|
作者
|
內容
|
|
歸一
管理人員
|
Posted -
2001/4/14 上午 09:45:51
|
|
|
對於銀行因為利率協議廢除，而開始向小額存戶收費，大家從天主教社會倫理的角度來看，有什麼意見呢？
我就覺得在資本主義的主場來看，為競爭而作出什麼行為都是對的，只要不犯法就可以，但是這樣其實是令香港變成一個不容許窮人生存的都市，就好像曼克頓那樣，你要在這裡生存，先問問自己有沒有足夠的競爭力，沒有的話，請你離開。許多事都顯示出這個特點，如把老人"請"回內地居住，輸入專才等等。但是，這些做法都是沒有顧及這個城市其實是屬於在這裡成長的人，而不是只屬於高競爭力的人。
各位屬神的人，有何看法呢？
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2001/4/17 下午 12:15:40
|
|
|
Account maintenance is not without cost for the banking sector. Charging "the rich" and waiving bank charge for 'the poor" means the rich clients will have to subsidize its poorer clients.
There goes a few problems, if banks are forced to waive charges for the poor :
1. Banks, as commercial enterprises are not in a position to identify who should pay charges and who should not. Similarly, you cannot ask a baker to give away bread to the poor and charge more for the rich.
2. The Government has no excuse to provide basic "banking" facilities to the needed...i.e. post office can fulfill this need as in the case for some European countries.
3. Customers are not left without choices : there are smaller banks who are more than happy to attract smaller clients and offer free banking services.
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2001/4/17 下午 12:20:05
|
|
|
So if one suggests the government should impose banking service tax or interest income tax and use this money to subsidize the poor, what would you say?
Do you think its more constructive than to blame the banks....
Do you think its fair to blame the banks without blaming the baker... or the butcher... or the supermarket...
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/4/17 下午 03:21:17
|
|
|
史提芬兄,我看不到要大客戶subsidize小存戶有甚麼問題,誰得的多,對他的要求也越多,這也是累進稅率的原因.
有些服務賺錢,有些服務無錢賺也是正常事,只做有賺無蝕的生意的話,第一樣我們便不用讀神學了,蝕硬!大學也不應開哲學,實蝕無黐牙呀,陰公!
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2001/4/17 下午 03:46:02
|
|
|
Surely agreed.
For us faithful, there is nothing wrong to take the load off the shoulders of our poorer brothers.
My point is : let the private sector do what WORKS rather than what is RIGHT for them. Leave it to the public sector to decide how the rick should help the poor!
As far as bank charges is concerned, one should put pressure on the government rather than banks!
|
|
Eleventh Dimension
|
Posted -
2001/7/8 上午 02:06:53
|
|
|
Hello contributors. I have no formal Catholic theology training but would like to share some of my views regarding issues raised here.
I think we, or everybody, consciously or unconsciously evaluate and judge the acts or omissions of others in accordance with their own values. I think I am going to do this myself this time.
From the first post by Mr. Unification (sorry, correct translation?), I would like to point out that Capitalism basically is not about competition, but about maximising profits. Competition basically is a concept derived from Free Market Economics. In most countries the two concepts co-exist, somehow coincidentally. The idea that they would do anything that is not illegal, stems from the Concept of Law, or the Rule of Law, as in reality everyone, including companies want to survive and remain in business. However, in those relatively more developed western or industrialised nations, their governments and businesses do have something more which provides a good balancing power against the vices coming from the above. It is their appreciation and respect of Human Life. That is fundamentally different from the concept of Human Rights (and I am not going to address it). It is the lack of this value from our HK government and our business entities that make us feel so bad. Have we all noted that it has become more common for the western companies to adopt many ethical values into their business models, such as protection of environment, minimising waste production, and putting the best interests of their clients in the first place? If we compare this with what our HK counterparts have been doing, the result is pathetic. To put it simply, the souls of our HK counterparts have no morality, or perhaps, they simply lack a soul.
|
|
Eleventh Dimension
|
Posted -
2001/7/8 上午 02:08:04
|
|
|
Back to the topic, I believe banks have been charging small accounts fees all the time. On the face of it, it might not be fair to those poor and powerless. However, there is a general tendency in HK that whatever facilities are free of charge, people would simply abuse the system. This is also one of the issue arising from Capitalism, that each individuals as well as companies were simply trying to maximise their profits. And from Free Market Economics, that those account holders could simply and easily swap their accounts to other banks.
There is one more issue at hand, namely Individualism, that people are selfish and are concerned only with their interests instead of others or of the society. It is difficult to say whether this is good or bad. I will leave this to the readers to decide upon.
As far as I can see, what the banks have done is to minimise those who want only free lunches.
(On a side note, I am wondering why many of the postings were dated some months ago. This site is getting a bit quiet these few days. Could anyone care to let me know why? Thanks.)
|
|
Eleventh Dimension
|
Posted -
2001/7/8 上午 02:08:48
|
|
|
The issue raised by writers Steve and Mr. Handsome (again, translation?) strikes on another fundamental and controversial ethical question. That is, what is Fairness, or what is Justice? Is it fair to charge more from those who has more? Is this in effect discouraging people or punishing them from working harder, as the harder a person works, the more he has to give up in real terms. Mr. Handsome has cited the Taxation System as an example. But if that is legitimate, how come those who paid more tax are not entitled to have more say on the government, for example, in terms of their right to vote on elections? How come every citizens (for the sake of argument, or ideologically speaking, or on popular geographical votes, or that is what we are hoping to happen) should only be entitled in one vote? How come there is no scale system allowed for that? Mr. Handsome has only cited an example in support of his argument supporting subsidisation by the rich to the poor, but he has failed to explain why it should be the case in essence. Another issue, it might be his value systems that people who are well off should help out those less well off. But on what ground could the view of a person be imposed upon those who have different value systems?
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2001/7/8 上午 03:38:36
|
|
|
First of all, banks have always subsidized the poor. Just that it is not so obvious when there was still interest rate agreement, banks cannot freely bid up deposit rates. So rich and poor both get equal rates.
However, the consumer council 好心做壞事 forced banks to abolish interest rate agreement thinking that banks will bid up rates and all depositors ( rich and poor ) can benefit. This is true as far as money is tight and banks have to bid up their rates.
The abolishment of interest rate agreement came at the worst time when we are experiencing global recession. Banks have nowhere to lend money but deposits keep rolling in. They simply dont need to attract any more deposits. Thats why they choose to charge whatever they like.
But the point is : banks have no part in deciding what is fair. When recession is over and money is tight again, banks will have no choice but to bid up their rates to attract more funds. So it is entirely not up to the banks. And blaming the banks REALLY doesnt help at all.
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2001/7/8 上午 03:53:02
|
|
|
And here is to reply eleventh dimension ( e.d. or can i call you Ed ).
Capitalism has no part to deal with Social Ethics which is the topic here. This is because the point of departure 出發點 is totally different.
Capitalism is based on ecomomics which assumes decision of each individual with the assumption that each will maximize his own benefit. 經濟學假定了每一「個人」所作的決定皆為謀求自身的最大利益。
However, our Church's treaching told us 人皆是天主肖像，...therefore 人的致力於替人性尊嚴...而服務。
The two fundamental assumptions have nowhere in common. How can Church's teaching be of any use in convincing the world ( who takes capitalism seriously ) to listen?????
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2001/7/8 上午 03:59:20
|
|
|
by the way, both Brother One and Handsome have not answered my question :
If you can ask banks to take from the rich and subsidize the poor, can you ask the same to the baker... or the butcher...
賣麵包的是否也應 give away bread to the poor and 收有錢人一百元一個菠蘿包？
|
|
Eleventh Dimension
|
Posted -
2001/7/8 下午 01:13:51
|
|
|
Hello Steve, regarding your first post, I agree with what you have said in general. I only wish to point out that every person, including business entities, have to consider what is fair, but fairness to them do not necessarily mean that is fairness to others. The point is, it is their value systems which is different from others. It would not be right if we are simply judging the banks (or anyone else) with only our value systems instead of theirs. In the context of Social Ethics, we have to first understand their attitudes and values and why are they doing such acts because different value systems and world views will give fundamentally different results to the same problem. I believe that is the rationale of Mr. Unification who raised the concept of Capitalism in his post in the first place. And I responded to him describing briefly how I understand Capitalism in this particular context. That is why in the very first beginning, I stated that the approach I am taking is to concentrate and to consider on various value systems raised by different contributors.
Regarding your second post, I do not see there is any difference in substance of your simple definition of Capitalism from mine. I do not think either you or I wish to discuss what Capitalism is further. I agree with you that, from a purely academic point of view, there seems to have nothing in common between Capitalism and teachings of the Church. But again, the point is, that we have to consider the value systems of the people and companies which are in this same society. They carry out their acts, or they make decisions and choices in this same society. And they do it in accordance with their value systems. Social Ethics definitely have to take such into account, at least to understand their values why and how they do such acts, and why and how they make such decisions and choices. Forgive my ignorance, it is in the same Social Ethics classes I attended years ago that I learned what Capitalism is, of course in the context of Ethics, not in the context of how to run a successful business. I am sorry I do not know there are new ways of studying social issues in Ethics that do not need to take into account the value systems of people to understand how they make choices.
|
|
Eleventh Dimension
|
Posted -
2001/7/8 下午 01:19:25
|
|
|
Let me state this again, I have mentioned in my earlier post that the government and companies in the west are beginning to have a soul, or something akin to a soul, which shows that they are increasingly more aware of and willing to take into account the will and values of the people, instead of simply maximising profits (refer to earlier post for details). In other words, their ethics, (yes, companies do have ethics too) is starting to take into account the dignity of human life, the importance of the environment, and the best interest of their clients. These have all been said by me before.
|
|
Eleventh Dimension
|
Posted -
2001/7/8 下午 01:47:25
|
|
|
Steve, regarding your question, I would like to point out various value systems as raised in your April 17 posting.
[For us faithful, there is nothing wrong to take the load off the shoulders of our poorer brothers.]
Basically, I understand what lies beneath is that we, as Catholics, should be altruistic and to help those in need.
[Let the private sector do what WORKS rather than what is RIGHT for them.]
Basically, I understand you have tolerance (would it be respect as well?) in others not having the same value systems as yours, and tacitly accepted the value system, namely Capitalism, is the mode of operation for the private sector. As you have qualified the altruistic attitude for the faithful only, so you will not judge the private sectors according to this altruistic principle.
[Leave it to the public sector to decide how the rich should help the poor!]
Well, I can see there are several alternatives value systems in explaining this, but it will be best to leave it to you for further elaboration. I am not that good in speculating.
This is what I understand the underlying values of yours that gave rise to your conclusion regarding the banking issues. And if everyone of us could be more aware of others, and of course, our own underlying values, that would make us better equipped to understand the social issues at hand, and easier for us to make choices, better choices.
Steve, to me, your question is trying to solve a potential conflict between your first and second principles. I assume you would expect not only the faithful, but every person with a soul, or have morality, to be altruistic to help the poor (of course provided he is really capable of doing). But when the person is carrying out a business, the principle should be to maximise profits. I would say, depending on your conviction, or your emphasis in morality, either choice would be fine to me, at least in this particular example.
My point is, we have to understand the value systems first, then apply it in the decision making process, or to evaluate them to see why and how people make such decisions.
Perhaps it is best for me to explain my approach in addressing social issues, as I am new here and do not have similar background to people around. I have no intention at all to come here to argue for the sake of arguing or to criticise. I wish to stick to the topic. Hope this posting will make my passages clearer to the readers.
|
|
Eleventh Dimension
|
Posted -
2001/7/8 下午 02:57:00
|
|
|
Steve, I have just remembered that it is possible to charge higher prices to the rich than to the poor, and has been the case in some industries. However, they do it in a more subtle way and justify it with some nicely packaged theories. The basic principle at work is differentiation, or dividing up the markets. To the poor, they will charge at costs, or with minimal mark up, but only to provide the most basic services. To the better off, they will charge at a premium, and to provide luxurious services, physically and psychologically. Banks have been doing this (as indeed many other industries, like fashions, telecoms, cars, pharmaceuticals, and many many others).
It is also economically feasible and desirable to divide up the markets simply into the poor/basic and rich/premium or other ways peculiar to particular industries. For example, mobile telecom industries would have too much excessive unused capacity if they only cater for the rich. That is why they also provide basic plans to the poorer, but with limitations such as the priority of taking a line when the system is busy, so that their systems would not stay idle for most of the time. And this is also sound economic principle. Another principle is to grasp market shares. Indeed there are plenty other reasons.
Likewise, bakers could do that as well too. I am not going into detail how to achieve that unless you need me to do that. My point is, they could achieve the same results under their value systems what we, with our value systems, want in the first place.
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2001/7/9 上午 11:16:03
|
|
|
I am trying to be brief.
1. I totally agree and support catholic values
2. Yes I think we should all discriminate between the rich and the poor
3. I dont agree private sector to make value judgement. They are not in the business to do so. And there is no basis for them to judge.
4. Therefore, in practice the government should be in a better position to do it on behave of the private sector. Eg. fine tuning and redistribution of wealth by taxation.
5. Conclusion, I am not defending the banks from criticisms. I am just saying ethical issues is not in economic models which private sector used to determine price.
6. I should not use the term Capitalism, rather I should refer to free market economy.
|
|
Cissie
|
Posted -
2001/7/9 下午 05:45:47
|
|
|
I think the crus of the matter is this : what should be "the value system".
I suggest that it does not exist as such. Only God is in a position to say "what is THE value system".
We discuss here by throwing in different lights according to each one's conviction. That is what makes the forum here interesting and fruitful.
So I think it is OK already if Mr E.D. voiced out his opinion (he need not refer to others point by point as he did). This is NOT a debating forum. I am NOT interested in answering point by point since it is assumed that the words are already there for people to read. But we would see that even though we are all Christians, we have differing "value systems", haha. By no means do I wish to impose my will on anybody here. However, my OWN conviction is strong, so I may state things more emphatically than others.That's all.
|
|
Cissie
|
Posted -
2001/7/10 下午 12:24:14
|
|
|
"They carry out their acts, or they make decisions and choices in this same society. And they do it in accordance with THEIR value systems. Social Ethics definitely have to TAKE such INTO ACCOUNT, at least to understand their values why and how they do such acts, and why and how they make such decisions and choices..."
Here is an anachronism by E.D. - 基本矛盾:
如果社會上的流行價值觀是不道德的價值觀,倫理又如何"臣服"於它們? 如果要道德倫理臣服於流行價值,人類將來的福祉又如何保障?
再者,教會的訓導如果追隨流行價值,真理的落腳點就會是浮動的了 - 今年社會時興甲,真理就是甲,時興乙, 就是乙,這樣的,是我們的信仰嗎?
是的,我有限的理解是真理時永恆的。在二千年前主在世時如此,二千年後今天亦然!
倫理道德紮根於真理,他們也必須具有永恆不變的價值,才堪當社會上的道德標準,而我們的責任,就是去找出他來,而不是去使他委曲於當今的流行價值以求全!
至於社會的需要,當然人人不同,因為人人有自我,有其"私心私慾",正所謂家家有求,但人身處社會上,是否正義,是否公平,還是以真理來衡量,而並不是以流行價值。
咱們所關心的,是如何當一個義人(just man)。所以應人人為我,我為人人,這不容易,卻不是多此一舉,而是必須。所以.在討論立法的好壞,這兒首先看是否合乎社會道德倫理。這不是埋首沙堆不看社會現況,相反,這些人人都看到,也知道,傳媒已落足功夫。反而是這些真理的聲音太微小,如不高聲調一點,人是不會注意;這也不是戇居,而是知其不可為而為。連這麼一把聲音也啞了,世界還有得救的希望嗎?
所以陳主教其實是在行好,只不過不是人人同意,欣賞他罷了。不欣賞的,其實可以高唱反調,他又如何得甚麼?不必人身攻擊就是了。他也不用攻擊人家。
E.D. has been confusing some what on what is ethics and social values, as far as I can see.
|
|
