Tea Party should be in China

It's kind of a misplacement for the Tea Party in this country. What's needed in the US is a high tax to pay for its wars and social programs, and of course more spending on modernizing infrastructures. Meanwhile, the FED should reign in monetary expansion so that the world inflation could be controlled. On the other hand, however, China should be cutting taxes or restructuring its state-local tax system to better suit its people's needs. Sadly, two political systems are both resisting to the right solution to the linked problem. The ways both countries are adopting to deal with their current difficulties are leading them down a vicious circle. It's potentially destructive to see the trend continue. Alas, if only the Tea Party could more to the other side of the ocean!

Burried Bill and Worsening US-China relations

Last Thursday, Senate Democrats abandoned the effort to pass an energy/climate bill. In the current political climate, the Democrats neither have the will nor the capacity to see through such a bill, though they barely got the health care and financial reform passed. Such failure has deeper international impact, particularly US-China relations.

When Obama began his presidency, one of the pillar of his administration's China policy was climate cooperation. Since both trade and energy secretaries are Chinese Americans, US government has much better chance of improving relations with China on climate change and clean energy fronts. However, the Great Recession reversed the trend towards better relations. Though initial coordination on stimulus measures marked a good star, things soon worsened due to the constrained domestic political and economic conditions. Both countries need to make tough decisions to save the economy, particularly the job market. The economic imperative overwhelmed and re-prioritized the climate issue and the confrontational tone rapidly diminished cooperative prospect.

Since the new foundation was not established, the old habit catches up. Cold War thinking and changing geopolitical scale (NK) tend to create more tensions than China and US could ameliorate (TW).

Now, the climate bill is temp dead, the force pushing for change is severely challenged at a time when global warming is the most conspicuous. Also, exchange rate, trade surplus, Tibet, south China sea etc. are piling up to weight on the ties between the two countries. It's hard not to imagine the worse case scenario. China's economic growth will inevitably slow down in the near future, and America's long term structural change is no where near complete. So turbulence will be constant and risk management never be more important than now.

US and China must find a mutually trustful ground and no other is better than future oriented energy and climate cooperation. To make that work, China needs to find a way to invest in the US market, jump-start the life-style change as well as consumption of clean product. And the US will have to stop making China the scapegoat of its own economic problems and make compromises on the terms of emission and tech transfers. Only working together on peaceful and mutually beneficial projects, can we build trust and eliminate the risk of conflict.

美国联邦与州权冲突的因果

美国作为一个联邦制国家，联邦与州的权力划分是一个不断变动的难题。随着现代国家的复杂化和专业化，联邦管辖范围不断扩张、权力也不断扩大，但各州还是保留了很多重要的职责和权力。尽管联邦与州权冲突时有发生，发生在奥巴马政府至今仅一年半任期内的此类冲突仍然颇为引人注目。

奥巴马上台不久便着手进行医疗体系改革，力图在美国实现发达国家普遍拥有的全民医保。在没有任何国会共和党议员支持的情况下，打了折扣的改革法案终于在今年3月获得通过，但随后有14个州的检察长（除一人外皆为共和党人）到联邦法院控告该法案违宪。他们的理由是医改法案中有强制购买医疗保险条款，而美国宪法中却从未授权联邦政府此种权力。由于宪法第十修正案规定宪法未授予联邦政府而又未禁止各州行使的权力由各州保留，这些检察长们的诉状指明医改侵犯了州权。当然，国会医改法案的法律基础实际上是国会规范全国商业、增进公民福利的权力，即使目前非常保守的最高法院也不太可能推翻该法案。

可是保守的最高法院却可以在美国宪法第二修正案上做文章。尽管在2008年6月的判决中，最高法院援引第二修正案推翻了美国首都哥伦比亚特区的禁枪令，确认了公民为自卫而持枪的权利，但特区作为联邦领地与各州的地位并不相同。而修正案中授予州民兵拥有枪支的权利又与普通公民持枪有本质区别。本来，州及地方政府禁枪与否不归联邦规范，但在今年6月底的判决中，最高法院又判定芝加哥市的禁枪令违宪。这样，第二修正案进一步突破了联邦领地的范畴，从而剥夺了州和地方禁枪的权利。作为回敬，芝加哥市政府马上颁布了极为严厉的持枪规定，但无论如何，在美国枪支泛滥的情况下，个别地方的禁枪规定是改变不了持枪犯罪居高不下的现状的。

一波未平一波又起，4月20日墨西哥湾石油泄漏事件爆发。为防止类似事件再度发生，5月底联邦政府内政部发文暂停深海石油钻探6个月，以便检查设施、实行新的安全条例并等待总统漏油事件委员会的调查结果。尽管被影响的钻井平台只有33个，还不到墨西哥湾全部钻井平台的百分之一，路易斯安那州的官员们还是大张旗鼓地出来反对，声称此禁令会影响到二十多万与石油钻探有关的工作人员，还会导致州税收减少、财政紧张。一家深海石油钻探公司旋即将内政部长萨拉查告上法庭。一个月后，一名持有深海钻井公司股票的联邦法官判禁令无效，经上诉后，新奥尔良的上诉法院维持原判，迫使内政部考虑重新发布一个范围缩小了的停钻令。

