敦金融城女銀行家起訴HBOS性別歧視
Woman banker set to sue HBOS for ￡11m
一位高級(jí)女銀行家將提起性別歧視和非法解雇訴訟，狀告英國(guó)的按揭和儲(chǔ)蓄服務(wù)供應(yīng)商HBOS，要求該銀行賠償逾1100萬英鎊。此前她聲稱，她試圖重回辦公室時(shí)，實(shí)際上被公司解雇了。
A senior female banker is set to sue HBOS for more than ￡11m in a sex discrimination and wrongful dismissal case after claiming she was, in effect, sacked when she tried to return to her desk.
該行資產(chǎn)債務(wù)管理業(yè)務(wù)負(fù)責(zé)人克萊爾?布萊特(Claire Bright)3個(gè)月前被停職。昨天她來到位于倫敦金融城的HBOS總部，與幾位高層發(fā)生了沖突。
Claire Bright, who was head of asset and liability management at the country’s largest mortgage and savings provider, confronted bosses yesterday when she arrived at HBOS headquarters in the City having been suspended three months ago.
布萊特女士今年47歲，她每年的薪酬方案約為60萬英鎊。她聲稱，她與一位男性高級(jí)同事發(fā)生沖突后，得到了不公正的對(duì)待?！灸F(xiàn)在閱讀的文章來自“中國(guó)學(xué)習(xí)考試網(wǎng)”，請(qǐng)記住我們的永久域名：www.stu88.com 】
Ms Bright, 47, whose earnings package was about ￡600,000 a year, claims she was treated unfairly following a clash with a senior male colleague.
在被停職3個(gè)月后，倫敦金融城的這位銀行家來到HBOS的辦公室，決心徹底解決這一爭(zhēng)端。上午11點(diǎn)不到，她現(xiàn)身并告訴在場(chǎng)等待的記者，她已被解雇。
After spending three months on suspension, the City banker arrived at HBOS offices determined to bring the dispute to a head. Shortly before 11am, she emerged to tell waiting reporters that she had been dismissed.
她的律師吉蓮?霍華德(Gillian Howard)表示，公司不許布萊特女士重返辦公室工作，她此前已向倫敦斯特拉特福德就業(yè)法庭提交性別歧視和受害賠償要求，并將增加訴訟事由，起訴公司非法解雇和不公正解雇。
Gillian Howard, her lawyer, said Ms Bright had been stopped from returning to work and would add actions for wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal to her claim for sex discrimination and victimisation already filed with Stratford employment tribunal in London.
HBOS銀行承認(rèn)，布萊特女士提出了“與性別歧視指控相關(guān)的抱怨”，并已按照公司程序進(jìn)行處理，銀行將該程序描述為“全面有力的”。
HBOS acknowledged that “a grievance relating to allegations of sex discrimination” had been brought by Ms Bright and dealt with under company procedures, which it described as “vigorous and comprehensive”.
公司表示：“公司程序已經(jīng)完成，布萊特女士的指控沒有得到支持?！?BR> “That process has been completed and Ms Bright’s allegations have not been upheld,” the company said.
HBOS銀行繼續(xù)表示，這位銀行家此前與HBOS國(guó)債部的高級(jí)經(jīng)理會(huì)面，并受到了禮貌的對(duì)待?！八允枪竟蛦T，”公司表示。該銀行補(bǔ)充道，在任何法庭聽證會(huì)上，它將就自己的立場(chǎng)進(jìn)行“有力的辯護(hù)”。
HBOS went on to say that the banker had met senior bosses from HBOS Treasury and been treated with courtesy. “She remains an employee of the company,” it said. The bank added that it would “vigorously defend” its position at any tribunal hearing.
不過，在HBOS總部外面，霍華德女士表示：“他們毫無根據(jù)地解雇了我的委托人。現(xiàn)在我們要返回我的辦公室提起訴訟。”
But outside HBOS headquarters, Ms Howard said: “They dismissed my client without any reason. We are now going back to my office to issue proceedings.
2006年1月18日 星期三
日本假冒品牌網(wǎng)上銷售猖獗
Luxury fakes cost makers $4.3bn a year
由于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)銷售的假冒設(shè)計(jì)師商品，全球最的一些時(shí)尚品牌每年在日本估計(jì)損失5000億日元(合43億美元)，這些品牌包括路易威登(Louis Vuitton)、香奈兒(Chanel)、普拉達(dá)(Prada)、古姿(Gucci)、寶格麗(Bulgari)、勞力士(Rolex)和卡地亞(Cartier)。
Some of the most famous names in the world of fashion, including Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Prada, Gucci, Bulgari, Rolex and Cartier, are losing an estimated Y500bn ($4.3bn) a year in Japan from the sale of fake designer goods over the internet.
