Great Crash? (中国经济大崩溃?)

Brian Klein tells us a “Great Crash” is approaching China. He differs sharply from both George Soros and  Niall Ferguson, who regard US be markedly weakened and China steadily strengthened by the current financial crisis. Brian Klein reminds us that China has a much bigger reliance on foreign markets than what is normally reported, and the shrinking governmental construction in the post-Olympic era will limit the domestic consumption volume to fill the vacuum left by the foreign export markets. Consequently, the financial crisis–causing the foreign markets shrink and the domestic investments drop–will drag Chinese economy down to a deep pit.

Is There a Great Crash Approaching China? Or shall we ask, without the US export market will China survive the financial crisis?

My intuition is China will survive. No matter how the financial crisis is going to be handled, foreign financial institutions will need a place for profit-making investments. Given the record of their investments in the past, it is hard for them to find a better place. Indeed, if there be a single place in the middle of this unprecedented financial turmoil  that investors still have confidence to pour their money in, it would be China.These investments will fill in the vacuum left by the Olympic construction budget. As for the foreign export markets, India, Europe, Africa and Latin America will likely have a big increase to make up the shrinking US market. China will survive simply because of its productivity and expanding export markets outside of the US one.

A warning of “Great Crash” of economy will not stop the future investors–most of whom are desperate now, but will soon start to consider their next step–from moving to their last resort. Their haunting fear rather lies in the political instability–a political “Great Crash.”  Collectively, these investors need to make sure there is no such “Great Crash”, and in the coming years they will have to invest much more on China’s better governance.

Related posts: Chimerica时代的终结?

南开食品专业生大学生谈如何自助避险(食品安全风险)

转自南开bbs

发信人: tjvegita (天骄一帝王贝), 信区: Lecture
标 题: Re: 提个建议
发信站: 我爱南开站(2008年09月17日14:34:30 星期三), 站内信件

作为一个食品专业的本科生我对我们专业是彻底失望了

想当初系主任展望我们专业的美好前景的时候曾说“中国的食品行业还是有很大发
展空间的” 现在终于知道什么是“发展空间”了套用师兄的话“中国的很多东西还真
不是做给人吃的

从“阜阳大头娃娃”到现在的“三鹿事件”,从苏丹红到肝炎病毒矿泉水。我们的食品
安全课从来不缺素材。几乎每一天上课的时候老师都在爆料,有些是大家都知道的,有
些是我们专业的黑幕。

当大家还考虑是买脑白金还是纽崔莱的时候,你是否想过你今天的午饭可能就是你若干
年后,各种各样怪病的罪魁祸首。

中国现在的食品行业根本就不是什么营养健康的问题,是安全卫生的问题。

所以我现在特别想把我们上课说的那些食品问题贴出来 Continue reading

吴革:河北禁律师协助索赔涉违宪

河北禁律师协助索赔涉违宪

【<大公报>记者杨清林北京二十二日电】

近日有律师界人士透露,河北省政府部门在三鹿毒奶事件遭公开揭露的早前
曾与律师界人士开会,要求律师不要受理三鹿奶粉事件受害者诉讼,“保持距
离”,导致河北省律师回避和拒绝受害者索赔的委托。中国全国律师协会宪法与
人权专业委员会主任吴革抨击当地政府如此行为违反了宪法精神,违反了《律师
法》,更是侵害了公民的基本权利。
Sanlu
吴革说,宪法规定,公民依法享有辩护权,他们有获得法律帮助的权利,河
北禁止律师为三鹿奶粉受害者诉讼的行为,不合乎宪法的精神,违反了宪法。

吴革指出,此举同时也违反了《律师法》,干扰了律师的正常执业。“律师
法明确规定了律师接受公民委托,代理诉讼的业务范围,他们不仅可以接受受害
人的委托,甚至死刑犯也可以委托律师为其辩护。” Continue reading

成冬:新木兰辞

新木兰辞

成冬

吧唧复吧唧,小囝抱瓶吸。不闻啼哭声,唯闻母叹息。问母何所思,问母何所忆? 母亦无所思,母亦无所忆。昨夜看银屏,奶品大排名:毒奶十亿袋,袋袋有聚氰!夫妻三旬过,独子巧乖灵,突然急病患,疑似结石生!

东市听凶险,西市把夫搬,南市良医寻,北市去借钱。连夜排长队,冻饿道路边。不闻稚儿欢笑声,但闻同病群体哭一片。煌煌医院大,累累众人头,不闻稚儿欢笑声,满目童叟医护把心揪。万里查祸首,毒情报若飞。怒气传网络,寒光照血衣。宁我百次死,换儿健康归……

归来见黄榜,黄榜有名堂。免检七八载,粉饰百千强。专家答所欲,民众不用太惊慌;日饮乳品三升半,营养又健康。

爷娘闻奶来,变色扶门框;阿姊闻奶来,浇花阳台窗;小弟闻奶来,磨刀霍霍向奸商。环球清“国祸”,“世卫”叹炎凉,“友好”不给脸,“金牌”算泡汤。李局辞官准,田董坐班房,网上众马甲,马甲亦惊忙:特供数十年,难保三聚氰胺也入肠?

国检勤谄媚,CC更痴迷,科技银奖授,更多黑幕待揭皮!

