Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Myth #7: Progressive tax is evil because it's unfair
Progressive tax means that richer you are, higher marginal tax rate you pay. So, the average tax rate for a rich person is designed to be higher than a poor person.
The "unfairness" argument usually goes like this: "everyone is born equal in this nation and everyone should pay the same tax rate regardless his own money-making ability."
I am sorry, my friend, this is total horse-shit.
First, let's see where the tax money goes once it's collected from you and me. The single largest expenditure is National Defense (including Veterans Affairs). It's over $700bn and over 25% of the total budget.
Then, you tell me who benefit more from National Defense, me or Warren Buffet? For me, there are not much to be defended with. Let's say if Cuba invades US, I don't get much to lose. Well, that can't be true for Warren Buffet. He has the most stake in US and he will be the biggest loser if anything happens.
Since rich people benefit more from programs like National Defense, it makes perfect sense that they pay more.
People are dying to protect the country. Well, those poor people, to be precise. So, in order to maintain a steady stream of fresh bodies for the army, rich people have to support poor families. Therefore, Health and Human Services (the 2nd largest item on the budget) makes perfect sense.
Even small items on the budget, like those national highways, rich people drive more and benefit more. Poor folks sometimes don't even have cars! Why should they pay for something that they don't even use?
Education, another example, why should poor people pay for it given the fact that they have the higest drop out rate and lowest admission rate to college?
NASA, haha, do you think people in Harlem give a rat ass about what happens on Mars?
Oh, the Justice Department, the cops! You don't even want me to go there.
This list can go on and on.
The fact is "rich people, who may not even realize it themselves, benefit more in this country by government spending." Of course they have to pay more. This is only FAIR to do so.
Ok, now you may say why progressive tax? Rich people are paying more tax even if their marginal tax rate is the same as poor people.
Here is why: the margin utility of each extra dollar is decreasing and it's utility maximization for the society by taxing higher marginal tax rate.
Let's assume you only earn $1000 a month. This $1000 means a lot to you. It pays your rent, food, and other necessities.
But for others, Bill Gates for example, any extra $1000 means nothing to him. He can even give away the money to support aerospace programs. Well, some millionaires are exactly doing that.
So, if I, as the government, have to tax some money to support the programs I just mentioned earlier, I rather take the money from Bill Gates than from you. Consequently the marginal tax for rich people is indeed progressive. The more money a person makes, the additional dollar will be taxed more as it means less to that person. This tax rule minimizes the impact on the society as whole due to taxation.
Unfortunately, some people has a different utility curve when it comes to money. They will cry out loud whenever you take his money away even though they have little to no need for that money. We call them money-hungry self-centered cheap-asses. Or in short, Republicans.
The "unfairness" argument usually goes like this: "everyone is born equal in this nation and everyone should pay the same tax rate regardless his own money-making ability."
I am sorry, my friend, this is total horse-shit.
First, let's see where the tax money goes once it's collected from you and me. The single largest expenditure is National Defense (including Veterans Affairs). It's over $700bn and over 25% of the total budget.
Then, you tell me who benefit more from National Defense, me or Warren Buffet? For me, there are not much to be defended with. Let's say if Cuba invades US, I don't get much to lose. Well, that can't be true for Warren Buffet. He has the most stake in US and he will be the biggest loser if anything happens.
Since rich people benefit more from programs like National Defense, it makes perfect sense that they pay more.
People are dying to protect the country. Well, those poor people, to be precise. So, in order to maintain a steady stream of fresh bodies for the army, rich people have to support poor families. Therefore, Health and Human Services (the 2nd largest item on the budget) makes perfect sense.
Even small items on the budget, like those national highways, rich people drive more and benefit more. Poor folks sometimes don't even have cars! Why should they pay for something that they don't even use?
Education, another example, why should poor people pay for it given the fact that they have the higest drop out rate and lowest admission rate to college?
NASA, haha, do you think people in Harlem give a rat ass about what happens on Mars?
