美国插画家TED演讲英文稿（最终定稿）

第一篇：美国插画家TED演讲英文稿

When my first children’s book was published in 2001, i returned to my old elementary school to talk to the students about being an author and an illustrator,and when i was setting up my slide projector in the cafetorium,i looked across the room,and there she was:my old lunch lady.she was still there at the school and she was busily preparing lunches for the day.so i approached her to say hello,and i said,”hi,jeannie!how are you?”and she looked at me and i could tell that she recognized me,but she couldn’t quite place me,and she looked at me and she said,”stephenkrosoczka?”and i was amazed that she knew that i was a krosoczka,butstephen is my uncle who is 20 years older than i am,and she had been his lunch lady when he was a kid.and she starting telling me about her grandkids,and that blew my mind.my lunch lady had grandkids,and therefore kids,and therefore left school at the end of the day?i thought she lived in the cafeteria,with the serving spoons.i had never thought about any of that before.well,that chance encounter inspired my imagination and i created the lunch lady graphic novel series,a series of comics about a lunch lady.who used her fish stick nunchucks to fight off evil cyborg substitutes,a school bus monster and mutant mathletes,and the end of every book,they get the bad guy with their hairnet,and they proclaimed,”justice is served!”and it’s been amazing because the series was so welcomed into the the reading lives of children,and they sent me the most amazing letters and cards and artwork.and i would notice as i would visit schools,the lunch staff would be involved in the programming in very meaningful way.and coast to coast,all of the lunch ladies told me the same thing:thank you for making a superhero in our likeness.”because the lunch lady has not been treated very kindly in popular culture over time.but it meant the most to jeannie.when the books were first published,i invited her to the book launch party,and in front of everyone there,everyone she had fed over the years,i gave her a piece of artwork and some books.and two years after this photo was taken,she passed away,and i attended her wake,and nothing could have prepared me for what i saw there.because next to her casket was this painting and her husband told me that it meant so much to her that i had acknowledged her hard work,i had validated what she did.and that inspired me to create a day where we could recreate that feeling in cafeterias across the country:school lunch hero day,a day where kid can make creative projects for their lunch staff.and i partnered with the school nutrition association and did you know that a little over 30 million kids participate in school lunch programs every day.That equals up to over 5 billion lunches made every school year.and the stories of heroism go well beyond just a kid getting a few extra chicken nuggets on their lunch tray.there is msbrenda in california,who keeps a close eye on every student that comes through her line and then reports back to the guidance counselor if anything is amiss.there are the lunch ladies in kentucky who realizd that 67 precent of their students relied on those meals every day.andther were going out food over the summer so they retrofitted a school bus to create a mobile feeding unit,and they traveled around the neighborhoods feedings 500 kids a day during the summer.and kids made the most amazing projects.i knew they would.kids made hamburger cards that were made out of construction paper.They took photos of their lunch lady’s head and plastered it onto my cartoon lunch lady and fixed that to a milk carton and presented them with flowers.and they made their own comics,starring the cartoon lunch lay,alongside their actual lunch ladies.and they made thank you pizzas,where every kid signed a different topping of a construction paper pizza.for me, i was so moved by the response that came from the lunch ladies.because one woman said to me.shesaid,”before this day,i felt like i was at he end of the planet of this school.i didn’t think that anyone noticed us down here.”another woman said to me,”youknow ,what i got out of this is that what i do is important.”and of course what she does is important.what they all do is important.they’re feeding our children every single day,and before a child can learn,their belly needs to be full,and these women and men are working on the front lines to create an educated society.so i hope that you don’t wait for school lunch hero day to say thank you to your lunch staff,and i hope that you remember how powerful a thank you can be.a thank you can change a life.it changes the life of the person who receives it,and it changes the life of the person who expresses it.thank you.

第二篇：TED演讲选择越多,困惑越多 英文稿

I'm going to talk to you about some stuff that's in this book of mine that I hope will resonate with other things you've already heard, and I'll try to make some connections myself, in case you miss them.I want to start with what I call the “official dogma.” The official dogma of what? The official dogma of all western industrial societies.And the official dogma runs like this: if we are interested in maximizing the welfare of our citizens, the way to do that is to maximize individual freedom.The reason for this is both that freedom is in and of itself good, valuable, worthwhile, essential to being human.And because if people have freedom, then each of us can act on our own to do the things that will maximize our welfare, and no one has to decide on our behalf.The way to maximize freedom is to maximize choice.The more choice people have, the more freedom they have, and the more freedom they have, the more welfare they have.This, I think, is so deeply embedded in the water supply that it wouldn't occur to anyone to question it.And it's also deeply embedded in our lives.I'll give you some examples of what modern progress has made possible for us.This is my supermarket.Not such a big one.I want to say just a word about salad dressing.175 salad dressings in my supermarket, if you don't count the 10 different extra-virgin olive oils and 12 balsamic vinegars you could buy to make a very large number of your own salad dressings, in the off chance that none of the 175 the store has on offer suit you.So this is what the supermarket is like.And then you go to the consumer electronics store to set up a stereo system--speakers, CD player, tape player, tuner, amplifier.And in this one single consumer electronics store, there are that many stereo systems.We can construct six and a half million different stereo systems out of the components that are on offer in one store.You've got to admit that's a lot of choice.In other domains--the world of communications.There was a time, when I was a boy, when you could get any kind of telephone service you wanted, as long as it came from Ma Bell.You rented your phone.You didn't buy it.One consequence of that, by the way, is that the phone never broke.And those days are gone.We now have an almost unlimited variety of phones, especially in the world of cell phones.These are cell phones of the future.My favorite is the middle one--the MP3 player, nose hair trimmer, and creme brulee torch.And if by some chance you haven't seen that in your store yet, you can rest assured that one day soon you will.And what this does is it leads people to walk into their stores asking this question.And do you know what the answer to this question now is? The answer is “No.” It is not possible to buy a cell phone that doesn't do too much.So, in other aspects of life that are much more significant than buying things, The same explosion of choice is true.Health care--it is no longer the case in the United States that you go to the doctor, and the doctor tells you what to do.Instead, you go to the doctor, and the doctor tells you, well, we could do A, or we could do B.A has these benefits, and these risks.B has these benefits, and these risks.What do you want to do? And you say, “Doc, what should I do?” And the doc says, A has these benefits and risks, and B has these benefits and risks.What do you want to do? And you say, “If you were me, Doc, what would you do?” And the doc says, “But I'm not you.” And the result is--we call it “patient autonomy,” which makes it sound like a good thing.But what it really is is a shifting of the burden and the responsibility for decision-making from somebody who knows something--namely the doctor--to somebody who knows nothing and is almost certainly sick and thus not in the best shape to be making decisions--namely the patient.There's enormous marketing of prescription drugs to people like you and me, which, if you think about it, makes no sense at all, since we can't buy them.Why do they market to us if we can't buy them? The answer is that they expect us to call our doctors the next morning and ask prescriptions to be changed.Something as dramatic as our identity has now become a matter of choice, as this slide is meant to indicate.We don't inherit an identity, we get to invent it.And we get to re-invent ourselves as often as we like.And that means that every day when you wake up in the morning, you have to decide what kind of person you want to be.With respect to marriage and family, there was a time when the default assumption that almost everyone had is that you got married as soon as you could, and then you started having kids as soon as you could.The only real choice was who, not when, and not what you did after.Nowadays, everything is very much up for grabs.I teach wonderfully intelligent students, and I assign 20 percent less work than I used to.And it's not because they're less smart, and it's not because they're less diligent.It's because they are preoccupied, asking themselves, “Should I get married or not? Should I get married now? Should I get married later? Should I have kids first, or a career first?” All of these are consuming questions.And they're going to answer these questions, whether or not it means not doing all the work I assign and not getting a good grade in my courses.And indeed they should.These are important questions to answer.Work--we are blessed, as Carl was pointing out, with the technology that enables us to work every minute of every day from any place on the planet--except the Randolph Hotel.(Laughter)

There is one corner, by the way, that I'm not going to tell anybody about, where the WiFi works.I'm not telling you about it because I want to use it.So what this means, this incredible freedom of choice we have with respect to work, is that we have to make a decision, again and again and again, about whether we should or shouldn't be working.We can go to watch our kid play soccer, and we have our cell phone on one hip, and our Blackberry on our other hip, and our laptop, presumably, on our laps.And even if they're all shut off, every minute that we're watching our kid mutilate a soccer game, we are also asking ourselves, “Should I answer this cell phone call? Should I respond to this email? Should I draft this letter?” And even if the answer to the question is “no,” it's certainly going to make the experience of your kid's soccer game very different than it would've been.So everywhere we look, big things and small things, material things and lifestyle things, life is a matter of choice.And the world we used to live in looked like this.That is to say, there were some choices, but not everything was a matter of choice.And the world we now live in looks like this.And the question is, is this good news, or bad news? And the answer is yes.(Laughter)

We all know what's good about it, so I'm going to talk about what's bad about it.All of this choice has two effects, two negative effects on people.One effect, paradoxically, is that it produces paralysis, rather than liberation.With so many options to choose from, people find it very difficult to choose at all.I'll give you one very dramatic example of this, a study that was done of investments in voluntary retirement plans.A colleague of mine got access to investment records from Vanguard, the gigantic mutual fund company of about a million employees and about 2,000 different workplaces.And what she found is that for every 10 mutual funds the employer offered, rate of participation went down two percent.You offer 50 funds--10 percent fewer employees participate than if you only offer five.Why? Because with 50 funds to choose from, it's so damn hard to decide which fund to choose that you'll just put it off until tomorrow.And then tomorrow, and then tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, and of course tomorrow never comes.Understand that not only does this mean that people are going to have to eat dog food when they retire because they don't have enough money to put away, it also means that making the decision is so hard that they pass up significant matching money from the employer.By not participating, they are passing up as much as 5,000 dollars a year from the employer, who would happily match their contribution.So paralysis is a consequence of having too many choices.And I think it makes the world look like this.(Laughter)

