美国体制真的比中国体制好那么多吗？ [美国媒体]

-------------译者：magicqueen99-审核者：长安月------------

I'm British though lived in the US. The Chinese premier is currently visiting the UK so there's much talk of the differences between our countries and that of the US. But how real is that difference in fact? For example although US citizens can vote for their congressman in practice very little changes in Congress. Districts are gerrymandered and incumbency confers a huge advantage. Congress has incredibly low approval ratings yet there have been no revolutions at the ballot box to remove the current membership. Is this really any different to having a government imposed upon you as in China?

我是住在美国的英国人。中国总理正在访问英国，所以关于中国、英国和美国的差别有很多话题。但是实际上真的有差别吗？举例来说，美国公民可以投票选举国会议员，可是实际上国会很少有改变。只要操纵选区划分和任期，就可以获益匪浅。国会的支持率低得令人难以置信，可是投票制度并没有变革，以去除现有的议员。这样一个强加给你的政府和中国比，真的有任何区别么？


-------------译者：lasereyes-审核者：长安月------------

Robin Daverman random walk and random talk
upxed Jul 6
America is not a pure democracy and China is not a pure dictatorship. Both are big complex countries and any one-word descxtion will not do justice to either country.

美国不是纯粹的民主国家而中国也不是纯粹的独裁国家。这两个都是复杂的大国，通过任何1个词来描述这两个国家都是不公平的。

The current difference between America and China is not primarily caused by their political systems but by how much their perspective governments and their people understand the following:

目前美国和中国之间的不同并不取决于他们的政治制度，而是取决于他们的政府和人民对以下观点的认知程度：

The reason that we live this kind of lives today is because for the past hundreds / thousands of years our forefathers gave more than they took. If everybody had taken more than they gave we'd still be wearing animal skin and chewing on weeds and berries. If we want our children to continuing having a better life we need to give more than we take as well.

我们能过上现在生活的原因是过去几百/几千年来我们的祖先生产的比消费的多。如果我们的祖先每个人都消费的比他生产的多，我们这会儿还在穿兽皮吃草籽和浆果呢。如果我们希望我们的孩子继续过上更好的生活，我们也得生产的比消费的多。

The American government doesn't get this. The Americans having a pretty good life already clearly have no idea what they want to do next. But the democratic system allows people to use ballot boxes to appropriate benefit from the public coffer for themselves and the debt instrument allows people to in a sense eat our young for our own enjoyment now. So we do it. Being selfish is good. The democratic system justifies selfishness. You are supposed to vote for your own interest!! There.

美国政府不明白这一点。美国人已经有了很好的生活，但是很明显不明白自己下一步该干什么了。但是民主制度允许人民用投票箱来侵占公共资金给自己谋福利，而且发行债券从某种意义上说也是允许人民从自己孩子嘴里抢饭吃，只为自己高兴。而我们就这么做了。自私自利很好。民主制度认为自私有理。你就应该为你自己的利益投票！
以上

-------------译者：龙腾翻译总管-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

So we end up with $18 trillion in debt with crumbling infrastructure with drugs that cost $1 to make and sell for $2000. Sure we can still deal with it. Not a big problem. Never mind that we know our kids will be worse off than we are. We have democracy. Everyone of us is a king like Louis XV of France that clever narcissistic egoist. If America is a person he'd be that 50-year old guy who still lives in his parents' house and eating out of his parents' refrigerator while using his kid's social security number to borrow money.

所以导致我们债务1.8万亿美元，基建破败，药物1美元成本卖到2000美元。我们当然可以应对，不是什么问题。反正我们孩子过得比我们差也和我们没关系。我们有民主。我们每个人都是王，就像法国的路易十五，那么聪明，那么自恋，那么自我。如果把美国比作一个人的话，那他就是个50岁的人，依然住在父母的房子里，吃父母的，还用自己孩子的社保卡借钱。

And this selfishness extends to international relationship as well. We are in charge of blowing things up. Other countries can deal with the refugees and the rebuilding. Maybe the American geniuses who are running our government can answer this simple question: "How many sticks of dynamite does it take to build a school a hospital and a park?" But never mind that's another $6 trillion for our kids to pay.

