为什么章家敦对中国的预测失败了?是不是他忽视了什么或者低估了什么因素？ [美国媒体]

What made Gordon Chang’s prediction of China & CCP fail? Is there some factor that he forewent or underestimated?

为什么章家敦对中国的预测失败了?是不是他忽视了什么或者低估了什么因素？

Paul Denlinger, Have lived in China, Taiwan and Hong Kong; fluent in Mandarin (written, spoken)Top Writer2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, and 2013
My biggest complaint about Gordon Chang is not that he has been predicting the collapse of China for so long, but that he does not seem to have any understanding of the Chinese Communist Party and how it works.
In fact, this is my biggest complaint about many people who have spent a lot of time in China, and try to present China as some kind of inscrutable nation and people which are completely beyond any westerner’s comprehension, and therefore must remain mysterious and unpredictable.
I have some understanding of how it works because I lived and worked there. To me, it is not a mystery and it is not inscrutable.
My main thesis is this: It is impossible to have an understanding of how modern China works without having an understanding of how the party works. I can understand why many who are in China do not explain how the Chinese Communist Party works, and think it is because of these following reasons:
They don’t understand themselves how the party works, and therefore cannot explain it;
They have some understanding, but not a deep understanding;
They think that the word “communist” is too sensitive a word to use around many Americans, because it conjures up an image of a devil with horns and a forked tail, so they shut down that conversation before it even starts;
They don’t have a deep enough understanding of China and Chinese culture to be able to differentiate what is Chinese about China, and what is socialist (communist).

Quora2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 以及2013年度顶级评论家，曾在中国大陆，台湾，香港生活过，精通普通话（读、写）
我对章家敦最大的不满不在于这么多年来他一直在预测中国崩溃，而是他似乎对CCP及其运作方式没有任何的了解。
很多在中国呆了很长时间的人，他们试图把中国视为一个不可思议的国家，把中国人视为西方人无法理解的民族，因此他们必须是神秘和不可预测的。事实上，这也是我对这些人最大的抱怨。
我对中国/CCP的运作方式有一些了解，因为我曾经在那里生活和工作过。对我来说，这并没有那么难以理解，也并不是神秘莫测的。我的核心观点是:如果不了解CCP的组织方式，就不可能了解现代中国是如何运转的。我能理解为什么许多在中国的人没有解释CCP是如何运作的，我认为这种状况是出于以下几种原因:

他们不了解执政党是如何运作的，因此对其无法解释;
他们有一定程度上的理解，但他们的理解不够深刻;
对于美国人来说，他们认为“GC主义”这个词太敏感了，因为它让人联想到一个有角有分叉尾巴的恶魔，所以他们在对话开始之前就停止了;
他们对中国和中国文化没有足够的了解，不能区分开中国和社会主义(GC主义)。

Some who do have a deeper understanding of the Chinese Communist Party and how it works don’t want to explain it, because no organization quite like it exists in any western society. Trying to explain it would be like trying to describe colors to someone who was born blind. Where do you start? (I put myself somewhat into this category, but have found Quora to be a good forum for starting this discussion.)
So, if Gordon Chang really wanted to contribute to an intelligent conversation, he would have talked about the Chinese Communist Party, explain how it works, and then explain what he thinks it is doing poorly as justification for why it would eventually fall from power.
But he didn’t do any of that. And in spite of the very poor quality of his views, the western media CONTINUES to invite him to provide his opinion on China and North Korea. (What are his North Korea qualifications anyway? Does he even speak Korean? Has he been to the DPRK?)


--------

Gabriel Chan
Another possibility: he knows how everything works but will play the clown for personal gain

还有另一种可能性:他知道一切都是如何运作的，但他会为了个人利益而扮演小丑。

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

Joseph Wang, studied at Ph.D Astronomy UT Austin, Physics MIT
Yes. A determinist view of history.
Gordon Chang said, “China has problems X, Y, and Z and is *DOOMED*.”
The Communist Party said “Yeah, China has problems X, Y, and Z. Let’s fix X, Y, and Z so we stay in power. Hey wait, this new technology fixes problem Z.”
In particular, Gordon Chang’s prediction was based on the collapse of the Chinese banking system, which got fixed.
One irony was that in the early 2000’s China was going through and fixing its banking system because the collapse of the Indonesian banking system in 1998 scared the living bejeeus out of every one. Meanwhile, since the West was perfect, no one was looking at the problems in the Western banking system which ended up blowing up in 2008.
The other thing that he really missed was how China was able to take the internet and create essentially a new banking system using completely new technology. The fact that China’s old banking system was such a mess was a blessing in disguise because it pushed China into doing things in completely new ways.
One of the weird ironies is that pretty much the exact scenario that Chang laid out happened to come true, only it was in Europe and the United States.

