中国的基建是否超过美国和其他发展中国家

Is China ahead of the US and other developing countries in infrastructure? 中国的基建是否超过美国和其他发展中国家? QUORA网站读者评论: Joel Phelan, Former USMC NCO and Veteran, Programmer, Wiggin Libertarian It’s because they started building their infrastructure about 80–100 years AFTER the USA did. Thus, the engineering was standardized (mostly by the USA) , material costs were down, and technology existed that they could reasonably implement that the USA cannot without having to tear out the OLD infrastructure (and as another person answered, much of the US’ spending is in maintaining the existing infrastructure, roads, bridges, and train tracks, where as China, because they (comparatively) have nothing, and had almost literally nothing in the way of modern infrastructure 30 years ago, did not have these maintenance costs. It’s a problem they will run into going forward. 这是因为他们开始建设基础设施的时间比美国晚了80-100年。因此,工程施工有标准可依(主要是美国的标准),材料成本比较低,技术也是现成的,他们可以合理实施,而美国不能如果不拆除老旧的基础设施,就无法做到(另一个人回答了,美国的支出大多用于维护现有的基础设施、道路、桥梁和铁轨,而中国,因为(相较而言)一无所有,30年前基本没有现代基础设施,无需负担这些维护费用。不过这个问题在他们将来也会遇到。 It also depends on what you mean by “ahead”. You can speak of their better maintained highway system, yes. But you cannot do so honestly without admitting that part of the reason it’s better maintained than the US system is (aside from only having been in existence for less than 30 years) that it is less than 10th the size of the US highway system and exists in about a third of the land area as the US system. China also has a smaller railway system, much of which didn’t exist before 1990. China could afford to deploy high speed rail, for example, because it HAD to lay the tracks for something anyway. nothing existed in that route before. The US railways network is over 100 years old (and over 150 years old in some places). That’s rail to maintain and replace. Switching equipment. Safety equipment. And so on. China has a few nice modern airports in large cities. That’s because, again, they had NOTHING before. They can afford to do a re-build and upgrade project on the main airport in Beijing because they don’t have five thousand airports to maintain (fifteen thousand if you count all airfields), as the US does. China has 188 airports and less than 600 airfields total. The USA has 5,194 airports and 15,095 airfields total. How, exactly, is China ahead in air traffic infrastructure again? 译文来源:三泰虎     http://www.santaihu.com/46815.html      译者:Joyceliu 这也取决于你所说的“领先”是什么意思。你可能会说他们的高速公路维护得很好,是的没错。但是你不能否认,也有中国的高速公路比美国维护得更好,有部分原因是(除了只存在了不到30年),中国高速公路的规模还不到美国的1/10,占地面积不到美国的三分之一。中国的铁路系统规模更小,其中大部分在1990年之后才出现。中国有能力铺设高铁,是因为它总是得铺设轨道。那些路线以前压根都不存在。美国铁路网已经有100多年的历史了(有些地方甚至已有150多年的历史)。这些轨道需要养护、更换。设备需要转换等等。中国的大城市里有几个现代化的机场。这是因为,又因为,他们以前一穷二白。他们有能力对北京的主要机场进行重建和升级,是因为他们不需要维护5000个机场(如果算上所有机场的话,是15000个),而美国需要。中国现有188个机场,飞机坪总数不足600个。美国有5194个机场和15095个飞机坪。如何能说中国在空中交通基础设施方面领先了?   Brandon Hawthorne, former Graphic Artist, Illustrator, Comercia Photog,. at Creative Advertising (1963-2010) China's government and the people in it are much more involved in what's best for China and not just what's going to benefit themselves. Unlike the United States where the people running the country seem to have little interest beyond what's best for themselves and their constituents. While they are technically a socialist country they encourage entrepreneurship and innovation. They also tend to ignore copyrights and international patent laws taking advantage of the Innovation done by other countries without acknowledging the contribution or paying for it. But I think mostly it is just the fact that the people running China really are interest in making China more successful. 中国人民更关心的是什么对中国最好,而不仅仅是什么对他们自己更有利。这和美国不同,在美国,治理国家的人似乎只关心对自己和选民最有利的事情。 中国是社会主义国家,但鼓励创业创新。 他们也比较忽视版权和国际专利法,会占其他国家创新成果的便宜,没有承认这些创新成果的贡献或为之付费。 但我认为最主要的原因是,中国的管理层确实对如何让中国更成功感兴趣。 