A female Mongol Singer demonstrates amazing Khoomei skill

Jenni Russell: This is the BBC - ruled by greed at the top

Belt-tightening, cuts, insecurity, restraint. It’s the theme for every public service, and for a great many private companies too. But at the BBC the chasm between what’s being demanded of the vast majority of the staff and the cushion of privilege that protects its top executives has resulted in a level of rage that I have not seen since I joined the corporation as a trainee 25 years ago. “I’ve never
known anything like it,” one very senior producer said to me. “It’s outright fury. Every meeting is packed. Five hundred people turned up at one meeting at Bush House; you couldn’t get into the room.

We hate them, really hate them.” The staff I talked to are realists. They know that the BBC pension scheme has a hole in it and that salaries and jobs will all be badly
affected by the national squeeze on spending. They understand that the coalition government is planning to cut the licence fee. What incenses them is that their wages are being limited or frozen and their pensions slashed by a management elite whose own incomes and comfortable retirement arrangements leave them utterly detached from the lives and the fears of their employees.

It’s the Mark Byford pension that’s become the symbol of what’s gone so wrong. At 51 the deputy director-general not only earns almost £500,000 a year but — simply by staying in the same organisation all his working life — he has accumulated one of the largest pension pots ever seen in the public sector. It is currently worth £215,000 a year, which means that even if he left the BBC tomorrow, he would retire on an income that was almost 50% higher than the prime minister’s salary.

Buying that same pension on the open market would cost at least £3.6m. In the public sector it’s thought that only the governor of the Bank of England has accumulated more, and he has an entirely different order of responsibility.

What Byford and his colleagues have benefited from is a revolution in the ssumptions about what those who run the BBC should earn. When Michael Checkland became director-general 23 years ago, he earned around £200,000 a year. At that point a producer in the first year of their first job (me) earned £18,000.

In the intervening years top salaries have soared away from those of the rest of the staff. From the time that John Birt arrived as DG and was discovered to be contracting his services as a freelance in order to minimise his tax and maximise his income, the idea that running the BBC was a privilege deserving a healthy salary, but no more, was dead.

First the governors and then the BBC Trust bought into the argument that there was a worldwide shortage of talent and that the BBC had to compete for it in the marketplace. The corporation declared that executive pay was benchmarked against the private sector. The basic salaries of those on the executive board rocketed.
In 2006 the current director-general, Mark Thompson, had a pay rise of 9%, Byford got 15%, and the director of television’s pay went up by 25%. The staff got 2.6%. In 2008 the board got pay rises of up to £100,000, taking Thompson’s salary to £816,000. He remarked that the BBC’s wages were “in many cases a tiny patch on what other broadcasters pay” and that “when you get out into the external world,
some potential candidates almost roll on the floor laughing when you talk about potential levels of pay”.

That year the staff got 2%. Last year Thompson’s salary, including pension contributions, was £834,000. A journalist in my old job earns £30,000. Thompson and his colleagues have secured a remarkable deal: salaries approaching those in the harsh commercial world, but with public sector pensions and job security.

The staff have long been bewildered by the rewards at the top, while they deal with flat wages and incessant budget cuts.

The catalyst for the rage is the change to pensions announced in June. Most staff belong either to the final-salary or career-average scheme. In future the link between salaries and pensions is to be snapped.

Pensionable salaries will grow by a maximum of 1% a year, no matter what promotions or wage increases are earned. A typical 30-year-old producer on £25,000, who might have expected to retire on £27,000 after a couple of promotions in his working life, will now get about a third of that. Except for the lucky few who are towards the end of their employment, or who have already reached the peak of their earnings, everyone’s retirement income will be savagely reduced.

“It’s sheer betrayal,” one editor told me. “The whole country’s in a dire state and we know we have to make sacrifices; but the management have been so greedy they’ve surrendered their moral right to leadership. The executive board have each given up a month’s salary for two years, and we’re told this will hit them in the pocket, but for God’s sake, on their salaries how can that hurt? They’re on a different planet.”

That sense of different rules for the staff and the elite was reinforced last week when it turned out that the executives who have driven one of the BBC’s major projects, the moving of 1,500 staff from London to a Salford base next year, won’t actually be making the move out of London themselves. The director of BBC North, Peter Salmon, has decided to keep his family in London and rent a flat in Salford during the week at the BBC’s expense. He says his children are at a critical stage in their education.