与此同时，更具挑战性也更为复杂的移民问题浮出水面。4月23日，亚利桑那州州长简·布雷维尔签署了州内极为严厉的移民法案，其中对携带移民身份文件，雇用非法劳工，贯彻联邦移民条例等作了严格规定。法案中最有争议的条款是要求州和地方警察检查任何可疑者的移民身份，这在以前被认为是联邦移民机关的职权范围，而且这种规定也很容易导致种族歧视和滥用警力。前几年也有类似法案在亚利桑那州议会通过，但都被民主党籍州长纳波利塔诺在最后关头否决了。奥巴马上台后请纳波利塔诺做了国土安全部部长，新上台的共和党州长布雷维尔终于放该法案过关。此案一出，分裂效应顿时显现，既有多个州准备跟进相关移民立法，又有很多地方和组织宣布经济上抵制亚利桑那州。有声势浩大的支持人权和移民改革的游行，也有民调显示超过半数美国人支持打击非法移民。尽管奥巴马答应增派国民卫队保卫边境、打击毒品犯罪和非法移民，亚利桑那州仍然寸步不让，坚持7月29日准时执行该法。奥巴马政府陷于金融改革法案在国会的苦斗，一时无力推动全面移民改革法案，便由美国司法部出面于7月4日将亚利桑那州告上联邦法庭，称其干涉专属联邦负责的移民法规，并要求禁止该法实行。但直到目前还没有该法案会被阻止执行的迹象。

以上联邦与州之间林林总总的冲突虽然议题不同、起因各异，却反映出美国经济危机爆发以来不断加深的社会矛盾和冲突。奥巴马政府面对危机所采取的内外政策和改革方案由于各种原因非但未能取得预期的效果，反而遭到了各种保守主义利益集团的强烈抵制。在国会两院中，共和党处于劣势，难以左右奥巴马的施政方向，于是乎医改、禁枪、钻井、移民等形形色色的问题就以地方与中央冲突的形式表现了出来。这种情况在年底的中期选举之后还有可能加剧。从2004年以来的三次地方选举中，民主党在各级政府和议会中的席位都在增加， 达到了近60%的多数。但很多新增席位并不稳固，极有可能在今年底的中期选举中易手。如此，则各州和地方的政策导向将会与联邦相左，即便民主党不会失去国会多数，奥巴马政府的日子也不会好过。

长远来看，医疗体制、金融体制等重大改革法案的通过将权力进一步向联邦集中，这不仅与信息技术进步造成的去中心化相悖，更限制了州和地方政府的自由裁量权。这些进步主义的政策究竟对社会保障、金融监管和政府预算有何重大影响，只能等时间来回答了。不过联邦与州的摩擦不会影响各州之间对联邦资源的争夺。就眼日益紧张的州财政而言，索取联邦拨款和财政支援与诘难奥巴马政府以获取政治筹码至少是同等重要的。

2035 and 2350

荷兰环评机构作为IPCC主要的环评信息来源之一，承认自己的报告犯了一些错误，但不影响IPCC对全球气候变化的整体评估。在这些错误中最先被发现的一个就是关于喜马拉雅山冰川融化趋势的预测。报告原先说如果现在气候变化趋势不变，冰川会在2035年融化，这是一个相当明显的误判。重新计算的结果是冰川可能在2350年融化。这中间相差了315年。

有两种态度来看这个问题，一个是历史的、长时段的，另一个是科学的、当下政策层面的。

先说后一个。气候变化虽然是长时段的研究，但差300多年如果不是打印错误，那就只能说明运算模型的错误极大。未来三百年会有多少要素变化很不确定，从这个意义上说，他对短期政策制定的意义就不大了。对于反对人为气候变化说的人，这些错误积少成多，最终使IPCC的结论归于无意义。但对支持者来说，瑕不掩瑜，毕竟人类活动造成了气温上升，反过来威胁了人类的生存环境。无论如何，人类的理性预测和运算能力是否已经足够对全球范围的现象作出解释和预测了呢？退一步来说，科学判定的趋势如何转变成公平的全球协议和公共政策呢？

从更长的历史时段来说，未来三百年的确很关键。在这个时间段内，人类会耗尽之前几亿年积攒下来的化石资源，而我们能否超越近代资本主义所依赖的生存方式是个很大的未知数。不要说300年，30十年内对资源的争夺都有可能导致大规模的国际冲突。因此，就算这个是运算错误，300年后就算气温不变，喜马拉雅也不变，人类的命运就会更好吗？现在西方的生活方式就可以继续吗？

2035年，我们可能已经作古了。2350年什么样的生物统治地球还很难说。但如果人还是有反省能力的动物，就不能不透过今天的“市场经济”社会而想象一个更为合理的自然的生存方式。而现在，开在自我毁灭道路上的汽车还看不出减速的迹象。

The Mobility of Capital and the Future of Labor Market

Some people worried about the economic growth, some unemployment. Current argument around government debt and deficit, worker's unemployment benefit, and long term economic prospect are all based on the same assumption that economic models of the old days, no matter which side, would work tomorrow and the day after.

However, the economy of the 1930s or 1980s will not come back and repeat itself. Things have changed dramatically, particularly the mobility of capital. The literature of globalization has described the cause and effect of such mobility. In order to "attract investment", government everywhere lowered their barrier and triggered the liberation of capital. Now capital is truly "liquid" and moves in unconventional and unexpected ways that only "financial professionals" could possibly understand and sometimes control it.

Liquid means flat, for even a slight difference would lead to the flow (eventually flood). And since the dams are not working, any field without a wall is destined to be flattened. Such is the situation of world labor market equalization, some called it "race to the bottom", indeed.

The new phenomenon since the acceleration of the speed of capital is the increasing temporariness of jobs for young people. In order to circumvent the employment legal regime of the welfare state so that labor cost can be repressed, more and more temps are hired in more and more outsourcing companies. Older people with family and mortgage can hardly accept such positions, but young graduates can and sometimes single family must.

In any given event, there are so many temps, interns, and specialists, it is almost impossible to tell who's who or who's the real deal and who's not.

