1.
太忙了，这段。每天都在以抗洪抢险的精神对付备课、写稿、做学生辅导、读书……为了备课而囫囵吞枣地读书，哪叫读书啊，就是个食物直接通过管道送到胃里，一点都不触动味觉的。
但，我每天还是有一个小时左右的时间去各种买房、卖房、装修网站遨游，地。
对了，我买房的事，一波三折，目前正处于第2.8折处，请大家静候佳音，有了好消息，我一定会上网裸奔……这段经历的。
2.
我现在简直希望奥巴马得胜了，这样世界至少清静一点。这么多人成天哭爹喊娘捧他，吵死了。说是不但美国人民，现在全世界人民都衷心爱戴这位政治超男了。爱吧爱吧，你们都去爱吧，正如婚姻是爱情的坟墓，象我这样的反动派，只能指望政治家当选成为他和选民热恋的坟墓了。
3.
百忙之中，我仍然要赞美一下我每天上下班都要路过的大街上的梧桐树的树叶。这些树叶，入秋以来，一天一个表情，从绿到黄，到金黄，到轰轰烈烈的黄，到缠绵悱恻的黄，太壮观了。每天穿过这条大街，都像是穿过一场帕瓦罗蒂的歌剧。
我想说的是，在这样干瘪的、把知识从管道输到胃里的、做房奴而不得的、奥大师快要当选米国总统的、国际金融跌宕起伏的日子里，还有一些树叶，还是金黄的，还在缓缓坠落，还赠给我“惆怅”这样奢侈的东西，还让我注意到季节，并且通过季节注意到自己，真的令人感谢。
2008年10月20日星期一
2008年10月11日星期六
金融危机里的左中右
《南方周末》专栏
----------------------
“如果说这场金融危机对这次总统大选有什么直接影响的话”，一个时事评论员写道：“就是结束了麦凯恩的竞选”。本来9月初共和党全国代表大会召开之后，共和党选情已经出现转机，民调显示奥巴马和麦凯恩支持率不相上下，但是一场金融危机的巨浪打过来，共和党选情立刻回冷，麦凯恩与奥巴马的支持率开始节节拉开。
奥巴马当然知道如何将这场金融危机打成选举牌。在最近的总统竞选辩论中，他慷慨激昂地控诉道：正是麦凯恩支持的布什政府的经济政策、去管制化的市场至上论，导致了目前的华尔街危机。
毛主席说过，有人的地方就有左中右。反映到最近的美国金融危机问题上，当然也不例外。以奥巴马为代表的左翼对金融危机的理解是：是金融界的贪婪、共和党的自由市场至上的原则导致了这场金融危机。正是基于这个理解，民主党把持的众议院才对最初的政府救市方案进行了否决，“凭什么我们要拿纳税人的钱去挽救那些贪得无厌的华尔街银行家”？甚至有些左翼评论员不无幸灾乐祸地就此宣告资本主义的“终结”，认为这场危机恰好反应了资本主义的内在弊端和必然崩溃。
右翼则对左翼的这种说法嗤之以鼻。与左翼那种“都怪银行家”的论调相反，右翼更倾向于“都怪那些超前消费买房的穷人”这种看法。在他们看来，这次金融风暴的根源在于次贷危机，而所谓“次贷”，用最简单的话来说，就是银行给缺乏消费能力的人贷款买房。有些人不名一文，却大摇大摆地到银行要求贷款买房，银行则抱着“反正房子会涨价”的心态给他们进行抵押贷款。
两方谁对谁错呢？我想来想去，只能各打五十大板。奥巴马“都怪共和党、都怪去管制化”的说法，在我看来不过是政客一贯的混淆视听。其实不管政治派别如何，大家基本能达成共识的一点是，这次金融危机的起源是次贷危机，而当年基于“保护弱势群体”的理念主张放松对穷人贷款限制的，恰恰是民主党政府和国会代表。1977年卡特政府批准、90年代克林顿政府屡次修改的“社区再投资法案”，要求房地美和房利美（“两房”）等贷款公司降低中低收入者贷款的门槛、甚至规定给低收入人群的贷款额度。2005年，当时还在共和党控制之下的国会曾经动议规范“两房”的贷款标准，却遭到民主党的一致反对。众所周知，最近的金融危机第一声“号角”，就是两房大规模亏损吹响的。也就是说，民主党一直在推动房地产贷款按照福利原则而不是市场原则运作，所以恰恰是政府干预市场、而不是“全盘自由主义”埋下了这场金融危机的祸根。
当然另一方面来说，“银行家的贪婪”肯定也通过金融杠杆将这种潜在的危机放大了数倍。为了尽快将次贷兑现，华尔街精明绝顶的银行家们将次贷“包装”成优质证券，将这个烫手的山芋一个接一个环节地往下传，直到穷人付不起房贷的消息传来、大家发现次贷它就是“次”贷、怎么包装乌鸡也变不了金凤凰为止。等次贷这个多米诺骨牌的第一张牌倒下，全球金融危机也就为时不远了。这其中的关键是次贷的证券化，而在次贷的证券化过程中，可以说“华尔街的贪婪”功不可没。
可以说，这场金融危机，左翼埋下了种子，而右翼则积极地施肥浇水，“军功章”里，有你的一半，也有我的一半。正是因此，把这场危机打成选举牌，变成政党相互攻击的武器，是件可悲的事情。大难临头，解决问题最紧要，化悲痛为棍棒却似乎不大什么光彩。“凭什么拿纳税人的钱去挽救那些贪得无厌的华尔街银行家”这种说法固然颇煽情，但一个人身无分文却要买车买房，不贪得无厌吗？泡沫破灭的时候，大家气愤填膺。泡沫高涨的时候，大家不也都“同去、同去”了吗？要我说，贪婪的银行家固然可恶，但其实每个人心中都有个银行家。
----------------------
“如果说这场金融危机对这次总统大选有什么直接影响的话”，一个时事评论员写道：“就是结束了麦凯恩的竞选”。本来9月初共和党全国代表大会召开之后，共和党选情已经出现转机，民调显示奥巴马和麦凯恩支持率不相上下，但是一场金融危机的巨浪打过来，共和党选情立刻回冷，麦凯恩与奥巴马的支持率开始节节拉开。
奥巴马当然知道如何将这场金融危机打成选举牌。在最近的总统竞选辩论中，他慷慨激昂地控诉道：正是麦凯恩支持的布什政府的经济政策、去管制化的市场至上论，导致了目前的华尔街危机。
毛主席说过，有人的地方就有左中右。反映到最近的美国金融危机问题上，当然也不例外。以奥巴马为代表的左翼对金融危机的理解是：是金融界的贪婪、共和党的自由市场至上的原则导致了这场金融危机。正是基于这个理解，民主党把持的众议院才对最初的政府救市方案进行了否决，“凭什么我们要拿纳税人的钱去挽救那些贪得无厌的华尔街银行家”？甚至有些左翼评论员不无幸灾乐祸地就此宣告资本主义的“终结”，认为这场危机恰好反应了资本主义的内在弊端和必然崩溃。
右翼则对左翼的这种说法嗤之以鼻。与左翼那种“都怪银行家”的论调相反，右翼更倾向于“都怪那些超前消费买房的穷人”这种看法。在他们看来，这次金融风暴的根源在于次贷危机，而所谓“次贷”，用最简单的话来说，就是银行给缺乏消费能力的人贷款买房。有些人不名一文，却大摇大摆地到银行要求贷款买房，银行则抱着“反正房子会涨价”的心态给他们进行抵押贷款。
