How Obama Can Fix The Economy
I'm mystified by all the hand-wringing about what a terrible time it is to be a new U.S. president.
Think of the presidents who have been judged by history to be truly great -- Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, George Washington -- and they've all served in times of crisis. But imagine what it would be like to be president when the crisis first unfolds, such as Herbert Hoover or now George Bush.
After all, the electorate wouldn't be clamoring for change if everything were great, if easy credit remained there for the asking, stocks were hitting new all-time highs and speculators were still flipping Las Vegas condos. Crisis provides the political cover for undertakings that would otherwise be unthinkable.
Among other boons, for the time being we can forget about the deficit, because one thing we know from the Great Depression and Keynesian economics is that in crises like this the government has to get out there and spend. World War II produced the biggest deficits as a percentage of gross domestic product in U.S. history -- and an end to the Depression. There will be time to balance the budget later.
With that in mind, here are my prescriptions for the economic crisis, were I stepping into the White House.
Shoring up the banking and financial system must take first priority. Confidence, which eroded steadily after the demise of Bear Stearns, must be restored. We learned from the disaster at AIG that you can't build a moat around the big banks and call it a day.
The non-bank participants in the global financial system are just as important, since the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. This means providing capital and liquidity to insurance companies and industrial finance arms like GMAC and GE Capital in return for preferred stock and ownership stakes where appropriate. These should be good investments, since so much of the crisis is psychological, and values will rebound when confidence is restored.
The U.S. needs a comprehensive policy for faltering industrial concerns, probably starting with the auto industry.
This can't be another case-by-case, ad hoc approach that arbitrarily favors some companies deemed too big to fail while consigning others to bankruptcy court. I favor the Warren Buffett approach: preferred shares that pay interest and warrants to acquire an equity stake at an attractive price. In fact, I might even ask Mr. Buffett to step up to this task. This can't be a bailout of private-equity firms or existing shareholders. Someone in the Treasury will have to start thinking like a distressed-asset manager, since he or she will be managing the taxpayers' money to earn a profit and will have to make tough-minded decisions about which investments are likely to pay off and which aren't.
Will this be branded 'socialism ' Not if the U.S. consistently manages its stakes as though it had a fiduciary duty to taxpayers, as opposed to management, labor, and other interests. The U.S. should be as tough on these companies as any private-equity firm, do what it takes to turn them around for the long term, and then get out, hopefully at a profit.
Another lesson from the Depression is that spending on infrastructure helps, and can also be an excellent long-term investment. China just unveiled a $586 billion program that includes spending for airports, rail lines and highways, housing and other programs. These should raise quality of life, enhance productivity, and provide an economic boost. There's no shortage of similar needs in the U.S.
If I'd just been elected on a promise to reduce dependence on foreign oil, I'd pour money into public transportation, including links between airports and central city transportation hubs. (I'd like to make a personal plea for an efficient rail line between New York's Kennedy airport and Midtown.) And I'd invest in education and the arts, which will be starving for new facilities given soaring state and municipal deficits. I would certainly not be investing in bridges to nowhere, which is why this program has to be run from the White House, not Congress.
I'd end compensation for failure. I'd legislatively ban employment contracts that call for huge severance payments without regard to performance. And I'd make prosecuting those guilty of fraud a top priority. When the government injects capital and takes a stake, I'd oust incumbent management unless there was a compelling reason not to. But I wouldn't cap pay for success, including at big banks. This country needs incentives for the ingenuity, hard work, good judgment and experience that have made it great, now more than ever. I don't begrudge Obama adviser Eric Schmidt at Google his billions; I wish we had more Googles, creating jobs and wealth and a product that benefits everyone.
As president, I'd be the spokesman-in-chief. Transparency is essential. People have to understand what steps are being taken and why. They have to understand how the U.S. can afford all this, and how their tax money is being invested in our future rather than spent on useless pork. I'd be out talking and listening in the offices, the factories, the farms of America, not huddled in the White House.
I realize all this is easy for me to say. I'm not a politician, and I don't envy anyone the rigors of a national campaign or the prospect of negotiating with Congress. But I think this is a great time to be president of the U.S., and if I were Barack Obama, I'd be seizing the historic opportunity that has just been handed me.
