Adeline1006G备考日志~不迁怒，不贰过

NaperyUID：2710990

小乔的朋友一定要支持，加油啊~~`

zhengchangdianUID：2563082

路过留爪:victory:

AdelineShenUID：2630498

嗯，我回来啦~因为一些犹豫，又浪费了一星期，惭愧~~
刚看了几篇666的文章，好佩服啊！

关于Argu的让步的使用，灰常同意666斑斑的观点！

1让步必须建立在你要批驳者的观点上，对于argument来说，就是作者的观点上。我见过有的文章，上来就让步接让步，当时我就很怀疑：作者真的有那么多话可以来给你让步么？结果果不其然，让步两次以后他就开始 even though + 自己以前的推论, 然后推到离题十万八千里的地方去了，偏偏本人还感觉良好，认为是神来之作。从这里我们可以看出：二次让步一般来说是不合逻辑的，因为第二次让步的东西，实际上是你第一次让步后得出的结论，而不是作者本来的意思。

2让步的作用是为了找出更加隐晦，更加深层的逻辑谬误，或者直接归谬否定。对于argument来说，就是从外表错误推断到本质错误的一个过程。有的童鞋不管三七二十一，不管这个逻辑到底有没有深层谬误（实际上，大部分的推论，是没有深层逻辑谬误的），先让步了再说。结果呢？自然是ETS杀你没商量。

AdelineShenUID：2630498

关于Argu攻击顺序的问题：攻击是有主次的！

前提：Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain
结论：Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment

最明显一些关键词，我已经给标出来了。剩下的也有值得关注的 比如 结论里面的 part。
是否发现，单单这2句话，比那一段实验还要有多话说？
secondary infections may ——> 一个仅仅是may 的事情，居然推广到都会发生，显然错了
some——>all 一些病人 推广到 所有病人 显然也错了
severe muscle strain 和一般的 muscle strain 病人能同等对待么？只有严重肌肉损伤的人中才有某些人可能发生再次感染，没有说任何关于整个肌肉损伤病人的信息。

由此，一下就至少3个攻击点
怎么攻击，不用我说了，这个你们很熟悉
但是在这里，我必须要再次强调为什么要先攻击这个地方
这个是西方的习惯，先攻击最重要的逻辑问题
为什么这个比2个病患组的例子更重要？
病患组的例子你再怎么攻击，最多也就是能说“这些证据，并不能表明[前提]是一定存在的”，那也就等于说，[前提]还是有可能存在的。你最后的攻击无非就是“一个不一定确实存在的[前提]，不能推导到那样的结论”
而我攻击前提和结论这个逻辑层面，我就能说，即便[前提]是完全正确的，我也不能得到那样的结论。
所以，要先攻击这个逻辑关系

AdelineShenUID：2630498

最后回过来再看下这个题目
我现在来把这个题目模拟成2个人的对话
一个是TC的主任，一个人是EZ的老板
你就可以假想成，EZ的老板想请TC的主任吃饭，想挽回TC的决定

TC的主任说：实在不好意思啊，虽然我们之前合作了10年，一直很愉快，但是TC今年觉得我们应该雇佣ABC公司来处理垃圾。

EZ的老板说：（首先他是想，为什么不要我们做了呢？哦，发现个问题，原来ABC比我们便宜。这个自然理由而然就成为了他找到的顺理成章为什么今年给ABC做的原因，[这个就是他说话的前提]）虽然我们今年要2500，ABC只要2000，但是我们的价钱高的值得啊。你看啊，第一，我们一个礼拜收2次垃圾，ABC只收1次，要是他们也收2次的话，可就不是2000这个数目拉。所以我们每次的收费并不高。第二，我们现在和他们卡车一样多，并且我们准备再要点卡车，但是增加运能添卡车要钱啊。第三，即便价格高些，但是我们的服务好啊。你看我们的调查报告，80%的受仿用户都满意啊。所以，我觉得你们TC错了，还是应该选我们EZ公司的。

那TC的主任想要驳斥EZ老板说的话，不就是我们的arguement要展现的么？？？

TC的主任可以说（如同我同学样攻击）：你有证据说，我们的人民关心到底一个礼拜收几次垃圾么？说不定，我们这干净的很，根本就没这么多垃圾。一个月清一次都可以哦。
再者说，你有什么证据说，你车多就代表你公司实力强啊？说不定那些车不是来拉垃圾的呢？即便是拉垃圾的，也不一定车况都好啊，万一坏的多好的少呢？
最后你那个survey，我怎么信你啊？你给了我那么点信息，我怎么知道你到底访了多少人，给你回复的人是什么样的，说不定更多的人不给你回复呢？

TC的主任也可以说（稍微好点，上一个层次，到小前提）：你这么说都没用，你至少得向我们证明清楚为什么要多收我们500块吧？你前几年没收，不也干的好好的么？满意度也那么高啊，车子还是那么多啊，一个礼拜还是收两次啊。为什么非得今年多收钱了啊？这个问题你不解释清楚，你叫我们怎么用你？

TC的主任更可以这样说（抓住致命弱点，到大前提）：EZ老板！！！这根本就不是你们开价太高的问题。我们选没选你们和你们的开价，完全没有关系！！！完全是因为你们填埋处理垃圾造成的污染太大了，ABC采用新技术，又能循环利用很多资源，有机垃圾发酵成甲烷还能提供城市能源。你们公司要是也能这样，我们才能考虑你们的请求。不然，那我只有对不起了。

大家自己看看
大家自己想想
就按照我之前给大家说要说服朋友招a当清洁工一样。从你自己最能认可的角度，最讲道理的角度，来区分下这些回答，这些arguement。哪个好，哪个有说服力，哪个才是高分？

