美國人哀歎：為何中國比我們還更會搞資本主義？

美國人哀歎：為何中國比我們還更會搞資本主義？


http://news.wenxuecity.com/messages/201101/news-gb2312-1259119.html
新聞直通車

時代不同了。13年前，江總訪美的時候，小克也像今天小奧這樣，熱情接待過老江，可那時候，美國人是居高臨下，把中國當小學生看待，時不時會指點指點、訓導訓導的。而眼下胡總來訪，卻讓很多美國人心裏酸酸的，也說不出是高興還是難受，反正不太自在吧。按理說，胡總來一趟，就簽了四五百億的商業合同，美國人應當高興才對。可當他們把美國和中國的現況一比，比出差距了，比得不那麽自信了，甚至不隻是不自信，而是有點不知所措，有些失落感了。這不，我下麵要向大家介紹的這篇文章，作者幹脆認輸了。連搞資本主義也幹不過中國，那美國人還有什麽值得驕傲的呢？

（聲明，為了方便，這裏采用意譯加趣譯）

Why China Does Capitalism Better than the U.S.
By Tony Karon

始於2008年的全球經濟衰退，讓我們看到一個最具偉大諷刺意義的事實，即共產黨統治的中國，竟然比我們美國的民選政府，更會應負和處理資本主義的危機。中國的經濟刺激方案，開支比俺們的還要大，對抗經濟衰退的效果也好得多啊。他們的錢大多用在建設基礎設施，從而進一步奠定了將來經濟發展的基礎。你看看他們建了多少樓房和高鐵，而我們呢，一直在發補貼給那些沒的吃沒得住的人。

正當我們西方的這些民主國家苟延殘喘之際，中國的經濟卻咆哮地往前突飛猛進。在過去三十年裏，中國讓5億人脫貧，從而迅速創造了世界上最大的中產階級，為本國提供了長期消費需求的引擎。你當然可以指責說，他們的貧富差距太大，社會不公很嚴重，可資本主義製度下，不都這樣嗎？大家是彼此彼此、半斤八兩。 美國人的收入不平等，實際上是發達工業國中最嚴重的。2009年有4300萬美國人正式生活在貧困線以下，這是51年來最高的紀錄。

中國在為將來經濟發展所做的準備，在應付未來的挑戰方麵，也勝美國一籌。胡總對美國罕見國事訪問，是在他們用自己的辦法，成功地抵禦了金融危機之後，也象征著一個新時代的開啟。美國式的自由理念將不再是主導。美國實在沒有什麽可教給中國人的了。中國模式的核心是政府向國有企業注入龐大的資金，來達到刺激經濟的目的。我們的自由經濟係統在這方麵是一籌莫展。奧總花了那點錢，就已經被“茶黨”們罵的狗血噴頭了。

中國領導人現在終於有資格罵美國人了，我們的債務接近一萬億美元。民調顯示，更多的中國人相信他們的國家正朝著正確的方向發展，而這樣看自己國家的美國人就少了。中國應對經濟危機的成功，一個重要的原因就是，中央集權的製度，讓政府有能力快速做出重大而複雜的經濟決策，不像我們，國會天天為怎樣花錢打架，錢不能到位，等錢到了，問題也更嚴重了。

真是“三十年河東，三十年河西”啊。19年前，當蘇聯的解體之際，誰也想不到會出現現在的局麵。我們那時以為，曆史將以西方自由民主的全球化而告終呢。

承認這樣的認知錯誤，不僅需要良好的風度，也需要智慧和誠實。我們不是為中國專製辯護，它的弊端和腐敗也是無可爭辯的。沒有民主，最終還是會阻礙中國的進步。不過，令人不解的是，雖然中國共產黨領導人不是選舉出來的，但他們也會順應民意。也許是不這樣做不行吧，一個通過農民起義發家掌權的黨，一定比誰都更明白廣大勞動人民憤怒的潛在破壞力。

美國的現行製度，似乎對國家的長期的危機束手無策。中國人能夠快速地適應新形勢，作出困難的決定，並加以有效的實施。而美國人引以為豪的三權分立、互相製衡的憲法和政治生態，則基於對中央集權政府的不信任感。我們的政治係統本來是為了確保個人自由和充滿活力的私營企業。但這個係統現在出了問題了，它現在已走向兩極化，已經搞得思想僵化。目前的情形非常清楚地顯示，美國人根本沒有勇氣來著手處理他們所麵對的長期的財政挑戰。的確，美國的民主體係可能有一種內在的合法性，是中國的體係所缺乏的，但如果一個政府，因為自身的分裂和兩極分化，以至於無法正常運作，那它絕對不會是別人學習的模式。

