今天网上盛传的一篇署名“青年报”“记者林艳雯”的文章：《周立波微博力挺唐骏学历：攻击出于羡慕嫉妒恨》，看了以后，让人觉得今天当中国人真是太可悲了。
周说：“是唐喜欢假文凭呢？还是社会不看真本事？是唐欺骗了世界呢？还是世界胁迫了唐？”虽然 “我不赞同唐骏的做法，但我理解唐的无奈，我更肯定唐曾经的成就，我坚信，报唐料的人一定没唐有料。”
这些言论，可以用“人心的扭曲”来概括。周不顾事实如何，为唐辩护。他完全不顾唐是否说了实话，是否来美国买了个假文凭，拿回去忽悠愚昧的中国人，竟然成功到《我的成功可以复制》的程度。
周立波所谓的“是唐喜欢假文凭呢？还是社会不看真本事？”云云，荒唐到让人哭笑不得的地步。难道世界上大家用钱来作为交换媒介，到银行抢钱就有道理了？中国社会的问题到底是不看真本事，还是盲目崇拜海外学位？这有一个唐是被动还是主动的问题。
周认为，唐是被逼的。既然被逼，那就应该不是主动的了。但是，唐到处说他是名大和Caltech的双料博士，并且还号召国人，特别是年轻人，《我的成功可以复制》。这是被动还是主动？到底唐是“社会不看真本事”的牺牲品，还是他主动地、充分地利用中国人缺乏自信力，盲目崇拜海外学位的心态，通过欺骗，得到中国人普遍的青睐，以满足其虚荣心？
周在说那些昏话之前，有没有自问，世界是如何“胁迫”了唐。据说唐当年在微软美国谋一个小职位，然后自己主动，到微软中国去混。然后，没混几天，就出来不干了。（是不是什么人看到了唐的虚浮？）我也有朋友，在微软美国工作，虽然不轰轰烈烈，但是小日子称之为其乐融融一点都不为过。唐放着这种宁静、安馨的好日子不过，要到中国去招摇撞骗，难道是什么人“胁迫”的？
唐的荒唐，国人竟然看不出来，说明时至今日，常常自称“强大”的中国人如何缺乏见识，如何妄自菲薄。没本事的人，海龟去骗国人，多么之容易。要知道，名大和Caltech都位于象牙塔的顶尖。在一个学校拿到博士，绝对不必要到另一个学校去再拿个博士。这个道理，就像你在北大读出一个学士以后，绝对不必再考一次高考，到比北大更好的清华去再读个学士。我敢打赌，唐当年递给微软的简历，肯定不会说他是名大和Caltech的双料博士。（就他那块料，说是名大和 Caltech的学士，恐怕都会被微软的HR看破，还不要说微软的那些脚踏实地的技术管理人员。）
唐这个人是很了解中美之间的区别的。据说唐这个人的家小都在美国，自己到中国去招摇撞骗。他知道，好地方是美国，不是中国。但是，在美国他不会有一展他骗子宏图机会，所以她就回国报效祖国去了。其实说句老实话，海龟时行那么多年了，我还真的没见过一个真心回去“报效祖国”的海龟。海龟的原因，无非就是在中国挣钱容易。在美国，一切实打实，来不得虚的，对于很多人来说，这实在是太艰苦了。
据说唐先生事发以后，那个雇他做CEO的公司，还在让他当他的CEO。其实，说到底，CEO是一个决定如何拿他人的钱去冒险的角色，唐先生的名言之一就是他之所以当打工皇帝，就是不愿意冒险。这样的人竟然被聘为CEO，真是荒唐。显然这些董事被唐的名大和Caltech的双料博士给镇住了，真是愚昧。
周说：“我坚信，报唐料的人一定没唐有料。”我和方舟子曾经打过吐沫仗，搞到方老弟把我发到他新语丝的贴全都立刻给删了。当时我记得我说过，他颤抖的手，疯狂地按“删除”键。但是，方舟子打假，无论怎么说，也是一个脚踏实地的活，因为你打假，就要查明人家假在什么地方。虽然方在美国也没混开，这才变相海龟，到中国去打假，但是怎么讲，方也比唐有料。周那么“坚信”，不知道理何在？他说这话的时候，不知有没有想过依据何在？
至于周说：“我更肯定唐曾经的成就。”我就实在不知道如何评论了。
唐骏这样一个骗子，在美国没有“发挥”的地方，跑到中国行骗，说明中国可悲。唐骏这样一个低级骗子，能在中国成功，说明中国可悲。周立波这样一个“名人”，没有社会正义感，不讨伐唐骏，却为唐骏辩护，说明中国可悲。周立波这样一个没有任何依据就胡说八道的人，能在中国这么走红，说明中国可悲。唐这种低级骗子，竟然有董事会聘他为CEO，说明中国可悲。事发之后，这些董事竟然让他继续当他的CEO，说明中国可悲。最可悲的是：事发之后，中宣竟然下文，禁止报道，禁止检讨中国人的这种无知。
周、唐之流胡说八道，对于成人也就罢了。那孩子们呢？
Friday, July 30, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
谈谈饥饿对长寿的作用
上篇介绍了resveratrol（白藜芦醇）的健康作用。浓缩Resveratrol在美国已经可以买到。这对于血脂高的人来说，是一个福音。在浓缩resveratrol上市以前，唯一的办法就是大量引用用葡萄酒，而酒类直接提升血脂。
可以和resveratrol相媲美的，就是所谓CR（calorie restriction，或者减少热量）。CR的做法很简单：就是饥饿。一种解释是CR激活一个叫TOR的基因。而TOR产生的rapamycin被认为有防衰老的作用。
无论resveratrol还是rapamycin，人工合成不是问题。问题人工合成的resveratrol或rapamycin副作用都太大。例如，rapamycin的负作用极大。但是，少量服用，似乎可以起到激活TOR的好处。实验室老鼠实验证明，rapamycin可以延长老鼠生命14%。目前一般认为，服用极少量的rapamycin可能会对人有延长寿命的作用。但是，目前离真的可以买到rapamycin，恐怕还有些年月。
美国在防老化方面的科研，投资巨大。而且一些私营企业，也开始对这类药物感兴趣。2008年，Sirtris被药厂GlaxoSmithKline以72亿收购就是一个例子。但是无论是政府投资，还是私营企业，都有很多问题。例如，政府投资科研的效果一直不佳，私营企业致力发展特效药。
和resveratrol比，CR有一个很大的好处，那就是CR可以通过饥饿达到，不必吃药，这就省去了买药带来的麻烦（例如药中的resveratrol含量是否充足等）。当然，饥饿对于一般中年人来说是很困难的。今天的中年人，承受着相当大的压力。在这种压力之下，通常吃得都比较多，特别是肉吃得比较多。这种饮食结构，对人会有一种安慰效应。美国人对麦当劳曾经做过调查，发现习惯吃汉堡包的人，吃完以后，很放松。如果不吃，就没有这种感觉。也就是说，汉堡包是可以上瘾的。在这种情况下，如果我们要放弃过量饮食，将饮食从吃过量，改变成吃不饱的状态，对中年人来说是有一定困难的。而且，饥饿有很多讲究。太胖的人，自然不在乎掉分量。但是，到一定程度，饥饿与保持体重、体力就会成为一种矛盾。人的生化系统很复杂，你想用饥饿将人体从一种平衡，转变到另一种平衡，一方面不容易，另一方面搞不好会有危险。这就使摆在我们面前的问题。
其实，我觉得CR可能和冬泳有同样的效果。所谓冬泳，其实就是到冷水里面，让身体内的生存能力得以施展。这样人从水里出来以后，才会浑身滚烫。人太舒适了，这些人体本来有的能力，慢慢就消失了。那么人也就老了。以前我的一个朋友叫我增加肌肉比例，说这样我才能承受更大的工作压力。Strom Thurman说的每天早上做伸展运动，以延年益寿，都大同小异。人体的功能，不用了，自然就会衰退。一旦衰退，就很难再找回来。这样人就老了。
所以说，健康长寿之道，还是要让身体去经受锻炼。如果不让身体经受锻炼，resveratrol吃得再多，恐怕都不能真正解决问题。
可以和resveratrol相媲美的，就是所谓CR（calorie restriction，或者减少热量）。CR的做法很简单：就是饥饿。一种解释是CR激活一个叫TOR的基因。而TOR产生的rapamycin被认为有防衰老的作用。
无论resveratrol还是rapamycin，人工合成不是问题。问题人工合成的resveratrol或rapamycin副作用都太大。例如，rapamycin的负作用极大。但是，少量服用，似乎可以起到激活TOR的好处。实验室老鼠实验证明，rapamycin可以延长老鼠生命14%。目前一般认为，服用极少量的rapamycin可能会对人有延长寿命的作用。但是，目前离真的可以买到rapamycin，恐怕还有些年月。
美国在防老化方面的科研，投资巨大。而且一些私营企业，也开始对这类药物感兴趣。2008年，Sirtris被药厂GlaxoSmithKline以72亿收购就是一个例子。但是无论是政府投资，还是私营企业，都有很多问题。例如，政府投资科研的效果一直不佳，私营企业致力发展特效药。
和resveratrol比，CR有一个很大的好处，那就是CR可以通过饥饿达到，不必吃药，这就省去了买药带来的麻烦（例如药中的resveratrol含量是否充足等）。当然，饥饿对于一般中年人来说是很困难的。今天的中年人，承受着相当大的压力。在这种压力之下，通常吃得都比较多，特别是肉吃得比较多。这种饮食结构，对人会有一种安慰效应。美国人对麦当劳曾经做过调查，发现习惯吃汉堡包的人，吃完以后，很放松。如果不吃，就没有这种感觉。也就是说，汉堡包是可以上瘾的。在这种情况下，如果我们要放弃过量饮食，将饮食从吃过量，改变成吃不饱的状态，对中年人来说是有一定困难的。而且，饥饿有很多讲究。太胖的人，自然不在乎掉分量。但是，到一定程度，饥饿与保持体重、体力就会成为一种矛盾。人的生化系统很复杂，你想用饥饿将人体从一种平衡，转变到另一种平衡，一方面不容易，另一方面搞不好会有危险。这就使摆在我们面前的问题。
其实，我觉得CR可能和冬泳有同样的效果。所谓冬泳，其实就是到冷水里面，让身体内的生存能力得以施展。这样人从水里出来以后，才会浑身滚烫。人太舒适了，这些人体本来有的能力，慢慢就消失了。那么人也就老了。以前我的一个朋友叫我增加肌肉比例，说这样我才能承受更大的工作压力。Strom Thurman说的每天早上做伸展运动，以延年益寿，都大同小异。人体的功能，不用了，自然就会衰退。一旦衰退，就很难再找回来。这样人就老了。