而且这种自私自利还扩展到了国际关系中。我们到处轰炸。难民和重建工作交给其他国家来处理。或许美国政府中的天才可以回答一下这个问题：“多少的炸药就可以建成一所学校，一座医院和一座公园？”没关系，反正偿还这6万亿美元的是我们的后代。

Thus this is the life we leave to our children - they will take on a huge loan to go to college and then immediately start working to pay off the student loan. They will go through life constantly worried about money because they are on the hook for their student loan their medical bills and paying off their mortgage. They live to pay debt. When they can't work anymore they will get a reverse mortgage to pay their bills and finally die penniless. This is what freedom looks like. We are constantly getting worked up by frankly inconsequential issues like Kim Kardashian's butt while 90% of us live worse than we were in 1970. Why? Because voting for the average Joe against the entrenched polity is like playing poker with a professional poker player. You have the cards. You don't have the skill to win the game. But you are convinced the game is fair.

这就是我们留给后代的——他们将申请巨额贷款去上大学，然后出来就要努力工作偿还贷款。他们的一生都要为钱担忧，因为他们要偿还学生贷款，支付医疗费，偿还住房抵押贷款。他们的一生就为了还债。当他们干不动时，就会获得反向抵押贷款来支付账单，死时一无所有。这就是自由的样子。我们总是为一些不重要的事情感到生气，比如卡黛珊的花边新闻，但是我们90%的人的生活水平还不如70年代，为什么？因为虽然普通人有了投票权，但是和这些根深蒂固的政治组织对抗的话，就好比和专业扑克选手玩扑克，你手中有牌，但是你没有赢得比赛的技巧。而你还以为比赛是公平的。

-------------译者：popebana-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------



The Chinese on the other hand know what they want. They are behind. They want to catch up. They want to get a good education live in nice houses drive on highways or ride on high-speed rail and trade with everybody. Unfortunately all of these take money and money doesn't grow on trees.

另一方面，中国知道他们要什么。他们落后，他们想追上来。他们想要好的教育，住好的房子，在高速上开车或者有高铁可以做以及和每个人做贸易。不幸的是这些都需要钱可是钱不长在树上。

They had nothing except their people so they need to do whatever it takes to give everyone a quality education. I read a couple of days ago that in one of the poor counties in China's Xinjiang province where the average GDP/capita is around $1000 per year the most modern buildings are the schools. Everyone gets free 12-year education. Children from poor families can live in the dorms and get free food free boarding free textbooks and the top academic performance will earn you a free university education as well. The single biggest government spending in China is education.

他们之前一无所有，有的只是人，所以他们花很大力气去让每个人得到一个好的教育。我前几天了解到中国新疆省（那里的平均gdp是1000美元/年）的一个贫困县最现代的建筑就是学校。每个人都能到12年的免费教育。贫困人家的孩子可以住上宿舍，有免费的食物可以吃，面书本费，同时学习最好的可以得到一个免费的大学教育。在中国最大的政府支出就是教育。



The Chinese earn a couple of cents making a pair of socks. They make $7 putting together an iPhone. How many millions and million of socks and iPhones they have to make in order to spend a quarter trillion on education and produce 8 million college graduates a year? And on top of that the average Chinese family save 50% of their income in order to leave something for their children. They want their children to have a better life than their own!

中国在每双鞋或者袜子上只能赚几分钱。他们组装一个苹果手机赚7美元。得做多少双袜子多少苹果手机才能让她们用四分之一个万亿在教育上并且每年培养800百万大学毕业生？同时50%的中国家庭把一半的收入存起来留给他们的孩子。他们想让他们的孩子过得比他们好。



The political system doesn't matter nearly as much as the people themselves. This is why UK is trying to warm up the relationship with the Chinese. The Chinese have money. They have money because they made and sold a lot of socks toys pots and pans and they don't spend much money on themselves. They spend it on their kids and they saved.

