'Occupy' is a response to economic permafrost

BBC 的記者觀察到，參與「佔領」("Occupy") 活動的人，並沒有特定的族群特徵：有中產階級、有學生、有帶著小孩的媽嗎、當然也有失業者。他們沒有共同的訴求：問 50 個人他們要什麼，會得到 50 個答案。

這些人唯一的共通點，和以往參與街頭抗議活動的人不同，是他們不認為政治能夠解決問題。他們反而認為政治正是造成這一切問題的源頭。不管是哪一黨，基本上都是同一群人。因為他們不相信政治，他們不透過政治管道(如：民主選舉)尋求解決方案，他們也不冀求政黨(如英國的工黨或美國的民主黨)執行他們的訴求，他們直接走上街頭！

台灣參與「佔領」活動的人會比歐美國家少那麼多，也許是因為大多數的人都還以為統獨的訴求和藍綠的差異，比自己的生活重要；沒發現到其實不論是藍綠，都是同樣一批人：同一批有錢人。

馬英九提出的房價「實價」課稅方案雖然沒什麼內容，執政三年以後跟著蔡英文起舞更反映出其不願影響既得利益者的心態，蔡英文所提出的漸進式方案卻也和馬英九的「633」一樣無法在一個任期內完成，可預期一定會無疾而終。在維護既得利益者這方面，馬英九、蔡英文、藍、綠是沒有任何差別的。

什麼時候我們認清楚藍綠和統獨其實是同一群既得利益者人的不同面向，什麼時候我們得到自由。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Occupy' is a response to economic permafrost

16 October 2011 Last updated at 10:27 GMT
Paul Mason
Economics editor, Newsnight

In February I wrote a blog called "Twenty Reasons Why It's Kicking Off Everywhere". With the global Occupy protests yesterday it is still looking quite accurate. But it's now clear there is a 21st reason. And a 22nd. We've had nine months of political paralysis. And people have begun to feel the economic permafrost setting in.

I went down to Paternoster Square to observe the first few hours of the London protest. The police sealed off the square, which is private property, so the protesters squatted the steps of St Paul's Cathedral. They had a big, sit-down general assembly and then broke into small circles, cross-legged, then got back together and decided to stay the night. At that point there were around 2,000 people.

Who were they? This is not yet as demographically wide as the indignado camps in Madrid or Syntagma were when they first started. Nor is it as "mainstream" as Occupy Wall street - yet. Not a single mainstream British politician attempted to appear at the protest; not a single MP, not a single famous author or film-maker. Helen John, the Greenham Common veteran, spoke, as did Peter Tatchell, but the biggest response - indeed it was a rock-star like response - was for Julian Assange. He was acclaimed by 9/10ths of the crowd and barracked in ribald language by the others.

Of the people I met: lots of student occupation activists from last winter; veteran leftists and veteran anarchists going back to the days of Saltley Gate; people involved in NGOs; an Oxbridge professor of computer science; a large smattering of "Anonymous" people - with their Guy Fawkes masks - who've become the new pole of attraction for the deep "autonomist" movement. Some women with their babies. And - the biggest group - just ordinary people.

Though the place was swarming with media, including a hilarious spoof of a Fox News reporter wearing a flak jacket, the main complaint is that the media is ignoring them and does not understand them. This latter point I think is largely true.

Even in America, where the protests are bigger and have a bigger penumbra of liberal celebrities and writers to give them salience, the initial response to Occupy Wall Street was to ask: what does this mean for the Democrats? Will Obama's ratings improve?

It's a pointless question. Most people involved in such protests have switched off from mainstream politics: they believe it's a rich-person's club and totally impenetrable to reason or pressure. In Britain they have no intention of "raising demands" on Labour in opposition.
In fact they revel in their diversity; it was true in Syntagma and it is true at St Paul's - if you ask 50 people why they're here and what they want you will get 50 answers.

Powerful signal worldwide

But these protests are a powerful signal worldwide. Their mere existence shows that people are determined to "think globally" about routes out of this crisis - at a time when economics is driving politicians down the route of national solutions. However marginalised they are politically - and in some countries, above all America and Greece, they have broken out of marginalisation - it is still a fact: in 1931, as the remnants of Globalisation 1.0 collapsed, there were no mass international protests against austerity. There were plenty of national, and indeed nationalist ones.

The protesters yesterday stuck a spoof street sign saying "Tahrir Square, London, EC4M". This was not Tahrir - but it obeyed the same impulse to occupy physical space.

The impulse, I believe, is being driven by two things: first it is - as I wrote in the 20 reasons - a meme. It is an effective action that is transmitting itself independent of any democratic structures and party political hierarchies: if you camp somewhere, the press turn up and you can get an instant hit of wellbeing by, however briefly and tenuously, living the dream of a communal, negotiated existence.

Second, because this communal, negotiated, networked life already exists in people's heads as a result of the rapid adoption of social networks and networked lifestyles. As Manuel Castells, one of the first sociologists of the internet, said: the more autonomous and rebellious a person's attitudes are, the more they use the internet; the more they use the internet, the more autonomous their lifestyle becomes.

Something has been going on between the left earphone and the right earphone of this generation that represents a profound change in attitude. I am still struggling to get my own head around it (I'm trying to write a book about it but the events keep happening too fast).
What is absolutely clear however, is what they are determined to do: it's much bigger than any single-issue campaign or cause. They mean to limit the power of finance capital and build a more equal society, while rejecting the hierarchical methods of the parties that once claimed to do so.

In this sense the movement is a kind of replacement social democracy; a mirror image of the besuited young people who populate the think tanks of Labour, the SPD, the US Democrats etc.
Occupy Everywhere, then, is the kind of movement you get when people start to believe mainstream politicians have lost their principles, or are trapped by vested interests, or are all crooked.

That's the answer to the question "what". The answer to why now? Basically we are in danger of a global stagnation - it was HSBC's economics team that described it as a permafrost. It poses the question "who pays for the banking crisis" very acutely. And large numbers of people are now realising it is going to be them, and more painfully, their children. As in Greece, in that circumstance, for every protester camped in the freezing dawn there may be many more quietly fuming in their living rooms who feel the same way.

