Monthly Archives: September 2009

Funny spam email

I have never received any spam since I use Gmail, Today I get one and a bit funny. Here is it…

“Dear Mr. Law

It is a blessing to communicate to you in my quest for a faithful, sincere and reliable foreigner who will assist me claim and invest my late father’s fortune in an amount of US $3,700,000.

This funds was deposited in a security and finance company here in Ghana, just before my parents and two of my siblings (sisters) were killed by family members contending for the chieftancy (Kingship) stool in my village.

As the heir to the throne of my late father and the only survivor of our family i have successfully gone into hiding. I am now staying in one of the Catholic orphanages home in the country. Upon subsequent discussion with the Reverend Father of the Catholic orphanages home, he asked me to look for a God-fearing one, to stand-in as my late father’s business partner to claim this funds from the security as my beneficiary.

You will also be required to assist us in investing our own part of the money into viable business ventures abroad and for all this we are offering you 17% of the total funds as reward.

Please note that you stand no risk at all in assisting me to conclude this transaction because the money is legitimately our family fortune.

Stay blessed,

Godswill Nana.”

I do not know if other get this before?

WORLDWIDE – WHO IS THE BEST INTERNET INVESTOR?

My account with TweepML has been deleted and I am trying to contact their service officers. Just be patient. (Alright, got reply from TweepML: artificially inflate the number of followers is against Twitter TOS. If we don’t prohibit that, Twitter can block us.)

I prepare this rank for few days and I am so eager to see who is goning to win the free-voting in stumbleupon.com. The following rank is the latest up to now.

http://www.twitter.com/sacca

http://www.twitter.com/davidhornik

http://www.twitter.com/jeff

http://www.twitter.com/joi

http://www.twitter.com/edyson

http://www.twitter.com/ataussig

http://www.twitter.com/baris

http://www.twitter.com/bfeld

http://www.twitter.com/bgurley

http://www.twitter.com/bijan

http://www.twitter.com/brisbourne

http://www.twitter.com/bryce

http://www.twitter.com/chchien

http://www.twitter.com/christine

http://www.twitter.com/compoundinglife

http://www.twitter.com/danrua

http://www.twitter.com/davidcohen

http://www.twitter.com/davidcowan

http://www.twitter.com/donaldjtrump

http://www.twitter.com/dsternsf

http://www.twitter.com/dsweet

http://www.twitter.com/duncanbannatyne

http://www.twitter.com/elizabeth

http://www.twitter.com/ethankurz

http://www.twitter.com/firstjames

http://www.twitter.com/fredwilson

http://www.twitter.com/harsh1

http://www.twitter.com/hlmorgan

http://www.twitter.com/howardlindzon

http://www.twitter.com/infoarbitrage

http://www.twitter.com/jacquimurphy

http://www.twitter.com/jae_jun

http://www.twitter.com/jasoncalacanis

http://www.twitter.com/jeffdurso

http://www.twitter.com/joshk

http://www.twitter.com/jpalfrey

http://www.twitter.com/julesmaltz

http://www.twitter.com/kentgoldman

http://www.twitter.com/markpeterdavis

http://www.twitter.com/maxniederhofer

http://www.twitter.com/mikequity

http://www.twitter.com/mr_gadget

http://www.twitter.com/msuster

http://www.twitter.com/newmediajim

http://www.twitter.com/oudiantebi

http://www.twitter.com/patvano

http://www.twitter.com/peterfenton

http://www.twitter.com/quixotic

http://www.twitter.com/richardbeddard

http://www.twitter.com/robhayes

http://www.twitter.com/ryan_mcintyre

http://www.twitter.com/ryanleslie

http://www.twitter.com/simoleonsense

http://www.twitter.com/smarcus

http://www.twitter.com/startuppro

http://www.twitter.com/stockpursuit

http://www.twitter.com/swolfgang

http://www.twitter.com/techstartups

http://www.twitter.com/thethirdpig

http://www.twitter.com/yesandnotyes

Follow all in one click

No way to unlock the power of Chinese consumers

Clay Chandler: We’re talking today with Steve Roach, the chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia. Steve has been here in Hong Kong for nearly two years now but is known to many for his previous role as Morgan Stanley’s chief economist. He’s a long-time observer of the global economy and of economic policy and development in China. Steve, thank you for being with us.

