2013年12月31日 星期二

2013/12/31 「年度風雲國家:烏拉圭」

年度風雲國家:烏拉圭

摘錄自:天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報                        2013/12/27
2013-12-24 Web only 作者:經濟學人
 
天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報 - 20131231
圖片來源:flickr.com/photos/29198100@N00/


如同往年,2013年有光榮也有災難。到了年終結算之時,成就和挫敗大多有如獨孤自大狂或聖人的產物,而非多數人類共同努力的結晶。為了讓天平從個體倒向集體、從悲嘆倒向歡欣,《經濟學人》首次決定提名一個年度風雲國家。

該如何選擇呢?如果將重點放在GDP成長,會讓我們選擇南蘇丹,其2013年的成長可能高達30%,但主要是由於去年南蘇丹脫離蘇丹,造成唯一的油管關閉,促使經濟衰退55%,而不是因為這個處境艱難的國家前景十分樂觀。又或許,我們可以選一個撐過經濟難關的國家:愛爾蘭堅強又冷靜地熬過了援助和支出裁減;愛沙尼亞擁有全歐盟最低水準的債務。但我們擔心,這種計量經濟手法會肯定那些最狠毒的諷刺,讓我們真的成為鐵石心腸的數字派。

另一個問題則是,應該要評估政府還是人民?以烏克蘭為例,烏克蘭有個惡棍總統雅努科維奇(Viktor Yanukovych),也有在基輔街頭為了民主而承受寒風的勇敢公民,即使9年前他們就經歷過革命、試圖讓同一個人下台。也別忘了土耳其,在那裡,數萬人發動示威對抗總理兼蘇丹埃爾多安(Recep Tayyip Erdogan)那可怕的獨裁政府和伊斯蘭主義。可惜,這兩股運動還沒有成功。

定義也是個問題。其中一個可能人選為索馬利蘭;索馬利蘭有效控制了海盜和伊斯蘭極端主義,但以多數定義來說,索馬利蘭根本不是個國家,只是索馬利亞的一個叛省──而索馬利亞一直難以控制海盜和伊斯蘭極端主義。除了尚未成為國家的名單外,我們也可以向即將解體的國家獻上祝賀:英國自1707年建立至今,總體表現不算太差,但要是蘇格蘭人在2014年有勇無謀地決定獨立,這個國家也會嚴重破裂。

其他出版品思考這類習題之時,通常會以個人影響力而非道德為主。因此,它們選出了普丁、霍梅尼(Ayatollah Khomeini),或是1938年的希特勒。要是像那樣考量現實政治,我們或許會選擇阿薩德的敘利亞,它讓數百萬身陷黑暗的難民四散於地中海東部各個寒冷無比的難民營。要是我們在乎的是人民平均影響力,可能會選擇位於東海、定期帶來第三次世界大戰威脅的釣魚台列嶼──但那可能暗示著釣魚台獨立,促使中國和日本進攻我們。

但我們認為,最值得表揚的成就應該是發生突破性改革,那不僅改善了單一國家,要是其他國家仿效,甚至對全世界都有益處。同志婚姻就是這種跨越國界的政策,不僅增加了人類總體的快樂程度,而且沒有財務成本。有幾個國家在2013年實施了同志婚姻──其中一個就是烏拉圭,而且烏拉圭讓大麻合法化,並立法規範生產、銷售和消費。如果其他國家跟進並將其他麻醉藥物包括在內,這類藥物為世界帶來的傷害將大幅減低。

更棒的是,烏拉圭總統穆希卡(José Mujica)非常謙遜。他有著政治人物極為少見的坦白,認為新法案是項實驗。他住在簡陋的小屋、自己開福斯金龜車上班,搭乘飛機時坐的是經濟艙;謙遜卻也大膽、風趣又自由,烏拉圭就是我們的年度風雲國家。(黃維德譯)

©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013



The Economist

The Economist's country of the year
Earth's got talent

By The Economist
From The Economist
Published: December 24, 2013

Dec 21st 2013 | From the print edition

Resilient Ireland, booming South Sudan, tumultuous Turkey: our country of the year is…

HUMAN life isn't all bad, but it sometimes feels that way. Good news is no news: the headlines mostly tell of strife and bail-outs, failure and folly.

Yet, like every year, 2013 has witnessed glory as well as calamity. When the time comes for year-end accountings, both the accomplishments and the cock-ups tend to be judged the offspring of lone egomaniacs or saints, rather than the joint efforts that characterise most human endeavour. To redress the balance from the individual to the collective, and from gloom to cheer, The Economisthas decided, for the first time, to nominate a country of the year.

