|
|
楼主 |
发表于 2010-1-1 19:02
|
显示全部楼层
原文读者评论（更新完毕）
Dallas 4 months ago
So... Italy was the world's thought and market leader, aka Super Power in the 1400-1500's. Spain was the worlds greatest super power in the 1600-1700's. Great Britain was the worlds Super Power in the 1800's, The US was the great Super Power of the 1900's, and now China is looking like the great Super Power of the 2000's.
I guess that sounds about right.
Dallas：这么说……意大利在15到16世纪，曾是世界的思想和市场领导者，也就是所谓的超级大国。西班牙在17到18世纪曾是世界最强的超级大国。英国是19世纪的世界超级大国，美国是20世纪的世界超级大国，而现在中国看起来像是21世纪的超级大国。我觉得大致是这样。
kyleteng 3 weeks ago in reply to Dallas
china has been the leader from 1000s-1800s,go reading so book!
kyleteng回复Dallas：中国从11世纪到19世纪都是领先者，去读点书！
vsk 4 months ago
Wow,
I would love to see this happening here.
For freight as well as passenger travel.
Would be good to get trucks off the roads where possible.
vsk
vsk：噢，我乐见其成。对货运和客运而言皆是。任何地方能让卡车少上公路都是好事——vsk
Preston 4 months ago
Well, there is always greyhound....
噢，总会有“灰狗”（美国的一种长途汽车——译注）……
Sean S. 4 months ago
You know what I'm tired of? Everytime the Chinese government announces some ridiculous project, everyone jumps and wonders why we aren't doing the same thing, never once questioning whether any of this pie in the sky nonsense will actually happen. I would like to know for every over the top pronouncement Treehugger has highlighted over the years coming out of China, how many, if any, were ever finished and achieved the numbers they were supposed to. In a country where there is no substantial free press, are we just supposed to accept the numbers they give us?
Sean S.：知道我烦什么吗？每当中国政府宣布一个可笑的计划，每个人都跳出来问为什么我们没做同样的事情，而从不质疑这些空中楼阁是否真的能完成。我想知道几年来Treehugger加亮的这些来自中国的公告，有多少（如果有的话）是完成了的并达到它们的预期数字的？对于这个没有新闻自由的国家，我们能接受他们给我们的那些数字吗？
TrainLover 1 week ago in reply to Sean S.
Here is the ridiculous project
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta8A2Y-y1fs&feat...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPNsf9p5nvU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY_cF2Snihs&feat...
TrainLover回复Sean S.：这就是那个“可笑的计划”
（一些youtube视频）
Green Joy 4 months ago
Ok, I get that it's going to get people off those scooters and less people are going to be individually driving, but... I'm skeptical about how this is going to help China reduce their pollution. Could it really make as big of an impact as we need? And I think we need it a little faster than this...
Lindsey
Green Joy：好的，我知道这会使人们不用那些小型摩托车，更少人会采取自驾，但……我怀疑这能在多大程度上帮中国减少其污染。这真能达到我们所需的那么大效果吗？还有我觉得我们需要比这更快一点……——Lindsey
Frank OConnor 4 months ago
"environmental reviews are finished and eminent domain issues settled"
Yep! But you have to remember. China's government could care less about the environment and if it needs land it just takes it.
Frank OConnor：“环境评估结束以及突出的征地问题得到解决”没错！但你得记住，中国政府可以不顾环境，还有它如果需要土地的话拿来就是了。
Shaun 4 months ago
Wait, China is planning to drop $300B on a fancy train over the next decade.
Is this the same China that insists rich nations like the US need to give them money to clean up their pollution?
Amazing!
Can anyone tell me if trains, especially the high-speed ones, are profitable anywhere in the world? In other words, the fares cover all costs and the governments don't subsidize them? That is a point that no-one ever mentions. Though I suppose that since so many tree huggers have an affinity towards communism that they probably feel that subsidies are a good thing.
Shaun：等等，中国将在未来十年投入三千亿美元在这种不寻常的火车上。这是不是等同于中国坚持让美国这样的富裕国家需要拿钱来清除他们的污染？好极了！有没人能告诉我，世界上什么地方的铁路，尤其是高铁，是能够盈利的？换句话说，车票能涵盖所有成本而政府无需对其进行补贴的？没有人提过这个问题。尽管我觉得既然本站如此多的网友倾向于共产主义，他们或许觉得补贴是件好事。
coolhead 4 months ago
Can anyone tell me if traveling by car is profitable anywhere in the world? Oh, don't forget the cost of building highway. Oh, don't forget the cost of maintaining highway either. BTW, I hate toll roads, but fortunately most highways are free. Isn't car traveling already heavily subsidized?
coolhead：有没人能告诉我，世界上什么地方驾车出行是能够盈利的？哦，别忘了修高速公路的成本。哦，也别忘了保养高速公路的成本。顺便说下，我恨收费公路，但幸好大多数高速公路是免费的。驾车出行不也已经得到了很多补贴吗？
Anonymous 4 months ago
Nevermind that not even five years ago the majority of locmotives in China were still coal fired steam engines. The diesel technology the use was bought from North America and is not allowed in the US anymore because it does not meet EPA standards (EMD's H-blocks). The majority of Chinese rail frieght is still loaded by hand in sacks.
While $300 billion is a lot of money, you also need to lok at the fact that most of China's current rail network is 19th century quality.They HAVE to spend the money to support their own infrastructure.
As for profitability of passenger service, it is almost non-existant. However you will find that the cost of subsidising a railroad is often far cheaper than having to support other transportation infrastructure (like highways). An example of this is a small Washington state railroad that asks for $1million a year in state subsidy to help maintain its tracks for hauling grain. The state happily pays it becuase if they didn't they would need to pay about $61million a year in road repairs each year instead from the cargo moving to trucks.
-Lego
Anonymous：别忘了不到五年前中国多数火车头用的还仍然是靠烧煤的蒸汽引擎。尽管三千亿美元是很大一笔钱，你需要了解事实上中国现有铁路网络大部分是19世纪的水平。他们需要投入金钱来支持自身的基建。对于客运的盈利性而言，几乎是不存在的。尽管如此，你会发觉补贴铁路的成本通常远低于支持其他的运输基础设施（如高速公路）。这其中一个例子是华盛顿的小型州铁路，每年会要求100万美元的州补贴以维护其运送谷物的轨道。该州乐于支付补贴，因为如果不出这笔钱的话，运力从列车转移到卡车，他们一年大概需要付6100万美元来维修公路。——Lego
coolhead 4 months ago
"if it needs land it just takes it"
Frank OConnor,
First, in China all land is owned by the state and only leased for private use. Second, the government or developers will compensate, though the amount is often disputed in many cases. Third, India government grabs land when they need, even for Slumdog child starts (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Second+Slumdog...). You don't know just because they are democracy and thus almost perfect by definition? Do some research about other countries if you want to have a strong opinion.
coolhead：“它如果需要土地的话拿来就是了”Frank OConnor，首先，中国全部土地都是国有的，只能以租的方式作私用；其次，政府或发展商会作出补偿，虽然诸多情况下金额通常具有争议；再者，印度政府在他们需要的时候夺取土地，甚至是为电影《贫民窟的百万富翁》的童星（一个新闻链接）。你不知道；仅仅因为他们是民主的他们按定义就是几近完美的？如果你想有强有力的观点的话，对其他国家先做些调查。
coolhead 4 months ago
"Is this the same China that insists rich nations like the US need to give them money to clean up their pollution? "
Shaun,
Reduce CO2, not pollution. India says the same thing as China. They (and many other developing countries) actually mean that since rich nations have been spitting out CO2 like crazy for the past century, but China and India have only done that for a couple of decades, isn't it just fair for rich nations to cover up their own butt first before China and India cover their own butt? Do some research and think fair.
coolhead：“这是不是等同于中国坚持让美国这样的富裕国家需要拿钱来清除他们的污染？”Shaun，是减少二氧化碳，不是污染。印度说的话和中国一样。他们（以及其他诸多发展中国家）实际上是说，既然富裕国家在过去一个世纪里都疯狂地排放二氧化碳，但中印只排放了二十年，让富裕国家在中印减排之前先减排难道是不公平的？做些调查并公平地想想。
coolhead 4 months ago 1 person liked this.
