笨狼發牢騷
發發牢騷，解解悶，消消愁
正文
軍民兩用行業，兩國也是彼此彼此，美國私營火箭發射在軍方讚助下很火，中國也開始冒？
【歐盟內部矛盾和衝突】《經濟學人》The covid-19 pandemic puts pressure on the EU
【歐盟普遍對華反感】《南華早報專欄》Beijing faces a perfect storm as the world turns against its narrative amid rising nationalism, leaving it no room for compromise【中國的過激的輿論宣傳在歐洲被普遍認為製造假信息，企業信心也逐漸下降，不再是支持中國的聲音】
冠疫下的中國經濟
去年秋天，中國講得是“六穩”，穩就業、穩金融、穩外貿、穩外資、穩投資、穩預期，過去兩個月，中國講得是“六保”，“保居民就業、保基本民生、保市場主體、保糧食能源安全、保產業鏈供應鏈穩定、保基層運轉”。林彪說毛澤東“自我崇拜，自我迷信，崇拜自己，功為己，過為人”，這也是習近平的心態，中國在全世界的自我吹噓，一點用也沒有（《日經新聞》China's global campaign for virus-response praise met with silence），因為中國之外大家不需要向黨匯報。
《南華早報》中國過兩億人事實失業
* As many as 205 million Chinese workers cannot find jobs or are unable to return to their previous posts, according to one analyst
* Debate over China’s unemployment reality amid coronavirus heats up, with holes picked in official government statistics
《南華早報》中國就業係列：The grim outlook for Chinese unemployment
《紐時》（溫帝）《華爾街日報》《彭博》（一尊）都先後爭先揭露中國高層腐敗，
《彭博》如何被中國政府逼得就範
但他說控製疫情未知數太多，即使專家也不可能選擇出幾個能做結論的，全世界都是摸著石頭過河，隻是當你知道沒準時，慢慢來時
The coronavirus pandemic may mark the final shift of global power away from the United States
The Virus Should Wake Up the West( John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge)
The job of government is to protect its citizens. The pandemic reveals that key institutions in Europe and the U.S. are no longer up to the job.
《亞洲時報》（David P. Goldman）US-China decoupling: a reality check
The idea of an economic divorce is attractive to many, but it would undermine America's strategic interests
實在難得
新一代
《大西洋月刊》
非洲住廣州人員受虐待，非洲局勢
COVID-19 has increased calls for China to forgive old loans. Time to sort out the facts and the fiction about how China manages debt in troubled times
Someone I know pitched a US magazine a story and the response was: "We've already published two articles about Africa this year, so this isn't a good fit for us".— Nanjala Nyabola (@Nanjala1) April 17, 2020
Proposed six-month freeze on payments aims to avoid emerging market health crisis
The G20 group is planning to offer lower income countries a moratorium on bilateral government loan repayments as part of an “action plan” to tackle the coronavirus pandemic and stave off an emerging markets debt crisis, a senior G20 official said.
The initiative, due to be finalised at a finance ministers’ meeting this week, would see a freeze on sovereign debt repayments for six or nine months, or possibly through to 2021, in line with an appeal last month from the IMF and World Bank.
Wealthy nations and multilateral institutions would use the period of the moratorium to draw up “very clear criteria, country-by-country of what exactly is going to happen. Is it debt relief totally? Is it just a deferment, a rescheduling?” the official said.
“For debt relief to happen it would take time for it to be co-ordinated,” said the official, who did not want to be named because of the sensitivity of the discussions. “But what is immediately needed is to give these people space so they don’t need to worry about the cash flow and debt servicing going to other countries, and they can use that money for their immediate needs.”
Concerns have been mounting about the debt sustainability of many lower income countries that borrowed heavily in the years after the 2008 global financial crisis and now lack the resources to deal with the economic problems caused by the Covid-19 pandemic as they grapple with high debts, fiscal deficits, plummeting revenues and weakening currencies — as well as health crises.
Another official close to the negotiations said the initiative “has strong support”. “Negotiations are still ongoing, and some details remain, but we are confident a solution will be found,” the official said.
The IMF and the World Bank called for debt relief for 76 of the world’s poorest nations that are eligible to receive the bank’s International Development Association funding. But other countries outside that criterion are also struggling with high debts and depleted resources. There are still discussions about who would be included.
Countries receiving bilateral development assistance are estimated to be due to make repayments of about $40bn to external creditors this year. The country-to-country loans are estimated to represent about $18bn.
The Institute of International Finance, an industry association, estimates that lower income nations will make repayments of a further $130bn on domestic debts. But the exact scale of the debt is not clear, given the opacity of some of the lending.
After the IMF and World Bank appealed for debt assistance for poorer nations, there were concerns that some sovereign lenders may be reluctant to suspend repayments if the money saved was diverted to paying other creditors rather than being used to tackle the coronavirus crisis.
Those concerns initially focused on China, the biggest bilateral lender to the IDA countries. Beijing has granted debt relief to creditor countries in the past, but has preferred to do so on a bespoke basis rather than as part of any co-ordinated effort.
China has so far appeared reluctant to change that approach. Its foreign ministry said last week it was willing to talk to low-income countries individually about their debt challenges, while noting that past repayment problems had been resolved bilaterally.
That stance may have changed ahead of this week’s meetings.
The G20 official dismissed speculation that there were differences between G20 members, particularly China, saying that while there were “some details that we are working through, certainly there’s a very clear commitment, including China”.
“Within the G20 there’s a very clear recognition that a global co-ordinated approach is a must, not a choice,” the official said. “I have not seen the spirit I have seen in the last six to eight weeks between the G20 members — there’s a clear understanding the political angles to this are put in a freezer.”
Odile Renaud Basso, chair of the Paris Club, a group of 22 big creditor nations, said any decision should be taken by all creditors together and that China was “participating very constructively” with the G20 negotiations.
“There must be a level playing field so that all creditors agree to the same key parameters,” she said. “But with that in place there is always a need for bilateral discussions between each creditor and debtor nation, and China could work within that framework. They are very much involved and I think they will be part of an agreement.”
She said several creditor nations, including China, had pressed for the IMF, World Bank and other multilateral lenders to join others in freezing debt repayments.
The IIF, which represents about 450 firms in the global financial services industry, has also called on private creditors “to forbear payment default for the poorest and most vulnerable countries significantly affected by Covid-19 and related economic turbulence for a specified time period, without waiving the payment obligation”.
Ms Renaud Basso said she was confident that a voluntary standstill by private creditors would be agreed.
The G20 official said governments would not pressure private investors to offer poorer nations relief, saying it could distort markets.
“We would welcome any voluntary action by the private holders, but getting into the private holders has a lot of complications and legal ramifications,” the official said. “You cannot force individual investors to waive their rights. That could distort the markets, and could have the negative consequences of liquidity problems. They would not lend if they see any sign that they can be forced to let go of their assets.”
The G20 nations are also discussing how to make further funding available to multilateral institutions, like the IMF, in the knowledge that the current funding will not be sufficient.
“What is available now deals with the immediate needs, there are steps being taken to look at what additional resources we need,” the G20 official said.
The official added that while previously the G20 members considered support to lower income nations as more humanitarian support, “this time it’s different”.
“There’s now a growing recognition among G20 . . . that it’s a survival game, you cannot fix your own house alone . . . this virus doesn’t know borders,” the official said. “So what may be seen as difference of opinions, still issues to negotiate, is not about whether we should or shouldn’t, it’s about what’s the right approach.”
Edward Luce
Like an asteroid, coronavirus is the textbook example of an exogenous shock. The threat came from beyond. Yet the pathogen offers a unique stress test of each country’s resilience. Some nation states are holding up well. In spite of its unmatched scientific resources, the US is not. More worrying, it is showing little sign of lifting its performance. Six weeks after its first coronavirus death, America’s learning curve remains flatter than its infection rate. It should be the other way round.
The biggest worry is that the US still lacks a road map. The federal government has only a weak grasp on how many Americans are infected with Covid-19, a clear measure of the mortality rate, and therefore the extent of immunity in the country. Without more tests, the US is travelling blind. Just 1 per cent of the country, 3.2m people, have been tested so far. In early March, Mike Pence, the vice-president, promised 4m tests within a week. The same day, President Donald Trump said anybody in the US who wanted a test could get one. That remains as untrue today as it was then.
The stubborn fact is that the US is not churning out enough kits. The average number of daily tests has been stuck at 140,000 for the past two weeks. That is far below the level that scientists say is required to gauge the pandemic’s reach. Some say the US should be testing 10 times that number to understand the spread of the disease. Others want half-a-million a day. Either way, testing has hit a very low plateau, which is a metric of negligence. Without a grasp of the facts, the US will not find its way out.