The controller of 5 Live has made the same decision. The BBC says the strategist behind the Salford move, Richard Deverell, has not yet decided whether he will move. Meanwhile, the employees affected have been told that while there will be attempts to redeploy them if they don’t go, they may face redundancy if they refuse.
The BBC has never felt like a well-managed organisation. I worked there for 10 years, and its crassness in handling its staff was bewildering. But neither the executive board nor the trust seems to have grasped the hostility they now face. The unions will be balloting on strike action — and they say applications to
join them are running at an unprecedented level.

The BBC has to accept that it is not and cannot be compared to a commercial organisation. Commercial employees live or die by whether they can survive in the marketplace. Michael Grade left the BBC for a huge salary at ITV, only to be forced out when he didn’t deliver sufficient profits. The BBC is insulated from those pressures.

As one trust member told me, there is nothing like looking at projected income for the next five years and seeing those repeated, reassuring figures: £3.4 billion, every single year.

The era in which private-sector greed could be carried into the public sector is over. The governor of the Bank of England has just announced that when the Bank takes over regulation of the financial system, he won’t be offering high salaries. Instead, he’s looking for people who are motivated by public service.

That’s just what the BBC should be doing. It has to cut those stratospheric alaries and understand that executives who have won the lottery with their pensions should either surrender part of them or move on. They are in no position to lecture the staff on austerity and restraint. The DG’s salary could be set at the same level the coalition is proposing for the rest of the public sector: 20 times the lowest London wage, some £400,000. If current board members think they are worth more elsewhere, let them leave.

Nothing is more important than that the BBC, which is an essential part of our cultural and political life, should be led by people who care more for what they can achieve than what they can earn themselves.

jenni.russell@sunday-times.co.uk

BBC chiefs pension of £400,000 a year

MARK BYFORD, the deputy director-general of the BBC, is in line for pension payouts of almost £400,000 a year when he retires.

Mr Byford, 51, has amassed a pension pot worth £3.4million, one of the biggest ever seen in the public sector.

The latest estimate, published in a Sunday newspaper, was based on an analysis of figures published by the BBC and follows controversy over Mr Byford's travel expenses.

He claimed £4,878 for business class flights to the World Cup as well as almost £4,000 on flights to America last year.

Mr Byford, who joined the BBC at the age of 20 in 1979, received £485,000 in pay and other benefits last year. That could rise to almost £600,000 by 2019 in line with average wage inflation. With 40 years' service he would be entitled to two thirds of his salary as a pension, or £395,000 a year.

If bought as an annuity on the open market, this would require a total pension pot of at least £7million.

But the BBC is currently in consultation about plans to cap pay rises in pensionable pay to one per cent a year.

Although the cuts would curb his potential payouts, even if he left the corporation tomorrow he would be in line for a pension worth £215,000 a year, according to projections in the BBC's annual report.

The corporation defended the potential payout as "typical" of final salary schemes, which are still commonplace in the public sector. A spokesman added: "Mark Byford will be treated no differently from anyone else."

John Bingham
The Daily Telegraph (London)
July 19, 2010 Monday
Edition 1;
National Edition

Mao Zedong in video-history's gaze

Yuan Tengfei, a 38-year old Beijing middle-school history-teacher, has become both a high-profile and a controversial figure in China’s online public discourse - called the “best history teacher" by his fans, a traitor to his nation and state by critics, all the while remaining a member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). His lively lectures in fluent, Beijing-accented Mandarin - spiced with funny anecdotes and sarcastic comments, and circulated via online video-clips - have won him an expanding fan-base and (less certainly) aroused students' interests in history as a subject (see “School teacher Yuan Tengfei brings history vividly to life”, CCTV, 7 July 2009).

More conventional critics have described what Yuan Tengfei does as “comedian history”. Some even say that he could be a good stand-up comedian, injecting new life into Beijing’s old art of xiang sheng (cross-talk) by adding historical knowledge and political satire.

Indeed, Beijingers are well known for their biting eloquence. Many of the city’s taxi-drivers can talk about the affairs of state and leading political personalities in as detailed and acerbic way as they presumably do about their family matters. Indeed, it is hard to find something they do not know. (There is even one driver who doubles as a political pundit - the famous blogger, Han Han - though in his case he is a race-car driver). Yuan Tengfei's lectures have brought some of their kind of wit into the public arena.

Now, Yuan Tengfei has been propelled to the centre of one of China’s characteristically passionate online spasms. What has provoked outrage is his polemical remarks on topics that both go far beyond the current school-history curriculum and are still surrounded by political taboos: Mao Zedong, his ideological legacy, and the cultural revolution.

A taboo broken

It is part of Yuan Tengfei's appeal that he mixes fact and opinion in an entertaining and challenging way. But in using this style to comment on the “great helmsman” who led China’s revolution of 1949 and the party until his death in 1976, he has crossed an often invisible but still monitored line (see Eric Mu, “The history lessons of Yuan Tengfei”, Danwei, 21 May 2010).