You really want to get the decision right if it's for all eternity, right? You don't want to pick the wrong mutual fund, or even the wrong salad dressing.So that's one effect.The second effect is that even if we manage to overcome the paralysis and make a choice, we end up less satisfied with the result of the choice than we would be if we had fewer options to choose from.And there are several reasons for this.One of them is that with a lot of different salad dressings to choose from, if you buy one, and it's not perfect--and, you know, what salad dressing is? It's easy to imagine that you could have made a different choice that would have been better.And what happens is this imagined alternative induces you to regret the decision you made, and this regret subtracts from the satisfaction you get out of the decision you made, even if it was a good decision.The more options there are, the easier it is to regret anything at all that is disappointing about the option that you chose.Second, what economists call opportunity costs.Dan Gilbert made a big point this morning of talking about how much the way in which we value things depends on what we compare them to.Well, when there are lots of alternatives to consider, it is easy to imagine the attractive features of alternatives that you reject, that make you less satisfied with the alternative that you've chosen.Here's an example.For those of you who aren't New Yorkers, I apologize.(Laughter)

But here's what you're supposed to be thinking.Here's this couple on the Hamptons.Very expensive real estate.Gorgeous beach.Beautiful day.They have it all to themselves.What could be better? “Well, damn it,” this guy is thinking, “It's August.Everybody in my Manhattan neighborhood is away.I could be parking right in front of my building.” And he spends two weeks nagged by the idea that he is missing the opportunity, day after day, to have a great parking space.Opportunity costs subtract from the satisfaction we get out of what we choose, even when what we choose is terrific.And the more options there are to consider, the more attractive features of these options are going to be reflected by us as opportunity costs.Here's another example.Now this cartoon makes a lot of points.It makes points about living in the moment as well, and probably about doing things slowly.But one point it makes is that whenever you're choosing one thing, you're choosing not to do other things.And those other things may have lots of attractive features, and it's going to make what you're doing less attractive.Third: escalation of expectations.This hit me when I went to replace my jeans.I wear jeans almost all the time.And there was a time when jeans came in one flavor, and you bought them, and they fit like crap, and they were incredibly uncomfortable, and if you wore them long enough and washed them enough times, they started to feel OK.So I went to replace my jeans after years and years of wearing these old ones, and I said, “You know, I want a pair of jeans, here's my size.” And the shopkeeper said, “Do you want slim fit, easy fit, relaxed fit? You want button fly or zipper fly? You want stonewashed or acid washed? Do you want them distressed? You want boot cut, you want tapered, blah blah blah...” On and on he went.My jaw dropped, and after I recovered, I said, “I want the kind that used to be the only kind.”

(Laughter)

He had no idea what that was, so I spent an hour trying on all these damn jeans, and I walked out of the store--truth be told--with the best fitting jeans I had ever had.I did better.All this choice made it possible for me to do better.But I felt worse.Why? I wrote a whole book to try and explain this to myself.The reason I felt worse is that, with all of these options available, my expectations about how good a pair of jeans should be went up.I had very low expectations.I had no particular expectations when they only came in one flavor.When they came in 100 flavors, damn it, one of them should've been perfect.And what I got was good, but it wasn't perfect.And so I compared what I got to what I expected, and what I got was disappointing in comparison to what I expected.Adding options to people's lives can't help but increase the expectations people have about how good those options will be.And what that's going to produce is less satisfaction with results, even when they're good results.Nobody in the world of marketing knows this.Because if they did, you wouldn't all know what this was about.The truth is more like this.(Laughter)

The reason that everything was better back when everything was worse is that when everything was worse, it was actually possible for people to have experiences that were a pleasant surprise.Nowadays, the world we live in--we affluent, industrialized citizens, with perfection the expectation--the best you can ever hope for is that stuff is as good as you expect it to be.You will never be pleasantly surprised because your expectations, my expectations, have gone through the roof.The secret to happiness--this is what you all came for--the secret to happiness is low expectations.(Laughter)(Applause)

