講解蔡英文1983博士論文第530與531頁
承接報導：
蔡英文博士論文中的一個魔鬼 Devil 二個邪惡 Evils
記者針對page 354的魔鬼說，檢視蔡博論page 350與351，挖掘蔡英文稱呼「自願性出口設限」（Voluntary Export Restraints, VERs）為「魔鬼」（Devil）的原因。
Hindley命題聚焦在自願出口設限（VER）和GATT第19條的關係。在檢視VER經濟學後，Hindley結論VER將提升出口產業獲利性，而且當適當條件滿足時，總獲利增加。條件並不難滿足，而且，在很多情況下，他們會被滿足滿足。還有，如果自動出口設限的替代方案是緊急措施（依據GATT第19條）而不是放任之，VER措施會對出口產業較有利，因為若採取GATT第19條措施（記者註：首次發稿時，漏看under Article XIX導致漏寫「若採取GATT第19條措施」，對蔡英文不敬，記者必須道歉）他們的利潤降低，導因於關稅提升或配額設限，配額是由進口商分配。雖然，出口國有權利獲得補償或依據GATT第19條採取報復措施，採行VER措施卻是較直接與適當。原因是GATT第19條的補償形式，通常是出口國的其他出口的進一步退讓，然而VER的補償是直接對出口產業補償，管道是增加獲利能力與利潤。
以上是蔡英文（1983，page 351）第一段的翻譯，原文如下：
The Hindley Proposition focuses on the relationship between voluntary export restraints and safeguard actions under Article XIX. After the examination of the economics of VERs, Hindley concludes that VERs would raise the profitability of an exporting industry and its total profits will increase if certain conditions are fulfilled. The conditions are not difficult to fulfill and in many cases they will be fulfilled. Moreover, when the alternative to an VER is the emergency action under Article XIX rather than unrestricted trade, an VER arrangement will be more beneficial to the exporting industry whose profits will be reduced as a result of increased tariffs or imposition of quota (when the quota rights are distributed to importers) under Article XIX. Although the exporting country is entitled to be compensated or to retaliate under Article XIX, compensation in the case of VER is more direct and just. This is because under Article XIX compensation is usually in the form of further concessions to other exports of the exporting country while in the case of VER compensation is directly paid to the industry whose exports are restricted through increased profitability and profits.
不過，以上英文 "the exporting industry whose profits will be reduced"，若改成 "the exporting industry, whose profits will be reduced"，不但更正確，也較不容易讓人誤會。
以上是蔡英文（1983，page 351）第一段的原文，截圖如下。
回應文章建議規則：