Here politicians will fight anything that might benefit the country if they don't think it's going to be a benefit themselves and their constituents directly. Healthcare is a perfect example if they would just sit down together and work out all the details they could come up with a healthcare plan that would benefit everybody, except maybe the people in the healthcare industry who are ripping off the population with excessive healthcare charges. But each group is afraid that somebody is going to benefit more than they are therefore they'd rather see nothing done at all so that's what happens nothing. Most developed countries have modern high-speed railways but not the United States. 而我们的政客们,如果任何对国家有利的事对他们自己和选民没有直接好处,他们就会反对。 医疗保健就是一个很好的例子,如果他们能坐下来一起研究细节,他们就能设计出一个对每个人都有利的医疗保健计划,医疗保健行业的人除外,因为他们正在用过高的医疗费用剥削人口。 但是所有团体组织都害怕有人会比他们获益更多,所以他们宁愿什么都不做,所以什么都没发生。 大多数发达国家都有现代化的高铁,但美国没有。 No we're trying to go back to using coal while the Chinese are trying very hard to get away from using coal and develop clean energy to fight there terrible pollution problems. We are ignoring the problems and hoping that they will just go away, like climate change for instance. I think that the United States is on a down slope that we may not see the end of for a long time. We lack the one thing that's most important we lack cooperation. 不,我们正试图倒退回煤炭时代,而中国正努力摆脱煤炭的使用,开发清洁能源,以对抗可怕的污染问题。 而我们正在漠视这些问题,希望它们自己会消失,比如气候变化。 我认为美国正在走下坡路,可能在很长一段时间内都看不到尽头。我们缺少最重要的最重要事,就是合作。   Edward Bauman, pragmatist The issue of infrastructure is really one of national priorities, and in this regard the U.S. has become a slacker nation in which citizens complain about insufficient infrastructure investment but don’t want to pay for it. At the same time, foolish conservatives mistakenly focus on reducing government size and spending while cutting taxes in the ideological belief that this is as how to increase economic growth. In reality, infrastructure is the investment that drives such growth. It determines the cost of doing business. China understands that investment and debt are the costs for long-term economic growth and greater shared prosperity. On a proportional basis, they are far more aggressive in this regard relative to the U.S. Because Americans think they and their country are exceptional, they are unaware of how unexceptional they and their country actually are in fundamental ways. The U.S. needs to spend three to four trillion dollars simply to bring current infrastructure up to modern standards. 基础设施问题确实是国家大事,在这方面,美国已经变成懒散的国家了,公民抱怨基础设施投资不足,但又不想为此买单。与此同时,愚蠢的保守派错误地将注意力集中在削减政府规模和支出上,同时在意识形态上认为,减税是提高经济增长的途径。实际上,基础设施才是能推动经济增长的投资。它决定了商业成本。 中国明白,投资和债务是长期经济增长和共同繁荣的代价。按比例计算,他们在这方面比美国激进得多。美国人认为他们自己和他们的国家与众不同,他们没有意识到他们自己和他们的国家在本质上是多么的平凡。美国需要花费3到4万亿美元才能使现有的基础设施达到现代化标准。 That won’t happen by cutting taxes for the wealthy while cutting the budgets for everything else that government does for citizens. In some ways the country is in a state of decline because it doesn’t generate sufficient tax revenues for the size of its gross domestic product. The current president is simply clueless about any of this. 通过为富人减税,同时削减政府为公民做的其他一切服务的预算,是不可能实现这一目的的。在某种程度上,这个国家正处于衰退状态,因为它的税收收入不足以满足国内生产总值(GDP)的规模。现任总统对此一无所知。   Martin Dièdre, Journalist-photographer. Nature, art and history enthusiast You have to understand China is not a typical developing country. This term is a bit antiquated, in that it was more appropriate during the 80–90’s to describe the emerging countries that were not fully developed, not part of USSR and not Third World Countries. China is what we call a newly indusrialized country. Its economy is still not completely dominated by services and trade, because the industry is very strong and predominant. Among the features we can find: export-driven and fast-growing economy, developing urban centers, large corporates, strong political leadership and high human development index. 你必须明白,中国不是一个典型的发展中国家。这个说法有点过时了,在80-90年代用来描述那些没有完全发展的非苏联体系,也非第三世界国家的新兴国家,比较合适。 中国是我们所谓的新兴工业化国家。它的经济仍然没有完全被服务和贸易所主导,因为这个行业非常强大有力。我们能发现以下特征:出口驱动和快速增长的经济,发展中的城市中心,大型企业和较高的人类发展指数。   