所以人民本身比政治制度来得重要。就是为什么英国正在试图改善与中国的关系。中国人有钱，他们有钱因为他们做了并且销售了一堆袜子，罐子，玩具，锅什么的，并且他们不怎么为自己花钱。他们花给他们的孩子和储蓄。



-------------译者：popebana-审核者：decueai------------

Richard Li26 votes Show
Very fresh view on an old issue. I do agree with you on the point that the Chinese culture is one about saving first spend next while the US culture is about spending first and worry later.

这是个老话题，而你的观点非常新颖，我非常同意你的一点就是中国文化是先存钱后花钱，而美国是先花钱后担忧。

50% saving for an average Chinese family is not an overstatement. It's certainly true with most traditional Chinese families. 

一个普通的中国家庭储蓄50%的收入不是个夸张的事情。在很多传统中国家庭中是普遍存在的。

What's worrying is that US brand of consumerism is slowly creeping into Chinese psyche and that can really do some fundamental damage to a good tradition.

非常值得忧虑是美国的消费文化正在侵蚀中国精神，这会对一个好的传统造成根本性的破坏。

Daniel Calto7 votes Show
The high rate of Chinese saving is also caused by insecurity and lack of a safety net—-especially as regards health care spending (not that the US isn't also messed up about this). in addition it is predominantly the grandparents generation that are very heavy savers—-their sons and daughters are facing a far higher cost of living and mostly cannot save (think of housing prices) while the grandchildren’s spending patterns are far more like those in developed economies. I also admire Chinese thrift and dedication to the younger generation but this is not carved in stone but culturally fungible under the right societal pressures. Nor do I think all Americans are spendthrifts who just want to live it up for themselves my father was a Depression-era kid and they were very self-sacrificing—-this characterization is perhaps broadly true of the Boomers but less so for younger generations.

中国人的高储蓄率还因为没有安全感和缺乏安全网，特别是医疗开支（当然美国在这方面也是一片混乱）。另外祖一辈他们非常爱存钱，他们的儿女正在面临很高的生活支出，主要是花钱几乎存不了几个钱（想想房价），然而孙子辈的消费模式就比较想发达国家了。我也敬佩中国人的节俭以及他们对年轻一代的奉献，但这不是一成不变的，也是在一定的社会压力下才形成。我也不认为所有美国人都是挥霍无度只为自己活的人，我的爸爸是萧条的一代，他们具有自我牺牲的品质，这个特性或许是很多婴儿潮一代所具有的。但是不是新生的一代。

-------------译者：一只番茄炒鸡蛋-审核者：pope------------

Scott Hoversten6 votes Show
VERY well said! I don't think you and I would agree on every policy issue but your answer is very good food for thought!

说得好！我认为你我不必在每一个政治观点上持一致意见，不过你的回答的确是经过深思熟虑的。

Xiao lan Yang12 votes Show
China is not so beautiful as you described，Many poor areas lack of educational investment，Corrupt officials have taken away a lot of money。
The only lucky is college tuition is very cheap。I can't imagine how Americans can afford to so expensive university tuition。

中国并不是像你描述的那么漂亮，很多贫困的地方缺少教育投资，腐败的政府官员捞走很多钱，唯一幸运的是大学学费非常便宜。我没法想像美国人是怎么负担起那么贵的大学学费的。

Srinivasulu Chitimalla4 votes Show
Wonderful analysis.  Unless and until each generation wherever they may be on the earth leaves something more than what they inherited from the previous generation future is bleak for the human kind.  Unfortunately we started believing that we are the owners of what we 'own' instead of seeing ourselves as trustees.  This outlook must change.

精彩的分析，除非每一代在这个地球上留下的比他们从上一代继承的多，否则人类的未来是灰暗的。不幸的是我们开始相信我们是我们所占有的东西的主人，而不是将自已看作受托人，这种观点需要改变。

Jack Crawford
I find this hard to believe. "the average Chinese family save 50% of their income"

我觉得有点难以相信，“中国的普通家庭将收入的50%储蓄起来”.

-------------译者：一只番茄炒鸡蛋-审核者：BXHin1995------------

Kaz Vorpal8 votes Show
There are some truths in that post but a lot of errors as well many of them implicit but pretty clearly what the author intended.

那个帖子里说的很多是事实，但是也有很多错误，许多观点含蓄但是清晰的反映了作者的倾向。

For example the US is as wealthy as far ahead as it is because of the relatively small government it had through most of its history. Its economic growth was a result of LACK of government investment in infrastructure LACK of government investment in science and research LACK of expert guidance of economic growth.

例如美国的富裕如此超前是因为在其大部分的历史中有一个相对小型的政府。它的经济增长是在缺少政府在基建，科学研发上的投资以及在经济上没有专家引领的情况下结果。

It's true that the US is lagging today in part because of its debt. But this is because of too much of those above things NOT because of a lack of taxes. The more government "helps" the more people "contribute" to government coercion the weaker the US will become.

可以肯定的是今天美国拖后腿的原因有部分是因为它的债务，但是这是因为有以上如此多的原因而不是因为缺少税收。政府越帮忙，人们就会越受压制，美国就会越弱。

And China's growth is first of all a statistical illusion based on how far behind it is. If a single burger shop expands to become a chain of two it has 100% growth. If McDonald's adds a thousand restaurants it has single digit percentage growth. China because it has a government that tries to invest in infrastructure science technology and guiding the economy is absurdly far behind in per capital productivity.

中国的增长最主要是一个统计错觉，取决于它有多大的规模。如果一个汉堡店扩展成两个连锁店那么它的增长率是100%，如果麦当劳增加一千个餐厅它也只有单位数百分比的增长率。而中国是因为政府试图在基建科学技术方面投资并引导经济，但在人均生产率方面则远远落后。

-------------译者：一只番茄炒鸡蛋-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

What's more China has improved its growth in recent decades specifically by REDUCING its overall "investment" and control economically.

另外，中国最近几十年来提升了增长，特别是通过削减总体投资和控制经济.

Using a central monopoly to force things to be the way "experts" imagine to be best always results in stagnation poverty rationing overpopulation and poor resource distribution/production versus a free market where each person is his own expert regulating his own share of the community as he believes best.

用一个中央集权来迫使事情朝专家所想象的那样结果会导致陷入贫困，供给过剩和糟糕的资源分配和生产，而一个自由的市场里，每个人都是他自已的专家，可以得到在社群里按他自已的意愿调节他所应得的部分。

Likewise "everyone gets a free education" is a contextual lie. It's more accurate to say that everyone is forced to pay into a common pool to an education monopoly which ends up costing everyone hugely. Without that burden the typical Chinese house would probably be nicer. And which does NOT produce educated adults as we've seen in the US...so they're being forced to pay and not actually getting more education as a result.

同样的“每个人得到免费的教育”是一个自相矛盾的谎言。准确的说每个人都被迫向一个教育集权的池子付钱，结果会导致每个人的巨大负担，如果没有这个负担一个中国典型的家延也许可能会过得更好。而且这样也不会产生像我们在美国看到的那些受过教育的成人...所以他们是被迫支付费用而结果并没有真正得到更多的教育。

Also citing Chinese income as $1000 a year is meaningless because of both exchange rates and the internal cost structure they live under. Rent in the cheapest part of the US is more than a thousand dollars a year while rent in those parts of China is probably a few hundred a year. The absolute dollar measurement is a pointless comparison.

而且引用中国的收入一年一千美元是没有意义的，因为双方的汇率和他们所生活的内部成本结构（不同）。在美国租最便宜的公寓一年也要超过一千美元，而在中国也许一年只要几百美元。完全用美元来衡量是没有意义的比较。

-------------译者：暴龙哥-审核者：decueai------------

Lu Fei8 votes Show
China is not that beautiful and China can do much better.

中国并不漂亮且中国可以做的更好。

Ehrin Davis5 votes Show
It is interesting that Chinese are so concerned with leaving something for the next generation when they appear to have very little regard for preserving their natural environment. What are they giving future generations by being one of the worst polluting countries in history?