人們認(rèn)為目前的形勢(shì)對(duì)一位即將上任的新總統(tǒng)實(shí)在不是個(gè)好時(shí)機(jī)，我對(duì)此有些不解。
看看那些經(jīng)過歷史檢驗(yàn)的真正偉大的總統(tǒng)吧──亞伯拉罕·林肯(Abraham Lincoln)、 富蘭克林·羅斯福(Franklin Roosevelt)和喬治·華盛頓(George Washington)，他們?nèi)际窃谖C(jī)時(shí)期執(zhí)掌國(guó)家的。再想像一下在危機(jī)剛開始出現(xiàn)時(shí)當(dāng)政的總統(tǒng)結(jié)果會(huì)怎樣，譬如赫伯特·胡佛(Herbert Hoover)或現(xiàn)任總統(tǒng)喬治·布什(George Bush)。
Getty Images
美國(guó)當(dāng)選總統(tǒng)奧巴馬11月4日在芝加哥發(fā)表了獲勝
演講，圖為奧巴馬及其家人畢竟，如果國(guó)家一切都好、人們可以輕易得到貸款、股市不斷創(chuàng)下歷史新高、投機(jī)商還在炒作拉斯維加斯的高檔公寓的話，奧巴馬競(jìng)選時(shí)也就不必打出“變革”的口號(hào)了。危機(jī)對(duì)成就那些在通常情況下難以想像的事情提供了政治掩護(hù)。
危機(jī)帶來的好處不一而足，比如，眼下我們可以忘掉赤字，因?yàn)槲覀儚拇笫挆l的經(jīng)歷和凱恩斯派經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家那里已經(jīng)知道，在這次這樣的危機(jī)時(shí)期，政府必須出手花錢。第二次世界大戰(zhàn)給美國(guó)帶來了歷占國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值比例的財(cái)政赤字，但它同時(shí)也終結(jié)了衰退。今后有的是時(shí)間來平衡預(yù)算。
基于這一點(diǎn)，我設(shè)想假如這次是我當(dāng)選總統(tǒng)的話，我會(huì)給眼下的經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)開出以下藥方：
必須將強(qiáng)化銀行和金融體系作為當(dāng)務(wù)之急。因貝爾斯登(Bear Stearns)倒閉而日益遭受重創(chuàng)的市場(chǎng)信心必須加以恢復(fù)。從美國(guó)國(guó)際集團(tuán)(AIG)的災(zāi)難中我們學(xué)到的教訓(xùn)是，你不能在大銀行周圍建條護(hù)城河后就以為萬事大吉了。
非銀行參與者在全球金融體系中的作用同樣重要，大家都知道所謂短板效應(yīng)：水桶的容量取決于最短的那塊木板。這意味著要向保險(xiǎn)公司和諸如GMAC、通用金融(GE Capital)這樣的綜合性集團(tuán)的金融分支注資，在適當(dāng)?shù)那闆r下?lián)Q取其優(yōu)先股和權(quán)益股份。這些應(yīng)該是不錯(cuò)的投資，因?yàn)槲C(jī)在很大程度上是心理上的，隨著市場(chǎng)信心的復(fù)蘇，資產(chǎn)的價(jià)值也會(huì)回升。
對(duì)搖搖欲墜的大型企業(yè)，美國(guó)需要一套綜合性政策，或許可以從汽車業(yè)開始。
這種政策不可以再采取就事論事、個(gè)案處理的方式，這樣只會(huì)對(duì)一些被視為“大而不倒”的公司有利，卻讓其他公司走向破產(chǎn)。我贊成沃倫·巴菲特(Warren Buffett)的方式：購買有股息的優(yōu)先股和可以低廉價(jià)格收購權(quán)益股份的認(rèn)購權(quán)證。實(shí)際上，我或許會(huì)要求巴菲特出面負(fù)責(zé)此項(xiàng)工作。這不能是針對(duì)私人股權(quán)投資公司或現(xiàn)有股東的救助。財(cái)政部的一些人應(yīng)該開始像不良資產(chǎn)經(jīng)理人那樣考慮問題，因?yàn)樗麄儗⒐芾砑{稅人的錢、讓這些錢贏利；他們還將不得不硬起心腸對(duì)哪些投資有可能賺錢、哪些沒可能作出決定。