Oh, the Justice Department, the cops! You don't even want me to go there.
This list can go on and on.
The fact is "rich people, who may not even realize it themselves, benefit more in this country by government spending." Of course they have to pay more. This is only FAIR to do so.
Ok, now you may say why progressive tax? Rich people are paying more tax even if their marginal tax rate is the same as poor people.
Here is why: the margin utility of each extra dollar is decreasing and it's utility maximization for the society by taxing higher marginal tax rate.
Let's assume you only earn $1000 a month. This $1000 means a lot to you. It pays your rent, food, and other necessities.
But for others, Bill Gates for example, any extra $1000 means nothing to him. He can even give away the money to support aerospace programs. Well, some millionaires are exactly doing that.
So, if I, as the government, have to tax some money to support the programs I just mentioned earlier, I rather take the money from Bill Gates than from you. Consequently the marginal tax for rich people is indeed progressive. The more money a person makes, the additional dollar will be taxed more as it means less to that person. This tax rule minimizes the impact on the society as whole due to taxation.
Unfortunately, some people has a different utility curve when it comes to money. They will cry out loud whenever you take his money away even though they have little to no need for that money. We call them money-hungry self-centered cheap-asses. Or in short, Republicans.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Myth #6: I am picking McCain, not Palin
Some people will vote for McCain even though they agree Palin sucks. Their argument is simple: I am voting McCain for President, Not Palin.
Well, this argument is flawed.
First, Palin not just sucks. She is the queen of the Sucker Land and she sucks more than an industrial grade vacuum cleaner.
She can't even name a single newspaper! (Zero knowledge) She claims she understands international affair simple because she can visually see Russia from Alaska! (Zero logic) But she wants more power once she is the VP! (Is she the Weapon of Mass Destruction Bush is trying so hard to find??)
Secondly, Picking Palin as VP candidate is a utterly stupid irrational irresponsible decision. Anyone who makes that decision should not be allowed to make any other decisions for the rest of their lives, maybe except for the "paper or plastic" questions when checking out in a supermarket.
Well, MaCain made that decision! So, he is not qualified to be President. Case closed.
Finally, anyone voting for McCain without thinking about Palin is a dumb ass.
Take a look at a mortality table for a 72-year old. If you don't know what a mortality table is, google it. If you don't know how to use it, google it again. The bottom line is that there is 25% to 30% chance that McCain will die within the first term even without taking his 4 previous skin cancer history into consideration. So, you basically have 30% or higher chance to have Palin as the Head of the State by picking McCain. Some actuaries even put the odds much higher than 50%. If you don't think this is a serious risk worth considering when voting in November, you should not be allowed to vote. I rest my case.
Well, this argument is flawed.
First, Palin not just sucks. She is the queen of the Sucker Land and she sucks more than an industrial grade vacuum cleaner.
She can't even name a single newspaper! (Zero knowledge) She claims she understands international affair simple because she can visually see Russia from Alaska! (Zero logic) But she wants more power once she is the VP! (Is she the Weapon of Mass Destruction Bush is trying so hard to find??)
Secondly, Picking Palin as VP candidate is a utterly stupid irrational irresponsible decision. Anyone who makes that decision should not be allowed to make any other decisions for the rest of their lives, maybe except for the "paper or plastic" questions when checking out in a supermarket.
Well, MaCain made that decision! So, he is not qualified to be President. Case closed.
Finally, anyone voting for McCain without thinking about Palin is a dumb ass.
Take a look at a mortality table for a 72-year old. If you don't know what a mortality table is, google it. If you don't know how to use it, google it again. The bottom line is that there is 25% to 30% chance that McCain will die within the first term even without taking his 4 previous skin cancer history into consideration. So, you basically have 30% or higher chance to have Palin as the Head of the State by picking McCain. Some actuaries even put the odds much higher than 50%. If you don't think this is a serious risk worth considering when voting in November, you should not be allowed to vote. I rest my case.
2008 美国金融危机 (3) － 金融革命
步入70年代之后，美国政府清楚地意识到光靠财政部的力量已经不能继续支持提高美国住房占有率的神圣使命。房贷的需求不断的增长，得益于二战后涌现的生育潮，但政府资金在经济大环境下已经开始有点捉襟见肘。
如何解决这个资金缺口呢？
首先，房利美进行了彻底的私有化。
二战以来，美国房市表现相当好，房屋贷款风险低，回报高，作为一个房屋贷款二级市场的垄断机构，房利美是相当赚钱的。它就是美国财政部里生金鸡蛋的母鸡。平时没事的时候，母鸡生鸡蛋生得很开心，但每次缺钱的时候，主人就总想把母鸡卖掉换钱，也就是说去把房利美卖给投资者，不再是政府的部门。这一点，呵呵，和中国的国企上市倒是很像。
整个五六十年代，每次财政部没钱的时候，房利美私有化的讨论就像幽灵一样的浮现出来。但每次讨论讨论着，经济就渐渐的好点了，钱又来了，就没下文了。这么多年的讨论，其实有些地方已经为私有化铺好了道路，私有化似乎是棺材上钉-迟早的事，但是每次就差这么最后一口气。60年代末的经济萎靡正是提供了一个契机打上了最后一个钉子。这里细节很多，房利美最后分成两部分，一部分还是政府机构，继续向部分向部分国民的房屋贷款进行担保，提供二级市场，但这部分有点类似福利，只对很小部分国民有效；绝大部分业务变成非政府的上市公司，变成投资者拥有的私有经济。
然后，成立房地美来刺激竞争，防止垄断。
房地美也就是Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation)，成立于1970年，它基本上就是房利美的翻版，做一样的事情，就是对符合条件的房屋贷款提供二级市场的支持。房地美的建立是鼓励竞争，防止房利美一家垄断市场，但很滑稽的是，当政府在经营的时候，好像垄断没什么事，房利美独立存在了三十年都好好的，但一旦是私人企业，垄断就是万恶不赦的恶魔，一定要打倒，呵呵，正所谓只许州官放火，不许百姓点灯啊。不过有竞争倒也是好的，有利于二级市场的发展。
最后，建立房地产抵押债券市场
房地产债券其实就是把房地产贷款进行证券化，让很多条款都标准化，方便在公开市场买卖，创造了一种崭新的金融工具，极大的提高房地产贷款的流动性，让更多的投资者可以参与进来，从而扩大总体的资金来源。
我现在用一个家庭的例子来把这一切解释清楚。呵呵，这个东西比较复杂，大家别急，慢慢看。
假设老王现在想买一个60万的房子，但自己只有10万。老万就去花旗银行贷款买房。花旗银行就拿老王的房子作为抵押物，借给老王50万。老王答应每个月给银行还3000，30年还清。数学上一算，这笔贷款的利率大概是6%一年。
老王拿了这50万贷款，加上自己的10万储蓄，给了卖房子的建筑商60万，自己搬进了新家，非常开心。
第二天，老赵也看上了同一个住宅区的房子，和老王一样，老赵需要50万的贷款，他也去找花旗银行了。
银行呢，一方面很开心，一方面很痛苦。开心是因为在老王的贷款上赚钱了。假设银行融资成本是5%(低于老赵付给银行的6%），算起来等于每个月的成本是2700，也就是说这个房屋贷款能让银行一个月赚300块钱，算上30年的话，这个现金流的当前价值就有大概5万（也就是说银行的总成本是45万）。换句话说，银行贷款给老王50万，如果一切正常，银行能赚个5万。但痛苦在于银行把钱贷给老王了，剩下的资金不够50万了，不能再贷给老赵了，唉，赚不到钱了。
对于老王的贷款，银行也不是稳赚5万的，其中风险重重啊。如果老王突然没了工作，付不了每个月3000的钱，那银行就倒霉了。是，银行是可以去卖房子把贷款拿回来，但这也有风险，万一纽约地区房地产市场不好，那就麻烦了。这时候银行突然灵机一动，有办法了！
花旗银行给房美利打了个电话，想把这笔赚钱的贷款卖给房美利实现现金周转（假设贷款的条件符合房利美的要求）。
房利美看一下这个贷款，条件都符合规定（比如付款房子价值比，老王的信用评级，贷款金额等等一系列的指标），就答应买下来，价格上只能给银行46万。银行想了一下，还是不错的，45万的成本，卖了个46万，马上就赚了1万，不用300一个月的等个30年，而且毫无风险！并且马上资金到位，可以再把钱贷给老赵，又可以继续赚钱。银行就开开心心的答应了。其实银行说白了，就是赚了个一级市场发贷款的体力活，1万块钱可以看作是它作背景调查，物业评估的报酬。但这不错啊，毕竟是没有风险的活。等到老赵的贷款弄好了，银行就继续打电话给房利美，哈哈，又有一万到手。
房利美也很开心，46万的成本，买了一个50万的资产，预期可以赚4万，发放贷款前的体力活啥都不用管。至于风险，房利美不是很怕，因为它有好多好多好多的全国各地的贷款来分散风险。而且实在不行有房子抵押啊，卖房子好了。房子价值60万，就算从60万跌倒50万，钱还是可以拿回来，等于是保险加保险。
那房利美怎么来这么多钱去源源不断的买银行的贷款呢？一方面，作为独立上市公司，它能通过股票和债券等去融资。另一方面，它可以把买来的贷款证券化然后卖给市场上的投资者（保险公司，基金等等）。
证券化是这样实现的：
（1）成立一个独立的壳子公司，假设叫叫老王贷款证券化公司。
（2）把老王的房屋贷款转移到这个特殊的公司里，这也就是这公司的唯一资产。公司预期的现金流就是3000一个月。
（3）公司发行房贷款抵押债券给有兴趣的投资者，这个债券付给投资者的现金流就是这3000块钱。（当然这细节就比较复杂，3000涉及本金和利息两个部分，我就不多说了）房利美担保本金的偿付，但不担保利息，也不担保什么时候本金会被偿付。
（4）投资者看看这个现金流，用数学模型来看现金流的可能分布。大家请注意，3000一个月的现金流不是肯定的，如过将来利率下调，老王就可以去其它银行底价借钱，然后去还花旗银行的贷款，这样对于贷款持有者来说，一个月300块这样的赚钱买卖就消失了。所以，房贷款抵押债券投资者最大的风险是将来利率的波动，尽管本金被房利美担保了不会亏。最后投资者竞投47万去买债券。
好，这样一搞，房利美46万买的贷款，卖了47万，赚一万，也实现了资金周转，可以继续去买其他银行的房屋贷款。但房利美承受了在老王不付钱并且房子价值跌到50万以下的风险。在一般情况下，由于这个风险很小，所以赚1万就很不错了。而且资金回笼了，可以继续去赚钱。
房屋贷款债券的投资者呢？预期可以赚3万，但承受将来利率变化的风险。这个风险最大，所以得到的报酬也最多。今后的日子了，每天利率都会变化，这个债券的价格也一直在变，二级市场买卖频繁，一个流动性很强的资产就产生了。这个资产是相当吸引人的，它和普通的企业债券很不一样，它是跟着总体市场上的利率水平跑的，企业债券是跟着具体的公司财务状况跑的，由于这种差异，很多大型的债权基金都增加房屋贷款债券持有比例来分散投资风险。
好了，总算把这个最简化的例子说完了，累死我了。真正的数学计算要远比这个复杂，大家看看名堂好了，我有地方算错了别打人。
总体上看，这一系列的买卖贷款，实际上就是实现了资金的流动性，让市场参与者各取所需，各尽其能，极大程度上丰富了投资种类。这也就相当于引爆了一颗金融原子弹，从此金融创新源源不绝，奠定了今后35年蓬勃发展的金融革命。
