美国醒来是恶梦
鲁鸣
今天,是美国历史上永远不会被忘记的一天。
美国人今天早晨醒来,发现他们又面临着一场恶梦:两家赫赫有名的投资公司没了!
Lehman Brothers破产,最大的投资证券公司Merrill Lynch 由于难以生存而被迫卖
给Bank of America 。全球金融界为此再次收到震荡。
这是美国次贷款信用危机的又一波旋涡。美国政府因为刚收购两家最大的房贷公司
而无能为力,其他大银行想吃便宜肉却因自身欠一屁股债,眼睁睁地看着Lehman Brothers破
产。国际货币基金会指出,美国信贷总损失高达10000亿美元,目前银行界只报损了
3500亿美元。美国现已有11家银行倒闭。分析家认为,不少投资银行将很快倒闭。
分析家预测,估计110家普通银行很可能将在明年7月前倒闭。
美国这么会如此糟糕?美国普通老百姓恐怕还没意识到这场恶梦远还没有尽头。美
国今年联邦政府赤字已达3710亿美元!很多美国老百姓还津津有味地被阿拉斯加女州
长作为副总统候选人而欢呼,忘乎所以。凭她的政绩品性,以我的直觉和判断,如果
麦凯恩(即不懂经济又没有才气)和她当选,美国人的苦难还在后头呢。奥巴马虽然政
绩也浅,但是极有才气。然而,现在他的当选已成悬念。
人们承认,美国这场恶梦说来说去是一个字:贪。起源于次贷款。
人捉弄钱,钱又捉弄人。中国三鹿奶粉事件,不也是如此吗。但愿中国能从美国恶
梦中吸取教训。
(2008/9/15/纽约)
- Re: 鲁鸣: 美国醒来是恶梦posted on 09/15/2008
It is very funny. They are totally different issues.
"人捉弄钱,钱又捉弄人。中国三鹿奶粉事件,不也是如此吗。但愿中国能从美国恶
梦中吸取教训。" - Re: 鲁鸣: 美国醒来是恶梦posted on 09/15/2008
因为鲁鸣就是一个很funny的人,只是别人一般不那么看他。 - posted on 09/16/2008
很多美国老百姓还津津有味地被阿拉斯加女州
长作为副总统候选人而欢呼,忘乎所以。凭她的政绩品性,以我的直觉和判断,如果
麦凯恩(即不懂经济又没有才气)和她当选,美国人的苦难还在后头呢。
The whole thing started when the regulators, at the rgiht wing ideologues' relentless pressure to "de-regulate," abandoned their fiduciary watch-dog responsibility. On cue the money hungry Wall Street charlatans cooked up these so called "mortgage backed securities," enabling all the bankers making enormous profits by lending money to the people who can't even pay their credit card debts. No background check, no salary confirmation, the bankers even encouraged the applicants to lie in their loan applications. This is the classic Ponzi scheme, which was supposedly banned by the government. Since Reagan and then throughout the Bush years the regulations have been watered down so much that the Wall Street can repackage it with fancy names in broad daylight. Well, the roosters finally came home. Only the suckers who still clamor the robber baron age of laissez faire capitalism are ready to vote for the Republicans again but the rest of us have to foot the bill.
- posted on 09/16/2008
美国是三权分立吧?
政府只是执行机构,总统就是一个CEO
议会才是董事会
最高法院则是终极仲裁(宪法),平时作用有限。
把经济好坏归功于总统或某个政党是个值得商榷的问题。
我们不妨扪心自问,柯林顿时期的经济发展是他个人的功劳?还是全球经济兴旺所造成的?
目前美国经济不景气,是布什一人之过,还是共和党难辞其就,参议院/众议院的民主党就没责任吗?奥巴马这几年的参议员的作为又是什么?
过去一百年美国从列强中的小兄弟成长成为两个超级大国之一进而成为单极强权,是国家制度使然,还是某个政党作出了巨大贡献?
