今天我和先生谈到2010年的到来，每一年都来得这么快，“今年尤其不一样，一个新decade（十年）的开端。”杰明说。的确，英文里decade是十年的意思，二十年就是two decades. 于是我想起了10年前的元旦前夜，1999年12月31日，那时候霏是婴孩，妹妹和妹夫在雪大(Syracuse University)读书，来我们家一起过节，那时我在雪城的洛克希德马丁公司电脑资讯部工作，过节前，我负责的数据库项目做了各种Y2K（两千年）测试，担心两千年到来时，数据库的时间无法胜任四位数的变化，而导致系统失调，我和数据库管理人员将数据库的时间提前调到两千年的日子，一次又一次地测试，确保无碍才放心过节。 2000年的前夜，霏熟睡后，杰明，轻舟，妹妹，妹夫到楼下的太阳房，坐在圆桌边，牵手同心为新的世纪，新的一年，新的明日而祈祷。我们一起等到了两千年到来的那一刻，印象中屋外满地的清雪，黑夜因着白雪而亮堂，远远近近有人放鞭炮庆祝新年，我们四人互道新年快乐。节日中，公司数据库两千年bug也没有出现，平安地迎来了新的世纪。然而，一年后的9月份，我请了产假在家休息，杰明突然提前回到家，告诉了我很坏的消息，美国纽约市双子楼被飞机撞了，正欲倾倒，“楼里有很多人正等着营救，又有许多救火员和警察已进楼去抢救，都在楼里。。。”当我打开电视，我不敢相信亲眼看见的，硝烟中，楼在坠落，顷刻间，两栋世贸大厦相继坠毁，街上幸存的人在奔跑嘶喊，泪眼迷离中，我意识到美国已经不再平安。接下来的几年是反恐，战争，政客们你方唱罢，我登台。前几天华盛顿邮报文章《渐淡的信号灯》1写道，这即将过去的10年是美国失落的十年，经济，政治，军事，国际。。。曾经被里根总统称为“指引爱好自由的人们的信号灯的美国”（America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.），曾经多少意气飞扬，多么信心十足地美国走进入了它低迷的岁月。 流年逝水，世事多变。不到1个钟头就是2010年的第一天，又将迎来新一年的365个日子，也是新10年的开端，轻舟祈愿大家新年平安。平安健康是福。年少时总喜欢祝福朋友们万事如意，经年以后，方觉得那种祝福有多么虚空，没有人能够做到万事如人意，而且人意多偏颇，万事符神意倒确切些：了解神赋予你的人生使命，为神所用，过积极的，为他人带来祝福的人，这样的人生才是蒙神喜悦，有果效的人生。 轻舟也祈愿友们新年喜乐。喜乐发自内心，快乐虽好，但快乐较喜乐短暂。喜乐既有快乐的happy,更有joyful，rejoice, delightful这些不会随着境遇改变而恒久的喜悦心态。想起圣经帖前的一句经文：要常常喜乐，不住祷告，凡事谢恩；这就是神在基督耶稣里给你们的旨意。（Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. 1 Thessalonians 5 16-18)。轻舟愿自己能够活出喜乐，祷告和感恩的2010。 注1：《华盛顿邮报》“渐淡的信号灯”原文：The 2000s could be termed a lost decade for the U.S. economy.The average American's annual income stood at $39,446 as of October 2009, up only 5.3% in inflation-adjusted terms from the end of the 1990s.That's the slowest growth registered in at least six decades. The average person's net worth fell 13% through September 2009 as stock and home prices plunged. The S&P 500 delivered an inflation-adjusted total return of negative 30% through November 2009.Meanwhile, income inequality grew. Although it's still too early to gauge the full effect of the most recent financial crisis, as of 2007, the highest-earning 0.1% of the population accounted for 8.2% of all pre-tax income, according to economists Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley. That was up from 6.6% in 1999, and the highest level since 1917.Policy makers may be breathing a sigh of relief as the world's largest economy shows signs of emerging from the worst crisis since the Great Depression. But its performance in the 2000s is forcing them to confront an age-old quandary: how to save capitalism from itself.For much of the past century, America has served as the global model for the power of free markets to generate prosperity. On Jan. 1, 2000, the net worth of the average American was 44% greater than 10 years earlier -- a fact that many took as a vindication of the relatively unfettered capitalism seen in the U.S. since the 1980s. Throughout the world, policy makers saw economic reform as a steady march toward the U.S. model, with its flexible work force and dynamic financial markets. Financial crises like those that occurred in Asia and Russia were merely errors or stumbles along the way.Long SlideIn the 2000s, though, the U.S. quickly went from being the beacon of capitalism to a showcase for some of its flaws. The bursting of the Internet bubble exposed duplicity and cronyism in the stock market, with analysts hyping shares of investment-banking clients. The demise of Enron demonstrated how the U.S. accounting system, which had been held up as a global standard, could be gamed.Consumers spent too much and saved too little, egged on by a housing boom and lax lending standards.The financial sector assumed an ever-larger share of the U.S. economy, devising new investment products