中国的发展速度为何如此之快？（你绝对想不到……）

@ThePontus1000
It create jobs for the weapons manufacturer and big returns for the owners

这不过是在为军火制造商创造就业岗位，给资本家带来巨额回报罢了。

@EdT.-xt6yv
The military industrial complex will always find an phantom enemy

军工复合体永远会虚构出一个假想敌。

@Ahmvdov
China spends money to build its own industries, the US spends money on foreign wars. Both governments are investing, but in very different ways... Western media says China just wants jobs and big GDP numbers but soon everyone will see which strategy works better, growing factories or fighting wars

中国将资金用于建设本国的产业，而美国却把钱花在海外战争上。两国政府都在投资，但方式截然不同...西方媒体称中国只在乎就业和GDP数字，但很快世人就会明白哪种策略更有效——是发展制造业还是发动战争。

@MiaLi-zr2hs
This is why as a Chinese I find the meme "China: do nothing, wins" funny but a little bit annoying, China is always scheming and building and competing and progressing, whether "the West" is paying attention or not, it's just that most of them are paying so little attention to the other side of the globe that it seems to them that China is "doing nothing".

这就是为何作为中国人，我觉得"中国：躺赢"这个梗既好笑又有点恼人。中国无时无刻不在谋划、建设、竞争、进步，无论"西方"是否关注。只不过他们大多对地球的另一端漠不关心，才会觉得中国在"躺平"。

@MP-vc4nu
That’s not what they meant China do nothing.
They meant China never has any external war affairs nor any external territorial conquests. The islands don’t count, and don’t say Taiwan because they don’t have military base there unlike Ukraine war.

"躺赢"不是指中国无所作为。
而是说中国从不参与外部战争或进行领土扩张。那些岛屿不算数，也别提台湾（地区）——中国没有像乌克兰战争那样在那里设立军事基地。

@pascalrange2275
@MP-vc4nu How do you think this multi ethnic empire was created? Vietnam's entire history is filled with stories of defending against its northern neighbor. Similarly China's eastern and western neighbors have long histories of resisting Chinese aggression. Saying otherwise is like claiming that Rome, the British, or the Russians never waged wars, but merely consolidated their empires.

@MP-vc4nu 你以为中国这个多民族帝国是怎么建立的？越南的整部历史都在讲述抵御北方邻国的故事。中国东西方的邻国同样有着抵抗中国Q略的漫长历史。否认这一点，就像声称罗马帝国、大英帝国或俄罗斯帝国从未发动战争，只是"巩固版图"一样可笑。

@caob1876
they mean that the Chinese dont have to do anything to beat americans who are too busy meddling and causing problems around the world. The statement is meant to address the west's erratic hegemonic scheming more than China's actual productivity.

他们的意思是：中国人无需特别作为就能战胜那些忙于在全球搅局的美国人。这种说法更多是针对西方反复无常的霸权图谋，而非中国的实际生产力水平。

@abhimanyunath2001
It's not that at all ... Everybody is seeing what China is doing and how rapidly they are progressing.
But because of west's own created political and societal systems like democracy, freedom, labour rights company rights and all they can't compete with China specially in emerging technology.

完全不是这样...世人对中国的发展速度和成就有目共睹。
但西方自创的政治社会体系——民主、自由、劳工权益、企业权利等等——反而使他们无法与中国竞争，尤其在新兴的科技领域。

@meridiasbeacon7669
I think we all inherently know in our hearts that there is a very good reason this meme says "China" and not, say, "India"
Because China is actually CAPABLE of winning, genuinely the most impressive rise of a superpower ever in my opinion, the sheer scale and speed at which it is happening, while making people's lives genuinely better and thinking far ahead - investing in green energy, working to build an accessible, affordable, beautiful country over all else, while other rising superpowers in history were all about military, it seems that China's focus is about making life better for its citizens and strengthening ties globally. Do not get me wrong, the Chinese military is almost as powerful as the US's arguably stronger, and has a way bigger industrial capacity than the US, which means that in about 2 years time it'd probably surpass the US as it keeps expanding at a ridiculous rate while the US military declines.

