China supporters at san francisco on 4/9/08
have never been reported in the western media. Just another example of media distortion.
These pictures were downloaded from mitbbs.com
more
posted by BFF @ 1:04 AM
5 comments
Monday, April 14, 2008
have never been reported in the western media. Just another example of media distortion.
These pictures were downloaded from mitbbs.com
more
Sunday, April 13, 2008
德国外交政策网站爆出惊天黑幕
来源：《参考消息》
西方势力与达赖集团策划西藏事件
【德国外交政策网站4月8日报道】题：火炬传递运动 柏林外交政策的一个前沿组织起决定作用地参与了当前的反华西藏运动的准备工作。这是从会议报告和一名加拿大记者的调查中得出和结论。 根据会议报告和记者调查，这个运动受设在华盛顿的一个总部的操纵。2007年5月，这个总部在弗里德里希-瑙曼基金会的一次会议上受委托组织全球“抗议活动”。 “抗议”计划是在美国国务院和自我任命的“西藏流亡政府”的协助下制定的。它们计划在奥运火炬传递期间采取能产生公众效应的行动，并使抗议活动在8月北京奥运会期间达到高潮。 这个运动在去年夏天已经启动，现在它从中国西部发生的动乱中得到好处。这场动乱是从一群暴徒凶残和大屠杀式地袭击非藏民开始的。 根据这名加拿大记者的调查，当前的反华西藏运动——这个运动在巴黎用暴力迫使奥运火炬传递中断——的起点是弗里德里希-瑙曼基金会的一次会议。这次会议是第五次“支援藏人国际大会”，它于去年5月11日至14日在布鲁塞尔举行。 根据基金会提供的情况，这次会议与其前四次会议一样“应该协调国际西藏支持组织的工作，加强其与西藏中央流亡政府的联系”。这个在很大程度上由国家提供资金在德国基金会在2005年3月开始筹备这次会议，并与呆在达兰萨拉（印度）的达赖喇嘛协调行动。最后有来自56个国家的300多人参加了这次会议，36个西藏团体和145个西藏支持组织也派代表出席。“国际会议”制定破坏奥运“路线图” 这次会议经过多天商谈后，以达成一份“行动计划”而告终。这份计划被视作“未来几年的西藏运动路线图”。它涉及四个议题：“为谈判提供政治支持”、“人权”、“环境与发展”和“2008年北京奥运会”。 据弗里德里希-瑙曼基金会的负责人罗尔夫•贝恩特解释说，奥运会是公开为“西藏运动”做宣传的“极好机会”。与会者就此达成一致，即在未来15个月里，使奥运会成为其行动的主要攻击点。他们为这个运动聘用了一名专职人员，从那以后，这名专职人员从设在华盛顿的总部指挥世界范围的西藏运动。 由弗里德里希-瑙曼基金会筹备的布鲁塞尔会议诀议被赋予了特殊意义，原因不仅是参与者人数众多，还因为这些决议的诞生离不开富有影响力的政治家的参与。在分裂主义者中享有很高声誉的“西藏流亡政府”的代表是“总理”桑东仁波切。在场的还有来自印度喜马偕尔邦的一位知名政治家。特别是美国副国务卿、西藏问题特别协调员葆拉•多布里扬斯基也出席了布鲁塞尔会议，她属于布什政府中新保守派核心圈内的人物，被视为有能力达到目的的强硬派。 据记者调查，华盛顿宣传运动总部开展了相当成功的行动。一名女性成员早在2007年8月初，就在北京北部游客众多的长城边上组织了一次吸引公众眼球的行动。她与西藏“流亡政府”保持着紧密的联系。另一名成员不久前指挥了对希腊圣火采集仪式的破坏活动。设在华盛顿的运动总部也在操纵其他破坏火炬传递的“抗议”。该运动的行动将在8月奥运会期间到达高潮。一名活动分子说：“我们决心每天都在北京市中心开展非暴力活动。”有意将报道方向引向“中国镇压” 这个反华西藏运动在德国弗里德里希-瑙曼基金会的一个前沿组织和美国国务院的一名高级代表的指导下成立，直到火炬传递开始前几天，中国西部爆发骚乱，该运动才开始发挥其全部影响。 在德国媒体主要报道中国安全部队的攻击时，事件在目击者的报道中却是另外的样子。英国《经济学家》周刊记者詹姆斯•迈尔斯当时逗留在拉萨，他描述了藏人团伙对城中非藏人大屠杀式的袭击。迈尔斯说，一些商店被打上了标记，没受到破坏，其他所有店铺都遭到抢劫、破坏或被点燃。仅在一幢被大火烧毁的建筑中，就有5名女店员死去。 除迈尔斯之外，西方游客也描述了非藏人受到的残忍攻击。一位加拿大人看到，多名藏人痛打一名骑摩托车的汉人，并用石块“毫无仁慈心地”折磨他。这名游客说：“他们最后把他推倒在地，用石块击打他的头部，直到他失去意识。我认为这个年轻人被打死了。” 迈尔斯在接受美国有线电视新闻国际公司访谈时，描述中国安全部队的反应相对克制，而德国媒体却把这些骚乱当作展示中国残暴镇压的背景。在这里，事实显然退居次要角色。电视台和日报在此期间不得不承认在画面上做了手脚：尼泊尔警察挥舞棍棒驱散示威者的镜头被说成所谓中国警察施威的文献资料。中国安全部队将一名男孩解救出来的照片，被严重误导成暴力逮捕。甚至对迈尔斯的报道也如此做了编辑加工，以使这些报道朝中国镇压当地民众的和平示威方向引导。抵制奥运可能是西方“最后手段” 【德国外交政策网站3月17日文章】题：奥运杠杆 柏林利用中国西部地区的骚乱开展其削弱北京的运动。自去年以来，德国政治家一直利用奥运会作为施加压力的手段，想要迫使中国改变对西藏的政策并动摇北京对中国西部地区的控制。这一计划是弗里德里希-瑙曼基金会和一个德国议会工作小组去年组织活动的得点。 德国政治家目前对中国内政的干预，基于中国西藏地区最近的动乱。柏林试图利用这场冲突削弱中国。默克尔总理要求北京和达赖喇嘛直接“对话”，她在去年秋天邀请达赖举行会谈，从而亲自奠定了基础。 柏林有目的地利用中国筹办奥运会一事。去年5月，应弗里德里希-瑙曼基金会的邀请，“支援藏人国际大会”在布鲁塞尔举行。这是迄今为止有关西藏问题“最具政治意义的”会议。“这也是由于奥运会对藏人提供的机遇，布鲁塞尔的会议也对这个问题进行了讨论。” 几个月之后，即去年11月，“德国联邦议院西藏讨论小组”组织召开了一个关于“西藏和奥运会”的会议。据关于此会的一份报告说，会议集中讨论了“奥运会是否可以成为影响中国对西藏政策的一个工具”的问题。达赖喇嘛驻欧洲的代表称：“这是很有可能的。”在柏林的会议上，德国议员们听取了“西藏队计划”的情况介绍。该计划“旨在向北京奥运会派出西藏队”。这是一个公开的挑衅，目的是把一个与政治无关的体育赛事作为讨论西藏主权的平台。 奥运会被当作向北京施压、迫使其顾不上崛起成为世界强国的目标而采取守势的一个工具。一名德国政府官员去年11月就推测，奥运会将向世人暴露“中国的苦难”，这将损害而不是有利于中国。北京在奥运会上“投机并失败了”。据黑森州州长罗兰•科赫说，如果中国政府压制西藏分离主义分子，抵制奥运会可能是西方“最后的手段”。
转载请注明本文首发：http://ckxx.org.cn/
more
西方势力与达赖集团策划西藏事件
【德国外交政策网站4月8日报道】题：火炬传递运动 柏林外交政策的一个前沿组织起决定作用地参与了当前的反华西藏运动的准备工作。这是从会议报告和一名加拿大记者的调查中得出和结论。 根据会议报告和记者调查，这个运动受设在华盛顿的一个总部的操纵。2007年5月，这个总部在弗里德里希-瑙曼基金会的一次会议上受委托组织全球“抗议活动”。 “抗议”计划是在美国国务院和自我任命的“西藏流亡政府”的协助下制定的。它们计划在奥运火炬传递期间采取能产生公众效应的行动，并使抗议活动在8月北京奥运会期间达到高潮。 这个运动在去年夏天已经启动，现在它从中国西部发生的动乱中得到好处。这场动乱是从一群暴徒凶残和大屠杀式地袭击非藏民开始的。 根据这名加拿大记者的调查，当前的反华西藏运动——这个运动在巴黎用暴力迫使奥运火炬传递中断——的起点是弗里德里希-瑙曼基金会的一次会议。这次会议是第五次“支援藏人国际大会”，它于去年5月11日至14日在布鲁塞尔举行。 根据基金会提供的情况，这次会议与其前四次会议一样“应该协调国际西藏支持组织的工作，加强其与西藏中央流亡政府的联系”。这个在很大程度上由国家提供资金在德国基金会在2005年3月开始筹备这次会议，并与呆在达兰萨拉（印度）的达赖喇嘛协调行动。最后有来自56个国家的300多人参加了这次会议，36个西藏团体和145个西藏支持组织也派代表出席。“国际会议”制定破坏奥运“路线图” 这次会议经过多天商谈后，以达成一份“行动计划”而告终。这份计划被视作“未来几年的西藏运动路线图”。它涉及四个议题：“为谈判提供政治支持”、“人权”、“环境与发展”和“2008年北京奥运会”。 据弗里德里希-瑙曼基金会的负责人罗尔夫•贝恩特解释说，奥运会是公开为“西藏运动”做宣传的“极好机会”。与会者就此达成一致，即在未来15个月里，使奥运会成为其行动的主要攻击点。他们为这个运动聘用了一名专职人员，从那以后，这名专职人员从设在华盛顿的总部指挥世界范围的西藏运动。 由弗里德里希-瑙曼基金会筹备的布鲁塞尔会议诀议被赋予了特殊意义，原因不仅是参与者人数众多，还因为这些决议的诞生离不开富有影响力的政治家的参与。在分裂主义者中享有很高声誉的“西藏流亡政府”的代表是“总理”桑东仁波切。在场的还有来自印度喜马偕尔邦的一位知名政治家。特别是美国副国务卿、西藏问题特别协调员葆拉•多布里扬斯基也出席了布鲁塞尔会议，她属于布什政府中新保守派核心圈内的人物，被视为有能力达到目的的强硬派。 据记者调查，华盛顿宣传运动总部开展了相当成功的行动。一名女性成员早在2007年8月初，就在北京北部游客众多的长城边上组织了一次吸引公众眼球的行动。她与西藏“流亡政府”保持着紧密的联系。另一名成员不久前指挥了对希腊圣火采集仪式的破坏活动。设在华盛顿的运动总部也在操纵其他破坏火炬传递的“抗议”。该运动的行动将在8月奥运会期间到达高潮。一名活动分子说：“我们决心每天都在北京市中心开展非暴力活动。”有意将报道方向引向“中国镇压” 这个反华西藏运动在德国弗里德里希-瑙曼基金会的一个前沿组织和美国国务院的一名高级代表的指导下成立，直到火炬传递开始前几天，中国西部爆发骚乱，该运动才开始发挥其全部影响。 在德国媒体主要报道中国安全部队的攻击时，事件在目击者的报道中却是另外的样子。英国《经济学家》周刊记者詹姆斯•迈尔斯当时逗留在拉萨，他描述了藏人团伙对城中非藏人大屠杀式的袭击。迈尔斯说，一些商店被打上了标记，没受到破坏，其他所有店铺都遭到抢劫、破坏或被点燃。仅在一幢被大火烧毁的建筑中，就有5名女店员死去。 除迈尔斯之外，西方游客也描述了非藏人受到的残忍攻击。一位加拿大人看到，多名藏人痛打一名骑摩托车的汉人，并用石块“毫无仁慈心地”折磨他。这名游客说：“他们最后把他推倒在地，用石块击打他的头部，直到他失去意识。我认为这个年轻人被打死了。” 迈尔斯在接受美国有线电视新闻国际公司访谈时，描述中国安全部队的反应相对克制，而德国媒体却把这些骚乱当作展示中国残暴镇压的背景。在这里，事实显然退居次要角色。电视台和日报在此期间不得不承认在画面上做了手脚：尼泊尔警察挥舞棍棒驱散示威者的镜头被说成所谓中国警察施威的文献资料。中国安全部队将一名男孩解救出来的照片，被严重误导成暴力逮捕。甚至对迈尔斯的报道也如此做了编辑加工，以使这些报道朝中国镇压当地民众的和平示威方向引导。抵制奥运可能是西方“最后手段” 【德国外交政策网站3月17日文章】题：奥运杠杆 柏林利用中国西部地区的骚乱开展其削弱北京的运动。自去年以来，德国政治家一直利用奥运会作为施加压力的手段，想要迫使中国改变对西藏的政策并动摇北京对中国西部地区的控制。这一计划是弗里德里希-瑙曼基金会和一个德国议会工作小组去年组织活动的得点。 德国政治家目前对中国内政的干预，基于中国西藏地区最近的动乱。柏林试图利用这场冲突削弱中国。默克尔总理要求北京和达赖喇嘛直接“对话”，她在去年秋天邀请达赖举行会谈，从而亲自奠定了基础。 柏林有目的地利用中国筹办奥运会一事。去年5月，应弗里德里希-瑙曼基金会的邀请，“支援藏人国际大会”在布鲁塞尔举行。这是迄今为止有关西藏问题“最具政治意义的”会议。“这也是由于奥运会对藏人提供的机遇，布鲁塞尔的会议也对这个问题进行了讨论。” 几个月之后，即去年11月，“德国联邦议院西藏讨论小组”组织召开了一个关于“西藏和奥运会”的会议。据关于此会的一份报告说，会议集中讨论了“奥运会是否可以成为影响中国对西藏政策的一个工具”的问题。达赖喇嘛驻欧洲的代表称：“这是很有可能的。”在柏林的会议上，德国议员们听取了“西藏队计划”的情况介绍。该计划“旨在向北京奥运会派出西藏队”。这是一个公开的挑衅，目的是把一个与政治无关的体育赛事作为讨论西藏主权的平台。 奥运会被当作向北京施压、迫使其顾不上崛起成为世界强国的目标而采取守势的一个工具。一名德国政府官员去年11月就推测，奥运会将向世人暴露“中国的苦难”，这将损害而不是有利于中国。北京在奥运会上“投机并失败了”。据黑森州州长罗兰•科赫说，如果中国政府压制西藏分离主义分子，抵制奥运会可能是西方“最后的手段”。
转载请注明本文首发：http://ckxx.org.cn/
more
posted by BFF @ 2:37 PM
0 comments
Monday, January 29, 2007
中国经济高速增长对韩国是祸还是福
文=韩国对外经济政策研究院北京办事处首席代表 池万洙 (2007.01.27 08:37)
中国和印度掀起“CHINDIA”热潮，急剧跃升为世界经济大国。尤其中国基于政府主导的经济发展模式，每年以两位数增长率快速发展。中国经济的快速发展对韩国而言是威胁还是机遇？尽管中国快速发展，但韩国的世界市场占有率反而从1990年的1.9%增加
