why you blame 一团糟 to 自由市场 which is a platform? Not logic. Adam Smith would cry for you if he'd heard what you wrote above. 自由市场 may not guarantee for economic prosperity in short term. But it does for long term, say 20 - 50 years om non-Leninism countries. That was why USSR only last 69 years. And CCP, someone already predict about 80 year. And one thing for sure it won't be another 75 years. I agree. In both economics, politics and sociology, free market is a fundamental (a must) base for societal democratization.
@@0xleek-o7e Your 方式vs 目的 is not philosophically sounded. It depends. To reach A it could your aim; then once you got it, A could be your method. CCP has very good such Dialectic (辩证法). It is common sense. No need to spend time on it. 你的「方式與目的」聽起來並不具有哲學意義。 這取決於。達到 A 可能是你的目標；那麼一旦你得到了它，A可能就是你的方法。 共黨有很好這樣的辯證法。 這是常識。無需花時間在上面。
拭目以待, yes. 几十年来的进步. undeniable. I am 华人 who don't support Leninism. I don't think your CCP can overtake Taiwan from now on. Again 拭目以待 in terms of living standards.
You don't think China is capitalist? The key thing that China is missing now is rule of law (something 躺平哥 points out). If you wanted to be cautiously optimistic, you would consider that China's reform era only began in the late '70s and had to progress slowly for many reasons. The rule of law in Britain and the U.S. took much longer than 50 years to develop properly. Of course, the party and its core talk about reforms to gradually improve rule of law all the time. If they live up to their stated objectives, as I said, I would think there is reason for cautious optimism. In fact, an approach the West might take, instead of criticizing China's human rights abuses, would be to acknowledge that they follow from a lack of rule of law to a significant degree. Perhaps a more constructive approach (as the Chinese tend to emphasize, 'win-win') would be to offer to help China develop its rule of law system. If nothing else, should the West find pressuring China irresistible, the pressure could primarily be on the issue of rule of law specifically. The extent to which you have a strict national security law (after all, the West has their own national security laws) might be relatively separate from the free market of ideas contained within a capitalist system. Given that HK presumably has a more developed legal framework than the mainland, the example of how HK has implemented its new national security law (of course, decried by the West) might be modestly encouraging. From what I can tell, the people implicated and tried in connection with the 2019 protests were likely treated much less unjustly than individuals and groups in the mainland in recent years, and yet the law could still be enforced in a way that seems to basically preserve due process and legitimate jurisprudence. Just some thoughts. Great video. Those are all ideas near and dear to my heart, from Mises to Milei.
@@Chinese_real_estate Your experience 经验 is absolutely correct. Because theoretically once a ruler gives back a complete true ownership to a Product Maker, the market would become a real one. Why? because ownership needs societal institutions protection. Leninism doctrines are inclusively control all from material to spirit, from time to space. It is beyond any other authoritarianism. Taiwan's 20 years (from 60s) Societal Transformation could be your reference.
Putting ideal in front of the market as platform for product making, 躺平哥, you are on a upside down track. Wrong or I disagree with you. Your Libertarianism thought is nothing wrong. But methodology might need a bit revise. lol. This is an generation issue. Like some of you episodes.
![[SUB]烏克蘭全軍潰散？菲律賓快爆政變？ 新聞大白話 20241124 (字幕版)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/y47FO_zuRWs/mqdefault.jpg)
![[SUB]烏克蘭全軍潰散？菲律賓快爆政變？ 新聞大白話 20241124 (字幕版)](/img/tr.png)
昨天晚上今天早上我都在思考这个问题，同时我也想到这两个人李鸿章和伊藤博文。真是心有灵犀。
我也有悲观的情绪，言论自由都谈不上，什都无从谈起。
昨晚我回忆起我05年高考前说过的话，要么去国外，要么改变这个国家。当年三观如此正，一晃十九年，不胜感慨。
感谢躺平跟分享
感谢支持❤️
最近国内平台的评论区非常多对立思维，一旦涉及到国别，都是一致排外的言论，而不是分析事件背后的真实逻辑。这种现象已经持续有段时间了。我更愿意相信，这是一种线下收入受影响，而导致的线上无责泄愤的现象。但愿只是抱怨吧。但重要的是长久下去，到年底春节，各地人都回故地，会产生一种共鸣的归属感。那个时候思想会收到集体言语的刺激，从而更加负面。。。一旦形成集体情绪。总会有人会利用这些情绪化的集体生事。不可不多虑啊😢😢😢
来个首评首赞
商业是最大的慈善
自由市场在许多情境下的效力毋庸置疑，但是也不能把自由市场当作一切经济问题的终极出路吧……毕竟有很多实行了自由市场的国家经济还是一团糟……
确实不是充分条件，但我认为中国很大部分经济潜力是被束缚了，自由市场能解决非常多的问题
why you blame 一团糟 to 自由市场 which is a platform? Not logic. Adam Smith would cry for you if he'd heard what you wrote above.
自由市场 may not guarantee for economic prosperity in short term. But it does for long term, say 20 - 50 years om non-Leninism countries. That was why USSR only last 69 years. And CCP, someone already predict about 80 year. And one thing for sure it won't be another 75 years. I agree.
In both economics, politics and sociology, free market is a fundamental (a must) base for societal democratization.
私有化是方式，不是目的
@@0xleek-o7e Your 方式vs 目的 is not philosophically sounded.
It depends. To reach A it could your aim; then once you got it, A could be your method. CCP has very good such Dialectic (辩证法).