Since the dawn of capitalism, people seek to curb and master the system to at least give some stability of life. Historically, such stability was achieved in the expenses of others: slaves, workers, women, indigenous, colonized, developing and so on. Capital has allied with many forms of power to pitch one group of people against another. Now, its velocity is putting workers in the developed country against the workers in the developing.

This new feature of capital is the blind spot of some of the leading economists. They are in a employment trap. If they utilize traditional weapons against unemployment, lower interest rate, high entrance barrier, more government stimulus, they might not get what they want. Instead, those policies may bring in another storm. The opposite wasn't true either. Cutting budget now, particularly state and local benefit no one and will surely lead to higher unemployment and lower consumption. Perhaps, that's where the government should get smart, knowing where to increase spending and where to cut so that job creation could be maximized.

Krugman Madness

Finally, Mr. Krugman gone mad. And the last straw was actually what he wished for: a Chinese announcement of RMB appreciation. The only problem? Not fast enough to save him from going crazy.

The incompatibility between Mr. Krugman's academic civility and his political sourness against China has been long recorded in the New York Times op-eds, but this time he just reach a new high: a mostly angry, illogical, disparaging climax. Of course, as a liberal with a "conscience" somehow he has to do so to prove his worthiness. And of course, as a liberal in the U.S., criticizing China has no down side anyway. But let's look at his mad piece.

Again, Mr. Krugman blame China for all the problems in the world, which he actually means America. For when the dollar went down against everybody else, the pegged yuan provoked some antagonism from many others, but since dollar's rise, yuan also climbed rapidly, eliminating non-dollar complains. Krugman seemed to forgot that effect. He blamed China for all the lost-jobs in the U.S. and also forgot to mention that the U.S. multinationals got 70% of the share while Chinese workers got mere a single digit. Surely he loves the recent labor movement in China, but again he was false to blame the exchange rate. Rather, most protests were against foreign companies which made their sales IN CHINA!

He never could come up with any reason why the yuan appreciation would "re-balance" the world trade and bring the jobs back to the US. In fact, those jobs would most definitely move to Vietnam or somewhere else, and the consumer in the US would probably suffer a bit more. Well, maybe at that time, he'd complain about some other country's exchange rate distortion "crime".

Most significantly, Mr. Krugman attributed all government dollar reserves to open market purchase of foreign currencies, ignoring what he had already mentioned capital account regulations.

ultimately, his wishful thinking of yuan appreciating 50% overnight will only destroy both Chinese and the U.S. economy, since the two are now closely tied to each other. His prescription will send the world down to a Great Black-hole altogether.

Perhaps Mr. Krugman has been immersed in American politics for too long and applied his anti-corporate ideology to China too easily. It is not some numbered exporters hold the Chinese government hostage, it is the legitimate claim for jobs from ordinary Chinese people that counts!

Funny how a self-claimed liberal democrat suddenly turns into a fascist imperialist once across the pacific ocean.

If Krugman really wants his dream of American full employment, he should have given more advice on how the US government could improve its stimulus plans and stop wasting the world's treasure on futile wars. He should have persuaded the congress to get rid of the stupid trade bans and investment barriers. He should have encourage his fellows to realize that it's time for them to stop living like the world's resources are infinite.

All in all, he could either come back to reality or stay in his bitter fantasy. As to his crusade against the Chinese currency? The earlier he sync with the rhythm of the Chinese economy the sooner he'd come up with a more realistic approach.

Paul Virilio and the Speed of War

As made clear in his works, Virilio has convinced me with his theory of dromology long ago, but with the advent of drone warfare, his wisdom seemed even more salient today than ever. He derived most of his cases from the first Iraq war, when CNN and modern cable news transformed the perception of contemporary war and he called it the "world war in miniature". I believed he'd be happy that he was absolutely right about the direction of development of war production, but he'd be even more sad that his prediction was right.

The electronicization of reality into video images and the light speed of surveillance have further evolved into a ubiquitous weapon that inserts technicians/analyst/non-combatants directly into the integrated battlefield. The "all seeing EYE" from the sky links Afghanistan with control rooms anywhere around the globe, making real battles more and more indiscernible from computer games and real killings more and more like wiping out a zombie. Though nothing new or unpredicted for us, the intensity and realness and the speed of such weapon system are still shocking enough.

Speed is power, Virilio says. No wonder apps online with the speed of light sooner or later will be converted into military techs. Or maybe they are military invention/with military implication from the very beginning. Like twitter that's capable of destabilizing a country, Facebook now is used to converse soldiers out of danger or into a counterinsurgency action, let alone Google's power to ignore the warning from the world's no.2 power. Very soon, we'll see 3D becomes the new toy of the military, enabling troops to fight a detached warfare and yet maintaining all visual or even more sensation from the field. Casualties will decrease. As long as the military spending keeps up, less and less understanding of the local human society is required. So in order to look at your enemies in High Definition, you don't see them anymore.

Virilio believes in technology only in the sense that that forces the course of history more and more into the wrong direction. We throw a new tech into an old tech's mess without even contemplating the full ramifications of either one. We blindly applaud all technological advancements in a global race ( dromo )track. That being said, ironically, the reality is we're already in the war era of socially networked drones.

The World After Oil

It's an understatement to say that fossil energy is important to modern life. It's essential to modernity. All the freedom, mobility and utility are based upon the very energy that we are consuming today. Merely 200 years ago, our life style is unthinkable, and probably 200 years from now, our life style will again be unthinkable. Our time perhaps is just a burst in human history and a play with a sudden spoil.

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico for Americans is a problem with oil corporation, the industry and government supervision. But for humanity, it's a symbol of limit. Such limit was everywhere, in the Chinese coal mines, the Canadian shale fields. the Middle East battle field and finally the seashore south of the US. People are dying and the environment is ruined, all for the "rising living standard" of our generation.