The practice of censorship in China may allow for curious variations in practice, as indicated by the July 2010 issue of the magazine Yan huang chun qiu (China Through the Ages); it publishes a memoir of Zhao Ziyang, the CCP leader purged - and quickly erased from history - after the Tiananmen Square events of May-June 1989, written by his former aide Yang Rudai (see Chris Buckley, “China magazine praises ousted Zhao in test of taboo”, Reuters, 8 July 2010). But where Mao Zedong himself is concerned, the official political sensitivities are even greater.

Yuan’s most provocative remarks compare Mao Zedong's mausoleum at Tiananmen to the Yasukuni shrine in Tokyo where Japan’s war-dead are honoured, including military leaders responsible for war-crimes in China in 1937-45. Yuan tells his audience: “Of course you are free to go to the mausoleum of Mao Zedong, but you have to understand what kind of place it is - another Yasukuni; in there lies a butcher whose hands are tainted by the blood of millions of Chinese people”.

Yuan Tengfei then strays into counterfactual history in a way that similarly bears little resemblance to any accepted version. He comments on the death of Mao Zedong's son Mao Anying (whom he calls “the prince”) in a United States napalm-raid in November 1950, during the Korean war: “If the prince had not become a roasted Beijing duck, China would have become another North Korea, with its own ruling dynasty, like Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il - and the Chinese public would have to bear the sight of their own ‘great leader’ and ‘dear leader’ on TV every day”.

An icon disputed

The immediate, angry responses were most vocal among China’s leftist bloggers. They accused Yuan Tengfei of preaching a reactionary, harmful, and idealist (and thus anti-Marxist) version of history, full of unfounded allegations and contravening long-established socialist orthodoxy. Sima Pingbang added that Yuan Tengfei insults and ridicules Mao Zedong in order to promote sales of the book he is writing after securing a publishing-deal.

Some of Yuan's leftist critics went on to denounce the CCP for allowing Mao Zedong to be demonised and thus betraying its own ideological legacy. They also threatened to bring a lawsuit against the schoolteacher, which itself acted as a spur to the authorities to curb the circulation of his video-clips and his school (the Haidian Teachers’ Training Institute) to reprimand him (see Kathrin Hille, “Mocking Mao good for business but not career”, Financial Times, 11 June 2010).

The comments of these leftists imply that if Yuan Tengfei’s lecture on Mao Zedong puts the schoolteacher’s loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party into question, it also in effect puts the party's current ideological standing into question (see Li Datong, “China’s credibility crisis”, 25 September 2009).

This more dangerous line of thought was amplified by two other Chinese writers. Yan Jiaqi, a dissident and political analyst based in New York, argued that Yuan’s lecture reflects the lack of an official consensus on Mao Zedong’s place in Chinese history. He pointed out that on the sixtieth-anniversary celebration of the revolution in Beijing - 1 October 2009 - China’s head of state Hu Jintao allowed a huge banner proclaiming "Long Live Mao Zedong Thought" to be part of the parade through Tiananmen Square - for the first time since Deng Xiaoping launched the era of market reform in December 1978. Yet from Deng Xiaoping to Hu Jintao, no post-Mao Chinese leader has sought to promote a conclusive assessment of Mao Zedong’s career. For Yan Jiaqi, this leaves space for the kind of polemic Yuan Tengfei is engaged in, something that attempts at censorship won't stop.

Zhang Xianliang, a pioneer of the “scar literature” of the late 1970s and 1980s, recalled that in 1983 he had explained to the head of the ruling party’s united-front department (Yan Mingfu, regarded as a liberal-minded figure) how to reform the CCP: namely, by changing the party's sociological composition from a majority peasant membership to one mostly drawn from the educated class. Some concluded that the Yuan Tengfei “incident” reveals how far the party has gone in this direction.

In the broader historical perspective of Yan Jiaqi and Zhang Xianliang, the controversy over Mao Zedong initiated by Yuan Tengfei highlights the dilemma the party faces in the middle of its unfinished auto-reform. Many Chinese regard Mao Zedong as a despot who presided over the death of millions, but many others see the “great helmsman” as a symbol of social equality, justice, and even rebellion against the establishment. When a range of forces is threatening the stability of Chinese society - among them inequality, discontent, and corruption, the potential of either of these positions to find a potent contemporary resonance is ever-present.