第一个回答，是不是很有点无理取闹的意思？
只是擦边球打下，对于EZ刚才说的话，没有多大合理的辩驳

第二个回答，多少有了点谈的味道。告诉了EZ你至少需要把你为什么涨价说清楚。
很有点辩驳EZ的味道了，至少EZ说的第二句话，已经没多大用处了，三个证据也显的孤立了。
但是大家也发现，这个地方如果EZ可以再说话的。EZ完全可以弥补的很好。他可以举出各种理由和数字，让你觉得他的涨价的确是合理的。

但是你第三个回答一出，我想EZ已经没有理由再待下去了，话都说到这个根上了，和他们的价钱没关系。
如果你让EZ再多说点，来弥补，那EZ能说什么？？？
只要他是那样处理垃圾的，那EZ就几乎没什么好说的了。

这个就是辩驳力度的区别。如果大家是打分人，你会给这样的arguement分别打多少分呢？

其实我觉得ETS评分也很轻松的。因为普通的逻辑问题，是个学生都能找到。这个不能用来合理的区分他们的得分，再说了AW是取代逻辑部分出现的。理所应当，成绩能够反映出一个人的逻辑思维能力。
所以要是我去的话，凡是论述证据的，说的比较精彩的给个4分，要是这个地方都说不好的，那就3分吧。。。
要是能说到小前提了，那起码说这个人有点逻辑思维。看出来，这3个证据是用来证明什么的前提了。
要是谁一针见血把大前提给驳斥了，OK没什么好说的，这个人有很强的逻辑性和大局观，我有什么理由不给他6分？

所以，arguement的确能反映出一个人的逻辑能力。
反过来说，你要arguement高分，你的逻辑攻击，就不能停留在表面的证据上。


这个写的太好了！不得不转啊！！！

StefanaUID：2143510

没分加了，冒泡赞一个

AdelineShenUID：2630498

哎，我又有两天没更新了~~试着努力平衡GRE和各种事情的时间分配，要加油~

今天fana和zzz的小组开始啦~~嗯嗯，明天开始过题库和背单词~继续看我的environmental journals~

单词应该要快点拾起来了，嗯，草草的组也要开始了，看草草怎么安排再决定每天的单词复习量吧~~

顺祝草草明天Happy Birthday~大家加油！~

AdelineShenUID：2630498

A special report on climate change and the carbon economy

Getting warmer
Dec 3rd 2009 From The Economist print edition

So far the effort to tackle global warming has achieved little. Copenhagen offers the chance to do better, says Emma Duncan (interviewed here)
Illustration by M. Morgenstern

THE mountain bark beetle is a familiar pest in the forests of British Columbia. Its population rises and falls unpredictably, destroying clumps of pinewood as it peaks which then regenerate as the bug recedes. But Scott Green, who studies forest ecology at the University of Northern British Columbia, says the current outbreak is “unprecedented in recorded history: a natural background-noise disturbance has become a major outbreak. We’re looking at the loss of 80% of our pine forest cover.”* Other parts of North America have also been affected, but the damage in British Columbia is particularly severe, and particularly troubling in a province whose economy is dominated by timber.

Three main explanations for this disastrous outbreak suggest themselves. It could be chance. Populations do fluctuate dramatically and unexpectedly. It could be the result of management practices. British Columbia’s woodland is less varied than it used to be, which helps a beetle that prefers pine. Or it could be caused by the higher temperatures that now prevail in northern areas, allowing beetles to breed more often in summer and survive in greater numbers through the winter.

The Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which the United Nations adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, is now 17 years old. Its aim was “to achieve stabilisation of greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. The Kyoto protocol, which set about realising those aims, was signed in 1997 and came into force in 2005. Its first commitment period runs out in 2012, and implementing a new one is expected to take at least three years, which is why the 15th conference of the parties to the UNFCCC that starts in Copenhagen on December 7th is such a big deal. Without a new global agreement, there is not much chance of averting serious climate change.

Since the UNFCCC was signed, much has changed, though more in the biosphere than the human sphere. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body set up to establish a scientific consensus on what is happening, heat waves, droughts, floods and serious hurricanes have increased in frequency over the past few decades; it reckons those trends are all likely or very likely to have been caused by human activity and will probably continue. Temperatures by the end of the century might be up by anything from 1.1ºC to 6.4ºC.

In most of the world the climate changes to date are barely perceptible or hard to pin on warming. In British Columbia and farther north the effects of climate change are clearer. Air temperatures in the Arctic are rising about twice as fast as in the rest of the world. The summer sea ice is thinning and shrinking. The past three years have seen the biggest losses since proper record-keeping started in 1979. Ten years ago scientists reckoned that summer sea-ice would be gone by the end of this century. Now they expect it to disappear within a decade or so.

Since sea-ice is already in the water, its melting has little effect on sea levels. Those are determined by temperature (warmer water takes up more room) and the size of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. The glaciers in south-eastern Greenland have picked up speed. Jakobshavn Isbrae, the largest of them, which drains 6% of Greenland’s ice, is now moving at 12km a year—twice as fast as it was when the UNFCCC was signed—and its “calving front”, where it breaks down into icebergs, has retreated by 20km in six years. That is part of the reason why the sea level is now rising at 3-3.5mm a year, twice the average annual rate in the 20th century.