The deepest puzzle is the gap between wishes and action. Mr Trump was not alone in waking up very late to the coronavirus threat. Others, including Britain’s Boris Johnson, were equally laggard. Each country now has higher death rates than they would have had they acted sooner. Epidemiologists say that if the US shutdown had taken place two weeks earlier, 90 per cent of the deaths would have been prevented. More than 30,000 Americans have now died, according to the official tally. Had no social distancing occurred at all, the US would have lost many times that by now. There is no excuse for running the same experiment again.
Yet that is what Mr Trump is pushing to do. On Thursday he will publish guidelines for the reopening of the US economy from May 1 — less than two weeks away. The worst-hit states on each coast will probably stick to their timetables. US politics abhors a federal vacuum. States are clubbing together to fill it. But they will be subjected to increasingly urgent pressure to follow Mr Trump’s dictates, which are driven by politics, rather than science. It was one thing to wake up late to the virus. It would be quite another to drift back into sleep too soon.
There is no point in fantasising which US presidents would have done better. The answer is almost any. You go to war with the president you have. But it is easy to project Mr Trump’s direction. There will be no federal plan to marshal the US’s resources for testing, therapeutics or the search for a vaccine. The US will have to rely on its patchwork of labs, companies and philanthropists. They are unrivalled but highly fragmented. As the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, put it: states should not have to compete with each other during a war for tanks and guns.
Nor will Mr Trump educate Americans about the reality ahead. In his view, the US is already past the peak. Failure to reopen the economy would cost more lives than keeping it closed, he says. In fact, a new wave that triggered a second lockdown would be a far bigger hit to US wealth than a cautious return to work over a period of months. One paper estimates the difference at $5.2tn over 30 years. Economists and scientists mostly agree on this. Mr Trump is deaf to the consensus.