But how to choose it? Readers might expect our materialistic outlook to point us to simple measures of economic performance, but they can be misleading. Focusing on GDP growth would lead us to opt for South Sudan, which will probably notch up a stonking 30% increase in 2013—more the consequence of a 55% drop the previous year, caused by the closure of its only oil pipeline as a result of its divorce from Sudan, than a reason for optimism about a troubled land. Or we might choose a nation that has endured economic trials and lived to tell the tale. Ireland has come through its bail-out and cuts with exemplary fortitude and calm; Estonia has the lowest level of debt in the European Union. But we worry that this econometric method would confirm the worst caricatures of us as flint-hearted number-crunchers; and not every triumph shows up in a country's balance of payments.

Another problem is whether to evaluate governments or their people. In some cases their merits are inversely proportional: consider Ukraine, with its thuggish president, Viktor Yanukovych, and its plucky citizens, freezing for democracy in the streets of Kiev, even though nine years ago they went to the trouble of having a revolution to keep the same man out of office. Or remember Turkey, where tens of thousands protested against the creeping autocracy and Islamism of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister-cum-sultan. Alas, neither movement has yet been all that successful.

Definitional questions creep in, too. One possible candidate, Somaliland, has kept both piracy and Islamic extremism at bay, yet on most reckonings it is not a country at all, rather a renegade province of Somalia—which has struggled to contain either. As well as countries yet to be, we might celebrate one that could soon disintegrate: the United Kingdom, which hasn't fared too badly, all things considered, since coming into being in 1707, but could fracture in 2014 should the Scots be foolhardy enough to vote for secession.

And the winner is

When other publications conduct this sort of exercise, but for individuals, they generally reward impact rather than virtue. Thus they end up nominating the likes of Vladimir Putin, Ayatollah Khomeini or, in 1938, Adolf Hitler. Adapting that realpolitikal rationale, we might choose Bashar Assad's Syria, from which millions of benighted refugees have now been scattered to freezing camps across the Levant. If we were swayed by influence per head of population, we might plump for the Senkaku (or Diaoyu) islands, the clutch of barren rocks in the East China Sea that have periodically threatened to incite a third world war—though that might imply their independence, leading both China and Japan to invade us. Alternatively, applying the Hippocratic principle to statecraft, we might suggest a country from which no reports of harm or excitement have emanated. Kiribati seems to have had a quiet year.

But the accomplishments that most deserve commendation, we think, are path-breaking reforms that do not merely improve a single nation but, if emulated, might benefit the world. Gay marriage is one such border-crossing policy, which has increased the global sum of human happiness at no financial cost. Several countries have implemented it in 2013—including Uruguay, which also, uniquely, passed a law to legalise and regulate the production, sale and consumption of cannabis. This is a change so obviously sensible, squeezing out the crooks and allowing the authorities to concentrate on graver crimes, that no other country has made it. If others followed suit, and other narcotics were included, the damage such drugs wreak on the world would be drastically reduced.

Better yet, the man at the top, President José Mujica, is admirably self-effacing. With unusual frankness for a politician, he referred to the new law as an experiment. He lives in a humble cottage, drives himself to work in a Volkswagen Beetle and flies economy class. Modest yet bold, liberal and fun-loving, Uruguay is our country of the year. ¡Felicitaciones!

©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013



2013/12/31 「登月成功 「中國夢」新開始?」

登月成功 「中國夢」新開始?

摘錄自:天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報                        2013/12/27
2013-12-23 Web only 作者:經濟學人

天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報 - 20131231
圖片來源:flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/

一份中國報紙表示,那是「中國夢的新開始」。1215日,中國媒體評論者找到了足以與阿姆斯壯於1969年留下的月面鞋印相比之物:月球探測車玉免在月球上留下了「中國足跡」,其母船亦完成了1976年以來首次月面軟著陸。國家主席習近平在地面控制站中觀看整段過程,並在影像出現於螢幕之時拍了拍手;對於這位中國夢的推廣者來說,那是個非常珍貴的時刻。

習近平於201211月、就任數日之後,就提出了「中國夢」這個口號。自那時開始,中國夢便襲捲全中國,出現在各地的看板和宣傳海報之上;上個月,它在共產黨中央委員會的決議中出現了兩次,標誌著習近平的掌控程度增加。習近平曾表示,中國夢包括「強國夢」和「強軍夢」,他也一直展現強人作風,特別是在中全會之後。

中國在亞洲的部分行動亦顯得更加獨斷。125日,中國海軍船艦在南海與美國巡洋艦爆發緊繃衝突;雙方對此皆保持沉默,直到超過一周之後,美國官員才表示,考斯本號巡洋艦被迫轉向以免與中國船艦相撞。