在日本，網(wǎng)上銷售的奢侈品牌商品有一半以上是假貨。法國(guó)國(guó)際保護(hù)工業(yè)與藝術(shù)產(chǎn)權(quán)制造商聯(lián)合會(huì)(Union des Fabricants)日本分會(huì)主席洛朗·杜布瓦(Laurent Dubois)表示，這是亞洲最惡劣的造假行為。這個(gè)全球協(xié)會(huì)的成立旨在打擊假冒行為。
More than half the luxury-branded goods sold over the internet in Japan are fakes. This was the worst level of abuse in Asia, said Laurent Dubois, chairman of the Japanese arm of the Union des Fabricants, a global association set up to fight counterfeiting.
這一問題使人們對(duì)日本政府履行其承諾產(chǎn)生懷疑，并致使各制造商要求日本政府制定新規(guī)定打擊假冒產(chǎn)品。2002年，日本政府保證使該國(guó)成為一個(gè)“知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)國(guó)家”。
The problem has called into question the Japanese government’s commitment to a pledge in 2002 to make the country a “nation of intellectual property” and has prompted demands from manufacturers for new rules to crack down on fake goods.
2006年1月19日 星期四
美元匯率為何與赤字背離
The Belgian chocolate theory of the dollar
一年前，大多數(shù)分析師都同意：美元兌歐元與其它主要貨幣只會(huì)下跌。美國(guó)已無法支撐其巨額經(jīng)常賬戶赤字，美元需要大幅貶值。一年后，事實(shí)證明這些分析師都錯(cuò)了。美元兌歐元上升了近15%。出了什么問題？我說一個(gè)有關(guān)比利時(shí)巧克力的故事來回答這個(gè)問題。
A year ago, most analysts agreed: the dollar could only go down against the euro and the other main currencies. The huge US current account deficits had become unsustainable and called for a big decline of the dollar. A year later these analysts proved to be wrong. The dollar went up by close to 15 per cent against the euro. What went wrong? Let me answer the question by telling a story about Belgian chocolates.
幾周前，布魯塞爾食品展上進(jìn)行了一個(gè)有趣的實(shí)驗(yàn)。在這個(gè)一年一度的食品展上，攤位里擺滿了各種你能想到的美食，而美食愛好者則在許多攤位之間來回穿梭。其中一間搭好的攤位在銷售盒裝比利時(shí)巧克力。第一天，巧克力的售價(jià)定在每盒9歐元，生意不錯(cuò)。第二天，價(jià)格上漲到了每盒15歐元。假如你飽讀經(jīng)濟(jì)理論，可能會(huì)認(rèn)為需求現(xiàn)在會(huì)下降了。錯(cuò)。需求翻番了。第3天，價(jià)格降至每盒2歐元，對(duì)巧克力的需求一落千丈。需求法則出了什么問題？
A few weeks ago an interesting experiment was undertaken at the Brussels food fair, a yearly affair where food lovers wander around among the many stalls stuffed with all imaginable delicacies. A shop was put up selling boxes of Belgian chocolates. The first day the price was set at ?9 for each box. Sales went well. The next day the price was raised to ?15 per box. Steeped in economic theory, you might think that demand now declined. Wrong. Demand doubled. On the third day the price was lowered to ?2 for each box. Demand for chocolates collapsed. What went wrong with the law of demand?
心理學(xué)家對(duì)此給出了解釋。消費(fèi)者即便有可能，也很難在店里僅憑巧克力的外表來判斷它們的質(zhì)量。當(dāng)消費(fèi)者對(duì)事物的內(nèi)在價(jià)值如此不確定時(shí)，就會(huì)用他們了解的、簡(jiǎn)單的經(jīng)驗(yàn)法則。心理學(xué)家稱之為“探索法”。在上面的例子里，巧克力的價(jià)格就是經(jīng)驗(yàn)法則。
The explanation is given by psychologists. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for the consumer to find out the quality of chocolates by just looking at their appearance in the shop. When confronted with such uncertainty about the intrinsic value of things, consumers use simple rules of thumb that they understand. Psychologists call these “heuristics”. In this case, the price of the chocolates provides the rule of thumb.
