阻击热钱 三部门围堵系统今天启动

感于6月3日联通10日后大利好复盘，带动大盘狂跌。

熊市中，任何消息都可能是坏消息。

股评：今天说涨头头是道，明天喊爹振振有辞。说话比放屁容易。

股市：没有价值投资，只有短线投机。

股民：都比江姐怨，临死绣红旗。

我们习惯了搞政治运动，目前的运动叫“爱中国”，其实和以前的“除四害”或“大跃进”相比，范围更加广阔，不仅仅是大陆人，香港人，海外华人，想在中国赚钱的地球人都参加进来了。

我们习惯了CCTV, 于是，我们的大脑里，只听得进“中国人民伟大，勤劳，勇敢。 中国将实现伟大复兴。”而对于批判中国人的话，动辄大骂，封杀，抵制。

Sharon Stone 的言论，实际上代表了很多外国人的想法，我们对此完全是鸵鸟政策。而对于敢于说出来的人，则又出奇地愤怒。象网上封杀不同意见一样封杀一个外国人，自己竟然不觉得好笑，好象世界上每一个人离开中国就活不了，这是多么地狂妄（和自卑）。

政府要建设和谐世界，无数网民以此为重任，为了实现全世界都歌颂中国人的伟大理想而奋斗。

毛主席说：我晚年发动了文化大革命，没有几个人能理解。若毛主席活着，看到两千年的封建帝王全部在中国人民的心中复活，他有何感想！

10亿奴隶可以建成一个帝国，建不成一个公民社会。可以建成无数高楼大厦，建不成市场经济。可以轰轰烈烈地运动，不能平平安安地生活。

去了9万，救出1000， 于是9万人和他们去的原因被忽略了，救出的1000人都在歌颂。

地震中的我们

不仅仅需要募捐

何况清贫如我者

又能献出多少钱。

面对伤残

我们需要坚强

面对黑暗

我们需要勇敢

面对死神

我们需要关爱。

不要说天国很美

那是一个丑陋的谎言

对于逝去的孩童

我们都需要谢罪

我们都需要承担。

走过战争的苦难

共和国的主席

才能痛杀刘青山张子善

冤死的孩子

能否给共和国一片蓝天？

2008我们走过苦难

2008我们更加勇敢

审视周围

还有多少阴暗？

当死神离去

我们共同努力

让悲剧不再重演。

2008年5月12日

14时28分，

无数生命

瞬间离去。

普通如我们，

除了一点哀思，

能做什么？

共和国的旗帜，

为何不能降一次

火炬传递的，

难道还是快乐

死去的人

只有天国

待A先生把准备好的整个PPT讲完之后，进入了Q&A时间。为防止冷场，机灵又爱表现的杨康拿出了事先准备好的问题：

“A老师，您好！我是本所律师杨康。今天很荣幸听到您的讲座。我想请教一个问题。您能用浅显的语言解释一下产业投资者和金融投资者的区别吗？谢谢！”说完，杨康在大家的注目和合伙人的微笑中得意地坐了下来。“这个其实很简单，”A回答，“打个比方，一个有钱的男人相中一个漂亮的女人，男人是想和这个女人过长久日子，当然也不排除将来合不来就分了，但至少不是一两天的新鲜，可是女的就不这么想了，可能只想从这个男人身上在短期内得到高回报，最好这个男人七老八十、吹灯拔蜡，然后再找新的，这就叫退出机制。这个男人就好比产业投资者，这个女人就好比金融投资者。男的如果再有诚意一点，说不定连这个女人跟别人的儿子都会接受，这就叫承债式投资。”

言毕，只见杨康面如土色，起身离席。

旁边的郭靖丈二和尚摸不着头脑，在合伙人的眼色示意下只好带头拍手，然后起身提问：“那么，请问风险投资又是啥意思呢？”“又比如一个男人傻了巴叽的，木讷愚钝，学什么武功都学不会，别人都不认可他，可就有个女人偏偏相中了他，老爸劝了也不听，只有她相信那个男人将来一定有出息，愿意赌一把，结果你猜怎样？这个男人果然练成了绝世武功，这就叫风险投资，高风险高收益，不是每个人都有这种眼光和魄力的。”

郭靖忽然发现大家都在偷笑看着他，心里就毛了，借故起身上厕所。

大家都在笑的时候，后排有个中老年女律师并没有笑，她一向很严肃，似有满身的沧桑。她叫裘千尺，不是科班出身，原来是捡枣核的，后来自学考过司法考试，刚才直认真地做着笔记。她忽然提问道：“A老师，我一直不明白何谓天使基金，您能举个例子吗？”“可以。”A喝了口水，接着道：“譬如有个谷主，本来住在绝情的谷里啥庄稼也长不出，后来娶了一位懂科学种植的女子为妻，于是夫妻俩人白手起家，种植奇花异草并将其毒素深加工成毒品自己吸服或是远销海外赚外汇。在科研经费紧张的情况下，妻子还很快研发出花卉叶子的食用价值，味道鲜美、清热解毒，是地地道道的绿色食品。丈夫因此获得大量科研津贴，但这时他嫌弃了给他带来好运并一同创业的糟糠之妻，而是另觅新欢。对于这个男人来说，原配就是天使基金，在他一穷二白的时候出现并资助，他成名后找的姑娘充其量就是series B了。”

裘千尺还没听完就5555的冲出了会议室，在场的人无不惊讶。

冷场了几分钟，主持人――律协的干事韦小宝律师只能站出来提问：“A老师，您的讲解实在太独到了，这不大家听得都感动了。我想请教个问题，如何理解要约收购？谢谢！”“这个更简单，举个例子，如果你同时有七个女朋友，你本来只是玩玩的，迫于其中一个权势强的女人（例如公主，现实中就是大股东）的威逼利诱，你同意重金娶她，本来是偷偷私下里协议的事儿，但是其他女朋友听说后就不干了，为了防止她们势单力孤被抛弃，法律规定你必须也以同样的条件娶其他女朋友，除非你申请获得了女朋友的妈的豁免。”

小宝忽然想到了最近女朋友正在逼婚，汗立马就下来了。

讲座进行到这个时候，已经没有人敢提问了。可是A先生显然已经越讲越酣、欲罢不能了，他又补充道：“我们再讨论一下最近非常热门的返程投资吧。大家一定研究过75号文和106号文吧，很多人都反映看不懂，其实很简单嘛。譬如一个女人年轻的时候不肯嫁给一个暗恋她的那人，后来出国生了个女儿，女儿却兜回来嫁给了这个男人，这个男人还美滋滋的觉得女孩的妈间接嫁给了他，这就叫返程投资。”有人当场晕了过去，抬出去抢救的时候就听到卫生室的医生在不停的喊“杨不悔律师，醒醒！”

Eugene:张维迎先生的滥英文之现状

http://qianyongrill.blog.sohu.com/68848099.html

高层ZWY: My running comments are in the brackets. Forgive my sarcasm, because we all expect much better English from you.---Eugene Chen.