是的。一种决定论的历史观。
章家敦说:“中国有X、Y、Z的问题，注定要失败。”
CCP说:“是的，中国有X, Y, Z问题。让我们解决X, Y, Z问题，这样我们就能继续执政。嘿，等一下，这个新技术解决了问题z。
特别是，章家敦的预测是建立在中国银行体系崩溃的基础上的。而这个问题已经得到了修复。

具有讽刺意味的是，在2000年早期，中国正在经历和修复其银行体系的问题，因为1998年印尼银行体系的崩溃，让每一个人都被吓住了。与此同时，由于西方是完美的，没有人关注西方银行体系的问题，而这些问题最终在2008年爆发。
他真正可惜的另一件事是，中国如何能够利用互联网，以及利用全新的技术创造一个全新的银行系统。中国原有的银行体系是如此混乱，反而因祸得福，因为它促使了中国以全新的方式行事。
虽然有点怪异，但讽刺的是，几乎所有章家敦预测的场景都发生了，只不过这些场景发生在了欧洲和美国。

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

Tom McGregor, I lived in Beijing since Oct. 2010



When I was a student at Thomas More College of Liberal Arts in Merrimack, NH. USA one of my favorite courses was about “ideologues.” We studied the lives of people who devoted themselves to an ideology. The ideologue model would be a person such as Hitler, who blamed Jewish people for the world’s problems and sought to exterminate them.
An ideologue does not let logic, truth or evidence contradict their pre-conceived notions. They will continue to believe in what they believe in regardless of circumstances. Accordingly, the so-called expert, Gordon G. Chang believes the Chinese government is villainous and makes all his judgement calls based on such ideals.
Chang has no ability to rationalize outside this concept of hatred. You could meet him, provide him with books, take him to meet people in China and still after your efforts you can ask him what he thinks about the country and he will just spew vile hatreds against the Chinese government.


I have met this type of person in real life. My biggest mistake was to conclude they would change if I could teach them a little bit more logic. I was so wrong and in some instances had led to tragic tales of woe.
So if you think you can engage in a productive debate with Chang to convince him he’s wrong, you’ll discover you had engaged in wasted efforts. It’s better to talk to people with an open mind and willing to change an opinion if they see the light of truth. Chang refuses to see the truth no matter how bright that light is.
Chang had written a book about the coming collapse of China and its was printed in 2001, a few months before the 9-11 terror attacks. But we should give Chang credit, since he had written an article in 2011 confessing his prediction was wrong.
Nevertheless, he insisted the collapse would occur in 2012, but as we all know he was proven wrong yet again. His article can be found in a lix here:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/12...

我在现实生活中遇到过这种类型的人。我最大的错误是，我认为如果我能教他们一点逻辑，他们就会改变。我错的如此离谱，在某些情况下这导致了一些悲惨的事情。

所以，如果你认为你可以和他进行一场富有成效的辩论说服他他错了，你会发现你浪费掉了很多的精力。更好的选择是去和那些思想开放、并在看到真相后愿意改变他们的观点的人交谈。无论真理之光多么的耀眼，章家敦都会装作视而不见。

章家敦曾写过一本关于中国即将崩溃的书，这本书于2001年出版，就在911恐怖袭击前几个月。但我们应该给章家敦一些信任，因为他在2011年写了一篇文章承认他的预测是错误的。

尽管如此，他还是坚持说，这种崩溃将在2012年发生，但我们都知道，他的预测再次被证明是错误的。他的文章可以在这里找到:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/12...

