UK Economic - Sales in Christmas

Stampede for sales as shops fear the worst

Fears that a wave of high street retailers will go bust drove a frenzy of price cutting yesterday as shops made a desperate attempt to entice customers to spend.

Prices were slashed by up to 90 per cent in department stores, fashion outlets and supermarkets across the country for the Boxing Day sales, evidence of the growing sense of crisis in the retail sector.

Retailers called for an urgent government bailout to match financial assistance given to the banking sector and the auto- motive industry to protect three million jobs.

Yesterday hefty discounting, the only option available to shift stock urgently and raise much needed cash, resulted in one of the busiest shopping days in living memory.

Thousands of bargain hunters formed queues outside stores from the early hours of the morning and many shopping centres reported higher footfall rates than during last year’s sales.

Selfridges, the Oxford Street department store, turned over almost £1 million between 12pm and 1pm — the most successful hour in the store’s 100-year history.

But despite the huge customer turnout, experts warned of grim times ahead and said that more than ten retail chains risked going under next month.

The British Retail Consortium (BRC) called on the Government to support the industry to avert a wave of bankruptcies. Woolworths, the most high-profile of them, will close a quarter of its stores today. On Christmas Eve, as surveys suggested that trading was at its worst levels in 25 years, Zavvi, the music, games and DVD chain, went into administration.

Jason Gordon, retail director at Ernst and Young, said that retailers faced further difficulties in the coming months, including planned tax increases in April. Buying capacity is also being undermined by the weakness of sterling.

Mr Gordon told The Times: “We will certainly see a higher level of profit warnings and companies going into administration in the next year. There are a whole host of challenges for the retailers that survive the first quarter.”

Yesterday the Centre for Economics and Business Research warned that the UK economy would suffer its worst fall since 1946 next year.

Richard Dodd, of the BRC, said that retailers had “no choice” but to discount heavily. “Quarterly rents were due yesterday and a lot of retailers have to find the upfront cash this week,” he said.

Analysts warned that some retailers would be forced to continue discounting into January, and possibly February. The sales continue today.

原文：http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/retailing/article5401197.ece

Human Flesh Search Engines - Two Sides

China's virtual vigilantes: Civic action or cyber mobs?

 

Concerned citizens are targeting anyone from accused pedophiles to activists with 'human flesh search engines' that post people's personal information online.

By Peter Ford | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the November 28, 2008 edition

Beijing - Some call it a weapon in the hands of a righteous army, forged so that wrongdoers might be smitten. Others say it simply allows a mob of vigilantes to publicly vilify and humiliate anyone they choose to pick on through grotesque invasions of privacy.

Either way, the peculiarly Chinese Internet phenomenon known as the "human flesh search engine," a citizen-driven, blog-based hunt for alleged undesirables, claimed a fresh victim this month when a mid-ranking government official lost his job.

Accused of accosting a young girl, Lin Jiaxiang found his name, address, phone number, and workplace plastered all over Chinese cyberspace for 250 million Internet users to see, and his alleged crime the subject of hundreds of insulting blog postings.

Mr. Lin might be thought to have gotten his just deserts, especially since the police refused to prosecute him because he'd been drunk. Grace Wang, however, a Chinese student at Duke University, was outraged when netizens back home, offended by her efforts to mediate a campus dispute between pro-Tibetan and Chinese students last March, tracked down her parents' address and emptied a bucket of feces by their front door.

Once the actions of Ms. Wang and Lin had attracted attention in Internet chat rooms, both were quickly identified by people who recognized the photos of them posted on the Web.

It was not long before others who knew them had created an ad hoc human flesh search engine, and began posting many other personal details about the two.

With more Internet users than anywhere else in the world, there is no shortage of amateur detectives ready to join the hunt. And with chat rooms the only public space where Chinese citizens can express themselves anonymously and with any real freedom, they have become forums for strong opinions on many issues.

"It is a tradition in China," says Yu Hai, a sociologist at Shanghai's Fudan University. "People here like to moralize. And since traditional media are government mouthpieces, the Internet has become a very convenient channel for ordinary people to vent their feelings."

They can do so pretty much however they like, not only because they can disguise their identities, but also because there is no privacy law in China yet. "There is no practicable, feasible, and concrete legal instrument" to regulate Internet use, says Li Xu, deputy head of Tsinghua University's Institute for Internet Behavior.

One man who found himself the quarry of a human flesh search, Wang Fei, is testing the law by bringing China's first suit against websites that he says carried defamatory statements about him.

Mr. Wang drew the ire of fellow Internauts after his wife committed suicide last year. Her diary, posted posthumously by her sister, voiced suspicions that Wang had an affair with a colleague. The blogosphere blamed Wang for his wife's death, and turned on him with a vengeance.

"You will fall into the endless darkness and abyss of misery hated by billions" read one post, labeling Wang a "beast" and "scum."

The virtual insults spilled over into real life. Someone painted "blood for blood" on Wang's front door, his lawyer said. He and his relatives were bombarded with furious telephone calls, and he was fired from his job at an advertising agency, along with his alleged mistress.

"Those websites published insulting, defamatory, and untrue information about Wang that damaged his reputation ... and violated his privacy," argues his lawyer, Zhang Yanfeng. "He is suing them for damages, for mental distress, and lost earnings."

The case has already taken nine months and will probably not come to judgment until next spring, says Mr. Zhang, because of "a great many disagreements" among the judges and the expert witnesses.

Among the issues the court must resolve, in the absence of any clear legislation, is whether information such as a cellphone number, an ID card number, or an address can be said to be private. The judges must also consider how far website managers are responsible and legally liable for posts on their sites, and weigh the competing interests of free speech and privacy protection.

A poll published earlier this year in the China Youth Daily found that nearly 80 percent of respondents thought that human-flesh search engines should be regulated, and 65 percent thought they invaded people's privacy.

The dilemma, says Dr. Li, is that "allowing arbitrary speech with no regulation ... violates privacy rights. But if you over-regulate citizens' ability to express themselves, the Internet will lose its very nature and its attraction."

Drawing too heavy a cloak around personal privacy, moreover, would protect abusive officials from the public pillorying they deserve, argues Liu Deliang, head of the Asia-Pacific Institute for Cyberlaw Studies.

"Ordinary people have no enforceable right to supervise government officials' behavior or to control the corruption they see everywhere," he says. "So they use the Internet to do that."

"Human-flesh searches are a neutral technology that can be used for good or ill," says Dr. Liu. "But they must strike a balance between public and private interests."

原文：http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1128/p01s01-woap.html

Beyond GDP - Welfare

How Not to Stimulate the Economy

In thinking through the fiscal policy options and their implications, it might be useful to compare a few hypothetical, fanciful scenarios. Suppose that the federal government borrows some money and then...
Case A: uses the money to give a lump-sum payment (such as a tax rebate) to Joe Average, who chooses to spend his free time sitting at home watching Mork and Mindy reruns.
Case B: uses the money to hire Joe to sit at home and watch Mork and Mindy reruns.
Case C: uses the money to hire Joe to sit at home and watch Family Feud reruns, which Joe does not enjoy quite as much as Mork and Mindy.
In all the cases, Joe will spend some of the money he gets on consumer goods and services, leading to a Keynesian multiplier. But those knock-on effects are the same in the three cases, so we can put those aside for now.
Let's begin by comparing cases A and B. These two scenarios are identical in terms of final allocations and economic welfare. Joe is doing the same thing, and all the money flows are the same. But note that the macroeconomic statistics would be different. In Case B, Joe is employed producing a government service. If we used standard data to compare Case B with Case A, Case B would show more hours worked and a higher Gross Domestic Product.
Now look at Case C. It has the same employment and GDP as Case B, but welfare is strictly lower. Joe is, after all, less happy watching Family Feud. Comparing Case C with Case A, therefore, we see greater employment, greater GDP, and lower welfare.
Usually, GDP is a reasonable proxy for economic well-being, so more is better, but that is not true in this example. Part of the problem here is that GDP includes government purchases at cost. If the government hires people to produce stuff that is worthless, that stuff is included in GDP just as much as if the government buys something valuable. When calculating GDP, the national income accountants do not pass judgment on the social utility of government spending. Anyone concerned with economic well-being has to go beyond thinking about GDP.
The moral of the story: If the government spends a fiscal stimulus package on goods and services without much public value (as in Case C), it could well stimulate the economy as measured by macroeconomic aggregates but leave the participants in the economy worse off (compared with a feasible alternative, Case A). Avoiding this trap requires that the government spend taxpayers dollars only those items that pass a strict cost-benefit test. That is hard to do quickly. Willy-nilly spending is a good way to stimulate the economy only if the outcome is judged by the wrong metric.

原文：http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-not-to-stimulate-economy.html

Grieving parents file lawsuit in China

By Edward Wong

Monday, December 22, 2008

DEYANG, China: Parents whose children died in the collapse of an elementary school during the May earthquake that devastated western China have filed a lawsuit against government officials and a construction contractor. The lawsuit is the first filed by grieving parents angered by what they say is shoddy construction that led to the deaths of their children.

The lawsuit was filed Dec. 1 in a court here in the city of Deyang, in Sichuan Province, the region hit hardest by the May 12 earthquake that left 88,000 people dead or missing. It was the deadliest natural disaster in China in more than three decades. The parents who brought the lawsuit said in interviews last weekend that they were waiting to hear whether the court would allow the case to go forward.