Stephen Roach: I’m delighted to be here.

Clay Chandler: Private consumption is running at about 36 percent of GDP in China right now. That is half of the US consumption rate, and it’s about two-thirds of the consumption rate of Europe. It has come down very dramatically in the last decade, and tested levels that we’ve really never seen in any other major economy in the history of the modern global marketplace. Why is China’s consumption so low, and how do you explain the extent of the decline?

Stephen Roach: I think there are a couple of reasons why the Chinese consumption rate is as low as it is. When Deng Xiaoping gave the word to push ahead on reforms and open up the Chinese economy, in the late ’70s, the Chinese economy was on the brink of collapse. And so they needed a pretty quick answer, and they needed it to take hold in a relatively short period of time. And so the investment/export model was unleashed, and unleashed with a vengeance. And it did start to deliver immediate results.

The second reason is that as that export/investment-led model began to deliver, the world increasingly embraced globalization, took down trade barriers, and global trade started to skyrocket as a share of world GDP. And so not only was China delivering growth for its own purposes, but it got seduced by the globalization of trade and the ability for this increased share of global trade to reinforce its own opening up.

And so it remained very focused on exports and investment and neglected the heavy lifting that was required to augment that by improved private consumption. And so it never really had a backup plan here. And now that failure to really focus on internal private consumption and the [social] safety net is beginning to be very problematic going forward.

Clay Chandler: What can China do to boost consumption? And what, in your view, is the upper limit of how much China could feasibly raise its consumption rate as a percentage of GDP?

Stephen Roach: I’ve learned, Clay, in my last 12 to 15 years of following China, don’t underestimate the commitment and the determination of the Chinese authorities to address a problem when they finally realize they’ve got a serious one. I think a realistic goal, and I’ve given a speech on this in Beijing earlier this year, would be to aim for a 50 percent consumption share of GDP within five years.

I think they can do it. Now that’s a big move. That’s 14 percentage points of GDP, 15 percentage points of GDP in five years. I think it’s achievable if they do move aggressively on social security, pensions, and nationwide medical care.

Clay Chandler: What are the obstacles to boosting consumption in China? And what’s your sense of how committed China’s leaders are to overcoming that resistance?

Stephen Roach: Well, I think the main obstacles are persuading a large generation of Chinese workers and families who have been displaced under the guise of state-owned enterprise reform—who have lost the sort of cradle-to-grave support, the so-called iron rice bowl, the safety net that had been in place in the prior state-owned enterprise regime—to convince them that it’s okay to begin to draw down the excesses of precautionary saving. People say, “Oh, this is a cultural thing in Asia.” I don’t buy that for a second. I think the excess saving is very much an outgrowth of a necessity rather than a cultural DNA. And it’s up to the Chinese authorities to really deliver on the safety net, to dissuade families so that savings motive can change.

Clay Chandler: In an article in the Financial Times, you wrote that China’s response to the global financial crisis has succeeded in restoring short-term growth but has also raised the risk for long-term problems in the economy. You warned, in fact, that it has raised the possibility of “destabilizing consequences.” Could you explain that?

Stephen Roach: Things were pretty bad in late 2008 and 2009—much worse inside of China than the official year-over-year GDP comparisons might have alluded to. If you recalculate the GDP on a sequential quarter-to-quarter basis, the way we do it in the West, the growth rate had slowed pretty close to zero late last year.

There were massive layoffs in export-dependent Guangdong province; the government admitted at least 20 million migrant workers had lost their jobs. So once again, China needed growth and they needed it now. And so what they ended up doing was, first they enacted a massive 4 trillion renminbi stimulus, 72 percent of which was infrastructure. And then they opened up the spigots of bank lending. And they created the biggest six-month lending binge on record: about 7 trillion renminbi in the January-through-June period.

So what I wrote about in the FT was that it seemed to me that because the growth imperatives were so urgent, the authorities just opted to get as much growth out the door in as short a period of time as they possibly could. And they ended up stimulating perhaps the most unbalanced sector in the Chinese economy: fixed asset investment, which at the end of last year was 40 percent of the GDP. Now it’s probably more than 45 percent of the GDP. We’ve never seen numbers like that for any major economy in the modern post–World War II era.

Clay Chandler: Is it realistic to think about China as a new engine of global growth?

Stephen Roach: I think China has the potential to become a major engine of global growth. But I think it’s unrealistic to expect China to step into that role immediately in this post-crisis era. I think it’ll take three years, more likely five to ten years, for China to really have the type of balance and scale of its economy that can fill the void that’s about to be left—or that is now being left—by the demise of what heretofore has been the biggest and most dynamic and powerful consumer in the world: the American consumer.



中国在快速融入全球经济的过程中,大力推动出口和由政府主导的投资,但却忽视了建立促进国内消费所必需的社会和经济体制。摩根士丹利亚洲区主席Stephen Roach认为,现在是中国这个世界上增长最快的经济体确定一个“补救计划”的时候了。麦肯锡出版部亚洲编辑Clay Chandler于2009年8月在香港主持了本次专访。请观看采访视频,或阅读以下采访文字记录。

Clay Chandler: 今天,我们专访摩根士丹利亚洲区主席Stephen Roach。Steve来香港任职已有近两年时间,而许多人都知道,他以前曾担任过摩根士丹利的首席经济学家。他对全球经济以及中国的经济政策和发展进行过长期观察与研究。Steve,谢谢你接受我们的专访。

Stephen Roach: 我很高兴参加这次访谈。

Clay Chandler: 目前,私人消费只占中国GDP的大约36%,仅为美国消费水平的一半,是欧洲消费水平的大约2/3。在过去十年里,中国的私人消费占GDP的比例大幅度下降,不断地考验我们在现代全球市场经济史上、在任何其他主要经济体中从未见过的低水平。为什么中国的消费如此之低?你如何解释这种消费率的大幅度下降?

Stephen Roach: 我认为,中国的消费如此之低主要有两个原因。当邓小平在20世纪70年代后期提出改革开放中国经济时,中国经济当时已濒临崩溃的边缘。因此,他们需要一种能快速见效的应对方案,他们需要这种方案能在很短的时期内稳定经济。所以,投资/出口型的经济模式应运而生,而且得到了大力推行。这种经济模式也确实开始收到立竿见影的效果。

第二个原因是,当中国以出口/投资导向的经济模式开始生效时,全球化的理念正日益被世界所接受,贸易壁垒被打破,全球贸易在世界GDP中所占的份额开始大幅飙升。因此,中国不仅为自己的目的实现增长,她也受到贸易全球化以及增加全球贸易份额以便提升自我开放的能力的诱惑。

因此,中国一直保持了对出口和投资的高度重视,而忽视了通过提高私人消费来实现经济增长所需要进行的持久努力。中国始终没有真正有过一个“补救计划”。由于没有真正重视国内私人消费和建立[社会]保障网,中国今后的发展将会遇到很大的问题和麻烦。

Clay Chandler: 为了增加消费,中国可以采取哪些措施?在你看来,中国提升其消费对GDP的占比最多可达什么水平?

Stephen Roach: Clay,在我过去12~15年对中国研究中,我体会到,当中国当局终于认识到她遇到了一个严重问题时,千万不要低估她解决这个问题的承诺和决心。我认为,在5年之内,将消费在GDP中所占比例提高到50%是一个比较现实的目标,我今年早些时候在北京已经谈到了这一点。

我认为,中国人能够实现这一目标。这是一个大举措,在5年内,要把消费占GDP的比例提高14~15个百分点。我认为,如果在社会保障、退休金,以及全民医疗保健方面积极采取行动,这一目标是可以达到的。

Clay Chandler: 在中国,增加消费存在哪些障碍?为了克服这些障碍,您认为中国领导人愿意做多大的努力来克服这些障碍?

Stephen Roach: 我认为,主要的障碍是说服人数众多的一代中国工人和中国家庭——他们在国有企业改革的名义下被取代下岗,失去了终身的支持(即所谓“铁饭碗”),也失去了过去在国有企业体制下享有的社会保障网——要使他们相信,开始降低过高的预防性储蓄是可行的。有人说,“高储蓄是亚洲的一种文化现象。”我完全不同意这种说法。我认为,过度储蓄主要是一种需要,而并非文化基因使然。只要中国政府当局真正为百姓提供社会保障,劝导中国家庭降低储蓄,就可以改变储蓄动机。

Clay Chandler: 您在《金融时报》上发表的一篇文章中写道,中国针对全球金融危机采取的应对措施在恢复短期经济增长方面已经取得了成功,但同时也增大了导致长期经济问题的风险。事实上,你警告说,造成“不稳定后果”的可能性已经增大。您能对此解释一下吗?

Stephen Roach: 2008年下半年和2009年,情况相当糟糕——远比官方公布的年度GDP同比数据可能表明的情况更糟。如果你按照西方惯用的方式,根据逐个季度的数据重新计算中国的GDP,就能看出,去年下半年的经济增长率大幅下跌,几乎接近于零。

在主要依赖出口的广东省,出现了大规模解雇的情况;政府承认,至少有2,000万外来工失去了工作。因此,中国再一次迫切需要经济增长,而且是立竿见影的增长。中国对此采取的应对措施是:首先,启动了4万亿人民币的大规模经济刺激计划,其中72%投资于基础设施建设。然后,放松了对银行贷款的约束。他们创造了最高的6个月放贷纪录:在2009年1月到6月期间,贷款金额高达约7万亿元人民币。

我在为《金融时报》所写的文章中指出,在我看来,由于对增长的需求是如此迫切,中国政府只能选择在很短的时间内,尽可能获得最大的增长。他们结果刺激的或许是中国经济中最失衡的部门:固定资产投资。该部门在去年年底占到了GDP的40%,现在或许已经占到GDP的45%以上。在二战后的现代化时期,在任何主要的经济体中,我们都从未看到固定资产投资在GDP中占有如此高的比例。

Clay Chandler: 将中国视为全球经济增长新的发动机的想法是否现实?

Stephen Roach: 我认为,中国有潜力成为全球经济增长的一个主要发动机。不过,我认为,期望中国能在这次后危机时代就马上担当起这一角色并不现实。我想,中国还需要花3年(更可能是5年~10年)的时间,才能使其经济达到所需的那种平衡和规模,能够去填补由于世界上规模最大、最有活力、最强大的消费者群体(美国消费者)的衰落而将要留下的——或者正在留下的——空缺

No way to unlock the power of Chinese consumers

Clay Chandler: We’re talking today with Steve Roach, the chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia. Steve has been here in Hong Kong for nearly two years now but is known to many for his previous role as Morgan Stanley’s chief economist. He’s a long-time observer of the global economy and of economic policy and development in China. Steve, thank you for being with us.

Stephen Roach: I’m delighted to be here.

Clay Chandler: Private consumption is running at about 36 percent of GDP in China right now. That is half of the US consumption rate, and it’s about two-thirds of the consumption rate of Europe. It has come down very dramatically in the last decade, and tested levels that we’ve really never seen in any other major economy in the history of the modern global marketplace. Why is China’s consumption so low, and how do you explain the extent of the decline?