It is common sense. No need to spend time on it.
你的「方式與目的」聽起來並不具有哲學意義。
這取決於。達到 A 可能是你的目標；那麼一旦你得到了它，A可能就是你的方法。 共黨有很好這樣的辯證法。
這是常識。無需花時間在上面。
没有比自由市场更能消灭贫困的制度，看到这句话就直接笑了，去查查美国的贫困率，还有平复差距，再去查查阿根廷，在不行你去看看美国民主党的核心思想，去理解下，都不至于说出真么无脑的话。估计罗斯福都要从棺材了蹦出来。
国家的方向，远远大于个人的才华和努力，这句话我赞成，不利于润的话不说，特朗普还没上台，赶紧润了吧。都去美国吧。
就像现在美国MAGA，都希望好莱坞明星不食言，赶紧离开美国一样迫切的心情。
你确定米莱的政策都踩在正确的节奏上?
美国的政策并不都是正确的，当年希特勒不是也使德国变为欧洲第一。就像A股6000点一样。只是美国的政策有纠错功能。
@@blv334 别说摇摆纠错了，就大漂亮国那两党，一以贯之的政策都不会有。都是就看着这四年任期，哪管将来洪水滔天。
@@LionhateWang If so your Shi Chairman is trying to make friend with 漂亮国, send him to jail pls.
中国目前没有真正的经济学家！
有的，首席经济学家
中国的脱贫效果显著，能否延续可以拭目以待，仅拿一些一百年前的案例，只能证明过去的事情，而无法回避中国几十年来的进步，哪怕你天天批评诅咒，该怎么样还会怎么样，阿根廷成功了吗？中国垮了吗？还是拭目以待吧。况且，中国经济不自由，没有人权，这不正合了反华人士的期望吗？
人家对政权失望，你自说自话谈国家，国家和政权都分不清就别上互联网了，好好在局域网吃吃快餐喊喊口号就行了
拭目以待, yes.
几十年来的进步. undeniable. I am 华人 who don't support Leninism. I don't think your CCP can overtake Taiwan from now on. Again 拭目以待 in terms of living standards.
一颗韭菜为资本家辩护😂
你肯定是宮有制經濟的受益者，民企承擔了那麼多，國企是每個人都能進去的嗎😂你的共產夢肯定不是你一直勤勤懇懇當流水線工人
You don't think China is capitalist? The key thing that China is missing now is rule of law (something 躺平哥 points out). If you wanted to be cautiously optimistic, you would consider that China's reform era only began in the late '70s and had to progress slowly for many reasons. The rule of law in Britain and the U.S. took much longer than 50 years to develop properly. Of course, the party and its core talk about reforms to gradually improve rule of law all the time. If they live up to their stated objectives, as I said, I would think there is reason for cautious optimism. In fact, an approach the West might take, instead of criticizing China's human rights abuses, would be to acknowledge that they follow from a lack of rule of law to a significant degree. Perhaps a more constructive approach (as the Chinese tend to emphasize, 'win-win') would be to offer to help China develop its rule of law system. If nothing else, should the West find pressuring China irresistible, the pressure could primarily be on the issue of rule of law specifically. The extent to which you have a strict national security law (after all, the West has their own national security laws) might be relatively separate from the free market of ideas contained within a capitalist system. Given that HK presumably has a more developed legal framework than the mainland, the example of how HK has implemented its new national security law (of course, decried by the West) might be modestly encouraging. From what I can tell, the people implicated and tried in connection with the 2019 protests were likely treated much less unjustly than individuals and groups in the mainland in recent years, and yet the law could still be enforced in a way that seems to basically preserve due process and legitimate jurisprudence. Just some thoughts. Great video. Those are all ideas near and dear to my heart, from Mises to Milei.
What is fundamental of market economy in terms of Leninism countries, 躺平哥?
从经验上看，列宁主义下没有市场经济；或许中国有一段时间像是市场经济，就像鸠摩智用小无相功模拟少林72绝技；政府需要限制自己对自由市场的干预
@@Chinese_real_estate Your experience 经验 is absolutely correct.
Because theoretically once a ruler gives back a complete true ownership to a Product Maker, the market would become a real one. Why? because ownership needs societal institutions protection.
Leninism doctrines are inclusively control all from material to spirit, from time to space. It is beyond any other authoritarianism.
Taiwan's 20 years (from 60s) Societal Transformation could be your reference.
@@Chinese_real_estate 你的經驗絕對正確。
因為從理論上講，一旦統治者將完全真實的所有權歸還給產品製造者，市場就會成為真正的市場。為什麼？因為所有權需要社會機構的保護。
列寧主義學說包容性地控制著從物質到精神、從時間到空間的一切。它超越任何其他獨裁主義。
台灣20年（從60年代）的社會轉型可以作為你的參考。
@@Chinese_real_estate 你的經驗絕對正確。
因為從理論上講，一旦統治者將完全真實的所有權歸還給產品製造者，市場就會成為真正的市場。為什麼？因為所有權需要社會機構的保護。
列寧主義學說包容性地控制著從物質到精神、從時間到空間的一切。它超越任何其他獨裁主義。
台灣20年（從60年代）的社會轉型可以作為你的參考。
Putting ideal in front of the market as platform for product making, 躺平哥, you are on a upside down track. Wrong or I disagree with you. Your Libertarianism thought is nothing wrong. But methodology might need a bit revise. lol.
This is an generation issue. Like some of you episodes.