Soon after the earthquake, government officials estimated that 7,000 classrooms had collapsed across the quake zone, killing up to 10,000 schoolchildren. The parents who filed the lawsuit Dec. 1 are the fathers and mothers of children who died in the collapse of Fuxin No. 2 Primary School, where at least 127 students were crushed to death.

The issue of school-building collapses has become the focal point for the greatest political challenge to the Chinese government in the aftermath of the earthquake. In the weeks after the earthquake, grieving parents took to the streets in towns across Sichuan to demand that local officials investigate the construction of the schools.

In some cases, crying parents were hauled away by the riot police. Later in the summer, local governments promised compensation payments to parents if they signed agreements stating they would no longer demand investigations or complain about school construction.

Many of the parents of Fuxin No. 2 Primary School signed such agreements, but some decided in the autumn to go ahead with the lawsuit. The school is in the town of Fuxin, near the city of Mianzhu. The lawsuit names as defendants the town government of Fuxin, the education department of Mianzhu, the school principal and the company that built the school.

Chen Xuefang, one of the plaintiffs, said in a telephone interview that the parents were demanding compensation equivalent to $19,000 per dead child. Over the summer, the local government had offered parents the equivalent of $8,800 in cash and several thousand more dollars in post-retirement pension payments if the parents agreed to drop the issue of the collapsed schools.

Zheng Rongqiong, whose 10-year-old daughter died in the school, said in a telephone interview that parents of 57 dead children were taking part in the lawsuit. Officials from the city of Deyang, who oversee the administration of Mianzhu, have been pressuring the parents to drop the lawsuit, she said, but the parents have refused.

Some parents have declined to join the lawsuit because they believe there is little or no chance of winning and money spent on lawyers will be wasted, said Zheng, who is 35. The plaintiffs have contributed nearly $150 each to help pay for the travel expenses of a lawyer from Shanghai who has agreed to represent them.

"We hope that once we win this lawsuit, it will point out all the people responsible for the deaths of our children," Zheng said.

An official at the Mianzhu education department said Monday that he was aware of the lawsuit but declined to discuss it over the telephone. A woman at the offices of the town government of Fuxin said by telephone that she had no immediate response to the lawsuit.

In legal cases that involve politically sensitive issues, judges and lawyers in China often come under great pressure from government officials to keep the cases from going forward, so there is little chance that the parents in the Fuxin lawsuit will get a full hearing in court.

One parent said a court official met with several parents Dec. 8 to say that the court would not accept the case. No formal answer has come yet.

In similar legal action, parents in three provinces filed lawsuits this fall against dairy companies after tens of thousands of children across China fell ill and at least four died from drinking milk and baby formula tainted with a toxic chemical called melamine.

The milk scandal, once it was revealed in September, infuriated many Chinese and quickly became a huge political embarrassment to the Communist Party because local officials had been involved in covering up the poisonings. No lawsuits have yet been heard.

After the earthquake, the central government assigned a committee of experts to look into the school collapses, but the committee has yet to issue a final report. In September, an official from the committee, Ma Zongjin, said at a news conference in Beijing that a rush to build schools during the Chinese economic boom might have led to shoddy construction that resulted in the student deaths. He said more than 1,000 schools had one of two major flaws - they were built on the earthquake fault line or they were poorly constructed.

Government officials at all levels have tried to suppress discussion of the school collapses. A documentary that asks tough questions about a school collapse in the rural town of Muyu in northern Sichuan has attracted intense scrutiny from the central government.

The director, Pan Jianlin, showed the film, "Who Killed Our Children?", at the Pusan International Film Festival in South Korea in late October. Afterward, he told Reuters, people contacted his relatives and friends to tell them to pressure him to stop his work.

Aside from the parents of children killed in the Fuxin school, those of students who died in other schools are still looking for ways to push the government to do a full and open investigation.

This autumn, the father of a child killed in Dongqi Middle School in the town of Hanwang said by telephone that some parents were planning to travel to Beijing to file a petition with the central government. Exactly how they would go about doing it, he said, was still unclear.

Huang Yuanxi contributed research.

原文：http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=18862855

Life without bubbles

By Paul Krugman

Monday, December 22, 2008

America.

Whatever the new administration does, we're in for months, perhaps even a year, of economic hell. After that, things should get better, as President Barack Obama's stimulus plan - O.K., I'm told that the politically correct term is now "economic recovery plan" - begins to gain traction. Late next year the economy should begin to stabilize, and I'm fairly optimistic about 2010.

But what comes after that?

Right now everyone is talking about, say, two years of economic stimulus - which makes sense as a planning horizon. Too much of the economic commentary I've been reading seems to assume, however, that that's really all we'll need - that once a burst of deficit spending turns the economy around we can quickly go back to business as usual.

In fact, however, things can't just go back to the way they were before the current crisis. And I hope the Obama people understand that.

The prosperity of a few years ago, such as it was - profits were terrific, wages not so much - depended on a huge bubble in housing, which replaced an earlier huge bubble in stocks. And since the housing bubble isn't coming back, the spending that sustained the economy in the pre-crisis years isn't coming back either.

To be more specific: the severe housing slump we're experiencing will end eventually, but the immense Bush-era housing boom won't be repeated. Consumers will eventually regain some of their confidence, but they won't spend the way they did in 2005-2007, when many people were using their houses as ATMs, and the savings rate dropped nearly to zero.

So what will support the economy if cautious consumers and humbled homebuilders aren't up to the job?

A few months ago a headline in the satirical New York City newspaper The Onion, on point as always, offered one possible answer: "Recession-Plagued Nation Demands New Bubble to Invest In." Something new could come along to fuel private demand, perhaps by generating a boom in business investment.

But this boom would have to be enormous, raising business investment to a historically unprecedented percentage of GDP, to fill the hole left by the consumer and housing pullback. While that could happen, it doesn't seem like something to count on.

A more plausible route to sustained recovery would be a drastic reduction in the U.S. trade deficit, which soared at the same time the housing bubble was inflating. By selling more to other countries and spending more of our own income on U.S.-produced goods, we could get to full employment without a boom in either consumption or investment spending.

But it will probably be a long time before the trade deficit comes down enough to make up for the bursting of the housing bubble. For one thing, export growth, after several good years, has stalled, partly because nervous international investors, rushing into assets they still consider safe, have driven the dollar up against other currencies - making U.S. production much less cost-competitive.

Furthermore, even if the dollar falls again, where will the capacity for a surge in exports and import-competing production come from? Despite rising trade in services, most world trade is still in goods, especially manufactured goods - and the U.S. manufacturing sector, after years of neglect in favor of real estate and the financial industry, has a lot of catching up to do.

Anyway, the rest of the world may not be ready to handle a drastically smaller U.S. trade deficit. As my colleague Tom Friedman recently pointed out, much of China's economy in particular is built around exporting to America, and will have a hard time switching to other occupations.

In short, getting to the point where our economy can thrive without fiscal support may be a difficult, drawn-out process. And as I said, I hope the Obama team understands that.

Right now, with the economy in free fall and everyone terrified of Great Depression 2.0, opponents of a strong federal response are having a hard time finding support. John Boehner, the House Republican leader, has been reduced to using his Web site to seek "credentialed American economists" willing to add their names to a list of "stimulus spending skeptics."

But once the economy has perked up a bit, there will be a lot of pressure on the new administration to pull back, to throw away the economy's crutches. And if the administration gives in to that pressure too soon, the result could be a repeat of the mistake FDR made in 1937 - the year he slashed spending, raised taxes and helped plunge the United States into a serious recession.

The point is that it may take a lot longer than many people think before the U.S. economy is ready to live without bubbles. And until then, the economy is going to need a lot of government help.

原文：http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/22/news/edkrugman.php

Vyshinsky speech to U.N. General Assembly

When proposing the Marshall Plan, George C. Marshall offered financial aid to all war-torn European nations, including the Soviet Union.

The Soviet government and its satellite nations later rejected the aid, resulting in the economic and political division of Europe.

In this speech to the U.N. General Assembly in September 1947, Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Vyshinsky outlined his government's interpretation of the Marshall Plan.

The so-called Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan are particularly glaring examples of the manner in which the principles of the United Nation are violated, of the way in which the organization is ignored.

As the experience of the past few months has shown, the proclamation of this doctrine meant that the United States government has moved towards a direct renunciation of the principles of international collaboration and concerted action by the great powers and towards attempts to impose its will on other independent states, while at the same time obviously using the economic resources distributed as relief to individual needy nations as an instrument of political pressure.

This is clearly proved by the measures taken by the United States government with regard to Greece and Turkey which ignore and bypass the United Nations as well as by the measures proposed under the so-called Marshall Plan in Europe. This policy conflicts sharply with the principle expressed by the General Assembly in its resolution of 11 December 1946, which declares that relief supplies to other countries "should ... at no time be used as a political weapon."

As is now clear, the Marshall Plan constitutes in essence merely a variant of the Truman Doctrine adapted to the conditions of postwar Europe. In bringing forward this plan, the United States government apparently counted on the cooperation of governments of the United Kingdom and France to confront the European countries in need of relief with the necessity of renouncing their inalienable right to dispose of their economic resources and to plan their national economy in their own way. The United States also counted on making all these countries directly dependent on the interests of American monopolies, which are striving to avert the approaching depression by an accelerated export of commodities and capital to Europe. ...
It is becoming more and more evident to everyone that the implementation of the Marshall Plan will mean placing European countries under the economic and political control of the United States and direct interference by the latter in the internal affairs of those countries.

Moreover, this plan is an attempt to split Europe into two camps and, with the help of the United Kingdom and France, to complete the formation of a bloc of several European countries hostile to the interests of the democratic countries of Eastern Europe and most particularly to the interests of the Soviet Union.

An important feature of this plan is the attempt to confront the countries of Eastern Europe with a bloc of Western European states including Western Germany. The intention is to make use of Western Germany and German heavy industry (the Ruhr) as one of the most important economic bases for American expansion in Europe, in disregard of the national interests of the countries which suffered from German aggression.

I need only recall these facts to show the utter incompatibility of this policy of United States, and of the British and French governments which support it, with the fundamental principles of the United Nations.

原文:http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/03/documents/vyshinsky/

Wall Street - Ponzi Scheme

Wall Street's regulator: Asleep at the wheel?

The scale of Bernard Madoff's alleged fraud has shocked investors, who are already demanding to know how US regulators could have let it happen. Stephen Foley reports

"Madoff Securities is the world's largest Ponzi Scheme." This was the conclusion of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Wall Street's regulator, when it charged Bernard Madoff with a fraud of $50bn (£32.2bn) proportions last Thursday, a day after the veteran trader's sons called the police and turned him in.

But hang on, the quote is not from the SEC. It is from Harry Markopolos, a fast-talking Boston accountant, from a letter he wrote to the SEC in 1999 after he began snooping around Mr Madoff's firm. Mr Markopolos wrote again and again – but for nine years, the SEC failed to investigate and failed to uncover what now looks like the biggest scam in Wall Street's history.

To say the failure is an embarrassment would be to understate it. For an organisation already fighting for its survival, and assailed for facilitating the Wall Street free-for-all that has now trashed the credit markets, this is a new crisis it could do without.

Little wonder that SEC chairman Christopher Cox has got out the cat o' nine tails for a little self-flagellation. (Strictly, not self-flagellation. He is casting blame not on the politically appointed commissioners but on full-time staff members.)

"The commission has learnt that credible and specific allegations regarding Mr Madoff's wrongdoing, going back to at least 1999, were repeatedly brought to the attention of SEC staff, but were never recommended to the commission for action," he said. "I am gravely concerned by the apparent multiple failures over at least a decade to thoroughly investigate."

Mr Markopolos is something of a character in the Boston finance industry, an accountant famed for his analytical skill, who worked until 2004 at local investment management firm Rampart. He first looked into Mr Madoff's trading strategies in 1999, when Rampart was considering a rival investment product, and decided the returns Mr Madoff claimed were too good to be true.

In 2005, he wrote again to the SEC. According to the Wall Street Journal, which has seen the letters, he said: "Bernie Madoff's returns aren't real and, if they are, then they would almost certainly have been generated by front-running customer order flow from the broker-dealer arm of Madoff Investment Securities." He last wrote as recently as last year. The SEC conducted two minor investigations of the broker-dealer business but never ventured on to the other floor of Midtown Manhattan's lipstick-shaped skyscraper, where Mr Madoff kept his investment management operations. It was here, under lock and key, that he kept his records – the real accounts and the fictitious set he showed to investors. The fraud was a classic Ponzi scheme, Mr Madoff confessed last week. Old investors were paid using money from new ones. The returns were "all just one big lie" and now, with investors clamouring for their money, there is nothing left. Giant banks, august hedge funds, private investors and struggling charities are all nursing catastrophic losses. And it all happened under the SEC's nose.

Now a furious Congress is asking to examine the watchdog's teeth. There will be hearings in the House of Representatives, and the Senate's banking committee has asked for an independent investigation. Wall Street fears a regulatory crackdown similar to that which came out of Congress in the wake of the collapse of Enron.

Jack Reed, a Democrat senator, offered a taste of what's to come yesterday. "Chairman Cox was carrying out the intent of the President, which was basically, give everyone wide latitude and let the markets rule," he said. He is seeking speedy recommendations on improving regulation.

"These events have only further weakened already battered investor confidence in our securities markets," said Paul Kanjorski, who chairs a House committee on the capital markets. "And they have raised even more troubling questions about the effectiveness of our regulatory system." Republican senator Chuck Grassley said the SEC had "failed the American people".

The investigations into the SEC's role will examine whether a certain chumminess between Mr Madoff and his regulators led them to take too much on trust. In a career spanning almost five decades he had become a Wall Street grandee, a major force in the foundation of the Nasdaq stock market and its former chairman.

His reputation for speaking his mind made him a go-to guy when the SEC was examining regulatory issues surrounding electronic trading. He even served on one of its advisory panels.

At the very least, the investigations will touch on the debate about "regulatory capture", which has raged during the implosion of the credit markets. Academics have argued that the close contact between regulator and regulated creates a "groupthink", while the regulated industry spends time heavily lobbying for a particular kind of regulation that has no counter-balancing lobbying from outside.

At a business round-table meeting last year, Mr Madoff boasted of his relationship with the SEC. "There's always this friction between the regulation side of the industry and the practitioners about where you draw the line. I'm very close with the regulators, I'm not trying to say what they do is bad – as a matter of fact, my niece just married one."

That marriage is now going to be part of the internal investigation that Mr Cox promised on Tuesday. Shana Madoff, the niece, worked in her uncle's business as a compliance lawyer. Last year, she married Eric Swanson, who was until 2006 an SEC attorney in charge of overseeing stock exchange regulation of electronic trading. His team carried out one of the investigations into her uncle's firm, although the couple began dating later, his representatives said. Mr Cox has demanded that "any SEC staff who have had more than insubstantial personal contacts with Mr Madoff or his family" recuse themselves from the investigation. In a parallel development yesterday, the US attorney general, Michael Mukasey, removed himself from the Department of Justice criminal investigation because his son, Marc, is representing Frank DiPascali, a senior official at Mr Madoff's firm.

Although the broker-dealer arm of Madoff Investment Securities has always been registered with and regulated by the SEC, the investment arm was not required to formally register – a grey area that will be examined by Congress. Mr Madoff only registered it in 2006, and the SEC – citing pressure of resources – says only 10 per cent of the 11,300 investment advisers registered are examined on a regular basis.

Mr Markopolos's letters might have been a reason to push Mr Madoff's firm to the front of the inspection queue. Amid all the mysteries, why the SEC failed to act may be the one that yields the most enduring lessons.

House arrest: Madoff tagged and confined to Manhattan apartment

A week ago, he was one of the most well-connected men on Wall Street. Yesterday, Bernard Madoff was unable to find even two wealthy friends to co-sign his $10m (£6.5bn) bail bond.

As a result, a Manhattan judge toughened up the conditions of the alleged fraudster's bail, ordering him to wear an electronic tag and to observe a curfew that will confine him to his plush Upper East Side apartment between 7pm and 9am. Only his wife, Ruth, and brother Peter – both of whom worked with him at his collapsed firm Madoff Investment Securities – ultimately came forward to co-sign his bond. That meant he was unable to fulfil the original bail terms set after his arrest in New York last Thursday.

Yesterday's bail hearing was cancelled following the new deal between Mr Madoff's defence attorneys and prosecutors. Under the new deal, Ruth Madoff is required to surrender her passport and put up as security two properties in her name in Montauk, New York, and Palm Beach, Florida.

Mr Madoff scuffled with photographers and ran the gauntlet of TV crews and reporters as he returned home yesterday wearing a baseball cap – and a fixed smile.

原文：http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/wall-streets-regulator-asleep-at-the-wheel-1202338.html

陈毅

陈毅生于1901年8月26日，字仲弘，四川省乐至县人，是中国无产阶级革命家，军事家，政治家，中国人民解放军创建人和领导人之一，中华人民共和国元帅，是第一、二、三届国防委员会副主席，中国人民政治协商会议第三、四届全国委员会副主席，中国共产党第七届中央委员、第八届中央政治委员，第九届中央委员。

陈毅 - 个人概述

陈毅（1901-1972）字仲弘，四川省乐至县人。一九一九年赴法国勤工俭学。一九二一年回国。一九二三年加入中国共产党。一九二七年在南昌起义部队任第十一军二十五师七十三团政治指导员。参加领导湘南起义。土地革命战争时期，任工农革命军第一师党代表，中国工农红军第四军十二师党代表、师长，红四军军委书记、军政治部主任，红六军、红三军政治委员，中共赣西南特委书记，红二十二军军长，江西军区总指挥，西方军总指挥，中华苏维埃共和国中央政府办事处主任。领导了南方三年游击战争。抗日战争时期，任新四军第一支队司令员，江南指挥部、苏北指挥部指挥，新四军代军长。解放战争时期，任新四军军长兼山东军区司令员，华东军区司令员，华东野战军司令员兼政治委员，中原军区和中原野战军副司令员，第三野战军司令员兼政治委员。中华人民共和国成立后，任华东军区司令员兼上海市市长，人民革命军事委员会副主席，国务院副总理兼外交部部长，中共中央军委副主席。一九五五年被授予元帅军衔。是第一、二、三届国防委员会副主席，中国人民政治协商会议第三、四届全国委员会副主席，中国共产党第七届中央委员、第八届中央政治委员，第九届中央委员

陈毅 - 生平纪实

1901年8月26日生于四川乐至复兴场。少年时在成都读书，1919年赴法国勤工俭学，开始接受马克思主义。

1921年10月因参加中国留学生的爱国运动被押解回国。1922年加入中国社会主义青年团。1923年春在重庆《新蜀报》任文艺副刊主笔，秋天到北京中法大学读书，加入中国共产党，在李大钊领导下，从事工人、学生运动。

1926年初毕业后，参加领导了“三一八”爱国运动。8月被派往四川万县，推动川军响应北伐，11月调往重庆，参与沪州、顺庆(今四川南充)起义的组织准备工作。

1927年到武汉中央军事政治学校，任该校中共委员会书记。7月中旬，军校改编为张发奎掌握的第二方面军教导团，8月2日由武昌顺江东下，至九江，被张发奎缴械。陈毅布置应变工作后南下，在抚州赶上南昌起义部队，任七十三团的指导员。起义军失败后，与朱德等整顿余部，在江西、广东边界转战，保存了革命武装力量。

1928年1月参与领导湘南起义，成立工农革命军第一师，任师党代表。4月，与朱德率部到达井冈山地区，和毛泽东领导的秋收起义部队会师，先后任第十二师师长、红四军军 委书记，参与创建和保卫井冈山革命根据地的斗争。

1929年1月，随红四军主力下井冈山，出击赣南、闽西。2月，任第一纵队党代表，与纵队长林彪率部参加大柏地、攻打汀州等战斗。6月，主持召开中共红四军第七次代表大会，当选为前委书记。会后赴上海向中共中央全面汇报红四军情况。在周恩来主持下，代中共中央起草给红四军前委的指示信，支持毛泽东的正确主张。回红四军后，协助毛泽东召开中共红四军第九次代表大会，制订古田会议决议。

1932年后，历任红六军政委、第二十二军军长、江西军区总指挥兼政委等职，积极发展人民武装，参与领导反“围剿”。

1934年8月，指挥作战时负重伤。10月，第一方面军长征后，他任中共中央苏区分局委员、中华苏维埃共和国中央政府办事处主任，留在苏区坚持斗争。

1935年4月，根据遵义会议决议精神，与分局书记项英召开会议，确定长期坚持游击战争，保存和积蓄革命力量，准备迎接新的革 命高潮的方针。在敌人的分割、封锁和残酷的“清剿”中，在电台被毁与中共中央断绝联系的情况下，他在赣粤边界依靠人民群众，坚持极其艰苦的斗争。

1936年12月，他在梅岭草莽中被国民党军围困达20天，考虑难以脱身，便写了《梅岭三章》 。本文开头引用的是其中一首。他与项英等领导的游击战争坚持了三年，保存了中共在南方的革命力量。

抗日战争爆发后，从香港刊物读到毛泽东在全国代表会议上的报告摘要，掌握了建立抗日民族统一战线的精神，乃与项英主动同国民党地方当局进行合作抗日的谈判。

1937年9月到南昌，与中共中央恢复了断绝近三年的联系。11月，赴湘赣边区传达中共中央指示，险些被不理解中共中央指示精神的当地领导人错杀。后又到皖浙赣边区 进行传达，使这些游击队及时下山编入新四军。

1938年1月，任新四军第一支队支队长，率领第一、第二支队挺进苏南，开辟以茅山为中心的抗日游击根据地，任江南指挥部指挥，率部在南京、上海之间打击日伪军。随后率苏南主力北渡长江，任苏北指挥部指挥，联络泰州的地方实力派李明扬、李长江，打击国民党顽固派韩德勤，于1940年10月，指挥黄桥战役，取得军政全胜。随即北上，在盐城同八路军南下部队会师，为建立苏北抗日根据地打下基础，开创了华中抗日新局 面。11月，他代理华中总指挥部总指挥，与政委刘少奇统一指挥华中的八路军、新四军部队。

1941年1月皖南事变后，重建新四军军部，任新四军代军长，与刘少奇等指挥华中9万部队，在日军、伪军和国民党顽固派的夹击中坚持抗战，发展和巩固华中抗日根据地。

1943年11月赴延安，曾参加中共第七次代表大会的筹备工作，同时继续通过电报参与对华中地区和新四军的指导。

1945年6月，当选为中共第七届中央委员。抗日战争胜利后，任新四军军长兼山东军区司令员，统率华中、山东的八路军和新四军，抗击五十余万国民党军队对华东解放区的进攻。

1947年1月，任华东军区司令员、华东野战军司令员兼政委，同副司令员粟裕、副政委谭震林等创造性地执行以歼灭国民党军有生力量为主要目标而不以保守和夺取地方为主要目标，集中优势兵力各个歼灭敌人的作战方针，指挥部队连续取得宿(迁)北、鲁南、莱芜等战役的胜利，对粉碎国民党对解放区的全面进攻起了重要作用。1947年5月，指挥孟良固战役，歼灭美械装备的国民党军主力整编第七十四师，粉碎了国民党军对山东解放区的重点进攻。

1947年秋，按照中共中央的战略部署，同粟裕率华东野战军主力一部实行外线出击，挺进豫皖苏，与刘(伯承)邓(小平)野战军、陈(赓)谢(富治)集团密切 配合，在中原地区大量歼敌，迫使国民党军陷入被动地位，对扭转全国战局起了决定性的作用。

1948年5月兼任中共中央中原局第二书记、中原军区和中原野战军第一副司令员。11月至次年4月，作为总前委成员之一，参与指挥淮海战役和渡江战役，解放徐州、南京、上海、杭州等城市和东南广大地区。

1949年5月，兼任上海市长。中华人民共和国成立后，继续指挥部队解放东南沿海岛屿，剿灭国民党残余武装和土匪，筹建华东海军、空军和陆军技术兵种，加强部队现代化、正规化建设。同时领导上海人民战胜国内外敌人的破坏和封锁，迅速恢复和发展生产，有力地支援了国防建设和抗美援朝作战。

1954年任国务院副总理、中央人民政府人民革命军事委员会副主席。

1955年被授予中华人民共和国元帅军衔。

1956年当选为中共八届中央政治局委员。

1958年后兼任外交部长。

1959年起，任第三、第四届全国政协副主席。

1966年1月任中共中央军委副主席。“文化大革命”中，同林彪、江青反革命集团进行了坚决的斗争，受到严重迫害。

1969年夏，受毛泽东、周恩来委托，和叶剑英、徐向前、聂荣臻一起，全面深入地分析国际形势，向中共中央提出打开对外工作新局面的战略性建议。

1972年1月6日，在北京逝世，享年71岁。

陈毅 - 精彩人生

“投身革命即为家。”陈毅同志入党后，很快投入轰轰烈烈的中国大革命，先后在北京、四川、武汉从事革命活动。由于蒋介石、汪精卫相继背叛革命，大革命夭折，国内政治局势陡然逆转。在革命转入低潮的严峻考验面前，陈毅同志表现出一个共产党人的大无畏品格。他从武汉到江西抚州赶上南昌起义军。南昌起义军遭受严重挫折后，革命前途似乎已十分渺茫。在这种险恶的环境中，陈毅同志协助朱德同志率领南昌起义军余部，转战千里，组织发动了湘南起义，并把队伍带到井冈山，同毛泽东同志领导的秋收起义部队会师，组成中国工农红军第一支主力――红四军。以后，他又协助毛泽东同志召开中共红四军九大，通过了建设中国人民军队的纲领性文件――古田会议决议。陈毅同志为红四军和井冈山革命根据地的建设，为中央红军和中央根据地的形成和发展，做出了重要贡献。

一九三四年秋，在“左”倾冒险主义的错误指导下，中央革命根据地的第五次反“围剿”斗争失败，中央红军主力被迫长征，中国革命再度处于危急关头。陈毅同志那时身负重伤，和项英等同志留下，领导南方游击战争，并胜利地坚持了艰苦卓绝的三年游击战争。不论环境怎样艰苦，他始终充满着革命必胜的乐观主义精神。他和其他领导人一起，曾在梅山被敌人围困多日。陈毅同志带着伤病隐伏在草丛中，写下作为绝笔的诗篇《梅岭三章》。其中一章是：“断头今日意如何？创业艰难百战多。此去泉台招旧部，旌旗十万斩阎罗。”这种视死如归的革命豪情和百折不挠的钢铁意志，今天依然那样地激动人心。

抗日战争爆发后，南方红军游击队改编为新四军，开赴抗日战场。根据中共中央抗日民族统一战线的政策和独立自主地开展敌后游击战争的战略方针，陈毅同志率领新四军一部分主力挺进江南敌后，开辟了江南抗日根据地。一九四○年五月，他正确执行中央对新四军的指示，率部渡江北上。陈毅同志创造性地贯彻执行毛泽东同志提出的各项政策策略，团结进步势力，争取中间势力，孤立顽固势力，对反共顽固派进行有理有利有节的斗争，打开了华中抗战的局面，建立了巩固的苏北抗日民主根据地。皖南事变后，陈毅同志受命于危难之际，出任新四军代理军长，迅速发展华中的抗日力量，使华中成为对日本侵略者实施反攻和以后进行解放战争的重要战略基地。

解放战争时期，陈毅同志担任华东军区司令员、华东野战军司令员兼政治委员。他以无产阶级军事家的雄才大略，和粟裕、谭震林等同志一起，审时度势，抓住战机，接连取得宿北、鲁南、莱芜、孟良崮等战役的胜利，粉碎国民党军队对华东的全面进攻和对山东的重点进攻。在全国战略进攻开始后，他又和粟裕同志率部挺进中原，协同中原野战军行动，把战争引向国民党统治区的腹地。接着，他作为总前委主要成员之一，同邓小平、刘伯承等同志一起，参与淮海、渡江、上海等重大战役的指挥。在解放上海时，陈毅同志提出，既要歼灭敌人，又要保护人民的生命财产，完整地保全上海；并下达了部队在市区不准用炮、进城不入民宅的严格命令。在他的精心指挥和上海地下党组织的紧密配合下，歼敌十五万三千人，上海这座城市完好地回到人民手中。

新中国成立前后，党的工作重心由农村转向城市，由战争转向建设。陈毅同志在继续担任华东军区司令员的同时，出任中国最大的经济中心上海市市长。当时有人说：共产党打仗行，管经济不行。陈毅同志和其他老一辈无产阶级革命家一样，以自己的实际行动向全世界表明：共产党人不但有能力结束一个旧中国，而且有能力建设一个新中国。他以非凡的胆略和一往无前的勇气，紧紧依靠工人阶级，团结全市人民，创造性地把党的政策同上海实际相结合，排除万难，胜利接管并初步改造了这个城市，使社会风气焕然一新，统一战线工作取得巨大成绩，资本主义工商业逐步得到改造，经济迅速恢复发展，为建设社会主义新上海打下了坚实的基础。他在上海市长任内的卓越政绩和清廉、正直、办事雷厉风行、处处以身作则、和人民同甘共苦的风范，至今仍为上海人民所怀念。

１９５４年，陈毅同志担任国务院副总理，协助周恩来总理工作。他一向尊重知识，尊重人才，千方百计调动人们建设社会主义的积极性。１９６２年３月，他在广州向科技、文艺工作者说：“你们是人民的科学家、社会主义的科学家，是革命的知识分子，应该给你们脱掉资产阶级知识分子的帽子，加上劳动人民知识分子之冕，今天我给你们行脱帽加冕礼。”这受到广大知识分子和干部群众的热烈拥护。

在党的八届一中全会上，陈毅同志当选为中共中央政治局委员。他还是中央人民政府革命军事委员会副主席、中国人民政治协商会议全国委员会副主席、中共中央军事委员会副主席、国防委员会副主席、并被授予元帅军衔。

１９５８年２月起，陈毅同志兼任外交部长。面对国际霸权主义和强权政治的压力和威胁，他坚定地执行毛泽东同志和周恩来同志主持制订的中国独立自主的和平外交政策，坚决捍卫中国的国家主权和民族尊严，积极支持被压迫国家和人民的正义斗争，在和平共处五项原则的基础上努力发展我国同世界各国特别是亚非国家的友好合作关系，为开创中国外交的新局面，提高中国的国际地位和声望，为维护世界和平和促进人类进步事业，作出了巨大的贡献。在对外交往中，他充分表现出已经站立起来的中华民族的高度自尊和自信，同时又通情达理、豁达大度、实事求是、以诚待人，赢得了许多外国朋友的尊敬与信任，成为当代杰出的外交家。

“文化大革命”十年浩劫中，陈毅同志无私无畏，坚持真理，对林彪、江青反革命集团的倒行逆施进行了坚决的斗争。１９６７年２月，他同许多老一辈无产阶级革命家一起，当面谴责他们纂党夺权的阴谋，竟被诬陷为“二月逆流”。他在接见归国留学生代表时说：“我们已经老了，是要交班的。但是，绝不要交给野心家、两面派！不能眼睁睁看着千百万烈士用自己宝贵生命换来的革命成果付之东流！”在被迫离开领导工作岗位以后，他还向中央提出了恢复中美会谈，打开中美关系的建议，得到毛泽东同志的重视。１９７２年１月６日，陈毅同志不幸逝世，引起全国人民的极大悲痛和国际友人的哀悼。毛泽东同志也出席了他的追悼会。

陈毅 - 诗词作品

陈毅兼资文武，博学多才。有多种军事、政治论著和诗词著作，编为《陈毅军事文选》、《陈毅诗词选集》和《陈毅诗稿》等。陈毅同志有一首有名的诗：“大雪压青松，青松挺且直，要知松高洁，待到雪化时。”这正是对陈毅同志自己的最好写照。陈毅结过三次婚，对三任妻子，他都爱之深挚，永不忘怀。

余友肖菊英不幸失足井死，草草送葬，夜来为诗，语无伦次，哀哉。

泉台幽幽汝何之，检点遗物几首诗。
谁说而今人安在，依稀门角见玉姿。
检点遗物几首诗，几回读罢几回痴。
人间总比天堂好，记否诺言连理枝。
依稀门角见玉姿，定睛知误强自支。
正当送葬归来夜，幽幽泉台汝何之？
昔日汝言生者好，我今体味死去高！
艰难困苦几人负，失侣中年泪更滔！

这首诗，是陈毅元帅1931年1月，为悼念亡妻肖菊英而写的。肖菊英是陈毅的第一任妻子。1930年7月初，红22军在江西信丰县举办红军干部学校，在开学典礼上，陈毅认识了肖菊英。后来钱益民、彭加伦牵线搭桥，促成了这一桩美满婚姻。但在一次敌机轰炸中，肖菊英为掩护群众落井牺牲。

兴城旅夜倍凄清，破纸窗前透月明。
战斗艰难还剩我，阿蒙愧对故人情。

这是陈毅元帅于1937年10月去江西省兴国县与国民党谈判合作抗日时，得悉妻子赖月明在游击战中不幸牺牲而写下的一首悲愤凄凉、感情深沉的七绝诗。

赖月明是陈毅的第二任妻子。在“月老”李富春、蔡畅等人的热心帮助下，陈毅和赖月明结合了。后赖月明回到家乡开展革命工作。不久，由于叛徒告密，她被捕牺牲。

春光照眼意为痴，愧对江南统锐师，
豪情廿载今安在？输与红芳不自知。

这是陈毅在和张茜恋爱遇到“麻烦”时写下的情诗。

陈毅 - 个人荣誉

被授予了中华人民共和国元帅军衔和一级八一勋章、一级独立自由勋章、一级解放勋章

陈毅 - 人物评价

陈毅是久经考验的无产阶级革命家、军事家、外交家，中国人民解放军的创建者和领导者之一，党和国家的卓越领导人。一九七二年一月十日，中共中央政治局常委、国务院总理周恩来同志在追悼陈毅同志大会上致悼词，全文如下：“

我们怀着十分悲痛的心情，悼念陈毅同志。

陈毅同志是中国共产党第九届中央委员会委员、中央军委副主席、中华人民共和国国务院副总理兼外交部长、中国人民政治协商会议全国委员会副主席、国防委员会副主席。陈毅同志在病假期中，因患肠癌，治疗无效，于一九七二年一月六日二十三时五十五分不幸逝世。终年七十一岁。

陈毅同志一九二二年加入中国共产主义青年团，一九二三年加入中国共产党。一九二七年参加中国工农红军。红军时期，历任师长、军长、江西军区司令员兼政治委员；抗日战争时期，历任新四军一支队司令员，新四军代理军长；解放战争时期，历任华中野战军司令员，华东野战军司令员，华东军区兼第三野战军司令员。全国解放后，曾兼任上海市市长。

陈毅同志是中国共产党的优秀党员，是中国人民的忠诚战士。几十年来，陈毅同志在毛主席、党中央的领导下，在长期革命战争中，在社会主义革命和社会主义建设中，坚持战斗，坚持工作，努力为人民服务。

陈毅同志的逝世，使我们失去了一位老战友，老同志，是我党我军的一大损失。我们沉痛地悼念陈毅同志，要学习陈毅同志的革命精神，化悲痛为力量，在以毛主席为首的党中央领导下，在毛主席无产阶级革命路线的指引下，谦虚谨慎，戒骄戒躁，为完成国际国内新的战斗任务，争取新的更大的胜利而奋斗。

陈毅同志安息吧！”

朱德同志写诗哀悼陈毅同志：“一生为革命，盖棺方论定。重道又亲师，路线根端正。”董必武同志在挽陈毅同志诗中写道：“栋折吾忧压，伊谁继直声？”陈毅同志不愧为党的忠诚的共产主义战士，他的高大形象，将永远活在人民的心中。

原文：http://www.hudong.com/wiki/%E9%99%88%E6%AF%85

David Miliband at Zeitgeist Europe 2007

VC - nomination of a laycan irrevocable

P v A and another [2008] EWHC 1361 (Comm)

The Voyage Charterers’ nomination of laycan dates was irrevocable. Owners were entitled to rely on Charterers’ nomination immediately and the nomination could only be amended by agreement, irrespective of whether Owners had nominated a vessel already. Charterers’ insistence on their “entitlement” to change the laycan amounted to a repudiatory breach of the charter because it demonstrated a clear intention not to be bound by its terms, namely the original laycan nomination.

Claimant Charterers and Defendant Owners had entered into a contract of affreightment (on the Americanized Welsh Coal Charter Form) for six voyages from either Quebec (where Charterers would load iron ore) or Baltimore (where Charterers would load coal) to Constanza. The COA did not state when the voyages would take place, or from which of the two loadports, however clause 23 of the COA provided:

“Charterers to give 30 days’ notice with 10 days notice laycan spread and Owners to nominate vessel latest 10 days prior first day…”

In giving notice of the laycan spread, Charterers would nominate the loadport for the particular voyage, and thereby determine the cargo to be loaded, as well as fixing the earliest date on which the vessel could tender a NOR.

