認為趙博今次忽略左好多因素 就以日本為例，教育率之高係世界數一數二，中小學既膳食制度係戰後沿用幾十年至今都好成功 依家日經上到四萬點，但同時日本人既出生率繼續下跌，年輕人既收入中位數冇升過，但通脹卻近幾年持續上升 問題係出於社會太依賴金融投資，股市既表現完全不能夠反映實際社會既經濟 老一輩同有錢既人佔去社會上大部份既資源，經濟既紅利都落係呢班人既手上而唔係年輕人 呢條片入面，撇除講AV/風俗產業既部份，有詳細講到日本既經濟數字以及結構問題 kzbin.info/www/bejne/fp3Kipyvrduip5Y 另外收入與房租價格比例問題，亦可見一斑 kzbin.infoB2T8TLIiLcA www.economicshelp.org/blog/5568/housing/uk-house-price-affordability/ Boomer年代既人買樓/租樓既壓力遠比依家年輕人既小 係香港、台灣同英國係非常明顯，我諗各位香港既聽眾應該切身感受到 係已發展國家入面，貧富懸殊既問題日趨嚴重 呢D唔係只靠改善營養攝取以及教育就可以改善到既問題 問題核心係社會財富不均 現有既社會制度之下，有錢既人更有能力去壓榨貧窮既人 貧窮既人要向上流比以前更難 趙博分析中國歷史既經濟問題, 我覺得對比現今社會既實況過於離地 古時未有工業化，經濟主要靠人既勞動力去增長, 例如一個家有多D男丁就有機會有更高既收入 但現今社會既情況已經完全唔同，生活質素同方便程度已經同古時有好大既分別 但為何今時今日現代人仍然為左依、食、住、行去擔憂? 一個理想/健康既社會應該係, 如果你想要有更好既物質生活，就要靠努力去得到 但如果你只係想平平淡淡咁過活，租個普通地方住，一星期出一次街食飯，一年去一次旅行/兩次小旅行，有一門唔太奢侈既興趣 係唔應該要一星期返60個鐘頭工/打兩份工，交埋BILL同稅所餘無幾 人應該有自由去選擇樸實平凡既生活，而唔駛博晒命咁去付出自己既時間同勞力以糊口 但實況就係後者居多 如果一個政府冇發揮佢均富既作用，社會係必然會發生呢D問題

[@JORDANANDLONDON]

現實既發展走向就係Cyberpunk所提出既預言 社會既科技發展係唔會改變到平民百姓既生活 因為最先受惠於科技既係政府同有錢人 佢地能夠利用科技去幫助佢地斂財同壓榨平民 如果未來冇UBI同有效既房屋政策去確保平民生活既話 未來只會係有錢人逼平民離開大城市搬去更遠既地方生活，同時走唔到既人就要承受水平更差既生活

[@Fwtw7]

富人同有資源嘅人仲會不停作一堆理論黎pua班”窮”人添😂

[@gctalk]

經濟既紅利都落係呢班人既手上而唔係年輕人此說法在廿年前還可解釋 近廿年網上經濟興起，現在是AI時代，年輕人比上一代人更有優勢，更易打破社會固化，除非是長期疾病，貧窮更多是自己選擇。

[@WorkAllDay311]

趙博講嘅好有道理, 但管理一個國家唔係只有發展, 要國民有幸福感, 社會公平D係好有幫助, 北歐國家本身無條件同人競爭, 但國家細有條件走幸福感路線, 而佢地都未餓死. 工黨仲未亡黨正係因為窮人思維同中產思維都有盲點, 需要互相補足攞個平衡.

[@---qy1iy]

趙博，純粹交流討論一下，自己也是班門弄斧。 像是南北戰爭前，南方的農奴的生產力、飲食都比北方的自由農高(當然是青壯的農奴)。 的確在奴隸主的皮鞭下，集中管理的高效下，生產力會比較高。 衣食住行上，食住會比自由農好不奇，但衣和行？ 一個自由農要是收成好，那他就會去消費。想買新衣服，那要去找裁縫；想要件新家具，那要找木匠：想要新鞋，那會找鞋匠。 那在需求推動供應，推動工商業的發展。 結果北方就是工業社會，槍炮彈藥全都能自己生產，源源不絕送上前線；但是南方則一直停留在中世紀的莊園經濟，後期南方的游擊隊，要徒手去伏擊北軍，搶走北軍的武器。 結果就是效率更低的北軍，打敗了南軍。

[@gctalk]

這個1993年諾貝爾經濟學獎得主向詳細研究

[@---qy1iy]