在美國，錢已經成為的政治選舉的王牌。最高法院認可任何企業有權使用他們的財力來支持自己的候選人，抵製和封殺對自己不利的候選人。所以，無論是醫療改革，還是經濟刺激計劃，由於特殊利益集團的參與，要麽不能落實，要麽最後搞出一個隻能取悅某些利益集團的折衷方案，而不太可能按照全社會的整體利益來立法。這樣一來，就不可能出現高效而合理的決策，更不可能有解決長遠問題的能力。

中國的情況恰恰相反，政府可以淩駕在公民之上。例如，要建一個大壩，150萬人搬遷，想不搬遷也不行，不會有什麽有效的管道讓你可以抗議。但是，中國的係統不會讓任何個別的企業，有權否決或左右政府的決策。中國政府的決策，不會為了某部分人的利益，而犧牲國家的整體利益。

一句話，目前看來，中國的社會製度，可能比美國的自由製度更具有適應能力和生命力。

Why China Does Capitalism Better than the U.S.
By Tony Karon

One of the great ironies revealed by the global recession that began in 2008 is that Communist Party-ruled China may be doing a better job managing capitalism's crisis than the democratically elected U.S. government. Beijing's stimulus spending was larger, infinitely more effective at overcoming the slowdown, and directed at laying the infrastructural tracks for further economic expansion.

As Western democracies shuffle wheezily forward, China's economy roars along at a steady clip, having lifted some half a billion people out of poverty over the past three decades and rapidly creating the world's largest middle class to provide an engine for long-term domestic consumer demand. Sure, there's massive social inequality, but there always is in a capitalist system. (Income inequality rates in the U.S. are some of the worst in the industrialized world, and here more people are falling into poverty than are being raised out of it — the 43 million Americans officially designated as living in poverty in 2009 was the highest number in the 51 years that records have been kept.) (See TIME's photoessay "The Rise of Hu Jintao.")

Beijing is also doing a far more effective job than Washington is of tooling its economy to meet future challenges — at least according to historian Francis Fukuyama, erstwhile neoconservative intellectual heavyweight. "President Hu Jintao's rare state visit to Washington this week comes at a time when many Chinese see their weathering of the financial crisis as a vindication of their own system, and the beginning of an era in which U.S.-style liberal ideas will no longer be dominant," wrote Fukukyama in Tuesday's Financial Times under a headline stating that the U.S. had nothing to teach China. "State-owned enterprises are back in vogue, and were the chosen mechanism through which Beijing administered its massive stimulus."

Chinese leaders are more inclined today to scold the U.S. — its debtor to the tune of close to a trillion dollars — than to emulate it, and Fukuyama notes that polls show a larger percentage of Chinese people believing their country is headed in the right direction compared to Americans. China's success in navigating the economic crisis, says Fukuyama, was based on the ability of its authoritarian political system to "make large, complex decisions quickly, and ... make them relatively well, at least in economic policy."

These are startling observations from a writer who, 19 years ago, famously proclaimed that the collapse of the Soviet Union heralded "the end of history as such... That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." (See "TimeFrames: An Eye on China, Old and New.")

Fukuyama has had the good grace and intellectual honesty to admit he was wrong. And he's no apologist for Chinese authoritarianism, calling out its abuses and corruption, and making clear that he believes the absence of democracy will eventually hobble China's progress. Still, he notes, while they don't hold elections, China's Communist leaders are nonetheless responsive to public opinion. (Of course they are! A Party brought to power by a peasant rebellion knows full well the destructive potential of the rage of working people.) But the regime claims solid support from the Chinese middle class, and hedges against social explosion by directing resources and investment to more marginal parts of the country.