两方谁对谁错呢？我想来想去，只能各打五十大板。奥巴马“都怪共和党、都怪去管制化”的说法，在我看来不过是政客一贯的混淆视听。其实不管政治派别如何，大家基本能达成共识的一点是，这次金融危机的起源是次贷危机，而当年基于“保护弱势群体”的理念主张放松对穷人贷款限制的，恰恰是民主党政府和国会代表。1977年卡特政府批准、90年代克林顿政府屡次修改的“社区再投资法案”，要求房地美和房利美（“两房”）等贷款公司降低中低收入者贷款的门槛、甚至规定给低收入人群的贷款额度。2005年，当时还在共和党控制之下的国会曾经动议规范“两房”的贷款标准，却遭到民主党的一致反对。众所周知，最近的金融危机第一声“号角”，就是两房大规模亏损吹响的。也就是说，民主党一直在推动房地产贷款按照福利原则而不是市场原则运作，所以恰恰是政府干预市场、而不是“全盘自由主义”埋下了这场金融危机的祸根。
当然另一方面来说，“银行家的贪婪”肯定也通过金融杠杆将这种潜在的危机放大了数倍。为了尽快将次贷兑现，华尔街精明绝顶的银行家们将次贷“包装”成优质证券，将这个烫手的山芋一个接一个环节地往下传，直到穷人付不起房贷的消息传来、大家发现次贷它就是“次”贷、怎么包装乌鸡也变不了金凤凰为止。等次贷这个多米诺骨牌的第一张牌倒下，全球金融危机也就为时不远了。这其中的关键是次贷的证券化，而在次贷的证券化过程中，可以说“华尔街的贪婪”功不可没。
可以说，这场金融危机，左翼埋下了种子，而右翼则积极地施肥浇水，“军功章”里，有你的一半，也有我的一半。正是因此，把这场危机打成选举牌，变成政党相互攻击的武器，是件可悲的事情。大难临头，解决问题最紧要，化悲痛为棍棒却似乎不大什么光彩。“凭什么拿纳税人的钱去挽救那些贪得无厌的华尔街银行家”这种说法固然颇煽情，但一个人身无分文却要买车买房，不贪得无厌吗？泡沫破灭的时候，大家气愤填膺。泡沫高涨的时候，大家不也都“同去、同去”了吗？要我说，贪婪的银行家固然可恶，但其实每个人心中都有个银行家。
2008年10月5日星期日
美国大选贵不贵
《南方周末》专栏
------------------
随着两党全国代表大会的落幕，美国总统大选进入了白热化阶段。每次大选到这个时候，总有一个声音冒出来：选举太贵了，花太多钱了，就是个有钱人的游戏而已。
美国总统选举的确贵。96年总统大选花了4亿8千万美元，00年6亿5千万，04年则超过10亿美元，可以看出，这是一个直线上升的趋势。今年大选，到7月底就已经超过10亿了，这个无底洞还在延伸之中。这样砸钱到底多不多呢？看你从哪个角度看了。一方面，若是把选举款换成“孩子们的书本”，那得换多少本啊。但10亿美元占2004年美国GDP的十万分之八，毕竟这个钱用来决定这个国家发展的方向，十万分之八，似乎又不算太多。
一个朋友曾经跟我聊起过：“美国的民主最虚伪了，我们这有个有钱人，选举时给当地官员捐了很多钱，结果那个官员上台后处处给他好处……”我说：“这种情况可能有，但肯定是非法的，从法律上来说，美国的选举中一个人每次选举给一个候选人最多只能捐2000美元，这点钱要买通一个官员，还是有一定难度的。”
有钱人“购买”选举，政客当选后为有钱人服务，似乎是劣质民主的一个典型形象。这在美国历史上也曾屡见不鲜。1872年格兰特参选总统时，曾有个大款一口气捐了其竞选开支的四分之一，这种情形下，格兰特上台后不还人家的“人情”才怪。不过，随着1972年美国《联邦竞选法案》出台，有钱人一手交钱、一手交货地购买民主的“好日子”就一去不返了。从那时开始，不但捐款人必须公开姓名和数额，而且捐款数额有了明确规定：每个人每次选举给某个候选人捐款不能超过1000美元（02年调整为2000，随通胀而浮动，08年为2300美元）。个人对政党的捐款数量、政治行动委员会的集体捐款都有了限额。
当然富人和穷人对选举的不平等影响不可能彻底消除：一方面，就算2300美元的捐款限额，有钱人可能顶着2300美元捐，而且可以发动自己的七大姑八大姨这样捐，而穷人要么捐不起，要么只能捐个几十一百什么的；另一方面，虽然对候选人的捐款数目有了限制，但有钱人或组织往往通过做议题广告“曲线”影响选举，这就是所谓的“软钱”影响。虽然02年《两党选举改革法案》旨在消除软钱的影响，但孙悟空七十二变，软钱正想方设法变成“更软的钱”影响选举。
那么何不干脆取消私人筹款制度、直接使用公款竞选呢？公款竞选又透明，又防止无度花钱，还避免富人和穷人的不对称影响力，听上去似乎是最佳选择。事实上也不是没有国家这么做，象澳大利亚、西班牙、墨西哥和很多苏东国家都主要是依赖公款展开竞选。
其实，美国不是没有公款竞选制度，只不过它是一个“自愿选项”，即，候选人可以选择使用公款，但前提是接受公款的总额限制（今年的大选是8400万）；候选人也可以选择自己“化缘”筹款，坏处是没有底线保证，好处是不存在总额的限制。今年，“本来支持公款竞选”的奥巴马决定在大选中放弃公款，而麦凯恩决定在大选中使用公款。两人选择不同并不奇怪：根据麦凯恩在本党初选中的筹款记录，他在大选中就是自己筹款，也就筹到8400万左右----既然有免费午餐，何必去千辛万苦地求爷爷告奶奶呢？而奥巴马简直就是竞选筹款的“神奇小子”，他的筹款能力是麦凯恩的两倍-----既然他可以筹那么多钱，何必带上8400万的紧箍咒呢？
说奥巴马筹款神奇，不仅在于他的筹钱总额，更在于他的竞选筹款大多来自于中小选民。拿08年6月的筹款记录来说，其筹款总额中有65%来自于小于200美元的小额捐款，而麦凯恩的同比只有33%。可以说，奥巴马的大多支持者们真的是省吃俭用来支持他。真的粉丝，敢于直面惨淡的钱包。正是从这个意义上来说，奥巴马的竞选代表了民主选举的真义：千千万万普普通通的人，而不是什么大款富翁，在给民主竞选提供动力。
从一个大款可以操控一个总统候选人竞选资金的四分之一，到无数个200元汇成一个候选人筹款的65%，这本身就说明了金钱在美国总统选举中意义的变迁。不错，钱在选举中发挥着举足轻重的作用，但它代表的不再是“资本家的垄断利益”，而是无数普通国民成为“民主股东”的愿望。也正是从这个意义上来说，也许竞选资金没有必要全盘公款化，因为筹款本来就是个动员过程，带动普通民众去参与、去思考、去影响这场选举。当一个大学生将自己省下来的20元钱捐给一个候选人时，他表达的不仅仅是对这个候选人的支持，而且是一份实践公民责任的意识。花数十亿去挑选一个总统也许太贵，但是用这些钱买来普通民众对民主制度的信心、对自己国家的责任，却又物有所值。
------------------
