14字口诀

很简单

越孤立就越内卷

越内卷就越朝鲜

69人评论了“14字口诀”

      1. 游几——杀猪的

        租界是洋人的地盤,談什麼開不開放的!49以後社會主義是潮流,東德東歐都社會主義何況大陸。東歐短期還能社會主義化嗎?已經有抗體了,大陸也不會社會主義了,不過來一場鬧劇還是有可能的!

  1. 游几——杀猪的

    四字就夠了——自由平等!朝鮮有內卷嗎?朝鮮是等級制,國家分配制,神權制瞎類比!孤立不等於內卷——美國也有門羅主意,歷史很差勁啊!你也敢説口訣,這都啥啊!

        1. 哈哈,你是想按你那套开放
          可别人不来了呀
          “意识加强了”——你真以为屁民有话语权?
          不信?可以去b站搜一下“停电”,都是美国停电的影片,哈哈
          连这么大的事都可以禁言,呆子说国人意识加强了……笑死

  2. 确实不少人认为开放那么多年很难回到过去。
    他们很可能低估了上海,伊朗和阿富汗的例子。
    而且历史书中的大转折在现实中也是缓慢进行,再加入很多反向噪音,大多数人反应过来的时候已经木已成舟了。

    现在还有个现象很明显,越来越多名校毕业生都选择体制内的工作,其实就反应了国进民退,利出一孔的趋势。
    也许求职者都没意识到这点,市场已经在发出信号了。

    1. 是的,而且这个趋势已经不少时间了。
      现在还说能继续开放的人,都举不出过去10年越来越开放政策的例子,那么什么叫“继续开放”?简直是张嘴就来。

      1. 如果身在中国感受不到中国开放的趋势真的无语了,多来几次来中国的达里奥可感受到了,你处的环境情有可原吧,虽然不能一步到位,但趋势就是趋势,就如常识一般,还需举例子,《外商投资法》算不算?人民币加入国际货币基金组织特别提款权算不算?自贸区的大力发展算不算?思想文化的开放还用提吗……

        1. “人民币加入国际货币基金组织特别提款权算不算”
          不算,伊朗经济体量大的话,货币也能进去,而且这是洋人决定的,你以为是中国的政策?
          而且,人民币自由兑换了吗?这倒是中国的政策,哈哈哈哈

          “自贸区的大力发展算不算”
          不算啊,自贸区至今没新措施,都是免税区老一套,20年前就有的政策
          不服你就说自贸区和20年前就有的免税区哪点实际的不一样??

          《外商投资法》算不算?
          不算啊,这是“规范”外商投资的。在一句话外商就能死的地方(连马云一句话就玩完了),这法律有啥用?
          你觉得因为这个法律,外商喜欢被乱管,因此更踊跃来中国了???

          “思想文化的开放”
          什么??????哪里开放了哈哈哈?四个自信的开放?还是你现在可以不翻墙上BBC,CNN?
          你是金鱼脑子吗?10年前中国才刚刚屏蔽了谷歌,21年BBC都没了,哈哈你在中国能看到任何外媒么?这点和朝鲜有什么区别?

          如果智商是硬伤,黑的确实能看成白的
          韭菜屁民认识一个之前在美国管一点钱的就津津乐道,这水平还教育我,哈哈

          还有,达里奥是80年代开始来中国,对比所有商品凭票供应的年代,他觉得当然是开放了
          他可没说2010年后的中国是越来越开放了,呵呵
          找证据别一口一个达里奥,只会一知半解引用他人,丢人现眼

  3. 近几年移动科技革命,把生产力向前提高了一大截,移动科技红利加上智能化到来还可以支持发达体经济平稳十几年,脱沟没那么快,加上美国通胀也没那么大,失业率又很低,社会要求脱沟没那么强迫,如果发达体都大萧条,就脱沟快。

      1. 游几——杀猪的

        美國現在的通脹衹是開胃菜,美國的生產力無法匹配美元的高估值,美元必須貶值以刺激生產力,達到生產与消費平衡。貨幣之間的競爭也是國家之間的競爭,競爭必須是實打實的來不得半點虛假,美元相對於中元的貶值就是美國通脹爆發期,但是也是美國修復國力的時期——我相信美國精英们會做出正確的選擇的!最近發現你肥了不少啊!古人説食言而肥,太肥了容易得心腦血管疾病,切記!

