文章 - - 文章列表 - 普通

克鲁格的电影不是9小时而是9个半小时

几个月前，坠入深渊的可能性似乎实在太真实。在某些方面，2008年末的金融恐慌严重程度堪比20世纪30年代的银行业恐慌，而且有段时间，主要经济指标—－世界贸易、世界工业生产、甚至是股票价格—－都在以1929-30年或更快的速度下滑。

最近华尔街银行家的收入经过下降以后，又回到了2007年的水平。其实从1930年到1980年代，银行的工作跟其他工作相比，薪水并不是特别高，为什么到了90年代就突然飞涨？伯南克认为是因为包括房产次贷的“金融创新”。克鲁格曼用清晰易懂的英文表达了他对伯南克的批驳。

强硬右翼--现在差不多就是共和党的同义词--处理执不同意见学者时有一套常规手法：别管实质内容，赶紧给对方抹黑(smear)。要求获取克罗农邮件副本就是希望能从中得到能按常规处理克罗农的一些东西，甚至任何东西。

今年的诺贝尔经济学奖获得者保罗·克鲁格曼教授是奥巴马的支持者。奥巴马当选后，克鲁格曼于11月7日发表文章，表达对非裔首次当选美国总统的激动和自豪。更重要的是，他敦促奥巴马切勿听信要他延缓政策变化的建议，分析了坚持选战中提出的激进改革议程的可能性和必须性，并提出了奥巴马新政或者说新新政(the new New Deal)的口号。（高乐成译，人文与社会编辑小组校订）。--人文与社会

谈奥巴马的新预算。

Confronting the MalefactorsBy PAUL KRUGMANPublished: October 6, 2011 New York TimesIs It Effective to Occupy Wall Street?The protesters are getting more attention and expanding outside New York. What are they doing right, and what are they missing?When the Occupy Wall Street protests began three weeks ago, most news organizations were derisive if they deigned to mention the events at all. For example, nine days into the protests, National Public Radio had provided no coverage whatsoever.It is, therefore, a testament to the passion of those involved that the protests not only continued but grew, eventually becoming too big to ignore. With unions and a growing number of Democrats now expressing at least qualified support for the protesters, Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.What can we say about the protests? First things first: The protesters’ indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right.A weary cynicism, a belief that justice will never get served, has taken over much of our political debate — and, yes, I myself have sometimes succumbed. In the process, it has been easy to forget just how outrageous the story of our economic woes really is. So, in case you’ve forgotten, it was a play in three acts.In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending. In the second act, the bubbles burst — but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the bankers’ sins. And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had saved them, throwing their support — and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts — behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath of the crisis.Given this history, how can you not applaud the protesters for finally taking a stand?Now, it’s true that some of the protesters are oddly dressed or have silly-sounding slogans, which is inevitable given the open character of the events. But so what? I, at least, am a lot more offended by the sight of exquisitely tailored plutocrats, who owe their continued wealth to government guarantees, whining that President Obama has said mean things about them than I am by the sight of ragtag young people denouncing consumerism.Bear in mind, too, that experience has made it painfully clear that men in suits not only don’t have any monopoly on wisdom, they have very little wisdom to offer. When talking heads on, say, CNBC mock the protesters as unserious, remember how many serious people assured us that there was no housing bubble, that Alan Greenspan was an oracle and that budget deficits would send interest rates soaring.A better critique of the protests is the absence of specific policy demands. It would probably be helpful if protesters could agree on at least a few main policy changes they would like to see enacted. But we shouldn’t make too much of the lack of specifics. It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details.Rich Yeselson, a veteran organizer and historian of social movements, has suggested that debt relief for working Americans become a central plank of the protests. I’ll second that, because such relief, in addition to serving economic justice, could do a lot to help the economy recover. I’d suggest that protesters also demand infrastructure investment — not more tax cuts — to help create jobs. Neither proposal is going to become law in the current political climate, but the whole point of the protests is to change that political climate.And there are real political opportunities here. Not, of course, for today’s Republicans, who instinctively side with those Theodore Roosevelt-dubbed “malefactors of great wealth.” Mitt Romney, for example — who, by the way, probably pays less of his income in taxes than many middle-class Americans — was quick to condemn the protests as “class warfare.”But Democrats are being given what amounts to a second chance. The Obama administration squandered a lot of potential good will early on by adopting banker-friendly policies that failed to deliver economic recovery even as bankers repaid the favor by turning on the president. Now, however, Mr. Obama’s party has a chance for a do-over. All it has to do is take these protests as seriously as they deserve to be taken.And if the protests goad some politicians into doing what they should have been doing all along, Occupy Wall Street will have been a smashing success.

诺贝尔经济奖得主克鲁曼专栏：为反对而反对的恶意政治 上星期国际奥林匹克委员会把争取主办2016年夏季奥运的芝加哥打回票，欧巴马总统称之为受教的一刻。不过，据一名保守派刊物《标准周刊》的员工贴的部落格文章说，标准周刊的总部「爆出欢呼声」，该部落格文章标题则是「欧巴马输了！欧巴马输了！」激进保守派名嘴林博说自己「兴高采烈」。新闻网站「卓奇报导」得意洋洋：「世人回绝欧巴马」。诸如此类言论，繁多不及记载。所以我们从这一刻学到什么？其中之一是，如今主导共和党的当代保守运动，情绪成熟度像个13岁顽童。更重要的是此事说明了美国政治情势少不了的真相：当前我国两大政党之一的指导原则纯为愤恨。任何事情只要对总统有好处，共和党就反它，不管此事能否造福美国。当然，欢庆美国被国际奥委会回绝是很孩子气，但没造成任何实质损害。但同样的愤恨原则决定了共和党对更多严肃事情的立场，可能有严重后果，尤其是就健保改革辩论的立场。现在，可以理解许多共和党议员反对民主党的扩大健保纳保计画，就如同布希总统试图把社会安全福利金转为某种大规模401k退休金，被大多数民主党议员反对一样。毕竟，两党对政府适当角色的见解互异。但两党战术有所不同。2005年，民主党反对社会安全福利制度私有化时，他们的主张符合其基本的意识型态：他们声称以私人帐户取代有保障的福利，会害已退休者冒太多险。对照之下，共和党反对健保改革的做法看不出有这样的理念连贯。共和党主要的进攻路线，是宣称健保改革会戕害联邦医疗保险，其所言的根据主要是关于死亡审定小组的谎言云云。这样的攻击路线完全不符共和党传统，也和保守派所称的信念扞格。想一想，共和党自我定位为无限制的联邦医疗保险支出的捍卫者，有多怪异。第一个原因，是当前的共和党自命为雷根党，而雷根强烈反对创立联邦医疗保险，警告说它会毁了美国的自由。1990年代，前联邦众议院议长金瑞契企图大砍联邦医疗保险经费。近年，共和党再三抨击国民应得福利支出增加，增加大致是因为健保成本上升所致。但欧巴马政府的扩大纳保计画，一部分仰赖联邦医疗保险节约的经费。由于共和党反对所有可能对欧巴马有利的事，它就沦为无效医疗处置和给保险业者过高给付的热情守护者。我们的一大政党何以变的如此无情？这么愿意拥护焦土战术，即使如此做会损害所有未来政府治国的能力？关键在于自从雷根主政以来，共和党一直是激进派天下，这伙人根本不接受任何其他人有治国权利。任何对这种恶意、过度反欧巴马的情形感到意外者，一定已经忘了柯林顿当家时的情况。还记得林博提出希拉蕊·柯林顿是杀人共犯？还记得金瑞契让联邦政府无法运作，企图霸凌柯林顿总统，逼小柯接受删减联邦医疗保险经费？更别提共和党企图弹劾柯林顿时的行径。现在唯一不同之处，是共和党屈居下风，不仅失去国会主导地位，在议题辩论上亦然。公众不再像以前一样买保守派意识型态的帐，昔时对大政府的攻讦、对市场魔力的称许，已乏人共鸣。然而保守派仍相信，只有他们才该当家。结果产生愤世嫉俗、只求目的却不择手段的做法。共和党认为唯有让「正当的」执政党重新掌权的一天早日到来才重要，因此他们一有机会就穷追猛打现在的政府。这样的场面真难看，但真相如此。任何想为美国当前的真正问题寻求解决之道的人，都必须了解这个真相。（作者Paul Krugman是纽约时报专栏作家╱夏嘉玲摘译）

就像4/3个世纪以前的法兰克林.罗斯福总统所面临的一样,你即将在这个信念和传统智慧土崩瓦解的时刻走马上任.我们所面临的世界不是你或任何人可以想象的.很多总统面临过各种危机,但很少有总统在他就职的第一天,就要被迫处理如此空前绝后的目前美国眼下的危机.

占领华尔街抗议运动是否会改变美国的方向还需时日才能确认，但这些抗议已经引发了来自华尔街的歇斯底里反应，也就是来自那些超级富豪，那些为最富有的0.01%阶层忠诚服务的政客和学究

《南方周末》专访，比较泛泛，媒体采访访华学者的通病。

财富与权力的转移引起了不同社会领域的大规模调整，其中就包括了高等教育。学者和其他大学员工越来越难为知识本身而探求知识，由于大学要依从市场需求的优先次序，学生事实上也是受害者。新自由主义在形式上表现为一种特别抽象的资本逻辑。因此，为了建立更好的大学所进行的抗争不能与反对资本主义全球化运动分离开来

比较前苏联与中国前卫艺术的产生发展。文章中提到的情况截至1996年，当时全球艺术品价格大幅虚高的情况还没有大规模出现，但作者已经提到中国的一些美术学院中对销售作品的关心远大于对艺术探索的的关心。

艾略特书信集第三册，跨度为1926-1927年，他从1922年开始编辑的Criterion在这个时期因经费问题从季刊改为月刊，每期售出700-800本

拉美成为社会主义讨论的热点地区的五个原因

绝大部分的剧本对我来说无所谓，我感到需要理解其歌词内容的歌剧为数甚少：我知道了故事情节，可我很快就抛置脑后了。

傅高义（Ezra F. Vogel），哈佛大学亨利·福特二世社会学教授，曾担任费正清研究中心主任等职务，2000年6月30日荣休。

作者认为中国的经济增幅已经开始放缓。中国即将面临一直以来困扰着日本、韩国和其他东亚国家的问题--经济放缓所带来的问题。

形形色色的禁令体现出毋庸置疑的国家意志，为我们提供了理解特定时代的国家意识形态的特殊视角。

中国文化领域体制改革滞后的显著标志之一就是大量国营剧团仍然处于困境之中。本文在考察了50年代以来剧团所有制变革的曲折历程后指出，多年来文化演出市场之所以出现由民营剧团为主体到国营剧团为主体的变化，是由于计划经济特有的财政补贴与福利机制的诱导，政府对剧团主要功能的理解发生变化，以及希望根据人为的计划来配置社会资源。虽然文化部门几度推动剧团体制改革，但是不从所有制着手，改革就很难取得成效。本文指出，如果通过所有制改造，将目前多数国营剧团改组为遵照艺术规律与市场规律运作的民营剧团，以最大限度地调动演艺人员的积极性，国营剧团是有可能走出困境的。在此过程中，政府文化管理部门的职能，则应该向着保护民族传统文化遗产、通过公正和有权威性的评奖引导市场、通过行政手段维护文化市场竞争秩序转变。