As with the mountain bark beetle, it is not entirely clear why this is happening. The glaciers could be retreating because of one of the countless natural oscillations in the climate that scientists do not properly understand. If so, the glacial retreat could well stop, as it did in the middle of the 20th century after a 100-year retreat. But the usual causes of natural variability do not seem to explain the current trend, so scientists incline to the view that it is man-made. It is therefore likely to persist unless mankind starts to behave differently—and there is not much sign of that happening.

Carbon-dioxide emissions are now 30% higher than they were when the UNFCCC was signed 17 years ago. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 equivalent (carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) reached 430 parts per million last year, compared with 280ppm before the industrial revolution. At the current rate of increase they could more than treble by the end of the century, which would mean a 50% risk of a global temperature increase of 5ºC. To put that in context, the current average global temperature is only 5ºC warmer than the last ice age. Such a rise would probably lead to fast-melting ice sheets, rising sea levels, drought, disease and collapsing agriculture in poor countries, and mass migration. But nobody really knows, and nobody wants to know.

Some scientists think that the planet is already on an irreversible journey to dangerous warming. A few climate-change sceptics think the problem will right itself. Either may be correct. Predictions about a mechanism as complex as the climate cannot be made with any certainty. But the broad scientific consensus is that serious climate change is a danger, and this newspaper believes that, as an insurance policy against a catastrophe that may never happen, the world needs to adjust its behaviour to try to avert that threat.

The problem is not a technological one. The human race has almost all the tools it needs to continue leading much the sort of life it has been enjoying without causing a net increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Industrial and agricultural processes can be changed. Electricity can be produced by wind, sunlight, biomass or nuclear reactors, and cars can be powered by biofuels and electricity. Biofuel engines for aircraft still need some work before they are suitable for long-haul flights, but should be available soon.

Nor is it a question of economics. Economists argue over the sums (see article), but broadly agree that greenhouse-gas emissions can be curbed without flattening the world economy.A hard sell

It is all about politics. Climate change is the hardest political problem the world has ever had to deal with. It is a prisoner’s dilemma, a free-rider problem and the tragedy of the commons all rolled into one. At issue is the difficulty of allocating the cost of collective action and trusting other parties to bear their share of the burden. At a city, state and national level, institutions that can resolve such problems have been built up over the centuries. But climate change has been a worldwide worry for only a couple of decades. Mankind has no framework for it. The UN is a useful talking shop, but it does not get much done.
The closest parallel is the world trading system. This has many achievements to its name, but it is not an encouraging model. Not only is the latest round of negotiations mired in difficulty, but the World Trade Organisation’s task is child’s play compared with climate change. The benefits of concluding trade deals are certain and accrue in the short term. The benefits of mitigating climate change are uncertain, since scientists are unsure of the scale and consequences of global warming, and will mostly accrue many years hence. The need for action, by contrast, is urgent.
The problem will be solved only if the world economy moves from carbon-intensive to low-carbon—and, in the long term, to zero-carbon—products and processes. That requires businesses to change their investment patterns. And they will do so only if governments give them clear, consistent signals. This special report will argue that so far this has not happened. The policies adopted to avoid dangerous climate change have been partly misconceived and largely inadequate. They have sent too many wrong signals and not enough of the right ones.

That is partly because of the way the Kyoto protocol was designed. By trying to include all the greenhouse gases in a single agreement, it has been less successful than the less ambitious Montreal protocol, which cut ozone-depleting gases fast and cheaply. By including too many countries in detailed negotiations, it has reduced the chances of agreement. And by dividing the world into developed and developing countries, it has deepened a rift that is proving hard to close. Ultimately, though, the international agreement has fallen victim to domestic politics. Voters do not want to bear the cost of their elected leaders’ aspirations, and those leaders have not been brave enough to push them.

Copenhagen represents a second chance to make a difference. The aspirations are high, but so are the hurdles. The gap between the parties on the two crucial questions—emissions levels and money—remains large. America’s failure so far to pass climate-change legislation means that a legally binding agreement will not be reached at the conference. The talk is of one in Bonn, in six months’ time, or in Mexico City in a year.

To suggest that much has gone wrong is not to denigrate the efforts of the many people who have dedicated two decades to this problem. For mankind to get even to the threshold of a global agreement is a marvel. But any global climate deal will work only if the domestic policies through which it is implemented are both efficient and effective. If they are ineffective, nothing will change. If they are inefficient, they will waste money. And if taxpayers decide that green policies are packed with pork, they will turn against them.

AdelineShenUID：2630498

Well, as a student of environmental science, I feel happy to come across these " special report" here in GTER. This report show us a picture of disaster because of global warming. The athour argues that the difficulty of reach a consus in carbon emmision is not about technology or economics, but about politics. The author argues that governments should give businesses a clear and consistent signal and the domestic policies through global climate deal should be both efficient and effective, which has not happened till now.

As climate change is such a complex problem, I would like to explain my idea about this issue from three aspects: technology, economics and politics, according to the author's statement.

It is true that technology is not problem to create a low carbon society. As the author puts here:Electricity can be produced by clean energy such as wind, sunlight and biomass. Cars can be powered by biofuel and electricity. The technology we own today can already change the industrial and agriculture processess.

But the economics is a problem to create a low-carbon society, especially for the developing countries. To change the industrial structure is not an easy task, which might seriously affected the economy of the developing countries. Take China for example. The industrial structure in China is basically relied on the resourse of coals, which emmit a large scale of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. If Chinese government wants to develop the low carbon economy, the entire industrial structure has to be changed into a "clean energy based" one, which need great financial and technological support. Although it is believed that using clean energy will do a great help to improve not only the air quality but also the economy in the long run, the risk is too heavy for a developing country to burdon.  

