高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。高斯作结语后，全场站起来鼓掌达三分钟之久，流泪者众，而据说高斯自己也热泪盈眶。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。事后高斯有所感慨，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，知道他历来的执着与坚持，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，因为老人家的品味我知得清楚：高斯重视真实世界，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，晩上十一时半才睡觉，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。
高斯作了引言，也作了结语。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。这结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 character and speed –– which means that I did not understand what was going on. I therefore 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 an edited version of these papers (and of the discussions) 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, although 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 though I 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 conference 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 no sense 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 fellowship and 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 productive talks together. Unfortunately for Chicago, he decided to leave Chicago and go to the University of Washington where he had as colleagues Douglass North and Yoram Barzel. However, our relationship did not end and Steve wrote a series of splendid articles published in the Journal of Law and Economics of which I was editor. Then, in 1981, Steve received 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 important talk any longer. So here we have Steven Cheung speaking on China’s Economic Transformation.
整篇引言的重点，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，是要指出其它两点，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高斯，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？我认为那是起于高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。
第二点是高斯的英文实在好。四十年前以文笔知名天下的夏理·庄逊，清楚地对我说，论英语的文字功力，没有谁比得上高斯。懂英文的中国人可能认为高斯的文字火花不足，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，其它不便多说。看来香港的语文教育要从零开始了。