随着两党全国代表大会的落幕，美国总统大选进入了白热化阶段。每次大选到这个时候，总有一个声音冒出来：选举太贵了，花太多钱了，就是个有钱人的游戏而已。
美国总统选举的确贵。96年总统大选花了4亿8千万美元，00年6亿5千万，04年则超过10亿美元，可以看出，这是一个直线上升的趋势。今年大选，到7月底就已经超过10亿了，这个无底洞还在延伸之中。这样砸钱到底多不多呢？看你从哪个角度看了。一方面，若是把选举款换成“孩子们的书本”，那得换多少本啊。但10亿美元占2004年美国GDP的十万分之八，毕竟这个钱用来决定这个国家发展的方向，十万分之八，似乎又不算太多。
一个朋友曾经跟我聊起过：“美国的民主最虚伪了，我们这有个有钱人，选举时给当地官员捐了很多钱，结果那个官员上台后处处给他好处……”我说：“这种情况可能有，但肯定是非法的，从法律上来说，美国的选举中一个人每次选举给一个候选人最多只能捐2000美元，这点钱要买通一个官员，还是有一定难度的。”
有钱人“购买”选举，政客当选后为有钱人服务，似乎是劣质民主的一个典型形象。这在美国历史上也曾屡见不鲜。1872年格兰特参选总统时，曾有个大款一口气捐了其竞选开支的四分之一，这种情形下，格兰特上台后不还人家的“人情”才怪。不过，随着1972年美国《联邦竞选法案》出台，有钱人一手交钱、一手交货地购买民主的“好日子”就一去不返了。从那时开始，不但捐款人必须公开姓名和数额，而且捐款数额有了明确规定：每个人每次选举给某个候选人捐款不能超过1000美元（02年调整为2000，随通胀而浮动，08年为2300美元）。个人对政党的捐款数量、政治行动委员会的集体捐款都有了限额。
当然富人和穷人对选举的不平等影响不可能彻底消除：一方面，就算2300美元的捐款限额，有钱人可能顶着2300美元捐，而且可以发动自己的七大姑八大姨这样捐，而穷人要么捐不起，要么只能捐个几十一百什么的；另一方面，虽然对候选人的捐款数目有了限制，但有钱人或组织往往通过做议题广告“曲线”影响选举，这就是所谓的“软钱”影响。虽然02年《两党选举改革法案》旨在消除软钱的影响，但孙悟空七十二变，软钱正想方设法变成“更软的钱”影响选举。
那么何不干脆取消私人筹款制度、直接使用公款竞选呢？公款竞选又透明，又防止无度花钱，还避免富人和穷人的不对称影响力，听上去似乎是最佳选择。事实上也不是没有国家这么做，象澳大利亚、西班牙、墨西哥和很多苏东国家都主要是依赖公款展开竞选。
其实，美国不是没有公款竞选制度，只不过它是一个“自愿选项”，即，候选人可以选择使用公款，但前提是接受公款的总额限制（今年的大选是8400万）；候选人也可以选择自己“化缘”筹款，坏处是没有底线保证，好处是不存在总额的限制。今年，“本来支持公款竞选”的奥巴马决定在大选中放弃公款，而麦凯恩决定在大选中使用公款。两人选择不同并不奇怪：根据麦凯恩在本党初选中的筹款记录，他在大选中就是自己筹款，也就筹到8400万左右----既然有免费午餐，何必去千辛万苦地求爷爷告奶奶呢？而奥巴马简直就是竞选筹款的“神奇小子”，他的筹款能力是麦凯恩的两倍-----既然他可以筹那么多钱，何必带上8400万的紧箍咒呢？
说奥巴马筹款神奇，不仅在于他的筹钱总额，更在于他的竞选筹款大多来自于中小选民。拿08年6月的筹款记录来说，其筹款总额中有65%来自于小于200美元的小额捐款，而麦凯恩的同比只有33%。可以说，奥巴马的大多支持者们真的是省吃俭用来支持他。真的粉丝，敢于直面惨淡的钱包。正是从这个意义上来说，奥巴马的竞选代表了民主选举的真义：千千万万普普通通的人，而不是什么大款富翁，在给民主竞选提供动力。
从一个大款可以操控一个总统候选人竞选资金的四分之一，到无数个200元汇成一个候选人筹款的65%，这本身就说明了金钱在美国总统选举中意义的变迁。不错，钱在选举中发挥着举足轻重的作用，但它代表的不再是“资本家的垄断利益”，而是无数普通国民成为“民主股东”的愿望。也正是从这个意义上来说，也许竞选资金没有必要全盘公款化，因为筹款本来就是个动员过程，带动普通民众去参与、去思考、去影响这场选举。当一个大学生将自己省下来的20元钱捐给一个候选人时，他表达的不仅仅是对这个候选人的支持，而且是一份实践公民责任的意识。花数十亿去挑选一个总统也许太贵，但是用这些钱买来普通民众对民主制度的信心、对自己国家的责任，却又物有所值。
政治现代化，从权力分享开始
《南方周末》专栏
----------------------
因为专业是政治学，总有不少朋友问我对美国大选的看法，而我的回答却让他们颇有些失望：我其实不大关心美国大选，相比美国大选，我可能更关心----比如----津巴布韦大选。
这么说没有哗众取宠的意思，而是因为我觉得美国已经是个政治制度比较成熟的国家，坚固的三权分立构架已经使得一个总统的“权力半径”缩得比较小，他“兴风作浪”的幅度有限。而在很多发展中国家，领袖往往可以翻手为云、覆手为雨，谁是国家领导人，可以造成这个国家状态的天壤之别。津巴布韦就是个典型。当政28年的穆加贝总统曾是领导津巴布韦取得独立的民族英雄，但由于他2000年以来一系列愚蠢的决策——暴力土改、民粹主义、无度印钞、激化种族仇恨、介入刚果战争以及政府腐败——使得津巴布韦脱胎换骨成一个通胀率高达11200000%、失业率80%、人均寿命37岁的国家。
一个国家的领导人政策愚蠢并不奇怪，奇怪的是在一个要花几千万元才能买一斤苹果的国家，领导人竟然还可以继续赖在台上。靠什么？暴力恐吓、选举舞弊、媒体垄断、军队政党化。对于始终关心“民主为什么在很多国家失败”的我来说，今年3月底的津巴布韦选举是一个最好的透视镜。从选举前开始，津巴布韦警察就开始骚扰反对派势力。比如07年3月反对党民主变革联盟（MDC）的一次集会中，警察无故逮捕和殴打集会人员。反对派的报纸《每日新闻》也被神秘地炸毁。选举过程中，亦有很多政府制造假票投票的传闻，国际媒体采访报道也被禁止。最戏剧化的则是选举后的情形：议会选举中MDC取胜，但总统选举却迟迟不公布结果。几周之后，政府突然宣布总统选举中穆加贝和MDC领袖茨万吉拉伊伯仲难分，需要进行第二轮选举，与此同时，警察开始暴力镇压抗议民众，导致数百反对派成员死亡。举世因此哗然，欧美国家加大对津的经济制裁力度，茨万吉拉伊则拒绝参与第二轮选举。