I want to say--just a little autobiographical moment--that I actually am married to a wife, and she's really quite wonderful.I couldn't have done better.I didn't settle.But settling isn't always such a bad thing.Finally, one consequence of buying a bad-fitting pair of jeans when there is only one kind to buy is that when you are dissatisfied, and you ask why, who's responsible, the answer is clear.The world is responsible.What could you do? When there are hundreds of different styles of jeans available, and you buy one that is disappointing, and you ask why, who's responsible? It is equally clear that the answer to the question is you.You could have done better.With a hundred different kinds of jeans on display, there is no excuse for failure.And so when people make decisions, and even though the results of the decisions are good, they feel disappointed about them, they blame themselves.Clinical depression has exploded in the industrial world in the last generation.I believe a significant--not the only, but a significant contributor to this explosion of depression, and also suicide, is that people have experiences that are disappointing because their standards are so high.And then when they have to explain these experiences to themselves, they think they're at fault.And so the net result is that we do better in general, objectively, and we feel worse.So let me remind you.This is the official dogma, the one that we all take to be true, and it's all false.It is not true.There's no question that some choice is better than none, but it doesn't follow from that that more choice is better than some choice.There's some magical amount.I don't know what it is.I'm pretty confident that we have long since passed the point where options improve our welfare.Now, as a policy matter--I'm almost done--as a policy matter, the thing to think about is this.What enables all of this choice in industrial societies is material affluence.There are lots of places in the world, and we have heard about several of them, where their problem is not that they have too much choice.Their problem is that they have too little.So the stuff I'm talking about is the peculiar problem of modern, affluent, Western societies.And what is so frustrating and infuriating is this: Steve Levitt talked to you yesterday about how these expensive and difficult to install child seats don't help.It's a waste of money.What I'm telling you is that these expensive, complicated choices--it's not simply that they don't help.They actually hurt.They actually make us worse off.If some of what enables people in our societies to make all of the choices we make were shifted to societies in which people have too few options, not only would those people's lives be improved, but ours would be improved also.This is what economists call a Pareto-improving move.Income redistribution will make everyone better off--not just poor people--because of how all this excess choice plagues us.So to conclude.You're supposed to read this cartoon, and, being a sophisticated person, say, “Ah!What does this fish know? You know nothing is possible in this fishbowl.” Impoverished imagination, a myopic view of the world--and that's the way I read it at first.The more I thought about it, however, the more I came to the view that this fish knows something.Because the truth of the matter is that if you shatter the fishbowl so that everything is possible, you don't have freedom.You have paralysis.If you shatter this fishbowl so that everything is possible, you decrease satisfaction.You increase paralysis, and you decrease satisfaction.Everybody needs a fishbowl.This one is almost certainly too limited--perhaps even for the fish, certainly for us.But the absence of some metaphorical fishbowl is a recipe for misery, and, I suspect, disaster.Thank you very much.(Applause)

第三篇：电子商务演讲英文稿

Electronic Commerce What is “e-commerce”, how do we define it? The answers has never be same, we can find official and unofficial explanation easily, but as far as my view “e-commerce” is a technical means, and also is a business activity, so I defined it “E-commerce” are a business activities, which based on information network technology means, and commodity exchange.It sounds very “on the big”!In college we have many of “e-commerce” professional, computer science, marketing, management, and so on, which makes us have a strange feeling.However, it is close to us, ticket and hotel reservation, online shopping, issuance of salary and so on.It really helped us a lot,although there is not much money, we don't have to go to the Bank line for wages, thank “e-commerce” for protecting of my pride.Exactly, “e-commerce” to give our lives a sea change, it gives us more choices and more convenience, changing people's lifestyles, consumption and entertainment, makes our quality of life has been unprecedentedly improved;And, It made our office more flexible, faster, safer and wider;Similar, It makes revolutionary changes in the content and forms of education-—Popularity of online education has brought great convenience to people's education.The same time, “E-commerce” also has been leading the all walks of life, transport, agriculture, manufacturing, and so on.In brief, the industry you can think of, it will directly or indirectly to drive it.Unfortunately, everything has two sides just like water can carry a boat also can capsize.When people move to a traditional business online, with the “e-commerce” is understood and accepted, line of business activity of enterprises will lose part of the market, as well a series of stakeholders will also suffer.Balance of interests is an important factor in maintaining social stability and developments, just imagine too many lines of business entities under loss of market with facing bankruptcy, and a large number of unemployed people.Such a society is healthy? A lack of “innovation” of China, the lack of interests would make “innovation” in China becomes more impossible? Obviously, the answer is negative.Indeed, online competition is increasingly fierce, currently system is not fully formed, and result from the competition led to a series of problems is more and more obvious, although consumers will get some benefits for a short time, buat in the long term, in the context of such vicious competition, ultimately affected not just part of the business, but also the consumer.At the last but the first, the “integrity issues”.Trade secrets and customer information is not protected, online fraud、In the name of selling, but real is fraud, poor quality of goods, Without timely delivery, failure to perform a service commitment, illegal business activities and false propaganda, and so on.I would not have said, I think everybody used to be the victim.“E-commerce” is an industry that people enjoy and others worried.What the future of “E-commerce”? Whether it can be robust growth, or in some cases to death? Nurture “e-commerce” needs a wide range of power—The Government's support, economic stability, personnel training, and so on,.Changes in traditional concepts, small farmers, the evolution of consciousness, high code of ethics and conduct is the basis of power.Maybe we can't change the world, but we can change ourselves, to indirectly change the world, because we are the future of the world.控制工程孙洪恩

第四篇：Ted演讲

私有制：中国经济奇迹的真正源泉

甚至连许多西方经济学家都认为,中国已经找到了主要依靠国家财政与控制的繁荣之路。但是，他们大错特错了。

2009年3月 • 黄亚生

美国式资本主义的可信性是全球金融危机中最早的牺牲品之一。随着雷曼兄弟银行的破产倒闭，全世界的权威评论家一窝蜂地唱衰美国经济理念——有限政府、最小限度的监管和对信贷的自由市场分配等。在考虑以何种模式取代没落的美国模式时，有些人把目光转向了中国。在中国，市场受到严格的监管，而金融机构则由国家控制。在经历了华尔街的溃败后，焦躁不安的弗朗西斯•福山在《新闻周刊》（Newsweek）上撰文指出，中国式的国家资本主义“看起来越来越有吸引力了。”《华盛顿邮报》（Washington Post）的专栏作家大卫•伊格内修斯为基于孔子思想的“新干预主义”在全球的出现而高声欢呼；伊格内修斯引用理查德•尼克松间接称颂经济学家凯恩斯（John Maynard Keynes）的话说：“现在我们都中国化了。”