According to Foreign Policy:
“So will China collapse? Weak governments can remain in place a long time. Political scientists, who like to bring order to the inexplicable, say that a host of factors are required for regime collapse and that China is missing the two most important of them: a divided government and a strong opposition.
At a time when crucial challenges mount, the Communist Party is beginning a multi-year political transition and therefore ill-prepared for the problems it faces. There are already visible splits among Party elites, and the leadership’s sluggish response in recent months — in marked contrast to its lightning-fast reaction in 2008 to economic troubles abroad — indicates that the decision-making process in Beijing is deteriorating. So check the box on divided government.”
Chang is like a broken record that keeps repeating the same tune over and over again. He will never allow logic or evidence to alter his opinion, but what makes him so dangerous is that Western media outlets continue to grant him a platform to express his views and tout him as a China expert.
Is it Chang’s fault for having an unhinged mind? Not really, it’s his willing media enablers allow him to speak on-the-record and on-camera with his foolish notions. Chang has never been right about China and there’s no legitimate reason to give him a microphone to air his views, especially when there are many better well-qualified experts on China who deserves to have their voices heard in the media limelight.

援引《外交政策》内容:
“因此,中国会崩溃吗?脆弱的政府可以运转很长一段时间。喜欢为令人费解的事物带来秩序的政治学家们说，政权崩溃需要一系列的因素，而中国却忽略了其中两个最重要的因素:一个分歧重重的政府和一个强大的反对派。

在重要挑战日益严峻之际，CCP正开始为期多年的政治过渡，因此对它自身所面临的问题准备不足。党内精英之间已经出现了明显的分歧，而领导层在近几个月的反应迟缓——与2008年对海外经济危机的迅速反应形成鲜明对比——表明北京方面的决策过程正在恶化。所以，请检查一下政府的分歧情况。

章家敦就像一张坏掉的唱片，不停地重复着同一个曲调。他永远不会让逻辑或证据改变他的观点。但让他如此危险的是，西方媒体还在继续给他提供一个平台来表达他的观点，并将他吹捧为中国问题专家。

是章家敦精神错乱了吗?并非如此，正是媒体让他能够在节目里和镜头前如他所愿的表达他的愚蠢想法。章家敦对中国的看法从来都没对过，而且也没有什么合理的理由值得给他一个麦克风来表达他的观点。尤其是，有很多更优秀的中国问题专家，他们应该让这些人的声音通过媒体得到公众的关注。

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

Lin Steven
He should give up his family name “Chang” because he’s a disgrace to Chinese people everywhere. If China is so hated, how come even America’s allies lined up behind China for the belt and road? Seriously, elections are a waste of time and money. The new government comes in and tries to undo everything his predecessor has done, just so that he can bring in his own cronies for a piece of the action. There is no continuity, and you cannot see beyond four years.

他应该放弃他的姓氏：张，因为他是所有中国人的耻辱。如果中国是如此的令人讨厌，为什么连美国的盟友都排队跟在中国后面呢?说真的，选举就是在浪费时间和金钱。新政府上台后，就会试图撤销他的前任所做的一切，只是为了让自己的亲信参与到行动中来。政策没有连续性，你看不到四年之后会如何。

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

Evan Sun, Structural Engineer (2011-present)
I just want to talk about some previous dynasties in China. Like Ming, and Qing all existed more than 300 years (more than US) and they are all not democratic countries.
I mean, hundreds, thousands years ago, people have no picture of democracy at all but they live, and bear their rulers. and suddenly democracy comes and become the essentials for the human kinds? I mean, even if democracy is a better than Communism. but communism is for sure better than Ming’s and Qing’s Monarchy. If Ming and Qing can stay existed for more than 300 years, why cant China?
Western media they just want show some ideas to their brainwashed people that they are living a better world. I think this is the signal about real collapse.
Btw, Qing and Ming perished NOT because of the peasant uprising, but invasions. So technologically, they could stand much longer.

我只是想谈谈中国以前的一些朝代。像明、清都有300多年的历史(比美国历史要长)，他们都不是民主国家。
我的意思是，百千年前，人们对于民主没有任何的想法，但是他们就这样活着，并且忍受着他们的统治者的统治。突然间，民主来了，变成了人类的必需品?我的意思是，即使民主比GC主义好。但GC主义肯定比明和清的君主制好。如果明清可以存在300多年，为什么中国不能呢?

西方媒体只是想向被他们洗脑的人展示一些想法，让他们相信他们的世界更美好。我认为这才是真正崩溃的导火索。
顺便说一句，清朝和明朝灭亡不是因为农民起义，而是侵略。从技术上讲，他们的朝代本可以存在得更久。

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

Yevgeniy Leto
For the same reason that all the end-of-the-world predictions fail. They are ideologically driven and have nothing to do with the facts on the ground.
And like these end-of-the-world predictions, the guy doubles down when he fails.

