二○○八年五月九日，新《劳动合同法》的实施规则刊于网上，以五月二十为限期，征求公众意见。一些律师认为这些规则是对该法作出修改，希望减少对经济的冲击。五月十二日四川地震，经济问题被搁置了。炎黄子孙的灵气与大自然的摧毁力交上了手。地球上的人看着，深表关怀，也对一个民族意志的凯旋增加了仰慕。
五常二○○八年五月三十一日
芝大研讨会科斯的前言后语
Conference Opening and Closing Remarks by Ronald Coase
从科斯的前言说起
张五常 二○○八年八月五日
科斯在芝加哥大学举办的“中国经济改革研讨会”圆满地结束了。我不在场，但在场的朋友没有一个不认为是难得一见的成功研讨会议。科斯作后语后，全场站起来鼓掌达三分钟之久，流汨者众，而据说科斯自己也热泪盈眶。是中国经改的三十周年，最成功的研讨会竟然在芝加哥出现，可谓异数。没有谁不同意芝大历来是学术气氛最浓厚的重镇，是此“异数”帮了个大忙吧。不知神州大地要到何年何日才有这样的学术气氛呢？在国内搞学术的朋友要客观地注意一下。炎黄子孙的天赋不下于人，改革三十年，高楼大厦无数，但思想学问还是搞不起!
这次参与芝加哥研讨的约半是中国人，出自神州，其中不少算是“土佬”的（一笑），但表现却非常出色。可见土佬既然有天赋，把他们放在适当的气氛环境下，上苍赐予的思想本领就冒出来了。事后科斯有所感慨，说：“如果这次会议见到的中国人有代表性，我再不用替中国忧心了!”
老人家把他的诺贝尔奖金拿出来搞这次研讨会议，搏到尽。认识了他四十多年，知道他历来的执著与坚持，但毕竟是九十七岁了，我不能不舍命陪君子。为该会议提供的开场文稿我用心地写了一整年，而筹备中的招兵买马，我插手指导，因为老人家的品位我知得清楚：科斯重视真实世界，要知道中国究竟发生了些什么事，对不着边际的理论没有兴趣。为此，我建议多邀请中国的企业家与地区干部，结果是这两组人（约占讲话的四成人马）为该会议增加了无限的光彩。
第一天，老人家清早起床，晚上十一时半才睡觉，电话中显得很兴奋。通常他只能应酬两三个小时，这次我有点恐怕他会累死了，不断地催他休息。跟着的几天他当然不能全日参与，但天天到，静坐聆听，感动着年轻的神州学子。这些学子中不少会执笔叙述他们的所见所感，我不多说了。
科斯作了前言，也作了后语。前者是事前用心写好的；后者只写了片刻，讲时不依文稿，情之所至，随意地说了些心中话——这是不少人哭了出来的原因。这后语要等他们整理好录音才能刊登。我征求得老人家同意，在这里先刊出他的引言文稿——七月十四日的开场话。前思后想，决定刊登全文，在《信报》发表用不着翻译了。如下：
I now have the very pleasant task of welcoming you to this Conference on China’s Economic Transformation.When steven Cheung wrote in 1982 his pamphlet for the Institute of Economic Affairs in London on the question“Will China go capitalist？”a question that he answered in the affirmative，I was one of the few people who agreed with him.But I thought in terms of 100 or 200 years，not 25 or 30 years.What happened in China was a complete surprise to me，its scale，its charac-ter and speed——which means that I did not understand what was going on.I there fore determined to hold a conference that would uncover the facts about this extraordinary series of events.We sought out those best able to inform us，academics，businessmen，government officials，about the facts about what happened.I think we succeeded.We have a series of fine papers that greatly enlighten us about what has happened in the years since 1978.As we intent to publish anedited version of these papers（and of the dis-cussions） in a book，they will inform a much wider audience.Of course，although we will learn a great deal about what happened，it is not to be expected，althoug some things will be made clear，that there will be complete agreement in the views expressed——nor is it desirable that there should be.A subject in which everyone says the same thing is a dead subject and one which will not progress.Competition in the market for ideas is as valuable as in the market for goods.The truth is found as a result of the clash of ideas.And it will be so at this conference.