Sanlu Milk Powder:a consipiracy

方舟子: 我也认为三鹿低端婴儿配方奶粉中的三聚氰胺很可能是在生产过程中掺入的,但是我这么猜测,并不是因为我认为其三聚氰胺含量高得离谱,而是因为其三聚氰胺的含量分布严重不均:高含量只出现在三鹿低端婴儿配方奶粉中,而三鹿其他系列的婴儿配方奶粉中的三聚氰胺含量要低得多。如果是原料奶的问题,似乎不可能出现这样的两极分布。而由于低端奶粉和高端奶粉的工艺、配料不同,三聚氰胺若是在生产过程中掺入的,出现悬殊的三聚氰胺含量就比较合理了。当然,不一定是厂家有意添加(三鹿是免检产品,似乎没有必要为了骗过抽检而添加无营养价值的三聚氰胺),而可能是因为低端奶粉为了降低成本,一部分奶粉用大豆蛋白粉取代(免得婴儿摄入的蛋白质含量过低而出现“大头娃娃”),而购买来的大豆蛋白粉被销售商掺入了三聚氰胺。
 http://www.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhou…

又给索罗斯不幸言中

索罗斯预见了这场金融危机,并且靠着这个赚了29亿美元。

soros

In 2007, after the subprime crisis erupted, he returned, at the age of seventy-seven, to directing Quantum’s investments, with results suggesting he hadn’t lost his touch. Alpha magazine, a glossy publication that covers hedge funds, estimates that he made $2.9 billion in 2007, placing him second on its list of mega-speculators, behind only John Paulson, of Paulson & Co., who raked in an even more astonishing $3.7 billion.

参见《纽约书评》文章《他预见了一个时代的结束》(He Foresaw the End of an Era)

行动还是干等?——美国金融危机现状观察

一个和尚从另外两个和尚那里抢水,一口气喝光,然后便有耐心地盘腿坐下,等这两个和尚下山去打水;两个刚遭了抢的,当然不愿意傻乎乎打了水再倒一次霉,于是也盘腿坐下;于是大家一起铁了心干等。这就是目前美国有关各方面对金融危机的态度。

3 monks

显而易见,损失已经产生,保尔森提交国会的法案是解决谁来承担多少损失的方案。金融界不断呼吁、报纸上连篇累牍的“如果不行动损失会更大”云云,其实是要求美国政府代表全体纳税人来承担金融界造成的损失。国会议员的反对派票则是常识性反应:纳税人当然会损失,但金融界为什么不能自己内部解决呢?

哈佛知名破产法教授Elizabeth Warren给出了更加清晰的质疑。她认为金融危机不是仅仅因为金融市场环境的一时恶化而已,而肇始于政府疏于管制房屋贷款市场–金融业毫无节制的贪婪利用了该市场基本规则的缺位推出高风险次贷产品,并将风险转嫁给普通人。如果这是实情,现在纳税人出7000亿美元帮金融机构渡过危机对问题解决来说就是杯水车薪,因为从次贷开始暴露的劣质金融资产可能多达数万亿美元;甚至是南辕北辙,因为现在把有限的资源拿来给几家金融机构,只会浪费了本可以投入解决实质问题的有限资源。

Warren教授的分析为不少法学家赞同,但她对国会方案的彻底反对意见却不为旁人欢迎。例如在今天晚上法学院举办的研讨中,除Warren之外,其他三位大牌教授——证券法教授Howell Jackon、 证券法教授Hal Scott和公司法教授Lucian Bebchuk——都同意国会的方案,当然各有保留意见。讨论过程中,Bebchuk对方案的经济分析一语道出国会方案背后的算计:7000亿美元方案之所以能对解决多达数万亿美元的问题资产奏效,是因为这些问题资产的损失有两方承担,即银行和贷款人;7000亿只须帮助银行一方,贷款人一方将会加倍工作承担其余的损失。这个经济分析倒是更增加了Warren意见的分量。

(研讨会见:The Financial Crisis: Causes and Cures

普通纳税人就是遭算计的贷款人,他们当然不愿意看着银行被政府注资安然无恙,而自己却得加倍工作、横遭白眼还可能随时破产。与其如此,不如现在逼着这些银行吐出过去赚得钱来共同渡过难关。纳税人能有的手段,就是投票反对那些支持法案的国会议员;议员众目睽睽之下自然不敢鲁莽,于是只好投票反对法案。于是形成现在“干等”的局面。究竟谁可以打破僵局?变数很多,还不好判断。

延伸阅读:

“And now we face the Mother of All Bailouts—a government purchase of dangerous financial instruments based on subprime mortgages, taking speculators off the hook and leaving taxpayers with the bill. Once
again, the story is that we must do this because otherwise the worldwide financial system will crumble. And once again, the blame falls on subprime lending and the culture of deregulation that fostered it.

Lost in the headlines are the families who signed their names to subprime mortgages, not knowing or caring that the pieces of paper they signed would become one of the cards in the house of cards that now threatens the U.S. economy. No less visible are the people who have lost jobs as the economy reverses, the students who can’t pay for college without taking on ruinous loans and the millions of families who turned to credit cards and payday loans as they have been caught in the squeeze between declining wages and skyrocketing costs. They are casualties of a financial system that saw them not as customers, but as prey.”

– Elizabeth Warren in an op-ed entitled, “Who will bail out American Families?” published in the Chicago Tribune on September 22, 2008.