UK's Old Housing Stock and the Energy Conundrum

 

The Root of a Crisis: UK's Old Housing Stock and the Energy Conundrum

The United Kingdom is grappling with a multi-faceted crisis encompassing housing shortages, exorbitant energy costs, and an urgent need to meet net-zero emissions targets. While these issues may seem distinct, their root cause is interconnected: the nation's aging and poorly insulated housing stock. A significant percentage of UK homes, particularly those built before 1980, are energy inefficient, leading to massive heat loss, high utility bills, and a dependency on foreign energy imports. The country's reluctance to abandon its traditional, often aesthetically cherished, housing for modern, efficient alternatives exacerbates this crisis.

---

A History of Inefficiency

The UK's housing market is defined by its age. Over 40% of the homes were built before 1944, and a staggering 70% were constructed before 1980. While charming in appearance, these older homes were built without modern insulation standards. They feature single-pane windows, thin walls, and a lack of proper sealing, making them a thermal sieve. This inefficiency forces households to consume significantly more energy—primarily natural gas for heating—to maintain a comfortable temperature. This direct link between poor insulation and high energy consumption is a core driver of the cost-of-living crisis.

The Economic and Environmental Fallout

The consequences of this energy inefficiency are severe and widespread. At the household level, families face crippling energy bills, pushing many into fuel poverty. The government, in turn, is forced to provide billions of pounds in subsidies and support programs to mitigate these costs, adding a significant burden to public finances.

On a national scale, the UK's dependence on imported natural gas and oil leaves it vulnerable to volatile international energy markets, as evidenced by the recent price spikes. This dependency not only drains the national economy but also undermines energy security. Furthermore, residential heating is a major source of carbon emissions. The poor energy performance of the housing stock directly obstructs the UK's legally binding commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

The Solution: A Shift to Modern Housing

The solution to this crisis lies in a fundamental change in housing strategy. Instead of preserving inefficient older homes, the UK should prioritize the construction of high-density, energy-efficient tower blocks in urban centers. These modern buildings can be designed with superior insulation, double or triple-glazed windows, and integrated renewable energy systems (like solar panels and heat pumps), drastically reducing their energy footprint.

Building upwards in city centers would address the housing shortage by creating thousands of new homes on a smaller land area. It would also reduce the need for commuting, as residents would be closer to workplaces, further cutting down on emissions. The energy savings from such a shift would alleviate household financial strain, reduce the government's subsidy expenditure, and decrease reliance on energy imports. While the aesthetic and cultural value of traditional homes is undeniable, the economic and environmental costs of maintaining them are no longer sustainable.

---

針對人才外流的關稅：收回印度失去的財富

 

一項針對人才外流的關稅提案：收回印度失去的財富

印度長期以來一直是高技能專業人才的主要輸出國，這些人才為了更好的機會移民到美國，這種現象通常被稱為人才外流（brain drain）。儘管這種移民對美國經濟來說是個福音，但對印度而言，這卻是巨大且未獲補償的損失。本文主張，印度應考慮對美國徵收人才外流關稅，以收回其在這些專業人士教育上所投入的部分資金，並承認這種人力與知識資產的轉移價值。

---

未獲補償的投資

印度的公共教育體系，從著名的印度理工學院（IITs）到其醫學院，投入了數十億美元來培養人才。由政府補貼的醫學或工程學學位成本，是一項社會投資。當畢業生離開時，他們的離去代表著這項投資直接轉移到了目的地國。幾十年來，美國一直是這項轉移的主要受益者，它在不承擔教育和成長初期成本的情況下，獲得了一支高技能勞動力。這種未獲補償的人力資本轉移造成了不公平的經濟失衡。

---

量化損失：在美印度人才的概況

這種移民的規模令人震驚，尤其是在關鍵領域。以下數字展示了印度向美國輸出人才的深度：

• 醫生與外科醫生：印度裔醫生在美國醫療體系中佔據了相當大的比例。美國印裔醫師協會（AAPI）估計，在美國執業的印度裔醫生超過80,000人，佔醫生總數的至少8.5%。印度是向美國提供國際醫學畢業生最多的國家。