大多消費(fèi)者都有某些經(jīng)驗(yàn)，會(huì)讓他們把高價(jià)格與高品質(zhì)聯(lián)系起來。事情并非總是如此，但一般而言可能如此。因此，當(dāng)看到每盒售價(jià)15歐元的巧克力時(shí)，消費(fèi)者推斷這個(gè)高價(jià)反映了高質(zhì)量，然后就買下了巧克力。當(dāng)看到每盒標(biāo)價(jià)2歐元的巧克力時(shí)，消費(fèi)者推斷這些巧克力的質(zhì)量不能讓人放心，所以他們沒有去買。需求法則完全顛倒了。
Most consumers have some experience that allows them to associate high price with high quality. It is not always like that, but on average it probably is. Thus when looking at the ?15 box the consumers infer that the high price reflects high quality and they buy the chocolates. Consumers who see the boxes priced at ?2 infer that the quality of these chocolates is not to be trusted, and they do not buy them. The law of demand is turned upside down.
現(xiàn)在讓我們來看看美元。大部分在外匯市場(chǎng)進(jìn)行交易的人，對(duì)美元的基本價(jià)值(美元的“質(zhì)量”)沒什么頭緒。專家和教授們也不知道，至少在美元兌歐元的大區(qū)間里是如此，比如在1.0美元到1.3美元之間。每當(dāng)有專家告訴我們，美元對(duì)歐元的基本價(jià)值接近1.3美元，總會(huì)有另一個(gè)專家斷言，基本價(jià)值接近1.0美元。而兩者間的任何數(shù)字都會(huì)有人選擇。面對(duì)這樣的不確定性，美元與歐元的交易商都無法得知確切情況，因此，他們就會(huì)使用他們所了解的簡(jiǎn)單指導(dǎo)——經(jīng)驗(yàn)法則。美元的市場(chǎng)價(jià)格就是這樣的經(jīng)驗(yàn)法則。當(dāng)美元出于某個(gè)技術(shù)原因上漲(或偶然上漲)時(shí)，不斷上漲的美元就是給人們的信號(hào)，說明必然有某種隱藏的經(jīng)濟(jì)力量在推動(dòng)美元。所以他們買進(jìn)美元，就像比利時(shí)巧克力的愛好者在高價(jià)時(shí)買巧克力一樣。相反，當(dāng)美元出于這樣那樣的原因走低時(shí)，人們把美元的下跌解讀為反映了美元的基本弱勢(shì)，因此他們拋售美元。
Let us now return to the dollar. Most people dealing in the foreign exchange market have no clue about the fundamental value of the dollar (the “quality” of the dollar). Specialists and professors do not know either, at least within a broad range of dollar-euro rates between say, $1.0 and $1.3. For every specialist telling us that the fundamental value of the dollar is close to $1.3 to the euro there will be another one affirming that $1.0 is near the fundamental value. Anything in between is fair game. Faced with such uncertainty, traders in dollars and euros have no way of knowing. They will therefore use a rule of thumb, an easy guide that they understand. The market price of the dollar provides such a rule of thumb. Thus when the dollar goes up for some technical reason, or just by chance, the increasing dollar is a signal for people that there must be some hidden economic strength driving the dollar. And they buy dollars; like the Belgian chocolate lovers buy chocolates when they are highly priced. Conversely, when the dollar moves down for whatever reason, people interpret the decline of the dollar as reflecting a fundamental weakness of the dollar, and they sell dollars.
作為這一機(jī)制的結(jié)果，美元在上下限越來越大的區(qū)間里浮動(dòng)，這是我們對(duì)美元的基本價(jià)值缺乏了解所造成的。這些浮動(dòng)可能是由影響美元基本價(jià)值的變量(比如經(jīng)常賬戶)變化造成的，也可能不是。
As a result of this mechanism, the dollar moves up and down within upper and lower bounds that are determined by our lack of knowledge of the fundamental value of the currency. These movements may or may not be caused by changes in the variables (such as the current account) that influence the fundamental value of the dollar.
但比利時(shí)巧克力和美元之間也有不同之處。高價(jià)購(gòu)買巧克力的比利時(shí)巧克力愛好者，可以馬上嘗一口巧克力以檢驗(yàn)品質(zhì)。而美元買家卻不行，但他需要證明，他買得很好，于是分析師就派上用場(chǎng)了。
There is a difference, though, between Belgian chocolates and the dollar. The Belgian chocolate lover buying high-priced chocolates can immediately check the quality by tasting the chocolates. The buyer of dollars cannot. But he is in need of a justification of his buy as a good one. And here the analyst comes in handy.
