主题：【编辑】美国经济周报2010年9月第1期 -- 南方有嘉木

不知道管理为什么要把我关于影帝人民币汇率讲话在老外中的反应的帖子删掉，只好在这里多写一点，说明一下吧。

希望说一下红线在哪里，就事论事，认为他是棒槌是老外的一致看法好不，说不得吗？

人民币升值对美国人可不是好事

美国人过的难受不过两个原因，首先，美元不值钱了，什么东西都涨价，就是收入没跟着涨，第二个问题就是大量的工作岗位流失，造成中高薪的工作岗位大规模流失（麦当劳包汉堡的工作还是有的，但是工程师们失业了。）

人民币升值能解决其中的哪一个问题吗？一个都不行，只要别的国家的人工比美国低，工作就没有办法转回美国，当然，还有个可能就是到处烽烟四起，不过现在看来是暂时不会的。

人民币升值，中国制造的东西更贵了，对于沃尔玛来说，东西贵了，买的数量少了，结果呢，裁员，而美国人的购买力更加下降，日子自然过的更差。

所以，人民币升值对美国经济来说，根本没有好处，只有人民币继续保持低汇率，才能保证美国底层人的生活，另外一个更加重要的，就是人民币升值会带动油价上涨，为啥呢？人民币升值，进口石油用美元结算就更便宜了，这样国内的能源价格会下降，（至少不涨价，看中石油，中石化的良心了），会促进汽车工业的发展，而增加能源的需求，这样，进口增加，就把国际油价炒高了。

那种开3.8升道奇caravan的孩子们，一箱油下去，多花20块钱的那种感受，会把中东人祖宗十八代都骂一顿的。

车子的油钱是不能省的，只有压缩别的消费了，比如下馆子叫外卖之类就算了，结果只会是美国的经济更差。

这个道理，基本上生活在北美的人都能体会到，比如今年，加拿大的反对党就跳出来要政府给大家报销取暖费了，不然Gas涨价的厉害，普通人家都吃不消了。

那么为什么明明知道人民币升值对美国不好，奥黑还要一个劲的要压迫人民币升值呢？而影帝一顿中国会动乱的说法，更堵死了任何为中国说好话的人的嘴，弄得这边的脑残屁民们仿佛找到了希望，中国乱呀，乱了之后，大家的工作就回来了，乱了之后，中国的石油消费少了，油价就能降低，什么东西都要降价了……

（90%的老外，貌似只能记住两样东西的价格，牛奶和汽油。）

中国大乱了，倒真能这样，那么国内的童鞋们又要如何呢？不过，中国大乱了，擦这个屁股的成本可是不小的，估计到时候日本人死的心都要有了……

所以，现在形势诡异，还要睁大了眼睛好好看，精彩的地方可能要出来了。这两天石油黄金猛涨，就是对人民币升值的预期，反正，中国人到时候买得起，先炒起来再说……

话说这次经济危机，美帝灌水，中国也拿出4万亿来搞建设，把本来都已经踩下来的油价又拉上来了，美国的复苏就始终没法走上快车道，花儿街也好，顺水推舟，继续吹大泡泡搞资本外流然后用中国制造把，流出到各国的美元再吸收回来，解决美国人的债务问题，但现在这个过程也已经差不多完成了，后面要干啥呢？

下面这个路线图不知道大家看的明白吗

美国人已经过度借债，超前消费，导致普通家庭的现金流紧张，经不起涨价了，这个时候，美联储把银行借给大家钱的债券全部拿来，然后发行大量的美元出来，这个美元两个出路，一路是拿去买东西，买中国制造的产品，另一部分，借给了利率高达8%以上的比如巴西这样的国家，让他们超前消费，而这些国家，拿了美元干啥呢，还是买中国制造的产品（还有日本，德国制造），然后呢，钱又到了中国，最后这些美元都流到了中国，然后，中国呢，继续通过购买美国国债的形式，把钱再最后还给美国，美国卖出了国债，拿回了美元，就把低息把钱再借给自己普通的老百姓，让他们用低息的贷款还掉高息的贷款，从而每个月可以少付一些钱，日子可以过的好一点。

