20190124【充实计划】第961期

昨天阅读1小时，累计971小时

北大批判， 薛涌，2009年

历史学家面对的文献，多是当时的人根据自己的目的对“事实”进行的叙述。因为目的不同，所叙述的“事实”也不同。对历史学家最大的一个挑战是，你所拥有的史料不过是过去的人为我所用讲的故事。除此以外，你往往没有或很少有其他的线索。历史学中的批判性阅读，特别要注意是谁在叙述，目的是什么，然后发现这种“叙述特权”掩盖了什么事实或是否压抑了其他人的叙述。举个例子，我们看中国的史料，讲到某王朝灭亡时，往往会碰到女人是祸水这类叙述和评论。其中评论一看就知道是史学家的个人意见。但他的叙述有时则显得很客观，特别是那些没有夹杂评论的叙述。没有批判性的阅读，你可能会简单地接受这些为既定事实。但是，当你意识到这些全是男人的叙述，特别是那些希望推脱责任的男人的叙述时，你就必须警惕。因为女人在这里没有叙述的权利，她们的声音被压制了，没有留下来。那么，你就必须细读现有叙述的字里行间，发现其中的破绽。这是分析史料的基本技巧。刚被奥巴马提名为美国历史上第一位拉美裔大法官的So-nia Sotomayor，上普林斯顿本科时学的就是历史专业。她大一时遇到了历史系的教授Nancy WeissMalkiel，后者手把手教她怎么分析地阅读文献史料，使她的思维能力有脱胎换骨的跃进。这大概也是她日后能最终登上司法界顶峰的基石。她的故事，完全印证了上面那位哈佛法学院出身的律师的话，读史料的功夫和律师的基本训练非常一致。

每读小说几乎首先要分析“叙述者的声音”，分析不同的叙述者看到的不同的现实，或者被叙述者有意无意忽略的现实，而不是把小说中的描写都当作“客观描写”。小说中的每一个字背后都有个叙述者，不同的叙述者有不同的目的，因而“事实”也随着这些目的的不同而变化。读者必须意识到哪段话究竟是谁的叙述，是否应该相信这个叙述者，在多大程度上相信。她经常和我讲，每位叙述者都是不可靠的。你要从文本分析中发现这种不可靠性。她举出黑泽明的电影《罗生门》，该电影改编自芥川龙之介的小说《筱竹丛中》。整个小说就是几个人对一桩凶杀案的截然不同的叙述，解构了事实的客观性。这活像是法庭上律师或公诉人各向对方的证人所进行的反诘问（cross-examination），引出的经常是各说各的“事实”，大家的目标也多是要破解对方的叙述。她以为小说写得太生硬机械，好像是在套用法庭反诘问的模式。更高超的小说，则微妙得多，破解其中的叙述模式时需要更精微的敏感力和洞察力。在许多场景中，一个人的叙述实际上有着双重叙述者。透过这双重叙述者来观察现实，比透过一个单纯叙述者的偏见更困难。比如，小说中经常写到一位老人回忆年轻时的事情。这时一个人嘴里就有两个叙述者。一个是年轻时的他，呈现的是那时他看世界的眼光所反映出来的“事实”。同时，还有一个“现在”的他，即几十年后“看”自己当年“看”到的事实。一个人在两个时空中的利益、情感、理智以及目的可以非常不一样。作为一个读者，你怎么破解这些？这是文学的问题，也可以是法学上的问题。
正是因为有这种多重叙述的复杂性，文学课最好是以讨论的方式进行。

读历史也好，读文学也好，都很像个侦探，和律师读法庭审判记录非常相似。法庭就是不同的叙述者的叙述的交锋。大家各说各的故事，虽然这些故事指涉的是一个现实。你必须破解叙述者的意图和“事实”之间的关系，而且经常要根据叙述者提供的事实推翻叙述者的结论，破解这个叙述本身。特别重要的是，你要寻找那些缺席的声音、那些被压制的叙述者，从他们的角度看待“事实”。奥巴马在提名Sonia Sotomayor为大法官时，特别强调她所具有的特异素质——“感情移入”（empathy）。这个词在中文中很少谈，但在美国则经常被讨论。所谓“感情移入”，指的是一种能够进入他人的内心去感受世界的能力，而且这种感受能力甚至可以在不和有关的他人进行沟通的情况下就获得。这在读文学作品时特别重要。有这种能力的人，每每能非常敏锐地体会那些不在的、被压制的叙述者心中的感受，虽然没有机会和这些被压制的人进行任何交流；没有这种能力的人则往往完全麻木，看不到文本中没有提到的东西。读历史也是如此。那些从史料的字里行间发现问题、推翻既有的叙述的人，往往是那些具有“感情移入”能力的人。人文学科在这方面为学生提供了很好的训练。
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
总结与感想：
批判性的阅读、破解既有的叙述、解构叙述特权、发现被压抑的叙述者的声音、通过感情移入理解他人等，是认识人和社会最基本的，又是学无止境的技巧。学生不管以后从事什么事业，首先要懂得如何解读生活的文本。
思辨能力要从分辨接受的原始信号做起，我们的教育从来不提这个，要靠自己悟