Politics is a big problem for achieving the deal about climate change, but it is not necessarily the most important one. Each country, either the developing countries or the developed countries, have to focus its own interest despite that we agree on the statement of "one world, one dream". It is not because the domestic policies are not efficient or effective, but because the problem of climate change is too complicated for a certain government, even the whole world, to dealt with by some certain policies.

To reach a deal in carbon emmision is more complicated than that in ozone protection. It is a  comprehensive problem related with science, technology, society, government, economy and so on. It is not possible for any certain domestic policy to solve. It is a matter of the whole world and we are still on the starting line.

About this issue I really have a lot to talk about. But time is limited and I have to stop here. In fact I just list my ideas above and have not yet prove these ideas in good reasoning. Welcome any debate on this issue.~  :)

StefanaUID：2143510

我发现我每次来看你我就变成了穷人
赞一下ＡＤＥＬＩＮＥ

aladdin.ivyUID：2596664

赞一个~！LZ好文笔！

AdelineShenUID：2630498

A special report on the art market

Suspended animation

Nov 26th 2009 From The Economist print edition

The art market has suffered from the recession, but globalisation should help it recover, say Fiammetta Rocco (interviewed here) and Sarah Thornton

Sothebys

THE longest bull run in a century of art-market history ended on a dramatic note with a sale of 56 works by Damien Hirst, “Beautiful Inside My Head Forever”, at Sotheby’s in London on September 15th 2008 (see picture). All but two pieces sold, fetching more than £70m, a record for a sale by a single artist. It was a last hurrah(cheer). As the auctioneer called out bids, in New York one of the oldest banks on Wall Street, Lehman Brothers, filed for bankruptcy.

The world art market had already been losing momentum for a while after rising vertiginously(inconstant) since 2003. At its peak in 2007 it was worth some $65 billion, reckons Clare McAndrew, founder of Arts Economics, a research firm—double the figure five years earlier. Since then it may have come down to $50 billion. But the market generates interest far beyond its size because it brings together great wealth, enormous egos, greed, passion and controversy in a way matched by few other industries.

In the weeks and months that followed Mr Hirst’s sale, spending of any sort became deeply unfashionable, especially in New York, where the bail-out of the banks coincided with the loss of thousands of jobs and the financial demise of many art-buying investors. In the art world that meant collectors stayed away from galleries and salerooms. Sales of contemporary art fell by two-thirds, and in the most overheated sector—for Chinese contemporary art—they were down by nearly 90% in the year to November 2008. Within weeks the world’s two biggest auction houses, Sotheby’s and Christie’s, had to pay out nearly $200m in guarantees to clients who had placed works for sale with them.

The current downturn in the art market is the worst since the Japanese stopped buying Impressionists at the end of 1989, a move that started the most serious contraction in the market since the second world war. This time experts reckon that prices are about 40% down on their peak on average, though some have been far more volatile. But Edward Dolman, Christie’s chief executive, says: “I’m pretty confident we’re at the bottom.”

What makes this slump different from the last, he says, is that there are still buyers in the market, whereas in the early 1990s, when interest rates were high, there was no demand even though many collectors wanted to sell. Christie’s revenues in the first half of 2009 were still higher than in the first half of 2006. Almost everyone who was interviewed for this special report said that the biggest problem at the moment is not a lack of demand but a lack of good work to sell. The three Ds—death, debt and divorce—still deliver works of art to the market. But anyone who does not have to sell is keeping away, waiting for confidence to return.

The best that can be said about the market at the moment is that it is holding its breath. But this special report will argue that it will bounce back, and that the key to its recovery lies in globalisation. The supply of the best works of art will always be limited, but in the longer run demand is bound to rise as wealth is spreading ever more widely across the globe.

The World Wealth Report, published by Capgemini and Merrill Lynch, charts the spending habits of the rich the world over. It includes art as one of a range of luxury items they like to buy. According to the report, in 2007 there were over 10m people with investible assets of $1m or more. Last year that number dropped to 8.6m and many rich people scaled back their “investments of passion”—yachts, jets, cars, jewellery and so on. But the proportion of all luxury spending that went on art increased as investors looked for assets that would hold their value in the longer term.(maybe it's a good example to support the idea)

The regional spread of buyers also changed significantly as some parts of the world became relatively richer. During the boom the number of wealthy people in Russia, India, China and the Middle East rose rapidly. In 2003 Sotheby’s biggest buyers—those who purchased lots costing at least $500,000—came from 36 countries. By 2007 they were spread over 58 countries and their total number had tripled.

That upward trend(good expression) is still continuing, and many of the new buyers take a particular interest in the art of their own place and time. Last year China overtook France as the world’s third-biggest art market after America and Britain (see chart 1), and some 25% by value of the 100,000-plus works of art sold by Christie’s went to buyers from Russia, Asia and the Middle East.
Click to enlarge

Auction records remain dominated by Impressionist and modern works (see table 2), but the biggest expansion in recent years has been in contemporary art. Prices of older works keep going up as more people have money to spend, but few such works become available because both collectors and museums tend to hold on to what they have. Old Master paintings, for example, have stuck at around 5% of both Sotheby’s and Christie’s sales for many years. By contrast, contemporary art, which in the early 1990s accounted for less than 10% of Sotheby’s revenues, grew to nearly 30% of greatly increased revenues by last year. Dealers and auction houses now sell more post-war and contemporary art than anything else. This report will concentrate on that part of the market, which accounts for about half the world’s art trade and most of the excitement.
(Characteristics of Impressionist paintings include visible brush strokes, open composition, emphasis on light in its changing qualities (often accentuating the effects of the passage of time), ordinary subject matter, the inclusion of movement as a crucial element of human perception and experience, and unusual visual angles.)

Part of the extra demand has come from a large increase in the number of museums. Over the past 25 years more than 100 have been built, not only in America and Europe but also in the sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf and the fast-growing cities in Asia; sometimes in partnership with Western institutions, such as the Guggenheim or the Louvre, sometimes on their own. Many of these institutions have made their mark by buying contemporary art.

Over the same period the number of wealthy private collectors has also increased many times over, and so has their diversity. The record price for one of Andy Warhol’s giant faces of Chairman Mao was $17.4m, paid by Joseph Lau, a Hong Kong property developer. It was the first major Warhol to go to the Far East. A month later the Qatar royal family bought a Hirst pill cabinet, entitled “Lullaby Spring”, for £9.7m, the first major Hirst bound for the Middle East. Everyone wants an iconic work, which helps explain the global demand for artists such as Warhol, Jeff Koons and Mr Hirst—and the eye-watering prices such work can command.
Masters of the art universe

Straddling all areas of the art market is a handful of individuals who have emerged as the key figures in the art world in recent years. Chief among them is François Pinault, a luxury-goods billionaire who is also a noted collector of contemporary art and the owner of Christie’s. Philippe Ségalot, his French-born adviser, was behind one of the biggest deals involving a single work of art, the private sale of Warhol’s 1963 painting, “Eight Elvises”, to an anonymous buyer for over $100m.

Mr Ségalot is also believed to be advising the royal family of Qatar, which in the past two years has spent large sums buying modern art at auction, including record-breaking works by Mark Rothko and Mr Hirst. Steven Cohen, an American hedge-fund billionaire, also owns works by Warhol, Mr Hirst and Mr Koons. Mr Cohen used to be a sizeable shareholder of Sotheby’s and is still an important provider of liquidity to art buyers.

The popularity of blockbuster art exhibitions and the emergence of buyers with a different cultural history have helped change tastes. Artists such as Edvard Munch and Vasily Kandinsky rose sharply after solo shows in London and New York. Alexei von Jawlensky and Emil Nolde were regarded as specialist interests until Russian collectors began seeking them out. Zhao Wuji used to be just another Chinese painter-in-exile; now he is recognised as an Abstract Expressionist master influenced by Paul Klee and praised by both Joan Miró and Pablo Picasso.
How to sell it

One of the biggest changes since the market last peaked in 1989 has been the expansion of the auction houses and the change in the nature of the dealer business. Twenty years ago auction houses sold to dealers, and dealers sold to private customers. Today many collectors are advised by auctioneers, both at sales and privately.

Rising costs brought trouble to many old-fashioned fine-art dealer emporiums(a place of trade). In London Christopher Gibbs has sold his stock and Partridge is in administration. In Paris Galerie Segoura has closed, as has Salvatore Romano in Florence. Many dealers now prefer to take art works on consignment, matching sellers to buyers for a commission rather than investing in stocks of art.

About half the market’s business, reckons Ms McAndrew of Arts Economics, is conducted at public auctions, with Christie’s and Sotheby’s taking the lion’s share. Smaller houses include Drouot in Paris, Bonhams, which is based in London but has several offices abroad, and Doyle in New York. The other half is generated by private dealers and galleries that are notoriously secretive. One of the biggest private deals in recent years came to light only because the details were disclosed in an American court following the Bernard Madoff scandal. Last July ten paintings by Rothko and two sculptures by Alberto Giacometti were sold by a New York financier to help repay Mr Madoff’s investors. A mystery buyer spent $310m on the works. Two dealers earned $37.5m in fees.

By comparison with that private world, Sotheby’s and Christie’s auction business looks like a model of transparency. Although buyers and sellers are rarely named, the auction price is public. Yet even here there are dark corners. The leading auctioneers offer inducements such as guaranteed prices to persuade sellers to part with their treasures, and generous terms of payment for buyers.

One thing that differentiates the two auction houses is their ownership structure. Sotheby’s is a quoted company whereas Christie’s, once listed, was taken private in 1999 by its current owner, Mr Pinault. Christie’s business has since expanded hugely, partly thanks to Mr Pinault’s pivotal position in the international art world. Even though the company can pick and choose what information it wants to reveal, it has in fact become more open over the past ten years.

Sotheby’s, for its part, is still smarting from the public beating it received in America nearly a decade ago when its chairman, Alfred Taubman, and its chief executive, Diana Brooks, were found guilty of conspiring with Christie’s to fix commissions. Mr Taubman served ten months of a one-year prison sentence; Mrs Brooks was given six months’ house arrest, a $350,000 fine and 1,000 hours of community service. No one was charged at Christie’s, which had blown the whistle on the commission-fixing. Sotheby’s lives in fear of the regulators and discloses only as much financial information as it has to.

In the decade since the scandal both auction houses have concentrated on expansion. Sotheby’s was the first auctioneer to become interested in Russia and remains bigger there than its rival. Christie’s, which has long been especially strong in the Far East, has put a lot of effort into China. Foreigners are not allowed to own auction houses there, but Christie’s has got around that by signing a licensing agreement with a leading Chinese auctioneer. Both houses have their eye on the Middle East. Christie’s holds regular auctions in Dubai, of which its art and jewellery sales are the most successful. Sotheby’s has opened an office in Qatar which is important for its relationship with the Qatar royal family, one of its biggest clients.

The response of both auction houses to the current slump has been broadly similar: staff cuts, unpaid leave, a squeeze on salaries, slashed marketing and travel budgets(good expression), and an edict that the glossy auction catalogues, which in the boom cost each of them £25m a year to produce, were no longer to be handed out like chocolate drops.

With a hugely expanded international client base, it was only a matter of time before both auctioneers started to muscle in on areas that had previously been the preserve of private dealers, matching buyers and sellers and selling new art rather than items that had already been in the market. Sotheby’s proved to be much the more ruthless of the two. All the lots in Mr Hirst’s September 2008 sale, for example, had been consigned to Sotheby’s directly from the artist’s workshop, which shocked dealers who had not previously thought of the auction houses as direct competitors.

In 2006 Sotheby’s paid $56.5m for Noortman Master Paintings, a leading dealer in Old Masters. Less than a year later Christie’s bought Haunch of Venison, another high-profile dealer set up in 2002, whose founders included a former director of Christie’s contemporary-art department. Noortman gave Sotheby’s an entry into the Maastricht Art Fair, the pre-eminent dealers’ fest, and Haunch of Venison helped make Christie’s Mr Pinault the biggest art trader in the market. Both galleries operate independently of the auction houses, but the relationships are close.
All things to all men

Both auction houses have also put a lot of effort into advising buyers on how to improve their collections. As Jussi Pylkkanen, Christie’s European president, says, “We’re much more than an auction house now.” The recession has made many collectors nervous about offering their treasures at auction, so they are selling them privately. In 2007 Christie’s chalked up private sales of $542m and Sotheby’s of $730m, which means the two auction houses are now among the world’s biggest private dealers. Both often get calls like the one Sotheby’s recently took from a Moscow collector with $2m to spend on an “optimistic” Chagall oil, “not too feminine” and no more than a metre in height. “We put out the word and immediately received several offers from our offices in London, Geneva and New York,” says Mikhail Kamensky, the firm’s head of CIS business.

In 2007 private deals accounted for 8.7% of Christie’s business. Mr Pylkkanen expects that figure to go up to 20% of its revenue within three years. That should put the wind up private dealers.

AdelineShenUID：2630498

Christie’s, the world's leading art business had global auction and private sales in 2008 that totaled £2.8 billion/$5.1 billion. Christie’s is a name and place that speaks of extraordinary art, unparalleled service and expertise, as well as international glamour.

Founded in 1766 by James Christie, Christie's conducted the greatest auctions of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, and today remains a popular showcase for the unique and the beautiful. Christie’s offers over 450 sales annually in over 80 categories, including all areas of fine and decorative arts, jewellery, photographs, collectibles, wine, and more. Prices range from $200 to over $80 million.

Christie’s has 57 offices in 32 countries and 10 salerooms around the world including in London, New York, Paris, Geneva, Milan, Amsterdam, Dubai and Hong Kong. Christie’s leads the market with initiatives in growing geographic regions as well as categories and value ranges of sales.

AdelineShenUID：2630498

Er...it took me quite a time to go through this report. I'm not familiar with the art auction market and there are a lot of new concepts for me in this report. Anyway, now I know about two world's leading art business evolved in global auction and private sales -- Christie's and  Sotheby's. I always feel happy to learn more things.:victory:

Well, this report is trying to persuade us that the art market will bounce back because of globalisation. The author listed several reasons to support this statement, say different tastes in different cultures, increase in the number of museums and so on. Also the author gave quite a contented analysis and comparison of the two giant art business.

According to the report, I agree with the author about the suspended animation in art market. Although many investors are greatly affected by the economic recession, most of them tend to believe that it is a good chance to invest in art because the value of art might continue to bounce up in the future.

The rising up of contemparary art and the inevitable trend of globalization will help a lot in the flourishing of art market.

Since I am not very interested in this report, I have not much to say. Stop here.~

AdelineShenUID：2630498

逛GTER的时候看到的

这是一片详尽阐述individualism的演讲搞， 来自于麻省理工的社团MIT Radicals for Capitalism主席的竞选演说-----看社团名字就知道思想很激进……
What is Individualism

Defining and contrasting individualism and collectivism
Individualism and collectivism are conflicting views of the nature of humans, society and the relationship between them.
Individualism holds that the individual is the primary unit of reality and the ultimate standard of value. This view does not deny that societies exist or that people benefit from living in them, but it sees society as a collection of individuals, not something over and above them.
Collectivism holds that the group---the nation, the community, the proletariat, the race, etc.---is the primary unit of reality and the ultimate standard of value. This view does not deny the reality of the individual. But ultimately, collectivism holds that one's identity is determined by the groups one interacts with, that one's identity is constituted essentially of relationships with others.

Individualists see people dealing primarily with reality; other people are just one aspect of reality. Collectivists see people dealing primarily with other people; reality is dealt with through the mediator of the group; the group, not the individual, is what directly confronts reality.
Individualism holds that every person is an end in himself and that no person should be sacrificed for the sake of another. Collectivism holds that the needs and goals of the individual are subordinate to those of the larger group and should be sacrificed when the collective good so requires.
Individualism holds that the individual is the unit of achievement. While not denying that one person can build on the achievements of others, individualism points out that achievement goes beyond what has already been done; it is something new that is created by the individual.
Collectivism, on the other hand, holds that achievement is a product of society. In this view, an individual is a temporary spokesman for the underlying, collective process of progress.
To further clarify the difference between individualism and collectivism, I'd like to discuss two widespread misconceptions about individualism.
Isolation
The first misconception is that individualism means isolation---being alone, being outside society. This misconception is reflected in the popular images of ``individualism,'' images that stress being isolated, such as those of the lone cowboy, the fearless gumshoe, and the isolated prairie family. Such images can be exciting and heroic, but isolation is not the essence of individualism.
In fact, the concept of individualism does not make sense in the absence of other human beings. Individualism and collectivism are contrasting views of the relationship between the individual and the group. Individualism is called ``individualism'' not because it exhorts the individual to seek a life apart from others, but because it asserts that the individual, and not the group, is the primary constituent of society.
The belief that individualism means being alone leads people to say that individualism is incompatible with cooperation. If one is too much of an ``individualist,'' people say, one cannot ``get along with groups,'' one is not a good ``team player.'' Actually, a person who doesn't listen to others, the person who would rather do things an inefficient way as long as it's ``my way,'' is not being an ``individualist''---he's being closed minded. A true individualist wants the best for himself, so he seeks out the best, no mater who is the source. To the individualist, the truth is more important than any authority, including himself.
Living in society, cooperating with other people---these are tremendous benefits. Individualism does not deny this. But not all arrangements of living and working with other men are beneficial to the individual; the arrangement faced by American slaves is one example. Individualism is a theory of the conditions under which living and working with others is, in fact, beneficial.
Balance
Another widespread misconception about individualism is that it can somehow be mixed with or tempered by collectivism. In this view, neither ``extreme'' individualism nor ``extreme'' collectivism are correct. Rather, wisdom and truth lie somewhere in the middle.
Individualism and collectivism are contradictory positions---there is no middle ground between them. Collectivism maintains that the group is an entity in its own right, a thing that can act upon people. Individualism denies this. Collectivism sees us being influenced by the group; individualism sees us being influenced by other individuals. Collectivism sees us cooperating with the team; individualism, with other people. Collectivism sees us building on the ideas and achievements of society; individualism, on the ideas and achievements of individuals. These are contradictory positions; it's either-or.
To accept the ``balance'' point of view is to accept collectivism. No collectivist has ever said that every single need of every individual must be frustrated for the sake of the society---if so, there wouldn't be any society left to serve. Collectivism is the balance point of view; it is a matter of fine-tuning here and there, constraining individuals when their interests get out of line with the ``good of society.''
Indeed, the main debate between the ``left'' and the ``right'' today is not a debate over collectivism and individualism---its a debate over two forms of collectivism. The ``left'' holds that the needs of society lie in the materialistic realm, so they are into regulating that aspect of individual affairs. The ``right'' holds that the needs of society lie in the spiritual realm, so they are into regulating the spiritual aspect of individual affairs.
Collectivism is, by its nature, an act of balancing the need of the individual against the need of ``society.'' Individualism denies that society has any needs, so the issue of balance is not relevant to it.
Philosophic implications of individualism and collectivism
Both collectivism and individualism rest on certain values and certain assumptions about the nature of man, which is what I want to explore next.
Responsibility vs. the safety-net
The first issue I want to explore is responsibility versus the social safety-net.
A primary element of individualism is individual responsibility. Being responsible is being pro-active, making one's choices consciously and carefully, and accepting accountability for everything one does---or fails to do. An integral part of responsibility is productivity. The individualist recognizes that nothing nature gives men is entirely suited to their survival; rather, humans must work to transform their environment to meet their needs. This is the essence of production. The individualist takes responsibility for his own production; he seeks to ``earn his own way,'' to ``pull his own weight.''
Collectivism doesn't disparage responsibility; but ultimately, collectivism does not hold individuals accountable for the choices they make. Failing to save for retirement, having children one can't afford, making bad investments, becoming addicted to drugs or smoking---these actions are called ``social problems'' that ``society'' has to deal with. Thus, collectivists seek to build a social ``safety-net'' to protect individuals from the choices they make. To collectivism, responsibility is only to be expected of the productive, and consists of doing one's part in keeping the social ``safety-net'' in tact.
Regarding production, collectivism sees society, not individuals, as the agent of production. As a result, wealth belongs to ``society,'' so collectivists have no trouble dreaming up schemes to redistribute wealth according to their visions of ``social justice.''
Egoism vs. altruism
The second issue I want to explore is egoism versus altruism.
Altruism holds ``each man as his brother's keeper;'' in other words, we are each responsible for the health and well-being of others. Clearly, this is a simple statement of the ``safety-net'' theory from above. This is incompatible with individualism, yet many people who are basically individualists uphold altruism as the standard of morality. What's going on?
The problem is wide-spread confusion over the meanings of ``altruism'' and ``egoism.''
The first confusion is to confound altruism with kindness, generosity, and helping other people. Altruism demands more than kindness: it demands sacrifice. The billionaire who contributes $50,000 to a scholarship fund is not acting altruistically; altruism goes beyond simple charity. Altruism is the grocery bagger who contributes $50,000 to the fund, foregoing his own college education so that others may go. Parents who spend a fortune to save their dying child are helping another person, but true altruism would demand that the parents spend their money to save ten other children, sacrificing their own child so that others may live.
The second confusion is to confound selfishness with brutality. The common image of selfishness is the person who runs slip-shod over people in order to achieve arbitrary desires. We are taught that ``selfishness'' consists of dishonesty, theft, even bloodshed, usually for the sake of the whim of the moment.