對(duì)于美元的基本價(jià)值，分析師并不比毫無戒心的買家了解得更多，所以他們就編故事。因此，當(dāng)美元上漲時(shí)，分析師就去尋找走向正確的變量，以及可以和美元上漲聯(lián)系在一起的變量，并謹(jǐn)慎地從分析中去掉所有走向錯(cuò)誤的其它基本變量。所以我們被告知，去年美元的強(qiáng)勢(shì)是由于利差有利于美元。在上一次的分析中，進(jìn)一步擴(kuò)大的經(jīng)常賬戶赤字是關(guān)注的中心，而在新的分析中卻被小心翼翼地剔除掉了。
The analyst, who does not know more about the fundamental value of the dollar than the unsuspecting buyer, invents stories. Thus when the dollar goes up, the analyst goes on a search for variables that move in the right direction and that can be linked to the rising dollar, carefully eliminating from the analysis all the other fundamental variables that move in the wrong direction. And so we are told that the strength of the dollar last year was due to interest rate differentials favouring the dollar. The further widening of the current account deficit, which in a previous analysis got centre stage, is carefully dropped from the new analysis.
我們的確不知道去年美元為何上漲的真相，但我們就是不想承認(rèn)我們不知道。我們打心眼里痛恨茫然無知。那就是分析師的服務(wù)不斷有需求的原因。他們滿足了人們了解真相的心理需要。如今，每當(dāng)美元上漲或下跌，匯率經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)就會(huì)編一個(gè)新故事以滿足這種需求。
The honest story of why the dollar increased last year is that we simply do not know. But we do not like to admit that we do not know. Our psyche abhors the darkness of ignorance. That is why analysts’ services continue to be demanded. They fulfil a psychological need to understand. Exchange rate economics these days satisfies this need by telling a new story each time the dollar goes up or down.
關(guān)于新的一年，它給我們的啟示是什么？你現(xiàn)在可能推斷說，這個(gè)專欄的懷疑論調(diào)，沒給我留下多少空間來說些有用的東西。然而我確實(shí)認(rèn)為，美國(guó)日益增長(zhǎng)的經(jīng)常賬戶赤字和債務(wù)的累積力量將是無法抵抗的，它會(huì)拖低美元，但別問我是什么時(shí)候。
What does that tell us about the coming year? You may now be concluding that the sceptical tone of this column does not leave me much scope to say something useful. Yet I do think that the cumulated force of increasing US current account deficits and debts will be overwhelming, bringing down the dollar. But do not ask me when this will happen.
作者是比利時(shí)魯汶大學(xué)(University of Leuven)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)教授。
The writer is professor of economics at the University of Leuven
這些公司宣稱，“平行進(jìn)口”管理制度松懈，對(duì)“個(gè)人使用”的進(jìn)口假冒商品態(tài)度寬松，對(duì)網(wǎng)上銷售商管制不力，導(dǎo)致它們每年遭受巨大損失。平行進(jìn)口是指未獲得所有者版權(quán)或商標(biāo)授權(quán)的商品進(jìn)口。
The companies claim the big annual losses arise from lax regulations for “parallel imports” – goods imported without authorisation from the proprietor of the copyrights or trademarks – a lenient attitude towards the import of fakes for “personal use” and an inability to police online sellers.
在日本，進(jìn)口“個(gè)人使用”假冒商品是合法的，這帶來了一個(gè)“騾子”網(wǎng)絡(luò)，即在個(gè)人使用的幌子下將假冒商品運(yùn)進(jìn)國(guó)內(nèi)。大多數(shù)假冒商品來自中國(guó)或韓國(guó)。
In Japan it is legal to import fake goods as long as they are for “personal use”, a system that has created a network of “mules” carrying counterfeit goods into the country under the pretence that they are for their own use. Most of the counterfeit goods come from China or South Korea.
網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商也沒有法律義務(wù)刪除涉嫌售假的銷售商在拍賣網(wǎng)站上發(fā)布的商品，大部分網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商從網(wǎng)上銷售額中收取傭金。
Internet service providers, most of which receive a commission for online sales, are also under no legal obligation to remove items posted on auction sites by suspected sellers of counterfeits.
杜布瓦先生還表示，對(duì)仿冒品銷售商的罰款不夠高，不足以形成威懾。
And Mr Dubois said fines for sellers of fake goods were not high enough to be a deterrent.