Stephen Roach: I think there are a couple of reasons why the Chinese consumption rate is as low as it is. When Deng Xiaoping gave the word to push ahead on reforms and open up the Chinese economy, in the late ’70s, the Chinese economy was on the brink of collapse. And so they needed a pretty quick answer, and they needed it to take hold in a relatively short period of time. And so the investment/export model was unleashed, and unleashed with a vengeance. And it did start to deliver immediate results.

The second reason is that as that export/investment-led model began to deliver, the world increasingly embraced globalization, took down trade barriers, and global trade started to skyrocket as a share of world GDP. And so not only was China delivering growth for its own purposes, but it got seduced by the globalization of trade and the ability for this increased share of global trade to reinforce its own opening up.

And so it remained very focused on exports and investment and neglected the heavy lifting that was required to augment that by improved private consumption. And so it never really had a backup plan here. And now that failure to really focus on internal private consumption and the [social] safety net is beginning to be very problematic going forward.

Clay Chandler: What can China do to boost consumption? And what, in your view, is the upper limit of how much China could feasibly raise its consumption rate as a percentage of GDP?

Stephen Roach: I’ve learned, Clay, in my last 12 to 15 years of following China, don’t underestimate the commitment and the determination of the Chinese authorities to address a problem when they finally realize they’ve got a serious one. I think a realistic goal, and I’ve given a speech on this in Beijing earlier this year, would be to aim for a 50 percent consumption share of GDP within five years.

I think they can do it. Now that’s a big move. That’s 14 percentage points of GDP, 15 percentage points of GDP in five years. I think it’s achievable if they do move aggressively on social security, pensions, and nationwide medical care.

Clay Chandler: What are the obstacles to boosting consumption in China? And what’s your sense of how committed China’s leaders are to overcoming that resistance?

Stephen Roach: Well, I think the main obstacles are persuading a large generation of Chinese workers and families who have been displaced under the guise of state-owned enterprise reform—who have lost the sort of cradle-to-grave support, the so-called iron rice bowl, the safety net that had been in place in the prior state-owned enterprise regime—to convince them that it’s okay to begin to draw down the excesses of precautionary saving. People say, “Oh, this is a cultural thing in Asia.” I don’t buy that for a second. I think the excess saving is very much an outgrowth of a necessity rather than a cultural DNA. And it’s up to the Chinese authorities to really deliver on the safety net, to dissuade families so that savings motive can change.

Clay Chandler: In an article in the Financial Times, you wrote that China’s response to the global financial crisis has succeeded in restoring short-term growth but has also raised the risk for long-term problems in the economy. You warned, in fact, that it has raised the possibility of “destabilizing consequences.” Could you explain that?

Stephen Roach: Things were pretty bad in late 2008 and 2009—much worse inside of China than the official year-over-year GDP comparisons might have alluded to. If you recalculate the GDP on a sequential quarter-to-quarter basis, the way we do it in the West, the growth rate had slowed pretty close to zero late last year.

There were massive layoffs in export-dependent Guangdong province; the government admitted at least 20 million migrant workers had lost their jobs. So once again, China needed growth and they needed it now. And so what they ended up doing was, first they enacted a massive 4 trillion renminbi stimulus, 72 percent of which was infrastructure. And then they opened up the spigots of bank lending. And they created the biggest six-month lending binge on record: about 7 trillion renminbi in the January-through-June period.

So what I wrote about in the FT was that it seemed to me that because the growth imperatives were so urgent, the authorities just opted to get as much growth out the door in as short a period of time as they possibly could. And they ended up stimulating perhaps the most unbalanced sector in the Chinese economy: fixed asset investment, which at the end of last year was 40 percent of the GDP. Now it’s probably more than 45 percent of the GDP. We’ve never seen numbers like that for any major economy in the modern post–World War II era.