所以说，健康长寿之道，还是要让身体去经受锻炼。如果不让身体经受锻炼，resveratrol吃得再多，恐怕都不能真正解决问题。
Monday, June 28, 2010
庆祝美国独立日
我们每年纪念美国独立日。对于移民来说，如果仅仅把这个日子用来休息、烤肉、看焰火，那就浪费了一个大好的认识美国的机会。如果一个移民不了解美国，特别是对于那个33岁的弗吉尼亚人在1776年宾夕法尼亚州费城的那个酷热的夏天，在Market街和第7街交界处的那个小客栈楼上，在没有任何参考书的情况下，写下来的美国纲领没有充分认识的话，那我们在美国的成功 ––– 无论是作为个人，还是作为一个群体 ––– 就会受到障碍。
当年英国政府一方面对美国人征税，另一方面不为美国人在英国下院安排席位，导致美国人强烈不满。双方僵持不下，结果终于导致决裂，1776年7月4日，十三个殖民地的代表一一在这个“掉头的营生”（第二任总统亚当斯语）上签字。杰弗逊起草的《独立宣言》宣布：“我们认为下列事实无需证明：人生来平等；造物者赋予了他们若干不可剥夺的权利，其中包括生命、自由、和对幸福的追求；为了保护上述权利，人民组成政府，并赋予其权力；如果任何政府形式破坏这些目的时，人民就有权将其改变或废除，进而建立新政府，并以这些原则为基础，安排政府权力的形式，使他们觉得最能够保障他们的安全和幸福。”
有了纲领还要实现，在麦迪逊（第四任总统）的领导下，1787年完成立宪。当时出使法国的杰弗逊回国后，觉得宪法需要明确列出老百姓的权利。他说服麦迪逊领导修宪。结果就是宪法第一到第十修正案，亦称权利法案。麦迪逊同时提出的一个有关国会议员薪水的议案于1992年批准后成为宪法第27修正案，另一个有关众议院人数的议案目前已无意义，但议案本身仍处于悬而未决的状态。）
记得有一次，我在回中国的飞机上给南京大学的一个教授解释美国立国时的一些文件，听后他感慨地说：“美国人其实是很革命的嘛。”所以，美国人把独立战争称之为革命战争，一点也不过分。因为国父们对政府极端不信任，所以美国政府的权力一直比较小。当第40任总统Ronald Reagan 1989年届满离任时，就对记者说过：“我愿意大家把我记忆成那个还政于民的总统。” 美国人从去年的陶醉于奥巴马，到今天的对奥巴马的不满，显示美国人对政府仍然高度不信任。
美国是一个人民的国家。这一点，从美国国歌里可以看得很清楚。国歌里把美国叫做“自由人的国土，勇敢者的家乡。” 仔细想一想，这两者之间实际上是有因果关系的，因为在自由人的国土上，不勇敢人生就不会有光芒。从1963年以来，在美国被动投资（即投资者不参与经营）的中间回报率，总是在9%上下。对于回报高的投资，分析一下，就会发现投资者所冒的风险高于基准线。
勇敢，就意味着敢于冒险。用居里先生（居里夫人的丈夫）的话说，就是敢做个梦，然后用具体行动将其实现。国庆期间，允许我向勇敢的人民，特别是移民致以敬意。
当年英国政府一方面对美国人征税，另一方面不为美国人在英国下院安排席位，导致美国人强烈不满。双方僵持不下，结果终于导致决裂，1776年7月4日，十三个殖民地的代表一一在这个“掉头的营生”（第二任总统亚当斯语）上签字。杰弗逊起草的《独立宣言》宣布：“我们认为下列事实无需证明：人生来平等；造物者赋予了他们若干不可剥夺的权利，其中包括生命、自由、和对幸福的追求；为了保护上述权利，人民组成政府，并赋予其权力；如果任何政府形式破坏这些目的时，人民就有权将其改变或废除，进而建立新政府，并以这些原则为基础，安排政府权力的形式，使他们觉得最能够保障他们的安全和幸福。”
有了纲领还要实现，在麦迪逊（第四任总统）的领导下，1787年完成立宪。当时出使法国的杰弗逊回国后，觉得宪法需要明确列出老百姓的权利。他说服麦迪逊领导修宪。结果就是宪法第一到第十修正案，亦称权利法案。麦迪逊同时提出的一个有关国会议员薪水的议案于1992年批准后成为宪法第27修正案，另一个有关众议院人数的议案目前已无意义，但议案本身仍处于悬而未决的状态。）
记得有一次，我在回中国的飞机上给南京大学的一个教授解释美国立国时的一些文件，听后他感慨地说：“美国人其实是很革命的嘛。”所以，美国人把独立战争称之为革命战争，一点也不过分。因为国父们对政府极端不信任，所以美国政府的权力一直比较小。当第40任总统Ronald Reagan 1989年届满离任时，就对记者说过：“我愿意大家把我记忆成那个还政于民的总统。” 美国人从去年的陶醉于奥巴马，到今天的对奥巴马的不满，显示美国人对政府仍然高度不信任。
美国是一个人民的国家。这一点，从美国国歌里可以看得很清楚。国歌里把美国叫做“自由人的国土，勇敢者的家乡。” 仔细想一想，这两者之间实际上是有因果关系的，因为在自由人的国土上，不勇敢人生就不会有光芒。从1963年以来，在美国被动投资（即投资者不参与经营）的中间回报率，总是在9%上下。对于回报高的投资，分析一下，就会发现投资者所冒的风险高于基准线。
勇敢，就意味着敢于冒险。用居里先生（居里夫人的丈夫）的话说，就是敢做个梦，然后用具体行动将其实现。国庆期间，允许我向勇敢的人民，特别是移民致以敬意。
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
为什么美国政府赤字还没有触发通货膨胀？
WHY HASN’T THE FEDERAL SPENDING TRIGGER INFLATION?
According to the economic theories, when the government expands the spending, hot money will flood the Main Street, triggering more money chasing after relatively fewer products and services. The result was inflation. Now, the Obama government is waging unprecedented spending. The national debt has topped $13 trillion, which is 90.3% of GDP and $117,975 per taxpayer. However, there is no inflation. Why?
This is an interesting question, posted to me by a client. The answer is of critical importance to everyone as inflation impacts everything. For instance, if one can accurately predict the inflation, he could buy real-estate prior to its hitting, as inflation will become the most effective discount of the price that he pays. That is why inflation is known as borrowers stealing from savers, a bias that hurts the economy.
There are two ways that Obama gets the money to spend. First, he can borrow money from the market, i.e., bank, the Chinese government, private investors, etc., by issuing debt. Second, when nobody wants to lend to Obama, he can essentially print more money and keep on spending. The cost of first type of deficit spending is strangling private enterprises (because private enterprises will always lose in the competition as the government can always bit up the interest rate until it wins). The cost of the second type of deficit spending is inflation. Incidentally, the foreign entity’s purchase of the U.S. debt also has the inflationary effect.