Woman banker set to sue HBOS for ￡11m
一位高級(jí)女銀行家將提起性別歧視和非法解雇訴訟，狀告英國(guó)的按揭和儲(chǔ)蓄服務(wù)供應(yīng)商HBOS，要求該銀行賠償逾1100萬英鎊。此前她聲稱，她試圖重回辦公室時(shí)，實(shí)際上被公司解雇了。
A senior female banker is set to sue HBOS for more than ￡11m in a sex discrimination and wrongful dismissal case after claiming she was, in effect, sacked when she tried to return to her desk.
該行資產(chǎn)債務(wù)管理業(yè)務(wù)負(fù)責(zé)人克萊爾?布萊特(Claire Bright)3個(gè)月前被停職。昨天她來到位于倫敦金融城的HBOS總部，與幾位高層發(fā)生了沖突。
Claire Bright, who was head of asset and liability management at the country’s largest mortgage and savings provider, confronted bosses yesterday when she arrived at HBOS headquarters in the City having been suspended three months ago.
布萊特女士今年47歲，她每年的薪酬方案約為60萬英鎊。她聲稱，她與一位男性高級(jí)同事發(fā)生沖突后，得到了不公正的對(duì)待?！灸F(xiàn)在閱讀的文章來自“中國(guó)學(xué)習(xí)考試網(wǎng)”，請(qǐng)記住我們的永久域名：www.stu88.com 】
Ms Bright, 47, whose earnings package was about ￡600,000 a year, claims she was treated unfairly following a clash with a senior male colleague.
在被停職3個(gè)月后，倫敦金融城的這位銀行家來到HBOS的辦公室，決心徹底解決這一爭(zhēng)端。上午11點(diǎn)不到，她現(xiàn)身并告訴在場(chǎng)等待的記者，她已被解雇。
After spending three months on suspension, the City banker arrived at HBOS offices determined to bring the dispute to a head. Shortly before 11am, she emerged to tell waiting reporters that she had been dismissed.
她的律師吉蓮?霍華德(Gillian Howard)表示，公司不許布萊特女士重返辦公室工作，她此前已向倫敦斯特拉特福德就業(yè)法庭提交性別歧視和受害賠償要求，并將增加訴訟事由，起訴公司非法解雇和不公正解雇。
Gillian Howard, her lawyer, said Ms Bright had been stopped from returning to work and would add actions for wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal to her claim for sex discrimination and victimisation already filed with Stratford employment tribunal in London.
HBOS銀行承認(rèn)，布萊特女士提出了“與性別歧視指控相關(guān)的抱怨”，并已按照公司程序進(jìn)行處理，銀行將該程序描述為“全面有力的”。
HBOS acknowledged that “a grievance relating to allegations of sex discrimination” had been brought by Ms Bright and dealt with under company procedures, which it described as “vigorous and comprehensive”.
公司表示：“公司程序已經(jīng)完成，布萊特女士的指控沒有得到支持?！?BR> “That process has been completed and Ms Bright’s allegations have not been upheld,” the company said.
HBOS銀行繼續(xù)表示，這位銀行家此前與HBOS國(guó)債部的高級(jí)經(jīng)理會(huì)面，并受到了禮貌的對(duì)待?！八允枪竟蛦T，”公司表示。該銀行補(bǔ)充道，在任何法庭聽證會(huì)上，它將就自己的立場(chǎng)進(jìn)行“有力的辯護(hù)”。
HBOS went on to say that the banker had met senior bosses from HBOS Treasury and been treated with courtesy. “She remains an employee of the company,” it said. The bank added that it would “vigorously defend” its position at any tribunal hearing.
不過，在HBOS總部外面，霍華德女士表示：“他們毫無根據(jù)地解雇了我的委托人。現(xiàn)在我們要返回我的辦公室提起訴訟。”
But outside HBOS headquarters, Ms Howard said: “They dismissed my client without any reason. We are now going back to my office to issue proceedings.
2006年1月18日 星期三
日本假冒品牌網(wǎng)上銷售猖獗
Luxury fakes cost makers $4.3bn a year
由于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)銷售的假冒設(shè)計(jì)師商品，全球最的一些時(shí)尚品牌每年在日本估計(jì)損失5000億日元(合43億美元)，這些品牌包括路易威登(Louis Vuitton)、香奈兒(Chanel)、普拉達(dá)(Prada)、古姿(Gucci)、寶格麗(Bulgari)、勞力士(Rolex)和卡地亞(Cartier)。
Some of the most famous names in the world of fashion, including Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Prada, Gucci, Bulgari, Rolex and Cartier, are losing an estimated Y500bn ($4.3bn) a year in Japan from the sale of fake designer goods over the internet.
在日本，網(wǎng)上銷售的奢侈品牌商品有一半以上是假貨。法國(guó)國(guó)際保護(hù)工業(yè)與藝術(shù)產(chǎn)權(quán)制造商聯(lián)合會(huì)(Union des Fabricants)日本分會(huì)主席洛朗·杜布瓦(Laurent Dubois)表示，這是亞洲最惡劣的造假行為。這個(gè)全球協(xié)會(huì)的成立旨在打擊假冒行為。
More than half the luxury-branded goods sold over the internet in Japan are fakes. This was the worst level of abuse in Asia, said Laurent Dubois, chairman of the Japanese arm of the Union des Fabricants, a global association set up to fight counterfeiting.
這一問題使人們對(duì)日本政府履行其承諾產(chǎn)生懷疑，并致使各制造商要求日本政府制定新規(guī)定打擊假冒產(chǎn)品。2002年，日本政府保證使該國(guó)成為一個(gè)“知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)國(guó)家”。
The problem has called into question the Japanese government’s commitment to a pledge in 2002 to make the country a “nation of intellectual property” and has prompted demands from manufacturers for new rules to crack down on fake goods.
2006年1月19日 星期四
美元匯率為何與赤字背離
The Belgian chocolate theory of the dollar
一年前，大多數(shù)分析師都同意：美元兌歐元與其它主要貨幣只會(huì)下跌。美國(guó)已無法支撐其巨額經(jīng)常賬戶赤字，美元需要大幅貶值。一年后，事實(shí)證明這些分析師都錯(cuò)了。美元兌歐元上升了近15%。出了什么問題？我說一個(gè)有關(guān)比利時(shí)巧克力的故事來回答這個(gè)問題。
A year ago, most analysts agreed: the dollar could only go down against the euro and the other main currencies. The huge US current account deficits had become unsustainable and called for a big decline of the dollar. A year later these analysts proved to be wrong. The dollar went up by close to 15 per cent against the euro. What went wrong? Let me answer the question by telling a story about Belgian chocolates.
幾周前，布魯塞爾食品展上進(jìn)行了一個(gè)有趣的實(shí)驗(yàn)。在這個(gè)一年一度的食品展上，攤位里擺滿了各種你能想到的美食，而美食愛好者則在許多攤位之間來回穿梭。其中一間搭好的攤位在銷售盒裝比利時(shí)巧克力。第一天，巧克力的售價(jià)定在每盒9歐元，生意不錯(cuò)。第二天，價(jià)格上漲到了每盒15歐元。假如你飽讀經(jīng)濟(jì)理論，可能會(huì)認(rèn)為需求現(xiàn)在會(huì)下降了。錯(cuò)。需求翻番了。第3天，價(jià)格降至每盒2歐元，對(duì)巧克力的需求一落千丈。需求法則出了什么問題？
A few weeks ago an interesting experiment was undertaken at the Brussels food fair, a yearly affair where food lovers wander around among the many stalls stuffed with all imaginable delicacies. A shop was put up selling boxes of Belgian chocolates. The first day the price was set at ?9 for each box. Sales went well. The next day the price was raised to ?15 per box. Steeped in economic theory, you might think that demand now declined. Wrong. Demand doubled. On the third day the price was lowered to ?2 for each box. Demand for chocolates collapsed. What went wrong with the law of demand?
心理學(xué)家對(duì)此給出了解釋。消費(fèi)者即便有可能，也很難在店里僅憑巧克力的外表來判斷它們的質(zhì)量。當(dāng)消費(fèi)者對(duì)事物的內(nèi)在價(jià)值如此不確定時(shí)，就會(huì)用他們了解的、簡(jiǎn)單的經(jīng)驗(yàn)法則。心理學(xué)家稱之為“探索法”。在上面的例子里，巧克力的價(jià)格就是經(jīng)驗(yàn)法則。
The explanation is given by psychologists. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for the consumer to find out the quality of chocolates by just looking at their appearance in the shop. When confronted with such uncertainty about the intrinsic value of things, consumers use simple rules of thumb that they understand. Psychologists call these “heuristics”. In this case, the price of the chocolates provides the rule of thumb.