that contributed to activity but, in the end, didn't add value. The result: a deep financial crisis that has discredited the idea, central to the U.S. system, that bankers' own interests would guide them to do what was best for the economy.The troubles in the U.S. stand in sharp contrast to the relative success of other countries, notably China. With a system that is at best quasi-capitalist, China's economic output per person grew an inflation-adjusted 141% over the decade, and hardly paused for the global crisis, according to estimates from the International Monetary Fund. That compares with 9% growth in the U.S. over the same period."The U.S. was perceived as the place to emulate. To a large extent that's gone," says Raghuram Rajan, a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business who served as chief economist of the IMF from 2003 to 2006.None of that is to say the U.S. model has failed, say economists. At least twice in the past century, the U.S. has re-emerged from deep crises to reinvent capitalism. In the 1930s, the Depression compelled Franklin Roosevelt to introduce Social Security, deposit insurance and the Securities and Exchange Commission.After the brutal stagflation of the 1970s and early 1980s, then-Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker demonstrated the ability of an independent central bank to get prices under control, ushering in an age in which powerful, largely autonomous central banks became the norm throughout the developed world.This time around, as the debate over health insurance demonstrates, Washington's ability to expand the social safety net is limited by its massive debts, which grew 65% in inflation-adjusted terms over the decade to about $11.9 trillion as of September. Over the next decade, programs such as Social Security and Medicare could face cuts as the government seeks to close a budget deficit that its stimulus programs have ballooned.Policy makers' focus now, though, is on the financial sector that failed so spectacularly. Progress has been slow, and key pieces are missing, but the contours of a new system are taking shape. Banks will face stricter limits on their use of borrowed money, or "leverage," to boost returns. The Fed will keep a closer eye on markets during booms, and possibly step in to curb excessive risk-taking -- a U-turn from its previous policy of mopping up after bubbles burst.Risk and RewardSuch changes would amount to a grand bargain: Give up some of the growth and dynamism of the U.S. economy for a safer, more equitable brand of capitalism -- one that could avoid the kind of busts that turned the 2000s into such a disaster. Some economists hope safety can come at minimal cost. Jeremy Stein, a Harvard professor who spent several months advising the U.S. Treasury in the darkest days of the crisis, says putting a lid on leverage doesn't mean limiting financing for the kind of entrepreneurial activity and technological innovation that engender robust growth."There's no reason for us to turn against our willingness to allow companies to go public quickly or any of that," he says. "It can lead to scandals sometimes, but it doesn't pose any systemic risks."Many of the changes under consideration have never been tried on such a scale, and some will undoubtedly prove ill-conceived. Given the lack of precedents, there is little basis for an educated guess at the outcome.But one thing is certain: America's success or failure over the next decade will go a long way toward defining what the world's next economic model will be.