這會(huì)不會(huì)被貼上“社會(huì)主義”的標(biāo)簽？如果美國(guó)能始終如一地把自己當(dāng)做納稅人的托管人來管理這些股份，那就不會(huì)。作為托管人，它將站在納稅人的一邊，而不是管理層和其他利益集團(tuán)的一邊。美國(guó)應(yīng)該像是這些公司的私人股權(quán)投資公司那樣行事，從企業(yè)的長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)改善出發(fā)，然后擇機(jī)退出（能帶著贏利）。
大蕭條帶來的另一個(gè)經(jīng)驗(yàn)是基礎(chǔ)建設(shè)開支能有所幫助，且可以成為很好的長(zhǎng)期投資。中國(guó)剛剛出臺(tái)了相當(dāng)于5,860億美元的經(jīng)濟(jì)刺激計(jì)劃，其中包括用于建設(shè)機(jī)場(chǎng)、鐵路和公路、住房等工程的開支項(xiàng)目。這些項(xiàng)目將改善人們的生活質(zhì)量，提高生產(chǎn)率，刺激經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)。美國(guó)也不缺乏類似的需求。
如果我當(dāng)選前承諾減少對(duì)外國(guó)石油的依賴，那么，我會(huì)向公共交通系統(tǒng)投入大筆資金，包括機(jī)場(chǎng)和中心城市交通樞紐之間的道路。（我個(gè)人會(huì)呼吁在紐約肯尼迪機(jī)場(chǎng)與曼哈頓中城區(qū)之間建設(shè)快速軌道線。）我還會(huì)對(duì)教育和藝術(shù)投資，鑒于各州、市預(yù)算赤字急劇上升，這些領(lǐng)域應(yīng)會(huì)急需新設(shè)施。我當(dāng)然不會(huì)對(duì)那些沒什么人使用的橋梁投資，這也就是為什么這個(gè)計(jì)劃要由白宮而不是國(guó)會(huì)來運(yùn)作的原因。
我會(huì)停止對(duì)失敗者提供補(bǔ)償。我將尋求從立法上禁止簽署不論業(yè)績(jī)好壞都要求大筆離職補(bǔ)償金的雇用合同。我還將把對(duì)欺詐罪提起訴訟作為頭等要?jiǎng)?wù)。當(dāng)政府注資并取得股權(quán)時(shí)，我將把在任管理層趕走，除非有非常有力的理由要求我不這么做。但我不會(huì)限制業(yè)績(jī)出色者的薪酬標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，包括對(duì)大銀行。這個(gè)國(guó)家需要對(duì)有獨(dú)創(chuàng)精神、工作努力、有判斷力和富有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的人給予鼓勵(lì)，現(xiàn)在尤為如此，因?yàn)檎沁@些人讓它成為一個(gè)偉大的國(guó)家。我并不嫉妒奧巴馬的顧問、谷歌(Google)首席執(zhí)行長(zhǎng)施密特(Eric Schmidt)所擁有的數(shù)十億美元，我希望我們有更多像谷歌這樣的公司，它們能創(chuàng)造就業(yè)和財(cái)富以及能讓每個(gè)人受益的產(chǎn)品。
作為總統(tǒng)，我將是這個(gè)國(guó)家的首席發(fā)言人。透明度至關(guān)重要。人們必須了解國(guó)家正在采取的措施和為什么要采取這些措施。他們必須理解美國(guó)怎樣才能負(fù)擔(dān)所有這一切、他們繳納的稅款怎樣被用于對(duì)我們未來有益的投資，而不是被變成沒用的小恩小惠。我會(huì)走出去，到寫字樓、工廠、鄉(xiāng)村，跟人們交談，傾聽他們的想法，而不是整天縮在白宮閉門造車。
我知道，所有這些我說起來很容易。我不是政治家，我也不嫉妒任何有勇氣參加大選或?qū)⑴c國(guó)會(huì)談判的人。但我想，現(xiàn)在是做美國(guó)總統(tǒng)是大好時(shí)機(jī)。如果我是奧巴馬，我會(huì)抓住這個(gè)歷史賦予我的機(jī)遇。
I'm mystified by all the hand-wringing about what a terrible time it is to be a new U.S. president.
