（1）城市变化巨大，啥都不认识了
（2）到处是城市建设，新修地铁什么的，都是热火朝天
（3）绿化不错，很多地方都有专门设计的绿化带
（4）车辆很多，而且很多新车新本新司机，有点恐怖；但就道路开车复杂程度而言，那还是比不上纽约
（5）对了，好像所有认识的人都有车
（6）购物中心到处都是，而且相当美国化，海报上都是白人帅哥美女，我很不爽；东西还超贵，算成美金，都是只贵不便宜，还是回美国等sales好了
（7）好多以前的朋友都混得不错，凡是2004/05买房的都发大了。经济状况和工作关系不大，都看自己投资有没有弄好
（8）吃东西好吃呀，价格大概￥75-100一个人的地方算中档，￥100-150算中高档，￥200就算高档了，哦，这都不包括酒水钱，喝酒还是比较贵的
（9）吃东西还是很累人的，天天吃，有点搞不定了，都是高蛋白，高胆固醇
（10）国内电视剧还是特别傻，看上去非常假，不过也可能是我傻，看不懂
（11）“叶问”很好看，以后我要去学学咏春拳，防身健体啊
（12）“非诚务扰”一大大大大的滥片，看了要吐血，冯晓刚已经江郎才尽了
（13）看电影每个片子价格还不一样，非常古怪啊，50-60不等，算成美元不贵，但人民币不便宜
（14）空气没有和纽约有太大区别，就是这几天没见过蓝天，好像我人品问题，我妈说前几天都是大晴天，我们一来就多云，晕～～～
（15）到哪里都是服务员和保安，多得让人心荒
（16）乱停车的现象很厉害啊，经常就是两个车头对头，尾对尾在马路边停着，还有就是动不动上人行道停车
（17) 奶奶的，我在行人绿灯的时候过马路，还被转弯的汽车滴，很%#￥*！啊，中指，我的中指呢？
（18）打的士超级方便啊，到哪里都是的士，又一次我等了很久，才等到，气得要死，结果一看才等了3分钟而已，啊~~
（19) 国内人好像不喜欢走路，到处坐车，我和老婆喜欢到处狂走，别人一听说我们走了40分钟去一个地方，都张大嘴不敢相信
（20）高楼大厦超多，都很漂亮；新的住宅区也很多，不过都挺贵的，据说2009下半年房市会见底
oh，我要去北京了，到时候看看北京怎么样
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
下礼拜要回国玩了，好开心~
整整10年没回去过了，天哪，我现在真得很兴奋呀
4，5年前美国同事问我为什么这么久都没回国，我老是开玩笑说我以前在中国犯事了，杀了什么贪官的儿子，是流放出来的，不能回去，他们都狂笑，说我吹牛都不打草稿
2007年以来，我都不敢这么开玩笑了，因为有好几个老美都觉得我在说实话，都觉得我肯定和达赖一样被政府驱逐出境的，靠，我解释也没用，反正他们就觉得我肯定以前做了什么不能见光的事情。。
总算我现在可以回国来证明自己的清白，我不是杀人犯！！
奶奶的，但有个老美总来打探为什么10年满了我才敢回国，老问我是不是我以前干的事情有10年的 statutory limitation。现在每次看到我就对我眨眼睛，好像他知道我什么秘密似的。
这日子没法过了
4，5年前美国同事问我为什么这么久都没回国，我老是开玩笑说我以前在中国犯事了，杀了什么贪官的儿子，是流放出来的，不能回去，他们都狂笑，说我吹牛都不打草稿
2007年以来，我都不敢这么开玩笑了，因为有好几个老美都觉得我在说实话，都觉得我肯定和达赖一样被政府驱逐出境的，靠，我解释也没用，反正他们就觉得我肯定以前做了什么不能见光的事情。。
总算我现在可以回国来证明自己的清白，我不是杀人犯！！
奶奶的，但有个老美总来打探为什么10年满了我才敢回国，老问我是不是我以前干的事情有10年的 statutory limitation。现在每次看到我就对我眨眼睛，好像他知道我什么秘密似的。
这日子没法过了
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Myth #7: Progressive tax is evil because it's unfair
Progressive tax means that richer you are, higher marginal tax rate you pay. So, the average tax rate for a rich person is designed to be higher than a poor person.
The "unfairness" argument usually goes like this: "everyone is born equal in this nation and everyone should pay the same tax rate regardless his own money-making ability."
I am sorry, my friend, this is total horse-shit.
First, let's see where the tax money goes once it's collected from you and me. The single largest expenditure is National Defense (including Veterans Affairs). It's over $700bn and over 25% of the total budget.
Then, you tell me who benefit more from National Defense, me or Warren Buffet? For me, there are not much to be defended with. Let's say if Cuba invades US, I don't get much to lose. Well, that can't be true for Warren Buffet. He has the most stake in US and he will be the biggest loser if anything happens.
Since rich people benefit more from programs like National Defense, it makes perfect sense that they pay more.
People are dying to protect the country. Well, those poor people, to be precise. So, in order to maintain a steady stream of fresh bodies for the army, rich people have to support poor families. Therefore, Health and Human Services (the 2nd largest item on the budget) makes perfect sense.
Even small items on the budget, like those national highways, rich people drive more and benefit more. Poor folks sometimes don't even have cars! Why should they pay for something that they don't even use?
Education, another example, why should poor people pay for it given the fact that they have the higest drop out rate and lowest admission rate to college?
NASA, haha, do you think people in Harlem give a rat ass about what happens on Mars?
Oh, the Justice Department, the cops! You don't even want me to go there.
This list can go on and on.
The fact is "rich people, who may not even realize it themselves, benefit more in this country by government spending." Of course they have to pay more. This is only FAIR to do so.
Ok, now you may say why progressive tax? Rich people are paying more tax even if their marginal tax rate is the same as poor people.
Here is why: the margin utility of each extra dollar is decreasing and it's utility maximization for the society by taxing higher marginal tax rate.
Let's assume you only earn $1000 a month. This $1000 means a lot to you. It pays your rent, food, and other necessities.
But for others, Bill Gates for example, any extra $1000 means nothing to him. He can even give away the money to support aerospace programs. Well, some millionaires are exactly doing that.
So, if I, as the government, have to tax some money to support the programs I just mentioned earlier, I rather take the money from Bill Gates than from you. Consequently the marginal tax for rich people is indeed progressive. The more money a person makes, the additional dollar will be taxed more as it means less to that person. This tax rule minimizes the impact on the society as whole due to taxation.
Unfortunately, some people has a different utility curve when it comes to money. They will cry out loud whenever you take his money away even though they have little to no need for that money. We call them money-hungry self-centered cheap-asses. Or in short, Republicans.
The "unfairness" argument usually goes like this: "everyone is born equal in this nation and everyone should pay the same tax rate regardless his own money-making ability."
I am sorry, my friend, this is total horse-shit.
First, let's see where the tax money goes once it's collected from you and me. The single largest expenditure is National Defense (including Veterans Affairs). It's over $700bn and over 25% of the total budget.
Then, you tell me who benefit more from National Defense, me or Warren Buffet? For me, there are not much to be defended with. Let's say if Cuba invades US, I don't get much to lose. Well, that can't be true for Warren Buffet. He has the most stake in US and he will be the biggest loser if anything happens.
Since rich people benefit more from programs like National Defense, it makes perfect sense that they pay more.
People are dying to protect the country. Well, those poor people, to be precise. So, in order to maintain a steady stream of fresh bodies for the army, rich people have to support poor families. Therefore, Health and Human Services (the 2nd largest item on the budget) makes perfect sense.
Even small items on the budget, like those national highways, rich people drive more and benefit more. Poor folks sometimes don't even have cars! Why should they pay for something that they don't even use?
Education, another example, why should poor people pay for it given the fact that they have the higest drop out rate and lowest admission rate to college?
NASA, haha, do you think people in Harlem give a rat ass about what happens on Mars?
Oh, the Justice Department, the cops! You don't even want me to go there.
This list can go on and on.
The fact is "rich people, who may not even realize it themselves, benefit more in this country by government spending." Of course they have to pay more. This is only FAIR to do so.
Ok, now you may say why progressive tax? Rich people are paying more tax even if their marginal tax rate is the same as poor people.
Here is why: the margin utility of each extra dollar is decreasing and it's utility maximization for the society by taxing higher marginal tax rate.
Let's assume you only earn $1000 a month. This $1000 means a lot to you. It pays your rent, food, and other necessities.
But for others, Bill Gates for example, any extra $1000 means nothing to him. He can even give away the money to support aerospace programs. Well, some millionaires are exactly doing that.
So, if I, as the government, have to tax some money to support the programs I just mentioned earlier, I rather take the money from Bill Gates than from you. Consequently the marginal tax for rich people is indeed progressive. The more money a person makes, the additional dollar will be taxed more as it means less to that person. This tax rule minimizes the impact on the society as whole due to taxation.
Unfortunately, some people has a different utility curve when it comes to money. They will cry out loud whenever you take his money away even though they have little to no need for that money. We call them money-hungry self-centered cheap-asses. Or in short, Republicans.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Myth #6: I am picking McCain, not Palin
Some people will vote for McCain even though they agree Palin sucks. Their argument is simple: I am voting McCain for President, Not Palin.
Well, this argument is flawed.
First, Palin not just sucks. She is the queen of the Sucker Land and she sucks more than an industrial grade vacuum cleaner.
She can't even name a single newspaper! (Zero knowledge) She claims she understands international affair simple because she can visually see Russia from Alaska! (Zero logic) But she wants more power once she is the VP! (Is she the Weapon of Mass Destruction Bush is trying so hard to find??)
Secondly, Picking Palin as VP candidate is a utterly stupid irrational irresponsible decision. Anyone who makes that decision should not be allowed to make any other decisions for the rest of their lives, maybe except for the "paper or plastic" questions when checking out in a supermarket.
Well, MaCain made that decision! So, he is not qualified to be President. Case closed.
Finally, anyone voting for McCain without thinking about Palin is a dumb ass.
Take a look at a mortality table for a 72-year old. If you don't know what a mortality table is, google it. If you don't know how to use it, google it again. The bottom line is that there is 25% to 30% chance that McCain will die within the first term even without taking his 4 previous skin cancer history into consideration. So, you basically have 30% or higher chance to have Palin as the Head of the State by picking McCain. Some actuaries even put the odds much higher than 50%. If you don't think this is a serious risk worth considering when voting in November, you should not be allowed to vote. I rest my case.
Well, this argument is flawed.
First, Palin not just sucks. She is the queen of the Sucker Land and she sucks more than an industrial grade vacuum cleaner.
She can't even name a single newspaper! (Zero knowledge) She claims she understands international affair simple because she can visually see Russia from Alaska! (Zero logic) But she wants more power once she is the VP! (Is she the Weapon of Mass Destruction Bush is trying so hard to find??)
Secondly, Picking Palin as VP candidate is a utterly stupid irrational irresponsible decision. Anyone who makes that decision should not be allowed to make any other decisions for the rest of their lives, maybe except for the "paper or plastic" questions when checking out in a supermarket.
Well, MaCain made that decision! So, he is not qualified to be President. Case closed.
Finally, anyone voting for McCain without thinking about Palin is a dumb ass.
Take a look at a mortality table for a 72-year old. If you don't know what a mortality table is, google it. If you don't know how to use it, google it again. The bottom line is that there is 25% to 30% chance that McCain will die within the first term even without taking his 4 previous skin cancer history into consideration. So, you basically have 30% or higher chance to have Palin as the Head of the State by picking McCain. Some actuaries even put the odds much higher than 50%. If you don't think this is a serious risk worth considering when voting in November, you should not be allowed to vote. I rest my case.
2008 美国金融危机 (3) － 金融革命
步入70年代之后，美国政府清楚地意识到光靠财政部的力量已经不能继续支持提高美国住房占有率的神圣使命。房贷的需求不断的增长，得益于二战后涌现的生育潮，但政府资金在经济大环境下已经开始有点捉襟见肘。
如何解决这个资金缺口呢？
首先，房利美进行了彻底的私有化。
二战以来，美国房市表现相当好，房屋贷款风险低，回报高，作为一个房屋贷款二级市场的垄断机构，房利美是相当赚钱的。它就是美国财政部里生金鸡蛋的母鸡。平时没事的时候，母鸡生鸡蛋生得很开心，但每次缺钱的时候，主人就总想把母鸡卖掉换钱，也就是说去把房利美卖给投资者，不再是政府的部门。这一点，呵呵，和中国的国企上市倒是很像。
整个五六十年代，每次财政部没钱的时候，房利美私有化的讨论就像幽灵一样的浮现出来。但每次讨论讨论着，经济就渐渐的好点了，钱又来了，就没下文了。这么多年的讨论，其实有些地方已经为私有化铺好了道路，私有化似乎是棺材上钉-迟早的事，但是每次就差这么最后一口气。60年代末的经济萎靡正是提供了一个契机打上了最后一个钉子。这里细节很多，房利美最后分成两部分，一部分还是政府机构，继续向部分向部分国民的房屋贷款进行担保，提供二级市场，但这部分有点类似福利，只对很小部分国民有效；绝大部分业务变成非政府的上市公司，变成投资者拥有的私有经济。
然后，成立房地美来刺激竞争，防止垄断。
房地美也就是Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation)，成立于1970年，它基本上就是房利美的翻版，做一样的事情，就是对符合条件的房屋贷款提供二级市场的支持。房地美的建立是鼓励竞争，防止房利美一家垄断市场，但很滑稽的是，当政府在经营的时候，好像垄断没什么事，房利美独立存在了三十年都好好的，但一旦是私人企业，垄断就是万恶不赦的恶魔，一定要打倒，呵呵，正所谓只许州官放火，不许百姓点灯啊。不过有竞争倒也是好的，有利于二级市场的发展。
最后，建立房地产抵押债券市场
房地产债券其实就是把房地产贷款进行证券化，让很多条款都标准化，方便在公开市场买卖，创造了一种崭新的金融工具，极大的提高房地产贷款的流动性，让更多的投资者可以参与进来，从而扩大总体的资金来源。
我现在用一个家庭的例子来把这一切解释清楚。呵呵，这个东西比较复杂，大家别急，慢慢看。
假设老王现在想买一个60万的房子，但自己只有10万。老万就去花旗银行贷款买房。花旗银行就拿老王的房子作为抵押物，借给老王50万。老王答应每个月给银行还3000，30年还清。数学上一算，这笔贷款的利率大概是6%一年。
老王拿了这50万贷款，加上自己的10万储蓄，给了卖房子的建筑商60万，自己搬进了新家，非常开心。
第二天，老赵也看上了同一个住宅区的房子，和老王一样，老赵需要50万的贷款，他也去找花旗银行了。
银行呢，一方面很开心，一方面很痛苦。开心是因为在老王的贷款上赚钱了。假设银行融资成本是5%(低于老赵付给银行的6%），算起来等于每个月的成本是2700，也就是说这个房屋贷款能让银行一个月赚300块钱，算上30年的话，这个现金流的当前价值就有大概5万（也就是说银行的总成本是45万）。换句话说，银行贷款给老王50万，如果一切正常，银行能赚个5万。但痛苦在于银行把钱贷给老王了，剩下的资金不够50万了，不能再贷给老赵了，唉，赚不到钱了。
对于老王的贷款，银行也不是稳赚5万的，其中风险重重啊。如果老王突然没了工作，付不了每个月3000的钱，那银行就倒霉了。是，银行是可以去卖房子把贷款拿回来，但这也有风险，万一纽约地区房地产市场不好，那就麻烦了。这时候银行突然灵机一动，有办法了！
花旗银行给房美利打了个电话，想把这笔赚钱的贷款卖给房美利实现现金周转（假设贷款的条件符合房利美的要求）。
房利美看一下这个贷款，条件都符合规定（比如付款房子价值比，老王的信用评级，贷款金额等等一系列的指标），就答应买下来，价格上只能给银行46万。银行想了一下，还是不错的，45万的成本，卖了个46万，马上就赚了1万，不用300一个月的等个30年，而且毫无风险！并且马上资金到位，可以再把钱贷给老赵，又可以继续赚钱。银行就开开心心的答应了。其实银行说白了，就是赚了个一级市场发贷款的体力活，1万块钱可以看作是它作背景调查，物业评估的报酬。但这不错啊，毕竟是没有风险的活。等到老赵的贷款弄好了，银行就继续打电话给房利美，哈哈，又有一万到手。
房利美也很开心，46万的成本，买了一个50万的资产，预期可以赚4万，发放贷款前的体力活啥都不用管。至于风险，房利美不是很怕，因为它有好多好多好多的全国各地的贷款来分散风险。而且实在不行有房子抵押啊，卖房子好了。房子价值60万，就算从60万跌倒50万，钱还是可以拿回来，等于是保险加保险。
