如何評價TED上的演講《中國是新興國家經濟的偶像嗎？》

01-15

如何評價這個演講？我覺得這兩天關於某港的討論中，很多人不管港人還是大陸民眾都會說到大陸沒有言論自由，網路上面存在各種限制，在高壓下麻木不仁，不懂民主等等，以至於還會有少部分偏激言論。那如何看這個視頻里對於大陸這種狀態的分析？
Dambisa Moyo：中國是新興國家經濟的偶像嗎？
找到一個鏈接：
TED演講中國是新興國家經濟的偶像嗎？

發展才是硬道理。——鄧小平

真理只在大炮射程之內。——俾斯麥

1.以前是西方最有道理、美國最有道理，現在中國發展了，慢慢的中國也有道理了。

如果將來中國人均GDP也能達到第一，那麼就是中國很有道理、最有道理。

如果將來中國的經濟不行了、衰退了，那麼就沒人講、更沒聽你的什麼道理。

2.如果你打不過我，那麼你再有道理，也得聽我的道理。

大清也是GDP第一，可惜是無用的GDP、打不過別人的GDP，所以也就沒什麼道理。

PS：

本答案的名言，是名人確實說過的名言。

本答案的大清，是指唐宋元明清的大清。

很遺憾看不到題主所說的視頻，但找到了這位非洲經濟學家的個人介紹。

Dambisa Moyo

求該TED視頻的有效鏈接或可下載版本。

視頻國內看不了，得翻牆

TED官網鏈接：http://www.ted.com/talks/dambisa_moyo_is_china_the_new_idol_for_emerging_economies?language=en

以下為中英文字幕

中文字幕：

「不自由，毋寧死」

當弗吉尼亞州州長帕特里克·亨利(Patrick Henry) 在1775 年說出這些話時，他根本沒有想到這句話會和後代的美國人產生多少共鳴。當時，這些詞專門針對英國人，但過去 200 年來，這句話開始體現出許多西方人的信仰，那就是言論自由價值萬千，而且，最好的政治制度與經濟體制一定有自由的元素嵌入其中。誰能責怪他們呢? 在過去幾百年中，自由民主和私人資本主義的組合幫助了美國和西方國家迅速崛起，將經濟發展到新的水平。過去幾百年中，美國人的收入增加了 30 倍，有數十萬人，脫離了貧困。與此同時，美國的獨創性和創新精神幫助推動了產業化同時也有助發明和創造家電一類的產品比如冰箱、電視、小汽車，甚至你口袋中的手機。這一切都毫不令人意外，而後，即使在私人資本主義危機深重的時候奧巴馬總統都說道： "我們面前的問題不在於市場是正面還是負面的力量。市場創造財富，擴展自由的力量是無與倫比的。因此，人們可以理解這個在西方人腦海中根深蒂固的觀念，全世界都會採取私人資本主義作為經濟增長的模式，採納自由民主，並將持續優先選擇獲得政治權利而非經濟利益。

但是，對很多生活在新興市場國家的人來說，這是一種空想，即使 1948年簽署的《世界人權宣言》獲得了一致通過，它所做的也是掩蓋發達國家和發展中國家之間出現的分裂，以及政治權利和經濟利益間不同意識形態的分裂。這個分裂不斷擴大。今天，很多人生活在新興國家，佔世界人口的90%，他們不相信西方對政治權利的執著有那麼重要，真正重要的是政府提供食物、住所、教育和醫療保健。 "不自由，毋寧死" 確實理想，但要在能負擔的前提下才成立，但如果你每天靠不到 1 美元收入過活，你只會掙扎求生存和供養家人而不會花時間到處去宣揚和捍衛民主。

現在，我知道在座的很多人以及世界各地的許多人會認為， "事實上，這很難讓人接受，" 因為私人資本主義和自由民主是神聖不可侵犯的。但我現在問你，如果要你選擇你會怎麼做？如果你必須在有地方住和投票的權之間做出選擇，你會怎麼選？