但是，在宣布新的中国世纪的曙光到来之前，全球的领导人和高管们需要好好再想一想，中国活力的源泉到底是什么。说到中国经济奇迹产生的原因，获得广泛认可的看法——那是专家治国论的胜利，共产党依靠国家控制的企业实现了向市场经济的逐步转型——从各个重要方面来讲都错了。这种标准的看法认为，企业家精神、私有财产权、金融自由化和政治改革对中国的经济奇迹只发挥了很小的作用。但是，基于对中国政府的调查数据和中央及地方政府文件的详细分析，我的研究结论是，财产权和私营企业是高速增长和贫困水平降低最主要的激励因素。

我们经常读到这样的文章，认为渐进主义是中国成功地从马克思主义转型到市场经济的关键因素；许多文章称赞北京摒弃了俄罗斯式的休克疗法，采用更加务实的方法，创建了良好的商业环境，让私营企业有机地发展。这种观点认为，通过在上世纪80年代首先进行小范围改革，中国经济发展的自由度和市场导向水平逐渐提高，并在90年代后期积蓄了发展动力。但事实并非如此。实际发生的情况是，上世纪80年代进行的金融自由化和私营企业的早期地方性试验，催生了乡镇企业最初的蓬勃发展。正是这些早期的收获——而并非国家主导的大规模基础设施投资和90年代的城市化——为中国奇迹奠定了真正的基础。尽管有许多专家将中国宏大的基础设施项目和利用外国资金建设的崭新工厂与印度破败不堪的公路和微不足道的外国直接投资流进行比较，但这种观点夸大了公共开支和外国投资对中国发展的贡献。直到上世纪90年代后期以前，这两种因素在中国的影响力所占比重都不大——它们的出现比80年代宽松的金融控制和最初的乡镇企业发展大潮要晚得多。在上世纪80年代，中国经济的发展要比90年代快得多，并且产生了更好的社会效益：贫困人口下降，贫富差距缩小，而且劳动力在GDP中所占份额——衡量从经济发展中人均获益的指标——显著上升。从1978年到1988年，生活水平低于中国贫困线的农村人口减少了1.5亿以上。而在90年代，尽管GDP几乎都达到了两位数增长，并且实施了大规模的基础设施建设，但贫困人口数量却只下降了6,000万。此外，在80年代，中国经济增长主要靠投资而不是消费驱动的程度远不像今天这样严重。

换句话说，企业资本主义与国家资本主义不同，它不仅带来了增长，而且还对增长所带来的利益进行了广泛的分配。企业主义（Entrepreneurialism）既充满活力，又符合社会道德。

西方媒体总爱把像北京、上海和深圳这样的大城市称颂为生机勃勃的发展中心（见图表）。而中国的农村地区，即使被提到，也通常被形容为贫困的穷乡僻壤。但是，只要对经济数据进行仔细分析，就会发现，对中国现代化城市高楼大厦的这些令人震撼的描述完全是一种误导：事实上，中国的农村才具有最大的经济活力，而政府的强势干预已经窒息了中心城市的企业家精神和所有权。

后一种观点的重要性无论怎样强调都不过分。中国资本主义的发展历史事实上大部分都可以被描述为两个中国的斗争：由市场推动的、富有企业家精神的农村与由国家主导的城市之间的斗争。无论何时何地，只要中国农村占据优势地位，中国的资本主义就是企业式的、独立于政治的，并且是充满竞争活力的。无论何时何地，只要中国城市占据主导地位，中国的资本主义就会朝着依赖于政治和国家集权的方向发展。

上海是中国城市发展最显著的象征，其现代化的摩天大楼、外国奢侈品商店和全国最高的人均GDP使其成为中国的模范城市——一个国家资本主义获得成功的最好例证。事实果真如此吗？采用更具有实际意义的经济成就指标来衡量，上海的发展远不及温州。温州是位于上海南边数百英里以外一个浙江省的城市，这里是企业资本主义的一片乐土。上世纪80年代初期，使温州闻名于世的仅仅是它那勤劳的农民。当时，在温州的500万居民中，城市人口还不到10%。如今，温州是中国最具活力的城市，其数量众多的企业主宰着欧洲的服装市场。而相比之下，曾经是中国最早的实业家乐园的上海，如今却很少涌现出本土企业家。

温州的转型几乎完全是靠自由市场政策来实现的。早在1982年，当地官员就开始试行民间借贷、自由利率、存贷款机构的跨地区竞争，以及向私营企业提供贷款等。温州市政府还大力保护私营企业家的财产权，并从其他诸多方面使城市更有利于企业的发展。

