2009 最後一晚

今天我和先生談到2010年的到來，每一年都來得這麽快，“今年尤其不一樣，一個新decade（十年）的開端。”傑明說。的確，英文裏decade是十年的意思，二十年就是two decades. 於是我想起了10年前的元旦前夜，1999年12月31日，那時候霏是嬰孩，妹妹和妹夫在雪大(Syracuse University)讀書，來我們家一起過節，那時我在雪城的洛克希德馬丁公司電腦資訊部工作，過節前，我負責的數據庫項目做了各種Y2K（兩千年）測試，擔心兩千年到來時，數據庫的時間無法勝任四位數的變化，而導致係統失調，我和數據庫管理人員將數據庫的時間提前調到兩千年的日子，一次又一次地測試，確保無礙才放心過節。 2000年的前夜，霏熟睡後，傑明，輕舟，妹妹，妹夫到樓下的太陽房，坐在圓桌邊，牽手同心為新的世紀，新的一年，新的明日而祈禱。我們一起等到了兩千年到來的那一刻，印象中屋外滿地的清雪，黑夜因著白雪而亮堂，遠遠近近有人放鞭炮慶祝新年，我們四人互道新年快樂。節日中，公司數據庫兩千年bug也沒有出現，平安地迎來了新的世紀。然而，一年後的9月份，我請了產假在家休息，傑明突然提前回到家，告訴了我很壞的消息，美國紐約市雙子樓被飛機撞了，正欲傾倒，“樓裏有很多人正等著營救，又有許多救火員和警察已進樓去搶救，都在樓裏。。。”當我打開電視，我不敢相信親眼看見的，硝煙中，樓在墜落，頃刻間，兩棟世貿大廈相繼墜毀，街上幸存的人在奔跑嘶喊，淚眼迷離中，我意識到美國已經不再平安。接下來的幾年是反恐，戰爭，政客們你方唱罷，我登台。前幾天華盛頓郵報文章《漸淡的信號燈》1寫道，這即將過去的10年是美國失落的十年，經濟，政治，軍事，國際。。。曾經被裏根總統稱為“指引愛好自由的人們的信號燈的美國”（America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.），曾經多少意氣飛揚，多麽信心十足地美國走進入了它低迷的歲月。 流年逝水，世事多變。不到1個鍾頭就是2010年的第一天，又將迎來新一年的365個日子，也是新10年的開端，輕舟祈願大家新年平安。平安健康是福。年少時總喜歡祝福朋友們萬事如意，經年以後，方覺得那種祝福有多麽虛空，沒有人能夠做到萬事如人意，而且人意多偏頗，萬事符神意倒確切些：了解神賦予你的人生使命，為神所用，過積極的，為他人帶來祝福的人，這樣的人生才是蒙神喜悅，有果效的人生。 輕舟也祈願友們新年喜樂。喜樂發自內心，快樂雖好，但快樂較喜樂短暫。喜樂既有快樂的happy,更有joyful，rejoice, delightful這些不會隨著境遇改變而恒久的喜悅心態。想起聖經帖前的一句經文：要常常喜樂，不住禱告，凡事謝恩；這就是神在基督耶穌裏給你們的旨意。（Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. 1 Thessalonians 5 16-18)。輕舟願自己能夠活出喜樂，禱告和感恩的2010。 注1：《華盛頓郵報》“漸淡的信號燈”原文：The 2000s could be termed a lost decade for the U.S. economy.The average American's annual income stood at $39,446 as of October 2009, up only 5.3% in inflation-adjusted terms from the end of the 1990s.That's the slowest growth registered in at least six decades. The average person's net worth fell 13% through September 2009 as stock and home prices plunged. The S&P 500 delivered an inflation-adjusted total return of negative 30% through November 2009.Meanwhile, income inequality grew. Although it's still too early to gauge the full effect of the most recent financial crisis, as of 2007, the highest-earning 0.1% of the population accounted for 8.2% of all pre-tax income, according to economists Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley. That was up from 6.6% in 1999, and the highest level since 1917.Policy makers may be breathing a sigh of relief as the world's largest economy shows signs of emerging from the worst crisis since the Great Depression. But its performance in the 2000s is forcing them to confront an age-old quandary: how to save capitalism from itself.For much of the past century, America has served as the global model for the power of free markets to generate prosperity. On Jan. 1, 2000, the net worth of the average American was 44% greater than 10 years earlier -- a fact that many took as a vindication of the relatively unfettered capitalism seen in the U.S. since the 1980s. Throughout the world, policy makers saw economic reform as a steady march toward the U.S. model, with its flexible work force and dynamic financial markets. Financial crises like those that occurred in Asia and Russia were merely errors or stumbles along the way.Long SlideIn the 2000s, though, the U.S. quickly went from being the beacon of capitalism to a showcase for some of its flaws. The bursting of the Internet bubble exposed duplicity and cronyism in the stock market, with analysts hyping shares of investment-banking clients. The demise of Enron demonstrated how the U.S. accounting system, which had been held up as a global standard, could be gamed.Consumers spent too much and saved too little, egged on by a housing boom and lax lending standards.The financial sector assumed an ever-larger share of the U.S. economy, devising new investment