主题：【原创】土豆与牛肉 -- 晨枫

美国要想依附也可以，分裂了先。

美国的致命问题是美元这个循环已经彻底不行了，但是美国还没有那个集团认为要推倒重来。

估计美国后十几年的路就是一个不断寻找美元替代品的路。

英国也不是自愿放弃英镑的，美元还没有到必须放弃的地步，美国当然不会自愿放弃。扫帚不到，灰尘不会自己跑掉。扫帚还挥在空中，没有落下来呢。

只有tg可以做出90年代那种大规模下岗的疯狂举动。这是真正的壮士断腕。美国如果现在有当年tg的疯狂的一半，马上就是可以满局全活，可以二十年后又是一条好汉。

现在美国后面背着美元，前面捧着普世价值，也就是后面的金融集团不能得罪，前面的社会福利要维持，最后只好去跳崖了。如果最后跳崖也不愿意，那就只能粉身碎骨了。

只不过英国的分裂可以是日不落帝国的分裂，美国的分裂就只能在自己国土范围实现了。

至少在英语国家，陆航飞行员（包括空海军直升机飞行员）都是士官（warrant officer），不是军官，空军和海军（还有海军陆战队，但这是美国特有的情况，别国海军陆战队没有自己的战斗机飞行员，直升机飞行员依然是士官）飞行员是军官。指挥关系上，除了海军陆战队的情况比较特殊，别的都是跨军种友邻支援，军衔问题比较小。

西方的士官都是可以做到60岁才退休的，没有中年创业问题。

即便中间可能会有反复，比如最近几年靠卖石油使得经济看上去有所好转。

问题是，这个国家在这个世界上能干什么？经济上目前只能卖石油，政治上靠着前苏联的余威和核大棒还能吓唬吓唬人，可是以现在的地位，连对俄罗斯传统势力范围都缺乏控制力了。

其实我倒是有一个很好的出路给俄罗斯：保留自己的欧洲领土，把远东地区租给中国。中国每年出一大比租金绝对能把那点俄罗斯人口养的过上共产主义。

in the past, the key point: global power passes from one Anglo-Saxon nation to another Anglo-Saxon protestant nation. In the end, the same group of WASP elites still control the old global system or determine the new world order. Here I define WASP elites on a cultural basis. Therefore, Eisenhower, a German American and US president, is also a member of this elites.

Americans(or WASPs) beat Europeans, Asians, Arabians, Slavs and Indians in terms of innovation in designing new system to accommodate a changing world. When Europeans were still obsessed with gold standard, America had already switched to the fiat system under FDR new deal and inflated out of depression with massive government fiscal stimulus. In Europe, only Germans did the same thing but out of more militaristic reason.

France single-handedly created the 1931 credit crisis by pushing the Austrian bank Kredit Vienna into bankruptcy. French prime minister ruined Austria and Germany and pushed Hitler into power. France pretty much did nothing innovatively to solve the depression issue during 1930s. Today's France is still asleep under the old dirgiste system with most of its talents into the public service sector. Its banking and stock market regulatory systems are even inferior to those of China.

Emerging out of depression, America established deposit insurance system, medicare/social security system, and more banking and stock market regulatory systems. In Europe, we saw little innovations in comparison.

So long as there are still human beings, new economic or political crises can never be avoided. When we judge one nation over others, we need to focus on its stamina in period of turmoil.

WASP nations, on average, show that they are more open to new ideas and new talents from their former colonial elites. For any people who live in Canada, US or UK before, you can easily understand I mean.

We live in an interesting period in which the fiat currency system and post-1971 Brettonwoods II system are facing serious challenges. What will be the next better system? I do not know. I am sure Obama also has no clue. But through intellectual debates, fusion of contribution from various elite groups, the final new system will be more robust than the current one--and this process will take years, after a major stagflation period.

In the last 300 years, Anglos defeated all challenges to their global economic, cultural and military dominance. First, the Spaniards (17th), then Nederlands (17th), then France (17th and 18th), Germany(WW I and II), Japan (WWII), Russia (cold war). Those are not easy adversaries.

I saw no fundamental change to the WASP social system and its talent pool and I do not think Chinese are ready to undertake the global leadership at all.