但这颗原子弹也炸开了潘多拉的宝盒，到底最终是祸是福，咱们下回再见分晓。
如何解决这个资金缺口呢？
首先，房利美进行了彻底的私有化。
二战以来，美国房市表现相当好，房屋贷款风险低，回报高，作为一个房屋贷款二级市场的垄断机构，房利美是相当赚钱的。它就是美国财政部里生金鸡蛋的母鸡。平时没事的时候，母鸡生鸡蛋生得很开心，但每次缺钱的时候，主人就总想把母鸡卖掉换钱，也就是说去把房利美卖给投资者，不再是政府的部门。这一点，呵呵，和中国的国企上市倒是很像。
整个五六十年代，每次财政部没钱的时候，房利美私有化的讨论就像幽灵一样的浮现出来。但每次讨论讨论着，经济就渐渐的好点了，钱又来了，就没下文了。这么多年的讨论，其实有些地方已经为私有化铺好了道路，私有化似乎是棺材上钉-迟早的事，但是每次就差这么最后一口气。60年代末的经济萎靡正是提供了一个契机打上了最后一个钉子。这里细节很多，房利美最后分成两部分，一部分还是政府机构，继续向部分向部分国民的房屋贷款进行担保，提供二级市场，但这部分有点类似福利，只对很小部分国民有效；绝大部分业务变成非政府的上市公司，变成投资者拥有的私有经济。
然后，成立房地美来刺激竞争，防止垄断。
房地美也就是Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation)，成立于1970年，它基本上就是房利美的翻版，做一样的事情，就是对符合条件的房屋贷款提供二级市场的支持。房地美的建立是鼓励竞争，防止房利美一家垄断市场，但很滑稽的是，当政府在经营的时候，好像垄断没什么事，房利美独立存在了三十年都好好的，但一旦是私人企业，垄断就是万恶不赦的恶魔，一定要打倒，呵呵，正所谓只许州官放火，不许百姓点灯啊。不过有竞争倒也是好的，有利于二级市场的发展。
最后，建立房地产抵押债券市场
房地产债券其实就是把房地产贷款进行证券化，让很多条款都标准化，方便在公开市场买卖，创造了一种崭新的金融工具，极大的提高房地产贷款的流动性，让更多的投资者可以参与进来，从而扩大总体的资金来源。
我现在用一个家庭的例子来把这一切解释清楚。呵呵，这个东西比较复杂，大家别急，慢慢看。
假设老王现在想买一个60万的房子，但自己只有10万。老万就去花旗银行贷款买房。花旗银行就拿老王的房子作为抵押物，借给老王50万。老王答应每个月给银行还3000，30年还清。数学上一算，这笔贷款的利率大概是6%一年。
老王拿了这50万贷款，加上自己的10万储蓄，给了卖房子的建筑商60万，自己搬进了新家，非常开心。
第二天，老赵也看上了同一个住宅区的房子，和老王一样，老赵需要50万的贷款，他也去找花旗银行了。
银行呢，一方面很开心，一方面很痛苦。开心是因为在老王的贷款上赚钱了。假设银行融资成本是5%(低于老赵付给银行的6%），算起来等于每个月的成本是2700，也就是说这个房屋贷款能让银行一个月赚300块钱，算上30年的话，这个现金流的当前价值就有大概5万（也就是说银行的总成本是45万）。换句话说，银行贷款给老王50万，如果一切正常，银行能赚个5万。但痛苦在于银行把钱贷给老王了，剩下的资金不够50万了，不能再贷给老赵了，唉，赚不到钱了。
对于老王的贷款，银行也不是稳赚5万的，其中风险重重啊。如果老王突然没了工作，付不了每个月3000的钱，那银行就倒霉了。是，银行是可以去卖房子把贷款拿回来，但这也有风险，万一纽约地区房地产市场不好，那就麻烦了。这时候银行突然灵机一动，有办法了！
花旗银行给房美利打了个电话，想把这笔赚钱的贷款卖给房美利实现现金周转（假设贷款的条件符合房利美的要求）。
