Some quotes from WSJ and others

In "The Quiet Coup," Simon Johnson's (A former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund) article in Atlantic magazine, Johnson warns that America's "financial industry has effectively captured our government" and is "blocking essential reform." Worse, he says that unless we break Wall Street's stranglehold (unlikely in the new Washington) we will be unable "to prevent a true depression". 

Matt Taibbi, author of "The Great Derangement," captured this drama in a Rolling Stone piece, "The Big Takeover, how Wall Street insiders are using the bailout to stage a revolution." A must-read: "As complex as all the finances are, the politics aren't hard to follow. By creating a crisis that can only be solved by those fluent in a language too complex for ordinary people to understand, the Wall Street crowd has turned the vast majority of Americans into non-participants in their own political future. ... in the age of CDS and CBO, most of us are financial illiterates."

Wall Street "used the crisis to effect a historic, revolutionary change in our political system -- transforming a democracy into a two-tiered state, one with plugged-in financial bureaucrats above and clueless customers below."

Seriously, here's how bad Taibbi sees it: "Paulson and his cronies turned the federal government into one gigantic half-opaque holding company, one whose balance sheet includes the world's most appallingly large and risky hedge fund, a controlling interest in a dying insurance giant, huge investments in a group of teetering megabanks, and shares here and there in various auto-finance companies, student loans, and other failing business."

And let's include $5.5 trillion in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Wall Street's greed and stupidity resembles the self-destructive reigns of banana republic dictators.

Naomi Klein, author of "The Shock Doctrine: Rise of Disaster Capitalism," was warning us that "during boom times it's profitable to preach laissez faire, because an absentee government allows speculative bubbles."

But "when those bubbles burst, the ideology becomes a hindrance and goes dormant while big government rides to the rescue." Then, free-market "ideology will come roaring back when the bailouts are done. The massive debts the public is accumulating to bail out the speculators will then become part of a global budget crisis." TARP paybacks: Obama has a new "disaster capitalism."

WSJ's Paul Farrell wrote:

Do you see the parallels: Jack and Starkwood, Hank and Goldman? Jack's a great mythic hero. We need to believe a hero will defend the little guy, stand between us and total annihilation. But Jack Bauer's "dead." Yes, dead. Jack's not real. Never was "alive." Jack's a fiction, a figment of Main Street America's vivid imagination, the symbol of "hope" for a populist revolution. Hope that Jack, Barack or some other new hero will emerge, take power back from Wall Street and return it to the people.

Unfortunately that won't happen, folks. Yes, on TV Jack will come back from near-death, again. But in real life, Hank, Goldman and Wall Street's mercenaries are winning the war. Read and weep Portfolio's chilling finale: "Obama's victory and Geithner's appointment are the completion of Goldman's meticulously crafted plan to become a superpower. The firm now has the clout to impose its will on the financial markets, and the world."

GOP or Dems? Conservatives or liberals? It doesn't matter. We'll all controlled by "The Conspiracy." So why not surrender, let them have the power? The truth is, through their lobbyists and surrogates in Washington, they already rule America. Surrender is a mere formality.

My comment: So who's in control of America? heheh.......

U.S. Highspeed train and China

Finally, America has come to her senses and decided to develop a clean transportation system featuring highspeed train. The potential is great, though US is a late comer just as in other field of green tech. However, in the president's speech, he only mentioned France and Japan for the achievement in high speed train system. China is a relatively respectable player in the field as well. But I guess nobody in the West wants to recognize it. Or, maybe US is deliberately excluding China in the possible future market here. France and Japan have shorter lines than China. They may have better technology but China should have more experience in long distance travel as well as diversified terrain construction. There's one more opportunity for cooperation and I sure hope President Obama won't miss it. 

Cultural Contradiction of Liberal Foreign Policy

Why? On the one hand, the LFP pursues its idealistic goal of forging democracy everywhere, while on the other hand, their realistic goal is their own peace and safety. Kant said that there is no conflict between the two, actually, they are mututally supportive. Guess what? Not true.
Pushing democracy and nation-building regardless of socioeconomic conditions, let alone culture and religfious conditions, has been causing failed states, rogue states, therefore terrorists and pirates, and chaos and anarchy of the world system. No one is happy about human rights abuse or dictatorship, but if the solution is "too simple and naive", then we can expect lawlessness and collapse of security boundaries. Some analysts believe that the globalization, or tech development contributed to and empowered non-state actors. That's only partially true. LFP's drive to elevate human rights and democracy above sovereignty and security did the work of deconstruct states, which directly releases those factors into the global stage. So here's the dilemma, if LFP denies the legality of other forms of government than their own, they will undermine these regimes and increase the possibility of failed states, but if they balk before these regimes, they are violating their own democratic decrees. It's time for the LFP to get real "smart", like openning up to Cuba and negotiate with Iran, trying to engage and listen before they scream around.
It's a hard choice. Effective government may not be a democratic majority government in the short run and the result of nation-building very much depends upon local tradition, culture and economic reality. In the end, what's more important?

