一看就是最近上網上多了，看電視看多了，日志將的都是時政要聞。就當為準備.準備告別學生時代做個準備吧.

CET 21日晚，高盛（Goldman Sachs）& 摩根斯坦利（Morgan Stanley）最后兩家獨立投資銀行（independent investment banks）宣布重組為過大規模的，較低風險承擔的機構，即銀行控股公司（bank holding companies/deposit-funded commercial banks），并且受制于聯邦儲備局的政策調控。"The change means they will be able finance their activities with insured deposits but in return must reduce the amount they can borrow to make the kind of big trading bets that drove huge profits, and massive bonuses for executives, over the last several years of Wall Street’s latest Gilded Age”.

Ben White @ NY Times use "Starting a New Era at Goldman and Morgan" as the headline of his comment in which he also states that  "The changes by Morgan Stanley and Goldman essentially bring to an end the era of the big, independent Wall Street investment bank and a return to the model that dominated before the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 forbade commercial banks from also owning securities（有價證券） firms".

It seems if one business model doesn't work very well, it will finally return to an old era. What does development mean? A way back into the most efficient structure?

And talking about the hot topic I'm reading recently, will there be an alternative model other than neo-liberalism globalization?

目前要不要自由的爭論繼續進行著，政府在經濟發展中到底撒手到什么程度？政府的意義和職能包裹促進經濟發展嗎？如果包括，工業發展為什么能自由呢？原諒一些無知的提問吧，以前的即使是馬克思主義政治學的那點東西都忘得一干二凈了。

Anyway, "By becoming bank holding companies, Morgan Stanley and Goldman are agreeing to significantly tighter regulations and much closer supervision by bank examiners from several government agencies rather than only the Securities and Exchange Commission. Now, the firms will look more like commercial banks, with more disclosure, higher capital reserves and less risk-taking".看來，目前這最后兩大是很無奈的被招安了。

Another two things interested to know is that: first, never noticed before Mitsubishi has such big of power. (And about Japanese moguls, Matsushita and Sony are the world's top 2 biggest consumer electronic firms.) "Morgan Stanley moved quickly into the new era on Monday, announcing that it planned to sell up to a 20 percent stake in itself to Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Japan’s largest commercial bank, for about $8 billion. Mitsubishi has $1.1 trillion in bank deposits, which will help bolster Morgan’s stability of financing. Goldman Sachs is also expected to move to increase its deposit base and add more capital to its balance sheet".

Secondly, Morgan 在宣布改組之前，had sought other ways to bolster its capital and had been in advanced talks with China’s sovereign wealth fund （主權財富基金）and others about raising billions of dollars.

What's China's role in the world at present or in future?

Thinking about reading a book Chinese Economic Performance in the Long Run: 960-2030 Ad By Angus Madison. 提到中國在宋朝時就是世界最大經濟體，而2030中國會重新實現這一角色。2030并不遙遠，等待驗證：）

More related from NYtimes:

"For decades, firms like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs thrived by taking bold bets with their own money, often using enormous amounts of debt to increase their profits, with little outside oversight. They were the envy of Wall Street, dominating the industry’s most lucrative businesses, landing headline-grabbing deals and advising companies and governments on mergers, stock offerings and restructurings.But that brash model was torn apart over the last several weeks as investors lost confidence in the way they made those bets during the recent credit boom, when investment banks expanded with aplomb into esoteric securities, the risks of which were not easily understood. Over several harrowing days, clients started pulling their money, share prices plunged and these banks’ entire enterprises were brought to the brink. In exchange for subjecting themselves to more regulation, the companies will have access to the full array of the Federal Reserve’s lending facilities. It should help them avoid the fate of Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy last week, and Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch — both of which agreed to be acquired by big bank holding companies. The decision by the banks to become a holding company also raises questions about whether the Federal Reserve will seek to regulate hedge funds, many of the largest of which closely resemble investment banks like Goldman. Just a year ago investment banks, the titans of global finance, considered bank regulation a millstone to be avoided at all costs. Commercial banks have to subject themselves to restrictions on how much money they can borrow and what kinds of businesses they can be in. Lobbyists for firms like Goldman spent years fending off closer supervision of their business. As bank holding companies, the two banks, whose shares have lost about half their value this year, will have to reduce the amount of money they can borrow relative to their capital. That will make them more financially sound but will also significantly limit their profits. Today, both Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have $1 of capital for every $22 of assets. By contrast, Bank of America’s has less than $11 for every $1 of capital. As bank holding companies, Morgan and Goldman will have greater access to the discount window of the Federal Reserve, which banks can use to borrow money from the central bank. While they were allowed to draw on temporary Fed lending facilities in recent months, they could not borrow against the same wide array of collateral that commercial banks could. The discount window access for investment banks is expected to be phased out in January".