这就是著名的"信用革命"。用大白话来讲就是： " 如果政府赖账，议会负责还钱 。" 为什么说这是一个划时代的金融革命和创新呢？原因在于，当时欧洲政府赖账是家常便饭。法国国王路易十四曾在 1680 年代直接宣布国库破产，拒绝支 付大部分战争债券，理由是"朕就是国家"。西班牙王室破产次数多达十几次。所以当时的商人和民众，对于王室的信用完全缺乏信任。任何人如果购买政府 发的债券，就要做好政府违约，血本无归的准备。这也导致，欧洲王室想要通过借钱筹资去打仗，他们就不得不支付比较高的利息，来弥补债权人承担的风 险。 英国的突破在于，它第一次告诉投资者： 能够 保障债权人利益和投资不受损失的，不是国王的金库或者诺言，而是议会制度的约束 。 1690 年代的英国，正好具备了三个关键条件得以让这样的金融改革获得成功。 1694 年的伦敦是个烟雾缭绕的城市：街上满是马粪，咖啡馆里满是消息，议会里满是争吵。当时的英国正在与法国打仗，战争烧钱的速度远超过部长 们批预算的速度。然而就在这种一地鸡毛的环境里，一个影响世界几百年的思想悄悄诞生了，那就是： 信用并非来自于金银财宝，而是来自于制度。政府 不是靠王权借钱，而是靠制度和治理借钱。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Dutch government's intervention in ASML's internal affairs and the court's decision to strip Chinese shareholders of their rights are seen as violations of Chinese companies' legitimate rights, leading to global supply chain disruptions and raising questions about Europe's institutional credibility [1][2]. Group 1: Impact on Investment Environment - The actions of the Dutch government undermine the foundation of property rights protection in the Netherlands and Europe, raising concerns about the motivations behind such behavior [2]. - The arbitrary alteration of equity structures and corporate governance by public authorities increases "institutional risk premiums," making long-term capital hesitant to invest in the region [2]. - The expectation of potential government takeovers will lead investors to reassess their positions in the Netherlands and Europe, creating a climate of uncertainty [2]. Group 2: Global Supply Chain Risks - The abrupt cessation of wafer supply to ASML (China) by the Dutch government amplifies systemic risks within the global supply chain, affecting various sectors such as automotive electronics and industrial control [2]. - Disruptions in a highly interdependent supply chain can lead to order delays, increased costs, and difficulties in finding alternatives, ultimately impacting the entire industry [2]. Group 3: Geopolitical Context - The U.S. has previously labeled Chinese-backed enterprises as risky, pressuring allies to intervene in normal business activities under the guise of national security, a tactic that has backfired in the context of the ASML incident [3]. - The Netherlands finds itself in a precarious position, having lost trust from Chinese enterprises and the global market due to its extreme measures, which did not yield substantial security benefits [3]. Group 4: Call for Constructive Solutions - The Chinese side advocates for a responsible approach from the Dutch government to stabilize bilateral economic relations and the global supply chain, urging an end to interference in corporate matters [4]. - The ASML situation could have been avoided if the Dutch government prioritized the broader economic relationship and the interests of workers and consumers [4].