Think of the presidents who have been judged by history to be truly great -- Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, George Washington -- and they've all served in times of crisis. But imagine what it would be like to be president when the crisis first unfolds, such as Herbert Hoover or now George Bush.
After all, the electorate wouldn't be clamoring for change if everything were great, if easy credit remained there for the asking, stocks were hitting new all-time highs and speculators were still flipping Las Vegas condos. Crisis provides the political cover for undertakings that would otherwise be unthinkable.
Among other boons, for the time being we can forget about the deficit, because one thing we know from the Great Depression and Keynesian economics is that in crises like this the government has to get out there and spend. World War II produced the biggest deficits as a percentage of gross domestic product in U.S. history -- and an end to the Depression. There will be time to balance the budget later.
With that in mind, here are my prescriptions for the economic crisis, were I stepping into the White House.
Shoring up the banking and financial system must take first priority. Confidence, which eroded steadily after the demise of Bear Stearns, must be restored. We learned from the disaster at AIG that you can't build a moat around the big banks and call it a day.
The non-bank participants in the global financial system are just as important, since the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. This means providing capital and liquidity to insurance companies and industrial finance arms like GMAC and GE Capital in return for preferred stock and ownership stakes where appropriate. These should be good investments, since so much of the crisis is psychological, and values will rebound when confidence is restored.
The U.S. needs a comprehensive policy for faltering industrial concerns, probably starting with the auto industry.
This can't be another case-by-case, ad hoc approach that arbitrarily favors some companies deemed too big to fail while consigning others to bankruptcy court. I favor the Warren Buffett approach: preferred shares that pay interest and warrants to acquire an equity stake at an attractive price. In fact, I might even ask Mr. Buffett to step up to this task. This can't be a bailout of private-equity firms or existing shareholders. Someone in the Treasury will have to start thinking like a distressed-asset manager, since he or she will be managing the taxpayers' money to earn a profit and will have to make tough-minded decisions about which investments are likely to pay off and which aren't.
Will this be branded 'socialism ' Not if the U.S. consistently manages its stakes as though it had a fiduciary duty to taxpayers, as opposed to management, labor, and other interests. The U.S. should be as tough on these companies as any private-equity firm, do what it takes to turn them around for the long term, and then get out, hopefully at a profit.
Another lesson from the Depression is that spending on infrastructure helps, and can also be an excellent long-term investment. China just unveiled a $586 billion program that includes spending for airports, rail lines and highways, housing and other programs. These should raise quality of life, enhance productivity, and provide an economic boost. There's no shortage of similar needs in the U.S.
If I'd just been elected on a promise to reduce dependence on foreign oil, I'd pour money into public transportation, including links between airports and central city transportation hubs. (I'd like to make a personal plea for an efficient rail line between New York's Kennedy airport and Midtown.) And I'd invest in education and the arts, which will be starving for new facilities given soaring state and municipal deficits. I would certainly not be investing in bridges to nowhere, which is why this program has to be run from the White House, not Congress.
I'd end compensation for failure. I'd legislatively ban employment contracts that call for huge severance payments without regard to performance. And I'd make prosecuting those guilty of fraud a top priority. When the government injects capital and takes a stake, I'd oust incumbent management unless there was a compelling reason not to. But I wouldn't cap pay for success, including at big banks. This country needs incentives for the ingenuity, hard work, good judgment and experience that have made it great, now more than ever. I don't begrudge Obama adviser Eric Schmidt at Google his billions; I wish we had more Googles, creating jobs and wealth and a product that benefits everyone.
As president, I'd be the spokesman-in-chief. Transparency is essential. People have to understand what steps are being taken and why. They have to understand how the U.S. can afford all this, and how their tax money is being invested in our future rather than spent on useless pork. I'd be out talking and listening in the offices, the factories, the farms of America, not huddled in the White House.
I realize all this is easy for me to say. I'm not a politician, and I don't envy anyone the rigors of a national campaign or the prospect of negotiating with Congress. But I think this is a great time to be president of the U.S., and if I were Barack Obama, I'd be seizing the historic opportunity that has just been handed me.