此意外發生之時,美國巡洋艦正在觀察中國最新、也是唯一的航空母艦遼寧號;那是遼寧號首度進入滿是海權爭議的南海(9月發行的「中國夢」紀念郵票一套共四張,其中之一就印著遼寧號;另外三張中,兩張印著中國太空船,一張印有深海潛艇)。美國就船艦在國際水域幾乎相撞一事向中國提出抗議,然而,一份中國報紙指控考本斯號威脅「中國的國家安全」。此衝突可能會讓美國更加擔心,中國想讓擁有重要貿易路線的南海成為自家後院。

在這次衝突之前,中國於1123宣佈了東海的「防空識別區」,要求所有飛經該區的飛機向中國官方提交報告。此事讓掌有區內島嶼的日本極為憤怒,也引來美國、南韓等國批評。1216日,美國國務卿凱瑞(John Kerry)在訪問河內之時表示,該防空識別區增加了「危險誤算或意外」的風險。中國似乎並未強力執行防空識別區規定,但國內的民族主義派皆盛贊此設立防空識別區。就在凱瑞發表意見當日,身在雅加達的中國國防部長常萬全表示,批評此區「百害而無一利」。

中國在報導嫦娥三號太空船登陸月球、成功派出印著中國國旗的玉兔探測車之時,處處可見「中國夢」一詞。習近平在6月與三名環繞地球的中國太空人公開通話之時表示,「飛天夢是強國夢的重要組成部分」。即使微博上有些人抱怨,重製蘇聯和美國那麼久以前就做過的事沒什麼意義,但習近平似乎就和過去的領導者一樣,對月球念念不忘。軍方的主要發言管道《解放軍報》指出,目前尚無法確知中國人何時可以登上月球,但中國太空人「正以前所未見的速度朝此目標前行」。

北京則謠言四起,指出習近平為了展示其政治實力,將前政治局常委周永康軟禁以調查貪汙等罪行。《紐約時報》於1215日報導,1949年共產黨掌權至今,首次有如此高層的人員接受正式貪汙調查;《紐約時報》指出,不具名人士表示,習近平等領導人物是在12月初決定採取此行動。在習近平上任、周永康卸下中央政法委書記職務之前,周永康擁有極大的權力;各界認為他是前政治局委員薄熙來的支持者;薄熙來於9月因貪汙和濫權被判無期徒刑。

雖然習近平表面上充滿自信,近期的宣傳活動亦透露了黨內精英階層間彌漫的不安全感。12月初,官方報紙開始讚揚一篇匿名的網路文章,該文希望中國人能從其他地區的威權政府倒台記取教訓,並指出「我們擁護習近平主席,因為我們不想成為第二個利比亞」,該文標題為「沒有了祖國,你將什麼都不是」。儘管有部分微博使用者嘲諷該文,但也有部分國營企業員工受令集體研讀該文。(黃維德譯)

©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013



The Economist

Power and patriotism
Reaching for the Moon

By The Economist
From The Economist
Published: December 23, 2013

Dec 21st 2013 | BEIJING | From the print edition

Xi Jinping has consolidated power quickly. Now he is showing it off.

IT WAS, as a Chinese newspaper put it, "a new beginning for the Chinese dream". On December 15th the imprint left by Neil Armstrong's boot on the moon in 1969 found its near-equivalent in the minds of China's media commentators: the "Chinese footprint" gouged in the lunar dust by Yutu, a Chinese rover, after its mother ship made the first soft landing on the moon by a spacecraft since 1976. President Xi Jinping, watching from ground control, clapped as the image appeared on the screen. For the promoter-in-chief of the Chinese dream it was a moment to cherish.

Mr Xi launched the "Chinese dream" slogan within days of taking power in November 2012. It has since swept the nation, appearing everywhere on billboards and propaganda posters. It featured twice in a resolution adopted by the Communist Party's Central Committee at a plenum last month that marked the tightening of Mr Xi's grip. He has said the Chinese dream includes a "dream of a strong nation" and a "dream of a strong army" and, especially since the plenum, he has been playing up the strongman image.

Some Chinese actions in the region have appeared more assertive, too. On December 5th a Chinese naval ship had a tense encounter with an American cruiser in the South China Sea. Both sides kept quiet about it until more than a week later when American officials revealed that their vessel, USS Cowpens, had been forced to manoeuvre to avoid hitting the Chinese ship, which had passed in front.

