上週日應學生之邀，客串當了一個小時的經濟學導師。(幸好只是中三……)
席間我倆探討的話題，圍繞消費品 (consumer goods) 與資本財 (capital goods)。學生的筆記說，同一件物品用在不同場合，性質便會有變。譬如米高峰，給老師在課堂上使用的是資本財，酒廊供客人唱歌消遣的是消費品 [有誤！該是自備米高峰消遣]，這點栗妹並無異議。
不過說到空調，我倆便出現了分歧。學生的筆記說，課室裡的空調是資本財，我說怎麼可能？空調造了甚麼來著？答曰：知識。我說：知識由老師而來，沒空調他也要上課啦！結果學生使小性子，說是學校老師教的，準沒錯。無言以對。
敢問各位，是栗妹想錯，還是學生的筆記弄錯？
~‧~‧~‧~‧~‧~‧~‧~‧~‧~‧~‧~‧~‧~‧~
翻學生的經濟學筆記，發現英文有不少錯處，譬如 ... produce (正：production) of finished goods。給學生改正後，忍不住責備了一句：怎麼如此不小心？回說已依足黑板上的文字抄錄。我說：那就是老師的不對了。學生護師心切，應了句：我的老師可是教高年級經濟學的！
小妮子真是少不更事，偉大的香港政府還未推教育語言失調方案，教高年級的老師出錯，何用大驚小怪？
倒是看見小妮子的代課老師，把筆記中的 a good (商品) 全改為 goods，心中暗喝了一聲采！
Ok, I remember from my baby econ class 40 years ago, capital goods is kind of like raw materials that you make something else out of, no? I am a bit confused that it's translated as a 財 . Anyway, if my old def is correct, then it's consumer goods in both cases. On a stretch, one could conceivably argue that a microphone in a classroom is an accessory, but that's still a far cry from capital goods.
回覆刪除
And I don't understand at all how AC could be a capital goods. There must be a new definition of capital goods that I am not aware of...
[版主回覆01/15/2009 08:20:00]Morning, Teach!
1. I guess 財 refers to 財產 (property). 資本財 is the most popular translation for 'capital goods'. There is another translation 生產者商品. Which one would you prefer?
2. Your definition is basically correct except that capital goods are generally man-made (not raw materials then ). According to Wikipedia, capital goods are objects used to produce other goods and services (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_goods ). That's why I think the example of microphone is OK.
Maybe economists have broadened the definition of 'capital goods'?
On a secondary note, if the kid is correct about the econ teacher making all those language errors on the board, I could almost see the rationale of those pushing mother tongue education...OMG... ... HK's got one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel...
回覆刪除o個個老師應該係教高級經濟學，不過就讀低級英文科嘛！
回覆刪除(Empty)
回覆刪除妖~
回覆刪除聖人都有錯,何況區區高年級經濟學老師?
不過筆記"a good"真係令我呢D以前英語唔合格嘅人都好囧.
學校要收冷氣費，若收多了，可用作其他開支，那冷氣便是 資本財 (capital goods)了 。
回覆刪除[版主回覆01/15/2009 13:23:00]南爾：原來學校要收冷氣費的嗎？不說不知呢！
學生不教, 老師之過; 老師教錯, 學生可倒楣了
回覆刪除栗子姑娘以老師在傳授知識而否定空調是 capital goods，恕乏言膚淺，實較難理解。consumer goods 相對 capital goods 未知可否以會計時段 accounting period 來檢驗？consumer goods 大部份應是在一個較短的時間內消耗。因此 consumer goods 是在支出的期內在損益表內報消，而不列作資產計算，反之，capital goods （如學校所設的空調），因其使用的期間超過一個會計時段（一般超過一年吧），那麼 capital goods 應列作資產計算，而在其使用期間分期折舊 ( depreciate) 。故此學生將空調作 capital goods 亦非絕對不可。而所為 capital goods 作為 plant and equipment 分類或 fixtures and fittings 來分類，那就要看其使用者而區分。此外，在區分 capital goods 的前提下，也要顧及價值問題，例如學校的廣播系統，可算是 capital expenditure, 而其他 accessories 如 microphone, stands etc 作 consumerables 看也無不可。
回覆刪除這只是乏言自己的看法，想未必盡然。
[版主回覆01/15/2009 08:13:00]先謝乏言先生指教！
由於栗妹讀的是理科/翻譯，所以一切經濟學的知識，只靠平日看書得來。基礎經濟學課本教 capital goods 時，定義如下：
Capital goods, then, are products which are not produced for immediate consumption; rather, they are objects that are used to produce other goods and services. (來源： http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_goods )
因為我覺得冷氣機並不是直接協助提供知識這項service，所以不應算是 capital goods。
我對會計學真是半點不通 ，但看乏言先生的解說，似乎會計學給 capital goods 下的定義，跟經濟學並不相同？
Ok, I read thru the wiki definition and I stand corrected on my confusion between capital goods and raw materials. However, even under the wiki definition, the microphone in a classroom is still not capital goods, because it's not used to "produce" other goods. Knowledge is not "produced" in a classroom, but in research facilities. Classrooms are distribution centers. Teaching, is therefore not a manufacturing activity, but a service one. I stand by my original contention that the microphone is, at best, an accessory to the service activity of knowledge distribution in a classroom.
