¥»°Ï·j¯Á:
Yahoo!¦r¨å
¥´¦L

[Econ] ¦³1±øMCQ½Ð±Ð...

¦³1±øMCQ½Ð±Ð...

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

[ÁôÂÃ]
­º¥ý
Property Rights «YDSE«Y­ø¦ÒªºDSE ¦Òªº«Yprivate property rights

Property rights «YHKALE
«Y«ürules of competition
private property «Y¨ä¤¤¤@set rules of competition


¦]¬°Property rights = rules of competition
©Ò¥H­n¦³competition ¥ý·|¦³Property rights

Competition ¥X²{»Ý­n "scarcity" + "¨â­Ó©Î¥H¤Wªº¤H"
¥u­n
"scarcity" + "¨â­Ó©Î¥H¤Wªº¤H"´N·|¦³Competition
µL½×price mechanism / non price mechanism ³£·|¦³
so A ¿ù



Competition ¥X²{»Ý­n "scarcity" + "¨â­Ó©Î¥H¤Wªº¤H"
²b«Y±oscarcity ­ø°÷
So B ¿ù

C啱«Y¦]¬°
"individuals in a society" "compete" for resources.
¦³competition ´N·|¦³Property rights


Á¿¥ªËÝ­@
¨ä¹ê³£«Yout 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

¤Þ¥Î:
­ì©«¥Ñ petergarylee ©ó 2016-7-1 03:37 PM µoªí
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 (¨p¦³²£Åv) and property rights (²£Åv) 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 ¡]±i¤­±`¡^
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.

[ ¥»©«³Ì«á¥Ñ williamEX ©ó 2016-7-3 02:53 AM ½s¿è ]

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:'¦b经济ªÀ会¤¤¡A°ò¥»ªº´å戏规则§Y产权ªº规则': point out the rule of property right is the rule of competition, means rule=rule, not property right=rule. Also '©Ò¥H¦pªG这ªí¤£¬O§Úªº¡A¤H们´N会进¦æ无谓ªº®ö费来±o¨ìªí¡C¦ý¦pªG这ªí¬O§Úªº¡A§Ú´N会§âªí给¥Xɲ³Ì°ªªº¤H¡A¦Ó¥B­n¨DªºÉ²钱¤@©w¤£¤Ö¤_ª÷ªíɲ­È¡C¥Ñ¦¹§A会发现­Y产权¤£¬O¨p¦³ªº¡A为¤F¦æ¨Ï产权¡A«Ü¦h资·½³Q®ö费¤F¡C': If it is not mine(¦pªG这ªí¤£¬O§Úªº), if it is mine(¦ý¦pªG这ªí¬O§Úªº), property right isn't privately owned(产权¤£¬O¨p¦³ªº), these words already show property right is a symbol of OWNERSHIP and it can be EXERCISE(¦æ¨Ï)
Please point out where is "Property rights «YHKALE «Y«ürules of competition private property «Y¨ä¤¤¤@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¤H经济Ê^¨t§Ú们¬ã¨s¤F30¦h¦~还没¦³说²M·¡, 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

¤Þ¥Î:
­ì©«¥Ñ petergarylee ©ó 2016-7-4 03:14 PM µoªí
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«Y°ª¦Òªº©w¸q
§A­ø»{¦PµL°ÝÃD¡A²¦³º§AµL¦Ò¹L
§A»{­ø»{¦P³£¦n
©O­Ó³£«Y¤@­Ó¾ú¥vªº²£ª«
­ø«Y¦]¬°§A­ø»{¦P
°ª¦Òªºpast paper ¡þ ½Òµ{´N­ø·|¨£¥ª
ËݧڴN«Y©O«×´N­ø¦P§A¹Ë©w¸q啱­ø啱
¦]¬°©O­Ó¥u«Y¾Ç³N¬£§Oªº©w¸q¤Àª[

¦ý«Y¦pªG§A­ø»{¦P¥H¤Wªº©w¸q
¦ý¤S«Y·Q¸ÑÄÀ¨ì¤@±øunder °ª¦Ò½Òµ{©Ò¥XªºÃD¥Ø
ËÝsorry °Õ
§A­ø·|¸ÑÄÀ¨ì°Q½×«Y­n°ò©ó¦P¼Ë°ò¦¤U
§A­ø¦P·N©O­Ó©w¸q
ËݧA´N¸ÑÄÀ­ø¨ì¥Ñ©O­Ó©w¸q­l¥Í¥X¨ÓªºÃD¥Ø
¥¿¦p¥Î§Aªº©w¸q«YÃÒ©ú­ø¨ìoption B ¿ùªº

