新太祖王莽传 在线下载 pdf mobi 2025 epub 电子版

《新太祖王莽传》是一本人物传记，主要讲述王莽是一个草民皇帝，在野心的驱使下，他用“伪君子”的嘴脸迷惑了千万民众，夺得汉朝江山，做了短短十几年的皇帝，但最终却落得个死无全尸的下场。《新太祖王莽传》详细生动地向您讲述了王莽的发家史，他到底是胡适口中的政治家还是黄仁宇口中的书呆子，这就要由读者们来判断了。

暂无相关目录，正在全力查找中！

曹金洪，毕业于首都师范大学中文系。从事编辑工作多年，擅长社科类、生活类等图书，编辑图书数量繁多，如《民间收藏》等。

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：新太祖王莽传在线阅读

在线听书地址：新太祖王莽传在线收听

在线购买地址：新太祖王莽传在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

书籍介绍

《新太祖王莽传》是一本人物传记，主要讲述王莽是一个草民皇帝，在野心的驱使下，他用“伪君子”的嘴脸迷惑了千万民众，夺得汉朝江山，做了短短十几年的皇帝，但最终却落得个死无全尸的下场。《新太祖王莽传》详细生动地向您讲述了王莽的发家史，他到底是胡适口中的政治家还是黄仁宇口中的书呆子，这就要由读者们来判断了。

• 作者：晴天16 发布时间：2018-12-01 23:42:16

  短小精悍，每一段都值得细思，政治学理论不足，需要多读几遍（由于不能再借，在净月图书馆看了一下午看完了战前部分）

• 作者：望山雾 发布时间：2024-04-28 16:35:28

  差不多只是挑着翻译了一些人物传记，翻得还有好多错误。叙述指向性也太明显了，能不能稍微有点史学素养。。

• 作者：Mr.睡不醒 发布时间：2022-05-24 01:40:51

  作者是真唠叨啊，感觉自己幽默风趣，其实是啰啰嗦嗦废话连篇，找不到重点，一点意思都没有啊。跟康熙王朝比差了十万个二月河啊

• 作者：ܭ݂ 发布时间：2021-11-12 21:08:08

  播音员主持人读错频次最高的词语是“因为”（yīnwèi，747731次），其次是“处理”（chǔlǐ，151379次）。出错频率最高的词语是“玫瑰”（méi·gui，97.9%）和“拖累”（tuōlěi，97.9%），然后是“琢磨（问题）”（zuó·mo，96.8%），“道行”（dào·heng，95.7%），还有“瓦窑堡”（wǎyáobǔ，95.7%）。

• 作者：笨嘴Monica 发布时间：2024-03-07 20:13:48

  中江兆民采用绅士君、豪杰君以及南海先生三个醉人问答对谈的形式回答明治时期日本该选择什么样的道路。

• 作者：来自中部 发布时间：2024-01-31 11:41:32

  有用，旅行中看看任务，能够带来一些想法。

• 唯有善待我心

  作者：yifer 发布时间：2011-06-05 01:45:01

  虽然也是潦草读完，却是一个很有趣的故事，最初对标题不解，随着故事深入，主线一点一点显露，原来是两个女人的生活对峙，汤作为夹在中间的唯一一个男性角色，作者虽没有花大幅笔墨来描写，但是看得出亦十分用心，因而十分出彩。

  看这本书我想到了前不久微博上关于那个把好葡萄留到最后还是先吃掉的争论，第一眼看，盛无疑是那个最后吃到最好葡萄的人，所幸作者没有这么一分为二非黑即白的看待人生，谁的人生都有好坏，最后一幕中，盛也是疲惫不堪，努力睁开睁不开的双眼去打量猜度丁。

  任何一种人生，都是冷暖自知，同时投射到他者眼中，都会适度的变形和粉饰。所以唯有善待我心，即是，做好选择后，就不必艳羡他人，打起十二分精神，把现有的生活过好。

• Spirit of the age

  作者：paranoid 发布时间：2010-09-02 11:26:20

  http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2010/09/economics_equality_and_finance_sector

  Spirit of the age

  Sep 1st 2010, 10:56 by Buttonwood

  INEQUALITY is a fascinating subject, with plenty of moral, economic and political implications. So it was remiss of me to take so long to read The "Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone", a thought-provoking book published last year by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. But at least I have the excuse that the debate is still current: the Policy Exchange thinktank recently published a rebuttal of its claims. My Bagehot colleague has also commented recently on the book.

