香港新浪網 MySinaBlog
燦榮 | 25th Nov 2010 | 通識--中國 | (22 Reads)
“我认为,最有投资价值的仍是黄金、白银等金属货币,尤其是价格被严重低估的白银。”近日,《货币战争》的作者宋鸿兵参加工商银行私人银行部成都分部举办的“货币战争,风生水起——国际经济形势分析暨投资策略报告会”时做出上述发言。他认为,白银未来将上涨4倍。

  去年4月,宋鸿兵曾到过成都。作为成都人,他号召四川老乡“抛美元而白银”,一年多过去了,国际白银价格由14.06美元/盎司上涨至25美元/盎司左右。现在投资还来得及吗?

  昨日,宋鸿兵还是一贯坚持了对白银的看好:“同为金属货币,黄金一度突破1400美元/盎司,白银才25美元/盎司,价格被严重低估。”

  他 表示,白银之所以被低估,是在近20年来,其工业用途远远大于金融属性。宋鸿兵指出,在1949—1976年,世界白银储备是黄金的10倍,但现在黄金是 白银的5倍,因为白银广泛用于太阳能、电池等新材料领域,而黄金因为价格高昂,工业用途并不多,这就是说,白银比黄金更加稀缺。他认为,白银未来有望上涨 4倍达到100美元/盎司。

  为什么会对白银情有独钟?宋鸿兵的观点是,由于美元已经陷入危机。本月初,美联储启动第二轮量化宽松政策。

  宋鸿兵认为,美元危机根本问题在于负债率过高,负债增速远远超过了GDP增长的速度,美国终将被庞大的负债所压垮,因此量化宽松政策将以失败收场。

  此外,宋鸿兵认为,人民币升值意味着国内财富缩水。他指出,中国的人口红利将在2015年消失,2025年进入老龄化,因此中国如果不抓住机会,将成为“未富先老的国家”。

  对话宋鸿兵

  记者:美国启动第二轮量化宽松政策,引发了世界大宗商品的全线上涨,未来大宗商品走势与黄金、白银价格趋势会保持一致吗?

  宋鸿兵:随着美元货币发行量增大,大宗商品价格和黄金价格都会随之上涨,但我们现在还不知道美元什么时候会崩溃,到时大宗商品价格和黄金、白银可能会走向分叉的道路,因为货币出现问题的时候经济会衰退,这将导致对大宗商品的需求量减小。

  记者:为什么你一直强调买实物白银?

  宋鸿兵:白银T+D本质是期货交易,上个星期白银大幅度下调,很多人被打爆仓了,如果你有100万,买入实物黄金,不管发生什么事情它永远都在那儿,如果买 成T+D,对不起,下跌10%你就爆仓了,所有的钱都没了。虽然你赚钱可以赚10倍,但亏钱也是亏10倍,这不适用于普通老百姓。


燦榮 | 24th Nov 2010 | 通識--中國 | (8 Reads)

但为自由故

 

但为自由故 〇 自由是公民权利,自由是核心价值,自由是人类理想,也是最大的公平与正义。 自由了!成都农民和市民的迁徙,都自由了! 根据最新出台的一项政策,2012年年底前,成都将在全域范围内统一城乡户籍,实现迁徙自由。从此,农民可以自由进城,市民可以自由下乡。进城落户的农民,仍然可以保留他们在农村的承包地和宅基地,不必“以土地换身份”。不愿进城的,同样享受政府提供的社会保障和社会福利。至于是否进城落户,则完全依照农民的自由意愿。进,政府为你服务,给你保障;不进,政府也为你服务,给你保障。附加条件,一个没有,正所谓“有保障无条件”。 这实在是太棒了,难怪要被舆论称之为“伟大的进步”(傅蔚冈《尊重外来人口的城市化》, 2010年11月20日《南方都市报》)。 当然,质疑之声也不是没有。比方说,这样一来,会不会引发“进城潮”和“下乡潮”?农民大规模进城以后,粮价菜价会不会涨?没有了农民的农村,会不会成为开发商的“肥水”?农民享受跟市民一样的就业、社保、住房、教育、医疗等优惠政策,却多出一块承包地和宅基地来,对市民又是否公平? 的确,这些质疑,并非没有道理。不过我更担心的,是区县乡镇的干部,为了证明这项政策的“英明正确”,也为了自己的“政绩”,想方设法忽悠农民进城,人数越多越好。当然,“强迁”不大可能,“诱迁”就很难讲。比方说,挨家挨户做工作,讲进城落户如何如何合算,咋个咋个好。进城以后的问题和困难,则只字不提,反正那也不是他们的事。真要有了麻烦,头疼的是街道社区,是书记市长,还有进城的农民自己。 抱歉,这不是“杞人忧天”,而是“经验之谈”。中国的事,不好办。从古到今,一项改革,如果不由官方主导,就推不动。自上而下推进呢?又难免走样,甚至弄砸。想当年,王安石的“青苗法”,原本是要给农民排忧解难的。但让地方官一整,

保留承包地和宅基地。虽然,这看起来似乎对市民“不太公平”。但问题是,你让农民带着后顾之忧,赤手空拳跟市民竞争,就公平吗?必须签下那屈辱的“城下之盟”,谈得上“人的尊严”吗?更重要的是,这样的迁徙,还是自由的吗? 事实上,自由,才是最大的公平,最大的正义。而且,只有当每个公民都享有充分的自由,包括择业的自由、迁徙的自由、创造的自由和言论的自由,我们才有可能讨论和争取公平与正义。唯其如此,马克思和恩格斯才会把“每个人的自由发展”,看作“一切人自由发展的条件”,看作共产主义的理想(《共产党宣言》)。自由二字,何其重要! 自由是公民权利,自由是核心价值,自由是人类理想。自由的旗帜一旦高高飘扬,我们就能够实现“社会进步、国家富强和个人幸福”的梦想。为了这一天,难道不该“胆子更大一些,步子更快一些”吗? 悠悠天下心,迢迢改革路。 但为自由故,请君迈大步。 刊载于2010年11月23日《新京报》A03版,责任编辑于平,发表时有删节,这里是完整版 自由是公民权利,自由是核心价值,自由是人类理想,也是最大的公平与正义。

但为自由故 〇 自由是公民权利,自由是核心价值,自由是人类理想,也是最大的公平与正义。 自由了!成都农民和市民的迁徙,都自由了! 根据最新出台的一项政策,2012年年底前,成都将在全域范围内统一城乡户籍,实现迁徙自由。从此,农民可以自由进城,市民可以自由下乡。进城落户的农民,仍然可以保留他们在农村的承包地和宅基地,不必“以土地换身份”。不愿进城的,同样享受政府提供的社会保障和社会福利。至于是否进城落户,则完全依照农民的自由意愿。进,政府为你服务,给你保障;不进,政府也为你服务,给你保障。附加条件,一个没有,正所谓“有保障无条件”。 这实在是太棒了,难怪要被舆论称之为“伟大的进步”(傅蔚冈《尊重外来人口的城市化》, 2010年11月20日《南方都市报》)。 当然,质疑之声也不是没有。比方说,这样一来,会不会引发“进城潮”和“下乡潮”?农民大规模进城以后,粮价菜价会不会涨?没有了农民的农村,会不会成为开发商的“肥水”?农民享受跟市民一样的就业、社保、住房、教育、医疗等优惠政策,却多出一块承包地和宅基地来,对市民又是否公平? 的确,这些质疑,并非没有道理。不过我更担心的,是区县乡镇的干部,为了证明这项政策的“英明正确”,也为了自己的“政绩”,想方设法忽悠农民进城,人数越多越好。当然,“强迁”不大可能,“诱迁”就很难讲。比方说,挨家挨户做工作,讲进城落户如何如何合算,咋个咋个好。进城以后的问题和困难,则只字不提,反正那也不是他们的事。真要有了麻烦,头疼的是街道社区,是书记市长,还有进城的农民自己。 抱歉,这不是“杞人忧天”,而是“经验之谈”。中国的事,不好办。从古到今,一项改革,如果不由官方主导,就推不动。自上而下推进呢?又难免走样,甚至弄砸。想当年,王安石的“青苗法”,原本是要给农民排忧解难的。但让地方官一整, 

自由了!成都农民和市民的迁徙,都自由了!