Which means the US is likely to flunk the test that matters most — national purpose. No matter how sinuous their civic institutions, nations without leadership lose wars. The US was galvanised into unity after the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor and the launch of Sputnik. Covid-19, by contrast, is spurring a hunt for scapegoats. The virus is only worsening America’s divide.
再說說世界列強逼中國賠款的可能性
“兩次掩蓋”
美國政府的態度很重要，行政部門和立法部門，都很重要，他們要是跟你蠻纏，任何一個國家都頂不住，因為你在美國的資產都不再是“神聖不可侵犯”，“主權豁免”也成了空話。
冠疫後中國美國輸了贏了什麽？
才在外交上采用一係列庸招（有說法是那不是一是失策，而是中國整個對外思維幾年來的轉變）。
在國際上，美國外交元老耐（Joseph S. Nye）An Abysmal Failure of Leadership（轉）
認為美中領導都根本不存在，
謝濤覺得趙立堅已經收斂了，就表示中國政府不再這麽堅持了，但他要麽無知，要麽默認，中國民間的陰謀論盛行，而且許多政府媒體不時提倡一個新的陰謀論，央台、新華社、人民日報罵人的言辭都非常狠，更主要的，是趙立堅不說了，但中國無數大使館還在說，還在主動與宗主國吵架，沒有人覺得中國退下來了。
中國政府的動機，大家都在揣摩，到底是要向全世界推銷“中國模式”，還是以進為退？昨天人大發言人張業遂這麽說：
當前，中美關係正處在一個重要關口，關鍵在於堅持不衝突不對抗、相互尊重、合作共贏。如果美方尊重中國的社會製度和發展道路，理性看待中國的發展和戰略意圖，致力於同中方開展建設性對話，將有利於兩國在各領域以及在地區和全球問題上的互利合作。
如果美方堅持冷戰思維，推行遏製中國的戰略，損害中國的核心和重大利益，結果隻能是損人害己。中國不惹事，但也不怕事，將堅定不移捍衛自身主權、安全和發展利益。
一個穩定發展的中美關係，符合兩國人民的根本利益，也是國際社會的普遍期待。目前，合作抗疫、恢複經濟是頭等大事，維護國際經濟金融市場穩定和全球供應鏈的開放、安全符合各方的利益。
我們希望美方與中方相向而行，共同落實好兩國元首多次會晤達成的重要共識，堅持協調、合作、穩定的基調，增進互信、拓展合作、妥善處理分歧，推動兩國關係在正確的軌道上向前發展。謝謝。
張業遂留下的雙方停火、妥協的餘地，但用處不大，因為美國極端派已占上風，製度之爭、意識形態之爭、文明之爭已成主導思維，羅國關係已成你死我活。台灣兩黨已經公開聲明不再承認“一國兩製”，這也不能怪台灣，兩會即將收回香港大部分自主權（《華郵》China to impose sweeping national security law in Hong Kong, bypassing city’s legislature），中國說這也不能怪中國（《紐時》U.S. Is Using Taiwan as a Pressure Point in Tech Fight With China），即使中國老百姓爬牆，他們照樣會覺得美國就是要顛覆中國政府，港獨、台獨真是公開與“美帝”顛覆勢力勾結。
美國國際關係研究員Ali Wyne也是這個結論
最近美國狂人朱利安尼出來大罵中國人沒人性，輕視生命（Chinese race is amoral），冠疫給全世界的看到的，正好是相反。
中國的立場在世為被大家接受，不論有多大保留，都反映了全世界務實這麽一個出發點，但更關鍵的，是大家比較美國中國，是在沒法子，美國就是不行啊，中國即使很黑，但像個大人樣子，美國不僅僅是搗亂，而是來砸鋪子，與全世界為敵。
美國國內對“美國優越性”的挽歌諸多，這類的評論中國不能寫，但美國能
對冠疫後的世界局勢，陸凱文覺得世界看清了，美中兩個都是靠不住的紙老虎，以後是各顧各的時代，冷戰需要陣營，這次沒人回去跟班。這不僅僅是意識形態的問題，而是大家看透了兩個超級大國在關係人類命運的大事上，如瘟疫，如氣候，不僅不能合作，帶領全世界共度難關，還大打出手，打到你死我活，美國更甚。
人與人就是離不開關係
權力和江湖
在中國，大家常講權力，統治者唯一關注的是權力，而權力就是一切，財，勢，名譽，有了權才有財、勢、名，維護權力和維護財、勢、名是一致的，所以大家的手段往往極端，赤裸裸的暴力。
但這有兩個誤點。
第一，權力不是中國特有的，歐洲古羅馬恨強大，之後歐洲就不行了，但羅馬成帝國後，以及後來的東羅馬（拜占庭），權力之鬥刀光劍影的，拜占庭還有太監。英國法國後來慢慢強大後，鬥得也很厲害，當今火的魔幻電視劇，很多來自英國宮廷詭異爭鬥。
第二，權力實際上不那麽絕對，英國最有代表性，英國國王一直沒權，直到亨利七世之後大家才覺得造反這事兒是不能再玩了，太傷。中國皇帝雖有絕對權，但抑製皇權的框架很多，
江湖，是現代武俠構造出來的一個觀念，人入江湖身不由己，為什麽？因為江湖有自己的規矩，如果你不一塊玩兒，對不起，請出去。
社會上為什麽有那麽多規矩，大家為什麽講禮貌、有禮儀？是因為那就是道德嗎？不是，是為了證明你跟我是同一個群體的，同一個俱樂部，比如古希臘覺得自己和葡萄酒，其他人都是野蠻人。這些規矩禮儀就是一種製約，能夠製定、主導這些規矩禮儀的人，就在行使權利。跟武俠描述的江湖的規矩不一樣，你要是不買賬，大家未必殺了你，隻是不跟你玩兒了，如果做生意，就不跟你做生意，上學，不接受你的子女來上學，當官就更不別說了，不錄取你。
法，是權威的一種形式；軍隊，是權威的最新最有效的手段，施法和軍事鎮壓都直接跟奪去他人的生命連接起來，但
國法家規，行有行規，幫有幫規，修養還有禮
規則，潛規則
