【thatll】iBT备考日志

thatllUID: 2538832

【听力---SSS---June 12, 2009】

Brain Knows It's Duck Reason
---A study in the journal Current Biology discusses how President Bush's shoe throw duck was an example of how the brain responds to objects before we know we've seen them.

When an Iraqi reporter threw his shoe at President Bush, University of Washington neurologists were delighted. But not because of politics. The fling was just real-world evidence of a theory（一个理论的真实世界的证据） they were testing. As the shoe flew, Bush ducked while Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, who was standing right beside him, barely flinched. The reason, the researchers say, is that we have a dual vision system. Our brains "see" things well before our eyes do. Their report is in the June 11th issue of the journal Current Biology.

duck：
transitive verb  
1 : to thrust under water
2 : to lower (as the head) quickly  : BOW
3 : AVOID, EVADE  *duck the issue*
intransitive verb  
1 a : to plunge under the surface of water  b : to descend suddenly  : DIP
2 a : to lower the head or body suddenly  : DODGE  b : BOW, BOB
3 a : to move quickly  b : to evade a duty, question, or responsibility
flinch : to withdraw or shrink from or as if from pain  : WINCE;  also   : to tense the muscles involuntarily in anticipation of discomfort

The scientists contend that Bush ducked because his brain’s action pathway categorized the trajectory of the shoe as a threat well before his perception pathway began to track its flight. Meanwhile, Maliki realized the shoe wasn’t headed his way and didn’t take evasive action. The scientists say this mirrors computer simulations where test subjects respond much faster to approaching visual stimuli when those objects are on a trajectory lined up with（和什么对齐） their heads. Basically, your brain will tell you whether an item is a threat even before you know you saw it. The findings could apply to everyone from ballplayers to loafers.

mirror：
1 : to reflect in or as if in a mirror
2 : RESEMBLE

thatllUID: 2538832

【好文章，共欣赏】
The Capitalist Manifesto: Greed Is Good

A specter is haunting the world—the return of capitalism. Over the past six months, politicians, businessmen and pundits have been convinced that we are in the midst of a crisis of capitalism that will require a massive transformation and years of pain to fix. Nothing will ever be the same again. "Another ideological god has failed," the dean of financial commentators, Martin Wolf, wrote in the
Financial Times. Companies will "fundamentally reset" the way they work, said the CEO of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt. "Capitalism will be different," said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
No economic system ever remains unchanged, of course, and certainly not after a deep financial collapse and a broad global recession. But over the past few months, even though we've had an imperfect stimulus package, nationalized no banks and undergone no grand reinvention of capitalism, the sense of panic seems to be easing. Perhaps this is a mirage—or perhaps the measures taken by states around the world, chiefly the U.S. government, have restored normalcy. Every expert has a critique of specific policies, but over time we might see that faced with the decision to underreact or overreact, most governments chose the latter. That choice might produce new problems in due course—a topic for another essay—but it appears to have averted a systemic breakdown.
There is still a long road ahead. There will be many more bankruptcies. Banks will have to slowly earn their way out of their problems or die. Consumers will save more before they start spending again. Mountains of debt will have to be reduced. American capitalism is being rebalanced, reregulated and thus restored. In doing so it will have to face up to long-neglected problems, if this is to lead to a true recovery, not just a brief reprieve.
Many experts are convinced that the situation cannot improve yet because their own sweeping solutions to the problem have not been implemented. Most of us want to see more punishment inflicted, particularly on America's bankers. Deep down we all have a Puritan belief that unless they suffer a good dose of pain, they will not truly repent. In fact, there has been much pain, especially in the financial industry, where tens of thousands of jobs, at all levels, have been lost. But fundamentally, markets are not about morality. They are large, complex systems, and if things get stable enough, they move on.
Consider our track record over the past 20 years, starting with the stock-market crash of 1987, when on Oct. 19 the Dow Jones lost 23 percent, the largest one-day loss in its history. The legendary economist John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that he just hoped that the coming recession wouldn't prove as painful as the Great Depression. It turned out to be a blip on the way to an even bigger, longer boom. Then there was the 1997 East Asian crisis, during the depths of which Paul Krugman wrote in a
Fortune
cover essay, "Never in the course of economic events—not even in the early years of the Depression—has so large a part of the world economy experienced so devastating a fall from grace." He went on to argue that if Asian countries did not adopt his radical strategy—currency controls—"we could be looking at?.?.?.?the kind of slump that 60 years ago devastated societies, destabilized governments, and eventually led to war." Only one Asian country instituted currency controls, and partial ones at that. All rebounded within two years.
Each crisis convinced observers that it signaled the end of some new, dangerous feature of the economic landscape. But often that novelty accelerated in the years that followed. The 1987 crash was said to be the product of computer trading, which has, of course, expanded dramatically since then. The East Asian crisis was meant to end the happy talk about "emerging markets," which are now at the center of world growth. The collapse of Long-Term Capital Management in 1998—which then–Treasury secretary Robert Rubin described as "the worst financial crisis in 50 years"—was meant to be the end of hedge funds, which then massively expanded. The technology bubble's bursting in 2000 was supposed to put an end to the dreams of oddball Internet startups. Goodbye, Pets.com; hello, Twitter. Now we hear that this crisis is the end of derivatives. Let's see. Robert Shiller, one of the few who predicted this crash almost exactly—and the dotcom bust as well—argues that in fact we need
more
derivatives to make markets more stable.
A few years from now, strange as it may sound, we might all find that we are hungry for more capitalism, not less. An economic crisis slows growth, and when countries need growth, they turn to markets. After the Mexican and East Asian currency crises—which were far more painful in those countries than the current downturn has been in America—we saw the pace of market-oriented reform speed up. If, in the years ahead, the American consumer remains reluctant to spend, if federal and state governments groan under their debt loads, if government-owned companies remain expensive burdens, then private-sector activity will become the only path to create jobs. The simple truth is that with all its flaws, capitalism remains the most productive economic engine we have yet invented. Like Churchill's line about democracy, it is the worst of all economic systems, except for the others. Its chief vindication today has come halfway across the world, in countries like China and India, which have been able to grow and pull hundreds of millions of people out of poverty by supporting markets and free trade. Last month India held elections during the worst of this crisis. Its powerful left-wing parties campaigned against liberalization and got their worst drubbing at the polls in 40 years.
Capitalism means growth, but also instability. The system is dynamic and inherently prone to crashes that cause great damage along the way. For about 90 years, we have been trying to regulate the system to stabilize it while still preserving its energy. We are at the start of another set of these efforts. In undertaking them, it is important to keep in mind what exactly went wrong. What we are experiencing is not a crisis of capitalism. It is a crisis of finance, of democracy, of globalization and ultimately of ethics.
"Capitalism messed up," the British tycoon Martin Sorrell wrote recently, "or, to be more precise, capitalists did." Actually, that's not true. Finance screwed up, or to be more precise, financiers did. In June 2007, when the financial crisis began, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, IBM, Nike, Wal-Mart and Microsoft were all running their companies with strong balance sheets and sensible business models. Major American corporations were highly profitable, and they were spending prudently, holding on to cash to build a cushion for a downturn. For that reason, many of them have been able to weather the storm remarkably well. Finance and anything finance-related—like real estate—is another story.
Finance has a history of messing up, from the Dutch tulip bubble in 1637 to now. The proximate causes of these busts have been varied, but follow a strikingly similar path. In calm times, political stability, economic growth and technological innovation all encourage an atmosphere of easy money and new forms of credit. Cheap credit causes greed, miscalculation and eventually ruin. President Martin Van Buren described the economic crisis of 1837 in Britain and America thusly: "Two nations, the most commercial in the world, enjoying but recently the highest degree of apparent prosperity and maintaining with each other the closest relations, are suddenly?.?.?.?plunged into a state of embarrassment and distress. In both countries we have witnessed the same [expansion] of paper money and other facilities of credit; the same spirit of speculation?.?.?.?the same overwhelming catastrophe." Obama could put that on his teleprompter today.
Many of the regulatory reforms that people in government are talking about now seem sensible and smart. Banks that are too large to fail should also be too large be leveraged at 30 to 1. The incentives for executives within banks are skewed toward reckless risk-taking with other people's money. ("Heads they win, tails they break even," is how Barney Frank describes the current setup.) Derivatives need to be better controlled. To call banks casinos, as is often done, is actually unfair to casinos, which are required to hold certain levels of capital because they must be able to cash in a customer's chips. Banks have not been required to do that for their key derivatives contract, credit default swaps.
Yet at the same time, we should proceed cautiously on massive new regulations. Many rules put in place in the 1930s still look smart; the problem is that over the past 15 years they were dismantled, or conscious decisions were made not to update them. Keep in mind that the one advanced industrial country where the banking system has weathered the storm superbly is Canada, which just kept the old rules in place, requiring banks to hold higher amounts of capital to offset their liabilities and to maintain lower levels of leverage. A few simple safeguards, and the whole system survived a massive storm.
The simplest safeguard American regulators have had, of course, is the interest rate on credit. In responding to almost every crisis in the past 15 years, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan always had the same solution: cut rates and ease up on money. In 1998, when Long-Term Capital Management collapsed, he suddenly and dramatically slashed rates, even though the economy was roaring along at 6 percent growth. In late 1999, buying into fears about Y2K, he swamped the markets with liquidity. (One effect: between November 1998 and February 2000, when rates finally rose, the NASDAQ jumped almost 250 percent, increasing in value by more than $3 trillion.) And finally, when the technology bubble burst and 9/11 hit, Greenspan again lowered rates and kept them low, this time inflating a massive housing bubble.
Greenspan behaved like most American political leaders over the past two decades—he chose the easy way out of a hard situation. William McChesney Martin, the great Fed chairman of the 1950s and 1960s, once said that his job was to take the punch bowl away just as the party had begun. No one wants to do that in America anymore—not the Fed chairman, not the regulators, not Congress and not the president.
Government actions should be "countercyclical"—that is, they should work to slow down growth. So, in boom times, the Fed would raise rates and require banks to have higher capital and lower leverage. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would start worrying about too much easy credit, raise standards for loans and disqualify buyers unlikely to be able to afford houses. Banks would be urged to slow down the supply of credit cards and other credit instruments. In fact, this is exactly how the governments of China and India behaved in 2007, when their economies were booming. At the peak, consumption in India actually declined as a percentage of GDP.
In the United States, the opposite happened: consumption surged from 67 percent to 73 percent of GDP. Presidents and congressmen extolled the virtues of homeownership for everyone. Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to extend more loans. Regulators eased up on banks, and the Fed kept rates low. And the public cheered this pandering at every step.
Since Ronald Reagan's presidency, Americans have consumed more than we produced and have made up the difference by borrowing. This is true of individuals but, far more dangerously, of governments at every level. Government debt in America, especially when entitlements and state pension commitments are included, is terrifying. And yet no one has tried seriously to close the gap, which can be done only by (1) raising taxes or (2) cutting expenditures. Any sensible proposal will have to feature both prominently.
This is the disease of modern democracy: the system cannot impose any short-term pain for long-term gain. For 20 years, most serious structural problems—Social Security, health care, immigration—have been kicked down the road. And while the problem is acute in America, Europe and Japan face many of the same difficulties. Right now, the U.S. government's boldness is laudable, but it is being bold in spending money. In a few years, when the bills come due, and Congress must enact major spending cuts as well as raise taxes (and not just on the rich), that's when we will see if things have changed.
In reality, the problem goes well beyond Washington. It also goes beyond bad bankers, lax regulators and pandering politicians. The global financial system has been crashing more frequently over the past 30 years than in any comparable period in history. On the face of it, this suggests that we're screwing up, when in fact what is happening is more complex. The problems that have developed over the past decades are not simply the products of failures. They could as easily be described as the products of success.
Here's why we got to where we are. Since the late 1980s, the world has been moving toward a extraordinary degree of political stability. The end of the Cold War has ushered in a period with no major military competition among the world's great powers—something virtually unprecedented in modern history. It has meant the winding down of most of the proxy and civil wars, insurgencies and guerrilla actions that dotted the Cold War landscape. Even given the bloodshed in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, the number of people dying as a result of political violence of any kind has dropped steeply over the past three decades.
Then there is the end of inflation. In the 1970s, dozens of countries suffered hyperinflation, which destroyed the middle class, destabilized societies and led to political upheaval. Since then, central banks have become very good at taming the monster, and by 2007 the number of countries with high inflation had dwindled to a handful. Only one, Zimbabwe, had hyperinflation.
Add to this the information and Internet revolutions, and you have a series of historical changes that have produced a single global system, far more integrated and faster-moving than ever before. The results speak for themselves. Over the past quarter century, the global economy has doubled every 10 years, going from $31 trillion in 1999 to $62 trillion in 2008. Recessions have become tamer than ever before, averaging eight months rather than two years. More than 400 million people across Asia have been lifted out of poverty. Between 2003 and 2007, average income worldwide grew at a faster rate (3.1 percent) than in any previous period in recorded human history. In 2006 and 2007—the peak years of the boom—124 countries around the world grew at 4 percent a year or more, about four times as many as 25 years earlier.
Many of these countries had more cash than they knew what to do with. China sits on a war chest of more than $2 trillion, while eight other emerging-market nations have reserves of more than $100 billion. They've all looked to the safest investment they could imagine—U.S. government debt. In buying so much debt, they drove down the interest rate Washington had to offer, which in turn made credit in America cheap. So the effect of all this money sloshing around the world was to subsidize Americans in their favorite activity: shopping. But it affected other Western countries as well, from Spain to Ireland, where consumers and governments loaded themselves up with debt.
Good times always make people complacent. As the cost of capital sank over the past few years, people became increasingly foolish. The world economy had become the equivalent of a race car—faster and more complex than any vehicle anyone had ever seen. But it turned out that no one had driven a car like this before, and no one really knew how. So it crashed.
The real problem is that we're still driving this car. The global economy remains highly complex, interconnected and im-balanced. The Chinese still pile up surpluses and need to put them somewhere. Washington and Beijing will have to work hard to slowly stabilize their mutual dependence so that the system is not being set up for another crash.
More broadly, the fundamental crisis we face is of globalization itself. We have globalized the economies of nations. Trade, travel and tourism are bringing people together. Technology has created worldwide supply chains, companies and customers. But our politics remains resolutely national. This tension is at the heart of the many crashes of this era—a mismatch between interconnected economies that are producing global problems but no matching political process that can effect global solutions. Without better international coordination, there will be more crashes, and eventually there may be a retreat from globalization toward the safety—and slow growth—of protected national economies.
Throughout this essay, I have avoided treating this economic crisis as a grand morality play—a war between good and evil in which demon bankers destroyed all that is good and true about our socie-ties. Complex historical events can rarely be reduced to something so simple. But we are suffering from a moral crisis, too, one that may lie at the heart of our problems.
Most of what happened over the past decade across the world was legal. Bankers did what they were allowed to do under the law. Politicians did what they thought the system asked of them. Bureaucrats were not exchanging cash for favors. But very few people acted responsibly, honorably or nobly (the very word sounds odd today). This might sound like a small point, but it is not. No system—capitalism, socialism, whatever—can work without a sense of ethics and values at its core. No matter what reforms we put in place, without common sense, judgment and an ethical standard, they will prove inadequate. We will never know where the next bubble will form, what the next innovations will look like and where excesses will build up. But we can ask that people steer themselves and their institutions with a greater reliance on a moral compass.
One of the great shifts taking place in American society has been away from the old guild system of self-regulation. Once upon a time, law, medicine and accounting viewed themselves as private-sector participants with public responsibilities. Lawyers are still called "officers of the court." And historically they acted with that sense of stewardship in mind, thinking of what was appropriate for the whole system and not simply for their firm. That meant advising their clients against time-consuming litigation or mindless mergers. Elihu Root, a leader of the New York bar in the late 19th century, once said, "About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists in telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop."
It's not just the law that has changed; so have all the professions. Ever since the 1930s, accountants have been given a unique trust. "Who audits you?" asked Sen. Alben Barkley during a 1933 committee hearing. "Our conscience," replied Arthur Carter, the head of a large accounting firm. But by 2002
The Wall Street Journal
was describing a different world, in which accountants had gone from "watchdogs to lapdogs," telling clients whatever they wanted to hear. Bankers similarly once saw themselves as being stewards of capital, responsible to their many constituents and embodying trust. But over the past few decades, they too became obsessed with profits and the short term, uncertain about their own future and that of their company. The most recent example of this phenomenon has been at the rating agencies, which were generating fees that were too lucrative to be exacting in their judgments about their clients' products.
None of this has happened because businesspeople have suddenly become more immoral. It is part of the opening up and growing competitiveness of the business world. Many of the old banks and law firms operated as monopolies or cartels. They could afford to take the long view. They were also run by a WASP elite secure in its privilege. The members of today's meritocratic elite are more anxious and insecure. They know that they are being judged quarter by quarter.
The failure of self-regulation over the past 20 years—in investment banking, accounting, rating agencies—has led inevitably to the rise of greater government regulation. This marks an important change in the Anglo-American world, away from informal rules often enforced by private actors toward the more formal bureaucratic system common in continental Europe. Perhaps the state should not set the pay of the private sector. But surely CEOs should exercise some judgment about their own compensation, and tie it far more closely to the long-term health of the company. It will still be possible to get very rich—Warren Buffett, after all, draws a salary of only $100,000.
There's a need for greater self-regulation not simply on Wall Street but also on Pennsylvania Avenue. We get exercised about the immorality of politicians when they're caught in sex scandals. Meanwhile they triple the national debt, enrich their lobbyist friends and write tax loopholes for specific corporations—all perfectly legal—and we regard this as normal. The revolving door between Washington government offices and lobbying firms is so lucrative and so established that anyone pointing out that it is—at base—institutionalized corruption is seen as baying at the moon. Not everything is written down, and not everything that is legally permissible is ethical. Who was the last ex-president to refuse to take a vast donation for his library from a foreign government that he had helped when in office?
We are in the midst of a vast crisis, and there is enough blame to go around and many fixes to make, from the international system to national governments to private firms. But at heart, there needs to be a deeper fix within all of us, a simple gut check. If it doesn't feel right, we shouldn't be doing it. That's not going to restore growth or mend globalization or save capitalism, but it might be a small start to sanity.

