第一篇：美國插畫家TED演講英文稿

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演講選擇越多,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：電子商務演講英文稿

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.控制工程孫洪恩

第四篇：Ted演講

私有制：中國經濟奇跡的真正源泉

甚至連許多西方經濟學家都認為,中國已經找到了主要依靠國家財政與控制的繁榮之路。但是，他們大錯特錯了。

2009年3月 ? 黃亞生

美國式資本主義的可信性是全球金融危機中最早的犧牲品之一。隨著雷曼兄弟銀行的破產倒閉，全世界的權威評論家一窩蜂地唱衰美國經濟理念——有限政府、最小限度的監管和對信貸的自由市場分配等。在考慮以何種模式取代沒落的美國模式時，有些人把目光轉向了中國。在中國，市場受到嚴格的監管，而金融機構則由國家控制。在經歷了華爾街的潰敗后，焦躁不安的弗朗西斯?福山在《新聞周刊》（Newsweek）上撰文指出，中國式的國家資本主義“看起來越來越有吸引力了。”《華盛頓郵報》（Washington Post）的專欄作家大衛?伊格內修斯為基于孔子思想的“新干預主義”在全球的出現而高聲歡呼；伊格內修斯引用理查德?尼克松間接稱頌經濟學家凱恩斯（John Maynard Keynes）的話說：“現在我們都中國化了。”

但是，在宣布新的中國世紀的曙光到來之前，全球的領導人和高管們需要好好再想一想，中國活力的源泉到底是什么。說到中國經濟奇跡產生的原因，獲得廣泛認可的看法——那是專家治國論的勝利，共產黨依靠國家控制的企業實現了向市場經濟的逐步轉型——從各個重要方面來講都錯了。這種標準的看法認為，企業家精神、私有財產權、金融自由化和政治改革對中國的經濟奇跡只發揮了很小的作用。但是，基于對中國政府的調查數據和中央及地方政府文件的詳細分析，我的研究結論是，財產權和私營企業是高速增長和貧困水平降低最主要的激勵因素。

我們經常讀到這樣的文章，認為漸進主義是中國成功地從馬克思主義轉型到市場經濟的關鍵因素；許多文章稱贊北京摒棄了俄羅斯式的休克療法，采用更加務實的方法，創建了良好的商業環境，讓私營企業有機地發展。這種觀點認為，通過在上世紀80年代首先進行小范圍改革，中國經濟發展的自由度和市場導向水平逐漸提高，并在90年代后期積蓄了發展動力。但事實并非如此。實際發生的情況是，上世紀80年代進行的金融自由化和私營企業的早期地方性試驗，催生了鄉鎮企業最初的蓬勃發展。正是這些早期的收獲——而并非國家主導的大規模基礎設施投資和90年代的城市化——為中國奇跡奠定了真正的基礎。盡管有許多專家將中國宏大的基礎設施項目和利用外國資金建設的嶄新工廠與印度破敗不堪的公路和微不足道的外國直接投資流進行比較，但這種觀點夸大了公共開支和外國投資對中國發展的貢獻。直到上世紀90年代后期以前，這兩種因素在中國的影響力所占比重都不大——它們的出現比80年代寬松的金融控制和最初的鄉鎮企業發展大潮要晚得多。在上世紀80年代，中國經濟的發展要比90年代快得多，并且產生了更好的社會效益：貧困人口下降，貧富差距縮小，而且勞動力在GDP中所占份額——衡量從經濟發展中人均獲益的指標——顯著上升。從1978年到1988年，生活水平低于中國貧困線的農村人口減少了1.5億以上。而在90年代，盡管GDP幾乎都達到了兩位數增長，并且實施了大規模的基礎設施建設，但貧困人口數量卻只下降了6,000萬。此外，在80年代，中國經濟增長主要靠投資而不是消費驅動的程度遠不像今天這樣嚴重。

換句話說，企業資本主義與國家資本主義不同，它不僅帶來了增長，而且還對增長所帶來的利益進行了廣泛的分配。企業主義（Entrepreneurialism）既充滿活力，又符合社會道德。

西方媒體總愛把像北京、上海和深圳這樣的大城市稱頌為生機勃勃的發展中心（見圖表）。而中國的農村地區，即使被提到，也通常被形容為貧困的窮鄉僻壤。但是，只要對經濟數據進行仔細分析，就會發現，對中國現代化城市高樓大廈的這些令人震撼的描述完全是一種誤導：事實上，中國的農村才具有最大的經濟活力，而政府的強勢干預已經窒息了中心城市的企業家精神和所有權。