±¡ªp´N¦n¦ü§Ú¯¸«Y¦a²y¡A§Ú°²³]¥ª¦a²yªº­«¤O¥h­p­Óresult
§A´N¦P§ÚÁ¿¡A§Aı«Y°²³]¥ª¦a²yªº­«¤O«Y­ø啱ªº¡AÀ³¸Ó¥ÎµL­«¤Oª¬ºA¤Uªº¦t©zªº±¡ªp
§A­ø¦P·N§Úªº°²³]µL°ÝÃD
§A¥çµL¿ù
¦ý«Y­ø·|±À½×¨ìª«¥ó«Y¦a²y­«¤O¤Uªº¹B°Ê±¡ªp

¦pªG§A·Q¸ÑÄÀ¡þ²z¸Ñ¤@±ø¬Y­Ó¦Ò¸ÕÃD¥Ø
¦Ó­ø¥ý¥h²z¸Ñ¦Ò¸Õ½Òµ{©w¸q
µLºÃ«Y½t¤ì¨D³½¡A²Ö¤H²Ö¤v

¦n¦ü¤j®a³£«Y°Ýmoney supply §ïÅÜ¡Aoutput ·|ÂI§ïÅÜ
µª®×«YISLM model ¦P classical model ¤w¸gª§¦n»·
¤@­Ó°²³]¦³price rigidity
¤@­Ó°²³]µLprice rigidity
¦³µL¸ÜÃä­Ó¿ù
¥u«Y¾Ç¬£¤§ª§
¦ý«Y¦pªG§A­n¦Ò¸Õ
§A´N­n¸òÃD¥Ø¡A
¦ÒISLM model ´N¥ÎISLM model
¦Òclassical model ´N¥Îclassical model
½ÕÂ઺¸Ü§ÚçܧA³£ª¾·|µo¥Í«§¨Æ

¾Ç³N¤W§A­ø»{¦P­Ó©w¸q

¦ý«Y¦Ò¸Õ¤W§A¤@©w­nºò­Ó¦Ò¸Õ½Òµ{
§A­ø¦P·NµL°ÝÃD
¦ý«Y½Ð§A­ø¦n±Ð¤H­ø¸ò
¬Yµ{«×¤W
§A«Y¥sºò¤H¥ÎISLM model ¥hµª classical modelªºÃD¥Ø

[ ¥»©«³Ì«á¥Ñ williamEX ©ó 2016-7-4 08:17 PM ½s¿è ]

TOP

§Æ±æ§A­ø¦n¦³hard feeling °Õ
¦Ò¸Õ­ø«Y¾Ç³N
¾Ç³N¦³°Q½×ªº¾l¦a
¦Ò¸Õ«YµLªº

¥t¥~¡AÁ¿¦h¤Ö¤Ö±`ÃѧAª¾§r
¿Õ¨©º¸¼ú«Y¦³¤¤°ê¤Hü«ªº
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

¤Þ¥Î:
­ì©«¥Ñ petergarylee ©ó 2016-7-5 04:39 PM µoªí
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)
²z©À­ø¦P´N­øºò­n
¦ý«Y¦pªG§A·Q²z¸ÑSteven Cheung ªº²z©À
¾\ŪÊ\ªº¤å³¹´N­n²Ó¤ß¤Ö¤Ö


¸Ó½g¤å³¹¦³¥H¤U¨â­Ó­«ÂI

1) ±i¤­±`¶}©v©ú¸q
Á¿¥ª Property rights«Y«ürules of competition
"¦b经济ªÀ会¤¤¡A°ò¥»ªº´å戏规则§Y产权ªº规则¡C谈论产权¡A§Ú们¨ä实¦b谈论约§ô¤H们¦æ为ªº´å戏规则¡C"


