August 27, 2008

• <天下烏鴉, 一樣黑>

  同大家玩個遊戲.

  我知, 無乜人會玩.

  有三個 items :

  • 2007 年全球本地生產總值
  • 2008 年奧運金牌數目
  • 2008 年 8 月25 日全球最大公司市值

  你估下以下既數字分別屬於邊一個 item :

  	Top 5	Top 10	Top 20
  Item 1	48.0%	64.9%	80.8%
  Item 2	50.8%	67.1%	81.6%
  Item 3	6.1%	10.6%	18.0%

  (假設Item 1 為金牌數目, 以作解說).

  最多的  5  個國家, 佔了金牌數目的 48.0%;
  最多的 10 個國家, 佔了金牌數目的 64.9%;
  最多的 20 個國家, 佔了金牌數目的 80.8%

  若你唔想估, 或者見到數字會暈 (我中學時有d 女同學真係會暈), 唔好再睇落去咧…

  *********************

  奧運終於完撚左! 太好咧~~ 日日 “我地中國” “我國”, 煩撚到嘔. 個日係魚米家睇男籃決賽美國對西班牙, 睇到最後一節, 無線佢轉去播拳擊. 好撚野. 閉幕個日, 我嚇到要去睇戲 (結果睇左套機械人女友, 悶到爆), 跟住要食板前 (我肯定佢無電視). 事實上, 開幕個日我都係食板前. 好一件禿頭漢奸.

  奧運完結, 作為阿叔既我, 梗係而家先黎講奧運. 放心, 我講奧運, 比起阿叻嚴肅得多, 最多悶到你仆街. 信我, 我有信心悶到你仆街.

  好, 首先一齊黎回顧白花油金牌榜 (來源 : 維基百科)

  Rank	Nation	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
  1	China (CHN)	51	21	28	100
  2	United States (USA)	36	38	36	110
  3	Russia (RUS)	23	21	28	72
  4	Great Britain (GBR)	19	13	15	47
  5	Germany (GER)	16	10	15	41
  6	Australia (AUS)	14	15	17	46
  7	South Korea (KOR)	13	10	8	31
  8	Japan (JPN)	9	6	10	25
  9	Italy (ITA)	8	10	10	28
  10	France (FRA)	7	16	17	40

  (11 名以後既無放上黎. 大佬, 個表水蛇春咁長呀.)

  唔好淨係留意中國. 其實美國同俄羅斯妹都好正.

  當然, 大家都知日本妹仲正.

  如果上面係睇過既 AV 女星國籍排名榜… 日本大概有九成獎牌. 當然有韓國, 香港, 中國, 歐美… 但實在係九牛一毛.

  *************

  (1) 財富不均, Winners take all

  - 而下係頭五, 頭十及頭廿名金牌最多既國家, 佔全部金牌的百份比.

  Gold	Top 5	Top 10	Top 20
  Number	145	196	244
  Share	48.0%	64.9%	80.8%

  - 跟住係頭五, 頭十及頭廿名總本地生產總值既國家, 佔全銀河系總值的百份比 (來源 : 維基百科)

  
  

  	Top 5	Top 10	Top 20
  GDP (USD Mn)	27,573,131	36,422,741	44,344,534
  Share	50.8%	67.1%	81.6%

  - 再黎係全世界頭五, 頭十及頭廿間市值計最大的公司, 佔最大五百間上市公司的百份比 (最大係 exxon mobil, 第二係中石油). (來自彭博)

  
  

  Mkt Cap	Top 5	Top 10	Top 20
  USD Mn	1,525,644.71	2,657,548.59	4,523,934.72
  Share	6.1%	10.6%	18.0%

  
  拍理一齊睇

  
  

  (%)	Top 5	Top 10	Top 20
  Gold Medals	48.0%	64.9%	80.8%
  GDP	50.8%	67.1%	81.6%
  Market cap	6.1%	10.6%	18.0%

  Well, it seems that “inequality” in Olympics is no less than that in terms of income or wealth distribution. Indeed, financial market seems to be “fair”, in terms of distribution of large-cap companies.