保留承包地和宅基地。虽然,这看起来似乎对市民“不太公平”。但问题是,你让农民带着后顾之忧,赤手空拳跟市民竞争,就公平吗?必须签下那屈辱的“城下之盟”,谈得上“人的尊严”吗?更重要的是,这样的迁徙,还是自由的吗? 事实上,自由,才是最大的公平,最大的正义。而且,只有当每个公民都享有充分的自由,包括择业的自由、迁徙的自由、创造的自由和言论的自由,我们才有可能讨论和争取公平与正义。唯其如此,马克思和恩格斯才会把“每个人的自由发展”,看作“一切人自由发展的条件”,看作共产主义的理想(《共产党宣言》)。自由二字,何其重要! 自由是公民权利,自由是核心价值,自由是人类理想。自由的旗帜一旦高高飘扬,我们就能够实现“社会进步、国家富强和个人幸福”的梦想。为了这一天,难道不该“胆子更大一些,步子更快一些”吗? 悠悠天下心,迢迢改革路。 但为自由故,请君迈大步。 刊载于2010年11月23日《新京报》A03版,责任编辑于平,发表时有删节,这里是完整版

根据最新出台的一项政策,2012年年底前,成都将在全域范围内统一城乡户籍,实现迁徙自由。从此,农民可以自由进城,市民可以自由下乡。进城落户的农民,仍然可以保留他们在农村的承包地和宅基地,不必“以土地换身份”。不愿进城的,同样享受政府提供的社会保障和社会福利。至于是否进城落户,则完全依照农民的自由意愿。进,政府为你服务,给你保障;不进,政府也为你服务,给你保障。附加条件,一个没有,正所谓“有保障无条件”。

这实在是太棒了,难怪要被舆论称之为“伟大的进步”(傅蔚冈《尊重外来人口的城市化》, 却成了“飞来横祸”。为什么?因为给全国各地都派了任务,下了指标。结果,自由自愿,变成“奉命奉旨”,当然南辕北辙,事与愿违。 因此,我要给成都当局提个醒:城乡居民自由迁徙这事,千万别下指标,也别考核,甚至不要公布人数。实际上,户改的目的,本来就不是要把农民都弄进城,市民都赶下乡。这样毫无意义的来回折腾,显然不是改革者的初衷,也不是他们所要的结果。 那么,这项改革,又意义何在?直接的意义,是把一个原本属于公民的权利,归还给公民。这个权利,就是“迁徙的自由”。至于归还之后怎么用,是公民自己的事。他可以行使(进城或下乡),也可以放弃(不进城或不下乡),还可以这会儿放弃,下一回再行使。弃权,也是权利的行使么!但不管公民怎么做,都跟政府不再相干。政府只要兑现承诺,当真“有保障无条件”,就是尽了自己的本分,做了该做的事情。 所以,新政策出台后,哪怕最后没有一个农民进城,也没有一个市民下乡,这项改革也是成功的,也是“伟大的进步”。因为它体现了执政者对宪法、人权、公民权利和个体人格的尊重。尽管这种尊重,不过表现为“你爱住哪就住哪”(包括爱进城就进城、爱下乡就下乡、不想迁徙就不动)。但背后体现出来的精神,却是自由。 自由,是辛亥革命一百年来中国社会进步的主旋律。比方说,五四运动以后,我们告别“包办婚姻”,实现了“择偶的自由”;改革开放以后,我们又告别“统一分配”,实现了“择业的自由”。择偶和择业都自由,“择居的自由”就必然会提到议事日程。这是迟早都要做的事情,成都不过先行一步。但,莫道君行早,也别“风景这边独好”。其他地方,也会见贤思齐。事实上,实现择居自由,兑现公民权利,解放的决不仅仅是农民,还将是整个社会的生产力、创造力和软实力。谓予不信,请拭目以待! 权利的归还必须彻底。当断不断,反受其乱。因此,我赞同成都的做法:农民进城落户后,仍可20101120《南方都市报》)。

当然,质疑之声也不是没有。比方说,这样一来,会不会引发“进城潮”和“下乡潮”?农民大规模进城以后,粮价菜价会不会涨?没有了农民的农村,会不会成为开发商的“肥水”?农民享受跟市民一样的就业、社保、住房、教育、医疗等优惠政策,却多出一块承包地和宅基地来,对市民又是否公平?

却成了“飞来横祸”。为什么?因为给全国各地都派了任务,下了指标。结果,自由自愿,变成“奉命奉旨”,当然南辕北辙,事与愿违。 因此,我要给成都当局提个醒:城乡居民自由迁徙这事,千万别下指标,也别考核,甚至不要公布人数。实际上,户改的目的,本来就不是要把农民都弄进城,市民都赶下乡。这样毫无意义的来回折腾,显然不是改革者的初衷,也不是他们所要的结果。 那么,这项改革,又意义何在?直接的意义,是把一个原本属于公民的权利,归还给公民。这个权利,就是“迁徙的自由”。至于归还之后怎么用,是公民自己的事。他可以行使(进城或下乡),也可以放弃(不进城或不下乡),还可以这会儿放弃,下一回再行使。弃权,也是权利的行使么!但不管公民怎么做,都跟政府不再相干。政府只要兑现承诺,当真“有保障无条件”,就是尽了自己的本分,做了该做的事情。 所以,新政策出台后,哪怕最后没有一个农民进城,也没有一个市民下乡,这项改革也是成功的,也是“伟大的进步”。因为它体现了执政者对宪法、人权、公民权利和个体人格的尊重。尽管这种尊重,不过表现为“你爱住哪就住哪”(包括爱进城就进城、爱下乡就下乡、不想迁徙就不动)。但背后体现出来的精神,却是自由。 自由,是辛亥革命一百年来中国社会进步的主旋律。比方说,五四运动以后,我们告别“包办婚姻”,实现了“择偶的自由”;改革开放以后,我们又告别“统一分配”,实现了“择业的自由”。择偶和择业都自由,“择居的自由”就必然会提到议事日程。这是迟早都要做的事情,成都不过先行一步。但,莫道君行早,也别“风景这边独好”。其他地方,也会见贤思齐。事实上,实现择居自由,兑现公民权利,解放的决不仅仅是农民,还将是整个社会的生产力、创造力和软实力。谓予不信,请拭目以待! 权利的归还必须彻底。当断不断,反受其乱。因此,我赞同成都的做法:农民进城落户后,仍可