​@@gctalk 明白，Robert William Fogel的權威，我不懷疑。 但想說說效率上南方是比北方比較高，但不一定是比北方更好的制。 今天中共下，大量工人，禁止他們組織工會，要求工資、安全、工時等條件。是，可以每月不到一千元，那他們就可以工作得不錯。 甚至比美國每天工作只八小時，工資更高，還要工作安全的工作效率更高。 但一個美國工人，會買房、車、衣服、去旅行。他會不斷消費，這樣經濟才可以發展起來。 但如果一直要去壓榨工人，那社會消費的人不多，最終也會被效率更低，但經濟發展得更好的體制所打敗。

[@samckwong]

澳洲就系咁。幾十年前d醫生已每週返四天工作。每日五六個鐘。每個症睇十五分鐘。一年去四五次旅行。賺咁多為咩。最高稅率系打一半。😂

[@kevin95812]

勸告人唔好生仔係非常人道。

[@carlosgg90116]

真，窮人真係唔好生小朋友😢

[@Kelvin198811999]

只因世界上富有的人不需要更多富有的人，反之佢地係需要更多窮人去給他們使用，所以在各方面去製造窮人。 只要你站在富人那邊想，也不用做那麼多研究，財富金字塔是永恆的。只是你站在那一層而已。 感謝趙博分享。

[@ntonyworkshop]

窮人無得製造嘅。窮人之所以係窮人，係因為佢哋嘅行為同決定使然。 有錢人只係暫時有優勢。佢哋維持到係有錢人，係因為佢哋知道點先會有錢，同埋佢願意為財富出付出同取捨。 若認為富不過三代，咁窮人又點可能係製造出來嘅呢？ 窮人三大特質： 1. 認為自己無法脫貧，係因為有錢人用優勢㩒住你唔俾你發圍。 2. 認為自己永遠無法脫離貧窮。 3. 認為貧窮係因為缺乏機會或者資源。 乜嘢「創業容易守業難」又係廢話，有錢人嘅都會生到個廢物，或者「唔上進」嘅仔㗎嘛。遺傳係隨機由父母兩者身上得來。現代有錢人，都好多時同依賴者生育下一代。你睇名星同有錢佬點生育就知啦。「社會」唔係咁簡單。

[@Kelvin198811999]

@@ntonyworkshop 試想想，社會是均富的話，基層工作有誰去做呢，甚至均富到大家都不用工作，那麼工作由誰來做？ 所以你會見到社會是均貧居多。貧窮是最好控制民眾嘅方法。自古以來都是這樣。 人吃飽了，不愁衣食，就會追求更高層次嘅滿足，可能會向政制嘅方面做成威脅，所以當權者，富人，只會做多些窮人而不會讓他們变富有來威脅到他們。😊

[@ntonyworkshop]

@@Kelvin198811999 均富社會唔一定無人做基層嘢。有人真係鍾意做搬搬抬抬手板眼見功夫。反而係厭惡功夫無人想做，例如倒垃圾、洗廁所。不過因為人工高，起我住緊嘅歐洲地方，反而唔缺人做。咁均唔均高？倒垃圾可能搵得多過一般GP。 問題係，有無唔俾人想靠賣力又好，賣才又好，努力搵多幾個錢，過自己想要嘅生活嘅機會。你鍾意唔返工湊仔，無問題。我鍾意唔生仔而去搵錢，都應該有得選擇呢種生活方式。多頂交嘅稅用來教育下一代。因為下一代到時要頂我份退休保障。唔係要捱死人哋個仔囉。將心比己。 有錢人，係唔需要刻意製造更多窮人㗎。亦唔係咁易做到。窮人係自然會大把，唔使自己花費功夫㗎。社會結構係咁，你唔剝削，亦都自己有一批人係地底泥。容我講難聽少少。呢個係自然規律。 講真，我眼見最窮嗰批人，真係無可能會一世咁窮。除咗係國家本身就係經營得差嘅地方。呢類人係有住自己抵死嘅問題㗎⋯⋯又請容我講得咁難聽。

[@user-kv4lk4mc4n]

富不過三代 但貧窮往往超越三代 所以要努力成富一代 為家族改寫命運

[@J00a_b]

富不過三代都好信 大排有錢人家族富左好多代

[@DataVisualisetheWorld]

不生貧窮就只會一代

[@user-gn5bt9pw4g]

基層 是大多數 是不能改變 可以改變 生活條件改善 過有尊嚴生活(主要是減少剝削)

[@hiutopun]

深感認同向中產收重稅令人缺乏向上流動動力 我身處澳洲，專業人士，大多數同事一星期番三至四日，番多一日交多咗嘅稅俾多咗嘅托兒費用，比番少一日只係多幾十蚊 好多人都係話，番咁多工，攞晒嚟交稅不如唔好番，每日都一大堆人射波攞病假 即使係學校，讀到書嘅就繼續讀，讀唔到嘅就同你講，唔緊要㗎，社會係一個大機器，總會有人係小齒輪，你都好重要㗎