我们对这个梗说的是"中国"而非"印度"的原因心知肚明——因为中国确实具备赢的实力。在我看来，这是史上最令人震撼的超级大国的崛起：规模空前、速度惊人，同时切实改善民生、布局未来——投资绿色能源，建设便捷、宜居、美丽的国度。而历史上其他崛起的强国都痴迷于军事扩张，中国却专注于民生改善和全球合作。别误会，中国的军力已几乎比肩美国（某些方面更强），工业产能更是远超美国。按此惊人的增速（美军却在衰退），不出两年就可能实现全面的超越。

@zuyi19
Westerners always talk about China's overcapacity, but what we have in surplus are clean energy and electric vehicles—products that benefit the global environment—not weapons. The Chinese government's investments have achieved success precisely because the entire nation has pulled together with one heart and one mind to develop the economy. Yet Westerners have not learned from this success; instead of striving to advance global development, they only know how to condemn. This is why the West is on the path to decline.

西方总是炒作中国"产能过剩"，但我们过剩的是清洁能源和电动汽车——这些造福全球的产品而非武器。中国政府的成功秘诀正是举国上下同心发展经济。可西方非但不借鉴，反而只会诋毁而非推动全球进步，这正是其衰落的根源。

@AnhTrinh-xq9hk
overcapacity seems bad for profits, but is actually good for global development. Now they can sell these products for cheap to struggling nations, develop the belt & road initiatives, improve international relation, and diversify their own markets from foreign development

产能过剩看似损害利润，实则促进了全球的发展。中国得以以低价向发展中国家供货，推进"一带一路"倡议，改善国际关系，并通过海外发展实现市场多元化。

@overlordartorius6688
But overcapacity is the base to international trade because you won't sell things you need

但产能过剩恰恰是国际贸易的基础——谁会出售自己必需的物资呢？

@Sasha-mdib
Exactly, strange that we never hear about the "overcapacity" of the US military industrial complex...

没错，奇怪的是我们从未听说美国军工复合体存在"产能过剩"...

@WirelessKFC
if every supply and demand exactly match and there is no overcapacity then that's not market economy but planned economy. market economy always produces overcapacity until market foces self correct

若供需完全匹配、毫无产能过剩，那就不是市场经济而是计划经济了。市场经济天然就会产生产能过剩，直到市场力量完成自我调节。

@jonglejuice
Just because an item is not "needed" does not mean that it will not be purchased. For example, even though a family may not "need" a second car, now a second car is cheap enough so that both mom and dad can each have a car and maybe even a third fourth or fifth car for each child once they are old enough.

商品并非"刚需"就不被购买？比如普通家庭或许不需要第二辆车，但当价格足够低廉时，夫妻完全可以各自拥有一辆，甚至等子女成年后还能配备第三、第四乃至第五辆车。

@thechloromancer3310
@jonglejuice ... that second car was always needed, it just wasn't affordable until 'overcapacity' lowered the price.
Same with solar panels. There was always a demand, but low supply kept the prices high (and the Western producers in the high profit margins).

@jonglejuice 其实第二辆车本就是潜在的需求，只是在"产能过剩"，拉低价格前人们负担不起。太阳能板同理——需求一直存在，但供给不足让价格居高不下（西方的生产商因此赚得盆满钵满）。

@martinleung212
So-called cheap Chinese goods have actually helped a lot of foreign countries to have low inflation for decades.

那些被贴上"廉价"标签的中国商品，实际上帮助许多国家维持了数十年的低通胀水平。

@Yamimaho321
Not all good are cheap . They always have classes of quality. What any country choses to import is on them

并非所有的中国商品都廉价。它们有着明确的质量等级划分，进口何种品质完全取决于各国自身的选择。

@firststep9686
These cheap goods hv destroyed many local industry,,n govt doing business is nt good..

这些廉价商品摧毁了许多本土产业...而且政府直接参与商业运作绝非好事。

@Yamimaho321
@firststep9686 these cheap goods are the reason why 80% of the things are affordable even for you.

@firststep9686 正是这些廉价商品让你能负担得起80%的生活用品。

@zurilift
This vid acts like there is no global demand for Chinese goods and them selling stuff overseas is just because "overcapacity" so dumb. Also subsidies are good and literally every developed nation subsidises some of its industries. The whining about that is also dumb.

