關於 gains from trade ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【#譚德塞不能說的秘密】《華爾街日報》4月5日社論，講述台灣早在2019年12月31日已經通知世衛，台灣有證據相信武漢肺炎病毒是人傳人，但世衛高層卻選擇只發佈中國提供的消息(「沒有證據是人傳人」），最後證明是fake news。

YouTube: 譚德塞被台灣死亡恐嚇？
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxHbQmvD0L8

World Health Coronavirus Disinformation
By The Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal
April 5, 2020 5:28 pm ET

//The coronavirus pandemic will offer many lessons in what to do better to save more lives and do less economic harm the next time. But there's already one way to ensure future pandemics are less deadly: Reform or defund the World Health Organization (WHO).

Last week Florida Senator Rick Scott called for a Congressional investigation into the United Nations agency's "role in helping Communist China cover up information regarding the threat of the Coronavirus." The rot at WHO goes beyond canoodling with Beijing, but that's a good place to start.

The coronavirus outbreak began in Wuhan, China, sometime in the autumn, perhaps as early as November. It accelerated in December. Caixin Global reported that Chinese labs had sequenced the coronavirus genome by the end of December but were ordered by Chinese officials to destroy samples and not publish their findings. On Dec. 30 Dr. Li Wenliang warned Chinese doctors about the virus, and several days later local authorities accused him of lies that "severely disturbed the social order."

Taiwanese officials warned WHO on Dec. 31 that they had seen evidence that the virus could be transmitted human-to-human. But the agency, bowing to Beijing, doesn't have a normal relationship with Taiwan. On Jan. 14 WHO tweeted, "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission." The agency took another week to reverse that misinformation.

On Jan. 22-23 a WHO emergency committee debated whether to declare Covid-19 a "public health emergency of international concern." The virus already had spread to several countries, and making such a declaration would have better prepared the world. It should have been an easy decision, despite Beijing's objections. Yet director-general Tedros Ghebreyesus declined and instead traveled to China.
He finally made the declaration on Jan. 30—losing a week of precious time—and his rhetoric suggests the trip to Beijing was more about politics than public health. "The Chinese government is to be congratulated for the extraordinary measures it has taken," he said. "I left in absolutely no doubt about China's commitment to transparency."

A University of Southampton study suggests the number of coronavirus cases could have been reduced by 95% had China moved to contain the virus three weeks sooner. Yet Dr. Tedros gushed that Beijing had set "a new standard for outbreak response." He also praised the speed with which China "sequenced the genome and shared it with WHO and the world." China didn't do so until Jan. 12.

On Jan. 30 Dr. Tedros also said that "WHO doesn't recommend limiting trade and movement." President Trump ignored the advice and announced travel restrictions on China the following day, slowing the spread of the virus. U.S. progressive elites echoed WHO and criticized Mr. Trump. WHO didn't declare the coronavirus a pandemic until March 11.

Not that any of this has prompted much soul-searching. Alluding to China, WHO official Michael Ryan said last week, "We need to be very careful also to not to be profiling certain parts of the world as being uncooperative." Beijing touted the remarks, as it has other WHO statements.
***

This record is tragic but not surprising. Much of the blame for WHO's failures lies with Dr. Tedros, who is a politician, not a medical doctor. As a member of the left-wing Tigray People's Liberation Front, he rose through Ethiopia's autocratic government as health and foreign minister. After taking the director-general job in 2017, he tried to install Zimbabwe dictator Robert Mugabe as a WHO goodwill ambassador.
China inevitably gains more international clout as its economy grows. But why does WHO seem so much more afraid of Beijing's ire than Washington's? Only 12% of WHO's assessed member-state contributions come from China. The U.S. contributes 22%. Americans at WHO generally are loyal to the institution, while Chinese appointees put Chinese interests first or they will suffer Beijing's wrath.
China's influence over WHO has been organized and consistent, whereas the U.S. response has been haphazard. Washington needs a quarterback to lead the fight against Chinese dominance at WHO and other international organizations. Yet the State Department's Bureau of International Organization Affairs lacks a political appointee.
The U.S. will have allies in an effort to reform WHO. A frustrated Japanese deputy prime minister called WHO the "Chinese Health Organization." British Prime Minister Boris Johnson reportedly is rethinking U.K.-China ties over China's lack of candor about the virus.