April 6, 2007

Dr. Hengfu Zou

World Bank  

Dear Hengfu:

I write to formally (Haven’t you learned about the difference between “formally” and “officially”, now that you are a big shot official of the School?) inform you that based on the facts (Dude, for whatever reason, singular “fact” is preferred here.) that (1) you have been long time absent (“long time absent”? Is this your home town dialect?) from the school in (Don’t forget your “the” here.) past few years; (2) you are not able (Of course Hengfu was able to and had done more than was expected of him.) to take (“take responsibility”? You have been taking on tons of responsibilities. Not Zou, who has been discharging responsibilities. Responsibility-taking and responsibility-discharging differ. Taking also implies money-grabbing, while discharging means working one’s butt off.) faculty responsibility; and (3) you have been heavily involved with other university’s activities in violating (At least, you have to use “in violation of”. Technically speaking, “despite” is the best choice here.) the School’s rules, the Guanghua School of Management has decided (Present perfect tense, huh? How do you reconcile the use of this tense with the past time of the meeting of April 4, 2007? It is grammatically as improper as to say “I have seen my mistress Ernai last night”), at the deans meeting of April 4, 2007, from May 1, 2007 (“from”---very Chinglish, please use “as of “to be formal.), you will no longer be entitled to receive any compensation from the school and you will no longer take (You like to “take” everything and anything? Is this the only verb in your Oxford English Dictionary?) the title of “Dong Furen Endowed Chair Professor”. You also need to empty (You can empty a box, but how can you empty an occupation?) your occupation (Do you know the difference between occupancy and occupation?) of flat No.201, Door One at Building 11 at Dongsheng Yuan before (Chinglish again, please use “by” next time.) August 31, 2007. However, you may be continuously entitled to receive the University’s salary before (You never learn, huh? Aren’t you bored by so many “before’s”?) the University makes any decision on your employment relation (“relation”? This is the most characteristic Chinglish example. Very awkward!).

At the same deans meeting, the school also decided that the school would stop financial support to Annals of Economics and Finance from this year (“from this year’, another example of Chinglish!).

I am sorry to let you know the above decision. (Dot your i’s and cross your t’s. You already have more than one decision.) We appreciate your contribution (Chinglish too! It was service that he rendered during the period.) to the school from 1999 to 2002. However, I must say that commitment to the school is essential for any faculty member. Your recent years’ performance disqualifies (Hey, I can disqualify you as an English writer, but I wish I could disqualify your dean position! Position is not for one to disqualify.) your faculty position in the school.

The school shall inform the Personnel Department of Peking University of the above decision.

Yours sincerely (Don’t you ever forget your comma here!) 

Zhang Weiying

Dean

Guanghua School of Management

Peking University

ZWY: the following is an improved version of your sloppy writing. Next time you fire someone, use mine as your templar. No charge!---Eugene Chen.

April 6, 2007

Dr. Hengfu Zou

World Bank

Dear Hengfu:

I write to officially inform you that, at the Deans’ meeting of April 4, 2007, the Guanghua School of Management, on account of the fact that (1) you had been chronically absent from the School in the past few years, (2) you had failed to discharge your faculty responsibility, and (3) you had been unduly and excessively involved with the activities of other universities despite the School’s rules, decided that you would, as of May 1, 2007, no longer be entitled to receive any compensation from the School nor to use the title of “Dong Furen Endowed Chair Professor”. You also need to surrender your occupancy of Flat No.201, Door No.1 at Building No.11 at Dongsheng Yuan by August 31, 2007. However, you may continue to be on the University’s payroll until the University makes any decision to change your employment status.

At the same Deans’ meeting, the School also decided that the School would terminate any financial support to Annals of Economics and Finance, starting from this year.

It is with regret that I must inform you of the above decisions. We appreciate your service rendered to the School from 1999 to 2002. However, I must say that a stronger commitment to the School is essential for any faculty member. Your recent years’ performance has disqualified you from remaining at your faculty position in the School.

The School will, in due course, inform the Personnel Department of Peking University of the above decisions.

 Yours sincerely,

 Zhang Weiying 

 Dean

Guanghua School of Management

Peking University

The blame for this lies with the government and the FSA, they watched in awe as the City boomed when they should have been regulating, mortgages should have been capped at multiples of 3 times salary with a deposit of say 10% to stop the housing bubble from growing.
Too late now, house price crash and stagflation to come.
Posted by Scott on April 24, 2008 10:45 AM

What about Sterling, the unmentionable in the woodpile? If it falls versus the US$ as it already has against the Euro the price of all those raw materials will rise because most of them are priced in dollars. Cutting interest rates would produce such a fall. Sterling at, say, $1.7 would mean an effective 15% rise in the price of oil, metals and much of our food, even if the underlying prices remain static.

The choice isn't between falling house prices and recession - it's between recession and stagflation. Keeping rates where they are will produce the former: cutting rates the latter.

I think that rates will be cut as the NuLab appointees on the MPC try to help their old mates in government. This will help to produce a classic sterling crisis, with the £ at $1.80 by autumn and $1.50 by the end of next year. This in turn will, er, inflate inflation and the result will an overdue hike in rates, leading to a deep and sustined recession.

Oh yes, and a Tory government.

The only sensible approach would be to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes, reducing state waste to pay for it. Dropping the top rate of income tax to 30% and VAT to 15% would be a good start, which would help the economy without spurring inflation. Sadly, Wee Gordy would rather support England than cut taxes, while Dave and his chums have promised to keep Labour's spending plans intact.
Posted by Bill VIncent on April 24, 2008 10:45 AM

Jeff Randall - please tell us who appoints the members of the BOE MPC committe please.

We need the equivalent of the Nuremberg trails to find out how we have got into this mess; or how we have allowed vested interests to manipulate the masses.

When house prices were climbing 20% annually, year in year out, the BOE said house prices were nothing to do with them - inflation was there only concern.

The inflation figures were conveniently rigged for the duration, lets not forget.

Now Gordons moment of truth is coming the BOE lowers interest rates due to falling house prices - even though inflation is climbing. Are we meant to have short memories?

I return to my first sentence - a Nuremberg trial to pick out the lies we have been fed.