Sooner or later the oil or all forms of fossil fuels will be gone. 100, 200, 500 years from now, what will the world look like? Without oil (other resources notwithstanding), how can we sustain 6 billion, later this century 9 billion people? More specifically, without oil, what would the US, a country built upon oil, be like? What would so called globalization be like?

Old Chinese saying "without long term considerations, there must be short term worries". Even if oil reserve is still abundant for another century, we might have to think about the world without oil, and be prepared for it.

Facing hegemony: the fate of Nago city and the failure of Japanese leadership

Finally, Hatoyama gave in. The 2006 agreement is going to be honored and nothing has been changed since the election of a new Japanese party into power. In weighing democracy, popular demand versus strategic alliance, or more appropriately hegemonic dominance, Japan ultimately reaffirmed its fate as a quasi-sovereign state under the indirect control of its master: the U.S. military occupation.

Ever since the end of World War II, Okinawa people are destined to fight their fate against the overwhelming power of the U.S. Though defeated and repressed by the government in Tokyo, the effort continues. Democracy is working well on the island, but is sacrificed in the name of national security and alliance. The imaginary enemy, North Korea or China, was propagated as some permanent threat that has to be dealt with American presence. Such security arrangement or hegemonic structure has been maintained well over half a century and is the real source of tension in East Asia. Contrary to the right-wing claim that the alliance among Japan, South Korea and the US is the stabilizing foundation of the region, such alliance prevented real dialog and open diplomacy among East Asians, provoked more mutual distrust, and caused more military competitions there.

While all things bad are squarely blamed on North Korea, no one seems to care about the security concerns of the North, or for that matter, the concerns of the Nago city residents. Somehow, foreign occupation, intervention and oppression, are justified and democracy and legitimate safety demands are vilified. The failure of the Hatoyama government to make a different in this new era of the Japanese politics, clearly indicates that no matter what domestic change in Japan, US hegemonic control over Japan, security illusion included, cannot and will not be easily removed or negotiated away.

Japan's declining world influence and rising domestic problems not only will not help its government to fight for greater independence, but also increases its dependency on its metropole, the US. Though Hatoyama had a good faith in forming a regional cooperative future, without breaking free from Japan's shackles, he could never truly walk toward the direction of East Asia reinvention.

The era of rating agencies

What's more powerful than the nation-state? Super-national organizations like U.N., IMF? Or Sub-national NGOs, multinational corporations? No. It turns out, rating agencies nowadays are calling the shots on the survivability of a state. They can downgrade a state in the U.S. or a nation in the E.U. They basically monopolized the determination of value in the world capital market, be it company debt or national debt.

What's significant about this is that they not only represent capital, but also direct the flow of capital in a totally professionalized global capital system. They observe their own rating rules, which on the one hand appear to be scientific, impartial and serving the interest of the so called "investors", while on the other very much self-serving to the interest of the agencies and ultimately the big shots that feed the agencies. So in this new era of reconfiguration of powers, we have a weired situation in which the nation-state and multilateral organizations are trying to reign in the rampant capital destruction, but at the sometime, financial capital, rescued by states, has already restored its mastership and advances towards a even higher position to control the fate of the state. Ironically, all of the problems are somehow squarely blamed on the sins of the governments and their "corruptions and wastes".

More interestingly, sovereign funds are among the very investors served by these rating agencies. Hence, no matter what position of your countries' public finance, huge deficit or huge surplus, your debts or funds are all serviced in the same interconnected market and the same dominant capital controlled rating agencies. There is no escape from this intricate, sophisticated, computerized, rationalized irrational financial market where wealth has never been concentrated to this extent. Practically, who owns the capital does not matter that much anymore, who operates such capital does. And these operators are in the same globally-linked class of elites trained by the same establishment, deployed to the same multinational institutions, and observe the same pro-capital ideology.

Such a development in the world capitalist system pits popular resistance or true democratic against the continuous marching of monopolized trinity, namely the banks, the insurances and the rating agencies. So far, democracy is loosing.

V-E DAY and the future of Europe

Two things happened in the last couple of days in Europe. One the crisis in Greece deepened to an extent that EU was force to act, otherwise the monetary union would be in severe danger. So far, the structural reform is not clear yet, but the trillion euro plan stabilized world market today. This number, ten times bigger than the original rescue plan to cover Greece, finally put a stop on the dominion effect of the debt problem in Europe, but in the long term, inflation fear will come back for sure. The world financial is like a leaking dam for sometime now, in which investors are looking for any sign of a crack, and since all markets are linked today, one crack is threatening the whole. G20 seemed to be incompetent to fix the world financial system and it is rightly so. It is a big basket of countries in different stage of development and capacity, no consistent rule could apply to them all. However, at least it seems that in Europe enough political will now accumulated out of this crisis to do something to preserve the union instead of crashing it.

Another sign of hope came from the V-E Day parade in Moscow. For the very first time, Polish, French, British and American troops are all reviewed in the Red Square, unimaginable during the Soviet times, or even a couple of years ago. So the airplane accident which buried the Polish leaders may actually open a new era in Europe. Of course, German chancellor showed up in RS first time in history as well. Consider that She can speak with Putin in both German and Russian, it's extraordinary how European Europe has become. This show of solidarity of Europe further reduces possibilities of conflict in Europe, which in turn provides a good support for the euro. The sinking of euro will also boost EU economies in the short run.

All in all, EU and US may have a lot to worry about, but the fundamental global structure is still working for them. It is East Asia that perhaps more vulnerable than we thought. Indeed, EA piled up a lot of reserves, but without open world trade system and export advantages, fragile geopolitical situations in Asia may prove to be more troublesome than many believed. In time of crisis, Asia may suffer the most at last...