My question for all Chinese on this forum: did you see any institutional innovation from China ever since 1978? Did we create international accounting standards, World Bank, International Monetary Funds, United Nations (or International League), NATO, national insurance system, international commmercial code, GATT, WTO, first securities law, first security market regulatory, first international settlement bank, most innovative research universities, most dynamic high-tech firms, administrative system, best management practices...

China still has a long way to go. It is a good student. But before one can take over this global leadership role, one needs to ask himself a simple question: do we have a large enough talent pool which CAN THINK INDEPENDENTLY AND CRITICALLY?

Do not listen to Sarkozy's blah blah talk--Euro has long way to go before it can replace USD. France has been a loser ever since it totally gave up the resourceful North American continent. To pick a loser as partner is definitely not a good formula for future success.

• China is not a leader yet

result.

America can use inflation to gradually eliminates its problem.

It used that before against Europeans in 1971-1978 and I do not think the American strategists will be afraid to do that again.

50多岁之后能否适应部队快节奏的生活是个问题，这就涉及如何保持队伍的流动性与稳定性的平衡问题。。。还有，前一阵的哈桑医生都做到“没辙”了，他有什么指挥能力？他碰到同军种的中尉连长，谁指挥谁？

何况，解放军里面不但有技术军官、技术士官，还有文职军官（文职人员的本质还是军官，只不过不授衔），这个文职军官就很类似于西方的士官了，军衔这个东西不是普世的，各国有各国传统，拿一个国家评价另一个国家没啥意思。。。不说别的，同是西方国家，法国就跟美国不一样，也没见法国跟在美国后面亦步亦趋。。

随便插个话，TG的文职军官很不类似于西方的士官/士官制度。

跟在美国后面亦步亦趋很难说是对还是错，PLA一直在改，目的无非是精兵合成保持战斗力，在没有实战经验积累的情况下，跟着最NB的美国后面亦步亦趋也许反而是一种较为有效且成本较低的途径。

当然，有的改了，结果与国情军情战情不适应，那只要说的对，PLA好象也不硬颈，也能往回找补。

其实，看来看去，想来想去，什么什么制度对军队来说似乎并不算致命，有没有仗打才是最致命的。比如说，现在志愿兵/士官似乎是中国军队的一个发展方向，专业化、职业化么，但中国历史上搞募兵制也好多例子，搞到最后，和平时间一长，也全崩坏了。

上花。

我家是海军的（好几个系统都有）。前面的话确实说得不严谨，应该说文职军官里面有一部分（比如搞财务的文职等等）是类似于美国的士官制度的。。。。

至于现在中国的士官化，我个人理解是因为时代发展太快，过去的很多高技术，比如一些老飞机的维护修理，坦克的维护修理，老军舰的维护修理，其技术含量在下降。原来要专门招一群高中生（制定条例的时候全国也没有多少大学生）培训2-3年才能培养出的专业人才，现在招个理工科的大学生简单培训个半年就能上手，这种专业就没有必要再设原来一样的技术军官体系，至少要把天花板降低，保持人员的流动性。。。

说归到底，美国有美国的国情，中国有中国的国情。美国人可以把当兵当成与到公司朝九晚五一样的职业，因为美国人可以自豪的说咱不差钱，用待遇完全就可以招揽很好的人才（这条路不是也要到死胡同了嘛）；但是中国就必须要让军人有使命感，靠精神上东西提气（外加上解决你的后顾之忧），因为跟地方比，部队在技术岗位上的待遇实在没法做到优厚。。美国人最希望看到就是各个国家都改的跟他家一样，到时候用钱就能砸死你。。。

澳洲等算上的话，那么在俄国这边要把中国也要算上，这样在计算时力量的对比才不会过于失衡。

把远东地区租给中国，这不是让中国控制远东吗？

如果不是中、俄共同受到攻击，中、俄两方都很少可能会为对方出兵和美国死磕。

如果是步兵，那会有体力问题；如果是技术士官，做到60岁也没有问题。哈桑军医不是指挥军官，但要是敌人打到军医院门口，而警卫连长已经翘了，只有一个军士在指挥残余警卫部队，哈桑少校是有指挥权的，军士只有建议权。

法国的军衔制度和英美很相似。

奇怪：人人对舞蹈军官、作家军官、打球军官很有意见，但维修军官、秘书军官似乎就没有问题，为什么？