Who appoints these people?
Posted by john samuels on April 24, 2008 10:43 AM

"But we should not count asset values as inflation anyway. Inflation should be applied to the cost of consumables as this is what really erodes the value of money savings which is saving for future consumption"
So having an increasing ammount of your income spent on one thing (consumables) is inflation, but having it spent on another thing (housing) isn't ? Sounds like you should be in government.
Besides, reducing interest rates won't help the mortgage market. Unless they start doing 125% mortgages and liar loans again. But of course, there's no market for selling on mortgage debt. Unless the British tax payer (thanks to the BoE) pays for them that is. It's a mess. I say let the house prices fall. That way less income is spent on them. That way more income is then available to spend in the wider economy.
Posted by Matt Matthers on April 24, 2008 10:42 AM

The most realistic article from the Telegraph for some time.
The solution to the debt mountain is simple- U.K must inflate and wages must go up. Average Mortgages are 5 times earnings, so wages must double to make mortgage payments more realistic for housholds. We have the belief that low wages are a good thing. They are bad if real inflation has happened. CPI, RPI are unrepresentative of U.K. inflation. The government needs calculate real U.K. inflation,for different social groups, increase wages and cut imigration and drop interest rates.
we can re-visit the idea of making Britain more competitive after we have a more healthy internal economic climate.
Posted by Neils on April 24, 2008 10:41 AM

well the bank of england seems to think that house prices are more important to us than inflation.we need to control the inflation first.you can't eat a house at disparate times but you'd need to be able to go to the shop and provide food for your family.the first goal should be to tackle the inflation.
Posted by ebbi on April 24, 2008 10:40 AM

Prudence handed some power to the Bank of England but kept most of the 'control' himself. he has even rerastined it and does not allow the puppet Darling any say or freedom of action. Until we either have a longed for change of government (can not wait until June 2010 arrives) or the Bank takes full controlof the economy the question you ask is irrelevant. Brown knows best so we all must suffer. Dither and misspeak is his way of running a once proud country. It will take 20 years to recover from the past decade of incompetence. Our children and grandchildren will all pay the price.
Posted by Jackhigh on April 24, 2008 10:37 AM

Inflation already is sky-high - the official figures are a joke, designed to keep wage claims and pensions down.

Higher interest rates can push up costs particularly in a tight labour market, but will decrease house prices.

The Bank has lost credibility through misjudgement over the last three years first in stimulating house prices by dropping interest rates and signalling further interest rate cuts, and now thinking asset values are inflated, as well as in its incredibly incompetent handling of the credit crisis.

As a result bank base rates do not determine borrowing costs - the only way to force this is for the Bank to offer money at rates closer to the base rate which it clearly is not prepared to do.

We are in a mess which requires good leadership which presently and unfortunately we have not got.


Posted by David on April 24, 2008 10:36 AM

I would prefer a stable money supply or a monetary unit that is backed by a commodity so that a central bank cannot create booms and busts at its whim.
Posted by John on April 24, 2008 10:36 AM

You should all.....all look up one thing if you want to understand what's going on. Derivatives! How is the world going to deal with the shadow banking system and (according to the Bank of International settlements), 516,000,000,000,000, that's right, one half of a quadrillion dollars of largely junk bonds, in the international monetary system. The biggest Ponzi scheme ever. This is why the system is in gridlock. This amount has to be accounted for and it's mostly worthless junk. The amount is equal to 10 years of the entire world's GDP.
Posted by CvLH on April 24, 2008 10:27 AM

How do the BOE and the MPC reconcile themselves against keeping inflation low when the method concocted by Brown for determining inflation is wholly misleading and weighted against the true measure of actual inflation in order to support his own political position? surely economic policy should be based on the true cost of a nation to exist both in growth terms and in those of consumption - to politically inflate one through the expenditure of state capital whilst deflating the other through questionable interpretation or exclusion of factual data means that any policy developed in real terms on the basis of Gordon Brown's claims are at best misguided and at worst a financial catastrophe. I am no economist and don't profess to understand the complex economic machinations that drive a country forward, however I would suspect that basing any planning or policies that affect the population on known lies and misinformation would be utter folly. Telling people that inflation is running at 2.5 or 3% when the cost of raw materials, their housing, their food, their fuel, their transport and of course their level of local taxation and national taxation(through stealth)are soaring way above this seems to me to be ridiculous. Now economists may argue the point, but to us here on the ground we simply can't believe a word anyone says, in particular when the information stems from Gordon Brown's socialist propaganda machine - how about a bit of honesty for a change and, in laymans terms,a breakdown of the true cost of inflation, say measured as it was in the last recession so we can compare the state of our parlousness with that ?
Posted by Bryan on April 24, 2008 10:24 AM

MD at 7:16 am thinks that property prices are 100% above where they should be? So they should all cost nothing at all?

I think I'll take my financial advice from someone who knows some primary school maths, thanks.

On your way!

PS: If you want to know the future, try 10% off property max slowly over the next 23 years, then another rise above today's prices.
Posted by JJ on April 24, 2008 10:24 AM

The only way I can see out of the mess the is in is to join the Euro. For 15 years I have been vehemently against giving up the pound for the Euro but having seen the total miss management of the economy in Labours hands over the last ten years I now feel it is the lesser of two evils. The UK no longer exists as a country the breakup of the UK and the simultaneous transition to the Euro may be the very thing we need to rescue millions of people from the stupidity of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Posted by Bruce Mcaaw on April 24, 2008 10:22 AM

It is 'DEPRESSION' stupid. Inflation, Agflation, Recession and Bush's and Brown's economic slowdown is all, well pass sell by date. You ain't seen nothing yet! There is worst to come. We might see both Brown and Darling resigning at the same time over these mess up.
Posted by Harish on April 24, 2008 10:20 AM

We are just at the start of this. The key problem is unemployment and so far employment has held up with just signs here and there of some redundancies. We have to go back to the early eighties and the lay-offs of that time. In my opinion unemployment will gather pace soon certainly within six months. Unless government can assist householders who are defaulting the economy will unravel. The scale of the problem is just too large for this. There is just a mountain of unsustainable debt.
Posted by Chris Stuart on April 24, 2008 10:19 AM
There used to be an old saying that "if you owe the Bank £1000 and can't pay then you are in trouble", but "if you owe the Bank £50000 and can't pay then they are in trouble".

The current economic situation is an amplified version of this - banks can take repossession action against individuals, but if their whole mortgage asset base rapidly diminishes in value then repossession will become pointless, as they will not recover their money, with resulting damage to their balance sheets, assets registers and capital ratios. They need to preserve the status quo of a sound asset base for their activities.

This is why the Government and the BoE are so desperate to produce a "soft landing" for the economy, as the great socialist Broon has left no slack in the coffers to weather the fallout from the hard landing that would result from the correct action to combat inflation.

It will be interesting to see how successful are the "Emperor's new clothes" attempts to preserve the housing market/economy/banking assets base in the face of increasing commodity prices and reducing economic activity.

But they must try - the alternatives would be disastrous for the economy.


Posted by Ford Macfarlane on April 24, 2008 10:15 AM

Bank of England's dilemma: A house price crash or soaring inflation

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/24/ccmpc124.xml

By Edmund Conway, Economics Editor

Last Updated: 1:26am BST 24/04/2008

Which would you rather face: a recession and house price crash or years of soaring seventies-style inflation?

Two options; one nasty dilemma for the Bank of England. In particularly stark and simple terms, this is the question tearing a major split through the Monetary Policy Committee, which decides interest rates.

This is the debate which will determine how painful the coming months are for families throughout the country, and could set the UK on the road to either another boom in house prices or, at the other extreme, a dismal Japan-style depression.

Oh and in case you had already made your mind up, I should add there is probably no correct answer. You might have guessed as much already from news yesterday of a highly unusual three-way split in the MPC's interest rate meeting this month.

Though the Committee ultimately opted to cut rates a quarter percentage point to 5 per cent, one of the members called for a dramatic half percentage point cut; another two said the Bank should not have reduced borrowing costs at all.

advertisement

The news has sent yet another shiver through both the City and the high street. If the very institution in control of the economy can't agree on what it should be doing, how much faith can we have that it will help drag us out of this increasingly uncomfortable credit crunch?

That economists can't agree with each other is nothing new: this notoriously indecisive species is a cause for perennial frustration among politicians. Indeed, Margaret Thatcher used her self-penned Yes, Minister appearance to call for their abolition ("All of them, Prime Minister?" "Yes, all of them. They never agree on anything...") .

But while it has always been the case that asking nine economists their opinion elicits ten answers, rarely has the split on the MPC been so deep - nor has it come at such a perilous time for the economy.

The debate which raged in the Bank's grand state rooms reflects a problem facing every major Western nation. For the past decade, inflation was kept unusually low by the influx of cheap goods from China and elsewhere, which balanced out more expensive home-grown high street products.

This meant the Bank could keep interest rates low without driving inflation higher. But as China's appetite for energy and food ballooned, so have the prices of oil, wheat, meat and most other important staple goods.

It has come at the worst possible time: the crunch in credit markets has pushed up families' mortgage rates. The economy is facing the sharpest slowdown in 16 years and the outlook for the housing market and property prices is at its worst since records began some decades ago.

In normal circumstances, the Bank would have already cut the official interest rate far and fast, hoping lenders would follow suit with the rate of their home loans. However, doing so would risk pushing up inflation, which is already stubbornly above the target set by Gordon Brown.

It might seem tempting to let inflation go and put off the immediate pain, but this could be poisonous for the economy in the long-run. As one central banker once said, inflation is like toothpaste - easy to squeeze out of the tube; almost impossible to shove back in again.

Whatever you call them - fire and ice, Scylla and Charybdis - the sister threats of inflation and economic slowdown are equally ugly. Anyone who has experienced both the inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s and the housing crash of the early 1990s will be loath to pick a winner in this lose-lose situation.

In truth, there are plenty of reasons to expect the Bank to steer a course away from both extremes. Some judicious interest rate cuts will help soften the economic slowdown while keeping inflation in check.

And on the bright side for homeowners, no-one on the MPC disagrees that interest rates must be cut further - the real question is how far they will fall, and how soon the next cut will come.

My suspicion is that the Bank will have to cut rates some way further than to the 4.5 per cent the City expects. The truth is that the MPC has lost control of mortgage rates.

Despite having cut the official rate three times in the past five months, the mortgage rates faced by households have actually risen by around 1.25 per cent. To all extents and purposes we are living in a world of 6.25 per cent rates. The Bank's emergency £50 billion plan to restart the stricken credit markets may eventually solve the problem in the short term - one of the reasons why some Bank policymakers argue that it can afford to be tough on inflation - but not for some time, perhaps a year.

Until then, it must cut rates sharply before we suffer a full US-style recession. I suspect it can afford to because inflation will slow of its own accord along with the world economy.

Which brings us back to the original question: recession or inflation? Tellingly, when I asked a former MPC member which one the Bank's Governor Mervyn King would prefer, he answered without hesitation: neither, preferably, but most certainly not the latter.

欣闻网上在要求抵制家乐福。要表示愤怒，请你聪明一点好不好，到法国大使馆抗议吧，那是法国的地盘；各地的家乐福毕竟法律上是中国的企业雇佣的是中国的员工。我们泱泱大国民，能否听进去一点不同的声音？内部一片和谐的时候，外部的一点反制对国民未必不是一种福气。况且没有一个国家承认XZ独立，ZD只是国际间斗争的一个工具。只是法国总统太愚蠢（中国人看来），他不仅和一个不入流的女人结婚，还对中国的历史茫然无知。

欣闻北京市小学实现24小时全程全景监控，培养奴才要从娃娃抓起。以安全的名义剥夺了学生的一点点自由，学生还到哪里去学习一些自由的精神。可怕的是我们的社会竟然没有独立思考的不同的声音。  Ironically有一点安慰的是，这应该是个政绩工程和腐败工程，不信查一下主要供货商和教育部门的回扣。安装后这些设备未必不是一种摆设。

欣闻政府又在搞反恐枪械展，向老百姓展现国家工具的强大，同时告诉大家，暴力只有暴力才是解决问题的出路，如同金钱只有金钱才是幸福的根本。 要求独立的人们，你们不是比以前富裕了吗，为什么还要求自由！

2008我为你而歌唱

我看见一群群羊，一群群绵羊，

游荡在股市的牧场。

你们曾让多少企业利润飞涨，

一张张钞票飞扬。

我看见几缕香魂在世界屋脊上飘荡，

谁能告诉我她们是死于狼，还是死于套狼？

内外交困让我们没有实质的抵抗，

于是一群80后的学生冲上战场。

我看见钢筋水泥在共和国的天空飞扬。

我们造不出空客380，

可我们有民工和土地还有贪婪的开发商，

囚室里的小资谁还会思想？

2008我为你歌唱，

不明白他们为何会与纳粹联想？

2008我为你歌唱，

可外面只有一种声音更让我慌张。

Zhaihua新浪博客

辜鸿铭，精通九国的语言文化，国学造诣极深，曾获赠博士学位达13个之多。他的思想影响跨越20世纪的东西方，是一位学贯中西、文理兼通的学者，又是近代中学西渐史上的先驱人物.