在世界舆论压力下，穆加贝只好开始和MDC谈判。半年谈判下来，9月18号双方终于达成协议：穆加贝继续担任总统，并领导内阁制定政策；茨万吉拉伊担任总理，领导各部委执行决策。表面上看各有所得，但这个决议实际上就是个“强扭的瓜”，既看不出政见不同的两党有什么合作基础，也看不出仍然掌控军队的穆加贝怎么会让茨万吉拉伊做“老大”。这种合作的脆弱性，从签署协议的记者招待会上就已经显而易见：穆加贝作了一个控诉西方殖民主义的激昂演讲，而茨万吉拉伊则在一旁把头深深地埋在手掌里，门口两方支持者掐作一团。很多人认为，合作的结果要么是两党决裂，要么是MDC开始和穆加贝政府同流合污，继续把津巴布韦推向深渊。
纵观津巴布韦的整个选举过程，问题的症结在于穆加贝不肯放权——他始终将国家权力当成“私人财产”，而不是暂时由自己托管的“公共财产”。既然是“私有财产”，就既不需要与他人分享，也不需要适时交棒，锁在自家柜子里传宗接代最好。这种权力的私有化现象绝不是偶然的，而是发展中国家共同的政治现代化瓶颈。拿最近来说，07年肯尼亚选举中，在任总统齐贝吉通过舞弊捍卫权力，导致流血骚乱；巴基斯坦前总统穆沙拉夫为了保住总统职位，也曾在07年逮捕法官、宣布戒严，导致巴基斯坦持续的政治动荡。
中国其实也不例外。最近我刚看完《走向共和》这部电视剧，竟然意外地发现袁世凯的处境和穆加贝有几分相似之处。袁世凯在皇族“家天下”的酱缸中长大，通过军权走向权力颠峰，他以为自己终于熬到头了，可以像他曾伺奉的皇族一样独揽大权了，结果共和竟然带来了国会辩论、政党竞选、临时约法这些“劳什子”，国民党控制的议会活活将袁世凯这个总统给架空了。最可气的是，“孙中山自己做临时总统的时候从来不谈限制总统权力，等他一在野，就道貌岸然地要约法、用总理内阁制代替总统制”，于是袁世凯一怒之下踢掉了共和，当起了皇上。当然，由于国际压力和时代变迁，穆加贝不大可能公然踢开共和，但他面对权力挑战狗急跳墙的心态，却和100年前在那个东方国家孤独死去的昙花皇帝如出一辙。
最近所阅读的另一本关于国共战争的书《红流大事》同样昭示了权力共享的艰难性。1946年初的中国，仍然是一个和平希望未泯的中国。1月的重庆政协会议和马歇尔的调停，都曾给中国带来联合政府的曙光。但关键时刻双方都不妥协，权力只能是“你的”或者是“我的”，而不可能是“我们的”，中国再一次从“瓶颈”掉回了内战中去。从这一点来看，国情论似乎没有多大意义。正如每一个孩童学会将冰淇淋分给他人意味着其人格质的飞跃，每一个国家都要经历这个从权力私有化到权力共享的政治瓶颈。从这个角度来说，虽然经济腾飞、技术发展，人类的政治心理还没有摆脱孩童期，还在艰难地成长。
----------------------
因为专业是政治学，总有不少朋友问我对美国大选的看法，而我的回答却让他们颇有些失望：我其实不大关心美国大选，相比美国大选，我可能更关心----比如----津巴布韦大选。
这么说没有哗众取宠的意思，而是因为我觉得美国已经是个政治制度比较成熟的国家，坚固的三权分立构架已经使得一个总统的“权力半径”缩得比较小，他“兴风作浪”的幅度有限。而在很多发展中国家，领袖往往可以翻手为云、覆手为雨，谁是国家领导人，可以造成这个国家状态的天壤之别。津巴布韦就是个典型。当政28年的穆加贝总统曾是领导津巴布韦取得独立的民族英雄，但由于他2000年以来一系列愚蠢的决策——暴力土改、民粹主义、无度印钞、激化种族仇恨、介入刚果战争以及政府腐败——使得津巴布韦脱胎换骨成一个通胀率高达11200000%、失业率80%、人均寿命37岁的国家。
一个国家的领导人政策愚蠢并不奇怪，奇怪的是在一个要花几千万元才能买一斤苹果的国家，领导人竟然还可以继续赖在台上。靠什么？暴力恐吓、选举舞弊、媒体垄断、军队政党化。对于始终关心“民主为什么在很多国家失败”的我来说，今年3月底的津巴布韦选举是一个最好的透视镜。从选举前开始，津巴布韦警察就开始骚扰反对派势力。比如07年3月反对党民主变革联盟（MDC）的一次集会中，警察无故逮捕和殴打集会人员。反对派的报纸《每日新闻》也被神秘地炸毁。选举过程中，亦有很多政府制造假票投票的传闻，国际媒体采访报道也被禁止。最戏剧化的则是选举后的情形：议会选举中MDC取胜，但总统选举却迟迟不公布结果。几周之后，政府突然宣布总统选举中穆加贝和MDC领袖茨万吉拉伊伯仲难分，需要进行第二轮选举，与此同时，警察开始暴力镇压抗议民众，导致数百反对派成员死亡。举世因此哗然，欧美国家加大对津的经济制裁力度，茨万吉拉伊则拒绝参与第二轮选举。
在世界舆论压力下，穆加贝只好开始和MDC谈判。半年谈判下来，9月18号双方终于达成协议：穆加贝继续担任总统，并领导内阁制定政策；茨万吉拉伊担任总理，领导各部委执行决策。表面上看各有所得，但这个决议实际上就是个“强扭的瓜”，既看不出政见不同的两党有什么合作基础，也看不出仍然掌控军队的穆加贝怎么会让茨万吉拉伊做“老大”。这种合作的脆弱性，从签署协议的记者招待会上就已经显而易见：穆加贝作了一个控诉西方殖民主义的激昂演讲，而茨万吉拉伊则在一旁把头深深地埋在手掌里，门口两方支持者掐作一团。很多人认为，合作的结果要么是两党决裂，要么是MDC开始和穆加贝政府同流合污，继续把津巴布韦推向深渊。
纵观津巴布韦的整个选举过程，问题的症结在于穆加贝不肯放权——他始终将国家权力当成“私人财产”，而不是暂时由自己托管的“公共财产”。既然是“私有财产”，就既不需要与他人分享，也不需要适时交棒，锁在自家柜子里传宗接代最好。这种权力的私有化现象绝不是偶然的，而是发展中国家共同的政治现代化瓶颈。拿最近来说，07年肯尼亚选举中，在任总统齐贝吉通过舞弊捍卫权力，导致流血骚乱；巴基斯坦前总统穆沙拉夫为了保住总统职位，也曾在07年逮捕法官、宣布戒严，导致巴基斯坦持续的政治动荡。
中国其实也不例外。最近我刚看完《走向共和》这部电视剧，竟然意外地发现袁世凯的处境和穆加贝有几分相似之处。袁世凯在皇族“家天下”的酱缸中长大，通过军权走向权力颠峰，他以为自己终于熬到头了，可以像他曾伺奉的皇族一样独揽大权了，结果共和竟然带来了国会辩论、政党竞选、临时约法这些“劳什子”，国民党控制的议会活活将袁世凯这个总统给架空了。最可气的是，“孙中山自己做临时总统的时候从来不谈限制总统权力，等他一在野，就道貌岸然地要约法、用总理内阁制代替总统制”，于是袁世凯一怒之下踢掉了共和，当起了皇上。当然，由于国际压力和时代变迁，穆加贝不大可能公然踢开共和，但他面对权力挑战狗急跳墙的心态，却和100年前在那个东方国家孤独死去的昙花皇帝如出一辙。