          1. 游几——杀猪的

            你說說美國本土手機CPU生產量有多少?CPU三星臺積電也可以製造啊!沒有美國生產別國就不能生產了!

              1. 游几——杀猪的

                放心吧!CPU大飛機中國必占一席之地,別國當不住中國的步伐。感覺你越來越像鐵掌水上漂,衹能蒙些無知愚民,你幾斤幾兩多少心裡有點數吧!

            1. 哈哈哈借钱过日子的前提是有生产力和gdp啊
              委内瑞拉那样的,有人借钱么
              或者朝鲜那样的,除了政治因素,有人借钱么
              你这典型穷人思维

              1. 游几——杀猪的

                老祖宗教我們量力而行量入而出,道理很樸實,把時間拉長你就知道這些話顛撲不破。不是你這種看窮爸爸富爸爸学點皮毛就裝逼的能懂的!還窮人思維!保守的人才能活下去。

  4. 呵呵,走出去不算,因为步子不够大,扩大贸易区规模不算都是差不多,国内制定的外商法不算,必须全部按洋人规则才算,你说不算就不算吧,说达里奥是认为他对中国发展的看法比你透切而已,照你认为在对中国理解这点那他也算是白痴了,国内小跟班天天也挂嘴中国朝鲜化,说个现实点的,如果现在给在座各位有机会选择,有几个能有把握觉得离开中国,到越南,印度,日本,美国或其它国家能生活得比现在更优越,试试就知道了……

    1. 哈哈,笑死,人dalio现在在中国投资么???
      人长的也不小了,说什么做什么都分不清

      就这么问你,巴菲特投资中国么?达里奥投资中国么?李嘉诚投资中国么?
      都世界第二大经济体了,只能拿到这些大师一丁点的投资
      哟呵,你比他们都聪明?

  5. 那就看看大师对中国的看法Understanding China’s Recent Moves in Its Capital Markets

    Recent Chinese policy moves related to 1) DiDi’s listing and controls on its data usage and 2) China’s education companies being converted into non-profits have created a lot of doubt about capitalism and capital markets in China, so I’d like to help clarify what’s going on there.

    I understand that it’s confusing to people who are not close to what’s happening. Since I started going to China 36 years ago, I have found that most Western observers who do not have direct contact with policy makers’ and don’t follow in detail the patterns of the changes have tended to not believe that the Chinese Communist Party’s usage of capital markets to foster development is real. They interpret moves like these two recent ones as the Communist Party leaders showing their true anti-capitalist stripes even though the trend over the last 40 years has clearly been so strongly toward developing a market economy with capital markets, with entrepreneurs and capitalists becoming rich. As a result, they’ve missed out on what’s going on in China and probably will continue to miss out. In this case the policy makers signaled to DiDi that it might not be best to go ahead with the listing and they understandably want to deal with the data privacy issue. In the case of the educational tutoring companies they want to reduce the educational inequality and the financial burden on those who are desperate to have their children have these services but can’t afford them by making them broadly available. They believe that these things are better for the country even if the shareholders don’t like it.

    I remember a number of such analogous misinterpretations. For example, I remember how the Chinese retail investor bubble bursting led to government stock buying and then the government trying to manipulate the market for a while. Also I remember the Chinese currency plunge in 2015-16 resulting from the PBoC widening the band and how that led to many investors pointing to these developments as evidence that policy makers were turning away from developing capital markets. Some skeptical investors looked at these moves as inappropriate anti-free market interventions even though these same moves happened many times in many capitalist markets and even though the fiscal and monetary policy interventions in the U.S. and other developed markets dwarf the Chinese government interventions in its markets. Through it all Chinese policy makers successfully managed the fallout and pursued their goals; i.e., the direction of their actions never changed. It has been in support of a fast and steady development of capital markets, entrepreneurship, and openness to investment to foreign investors. So I encourage you to look at the trends and not misunderstand and over-focus on the wiggles.

    To understand what’s going on you need to understand that China is a state capitalist system which means that the state runs capitalism to serve the interests of most people and that policy makers won’t let the sensitivities of those in the capital markets and rich capitalists stand in the way of doing what they believe is best for the most people of the country. Rather, those in the capital markets and capitalists have to understand their subordinate places in the system or they will suffer the consequences of their mistakes. For example, they need to not mistake their having riches for having power for determining how things will go.

    You also need to understand that in this rapidly developing capital markets environment Chinese regulators are figuring out appropriate regulations so, when they are changing fast and aren’t clear, that causes these sorts of confusions, which can be misconstrued to be anti-capitalist moves.

    Also, you need to understand that the global geopolitical environment changing leads to some changes. You can see that reflected in the U.S. governments’ policy shifts such as a) changing its policies about Chinese companies’ listings in the United States and b) threats to prohibit American pension funds from investing in China.

    Assume such things will happen in the future and invest accordingly. But don’t misinterpret these wiggles as changes in trends, and don’t expect this Chinese state-run capitalism to be exactly like Western capitalism.

    Having said that, I do think that it is unfortunate that Chinese policy makers don’t publicly communicate the reasoning behind their moves more clearly.

    As for investing, as I see it the American and Chinese systems and markets both have opportunities and risks and are likely to compete with each other and diversify each other. Hence they both should be considered as important parts of one’s portfolio. I urge you to not misinterpret these sorts of moves as reversals of the trends that have existed for the last several decades and let that scare you away.

    1. 浪费我五分钟
      我还以为你挖出什么能证明观点的
      这篇文章,你看懂了么,尤其是这几段:

      Also, you need to understand that the global geopolitical environment changing leads to some changes. You can see that reflected in the U.S. governments’ policy shifts such as a) changing its policies about Chinese companies’ listings in the United States and b) threats to prohibit American pension funds from investing in China.

      Assume such things will happen in the future and invest accordingly. But don’t misinterpret these wiggles as changes in trends, and don’t expect this Chinese state-run capitalism to be exactly like Western capitalism.

      Having said that, I do think that it is unfortunate that Chinese policy makers don’t publicly communicate the reasoning behind their moves more clearly.

  6. Dalio应该算是”东升西降“的西方鼓吹者,他还在写一本书来证明这个观点,
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0881Y73YG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
    虽然书还没出版,我已经知道他的结论了,哈哈哈

    像Paul Samuelson这样的经济学家到70, 80年代还鼓吹苏联模型的优越性,考虑到Dalio在中国的潜在利益,他这么做也不难理解。
    索罗斯最近倒是写了文章批评BlackRock发行投资中国的基金产品,完全不怕变成敏感词,确实是个被骂惯了的人。

    1. 哈哈是的,dalio退休以后就吹这个了
      他模型最大问题是只看欧洲近几百年,而其间每一个欧洲国家称霸不超过100多年
      如果他看罗马,那就是妥妥的错了
      而美国显然更像罗马

      1. 是的,他的统计样本里只有白天鹅。
        美国和罗马确实像,考虑到移民,盟友这些。
        美苏争霸模型也有点适用,两国价值观天差地别,不适用的点在于之前中美贸易联系极为紧密。

      1. 游几——杀猪的

        朝鮮沒有中國輸血你看朝鮮穩不穩定?以前靠蘇联輸血,蘇联倒臺立馬苦難行軍,你這都什麼水平啊!也太差了吧!

          1. 游几——杀猪的

            朝鮮衹是系統里的子系統是計劃經濟,離開系統無法獨活這不是內卷!蘇联解體朝鮮才苦難行軍,朝鮮都沒有融入國際社會,是計劃經濟哪來的內卷。大陸的內卷現在是优汰劣勝,跟朝鮮是不同的。老要跟你解釋,就像跟小孩子餵奶一樣,以你的智商就不能深入思考一下嗎?