England riots: The return of the underclass

英國右派保守黨說倫敦暴動是因為「社會生病了」、「道德淪喪」和「家庭教育失敗」；左派工黨說暴動是因為「貧富差距擴大」和「政策往富人傾斜，窮人感覺被遺棄」。政治上的爭論大概永遠都不會結束。但是上週看 BBC Young Voters' Question time，有個年輕人說了一個會讓保守黨汗顏的事實：

「當窮人每天工作十幾個小時，賺得錢卻連餬口都不夠的時候，政府怎麼能期待他們『有時間』照顧小孩！？有成功的家庭教育！？」

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

11 August 2011 Last updated at 10:59 GMT
Article written by Mark Easton Home editor

England riots: The return of the underclass

The Tory party's social policy guru Iain Duncan Smith believes Britain has witnessed the growth of a "more menacing underclass".

Listening to the voices on some of England's toughest estates trying to justify the rioting, looting and arson, it would be easy to concur with his theory of a "new generation of disturbed and aggressive young people doomed to repeat and amplify the social breakdown disfiguring their lives and others round them".

It had been thought the word "underclass" with its connotations of fecklessness and criminality had been expunged from the New Labour government's lexicon.

But it is back, a headline-writer's shorthand for the undeserving and dangerous poor who are burning and robbing their own communities.

Within weeks of coming to power in 1997, Tony Blair set up a Social Exclusion Unit inside the Cabinet Office specifically to deal with what his party painted as Margaret Thatcher's underclass - hundreds of thousands of people, workless, skill-less, often homeless and hopeless, a group cut off from mainstream society - dubbed the entrenched 5%.

Huge sums were pumped into schemes in the most deprived neighbourhoods, but tussles over budgets and the sheer challenge of engaging with people who are often hostile to officialdom meant ambition couldn't translate into outcome.

Instead Tony Blair went down the Respect Agenda route, pre-empting the rhetoric of responsibility and good manners that is now the language of the coalition.

Reporting as I have done from countless urban sink estates over the years, I have met many teenage lads baffled and resentful at their lack of opportunity to participate in the consumer society they care so much about.

It comes as little surprise that the looters have targeted trainer stores and sports shops.

Right and wrong

The commentator David Goodhart suggested this week that "laissez-faire liberalism (of the right economically, and the left culturally) has left too many people adrift, especially in the inner city, without sufficient structure or sense of obligation or meaning in their lives."

Yesterday, the prime minister suggested he agrees with this analysis when he said the problem was "a complete lack of responsibility, a lack of proper parenting, a lack of proper upbringing, a lack of proper ethics, a lack of proper morals."

That is what we need to change, he said.

But how? The Social Exclusion Task Force (as the Social Exclusion Unit became known after it was merged with the PM's Strategy Unit in 2006) has been wound up, its Whitehall interventionism at odds with Big Society entrepreneurism.

Mr Cameron stresses the importance of "discipline in schools" and a "welfare system that does not reward idleness".

His party's Work Programme is another great hope in getting the long-term jobless into employment. There's no money, he's relying on carrots and sticks supplied by others. Is that going to be enough to reach the entrenched 5%?

The politics

As MPs prepare for today's parliamentary statement on the disturbances, all parties are anxious that they cannot be portrayed as apologists for the rioting, blaming some perceived political failure that plays to a partisan case.

"Let's have the sociological argument in the weeks and months ahead", Nick Clegg said on the Today programme this morning.

But the question will have to be asked and answered at some point.
There have to be reasons why thousands of people have attacked their own neighbourhoods when, as the prime minister says, their behaviour is so obviously spectacularly counter-productive.

Destroying the businesses which bring wealth and jobs, attacking the officers trying to keep people safe, creating a climate of fear and resentment, all are certain to make lives worse not better.

When American inner-city streets were burning in 1967, President Lyndon Johnson set up a commission on civil disorders to answer three basic questions about the riots: "What happened? Why did it happen? What can be done to prevent it from happening again and again?"

The subsequent Kerner Report was dismissed as deeply flawed by conservatives who argued that it exonerated rioters for their criminal behaviour and placed the blame on wider society.

So when Lord Scarman was asked to "inquire urgently into the serious disorder" in Brixton in 1981, he was careful to insert a paragraph which said "the social conditions do not provide an excuse for disorder - all of those who in the course of the disorders in Brixton and elsewhere engaged in violence against the police were guilty of grave criminal offences".

But he did accept that social circumstances had created a "predisposition towards violent protest".

Is there such a predisposition now?

Can the root causes of the violence be pinned on bad politics as opposed to simply bad kids, bad parents and bad morals - "criminality - pure and simple"?

When the Home Affairs Select Committee completes its inquiry it will find itself treading that narrow line between condemning and contextualizing the unrest, but it would be hard to imagine any such investigation not wanting to consider what policies will be most effective in ensuring England's social landscape does not have parts left tinder-dry and combustible.

The bewildering events of the past few days are a reminder of why, however difficult, no country can afford to ignore any strata of its society.

人才宣言：十年內 台灣恐無人才可用

把人才流失的責任推給政府有點可笑，解決方案居然是引進外籍白領更是不可思議，特別是其中一個連署人是要新鮮人不要計較薪水的台大校長李嗣涔。如果政府有統計一下新鮮人的起薪：只要統計商管學生最容易找到工作的的台大和政大就好，十年前和現在的台政大新鮮人起薪幾乎相同。考慮到這十年來的通貨膨脹，這種新鮮人起薪變化實在非常荒謬；這也難怪人才流失那麼快了：語言能力夠好的，直接去上海、香港和新加坡找工作就好了，何必留在台灣？這則新聞和前幾天蕭萬長說「有感」的新聞一比，就知道台灣這些既得利益者的態度是多麼荒唐！

