美国McKinsey Quarterly(《麦肯锡季刊》)10月30日一期载文Seven reasons China will surprise us in 2009（2009年中国将给我们带来的七大惊奇），其中提到朝阳区某幢大楼倒塌，莫非是CCTV大楼？原文在http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Strategy/Globalization/China_surprises，不过似乎已经被删除了。

       中文翻译：

       今日世界各大报章的日常新闻充斥着惊讶于中国近些年所取得的巨大成就或唱衰中国崩溃的观点。的确，中国给我们带来了太多惊叹与启迪。然而，尽管这个新兴亚洲巨人已引起如此之多的注目，它仍能不断给我们带来惊讶幷瞬间转变我们对它的解读。

2009年，中国会给我们带来什么呢？是早有计划的惊喜，就像壮观的北京奥运一样，以完美的表现让中国迅速甩掉“经济落后”、“劳动力廉价”的标签；还是如同毒奶粉事件一样令人厌恶；亦或像联想收购IBM全球PC业务那般，吹响中国公司进军全球市场的号角？

2009年，中国或许会带给我们七个惊讶，也许幷不会完全实现，但会让我们用新的眼光重新打量中国及它的未来：

      一、中国宣布到2020年，电动汽车将占据中国汽车市场半壁江山。为实现这一目标，中国将在研发领域投入上百亿美元。当其他国家还在苦苦追赶时，此举已令中国成为汽车技术领域的龙头老大。

      二、中国在墨西哥地区购买50年的地契。在北美建厂，将低成本制造转移到墨西哥，中国公司将在外加工市场上成为无可争议的领导者，将克服阻碍其经济增长的地域限制，幷组成横跨太平洋的商品供应链，大举进军北美市场。

      三、北京朝阳商业办公区某幢大楼倒塌。如此一来，中国会重新书写建筑法规。中国的建筑质量标准早已备受批评，很多学校建筑在汶川地震中倒塌。但假如同样事件发生在大城市，在媒体强烈关注下，政府对事件的反应恐怕会让其对汶川悲剧的回应相形见绌。

      四、中国公司购买一个或几个美国旗舰企业。交易额也许会是联想收购IBM价格的10倍甚至100倍。如果美国政府干预导致交易失败，如同中国企业日益融入全球化一样，新一轮中国民族企业的时代即将来临。届时，中国将投入大量资本专注于本土技术研发和创新。同时，外资研发公司在华也将遭遇寒流。如果交易成功，和我们今日所见的外资公司大有取代中国民族企业的趋势不同，中国企业将彻底走向国际，融入全球。

      五、中国电信企业重组，最后完全合幷。监管政策不力及竞争力不均衡已让中国三大主要运营商失去竞争力。若电信股票继续下跌及上述不均衡现象继续遗留，将最终导致大陆本土电信企业的完全合幷。

      六、英超购买中超。此举对中国城市中产阶级意味着什么？中产阶级群体正迅速成长，幷已准备好在体育和娱乐产业大量投入。城市中产阶级荷包满满，乐于观看奥运会和美国NBA来华训练赛。此外，这笔交易或许将打开其他领域投资的闸门，也展示中国欢迎外方专业公司挑战其本土企业。

      七、台海关系回暖促大陆中国工商银行和台湾中国信托商业银行合幷。台湾方面的反应可能是矛盾的——不过一桩商业交易罢了。但对中国大陆金融银行业或其他产业而言，两岸大型企业的合幷会备受称赞。这也是对“一个中国”理念的肯定、认同。

      英文原文：

      The country could yet again change the way the world sees it. Here’s a shortlist of realistic possibilities.

      How will China surprise us next? Shocks, tipping points, and revelations have become basic staples of the world’s daily news diet. But with so many eyes now on this emerging Asian giant, what happens there continues to have an exceptional ability to draw attention and to shift perceptions drastically and suddenly.

      Will the surprise be planned, like the magnificent Beijing Olympics Games, whose nearly flawless execution set a counterpoint to China’s image as an economic laggard buoyed mainly by cheap labor? Will it repel, like the tainted-milk scandal? Or will it send a message, as Lenovo’s takeover of IBM’s personal-computer business did in serving notice that Chinese companies were ready to enter the global fray?

      Here’s a list of some realistic possibilities for the next year. Will all of them come to pass? I doubt it. But any one of them could, and each might make us see China and its future in a new light. What do you think?

      China announces that by 2020, half of the cars in the country will be electric. It invests tens of billions of dollars in R&D toward achieving that goal.

      Such a move could make China the leader in the automotive technology of the future, with other countries struggling to keep pace. Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) or newcomer BYD Auto could become the Ford Motor of the 21st century, propelled by a new technology—much as Ford capitalized on the internal-combustion engine at the start of the 20th century.

      The Chinese government buys a 50-year lease on an entire geographic region of Mexico, enabling Chinese companies to build factories there to supply the North American market more easily.

      Chinese companies would then become the undisputed leaders in outsourced production. No longer constrained by geography, they could bring their expertise in low-cost manufacturing to Mexico (or Poland or Turkey), greatly expanding their reach and overcoming obstacles—such as maintaining supply chains across the Pacific—that still hinder their growth.

      A major office block collapses in Chaoyang, Beijing’s central business district.

      Although officials would scramble to rewrite construction regulations, a disaster in the capital or another large city would change the relationship between the country’s growing middle class and the government and might threaten its ability to keep social unrest in check. True, construction standards came under fire after the May 2008 Sichuan earthquake felled many school buildings. But the reaction to that tragedy would pale beside the response to a similar one in a rich urban area with immediate media access.

      A leading Chinese company tries to buy an iconic US technology firm (or two).

A major deal could be worth 10 or 100 times Lenovo’s .35 billion purchase of IBM’s PC division. If the US government blocked the sale, the acquisition’s failure could herald an era of renewed corporate nationalism in China, just as its companies were becoming more global. You could expect an aggressive increase in domestic R&D spending as the country focused on homegrown technology, as well as a chillier climate for multinationals with research operations in China.

      A successful deal, by contrast, could create a truly global company, unlike anything seen before, with a multinational culture superseding any sense of national origins.

      A restructuring of China’s telecommunications industry turns into a complete consolidation.

      Regulatory failure and competitive imbalances have already reduced competition down to three major players, from four, and telecom companies are now being encouraged to share infrastructure. If stock prices continue their freefall and these imbalances remain, the inability of the second- and third-ranked players to chart a path to success could bring a full reconsolidation of the domestic industry.

      The English Premier League football association buys its Chinese counterpart, the Chinese Super League.

      What better way to signal a coming of age for China’s urban middle class? The takeover would be a major bet that this growing socioeconomic group is ready to spend heavily on sports and entertainment—a bet that could open the floodgates for investment in other consumer sectors. Wallets are already opening up: witness the Olympics and the US National Basketball Association’s exploration of franchise and stadium deals in China. Such a purchase would also show that the country is willing to bring outside expertise and professionalism into a challenged domestic industry.

      Warming cross-strait relationships lead to a merger between the mainland’s Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and Taiwan’s Chinatrust Commercial Bank.

      The reaction in Taiwan would probably be ambivalent—just another large business deal. But in China, a cross-strait merger of powerhouses like these, in banking or some other sector, would be applauded as an affirmation of its One China worldview.

      What do you see that I don’t? I look forward to your ideas.