中国经济崛起与美国主导地位之争

@m_wu
Yes, all our Party members are recruited from top universities. Only those who excel in academic performance, moral character, and overall uation within their entire major qualify for Party membership. Those who did not attend university but have made significant contributions to society may also be considered. Finally, entrepreneurs are also recruited into the Party. Thus, all 100 million Party members are the cream of the crop. Each member commands authority and influence among their closest 10 associates, thereby impacting a population of 1 billion.

是的，我们党员都是在好大学里发展，必须是整个专业学习成绩，品德，综合评分前茅的人才可以入党，那些没有读书，但是为社会做贡献也会被纳入，最后就是企业家，也会被拉去入党，所以1亿党员都是顶尖优秀的，然后每个党员在他周围最亲密的10个人中，具有威望，发言权，从而影响10亿人口。

@dic-pr9un
Long term strategy means the Chinese is willing to investment to deal with the fundamental problems. Like after China built the Three Gorges Dam, thousands of years' flooding in Yangtze River were ended. They plant in desert to control its expansion. They stopped fishing in Yangtze River for 10 years. Now, they are starting lobster and salmon aquaculture in xinjiang's salt lake, with the helps of Uyghur "forced labour". Now, the Uyghur are "forced" to eat local lobster and salmon and "forced" to count the bank notes.

长期战略意味着中国愿意通过投资来解决根本问题。就像中国修建三峡大坝后，长江数千年的洪水泛滥被终结。他们在沙漠中植树造林以控制沙漠的扩张，他们停止在长江捕鱼长达10年之久。现在，他们又在新疆盐湖开始养殖龙虾和鲑鱼并利用WWE族"强迫劳动"。现在，WWE人被"强迫"吃当地的龙虾和三文鱼，被"强迫"数钞票。

@syncmaster915n
Whether China will dominate over the US in the next 10 years, i do not know; but China is willing to share the dividends of development with the world, compared to the west's tendency to kick the proverbial development ladder from underneath you when you climb high enough. During the G20 summit which just ended, Chinese president * jinping already called for AI development should be for all, not just for the rich countries and the wealthy. He also proposed an initiative with three other G20 members to help the Global South gain better access to scientific and technological innovations. * is the first world leader who said such thing as far as i know.

我不知道中国是否会在未来10年内超越美国，但与西方在爬到足够高的位置时就会把脚下的发展阶梯踢开的倾向相比，中国愿意与世界分享发展红利。在刚刚结束的G20峰会上，中国已经呼吁人工智能的发展应该惠及所有人而不仅仅是富国和富人，他还与其他三个G20成员国共同提出了一项倡议以帮助全球南方国家更好地利用科技创新成果。据我所知，***是第一位说出这样的话的世界领导人。

@lilliport2800
Just as you said, long term planning requires long term leadership, which Americans are opposed to. Catch 22. Since we do not have the capability of working cohesively within our system of political parties (and the majority thinks the dumbing down of America is cool), we will watch while others eat our economic lunch. United we stand, divided we fall...and we couldn't be more divided than we are now. America's clouded vision sees this as ok. It's not a football game, this is our future.

正如你所说，长期规划需要长期的领导，而美国人反对这一点，这是个难题。由于我们没有能力在我们的政党体系内团结合作（而且大多数人认为美国的愚昧化很酷），我们只能眼睁睁地看着别人吃掉我们的经济午餐。合则立，分则亡......而我们现在的分裂程度已经到了极限。美国人被蒙蔽的双眼认为这没什么，但这不是一场足球比赛，这是我们的未来。

@MichaelBurggraf-gm8vl
However, the USA was able to build a very advanced industry, an impressive space program. It is still leading in entertainment industry, medicine, academic education and research and a highly advanced aviation industry.
The foundations of that success were laid when the American society wasn't as divided and polarized as it is today. Maybe, in former times, people had a stronger sense of community and of needing each other - even in capitlistic market economies.

