不记名转载我的资料...无语了

我是一个温和的人... 但是,转载我如此辛苦做出来的资料能不能说一声!!!

Oct 23rd 2008 From The Economist print edition

Land reform in China
Still not to the tiller

Oct 23rd 2008
From The Economist print edition

A timid approach to an issue of burning concern to one-eighth of the world’s people

AGAINST the ear-piercing screech of the global economy hitting the brakes, what sounded like a piece of good news could still be heard this week. China’s Communist Party unveiled its plan to double, by 2020, the disposable income of the 750m people in the Chinese countryside. One way it hopes to achieve this is through land reform. The party’s propagandists hailed this as a “landmark” decision, even drawing parallels with an event for which 30th anniversary celebrations loom: the launch of China’s reforms, with Deng Xiaoping’s rise to political ascendancy in December 1978. Sadly, there is less to the new reform than meets the eye. As so often with long-awaited party pronouncements, much of the “breakthrough” is already common practice and the toughest issues are skirted. The actual reform is rather minor.

At least, however, it is aimed at the right target: the obstacles preventing farmers from exchanging their land, and building bigger, more economic, landholdings by consolidating the “noodle strips” of family plots they have held since the break-up of the old rural communes. These obstacles have indeed suppressed productivity, incomes and social mobility in the countryside, and contributed to the widening gap between town and country. Removing them would be a huge boost to China’s economy. Introducing a proper market in agricultural land would also do much to reduce one of the main sources of social tension in China: land-grabs by local authorities for which peasants are often poorly compensated, if at all. Every year, there are tens of thousands of protests across China by the disgruntled dispossessed.

China’s cities have set the example. There the housing market has been in effect privatised for a decade. Land is state-owned but easily traded on long leases. The resulting boom in home-ownership has been a huge factor in the emergence of a prosperous middle class-now grappling with the unfamiliar horrors of a falling market .

The new plan promises something similar in the countryside. It allows farmers “to lease their contracted farmland or transfer their land-use rights”. Since decollectivisation and the introduction of Deng’s “household-contract responsibility system”, rural land has been held by individual families. But it has remained “collectively” owned. Farmers have been granted 30-year leases, or land-use rights, which the party is now promising to make easier to transfer. That, however, is already allowed by law and has been happening for years.

The “new” proposals are not explicit on this, but a senior official has since suggested that leases may be made longer than 30 years. Yet the shortness of most peasants’ contracts-if they are lucky enough to live in places where local officials have got around to handing them out-is only one part of the problem. The party does not propose lifting the legal ban on farmers’ mortgaging their land and houses. So it will remain difficult for them to raise money to up sticks. Nor does it tackle the biggest issue: “collective” ownership, which the party decrees must not change. This may be partly for fear of making a near-reality of private landownership, which would undermine one of the last vestiges of the party’s communist heritage.

What collective means in theory is rather woolly; in practice, much less so. It often refers to a bunch of party-approved village apparatchiks arrogating ownership rights for themselves. It is their stitching up of deals, pocketing of kickbacks and fleecing of farmers that provokes so many protests. Besides safeguarding their interests, the latest plan also preserves strict limits on the transfer of arable land. To preserve “food security”, China has set a minimum area for the country’s farmland-120m hectares, just below the present level.

Something old, something new
It is on the non-arable “construction” land that the latest policy offers something new. It extends an experiment tried in Guangdong province, allowing such land to be traded without first going through government acquisition. In practice, of course, farmers will still be hostage to the whims of the collective and its often ugly human faces. Only a far more fundamental political reform would solve that problem: defining collective more precisely and opening the top job in the village, the party secretaryship, to genuinely competitive elections, ideally including non-party candidates.

It is a shame that such a reform is not on the cards; and that, even without it, the party’s approach to land reform is so timid. But, recalling those epochal reforms of 30 years ago, it is worth remembering that they too tended to come in baby steps rather than great leaps, and often were formulated retrospectively. In tiptoeing gingerly around one of the last Maoist shibboleths-collective landownership-the party may yet be sowing the seeds of the rural transformation it promises.

招募小弟兄姐妹们做助手帮忙

近事情实在太多了,而又很多给我的学生们的资料却没有时间去编辑完成,为了尽快的完成这些应该编辑的资料,写了这个招募的启示:

1.找人帮忙,自然助手的男女不限;

2.自己是英语老师,自然助手的英语水平不限;

3.找人帮忙,自然可以提供帮忙的程度不限;1个星期帮我一个小时也好))

干啥?

1.比如翻译已经有的托福阅读文章  (方便同学理解);

2.编辑我已经写好答案的题目的格式(方便同学来看);

3.做一些电子版的笔记           (方便同学日后复习等等);

4.等等

回报:

0.没有现金回报

1.针对你个人的SAT|GRE|TOEFL的第一手指导(一定提供)

2.吃吃喝喝 (如果你在北京的话)

3.称兄道弟 (如果最终投缘的话)

4.借书     (如果你喜欢看书的话)

要是你能够有兴趣的话,给我邮件吧)

Mail@Liuwenyong.com

新的方法可以保证box.net一直处在良好的状态

弟兄们

新的方法可以保证box.net一直处在availble的状态

注意新的下载方法

另外:

1.不要问我为什么不老老实实的使用公共邮箱

不信可以试着去找一个可以无限次下载15G附件且单个文件1G的公共邮箱试试...[QQ邮箱附件只能下载200次]

2. 之所以要花200$去买box.net的企业帐号不是我有钱烧着慌,是因为我每次在课上说同学们自己去网上找模考软件的时候,都有同学和我说

老师,我不知道去哪里找模考软件...

(于是我才决定搞一个box.net的帐号,实现学生们的阅读资料"一站式"下载)

3. box.net国内并不流行,但的确是最稳定与安全的网络储存服务提供商,如果下载速度较慢,那就等一等吧,比如开着电脑一个晚上之类的,总能够下载成功的.

4. 前几次的box.net之所以出现问题,客服的人说是因为我的流量太大了,所以拜托大家不要多次重复下载喽)

box.net又可以用了

Hello,
The issue you have reported was recently fixed.  Thank you for your patience in this matter; we apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.  If your experience suggests otherwise, then please reply to this message and we will look into the matter right away.
Sincerely,
The Box.net team

box.net又出问题了!!

靠,我的200美元!!!

新作了一个专门给我的弟兄们的文档

       我常常收到同学的邮件，要我推荐各种各样阅读材料,问我iBT的复习资料中 Barron,Longman,Delta哪个更好等等。我其实很无奈---因为尽管这些机构很大牌,但大牌丝毫都不意味着文章“质量高”(比如你可以想想三水壶。附近的花鸟市场有塑料的喷水壶，可惜它是塑料的。当然，玻璃的水壶易碎。我宽容卖塑料喷水壶小贩所能给的理由，鹿奶粉)---说这些机构的文章质量不高,并不是说文字写得不好,而是说这些文章的句子结构,论述方式,出题思路与ETS的并不一致(有时候甚至大相径庭)。用这样的材料训练，实在是事倍功半。

       于是我们实在应该去找找由ETS出的iBT文章来做。这个文档之中所收录的22篇文章,就是ETS为新托福所出的22篇文章(还有另外的一些文章将会出现在另外的版本之中)。其中包括,OG之中的10篇文章,4套TPO[1]之中的3*4=12篇文章,报名之时ETS赠送的3篇在线测试题:一共25篇.可由于TPO之中有一套与OG之中完全相同,于是减去3篇,一共22篇.在这22篇由ETS出的文章没有做完之前，我们实在不应该花时间在任何其他的题目之上。我有时候甚至会对着我的弟兄们高呼：“没有把这２２篇做３遍，你好意思上考场么？”

        另外，如果你正在准备iBT-SAT-GRE作文或者写PS，也应该仔细的琢磨一下这些文章：经过ETS打磨的文章，无一不是精妙绝伦，极具模仿价值。常常有同学拜托我帮她（他）写PS，说自己的句子怎么看都像小学生写的（尽管用上了GRE里面的单词），也会随口问我“2师兄，您的PS写作能力是怎么训练出来的。”我说，“看呗，看呗：托福文章看多了，写作能力自然就提高了。”

        “这ETS的这些文章真的那么好？”。每当听到这个问题，我都会装做赵本山的样子来一句

        “谁用谁知道～～”

2shixiong

2008-09-17

在这里下载

http://www.box.net/shared/d4eqv2xthh

[1] TOEFL Practice Online: http://toeflpractice.ets.org/ (由ETS提供的，要给钱的模拟考试)

虎平引诱着我看陈志武

恩

陈志武

这个名字听起来不错

结婚好还是单身好?

李斯特说:

无论你选择哪一个,你都会后悔

我是个卖手表的...