General Theory of Reflexivity
In the course of my life,I have developed a conceptual framework which has helped me both to make money as a hedge fund manager and to spend money as a policy oriented philanthropist.But the framework itself is not about money,it is about the relationship between thinking and reality,a subject that has been extensively studied by philosophers from early on.
I started developing my philosophy as a student at the London School of Economics in the late1950s.I took my final exams one year early and I had a year to fill before I was qualified to receive my degree.I could choose my tutor and I chose Karl Popper,the Viennese-born philosopher whose book The Open Society and Its Enemies had made a profound impression on me.
In his books Popper argued that the empirical truth cannot be known with absolute certainty.Even scientific laws can't be verified beyond a shadow of a doubt:they can only be falsified by testing.One failed test is enough to falsify,but no amount of conforming instances is sufficient to verify. Scientific laws are hypothetical in character and their truth remains subject to testing.Ideologies which claim to be in possession of the ultimate truth are making a false claim;therefore,they can be imposed on society only by force.This applies to Communism,Fascism and National Socialism alike.All these ideologies lead to repression.Popper proposed a more attractive form of social organization:an open society in which people are free to hold divergent opinions and the rule of law allows people with different views and interests to live together in peace. Having lived through both Nazi and Communist occupation here in Hungary, I found the idea of an open society immensely attractive.
While I was reading Popper I was also studying economic theory and I was struck by the contradiction between Popper's emphasis on imperfect understanding and the theory of perfect competition in economics which postulated perfect knowledge.This led me to start questioning the assumptions of economic theory.These were the two major theoretical inspirations of my philosophy.It is also deeply rooted in my personal history.
The formative experience of my life was the German occupation of Hungary in1944.I was not yet fourteen years old at the time,coming from a reasonably well-to-do middle class background,suddenly confronted with the prospect of being deported and killed just because I was Jewish.
Fortunately my father was well prepared for this far-from-equilibrium experience.He had lived through the Russian Revolution and that was the formative experience of his life.Until then he had been an ambitious young man.When the First World War broke out,he volunteered to serve in the Austro-Hungarian army.He was captured by the Russians and taken as a prisoner of war to Siberia.Being ambitious,he became the editor of a newspaper produced by the prisoners.It was handwritten and displayed on a plank and it was called The Plank.This made him so popular that he was elected the prisoners'representative.Then some soldiers escaped from a neighboring camp,and their prisoners'representative was shot in retaliation.My father,instead of waiting for the same thing to happen in his camp,organized a group and led a breakout.His plan was to build a raft and sail down to the ocean,but his knowledge of geography was deficient;he did not know that all the rivers in Siberia flow into the Arctic Sea.They drifted for several weeks before they realized that they were heading for the Arctic,and it took them several more months to make their way back to civilization across the taiga.In the meantime,the Russian Revolution broke out,and they became caught up in it.Only after a variety of adventures did my father manage to find his way back to Hungary; had he remained in the camp,he would have arrived home much sooner.
My father came home a changed man.His experiences during the Russian Revolution profoundly affected him.He lost his ambition and wanted nothing more from life than to enjoy it.He imparted to his children values that were very different from those of the milieu in which we lived.He had no desire to amass wealth or become socially prominent.On the contrary, he worked only as much as was necessary to make ends meet.I remember being sent to his main client to borrow some money before we went on a ski vacation;my father was grouchy for weeks afterwards because he had to work to pay it back.Although we were reasonably prosperous,we were not the typical bourgeois family,and we were proud of being different.
In1944,when the Germans occupied Hungary,my father immediately realized that these were not normal times and the normal rules didn't apply.He arranged false identities for his family and a number of other people. Those who could,paid;others he helped for free.Most of them survived. That was his finest hour.
*
Living with false identity turned out to be an exhilarating experience for me too.We were in mortal danger.People perished all around us,but we managed not only to survive but to help other people.We were on the side of the angels,and we triumphed against overwhelming odds.This made me feel very special.It was high adventure.I had a reliable guide in
my father and came through unscathed.What more could a fourteen-year-old ask for?
After the euphoric experience of escaping the Nazis,life in Hungary started to lose its luster during the Soviet occupation.I was looking for new challenges and with my father's help I found my way out of Hungary. When I was seventeen I became a student in London.In my studies,my primary interest was to gain a better understanding of the strange world into which I had been born,but I have to confess,I also harbored some fantasies of becoming an important philosopher.I believed that I had gained insights that set me apart from other people.
Living in London was a big letdown.I was without money,alone,and people were not interested in what I had to say.But I didn't abandon my philosophical ambitions even when circumstances forced me to make a living in more mundane pursuits.After completing my studies,I had a number of false starts.Finally I ended up as an arbitrage trader in New York but in my free time I continued to work on my philosophy.
That is how I came to write my first major essay,entitled"The Burden of Consciousness."It was an attempt to model Popper's framework of open and closed societies.It linked organic society with a traditional mode of thinking,closed society with a dogmatic mode and open society with a critical mode.What I could not properly resolve was the nature of the relationship between the mode of thinking and the actual state of affairs. That problem continued to preoccupy me and that is how I came to develop the concept of reflexivity-a concept I shall explore in greater detail a little later.
It so happened that the concept of reflexivity provided me with a new way of looking at financial markets,a better way than the prevailing theory. This gave me an edge,first as a securities analyst and then as a hedge fund manager.I felt as if I were in possession of a major discovery that would enable me to fulfill my fantasy of becoming an important philosopher. At a certain moment when my business career ran into a roadblock I shifted gears and devoted all my energies to developing my philosophy.But I treasured my discovery so much that I could not part with it.I felt that the concept of reflexivity needed to be explored in depth.As I delved deeper and deeper into the subject I got lost in the intricacies of my own constructions.One morning I could not understand what I had written the night before.At that point I decided to abandon my philosophical explorations and to focus on making money.It was only many years later, after a successful run as a hedge fund manager,that I returned to my philosophy.
I published my first book,The Alchemy of Finance,in1987.In that book I tried to explain the philosophical underpinnings of my approach to financial markets.The book attracted a certain amount of attention.It has been read by most people in the hedge fund industry and it is taught in business schools but the philosophical arguments did not make much of an impression.They were largely dismissed as the conceit of a man who has been successful in business and fancied himself as a philosopher.
I myself came to doubt whether I was in possession of a major new insight.After all I was dealing with a subject that has been explored by philosophers since time immemorial.What grounds did I have for thinking that I had made a new discovery,especially as nobody else seemed to think so?Undoubtedly the conceptual framework was useful to me personally but it did not seem to be considered equally valuable by others.
I had to accept their judgment.I didn't give up my philosophical interests, but I came to regard them as a personal predilection.I continued to be guided by my conceptual framework both in my business and in my philanthropic activities-which came to assume an increasingly important role in my life-and each time I wrote a book I faithfully recited my arguments.This helped me to develop my conceptual framework,but I continued to consider myself a failed philosopher.Once I even gave a lecture with the title"A Failed Philosopher Tries Again."
All this has changed as a result of the financial crisis of2008.My conceptual framework enabled me both to anticipate the crisis and to deal with it when it finally struck.It has also enabled me to explain and predict events better than most others.This has changed my own evaluation and that of many others.My philosophy is no longer a personal matter; it deserves to be taken seriously as a possible contribution to our understanding of reality.That is what has prompted me to give this series of lectures.
*
So here it goes.Today I shall explain the concepts of fallibility and reflexivity in general terms.Tomorrow I shall apply them to the financial markets and after that,to politics.That will also bring in the concept of open society.In the fourth lecture I shall explore the difference between market values and moral values,and in the fifth I shall offer some predictions and prescriptions for the present moment in history.
*
I can state the core idea in two relatively simple propositions.One is that in situations that have thinking participants,the participants'
view of the world is always partial and distorted.That is the principle of fallibility.The other is that these distorted views can influence the situation to which they relate because false views lead to inappropriate actions.That is the principle of reflexivity.For instance,treating drug addicts as criminals creates criminal behavior.It misconstrues the problem and interferes with the proper treatment of addicts.As another example,declaring that government is bad tends to make for bad government.
Both fallibility and reflexivity are sheer common sense.So when my critics say that I am merely stating the obvious,they are right-but only up to a point.What makes my propositions interesting is that their significance has not been generally appreciated.The concept of reflexivity,in particular,has been studiously avoided and even denied by economic theory.So my conceptual framework deserves to be taken seriously-not because it constitutes a new discovery but because something as commonsensical as reflexivity has been so studiously ignored.
Recognizing reflexivity has been sacrificed to the vain pursuit of certainty in human affairs,most notably in economics,and yet, uncertainty is the key feature of human affairs.Economic theory is built on the concept of equilibrium,and that concept is in direct contradiction with the concept of reflexivity.As I shall show in the next lecture,the two concepts yield two entirely different interpretations of financial markets.
The concept of fallibility is far less controversial.It is generally recognized that the complexity of the world in which we live exceeds our capacity to comprehend it.I have no great new insights to offer.The main source of difficulties is that participants are part of the situation they have to deal with.Confronted by a reality of extreme complexity we are obliged to resort to various methods of simplification-generalizations, dichotomies,metaphors,decision-rules,moral precepts,to mention just a few.These mental constructs take on an existence of their own, further complicating the situation.