Our first paper by steven Cheung will be delivered by him on DVD.It is long（about 2 hours）and I decided to divide it into two parts，each about an hour in length with an interval with refreshments in between.Unfortunately，one of our important discussants，Professor Mundell，will not be able to attend on the first day but will give his views on Tuesday morning.I should explain here that while I speak as thougHI organiZed this conference，in fact all I did was to have the idea that such a conference would be a good thing.The actual organiZation of the confer-ence was carried out by Ning Wang，assisted more recently by Lennon Choy and Marjorie Holme.I have been largely a spectator and admirer of their work.I should also say that，approaching 98 years of age later this year，I get extremely tired and almost certainly will not be able to attend all the sessions.But those who present papers at sessions I do not attend should realiZe that my absence is in nosense of judgment on the worth of their papers.
I now turn to steven Cheung’s talk.I came to know steven when he came to Chicago from UCLA in 1967 on a fellow shipand was later in 1968 appointed an assistant professor.I don’t remember how we met.But when we did，we formed an immediate bond and we had the most enjoyable and produc-tive talks together.Unfortunately for Chicago，he decided to leave Chicago and go to the University of Washington where he had as col-leagues Douglass Nort Hand Yoram BarZel.However，our relationship did not end and steve wrote a series of splendid articles pub-lished in the Journal of Law and Economics of which I was editor.T hen，in 1981，stevereceived an offer from the University of Hong Kong.I urged him to accept.I thought it would be a fine place to observe what was happening in China.Just how valuable it would be I did not then realiZe.But you will learn from his talk what he has gained from his close observation of events in China over the years.I won’t hold up this really impor-tant talk any longer.so here we have steven Cheung speaking on China’s Economic Transformation.
整篇前言的重点，当然是第一段的最后几句。太重要了，我要另文申述。这里刊出全文，是要指出其他两点，远为次要的，但中国的学子们要跪下来学习一下。
第一点是九十七岁的科斯，其思想的清晰，推理逻辑的紧密，今天在网上大吵大闹的青年拍马也跟不上。为什么呢？说二三十岁的脑子机能比不上九十七岁的，上帝不会同意吧。那是为什么？我认为那是起于科斯从小就接受了英国传统的学问修养，看事客观，下笔时心平气和。毫无磨斧痕迹的文字，要写到这样才算是真的到家。
第二点是科斯的英文实在好。四十年前以文笔知名天下的哈里.约翰逊，清楚地对我说，论英语的文字功力，没有谁比得上科斯。懂英文的中国人可能认为科斯的文字火花不足，或变化不够，或潇洒欠奉，但我是过来人，下过苦功，知道这样的文字看似平凡，其实高不可攀。直写、清晰，既不转弯，也不卖弄，有英国人的幽默（例如第三句），而更重要的是诚恳与善意溢于纸上。
年多前读到香港搞语文教育的专家的文字，不管是中还是英，老实说，读来不舒服，其他不便多说。看来香港的语文教育要从零开始了。
长眠的阐释——科斯的后语会进入历史吗？
张五常 二○○八年九月十六日
科斯在芝加哥大学举办的“中国经济改革研讨会议”今年七月十八日终结时，作了简短的后语。事前他花了十分钟写了一点初稿，但讲时没用上，只是毫无准备地说了一些话。这些话感人，听者流泪，站起来鼓掌两三分钟，而科斯自己也热泪盈眶。王石当时在场，事后给我一个短信，说：“切身感受科斯老教授对中国的真诚关怀。”
这个没有文稿的后语按录音翻出来了，科斯说要修改一番才发表。但这一次——只这一次——我不尊重他老人家，一意孤行地在这里刊登原文。理由有二。其一是他修改后的将不是现场有感而发的话。其二是因为有感而发，这后语有机会打进将来中国的经济历史去。这里先发表，过后我会放进自己的结集中，档案明确，有凭有据，将来写中国历史的要怎样取舍是他们的选择。
下面先刊英语原文，前思后想，认为要补加翻译。难译，是由我翻的，其中“长眠”（long sleep） 一词如何阐释有争议。不便问科斯，但按上文下理读者或可解通。全文如下（是录音翻出的没有文稿的讲话，文字上这里那里有点沙石）：
Although I knew that I would have to say something at the end of the conference, I am nonetheless taken by surprise when I had to do it and I am not sure I know what I am going to say. Which puts me in the same position you are in, you don't know what I am going to say.
This conference has clearly been a great success. I wanted this conference to take place because what happened in China was a great surprise to me. If you are surprised at what happens, it means you don't understand it, and I don't understand it. And I thought we should have a conference in which the participants in the events in China could speak as against having people who didn't take part in the events and whose opinions weren't always very reliable. So we tried to get businessmen, government officials, academics who had been involved in the transformation to speak to us.