老百姓拿到了钱，还掉了旧的贷款，钱又回到了哪里？回到了美联储，买回了之前的那些债券，美联储拿着那么多现金，干啥呢？自己买美国国债，把钱给政府，然后政府再把钱借给老百姓，减轻老百姓的债务，改善大家的现金流，当然，转了一圈，这钱又回来了……

但是中国如果拿了美元不买美国国债，去买日元，买日本国债呢？日本人为了防止日元升值太多，就只能不断的卖出日元，买入美元，而买入了美元还是最后要买回美国国债，不同的是，日本就被迫向国际市场投入大量的日元，这个是日本政府很不愿意看到的，所以，大家要把日本高度关注中国购买日本国债和钓鱼岛争端一起看，人家不愿意你这里占他的便宜，就捏捏你的痛脚，让你难受……

官方说保钓的背后有境外势力插手，说不定还就是日本人自导自演的的呢，用日元雇几个演员，挑逗起一群低智商愤愤，唱一出轰轰烈烈的戏，难受的还是台上的TG。

人民币升值这个胡萝卜，会把世界上其他地方的游资吸引到中国去，等于说，赶快去买人民币投资中国，升值了再换回美元，那就赚了……等大家都去了，估计，还是维持上面的循环吧，唯一的不同是，世界各地的美元游资都通过中国回流美国之后，那些拿着美元欠条的人，被讨债的时候，估计会死的很难看。

让我们看一下他们的反思：

Democracy Still Matters

By ROGER COHEN

Published: September 20, 2010

LONDON — One mystery of the first decade of the 21st century is the decline of democracy. It’s not that nations with democratic systems have dwindled in number but that democracy has lost its luster. It’s an idea without a glow. And that’s worrying.

I said “mystery.” Those who saw something of the blood expended through the 20th century to secure liberal societies must inevitably find democracy’s diminished appeal puzzling. But there are reasons.

The lingering wars waged partly in democracy’s name in Iraq and Afghanistan hurt its reputation, however moving images of inky-fingered voters gripped by the revolutionary notion that they could decide who governs them. Given the bloody mayhem, it was easy to portray “democracy” as a fig leaf for the West’s bellicose designs and casual hypocrisies.

While the democratic West fought, a nondemocratic China grew. It emerged onto the world stage prizing stability, avoiding military adventure and delivering 10 percent annual growth of which Western democracies could only dream.

China’s “surge” was domestic. It was unencumbered by the paralyzing debate of democratic process. When the West’s financial system imploded in 2008, the Chinese response was vigorous. A “Beijing consensus” gained traction.

The borderline between democracy and authoritarianism grew more opaque. The dichotomy between freedom and tyranny suddenly seemed oh-so 20th century. The new authoritarianism of China or Russia was harder to define and therefore harder to confront.

“Regimes like the one in Russia are stabilized by the fact that they have no ideology,” said Ivan Krastev, a fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna. “There is really no ideological means to attack them.”

They also derive resilience from the fact that their borders are open. “The middle class is not interested in changing the system because if they don’t like it they can fly to London,” Krastev noted.

Having grown up in Communist Bulgaria, he believes democracy was oversold in the 1990’s. All good things, at the Cold War’s end, were shoveled into the democratic basket: prosperity, growth, peace. When democracy stopped delivering in these areas, it suffered. Too little was said about democratic values, including freedom.

Meanwhile technology kicked in with what the author Jonathan Franzen has called its “trillion little bits of distracting noise.” People, synched with themselves, retreated into private networks and away from the public space — the commons — where democratic politics had been played out.

Democracies seemed blocked, as in Belgium, or corrupted, as in Israel, or parodies, as in Italy, or paralyzed, as in the Netherlands.

There were exceptions, particularly the heady mass movement that brought Barack Obama to power in 2008. But Obama soon found himself caught in the gridlock of the very partisan shrieking he had vowed to overcome. Less than halfway through his presidency the prospect of legislative paralysis looked overwhelming. The world’s most powerful democracy, its promise so recently renewed, seemed mired once more in its frustrations and divisions.

So what? So what if money trumped democracy and stability trumped open societies for hundreds of millions of people? So what if the rule of law or individual freedom was compromised, the press muzzled, and media-controlling presidents thought they could use “democracy” to rule for life with occasional four-year breaks.

So what if people no longer thought their vote would change anything because politics was for sale? Perhaps liberal democracy, along with its Western cradle, had passed its zenith.