后一種觀點的重要性無論怎樣強調都不過分。中國資本主義的發展歷史事實上大部分都可以被描述為兩個中國的斗爭：由市場推動的、富有企業家精神的農村與由國家主導的城市之間的斗爭。無論何時何地，只要中國農村占據優勢地位，中國的資本主義就是企業式的、獨立于政治的，并且是充滿競爭活力的。無論何時何地，只要中國城市占據主導地位，中國的資本主義就會朝著依賴于政治和國家集權的方向發展。

上海是中國城市發展最顯著的象征，其現代化的摩天大樓、外國奢侈品商店和全國最高的人均GDP使其成為中國的模范城市——一個國家資本主義獲得成功的最好例證。事實果真如此嗎？采用更具有實際意義的經濟成就指標來衡量，上海的發展遠不及溫州。溫州是位于上海南邊數百英里以外一個浙江省的城市，這里是企業資本主義的一片樂土。上世紀80年代初期，使溫州聞名于世的僅僅是它那勤勞的農民。當時，在溫州的500萬居民中，城市人口還不到10%。如今，溫州是中國最具活力的城市，其數量眾多的企業主宰著歐洲的服裝市場。而相比之下，曾經是中國最早的實業家樂園的上海，如今卻很少涌現出本土企業家。

溫州的轉型幾乎完全是靠自由市場政策來實現的。早在1982年，當地官員就開始試行民間借貸、自由利率、存貸款機構的跨地區競爭，以及向私營企業提供貸款等。溫州市政府還大力保護私營企業家的財產權，并從其他諸多方面使城市更有利于企業的發展。

本土企業為民生福祉帶來了什么變化嗎？非常多。按人均GDP計，上海幾乎是溫州所在的浙江省的兩倍（難以獲得溫州人均GDP的詳細數據）。但是，如果衡量家庭收入——一般居民的實際的支出能力——這兩個地區的繁榮程度就旗鼓相當了。2006年，一個典型上海居民的家庭收入比一個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）卻幾乎是浙江居民的兩倍。兩地居民的平均勞動收入大體相當。平均來看，上海居民從經營企業中獲得的收入比浙江居民低44%，而從所擁有的資產中獲得的收入則要低34%。這就意味著：國家資本主義可以提高城市高樓大廈的樓高和GDP的統計數據，但并未提升居民的實際生活水平。

如果研究一下浙江省與其北部近鄰江蘇省的經濟狀況，這種對比就會更加清晰。這兩個省份可以進行近乎完美的比較。它們的地理條件差不多相同：都是沿海省份，江蘇位于上海北面，而浙江位于上海南面。它們還擁有相似的企業發展歷史：都對解放前上海的實業家

和企業家階層做出過重大貢獻。然而，在改革以后的若干年里，江蘇省吸引了外國投資并從公共建設工程開支中受益頗多，而浙江省卻不然。這種差異產生了令人吃驚的結果。

20年前，江蘇省比浙江省更為富庶，但如今卻比浙江窮，在每一項重要的經濟和社會福利指標上都落后于浙江。平均來看，浙江居民的資產性收入要大大高于其北方鄰省的居民，他們居住的房子更大，擁有電話、計算機、彩電、相機或汽車的比例更高。浙江的嬰兒死亡率更低，浙江人的平均預期壽命更長，識字率也更高。值得注意的是，浙江的收入不平等程度也遠遠低于江蘇。應該如何解釋浙江更勝一籌的繁榮呢？最令人信服的解釋是，在江蘇，政府對經濟干預過多，歧視本地企業而青睞外國資本；而浙江的官員則讓本土企業家擁有自由支配權，允許他們構建更大、更富有活力的本地供應鏈。

中國經濟奇跡的真正難解之處并不是其經濟如何發展，而是西方專家為何對其發展歷程的理解錯誤百出。一個原因是，這些外來旁觀者誤解了構成中國經濟體系最基本的元素之一——鄉鎮企業——的性質。一些西方最知名的經濟學家將鄉鎮企業稱為具有中國特色——具有創新意義的混合體，在政府的控制下實現了高速增長——的資本主義象征。例如，諾貝爾獎得主約瑟夫?斯蒂格里茲就稱贊鄉鎮企業為從社會主義到資本主義轉型時最常見的問題——私人投資者的資產剝離——提供了具有獨創性的解決方案1他認為，這些企業既具有公有制的形式，可以避免被掠奪，同時又能實現私營企業的高效率。

