如何部署全球戰略，對中國來說，是一個極其新鮮的體驗。在封建時代，中國以天朝自居，視野也只局限在東方一偶，儘管有可以稱霸全球的軍事力量（鄭和的艦隊當時是無敵的），但從沒有想過什麽全球戰略。近百年，中國積弱，所謂全球戰略更加無從談起。
而在西方，全球戰略早就是一個曆舊長新的課題，深入人心。這是一種思維習慣，和物質力量關係不大。在大航海時代，儘管只有幾條帆船，西班牙就敢制訂他們的全球戰略，以東西半球來劃分勢力範圍。而大不列顛的日不落帝國，更不是靠軍事力量，而是靠一個精妙的全球戰略思想來鞏固和維持。
將全球戰略發揮到極致的，當然是美帝，它對兩次世界大戰的把握，從戰前，到戰爭進程，到戰後的利益分配，都妙到了巔峰，都能以最小的代價，獲得最大的利益。
中國，當漸漸累積到了一定的物質力量的時候，也就面對這樣同樣的一個課題，無法逃避。國際政治是弱肉強食的社會，既然踏上了舞臺，如果不學習其中的規則，最後只會成爲別人的盤中餐。
正在進行中的金融危機，正是中國可以學習如何部署全球戰略的一個絕好機會，在危機做什麽，如何自處，在危機後怎樣最大程度擴大利益，都應該有一個清晰的佈局。
面對一個這樣難得的歷史機遇，卻不可讓一時的，短視的金融思維，主導了國家戰略。資本市場的波動，對一個國家的發展戰略來說，是無關緊要的；應該關注的，是國家的根本利益，在全球的位置，和競爭對手此消彼長等。極端來說，就算存量的財富收到損害，但如果能更大地保障將來流量的財富增長，那才更爲合算；反之，如果一味在意存量的財富保存，而不去出擊，恐怕連這點也保不住。
當然，這只是從心態和思維上來說的。中國應該做好準備。
但從實際上來說，中國目前所做的只有等待，耐心地等待，到一個最好的時機。而這樣的時機，當然還沒有到來。
有關中國應該怎樣做，前面留言中有很長的討論，很多人，尤其是SUN BIN發表了很精到的見解，貼於其下：
13 評論:
Sun Bin 說...
i am with kongchan.
esp re: your 'global winter'
1) this is not a 'global winter'. instead, this is the best time to buy, whether for PRC or for us as individual, like the days right after 9-11 or 1987/oct.
2) the cost of going out is much lower now. this is the best time to go out, much better than when they bought into blackstone!if winter comes, can spring be far behind?
2008年10月16日 下午4:50
Sun Bin 說...
however, i do agree with you about 'focusing on simpler industries".following this line of thought, acquiring a team in finance/i-bank/pe is a very risky move.
1) these r people, which r much more mobile than assets
2) those who are laid off are often the less competent among in wall street, in this industry getting the 2nd class team is worse than not having a team, since they will make wrong decision for you.
2008年10月16日 下午4:56
量子戰士 說...
嗯.我沒有把自己憤青的觀點說清楚:
對中國來說,利益最大化的行爲是把這場冬天變得更加寒冷,重整整個國際秩序.
中國手上的資源,用來從這次經濟危機中獲利(無疑,一定會很多),還不如用來作摧毀性的力量,去進一步打擊全球經濟.這樣,長遠來說,中國得益更大.
我們的出發點不同. 港璨想的是如何從這一次的危機中獲利,我建議的是,中國在這一次危機中擴大損失(即使在可以獲利的情況下),把危機擴大. 長遠來說,就可以在以後的每一次GAME 裏取得更多的利益.
2008年10月16日 下午4:59
港燦 說...
Sun Bin :A team of 2nd grade talent is worse than no talent at all - i've certainly ignored this risk.
量子先生 :把危機擴大，有點像武俠片 "七傷拳" 背後的理念。會不會先令自己更傷 ?中國現在面對 credit crunch / deflation 的速度，會不會比外國更嚴重 ? 近日的焦點 - 紙皮箱製造業，中國的紙箱業巨頭最近所受的衝擊會不會較外國的更大，行業整體產能過剩較外國的嚴峻 ? 各行業的 debt / equity ratio，中國是否普遍較外國的高 ? 當各國銀行齊齊扭緊水喉，中國的企業較外國的更易周轉不靈，中國因此失業率增長速度較外國的更快 ?
我恐怕中國正面對這困局，今年的冬天對歐美而言是戰後最寒冷的，但中國的冬天可能較外國更寒冷，兼且更漫長。若這才是實情，絕非中國政府的原意，而是內地企業、銀行、官員自己的心態做成。若要早點捱過這寒冬，積極點爭取國際金融與經貿事務的發言權，爭取資源定價權我認為是有幫助的。另一方面，現在雖好像滿街平貨，但不論主權基金或個別企業，選擇在這時候向海外出擊仍須謹慎，尤其是外國金融業的 "筍盤" offer。
2008年10月16日 下午10:19
量子戰士 說...
嗯。我只是希望中國領導層能更有智慧地來面對這個問題，而不是只有傳統智慧出發。
2008年10月16日 下午11:10
港燦 說...