    1. 游几——杀猪的

      大清可沒有下過大棋!富二代吃喝玩樂敗不了多少家當,瞎雞巴胡折騰稀裡嘩啦就垮了。你什麼眼神啊!能跟大清比嗎?大清267年平安退位哪是xx能比的!都走到這步田地了還說大好,是大好不是小好,這都啥啊!

  7. 其实倒车不是问题,问题是往朝鲜方向走内卷 ,还是日本军国主义转移一波矛盾。我觉得后者还是有一定概率

    1. 是的
      但是现在外交太孤立了
      对手就一招“肉烂锅里”
      因此估计也挺难出手
      俄罗斯常规武器基本都是苏联时代的
      基本出不了国门这种
      所以也不会帮
      动手结果只能是群殴一个

      1. 游几——杀猪的

        還外交孤立呢!歐洲一派,英美一派,大陸一派。美元這顆大樹都快倒了,樹倒猢猻散。你以為是19世紀末20世紀初歐美生產力過剩,可以聯手揍大清啊!歐美自身難保還聯手,你懂个屁的歷史啊!小子打仗是要錢的,大炮一響黃金萬兩,歐美有錢嗎?沒錢打个屁啊!

          1. 游几——杀猪的

            英國退出歐盟有病啊!英德軍艦來南海你怎麼知道就是針對大陸的,就不能是某方面的談判要價!你頭腦就這麼簡單,眼光就看見表面,單獨的英國德國摻合不起中美之間的紛爭,英德才幾斤幾兩,鼠目寸光!

      2. 游几——杀猪的

        現在的科技發展好久沒有突破了!俄羅斯的武器足夠防禦了,美軍的武器跟20前比有什麼突破嗎?還群毆一個呢?試試就知道了,蘇德坦克大戰蘇联5000輛對德國2000輛贏了,現在的大陸可不是大清武器靠買,大陸武器產量世界第一,數量絕對淹死對手,這都是實打實的硬實力,記住大陸的體制就是為戰爭服務的,別人可沒有你那麼腦殘,對大陸不打比打好,堡壘是从內部攻破的。

            1. 刚刚美军试射高超音速导弹,大气层内有好几马赫,领先东风几十年(东风的主要加速在外太空完成)
              要说黑科技,美军这几年新科技的很多啊,真的多了去了

              1. 游几——杀猪的

                米格25都有3馬赫,戰略導彈好幾馬赫不正常嗎?瞧把你惊得像个鄉巴佬!戰略導彈五常都差不了多少,美國有強大領先的地方,中美之間好比師弟出馬里成龍跟反派,大陸強在少壯,美國強在經驗技巧,各有千秋真打勝負難說!

    2. 军国主义难,希特勒的下场,他们承担?锁国不就是巩固自己的权和利益嘛。这个对内残忍的事又不是干不出来。对外嘴炮就行。

      1. 游几——杀猪的

        這都什麼啊!你以為美國還想當老大啊!美國現在沒那麼蠢,樹倒猢猻散各回各家各找各媽吧!還TPP2就是為了限制某国,自保都困難還對付別國,鼠目寸光愚不可及!

  8. 趋势说的简单,明白,赞。这个趋势在国内学者还有一个说法,叫国家资本主义利出一孔修复,非个人所能左右。。。只能喊一句God bless chinese!

  9. 的确,现在官方媒体正在通过各种方式宣扬自力更生,艰苦奋斗的精神。而且十一开始外网端口的管控超前的严。很多VPN已用不了了。
    真心希望不要倒退,走向朝鲜,出现拉美化。如果真的拉美化,自闭恐怕难以避免,老百姓总是最悲催的,等体会到了什么也做不了。

    1. 哈哈勃列日涅夫也想改,最后竟然加强了斯大林那一套,最后整个体制因为僵化被抛弃……
      中国有点像一艘破船,快速经济发展掩盖了舱底有洞的事实,只要船一慢下来就要沉,而且船长弄几个人或者一批人当替罪羊,估计是没用的

发表评论

您的电子邮箱地址不会被公开。

更多文章