Shaun,
Can you tell me if car, traveling is profitable anywhere in the world? Oh, don't forget the cost of highway construction. Oh, don't forget the cost of highway maintenance either. BTW, I hate toll roads and fortunately most freeways are indeed free. Isn't car traveling already heavily subsidized?
coolhead：Shaun，你能否告诉我，世界上什么地方驾车出行是能够盈利的？哦，别忘了修高速公路的成本。哦，也别忘了保养高速公路的成本。顺便说下，我恨收费公路，而幸好大多数高速公路是免费的。驾车出行不也已经得到了很多补贴吗？
CB 4 months ago
@coolhead
China does own and lease land today, unlike 'democratic' India which just takes. That's because China "just took" ALL of the land six decades ago. People forced to move get some below market compensation for their (sometimes ancestral) land, after local corrupt govt has skimmed its take. That's not always the case, but its the common experience
My personal opinion is that the West shouldn't shoulder the cost of the developing world reducing its population, because the developing world is doing so with the decades of technological advancement (engineering, science, medicine, etc) China and India are creating so much pollution because they're developing far faster than the West ever did. Its not as though they're working from scratch. The issue isn't about the West having the balls to man up and cut CO2 first, the issue is China seriously demanding that they be held to a different standard.
Car driving sure is subsidized, but autos also generate far more economic activity than rail so its not exactly analogous. Rail is generally a 'one-time' investment (w/ short term economic benefits and perpetual subsidies), whereas maintaing a road system supports continuous economic benefits. Either way, I'm for more rail. I rode trains all over mainland China and loved it. They have the population density, existing cultural support for, and lack of alternative transportation options that make it work really well. The trains run like clockwork, which is incredible for the massive network they operate.
CB回复coolhead：中国现在的确拥有并租出土地，不像“民主的”印度那样只是拿走。那是因为中国60年前就拿走了所有的土地。人们被迫在得到补偿低于市价的情况下离开他们的土地（有时是祖传的），都让腐败的地方政府收去了。并不总是如此，但普遍存在。
我个人的观点是西方不应负担发展中国家减少污染【原文为“人口”，疑笔误——译注】的成本，因为发展中国家几十年来技术进步（工程、科学、医学等）都是这么做的。中国和印度制造了如此多污染是因为他们发展得比以前的西方快得多。它们并非从零开始。问题不在于西方是否该先减排，问题是中国严肃要求他们该适用一套不同的标准。
驾车当然是得到补贴的，但汽车也比铁路创造了更多经济活动，所以二者不尽相似。铁路通常是“一次性”投资（带来的是短期经济收益，需要永久补贴），而维护公路系统有利于持续的经济收益。但不管怎么说，我支持铁路。我坐火车跑遍了中国大陆，也喜欢火车。他们的人口密度、现有的文化倾向，以及缺乏其他可供选择的交通工具，都使得铁路运行良好。列车总是很准时，对于他们经营的庞大（铁路）网络而言是不可思议的。
Teejay 4 months ago
I really like the steps taken by China to 'connect' the country, its just amazing. And they can very well do that, availability of cheap labour, lot of money in the pocket and no technology patenting issues at all. IMO, no royalty to pay is a big chunk of money that they save. I recently read article in some reputable journal/magazine on how technology was 'stolen' by some big conglomerates as their own. China's high speed railway was one of them, they are modified version of German ICE trains. An order was place at the time of Schröder's government and even though Germans were hesitant to process the order due to possible reverse engineering issues, the order was processed for political reason. The journal did give support to their claim (believe it or not is another debate) and I sort of believed it taking into account China's reputation in 'copy' business.
Such business could take place in rest of the world with rarity and with expensive labour on our end, it will be difficult for us to compete with China.
And, I just hope that Chinese don't use coal generated electricity to run these trains and then ask developed countries to foot the bill for CO2 emissions. Alright, westerners were stupid to use gas guzzlers but Chinese and Indians could learn from their mistakes, or am I too naive?
Teejay：我着实喜欢中国“连结”全国的措施，这真是棒极了。而且他们能做得很好——有着廉价劳力和大量金钱，完全不存在技术专利问题。在我看来，不守信付钱给他们省下了相当大一部分钱。我近来在某份有名的报纸/杂志上读到了一篇文章，讲的是他们如何把某些大公司的技术“窃”为己用的。中国的高铁也是其中一个事例，列车是德国ICE列车的改版。订单是在施罗德政府时期签的，尽管德国人对于执行订单犹豫不决，因为可能存在逆向工程的问题，但由于政治原因，订单还是执行了。报纸给出了论据（信不信是另一回事），考虑到中国在“复制”方面的名声，我基本是相信的。
这种工程鲜有可能在世界其他地方落成，而由于我们这边的昂贵劳工（成本），我们很难与中国竞争。
还有，我只希望中国不要用煤发电来驱动这些列车，然后又要求发达国家为二氧化碳排放埋单。好吧，西方人使用耗油大的车是愚蠢的，但中国和印度人可以吸取西方人的教训，还是我太天真了？
Richard 4 months ago
Unfortunately the US is wasting billions in auto bailouts, highways, cash for clunkers and batteries. Obama is also delaying the new highway bill which would help transform the transportation system adding tens of billions for high speed rail and rapid transit.
Richard：不幸的是美国正把数十亿美元浪费在救助汽车业、（修）高速公路，拿钱给蠢货和呆子。奥巴马还推迟了新高速公路法案，该法案能给高速铁路和高速运输增加数百亿美元投入，促使交通系统转型。
Mechanicmike 4 months ago
Actually, a large amount of that 7.9% "Rebound" growth does NOT come from High Speed Rail. I love high speed rail, and am a fierce proponent of it's benefits, and while the project (and China's other infrastructure projects) have created large amounts of growth, a lot of that rebound can be attributed to the loosening of normally stringent (bordering on ridiculous) lending restrictions, refuelling a property boom that was being calmed down in the heat of the already hot (pre recession) chinese economy. To help fuel growth now the chinese economy has cooled, the lending requirements were eased, so not ALL the growth can be put down to infrastructure, but a sizable chunk can.
Mechanicmike：实际上，（中国）7.9%的“反弹”增长大部分并不是来自高速铁路。我爱高铁，是高铁有益的铁杆支持者；尽管（高铁）计划（以及中国的其他基建项目）已经创造了大量的增长，反弹很大程度上可以归结为一向严厉的（近乎愚蠢的）借贷限制的放松，这给（危机前）在中国经济中火之又火、被镇定下来的不动产市场注入了活力。为刺激已冷却的中国经济增长，借贷要求放宽了，所以不是所有增长都可以归结于基建，但相当的一部分可以。
coolhead 4 months ago 1 person liked this.
Teejay,
What you are talking about is reverse engineering, not "stealing" or "copying". In that sense, China is not very different from other countries during their development. The widespread use of reverse engineering in the 1950s and 1960s had several major consequences for the Japanese system of innovation. Check out this book, section 6.4: The economics of industrial innovation
By Christopher Freeman (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1855670704). And even US was acting like today's China over a century ago. Check out this article to help you put things into historic perspective.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles... />
One-sided research does not help.
coolhead：Teejay，你讲的是逆向工程，不是“偷窃”或“复制”。在，中国在发展阶段与其他国家并无太大不同。上世纪50和60年代逆向工程给日本的创新体系带来了若干重大成果。看下克里斯托弗弗里曼写的这本书的6.4节“工业创新的经济学”（相关链接）。美国一个世纪前也是像今天的中国一样。看下这篇文章有助于用历史眼光来看待问题（相关链接）。片面的调查没有好处。
coolhead 4 months ago 1 person liked this.
"Alright, westerners were stupid to use gas guzzlers but Chinese and Indians could learn from their mistakes, or am I too naive?"