過去 10 年中，我曾有幸到 60 多個國家旅行，許多是新興國家，在拉丁美洲、亞洲、和我家鄉非洲大陸的一些國家。我見過總統、異議人士、政策制定者、律師、教師、醫生和路人，並通過和他們的談話，清楚了解到很多新興國家的人們相信確有正在形成的分裂，西方人相信的政治經濟意識形態和世界其他地區人們相信的不一樣。

現在，不要誤解我的意思。我不是說在新興市場中的人們不懂民主，我也不是說在理想的情況下他們不願意自由選擇自己的總統或領導人。他們當然願意。然而若考慮各種條件，他們會更關心如何改善生活水平，以及政府如何提供途徑，而不是政府是否由民主選舉產生。

事實上，這已經成為一個非常沈痛的問題因為這是在很長時間內第一次對西方政治和經濟意識形態系統的真正挑戰，這是以中國為代表的系統，不是私人資本主義，而是國家資本主義。他們不主張自由民主，並推後實行民主制度。他們亦決定優先考慮經濟利益而不是政治權利。我今天為你們介紹的這個以中國為代表的系統，得到新興國家人民的廣泛擁護並被當成體系來遵循，因為人們越來越相信是這一體系保證在最短時間內最好最快地改進人們的生活標準。如果大家允許的話，我會花幾分鐘先向大家解釋為什麼在經濟上他們有這信念。

首要因素是中國在過去三十年的經濟表現。中國已經能夠產生創紀錄的經濟增長並卓有成效地使許多人擺脫了貧困，特別在消除貧困方面打開了缺口使得超過 3 億人脫離了貧窮。變化不僅發生在經濟上，同時也發生在生活水平的變化上。我們看到，過去在中國，只有28%的人口接受中學教育。今天，這一數字接近於 82%。所以總體上經濟改善的成果已經相當明顯。

6:05其次，中國已能在不改變政治結構的前提下卓有成效地改善收入不平等的問題。今天，美國和中國是世界上兩個主要的經濟體。他們有著極其不同的政治制度和經濟制度，一個奉行私人資本主義另一個廣泛地踐行著國家資本主義。然而，這兩個國家有相同的基尼係數，基尼係數反應收入平等的狀況。也許令人感到更加不安的是中國的收入平等狀況最近以來一直在改善，而美國的情況卻一直在惡化。

再次，新興國家的人們驚訝於中國如神話傳說般的基礎設施建設。這不單指中國在自己國家建設的道路、港口、鐵路—— 中國已經建造了 85,000 公里長的國內公路網並超越了美國建造的總長度但就算看看像非洲這樣的地方，中國已經幫助非洲鋪設了從開普敦到開羅那麼長距離的瀝青路，長度是 9000 英里，或者說是從紐約到加利福尼亞州距離的三倍。這是人們看得到摸得著的事物。也許這並不令人意外在 2007 年的皮尤調查中，來自10 個非洲國家的受訪者說：他們認為，中國建設者們做了一些令人稱奇的事來提高非洲人的生活水平提升幅度之大，達到 98%之高。

最後，中國還提供創新方案來解決世界面臨的根深蒂固的社會問題。如果你到摩加迪沙(索馬利亞首都)、墨西哥城或孟買旅行你會發現那些破舊不堪的基礎設施和物流仍是發展偏遠地區衛生保健的一個絆腳石。然而，通過國營企業通力合作並藉國籍企業之便，中國已經能夠走進這些農村地區，協助解決當地的醫藥衛生問題。

女士們先生們，這並不令人意外在全世界各地，人們都在談論中國的所作所為， "我喜歡那樣的。我想要那樣的。我想做中國做的事情。中國的體制看來是行得通的。" 說到這，我還要告訴你們，隨著中國目前的發展，對民主的觀點也產生了許多變化。尤其是，在新興市場國家有越來越多人的懷疑，這是因為目前，民主制度不再被視為經濟發展的先決條件。事實上，不只是中國，像台灣、新加坡、智利等實際上都證實了這點，經濟增長，是民主的一個先決條件。在最近的研究中，有跡象顯示收入是決定民主持續時間的最大因素。研究發現，如果一國的人均收入是大約 1000 美元一年，其民主政體將持續約八年半。如果一國人均收入在每年2000 至 4000 美元可能會有33 年的民主。只有人均收入達到每年 6000 美元以上民主才會持續。