辜鸿铭10岁时就随他的义父——英人布朗踏上苏格兰的土地，被送到当地一所著名的中学，受极严格的英国文学训练。课余的时间，布朗就亲自教辜鸿铭学习德文。布朗的教法略异于西方的传统倒像是中国的私塾。他要求辜鸿铭随他一起背诵歌德的长诗《浮士德》。布朗告诉辜鸿铭：“在西方有神人，却极少有圣人。神人生而知之，圣人学而知之。西方只有歌德是文圣，毛奇是武圣。要想把德文学好，就必须背熟歌德的名著《浮士德》。”他总是比比划划地边表演边朗诵，要求辜鸿铭模仿着他的动作背诵始终说说笑笑，轻松有趣。辜鸿铭极想知道《浮士德》书里讲的是什么，但布朗坚持不肯逐字逐句地讲解。他说：“只求你读得熟，并不求你听得懂。听懂再背，心就乱了，反倒背不熟了。等你把《浮士德》倒背如流之时我再讲给你听吧！”半年多的工夫辜鸿铭稀里胡涂地把一部《浮士德》大致背了下来。

第二年布朗才开始给辜鸿铭讲解《浮士德》。他认为越是晚讲，了解就越深，因为经典著作不同于一般著作任何人也不能够一听就懂。这段时间里辜鸿铭并没有停顿对《浮士德》的记诵，已经可谓“倒背如流”了。

学完《浮士德》，辜鸿铭开始学“莎士比亚”的戏剧。布朗为辜鸿铭定下了半月学一部戏剧的计划。八个月之后，见辜鸿铭记诵领会奇快，计划又改为半月学三部。这样大约不到一年，辜鸿铭已经把“莎士比亚”的37部戏剧都记熟了。

布朗认为辜鸿铭的英文和德文水准已经超过了一般大学毕业的文学士，将来足可运用自如了。但辜鸿铭只学了诗和戏剧，尚未正式涉及散文。布朗安排辜鸿铭读卡莱尔的历史名著《法国革命》。辜鸿铭此次基本转入自学，自己慢慢读慢慢背，遇有不懂的词句再去请教别人。但只读了三天，辜鸿铭就哭了起来。布朗吃惊地问“怎样了？”辜鸿铭回答说：“散文不如戏剧好背。”布朗又问辜鸿铭背诵的进度，发现他每天读三页，于是释然：“你每天读得太多了。背诵散文作品每天半页到一页就够多了。背诵散文同样是求熟不求快，快而不熟则等于没学。”

辜鸿铭所在的中学课业本来是极繁重的，但由于辜鸿铭各科在布朗身边都提前打下了基础，整个学习过程便显得毫不费力。学校的功课既然顺利进行，没事时辜鸿铭便接着记诵卡莱尔的《法国革命》。他越读越有兴致，可是读多了便无法背诵。若按布朗的要求慢慢来，又控制不了自己的好奇心。就这样时快时慢地把卡莱尔的《法国革命》读完了。后来辜鸿铭终于征得义父的同意，可以随便阅读义父布朗家中的藏书了。有许多书，辜鸿铭并没有打算背诵，但也在不经意间“过目成诵” 了。

布朗对养子的寄望极高。他曾告诉辜鸿铭：“我若有你的聪明，甘愿作一个学者，拯救人类；不作一个百万富翁，造福自己。让我告诉你，现在欧洲国家和美国都想侵略中国，但是欧洲各国和美国的学者却多想学习中国。我希望你能够学通中西，就是为了你都担起强化中国，教化欧美的重任，能够给人类指出一条光明的大道，让人能过上真正是人的生活！”

依照布朗的计划辜鸿铭应该先在英国学文、史、哲学及社会学，然后再到德国学习科学。学成之后才可以回中国修习传统文化。布朗当初确实没有看错，辜鸿铭十四岁时，学术造诣就已经非一般人所能比。他只用了短短四年的时间，不仅初步完成了布朗拟定的家庭教学计划，而且基本上修完了所在中学的各门主要课程。布朗不禁暗自为养子的聪明而感到骄傲。辜鸿铭在学校里初步掌握了拉丁文和希腊文，其他课程的成绩也都很出色，已经可以申请毕业了。

大约在1872年春季，辜鸿铭正式入爱丁堡大学就读。辜鸿铭在爱丁堡大学的专修科为英国文学，同时兼修拉丁文、希腊文时又不知暗自哭了多少次。他立志遍读爱丁堡大学图书馆所藏希腊、拉丁文的文、史、哲名著。刚开始时，读多少页便背诵多少页，还没觉出什么困难；后来随着阅读量的逐渐增大，渐渐感到吃不消了。他要自己坚持，再坚持，一定要一路背诵下去。辜鸿铭晚年忆及此事时曾说：“说也奇怪，一通百通，像一条机器线，一拉开到头。”

到后来，不仅希腊、拉丁文，即如法、俄、意各国的语言、文学，辜鸿铭也能做到一学就会，触类旁通。据说辜鸿铭回国后，除本国语言外，尚能操九种文字与人交流，则其基础主要是在爱丁堡大学读书时打下的。

《论语·季氏》有云：“生而知之才者，上也。学而知之者，次也。困兽而学之，又其次也。困兽而不学，民斯为下矣。”至于“困”字的意思，旧注谓“有所不通”，钱穆先生解作“经历困境”，辜鸿铭则自谓“吃不消”。他晚年曾对人说：“其实我读书时主要的还是坚持‘困兽而学之’的方法。久而久之不难掌握学习艺术，达到‘不亦说乎’的境地。旁人只看见我学习得多，学习得快，他们不知道我是用眼泪换来的！有些人认为记忆好坏是天生的，不错，人的记忆力确实有优劣之分，但是认为记忆力不能增加是错误的。人心愈用而愈灵堂！”辜鸿铭忆起读书时的往事，不禁慨叹道：“困兽而不学，民斯为下矣！”（兆文钧《辜鸿铭先生对我讲述的往事》）则当时人们多认为辜鸿铭的博学在于他的天赋聪明，辜鸿铭自己是不承认的。

1877年4月，辜鸿铭以优秀的成绩通过了所有相关科目的考试，在英国文学方面的学位考试中又表现非凡，顺利获得了爱丁堡大学文学硕士学位。这一年辜鸿铭仅20岁。

辜鸿铭自莱比锡大学毕业后，又赴巴黎短期进修法文。布朗又为辜鸿铭联系入巴黎大学，意在让他学一些法学笔政治学。其实当时辜鸿铭只22岁即已遍学科学、文学、哲学，并熟谙各国语言，造诣确非一般中国留学学生可比。辜鸿铭以极快的速度读完了巴黎大学整学期的讲义和参考书，除偶尔去学校上点感兴趣的课以外，辜鸿铭每天都抽一点时间教他的女房东学希腊文。从刚开始教他学希腊文字母那天起，辜鸿铭就教她背诵几句《伊利亚特》。他的女房东笑着说：“你的教法真新鲜，没听说过。”于是，辜鸿铭就把布朗教自己背诵《浮士德》和莎翁戏剧的经过讲给她听。她说：“好，我就这样学下去。”辜鸿铭说：“等你背熟一本，你就要背两本，拦都拦不住。”