的确,这些质疑,并非没有道理。不过我更担心的,是区县乡镇的干部,为了证明这项政策的“英明正确”,也为了自己的“政绩”,想方设法忽悠农民进城,人数越多越好。当然,“强迁”不大可能,“诱迁”就很难讲。比方说,挨家挨户做工作,讲进城落户如何如何合算,咋个咋个好。进城以后的问题和困难,则只字不提,反正那也不是他们的事。真要有了麻烦,头疼的是街道社区,是书记市长,还有进城的农民自己。

但为自由故 〇 自由是公民权利,自由是核心价值,自由是人类理想,也是最大的公平与正义。 自由了!成都农民和市民的迁徙,都自由了! 根据最新出台的一项政策,2012年年底前,成都将在全域范围内统一城乡户籍,实现迁徙自由。从此,农民可以自由进城,市民可以自由下乡。进城落户的农民,仍然可以保留他们在农村的承包地和宅基地,不必“以土地换身份”。不愿进城的,同样享受政府提供的社会保障和社会福利。至于是否进城落户,则完全依照农民的自由意愿。进,政府为你服务,给你保障;不进,政府也为你服务,给你保障。附加条件,一个没有,正所谓“有保障无条件”。 这实在是太棒了,难怪要被舆论称之为“伟大的进步”(傅蔚冈《尊重外来人口的城市化》, 2010年11月20日《南方都市报》)。 当然,质疑之声也不是没有。比方说,这样一来,会不会引发“进城潮”和“下乡潮”?农民大规模进城以后,粮价菜价会不会涨?没有了农民的农村,会不会成为开发商的“肥水”?农民享受跟市民一样的就业、社保、住房、教育、医疗等优惠政策,却多出一块承包地和宅基地来,对市民又是否公平? 的确,这些质疑,并非没有道理。不过我更担心的,是区县乡镇的干部,为了证明这项政策的“英明正确”,也为了自己的“政绩”,想方设法忽悠农民进城,人数越多越好。当然,“强迁”不大可能,“诱迁”就很难讲。比方说,挨家挨户做工作,讲进城落户如何如何合算,咋个咋个好。进城以后的问题和困难,则只字不提,反正那也不是他们的事。真要有了麻烦,头疼的是街道社区,是书记市长,还有进城的农民自己。 抱歉,这不是“杞人忧天”,而是“经验之谈”。中国的事,不好办。从古到今,一项改革,如果不由官方主导,就推不动。自上而下推进呢?又难免走样,甚至弄砸。想当年,王安石的“青苗法”,原本是要给农民排忧解难的。但让地方官一整, 抱歉,这不是“杞人忧天”,而是“经验之谈”。中国的事,不好办。从古到今,一项改革,如果不由官方主导,就推不动。自上而下推进呢?又难免走样,甚至弄砸。想当年,王安石的“青苗法”,原本是要给农民排忧解难的。但让地方官一整,却成了“飞来横祸”。为什么?因为给全国各地都派了任务,下了指标。结果,自由自愿,变成“奉命奉旨”,当然南辕北辙,事与愿违。

因此,我要给成都当局提个醒:城乡居民自由迁徙这事,千万别下指标,也别考核,甚至不要公布人数。实际上,户改的目的,本来就不是要把农民都弄进城,市民都赶下乡。这样毫无意义的来回折腾,显然不是改革者的初衷,也不是他们所要的结果。

但为自由故 〇 自由是公民权利,自由是核心价值,自由是人类理想,也是最大的公平与正义。 自由了!成都农民和市民的迁徙,都自由了! 根据最新出台的一项政策,2012年年底前,成都将在全域范围内统一城乡户籍,实现迁徙自由。从此,农民可以自由进城,市民可以自由下乡。进城落户的农民,仍然可以保留他们在农村的承包地和宅基地,不必“以土地换身份”。不愿进城的,同样享受政府提供的社会保障和社会福利。至于是否进城落户,则完全依照农民的自由意愿。进,政府为你服务,给你保障;不进,政府也为你服务,给你保障。附加条件,一个没有,正所谓“有保障无条件”。 这实在是太棒了,难怪要被舆论称之为“伟大的进步”(傅蔚冈《尊重外来人口的城市化》, 2010年11月20日《南方都市报》)。 当然,质疑之声也不是没有。比方说,这样一来,会不会引发“进城潮”和“下乡潮”?农民大规模进城以后,粮价菜价会不会涨?没有了农民的农村,会不会成为开发商的“肥水”?农民享受跟市民一样的就业、社保、住房、教育、医疗等优惠政策,却多出一块承包地和宅基地来,对市民又是否公平? 的确,这些质疑,并非没有道理。不过我更担心的,是区县乡镇的干部,为了证明这项政策的“英明正确”,也为了自己的“政绩”,想方设法忽悠农民进城,人数越多越好。当然,“强迁”不大可能,“诱迁”就很难讲。比方说,挨家挨户做工作,讲进城落户如何如何合算,咋个咋个好。进城以后的问题和困难,则只字不提,反正那也不是他们的事。真要有了麻烦,头疼的是街道社区,是书记市长,还有进城的农民自己。 抱歉,这不是“杞人忧天”,而是“经验之谈”。中国的事,不好办。从古到今,一项改革,如果不由官方主导,就推不动。自上而下推进呢?又难免走样,甚至弄砸。想当年,王安石的“青苗法”,原本是要给农民排忧解难的。但让地方官一整,

那么,这项改革,又意义何在?直接的意义,是把一个原本属于公民的权利,归还给公民。这个权利,就是“迁徙的自由”。至于归还之后怎么用,是公民自己的事。他可以行使(进城或下乡),也可以放弃(不进城或不下乡),还可以这会儿放弃,下一回再行使。弃权,也是权利的行使么!但不管公民怎么做,都跟政府不再相干。政府只要兑现承诺,当真“有保障无条件”,就是尽了自己的本分,做了该做的事情。

所以,新政策出台后,哪怕最后没有一个农民进城,也没有一个市民下乡,这项改革也是成功的,也是“伟大的进步”。因为它体现了执政者对宪法、人权、公民权利和个体人格的尊重。尽管这种尊重,不过表现为“你爱住哪就住哪”(包括爱进城就进城、爱下乡就下乡、不想迁徙就不动)。但背后体现出来的精神,却是自由。

自由,是辛亥革命一百年来中国社会进步的主旋律。比方说,五四运动以后,我们告别“包办婚姻”,实现了“择偶的自由”;改革开放以后,我们又告别“统一分配”,实现了“择业的自由”。择偶和择业都自由,“择居的自由”就必然会提到议事日程。这是迟早都要做的事情,成都不过先行一步。但,莫道君行早,也别“风景这边独好”。其他地方,也会见贤思齐。事实上,实现择居自由,兑现公民权利,解放的决不仅仅是农民,还将是整个社会的生产力、创造力和软实力。谓予不信,请拭目以待!