thatllUID: 2538832

【上文的翻译】
资本主义宣言：贪婪有好处

资本主义归来的幽灵正在笼罩世界。在过去的六个月里面，政客、商人以及各行各业的专家们都确认，我们正在经历一个需要大规模转型的资本主义危机，之后还要几年的阵痛来巩固这些改变。一切都会变得和以前不一样。“又一个意识形态之神倒掉了，”Financial Times的经济评论主任Martin Wolf说。通用电器首席执行官Jeffrey Immelt说，公司将会“从根本上”改变他们的工作方式。“资本主义将变得不一样，”财政部长盖特纳表示。
当然，没有任何一个经济体系是一成不变的——在一个影响深远的经济崩溃和全面的世界性萧条之后当然也是如此。但是在过去的几个月里面，尽管我们的经济刺激方案还不完美，也没有对任何银行实施国有化或者对资本主义进行什么大规模的再创造，那些恐慌情绪似乎依然在慢慢消逝。或许这只是海市蜃楼，或许这是世界各国的措施——特别是美国政府的措施——使人们恢复常态。每个专家对各个政策都有一番评论，但是这些时间以来，在面对是应该反应不足还是反应过度这一问题上，大多数政府都选择了后者。到时候这些选择或许就会产生新的问题——这些事情另当别论——但它们似乎确实避免了系统性的经济崩溃。
前途漫漫，破产也将会越来越多。银行要么慢慢挣钱走出困境，要么就死亡。消费者在消费之前要储存更多的钱才可以。人们也要降低那如山的债务。美国资本主义正在被再平衡、再次调节从而恢复。在这么做的时候，如果我们要走向真正的恢复而不是短暂的缓解，我们必须面对我们长久以来所忽视的那些问题。
许多专家确信经济状况还不会有什么起色，因为他们自己提出的彻头彻尾的方案还尚未实施。我们中大多数都希望可以惩恶，特别是美国的银行家们。我们在内心深处都有一种清教徒的信念——不好好给他们点颜色瞧瞧他们是不会从心底里后悔自己的所作所为的。事实上，他们得到的“颜色”也不少了，特别是金融业。这个行业里各种从业人员失去了数不清的工作岗位。但是从本质上看，市场不是关于道德的东西，它们是一个巨大而又复杂的系统。如果形势稳定下来，它们会继续发展下去的。
让我们回头看看过去的二十年，看看自1987年股市崩溃以来社会发展的轨迹。那一年的十月十九号道琼斯指数暴跌了23%，是其历史上单日跌幅最大的一次。传奇性的经济学家加尔布雷斯写道，他希望即将到来的经济衰退不会像30年代大萧条那么痛苦。后来的结果表明，它成为一个更为强大、持久的经济繁荣的信号。之后，在1997年亚洲金融危机时期，保罗•克鲁格曼在一篇《财富》封面文章中写道，“在经济发展的过程中——甚至是在大萧条的早期——从来都没有这么多国家卷入破坏性这么大的危机。”他接着说，如果亚洲国家不采取他所建议的那些激进措施——即货币管制——“我们很可能会面对60年前那场破坏社会、降低政府稳定性并最终导致战争的经济疲软。“只有一个亚洲国家实施了货币管制——还部分实施。而所有的一切在两年内又恢复如初了。
每次危机发生时，评论家们都信誓旦旦地说它显示了经济全景上一些新的、危险特征。但通常情况下，这一新特征在其后的几年里面都会加速发展。1987年经济危机被认为是电脑贸易的产物，但在那之后却日渐繁荣；东亚金融危机本来被认为将会结束关于“新兴市场”的乐观言论，它现在却变成了世界经济增长的中心；被当时的财长罗伯特·鲁宾称为“50年来最严重的经济危机”的1998年长期资本管理公司（LTCM）的崩溃本来被认为将会成为对冲基金的“终结者”，后来也蓬勃发展；2000年高科技公司泡沫的破灭也被认为最终将终结那些古怪的网络创业公司。再见了，Pets.com；你好，Twitter。现在有人宣称，这场危机将结束那些衍生金融产品。让我们拭目以待吧。罗伯特·希勒，准确预言这次危机者其中之一——他也曾预测了网络公司的破灭——认为我们实际上需要更多的衍生金融产品来让市场变得更加稳定。
听起来可能十分古怪，几年后人们会认为我们需要更多的资本主义，而不是更少。经济危机使增长变慢，而当世界上的国家需要发展时他们就会诉诸市场。在墨西哥以及亚洲货币危机之后——这比美国现在所经历的危机要严重的多——人们提高了以市场为导向的改革步伐。在未来的几年里面，如果美国消费者信心依然不足，如果联邦和州政府不断抱怨自己的债务，如果国有公司依然是我们昂贵的负担，私有经济领域将会是创造就业岗位的唯一出路。简单的原因就是，尽管弊病多多，资本主义依然是我们目前为止所发明的最好的经济组织形式。正如丘吉尔关于民主的名言，除了我们所经历的那些经济制度以外，资本主义是最差的经济制度。它已经在大半个世界得到了证实，在像中国和印度这样的国家里，通过市场和自由贸易使得数千万的人脱离了贫困。上个月，印度在这次危机最严重的时期举行了大选。其强大的左翼政党在和自由主义政党角逐中遭遇了40年以来罕见的大败。
资本主义意味着增长，同时也代表着不稳定。这一经济形式是动态的，它本质上就容易导致可以引起巨大损失的冲突。在过去的大约90年中，我们一直都在努力争取在保持其活力的同时使其变得越发稳定。我们现在正处于另一系列的这种努力的开端。在承担这副重担的时候我们必须时刻谨记哪里错了。这场危机不是资本主义的危机，它是一个关于金融、民主、全球化的危机，最终是关于伦理学的危机。
“资本主义这下搞砸了，”英国大亨Martin Sorrell最近写道，“或者更加确切一点说，资本家搞砸了。”其实不是这么回事。是财政搞砸了，或者更精确一点儿说，是财务人员搞砸了。2007年6月，当经济危机开始的时候，可口可乐，百事，IBM，耐克，沃尔玛以及微软的资产负债表强劲，商业模式合理。多数美国公司盈利相当可观，而且他们支出上也非常的谨慎，为经济下滑积累缓冲资金。正是因为如此，他们多数才可以相当容易地度过难关。但在像房地产这样的行业里，凡是和财务相关的东西就是另一回事了。
从1637年荷兰郁金香泡沫到今天，财务混乱有相当一段历史了。这些泡沫的直接原因各不相同，但是破灭的路径极为相似。在和平时期，政治稳定、经济发展、技术进步——所有这一切都营造了挣钱容易的气氛，也产生了新形式的信贷。廉价信贷导致贪婪与预期失误，并最终导致经济破坏。马丁·范布伦总统是这么描述1837年发生在不列颠和美国的经济危机的：“世界上商业化程度最高的两个国家享有着最高度的繁荣，彼此也维持着最亲密的关系，突然之间陷入了难堪和经济疲软。在这两个国家里面我们共同见证了纸币的扩张以及其它形式信贷的产生；也见证了如出一辙的投机，以及相同程度的无法承受的灾难。”奥巴马可以把那个放在他的讲词提示机上面了。
如今，政府工作人员所谈论的管理改革看起来都是合理而且很聪明的。我们对那些大到不能倒的银行即使以30：1的比例注资应该还是太高了。银行内部的奖励措施使得那些经理人们倾向于拿着别人的钱来冒险。（“正面朝上他们就赢了，正面朝下他们也不会输，”这是Barney Frank对目前状况的精确描述。）把银行称为赌场实际上是对赌场的侮辱，因为他们必须持有一定数量的现金以给顾客兑换筹码。但是银行因为关键衍生产品合同以及信贷违约互换而没有被要求如此。
但同时我们在采取大规模新举措时也要谨慎。许多在二十世纪三十年代产生的规则看起来依然是有用的；问题是在过去的15年里面，它们实际上是被废止了，或者人们因为谨慎而没有做到与时俱进。记住，在这场金融风暴里面，做得最好的工业化国家是加拿大。他们保持了旧条款，要求银行持有大量现金来抵消债务并且保持低水平的保证金。几项简单的保护措施使得整个行业安然度过这次风暴。
当然，美国的金融管理人员最简单的保护措施就是贷款利率。在过去的15年里面，在应对几乎每次危机时前联邦储备委员会主席格林斯潘都采取了同样的措施：降息并实施宽松的货币政策。1998年，长期资本管理公司崩溃时他突然大规模地实施了降息政策——金光当时经济增长速率高达6个百分点。在1999年后期，因为害怕2000年千年虫危机的到来他使得市场充满了流动资金。（一个事实是，在1998年十一月至2000年二月之间，当利率最终抬升之后纳斯达克指数升高了几乎百分之250——这就是3000亿美元的资产啊。）最后，当技术泡沫破灭后，又由于9/11恐怖袭击，格林斯潘又一次降低利率并维持在一个低水平，这次却导致了大规模房地产危机。
和过去的两个世纪里面美国大多数政治领导人一样，格林斯潘在艰难时刻选择的都是简易的对策。二十世纪五六十年代的伟大的美联储委员会主席威廉·麦克切斯尼·马丁曾经说过，他的工作就是在聚会开始的时候把调酒杯拿走。没有人会再想在美国那么干了——美联储主席、监管者、国会或者是总统都不会。
政府行为应该是“反经济周期的”——也就是说，他们应该致力于减缓增长。所以在经济腾飞时期，联邦储备委员会要要求银行增息，降低杠杆率。房丽美和房地美就会开始担忧太过于容易的贷款，从而提高贷款门槛并且不给予那些无法负担房子的购房者贷款。银行也会被要求减少信用卡以及其它信用产品的发放。事实上，这就是中国和印度政府在2007年其经济一片繁荣之时所采取的措施。在经济发展的顶峰时期，印度的百分GDP消费确实是下降了的。
在美国却出现了截然相反的情况：消费额从67%的GDP剧增到73%。美国总统和议员们都鼓励每个人拥有自己的房产。国会还促进房丽美和房地美增加更多的贷款。监管者使贷款变得容易，而美联储却将利率维持在低水平。于是公众在每个政策背后都急促跟进了。