-----------------------------------------------------------

人才宣言：十年內 台灣恐無人才可用

【經濟日報╱記者黃文奇／台北報導】 2011.08.15 02:00 am


中央研究院院長翁啟惠昨（14 ）日聯合18位產、學、媒體、藝文界代表發表「人才宣言」，他向政府呼籲，台灣已成為嚴重的「人才輸出國」，政府再不正視人才失衡問題，十年內台灣將無人才可用。

翁啟惠表示，他於數年前已經開始呼籲台灣人才失衡問題，今年4月起邀集產業界、學界甚至媒體、藝文界領袖共同研擬這份「人才宣言」，包括宏碁集團創辦人施振榮、台大校長李嗣涔、聯合報社長胡立台及雲門舞集創辦人林懷民等人於昨日共同發表宣言，強調台灣正「面臨一個空前的人才失衡危機」，呼籲各界正視。

翁啟惠表示，發展知識經濟是台灣該走的路，但過去十年來，台灣有49萬名合法居留外僑，其中有40萬人屬於勞工階級，白領階級僅2萬人，相較之下，台灣每年外移的人口卻達2萬至3萬人，以白領階級占大多數，已成了名副其實的人才輸出國。

針對外籍人士來台就業問題，宣言也指出，外國人需取得國內外相關系所碩士以上學位、或者學士學位但有二年以上工作經驗，才能受聘從事專門性及技術性工作；僑生與外籍生學校畢業後，在台工作起薪為4.79萬元。這些規定都讓人才晉用失去彈性。

針對外籍人士居留問題，宣言中也批評，外籍人士必須先放棄自己國籍才能取得台灣公民權，無公民權則無法支領月退俸，因此不願來台工作。

翁啟惠強調，人才外移的根本問題在於國外人才不敢進，而國內人才不想留，其中公教未分軌，薪資結構太制式化是癥結。此外，國內教育體系趨向單一化，技職體系培養出太多沒有技術的人才，也讓人才培養出現危機與斷層。值得注意的是，國外高階人才來台多所限制，也讓外籍菁英卻步。

此外，宣言也強調，應適時檢討我國移民、產業政策，吸引人才並改善產業結構，建構完整的知識經濟體系，加速建立如生技醫療、綠能、文創等知識密集的產業，作支撐教育與人才長期根留台灣的基礎。

翁啟惠指出，金融海嘯後，亞太地區成為人才競逐紅海，而鄰國已經做好因應措施，包括大陸未來5到10年，要吸引2,000 位高端科研與領導人才，而新加坡、香港、韓國、日本等都把網羅人才視同作戰，台灣不能再等。

【2011/08/15 經濟日報】@ http://udn.com

S&P 將美國長期債信評等從 AAA 降級為 AA+，不知道這次金管會又會有何反應？要求銀行和保險公司提出因應方案？減持美債？如果評等為 AA+ 的美債要減持，那評等比美債還低，只有 AA- 的中華民國政府公債該不該減持？

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6 August 2011 Last updated at 01:47

US AAA credit rating downgraded

One of the top credit rating agencies, Standard & Poor's, has downgraded the United States' top-notch AAA rating.

S&P cut the long-term US credit rating by one notch to AA+ with a negative outllook, citing concerns about growing budget deficits.

S&P said it was because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough.

Washington was locked in months of acrimonious partisan bickering over a bill to raise the US debt ceiling.

As rumours swirled earlier about the downgrade, unnamed US officials had told US media that S&P's analysis of the US economic situation was deeply flawed.

Correspondents say a downgrade could further erode global investors' confidence in the US economy, which is already struggling with huge debts and unemployment of 9.1%.

S&P said in its report issued late on Friday: "The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilise the government's medium-term debt dynamics.

"More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges."

How much private sector in NHS?

英國的 NHS 現在是完全的公醫體系，但是現在保守黨執政的英國政府，打算將部分的醫院和組織私有化，並讓各地區的醫師團體有更多的權力分配醫療資源。半個世紀以來從來沒有私有化參與經驗的 NHS，面對各界對於私有化以後對於一般民眾醫療品質是否有影響的疑慮。想來台灣公私參半的全民健保可以經驗分享？還是給一點建議？

---------------------------------------------

1 June 2011 Last updated at 09:35
Article written by Robert Peston
Business editor

How much private sector in NHS?

I tried to set out the arguments for and against increasing the involvement of the private sector in the provision of NHS healthcare, in a short film for the Ten O'Clock News last night.

The central questions for me are these ones:

1) If you accept the argument that a bit of competition from the private and voluntary sector will help to spur productivity gains throughout the NHS (and not everyone does), what is the optimum share of NHS provision that the private sector should provide to deliver this benign outcome (right now, the private and voluntary sectors provide about 5% of NHS healthcare)?

1) 如果你接受私人部門和義工團體所帶來的一點競爭可以協助 NHS 增加生產力的論點，則 NHS 體系中應該有多少比例開放給私人部門，以達成此良好的結果 (目前私人部門和義工組織提供約 5% 的 NHS 醫療服務)？

2) Since there is evidence that competition is most effective at raising standards when weaker institutions, unable to raise their game, know that they will go bust, are we happy to see NHS hospitals put out of business? And if we are, can arrangements be put in place to minimise the disruption for patients and communities?

2) 既然證據顯示，因為虛弱的組織無法跟上而明白自己最終將會破產，競爭對於提升標準最為有效，我們是否樂於見到 NHS 醫院結束營業？且如果我們樂於見到此結果，是否已有安排以減少對病人和社區帶來的不便？

3) At what point (if ever) would the private sector's clout within the NHS be so great that private providers would be able to hold to ransom taxpayers who finance them (pay us more, or else), eroding the productivity gains? As we've seen with the financial crisis at the care home provider Southern Cross, the threat of an interruption of a vital service is quite a bargaining chip for a health provider.

