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.