然而，美国能够建立起非常先进的工业和令人印象深刻的太空计划。在娱乐业、医学、学术教育和研究以及高度发达的航空业方面，美国仍然处于领先地位。
这种成功的基础是在美国社会不像今天这样分裂和两极分化的时候奠定的。也许在过去，人们有更强烈的社区意识和相互需要的意识--即使在资本主义市场经济中也是如此。

@ellashy6539
if you study history the fastest growing periods of a country is when it is ruled by a single party of a dictatorship look up Britian, Korea Singapore Japan and many more examples pure logic the policies has a time to run its course

如果你研究历史，你会发现一个国家发展最快的时期就是由一D独裁统治的时期，看看英国、韩国、新加坡、日本和更多纯粹逻辑的例子，政策都有其发挥作用的时间。

@PANIAGO2011
This is incredibly true for my country, where long-term planning is the period during which the current government is in power. Usually 4 years. The next one can change the route without any embarrassment.

这对于我的国家来说尤其如此，因为长期规划是指现任政府执政的时期，通常为4年，下一届政府可以毫无尴尬地改变路线。

@ladygracienyc2029
China may not have oil domestically but they have huge investments in Iraq and Iran where they buy at a 30% discount to market prices and use their own companies and equipment to extract the oil. And they didn't spend a dime on fighting wars in the Middle East. Smart diplomacy. That's about as good as it gets

中国国内可能没有石油，但他们在伊拉克和伊朗进行了巨额投资，以低于市场价格30%的折扣购买石油，并使用自己的公司和设备开采石油，而且他们没有花一分钱在中东打仗。明智的外交，这几乎是最好的了。

@TWMan001
Taiwan serves as an intriguing case for comparative analysis. Prior to the implementation of the direct presidential election system in 1996, Taiwan operated under an "elite oligarchy" meritocracy planning economy, driving national development through long-term strategies. For instance, the establishment of the Hsinchu Science Park fostered the growth of the electronics and information industries, while the rise of semiconductor giants like TSMC originated from the "elite governance" of Chiang Ching-kuo’s era, marked by the Ten Major Construction Projects.
However, since the adoption of four-year term presidential elections modeled after "Western-style democracy," Taiwan's policy planning has increasingly been influenced by election cycles and ideological competition. A case in point is the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) "2025 Nuclear-Free Homeland" policy, which disregards Taiwan's reliance on imported oil and natural gas as a resource-scarce island nation. Nuclear energy, a relatively stable and suitable option for Taiwan, was excluded. Despite the completion of the Fourth Nuclear Power plant at a cost of $10.7 billion during the Kuomintang administration, the policy neither built on the previous administration's plans nor respected the results of multiple referendums, instead opting to decommission the plant. As 2025 approaches, insufficient alternative energy supplies have led to emerging power shortages, forcing electricity price hikes. This, in turn, has constrained investment and development in power-dependent high-tech industries.
Compared to the planning economy of the past, Taiwan's policymaking in the democratic era shows significant weaknesses in long-term continuity and sustainability, prompting deeper reflections on the efficacy of the current political system and governance.

台湾（地区）是一个值得比较分析的案例。在1996年实施总统直选制度之前，台湾（地区）实行的是"菁英寡头"任人唯贤的计划经济，通过长期战略推动地区发展。例如，新竹科学园区的建立促进了电子和信息产业的发展，而台积电等半导体巨头的崛起则源于蒋经国时代以十大建设为标志的"菁英治理"。
然而，自从台湾（地区）效仿"西式民主"实行四年一届的总统选举以来，台湾（地区）的政策规划越来越受到选举周期和意识形态竞争的影响。民进党的"2025无核家园"政策就是一例，该政策无视了台湾（地区）作为资源匮乏岛屿对进口石油和天然气的依赖，把核能这样一个相对稳定且适合台湾（地区）的选择排除在外。尽管在国民党执政期间耗资107亿美元建成了第四核电站，但政策既没有在上届政府计划的基础上再接再厉，也没有尊重多次公投的结果，而是选择让核电站退役。随着2025年的临近，替代能源供应不足导致电力短缺，迫使电价上涨，这反过来又限制了依赖电力的高科技产业的投资和发展。

与过去的计划经济相比，民主时代的台湾（地区）的决策在长期连续性和可持续性方面存在明显的缺陷，这促使人们对当前政治制度和治理的有效性进行更深入的反思。

@danieltam3923
Just a speculation of mine in regards to why US domestic policies tend to be short term in nature and not long term, the aim is to allow a few to rule over the majority of its population. Long term plans, i.e. roads, national public transportation, etc., tend to benefit the mass. Look how most of the public municipality transportation infrastructures for the public were uprooted, national rail networks support transporting goods and not people. In other words, low cost affordable means that benefit the mass were gradually rotted out or scrapped completely. Short term plans mostly focus on generating short term gains, which benefit mostly a handful of people.
On the other hand, most foreign policies tend to be long term. Monroe doctrine as an example, was to be a forever pillar applied on all nations in the North and South Continents. Same mentality toward the Middle East, Africa, Europe, Russia, and Asia.