本土企业为民生福祉带来了什么变化吗？非常多。按人均GDP计，上海几乎是温州所在的浙江省的两倍（难以获得温州人均GDP的详细数据）。但是，如果衡量家庭收入——一般居民的实际的支出能力——这两个地区的繁荣程度就旗鼓相当了。2006年，一个典型上海居民的家庭收入比一个典型浙江居民的家庭收入高13%，但上海居民的非工薪收入水平（如政府福利）却几乎是浙江居民的两倍。两地居民的平均劳动收入大体相当。平均来看，上海居民从经营企业中获得的收入比浙江居民低44%，而从所拥有的资产中获得的收入则要低34%。这就意味着：国家资本主义可以提高城市高楼大厦的楼高和GDP的统计数据，但并未提升居民的实际生活水平。

如果研究一下浙江省与其北部近邻江苏省的经济状况，这种对比就会更加清晰。这两个省份可以进行近乎完美的比较。它们的地理条件差不多相同：都是沿海省份，江苏位于上海北面，而浙江位于上海南面。它们还拥有相似的企业发展历史：都对解放前上海的实业家

和企业家阶层做出过重大贡献。然而，在改革以后的若干年里，江苏省吸引了外国投资并从公共建设工程开支中受益颇多，而浙江省却不然。这种差异产生了令人吃惊的结果。

20年前，江苏省比浙江省更为富庶，但如今却比浙江穷，在每一项重要的经济和社会福利指标上都落后于浙江。平均来看，浙江居民的资产性收入要大大高于其北方邻省的居民，他们居住的房子更大，拥有电话、计算机、彩电、相机或汽车的比例更高。浙江的婴儿死亡率更低，浙江人的平均预期寿命更长，识字率也更高。值得注意的是，浙江的收入不平等程度也远远低于江苏。应该如何解释浙江更胜一筹的繁荣呢？最令人信服的解释是，在江苏，政府对经济干预过多，歧视本地企业而青睐外国资本；而浙江的官员则让本土企业家拥有自由支配权，允许他们构建更大、更富有活力的本地供应链。

中国经济奇迹的真正难解之处并不是其经济如何发展，而是西方专家为何对其发展历程的理解错误百出。一个原因是，这些外来旁观者误解了构成中国经济体系最基本的元素之一——乡镇企业——的性质。一些西方最知名的经济学家将乡镇企业称为具有中国特色——具有创新意义的混合体，在政府的控制下实现了高速增长——的资本主义象征。例如，诺贝尔奖得主约瑟夫•斯蒂格里兹就称赞乡镇企业为从社会主义到资本主义转型时最常见的问题——私人投资者的资产剥离——提供了具有独创性的解决方案1他认为，这些企业既具有公有制的形式，可以避免被掠夺，同时又能实现私营企业的高效率。

简而言之，西方经济学家常常认为乡镇企业归乡镇政府所有。就在2005年，另一位诺贝尔奖得主道格拉斯•罗斯在《华尔街日报》上撰文指出，乡镇企业“与经济学中的标准企业很少有相似之处” 2。但有证据表明，情况并非如此。在中国国务院1984年3月1日发布的一份政策性文件中，第一次正式提到了乡镇企业的名称。该文件将它们定义为“由乡镇主办的企业、由农民组成的联合企业、其他联合企业和个体企业。”“由乡镇主办的企业”一词指的是归乡镇所有并管理的集体企业。该政策文件中提到的所有其他企业均为私营企业：个人所有的企业或有多个股东的较大型企业——都是严格意义上的“经济学中的标准企业”。官方对“乡镇企业”一词的使用具有非常显著的一致性：它一直是既包括私营企业，也包括政府主办的企业。

西方经济学家之所以会犯错误，是因为他们认定该名称涉及到所有制。但中国官方却从地理含义上去理解它——位于乡镇的企业。中国农业部的记录证明，私人拥有并管理的企业实体在乡镇企业中占绝大部分。在1985年到2002年期间，集体所有制企业的数量于1986年达到顶峰，为173万家，而私营企业的数量却迅猛增长，从大约1050万家增加到超过2,000万家。换句话说，在改革时期，乡镇企业数量的增长完全归功于私营企业。到1990年，在改革的头10年中，此类私营企业雇用的劳动力数量占到了乡镇企业雇用劳动力总数的50%，而税后利润则占到了58%。

对中国发展的真正源泉的思想混乱也搅乱了外国人对中国企业出现在国际市场上的理解认知。人们常说，中国为全球竞争带来了新的企业模式，国家所有制与明智的运用政府对金融的控制相结合，创造了独一无二的竞争力源泉。计算机制造商联想公司就经常被赞颂为中国非传统商业环境中的一个杰作。

但是，联想的成功大部分要归功于其早期便在香港注册并在香港募集资本的能力，而香港被认为是世界上最自由的市场经济。1984年，联想公司从中国科学院获得了第一笔启

动资金，但其后所有重大投资的资金均来自于香港3。1988年，该公司从总部位于香港的中国技术公司获得了90万港币（11.6万美元）的投资，成立了合资公司，使联想能够将香港作为其法定的公司所在地。1993年，香港联想公司在香港证券交易所首次公开上市，集资1,200万美元。联想公司是香港基于市场的金融与法律体系的成功故事，而并非中国由国家控制的金融体系的成功案例。