最近所阅读的另一本关于国共战争的书《红流大事》同样昭示了权力共享的艰难性。1946年初的中国，仍然是一个和平希望未泯的中国。1月的重庆政协会议和马歇尔的调停，都曾给中国带来联合政府的曙光。但关键时刻双方都不妥协，权力只能是“你的”或者是“我的”，而不可能是“我们的”，中国再一次从“瓶颈”掉回了内战中去。从这一点来看，国情论似乎没有多大意义。正如每一个孩童学会将冰淇淋分给他人意味着其人格质的飞跃，每一个国家都要经历这个从权力私有化到权力共享的政治瓶颈。从这个角度来说，虽然经济腾飞、技术发展，人类的政治心理还没有摆脱孩童期，还在艰难地成长。
事实重要吗（转帖）
一篇关于金融危机的有意思的文章。今年夏天以前一直对奥巴马持不喜欢也不讨厌的态度，最近越来越烦他了，丫太会找群众的G点了。
----------
Do Facts Matter?
By Thomas Sowell
Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."
Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now.
Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.
The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.
It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?
Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.
It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.
Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.
Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?
We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't.
Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?
Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.
Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs.
Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!
The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead.
The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.
But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media.
Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.
The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose.
But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.
--------------
另一篇相关文章：
Deregulation Not to Blame for Financial Woes
By Peter Wallison
The Democrats are wrong in claiming that financial services deregulation is to blame for the current financial crisis--if anything, the financial sector has seen increased regulation since the savings and loan collapse in the 1980s. The lax supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which Republicans sought to strengthen in 2005, is the true culprit of this financial crisis.
In the debate on September 26, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama argued that the current crisis in the financial markets is the result of Republican deregulation.
The advertising from his campaign has been saying the same thing, and this claim is becoming a fixed element in the talking points of Democratic candidates this year.
The credibility of the charge depends on ignoring several important facts:
-- There has been a great deal of deregulation in our economy over the last 30 years, but none of it has been in the financial sector or has had anything to do with the current crisis. Almost all financial legislation, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Improvement Act of 1991, adopted after the savings and loan collapse in the late 1980s, significantly tightened the regulation of banks.