回覆刪除[版主回覆01/15/2009 13:22:00]Teacher: I ask my colleagues and they provide me with the following explanation:
If a teacher buys a microphone and use it for teaching, singing, etc., then it is a kind of consumer goods.
If a teacher uses the microphone provided by a third party (school, karaoke, etc.), then it is a kind of capital goods.
What do you think?
In answer to your first question, with my limited Chinese, obviously, I'd prefer the translation with the 品 instead of 財 for any kind of "goods"
回覆刪除[版主回覆01/15/2009 13:24:00]You have your point, Teacher. I prefer 資本財 because it sounds cool
我倒是不明白為何「酒廊供客人唱歌消遣的是消費品」，那些擺明是生財工具，用來向客人提供服務的。
回覆刪除[版主回覆01/15/2009 13:18:00]想必是我記錯了 ，消費品的例子，該是買米高峰在家裡唱歌？
謝謝栗子姑娘指正。哈！乏言也是讀理科的，對經濟學僅皮毛而已。
回覆刪除不幸在下偶爾與學子同感。姑娘以空調非為提供知識而設，未知否較狹義呢？沒有空調仍可授課。然則，課室、校舍、電力等也大可不作 capital goods 論了。何故？ 仲尼公遊學列國、古希臘先賢可曾需要校舍等傳授知識。是否要將時光倒流到白鹿洞書院年代。
汽車冷氣是否 capital goods 呢？現今香港恐怕很少人於大熱天時樂於乘搭沒空調的的士吧。當然，的士也僅是交通工具嗎。
其實各學科對定義並沒有太大的改動，只著眼點或有出入而已，會計學上大抵將之微觀地量化而已。
乏言乃一固執妄撞之老頭，胡言亂語，萬望海涵！
[版主回覆01/15/2009 13:17:00]先生所言甚是，我太鑽牛角尖了。同事說，購買者直接使用的商品是consumer goods；購買者買來供別人享用的是capital goods，未知這樣可說得通？唉，一想得複雜了，便理不清頭緒
再次謝謝乏言先生指正！
The microphone in the Karaoke bar is closer to capital goods than all the other stuff mentioned in that the microphone is essential in the bar providing Karaoke services to its customers. But I still see a big difference between it and the mike or the AC in a classroom.
回覆刪除
Another thing, I think there may be slight variations in the definition of the word capital between economists and accountants. Since this kid is in an econ class, the teacher should stick with the economists' definition.
栗子妹真係博學多才，真的五體投地 。
回覆刪除栗子妹：雖然課室有冷氣沒冷氣老師都要上課，但經濟學不是理所當然的一種學科論說，它是屬於分類法的學科，由於學校的直接收益都與學生有關，因此學生所享用的一切開支或設施就必須歸類為資本財；相對來說教員室的冷氣由於屬於成本中的一種開支，教員就是一種成本，因此就該歸類為消費品，當然消費品也有直接和間接兩種，如何歸納有時候不能一概而論，那就要看學校的各項運作情況才能釐定。
回覆刪除