這告訴我們首先需要建立一個能問責政府的中產階級。但也許這還告訴我們我們應該為在世界各地將民主強加於人感到不安因為最終我們要承擔的風險就是狹隘的民主，某種程度來說，這樣的民主，可能比設法終結的獨裁政府還要糟糕!

狹隘民主的證據是十分讓人沮喪的。自由之家（Freedom House）認為，雖然今天世界上 50%的國家是民主國家，但這些國家中的 70%是狹隘的就人民沒有言論或行動自由而言。但同時，我們從自由之家去年出版的一項研究中發現過去七年的每一年裡自由的發展都在惡化。

這表示：對於像我這樣的人在乎自由民主的人，需要找到更多可持續的方式確保有一個可持續的實現民主的方式，並且擁有深厚的經濟基礎。但同時，當中國就要成為世界最大經濟體時，專家預計2016 年這便會成真，在西方和世界其他地區之間的政治和經濟意識形態的分裂很可能會擴大。

這個世界可能變成什麼樣？嗯，世界可能會有更多的國家干預和國家資本主義；及民族國家更強烈的保護主義；但我剛才也提過的，不斷減少的政治權利和個人權利。

因此我們共同的問題是，在這之後，西方應該怎樣做？我認為，西方有兩個選項。他們可以或競爭或合作。如果西方選擇與中國模式競爭，實質上就是要在全世界繼續嘗試和推行私人資本主義和自由民主，這基本上都是在逆風而行，但這對西方來說也是理所當然的立場因為在很多方面西方模式與中國模式的暫緩民主和國家資本主義是對立的。事實是，如果西方決定要競爭，將產生更大的分裂。西方的另一個選項是進行合作，我的意思是通過合作，給予新興市場國家一些彈性空間，讓他們順其自然地找出什麼樣的政治和經濟制度對他們來說才是最佳的。

12:07我確信在座的有一些人正在想，咳，這不就是對中國讓步，換句話說，這種方式就是讓西方處於次要地位。但我告訴你們如果美國和歐洲國家想要在全球保持影響力他們可能會為了競爭，短期內不得不考慮合作以此類推，他們可能不得不更積極地關注經濟成果來幫助創建中產階層讓政府負起責任並創建我們真正想要的民主政體。

事實就是，與其在國際上鼓吹與中國交流，西方應該鼓勵自己的企業在這些地區進行貿易和投資，與其批評中國的不良行為。西方應該展示為何他們自己的政治和經濟制度是有優勢的。與其在世界各地強行推進民主，或許西方應從借鏡自己的歷史經驗並且銘記：你們今天擁有的模式與體系得以發展至此也是慢慢累積的。的確，最高法院法官斯蒂芬 · 布雷耶(Stephen Breyer.) 提醒我們從制定憲法直到達到權利平等花費了170年。如今有些人會爭論說權利不平等仍然存在的。事實上，仍然有群體會爭辯他們在現有的法律之下沒有得到平等權利。

西方模式最棒的地方是，直截了當地證明了。它是讓下一餐有著落的模式。讓人有冰箱。還把人送上了月球。但事實是，雖然人們過去經常指著西方國家並且說： "我想要那樣的，我喜歡那樣的，" 但現在出現了一個新人，也就是中國。今天，幾代人正看著中國並說："中國可以建設基礎設施，中國可以創造經濟增長，我們喜歡那樣的。"

因為，最終擺在我們面前的問題和地球上 70 億人面前的問題都是：我們如何創造繁榮？在乎這點的人會理性地以中國的政經模式為基礎傾向於那些可以確保他們能夠在最短時間內擁有更高生活水準的模式。