The dispute arose out of Charterers’ arrangements for the fifth voyage:

• on 6 September 2007, Charterers notified Owners that the fifth voyage under the COA would be from Baltimore to Constanza and the laycan would be 5/14 October 2007;

• a week later Charterers told Owners that they wanted to move the laycan to 21/30 October 2007 because the shippers could not supply cargo to the loadport within the 5/14 October laycan;

• Owners refused to agree to this change, no doubt influenced by the fact that the freight market had risen since the COA had been concluded, but suggested that the fifth voyage should be treated as cancelled and that the sixth voyage should be carried out with the 21/30 October laycan; 

• Charterers resisted this suggestion and instead proposed to substitute for the fifth voyage under the COA an alternative voyage from Newport News to Nikolaev, at the COA freight rate, with a laycan of 5/14 October; 

• Owners once again rejected Charterers’ proposal and on 24 September 2007, Owners informed Charterers that they were in repudiatory breach due to their refusal to perform the fifth shipment in accordance with the 5/14 October laycan.

The case was referred to arbitration and the arbitrators found, by majority, that:

• the effect of the Charterers’ notice, dated 6 September, was to define the parties’ obligations under the COA;

• once the laycan notice was given it was deemed to be written into the COA and could only be changed by agreement;

• the Charterers’ insistence that they had the right to move the laycan dates because the shippers could not provide the cargo by 5/14 October amounted to a proposal for a substitute voyage and demonstrated a clear intention not to be bound by the original nomination;

• Owners were entitled to accept Charterers’ repudiatory breach as releasing them from their obligation to perform the fifth voyage.

Steel J was asked by Charterers, on appeal from the Tribunal’s decision, whether (1) the nomination by the Charterers of the laycan spread was irrevocable and (2) the Arbitrators erred in law in holding that the Charterers were in repudiation by purporting to revoke the original nomination.

Charterers’ argued inter alia that the laycan nomination would only have become irrevocable if Owners had nominated a vessel and Charterers had confirmed the vessel (pursuant to the requirements of clause 23 of the COA) on the basis that at that point Charterers would have been estopped from changing the laycan. They further submitted that they were under no obligation to provide cargo within the laycan and that all Charterers had been doing by seeking to put back the laycan was, implicitly, to make clear that they would not exercise their option to cancel pending delivery of the cargo.

Steel J dismissed the appeal and held as follows:

(1)  Charterers had no right to change the laycan. Charterers’ nomination of laycan dates, in fulfilment of their obligation under the COA to do so and thereby complete the definition of the parties’ obligations for the particular charter, was irrevocable. 

This was in line with The Jasmine B [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 39, wherein the Court held that in the absence of any special provision to the contrary, once a loadport had been nominated, the charter must thereafter be read as though the nominated port had originally been written into the charterparty, and neither party had the right (or the obligation) unilaterally to change the nomination.

The fact that the nomination is irrevocable is also in keeping with the basic requirement in contract law that for a contract to be valid the parties must have made provision for terms of fundamental importance to the contract, or at least included a mechanism for determining such fundamental terms. In this case, the Charterers’ nomination of the laycan was essential to complete the definition of the parties’ obligations, including the loadport, the cargo to be carried and the earliest date on which the vessel could tender a NOR. Steel J held that without a provision in the COA for these provisions to be written in, the COA would be unworkable. He reasoned moreover that it would be commercially unworkable if the nomination only became irrevocable once a vessel had been nominated (and confirmed, if relevant) because Charterers would be able to alter the laycan repeatedly until that time.

(2)  The Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the Charterers’ insistence on their right to change the laycan constituted a repudiatory breach because it evinced a clear intention not to be bound by their original nomination.

(3)  Charterers’ submissions before the Court that the effect of their notices addressed to Owners was merely to inform Owners that they would not exercise their option to cancel until 30 October (if at all) were completely inconsistent with the Tribunal’s findings of fact that Charterers had informed Owners that they wanted to change the laycan and believed that they were entitled to do so, or that they wanted to substitute another voyage for the fifth voyage under the COA.

原文：http://www.incelaw.com/publications/ebriefapril2008/shippingebriefoctober2008/ownersnominationofalaycanisirrevocable/

The Erika - potential unlimited liability

The breakdown of The Erika off the coast of Brittany, on 12 December 1999, and the oil spill which followed exposed her Owners, her Managers, her Charterers (the oil major Total) and her Classification Society (Rina) to large compensation claims from local authorities and businesses affected by the spill and from environmentalists/volunteers who took part in the clean-up.

On 16 January 2008, the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance upheld the majority of these claims and found Total (jointly with owners, managers, and Class) liable to pay €192m in compensation. This judgment has been extensively commented on worldwide. 

On 24 June 2008, in an offshoot of The Erika main proceedings which had gone relatively unnoticed so far, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) rendered a judgment (C-188/07) which results in Total SA, which was not the named Charterer of The Erika, being potentially exposed to unlimited liability for the “waste” disposal costs, as “producer” of “waste”.

Facts and Procedure

The City Council of Mesquer (“Mesquer”), a small village in southern Brittany had its coast affected by The Erika oil spill.

In addition to joining in the main claim before the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris, Mesquer commenced a distinct claim based on “waste” disposal and the “polluter pays” principle under French statute 75-633 (article L 541-2 of the Code de l’Environnement) which implements Directive (EC) 75/442. (Directive 75/442 has since been replaced by Directive 2006/12/EC, but the relevant provisions in this context are the same.)

Mesquer argued that Total, as the owner and producer of “waste” within the meaning of EC Directive 75/442, should pay all the costs arising out of the disposal of that “waste” which had washed ashore, notwithstanding any relevant international or domestic legislation limiting/excluding Total’s liability.

After being defeated in first instance (Tribunal de Commerce de Saint-Nazaire) and on appeal (Cour d’Appel de Rennes), Mesquer’s claim reached the Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court) which referred the case to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling on (EC) Directive 75/442.

Questions referred to the ECJ and judgment

The questions referred to the ECJ were :

(1) Does heavy fuel oil sold as a combustible fuel fall within the definition of “waste” under article 1(a) of (EC) Directive 75/442;

(2) Does heavy fuel oil that is accidentally spilled into the sea following a shipwreck fall to be classified as “waste” within EC Directive 75/442;

(3) Does the producer/seller of the heavy fuel oil carried on board a chartered ship which breaks down and releases her cargo have to bear the cost of disposing of the “waste” thus generated?

Relevant provisions of (EC) Directive 75/442

Article 1 of the Directive provides :

(a) “waste” shall mean any substance or object in the categories set out in Annex I which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard.

(b) “producer” shall mean anyone whose activities produce “waste” (“original producer”) [...]

(c) “holder” shall mean the producer...or the... person who is in possession of it.

Article 15 of the Directive states:

In accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the cost of disposing of waste must be borne by:

- the holder [...], and/or

- the previous holders or the producer of   the product from which the waste came.

Directive 75/442 has since been replaced by Directive 2006/12/EC, but the relevant provisions in this context are the same.

ECJ judgment

The ECJ, in its judgment dated 24 June 2008, answered “no” to question (1) and, in essence, “yes” to questions (2) and (3). It held:

(1) Heavy fuel oil sold as a combustible fuel does not constitute “waste” under the Directive where it is exploited or marketed on economically advantageous terms and is capable of actually being used as fuel without requiring prior processing;

(2) Hydrocarbons accidentally spilled at sea following a shipwreck, mixed with water and sediment and drifting along the coast of a member state until being washed up on that coast, constitute “waste” where they are no longer capable of being exploited or marketed without prior processing;

(3) The Courts of member states may regard the seller of the hydrocarbons and Charterer of the ship as producer of that “waste” and, thereby, as a “previous holder” if he contributed to the risk that the pollution would occur.

The ECJ did not say when fuel oil which had leaked from The Erika had become “waste”, but gave the test to be applied i.e. the lack of commercial exploitability/marketability without prior processing.

The Court recognized that Member States are parties to the Civil Liability and Fund Conventions 1992, and that these require their national legislation to give effect to exemptions and limitations of liability which they contain.

The Court observed that the EU is not a party to the Conventions and that they did not, therefore, preclude the Community from legislating in different terms if it saw fit to do so. Nonetheless, although its remarks on the relationship between the Conventions and the Directive may be open to more than one interpretation, it expressed the view that they were compatible in as much as the Directive did not prevent national laws based on the Conventions from providing for limitations or exceptions of liability of the Owner and Charterer.

Accordingly the Court expressed the view that the Directive provided a remedy in cases where full compensation could not be obtained under the international compensation regime, or from the charterer of the ship due to his liability being excluded by CLC 92. In such cases Member States’ national laws must provide for the “producer” of the product from which the “waste” came to pay for the costs of disposal if he has contributed by his conduct to the risk that the pollution will occur, for example by lack of diligence in the choice of carrier.

Conclusion

This ECJ judgment is binding upon Member States’ Courts. How the ECJ judgment is implemented in the domestic laws of Member States, and applied by their courts, remains to be seen; but it is clear now that the “producer” of a product which is carried by sea and which, having become “waste”, accidentally washes ashore is exposed to a risk of unlimited liability if by his conduct he has contributed to the risk.

Whatever the precise legal relationship may be between the Directive and international conventions, in practice claimants seeking compensation have no incentive to bring a claim under the Directive, and to assume the burden of proving that the defendant’s conduct contributed to the risk of pollution, if an adequate remedy is available under international strict liability regimes.

Consequently, where the damage results from a spill of persistent oil from a tanker, claimants have no such incentive unless - as in The Erika - the established claims exceed (or may exceed) the maximum amount of available compensation. This amount has been increased considerably by the entry into force in 2005 of the Supplementary Fund Protocol, which applies in most EU member states. Under the Protocol the ceiling is now SDR 750 million, over five times the amount available to The Erika claimants under the 1992 Fund Convention.

In rare cases where the compensation limit is exceeded, the Directive may provide a further remedy against other defendants. Whilst the ECJ judgment is not totally clear on this issue, the court apparently accepted that liability under the Directive of the charterer could be excluded in such a case by the “channelling” provisions in CLC 92, but that it could be imposed on other parties who are not similarly protected, e.g. the shipper of the goods.

The prospect of liability being incurred under the Directive in such a case is greater if courts take a restrictive approach to the interpretation of the “channelling” provisions in CLC 92, following the judgment in The Erika case given in January 2008 by the Paris Criminal Court. The Court refused to allow Total to benefit from the exemption of liability of the charterer, on the grounds that the entity within the Total Group which vetted the ship was neither the charterer, nor (apparently) considered to fall within the exemption available for the servant or agent of the charterer.

A spill of non-persistent oil falls outside the international compensation regime. Though incidents of this kind are less damaging to the environment and have not led to claims on a par with spills of persistent oil, in theory the Directive could provide a remedy against the shipowner as well as the charterer and shipper, in the absence of domestic laws to the contrary.

The Directive could also be relevant in cases involving bunker spills, especially as the Bunkers Convention 2001, which comes into force in November 2008, does not contain any “channelling” provisions excluding the liability of a charterer. Generally the cargo owner will not be the owner of the bunkers, but liability could be incurred by the Charterer in addition to the owner if he is considered to have acted negligently in approving the vessel for charter. If he is permitted to limit his liability in accordance with the 1976 Limitation Convention then for these purposes his liability should be aggregated with that of the Owner: in that case only a single limit applies and it is doubtful whether the liability of the charterer adds to the recovery ultimately made by the claimants.

In summary, it is probably only in rare cases that the Directive and ECJ decision will materially affect existing compensation arrangements, but the judgment is not completely clear on all points and there is every prospect of reliance being placed upon it in any litigation following an oil spill in Europe.

At present it seems likely that those most at risk of incurring liability under the Directive are those in the same position as Total in The Erika, namely oil companies which owned the spilt cargo and are held to have contributed to the risk of pollution by their participation in the decision to charter the vessel.

原文：http://incelaw.com/publications/ebriefapril2008/shippingebriefoctober2008/theierikaipotentialunlimitedliabilityforproducersofproductscarriedbyseaandconstitutingwasteundereclegislation/

US - The Bailout So Far

HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.

Here's a fact to mull over: Washington a few months ago might have bought the entire stock of subprime mortgages for about half the money committed by the Fed and Treasury last week to prop up Citigroup and spur consumer and mortgage lending.

True, had it done so, it might have irritated taxpayers and moral-hazard philosophers, since it would have meant relieving bank shareholders of their mistakes. But buying up bad mortgages would at least have left the private sector in charge of issuing new credit, which -- however bad its performance during the housing bubble -- would likely produce better results than government directing credit allocation in the economy.

Sadly, that's where we are today. Bless them for trying, but our firemen have done an objectively crummy job. They failed to douse the confidence/systemic-risk fire and now have moved on to fighting recession by turning credit allocation into a public utility. Vikram Pandit of Citigroup says: "We have gone from arm's length, free market, just-in-time availability" of funding to a system where big credit-reliant businesses now have only one place to turn, government.

With pundits threatening the economy with deflation and another Great Depression, none have really been able to argue effectively against this expansion of government responsibility and interventionist zeal. It all happened out of the hip pocket of the Federal Reserve and Treasury, with a token congressional involvement in enacting a $700 billion package on terms that proved flexible to a degree that would make Gumby blush.

The original "Tarp," greeted with hosannas when it was announced, soon came to be treated as idiocy. Why? Because of quibbles about whether Washington would pay face value or discount value for the bad mortgages it would have taken off banks' books.

That distinction once seemed huge -- Heavens, it would be a crime to "overpay" for these assets! -- and now seems impossibly puny.

At least the original Tarp would have restricted government's role to saving the private sector from a one-time, however humongous, mistake in extending credit to homebuyers based entirely on expectation of rising home prices. Saving the banking system from this error, and inevitably forgiving many CEOs, shareholders, loan officers who benefited from it, would have been costly and produced moral hazard, yes -- but less so than what we're doing now.

Oh well. Maybe Washington will succeed in forestalling a deep and prolonged recession. Maybe all the money ($8 trillion by one count) being printed to acquire or insure mortgages, student loans, credit card receivables, commercial paper and banking shares will be seamlessly withdrawn once those assets are sold back to willing parties in the private sector when the panic has passed. Maybe taxpayers will even make a profit on the deal.

As Doug Flutie can testify, sometimes a 65-yard pass into the end zone lands in the hands of your own receiver.

Then again, a deep recession may always have been unavoidable by government action. Tarp (the Troubled Asset Relief Program) may turn out to be Tamp (the Troubled Asset Multiplication Program) as public money is shoveled at mortgages that will go bad, failing companies that will continue to fail (see Detroit), etc.

The U.S. was not Japan when we started but may be Japan when we're done. Remember, the Japanese had a much more closed financial system when entering their post-bubble "lost decade" of the 1990s. We have venture capital, private equity, hedge funds, and an entrepreneurial tradition -- one that is far from absent in banking. A reason the U.S. has been perennially "overbanked" (in the eyes of some analysts) is because investors keep starting new ones.

All that may come to an end as cheap government credit drives financial entrepreneurs to the sidelines. We may be able to roll over the resulting mounting federal debt at cheap rates for a while if international markets are willing (there is still confidence in government at least). But unless Gerard Phelan catches the ball in the end zone and GDP bounces back strongly, the bailout's end result may be towering tax rates, drastic spending cuts or serious inflation -- or all three.

Such is the Hail Mary being executed in your name by the federal government. Hold onto your hats and pray while the ball is in the air.

原文：http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122826676533474525.html

政府对经济危机应该袖手旁观

须知“人民币不升值”加“人民币以一篮子物品为钩”是自相矛盾的政策建议。我们应该在这两者之间选取一个且只选取一个，谨守那个选择，然后让市场对过去的错误作调整。

政府对经济危机应该袖手旁观

薛兆丰
2008年12月4日

今天的经济危机，是过去错误的经济预期和决策的表现。错误是过去造成的，只是今天才通过危机表现出来，今天才令人们改变预期并开始调整行为。政府去救市，就是用过去的积蓄或未来的公债来掩盖和歪曲本来正在指导人们进行行为调整的市场信号。那是掩耳盗铃，那是讳疾忌医，那是阻碍和扰乱调整。过去已经犯了错误，今天阻碍调整就是再犯错误。

美国汽车巨头要政府救市，救什么呢？给了钱以后，会发生什么呢？这些巨头失败，是市场正在起作用，在正常运作，而不是市场失败，不是市场机制错误。下棋输了是游戏规则失败吗？西北大学法学院 John McGinnis 教授说：“政府去救是恐怕可以解近忧，但远虑是：谁愿意买由邮政局生产的汽车呢？”

美国的救市新闻，已经完全离谱，成为闹剧。两位经济学家，Oliver Hart 和 Luigi Zingales，昨天在《华尔街日报》撰文指“经济学家已经放弃了原则”：

We believe that the way forward is for the government to adopt two key principles. The first is that it should intervene only when there is a clearly identified market failure. The second is that government intervention should be carried out at minimum cost to taxpayers. See here. 

我们相信政府应该遵守两条关键的原则。第一，只有在确实是市场失败的情况下才能出手干预。第二，政府干预对纳税人带来的成本应该减至最低。

这两位经济学家进一步指出，市场本来就具备相应的处理办法。破产就是出路。我也曾经说过（见这里）：航空公司破产，是否意味着那些飞机就消失在云彩里？不是！破产只是资产重组，只是所有权转手，只是原来的经理班子和董事会要在原来的岗位上被替换掉。但在向政府要钱的听证会上，这些经理反而俨然成了企业的救主。

回头说中国。中国的千亿救市，确实是发生在神州大地，但并不是炎黄子孙的发明，更不是什么正着。假如是本来就计划现在花的钱，就不是救市；计划未来花的改为现在花，就是凯恩斯式的政府刺激。没有什么不应该花的钱，不可以说成是未来应该花的钱。 本来该铺两车道的马路，现在铺两车道，那不叫救市；现在改铺三车道，可以说成是提前下个十年的计划；现在改铺八车道，也可以说出是提前了下五个十年的大计。这是正宗凯恩斯的把戏。

据估计中国出口竟占GDP的40%（见这里）。中国跟随世界衰退而衰退，与过去六年人民币汇率被人为持续压低，出口比例占GDP比重过高有直接关系。人民币升值加上美国衰退，当然造成国内出口业的调整。但这调整针对的是过去的错误，而救市则是要延续甚至深化过去的错误。

让我再强调，“人民币不升值”加“人民币以一篮子物品为钩”是自相矛盾的政策建议。后者充其量就是稳定物价。我们只能在这两者之间选取一个且只选取一个，谨守那个选择，然后让市场对过去的预期和决策错误作调整。

原文：http://xuezhaofeng.com/blog/?p=655

Georg Solti

Sir Georg Solti, KBE (21 October 1912 – 5 September 1997) was a 31-time Grammy Award winning,[2] world-renowned Hungarian-British orchestral and operatic conductor.

Early career
Solti was born György Stern in Budapest to Moricz Stern and Teréz Rosenbaum. His cousin was László Moholy-Nagy, the painter and photographer and co-founder of the Bauhaus. His father Germanized György's name to Georg and changed his family name to Solti, to shield them from antisemitism. He learned the piano but at age 14 heard Erich Kleiber conduct Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 and he decided immediately he wanted to be a conductor. He studied at the Franz Liszt Academy of Music, under Béla Bartók, Zoltán Kodály, Leo Weiner and Ernst von Dohnanyi.[3] By 1935 he was gaining recognition as a conductor, and made his debut at the Budapest Opera on 11 March 1938 with The Marriage of Figaro, the first time an unconverted Jew had ever conducted there. It was also Solti's last performance there. On that very day, Hitler annexed Austria, and anti-semitism became rife in Hungary under Admiral Miklós Horthy's regime. In 1939, with German invasion imminent, he fled Hungary because of his Jewish ancestry, and moved to Switzerland, where he continued a career as a pianist and won a major piano competition, but had limited opportunities to develop his conducting. He never saw his father again.
After the Second World War, during which his father died of natural causes, Solti was music director of the Bavarian State Orchestra in Munich (where he gave the German premiere of Paul Hindemith's opera Mathis der Maler, which had been banned under the Nazi regime) and the Frankfurt Opera (where he gave the German premiere of Alban Berg's Lulu). In 1951 he made his debut at the Salzburg Festival conducting Mozart's Idomeneo.
In 1960 Solti signed a three-year contract (effective in 1962) to be music director of the Los Angeles Philharmonic, having guest conducted the orchestra in winter concerts in downtown Los Angeles, during the summer at the Hollywood Bowl,[4] and in other Southern California concerts.[5] The orchestra had hoped that Solti would lead the orchestra when it moved into its new home at the still-to-be-completed Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, and he even began to appoint musicians to the orchestra. However, Solti abruptly resigned the position in 1961 without officially taking the post after learning that the Philharmonic board of directors failed to consult him before naming then 26 year-old Zubin Mehta to be assistant conductor of the orchestra.[6] Mehta was subsequently named as music director in Solti's place.
In 1961 Solti became music director at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, serving in that capacity until 1971. There, Solti's bald head and demanding rehearsal style earned him the nickname, "The Screaming Skull" (after the film of the same name).[7] He thereafter spent much of his time in Britain and the United States.
His first marriage to Hedi Oechsli, in 1946, ended in divorce.[8] His second marriage was to Valerie Pitts, a British television presenter whom he met when she was sent to interview him. They had two daughters, Gabrielle and Claudia. In 1972 he was naturalised as a United Kingdom citizen. He had been awarded an honorary Order of the British Empire (KBE) in 1971, and was known as Sir Georg Solti after his naturalisation.
Solti was a great supporter and mentor to many young musicians, including the Hungarian soprano Sylvia Sass, with whom he recorded Mozart's "Don Giovanni" and Bartok's "Bluebeard's Castle." In addition, in 1994, Solti directed the "Solti Orchestral Project" at Carnegie Hall, a training workshop for young American musicians.[9][10]

Chicago Symphony
Solti was music director of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra (CSO) from 1969 until 1991, when he was made the only Music Director Laureate in that orchestra's history. Before Solti took over as the CSO's music director, CSO violinist Victor Aitay described Solti's work style as follows:
"Usually conductors are relaxed at rehearsals and tense at the concerts. Solti is the reverse. He is very tense at rehearsals, which makes us concentrate, but relaxed during the performance, which is a great asset to the orchestra."[11]
In total, Solti conducted 999 performances with the CSO. His 1,000th performance was scheduled to be in October 1997, around the time of his 85th birthday. The City of Chicago renamed the block of East Adams Street adjacent to Symphony Center as "Sir Georg Solti Place" in his memory.
Solti consolidated the reputation of the CSO as one of the great orchestras of the world, while reiteratively reminding everyone how much he owed to the pioneering work of Fritz Reiner, who never toured the orchestra abroad. Solti took the CSO on its first tour to Europe in 1971.[12] Solti's recordings with the CSO included the complete symphonies of Beethoven, Johannes Brahms, Anton Bruckner, and Gustav Mahler. Solti recorded complete operas with the CSO as well, including:
Moses und Aron by Arnold Schoenberg
Otello by Giuseppe Verdi (also performed live at Carnegie Hall)[13]
Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg by Richard Wagner[14][15]

Later career
In addition to his tenure in Chicago, Solti was music director of the Orchestre de Paris from 1972 until 1975. From 1979 until 1983 he was principal conductor of the London Philharmonic Orchestra. During this time with the London Philharmonic he performed and recorded many works by Elgar including the two symphonies, the Violin Concerto with Kyung Wha Chung and the Cello Concerto with Julian Lloyd Webber. In 1983 he conducted Wagner's Ring Cycle at Bayreuth for the only time. For the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, Solti formed the World Orchestra for Peace, which consisted of musicians from 47 orchestras around the world.
Solti continued to add new works to his repertoire in the latter days of his career, voicing particular enthusiasm for the music of Dmitri Shostakovich, whom he admitted he failed to appreciate fully during the composer's lifetime. His commercial recordings of Shostakovich symphonies included Nos. 1 (Concertgebouw Orchestra), 5 (VPO), 8, 9 (twice : VPO & Carnegie Hall Project),10, 13 and 15 (all CSO).
Solti never truly retired, and his sudden death of a heart attack on 5 September 1997 in Antibes, France, meant several years of planned performances and recording projects would never be realized. According to his last wish, Solti rests in Hungarian soil. After a state funeral, he was placed beside the remains of Bartók: his one-time tutor and mentor. After Solti's death, his widow and daughters began the Solti Foundation to assist young musicians. In 2002 a website dedicated to Solti was launched, under the instigation of Lady Solti.[16]
Solti co-wrote his memoirs with Harvey Sachs, published in the UK under the title Solti on Solti,[17], Memoirs[18] in the USA, and Emlékeim in Hungary, and the book appeared in the month after his death. His life has also been documented in a film by Peter Maniura entitled Sir Georg Solti: The Making of a Maestro.
In September 2007 as a tribute on the 10th anniversary of Solti's death, a recording of his last concert was released on Decca, a performance with the Tonhalle Orchestra Zurich of Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 5.[19]

Recordings
Solti was as enthusiastic making music in the recording studio as in the opera house or concert hall. He developed a long and productive partnership with the legendary producer John Culshaw at Decca. Products of this partnership included the first ever complete studio recording of Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen with the Vienna Philharmonic (VPO). No less distinguished and equally groundbreaking were his studio recordings of the operas of Richard Strauss, which, like his Wagner recordings, have been remastered and released on CD where they are still praised for their musicianship and expert production values.[20] His performances and recordings of works by Giuseppe Verdi, Gustav Mahler and Béla Bartók were also widely admired. In addition to his recordings with the CSO, Solti recorded other repertoire with orchestras such as the London Philharmonic Orchestra and the Vienna Philharmonic, such as the two symphonies of Edward Elgar, selected symphonies of Tchaikovsky, William Walton's Belshazzar's Feast, Michael Tippett's Symphony No. 4 and Byzantium, and the Da Ponte/Mozart operas.
In addition, Solti collaborated with Dudley Moore to create a 1991 television series, Orchestra!, which was designed to introduce audiences to the symphony orchestra.

Recordings with the Chicago Symphony:
Bartok, Concerto for Orchestra (1981)
Bartok, Dance Suite (1981)
Bartok, Piano Concertos #1 - 3 /w Ashkenazy
Berlioz, Symphonie Fantastique
Beethoven, Fidelio
Beethoven, complete Symphonies #1 - 9
Beethoven, Piano Concertos #1 - 5 /w Ashkenazy
Brahms, Symphonies #1-4
Brahms, Ein Deutsches Requiem
Dvorak, Symphony #9
Mahler, complete Symphonies #1 - 9
Mussorgsky, Khovanshchina Prelude (1998)
Mussorgsky (orchestrated by Shostakovich), Songs and Dances of Death with Sergei Aleksashkin (1998)
Prokofiev, Symphony No. 1 (1982)
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron (1984)
Shostakovich, Symphony No. 15 (1998)
Strauss, Also Sprach Zarathustra and other tone poems
Stravinsky, Rite of Spring
Tchaikovsky, Swan Lake, excerpts (1987)
Tchaikovsky, Symphony No. 5 (1987)
Tchaikovsky, Symphony No. 6 "Pathetique"
Verdi, Otello
Wagner, Der fliegende Hollander (1976)
Wagner, Die Meistersinger von Nuernberg (1995)
Wagner, Tannhaeuser Overture (1977)
Wagner, Tristan und Isolde, Prelude and Liebestod (1977)

Awards and recognition
Sonning Award (1992; Denmark)
Sir Georg Solti holds the record for having received the most Grammy awards. He personally won 31 Grammys, including the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award, and is listed for 38 Grammys (6 went to the engineer and 1 to a soloist); he was nominated an additional 74 times before his death in 1997.
In 2007 his widow Valerie, Lady Solti was made a Cultural Ambassador of Hungary, an honorary title granted by the Hungarian state.
He was a recipient of Yale University's Sanford Medal.[21]

原文:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Solti