Wrong. It’s important to stanch the anti-democratic tide. Thugs and oppression ride on it.

If anyone needs reminding of that, read the remarkable Tony Judt, the historian who brought the same unstinting lucidity to his death last month from Lou Gehrig’s Disease as he did to the sweep of 20th-century European history.Judt was a British intellectual transposed to New York whose rigorous spirit of inquiry epitomized Anglo-American liberal civilization. Nobody knew better the repressive systems that create captive minds. Nobody wrote more persuasively about the struggle against them for pluralism, liberty and justice.

Judt died as I moved the other way, from New York to London. It’s a move across a continuum of language — even if I can’t get used to “letter box” or “white” coffee — but also, still, across the continuum of Anglo-American civilization, the civilization of Locke and Adam Smith and Isaiah Berlin, however marginalized those dead white men may appear in the dawning Asian century.

So I’m grateful to Timothy Garton Ash, in his tribute to Judt in The New York Review of Books, for finding in the words of a 17th-century Englishman, Colonel Thomas Rainsborough, a quintessential expression of the democratic idea:

“For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he: and therefore truly, sir, I think it’s clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government.”

From that utterance in 1647 to Lincoln at Gettysburg in 1863 — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth” — is a natural progression. And democracy is still an idea worth the fight.

外链出处

简译：21世纪最初十年的一个难解之谜在于民主的衰退，这不是指民主国家数目的减少，而是说“民主”丧失了光环，这令人担忧。

经历过上世纪为民主流血斗争的人可能不可避免地感到不解，但事出有因。

以民主之名发起的对伊拉克和阿富汗的战争伤害了民主的信誉。血淋淋的伤亡令“民主”更像是穷兵黩武虚伪冷漠的西方的遮羞布。

与此同时，一个不民主的中国在成长，并出现在国际舞台，其对内保持稳定，对外避免军事冒险，且保持了10%的年度增长率----这些是西方民主国家不可想象的成就。

中国不曾被令决策体制瘫痪的民主程序所妨碍。当西方的金融体系在2008年崩溃时，北京的一致意见令中国的回应直接而有力。

民主和威权之间的界限变得越来越模糊。自由和专政的两分法突然显得如此陈旧。中国和俄国的新威权体系是更难以定义，所以也更难以面对。

维也纳人文科学院的Ivan Krastev表示，俄国这样的政体因为其缺少意识形态而稳固，因为亦无意识形态可用作武器来攻击他们。这样的政体也因为开放而获得了弹性。“中产阶级不再关心对体系进行变革，因为如果他们不喜欢它，他们可以直接飞往伦敦。”

在共产主义时代的保加利亚长大，他认为在上世纪90年代民主被过分吹嘘。在冷战结束时，所有的好事：繁荣、发展、和平等都被归因于民主。当民主不能实现这些美好时，民主的信誉受损。至于民主本身的价值，包括自由，却极少有人谈起。

同时，随着技术带来的“无数小干扰音”，人们开始遁入私人人际网络，远离民主政治开展的公共空间。

民主，或如比利时固步自封，或如以色列腐败颓坏，或如意大利拙劣荒谬，或如荷兰陷入瘫痪。

当然存在例外， 2008年将奥巴马送入白宫的群众运动真是令人陶醉。但是很快奥巴马就发现他卡在其发誓要克服的党派政治中动弹不得：立法程序几乎陷入瘫痪。这世界上最强大的民主国家，在挫败和分歧中泥足深陷。

但那又如何？如果民主臣服于金钱，开明臣服于稳定，会怎么样？如果法治或个体自由被妥协，出版被钳制，控制媒体的总统们认为他们可以利用“民主”来终身统治，将会怎么样？

如果因为金元政治，人民不再相信他们的投票能够对任何事情进行变革，会怎么样？也许自由民主，和它所发源的西方一样，已经渡过了其顶点。

不。需停止这一反民主的浪潮。让我们重温英国历史学家Tony Judt，没有人比他更好地理解压迫导致奴役。亦可重温林肯于1863年的演讲：“that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”。民主本身仍旧是一个值得为之奋斗的理念。

• 【牢骚】无聊的时代与没力的外交
• 纽约时报评论间接肯定了2008中国财政货币政策