-- The repeal of portions of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999--often cited by people who know nothing about that law--has no relevance whatsoever to the financial crisis, with one major exception: it permitted banks to be affiliated with firms that underwrite securities, and thus allowed Bank of America Corp. to acquire Merrill Lynch & Co. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. to buy Bear Stearns Cos. Both transactions saved the government the costs of a rescue and spared the market substantial additional turmoil.
None of the investment banks that got into financial trouble, specifically Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., were affiliated with commercial banks, and none were affected in any way by the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
It is correct to say that there has been significant deregulation in the U.S. over the last 30 years, most of it under Republican auspices. But this deregulation--in long-distance telephone rates, air fares, securities-brokerage commissions, and trucking, to name just a few sectors of the economy where it occurred--has produced substantial competition and innovation, driving down consumer costs and producing vast improvements and efficiencies in our economy.
The Internet, for example, wouldn't have been economically possible without the deregulation of data-transfer rates. Amazon.com Inc., one of the most popular Internet vendors, wouldn't have been viable without trucking deregulation.
-- Republicans have favored financial regulation where it was necessary, as in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while the Democrats have opposed it. In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a tough regulatory bill for Fannie and Freddie over the unanimous opposition of committee Democrats. The opposition of the Democrats when the bill reached the full Senate made its enactment impossible.
Barack Obama did nothing; John McCain endorsed the bill in a speech on the Senate floor.
-- The subprime and other junk mortgages that Fannie and Freddie bought--and the market in these mortgages that their buying spawned--are the underlying cause of the financial crisis. These are the mortgages that the Treasury Department is asking for congressional authority to buy. If the Democrats had allowed the Fannie and Freddie reform legislation to become law in 2005, the entire financial crisis might have been avoided.
Policies that center on deregulation are probably hard for the voting public to grasp, and that has allowed Democratic candidates to spread the idea that there is a connection between deregulation and the current crisis. But an Obama victory, based in part on the claim that deregulation has caused the financial crisis, will create a mandate for new regulation where it isn't necessary and will do harm to our economy.
----------
Do Facts Matter?
By Thomas Sowell
Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."
Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now.
Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.
The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.
It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?
Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.
It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.
Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.
Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?
We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't.
Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?
Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.
Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs.
Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!
The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead.
The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.
But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media.
Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.
The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose.
But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.
--------------
另一篇相关文章：
Deregulation Not to Blame for Financial Woes
By Peter Wallison
The Democrats are wrong in claiming that financial services deregulation is to blame for the current financial crisis--if anything, the financial sector has seen increased regulation since the savings and loan collapse in the 1980s. The lax supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which Republicans sought to strengthen in 2005, is the true culprit of this financial crisis.
In the debate on September 26, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama argued that the current crisis in the financial markets is the result of Republican deregulation.
The advertising from his campaign has been saying the same thing, and this claim is becoming a fixed element in the talking points of Democratic candidates this year.
The credibility of the charge depends on ignoring several important facts:
-- There has been a great deal of deregulation in our economy over the last 30 years, but none of it has been in the financial sector or has had anything to do with the current crisis. Almost all financial legislation, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Improvement Act of 1991, adopted after the savings and loan collapse in the late 1980s, significantly tightened the regulation of banks.
-- The repeal of portions of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999--often cited by people who know nothing about that law--has no relevance whatsoever to the financial crisis, with one major exception: it permitted banks to be affiliated with firms that underwrite securities, and thus allowed Bank of America Corp. to acquire Merrill Lynch & Co. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. to buy Bear Stearns Cos. Both transactions saved the government the costs of a rescue and spared the market substantial additional turmoil.
None of the investment banks that got into financial trouble, specifically Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., were affiliated with commercial banks, and none were affected in any way by the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
It is correct to say that there has been significant deregulation in the U.S. over the last 30 years, most of it under Republican auspices. But this deregulation--in long-distance telephone rates, air fares, securities-brokerage commissions, and trucking, to name just a few sectors of the economy where it occurred--has produced substantial competition and innovation, driving down consumer costs and producing vast improvements and efficiencies in our economy.
The Internet, for example, wouldn't have been economically possible without the deregulation of data-transfer rates. Amazon.com Inc., one of the most popular Internet vendors, wouldn't have been viable without trucking deregulation.
-- Republicans have favored financial regulation where it was necessary, as in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while the Democrats have opposed it. In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a tough regulatory bill for Fannie and Freddie over the unanimous opposition of committee Democrats. The opposition of the Democrats when the bill reached the full Senate made its enactment impossible.
Barack Obama did nothing; John McCain endorsed the bill in a speech on the Senate floor.
-- The subprime and other junk mortgages that Fannie and Freddie bought--and the market in these mortgages that their buying spawned--are the underlying cause of the financial crisis. These are the mortgages that the Treasury Department is asking for congressional authority to buy. If the Democrats had allowed the Fannie and Freddie reform legislation to become law in 2005, the entire financial crisis might have been avoided.
Policies that center on deregulation are probably hard for the voting public to grasp, and that has allowed Democratic candidates to spread the idea that there is a connection between deregulation and the current crisis. But an Obama victory, based in part on the claim that deregulation has caused the financial crisis, will create a mandate for new regulation where it isn't necessary and will do harm to our economy.