China's leaders, of course, never subscribed to Fukuyama's "end of history" maxim; the Marxism on which they were reared would have taught them that there is no contingent relationship between capitalism and democracy, and they only had to look at neighbors such as Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore to see economic success stories under authoritarian rule — although the prosperity thus achieved played a major role in transforming Taiwan and South Korea into the noisy democracies they are today. Nor were Beijing's leaders under any illusions that the free market could take care of such basic needs as education, health care and infrastructure necessary to keep the system as a whole growing.
But Fukuyama is also making a point about the comparative inability of the U.S. system to respond decisively to a long-term crisis. "China adapts quickly, making difficult decisions and implementing them effectively," Fukuyama writes. "Americans pride themselves on constitutional checks and balances, based on a political culture that distrusts centralised government. This system has ensured individual liberty and a vibrant private sector, but it has now become polarised and ideologically rigid. At present it shows little appetite for dealing with the long-term fiscal challenges the U.S. faces. Democracy in America may have an inherent legitimacy that the Chinese system lacks, but it will not be much of a model to anyone if the government is divided against itself and cannot govern." (See "China's High-Speed Rail.")
Money has emerged as the electoral trump card in the U.S. political system, and corporations have a Supreme Court-recognized right to use their considerable financial muscle to promote candidates and policies favorable to their business operations and to resist policies and shut out candidates deemed inimical to their business interests. So, whether it's health reform or the stimulus package, the power of special interests in the U.S. system invariably produces either gridlock, or mish-mash legislation crafted to please the narrow interests of a variety of competing interests rather than the aggregated interests of the economy and society as a whole. Efficient and rational decision-making it's not. Nor does it appear capable of tackling long-term problems. (Comment on this story.)

China is the extreme opposite, of course: It can ride roughshod over the lives of its citizens. For example, building a dam that requires the forced relocation of 1.5 million people who have no channels through which to protest. But China's system is unlikely to give individual corporations the power to veto or shape government decision making to suit their own bottom line at the expense of the needs of the system as a whole in the way that, to choose but one example, U.S. pharmaceutical companies are able to wield political influence to deny the government the right to negotiate drug prices for the public health system. Fukuyama seems to be warning that in Darwinian terms, the Chinese system may currently be more adaptive than the Land of the Free.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2043235,00.html?hpt=T2

[浪寬]

新聞直通車跟帖
===================
嗬嗬 有一群人 無色無相

看到自己的國家強大後的嘴臉用四個字來形容-----如喪考妣！！！ 用八個字形容-----數典忘祖，酸不拉唧！！！


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

有時想想世界警察（不管為人為己）的美國還真不能倒 現眼




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

以前在犯文革錯誤時，中國不能自我用常規方法糾正， kai2002

需等到領導者死掉， 用發動政變的形式來解決。假設現在執政黨的犯錯，有什麽製約的力量去避免或糾正嗎？所以我說一犯錯會很可怕。


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"中國“強大”是建立在絕大部分老百姓貧困的基礎上的" mystrip

有沒有看到原文裏說:"在過去三十年，中國讓5億人脫貧"?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why.U.S Does Socialism idforyou

Better Than China?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

我王老五從來沒見過這麽多錢， 都到我家喝酒去！ bigwhale

但他媽的--


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

不是中國比美國會搞資本主義，是成本比美國低 任由之

中國搞的是原始的血淋淋的資本主義，保留了社會主義的領導體製，這樣的體製如果是為多數人服務的無可非議，為少數精英先富甚至時代永富就糟透了。而不計工農福利的低成本高利潤的資本主義經濟方式，是中國經濟火爆的根由。有人說這是帶血的GDP，一語中的。


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

兩個月沒來，沒想到文學城的習慣變了，我在自己的博客 浪寬

裏已經看不到這些跟帖了，真是不方便啊。我也就不必一一回複了。謝謝各位高論。


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

不是中國會搞，而是美國不敢再搞資本主義了 大眼賊

一大群被寵壞了的，懶惰的，自大的，無知的，又被民主了的選民，能選出什麽樣的領導人呢？ 偉大導師列寧同誌教導過我們，忘記過去意味著背叛。他們已經忘記了他們先輩們為了這個國家是如何奮鬥的。freedom is not free


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

這話說得挺對的。 心水

"中央集權的製度，讓政府有能力快速做出重大而複雜的經濟決策，不像我們，國會天天為怎樣花錢打架，錢不能到位，等錢到了，問題也更嚴重了。" 美國的各級政府隻會向企業收錢收錢，一旦企業遇到什麽危機，連伸手帶一把的能力都沒。比韓國都差。 要不幫了忙，也管不住。