Paul Bilinas, B.Ec. (Adv.) Economics, University of Adelaide (2016) That seems like a loaded question, and I’m not sure if you’re entirely correct. But, I’ll take it for granted that China is “so ahead in infrastructure”. The reason is probably that the USA built most of its infrastructure a long time ago. Once it’s there, there is little incentive to upgrade it. Why spend billions when you can make do with what you’ve got? Also, once the capital stock of a country reaches equilibrium, a large fraction of savings (pretty much all of it) is used up in maintaining existing capital. Rewind to 1990 and China had very little infrastructure. As its economy has boomed, it has accumulated capital very rapidly. Now it is at a point where there is too much capital. The government has used investment to employ some of the country’s excess capacity and support an ultimately u-wth. The problem is that the capital will not be able to be maintained. It would require an astronomical savings rate. China wants to transition to a consumption driven economy, but how can it do this while simultaneously maintaining a high savings rate to support a huge capital stock? 这似乎是一个复杂的问题,我不确定你是否完全正确。但是,我认为中国“在基础设施方面遥遥领先”是理所当然的。 原因可能是美国在很久以前就建造了大部分的基础设施。这些设施一旦存在,就没有什么动力去升级。当你能用现有的东西勉强度日时,为什么还要花费数十亿美元呢?此外,一旦某国的资本存量达到平衡,储蓄的很大一部分(几乎全部)就会用于维持现有的资本。 而1990年时,中国的基础设施非常少。随着经济的蓬勃发展,资本积累非常迅速。现在,它已经到了资本过剩的地步。政府利用投资,利用了中国的部分过剩产能。问题是资本将无法维持。这将需要有如天文数字般的储蓄率。中国想要向消费驱动型经济转型,但如何在保持高储蓄率的同时支撑庞大的资本存量呢?   Kalynn Hines, lived in The United States of America Because the U.S. and China spend money on different things. Much of the U.S. federal spending goes to our military, foreign affairs and NATO. Our spending also focuses on programs like social security, housing and healthcare. A new infrastructure plan is expected in the near future. So to sum things up, each country spends their money on high priorities. Infrascture I would assume is a high priority for China and hasn't really been for the U.S. 因为美国和中国把钱花在了在不同的事情上。美国联邦政府的大部分开支用于军事、外交和北约。我们的开支还集中在社会保障、住房和医疗保健等项目上。一项新的基础设施计划有望在不久的将来出台。总而言之,每个国家都把钱花在最重要的事情上。我认为基础设施建设对中国来说是头等大事,而对美国来说则并非如此。   Terry Newman, Ten years living and doing business in China. Because US politicians, in order to get votes and corporate support, have eroded the tax base to the point that basic infrastructure (and also other basic services like education and health) can no longer be effectively funded. Adding to their woes is the fact that Washington has been paralysed for 12 of the last 16 years due to the failure of either party to control simultaneously the Presidency and the legislature. 因为美国政界人士为了获得选票和企业支持,已经侵蚀了税收基础,以至于基础设施(以及教育和医疗等其他基础服务)再也无法得到有效的资金支持。雪上加霜的是,在过去16年里,由于两党都未能同时控制总统和立法机构,华盛顿已经瘫痪了12年。   Lisa Beardmore, lived in China I would question the validity of that statement. I currently live ( and have for the past 2 years) in Shanghai, China. While there certainly are some parts of the infrastructure that are very developed like the highways, subway and high speed trains, basic things like the city sewer and drainage system are severely lacking. 我对这一说法表示怀疑。我现在住在中国上海(过去两年一直住在上海)。虽然有一些基础设施非常发达,比如高速公路、地铁和高速列车,但城市下水道和排水系统等基础设施严重缺乏。   Shawn Lee Have you ever BEEN to China? I have lived there for over 15 years. I was happy when I could go a week without the power going out. They do have newer highways than the US, but that is because they didn't have any not too long ago. Also, they are toll roads, so many people avoid taking them to save money. China builds things very quickly. But they also have a tendency to fall apart just as quickly. 你去过中国吗?我在那里住了15年多了。我很高兴一个星期都不停电。它们确实有比美国更新的高速公路,但那是因为他们之前还没有。此外,这些公路是收费公路,很多人为了省钱,并不走高速。中国的建设速度非常快,但这些东西也很容易出问题。   