[@flyingzone356]

I know I've already written a very long comment on this video. But there's another point that I'd like to add which I didn't mention in my last comment. Dr. Chiu is a Renaissance man, very knowledgeable in many fields - from anthropology to history, from economics to sociology, from geopolitics and even literature. However, Dr. Chiu rarely talks about psychology. I am a psychology college professor, so maybe my insight in my speciality may hopefully add something new to Dr. Chiu's perspective, which is quite typical of those who embrace conservative economic policies. Their common argument is that a progressive taxation system disincentivizes both wealthy people and poor people to work harder, hence reducing productivity in the long run. This view essentially hinges upon the portrayal of human beings as Homo Economicus, i.e. agents who are narrowly self-interested and who pursue their subjectively defined ends optimally. In other words, say when a middle-class person wakes up in the morning, according to this view, they would say to themselves: "Geez, since I am paying so much tax to help those whom I don't know, why should I work so hard at all?" Or when a working-class person wakes up in the morning, they would say to themselves: "Whether I work or not, the state will take care of me, so why should I get up to work?" While indeed some people like these do exist, they are definitely the minority. The most determining factors that incentivize (or disincentivize) people to work are not merely external ones (in psychology, we call extrinsic reinforcement), but internal ones (intrinsic reinforcement) which are no less important. The latter include a sense of pride, a sense of honor, a sense of autonomy, a sense of recogntion, etc. etc. etc. And none of these are economically-based factors. For example, I am pretty sure when Dr. Chiu wakes up in the morning and decides how to execute his agenda for the day, the last thing that comes to his mind would be: "Geez, I'll be paying so much tax, what should I work so hard today?" Yes, we do whine and complain about the taxes that we pay - but mostly during tax declaration season only. In reality, the tax rate probably ranks probably among the least important in terms of what motivates one to work or not. So the idea that high tax rate discourages the middle class from working hard and encourages them to emigrate to seek greener pasture where taxes are lower is simply just a myth perpetuated by right-winged economists and politicians. This myth is so well-accepted because it seems easy to understand and appeals to the gut instinct of most people, including even very learned and intelligent ones like Dr. Chiu. However, the truth is that people's psychological reality does NOT work like that at all, and the idea that human beings are mere "economic men" has in fact been discredited, even by certain economists themselves. At the end of the day, for example, you don't see a huge number of Finns, Swedes, Norwegians, Dutch, or even Canadians emigrating to the United States where the taxation rate is lower, and in fact in comparison to the aforementioned Scandinavian and Benelux countries, MUCH MUCH MUCH lower.

[@NAMVANC]

Well said! I think Dr. Chiu has a bias towards so called 左膠 n his viewpoint represents the conservative economics. I was thinking of the Scandinavian countries as well during this episode with the same perspective as yours。Generational poverty is a reality, and this theory has existed for a long time. Yet I don't think many people realize equality is not the same as equity, where people have the same starting point, which is what people are striving for.

[@GregoryMa]

我有幾點回應： 1. 如果如科學研究指出低收入人士的腦對未來的規劃比較弱 (片中嘅科學研究似乎有種命定論，就係細路出生於低收入家庭就好大機會停留在低收入位置)，我懷疑佢地會唔會打多一份工以改善收入？ (當然，我估唔會全部低收入人士都唔會做多份part-time， 但有幾大效用先?) 2. 當低收入家庭學生喺學校學到如何規劃自己未來， 這本身好大機會需要更多資源去實現，而資源可以從何而來？ 3. 投資本身係一項學問，家長本身如果 唔識/根本無諗過有呢個選擇(可能生活壓力而沒有時間去思考這個option )/ 害怕因投資而連本金都無埋，咁又如何處理？

[@user-cn3te4qf8z]

趙博今期節目，將我多年的疑問解開了。爲什麽我越選擇為家庭的選項，自己反而越不開心，過得越糟糕。比如，我表妹會要求屋企供讀更貴的學校，而我爲了節省家庭開支放棄了去更好學校的機會。也比如，表妹寧願頂著家裏催促去找一份適合自己，而我最後選擇蒼促就業。爲何這些事例都是表妹的選擇更好，我一直以爲是父母一直說的自私，但顯然不是。但是，我始終覺得，如果再來一次會不會不再遺憾，但顯然也不會。成長為殘缺的人，注定選擇最後不會正確

[@BB-ny7zv]

