近來記

近來少了進戲院，六月還沒有到戲院看過一套戲。但在這同時在讀了點電影的書，嘗試從理論及一種體制下「學習」電影。另外，便是不停的找時間打籃球，可惜週末總有下雨的時候。但這些總算是保持了生活中清醒的時間。

日復一日的工作是有強大的麻痺作用，書沒有怎樣讀，亦開始明白許多人不參與政治的原因。畢竟因為許許多多的原因，例如軟弱，我們會沒有時間精力。亦開始明白許多 cliche 有其道理。只有開始經歷，而且經驗對應了那些老掉牙的話語時，我們會感到驚訝－－cliche 原來也有新的意義－－不再是重覆、講了也沒有什麼意思的話了，而是切實的真確。

預計會開始讀一本政治書，還有可能寫寫其他東西，因為我覺得我應該搞好這裡。

閱讀報告: How Markets Work

Prasch 的 How Markets Work 的方向是講出一般市場的條件（私有產權、合約法等），然後說一個商品市場是如何運作，有什麼假設，接著再跟其他市場比較。不難估到，最後是想顯示市場是多樣的，不同的市場有不同的運作方法，應套商品市場那套會有不良影響。

先說（或者係只說）其中一章－－勞動市場。與商品市場的最大的差異是供應曲線 (supply curve)，是一個反C 加上一個S。人到非常有錢的時候，便減少勞動。但當人還未或者不是非常有錢，人會隨著人工的上升而工作長一點時間。以上是可生存工資(Subsistence Wage, Ws)以上的情況。

當工資開始從可生存工資開始下滑後，人亦會工作長一點，為了可以賺夠生活。但是工資低到一個地步是再多的工時也是得不償失。人一天只有24小時，工作左了20小時還會健康嗎? 這時候你會再次減低工作時間，反正都一樣。

這樣的供應曲線與需求曲線會有四個交叉點。但只有兩個是穩定的平衡點（B 及 D）。而多個平衡點則帶出以下反傳統的結果：

".... it features two locally stable equilibrium points.. These reflect high wages/low hours and low wages.high hours respectively... Under "free market" conditions the system has a built-in tendency to gravitate to one of these two points and remain there. The particular equilibrium that is eventually achieved is entirely dependent upon initial conditions in the market. This is a critical finding. If this theory is a plausible representation of the low wage labour market it follows that no amount of education, training, exhortation or lectures on moral uplift directed at the poor will force the labour market equilibrium to move from point D to point B. Once achieving a poverty trap, the system remains there. End of story." (p. 92)

最重要的是由於多過一個平衡點，市場上出現的低工資就是唯一的有效率的平衡點便不成立：

"Given the existence of two locally sable equilibrium points, there is no a priori reason to believe that equilibrium at point D is more "natural", "efficient", or likely to occur than that at point B. Moreover, the wage level at point D can no longer be presumed to uniquely represent the "true market value" or "marginal product" of labour. The reason is that the lower wage/higher hours equilibrium at point D is every bit as consistent with the operations of a free market as the higher wage/lower hours equilibrium featured at point B. Again, let us recall that both equilibria are locally stable which means that once they are achieved, the market embodies no internal mechanism or competitive force that will induce a change in the result." (p. 92)

而作者亦提到，最高工時與這種經修改的供應曲線如何產生相互作用：

"A more interesting and significant lesson follows from the co-existence of two equilibria. These have direct implications for the efficacy of minimum wage or maximum hours laws. Consider, once more, Figure V.3. Suppose a maximum hours law were to be imposed that was just below the hours that would otherwise be contributed at point C. In light of the market dynamics illustrated by the arrows on the figure, it is evident that such a restriction would set processes in motion that would continue until the equilibrium at point B is acheived. Interestinly, the initial hours limitation would not be "binding" in the sense that the equilibrium hours worked once all adjustments had occurred would be less than the mandated maximum - a nice illustration of how market forces can interact with legislation to bring about results that are not immediate evidence or expected." (p. 93)

（總算叫填返條數。）

六四

當大家都在唱然後大家都在高喊的時候，其實我會有點抽離，然後覺得大家都有點假。口號都很大，甚至假設了由中共來平反，事實上是我們不應該再需要中國共產黨，但最後我們都在平日做了什麼？我們可以看到人性美好、甚至光輝的一面許多面，但是我們改變不了什麼。23年了，這一段時間不短的，總覺得有種很重的保守在我們之間。而我亦只是其中一員，唱過《自由花》便算數。繼承廣場上學生的精神，那當年的罷課還有罷工，我們會做嗎？是的，若然23年了中共打壓的情況每況越下，我們又從哪繼承了什麼？我亦只是這些人的一員。