在你們今天要離開的時候，我想要留給你們一點個人的見解，也就是我相信我們應當作為獨立的個人來做事，也就是要變得思想開明，對於我們想要為全世界的人們創造繁榮，並且有意義地為數以億計的人們削弱貧困的希望與夢想。都要從開放的態度做起，因為不同的體系有優點也有缺點。

為了說明這一點，我調查了關於我自己的記錄。這是我的照片。

噢。（笑聲）

我在1969年出生於尚比亞。在我誕生時，黑人得不到出生證明，那條法律在1973年才改變。這是尚比亞政府的誓章。我展示這些，是為了告訴你們這四十年來，我從不被承認到今天站在TED觀眾前為你們講述我的觀點的經歷。從這一點上講，我們可以促進經濟增長。我們可以卓有成效地削弱貧困。不僅如此，這也將要求我們正視我們的觀念，我們從小到大關於民主與私人資本主義，關於什麼才能促進經濟增長並且減少貧困、創造自由的觀念與教條。我們也許不得不撕掉那些書本來開始正視其它選項並且積極地探求真實。最終，我們要改變世界並使它成為一個更好的地方。

非常感謝你們。

（掌聲）

英文字幕：

"Give me liberty or give me death."

When Patrick Henry, the governor of Virginia, said these words in 1775, he could never have imaginedjust how much they would come to resonate with American generations to come. At the time, these words were earmarked and targeted against the British, but over the last 200 years, they"ve come to embody what many Westerners believe, that freedom is the most cherished value, and that the best systems of politics and economics have freedom embedded in them. Who could blame them? Over the past hundred years, the combination of liberal democracy and private capitalism has helped to catapult the United States and Western countries to new levels of economic development. In the United States over the past hundred years, incomes have increased 30 times, and hundreds of thousands of peoplehave been moved out of poverty. Meanwhile, American ingenuity and innovation has helped to spur industrialization and also helped in the creation and the building of things like household appliances such as refrigerators and televisions, motor vehicles and even the mobile phones in your pockets. It"s no surprise, then, that even at the depths of the private capitalism crisis, President Obama said, "The question before us is not whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and to expand freedom is unmatched." Thus, there"s understandably a deep-seated presumption among Westerners that the whole world will decide to adopt private capitalism as the model of economic growth,liberal democracy, and will continue to prioritize political rights over economic rights.

However, to many who live in the emerging markets, this is an illusion, and even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was signed in 1948, was unanimously adopted, what it did was to mask a schism that has emerged between developed and developing countries, and the ideological beliefs between political and economic rights. This schism has only grown wider. Today, many people who live in the emerging markets, where 90 percent of the world"s population lives, believe that the Western obsession with political rights is beside the point, and what is actually important is delivering on food, shelter, education and healthcare. "Give me liberty or give me death" is all well and good if you can afford it, but if you"re living on less than one dollar a day, you"re far too busy trying to survive and to provide for your family than to spend your time going around trying to proclaim and defend democracy.

Now, I know many people in this room and around the world will think, "Well actually, this is hard to grasp," because private capitalism and liberal democracy are held sacrosanct. But I ask you today, what would you do if you had to choose? What if you had to choose between a roof over your head and the right to vote?

Over the last 10 years, I"ve had the privilege to travel to over 60 countries, many of them in the emerging markets, in Latin America, Asia, and my own continent of Africa. I"ve met with presidents, dissidents,policymakers, lawyers, teachers, doctors and the man on the street, and through these conversations, it"s become clear to me that many people in the emerging markets believe that there"s actually a split occurring between what people believe ideologically in terms of politics and economics in the West and that which people believe in the rest of the world.

Now, don"t get me wrong. I"m not saying people in the emerging markets don"t understand democracy,nor am I saying that they wouldn"t ideally like to pick their presidents or their leaders. Of course they would. However, I am saying that on balance, they worry more about where their living standard improvements are going to come from, and how it is their governments can deliver for them, than whether or not the government was elected by democracy.

