Sunday, December 31, 2006
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Milton Friedman Dies
Today's top news：Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who advocated an unfettered free market and had the ear of three U.S. presidents, died Thursday at age 94.
As I recalled my micro/macro-economics classes, Friedman's free market theory was one of the important economics theories that the professor taught. We once watched a video illustrating Friedman's theory. In the video, Friedman illustrated his free market theory. One of the example he used is Hong Kong economy, which gave me deep impression.
In tribute to Friedman, I include below an article about him from Wall Street Journal.
Milton Friedman: In His Own Words
November 16, 2006 2:52 p.m.
[A free economy] gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
The existence of a free market does not of course eliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining the "rules of the game" and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on. What the market does is to reduce greatly the range of issues that must be decided through political means, and thereby to minimize the extent to which government need participate directly in the game. The characteristic feature of action through political channels is that it tends to require or enforce substantial conformity. The great advantage of the market, on the other hand, is that it permits wide diversity. It is, in political terms, a system of proportional representation. Each man can vote, as it were, for the color of tie he wants and get it; he does not have to see what color-the majority wants and then, if he is in the minority, submit.
It is this feature of the market that we refer to when we say that the market provides economic freedom. But this characteristic also has implications that go far beyond the narrowly economic. Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men. The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated -- a system of checks and balances. By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement.
Capitalism and Freedom 1962
* * *
The two ideas of human freedom and economic freedom working together came to their greatest fruition in the United States. Those ideas are still very much with us. We are all of us imbued with them. They are part of the very fabric of our being. But we have been straying from them. We have been forgetting the basic truth that the greatest threat to human freedom is the concentration of power, whether in the hands of government or anyone else. We have persuaded ourselves that it is safe to grant power, provided it is for good reasons…
We have persuaded ourselves that it is safe to grant power, provided it is for good reasons. Fortunately, we are waking up. We are again recognizing the dangers of an overgoverned society, coming to understand that good objectives can be perverted by bad means, that reliance on the freedom of people to control their own lives in accordance with their own values is the surest way to achieve the full potential of a great society…
When the law contradicts what most people regard as moral and proper, they will break the law -- whether the law is enacted in the name of a noble ideal ... or in the naked interest of one group at the expense of another. Only fear of punishment, not a sense of justice and morality, will lead people to obey the law. When people start to break one set of laws, the lack of respect for the law inevitably spreads to all laws, even those that everyone regards as moral and proper - laws against violence, theft, and vandalism…
Self-interest is not myopic selfishness. It is whatever it is that interests the participants, whatever they value, whatever goals they pursue. The scientist seeking to advance the frontiers of his discipline, the missionary seeking to convert infidels to the true faith, the philanthropist seeking to bring comfort to the needy -- all are pursuing their interests, as they see them, as they judge them by their own values.
From Free to Choose, book 1980, PBS series
* * *
Responding to 2004 Journal interview question about the argument that the Bush tax cuts favor the rich.
The tax cuts did favor the rich because the top 1% of taxpayers pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. You can't give tax relief to those who don't pay a lot of tax. This is not a bad thing. What in fact do the rich do with their money? They can only consume a limited amount. In practice they end up either investing it or giving it away.
Some people say that those in the middle and low tax brackets are more likely to spend any tax relief they get, giving the economy a stimulus.
Well, that's a different argument and I do not accept it. It's very dubious. The tax cut may lead people to spend more, but that is offset by those who have less to spend because they buy the bonds to finance the deficit. In my opinion, we had a mild recession not because of the tax cuts but because of the Fed. Its expansionary monetary policy is the primary reason for the shallow recession. I do not believe that fiscal policy played a big role.
My support for tax cuts is not only on the supply side. I think the real problem is government spending… Where did you get the Clinton surpluses? They were the result of less legislation and less spending. When that gridlock was broken, many items had accumulated on the agenda and were put through.