那房利美怎么来这么多钱去源源不断的买银行的贷款呢？一方面，作为独立上市公司，它能通过股票和债券等去融资。另一方面，它可以把买来的贷款证券化然后卖给市场上的投资者（保险公司，基金等等）。
证券化是这样实现的：
（1）成立一个独立的壳子公司，假设叫叫老王贷款证券化公司。
（2）把老王的房屋贷款转移到这个特殊的公司里，这也就是这公司的唯一资产。公司预期的现金流就是3000一个月。
（3）公司发行房贷款抵押债券给有兴趣的投资者，这个债券付给投资者的现金流就是这3000块钱。（当然这细节就比较复杂，3000涉及本金和利息两个部分，我就不多说了）房利美担保本金的偿付，但不担保利息，也不担保什么时候本金会被偿付。
（4）投资者看看这个现金流，用数学模型来看现金流的可能分布。大家请注意，3000一个月的现金流不是肯定的，如过将来利率下调，老王就可以去其它银行底价借钱，然后去还花旗银行的贷款，这样对于贷款持有者来说，一个月300块这样的赚钱买卖就消失了。所以，房贷款抵押债券投资者最大的风险是将来利率的波动，尽管本金被房利美担保了不会亏。最后投资者竞投47万去买债券。
好，这样一搞，房利美46万买的贷款，卖了47万，赚一万，也实现了资金周转，可以继续去买其他银行的房屋贷款。但房利美承受了在老王不付钱并且房子价值跌到50万以下的风险。在一般情况下，由于这个风险很小，所以赚1万就很不错了。而且资金回笼了，可以继续去赚钱。
房屋贷款债券的投资者呢？预期可以赚3万，但承受将来利率变化的风险。这个风险最大，所以得到的报酬也最多。今后的日子了，每天利率都会变化，这个债券的价格也一直在变，二级市场买卖频繁，一个流动性很强的资产就产生了。这个资产是相当吸引人的，它和普通的企业债券很不一样，它是跟着总体市场上的利率水平跑的，企业债券是跟着具体的公司财务状况跑的，由于这种差异，很多大型的债权基金都增加房屋贷款债券持有比例来分散投资风险。
好了，总算把这个最简化的例子说完了，累死我了。真正的数学计算要远比这个复杂，大家看看名堂好了，我有地方算错了别打人。
总体上看，这一系列的买卖贷款，实际上就是实现了资金的流动性，让市场参与者各取所需，各尽其能，极大程度上丰富了投资种类。这也就相当于引爆了一颗金融原子弹，从此金融创新源源不绝，奠定了今后35年蓬勃发展的金融革命。
但这颗原子弹也炸开了潘多拉的宝盒，到底最终是祸是福，咱们下回再见分晓。
如何解决这个资金缺口呢？
首先，房利美进行了彻底的私有化。
二战以来，美国房市表现相当好，房屋贷款风险低，回报高，作为一个房屋贷款二级市场的垄断机构，房利美是相当赚钱的。它就是美国财政部里生金鸡蛋的母鸡。平时没事的时候，母鸡生鸡蛋生得很开心，但每次缺钱的时候，主人就总想把母鸡卖掉换钱，也就是说去把房利美卖给投资者，不再是政府的部门。这一点，呵呵，和中国的国企上市倒是很像。
整个五六十年代，每次财政部没钱的时候，房利美私有化的讨论就像幽灵一样的浮现出来。但每次讨论讨论着，经济就渐渐的好点了，钱又来了，就没下文了。这么多年的讨论，其实有些地方已经为私有化铺好了道路，私有化似乎是棺材上钉-迟早的事，但是每次就差这么最后一口气。60年代末的经济萎靡正是提供了一个契机打上了最后一个钉子。这里细节很多，房利美最后分成两部分，一部分还是政府机构，继续向部分向部分国民的房屋贷款进行担保，提供二级市场，但这部分有点类似福利，只对很小部分国民有效；绝大部分业务变成非政府的上市公司，变成投资者拥有的私有经济。
然后，成立房地美来刺激竞争，防止垄断。
房地美也就是Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation)，成立于1970年，它基本上就是房利美的翻版，做一样的事情，就是对符合条件的房屋贷款提供二级市场的支持。房地美的建立是鼓励竞争，防止房利美一家垄断市场，但很滑稽的是，当政府在经营的时候，好像垄断没什么事，房利美独立存在了三十年都好好的，但一旦是私人企业，垄断就是万恶不赦的恶魔，一定要打倒，呵呵，正所谓只许州官放火，不许百姓点灯啊。不过有竞争倒也是好的，有利于二级市场的发展。
最后，建立房地产抵押债券市场
房地产债券其实就是把房地产贷款进行证券化，让很多条款都标准化，方便在公开市场买卖，创造了一种崭新的金融工具，极大的提高房地产贷款的流动性，让更多的投资者可以参与进来，从而扩大总体的资金来源。
我现在用一个家庭的例子来把这一切解释清楚。呵呵，这个东西比较复杂，大家别急，慢慢看。
假设老王现在想买一个60万的房子，但自己只有10万。老万就去花旗银行贷款买房。花旗银行就拿老王的房子作为抵押物，借给老王50万。老王答应每个月给银行还3000，30年还清。数学上一算，这笔贷款的利率大概是6%一年。
老王拿了这50万贷款，加上自己的10万储蓄，给了卖房子的建筑商60万，自己搬进了新家，非常开心。
第二天，老赵也看上了同一个住宅区的房子，和老王一样，老赵需要50万的贷款，他也去找花旗银行了。
银行呢，一方面很开心，一方面很痛苦。开心是因为在老王的贷款上赚钱了。假设银行融资成本是5%(低于老赵付给银行的6%），算起来等于每个月的成本是2700，也就是说这个房屋贷款能让银行一个月赚300块钱，算上30年的话，这个现金流的当前价值就有大概5万（也就是说银行的总成本是45万）。换句话说，银行贷款给老王50万，如果一切正常，银行能赚个5万。但痛苦在于银行把钱贷给老王了，剩下的资金不够50万了，不能再贷给老赵了，唉，赚不到钱了。
对于老王的贷款，银行也不是稳赚5万的，其中风险重重啊。如果老王突然没了工作，付不了每个月3000的钱，那银行就倒霉了。是，银行是可以去卖房子把贷款拿回来，但这也有风险，万一纽约地区房地产市场不好，那就麻烦了。这时候银行突然灵机一动，有办法了！
花旗银行给房美利打了个电话，想把这笔赚钱的贷款卖给房美利实现现金周转（假设贷款的条件符合房利美的要求）。
房利美看一下这个贷款，条件都符合规定（比如付款房子价值比，老王的信用评级，贷款金额等等一系列的指标），就答应买下来，价格上只能给银行46万。银行想了一下，还是不错的，45万的成本，卖了个46万，马上就赚了1万，不用300一个月的等个30年，而且毫无风险！并且马上资金到位，可以再把钱贷给老赵，又可以继续赚钱。银行就开开心心的答应了。其实银行说白了，就是赚了个一级市场发贷款的体力活，1万块钱可以看作是它作背景调查，物业评估的报酬。但这不错啊，毕竟是没有风险的活。等到老赵的贷款弄好了，银行就继续打电话给房利美，哈哈，又有一万到手。
房利美也很开心，46万的成本，买了一个50万的资产，预期可以赚4万，发放贷款前的体力活啥都不用管。至于风险，房利美不是很怕，因为它有好多好多好多的全国各地的贷款来分散风险。而且实在不行有房子抵押啊，卖房子好了。房子价值60万，就算从60万跌倒50万，钱还是可以拿回来，等于是保险加保险。
那房利美怎么来这么多钱去源源不断的买银行的贷款呢？一方面，作为独立上市公司，它能通过股票和债券等去融资。另一方面，它可以把买来的贷款证券化然后卖给市场上的投资者（保险公司，基金等等）。
证券化是这样实现的：
（1）成立一个独立的壳子公司，假设叫叫老王贷款证券化公司。
（2）把老王的房屋贷款转移到这个特殊的公司里，这也就是这公司的唯一资产。公司预期的现金流就是3000一个月。
（3）公司发行房贷款抵押债券给有兴趣的投资者，这个债券付给投资者的现金流就是这3000块钱。（当然这细节就比较复杂，3000涉及本金和利息两个部分，我就不多说了）房利美担保本金的偿付，但不担保利息，也不担保什么时候本金会被偿付。
（4）投资者看看这个现金流，用数学模型来看现金流的可能分布。大家请注意，3000一个月的现金流不是肯定的，如过将来利率下调，老王就可以去其它银行底价借钱，然后去还花旗银行的贷款，这样对于贷款持有者来说，一个月300块这样的赚钱买卖就消失了。所以，房贷款抵押债券投资者最大的风险是将来利率的波动，尽管本金被房利美担保了不会亏。最后投资者竞投47万去买债券。
好，这样一搞，房利美46万买的贷款，卖了47万，赚一万，也实现了资金周转，可以继续去买其他银行的房屋贷款。但房利美承受了在老王不付钱并且房子价值跌到50万以下的风险。在一般情况下，由于这个风险很小，所以赚1万就很不错了。而且资金回笼了，可以继续去赚钱。
房屋贷款债券的投资者呢？预期可以赚3万，但承受将来利率变化的风险。这个风险最大，所以得到的报酬也最多。今后的日子了，每天利率都会变化，这个债券的价格也一直在变，二级市场买卖频繁，一个流动性很强的资产就产生了。这个资产是相当吸引人的，它和普通的企业债券很不一样，它是跟着总体市场上的利率水平跑的，企业债券是跟着具体的公司财务状况跑的，由于这种差异，很多大型的债权基金都增加房屋贷款债券持有比例来分散投资风险。
好了，总算把这个最简化的例子说完了，累死我了。真正的数学计算要远比这个复杂，大家看看名堂好了，我有地方算错了别打人。
总体上看，这一系列的买卖贷款，实际上就是实现了资金的流动性，让市场参与者各取所需，各尽其能，极大程度上丰富了投资种类。这也就相当于引爆了一颗金融原子弹，从此金融创新源源不绝，奠定了今后35年蓬勃发展的金融革命。
但这颗原子弹也炸开了潘多拉的宝盒，到底最终是祸是福，咱们下回再见分晓。
Sunday, October 12, 2008
2008 美国金融危机 (2) － 房地产市场的春天
经过大萧条之后，美国房地产行业在40年代开始进入了第一个蓬勃发展的春天。在1940到1970这短短的30年里，全美家庭住房拥有率从不到45%提升到65%左右。房地产行业的兴起，带动了一系列的周边产业（建筑，材料，运输，服务等等）的快速发展，为同期美国经济的高速发展做出了很大贡献。
在这欢欣鼓舞的大旗背后，有一位默默无闻的功臣暗自发光，那就是Fannie Mae（房利美）。呵呵，为什么这么说呢，且听我细细道来。
美国一直是一个非常鼓励家庭拥有住房的国家。为了提高住房拥有率，国家可谓不择手段，在税收政策上对买房者的优惠之大几乎等同于对租房者的歧视，就连在文化上，都把美国梦诠释为是“有房，有车，有狗，有小孩”，呵呵，把Land of Freedom彻底量化。
房利美也是这种理念的产物。
房利美最初公开的Mission Statement（任务宣言）就是通过对美国房地产贷款市场的支持来提高美国的住房拥有率。作为政府的分支，房利美从政府那里拿到资金，从地方银行手里购买符合资格房产贷款，然后把这些贷款转手卖个有兴趣的投资者，实现资金流动，然后进一步去买地方银行的贷款，实现良性循环。
通过这样的操作，房利美实际上做到了以下几点：
（1）成功建立了房贷的二手市场。地方银行可以放开手脚去给个人发放贷款，因为银行们随时可以很方便的把贷款卖给房利美实现资金周转。从房利美拿来的钱，地方银行可以进一步发放新的房屋贷款，实现循环，从而充分发挥他们在一级市场的作用（对个人信用进行审评，对房子的估价，对贷款进行维护和管理等等）
（2）成功满足投资者的投资需求。能发放房屋贷款的只有银行，但希望投资于房地产贷款业务的可是大有人在。比如保险公司，退休基金等等，都喜欢房贷业务的经济效益，但他们不可能，也不允许向个人直接发放贷款，所以只能通过二级市场来满足他们的投资需求。同时在二级市场里，投资者们不用管一级市场的那些琐事（对贷款者的信用评估，对物业的价值评估等等），何乐不为。二级市场和一级市场的分离，使得地方银行和市场投资者彻底职责分工，各自发挥自己的特长。
（3）成功实现资金的东西调度。资金和房子有很大的区域性。在那时候，东部资金多，但房屋贷款市场比较成熟，缺乏增长点；西部房地产市场发展迅速，但缺乏资金。房利美把西部的房屋贷款买来，再卖给东部的投资者，有效的实现资金调度。
（4）成功分散房贷投资者的风险。房产贷款的特点是地域性很强。在没有二级市场的时候，纽约的银行只能拿着一大把纽约的房屋贷款。一旦纽约发生什么天灾人祸，这些银行就倒霉了。但自从有了二级市场之后，大家的投资组合就能够实现地域性的多元化。纽约银行或保险公司能拥有全国各地的房屋贷款，任何一个地方的天灾人祸都不会影响到总体资产的健康状况，从而降低了系统风险。