他把B2B、生鲜店、社群、拼团的坑趟一遍后发现，只能做产地供应链


https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/JuRnSHcYmYkhXMtdvKYbew

昨日阅读2小时。 总阅读时间93小时
Book of Value - The Fine Art of Investing Wisely 2016(Anurag Sharma)
https://bbs.pinggu.org/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=6303889&from^^uid=109341(Page 225-244)

阅读到的有价值的内容段落摘录
Management Team That Lead to Outstanding Performance
In the modern corporation, small or large, power is highly centralized in the hands of a few people who make most if not all key decisions. These people, the top management team (TMT), exercise considerable discretion as to what gets priority, who gets the money, and what gets done. If not also the architects of the business model, they are its operators, ultimately responsible for the performance and financial health of the company and, therefore, for the safety of your investment in it. Because of the power they have, good managers can create tremendous value for shareholders. Steve Jobs, to take a well-known example, transformed the music industry by imagining what he could do with an external hard drive, a commodity widely available in the civilized world. Upon recognizing the potential in the hard drive, he boldly allocated company resources to build a global business that changed the way we listen to music. Moreover, even as he built the iPod, Jobs developed a powerful platform for innovations that has given us the iPhone and the iPad. One good insight from one good manager created billions of dollars in value for Apple shareholders. There are many other examples of good managers creating economic value by building new companies and by transforming existing ones. Sam Walton built Walmart, Ray Kroc built McDonald’s, Thomas Watson, Jr. revived International Business Machines, Jack Welch transformed General Electric (GE), Larry Ellison built Oracle, Phil Knight built Nike, Louis Gerstner revived International Business Machines yet again, Bill Gates built Microsoft, Jeff Bezos built Amazon, Howard Schultz built up Starbucks, Reed Hastings built Netflix; the list goes on.

The performance of a company and of your investment in it depends largely on the skill with which leaders seek opportunities and allocate capital to construct new or solidify existing streams of cash. Good managers are, in essence, good stewards of the resources entrusted to them by suppliers of capital at risk: the shareholders. They concentrate on delivering strong operating performance that, over time, has the potential to create a great deal of wealth for shareholders. But there is another side to this story. Many managers are not keen on anyone’s interests but their own. For shareholders, usually widely dispersed and often owning too small a part of the company to have much say in its affairs, not having managers who look after their interests bodes trouble.1 Because they control the resources of the company, managers have all the power and, as history teaches us, with power comes the potential for corruption in its many forms: hubris, entrenchment, nepotism, negligence, incompetence, and downright fraud. In many instances, top managers have systematically looted the wealth that was at their disposal, using company resources as if they were monies in a personal account. For shareholders, there is perhaps no more important an issue than the competence, integrity, and character of the managers in control of the companies in which they have invested. With the likes of Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling of Enron, Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom, Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco, John Rigas of Adelphia Communications, Conrad Black of Hollinger International, and, of course, the one and only Bernie Madoff, we are reminded that capitalism produces its share of misfits and crooks in high places, and that unwitting shareholders are easily duped. The many high-profile cases notwithstanding, investors can lose even when executives do not engage in criminal action or outright fraud. Managers can enrich themselves in any number of ways, for the simple reason that they are in control of the resources and close to the action; they have a great deal of discretion as to what goes on and what gets reported. While most managers do their jobs honestly, and well-run companies usually have considerable internal controls to prevent misdeeds, investors trying to disconfirm their investment theses must keep a
lookout for what may be amiss in the character of the people who run the companies in which they invest. Investors must learn to make judgments about the competence and trustworthiness of the managers running the company, and to assess the degree to which their words and actions demonstrate respect for the rights of the shareholders.

阅读到的有价值信息的自我思考点评感想
Evaluating managers can be difficult, especially if you don’t have direct contact with them. Information about the managers is often spotty, and business issues can be complicated; you may also have insufficient access or resources with which to uncover major fraud, especially when those committing the fraud actively camouflage their actions. Big investors and institutions with large amounts of capital at stake may be able to hire specialists, such as forensic accountants and private investigators, to evaluate the background and character of top managers. For small investors, however, digging deep into every company out there is simply impractical. As such, for both small and large investors, a quick run-through of some of the basics can be useful, especially to the extent that knowing how to investigate the quality of a company’s managers will help keep your money out of the hands of at least the most egregious offenders. In order to make preliminary judgments about the quality of managers, therefore, it may be useful to review three broad areas: (1) demographics—to understand the people and the dynamics is in the executive suites; (2) track record—to evaluate past accomplishments by way of tangible results; and (3) oversight—to comprehend the incentives and monitoring mechanisms in place. Significant doubts about managers arising from such scrutiny may be grounds for disconfirming the investment thesis, in particular for those with bad records. Ultimately, evaluation of the top management team is a crucial part of investment analysis. Based on a range of quantitative and qualitative information, as discussed above, investors should make judgments about the competence and integrity of the company’s managers. If it turns out that your analysis reveals grave doubts about the managers or their oversight, then you must disconfirm the investment thesis.
In Hong Kong and China the ethics and capability of the management team is very important, and for small capital companies that are family-controlled, it appears it is more vulnerable to bad management of family members.

昨天阅读2小时，累计阅读221小时。

1、https://bbs.pinggu.org/thread-6839591-1-1.html利息是正当的
2、利息是某种使用价值的价值。
资本或一笔钱，对借款者没有使用价值吗？
肯定有，否则借钱干嘛？
使用价值这东西，用了就没有了。
别人的东西，你给用没了，不该付钱么？
其实，既使你愿意付钱，这种使用价值你都未必买得到。
因为人家担心，这种使用价值的载体会让你给弄没了。。。
3、本人这两年从事资金业务，对利息不陌生。利息说白了就是购买货币一定期间使用价值的价格，获得这种使用价值，会变成各种各样的价值（以形形色色资产存在）。货币的使用价值是有期限的，到期必须归还这种使用价值。现阶段，很多到期无法归还的，反过来会埋怨货币使用价值使用费过高。这是不道德的，也是违背契约精神的。甚至一开始就是抱着违约的心态去获得这种使用价值，以既成事实来谈判获得廉价的使用价格。所以，做生意也好，做交易也罢，人品很重要。无感恩之心，无羞愧之心，得了便宜还卖乖。为啥会出现这样的情况呢。为了生存，没有正当途径去获得这种权益，只能去欺骗别人。所以，金融生态，靠的不是堵，而是疏。不是打击资金提供者，而是为资金需求者提供这种便利。
4、昨日学习2小时
5、总共学习22小时

昨日阅读2小时，累计阅读145小时

昨天阅读1小时，累计阅读61小时

今天学习和阅读约5小时，累计阅读约1635小时。
学习和投资心得：
股票估值：对于市场当中的参与者来说，估值一直是一个重要的并且无法回避的问题，不管你是长期投资者，还是波动操作者，估值都是无法省略的步骤，然而估值又有许多困惑，很多时候象雾象雨又象风，根本无法琢磨的透，估值方法众多，不同的企业要用不同的方法来估值，同时哪些企业用什么样的方法来估值，显然这不是轻易能够搞的清楚的，就象是选对了估值方法，也经常出现买入的时候明显偏高的现象。估值之所以有这么多困惑，一方面是因为估值本身很难，另一方面是因为估值的对象，也就是我们要买入股票背后的企业，它本身是活的，是发展变化着的，对于一个经常发生变动的企业来说，你想完全准确的判断它的价值，显然难度本身就很大，如果再加上选择的估值方法本身不是非常恰当，那么估的过高或者过低就再正常不过了；同时由于市场波动的持续性，即使已经判断当前股价严重低估了，并不代表市场交易价格就不再下跌了，也许仍然会在低估的道路上走出去很远，甚至跌的你开始怀疑自己的估值是否正确，这就是情绪的作用，市场价格在情绪的推动下，会在低估或者高估的方向 上走出去很远，甚至远远超出你的想象；同时我们也清楚的知道，想要把企业的价值准确判断在某一个点上，也几乎是不可能，估值本身就是一个区间，它不是一个点的概念，是一个区间的概念，并且区间的上限与下限也只是一个大致的判断，没有哪条线是不可逾越的，市场的波动永远超出你的想象，不打破你的心里防线，市场就永远也不会见底或者见顶；从长期来看估值本身是有意义的，但对于短期的波动，估值的参考价值就非常有限了，如果你是短期投资者，那么可能估值本身的作用不大，如果你本身想长期投资，那么在应该在低估的时候买入，高估的时候卖出，这是一个基本的大原则，一般应该按照这个原则来操作。一个帝王制国家的证券市场谈不谈估值意义不大，当战略需要其上涨便会来一波上攻，当股市完成使命便会进入漫长熊市。2007年股权分置改革实际上就是搞大扩容，2015年在证券行业工作的人都知道牛市初期钱是被管理层赶进股市的。一个帝王制国家的赌场永远都是散户市，等指数上到4000点散户逐渐进场又是题材故事满天飞。体制不变A股K线会一直重复历史走势，只不过由于扩容速度太快高点会逐渐下移，6124那是永远不可能跨越的。

昨日阅读时间1小时，总阅读时间94小时

今天阅读1小时，持续每天阅读累计104小时。