有趣的是，中国人关心的是他们现在能为下一代留下什么，因为他们似乎很少考虑保护他们的自然环境。难道他们给下一代留下的是史上最严重的污染国家之一？

Jian Sun2 votes Show
brilliant analysis as usual with a touch of parental perspective.

像往常一样精彩的分析，用一个家长的角度来看。

Karl Jakob Haraldsson
eh don't confuse private (personal) debt with public debt. Individuals in the US borrow in large part because interest rates have been minuscule for a very long time. The US was already a consumerist society and essentially nonexistent interest rates disinscentivize saving (outside of pouring dollars into equity). Debt in the US is practically free liquidity so borrow away.

嗯，不要把私人（个人）债务与公共债务混为一谈。美国人借贷是因为一直以来利率都很低。美国已经是一个消费型社会，几乎不存在的利息分化了储蓄（除了用来购买股票的美元外）。美国的债务几乎是自由流动性，所以借走了。

Jin Li
Chinese government education spending is like USA defence spending. Much of it is wasted through gross inefficiency. Many University graduates in China are better off not wasting their 4 years in University and instead did some sort of vocational work after year 12.

中国政府教育支出就像美国国防开支。大部分的资金都因为效率低下浪费了。很多中国大学毕业生如果不浪费四年去读大学而是高中毕业后就去干职业工作的话会过得更好。

USA consumerism is slowly infecting the Chinese millennials mind where they are spending more than they earn.

美国的消费主义正在慢慢侵蚀中国的千禧一代，他们花的比挣的还多。

-------------译者：一只番茄炒鸡蛋-审核者：bs1747------------

Matthew Heminger
Its a lot of text but you are wrong about much of what you state. 90% of us live a poorer life or worse life than those who lived in the 70’s? Where do you come up with that figure or that data point? I think you made it up. I think it is not true. What about all those Western Democracies like Sweden do they save money like the Chinese do? Do they invest in their children’s future? Is it a uniquely Chinese thing to do? Do you have any dat that shows a correlation between saving and children’s futures? Freedom looks to you like a lifetime of penury and debt. That is not what freedom looks like to me my wife our friends our children. Freedom looks like an opportunity to succeed an opportunity to change the world and opportunity to grow. Your attitude is exceptionally pessimistic. This country is still the place people emigrate to and where the best and the brightest come to succeed. For all of China’s wonderful schools did you know Chinese students account for more than 60% of all foreign students at U.S Colleges and Universities?

很长的文章，但是你所说的很多都错了。我们90%的人过着比70年代更穷更糟的生活？你哪儿弄来的数字和那些观点？我想是你编的，我认为不是真的。那些西方民主国家像瑞典他们会像中国人一样存钱吗？他们会在孩子的未来上投资吗？这是不是一个中国特有的现象？你有任何数据显示储蓄与孩子未来之间的联系吗？自由对你来说像是生命的贫穷与债务。但对我，我妻子朋友孩子们来说不是这样的，自由像是成功的机会，改变世界和成长的机会。你的态度极端的悲观。这个国家仍然是人们的移民乐土，是最好的最光明的带来成功的地方。说到中国所有优秀的学校，你知道中国的留学生占美国大学所有外国留学生的60%吗？

Chinese Students Lead Foreign Surge at U.S. Colleges

中国留学生数量引领美国大学外国留学生

Do you now why Chinese save so much? I will give you a hint it isn’t because of their love for children everyone loves their children it is for more prosaic reasons such as a relatively young population restraints in consumption as a result of an underdeveloped financial infrastructure a defective social security arrangement and broadening income inequality.

你知道为什么中国人存那么多钱吗？我给你个提示，并不是因为他们对孩子的爱，因为每个人都爱他们的孩子。原因比较平常，例如年青人口在消费方面相对受限，不发达的财政公共设施，公共安全的缺陷，收入不平等的扩大。

As China grows and develops you will see this rate go down as Richard Li points out. Frankly saving 50% of your income is not a particularly enviable characteristic in my opinion. It severely impacts your ability to enjoy life and life a good life now when you can really appreciate it.