The incident occurred while the American cruiser was watching China's new and only aircraft-carrier, the Liaoning, as it made its first foray into the area, which is riven with competing maritime claims. (TheLiaoning features in a special issue of four "Chinese dream" postage stamps issued in September; two others show Chinese spacecraft and one a deep-sea submersible.) America lodged protests with China about the near-miss in international waters. A Chinese newspaper, however, accused the Cowpens of posing a threat to "China's national security". The encounter is likely to add to American concerns that China is trying to claim the sea, a vital trading route, as its backyard.

The maritime near-miss came after the announcement on November 23rd of an "Air-Defence Identification Zone" in the East China Sea that would require all aircraft flying through it to report to the Chinese authorities. This enraged Japan, which controls islands within the zone, and was criticised by other countries, including America and South Korea. On December 16th during a visit to Hanoi, America's secretary of state, John Kerry, said the zone had increased the risk of a "dangerous miscalculation or an accident". China's enforcement of it seems to have been scant, but nationalists at home have hailed the move. On the same day as Mr Kerry spoke, China's defence minister, Chang Wanquan, was in Jakarta, where he said that critics of the zone were causing "a hundred harms and no benefits".

"Chinese dream" rhetoric has suffused China's coverage of the moon landing by the Chang'e-3 spaceship, and the Yutu (Jade Rabbit) rover's successful deployment from it, sporting the Chinese flag on its side. In a televised call to three Chinese astronauts orbiting Earth in June, Mr Xi had said: "The space dream is an important part of the dream of a strong nation." Despite some mutterings on Chinese microblogs about the pointlessness of replicating feats performed so long ago by the Soviet Union and America, Mr Xi appears as fixated on the moon as his predecessors were. The army's main mouthpiece, the People's Liberation Army Daily, said it was hard to say exactly when a Chinese person would land on the moon, but that Chinese spacemen were "heading towards this goal with unprecedented speed".

The urge to purge

In Beijing rumours have continued to swirl that Mr Xi has been flexing his political muscles by putting a retired member of the Politburo's Standing Committee, Zhou Yongkang, under house arrest on suspicion of corruption and other crimes. The New York Times reported on December 15th that Mr Zhou had become the first person of such rank to be placed under formal investigation for corruption since the Communist Party came to power in 1949. The newspaper quoted unnamed sources as saying Mr Xi and other leaders decided to take this action in early December. Mr Zhou enjoyed enormous power as head of the internal security apparatus before stepping down at the same time as Mr Xi took office. He was also widely thought to be the patron of Bo Xilai, a Politburo member who was sentenced to life in prison in September for corruption and abuse of power.

But although Mr Xi usually appears confident, a recent propaganda campaign has betrayed a sense of insecurity that still permeates the party elite. In early December official newspapers began praising an anonymous internet posting that urges Chinese to draw lessons from the chaotic collapse of authoritarian regimes elsewhere. "We support Chairman Xi Jinping because we don't want to become a second Libya," says the article, titled "You are nothing without your motherland". Some microbloggers have mocked it, but employees of some state enterprises have been corralled into studying it. Mr Xi's glorious dreams of the future, it appears, alternate with nightmarish visions.

©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013



2013/12/31 「《華爾街之狼》揭露人性荒唐」

《華爾街之狼》揭露人性荒唐

摘錄自:天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報                        2013/12/27
2013-12-26 Web only 作者:經濟學人
 
天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報 - 20131231
圖片來源:flickr.com/photos/goksanozman/
現在正值辨公室派對的季節,但《華爾街之狼》裡那種縱情聲色的聖誕節大概不多見。在史柯西斯(Martin Scorsese)執導的電影中,星期五便服日都可看到高雅的侍者、成群妓女、半裸樂隊等。

這些狂歡宴會的主人,就是電影的主角和口述者貝爾福(Jordan Belfort,由李奧納多.迪卡皮歐飾演);這部電影正是改編自貝爾福的自傳。貝爾福在20歲出頭時進入大型證券公司,但很快就碰上黑色星期一,並遭到解雇。他在華爾街找不到工作,只好在長島靠電話,推銷問題水餃股。隨後,他設立了Stratton Oakmont,很快就賺進數百萬美元,也引來了調查局探員的注意。

史柯西斯本人並沒有像那位探員一樣,反對貝爾福的作為。或許他在拍完兒童電影《雨果的冒險》之後,想要拍部狂妄、充滿陽剛氣、給成人看的娛樂片。無論原因為何,《華爾街之狼》是他最有生氣、最充滿歡笑的電影,這並不只是一部滿是瘋狂派對的電影,這部電影本身就是個瘋狂派對。

然而,最喧鬧的派對也最讓人感到厭倦。基本上,《華爾街之狼》是一連串令人寒毛直豎的軼聞,雖然它們全都十分好笑、可恥,訴說手段亦十分高明,但只有極少部分有助於劇情的推展或角色的深度。

