决战1010精英组Economist阅读汇——WeiLi分贴

weaselUID: 2739489

岂止2个，我看到的就4个了:lol

weili0612UID: 2767606

The moderator's rebuttal remarks

Mar 24th 2010 | Mr Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran

Our online debate on the role of government in fostering（培养） innovation is off to a fiery start. Both sides are now offering their rebuttals, and, despite minor gestures of conciliation, it is clear that neither debater is really willing to concede much ground.

Amar Bhidé, arguing in favour of the proposition, takes on the favourite example offered up in defence of government funding of innovation: the creation of ARPAnet, the precursor to today's internet. Yes, he accepts, government funding did play an essential role in this example. But he then points to Minitel, a French government network that also had grand ambitions, cost billions but ultimately proved a turkey（火鸡，装装样子）. Indeed, it held France back from embracing the internet, the obvious winner of that technology race. "Should we have a few decision makers with no skin in the game placing bets（打赌，但是不用自己的血本？？） on their favoured technologies rather than many independent innovators staking（下注） their time and money?", he asks.

Arguing against the proposition, David Sandalow offers a robust defence of government's role in fostering innovation. It is not only classical governmental functions such as patent protection, education and basic research that he defends. He takes on the charge that government must not pick technology winners, insisting that the American government's efforts to spur investments in battery technology are justified in part because of the externalities associated with energy use are not recognized by the market framework. Not only is government intervention required to internalize those social costs, he insists, but only can the wise hand of the state "guide innovation toward socially beneficial purposes(目的意图)".

The battle lines are drawn. Our combatants are intellectually clear on their differences, and not afraid to attack the other side's weaknesses. Which side do you believe has the upper hand? Cast your vote now.

weili0612UID: 2767606

The proposer's rebuttal remarks

Mar 24th 2010 | Amar Bhidé

Mr Sandalow's assertion that Google's search engine "grew directly from government funding" is puzzling. I was once a satisfied user of Alta Vista search. In 1999 I switched to Google mainly because its interface was much cleaner and to some degree its results were better related to my queries（问题）. In what way did the government fund the idea of the cleaner interface? And as my friend Jim Manzi, a contributing editor at National Review, and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute puts it, which Federal Department of Critical Insight caused Google co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin to think about the "page rank" algorithm?

The Google case in fact underlines(强调) the importance of decentralized（权利下放） innovation that is not directed by the government. Alta Vista was on the surface a perfectly satisfactory search engine. Two graduate students figured out on their own how to make it better in aesthetic（审美的） and non-technical ways without having to curry favor with funding agencies.

Mr Sandalow is on firmer ground in pointing out that the internet evolved from the Pentagon-funded ARPAnet. But think of France's grand Minitel scheme. Starting in 1982, the state-owned telephone company gave away millions of free Minitel terminals, which could be used to make online purchases and train reservations, trade stocks, look up phone numbers and chat. Just like the internet. Except it wasn't quite as good or versatile（多方面的）. Worse, Minitel held back the adoption of the internet and France's entry into the information age, as Lionel Jospin, French prime minister, pointed out in 1997. Yet by then Minitel had acquired a life of its own: in 2000 France Telecom poured money as never before into a publicity campaign to promote a service widely recognized to be obsolete(废弃的).

What accounts for the difference between the success of the internet and the failure of Minitel? It seems unlikely that it is because the French are worse at managing large publicly funded projects. Compared with the Train à Grande Vitesse (TGV), Amtrak's Acela is a bad dream.

It could be bad luck, since all innovative projects are a gamble. But then do we want the government to be gambling with taxpayers' money? Should we have a few decision-makers with no skin in the game placing bets on their favored technologies rather than many independent innovators staking their time and money on a chance that their offering will beat the status quo?

The difference between ARPAnet's and Minitel's ambitions also is noteworthy. ARPAnet was not a grandiose scheme to create a ubiquitous（普遍存在的） national network. Rather the project involved a small number of players and was undertaken to advance the Pentagon's mission. Very likely this helped limit the risks of overreach.

Now of course the Pentagon's mission of ensuring national security is vital and cannot be outsourced（外包） to private enterprise. And technology is a paramount（至高的） ingredient（配料） of modern defence. It is inevitable, therefore, that the Pentagon is an important high-tech buyer and (like any large customer) helps shape the new technologies it wants. Which is as it should be, and not at all inconsistent with the principle of limited government. Conversely debacles（崩溃） like Minitel are likely to occur when governmental bodies go beyond their assigned, essential roles.

And although ARPAnet's contribution was valuable, it is far from certain that without Pentagon funding, there would have been no internet. The telephone network was in its time every bit as revolutionary. Yet Alexander Bell invented the telephone and Theodore Vail created a nearly universal nationwide network with no military or other developmental grants（承认、准许、津贴）. Similarly Thomas Edison became the most prodigious（非凡的） inventor in American history without a receiving penny in research subsidies.

History also shows that unlike say national defence or air traffic control, a significant governmental role is not essential even for fundamental research. Revolutionary advances occurred even when government funding for scientific research was minimal. Darwin's research on evolution, Michael Faraday's work on electromagnetism and electro-chemistry, Newton's discoveries of calculus and the laws of motion were all done without government grants. In 1905 Albert Einstein produced four path-breaking papers—on the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity and the equivalence of matter and energy—while employed as an examiner at the Swiss patent office.

A common argument made in favour of government subsidies for fundamental research is that contributions that the likes or Darwin, Faraday, Newton and Einstein might make on their own are not enough. Mr Sandalow asserts, for instance, that the private sector naturally under-invests in fundamental research because profit-seeking businesses cannot fully capture the returns. First off, the private sector is not all for-profit. A great deal of basic research is done through private resources (such as foundations) that do not seek to maximize financial return.

And who is to say how much and what kind of investment in basic research is right? There is a vast range of valuable knowledge whose returns accrue(增长) more to society as a whole than to the producers of the knowledge. In medicine, creating routines（例行公事） to ensure that surgeons wash their hands before they operate is no less valuable a public good than decoding the genome. IBM's development of a professional sales process, which was then adopted throughout the high-tech industry, was as vital to the diffusion of information technology as the discovery of the transistor principle. Virtually every day I turn to the internet to learn about how to solve computer problems that other users have discovered and share it at no charge.

Of course these different kinds of knowledge are rarely perfectly in balance. Sometimes fundamental science runs ahead of concrete user-generated knowledge, for instance, and sometimes it is the other way round. But that is not an argument for turning to government. If the brightest and the best economists at the Fed continue to assert that a large nationwide housing bubble（房地产泡沫） was unrecognizable, which government agency can we charge with identifying and correcting these subtle knowledge imbalances? Why not trust the autonomous, competing judgements of for- and not-for profit innovators seeking fame, fortune or excitement while the government focuses on those activities that only it can perform?

huan19880122UID: 2657720

都比我快这么多了  我得加油赶了~

liuyonghaoUID: 2724226

say表示例如。

weili0612UID: 2767606

21# liuyonghao
谢谢啊 我记得我问过这个问题，但是自己找不到了问题出处了。。。

weili0612UID: 2767606

The opposition's rebuttal remarks

Mar 24th 2010 | David Sandalow

In his defence of the notion that government should do "least", Amar Bhidé states his support for carbon taxes, emissions rules, pollution rules more broadly, vehicle inspections, air traffic control, aircraft certification, spectrum regulation and antitrust laws. He notes that construction of the US interstate highway system (one of the largest government projects of modern times by some metrics（was a boon to(是。。。的恩惠) the US economy.

Professor Bhidé and I have common ground.

We have disagreements, to be sure, which I will come to in a moment. But before doing so, it is worth pausing for a moment on the motion, which asks whether "innovation works best when government does least". I applaud Professor Bhidé's recognition of the many benefits government provides, yet note that this might be seen to sit oddly with his call for minimal government.

In fact this is quite typical. Words criticizing government seem often to be combined with grateful acceptance of government services. In the United States, this regular part of the political dialogue may have reached its zenith(极点) last summer when a man at a town hall meeting in South Carolina told his Congressman to "keep your government hands off my Medicare". Now to be 100% clear, I am not ascribing such views or confusion to Professor Bhidé. But I note that—especially in the United States—there is a deep cultural tendency to denigrate government even as（正当。。。时候） government's many benefits are routinely（惯常的） enjoyed.（对政府的批判伴随着接受政府的服务而产生。。。且在美国很常见）

This is not harmless. When government is repeatedly cast as the problem without celebrating its many contributions, support for government erodes（腐蚀，腐败）. Over time, the ability of government to deliver（递交，助产） benefits withers. Services that are best or even uniquely provided by government are abandoned. California's public schools, for example, have slid in the past several decades from one of the nation's best to among its worst, the victim（牺牲者） of severe limits on the ability of local governments in the state to raise funds for this classic governmental function.(政府为人民服务，却常被抹黑，逐渐地，这会使政府在助资益事上萎缩。)

This brings us to Professor Bhidé's argument. He notes that, despite Silicon Valley's high-tech prowess, "the State of California pays its bills in IOUs.". Well, yes, but not because Silicon Valley entrepreneurs failed to create jobs or improve the quality of life, but because state laws limiting the ability of the people of California to fund their government collided with（collide with 冲撞） a deep recession and expectations from those same people for continued government services.（硅谷发达没有促进加州进一步发展，因为加州法律，限制人们资助政府，同经济萧条以及继续需要政府资助的人相抵触。）

Professor Bhidé is on equally shaky ground in his assertions regarding Israel (often praised for its innovation culture) and neighboring countries. He is wrong in asserting that GDP per head in Israel is lower than in Cyprus or Slovenia, at least according to WTO figures. But more to the point, innovation is of course just one determinant of GDP.

Countries have different comparative advantages, including location, resource wealth and stable legal systems. They may (and often do) adopt growth-limiting policies unrelated to innovation. After flourishing in the 1980s thanks in part to innovations in its manufacturing sector, Japan floundered in the 1990s due in part to problems in its financial sector. Yet the benefits of those innovations were still very real.

A substantial body of economic literature(大量经济学文献) demonstrates that innovation is correlated with GDP growth. Indeed for his work on this topic, Robert Solow won the Nobel Prize. Solow's work suggests that innovation is more important to GDP growth than capital accumulation or increases in the labor market. If governments have it within their power to enhance the rate of innovation, the benefits of doing so would be huge. （技术革新和GDP有关，如果政府能巩固改革，其中的益处是巨大的）

And they do. Classic government functions such as basic research, education and patent protection are central to innovation. Would innovation "work best" with less of such things? Quite the contrary.

Government funding of basic research led to the creation of the internet, one of the greatest sources of innovation of all time. Government funding led to DNA mapping, a breakthrough revolutionizing medicine. Government funding led to countless other advances in decades past, and could lead to many more in decades to come. Yet that will depend on adequate budgets. It will depend, crucially, on political support. It will depend on government doing more than the "least" to support innovation.(政府资助项目产生了巨大的突破)

In his essay, Professor Bhidé takes particular aim at government funding for batteries. In one respect, this is tangential(次要的) to the main argument. One could easily believe that government programmes to promote development and deployment of advanced batteries are misguided, yet agree that innovation overall deserves strong government support. But I happen to believe there is a strong case for government work on batteries, so will take this opportunity to explain why.（有关先进电池，大家都说政府误导了研究方向，但是我认为有一个很有力的原因使得政府从事此项目）

Modern energy systems are in many ways a marvel. Yet they impose social costs, which could be reduced by cutting pollution from electricity generation and diversifying the fuel mix in vehicles. Better energy storage technologies would help with both objectives.

Solar and wind power, for example, can help cut pollution. Yet those technologies are limited by their intermittency（间歇性）: they produce no power when the wind stops blowing or day turns to night. Advances in energy storage could help overcome these problems.

Electric vehicles can help diversify the fuel mixed in transport. Yet their advance is limited by high costs and short driving range(练习场). Better batteries are the solution.

Government could simply stand back, letting the market decide whether to invest in advances in energy storage. But the market does not recognize the social costs from pollution. It won't fund basic research in adequate amounts. It won't educate children and university students, who form the next generation of innovators. Government is essential to overcome these problems—and more.

What is government's role? To fund basic research. To educate the citizenry. To establish patent protection, helping ensure adequate incentives for invention. To set the regulatory framework(规章制度), so externalities such as those created by pollution are incorporated into market decisions. To help technologies facing sunk-cost competitors get to market. To guide innovation toward socially beneficial purposes.（市场可能忽略污染，政府引入这个局外问题，告诉人们技术要克服污染，面对低成本竞争。政府角色还有。。。）

For innovation to work best, government needs to do much more than the "least". It must bring its strengths to the field of play. We should recognize and embrace government's role in innovation.

weili0612UID: 2767606

China's economy

On the rebound

A strong economic bounce increases the chance of a revaluation

Apr 15th 2010 | From The Economist online

THE restaurants and bars of Clarke Quay on the Singapore River hum with crowd-pleasing music, happy chatter—and bloodcurdling（毛骨悚然的）screams. Thrill-seekers can strap themselves into the G-Max Reverse Bungy, which flings them 60m upwards with the power of a slingshot. In the first quarter of this year Singapore’s economy performed a reverse bungy jump of its own. It grew at an annual pace of 32.1%, according to preliminary figures released on April 14th. Manufacturing shot up by 139%. The city-state’s authorities announced a “gradual” currency revaluation（货币升值） to reduce inflationary pressure（通货膨胀的压力）.