所以说，从本质上讲房利美起增强了房贷市场的效率，降低了地域风险和交易成本，促进了各个金融机构在房贷市场里的职责分工，最终老百姓受益，提高住房拥有率。
但当美国步入60年代末期的时候，经济状况开始恶化，美国政府资金捉胫见肘，原油价格上涨，导致通胀提高，长期房贷利率飞涨，强烈抑制了美国房地产市场发展。作为房贷市场的中流砥柱，房利美到底何去何从？
在这欢欣鼓舞的大旗背后，有一位默默无闻的功臣暗自发光，那就是Fannie Mae（房利美）。呵呵，为什么这么说呢，且听我细细道来。
美国一直是一个非常鼓励家庭拥有住房的国家。为了提高住房拥有率，国家可谓不择手段，在税收政策上对买房者的优惠之大几乎等同于对租房者的歧视，就连在文化上，都把美国梦诠释为是“有房，有车，有狗，有小孩”，呵呵，把Land of Freedom彻底量化。
房利美也是这种理念的产物。
房利美最初公开的Mission Statement（任务宣言）就是通过对美国房地产贷款市场的支持来提高美国的住房拥有率。作为政府的分支，房利美从政府那里拿到资金，从地方银行手里购买符合资格房产贷款，然后把这些贷款转手卖个有兴趣的投资者，实现资金流动，然后进一步去买地方银行的贷款，实现良性循环。
通过这样的操作，房利美实际上做到了以下几点：
（1）成功建立了房贷的二手市场。地方银行可以放开手脚去给个人发放贷款，因为银行们随时可以很方便的把贷款卖给房利美实现资金周转。从房利美拿来的钱，地方银行可以进一步发放新的房屋贷款，实现循环，从而充分发挥他们在一级市场的作用（对个人信用进行审评，对房子的估价，对贷款进行维护和管理等等）
（2）成功满足投资者的投资需求。能发放房屋贷款的只有银行，但希望投资于房地产贷款业务的可是大有人在。比如保险公司，退休基金等等，都喜欢房贷业务的经济效益，但他们不可能，也不允许向个人直接发放贷款，所以只能通过二级市场来满足他们的投资需求。同时在二级市场里，投资者们不用管一级市场的那些琐事（对贷款者的信用评估，对物业的价值评估等等），何乐不为。二级市场和一级市场的分离，使得地方银行和市场投资者彻底职责分工，各自发挥自己的特长。
（3）成功实现资金的东西调度。资金和房子有很大的区域性。在那时候，东部资金多，但房屋贷款市场比较成熟，缺乏增长点；西部房地产市场发展迅速，但缺乏资金。房利美把西部的房屋贷款买来，再卖给东部的投资者，有效的实现资金调度。
（4）成功分散房贷投资者的风险。房产贷款的特点是地域性很强。在没有二级市场的时候，纽约的银行只能拿着一大把纽约的房屋贷款。一旦纽约发生什么天灾人祸，这些银行就倒霉了。但自从有了二级市场之后，大家的投资组合就能够实现地域性的多元化。纽约银行或保险公司能拥有全国各地的房屋贷款，任何一个地方的天灾人祸都不会影响到总体资产的健康状况，从而降低了系统风险。
所以说，从本质上讲房利美起增强了房贷市场的效率，降低了地域风险和交易成本，促进了各个金融机构在房贷市场里的职责分工，最终老百姓受益，提高住房拥有率。
但当美国步入60年代末期的时候，经济状况开始恶化，美国政府资金捉胫见肘，原油价格上涨，导致通胀提高，长期房贷利率飞涨，强烈抑制了美国房地产市场发展。作为房贷市场的中流砥柱，房利美到底何去何从？
Friday, October 10, 2008
2008 美国金融危机 (1) － 起源
看着满屏幕的红色数字不停的翻动，全世界各大股指今天又一次大跌，从年初到现在已经跌了４０％了，但是还是看不到反弹的希望。
我打开我的个人股票帐户，看着看着，突然有点头晕，恶心的想吐，我觉得我比刘三姐还苦，这日子真不让人活了。
哎，我决定要化悲痛为力量，想把这次惊天地泣鬼神的金融风波从头到尾说一说，毕竟很多小读者们还是很想知道其中缘由的。
希望我可以象司马迁一样的在逆境中写出惊世之作。啊，我太伟大了！！（不过他好像被割了蛋蛋，应该还是比我惨点的，我自认不如啊）
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
起源
面对这个号称为“自１９２９年大萧条以来最大的经济危机”，大家对起源都是众说纷纭。有人说是金融衍生证券的泛滥，有人说是房地产借贷种下的祸根，还有人说是投资银行的高杠杆，但我觉得要真的追溯其根本，那我们必须要回到１９２９年的大萧条去看看究竟。（呵呵，这还是很有点讽刺意味的啊）
１９２９到１９３３，是美国有史以来危害最大的经济危机。在短短的四年里，股票市场下跌了８０％，ＧＤＰ下跌了２５％，农产品价格下降了５０％，失业率高达２５％，接近９０００间银行倒闭。这些数据在现在的眼光里都是无法想象的。
至于１９２９大萧条的起因，无非以下5点：
(1) 融资成本低廉 （ease of credit)
(2) 国民经济负债过高，经济杠杆过高 (high leverage in both consumer and corporate levels)
(3) 公司报告发现假账纷纭，投资者信心全无
(4) 生产经营规模过大
(5) 中央银行货币政策失败，导致银行系统链式反应般的挤兑，最终银行体系崩溃
呵呵，是不是看得一身冷汗？除了第5点之外，前4点都是看得很眼熟啊。（1）（２）（3）在２００７前后都是有发生，（4）是被庞大的金融衍生工具市场替代了，而（5）呢，就是现在美联署和国会努力想要避免的。这是不是历史惊人的巧合呢？还是经济周期不可逃脱的陷阱？呵呵
１９３２年，在经济问题最严峻的时候，罗斯福上台，民主党人，很特殊的总统（是个坐轮椅的残疾人），他上台之后就提出以下几点来对付萧条：
(1) 成立各种政府机构来加大对金融企业的监管
(2) 提高对企业的税收，尤其是那些盈利状况非常好的企业
(3) 消减联邦政府支出
(4) 增强福利来帮助老百姓渡过难关
罗斯福通过了一系列的法律来稳定银行系统，扩大就业机会，以及安定人心。这也就是所谓的“罗斯福新政”。
新成立的政府机构包括SEC, FDIC, Social Security System等等。最终这些政策凸显成效，罗斯福还最后破天荒的当了3届总统，当然这些都是后话。
看到这里，是不是又一身冷汗？呵呵，历史惊人的巧合啊
说了半天，还没说到这次经济风波的源泉，哈哈，别着急。
其中一个新成立的机构我刚才没提到，那就是1938年成立的Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)，中文翻译得很好听，“房利美”，他的诞生主要是帮助普通老百姓实现home ownership。政府通过房利美，从地方银行手里买来符合条件的房屋贷款，从根本上让地方的银行放开手脚的去发放房屋贷款给符合条件的老百姓，从而稳定房市，稳定社区。要知道30年代初，好不容易活下来的银行也是顾虑重重，毕竟资本金不足，大家都在苟延残喘，是不大敢做长期房屋贷款业务的。房利美的成立，很大程度上给银行体系打了一个强心剂，使得信用良好的正常家庭能够买得上房子，铺垫了美国房地产市场今后60年的稳定发展。
呵呵，但是every rose has its thorn, 这房利美其实也就是这次2008经济风暴的导火索。真是成也萧何，败也萧何啊。
各位看官，预知后事如何，请听下回分解。
我打开我的个人股票帐户，看着看着，突然有点头晕，恶心的想吐，我觉得我比刘三姐还苦，这日子真不让人活了。
哎，我决定要化悲痛为力量，想把这次惊天地泣鬼神的金融风波从头到尾说一说，毕竟很多小读者们还是很想知道其中缘由的。
希望我可以象司马迁一样的在逆境中写出惊世之作。啊，我太伟大了！！（不过他好像被割了蛋蛋，应该还是比我惨点的，我自认不如啊）
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
起源
面对这个号称为“自１９２９年大萧条以来最大的经济危机”，大家对起源都是众说纷纭。有人说是金融衍生证券的泛滥，有人说是房地产借贷种下的祸根，还有人说是投资银行的高杠杆，但我觉得要真的追溯其根本，那我们必须要回到１９２９年的大萧条去看看究竟。（呵呵，这还是很有点讽刺意味的啊）
１９２９到１９３３，是美国有史以来危害最大的经济危机。在短短的四年里，股票市场下跌了８０％，ＧＤＰ下跌了２５％，农产品价格下降了５０％，失业率高达２５％，接近９０００间银行倒闭。这些数据在现在的眼光里都是无法想象的。
至于１９２９大萧条的起因，无非以下5点：
(1) 融资成本低廉 （ease of credit)
(2) 国民经济负债过高，经济杠杆过高 (high leverage in both consumer and corporate levels)
(3) 公司报告发现假账纷纭，投资者信心全无
(4) 生产经营规模过大
(5) 中央银行货币政策失败，导致银行系统链式反应般的挤兑，最终银行体系崩溃
呵呵，是不是看得一身冷汗？除了第5点之外，前4点都是看得很眼熟啊。（1）（２）（3）在２００７前后都是有发生，（4）是被庞大的金融衍生工具市场替代了，而（5）呢，就是现在美联署和国会努力想要避免的。这是不是历史惊人的巧合呢？还是经济周期不可逃脱的陷阱？呵呵
１９３２年，在经济问题最严峻的时候，罗斯福上台，民主党人，很特殊的总统（是个坐轮椅的残疾人），他上台之后就提出以下几点来对付萧条：
(1) 成立各种政府机构来加大对金融企业的监管
(2) 提高对企业的税收，尤其是那些盈利状况非常好的企业
(3) 消减联邦政府支出
(4) 增强福利来帮助老百姓渡过难关
罗斯福通过了一系列的法律来稳定银行系统，扩大就业机会，以及安定人心。这也就是所谓的“罗斯福新政”。
新成立的政府机构包括SEC, FDIC, Social Security System等等。最终这些政策凸显成效，罗斯福还最后破天荒的当了3届总统，当然这些都是后话。
看到这里，是不是又一身冷汗？呵呵，历史惊人的巧合啊
说了半天，还没说到这次经济风波的源泉，哈哈，别着急。
其中一个新成立的机构我刚才没提到，那就是1938年成立的Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)，中文翻译得很好听，“房利美”，他的诞生主要是帮助普通老百姓实现home ownership。政府通过房利美，从地方银行手里买来符合条件的房屋贷款，从根本上让地方的银行放开手脚的去发放房屋贷款给符合条件的老百姓，从而稳定房市，稳定社区。要知道30年代初，好不容易活下来的银行也是顾虑重重，毕竟资本金不足，大家都在苟延残喘，是不大敢做长期房屋贷款业务的。房利美的成立，很大程度上给银行体系打了一个强心剂，使得信用良好的正常家庭能够买得上房子，铺垫了美国房地产市场今后60年的稳定发展。
呵呵，但是every rose has its thorn, 这房利美其实也就是这次2008经济风暴的导火索。真是成也萧何，败也萧何啊。
各位看官，预知后事如何，请听下回分解。
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Don't blame Republicans. They are jus kids.
I just recently discovered that Republicans are actually bunch of 12-year old. Here is my evidence:
(1) Language
Kids like to invent words. So do Republicans.
"They misunderestimate me" - George W. Bush
"We've gotta promote the leadership that is willing to condemn terror and, at the same time, work toward the embetterment of the lives of the Palestinian people. " - George W. Bush