人們認(rèn)為目前的形勢(shì)對(duì)一位即將上任的新總統(tǒng)實(shí)在不是個(gè)好時(shí)機(jī)，我對(duì)此有些不解。
看看那些經(jīng)過歷史檢驗(yàn)的真正偉大的總統(tǒng)吧──亞伯拉罕·林肯(Abraham Lincoln)、 富蘭克林·羅斯福(Franklin Roosevelt)和喬治·華盛頓(George Washington)，他們?nèi)际窃谖C(jī)時(shí)期執(zhí)掌國(guó)家的。再想像一下在危機(jī)剛開始出現(xiàn)時(shí)當(dāng)政的總統(tǒng)結(jié)果會(huì)怎樣，譬如赫伯特·胡佛(Herbert Hoover)或現(xiàn)任總統(tǒng)喬治·布什(George Bush)。
Getty Images
美國(guó)當(dāng)選總統(tǒng)奧巴馬11月4日在芝加哥發(fā)表了獲勝
演講，圖為奧巴馬及其家人畢竟，如果國(guó)家一切都好、人們可以輕易得到貸款、股市不斷創(chuàng)下歷史新高、投機(jī)商還在炒作拉斯維加斯的高檔公寓的話，奧巴馬競(jìng)選時(shí)也就不必打出“變革”的口號(hào)了。危機(jī)對(duì)成就那些在通常情況下難以想像的事情提供了政治掩護(hù)。
危機(jī)帶來的好處不一而足，比如，眼下我們可以忘掉赤字，因?yàn)槲覀儚拇笫挆l的經(jīng)歷和凱恩斯派經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家那里已經(jīng)知道，在這次這樣的危機(jī)時(shí)期，政府必須出手花錢。第二次世界大戰(zhàn)給美國(guó)帶來了歷占國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值比例的財(cái)政赤字，但它同時(shí)也終結(jié)了衰退。今后有的是時(shí)間來平衡預(yù)算。
基于這一點(diǎn)，我設(shè)想假如這次是我當(dāng)選總統(tǒng)的話，我會(huì)給眼下的經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)開出以下藥方：
必須將強(qiáng)化銀行和金融體系作為當(dāng)務(wù)之急。因貝爾斯登(Bear Stearns)倒閉而日益遭受重創(chuàng)的市場(chǎng)信心必須加以恢復(fù)。從美國(guó)國(guó)際集團(tuán)(AIG)的災(zāi)難中我們學(xué)到的教訓(xùn)是，你不能在大銀行周圍建條護(hù)城河后就以為萬事大吉了。
非銀行參與者在全球金融體系中的作用同樣重要，大家都知道所謂短板效應(yīng)：水桶的容量取決于最短的那塊木板。這意味著要向保險(xiǎn)公司和諸如GMAC、通用金融(GE Capital)這樣的綜合性集團(tuán)的金融分支注資，在適當(dāng)?shù)那闆r下?lián)Q取其優(yōu)先股和權(quán)益股份。這些應(yīng)該是不錯(cuò)的投資，因?yàn)槲C(jī)在很大程度上是心理上的，隨著市場(chǎng)信心的復(fù)蘇，資產(chǎn)的價(jià)值也會(huì)回升。
對(duì)搖搖欲墜的大型企業(yè)，美國(guó)需要一套綜合性政策，或許可以從汽車業(yè)開始。
這種政策不可以再采取就事論事、個(gè)案處理的方式，這樣只會(huì)對(duì)一些被視為“大而不倒”的公司有利，卻讓其他公司走向破產(chǎn)。我贊成沃倫·巴菲特(Warren Buffett)的方式：購買有股息的優(yōu)先股和可以低廉價(jià)格收購權(quán)益股份的認(rèn)購權(quán)證。實(shí)際上，我或許會(huì)要求巴菲特出面負(fù)責(zé)此項(xiàng)工作。這不能是針對(duì)私人股權(quán)投資公司或現(xiàn)有股東的救助。財(cái)政部的一些人應(yīng)該開始像不良資產(chǎn)經(jīng)理人那樣考慮問題，因?yàn)樗麄儗⒐芾砑{稅人的錢、讓這些錢贏利；他們還將不得不硬起心腸對(duì)哪些投資有可能賺錢、哪些沒可能作出決定。