But the Chinese Communist Party is less able to adopt any such settled view, far less to examine his record in a substantive way. The architect of the People’s Republic of China remains at heart a taboo for his party. Its only option is to seek to restrict debate, for fear of where it might lead.

opendemocracy.net

分析：中印边界争端和西藏

蒙克
BBC中文网
1913-14年在印度的西姆拉英国，中国和西藏代表召开三方会谈，英国和西藏双方签订西姆拉协议，为日后中印边界争端和西藏问题埋下伏笔。96年后，（6月3日-4日）在英国西敏斯大学召开的中印边界问题国际研讨会中，中国学者和流亡藏人学者罕见地坐在一起，同印度学者，英美学者一起讨论中印边界争端以及西藏问题。
中印边境争端备受关注主要是因为中国同周边13个陆地邻国都通过谈判解决了边境问题，唯独同印度的领土争端没有解决，另外中印边界争端涉及西藏问题，并且因此而更加错综复杂。

中国和印度的争议领土主要为东西两个部分。东部争端领土主要是中国称为“藏南”的地区，即印度的阿鲁纳恰尔邦。那里的面积为83,743平方公里，目前由印度占领。在西部的争端是阿克塞钦地区（AksaiChin），该地区在克什米尔谷底东部，面积约37,250平方公里，目前由中国占领。AksaiChin是突厥语，里面的Chin，就是指中国，据说意思是“中国的白石滩”。东西段中间有还有几块比较小的领土争议。


资深记者和学者麦克斯韦（NevilleMaxwell，澳大利亚国家大学）长期研究中印边界问题，他认为中印领土争端起于帝国时代进入现代民族国家时代过程。现代国家学要确定清晰的边界，中印因此产生边界纠纷。

东部争端和达旺
1913-14年，英国、中国和西藏三方参加西姆拉会议，主要是讨论西藏地位问题。在会议中西藏没能取得中国对西藏独立地位的承认，但英国和西藏单独签署了所谓的西姆拉协议，划定了西藏同英属印度的边界，规定了东段的“麦克马洪线”。

麦克马洪线是如今印度声称拥有东段争议领土的依据。据说中印在东部地区的实际控制线差不多就是麦克马洪线。麦克斯韦和中国的国际问题专家刘学成（中国国际问题研究所）都认为，中国准备在谈判中接受实际控制线，解决边界争端。但中国在东段不接受印度在1951年占领达旺（并非从英国殖民当局手中继承）。


印度学者阿卡（AlkaAcharya，尼赫鲁大学）认为占达旺时中国没做任何表示，所以等于默认既成事实。但刘学成认为，中共当时虽然立国，但忙于朝鲜战事，西南许多地方军事行动仍然没有结束，所以中央政府无力顾及达旺，但决非默许，更没有对印度发出任何信号。

不过当时达赖喇嘛的西藏政府向印度提出过抗议。据流亡藏人学者策凌（TseringTopgyal，伦敦经济学院）讲，达旺的门巴族，同中部西藏人的差别，还不如康藏、卫藏、安多的差别大。他认为，如果中国政府解决了西藏问题，达赖喇嘛返回西藏，将会极大地削弱印度在东部争议领土的谈判地位。

西部的阿克塞钦
麦克斯韦认为，阿克塞钦地区的历史一直含混不清，过去的英国在印度的殖民当局和西藏、满清帝国似乎没有精确划界的需要。实际上进入现代国家阶段之前，国际疆界大多如此。在西部的划界需要主要同19世纪英国和俄罗斯在中亚地区的扩张和对抗有关。英国担心俄罗斯在该地区有图谋，所以建议将哈喇昆仑山口作为边界，以便在新疆和印度之间设立缓冲。

麦克斯韦说，在1880s初,中国和印度同意将哈喇昆仑山口作为边界的标记。到了1890s中期,中国声称阿克塞钦为中国领土。1899年英国向满清政府建议，整个阿克塞钦地区属于中国，边界要按照哈喇昆仑山脊划分。这其实就是今天的中印控制线，但中国没有对上述建议做出回应。有印度学者说，如果当时中国做出了回应，就不存在今天中印关于阿克塞钦地区的争议。

麦克马洪线争议
2008年北京奥运年世界各地发生了大规模的支持西藏示威和反示威，英国外交部为增进同中国在西藏问题上的信任作了以下表示，即英国政府认为西姆拉条约是过时而且是殖民主义的遗产。有印度学者认为，英国这个声明对印度在东部的领土要求的法理基础无疑于釜底抽薪。而当时纽约时报发表了一篇题为“英国是否把西藏出卖了?”的文章，指责英国为了换取中国在金融危机当中的支持而‘改写历史’。