These two confusions together obscure the possibility of an ethics of non-sacrifice. In this ethics, each man takes responsibility for his own life and happiness, and lets other people do the same. No one sacrifices himself to others, nor sacrifices others to himself. The key word in this approach is earn: each person must earn a living, must earn the love and respect of his peers, must earn the self-esteem and the happiness that make life worth living.
It's this ethics of non-sacrifice that forms a lasting moral foundation for individualism. It's an egoistic ethics in that each person acts to achieve his own happiness. Yet, it's not the brutality usually ascribed to egoism. Indeed, by rejecting sacrifice as such, it represents a revolution in thinking on ethics.
Two asides on the topic of egoism. First, just as individualism doesn't mean being alone, neither does non-sacrificial egoism. Admiration, friendship, love, good-will, charity, generosity: these are wonderful values that a selfishness person would want as part of his life. But these values do not require true sacrifice, and thus are not altruistic in the deepest sense of the word.
Second, I question if brutality, the form of selfishness usually ascribed to egoism, is actually in one's self-interest in practice. Whim worship, dishonesty, theft, exploitation: I would argue that the truly selfish man rejects these, for he knows that happiness and self-esteem can't be stolen at the cost of others: they must be earned through hard work.
Reason
The third issue I want to explore is reason.
The philosophic defense of individualism rests on the nature of reason and the role it plays in human life.
Reason is the faculty of conceptual awareness; reason integrates the evidence of the senses into a higher-level of awareness. But beyond simple cognition, reason plays a key role in imagination, emotions, and creativity. Every thing we think, feel, imagine and do is based on our awareness and our thoughts. Our character, personal identity, and history of achievement are defined by our thoughts. Our very survival depends on reason. Our food, clothes, shelter, and medicine---all are products of thought. Reason is at the core of being human.
Reason is individualistic. No person can think for another; thought is an attribute of the individual. One can start with the ideas of another, but each new discovery, each creative step beyond the already known, is a product of the individual. And when an individual does build on the work and ideas of others, he is building on the work of other individuals, not on the ideas of ``society.''
Individualism, then, is based on the fact that humans are rational beings, and that reason is an attribute of the individual. Humans can get together and share the products of reason, which is beneficial, but they cannot share the capacity to think.
Collectivist philosophers go out of their way to attack reason. One broad method of attack is skepticism, the denial that reason even works. This attack is illustrated in bromides like ``you can't be sure of anything.'' A more sophisticated attack on reason aims at turning reason into a product of the group. Each nation, race, economic class, creed, or gender has its own concept, logic, and truth. But in the end, all attacks on reason have a common result: they deny or confuse the role reason plays as the foundation of individualism.
Political implications of individualism and collectivism
The final issue I want to look at are the the political implications of individualism and collectivism.
These implications should be fairly clear. Under collectivism, the individual, in whole or in part, is a means to satisfying the needs of ``society.'' The state is the instrument for organizing people to meet those needs. So it is the state, not the individual, that is sovereign.
Under individualism, the individual is sovereign. The individual is an end in himself, whose cooperation is to be obtain only through voluntary agreement. All people are expected to act as traders, either voluntarily agreeing to interact or going separate ways; it's either ``win-win, or no deal.'' The government is limited strictly to ensuring that coercion is banished from human relations, that ``voluntary'' is really voluntary, that both sides choose freely to deal and both sides live up to their agreements.
Radicals for Capitalism
Since I am representing the group Radicals for Capitalism, I do want to tie capitalism into the discussion so far.
Radicals for Capitalism advocates the philosophy of individualism, and supports capitalism as the only political system compatible with individualism. Unfortunately, the word ``capitalism'' is misunderstood today; everybody seems to mean something different by the word. Many opponents of capitalism blame the market for the result of State interventions in the economy. Many so-called ``capitalists'' mix socialist and interventionist schemes in with free market rhetoric---and call the result Capitalism. Today, ``capitalism'' is much maligned and misunderstood, buried under false allegations.
We want to liberate the term from such baggage. By capitalism we mean: a ``social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.'' ``A system where any and all forms of government intervention in production and trade is abolished, and State and Economics are separated in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of Church and State'' (CUI, p109).
As mentioned earlier, it's a system based on the notion that humans are traders---either voluntarily agreeing to interact or going separate ways---a system in which government is limited strictly to ensuring that coercion is banished from human relations, that ``voluntary'' is really voluntary, that both sides choose freely to deal.
Under capitalism, the government protects rights, including the right to property. Without the right to use and dispose what one has produced, one has no liberty. If individuals can't work and produce towards goals they can't pursue happiness. If one can't consume the product of one's effort, one cannot live. To the degree a government does not protect property rights, an individual is a slave at the mercy of someone or some group.
Capitalism is not a system under which unproductive individuals can leach off the productive ones, whether the ``unproductive'' are the unambitious or politically-connected businessmen. Nor is capitalism a system in which the government acts not as a protector, but as a coercer of productive individuals. There are examples galore of unjust acts committed under the banner of law and justice, for example, when the government takes from one person to feed another, or when government takes taxpayer money to bail out foolhardy bankers.
Unfortunately, our vision of capitalism is not the current state of affairs and has only been approximated in the history of the man kind. No system in the world today is capitalistic to the extent we advocate. All could be, but not without changes; in particular, the wide-spread acceptance of individualism.
Conclusion
I began this talk by mentioning the upcoming election. You might be wondering what the relevance of my words are to that election.
In terms of effecting change, the fundamental issues we've touched on today have a time horizon much longer than the electoral process---we're talking decades and even generations. And yet, these fundamental issues are more important than the implementation details we hear about, in the sense that whether people accept individualism, moderate collectivism, or extreme collectivism has a tremendous impact on the range of implementation details considered at election time.
Our goal today, and the goal of RadCap's in general, is to help raise the level of abstraction of political discourse to a higher level, to the level of fundamental issues like individualism versus collectivism. Of course, RadCaps advocates a specific point of view---individualism---and we would like to convince people that it's the correct one. But just as important, we feel, is the more general goal of the level of discourse. So I hope that next time you hear a political advertisement or a debate between candidates, you'll try to see the collectivist and individualist angles in addition to the concrete policies advocated.