大多消費(fèi)者都有某些經(jīng)驗(yàn)，會(huì)讓他們把高價(jià)格與高品質(zhì)聯(lián)系起來。事情并非總是如此，但一般而言可能如此。因此，當(dāng)看到每盒售價(jià)15歐元的巧克力時(shí)，消費(fèi)者推斷這個(gè)高價(jià)反映了高質(zhì)量，然后就買下了巧克力。當(dāng)看到每盒標(biāo)價(jià)2歐元的巧克力時(shí)，消費(fèi)者推斷這些巧克力的質(zhì)量不能讓人放心，所以他們沒有去買。需求法則完全顛倒了。
Most consumers have some experience that allows them to associate high price with high quality. It is not always like that, but on average it probably is. Thus when looking at the ?15 box the consumers infer that the high price reflects high quality and they buy the chocolates. Consumers who see the boxes priced at ?2 infer that the quality of these chocolates is not to be trusted, and they do not buy them. The law of demand is turned upside down.
現(xiàn)在讓我們來看看美元。大部分在外匯市場(chǎng)進(jìn)行交易的人，對(duì)美元的基本價(jià)值(美元的“質(zhì)量”)沒什么頭緒。專家和教授們也不知道，至少在美元兌歐元的大區(qū)間里是如此，比如在1.0美元到1.3美元之間。每當(dāng)有專家告訴我們，美元對(duì)歐元的基本價(jià)值接近1.3美元，總會(huì)有另一個(gè)專家斷言，基本價(jià)值接近1.0美元。而兩者間的任何數(shù)字都會(huì)有人選擇。面對(duì)這樣的不確定性，美元與歐元的交易商都無法得知確切情況，因此，他們就會(huì)使用他們所了解的簡(jiǎn)單指導(dǎo)——經(jīng)驗(yàn)法則。美元的市場(chǎng)價(jià)格就是這樣的經(jīng)驗(yàn)法則。當(dāng)美元出于某個(gè)技術(shù)原因上漲(或偶然上漲)時(shí)，不斷上漲的美元就是給人們的信號(hào)，說明必然有某種隱藏的經(jīng)濟(jì)力量在推動(dòng)美元。所以他們買進(jìn)美元，就像比利時(shí)巧克力的愛好者在高價(jià)時(shí)買巧克力一樣。相反，當(dāng)美元出于這樣那樣的原因走低時(shí)，人們把美元的下跌解讀為反映了美元的基本弱勢(shì)，因此他們拋售美元。
Let us now return to the dollar. Most people dealing in the foreign exchange market have no clue about the fundamental value of the dollar (the “quality” of the dollar). Specialists and professors do not know either, at least within a broad range of dollar-euro rates between say, $1.0 and $1.3. For every specialist telling us that the fundamental value of the dollar is close to $1.3 to the euro there will be another one affirming that $1.0 is near the fundamental value. Anything in between is fair game. Faced with such uncertainty, traders in dollars and euros have no way of knowing. They will therefore use a rule of thumb, an easy guide that they understand. The market price of the dollar provides such a rule of thumb. Thus when the dollar goes up for some technical reason, or just by chance, the increasing dollar is a signal for people that there must be some hidden economic strength driving the dollar. And they buy dollars; like the Belgian chocolate lovers buy chocolates when they are highly priced. Conversely, when the dollar moves down for whatever reason, people interpret the decline of the dollar as reflecting a fundamental weakness of the dollar, and they sell dollars.
作為這一機(jī)制的結(jié)果，美元在上下限越來越大的區(qū)間里浮動(dòng)，這是我們對(duì)美元的基本價(jià)值缺乏了解所造成的。這些浮動(dòng)可能是由影響美元基本價(jià)值的變量(比如經(jīng)常賬戶)變化造成的，也可能不是。
As a result of this mechanism, the dollar moves up and down within upper and lower bounds that are determined by our lack of knowledge of the fundamental value of the currency. These movements may or may not be caused by changes in the variables (such as the current account) that influence the fundamental value of the dollar.
但比利時(shí)巧克力和美元之間也有不同之處。高價(jià)購(gòu)買巧克力的比利時(shí)巧克力愛好者，可以馬上嘗一口巧克力以檢驗(yàn)品質(zhì)。而美元買家卻不行，但他需要證明，他買得很好，于是分析師就派上用場(chǎng)了。
There is a difference, though, between Belgian chocolates and the dollar. The Belgian chocolate lover buying high-priced chocolates can immediately check the quality by tasting the chocolates. The buyer of dollars cannot. But he is in need of a justification of his buy as a good one. And here the analyst comes in handy.