房利美看一下这个贷款，条件都符合规定（比如付款房子价值比，老王的信用评级，贷款金额等等一系列的指标），就答应买下来，价格上只能给银行46万。银行想了一下，还是不错的，45万的成本，卖了个46万，马上就赚了1万，不用300一个月的等个30年，而且毫无风险！并且马上资金到位，可以再把钱贷给老赵，又可以继续赚钱。银行就开开心心的答应了。其实银行说白了，就是赚了个一级市场发贷款的体力活，1万块钱可以看作是它作背景调查，物业评估的报酬。但这不错啊，毕竟是没有风险的活。等到老赵的贷款弄好了，银行就继续打电话给房利美，哈哈，又有一万到手。
房利美也很开心，46万的成本，买了一个50万的资产，预期可以赚4万，发放贷款前的体力活啥都不用管。至于风险，房利美不是很怕，因为它有好多好多好多的全国各地的贷款来分散风险。而且实在不行有房子抵押啊，卖房子好了。房子价值60万，就算从60万跌倒50万，钱还是可以拿回来，等于是保险加保险。
那房利美怎么来这么多钱去源源不断的买银行的贷款呢？一方面，作为独立上市公司，它能通过股票和债券等去融资。另一方面，它可以把买来的贷款证券化然后卖给市场上的投资者（保险公司，基金等等）。
证券化是这样实现的：
（1）成立一个独立的壳子公司，假设叫叫老王贷款证券化公司。
（2）把老王的房屋贷款转移到这个特殊的公司里，这也就是这公司的唯一资产。公司预期的现金流就是3000一个月。
（3）公司发行房贷款抵押债券给有兴趣的投资者，这个债券付给投资者的现金流就是这3000块钱。（当然这细节就比较复杂，3000涉及本金和利息两个部分，我就不多说了）房利美担保本金的偿付，但不担保利息，也不担保什么时候本金会被偿付。
（4）投资者看看这个现金流，用数学模型来看现金流的可能分布。大家请注意，3000一个月的现金流不是肯定的，如过将来利率下调，老王就可以去其它银行底价借钱，然后去还花旗银行的贷款，这样对于贷款持有者来说，一个月300块这样的赚钱买卖就消失了。所以，房贷款抵押债券投资者最大的风险是将来利率的波动，尽管本金被房利美担保了不会亏。最后投资者竞投47万去买债券。
好，这样一搞，房利美46万买的贷款，卖了47万，赚一万，也实现了资金周转，可以继续去买其他银行的房屋贷款。但房利美承受了在老王不付钱并且房子价值跌到50万以下的风险。在一般情况下，由于这个风险很小，所以赚1万就很不错了。而且资金回笼了，可以继续去赚钱。
房屋贷款债券的投资者呢？预期可以赚3万，但承受将来利率变化的风险。这个风险最大，所以得到的报酬也最多。今后的日子了，每天利率都会变化，这个债券的价格也一直在变，二级市场买卖频繁，一个流动性很强的资产就产生了。这个资产是相当吸引人的，它和普通的企业债券很不一样，它是跟着总体市场上的利率水平跑的，企业债券是跟着具体的公司财务状况跑的，由于这种差异，很多大型的债权基金都增加房屋贷款债券持有比例来分散投资风险。
好了，总算把这个最简化的例子说完了，累死我了。真正的数学计算要远比这个复杂，大家看看名堂好了，我有地方算错了别打人。
总体上看，这一系列的买卖贷款，实际上就是实现了资金的流动性，让市场参与者各取所需，各尽其能，极大程度上丰富了投资种类。这也就相当于引爆了一颗金融原子弹，从此金融创新源源不绝，奠定了今后35年蓬勃发展的金融革命。
但这颗原子弹也炸开了潘多拉的宝盒，到底最终是祸是福，咱们下回再见分晓。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)