3) 是否會在某個情況下，因為私人部門在 NHS 中巨大的影響力，私人醫療服務提供者因而得以勒索納稅人提供財務支持 (付更多錢或是其他方式)，而減少了所增加的生產力？正如我們在金融危機時見到安養院經營公司 Southern Cross，其終止提供重要服務之威脅是相當重要的議價工具。

4) And will the greater transparency of costs of different treatments and therapies likely to be brought by increased private sector involvement in the NHS start to undermine political and public support for the principle of universal provision that is free at the point of use? If it does, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

4) 如增加私人部門參與 NHS，是否會因為不同治療的成本透明化，促使政治和公眾對於全面性免費提供醫療服務的支持減少？這是好還是壞？

投7千億 總統：建設活絡南台 vs Lyon learns how to play second fiddle

里昂，法國的第二大都市，為了在首都巴黎獨大的法國爭取生存，採取的策略和國內其他縣市長卻大不相同：

1. 里昂認知巴黎獨大的情況無法避免，所以不和巴黎競爭相同的資源和建設，相反的；
2. 里昂瞭解大型公司與政治、中央政府有關的高階主管和部門無法離開在巴黎，所以遊說大型企業把與此無關的財務和人力資源部門搬到里昂來降低成本
3. 運用本地原有的產業優勢，吸引相關產業來設置高階研究機構；但文中也提到，所謂生物科技高階研究機構，無法改善當地就業狀況，因為這些研究機構只聘用少量高階人才

台灣的地方政府首長和中央政府的認知是什麼？台北有國際機場、有兩岸直航，所以台中、台南和高雄也要有；台北要蓋流行音樂中心，高雄也來蓋一個...

就算也是首都倫敦獨大的英國，也不是所有中央政府機關和大企業都設在倫敦市中心；許多中央政府事務機關都設置在倫敦周圍的衛星城市；大型企業很多只有高階主管在倫敦，主要的後勤部門，如財務、會計、人力資源、資料處理、客服等，都外包至或設置在英格蘭偏遠小城，甚至是威爾斯或蘇格蘭，也不見得就會影響公司運作

中央政府應該嘗試將部分不涉及政治運作的事務機關，並鼓勵大型企業將後勤部門，搬遷到中南部，這樣才能真的增加中南部的就業機會

-----------------------------------------------------

投7千億 總統：建設活絡南台

【中央社╱台南19日電】 2011.05.19 12:56 pm


總統馬英九今天祭出多項南台灣利多，除將投入南部建設達新台幣7447億元，活絡南部經濟，並宣布台南機場列為兩岸直航機場，增加中國大陸旅客到台南觀光。

馬總統就職將滿3週年，上午首度移師台南，在台南大學舉行中外記者會，宣布多項南台灣利多政策。

馬總統說，以南部為例，中央政府與地方政府應是伙伴關係。台灣不論南北都應齊頭並進，均衡發展。政府除將台南縣市、高雄縣市合併升格成直轄市，更重要的是「讓2個直轄市變成南部區域發展的火車頭，帶動地方經濟、文化的發展，這是幾十年做不到的事，我們做到了」。

馬總統表示，政府已投入和預備投入南部建設費用7447億元，如高雄海空經貿城，計畫投資2632億元，將高雄打造成為國際海空雙港門戶，及製造業、物流業與工業重鎮，預估可增加17萬個就業機會。

馬總統說，持續推動在嘉義興建故宮南院、嘉義市區鐵路高架化；高速鐵路在雲林設站；在屏東推動大鵬灣風景區建設、客家文化中心六堆文化園區等一系列交通與文化建設；也投入500多億元經費，治理曾文、南化烏山頭水庫及穩定南部地區供水計畫。

馬總統說，台南市是文化古城，風景優美，有孔廟、赤崁樓、安平古堡、億載金城與延平郡王祠等著名景點。聽說近來觀光客愈來愈多，「我們要把握機會，好好發展台南的文化觀光產業」。

由於兩岸正在協商增加航班，馬總統宣布，「從今年暑假開始，台南機場將列為兩岸直航的機場，先從包機做起，未來的航點仍需要與對岸進一步洽商」。馬總統希望台南地區旅遊業者與政府一起合作，做好準備，讓更多中國大陸觀光客直接到台南觀光。

馬總統說，政府預計投入經費2326億元，包括台南市鐵路地下化、台南創意文化園區等，這些建設須加快腳步。此外，台南市是重要農業區，3年前調高老年農民福利津貼到6000元，最近也提高稻穀收購價格，都是為維護農民權益，「我希望活絡南部經濟，帶動整個區域的蓬勃發展」。

【2011/05/19 中央社】



--------------------------------------------------

Lyon learns how to play second fiddle

By Laurence Knight
Business reporter, BBC News

Being a provincial town in a country dominated by one massive urban metropolis is not much fun.

The capital gets an unfair share of the attention - and of the investment money - while you are at constant risk of withering in its shadow.

France is a case in point.

Paris and its satellite towns have over 11 million people, while the next biggest city of Lyon can muster only 1.7 million.

And while Lyon's Rhone-Alpes region boasts an income per person of about 30,000 euros ($44,000, £27,000) - the highest outside Paris - the capital's region of Ile-de-France is still streets ahead at 47,000 euros.

What is a second city to do?

Out in the cold

The answer, it seems, is not to compete at all - at least not head-on - says Jacques de Chilly, director of the Lyon regional development agency, Aderly.

Set up in 1974, Mr de Chilly says the agency's original strategy was to convince firms to relocate their headquarters from Paris.

The city offered an obvious cost advantage - both in terms of square metrage and payroll - as well as a great quality of life, with less commuting and some of the best restaurants in France.

But it wasn't enough.

"Companies wanted to stay close to the ministries, the media and the big financial institutions," explains Mr de Chilly.

This was something Lyon had no hope of offering, leaving it out in the cold.

The plan was not a total flop.

Aderly coaxed firms into transferring some head office functions to Lyon - but only the more administrative, less politically sensitive ones, like finance and human resources.

A change of strategy was clearly needed.

"In the last five to seven years, we decided to focus on sectors in which we have critical mass," says Mr de Chilly.

These, he says, are "life science" - also known as bio-technology - and "clean tech" such as recycling and renewable energies.

Together these industries account for about 50% of investment into the region.

'Under one roof'

The reasons these sectors do well is down to the quirks of Lyon's long industrial history.