這會(huì)不會(huì)被貼上“社會(huì)主義”的標(biāo)簽？如果美國(guó)能始終如一地把自己當(dāng)做納稅人的托管人來管理這些股份，那就不會(huì)。作為托管人，它將站在納稅人的一邊，而不是管理層和其他利益集團(tuán)的一邊。美國(guó)應(yīng)該像是這些公司的私人股權(quán)投資公司那樣行事，從企業(yè)的長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)改善出發(fā)，然后擇機(jī)退出（能帶著贏利）。
大蕭條帶來的另一個(gè)經(jīng)驗(yàn)是基礎(chǔ)建設(shè)開支能有所幫助，且可以成為很好的長(zhǎng)期投資。中國(guó)剛剛出臺(tái)了相當(dāng)于5,860億美元的經(jīng)濟(jì)刺激計(jì)劃，其中包括用于建設(shè)機(jī)場(chǎng)、鐵路和公路、住房等工程的開支項(xiàng)目。這些項(xiàng)目將改善人們的生活質(zhì)量，提高生產(chǎn)率，刺激經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)。美國(guó)也不缺乏類似的需求。
如果我當(dāng)選前承諾減少對(duì)外國(guó)石油的依賴，那么，我會(huì)向公共交通系統(tǒng)投入大筆資金，包括機(jī)場(chǎng)和中心城市交通樞紐之間的道路。（我個(gè)人會(huì)呼吁在紐約肯尼迪機(jī)場(chǎng)與曼哈頓中城區(qū)之間建設(shè)快速軌道線。）我還會(huì)對(duì)教育和藝術(shù)投資，鑒于各州、市預(yù)算赤字急劇上升，這些領(lǐng)域應(yīng)會(huì)急需新設(shè)施。我當(dāng)然不會(huì)對(duì)那些沒什么人使用的橋梁投資，這也就是為什么這個(gè)計(jì)劃要由白宮而不是國(guó)會(huì)來運(yùn)作的原因。
我會(huì)停止對(duì)失敗者提供補(bǔ)償。我將尋求從立法上禁止簽署不論業(yè)績(jī)好壞都要求大筆離職補(bǔ)償金的雇用合同。我還將把對(duì)欺詐罪提起訴訟作為頭等要?jiǎng)?wù)。當(dāng)政府注資并取得股權(quán)時(shí)，我將把在任管理層趕走，除非有非常有力的理由要求我不這么做。但我不會(huì)限制業(yè)績(jī)出色者的薪酬標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，包括對(duì)大銀行。這個(gè)國(guó)家需要對(duì)有獨(dú)創(chuàng)精神、工作努力、有判斷力和富有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的人給予鼓勵(lì)，現(xiàn)在尤為如此，因?yàn)檎沁@些人讓它成為一個(gè)偉大的國(guó)家。我并不嫉妒奧巴馬的顧問、谷歌(Google)首席執(zhí)行長(zhǎng)施密特(Eric Schmidt)所擁有的數(shù)十億美元，我希望我們有更多像谷歌這樣的公司，它們能創(chuàng)造就業(yè)和財(cái)富以及能讓每個(gè)人受益的產(chǎn)品。
作為總統(tǒng)，我將是這個(gè)國(guó)家的首席發(fā)言人。透明度至關(guān)重要。人們必須了解國(guó)家正在采取的措施和為什么要采取這些措施。他們必須理解美國(guó)怎樣才能負(fù)擔(dān)所有這一切、他們繳納的稅款怎樣被用于對(duì)我們未來有益的投資，而不是被變成沒用的小恩小惠。我會(huì)走出去，到寫字樓、工廠、鄉(xiāng)村，跟人們交談，傾聽他們的想法，而不是整天縮在白宮閉門造車。
我知道，所有這些我說起來很容易。我不是政治家，我也不嫉妒任何有勇氣參加大選或?qū)⑴c國(guó)會(huì)談判的人。但我想，現(xiàn)在是做美國(guó)總統(tǒng)是大好時(shí)機(jī)。如果我是奧巴馬，我會(huì)抓住這個(gè)歷史賦予我的機(jī)遇。