到2005年的2.8%。这是因为中国未能赶上韩国主要出口产业——重化工业的竞争力。而且韩国利用中国的快速发展对中国出口了更多的原材料和生产资料。那么，这种中国商机能否持续下去？中国自去年开始了第11次五年计划，该计划明确规定大力调整产业结构，积极培育重化工业。韩国有没有办法甩掉中国的追赶，跨上新的台阶呢？韩国对外经济政策研究院 (KIEP)北京办事处首席代表池万洙博士对中国威胁论做了深刻的分析。
◆ 如何应对中国的“威胁”
去年中国经济增长率达到了10.7%。中国自2003年以来连续四年保持了10%以上的高速增长。就韩国方面而言不能不就此问题感到忧虑，即中国经济的快速发展会威胁韩国经济。问题是人们只是大喊威胁，却连什么是中国威胁都不知道，而且对此没有任何共识，更谈不上对应策略。那么中国威胁其实质是什么呢？
◆ 中国的超越、低费用不是威胁
首先要明确了解一点，中国经济的巨大规模和快速的发展、低廉的费用等不是中国威胁因素。中国是拥有13亿人口和领土将近是韩国的100倍。中国的国内生产总值（GDP）、贸易规模已经是韩国的3倍。考虑到中国现阶段的发展，在一段时间里中国的高速成长还会持续下去，与韩国的差距也会继续拉大。不过邻国经济的快速成长对韩国不是威胁，反倒是机遇。因为会形成不可多得的巨大市场。
另一个观点是韩国在受到中国低工资、廉价土地等低生产费用的威胁。可既然韩国的目标是成为发达国家，就不该把周边国低廉的生产要素视为威胁。因为，发达国家原本就该通过高效率来维持高工资和高费用，而不该追求低费用下的成长。即不能和人均收入2000美元的中国进行竞争。
21世纪是不分国家、只追求和使用高效生产要素的全球化生产网络时代。此时，距韩国仅一小时之遥的国家拥有世界上最丰富、最廉价的劳动力，这对于韩国企业来说更接近于“福音”而非“威胁”。
◆ 中国重化学工业的脆弱性
那么，真正的中国经济威胁是什么？要理解这一点首先应理解一直以来韩国能够享受的所谓中国商机的原因。原本中国商机是由中国重化工装备产业的相对落后而产生的。自1990年起，中国劳动力密集型产业迅速成长为出口产业。沿海地区的外资企业成为了这一主角。出口产业需要严格达到国际水平的生产资料、原材料及配件。然而，中国的重化装备产业不能做到。这些重化装备企业主要是在计划经济体制时期国家创办的国营企业，因此在引进外资或结构调整方面，一直被耽搁。结果，中国快速增长的出口产业所需的生产资料、原材料、配件只能从邻近的韩国、日本、台湾购买。实际上，这是三个有代表性的对华贸易顺差国，而韩国的对华出口中，原材料和生产资料占了92％（2006年10月）。
中国脆弱的重化装备产业耽误了中国出口的高度发展。以2006年中国前20位的出口清单为例，电器、电子等劳动密集型产品仅为11个，其余的几乎都是服装、家具、鞋、箱包等轻工业产品。相反，在韩国的出口中，重工业所占的比率从1990年57％、2000年81％、2005年90％的水平急速提高。因此，即时1990年中国经济快速增长，韩国在全球市场上的占有率从1990年的1.9％却大幅提高到2005年的2.8％。也就是说，迄今为止中国的出口没能威胁韩国的出口。
◆ 中国的威胁：产业现代化
至此，中国的威胁就更加明确了。如果中国在尽早成功实现落后的重化工业的现代化，那么期间中国从韩国进口的生产资料和原材料被自己的产品所取代，韩国的对华出口会受到打击。同时，中国的出口产品结构趋于多样化，在海外市场将与韩国骨干出口产品展开竞争。这就表明，中国产业与韩国主导产业的正面冲突将不可避免。
这种冲突在部分领域已经出现。据对外经济政策研究院的研究(2005年)，韩国对华出口比例较高的钢铁(27.7%)和石化(34.2%)，部分出口产品已被中国新投资企业的产品所替代。至于电子产业，韩国与中国在世界市场上的竞争日益激烈。
中国政府有关产业调整和培育大企业的意志非常明确。从2006年开始的中国的第11次五年计划把调整产业结构和培育具有知识产权和自己品牌的大企业等作为明确的目标。
◆ 韩国任重道远
韩国也在致力于骨干产业的现代化和培育下一代产业。如果靠主要产业的现代化赢得时间，实现向尖端产业、高附加值服务业等知识产业的转型，就能避免冲突克服中国的威胁。已经跨入知识产业阶段的日本就是个很好的例子。尽管韩国努力实现产业现代化，日本对韩贸易顺差却持续了几十年。截止2001年日本对华贸易处于逆差，但2002年转为逆差，而且逐渐扩大顺差规模。(据中国政府统计，2006年11月为210亿美元。)就是说，中国的产业现代化反而对日本带来了更多的对华出口机遇。
但现实情况并非令人乐观。因为韩国不是日本。2006年世界1250大研发企业中，日本有229个，而韩国只有17个(英国DTI资料)。就是说，韩国像日本实现产业知识化以摆脱中国的追赶，为期遥远。就韩国而言，至少在今后一代的时间内必须保持现在的主要产业重化工产业的竞争力。中国产业现代化的威胁是不可避免的。
◆ 应对对方须知距离和速度
不能将“中国威胁论”像牧羊少年乱喊。不能只喊“狼来了”，要弄清狼从哪里以多快的速度追来。只有这样，该扔的扔，该留的留。
所幸的是有几个可以延迟中国追赶的因素。首先，中国国内的问题。中国要保持社会稳定的关键是为转移到城市的8亿农民创造工作岗位。所以，中国政府不可能不顾一切地只抓住产业现代化不放。中国必须长期保持劳动密集型产业和重化工业的平衡。
其次，新的世界经济秩序。如今的世界是以WTO为象征的自由贸易时代，同时又是管制知识产权、环境污染、能源效率、劳动条件等生产产品全过程的公正贸易时代。在这种国际秩序下，政府公开扶持产业将变得更加艰难。而且全世界基于公正贸易在监视中国的产业和企业活动。
再次，开放的、相互竞争的企业环境。时下在中国创办新企业非常自由，相反企业的退出因地方的保护和中央政府的管制而受到限制。这将会导致企业的无序建立、竞争过热和效益恶化。所以中国企业很难筹措投入长远发展研究所需的资金，而且就是仅有的资源也只能用于应对目前竞争的技术引进、广告和产品的开发。在 DTI所提的1250个研发企业中，中国制造业企业只有4个电子通讯企业。这就是说中国要在各个领域培育具有长远研发能力的大企业还需要很长的时间。所以对韩国来说还有时间。
◆ 韩国的战略：企业、教育、开放、透明
第一，韩国应利用中国克服中国的威胁。现在各国企业就谁更有效地利用中国低廉的生产要素展开构筑全球生产网络的竞争。其实，目前在中国进行的各国企业之间利用中国的生产要素的竞争才是我们迫在眉睫的威胁。所幸的是韩国企业在利用中国的生产要素方面走在前边。2005年中国100大出口企业中十家企业是 LG、三星等韩国投资中国的电子企业。如果韩国企业就这样很好地利用中国在世界市场上进行竞争，进而成为中国产业现代化的主角，我们就没有理由害怕中国的产业现代化。
第二，要具备应对中国产业现代化的21世纪型竞争力。现在是资本、技术和生产因素自由转移的时代，在这样时代国家竞争力的核心是人力和系统。特别是培养有创新人才的高级教育和吸引高级人才的社会系统就是国家核心竞争力。从这个意义上说，应把现有的资源和创新统统投入到教育中去。
第三，积极支持和实践自由贸易和公正贸易。通过保护措施培育产业是中国的武器，而已不是韩国的武器。对知识产权、环境、劳动、津贴等关系到公正贸易的问题，不能采取防守的态度，而应与发达国家步调一致，站在主导的位置上。这样才能将中国的追赶转变为公正而渐进。 第四，竞争愈激烈愈要抓紧企业和金融系统的先进化。回顾过去的经济危机，可以估计21世纪东北亚的格局将取决于各国系统的透明程度。若因推迟系统的改革而再度陷入经济危机，说不定有朝一日韩国企业纷纷被中国企业并购。
在这一切过程中，将会决出胜者和败者，从而两极化更加严重。并非只是中国，而已开放的世界本身已经威胁着韩国的农民和部分中小企业的生存。就在这方面，迫切需要政府采取应有的措施。
chosun.com中文版
more
中国和印度掀起“CHINDIA”热潮，急剧跃升为世界经济大国。尤其中国基于政府主导的经济发展模式，每年以两位数增长率快速发展。中国经济的快速发展对韩国而言是威胁还是机遇？尽管中国快速发展，但韩国的世界市场占有率反而从1990年的1.9%增加
到2005年的2.8%。这是因为中国未能赶上韩国主要出口产业——重化工业的竞争力。而且韩国利用中国的快速发展对中国出口了更多的原材料和生产资料。那么，这种中国商机能否持续下去？中国自去年开始了第11次五年计划，该计划明确规定大力调整产业结构，积极培育重化工业。韩国有没有办法甩掉中国的追赶，跨上新的台阶呢？韩国对外经济政策研究院 (KIEP)北京办事处首席代表池万洙博士对中国威胁论做了深刻的分析。
◆ 如何应对中国的“威胁”
去年中国经济增长率达到了10.7%。中国自2003年以来连续四年保持了10%以上的高速增长。就韩国方面而言不能不就此问题感到忧虑，即中国经济的快速发展会威胁韩国经济。问题是人们只是大喊威胁，却连什么是中国威胁都不知道，而且对此没有任何共识，更谈不上对应策略。那么中国威胁其实质是什么呢？
◆ 中国的超越、低费用不是威胁
首先要明确了解一点，中国经济的巨大规模和快速的发展、低廉的费用等不是中国威胁因素。中国是拥有13亿人口和领土将近是韩国的100倍。中国的国内生产总值（GDP）、贸易规模已经是韩国的3倍。考虑到中国现阶段的发展，在一段时间里中国的高速成长还会持续下去，与韩国的差距也会继续拉大。不过邻国经济的快速成长对韩国不是威胁，反倒是机遇。因为会形成不可多得的巨大市场。
另一个观点是韩国在受到中国低工资、廉价土地等低生产费用的威胁。可既然韩国的目标是成为发达国家，就不该把周边国低廉的生产要素视为威胁。因为，发达国家原本就该通过高效率来维持高工资和高费用，而不该追求低费用下的成长。即不能和人均收入2000美元的中国进行竞争。
21世纪是不分国家、只追求和使用高效生产要素的全球化生产网络时代。此时，距韩国仅一小时之遥的国家拥有世界上最丰富、最廉价的劳动力，这对于韩国企业来说更接近于“福音”而非“威胁”。
◆ 中国重化学工业的脆弱性
那么，真正的中国经济威胁是什么？要理解这一点首先应理解一直以来韩国能够享受的所谓中国商机的原因。原本中国商机是由中国重化工装备产业的相对落后而产生的。自1990年起，中国劳动力密集型产业迅速成长为出口产业。沿海地区的外资企业成为了这一主角。出口产业需要严格达到国际水平的生产资料、原材料及配件。然而，中国的重化装备产业不能做到。这些重化装备企业主要是在计划经济体制时期国家创办的国营企业，因此在引进外资或结构调整方面，一直被耽搁。结果，中国快速增长的出口产业所需的生产资料、原材料、配件只能从邻近的韩国、日本、台湾购买。实际上，这是三个有代表性的对华贸易顺差国，而韩国的对华出口中，原材料和生产资料占了92％（2006年10月）。
中国脆弱的重化装备产业耽误了中国出口的高度发展。以2006年中国前20位的出口清单为例，电器、电子等劳动密集型产品仅为11个，其余的几乎都是服装、家具、鞋、箱包等轻工业产品。相反，在韩国的出口中，重工业所占的比率从1990年57％、2000年81％、2005年90％的水平急速提高。因此，即时1990年中国经济快速增长，韩国在全球市场上的占有率从1990年的1.9％却大幅提高到2005年的2.8％。也就是说，迄今为止中国的出口没能威胁韩国的出口。
◆ 中国的威胁：产业现代化
至此，中国的威胁就更加明确了。如果中国在尽早成功实现落后的重化工业的现代化，那么期间中国从韩国进口的生产资料和原材料被自己的产品所取代，韩国的对华出口会受到打击。同时，中国的出口产品结构趋于多样化，在海外市场将与韩国骨干出口产品展开竞争。这就表明，中国产业与韩国主导产业的正面冲突将不可避免。
这种冲突在部分领域已经出现。据对外经济政策研究院的研究(2005年)，韩国对华出口比例较高的钢铁(27.7%)和石化(34.2%)，部分出口产品已被中国新投资企业的产品所替代。至于电子产业，韩国与中国在世界市场上的竞争日益激烈。
中国政府有关产业调整和培育大企业的意志非常明确。从2006年开始的中国的第11次五年计划把调整产业结构和培育具有知识产权和自己品牌的大企业等作为明确的目标。
◆ 韩国任重道远
韩国也在致力于骨干产业的现代化和培育下一代产业。如果靠主要产业的现代化赢得时间，实现向尖端产业、高附加值服务业等知识产业的转型，就能避免冲突克服中国的威胁。已经跨入知识产业阶段的日本就是个很好的例子。尽管韩国努力实现产业现代化，日本对韩贸易顺差却持续了几十年。截止2001年日本对华贸易处于逆差，但2002年转为逆差，而且逐渐扩大顺差规模。(据中国政府统计，2006年11月为210亿美元。)就是说，中国的产业现代化反而对日本带来了更多的对华出口机遇。
但现实情况并非令人乐观。因为韩国不是日本。2006年世界1250大研发企业中，日本有229个，而韩国只有17个(英国DTI资料)。就是说，韩国像日本实现产业知识化以摆脱中国的追赶，为期遥远。就韩国而言，至少在今后一代的时间内必须保持现在的主要产业重化工产业的竞争力。中国产业现代化的威胁是不可避免的。
◆ 应对对方须知距离和速度
不能将“中国威胁论”像牧羊少年乱喊。不能只喊“狼来了”，要弄清狼从哪里以多快的速度追来。只有这样，该扔的扔，该留的留。
所幸的是有几个可以延迟中国追赶的因素。首先，中国国内的问题。中国要保持社会稳定的关键是为转移到城市的8亿农民创造工作岗位。所以，中国政府不可能不顾一切地只抓住产业现代化不放。中国必须长期保持劳动密集型产业和重化工业的平衡。
其次，新的世界经济秩序。如今的世界是以WTO为象征的自由贸易时代，同时又是管制知识产权、环境污染、能源效率、劳动条件等生产产品全过程的公正贸易时代。在这种国际秩序下，政府公开扶持产业将变得更加艰难。而且全世界基于公正贸易在监视中国的产业和企业活动。
再次，开放的、相互竞争的企业环境。时下在中国创办新企业非常自由，相反企业的退出因地方的保护和中央政府的管制而受到限制。这将会导致企业的无序建立、竞争过热和效益恶化。所以中国企业很难筹措投入长远发展研究所需的资金，而且就是仅有的资源也只能用于应对目前竞争的技术引进、广告和产品的开发。在 DTI所提的1250个研发企业中，中国制造业企业只有4个电子通讯企业。这就是说中国要在各个领域培育具有长远研发能力的大企业还需要很长的时间。所以对韩国来说还有时间。
◆ 韩国的战略：企业、教育、开放、透明
第一，韩国应利用中国克服中国的威胁。现在各国企业就谁更有效地利用中国低廉的生产要素展开构筑全球生产网络的竞争。其实，目前在中国进行的各国企业之间利用中国的生产要素的竞争才是我们迫在眉睫的威胁。所幸的是韩国企业在利用中国的生产要素方面走在前边。2005年中国100大出口企业中十家企业是 LG、三星等韩国投资中国的电子企业。如果韩国企业就这样很好地利用中国在世界市场上进行竞争，进而成为中国产业现代化的主角，我们就没有理由害怕中国的产业现代化。
第二，要具备应对中国产业现代化的21世纪型竞争力。现在是资本、技术和生产因素自由转移的时代，在这样时代国家竞争力的核心是人力和系统。特别是培养有创新人才的高级教育和吸引高级人才的社会系统就是国家核心竞争力。从这个意义上说，应把现有的资源和创新统统投入到教育中去。
第三，积极支持和实践自由贸易和公正贸易。通过保护措施培育产业是中国的武器，而已不是韩国的武器。对知识产权、环境、劳动、津贴等关系到公正贸易的问题，不能采取防守的态度，而应与发达国家步调一致，站在主导的位置上。这样才能将中国的追赶转变为公正而渐进。 第四，竞争愈激烈愈要抓紧企业和金融系统的先进化。回顾过去的经济危机，可以估计21世纪东北亚的格局将取决于各国系统的透明程度。若因推迟系统的改革而再度陷入经济危机，说不定有朝一日韩国企业纷纷被中国企业并购。
在这一切过程中，将会决出胜者和败者，从而两极化更加严重。并非只是中国，而已开放的世界本身已经威胁着韩国的农民和部分中小企业的生存。就在这方面，迫切需要政府采取应有的措施。
chosun.com中文版
more
posted by BFF @ 11:14 AM
1 comments
Friday, January 19, 2007
Berkshire Hathaway Buffett/Jayhawk Q&A
By mhirschey
July 13, 2005
Posts selected for this feature rarely stand alone. They are usually a part of an ongoing thread, and are out of context when presented here. The material should be read in that light. How are these posts selected? Click here to find out and nominate a post yourself!
I took a bunch of students to Omaha for a Q&A with Warren recently, and I thought you might be interested in the back and forth.
Berkshire Hathaway
Warren Buffett Q&A
May 6, 2005
Question: According to a business week report published in 1999, you were quoted as saying "it's a huge structural advantage not to have a lot of money. I think I could make you 50% a year on $1 million. No, I know I could. I guarantee that." First, would you say the same thing today? Second, since that statement infers that you would invest in smaller companies, other than investing in small-caps, what else would you do differently?
Yes, I would still say the same thing today. In fact, we are still earning those types of returns on some of our smaller investments. The best decade was the 1950s; I was earning 50% plus returns with small amounts of capital. I could do the same thing today with smaller amounts. It would perhaps even be easier to make that much money in today's environment because information is easier to access.
You have to turn over a lot of rocks to find those little anomalies. You have to find the companies that are off the map - way off the map. You may find local companies that have nothing wrong with them at all. A company that I found, Western Insurance Securities, was trading for $3/share when it was earning $20/share!! I tried to buy up as much of it as possible. No one will tell you about these businesses. You have to find them.
Other examples: Genesee Valley Gas, public utility trading at a P/E of 2, GEICO, Union Street Railway of New Bedford selling at $30 when $100/share is sitting in cash, high yield position in 2002. No one will tell you about these ideas, you have to find them.
The answer is still yes today that you can still earn extraordinary returns on smaller amounts of capital. For example, I wouldn't have had to buy issue after issue of different high yield bonds. Having a lot of money to invest forced Berkshire to buy those that were less attractive. With less capital, I could have put all my money into the most attractive issues and really creamed it.
I know more about business and investing today, but my returns have continued to decline since the 50's. Money gets to be an anchor on performance. At Berkshire's size, there would be no more than 200 common stocks in the world that we could invest in if we were running a mutual fund or some other kind of investment business.
Q: Since Ben Graham isn't around anymore, what money managers do you respect today? Is there a Ben Graham today?
You don't need another Ben Graham. You don't need another Moses. There were only Ten Commandments; we're still waiting for the eleventh (j/k). His investing philosophy is still alive and well. There are disciples of him around, but all we are doing is parroting. I did read Phil Fisher later on, which showed the more qualitative aspects of businesses. Common stocks are part of a business. Markets are there to serve you, not to instruct you. You can often find a couple of companies that are out of line. Find one; get rich. Most people think that what the stock does from day to day contains information, but it doesn't. It isn't just something that wiggles around. The stock market is the best game in the world. You can take advantage of people who have no morals. High prices inside of a year will typically be 100% of the low price. Businesses don't change in value that much. That is simply crazy. There are extreme degrees of fluctuation, and Mr. Market will call out the prices. Wait until he is nutty in one direction or the other. Put in a margin of safety. Don't find a bridge that says no more than 10,000 pounds when you have a 9800 pound vehicle. It isn't a function of IQ, but receptivity of the mind.
When investing you don't have to invest in all 10,000 companies available, you just have to find the one that is out of line. Mr. Market is your servant. Mr. Market is your partner and wants to sell the business to you everyday. Some days he is very optimistic and wants a high price, others he is pessimistic and will sell at a low price. You have to use this to your advantage. The market is the greatest game in the world. There is nothing else that can, at times, get this far out of line with reality. For example, land usually only fluctuates within a 15% band. Negotiated transactions are less volatile. Some get this; others don't. Just keep your wits about you and you can make a lot of money in the market.
Q: Do you expect the stock market premium to continue to be 6.5% over bonds?
I don't think that the stock market will return 6.5% over bonds in the future. Stocks usually yield a little more, but that isn't ordained. Every once in a while, stocks will get very cheap, but it isn't ordained in scripture that this is so. Risk premiums are mostly nonsense. The world isn't calculating risk premiums.
Best book prior to Graham was written by Edgar Lawrence Smith in 1924 called Common Stocks as Long Term Investments. It was a study that evaluated how bonds compared to stocks in various decades of the past. There weren't a whole lot of publicly traded companies back then. He thought he knew what he was going to find. He thought that he'd find that bonds outperformed stocks during periods of deflation, and stocks outperformed during inflationary times. But what he found was that stocks outperformed the bonds in nearly all cases. John M. Keynes then enumerated the reasons that this was so. He said that over time you have more capital working for you, and thus dividends would grow higher. This was novel information back then and investors then went crazy and started buying stocks for these higher returns. But then they started to get crazy, and no longer really applied the sound tactics that made the reasons given in the book true. Be careful that when you buy something for a sound reason, make sure that the reason stays sound.
If you buy GM, you need to write the price and the respective market valuation. Then write down why you are buying the business. If you can't, then you have no business doing it.
Quote from Ben Graham: "You can get in more trouble with a sound premise than an unsound premise because you'll just throw out the unsound premise".
Q: What was your biggest mistake?
First off, follow Graham and you'll be fine.
My biggest mistakes were errors of omission vs. commission. Berkshire Hathaway was also a big mistake. Sometimes the opportunity costs of keeping money in something (like a lousy textile business) can be a drag on Berkshire's performance. We didn't learn from the previous mistake and bought another textile mill (Womback Mills) 6-7 years after buying Berkshire Hathaway. Meanwhile, I couldn't run the one in New Bedford.
Tom Murphy, my friend, bought the newspaper in Fort Worth. The previous ownership of these entities owned NBC as well, but he wanted to divest the NBC affiliate - $30 million to buy, doing $75 million in earnings. It was really a pretty good company, but he wanted to sell it anyway. There wouldn't be many more of it. Network television stations don't require excessive brains to run. They add a lot of money to our bottom lines.
We have never lost lots of money in things, except in insurance after 9/11. We don't do the kinds of things that lose you a lot of money. We just might not be finding the "best" opportunities.
Don't worry about mistakes. You'll make mistakes. Get over it. At the same time, it's important to learn from someone else's mistakes. You don't want to make too many mistakes.
Side note: Warren once asked Bill Gates, "If you could only hire from one place, where would it be?" Gate's reply was Indian Institute of Technology.
Q: Could you comment on your currency position?
We have about $21 billion in about 11 foreign currencies. We have $60-70 billion in things that are denominated in US Dollars. We still have a huge US bias. If Martians came down with currency certificates and could choose any currency on earth, I doubt it would be 80% in US Dollars.
We are following policies that make me doubt that our currency will not follow a downward spin. We lost $307 million this quarter. The net gain since we started holding foreign currencies in 2002 is $2.1 billion. We have to mark these future contracts to market daily. If we owned bonds instead of sterling forward contracts, it wouldn't fluctuate around so much.
Identifying bubbles is fairly easy. You don't know how big they will get and you don't know when they will pop. You don't know when midnight will hit, but when it does, it turns carriages to pumpkins and mice. What markets will do is pretty easy. When they will do it is more difficult. Some people want to stick around for the last dance, and they thought that a bigger fool would be just around the corner tomorrow.
When we bought those junk bonds, I didn't know we would make $4 billion in such a short time. It would have been better if it wouldn't have happened so quickly, as we would have gotten a bigger position.
Q: When did you know you were rich?
I really knew I was rich when I had $10,000. I knew along time ago that I was going to be doing something I loved doing with people that I loved doing it with. In 1958, I had my dad take me out of the will, as I knew I would be rich anyway. I let my two sisters have all the estate.
I bet we all in this room live about the same. We eat about the same and sleep about the same. We pretty much drive a car for 10 years. All this stuff doesn't make it any different. I will watch the Super Bowl on a big screen television just like you. We are living the same life. I have two luxuries: I get to do what I want to do every day and I get to travel a lot faster than you.
You should do the job you love whether or not you are getting paid for it. Do the job you love. Know that the money you will follow. I travel distances better than you do. The plane is nicer. But that is about the only thing that I do a whole lot different.
I didn't know my salary when I went to work for Graham until I got his first paycheck. Do what you love and don't even think about the money. I will take a trip on Paul Allen's Octopus ($400M yacht), but wouldn't want one for myself. A 60 man crew is needed. They could be stealing, sleeping with each other, etc. Professional sports teams are a hassle, especially when you have as much money as him. Fans would complain that you aren't spending enough when the team loses.
If there is a place that is warm in the winter and cool in the summer, and you do what you love doing, you will do fine. You're rich if you are working around people you like. You will make money if you are energetic and intelligent. This society lets smart people with drive earn a very good living. You will be no exception.
Q: What is your opinion of the prospects for the Kmart/Sears merger? How will Eddie Lambert do at bringing Kmart and Sears together?
Nobody knows. Eddie is a very smart guy but putting Kmart and Sears together is a tough hand. Turning around a retailer that has been slipping for a long time would be very difficult. Can you think of an example of a retailer that was successfully turned around? Broadcasting is easy; retailing is the other extreme. If you had a network television station 50 years ago, you didn't really have to invent or being a good salesman. The network paid you; car dealers paid you, and you made money.
But in retail you have to be smarter than Wal-Mart. Every day retailers are constantly thinking about ways to get ahead of what they were doing the previous day.
Retailing is like shooting at a moving target. In the past, people didn't like to go excessive distances from the street cars to buy things. People would flock to those retailers that were near by. In 1996 we bought the Hochschild Kohn department store in Baltimore. We learned quickly that it wasn't going to be a winner, long-term, in a very short period of time. We had an antiquated distribution system. We did everything else right. We put in escalators. We gave people more credit. We had a great guy running it, and we still couldn't win. So we sold it around 1970. That store isn't there anymore. It isn't good enough that there were smart people running it.
It will be interesting to see how Kmart and Sears play out. They already have a lot of real estate, and have let go of a bunch of Sears' management (500 people). They've captured some savings already.
We would rather look for easier things to do. The Buffett grocery stores started in Omaha in 1869 and lasted for 100 years. There were two competitors. In 1950, one competitor went out of business. In 1960 the other closed. We had the whole town to ourselves and still didn't make any money.
How many retailers have really sunk, and then come back? Not many. I can't think of any. Don't bet against the best. Costco is working on a 10-11% gross margin that is better than the Wal-Mart's and Sams'. In comparison, department stores have 35% gross margins. It's tough to compete against the best deal for customers. Department stores will keep their old customers that have a habit of shopping there, but they won't pick up new ones. Wal-Mart is also a tough competitor because others can't compete at their margins. It's very efficient.
If Eddie sees it as impossible, he won't watch it evaporate. Maybe he can combine certain things and increase efficiencies, but he won't be able to compete against Costco's margins.
Q: What led you to develop your values and goals at an early age?
I was lucky because I knew what I loved at an early age. I was wired in a certain way when I was born, and I was lucky enough to stumble upon some books at a library at a very early age. In 1930, I won the ovarian lottery. If I had been born 2000 years ago, I'd have been somebody's lunch. I couldn't run fast, etc.
I was lucky. I had a terrific set of parents. My father was an enormous inspiration for me. The job when you are a parent is to teach them. Be a natural hero. They are learning from you every moment you are around. There is no rewind button. If your parents do what they say and their values match what they teach you, you are lucky. What I observed in the world was consistent with what my parents taught me. That was important. If you are sarcastic, and use it as a teaching tool to kids, they'll never learn to get over it. Those first few years they are very impressionable.
Q: Could you discuss your views on estate planning and how you will allocate your wealth to your children?
It really reflects my views on how a rich society should behave. If it weren't for this society, I wouldn't be rich. It wasn't all me. Imagine if you were one of a pair of identical twins and a genie came along and allowed you to bid on where you could be born. The money that you bid is how much you had to agree to give back to society, and the one who bids the most gets to be born in the US and the other in Bangladesh. You would bid a lot. It is a huge advantage to be born here.
There should be no divine right of the womb. My kids wouldn't go off and do nothing if I give them a lot of money, but if they did, that would be a tragedy. $30 billion will be generated from estate taxes, which will go to help pay for the war in Iraq and other things. If you take away the estate tax, that money will have to come from somewhere else. If not from estate taxes then you inherently get it from poorer citizens. Less than 2% of estates will pay the estate tax. They would still have $50 million left over on average. I think those that get the lucky tickets should pay the most to the common causes of society. I believe in a big redistribution. Wealth is a bunch of claim checks that I can turn in for houses, etc. To pass those claim checks down to the next generation is the wrong approach. But for those that think I am perpetuating the welfare state, consider if you are born to a rich parent. You get a whole bunch of stocks right at the beginning of your life, and thus you are sort of on a welfare state of support from your rich parents from the beginning. What's the difference?
At $100,000 a year, I can find 10 people to paint my portraits to find the perfect one. I have that kind of money. But that is a waste, as those people could be doing something useful. I feel the same way about my kids and other heirs. They should be doing things that help to contribute to society.
Q: What kind of impact will the demographic shift (i.e. baby boomers) have on the United States?
We aren't big on demographic trends. It's difficult to translate that information into profitable decisions. It is hard to figure out what businesses will prosper in the future, based on macro trends. See's candy is for anyone and Fruit of the Loom is for people who need underwear today. We want to be right on something that will work right now, not something that might work in the future. I doubt that Wal-Mart spends a lot of time on demographics. They instead focus on where to put the store and what to put on the shelves. I've never found those kinds of stats useful. People were all excited to go into stocks 6 years ago, but it wasn't because of demographic trends.
Warren then referred to a recent WSJ article written by Jeremy Siegel that discussed funds flowing out of investments because baby boomers will need to cash in their investments during retirement. He said he respected Siegel, but he doesn't find fund flows data useful.
Q: What would Berkshire be like if you hadn't met Charlie Munger?
It would be very different, but I could say the same thing about a lot of other people, too. I've had a lot (at least a dozen) of heroes, including my parents. Charlie and I didn't meet until 1959, although he grew up a half a block from where I lived. Charlie was 35 and I was 29. We've been partners ever since. He is very strong-minded, but we've never had an argument that whole time. I've never been let down once. It must be a terrible feeling to be let down by a hero.
Hang around people who are better than you all the time. You do pick up the behavior of people who are around you. It will make you a better person. Marry upward. That is the person who is going to have the biggest effect on you. A relationship like that over the decades will do nothing but good.
Q: Are investors more or less knowledgeable today compared to ten years ago?
There is no doubt that there are far more "investment professionals" and way more IQ in the field, as it didn't use to look that promising. Investment data are available more conveniently and faster today. But the behavior of investors will not be more intelligent than in the past, despite all this. How people react will not change – their psychological makeup stays constant. You need to divorce your mind from the crowd. The herd mentality causes all these IQ's to become paralyzed. I don't think investors are now acting more intelligently, despite the intelligence. Smart doesn't always equal rational. To be a successful investor you must divorce yourself from the fears and greed of the people around you, although it is almost impossible.
Do you think Ponzi was crazy? The tech and telecom madness that existed just 6 years ago is right up there with the craziest mania's that have ever happened. Huge training in capital management didn't help.
Take Long Term Capital Management. They had 100's of millions of their own money, and had all of that experience. The list included Nobel Prize winners. They probably had the highest IQ of any 100 people working together in the country, yet the place still blew up. It went to zero in a matter of days. How can people who are rich and no longer need more money do such foolish things?
Q: What effect does large institutional ownership have on stock price volatility?
Never has so much been managed by so few that care so much about what happens tomorrow. So much of the world of investing is people who are trying to beat indexes, and they have a willingness and eagerness to make decisions in the next 24 hours. This condition didn't exist years ago. It has created a "hair trigger" effect. An example of this hair trigger effect was Black Monday in '87. The cause was program trading and stop loss orders.
Q: What sectors are hurting? Is there a bear market coming?
Humans are still made up of the same psychological makeup, and opportunities will always present themselves. All these people have not gotten more rational. They are moved by fear and greed. But I'm never afraid of what I am doing. What are directors thinking [by not repurchasing shares] if the business is selling on a per share basis for one-fourth of what the whole business would sell for? They don't always think rational. I simply don't have that problem.
Berkshire owned the Washington Post, the ABC network and Newsweek. It was selling for $100 million based on the stock price. No debt. You could have held an auction, and sold off the companies individually for $500M total, but $100M was the price. In other words they were willing to sell us money that was worth $1 for $0.25. According to efficient markets, the beta was higher when the stock was at $20 than at $37. This is insanity. We bought what was then worth $9 million that is now worth $1.7 billion.
Q: How do you feel about divisions of conglomerates trying to horde capital?
Berkshire wants the capital in the most logical place. Berkshire is a tax efficient way to move money from business to business, and we can redeploy capital in places that need them. Most of the managers of companies we own are already independently rich. They want to work, but don't have to. They don't horde capital they don't need.
Q: How do you feel about the current real estate environment?
If you are buying to own a home, that is fine. Otherwise, it seems to be getting into bubble territory. We're not excited about real estate because generally there is not enough return at current prices.
more
July 13, 2005
Posts selected for this feature rarely stand alone. They are usually a part of an ongoing thread, and are out of context when presented here. The material should be read in that light. How are these posts selected? Click here to find out and nominate a post yourself!
I took a bunch of students to Omaha for a Q&A with Warren recently, and I thought you might be interested in the back and forth.
Berkshire Hathaway
Warren Buffett Q&A
May 6, 2005
Question: According to a business week report published in 1999, you were quoted as saying "it's a huge structural advantage not to have a lot of money. I think I could make you 50% a year on $1 million. No, I know I could. I guarantee that." First, would you say the same thing today? Second, since that statement infers that you would invest in smaller companies, other than investing in small-caps, what else would you do differently?
Yes, I would still say the same thing today. In fact, we are still earning those types of returns on some of our smaller investments. The best decade was the 1950s; I was earning 50% plus returns with small amounts of capital. I could do the same thing today with smaller amounts. It would perhaps even be easier to make that much money in today's environment because information is easier to access.
You have to turn over a lot of rocks to find those little anomalies. You have to find the companies that are off the map - way off the map. You may find local companies that have nothing wrong with them at all. A company that I found, Western Insurance Securities, was trading for $3/share when it was earning $20/share!! I tried to buy up as much of it as possible. No one will tell you about these businesses. You have to find them.
Other examples: Genesee Valley Gas, public utility trading at a P/E of 2, GEICO, Union Street Railway of New Bedford selling at $30 when $100/share is sitting in cash, high yield position in 2002. No one will tell you about these ideas, you have to find them.
The answer is still yes today that you can still earn extraordinary returns on smaller amounts of capital. For example, I wouldn't have had to buy issue after issue of different high yield bonds. Having a lot of money to invest forced Berkshire to buy those that were less attractive. With less capital, I could have put all my money into the most attractive issues and really creamed it.
I know more about business and investing today, but my returns have continued to decline since the 50's. Money gets to be an anchor on performance. At Berkshire's size, there would be no more than 200 common stocks in the world that we could invest in if we were running a mutual fund or some other kind of investment business.
Q: Since Ben Graham isn't around anymore, what money managers do you respect today? Is there a Ben Graham today?
You don't need another Ben Graham. You don't need another Moses. There were only Ten Commandments; we're still waiting for the eleventh (j/k). His investing philosophy is still alive and well. There are disciples of him around, but all we are doing is parroting. I did read Phil Fisher later on, which showed the more qualitative aspects of businesses. Common stocks are part of a business. Markets are there to serve you, not to instruct you. You can often find a couple of companies that are out of line. Find one; get rich. Most people think that what the stock does from day to day contains information, but it doesn't. It isn't just something that wiggles around. The stock market is the best game in the world. You can take advantage of people who have no morals. High prices inside of a year will typically be 100% of the low price. Businesses don't change in value that much. That is simply crazy. There are extreme degrees of fluctuation, and Mr. Market will call out the prices. Wait until he is nutty in one direction or the other. Put in a margin of safety. Don't find a bridge that says no more than 10,000 pounds when you have a 9800 pound vehicle. It isn't a function of IQ, but receptivity of the mind.
When investing you don't have to invest in all 10,000 companies available, you just have to find the one that is out of line. Mr. Market is your servant. Mr. Market is your partner and wants to sell the business to you everyday. Some days he is very optimistic and wants a high price, others he is pessimistic and will sell at a low price. You have to use this to your advantage. The market is the greatest game in the world. There is nothing else that can, at times, get this far out of line with reality. For example, land usually only fluctuates within a 15% band. Negotiated transactions are less volatile. Some get this; others don't. Just keep your wits about you and you can make a lot of money in the market.
Q: Do you expect the stock market premium to continue to be 6.5% over bonds?
I don't think that the stock market will return 6.5% over bonds in the future. Stocks usually yield a little more, but that isn't ordained. Every once in a while, stocks will get very cheap, but it isn't ordained in scripture that this is so. Risk premiums are mostly nonsense. The world isn't calculating risk premiums.
Best book prior to Graham was written by Edgar Lawrence Smith in 1924 called Common Stocks as Long Term Investments. It was a study that evaluated how bonds compared to stocks in various decades of the past. There weren't a whole lot of publicly traded companies back then. He thought he knew what he was going to find. He thought that he'd find that bonds outperformed stocks during periods of deflation, and stocks outperformed during inflationary times. But what he found was that stocks outperformed the bonds in nearly all cases. John M. Keynes then enumerated the reasons that this was so. He said that over time you have more capital working for you, and thus dividends would grow higher. This was novel information back then and investors then went crazy and started buying stocks for these higher returns. But then they started to get crazy, and no longer really applied the sound tactics that made the reasons given in the book true. Be careful that when you buy something for a sound reason, make sure that the reason stays sound.
If you buy GM, you need to write the price and the respective market valuation. Then write down why you are buying the business. If you can't, then you have no business doing it.
Quote from Ben Graham: "You can get in more trouble with a sound premise than an unsound premise because you'll just throw out the unsound premise".
Q: What was your biggest mistake?
First off, follow Graham and you'll be fine.
My biggest mistakes were errors of omission vs. commission. Berkshire Hathaway was also a big mistake. Sometimes the opportunity costs of keeping money in something (like a lousy textile business) can be a drag on Berkshire's performance. We didn't learn from the previous mistake and bought another textile mill (Womback Mills) 6-7 years after buying Berkshire Hathaway. Meanwhile, I couldn't run the one in New Bedford.
Tom Murphy, my friend, bought the newspaper in Fort Worth. The previous ownership of these entities owned NBC as well, but he wanted to divest the NBC affiliate - $30 million to buy, doing $75 million in earnings. It was really a pretty good company, but he wanted to sell it anyway. There wouldn't be many more of it. Network television stations don't require excessive brains to run. They add a lot of money to our bottom lines.
We have never lost lots of money in things, except in insurance after 9/11. We don't do the kinds of things that lose you a lot of money. We just might not be finding the "best" opportunities.
Don't worry about mistakes. You'll make mistakes. Get over it. At the same time, it's important to learn from someone else's mistakes. You don't want to make too many mistakes.
Side note: Warren once asked Bill Gates, "If you could only hire from one place, where would it be?" Gate's reply was Indian Institute of Technology.
Q: Could you comment on your currency position?
We have about $21 billion in about 11 foreign currencies. We have $60-70 billion in things that are denominated in US Dollars. We still have a huge US bias. If Martians came down with currency certificates and could choose any currency on earth, I doubt it would be 80% in US Dollars.
We are following policies that make me doubt that our currency will not follow a downward spin. We lost $307 million this quarter. The net gain since we started holding foreign currencies in 2002 is $2.1 billion. We have to mark these future contracts to market daily. If we owned bonds instead of sterling forward contracts, it wouldn't fluctuate around so much.
Identifying bubbles is fairly easy. You don't know how big they will get and you don't know when they will pop. You don't know when midnight will hit, but when it does, it turns carriages to pumpkins and mice. What markets will do is pretty easy. When they will do it is more difficult. Some people want to stick around for the last dance, and they thought that a bigger fool would be just around the corner tomorrow.
When we bought those junk bonds, I didn't know we would make $4 billion in such a short time. It would have been better if it wouldn't have happened so quickly, as we would have gotten a bigger position.
Q: When did you know you were rich?
I really knew I was rich when I had $10,000. I knew along time ago that I was going to be doing something I loved doing with people that I loved doing it with. In 1958, I had my dad take me out of the will, as I knew I would be rich anyway. I let my two sisters have all the estate.
I bet we all in this room live about the same. We eat about the same and sleep about the same. We pretty much drive a car for 10 years. All this stuff doesn't make it any different. I will watch the Super Bowl on a big screen television just like you. We are living the same life. I have two luxuries: I get to do what I want to do every day and I get to travel a lot faster than you.
You should do the job you love whether or not you are getting paid for it. Do the job you love. Know that the money you will follow. I travel distances better than you do. The plane is nicer. But that is about the only thing that I do a whole lot different.
I didn't know my salary when I went to work for Graham until I got his first paycheck. Do what you love and don't even think about the money. I will take a trip on Paul Allen's Octopus ($400M yacht), but wouldn't want one for myself. A 60 man crew is needed. They could be stealing, sleeping with each other, etc. Professional sports teams are a hassle, especially when you have as much money as him. Fans would complain that you aren't spending enough when the team loses.
If there is a place that is warm in the winter and cool in the summer, and you do what you love doing, you will do fine. You're rich if you are working around people you like. You will make money if you are energetic and intelligent. This society lets smart people with drive earn a very good living. You will be no exception.
Q: What is your opinion of the prospects for the Kmart/Sears merger? How will Eddie Lambert do at bringing Kmart and Sears together?
Nobody knows. Eddie is a very smart guy but putting Kmart and Sears together is a tough hand. Turning around a retailer that has been slipping for a long time would be very difficult. Can you think of an example of a retailer that was successfully turned around? Broadcasting is easy; retailing is the other extreme. If you had a network television station 50 years ago, you didn't really have to invent or being a good salesman. The network paid you; car dealers paid you, and you made money.
But in retail you have to be smarter than Wal-Mart. Every day retailers are constantly thinking about ways to get ahead of what they were doing the previous day.
Retailing is like shooting at a moving target. In the past, people didn't like to go excessive distances from the street cars to buy things. People would flock to those retailers that were near by. In 1996 we bought the Hochschild Kohn department store in Baltimore. We learned quickly that it wasn't going to be a winner, long-term, in a very short period of time. We had an antiquated distribution system. We did everything else right. We put in escalators. We gave people more credit. We had a great guy running it, and we still couldn't win. So we sold it around 1970. That store isn't there anymore. It isn't good enough that there were smart people running it.
It will be interesting to see how Kmart and Sears play out. They already have a lot of real estate, and have let go of a bunch of Sears' management (500 people). They've captured some savings already.
We would rather look for easier things to do. The Buffett grocery stores started in Omaha in 1869 and lasted for 100 years. There were two competitors. In 1950, one competitor went out of business. In 1960 the other closed. We had the whole town to ourselves and still didn't make any money.
How many retailers have really sunk, and then come back? Not many. I can't think of any. Don't bet against the best. Costco is working on a 10-11% gross margin that is better than the Wal-Mart's and Sams'. In comparison, department stores have 35% gross margins. It's tough to compete against the best deal for customers. Department stores will keep their old customers that have a habit of shopping there, but they won't pick up new ones. Wal-Mart is also a tough competitor because others can't compete at their margins. It's very efficient.
If Eddie sees it as impossible, he won't watch it evaporate. Maybe he can combine certain things and increase efficiencies, but he won't be able to compete against Costco's margins.
Q: What led you to develop your values and goals at an early age?
I was lucky because I knew what I loved at an early age. I was wired in a certain way when I was born, and I was lucky enough to stumble upon some books at a library at a very early age. In 1930, I won the ovarian lottery. If I had been born 2000 years ago, I'd have been somebody's lunch. I couldn't run fast, etc.
I was lucky. I had a terrific set of parents. My father was an enormous inspiration for me. The job when you are a parent is to teach them. Be a natural hero. They are learning from you every moment you are around. There is no rewind button. If your parents do what they say and their values match what they teach you, you are lucky. What I observed in the world was consistent with what my parents taught me. That was important. If you are sarcastic, and use it as a teaching tool to kids, they'll never learn to get over it. Those first few years they are very impressionable.
Q: Could you discuss your views on estate planning and how you will allocate your wealth to your children?
It really reflects my views on how a rich society should behave. If it weren't for this society, I wouldn't be rich. It wasn't all me. Imagine if you were one of a pair of identical twins and a genie came along and allowed you to bid on where you could be born. The money that you bid is how much you had to agree to give back to society, and the one who bids the most gets to be born in the US and the other in Bangladesh. You would bid a lot. It is a huge advantage to be born here.
There should be no divine right of the womb. My kids wouldn't go off and do nothing if I give them a lot of money, but if they did, that would be a tragedy. $30 billion will be generated from estate taxes, which will go to help pay for the war in Iraq and other things. If you take away the estate tax, that money will have to come from somewhere else. If not from estate taxes then you inherently get it from poorer citizens. Less than 2% of estates will pay the estate tax. They would still have $50 million left over on average. I think those that get the lucky tickets should pay the most to the common causes of society. I believe in a big redistribution. Wealth is a bunch of claim checks that I can turn in for houses, etc. To pass those claim checks down to the next generation is the wrong approach. But for those that think I am perpetuating the welfare state, consider if you are born to a rich parent. You get a whole bunch of stocks right at the beginning of your life, and thus you are sort of on a welfare state of support from your rich parents from the beginning. What's the difference?
At $100,000 a year, I can find 10 people to paint my portraits to find the perfect one. I have that kind of money. But that is a waste, as those people could be doing something useful. I feel the same way about my kids and other heirs. They should be doing things that help to contribute to society.
Q: What kind of impact will the demographic shift (i.e. baby boomers) have on the United States?
We aren't big on demographic trends. It's difficult to translate that information into profitable decisions. It is hard to figure out what businesses will prosper in the future, based on macro trends. See's candy is for anyone and Fruit of the Loom is for people who need underwear today. We want to be right on something that will work right now, not something that might work in the future. I doubt that Wal-Mart spends a lot of time on demographics. They instead focus on where to put the store and what to put on the shelves. I've never found those kinds of stats useful. People were all excited to go into stocks 6 years ago, but it wasn't because of demographic trends.
Warren then referred to a recent WSJ article written by Jeremy Siegel that discussed funds flowing out of investments because baby boomers will need to cash in their investments during retirement. He said he respected Siegel, but he doesn't find fund flows data useful.
Q: What would Berkshire be like if you hadn't met Charlie Munger?
It would be very different, but I could say the same thing about a lot of other people, too. I've had a lot (at least a dozen) of heroes, including my parents. Charlie and I didn't meet until 1959, although he grew up a half a block from where I lived. Charlie was 35 and I was 29. We've been partners ever since. He is very strong-minded, but we've never had an argument that whole time. I've never been let down once. It must be a terrible feeling to be let down by a hero.
Hang around people who are better than you all the time. You do pick up the behavior of people who are around you. It will make you a better person. Marry upward. That is the person who is going to have the biggest effect on you. A relationship like that over the decades will do nothing but good.
Q: Are investors more or less knowledgeable today compared to ten years ago?
There is no doubt that there are far more "investment professionals" and way more IQ in the field, as it didn't use to look that promising. Investment data are available more conveniently and faster today. But the behavior of investors will not be more intelligent than in the past, despite all this. How people react will not change – their psychological makeup stays constant. You need to divorce your mind from the crowd. The herd mentality causes all these IQ's to become paralyzed. I don't think investors are now acting more intelligently, despite the intelligence. Smart doesn't always equal rational. To be a successful investor you must divorce yourself from the fears and greed of the people around you, although it is almost impossible.
Do you think Ponzi was crazy? The tech and telecom madness that existed just 6 years ago is right up there with the craziest mania's that have ever happened. Huge training in capital management didn't help.
Take Long Term Capital Management. They had 100's of millions of their own money, and had all of that experience. The list included Nobel Prize winners. They probably had the highest IQ of any 100 people working together in the country, yet the place still blew up. It went to zero in a matter of days. How can people who are rich and no longer need more money do such foolish things?
Q: What effect does large institutional ownership have on stock price volatility?
Never has so much been managed by so few that care so much about what happens tomorrow. So much of the world of investing is people who are trying to beat indexes, and they have a willingness and eagerness to make decisions in the next 24 hours. This condition didn't exist years ago. It has created a "hair trigger" effect. An example of this hair trigger effect was Black Monday in '87. The cause was program trading and stop loss orders.
Q: What sectors are hurting? Is there a bear market coming?
Humans are still made up of the same psychological makeup, and opportunities will always present themselves. All these people have not gotten more rational. They are moved by fear and greed. But I'm never afraid of what I am doing. What are directors thinking [by not repurchasing shares] if the business is selling on a per share basis for one-fourth of what the whole business would sell for? They don't always think rational. I simply don't have that problem.
Berkshire owned the Washington Post, the ABC network and Newsweek. It was selling for $100 million based on the stock price. No debt. You could have held an auction, and sold off the companies individually for $500M total, but $100M was the price. In other words they were willing to sell us money that was worth $1 for $0.25. According to efficient markets, the beta was higher when the stock was at $20 than at $37. This is insanity. We bought what was then worth $9 million that is now worth $1.7 billion.
Q: How do you feel about divisions of conglomerates trying to horde capital?
Berkshire wants the capital in the most logical place. Berkshire is a tax efficient way to move money from business to business, and we can redeploy capital in places that need them. Most of the managers of companies we own are already independently rich. They want to work, but don't have to. They don't horde capital they don't need.
Q: How do you feel about the current real estate environment?
If you are buying to own a home, that is fine. Otherwise, it seems to be getting into bubble territory. We're not excited about real estate because generally there is not enough return at current prices.
more
posted by BFF @ 5:47 PM
1 comments
Friday, December 22, 2006
入世五年
http://finance.sina.com.cn 2006年12月17日 15:55 经济观察报
张军
中国入世五周年了。五年来中国经济的变化的确值得我们去反思很多过去我们有很大争议的问题。这些天，国内的报纸上有了铺天盖地的评论文章，对五年来中国在汽车、电讯、银行、农产品市场、出口贸易等领域进行的开放，以及解除政府管制的成就给予了相当积极的评价。西方财经媒体上的有关文章也多了起来。这些文章总体上给了我一个基本论点
，那就是，五年前我们缺乏的并不是诚意，而是信心。
缺乏信心的其实首先是经济学家。我在今年9月间的一篇文章中说，在中国入世问题上，经济学家所犯的最典型的集体性错误莫过于五年前他们对中国入世所持的观点和预测了。当中国政府横下心要成为世界贸易组织的成员并做出一系列承诺之时，经济学家对中国政府履行其承诺的能力表示了根本的怀疑，就像他们不能相信中国经济会持续繁荣那样。然后是集体性地低估了入世给中国经济带来的正面影响，更多地集中于对负面影响的确认和估计，而这样的估计相对更容易做出。的确，中国入世前后，往返于中国和西方国家之间的那些经济学家，纷纷成立各种研究项目小组，利用来自政府和商业界的经费资助对中国入世的正反两方面的影响进行估计。这其中也包括了对中国入世中可能获得的积极影响进行估算和预测。即使那些最大胆的估计，也只是预测，到2005年，中国的贸易总额能达到6000亿-7000亿美金的规模就已是不得了的奇迹了。在五年多以前，这大概是最够大胆的预测，而且可以说几乎没有人会把这个预测当回事。即使中国政府自己，看起来也低估了自己的学习和应对能力。毕竟在2000年，中国的贸易总额不过只有3700亿美金，而且在1996-2000年的五年间，这个数字的变化几乎是微不足道的。
国际经济学家对中国入世后贸易顺差的估计就更离谱了。在上世纪90年代后期，中国的贸易顺差长期在200多亿美金上下徘徊。没有人在当时估计到中国的贸易顺差会在五年后剧增至1000亿美元以上并继续高走。2006年前9个月，中国的贸易顺差已超过了千亿美元，而且似乎很难看出达到这个规模的显而易见的理由。在这种“井喷现象”面前，经济学家再次汗颜。为什么总是不能正确估计中国发生变化的速度？总是严重低估它的背后实现这种变化的能力？
其实，这五年来，还有一个伴随着中国入世而来的另外一些更重要的变化，其深度和宽度也是我们在五年前难以预测和想象的。2001年年底中国入世之时，在美国出版了一本书，叫做《中国行将崩溃》，而中国大陆则在流行着另外一本书，叫《现代化的陷阱》。这两本书利用了几乎相同的视角和相似的资料，也得出了一个相同的结论，那就是中国经济的发展正在走向崩溃。在这两本书里，前一本书更强调了中国银行(4.00,0.01,0.25%)体系的低效率和坏账的规模，国有企业的不可改革性，地区差距的扩大等。后一本书还把腐败、分配不公等问题赋予了更大的“权重”和更多的叙述篇幅。阅读了这两本书之后，你会对中国经济的前景充满着沮丧和恐惧。一个即将爆炸的定时炸弹就埋伏在中国经济的躯壳里。在那个时候，哪怕今天，类似这样的描述依然很诱人，依然能赢得更多的喝彩。
可是，被很多人士视为将断送中国经济前途命运的银行和国有企业在这五年里发生了什么呢？就是这个五年，中国的银行获得了重生。四大商业银行完成了股权的重组、改造和上市，在海外市场上令人刮目相看。也是这个五年，中国的国有企业完成了一个史无前例的蜕变过程。分散在地方上的几十万家国企借助于股权改革、置换和自生自灭的过程，基本走完了中国国企的去政治化和民营化的阶段。即使中央政府管理的167家“央企”也从传统的国企转变成了现代的公司治理。在一般的转型经济或新兴的市场经济里，我们几乎不能想象这样的重大变化会发生在最棘手的传统国有部门里。即使是最主张市场改革的中国人士，五年前也想象不到这个巨大的变化和这个变化的速度。我记得2001年，我在东京大学出席一个研讨会，匹兹堡大学的罗斯基教授在报告中就自问自答，中国的国有企业改革什么时候才能完成，答案是当国有企业变得不再那么重要的时候。这个时候其实已悄然而来。
五年来的这种巨大变化已让中国经济转型的基本任务完成了。这个成就虽然不能简单地归功于“入世”，但依我之见，入世五年的成功转型，再次让我们看到了一样东西是格外重要的，尽管我们常常愿意低估它。这个东西就是竞争。我最近在一些演讲里多次强调了竞争对于理解中国经济的变化和活力的重要性。竞争在一个大国经济里可能将扮演更重要的治理角色。入世五年的经历表明，外资进入和市场开放短期里也许是一个威胁和失落，但由此带来的竞争却使我们做得更好，做得更大。中国人其实不怕竞争，但中国人总是低估自己的竞争能力。没有来自国际上和我们自己之间的竞争，我们似乎还是愿意等待着政府的安排。我认为，中国能成功地走出1989-1991年的阴霾，能够成功地在1997-1998年的亚洲金融危机之后保持强劲增长、避免诸多的陷阱和错误的政策，靠的不是运气，更不是命运的安排，而是大胆地开放和引进竞争所形成的市场秩序的结果。我的观察始终让我相信，中国在1992年以后的经济政策总体而言是“亲市场”(pro-market)的而不是“亲企业”(pro-business)的。这个基本政策保存了竞争这个最重要的“基因”。而在很多欠发达的经济里，这个政策可能最不容易做得到。很多发展中的国家今天都容易坚持“亲企业”的政策，但由于政治的和历史的原因却难以作出“亲市场”的政策。
最近看到一些文章讨论中国的经济安全，其观点之尖锐可谓触目惊心。有人发表“祛魅外资神话”，或者“中国经济安全已经达到了建国以来的最危险时期”等等言论，认为中国经济发展的最大风险就是开放的风险或者是开放和外资进入带来的风险，过多的外资已经对中国经济造成了严重的危害和后果。现在，针对中国经济安全的言论和进行所谓“经济研究”的文章越来越多，耸人听闻。我的看法是，如果经济安全和针对外资的批判言论是正确的，那么下面的说法就应该是正确的：中国这10年来的经济增长是假的；封闭政策比开放政策更有利于经济增长和社会进步；事实上有一个关于经济发展的安全理论；经济学是错的。很难让我相信以上这些判断是正确的。我的看法是，中国经济的增长和宏观的繁荣在很大程度上正是得益于开放的和竞争的市场环境的形成。不管我们的经济有什么问题，竞争总是比政府更有效率地改变着我们原来的东西，让我们做得更好而不是更差。更重要的是，当今中国经济里面，我们每个人都成了竞争者而不是守卫者。可能这才是中国经济略胜一筹的地方。
more
张军
中国入世五周年了。五年来中国经济的变化的确值得我们去反思很多过去我们有很大争议的问题。这些天，国内的报纸上有了铺天盖地的评论文章，对五年来中国在汽车、电讯、银行、农产品市场、出口贸易等领域进行的开放，以及解除政府管制的成就给予了相当积极的评价。西方财经媒体上的有关文章也多了起来。这些文章总体上给了我一个基本论点
，那就是，五年前我们缺乏的并不是诚意，而是信心。
缺乏信心的其实首先是经济学家。我在今年9月间的一篇文章中说，在中国入世问题上，经济学家所犯的最典型的集体性错误莫过于五年前他们对中国入世所持的观点和预测了。当中国政府横下心要成为世界贸易组织的成员并做出一系列承诺之时，经济学家对中国政府履行其承诺的能力表示了根本的怀疑，就像他们不能相信中国经济会持续繁荣那样。然后是集体性地低估了入世给中国经济带来的正面影响，更多地集中于对负面影响的确认和估计，而这样的估计相对更容易做出。的确，中国入世前后，往返于中国和西方国家之间的那些经济学家，纷纷成立各种研究项目小组，利用来自政府和商业界的经费资助对中国入世的正反两方面的影响进行估计。这其中也包括了对中国入世中可能获得的积极影响进行估算和预测。即使那些最大胆的估计，也只是预测，到2005年，中国的贸易总额能达到6000亿-7000亿美金的规模就已是不得了的奇迹了。在五年多以前，这大概是最够大胆的预测，而且可以说几乎没有人会把这个预测当回事。即使中国政府自己，看起来也低估了自己的学习和应对能力。毕竟在2000年，中国的贸易总额不过只有3700亿美金，而且在1996-2000年的五年间，这个数字的变化几乎是微不足道的。
国际经济学家对中国入世后贸易顺差的估计就更离谱了。在上世纪90年代后期，中国的贸易顺差长期在200多亿美金上下徘徊。没有人在当时估计到中国的贸易顺差会在五年后剧增至1000亿美元以上并继续高走。2006年前9个月，中国的贸易顺差已超过了千亿美元，而且似乎很难看出达到这个规模的显而易见的理由。在这种“井喷现象”面前，经济学家再次汗颜。为什么总是不能正确估计中国发生变化的速度？总是严重低估它的背后实现这种变化的能力？
其实，这五年来，还有一个伴随着中国入世而来的另外一些更重要的变化，其深度和宽度也是我们在五年前难以预测和想象的。2001年年底中国入世之时，在美国出版了一本书，叫做《中国行将崩溃》，而中国大陆则在流行着另外一本书，叫《现代化的陷阱》。这两本书利用了几乎相同的视角和相似的资料，也得出了一个相同的结论，那就是中国经济的发展正在走向崩溃。在这两本书里，前一本书更强调了中国银行(4.00,0.01,0.25%)体系的低效率和坏账的规模，国有企业的不可改革性，地区差距的扩大等。后一本书还把腐败、分配不公等问题赋予了更大的“权重”和更多的叙述篇幅。阅读了这两本书之后，你会对中国经济的前景充满着沮丧和恐惧。一个即将爆炸的定时炸弹就埋伏在中国经济的躯壳里。在那个时候，哪怕今天，类似这样的描述依然很诱人，依然能赢得更多的喝彩。
可是，被很多人士视为将断送中国经济前途命运的银行和国有企业在这五年里发生了什么呢？就是这个五年，中国的银行获得了重生。四大商业银行完成了股权的重组、改造和上市，在海外市场上令人刮目相看。也是这个五年，中国的国有企业完成了一个史无前例的蜕变过程。分散在地方上的几十万家国企借助于股权改革、置换和自生自灭的过程，基本走完了中国国企的去政治化和民营化的阶段。即使中央政府管理的167家“央企”也从传统的国企转变成了现代的公司治理。在一般的转型经济或新兴的市场经济里，我们几乎不能想象这样的重大变化会发生在最棘手的传统国有部门里。即使是最主张市场改革的中国人士，五年前也想象不到这个巨大的变化和这个变化的速度。我记得2001年，我在东京大学出席一个研讨会，匹兹堡大学的罗斯基教授在报告中就自问自答，中国的国有企业改革什么时候才能完成，答案是当国有企业变得不再那么重要的时候。这个时候其实已悄然而来。
五年来的这种巨大变化已让中国经济转型的基本任务完成了。这个成就虽然不能简单地归功于“入世”，但依我之见，入世五年的成功转型，再次让我们看到了一样东西是格外重要的，尽管我们常常愿意低估它。这个东西就是竞争。我最近在一些演讲里多次强调了竞争对于理解中国经济的变化和活力的重要性。竞争在一个大国经济里可能将扮演更重要的治理角色。入世五年的经历表明，外资进入和市场开放短期里也许是一个威胁和失落，但由此带来的竞争却使我们做得更好，做得更大。中国人其实不怕竞争，但中国人总是低估自己的竞争能力。没有来自国际上和我们自己之间的竞争，我们似乎还是愿意等待着政府的安排。我认为，中国能成功地走出1989-1991年的阴霾，能够成功地在1997-1998年的亚洲金融危机之后保持强劲增长、避免诸多的陷阱和错误的政策，靠的不是运气，更不是命运的安排，而是大胆地开放和引进竞争所形成的市场秩序的结果。我的观察始终让我相信，中国在1992年以后的经济政策总体而言是“亲市场”(pro-market)的而不是“亲企业”(pro-business)的。这个基本政策保存了竞争这个最重要的“基因”。而在很多欠发达的经济里，这个政策可能最不容易做得到。很多发展中的国家今天都容易坚持“亲企业”的政策，但由于政治的和历史的原因却难以作出“亲市场”的政策。
最近看到一些文章讨论中国的经济安全，其观点之尖锐可谓触目惊心。有人发表“祛魅外资神话”，或者“中国经济安全已经达到了建国以来的最危险时期”等等言论，认为中国经济发展的最大风险就是开放的风险或者是开放和外资进入带来的风险，过多的外资已经对中国经济造成了严重的危害和后果。现在，针对中国经济安全的言论和进行所谓“经济研究”的文章越来越多，耸人听闻。我的看法是，如果经济安全和针对外资的批判言论是正确的，那么下面的说法就应该是正确的：中国这10年来的经济增长是假的；封闭政策比开放政策更有利于经济增长和社会进步；事实上有一个关于经济发展的安全理论；经济学是错的。很难让我相信以上这些判断是正确的。我的看法是，中国经济的增长和宏观的繁荣在很大程度上正是得益于开放的和竞争的市场环境的形成。不管我们的经济有什么问题，竞争总是比政府更有效率地改变着我们原来的东西，让我们做得更好而不是更差。更重要的是，当今中国经济里面，我们每个人都成了竞争者而不是守卫者。可能这才是中国经济略胜一筹的地方。
more
posted by BFF @ 4:44 PM
0 comments
Saturday, December 16, 2006
德国汉学权威另一只眼看现当代中国文学
波恩大学汉学教授顾宾（Wolfgang Kubin）是德国最著名的汉学家之一，尤其在中国现当代文学的介绍和研究方面堪称权威。在接受德国之声采访时，他对中国作协、中国当代文学的问题、中国作家的问题、中国文学如何走向世界，以及一些具体作家和作品谈了他的看法。欢迎大家对此展开讨论。
德国之声：顾宾教授您好。最近在北京召开了中国作协大会，选出铁凝担任主席，这是继茅盾和巴金之后的第三位中国作协主席。听说您那时正在中国。您对这件事情是怎么看的？
顾宾：我那时是在中国。我对这事不太清楚。反正，可以这么说，所有我认识的中国作家都看不起作协。对我们汉学家来说，作协有一个新的主席无所谓。
德国之声：那就是说，作协新的主席不需要象以前的茅盾或者巴金那样一定要是最有名的，或者说声望最高的人，是吗？
顾宾：这个作协一点用处一点好处都没有。你在中国大陆可以问所有的作家，没有人会主动说到作协，没有人，一个也没有。如果是真正的中国作家，他肯定不要入那个作协。如果他入了以后才成为一个伟大的作家的话，他是很有问题的。一般来说，好的作家不可能跟作协保持什么联系。
德国之声：听说您最近作了一个报告，关于21世纪中国文学存在的问题。您能不能大体上归纳一下您报告里的内容，也就是说，中国文学现在这几年存在哪些问题。
顾宾：我只能提到一些我自己觉得20世纪中国文学存在的问题。比方说，如果我们要分49年以前49年以后的中国作家的话，我们会发现，中国49年以前的那些作家，他们的外语都不错。张爱玲、林语堂、胡适，他们都能够用外语写作。有些作家两种外语都没问题，比方说鲁迅。49年以后基本上你找不到一个会说外语的中国作家。所以他不能够从另外一个语言系统看自己的作品。另外他根本没办法看外文版的作品。他只能看翻译成中文以后的外国作品。所以中国作家对外国文学的理解和了解是非常差的，差得很。49年以前不少作家认为，我们学外语会丰富我们自己的写作。但是，你问一个（现在的）中国作家为什么不学外语，他会说，外语只能够破坏我的母语。我估计是这样，为什么 49年以后没有什么伟大的作家，为什么这些作家肯定比不上49年以前的作家呢，问题就在这里，这是一个非常重要的问题。
德国之声：您认为这是唯一的问题或者是主要的问题吗？
顾宾：这是最大的问题。中国作家到国外来完全依赖我们汉学家，他们连一句外语也说不出来。完全依赖我们。他们的作品是我们要翻成中文等等。
德国之声：您对中国最近一些年出的作品是否有一定的了解，比如说“狼图腾”？
顾宾：“狼图腾”对我们德国人来说是法西斯主义。这本书让中国丢脸。
德国之声：还有一些其他作家的作品，比如说所谓的“美女作家”，象棉棉啊，卫慧啊。
顾宾：开玩笑。这不是文学，这是垃圾。
德国之声：那么您认为这几年在中国还有没有比较象样一点的文学？
顾宾：在中国诗的方面还有。中国诗歌方面还有一些不错的，了不起的作家。比方说欧阳江河，西川和翟永明等等。还有很多其他的。这是肯定的。
德国之声：但是中国现在在讨论一个问题。有人说“诗歌已经死了”。您是怎么看这个问题的呢？
顾宾：诗歌怎么可能死了呢？如果在中国死了，那好吧，让它在中国死吧，在德国（它）还“活”。如果有一个中国诗人来德国的话，我们给他开朗诵会，肯定会来50个人，100个人，我们肯定会出他们的诗集。中国当代作家在德国，用德文出的诗集多得要命。中国诗歌在德国不可能会死。
德国之声：现在的中国诗歌，您觉得比80年代的时候，北岛，杨炼等，怎么样？
顾宾：这个很难比，但是我觉得无论是80还是 90年代的诗人，他们都不错，他们都有他们的视野，有他们自己的语言，等等。我个人当然还是特别喜欢北岛他们一批人。但是我比较老，所以我也应该考虑到年轻读者。年轻读者可能更喜欢看90年代的代表。比方说王家新，欧阳江河，翟永明等等等等。
德国之声：现在中国作协推出一个计划，说是要推出100本中国作品，翻译成外文，让中国文学更大步地走向世界。您是怎么看这个计划的，它有意义吗？
顾宾：这个可能对美国有意义，对德国基本上没有意义。因为我们基本上把中国文学作品已经都翻成德文了。基本上，中国作家，无论是哪一个时代，哪一个作者，肯定有什么德文版本。所以我们不需要这个帮助。但是美国是很有问题的，他们肯定会需要，因为他们翻译得比较少。
德国之声：现在中国经济发展很快，很多人说，中国在三、四十年后在经济上可能会取代美国的地位。美国在上个世纪繁荣起来，我们知道，不光是在经济上，在文艺上，电影啊，流行歌曲啊等等很多方面，都很发达，对世界影响很大。您觉得中国在文学方面也会高度发展起来，符合它的经济地位吗？
顾宾：这个要看中国人，因为最看不起中国文化中国文学的不是我们外国人，是中国人自己。问题就在中国本身，中国人根本不给他们自己的文化和文学什么地位。
德国之声：这应该怎么理解呢？为什么说中国人不给他们的文学以地位？
顾宾：我给你一个非常简单的例子好吗？我去年在德国发表了中国二十世纪文学史。中国知识分子，我所有的朋友，也包括作家们在内，听到我在写这么一个文学史，他们说，你别写，没有什么好的东西，都是垃圾。
德国之声：也就是说，他们自己看不起自己，或者说，互相看不起。
顾宾：对，你说得非常对，互相看不起。
德国之声：当初比如说高行健拿了诺贝尔文学奖，中国的反响是负面的比较多。是不是这个意思？您觉得中国还有可能拿诺贝尔文学奖吗？
顾宾：诺贝尔文学奖是次要的。谁写得不好，谁才能够获得。如果谁能够写作，一辈子没有什么希望。所以这个诺贝尔文学奖也是垃圾。
德国之声：如果要您跟中国作家说几句话，您想说什么呢？
顾宾：他们先应该好好掌握他们的母语。中国作家大部分的中文非常不好。另外，他们应该先学好，用哪一种方法来写作。在这个方面，中国作家的问题太大了。但是，也可能最基本的问题是，他们的意识是很有问题的，他们的视野是非常有问题的。好象他们还是卡在一个小房子里头，不敢打开他们的眼睛来看世界。所以中国到现在为止没有什么它自己的声音，从文学来看，没有。德国到处都有作家，他们代表德国，代表德国人说话。所以我们有一个德国的声音。但是中国的声音在哪里呢？没有。不存在。中国作家胆子特别小，基本上没有。
德国之声：也就是说，象鲁迅这样的人现在没有。
顾宾：是，你说得非常对。鲁迅原来很有代表性。现在你给我看看有这么一个中国作家吗？没有。
德国之声：那么是不是跟中国的环境有关系呢？也就是说，对意识形态的控制。
顾宾：也可能。但是不要老说是外在的条件不允许我。我觉得一个中国作家不应该老是说历史的条件不允许我这样或者那样，我觉得这是开玩笑。因为，如果一个作家是一个真正的作家的话，他不要考虑他将来会碰到什么困难，他应该跟当时的林语堂和鲁迅一样地说话。
德国之声：从20世纪到21世纪，您认为中国作家里有哪几个可以称为是伟大的呢？
顾宾：（说）这个太早了。你需要一个至少50年的距离，才能够回顾，看一看，说谁比较伟大，如果真的有的话。鲁迅肯定是伟大的。49年前还有其他的人。49年以后到现在肯定没有。
德国之声：北岛、高行健也不是？
顾宾：高行健，开玩笑。北岛可以考虑，因为他是勇敢的。但是，你别忘了他才50岁。（采访者：平心）
顾宾简介
沃尔夫冈.库宾(Wolfgang Kubin)，中文名顾宾（一作顾彬），于1945年生于德国Celle市，波恩大学汉学系主任，教授，“Miniama Sinica－中国精神和方向杂志－亚洲文化杂志”主编。他研究和翻译的重点是中国现当代文学。主要作品和译著有“二十世纪中国文学史”和六卷本的鲁迅小说散文集等。
more
德国之声：顾宾教授您好。最近在北京召开了中国作协大会，选出铁凝担任主席，这是继茅盾和巴金之后的第三位中国作协主席。听说您那时正在中国。您对这件事情是怎么看的？
顾宾：我那时是在中国。我对这事不太清楚。反正，可以这么说，所有我认识的中国作家都看不起作协。对我们汉学家来说，作协有一个新的主席无所谓。
德国之声：那就是说，作协新的主席不需要象以前的茅盾或者巴金那样一定要是最有名的，或者说声望最高的人，是吗？
顾宾：这个作协一点用处一点好处都没有。你在中国大陆可以问所有的作家，没有人会主动说到作协，没有人，一个也没有。如果是真正的中国作家，他肯定不要入那个作协。如果他入了以后才成为一个伟大的作家的话，他是很有问题的。一般来说，好的作家不可能跟作协保持什么联系。
德国之声：听说您最近作了一个报告，关于21世纪中国文学存在的问题。您能不能大体上归纳一下您报告里的内容，也就是说，中国文学现在这几年存在哪些问题。
顾宾：我只能提到一些我自己觉得20世纪中国文学存在的问题。比方说，如果我们要分49年以前49年以后的中国作家的话，我们会发现，中国49年以前的那些作家，他们的外语都不错。张爱玲、林语堂、胡适，他们都能够用外语写作。有些作家两种外语都没问题，比方说鲁迅。49年以后基本上你找不到一个会说外语的中国作家。所以他不能够从另外一个语言系统看自己的作品。另外他根本没办法看外文版的作品。他只能看翻译成中文以后的外国作品。所以中国作家对外国文学的理解和了解是非常差的，差得很。49年以前不少作家认为，我们学外语会丰富我们自己的写作。但是，你问一个（现在的）中国作家为什么不学外语，他会说，外语只能够破坏我的母语。我估计是这样，为什么 49年以后没有什么伟大的作家，为什么这些作家肯定比不上49年以前的作家呢，问题就在这里，这是一个非常重要的问题。
德国之声：您认为这是唯一的问题或者是主要的问题吗？
顾宾：这是最大的问题。中国作家到国外来完全依赖我们汉学家，他们连一句外语也说不出来。完全依赖我们。他们的作品是我们要翻成中文等等。
德国之声：您对中国最近一些年出的作品是否有一定的了解，比如说“狼图腾”？
顾宾：“狼图腾”对我们德国人来说是法西斯主义。这本书让中国丢脸。
德国之声：还有一些其他作家的作品，比如说所谓的“美女作家”，象棉棉啊，卫慧啊。
顾宾：开玩笑。这不是文学，这是垃圾。
德国之声：那么您认为这几年在中国还有没有比较象样一点的文学？
顾宾：在中国诗的方面还有。中国诗歌方面还有一些不错的，了不起的作家。比方说欧阳江河，西川和翟永明等等。还有很多其他的。这是肯定的。
德国之声：但是中国现在在讨论一个问题。有人说“诗歌已经死了”。您是怎么看这个问题的呢？
顾宾：诗歌怎么可能死了呢？如果在中国死了，那好吧，让它在中国死吧，在德国（它）还“活”。如果有一个中国诗人来德国的话，我们给他开朗诵会，肯定会来50个人，100个人，我们肯定会出他们的诗集。中国当代作家在德国，用德文出的诗集多得要命。中国诗歌在德国不可能会死。
德国之声：现在的中国诗歌，您觉得比80年代的时候，北岛，杨炼等，怎么样？
顾宾：这个很难比，但是我觉得无论是80还是 90年代的诗人，他们都不错，他们都有他们的视野，有他们自己的语言，等等。我个人当然还是特别喜欢北岛他们一批人。但是我比较老，所以我也应该考虑到年轻读者。年轻读者可能更喜欢看90年代的代表。比方说王家新，欧阳江河，翟永明等等等等。
德国之声：现在中国作协推出一个计划，说是要推出100本中国作品，翻译成外文，让中国文学更大步地走向世界。您是怎么看这个计划的，它有意义吗？
顾宾：这个可能对美国有意义，对德国基本上没有意义。因为我们基本上把中国文学作品已经都翻成德文了。基本上，中国作家，无论是哪一个时代，哪一个作者，肯定有什么德文版本。所以我们不需要这个帮助。但是美国是很有问题的，他们肯定会需要，因为他们翻译得比较少。
德国之声：现在中国经济发展很快，很多人说，中国在三、四十年后在经济上可能会取代美国的地位。美国在上个世纪繁荣起来，我们知道，不光是在经济上，在文艺上，电影啊，流行歌曲啊等等很多方面，都很发达，对世界影响很大。您觉得中国在文学方面也会高度发展起来，符合它的经济地位吗？
顾宾：这个要看中国人，因为最看不起中国文化中国文学的不是我们外国人，是中国人自己。问题就在中国本身，中国人根本不给他们自己的文化和文学什么地位。
德国之声：这应该怎么理解呢？为什么说中国人不给他们的文学以地位？
顾宾：我给你一个非常简单的例子好吗？我去年在德国发表了中国二十世纪文学史。中国知识分子，我所有的朋友，也包括作家们在内，听到我在写这么一个文学史，他们说，你别写，没有什么好的东西，都是垃圾。
德国之声：也就是说，他们自己看不起自己，或者说，互相看不起。
顾宾：对，你说得非常对，互相看不起。
德国之声：当初比如说高行健拿了诺贝尔文学奖，中国的反响是负面的比较多。是不是这个意思？您觉得中国还有可能拿诺贝尔文学奖吗？
顾宾：诺贝尔文学奖是次要的。谁写得不好，谁才能够获得。如果谁能够写作，一辈子没有什么希望。所以这个诺贝尔文学奖也是垃圾。
德国之声：如果要您跟中国作家说几句话，您想说什么呢？
顾宾：他们先应该好好掌握他们的母语。中国作家大部分的中文非常不好。另外，他们应该先学好，用哪一种方法来写作。在这个方面，中国作家的问题太大了。但是，也可能最基本的问题是，他们的意识是很有问题的，他们的视野是非常有问题的。好象他们还是卡在一个小房子里头，不敢打开他们的眼睛来看世界。所以中国到现在为止没有什么它自己的声音，从文学来看，没有。德国到处都有作家，他们代表德国，代表德国人说话。所以我们有一个德国的声音。但是中国的声音在哪里呢？没有。不存在。中国作家胆子特别小，基本上没有。
德国之声：也就是说，象鲁迅这样的人现在没有。
顾宾：是，你说得非常对。鲁迅原来很有代表性。现在你给我看看有这么一个中国作家吗？没有。
德国之声：那么是不是跟中国的环境有关系呢？也就是说，对意识形态的控制。
顾宾：也可能。但是不要老说是外在的条件不允许我。我觉得一个中国作家不应该老是说历史的条件不允许我这样或者那样，我觉得这是开玩笑。因为，如果一个作家是一个真正的作家的话，他不要考虑他将来会碰到什么困难，他应该跟当时的林语堂和鲁迅一样地说话。
德国之声：从20世纪到21世纪，您认为中国作家里有哪几个可以称为是伟大的呢？
顾宾：（说）这个太早了。你需要一个至少50年的距离，才能够回顾，看一看，说谁比较伟大，如果真的有的话。鲁迅肯定是伟大的。49年前还有其他的人。49年以后到现在肯定没有。
德国之声：北岛、高行健也不是？
顾宾：高行健，开玩笑。北岛可以考虑，因为他是勇敢的。但是，你别忘了他才50岁。（采访者：平心）
顾宾简介
沃尔夫冈.库宾(Wolfgang Kubin)，中文名顾宾（一作顾彬），于1945年生于德国Celle市，波恩大学汉学系主任，教授，“Miniama Sinica－中国精神和方向杂志－亚洲文化杂志”主编。他研究和翻译的重点是中国现当代文学。主要作品和译著有“二十世纪中国文学史”和六卷本的鲁迅小说散文集等。
more
posted by BFF @ 10:24 PM
1 comments