***
Congress should investigate how WHO performed against the coronavirus and whether its judgments were corrupted by China's political influence. Of all international institutions, WHO should be the least political. Its core mission is to coordinate international efforts against epidemics and provide honest public-health guidance.

If WHO is merely a politicized Maginot Line against pandemics, then it is worse than useless and should receive no more U.S. funding. And if foreign-policy elites want to know why so many Americans mistrust international institutions, WHO is it.//

華倫女士呼聲變高.......華爾街緊張了.

"Warren’s rise in the polls was highlighted in bold face in a worry list compiled by David Rosenberg, the chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff. While investors should be concerned about trade and China, along with a litany of global concerns, “the No. 1 issue should actually be the rising prospect of an Elizabeth Warren presidency, coupled with the House [of Representatives] staying Democrat and the Senate flipping that way,” he wrote to clients.

Warren, while declaring herself a capitalist to draw a distinction from Sanders, an avowed democratic socialist, “has made it very clear that she is no friend of the equity market,” he continues. And the Massachusetts senator has a point, Rosenberg adds. One of the biggest bull markets of all time created tremendous wealth—some $27.4 trillion since the low of March 2009, by Wilshire Associates’ calculations—but failed to deliver on facilitating capital investment, as textbooks teach. “On that file, she does have a leg to stand on,” he contends.

Adding to the rising prospect of a Warren nomination, the market also has to deal with the impeachment inquiry for President Donald Trump and its impact on his chances of reelection. And if the economy slows sufficiently to push up the unemployment rate, his odds would fade further.

Moreover, impeachment would likely make the already unproductive Congress even more so. Issues such as a vote on the USMCA trade deal, drug pricing, and the like probably would remain stalled. The impeachment proceedings also “all but ensures that we are going to see a de facto tax INCREASE on the corporate sector come 2021,” MacroMavens’ Stephanie Pomboy alertly points out.

The end of provisions such as immediate expensing would be equivalent to a seven-to-eight percentage point increase in the statutory tax rate. “YIKES!!,” she comments. “Yeah, I know 2021 is a lifetime away. But if you are a CEO, you’re going to start factoring in that change in 2020, which, it bears reminding, is just three months away.” All of which will weigh on the already deteriorating profit outlook, she concludes.

The bottom line for next year’s presidential race is that it seems increasingly likely to pit Trump, the stock market’s No. 1 cheerleader, against Warren, “a cheer-less leader,” as Rosenberg dubbed her, who favors higher marginal tax rates, hikes in capital-gains and dividend levies, plus a wealth tax, to help pay for Medicare for all. Some choice."

https://www.barrons.com/articles/wall-streets-optimism-sinks-as-elizabeth-warrens-star-rises-51570199807

在"法人的提款機"文中已經提到，散戶因為交易失利，在1995到1999這五年間，共輸給法人2490億台幣。

為什麼會輸呢?

簡單的說，就是散戶賣掉的股票表現比買進的股票好。假如你覺得自己買進股票後，它就不漲了，而賣掉股票後，它就開始漲。你絕對不孤單。因為這就是台股散戶的共同經驗。

但散戶在證券市場中損失的金額不僅只於輸給交易對手的部份。在“Just How Much Do Individual Investors Lose by Trading?”文中，散戶的金錢損失共有四方面。

第一個前面已經提到的交易損失2490億台幣，

第二個是交易佣金3020億台幣，

第三個是證交稅3190億台幣，最後是試圖適時進出市場損失650億台幣。總共在這五年間，散戶因交易股票，共損失了9350億台幣。平均每年損失1870億台幣。

我們可以看到這四項損失中，與交易策略失敗有關的是交易損失和試圖適時進出的損失。而交易成本則包括券商收的佣金和政府稅收。交易佣金和證交稅這兩項就占了9350億損失中的66%，交易損失和適時進出市場才占剩下的34%

這些數據明白指出，很多投資人不看在眼裡的交易成本和稅務負擔，才是真正厲害的殺手。或許，就是因為人們忽視這些費用，才造成那麼龐大的損失。