国外网民评中国经济发展

　　英国经济学人网站博客文章称到2030年，中国经济占世界的份额能够逼近美国上世纪70年代的水平，达到18%……国外网民对此进行了热烈评论，摘编如下：

——————————————————————————————————————————
enriquecost wrote: Sep 9th 2011 3:53 GMT
It is not accurate. In the last special report of "The Economist" about China this year, the magazine ONLY used NOMINAL prices, not prices at PPP (Purchasing Power Parity). At nominal (market) prices China′s economy in 2010 was just a little over Japan′s, about $5.5 Tr., almost 1/3 of the U.S., with a very low income per head of just $4,000 (at PPP over $7,000)...So why "The Economist" now uses GDP at PPP? It looks like the old days of the Cold War when Western media tried to create a "threatening" USSR with fake numbers and maninpulated maps. It looks Anglo-Americans now want to portrait China as the "Threat" even if the TRUTH is that thet the only nation which has invaded two Sovereign countries of 30 million people with a very, very agressive policy and lack of respect for international law has been the U.S.A. (United States) 50% of the World Defense spending comes also from the U.S.A. (more than the Nazis in its worse days) And it is the U.S. the one with dozens of military bases encincling China (S.Korea, Japan, Guam, Australia, Afghanistan...) while there is not a single Chinese military base next to America. I am very afraid of America and the U.K. I don′t have any doubt that, the same way they have done several times before (Spain, France, Germany, Russia) they will try to eliminate the competitor (CHINA)at any cost, at any cost. Remember this.
这是不准确的。今年，“经济学人”最新的一期关于中国的专题报告，该杂志只使用了名义价格而不是PPP价格（购买力平价）。以名义（市场）价格计算的话，中国经济在2010年仅比日本的大约5.5万亿美元高出一点，大约是美国的三分之一，他们的人均收入非常低，仅为4000美元（以ppp计算超过7000美元）......那么，为什么“经济学人”现在又用购买力平价来计算国内生产总值呢？这看起来就像是冷战时期，西方媒体试图以虚假的数字和篡改的地图创造一个“威胁的”苏联一样。它看起来就像英裔美国人现在想要将中国刻画成（对美国的）“威胁”，即使事实是，美国是世界上唯一的一个国家，它以非常非常积极的政策和缺乏对国际法的尊重，入侵了两个人口3千万的主权国家。世界军费开支的50％来自于美国（甚至超过了糟糕的纳粹）。也是美国围绕着中国建立了几十个军事基地（韩国、日本、关岛、澳大利亚、阿富汗......）而美国的旁边却没有一个中国的军事基地。我很害怕美国和英国，我毫不怀疑，他们（西班牙，法国，德国，俄罗斯）也曾做过几次同样的事，他们会不惜任何代价尽力消除竞争对手（中国），不惜任何代价。记住这一点。
Recommend (155)
——————————————————————————————————————————
khmTzic3YT wrote: Sep 9th 2011 4:04 GMT
I apologize if you read this before but this essay is still pertinent:
Historical economist Angus Maddison in reports for the IMF took a longer term view of economics than just the Post WWII American School.
In studying World GDP for the past 4000 years, he found that China and India (combined), produce up to half of the world output for 90% of that period.
It is only in the past 300 years including the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, the Age of Exploration, the Age of Empire, Agricultural Revolution and Industrial Revolution, that the West eclipsed the East.
Dominant World Power
1500: Portugal.
1600: Habsburg Austria-Spain.
1700-1800: Great Britain.
1900: America.
2000: ?
The future is uncertain, but I do not see Spain or Portugal leading the world this century. Today Portugal and Spain are heavily indebted PIIGS. England is even more indebted but has an independent free floating currency. America is in decline and has the largest debt in the history of the world. Argentina was projected to be a world power in '99...that is 1899, but something did not work out.
And it is more than just having rapid economic growth. A country of 30 million or 60 million people, does not have the resources of a population of a billion. And a small land locked or frozen country, does not have the resources of a maritime power.
Few Modern Empires outlast a Century. And even fewer have been around for a Millennium. And even fewer are working on their 5th millennium. America is just recent arrival and one day, God willing, it will reach 1000 years old.
Rather than looking at quarterly, yearly, decade or generational data since WWII...look at the Century data. I urge you to look at the larger picture in historical economics from Maddison, OECD Report.
And now we may be seeing not the Rise of Asia, but the Re-Emergence of Asia. We are privileged to be witnessing historical transitions. Historians will scrutinize this era for significance: How do Empires Transition? If it is peaceful, it would be all the more remarkable.
I think the Western Economies need to take a longer view of Economic History. And forge new economic ties, less we again be left behind.
我很抱歉，希望能先看看这篇相关的文章：
历史经济学家安格斯麦迪森在国际货币基金组织的报告中认为，以一个较长期的视角来观察经济，而不仅仅局限于二战后的美国时代。
研究过去4000年的世界GDP，他发现中国和印度（二者加在一起），在那一时期的90%的时间里，他们的产出占了世界总产量的一半。
直到过去的300年，包括文艺复兴、理性的时代、探索时代、帝国时代、农业革命和工业革命之后，西风才压倒东风。
主导世界的力量
1500：葡萄牙
1600：哈布斯堡家族的奥地利-西班牙
1700-1800：英国
1900年：美国
美国2000：？
译者注：哈布斯堡家族（House of Habsburg） 为德意志封建统治家族。其主要分支在奥地利，亦称奥地利家族。远祖系日耳曼人中的一支，最早居住在阿尔萨斯和瑞士的阿尔高。11世纪初，由于该家族的主教斯特拉斯堡的维尔纳建立哈布斯堡，其家族即以哈布斯堡为名。统治时期从1282年起一直延续到第一次世界大战结束，是欧洲历史上统治时间最长、统治地域最广的封建家族。1273年，哈布斯堡家族的鲁道夫一世被选为神圣罗马帝国皇帝（1273～1291在位）。1438年开始神圣罗马帝国皇帝由哈布斯堡家族世袭。1918年奥匈帝国解体，哈布斯堡王朝的统治结束。
未来是不确定的，但我认为西班牙或葡萄牙不会在本世纪领导世界。今天，葡萄牙和西班牙都是负债累累欧猪国家。英国更是负债累累，但有一个独立的自由浮动汇率。美国正在衰退，其债务是世界上有史以来最庞大的。阿根廷计划将在99年成为世界大国......这是1899年，但是结果未能如愿。
仅仅经济快速增长是不够的。一个3千万或6千万人口的国家，就没有一个10亿人口的资源。一个仅有一小块封闭的或冻结的国土的国家，就没有海军的资源。
很少有现代的帝国能持续超过一个世纪。持续一千年的就更少了。持续五千年的更是少之又少。美国只是个新来者，上帝保佑，美国能够活到1000岁。
不要再看自从二战以来的一季、一年、十年、或几十年的数据了，......看看几个世纪的数据吧。我希望你以更大的视角观察历史的经济数据，这是麦迪逊的经合组织报告。
那么现在我们看到的可能就不是亚洲的崛起了，而是亚洲的复兴。我们有幸见证历史的转变。历史学家们将审视这个时代的重大意义：帝国是如何过渡的？如果过渡是和平的话，它会更加引人注目。
我认为西方的经济学家需要用更长远的眼光来回顾经济史。开拓新的经济关系，以免我们再次被落在后面。
Recommend (128)
——————————————————————————————————————————
khmTzic3YT wrote: Sep 9th 2011 3:39 GMT
IMF this year forecast the eclipse of the American Economy by China to occur as soon as 2016.