华尔街的暴利与中国的楼市

高盛被调查了，被起诉了，罪名是诈骗。可这并不影响这家银行控股公司的一季度利润，创纪录的利润，更不会影响它创纪录的高管薪酬。美国政府一再说要管，结果却是越管越高。因为政府的政策是自相矛盾的。一面要控制薪酬，加强监管，给老百姓做样子，可另一面却让美联储零利率放贷，而财政部以三厘发债。银行坐收渔利，金融市场一片大好，可真正的工作寥寥无几。TARP的钱撒出去了，收回来还有结余，可是ARRA的钱发起来畏首畏尾，创造出来的就业机会更是非常有限。结果等于全美国的普通民众不仅要纳税救华尔街，还要额外再交一笔大额利息税给华尔街的高管们做年终奖金。

中国的楼市和华尔街一样疯狂，政府同样是束手无策。“新国十条”办法出台能否奏效还很难说，但政策的内在矛盾和美国非常相似。一方面要保证百姓安居，防止开发商暴利，另一方面又要保证地方政府的财税收入和国家支柱产业的健康发展，谁是谁非啊？正如白宫办公厅主任伊曼努尔所说，现在的政策选择是糟糕和更糟糕，没有什么优选。

美国和中国的难题可以说是纠葛在一起的。美国的低利率导致中国热钱泛滥，流动性过剩，甚至经济过热，中国的大规模助市资金，从中央到地方，助长了这种趋势，急速抬高着固定资产的价格。反过来，中国的巨额贸易逆差助长了美国的流动性和世界主要资源品的价格。如果说G20对经济危机的第一次统一行动是第一次世界大战的话，那么其后果正在酝酿第二次世界大战的爆发。从欧洲到美洲到亚洲，经济危机的后果逐步显现出来。单纯依靠增加流动性改善金融体系尚可，但由此导致的对国民财富的侵蚀却必须想办法解决。否则病人是通过急救度过危险期了，但也有可能就此变成偏瘫或落下严重的后遗症的。

American census 2010 and the future of American foreign policy

The 2010 American census is here. There are several demographical trends in the U.S. that could be revealed through this process. First, more people will move out of the rusty belt area and into Florida, California and Texas, increasing the power of these populated states even more. Second, the percentage of white population will drop and probably soon will cease to be the majority of this country. Third, the importance of women in general will grow as the service industry expands.

It is quite obvious that the face of America is undergoing great change. In another 30 years, America will be very different from now. This transformation may not be as stable as people hope.

The new demography is favorable to current democrats' policy as urban population increases. Republicans maybe pushed to more extreme policy choices, but sooner or later, it has to adjust its stand so that it could recapture the center. Ethnic and religious divide will deepen and culture conflict might erupt from time to time, causing social tensions and complicating policy making processes. losing male dominance of the society may mean priority switch towards more women interests. Overall, the past center-right core ideological position of this country could gradually edge left. Therefore, if we step back and review the rise of Obama and the passage of the health care reform, they might be some critical events in a much longer trans-formative era.

Then, what's the implication of these changes for foreign policy? More domestic conflict, negotiation, and compromise will remake the American consensus, which may take a long and painful struggle over power. Such internal focus could reduce the attention paid to foreign affairs or commitment to international regimes. The cost of maintain the stability of the international system will continue to rise and America will find itself hard to manage all the aspects of the system without pooling resources with others. Therefore, soft power or moral influence will become more and more critical for American dominance.

America maybe less intrusive physically or militarily, but it could utilize more of its enormous propaganda power to assert pressure on its enemies. Also it may be more dependent on non-governmental entities to execute foreign policies.

The challenge for China in the future in dealing with the U.S. is that it may face a weaker counterpart, but the counterpart may pose no less threat to the Chinese interests. However, a more diversified U.S. could provide more opportunities for China to allying itself with. Overtime, they may finally find more common ground than now.

A whole new game

When American ping pong team visited China, Time's cover story titled "a whole new game". 30 years later, the Game officially began. Back then, it was new because of the cold war backdrop and the reversal of a long hostility between the two countries. Now the game is played by the world's two biggest powers who are closely tied in many ways, some even not discernible by their own people. This new game is familiar in some respect. Some episode looks like the old European power politics, some like the somewhat old Japan game, some still have the reminiscence of the cold war game, some even been played 100 years before in the more than 200 years relations. But somewhere in the midst of all these, something is fundamentally "unfit", or unseen. Game maybe the old game, but the players are quite different, consider how "different" China is. Or, players may be the same, the GAME is a whole new one (a super globalized global system).

So here we are, using as much learned theory as we can to try to explain as much phenomena we are experiencing as we can. And yet, no emperor's cloth neatly fit. And we are in fact naked (ignorant). Not only do we not know where China will go, we have no clue as to where America will go neither. Since none of the previous single variable models extrapolates the complicated interactions between the two which in turn enmeshed in a even more sophisticated world system. What modern society hate most is uncertainty and unpredictability, which is exactly what the situation is now.

To make things worse, some "smart" people believe they knew how the game works, or should work. Some also believe that despite the smoke, the game remains the same. Therefore, the players should do what they believe to be the right thing: mostly, act as usual, as nothing has ever changed. The "smart" flock realize that they had to do some so that people would recognize them as smart. But the "postmodern" turn of events constantly blow them, their prediction and prescription away.

So what do we do now? My suggestion: drop the assumptions and rebuild the foundation of the game. New rules, fairer, new partnership, no preconditions, and new strategies based on fresh payoff schemes. In the new game, no past hubris or grudge counts anymore, just a whole new way of looking and thinking for the future.