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

還好沒說為何中國比我們還更會搞帝國主義 uknow




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

樓下有人說，“中國政府不把老百姓當人”， ozoz

隻有不是人的東西，才會說這種話


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that is because alley

one of the reasons is that, the people from Fujian, Guangzhou and Shanghai work for cash while collecting social assistance and send the money back to China, or they do business but never pay tax while still collect social assistance; also they are small and cheap so they spend little money in the US. And the people from Hong Kong do drugs and prostitution to make a huge amount of money. They are like the Jews who are suckers and nobody can change them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

重新審視‘中國製度’ 基多山人

正值製度存亡危急之秋，鄧小平橫空出世，力挽狂瀾，創造了中華文明史乃至世界文明史上的奇跡！令全世界的政治理論家重新審視‘中國製度’。當今世界唯一能和‘中國製度’對壘的就是美國的民主製度。不過美國的一批笨伯還在相信民主製度是‘放諸四海而皆準的真理’-這就是美國人的天真了。 其實，‘製’是在天時、地理、人和的特定條件下的產物，勉強不來。民主或專製都有一個‘選賢與能’的問題。美國有兩個成熟的政黨，所以美國的民選政府穩定健康。‘中國製’目前還是用傳統方法產生領袖，因為中國還有一批‘九袋老革命’健在。


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

答案在這裏 海豹

因為中國政府可以不把老百姓當人， 美國可以嗎？


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

其實是知不知道羞恥的問題 海豹

所謂的中國“強大”是建立在絕大部分老百姓貧困的基礎上的， 在中國他們絕對沒有說話的權利， 就像農村人在共產黨的殘酷壓製下，淪為三等公民一樣， 有人還大罵西方種族歧視， 有點羞恥感的話， 就會知道先看看自己吧！再說別人！


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

樓下 、

你出的這方子會立馬讓美國的物價百分之幾百的增長，到時美國人民也會像你希望中國似的起來推翻政府了，不要忘了美國人民可是幾乎人手一支槍的。。。


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

美國的出路很簡單-貿易保護 kobe001

對外包的企業，外來的產品加重稅，什麽赤字，失業，匯率，國防。。一切問題迎刃而解。所謂的全球化隻是富人們用來騙中產階級的局，全球化十幾年來，美國人生活不進反退，不隻美國人什麽時候看得出


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

當心啊 唐鐵嘴

當對手誇你的時候,千萬不能洋洋得意.中國真要好好地發展,就得多看人家的優點,時常想著自己的缺點.中國是有很大的成績,但遠沒有太多自誇的本錢.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

美國不犯大錯誤，憑這家底，也不會到今天這地步。哈哈哈 直說好話




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

西方十字軍為表演政治歌劇發明了無數個主義式政治歌劇主題 凡哥笑笑

西方十字軍部落為表演歌唱他們的政治歌劇，發明了無數個主義式政治歌劇主題，最終都證明是空氣中虛構的上帝和耶穌。歌唱上帝耶穌還在這些愚蠢的部落裏流行，西方十字軍禍水帶給世界的隻是政黨意識部落和利益部落的部落鬥爭，集體腐敗做婊子，部落酋長決定下屬命運的禍水製度。


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

作者提的問題是很好，但是是無解的， kai2002

利益集團還是會控製一切，不會有改變。中國的問題是領導的決定一切。對了，發展迅速，錯了，萬劫不複（如文革）。 西方選擇民主時，是看到民主時的缺陷的：慢，看起來浪費時間，但同時杜絕犯大錯的可能。


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

中國人的勤勞，吃苦，與追求財富的精神在世界上沒人能比！ 勇氣號

這是中國成功的主因。中國政府隻是充分的調動了這一巨大的能量，放手讓人民幹他們最擅長幹的事。同時中國的成功也取決於共產黨的務實，謙虛與善於學習的精神。數次懸崖勒馬，使自己度過危機。俗話說‘驕兵必敗“。鄧小平從來不認為自己有帶領中國走向光明之路的真理，隻是小心的”摸著石頭過河“，不斷地學習，調整。 少說，多做。少自以為是，多聆聽學習才能使自己走向強盛，對國家對個人都一樣。中國，加油！


