5 O& C' z- Z8 g% }& _5 O/ S% b' Ctvb now,tvbnow,bttvb % h) ~$ v8 P" [/ L1 f公仔箱論壇 * F* I' I$ `$ e Z2 Btvb now,tvbnow,bttvbTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。4 o" ~. ?, ~1 G" P 作者: felicity2010 時間: 2014-10-25 11:41 AM
本帖最後由 felicity2010 於 2014-10-25 11:46 AM 編輯 % n3 s Q+ K7 k7 \tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb 3 m' |0 x+ a; Q" j" oPaul Krugman: Plutocrats Against Democracy1 s/ o1 t c* o' e$ U$ |' P. Q: y
5.39.217.763 w! x' H: g$ k0 I: e$ I2 Q
It’s always good when leaders tell the truth, especially if that wasn’t their intention. So we should be grateful to Leung Chun-ying, the Beijing-backed leader of Hong Kong, for blurting out the real reason pro-democracy demonstrators can’t get what they want: With open voting, “You would be talking to half of the people in Hong Kong who earn less than $1,800 a month. Then you would end up with that kind of politics and policies” — policies, presumably, that would make the richless rich and provide more aid to those with lower incomes. * X* B% W u: a" C/ |# q+ ~tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb ( y# O5 F, {: c: \: k8 |- Ftvb now,tvbnow,bttvbSo Mr. Leung is worried about the 50 percent of Hong Kong’s population that, he believes,would vote for bad policies because they don’t make enough money. This may sound like the 47 percent of Americans who Mitt Romney said would vote against him because they don’t pay income taxes and, therefore, don’t take responsibility for themselves, or the 60 percent that Representative Paul Ryan argued pose a danger because they are “takers,” getting more from the government than they pay in. Indeed, these are all basically the same thing.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb1 \) v! V$ N6 k+ X& Y" ?7 o0 h- x
5.39.217.76) h7 Y8 l, q7 N. `
For the political right has always been uncomfortable with democracy. No matter how well conservatives do in elections, no matter how thoroughly free-market ideology dominates discourse, there is always an undercurrent of fear that the great unwashed will vote in left-wingers who will tax the rich, hand out largess to the poor, and destroy the economy. % R) W& n9 m; j: r + d/ \: Z( J( H: I' A) Ftvb now,tvbnow,bttvbIn fact, the very success of the conservative agenda only intensifies this fear. Many on the right — and I’m not just talking about people listening to Rush Limbaugh; I’m talking about members of the political elite — live, at least part of the time,in an alternative universe in which America has spent the past few decades marching rapidly down the road to serfdom. Never mind the new Gilded Age that tax cuts and financial deregulation have created; they’re reading books with titles like “A Nation of Takers: America’s Entitlement Epidemic,” asserting that the big problem we have is runaway redistribution. 0 B" t: o% G& [" U& `. uTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。公仔箱論壇' X5 }/ Y" a& V& l
This is a fantasy. Still, is there anything to fears that economic populism will lead to economic disaster? Not really. Lower-income voters are much more supportive than the wealthy toward policies that benefit people like them, and they generally support higher taxes at the top. But if you worry that low-income voters will run wild, that they’ll greedily grab everything and tax job creators into oblivion, history says that you’re wrong. All advanced nations have had substantial welfare states since the 1940s — welfare states that,inevitably, have stronger support among their poorer citizens. But you don’t,in fact, see countries descending into tax-and-spend death spirals — and no,that’s not what ails Europe.5.39.217.76# E O3 |! U2 _& m
3 A' y& U r* Z; J/ a4 lStill, while the “kind of politics and policies” that responds to the bottom half of the income distribution won’t destroy the economy, it does tend to crimp the incomes and wealth of the 1 percent, at least a bit; the top 0.1 percent is paying quite a lot more in taxes right now than it would have if Mr. Romney had won.So what’s a plutocrat to do?tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb) A8 ?4 h$ i1 i/ \( [9 y
3 D( F$ e* U$ h2 m7 j
One answer is propaganda: tell voters, often and loudly, that taxing the rich and helping the poor will cause economic disaster, while cutting taxes on “job creators”will create prosperity for all. There’s a reason conservative faith in the magic of tax cuts persists no matter how many times such prophecies fail (as is happening right now in Kansas): There’s a lavishly funded industry of think tanks and media organizations dedicated to promoting and preserving that faith." W2 R) O, G5 {
" O4 l, F, G4 S3 E
Another answer, with a long tradition in the United States, is to make the most of racial and ethnic divisions — government aid just goes to Those People, don’t you know. And besides, liberals are snooty elitists who hate America.5.39.217.76% J1 x( K6 w9 q% ?