当中国在汲取华尔街崩溃的教训，并准备应对全球经济低迷之时，它可能做的最糟糕的事情莫过于去接受它已经发现了比自由市场更高效的发展模式的说法。中国经济奇迹的真正经验其实非常传统——基于私有制和自由市场金融。中国的经验为全世界提供了非常及时的提示：旨在鼓励这些力量发展的改革的确奏效。

作者简介：

黄亚生，麻省理工学院Sloan管理学院副教授，从事政治经济学的教学工作，创建并管理麻省理工学院的中国和印度实验室，该实验室旨在帮助本土企业家提高管理技能。本文摘自其《具有中国特色的资本主义：企业精神与国家》（Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics: Entrepreneurship and the State）一书。

第五篇：Ted演讲

Tony Porter 谈对男性的呼吁

关于这场演讲

在TEDWomen，Tony Porter对全世界男性发出呼吁，别太“大男子主义”。他讲述了自己切身经历，阐述了为何这种在多数男性身上根深蒂固的观念，会致使男性对女性，以及对彼此发生不尊重、虐待和伤害。他提出解决办法：打破陈规，从“男子汉标准”中解放。

关于Tony Porter

Tony Porter是教育家和活动者，他为消除对女性暴力侵害所作的努力受到国际认可。

为何要听他演讲：

Tony Porter是非盈利组织“对男性的呼吁：终止对女性暴力侵害组织”的策划者和共同创始人。Porter的参与和自我检查的要点，与许多家庭暴力和性暴力项目紧密相联，施行于一些知名组织，如全国橄榄球联盟和全国职业篮球联赛，以及全国各地高校，包括美国西点军校和安纳波利斯美国海军学院。Porter还是美国国务院国际讲师，在刚果民主共和国做过大量工作。

他是酒精与药物成瘾研究机构纽约办公室的教员，在此，他参与编著了针对美国黑人化学品依赖的临床课程。他还为社会服务组织开发社会公正模型。

“Ted Bunch和Tony Porter就男性有责任终止对女性的暴力侵害，以精彩的亲身经历分享他们的观点，他们提出更正人们心中的男子汉标准，就是解决办法之

一。两人通过自己的人生经历，来说明家庭暴力问题，其实是公民权利问题。” —摘自My Sister's Place网站

Tony Porter的英语网上资料

首页：acalltomen.com

[TED科技‧娱乐‧设计]

已有中译字幕的TED影片目录（繁体）（简体）。请注意繁简目录是不一样的。

Tony Porter 谈对男性的呼吁

我在纽约长大，位于哈莱姆区跟布朗克斯区之间。作为男孩子，大人教给我们，男人必须要坚决，要强壮，要勇敢，要强硬；不许痛苦，不许表露情感，愤怒除外。当然，也不能畏缩。男性负责，也就是说女性不用。男性引路，你们只要跟着照做就好。男性高一等，女性低一等。男性强大，女性弱小。女性价值不大，是男性的所有物，是物品。更确切说，是性对象。后来我知道，那是男性的社会形象标准，或称其为“男子汉的标准”。看看这里面都有什么，所有关于如何做

才够男人的定义。我还想说，毫无疑问，作为男人，有很多美好的事情，非常美好。但与此同时，有些东西实在非常纠结。我们确实需要开始质疑它，审视它，并对我们所熟知的男子汉标准进行拆析和重定义。

这是我的两个孩子，Kendall和Jay，一个11岁，一个12岁。Kendall比Jay大15个月。有段时间我的妻子，她叫Tammie，还有我，我们非常忙，叮，咚，当，Kendall和Jay诞生了。（笑声）当他们长到五六岁，四五岁时，Jay可以过来，哭着跑过来。至于她为什么哭没有关系，她可以趴在我的膝盖上，拿我的袖子擦鼻涕。哭吧，大声哭，爸爸在呢，就是这样。

另一方面，如果Kendall，如我所说，他只比妹妹大15个月，他哭着跑过来，或是只要我听到他的哭声，就要拉警报了。我会给他大约30秒的时间，也就是说，等他到我跟前，我就会说，“你哭什么哭？抬起头来，看着我，告诉我怎么了？告诉我怎么了？我不能理解，你为什么哭？”由于自己的失职，我有责任和义务把他教育成一个男人，让他符合这些男子汉标准中的条条框框。我发现我会这么说，“回你的房间去。回去，回你的房间。坐下，振作一下，再回来跟我说话，当你可以像...” 像什么？（观众：男人）“像男人一样。”他才五岁。当我这么做的时候，我会对自己说，“天呢，我是怎么了？我在做什么？我为什么要这样？”回想一下，我想到了我父亲。

有一段时间，我们家发生了一次很痛苦的经历。我哥哥，Henry，当我们十几岁的时候，他死于不幸。如我所说，我们住在纽约，当时我们住在布朗克斯区。葬礼在一个叫长岛的地方举行，距市区有两小时车程。当我们准备从墓地返回时，车子停在洗手间旁，让大家在长途返回之前下车方便一下。随后人们都下车了，我母亲，我姐姐，我姑姑，她们都出去了，只有我爸爸和我留在车里。女人们离