Now, the heavy government borrowing coincides with the enormous tightening of the lending by the financial institutions after a financial crisis as they face an unpredictable financial reform bill. In other words, for now, the government spending is compensated by the financial institute’s tightening to the private enterprises, especially small business. The net effect is that, instead of the small business uses the money to create jobs, the government is using the same money to support its spending. The difference on Main Street is that people, when living on government benefit, are losing the skills that they have been relied upon to earn a good living. Obama’s bet is to build up people’s reliance on government welfare so he and the Democratic Party would build a stronger voting basis by creating a stratum of poor people.
A few weeks ago, Fed reported that the credit card lending standard continue to tighten after so many years. That makes the 11th quarter of continuous tightening. Over the past three months, 29% of banks reduced credit card limits, 27% raised interest rates, and 12% raised the minimum credit scores required for a credit card. Many truly small companies, such as small construction companies, heavily rely on their credit cards, typically with credit limit of $20,000, to run their business. They buy their materials on the credit cards and pay their workers and credit card company when they are paid. Now, people with that business model must figure out another way of doing business. Driving them out of market will force people to hire bigger, more unionized and more expensive companies. That is precisely another objective of Obama.
That is part of the reason that the current recovery is so much weaker than the normal recovery in history. Business, seeing opportunities, cannot undertake those opportunities because the finance is not there.
Let’s come back to the topic of deficit. The current government spending is unsustainable. The U.S. government debt as a percentage of GDP increased phenomenally under Obama. The administration’s hands will be forced to increase the middle class tax (because “soaking the rich” would not actually increase the government revenue). Since direct increase of income tax to the middle class is politically impossible. Some form of hidden tax, such as VAT (value-added tax, which is buried in the price of all products), is inevitable. The net effect of that is to take the money away from the middle class and pay for government bureaucracy, an undertaking that is not far better from simply borrow the money from the market.
Government is a monster. Once it gets money, it will build up vested interests, which will use the government, i.e., tax-payers, money to protect its interests. It is next to impossible for the unorganized “people” to defeat the concentrated and determined vested interests. That is the reason that the most basic educational reform is so difficult. That is also the reason that Fanny and Freddie become such monsters and still gobbling billions of dollars of the taxpayer’s money each month with no end in sight, as they pour some of those billions back to politicians to force their hands.
The critical moment is the people’s ability to vote in a government that will limit the spending and allow the banks to lend to individuals and businesses, rather than competing against the small business for the same money. There are enough laws on the book, e.g., the anti-monopoly law and the insurance law, for the government to break up the too-big-to-fail institutes, even when such too-big-to-fail is produced by CDS, conducted by AIG. Now, politicians are using the people’s frustration to build into the law, more ways for them to get the political donations from vested interests.
Before the high inflation hits an economy, typically there is a period of stagnation, where the investors’ confidence is low and the money is tight. With tight money, there would be no inflation. However, the mechanism of that is like a dam. Once the water burst out, nothing can stop it. That is the problem today. Greenspan used to make his influence behind the close doors to stop things from getting out of hand. Since Bernake took over, we have seen all kinds of problems in the financial system. All of them can be stopped by some phone calls.