Wall Street Journal interview 2004
* * *
I have sometimes been associated with the aphorism "There's no such thing as a free lunch," which I did not invent. I wish more attention were paid to one that I did invent, and that I think is particularly appropriate in this city [Washington], "Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own." But all aphorisms are half-truths. One of our favorite family pursuits on long drives is to try to find the opposite of aphorisms. For example, "History never repeats itself," but "There's nothing new under the sun." Or "look before you leap," but "He who hesitates is lost." The opposite of "There's no such thing as a free lunch" is clearly "The best things in life are free."
And in the real economic world, there is a free lunch, an extraordinary free lunch, and that free lunch is free markets and private property. Why is it that on one side of an arbitrary line there was East Germany and on the other side there was West Germany with such a different level of prosperity? It was because West Germany had a system of largely free, private markets - a free lunch. The same free lunch explains the difference between Hong Kong and mainland China, and the prosperity of the United States and Great Britain.
1993 Washington speech
As I recalled my micro/macro-economics classes, Friedman's free market theory was one of the important economics theories that the professor taught. We once watched a video illustrating Friedman's theory. In the video, Friedman illustrated his free market theory. One of the example he used is Hong Kong economy, which gave me deep impression.
In tribute to Friedman, I include below an article about him from Wall Street Journal.
Milton Friedman: In His Own Words
November 16, 2006 2:52 p.m.
[A free economy] gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
The existence of a free market does not of course eliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining the "rules of the game" and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on. What the market does is to reduce greatly the range of issues that must be decided through political means, and thereby to minimize the extent to which government need participate directly in the game. The characteristic feature of action through political channels is that it tends to require or enforce substantial conformity. The great advantage of the market, on the other hand, is that it permits wide diversity. It is, in political terms, a system of proportional representation. Each man can vote, as it were, for the color of tie he wants and get it; he does not have to see what color-the majority wants and then, if he is in the minority, submit.
It is this feature of the market that we refer to when we say that the market provides economic freedom. But this characteristic also has implications that go far beyond the narrowly economic. Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men. The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated -- a system of checks and balances. By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement.
Capitalism and Freedom 1962
* * *
The two ideas of human freedom and economic freedom working together came to their greatest fruition in the United States. Those ideas are still very much with us. We are all of us imbued with them. They are part of the very fabric of our being. But we have been straying from them. We have been forgetting the basic truth that the greatest threat to human freedom is the concentration of power, whether in the hands of government or anyone else. We have persuaded ourselves that it is safe to grant power, provided it is for good reasons…
We have persuaded ourselves that it is safe to grant power, provided it is for good reasons. Fortunately, we are waking up. We are again recognizing the dangers of an overgoverned society, coming to understand that good objectives can be perverted by bad means, that reliance on the freedom of people to control their own lives in accordance with their own values is the surest way to achieve the full potential of a great society…
When the law contradicts what most people regard as moral and proper, they will break the law -- whether the law is enacted in the name of a noble ideal ... or in the naked interest of one group at the expense of another. Only fear of punishment, not a sense of justice and morality, will lead people to obey the law. When people start to break one set of laws, the lack of respect for the law inevitably spreads to all laws, even those that everyone regards as moral and proper - laws against violence, theft, and vandalism…
Self-interest is not myopic selfishness. It is whatever it is that interests the participants, whatever they value, whatever goals they pursue. The scientist seeking to advance the frontiers of his discipline, the missionary seeking to convert infidels to the true faith, the philanthropist seeking to bring comfort to the needy -- all are pursuing their interests, as they see them, as they judge them by their own values.
From Free to Choose, book 1980, PBS series
* * *
Responding to 2004 Journal interview question about the argument that the Bush tax cuts favor the rich.
The tax cuts did favor the rich because the top 1% of taxpayers pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. You can't give tax relief to those who don't pay a lot of tax. This is not a bad thing. What in fact do the rich do with their money? They can only consume a limited amount. In practice they end up either investing it or giving it away.
Some people say that those in the middle and low tax brackets are more likely to spend any tax relief they get, giving the economy a stimulus.
Well, that's a different argument and I do not accept it. It's very dubious. The tax cut may lead people to spend more, but that is offset by those who have less to spend because they buy the bonds to finance the deficit. In my opinion, we had a mild recession not because of the tax cuts but because of the Fed. Its expansionary monetary policy is the primary reason for the shallow recession. I do not believe that fiscal policy played a big role.
My support for tax cuts is not only on the supply side. I think the real problem is government spending… Where did you get the Clinton surpluses? They were the result of less legislation and less spending. When that gridlock was broken, many items had accumulated on the agenda and were put through.
Wall Street Journal interview 2004
* * *
I have sometimes been associated with the aphorism "There's no such thing as a free lunch," which I did not invent. I wish more attention were paid to one that I did invent, and that I think is particularly appropriate in this city [Washington], "Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own." But all aphorisms are half-truths. One of our favorite family pursuits on long drives is to try to find the opposite of aphorisms. For example, "History never repeats itself," but "There's nothing new under the sun." Or "look before you leap," but "He who hesitates is lost." The opposite of "There's no such thing as a free lunch" is clearly "The best things in life are free."
And in the real economic world, there is a free lunch, an extraordinary free lunch, and that free lunch is free markets and private property. Why is it that on one side of an arbitrary line there was East Germany and on the other side there was West Germany with such a different level of prosperity? It was because West Germany had a system of largely free, private markets - a free lunch. The same free lunch explains the difference between Hong Kong and mainland China, and the prosperity of the United States and Great Britain.
1993 Washington speech
Sunday, November 12, 2006
饺子的回忆三则
天气渐渐凉下来了，又到吃饺子的时候。 最近想起以前在北京吃饺子的两三事。
一， 白菜馅饺子
和我年纪差不多的北方人可能都记得，小的时候,大白菜是老百姓的“当家菜”。 那时候，大白菜是政府补贴，各家限量，所以一斤大白菜才4、5分钱。一入冬，家家户户便开始准备冬储大白菜。一般的家庭一买就是一，二百斤。居民楼楼道里，阳台上都放满了大白菜。那时我家算是买的少的，也买一百斤左右。放在阴凉通风的楼道里晾干，然后再用报纸抱上，这样就可以吃上大半个冬天了。说了半天大白菜，那该说饺子了。既然大白菜是冬天的“主菜”，当然少不了白菜馅饺子。记得以前一到周末，楼道里就听见好几家“铛铛铛”剁白菜馅的声音。真是好不热闹。
二，饺子皮
提起饺子皮，就想起父亲擀的饺子皮。父亲擀饺子皮的技术是文革时到平谷下放期间跟当地的老乡学的。他擀的饺子皮十分标准，中间厚，边儿上薄。更为难得的是，父亲在准备面团时，尽量把每个面团切的差不多大小，最后剩下的面就均匀的加在之前切的面团上。这样，每张饺子皮大小， 厚薄基本上一样。由于父亲擀皮儿的技术娴熟，家里每次包饺子，一般都是由他擀皮儿。那时候，我们一包饺子便包一百多个，一顿吃不完，便放在冰箱里，第二天再做炸饺子。现在想起来，那时候的日子真是一种简单的幸福。不幸的是他去世后，他擀饺子皮的手艺在我家便失传了。
三，饺子屋
前几年，我家附近开了个饺子屋。 有时，父亲去世后，我们有时就去那里吃饺子。这家饺子屋的饺子皮薄馅大，经济实惠。饺子都是手工包的，馅料品种丰富，有普通的白菜馅，茴香馅，扁豆馅，三鲜馅，还有西红柿的，西葫芦等。加上小菜也很美味，每次去，都吃的十分开心。小店生意也十分红火，有时高峰时间，还要等座。只可惜前两年小店租期届满，房子被原本的副食店收回开了超市。
Saturday, November 04, 2006
The Game
Yesterday, my company announced an organization restructuring. Restructuring is probably one of the most frenquently used words in Corporate America culture, along with words such as "merger", "probe" or "scandal". A lot of times, restructuring also has an extended meaning of lay-off people.
The re-org annnouced yesterday was supposed to eliminate positions too---but the number of VPs,not ordinary employees. It is said the company got too many VPs throught out the years. Now it is time to lose those unused fat. But when the announcement came out, my impression was that there are some new people named as VPs, of which some postions are newly created. For those "losers", their names are not mentioned and are supposed to leave the company quietly.
Thus,in the end, the restructuring is like a game in the daily corporate culture. For those who win in this game, they come on board, create new organization structures and adopt new strategies ("strategy", right, they love this word). If things work out, everyone is fine. Otherwise, after a couple of years, there will be another restructuring with whatever purposes. What's more important is there will be new VPs, new structures and new strategies. ---Another new game.
The re-org annnouced yesterday was supposed to eliminate positions too---but the number of VPs,not ordinary employees. It is said the company got too many VPs throught out the years. Now it is time to lose those unused fat. But when the announcement came out, my impression was that there are some new people named as VPs, of which some postions are newly created. For those "losers", their names are not mentioned and are supposed to leave the company quietly.
Thus,in the end, the restructuring is like a game in the daily corporate culture. For those who win in this game, they come on board, create new organization structures and adopt new strategies ("strategy", right, they love this word). If things work out, everyone is fine. Otherwise, after a couple of years, there will be another restructuring with whatever purposes. What's more important is there will be new VPs, new structures and new strategies. ---Another new game.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Wham! in China Photos
In my previous post, I mentioned Wham! was the first western pop music visited China. 这里贴几张1985年Wham!照片。
Seeing is Believing
The above video clip is Dove's new ad, Evolution. It is quite a knock-out piece.. It shows how to turn a plain looking woman into a beautiful model. It's not just hair and brush, but also with the help of computer manipulation.
People say see is believing. After seeing this video, what do you believe?
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Live 25 on youtube.com
Live 25 on youtube
Careless Whisper, George Michael Live 25, Milan (10/06/2006)
这篇文章本来想写得长点儿，不过昨天发现了youtube上blog录像片段的功能后，便贴了个vedio clip过来，借此增加一下这个blog的hi-tech成份。 所以先贴写成的这些。
最近感想一：internet 真是好东东。套用中学历史/政治思想课本里常用一句话，就是“劳动人民智慧的结晶”。
感想二：youtube.com，网上录像分享网站，是一个创举，google花$1.65B也有些道理。
产生这些感想的原因就是因为我可以从网上看到George Michael Live 25的演唱会。GM的巡回唱只开在欧洲。不过没关系，身在大洋这边的我依然可以及时看到演出的现场情况。这全靠了Youtube上热心的粉丝们上传的现场录像。虽然这些段子的都是大家用自己的摄像机/手机拍的，质量参差不齐，不过大致还是可以从中看到演唱会的盛况。比如，GM在演唱shoot the dog时，释放了一个巨大的充气“布什”人偶，接着又从“布什”裤子中弹出了一个英国狗。这个安排第一次在巴塞罗那的首场演出时轰动一时。第二天的google news 上有几十条新闻头条都报道了”Geroge Michael’s anti-Bush stunt” . 没过两天，youtube.com上就有了当时现场录像片段。这个录像被很多粉丝看过，以至于后来的演唱会中大家再看到这个充气娃娃，已不象第一次看到使那么惊讶，而是更多的enjoy它的滑稽效果。
被上传的比较多的是著名的careless whisper. 几乎每场演出的careless whisper 都有被上传。 下面贴得是在Milan那场的careless whisper. 这是整首歌都被录了下来。Milan10月6日的这场表演是目前为止反响热烈的几场之一。据去过的粉丝在网上留言， careless whisper是这场的亮点之一。George刚起了个头，下面观众的高声合唱便让他在第二句时不得不停了一下。这首歌舞台上下彼此呼应，最后George 还说了句“Unbelievable”. (My thought is: GM, you just turned a live concert into a huge live karaoke show)
Careless Whisper, George Michael Live 25, Milan (10/06/2006)
这篇文章本来想写得长点儿，不过昨天发现了youtube上blog录像片段的功能后，便贴了个vedio clip过来，借此增加一下这个blog的hi-tech成份。 所以先贴写成的这些。
最近感想一：internet 真是好东东。套用中学历史/政治思想课本里常用一句话，就是“劳动人民智慧的结晶”。
感想二：youtube.com，网上录像分享网站，是一个创举，google花$1.65B也有些道理。
产生这些感想的原因就是因为我可以从网上看到George Michael Live 25的演唱会。GM的巡回唱只开在欧洲。不过没关系，身在大洋这边的我依然可以及时看到演出的现场情况。这全靠了Youtube上热心的粉丝们上传的现场录像。虽然这些段子的都是大家用自己的摄像机/手机拍的，质量参差不齐，不过大致还是可以从中看到演唱会的盛况。比如，GM在演唱shoot the dog时，释放了一个巨大的充气“布什”人偶，接着又从“布什”裤子中弹出了一个英国狗。这个安排第一次在巴塞罗那的首场演出时轰动一时。第二天的google news 上有几十条新闻头条都报道了”Geroge Michael’s anti-Bush stunt” . 没过两天，youtube.com上就有了当时现场录像片段。这个录像被很多粉丝看过，以至于后来的演唱会中大家再看到这个充气娃娃，已不象第一次看到使那么惊讶，而是更多的enjoy它的滑稽效果。
被上传的比较多的是著名的careless whisper. 几乎每场演出的careless whisper 都有被上传。 下面贴得是在Milan那场的careless whisper. 这是整首歌都被录了下来。Milan10月6日的这场表演是目前为止反响热烈的几场之一。据去过的粉丝在网上留言， careless whisper是这场的亮点之一。George刚起了个头，下面观众的高声合唱便让他在第二句时不得不停了一下。这首歌舞台上下彼此呼应，最后George 还说了句“Unbelievable”. (My thought is: GM, you just turned a live concert into a huge live karaoke show)
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Thursday, September 28, 2006
After All These Years
恩，大概是从ELLE上的一条消息开始的吧。9月份的ELLE上，The Comback George Michael 文中提到George Michael 的九月份开始的Live 25欧洲音乐会。Live 25是纪念GM 从事音乐四分之一世纪。这也是GM15年以来的首次巡回演出。
George Michael这个名字可真是久违了。George Michael和Andrew Ridgely 组成的Wham!在80年代初迅速走红。那时的GM英俊，帅气，成为了偶像型的大男孩，迷倒许多女歌迷。与此同时，他又写了Careless Whisper 这首脍炙人口的歌曲，并因此获得了当年Ivor Novello Awards的最佳歌曲创作奖。85年Wham! 到中国演出，这可是在那时刚刚开放的中国的一件新鲜事，并且吸引了大量西方媒体的关注。Wham! 通过在中国的演出迅速确立了他们在国际流行乐坛的地位。Wham! 在中国的演出只有北京和广州两场，虽然有西方评论说Wham!的China trip 并不十分成功（you know why)，但他们还是将西方的流行音乐带给了开放初期中国，并对后来中国流行音乐产生了一定影响。 对于我来说，Wham!和GM成了我的西方pop music的启蒙。Wham!的几首脍炙人口的歌曲，Bad Boys, Club Tropicana, Freedom等都是我常听的歌曲。奇怪的是，Careless Whisper 并不是我的top choice, 大概是too good to be true 吧。
