響應美國“佔領華爾街”行動，香港也有示威者發動“佔領中環”行動﹐佔領中環匯豐總行地下。由於港政府並無用納稅人的金錢幫助銀行﹐參與佔領行動的港人大多數不滿的是樓市及地產霸權﹐相反於“佔領華爾街”﹐是次行動被批評為缺乏理據及不合理。
事實上﹐金融霸權及地產霸權兩者只不過是因與果的分別。資本家利用現時的 credit system 集資繼而壟斷﹐令地產市場不存有公平競爭。多方面的壟斷使地產商能夠全面控制市場走向﹐eg. 將手頭上土地存之不用或只興建豪宅﹐令房屋供應量大幅減少﹐產生房地產抄賣的現象。香港的地產商更以不同的形式介入市民的基本生活﹐包括柴米油鹽﹐甚至上市集資向政府買地﹐再向社區進行投資。總括來說﹐沒有現今資本主義的 credit system﹐房地產投資根本是沒可能進行的﹐“佔領中環”的反地產霸權其實與環球佔領行動的推翻金融體系是一致的。
Furthermore, in China mainland, land regulations and local governance hugely impact on real estate development. There are cases that developers had no sufficient funds to fully develop properties, the way of dealing with debts is through bribe and coruption to start building, once certain amount of properties sold, income will be credited to balance any debts owned.
ReplyDeleteBtw, highly recommend movie "V for Vendetta". Reflects the picture shown.
ReplyDelete香港的地產商跟很多其他地方,特別是內地的地產商很不同,大多香港地產商不需要依賴銀行借貸來發展地產項目, 他們靠的是自己本身強大的現金流, 這是一個十分獨特的現象。當內地地產商都在中央收緊政策下被逼發高息債券'籌旗'的時候, 香港地產商甚少需要發債, 連股票集資活動都非常鮮有, 就算有都大多只為了分拆業務。在新加坡十分活躍的房託基金REITS市場, 在香港一直都沒有聲色, 繼領滙後只有零零星星數隻, 也是這個原因。所以基本上香港銀行很難賺到地產商的錢, 亦很難做到金融及地產勾結, 壟斷市場的情況。
ReplyDelete至于香港地產商如果沒有依靠銀行體系而創造強大的現金流的原因很多, 大部分的老牌地產商都是在6-70年代香港股票市場相當興旺, 但法規尚未成熟時上市, 得以為日後囤地籌集彈藥; 港府的高地價政策, 利用賣地收入來支持財政支出亦是原因之一。地價高而且供應不足使地產市場的入場門檻非常高, 中小型地產商無法與財雄勢大的大地產商競爭。簡單而言, 現在的壟斷局面是當年銀行, 地產商, 政府互相勾結的結果而遺留至今。(詳情可能要拜讀一下潘慧嫻小姐的'地產霸權'。)
但是現在的香港, 銀行及政府都忌大地產商三分, 銀行靠地產項目支持按揭業務, 政府收入依靠賣地,所以香港其實只有地產霸權, 沒有金融霸權。香港政府和地產商的關係就好似美國華府跟華爾街一樣, 想規管但是無能為力, 只是港府比華府更人微言輕而矣...
言歸至初, 自由競爭是資本主義的基石, 所以到底問題在於資本主義是否失靈, 還是壟斷的行為扭曲資本主義的運作?
btw, have you not finished this yet? haha
ReplyDeleteLW
lw, while your comment rightfully points out that developers in hk do not require borrowings from banks and some of the underlying reasons why these few large developers have sufficient capital in the first place, it is the current credit system which enables and encourages commoners to participate in property investment. the banks may not be able to make money from developers, but as you say profit from interest bearing capital lent out to property investors. it is therefore the combination of the existing climate of dominance/monopoly alongside the current credit system which has fuelled property speculation and hence further developer hegemony?
ReplyDeletewhile this entry justifies the relevance of 'occupy central' to 'occupy wall street', my view towards developers largely remain neutral. for example, the reason behind the gradual extinction of traditional food market stalls is not solely 'developer hegemony' but that supermarkets offer more choice to consumers. one of the underlying reasons behind high property price is as you point out, the government's high land price policy.
the problems of 'developer hegemony' is a direct result of 'capitalist hegemony'. in fact, the inequalities within a capitalist society existed far before developer hegemony existed. the biggest issue with capitalism lies in it undermining the human effort and process behind the addition of value, purely recognising the power of capital to generate more money, hence further widening the poverty gap.
chapter 6 of miss poon's book 地產霸權 quotes winston churchill's speech in 1909 in suggesting that land monopoly is the mother of all monopolies. land is a generator of money, yet the workers behind the process of adding value to a piece of land - the construction of roads and infrastructure...etc - is not rewarded the same way for the contributions they have made to society, in contrary, the land-owner sees his wealth multiply without any contributions to society.
winston churhill concluded his speech by stressing that it is not the land-owners fault but problems with government policies and regulations. it is interesting to see that issues pointed out over 100 years ago are still issues in today's society, and it will be interesting to observe the effects of the implementation of the hk ceo 2011-12 policy address, which stresses on reintroducing the home ownership scheme...etc in attempting to resolve hk's housing issues.
the ideal of capitalism and of the free market would be to see an end to poverty and to maintain equality in society. in the same chapter of her book, poon gives finland as a model country which improved its public benefits in parallel to economic growth, by high income tax contributed by its citizens, who are willing to do so as a means of giving back to society. while hk's economic growth has been part due to its renowned low-income tax, this is also a cause of the ginormous poverty gap we see today, is a fairer income tax policy the only answer to narrowing the poverty gap?
mc