中国的经济将走入良性循环时代
————答华盛顿大学Michael .Callier教授问
STRATFOR的总裁乔治·弗里德曼（George Friedman）2009新书《The Next 100 Years》中的一章China 2020：Paper Tiger（中国2020：纸老虎）文章我拜读，很遗憾，不能苟同他的观点，虽然他对历史的描述有其逻辑体系，不乏严谨，但对当今及未来中国的经济和政治的推测很难说是客观。
中国经济的发展和国际经济产业链条转移和自身经济动力共同趋势合力而成的，中国政府在经济的发展中很好地起到了组织者、启动者、监管者的角色，这一角色扮演应当说是成功的和有效地，当然期间也产生了一系列的问题，比如腐败、贪污、贫富加剧、区域发展失衡，但这些问题是经济结构调整和社会转型的衍生出来，出现这些问题让人，特别是弱势群体不能容忍的和难以接受。
作为一个学者，我追求公平与正义，对腐败和贪污，尤其是官僚专权深恶痛绝，我呼吁社会应当对腐败绝对应当零容忍，但我们不得不面对这样一个现实：欲速则不达。毛泽东追求平均，但全国人民绝大部分出于营养不良，更不要说三年大饥馑，数千万人非正常死亡。
我不认为中国政府的执政能力，将面临能量衰竭，恰恰相反，我认为中国政府的执政水平日趋成熟，甚至是渐入佳境，这些表现在政府对民生的关注、对海外侨胞的关注和对普通人的生命权利的尊重，当然更大的变化还是来自于外交领域，中国目前的外交现在日趋着眼现实，而不像以前一味强调意识形态，以意识形态划江而对，非敌即友。
中国的政府管理能量并没有真正发挥出全部的能量，政府对经济的影响力也远非计划经济和市场经济两种模式所能概括，中国的发展是第三种模式，这种模式是目前的经济学所不能涵盖的，所经济学同样面临着创新的时代需求。
中国的经济我认为是乐观的，中国东部、中部、西部的区域不平衡和经济落差恰恰为中国经济的持续发展的空间，由东至西的经济传递可以维系20年的发展动力，届时东部将完成产业升级，由制造走向创造，信息经济和知识经济将在全方位的空间生根、发芽。中国经济将全面步入良性循环，中华的复兴才正真步入轨道。
当然，这一切都建立政治稳定和社会稳定的基础之上，如果出现大的动乱和政治倒退，则一切可能都将成为灰飞烟灭。当然政治倒退，重回毛时代的计划经济的几无可能，因为真相一旦现身，谎言必将无处遁形。但出现重大社会动乱的可能虽小，但也不是没有可能，毕竟社会矛盾积累过多，怨气过重，导致信任隔阂，甚至是官民对立，社会不是越来越坚韧，反倒越来越脆弱，这是我们共同的忧虑。
一旦经济转型成功，政治的改革也必然来临，届时中国将迎来新的政治文明，党国天下的时代必然随水东流，一去不返。
————To professor Michael. Callier (Washington University)
Hello! Mr. Michael .Callier， I am so glad to accept your letter to talk about china’s economy,Thank you for supporting me the valuable topic .Chinese economy is so important not only to china but also to the world, chinese economy ‘s development is offer to God , billion people dress warmly and eat one’s fill ,walking out from poor life, so china’s economy is the issue of world, especially ,the way of the development.
Although his description of history has its seriously logical system, but its speculation is hardly objective to current and future China's economic and political prospects.
My view is :China's Economy Walking Into The Positive Cycle Time
China's economic development is the common result from international economic industrial chain transfer and China own economic power. The Chinese government in economic development played the role as a good organizer, initiator and regulatory, that is successful and effective. Of course, in this process, it produced a series of problems, such as corruption, widening income gaps, imbalance between regional development. But the problem is derived from economic restructuring adjustment and social transformation. At the same time, these problems make people intolerable and unacceptable, especially vulnerable groups.
As a scholar, I am pursuing fairness and justice. To corruption, especially in the bureaucratic authoritarian, I am abhor and call upon the community should be absolutely zero tolerance of corruption. But we have to face this reality that Haste makes waste. Chairman Mao Ze dong is pursuit of the average. But then the vast majority of people encounter out of malnutrition, not to mention the major famine up to three years, the number of unnatural deaths is tens of millions of people.
I do not think the Chinese government's ability to govern will face a power failure. On the contrary, I think the Chinese government's governance has matured, and even getting better. Shown in the government's concern on the livelihood , the overseas and the respect for the rights of ordinary people. Of course, the larger changes comes from in the diplomatic field. China's current diplomatic focus is now becoming reality, rather than the previous emphasis opposition on ideology blindly, not the enemy or friend.
I think China's economy is optimistic. The imbalances and economic gap between eastern, central, and western regional just provide space for China's sustained economic development. The economic transmission from east to west will sustain the economic momentum of 20 years. At that time, the eastern of China will complete of upgrading from manufacturing to creating, and the information economy and knowledge-based economy will in the full range of space to take root, sprout. China's economy will enter a virtuous circle round. The Chinese renaissance is really on track.
Of course, all this is to establish on the base of political stability and social stability. If there is great unrest and political retrogression, then any possibility will be destroyed. Of course it is impossible that the political is back and return to Mao's age of planned economy. Because once the truth coming out, lie will have no place to hide. However, the possibility of significant social unrest is small, but it is not impossible. After all, the accumulation of too many social conflicts and grievances will result in the trust gap and even confrontation between officials and the public, then society is not getting tough, more and more vulnerable, it is our common concern.
Once the success of economic restructuring, political reforms are bound to come. Then China will usher in a new political culture, the world of the party will certainly be gone like the water flows.
附：
Hi Professor Yu -
This is Michael Callier. I led the students from the University of Washington that visited you on or around June 30 in Beijing.
I was just reading a very interesting book by George Friedman called, The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century and wanted to get your feedback. In that book, Friedman states that China's economic growth is unsustainable because it is a symptom of a need for continuous cash flow due to China's $600-$900 billion in bad debt rather than a symptom of economic prosperity.
Friedman compares contemporary China to Japan in the 1980's. As you already know, Japan's financial crisis and subsequent recession occurred because of artificially cheap interest rates, large cash flow (and resulting growth) but no profit, and cheap loans based on relationships rather than business plans.
Friedman says that China is in a similar position and that cheap exports are a mechanism to continue cash flow and counter the vast amount of bad debt in the country. Friedman goes on to say that, in 2010, China will be in a pre-Mao state: a severe division between the Western influenced and affluent eastern-coastal cities and the impoverished inland cities, with Beijing struggling to keep things together.
I know that you're very knowledgeable in government administration and industrial development so I'd really value any feedback that you can give me. I also assume that you've heard these sorts of arguments before. How would you respond to Friedman? What do you think?
I hope you don't mind me emailing you with questions - you invited me to do so. I look forward to hearing from you.
xiexie,
Michael