辜鸿铭的女房东常常拿着《伊利亚特》来到他的房间，把学过的诗句背给他听，请求他的指点。辜鸿铭的教法果然有效，他的女房东在希腊文方面进展神速。许多客人见辜鸿铭教她学希腊文的方法与众不同，都大为惊讶。

辜鸿铭后来曾对晚清直隶布政使凌福彭说：“学英文最好像英国人教孩子一样的学，他们从小都学会背诵儿歌，稍大一点就教背诗背圣经，像中国人教孩子背四书五经一样。”从辜鸿铭教他的女房东学希腊国土受希腊纯正的启蒙教育一般。此法乍看强度大，难度亦大，其实则不然。若由字母而单词再简单拼句，则学习者在心理上就产生学外国语言的隔腊情绪了。辜鸿铭还依此法教会了他的女房东简易的拉丁文，也不过三两个月的工夫而已。

辜鸿铭深厚的西方素养极得益于童年背诵《浮士德》、《莎士比亚》的经历。他后来在北京大学教英诗时，有学生向他请教掌握西方的妙法，他答曰：“先背熟一部名家著作做根基。”辜鸿铭曾说：“今人读英文十年，开目仅能阅报，伸纸仅能修函，皆由幼年读一猫一狗之式教科书，是以终其身只有小成。”他主张“中国私塾教授法，以开蒙未久，即读四书五经，尤须背诵如流水也。”

2008年01月08日

全球滞胀重来？

世界经济在过去几年中经历了一段美好时光：全球经济增长强劲，发达国家和发展中国家之间的差距有所减小。引领这波强劲增长的是中国和印度，这两个国家的GDP在2006年分别增长了11.1%和9.7%，2007年分别增长了11.5%和8.9%。甚至非洲的发展势头也非常不错，2006和2007年的经济增长都超过了5%。

但美好的时光也许就要结束了。近几年来，人们一直对因美国巨额外债所导致的全球失衡而忧心忡忡，但美国却反过来说世界应该心存感激：考虑到亚洲地区因高储蓄率而形成的数万亿美元外汇储备，全球经济正是因为有美国的超前消费才得以能持续发展。但人们普遍认为，在乔治·W.布什总统领导下美国的经济发展不可能持续，现在，清算的日子来临了。

美国发动的伊拉克战争导致原油价格在2003年以后飞涨了四倍。在20世纪70年代，石油危机致使一些国家出现通货膨胀，一些国家陷入经济衰退，而有些国家则遇到了最糟糕的状况：滞胀（指经济生活中出现了生产停滞、失业增加和物价水平居高不下同时存在的现象，是通货膨胀长期发展的结果———编者注）。

到目前为止，有三个关键因素帮助世界承受住了油价的飞涨。首先，在高投资（包括投资于教育和技术领域）的基础上，中国的生产率大幅提升，并通过出口降低了全世界的物价。第二，美国借此机会将利率降低到前所未有的水平，并导致房地产市场出现泡沫。最后，全世界工人的实际工资不断下降，占GDP的比重也不断减少，他们事实上承受了油价飞涨所带来的痛苦。

这场游戏就快结束了。中国现在也面临着通货膨胀的压力，更重要的是，如果美国说服中国允许人民币升值，那么美国和其他国家的生活成本将会增长。随着生物燃料的发展，食品和能源市场的关联度已经越来越高，再加上由于气候变化等相关问题导致的需求大增，食品价格将会不断上涨———这会对发展中国家构成致命的威胁。

美国人的“消费狂欢”还能持续多久？前景不容乐观。即便美联储继续降息，贷款机构也不会再急着扩大坏账规模。而随着房价的下降，更多的美国人会开始减少消费。

与此同时，巨额的财富正在石油进口国和出口国之间重新分配，大量的收入也从各国工人的口袋流向了富裕阶层的钱包。对于这种所谓的全球化，全世界的工人们还能忍受多久呢？事实上，这样的全球化的前景已经十分渺茫，反对的声音也越来越大。对于那些认为良性的全球化有能力惠及发达和发展中国家、信仰社会公正和民主重要性的人们来讲，这些都不是好消息。

布什政府期望能以某种方式阻止放弃抵押赎回权的热潮，并借此将经济问题转嫁给下一任总统，但成功的可能性微乎其微。对于美国来讲，现在的问题仅仅是会出现一个短期、急速的经济回落，还是一个时间较长、但较为平缓的经济回落。

不仅如此，美国一直试图通过转移次贷危机和美元不断贬值，把问题转嫁到国外，例如欧盟的出口就越来越困难。但在以“强势美元”为基础的世界经济中，由此导致的金融市场动荡，其代价将是十分高昂的。这种巨大的经济调整总是痛苦的，而今天的经济痛苦更令人难以忍受，因为获益者更不愿意付出。

事实上，“充满流动性”的反面是总体需求的不断下降。过去七年中，美国毫无节制的消费填补了这中间的差距。而现在美国家庭和政府的消费都很可能要受到控制，因为两党的总统候选人都承诺要重新担负起财政责任。在美国国家债务从5.6万亿增长到9万亿美元之后，这样的政策倾向会受到人们的普遍欢迎，但现在采取这样的措施，的确非常不是时候。

当然，从这幅黯淡的画面中也能找到一抹亮色：今天的全球增长来源与10年前相比更趋多样化，近年来，发展中国家一直是全球发展的真正引擎。

无论如何，世界最大经济体的增长放缓（也可能是经济衰退）将不可避免地导致全球性的后果———全球的经济增长将放缓。如果货币机构对通胀压力做出恰当的反应，意识到绝大部分通胀压力是输入型的，而非国内需求过剩，我们也许能够安然地度过这一困难时期。但如果他们无情地提高利率来应对通胀目标，我们就应该做好最坏的准备：另一个滞胀时代的来临。如果各国央行继续沿这条路走下去，最终肯定能成功地战胜通货膨胀，但为了达到目的所付出的代价，包括失业、降薪和流离失所，将是极其惨痛的。

作者为诺贝尔经济学奖得主版权所有：ProjectSyndicate,2008.