The city is one of only four places in the world where the most dangerous diseases can be studied According to a potted narrative often trotted out by its current mayor, Gerard Collomb, the story began in the 16th Century, when Lyon became pre-eminent in the Europe's nascent silk industry.

Having manufactured the cloth, the textile merchants also needed to dye it.

From this simple beginning, over the next three centuries, the Rhone valley became the heartland for the French chemicals industry - of which "clean tech" is a more recent offshoot.

With the advent of modern medicine in the nineteenth century, the industry expanded into pharmaceuticals - best exemplified by the enormous conglomerate, Rhone Poulenc, which was set up in 1928.

Next, the work of Louis Pasteur in developing the vaccine opened the way into virology.

One of Pasteur's students founded an institute in Lyon that germinated the city's modern-day life sciences industry.

The institute itself has since been subsumed within Sanofi Pasteur, the world's biggest vaccine manufacturer.

And the firm has thrived thanks to Lyon's specialisation in its industry, according to Sanofi Pasteur spokesman Alain Bernal.

For example, he says Lyon is one of only four cities in the world that hosts a P4 laboratory - the highest bio-hazard category - enabling research into the most dangerous diseases, such as ebola.

The town is also home to one of the world's top biotechnology schools, helping to bring together academics with researchers and industry people.

"You need a lot of complementary expertise under one roof," says Mr Bernal.

Lyon is dependent on the goodwill of the national government for the future ownership of its airport His firm funds a foundation at the university, offering students industry experience, while Sanofi Pasteur gets to cream off the best talent.

Lobbying Paris

Having found its niche, Lyon does not compete with Paris these days.

Rather, it competes with other biotech clusters worldwide such as Boston or Stockholm, and nearby European cities like Geneva and Milan, says Mr de Chilly.

Indeed, the city has learned to milk its relationship with Paris, by positioning itself as a French national champion.

Under the "Lyon Biopole" banner, the city's biotech cluster has attracted millions of euros in research funding from the French government.

The National Research Agency is due to announce a big strategic investment in the health industry in June, which Lyon's lobbyists hope will be their planned new research institute.

But the apparent success of the city's strategy belies some unsolved problems.

The town is still dependent on the goodwill of the national government in other ways, such as infrastructure - for example, the city's airport, which is set to be sold off by Paris.

High end jobs

Moreover, the town's chosen industrial sectors are not ones that lend themselves to mass job creation.

Greenfield investments typically created a small number of high skill jobs "The average new investment creates 20-40 jobs," says M. de Chilly. "But they are very intensive with respect to the strengths brought to the city."

All the same, the positions they create - research and development posts or high-end service jobs - are typically too specific and high-skilled for the bulk of local workers.

Unemployment is the region is 8.6% - admittedly below the national average - but high enough to be a policy concern.

Yet big semi-skilled job-creating investments - such as in manufacturing - are hard to come by, and not just in Lyon.

The last big job-creating investment by a foreign firm in France was by Toyota in 1998, says Mr de Chilly.

Since then, the car industry and other manufacturers seem more interested in lower-cost EU countries, such as Slovakia.

Mr de Chilly is hopeful this will change, and points to a logistics centre recently set up by the US pharmaceuticals group Baxter.

Labour costs are rising in Eastern Europe, he says, making France more attractive.

And with companies increasingly concerned about the environment - not to mention fuel costs - he claims they are keener to invest in production facilities close to the end consumer market.

夸夸其談的英國政客

台灣的政客幾乎都是專業出身的，絕大多數都是律師。經濟財政方面的官員，也都有相關的背景。但是專業知識足夠，卻似乎越不能夠堅持專業。每每到了選舉，就不管專業，亂開選舉支票。自己的專業反而要來替政治服務了。

反觀英國的政治人物，多半是劍橋牛津出身、以政治為家傳事業的上流社會人物；雖然對專業不懂，但是受到出身背景和教育的影響，反而更能堅持理想。右派提出的政見就像右派，選上執政的時候執行的政策，也會是右派的政策；左派提出的政見聽起來就是左派，執政時也會盡量堅持自己的理想。

台灣的這些政客老是只會說自己專業，但是沒有理想、沒有堅持、眼中只有選票的人，就算再專業有什麼用？

---------------------------------------------------------

夸夸其談的英國政客

英國《金融時報》專欄作家　西蒙‧庫柏

我最近與三位英國統治階層人士一同出差，深夜酒桌上的玩笑和預想的一樣精彩。不過，有時候我們也必須工作。而工作時，我的同伴們卻可事先不做準備，也不需要筆記——而且效果還不賴。這不用奇怪，因為他們受到的全部教育都是在教他們怎樣即興發揮。他們知道，要想成功，你只需要會說漂亮話，而這也是英國統治階層擅長做的：說漂亮話。

我這裏所說的是英國上過私立學校以及（或者）牛津劍橋、隨後進入體制內的那類人：資深政客、公務員、律師、高談闊論者，還有穿著考究的那種銀行家。那是托尼‧布雷爾(Tony Blair)、大衛‧卡梅倫(David Cameron)、克里斯多夫‧希欽斯(Christopher Hitchens)、安娜‧羅賓遜(Anne Robinson)和西蒙‧考威爾(Simon Cowell)所屬的階層，他們的英語說得比世界其他任何階層都漂亮。

就連進入英國體制內大門的「入門」考試，也主要考的是沒有知識就侃侃而談的能力。成績好是不夠的，你還需要在牛津劍橋面試這個很英國式的儀式上表現良好。這個儀式就像下面這樣。17歲時，你穿著新西裝，前往牛津或劍橋的某個學院參加面試，找到導師的房間。導師可能會請你喝杯你以前從沒見過的雪利酒，然後就開始談。導師們四仰八叉靠在沙發上，拖著長音問出各種讓他們無法入眠的問題。我認識一個申請人被問到的問題是：“你不覺得威尼斯的聖馬可廣場(Piazzetta San Marco)像巴克萊銀行(Barclays)的一家分行嗎？”如果答得漂亮，進入體制內的門票就會遞到你手中。

