【10.02.05 泰晤士报】我们需建新的资本主义模式来与中国抗衡（欢迎认领翻译评论～）

vivicat

泰晤士报:我们需建新的资本主义模式来与中国抗衡
http://www.china.com.cn/international/txt/2010-02/05/content_19375704.htm

【英国《泰晤士报》网站2月4日文章】题：我们需要建立新的资本主义模式来与中国抗衡(作者 阿纳托尔·卡莱斯基)

由于这次金融危机，全球资本主义体系处于转变时期，这可与上世纪30年代和70年代的重大转变相提并论。在上周的达沃斯世界经济论坛上，显然有些话没有人敢提及：即将主导世界的新资本主义模式是经过大刀阔斧改革的西方民主体系？还是中国和俄罗斯及许多其他新兴经济体所喜欢的独裁国家资本主义的某种变体？

一位美国外交官对我说：“自经济危机以来，发展中国家对原有的促进民主和自由的‘华盛顿共识’不感兴趣了。无论我去哪里，各国政府和企业领导人都在谈论‘北京共识’——中国的繁荣和权力之路。西方必须提出一个与我们的政治观念相一致的新的资本主义模式。如果不彻底改造我们原有的模式，我们势必会失败。”

有几个办法可以应对或者说规避这种挑战。最简单的办法就是直接否认。忙着讨论究竟经济危机是谁的错这种历史问题，比考虑未来更容易一些。

一个更为阴险的吾认形式就是佯称中国和西方的资本主义模式没有什么根本不同。毕竟所有人经商都是为了赚饯。这是所有在中国进行大规模投资的企业界人士的看法，也是中国和西方政府的官方路线：我们两种模式可以和平共处、相互尊重。

这是一种幻想。不论是从商业惯例、经济致策、政治和人权还是地缘政治利益上来看，中国和西方显然是相互冲突的。几十年内可能不会发生严重的冲突，但从长远来看，这两种政治经济发展模式是不可调和的。

在商业惯例方面，中国明确支持国内企业而不是西方出口商和投资者。中国保持巨额出口盈余和被低估的汇率，这使得美国和欧洲拥有大量廉价消费品；但这也意味着失业以及积累更多外债。在人权问题上，远没有证实撒切尔-里根时期的天真口号：自由市场造就自由的人民，中国在拒绝西方式的民主方面变得更加坚定。也许最为严重的是，中国对其政治体制和政府领导的经济发展更有信心，这将不可避免地引发与西方之间的摩擦。

我们西方人的选择是：要么承认中国较美国或西欧拥有更为成功和持久的文化，而且中国现在要求归还其全球领导地位；要么我们不再否认中国和西方模式之间的敌对状态，并开始认真考虑西方资本主义如何进行改革才能更有胜算。

现在，西方思维面临的挑战是要在古典、凯思斯、撒切尔-里根模式的基础之上创建第四种资本主义模式，以适应21世纪的需要，尤其是为了与中国充满活力的、自信的独裁体制相对抗。

有些必须的改变是显而易见的，而且已经发生了。

文章来源: 参考消息

vivicat

原文

From The Times
February 4, 2010

We need a new capitalism to take on China http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article7014090.ece
If the West isn’t to slide into irrelevance, governments must be much more active in taking control of the economy

Anatole Kaletsky


The most important statements are often those that are left unsaid. Among the millions of words spoken at last week’s World Economic Forum in Davos, the comment that nobody quite dared to utter was clear. After the crisis of 2007-09, the global capitalist system is in a period of transition, comparable to the great transitions of the 1930s and 1970s.

The question that nobody wants to raise is whether the new model of capitalism that emerges to dominate the world will be a radically reformed version of the Western democratic system or some variant of the authoritarian state-led capitalism favoured in China, Russia and many other emerging economies.

As a leading US diplomat told me: “Since the crisis, developing countries have lost interest in the old Washington consensus that promoted democracy and liberal economics. Wherever I go in the world, governments and business leaders talk about the new Beijing consensus — the Chinese route to prosperity and power. The West must come up with a new model of capitalism that’s consistent with our political values. Either we reinvent ourselves or we will lose.”

There are several ways of dealing with, or dodging, this challenge. The easiest way, most in evidence last week at Davos, is plain denial. Instead of thinking about the future, it is easier to focus on the past, to quibble about regulations and argue about who is to blame.

Another more insidious form of denial is to pretend that the Chinese and Western models of capitalism are not really very different. Everyone, after all, is in business to make money, so on the issues that really matter, there is no great rift. This is the standard view among all businessmen with big investments in China, especially those like Bill Gates, of Microsoft, who enjoy seeing their rivals politically squeezed by Beijing.

It is also the official line of Chinese and Western governments. Our two models can prosper in peaceful co-existence and mutual respect.

This is an illusion, as was evident from the background chatter in Davos. Whether we look at business practices, economic policies, political and human rights or geopolitical interests, it is clear that China and the West are on a collision course. Serious collisions may not occur for decades, but the two models of politico-economic development are incompatible in the long term.

In business practice, China unambiguously favours domestic industries over Western exporters and investors. China’s determination to run huge export surpluses and maintain an undervalued exchange rate gives America and Europe cheap consumer products; but it also means lost jobs and the accumulation of ever-more foreign debts. On human rights, far from confirming the naive slogan of the Thatcher-Reagan period that free markets create free people, China is becoming more adamant in its rejection of Western-style democracy. Perhaps most seriously, China’s growing confidence in its authoritarian politics and government-led economic development is creating inevitable frictions with the West, from Korea, Iran and Tibet to Sudan, Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

We in the West have a choice. Either we concede the argument that China, in the 5,000 years of recorded human history, has been a much more successful and durable culture than America or Western Europe and is now reclaiming its natural position of global leadership. Or we stop denying the rivalry between the Chinese and Western models and start thinking seriously about how Western capitalism can be reformed to have a better chance of winning.

We must stop pretending that minor reforms to banking will restore the performance of the Western system, and focus on the deeper lessons from the financial crisis and the years before. Outside the echo chambers of Washington and Westminster, it is obvious that what went wrong in 2007-09 was not just a lapse in bank regulation. It was a failure of the entire market fundamentalist model of capitalism created in the Thatcher-Reagan period, which assumed that the market is always right.

That this version of capitalism ultimately failed in 2007-09 does not mean that the reforms were wrong. Their reforms were essentially and entirely appropriate for the period. The free-market system created from 1979 onwards represented a necessary evolution after the failure of the previous government-led, union-dominated Keynesian model. In the same way, this Keynesian version of capitalism, created in the 1930s, was a necessary evolution from the classical laissez faire capitalism destroyed by the Great Depression.

The challenge for Western thinking now is to create a fourth version of capitalism that builds on the best elements of the classical, Keynesian and Thatcher-Reagan models, but adapts to the needs of the 21st century and specifically to the rivalry with China’s dynamic and self-confident authoritarian system. Whether this is possible is very much an open question, which I try to examine in a book on the new model of capitalism, which I call Capitalism 4.0, to be published in the spring.

Some of the changes required are obvious, and are happening already. For example, governments and central banks are accepting much more explicit responsibility for managing economic growth and employment, as well as inflation.

Others are more controversial. For example, do Western political systems need to be reformed to make them more conducive to compromise and rapid, consensual decision- making instead of the political paralysis that now threatens the US? Do we need an economy in which government plays a bigger role in finance, energy, environment and strategic infrastructure investment, but actually reduces public spending and taxes by backing away from some of its traditional, and ruinously expensive, responsibilities for health, pensions and education?

These are the sort of questions that the movers and shakers ought to have been discussing last week in Davos. Maybe they will face up to them next year.

主义的暴行

我认为我国目前是国有资本主义官僚协商制度

vivicat

1.John Roberts wrote: This is not true. The Great Depression was because;

-the Fed contracted the money supply by a third.

-Government action turned a downturn into a crisis (protectionist measures)

The 2007-09 crisis was because of government action in US & UK;

- interest rates were deliberately held far too low for far too long.

-US laws forcing banks to lend mortgages to anyone.

The problem with free markets is that it's never really been tried. There is always a special interest group claiming special subsidies, or bone-headed government action (such as bail outs and regulation to name two).

Far too much government is the problem, not the solution.


February 3, 2010 9:46 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk

Recommend? (51)

2.anthony faulkner wrote:
Fabulous, coherent sketch of the major socioeconomic trends of the past 100 years, and the shape of the future to which they might point.

I believe the West is a victim of its own affluence : "idleness and abundance of bread", as Ezekiel put it, which is bound to help leaner, hungrier and tougher systems steal a march on us. Added to this, our hedonism and moral relativism – not to mention mass immigration - have fragmented our sense of community, to the point that we no longer know what values we stand for, except that of Tolerance, which, in the absence of a more positive principle, results in the democratic (!) triumph of the lowest common denominator.

On a global level, the sobering impact of our indebtedness to China has yet to make itself felt, but I imagine our standards of living will gradually become more equal to theirs, as the East works its way to wealth and influence, and we tread water in economies which are in any case already pretty well satiated.

The most fundamental question that divides us concerns the priority we accord to Freedom. In my view, we in the West have assumed it to be an absolute virtue, with the consequence that we have, for instance, allowed pornography to flourish and sex to be commercialized on a mass scale, to the detriment of the family unit and of the role of the woman. In the East, on the other hand, Freedom is seen as just one of a number of sometimes competing values : moreover, it is not intrinsically good, but is to be judged rather on its fruits. Here could be the start of a mutually redemptive dialectic.

I think it was Asa Briggs who realized that he needed to know Economics if he was to understand History. Perhaps it is equally important to remember Pascal’s observation, that “Everything starts in mysticism and end in politics.”

Good luck, Anatole !

February 4, 2010 12:12 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk

Recommend? (42)

3.Adam Clark wrote:
I would expect someone with a name like Kaletsky to be more familiar with the dangers of a government controlled economy.

China's huge growth has been entirely down to their economic liberalisation over the past 40 years, which has allowed their economy to switch from capital-intensive industries (chosen by the government) to labour-intensive industries (market chosen).

I also find it hilarious that you think we have liberal economic policies in the West. Have you ever tried to start a business? The sheer amount of laws, regulations and taxes have been strangling British industries for years. If the government was really interested in saving British jobs, they would get out of the way.

Remember, the government has no money of its own. Every penny it spends was stolen from the people. Stolen from the productive, efficient private sector and given to the unproductive and inefficient public sector. Now there's a recipe for economic growth, right Anatole?

And the current financial crisis? Well according to the economists who actually predicted it (like Peter Schiff) it was caused by low interest rates (set by the central bank, not determined by the market). Too much cheap money flying around means people make bad, risky investments/loans. Eventually the bubble bursts and the house of cards that is (was) the Western economy comes crashing down. Exactly the same thing caused the Great Depression, which was of course predicted by those criticizing the Fed's low interest rates.

So I suppose you're right when you say our current system of capitalism has failed. You just have no idea why and no idea how to fix it.

Perhaps you should study some economics before you publish a book on it.
February 4, 2010 3:05 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk

Recommend? (38)

Report Abuse

Permalink

4.Jeff London wrote:
Prior to the 1800s, when India and China were the two biggest economic powers and US and Europe were just fledgling economies, we "took on" China through imperialism and slavery...100 years of that made certain that we came top and China and India were nothing.

Now that the natural balance is gradually coming back, are we going to go on yet another crusade because we can't have it our way in the world (without violence)?
February 3, 2010 9:58 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk

Recommend? (29)

5.Santiago MacQuarrie wrote:
There is more to it than just economics. Europe and the US seem to have resigned themselves to Chinese dominance. Given their advantages,among them a per capita income that is at least ten times higher than the Chinese and a huge lead in science and technology, that is a bit premature. In any event, to meet the challenge will require rather more than fiddling around with financial arrangements as Anatole Kaletsky appears to imagine. People will just have to study much harder, work much harder. If that means saying good-bye to the plaintive, self-pitying, slack and dumbed-down plebeian culture that currently prevails throughout the West, so much the better. It's a darwinian world out there. Unless the US and Europe wake up in time, they will end up providing the hard-working Chinese with helots.
Santiago Macquarrie
February 4, 2010 12:11 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk

Recommend? (29)

6.Tom E wrote:
China is run by engineers and they believe in industry and technology: their goal is to absorb our technological know-how without payment and take over the worlds industry.

The west is unfortunately run by bankers and lawyers who don't care if China destroys our industrial base as long as house prices keep rising and government can keep borrowing money.

A global patent system and strong enforcement of both patent and copyright laws are essential if western technology companies are to compete. Until the intellectual property issue is resolved tariffs should be used to make it un-economical to do high-technology development or manufacturing in the east.
February 4, 2010 1:28 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk

Recommend? (29)

Report Abuse

Permalink

7.Michael Anderson wrote:
The article is marked by either a lack of comprehension or surprising opportunism.