文本来源：东方早报

《财经》记者 赵剑飞 王欢 实习记者 张翃《财经》网络版   [2007-12-25]

美国哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院关于朗讯中国贿赂案和解的文本，富含大量操作细节，揭示出跨国电信公司朗讯与中国电信公司们灰色交易的一角

　　【《财经》网专稿/记者 赵剑飞 王欢 实习记者 张翃】12月21日，美国证监会（SEC）在其官方网站上发布公告，宣布与原美国朗讯科技公司（该公司于2006年与法国阿尔卡特公司合并为阿尔卡特朗讯）就指控后者违反《反海外腐败法》（Foreign?Corrupt?Practices Act）的行为达成合解。公告附有一份美国哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法庭关于此宗合解的法庭文件。自2004年春夏之间朗讯中国爆出贿赂丑闻，四名中国高管同被解职以后，这份文件提供了关于此事件最完整的解释，揭示出跨国电信公司朗讯与中国电信公司们灰色交易的一角。
　　以下为文件摘译。需要注意的是，下文中的中国“官员”，是指朗讯的中国客户也就是中国国有或国有控股电信公司雇员。由于这些公司属国有或国有控股，在美国《反海外腐败法》规定中属“外国官员”。
　　
美国证监会指控
　　——从2000年到2003年，朗讯邀请约1000名中国国有电信公司官员赴美国或其他地方旅行，为此花费超过1000万美元。这些中国国企或者是朗讯试图获得合同的对象，或者是朗讯已有的客户。大多数此类旅行表面上是为了让中国公司官员参观朗讯的工厂，并培训他们使用朗讯设备，但事实上，许多旅行中，中国企业官员们在美国只花很少甚至不花时间去参观朗讯工厂。相反，他们在各个旅游点如夏威夷、拉斯维加斯、大峡谷、尼亚加拉大瀑布、迪斯尼世界、环球影城和纽约游玩。
　　——朗讯为约315宗此类旅行承担费用，违背了1977年美国《反海外腐败法》关于账簿记录和内控的条款。朗讯缺乏有效的内控机制，以确保发现和防止目的在于游玩、娱乐和休闲而不是商务的旅行项目。朗讯将许多此类旅行开支作不恰当的记录。比如，超过160起旅行被计入朗讯的“工厂参观项”，尽管客户在旅行过程中根本没有参观哪怕是一间朗讯工厂。
　　——朗讯之所以违反《反海外腐败法》，是因为多年来朗讯没有恰当地培训其高管和员工理解《反海外腐败法》对中国客户性质和地位的界定。许多朗讯的中国客户是国有的或者政府控股的公司，因此其员工属于《反海外腐败法》所界定的“外国官员”。朗讯邀请访美的许多中国“官员”，在朗讯的内部记录中常常被标为“决策者”，指其能带来新业务。尽管如此，朗讯在中国的全资子公司——朗讯中国的董事长兼总裁以及其他高管，批准为这些中国“官员”支付赴美费用，也没有恰当监管这些旅行的目的和内容。

“旅行”具体安排
　　从2000年到2003年，朗讯邀请约1000名中国政府“官员”赴美国旅行315起，并为此支付全部费用。这些旅行中，与商务内容相比，观光、娱乐和休闲内容异乎寻常地高。在一些旅行中，中国“官员”只花少到一两天时间用于商务活动，却花两个星期观光、娱乐和休闲。朗讯把这些旅行归类为“售前”或者“售后”项目，取决于朗讯是想从这些客户那里获得业务（“售前”），还是说已经有合同关系（“售后”）。在此期间，朗讯为55宗“售前”旅行花费超过100万美元，为约260宗“售后”旅行花费900万美元。
　　朗讯中国通过其销售部门为中国“官员”的旅行提供资助。为安排一趟旅行，朗讯雇员通常准备一份“客户参观申请表（Customer Visit Request Form），表格说明了申请旅行的信息。这个表格用来申请和从朗讯中国管理层获得对旅行费用的内部批准，内容包括访问者的身份信息和访问目的。例如，每一份申请表询问，“访问者是否为决定者/影响者？”通常，回答是肯定的。表格还提供了供朗讯销售员工说明是否“观光/娱乐”是“必需”，以及其它关于建议安排的信息，包括要求住宿的质量。
　　在获得朗讯中国管理层批准后，朗讯中国在朗讯美国新泽西总部的雇员安排访问的后勤工作。他们被称作中国运营支持小组（China Operation Support Team，China Ops），负责确定行程，通常会利用一或两家旅行代理来安排飞机、酒店和其它安排。这些雇员还经常负责确定访问的商业内容，例如，安排一位朗讯管理层与到访的中国代表团会面。包括那些娱乐和休闲远远超过商务活动的行程，由朗讯中国的员工和管理层审查并批准。
　　尽管中国“官员”一般根据申请表上的姓名、单位和职务确定，朗讯中国并没有内部机制评估访问是否违反《反海外腐败法》。甚至，朗讯员工很少或几乎没有就中国访问者是否《反海外腐败法》规定的“政府官员”提出询问。关于朗讯为其娱乐和休闲活动付款是否违反《反海外腐败法》，朗讯的内控也不置一词。

“售前”访问（Pre-Sale Visits）
　　从2000年至2003年，朗讯为约330名中国“官员”的美国和其它地方访问提供了全额费用，以参观朗讯工厂，进行观光、娱乐和休闲活。朗讯为至少55次这种称为“售前”的访问花费了超过100万美元。“售前”访问一般由朗讯中国的员工和管理层提出要求并批准，并且由朗讯的China Ops小组实施。
　　例如，2002年6月，朗讯为中国一家国有控股的电信公司（“1号客户”）的副总经理和技术部负责人访问美国支付了超过3.4万美元。该访问包括三天的商务活动，但观光、娱乐和休闲则超过五天，包括参观迪斯尼和夏威夷。在与此访问有关的几份内部文件上，朗讯将“1号客户”副总经理称为CDMA业务的“关键客户”和“决策者”。在描述这趟访问时，一封朗讯的内部电子邮件声称，这趟访问“对于我们非常重要”，因为它是“在CDMA二期工程前加强（朗讯与‘1号客户’副总经理）关系的机会”。2002年10月，朗讯从“1号客户”那里获得CDMA第二阶段项目合约的一部分，价值4.28亿美元。
　　另一个案例发生在2001年4月，朗讯一家既有客户（“2号客户”）的六名“官员”和工程师访美两周，也是朗讯支付全部费用。这家公司是一家中国国有控股电信公司的子公司。朗讯对此次旅行的期待之一是谈判双方之间的谅解备忘录。尽管中国“官员”们花五天时间参观了朗讯在伊利诺伊、新泽西和科罗拉多的工厂，但他们花了九天时间游玩，其中包括波士顿、拉斯维加斯、大峡谷和夏威夷。此举耗费超过7.3万美元，在其内部文件中，朗讯称此次旅行是向“2号客户”介绍其网络运营中心的一次“黄金机会”。
　　朗讯还称“2号客户”当时正在考虑在数家竞争者中挑选某项特定的电信产品。在审批此次旅行时，朗讯估计与“2号客户”的潜在业务可达5亿美元。在朗讯的内部记录中，这六名来自“2号客户”的访问者被标明为“决策者”或“影响决策者”。其中一名访客是“2号客户”的副总裁，直接向一把手汇报。
　　朗讯为“1号客户”所支付的开支被计入“其他服务”项下，为前述“2号客户”所付开支被计入“国际运输”开支项下。这一费用账户在法律上是仅用于“在商品跨国家边境时的国际航运和运输”的成本。朗讯还不正当地将几笔类似的客户和潜在客户的售前访问记录为“国际运输”花费。