克鲁格曼及其政治经济学

克鲁格曼先生不是一个纯经济学家，可能这种东西也不存在。他是一个有“良心”的，带有鲜明政治意图的政治经济学家。他对美国国内政治经济的评论，我们不好评头品足，可是这位象牙塔学者一旦出了美国国界，就有一种难以遏制的冲动：把所有问题归咎于美国以外的任何人。这种廉价的美利坚民族主义在精深的经济学包裹之下，既另外国人折服，又令美国人舒服。克先生在1997年亚洲金融危机时就应用了“全员要素生产率”来预测和解释危机的发生。但他却鲜有提及美国金融机构在危机中所扮演的角色。现在危机轮到美国身上，他又要把一顶“操纵汇率”的帽子扣到中国的头上。如此还不足以平息克先生的怒气，他还在纽约时报的评论文章中建议美国国会运用政治手段，给中国的出口品加上10%的惩罚性关税。

按照克先生的建议，中国的出口会减少，贸易顺差下降，失业增加，不过这都不是美国的问题。克先生还大胆分析，中国也不敢用抛售美国国债的方式抗议，因为这样中国的损失会更大。即便中国的抛售导致美元贬值，那对美国出口增长和逆差下降还大有好处。可是这对美国的老百姓有什么好处呢？显然，美国对中国的出口不会大幅增加，美国的基本日用品会涨价，从而导致短期消费下降，最终这些消费品的生产会转移到其他第三世界国家，美国的失业率不会因此有任何变动。究其原因，美国目前的高失业率主要是房地产，建筑业，IT和金融服务业萧条导致的，而不是国际贸易。要重新增加就业，就需要美国管好自己的经济，出台政策有效遏制房地产市场恶化，通过金融改革尽快使金融业恢复正常运作，合理运用刺激经济资金促进高科技工业的进步。然而以上这些目前进展都不顺利。奥巴马政府和美国国会由于各种政治纠纷延误了重要的改革立法和经济恢复工作。

美国的现状令克先生非常恼火而又无能为力。中国在此刻正好成为他泄愤的目标。克先生文中说中国的汇率政策抵消了世界各国的经济刺激政策。巧合的是前两天克先生还撰文说，抵消联邦政府经济刺激政策的是美国州和地方政府的财政紧缩政策。由于地方政府的“吝啬”，导致全国刺激经济的努力相互中和，效果欠佳。那么到底是地方政府的作为还是中国的汇率问题让克先生的经济计划未能实现呢？

克先生是世界知名的诺贝尔奖获得者，甚至抢在奥巴马总统之前获得如此殊荣。他不会不知道美国目前的经济衰退和失业问题是美国华尔街发端在先，美国政府对经济复苏管理不当在后造成的，更别提美国发动的两场旷日持久的战争。他也不会不知道，中国政府稳定汇率、振兴经济的政策措施是引领世界走出衰退阴影的领航标。汇率改革以来，人民币已经升值近20%，并且声明目前的汇率稳定政策是应对美国经济危机的暂时办法，最终会实现人民币的自由浮动。可是他还是选择向美国财政部施压，要求其在4月15日的报告中指责中国为汇率操控国。原因何在？

答案就在美国国内政治的“气候变化”。自从共和党斯考特布朗年初赢得了马萨诸塞州肯尼迪参议员病逝后留下的席位，民主党又先后有多位重量级人物主动退出今年年底的美国国会中期选举。当前民主党控制的国会只有20%左右的民调满意度，尽管共和党也不怎么得民心，但选举中执政党比在野党受打击的可能性要大得多。民主党面临在参众两院失去优势的危险，很可能重蹈1994年克林顿第一任期内国会中期选举的旧辙。如此，则克鲁格曼心仪的各种社会政治改革就会再一次前功尽弃。要保住民主党的优势，就需要在年内尽快降低失业率，回复民众对经济增长的信心。显然，克先生对此并不乐观。在他看来，把美国的种种问题归咎于中国可能是最安全的政治选择：一来批评中国从来都是美国政客的无风险赌博；二来可以捎带抨击过去布什政府“放纵”中国汇率问题的错误政策；三来可以赢得国内保守工会和各种反华势力的支持与配合，拿到选票；最后还可以振振有词的搬出“公平竞争”以驳斥自由贸易的“滥用”。总之，为了保住选举，保住美国人的福利，保住克鲁格曼先生的政治理想，牺牲中国的利益，牺牲中美友好关系都不在话下，哪怕是倒退80年，再搞一个斯姆特-霍利关税法案，也在所不惜。

这就是《一个自由主义者的良心》（克氏2007年畅销书书名）。这就是这种“自由主义者”在遇到国内难题时所想到的出路：一面赤裸裸的威胁、恐吓中国，另一面把中国抹黑成损人而自肥的恶棍。如果奥巴马政府听信了这样的“理论”，采用了这样的“政策”，那么其效果就一定是克先生经常挂在嘴边的所谓WMD(大规模杀伤性武器，克鲁格曼形容华尔街制造的经济危机为金融WMD)。而不论他如何试图安慰美国人，说服他们相信单方面制裁中国不会对美国有丝毫伤害，玩火的结果都肯定会是MAD（相互确保摧毁，冷战时美苏核对抗的后果）。