I must say I had belief in China's future for a long time. As a young boy I read Marco Polo, and just as he was amazed at what he found, so was I, and I felt here is a country with great potential but somehow didn't achieve it. And it was a puzzle to me as to why didn't achieve it and I was very surprised when, in the period after 1978 it seemed it was going to achieve its potential. And what I heard in this conference has confirmed this view. I now have a feeling that the events which were set in motion in 1978 will be a great success.
However, human beings have a great capacity for messing things up. You will understand that, when I describe what happened in my life. When I was born in 1910,the industrial revolution has been absorbed in Europe. The social system seemed stable. And what happened when I was four the Great War opened. It was a stupid war. It achieved nothing worthwhile, in fact it did harm,and millions of men were killed.People lost faith in the social system and then communism came in. It was absolute disaster and it destroyed changes in attitude in people and resulted in a world a good deal worse than it was when I was born.
Now if you think of the present situation,that is, we have a situation in which everything seems be going along well, that's what I'd learnt from this conference. When I wrote the foreword to Steven Cheung's book of English articles, I said that the struggle for China is the struggle for the world, that I truly believe. Well, will we actually achieve this desirable result? Well of course I will never know although you will. All I can do is to say that our discussions carried out will make it possible. But to make it possible as we know is not enough. The political regime has to carry out its actions. Whether it will or not, I don't know. All I can do is to hope it will and to wish you well in the next hundred years. And I can now thank you...thank you.
中译如下：
“虽然我知道在这会议终结时我要说一些话，事到临头我却惊讶于自己一定要说，而又不能肯定要说些什么。这就把我放在你们的位置上：你们不知道我将会说些什么。
“这个研讨会议取得巨大的成功是清楚的。我要这个会议出现，因为中国发生了的事给我很大的惊奇。如果你对发生的事感到惊奇，是说你不明白。我不明白。于是想，我们应该有一个研讨会议，让参与过中国发展的人说话，这会比那些没有参与过的人的见解来得可靠。我们于是尝试找那些参与过中国经济改苹的商人、干部与学者来对我们说。
“必须说的是我相信中国的前途有很久的时日了。做孩子时我读马可.波罗，正如他吃惊于所遇，我也是，而我当时觉得那是个潜力庞大的国家，不知为什么没有发挥出来。对我来说，不能发挥这潜力是一个谜，而使我震惊的，是一九七八之后的迹象显示，这潜力仿佛开始体现了。这个会议我听到的，证实着这个观点。现在我有这样的感受：一九七八启动了的发展，将会是个伟大成就。
“然而，人类有很大的可以把事情搞得一团糟的能耐。告诉你我一生遇到的，你会明白。一九一○我诞生的时候，欧洲正在神往于工业革命。社会的制度看来是稳定的。但四岁时，世界大战爆发了。是一个愚蠢的战争。争取到的毫无价值，事实上造成损害，百万计的人死了。人们对社会的制度失却了信心，共产制度于是来临。绝对是大灾难，这制度毁灭了人们的态度转变，效果是世界变得比我出生时坏很多。
“现在你们想想目前的情况，那就是我们面对的情况，看来进展得好，而这是我在这次会议中学得的。当我为张五常的英语论文结集写前言时，我说中国的奋斗是世界的奋斗。这一点我是深信的。但我们真的会争取到良好合意的效果吗？这问题的答案我永远不知道，但你们是会知道的。我能做的只是说，我们的研讨增加了这合意效果的可能。然而，我们知道增加这可能不足够。政治系统要以行动带来实践。是成是败我不知道。我只能希望这系统会履行，也希望今后百年你们万事如意。现在我可以感谢你们……感谢你们。
“你们将会做的，我肯定你们会做的，是要带来良好的合意效果。现在我会想着你们，因为在我将要有的长眠中多想什么不容易。但当我想到你们将会尽力而为——会议中你们这样表达过——我高兴。你们使我高兴，我感谢你们。”
朋友，人非草木，你哭了吗？有点争议的，是科斯在最后说自己将要长眠，有两个解法。其一是会议开了五天，他累了，要好好地睡一长觉。其二是他近九十八岁了，快要离开人世，永远地长眠去也。哪个解法才对呢？我知道答案，不说，读者自己阐释吧。
科斯的思想对中国改革的贡献我说过多次了。他对中国的真诚关怀我知道了四十年——他当年千叮万嘱要我回到香港去给中国的同胞解释经济制度的运作。今天所见，神州未富先骄，为争取自己利益而不顾大局的人那么多，效与愿违的政策层出不穷，科斯的希望能得到实践的机会不大。但如果他的希望真能体现，我认为上述的感人后语会在将来的中国历史上占有一个可爱的注脚。