“售后”访问（“Post-Sale”Visit）
　　从2000年至2003年，在朗讯和其中国政府客户合同中，通常包括要求朗讯以“参观工厂”或者“培训”名义，为客户提供赴美国和其它国家访问的旅行费用的条款。因为朗讯的是基于存在合同提供访问，这些访问被称作“售后”访问。以履行其合同责任的名义，朗讯为约260次赴美国和其它国家“售后”访问支付了超过900万美元，这些访问通常包括极少乃至根本没有商务活动。朗讯的中国客户中超过850位个人参与了访问。通常，客户指定访问的内容和地点。朗讯员工负责陪伴，安排后勤，并且支付飞机票、酒店住宿、饮食、观光旅游和每日津贴。朗讯中国雇员和管理层要求或者批准这些售后访问，而朗讯的China Ops小组负责实施。

“参观工厂”
　　一些“售后”访问表面上是参观工厂。然而，从2001年后，朗讯开始将其制造业务移至包括中国在内的其他地方，在美国可供客户参观的工厂寥寥可数。但是，朗讯并不像合同中要求的那样，在朗讯真正进行生产的地方为中国客户提供工厂检验，而是为其安排了美国和其他一些地方的访问，包括澳大利亚和欧洲，即使朗讯在这些地方根本没有工厂。这些所谓的访问基本上就是观光、娱乐和休闲旅游，虽然其中总会包括一天参观朗讯总部或一些朗讯的设施（但非工厂），以使这些访问表面看来的合情合理。
　　朗讯职员知道公司为那些与商业业务基本毫不相干的中国“官员”提供了有名无实的工厂参观之行，并且这些对于“工厂参观”的错误描述，用于帮助这些中国客户获得签证，或顺利通过美国的移民管制。例如，有一次，一名朗讯职员在给一位中国“官员”的电邮中写道：对中国“官员”的邀请函，如果在行程中包含了工厂检验的安排，可以被用于“向美国移民及归化局（INS）证实（该客户）到达旧金山……然而，我们也有所担忧，因为整个行程显示这次旅程只是为了观光，而非商业目的。如果INS工作人员检查他们的机票和参观计划，我们觉得他们可能会有麻烦。”尽管存在这些风险，朗讯仍然在明知这些客户只会进行观光、娱乐和休闲活动的情况下，赞助这些客户以出差的名义在美国旅行。
　　大约在2001年6月，朗讯为一家中国国有投资公司（“3号客户”）六名员工组成的参观团，支付了到尼亚加拉瀑布、拉斯维加斯、大峡谷等地的观光费用，并称此为“参观工厂”。这些中国“官员”对观光地点提出了具体的要求，而朗讯则尽力满足。这些参观者在朗讯的内部文件中被描述为“决策者”或“能影响决策者”，其中包括“3号客户”两个部门的副主管。一封讨论该旅程的电子邮件写道：“请特殊关照（原文如此）这个来自‘3号客户’的请求……‘3号客户’已经在计划二期（西南区）的骨干网扩建，我们面临着来自两家电信公司竞争对手的竞争。”另一封朗讯内部电邮写道：“安排‘3号客户’会见美国的运营商并不容易。但我们需要这么做……我们正与一家电信公司竞争对手争夺两千万的扩建工程。”此后，朗讯成功地获得了“3号客户”骨干光网络二期的合同，价值2300万美元。这些中国“官员”花两周时间内参观了纽约、华盛顿、尼亚加拉瀑布、拉斯维加斯和大峡谷，其中大约有一半的时间都用于休闲活动。
　　朗讯为“3号客户”花费了46854美元，并不当地记录为“住宿”费用。依照朗讯的内部文件，这笔费用是被用于“朗讯公司员工或代表朗讯公司员工由于公司业务而产生的住宿费用”。在这个例子中，是朗讯的客户而非朗讯的员工，产生了观光、娱乐、休闲和商务旅行的费用，而朗讯不当记录的这笔费用，大大超出了住宿的花销。

“培训”访问
　　朗讯也为其客户提供了售后的“培训”参观，设计该种参观的目的是进行与朗讯产品有关的培训，但经常也包括大量的观光、娱乐和休闲活动。一次典型的培训参观通常涉及中国政府所有或控股的公司的工程师或技术人员对美国的访问，并接受朗讯在其设施场所进行的培训。但事实上，相对于用于合法培训的时间和金钱，却有更大部分被用于观光、娱乐和休闲活动，以及每日津贴。朗讯也为其客户支付其从培训场所到其他非培训地点的交通、膳食和住宿费用。
　　至少有一次，朗讯接待了一家中国国有控股电信公司的子公司（“5号客户”）的六名工程师组成的代表团，并为其支付2002年5月在美国为时21天的培训访问。该代表团完全由来自“5号客户”的工程师组成，其中有一人负责“5号客户”的计划发展部门。这些参观者在朗讯的客户访问申请表上被记录为“影响决策者”。朗讯在其内部文件中称，有一个从“5号客户”那里获得价值600万美元的潜在商业机会。
　　“5号客户”代表团的访问行程包括在奥兰多、佛罗里达五天的培训，在旧金山、洛杉矶、圣地亚哥、拉斯维加斯、大峡谷、纽约、华盛顿和夏威夷的观光、娱乐和消遣，共支出4.682808万美元。朗讯将这笔开支计入了“其他服务”项。■

背景
　　1997年，朗讯从中国政府获得了一份合同，为中国提供高速光纤传输系统。1998年，朗讯与当时的中国邮电部签署了一份合作备忘录。2000年，朗讯在中国青岛建成其在美国以外最大的制造中心，并在北京开设贝尔实验室研究中心。2001年到2003年间，朗讯与其中国客户签署了数单每单价值数亿美元的合同。到2003年，朗讯在中国的销售额占到其总额的11%。