|
|
发给我这篇文章的英国朋友给此文雷住了，我把他的短信试译（原文为英文）如下（括号内也为原文所有）：
我被此文惊到了，这也太糊弄人了吧。就算那些统计方法和关联性是真的（我对此也深表怀疑）， 但是这种关联性难道完全没有偶然性吗？难道和其它各地的具体情况就没有关系了吗？为什么作者们假设这其中有因果关系呢？逻辑太差了。
我很无聊地回了封稍微长一点的信，就不更无聊地翻回中文了：
you are absolutely right about pei minxin and his colleague's ft article. it's so below standard.
but what really shocked me in this piece is not the poor logic, but how can someone still advocates so strongly for consumption-based economy when america (probably an ideal free society by pei and freedom house' measurement) is leading the world into a crisis after over-spending for all these years? i never really understand why high savings rate is necessarily a bad thing for a country or a family.
the authors seem to suggest that they don't take correlation as causation, but if the whole argument and analysis is based on the wrong hypothesis and facts, they probably have pursued a wrong question with a wrong approach.
for example, the article claims that "China’s rate of household consumption has been falling, not rising. In 1985, household consumption was 51 per cent of gross domestic product; in 2007, it was 35 per cent, the lowest proportion ever for China and for a major country in peacetime." i doubt whether economists will use this indicator to measure growth of consumption. the ratio was higher in 1985 probably because china had a smaller GDP and insufficient investment, not because chinese people spent more 20 years ago. and i'm sure there are many other statistics showing household spending is actually increasing (saving's rate is dropping, isn't it?).
also, how credible is freedom house's freedom index? isn't it laughable to say china is less free than 20 years ago? i hope the freedom house understands china least among all the countries it maps. or they really should send their researchers to some basic research methods courses.
i also think it's unfair to blame the government gives more priorities to export than domestic consumption. beijing has long encouraged its people to spend more while it has to take advantage of overseas market to absorb working forces. what if china's domestic consumption has already reached its peak by now? china will be in more serious trouble. in fact, i think china's consumption culture, esp. among the youth and urbanisers, is already strong enough and doesn't need more encouragement or "cultivation."
i'm not sure about the linkage between political stability and democracy either. isn't china more stable in the past 20 years than many democratic developing countries, especially those in transition? i hope they had found a more convincing way to sell democracy.
talking about social safety nets, beijing just issued a new document on health service reform to make bais health service public goods for everyone, with the government, not the market, playing the central role. the government health expenditure will increase 38.2% this year. it must be part of the stimulus plan.
it's always funny to see how china critics tend to blame the ccp or the political systems for all the failings without considering the role chinese tradition and culture plays in it (sometimes negative, sometimes not necessarily bad), as if culture revolution did cut china completely from its past.
i can understand all the above mistakes given the fact that pei is not an ecnomist himself. but ft is supposed to have better editorial control, isn't it? or all brilliant editors automatically turn into dumb ones once the article deals with china?
i posted this article on anti-cnn.com and someone translated it within two hours. i anticipate a strong storm against it. pei's more sensible foreign affairs article was seriously attacked by anti-cnn users and i tried to defend him on some points. but this time, i guess i'll have to join his opposers.
对事不对人，我觉得上次裴在foreign affairs上那篇被ACER骂得很厉害的讲土共能否度过危机的文章比较靠谱。 |
评分
-
1
查看全部评分
-
|
狗仔卡
发表于 2009-4-8 00:55
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
发表于 2009-4-8 01:05