The current path is obviously sustainable (just like a few years ago when the banks trying to loan money out regardless of the borrowers’ ability to pay, while few people seems to ask questions). If the government, including the White House, Congress, and the Federal Reserve, cannot make the change early next year, Greece today would be our tomorrow.
The breakout “moment” depends the moment that the water breaks out of the dam. That is always an impossible event to predict. However, the fact that breakout is going to take place, if we continue this path, is inevitable.
According to the economic theories, when the government expands the spending, hot money will flood the Main Street, triggering more money chasing after relatively fewer products and services. The result was inflation. Now, the Obama government is waging unprecedented spending. The national debt has topped $13 trillion, which is 90.3% of GDP and $117,975 per taxpayer. However, there is no inflation. Why?
This is an interesting question, posted to me by a client. The answer is of critical importance to everyone as inflation impacts everything. For instance, if one can accurately predict the inflation, he could buy real-estate prior to its hitting, as inflation will become the most effective discount of the price that he pays. That is why inflation is known as borrowers stealing from savers, a bias that hurts the economy.
There are two ways that Obama gets the money to spend. First, he can borrow money from the market, i.e., bank, the Chinese government, private investors, etc., by issuing debt. Second, when nobody wants to lend to Obama, he can essentially print more money and keep on spending. The cost of first type of deficit spending is strangling private enterprises (because private enterprises will always lose in the competition as the government can always bit up the interest rate until it wins). The cost of the second type of deficit spending is inflation. Incidentally, the foreign entity’s purchase of the U.S. debt also has the inflationary effect.
Now, the heavy government borrowing coincides with the enormous tightening of the lending by the financial institutions after a financial crisis as they face an unpredictable financial reform bill. In other words, for now, the government spending is compensated by the financial institute’s tightening to the private enterprises, especially small business. The net effect is that, instead of the small business uses the money to create jobs, the government is using the same money to support its spending. The difference on Main Street is that people, when living on government benefit, are losing the skills that they have been relied upon to earn a good living. Obama’s bet is to build up people’s reliance on government welfare so he and the Democratic Party would build a stronger voting basis by creating a stratum of poor people.
A few weeks ago, Fed reported that the credit card lending standard continue to tighten after so many years. That makes the 11th quarter of continuous tightening. Over the past three months, 29% of banks reduced credit card limits, 27% raised interest rates, and 12% raised the minimum credit scores required for a credit card. Many truly small companies, such as small construction companies, heavily rely on their credit cards, typically with credit limit of $20,000, to run their business. They buy their materials on the credit cards and pay their workers and credit card company when they are paid. Now, people with that business model must figure out another way of doing business. Driving them out of market will force people to hire bigger, more unionized and more expensive companies. That is precisely another objective of Obama.
That is part of the reason that the current recovery is so much weaker than the normal recovery in history. Business, seeing opportunities, cannot undertake those opportunities because the finance is not there.
Let’s come back to the topic of deficit. The current government spending is unsustainable. The U.S. government debt as a percentage of GDP increased phenomenally under Obama. The administration’s hands will be forced to increase the middle class tax (because “soaking the rich” would not actually increase the government revenue). Since direct increase of income tax to the middle class is politically impossible. Some form of hidden tax, such as VAT (value-added tax, which is buried in the price of all products), is inevitable. The net effect of that is to take the money away from the middle class and pay for government bureaucracy, an undertaking that is not far better from simply borrow the money from the market.
Government is a monster. Once it gets money, it will build up vested interests, which will use the government, i.e., tax-payers, money to protect its interests. It is next to impossible for the unorganized “people” to defeat the concentrated and determined vested interests. That is the reason that the most basic educational reform is so difficult. That is also the reason that Fanny and Freddie become such monsters and still gobbling billions of dollars of the taxpayer’s money each month with no end in sight, as they pour some of those billions back to politicians to force their hands.
The critical moment is the people’s ability to vote in a government that will limit the spending and allow the banks to lend to individuals and businesses, rather than competing against the small business for the same money. There are enough laws on the book, e.g., the anti-monopoly law and the insurance law, for the government to break up the too-big-to-fail institutes, even when such too-big-to-fail is produced by CDS, conducted by AIG. Now, politicians are using the people’s frustration to build into the law, more ways for them to get the political donations from vested interests.
Before the high inflation hits an economy, typically there is a period of stagnation, where the investors’ confidence is low and the money is tight. With tight money, there would be no inflation. However, the mechanism of that is like a dam. Once the water burst out, nothing can stop it. That is the problem today. Greenspan used to make his influence behind the close doors to stop things from getting out of hand. Since Bernake took over, we have seen all kinds of problems in the financial system. All of them can be stopped by some phone calls.
The current path is obviously sustainable (just like a few years ago when the banks trying to loan money out regardless of the borrowers’ ability to pay, while few people seems to ask questions). If the government, including the White House, Congress, and the Federal Reserve, cannot make the change early next year, Greece today would be our tomorrow.
The breakout “moment” depends the moment that the water breaks out of the dam. That is always an impossible event to predict. However, the fact that breakout is going to take place, if we continue this path, is inevitable.
Monday, June 14, 2010
突然想起批评和自我批评
在毛年代，党和国家最喜欢搞的莫过“批评与自我批评”。“批评与自我批评”是洗脑的一部分。当年，大小单位每个星期都要花一天的时间进行“政治学习”，包括学习政策，和讲个人自己的体会。这个体会，不是真的体会。例如，毛号召批林批孔（更准确地说，这是江青借毛等几句牢骚华搞起来的，矛头对向周恩来的一场群众运动），你觉得孔的思想没有什么问题，那在“政治学习”的时候，你是千万不能说出来的，因为一说出来，那就是反党，反毛，反“革命”。按照法律，这个当局从来没有定义清楚的反革命罪是可以判死刑的。换句话说，每周一次，在宣讲党的政策（多半是读政府文件和报纸）之后，大家就要开始联系自己的具体情况，讲讲党的这个方针，如何正确，如何解决了本单位的所有问题。
至于那些胆敢唱反调，与党叫板的人来说，毛所用的，就是这个被称之为“批评与自我批评”的武器。对于毛或者党的干部来说，“批评”是对毛或者党的干部说的，也就是说毛或者党的干部可以批评你。“自我批评”是指的是哪些唱反调的人。他们自然只能“自我批评”，也就是说你们只能批评自己。不能批评毛或者党的干部。
我不是历史学家，不知道毛是从怎么想出这个阴着来的。可能和天主教的忏悔有点关系吧。对于天主教徒来说，人人都是罪人（大家都要以“老子反动儿混蛋”的原则承担原罪）。罪恶的念头，都要通过向牧师忏悔而得到上帝的宽恕（这种手续，自然也是牧师得以挣饭饭吃的手段）。
我到了美国，才发觉，真正的自我批评不是忏悔形式的。对于最喜欢自我批评的美国人来说，他们的自我批评都是直着嗓子说出来的，绝没有忏悔的意味。
例如，最近George Mason大学的Daniel Klein教授和Zogby的Zelika Buturovic搞了一个调查，这个调查问了8个非敏感的基本经济学问题，调查答错的题目数量，而不是答对的数量（换句话说，如果回答模棱两可，就算不错）。结果让人跌破眼镜：保守派答错20%以下，左派答错60%以上。联想到当今奥巴马极左主义统治，他的极左根源，自然都是一些极左派，其中包括很多年轻人。而奥巴马政治的两个支柱之一，就是在美国搞社会主义（另一个支柱是把奥巴马日益搞得灰头土脸的全球道歉外交）。闹来闹去，奥巴马社会主义的政治基础，是那些被奥巴马蛊惑的经济学白痴。
这也就是民主的一个问题。当少数人明白一件事情的时候，一个民主制度很可能将权力交给一个会蛊惑广大不了解情况的老百姓的人。这样，民主国家很可能会采取很荒唐的政策。也就是说，Klein证明奥巴马的这场试图将美国变成欧洲的革命，实际上是以美国愤青为基础的革命。
回过头来讲批评和自我批评，像Klein这样的理直气壮的批评，才是真正的自我批评。毛时代的人所做的所谓自我批评，实际上都是违心的。而且后来的事实证明，那些人违心的“自我批评”针对的思想，最后都证明是对的。美国现在自然是在走弯路。但是，弯路才刚刚走了两年，批评的声浪，就已经一浪高过一浪。就一个民族来说，像Klein所做的调查，就是最好的自我批评。这样的自我批评，才会使美国人开始思考，开始改变。换句话说，那些支持奥巴马的人就可能会想，是不是中了奥巴马言论的圈套了。这就是社会进步的条件，也就是说：教育大众无罪（即便是以反政府为目的的）。
三十年改革开放，不大张旗鼓地抓右派了，但是右派真的还没有摘帽的，也就是屈指可数的三四个人。据说留几个人不摘帽的原因是这样右派就是一个扩大化的问题，凡有本身没有错（告诉那些已经忘却了本朝历史的人们一个史实：反右总指挥是邓）。但是在新的时期，胡耀邦和赵紫阳就是新的右派。他们对中国的改革开放，实际上起到了奠基的作用。在他们政治生涯的后期，他们觉得应该开放言论（虽然其尺度非常保守），受到邓和保守派的反对。最终导致六四。最后，这样两个重要的名字，在中学生课文里是不出现的。
大家都说最近中国强大了，但是我没有看到有哪个正经国家，真正地和中国站在一边。中国扮演的，经常是反面角色。例如，各国想制裁伊朗（一个宗教激进政府试图开发核武器），最大的障碍是中国。也就是说，在国际上中国的确很有影响力，但是大家有没有想想是什么影响？而且，中国的经济影响靠的是廉价劳工。最近的一个美国调查发现，美国的生意几乎都有知识产权部分（也就是说美国没多少企业是纯粹靠价格竞争取胜的）。廉价劳工的问题就是剥削，一方面是进口国货方（如美国）对廉价劳动力的剥削，另一方面是中国人对这些廉价劳工的剥削。中国常有“汉奸”、“洋奴”、“狗腿子”这类词汇（这类词是没有英文对应的），这些词反映的，就是中国人对那些帮助洋人剥削中国廉价劳动力的那些人的憎恨情绪。
目前，新一代的廉价劳动力，对这件事情开始反思，搞得当局心惊肉跳。问题是，涨工资不是解决这个问题的办法，解决这个问题的办法是从依靠廉价劳动力这个模式中走出来。我是专利律师，时时会遇到中国专利问题。中国的专利，常常让人哭小不得。而真正地从出售廉价劳动力的阴影里走出来，靠的还是解放思想，放开禁锢。而解放思想，放开禁锢的第一步，就是平反胡耀邦、赵紫阳、六四。当局就是有这个心（温家宝要让大家活得有尊严的言论，和《人民日报》2010年04月15日刊登的他写的《再回兴义忆耀邦》），也没这个胆气。
中国和美国各有各的问题，因为美国有公开自我批评，我打赌这次解决美国的大政府的问题，不会在需要三十年，快的话，今年就可以开始扭转方向。而中国走出的单纯出售廉价劳动力的模式，要在美国走出奥巴马阴影之后。
至于那些胆敢唱反调，与党叫板的人来说，毛所用的，就是这个被称之为“批评与自我批评”的武器。对于毛或者党的干部来说，“批评”是对毛或者党的干部说的，也就是说毛或者党的干部可以批评你。“自我批评”是指的是哪些唱反调的人。他们自然只能“自我批评”，也就是说你们只能批评自己。不能批评毛或者党的干部。
我不是历史学家，不知道毛是从怎么想出这个阴着来的。可能和天主教的忏悔有点关系吧。对于天主教徒来说，人人都是罪人（大家都要以“老子反动儿混蛋”的原则承担原罪）。罪恶的念头，都要通过向牧师忏悔而得到上帝的宽恕（这种手续，自然也是牧师得以挣饭饭吃的手段）。
我到了美国，才发觉，真正的自我批评不是忏悔形式的。对于最喜欢自我批评的美国人来说，他们的自我批评都是直着嗓子说出来的，绝没有忏悔的意味。
例如，最近George Mason大学的Daniel Klein教授和Zogby的Zelika Buturovic搞了一个调查，这个调查问了8个非敏感的基本经济学问题，调查答错的题目数量，而不是答对的数量（换句话说，如果回答模棱两可，就算不错）。结果让人跌破眼镜：保守派答错20%以下，左派答错60%以上。联想到当今奥巴马极左主义统治，他的极左根源，自然都是一些极左派，其中包括很多年轻人。而奥巴马政治的两个支柱之一，就是在美国搞社会主义（另一个支柱是把奥巴马日益搞得灰头土脸的全球道歉外交）。闹来闹去，奥巴马社会主义的政治基础，是那些被奥巴马蛊惑的经济学白痴。
这也就是民主的一个问题。当少数人明白一件事情的时候，一个民主制度很可能将权力交给一个会蛊惑广大不了解情况的老百姓的人。这样，民主国家很可能会采取很荒唐的政策。也就是说，Klein证明奥巴马的这场试图将美国变成欧洲的革命，实际上是以美国愤青为基础的革命。
回过头来讲批评和自我批评，像Klein这样的理直气壮的批评，才是真正的自我批评。毛时代的人所做的所谓自我批评，实际上都是违心的。而且后来的事实证明，那些人违心的“自我批评”针对的思想，最后都证明是对的。美国现在自然是在走弯路。但是，弯路才刚刚走了两年，批评的声浪，就已经一浪高过一浪。就一个民族来说，像Klein所做的调查，就是最好的自我批评。这样的自我批评，才会使美国人开始思考，开始改变。换句话说，那些支持奥巴马的人就可能会想，是不是中了奥巴马言论的圈套了。这就是社会进步的条件，也就是说：教育大众无罪（即便是以反政府为目的的）。
三十年改革开放，不大张旗鼓地抓右派了，但是右派真的还没有摘帽的，也就是屈指可数的三四个人。据说留几个人不摘帽的原因是这样右派就是一个扩大化的问题，凡有本身没有错（告诉那些已经忘却了本朝历史的人们一个史实：反右总指挥是邓）。但是在新的时期，胡耀邦和赵紫阳就是新的右派。他们对中国的改革开放，实际上起到了奠基的作用。在他们政治生涯的后期，他们觉得应该开放言论（虽然其尺度非常保守），受到邓和保守派的反对。最终导致六四。最后，这样两个重要的名字，在中学生课文里是不出现的。