剛進入牛津劍橋的時候，你知道的東西還很少。畢竟，你可能只參加了三個科目的考試。在大學裏，你只學一個科目，經常是英國文學、歷史或拉丁語和希臘語——如果你家長是別的國家的人，他們肯定會焦慮地問：「學這種科目以後有什麼用啊？」

大學也不鼓勵學生用功學習。我的一位南非親戚在劍橋第一次接受「督導」時，承認閱讀書目上的書一本也沒有讀。「上帝啊！」導師對他抱怨道，「我也沒讀。我還以為你能看幾本、然後告訴我那些書都講了什麼呢。」

牛津劍橋的教學方法獎勵侃侃而談。18歲的你（可能還帶著一點宿醉）朗讀自己那可憐但雅致的作文。導師指出你欠缺的知識，在接下來一個小時的談話裏，你要迂回地避開那些欠缺的知識。

傳統上，英國精英在21歲時就會結束教育。直到最近，他們都還懶得去讀研究生。因此，他們懂得很少，但話說得很漂亮，雖然只會用英語說。

查理斯‧珀西‧斯諾(C. P. Snow)在他1959年題為《兩種文化》(Two Cultures)的講座中，驚詫於統治階層對基本科學知識的無知。例如，溫斯頓‧邱吉爾(Winston Churchill)依據首席科學顧問徹韋爾勳爵(Lord Cherwell)有缺陷的統計研究，批准了受到誤導的對德「區域轟炸」。當然，邱吉爾沒辦法核對那些數字，他的強項是辭令。他拿到的諾貝爾獎是文學獎，這決非偶然。英國二戰時的國王喬治六世(George VI)現在之所以為人熟知，主要是因為他為了能把話說好曾付出很大努力，電影《國王的演講》(The King's Speech)講的就是這個故事。

數字仍然是英國統治階層面臨的一個挑戰。他們把倫敦金融城當做神奇的賺錢機器，金融城的需求會得到最大程度的滿足，因為只有老天才知道那東西是怎麼運轉的。即使是英國財政大臣喬治‧奧斯本(George Osborne)，除了在牛津學歷史時學到的那點皮毛外，也沒有受過什麼經濟學教育。英國公共辯論中的主角，很少是像沃倫‧巴菲特(Warren Buffett)、比爾‧蓋茨(Bill Gates)、馬克‧扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)或是中國工程師出身的領導人那樣懂數字的人。英國國內優秀的工程師和定量分析師都被關在發動機室裏，開火車的是那幫誇誇其談的傢伙。

歷史學家麗莎‧賈丁(Lisa Jardine)寫道，英國統治階層還在努力試著對核能或氣候變化的科學論據作出判斷。布雷爾曾暗示伊拉克的「大規模殺傷性武器」可以在45分鐘內打擊倫敦，當時英國體制內的人大都相信了他的話。受過教育的美國人經常讚賞布雷爾比美國總統小布希更善於闡述觀點。沒錯，布雷爾的確善於說話，那就是他的工作。如果知識上有欠缺，他在侃侃而談時會繞開。

布雷爾在運用語言方面只有一個缺點，他和柴契爾夫人(Margaret Thatcher)一樣，沒有幽默感。不過總體上，英國統治階層人士都是有趣的演講者。套用這個階層最喜愛的劇作家諾埃爾‧考沃德(Nol Coward)的話說：「我有生以來/最為擅長的就是/讓人愉悅。」

卡梅倫最近在愉悅別人的衝動驅使下，即興模仿一個老電視廣告，對一位元工黨女議員大喊「親愛的，冷靜。」除了西爾維奧‧貝盧斯科尼(Silvio Berlusconi)，沒有哪位西方領導人會冒這種被批性別歧視的風險，因為他們不需要顯得有趣。

誠然，無知有時候也能讓英國統治階層避免犯錯誤。對於哲學，他們既無知又懷疑，所以會排斥那些有時讓法國和德國的精英們落入陷阱的瘋狂想法。畢竟，單純靠夸夸其談治理國家並沒有產生什麼災難性後果——或者說至少目前還沒有。


譯者/王柯倫

http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001038616?page=1

府重申：媒體披露 馬蕭才知邵燕玲爭議

看到最近大法官提名的爭議，實在很想建議副總統和總統府的幕僚把 West Wing 裡面關於提名大法官那幾集看一下，瞭解一下提名大法官之前，對於所擬提名人選的篩選應該做到什麼程度。現在說什麼媒體披露以後才知道，只是顯得自己有多麼不專業！West Wing 的編劇來作總統府幕僚，都可以做得比現在這些人好！

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

府重申：媒體披露 馬蕭才知邵燕玲爭議【聯合報╱記者徐尉庭、廖雅欣、鄭宏斌／宜蘭縣報導】 2011.04.08 02:59 am 最高法院庭長邵燕玲日前在法官論壇聲明，提名之初就已表達爭議背景，但雙方取得主觀互信基礎，才接受提名。

民進黨立委批評，馬總統「明知而為」，公然向全民說謊，應對說謊行為道歉。

總統府發言人羅智強昨天回應時，仍重申總統與副總統是在媒體披露後，才知道邵燕玲爭議案。他表示，從推薦到提名的整個過程，有一些應注意、卻未注意的地方，因此總統、副總統表示歉意，「實際的情形就是如此！」

立委陳亭妃表示，馬總統說看報才知邵爭議背景，但邵說與馬總統見面時就告知，總統府卻一直給民眾「羅生門」般的說法。陳亭妃並說，從邵燕玲聲明稿可知，馬總統早知疑慮和爭議，卻仍然執意圈選提名，之前說不知情，是向所有台灣人民說謊。