The structure of the brain is another source of distortions.Recent advances in brain science have begun to provide some insight into how the brain functions,and they have substantiated Hume's contention that reason is the slave of passion.The idea of a disembodied intellect or reason is a figment of our imagination.
The brain is bombarded by millions of sensory impulses but consciousness can process only seven or eight subjects concurrently.The impulses need
to be condensed,ordered and interpreted under immense time pressure,and mistakes and distortions can't be avoided.Brain science adds many new details to my original contention that our understanding of the world in which we live is inherently imperfect.
*
The concept of reflexivity needs a little more explication.It applies exclusively to situations that have thinking participants.The participants'thinking serves two functions.One is to understand the world in which we live;I call this the cognitive function.The other is to change the situation to our advantage.I call this the participating or manipulative function.The two functions connect thinking and reality in opposite directions.In the cognitive function,reality is supposed to determine the participants'views;the direction of causation is from the world to the mind.By contrast,in the manipulative function,the direction of causation is from the mind to the world,that is to say,the intentions of the participants have an effect on the world.When both functions operate at the same time they can interfere with each other.
How?By depriving each function of the independent variable that would be needed to determine the value of the dependent variable.Because,when the independent variable of one function is the dependent variable of the other,neither function has a genuinely independent variable.This means that the cognitive function can't produce enough knowledge to serve as the basis of the participants'decisions.Similarly,the manipulative function can have an effect on the outcome,but can't determine it.In other words,the outcome is liable to diverge from the participants' intentions.There is bound to be some slippage between intentions and actions and further slippage between actions and outcomes.As a result, there is an element of uncertainty both in our understanding of reality and in the actual course of events.
To understand the uncertainties associated with reflexivity,we need to probe a little further.If the cognitive function operated in isolation without any interference from the manipulative function it could produce knowledge.Knowledge is represented by true statements.A statement is true if it corresponds to the facts-that is what the correspondence theory of truth tells us.But if there is interference from the manipulative function,the facts no longer serve as an independent criterion by which the truth of a statement can be judged because the correspondence may have been brought about by the statement changing the facts.
Consider the statement,"it is raining."That statement is true or false depending on whether it is,in fact,raining.Now consider the statement,
"This is a revolutionary moment."That statement is reflexive,and its truth value depends on the impact it makes.
Reflexive statements have some affinity with the paradox of the liar, which is a self-referential statement.But while self-reference has been extensively analyzed,reflexivity has received much less attention.This is strange,because reflexivity has an impact on the real world,while self-reference is purely a linguistic phenomenon.
In the real world,the participants'thinking finds expression not only in statements but also,of course,in various forms of action and behavior. That makes reflexivity a very broad phenomenon that typically takes the form of feedback loops.The participants'views influence the course of events,and the course of events influences the participants'views.The influence is continuous and circular;that is what turns it into a feedback loop.
Reflexive feedback loops have not been rigorously analyzed and when I originally encountered them and tried to analyze them,I ran into various complications.The feedback loop is supposed to be a two-way connection between the participant's views and the actual course of events.But what about a two-way connection between the participants'views?And what about a solitary individual asking himself who he is and what he stands for and changing his behavior as a result of his reflections?In trying to resolve these difficulties I got so lost among the categories I created that one morning I couldn't understand what I had written the night before.That's when I gave up philosophy and devoted my efforts to making money.
To avoid that trap let me propose the following terminology.Let us distinguish between the objective and subjective aspects of reality. Thinking constitutes the subjective aspect,events the objective aspect. In other words,the subjective aspect covers what takes place in the minds of the participants,the objective aspect denotes what takes place in external reality.There is only one external reality but many different subjective views.Reflexivity can then connect any two or more aspects of reality,setting up two-way feedback loops between them.Exceptionally it may even occur with a single aspect of reality,as in the case of a solitary individual reflecting on his own identity.This may be described as"self-reflexivity."We may then distinguish between two broad categories:reflexive relationships which connect the subjective aspects and reflexive events which involve the objective aspect.Marriage is a reflexive relationship;the Crash of2008was a reflexive event.When reality has no subjective aspect,there can be no reflexivity.
*
Feedback loops can be either negative or positive.Negative feedback brings the participants'views and the actual situation closer together; positive feedback drives them further apart.In other words,a negative feedback process is self-correcting.It can go on forever and if there are no significant changes in external reality,it may eventually lead to an equilibrium where the participants'views come to correspond to the actual state of affairs.That is what is supposed to happen in financial markets.So equilibrium,which is the central case in economics,turns out to be an extreme case of negative feedback,a limiting case in my conceptual framework.
By contrast,a positive feedback process is self-reinforcing.It cannot go on forever because eventually the participants'views would become so far removed from objective reality that the participants would have to recognize them as unrealistic.Nor can the iterative process occur without any change in the actual state of affairs,because it is in the nature of positive feedback that it reinforces whatever tendency prevails in the real world.Instead of equilibrium,we are faced with a dynamic disequilibrium or what may be described as far-from-equilibrium https://www.doczj.com/doc/8316392698.html,ually in far-from-equilibrium situations the divergence between perceptions and reality leads to a climax which sets in motion a positive feedback process in the opposite direction.Such initially self-reinforcing but eventually self-defeating boom-bust processes or bubbles are characteristic of financial markets,but they can also be found in other spheres.There,I call them fertile
fallacies-interpretations of reality that are distorted,yet produce results which reinforce the distortion.
*
I realize that this is all very abstract and difficult to follow.It would make it much easier if I gave some concrete examples.But you will have to bear with me.I want to make a different point and the fact that it is difficult to follow abstract arguments helps me make it.In dealing with subjects like reality or thinking or the relationship between the two,it's easy to get confused and formulate problems the wrong way.So misinterpretations and misconceptions can play a very important role in human affairs.The recent financial crisis can be attributed to a mistaken interpretation of how financial markets work.I shall discuss that in the next lecture.In the third lecture,I shall discuss two fertile fallacies-the Enlightenment fallacy and the post-modern fallacy.These concrete examples will demonstrate how important misconceptions have been in the course of history.But for the rest of this lecture I shall stay at the lofty heights of abstractions.
I contend that situations that have thinking participants have a different structure from natural phenomena.The difference lies in the role of thinking.In natural phenomena thinking plays no causal role and serves only a cognitive function.In human affairs thinking is part of the subject matter and serves both a cognitive and a manipulative function.The two functions can interfere with each other.The interference does not occur all the time-in everyday activities,like driving a car or painting a house, the two functions actually complement each other-but when it occurs,it introduces an element of uncertainty which is absent from natural phenomena.The uncertainty manifests itself in both functions:the participants'act on the basis of imperfect understanding and the results of their actions will not correspond to their expectations.That is a key feature of human affairs.
By contrast,in the case of natural phenomena,events unfold irrespective of the views held by the observers.The outside observer is engaged only in the cognitive function and the phenomena provide a reliable criterion by which the truth of the observers'theories can be judged.So the outside observer can obtain knowledge.Based on that knowledge,nature can be successfully manipulated.There is a natural separation between the cognitive and manipulative functions.Due to their separation,both functions can serve their purpose better than in the human sphere.
At this point,I need to emphasize that reflexivity is not the only source of uncertainty in human affairs.Yes,reflexivity does introduce an element of uncertainty both into the participants views and the actual course of events,but other factors may also have the same effect.For instance,the fact that participants cannot know what the other participants know,is something quite different from reflexivity,yet it is a source of uncertainty in human affairs.The fact that different participants have different interests,some of which may be in conflict with each other,is another source of uncertainty.Moreover,each individual participant may be guided by a multiplicity of values which may not be self-consistent,as Isaiah Berlin pointed out.The uncertainties created by these factors are likely to be even more extensive than those generated by reflexivity.I shall lump them all together and speak of the human uncertainty principle,which is an even broader concept than reflexivity.
The human uncertainty principle I am talking about is much more specific and stringent than the subjective skepticism that pervades Cartesian philosophy.It gives us objective reasons to believe that our perceptions and expectations are-or at least may be-wrong.
Although the primary impact of human uncertainty falls on the participants, it has far-reaching implications for the social sciences.I can explicate them best by invoking Karl Popper's theory of scientific method.It is a beautifully simple and elegant scheme.It consists of three elements and three operations.The three elements are scientific laws and the initial and final conditions to which those laws apply.The three operations are prediction,explanation,and testing.When the scientific laws are combined with the initial conditions,they provide predictions.When they are combined with the final conditions,they provide explanations.In this sense predictions and explanations are symmetrical and reversible.That leaves testing,where predictions derived from scientific laws are compared with the actual results.
According to Popper,scientific laws are hypothetical in character; they cannot be verified,but they can be falsified by testing.The key to the success of scientific method is that it can test generalizations of universal validity with the help of singular observations.One failed test is sufficient to falsify a theory but no amount of confirming instances is sufficient to verify.
This is a brilliant solution to the otherwise intractable problem:how can science be both empirical and rational?According to Popper it is empirical because we test our theories by observing whether the predictions we derive from them are true,and it is rational because we use deductive logic in doing so.Popper dispenses with inductive logic and relies instead on testing.Generalizations that cannot be falsified, do not qualify as scientific.Popper emphasizes the central role that testing plays in scientific method and establishes a strong case for critical thinking by asserting that scientific laws are only provisionally valid and remain open to reexamination.Thus the three salient features of Popper's scheme are the symmetry between prediction and explanation,the asymmetry between verification and falsification and the central role of testing.Testing allows science to grow,improve and innovate.