如果我係政府我都係會補貼窮人，一來有啲人窮係因為不幸，意外傷殘或患病，單親老母無親無故，十歲死老豆個老母唔多做野屋企有幾兄弟。雖然有啲人窮係因為有福利拎不如去拎福利，福利好似係助長懶人咁，但其實咪又係一種政治平亂嘅手段，怕啲人去偷去搶，富人唔交稅養窮人最後都係搶身家，不如當交保護費。懶同慘兩種人都冇可能會去打多份工的，單親老母有個半歲大仔，你同佢講打多份工免稅有鬼用咩。懶可能技術不足搵工成問題，已經失業，點搵第二份工。中產你唔補貼佢佢唔會去搶影響個社會，咁做乜要理佢哋？

[@kkkam6987]

趙先生好，大家好，多謝趙先生分析同分享，多謝！多謝！

[@gyoza6510]

Thank you, professor. Great topic. A few points I’d like to add to the discussion on smoking and human capital investment: smoking can’t be quit easily due to its chemical properties serving as an antidepressant for people who can’t quit. Many of them stopped smoking once switched over to pharmaceutical solutions. I quit overnight because I didn’t have that chemical dependency. It’s aligned with the problem of addiction. Not something poor, or rich people can easily shake off simply with willpower. Expanding from smoking, economics is about utilities. Long-term rewards are also very hard for many to accept as utility as it is delayed or sometimes canceled. That’s why some people will choose to eat their favorite food first and postpone the functional bites. It’s also genetic (embedded habits). They make those choices without thinking. Education helps sometimes. Like you, I am a father. When I see my two kids’ behaviors, I notice not all behaviors are taught, or education can correct them efficiently. It gets easier with time and maturity. Thinking about consequences is also not a skill everyone possesses. It’s empirical that education and healthcare are the two best investments to reduce poverty. Chicago Nobel scholar Gary Becker has done much research on the economics of the poor… also on drug dealing, prostitution…etc. Many other experiments gave people money to encourage them to buy healthier foods. They ended up spending it on more junk food, or a bigger TV…etc. Because those are their REAL utilities, sadly. Education is essential. Just want to bring in some usable compassion towards addicts and poor people Who bends to instant gratification. We need even more patience and also acceptance when it fails. Not as straightforward. I used to think when poor people acquired donations, they would use the money to do good things for themselves to improve their situations. Get healthier food, get rid of addiction…etc. Not so easy. netflix’s Afterlife season 1 enlightened me about this flawed thinking. Many addicts are in pain, drugs, whether it’s coke, alcohol, or cigs, serve to stop their pain momentarily. That is the most important utility at the moment for them. Not a banana, milk, or a good book. Love has nothing to do with it as they are incapable of doing anything more than to cope with pain (both biological and psychological). The character received a donation from a friend, took one last shot of a substance, and killed himself with OD. It ended all pain. Controversial plot, but I finally got it. Sorry for the long comments. I don’t know how to PM you. I also can't type/write Chinese fast enough.

[@alicewong3372]

政府的角色應該是提供一個公平的環境/制度，讓窮人可透過自己的努力而有向上流的機會。

[@percytam3131]

絕對同意！ 十隻手指長短吖嘛！ 人有啲叻啲, 有冇咁,亦有喜歡勞工作 ,唔鍾意用腦,咁至做成一個多元化社會😊😊😊

[@ivantsui3250]

今集資料非常豐富，令人長知識👍👍👍，更加明白貧富之間的差異！😊🙏

[@takshingwong532]

謝謝先生

[@cherryleung1804]

謝謝分享長知識👍👍

[@JS-qd6rp]

Thank you for sharing

[@koalaspeaksenglish3856]

Great lecture. Thx

[@myjo628]

教育真的很重要❗️

[@amigoleung6034]

支持

[@huihuiyw4182]

趙博講得好有道理， 從小學識理財👍👍

[@C9Money]

謝謝趙博的分享，內容精闢，分析全面。少少建議：內容可翻譯成英文，透過主流媒體等，反映意見給有關政府部門，貢獻當地社會

[@evidencemed4256]

So, it should be a regulation and a balance between these two, the employer and the employee. If you put the balance toward employee only, then there is no economy, but if you put balance to employer only there will be revolution.

[@huihuiyw4182]

趙博講得好有道理， 從小學識怎樣理財 和增值

[@ivanwong9189]

Good sharing

[@jackylau5256]

謝謝趙博用心分享🙏 認同：長遠規劃；增加上流動力

[@jackiewlchan1029]

Thanks and support

[@csl1022]

過往香港在平衡福利與鼓勵進取之間取得不錯的平衡。基層市民確保得到合理的醫療、教育、房屋...等基本福利，能否擺脫基層視乎個人資質及努力。但近年這種平衡慢慢失守，很多政黨不斷要求窮人與富人中產享受近乎同等的服務和生活。

[@wanggok]

港英有徒置區比人有瓦庶頭，安居樂業。港英比機會我呢種爛鬼撈正，特區冇解决劏房，迫到班後生揾極吾夠生活，又趕絕不肯顺從的人

[@lotta0219]

貧富是相對的，在富裕社會的窮人，也比窮國的一般人好太多。

[@viscourtroy]

環球發展都不斷變，有發展機遇就有人湧過去。其實階級固化會在已發展地區越趨明顯, ...