如果鲁鸣或哪位朋友感兴趣不妨把美国建国以来经济发展曲线和政党轮换时间绘个直观图表,而且还要考虑政策调整和经济发展之间的滞后关系(两年,四年,六年,八年,十年)。
如果我说四年后美国不管谁当总统经济都会不错,你以为如何呢?
个人作用有限,国家制度是根本,鲁鸣之流如果连这点都搞不懂,再写文章不妨就事论事,不要引深扩大。
选举是选人,选党,选长远政策,如果都不可心,也要两害相较取其轻,再不济也要扔个硬币选个正反面,参与而非评论是公民权利和义务! - posted on 09/17/2008
Let's see, where shall we start?
First of all, you don't think critisizing government and politicians is one of the responsibilities of being a citizen? On the contrary, I think that's the first step of participating in a democracy. The idea of participation includes community services, community organazing, getting involved in the political process itself, voting, and running political offices, to name just a few. But all of it starts from being critical of the current batch of politicians and the policies they are trying to push through. As a matter of fact, a critical free press serves as one of the guarantors that our rights as citizens are not arbitrary taken away. Prime example, although not for lack of trying on the part of Bush and his minions and yet the right of Habeas Corpus survived the frontal assault from the right wing warmongers, but only after the uproar in the press did it persuade justice Kennedy to cast the deciding vote in the Supreme Court.
It's the fundamental responsibility of a citizenry to be critical of their own government, or otherwise a so called democracy can quickly degenerate into a despotic regime in a blink of an eye. Remember democracy is not just a piece of paper or a president plus a parliament. Without the institutions of a civil society building democracy is just an empty slogan, which has been amply demonstrated in Iraq.
You are probably a little unfamiliar with the details of how democracy functions in the US. It's true that the congress wields substantial power, chiefly controlling the purse string. However, the founding fathers made the presidency much more powerful than in all the other democratic countries in the world. Through the cabinet officers and other department heads the president sets policies of the country encompassing all aspects of governmental functions. Defense, monetary, environmental, all critical policies that can influence our lives in generations to come eminate from the White House. When the same party controls both the presidency and the congress, as in Bush's first six years, the congress served nothing more as a rubber stamping puppet.
You asked during these eight years where are the Democrats. Fair question. Many Democrats lack a spine, especially in the Senate, even as a minority, a parliamentary tactic called filibuster is at their disposal. But for afraid of being accused unpatriotic, they never grew the balls to use it. (In the House it's different, for minority members can only sulk in their frustration for not being able to stop the majority in all cases.) No doubt some of them can be charged with dereliction of duty. But it's different than actively trying to subvert our constitution, as the Bushies did, and I am afraid McCain and Palin are set out to finish the job if they grab the presidency.
Let's get back to the current mess in the financial market: FEC is an agency in charge of regulating all sorts of financial transactions, including the mortgage secter. Over the years Bush has stuffed the agency with ideologues who don't believe in regulations of any kind. So when Wall Street invented this fantastic get-rich Ponzi scheme of "mortgage backed security," there is nobody left in there to watch for the crooks, whcih was their charter responsibility. And we are only seeing the tip of iceberg in this disarster. Who do you think we should blame if not squarely on Bush himself? The buck has to stop somewhere don't you think?
Finally I don't know from where you read from 鲁鸣's article that he is criticzing America's political system itself. Again being critical towards politicians and their policies is an obligation of being a good citizen.
随便说说 wrote:
美国是三权分立吧?
政府只是执行机构,总统就是一个CEO
议会才是董事会
最高法院则是终极仲裁(宪法),平时作用有限。
把经济好坏归功于总统或某个政党是个值得商榷的问题。
我们不妨扪心自问,柯林顿时期的经济发展是他个人的功劳?还是全球经济兴旺所造成的?
目前美国经济不景气,是布什一人之过,还是共和党难辞其就,参议院/众议院的民主党就没责任吗?奥巴马这几年的参议员的作为又是什么?
过去一百年美国从列强中的小兄弟成长成为两个超级大国之一进而成为单极强权,是国家制度使然,还是某个政党作出了巨大贡献?