看過《蠻牛》或《四海好傢伙》的人,都會期待這部電影可以深入反英雄的表象之下,曝露他對自我的憎恨。但劇本實在太著迷於不良的狂歡行為,無暇顧及貝爾福的心理狀態。反之,它以貝爾福呈現自己的方式呈現貝爾福,將說教留給了觀眾。

為何《華爾街之狼》對貝爾福那麼和善?那或許是因為,史柯西斯本身也是個出身平凡、靠自信闖上大舞台、曾重度古柯鹼成癮的紐約客。在電影中,當貝爾福將推銷腳本交給員工,用激勵話語帶動士氣時,他說不定就是導演本人:有時,狄卡皮歐演的角色就像是年輕的史柯西斯。但無論史柯西斯和貝爾福有何相似之處,後者仍舊只是個放縱的騙子──在這方面,這部電影只要表達此事就夠了。(黃維德譯)

©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013



The Economist

New film: "Wolf of Wall Street"
A wild party

By The Economist
From The Economist
Published: December 26, 2013

Dec 20th 2013, 12:49 by N.B.

'TIS the season of office parties, but there won't be many this Christmas which are as elaborately debauched as those in "The Wolf of Wall Street". In Martin Scorsese's riotous new biopic, no dress-down Friday is complete without black-tied waiters serving champagne, crowds of prostitutes, near-naked marching bands, games of dwarf-tossing and white powder by the barrel-load.

The master of the revels is the film's protagonist and unrepentant narrator, Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio), upon whose self-aggrandising memoir the film is based. In his early 20s he joins a major stockbroking firm, but his coked-up mentor (Matthew McConaughey) has barely finished his introductory pep-talk—"Move your money from your client's pocket into your pocket"—before Black Monday comes around and Belfort is laid off. When he can't find another job on Wall Street, he resorts to selling penny stock from a boiler room in Long Island. He develops such a taste for aggressive and disingenuous cold-calling that he sets up his own company, Stratton Oakmont. His staff consists of a crack-smoking furniture salesman (Jonah Hill) and the various drop-outs he knows from school. Everyone is willing to follow the scripts he gives them, and they are just as willing to ignore his various illegal practices. Soon Stratton Oakmont is raking in millions—as well as attracting the attention of a doggedly disapproving FBI agent (Kyle Chandler).

Mr Scorsese is less disapproving. Having last made a children's film, "Hugo", perhaps he was in the mood for some swaggering, testosterone-drenched, adult-oriented entertainment. Whatever the reason, "The Wolf of Wall Street" is his most exuberant and overtly comic film: a frequently hilarious, manically energetic cavalcade of drug cocktails, naked blondes, helicopter crash-landings, and obscene spending sprees. It isn't just studded with wild parties; the whole film is a wild party.

Still, the rowdiest parties are also the most tiring. "The Wolf of Wall Street" is, essentially, a string of hair-raising anecdotes, and while all of them are funny, outrageous and masterfully told, very few of them advance the plot or deepen the characterisation, so they become exhausting. It takes about half an hour for the hard-working Dr Jekyll to mutate into a hedonistic Mr Hyde, and from then on the film just keeps charging from one orgy to the next until the inevitable day when the FBI agent makes his move. It's a wisp of a narrative, given the three-hour running time—Mr Scorsese's longest ever.

Anyone who's seen "Raging Bull" or "Goodfellas" will be waiting for the film to dig beneath the surface of the alpha-male anti-hero, and expose the self-loathing that makes him so reliant on drugs, prostitutes and designer suits. But the screenplay (by Terence Winter) is too carried away by the bacchanalian bad behaviour to concern itself with Belfort's psyche. Instead, it presents him much as he'd present himself, and leaves the moralising to the viewer.

Why is "The Wolf of Wall Street" so soft on Belfort? Maybe it's because Mr Scorsese, too, was a New Yorker from an unglamorous background who barged into the big time with motormouthed assurance before developing a severe cocaine addiction. When Belfort is shown handing out scripts to his employees, and pumping them up with inspirational speeches, he could be a film director himself: the uninhibited, live-wire Mr DiCaprio sometimes even looks and sounds like a younger Mr Scorsese. But whatever the similarities between Mr Scorsese and Belfort, the latter was still nothing more than a dissolute swindler—and that's about all the film has to say on the matter. Still, it is possible to enjoy the rip-roaring party Mr Scorsese has thrown him without feeling that he is interesting enough to deserve it.