1 o& `- L- m" {8 {公仔箱論壇A third answer is to make sure government programs fail, or never come into existence,so that voters never learn that things could be different. ' \: v- r. i% {$ b5 J- ptvb now,tvbnow,bttvb+ j/ V, d' f8 A4 r
But these strategies for protecting plutocrats from the mob are indirect and imperfect.The obvious answer is Mr. Leung’s: Don’t let the bottom half, or maybe even the bottom 90 percent, vote.1 }3 j# Z* Z V/ N6 F; F5 Q
公仔箱論壇* }( r% B' R6 x O+ O4 x1 e7 P
And now you understand why there’s so much furor on the right over the alleged but actually almost nonexistent problem of voter fraud, and so much support for voter ID laws that make it hard for the poor and even the working class to cast ballots.American politicians don’t dare say outright that only the wealthy should have political rights — at least not yet. But if you follow the currents of thought now prevalent on the political right to their logical conclusion, that’s where you end up. * J* y) r% }: w , o- r' A6 f; o+ p. w+ J% y: CThe truth is that a lot of what’s going on in American politics is, at root, a fight between democracy and plutocracy. And it’s by no means clear which side will win. " k5 U0 |1 A& J8 D( Q0 z公仔箱論壇( F" J) ^$ F; `( m9 @
* [. q: f; ?" MTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。死撐CY收巨款完全無問題 1 V* i; G3 F) g9 r' i公仔箱論壇# W2 D0 ?% e" b, W. p % T" ~0 X% ~' x. y8 Y$ _* f5.39.217.76TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。& U0 P0 |& w t* ]8 a8 L
【本報訊】有份將梁振英推上特首之位的董建華，昨日至少四次被問到梁振英不下台、香港將難以管治時，繼續發言死撐梁留任，又指梁收取UGL秘密巨款無交稅，他曾親身了解事件，認為梁振英在事件中的道德和操守「完全無問題」。資深大律師、公民黨議員湯家驊亦指，任何一個律師都不會認為UGL事件無問題，認為法律問題應以法律方式解決，質疑董建華盲目支持梁振英，而忽略梁振英的誠信問題。TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。; l" y1 [3 _* Y1 p& e
1 Y" C6 }, @+ n: b4 N6 g' dtvb now,tvbnow,bttvb雖然昨日董建華死撐梁振英收取UGL巨款「無問題」，更向記者挑戰：「你哋可以一路再講落去，但係你哋會失望，搵唔到新嘢」。但有消息指，澳洲當局明年將會就事件立案調查，令梁振英今次巨款醜聞進入法律程序。tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb# h7 O8 O- r1 @6 C9 r
公仔箱論壇. ^' s1 m8 O0 ^6 u8 h: u