Teejay,
China IS learning from the westerners' mistakes. You don't know about it just because of the current anti-China mentality in the West. Check out this Reuters report: China leads in global green jobs race (http://www.reuters.com/article/wtUSInvestingNew...) Google more and you will find out more such reports. Don't just assume that China is always the bad guy.
coolhead：“好吧，西方人使用耗油大的车是愚蠢的，但中国和印度人可以吸取西方人的教训，还是我太天真了？”Teejay，中国正在吸取西方人的教训。你不了解是因为现时西方的反华心态。看看路透社的这篇报道：中国在全球绿色工作竞赛中领跑（新闻链接）。Google一下就会发现更多这样的报道。不要就以为中国总是坏人。
coolhead 4 months ago 1 person liked this.
"westerners were stupid to use gas guzzlers but Chinese and Indians could learn from their mistakes, or am I too naive?"
Teejay,
China IS learning from westerners' mistakes, at their OWN cost. You don't know it just because of the current anti-China mentality in the west. Check out this Reuters report: China leads in global green jobs race (http://www.reuters.com/article/wtUSInvestingNew...). Here is more complete info about how China has rapidly moved along the path of renewable energy development, all at their OWN cost: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_i... />
coolhead：“西方人使用耗油大的车是愚蠢的，但中国和印度人可以吸取西方人的教训，还是我太天真了？”Teejay，中国正在吸取西方人的教训，靠他们自身的力量。你不了解是因为现时西方的反华心态。看看路透社的这篇报道：《中国在全球绿色工作竞赛中领跑》（新闻链接）。Google一下就会发现更多这样的报道。这儿还有关于中国已经如何迅速地促进可再生能源发展的更完整信息，这都是靠他们自身的力量：http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
coolhead 4 months ago 1 person liked this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
Renewable energy is helping China complete its economic transformation and achieve "energy security". China rapidly has moved along the path of renewable energy development.[1] About 16 percent of China's electricity came from renewable sources in 2006, led by the world's largest number of hydroelectric generators.[2] Total installations of hydropower reached 145,000 MW in 2007. China has set a target of 190,000 MW for 2010.[3] Technology development and increased amounts of investment in renewable energy technologies and installations has increased markedly throughout the 2000s in China, and investment in renewables is now part of China's economic stimulus strategy.[4]
coolhead：（上述wiki链接）可再生能源正推动中国实现其经济转型并确保“能源安全”。中国已迅速地促进了可再生能源的发展。[1]2006年中国约有16%的电力产自可再生资源，由世界最大数量的水力发电机组领衔。[2]2007年水电的装机总容量达到1.45亿千瓦。中国给2010年设定的目标是1.9亿千瓦。[3]在21世纪的头十年里，可再生能源技术的发展和（加大了数额的）投资，以及设备安装量都有了显著的增长，而可更新能源方面的投资显著也是中国经济刺激计划的一部分。[4]
London 4 months ago 1 person liked this.
I can tell many people are very jealous about China's high-speed rail project. Because they are not happy, they wish China will fail.
The point is, you are free to make a wish, but it does not help to confuse your wishful thinking with reality.
Go to China by yourself and take a train from Beijing to Tianjin at speed of 350km/h. The 120km journey takes about 25 minutes and costs about $7. This high-speed train was put into service in July 2008.
There are things that you never know or do not want to know, but they exist no matter whether you like it or hate it.
London：可以说很多人现在忌妒中国的高铁计划。因为他们不高兴，希望中国失败。问题是，你尽可以希望（如此），但把你的意愿与现实混为一谈是毫无益处的。自己到中国去乘坐一趟北京到天津时速350公里的列车。120公里的行程，耗时约25分钟，票价大概7美元。而这列高铁是在2008年7月就投入运营了的。有些东西你从不知道或者不想知道，但不管你喜欢还是讨厌它们，它们都是存在的。
hlbb 4 months ago
So... Italy was the world's thought and market leader, aka Super Power in the 1400-1500's. Spain was the worlds greatest super power in the 1600-1700's. Great Britain was the worlds Super Power in the 1800's, The US was the great Super Power of the 1900's, and now China is looking like the great Super Power of the 2000's.
~~~~ sorry, before 1820, china was always the world leader for almost 2000 years. Italy....Spain, only some small country at the corner of Europe, not even 10% of china's GDP.
Can anyone tell me if trains, especially the high-speed ones, are profitable anywhere in the world?
~~~~ China's rail ministry as a whole is very profitable business, although some high speed line does bring deficits.