• 科學家與博士：美國安全與新興技術中心（CSET）2017年的一份報告發現，在美國完成STEM（科學、技術、工程和數學）博士學位的印度國民中，絕大多數選擇留在美國。從2000年到2015年，超過28,000名印度國民獲得了美國大學的STEM博士學位，佔所有國際畢業生的近16%。

• 高層主管與創新者：特別是在科技產業，印度裔領導者的崛起引人注目。[圖片為美國主要公司印度裔CEO] 桑達爾·皮查伊（谷歌/Alphabet）、薩提亞·納德拉（微軟）和沙坦努·納拉延（Adobe）等人物，只是印度出生的個人領導世界上一些最有價值公司的幾個例子。他們的領導力創造了數萬億美元的市值並推動了全球創新，而美國則收穫了主要的經濟回報。

這些人不僅僅是員工，他們是創新者、領導者和企業家，他們創造就業、申請專利並對美國經濟做出巨大貢獻。他們一生中賺取的收入、繳納的稅款和產生的知識產權價值是巨大的——這些財富是在印度培養出來的，現在卻在充實另一個國家。

---

徵收關稅的理由

雖然直接對個人徵稅不切實際且在政治上複雜，但可以將「人才外流關稅」視為一種解決這種失衡的經濟工具。這項關稅不是向個人徵稅，而是向僱用一定數量印度專業人士的美國政府或企業收取費用。這將如同為所獲得的人力與知識資本支付特許權使用費。所產生的收入可用於：

• 資助印度研發：這些錢可以重新投資於印度的研究機構、大學和實驗室，以改善基礎設施，為國內人才創造更多機會。

• 改善社會基礎設施：資金可用於改善印度的醫療、教育和其他公共服務，提高生活質量，使國家對其高技能勞動力更具吸引力。

• 提供回流激勵：部分資金可以建立回國計劃，提供有吸引力的資助、研究資金和高薪工作，以鼓勵印度專業人士回國並貢獻他們的專業知識。

這項提案並非旨在懲罰，而是承認一種清晰的經濟交換。這將迫使美國承認其引進人才的真實成本，並為印度提供一種獲得其投資補償的機制。通過確立這項主張，印度可以開啟一場關於人才移民經濟公平性的全球對話，並保護其長期利益。

Brain Drain Tariff: Reclaiming India's Lost Wealth

 

A Proposal for a Brain Drain Tariff: Reclaiming India's Lost Wealth

India has long been a source of highly skilled professionals who migrate to the United States for better opportunities, a phenomenon commonly known as brain drain. While this migration has been a boon for the U.S. economy, it represents a significant, uncompensated loss for India. This paper argues that India should consider imposing a brain drain tariff on the United States to recover a portion of the investment made in educating these professionals and to acknowledge the economic and intellectual value that has been transferred.

---

The Uncompensated Investment

India's public education system, from its prestigious Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) to its medical colleges, invests billions of dollars in nurturing talent. The cost of a medical degree or an engineering degree, when subsidized by the government, is a societal investment. When a graduate leaves, their departure represents a direct transfer of this investment to the destination country. For decades, the U.S. has been the primary beneficiary of this transfer, gaining a highly skilled workforce without bearing the initial costs of their education and upbringing. This uncompensated transfer of human capital creates an unfair economic imbalance.

---

Quantifying the Loss: A Snapshot of Indian Talent in the USA

The scale of this migration is staggering, especially in key sectors. The following numbers provide a glimpse into the depth of India's talent export to the U.S.:

• Physicians and Surgeons: Indian-origin physicians make up a substantial portion of the U.S. healthcare system. The American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI) estimates that over 80,000 physicians of Indian descent are practicing in the U.S., accounting for at least 8.5% of the total physician population. India provides the largest number of International Medical Graduates to the U.S.

• Scientists and PhDs: A 2017 report by the U.S.-based Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) found that a significant majority of Indian nationals who complete a STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) Ph.D. in the U.S. choose to stay. Between 2000 and 2015, over 28,000 Indian nationals earned STEM Ph.D.s from U.S. universities, accounting for nearly 16% of all international graduates.