Popper's scheme works well for the study of natural phenomena but the human uncertainty principle throws a monkey wrench into the supreme simplicity and elegance of Popper's scheme.The symmetry between prediction and explanation is destroyed because of the element of uncertainty in predictions and the central role of testing is endangered.Should the initial and final conditions include or exclude the participant's thinking?The question is important because testing requires replicating those conditions.If the participants'thinking is included,it is difficult to observe what the initial and final conditions are,because the participants'views can only be inferred from their statements or
actions.If it is excluded,the initial and final conditions do not constitute singular observations because the same objective conditions may be associated with very different views held by the participants.In either case,generalizations cannot be properly tested.These difficulties do not preclude social scientists from producing worthwhile generalizations,but they are unlikely to meet the requirements of Popper's scheme,nor can they match the predictive power of the laws of physics.
Social scientists have found this conclusion hard to accept.Economists in particular suffer from what Sigmund Freud might call"physics envy."
There have been many attempts to eliminate the difficulties connected with the human uncertainty principle by inventing or postulating some kind of fixed relationship between the participants'thinking and the actual state of affairs.Karl Marx asserted that the ideological superstructure was determined by the material conditions of production and Freud maintained that people's behavior was determined by drives and complexes of which they were not even conscious.Both claimed scientific status for their theories although,as Popper pointed out,they cannot be falsified by testing.
But by far the most impressive attempt has been mounted by economic theory. It started out by assuming perfect knowledge and when that assumption turned out to be untenable it went through ever increasing contortions to maintain the fiction of rational behavior.Economics ended up with the theory of rational expectations which maintains that there is a single optimum view of the future,that which corresponds to it,and eventually all the market participants will converge around that view.This postulate is absurd but it is needed in order to allow economic theory to model itself on Newtonian physics.
Interestingly,both Karl Popper and Friedrich Hayek recognized,in their famous exchange in the pages of Economica,that the social sciences cannot produce results comparable to physics.Hayek inveighed against the mechanical and uncritical application of the quantitative methods of natural science.He called it scientism.And Karl Popper wrote about"The Poverty of Historicism"where he argued that history is not determined by universally valid scientific laws.
Nevertheless,Popper proclaimed what he called the"doctrine of the unity of method"by which he meant that both natural and social sciences should be judged by the same criteria.And Hayek,of course,became the apostle of the Chicago school of economics where market fundamentalism originated. But as I see it,the implication of the human uncertainty principle is
that the subject matter of the natural and social sciences is fundamentally different;therefore they need to develop different methods and they have to be held to different standards.Economic theory should not be expected to produce universally valid laws that can be used reversibly to explain and predict historic events.I contend that the slavish imitation of natural science inevitably leads to the distortion of human and social phenomena.What is attainable in social science falls short of what is attainable in physics.
I am somewhat troubled,however,about drawing too sharp a distinction between natural and social science.Such dichotomies are usually not found in reality;they are introduced by us,in our efforts to make some sense out of an otherwise confusing reality.Indeed while a sharp distinction between physics and social sciences seems justified,there are other sciences,such as biology and the study of animal societies that occupy intermediate positions.
But I had to abandon my reservations and recognize a dichotomy between the natural and social sciences because the social sciences encounter a second difficulty from which the natural sciences are exempt.
And that is that social theories are reflexive.Heisenberg's discovery of the uncertainty principle did not alter the behavior of quantum particles one iota,but social theories,whether Marxism,market fundamentalism or the theory of reflexivity,can affect the subject matter to which it refers.Scientific method is supposed to be devoted to the pursuit of truth.Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not interfere with that postulate but the reflexivity of social theories does.Why should social science confine itself to passively studying social phenomena when it can be used to actively change the state of affairs? As I remarked in The Alchemy of Finance,the alchemists made a mistake in trying to change the nature of base metals by incantation.Instead, they should have focused their attention on the financial markets where they could have succeeded.
How could social science be protected against this interference?I propose a simple remedy:recognize a dichotomy between the natural and social sciences.This will ensure that social theories will be judged on their merits and not by a false analogy with natural science.I propose this as a convention for the protection of scientific method,not as a demotion or devaluation of social science.The convention sets no limits on what social science may be able to accomplish.On the contrary,by liberating social science from the slavish imitation of natural science and protecting it from being judged by the wrong standards,it should open
up new vistas.It is in this spirit that I shall put forward my interpretation of financial markets tomorrow.
I apologize for dwelling so long in the rarefied realm of abstractions.
I promise to come down to earth in my next lecture.
Financial Markets
Today I'll apply the concepts introduced yesterday-fallibility, reflexivity,and the human uncertainty principal-to the financial markets. Please brace yourselves,because I'll pack the experience of a lifetime into this one lecture.
Financial markets provide an excellent laboratory for testing the ideas that I put forward in an abstract form yesterday.The course of events is easier to observe than in most other places.Many of the facts take a quantitative form,and the data are well recorded and well preserved. The opportunity for testing occurs because my interpretation of financial markets directly contradicts the efficient market hypothesis,which has been the prevailing theory about financial markets.That theory claims that markets tend towards equilibrium;deviations occur in a random fashion and can be attributed to extraneous shocks.If that theory is valid,mine is false-and vice versa.
*
Let me state the two cardinal principles of my conceptual framework as it applies to the financial markets.First,market prices always distort the underlying fundamentals.The degree of distortion may range from the negligible to the significant.This is in direct contradiction to the efficient market hypothesis,which maintains that market prices accurately reflect all the available information.
Second,instead of playing a purely passive role in reflecting an underlying reality,financial markets also have an active role:they can affect the so-called fundamentals they are supposed to reflect.That is the point that behavioral economics is missing.It focuses only on one half of a reflexive process:the mispricing of financial assets;it does not concern itself with the impact of the mispricing on the so-called fundamentals.
There are various pathways by which the mispricing of financial assets can affect the so-called fundamentals.The most widely travelled are those which involve the use of leverage-both debt and equity leveraging.The various feedback loops may give the impression that markets are often right,but the mechanism at work is very different from the one proposed by the prevailing paradigm.I claim that financial markets have ways of altering the fundamentals and that may bring about a closer correspondence
between market prices and the underlying fundamentals.Contrast that with the efficient market hypothesis,which claims that markets always accurately reflect reality and automatically tend towards equilibrium..
My two propositions focus attention on the reflexive feedback loops that characterize financial markets.There are two kinds of feedback:negative and positive.Negative feedback is self-correcting;positive feedback is self-reinforcing.Thus,negative feedback sets up a tendency toward equilibrium,while positive feedback produces dynamic disequilibrium. Positive feedback loops are more interesting because they can cause big moves,both in market prices and in the underlying fundamentals.A positive feedback process that runs its full course is initially self reinforcing,but eventually it is liable to reach a climax or reversal point,after which it becomes self reinforcing in the opposite direction. But positive feedback processes do not necessarily run their full course; they may be aborted at any time by negative feedback.
*
I have developed a theory about boom-bust processes,or bubbles,along these lines.Every bubble has two components:an underlying trend that prevails in reality and a misconception relating to that trend.A boom-bust process is set in motion when a trend and a misconception positively reinforce each other.The process is liable to be tested by negative feedback along the way.If the trend is strong enough to survive the test,both the trend and the misconception will be further reinforced. Eventually,market expectations become so far removed from reality that people are forced to recognize that a misconception is involved.A twilight period ensues during which doubts grow,and more people loose faith,but the prevailing trend is sustained by inertia.As Chuck Prince, former head of Citigroup said:we must continue dancing until the music stops.Eventually a point is reached when the trend is reversed;it then becomes self reinforcing in the opposite direction.
Let me go back to the example I used when I originally proposed my theory in1987:the conglomerate boom of the late1960s.The underlying trend is represented by earnings per share,the expectations relating to that trend by stock prices.Conglomerates improved their earnings per share by acquiring other companies.Inflated expectations allowed them to improve their earnings performance,but eventually reality could not keep up with expectations.After a twilight period the price trend was reversed. All the problems that had been swept under the carpet surfaced,and earnings collapsed.As the president of one of the conglomerates,Ogden Corporation,told me at the time:I have no audience to play to.
This is a model of the conglomerate bubble.The charts of actual conglomerates like Ogden Corporation closely resemble this chart.Bubbles that conform to this pattern go through distinct stages:inception;a period of acceleration,interrupted and reinforced by successful tests;
a twilight period;and the reversal point or climax,followed by acceleration on the downside culminating in a financial crisis.
The length and strength of each stage is unpredictable,but there is an internal logic to the sequence of stages.So the sequence is predictable-but even that can be terminated by government intervention or some other form of negative feedback.In the case of the conglomerate boom it was the defeat of LeaseCo in its attempt to acquire Manufacturer Hanover Trust that constituted the climax or reversal point.
Typically,bubbles have an asymmetric shape.The boom is long and drawn out:slow to start,it accelerates gradually until it flattens out during the twilight period.The bust is short and steep because it is reinforced by the forced liquidation of unsound positions.Disillusionment turns into panic,reaching its climax in a financial crisis.
The simplest case is a real estate boom.The trend that precipitates it is that credit becomes cheaper and more easily available;the misconception is that the value of the collateral is independent of the availability of credit.As a matter of fact,the relationship between the availability of credit and the value of the collateral is reflexive.When credit becomes cheaper and more easily available,activity picks up and real estate values rise.There are fewer defaults,credit performance improves,and lending standards are relaxed.So at the height of the boom, the amount of credit involved is at its maximum and a reversal precipitates forced liquidation,depressing real estate values.