  "The Spirit Level" is really divided into three parts. The first is a statistical analysis of a number of social ills, from obesity through infant mortality to rates of imprisonment. These measures are then compared with income inequality in two ways; first across a range of industrialised countries and then against the individual US states. Time after time, it is shown that inequality makes these matters worse. Indeed, everyone suffers; even the better-off in unequal societies have more social problems than the better-off in more egalitarian ones.

  The second part of the book suggests reasons for why the link exists. Here the statistical analysis is more sketchy; the authors cite some studies but a lot more work needs to be done. Broadly speaking, the authors suggest that man is a social animal whose self-respect is tied up with status; inequality has many practical implications (an inability to fund a desired lifestyle, a loss of control) that cause depression, and thus the adoption of bad behaviours such as overeating, drug use and criminality.

  The third part of the book deals with the authors' solutions to the problem, which is a bit of a mish-mash of issues like global warming, worker-controlled companies, anti-consumerism and so on.

  One can disagree with the authors' solutions but the book stands and falls on the quality of its data; if they are right, then there is a welfare case for much greater government efforts to redistribute wealth. This is where the Policy Exchange report mounts its attack. It states that the effects noted by Wilkinson and Pickett are largely the result of a few outliers (Japan for longevity, the US for murder rates, Scandinavia for most things) and that the relationship does not exist when these outliers are removed. Indeed, it does not exist if more countires are included. When it comes to the individual US states, Policy Exchange argues that the effects can be noted by the proportion of African-Americans within the population. In short, the effect is cultural, not economic.

      Sweden and Japan, for example, have the income distributions they have because of the kinds of societies they are. They are not cohesive societies because their incomes are equally distributed; their incomes are equally distributed because they evolved as remarkably cohesive societies.

  Wilkinson and Pickett have responded to these attacks and there is a danger that we get bogged down in the minutiae of the data, about which outsiders find it difficult to comment.

  But it did strike me on reading the book that culture must play a significant part. Read for example what the authors have to say about New England.

      Because Vermont and New Hampshire are neighbouring New England states, the contrast between them is particularly striking. Vermont has the highest tax burden of any state in the union, while New Hampshire has the second lowest - beaten only by Alaska. Yet New Hampshire has the best performance of any state in the union on our index of health and social problems and is closely followed by Vermont, which is third best. They both also do well on equality: despite their radically different taxation, they are the fourth and sixth most equal states respectively.

  Both states are ethnically quite homogeneous with much lower proportions of minorities than the American average. Sweden and Japan are similar. There is an argument that social spending is seen as more "acceptable" when the recipients are "people like us". An alternative explanation is that ethnic minorities are unfairly excluded from economic opportunities by the majority population so that higher social ills may be associated with more diverse (less monocultural) populations.

  A broader issue, to which Wilkinson and Pickett allude, is whether there is a "natural" level of inequality. Anyone who has studied history (or read Austen and Dickens) will note the vast gulf in wealth between the medieval aristocracy and the peasants or between the early industrialists and their workers. In that light, the period of the "Great compression" from the 1940s to the 1970s, when inequality fell sharply, seems an aberration. But our recorded history only spans a few thousand years, generally since the development of agriculture. For much of human existence, men were hunter-gatherers and such societies are much more equal. Wilkinson and Pickett argue that our brains developed in such conditions, explaining why inequality is so difficult to stomach.

  As always with this issue, there will be some who think that any sympathetic treatment of the Wilkinson/Pickett arguments is "socialism" or a sign of The Economist abandoning its free market principles. But let me end this very long post with two final reasons why inequality should be a matter of general concern.

  The first concerns the idea that we should focus on "equality of opportunity" not "equality of outcome". This seems a good principle to support. But unequal outcomes may lead to unequal opportunities; the US is a lot less socially mobile than it used to be, and a lot less mobile than individual Americans believe it to be. In particular, wealth can buy access to power and thus lock in the advantages of the wealthy via the political system; Simon Johnson's book, "13 Bankers", is an example of the thesis. Wealth also buys access to the best education, and education is the key to employment opportunities in a service-based economy.

  The second issue is that the West is still democratic. Even if one thinks the unequal outcome of incomes is a fair reflection of individual talent and effort, the majority of the population is unlikely to feel that way. They may eventually reclaim that wealth by the ballot box, and possibly by electing some very unpleasant regimes.