如果鲁鸣或哪位朋友感兴趣不妨把美国建国以来经济发展曲线和政党轮换时间绘个直观图表,而且还要考虑政策调整和经济发展之间的滞后关系(两年,四年,六年,八年,十年)。
如果我说四年后美国不管谁当总统经济都会不错,你以为如何呢?
个人作用有限,国家制度是根本,鲁鸣之流如果连这点都搞不懂,再写文章不妨就事论事,不要引深扩大。
选举是选人,选党,选长远政策,如果都不可心,也要两害相较取其轻,再不济也要扔个硬币选个正反面,参与而非评论是公民权利和义务! - posted on 09/17/2008
说多了就会跑题。我把自己的贴子再精简些。
1。经济好坏不能归功或归罪于某个总统或某个政党,柯林顿时期的经济发展前总统柯林顿的作用有限。布什这八年经济下滑,全球性因素远大于美国因素和总统个人因素。控制中东和能源符合美国的长远利益,不管哪个党执政这个长期政策不会变。
2。把第一点引深一下:四年后(2012年)美国不管谁当总统经济(2013-2016)都会不错!下面的四年(2009-2012)只是过渡期(下滑转平稳然后小幅度上升)。就算美国没总统也会这样,因为美国体制的日常运行是公务员,不是政务员(总统及其内阁)。
3。选举是选人,选党,选长远政策,如果都不可心,也要两害相较取其轻,再不济也要扔个硬币选个正反面,参与而非评论是公民权利和义务。评论如果能解决问题不妨大肆评论,但要言之有物。而参与则是:如果你支持奥巴马的民主党则不妨多游说几个人投奥巴马的票。做为民主党的一员,我投过布什两次反对票,但这次我会投麦肯。做为民主党的一员而投共和党的总统候选人,我应该不是唯一的一个,是民主党自己不争气造成的,让不争气的民主党上台难道是人民之福?! - posted on 09/17/2008
随便说说 wrote:
说多了就会跑题。我把自己的贴子再精简些。
1。经济好坏不能归功或归罪于某个总统或某个政党,柯林顿时期的经济发展前总统柯林顿的作用有限。布什这八年经济下滑,全球性因素远大于美国因素和总统个人因素。控制中东和能源符合美国的长远利益,不管哪个党执政这个长期政策不会变。
If you mean the economic problems stem from the high oil price, then there is less direct control in terms of policy change. But here is what leadership is: long term energy diversify strategy of relying more on alternative energy sources, and of course Bush dropped the ball.
Other than that, this financial market crisis is squarely Bush and his right wing ideologues' doing. And it has spread and become a wolrdwide crisis. Mark my world, this is only the begining. We have a rough ride ahead of us.
2。把第一点引深一下:四年后(2012年)美国不管谁当总统经济(2013-2016)都会不错!下面的四年(2009-2012)只是过渡期(下滑转平稳然后小幅度上升)。就算美国没总统也会这样,因为美国体制的日常运行是公务员,不是政务员(总统及其内阁)。
Care to elaborate, who are these "公务员", and what do they do? I thought the number one benefit of our system of government is to eliminate the unaccounted nameless bureaucrats making decisions of importance for us. You know something the rest of us don't know?
3。选举是选人,选党,选长远政策,如果都不可心,也要两害相较取其轻,再不济也要扔个硬币选个正反面,参与而非评论是公民权利和义务。评论如果能解决问题不妨大肆评论,但要言之有物。而参与则是:如果你支持奥巴马的民主党则不妨多游说几个人投奥巴马的票。做为民主党的一员,我投过布什两次反对票,但这次我会投麦肯。做为民主党的一员而投共和党的总统候选人,我应该不是唯一的一个,是民主党自己不争气造成的,让不争气的民主党上台难道是人民之福?!
Re-state your opinions again and again is good for politicians to stay on message, but very lame for debate. Maybe you are just talking to yourself. In that case, I will just drop out.
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation