去
年，英特尔(Intel)创始人、董事长格鲁夫(Andy Grove)曾在《商业周刊》(Businessweek)上挑衅地写道：我们的基本经济信条，是在观察一个确凿公理的基础上形成信念然后升华而来的，即自由市场是所有经济制度中最好的，越自由越好。我们这一代人曾目睹自由市场原则对计划经济取得决定性胜利。所以我们坚持这种信条，而且对一些不断出现的新证据视而不见。这些证据表明，自由市场虽然战胜了计划经济，让它本身还存在改进的余地。
David G. Klein
这期间，我正在参加一场由中美交流基金会(China-United States Exchange Foundation)和美国进步中心(Center for American Progress)组织的与中国政府现任和卸任高官进行的美中对话活动。在我看来，与解读中国十二五规划逐渐浮现的轮廓相比，美国批评者的合唱所导致的紧张关系没有多大意义。十二五规划的目标包括：年均经济增长率7%；可再生能源领域投资6,400亿美元；建设3,600万套保障性住房；发展新一代信息技术、清洁能源汽车、生物科技、高端制造；环境保护。与此同时，还要促进社会公平和农村发展。
一些美国人正在从中汲取经验。上个月《中国日报》(China Daily)发表的一篇文章援引亚洲协会(Asia Society)美中关系中心(Center on U.S.-China Relations)主任夏伟(Orville Schell)的话说，我想我们已经认识到，规划能力正是美国所缺少的。文章还提到，2003年诺贝尔经济学奖得主恩格尔(Robert Engle)曾说，在中国为下一代制定五年规划的时候，美国人却只在规划下一次选举。
格鲁夫、乔布斯(Steve Jobs)和盖茨(Bill Gates)的技术奇迹已经让世界变成了平的。这迫使所有机构都直面世界历史上很明显的第三次经济革命。农业革命是一场持续了大约3,000年的转型，工业革命持续了300年，这次以技术带动的全球化革命将只持续30年左右的时间。没有哪一代人曾经在一生中目睹如此重大的变化。
当前有关中国汇率、贸易失衡、美国债务、中国大肆侵犯美国知识产权的讨论都证明，全球化革命加上邓小平以政府为主导、以增长为导向的改革，已经造就了地球上的第二大经济体。它已经走上一个清晰的轨道，并将在2025年之前让美国失去世界经济领头羊地位。
诚如格鲁夫如此有先见之明地在2010年7月1日期《商业周刊》上发表的文章所言，中国、新加坡、德国、巴西和印度的经济表现已经证明，就业创造规划必须是国家经济政策的首要目标，在设定主次、为实现这一目标安排必要组织力量的过程中，政府必须发挥战略性作用。
偏向保守主义、奉行自由市场原教旨主义、股东至上的模式在20世纪取得了极大成功。而到了21世纪，这一模式却逐渐被扔进历史的垃圾堆。在每一个国家都需要成为“经济运动队”的年代里，美国队的成绩惨不忍睹：10年间失业高企；30年间中位数工资停滞不前；贸易逆差；中产阶级萎缩；只有最顶层的那1%的人的财富大量增加。
这应该触动领导人进行反思，而不是在经验上已经失败的自由市场极端主义上增加赌注。尽管痛苦且羞耻，美国还是需要像昔日占据霸主地位的企业和运动队在形势逆转时所做的那样，研究竞争对手取得成功的原因。
在我们争执不休的时候，中国队却继续前进。我们驻中国的代表目睹了中国重庆以人为本的发展模式。重庆是中国西部一座人口3,200万的城市，市委书记是有雄心、受欢迎的共产党领导人薄熙来。地平线上一排排的启重机，每天建成建筑面积达150万平方英尺的房屋。人家还告诉我们的代表，其中包括每年70万套保障性住房。
与此同时，中国政府可以夸耀说，已在西部建起一个经济区，用于云计算、汽车和航天器材生产，实现每年经济增长12.5%，税收年增49%，工资年增10%以上。
我们当中热爱祖国的人相信，美国要维持世界头号经济引擎地位，所需要的资产样样不缺。但这些人忧心的是我们没有一个规划，有的只是对政府的妖魔化，对自由市场的膜拜，而当前恰好又是一个要求反思这两种信条的历史时刻。
美国需要推出一个增长与创新规划，政府要精简，成为私人部门的合作伙伴。经济革命需要制度发生变革，可能还要创造历史，因为如果固守现状的话， 这些制度本身就会很快变成历史。我们这个伟大的国度引发了这场全球革命，也希望引领这场革命，它需要有一个有前瞻性的、长远的经济规划。
改革的紧迫性一说即明。正如格鲁夫所指出的那样，如果我们想保持经济领头羊的地位，我们就要自主寻求改变，不然就会继续被改变。
编者案：作者是服务业雇员国际联合工会(Service Employees International Union)会长，哥伦比亚大学(Columbia University)里士满中心(Richman Center)高级研究员。
（本文版权归道琼斯公司所有，未经许可不得翻译或转载。）
Andy Stern
Andy Grove, the founder and chairman of Intel, provocatively wrote in Businessweek last year that, 'Our fundamental economic beliefs, which we have elevated from a conviction based on observation to an unquestioned truism, is that the free market is the best of all economic systems -- the freer the better. Our generation has seen the decisive victory of free-market principles over planned economies. So we stick with this belief largely oblivious to emerging evidence that while free markets beat planned economies, there may be room for a modification that is even better.'
The past few weeks have proven Mr. Grove's point, as our relations with China, and that country's impact on America's future, came to the forefront of American politics. Our inert Senate, while preparing for the super committee to fail, crossed the normally insurmountable political divide to pass legislation to address China's currency manipulation. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Gov. Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama all weighed in with their views -- ranging from warnings that China must 'end unfair discrimination' (Mrs. Clinton) to complaints that the U.S. has 'been played like a fiddle' (Mr. Romney) and that China needs to stop 'gaming' the international system (Mr. Obama).
As this was happening, I was part of a U.S.-China dialogue -- a trip organized by the China-United States Exchange Foundation and the Center for American Progress -- with high-ranking Chinese government officials, both past and present. For me, the tension resulting from the chorus of American criticism paled in significance compared to reading the emerging outline of China's 12th five-year plan. The aims: a 7% annual economic growth rate; a $640 billion investment in renewable energy; construction of six million homes; and expanding next-generation IT, clean-energy vehicles, biotechnology, high-end manufacturing and environmental protection -- all while promoting social equity and rural development.
Some Americans are drawing lessons from this. Last month, the China Daily quoted Orville Schell, who directs the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society, as saying: 'I think we have come to realize the ability to plan is exactly what is missing in America.' The article also noted that Robert Engle, who won a Nobel Prize in 2003 for economics, has said that while China is making five-year plans for the next generation, Americans are planning only for the next election.
The world has been made 'flat' by the technological miracles of Andy Grove, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. This has forced all institutions to confront what is clearly the third economic revolution in world history. The Agricultural Revolution was a roughly 3,000-year transition, the Industrial Revolution lasted 300 years, and this technology-led Global Revolution will take only 30-odd years. No single generation has witnessed so much change in a single lifetime.
The current debates about China's currency, the trade imbalance, our debt and China's excessive use of pirated American intellectual property are evidence that the Global Revolution -- coupled with Deng Xiaoping's government-led, growth-oriented reforms -- has created the planet's second-largest economy. It's on a clear trajectory to knock America off its perch by 2025.
As Andy Grove so presciently articulated in the July 1, 2010, issue of Businessweek, the economies of China, Singapore, Germany, Brazil and India have demonstrated 'that a plan for job creation must be the number-one objective of state economic policy; and that the government must play a strategic role in setting the priorities and arraying the forces of organization necessary to achieve this goal.'
The conservative-preferred, free-market fundamentalist, shareholder-only model -- so successful in the 20th century -- is being thrown onto the trash heap of history in the 21st century. In an era when countries need to become economic teams, Team USA's results -- a jobless decade, 30 years of flat median wages, a trade deficit, a shrinking middle class and phenomenal gains in wealth but only for the top 1% -- are pathetic.
This should motivate leaders to rethink, rather than double down on an empirically failing free-market extremism. As painful and humbling as it may be, America needs to do what a once-dominant business or sports team would do when the tide turns: study the ingredients of its competitors' success.
While we debate, Team China rolls on. Our delegation witnessed China's people-oriented development in Chongqing, a city of 32 million in Western China, which is led by an aggressive and popular Communist Party leader -- Bo Xilai. A skyline of cranes are building roughly 1.5 million square feet of usable floor space daily -- including, our delegation was told, 700,000 units of public housing annually.
Meanwhile, the Chinese government can boast that it has established in Western China an economic zone for cloud computing and automotive and aerospace production resulting in 12.5% annual growth and 49% growth in annual tax revenue, with wages rising more than 10% a year.
For those of us who love this country and believe America has every asset it needs to remain the No. 1 economic engine of the world, it is troubling that we have no plan -- and substitute a demonization of government and worship of the free market at a historical moment that requires a rethinking of both those beliefs.
America needs to embrace a plan for growth and innovation, with a streamlined government as a partner with the private sector. Economic revolutions require institutions to change and maybe make history, because if they stick to the status quo they soon become history. Our great country, which sparked and wants to lead this global revolution, needs a forward looking, long-term economic plan.
The imperative for change is simple. As Andy Grove pointed out: 'If we want to remain a leading economy, we change on our own, or change will continue to be forced upon us.'
(Editor's Note: Mr. Stern was president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and is now a senior fellow at Columbia University's Richman Center.)
Andy Grove, the founder and chairman of Intel, provocatively wrote in Businessweek last year that, 'Our fundamental economic beliefs, which we have elevated from a conviction based on observation to an unquestioned truism, is that the free market is the best of all economic systems -- the freer the better. Our generation has seen the decisive victory of free-market principles over planned economies. So we stick with this belief largely oblivious to emerging evidence that while free markets beat planned economies, there may be room for a modification that is even better.'
The past few weeks have proven Mr. Grove's point, as our relations with China, and that country's impact on America's future, came to the forefront of American politics. Our inert Senate, while preparing for the super committee to fail, crossed the normally insurmountable political divide to pass legislation to address China's currency manipulation. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Gov. Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama all weighed in with their views -- ranging from warnings that China must 'end unfair discrimination' (Mrs. Clinton) to complaints that the U.S. has 'been played like a fiddle' (Mr. Romney) and that China needs to stop 'gaming' the international system (Mr. Obama).
As this was happening, I was part of a U.S.-China dialogue -- a trip organized by the China-United States Exchange Foundation and the Center for American Progress -- with high-ranking Chinese government officials, both past and present. For me, the tension resulting from the chorus of American criticism paled in significance compared to reading the emerging outline of China's 12th five-year plan. The aims: a 7% annual economic growth rate; a $640 billion investment in renewable energy; construction of six million homes; and expanding next-generation IT, clean-energy vehicles, biotechnology, high-end manufacturing and environmental protection -- all while promoting social equity and rural development.
Some Americans are drawing lessons from this. Last month, the China Daily quoted Orville Schell, who directs the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society, as saying: 'I think we have come to realize the ability to plan is exactly what is missing in America.' The article also noted that Robert Engle, who won a Nobel Prize in 2003 for economics, has said that while China is making five-year plans for the next generation, Americans are planning only for the next election.
The world has been made 'flat' by the technological miracles of Andy Grove, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. This has forced all institutions to confront what is clearly the third economic revolution in world history. The Agricultural Revolution was a roughly 3,000-year transition, the Industrial Revolution lasted 300 years, and this technology-led Global Revolution will take only 30-odd years. No single generation has witnessed so much change in a single lifetime.
The current debates about China's currency, the trade imbalance, our debt and China's excessive use of pirated American intellectual property are evidence that the Global Revolution -- coupled with Deng Xiaoping's government-led, growth-oriented reforms -- has created the planet's second-largest economy. It's on a clear trajectory to knock America off its perch by 2025.
As Andy Grove so presciently articulated in the July 1, 2010, issue of Businessweek, the economies of China, Singapore, Germany, Brazil and India have demonstrated 'that a plan for job creation must be the number-one objective of state economic policy; and that the government must play a strategic role in setting the priorities and arraying the forces of organization necessary to achieve this goal.'
The conservative-preferred, free-market fundamentalist, shareholder-only model -- so successful in the 20th century -- is being thrown onto the trash heap of history in the 21st century. In an era when countries need to become economic teams, Team USA's results -- a jobless decade, 30 years of flat median wages, a trade deficit, a shrinking middle class and phenomenal gains in wealth but only for the top 1% -- are pathetic.
This should motivate leaders to rethink, rather than double down on an empirically failing free-market extremism. As painful and humbling as it may be, America needs to do what a once-dominant business or sports team would do when the tide turns: study the ingredients of its competitors' success.
While we debate, Team China rolls on. Our delegation witnessed China's people-oriented development in Chongqing, a city of 32 million in Western China, which is led by an aggressive and popular Communist Party leader -- Bo Xilai. A skyline of cranes are building roughly 1.5 million square feet of usable floor space daily -- including, our delegation was told, 700,000 units of public housing annually.
Meanwhile, the Chinese government can boast that it has established in Western China an economic zone for cloud computing and automotive and aerospace production resulting in 12.5% annual growth and 49% growth in annual tax revenue, with wages rising more than 10% a year.
For those of us who love this country and believe America has every asset it needs to remain the No. 1 economic engine of the world, it is troubling that we have no plan -- and substitute a demonization of government and worship of the free market at a historical moment that requires a rethinking of both those beliefs.
America needs to embrace a plan for growth and innovation, with a streamlined government as a partner with the private sector. Economic revolutions require institutions to change and maybe make history, because if they stick to the status quo they soon become history. Our great country, which sparked and wants to lead this global revolution, needs a forward looking, long-term economic plan.
The imperative for change is simple. As Andy Grove pointed out: 'If we want to remain a leading economy, we change on our own, or change will continue to be forced upon us.'
(Editor's Note: Mr. Stern was president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and is now a senior fellow at Columbia University's Richman Center.)
没有评论:
发表评论