Patrick Bindner The basic premise of the question is incorrect. China has deficient infrastructure in much of its territory, whereas the US has solid & pervasive infrastructure throughout its territory. It is in China’s major cities that Chinese infrastructure surpasses some levels of US infrastructure development & that is entirely due to being newly installed in places that were previously bereft of modern infrastructure. US infrastructure is now old but it blankets the nation. 这个问题的基本前提就不对。中国大部分地区的基础设施都不完善,而美国的基础设施则坚实牢固、无处不在。中国主要城市的基础设施的发展水平超过了美国某些地区,这完全是由于中国在以前缺乏现代基础设施的地方新建了基础设施。美国的基础设施虽然陈旧,但覆盖了整个国家。   Gary Sands, Lived in Shanghai 2006-2012, lives in Vietnam, written several articles on China Not sure what you mean by “greatest” - I would rather have the Swiss build my infrastructure if I was looking for high-quality. 我不知道你所谓的“最好”是什么意思——如果我想要高质量,我更希望让瑞士人来建造我的基础设施。   Haiyan Chen, Native Chinese have the most real experience of China Because the United States spends too much money on military and war. The United States maintains the world's largest daily military expenditure, which excludes war spending. 因为美国在军事和战争上花费了太多的钱。 美国保持着全球最高的每日军事开支记录,这还不包括战争开支。 d9aae13ad8def941b8559dcef1ca1473.png
 
If, assuming that the US military spends at least $2 trillion in the war in Iraq on American infrastructure, well, I don't think China can catch up with the United states. 如果,假设把美军在伊拉克战争中花费的至少2万亿美元投入在美国的基础设施上,我认为中国是无法赶上美国的。 9d9e0d8fgy1fywn2r53bmj20ch08cgro.jpg
 
The United States is a powerful nation, the only superpower in the world. But I hope they can spend more time and money on improving the United States, not the war. 美国是一个强大的国家,世界上唯一的超级大国。但我希望他们能把更多的时间和金钱用于改善自己的国家,而非战争上。   Damon Craig, Expletive deleted What can the US learn from China's infrastructure projects? Yeah we can. Top down management. Only ask youself, “Why are the politicos where they are today?” Where did these guy running the show come from? (Same goes for corporate executives.) Is it because they are insightful folks, or because their gift of hob-nobbing is the creme de creme. Hob-nobbing. We have leadership good at hob-nobbing. Welcome to the world of politics. Good body language. Good gift of gab. Dumber than a turd sandwich at everything else. Hello Hilary. Hello Trump. 美国能从中国的基础设施建设中学到什么? 是的,我们可以。 自上而下的管理。 就问问你自己,“为什么政客们能站在今天的位置?”这些主持大局的家伙是从哪里来的?(对企业高管也是如此。)是因为他们是有洞察力的人,或者说因为他们的交际天赋是最好的。 交际。我们有善于交际的领导。欢迎来到政治世界。良好的肢体语言。能说会道的口才。可是在其他方面笨得无以复加。你好,希拉里。你好,特朗普。   Random Quorer Nothing. US has gone through what China has achieved in infrastructure in FDR’s time. The reason that US government cannot afford to renew their infrastructure is that the labor cost much more than in FDR’s time. Another reason is that the US government nowadays is not as mighty as the FDR administration which carried out the New Deal after the Great Depression. 这有啥。美国在罗斯福时代早就实现了中国在基础设施方面取得的成就。美国政府无力更新基础设施的原因是劳动力成本远高于罗斯福时代。另一个原因是,如今的美国政府没有大萧条后实施新政的罗斯福政府那么强大。   Igor Markov, Lived on the East Coast, on the West Coast and in the Midwest The most valuable lesson is that planning too far ahead and too strategically can lead to spectacular miscalculations and waste of resources because unused infrastructure can decay. This can be illustrated by China's newly built cities that currently remain empty. A key failure of planning is neglecting the need for organic growth and the need to provide cash flow (China's high-speed rail illustrates how this should work). US infrastructure planners typically understand these concepts very well - they would rather err on the conservative side (miss profits) than over-invest. The main risk here is in policies or fiscal climate that artificially bias the decision process toward increased risk. But this has already played out in the 2008 crisis, so isn't a new lesson. 最宝贵的教训是,由于未使用的基础设施可能会老化,过于超前和战略性的规划可能导致重大的误判和资源浪费。这一点可以从目前中国新建城市的空置情况窥见一斑。规划的一个关键失误是忽视了自然增长的必要性和现金流的必要性(中国的高铁就说明了这一点)。美国基础设施规划者通常非常了解这些概念——他们宁可保守一些(错失利润),也不愿过度投资。这里的主要风险在于政策或财政环境,人为地把决策过程的风险提高。但这种情况已经在2008年的危机中结束了,不是新教训了。 外文链接:https://www.quora.com/Is-China-ahead-of-the-US-and-other-developing-countries-in-infrastructure
三泰虎原创译文,禁止转载!:首页 > 美国 » 中国的基建是否超过美国和其他发展中国家
()
分享到: