主题：英媒：我们需要新资本主义来抗衡中国 -- dolong
家园 英媒：我们需要新资本主义来抗衡中国 We need a new capitalism to take on China
If the West isn’t to slide into irrelevance, governments must be much more active in taking control of the economy
The question that nobody wants to raise is whether the new model of capitalism that emerges to dominate the world will be a radically reformed version of the Western democratic system or some variant of the authoritarian state-led capitalism favoured in China, Russia and many other emerging economies.As a leading US diplomat told me: “Since the crisis, developing countries have lost interest in the old Washington consensus that promoted democracy and liberal economics. Wherever I go in the world, governments and business leaders talk about the new Beijing consensus — the Chinese route to prosperity and power. The West must come up with a new model of capitalism that’s consistent with our political values. Either we reinvent ourselves or we will lose.”Another more insidious form of denial is to pretend that the Chinese and Western models of capitalism are not really very different. Everyone, after all, is in business to make money, so on the issues that really matter, there is no great rift. This is the standard view among all businessmen with big investments in China, especially those like Bill Gates, of Microsoft, who enjoy seeing their rivals politically squeezed by Beijing.家园 这些回复是从哪里被转过来的呢？ 这些回复是从哪里被转过来的呢？
里面的内容都很不错，看上去都是很有见识很有修养的西方人呢。
这和我以前接触到的西方人的言论大相径庭。
望不吝告知。
家园 当年，资本主义面对二战之后的惨淡局面和苏联的挑战 也进行了一系列的调整，现在也一样把矛头指向中国。对中国来说，最重要的不是经济问题（现在几个主要国家中美俄日欧纠缠在一块，投鼠忌器），关键是如何在道义上在国际范围占据制高点。所谓的“北京共识”未必符合中国的心意，但是总要有一些自己的价值观能够向主张，主动与所谓的“普世价值”较量。
家园 彭定康一年多前就谈过这事 中国是对民主的威胁，其实更正确地说，“中国的成功是对西方民主价值观的威胁”。当年是要输出价值观，要颜色革命中国，如今则是害怕被输出，被颜色革命。英国人的敏感度和危机感应该说还是很高的。
家园 看几个读者评论 按读者推荐的多寡来排序：
John Roberts wrote:This is not true. The Great Depression was because;
-the Fed contracted the money supply by a third.
-Government action turned a downturn into a crisis (protectionist measures)
The 2007-09 crisis was because of government action in US & UK;
- interest rates were deliberately held far too low for far too long.
-US laws forcing banks to lend mortgages to anyone.
The problem with free markets is that it's never really been tried. There is always a special interest group claiming special subsidies, or bone-headed government action (such as bail outs and regulation to name two).
Far too much government is the problem, not the solution.
February 3, 2010 9:46 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk
Recommend? (48)
anthony faulkner wrote:Fabulous, coherent sketch of the major socioeconomic trends of the past 100 years, and the shape of the future to which they might point.
I believe the West is a victim of its own affluence : "idleness and abundance of bread", as Ezekiel put it, which is bound to help leaner, hungrier and tougher systems steal a march on us. Added to this, our hedonism and moral relativism – not to mention mass immigration - have fragmented our sense of community, to the point that we no longer know what values we stand for, except that of Tolerance, which, in the absence of a more positive principle, results in the democratic (!) triumph of the lowest common denominator.
On a global level, the sobering impact of our indebtedness to China has yet to make itself felt, but I imagine our standards of living will gradually become more equal to theirs, as the East works its way to wealth and influence, and we tread water in economies which are in any case already pretty well satiated.
The most fundamental question that divides us concerns the priority we accord to Freedom. In my view, we in the West have assumed it to be an absolute virtue, with the consequence that we have, for instance, allowed pornography to flourish and sex to be commercialized on a mass scale, to the detriment of the family unit and of the role of the woman. In the East, on the other hand, Freedom is seen as just one of a number of sometimes competing values : moreover, it is not intrinsically good, but is to be judged rather on its fruits. Here could be the start of a mutually redemptive dialectic.