"We are mavericky!" - Sarah Palin
(2) View of the world
Kids tend to view the world in a black and white fashion. Good vs. Evil. Snow White is good, and Big Bad Wolf is bad. (Well, they even have the world "Bad" in the the middle of the name, so you get the point.)
President George W. Bush is sharing a similar view. He is apparently living in a Marvel Comic world, where bad dudes are teaming up to get him. There are "evil doers" and "axis of evil" trying to hurt us. When asked about Iran, Bush point-blank said "these are assholes". Wow! How insightful!
Seriously, I think all we need is a cape and Bush is good to go.
(3) Favorite game/sport
Kids tend to do those pointless, repetitive, boring things over and over and always get entertained.
So, not surprisingly the #1 redneck sport is NASCAR. Basically it's very similar to a hamster in a cage, you are driving tirelessly in circles.
OK, I know there are more to it but still, you are running in fucking circles! How undesirably boring that is! Btw, did I mention how retarded the car looks? Why would I ever want a detergent on my car?
(1) Language
Kids like to invent words. So do Republicans.
"They misunderestimate me" - George W. Bush
"We've gotta promote the leadership that is willing to condemn terror and, at the same time, work toward the embetterment of the lives of the Palestinian people. " - George W. Bush
"We are mavericky!" - Sarah Palin
(2) View of the world
Kids tend to view the world in a black and white fashion. Good vs. Evil. Snow White is good, and Big Bad Wolf is bad. (Well, they even have the world "Bad" in the the middle of the name, so you get the point.)
President George W. Bush is sharing a similar view. He is apparently living in a Marvel Comic world, where bad dudes are teaming up to get him. There are "evil doers" and "axis of evil" trying to hurt us. When asked about Iran, Bush point-blank said "these are assholes". Wow! How insightful!
Seriously, I think all we need is a cape and Bush is good to go.
(3) Favorite game/sport
Kids tend to do those pointless, repetitive, boring things over and over and always get entertained.
So, not surprisingly the #1 redneck sport is NASCAR. Basically it's very similar to a hamster in a cage, you are driving tirelessly in circles.
OK, I know there are more to it but still, you are running in fucking circles! How undesirably boring that is! Btw, did I mention how retarded the car looks? Why would I ever want a detergent on my car?
电脑白痴
我觉得我电脑挺白痴的，但今天网上看到这个白痴专辑，发现我还是很厉害的啊
以下这些都是现实的真人真事，华尔街日报2007年1月上提到的：
1. Compaq is considering changing the command "Press Any Key" to "Press Return Key" because of the flood of calls asking where the "Any" key is.
2. AST technical support had a caller complaining that her mouse was hard to control with the dust cover on. The cover turned out to be the plastic bag the mouse was packaged in.
3. Another AST customer was asked to send a copy of her defective diskettes. A few days later a letter arrived from the customer along with photocopies of the floppies.
4. Another Dell customer called to say he couldn't get his computer to fax anything. After 40 minutes of trouble-shooting, the technician discovered the man was trying to fax a piece of paper by holding it in front of the monitor screen and hitting the "send" key.
5. Yet another Dell customer called to complain that his keyboard no longer worked. He had cleaned it by filling up his tub with soap and water and soaking the keyboard for a day, then removing all the keys and washing them individually.
6. A Dell technician received a call from a customer who was enraged because his computer had told him he was "bad and an invalid". The tech explained that the computer's "bad command" and "invalid" responses shouldn't be taken personally.
7. True story from a Novell NetWire SysOp:
Caller: "Hello, is this Tech Support?"
Tech: "Yes, it is. How may I help you?"
Caller: "The cup holder on my PC is broken and I am within my warranty period. How do I go about getting that fixed?"
Tech: "I'm sorry, but did you say a cup holder?"
Caller: "Yes, it's attached to the front of my computer."
Tech: "Please excuse me if I seem a bit stumped, It's because I am. Did you receive this as part of a promotional, at a trade show? How did you get this cup holder? Does it have any trademark on it?"
Caller: "It came with my computer, I don't know anything about a promotional. It just has '4X' on it."
At this point the Tech Rep had to mute the caller, because he couldn't stand it. He was laughing too hard. The caller had been using the load drawer of the CD-ROM drive as a cup holder, and snapped it off the drive!
8. Another IBM customer had troubles installing software and rang for support. "I put in the first disk, and that was OK. It said to put in the second disk, and had some problems with the disk. When it said to put in the third disk - I couldn't even fit it in..." The user hadn't realized that "Insert Disk 2" meant to remove Disk 1 first.
9. A confused caller to IBM was having troubles printing documents. He told the technician that the computer had said it "couldn't find printer". The user had also tried turning the computer screen to face the printer - but that his computer still couldn't "see" the printer.
以下这些都是现实的真人真事，华尔街日报2007年1月上提到的：
1. Compaq is considering changing the command "Press Any Key" to "Press Return Key" because of the flood of calls asking where the "Any" key is.
2. AST technical support had a caller complaining that her mouse was hard to control with the dust cover on. The cover turned out to be the plastic bag the mouse was packaged in.
3. Another AST customer was asked to send a copy of her defective diskettes. A few days later a letter arrived from the customer along with photocopies of the floppies.
4. Another Dell customer called to say he couldn't get his computer to fax anything. After 40 minutes of trouble-shooting, the technician discovered the man was trying to fax a piece of paper by holding it in front of the monitor screen and hitting the "send" key.
5. Yet another Dell customer called to complain that his keyboard no longer worked. He had cleaned it by filling up his tub with soap and water and soaking the keyboard for a day, then removing all the keys and washing them individually.
6. A Dell technician received a call from a customer who was enraged because his computer had told him he was "bad and an invalid". The tech explained that the computer's "bad command" and "invalid" responses shouldn't be taken personally.
7. True story from a Novell NetWire SysOp:
Caller: "Hello, is this Tech Support?"
Tech: "Yes, it is. How may I help you?"
Caller: "The cup holder on my PC is broken and I am within my warranty period. How do I go about getting that fixed?"
Tech: "I'm sorry, but did you say a cup holder?"
Caller: "Yes, it's attached to the front of my computer."
Tech: "Please excuse me if I seem a bit stumped, It's because I am. Did you receive this as part of a promotional, at a trade show? How did you get this cup holder? Does it have any trademark on it?"
Caller: "It came with my computer, I don't know anything about a promotional. It just has '4X' on it."
At this point the Tech Rep had to mute the caller, because he couldn't stand it. He was laughing too hard. The caller had been using the load drawer of the CD-ROM drive as a cup holder, and snapped it off the drive!
8. Another IBM customer had troubles installing software and rang for support. "I put in the first disk, and that was OK. It said to put in the second disk, and had some problems with the disk. When it said to put in the third disk - I couldn't even fit it in..." The user hadn't realized that "Insert Disk 2" meant to remove Disk 1 first.
9. A confused caller to IBM was having troubles printing documents. He told the technician that the computer had said it "couldn't find printer". The user had also tried turning the computer screen to face the printer - but that his computer still couldn't "see" the printer.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Myth #5: McCain is experienced and can handle crisis better
When a crisis occurs, what should a President do?
I think a President needs to:
1. Recognize the crisis
2. Listen to the right people to deal with the crisis
Bush has been heavily criticized in the past on both aspects when it comes to crisis. He either did not recognize the crisis on a timely fashion (i.e., the 9/11 event), or appointed incompetent officials to deal with it (i.e., FEMA in Katrina).
Now let’s exam both McCain and Obama. Last week’s financial turmoil should serve as a preview of how candidates handle crisis. After all, this is a "once-in-a-century" financial crisis according to former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan.
Recognize the crisis:
McCain:
As late as last Monday (9/15) when Lehman Brothers filed the largest ever Chapter 11 bankruptcy, McCain claimed the economy was fundamentally strong.
Then, within 36 hours, as he stumbled over his record of championing deregulation, he flip-flopped over the government takeover of AIG and declared that “our economy in crisis”.
Obama:
On 9/15, Obama said the crisis sweeping Lehman Brothers and other Wall Street firms posed a major threat to the U.S. economy and underscored the need to modernize the financial system. (Actually Obama called for the overhaul of the financial-regulatory system and tougher enforcement well before this past week's financial tsunami.)
Winner: Obama
Listen to the right people
McCain:
McCain called Martin Feldstein, the well-known Republican economist and Reagan administration adviser, John Taylor of Stanford University, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury and Carly Fiorina, once the chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard Co.
Obama:
Obama called former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, and former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers.
OK, let’s see what Bloomberg has to say about these two groups:
Feldstein, for all his intellect, was ineffective in the Reagan administration; then-White House deputy chief of staff Dick Darman cut him out of important action. Volcker, first at the Treasury and then as chairman of the Federal Reserve, was a towering figure in every way.
Taylor is a well-regarded academic. In four years as undersecretary of the Treasury, he left few footprints. Summers, as both deputy secretary and secretary, left a lot.
Fiorina is smart and quick; to put it charitably, Rubin will forget more about financial markets than she'll ever know.
The bottom line: “It was a mismatch.”
Winner: Obama
So, here is the preview. You take your pick.
I think a President needs to:
1. Recognize the crisis
2. Listen to the right people to deal with the crisis
Bush has been heavily criticized in the past on both aspects when it comes to crisis. He either did not recognize the crisis on a timely fashion (i.e., the 9/11 event), or appointed incompetent officials to deal with it (i.e., FEMA in Katrina).
Now let’s exam both McCain and Obama. Last week’s financial turmoil should serve as a preview of how candidates handle crisis. After all, this is a "once-in-a-century" financial crisis according to former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan.
Recognize the crisis:
McCain:
As late as last Monday (9/15) when Lehman Brothers filed the largest ever Chapter 11 bankruptcy, McCain claimed the economy was fundamentally strong.
Then, within 36 hours, as he stumbled over his record of championing deregulation, he flip-flopped over the government takeover of AIG and declared that “our economy in crisis”.
Obama:
On 9/15, Obama said the crisis sweeping Lehman Brothers and other Wall Street firms posed a major threat to the U.S. economy and underscored the need to modernize the financial system. (Actually Obama called for the overhaul of the financial-regulatory system and tougher enforcement well before this past week's financial tsunami.)
Winner: Obama
Listen to the right people
McCain:
McCain called Martin Feldstein, the well-known Republican economist and Reagan administration adviser, John Taylor of Stanford University, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury and Carly Fiorina, once the chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard Co.
Obama:
Obama called former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, and former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers.
OK, let’s see what Bloomberg has to say about these two groups:
Feldstein, for all his intellect, was ineffective in the Reagan administration; then-White House deputy chief of staff Dick Darman cut him out of important action. Volcker, first at the Treasury and then as chairman of the Federal Reserve, was a towering figure in every way.
Taylor is a well-regarded academic. In four years as undersecretary of the Treasury, he left few footprints. Summers, as both deputy secretary and secretary, left a lot.
Fiorina is smart and quick; to put it charitably, Rubin will forget more about financial markets than she'll ever know.
The bottom line: “It was a mismatch.”
Winner: Obama
So, here is the preview. You take your pick.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Myth #4: Obama is an elitist!
The rhetoric usually goes like this:
1. Obama is an elitist
2. Therefore, he does not understand and sympathize the middle class
First of all, how can a second generation African American who is raised in single mom family an “elitist”? How can someone who goes to grocery shopping using food stamps an “elitist”? How can someone who needs college tuition loans in order to go to college an “elitist”? This is just absurd.
Yes, he is an extremely smart individual, similar to many Chinese here in US, who is able to earn distinguished honors at prestigious schools. At the end of Obama’s first year in Harvard Law School, he was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review. In his second year, he was elected president of the Law Review, the first black president of Law Review in Harvard’s history. However, please don’t confuse smartness with elitism. It is not a fault for someone to be outstanding.
At many levels, Obama mirrors us, basically the thousands of first and second generation Chinese or Chinese American scholars and students in US. We all work hard to excel in the academic field. We all endure the pains of prejudice and discrimination manifested in this society. We all keep our heads down when the time is bad and work our way out of any adverse social and economic situations. We are all winners; I am really proud of what we have accomplished as a group academically, socially, and economically. Obama’s success just further excites me that maybe one day we, as a minority, can be proud politically as well.
Secondly, how can you call someone who has been a volunteer and social worker for his life as being lack of sympathy for the poor? Obama has been working for the past 16 years on Chicago's far South Side. If you don’t think that’s poor enough, I dare you and double dare you to go there to see for yourself. The number of poor people McCain and Palin have seen in their life time is probably smaller than the number of poor people Obama has spoken to directly.
The fact is that you don’t become a social worker or community organizer unless you feel the pain and love of the community and the people in it.
At the end of the day, it’s just comical to see McCain calling Obama being an “Elitist”.
1. Obama is an elitist
2. Therefore, he does not understand and sympathize the middle class
First of all, how can a second generation African American who is raised in single mom family an “elitist”? How can someone who goes to grocery shopping using food stamps an “elitist”? How can someone who needs college tuition loans in order to go to college an “elitist”? This is just absurd.
Yes, he is an extremely smart individual, similar to many Chinese here in US, who is able to earn distinguished honors at prestigious schools. At the end of Obama’s first year in Harvard Law School, he was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review. In his second year, he was elected president of the Law Review, the first black president of Law Review in Harvard’s history. However, please don’t confuse smartness with elitism. It is not a fault for someone to be outstanding.
At many levels, Obama mirrors us, basically the thousands of first and second generation Chinese or Chinese American scholars and students in US. We all work hard to excel in the academic field. We all endure the pains of prejudice and discrimination manifested in this society. We all keep our heads down when the time is bad and work our way out of any adverse social and economic situations. We are all winners; I am really proud of what we have accomplished as a group academically, socially, and economically. Obama’s success just further excites me that maybe one day we, as a minority, can be proud politically as well.
Secondly, how can you call someone who has been a volunteer and social worker for his life as being lack of sympathy for the poor? Obama has been working for the past 16 years on Chicago's far South Side. If you don’t think that’s poor enough, I dare you and double dare you to go there to see for yourself. The number of poor people McCain and Palin have seen in their life time is probably smaller than the number of poor people Obama has spoken to directly.
The fact is that you don’t become a social worker or community organizer unless you feel the pain and love of the community and the people in it.
At the end of the day, it’s just comical to see McCain calling Obama being an “Elitist”.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Myth #3: Sarah Palin is the real thing
No, she is not.
She is not going to be the savior of the Republican party. Her "touching" story looks good on paper, but her right wing positions and stunning lack of knowledge and experience will alienate independent voters before November. Her "cute" lies will hurt her deeply and Palin will get the reality check the the way as Mitt Romney did.
Here is a long list of things about Palin that it's truly disturbing:
(1) Palin's position on abortion
This is ugly, really ugly. She opposes almost all forms of abortion, including rape and the pregnancy endangers the woman's health. She is opposed to Roe vs. Wade decision and wants to overturn it. Her position is so extreme that an average pro-life person won't even consider.
(2) Palin's foreign policy experience
If you are saying "I know about Russian politics because I can see real Russians from my state", you know you are simply pulling shit out of your own ass.
It's like saying "I know about saving people's life as I can see a huge hospital from my apartment". Are you freaking kidding me? Basically Palin is betting that everyone is so dumb that her argument can actually fly. This is sad that a potential VP thinks so lowly of her own countryman.
Btw, she even said that she paid little attention to Iraq since the war. Oh, we know she is not lying on this one, as she just linked 9/11 to Iraq several days ago. Oh boy, even Bush acknowledged that there is no link between 9/11 and Iraq FIVE YEARS AGO!!!!!!! WTF, are we back to future now?
(3) Palin's robotic interview answers
If you have seen her interview on ABC several days ago, her performance probably reminds you the time when you were in college and had to pull an all-nighter for a class that you only went to twice in a semester. Yes, you probably got most of the key sound bits, but you are still clueless and hopeless.
Well, that's what Palin did. She provides sound bit quality answers, and at times, they don't even match the questions being asked. She used the same "we can't second guess Israel" to answer three different questions around US-Israel relationships. It's like some sort of mal-functioned electronic device where it keeps saying the same thing as you press different buttons.
Also she didn't know the Bush Doctrine, which is THE reason behind the Iraq war. Ouch!
(4) Palin's lack of substance
In all her speeches so far, she provides zero substance. No real policy, no real strategy, only high level sound bits.
Well, it's understandable. She can't provide substance, because if she does that, people will notice how far right she really is on the political spectrum. All the middle independent voters who love McCain will disappear.
But the problem is that how long can she keeps avoiding substance? Not much longer, i am afraid. Debates are coming; interviews are coming; and voters will eventually demand answers to various social issues and policies. Her days are numbered. She will show her ugly right wing face.
(5) Palin's objection to Bridge-to-Nowhere
No, no, no, Palin didn't object the bridge-to-nowhere before she voted for it. She has been using this sound bit to show how strongly she opposes earmarks. The funny thing is that she actually said during the ABC interview that she is not against earmarks but rather against the way some of the earmarks are budgeted. Are you kidding me? This whole semantics battle is getting childish.
(6) Palin's foreign travel trips
She claimed that trips to Germany, Kuwait, Canada, Iraq, and Ireland made up her foreign travel. Actually Ireland is a refueling stop, and she never set foot on Iraq. She stopped at the Kuwait/Iraq boarder and didn't enter Iraq during her Kuwait trip.
The refueling stop thing is just embarrassing. This kind of little "resume enhancement" comments remind me Mitt Romney during the GOP primary. If people were sicken tired of Mitt Romney in the primary, I have every reason to believe that people will soon or later be sicken tired of Sarah Palin as well.
(7) Palin's Down syndrome child
Please, don't tell me that you are better because you have a retarded kid. When you are at the age of 44, any non-retarded people would have already learnt how to use a condom correctly.
Having a Down syndrome child just shows how poorly you plan things. Having a baby should be carefully planed to ensure a good life of the child. It should not be a random event after a drunken night at bar, nor should it be a I-am-too-lazy-to-use-a-condom thing. If you can't even ensure your child has a normal healthy life, how can you lead a country of 300 million?
(8) Palin's love for hunting and rifle
Hunting is not a sport. There is nothing victorious about using a high powered rifle, a 50 times magnified scope, and a sound and heat tracker to kill harmless, hungry, big furry animals. It's like beating up a kindergarten kid. I take no pride doing that.
Oh, she is worse. She loves aerial hunting. Basically riding on a helicopter and use machine guns to shoot at animals running around scared. The practice is actually outlawed by Airbone Hunting Act 1972 due to abusive practice in Alaska. But she does it anyway by exploring some loopholes in the law. What a smart woman!
She is also a life long member of the NRA (National Rifle Association), which is responsible for the rampant gun violence in US. This is just sickening.
(9) Palin's energy position
Palin can be any color but green. She voted against protecting polar bears because polar bear reservation got in her way in drilling oil in Alaska. She denies that global warming is the result of human activity, although it is proven and accepted by near all intellectuals.
Enough rant for today. The bottom line is that Palin is either a dumb ass or a freaking liar. Oh, maybe both.
She is not going to be the savior of the Republican party. Her "touching" story looks good on paper, but her right wing positions and stunning lack of knowledge and experience will alienate independent voters before November. Her "cute" lies will hurt her deeply and Palin will get the reality check the the way as Mitt Romney did.
Here is a long list of things about Palin that it's truly disturbing:
(1) Palin's position on abortion
This is ugly, really ugly. She opposes almost all forms of abortion, including rape and the pregnancy endangers the woman's health. She is opposed to Roe vs. Wade decision and wants to overturn it. Her position is so extreme that an average pro-life person won't even consider.
(2) Palin's foreign policy experience
If you are saying "I know about Russian politics because I can see real Russians from my state", you know you are simply pulling shit out of your own ass.
It's like saying "I know about saving people's life as I can see a huge hospital from my apartment". Are you freaking kidding me? Basically Palin is betting that everyone is so dumb that her argument can actually fly. This is sad that a potential VP thinks so lowly of her own countryman.
Btw, she even said that she paid little attention to Iraq since the war. Oh, we know she is not lying on this one, as she just linked 9/11 to Iraq several days ago. Oh boy, even Bush acknowledged that there is no link between 9/11 and Iraq FIVE YEARS AGO!!!!!!! WTF, are we back to future now?
(3) Palin's robotic interview answers
If you have seen her interview on ABC several days ago, her performance probably reminds you the time when you were in college and had to pull an all-nighter for a class that you only went to twice in a semester. Yes, you probably got most of the key sound bits, but you are still clueless and hopeless.
Well, that's what Palin did. She provides sound bit quality answers, and at times, they don't even match the questions being asked. She used the same "we can't second guess Israel" to answer three different questions around US-Israel relationships. It's like some sort of mal-functioned electronic device where it keeps saying the same thing as you press different buttons.
Also she didn't know the Bush Doctrine, which is THE reason behind the Iraq war. Ouch!
(4) Palin's lack of substance
In all her speeches so far, she provides zero substance. No real policy, no real strategy, only high level sound bits.
Well, it's understandable. She can't provide substance, because if she does that, people will notice how far right she really is on the political spectrum. All the middle independent voters who love McCain will disappear.
But the problem is that how long can she keeps avoiding substance? Not much longer, i am afraid. Debates are coming; interviews are coming; and voters will eventually demand answers to various social issues and policies. Her days are numbered. She will show her ugly right wing face.
(5) Palin's objection to Bridge-to-Nowhere
No, no, no, Palin didn't object the bridge-to-nowhere before she voted for it. She has been using this sound bit to show how strongly she opposes earmarks. The funny thing is that she actually said during the ABC interview that she is not against earmarks but rather against the way some of the earmarks are budgeted. Are you kidding me? This whole semantics battle is getting childish.
(6) Palin's foreign travel trips
She claimed that trips to Germany, Kuwait, Canada, Iraq, and Ireland made up her foreign travel. Actually Ireland is a refueling stop, and she never set foot on Iraq. She stopped at the Kuwait/Iraq boarder and didn't enter Iraq during her Kuwait trip.
The refueling stop thing is just embarrassing. This kind of little "resume enhancement" comments remind me Mitt Romney during the GOP primary. If people were sicken tired of Mitt Romney in the primary, I have every reason to believe that people will soon or later be sicken tired of Sarah Palin as well.
(7) Palin's Down syndrome child
Please, don't tell me that you are better because you have a retarded kid. When you are at the age of 44, any non-retarded people would have already learnt how to use a condom correctly.
Having a Down syndrome child just shows how poorly you plan things. Having a baby should be carefully planed to ensure a good life of the child. It should not be a random event after a drunken night at bar, nor should it be a I-am-too-lazy-to-use-a-condom thing. If you can't even ensure your child has a normal healthy life, how can you lead a country of 300 million?
(8) Palin's love for hunting and rifle
Hunting is not a sport. There is nothing victorious about using a high powered rifle, a 50 times magnified scope, and a sound and heat tracker to kill harmless, hungry, big furry animals. It's like beating up a kindergarten kid. I take no pride doing that.
Oh, she is worse. She loves aerial hunting. Basically riding on a helicopter and use machine guns to shoot at animals running around scared. The practice is actually outlawed by Airbone Hunting Act 1972 due to abusive practice in Alaska. But she does it anyway by exploring some loopholes in the law. What a smart woman!
She is also a life long member of the NRA (National Rifle Association), which is responsible for the rampant gun violence in US. This is just sickening.
(9) Palin's energy position
Palin can be any color but green. She voted against protecting polar bears because polar bear reservation got in her way in drilling oil in Alaska. She denies that global warming is the result of human activity, although it is proven and accepted by near all intellectuals.
Enough rant for today. The bottom line is that Palin is either a dumb ass or a freaking liar. Oh, maybe both.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Myth #2: We are average people just like you!!!
I have heard this so many times from a Republican candidate before. Bush used this and Palin is using it now:
"I am just an average pal/gal/buddy/people/hockey mom/wife/husband/American like you!" (VOTE ME!!!)
For some strange reason, American people got all excited after hearing this. "Shit, this is HOT! I am as good as the president! Sweet dude, let's vote!"
But I have to pause and ask myself: "Since when, being average is a good thing?"
Let's say you walk in an interview with Goldman. The interviewer shakes your hand, greets you warmly and says "OK, tell me something about yourself that you deserve this job." Then, you smile back and say "well, you know, I am average just like everyone else"
What are the odds that Goldman will give you a job after that? The truth is that being average is not even good enough to get a job at Goldman, let alone the president of United States of America.
I truly believe that being a president is not for everyone. He or she has to:
(1) be intellectually smart and understands the complexity of this world;
(2) have a clear vision where the country should be;
(3) be able to feel the pain of other and be compassionate;
(4) know how to motivate people and be a great communicator;
(5) follow his own principal and never yield under pressure;
(6) have to have the ability to succeed with his own resource and effort in the private sector.
Average Joe is not gonna cut it. An average super rich kid is not gonna cut it. McCain is not gonna cut it. Palin is not even close. Obama is the only answer:
(1) he graduated from Harvard law school at the top of his class
(2) he has talked about his vision in his books long time ago and never gives in or gives up
(3) he is an active community leader in the poorest communities in Chicago
(4) he is fanstatic in front of crowds and extremely charismatic.
(5) he has been following his dreams for 20 years
(6) he is able to be a sucessful lawyer, writer, teacher and leader. Extremely successful running his own campaign.
Bottom line is that we don't need an Average Joe, we need and deserve someone FANTASTIC!
"I am just an average pal/gal/buddy/people/hockey mom/wife/husband/American like you!" (VOTE ME!!!)
For some strange reason, American people got all excited after hearing this. "Shit, this is HOT! I am as good as the president! Sweet dude, let's vote!"
But I have to pause and ask myself: "Since when, being average is a good thing?"
Let's say you walk in an interview with Goldman. The interviewer shakes your hand, greets you warmly and says "OK, tell me something about yourself that you deserve this job." Then, you smile back and say "well, you know, I am average just like everyone else"
What are the odds that Goldman will give you a job after that? The truth is that being average is not even good enough to get a job at Goldman, let alone the president of United States of America.
I truly believe that being a president is not for everyone. He or she has to:
(1) be intellectually smart and understands the complexity of this world;
(2) have a clear vision where the country should be;
(3) be able to feel the pain of other and be compassionate;
(4) know how to motivate people and be a great communicator;
(5) follow his own principal and never yield under pressure;
(6) have to have the ability to succeed with his own resource and effort in the private sector.
Average Joe is not gonna cut it. An average super rich kid is not gonna cut it. McCain is not gonna cut it. Palin is not even close. Obama is the only answer:
(1) he graduated from Harvard law school at the top of his class
(2) he has talked about his vision in his books long time ago and never gives in or gives up
(3) he is an active community leader in the poorest communities in Chicago
(4) he is fanstatic in front of crowds and extremely charismatic.
(5) he has been following his dreams for 20 years
(6) he is able to be a sucessful lawyer, writer, teacher and leader. Extremely successful running his own campaign.
Bottom line is that we don't need an Average Joe, we need and deserve someone FANTASTIC!
Myth #1: McCain is a maverick in GOP
The argument usually runs like this "McCain is different. He is not a typical Republican. He can bring the change this country is craving for. He can unite both parties and has the experience to bring real changes"
OK, let's see how illogical this argument goes:
First, if he is a maverick as he claims he is, he won't be able to lead either party.
Maverick, by definition, is a "lone dissenter". The key word here is LONE. You can't be a maverick and someone that everyone follows at the same time.
Maverick is someone that stands out in the crowd; someone that disagrees with his/her peers; someone that others feel odd and strange.
If you are so popular that every Republican admires you and follows you, you are a majority leader in your party, and you are NOT a maverick. You simply can't lead the Republic party by saying and doing things that a typical Republican disagrees with.
Since McCain can't even lead his own party as a maverick, let alone leading the Democratic party.
Secondly, he has no experience.
Yes, yes, we got it. He was a POW (prison of war) before. I heard it, you heard it, and we all heard about it at least 200 times. Being POW is, without a doubt, not easy. It says a lot of about your personal characters, especially when you refuse the chance to be released earlier than fellow POWs. McCain definitely has a long list of admirable attributes: resilience, determination, courage, strong-will and such.
However, it doesn't make you an effective leader. He never led any military units in his life time. Never a true commander on the battlefield. POW experience sounds very touching but just doesn't make you a better decision maker, which is a prerequisite for a president. Besides those personal attributes, a president needs to make intelligent decisions in this complicated world. This is a MUST.
Well, in terms of intelligence level, McCain is ranked 894 out of 899 graduates from the Navy Academy. That's the 5th from the last. Oh boy, we just got by the Bush era, now comes McCain.
Finally, he is just like any other republicans and he is not special.
OK, here is what we got for McCain: born into a golden family; married a rich pretty blonde; supports war and vote in line with Bush 90% of the time; super rich and never will tell you how many homes he has; involved in financial scandals before and will not show your his tax return; below average academic score; below average looking; above average age; can't talk eloquently....
You tell me that he is different from other Republicans?? Oh, really?
Here is the conclusion:
McCain is just a typical republican that we have seen so many times before. Move on, nothing special here.
OK, let's see how illogical this argument goes:
First, if he is a maverick as he claims he is, he won't be able to lead either party.
Maverick, by definition, is a "lone dissenter". The key word here is LONE. You can't be a maverick and someone that everyone follows at the same time.
Maverick is someone that stands out in the crowd; someone that disagrees with his/her peers; someone that others feel odd and strange.
If you are so popular that every Republican admires you and follows you, you are a majority leader in your party, and you are NOT a maverick. You simply can't lead the Republic party by saying and doing things that a typical Republican disagrees with.
Since McCain can't even lead his own party as a maverick, let alone leading the Democratic party.
Secondly, he has no experience.
Yes, yes, we got it. He was a POW (prison of war) before. I heard it, you heard it, and we all heard about it at least 200 times. Being POW is, without a doubt, not easy. It says a lot of about your personal characters, especially when you refuse the chance to be released earlier than fellow POWs. McCain definitely has a long list of admirable attributes: resilience, determination, courage, strong-will and such.
However, it doesn't make you an effective leader. He never led any military units in his life time. Never a true commander on the battlefield. POW experience sounds very touching but just doesn't make you a better decision maker, which is a prerequisite for a president. Besides those personal attributes, a president needs to make intelligent decisions in this complicated world. This is a MUST.
Well, in terms of intelligence level, McCain is ranked 894 out of 899 graduates from the Navy Academy. That's the 5th from the last. Oh boy, we just got by the Bush era, now comes McCain.
Finally, he is just like any other republicans and he is not special.
OK, here is what we got for McCain: born into a golden family; married a rich pretty blonde; supports war and vote in line with Bush 90% of the time; super rich and never will tell you how many homes he has; involved in financial scandals before and will not show your his tax return; below average academic score; below average looking; above average age; can't talk eloquently....
You tell me that he is different from other Republicans?? Oh, really?
Here is the conclusion:
McCain is just a typical republican that we have seen so many times before. Move on, nothing special here.
Election 2008 Series
好久没写东西了，但最近看美国大选如火如荼，自己又有好多话想说，如骨鲠在喉，不吐不快，呵呵，就又上来了。
我其实就觉得很多时候，网上讨论政治的帖子是在很没有逻辑，很多观点听起来有道理，其实狗屁不通，就想用这个机会狂写一些东西。大概会陆陆续续写个10篇20篇牢骚吧，哈哈，多谢捧场！！！
nnd，好久没登陆，结果光试密码和账号就弄了我20分钟，晕。。。有点出师不捷啊
我其实就觉得很多时候，网上讨论政治的帖子是在很没有逻辑，很多观点听起来有道理，其实狗屁不通，就想用这个机会狂写一些东西。大概会陆陆续续写个10篇20篇牢骚吧，哈哈，多谢捧场！！！
nnd，好久没登陆，结果光试密码和账号就弄了我20分钟，晕。。。有点出师不捷啊
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)