权利的归还必须彻底。当断不断,反受其乱。因此,我赞同成都的做法:农民进城落户后,仍可保留承包地和宅基地。虽然,这看起来似乎对市民“不太公平”。但问题是,你让农民带着后顾之忧,赤手空拳跟市民竞争,就公平吗?必须签下那屈辱的“城下之盟”,谈得上“人的尊严”吗?更重要的是,这样的迁徙,还是自由的吗?

事实上,自由,才是最大的公平,最大的正义。而且,只有当每个公民都享有充分的自由,包括择业的自由、迁徙的自由、创造的自由和言论的自由,我们才有可能讨论和争取公平与正义。唯其如此,马克思和恩格斯才会把“每个人的自由发展”,看作“一切人自由发展的条件”,看作共产主义的理想(《共产党宣言》)。自由二字,何其重要!

自由是公民权利,自由是核心价值,自由是人类理想。自由的旗帜一旦高高飘扬,我们就能够实现“社会进步、国家富强和个人幸福”的梦想。为了这一天,难道不该“胆子更大一些,步子更快一些”吗?

悠悠天下心,迢迢改革路。

却成了“飞来横祸”。为什么?因为给全国各地都派了任务,下了指标。结果,自由自愿,变成“奉命奉旨”,当然南辕北辙,事与愿违。 因此,我要给成都当局提个醒:城乡居民自由迁徙这事,千万别下指标,也别考核,甚至不要公布人数。实际上,户改的目的,本来就不是要把农民都弄进城,市民都赶下乡。这样毫无意义的来回折腾,显然不是改革者的初衷,也不是他们所要的结果。 那么,这项改革,又意义何在?直接的意义,是把一个原本属于公民的权利,归还给公民。这个权利,就是“迁徙的自由”。至于归还之后怎么用,是公民自己的事。他可以行使(进城或下乡),也可以放弃(不进城或不下乡),还可以这会儿放弃,下一回再行使。弃权,也是权利的行使么!但不管公民怎么做,都跟政府不再相干。政府只要兑现承诺,当真“有保障无条件”,就是尽了自己的本分,做了该做的事情。 所以,新政策出台后,哪怕最后没有一个农民进城,也没有一个市民下乡,这项改革也是成功的,也是“伟大的进步”。因为它体现了执政者对宪法、人权、公民权利和个体人格的尊重。尽管这种尊重,不过表现为“你爱住哪就住哪”(包括爱进城就进城、爱下乡就下乡、不想迁徙就不动)。但背后体现出来的精神,却是自由。 自由,是辛亥革命一百年来中国社会进步的主旋律。比方说,五四运动以后,我们告别“包办婚姻”,实现了“择偶的自由”;改革开放以后,我们又告别“统一分配”,实现了“择业的自由”。择偶和择业都自由,“择居的自由”就必然会提到议事日程。这是迟早都要做的事情,成都不过先行一步。但,莫道君行早,也别“风景这边独好”。其他地方,也会见贤思齐。事实上,实现择居自由,兑现公民权利,解放的决不仅仅是农民,还将是整个社会的生产力、创造力和软实力。谓予不信,请拭目以待! 权利的归还必须彻底。当断不断,反受其乱。因此,我赞同成都的做法:农民进城落户后,仍可 但为自由故,请君迈大步。

 

刊载于201011保留承包地和宅基地。虽然,这看起来似乎对市民“不太公平”。但问题是,你让农民带着后顾之忧,赤手空拳跟市民竞争,就公平吗?必须签下那屈辱的“城下之盟”,谈得上“人的尊严”吗?更重要的是,这样的迁徙,还是自由的吗? 事实上,自由,才是最大的公平,最大的正义。而且,只有当每个公民都享有充分的自由,包括择业的自由、迁徙的自由、创造的自由和言论的自由,我们才有可能讨论和争取公平与正义。唯其如此,马克思和恩格斯才会把“每个人的自由发展”,看作“一切人自由发展的条件”,看作共产主义的理想(《共产党宣言》)。自由二字,何其重要! 自由是公民权利,自由是核心价值,自由是人类理想。自由的旗帜一旦高高飘扬,我们就能够实现“社会进步、国家富强和个人幸福”的梦想。为了这一天,难道不该“胆子更大一些,步子更快一些”吗? 悠悠天下心,迢迢改革路。 但为自由故,请君迈大步。 刊载于2010年11月23日《新京报》A03版,责任编辑于平,发表时有删节,这里是完整版23《新京报》 但为自由故 〇 自由是公民权利,自由是核心价值,自由是人类理想,也是最大的公平与正义。 自由了!成都农民和市民的迁徙,都自由了! 根据最新出台的一项政策,2012年年底前,成都将在全域范围内统一城乡户籍,实现迁徙自由。从此,农民可以自由进城,市民可以自由下乡。进城落户的农民,仍然可以保留他们在农村的承包地和宅基地,不必“以土地换身份”。不愿进城的,同样享受政府提供的社会保障和社会福利。至于是否进城落户,则完全依照农民的自由意愿。进,政府为你服务,给你保障;不进,政府也为你服务,给你保障。附加条件,一个没有,正所谓“有保障无条件”。 这实在是太棒了,难怪要被舆论称之为“伟大的进步”(傅蔚冈《尊重外来人口的城市化》, 2010年11月20日《南方都市报》)。 当然,质疑之声也不是没有。比方说,这样一来,会不会引发“进城潮”和“下乡潮”?农民大规模进城以后,粮价菜价会不会涨?没有了农民的农村,会不会成为开发商的“肥水”?农民享受跟市民一样的就业、社保、住房、教育、医疗等优惠政策,却多出一块承包地和宅基地来,对市民又是否公平? 的确,这些质疑,并非没有道理。不过我更担心的,是区县乡镇的干部,为了证明这项政策的“英明正确”,也为了自己的“政绩”,想方设法忽悠农民进城,人数越多越好。当然,“强迁”不大可能,“诱迁”就很难讲。比方说,挨家挨户做工作,讲进城落户如何如何合算,咋个咋个好。进城以后的问题和困难,则只字不提,反正那也不是他们的事。真要有了麻烦,头疼的是街道社区,是书记市长,还有进城的农民自己。 抱歉,这不是“杞人忧天”,而是“经验之谈”。中国的事,不好办。从古到今,一项改革,如果不由官方主导,就推不动。自上而下推进呢?又难免走样,甚至弄砸。想当年,王安石的“青苗法”,原本是要给农民排忧解难的。但让地方官一整,A03版,责任编辑于平,发表时有删节,这里是完整版