这只是我对美国国内政策为何倾向于短期而非长期的一个猜测，我认为其目的是让少数人统治大多数人。长期计划，如道路、国家公共交通等，往往有利于大众。看看大多数面向公众的市政交通基础设施是如何被连根拔起的，国家铁路网络支持的是货物运输而不是人员运输。 换句话说，惠及大众的低成本、可负担的手段逐渐被淘汰或完全废弃。短期计划大多着眼于创造短期收益，受益者大多是少数人。

另一方面，美国的大多数外交政策往往是长期的。以门罗主义为例，它是南北大陆所有国家的永远支柱，美国对中东、非洲、欧洲、俄罗斯和亚洲的政策也是如此。

@masonkanterbury3007
I think the world is upset with America about the choice they made. They were already sick of us. But we really did it this time. We're forever tarnished now.

我认为世界对美国的选择感到不满。他们已经厌倦了我们。但这次我们真的这么做了，现在我们永久性地名誉扫地了。

@eng80425
the difference is one is obsessed with trying to trip the other instead of self reflecting and self improving. The other's obxtive is not to trip but to keep running even faster

所不同的是一个人沉迷于试图绊倒另一个人，而不是自我反省和自我改进；而另一个人的目标不是绊倒别人，而是继续跑得更快。

@northernouthouse
Democracies say they don't like to "pick winners". That's code for incumbents using lobbyists to ensure their reign doesn't end regardless of the benefits derived from innovation. The key isn't just long term planning but focus on obxtive long term targets that don't just benefit just a sext few (targets not based on politics).

民主国家说他们不喜欢"挑选赢家"，这是现任者利用说客确保其统治不会因创新带来的好处而结束的暗号。关键不仅在于长期规划，还在于关注客观的长期目标，而不仅仅是让少数人受益（目标并非基于政治）。

@matthewjohnrodgers
I think one of the problems with the US is that they can't even look at the facts for what they are. All they have to agree on is that the current solution isn't working. But they won't do that because they are in conflict on what the fix should be. So instead they just deny that a new solution is needed or one side comes up with some slight change that doesn't even make an impact, or is completely unrelated, or has no chance of working, so they can say "we made a change" in the hopes people will accept it as it is for now and hopefully forget to revisit the issue.

我认为美国的问题之一在于他们甚至不能正视事实，他们唯一需要同意的是当前的解决方案不起作用，但他们不会这么做，因为他们在解决问题的方法上存在分歧。因此，他们只是否认需要新的解决方案，或者一方想出一些根本不会产生影响、或者完全无关、或者根本不可能奏效的小改动，这样他们就可以说"我们做出了改变"，希望人们暂时接受它并希望他们忘记重新讨论这个问题。

@paultsjan6047
China play a crucial role in guiding its economy through strategic planning and industrial policies.
China's economy has evolved significantly since Deng xiaoping’s reforms in the late 1970s.
China’s domestic market is highly competitive, driving innovation and efficiency in industries like manufacturing, e-commerce, and fintech.
China is developing new markets for advanced Chinese technology
China is investing heavily in research and development (R&D), with a focus on emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and renewable energy as well as infrastructure and industries in developing countries, particularly in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, through its Belt and Road Initiative.
China is investing in next-generation infrastructure, including 5G networks, high-speed rail, and smart cities, to drive economic growth and competitiveness.
China has launched initiatives to promote regional development, such as the “Rise of Central China” plan, to reduce regional disparities and stimulate economic growth.
China aims to shift its economic focus from export-led growth to domestic consumption and innovation that balances internal and external drivers.
With a large and growing middle class, China offers a significant consumer market for domestic and foreign companies.

中国在通过战略规划和产业政策引导本国经济方面发挥着至关重要的作用。
自20世纪70年代末邓小平提出改革以来，中国经济发生了巨大的变化。
中国国内市场竞争激烈，推动了制造业、电子商务和金融科技等行业的创新和效率。
中国正在为中国的先进技术开拓新的市场。
中国正通过"一带一路"倡议大力投资研发，重点关注人工智能、生物技术、可再生能源等新兴技术，以及发展中国家（尤其是亚洲、非洲和拉丁美洲）的基础设施和产业。

中国正在投资下一代基础设施，包括5G网络、高铁和智慧城市，以推动经济增长和提高竞争力。
中国推出了促进地区发展的举措，如"中部崛起"计划，以缩小地区差距，刺激经济增长。
中国的目标是将经济重心从出口导向型增长转向平衡内外驱动力的国内消费和创新。
中国拥有庞大且不断增长的中产阶级，为国内外企业提供了重要的消费市场。

@Mike-n3h-s6k
I believe that multiculturalism and its impact on a nation's development has garnered considerable attention. I believe that a homogenous culture, as exemplified by countries like China, Japan,and Poland, may contribute more positively to national development compared to multicultural societies such as USA, England, France, Italy, Germany and many EU countries. The arguments presented highlight concerns regarding social cohesion, economic contribution, crime, and national identity.
Proponents of a singular national culture argue that countries with a common cultural identity experience greater social cohesion and stability. In the case of China, the prence of a unified culture and nationality is posited to foster a shared vision for national progress. Many citizens may prioritize collective growth, leading to concerted efforts toward economic stability and development.
Similarly, Poland is cited as an example of a nation that has thrived economically while maintaining strict immigration policies. Poland's cultural homogeneity is viewed as a factor contributing to its rising GDP and low unemployment rates. The argument suggests that when a nation prioritizes its cultural and national identity, it can achieve remarkable economic success without the perceived burdens of multiculturalism.
multiculturalism comes with many challenges faced by countries that embrace diverse cultures. The influx of immigrants from less developed nations is argued to bring about social fragmentation and increased crime rates. The statement suggests that many immigrants, arriving from impoverished backgrounds, struggle to integrate, leading to the formation of marginalized communities. This, in turn, may contribute to higher crime rates and economic disparity.
In the United States, the metaphor of a "melting pot" indicates a blend of cultures; however, the assertion is made that this diversity has led to a lack of a unified national identity. It claims that only a segment of the population, primarily white Americans, identifies strongly with the national identity, resulting in societal divisions that hinder collective progress.

我认为多元文化及其对国家发展的影响已引起了广泛的关注。我认为与美国、英国、法国、意大利、德国和许多欧盟国家等多元文化社会相比，中国、日本和波兰等国的同质文化可能会对国家发展做出更积极的贡献。所提出的论点强调了社会凝聚力、经济贡献、犯罪和国家认同等方面的问题。
单一民族文化的拥护者认为拥有共同文化认同的国家具有更强的社会凝聚力和稳定性。就中国而言，统一文化和民族的盛行被假定为促进了国家进步的共同愿景，许多公民可能会优先考虑集体成长从而齐心协力实现经济稳定和发展。

同样，波兰也是一个在保持严格移民政策的同时实现经济繁荣的国家。波兰的文化同质性被认为是其国内生产总值（GDP）上升和失业率低的一个因素。这一论点表明当一个国家将其文化和民族特性放在首位时，它就可以取得显著的经济成就，而无需承担多元文化带来的负担。
多元文化主义给接受多元文化的国家带来了许多挑战，来自欠发达国家的移民大量涌入被认为会造成社会分裂和犯罪率上升。该声明认为许多移民来自贫困的背景，在融入社会方面举步维艰，这导致了边缘化社区的形成，这反过来又可能导致更高的犯罪率和经济差距。

在美国，"大熔炉"的比喻表示文化的融合；然而，有人断言这种多样性导致缺乏统一的国家认同。它声称只有一部分人（主要是美国白人）强烈认同国家身份，这导致社会分裂，阻碍了集体进步。

@here_now_I
In my opinion, your examples of multiculturalism are almost counter examples. China is probably a much melted pot through thousands of years, whereas USA is a melting pot without a sense of true culture yet. A lot of Americans are proud of their melting pot culture. But in reality, I would say it is a culture-killing place. Every culture surrenders to the commercial culture, if there is such a culture.

