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。
|
|
|
BLACKOUT NO STAR NO MOON
|
| 文章分类 | 管理 |
| 内容 | 管理 |
资本市场研究室今天特地请来了著名的投资专家A先生，在丐中丐律师事务所举办关于外商境内投资的专题讲座，郭靖、杨康被合伙人洪律师点名参加，其他所的一些律师也慕名而来，非常爆棚。
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 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.
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 cent
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！