簡而言之，西方經濟學家常常認為鄉鎮企業歸鄉鎮政府所有。就在2005年，另一位諾貝爾獎得主道格拉斯?羅斯在《華爾街日報》上撰文指出，鄉鎮企業“與經濟學中的標準企業很少有相似之處” 2。但有證據表明，情況并非如此。在中國國務院1984年3月1日發布的一份政策性文件中，第一次正式提到了鄉鎮企業的名稱。該文件將它們定義為“由鄉鎮主辦的企業、由農民組成的聯合企業、其他聯合企業和個體企業。”“由鄉鎮主辦的企業”一詞指的是歸鄉鎮所有并管理的集體企業。該政策文件中提到的所有其他企業均為私營企業：個人所有的企業或有多個股東的較大型企業——都是嚴格意義上的“經濟學中的標準企業”。官方對“鄉鎮企業”一詞的使用具有非常顯著的一致性：它一直是既包括私營企業，也包括政府主辦的企業。

西方經濟學家之所以會犯錯誤，是因為他們認定該名稱涉及到所有制。但中國官方卻從地理含義上去理解它——位于鄉鎮的企業。中國農業部的記錄證明，私人擁有并管理的企業實體在鄉鎮企業中占絕大部分。在1985年到2002年期間，集體所有制企業的數量于1986年達到頂峰，為173萬家，而私營企業的數量卻迅猛增長，從大約1050萬家增加到超過2,000萬家。換句話說，在改革時期，鄉鎮企業數量的增長完全歸功于私營企業。到1990年，在改革的頭10年中，此類私營企業雇用的勞動力數量占到了鄉鎮企業雇用勞動力總數的50%，而稅后利潤則占到了58%。

對中國發展的真正源泉的思想混亂也攪亂了外國人對中國企業出現在國際市場上的理解認知。人們常說，中國為全球競爭帶來了新的企業模式，國家所有制與明智的運用政府對金融的控制相結合，創造了獨一無二的競爭力源泉。計算機制造商聯想公司就經常被贊頌為中國非傳統商業環境中的一個杰作。

但是，聯想的成功大部分要歸功于其早期便在香港注冊并在香港募集資本的能力，而香港被認為是世界上最自由的市場經濟。1984年，聯想公司從中國科學院獲得了第一筆啟

動資金，但其后所有重大投資的資金均來自于香港3。1988年，該公司從總部位于香港的中國技術公司獲得了90萬港幣（11.6萬美元）的投資，成立了合資公司，使聯想能夠將香港作為其法定的公司所在地。1993年，香港聯想公司在香港證券交易所首次公開上市，集資1,200萬美元。聯想公司是香港基于市場的金融與法律體系的成功故事，而并非中國由國家控制的金融體系的成功案例。

當中國在汲取華爾街崩潰的教訓，并準備應對全球經濟低迷之時，它可能做的最糟糕的事情莫過于去接受它已經發現了比自由市場更高效的發展模式的說法。中國經濟奇跡的真正經驗其實非常傳統——基于私有制和自由市場金融。中國的經驗為全世界提供了非常及時的提示：旨在鼓勵這些力量發展的改革的確奏效。

作者簡介：

黃亞生，麻省理工學院Sloan管理學院副教授，從事政治經濟學的教學工作，創建并管理麻省理工學院的中國和印度實驗室，該實驗室旨在幫助本土企業家提高管理技能。本文摘自其《具有中國特色的資本主義：企業精神與國家》（Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics: Entrepreneurship and the State）一書。

第五篇：Ted演講

Tony Porter 談對男性的呼吁

關于這場演講

在TEDWomen，Tony Porter對全世界男性發出呼吁，別太“大男子主義”。他講述了自己切身經歷，闡述了為何這種在多數男性身上根深蒂固的觀念，會致使男性對女性，以及對彼此發生不尊重、虐待和傷害。他提出解決辦法：打破陳規，從“男子漢標準”中解放。

關于Tony Porter

Tony Porter是教育家和活動者，他為消除對女性暴力侵害所作的努力受到國際認可。

為何要聽他演講：

Tony Porter是非盈利組織“對男性的呼吁：終止對女性暴力侵害組織”的策劃者和共同創始人。Porter的參與和自我檢查的要點，與許多家庭暴力和性暴力項目緊密相聯，施行于一些知名組織，如全國橄欖球聯盟和全國職業籃球聯賽，以及全國各地高校，包括美國西點軍校和安納波利斯美國海軍學院。Porter還是美國國務院國際講師，在剛果民主共和國做過大量工作。