Clay Chandler: Is it realistic to think about China as a new engine of global growth?

Stephen Roach: I think China has the potential to become a major engine of global growth. But I think it’s unrealistic to expect China to step into that role immediately in this post-crisis era. I think it’ll take three years, more likely five to ten years, for China to really have the type of balance and scale of its economy that can fill the void that’s about to be left—or that is now being left—by the demise of what heretofore has been the biggest and most dynamic and powerful consumer in the world: the American consumer.



中国在快速融入全球经济的过程中,大力推动出口和由政府主导的投资,但却忽视了建立促进国内消费所必需的社会和经济体制。摩根士丹利亚洲区主席Stephen Roach认为,现在是中国这个世界上增长最快的经济体确定一个“补救计划”的时候了。麦肯锡出版部亚洲编辑Clay Chandler于2009年8月在香港主持了本次专访。请观看采访视频,或阅读以下采访文字记录。

Clay Chandler: 今天,我们专访摩根士丹利亚洲区主席Stephen Roach。Steve来香港任职已有近两年时间,而许多人都知道,他以前曾担任过摩根士丹利的首席经济学家。他对全球经济以及中国的经济政策和发展进行过长期观察与研究。Steve,谢谢你接受我们的专访。

Stephen Roach: 我很高兴参加这次访谈。

Clay Chandler: 目前,私人消费只占中国GDP的大约36%,仅为美国消费水平的一半,是欧洲消费水平的大约2/3。在过去十年里,中国的私人消费占GDP的比例大幅度下降,不断地考验我们在现代全球市场经济史上、在任何其他主要经济体中从未见过的低水平。为什么中国的消费如此之低?你如何解释这种消费率的大幅度下降?

Stephen Roach: 我认为,中国的消费如此之低主要有两个原因。当邓小平在20世纪70年代后期提出改革开放中国经济时,中国经济当时已濒临崩溃的边缘。因此,他们需要一种能快速见效的应对方案,他们需要这种方案能在很短的时期内稳定经济。所以,投资/出口型的经济模式应运而生,而且得到了大力推行。这种经济模式也确实开始收到立竿见影的效果。

第二个原因是,当中国以出口/投资导向的经济模式开始生效时,全球化的理念正日益被世界所接受,贸易壁垒被打破,全球贸易在世界GDP中所占的份额开始大幅飙升。因此,中国不仅为自己的目的实现增长,她也受到贸易全球化以及增加全球贸易份额以便提升自我开放的能力的诱惑。

因此,中国一直保持了对出口和投资的高度重视,而忽视了通过提高私人消费来实现经济增长所需要进行的持久努力。中国始终没有真正有过一个“补救计划”。由于没有真正重视国内私人消费和建立[社会]保障网,中国今后的发展将会遇到很大的问题和麻烦。

Clay Chandler: 为了增加消费,中国可以采取哪些措施?在你看来,中国提升其消费对GDP的占比最多可达什么水平?

Stephen Roach: Clay,在我过去12~15年对中国研究中,我体会到,当中国当局终于认识到她遇到了一个严重问题时,千万不要低估她解决这个问题的承诺和决心。我认为,在5年之内,将消费在GDP中所占比例提高到50%是一个比较现实的目标,我今年早些时候在北京已经谈到了这一点。

我认为,中国人能够实现这一目标。这是一个大举措,在5年内,要把消费占GDP的比例提高14~15个百分点。我认为,如果在社会保障、退休金,以及全民医疗保健方面积极采取行动,这一目标是可以达到的。

Clay Chandler: 在中国,增加消费存在哪些障碍?为了克服这些障碍,您认为中国领导人愿意做多大的努力来克服这些障碍?