燦榮 | 21st Nov 2010 | 通識--科技.環保 | (26 Reads)
May 2009Last year I showed these two slides so that demonstrate that the arctic ice cap, which for most of the last three million years has been the size of the lower 48 states, has shrunk by 40 percent. But this understates the seriousness of this particular problem because it doesn't show the thickness of the ice. The arctic ice cap is, in a sense, the beating heart of the global climate system. It expands in winter and contracts in summer. The next slide I show you will be a rapid fast forward of what's happened over the last 25 years. The permanent ice is marked in red. As you see, it expands to the dark blue. That's the annual ice in winter. And it contracts in summer. The so-called permanent ice, five years old or older, you can see is almost like blood, spilling out of the body here. In 25 years it's gone from this, to this. This is a problem because the warming heats up the frozen ground around the arctic ocean where there is a massive amount of frozen carbon which, when it thaws, is turned into methane by microbes. Compared to the total amount of global warming pollution in the atmosphere, that amount could double if we cross this tipping point. Already in some shallow lakes in Alaska methane is actively bubbling up out of the water. Professor Katey Walter from the University of Alaska went out with another team to another shallow lake last winter. Video: Whoa! (Laughter) Al Gore: She's okay. The question is whether we will be. And one reason is, this enormous heat sink heats up Greenland from the north. This is an annual melting river. But the volumes are much larger than ever. This is the Kangerlussuaq River in southwest Greenland. If you want to know how sea level rises from land-base ice melting this is where it reaches the sea. These flows are increasing very rapidly. At the other end of the planet, Antarctica the largest mass of ice on the planet. Last month scientists reported the entire continent is now in negative ice balance. And west Antarctica cropped up on top some under-sea islands, is particularly rapid in its melting. That's equal to 20 feet of sea level, as is Greenland. In the Himalayas, the third largest mass of ice, at the top you see new lakes, which a few years ago were glaciers. 40 percent of all the people in the world get half of their drinking water from that melting flow. In the Andes, this glacier is the source of drinking water for this city. The flows have increased. But when they go away, so does much of the drinking water. In California there has been a 40 percent decline in the Sierra snowpack. This is hitting the reservoirs. And the predictions, as you've read, are serious. This drying around the world has lead to a dramatic increase in fires. And the disasters around the world have been increasing at an absolutely extraordinary and unprecedented rate. Four times as many in the last 30 years as in the previous 75. This is a completely unsustainable pattern. If you look at in the context of history you can see what this is doing. In the last five years we've added 70 million tons of CO2 every 24 hours -- 25 million tons every day to the oceans. Look carefully at the area of the eastern Pacific, from the Americas, extending westward, and on either side of the Indian subcontinent, where there is a radical depletion of oxygen in the oceans. The biggest single cause of global warming, along with deforestation, which is 20 percent of it, is the burning of fossil fuels. Oil is a problem, and coal is the most serious problem. The United States is one of the two largest emitters, along with China. And the proposal has been to build a lot more coal plants. But we're beginning to see a sea change. Here are the ones that have been cancelled in the last few years with some green alternatives proposed. (Applause) However there is a political battle in our country. And the coal industries and the oil industries spent a quarter of a billion dollars in the last calendar year promoting clean coal, which is an oxymoron. That image reminded me of something. (Laughter) Around Christmas, in my home in Tennessee, a billion gallons of coal sludge was spilled. You probably saw it on the news. This, all over the country, is the second largest waste stream in America. This happened around Christmas. One of the coal industry's ads around Christmas was this one. Video: ♪♫ Frosty the coal man is a jolly, happy soul. He's abundant here in America, and he helps our economy grow. Frosty the coal man is getting cleaner everyday. He's affordable and adorable, and workers keep their pay. Al Gore: This is the source of much of the coal in West Virginia. The largest mountaintop miner is the head of Massey Coal. Video: Don Blankenship: Let me be clear about it. Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, they don't know what they're talking about. Al Gore: So the Alliance for Climate Protection has launched two campaigns. This is one of them, part of one of them. Video: Actor: At COALergy we view climate change as a very serious threat to our business. That's why we've made it our primary goal to spend a large sum of money on an advertising effort to help bring out and complicate the truth about coal. The fact is, coal isn't dirty. We think it's clean -- smells good, too. So don't worry about climate change. Leave that up to us. (Laughter) Video: Actor: Clean coal, you've heard a lot about it. So let's take a tour of this state-of-the-art clean coal facility. Amazing! The machinery is kind of loud. But that's the sound of clean coal technology. And while burning coal is one of the leading causes of global warming, the remarkable clean coal technology you see here changes everything. Take a good long look, this is today's clean coal technology. Al Gore: Finally the positive alternative meshes with our economic challenge and our national security challenge. Video: Narrator: America is in crisis, the economy, national security, the climate crisis. The thread that links them all, our addiction to carbon based fuels, like dirty coal and foreign oil. But now there is a bold new solution to get us out of this mess. Repower America with 100 percent clean electricity, within 10 years. A plan to put America back to work, make us more secure, and help stop global warming. Finally, a solution that's big enough to solve our problems. Repower America. Find out more. Al Gore: This is the last one. Video: Narrator: It's about repowering America. One of the fastest ways to cut our dependence on old dirty fuels that are killing our planet. Man: Future's over here. Wind, sun, a new energy grid. Man # 2: New investments to create high paying jobs. Narrator: Repower America. It's time to get real. Al Gore: There is an old African proverb that says, "If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together." We need to go far, quickly. Thank you very much. (Applause)May 2009去年我展示了這兩張投影片,並且 展示了北極冰冠 是在三百萬年內所形成的 已有美國本土48州的大小(意指不含夏威夷及阿拉斯加) 但如今面積已經大幅縮小40% 但這仍然低估了我們實際所面臨問題的嚴重性 因為這沒有展現出冰層的厚度 北極的冰冠, 就像是 全球氣候系統中不斷跳動的心臟 它在冬天擴大,在夏天縮小 在下一章投影片中我將要展示一個 在最近25年內急速變化的事實 永凍層標示成紅色 如你所見,它擴張變成深藍色 那就是每年冬天的冰層 並且在夏天的時候縮小 這就是永凍層,即形成已五年或更久 你可以發現這就像血液一樣 流散在身體各處 在這25年內,它從這樣,變成這樣. 這就是暖化所造成的問題 它加熱了北極海周圍的冰 那是十分大量的凝固態炭(指乾冰) 也就是說,當冰層溶化時,這些碳會經由微生物的作用轉化成甲烷 和大氣層中所有造成全球暖化的氣體總量做比較 暖化氣體的總量可能加倍如果我們排放的二氧化碳超過這個頂點 這樣的現象已經發生在阿拉斯加一些淺水湖 烷不斷地自湖水中湧出 阿拉斯加大學的瓦特教授(Pro. Katey Walter) 在去年冬天時和另外一個研究團隊去另一個淺水湖 影片: !!() 她沒事. 重點是我們會變成如何? 另外一個理由是,這個巨大的熱水坑 正不斷地加溫北部的格陵蘭島 這是每年溶冰水所形成的河 但這流量比以往都還要大很多很多 這是格陵蘭島南部的Kangerlussuaq 如果你想從溶化的大陸冰層 知道海平面會升到多高 這就是溶冰水進入海裡的景象 這些水流量正在急遽地增加 在地球的另一端,南極 也是地球上最大的冰層 科學家回報說,上個月整個冰層的量 已經呈現負成長 在南極西方,有些海平面下的島頂端的冰層像被剪過一樣 正在急速地溶化 這相當於海平面上升20英尺,就如同格陵蘭島 在世界第三大的冰層,喜馬拉雅山脈 你所看到這些山頂的湖,幾年前是冰河 全世界有40%的人口 都從這溶冰水中獲得日常一半的飲用水 在安地斯山脈,這裡的冰河 是這個城市飲用水的來源 這水流量已經增加 但當這些水消失時,飲用水也會不見 在加州Sierra, 積雪場面積已縮小40% 這就像是對蓄水池加熱 如你所知,預測結果顯示這樣後果會嚴重 如此全球性的乾旱將導致 火災發生次數戲劇性地增加 並且在全球各地所發生的災難 也絕對是以非比尋常 並且史無前例速率的大量增加 將會是近三十年來所發生次數的四倍 是過去七十五年所發生的總量 這是個令人完全無法承受的景象 如果你回頭看看歷史上的過往 你會發現我們正在所經歷的是什麼 在過去五年間 我們已經增加了了七千萬噸的二氧化碳排放量 每二十四小時 每天排放兩千五百萬噸的二氧化碳到海裡 仔細看看太平洋得東邊海域 從美洲,一直延伸到西邊 到印度次大陸的兩側 都有海域極度缺氧(死亡海域)的現象發生 造成全球暖化最重要的的原因, 其中20%是因為不斷砍伐森林,作用和直接燒石油煤炭一樣 燃燒石油是一個問題,但是燃燒煤炭更嚴重 美國是兩大燃煤消費國之一 也是最大的排放國,和中國大陸並列 而且還有更多燃煤的火力發電廠的興建計劃 然而我們已經開始看到海平面的變化 這是近幾年內已被取消的興建計劃 取而代之的是一些綠色替代能源計劃 (拍手) 然而,在我們國家 有一場政治角力 那些煤碳及石油工業 在去年的選舉中撒了兩千五百 推銷所謂的"淨煤" 這無疑是掛羊頭賣狗肉 那景象讓我想起了一些事 ()煤碳:新的駱駝老喬? (駱駝牌香煙的所創的卡通人物, 使青少年抽煙人口大幅增加) 大約在聖誕節時,在我田納西的家中 有十億加侖的煤廢水外洩出來 你或許已經看過這則新聞了 這條流經全國的河,成為美國西部第二大的污水河 這件事發生在聖誕節附近 一個燃煤工業在聖誕節附近所播放的廣告如下: 影片:♪♫雪白煤碳先生是個快樂的精靈 它在美國產量豐富 並且幫助我們的經濟成長 雪白的煤碳先生每天都越來越乾淨 它物美價廉,讓工人們有薪水領 高爾:這是西維吉尼雅大部份的煤炭來源 在以山巔移除的方式開礦的就是梅西礦業的領導人 布蘭肯席普(梅西礦業的執行長):讓我明白的說. 高爾 皮洛西(美國衆議院議長),瑞德(聯邦參議院多數黨領袖),他們都不知道自己再胡說些什麼(三人都在推動環保能源法案) 高爾: 所以,氣候保護聯盟(高爾發起的環保團體) 已經發起這兩場戰役 這就是其中之一,是一部份 影片:演員:[碳能源]我們已知道氣候變遷的嚴重性 威脅著我們的商機 這就是為什麼我們將氣候變遷設為我們的首要目標 也就是要花一大筆錢 在廣告及宣傳,好讓大家知道且明瞭 有關