2) Private Property rights «Y¨ä¤¤¤@ºØProperty Rights¡A¦Óprivate property rights «Y¯²­È®ø´²¡]¸ê·½®ö¶O¡^
¦b经济ªº¥@¬É¨½¡A§A§ï变产权ªº规则¡A§A´N§ï变¤F¾ã个¨t统¡C¨p¦³产权«D±`独¯Sªº¤@点¬O¡G¥u¦³¦b¨p¦³产权ªº±¡úG¤U¡A¤H们¤~¥Î¥«场ɲ®æ¤À°t资·½¡C........当µM还¦³¨ä¥¦资·½¤À°tªº¤è¦¡¡C¦ý¥u¦³¦bɲ®æ进¦æ¤À°tªº±¡úG¤U¡A¤~没¦³¯²ª÷ªº®ø´²¡C


§AQuote 嗰¥y¥Ñ¦¹§A会发现­Y产权¤£¬O¨p¦³ªº¡A为¤F¦æ¨Ï产权¡A«Ü¦h资·½³Q®ö费¤F¡C
Ê\«Y«ü¥@¬É¤W¦³ËݦhProperty rights, ¦pªG§Aµo²{¬YProperty rights ­ø«Yprivate¡]§Yprivate property rights), ¬°¥ª¦æ¨Ï³oProperty rights¡A·|¦³¸ê·½³Q®ö¶O¡C

¦Ó­ø«Y¦n¦ü§AËÝÂ_³¹¨ú¸qËݸÜProperty rights ¡×Private property rights.

§A¦³¿³½ì²z¸Ñªº´NÚ»¦h¦¸
´NºâµL¿³½ì
§Ú³£§Æ±æ§A¤U¤@¦¸Ú»¾Ç³N¤å³¹ªº®É­Ô
­n²Ó¤ß¾\Ū
­ø¦nÂ_³¹¨ú¸q
¤£µM¹ï§@ªÌ¦P¦Û¤v¥»¨­³£«Y¤@ºØ¤£´L­«

[ ¥»©«³Ì«á¥Ñ williamEX ©ó 2016-7-7 10:24 PM ½s¿è ]

TOP

©ÎªÌ¥i¥H°Ñ¦Ò¥t¤@½g¤å³¹
«Y±i¤­±`ªº¸gÀÙ¸ÑÄÀ¸`¿ý

"²£ Åv ¨î «× ¡] system of property rights ¡^ ¬O Äv ª§ ªº ¹C À¸ ³W «h ¡A ¤] ´N ¬O ¬ù §ô Äv ª§ ¦æ ¬° ªº ¤@ ºØ §½ ­­ ±ø ¥ó ¡C °² ­Y §Ú ­Ì §j ¤ò ¨D ²« ¦a ¤À ÅG ¡A ³o ¨Ç ³W «h ¹ê ¦b ¼Æ ¤§ ¤£ ºÉ ¡A ¤d ÅÜ ¸U ¤Æ ¡C ¨p ¦³ ²£ Åv ¡] private property rights ¡^ ¥u ¤£ ¹L ¬O ¨ä ¤¤ ¤@ ºØ ¡C"

http://www.lktmc.edu.hk/~economi ... nExplanation-11.htm

TOP

­«­nÁn©ú:¤p¨ò¸ê°T½×¾Â ¬O¤@­Ó¤½¶}ªº¾Ç³N¥æ¬y¤Î¤À¨É¥­¥x¡C ½×¾Â¤º©Ò¦³ÀɮפΤº®e ³£¥u¥i§@¾Ç³N¥æ¬y¤§¥Î¡Aµ´¤£¯à¥Î°Ó·~¥Î³~¡C ©Ò¦³·|­û§¡¶·¹ï¦Û¤v©Òµoªíªº¨¥½×¦Ó¤Þ°_ªºªk«ß³d¥ô­t³d(¥]¬A¤W¶ÇÀɮשγsµ²)¡A ¥»¾Â¨Ã¤£¾á«O¸Óµ¥¸ê®Æ¤§·Ç½T©Ê¤Î¥i¾a©Ê¡A¥B·§¤£·|´N¦]¦³Ãö¸ê®Æ¤§¥ô¦ó¤£½T©Î¿òº|¦Ó¤Þ­P¤§¥ô¦ó·l¥¢©Î ·l®`©Ó¾á¥ô¦ó³d¥ô(¤£½×¬O§_»P«IÅv¦æ¬°¡B­q¥ß«´¬ù©Î¨ä¥L¤è­±¦³Ãö ) ¡C