在我看来，你们关于多元文化的例子几乎都是反例。中国可能是一个历经数千年的大熔炉，而美国则是一个还没有真正文化意识的大熔炉。虽然很多美国人都为自己的大熔炉文化而自豪，但实际上我认为这是一个扼杀文化的地方，每一种文化都在向商业文化屈服，如果有这种文化的话。

@jayclarke6671
I'm not sure what 'dominate' implies, but this does illustrate how important it is for the US to maintain good relations with our allies, especially in Europe. If Europe eventually abandons their alliance with the US due to poor treatment, the US will become a lot more vulnerable to foreign threats. Let's hope Trump realises this which I seriously doubt!

我不确定'主导'意味着什么，但这确实说明了美国与其盟友（尤其是欧洲盟友）保持良好关系的重要性。如果欧洲最终因待遇不佳而放弃与美国的盟友关系，那么美国在面对外国威胁时就会变得更加脆弱。但愿特朗普能意识到这一点，但我对此深表怀疑！

@aquinasua
You are right about different mindsets thing. I remember how many crititics and downright haters were trying to downplay the high-speed railway development in China, saying how it's not commercially viable, and how no one takes those trains and whatnot... They just couldn't wrap their head around the idea of a social value of lixing distant regions of a huge and vastly populated country together, creating new enormous economic opportunities for 1,4 billion Chinese people. I'm not even talking about this "empty trains" bullshit, I dare them to get a ticket on any high-speed train departing the same day, good luck with that

你说的心态不同是对的。我还记得有多少批评家和彻头彻尾的憎恨者试图贬低中国高速铁路的发展，说它在商业上如何不可行，如何没有人乘坐这些列车等等......他们就是无法理解将一个人口众多的大国的遥远地区连接在一起，为14亿中国人创造新的巨大的经济机会，这种社会价值有多么大。我说的还不是什么"空车"之类的鬼话，我敢说他们无法买到当天出发的任何高速列车的车票，祝他们好运。

@protato911
Most people think of it through the lens of private funded intrastructures, while China HSR are government funded. They don't need to make money directly thorugh it (eventhough last year HSR turns in billions of profit too). Its all about logistic, its allow factory to gain access to cheap labout across China and also create the world most well connected supply chain, which is the main reason why Chinese products are so price competetive, they cut off the middlemen when they can. But ofcourse those people also starting to shift their excuse to "because China is a autocratic dictatorship" which is the funniest shit.

大多数人都是从私人投资的基础设施的角度来考虑高铁的，而中国高铁是政府投资的，他们不需要通过高铁直接赚钱（尽管去年高铁也带来了数十亿美元的利润）。这一切都与物流有关，它能让工厂在中国各地获得廉价的劳动力，还能打造世界上联系最紧密的供应链，这也是中国产品在价格上极具竞争力的主要原因，因为他们尽可能地减少了中间环节。当然，这些人也开始把他们的借口转变为"因为中国是一个专制DC国家"，这是最可笑的屁话。

@hdvoice
The rise of China has many aspects. One thing I would like to add to the conversation is the absence of the influence from religious beliefs in China’s government decision making process.

中国的崛起的原因有很多方面，我想补充的一点是中国政府在决策过程中没有受到宗教信仰的影响。

@rafa374
VG VID - HARDLY ANYONE UNDERSTANDS China HAS A SYSTEM - A "plaYBOOK" They've brought tens of industries from nowhere to No 1 in world in just 10-20 years. That's due not to just a longterm mentality buta comprehensive attitude to every part of the industry and supply chain whereas the US tends to be focussed on corporations within the sector and maximising their profits at the expense of others. The economy is having probs with a fantastic property crisis but their system/playbook is still there and will get them through it. NB The USSR had a longerm mentality but that alone is insufficient. It's the thorough and meticulous approach of China to each sector coupled with an extraordinary ambitiousness and creativity.

几乎没有人了解中国有一套体系--一套他们在短短10-20年间就将数十个行业从一无所有带向世界第一的剧本。这不仅归功于他们的长远眼光，还归功于他们对产业和供应链各个环节的全面考虑，而美国往往只关注行业内的企业并以牺牲他人利益为代价来实现自己的利润最大化。中国的经济正面临着严重的房地产危机，但他们的制度/剧本依然存在并将帮助他们渡过难关。注：苏联有一种长期思维，但仅此还不够。中国对每个行业的彻底和细致的态度，同时还具有非凡的雄心和创造力。