大家如果覺得中國赤裸裸，看看美國的說法究竟是什麽。美國強調“責任”，什麽意思呢？如果你日子不好，那是你的自己的事兒，更關鍵的是反過來的那一麵，一，我日子好，自我自己能幹，二，別指望我幫你。如果底層以“民主”的形式，如征稅，來瓜分我的財產，那就得
這不是說美國人不道德，也不是說中國人比美國人道德，而是說中國通過權力，往往是血權來奪取財、勢、名的說法不是什麽對現實的的描述，而是感情化。實際上中國也好，美國也好，世界其他國家地區也好，一個階層通過國家機器來維護自己的利益，是人類社會的基本特點。
中國以前的千刀萬剮是殘忍，但殘忍的到處都是，這是福柯的描述
（翻譯）
1757年3月2日，達米安（Damiens）因謀刺國王而被判處“在巴黎教堂大門前公開認罪”，他應“乘坐囚車，身穿囚衣，手持兩磅重的蠟燭”，“被送到格列夫廣場。那裏將搭起行刑台，用燒紅的鐵鉗撕開他的胸膛和四肢上的肉，用硫磺燒焦他持著試君凶器的右手，再將熔化的鉛汁、沸滾的鬆香、蠟和硫磺澆入撕裂的傷口，然後四馬分肢，最後焚屍揚灰”（《達米安案件》，372～374）。
1757年4月1日的《阿姆斯特丹報》描述道：“最後，他被肢解為4部分。這道刑罰費了很長時間，因為役馬不習慣硬拽，於是改用6匹馬來代替4匹馬。但仍然不成功，於是鞭打役馬，以便拉斷他的大腿、撕裂筋肉、扯斷關節……。
“據說，盡管他一貫滿嘴穢言，卻從未褻瀆過神明。過度的痛苦使他鬼哭狼嚎般地喊叫。他反複呼喊：‘上帝，可憐我吧！耶穌，救救我吧！’聖保羅教區的牧師年事已高，但竭盡全力地安慰這個受刑者，教誨在場的所有觀眾。”
現場監視官員布東（Bouton）留下了這樣的記載：“硫磺點燃了，但火焰微弱，隻是輕微地燒傷了手的表皮。 劊子手便卷起袖子，拿起專為這次酷刑特製的約一英尺半長的鐵鉗，先後在右邊的小腿和大腿上撕開兩處，然後在右臂上撕開兩塊肉，接著在胸部撕拉。劊子手是一個彪形大漢，但要撕扯下肉塊也不容易，因此他在每一處都要撕扯兩三次，而且要擰動鐵鉗。他在每一處撕開大約6磅肉的傷口。
“被鐵鉗撕扯時，達米安雖然沒有咒罵，但卻聲嘶力竭地嚎叫。他不斷地抬起頭來，然後看看自己的身體。那個劊子手用一個鋼勺從一個鍋裏舀出滾沸的液體，胡亂地澆注每一個傷口。然後，人們把挽馬用的繩索係在犯人身上，再給馬套上韁繩，把馬分別安排在四肢的方向。
而西方文明最發達的英國也一直有血腥法典（Bloody Code），非常殘忍：
謀殺，縱火，偽造，砍樹，偷馬偷羊，破壞公路，小偷（偷的超過一先令），塗黑臉夜出，未婚媽媽隱瞞流產，等等
然而這也是自責過甚，因為這種
單一的傳統權力關係是至上而下的社會，在古時，這種關係政治和社會的雙重身份是一致的，一個人的官職與其社會名聲地位大致一致，在倫理上，就需要等級森嚴的人與人的關係，這是統治階層理想的
美國國內警察與老百姓（不對立，但）黑人對立，就是這種國家機器的反映
中國過去幾個月的外交政策既反映了中國把自己穩住陣腳當成領先西方的誤解帶來的狂妄，也反映了掌權的中國極端派的傲慢，結果英國是在受不了了，反擊華為，要成立5G十國聯盟，整死中國，而這種思潮演發成意識形態的十國聯盟（《日本時報》Enough of the G7, let’s try a G10），可是世界會接受嗎？（這就是脫鉤後的結果）不是說全世界除了發達國家都站在中國一邊，大家對中國都恨透了，而是西方發達國家重來就沒把其他人放在心上，也不是好東西，因為民主自由並不是大家都民主，大家都自由。
英國利益
中國上市公司都黑，中國會計行業也黑，被美國趕出去，是好事，可是據《泰晤士報時報》說，英國眼巴巴等著中國公司轉到倫敦，因為每年都有會費，150公司就過億美元。
美國的優越性，是在從其他地區、人民中
基辛格曾問周恩來總理法國革命的影響是什麽，周恩來回答說，現在說還太早。幾百年對中國人來說太短了。
美國國內“境外黑手論”也來了
This is a Chinese Communist Party that has come to view itself as intent upon the destruction of Western ideas, Western democracies, and Western values. It puts Americans at risk, whether it’s stealing American intellectual property or destroying jobs here in the U.S. pic.twitter.com/89JlUuARro— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) May 31, 2020
淳樸（美國總統Donald Trump，人稱特朗普或川普）和他的班子跟習近平有什麽區別？
“Nothing to say” to the nation https://t.co/6MJyUmH69k— Jane Mayer (@JaneMayerNYer) June 1, 2020
總統下令軍隊待命以備強行管製拒令的各州，一條213年前的“暴動法”（Insurrection Act），班子裏一群哈巴狗沒人敢有異議，司法部長調用反恐隊調查示威者，總統為了給自己“法製總統”形象照相，下令法催淚彈製造環境，那不是一條六四的鬼影？
They imposed a curfew and gassed protesters for their photo op pic.twitter.com/l2mYmXmJwz— Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) June 1, 2020
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