[@pinlapinga]

有日文字幕好得意

[@agneshughcheung775]

同意👍，身同感受，我唔係有錢人向有錢人，但反對向高收入人士收重稅，變相為種懲罰，以我為例，我吾做OT, 因為越多收入越多稅收。 除咗收入稅還有其他税項，一個月總收入去44%。

[@bkcheng7165]

若將累進稅的計算方式優化一下是否一個人比較好的方法。

[@mokona514]

真係知識改變命運

[@agfamily8191]

某强國除外 !

[@robertchan357]

受益匪淺，謝謝你🙏👍👍

[@royho7142000]

Nice share😂

[@FelixNg2k]

John Rawls嗰套嘢最大嘅問題係，到底要幫弱勢社群幫到乜嘢地步。老人家本意應該係機會平等。 佢都有考慮整個社會嘅發展動力呀（基層往上爬的誘因）。不過，佢自己都知，佢喱套嘢係全球化面前，唔多work

[@ccprat]

若接受有些人能被不平對待,那與老共專制獨裁有何分別；西方國家的社會主義是希望有能之士能犠牲一些,幫助貧窮的人；就是因為貪窮階層有其缺憾,不容易像其他人能學習向上,若政府不向富有者徵稅,那來經費幫助無能者脫貧,因為已說明大多貧者都沒有如何脫貧的認知

[@BB-ny7zv]

有好多窮人都只係太踏實地工作，有好多富人都只係懂得去呃，懂手段，懂得點可以喺窮人到刮錢，再去補貼呢啲富人都唔會激勵到呢啲窮人去變成富人。並唔係你嘅例子個個因為去賭錢去食煙而窮。亦有人係會因為畀人呃錢去投資基金而變得好窮，而富人就係呃人投資果個。亦有人窮係由於長期病患，都有人係因為時不與我，見過有人搞藝術可以搞到好窮

[@gctalk]

知識改變命運

[@jimmyor738]

你好犀利呀， 21歲就已經出書😮

[@EleutheriaEros]

貧窮有三點：重病/殘缺， 沒新知識，沒意志。 還有一個最大因素，政府權力太大，官商勾結。

[@user-xp2fk4dh9w]

👍👍👍

[@imhker8500]

💪💪💪

[@siufunchan541]

好多年前，星加坡主張大學生要生多幾個孩子，當時我很認同，覺得父母的教育程度對子女教育有好的結果。

[@tsangrita1]

Support class

[@thisisnottheend4392]

🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

[@chaoxianli-ff8gp]

趙博，你好，您系2004年出版的書，全名叫咩？有滴聽唔清，需要趙博回復，多謝趙博！（方便我買滴本書）

[@sophiachan8350]

我今年 66 歲，我發觉富有不是賺多些錢，而是不乱消費就自然有錢剩，年輕時胡亂消費，有用冇用都買，所以冇積蓄，疫情这幾年，很少去行商場和消費，所以存了很多錢。。。

[@wanggok]

有志氣吾買野的女人就是好女人，吾狂買野的女人就是賢妻良母，年紀大了，女人會越來越冇氣力買野，所以老婆越老越可愛

[@flyingzone356]