China's low currency is like dynamite in a porcelain store, where the porcelain store is the rest of the global economy. In practice, it is the equivalent of a massive tax on everything imported, and a massive subsidy on everything exported - in other words, two things which are commonly strictly banned and punished by global trade organisations under the brands of 'protectionism' and 'anti-dumping'. When it's dumping if you subsidise ONE exported good by 100%, how is it not dumping if you subsidise EVERY exported good by 100%?

And justifiably so. Consider this for example: Let's say the US pegs the dollar at 100 to the pound. This means that anyone who travels to the US can live like a king. It also means that any company in the UK would pay American workers the equivalent of a packet of crisps for a day's work. Overnight, the totality of UK employment outside of the services sector (and even that would probably be outsourced) would be moved to the US. And this is exactly what has happened in the case of China.

Of course, it has meant the rapid development of China, creation of factories, jobs, etc. Which is an ironic tragedy - what is in one country's interest (a race to the bottom in terms of currency devaluation) may not be in the entire world's, and certainly not the wealthy nations', interest.

But ultimately, there is nothing "wrong" with the current way of doing things, it has simply been subverted by one of the biggest economies in the world selling their blankets for half a crisp each intentionally in order to create jobs in their home country. The answer? We will either have protectionism in the West, a revaluation by China, or inflation in China. Barring these outcomes, no "new model of capitalism" in the West would make a millimeter of difference in the long run. Of course, unless that "new model of capitalism" happened to include prot
February 3, 2010 11:35 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk

Recommend? (22)

8.Augustus Denc wrote:
I wondered what that was all about until I came to the book plug.

No thanks.
February 4, 2010 2:37 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk

Recommend? (22)

9.Joshua Cassity wrote:
As a developing country, China is following an economic path already laid out in front of it. A strongly centralized government is the best system for navigating this path as quickly and efficiently as possible. History proves this fairly decisively.

If and when it reaches the end of this path and becomes a "developed" nation, however, it will find the road forward a lot more challenging. It will no longer be able to look to other countries for direction(in infrastructure and new technological avenues, for example). Its heavily bureaucratic and centralized government will become a liability rather than an asset. At any rate, it can't rely on having forward-thinking technocrats in charge forever. History shows that sooner or later, bad apples will come to power, but the system must thrive nevertheless. How China manages to disperse power within its system to prevent it from becoming too "top to bottom" will go a long ways to deciding whether the 21st century really is "China's Century".
February 4, 2010 4:27 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk

Recommend? (19)

10.Neocon Smith wrote:
I'm not sure we need a new kind of capitalism.

We need leaders with brains.

Martha Stewart goes to jail for something that now looks so petty compared to what we've just witnessed in the US and the UK.

We need a sense of proportion and if Martha Stewart deserves jail then Fred Godwin is lucky not to be facing the death penalty.

February 4, 2010 4:57 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk

Recommend? (18)

11.Savo Djukic wrote:
Western governments pushed everything to be privatized, so now they do not control anything - from industries to the finance.

Now they can talk, suggest, cry, but can not do anything to make it better - as owner does not care about the country.
February 4, 2010 12:05 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk

Recommend? (18)

Report Abuse

Permalink

12.Nick Wood wrote:
Aren't we all getting a bit over-excited about the "rise of China".

Its sheer size leads to some rather misleading headlines. Recently, the headlines were about it "overtaking" Japan to become the second largest economy.

But it has 10x the population. In other words, it has just reached the milestone of becoming one-tenth as productive as Japan. Which is not quite as impressive.

Basically, China is playing catch-up after decades of demented communist rule, importing en-masse the technological innovations and development of the Western world, just as other Asian countries have before it.

However, the idea that is has produced some innovative new form of capitalism is absurd. It is a very backward country, becoming somewhat less backward.

Sooner or later, it's growth model will hit the buffers. Probably long before it has reached a Western standard of living.

It is pretty obvious that its export driven economy can't keep growing the same way. The rest of the world simply isn't big enough to absorb even double the Chinese exports, let alone ten times.

Then China will have to start growing under its own steam, and not just piggy-backing of the West. How China copes with such a change remains to be seen.
February 4, 2010 3:33 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk

Recommend? (15)

15.P W wrote:
It's a dangerous game to court China as a friendly partner. China cares nothing for anything except China.
China plays the long game and just now they are investing heavily in controlling the assets of the future - mineral rights, mineral extraction and processing technology to cite just a single area of their interest. When the technologies that depend on these assets become the driving force of the world economy China is making sure it holds the world by the throat.
In the mean time we are busy allowing and encouraging our manufacturing businesses to export jobs and know-how to China which predominantly benefits China. The vast national wealth (as opposed to individual wealth) that this is creating is being reinvested through sovereign wealth funds to create balsa wood crutches for Western economies.
Meanwhile they are standing back watching us burn untold billions of dollars on the continuation of a futile thousand year old religious conflict in the Middle East.
The future consequences of all this will be devastating for the West. Whether it comes in 10 years or 100 years the Chinese don't care because they don't think in short cycles like us.
God help us all then.
February 4, 2010 8:50 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk

Recommend? (14)

16.Leslie Udwin wrote:
Take on China ? OK This is how its done. Bring back all the manufacturing jobs lost to China back to the West. This will immediatly cause the collapse of Chinas economy.Victory.However, this will mean a huge boom in Europe as millions of jobs are created. This will mean having to pay people a good wage. This will mean everything will be much more expensive. This will mean keen competition where services etc will go up and profits will go steeply down. This will mean that this will never happen. Western Business Greed ala Bill Gates et al is why China will never be defeated.
February 4, 2010 6:47 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk

Recommend? (14)

17.Leslie Udwin wrote: Take on China ? OK This is how its done. Bring back all the manufacturing jobs lost to China back to the West. This will immediatly cause the collapse of Chinas economy.Victory.However, this will mean a huge boom in Europe as millions of jobs are created. This will mean having to pay people a good wage. This will mean everything will be much more expensive. This will mean keen competition where services etc will go up and profits will go steeply down. This will mean that this will never happen. Western Business Greed ala Bill Gates et al is why China will never be defeated.
February 4, 2010 6:47 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk

Recommend? (14)

无嗔

我们需建立真正的民主模式--中国模式，来抗衡西方的暴力民主。

10的112次方

不在需要领导了，不再需要“国家”了，统统被中国统一了然后跨入终极时代吧。

芒果记

怎么感觉独裁变成一个褒义词了，不至于吧？

sam712

我们需建新的资本主义模式来与中国抗衡

打造不出来就让自己家媒体上！把中国的抹黑扭曲的就是胜利

中山水寒

国家资本主义+半权威主义政府，这是我最希望的中国模式。
现成的例子在亚洲就有：自民党治下的日本，人民行动党治下的新加坡。
成功的打破了西方资本主义模式。

zbddf2008

08年经济危机如果让西方觉醒，即所谓的第4资本主义的创立。
那么，对于中国来说无疑是杯具的！~
不说大的，少说也必将增加中国复兴的难度，乃至推迟中国的复兴！~

耳冉子

新的资本主义模式的最新特点就是腐败公开化、合法化

南宫儒

马克一下。。。等翻译出来了慢慢看，在这里先谢谢辛苦的翻译们了。

无可就要

“资本决定一切”是西方的的所谓“民主”，这样的民主只是以资本家的利益为主，与中国的“人民当家做主”观念完全背道而驰

ailianren2008

我认为我国目前是国有资本主义官僚协商制度
主义的暴行 发表于 2010-2-9 16:54

赞同！

123456hahaha

希望白人永远觉得中国是落后的

百姓

意识形态非常浓厚啊。。。。。。。

d_bubble

mark下，明天有空就翻译看看

vivicat

mark下，明天有空就翻译看看
d_bubble 发表于 2010-2-12 00:08

辛苦啦！～

d_bubble

John Roberts wrote:
This is not true. The Great Depression was because;
-the Fed contracted the money supply by a third.
这并不真实。大萧条的原因是fed把货币供应缩减了1/3.
-Government action turned a downturn into a crisis (protectionist measures)
政府的行为导致了衰退演变成了一场危机（保护主义的措施）
The 2007-09 crisis was because of government action in US & UK;
2007年9月的危机的原因是美国和英国政府的行为。
- interest rates were deliberately held far too low for far too long.
利率被故意在太长时期被压得过低了。
-US laws forcing banks to lend mortgages to anyone.
美国法律逼迫银行贷款给任何人。
The problem with free markets is that it's never really been tried. There is always a special interest group claiming special subsidies, or bone-headed government action (such as bail outs and regulation to name two).
自由市场的问题是它从没有真正的被实行过。总是会有特殊利益集团要求获得特殊补助，或者笨蛋政府的政策（诸如救助和管理那两户）（可能是说两房吧——泡）
Far too much government is the problem, not the solution.
政府有太多的问题，但是却没有解决的措施。

February 3, 2010 9:46 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (51)  Report Abuse  Permalink

zmzlyh

与时俱进是普世准则