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

redondobonito is day dreaming EnoughIsEnough

What you said is what you wish to be true, but unfortunately most of what you said is not true. Yes, there are some negative side effects of fast growing, the next thing China is going to do is to fix those problems and that will bring even more opportunities and growth, just stay tuned.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

飲鳩止渴 redondobonito

I do not think American have to learn some from Chinese. Different countries are running in different situation. American can not act as Chinese to spend more money on infrastructures, because the infrastructural facilities have become mature already. There is no much more lucrative thing for American capitalist to invest on within the country. Chinese thriving economy is based on the sacrifices of destroying living and natural environment, damaging citizen health, wiping out natural resources, and creating a few of rich persons by corruption, illegal, and violence. Although Chinese economy is growing faster and bigger today, for the long run, it will definitely shrink because of the above. That is why more and more rich people have decided to immigrate to American or other developed countries. Right now, China economy is running under stripping offspring’s benefit. In a Chinese phrase, it is 飲鳩止渴！


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article is from TIME(CNN) peasant

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2043235,00.html#ixzz1Bb02pQbz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

大致上說，中國入世後，以廉價勞動力優勢贏得了快速經濟增長 英台

這很像中國的農民工可以在城市合法打工後，原來的城市工人很難與農民工的廉價勞動力競爭一樣，造成農民收入增長速度快於原城市工人的收入增長速度。中國經濟高速增長表明，中國的改革開放政策是正確的，讚成鄧小平“摸著石頭過河”的方法，相信中國會進一步在探索中前進，逐步找到適合國情的發展道路。


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

但願美國人在用進步的眼光看中國. 八方人

與此不同的是那些duyunlun喪心病狂的辱罵, 到死也不願看到中國的崛起. 他們這輩子是隻有悲哀致死了. 我笑, 大笑.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

中國製度一錢不值，我們的製度天生優越。一回頭，幹嘛原來跟 直說好話

我們差不多的現在都比我們活得好。不用洗碗，花錢還更大方，這世界真是亂套了。難道耶穌保護異教徒，欺負自己人？哈哈哈


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

這就是毛主席說的那句話 京A18569

修正主義是最壞的資本主義，而且比資本主義還要壞！


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

這篇文章真好笑！ 請和咖啡好吧拉？




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

奴隸製加獨裁製再加資本主義,美國人怎能學得會?笑話. x723




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

如果一個國的層麵上玩不轉了，老百姓就跟著吃虧了。 truck123

就現在看，這邊的利益集團們損害了美國整體國家利益，把國家、社會和全世界拖進經濟危機的泥潭，不僅損害了美國國家利益還損害了普通美國人民的利益。The Founding Fathers 原來的想法和措施是有益的，但後代領導人思想不夠開放，沒有對條條框框進行改革優化，並將美國不斷地改革開放，所以退步了。一句話，美國也要搞改革開放，搞活經濟，修正所有不利發展的因素。原來是老師，現在當學生，也不丟人；況且，中國有5000年以上的曆史，從這個角度來看，作為200多年曆史的學生向老師學習也說得過去。 當然每個國家都有各自的長處和短處，互相學習本來就是應該的，這樣才會促進社會的進步。美國的利益集團們如此對政治和國家的影響，原來的Founding Fathers 沒有意識到如此嚴重，積了這麽多年，搞出那麽多的條條框框，所以，她也需要一個能好好清理三角債的人，有魄力的人，為美國老百姓負責和無私奉獻的人，而不是整天糾纏在兩黨小圈子利益裏麵。這個人在那裏？


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

俺發現“注什麽注阿”同誌發言特有水準及深度 、

特別是一句“成功的人，找原因，找自己的不足。失敗的人，找借口，找別人的不足。”立馬給了一樓一有力的耳光


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The land of free is a flop youwire

美國人需要認識到這一點： 美國其實在實行的是假民主。


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

哎 注什麽注阿

美國還是有聰明和務實之人的。俗話說，成功的人，找原因，找自己的不足。失敗的人，找借口，找別人的不足。這句話，用於國家之間，也合適。希望美國政界的有識之士，不要總找中國的茬，要發現並改正自己的錯誤，才能再次振興美國。GOD BLESS AMERICA。老天保佑中國。


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

笨蛋，那是因為中國有社會主義的大買辦和奴隸製下的工奴。 男人夢中

[馬三]

這文章是你翻的?,不錯