对于当前的经济政策我是一直持有保留意见的，我在我的文章里也一直在强调当前的货币政策，事实上是如同格林斯潘那样在把我们推向新一轮的危机中。但到底人微言轻，可喜的是在这点认识上，看来我是道不孤的，最近招商局的董事长秦晓先生在英国金融时报发了篇文章，文章的观点与我之前的认识具有高度一致性，今将该文贴与此，与诸君分享，亦期诸君能够真正正视我们的担忧和顾虑。

                                                                                                                       -------------韩和元　

       与世界许多地区一样，中国正为躲过一场经济灾难而松了一口气。宏观经济数据胜于预期，导致乐观情绪日益高涨。然而，政府官员和商界人士不能自欺：再走危机前的老路将是严重错误。

　　从宏观层面来看，全球经济仍处于失衡之中。美国消费过多，储蓄过少。而中国的问题正相反。尽管政府多年来鼓励增加消费，很多中国人仍更情愿储蓄，而非消费。中国国务院总理温家宝上月在大连举办的世界经济论坛上就说，中国经济的复苏“尚不稳固、不坚定、不均衡”。

　　我们都赞赏中国实行的广泛的刺激计划。然而，中国有许多人仍然相信，发挥了30年作用的出口拉动型增长模式，在危机后将保持基本不变。毕竟，美国消费者总会恢复元气，最近的两个例子是网络股泡沫破裂后和2001年9月11日恐怖袭击后。然而，全球失衡持续越久，最终的结局就会越痛苦。中国和美国都必须付出更多努力。

　　中国必须增加国内消费，发挥出自己应有的作用。从长远来看，我对中国消费增长持乐观态度。自上世纪90年代末起，中国对大部分住房市场实行私有化，这有助于促进中国消费者的发展。随着中国推进城市化，每年约有2000万人从农村涌向城市，这一进程将继续推动消费。然而，我对当前过程不十分满意。中国亟需加快改革，构建可信的全国范围社保体系。

　　虽然消费价格大都在可控范围内，但由于世界各国政府向经济中注入了大量流动性，资产价格泡沫正在迅速膨胀。在全球层面，似乎没有一套从经济中抽走这些流动性的退出策略。中国的股市和房地产泡沫肯定令人担忧。

　　虽然我们避免了自大萧条以来最严重的衰退，但我们很可能即将迎来新一轮资产泡沫和更多金融动荡。我们能做些什么？对央行来说，比起向经济中注入资金，从经济中抽走资金是一项更加棘手的工作。矛盾在于：如果我们收紧货币政策，明年就有很大可能发生“二次下滑”；如果我们继续执行宽松政策，新一轮资产泡沫也许并不遥远。

　　我认为，借助财政固定资产投资，推动经济快速大幅反弹，对中国并非好事。而经济轻度减速并不可怕。货币政策决不能忽视资产价格走势。因此，中国的货币政策立场迫切需要从宽松转向中性。

　　关于政府在危机后所扮演的角色，我也感到担心。有些人声称，这是一场市场经济的危机。并非如此。而目前也不是抛弃市场的时候。监管和监督失灵的情况屡见不鲜，尤其是在西方。在中国，我们仍在发展完善自己的监管体系。现在是加强监督、改善治理，以及营造更自由、更有效率的市场的时候，不管是在中国，还是在国外。

　　然而，人们日益担心（尤其是在中国），临时刺激计划可能演变为政府对经济的永久控制。中国政府应继续放松管制。价格必须进一步放开，尤其是能源价格，但也包括水和粮食价格。汇率需要自由化。私有化需要继续推进。中国需要更自由的市场，而不是更多的政府管制。

　　最后，保护主义令人担忧。近期各宗行动就涉及商品的价值而言，规模都比较小。但是，即便是实施象征性的保护主义措施以安抚国内利益，也是危险的策略。美国和中国都必须顶住国内限制贸易的压力，否则就可能引发一场更广泛的贸易战。保护主义对全球经济构成切实的威胁。我们必须密切注意美国贸易政策的变化，因为美国的政策将在很大程度上界定全球化的未来。

China, like much of the world, is breathing a sigh of relief that economic disaster has been averted. Better-than- expected macro-economic data are driving growing optimism. But government officials and businessmen should not delude themselves: going back to pre-crisis ways would be a serious mistake.

From a macro point of view, we still have an unbalanced global economy. The US consumes too much and saves too little. China's problem is the opposite. Despite years of encouragement from government to spend more, many Chinese consumers continue to be more comfortable saving than spending. As Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, said just last month at the World Economic Forum in Dalian, China's economic recovery “is not yet steady, solid and balanced”.

All of us applaud China's far-reaching stimulus programme. But many in China cling to the belief that the export-led model that has worked so well for 30 years will remain largely untouched after the crisis. The US consumer, after all, has always come back, most recently after the dotcom bubble burst and the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001. But the longer global imbalances persist, the more painful the reckoning. Both China and the US must do more.

China needs to play its part by increasing domestic consumption. In the long term, I am optimistic about China's consumption growth. The privatisation of large sections of China's housing market since the late 1990s has contributed to the development of Chinese consumers. The country's ongoing urbanisation, which is seeing about 20m people a year move from the countryside, will continue to power consumption. However, I am not satisfied with the current process, and China has an urgent need to speed up reform to establish a credible nationwide social safety net.

While consumer prices are mostly under control, asset price bubbles are growing rapidly because of huge liquidity injections by governments around the world. Globally, there does not seem to be an exit strategy in place to drain this liquidity from the system. Certainly, in China, stock and property bubbles are a concern.

While we have avoided the worst recession since the Great Depression, we are probably heading for another asset bubble and more financial turbulence. What can we do? Compared with pouring money into the economy, draining money from the economy is a much tougher job for central banks. The dilemma is this: if we tighten monetary policy, there is a high possibility of a “second dip” next year; and if we continue the loose policy, another asset bubble might be not far away.

I do not believe a quick, steep bounce driven by fiscal fixed investment is a good thing for China. Nor is a moderate slowdown anything to be afraid of. Monetary policy must not neglect asset-price movements. Therefore, it is urgent that China shifts from a loose monetary policy stance to a neutral one.

I am also worried about the role of governments after the crisis. There are some who say that this is a crisis of the market economy. It is not; nor is it a time to turn our backs on markets. There have been failures of regulation and oversight, particularly in the west. In China we are still developing our regulatory system. It is a time to strengthen oversight, improve governance and push for freer and more efficient markets in China and abroad.

However, there is growing concern, especially in China, that the temporary stimulus programme might evolve into permanent government control of the economy. The Chinese government should continue to loosen its grip. Prices, especially of energy but including water and food, need to be freed further. The currency needs to be liberalised. Privatisation needs to move ahead. China needs freer markets, not more state control.

Finally, protectionism is a worry. Recent actions are small in terms of the value of the goods involved. But even imposing symbolic protectionist measures to keep domestic interests happy is a dangerous strategy. Both the US and China must resist domestic pressures to restrict trade or risk igniting a wider trade war. Protectionism poses real threats to the global economy and we must be sensitive to changes in US trade policy, as US policies will largely define the future of globalisation.

The writer is chairman of China Merchants Group and of the Asia Business Council