Global finance is being changed as billionaires get richer and cut out the middlemen（中间商）by creating their own "family offices”，personal investment firms that look for opportunities in global markets. Largely unnoticed，family offices have become a force in investing，with up to S4 trillion of assets（资产）equal to 6%of the value of the world's stock markets. As they grow even bigger，family offices are sure to face uncomfortable questions about how they concentrate power and feed inequality.

These trends are unlikely to fade. The number of billionaires is still growing-199 newbies（新手）made the grade last year. Family offices' weight in the financial system，therefore，looks likely to rise further. As it does，some concerns about them will rise.

The first is that family offices could endanger the stability of the financial system. A $100 billion fund backed by the super-rich，blew up in 1998，almost bringing down Wall Street. Scores of wealthy people collapsed（崩溃）in 2008. Still，as things stand，family offices look like the next disaster waiting to happen. They have debt equal to 17%of their assets，making them among the least leveraged participants in global markets.

The second worry is that family offices could expand the power of the wealthy over the economy. This is possible: were Bill Gates to invest in Turkey，he would own 65%of its stock market. But a healthy economy's aim is usually to diversify risk，not concentrate power，by taking capital（资本）from the original family business and putting it into a widely spread field.

It is the third danger that has most bite: family offices might have privileged（有特权的）access to information，deals and tax schemes，allowing them to perform better than ordinary investors. So far there is little evidence for this. If all this did lead to an unfair advantage，the effect，when combined over decades，would make wealth inequality disastrously worse.

Most authorities are beginners when it comes to dealing with family offices，but they need to ensure that rules on trading and the equal servicing are observed. And they should require family offices with assets of over，say，$10 billion to publish accounts detailing their workings. In return，they should be free to operate undisturbed. They may even have something to teach asset managers serving ordinary investors, many of whom may look at their monthly fees and wish that they, too, could get away from the middlemen.

I first visited China in 1979, a few months after our countries normalized relations. China was just beginning to remake its economy, and I was in the first Senate Delegation (参议院代表团)to witness it. Traveling through the country last month, I could see how much China had changed in 32 years.

Then , as now there were concerns about what a growing China meant to America and the world. Some here see China's growth as a threat. Some Chinese worry our aim in the Asia-Pacific is to contain China's rise. I don't agree to these views. We are clear about concern like China's growing military abilities. That is why we are working with the Chinese military to understand and shape their thinking. It is why the president has directed the United States to keep a strong position in the area. I am sure that a successful China can make our country more prosperous(繁荣的),not less. We share common challenges and responsibilities. The Chinese leaders I met with know their country must shift from an economy driven by exports, investment and heavy industry to one driven more by consumption and services. As Americans save more and Chinese buy more, this change will speed up, opening opportunities for us. Even as the United States and China cooperate, we also compete. I strongly believe that the United States can and will benefit from this competition.

Maybe more important, the nature of 21^st century competition favors the United States. In the 20^th century, we measured a nation's wealth mainly by its natural resources, its land mass, its population and its army. In the 21^st century, the true wealth of a nation is found in the creative minds of its people and their ability to innovate (创新).As I told students in Chengdu, the United States is born for innovation. Competition is the base of our society. We owe our strength to our political and economic system and to the way we educate our children. We not only tolerate but celebrate free expression and debate. Our universities remain attractive to the world's students and scholars.

Fundamental rights are universal. Liberty unlocks a people's full potential , while its absence causes unrest. Open and free societies are best at promoting long-term growth. We have our own work to do. We need to ensure that any American willing to work can find a good job. We need to keep attracting the world's top talent. I've traveled half a million miles around the world. I always come home feeling the same confidence in our future . Some may warn of America's failure, but I'm not among them. And let me reassure you : based on my time in China, neither are the Chinese.

Some people think the government should move the big companies and factories in cities to the countryside. To what extent do you agree?

Due to the increased urbanization, there appears a bunch of heated social problems. Some people have noticed that there are many big companies and factories in the city and they believe that moving those big companies and factories into countryside could be a good way to solve many of the city problems, such as traffic issues and housing problems. However, I hold an opposite opinion to them and I will explain it as below.

Cities have much more advantages than countryside. There are more cinemas, restaurants and shopping malls in cities, let alone better education and health care. Living in cities makes life more convenient and enjoyable. Thus not everyone is willing to move to countryside in spite of their companies’ moving. They have got cars, which transfers them easily between work and home. Therefore, the pressure of traffic will not be released due to such solution. As for the available empty places spared by the big companies, the newest small companies will take good care of them—with the realization of the benefits that running a business in cities will bring to them. In other words, situation of housing will not be improved much.

Besides, there will be more problems if big companies and factories move out. Where there are big companies and factories, there will be cities sooner or later. Consequently, countryside is to be disappearing. What’s more, industrial pollution is not an easily mended problem.

In conclusion, moving big companies and factories out of cities is never a final solution. It tackles(解决) no problem but causes lots of them. Just imagine. The traffic is still terrible, and there is no more scenic countryside. We should look into other ways to solve the problems.