燦榮 | 21st Nov 2010 | 通識--科技.環保 | (13 Reads)
April 2008 Al Gore I have given the slide show that I gave here two years ago about 2,000 times. I'm giving a short slide show this morning that I'm giving for the very first time, so -- well it's -- I don't want or need to raise the bar; I'm actually trying to lower the bar. Because I've cobbled this together to try to meet the the challenge of this session. And I was reminded by Karen Armstrong's fantastic presentation that religion really properly understood is not about belief, but about behavior. Perhaps we should say the same thing about optimism. How dare we be optimistic? Optimism is sometimes characterized as a belief, an intellectual posture. As Mahatma Gandhi famously said, "You must become the change you wish to see in the world." And the outcome about which we wish to be optimistic is not going to be created by the belief alone, except to the extent that the belief brings about new behavior. But the word "behavior" is also, I think, sometimes misunderstood in this context. I'm a big advocate of changing the light bulbs and buying hybrids, and Tipper and I put 33 solar panels on our house, and dug the geothermal wells, and did all of that other stuff. But, as important as it is to change the light bulbs, it is more important to change the laws. And when we change our behavior in our daily lives, we sometimes leave out the citizenship part and the democracy part. In order to be optimistic about this, we have to become incredibly active as citizens in our democracy. In order to solve the climate crisis, we have to solve the democracy crisis. And we have one. I have been trying to tell this story for a long time. I was reminded of that recently by a woman who walked past the table I was sitting at, just staring at me as she walked past. She was in her '70s, looked like she had a kind face. I thought nothing of it until I saw from the corner of my eye she was walking from the opposite direction, also just staring at me. And so I said, "How do you do?" And she said, "You know, if you dyed your hair black, you would look just like Al Gore." (Laughter) Many years ago, when I was a young congressman, I spent an awful lot of time dealing with the challenge of nuclear arms control -- the nuclear arms race. And the military historians taught me during that quest that military conflicts are typically put into three categories: local battles, regional or theater wars, and the rare but all-important global, world war. Strategic conflicts. And each level of conflict requires a different allocation of resources a different approach, a different organizational model. Environmental challenges fall into the same three categories, and most of what we think about are local environmental problems: air pollution, water pollution, hazardous waste dumps. But there are also regional environmental problems, like acid rain from the Midwest to the Northeast, and from Western Europe to the Arctic, and from the Midwest out the Mississippi into the dead zone of the Gulf of Mexico. And there are lots of those. But the climate crisis is the rare but all-important global, or strategic, conflict. Everything is affected. And we have to organize our response appropriately. We need a worldwide, global mobilization for renewable energy, conservation, efficiency and a global transition to a low-carbon economy. We have work to do. And we can mobilize resources and political will. But the political will has to be mobilized in order to mobilize the resources. Let me show you these slides here. I thought I would start with the logo. What's missing here, of course, is the North Polar ice cap. Greenland remains. 28 years ago, this is what the polar ice cap -- the North Polar ice cap -- looked like at the end of the summer at the fall equinox. This last fall, I went to the Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, and talked to the researchers here in Monterey at the Naval Postgraduate Laboratory. This is what's happened in the last 28 years. To put it in perspective, 2005 was the previous record. Here's what happened last fall that has really unnerved the researchers. The North Polar ice cap is the same size geographically. Doesn't look quite the same size, but it is exactly the same size as the United States, minus an area roughly equal to the state of Arizona. The amount that disappeared in 2005 was equivalent to everything east of the Mississippi. The extra amount that disappeared last fall was equivalent to this much. It comes back in the winter, but not as permanent ice: as thin ice. Vulnerable. The amount remaining could be completely gone in summer in as little as five years. That puts a lot of pressure on Greenland. Already, around the Arctic circle -- this is a famous village in Alaska. This is a town in Newfoundland. Antarctica. Latest studies from NASA. The amount of a moderate-to-severe snow melting of an area equivalent to the size of California. "They were the best of times, they were the worst of times": the most famous opening sentence in English literature. I want to share briefly a "Tale of Two Planets." Earth and Venus are exactly the same size. Earth's diameter is about 400 kilometers larger, but essentially the same size. They have exactly the same amount of carbon. But the difference is, on Earth, most of the carbon has been leeched over time out of the atmosphere, deposited in the ground as coal, oil, natural gas, etc. On Venus, most of it is in the atmosphere. The difference is that our temperature is 59 degrees on average. On Venus, it's 855. This is relevant to our current strategy of taking as much carbon out of the ground as quickly as possible and putting it into the atmosphere. It's not because Venus is slightly closer to the Sun. It's three times hotter than Mercury, which is right next to the sun. Now, briefly, here's an image you've seen as one of the only old images, but I show it because I want to briefly give you CSI: Climate. The global scientific community says, man-made global warming pollution, put into the atmosphere, thickening this, is trapping more of the outgoing infrared. You all know that. At the last IPCC summary, the scientists wanted to say, "How certain are you?" They wanted to answer that "99 percent." The Chinese objected, and so the compromise was "more than 90 percent." Now, the skeptics say, "Oh, wait a minute, this could be variations in the -- in this energy coming in from the sun." If that were true, the stratosphere would be heated as well as the lower atmosphere, if it's more coming in. If it's more being trapped on the way out, then you would expect it to be warmer here and cooler here. Here is the lower atmosphere. Here's the stratosphere: cooler. CSI: Climate. Now, here's the good news. 68 percent of Americans now believe that human activity is responsible for global warming. 