傳聞李開復的文章,真是洛陽紙貴.網上流傳不止.Google一下,不難找到轉載. 年輕的被說的心悸,過來人看得心有戚戚焉.

同樣的文章,古今中外,歷史上有了幾千版了.李開復的威力,在他的踏實,明確.(但李本人說這文章不是他寫的.) 幾句:

如果你20歲以後所花的每一分錢還都是伸手向父母親人要來的，那你的滿身名牌就只能襯托出你的無恥.

不要與浪子，文藝青年交往，別和沒心沒肺的人在一起，別和沒有正當職業混日子的人在一起.

說穿了,要務實獨立,不要夢幻痛苦,也別想一步登天.

但真想想,沒有幾個天才20歲就念完書了.基本的大學文憑要22歲.這一代近30才走出校園的,比比皆是.我大慨可以接受把他寫的加個10歲.三十以前,人追求的是應該是理想及愛情.在那追求的過程中,年輕人走過那世世代代都走過的路,才站立成人.沒有那段夢幻痛苦,怎麼破繭成蝶?

人的成長歷程,一定有一段是在找自己.找到後,才可能走下一步.過來人看到下一代的歷程會心疼,”能不能聽話,別去找了,你就在這兒.” 很不幸,每一代都必須過這關.

每一代,都有一群過不了這關. 那就是被時代淘汰掉的一群. 如果自己的孩子在那群裏,當然心疼. 看到明明有天分的被淘汰,也心疼. 那些孩子,只要聽話,就能好好的,多可惜.

其實,不聽話的年輕人,當然淘汰率高.但把人類推到新高的偉人,也是年輕時不聽話的那群.

順其自然吧!

Didn’t Adam Smith teach us that the other side will pursue their own self interest? For centuries, we designed complicated incentives based on this teaching. The highest form of governance, or business, is to use the invisible hand to direct wealth to the right places. People, or countries, should be selfish. That’s how it works, at least for western civilizations and MNCs (Multi-National Corporations).

James Mann, from The New Republic blog, has been surprised at how surprised western corporations were when they found out that China seems less open than 15 years ago.

The logic seems painfully obvious. China wants exactly what western countries and corporations want and had: prosperity and influence. They will make their own short- and long-term trade-offs as they see most optimal for themselves. Being open worked very well for the past 30 years, for China. It works less well now, therefore they are less open now.

China has a plan for itself. If western countries and corporations fit that plan, they will be welcome with open arms. Otherwise, not. Their policies and rules are unpredictable only to those blind to this simple logic.

For MNCs, there are only two viable China strategies. The short-term strategy is to exploit whatever natural resources and profit from them. The natural resources of interest are mainly the cheap labor, cheap land, and the lenient environmental laws. MNCs should exit whenever those natural resources become expensive, or inconvenient. (It is curious for me to observe that people will protest that China is polluting the world while shopping at WalMart, Target, or Sears.)

The long-term strategy is to treat China as a market and try to sell into it. Since the fundamental concept is trading, the transactions must have sufficient incentives to both sides. Clearly western corporations want profits. If China wants the same, then we have a built-in zero-sum conflict. China side will tolerate an in-balance for the short-term, but will eventually reverse it.

So the secret to the success is really quite simple. Answer the question, “What’s in for China?”

While the world watched the video feed showing oil guzzling out from the bottom of Mexico Gulf, a small pipe bursted near Dailian, a seaport on the north-eastern corner of China. The amount of oil was minuscule compared to the BP disaster, but nature does not really need much to be ruined.

The Big Picture blog, one of my favorites, showed stunning pictures. This is one of them.

This reminds me all those millions of migrant workers that built modern China. This is a country that millions usually just shut-up and do the jobs. They come home dirty, tired, still poor, and with the jobs done. Farmers, in every countries, are like that. They go out in the morning, do a day’s hard works, and come home at the end of the day. Jobs were done, no need to talk about it. Let’s just eat and have a drink to that.

What really made modern China!

Scott Tong, a family friend, has been Marketplace’s ShangHai chief. As he finishes his 4-year oversea assignment, he gave a series on China’s one-child policy. I cannot match his depth of coverage, but can definitely add some colors.

Modern China is now filled with spoiled brats and lazy bums. Since the kid is the only hope for many parents and grand parents, he or she grew up well pampered and cannot really survive in the real world as an adult. They are called the Strawberry Generation — easily bruised and become useless by the slightest squeeze. They manipulate parents and grand-parents masterfully. They live lavishly and refuse any responsibility or accountability. They perish from lack of praising, let alone any criticism. Their parent shake their heads and worry about their survival and independence. At the same time, the older generation keeps on providing everything the young adult ask for, to a fault.