自从里根总统在任之后，我们美国人消费的就比我们生产的要多，而补齐这其中的差价就是用的借债。这在个人来说是确实的，但是对于政府来说，任何规模的借贷都要远远危险。美国政府的债务是相当恐怖的，特别是包含津贴以及国家补贴在内的话。然而，从来没有人认真考虑来弥补这个缺口，方法有两个，要么提高税率，要么降低支出。任何有可行的提议都必须突出这两点。
这是现代民主制度的问题：这一系统无法用短期的痛处来换取长期的利益。20年里面，大多数严肃的结构性问题，比如社会安全、医疗以及移民问题都浮出水面了。而且，虽然美国这些问题比较紧迫，欧洲和日本也面临许多同类的困难。现在，美国政府的勇气值得赞赏，但是它却是在花钱上胆子大而已。几年之内，当那些帐单到期的时候，也就是国会议员们不得不制定法律来削减开支，提高税率的时候，到那时这些可不仅仅是针对富人了。那就是我们看到形势改变的时候了。
事实上，这个问题已经不是华盛顿自己的事情了。它也不是不良银行家、不严格监管人员以及迎合他人的政客的自己的事情了。在过去的30年里面，全球金融系统的冲突要比历史上任何时期的都更加频繁。表面上看我们做得把一切都搞砸了，而事实上事情的发展要复杂的多。在过去的几十年里面，我们积累的问题绝对不仅仅是失败的结果。它们也可以非常容易地被描述成成功的结果。
这就是我们为何走到这一步的原因。自从20世纪80年代以来，世界政治格局朝着一个异常稳定的方向发展。冷战的结束导致了一个大国之间没有重大军事竞争者的时期。这在现代历史上基本上是第一次。它意味着大多数代理人战争以及内战都将慢慢平息，贯穿整个冷战时期的起义和游击战争也慢慢消逝。己便是有伊拉克、阿富汗以及索马里的流血事件，在过去的30年里面，由于各种形式的政局不稳而导致的非正常死亡人数急剧地下降了。
然后就是通货膨胀的终结。在20世纪70年代，几十个国家遭受了剧烈的通货膨胀，这毁灭了中产阶级，使得社会动荡，导致政局变动。在那之后，中央银行在控制这个怪兽上面就非常在行了，而且在2007年之前有高通胀的国家屈指可数了已经。只有一个国家，津巴布韦有这种高通胀。


这一切，加上信息革命和因特网革命，你就会发现，一系列的历史性改变产生了全球性系统。它的整体性以及发展的迅猛性是以往的历史中所不曾出现过的。其结果可以证明其自己。在过去的25年里面，世界经济每10年就会翻一番，从1999年的31万亿美元到2008年的62万亿美元。萧条也比以前温和的多了，平均每八个月发生一次，而不是两年。在亚洲有4亿人脱离了贫困。从2003年到2007年，全世界平均收入的增长水平（3.1%）比有记录以来人类历史任何时期都要高。在经济繁荣的顶峰时期——2006至2007年，全世界124个国家的经济年增长率在4%或者以上，这是25年前的4倍。
这些国家中的许多个都有些不知道怎么花的钱。中国的战争储备资金超过了2万亿美元，而其它八个新兴国家的储备也超过了1000亿美元。他们都选择了可以想象中的最为稳妥的投资方式——美国政府债券。在买下这么多债券的同时，他们也使得华盛顿一再降息，这反过来使得美国的信贷越来越便宜。所以这些本应该分布在全世界的钱给美国人补贴于他们最喜欢的事情了：购物。但是它也影响了其它的西方国家。从西班牙到意大利，消费者和政府都给自己堆积了如山的债务。
好光景总是让人们变得自鸣得意。由于过去的几年中资本成本率一再降低，人们也越来越愚蠢。世界经济也变得像是一部赛车——所有人都没有见过的又快又复杂的赛车。但结果表明，没有人开过这样的车子，也没有人知道该怎么开。所以它崩溃了。
真正的问题在于我们仍然在开这一部车子。世界经济依然保持其高度复杂、相互关联并且不平衡的特性。中国仍然在堆积贸易顺拆并且要找个地方安置它们。华盛顿和北京必须好好努力，慢慢稳定相互依存的关系以避免经济发生另一次崩溃。
更广泛一点说，我们面临的根本危机是全球化。不同国家的经济已经全球化了。贸易、旅行和旅游业是不同的人聚在一起。技术进步产生了全世界范围内的供应链、公司和顾客。但是我们的政治依然是绝对的国家性质的。相互关联的经济体的活动会产生全球性的结果，但我们却缺乏一个政治过程来实施全球性解决方案。可以说，这一不协调的紧张关系是这个时代里面许多冲突的根源。没有更好的国际化协调，冲突将会越来越多，并且这将最终导致从全球化退化到那个比较安全和比较慢的保护性国家经济中。
在这篇文章里面，我避免了将这场经济危机看成一个宏大的道德戏剧——善与恶之间的战争：邪恶的银行家破坏了我们社会中所有真善美的东西。复杂的历史性时间很少能够这么简单解决的。但是我们也在经历一个道德危机，而它可能就隐藏在我们问题的核心当中。
在过去的十年里面，世界上发生的这些事多数都是合法的。银行家在法律允许的范围内办事，政客做了他们认为经济要求他们做的。官僚们也没有进行权钱交易。但是很少有人负责任地、光荣而高贵地（这个词现在听起来有点儿奇怪）做事。这听起来像是一件小事，但事实并非如此。没有任何社会——不管是资本主义、社会主义还是其它任何社会——在自己的核心缺乏道德成分时可以成功。在没有常识，没有判断和道德标准的时候，无论我们实施什么样子的改革最终都会于事无补的。我们永远不会知道下一个泡沫起源于何处，下一个革新会是什么样子的，或者下次的生产过量在什么方面。但是我们可以要求人们在道德罗盘的指引下进行自我约束和事业管理。
美国社会所发生的一项重大转变就是，脱离了过去的自我约束的系统。曾几何时，法律、医学和会计都将他们视为负有公共责任的私有部门。律师还被称为“法庭长官”。而且在历史上，他们也在心目中带有那种使命感，思考的是什么对这个社会是最好的，不仅仅是对自己的公司。那意味着建议他们的客户停止耗时费力的诉讼或者无目的的合并。19世纪晚期，纽约一家律师事务所的领导Elihu Root说过，“一个体面的律师的一半工作都是告诉他们的未来客户停止那些无意义的事情，别做个傻瓜。”
改变的不仅仅是法律，所有的职业也改变了。自从1930年以来，会计师得到了前所未有的信任。“谁给你做审计？”在1933年一次委员会听证会上，参议员Alben Barkley说。“我们的良知，”一家大型会计公司的领导Arthur Carter说。但是到2002年，《华尔街日报》却描绘了完全不同的场景：会计师已经从“看门狗”变成了“哈巴狗”——他们给客户说他们想听的。相似地，银行家也一度把自己看成是资本的看管人，他们对自己的许多组成部分以及所带有的信托负责。但是几十年过去了，他们也变得痴迷于利润和短期利益，对自己或者是自己公司的未来则一无所知。这一现象最为显著的例子是评级机构，这些行业产生的费用是如此诱人以至于那些公司对他们客户的产品一点儿都不严格要求。
这些都没有发生，因为这些人突然变得不那么道德了。这有一部分也是因为经济开放和竞争增加所致。许多老的银行和法律公司都是以垄断或者卡特尔的方式运作的。他们要采取长远眼光时没有任何问题。他们还是被一个盎格鲁撒克逊精英阶层管理，自身优越性没有危险。而今天的精英阶层则是更加的焦虑和富于不安全感。他们知道自己是每季度都要被考察的。
过去的二十年里面，在投资银行、会计以及评级机构里面自我约束的失败不可避免地导致了更加强大的政府管理。这标志了在盎格鲁美国人里面一个重要的转变——从由私人行为的不成文约束到较为正式的欧洲大陆的官僚主义系统。或许政府不应该替私人部门还款。但可以肯定的是，那些CEO们应该对自己的补偿费用实行某些评估，并且和公司长远利益更加紧密的结合。想要获得巨额财富依然是有可能的——毕竟沃伦巴菲特的薪水才十万美元。
不仅仅是在华尔街，在宾夕法尼亚大街同样需要更加强有力的自我约束。当政客被性丑闻纠缠时我们锻炼了自己对不道德的承受能力。同时，他们使国债增加了三倍，富了自己的说客朋友并且给某些公司报税提供税收漏洞——这一切都完美地合法——我们也把这些作为正常现象。华盛顿政府部门和游说公司之间的旋转门是那么的有利可图，以至于任何人想要指出这实质上是机构化的腐败都会被认为是痴心妄想。不是什么事都写下来了，也不是任何法律上允许的事情就是道德的。有一位前任总统在任职期间帮助过一个外国政府，他们想要捐赠给其图书馆一大笔钱却又被他拒绝了，这位总统是谁？
我们正处在一个大规模危机之中，有许多要指责的地方，也有许多要处理的事情——从国际社会到国家政府再到私人公司。但是在本质上，我们每个人都需要好好的自我检讨一下。如果认为是错误的事情，我们不应该继续做下去。拿可能对恢复增长、修复全球化或者是拯救资本主义没有神恶魔作用，但它可能成为我们明智的开端。

thatllUID: 2538832

【听力---SSS---June 15, 2009】

The Rain's Maintained Speed Strain Is Now Explained
---A study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters finds that some raindrops are falling faster than they "should" be, which means meteorologists may be overestimating the total amount of rainfall.

Could it be that our understanding of rain was all wet? A new study says that some drops of rain are falling faster than they should be. Which ultimately means（就是表示最终意味着） that it may be raining less than we think.

all wet : completely wrong : in error

It’s been assumed that large raindrops fall faster than smaller ones. A big drop’s size and heft give it a faster terminal velocity. Because it overcomes air resistance better than a small drop. But now researchers have found small raindrops falling faster than some bigger drops, and faster than what their terminal velocity should be. The finding appears in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

heft：
a : WEIGHT, HEAVINESS b : IMPORTANCE, INFLUENCE

Researchers used sophisticated optical equipment to study about 64,000 individual raindrops, and found the expeditious outliers（: something (as a geological feature) that is situated away from or classed differently from a main or related body）. Which came in clusters. These superfast droplets probably come from the breakup of fast-moving large drops. Standard techniques to measure rain assume that fast drops are larger, and therefore overestimate the total precipitation. The scientists note that a third of the economy is influenced by weather forecasting, so even a small improvement in our understanding of rain would be more than a drop in the bucket（沧海一粟，九牛一毛）.

thatllUID: 2538832

【分享---转载gfmichelle】

DELTA听力详细分类

Geography 2.1B(4);2.2C(1-3); 2.5FOCUS;2.6A(3-5); Geology 2.2C(6-10);2.2E(6-10); Quiz2(1-5); QUIZ8(6-10)； School life 2.2A;2.2B(8-10);2.2D(1-2);2.3Focus;2.3A;2.3B(1-2);Quiz3(1-5); 2.4Focus;2.4A;2.4C;2.4D;Quiz4(1-5); 2.5A(4-5); Quiz8(1-5); Anthropology 2.2B(1-4);2.3B(7-10);2.3D(1-5); 2.5B(1-5); Quiz7(6-10); Art 2.2B(5-7);2.2C(4-5);2.2E(1-5); Quiz1(6-10);2.4B(1-2); 2.4E(3-6); 2.6A(1-2); Quiz7(1-5);! Economy 2.2D(3-5);Quiz1(1-5);2.3B(3-6);2.3C(1-2);Quiz2(6-10);Quiz3(6-10); 2.5A(6-10); Psychology 2.3C(3-6); 2.6B(4-7); Chemistry 2.4E(1-2); Ecology 2.6A(6-10); Biology 2.6B(8-10);Quiz6(1-3); Quiz6(4-6); Botany 2.3D(6-10);2.4B(7-10); Quiz5(6-10); 2.5B(6-10);2.6B(1-3); Quiz6(7-10); Others 2.5A(1);2.6FOCUS;

thatllUID: 2538832

【听力---SSS---August 3, 2009】

Swinging Arms Save Energy
---A study in the Royal Society journal Biological Sciences shows that one reason why we swing our arms while walking is probably because it makes ambulation a significantly more efficient operation, saving about 12 percent of the energy required to walk with the arms immobile.

People swing their arms when they walk. But did you ever wonder（没听出来） why? Does it help us keep our balance? Is it a relic from our evolutionary past? Is it because we look like doofuses if we don’t? Now, a report in the Royal Society journal Biological Sciences suggests that we swing our arms while walking, in part, because it takes less energy than it would to stop.

Since people don’t walk on all fours, it’s not clear why we pump our arms when we pick up our feet. And studies have shown that it does require some muscle to do it—those limbs don’t just sway passively like a pendulum（钟摆）. So there must be some benefit.

To find out, scientists studied walking robots and human volunteers, who walked normally or with their hands secured to（被固定在） their sides. And they found that for people on-the-go, strolling with their arms strapped down took 12 percent more energy than just letting them fly. Swinging the arms also offsets the scissoring of the legs, saving even more energy. So next time you go for a walk, don’t forget those arms. ‘Cause it don’t mean a thing if it ain’t got that swing.

学习：
ambulate : to move from place to place  : WALK
doofus：slang   : a stupid, incompetent, or foolish person

Ain't is a contraction originally used for "am not", but also used for "is not", "are not", "has not", or "have not" in the common vernacular. In some dialects it is also used as a contraction of "do not", "does not", and "did not" (i.e. I ain't know that).

thatllUID: 2538832

【好文共欣赏】
Making Capitalism More Creative
[size=0.9em]By BILL GATESThursday, Jul. 31, 2008
[size=0.9em]
[size=0.9em]Capitalism has improved the lives of billions of people — something that's easy to forget at a time of great economic uncertainty. But it has left out billions more. They have great needs, but they can't express those needs in ways that matter to markets. So they are stuck in poverty, suffer from preventable diseases and never have a chance to make the most of their lives. Governments and nonprofit groups have an irreplaceable role in helping them, but it will take too long if they try to do it alone. It is mainly corporations that have the skills to make technological innovations work for the poor. To make the most of those skills, we need a more creative capitalism: an attempt to stretch the reach of market forces so that more companies can benefit from doing work that makes more people better off. We need new ways to bring far more people into the system — capitalism — that has done so much good in the world.
[size=0.9em]
There's much still to be done, but the good news is that creative capitalism is already with us. Some corporations have identified brand-new markets among the poor for life-changing technologies like cell phones. Others — sometimes with a nudge from activists — have seen how they can do good and do well at the same time. To take a real-world example, a few years ago I was sitting in a bar with Bono, and frankly, I thought he was a little nuts. It was late, we'd had a few drinks, and Bono was all fired up over a scheme to get companies to help tackle global poverty and disease. He kept dialing the private numbers of top executives and thrusting his cell phone at me to hear their sleepy yet enthusiastic replies. As crazy as it seemed that night, Bono's persistence soon gave birth to the (RED) campaign. Today companies like Gap, Hallmark and Dell sell (RED)-branded products and donate a portion of their profits to fight AIDS. (Microsoft recently signed up too.) It's a great thing: the companies make a difference while adding to their bottom line, consumers get to show their support for a good cause, and — most important — lives are saved. In the past year and a half, (RED) has generated $100 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, helping put nearly 80,000 people in poor countries on lifesaving drugs and helping more than 1.6 million get tested for HIV. That's creative capitalism at work.

Creative capitalism isn't some big new economic theory. And it isn't a knock on capitalism itself. It is a way to answer a vital question: How can we most effectively spread the benefits of capitalism and the huge improvements in quality of life it can provide to people who have been left out?

The World Is Getting Better
It might seem strange to talk about creative capitalism when we're paying more than $4 for a gallon of gas and people are having trouble paying their mortgages. There's no doubt that today's economic troubles are real; people feel them deeply, and they deserve immediate attention. Creative capitalism isn't an answer to the relatively short-term ups and downs of the economic cycle. It's a response to the longer-term fact that too many people are missing out on a historic, century-long improvement in the quality of life. In many nations, life expectancy has grown dramatically in the past 100 years. More people vote in elections, express their views and enjoy economic freedom than ever before. Even with all the problems we face today, we are at a high point of human well-being. The world is getting a lot better.

The problem is, it's not getting better fast enough, and it's not getting better for everyone. One billion people live on less than a dollar a day. They don't have enough nutritious food, clean water or electricity. The amazing innovations that have made many lives so much better — like vaccines and microchips — have largely passed them by. This is where governments and nonprofits come in. As I see it, there are two great forces of human nature: self-interest and caring for others. Capitalism harnesses self-interest in a helpful and sustainable way but only on behalf of those who can pay. Government aid and philanthropy channel our caring for those who can't pay. And the world will make lasting progress on the big inequities that remain — problems like AIDS, poverty and education — only if governments and nonprofits do their part by giving more aid and more effective aid. But the improvements will happen faster and last longer if we can channel market forces, including innovation that's tailored to the needs of the poorest, to complement what governments and nonprofits do. We need a system that draws in innovators and businesses in a far better way than we do today.

Naturally, if companies are going to get more involved, they need to earn some kind of return. This is the heart of creative capitalism. It's not just about doing more corporate philanthropy or asking companies to be more virtuous. It's about giving them a real incentive to apply their expertise in new ways, making it possible to earn a return while serving the people who have been left out. This can happen in two ways: companies can find these opportunities on their own, or governments and nonprofits can help create such opportunities where they presently don't exist.

What's Been Missed
As C.K. Prahalad shows in his book The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, there are markets all over the world that businesses have missed. One study found that the poorest two-thirds of the world's population has some $5 trillion in purchasing power. A key reason market forces are slow to make an impact in developing countries is that we don't spend enough time studying the needs of those markets. I should know: I saw it happen at Microsoft. For many years, Microsoft has used corporate philanthropy to bring technology to people who can't get it otherwise, donating more than $3 billion in cash and software to try to bridge the digital divide. But our real expertise is in writing software that solves problems, and recently we've realized that we weren't bringing enough of that expertise to problems in the developing world. So now we're looking at inequity as a business problem as well as something to be addressed through philanthropy. We're working on projects like a visual interface that will enable illiterate or semiliterate people to use a PC instantly, with minimal training. Another project of ours lets an entire classroom full of students use a single computer; we've developed software that lets each student use her own mouse to control a specially colored cursor so that as many as 50 kids can use one computer at the same time. This is a big advance for schools where there aren't enough computers to go around, and it serves a market we hadn't examined before.

Cell phones are another example. They're now a booming market in the developing world, but historically, companies vastly underestimated their potential. In 2000, when Vodafone bought a large stake in a Kenyan cell-phone company, it figured that the market in Kenya would max out at 400,000 users. Today that company, Safaricom, has more than 10 million. The company has done it by finding creative ways to serve low-income Kenyans. Its customers are charged by the second rather than by the minute, for example, which keeps down the cost. Safaricom is making a profit, and it's making a difference. Farmers use their cell phones to find the best prices in nearby markets. A number of innovative uses for cell phones are emerging. Already many Kenyans use them to store cash (via a kind of electronic money) and transfer funds. If you have to carry money over long distances — say, from the market back to your home — this kind of innovation makes a huge difference. You're less tempting to rob if you're not holding any cash.

This is how people can benefit when businesses find opportunities that have been missed. But since I started talking about creative capitalism earlier this year, I've heard from some skeptics who doubt that there are any new markets. They say, "If these opportunities really existed, someone would have found them by now." I disagree. Their argument assumes that businesses have already studied every possible market for their products. Their attitude reminds me of the old joke about an economist who's walking down the street with a friend. The economist steps over a $10 bill that's lying on the ground. His friend asks him why he didn't take the money. "It couldn't possibly be there," he explains. "If it were, somebody would've picked it up!" Some companies make the same mistake. They think all the $10 bills have already been picked up. It would be a shame if we missed such opportunities, and it would make a huge difference if, instead, researchers and strategists at corporations met regularly with experts on the needs of the poor and talked about new applications for their best ideas.

Beyond finding new markets and developing new products, companies sometimes can benefit by providing the poor with heavily discounted access to products. Industries like software and pharmaceuticals, for example, have very low production costs, so you can come out ahead by selling your product for a bigger profit in rich markets and for a smaller profit, or at cost, in poor ones. Businesses in other industries can't do this tiered pricing, but they can benefit from the public recognition and enhanced reputation that come from serving those who can't pay. The companies involved in the (RED) campaign draw in new customers who want to be associated with a good cause. That might be the tipping point that leads people to pick one product over another.

There's another crucial benefit that accrues to businesses that do good work. They will find it easier to recruit and retain great employees. Young people today — all over the world — want to work for organizations that they can feel good about. Show them that a company is applying its expertise to help the poorest, and they will repay that commitment with their own dedication.

Creating New Incentives
Even so, no matter how hard businesses look or how creatively they think, there are some problems in the world that aren't amenable to solution by existing market incentives. Malaria is a great example: the people who most need new drugs or a vaccine are the least able to pay, so the drugs and vaccines never get made. In these cases, governments and nonprofits can create the incentives. This is the second way in which creative capitalism can take wing. Incentives can be as straightforward as giving public praise to the companies that are doing work that serves the poor. This summer, a Dutch nonprofit called the Access to Medicine Foundation started publishing a report card that shows which pharmaceutical companies are doing the most to make sure that medicines are made for — and reach — people in developing countries. When I talk to executives from pharmaceutical companies, they tell me that they want to do more for neglected diseases — but they at least need to get credit for it. This report card does exactly that.

Publicity is very valuable, but sometimes it's still not enough to persuade companies to get involved. Even the best p.r. may not pay the bill for 10 years of research into a new drug. That's why it's so important for governments to create more financial incentives. Under a U.S. law enacted last year, for example, any drug company that develops a new treatment for a neglected disease like malaria can get a priority review from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for another product it has made. If you develop a new drug for malaria, your profitable cholesterol drug could go on the market as much as a year earlier. Such a priority review could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It's a fantastic way for governments to go beyond the aid they already give and channel market forces so they improve even more lives.

Of course, governments in developing countries have to do a lot to foster capitalism themselves. They must pass laws and make regulations that let markets flourish, bringing the benefits of economic growth to more people. In fact, that's another argument I've heard against creative capitalism: "We don't need to make capitalism more creative. We just need governments to stop interfering with it." There is something to this. Many countries could spark more business investment — both within their borders and from the outside — if they did more to guarantee property rights, cut red tape and so on. But these changes come slowly. In the meantime, we can't wait. As a businessman, I've seen that companies can tap new markets right now, even if conditions aren't ideal. And as a philanthropist, I've found that our caring for others compels us to help people right now. The longer we wait, the more people suffer needlessly.

The Next Step
In june, I moved out of my day-to-day role at Microsoft to spend more time on the work of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. I'll be talking with political leaders about how their governments can increase aid for the poor, make it more effective and bring in new partners through creative capitalism. I'll also talk with CEOs about what their companies can do. One idea is to dedicate a percentage of their top innovators' time to issues that affect the people who have been left behind. This kind of contribution takes the brainpower that makes life better for the richest and dedicates some of it to improving the lives of everyone else. Some pharmaceutical companies, like Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, are already doing this. The Japanese company Sumitomo Chemical shared some of its technology with a Tanzanian textile company, helping it produce millions of bed nets, which are crucial tools in the fight to eradicate malaria. Other companies are doing the same in food, cell phones and banking.

In other words, creative capitalism is already under way. But we can do much more. Governments can create more incentives like the FDA voucher. We can expand the report-card idea beyond the pharmaceutical industry and make sure the rankings get publicity so companies get credit for doing good work. Consumers can reward companies that do their part by buying their products. Employees can ask how their employers are contributing. If more companies follow the lead of the most creative organizations in their industry, they will make a huge impact on some of the world's worst problems.

More than 30 years ago, Paul Allen and I started Microsoft because we wanted to be part of a movement to put a computer on every desk and in every home. Ten years ago, Melinda and I started our foundation because we want to be part of a different movement — this time, to help create a world where no one has to live on a dollar a day or die from a disease we know how to prevent. Creative capitalism can help make it happen. I hope more people will join the cause.

thatllUID: 2538832

【上文翻译】

让资本主义变得更有创新精神
[size=1.1em]简介
比尔盖兹退休以后投身慈善事业, 本文是他就资本主义市场该如何与慈善事业更紧密的联系而展开的论述

在如今这样困难的时期,我们很容易忘记在过去的一个世纪中,世界由于资本主义而变得越来越好.但是,仍然有几十亿的人们并没有从资本主义的奇迹中得到什么好处.下面我们就来说一下该如何帮助他们.

在这经济不确定性的面前,资本主义使得十几亿人的生活得到了改善这个事实是很容易被人忘记的.但是的确还有几十亿人并没有从资本主义中得到什么.他们有很多的需求,但是他们没有办法把他们的需求以一种可以影响市场的方式表达出来.因此他们始终被贫穷所环绕,遭受着原本可以避免的疾病并且生活极其困难.政府和非营利性组织有着不可推卸的责任去帮助他们,但是如果只有他们在独自努力,那将会花费太多的时间.其实那些可以生产高科技创新产品的公司也是有能力帮助生活着贫穷中的人们的.为了要让这些能帮助穷人的产品更大的发挥出它们的功效,我们需要一个更有创新精神的资本主义:尝试让更多的公司在为穷人提供帮助,改善他们生活的同时也能从中获取一定的利益.我们需要一种新的方法来让更多的人参与到资本主义,这个为世界做出诸多贡献的系统中来.

有很多工作需要被完成,但是好消息是创新资本主义已经和我们在一起了.一些公司在穷人中已经确定了全新的,都改变他们生活的市场.另一些公司,在慈善活动家们的一再劝说下,也开始寻找能够双赢的方法.就拿一个真实的例子来说,几年前我和Bono(U2乐队的主唱)一起坐在酒吧里,老实说,那是我觉得他有点神经兮兮的.那天已经很晚了,我们喝了几杯酒以后,Bono精神十足的和我谈起他计划改善全球贫困人民生活的方案.他不断拨打着一些企业首席执行官们的私人号码,并且把电话放到我耳边让我听那些老总们疲惫但是热情的回答.那晚Bono非常疯狂,但就是因为他这样的坚持,使得"红色计划"得以实现.如今,一些企业比如Gap,Hallmark和Dell都有出售标有"红色计划"的产品,并且捐出收入中的一部分来帮助抵制艾滋病.Microsoft最近也加入了这个计划.这是一件伟大的事情:公司们做出自己的贡献,消费者也在购买产品的同时体现出他们是那些弱势群体的关心,而很重要的是将会有更多的生命被拯救.在过去的一年半里,"红色计划"已经在全球募集到一亿美元来对抗艾滋病.帮助提供救命药品给将近8万贫困国家还有肺结核和疟疾的人民,并使得160万人接受了HIV的检查.这就是创新资本主义带来的好处.

创新资本主义并不是什么全新的理念,也不是资本主义的自我批评.它是回答一个重要问题的方式:我们要如何最有效率的扩大资本主义带给人们的利益,如何能大幅的改善那些已经落后的人们的生活?

世界正在变得更好
你很有可能会觉得现在来谈论创新资本主义很可笑,因为我们需要为一加仑汽油支付4美元,很多人还支付不起房屋贷款.的确,毫无疑问如今的经济困难是真实的,人们可以深刻的感受到它们,并且它们需要立刻的得到关注.但是我所说的创新资本主义并不是用来解决短期经济上升下降循环的答案.它是对历史上长期被遗忘在资本主义系统以外人们的一种回应,一种可以在一个世纪内改进他们生活的回应.在过去的100年中,在很多国家,人们对生活的期望有了极大的提高.更多的人参与了投票,表达他们的观点和享受经济上的自由.即使像现在我们面对着这么多的问题,我们仍然处于人类福祉的最高点.世界的的确确在变得越来越好.

但问题是,世界变好得不够快,而且并不是每个人都感觉到世界在变得更好.大约十亿人口仍然过着日收入少于一美元的生活.他们没有足够的有营养的食物,干净的饮用水或者电力设施.那些改善了许许多多人生活的高科技新产品,比如疫苗和微型芯片,与他们大多数人差身而过.

这就是政府和非营利性组织出面的原因.就我个人看来,人性有两种强大的力量:自我获利和关心他人.资本主义的确为人们提供了持久的,有帮助的自我获利的环境,但是除非你能承担得起.政府和慈善机构提供了关心那些支付不起资本主义人们的通道.这样,世界将可以进一步在改善不平等的道路上作出努力,比如艾滋,贫穷和教育问题,只要政府和慈善机构不断的提供更多,更有效率的援助.但是如果我们能把市场的力量引入进来,那这样的改善工作就能变得更快,更有效率,并且持续的更久,包括把我们的创新调整为更适合于贫穷人民的需求.这样我们就能使得政府和慈善机构的努力变得更加完整.我们需要一个能够使创新者和生意人更好参与进来的系统.

自然来说,如果公司打算更进一步投身到这个事业中,那他们一定会需要获得某种程度的回报.这就是创新资本主义的核心所在.创新资本主义不仅仅只是与慈善机构更多的合作,也不是要求公司企业变得品德高尚.创新资本主义是指为他们创造一个真实的动机去将他们的职业技能运用到一个新的地方,并保证他们在帮助他人的同时能够获得一定的回报.这可以通过两个方式做到:公司企业们可以自己来找这样的机会,或者政府和非营利性组织为他们创造这样的机会.

什么被我们遗忘了
就像C.K. Prahalad在他的著作The Fortune at the bottom of the Pyramid(金字塔底端的财富)中所说的那样,世界上到处都有被商业社会忘记的市场.一次研究显示,世界上最贫困的三分之二的人民,他们拥有5兆美金的购买能力.市场力量没有对那些发展中国家有最够大影响的主要原因是我们没有花费足够多的时间去研究那些发展中家人民的需要.而我知道:我看着它在Microsoft发生.许多年前,Microsoft与一些慈善机构合作,带给人们他们无法得到的科技产品,捐赠了3亿美元现金和电脑软件.但是我们真正的专业技术在于编写可以解决问题的程序,我们在最近意识到我们并没有把我们的技术真正的运用到帮助世界的发展中去.所以现在我们把世界上的不平等当作一个商业问题就像其他需要通过慈善机构表达出来的问题一样.我们目前正在发展一种新的电脑界面,文盲或者半文盲可以通过接受最小程度的培训后就可以轻松的使用.我们另外一个项目是可以让一整个班级的学生可以同时使用一台电脑.我们已经制作出一个软件,可以让每个学生分别在屏幕上控制一个颜色不用的鼠标,这样50个小孩就可以同时在同一台电脑上进行操作.这对那些无法购置足够多电脑的学校是一个很好的消息,并且这项工程就开发了一个我们以前不曾触及的市场.

手提电话是另一个很好的例子.目前手机市场在发展中国家正在蓬勃发展,但是从历史上来看,很多公司都大大的低估了这个市场的潜力.在2000年,当Vodafone大量购买了肯尼亚一家手机公司的股份,Vodafone估计他们在肯尼亚市场大约会拥有40万用户.而然今天,那个手机公司Safaricom拥有了超过1000万的用户.这家公司找到了一种新的办法来为肯尼亚的低收入家庭提供服务.他们的客户是根据通话秒数而不是通话分钟数来进行收费的,这样大大降低了用户所要支付的服务费用.Safaricom公司获得了一定的收益,但同时也为改善低收入家庭的生活做出了贡献.肯尼亚的农民们使用手机来寻找附近最好的收购商.很多肯尼亚人用手机来进行存款或者转账,像这样的功能就起到了巨大的作用,因为你带在身上的钱越少,你被打劫的可能性也就越少.

这就是人们如何能在公司找到那些被遗忘的机会后获益的最后例子.但是自从今年早些时候我开始谈论创新资本主义的时候,我听了一些怀疑的声音,他们认为真的有我所说的那些被我们遗忘的,还未开发的市场吗?他们认为如果那样的市场真的存在,应该早就被人发现了.我并不同意这样的说法,他们的理论让我想起了很久以前一则关于经济学家的笑话:一个经济学家一天在路上走,看到地上有一张10美元的纸币,但是他没有把它捡起来却继续往前走.他的朋友问他为什么不捡,那个经济学家回答说那张纸币肯定不是真的,如果是真的那早就被别人拣去了.

一些公司就犯了和那个经济学家一样的错误.他们认为,全世界地面上的10元纸币都已经被捡起来了.就因为这样就失去了一个潜在的市场是多么可惜啊,如果市场的研究者和决策者们能够多于专家们会面,多研究一下贫困地区人民的需要,并将他们的产品合理的应用到那些需求上,那结果会是多么的不同呀.

除了找寻新的潜在市场以外,公司们有时也可以对贫困的地区提高更大的产品折扣.就拿软件和制药工业来说,他们产品的生产成本其实是非常低廉的,所以这些企业可以在富裕的的确以较高的价格出售他们的产品,而在贫困的地区就可以相应以较低的利润出售.当然不是所有企业都可以应用这种策略的,但是他们从中可以获得企业的知名度和社会公众对这个企业的关注程度.就像那些参与了"红色计划"的企业,他们吸引了一批希望帮助贫穷地区人们的消费者,这也是消费者在选择消费对象时候的一个考虑点.

除了以上这些,那些做好事的企业还能获得另一项非常重要的好处.那些企业会发现他们能更容易的获得和保留下优秀的工作人员.如今全世界的年轻人都希望为那些名声好并能给他们自身良好感觉的公司工作.让他们看到公司再为改善贫困地区人民的生活而努力,他们也会做出自己的选择的.

创造新的动机
但是不能不承认,无论公司企业如何努力的寻找新的市场,或者如何努力的进行创新思维,世界上总有些问题无法解决,这时候一个好的动机就成了很好的解决方案.疟疾就是一个很好的例子:那些最需要疟疾药品和疫苗的人们也是最不可能支付的起的人群,所以即使那里有市场,由于无利可图,所以疫苗和药品没有办法被生产.这时候政府和慈善机构就应该创造出一些能够驱动制药公司的动机.这也是创新资本主义能够发挥作用的第二个方面.动机有时候可以很简单,比如说政府公开表扬做善事的公司.今年夏天,一家名叫Access to Medicine Fundation的荷兰慈善机构开展了一个公开化的报告,报告上记载着哪些制药公司为贫困地区的人民提供的药品最多.当我和很多制药企业老总聊天时候了解到,其实他们是想为发展中地区的人民多做点好事的,但是他们也同样认为他们在做好事的同时也应该得到一些表扬或者回报.而那个荷兰慈善机构的公开报告就正好符合了那些制药企业老板的需求.

知名度是非常有价值的,但又是知名度还不足以促使一些公司参与到这个事业中来.即使最好的制药公司也不会投资资金然后花10年来开发新的药品.所以那也是为什么政府制造出一些财政上的动机是如此的重要.一条去年生效的美国法律规定,任何一家制药企业,只要研制出一种新药就可以在政府是食品和药品管理局得到其公司其他药品的优先的评论文章.在政府网站上这样的评论文章可能会价值上百万美元.这就是一个政府创造财政动机的最好例子.

当然,那些发展中的国家和的确也应该培养和发展自己的资本主义.他们应该制定法律法规来使自己的市场兴旺起来,并让更多的人能从中获益.其实,这是我听到的另一个质疑创新资本主义的观点:他们认为我们不需要什么所谓的创新的资本主义,我们只需要政府不要干涉市场就可以了.的确,作为一个商人,我相信如今的资本家们可以在没有政府干预的情况下创造去新的市场,即使在经济环境不是很理想的情况下.但是作为一个慈善家我想说,在有政府一定的干预下,我们能够成功的更快.因为我们拖得时间越长,就会有越多的人受到痛苦.

下一步我们该怎么做
在今年六月,我离开了Micosoft,打算多花一点时间来处理Bill&Melinda Gates基金会的事务.我将会尽可能多的和一些国家的政治领导人进行交流,希望能找出更好更有效率的方式能够援助期国民,并争取通过创新资本主义能让更多的人能参与到这项伟大的事业中来.

另外我也会与一些商业领导们进行交流,找出他们能以什么办法参与善举.目前我有个想法就是让企业中一部分优秀的创新人员能够贡献出自已一部分的时间来为贫困地区的人民做出点贡献.当然这种贡献一定要保证能让富裕的人们的生活变得更好,而同时也能改善贫困地区人民的生活.一些制药公司,比如Merck和Glaxo Smith Kline,已经在进行这项工程了.一家日本公司住友化学

(Sumitomo Chemical),与一家名叫Tanzanian的纺织品公司合作,为贫困地区的人民提供了上百万份的床罩.另外一些公司在食物,手机和银行方面也有相同的作为.

换句话说,创新资本主义已经开始了,但是我们能做的还有更多.政府们可以像美国的食品和药品管理局那样制造出更多的动机.我们也可以像那家荷兰的慈善机构那样扩大荣誉榜单的应用.消费者们也可以主动的多购买那些进行慈善事业企业的产品,从而表示对该企业的支持.如果越来越多的企业能够加入进来,那我们就能更快更好的改善这个世界.

大约30多年以前,Paul Allen和我抱着想让世界上每台电脑都用我们的软件的心愿而建立了Microsoft.大约10年前,Melinda和我抱着想改善这个世界的心愿建立了我们的慈善基金会.如今抱着希望世界上不再有人过着日收入不足1美元的生活的,世界上不再有人遭受那些本可以避免的疾病的困扰的愿望,我号召发展创新资本主义.我相信创新资本主义能够帮助我们最终完成这个梦想.所以我希望能有更多的人能够加入到我们的行列中来.

evantsengUID: 2605919

好贴啊 顶

thatllUID: 2538832

【好文章共欣赏】
7个迹象教你辨别那究竟是爱？还是瘾？
[size=1.1em]

简介
亲密的关系有时会让你进入天堂，有时却会让你跌入地狱！
以下是一些关系成瘾症的迹象，帮你识别你目前的亲密关系是健康的还是病态的
[size=1.1em]

These signs of addictive relationships will help you recognize an unhealthy marriage or partnership - because they can be hard to see, especially when you're in the middle of it.
对于爱情，很多时候，我们都是当局者迷，旁观者清，而以下列出的这7种迹象可以帮助迷失感情中的你分辨出不健康的婚姻状况或者爱情关系。
Some psychologists believe that if you grew up in a dysfunctional home, your chances of being in a dysfunctional or addictive relationship are higher. You feel like you're not worthy of being loved so you settle for a partner who treats you badly. This could be obvious abuse or the less obvious addictive relationship.
有些心理学家认为，如果你从小成长在一个不健全的家庭中，那你自己的感情生活也更容易变得障碍重重或者发展成一种瘾。你会认为自己不值得被人爱，所以，即便你的另一半对你很糟糕，你也会认命而不是抗争。这种顺从的态度反而会导致家庭暴力或演变成关系成瘾症（依赖症）。
What is an Addictive Relationship?
什么是关系成瘾症
According to Terence Gorski inWhy Do I Keep Doing That? an addictive relationship involves one person who is self-centered and extremely independent. This partner (let's call him Selfish Sam - but it could just as easily be Selfish Sally) believes he's entitled to whatever he wants whenever he wants it. He surrounds himself with people who support his opinions of himself. The other partner (we'll call her Dependant Debbie but it could be Dependent Darren) is dependent and other-centered, and willing to mirror whatever the first partner wants. She's simply a reflection of him. This is how addictive relationships work.
在Terence Gorski的 《为什么我要一直这么做？》中是这样定义的：关系成瘾症中的两个人，通常一个是以自我为中心并且相当独立（让我们姑且称他为自私的塞姆），他认为只要他想要的东西就一定要得到。能待在他身边的人，都得是全力支持他所有观点的人。而他的另一半（我们就称他为依赖人的德比）是以他人为中心，很依赖他人，并且很积极的回应伴侣的任何需求。她其实只是他的一个影子。而这就是关系成瘾症的存在模式。
About addictive relationships Gorski says, "It works until the other-centered person runs out of steam one night and doesn't have enough energy to mirror back what is needed. The relationship is going to blow up. Addictive relationships do not necessarily have to have self-centered and other-centered partners, but it's the norm."
Gorski在书中解释到：这样的关系成瘾症会一直存在，直到某一天，两人中以他人为中心的那个彻底的感到精疲力竭，没有任何精力再去回应伴侣的需求，那也就意味着这段关系的崩裂。当然，关系成瘾症中的两个人并不一定总是一个以自己为中心，另一个以他人为中心这样的搭配模式，但这种状况相对比较普遍。

7 Signs of Addictive Relationships
7种迹象帮你识别关系成瘾症
1.Dishonesty.Neither Sam nor Debbie talks about who they are or what's really bothering them. They lie about what they want. This turns communication into an addictive relationship.
1.不坦诚：无论是塞姆还是德比，两人都不会诚实的说出他们是谁或究竟什么在困扰着他们。他们也不会真实的告诉对方他们想要什么。这样的沟通会导致关系成瘾症。
2.Unrealistic expectations.Both Sam and Debbie think the other will solve their self-esteem, body image, family, and existential problems. They believe the "right relationship" will make everything better. Yet, they're in a disastrous addictive relationship.
2.不现实的期待：两人都认为对方会解决关于自尊、个人形象、家庭等存在的任何问题。他们都天真的相信这种‘良好的关系’可以让一切都变得越来越好，而事实上，他们已经深陷糟糕透顶的关系成瘾症中。
3.Instant gratification.Sam expects Debbie to be there for him whenever he needs her; he needs her to make him happy immediately. He's using her to make him feel good, and isn't relating to her as a partner or even a human being. She's a like drug. An addictive relationship drug.
3.即时满足：塞姆期待德比会永远在那儿听任他调遣，他需要她随时随刻逗自己开心。他把她当成一个可以让他自我感觉良好的工具，而不是把她当成与他平等的伴侣，甚至，不是把她当成人类。她更像一枚麻药，关系成瘾的麻药。
4.Compulsive control.Debbie has to act a certain way, or Sam will threaten to leave her. Both feel pressure to stay in this addictive relationship; neither feel like they're together voluntarily.
4.强制控制：因为塞姆总威胁德比会离开她，所以德比不得不总以某种模式顺从。两个人在这种成瘾的关系中其实都感到了压力，都觉得俩人待在一起是被强制的，而不是自愿的。
5.Lack of trust.Neither partner trusts the other to be there when the chips are down. They don't believe the other really loves them, and they don't believe genuine caring or liking exists. At some level they know they're not in a healthy but rather in an addictive relationship.
5.缺乏信任：两个人彼此都认为在危机关头，对方会薄情寡义的抛弃自己。他们都不相信对方是真的爱自己，也不相信彼此间存在真诚的关心或联系。在某种程度上，他们意识到双方的关系并不健康，但他们宁愿还是选择继续沉迷在这种成瘾的关系中。
6.Social isolation.Nobody else is invited into their relationship – not friends, family, or work acquaintances. People in addictive relationships want to be left alone.
6.社交隔离：两人都不会邀请别人介入他们的生活–没有朋友，亲人，甚至工作中的熟人。关系成瘾症中的两人只喜欢这样被隔离般的独自的生活。
8.Cycle of pain.Sam and Debbie are trapped in a cycle of pleasure, pain, disillusionment, blaming, and reconnection. The cycle repeats itself until one partner breaks free of the addictive relationship.
8.循环的痛苦：塞姆和德比被困到了一个无休止的循环中–快乐，痛苦，幻灭，责备，之后再次和好….。这样的循环会一直重复着，直到其中一个人想彻底打破这样成瘾的关系，获得自由。
Addictive relationships can change, if both partners are self-aware and willing to do what it takes. In some cases an objective viewpoint (such as counseling) helps; other times, self-control and mutual accountability are all that's needed to turn the addictive relationship around.
如果两人能意识到这种关系的不健康，并且愿意去面对，那关系成瘾症也是可以改变的。在一些案例中，客观的建议（例如咨询）也有助于症状的治疗。除此，自我控制以及共同的责任感也是有效治疗的关键。

thatllUID: 2538832

【好文章共欣赏】
10 Things Never to do in a Marriage

-----Transform a relationship mired in negativity into one based on trust and safety.

by Dr. Michael Tobin

Love is a very delicate feeling. It flees from an atmosphere filled with blame, anger and sarcasm and grows in an environment of respect, acceptance and honesty. The following 10 marital proscriptions -- if followed consciously and conscientiously-- will transform a relationship mired in negativity into one based on trust and safety.

Why a list of marital taboos rather than a positive "to do" list of marital suggestions? The following Talmudic story answer the question:

A non-believer confronted the great sage Hillel, the Elder, and demanded that he teach him the entire Torah while standing on one foot. Hillel agreed and said the following: "What's hateful to yourself don't do to another. Everything else is commentary. Now go and learn." Many commentators have wondered why he chose to answer in the negative rather than quoting the famous Biblical proscription "To love thy neighbor as thyself."

My understanding is quite simple. We understand what it is that hurts us; we've experienced how painful a critical statement or disdainful look can feel; we've seen how one negative comment can harm or even destroy a relationship and we know that the negative things that we do or that are done to us can far outweigh our or others' positive behaviors.

Therefore, the first step in improving a relationship is to eradicate the negative behaviors that continually pollute the marital environment. It doesn't help to plant rose bushes in a toxic waste field. First, we have to clean up the poison and then we can beautify the area. The more we sensitize ourselves to the subtle ways that we have hurt our partners, the more we enable our feelings of love to blossom.

As you read each of the following10 Things, I encourage you to practice the exercises. The challenge of marriage demands a commitment to the three P's -- practice, persistence and patience. Just do it, and you'll begin to see the benefit. Even if only one of the partners in the relationship makes a concerted effort to change, the results will still be quite significant.

1. DON'T TAKE YOUR PARTNER FOR GRANTED

Marriage is probably the most effective and challenging training program for developing character. Many of the encounters we have with our partners afford us an opportunity to practice self-control, kindness and respect. At any given moment, for example, you could be confronted with a choice between lashing out in anger or communicating your resentment. At another moment, the choice might be between taking your partner for granted or expressing appreciation.

You're either taking your spouse for granted or your acknowledging her kindness. There's no middle ground.

The injunction to stop taking your partner for granted is unique among the 10 Things. The only way to fulfill it is by performing a positive act, namely showing appreciation. You're either taking your spouse for granted or your acknowledging her kindness. There's no middle ground. It is also the best means for overcoming selfishness. In order to reach the point where you have a real desire to express appreciation you have to uproot three negative attitudes -- a sense of entitlement, unrealistic expectations and conscious amnesia.

Entitlement is that sense that whatever you do for me I deserve, so why bother thanking you. It's the attitude that my needs come first and it's your job to meet them. Closely aligned with a sense of entitlement is the attitude that if I expect it, you're obligated to do it. With entitlement and expectations, we relate to our partners as if they are extensions of ourselves, not unlike a baby's relationship to his mother's breast. When he cries, he expects to be fed immediately. Conscious amnesia or mindlessness is the art of ignoring or forgetting the obvious. We become oblivious to those small and large kindnesses that our partners do for us. I suspect a sense of entitlement or expectation leads to a state of conscious amnesia.

If you wish to know if you're taking your partner for granted, then I suggest you ask yourself the following question: Are you as polite, kind and considerate to your partner as you are to a casual acquaintance or to a colleague? For most of us, the answer is no. So, ask yourself this question: How would you feel if your partner treated you impolitely, ignored your kindnesses and was inconsiderate of your needs? Before answering, remember the words of Hillel the Elder, "What's hateful to you, don't do to another."

Exercise

Record those things that your partner does for you -- both large and small. Try to include everything from the cup of coffee he makes for you in the morning to the efficient way that she manages the finances.

Ask yourself, "Among those things that your partner does for you, do you show appreciation and in what manner do you express it?" Most likely, you'll discover that for a good of portion of the kindnesses on the list you've probably never expressed your gratitude.

Try committing yourself to a week of expressing your appreciation and notice the change. You might even consider writing a letter of appreciation to your partner.

2. DON'T MIND-READ

Don't assume that you know what your partner is thinking and feeling. There's a good chance you could be wrong, and wrong assumptions cause unnecessary conflict.

Imagine this situation. You walk into the living room and there's your husband sitting on his favorite chair glaring at the wall. His lips are tight; his jaw is clenched. Your immediate reaction: fear! "What did I do? Why is he so angry at me?" You tentatively approach him, "What's the matter, David?" you ask, expecting him to pour his wrath upon you. David slowly turns toward you. The tense, angry look begins to melt and he says sadly, "I've been laid off." "Thank God," you almost blurt out, "at least it wasn't me."

In this case, the woman checked out her assumptions and discovered that her husband wasn't upset with her. Yet, how often does it happen that we make the wrong assumptions and just go on believing them without ever discovering if they're true?

It often happens during the process of marital therapy that assumptions, illusions and fantasies are exposed as false or only partially true. For example, the angry, critical husband who supposedly hates his wife might in fact be an insecure man who is convinced that his wife doesn't love him. Perhaps, as in one case that I know of, a distant, rejecting wife turned out to be a very sad woman, grieving the loss of her mother. Don't assume. Check it out.

Exercise

Take a piece of paper and without thinking too much about it, complete the following sentence: "I assume that my partner thinks or feels.... about me."

After you compile your list, try checking out your assumptions.

I suspect that you'll discover that many of your assumptions are incorrect. However, it is possible that your partner will acknowledge the validity of some of your assumptions. This may be painful but it's far better to deal with reality than unverified assumptions. At least now, you have the possibility of resolving the issue.

3. DON'T BLAME

How easy it is to say, "It's your fault. You made me do it. It's because of you that things are so bad between us. You're the reason I feel so miserable." It's so hard to look at ourselves and ask, "What's my part in creating the difficulties between us?"

It's so hard to look at ourselves and ask, "What's my part in creating the difficulties between us?"

Blaming is a form of disempowerment. In essence, when I blame I am saying to my partner that she controls my feelings and behavior. My relationship to her is like that of Pavlov's dog -- the bell rings, the dog salivates. My wife forgets to say hello, and I blow up.

When we blame, we deny our partner the opportunity to think seriously about our words and to respond in a thoughtful manner. Instead of expressing our legitimate grievances and feelings, we accuse and threaten, which only invites a similar response. The result is either a skirmish or an all out war, and, as we so painfully understand, all is fair in love and war and marriage is both.

So, what's the antidote to blaming? The answer is simple: Take responsibility for yourself. Putting it into practice, however, is a challenge. It's hard to give up that feeling of being right. It's so difficult to let go of that need to force a confession out of our partners. I'll let you in on a marital truth: Being "right" in a relationship is the booby prize. You win; the relationship loses. If you want the relationship to win, try looking hard at what your part is in creating the conflict. Ask yourself, "What am I doing to create distance and hurt?"

Exercise

Write a list of all the ways you blame your spouse. For example, "It's because of you that the house is a mess" or "You're the reason Sara is running around with a bad crowd. It's because you never spend any time with her."

Take a good hard look at yourself and record what you're responsible for.

Look for solutions in each of these situations. In the last example, she might consider telling her husband, "I'm worried that Sara is running around with a bad crowd. I'd like to talk about what we can do about it." She might be pleasantly surprised to discover that when approached respectfully, her husband, on his own, will realize that he needs to spend more time with his daughter.

4. DON'T INTERPRET

Think about how you would feel if your partner were to tell you, "Now I understand why you're so critical. You're just like your father. I'm sure he was even more critical of you than you are of me." Would you experience this so-called analysis of your behavior as helpful, as contributing to your self-knowledge and personal development?

I think the answer is self-evident. The words might appear to contain insightful information, but, in fact, they are resentments cloaked in a garment of objective concern. You might believe you understand your partner's deepest motivations and the subtlest nuances of his behavior, and you might think you're being objective and helpful when you interpret his behavior, but I can tell you that nobody who is deeply involved in a relationship can maintain professional distance. More often than not, our interpretations come from a place of self-interest and a desire to change our partners.

I don't want my wife to interpret what I think and feel. I want her to listen.

Perhaps, you're like me. I don't want my wife to interpret what I think and feel. I want her to listen. I want her to hear. I want her to respond as a friend, as someone who is concerned about me. I want her to help me to understand myself by reflecting back what I am saying and by identifying the feelings that I am expressing.

Therefore, in order to avoid interpreting, let me suggest the following two antidotes: First, be clear about your resentments and be careful not to express them covertly through an analysis of your partner's behavior. Second, listen in an open, loving manner.

Exercise

The next time your partner talks to you, work extra hard at trying to understand her. Practice active listening by non-verbally indicating that you're hearing him. You can do this by maintaining eye contact and holding your partner's hand or embracing her in a caring, non-sexual manner.

Periodically, respond with supportive statements that acknowledge how your partner feels. An example might be, "I understand how angry you are at your boss. If I were you, I'd sure be furious."

5. DON'T SAY YES WHEN YOU MEAN NO

We're often afraid to say no to our partners. Perhaps, you're scared that she'll become angry, or, maybe, if you were to say "I'm sorry, I just don't want to do that," he'd be disappointed and you'd start feeling guilty. So, instead of asserting ourselves and saying what we want, we end up doing the opposite and feeling resentful. The problem with saying yes when we mean no is that we stop being real in the relationship. There's no intimacy in a relationship without honesty.

Becoming other-centered and giving does not mean that you have to sacrifice your feelings, wants and needs in order to satisfy your partner. If you do, you may very well feel resentful or distant. By expressing your true feelings and desires to your spouse, you enable him to relate to the real you rather than to some fictitious version of what you think he wants. The same Hillel, the Elder, whom I quoted earlier, said something very relevant and profound: "If I am not for me who am I? And, if I am for myself alone, what am I? And if not now, when?"

It may be that when you start to say no when you mean no, you'll say yes when you mean yes and your spouse might feel safer knowing that he can trust what you're saying. More likely, however, the change in your behavior will at first be threatening to your partner. Remember he's not used to your honesty. She might be painfully surprised to learn that not all your yeses were indeed yeses.

It's important to know that any time you change the rules in a relationship there's bound to be conflict. That's okay. Conflict is often necessary for a relationship to grow. Through conflict, two people can create a deeper understanding of one another and develop a stronger bond.

If you already have a strong connection with your spouse, then your commitment to honesty will only deepen that relationship. If you don't, I recommend that you proceed carefully. Before you start being totally honest, try assessing what your partner's reaction will be. Some couples may need professional guidance to help them make the transition from a relationship based on wanting the other's approval to a relationship grounded in truth. The process of reaching a deeper level of honesty is often bumpy, but once you arrive, it's well worth it.

Exercise

Write the following on a piece of paper: "I'm afraid to tell my partner...."

Prioritize the list, one being the easiest of your truths to reveal, two the second easiest and so on.

Imagine approaching your partner and telling him or her the truth. Notice how you feel as you do that. Try breathing easily and gently tell yourself to relax. When you're able to visualize speaking to your partner, then take the risk to do it in reality. Start with the easiest (1) and go down your list.

thatllUID: 2538832

【接上文】

6. Don't Use Silence As A Weapon

Silence is a deadly weapon. It's far better for a couple to engage in a non-violent, verbal fight where at least they can express what's bothering them than to resort to an icy silence where all they can do is imagine how many different ways they're angry with one other.

Silence is a form of emotional banishment. We punish our partners by cutting them off and refusing to acknowledge their existence. An angry silence communicates the message that my partner is the guilty party and if she wishes any further contact with me, then she will have to apologize and ask for my forgiveness. It is a powerful form of control and manipulation and has no place in a marriage.

Therefore, in order to resolve conflicts effectively, you need to learn how to express resentments in a way that can be heard, acknowledged and resolved. That skill is of utmost importance in a marriage; without it, small problems become major catastrophes.

So, how do you learn to say all those things that are so hard to say? And, how do you say them to a partner who may be reactive? There are no simple answers and like with the previous injunction of "Don't Say Yes, When You Mean No," you may need to seek professional help to learn how to resolve your marital difficulties. However, before you make that decision try the following exercise to help you to express your anger.