• C-level Executives and Innovators: The tech industry, in particular, has seen a remarkable ascent of Indian-origin leaders. Icons like Sundar Pichai (Google/Alphabet), Satya Nadella (Microsoft), and Shantanu Narayen (Adobe) are just a few examples of Indian-born individuals who now lead some of the world's most valuable companies. Their leadership has generated trillions of dollars in market capitalization and driven global innovation, with the U.S. reaping the primary economic rewards.

These individuals are not just employees; they are innovators, leaders, and entrepreneurs who create jobs, file patents, and contribute disproportionately to the U.S. economy. The value of their lifetime earnings, tax contributions, and intellectual property generated is immense—wealth that was cultivated in India and is now enriching another nation.

---

The Case for a Tariff

While a direct tax on individuals is impractical and politically complex, a "brain drain tariff" could be conceptualized as an economic tool to address this imbalance. Instead of taxing the people, the tariff would be a charge levied on the U.S. government or corporations that hire a certain number of Indian professionals. This would function like a royalty payment for the intellectual and human capital gained. The revenue generated could be used to:

• Fund Indian Research and Development: The money could be reinvested in Indian research institutes, universities, and laboratories to improve infrastructure and create more opportunities for domestic talent.

• Improve Social Infrastructure: Funds could be used to enhance healthcare, education, and other public services in India, improving the quality of life and making the country a more attractive place to stay for its skilled workforce.

• Provide Reverse Migration Incentives: A portion of the funds could create repatriation programs, offering attractive grants, research funding, and high-paying jobs to encourage Indian professionals to return and contribute their expertise back home.

This proposal is not meant to be a punishment but a recognition of a clear economic exchange. It would force the U.S. to acknowledge the true cost of the talent it imports and provide a mechanism for India to be compensated for its investment. By establishing this claim, India can start a global conversation about the economic fairness of talent migration and protect its long-term interests.

古有馭民之術，今有引導之學：愚民五策與輕推理論之辨

 古有馭民之術，今有引導之學：愚民五策與輕推理論之辨

愚民五策，古之馭民之道也；輕推理論，今之引導之學也。二者雖相隔千載，理異途殊，然皆關乎治民、動眾之術。其所異者，在於意圖、方法及倫理之別也。

愚民五策：以愚治民，直接操控

「愚民五策」乃古之為政者，所以固權安民之術也。其要旨，在於主動抑制民智、禁絕思維、削弱自主，以求自上而下之掌控。

其五策之常解如下：

• 弱民： 使民體魄不強，經濟困頓，從而仰賴於國，無力反抗。

• 愚民： 禁學、禁思，閉塞視聽，使民不知他途，不識己力。其道在於推行淺陋之說，杜絕深究之念。

• 疲民： 勞役不息，瑣事不休，使民疲於奔命，無暇參與政事，亦無力深思。

• 辱民： 貶抑民之尊嚴，使其自輕自賤，不生反抗之心。

• 貧民： 使民常處貧困，無資財以結黨獨立，遂無反抗之本。

此五策之根本，在於系統性地削弱個體能力與群體意識，以息異議而固權柄。

輕推理論：間接引導，微調架構

輕推理論，乃現代行為經濟學之新學。其論，謂可巧改「選擇架構」，即決策環境，間接而微地引導人眾，使其做出於己有利或合於社稷之選擇，而不限其自由。其道非強迫，乃引導也。

其例有：

• 預設： 默認人眾加入養老金或器官捐獻，雖可退出。

• 表述： 換其言辭，以顯其美（如「90%無脂」而非「10%含脂」）。

• 社會佐證： 告以「鄰里多已行之」，以促其行。

• 顯著性： 於顯眼處陳列健康之食。

輕推理論之初衷，多為善意：或為增進民康，或為鼓勵儲蓄，或為環保，或為敦促公民參與。

輕推之影：現代「愚民」之憂

二者雖源流各異，意圖殊途，然深究其弊，則輕推理論之失用，其術與愚民五策之「愚民」相若，令人悚然。

• 繞過理性： 二者皆可繞過個體之理性思維與自覺判斷。愚民五策以資訊封鎖，養育無知；輕推理論則以操弄認知偏差與潛意識，使人不明其故而為之。

• 資訊與權力之不對稱： 二者皆基於資訊與權力之懸殊。為政者或輕推者，其所知之術，民之所無，故能左右環境，以利己身。

• 操縱「選擇」與消弭選擇： 愚民五策意在限制選項、泯滅知識，以消弭選擇。輕推理論雖保留選擇（可退出），然其「所欲」之選項，易為至極或誘人至微，實則使人無真思慮而順從。自由選擇與「受導向」之選擇，其界日漸模糊。