他是酒精與藥物成癮研究機構紐約辦公室的教員，在此，他參與編著了針對美國黑人化學品依賴的臨床課程。他還為社會服務組織開發社會公正模型。

“Ted Bunch和Tony Porter就男性有責任終止對女性的暴力侵害，以精彩的親身經歷分享他們的觀點，他們提出更正人們心中的男子漢標準，就是解決辦法之

一。兩人通過自己的人生經歷，來說明家庭暴力問題，其實是公民權利問題。” —摘自My Sister's Place網站

Tony Porter的英語網上資料

首頁：acalltomen.com

[TED科技?娛樂?設計]

已有中譯字幕的TED影片目錄（繁體）（簡體）。請注意繁簡目錄是不一樣的。

Tony Porter 談對男性的呼吁

我在紐約長大，位于哈萊姆區跟布朗克斯區之間。作為男孩子，大人教給我們，男人必須要堅決，要強壯，要勇敢，要強硬；不許痛苦，不許表露情感，憤怒除外。當然，也不能畏縮。男性負責，也就是說女性不用。男性引路，你們只要跟著照做就好。男性高一等，女性低一等。男性強大，女性弱小。女性價值不大，是男性的所有物，是物品。更確切說，是性對象。后來我知道，那是男性的社會形象標準，或稱其為“男子漢的標準”。看看這里面都有什么，所有關于如何做

才夠男人的定義。我還想說，毫無疑問，作為男人，有很多美好的事情，非常美好。但與此同時，有些東西實在非常糾結。我們確實需要開始質疑它，審視它，并對我們所熟知的男子漢標準進行拆析和重定義。

這是我的兩個孩子，Kendall和Jay，一個11歲，一個12歲。Kendall比Jay大15個月。有段時間我的妻子，她叫Tammie，還有我，我們非常忙，叮，咚，當，Kendall和Jay誕生了。（笑聲）當他們長到五六歲，四五歲時，Jay可以過來，哭著跑過來。至于她為什么哭沒有關系，她可以趴在我的膝蓋上，拿我的袖子擦鼻涕。哭吧，大聲哭，爸爸在呢，就是這樣。

另一方面，如果Kendall，如我所說，他只比妹妹大15個月，他哭著跑過來，或是只要我聽到他的哭聲，就要拉警報了。我會給他大約30秒的時間，也就是說，等他到我跟前，我就會說，“你哭什么哭？抬起頭來，看著我，告訴我怎么了？告訴我怎么了？我不能理解，你為什么哭？”由于自己的失職，我有責任和義務把他教育成一個男人，讓他符合這些男子漢標準中的條條框框。我發現我會這么說，“回你的房間去。回去，回你的房間。坐下，振作一下，再回來跟我說話，當你可以像...” 像什么？（觀眾：男人）“像男人一樣。”他才五歲。當我這么做的時候，我會對自己說，“天呢，我是怎么了？我在做什么？我為什么要這樣？”回想一下，我想到了我父親。

有一段時間，我們家發生了一次很痛苦的經歷。我哥哥，Henry，當我們十幾歲的時候，他死于不幸。如我所說，我們住在紐約，當時我們住在布朗克斯區。葬禮在一個叫長島的地方舉行，距市區有兩小時車程。當我們準備從墓地返回時，車子停在洗手間旁，讓大家在長途返回之前下車方便一下。隨后人們都下車了，我母親，我姐姐，我姑姑，她們都出去了，只有我爸爸和我留在車里。女人們離

開不久，他便放聲大哭。他不想在我面前哭，但他知道，回去的路上他會忍不住的。在我面前哭，要比在有女性的場合下哭的好。這個男人，在10分鐘之前，剛剛把他年幼的兒子親手埋葬。這種痛苦是我無法想象的。我印象最深的是，他為在我面前哭而向我道歉。同時，他還給我鼓勵，把我舉起來，因為我沒哭。

我重新審視這件事。作為男人，我們會害怕，這種害怕讓我們癱瘓，讓我們成為男子漢的標準的奴隸。我還記得跟一個12歲男孩的對話，他是足球選手。我問他，我說，“如果當著所有隊員的面，教練說你踢球像個女孩，你會怎么樣？”我本以為他會說，我會很傷心，很憤怒，很生氣之類的。但不，男孩這么跟我說，男孩說，“這會把我毀掉。”于是我自問，“天呢，如果被稱作女孩就會把他毀掉，那么關于女孩，我們都教給他些什么？”