麦克斯韦说，当时在西姆拉会议期间伦敦政府指示麦克马洪说，如果中国拒绝签署协议，就不要同西藏签署双边协议。不过麦克马洪没有遵守英国的指示，在没有中国同意的情况下同西藏签署了协议，因此英国在很长一段时间里没有批准西姆拉条约。《艾奇逊条约集》里面西姆拉条约部分加注说：没有达成有约束力的条约。

1907年的英俄协议在1921年被缔约双方声明作废，麦克马洪线在1937年被包括进印度出版的地图中。1938年，英国在1929年版的《艾奇逊条约集》中公布了西姆拉条约。与此同时英国招回了《艾奇逊条约集》。麦克斯韦尔说，英国不仅召回1929年版，还在1938年重新印刷了表明1929年出版的《艾奇逊条约集》，取代了旧版本。刘学成说，这种有意的误导其实就是欺骗。

殖民心理和帝国心态
印度的谈判立场从尼赫鲁时候开始就是：不承认有领土争端，也不通过谈判达成妥协，同中国通过谈判协商谋求妥协的立场形成对比。刘学成说，印度已经立法把有争议领土都划入自己的神圣国土，而且把争端同国家认同相联系，为任何在领土上进行谈判的企图增加了难度。

印度同西藏传统的文化和贸易联系使印度认为自己在西藏具有特殊利益，在英国殖民时期和以后，把西藏当作隔离中国的缓冲区。而中国则认为印度把西藏作为缓冲区是从英帝国那里继承下来的“殖民心态”。

麦克斯韦对印度独特的领土观在书中作过评论，说印度民族主义当中有所谓地理神圣性的内容，即认为印度疆界是历史自然形成，是绝对的。这其实同中国“自古以来”的领土观和历史观有异曲同工之妙。

在中国指印度从大英帝国继承殖民心态的时候，印度也可以反指中国从满清帝国继承了帝国心态。蒙古国就是从满清帝国的废墟上获得独立，中国现代国家并非原封不动地继承了前面的帝国。

1962年边界战争和未来
中国军队1950年进入并且控制西藏，在印度看来无疑是中国控制力向前推进了一大步。因此在随后的中印边界争议中，中国总被当作巨大的获益者和侵略者。大概也是这个原因，1962年边界战争爆发后，在许多印度人不理解，中国人既然已经取得了这个西藏的巨大利益，为什么会为几万平方公里的争议地区不惜一站。

中国学者认为1962年中印边界战争就是教训印度，要印度明白：同中国的边境领土纠纷不能用占领造成继承事实和武力手段解决。不过1962年战争给印度带来长期的耻辱感。印度卧薪尝胆，在1998年成为核国家。

中印两国作为经济崛起的大国的事实是否有利于解决边界争端呢？美国国防大学学者，曾经在美国布什政府负责南亚事务的国防部长助理詹姆士·克莱德（JamesClad）说，虽然中国和印度都是崛起的经济大国，但中国崛起的参照是美国，而印度总是把中国作为衡量自己发展的标准。

虽然中印两国经济和外交联系10多年来不断加深，加上两国都拥有核武器，重演1962年边界战争的可能性越来越小，但边界问题解决的前景依旧同以前一样渺茫。这可能也反映了中印两国对各自未来发展的预期。中国基于对未来崛起的信心，能够对搁置中印边界争端表现出更多的信心。而印度则可能由于担心同中国实力差距不断拉大，则担心未来在领土争端中面对更强大的中国。


some responses:

14楼 15838668592 07陆军 上等兵 发表于 2010-6-13 21:35:16中国已经丢的太多了，TG不会为几万土地就开战的，执政地位对他们来说更重要。[加为好友]
13楼 糊涂一世 陆军 中士 发表于 2010-6-13 17:56:17印度必须进一步分割，东部地区应该独立和中国友好，中国也可以通过局部领土交换取得印度洋入海口，各邦的独立军事力量应该得到援助[加为好友]
12楼 ch7252 陆军 列兵 发表于 2010-6-13 17:40:37
以下是引用外蒙回归司令部 在第9楼的发言：
楼主的贴是在说： 因为中印都是有核国家，所以中国藏南等失地就不用收回来了？！（中国在藏南问题上，等了很长时间，一直等到印度搞出核武器！）