如Richard Li指出的中国的成长和发展指数在下降。坦白的说将收入的50%存起来在我看来并不是特别值得羡慕的，它会影响到你享受生活和好生活的能力，如果你能真正领会到这一点。

-------------译者：lasereyes-审核者：bs1747------------

Jeffery Zhang
The problem isn’t democracy though it’s the civil right’s movement. The US was able to finance WWII the Interstate Highway system the Lunar Program among many other such huge projects that benefited posterity more than the generation that funded those projects. Ever since the Civil Rights era the US has been unable to muster political consensus on large national investments.

问题并不在于民主而是民权运动。美国提供资金打第二次世界大战，建设州际高速公路，实施登月计划和很多其他巨型工程，造福子孙后代远多于造福实施这些项目的那代人。自从民权时代以来，美国已经无法团结一致进行大型国家投资了。

The US is divided by race and identity politics are still a powerful force. The largest and wealthiest racial group white Americans are declining as a % of total population. Any such program will involve taxing white Americans more heavily in the present to benefit non-white Americans in the future. This is a political non-starter.

美国社会被种族问题分裂了，而且身份政治仍然很强大。最大最有钱的种群——美国白人，占整个人口的百分比正在下降。任何这样的项目都会致使增加现在的美国白人税收而让未来的非白种美国人收益。这是个政治僵局。

-------------译者：一只番茄炒鸡蛋-审核者：bs1747------------

Taylor Barnette1 vote by Gentrian Song
This reply is a moral condemnation of Americans and a paean to Chinese - that kind of analysis is bound to be highly subjective and one-sided as this answer is and thus largely useless. I encourage folks to discard it. If you know much about China you know the differences between that culture and America’s are large and complex. There are positive things about the Chinese people and their modern culture and negative things and even that is a generalization I’m not comfortable with. In regards to saving though in some regard they save too much. Their economy needs more domestic spending to grow as noted by economists and the CCP itself. That the author failed to mention this is suspect.

这个回答是对美国的道德谴责，对中国的赞歌-这种分析是主观和偏见的，因此这个答案毫无用处，我建议你们别理这个。如果你了解中国你就会知道中美文化的差异之大和复杂。中国人们和他们现代文化有正面的也有负面的，尽管总体来说我不太喜欢。关于储蓄，从某种程度上来说他们存得太多了。根据经济学家和CCP的说法他们的经济需要更多的国内消费来拉动增长。而作者并没有提及这个，这点让人生疑。

Worse the answer offers a ridiculous premise: “the political system doesn’t matter nearly as much as the people themselves.” Laughable. People everywhere work hard to build a good life and to provide one for their children. The idea that one “people” are more moral than another has long been discarded by historians - primarily because it’s grossly illogical (i.e. it’s a huge generalization that ignores other factors that influence behavior). The amount of waste that happens in China due to corruption and top-down rule is staggering and very much effects millions of people’s lives there.

更糟的是作者提供了一个可笑的前提:”政治制度和人民几乎没有什么关系“太可笑了。每个地方的人们努力工作都是为了有更好的生活，并提供给他们的孩子们。一个群体比另一个更道德的观点早已被历史学家抛弃了--主要可能是这个说法非常没有逻辑。（例如在庞大的人群里，忽略其他因素对行为的影响）。中国发生的这么多的浪费是因为腐败和难以置信的等级规则严重的影响了在那生活的上百万人。

That the author doesn’t know this or acknowledge it after living there for 17 years makes me wonder what he/she has been doing there or if he/she really has lived there for 17 years.

作者在那里生活了17年而不知道这些，这让我怀疑他/她是不是真的到过那儿，是否他/她真的在那儿生活了17年。

The author also doesn’t note how education works there pre-college: the better your child does in testing the less their parents have to pay to get into really good middle-schools high-schools etc. This means many top schools in China are filled with either the very wealthy or the very smart. Late bloomer like so many geniuses?