Stephen Roach: 我认为,主要的障碍是说服人数众多的一代中国工人和中国家庭——他们在国有企业改革的名义下被取代下岗,失去了终身的支持(即所谓“铁饭碗”),也失去了过去在国有企业体制下享有的社会保障网——要使他们相信,开始降低过高的预防性储蓄是可行的。有人说,“高储蓄是亚洲的一种文化现象。”我完全不同意这种说法。我认为,过度储蓄主要是一种需要,而并非文化基因使然。只要中国政府当局真正为百姓提供社会保障,劝导中国家庭降低储蓄,就可以改变储蓄动机。

Clay Chandler: 您在《金融时报》上发表的一篇文章中写道,中国针对全球金融危机采取的应对措施在恢复短期经济增长方面已经取得了成功,但同时也增大了导致长期经济问题的风险。事实上,你警告说,造成“不稳定后果”的可能性已经增大。您能对此解释一下吗?

Stephen Roach: 2008年下半年和2009年,情况相当糟糕——远比官方公布的年度GDP同比数据可能表明的情况更糟。如果你按照西方惯用的方式,根据逐个季度的数据重新计算中国的GDP,就能看出,去年下半年的经济增长率大幅下跌,几乎接近于零。

在主要依赖出口的广东省,出现了大规模解雇的情况;政府承认,至少有2,000万外来工失去了工作。因此,中国再一次迫切需要经济增长,而且是立竿见影的增长。中国对此采取的应对措施是:首先,启动了4万亿人民币的大规模经济刺激计划,其中72%投资于基础设施建设。然后,放松了对银行贷款的约束。他们创造了最高的6个月放贷纪录:在2009年1月到6月期间,贷款金额高达约7万亿元人民币。

我在为《金融时报》所写的文章中指出,在我看来,由于对增长的需求是如此迫切,中国政府只能选择在很短的时间内,尽可能获得最大的增长。他们结果刺激的或许是中国经济中最失衡的部门:固定资产投资。该部门在去年年底占到了GDP的40%,现在或许已经占到GDP的45%以上。在二战后的现代化时期,在任何主要的经济体中,我们都从未看到固定资产投资在GDP中占有如此高的比例。

Clay Chandler: 将中国视为全球经济增长新的发动机的想法是否现实?

Stephen Roach: 我认为,中国有潜力成为全球经济增长的一个主要发动机。不过,我认为,期望中国能在这次后危机时代就马上担当起这一角色并不现实。我想,中国还需要花3年(更可能是5年~10年)的时间,才能使其经济达到所需的那种平衡和规模,能够去填补由于世界上规模最大、最有活力、最强大的消费者群体(美国消费者)的衰落而将要留下的——或者正在留下的——空缺

few twitter tools

Twitter is growing in popularity at the same rapid speed as before even though some web analyst once forecast the new enter and massive spammer would stop the crazy growth at the end of year.
Hundreds of Twitter applications can be found on numerous sites that offer awesome tools to make it possible for users to manage your twitter. Even I once submitted one list of 999 applications and ways. Now I’d like to pick up some I am using. Feel free to suggest other, esp. for small business owners.
Twitoria : This lets you know which twitters are lazy and inactive
Monitter: Simply insert keywords, you d like to search for and surrounding area you d lke monitored
Bubble Tweet: To post a short video message, a impressive way to introduce yourself or your biz
Twitter Gallery: free background themes
Twit This: very useful, it allow visitors to your blog or website
StockTwits: An active community of investors and sharing views on USA markets
HelloTxt: To update your status to several social networking sites, powerful, some time puzzle
TwitterFox: Are you using Firefox? Then you must like this.
TweepML.org: One-click follow a group, powerful, here is the 2nd list I built.
I have to delete my 2 lists since I got warning……

Top 100 Global Venture Capitalists

01. Accel Partners
02. Softbank
03. Index Ventures
04. Sequoia Capital
05. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
06. DCM
07. Insight Venture Partners
08. Draper Fisher Jurveston
09. Sofinnova Partners
10. Matrix Partners
11. New Enterprise Associates
12. Bessemer Venture Capital
13. Greylock Partners
14. Wellington Partners
15. Khosla Ventures
16. Norwest Venture Partners
17. Benchmark Capital
18. TVM Capital
19. Battery Ventures
20. Lightspeed Venture Capital
21. August Capital
22. Pitango Venture Capital
23. GRP Partners
24. IDGVC Venture Partners
25. Alta Partners