86 年，Wham!解体。GM 转为独唱。Solo后的GM在事业很成功，达到了他的事业的巅峰。先后出了Faith和 Listen Without Prejudice。其中，Faith得了89年Grammy最佳专辑。他的歌曲和嗓音使他成为一名成功的white soul singer。同时，他褪去了sunny boy的形象，胡茬和墨镜成了他外形特色(当然都是designer的），照片上已经很难看到他灿烂笑容了。（对于我来说，他变越来越weird）。同时，GM 渐渐远离公众视点。在国内很少听到他的消息了。只有98年，GM的LA猥亵公厕事件后，国内的传媒还报道过。渐渐的， 我也很少听GM 的歌曲和关心他的消息了。
这次关注GM Live 25演唱会，才重新关注这些年发生的一些事情。从90年代中，GM出得作品并不多，仅有Older（1996）, Songs from last century（1999）和Patience（2004）。并且，GM 也再没有做过现场演出，只是偶尔出席慈善演出而以。所以，这次的Live 25演唱会已推出，48场60万门票很快销售告罄。另外，GM在音乐以外的事不断，他与Sony的官司，巴西男友和GM的母亲的先后去世，LA公厕事件等等。今年，又有如交通事故，公园野战等的报道。现在的GM真可够的算得上是典型的有争议的celebrity了( 当然了，celebrity要是不contraversial, 怎能有卖点，看看人家Madonna和Janet Jackson—all right, let’s stop here)。
附上两张GM 的照片。一张是Wham! 时期的照片, 那时的他大概才20出头，一身便装，笑容灿烂，就像邻家的大男孩。另一张是Patience 的宣传照。如今的GM一出场，必是designer 墨镜 和Armani 的西装，并且常常是把头一扭，一幅酷相。让人不禁感慨，25年的岁月到底改变了些什么。
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Sponsor
一日，和几个同事聊天谈到国内90年代某女歌星。一同事曰，此女曾被一公司老总包下过。另一同事不解，何谓“包下”？此老兄出国多年，对许多新名词不甚了解。于是便告诉他，“包下”就是sponsor的意思。
之后几人又谈到下个星期公司组织去游乐园一事。这次活动不能算是公司组织的，所以，一般人要去要用自己的假期，还要购票（打折票），但财务部的老板们决定利用这次机会犒劳大家，sponsor大家，组织财务的同志们免费去。可一查才发现游乐园路途遥远，于是便与人商量可否打退堂鼓。“这怎么行，”另一同事说，“没看见全财务的都被包下了（sponsor)吗？"
之后几人又谈到下个星期公司组织去游乐园一事。这次活动不能算是公司组织的，所以，一般人要去要用自己的假期，还要购票（打折票），但财务部的老板们决定利用这次机会犒劳大家，sponsor大家，组织财务的同志们免费去。可一查才发现游乐园路途遥远，于是便与人商量可否打退堂鼓。“这怎么行，”另一同事说，“没看见全财务的都被包下了（sponsor)吗？"
Thursday, July 27, 2006
会计专业知识与职业道德
近两天看了FT中文网上的一篇文章，说中国注册会计师协会(CICPA)聘请英国特许公认会计师公会(Association of Chartered Certified Accountants)帮助培训大学会计学教师，目的旨在与解决合格会计师严重短缺的问题。 文章说，随着中国企业寻求到海外上市，中国缺乏会计专业知识技能的问题已很明显。文章指出虚假中国会计账目可能会阻碍部分投资者和债权人进入中国，或者使他们无法做出正确决策，从而影响经济增长。
其实，对于虚假会计报表问题，光提高会计，尤其是注册会计师职业的专业知识是不够的。 专业知识只是两条腿走路中的一条。而另一条则是职业道德。一个好的注册会计师不仅要有丰富的专业知识，还要有客观公正，诚实可信职业操守。只有这样才能为让市场参与者提供该质量的会计报表。 前几年著名的Anderson会计师事务所的垮台不就是一个例子吗。Anderson 参与了Enron 的丑闻，但并不足以另这个跨国的会计师事务所在短短的几个月中垮台。Anderson迅速解体的根本原因是因为大众失去了对它的信任。公众对Anderson不再信任审计的报表， 因此很多大公司纷纷更换了会计事务所。 可见职业道德之重要。
其实，对于虚假会计报表问题，光提高会计，尤其是注册会计师职业的专业知识是不够的。 专业知识只是两条腿走路中的一条。而另一条则是职业道德。一个好的注册会计师不仅要有丰富的专业知识，还要有客观公正，诚实可信职业操守。只有这样才能为让市场参与者提供该质量的会计报表。 前几年著名的Anderson会计师事务所的垮台不就是一个例子吗。Anderson 参与了Enron 的丑闻，但并不足以另这个跨国的会计师事务所在短短的几个月中垮台。Anderson迅速解体的根本原因是因为大众失去了对它的信任。公众对Anderson不再信任审计的报表， 因此很多大公司纷纷更换了会计事务所。 可见职业道德之重要。
Friday, July 21, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)