  After all, winners take all. Who cares the effort and result of a unknown Kazakhstanian sportsman without even a bronze medal? (唔知點解寫寫下變左英文)

  *************

  (2) 流動性不足, 貧者越貧, 富者越富 (流動性不足, 跨代貧窮)

  
  

  Top 5	1928	1948	1968	1988
  Gold	49.1%	59.4%	59.8%	62.7%
  Total	47.7%	51.3%	53.1%	54.3%
  No. of Country	46	59	112	160

  1. Overtime, medals (either gold or total) are increasingly concentrated in a small number of countries (” top 5″)

  2. Increase in number of countries did not bring a fair distribution of medals per se i.e. there is no guarantee that a larger number of countries will produce more “fair” distribution of wealth
  3. This is NOT to say, increase in no. of country has NO impact on competition. We MUST not confuse the end with the means. Competition is a means, not an end. For example, team USA still got the men basketball Gold Medal this year, but the competition amongst team (esp against team USA) is much fierce than in 1992

  *************

  The reason to cut the above at 1988 is not to manipulate data. Instead, after the dismantle of the then USSR in 1989 and the subsequent merger of West and East Germany, the data onwards then are not comparable to those in and before 1988.

  In particular, the dissolution of USSR made medal distribution more diverse (spitting into 15 smaller countries ; the merger of Germany made it more concentrated (East and West Germany ranked 2nd and 5th in terms of gold medal in 1988 Olympic Game). So data are not comparable with these counteracting forces. (It is not impossible, but the process is very complicated – combining East and West German before 1992; combining ex-USSR states after 1996)

  But for completeness, below are the data since 1996 (in 1992 there is a team call “Unified team”, consisting of 12 of previous 15 states of USSR).

  
  

  Top 5	1996	2000	2004	2008
  Gold	44.6%	42.1%	42.5%	48.0%
  Total	37.5%	38.2%	36.9%	38.6%
  No. of Country	197	199	201	205

  The data are too short for saying whether medals are increasingly concentrated. But after all, it is still fair to say that increase in number of countries did not bring a fairer distribution of medal per se

  *************

  The above method also reveals the deficiency of using “Lorenz Curve” type analysis to conclude that “流動性不足, 跨代貧窮”, 隨時間富者越富. The TRUE identity of “Top-5″ countries are not revealed.

  That is to say, “top-5 countries”, as a group, may increasingly hold more wealth/ income/ medal, but the composition of these 5 countries may change over time.

  To repeat, NO Lorenz Curve analysis can handle this.

  成日有人話堅尼系數上升至 0.56, 顯示香港貧富懸殊越黎越嚴重. “貧富懸殊越黎越嚴重” 可能是對, 但與堅尼系數上升與否, 關係不大. 今天富人可以是昨天的窮人 – 堅尼系數分辦不了.

  Below are the composition of the “top-10 countries” for the Olympic Games since 1996

  
  

  1996		2000		2004		2008
  United States		United States		United States		China
  Russia		Russia		China		United States
  Germany		China		Russia		Russia
  China		Australia		Australia		Great Britain
  France		Germany		Japan		Germany
  Italy		France		Germany		Australia
  Australia		Italy		France		South Korea
  Cuba		Netherlands		Italy		Japan
  Ukraine		Cuba		South Korea		Italy
  South Korea		Great Britain		Great Britain		France

  過去十二年, 頭十名拿得最多金牌的國家, 其中七個是一樣的. So it’s fair to say, inter-generation (跨代) poverty in gold medals still exists and has little “improvement” (but the data, to repeat, are too short to be conclusive)

  再細心留意, 即使頭十名的組成相若, 但各屆的排名各異. So the competition is not cross-group i.e. between “poverty” and “wealthy”, but amongst the wealthy.

  *************

  (3) 競爭浪費資源

  Many said competition is bad and creates wastage. Especially government officials in Mainland on transportation policies between HK and Mainland

  
  

  	1928	1948	1968	1988
  No. with medals	33	37	44	53
  No. of Country	46	59	112	160
  Share	71.7%	62.7%	39.3%	33.1%
  	1996	2000	2004	2008
  No. with medals	79	81	74	87
  No. of Country	197	199	201	205
  Share	40.1%	40.7%	36.8%	42.4%

  This is just reciprocal to the concentration of medals : the share of participating countries without a medal is increasing.

  So next time tell those 118 countries without a medal in 2008 (including HK) NOT to participate Olympic in London, because they are exactly doing what other countries are doing and they did not get a medal.

  Tell them to go to hell instead.

  Competition is extremely bad.

  *************

  (4) 僱主剝削勞工

  No data to support this.

  But in case you have chance, just ask the Mainland gold medal winners when they arrive HK later this week (and also those did not even get a medal in HK) whether training was and is painful.

  Just ask every sportsman.

  Just ask every human being.

  Just ask yourself.

  *************

  靈感來源 : Critique of Capitalism

  This is NOT to say one should not attack capitalism. But next time you do so, please also complain the Olympic Game. Remember this.

  Just that, there is little essential difference between them.

  *************

  • 12:15 pm
  • 19 Comments