本區搜索:
Yahoo!字典
打印

[Econ] 有1條MCQ請教...

[隱藏]

有1條MCQ請教...

Which of the following statements about property rights is correct?


(A).Property rights arise only when resources are allocated by the price mechanism.
(B).Property rights arise whenever there is scarity.
(C).Property rights arise when individuals in a society compete for resources.
(D).All of the above

Why the answer is C? Thanks for your explanation....
   

TOP

首先
Property Rights 係DSE係唔考的DSE 考的係private property rights

Property rights 係HKALE
係指rules of competition
private property 係其中一set rules of competition


因為Property rights = rules of competition
所以要有competition 先會有Property rights

Competition 出現需要 "scarcity" + "兩個或以上的人"
只要
"scarcity" + "兩個或以上的人"就會有Competition
無論price mechanism / non price mechanism 都會有
so A 錯



Competition 出現需要 "scarcity" + "兩個或以上的人"
淨係得scarcity 唔夠
So B 錯

C啱係因為
"individuals in a society" "compete" for resources.
有competition 就會有Property rights


講左咁耐
其實都係out c 嘢

TOP

o..ic ....thanks so much^^

TOP

You need to think in the alternative way(If the statement do not hold):

A: If there is no price mechanism eg, barter , do you own your property(assets)? Yes, you will defense your own property, thus there is property right. Wrong

B: When there is no scarcity, eg market equilibrium or free good, do you own your own assets? Yes, so there is property right. Wrong

C: If you do not compete for resources, then you are giving up the right to own the assets, Property right has no meaning if you don't want to own the assets, so there is no property right. Correct, thus if you compete for  resources which means you secure your ownership of the assets, property right then exists.

Want to remind the first replier, property right is the ownership of assets, doesn't matter in AL or DSE. If you own the property right, you have the power/authority to use, transfer or earn from the assets, even there is no competition.

TOP

引用:
原帖由 petergarylee 於 2016-7-1 03:37 PM 發表
You need to think in the alternative way(If the statement do not hold):

A: If there is no price mechanism eg, barter , do you own your property(assets)? Yes, you will defense your own property, thus there is property right. Wrong

B: When there is no scarcity, eg market equilibrium or free good, do you own your own assets? Yes, so there is property right. Wrong

C: If you do not compete for resources, then you are giving up the right to own the assets, Property right has no meaning if you don't want to own the assets, so there is no property right. Correct, thus if you compete for  resources which means you secure your ownership of the assets, property right then exists.

Want to remind the first replier, property right is the ownership of assets, doesn't matter in AL or DSE. If you own the property right, you have the power/authority to use, transfer or earn from the assets, even there is no competition.
Sorry, please study the syllabus of HKALE before you judge.
In HKALE, private property rights (私有產權) and property rights (產權) are two separate concepts.I understand that some schools in foreign countries will teach that private property rights and property rights are equivalent.
But sorry, this is not HKALE standard. HKALE exam is set by Steven N.S. Cheung (張五常)
You may refer to the below article by Steven Cheung
http://www.gongfa.com/chanquanzhangwuchang.htm

Apart from the difference in the definitions, your statements mentioned above also got some logical fallacies.
one of them is the statement you mentioned "When there is no scarcity, eg market equilibrium or free good, do you own your own assets? Yes, so there is property right. Wrong"

Please let me know if you own any free good e.g. air
I am quite sure you can win the nobel prize or be a billionaire if you could proof it.Otherwise, I think you now notice one thing, you could own nothing if there is no scarcity.

Then your statement mentioned could not be used to reject option B.
Please think twice in order to ensure you are solving others' problems instead of confusing others.

[ 本帖最後由 williamEX 於 2016-7-3 02:53 AM 編輯 ]

TOP

I think the one who need to think twice is you, my dear friend, Using exam stetting to ruin Economics is a shame. Maybe I am not using a good example for B but I think theoretically it is correct, I apologies for it.
Moreover, please read carefully about the link that you have provided:'在经济社会中,基本的游戏规则即产权的规则': point out the rule of property right is the rule of competition, means rule=rule, not property right=rule. Also '所以如果这表不是我的,人们就会进行无谓的浪费来得到表。但如果这表是我的,我就会把表给出价最高的人,而且要求的价钱一定不少于金表价值。由此你会发现若产权不是私有的,为了行使产权,很多资源被浪费了。': If it is not mine(如果这表不是我的), if it is mine(但如果这表是我的), property right isn't privately owned(产权不是私有的), these words already show property right is a symbol of OWNERSHIP and it can be EXERCISE(行使)
Please point out where is "Property rights 係HKALE 係指rules of competition private property 係其中一set rules of competition'
It is so naïve that using those narrow thought to explain stuff, Steven Cheung isn't.
Also, telling you why no Chinese can win the Nobel prize. It is because most of the ppl are thinking like you, exam rules, school rules and country rules, not thinking from the subject itself but the things that force to it, even there is 'Chinese' winner, they are for sure not mainly educated in Greater China and they are for sure not holding a Chinese passport.
I, as an Economics student studying overseas, am very proud of the foreign education system, especially my Economics course and knowledge. I don't know what you are studying at, but an Economist will definitely not think in your way. To repeat my point, I don't think property right is rule of competition, using the naïve equation and forced definition will only make your mind become narrower. Finally, using Steven Cheung's word:两人经济体系我们研究了30多年还没有说清楚, I really hope you can think before you say, there is no definition is Social Science especially shouldn't think like you, past concept is keep being reject or renew, so don't bound your mind by the book or what others tell you, it can be the way that you write a book or you tell others. I am not saying I know everything, at least I am not being an exam machine or recorder, where I explain stuff by using my own words.

PS, it is a good article(not mine, Steven Cheung's), I suggest others to have a look.

TOP

引用:
原帖由 petergarylee 於 2016-7-4 03:14 PM 發表
I think the one who need to think twice is you, my dear friend, Using exam stetting to ruin Economics is a shame. Maybe I am not using a good example for B but I think theoretically it is correct, I a ...
Property right is rule of competition係高考的定義
你唔認同無問題,畢竟你無考過
你認唔認同都好
呢個都係一個歷史的產物
唔係因為你唔認同
高考的past paper / 課程就唔會見左
咁我就係呢度就唔同你嘈定義啱唔啱
因為呢個只係學術派別的定義分歧

但係如果你唔認同以上的定義
但又係想解釋到一條under 高考課程所出的題目
咁sorry 啦
你唔會解釋到討論係要基於同樣基礎下
你唔同意呢個定義
咁你就解釋唔到由呢個定義衍生出來的題目
正如用你的定義係證明唔到option B 錯的

情況就好似我站係地球,我假設左地球的重力去計個result
你就同我講,你覺係假設左地球的重力係唔啱的,應該用無重力狀態下的宇宙的情況
你唔同意我的假設無問題
你亦無錯
但係唔會推論到物件係地球重力下的運動情況

如果你想解釋/理解一條某個考試題目
而唔先去理解考試課程定義
無疑係緣木求魚,累人累己

好似大家都係問money supply 改變,output 會點改變
答案係ISLM model 同 classical model 已經爭好遠
一個假設有price rigidity
一個假設無price rigidity
有無話邊個錯
只係學派之爭
但係如果你要考試
你就要跟題目,
考ISLM model 就用ISLM model
考classical model 就用classical model
調轉的話我諗你都知會發生咩事

學術上你唔認同個定義

但係考試上你一定要緊個考試課程
你唔同意無問題
但係請你唔好教人唔跟
某程度上
你係叫緊人用ISLM model 去答 classical model的題目

[ 本帖最後由 williamEX 於 2016-7-4 08:17 PM 編輯 ]

TOP

希望你唔好有hard feeling 啦
考試唔係學術
學術有討論的餘地
考試係無的

另外,講多少少常識你知呀
諾貝爾獎係有中國人囿
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_Nobel_laureates

TOP

Please read my words carefully:
'even there is 'Chinese' winner, they are for sure not mainly educated in Greater China and they are for sure not holding a Chinese passport. '
Please check out the list carefully for their 'nationality' and 'education', other then those 'political' prize,

Yes, your words is correct, exam is exam, even it is wrong it is still exam, similar to all the language paper, even the author or writer cant figure out the ans. Education is a process but not an aim or final result, if anyone of us find out there is mistake or unclarified information, we should point it out, rather than leaving it. Maybe my thought cant suit the public exam but telling students to think and memorize those narrow definition will only make the education worse. I calrify now, my answer do not gather you marks, it is an optional thought, if you want to get 5** please refer to others answer, sorry for confusion, but if you are arguing with Economics thought then plz reject me.
Also, to reply the definition question, the given article :
'You may refer to the below article by Steven Cheung
http://www.gongfa.com/chanquanzhangwuchang.htm'
only points out that property right is ownership and I have explain it already, if I have missed any part, plz point it out.

FInally, I have to point out that, knowing a system or a set of rules is a waste of time if you didn't overcome them, that's why I think study for study/ exam for exam is also a waste of time.(please ignore this sentence if you are dse exam fighter, it wont give you marks or even make you fail)

TOP

引用:
原帖由 petergarylee 於 2016-7-5 04:39 PM 發表
Please read my words carefully:
'even there is 'Chinese' winner, they are for sure not mainly educated in Greater China and they are for sure not holding a Chinese passport. '
Please check out the list carefully for their 'nationality' and 'education', other then those 'political' prize,

Yes, your words is correct, exam is exam, even it is wrong it is still exam, similar to all the language paper, even the author or writer cant figure out the ans. Education is a process but not an aim or final result, if anyone of us find out there is mistake or unclarified information, we should point it out, rather than leaving it. Maybe my thought cant suit the public exam but telling students to think and memorize those narrow definition will only make the education worse. I calrify now, my answer do not gather you marks, it is an optional thought, if you want to get 5** please refer to others answer, sorry for confusion, but if you are arguing with Economics thought then plz reject me.
Also, to reply the definition question, the given article :
'You may refer to the below article by Steven Cheung
http://www.gongfa.com/chanquanzhangwuchang.htm'
only points out that property right is ownership and I have explain it already, if I have missed any part, plz point it out.


FInally, I have to point out that, knowing a system or a set of rules is a waste of time if you didn't overcome them, that's why I think study for study/ exam for exam is also a waste of time.(please ignore this sentence if you are dse exam fighter, it wont give you marks or even make you fail)
理念唔同就唔緊要
但係如果你想理解Steven Cheung 的理念
閱讀佢的文章就要細心少少


該篇文章有以下兩個重點

1) 張五常開宗明義
講左 Property rights係指rules of competition
"在经济社会中,基本的游戏规则即产权的规则。谈论产权,我们其实在谈论约束人们行为的游戏规则。"


2) Private Property rights 係其中一種Property Rights,而private property rights 係租值消散(資源浪費)
在经济的世界里,你改变产权的规则,你就改变了整个系统。私有产权非常独特的一点是:只有在私有产权的情G下,人们才用市场价格分配资源。........当然还有其它资源分配的方式。但只有在价格进行分配的情G下,才没有租金的消散。


你Quote 嗰句由此你会发现若产权不是私有的,为了行使产权,很多资源被浪费了。
佢係指世界上有咁多Property rights, 如果你發現某Property rights 唔係private(即private property rights), 為左行使這Property rights,會有資源被浪費。

而唔係好似你咁斷章取義咁話Property rights =Private property rights.

你有興趣理解的就睇多次
就算無興趣
我都希望你下一次睇學術文章的時候
要細心閱讀
唔好斷章取義
不然對作者同自己本身都係一種不尊重

[ 本帖最後由 williamEX 於 2016-7-7 10:24 PM 編輯 ]

TOP

重要聲明:小卒資訊論壇 是一個公開的學術交流及分享平台。 論壇內所有檔案及內容 都只可作學術交流之用,絕不能用商業用途。 所有會員均須對自己所發表的言論而引起的法律責任負責(包括上傳檔案或連結), 本壇並不擔保該等資料之準確性及可靠性,且概不會就因有關資料之任何不確或遺漏而引致之任何損失或 損害承擔任何責任(不論是否與侵權行為、訂立契約或其他方面有關 ) 。