對(duì)于美元的基本價(jià)值，分析師并不比毫無戒心的買家了解得更多，所以他們就編故事。因此，當(dāng)美元上漲時(shí)，分析師就去尋找走向正確的變量，以及可以和美元上漲聯(lián)系在一起的變量，并謹(jǐn)慎地從分析中去掉所有走向錯(cuò)誤的其它基本變量。所以我們被告知，去年美元的強(qiáng)勢(shì)是由于利差有利于美元。在上一次的分析中，進(jìn)一步擴(kuò)大的經(jīng)常賬戶赤字是關(guān)注的中心，而在新的分析中卻被小心翼翼地剔除掉了。
The analyst, who does not know more about the fundamental value of the dollar than the unsuspecting buyer, invents stories. Thus when the dollar goes up, the analyst goes on a search for variables that move in the right direction and that can be linked to the rising dollar, carefully eliminating from the analysis all the other fundamental variables that move in the wrong direction. And so we are told that the strength of the dollar last year was due to interest rate differentials favouring the dollar. The further widening of the current account deficit, which in a previous analysis got centre stage, is carefully dropped from the new analysis.
我們的確不知道去年美元為何上漲的真相，但我們就是不想承認(rèn)我們不知道。我們打心眼里痛恨茫然無知。那就是分析師的服務(wù)不斷有需求的原因。他們滿足了人們了解真相的心理需要。如今，每當(dāng)美元上漲或下跌，匯率經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)就會(huì)編一個(gè)新故事以滿足這種需求。
The honest story of why the dollar increased last year is that we simply do not know. But we do not like to admit that we do not know. Our psyche abhors the darkness of ignorance. That is why analysts’ services continue to be demanded. They fulfil a psychological need to understand. Exchange rate economics these days satisfies this need by telling a new story each time the dollar goes up or down.
關(guān)于新的一年，它給我們的啟示是什么？你現(xiàn)在可能推斷說，這個(gè)專欄的懷疑論調(diào)，沒給我留下多少空間來說些有用的東西。然而我確實(shí)認(rèn)為，美國(guó)日益增長(zhǎng)的經(jīng)常賬戶赤字和債務(wù)的累積力量將是無法抵抗的，它會(huì)拖低美元，但別問我是什么時(shí)候。
What does that tell us about the coming year? You may now be concluding that the sceptical tone of this column does not leave me much scope to say something useful. Yet I do think that the cumulated force of increasing US current account deficits and debts will be overwhelming, bringing down the dollar. But do not ask me when this will happen.
作者是比利時(shí)魯汶大學(xué)(University of Leuven)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)教授。
The writer is professor of economics at the University of Leuven
這些公司宣稱，“平行進(jìn)口”管理制度松懈，對(duì)“個(gè)人使用”的進(jìn)口假冒商品態(tài)度寬松，對(duì)網(wǎng)上銷售商管制不力，導(dǎo)致它們每年遭受巨大損失。平行進(jìn)口是指未獲得所有者版權(quán)或商標(biāo)授權(quán)的商品進(jìn)口。
The companies claim the big annual losses arise from lax regulations for “parallel imports” – goods imported without authorisation from the proprietor of the copyrights or trademarks – a lenient attitude towards the import of fakes for “personal use” and an inability to police online sellers.
在日本，進(jìn)口“個(gè)人使用”假冒商品是合法的，這帶來了一個(gè)“騾子”網(wǎng)絡(luò)，即在個(gè)人使用的幌子下將假冒商品運(yùn)進(jìn)國(guó)內(nèi)。大多數(shù)假冒商品來自中國(guó)或韓國(guó)。
In Japan it is legal to import fake goods as long as they are for “personal use”, a system that has created a network of “mules” carrying counterfeit goods into the country under the pretence that they are for their own use. Most of the counterfeit goods come from China or South Korea.
網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商也沒有法律義務(wù)刪除涉嫌售假的銷售商在拍賣網(wǎng)站上發(fā)布的商品，大部分網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商從網(wǎng)上銷售額中收取傭金。
Internet service providers, most of which receive a commission for online sales, are also under no legal obligation to remove items posted on auction sites by suspected sellers of counterfeits.
杜布瓦先生還表示，對(duì)仿冒品銷售商的罰款不夠高，不足以形成威懾。
And Mr Dubois said fines for sellers of fake goods were not high enough to be a deterrent.