I have a lot of respect for Dr. Chiu. However, I have to disagree with some of the basic premises of his opinion on "left-wing" economic policies. Even though Dr. Chiu's opinion is much more informed and less extreme than those who are ideologically-driven (e.g. Chip Tsao whose opinion has pushed so much to the Far Right rather than merely conservative that he would embrace Fascist-like ideas on a whole array of issues, not merely economic, but social as well), there are still some fundamental similarities. I will only mention three. First, it is one of over-generalization. When Dr. Chiu lumps communism (closely-aligned with authoritarianism) and socialism and Left-wing politics into one, he overlooks some important differences among them. The latter two can and usually do co-exist with a democratic political system. As a matter of fact, social democracy, which is definitely leftist, exists in some of the world's most economically dynamic countries. Yes, these countries aren't paradises and have a lot of problems, but at least they are not faring worse than countries that embrace right-leaning economic policies. Moreover, Dr. Chiu has exaggerated the so-called "brain drain" and emigration problems in countries that use the progressive taxation system (another point that he has overlooked - the middle class in those countries isn't taxed as heavily as the upper class because the taxation system is PROGRESSIVE). A lot of these countries enjoy a high standard of living (as indicated by the high Human Development Index), with a good social security network (e.g. national healthcare, funded, you know what? by a progressive taxation system), and so not everyone from the middle class would give up these advantages and move to a country (e.g. the U.S.) with no national healthcare system and a high crime rate (directly and indirectly the result of rampant social and economic inequality). Third (and there are other counterarguments too), left-leaning countries are left-leaning not just for economic reasons. The whole idea of income redistribution emanates essentially from the idea of social equality and justice. One can't separate one from the other. That explains why leftist governments/countries always embrace the most progressive social and public policies that address all sorts of societal inequalities, not just economic ones. By the same token, conservative governments/countries, by definition, are not just conservative fiscally but also socially. That explains not just rampant economic inequalities in those countries, but also social inequalities (e.g. minority rights, education policies, etc.). Dr. Chiu pointed out that enslaved and indentured laborers might actually eat better than those who were born (and forever doomed) in the lowest strata of a country's socioeconomic hierarchy. This might be true. However, in both systems (which are both extreme cases), there are simply no opportunities for those at the bottom to shake off poverty and its indignation. So telling someone living in those circumstances that "you should be grateful because you have a hard-boiled egg for dinner" is little comfort at all. I agree with Dr. Chiu that one should not rely on government policies to address all social ills and economic foes. However, the right's argument that "free market" can serve that purpose has proven to be wrong over and over and over again. People have such amnesia when it comes to history - both Thatcherism in the U.K. and Reagonomics in the U.S. have created unprecedented both ECONOMIC and above all SOCIAL inequalities in both countries which continue to suffer from their after effects. Of course, I am not saying that what both have done are absolutely wrong. It would be preposterous for me to say that. However, all the subsequent global financial crises (in banking and the market system) were definitely the direct results of those policies. Left-wing economic policies might have created their own problems, but never to such global scale that has repeatedly devastated the entire world.

[@mark9104]

Very well said. I couldn't have said it half as good as you do

[@NAMVANC]

Fantastic insights and well versed! Too much praises have been bestowed towards Reagonomics but not enough understanding and talk about its ill effects. Thank you for sharing.

[@anthonytsang7468]

富不過三代只係窮人作出黎安慰自己，但窮過不過三代真係要靠自己

[@georgechan3784]

雖以比喻論證有違邏輯學之嫌，但仍有此問：先生是否建議如有人落水，旁人切莫浪費時間精力和冒風險救之，應以教育他人游泳為長遠之計？先生數次言及並引用無知之幕，必知當今左派承自羅爾斯，是否內心亦有贊同左派之處？

[@orkwunyim4287]

👍🏻👍🏻💪🏼💪🏼

[@jimmytai1915]

Support

[@soamy1108]

想趙博講一講莫言被中國毛左控告的事件,莫言能最終要出走嗎?

[@mengmeng4312]

有个棉花糖实验，挺有意思的

[@user-ey5pd7ch4u]

我的一點愚見認為主要也是成語：過猶不及的問題。何謂 適時 適量 適當分配 ，這才最考驗智慧。

[@yilinghu5870]

👍👍👍🌷

[@windytang7244]

👍👍

[@ntonyworkshop]

其實社會基層嘅組成，好大機會係人類因為有一個咁嘅結構先能夠存活甚至強大。DNA pool就係要咁form⋯⋯

[@bklm1234]

tax the rich 不對于 tax the middle class 呀！趙Sir要說清楚英國政府加收入多少的人的税，是不是真正tax the rich

[@User-vz4xm]

冇錯，成日混淆視聽

[@KJ-mu7tx]

趙博士，請問「趙氏書友」、「趙氏學友」及、「趙氏網上授課學生專屬」及 閣下Patrons 的士分別，如純粹想了解歷史、經濟史，該如何選擇？

[@gctalk]

最好加入patron 有更多內容

[@user-gn5bt9pw4g]

基層 是大多數 不能改變 可改變 生活條件改善 過有尊嚴生活 (主要減少剝削)

[@alex88271]

我記得80年代末還是90年代初，有一個人辦，家庭雖然陷於極度貧困，而這個人渣還天天叫雞，租金和子女學費都不交，還天天打老婆之類。最後他老婆帶著兩個小孩自殺死了。而人渣隔一天天就恢復叫雞，還接受媒體採訪，指責他老婆，一點都不傷心和內疚。如果貧窮是因為生意投資失敗，甚至因為愚蠢，都可以原諒。但是如果是不能控制自己的生離慾望，包括喝酒抽煙，這種人應該化學閹割，防止危害人類整體。今天香港從上到下，大把這種人

[@starlightproductionsaustra3187]

反人深省👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@kailam3571]

公平既應該只係機會， 而唔係實際錢財， 否則只會越扶越貧～ 保有國民階級向上爬既動力確實非常重要～

[@kanlexkanlex9965]

👌🏼✌️💪🏻👍🏻🙏🙏

[@gigi5241]

想問下趙生，保守黨在位十幾年，有冇推行你所講既鼓勵窮人脫貧政策? 十幾年來都係咁高稅政策，如果再投保守黨又何以見得會減稅? 某程度上保守黨一直都係tax緊the rich。

[@gctalk]

幾年前由工黨執政30%嘅稅率減到去？19%係舊年再加到25%但係比起以前仍然係低好多

[@gigi5241]

我始終相信做得唔好就要換人，政黨輪替係民主國家既核心價值，唔可以單憑工黨係大花筒只照顧窮人就話要投保守黨，你都講保守黨一樣會加稅

[@williamtso3287]

首先我想更正你對加拿大稅制結果的認知,第一：在加拿大中產稅後生活質素相比貧窮或草根楷層生活高很多,我知道因為我是加拿大統計5% top pay之上,是中產single income family,亦是在香港從大坑木屋搬遷到屋邨的貧民,但我的教育不比較趙博你低,最初到加拿大也是熟於貧民楷層； 第二：加拿大中產知道高稅提供的社會安全網只是pay to get some social decency,令社會不致像美國一樣,在美國的大城市,中產人士是要住在gated community 的,而在加拿大暫時我們還不需要這樣,每事都是要有代價的,是一個社會模式的選擇

[@wanggok]

我買盡 RRSP, TSFA的，靠 CCP養老實餓死。艱難大比條路國民積穀防飢，美帝股票猛升，我TSFA也升，華人和亞裔越老越富，白人黒人越老越窮，各民族的特性

[@williamtso3287]

對！我也谷行RRSP 和TFSA,由貧窮向中產上流,稅制似乎沒有直接關係,教育(不等於學位)和機會是直接的影響！

[@wanggok]

@@williamtso3287 我奇怪白人，黑人同事不喜歡搏命儲錢，要 work life balance，定時渡假充電。華人多數自小挨窮，怕冇錢，寧願玩小D，減小渡假，盡量儲錢，最捨得花錢是買屋。大家成長環境不同，各有千秋

[@Princ3Shun]

人無遠慮 必有近憂😂

[@mikhailcho4287]

無知就是力量。如果政府幫人民脫貧，人民對政府嘅依賴減少，何以為繼？

[@wanggok]

華爾街使貧窮增多，富者越富

[@YSC430]

某程度我係唔相信有階級流動呢樣野。階級流動只係發展中國家嘅錯覺。BBC ，哈佛果啲長時間追蹤研究已經指示，階級係會複製，而且係同文化同政策有關。 而且努力喺唔會令人變有錢人。 最多只係變成中產。 而且最近嘅美國經濟係好好，GDP好高，但已經唔少研究講緊窮人根本受惠唔到。😅 民主社會啲教育開支時高時低，窮人根本預期唔到亦感受唔到啲好處。 所以我越來越覺得新加坡呢類半民主國家對於窮人基層嚟講係好啲。

[@kammykwok2888]

🙏❤️🙏👨🏻‍🎓📚👍🏽👍🏽👏👏👏

[@chansam2675]

講得咁利害及有效, 點解唔去從政, 可改善民生, 哈哈。 政治依家嘢, 係有錢佬有權有勢人仕游戲, 人地唔會受你玩, 竹門想入政門, 只能做個啦啦員!!!!!!!!!!!

[@cherryskc]

好👍🏻好嘅分析，但有冇諗過，其實政府都唔想低下階層脫貧？佢哋脫左貧，富人咪冇得剥削佢哋囉。

[@alihondas7430]

那麼瑞士瑞典芬蘭等北歐國家政府，都是靠剥削窮人富起來嗎 ?

[@checkitout4544]

唔知趙博對北歐三國- Norway, Sweden and Finland. 的經濟和政治怎樣評價？三個國家都是稅務和社會主義極重的國家但經濟和民生都不錯

[@ManloiIek-zd3sb]

讀乜都好.都要貼合實况！實情係全個地球都兩極化,窮越窮.富的躺著也在賺錢.如果正府唔做D嘢緩解下都幾可悲

[@User-vz4xm]

冇錯。佢一路話唔應該向中產徵收咁多稅，但係一路覺得大企業逃稅冇問題。羊毛出自羊身上，咁政府應該向邊度收稅？

[@user-nw5mt8ir9n]

向大企业收重税​@@User-vz4xm

[@gctalk]