（掌聲）

這把我帶回了我的12歲那年。我在市區的廉租公寓長大，那時我們住在布朗克斯區。一個叫Johnny的家伙住在我家附近，他當時16歲左右，我們都12歲左右，比較小。他總是跟我們這些小孩呆在一起。這個家伙，他經常不干好事。他讓很多家長感到奇怪，“這個16歲孩子，在一群12歲孩子中做什么？”他也確實不做好事。他是個問題少年，母親因海洛因攝入過量而死，奶奶把他養大，父親不管他。他奶奶有兩份工作，他經常獨自在家。我說過，我們都是小孩，得仰望這個大哥哥。他很酷，他很好。這是那些小妹妹說的，“他很好。”他做過愛，我們都仰望他。

一天，我出門玩，就在周圍玩，我記不得在玩什么。他在窗口，叫我上去。他說，“嘿，Anthony。”小時候他叫我Anthony。“嘿，Anthony，快上來。”Johnny

叫我，我就去。我跑上樓。他打開門后，對我說，“你想要嗎？”我立刻明白了他的意思。因為在我們長大的那個年代，根據當時的男子漢標準，“你想要嗎”只有兩層意思，不是性就是毒品。而我們不吸毒。我的準則，我的男子漢準則，立刻受到威脅。有兩點：一，我沒做過愛。男人之間不討論這個。你只會告訴最親密的朋友，讓他發誓保密，跟他講你的第一次。而對其他人，則會說我兩歲就開始做愛了，沒什么第一次可言。（笑聲）另一點我不能說的是，我不想要。這樣更糟。我們應該時刻窺伺，女性只是物品，確切說，是性對象。總之，這些我都不能說。所以，就如我母親所言，長話短說，我只是對Johnny說，“好。”他讓我到他房間里。我進去了，躺在床上的是個叫Sheila的鄰居女孩，她16歲，全身赤裸。現在來看，她有心理疾病，有時會比其他人更自閉。我們給她取了很多不好的綽號。總之，Johnny剛跟她做完愛。其實，他強奸了她，但他會說是做愛。因為，當時Sheila沒有說“不”，她也沒說“是”。

因此他給我機會也這樣做。于是我走進去，關上門。各位，我呆住了。我依門而立，這樣Johnny不能破門而入，發現我什么都沒干。我站了好長一會，長到足夠我干點什么了。現在，我想的不是要做什么，而是要怎么出去。我只有12歲，但很聰明。我把褲拉鏈拉下來，走進客廳。我看到的是，當我和Sheila在房間里時，Johnny到窗邊招呼別人上來，所以現在滿屋子都是人，就像醫生的候診室。他們問我感覺如何，我對他們說，“感覺不錯。”然后在他們面前拉上褲拉鏈，走出門去。

我是帶著愧疚說出這段的。當時我也帶著極大的愧疚感，但我很矛盾。因為我感到愧疚的同時，又感到興奮，我沒被抓住。而對發生的一切，我覺得糟糕。這種害怕脫離了男子漢的標準，完全包住了我。對我來說，我和我的男子漢標準，曾經比Sheila和她的遭遇更重要。總的來說，我們作為男人，被教育說女性價值

不大，把她們看做所有物，看做男人的性對象，這就形成一個等式，等號右邊是對女性的暴力侵害。我們作為男人，作為好男人，就如大多數的男人，我們所做的事，都是在這個社會形象標準下進行。我們以為自己不在此列，但其實我們正是其中之一。看到了嗎，我們必須明白，這類價值不大，所有物，性對象的觀念，致使暴力現象頻頻發生。因此解決辦法就在我們身上，同時問題也在我們身上。疾病控制中心說過，男性對女性的暴力現象，已達到流行病的普遍程度，是女性的最大健康隱憂。國內如此，國外亦如此。

所以我再簡單說幾句。這是我生命中的摯愛，我女兒Jay，我希望她的世界里，我會希望男性如何對待女性？我需要你們與我一道，共同努力。你我共同合作，致力于如何培養我們的兒子，教導他們成為男人。可以不強硬，也可以表露情感，可以促進平等，可以擁有女性朋友，就是這樣，可以做一個完整的人。我們男性的解放，與你們女性的解放相依存。我問過一個九歲男孩，我問他說，“如果你不用再遵循這些男子漢標準，你會怎樣？”他告訴我，“我就自由了。”