Yet,the misconception continues to recur in various guises.The international banking crisis of1982revolved around sovereign debt where no collateral is involved.The creditworthiness of the sovereign borrowers was measured by various debt ratios,like debt to GDP or debt service to exports.These ratios were considered objective criteria, while in fact they were reflexive.When the recycling of petrodollars in the1970s increased the flow of credit to countries like Brazil,their debt ratios improved,encouraging further inflows and starting a bubble.
*
Not all bubbles involve the extension of credit;some are based on equity leveraging.The best examples are the conglomerate boom of the late1960s and the Internet bubble of the late1990s.When Alan Greenspan spoke about
irrational exuberance in1996he misrepresented bubbles.When I see a bubble forming I rush in to buy,adding fuel to the fire.That is not irrational.And that is why we need regulators to counteract the market when a bubble is threatening to grow too big,because we cannot rely on market participants,however well informed and rational they are.
*
Bubbles are not the only form in which reflexivity manifests itself.They are only the most dramatic and the most directly opposed to the efficient market hypothesis;therefore they deserve special attention.But reflexivity can take many other forms.In currency markets,for instance, the upside and downside are symmetrical so that there is no sign of an asymmetry between boom and bust.But there is no sign of equilibrium either. Freely floating exchange rates tend to move in large,multi-year waves.
The most important and most interesting reflexive interaction takes place between the financial authorities and financial markets.Because markets do not tend toward equilibrium they are prone to produce periodic crises. Financial crises lead to regulatory reforms.That is how central banking and the regulation of financial markets have evolved.Both the financial authorities and market participants act on the basis of imperfect understanding,and that makes the interaction between them reflexive.
While bubbles only occur intermittently,the interplay between authorities and markets is an ongoing process.Misunderstandings by either side usually stay within reasonable bounds because market reactions provide useful feedback to the authorities,allowing them to correct their mistakes.But occasionally the mistakes prove to be
self-validating,setting in motion vicious or virtuous circles.Such feedback loops resemble bubbles in the sense that they are initially self reinforcing,but eventually self defeating.
*
It is important to realize that not all price distortions are due to reflexivity.Market participants cannot possibly base their decisions on knowledge-they have to anticipate the future,and the future is contingent on decisions that people have not yet made.What those decisions are going to be and what effect they will have cannot be accurately anticipated. Nevertheless,people are forced to make decisions.To guess correctly, people would have to know the decisions of all of the other participants and their consequences,but that is impossible.
Rational expectations theory sought to circumvent this impossibility by postulating that there is a single correct set of expectations and people's views will converge around it.That postulate has no resemblance to reality,but it is the basis of financial economics as it is currently taught in universities.In practice,participants are obliged to make their decisions in conditions of uncertainty.Their decisions are bound to be tentative and biased.That is the generic cause of price distortions.
Occasionally,the price distortions set in motion a boom-bust process. More often,they are corrected by negative feedback.In these cases market fluctuations have a random character.I compare them to the waves sloshing around in a swimming pool as opposed to a tidal wave.Obviously,the latter are more significant but the former are more ubiquitous.The two kinds of price distortions intermingle so that in reality boom-bust processes rarely follow the exact course of my model.Bubbles that follow the pattern I described in my model occur only on those rare occasions where they are so powerful that they overshadow all the other processes going on at the same time.
*
It will be useful to distinguish between near equilibrium conditions, which are characterized by random fluctuations,and far-from-equilibrium situations where a bubble predominates.Near equilibrium is characterized by humdrum,everyday events which are repetitive and lend themselves to statistical generalizations.Far-from-equilibrium conditions give rise to unique,historical events where outcomes are generally uncertain but have the capacity to disrupt the statistical generalizations based on everyday events.
The rules that can guide decisions in near equilibrium conditions do not apply in far-from-equilibrium situations.The recent financial crisis is a case in point.All the risk management tools and synthetic financial products that were based on the assumption that price deviations from a putative equilibrium occur in a random fashion broke down,and people who relied on mathematical models which had served them well in
near-equilibrium conditions got badly hurt.
I have gained some new insights into far-from-equilibrium conditions during the recent financial crisis.As a participant I had to act under immense time pressure,and I could not gather all of the information that would have been available-and the same applied to the regulatory authorities in charge.That is how far-from-equilibrium situations can spin out of control.
This is not confined to financial markets.I experienced it,for instance, during the collapse of the Soviet Union.The fact that the participant's thinking is time-bound instead of timeless is left out of the account by rational expectations theory.
I was aware of the uncertainty associated with reflexivity,but even I was taken by surprise by the extent of the uncertainty in2008.It cost me dearly.I got the general direction of the markets right,but I did not allow for the volatility.As a consequence,I took on positions that were too big to withstand the swings caused by volatility,and several times I was forced to reduce my positions at the wrong time in order to limit my risk.I would have done better if I had taken smaller positions and stuck with them.I learned the hard way that the range of uncertainty is also uncertain and at times it can become practically infinite.
Uncertainty finds expression in volatility.Increased volatility requires a reduction in risk exposure.This leads to what Keynes calls increased liquidity preference.This is an additional factor in the forced liquidation of positions that characterize financial crises.When the crisis abates and the range of uncertainty is reduced,it leads to an almost automatic rebound in the stock market as the liquidity preference stops rising and eventually falls.That is another lesson I have learned recently.
I need to point out that the distinction between near and far equilibrium conditions was introduced by me while trying to make some sense out of a confusing reality,and it does not accurately describe reality.Reality is always more complicated than the dichotomies we introduce into it.The recent crisis is comparable to a hundred-year storm.We have had a number of crises leading up to it.These are comparable to five or ten-year storms. Regulators who had successfully dealt with the smaller storms were less successful when they applied the same methods to the hundred-year storm.
*
These general remarks prepare the ground for a specific hypothesis to explain the recent financial crisis.It is not derived from my theory of bubbles by deductive logic.Nevertheless,the two of them stand or fall together.
So here it goes.I contend that the puncturing of the subprime bubble in 2007set off the explosion of a super-bubble,much as an ordinary bomb sets off a nuclear explosion.The housing bubble in the United States was the most common kind,distinguished only by the widespread use of collateralized debt obligations and other synthetic instruments.Behind
this ordinary bubble there was a much larger super-bubble growing over a longer period of time which was much more peculiar.
The prevailing trend in this super-bubble was the ever increasing use of credit and leverage.The prevailing misconception was the belief that financial markets are self correcting and should be left to their own devices.President Reagan called it the magic of the marketplace,and I call it market fundamentalism.It became the dominant creed in the1980s when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States and Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
What made the super-bubble so peculiar was the role that financial crises played in making it grow.Since the belief that markets could be safely left to their own devices was false,the super-bubble gave rise to a series of financial crises.The first and most serious one was the international banking crisis of1982.This was followed by many other crises,the most notable being the portfolio insurance debacle in October 1987,the savings and loan crisis that unfolded in various episodes between1989and1994,the emerging market crisis of1997/1998,and the bursting of the Internet bubble in2000.Each time a financial crisis occurred,the authorities intervened,merged away or otherwise took care of the failing financial institutions,and applied monetary and fiscal stimuli to protect the economy.
These measures reinforced the prevailing trend of ever increasing credit and leverage,but as long as they worked,they also reinforced the prevailing misconception that markets can be safely left to their own devices.It was a misconception,because it was the intervention of the authorities that saved the system;nevertheless these crises served as successful tests of a false belief,and as such,they inflated the super-bubble even further.
Eventually the credit expansion became unsustainable and the super-bubble exploded.The collapse of the subprime mortgage market led to the collapse of one market after another in quick succession because they were all interconnected,the firewalls having been removed by deregulation.That is what distinguished this financial crisis from all those that preceded it.Those were successful tests that reinforced the process;the subprime crisis of2007constituted the turning point.The collapse then reached its climax with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers,which precipitated the large-scale intervention of the financial authorities.
It is characteristic of my boom-bust model that it cannot predict in advance whether a test will be successful or not.This holds for ordinary bubbles as well as the super-bubble.I thought that the emerging market
英语演讲稿朱棣文在哈佛大学的演讲稿 Madam President Faust, members of the Harvard Corporation and the Board of Overseers,faculty, family, friends, and, most importantly, today's graduates, 尊敬的Faust校长，哈佛集团的各位成员，监管理事会 的各位理事，各位老师，各位家长，各位朋友，以及最重要的各 位毕业生同学， Thank you for letting me share this wonderful day with you. 感谢你们，让我有机会同你们一起分享这个美妙的日子。 I am not sure I can live up to the high standards of Harvard Commencement speakers. Lastyear, J.K. Rowling, the billionaire novelist, who started as a classics student, graced thispodium. The year before, Bill Gates, the mega-billionaire philanthropist and computer nerdstood here. Today, sadly, you have me. I am not wealthy, but at least I am a nerd. 我不太肯定，自己够得上哈佛大学毕业典礼演讲人这样 的殊荣。去年登上这个讲台的是，英国亿万身家的小说家J.K. Rowling女士，她最早是一个古典文学的学生。前年站在这里的是比尔?盖茨先生，他是一个超级富翁、一个慈善家和电脑高手。
百度文库- 让每个人平等地提升自我 1 中欧学院选拔招生初选结果及复试安排 各学院： 中欧学院选拔招生初试已经结束，现将初选结果（名单）及复试安排在此公布，详见附件。（复试将安排三项内容：英语口语面试、综合面试、非智力因素测试） 非智力因素测试需要携带2B铅笔、橡皮、签字笔。 时间：9月14日（星期五）13:30-14:30 地点：北教-24 201教室 附件：2018年中欧学院选拔招生复试名单及复试安排 中欧航空工程师学院 2017年9月10日
附件：2018年中欧学院选拔招生复试名单及复试安排 1、非智力因素测试: 14日13:30中欧201。带2B铅笔、橡皮、签字笔。 2、英语面试和综合面试的时间见以下表格： 英语面试地点：中欧（北教24）415 A组综合面试地点：中欧（北教24）514 No. Starting time (for English) Name Sex Orgnl Institute Speciality Starting time (for General) 英语面试组号英语面试 开始时间 姓名性别生源地学院专业 综合面试 开始时间 1 12日 8:00 刘川扬男四川电动学院电气工程及其自动化(航空电气) 12日 10:00 史江波男内蒙古电动学院电气工程及其自动化(航空电气) 2 刘峥翔男湖北电动学院电气工程及其自动化(航空电气) 潘瑞瑄男四川电动学院电气工程及其自动化(航空电气) 3 苏鉴博男河南电动学院电气工程及其自动化(航空电气) 王卓然男辽宁电动学院电气工程及其自动化(航空电气) 4 王龙江男山东电动学院电气工程及其自动化(航空电气) 敦奕亨男河北电动学院电气工程及其自动化(航空电气) 5 12日 10:00 付健铭男辽宁电动学院电气工程及其自动化(航空电气) 12日 8:10 朱世赫男辽宁电动学院电气工程及其自动化(航空电气) 6 邓培焱男四川电动学院电气工程及其自动化(航空电气) 肖孝武男江西电动学院电气工程及其自动化(航空电气) 7 郭云鹏男黑龙江电动学院电气工程及其自动化(航空电气) 刘滔男湖南电动学院电气工程及其自动化(航空电气) 8 沈锦辉男湖北电动学院电气工程及其自动化(航空电气) 韩伟舰男辽宁电动学院电气工程及其自动化(航空电气) 9 12日 13:20 樊杰男内蒙古电动学院电气工程及其自动化(航空电气) 12日 15:10 彭浩鸿男四川电动学院电气工程及其自动化(航空电气) 10 董华龙男山东电动学院电气工程及其自动化(航空电气) 彭博男辽宁电动学院电子信息工程(航空电子) 11 孙临枫男江苏电动学院电子信息工程(航空电子) 罗辰阳男江西电动学院电子信息工程(航空电子) 12 崔家豪男河北电动学院电子信息工程(航空电子) 马乐乐男河南电动学院电子信息工程(航空电子) 13 12日 15:00 熊长洪男湖北电动学院电子信息工程(航空电子) 12日 13:20 刘天柱男湖北电动学院电子信息工程(航空电子) 14 徐泽禹男山东电动学院电子信息工程(航空电子) 谢宇轩男山东电动学院电子信息工程(航空电子) 15 杜国北男辽宁电动学院电子信息工程(航空电子) 2
索罗斯中金论坛演讲稿 2008中金论坛录像说稿，11月21日 贵司邀请我解析席卷全球金融体系的金融危机，我将竭力阐述。 本次金融危机的显著特点是危机并别是由外部因素，例如石油输出国组织提高油价造成的，而是由金融系统本身导致。目前普遍的金融理论认为金融市场最终趋向均衡，而偏离均衡是由于市场难以调整某些外部突发事件导致的。而金融系统本身存在缺陷这一事实促使人们开始怀疑这一理论。我总结了另外一种理论，与如今的理论要紧有两点别同。第一，金融市场并别能准确地反映当前的市场环境，他们反映出的总是对现实状况的偏离或曲解。第二，市场参与者所持的并在市场价格中体现的这些曲解的观点在某些事情下妨碍了本应由市场价格体现的所谓基本面。我将市场价格和现实状况之间的双向联系称为反身性理论。 我认为金融市场具有反射性特点，同时在某些时候，他们会与所谓的市场均衡相去甚远。虽然金融市场总是具有反射性特点，但是金融危机不过间或，同时在特别特殊的事情下发生。通常来说，市场会自动修正本身的错误，但有些时候市场上会浮现某些错误的观点或认识，这些错误观点或认识会寻觅一种方式强调正确的趋向，同时在那个过程中强调了这些错误观点或认识本身。这种自我增强的过程可能导致市场远离均衡。除非能尽快消除这种反射性的互动，否则这种趋势将持续，直到这些错误观点或认识脚够明显，而必须被人们所意识到。当上述事情发生时，当前的错误趋向难以为续，发生逆转。因而当这种自我增强的过程反向运行时，将造成市场灾害性下跌。 市场繁荣和危机爆发总是别对称的。市场总是逐渐进入繁荣时期并逐渐加速进展。市场危机的爆发总是在特别短时刻内发生，并会迅速造成大幅的经济下滑。这种别对称性是由信用发挥的作用决定的。当价格上涨时，同样的抵押品能够获得更大额的信贷，而别断攀升的价格也制造出乐观的市场气氛，鼓舞人们更多地利用信贷。市场达到繁荣的顶峰时，抵押品价值和财务杠杆的利用确信也达到了极致。而当市场价格开始下落时，市场参与者无法承担追加保证金，正如我们如今看到的，抵押品被迫清盘导致市场发生灾害性下滑。 由此，市场泡沫由两部分组成：现实的趋向和对这种趋向的错误认识。最简单和最常见的密斯例子算是房地产。房地产市场的趋向是，一方面是贷款方别断提升的贷款意愿，另一方面是别断攀升的房地产价格。这其中存在的误解是房地产的价格在某种程度上是独立于贷款意愿的。这种错误观念促使银行家在价格别断上扬以及抵押贷款违约率减少的事情下放松了对贷款程序的管制。这就产生了房地产泡沫（包括美国最近发生的房产泡沫）。虽然房地产泡沫破碎差不多有很长阶段，但这种错误观念仍然以各种别同形式存在，着实令人吃惊。 市场泡沫别是金融市场反身性的唯一证明，但却是最显著的。市场泡沫总是伴随着信贷的扩张和收缩，同时带来灾害性的恶果。由于金融市场容易产生泡沫，而泡沫会扰乱市场，所以金融市场大多受金融监管机构的监管。在美国设有美联储、财政部、证券交易委员会等多家金融监管机构。 我们必须认识到，金融监管机构和市场参与者一样，利用曲解的市场观点做出推断。而金融监管机构可能尤甚于市场参与者，因为他们别仅是自然人，并且也十分官僚，而且受制于政治因素的干扰。所以，监管机构和市场参与者的互相妨碍也具有反身性的特点。与间或爆发的市场泡沫别同，监管机构和市场参与者之间的猫鼠游戏向来在持续，所以反身性的特点也向来存在，而忽略它的妨碍是错误的。但是当下普遍的金融理论恰恰忽略了反身性的特点，因而引发了当前严峻的金融危机。 1987年，我在出版的第一本书《金融炼金术》中，曾经阐述过我总结的金融市场理论。最近出版的《金融市场新范式：2008年信用危机及其意义》一书中，我又更新了这一理论。在该书中，我认为，当前的金融危机与以往发生的不少金融危机别同。那个论断是基于如此的假设：美国房地产泡沫的破碎引爆了20世纪80年代以来逐步形成的更大的超级泡
我在这个系列讲座中提出了一个能够更好地理解人类行为和事件的理念结构。这些事件不是由永恒有效的自然法规决定的。当然这些法规的确存在，但不足以决定事件的发展过程。原因之一是情况的复杂性，另一个原因是事件参与者的思维所起的作用。 我已经集中讲了相关反身性(reflexivity)的问题，即当事者的思维与现实情况的双向关联，以及我所强调的错误理解和错误观念对现实情况形成的因果关系。但这两种影响都很奇怪地被忽视了。这些影响给事物加入了不确定因素，结果是除了非常简单的情况以外，几乎不可能预测未来。 但我们仍然可以大略估计几种情况，并评估其可能性，也可以提出希望得到的结果。我在这两方面都做过，而且是多次尝试。的确，我可以称为是专家，作为投资者，我专注于预测(prediction)；作为公益慈善家，主要是为解决问题开处方(prescription)。我前者做得成功，足以支持后者。今天的讲座我想从预测和开处方这两个方面来谈。 当下所处的时刻，不定因素的范围异常广泛。我们刚刚渡过了二次大战以来最严重的金融危机。这个危机在量上大得多，质上也与以往的危机很不相同。可作相关比较的，是1991年日本发生的房地产泡沫破灭，至今尚未恢复；还有就是3年代美国的大萧条。与日本情况不同的是，那次危机仅限于一个国家，而这次危机卷入了全世界。与大萧条不同的是，这次没有允许让金融体系垮台，而是给它上了人工生命维持器。 事实上，我们当今所面临的信贷和杠杆问题(credit and leverage problem) 的深度和广度比3年代要严重得多。1929年时美国的信贷余额(credit outstanding)是国内生产总值(gdp)的16%, 到1932年增长到25%；而212年初是365% –这还不包括3年代时金融市场上尚未存在而如今广泛使用的衍生品(derivatives)。但尽管如此，人工生命维持器居然奏效了。雷曼兄弟公司倒闭不到一年，金融市场已经稳定，股市也已回升，经济显示复苏迹象。人们想回到一切照旧的情况，把 212年的崩溃只当成是一个恶梦。 但我很遗憾地告诉大家，复苏的势头可能会停止，甚至随之出现“再次衰退”(double dip)，而我不能确定的是这将发生在212年还是212年。 有这种观点的绝不止我一个人，但我的观点与目前的主导情绪不一样。复苏的时间越长，就会有更多的人相信复苏；但是据我的判断，这种主导情绪与实际情况相去甚远。这是典型的远非均衡的状况，此时人的感知往往落后于现实。更复杂的是，这种落后于现实是双向的。一方面，多数人还没有意识到这一次危机不同于以往–我们是处在一个时代的终点。另一方面，其他人包括我自己在内，未能预见到复苏反弹的程度。 混乱和困惑不只是在金融界，它延伸到整个国际舞台。 前苏盟帝国垮台后美国成了唯一的超级大国。没有其他大国或国家联盟可以
The Spider’s Bite When I was in middle school, a poisonous spider bit my right hand. I ran to my mom for help—but instead of taking me to a doctor, my mom set my hand on fire.After wrapping my hand with several layers of cotton, then soaking it in wine, she put a chopstick into my mouth,and ignited the cotton. 在我上中学的时候，一只有毒蜘蛛咬伤了我的右手，我去找母亲帮忙，但是她没有找医生，却把我的手放在火上面。她用酒浸过的棉纱绕着我的手缠了好几层之后，在我的嘴里放了一根筷子，然后点燃了棉纱。 【语言点解析】 Poisonous表示有毒的；恶毒的；讨厌的。例句：A lot of poisonous waste water comes from that chemical factory. 那个化工厂排出大量有毒的废水。 Heat quickly penetrated the cotton and began to roast my hand. The searing pain made me want to scream, but the chopstick prevented it. All I could do was watch my hand burn - one minute, then two minutes –until mom put out the fire. 棉纱上的温度很快上来了，我的手也开始发烫。这股灼痛让我想要大叫，不过我嘴里含着的筷子让我叫不出来。我唯一能做的就是看着我的手骨，一分钟过去了，两分钟过去了，直到母亲熄灭火。 You see, the part of China I grew up in was a rural village, and at that time pre-industrial. When I was born, my village had no cars, no telephones, no electricity, not even running water. And we certainly didn’t have access to modern medical resources. 所以你看到，我是在中国的一个小山村里成长的，在那个时候，并不发达。在我出生的那个年代，我们村没车、没电话、也没电，甚至都没有自来水！且理所当然地，我没有接触现代医疗资源的办法。 There was no doctor my mother could bring me to see about my spider bite.For those who study biology, you may have grasped the science behind my mom’s cure: heat deactivates proteins, and a spider’s venom is simply a form of protein. It’s cool how that folk remedy actually incorporates basic biochemistry, isn’t it? 当我被蜘蛛咬伤时，并没有医生可以来治疗我。对于学生物学的人来说，你也许能找到我母亲治愈背后所包含的科学原理：热量能够让蛋白质失活，而蜘蛛的毒液都是蛋白质组成的。将这个土方子和生物化学基础联系起来很神奇，不是吗？ 【语言点解析】 Folk remedy表示偏方。例句：The active component, willow bark, was used as a folk remedy as long ago as the 5th century BC. 它来自早在公元前五世纪就被用于民间配方的柳树皮，是这种树皮的一种有效成分。 But I am a PhD student in biochemistry at Harvard, I now know that better, less painful and less risky treatments existed. So I can’t help but ask myself, why I didn’t receive one at the time? 不过我现在是一个在哈佛学习生物化学的博士生，我现在知道了一个更好的、不那么痛、危险系数更小的治疗方法。所以，我忍不住问我自己，为什么那个时候我不能接受更好的治疗吗？
中国民航大学：推进大类招生新增两个本科专业 大类招生新增专业 中国民航大学2020年在航空工程学院实施大类招生，包含5个本科专业：飞行器动力工程、飞行器制造工程、机械电子工程、工业工程、材料科学与工程。 2020年新增材料科学与工程、无人驾驶航空器系统工程两个本科招生专业，分别设立在航 空工程学院、通用航空学院。 学校排名参考建议 从近三年的情况来看，理工科最低分位次基本上是在15,000~16,000名左右就可以进档，所有本科专业的平均分位置大概是在 14,000名左右。最高分平均是在 5000~6000位左右这么一个范围。由于今年实施新高考改革，基本上计算位置可能是要靠文理科相加这种方式去衡量参考，我个人认为这也是一个很重要的依据，只要你的位置达到了往年学校的文理科位次之和，我认为还是非常有希望的。尤其是对于理科生而言，希望更大，建议参考往年的最低分位次大胆报考。 录取规则 按照2019年章程录取规则：分数优先遵循志愿，按投档成绩排序，无专业极差，原则上进档考生服从专业调剂不退档，预计2020年不会发生太大变化。 毕业生平均月薪进 全国高校百强 毕业生行业内就业超过85%，北京作为国内航空运输排名第一的城市，我校北京生源远不能满足旺盛需求，因此北京考生报考我校具有极大优势，回京工作单位主要包括首都机场、各类航空企业总部及分公司，各类空管局、民航科研院所等。 工科实验班在北京招生吗？ 这个工科试验班是中欧航空工程师学院高考直招的专业，但从往年来看一直没有在北京招生。在别的省这个专业基本上要在一本线上至少60-70分以上。2020的计划编制还没有开始， 大家还是可以期待一下。 每年中欧航空工程师学院的招生大概是在110人左右。通过高考招生，也就是工科试验班的方式可能招到70-80%，剩下的通过入校二次选拔的方式补充进来，按照高考分数设定一个 标准。 民航大学偏信息类 有什么专业？
人的不确定性原则 演讲时间：2009年10月26日 ——金融投资家乔治·索罗斯在布达佩斯中欧大学系列讲座演讲稿 在我的一生中，我制定了一个概念框架帮助我既作为一个对冲基金经理去挣钱，也作为一个政策导向的慈善家去花钱。但是，框架本身是无关乎钱财的，它是关于思想和现实之间的关系，而这个问题从很早开始，就已经被哲学家们广泛地研究。 50年代末，我还是伦敦经济学院的一个学生时，就开始发展我的哲学。由于我提前一年参加了最后的考试，在我得到学位之前，有一年的空白时间去打发，可以选择导师对我进行指导，我选择了卡尔波普尔，一位维也纳出生的哲学家，他的名著《开放社会及其敌人》已经给我留下了深刻的印象。 在他的书中，波普尔认为，经验真理不能被绝对地肯定。即便科学规律也不可能摆脱疑云：他们可以被实验所证伪。也就是说，只要有一个实验数据证明这个理论是错的，就足以证明整个理论不成立，而哪怕有再多的数据支持该理论，也无法完全肯定该理论是对的。科学规律实际上是假设性质的，而真相永远有待检验。意识形态声称掌握着绝对真理是胡说八道，因此，他们只能由武力去推行。这适用于共产主义、法西斯主义、国家社会主义等等。所有这些思想最终都导致镇压。波普尔提出了一个更具吸引力的社会组织形式：开放社会，一个人们自由持有不同意见的开放社会，法律规则允许不同意见和利益的人和平相处。在这里，经历过纳粹和共产主义占领的匈牙利，我发现开放社会的理念具有极大的吸引力。 当我阅读波普尔时，我也在学习经济理论，我发现在波普尔强调知识永远是不完备的同时，经济学理论却有完全竞争理论，并假设知识是完备的，我被两者的矛盾难住了。这使我开始怀疑经济理论的假设。这是我哲学上的两大理论启示。当然，我的哲学也深深地植根于我个人的历史。 我一生中的经验成型于1944年德国对匈牙利的占领。那时我还不到14岁，拥有不错的富裕中产阶级背景，但突然之间，就因为我是犹太人，就面临着被驱逐和杀害的前景。 幸运的是我的父亲对这种非常态的事情是有充分准备的。他经历过俄国革命，那是他一生的宝贵经验。在那之前，他是一个雄心勃勃的年轻人，一战爆发后，他自愿参加了奥匈军队。他被俄国人俘虏，送到西伯利亚去成了战俘。由于野心，他成了犯人们自制报纸的编辑。这份报纸是手工写在一个木板上的，名字就叫“木板”。这份工作使他非常受欢迎，他被选为
Thank you, thank you, President Faust, and Paul Choi, thank you so much. It`s an honor and a thrill to address this group of distinguished alumni and supportive friends and cavelling parents. We`ve all gathered to share in the joy of this day, so please join me in congratulating Harvard`s Class of 2016. I can remember my own college graduation, which is easy, since it was only 14 years ago. How many of you took 37 years to graduate? Because, like most of you, I began college in my teens, but sophomore year, I was offered my dream job at Universal Studios, so I dropped out. I told my parents if my movie career didn`t go well, I`d re-enroll.It went all right.But eventually, I returned for one big reason. Most people go to college for an education, and some go for their parents, but I went for my kids. I`m the father of seven, and I kept insisting on the importance of going to college, but I hadn`t walked the walk. So, in my fifties, I re-enrolled at Cal State -- Long Beach, and I earned my degree.I just have to add: It helped that they gave me course credit in paleontology for the work I did on Jurassic Park. That`s three units for Jurassic Park, thank you. Well I left college because I knew exactly what I wanted to do, and some of you know, too -- but some of you don`t. Or maybe
2020年中国民航大学招生专业目录附各学 院专业设置 2020年中国民航大学招生专业目录附各学院专业设置 更新：2019-12-23 17:24:15 每个大学开始的专业都不相同，本文为大家介绍关于中国民航大学招生专业的相关知识。 包含中国民航大学有哪些系、中国民航大学各个系有什么专业和中国民航大学相关文章推荐的文章。 一、中国民航大学有哪些系和学院学院航空工程学院计算机科学与技术学院电子信息与自动化学院机场学院中欧航空工程师学院空中交通管理学院法学院乘务学院理学院外国语学院职业技术学院经济与管理学院飞行技术学院二、中国民航大学各个系有哪些专业学院专业航空工程学院飞行器动力工程（本）飞行器制造工程（本） 机械电子工程（本） 工业工程（本）计算机科学与技术学院计算机科学与技术（本） 信息安全（本）电子信息与自动化学院电子信息工程（本）电气工程及其自动化（本） 通信工程（本） 自动化（本）机场学院土木工程（本）
交通工程（本） 油气储运工程（本）中欧航空工程师学院飞行器动力工程（本）空中交通管理学院交通运输（本）法学院法学（本）乘务学院空中乘务（本） 民航空中安全保卫（本）理学院信息与计算科学（本） 统计学（本） 材料物理（本） 材料化学（本）外国语学院英语（本）职业技术学院机场现场运行指挥（本） 通用航空综合航务管理（本） 民航运输（本） 民航安全技术管理（本） 航空电子设备维修（本） 航空机电设备维修（本）经济与管理学院工商管理（本）会计学、（本） 财务管理、（本） 物流管理、（本） 经济与金融（本） 安全工程（本）飞行技术学院飞行技术（本） 应用心理学（本）三、中国民航大学相关文章推荐
索罗斯中欧大学系列演讲（五讲） 几十年前，为了保卫开放社会，卡尔波普尔将批判的炮火对准了马克思主义。然而几十年之后，声称是波普尔学生的索罗斯为了保卫开放社会，却把炮火对准了资本主义。 但那些想把索罗斯对资本主义的批判拉来为社会主义和权威主义 张目的人却失望了，即便索罗斯批判资本主义，也只是认为它不够纯粹，而不是转向另一种更糟糕的制度。 2009年10月26日至30日，索罗斯在布达佩斯中欧大学发表了一系列演讲，共五部分，系统地阐述了他的反身性理论，以及该理论在金融和社会科学方面的应用，并对未来之路做出了自己的见解。按照他的说法，此次的金融危机使他许多看法发生了变化，特别是在社会学领域。他注意到，资本主义是有缺陷的，缺陷就表现在反身性，当政客们学会了操纵而不是去理解社会的时候，他们的确可以做得非常成功，然而实际上，却损害了开放社会的真谛。 在经济上，他利用反身性原理分析了经济危机的形成，认为此次危机是一次超级大泡沫，是从70年代以来一次反身性的大爆发。并提出了加强监管。从某种程度上说，索罗斯对金融危机的批判，其离经叛道程度比之克鲁格曼有过之而无不及，而且更加实际和靠谱。但在索罗斯思想充满了独创性和真理因素的同时，反而是他对于加强监管的呼吁反而显得危险和空洞，缺乏具体的措施。 该系列演讲其中第一讲是历史和原理部分，着重谈到了卡尔波普尔的影响。第二讲是反身性在金融上的应用，以及对于此次超级泡沫的解释。第三讲谈到了开放社会，并谈了两种谬误，启蒙性谬误和后现代谬误，他对于布什政府的恶评也很有意思。第四讲，则着重谈到了资本主义对开放社会的威胁，以及金融等利益集团对于政治的反身性。第五讲，谈到了现在的局势和未来的走向，并谈到了中国崛起的问题。
Professor Lawrence H. Summers President of Harvard University Address to Peking University on May 14, 2002 [Vice] President Min, President Xu, thank you for all of those kind words, thank you for the hospitality that you have shown me, thank you for the hospitality that you have shown the visiting delegation from Harvard University. I believe we have gathered, these few days in Beijing, the largest delegation of faculty from Harvard University that has ever come to China. That is, I believe, a reflection of the importance of China to the world of the Twenty-First Century. It is a reflection of our common endeavor: the pursuit of knowledge, and the teaching of students. I am very excited to be here at one of China's great universities, [at] one of the world's great universities, and I am especially glad to have the chance to talk to so many of your students about the world that they are going to inherit. You know, if you think about what we do in universities, if you think about the phenomenon of globalization, I believe that our special role today and the phenomenon of globalization are manifestations of a yet deeper transformation that is going on throughout the world. And that is this: knowledge is becoming more central to every aspect of human activity than it ever has before. Think about some examples. I am
卓越航空工程师教育培养模式探索 本文以“卓越航空工程师教育培养计划”为背景，系统地分析了其专业培养方案的内容，对如何培养行业性特征鲜明，符合行业发展需要的复合型卓越航空工程师进行有益的探索，总结出分为阶段式的人才培养模式。 [标签]民用航空卓越航空工程师培养方案培养模式 [第一作者简介]于丽君，中国民航大学中欧航空工程师学院院长、副教授（天津300300） 中国教育部与欧洲工程大学教育研究联盟于2010年9月4日在上海共同签署了《关于中欧工程教育合作的谅解备忘录》，寄望中欧共同面对挑战，携起手来，在联合培养工程人才、促进工程教育资源和成果共享、共同加强工程教育研究、加深科研领域的合作等方面开展多层次、宽领域的工程教育交流与合作，不断提高中欧双方的工程教育质量。“中欧工程教育平台”是我国实施“卓越工程师教育培养计划”的重要行动之一。中国民航大学中欧航空工程师学院是“卓越工程师教育培养计划”试点单位之一，培养重点是中国民航行业发展所需的高端人才。 一、“卓越航空工程师计划”的国际平台 为了充分借鉴法国工程师精英教育培养模式与经验，系统地引进法国精英大学预科和航空工程师教育的优质资源，为国家民用航空业培养精英航空工程技术与工程管理人才。2007年经我国教育部批准，由中国民航大学与法国航空航天大学校集团（GEA）合作成立中外合作办学机构——中欧航空工程师学院。 卓越航空工程师教育学制6.5年。入选卓越航空工程师教育培养计划的学生在相应学习阶段学业期满成绩合格者，获得中国民航大学工学学士学位；在第四年通过我国硕士研究生统一入学考试，经过两年半专业课程学习达到硕士课程要求，获得中国民航大学工学硕士学位，同时获得由法国国家工程师学衔委员会（CTI）认定的工程师文凭。首批卓越航空工程师在2007至2010年考入中国民航大学理工类的学生中，按照从高分到低分的原则（考虑地区差异）推荐大约400名高分学生参加由中法双方组织的数学和英语考试，根据成绩选拔出200名学生参加英语口语考试及面试，最终选拔i00名优秀学生进入中欧学院学习。卓越航空工程师培养全过程特别注重多元文化的融合，注重培养学生的国际视野、团队合作精神与沟通能力，使学生具有很强的外语语言能力（英、法）和综合文化素养。 二、“卓越航空工程师计划”的组织及政策支持 作为中外合作办学机构，中欧航空工程师学院严格按照国家《中外合作办学管理条例》实施办学。在学院组织机构设立、校企联合办学、引进法方优质资源并整合校内优质资源、选送中方专业教师赴法国进修、设立学生校外实习基地等