立委林淑芬說，邵燕玲含冤莫辯，只好發出聲明自清。她呼籲總統府公布接見邵燕玲時的錄影帶，還原事件真相。

【2011/04/08 聯合報】@ http://udn.com/

The Problem With Value: Professor Bob Graff

這篇文章很早已前就想要轉過來，但是一時想不到要下什麼 comment：該講的都被作者講完了。

台灣的上市櫃公司的董監事和管理階層，絕大多數都還是用創業者或大股東的心態來經營公司(當然不能說他們不對，因為他們還真的是大股東或創業者)；對他們來說，audit 是股票公開發行籌資的必要之惡：「我花了錢，會計師就應該幫我搞定！」、「不要再告訴我你還要我作什麼！」。相較於國外成熟的大企業，是把會計師查核當作廣義的股東關係和公共關係的一部份，因此，對於審計品質的要求要高了一個層級。

value 的問題在台灣還有另外一個 issue：在台灣的商業環境和文化下，簽訂合約，只代表雙
方「開始」溝通合約條件而已，簽約雙方都不真的把合約內容當一回事；往往在簽約後，客戶發現合約內容有什麼不利之處，還可以要求事務所額外提供不在合約內容內的服務，而不另外簽訂合約或付款；更有趣的是，事務所也把這種事情當作理所當然的「客戶服務」！

------------------------------------------------------------------

The Problem With Value: Professor Bob Graff

By Francine • Dec 24th, 2009 • Category: Audit Firm Management, Pure Content


Bob Graff is a retired PricewaterhouseCoopers partner living in South Korea. He worked in the Systems and Process Assurance practice (SPA). It was called CAAG in 1986 when he first started doing technology consulting for clients. He has been associated with the Korean practice since 1995 until his retirement last year. He is currently lecturing to the next generation of Asian business leaders at Solbridge Intl School of Business, Daejeon, Korea. This guest post was written exclusively for re: The Auditors.


The Problem with Value


One of the factors which lead economies to repeated brinks of disaster is the pursuit of value. Not that the pursuit of value is wrong, but rather when the definition of value is not shared by the concerned parties inappropriate professional behavior results.


Much has been written and fingers pointed at examples such as banker’s bonuses, underwriter’s creation of dubious investment instruments, auditor’s failure to fulfill their responsibilities and, outright fraud. Generally, one is lead to believe individual self interest motivated the actions, or lack of, of those individuals involved.


While it is understandable we view such actions in terms of greed, this reasoning leaves us with only regulatory and punitive actions by which, through fear of detection and punishment, we attempt to ensure an environment where we can trust the actions of others. Quite frankly, regulation and penalties have proven to be ineffective (or we would have solved this by now).



What is needed is a new approach. Not to replace post-event regulation and punishment but to augment them with inducements to encourage the behavior we desire.


As human beings we look for single solutions to complex issues. I do not believe there is a single solution but, there may be a common issue.


I believe the root of the problem lies in our unquestioning acceptance of the term “value”. A quick internet search on the term value will lead to at least a dozen different branches where value is defined and yet we use the term as if it were mutually and universally understood. I believe this common acceptance is unwarranted and in fact creates the undesirable situations mentioned above. Let me propose a definition of value. “That which moves us toward our goal(s) has value. The degree of value is determined by the priority of the goal and the extent to which we move toward it.”


Let me use the auditor /client relationship as an example of how the lack of a shared understanding of value can lead to inappropriate behavior.


The auditor/client relationship is initiated through the RFP – proposal process. In this process the client states requirements and the auditor responds with an understanding, solution, and pricing offer. From this point forward the relationship is tainted and the seeds for inappropriate behavior are sown. Why, because in almost all cases the framework of the relationship is now based on the stated requirements and price – not the desired goals and anticipated value of the service.


This is inadequate because the client has defined the requirements in terms of what they see to be the solution to a problem not in terms of what their goal(s) are. The auditor further compounds this by replying in terms of solution (not outcome) and attaches their goal in terms of price.


A number of issues follow.


Changes in the client’s goals change the adequacy of the stated solution (or realization the initial solution was inadequate) and the auditor is forced to expend additional resources to achieve a changed solution. (They may choose to accept this increase or add additional charges to compensate.) In this case, the client does not really understand the auditor’s position as they believe they contracted for a goal achievement (value) which has yet to be delivered.


In another case, clients fail to see the value in the delivered service and look to maximize their investment in the relationship by asking for “value-added” service. The auditor responds by delivering beyond what was stated in the contract, typically by performing services which they believe the client will value. But again, without a clear understanding of what the client values this effort will be haphazard at best.


At the end of the day both parties feel unsatisfied. For the client (the more basic the service, such as audit) the lower the switching cost and higher benefit from cost shopping other firms. However, the auditor has now made an investment in the client and will take steps to retain the relationship and money stream. From this point forward the risk of a downward behavior spiral expands. As once the auditor demonstrates flexibility in service or cost the client will push to find the limits.


Most of us in the profession have witnessed this dynamic with frustration. I have heard many professionals question the value of their service, driving them to cling to regulation, methodology and, technique rather than search for the value they deliver.


What can be done?


If misunderstanding value is contributing to the problem, an improved understand of goals should lead to improvement. But how to achieve this improved understanding?
The client is not likely to initiate additional effort without demonstrated benefit. But the auditor does stand to gain from an improved understanding of goals and so, it will be the auditor who must make initiate this process.


Here are some common sense steps auditors can take:


Enter a dialog with the client prior to responding to the RFP. Go beyond understanding the stated solution to seek out their goal(s). What is the outcome they want? Few, if any, clients want a new system, audit, or survey just to have it done.


Align your proposal to the client’s priorities and goals and find where you have common goals (yes, your goals are important too.). Some of the most enjoyable and successful engagements I have participated on were those where we had common shared goals (i.e. SOX implementation or SAS 70 attestations).


Start proposals with a clear value statement. What goal will the client be closer to at the end of the engagement. This will lead to better scope creep control, expectation management and project success. As a test, take a current proposal and count how many pages are devoted to the project value and how many are spent describing technique and methodology. (What priority does the client place on your process vs. his goal achievement?)


Have periodic status update meetings, not focused on % solution complete or solution problems, but rather on goal achievement.


With a clear common understanding and communication of the goals and values desired a significant step would be taken to ensuring the mutual behavior desired by all shareholders.

How warm is your home?