大家都说最近中国强大了，但是我没有看到有哪个正经国家，真正地和中国站在一边。中国扮演的，经常是反面角色。例如，各国想制裁伊朗（一个宗教激进政府试图开发核武器），最大的障碍是中国。也就是说，在国际上中国的确很有影响力，但是大家有没有想想是什么影响？而且，中国的经济影响靠的是廉价劳工。最近的一个美国调查发现，美国的生意几乎都有知识产权部分（也就是说美国没多少企业是纯粹靠价格竞争取胜的）。廉价劳工的问题就是剥削，一方面是进口国货方（如美国）对廉价劳动力的剥削，另一方面是中国人对这些廉价劳工的剥削。中国常有“汉奸”、“洋奴”、“狗腿子”这类词汇（这类词是没有英文对应的），这些词反映的，就是中国人对那些帮助洋人剥削中国廉价劳动力的那些人的憎恨情绪。
目前，新一代的廉价劳动力，对这件事情开始反思，搞得当局心惊肉跳。问题是，涨工资不是解决这个问题的办法，解决这个问题的办法是从依靠廉价劳动力这个模式中走出来。我是专利律师，时时会遇到中国专利问题。中国的专利，常常让人哭小不得。而真正地从出售廉价劳动力的阴影里走出来，靠的还是解放思想，放开禁锢。而解放思想，放开禁锢的第一步，就是平反胡耀邦、赵紫阳、六四。当局就是有这个心（温家宝要让大家活得有尊严的言论，和《人民日报》2010年04月15日刊登的他写的《再回兴义忆耀邦》），也没这个胆气。
中国和美国各有各的问题，因为美国有公开自我批评，我打赌这次解决美国的大政府的问题，不会在需要三十年，快的话，今年就可以开始扭转方向。而中国走出的单纯出售廉价劳动力的模式，要在美国走出奥巴马阴影之后。
Thursday, May 27, 2010
谈谈resveratrol（白藜芦醇）的返老还童作用
20年前，人们就知道法国人大量吃红肉但是不得心血管疾病，是因为他们喝红葡萄酒。红葡萄酒里面的有效成分resveratrol也早就为人所知。但是，在很长的时间内，提取出来的resveratrol价格太贵，一般人买不起，所以resveratrol也就成为空中楼阁，想用resveratrol降低患心血管疾病概率的人们，只好学着法国人的样子，每天饮用红葡萄酒。（因为resveratrol含在葡萄的颜色里面，所以白葡萄酒中，resveratrol的含量很少。
2003年，哈佛的研究人员David Sinclair相信通常隐性的sirtuin基因对长寿很有好处。他测试出resveratrol可以将sirtuin基因变为显性后，就Google了一下resveratrol，结果让他吃惊的就是红葡萄酒里含有大量的resveratrol。Sinclair说他知道对红酒的研究，当他将sirtuin基因和红酒联系起来的时候，差点没有从椅子上掉下去。
老鼠实验显示，过度显现sirtuin基因（SIRT1）会有降低胆固醇，降低血糖，和降低转氨酶的作用。
Sinclair和哈佛的另一个研究人员Christoph Westphal成立了Sirtris公司研究以resveratrol为基础的新药。2008年，Sirtris被药厂GlaxoSmithKline以72亿收购。目前，Sinclair和Westphal仍然在运作GlaxoSmithKline的子公司Sirtris。
Sinclair讲，resveratrol可以让九十岁的人向六十岁那样打网球。记得我曾在Caltech的网球场见到过90岁的人打网球，在和他的交谈中，他说：除了跑不太动以外，有时会有晕眩的感觉，毕竟年纪不饶人嘛。在那以外，我没有见过90多岁的人打羽毛球，或做这种有一定强度的锻炼的。
当然，目前resveratrol的研究还处于初步阶段。但是，天然提纯的resveratrol已经可以在很多商店里买到。其中resveratrol的含量，一般都百倍于红葡萄酒，而且价格完全可以承受。
2003年，哈佛的研究人员David Sinclair相信通常隐性的sirtuin基因对长寿很有好处。他测试出resveratrol可以将sirtuin基因变为显性后，就Google了一下resveratrol，结果让他吃惊的就是红葡萄酒里含有大量的resveratrol。Sinclair说他知道对红酒的研究，当他将sirtuin基因和红酒联系起来的时候，差点没有从椅子上掉下去。
老鼠实验显示，过度显现sirtuin基因（SIRT1）会有降低胆固醇，降低血糖，和降低转氨酶的作用。
Sinclair和哈佛的另一个研究人员Christoph Westphal成立了Sirtris公司研究以resveratrol为基础的新药。2008年，Sirtris被药厂GlaxoSmithKline以72亿收购。目前，Sinclair和Westphal仍然在运作GlaxoSmithKline的子公司Sirtris。
Sinclair讲，resveratrol可以让九十岁的人向六十岁那样打网球。记得我曾在Caltech的网球场见到过90岁的人打网球，在和他的交谈中，他说：除了跑不太动以外，有时会有晕眩的感觉，毕竟年纪不饶人嘛。在那以外，我没有见过90多岁的人打羽毛球，或做这种有一定强度的锻炼的。
当然，目前resveratrol的研究还处于初步阶段。但是，天然提纯的resveratrol已经可以在很多商店里买到。其中resveratrol的含量，一般都百倍于红葡萄酒，而且价格完全可以承受。
Friday, May 21, 2010
年轻人是奥巴马政策的最大牺牲者
YOUNG PEOPLE ARE HURT THE MOST BY OBAMA’S POLICIES
Ironies are everywhere in the Obama administration. For one thing, young people and the high tech company executives came out amass to vote for Mr. Obama. Yet, in the early days, Obama openly laughed at those executives that they voted him in so they have to work with him. I am sure that the executives can adjust. Also, Senator Arlen Specter, who turned Democratic to give ObamaCare the necessary 60th vote and lost the Democratic primary election to Joe Sestak, because the White House would not come out to campaign for him, would do just fine in his retirement life. Mr. Specter did this due to political reasons (that he was not likely to win the Republican primary if he had not switched party). The young people, who were duped into voting for the Obama, the Rock Star, were sent to the gutters.
One of the most significant indicators that we are becoming an European country is that the young people’s unemployment rate doubles the national average. As the national unemployment hovers around 10% (comparable to the European level), young people (25 and under) are suffering the unemployment rate of around 20%, also a typical European level.