©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013



2013/12/31 「退貨成了線上零售商的大麻煩」

退貨成了線上零售商的大麻煩

摘錄自:天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報                        2013/12/27
2013-12-20 Web only 作者:經濟學人



天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報 - 20131231
圖片來源:flickr.com/photos/elwillo/
大型德國線上零售商Zalando原本的廣告口號是這樣的:「開心地尖叫,要不就把它退回來!」但因為實在太多人採納後半段的建議,現在Zalando在行銷時只喊出「開心地尖叫!」。

線上企業除了提出慷慨的退貨政策之外,實在沒有太多選擇:要是不能退貨,很多人根本不會買他們沒試用過的東西。退貨率有時高得嚇人:部分線上零售商出售的商品高達半數會被退回。研究發現,線上零售商處理每一筆退貨的成本為618美元,要是再加上狀況不佳、無法再次出售的商品,成本就會更高。2014年,歐盟將實施與德國類似的法律,要求線上企業提供14天的無條件退貨期。美國的法律沒那麼大方,但線上企業仍舊得面對顧客退貨帶來的巨大成本。

線上服裝銷售商就和實體店面一樣,懷疑它們有群習慣性退貨的顧客。德國有所謂的「Zalando派對」,亦即青少女會為重要周末訂購大量商品,然後全數退貨(口袋裡還留有忘記取出的車鑰匙等物品)。

法蘭克福財務及管理學院的舒茲(Christian Schulze)進行了一項新研究,希望能量化習慣性退貨問題。舒茲為一間大型歐洲線上零售商研究了16.6萬名顧客在德國進行的590萬筆交易。他只檢視在5年內購買5件以上商品的顧客,結果發現5%的顧客會退回超過80%他們購買的商品,更有1%的顧客會退回至少90%的商品。研究顯示,要是沒有退貨成本,該零售商利潤可以增加近50%。

處理這些顯然不滿意的顧客並非易事。20137月,報導指出Amazon的德國營運單位在「開除」部分這類顧客(Amazon並未確認此事)。但此作法可能會帶來不良後果:遭拒的購物者很可能會在報紙或社群媒體上抱怨──而他們的不滿也許會引來其他更有利可圖的顧客抵制。

線上銷售商明確提出什麼樣的行為是在濫用其退貨政策,或許會有幫助──就有點像是寬頻和行動網路供應商的「合理使用」規定。購買大量商品的高退貨率購客值得保留,因此企業可以提供誘因以減低他們的退貨率。至於那些非得去除的顧客,企業還是可以安撫他們;網路服務供應商1&1在非得開除幾名用掉了巨量頻寬的固定費率客戶之時,給了他們價值100歐元的離別禮物。(黃維德譯)

©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013


The Economist

Online retailing
Return to Santa

By The Economist
From The Economist
Published: December 20, 2013

Dec 21st 2013 | BERLIN | From the print edition

E-commerce firms have a hard core of costly, impossible-to-please customers.

"SCHREI vor Glück oder schick's zurück!" went the slogan for Zalando, a big German online retailer: "Scream for joy or send it back!" But so many people took up the second half of the slogan that Zalando now uses just "Schrei vor Glück!" in its marketing.

Online firms, even more than bricks-and-mortar retailers, have little choice but to be generous with their returns policies: few people would buy things they have not tried on if they could not send them back. Return rates can be alarmingly high: for some online retailers up to half of everything they sell comes back. Studies find that just handling each returned item costs online sellers between $6 and $18, and that is before the losses from items that are returned in unsaleable condition. In 2014 the European Union will adopt a law similar to Germany's, obliging online firms to offer a no-questions return period of 14 days. American law is not so generous, but online firms there still face hefty costs from customer returns.

Like physical stores, online clothes sellers suspect they have a hard core of habitual returners. In Germany there has been talk of "Zalando parties", with giggling teenage girls ordering crateloads of stuff for a big weekend, only to send it all back (complete with forgotten car keys and other such stuff in the pockets).

A new study by Christian Schulze of the Frankfurt School of Finance and Management seeks to put some hard numbers on the scale of the serial-returner problem. Mr Schulze studied 5.9m transactions in Germany, involving 166,000 customers, for a large European online retailer. He looked only at those who had bought at least five items over a five-year period, and found that 5% of them sent back more than 80% of the things they had bought; and that 1% of customers sent back at least 90% of their purchases. Without the cost of returns, the retailer's profits would be almost 50% higher, the study found.

Dealing with these apparently unsatisfiable customers is not easy. In July 2013 there were reports that Amazon's German operation was "sacking" some of them (the company has not confirmed this). But this risks a backlash: rejected shoppers are likely to rush to the newspapers or social media to complain—and their gripes may turn other, more profitable customers against the firm.