作者也没有提到大学之前的教育是怎么样的：你的孩子在考试中考得越好，他们的父母支付给好的中学或高中更少的费用，等等。这意味中国的许多顶级学校充斥的要么是有钱人那么是非常聪明的人。真有这么多大器晚成的人吗？

Well sorry out of luck the system screws you and perpetuates inequality. And while parents in China do spend a lot on their children in the U.S. teenagers are often expected to get a job and build-up their own livelihood rather than rely on their parents. In China this character and business-skill building exercise is absent. I see this as merely a cultural difference maybe one that will change as the economy advances. Using the author’s approach I could use it to accuse Chinese kids of suckling on their parents and not learning self-sufficiency - but that’s idiotic. So as you can see the author provides a very one-sided picture using a very questionable methodology. Big fail.

挤不进这个系统，你的人生就完了，而且活在永久性的不平等中。中国的父母在他们的孩子身上花费大笔钱，而美国的表青少年通常会被期望去得到一份工作，靠他们自已生活而不是依赖他们的父母。在中国没有这种情况，而且缺小生意技巧的煅炼。我认这一点仅仅是文化的差异，也许随着经济的发展会改变。引用作用的方法我可能会用这一点来谴责中国的孩子吸干父母血汗钱，不学会自已自足--但那是白痴才做的事。所以你可以看出作者用非常可疑的方法提供了一个非常片面的图片. 错大了。

-------------译者：一只番茄炒鸡蛋-审核者：bs1747------------
Chloe Zhou
Very true... I now feel guilty that I may spend way too much....

很正确...现在我感到愧疚，也许我花得太多了。。。

Frank Wang4 votes Show
Free and compulsary 9 year education 12 years is a new policy just proposed and not implemented yet.

免费强制性9年义务教育，12年是一个新的政策刚提出还没有实施。

And I think compulsary is more important than free.

而且我认为强制性比免费更重要。

Fei Meng
Why should American save? They can print dollars and other countries will be willing to exchange that paper with numberless goods. Just let other countries keep that paper in their safe.  Everyone is happy.

为什么美国人要存钱？他们只要打印美元，其他国家就愿意用无数的商品来换这些纸，就让其他的国家为了他们的安全保存这些纸吧，这样皆大欢喜。

And I would like to point out education in the  List of countries by spending on education (% of GDP). China ranks 104th (4.15%) while US ranks 57th (5.5%).

而且我想指出各国在教育上的花费占了GDP百分比的排名，中国排名104（4.15%）而美国排名57（5.5%）

Darren Leung3 votes Show
Great answer and so good not to have to see it followed by yet another comment saying that the flaws in the Chinese system are not worth the sacrifices in XYZ based basically on a culturally colored way of thinking.

回答得很好，真好不用看到下面另一条带有文化偏见色彩的评论说中国系统有缺陷，不值得牺牲在XYZ上。（XYZ不确定要怎么翻）。

-------------译者：一只番茄炒鸡蛋-审核者：decueai------------

Frank HuangPLA
your opinion is a little biased on US politic sys.LOL

你的观点对美国政治体制有点偏见。大笑

and 2nd half of your statement about china is about our culturenot politics.

你陈述的第二部分关于中国是指文化而不是政治。

Karl Heinrich Marx told us(commies) to consider issues with method of Dialectical materialism.so do not say one thing is totally right or false.

卡尔.海因里奇.马克思（共产主义者）认为看问题要用辨证唯物主义方法。所以不要对一个事情说完全对或是完全错误 。

the two systems both have advantages and disadvantagesobviously.can either of these two systems stand for democracy?

两种体制各有优缺，两种体制都是代表民主吗？

we all know that eqivalence means necessary and sufficient condition

我们都知道等于需要必要和充分条件来满足

china’s version of democracy is a sufficient condition

中国版的民主是充分条件

western version of democracy is a necessary condition.

西方版的民主是必要条件

so these two sys cannot equal democracy.these two system need to change or reform to get true democracy.

所以这两种体制都不等于民主。这两种体制都需要改变和改革来实现真正的民主。

butwestern politic sys seems like cannot changebecause of your constitution…..I think this is the biggest difference between these two syss…

但是西方的政治休制看起来无法改变因为你们的宪法体制...我认为这是这两种体制最大的不同之外。