这个视频装作全球对中国商品没有需求，把海外销售简单地归因于"产能过剩"，实在愚蠢。况且产业补贴本是好事，哪个发达国家不补贴自家的产业？这种抱怨同样幼稚。

@chocomilo1628
Usual westoid coping. Dont mind it

典型的西方佬酸葡萄心理，不必理会。

@jorgeavelar98
no, its overcapacity relative to the demand its products have. theres obviously an insane amount of demand for Chinese products but despite that, they over produce. thats the problem

不，这是相对于产品需求的产能过剩。虽然对中国商品的需求巨大，但他们仍然生产过量，这才是问题所在。

@clmk28
solar panels, evs, heat pumps, that means less cash going to buying middle eastern oil.

太阳能板、电动汽车、热泵——这些都意味着流向中东石油的资金在减少。

@ChuckNorrizzed
Also means self-sufficiency, and not relying on other countries for your energy, military and food needs. This should be the goal of every nation.

这更意味着在能源、军事和粮食需求上的自给自足——这本应是每个国家追求的目标。

@UnoriginalOP354
It may also mean another jab to the Petrodollar

或许这也是对石油美元体系的又一记重击。

@WirelessKFC
The whole global warming/carbon emissions quota/push for green energy initiative was a political trap that was meant to trap developing countries. The west was never serious about green energy.
At the 2009 Copenhagen Summit, the West promised to reduce their emissions so that they would "only" produce 44% of the future global emissions, but the problem is they only had 1.1 billion people, accounting for 15% of the global total. The developing countries, with their 5.7billion population would have only 56% of the emissions. This would seriously stunt their growth and the west, who controlled all the tech on green energy could heavily invest in green to reduce carbon then sell their excess carbon credits at exorbitant prices.
The developing countries did not accept this deal and the west could not sell their carbon credits so they had no incentive to seriously adopt green energy. China however, who was heavily and unfairly criticized for carbon emissions, said "challenge accepted" and actually seriously developed green energy tech for mass scale adoption. In 10 years the cost of solar panels have reduced by 90% and batteries/pumped hydro/hydrogen grid storage solutions needed to smooth out wind and solar have all rapidly advanced.

全球变暖/碳排放配额/绿色能源倡议本质上是针对发展中国家设置的政治陷阱。西方从未真心实意推动绿色能源的发展。在2009年哥本哈根峰会上，西方国家承诺减排后仍将占据全球44%的排放额度，但问题在于其人口仅11亿，仅占全球总人口的15%。而拥有57亿人口的发展中国家却只能分配56%的排放权，这将严重阻碍其发展进程。西方企图通过垄断绿色能源技术，先进行减排投资，再以高价出售超额碳信用额度。
发展中国家拒绝接受这一不公平的协议后，西方因无法兜售碳信用而失去减排的动力。然而长期遭受不公正碳排放指责的中国却迎难而上，切实推动绿色能源技术的大规模应用。短短十年间，让太阳能板的成本下降达90%，电池储能/抽水蓄能/氢能电网等用于平衡风光电波动的储能技术均取得突破性的进展。

@monishfj
Funny how these kinds of videos never question how the U.S. can spend nearly $1 trillion on its military often fueling global choas but no one asks why that money isn't being used to invest in clean energy at their own home. But somehow China investing $940 billion in clean energy is seen as a problem. The double standards are pretty obvious.

有趣的是，这类视频从不质疑美国为何能花费近1万亿美元军费（往往加剧全球动荡），却没人问这些钱为何不用来投资本国清洁能源。而中国投资9400亿美元发展清洁能源反而成了问题。双标简直不要太明显。

@Realone7-i8l
This is clearly wrong, many do question the U.S. military budget. And the problem isn’t that China is investing in clean energy for its own country, the problem is that it’s subsidizing those industries and then trying to export them, which inherently puts other countries industries at risk.
They are trying to undercut competitors in hope of gaining market control, and once that happens then you’re forced to adhere to them.

这明显不对，质疑美国军费预算的大有人在。问题不在于中国为自身发展清洁能源而投资，而在于其补贴这些产业后试图对外出口，这本质上危及他国的产业。
他们正试图通过低价打压竞争者来获取市场控制权，一旦得逞，其他国家就不得不受制于他们。

@wkyau1145
@Realone7-i8l US subsidize its car industry same as EU, EU & US heavily subsidize boeing and airbus and both of them dominate in plane manufacturing, have you been complaining about it in the past 30 years?