现在难道中国还要继续等下去？一直等到印度完善核武器，一直等到印度的核力量达到中国的水平为止？




2050年后，中国将展开一系列的收复行动
什么乱七八糟的核战争，我根本不相信
又不是打得他亡国，人不到山穷水尽会干那事，吃多了撑的
再说和我们国家拼那玩意，不找死吗？
连美俄都不敢这样，啥原因？
我们的人口主要在农村，就是把我们城市全毁了我们还有大量的人口可以重新崛起
而他们人口呢，主要在城市，只需要几枚就可以打得他们亡国灭种[加为好友]
10楼 xp2008 陆军 列兵 发表于 2010-6-13 16:24:47还嚷嚷什么呀！中国媒体都公开承认中国琉球为日本冲绳县了！还有什么好说的！一个连美国人都不承认的事，中国人乐此不彼的做了！[加为好友]
9楼 外蒙回归司令部 陆军 中士 发表于 2010-6-13 15:26:43 楼主的贴是在说： 因为中印都是有核国家，所以中国藏南等失地就不用收回来了？！（中国在藏南问题上，等了很长时间，一直等到印度搞出核武器！）

现在难道中国还要继续等下去？一直等到印度完善核武器，一直等到印度的核力量达到中国的水平为止？



[加为好友]
7楼 米高扬的鹰4 陆军 少尉 发表于 2010-6-13 15:05:06
以下是引用greatding 在第4楼的发言：
以下是引用米高扬的鹰4 在第3楼的发言：
最后恐怕是割地收场，否则在那片地区生活了几十年的上百万印度人怎么办？强行驱逐？还是人道毁灭？

办法多的是，你可以参考以色列人对付加沙人的手段，当时机合适时，一切均有可能，“先为不可胜以待敌之可胜"


我明白你想说的，但是实际上不可能。要想按你说的，必须先把这片地区实际控制起来，就是要打下来并守住，同时扫荡反抗力量。再大量移民过来，把现在住这里的印度人搞成少数民族，或挤走或稀释，但是那里将是冲突地区，移民恐怕也得按照关东军+加开拓团的模式或者新疆生产建设兵团的模式才能存在下去。问题现在这个年头，谁肯去？早期移民肯定会经历重大死伤的，像民国时期三区的队伍和外蒙古军队对中国军队的攻击，得手以后通常都会屠城。如何应对这种情形？而在攻占的过程中趁乱尽可能多地消灭当地人口又如何避免为外界知晓？太过没有操作性了，那需要强硬的政治和外交路线，严格的保密，以及绝对忠实的执行部队(还不能用战斗部队执行这类清洗任务)。[加为好友]
4楼 greatding 陆军 中尉 发表于 2010-6-13 9:27:50
以下是引用米高扬的鹰4 在第3楼的发言：
最后恐怕是割地收场，否则在那片地区生活了几十年的上百万印度人怎么办？强行驱逐？还是人道毁灭？

办法多的是，你可以参考以色列人对付加沙人的手段，当时机合适时，一切均有可能，“先为不可胜以待敌之可胜"[加为好友]
3楼 米高扬的鹰4 陆军 少尉 发表于 2010-6-12 22:24:26最后恐怕是割地收场，否则在那片地区生活了几十年的上百万印度人怎么办？强行驱逐？还是人道毁灭？[加为好友]

‘These cuts are driven by dogma not by sound economics.’

Posted on | May 24, 2010 | from a great blog 'No Shock Doctrine for Britin'

Top economist David Blanchflower described the announcement of £6.2 billion of cuts as ‘a dreadful day for British people’ – and said they are ‘driven by dogma not by sound economics.’

Unlike most economists, David Blanchflower – a former member of the Monetary Policy Committee – actually predicted this recession, and called for measures which would have helped prevent it.

He’s not alone. Bill Clinton’s chief economist (and Nobel Winner) Joseph Stiglitz, recently said: “the economics is clear: reducing government spending is a risk not worth taking.”

David Laws and his Tory friends have always wanted to dismantle much of the welfare state. And now they are relishing an opportunity to do so.

晨枫:美欧经济危机的异同

美欧经济危机的异同 [ 晨枫 ] 于:2010-05-30 07:16:30 主题帖

小布什给世界留下的最大遗产或许还不是伊拉克战争，而是2008年的华尔街金融地震。这场金融地震祸及全球，余害至今未消。在美国经济恢复还迟迟疑疑的时候，欧洲那边又爆发了新一轮经济危机，世界金融市场上风声鹤唳，油价、股指、主要货币对美元的汇率纷纷下跌。美国和欧洲政府都注入巨资，强行填补流动性短缺，美国那边已经有一年多的时间了，效果已经开始显示，至少金融界的账面开始恢复血色，欧洲这边的效果还没有显示，可能需要一定的时间。