Young people makes up their lack of experience by their diligent work. When I was young, I often sleep only four hours a day. Now, I am older and work with much less intensity. However, my experience more than makes up that gap. When I wrote columns for The Cavalier Daily, it typically cost me 20 hours to write a single piece. It was an enormous work load to turn out a piece every week. Now, it takes me about one to two hours to do the same, with higher quality.
Young people’s high work intensity makes them learn faster than older people, which is the reason that, when completely new technologies are under development, young people worth more than the older people, because experience does not count much. During the dot com boom, I was in my thirties and worked as the director of development department for several dot com companies. Except the CEOs and CTOs who are essentially the sales people, everyone in the company were younger than me. The learning stamina in young people is enormous. In those days, the gym near the office was full at 3 a.m., because the young people take a break at that hour to get some exercise. Sleep was pretty much ignored to development the new product.
It is that kind of work ethics and innovative spirit that made all technologies obsolete after six months. The joke of the day was that if you leave the field for six months, you would return as a total outsider. Experience, such as management experiences, even in those days, certainly had value. I was hired as development department heads mostly because of my management experience in large traditional companies (called brick-and-mortar then). However, if the experience spirit was not combined with my keen understanding of the technical progress, sufficient to tell developers what to do precisely, my management experience would hold little value.
Those were the days when people in their 50s and even 40s are treated badly, because they cannot work till 2 a.m. seven days a week. The only people in that age group are CEOs and CTOs, whose job is to get investment and sell the products that we develop. Incidentally, while we, the young, did a marvelous job in developing technologies. They failed miserably for creating the so-called dot-com bubble.
Dot-com trained a stratum of young people, as older people were unable to hold cutting edge development and management positions. That experience made us believe that nothing is impossible in this world. Hard work would always be rewarded with great products and enjoyable experience. When the dot-com industry collapsed, I followed other managers to law school. Most of my Chinese friends thought then that I was crazy. However, the confidence that I gained in dot-com prevailed. Now, I get to combine my knowledge of law, my corporate management experience (in the practice of business law), and my technical and scientific background (as a patent attorney).
The driving forces of dot-com, either as principal developers or key technical managers, are in their 40s now. Thinking back, I am always amazed that “the boom” gave me, who come to the U.S. after graduating college in China on a physics scholarship, such an opportunity to build up my character. I have heard many people saying that immigrants can only live on the margins of the society. My experience contradicts that opinion.
Today, in the stagnate environment, experience can crush even the most indefatigable learning stamina, as I can produce better writing today with only 5% of the time in a mentally relaxed state. That is the reason that young people are neither needed nor wanted now. The macroeconomic indicators, e.g., unemployment rate, only reflect that reality.
The problems, certainly, do not rest with the young, but with the national policy. When Reagan died, I stood outside of his library from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. the next morning to show my respect, because his tax cut, his pro-business policies, his persuading of the American people that government is the problem, allowed me to have what I had. Under Obama, people believe government is the solution. I have to wait till November to see what people think that about Obama’s spending spree and ObamaCare. American people, without the likes of Reagan, are talked into the concept that the rich is evil and should be taxed to make the country fair. They don’t seem to look around to see who is giving them jobs. Obama is instituting a tax policy that 50% of the people do not have to pay any tax, and that public employees and entities, such as Fannie and Freddy, may freely use the taxpayer’s money to exert their influence on the government. It is the political game-playing that would suffocate the innovative spirit (i.e., if you lose, you take the loss; if you win, the government will redistribute it).
The U.S. is on a critical moment in history. If Obama is not stopped in November, massive government entities would be built under the laws that have just passed. Once these institutions are built, it is politically next to impossible to undo. That is the reason that Europe and Japan suffer from their perpetual economic anemia.
No American politicians dare to come out to explain the harsh reality to the people: the increasing inequality of earning abilities is caused by the fierce global competition. Those who can take creative jobs can demand their premium pay. But the earning ability of those who hold less creative jobs would be directly pressured by those who make much less in China. Allowing the creative people to flourish, so they can general work opportunities for those less creative, is the only possible economic path to success. Mr. Obama cannot wait to nurture the golden goose to lay eggs. He had a better idea: Let’s kill them for the eggs (government spending spree). Mr. Obama fails to think: after you killed the golden goose (i.e., high government deficit and a slow economy), then what? Greece is looming on the horizon.
Some may say: Government spending is ultimately translated to some form of spending, which should stimulate the economy. The answer is simple. That kind of stimulation is only valuable at the worst moment of the economic crisis to soften the blow. It cannot be turned into long-term entitlement. If the government persistently takes away the profit and redistribute it to the non-risk-takers for consumption, at best, it stimulates the traditional and existing economy, as, for instance, people buy cheap goods from stores. (Note: Government money is aimed at the low income brackets.) I am sure that China would be thankful, but it would not stimulate innovations, such as dot-com, which is the only way for the U.S. to compete. The worse scenario is that risk takers may take their business to other countries that actually encourage innovation. That would be the end of the American dreams as we know it.
There are signs that the American people have seen the mistake in electing Barack Obama. However, the Obama political machine, which obliterated John McCain, is hard at work and had its recent victories, as Democrats did much better than the Republicans to get out their votes.
The American spirit, a.k.a. the American dream, was to explore, to adventure, and to enjoy the fruit of hard work. FDR has used the Great Depression to deny the American people of that. Ronald Reagan turned the ride by reducing the government interference to people’s lives. Reagan’s power was so strong that, at one time, the opportunistic Bill Clinton claimed that the era of big government was over. Now, Obama is using the Great Recession to repeat that cycle. Although I am confident that the American people will ultimately see through all this and turn the tide again, the question is: Would it take another 40 years? Would the young people, who were betrayed and denied their innovative and confidence-building experience by Obama, vote Democratic again?
There are anecdotal reports from China that the Chinese youth are suffering from high unemployment. Although I have not seen any data, the root of the problem is the similar: the saturation of the manufacturing sector (which had been absorbing the Chinese youth because that was new to the Chinese workforce then) and the inability to build a creative sector. In the end, the government’s policy of stimulating the internal consumption parallels Obama’s spending. With a much weaker economy, the Chinese policy quickly kicked up the consumer product and food price. Now, food, which cost around 1/6 the U.S. price only a few years ago, is several times more expensive now. Some American educated people, upon returning to China, found that they cannot afford ribs in supermarket. Many Chinese business people visiting the U.S. complained to me about the unfairness of the world that Americans are making more and able to buy Chinese products that are much cheaper in the U.S. than in China.
Maybe the whole world is at a critical moment.
Ironies are everywhere in the Obama administration. For one thing, young people and the high tech company executives came out amass to vote for Mr. Obama. Yet, in the early days, Obama openly laughed at those executives that they voted him in so they have to work with him. I am sure that the executives can adjust. Also, Senator Arlen Specter, who turned Democratic to give ObamaCare the necessary 60th vote and lost the Democratic primary election to Joe Sestak, because the White House would not come out to campaign for him, would do just fine in his retirement life. Mr. Specter did this due to political reasons (that he was not likely to win the Republican primary if he had not switched party). The young people, who were duped into voting for the Obama, the Rock Star, were sent to the gutters.