擴大危機我不清楚，但輸出危機我國很大機會正在做。國家領導若擔心毒奶外還有其他問題食品的炸彈未引爆，想盡辦法鼓勵和協助各類食品出口，及著外資們多點使用內地食材製造食品後再輸往質檢較認真的國家或地區，例如日本。當問題在外國爆發，誘使些國家動輒提升上外交層面去和我國交涉，利用它們給內地化工食品製造商施壓，很大可能已成基本國策。
2008年10月17日 上午12:36
量子戰士 說...
嗯. 你的論調有點象我的陰陽怪氣了,看起來很認真嚴肅,其實是在胡說.實際來說,中國可以把危機擴大的方法主要有兩種:
1,減持美國國債,2,人民幣貶值.都是損人較大,自己不怎麽得益的七傷拳.但很值得做.
2008年10月17日 上午9:13
會計仔 說...
我認為中國還沒有足夠的知識力量去打金融戰, 應多發人民幣, 增長M2, 保增長, 同時扮換成美元買3大礦業或礦山. 這些東西將來子孫一定有用, 怎樣看?
2008年10月17日 下午11:36
Sun Bin 說...
憤青的觀點:對中國來說,利益最大化的行爲是把這場冬天變得更加寒冷,重整整個國際秩序.---
theoretical it could be on strategy to study. but i doubt the feasibility (putting FQ aside)
1) would this hurt China more than ROW?
2) is China more vulnerable to a global collapse?
3) is this a (largely) zero sum game?4) even if this may be a good strategy at some point in time. is this the right timing, or is this too early? this may be a golden opportunity which won;t happen again, but if you are not ready to take it then perhaps you should not.
i do not know the answer to these questions. what i thought is purely in terms of risks, does china want to take such risk? or, is the risk of doing so also as big for China?
---to me competition (economical or political or anything) resembles the board game of Risk. you make peace with everyone and grow, do not fight with anybody until you are stronger than the sum of everybody elses.
US is perhaps as strong as the sum of ROW, but just iraq alone proved to be a black hole which sucks too much resources.
2008年10月18日 下午9:34
Sun Bin 說...
so, IMHO, china's strategy is quite simple: do whatever is best for itself long and near term. not be influenced by either the idea of helping (or hurting) other -- unless, it means net benefit to itself.
--re: konghchan's idea of building its won financial industry. it is worth a try, pay some fee to learn the lesson (as it did over blakcstone/morganstanley), but the expectation is just to narrow the gap and build the system/expertise, instead of hoping to compete in the medium term.
if fact, in certain areas (eg structured finance) quite a few ethnic chinese who were educated in US had been very successful in wall street, over time they will help china build the expertise.however, for the other areas that Wall Street excels it takes many decades for anyone to catch up with, e.g., jewish people.
2008年10月18日 下午10:03
量子戰士 說...
sun bing,your 4 questions are excellent.
我只是希望，中國的眼光能放長一些。不要急著撈底，要好好學習和觀摩，這是無比珍貴的財富。如果現在去救市，就沒有隔岸觀火的清明。
更要向美國人學習。美國人在利用全球災難來建立戰略地位是老手。第二次大戰還沒打完，44年就召開布列頓森林會來決定戰後秩序；美國進入二戰的時機也非常巧妙，幾乎是最小的代價獲得了最大的利益。
中國應該考慮如何通過這次機會，成爲世界性的力量，而不是老想著金融方面的利益。更不能讓金融利益主導國家戰略思維。例如，臺灣問題可以趁此解決，西藏問題等等；在國際方面，推行亞元，新的世界銀行，和拉丁美洲和非洲建立新的貿易關係，推動聯合國改革等等。在這個時候，美國無法出手。
至於中國出口行業的損失，我想，加大社會保障，就應該不會出什麽大問題。中國出口業的模式本來就應該重整。
2008年10月18日 下午11:51
Sun Bin 說...
i am not too concerned about the export industry. some adjustment is good. and we should let the market work it out.
i just want to caution that china is far from what US was at in 1917 (when it entered WWI). in fact, even then US tried to stay out of the world dispute and focused on its own problem.
i don't have the data but i am quite convinced that GDP/cap of US was close to that of Europe by WWI or even Spanish-american war in 1898.
IMHO china should just focus on its internal problem and do what must be done (and not do anything more than that) in the world. Deng XP's 韜光養晦. and keep that at least until its GDP/cap is on par with that of Korea.
There is no fast track, avoiding major mistake is already fast track (i.e. the past 30 years).All those fast-track efforts by late Ching, Sun Yat-sen, Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Tse-tung proved to be disaster -- these were not co-incidence.
---i do think you gave a great example by citing US, esp regarding its timing of WWI and WWII... even though we are not talking about 'war' here.the fact that US entered the wars in the right timing was because it had been AVOIDING getting itself involved with all its efforts -- until the very last moment.
2008年10月19日 下午9:50
量子戰士 說...
sun bin,exactly.
1.we all know that this financial crisis will not end so soon, and getting worse.
2.we all know that China's holding a passive attitude would a great factor in prolonging this crisis.
Then, why China could not wait? By "puting" America, I did not mean China has to do something, merely doing nothing is enough. but in mindset, we must know what China's postion is: US in the eve of WWII, eg, in 1939, where it even had provided the major resources to Japan to fuel the war, and reaped profit later from a collasped Japan, whom had done the job for US to drive out European forces in the Asia Pacific.China must now learn this goble stragtegies. It have never been given such a chance.
没有评论:
发表评论