我在前面的“中國對這次經濟危機的對應之道”中，提出的第七點是：
“7. 既然中國在主觀上希望世界經濟能越亂越好，在客觀上也將造成世界經濟加劇衰退的趨勢，那中國就應該減少參與世界經濟運作的程度，減少開放。在這幾年內，閉國鎖關，也要勒緊褲頭，犧牲幾年的經濟增長，專心做好自己的事。”
對此，港璨兄回應：
“關於第 7 點。現在絕非閉關鎖國的時機，相反，我國必須保持現有與亞非拉、金磚三國等簽訂更多雙邊貿易協定的策略，減低向這些國家進出口的關稅，商討成立新經濟圈，與東盟及上海合作組織等重提 asian currency unit 的可行性，與各資源出口大國商討成立或推廣非美元結算的商品交易所。
無論如何，祖國應請此黃金機會，把各國被裁掉的金融業精英如兵器般盡收己用。中金、中信証券等公司不想羅致四方人才嗎？有無考慮打本成立一家機構，以香港為基地，由這班被各大投行裁掉的精英管理。
除最高層由王岐山的親信執掌外，其餘部門不能安插內地各派系的人馬指三道四，讓這班金融精英不用虛耗精力於與內地派系周旋和爭功上。當有歐美銀行或保險公司去敲中壽或平保的大門要求注資入股，有內地公司想效法聯想或海爾 "走出去"，或我國主權基金想向海外出擊時，這投行將取代証監和其他部門，負責提供客觀意見和評估那些歐美公司給內地的入股要約是否暗藏陷阱。
若我國主權基金和中鋁等公司想趁海外兵慌馬亂之際伺機收購，也應以消費品品牌商和資源勘探及開採權擁有者為主。銀行、保險公司等，若有 real bargain，巴菲特等大戶早就擇肥而噬，不會讓這些機會流到我國的龍頭和主權基金手裡。所以，還是小沾手為妙。”
首先，感謝港璨兄對我這樣的憤青文字竟然認真去讀，而且不嗇見解。
不過，我對港璨兄的觀點是不認同的。
爲什麽？就因爲他的言論太“正路”了，太言之成理了，too good to be true，會有這樣的好事嗎？
兵行詭道，以正合，以奇反。金融戰爭，參與的都是世界頂尖的人才，我覺得以中國的水平，還不到玩這個遊戲的程度。
好了，就算中國這次能大獲全勝，能下次還能維持優勢嗎？恐怕就象冰島那樣，搞自己不熟悉的東西，一個浪打來，輸得更慘，把老底都輸光。
中國要走出去，可以。但前提條件是，先要把現有的遊戲規則摧毀，不能去玩別人的遊戲。這種事，是沒得交學費的，一子錯，滿盤索。
全球寒冬就要來臨，爲什麽要出去湊這個熱鬧？
在留言中的补充：
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.
14 条评论:
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?
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.
嗯.我没有把自己愤青的观点说清楚:
对中国来说,利益最大化的行为是把这场冬天变得更加寒冷,重整整个国际秩序.
中国手上的资源,用来从这次经济危机中获利(无疑,一定会很多),还不如用来作摧毁性的力量,去进一步打击全球经济.
这样,长远来说,中国得益更大.
我们的出发点不同. 港璨想的是如何从这一次的危机中获利,我建议的是,中国在这一次危机中扩大损失(即使在可以获利的情况下),把危机扩大. 长远来说,就可以在以后的每一次GAME 里取得更多的利益.
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。
嗯。我只是希望中国领导层能更有智慧地来面对这个问题，而不是只有传统智慧出发。
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。
嗯. 你的论调有点象我的阴阳怪气了,看起来很认真严肃,其实是在胡说.
实际来说,中国可以把危机扩大的方法主要有两种:
1,减持美国国债,
2,人民币贬值.
都是损人较大,自己不怎么得益的七伤拳.但很值得做.
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?
愤青的观点:
对中国来说,利益最大化的行为是把这场冬天变得更加寒冷,重整整个国际秩序.
---
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.
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.
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。
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 韬光养晦. 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.
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.
＞＞Sunbin:
＞＞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.
想過幾天，並唔同意。
There MAYBE best practices. But there's NO champion in any industry nor profession.
我並非以近日有所謂精英導致大行倒閉而有此想法，而是那句：文無第一，武無第二。
以學藝角度，一個mentor/coach，並非一定要 top-notch。係exchange 上面，未必要係超人先可以傳授武功。要領悟，而唔係要學到足。何況，美國一等人才，真係可以配合中國環境嗎？（性格發展論）
而且，係金融界，甚至會計/法律，真係唔會make wrong decision 嗎？被laid off既條件，一定以（市場）判斷能力為准嗎？可能最重要係，資本市場（尤其係中國既）係一個政治市場衍生出黎既副產品囉。
至於學費，其實一路都交緊。
但又，我同意：韬光养晦
发表评论