China also acquired a matter-of-course attitude on birth control and planning. A married couple need to apply permission to be pregnant. They get consultation on contraception tools and methodologies. Everyone knows when someone is having a kid and everyone talks about the costs of abortion, the effect of biological clock, the tips of birth planning, and other topics that western societies do only in the most intimate settings. When a couple have a second kid, everyone knew what they have gone through: resigned from governmental job, saved up for the penalty, moved to a bigger house, requested permission to enter school, etc.

Inhumane it was, this policy decreased China’s fertility rate faster than any other method would have. Human beings tend to disrespect whatever resources that are abundant. For a country with over a billion people, lives became cheap. Ironically, the cruel policy that killed millions of babies also made the new generation of children most precious.

Years ago, I wrote about China’s HuKou systems. I compared that to U.S.’s immigration policy, only applied to China’s own citizens. Several weeks ago, the Economist had an article on the same subject.

What saddened me most is its the bleak outlook. After 50 years, people have got used to and optimized their lives under the system. Now any attempt to reform must deal with pockets of population that will be hurt by the change. Like the complicated US tax laws, for every rules, there is a small group of people who benefit greatly from it and the total population wouldn’t care any less. The sum of those special interest cripples the nation that demands reform, but none can be done without facing violent opposition from a small group.

The linchpin to China’s HuKou reform is land ownership. China’s new property law give farm lands to the collective of farmers. Such ownership is hereditary and non-transferable. The whole village own the arable land together. No one can sell any part of it (in fact, no one can sell it at all). The ownership is subdivided and passed down to the heirs as generations progress. A descendant can live the entire life away and still claim the small piece of land to his name. Imagine the wealth locked in such system, all because of the fear of famine, irrationally remembered from decades ago.

City people talked about the gold content of their HuKou: health care, schooling, retirement benefit, priority university admission, and numerous others. They don’t want their piece of the pie to get smaller. Doesn’t it sound like US citizens not wanting to pay for social welfare for the illegal immigrants? Never mind those people work next door, buy groceries, and pay taxes too.

People respond to incentives, said Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner of Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics. How does a company incentivize people to stay loyal and align with the company’s goals? A Chinese company figured this out. This unique system is probably worth a Harvard MBA case.

Selected employees may participate an aggressive profit-sharing program that yields, sometime, several times the base salary. This program is the goose that lays golden eggs: it keeps on paying out as long as the person stayed employed. But it is structured as an investment: employees must first put in their own money and wait for the returns to come later — typically 7 to 8 years for it to really blossom.

Predictably, new employees work their asses off to get invited to this program. In less than 10 years, they would be starting to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle. If they manage to climb the corporate ladder, they would enter the senior rank and become really wealthy. As long as they stay employed by the company, the checks keep on coming. The top executives knew that all worthy employees want the same thing: profitability for the company. Since as long as the company makes money, everyone get rich. This works beautifully.

But it smells like a ponzi scheme. In essence, the new employees’ hardwork pays for those who are already in the club. A prospect recruit faces a last fool gambit. Can he rise to the cruising level fast enough before the pyramid collapse? The current club members, usually senior with authority, have the incentive to drive new comers harder ever.

Senior outsiders find it hard to join the company. They have proven themselves elsewhere and expect to enjoy similar compensation as their peers; not waiting years for the investment to mature. Conversely, those who worked their way up would resent the new comer that has a free ride. This system, therefore, repels external senior talents.

Like a ponzi scheme, it needs a constant infusion of new blood that, in turn, needs continued growth. This will end one day. But, for now, the last fool has not arrived yet. The bust of the bubble would be someone else’s problem.

It is easy to be the boss in a Chinese firm. In this authoritarian civilization, everyone agrees with you and seeks your approval. What you uttered becomes gospel. People quote and obey you. It is the toughest thing to be the boss in a Chinese firm. You cannot be wrong. Ever.

Chinese have perfected this authoritarian art over about 2,500 years of practicing and try-and-error. They knew that the boss can be apprehensive at times and found ways to obtain diversity, have discussions, debate: all in somewhat a, gasp, diplomatic manner. History and classic wisdoms have both warned the difficulty of those skills — yet few middle level executives have any time to practice them.