2008年10月2日星期四
看房综合症进一步恶化中
由于剑桥一共就是个巴掌大的地方，由于一个巴掌大的地方在一定时期内的房屋上市是有限的，又由于近期的金融危机吓得很多卖主根本都不敢把房子往市场上推，导致我在大跃进地看了一段房子之后，很快就没有房子可看了。
就是说，我的论文越狱行动很快就碰到铁丝网了。
但，就像那些发明金融衍生工具以套现的华尔街牛人一样，我很快发明了很多看房“衍生事务”，实现了进一步拖延论文的战略目的。
这些“衍生事务”包括：研究IKEA网站和catelogue（三个晚上）；研究铺地板贴瓷砖Do-It-Yourself的难度和可节省费用（四个晚上）；研究墙纸的种类的样式（两个晚上）；研究refinish厨房卫生间和refit厨房卫生间的成本区别（三个晚上）；研究剑桥的装修界现状（一个晚上）；研究英国的厨房安装改造界现状（两个晚上）；研究银行贷款利率（三个晚上）；研究汇率趋势（一个晚上）；研究并预测宏观经济形势及股市、房价走势（五个晚上）；为成功砍价而窃喜（三个晚上）；窃喜之后痛悔自己的决策（四个晚上）；反反复复登录蚊米和我的所有银行帐号一次次审视我们存款数字后面是不是少了一个或多个零（无穷个晚上）……
为了逃避论文，我冲不出铁丝网，挖地道还不行吗。
现在我已经完全可以注册成立一个剑桥买房咨询公司了，您想知道Abbey National和HSBC的mortgage利率区别吗？您想知道英镑和美元的利率走势吗？您想知道Paradise St上那些房子的历史价格吗？您想知道IKEA和ARGOS哪家餐桌便宜吗？请拨叉叉叉，叉叉叉，叉叉叉叉。
这件事情说明，一个女博士为了逃避写论文，是什么都干得出来的。
这件事情还表明，如果你想让一个人成为围棋高手，就逼他学篮球吧；如果你想让一个人成为游泳高手，就逼他学登山吧。历史一定会精确地朝你预期的相反方向前进的。
可悲的是，正如金融衍生产品也有泡沫爆炸的一天，我，朝360个方向挖过地道之后，发现看房的“衍生事务”也被我做完了。
在一个深夜，发现自己面对GOOGLE的输入栏竟然失去了一切想象力，再也没有了衍生名词可输之后，我禁不住搂着自己的钱包，仰天长啸起来-----
天哪，难道，剩下唯一可做的事情就是——真、的、要、去、买、房、了、吗？！
玩火自焚，真是颠扑不破的真理。
就是说，我的论文越狱行动很快就碰到铁丝网了。
但，就像那些发明金融衍生工具以套现的华尔街牛人一样，我很快发明了很多看房“衍生事务”，实现了进一步拖延论文的战略目的。
这些“衍生事务”包括：研究IKEA网站和catelogue（三个晚上）；研究铺地板贴瓷砖Do-It-Yourself的难度和可节省费用（四个晚上）；研究墙纸的种类的样式（两个晚上）；研究refinish厨房卫生间和refit厨房卫生间的成本区别（三个晚上）；研究剑桥的装修界现状（一个晚上）；研究英国的厨房安装改造界现状（两个晚上）；研究银行贷款利率（三个晚上）；研究汇率趋势（一个晚上）；研究并预测宏观经济形势及股市、房价走势（五个晚上）；为成功砍价而窃喜（三个晚上）；窃喜之后痛悔自己的决策（四个晚上）；反反复复登录蚊米和我的所有银行帐号一次次审视我们存款数字后面是不是少了一个或多个零（无穷个晚上）……
为了逃避论文，我冲不出铁丝网，挖地道还不行吗。
现在我已经完全可以注册成立一个剑桥买房咨询公司了，您想知道Abbey National和HSBC的mortgage利率区别吗？您想知道英镑和美元的利率走势吗？您想知道Paradise St上那些房子的历史价格吗？您想知道IKEA和ARGOS哪家餐桌便宜吗？请拨叉叉叉，叉叉叉，叉叉叉叉。
这件事情说明，一个女博士为了逃避写论文，是什么都干得出来的。
这件事情还表明，如果你想让一个人成为围棋高手，就逼他学篮球吧；如果你想让一个人成为游泳高手，就逼他学登山吧。历史一定会精确地朝你预期的相反方向前进的。
可悲的是，正如金融衍生产品也有泡沫爆炸的一天，我，朝360个方向挖过地道之后，发现看房的“衍生事务”也被我做完了。
在一个深夜，发现自己面对GOOGLE的输入栏竟然失去了一切想象力，再也没有了衍生名词可输之后，我禁不住搂着自己的钱包，仰天长啸起来-----
天哪，难道，剩下唯一可做的事情就是——真、的、要、去、买、房、了、吗？！
玩火自焚，真是颠扑不破的真理。
Bail Out Ourselves (转帖)
不太懂经济、又特别想懂的时候，我一般都去读华尔街日报的评论版。今天读到的《Bail Out Ourselves》是我近期读到的、关于华盛顿bailout plan的文章里最清晰和有说服力的。当然我很少发现该报纸的社论不清晰和有说服力的，所以很可能只是臭味相投而已。
---------
Bail Out Ourselves
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122292003161497455.html
"If banks, in spite of every precaution, are sometimes betrayed into giving a false credit to the persons described, they more frequently enable honest and industrious men of small and perhaps of no capital to undertake and prosecute business with advantage to themselves and to the community."
So wrote Alexander Hamilton in 1790, amid an earlier populist backlash against American bankers. Hamilton didn't hesitate to use the powers of the Treasury to calm markets amid a speculative panic for the good of the larger community. The U.S. is at another Hamiltonian moment, if Congress has the nerve to act in the national interest.
We are told this is a "bailout for Wall Street." But if Americans are honest with themselves, they will admit that bankers are far from the only cause of our current predicament. The U.S. is living through the aftermath of a classic credit mania, one that all of us enjoyed while it lasted. We don't remember many protests when home prices were rising by 15% a year, or when interest rates stayed at 1% for a year and real interest rates were negative for far longer. Some of the loudest voices now invoking "free markets" to denounce the Paulson plan were most opposed to tighter money. We know because their complaints were often aimed at us.
Our point isn't to absolve Wall Street or Washington -- far from it. The point is that credit manias are by their very nature societal, which is why the panics that follow can do so much damage to Americans outside the financial arena. They are part of a larger psychology that sweeps everyone up in euphoria for a time, only to send everyone into a defensive crouch when the credit stops.
The challenge at such a moment is to prevent a panic from becoming a crash that does far more extensive damage. This is where we are now, and this is why the House should pass the bill that passed the Senate last night, even with its flaws. The government needs the power to use public capital to defend and stabilize the financial system. In that sense, we are really bailing out ourselves.
The critics who believe that talk of a crash is merely a scare-tactic must not be paying attention. The stock market's gyrations are the least of it. Credit markets are ceasing to function by any normal standard, with banks refusing even to lend to one another, much less to credit-worthy borrowers on Main Street.
Wednesday's Youngstown, Ohio, Vindicator carried a story with this lead: "The national credit crisis is squeezing Mahoning Valley manufacturers." The story quotes Herbert Schuler Sr., the boss of General Extrusions, that "Unless you have more cash than you need to borrow, they [local banks] won't do business with you." His company has already laid off 70 of 350 workers as its auto-supply customers reduce their purchases of its aluminum products.