The fact of the matter is that this has become a very poignant question because there is for the first time in a long time a real challenge to the Western ideological systems of politics and economics, and this is a system that is embodied by China. And rather than have private capitalism, they have state capitalism.Instead of liberal democracy, they have de-prioritized the democratic system. And they have also decided to prioritize economic rights over political rights. I put it to you today that it is this system that is embodied by China that is gathering momentum amongst people in the emerging markets as the system to follow, because they believe increasingly that it is the system that will promise the best and fastest improvements in living standards in the shortest period of time. If you will indulge me, I will spend a few moments explaining to you first why economically they"ve come to this belief.

First of all, it"s China"s economic performance over the past 30 years. She"s been able to produce record economic growth and meaningfully move many people out of poverty, specifically putting a meaningful dent in poverty by moving over 300 million people out of indigence. It"s not just in economics, but it"s also in terms of living standards. We see that in China, 28 percent of people had secondary school access. Today, it"s closer to 82 percent. So in its totality, economic improvement has been quite significant.

Second, China has been able to meaningfully improve its income inequality without changing the political construct. Today, the United States and China are the two leading economies in the world. They have vastly different political systems and different economic systems, one with private capitalism, another one broadly with state capitalism. However, these two countries have the identical GINI Coefficient, which is a measure of income equality. Perhaps what is more disturbing is that China"s income equality has been improving in recent times, whereas that of the United States has been declining.

Thirdly, people in the emerging markets look at China"s amazing and legendary infrastructure rollout. This is not just about China building roads and ports and railways in her own country -- she"s been able to build 85,000 kilometers of road network in China and surpass that of the United States -- but even if you look to places like Africa, China has been able to help tar the distance of Cape Town to Cairo, which is 9,000 miles, or three times the distance of New York to California. Now this is something that people can see and point to. Perhaps it"s no surprise that in a 2007 Pew survey, when surveyed, Africans in 10 countries said they thought that the Chinese were doing amazing things to improve their livelihoods by wide margins, by as much as 98 percent.

Finally, China is also providing innovative solutions to age-old social problems that the world faces. If you travel to Mogadishu, Mexico City or Mumbai, you find that dilapidated infrastructure and logisticscontinue to be a stumbling block to the delivery of medicine and healthcare in the rural areas. However, through a network of state-owned enterprises, the Chinese have been able to go into these rural areas,using their companies to help deliver on these healthcare solutions.

Ladies and gentlemen, it"s no surprise that around the world, people are pointing at what China is doing and saying, "I like that. I want that. I want to be able to do what China"s doing. That is the system that seems to work." I"m here to also tell you that there are lots of shifts occurring around what China is doingin the democratic stance. In particular, there is growing doubt among people in the emerging markets,when people now believe that democracy is no longer to be viewed as a prerequisite for economic growth. In fact, countries like Taiwan, Singapore, Chile, not just China, have shown that actually, it"s economic growth that is a prerequisite for democracy. In a recent study, the evidence has shown that income is the greatest determinant of how long a democracy can last. The study found that if your per capita income is about 1,000 dollars a year, your democracy will last about eight and a half years. If your per capita income is between 2,000 and 4,000 dollars per year, then you"re likely to only get 33 years of democracy. And only if your per capita income is above 6,000 dollars a year will you have democracy come hell or high water.

What this is telling us is that we need to first establish a middle class that is able to hold the government accountable. But perhaps it"s also telling us that we should be worried about going around the world and shoehorning democracy, because ultimately we run the risk of ending up with illiberal democracies,democracies that in some sense could be worse than the authoritarian governments that they seek to replace.

The evidence around illiberal democracies is quite depressing. Freedom House finds that although 50 percent of the world"s countries today are democratic, 70 percent of those countries are illiberal in the sense that people don"t have free speech or freedom of movement. But also, we"re finding from Freedom House in a study that they published last year that freedom has been on the decline every year for the past seven years.