开不久，他便放声大哭。他不想在我面前哭，但他知道，回去的路上他会忍不住的。在我面前哭，要比在有女性的场合下哭的好。这个男人，在10分钟之前，刚刚把他年幼的儿子亲手埋葬。这种痛苦是我无法想象的。我印象最深的是，他为在我面前哭而向我道歉。同时，他还给我鼓励，把我举起来，因为我没哭。

我重新审视这件事。作为男人，我们会害怕，这种害怕让我们瘫痪，让我们成为男子汉的标准的奴隶。我还记得跟一个12岁男孩的对话，他是足球选手。我问他，我说，“如果当着所有队员的面，教练说你踢球像个女孩，你会怎么样？”我本以为他会说，我会很伤心，很愤怒，很生气之类的。但不，男孩这么跟我说，男孩说，“这会把我毁掉。”于是我自问，“天呢，如果被称作女孩就会把他毁掉，那么关于女孩，我们都教给他些什么？”

（掌声）

这把我带回了我的12岁那年。我在市区的廉租公寓长大，那时我们住在布朗克斯区。一个叫Johnny的家伙住在我家附近，他当时16岁左右，我们都12岁左右，比较小。他总是跟我们这些小孩呆在一起。这个家伙，他经常不干好事。他让很多家长感到奇怪，“这个16岁孩子，在一群12岁孩子中做什么？”他也确实不做好事。他是个问题少年，母亲因海洛因摄入过量而死，奶奶把他养大，父亲不管他。他奶奶有两份工作，他经常独自在家。我说过，我们都是小孩，得仰望这个大哥哥。他很酷，他很好。这是那些小妹妹说的，“他很好。”他做过爱，我们都仰望他。

一天，我出门玩，就在周围玩，我记不得在玩什么。他在窗口，叫我上去。他说，“嘿，Anthony。”小时候他叫我Anthony。“嘿，Anthony，快上来。”Johnny

叫我，我就去。我跑上楼。他打开门后，对我说，“你想要吗？”我立刻明白了他的意思。因为在我们长大的那个年代，根据当时的男子汉标准，“你想要吗”只有两层意思，不是性就是毒品。而我们不吸毒。我的准则，我的男子汉准则，立刻受到威胁。有两点：一，我没做过爱。男人之间不讨论这个。你只会告诉最亲密的朋友，让他发誓保密，跟他讲你的第一次。而对其他人，则会说我两岁就开始做爱了，没什么第一次可言。（笑声）另一点我不能说的是，我不想要。这样更糟。我们应该时刻窥伺，女性只是物品，确切说，是性对象。总之，这些我都不能说。所以，就如我母亲所言，长话短说，我只是对Johnny说，“好。”他让我到他房间里。我进去了，躺在床上的是个叫Sheila的邻居女孩，她16岁，全身赤裸。现在来看，她有心理疾病，有时会比其他人更自闭。我们给她取了很多不好的绰号。总之，Johnny刚跟她做完爱。其实，他强奸了她，但他会说是做爱。因为，当时Sheila没有说“不”，她也没说“是”。

因此他给我机会也这样做。于是我走进去，关上门。各位，我呆住了。我依门而立，这样Johnny不能破门而入，发现我什么都没干。我站了好长一会，长到足够我干点什么了。现在，我想的不是要做什么，而是要怎么出去。我只有12岁，但很聪明。我把裤拉链拉下来，走进客厅。我看到的是，当我和Sheila在房间里时，Johnny到窗边招呼别人上来，所以现在满屋子都是人，就像医生的候诊室。他们问我感觉如何，我对他们说，“感觉不错。”然后在他们面前拉上裤拉链，走出门去。

我是带着愧疚说出这段的。当时我也带着极大的愧疚感，但我很矛盾。因为我感到愧疚的同时，又感到兴奋，我没被抓住。而对发生的一切，我觉得糟糕。这种害怕脱离了男子汉的标准，完全包住了我。对我来说，我和我的男子汉标准，曾经比Sheila和她的遭遇更重要。总的来说，我们作为男人，被教育说女性价值

不大，把她们看做所有物，看做男人的性对象，这就形成一个等式，等号右边是对女性的暴力侵害。我们作为男人，作为好男人，就如大多数的男人，我们所做的事，都是在这个社会形象标准下进行。我们以为自己不在此列，但其实我们正是其中之一。看到了吗，我们必须明白，这类价值不大，所有物，性对象的观念，致使暴力现象频频发生。因此解决办法就在我们身上，同时问题也在我们身上。疾病控制中心说过，男性对女性的暴力现象，已达到流行病的普遍程度，是女性的最大健康隐忧。国内如此，国外亦如此。

所以我再简单说几句。这是我生命中的挚爱，我女儿Jay，我希望她的世界里，我会希望男性如何对待女性？我需要你们与我一道，共同努力。你我共同合作，致力于如何培养我们的儿子，教导他们成为男人。可以不强硬，也可以表露情感，可以促进平等，可以拥有女性朋友，就是这样，可以做一个完整的人。我们男性的解放，与你们女性的解放相依存。我问过一个九岁男孩，我问他说，“如果你不用再遵循这些男子汉标准，你会怎样？”他告诉我，“我就自由了。”