Exercise

• Write a list of your resentments in the following way: "I resent you for x."
• Write a letter to your partner about what's bothering you. Try to start from a positive, loving place. Be careful not to blame or accuse. If you are aware of what your part is in creating problems, tell him. Your partner will be much more open to looking at his part if he feels you're doing the same. Here is a small sample of a potential letter:

Dear David,

I feel a real need to talk about us. I love you and want our marriage to work. What I'm about to tell you might hurt you. It's not my intention. What I want to do is for us to be close. But there are things I want to get off my chest. Please think about what I'm writing and try hard not to react with anger.

This is hard for me but here goes. I am upset with you for...

We all know that anger is a powerful emotion that can destroy a relationship. Thus, learning how to master your negative feelings is an essential skill for creating a wonderful relationship. The first step to controlling your anger, rather than having your anger control you, is to recognize your resentments and to express them before they reach a toxic level. When you give yourself permission to let go of these three obstacles to good communication, you will have made a giant leap toward creating a loving marriage.

7. Don't Act Out

Acting out is indirectly expressing feelings and emotions through behavior. For example, a teenage girl might act out by failing in school or using drugs or alcohol as a way of expressing her anger towards her parents. She's afraid to express her true feelings so she resorts to attention-getting behaviors that alarm and infuriate her parents. Acting out behavior, as provocative as it can be, is really an unconscious and awkward attempt at establishing a relationship.
There is no end to the ways that we have of saying, "I'm really angry at you."

In marriage, couples act out by making messes, by withdrawing, by being emotionally and physically abusive, by becoming depressed, by being irresponsible with money and even by attempting suicide. There is no end to the ways that we have of saying, "I'm really angry at you."

One of the most common forms of acting out behavior is by being passive aggressive. Some typical examples of passive aggressive behavior are promising to do something and then failing to do it, leaving your clothes strewn around the room, being irresponsible with money, playing helpless and being uninterested in marital relations.

So, what is the solution for acting out behavior? The answer, not surprisingly, is direct communication -- learning how to say to your partner what's really on your mind. Acting out behavior masks the real problem and instead focuses the couple on the behavior itself.

To practice your skill at direct communication, try the following exercise:

Exercise

• Find a quiet, comfortable place where you will not be disturbed for 30 minutes.
• Close your eyes and breathe easily and effortlessly. Stay focused on your breathing. In a relaxed manner, observe your breath as you inhale and exhale.
• After a few minutes ask yourself the following question: "What is it that I do that bothers my partner?" For example, it might be the mess you leave; the way you spend money, or your lateness. Be honest with yourself.
• After you've become aware of these behaviors, write them down. Ask yourself if you wish to continue to use these methods to express your feelings. If the answer is "No," then ask yourself, "What purpose do these behaviors serve and what would be a more effective way of communicating the feelings that these behaviors are expressing?
• Be aware that this process might uncover some deep hurts and resentments. Remember that dealing with the truth is ultimately the only way to heal your relationship. Be careful not to dump all of your negative feelings on your partner at once.

8. Don't Discount

A discount is a remark designed to reduce your partner's self worth. Some examples of discounting statements are: "You're so lazy." "You're irresponsible and untrustworthy." "You're a terrible father and an awful husband." It's amazing how creative we can be when it comes to identifying our partner's blemishes. Most likely, each one of us can compile a detailed list of our partners' bad habits, unacceptable character traits and generally difficult behaviors. In the midst of an argument, the temptation to use this information can be overwhelmingly powerful.

Try to resist. If not, you can be sure your partner will react in one of two ways: he or she will either respond in kind or deny. Neither reaction solves problems or creates intimacy.

Instead of making angry statements that begin with "You," try making "I" statements. Examples of "I" statements are: "I feel angry when..." "I resent it when you do such and such a thing..." Not "You are such an idiot! "You are such a slob!" "You always leave messes!" "You're just like your mother. Both of you are disorganized incompetents." Her behavior won't change because of that piece of feedback.

However, it might, if you were to say, "You know, Greg, it bothers me when the house is not clean. I know you're busy and I know it's hard for you but I would appreciate it if you could clean it up." Now, I'm not promising that he won't be defensive, but I do believe he'll be less reactive than if you were to criticize him for his sloppy behavior.

Exercise

• Make a list of all the angry "you" statements that you can think of.
• Change the "you" statements into "I" statements by writing "I feel x (your feeling) when you do y (your partner's behavior).
• Practice making "I" statements with your partner.

9. Don't Threaten

The creative and destructive potentials of a marital relationship are enormous. Even the most loving relationship can degenerate into a vicious struggle between bitter enemies. In this dangerous marital game, nothing is sweeter than getting even and the only thing that counts is winning. Verbal and physical threats and abuse become the weapons of marital discord.
Under no circumstances whatsoever will I at any time make a verbal or physical threat toward my spouse.

The only advice you can give to a couple that is engaged in such a struggle is: Seek professional help or, in the case of physical abuse, find immediate protection. Fortunately, most of us are not contestants in such a fierce and destructive battle. More than that, I'm assuming that each of you wants to learn how to create a peaceful and loving relationship. If so, let me be bold enough to offer a stern warning. Never threaten your partner or act in any way that frightens, intimidates or abuses her.

No matter how angry you are, make the following pledge to yourself:
Under no circumstances whatsoever will I at any time make a verbal or physical threat toward my spouse.
If it's not clear to you what a threat is, let me define it as any statement, gesture or act that is designed to create physical or emotional pain in your partner. A partner who threatens is a partner who feels deeply hurt and wounded by his spouse. The only way she knows to relieve her suffering is by making her spouse feel as miserable as she. If getting even seems more important than being heard, then you're one small step from a dangerous crisis.

If I were to ask most couples in an abusive relationship if they really want to hurt each other, they would invariably respond with the following answers: "No, I just get so frustrated when she doesn't hear me that I just lose it." Or, "I hate what's happening to us, but I've tried so hard to get him to understand me and he just refuses to listen. So, now all I want to do is hurt him." Out of pain and frustration, some couples resort to emotional and physical violence, believing it to be the only way they can protect themselves.

Exercise

If you find yourself filled with anger toward your spouse, then do the following rage reduction exercise. However, before proceeding I want to offer a word of caution. It may be necessary for you and your partner to receive professional help in order to learn how to manage your deep resentments. Additionally, in the case of physical abuse, the only solution is to seek immediate help and shelter.

• Go into a room where you won't be disturbed and with either your hands or with a tennis racket beat a pillow until you feel your rage dissipating. It might be helpful to yell or scream as you're beating the pillow. I would only recommend you do that if no one will hear you.
• Next, list all the ways you resent your partner. Start each sentence with "I resent you for..."
• Write a letter to your partner and tell him or her what's bothering you. Try not to blame but write about your hurt and loneliness and about what's missing in the relationship.

10. Don't Triangulate

In some ways a couple in conflict instinctively behaves like two nations preparing for war. In each case, the warring parties create alliances in order to strengthen their respective positions. Where they differ is that a couple in conflict sometimes develops those alliances unconsciously.

In a relationship, the partner that feels the most discomfort eventually withdraws from the other and finds a third person who functions as a supportive ally. In the lingo of marital psychology, this is called
triangulation.
For example, a wife who is feeling lonely and cut off from her husband might increase her involvement with one or more of the children as a way of decreasing her unhappiness. A child who is especially sensitive to the suffering of one of the parents might decide to become that parent's "caregiver". A child in that role usually feels torn apart and on some level resentful about having to parent the parent.
As long as there are triangles, it's impossible for a couple to deal directly with the source of their problem.

Sometimes a teenager who is acting out will unconsciously stabilize the relationship between the parents. It is as if the teen has super radar that picks up on the parents' marital distress and responds by drawing each of them away from their marital problems toward his drug abuse or her school failure. There is no end to the creative ways children can act out in order to divert their parents from dealing with the uncomfortable truth about their marriage.

As long as there are triangles, it's impossible for a couple to deal directly with the source of their problem. It is an obstacle to intimacy and real marital love. However, it's difficult for the partner and the third person to withdraw from their involvement with one another.

The cure for triangulation is trust and intimacy. The question is: How does a couple whose relationship is marked by conflict, rejection and mistrust turn it around? If there's no trust, how do you develop a trusting relationship? I am going to propose the following steps to help you move in that direction:

Exercise

• Identify with whom you are triangulated and make an effort to reduce the level of emotional involvement with that individual.
• Be straight about what's missing in your marriage. Write down what you would like to change in your relationship. For example, if you hardly spend any time with one another, you might write, "I would like to spend one evening a week alone with you."
• Write a letter to your partner and tell him or her what's bothering you about the relationship. Avoid blaming and write about how you would like to improve the marriage.
• After a few days, approach your partner and try to talk about what you've written. If the response is positive, then begin the work on improving your relationship. You may need professional help to succeed. If your partner is willing, look for a competent marital therapist.

There is a consistent, underlying assumption that forms the basis for theTen Things: there are specific principles and skills in marriage and that everyone is capable of learning them. A beautiful marriage is within the reach of most couples who choose to make their relationship a priority and who are willing to commit themselves to a lifelong training program on how to create love and happiness in their lives.

daney68UID: 2582640

146# Frances0412 恩，我改为精听了，听写我几乎还没有开始，恩，接下来应该是用delta来听写
thatll 发表于 2009-8-1 09:00

请问楼主，听写和听抄在操作上有什么区别没？

thatllUID: 2538832

178# daney68
这是你自己的定义啊，我怎么知道，在我看来这两者毫无区别啊，就是差一个字

thatllUID: 2538832

【有人认为比较难下手的作文题，让我们来头脑风暴吧】

1，朋友说假话来保持友谊的好还是说真话的好Letting a friend make mistake is better than doing something that may destroy the friendship.070630（我觉得他中文翻译的和英文对不上……）

2，the modern life is more and more complex, it is essential for young people to have the ability to plan and organize.070721

3，The extended family 070922
家庭（包括grandparent, cousin, aunts, uncles）相比过去更加不重要？

4，does study of animals help us to learn human nature?071027学习动物是否帮助我们了解人类本性？

（人类实际上是一种高种动物，与动物在一些本质上是没有分别的，只是动物的世界相比较人类世界而言没有那么复杂。）

5，071111你同不同意“大多数广告使产品看上去比它们实际的要好”？

6，People will spend less time on preparing and cooking food in twenty years than today.
在今后的20年里，人们用于做饭的时间将会越来越短。

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement, people will spend less time preparing and cooking in 20 years?

071124

7，071208广告对于公司来说是否是一种能源和金钱的浪费，因为顾客知道自己想要买什么？

8，080105一个聪明的朋友比一个幽默的朋友更重要？

9，080113对于不能在高难度课程中达到top grade的学生来说，学习高难度课程好吗？Difficult classes

10，080118当人们完成一件难度较高的事物时比完成较简单的事物更高兴？

11，Many high school and university require students work projects on group, and all the members get the same grade(mark ) on the group. disagree or agree.
Nowadays each group member get same grade(mark), Is it a good method to evaluate students? 080119

12，Agree or disagree：people spend too much time on enjoyment- dong things people like to do- rather than what they should do

080308有些人花太多时间在他们喜欢的事情上而不是他们应当做的事情上？

13，080314
环境问题太复杂所以无法个人解决？

14，Government should pay more attention on healthy care issues than on environmental issues.  应该投资环保还是医疗健康防护。080426

15，Technology cause children show less creative than they were in past. 080504技术使孩子比过去更加缺少创造力？

16，080509是应该放更多的钱在access internet 上，而不是public transportation 同意还是不要?

17，080510政府应该把钱投入到艺术方面还是应该把钱投资入运动方面，比如国家奥林匹克队

18，Good looks and dresses are more important for success than good ideas. Agree or disagree?080621

19，The most important thing governments should do to improve health care is to clean up the environment.

A or D:
要保证人们健康的话，最重要的是governments try to clean the environment.080622

20，do you agree or disagree: people should live in the city or country all life instead of moving to another place.人们在一生当中应只住在一个地方，而不是去别的地方。080628

21，Parents understand their children not as well today as 50 years ago.
parents do not understand children as today well as they understood children 50 years ago。

是否同意与50年前相比，现在的小孩更不容易被父母理解
Writing: parents understand their children better than 50 years ago?

2. The independent writing
   Do you agree or disagree that:
The parents do not understand their children as well today as parents understood their children 50 years ago. 080711

22，driver should pay a fee for driving in the busy city streets during the daytime?080712