美國第44任總統奧巴馬上職第一天 / The 44th US President Obama's First Day at Work

Now that all the fanfare is over (and it was exciting to watch really), the US Prez must put his words into action. So here are some thoughts from the peanut gallery, based on my exchange with Inner Space. If you wish to see the original text and leave comments, please go to: http://mindnecessity.blogspot.com/2009/01/first-to-fifth-paragraph-last-paragraph.html

(1) On the subject of the Prez's policy agenda and Inner Space's concern with 『福利社會主義』、『保護主義』和『計劃經濟』

My comments:

One should first decide what results we want to achieve, then decide on the appropriate tools, and not the other way around. From a governance perspective, there are generally three types of goals/results:
* Social
* Political
* Economic

『福利社會主義』: In terms of social goals, I mean if people are starving and dying on the streets, it will be hard for the US govt to say: Sorry, can't help you cuz we are not a welfare state. Now if you are talking abt "corporate welfare" (aka bailout), then it should fall under the next two categories.

『保護主義』: At least in the short term, it will be political suicide for the US govt to be seen as NOT protecting local jobs and industries.

『計劃經濟』: From a economic perspective, the financial sector is broken and needs fixing. While people do not want socialist-style centralized planning, they are expecting the US govt to intervene into the private sector and turn the US economy around in an orderly fashion. This obviously will involve economic planning by the different levels of govts, industry and other sectors of the society. Even in better days, both national and international monetary institutions are always involved in economic planning. Now, whether they have done a good job or not, that's another matter.

(2) On the subject of 文明衝突 (please see the article posted by Inner Space re 嶺南大學 文化研究系副教授許寶強文章 "文明衝突 與 自由放任的終結～～弗里曼 和 亨廷頓 辭世之後")

My comments:

I do not necessarily subscribe to the "super hero in search of super villains" theory. Sure, socialism and communism have always been the "traditional" villains of the US, but the conflict is more ideology driven and is always in the name of defending US influence, democracy and values. I mean the US did not continue portraying Japan as a villain after WWII. The "Japs" (a derogatory term) could have been an easy target. Nor, was there an open conflict betwn the US and certain Islamic militant groups until after 911. And, I would submit that most Americans did not know much abt the "other" civilization before that fateful day. Here again, the US war against terrorism is not a war betwn civilizations, although some politicians might have taken advantage of the fear factor (異族/異教) and label it as such. Based on my observation that yesterday's friends could become today's enemies, I would submit that most conflicts are caused more by present day foreign policies and international relationships rather than any century-old cultural differences.

(3) On the subject of "自由經濟主義切底被推翻丶被否定了":

My Comments:

One must be clear as to what we mean by 自由經濟主義. On the global scale, there are more and more bilateral economic cooperation (e.g. Canada-Columbia) and multi-lateral economic systems (e.g. WTO, APEC, NAFTA) established to encourage free-trade among nations. Non-tariff trade barriers are taken down and goods and services flow across borders. So the world trend is for "freer" trade albeit with the adherence of certain rules and regulations within an agreed economic structure. So, in this context,自由經濟主義切底被推翻丶被否定了 is not exactly the case. However, I do agree that within a nation, especially in the US, the recent financial woe is a wakeup call to people such as Greenspan who had been pushing for a laissez-faire policy for a long time. But even with planned govt interventions in the form of policies, regs and (gulp!) bailout, I am not sure if one can then conclude自由經濟主義切底被推翻丶被否定了. My sense is that: Once the financial wheels are back on the track and the US economy train starts running again, the private sector (and not the govt) will still be the driver. The govt regulators will keep a close eye on the overall operation, but there will not be a state-run economy.

Again, thank you Inner Space for your interesting blog post.

As I said, please go to his website to see the original text/articles. Link: http://mindnecessity.blogspot.com/2009/01/first-to-fifth-paragraph-last-paragraph.html