I think it was Asa Briggs who realized that he needed to know Economics if he was to understand History. Perhaps it is equally important to remember Pascal’s observation, that “Everything starts in mysticism and end in politics.”
Good luck, Anatole !
February 4, 2010 12:12 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk
Recommend? (38)
Adam Clark wrote:I would expect someone with a name like Kaletsky to be more familiar with the dangers of a government controlled economy.
China's huge growth has been entirely down to their economic liberalisation over the past 40 years, which has allowed their economy to switch from capital-intensive industries (chosen by the government) to labour-intensive industries (market chosen).
I also find it hilarious that you think we have liberal economic policies in the West. Have you ever tried to start a business? The sheer amount of laws, regulations and taxes have been strangling British industries for years. If the government was really interested in saving British jobs, they would get out of the way.
Remember, the government has no money of its own. Every penny it spends was stolen from the people. Stolen from the productive, efficient private sector and given to the unproductive and inefficient public sector. Now there's a recipe for economic growth, right Anatole?
And the current financial crisis? Well according to the economists who actually predicted it (like Peter Schiff) it was caused by low interest rates (set by the central bank, not determined by the market). Too much cheap money flying around means people make bad, risky investments/loans. Eventually the bubble bursts and the house of cards that is (was) the Western economy comes crashing down. Exactly the same thing caused the Great Depression, which was of course predicted by those criticizing the Fed's low interest rates.
So I suppose you're right when you say our current system of capitalism has failed. You just have no idea why and no idea how to fix it.
Perhaps you should study some economics before you publish a book on it.
February 4, 2010 3:05 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk
Recommend? (37)
Tom E wrote:China is run by engineers and they believe in industry and technology: their goal is to absorb our technological know-how without payment and take over the worlds industry.
The west is unfortunately run by bankers and lawyers who don't care if China destroys our industrial base as long as house prices keep rising and government can keep borrowing money.
A global patent system and strong enforcement of both patent and copyright laws are essential if western technology companies are to compete. Until the intellectual property issue is resolved tariffs should be used to make it un-economical to do high-technology development or manufacturing in the east.
February 4, 2010 1:28 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk
Recommend? (28)
Santiago MacQuarrie wrote:There is more to it than just economics. Europe and the US seem to have resigned themselves to Chinese dominance. Given their advantages,among them a per capita income that is at least ten times higher than the Chinese and a huge lead in science and technology, that is a bit premature. In any event, to meet the challenge will require rather more than fiddling around with financial arrangements as Anatole Kaletsky appears to imagine. People will just have to study much harder, work much harder. If that means saying good-bye to the plaintive, self-pitying, slack and dumbed-down plebeian culture that currently prevails throughout the West, so much the better. It's a darwinian world out there. Unless the US and Europe wake up in time, they will end up providing the hard-working Chinese with helots.
Santiago Macquarrie
February 4, 2010 12:11 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk
Recommend? (28)
Jeff London wrote:Prior to the 1800s, when India and China were the two biggest economic powers and US and Europe were just fledgling economies, we "took on" China through imperialism and slavery...100 years of that made certain that we came top and China and India were nothing.
Now that the natural balance is gradually coming back, are we going to go on yet another crusade because we can't have it our way in the world (without violence)?
February 3, 2010 9:58 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk
Recommend? (28)
- 复 看几个读者评论
家园 哈哈, 这个家伙说的有趣： Tom E wrote:China is run by engineers and they believe in industry and technology: their goal is to absorb our technological know-how without payment and take over the worlds industry.
The west is unfortunately run by bankers and lawyers who don't care if China destroys our industrial base as long as house prices keep rising and government can keep borrowing money.
中国领导们是工程师，所以他们相信工业和技术，也知道怎么获取技术，捉牢世界上的实业。而西方却不幸是由一帮子银行家和律师来管的，所以他们只要房价能升，政府能借到钱，才不管中国是不是已经搞垮了我们的工业。
BTW，中国下届政府里的工程师多吗？
金融危机后MBA可是没有那么吃香了
家园 想想未来某个时间当美国后退一步的时候 世界可能又划分成两个阵营,
中、美、俄、欧将如何划分呢？
看来世界一个新国际秩序快来了
家园 不用划分，打麻将吧 正好四家。现在美国是上家，中国被动应付的份，不能让美国知道中国想要什么牌。中国的下家是欧盟，他们想要什么牌，中国大概知道。欧盟下家是俄罗斯，欧盟出牌还不错，不过也力不从心。俄国最近出牌比较猛，美国有点招架不住。呵呵。
家园 一个翻译 英国：只有新资本主义才能抗衡中国
信源：中评社｜编辑：2010-02-04｜
全球金融经济危机爆发两年来，“市场总是对的”资本主义模式备受质疑，甚至有西方官员认为，是时候构思新资本主义体系，以适应二十一世纪的政治经济发展环境，特别是能够与中国模式一较高下。英国泰晤士报周四刊登评论文章，指出全球资本主义体系正处于转型期，其程度堪比上个世纪三十代大衰退以及七十年代资本主义模式之演进。人们讳言的问题是，新资本主义模式将是西方民主体制的彻底改革版，还是中国、俄罗斯以及许多其他新兴经济体所青睐的国家资本主义的变种。
引述一位重要美国外交家的话，“（金融）危机以来，发展中国家已经对旧的推动民主与自由经济的华盛顿共识丧失兴趣。不论我走到世界何处，政府和财经领袖谈论的是北京共识----中国走向富强的道路。西方必须想出与我们政治价值一致的新资本主义模式。我们要么重塑自己，要么失败。”
有几种方法可以应付或者避讳这挑战。最简单的方法，就像在上周达沃斯“世界经济论坛”上明显不过的，是绝对否认挑战的存在。取代思考未来走向的最简单方法是着眼于过去，为法规制度、责任归咎狡辩与争辩。
另一个潜在的否认是，佯称中国和西方的资本主义模式没有真正的不同。毕竟，在商言商目的是赚钱，以此角度来看没有大分别。这是那些在中国有巨额投资的商人的标准看法。这也是中国和西方政府的官方路线，认为两种模式将和平共处、相互尊重。
这只是一种错觉。从商业运作、经济政策、政治以及地缘政治利益等方面来看，中国和西方有发生冲突的趋势。虽然严重的冲突不可能在未来几十年发生，但这两种政治经济发展模式长期互不相容。
西方世界的选择是，要么承认中国拥有一个比美国和欧洲国家更成功更持久地文化，并将重登全球领导地位；要么该认真思考西方资本主义如何改革以更有机会获胜。
西方不应该再认为小规模的银行改革能够修复西方体系。很明显，2007至2009年出的错并不仅仅是银行监管的过失。这是撒切尔－里根时代创立的市场基本教义派模式的失败，该模式认为“市场总是对的”。
2007-2009年的失败并不意味着当年所作的改革是错的。1979年以来的自由市场体系代表着资本主义的演进，在凯恩斯模式失败之后。同样，创立于上个世纪三十年代的凯恩斯模式资本主义，亦是由传统的自由放任资本主义模式（毁于三十年代大萧条）演进而来。
西方世界面临的挑战是如何创造一个集传统、凯恩斯和撒切尔－里根模式最优秀元素的资本主义第四版，该版本要能够适应二十一世纪需要，特别能与充满活力且自信的中国竞争。
某些变革明显不过，并且业已发生。例如，政府和中央银行责任更明确地管理经济发展、就业和通胀。当然也有争议的方面。例如，西方政治制度是否需要改革以有利于妥协并快速达到共识？是否需要一种政府在财政、能源、环境、战略基础设施投资中扮更大的角色的经济体系？诸多问题尚待探讨。