@Realone7-i8l 美国补贴汽车产业和欧盟如出一辙，欧美对波音空客的巨额补贴让两者垄断了飞机制造业，过去30年你怎么不抱怨？

@Realone7-i8l
@wkyau1145 thats a false comparison because its not just subsidies, but the level that matters. If one government gives 1 billion worth of subsidies and the other gives 1 trillion, are they both the same?
And that comparison also deliberately leaves out the part of domestic industries. Most countries don’t have aerospace industries in which they build commercial jets. Boeing and airbus aren’t intentionally undercutting domestic industries because theirs no domestic industry to begin with. China on the other hand is doing the opposite, they are using their subsidized industries to push into foreign markets and kick out their domestic industries.
And ask yourself why China doesn’t allow U.S. social media inside? Because even they know that the U.S. media giants would’ve crushed domestic media companies. Everyone protects their interests.
For the EU and U.S. its domestic industries and for China its domestic media companies.

@wkyau1145 这种比较是错误的，关键不在于补贴本身，而在于补贴的规模。如果一个政府提供10亿美元补贴，另一个提供1万亿美元，这能一样吗？
这种比较还故意忽略了本土产业因素。多数国家根本没有制造商用飞机的航空航天产业。波音和空客不存在刻意打压本土产业的问题，因为相关国家本来就没有这个产业。而中国正相反，他们用受补贴的产业打入外国市场，挤走当地的产业。
试问中国为何不允许美国社交媒体进入？因为他们心知肚明，美国媒体巨头会碾压本土媒体公司。各国都在保护自身的利益——欧盟和美国保护本土产业，而中国则保护本土媒体。

@shiromaru8236
⁠ @Realone7-i8l Foreign always picking issue to create local disharmony. They never said or praise the good and wonderful life style the people are enjoying with best infrastructure instead the spend in their defend industrial complex creating regime change and over 40 wars in the last 30 years. PERIOD.

@Realone7-i8l 外国人总爱挑拨离间。他们从不提及也不称赞民众享受的美好生活品质和一流的基础设施，反而把资金投入军工复合体，过去30年策划了超过40场战争和政权更迭。事实如此。

@Bryan_n5
I rather my country subsidize positive industries that makes quality goods cheaper rather than sending billions to Israel or big oil..

我宁愿我的国家补贴那些能降低优质商品价格的朝阳产业，而不是把数十亿美元送给以色列或石油巨头。

@barryneild379
Yes China give out subsidies but you conveniently ignored: the LARGEST recipient of the subsidies is largely Tesla ��!! Tesla is also the largest recipient from US subsidies $3 this year alone, BYD $0!!

没错，中国确实提供了补贴，但你刻意忽略了：最大的受益者其实是特斯拉！！特斯拉也是美国补贴的最大赢家，仅今年就拿了30亿美元，而比亚迪是零元！！

@vanhocwong6689
Airbus produces more planes than it could sell in Europe. Boeing produces more planes than it could sell in the US. German car companies like Mercedes (which I own one) produces more cars than the demand in Germany. Apple produces more phones, laptops, watches and computers than it could sell in the US. Yet, NOT once has anyone accused them of OVERCAPACITY?!?

空客的飞机产量远超欧洲市场的需求，波音的产量也超过美国市场的消化能力。我本人就拥有的奔驰等德国车企，其产量也超出了德国的本土需求。苹果生产的手机、笔记本、手表和电脑同样超过美国的市场容量，但可有人指责他们"产能过剩"？一次都没有！

@ryan_hey
And if the US wants to spend more on its "defense" budget than propping up its own industries, who's really playing "fair" in a global market economy? The one trying to keep its pawns in check militaristically, or the one investing in its own supply chain?

如果美国宁愿把更多资金投入"国防"预算而非扶持本国产业，谁才是全球市场经济中真正"公平"的玩家？是那个用军事手段操控棋子的国家，还是那个投资自身供应链的国家？

@jorgeavelar98
Im afraid youre out of your depth on this subject. The over production China is experiencing is not comparable to anything seen elsewhere. None of the examples you provided (most of which arent even true) cant compare to the over production in China

恐怕你对这个话题的理解还很肤浅。中国的产能过剩现象在全球范围内都无可比拟。你举的例子（大部分根本不属实）完全无法与中国的情况相提并论。

@ryan_hey
@jorgeavelar98 Overproduction is irrelevant if the country overall is still productive. If it was, China would've crashed long ago. If the West can't keep up, it should invest more in its economy than its militaristic exploits. But it won't, because imperialist nations always end up crashing their own empires.

@jorgeavelar98 只要国家整体生产力仍在提升，产能过剩就无关紧要。如果真的有问题，中国早就崩溃了。如果西方跟不上节奏，那就应该多投资经济而非军事扩张。但他们不会这么做，因为帝国主义国家总是自取灭亡。

@birb9147
Overcapacity is one of the defining characteristics of capitalism and market economics: increased production resulting from specialization, accumulation of capital and technological innovation.
This has been a central piece since Adam Smith's theory of dividing the production of a needle into separate tasks. This allowed market actors (individuals, households, businesses and countries) to produce more than they needed and to sell the excess to other actors. What the Western powers call "Overcapacity" is quite literally the founding piece of the markets. It is nothing else but a political buzzword to justify hindering China's market power and protecting Western capital that has failed to innovate.

产能过剩恰恰是资本主义和市场经济的本质特征：源于专业化分工、资本积累和技术创新的增产结果。
自亚当·斯密提出制针工序分工理论以来，这始终是核心要义。它让市场主体（个人、家庭、企业和国家）能超额生产并将剩余售予他人。西方所谓的"产能过剩"，本质上正是市场经济的基石。这不过是个用来遏制中国市场力量、保护缺乏创新力的西方资本的政治噱头罢了。

@ghsjamaica
If China did not reduce the price of solar equipment by 90% then the world could not financially justify any solar power investment. Even at the current 90% reduced price a typical residential solar investment in my country needs atleast 3 years for payback. So if China did not drive these prices down, the environment and the world would be in a far worst state. The developing world would remain eternal slaves to oil supply and prices controlled by the western countries.

若不是中国将太阳能设备的价格降低90%，全球任何太阳能投资在经济上都难以成立。即便降价90%后，在我国的普通家庭进行太阳能投资仍需至少3年才能回本。若没有中国拉低这些价格，环境和世界将陷入更糟的境地。发展中国家将永远受制于西方国家控制的石油供应与价格。

@MrThurstjo
This is such utter rubbish. He’s complaining that China invests too much money in supporting the development of various industries within China. During the same period let’s look at where the US has "invested" its money? 1. $2.3 trillion on war in Afghanistan. 2. $3 trillion in Iraq and Syria. 3. $3 billion in Somalia and Northern Kenya 4. $1.1 Billion in Libya. 5. $170 billion in Ukraine since 2014. 6. $7.7 trillion in commitments related to TARP and other bailouts. HMMm. Guess who has spent its money more wisely! And then he tries to damn the Chinese for saving their money and the government for taking the profits and using it to build infrastructure across the world to help other countries to develop their economies. If he could rub two brain cells together he would know that when you’re making a trillion dollars a year in profits that maybe the best investment is to help others countries to build out and grow their economies rather than funding wars, bailing out the elites and destroying countries across the globe by overthrowing their governments and then plundering their resources!

这简直荒谬至极！他居然抱怨中国把太多资金投入到国内产业发展上。那让我们看看同期美国的"投资"去向：
1. 阿富汗战争2.3万亿美元
2. 伊拉克和叙利亚3万亿美元
3. 索马里和肯尼亚北部30亿美元
4. 利比亚11亿美元
5. 2014年以来乌克兰1700亿美元
6. 问题资产救助计划(TARP)等纾困资金7.7万亿美元。
呵，到底谁的钱花得更明智？而他竟敢指责中国人储蓄资金，指责中国政府将利润用于全球基础设施建设、帮助他国发展经济。但凡有点脑子的人都明白，当年利润达到万亿规模时，最佳的投资选择理应是协助他国建设经济，而非资助战争、救济权贵阶层、通过颠覆他国政权来掠夺全球资源！