It may help for online sellers to be clear about what they would regard as abuse of their returns policy—rather like the "fair use" rules of broadband and mobile-internet providers. High-returning customers who buy a lot of stuff, and are thus worth keeping, could be offered incentives to reduce their return rates. And those who, in the end, must be cut off could still be mollified. When 1&1, an internet-service provider, had to fire a few flat-rate customers for using huge amounts of bandwidth, it gave them a €100 ($138) farewell present.

©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013


2013/12/31 「美國安局監聽計畫違憲」

美國安局監聽計畫違憲

摘錄自:天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報                        2013/12/27
2013-12-20 Web only 作者:經濟學人

 
天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報 - 20131231
圖片來源:flickr.com/photos/pedrosimoes7/


負責合憲審查的聯邦法官里昂(Richard Leon)表示,美國的大型監控計畫會讓麥迪遜(James Madison)驚駭無比。1216日,里昂發佈長達68頁的評論,認為國安局使用的科技「幾近歐威爾」,並要求國安局停止收集兩名原告的通訊紀錄。

里昂暫緩其禁制令以待上訴,但此事已讓華盛頓血脈僨張。該案由保守派行動人士克萊曼(Larry Klayman)等人提出,為數個針對大型監控計畫而來的異議之一;揭露國安局大型監控計畫的史諾登目前則藏身於俄羅斯。由美國公民自由聯盟提出的類似案件,目前也在紐約接受審理,最終決定權無疑是握在最高法院手中。

目前看來,美國政府地毯式收集「通訊檔案資料」、亦即你在何時撥電話給什麼人,其基礎比過去還要不穩定。美國政府的律師一向倚賴34年前的判例,強調第四修正案的不合理搜查保護不適用於後設資料。在史密斯對馬里蘭(Smith v Maryland)案中,最高法院贊成在未取得搜索令的情況下收集嫌犯的電話紀錄。但里昂並不這麼認為,他寫道:「我不可能利用一椿行動電話興起前的案例,作為探索第四修正案未知領域的北極星。」

情報官員表示,可以打撈的大海面積越大,能找到的尖針也就越多。里昂反駁道,政府並未提出任何例證,證明分析檔案資料「真的可以阻止即將來臨的攻擊」。2013年,最高法院駁回了針對國安局監控計畫提出的異議,理由為原告無法證明他們受到監控。但那是在史諾登事件之前;克萊曼表示,他和其他原告必定遭受監控,因為幾乎所有人都受到監控。

史諾登認為那證明了他行為的合理性,「今日,一項祕密法庭核准的祕密計畫在公諸於世之後,便是證實它違反了美國人的權利。那只是諸多秘密計畫的第一宗。」批評者指出,史諾登揭露他誓言保守的機密,依舊違反了法律──他們認為,如果史諾登想挑戰非法行為,他應該使用正式管道,而非公佈那些可能有害美國國安的資訊。此外,許多史諾登揭露的行為在美國皆屬合法。

史諾登可能還有很多資料有待公開。負責損害評估的國安局官員雷傑特(Rick Ledgett)表示,史諾登可能還握有多達170萬份、有如「王國之鑰」的國安局文件。雷傑特曾建議特赦史諾登以換取他手上的資料,但遭到白宮拒絕。

1217日,歐巴馬與幾間美國大型科技公司的老闆會面。蘋果、FacebookGoogle等幾間企業(怪的是,其中沒有電信業者)皆呼籲政府減少監聽;它們擔心,要是民眾認為它們會將個人資訊並交給情報單位,可能造成客戶流失。

巴西等部分國家已著手制訂更嚴格的規範,以管制處理民眾資訊的企業。歐盟也在與美國進行角力,以規範收集和使用這些資料的企業。如果這讓企業更難、得花更多成本收集資料,那勢必會傷害FacebookGoogle等倚賴客戶資訊進行目標式廣告的企業。

白宮成立的國安局行為調查顧問委會員,已向總統提出了建議。一如預期,委員會促請歐巴馬停止由政府收集美國人的電信紀錄,並將此責任交給電信企業或第三方單位;政府必須取得外國情報通訊監察法庭的命令,才能取用這些資料。其潛在阻礙在於,電信企業的資訊保留期不同,有些僅保留6個月。

委員會建議政府停止數項有害美國產品信用的行動,亦請求政府確切表明「政府絕不會破壞、損害、削弱或弱化常見的商用加密」,並停止損害安全編碼標準。部分駭侵工具可以用於網路攻擊,委員會也建議政府改變尋找和動用這類工具的方式。