美欧经济危机在表面上都是资金链断裂造成流动性短缺引发的，但两者由于社会政策不同而存在深层的不同。和欧洲相比，美国更加资本主义一点，鼓励个人逐利，鼓励个人致富，所以采取低税收、低福利的社会政策。对于低收入、低技能的弱势群体，美国的策略是通过强势的美元和综合国力保证美元的世界结算货币地位，借此通过大量印发美元，“免费”进口必要的生活物资，用低价维持必要的生活水平。与此相应的经济结构是发展强势产业，优胜劣汰，鼓励、扶植高科技、高附加产值产业，听任缺乏竞争力的产业自生自灭。高科技、高附加产业需要人数较少但素质顶尖的人员，而缺乏竞争力的产业常常是不需要多少训练和经验的劳动密集型产业。美国经济结构的活力已经转移到高科技、高附加产值的产业，创造大量的财富，但难以通过直接雇佣惠及人口中的大多数，其必然结果是社会的两极分化，少数高素质的人口代表了社会的成功阶层，创造了不成比例的财富；大量“低素质”的人口代表了社会的大多数，靠“免费”美元维持基本的生活水平，尽管“基本”是一个相对概念，美国的基本生活水平对于很多其他国家来说依然是较高的。这是和把美国推上世界经济霸主地位的福特式工业革命背道而驰的，亨利福特对美国和世界历史最大的贡献在于使人口中的大多数都能受惠于工业和科技发展，福特式工业革命的关键词是“大生产”而不是“精品生产”。

欧洲没有强势美元那样的便宜事，欧元作为世界结算货币的地位远远不及美元，美国式空手套白狼的路子走不通。另一方面，欧洲（尤其是北欧，现在扩散到西欧、中欧和南欧）在传统上倾向社会民主主义，采用高税收保证高福利，另一方面用保护主义贸易政策维持低竞争力的产业（如服装、鞋帽、玩具、小电器、传统农业等），保证就业，保证社会大多数人的生活水平。与此相应的经济结构是发展强势产业，但保护落后产业，另外通过旅游、服务业大量创造就业。问题是高税收、高福利是保护低竞争力产业的成本大大提高，进一步压低竞争力，最后依然导致大量失业。西班牙、法国的青年失业率已经达到惊人的地步，法国甚至在讨论是否将退休年龄提前或者缩短到4天工作制以人为制造工作机会的问题，尽管这种自欺欺人的做法增加的虚假就业马上就被增加的福利负担所抵消，根本不能解决失业问题。扩大的政府公共开支成为拉动经济增长的重要动力，扩大的公务员队伍成为扩大就业的重要来源，这些在本质上难以为继的做法一步一步将欧洲带入了今天的困境。

但是欧洲、美国经济都曾经健康稳定地强势增长，不仅创造了少数巨富，还惠及社会的大多数，那问题出在什么地方呢？金融资本！

在资本主义的早期，制造业是积聚财富的主要手段，金融业起到血液和神经的作用，有力地促进商品的流通和财富的转移，帮助经济的健康发展。但是在今天，金融业已经反客为主，制造业不再是服务的对象，而是敛财的棋子，甚至是杀鸡取卵的对象。金融业为了牟取暴利、快利，置企业的长远健康而不顾。企业高管唯股市马首是瞻，葬送了欧美很多曾经一言九鼎的盟主级企业。时至今日，金融从血液和神经变成了……谁也说不清变成了什么。君不见，美国的万亿救援基金只有多少进了制造业？臭名昭著的汽车大三都是几十上百亿的主，连令人谈虎色变的医保基金业也只有700多亿，大头都到哪里去了？都到银行、保险和形形色色的金融衍生行业里去了。而这些巨额资金以微不足道的利息到了金融巨头手里，被金融巨头以“银根收紧、信用不足”为名，高利贷给走投无路的企业，大赚国难财，也顺手给美国经济抹上一笔虚假的亮色。

在金融危机期间，美国人似乎有点醒悟了：经济的根本还在于实物，单靠金融杠杆玩数字游戏总有玩不下去的一天。但好了伤疤忘了疼，现在似乎已经把血淋林的教训忘记了，正准备快乐地重走老路。美国还能走老路吗？其实是能的。美国的经济问题是结构性的，是慢性病。就和老烟枪一样，气管炎大爆发后，赌咒发誓要戒烟，咳嗽一压下去；又快乐地“赛神仙”，直到下一次咳嗽大爆发，或者最后肺癌要了命。奥巴马力图根本改革美国的经济社会体制，但到处遇到既得利益集团的顽强阻击。如果奥巴马改革成功，他就是21世纪的罗斯福；如果改革失败，下场会比小布什还要不齿。更大的问题在于：美国独霸全球的军事力量也难以撑起美元了，导弹和航母越来越养不起。虽然在经济动荡的时候全球资金向美元靠拢，但美元的长期颓势已经不可逆转。到美元不再是世界结算货币的那一天，美国还怎么玩？不仅不能靠引发“免费”美元来空手套白狼，还要面对巨量回笼美元的通胀压力。