69 percent believe that the Earth is heating up in a significant way. There has been progress, but here is the key: when given a list of challenges to confront, global warming is still listed at near the bottom. What is missing is a sense of urgency. If you agree with the factual analysis, but you don't feel the sense of urgency, where does that leave you? Well, the Alliance for Climate Protection, which I head in conjunction with CurrentTV -- who did this pro-bono, did a worldwide contest to do commercials on how to communicate this. This is the winner. NBC -- I'll show all of the networks here -- the top journalists for NBC asked 956 questions in 2007 of the presidential candidates: two of them were about the climate crisis. ABC: 844 questions, two about the climate crisis. Fox: two. CNN: two. CBS: zero. From laughs to tears. This is one of the older tobacco commercials. So here's what we're doing. This is gasoline consumption in all of these countries. And us. But it's not just the developed nations. The developing countries are now following us and accelerating their pace. And actually, their cumulative emissions this year are the equivalent to where we were in 1965. And they're catching up very dramatically. The total concentrations: by 2025, they will be essentially where where we were in 1985. If the wealthy countries were completely missing from the picture, we would still have this crisis. But we have given to the developing countries the technologies and the ways of thinking that are creating the crisis. This is in Bolivia. Over -- over thirty years. This is peak fishing in a few seconds. The '60s. '70s. '80s. '90s. We have to stop this. And the good news is that we can. We have the technologies. We have to have a unified view of how to go about this: the struggle against poverty in the world and the challenge of cutting wealthy country emissions, all has a single, very simple solution. People say, "What's the solution?" Here it is. Put a price on carbon. We need a CO2 tax, revenue-neutral, to replace taxation on employment, which was invented by Bismark -- and some things have changed since the 19th century. In the poor world, we have to integrate the responses to poverty with the solutions to the climate crisis. Plans to fight poverty in Uganda are mooted if we do not solve the climate crisis. But responses can actually make a huge difference in the poor countries. This is a proposal that has been talked about a lot in Europe. This was from Nature Magazine. These are concentrating solar renewable-energy plants, linked in a so-called supergrid to supply all of the electrical power to Europe, largely from developing countries. High-voltage DC currents. This is not "pie in the sky;" this can be done. We need to do it for our own economy. The latest figures show that the old model is not working. There are a lot of great investments that you can make. If you are investing in tar sands or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments that I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these, so I'll have a disclaimer there. But geothermal, concentrating solar, advanced photovaltaics, efficiency and conservation. You've seen this slide before, but there's a change. The only two countries that didn't ratify -- and now there's only one. Australia had an election. And there was a campaign in Australia that involved television and Internet and radio commercials to lift the sense of urgency for the people there. And we trained 250 people to give the slide show in every town and village and city in Australia. Lot of other things contributed to it, but the new Prime Minister announced that his very first priority would be to change Australia's position on Kyoto, and he has. Now, they came to an awareness partly because of the horrible drought that they had. This is Lake Lanier. My friend Heidi Cullins said that if we gave droughts names the way we give hurricanes names, we'd call the one in the southeast now Katrina, and we would say it's headed toward Atlanta. We can't wait for the kind of draught Australia had to change our political culture. Here's more good news. The cities supporting Kyoto in the U.S. are up to 780 -- and I thought I saw one go by there, just to localize this. Which is good news. Now to close, we heard a couple of days ago about the value of making individual heroism so commonplace that it becomes banal or routine. What we need is another hero generation. Those of us who are alive in the United States of America today especially, but also the rest of the world, have to somehow understand that history has presented us with a choice -- just as Jill Bolte Taylor was figuring out how to save her life while she was distracted by the amazing experience that she was going through. We now have a culture of distraction. But we have a planetary emergency. And we have to find a way to create, in the generation of those alive today, a sense of generational mission. I wish I could find the words to convey this. This was another hero generation that brought democracy to the planet. Another that ended slavery. And that gave women the right to vote. We can do this. Don't tell me that we don't have the capacity to do it. If we had just one week's worth of what we spend on the Iraq war, we could be well on the way to solving this challenge. We have the capacity to do it. One final point. I'm optimistic, because I believe we have the capacity, at moments of great challenge, to set aside the causes of distraction and rise to the challenge that history is presenting to us. Sometimes I hear people respond to the disturbing facts of the climate crisis by saying, "Oh, this is so terrible. What a burden we have." I would like to ask you to re-frame that. How many generations in all of human history have had the opportunity to rise to a challenge that is worthy of our best efforts? A challenge that can pull from us more than we knew we could do? I think we ought to approach this challenge with a sense of profound joy and gratitude that we are the generation about which, a thousand years from now, philharmonic orchestras and poets and singers will celebrate by saying, they were the ones that found it within themselves to solve this crisis and lay the basis for a bright and optimistic human future. Let's do that. Thank you very much. Chris Anderson: For so many people at TED, there is deep pain that basically a design issue -- at the end of the day, a design issue on a voting form -- one bad design issue meant that your voice wasn't being heard like that in the last eight years in a position where you could make these things come true. That hurts. Al Gore: You have no idea. (Laughter) CA: When you look at what the leading candidates in your own party are doing now -- I mean, there's -- are you excited by their plans on global warming? AG: The answer to the question is hard for me because, on the one hand, I think that we should feel really great about the fact that the Republican nominee -- certain nominee -- John McCain, and both of the finalists for the Democratic nomination -- all three have a very different and forward-leaning position on the climate crisis. All three have offered leadership, and all three are very different from the approach taken by the current administration. And I think that all three have also been responsible in putting forward plans and proposals. But the campaign dialogue that -- as illustrated by the questions -- that was put together by the