委員會指出,監聽外國領袖應通過外交及經濟成本效益分析,而且得由總統及總統顧問、而非情報單位核可。委員會亦建議,讓外國情報目標的獲得與美國人類似的保護。歐巴馬將於新年期間決定是否採行這些建議。(黃維德譯)

©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013



The Economist

NSA snooping
Judge v spies

By The Economist
From The Economist
Published: December 20, 2013

Dec 17th 2013, 22:57 by The Economist

JAMES MADISON "would be aghast" at America's vast surveillance programmes. So said Richard Leon, a federal judge hearing a challenge to their constitutionality. On December 16th he issued a blistering 68-page critique, calling the technology used by the National Security Agency (NSA) "almost Orwellian" and ordering it to stop collecting the telephone records of two plaintiffs.

Though Mr Leon stayed his ruling pending an appeal, it has set pulses racing in Washington. The case, brought by Larry Klayman, a conservative activist, and others, is one of several challenges to the mass-surveillance programmes disclosed by Edward Snowden, a former contractor for the NSA now hiding in Russia. A similar case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, is being heard in New York. The Supreme Court will doubtless have the final say.

The government's blanket collection of "telephony metadata"—information about whom you call and when—looks to be on wobblier ground than before. Its lawyers have long relied on a 34-year-old precedent to argue that the Fourth-Amendment protection against unreasonable searches does not apply to metadata. In Smith v Maryland the Supreme Court upheld the warrantless collection of a criminal suspect's phone records. But Mr Leon is unimpressed. "I cannot possibly navigate these uncharted Fourth Amendment waters using as my North Star a case that predates the rise of cell phones," he writes.

Intelligence officials argue that the more haystacks they can paw through, the more needles they'll find. Mr Leon protests that the government does not cite a single instance in which analysis of metadata "actually stopped an imminent attack". In 2013 the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the NSA's surveillance programmes on the ground that the plaintiffs could not prove they had been spied on. But that was before Mr Snowden's disclosures. Mr Klayman argued that he and his fellow plaintiffs must have been snooped on because nearly everyone has been.

Mr Snowden feels vindicated. "Today, a secret programme authorised by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate Americans' rights. It is the first of many," he crowed. Critics note that he still broke the law by revealing secrets he was under oath to keep—if he had wanted to challenge illegal acts, they say, he could have used formal channels instead of publishing information that could harm American security. Moreover, many of the activities Mr Snowden revealed—such as the NSA's snooping on foreigners—are legal in America.

Mr Snowden probably has more to reveal: perhaps as many as 1.7m of the agency's documents, representing the "keys to the kingdom", says Rick Ledgett, the NSA official charged with assessing the damage. Mr Ledgett has suggested granting Mr Snowden amnesty in return for his stash. But the White House says no.

On December 17th President Barack Obama met the bosses of some of America's biggest tech firms. Several, including Apple, Facebook and Google (but no telecoms firms, oddly), have called for curbs on the snooping. They worry that they will lose customers if the public thinks they hoover up people's personal information and hand it to spooks.

Already some countries, such as Brazil, are writing much stricter rules for firms that handle their citizens' data. The European Union is also tussling with America over how such data may be collected and used by companies. Should all this make it harder and costlier for companies to gather information, that would hurt the likes of Facebook and Google, which depend on knowing enough about their customers to ping them with ads that match their tastes.

All of this comes as the White House mulls new limits on surveillance recommended by a presidential advisory committee. Its suggestions are classified, but reportedly include new privacy protections, even as the bulk collection of phone records continues. One idea is to have lawyers paid to argue against the intelligence agencies in front of the secret courts that hear requests for permission to snoop. Spying is about to get harder.

Update: The White House has released the recommendations of the advisory committee set up to review the NSA's activities. As expected, the panel urged Mr Obama to end the government's collection of Americans' phone records and place that responsibility in the hands of the phone companies or a third party. The government would then be permitted to access the data with an order from the FISA court. A potential obstacle is that the phone companies retain data for different periods of time, some for as little as six months.

The panel recommended the government halt several activities that undermine confidence in American products. It urged the administration to clearly show that "it will not in any way subvert, undermine, weaken or make vulnerable generally available commercial encryption" and stop undermining work on secure encryption standards. It also recommended changes to the way the government discovers and employs hacking tools—some of which depend on finding flaws in common computer programs—that could be used in cyberattacks, like the Stuxnet attack on Iran.

The panel said operations to spy on foreign leaders should have to pass a diplomatic and economic cost-benefit analysis and be approved by the president and his advisers, not the intelligence agencies. It also recommended increase protections, similar to those for Americans, for foreign targets of intelligence.

Mr Obama will decide on the recommendations in the new year.

©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013