Impressive in itself, Singapore’s economy may also be a bellwether for its bigger neighbours. On April 15th China reported that its economy grew by 11.9% in the year to the first quarter, its fastest pace since 2007. The strong figure increased speculation that China would follow in Singapore’s footsteps, allowing its currency to strengthen, as America and other countries have been pressing it to do. The yuan has been pegged tight to the dollar since July 2008, much to the consternation（惊愕惊恐） of its trading partners（贸易伙伴）.

Despite the strong figures China's cabinet is still cautious

But China’s cabinet, the State Council, which met the day before its figures were announced, struck a note of caution. It believes the economy still owes its growth to the government’s stimulus package, rather than its own momentum. The expansion in the first quarter looks less striking when compared with the previous quarter, rather than the previous year. By this measure, it grew at an annualized(按年计算的) rate of “only” 9.3%, reckons Tao Wang of UBS Securities—slower than the previous three quarters. That means the bungy cord is not about to snap, sending the economy flying into the air.

Inflation is still modest in both countries. China’s consumer-price inflation, at 2.4% in the year to March, was actually lower than the month before. In Singapore, consumer prices increased by only 1% in the year to February. But inflationary pressure is building beneath the surface. The price rises in both countries, though small, represent a conspicuous turnaround（转机） from the falling prices of last year. Singapore’s monetary authority（金融主管当局） believes its economy is now operating near its full potential. Many analysts think the same of China. Charles Dumas of Lombard Street Research in London thinks China’s economic output is now almost 6% above its sustainable level. He also finds it hard to believe that China’s real GDP grew by only 11.9% when nominal GDP (ie, before adjusting for inflation) grew by 17.3%.

Besides, Ms Wang argues that consumer-price inflation is not the best indicator of the macroeconomic hazards China may face. The authorities themselves seem more worried about property prices（房价，SHIT！）, which rose by 11.7% in China’s cities in the year to March. On April 15th they added to their recent “flurry of announcements and denouncements”, as Ms Wang puts it, by introducing new measures to curb property speculation（限制房地产投机）. The government said it would increase downpayments on second and third homes, as well as first homes over 90 square metres. It set a floor to the mortgage rates banks may charge and said it would try to increase the supply of land (and curb land-hoarding) in booming markets.

Miserable savings rates push Chinese investors into property speculation

Not all Chinese homeowners borrow in order to buy. A quarter pay cash and the average mortgage covers only about half of a property’s value. Indeed, many Chinese savers sink money into property only because savings accounts offer such miserable returns. Deposit rates are capped at about 2.25%, which fails even to compensate savers for inflation.

The Chinese central bank is reluctant(不情愿) to raise interest rates, lest（唯恐） it tempt speculative inflows of capital, which can find ways of sneaking past the country’s capital controls. These inflows put upward pressure on the yuan, forcing the central bank to intervene（介入）
heavily to keep it steady. A more flexible yuan might give the central bank more freedom to raise rates and curb property prices. It would be one way to take some of the boing out of the property bungy. Opinion among China’s various state bodies is said to be divided over whether to free the currency: those arguing in favour now have a stronger case.

weili0612UID: 2767606

24# weili0612
COMMENT:
This is my first to write a comment.
When read this news, I'm surprised about China's GDP,which grew by 11.9%.However, most of the it attributes to property prices. And everyone konws the hazards of China's property, which develops so rapidly for the inflows of speculative capital. For recent years, the government has done nothing useful to curb the calamity and more and more capital is flowing into China's property market, which inevitably restarins the development of other markets, such as manufacturing, agriculture and aquaculture. So I think if there is no way to control the crazy and unreasonable expansion of property market, citizens' living standard will never get a contentabled improvement.  
As a small citizen, I think what can I do is just improving myself and make myself out of the loop of Chinese house slave destiny.

weili0612UID: 2767606

24# weili0612

In the first quarter of this year  在今年的第一季度

It grew at an annual pace of 32.1%, according to preliminary figures released on April 14th. Manufacturing shot up by 139%.                     
grew at an annual pace of  每年以XXX的步伐增长

currency revaluation（货币升值）


inflationary pressure（通货膨胀的压力）


be a bellwether for  相对于XXX，是领头羊

The strong figure increased speculation that  强有力的数据增加推测

China would follow in Singapore’s footsteps  中国会跟随新家坡的步伐


consternation（惊愕惊恐） of its trading partners（贸易伙伴）.


strike a note of caution   表达谨慎的观点


It believes the economy still owes its growth to the government’s stimulus package, rather than its own momentum.
government’s stimulus package  政府的刺激
momentum    进步，推进力


By this measure   通过这个估量


Inflation is still modest in both countries。        modest 适度的


But inflationary pressure is building beneath the surface。   beneath the surface 在暗处


represent a conspicuous turnaround（转机）


monetary authority（金融主管当局）



its economy is now operating near its full potential。 near its full potential 用尽全力？？


the best indicator of the macroeconomic hazards  宏观经济灾难的最有力的标志


property prices（房价，SHIT！）


flurry of announcements and denouncements ???????????


curb property speculation（限制房地产投机）


set a floor to  设置了一个关卡，


Indeed, many Chinese savers sink money into property only because savings accounts offer such miserable returns.
savings accounts                           储蓄账户
sink money into property                  把钱投向房产


forcing the central bank to intervene（介入）
heavily to keep it steady
intervene
heavily      严重介入
keep it steady         

weili0612UID: 2767606

Turks and Armenians

The cost of reconstruction

It takes many hands to reconcile two peoples so divided by history

Mar 11th 2010 | ISTANBUL | From The Economist print edition

So near but yet so far

FOR centuries, a stone bridge spanning（跨度） the emerald（绿宝石） green waters of the Akhurian River connected the southern Caucasus to the Anatolian plains: a strategic（战略上的） pivot（枢纽） on the Silk Road, running through the ancient Armenian kingdom of Ani. Today the bridge would have linked tiny, landlocked Armenia to Turkey. But war and natural disasters have reduced it to a pair of stubs（残端、烟蒂）—a sad commentary on the relations between the two states.

This grim（无情的）image prompted an Ankara-based think-tank（智库）, called Tepav, to devise a plan to rebuild the bridge and in so doing to reopen the long-sealed（长期封闭的） land border by stealth（悄悄地行动）. “The idea is to promote reconciliation through cross-border tourism（旅游业）,” explains Tepav’s director, Guven Sak. Turkey’s doveish president, Abdullah Gul, has embraced the plan. The Armenian authorities and diaspora Armenians with deep pockets are also interested. If all went to plan, the bridge’s restoration would only be the start of a broader effort to repair hundreds of other Armenian architectural treasures（宝藏） scattered（分散） across Turkey.

This semi-official stamp on a relationship in the absence of diplomatic ties (foreseen in an accord signed last October, but yet to materialize) would be a first. Yet academics, artists and journalists are striking peace on their own terms. Hardly a day passes without Turks and Armenians hobnobbing at a reconciliation event.

It is a tricky(棘手的) business because true reconciliation means confronting the ghosts of the past. For decades Turkey denied the mass extermination（大屠杀）
of the Ottoman Armenians in 1915. Under Turkey’s draconian penal code（执政官刑事法典）, anyone who dares to describe the Armenian tragedy as a genocide（种族灭绝） can end up in jail or even dead. In 2007 an ultra-nationalist（极端名族主义）
teenager murdered Hrant Dink, an Armenian-Turkish editor who often wrote about the genocide. Although Ogun Samast pulled the trigger it is widely assumed that rogue security officials from the “deep state” gave him the gun.

Dink’s death was a turning point. More than 100,000 Turks of all stripes showed up at his funeral bearing placards（广告牌） that read: “We are all Armenians.” Indeed if the murder was intended to stifle（窒息，平息） debate it had the reverse effect. A growing number of Turks are uttering the g-word. Ugur Umit Ungor, a young Turkish academic is one of them. His research aims to show how many Young Turk cadres（骨干） involved in the massacres continued to thrive after the republic was founded in 1923.

Others allude
（暗示） to history in more subtle（微妙的） ways. Take Mehmet Binay, a Turkish film director. His documentary “Whispering Memories” tells the story of ethnic Armenians in a village called Geben, who embraced Islam (presumably to avoid death at the hands of Ottoman forces). Sobs were heard during a recent screening of the film in Yerevan, Armenia’s capital.

Although today’s inhabitants of Geben hesitate to call themselves Armenians, a growing number of “crypto-Armenians” (people forced to change identity) do just that. Their stories were collected and recently published by Fethiye Cetin, a Turkish human-rights lawyer, whose grandmother revealed her own Armenian roots shortly before her death.

Meanwhile, an army of humble（谦逊的） if accidental Armenian ambassadors are helping to melt the ice. Turkey says that as many as 70,000 illegal Armenian migrant workers, mostly women, eke out a living（勉强度日） as servants and nannies in Istanbul. A recent study by Alin Ozinian, an Armenian-Turkish researcher shows that such women arrive full of fear of “the Turk” only to return with stories of kindness. If the land borders were to be reopened some day, their wages（工资） would not have to be spent on long, pricey（昂贵） bus rides through Georgia.

weili0612UID: 2767606

Commentary:

I think the reconciliation between the two peoples is very hard. The history of the mass extermination（大屠杀） of the Ottoman Armenians in 1915 is a nightmare to Armenians and curb the reconciliation. I think this is same to the mass extermination seventy years ago in Nanjing, but the attitude we have to Japanese is utterly different from those to Turkish, which is more fear rather than hatred. And the people of Armenians are still living with poverty and hunger. All I can do is to bless them and good wishes to have a better life in future.

weili0612UID: 2767606

China's leaders

Hu, Wen—what, why and how

China's prime minister Wen Jiabao praises Hu Yaobang, a former Communist Party chief

Apr 22nd 2010 | BEIJING | From The Economist print edition

ON APRIL 15th the arcane and neglected art of reading China’s political tea leaves suddenly surged back into fashion. The Communist Party’s turgid（肿胀，浮夸） broadsheet(印刷品), the People’s Daily, published an article on the top of its second page by the prime minister, Wen Jiabao. Its glowing praise for Hu Yaobang, a politically incorrect former party chief whose death triggered the Tiananmen Square protests 21 years ago, struck a remarkably liberal note.

Hu’s death on April 15th 1989 prompted thousands of students to take to the streets in mourning（悲痛）. They bore aloft pictures of the late（已故的） leader, who though still a member of the ruling Politburo when he died had been forced to resign as the party’s general secretary two years earlier for being too soft on dissent. Because Hu had not been fully purged, the party had no choice but to hold an elaborate funeral for him. This provided cover（提供了掩护） for the students, who soon switched their attention to demands for democratic reform（民主政治改革）.

Since the bloody suppression of the protests, Hu has been referred to sparingly（谨慎的，保守） by Chinese officials; and the liberalism with which he was associated has also been permitted only sparingly. Of late, it has been notably absent, as the party cracks down on（镇压）
human-rights activists, tightens controls on the internet and frets（烦躁）
about unrest（动乱） in Tibet and Xinjiang. Yet China’s leaders are preparing for a change of guard in 2012-13. Mr Wen will be stepping down. Could it be that, having established China as a global economic power, he and his colleagues are at last thinking of trying to make it politically more respectable?

Hu’s reputation has sometimes been used in arguments about the direction of the country. In an exception to the general rule that he has been neglected by his successors, a symposium（讨论会） was held in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing in November 2005 to mark the 90th anniversary of his birth. It was widely interpreted（解释） as an attempt by President Hu Jintao to boost his own public standing by allowing open tributes（称赞） to his still-popular namesake（同名的人）. A speech by China’s then vice-president, Zeng Qinghong, lavished praise on Hu Yaobang’s career as one of the Communist state’s revolutionary founders, tactfully（机智的） avoiding mention of his dethronement（废位）.

But by and large the leadership has ignored Hu Yaobang’s death. Last year’s 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen movement made officials especially nervous of anything that might revive memories of that period. Even though the milestone（里程碑） passed with little more than token（象征） attempts inside China to observe it, the authorities have yet to ease their grip. Last December a prominent（主要的） dissident（抗议者）, Liu Xiaobo, was jailed for 11 years for “inciting subversion（刺激造反）”.

This made the appearance of Mr Wen’s more than 3,000-character essay especially striking. Unlike Mr Zeng’s formal-sounding 2005 speech, Mr Wen’s article marked the first time since 1989 that a top leader has been willing to write of a personal connection with the former party chief. It recalls a trip he made with Hu in 1986 to a rural area of the poor southern province of Guizhou. “Every time I think back on this, Comrade Yaobang’s sincere, magnanimous（宽宏大量的） and amiable（和蔼） expression keeps appearing before my eyes. Cherished（珍爱的） feelings stored in my heart for all these years swell（肿胀） up like a tide（潮水）, and it takes a long time for me to calm down,” Mr Wen wrote.

A few other official newspapers also published reminiscences（旧事）, this time apparently less restrained than in 2005, when the party’s propaganda（宣传propagate宣传） bureau（局） responded furiously to a liberal magazine’s articles related to the anniversary. Thousands of Chinese internet users have praised these latest pieces in online forums.

But hope that Hu’s partial rehabilitation（昭雪） might lead to any reassessment（重新估计assessment评估） of the Tiananmen Square protests will certainly be dashed. Hu’s political views have been notable for their absence in the recent articles, suggesting that only his affable character is open for discussion. This is a safe topic for Mr Wen, who prides himself on the same man-of-the-people quality that his article praised in Hu. From anecdotal（轶事） evidence, it appears Mr Wen enjoys some popularity for his caring image（亲民形象）—it has been on display again with his visit to the epicentre（震源） of an earthquake on April 14th in Qinghai Province on the Tibetan plateau that killed more than 2,000 people.

Tea-leaf readers are divided over what, if any, further political message might have been intended. Few believe Mr Wen would have published such an article without consulting（咨询、商议） his colleagues. But there is a school of thought that Mr Wen, feeling that his own political career is drawing to an end (he is due to step down in 2013, if not before, as will President Hu), is trying to signal a yearning（传达渴望） for political reforms（改良） which have not been pursued more vigorously. President Hu has kept silent on Hu Yaobang, but both he and Mr Wen owe earlier promotions to the late leader. In his article, Mr Wen revealed that he had visited Hu Yaobang’s home every year since his death, a gesture that readers would interpret as showing considerable loyalty.

Bao Tong, who was a top aide（副手） to the late Zhao Ziyang, Mr Hu’s equally liberal successor, believes there could be an ultra-subtle message in the party’s re-embrace of Hu. Officials—he points out—like to encourage the idea that Zhao helped topple Hu (though Mr Bao says he did not). Far from being a sign of yearning for reform, support for Hu could indicate repudiation（断绝关系） of Zhao, about whom reminiscences remain strongly discouraged. Zhao was thoroughly purged after Tiananmen and died under house arrest five years ago.

Mr Wen’s article, however, does hint(暗示) strongly at a huge problem in China’s political system. It describes how Hu instructed Mr Wen to sneak out of（溜出） an official guesthouse（宾馆） and visit a village under cover of darkness, to find out what peasants（农民） were really thinking. “Remember, do not inform the local government”, Hu was quoted as saying. A quarter of a century later, Chinese leaders remain almost as(一样的) prone（易于的） to deception（欺骗） by their underlings.

Comment:
After reading this article, I am heavy hearted, not only for my ignorant of the history but also for cruelty of it. The death of Hu yaobang is a tragedy, which at last caused the protest in 1989. When my Chinese teacher told me about Mr. Hu two years ago, I didn’t know who he was and what had occurred to him. No matter why Mr. Wen wrote this article, it made the mysterious and ineffable history expose its surface. And it boosts more people to have demands for democratic reform. The article also informs that Chinese leader remain almost prone to deception by their underlings. In addition, I find that throughout Chinese history, there are a mass of examples which indicate the deception to the emperor by their underlings. Hence, if there were no direct connection between leaders and citizens in lower social grade, the country would not has a rosy future.

weili0612UID: 2767606

Closing statements

The moderator's closing remarks

Mar 26th 2010 | Mr Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran

Our debate on the government's role in innovation is drawing to a close, and it is running neck and neck（并驾齐驱）. The side in favour of the motion started off on the back foot（开局不顺）, but has gained enough ground（给出了充足的理由） to keep this an unusually close affair. The side opposite has lost a bit of the initial starting advantage, but remains just as well positioned to pass the post first. Both debaters have ginned up their final arguments in hopes of emerging the winner.

Amar Bhidé, arguing in favour of the proposition, insists that "a minimizing, no more than necessary standards, is crucial in maintaining widespread, decentralized innovation". He brings out the big guns, invoking the hero of free marketers ("Friedrich Hayek pinpointed why centralized control was an economic dead end") and the bête noire of freedom during the last century (the Soviet Union). Quirkily(诡异的), he also takes aim again at the side opposite's support for advanced battery technologies, demanding to know when his uber-green bicycle is going to earn him government subsidies.

Arguing against the motion, David Sandalow offers a closing statement that is sure to please fans of government-supported innovation. With as much gusto（热情） as his rival（对手） mustered up（振作） for attacking batteries, he jumps on the Google example cited earlier by his opponent. Mr Sandalow goes back to original writings by the founders of the firm to show that, in fact, this paragon （模范）of seeming free-market virtue（美德） in fact got government money from several sources during its early uncertain days. Government, he insists, "has unique capabilities and a full toolbox for helping spur the innovative process". It must, he suggests, steer（掌舵） money towards innovations that serve social goals.

The hour is late, but the clouds have cleared. You must now choose which good guru（头头） you will follow on the innovation trail. Cast your vote now, as this debate promises to be a nail biter（紧张的故事）.

weili0612UID: 2767606

The proposer's closing remarks

Mar 26th 2010 | Amar Bhidé

Minimal government does not equal no government or even government of unchanging size. New technologies, as I argued in my opening statement, often demand new rules. Nevertheless, a minimizing, no more than necessary standard, is crucial in maintaining the widespread, decentralized innovation that undergirds（支撑） our prosperity(繁荣).

Many who oppose the standard, such as David Sandalow, seem to argue that if some government is good then a lot must be great. For instance, they extrapolate（推测）from the value of the government's role in providing a high-quality basic education for all to demand tax subsidies for the advanced training of a few in fields that they somehow know will have large social returns.（高质量大众化基础教育意味着对少数人的精英教育投入减少）

They see no evidence of governmental overreach in California's soaring（高耸的） unemployment and empty public coffers（保险柜、资金）. California's government does not spend too much or do too much; it is just pesky（恼人的） laws passed by ornery voters that prevent it from raising the taxes it needs, suggests Mr Sandalow.

But if California has it right, then governments in most other states must be too small. Why then has California chronically（慢性的） lagged behind in employment and income growth, long before the current crisis?

The current crisis itself owes much to governmental overreach. Politicians from both parties used the tax code and loan guarantees to pump up the construction industry and housing prices, drawing resources away from innovators in other sectors and turning those who could not afford it into reckless speculators. The boom was channeled through securities issued by two governmental agencies, marginalizing traditional decentralized lending by loan officers.

Nearly 70 years ago, Friedrich Hayek pinpointed why centralized control was an economic dead-end. The decision of what to plant and when was best left to farmers who knew their soil and local weather conditions. The best judge of the product mix of an industrial enterprise was the person who was in constant touch with customers. Central planners who thought they knew better, didn't. Indeed the inability of planners to match the supply and demand for the most basic goods helped bring down the Soviet Union.

Now comes the alternative energy and battery brigade, which is confident that it can make top-down plans work with advanced and dynamic technologies. Mr Sandalow, for instance, has offered a detailed plan to end the United States' oil addiction. This is certainly a worthwhile goal both on national security grounds(国家安全理由) and in light of（顺应了。。。）
the grave risks of global warming. The plan sensibly proposes a gasoline/petrol tax. Unfortunately it does not stop there; that would be too minimalistic. The plan, for instance, proposes an $8,000 tax credit for buying plug-in hybrids, a ten-year extension of the ethanol tax credit and (truly) a federal battery guarantee corporation, which would underwrite(签署协议) insurance on batteries used in hybrid vehicles.

Now plug-in hybrids have become popular in recent years—Mr Sandalow reportedly owns one too—but before that few experts thought they held any promise. All-electric was supposed to be the technology of the future. The auto industry more or less stumbled into hybrids by chance. And who can tell whether plug-ins are really the answer? Could they be like Alta Vista's search engine to some Google-like technology that a couple of graduate students might be hacking away on? And if we don't know, why entrench plug-ins?

What about my favored form of transportation, bicycles? They are even greener than plug-in hybrids, especially the old-fashioned non-battery-enhanced kind. A tax credit would increase ridership (and I would trade in my clunker). Better tyre and gear technologies and bicycle pumps might help too, so why not subsidise(投资资助)that research?

There is in fact no limit to the number of ways in which individuals and businesses could reduce the consumption of fossil fuels: reducing commuting distances, smaller homes, better insulation, sweaters and solar panels to name just a few. In the minimalist view, what we need is a simple, even-handed incentive（公正的刺激）, such as a gasoline/petrol or carbon tax, leaving specific choices to those best positioned to make them. Setting up a Soviet-style apparatus（组织机构、器官） to select and promote a particular set of solutions is not the answer.

And more than technical efficiency, the right mix of energy conservation choices is at stake.

The government has a unique capacity to demand compliance. We must all pay taxes, send our children to school and obey traffic laws. Preserving the legitimacy of its coercive（强制性的） powers, however, requires the government to limit its use to situations where the public interest is clear and widespread support has been secured. This does not preclude（hinder） the use of public funds for investments whose payoffs are intangible（难以捉摸的） and long-term, in museums, public art or the study of dark matter. But taxpayers whose money is used to pay must be persuaded of（相信） the merits（功勋、价值） of such investments. Obviously this imposes limits on what is financed from the public purse.

Conversely, expansive interventions unilaterally decided by experts pervert（滥用abuse） incentives in fundamental ways. Americans are unusually idealistic and optimistic, believing that that the game is not stacked in favor of the powerful. This belief encourages the pursuit of initiatives that contribute to the common good rather than the pursuit of favors and rents.

To sustain these beliefs, people must see their government play the role of an even-handed referee rather than be a dispenser of rewards or even a judge of economic merit or contribution. Picking winners—this technology or that developer—which is an inevitable consequence of expansive schemes such as Mr Sandalow's, makes us all losers.

For the record, Mr Sandalow's asserts that I am "flat out wrong in asserting that GDP per head in Israel is lower than in Cyprus or Slovenia". The very first item that comes up in a Google search of "per capita/head GDP" is a Wikipedia page. The first column of data on this page contains the IMF's 2009 estimates of GDP per head (adjusted, as is conventional, by purchasing power parity). Cyprus ranks 26th from the top on the list, Slovenia 30th and Israel 31st.