消费主义的终结？

这里要讲的不是消费的终结，作为现代资本主义的核心，大众消费会持续扩张，但在主要资本主义国家尤其是美国，借债消费的消费主义可能走到了尽头。现在才指出这一点可能是有点晚，但是美国人消费习惯和生活习惯是联系在一起的。这种路径依赖使得消费主义不会轻易退出历史舞台。美国政府对消费的鼓励还是一如既往，因为按照现在西方经济学的药方，没有消费这一剂良药，大衰退的高烧是退不了的。可是作为消费真实支撑的就业，特别是中高收入职业，短期内看不到快速复原的迹象。更重要的是，统计数据里面讲的消费情绪越来越悲观了。而这反映了美国社会心态的根本转变，由疯狂的消费主义向节俭主义的转变。如果这是一个长期的、不可逆转的现象，那么国际资本主义体系的结构就会发生重大的变革。全球化构筑的面向美国的出口体系将面临考验。反之，由此贸易带来的面向美国的资本输入也会放缓。循环的打破意味着过去三十年世界经济增长的发动机很可能会换抵挡，甚至卡壳。这样一来，本已躲过的世界经济萧条，可能最终还是会到来。

与克鲁格曼相反，我不认为解决问题的最佳战略是所谓全球经济“再平衡”，换言之就是拿中国开刀当替罪羊。核心问题是美国解决其政治僵局，恢复对经济增长的源泉：技术进步的支持。从而开发出新的领导工业，而不是搭建贸易壁垒，意图把正常流出的劳动密集型工作岗位从中国等发展中国家抢回来。很可惜，现在的美国政治被民粹主义包围，看不到有领导能力的美国政府去完成这个真正需要“再平衡”的使命。当然，新兴国家的出口依赖与消费不足是因为深层的结构问题。但这是一个不成比例的问题。因为即使中国人获得了较好的医疗保障，较低廉的住房安排，中国的消费还是不能与美国和欧洲的消费能力同日而语，不可能根本解决资本主义世界体系的结构性弊端。

美国中产阶级的危机

2月18日，美国人斯塔克驾机撞向了位于得克萨斯州奥斯汀的一个国税局办公楼。这个53岁的计算机工程师似乎没有让他绝望到要发动自杀式袭击的理由。很多美国媒体认为无法把它归于“恐怖分子”一类，因为他可能就是疯了。但是很快人们就发现了他的遗书（宣言），虽然其中概念混乱，但起码不能说是疯子的作品。政治评论员们于是各取所需，保守派把他捧成反抗政府税负的英雄，自由派则把他描绘成受极右思潮煽动的刽子手。美国媒体和博客的口水战淹没了这一事件的深层寓意，即众多类似斯塔克的美国中产阶级正在经历着严重的危机。斯塔克的“宣言”不过是其中最惊人的表现罢了。

在美国的政治经济学字典里，“中产阶级”是个神圣的词汇。但是人们很难把这个词进行深入的学理分析，因为它只是一个社会统计学意义上的词汇，指那些介于富人和穷人之间的中等收入阶层，而这个收入层的人主要包括小企业主，专业人士，职业经理人和技术工人。除了经济上的相对富足，中产阶级似乎也有一种社会文化和价值观念上的同一性，从而使他们的生产和生活方式都具有相对稳定甚至保守的特点。正是这些特性使这个所谓“阶级”披上了一层光环，成为西方社会民主和市场自由的基石。美国人尤其以获得中产阶级生活为奋斗目标，并在学校，媒体，政府政策等各个层面宣扬中产阶级的美德和必要性，使中产阶级这一概念成为一种政治正确的象征。

在现实中，美国的“中产阶级”随着社会经济的变迁经历了诸多变化。今天的中产阶级不光来源于追求美国梦的个人奋斗，更重要的是这些自我实现所依托的一系列现代政治经济制度。这些制度的产生离不开美国和欧洲长期的社会主义思想和实践，也正是这些制度构建了现代福利国家的根基。从罗斯福的新政到约翰逊的“伟大社会”，累进税，社会保险，医疗保险，工会组织，平权法案和各种政府严格的监管培育并保证了美国中产阶级在战后的持续繁荣。一方面，科学技术在战后蓬勃发展，有利于中产阶级各类职业的扩张，另一方面，在冷战环境下，资本受到资本主义和社会主义阵营的双重管制，无法自由寻求低福利、低工资的劳动力市场，从而制约了发达国家的劳动力供给，逐步推高了中产阶级的福利总水平。

但是这些中产阶级繁荣的要素从80年代的新自由主义兴起开始逐步瓦解。芝加哥学派的经济学成为市场原教旨主义的政策万灵药，在美国大行其道。从里根到布什，社会上层获得了大幅度的减税优惠，贫富差距不断扩大，打击工会，削弱监管，阻挠医保改革，鼓励个人养老帐户和教育基金，一切都旨在拆除妨害“个人自由”的福利国家制度。冷战的结束和全球化的浪潮进一步解放了资本，使其在高科技的推动下实现了真正的全球资源配给。在这个被“碾平”了的世界里，美国中产阶级的噩梦开始了。

悖论的是，加速这一过程的恰恰是美国中产阶级自身。新自由主义和新保守主义对中产阶级来说是颇有说服力的政治、经济和社会理论，与他们自身崇尚的经济独立，政治自由，和郊区家庭文化是很契合的。他们选出的“民意代表”自然愿意实现他们的政策主张，因为这些政策主张与提供代表们选举经费的利益集团的主张不谋而合。这个表面上是把个人从政府的桎梏中解放出来的“里根-布什”革命，实际上是要把垄断资本从国家的监管中解放出来。正如美国最高法院最近的判决书所言，“公司法人”与自然人在美国拥有同样的受宪法第一修正案保护的“人权”。于是，在美国中产阶级资产逐渐流失的背后，美国的议员和政府官员们却乐得提前退休，转道进入美国的各大公司做高薪顾问去了。