至于欧洲，经济危机是最难压缩福利的时期，巨资救援只能极大地增加公共债务负担，推迟实质性增长和经济恢复。欧洲的高福利模式有点像美国企业高管自己给自己加薪加奖金的做法，区别在于，美国高管有员工和股东可以剥削，还可以通过“免费”美元剥削外国，欧洲政府弄到最后只有自己剥削自己。欧洲靠反倾销人为保护弱势行业，不仅不可能恢复这些低效行业的竞争力，还鞭打快牛，增加仅存的强势行业的负担，削弱他们的竞争力，迫使他们加速向海外的转移。这一轮经济危机中，德国汽车工业最大的挑战就是在生存和发展的同时保住德国的工作岗位，但这越来越难了。不仅大众，奔驰、宝马也在向欧洲之外转移制造基地了。

依靠均贫富的福利社会是难以经受动荡风云的。在经济平稳的日子里，政府开支增加，有钱人多交几个钱的税买心理平安，这些都是可以做到的。经济崩盘时，地主家也没有余粮，政府只有缩减开支，穷人当然首当其冲。相比之下，富人虽然没有余粮，但吃香喝辣还是远远不成问题的，穷人则有实际生活水平下降之虞。绝对贫困化是比相对贫困化对社会安定杀伤力更大的大杀器。问题是这动荡风云似乎不像会很快过去的样子。人们对中国的山寨之风多有讥嘲，但山寨现象反映的一个事实是：科学技术不是巫术，是无法垄断的。一招鲜已经不能吃遍天了，勤奋、求实才是正道。欧元区在建立的时候，曾对成员过的通胀率、债务率有严格规定，以此严格各国的财经纪律。历史证明这只是一厢情愿，变化远远比计划快。欧元区的另一个重要概念是趋同化，通过流通和援助，落后地区的劳动生产率和生活水平与富裕地区趋同，最终使严格的通胀、债务控制不再必要。但欧元区的设想没有考虑的一个因素是：趋同还可以另一种形式出现。随着东亚科技生产力的加速发展，欧洲不再拥有技术优势，难以靠技术领先维持剪刀差以补贴高出实际生产力的生活水平。

欧美公共债务的增加将极大地拖累经济恢复。国际结算银行（简称BIS）今年3月份的报告证实了IMF的预测，到2011年，发达国家总公共债务占GDP的比率，将从2007年的78%剧增到 106%。其中，日本从167%升至204%；希腊从104%升至130%；意大利从112%升至130%；美国从62%升至100%；法国从70%升至 99%；葡萄牙从71%升至97%；英国从47%升至94%；爱尔兰从28%升至93%；德国从65%升至85%；西班牙从42%升至74%；等等。发达 国家超过100%的公共债务负担是二战以来最高的，已超过1998年金融危机的俄国和1999年债务和经济危机的阿根廷。这些公共债务是要还的，只能最终从税收里出来，只能拖累经济恢复和发展。日本主要是国内债务，还相对不受国际局势影响，但要出现挤占一般投资。美欧的债务主要是国际债务，美国还好一点，反正美元是世界结算货币，是外债的本币，但欧洲国家的债务就容易受到汇率的影响，尤其在欧元还不成为世界结算货币、并相对于美元弱势的时候。经济衰退，币值滑落，雪上加霜。世界经济本来就是一个锦上添花或者落井下石的游戏。

美国的问题在于富人投机失败，欧洲的问题在于养起贫穷的大多数，前者用救援基金可以重新激活，在投机的死路上继续走一段；后者就难以为继了。英国、丹麦、意大利等国都在计划压缩公共开支，削减债务，但在公务员阶层已经成为就业的重要组成部分的时候，这种割肉补疮的做法能不能救远火暂且不论，失业的近渴就够一呛。自希腊工会在全国抗议、罢工以来，工潮有向欧洲各地蔓延的迹象，抗议穷人为富人的过错而付出代价。意大利工人总同盟宣布在6月25日全国总罢工，西班牙的工会因为痛政府就改革的谈判破裂，也要发动大罢工。葡萄牙最大的工会也要组织罢工。这最终使欧洲工业加速向外转移，还是回到福利主义的老路，还将拭目以待。