What this says is that for people like me who care about liberal democracy, is we"ve got to find a more sustainable way of ensuring that we have a sustainable form of democracy in a liberal way, and that has its roots in economics. But it also says that as China moves toward being the largest economy in the world, something that is expected to happen by experts in 2016, that this schism between the politicaland economic ideologies of the West and the rest is likely to widen.

10:51What might that world look like? Well, the world could look like more state involvement and state capitalism; greater protectionisms of nation-states; but also, as I just pointed out a moment ago, ever-declining political rights and individual rights.

The question that is left for us in general is, what then should the West be doing? And I suggest that they have two options. The West can either compete or cooperate. If the West chooses to compete with the Chinese model, and in effect go around the world and continue to try and push an agenda of private capitalism and liberal democracy, this is basically going against headwinds, but it also would be a natural stance for the West to take because in many ways it is the antithesis of the Chinese model of de-prioritizing democracy, and state capitalism. Now the fact of the matter is, if the West decides to compete, it will create a wider schism. The other option is for the West to cooperate, and by cooperating I mean giving the emerging market countries the flexibility to figure out in an organic way what political and economic system works best for them.

Now I"m sure some of you in the room will be thinking, well, this is like ceding to China, and this is a way, in other words, for the West to take a back seat. But I put it to you that if the United States and European countries want to remain globally influential, they may have to consider cooperating in the short term in order to compete, and by that, they might have to focus more aggressively on economic outcomes to help create the middle class and therefore be able to hold government accountable and create the democracies that we really want.

The fact of the matter is that instead of going around the world and haranguing countries for engaging with China, the West should be encouraging its own businesses to trade and invest in these regions.Instead of criticizing China for bad behavior, the West should be showing how it is that their own system of politics and economics is the superior one. And instead of shoehorning democracy around the world,perhaps the West should take a leaf out of its own history book and remember that it takes a lot of patience in order to develop the models and the systems that you have today. Indeed, the Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer reminds us that it took the United States nearly 170 years from the time that the Constitution was written for there to be equal rights in the United States. Some people would argue that today there is still no equal rights. In fact, there are groups who would argue that they still do not have equal rights under the law.

At its very best, the Western model speaks for itself. It"s the model that put food on the table. It"s the refrigerators. It put a man on the moon. But the fact of the matter is, although people back in the dayused to point at the Western countries and say, "I want that, I like that," there"s now a new person in townin the form of a country, China. Today, generations are looking at China and saying, "China can produce infrastructure, China can produce economic growth, and we like that."

Because ultimately, the question before us, and the question before seven billion people on the planet is, how can we create prosperity? People who care and will pivot towards the model of politics and economics in a very rational way, to those models that will ensure that they can have better living standards in the shortest period of time.

As you leave here today, I would like to leave you with a very personal message, which is what it is that I believe we should be doing as individuals, and this is really about being open-minded, open-minded to the fact that our hopes and dreams of creating prosperity for people around the world, creating and meaningfully putting a dent in poverty for hundreds of millions of people, has to be based in being open-minded, because these systems have good things and they have bad things.

Just to illustrate, I went into my annals of myself. That"s a picture of me.

Awww. (Laughter)

I was born and raised in Zambia in 1969. At the time of my birth, blacks were not issued birth certificates,and that law only changed in 1973. This is an affidavit from the Zambian government. I bring this to you to tell you that in 40 years, I"ve gone from not being recognized as a human being to standing in front of the illustrious TED crowd today to talk to you about my views. In this vein, we can increase economic growth. We can meaningfully put a dent in poverty. But also, it"s going to require that we look at our assumptions, assumptions and strictures that we"ve grown up with around democracy, around private capitalism, around what creates economic growth and reduces poverty and creates freedoms. We might have to tear those books up and start to look at other options and be open-minded to seek the truth.Ultimately, it"s about transforming the world and making it a better place.

Thank you very much,

(Applause)

八十年代日本強時，一幫子還在鼓吹日本的終身僱傭制，如何，如何。

B站有視頻 Dambisa Moyo:中國是新興國家經濟的偶像嗎?

視頻被和諧了。。