China does own and lease land today, unlike 'democratic' India which just takes.
~~~~~ Problem for china is everyone with their "rights" so government compensate too much, a guy rent an small apartment about 150 square feet at shanghai require 100 million RMB of compensation since that apartment would have to be destroyed. Come on, you rent it from government for probably 12 RMB a month and you need 100 million compensation???!!! There is a saying in shanghai, "want to be rich, wait to be reloacted", the average compensation about 1-3 million is about a middle class family's 20-30 years of income, that is just TOO much, after all, most of those compensation do not go to the land load, but the tenants.
hllb：“这么说……意大利在15到16世纪，曾是世界的思想和市场领导者，也就是所谓的超级大国。西班牙在17到18世纪曾是世界最强的超级大国。英国是19世纪的世界超级大国，美国是20世纪的世界超级大国，而现在中国看起来像是21世纪的超级大国”——不好意思，1820年之前，中国大概有2000年一直是世界领先者。意大利……西班牙，只是欧洲角落里的效果，甚至连中国GDP的10%都没有。
“有没人能告诉我，世界上什么地方的铁路，尤其是高铁，是能够盈利的？”——中国铁道部整体上是相当有盈利的，虽说一些高铁线路确实会造成亏损。
“中国现在的确拥有并租出土地，不像“民主的”印度那样只是拿走。”——中国的问题在于人人有其“权利”，政府补偿太多。有个人在上海租了间大概150平方英尺的公寓，拆迁时要求100万人民币的补偿。拜托，你向政府租这房子每月大概就付12块人民币，而你竟要100万的补偿？？？！！！上海有句话是“想致富，等安置”，平均补偿大概为一百到三百万人民币，相当于一个中产家庭20到30年的收入，那也太多了。毕竟，那些补偿大部分都没给房东而是给租户。
joeysmask 2 weeks ago
While this may be an old article to write a comment on, I really have to say that China's speed of development is hard to believe but actually happening. Whether or not a rail system is profitable depends on the density of population and people's willingness to use it. A huge population China has may actually make rail profitable without subsidy for the first time. And I don't think anyone would argue that rail is more efficient and more environmentally friendly than highway when fully utilized. Unfortunately, the U.S. lacks the necessary density of population to make rail a feasible option for a nationwide expansion in rail. Yes, we have the Amtrek and Greyhound, but they are slow and not quite convenient. When you can take Amtrek to get from NY to Houston in 5 hours without the hassle of security check and luggage check-in, I bet people will start thinking more about rail.
joeysmack：尽管评论这篇文章可能有些晚了（此人评论的时候该文章已经发布了近4个月——译注），我真的不得不说中国发展的速度难以置信但又确确实实。铁路系统盈利与否取决于人口密度以及人们使用铁路的意愿。中国拥有的庞大人口可能真的首次让铁路在无需补贴的情况下盈利。还有我不觉得有人会认为铁路能比得到充分利用的高速公路更高效且更环保。不幸的是，美国缺乏必要的人口密度，这使得铁路没有进行全国扩张的可行方案。没错，我们有安崔克和“灰狗”（前者为列车，后者为长途客车——译注），但两者都慢，也不太方便。如果你从纽约坐安崔克列车到休斯顿只需5个小时且无需安检和行李检查的麻烦的话，我敢肯定人们会更多地考虑铁路的。
BDS 10 hours ago
The speed at which China accomplishes things like high speed rail has a great deal to do with the lack of civil rights.
When the Chinese government decides to annex land for the rail line there is no hearing, no negotiations, no appeal process. You move or they throw you in jail. Then, when the rails are being built, there are no safety standards for the workers.
BDS：中国在高铁等方面取得成就的速度与公民权利的缺失有着很大关系。当中国政府决定吞并铁路线路的土地时，没有听证，没有谈判，没有申述程序。你采取行动的话他们就会把你投入监狱。其次，铁路建设的时候，工人没有安全（保障）标准。
----------------------------------------------翻译完毕，欢迎指正---------------------------------------------- |
|
[复制链接]
狗仔卡
发表于 2010-1-1 19:01
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
发表于 2010-1-1 19:15
。。。