One of the most significant indicators that we are becoming an European country is that the young people’s unemployment rate doubles the national average. As the national unemployment hovers around 10% (comparable to the European level), young people (25 and under) are suffering the unemployment rate of around 20%, also a typical European level.
Young people makes up their lack of experience by their diligent work. When I was young, I often sleep only four hours a day. Now, I am older and work with much less intensity. However, my experience more than makes up that gap. When I wrote columns for The Cavalier Daily, it typically cost me 20 hours to write a single piece. It was an enormous work load to turn out a piece every week. Now, it takes me about one to two hours to do the same, with higher quality.
Young people’s high work intensity makes them learn faster than older people, which is the reason that, when completely new technologies are under development, young people worth more than the older people, because experience does not count much. During the dot com boom, I was in my thirties and worked as the director of development department for several dot com companies. Except the CEOs and CTOs who are essentially the sales people, everyone in the company were younger than me. The learning stamina in young people is enormous. In those days, the gym near the office was full at 3 a.m., because the young people take a break at that hour to get some exercise. Sleep was pretty much ignored to development the new product.
It is that kind of work ethics and innovative spirit that made all technologies obsolete after six months. The joke of the day was that if you leave the field for six months, you would return as a total outsider. Experience, such as management experiences, even in those days, certainly had value. I was hired as development department heads mostly because of my management experience in large traditional companies (called brick-and-mortar then). However, if the experience spirit was not combined with my keen understanding of the technical progress, sufficient to tell developers what to do precisely, my management experience would hold little value.
Those were the days when people in their 50s and even 40s are treated badly, because they cannot work till 2 a.m. seven days a week. The only people in that age group are CEOs and CTOs, whose job is to get investment and sell the products that we develop. Incidentally, while we, the young, did a marvelous job in developing technologies. They failed miserably for creating the so-called dot-com bubble.
Dot-com trained a stratum of young people, as older people were unable to hold cutting edge development and management positions. That experience made us believe that nothing is impossible in this world. Hard work would always be rewarded with great products and enjoyable experience. When the dot-com industry collapsed, I followed other managers to law school. Most of my Chinese friends thought then that I was crazy. However, the confidence that I gained in dot-com prevailed. Now, I get to combine my knowledge of law, my corporate management experience (in the practice of business law), and my technical and scientific background (as a patent attorney).
The driving forces of dot-com, either as principal developers or key technical managers, are in their 40s now. Thinking back, I am always amazed that “the boom” gave me, who come to the U.S. after graduating college in China on a physics scholarship, such an opportunity to build up my character. I have heard many people saying that immigrants can only live on the margins of the society. My experience contradicts that opinion.
Today, in the stagnate environment, experience can crush even the most indefatigable learning stamina, as I can produce better writing today with only 5% of the time in a mentally relaxed state. That is the reason that young people are neither needed nor wanted now. The macroeconomic indicators, e.g., unemployment rate, only reflect that reality.
The problems, certainly, do not rest with the young, but with the national policy. When Reagan died, I stood outside of his library from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. the next morning to show my respect, because his tax cut, his pro-business policies, his persuading of the American people that government is the problem, allowed me to have what I had. Under Obama, people believe government is the solution. I have to wait till November to see what people think that about Obama’s spending spree and ObamaCare. American people, without the likes of Reagan, are talked into the concept that the rich is evil and should be taxed to make the country fair. They don’t seem to look around to see who is giving them jobs. Obama is instituting a tax policy that 50% of the people do not have to pay any tax, and that public employees and entities, such as Fannie and Freddy, may freely use the taxpayer’s money to exert their influence on the government. It is the political game-playing that would suffocate the innovative spirit (i.e., if you lose, you take the loss; if you win, the government will redistribute it).
The U.S. is on a critical moment in history. If Obama is not stopped in November, massive government entities would be built under the laws that have just passed. Once these institutions are built, it is politically next to impossible to undo. That is the reason that Europe and Japan suffer from their perpetual economic anemia.
No American politicians dare to come out to explain the harsh reality to the people: the increasing inequality of earning abilities is caused by the fierce global competition. Those who can take creative jobs can demand their premium pay. But the earning ability of those who hold less creative jobs would be directly pressured by those who make much less in China. Allowing the creative people to flourish, so they can general work opportunities for those less creative, is the only possible economic path to success. Mr. Obama cannot wait to nurture the golden goose to lay eggs. He had a better idea: Let’s kill them for the eggs (government spending spree). Mr. Obama fails to think: after you killed the golden goose (i.e., high government deficit and a slow economy), then what? Greece is looming on the horizon.
Some may say: Government spending is ultimately translated to some form of spending, which should stimulate the economy. The answer is simple. That kind of stimulation is only valuable at the worst moment of the economic crisis to soften the blow. It cannot be turned into long-term entitlement. If the government persistently takes away the profit and redistribute it to the non-risk-takers for consumption, at best, it stimulates the traditional and existing economy, as, for instance, people buy cheap goods from stores. (Note: Government money is aimed at the low income brackets.) I am sure that China would be thankful, but it would not stimulate innovations, such as dot-com, which is the only way for the U.S. to compete. The worse scenario is that risk takers may take their business to other countries that actually encourage innovation. That would be the end of the American dreams as we know it.
There are signs that the American people have seen the mistake in electing Barack Obama. However, the Obama political machine, which obliterated John McCain, is hard at work and had its recent victories, as Democrats did much better than the Republicans to get out their votes.
The American spirit, a.k.a. the American dream, was to explore, to adventure, and to enjoy the fruit of hard work. FDR has used the Great Depression to deny the American people of that. Ronald Reagan turned the ride by reducing the government interference to people’s lives. Reagan’s power was so strong that, at one time, the opportunistic Bill Clinton claimed that the era of big government was over. Now, Obama is using the Great Recession to repeat that cycle. Although I am confident that the American people will ultimately see through all this and turn the tide again, the question is: Would it take another 40 years? Would the young people, who were betrayed and denied their innovative and confidence-building experience by Obama, vote Democratic again?
There are anecdotal reports from China that the Chinese youth are suffering from high unemployment. Although I have not seen any data, the root of the problem is the similar: the saturation of the manufacturing sector (which had been absorbing the Chinese youth because that was new to the Chinese workforce then) and the inability to build a creative sector. In the end, the government’s policy of stimulating the internal consumption parallels Obama’s spending. With a much weaker economy, the Chinese policy quickly kicked up the consumer product and food price. Now, food, which cost around 1/6 the U.S. price only a few years ago, is several times more expensive now. Some American educated people, upon returning to China, found that they cannot afford ribs in supermarket. Many Chinese business people visiting the U.S. complained to me about the unfairness of the world that Americans are making more and able to buy Chinese products that are much cheaper in the U.S. than in China.
Maybe the whole world is at a critical moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)