出于同样的原因，所有的世界末日预言都失败了。这些预测都是由意识形态驱动的，与真正的事实毫无关系。
就像世界末日预言一样，当他预测失败的时候，他还会再这么预测的。

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

Justin Xu
Hey, he is making living on selling such prediction. You should realize he won't stop until he makes enough for his retirement. Smart move!

嘿，他就靠卖这种预测为生。你应该意识到他在赚够钱退休之前不会停止预测的。明智之举!

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

Glenn Lee, works at Northern California
A couple of comments. Gordon Chang’s stomach is full and the Chinese are hungry. Gordon Chang has no understanding of social/bureaucratic cycles. China is still in their up cycle.

随便发表一些评论。章家敦的肚子饱了，中国人还饿着。章家敦不了解社会/官僚主义的周期性。中国仍处于上升周期。

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

Quan Gan, Chinese
When I read the title I thought Golden Chang is a Chinese restaurant.
Then I was like “ooooh, that guy”.
Mr. Gordon Chang is clueless.

当我读到标题时，我以为章家敦是一家中餐馆。
然后我就反应过来了“哦，那个家伙啊”。
章家敦就是个蠢货。

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

Gigi Aldo, Banker
No. There was no mystery as to why Gordon Chang's prediction was all wrong. That guy was simply too stupid to predict anything.

不。至于章家敦的预测为何全错了，这一点也不奇怪。那家伙简直太蠢了，他根本预测不了任何事情。

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

Zhang Dayu, PhD candidate Physics & Optics
When you try something scientific, you don’t cherry pick your data and bend facts to fit your model, it’s a insulting to scientific approach.
When you just trying to scold someone to make up the money you lost in their country, well, you fucking don’t need facts do you?

当你尝试对一些事情进行科学分析时，你不该去选择最有利于自己的数据，扭曲事实来使其符合你的模型，这是对科学探讨的一种侮辱。
当你只是想要诋毁别人来弥补你在他们国家的损失时，你他妈的根本不需要事实，对吧?

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



Not the Chinese banking regulators. They are watching the Chinese banks like a hawk. For example, Chinese banks used to use off-balance sheet financing vehicles to give out loans so as to enhance yields (also increase the leverage at the same time). After a while, the regulators caught up with the banks’ tricks and ordered the banks to move all their off-balance sheet assets back to their balance sheet and subject those all these assets to regular risk weighting calculation and provide provision accordingly. There has been a cat and mouse game between the Chinese banks and the Chinese regulators. Chinese banks are constantly trying to invent new ways to evade regulations and increase their returns (bigger bonuses for bank executives but increase risks & leverage at the same time). The regulator is constantly sniffing out and banning all kinds of shady tricks invented by the banks.
Honestly, I used to be a fan of the US laissez-faire attitude towards financial regulation. After the 2008 financial crisis and after witnessing how the Chinese banking regulators battling Chinese banks and force them to focus on their core business of lending to real businesses instead of gambling in the name of financial innovations, I became a fan of Chinese regulators.

中国银行业监管机构就不这样。他们像一只鹰一样审视着中国的银行。例如，中国的银行过去常常利用资产负债表外融资工具发放贷款，以提高收益率(同时增加杠杆率)。过了一段时间，监管机构发现了银行的欺诈行为，命令银行将所有的资产负债表外资产转移到资产负债表上，并将所有的这些资产置于定期风险加权计算中，并据此提供相应的准备金。在中国的银行和中国的监管机构之间发生了一场猫捉老鼠的游戏。中国的银行不断试图发明新的方法来规避监管，增加收益(银行高管的奖金变得更多了，但与此同时风险和杠杆增加了)。监管机构一直在不断地寻找和禁止银行发明的各种不正当手段。

坦白地说，我曾经是美国自由放任的金融监管态度的粉丝。2008年金融危机之后，在目睹了中国银行业监管机构如何与中资银行对抗，并迫使它们专注于核心业务——向实体企业放贷，而不是以金融创新的名义进行赌博时，我成了中国监管机构的粉丝。

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

Frank Zako
How could he fail? He did a great disinforming to the West.

他怎么会失败?他可把西方给坑惨了。