Today’s typical Chinese firm has a cadre of menacing, abusive, tycoon, and domineering junior executives, those who manage a large organization and have slightly more than a decade of industrial experience, usually at the same firm. They are competent, smart, and driven. They fought hard and won most of their battles. They have been loyal, obedient, competent, and hard-working. What they give to their boss they want it doubly with their subordinates. They are authoritarian and like it. They crave for the big glory.

Only a superior or disruptive competitor will ruin the plan. If a new and foreign power shows up, years of hardworking will go to ruin. They are too senior to start over, the jungle is ruthless, they cannot afford the risk and must eradicate those new comers before they take roots.

Street smart, decisiveness, and guerilla-like nimbleness brought them the success today. Inspirational and diplomatic skills are critical to the next phase. But time has long passed for them to learn those softer skills. They do what every cornered beasts will: kill the new comers before they are proven superior or disruptive, even at the expense of the company. What’s the point of the company thriving without self sharing the glory?

Many wrote about different leadership styles; I found Hershey and Blanchad’s theory most straight-forward:

The “telling” style is for project lead and junior managers. Executives must migrate to other styles as they progress in their career. Heeding this will make a difference to those Chinese companies aspiring to be a global force, instead of a domestic player forever.

In the haunting song, Where Have All The Flowers Gone by Peter, Paul, and Mary. One of the verses wonder where have all the young girls gone. Of course, the song is about anti-war and the girls were mourning their dead boy friends. It appears that many Chinese young men, and their Indian counter-parts will soon wonder where to find eligible brides in the world.

The Economist reported that China will have a surplus of eligible bachelors as many as the entire Germany’s population! India, South Korea, Taiwan, and several mid-eastern countries are heading the same imbalance. This article reminded me the short-fiction Goddess, by Linda Nagata, in which future Indian elders routinely implant a gender selector in young woman’s wombs — have a boy or have no child what-so-ever. Modern Chinese and Indians would depend on the skills of the ultrasonic technicians for such decisions.

A surprise consequence is the size of the dowry. As eligible maids become less available, they command higher dowry or whatever forms of payment from the groom’s side. Parents of young boys need to save more, since wealth is part of the bidding to win a bride.

The society will fix this problem by itself. The surplus men will be denied opportunity to have a traditional family. They will share a wife with someone else, import a bride from outside, or stay single. The society will gain its gender balance in one or two generations no matter what. The question is really how violent the process will be — unwed young male is the source of most mayhem in the world.

Maybe the song is hinting a solution after all? Where have all the young men gone? Gone to graveyard everyone. Oh when will they ever learn?

開始聽三國，總共上百回．有空聽聽，也得年把才聽的完．

曹操聚了各路諸侯，以袁紹為首伐董卓，第一個就碰到華雄．他把袁軍殺的一榻糊塗．終於關羽以馬弓手的低職，一刀取了華雄的首級，揚名立萬．

如果水滸講的是政府腐敗，三國就是政治權謀的黑暗了．曹操有名的”寧教我負天下人，休教天下人負我”． 袁術怕孫監搶功，不發糧草．孫監因此敗陣，差點丟了腦袋．三國的軍事政治鬥爭，於此舖開．

靈劍 鄭丰 978-986-6712-74-6

靈劍是天關雙俠的前集.鄭丰被捧成”女版金庸”.神雕三部是永遠的經典,她的武俠也比的上金庸的二級作品了.靈劍的情節誨暗悽慘,鄭丰兩集都把虎嘯山莊安排的很不幸.其實”醫俠”是個很有詩意的想法,凌霄也有英雄的特質,典型武俠他不左擁右抱,稱霸武林,也至少能贏得美人歸.但鄭丰兩本都給他悲劇黑暗,這是她對武俠的突破嗎?我讀了40年武俠,還不大習慣離開那模式呢.

傳統的武功已經是超能了,鄭丰還加上了靈能及巫毒.天關裏,主角的武功平常(他是百花掌門,下毒的).這部有改善,但被天關中傳頌的大決戰,卻只有一點篇幅帶過.筆墨放在了燕龍偉大的犧牲上.可惜那過程太”成人”,鄭丰不能寫的露骨.遺憾.

武俠就是中國的007,不論如何的公式化,讀者都要能忘了這現實,看完了得不能自及的幻想自己是那英雄主角.天關還行,靈劍看完還真有點失落,沒那期待的滿足感.

鄭丰有個部落格.可以去給她加點人氣.