However dysfunctional American Politics, loss of the AAA Credit rating, persistent recession, and record unemployment of the past 6 months was not factored in. IT would probably move up the date.
When you do not have unlimited time or money, it would be best to compensate with a smart strategy. If America and China could integrate policy, integrate world leadership, integrate military and space strategy, integrate pollution controls, and integrate their diverse economies it would be to the benefit of both countries and the world. Great Britain employed this strategy 100 years ago when it found its Empire in decline. It began its 'Special Relationship' with a an upstart America and remained a world leader.
Obama said, the US-Sino Relation is now the most important in the world. And Obama's kids are learning Mandarin. That is the start of integration.
国际货币基金组织预测最早到2016年中国经济就能超过美国。
但是美国的政治功能失调、失去AAA级信用评级、持续的经济衰退、过去6个月的失业记录这些因素还没有考虑进去。加上这些因素可能会让中国经济超过美国的时间提前到来。
当你没有无限的时间或者金钱，最好的办法就是采取一个明智的策略作为补偿。如果美国和中国可以整合政策、整合世界领先地位、整合军事和航天战略、整合污染控制、整合它们各自不同的经济，这造福两国和世界。英国100年前当发现其帝国（地位）在下降时，就采用这一策略了。它开始与一个暴发户美国的“特殊关系”，并保持世界领先地位。
奥巴马说，美中关系是现在世界上最重要的（双边关系）。奥巴马的孩子正在学习普通话。这就是整合的开始。
Recommend (101)
——————————————————————————————————————————
vishnugupta wrote: Sep 9th 2011 5:02 GMT
History has never progressed in straight lines.What has happened in the past cannot be extrapolated in the future.
In the 1960s the USSR was on the ascent beating US to space and outpacing its growth.There were proper RAND papers on the USSR overtaking the US economically.Reason? US frittered vast sums of money on frivolous things like Mc Donalds hamburgers and fancy cars whereas the USSR concentrated its money and manpower in science and tech...By the year 2000 the report concluded that there was a high probability of it overtaking the US.
But then from 1970-91 it stagnated and fell apart for reasons still not quite clear...
The same fate may very well befall China,EU,India,US....
Who knows?
历史从来不是沿着直线前进的。过去发生了什么并不能推断出未来。
20世纪60年代，苏联曾在太空技术上击败美国，并引领世界的发展。兰德公司有关于苏联在经济方面赶上美国的论文。原因？美国挥霍大量的金钱在一些琐碎的事情上，比如麦当劳的汉堡包还有豪华汽车，而苏联却集中人力、物力用在科学和技术方面......该报告的结论是，到2000年很有可能苏联会超过美国。
但是之后，从1970年至1991年，苏联陷入停滞而后解体，个中原因还不是非常清楚......
同样的命运也可能发生在中国、欧盟、印度、美国身上......
谁知道呢？
Recommend (80)
——————————————————————————————————————————
Anglicus wrote: Sep 9th 2011 3:35 GMT
It's very interesting that the graphic includes a comparison from 1870. Always good to have lots of historical perspective on what's going on today
非常有趣的图形，包括了自1870年以来的比较。通过大量的对历史的观察把握今天的脉络，这非常好。
Recommend (77)
——————————————————————————————————————————
calm incense wrote: Sep 9th 2011 4:16 GMT
@ enriquecost:
So first you criticize US/UK media for making China look like a "threat", and then you argue that China will bury America into the ground with its superior steel output?
The Economist comments section is long overdue for a "Do Not Recommend" button.
因此，首先，你批评美国/英国的媒体，说它们使中国看起来像一个“威胁”，然后你又认为，中国将以其优异的钢产量埋葬美国？
经济学人的评论部分早就应该换成“不推荐”按钮了。
（译者注：经济学人每篇文章下面都有一个“推荐”按钮。）
________________________________________________________
@ Anglicus:
Indeed, including a comparison from 1870 adds some nice historical perspective. But including a comparison from *1570* would have allowed the 2030 forecast to represent an economic era coming full circle.
事实上，包括自1870年以来的比较，增加了一些很好的历史视角。但是，包括自*1570年*的比较，就能做出对2030年的预测，可以更完整地呈现一个经济时代的周期。
Recommend (71)
——————————————————————————————————————————
justanonymous wrote: Sep 9th 2011 5:22 GMT
This graphic is gibberish, and index created arbitrarily to create an index that can be adjusted to show anything.
The US Economy is nearly 14 trillion dollars
Japan's Economy is around 4 trillion
China's is also near 4 trillion
The EU depending on how you decide to define it and which countries to include is between 8 and 12 trillion.
It's unrealistic to think that countries like China and India with 60% of their populations engaged in subsistence agriculture will in 20 years have standards of living surpassing those of Europeans and Americans. Sorry -- this is just so much propaganda.
此图是胡说八道，指标的选择太随意，这使得可以调整指标显示任何东西。
美国的经济规模接近14万亿美元
日本的经济规模大约4万亿左右
中国的也接近4万亿美元
欧盟（的经济规模）取决于你决定如何定义它，包括哪些国家在内，其经济规模可以在8至12万亿美元之间徘徊。
认为像中国和印度这样的国家，其人口的60％从事自给自足的农业成产，将在20年内超过欧洲人和美国人的生活水平，这是不现实的。抱歉——此类的宣传太多了。
Recommend (62)
——————————————————————————————————————————
Steve Thompson wrote: Sep 9th 2011 3:41 GMT
China is sitting on a looming demographic issue. Its aging population will create a shortage of workers in many parts of the economy, resulting in upward pressure on wages and downward pressure on economic growth rates.
Here is an examination of the demographic issues facing China:
Perhaps China's economic influence will not grow as quickly as one might anticipate now that the country's one child policy is coming home to roost.
中国的人口问题迫在眉睫。人口老龄化将造成经济领域的许多地方用工短缺，迫使工资上升和经济增长率下降。
这里是中国面临的人口问题的审查：
或许中国的经济影响力不会增长得像今天预测的那样快速，该国正在为其一胎化政策而自食其果。
Recommend (53)
——————————————————————————————————————————
New Conservative wrote: Sep 9th 2011 5:28 GMT
@khmTzic3YT
Stop throwing around the 5000 years of history. The oldest proven Chinese dynasty is the Shang, which started in 1200 BC. There is the Xia which predated them but by all historical records, the earliest that one started was 2000 BC.
The 5000 years number was started in the late 60's when Zhou Enlai was in Egypt visiting Nasser. So he moved the date of Chinese civilization back a thousand years so that Chinese civilization would be contemporary with ancient Egypt. That number has become official Chinese doctrine ever since.
停止再抛出5000年历史（这样的理论吧）。中国最古老的已证实的朝代是商朝，开始于公元前1200年。但是根据所有的历史记录，夏朝的历史要更早，其可追溯到公元前2000年。
5000年这一数字始于60年代末，周恩来访问埃及的纳赛尔时。他把中国文明的出现时间向前调了一千多年，使得中国文明能和古埃及处于同一时代。从那以后，这一数字就成为了中国的官方学说。
Recommend (53)
——————————————————————————————————————————
89dASdRHQu wrote: Sep 9th 2011 4:50 GMT
I don't understand why everyone is always saying that the US is "in decline". A rough couple of years does not mean absolute death for a nation. Again, no one is looking at all the strengths of the US, but rather they are focusing on the current weaknesses. I'm not saying become blissfully ignorant, but rather stop being so damn negative. Stop worrying about what "might" happen several years from now and start focusing on the problems that are in our face now. As for China, three decades of growth does not equate to long term stability. Even the Chinese government has recognized that, and now are actually trying to cool down the currently overheating machine that is the Chinese economy. We should not be so concerned with other countries that we let our problems fall to the wayside. Focus on what we have to do here, in the US, and then we can worry about the rest of the world.
Regards, Java
我不明白为什么大家总是说，美国“正在下降”。一个大约为期两年的衰退并不意味着一个国家的绝对死亡。同样，每个人都看不见美国的优势，眼睛都盯在美国当前的弱点上。我并不是要说变成幸福的白痴，而是说不要如此他妈的消极。停止担心从现在开始几年后“可能”会发生什么，开始专注于现在我们面对的问题。至于中国，三十年的增长并不等同于长期的稳定。实际上，中国政府已经认识到这一点，它们现在正试图为中国经济这部目前过热的机器降温。我们不应该过于关注其他国家，而将我们自己的问题抛在一边。看看此时我们美国能够做什么，然后再去操心世界上其他国家的事。
Recommend (52)
——————————————————————————————————————————
Cleptocracy2011 wrote: Sep 9th 2011 4:46 GMT
You know, for as complicated as economy can be, The Economist seems to be a excessive China fanboy. I think in the near term China's economy will be larger in simple volume, but in the long term problems with social justice and massive population will absolutely bring China down. Social modernization will take generations and in that time new big players will emerge. China is today's story, but it won't last just as these charts suggest.
你知道，经济问题纷繁复杂，《经济学人》似乎对中国格外着迷。我认为从短期来看，中国的经济规模在小尺度上会变得更大，但是从长期来看，社会正义和大量的人口问题绝对会使中国走向衰退。社会现代化需要几代人的时间，在此期间，一个新的大牌球员将会诞生。中国是今天的主角，但它不会像那些图中显示那样持续下去。
Recommend (42)
——————————————————————————————————————————
FarEasterner wrote: Sep 9th 2011 5:11 GMT
These kinds of ratings & forecasts I find acceptable to use after careful examinations of figures & methods used.
The world is determined to the great extent by geography & access to resources.
Just yesterday I was asked why Japan, not China, not Korea, not Vietnam or any other East Asian nation led economic modernization in the region.
I heard many plausible answers, but most forgot to mention geography.
Remember why ancient Greeks dominated Mediterranean world? Because geographically it was very easy to develop trading civilization there. But with Rome catching up Greek city states & Macedonia lacked depth & resources to stand up to Roman republic.
Japan is isolated and heavily populated chain of islands so it was difficult for European colonial powers to invade, that's why Western countries preferred to co-opt it into their designs. Japan political leadership at the time was also excellent and used temporary relief from foreign invasion, transfer of modern technologies & Confucian ethics of its population to their advantage.
But in the long run Japan is at disadvantage to China (again because of geography, resources). China is truly Celestial empire of Asian landmass. So when China got better leadership, management she quickly overtook Japan & on the course to overtake US.
When this happens nobody knows but I believe it's inevitable like the sun will be brighter than the moon. The centre of gravity in the world shifts to East Asia & Pacific.
要我接受这些评级与预测，仔细检查一下使用的数字和方法吧。
世界很大程度上受地理位置和对资源的获取途径所决定。
就在昨天，有人问我，为什么是日本，而不是中国，不是韩国，不是越南或任何其他东亚国家，引领该地区的经济现代化。
我听过很多似是而非的答案，但都忘了提到的是地理。
还记得为什么古希腊人能够统治地中海世界吗？由于地理因素使得它很容易发展出贸易文明。但是当罗马赶上希腊的城邦，马其顿缺乏深度和资源就无法与罗马共和国比肩了。
日本是孤立的，人口稠密的岛屿链。因此欧洲殖民列强很难侵略日本，这就是为什么西方国家宁愿吸收日本成为他们中的一员。日本当时的政治领导同样是出色的，从外国的入侵者那里现学现用，让现代技术、日本民族的儒家伦理朝着向它有利的方向转移。
但是从长远来看，日本是劣于中国的（还是由于地理、资源）。中国是亚洲大陆真正的中华帝国。所以，当中国拥有更好的领导、管理时，她迅速地超越了日本，并走在超越美国的路上。
没有人知道这一天何时到来，但我相信这是不可避免的，就像太阳永远比月亮更明亮。世界权力的中心转移到东亚和太平洋地区。
Recommend (35)
——————————————————————————————————————————
Red Scare wrote: Sep 9th 2011 4:15 GMT
How about one that compares per capita GDP?
比较一下人均GDP如何？
Recommend (29)
——————————————————————————————————————————
O Paco wrote: Sep 9th 2011 4:08 GMT
Another one bites the dust. Maybe when they lead, the Chinese media will be a bit less biased that all this Anglo propaganda.
又干掉一个。也许当中国领导世界时，中国媒体将少了一些充斥于英美媒体的偏见。
（译者注：Another one bites the dust，Queen乐队的一首歌名。）
Recommend (28)
——————————————————————————————————————————
Harry Bowman wrote: Sep 9th 2011 5:52 GMT
This looks like one of those old forecasts of the future size of the Soviet economy, where the Soviet economic figures were taken at face value, and then projected to grow at the rate given in the five-year plans. And the answer is that the Chinese economy in 2030 will be a triumph of Mao Zedong thought.
Oh, and another thing-- PPPs are a profoundly anti-market way to measure economic size. The yuan does not seem to be valued in a way that is massively out of whack with reality- if it were, you would see Chinese people not wanting to keep dollars. You don't see that.
这看起来就像那些苏联时期做过的老式的对经济前景的预测，那时苏联根据给出的字面上的经济数据，制定出按一定比例增长的五年计划。结论就是，2030年的中国经济会成为毛泽东思想的胜利。
哦，还有另一件事——购买力平价是以一种完全反市场的方法来衡量经济规模的。现实中，人民币的价值似乎并没有被世界广为接受，否则，你就会看到中国人不想要持有美元。你没有看到这一点。
Recommend (27)
——————————————————————————————————————————
PaxIndica wrote: Sep 9th 2011 9:08 GMT
Back in 2004 I remember reading the transcript in an Indian newspaper, of an interview with a policymaker in India's planning commission. The interviewer, as some scribes in India are only too happy to, tried to create a headline by asking a question which (he hoped) prompted an answer he was looking for. He was disappointed.
Journalist: Goldman Sachs projects that by 2050 India will be the third largest economy in the world. Do you agree ?
Policymaker: We have the world's second largest population now. We will have the largest population on this planet well before 2050. If we don't figure in one of top three in the world on everything, all of us really need to get our our heads examined. Top three in absolute GDP wouldn't be an achievement, its the absolutely bare minimum necessary to keep from flunking the class.
The interview was relegated to the back pages. And too many Indians gloat. Actually, we oscillate between national depression and national euphoria. We waste entirely too much time in extreme emotion and not enough time in 'getting on with it'.
2nd or 3rd largest is great, I just want India to be able to:
1] Wipe out poverty. As in, eliminate it completely. If after that our per capita income is closer to Namibia's or Norway's, it'll all be so much better than today.
2] Enforce the freedom of speech with absolute conviction, no exceptions. Any country calling itself a democracy, much less the world's largest, and then banning books, gatherings, etc is quite insane.
3] This might sound strange given India's population, but really, relax immigration laws and make it easier for non-citizens to work in India. Infrastructure is improving, eventually India will be a livable country for expatriates of most countries to work as professionals in. Most Indians think that they are very receptive to other nations and cultures. We're somewhat open, but we haven't modernized much, certainly not as fast as we could. We need Europeans, Americans, Hispanics, East Asians, Africans and now after the spring, Arabs working and living in India in large numbers to truly modernize our economy, society and nation.
我记得早在2004年，我在印度报纸上读过一篇文章，是对印度计划委员会决策者的采访。那个记者，就像印度的抄写员一样实在是太兴奋了，试图拟一个头版标题，通过问一个问题，得到一个他期望的答案。结果，他失望了。
记者：高盛预测说，到2050年印度将成为世界第三大经济体。你同意吗？
决策者：我们有现在世界第二大人口。到2050年之前，我们将是这个星球上人口最多的。如果这个世界上的各种前三甲中都没有我们的名字，我们所有人真的都该好好检查检查我们的脑子了。绝对的国内生产总值的前三名并不是一项成就，这仅仅是考试合格的最低要求。
采访被转移到了后面的版面。仍然收获了太多的印度人的目光。其实，我们在国家抑郁症和国家兴奋之间摇摆不定。我们浪费了太多时间在极端的情绪上，却没有足够的时间继续前进。
第二或者第三同样是伟大的，我只是希望印度能够做到：
1]消除贫困。一定要完全地消除贫困。如果有一天，我们的人均收入接近纳米比亚或者挪威，在各个方面会比今天好得多。
2]坚持言论自由的绝对信念，没有例外。任何一个自称是民主的国家，更是世界上最大的，然后禁止书籍、聚会等等都是极其愚蠢的。
3]这可能听起来很奇怪，印度的人口，但实际上，放宽移民法，并使非公民在印度工作更容易。基础设施正在改善，最终，印度将一个宜居的国家，大多数国家的专业人士都会前往印度工作、定居。大多数印度人认为他们是很容易接受其他民族和文化的。我们是有些开放的，但我们的现代化程度还很低，还未达到我们的最快速度。我们需要欧洲人、美国人、西班牙裔、东亚人、非洲人，过了今年春天，大量的在印度工作和生活的阿拉伯人真正让我们的经济、社会和国家现代化。
Recommend (26)
——————————————————————————————————————————
OnePersonThinkTank wrote: Sep 9th 2011 7:11 GMT
According to a recent article on msnbc, of the millions of newly minted millionaires in China, 27% have emigrated, of the remaining, 47% are looking into it. Favorite destination? America of course. I say we take full advantage of that and charge $1M per green card, $3M for a family of 3. Use their money to pay off our debt to them. Genius!!
根据最近MSNBC上的一篇文章，中国新崛起的数以百万计的百万富翁，其中27％已移居国外，其余的47％正在想办法出国。最喜爱的目的地？当然是美国。我说，我们需要对此充分利用，每人一张绿卡收取100万美元，三口之家收取300万美元。用他们的钱还清我们欠他们的债务。天才！！
Recommend (25)
——————————————————————————————————————————
enriquecost wrote: Sep 9th 2011 4:33 GMT
calm incense,
I added that U.S. weapons are of much better quality than old age Chinese weapons....The U.S. spends SIX TIMES more money in weapons than China, and by 2030 still will spend THREE TIMES more money in weapons than China. I just said that even if an agressive U.S. military polity tries to attack and invade China they can fail because even if Chinese weapons are of less quality they can manufacture much more weapons as they produce eight times more steel than the U.S.
calm incense，
我补充说，美国的武器质量远优于中国的老旧的货......美国在武器上的开销是中国的六倍以上，到2030年其武器开销仍将是中国的三倍多。我刚才说到，即使美国的军事政策咄咄逼人，如果美国试图入侵和进攻中国的话，他们也会失败的。因为即使中国的武器质量低劣，他们可以制造更多的武器，因为他们的钢产量是美国的八倍以上。
Recommend (24)
——————————————————————————————————————————
enriquecost wrote: Sep 9th 2011 3:56 GMT
But will the U.S. win this time? If we take into account that the European Community of Steel and Coal which created the European Union was based on control of German steel as steel is the main source of Defense manufacturing....Now China produces EIGHT TIMES MORE STEEL than America, so they have the ability to manufacture a great deal of weapons even if the quality of most will be lower than the America.
但是这次美国还会赢吗？如果我们考虑到欧洲煤炭和钢铁共同体，欧盟的前身，是基于德国钢铁的控制，因为钢铁是国防工业的主要来源....现在中国的钢产量是美国的八倍以上，所以他们有能力制造出大量的武器，即使大多数的武器质量低于美国的。
Recommend (23)
——————————————————————————————————————————
enriquecost wrote: Sep 9th 2011 4:36 GMT
Just take into account that China doesn′t have even a GPS system, and has just launched its first old age aircraft carrier...
只要考虑到，中国甚至还不具备全球卫星定位系统，并且刚刚试航了其首个老旧的航母......
Recommend (23)
——————————————————————————————————————————
L.Y.Z. wrote: Sep 10th 2011 6:13 GMT
Quite amusing to take notice of the repressed thoughts vented by the China bashers with a mere forecast!
Obviously for those proselytizers a new Lord Elgin is urgently needed. Preferably, still can have some skill with matches. Lol.
注意到，通过预测中国漂亮的回击来发泄压抑的想法，这很有趣！
显然，对于那些改变信仰者，一个新的埃尔金勋爵是迫切需要的。最好，还可以学到一些比赛的技巧。大笑。
译者注：“埃尔金”是苏格兰东北部一座小城的名字，　17世纪中叶之前的苏格兰是一个独立的王国。1633年6月，这个王国设立“埃尔金伯爵”贵族封号，并将其颁赏给声名显赫的布鲁斯家族。苏格兰于1654年并入英国之后，这一封号保留下来。370多年来，布鲁斯家族承袭这一封号的共有11人,其中广为人知者，一是劫掠希腊帕特农神庙的第七代传人托马斯·布鲁斯，二是火烧中国圆明园的第八代传人詹姆斯·布鲁斯。
Recommend (10)
——————————————————————————————————————————
sloop slided wrote: Sep 9th 2011 8:39 GMT
China and India have such a large population it'd be ridiculous if they weren't a big economic power at some point.
中国和印度的人口如此众多，如果他们不能在（未来的）某个时候成为主要的经济力量，那才是荒谬的。
Recommend (9)
——————————————————————————————————————————
bpai wrote: Sep 9th 2011 9:00 GMT
I still remember all the articles in the 1980s foretelling the coming of the Japanese Century.
Where would news magazines be if they couldn't take a snapshot of trends at a (carefully selected) moment in time, extrapolate them into the future as if they would continue unchanged forever, and use that for a dramatic headline?
我还记得上个世纪80年代，所有的文章都在预言日本世纪的到来。
无论哪家新闻杂志都做不到，在一个（精心挑选的）时刻对趋势及时地拍下快照，再用它们来推导未来，就好像它们将永远保持不变似的，并将之作为一个耸动的标题？
Recommend (9)
——————————————————————————————————————————
slkchina wrote: Sep 10th 2011 1:35 GMT
Regarding the idea that China's one child policy will cause trouble in the future in terms of work force, I want to share my obsrvation after living in China for five years. It seems to me that there is a tremendous redundancy in labor. Stores have hordes of salespersons while you have to scour the whole floor in the USA to find someone to help you. Construction sites use the muscle power of many workers instead of the labor-saving technology of the west. Teachers teach two classes a day (90 to 110 kids) while American teachers teach five or six classes a day (150 to 180 and climbing) I think there will be absolutely no problem of a future labor shortage.
关于中国的一胎化政策将会导致在未来产生劳动力短缺的麻烦这个想法，我想分享一下我在中国生活了五年的观察。在我看来，中国拥有巨大的剩余劳动力。商店有成群的售货人员，而在美国你不得不穿过整个楼层来找人来帮助你。建筑工地雇佣许多工人做工，同时，西方国家却在使用节省劳力的技术。老师一天教两个班（90至110个孩子），而美国的老师一天要教六个班（150至180个人或更多），我认为未来那里绝对不会有劳动力短缺的问题。
Recommend (9)
——————————————————————————————————————————
An Drew wrote: Sep 10th 2011 3:16 GMT
enriquecost,
I admire your skills of connecting absolutely odd things and thus coming up with the discovery of a masterful plan by the "Anglo-American" propaganda arms with their intentions in starting a wave of hatred against China.
You started with how The Economist this time used PPP figures instead of nominal ones (misunderstanding the fact that the article mentions that the work is by someone from the Peterson Institute), and then you stretch it from there to how the US spends %50 of all the defense spending, and how it invaded two countries illegally.
Next time, if what you only want to prove is how bad and evil a country the US is, just declare it without drawing these bizarre connections.
enriquecost，
能把绝对奇怪的事情联系在一起，我很佩服你的这个能力。通过“英美的”宣传机器发现了一个惊天的计划，围绕其意图开启了一波对中国仇恨的浪潮。
你在开头写道，这回《经济学人》使用购买力平价计算，而不是名义上的（误导事实，正如文章提到的，这是彼得森研究所的人搞出来的），然后你又思路广，从美国消费了全球50％的国防开支，又到美国是如何非法入侵两个国家的。
下一次，如果你只是想要证明美国这个国家是如何坏如何邪恶的话，只需指出它就行了，没必要把这些奇怪的事联系在一起。
Recommend (7)
——————————————————————————————————————————
FarEasterner wrote: Sep 9th 2011 9:12 GMT
Writers of articles on Japanese century were mesmerized (or probably participated) by spectacular rise of property prices in Japan which was classical bubble.
China also will face many bubbles but is unlikely to repeat Japan's mistakes - policy makers are more cautious and if bubbles will burst their impact will be limited.
日本世纪的文章作者被日本楼价惊人上扬催眠了（也可能是有意为之），这是经典的泡沫。
中国也将面临许多泡沫，但不会重蹈日本的覆辙——决策者更加谨慎，即使泡沫破灭了，其影响也是有限的。
Recommend (6)
——————————————————————————————————————————
oe.shuren wrote: Sep 9th 2011 11:45 GMT
You might add that according to some economists, China's economy was the largest in the world in the Ming Dynasty. "The economy of the Ming Dynasty (1368-1662) of China was the largest in the world during that period. It is regarded as one of China's three golden ages (the other two being the Han and Tang periods). The period was marked by the increasing political influence of the merchants, the gradual weakening of imperial rule, and technological advances." Although currency was paper at the beginning, it shifted to silver later. Agriculture and trade flourished and taxation and regulation was light. "Ming iron production surpassed all previous dynasties, with annual production of 195,000 tons a year, compared to 125,000 tons during the height of the Song Dynasty (960-1279) and 180,000 tons for the whole of 18th-century Europe."
The question might well be why capitalism failed and competitive advantage went to Europe.
你还可以根据一些经济学家（的研究）继续添加，中国明代是世界上最大的经济体。“中国明代（1368年至1662年）的经济是当时世界上最大的，明代被看做是中国的三大黄金期之一（另外两个分别是汉唐时期）。这一时期以商人的政治影响力逐渐增加、帝国的统治逐渐弱化以及技术的进步为标志。”虽然开始使用的是纸币，但其后转为使用银了。农业和贸易蓬勃发展，税赋和律法却较轻。“明代铁的年产量超越了历代王朝，明代年产铁195,000吨，对比宋代（960-1279）最高为125,000吨和整个18世纪的欧洲为180,000吨。”
问题是为什么资本主义（在中国）失败了而欧洲却获得了竞争优势。
Recommend (6)
——————————————————————————————————————————
nkab wrote: Sep 10th 2011 3:13 GMT
Relax guys of Nay or Yea Sayers, in as much as this is seemingly a good chart from the Economist, China is not going to dominant the world the way British did or the Americans do today, not for the foreseeable next few hundreds of years IMO.
That's because regardless how one argues if China will be the mightiest in trade in future years or not, it’s really inconsequential. The “might is right” is just not in the blood of Chinese culture, nor in the card of CCP government policy.
Having said that, let me quote British philosopher Bertrand Russell, generally considered a great one in the span of thousands of years of Western philosophy, who said in an interview with New York World on May 4th, 1924:
[ “I have come to realize that the white race isn’t as important as I used to think it was……..; and in many ways, China is the greatest country I have ever seen. It is not only the greatest numerically and greatest culturally, but it seems to me the greatest intellectually.
I know of no civilization where there is such open-mindedness, such realism, such a willingness to face the facts as they are, instead of trying to distort them into a particular pattern.” ]
Russell came from one of the oldest and most famous families in England. His grand father Lord Russell was a prominent British Prime Minister and his father Earl of Russell was a free thinker. So Westerners reading his comment above should take a grain of salt.
For Chinese reading Bertrand Russell’s comment above, I think you should take with it lots of salts.
中国黑和中国蜜们，放松。无论如何这是《经济学人》的一张很好的图表，中国人是不会用英国人曾经的方式或美国人现在的方式主导世界的。依我看，未来数百年是不可预见的。
这是因为不管如何认为，如果中国未来几年的贸易是否是最强大的，它真的无关紧要。“强权即公理”不在中国文化的血液里，也不在共产党政府的政策教条里面。
话虽如此，让我引用英国哲学家罗素的话，一般认为罗素是千百年以来西方哲学界一位伟大的哲学家，他在1924年5月4日接受纽约世界的采访时说：
[“我越来越认识到，白色人种并不是如我们过去想象的那么重要......；而且在许多方面，中国是我所见过的最伟大的国家。它不仅有最多的人口和最灿烂的文化，在我看来，他们的智力也是最出色的。
据我所知，没有哪个文明有这种开明的态度、这样的现实主义、愿意实事求是，而不是试图扭曲成特定的模式。”]
罗素来自于一个英格兰最古老、最著名的家族。他的外公老罗素是一位杰出的英国首相，他的父亲罗素伯爵是一位自由思想家。因此，西方人读到他上面的评论，应该打个折扣。
对于罗素上面的评论中有关中国的部分，我觉得你应该大打折扣。
（译者注：感谢台湾小白的答疑解惑，我的感觉最后这句话是在反讽，意思是说罗素的话都不可信难道现在媒体的话更可信？）
Recommend (6)
——————————————————————————————————————————
nkab wrote: Sep 10th 2011 9:35 GMT
@Michael Dunne wrote: Sep 10th 2011 3:35 GMT
“nkab, ……………He responded: "I will send the police to arrest them." “
Some nice analogies there you have posted, and in the case “sending police”, it’s a clear indication to me that “might is right” was well entrenched in the "blood and iron" like Western strategic thinking, but not by every state or all the time to be sure.
That brings to the point that in today’s thinking anti-hegemony is not necessarily anti-West. By the same token, pro China commentators here are not necessarily anti- West (meaning here US/ UK mainly, but also anyone who is "against" China, a la Bush definition of friend or foe).
However, having been had for the past 200 years, the Chinese pro China commentators are sensitive lot. I think most of them see current affairs developing almost always in the prism of “conspiracy”, and rightly so especially, with all these wikileaks coming out of closets of late, proving once again what have been generally know all along that such suspicions are not unfounded. But the flip side being once affixed with “conspiracy”, all sorts of wild guess or phobia would suddenly become alive for a reason in the eyes of beholders such as yours truly--this commentator.
Now there are spoken and unspoken fears or concerns in the West against China’s rise in power, influence, wealth and the mere status of being among the equals, and the West would naturally stop at nothing to derail or deter China’s reemergence at every chance it has got. In a way, such Western fears are understandable and even legitimate from West interest point view. But such views are shallow and near sighted IMO.
For example, the West knows say what a Germany, a Russia or a Japan would do once they have become the most powerful as they share similar mind set in international politics and power play. But they don’t seem to know what China will do once it became the most powerful. They can’t quite put the finger on it because the obvious “cultural divide” and their unreasonable fear of today's “communism”.
It’s these unknowns that are driving West postures to mitigate the risk involved by trying to neutralize or deter China from happening. Thus the whole sale propaganda against CCP regime and communism, the China threat (read perils), the technology and arms boycott, the containment and everything else between Dalia Lama and kitchen sinks that would make China looking miserable and help to drive it on the defensive, hopefully all the time leaving China no time for its development.
But no superpower can be that all almighty. Driven by profit and perhaps necessity they had to trade or otherwise interact with China, and in the process, making China that much more "unstoppable" in its reemergence. Of course nobody is all stoppable or unstoppable in principle.
So a more realistic and proactive approach is to be pro China and pro West at the same time, a sort of “minimax” in real practice. That is, there would be no single dominating super power any more but several big powers of influence with room for new comers.
Well, that’s a mouthful trying to tell you guys that pro-China is not anti-West per se. Pro-China actually means pro win-win, IMO.
“nkab，..................他答道：“我将要派警察逮捕他们。””
你的帖子做了一个很好的类比，以“派警察”为例，这句话清楚地向我表明：“强权即公理”在西方的战略思想中如“血和铁”般根深蒂固，但不是每一个国家都对此都非常清楚。
这点，在今天反霸权的思想不一定是反西方。同样的道理，这里亲中国的言论不一定是反西方（这里主要是指的美国/英国，同样也适合那些“反对”中国的人，小布什所定义的“朋友还是敌人”）。
然而，如过去200年里发生的那样，中国人发表亲中国的言论敏感了很多。我认为他们中的大多数人都以一种“阴谋论”的角度来看待当前的事务，而且巧合的是，随后流出的维基解密总是在一一印证，再一次地证明，公众所一直疑虑的并非是毫无根据的。但是一旦被贴上了“阴谋”的标签，各种坊间流传的猜测或者恐惧就会突然变得真实起来，成为如你这样的旁观者深信不疑的那样——比如你的这条评论。
现在人们或明示或暗示地害怕或者担心，西方反对中国在权力、影响力、财富方面的崛起，仅仅要求与西方同等的地位都不行，西方会本能地维护既有秩序，阻止中国获得每一个再度崛起的机会。从某种意义上说，这种西方的担忧是可以理解的，甚至是符合西方利益的。但是，依我看这种观点是肤浅的和短视的。
例如，西方人会说，一旦德国、俄罗斯或者日本成为最强大的国家，它们会如何如何，因为它们在国际政治和权力的发挥方面有着相似的心态。但他们似乎并不知道一旦中国成为最强大的国家，它将做什么。他们对此一无所知，因为明显的“文化鸿沟”，和他们今天仍对“共产主义”抱有不切实际的恐惧。
正是由于这些未知，推动了西方采取试图通过消除或阻止中国的崛起，来降低其对西方威胁的姿态。因此就对中共政权和共产主义全力开动宣传机器，中国是威胁，禁售中国武器和技术，遏制中国从达赖喇嘛到厨房水槽之间的一切，将令中国苦不堪言，疲于应对，希望中国为应付这些麻烦而无暇发展。
但是超级大国并非是全能的。受利润的驱使，可能他们不得不与中国做生意，否则就会在这个过程中受到中国的相互影响，使得中国的复兴更加“不可阻挡”。当然，原则上，没有人是可以阻挡或者不可阻挡的。
因此，同时面对亲中国和亲西方的时候，一个更为现实和积极的策略就是，实践中的“minimax”。也就是说，不再有单一主导的超级强权，而是由几个有影响力的国家坐在一起，欢迎新来者。
好了，所有的这些话其实是想告诉你们，亲中国不一定是反西方。我的意思是，亲中国意味着双赢。
Recommend (6)
——————————————————————————————————————————
Yawer Sajjad wrote: Sep 10th 2011 7:10 GMT
China has battled a long way to reach a position it holds today. China's flourishing economy is the postive indicatior in the south asia.
中国今时今日的地位来之不易。中国的经济繁荣也有利于南亚。
Recommend (5)
——————————————————————————————————————————
emmonse wrote: Sep 10th 2011 11:36 GMT
Those who believe that China is a powerful country may make a huge mistake, actually, if you come to China, it's quite easy to find that this seemingly powerful country actually is full of corruption and social inequality. A small number of people have the most treasure, and the privileged class can do anything they want. Law is kind of bullshit in this country.In effect, as long as you have money, law is completely bullshit for you.
Many young people are trying their best to improve their current state, however, most of them are becoming aware of this truth: No matter how hard I work and study, it's so hard for me to live a decent life, just because my parents are not government officials and they have no money and privilege.
The youth are losing hope, and the country is losing the support from it's future hosts.
那些认为中国是一个强大国家的人，可能犯了一个巨大的错误，实际上，如果你到中国来，你很容易地发现，这个貌似强大的国家实际上充满了腐败和社会不平等，少数人拥有大量的财富，特权阶层可以为所欲为。这个国家法律就是狗屎。实际上，只要你有钱，对你来说法律就是狗屁。
许多年轻人都在尽力改善他们目前的状态，但是，他们中越来越多人认识到这个事实：
无论我的工作或者学习多么努力，我也很难过上一个体面的生活，仅仅是因为我的父母不是政府官员，他们没有金钱和特权。
年轻人正在失去希望，国家正在失去它未来主人的支持。
Recommend (5)
——————————————————————————————————————————
student of history wrote: Sep 10th 2011 7:01 GMT
khmTzic3YT, The chart that you have given of world powers is very euro centric. A more global view of the Dominant "world Power" in 1500 would probably be the Ottoman empire/Ming China. Similarly in 1600 the dominant world power in 1600 would probably be the Ottoman empire/Mughal Empire. In the 1700 I would hesitate to name a dominant world power but the closest might be Manchu China?
History is a never ending cycle of powers rising and falling. Whilst No one has a crystal bowl, some broad trends can be taken. I think that the 21st century will be the 18th century in reverse. In the year 1700 all of the richest most powerful states of the world appeared to be in the in the East, the Ottoman empire, the Safavid empire, the Mughal empire, Manchu China. The West was making inroads but had nothing compared to the wealth or apparent power of these states. By the year 1800 the West was in a dominant position, and the eastern empires were completely overshadowed, some gone and some in an advanced stage of decay. In the year 2000 the richest most powerful states of the world were in the West (excluding Japan), i.e. North America (USA & Canada), E.E.C. (particularly Western Europe). Asia is rising, but compared to what these countries have Asia does not have the wealth or military muscle, the opposite of 1700! Whilst I am unable to predict which country will be where, I think that the rise of the East at the expense of the West (as it is known today) is a foregone conclusion. There are other rising areas/states all of which are going to negatively impact the status quo, for e.g. Brazil is a rising state, in the last decade Africa has started to progress etc. So the one thing I can say with certainty is that the age of dominance of Europe has definitely gone, and North America (USA and Canada) may well remain global players but they will be amongst a number of equal powers, not paramount.
When academics make estimates about India and China being 50% of the world GDP for much of the last two millennium, whilst I acknowledge that for most of that time these 2 states were amongst the richest places on the planet, I am skeptical about the data on which this percentage is based. For example how is the data factoring in the economic output of the Aztec and Inca empires in South America? Both these empires were immensely rich and economically advanced (though not [relatively] militarily since they had not harnessed Iron as a weapon), and to the best of my knowledge (due to the destruction wrought by the invading Europeans most of the records of these societies were lost) very little data is available with respect to their economies. So how does this factor into the economic equation Re world GDP analysis of the 14th to the 16th centuries?
When societies/states begin to rise the first thing that they catch up on is military technology. It is worth noting that whilst in the 16th century Europe (the west) had caught up with the rest of the world in military technology, and by 1700 had overtaken the world in this field in most of the other sciences (excluding mechanization) it overtook the world in the second half of the 19th century. Here I am referring to things like architecture, medicine, astrology, philosophy, education systems, town planning etc. Today that same process is being played out in reverse. From the 18th century to the first of the 20th century, comparatively tiny (in numbers) western armies could enforce their will on countries and states in other parts of the world. So if the British wanted a regime change in say Iran it was a matter of a few gun boats and a couple of battalions of troops. Today to invade a midsized power in Asia (Iraq) it has taken the deployment of a huge amount of the military muscle (not to mention allied forces) of the dominant military power of the day i.e. the USA. The change in the equation is also reflected in the fact that whilst the west is able to interfere in say Libya or other parts of Africa, with comparative impunity, military interference in say, Syria is not an option, due to that county’s military strength. Similarly other than the USA no power in the western world has the military muscle, to be able to confront any of the (militarily) strong countries in Asia in their neighborhood. Even for the USA a military conflict with one of these militarily strong (and getting stronger) states could inflict unacceptable damage (irrespective of the ultimate result) on the US military machine and has to be considered carefully, hence the US problem with Iran or North Korea.