A mere anecdote, yes. But September sales for Toyota and Ford fell by 30%, as auto buyers find credit harder to come by. Yesterday, the Institute for Supply Management's manufacturing index reported its largest one-month drop in 24 years. While at 43.5 the index remains above the recession level of 41, the credit vise may soon guarantee one.
A special word is in order here for Congress. Today we're running a collection of greatest Member hits in defense of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The guilty deserve such attention because those two government-sponsored enterprises did so much to turbocharge the credit mania. By providing subsidized rates of return to global investors, they helped fuel the bubble in housing and mortgage-backed securities that is now haunting so many financial institutions.
As the quotes make clear, the Members fought furiously against any attempt to make Fan and Fred less dangerous. The Bush Administration was on the right side of this debate for eight years, as was the late Clinton Treasury. This was a scandal in plain sight that all but a few ignored.
And now, having done so much to create this mess, many of the same Members who protected Fan and Fred are denouncing the "bailout" as a favor to Wall Street. Who do they think were Fannie Mae's business partners? Who marketed mortgage securities to the Chinese, for a tidy fee? Main Street investors also loved Fan and Fred while they were making private profits by taking inordinate risks with a taxpayer guarantee.
The real heroes of the House are the Members who tried to reform Fannie when that was unpopular and are now trying to defend the financial system while that too is difficult. We have in mind Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican, who has had the guts to support the Paulson plan while his GOP colleagues in safe seats, like Jim Sensenbrenner, run for cover.
The Paulson plan isn't what we would have drawn up. It will not by itself inject capital into troubled banks, and it carries risks in how Treasury will price toxic assets when it buys them. But it is one more policy tool at a time when something needs to be done, and it is the only one currently up for a vote. Passing it won't by itself revive the banking system, but defeating it will guarantee far more damage to far more Americans.
Mr. Ryan and some other stalwarts are proof that political leadership does exist in Washington, albeit not always at the highest ranks. In this sense, too, the votes this week in Congress are about bailing out our political class from its own embarrassing performance. Americans are anxious, even frightened, about the financial system. They are looking for leaders who will act to defend it.
---------
Bail Out Ourselves
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122292003161497455.html
"If banks, in spite of every precaution, are sometimes betrayed into giving a false credit to the persons described, they more frequently enable honest and industrious men of small and perhaps of no capital to undertake and prosecute business with advantage to themselves and to the community."
So wrote Alexander Hamilton in 1790, amid an earlier populist backlash against American bankers. Hamilton didn't hesitate to use the powers of the Treasury to calm markets amid a speculative panic for the good of the larger community. The U.S. is at another Hamiltonian moment, if Congress has the nerve to act in the national interest.
We are told this is a "bailout for Wall Street." But if Americans are honest with themselves, they will admit that bankers are far from the only cause of our current predicament. The U.S. is living through the aftermath of a classic credit mania, one that all of us enjoyed while it lasted. We don't remember many protests when home prices were rising by 15% a year, or when interest rates stayed at 1% for a year and real interest rates were negative for far longer. Some of the loudest voices now invoking "free markets" to denounce the Paulson plan were most opposed to tighter money. We know because their complaints were often aimed at us.
Our point isn't to absolve Wall Street or Washington -- far from it. The point is that credit manias are by their very nature societal, which is why the panics that follow can do so much damage to Americans outside the financial arena. They are part of a larger psychology that sweeps everyone up in euphoria for a time, only to send everyone into a defensive crouch when the credit stops.
The challenge at such a moment is to prevent a panic from becoming a crash that does far more extensive damage. This is where we are now, and this is why the House should pass the bill that passed the Senate last night, even with its flaws. The government needs the power to use public capital to defend and stabilize the financial system. In that sense, we are really bailing out ourselves.
The critics who believe that talk of a crash is merely a scare-tactic must not be paying attention. The stock market's gyrations are the least of it. Credit markets are ceasing to function by any normal standard, with banks refusing even to lend to one another, much less to credit-worthy borrowers on Main Street.
Wednesday's Youngstown, Ohio, Vindicator carried a story with this lead: "The national credit crisis is squeezing Mahoning Valley manufacturers." The story quotes Herbert Schuler Sr., the boss of General Extrusions, that "Unless you have more cash than you need to borrow, they [local banks] won't do business with you." His company has already laid off 70 of 350 workers as its auto-supply customers reduce their purchases of its aluminum products.
A mere anecdote, yes. But September sales for Toyota and Ford fell by 30%, as auto buyers find credit harder to come by. Yesterday, the Institute for Supply Management's manufacturing index reported its largest one-month drop in 24 years. While at 43.5 the index remains above the recession level of 41, the credit vise may soon guarantee one.
A special word is in order here for Congress. Today we're running a collection of greatest Member hits in defense of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The guilty deserve such attention because those two government-sponsored enterprises did so much to turbocharge the credit mania. By providing subsidized rates of return to global investors, they helped fuel the bubble in housing and mortgage-backed securities that is now haunting so many financial institutions.
As the quotes make clear, the Members fought furiously against any attempt to make Fan and Fred less dangerous. The Bush Administration was on the right side of this debate for eight years, as was the late Clinton Treasury. This was a scandal in plain sight that all but a few ignored.
And now, having done so much to create this mess, many of the same Members who protected Fan and Fred are denouncing the "bailout" as a favor to Wall Street. Who do they think were Fannie Mae's business partners? Who marketed mortgage securities to the Chinese, for a tidy fee? Main Street investors also loved Fan and Fred while they were making private profits by taking inordinate risks with a taxpayer guarantee.
The real heroes of the House are the Members who tried to reform Fannie when that was unpopular and are now trying to defend the financial system while that too is difficult. We have in mind Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican, who has had the guts to support the Paulson plan while his GOP colleagues in safe seats, like Jim Sensenbrenner, run for cover.
The Paulson plan isn't what we would have drawn up. It will not by itself inject capital into troubled banks, and it carries risks in how Treasury will price toxic assets when it buys them. But it is one more policy tool at a time when something needs to be done, and it is the only one currently up for a vote. Passing it won't by itself revive the banking system, but defeating it will guarantee far more damage to far more Americans.
Mr. Ryan and some other stalwarts are proof that political leadership does exist in Washington, albeit not always at the highest ranks. In this sense, too, the votes this week in Congress are about bailing out our political class from its own embarrassing performance. Americans are anxious, even frightened, about the financial system. They are looking for leaders who will act to defend it.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)