Now I know that average the room temperature of a British home is at 17.5C. This reminds me two things: the first is that I had to sleep with my sweater and jacket on when I was in a home stay in London because it was so cold. The room temperature was at about 12C. That really surprised me, and froze me as well; the second is when health visitors came to my flat to see how my son is taken care of soon after he was born, they were surprised that we kept the room temperature at above 20C. Their official suggestion is to keep room temperature at 17-18C to prevent SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrom). Well, I don't think any family in Taiwan is able to keep room temperature well below 20C and SIDS is not that common in Taiwan. Maybe that's just another myth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

3 March 2011 Last updated at 02:34 GMT

How warm is your home?
By Megan Lane

Our homes are getting warmer just as the powers-that-be are asking us to turn our thermostats down. How cool is too cool for a house?
Spring is in the air in the UK, but it will be weeks - if not months - before the nation's radiators switch off.

The average indoor temperatures of British houses are creeping up now central heating is the norm, and double glazing and insulation are added to older, draughtier homes.

In the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change's new online modelling tool My 2050, users can decide what they want the UK to be like in 39 years' time. The only caveat? Carbon emissions must drop 80% while keeping the lights on.

It shows that hitting this target requires more than extra wind turbines or nuclear power stations. How many cars should be electric? Should international shipping grow or shrink?

Continue reading the main story Government drive My 2050 is web application for Department of Energy and Climate ChangeThey want to cut emissions by 80%Design your own virual future with My 2050
And, most immediate to personal comfort, should the average indoor temperature of British houses continue to rise, stay roughly the same at 17.5C (63.5F), or fall?

Dropping it to 16C - the lowest setting in this virtual world - only shaves 7% off carbon emissions. Even if we all get in the habit of wearing woollies inside, this will still feel chillier than usual to most people.

David MacKay, the DECC's chief scientific adviser, practises what he preaches in his once draughty semi-detached 1940s house. As well as double glazing and insulation, he has turned the heating right down.

"When I'm at home, my normal thermostat settings are roughly 13C, but lower when I am out, and 15C, briefly, at getting-up time in the morning. One important additional rule is that whenever I feel cold, I turn the thermostat up as high as I like. The automatic thermostat control then turns it back to the normal settings a few hours later."

He hopes that insulating more homes, smarter thermostats and "the promotion of sweater-wearing by sexy personalities" will encourage more people to follow suit.

Wrap up warm to get cosy
But to many, a thermostat set in the low teens may sound unconscionably frugal - especially when the range of numbers commonly goes from 10 to 30C.

Comfort cannot be defined absolutely, but the World Health Organization's standard for warmth is 21C (70F) in a living room and 18C (64F) elsewhere.

Our expectations of thermal comfort have been raised by central heating at home and at work, and because we are more sedentary at home and at work. Those sitting still - in front of the TV or at a computer - feel the cold quicker than someone moving about.

"A human's perception of whether they feel warm depends on what they are doing, and what they've been doing for the past hour or so," says Dr MacKay in his book Sustainable Energy - Without The Hot Air.

According to one widely quoted model, devised in 2008 by the Building Research Establishment and used in My 2050, average indoor temperatures have risen from 12C in 1970 to about 17.5C (63.5F) today.

But, says Michelle Shipworth of the UCL Energy Institute, this model assumes we are turning our thermostats up, to explain why energy use hasn't gone down as homes have become more energy efficient.

What has happened, she says, is that we now heat more rooms, and for longer.

Continue reading the main story Living room temperatures18-21C - comfortable temperature9-12 or 24+C: Risk of stroke and heart attack21-24C or 16-18C - some discomfort12-16C - risk of respiratory diseaseLess than 9C - risk of hypothermiaSource: Study by housing expert Richard Moore
Forty years ago, few houses had central heating, and chilly hallways and spare rooms dragged the average temperature down. Radiators now warm rooms that previous generations wouldn't have heated - corridors, bedrooms, and bathrooms.

The last comprehensive set of measured home indoor temperatures is from 1996, when the English House Condition Survey found that although living room temperatures in winter remained relatively stable, the nation's hallways were getting warmer - up from 16.3C in 1986 to 17.9C.

"And for bedrooms, you'll be far more comfortable while you're asleep if it is about 14 or 15C," says Shipworth.

Dr Lucy Worsley, chief curator of the Royal Historic Palaces, agrees. "My grandmother wouldn't sleep in a heated bedroom, and would always have a window open. You can't imagine many people today feel the same."

In our enthusiasm for cosy homes, she says many of us are like the profligate Georgians.

Continue reading the main story “Start QuoteFair houses so full of glass that one cannot tell where to become to be out of the sun or cold”
End Quote Sir Francis Bacon on 16th Century fashion for huge windows
"A warm living room showed you were a good host and a generous person. They thought an element of wastefulness showed you had enough cash to be generous," says Worsley, presenter of BBC Four's If Only Walls Could Talk, a history of our homes to be broadcast in April.

"In medieval times, heating your home was akin to burning money. There was a 16th Century saying, 'the game's not worth the candle' - a task was only worth doing if it justified the expense of illumination.

"But when people began to have more spare time and spare money, considerations of waste became less important."

With energy bills soaring in recent years, and more people aware of energy consumption, she expects frugality to be thrust upon us once more.

"I do think the future will be medieval, when the big bang comes and we run out of oil. Small windows, shutters on the outside, a chimney for natural ventilation."

Learning to operate a smart thermostat takes time
And expectations can be adjusted down as well as up. In Japan, there is a move away from super-cooling and over-heating office buildings. Government officials are encouraged to abandon jackets and ties in summer, and some local authorities have workers wrapped in blankets at their desks in winter.

"In 2005, Prime Minister Koizumi decreed that no government building should be heated above 20C or cooled below 28C," says Professor Michael Kelly of Cambridge University.

"That had quite an energy saving, but no drop-off in worker productivity. Compare that to London, where the expectation is that buildings will be within a few degrees of 22C year-round."

So will smart thermostats and radiator valves help, allowing homeowners to target heat where it's needed at different times in the day?

Experts say technology can do only half the job. A smart thermostat is only as smart as the person operating it.