日元贬值评估 1995年，索罗斯狙击日元。费了九牛二虎之力，整整用了六个季度时间，1美元兑换日元从100日元左右跌到124左右。日元贬值后，导致其他亚洲国家出口困难，直接引爆97亚洲金融危机。时隔17年后，索罗斯再次狙击日元，只用了区区六个月，1美元兑换日元，从2012年低点77.27贬值到94.46，最大跌幅28.71％。 这一次，亚洲金融危机难道要再次爆发？ 西方以什么理由攻击日元？ 攻击日元大赚的西方金融大鳄索罗斯们，透露说，他们为此已经准备了两年多。 据他们分析，根据日本截止至9月30日的公共债务数据，日本的公共债务总额为983万亿日元。据彭博社报道，日本有着世界上规模最庞大的养老保险体系。由于日本老龄人口的增加，养老保险基金正在出售其所持有的日本国债以满足日益增加的养老金需求。当养老保险基金的支出，大于收入时，意味着日本养老基金行业已触及庞氏骗局的临界点。也就是说，日本养老基金的收入规模已无法满足其养老金的发放需求。 日本养老保险基金（GPIF）是日本国债的最大持
有者之一。其资产的63%由日本本土发行的债券构成。在本财政年度，GPIF需要筹集8.87万亿日元以满足其资金需求。 日本如果想学美国欧洲那样开始保持预算平衡，就必须就减少债务。可惜，他们的债务很大一部分用于社会福利，无法削减。 如果日本不象美国欧洲那样增加税收，根据经济智库Variant Perception的数据，在2016年之前日本国债对现金和储蓄的占比就将达到100%，日本的储蓄将被填不满的债务黑洞消耗殆尽。届时日本将像希腊那样高举外债，而中国很可能成为日本政府最倚重的债务融资国。 用索罗斯们的话说，有N种理由做空日元。当然，索罗斯们还有最重要的一句话，藏在心底没说出来。2007美国金融危机，2012欧洲金融危机，现在轮到你们亚洲金融危机了！攻击日元不过是投石问路的开胃菜！ 索罗斯何许人也，他做空一种货币，肯定是这个国家这个地区出现巨大的问题！可笑的是，在日本政府的“欢迎”下，在日本股市的“繁荣”下，亚洲人居然忘记了，95年亚洲金融危机初期日本股市也是上涨的，忘记了索罗斯们是吃人不吐骨头的一群饿狼，
英语演讲稿100篇 篇一：父亲在女儿婚礼上演讲Philip, I wanna tell you a story. And like all good stories, it starts like this:Philip，我要跟你说个故事。 英语演讲稿（精品）想提高英语水平，可以听别人的英语演讲稿!下面是橙子为大家编辑的，供大家参考。篇一：我最喜欢的学科Dear teacher and classmates:I am very glad to make a speech here in this class again! This time, I\'d like to talk 英语演讲稿开场白精选范文篇一Today I come to Oslo as a trustee, inspired and with renewed dedication to humanity; I accept this prize on behalf of all men who loved peace and brotherhood. 关于英语演讲稿精选范文篇一Hello! I wonder whether everybody knows the meaning of these two words of energy-conservation and low carbon ? I assume as a matter of course and know. 英语演讲稿优秀范文篇一General IntroductionI am a third year master major in automation at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, P. R. China. With tremendous interest in Industrial Engineering, I am writing to apply for acceptance into your Ph.D. 1 / 14
202X法国留学的优势 法国留学的人数近年来也飙升，跟前几年相比可谓是巨大的变化。那么为什么会造成这么大的变化呢?学生为什么会愿意去法国留学呢?那么接下来呢，我就带大家看看202X法国留学的优势! 1. 高质量的教学 在国际上不同的院校排名统计中，法国综合大学(Université)和高等专业学院(Grande Ecole)均名列前茅。2007年《金融时报》(Financial Times)公布的40所优秀的管理类硕士院校中，法国有6所商校跻身十强。 2. 法国教育体制 法国高等教育按照学校类型分为综合公立大学和精英教育。公立大学主要注重理论教育，以研究为主，不向学生收取学费，只需每年三四百欧左右的注册费(相当于国内所收的学杂费)。法国大学教育分三个学位等级:三年制学士，五年制硕士和八年制博士。精英教育，是法国教育机制的一大特色。 比如要求相对较高的工程师学校。因工程师学校入学对学生入学条件要求极高、筛选严格，且培养方式优秀，因此其毕业生往往有很好的前途与"钱途"，并且在校期间就有带薪实习的机会，所以成为许多法国与海外求学者梦寐以求的理想院校。因此，无论是想学哪种专业，取得何种文凭，在法国都可以找到合适的选择。 3. 法语是个大优势 法国生活惬意 全世界五大洲有2亿人讲法语，745,000人正在学习法语。法语是欧盟和联合国机构的官方语言和工作语言。法语同时也是奥林匹克运动会官方用语。法国是世界上第五大贸易强国，是许多国家，尤其是欧洲国家的首要经济合作伙伴。法国的生活非常惬意，多姿多彩的文化、地理和美食
财富使法国成为世界上第一大旅游目的地国;法国的基础设施，尤其是在交通和卫生领域非常现代化;法国的高校通常坐落于城市中心，文化和社会生活设施十分便利;法国的社团也是世界上最多、最丰富，最活跃的。 4. 法国高等教育通过各种不同形式走向海外 在中国，一些法国工程师培养项目已经开始运作。2005年，北京航空航天大学与法国中央理工大学集团5所院校共同创建了北航中法工程师学院;2007年，中国民航大学与法国航空航天大学集团(由法国国立民航大学、法国高等航空航天学院、法国国立机械与航空技术大学组成)在天津共同创办了中欧航空工程师学院。 5.学成回国享受留法人员联谊会服务，就业前景看好 曾在法国留学和实习过的中国学生可以通过法国驻华使馆的留法学友(Club France)网站更好地维系友谊并获取相关服务，包括针对性强的信息、招聘启事、校友录、论坛以及在中国举行的有关法国经济文化活动的邀请等等。超过一千多家的法国在华企业将招收具有双重文化背景，精通法语并深谙法国文化的中国毕业生、工程师或管理人士。 6. 外国留学生享有同法国学生一样的权益 外国留学生可以享受住房补贴、社会保险以及大学餐饮、公共交通、电影院、剧院等折扣。在不超过年工作时间60%的条件下，可自由从事带薪工作。学生可以每周工作20来个小时，也可以把工作时间集中起来，在学校放假期间全职打工。外国学生在拿到硕士或相当于硕士的文凭(工程师文凭、高等商学院文凭等)后，可以申请6个月的居留证，以寻找或从事与所学专业有关的带薪工作。6个月结束后，如果已被雇用将获得允许在法国居住工作的居留证。 7.中国留学生获得的法国文凭在欧洲和中国都是认可的 为了配合欧盟教育制度标准化，法国高校现在完全采用欧洲的3级学制，即学士、硕士、博士学制。法国颁发给外国留学生和本国学生的文凭
公务员即兴演讲题目 【篇一：公务员面试常见问题练习3例：即兴演讲(含参 考答案)】 专家解析最新面试热点点这里！ 公务员面试常见问题练习3例：即兴演讲（含参考答案） 面试是一个角逐的过程，是能力与能力、细节与细节之间的较量， 因此入围面试的考生在备考期间一定要考虑到各个方面的细节， 还有疑问？点击这里一对一在线咨询。 【练习】把本单位救灾物资送到灾区，对灾区群众讲话！ 【答题要点】 （１）灾区朋友们，您们好！你们这里发生了８级强烈地震，地震 突如其来，房屋轰然倒塌，你们的家园顷刻间被夷为平地，几万人 被埋在了废墟里。你们的许多亲人、同学和老师永远地离开了你们。我们的心与你们一样，感到无比的悲痛。 （２）但是，大家要坚强起来，化悲痛为力量，有解放军和你们在 一起，有来自全国各地的救援人员和你们在一起，有我们和你们在 一起；在你们的身后，有强大的祖国！我相信，人在青山在！让我 们手牵着手，一起重建家园！ （３）全国各地各部门发扬“一方有难、八方支援”的传统美德，积 极开展了赈灾捐赠活动。这是我们单位所有员工叫我带给您们的一 份心意和一份爱心。 （４）相信有我们和你们永远在一起，心连心、手牵手，我们一定 能够战胜这场重大地震灾害，尽快走出困境，早日恢复生产，重建 美好家园。 专家解析最新面试热点点这里！ 【练习】大国崛起，你认为国家竞争力重要还是人的竞争力重要？(10分钟准备、3分钟演讲) 【参考答案】 各位考官好，我演讲的题目是《国之本，在于人，让国家竞争力和 人的竞争力形成良性循环》 国家竞争力的提升能对人的竞争力的提升提供良好的环境和广阔的 平台，人的竞争力的提升能为国家竞争力的提升提供源源不断的人 力资源和智力支持，是国家竞争力的核心。二者并不是相互矛盾的 关系，而是相互促进，形成良性循环的关系。因此，我认为二者都
第一讲：反身性概论 【注：本篇演讲浓缩了索罗斯一生智慧结晶，蕴含巨大的商业价值与社会价值。】 几十年前，为了保卫开放社会，卡尔波普尔将批判的炮火对准了马克思主义。然而几十年之后，声称是波普尔学生的索罗斯为了保卫开放社会，却把炮火对准了资本主义。 但那些想把索罗斯对资本主义的批判拉来为社会主义和权威主义张目的人却失望了，即便索罗斯批判资本主义，也只是认为它不够纯粹，而不是转向另一种更糟糕的制度。 2009年 10月 26日至 30日，索罗斯在布达佩斯中欧大学发表了一系列演讲，共五部分，系统地阐述了他的反身性理论，以及该理论在金融和社会科学方面的应用，并对未来之路做出了自己的见解。按照他的说法，此次的金融危机使他许多看法发生了变化，特别是在社会学领域。他注意到，资本主义是有缺陷的，缺陷就表现在反身性，当政客们学会了操纵而不是去理解社会的
时候，他们的确可以做得非常成功，然而实际上，却损害了开放社会的真谛。 在经济上，他利用反身性原理分析了经济危机的形成，认为此次危机是一次超级大泡沫，是从 70年代以来一次反身性的大爆发。并提出了加强监管。从某种程度上说，索罗斯对金融危机的批判，其离经叛道程度比之克鲁格曼有过之而无不及，而且更加实际和靠谱。但在索罗斯思想充满了独创性和真理因素的同时，反而是他对于加强监管的呼吁反而显得危险和空洞，缺乏具体的措施。 该系列演讲其中第一讲是历史和原理部分，着重谈到了卡尔波普尔的影响。第二讲是反身性在金融上的应用，以及对于此次超级泡沫的解释。第三讲谈到了开放社会，并谈了两种谬误，启蒙性谬误和后现代谬误，他对于布什政府的恶评也很有意思。第四讲，则着重谈到了资本主义对开放社会的威胁，以及金融等利