khmTzic3YT，你提到的世界权力图表非常地欧洲中心主义。从更具全球性的视角观察，1500年占主导地位的“世界大国”很可能是奥斯曼帝国或者中国的明朝。同样在1600年，占主导地位的世界强国很可能是奥斯曼帝国或者莫卧儿帝国。在1700年，我会毫不犹豫地指出占主导地位的世界强国或者说最接近的可能是满洲人的中国？
历史就是各大国不断崛起和衰弱的永无止境的循环。虽然没有人有水晶碗，一些大体上的趋势却是可以把握的。我认为21世纪将是会是18世纪的倒影。在1700年，所有的世界上最富有最强大的国家都出现在东方，奥斯曼帝国、沙法维帝国、莫卧儿帝国、满洲的中国。西方国家正在扩张，但是在财富和影响力方面都无法与那些国家相比。但是到了1800年，西方成为了世界的主导，东方的帝国则完全黯然失色了，有些国家消失了，有些国家走在了衰退的路上。到了2000年，世界上最富有最强大的国家都在西方（日本除外），即北美（美国和加拿大），欧洲经济共同体（特别是西欧）。亚洲正在崛起，但比起这些国家，亚洲的财富或军事力量都相形见绌，和1700年相反！虽然我无法预测哪个国家会处于什么位置，但我认为东方相对于西方的崛起（正如今天众所周知的）已成定局。其他正在崛起的国家或地区也会对现状产生负面影响，例如，巴西是一个正在崛起的国家，最近的十年，非洲也已经开始进步了等等。所以有一点我可以肯定地说，欧洲的统治的时代肯定已经结束了，北美（美国和加拿大）仍然是全球的玩家，但他们将是若干同等重要的玩家之一，不再是最重要的了。
学界估计在过去两千年的大部分时候，印度和中国的GDP都占世界的50％，虽然我承认在大部分时间里，这两个国家都是这个星球最富有的地方，我对这个数据感到怀疑，这一比例的依据是什么。例如，怎么计算阿兹台克和南美洲的印加帝国的经济产出的数据呢？这些帝国都是非常富有的，经济非常发达的（虽然[相对而言]他们的军事并不发达，因为他们没有使用铁作为武器），就我所知（由欧洲人的入侵造成的破坏，那些社会的大部分记录都丢失了）保留下来的数据非常少，无法还原其经济状况。那么怎么将这些因素纳入经济方程式，重新分析14到16世纪世界的GDP？
当社会或者国家开始兴起，他们要追赶的最首要的就是军事技术。值得注意的是，虽然在16世纪的欧洲（西方）的军事技术已经赶上了世界上的其他地方，直到1700年西方才在这一领域具有压倒性优势，在大部分其他的科学领域（不包括机械化）独领风骚，到19世纪下半叶，西方才统治全球。这里我要指的是，像建筑、医药、占星术、哲学、教育系统、城市规划等的方面。今天，同一进程正朝着相反的方向前进。从18世纪到20世纪初，相比于世界上的其他地方，（在数量上）相对微小的西方军队，可以执行国家或者政府的意志。因此，如果英国希望一个地方的政权发生更迭，比如说伊朗，这不过就是几船的枪和几个营的部队的问题。今天入侵一个亚洲的中等国家（伊拉克），对于像美国这样的军事强权，都需要部署大量的军事力量（更不用说联军了）。平衡的变化也影响到了一个事实，虽然西方能够相对不受惩罚地介入利比亚或者非洲的其他地区，比方说军事介入，那么利比亚也不是一个选项，由于该国的军事力量。同样地，美国以外的西方世界里，没有一个国家有军事实力能够面对任何对其邻居而言（军事）强大的亚洲国家（译者注：明说的话就是中国）。即使是美国，与这些军事强国（正变得越来越强）的一场军事冲突，对于美国的军事机器都可能造成不可接受的损害（不论最终的结果如何），而必须加以仔细考虑，因此，美国与伊朗或朝鲜的问题。
（译者注：这个人说话非常的绕，我是完全按照他原文的意思直译的。）
Recommend (5)
——————————————————————————————————————————
student of history wrote: Sep 10th 2011 7:01 GMT
When the difference today in living standards and quality of life between, Asian societies and the West is considered, remember that the transfer of wealth between Europe and South and Central America in the 15th and 16th centuries, and again Asia and Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries was not based on trade and economic competition. It was based on western military dominance which allowed the west to pillage the resources and wealth of these areas. Given Asia’s rising military strength that is no longer possible. Moving forward the same thing may well happen in reverse, so it is worth bearing this in mind when the difference in living standards of say Western Europe and North America is being compared with that of China or India, and it is argued that it will take centuries for this difference to be made up.
A last observation. History is a cycle, change will always take place, status quo powers will seek to prevent it, and the anti status quo powers will try to change things. For this purpose the status quo powers will try to identify the competition and if possible neutralize it before it becomes a threat, or will seek to restrain the rise of the opposition. A good example of this would be Britain. It saw Revolutionary/Napoleonic France as a threat to its dominance and in alliance with different states in Europe over a 25 year period (1790s to 1815s) cut it down to size. In the late 19th century, and first half of the 20th century, Britain’s threat was Germany, and it created a series of alliances to restrain Germany, which resulted in two world wars, and the end of that threat (how the recent past has played out and Britain’s own decline is a different matter). On the other hand Britain did not see the USA as a major competitor until the late 19th century. When it did it had no cards to play to restrain it, plus imperial Germany was seen as a bigger threat, so it tried to co-opt the USA into its side as much as it could. How the imperial game is played in the next 50 years may well be either or neither of these scenarios. The USA could try to opt for alliances to contain potential rivals or try to co-opt them into its side. Alternatively another scenario could be for the Asian nations to get together on the premise that historically they have suffered most from outside (i.e. outside Asia) interference. They may well decide that they are not interested in geopolitics, and freeze the USA out. Historically China and India, being rich countries, have showed little inclination to go out and conquer other lands. They have sought to enjoy their riches, to protect themselves from Invasion and project their influence to that end. They have had all that they have needed and shown little interest in what happens beyond their immediate neighborhood. If they retreat into insularity the USA or any other players may well have no real geopolitic cards to play to try to control the rise of this part of the world.
今天，当考虑到亚洲社会和西方在生活标准和生活质量之间的差异的时候，请记住，15和16世纪欧洲和南美洲、中美洲之间的财富转移，而后18世纪亚洲与欧洲的财富转移以及19世纪不是基于贸易和经济竞争。它是基于西方的军事优势，这使得西方可以掠夺这些地区的资源和财富。鉴于亚洲正在崛起的军事实力，这已经不再可能了。展望未来同样的事可能会发生逆转，因此这一点是值得铭记的，当人们用西欧和北美的生活水平的差异相比于中国和印度的差异之时，也就是说，这种差异还将持续数个世纪。
最后的观察。历史是一个周期，变化总会发生，现状的强权将设法阻止它，反现状的力量将试图改变它。为了这个目的，现状的强权将设法找出的竞争者，如果可能的话在它成为一个威胁前瓦解它，或将寻求限制反对者的崛起。一个很好的例子就是英国。它认为革命的/拿破仑法国对于英国的霸主地位构成了威胁，并在超过25年的时间里（1790s至1815s）联盟欧洲的不同国家，削减法国的力量。19世纪末期，以及20世纪上半叶，英国的威胁是德国，它创建了一系列的联盟以抑制德国，这导致了两次世界大战，和威胁的解除（最近是如何发挥的以及英国自身的衰弱是另一回事了）。另一方面，英国直到19世纪后期，才将美国视作主要的竞争对手。但当时，英国已经对约束美国毫无办法了，再加上德意志帝国作为一个更大的威胁，因此它试图尽可能地拉拢美国为其所用。未来50年的帝国游戏将如何进行很可能也跳不脱这些场景。美国可以尝试选择联盟以遏制潜在的对手或者尝试拉其入伙。或者另一种情况就是亚洲国家在这个前提下团结一致，它们在历史上都曾遭受过来自外部的干涉。他们很可能认为他们对地缘政治不感兴趣，将美国排除出去。从历史上看，中国和印度，在其富有的时候，也未表现出扩张和征服领土的意愿。他们试图享受他们的财富，为了保护他们自己免遭侵略，为此他们投射他们的影响力。他们需要的应有尽有，对他们近邻发生的事情表现得兴趣不大。如果他们退回孤立主义，美国或者任何其他国家可能没有真正的地缘政治牌好打，以控制该地区的崛起。
Recommend (5)
——————————————————————————————————————————
（原文来自英国经济学人网站 译文：龙腾网 翻译：熊孩子）
 

更多关于 中国,经济,发展 的热帖

·彻查湄公血案 中国有血性味不是孬种

·美专家：“黑鹰”出口中国必将其用于军事

·外媒：韩研八百公里射程导弹 威胁中国

·中国有没有地下核长城 美寝食难安

·西方唱衰新兴经济体 过嘴瘾解决不了实际问题