• 仁慈家長與惡意操控： 輕推學家倡言「自由家長主義」，謂引導而保自由。然其用於廣告或自利政客之手，此「家長」則化為操控，所導之選，非為民善，乃為己利。如此，則微妙之心理影響，實能「愚民」，使人不知其所以然地做出決策，彷彿重演古之「愚民」之術。

結語

愚民五策，古之術也，其法顯赫而殘酷，以直接壓制、精神禁錮而治之。輕推理論，今之學也，其術幽微而良善，以環境設計而引導。然此二者之比，乃警世之言也：輕推之微妙與心理力量，固可為善，然一入惡手，則為巧詐之術，實成現代「愚民」之效——民眾於無覺中被導，所作之決，皆為他人設計，終損其自主之權。其間之別，在於影響之是否透明，意圖之善惡，以及其最終對個體自主權之深遠影響也。

Ancient Control vs. Modern Persuasion: A Look at 愚民五策 and Nudge Theory

 

Ancient Control vs. Modern Persuasion: A Look at 愚民五策 and Nudge Theory

While separated by centuries and vastly different philosophical underpinnings, a critical comparison can be drawn between the historical concept of the 中国愚民五策 (Zhōngguó Yúmín Wǔcè, or "Five Policies to Stupefy the People of China") and the modern Nudge Theory. Both, in their broadest interpretation, concern methods of influencing public behavior, but they differ significantly in their intent, methodology, and ethical implications.

The Five Policies to Stupefy: Direct Control Through Ignorance

The "愚民五策" is a concept, often attributed to ancient Chinese political thought, describing strategies rulers might employ to maintain control by keeping the populace ignorant, docile, and subservient. While the exact historical origin and precise "five policies" can vary in interpretation, the core idea revolves around active suppression of knowledge, critical thinking, and autonomy. These methods were designed for direct, top-down control.

Common interpretations of the five policies include:

1. Weakening the People (弱民): Keeping the populace physically and economically weak, making them dependent on the state and less likely to challenge authority.

2. Stupefying the People (愚民): Suppressing education, free thought, and access to information, ensuring the people remain unaware of alternatives or their own power. This often involved promoting simplistic narratives and discouraging intellectual inquiry.

3. Wearying the People (疲民): Keeping people constantly busy with labor or trivial matters, leaving them no time or energy for political engagement or critical thought.

4. Humiliating the People (辱民): Degrading their sense of self-worth and dignity, making them feel inferior and less likely to resist.

5. Impoverishing the People (贫民): Maintaining economic hardship to prevent the accumulation of wealth that could fuel independence or rebellion.

The fundamental goal of these policies was to extinguish dissent and consolidate power through a systematic erosion of individual capacity and collective awareness.

Nudge Theory: Indirect Influence Through Choice Architecture

In stark contrast, Nudge Theory, popularized by Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler, emerges from behavioral economics. It proposes that by subtly altering the "choice architecture"—the environment in which decisions are made—individuals can be "nudged" towards making choices that are ostensibly in their own best interest or in line with societal goals, without restricting their freedom of choice. Nudges are indirect, often subtle, and aim to guide rather than force.

Examples of nudges include:

• Defaults: Automatically enrolling people in pension schemes or organ donation, allowing them to opt-out.

• Framing: Presenting information in a way that highlights positive aspects (e.g., "90% fat-free" instead of "10% fat").

• Social Proof: Informing people that "most of your neighbors recycle," encouraging them to do the same.

• Salience: Placing healthy food options at eye level in a cafeteria.

The stated intent of nudge theory is often benevolent: to improve public health, increase savings, promote environmental sustainability, or enhance civic participation.

The Convergent Shadow: When Nudge Becomes "愚民"

While their origins and stated intentions diverge, a critical examination reveals how nudge theory, when misused, can eerily resemble the manipulative aspects of the 愚民五策, particularly the "Stupefying the People" (愚民) aspect.