“大衰退”是压倒骆驼的最后一根稻草。本来，美国中产阶级的生活水准还能通过房屋抵押贷款继续维持，但房地产市场和金融市场的坍塌使很多人陷入了困境。过去十年来，美国家庭平均收入几乎没有增长，受危机冲击，美国大量中下层民众更是处于破产的边缘。工作，房产，医疗，养老，教育等等本来“安全”的中产阶级生活支柱现在全变成了可疑的豆腐渣工程。这些变化对政治的影响不言而喻。然而，在中产阶级水深火热的时候，他们看到的却是政府拿纳税人的钱去救华尔街的亿万富翁们。可悲的是，他们盼望的救助非但没有及时到来，应缴的税却一分也不能少。直到这时，中产阶级的斯塔克才彻底绝望了，他选择了做出最极端的政治宣言：像恐怖分子一样开着飞机撞向国税局。

斯塔克的未经证实的遗书勾勒出了过去二、三十年间，作为美国政治经济体系基础的中产阶级停滞、倒退，趋于瓦解的历程。可是，美国的左右派对中产阶级削弱的解释和扭转局面的措施，却势如水火，不可调和。因为战后存在于社会精英层的基本共识和政策交集已经被逐步侵蚀了。遗书作者显示出政治意识形态的混乱，与其愤怒的心态交织在一起，相当典型的反映出美国现在“茶党”等各类草根政治组织的现状，而这些组织的中坚，正是在走下坡路的部分“中产阶级”。

可以说，美国处于一个历史的十字路口。80年代以前，美国的历次经济危机也都引发了重大的社会动荡，各种奇思怪想纷纷涌现，特别是民粹主义的各种变异体。但有意思的是，总的方向是社会民主主义的，是趋向于加强国家对市场的管理的。新自由主义得势以来，这个趋势变了。有了强大的意识形态和智力资源，80年代以后的各种经济危机从原因分析到政策药方都发生了巨大的转变，国家往往成为罪魁祸首。这一次拯救危机的药方是凯恩斯主义加新自由主义的鸡尾酒，而奥巴马的总统选举过程也是罗斯福“新政”式和克林顿“新经济”式的二重奏。经历了一年的考验之后，奥巴马政府仍然步履蹒跚，左右为难，医疗保障、金融体系等各项改革更是举步维艰。美国何去何从，美国的中产阶级未来怎样？这是与中国利益攸关的事情。美国的一些有识之士宣扬中国的进步是对美国的“威胁”，但实际上是希望通过展示中国的发展来刺激、推动美国的国内变革。但也有一些别有用心的人，希望利用汇率、补贴、气候变化、知识产权、网络安全和其他各种政治议题转移、引导美国中产阶级的失望、焦虑、恐惧和愤怒情绪，把中国塑造成新的敌人以减轻自身的压力。这却是我们不得不警惕的。

Conversations of Goethe with Johann Peter Eckermann

1827.2.21 "talking about the panama canal"

"It may be foreseen that this young state (US), with its decided predilection to the West, will in 30 or 40 years, have occupied and peopled the large tract of land beyond the Rocky Mountains. It may furthermore be foreseen that along the whole coast of the Pacific Ocean, where nature has already formed the most capacious and secure harbors, important commercial towns will gradually arise, for the furtherance of a great intercourse between China and the East Indies and the United States."

32 years of waiting and suddenly...

I've lost the last bit of interest in Chinese men's football team. For as long as I lived, China has never won a single game against South Korea. Such was the curse our generation has to endure. What we suffered, time after time, is not simply the lost of games, but the lost of will to win. Starting around the same time of football league games, China, Japan and Korea took different trajectories, but China disappointed everyone by losing virtually all major games. Domestic league was poisoned by all possible problems. Ultimately, Chinese people, just like many of us, lost interest and stopped supporting our own team. For now we know, as we always suspected, there are big rats in the system, eroding the very foundation for a successful football environment. Though the arrests and the sudden win are coincident (maybe not?), I'd rather think that they are linked and from now on if we get rid of those rats and clean up the system, we can still make it work.

One game brings hope and confidence, but not a good system, which need long term construction. I caution myself from being too optimistic, but I certainly hope that the new leadership would not squander the opportunity this time. Finally, I have to agree with Huang Jianxiang at this occasion that we'll have a much better Spring Festival this year!

Google NSA alliance poses threat to the world

Washington Post and NYTimes all reported the new agreement between Google and NSA on the cyber attack incidents which led Google to claiming its quitting from China. Why would some obscure email breach ultimately drive them to this point? According to Mr. Blair, that's because these attacks are highly sophisticated and pose great threat that might equal to a cyber Pearl Harbor. However, without clear explanation or evidence, suddenly world's most advanced IT company married to the world most powerful spy agency. We have to ask, what would be the consequences of such a combination? Now, it seems more and more likely that these institutions are using the so called China threat to push for their own agenda, which is to establish a world super-cyber power to police the vast lawless web world. Surely that LAW must be American, not Freedom!
Google will benefit from the arrangement by "commercializing" the NSA technology, which means better security, survillance, and counter-intelligence. It might get tax-payer financed government technology for free. Also, by cooperating with the government, it could dominate the web sphere without even being questioned or challenged by its competitors. Google effectively becomes national security company of the American government. On the other hand, by joining Google, NSA can finally step into the private sector of the cyber world, doing all kinds of spy work that requires no search warrant due to Google invitation. It finds a new battle ground for weapon experiment offered by a global company with global reaches. That alone poses inmeasuable threat to not only China, but all other countries' national security.
This is probably the first amongst many steps following the Clinton "cyber open door" speech last month. Unfortunately, such imperialsitic move into the global internet system might have severe repressive domestic consequences in the foreseeable future.