26. Trident Capital
27. Institutional Venture Partners
28. Allegis Capital
29. Legend Capital
30. Reliance Technology Ventures
31. InterWest Partners
32. Mangrove Partners
33. Banexi Ventures
34. Technology Crossover Partners
35. Foundation Capital
36. Charles River Ventures
37. Mayfield Venture Capital
38. JAFCO Ventures
39. Redpoint Ventures
40. Menlo Ventures
41. Azure Capital Partners
42. Oak Investment Partners
43. US Venture Partners
44. Balderton Capital Management
45. Mohr Davidow Ventures
46. Carmel Ventures
47. Amadeus Capital Partners
48. Globespan Capital Partners
49. BDC Venture
50. Venrock Associates

51. Canaan Partners
52. CDH Ventures
53. FTQ
54. Polaris Venture Partners
55. General Catalyst Partners
56. Sierra Ventures
57. CDC Innovation
58. Atlas Ventures
59. Globis Capital
60. Highland Capital Partners
61. Crescendo Ventures
62. Ignition Partners
63. Nexus India Capital
64. Trinity ventures
65. Hummer Winblad Venture Partners
66. Sigma Partners
67. Allen Buckridge Ventures
68. Walden International
69. Northern Light Venture Capital
70. Doughty Hanson Technology Ventures
71. Morgenthaler Ventures
72. CMEA Ventures
73. KTB Venture
74. Tallwood Venture Capital
75. ATA Ventures

76. Shenzen Capital Group
77. Vengrowth Capital Fund
78. Early Bird
79. Jerusalem Venture Partners
80. Advent Ventures
81. Northzone Capital
82. Southern Cross Venture Partners
83. Emergence Capital Partners
84. Artiman Ventures
85. GSR Venture
86. Bluerun Ventures
87. GGV Capital
88. Garnett and Helfrich Capital
89. Granite Ventures
90. Vantage Point Venture Partners
91. Shasta Ventures
92. iGlobe Partners
93. DN Capital
94. Northcap Partners
95. Partech Ventures
96. Scale Venture Partners
97. Mustang Ventures
98. Gemini Israel Fund
99. Gabriel Venture Partners
100. Zone Venture Capital

Twitter tips

Are you a Twitter? If not, just pick one and then get in the gate of this magic world—BTW, if you happen to be live in Iran, North Korea or that so called greatest country with GFxxxW, forget about that, Twitter is inaccessible for you.
There are too many bewildering 3rd part API to Twitter. Services and products for Web2 are massive in the western internet (ridiculous, isnt’t it? That is not international net but inernet there,! ) and social network players know how to find good tools or buy cheap services, however, Twitter players in China usually don’t like it at first.
Thanks to the one-click-follow list created in TweepML.com, some popular Chinese twitters were surprised with a bulk of followers in one night, and certainly they are happy to get such kind of attention in the fragment web2. They suddenly get much attention and are feeling like a real leader who can spread his/her views, news, comments whatever, even he can ask some guys pass toilet paper via twitter,
Then, as nobody, can we suddenly get hundreds even thousands followers? Sure, … … … …
So now you can boast yourself ”I got the international influence“.
Last but not least, the best way to develop your followers is : provide either useful or valuable stuff to lure more.

………
做这个名单,是不满国内某些自认Niubility的推客,因为tweepML名单一夜多了很多追随者,然后Zhuangbility,说什么我不在乎后边跟多少人,也不管followers想法,然后就twitter上发无聊的碎碎念,“彰显领袖的力量”。最恨Zhuangbility。现在,人人都是nubility啦。