• Subversion of Rationality: Both approaches, in their darker applications, bypass the individual's rational, conscious decision-making. The 愚民五策 achieves this by denying information and fostering ignorance. Nudge achieves it by exploiting cognitive biases and subconscious psychological triggers. In both cases, the individual might act without a full, reasoned understanding of why.

• Asymmetry of Information and Power: Both systems inherently rely on an asymmetry of information and power. The ruler/nudge designer possesses knowledge and tools that the general populace does not, allowing them to shape the environment to their advantage.

• Manipulating "Choice" vs. Eliminating Choice: The 愚民五策 aims to eliminate meaningful choice by limiting options and knowledge. Nudge theory, while theoretically preserving choice (the "opt-out" option), can make the "desired" choice so overwhelmingly easy or subtly appealing that it effectively funnels individuals without true deliberation. The distinction between a genuinely free choice and a heavily "guided" one can become blurred.

• Benevolent Paternalism vs. Malicious Control: This is the crux of the ethical debate. Nudge proponents argue for "libertarian paternalism"—guiding choices while preserving freedom. However, critics argue that when applied by advertisers or self-serving politicians, this paternalism can morph into manipulation, where choices are guided not for the individual's good, but for the nudger's benefit. In such scenarios, the subtle psychological influence of nudges can indeed "stupefy" individuals into making choices they might not otherwise, without even realizing they are being influenced. This creates a populace that is effectively ignorant of the true drivers of their decisions, echoing the goal of the ancient "愚民" strategy.

Conclusion

The 愚民五策 represents an ancient, overt, and often brutal strategy of control through direct suppression and intellectual starvation. Nudge theory, on the other hand, is a modern, subtle, and generally benevolent approach to influence behavior through environmental design. However, the critical comparison reveals a cautionary tale: the very subtlety and psychological power that makes nudges effective for good can, in the wrong hands, become a sophisticated tool for manipulation, effectively achieving a modern form of 愚民—a populace guided without full awareness, making choices designed by others, and potentially undermining true individual autonomy. The distinction lies not in the existence of influence, but in its transparency, intent, and ultimate impact on individual agency.

馬來西亞土著政策緣何催生華裔富豪

馬來西亞土著政策緣何催生華裔富豪

土著政策（Bumiputra policy），乃馬來西亞政府於一九七一年推行之新經濟政策（New Economic Policy）核心舉措也。其初衷本欲匡正土著（Bumiputra，意為「國土之子」，指馬來族及其他原住民）與非土著（尤指華族，因其在商界居主導地位）間之經濟懸殊。此策蓋為回應一九六九年種族騷亂，旨在均分國富，共襄繁榮。然四十年後，此政策雖立意良善，卻意外造就了一批華裔富豪。

---

扶助弱勢之意外後果

土著政策旨在提升土著在企業之持股比例，增加其高等教育之入學機會，並擴展其在專業領域之代表性。具體措施包括大學入學配額、專屬商業執照及政府合約之保留。此策雖在一定程度上催生了土著中產及上流階級，卻也對華裔商界產生了意想不到之影響。

此政策之框架，常迫使華裔企業欲承攬政府高利潤合約或取得商業執照，必與土著個人或實體結成夥伴。此類合作，人稱「阿里-巴巴」模式（Ali-Baba arrangement），其名取自一華裔企業家「阿里」與一土著掛名者「巴巴」，在當時極為常見。此模式下，土著夥伴僅為名義上之所有人，藉其特權地位獲取商機；華裔夥伴則提供資金、技術與管理。此種體系使許多華裔企業得以規避政策限制，進而擴大發展。土著夥伴多半僅收取費用或分紅，不涉入實際營運。此舉雖悖離政策初衷，卻鞏固了既有華裔集團之地位，並為其開啟了新的成長途徑。

此外，政策側重於國家主導之經濟發展，以及執照與合約之分配，遂滋生貪腐與尋租之風。此環境使所有族群中之政商關係者皆獲益匪淺，華裔亦然。彼輩與執政黨或政府要員有密切關係之華裔商人，得以遊刃有餘於政策之繁複，並取得競爭優勢。此更使得財富與權力集中於少數華裔企業家手中，形成一「裙帶資本家」階級。

此政策亦促成一種「經濟外溢」現象。許多富裕華裔家族，因覺土著政策下其長遠經濟前景難測，遂開始將資本轉投海外。此現象，人稱「人才流失」與「資本外逃」，意味著政策本欲在國內重新分配財富，卻反而將一些最具活力與財力的非土著個人與企業推向海外尋求發展。此不僅鞏固了留守者之財富，亦對馬來西亞經濟造成了長遠影響。

總而言之，土著政策雖旨在賦予馬來族群權力，然其複雜之實施與意外之結果，反使一群華裔企業家得以適應並繁榮，有時甚至透過利用政策本身之漏洞而獲利。因此，這個本欲減少族群間財富差距之政策，竟反向催生了馬來西亞一個嶄新、人脈廣闊且富裕之華裔精英階層。

---

How Malaysia's Bumiputra Policy Led to the Rise of a Wealthy Chinese Elite

 

How Malaysia's Bumiputra Policy Led to the Rise of a Wealthy Chinese Elite

The Bumiputra policy, enacted in 1971 as part of the New Economic Policy (NEP), was a landmark affirmative action program in Malaysia. Its primary goal was to address the economic disparities that existed between the Bumiputra (literally "sons of the soil," a term for ethnic Malays and other indigenous peoples) and non-Bumiputra, particularly the Chinese, who dominated the commercial sector. The policy was a response to the 1969 race riots and aimed to create a more equitable distribution of wealth and opportunities. Over four decades, however, this policy, despite its intentions, inadvertently fostered the growth of a wealthy Chinese elite.

---

Unintended Consequences of Affirmative Action

The Bumiputra policy aimed to increase Bumiputra ownership of the corporate sector, enhance their participation in higher education, and elevate their representation in the professions. It included measures such as quotas for university admissions, reserved business licenses, and government contracts. While these policies did, to a degree, create a nascent Bumiputra middle and upper class, they also had a significant and unanticipated effect on the Chinese business community.

The policy's structure often created a need for Chinese-owned firms to partner with Bumiputra individuals or entities to secure lucrative government contracts or business licenses. These partnerships, known as "Ali-Baba" arrangements (referencing a Chinese entrepreneur 'Ali' and a Bumiputra front 'Baba'), were common.In these arrangements, the Bumiputra partner would act as a nominal owner, leveraging their privileged status to gain access to opportunities, while the Chinese partner would provide the capital, expertise, and management. This system allowed many Chinese businesses to circumvent the restrictions of the policy, enabling them to expand and thrive. The Bumiputra partner, in many cases, would receive a fee or a share of the profits without being actively involved in the business operations. This practice, while subverting the policy's intent, solidified the position of existing Chinese conglomerates and provided a new avenue for growth.

Furthermore, the policy's emphasis on state-led economic development and the allocation of licenses and contracts often created an environment ripe for corruption and rent-seeking. This environment disproportionately benefited politically connected individuals from all ethnic groups, including the Chinese. Those Chinese businesspeople who had ties to the ruling political parties or key government officials were able to navigate the policy's complexities and secure a competitive advantage. This further concentrated wealth and power within a select group of Chinese entrepreneurs, a class of "crony capitalists."

The policy also encouraged a form of economic leakage. Many wealthy Chinese families, feeling that their long-term economic prospects were precarious under the Bumiputra policy, began to invest their capital overseas. This phenomenon, often referred to as a brain drain and capital flight, meant that while the policy was intended to redistribute wealth domestically, it instead pushed some of the most dynamic and wealthy non-Bumiputra individuals and firms to seek opportunities abroad, further entrenching the wealth of those who stayed and adapted to the policy's framework. This flight of talent and capital had long-term implications for the Malaysian economy.

Ultimately, while the Bumiputra policy aimed to empower the Malay majority, its complex implementation and unintended consequences allowed a select group of Chinese entrepreneurs to adapt and prosper, sometimes through partnerships that exploited the policy itself. Thus, the very policy designed to reduce ethnic wealth disparities paradoxically contributed to the rise of a new, well-connected, and affluent Chinese elite in Malaysia.