燦榮 | 21st Nov 2010 | 通識--全球 | (25 Reads)

最近睇過黃子華,水舞間同清明上河圖。三樂也。

明白開心的不同層次。

黃子華令人開心,唔使解,但總覺得無20年前第一騷咁觸動,諗深一層,終於明白,因為佢係話比你知,佢已經可以返大陸中央台拍溥儀,去紅館開SHOW, 所以無晒共鳴。

水舞間正,由舞蹈到舞台,由男人到女人,由跳水到飛車...,但係,我無溫功課,只能睇得明視覺同聽覺刺激部份,心靈上無乜又係無乜溝通。

清明上河圖就唔同,初初睇,都唔知搞乜咁多人睇,聽完一位導賞員精彩介紹,終於明白。

呢位阿姐問: 有無見到個巿井? 有無見個小朋友問人攞錢? 有無見到個歌妓? 有無見到馬? ---大部份比契丹人搶晒...

再睇番創造人講喜怒哀樂同成個過程...真係無得頂。

第日西九文娛藝術區,無任何理由搞得唔好睇,唔好的話,一定係人的問題,因為已經有太多好野可以學。

 

 


燦榮 | 8th Nov 2010 | 通識--全球 | (34 Reads)

39歲關員袁偉祥在將軍澳    健明村追捕私煙案疑犯時,意外撞向鐵柱,致肝臟爆裂引致嚴重內出血,命懸一線。袁有3妹1弟,父母健在,弟、妹和母親驗過血,並不合用,父親年事已高,不宜冒險。

海關    內部日前透過內聯網呼籲同僚捐肝。內部通告引述主診醫生說,袁偉祥急需移植健康肝臟方能保命,「部門現緊急呼籲合適人士能作出善舉,捐出部分肝臟給予袁先生。凡年齡介乎18至60歲,血型為O型的健康人士,男女皆可,無長期病患及毋須長期服藥,皆可捐肝。捐肝者需捐出約60%的肝臟」。據醫生表示,捐肝者可於3個月內復元,肝臟亦會生長回原來的狀態。

連日已有多名關員響應呼籲,往醫院驗血及作評估,當中有人曾與袁共事,亦有與袁並不認識。最後由40歲海關機場科署理高級督察許細文捐出肝臟。有同事為許細文感到光榮:「許sir,我向你致敬,你救了阿祥,同時擦亮海關徵章。」

——綜合《明報》報道


燦榮 | 5th Nov 2010 | 通識--全球 | (25 Reads)
近来,由美元持续贬值导致的国际汇率市场波动引发全球关注, 为“缓慢而脆弱”的全球经济复苏带来了种种不确定性。着名畅销书《货币战争》作者、中国环球财经研究院院长宋鸿兵14日出席在首尔举行的“第11届世界知识论坛”接受新华社记者专访时说,美国发起的货币战争是一场双方实力和决心的较量,“狭路相逢勇者胜”,中国应该有决心展示自己强大的威慑力,同时抓用机遇加快推进人民币国际化进程。

  货币战争:美国的“赖账”游戏 中国有能力反击

  宋鸿兵说,美国的学者、政治家都很清楚一个问题,美国的贸易失衡是结构性的。美元要作为世界储备货币,就要出口货币换回商品。这种天然的结构,决定了美国无论和谁做贸易,都会是一个逆差结构。他打比方说,即使人民币升值,美国也不可能把玩具、衣服、鞋等已经整个外包出去的行业生产线重新搬回国内,重新复苏它的就业。而从历史上看,2005年到2009年期间,人民币对美元升值幅度超过20%,但是并没有解决美国的贸易逆差和就业问题。美国要求人民币升值,背后隐藏的其实是美国巨额的债务危机。

  宋鸿兵说,美国现在复苏的最大难题是整个国家的负债过度。债务占GDP比重太高,是影响美国经济复苏最根本的原因。负债导致信贷扩张收缩,从而造成经济增长不起来,创造就业不足,经济复苏乏力。

  宋鸿兵认为,真正减轻债务通常有两种做法,一种是诚实的做法,通过节省开支,结构调整等手段,使整个国家的负债水平有所下降,经济才能健康复苏;另一种非诚实的做法就是大规模的印刷钞票,然后流通到全世界。通过稀释每份钞票所对应的债权的方式达到降低负债的目的。美国目前走的就是通过迫使人民币升值和实行量化宽松的货币政策使美元贬值,从中渔利,这是一种不道德的做法。

  “一方主动挑起战争,另一方只有迎难而上才能立于不败之地。”宋鸿兵说,中国的实力和决心是左右这场货币战争走向的关键因素。中国是美国最大的债权国,持有巨额美国国债。这是中国应对美国发起的这场货币战争的一个巨大筹码。如果美国利用汇率问题对中国进行贸易惩罚,中国也完全有能力可以让美国的经济复苏中止。

  宋鸿兵说,如果中国大量抛售美国国债,将导致美国国债下跌。而美国国债收益率作为美国所有融资和债券产品的标杆,美国的房地产、汽车,所有东西的贷款融资成本将同时飙升。在这种情况下,不仅美国的经济复苏过程,整个美国经济都将会陷入瘫痪。这是一个美国不愿看到,也不能承受的两败俱伤的结果。因此,美国想要单方面要求人民币升值的做法是不符合游戏规则,也是不现实的。中国既要有使用这个实力的决心,也要让对方相信敢于使用这个威慑力的决心,这样才能在中美这场货币战争的博弈中占取有利地位。

  推进人民币国际化 保障金融隐私

  宋鸿兵认为,持有一个国家货币的意义在于,这个国家有强大的生产力,持有货币随时可以进行实物兑换。中国是全世界最大的出口国之一,这是人民币最大的支撑和信誉保证。而美元与石油挂钩,是美元能在全世界流通的最主要的一个财富根据。但美国的量化宽松货币政策,导致美元持续贬值,世界对美元需求量下降,最终甚至导致石油这种大宗商品的结算也会发生变化。这些都是目前推动人民币国际化的难得机遇。

  宋鸿兵说,人民币的国际化过程必须是有序的,可控的。一下子让人民币变成可自由兑换货币的概念是错误的。如果完全由市场决定人民币供求,就会带来过度投机等一系列问题,反而威胁到人民币的主权安全。

  宋鸿兵说,人民币国际化不一定要走传统的老路,可以通过货币互换、以香港为中心海外建立人民币离岸金融市场、鼓励国外央行使用人民币作为外汇储备等手段分阶段、分步骤的推进人民币国际化进程。当大部分国家都接受人民币的时候,银行间的拆借、清算、结算等也都会愿意使用人民币,人民币自然就变成自由兑换货币。宋鸿兵说,通过一系列措施,依靠中国强大的贸易量,中国能够在未来几年内,在国际贸易体系中将人民币打造成三大主流货币之一。

  不过,宋鸿兵说,人民币要想真正实现由体内循环变为体外循环,还将经历一个很漫长的过程。中国在国际上没有自己的金融清算中心。这意味着中国的资金在海外都是没有隐私权的,这是非常危险的。

  他举例子说,中国老百姓在使用VISA卡进行消费时,远在万里之外的VISA卡清算中心将马上对你的消费时间、金额、地点、物品种类等各种信息了如指掌。不仅如此,国外清算中心还可以通过金融记录分析,倒推出一个公司、甚至一个国家的核心战略机密。宋鸿兵认为,这也是为什么中国在海外投资中屡屡失败的很大一部分原因。就好比美国可以通过监控卫星把我们的军力部署看得一清二楚,但是对于中国来却是陷入盲战,这样的对决毫无公平可言。

  宋鸿兵说,人民币必须要建立自己的清算系统,保护资金隐私,这关系到中国的国家核心战略。“如同中国一定要开发出自己的北斗系统一样,我们不知道最后会和谁发生战争,不能将希望寄托在任何人身上。这个道理在金融系统同样如此。”

  新华社记者 班威