北韩火箭与日本宪法

北韩再一次展开外交游戏，急切地测试美国新总统的底线，希望引起世界的注意，改变其外部环境。不出意外，日本对此反应极为激烈，不仅单方面加强制裁，而且立即向联合国提议向北韩施加压力。这一次，南韩、日本、美国步调一致，都要求向北韩显示强硬立场。由于中国和俄罗斯的抵制，在联合国通过更为严厉的实质性的制裁可能性不大。
对日本而言，美国已经开始战略收缩，中国日渐强大，南韩不是可靠的盟友，台湾目前在国民党手中，海洋岛屿争端不断，整个亚洲太平洋地区的态势很不乐观。日本入常被中韩阻止，一直徘徊不前。这次国际经济危机，日本经济又由于严重依赖美国受到重大打击，其国际影响力进一步下滑。在气候变化与新能源领域，各国只有口头承诺，没有实际行动，日本想从这里打开局面短期之内也没有希望。纵观全局，日本外交了无新意、日本政坛死气沉沉，只有借北韩的不断挑衅，日本政治才能找到话题，凝聚国民共识。
因此，如果北韩危机骤起，日本国内再次讨论和平宪法第九条，继续推动海外派兵和自卫队正规军化的可能性便大大增加了。以北韩为契机，使日本再次成为正常国家恐怕是很多日本右翼势力的算盘。不过除了日本国民对北韩威胁的看法，关键问题恐怕还是美国希望日本扮演什么样的角色。除非美国迫不得已，大幅削减西太平洋站力，默许日本承担更大的安全责任，否则放任日本军事化恐怕不是最优选项。
中美关系不是唯一重要的双边关系，而中日关系从属于冷战、中美关系、亚太地缘政治已经超过60年，应该借这次危机巧妙地加以转化，使其更为独立的发展。中日之间不合作，东亚的主导权就还是会被西方人掌握。而在中日关系改变之前使日本脱离和平宪法、与中国展开军备竞赛则尤为不利。


Quote: 日本一些政治人物主张应对北韩导弹，日本应当考虑保有核武器，甚至退出联合国。

自民党の７日の役員連絡会で坂本剛二組織本部長が北朝鮮のミサイル発射に対し、日本も核保有すべきだと述べた。
　坂本氏は「向こう（北朝鮮）は核を保有している。日本も『核を保有する』と言ってもいいのではないか」と述べ、国連脱退にも言及したという。
　坂本氏はその後、記者団に、「日本が核武装も国連脱退もできないことはわかっている。ただ、北朝鮮に強く臨むため、例え話をした」と説明した。
　これに対し自民党の山崎拓・前副総裁は山崎派のパーティーで、「『日本も核武装して北朝鮮に対抗しよう』という意見が、公然と党の会議で言われることは非常に憂慮すべきだ。極端に言えば人類を破滅に導く議論だ」と強く批判した。

资本主义与民主的死结

克鲁格曼和斯蒂格利茨两位诺贝尔奖获得者都站出来反对盖特纳的救银行政策。无疑，出发点都是批评政府拿纳税人的钱去冒巨大的风险来担保私人交易。银行、私人投资者和纳税人三者中，纳税人得益的可能性极低。这是很民主的观点，代表了美国大多数老百姓拒绝继续往银行黑洞里扔钱的态度。同时也表明了自由派经济学家要求正大光明的把银行国家化的观点。正如斯蒂格利茨所言，奥巴马政府现在的政策是虚假的资本主义，表面上使市场恢复运作的伪政策。可是无论两人谁的文章都只强调纳税人的损失，而很少提及该政策的实际效果。从目前市场反应和该计划的可行性来看，这个计划实际上有可能帮助银行走出困境。两位学者没说明白的是，国有化一样要由国家来承担巨大的损失，无论如何银行的投资黑洞总有人要来补，而资本家就是要纳税人来填这个洞，这其中当然包括全世界的纳税人。
不知道两位是指向表明自身的正义，还是对美国政权的性质装糊涂。从鲍尔森到盖特纳，或者说从布什到奥巴马，其经济政策的连贯性令人吃惊，但却并不令人意外。奥巴马的高姿态和盖特纳的一如既往只是在次表明金融资本对美国民主的控制，或者说美国民主对金融资本的深度依赖。什么改进监管之类不过是掩人耳目，把捅了篓子的金融机构和衍生产品换个名目，真正的目的还是要把深陷危机的金融业捞出来。如果真的坚持民主，采取一种民粹主义的态度对待闯祸的机构甚至体系，那么资本就会停止工作，而危机只会越陷越深。所以，现在走出危机的唯一办法就是由国家替金融界买单，纳税人替投资人还钱，总之让银行系统尽快恢复健康，从而能使整个美国资本体系恢复工作。否则失业继续攀升的后果就是第二个大萧条。
其实几万亿美元的窟窿开始看起来的确很大，但当美国意识到问题的严重性，要消除这个问题虽然非常痛苦，但不是14万亿美国经济不可承受之重。美国的选举体制、民主体制在救市问题上处处作梗，使整个过程缓慢而摇摆不定，这才使危机越演越烈，不可收拾。克鲁格曼等学者一方面强调国家基建投资不足，弥补不了需求缺口，可另一方面又反对大规模的国家救助银行计划，表面上看起来是为民请命，实际上是自相矛盾。
最终的问题其实是美国金融系统的全球霸权是否会继续。长期来看，如果美国没有新的领导行业创造出新的财富增长点，金融系统的中心地位就会逐渐转移。仅靠金融创新这种类似骗术的东西是不能实实在在留住资本的。因此，即便美国人背着沉重的负债，把金融系统拯救出来，他们的财富也不太可能迅速恢复，而中国也不可能指望美国市场在未来一段时间内继续消化其以环境和社会正义为代价的廉价产品了。