董建華昨日至少四次被問到梁振英為何仍未下台的問題時，又多次為梁「講好話」，指不覺得梁振英現時應該下台。問到梁振英能否做畢五年任期時，更直指「梗係啦」。但談到是否支持梁振英競逐連任時，董則拒絕表態，指不知梁振英屆時會否參選，「2017年以後的嘢，我唔講」。TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。- |3 c5 [0 w) ^8 Y! v
公仔箱論壇8 j, ~* p) o, ?, y
指梁24小時都工作 , g/ w% Z8 T9 Q% [5 s7 C6 C7 v/ K公仔箱論壇 7 q% R( q" o4 [ U, c, |8 Ttvb now,tvbnow,bttvb 董建華又將上屆特首曾蔭權應付2008年金融風暴的功勞，歸功於2012年才出任特首的梁振英，指香港從金融風暴快速恢復經濟，「梁特首梗係有個好大的參與喺裏面」。董建華又指，不滿學生將梁振英政府「講到一無是處」，要求梁「講句公道話」，指「佢（梁振英）其實廿四小時都喺度工作的」，強調梁獲中央高度信任。TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。5 L. A/ j' w( A' }3 T; X8 G
8仔筆記│翻叮老董硬挺梁 中共死人尋舊路 . `, _0 y) w7 F8 e m# dtvb now,tvbnow,bttvb TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。: V8 A+ t8 o0 V3 ] 6 E) r& S/ V2 {# w
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb y' Q5 Y- X- s* U6 Y; w. Z2 R
蟄伏九年的前特首董建華最近兩個月兩度對香港政改問題指指點點，上個月3日撐人大常委會的「落閘」決定，今個月24日則叫佔領運動人士「依家應該係時候返去」，又斷言梁振英可以完成任期，一派太上皇的姿態。假如這是當今中共領導人的「御旨」，反映出的深層次問題就大矣哉。 , S: Y+ R2 T3 I) q4 F# ^ . m, u. c$ M3 l8 m5 d# }5 l* ?公仔箱論壇首先，讓董建華扮演太上皇，可謂充滿「老人政治」色彩，本身已經十分之不妥。tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb: J2 Y) v% Z* A
公仔箱論壇$ I7 Z1 [3 L. p. M1 ]
再說，董建華當年雖然以「腳痛」為由請辭，但港人皆知，而中央更比誰都清楚，他是治港無方而不得不下台。正所謂「敗軍之將，不足言勇」，如今竟然再獲重用，反映出當今中共領導人要翻案，不承認董建華無能，箇中心態實在令人憂慮。 x! I, z! Y' d5 @; [! k
6 C" K0 L* z4 ~1 ^! d
還有，如果中央認為可以利用董建華的「老好人」形象安撫香港人，則又是一錯，以為「好人政治」就可以取代港人的民主訴求（亦即自由民主的制度設計）。 8 i( J- x2 C$ A% _9 _0 ~$ o3 utvb now,tvbnow,bttvb5.39.217.76) e$ g* `( e- W3 b& Q, }$ {
另一方面，最近盛傳中央決意「挺梁」，假如這是真的，那麼，除了反映出中共依然擁抱「社團思維」，更突顯出中共根本缺乏問責精神。9 k0 ~0 q) _. b: Q2 r- O$ r; M O
公仔箱論壇' B, L2 [1 m! U# o# X
須知道，佔領人士兩大訴求，其一是撤回人大常委會的決定，另一是梁振英下台，其實是一個錢幣的兩面。簡言之，民主最基本要素有二：其一是權利意識，另一是就是問責精神。 ( j1 z4 Y+ n* {* K- r, K' A所謂的權利意識，最粗淺的解釋就是「普及而平等的投票權」，而人大常委會的決定肯定違反。 0 f9 Q/ @5 ~/ W; A3 I' J , U$ _" I% [8 Q& w/ T2 k' k5 s* X Z所謂的問責精神，最粗淺的解釋就是「有權就有責」，「權力越大就越須要問責」，梁振英作為特區最高領導人，處理政改和佔中都嚴重失職，自然須要問責下台，這在西方國家已屬「指定動作」甚或「基本消費」，但偏偏中共卻視之為「挑戰中央權威」。tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb. {% L3 r: x3 ~" H
5 l. ^/ w$ I4 @# W, q, ITVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。事實上，他如葉劉淑儀、羅范椒芬，以至若隱若現的梁錦松，在在反映出中共不但嚴重缺乏自重自省自我修正的能力，更了無半點「只有讓人民監督政府，政府才不敢鬆懈」（毛澤東語）的誠意。
6 E) r& S/ V2 {# w