逃稅係犯法，合理避稅就係商業行為，應該要鼓勵，政府冇錢就應該縮減開支，實行少政府大市場，用窮人思維去治理國家，短期有效效果，長期一齊乞米。

[@wanggok]

全個地球都兩極化是華爾街做成的

[@User-vz4xm]

@@gctalk 英國自Tory 執政實行緊縮政策好耐啦，自從Tory緊縮政策同QE向企業直接派錢英國貧富懸殊越嚟越大，中產不斷萎縮，你研究吓數據先講啦，唔好又乜都generalize。其他國家例如希臘同葡萄牙，因為緊縮政策有眼你睇發生咩事，近幾年放棄緊縮政策效果有目共睹。Trickle down effect已經證明無效，讀多少少書啦趙博，現代經濟真係唔係你個瓣，世界變了唔係一本天書讀到老，一、二千年前嘅嘢未必apply喺現代，來來去去都係得嗰兩句，少少數據都冇。唔好為日日出片，而唔做足資料蒐集，以為一個古代理論可以行通全球。同樣都係右派，但你同孫老師或者小Lin 講現代經濟真係差18條街。

[@maxsum4951]

由科學論文到去英國選舉的跳躍未免太大。 如果經濟左右派會導致長遠的發展問題；左派政策缺點是減少動力 ，右派問題是自以為競爭是永恆，沒有考慮「贏家會千方百計消滅未來競爭者」，以及「不怕沒市場競爭，永遠有新市場出現」。 如果講英國政治，只用學術太象牙塔，包括已經比較「貼地的」經濟、政治或統計也是常常出現黑天鵝。用知識來說，兩黨政治制度本身會導致只有爛蘋果和爛橙可以選。(贏家永不改用兩黨制，「政治的市場」也沒有替代的市場 😢en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_vote_plus )

[@joshuareg999]

可能窮人視政府資助打針為收入， 一生一次，要有利益先去打針

[@user-hr4se5qf5k]

睇下超人近兩年都連環沽英國電力, 倫敦瑞銀總部, 私人飛機330億, 1.6萬個移動通訊機站. 超人近幾十年眼光都好準, 十年前買入英國咁多資產, 而家沽貨放左去東南亞. 咁你話超人點睇英國. 真心覺得英國係罰努力想上進嘅人. 難怪超過90%海外生讀完大學都離開英國.

[@iFungary]

1

[@leoho4102]

趙博可在英從政

[@BB-ny7zv]

其實跟%咪得囉，做乜要加大個%啫。

[@GoldieCheung]

😮

[@BB-ny7zv]

英國最吸移民嘅因素都係你覺得要改嘅野黎，佢吸移民原因係佢啲人工差唔遠，有份工餓唔死，工時又唔太長，醫院係公立，人人冇平等醫療嘅待遇

[@lisalochiu]

窮人同富人最大差別係思維模式。

[@WG1AHK]

精英站在社會高層是正常而且合理。 政府向中層人士收相對重稅是無法之法，不光是社會主義或資本主義，原因是中層好欺負。 沒有一個政策永恒，時勢決定啫。

[@onview]

窮人唔生仔咪無窮人。而且正因為現實無上流機會先選擇躺平。以香港為例，叫得中產至少要有資產，買樓係要唔飲唔食二十年夠，人生有幾多個十年？而人窮志短就一定架啦，連月尾有無飯開都未知，你同佢講人生十年規劃？搵多份工？香港咪全世界工時最長啦，一份頂人兩份，結果就係全世界最貧富懸殊。根本無得搞，只能叫窮人唔生仔

[@wanggok]

一夜夫妻百二蚊，明碼實價最軍真 成家立室為乜先？生兒育女攞黎賤

[@vh4475]

所以加拿大好多IT、醫生等嘅專業人士都去美國

[@wanggok]

炒到D屋咁貴，能夠走的都走

[@popeyetse7110]

👏👍💪🤩😱🙈

[@SunShine...123]

喺咪自私嘅因額葉就會不健康？

[@evidencemed4256]

The basic human behavior play the crucial role on economy. That is human by the nature of their brain structure and function is not willing to suffer but want to enjoy. Put it simple the employer want to pay one cent to the employee but want them to work 24 hrs, on the other hand the employee want to get $10,000 a month by only seat there for 8 hrs a day.

[@waiyipsin2377]

因為他們子女沒有金裝奶粉食用！

[@iflifeis]

現時歐美是權貴資本主義，名為競爭實行壟斷，政府亦非放任市場自由，滴漏效應更不知從何談起。不正視自由主義的事實基礎，立論當然站妚住腳。

[@wanggok]

華爾街最權貴

[@spjasperc5267]

陶淵明不拿政府綜援