products that contributed to activity but, in the end, didn't add value. The result: a deep financial crisis that has discredited the idea, central to the U.S. system, that bankers' own interests would guide them to do what was best for the economy.The troubles in the U.S. stand in sharp contrast to the relative success of other countries, notably China. With a system that is at best quasi-capitalist, China's economic output per person grew an inflation-adjusted 141% over the decade, and hardly paused for the global crisis, according to estimates from the International Monetary Fund. That compares with 9% growth in the U.S. over the same period."The U.S. was perceived as the place to emulate. To a large extent that's gone," says Raghuram Rajan, a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business who served as chief economist of the IMF from 2003 to 2006.None of that is to say the U.S. model has failed, say economists. At least twice in the past century, the U.S. has re-emerged from deep crises to reinvent capitalism. In the 1930s, the Depression compelled Franklin Roosevelt to introduce Social Security, deposit insurance and the Securities and Exchange Commission.After the brutal stagflation of the 1970s and early 1980s, then-Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker demonstrated the ability of an independent central bank to get prices under control, ushering in an age in which powerful, largely autonomous central banks became the norm throughout the developed world.This time around, as the debate over health insurance demonstrates, Washington's ability to expand the social safety net is limited by its massive debts, which grew 65% in inflation-adjusted terms over the decade to about $11.9 trillion as of September. Over the next decade, programs such as Social Security and Medicare could face cuts as the government seeks to close a budget deficit that its stimulus programs have ballooned.Policy makers' focus now, though, is on the financial sector that failed so spectacularly. Progress has been slow, and key pieces are missing, but the contours of a new system are taking shape. Banks will face stricter limits on their use of borrowed money, or "leverage," to boost returns. The Fed will keep a closer eye on markets during booms, and possibly step in to curb excessive risk-taking -- a U-turn from its previous policy of mopping up after bubbles burst.Risk and RewardSuch changes would amount to a grand bargain: Give up some of the growth and dynamism of the U.S. economy for a safer, more equitable brand of capitalism -- one that could avoid the kind of busts that turned the 2000s into such a disaster. Some economists hope safety can come at minimal cost. Jeremy Stein, a Harvard professor who spent several months advising the U.S. Treasury in the darkest days of the crisis, says putting a lid on leverage doesn't mean limiting financing for the kind of entrepreneurial activity and technological innovation that engender robust growth."There's no reason for us to turn against our willingness to allow companies to go public quickly or any of that," he says. "It can lead to scandals sometimes, but it doesn't pose any systemic risks."Many of the changes under consideration have never been tried on such a scale, and some will undoubtedly prove ill-conceived. Given the lack of precedents, there is little basis for an educated guess at the outcome.But one thing is certain: America's success or failure over the next decade will go a long way toward defining what the world's next economic model will be.