QA問答：盡管美國仍然是世界上最強(qiáng)大的經(jīng)濟(jì)體和國家，為什么美國不再建造世界上最大的機(jī)場航站樓、最大的橋梁或最高的建筑呢？
Why doesn''t the US build the largest airport terminals, the biggest bridges, or the tallest buildings in the world anymore even though it remains by far the most powerful economy and country?
譯文簡介
盡管美國仍然是世界上最強(qiáng)大的經(jīng)濟(jì)體和國家，為什么美國不再建造世界上最大的機(jī)場航站樓、最大的橋梁或最高的建筑呢？
正文翻譯
回答一：
Inaki Arbelaiz, City Innovation Project Leader (2011-present) upxed January 29 城市創(chuàng)新項(xiàng)目負(fù)責(zé)人（2011-至今）
Inaki Arbelaiz, City Innovation Project Leader (2011-present) upxed January 29 城市創(chuàng)新項(xiàng)目負(fù)責(zé)人（2011-至今）
From a foreign perspective, this question is a very interesting question dividing the attention between national pride, economic power, and the commercial reality of the need for infrastructure.The simple answer is that there is no need for it. The USA, geographically, is not any longer a transportation hub, but a transportation destination.
從外國人的角度來看，這是一個非常有趣的問題，問題的答案無外乎人們對民族自豪感、經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施需求的商業(yè)現(xiàn)實(shí)之間的關(guān)注。答案很簡單，沒有這個必要。從地理上來說，美國不再是一個交通樞紐，而是一個交通目的地。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
從外國人的角度來看，這是一個非常有趣的問題，問題的答案無外乎人們對民族自豪感、經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施需求的商業(yè)現(xiàn)實(shí)之間的關(guān)注。答案很簡單，沒有這個必要。從地理上來說，美國不再是一個交通樞紐，而是一個交通目的地。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
浙江寧波舟山港
The last list, the busiest cruise ports, is largely skewed due to Disney [sad but true]. Once you have that taken out [the Disney phenomena due to cruises], the countries where most of the population is divided between a set of islande [as Greece, Finland, and the Sea of China] will require the largest ports.
最后一份名單是最繁忙的郵輪港口，由于迪士尼的影響，排名出現(xiàn)了很大的偏差（悲傷，但事實(shí)如此）。一旦你排除了因游輪而產(chǎn)生的迪士尼現(xiàn)象，那些大部分人口被分割在一組組島嶼的國家（如希臘、芬蘭和中國海）將需要最大的港口。
最后一份名單是最繁忙的郵輪港口，由于迪士尼的影響，排名出現(xiàn)了很大的偏差（悲傷，但事實(shí)如此）。一旦你排除了因游輪而產(chǎn)生的迪士尼現(xiàn)象，那些大部分人口被分割在一組組島嶼的國家（如希臘、芬蘭和中國海）將需要最大的港口。
Same happens with airports:Due to regulations and the low cost phenomena, airlines do not have to land in the USA when doing a transatlantic flight when travelling from Europe to South America, one of the booming routes.Because of that, airports don′t need to be large on terminals [perhaps on non civil infrastructure such as landing lanes, but not on terminals]: a destination terminal needs to be much smaller than a hub because it is simply getting passengers in and quickly moving them out, contrary to hubs, that need to get passengers and house them for one to four-six hours.And so on.
機(jī)場也是如此：由于法規(guī)和低成本原因，航空公司從歐洲飛往南美洲的跨大西洋航班上不必降落在美國，這是一個蓬勃發(fā)展的航線。正因?yàn)槿绱?，機(jī)場航站樓不需要太大：目的地終點(diǎn)站只需要比樞紐站小得多的航站樓，因?yàn)橹恍枰唵蔚匕殉丝退瓦M(jìn)來，然后迅速把他們送出去，而樞紐站需要把乘客送進(jìn)來，并為他們提供1到4到6個小時的住宿，等等。
機(jī)場也是如此：由于法規(guī)和低成本原因，航空公司從歐洲飛往南美洲的跨大西洋航班上不必降落在美國，這是一個蓬勃發(fā)展的航線。正因?yàn)槿绱?，機(jī)場航站樓不需要太大：目的地終點(diǎn)站只需要比樞紐站小得多的航站樓，因?yàn)橹恍枰唵蔚匕殉丝退瓦M(jìn)來，然后迅速把他們送出去，而樞紐站需要把乘客送進(jìn)來，并為他們提供1到4到6個小時的住宿，等等。
But then, there is the question that nobody seems to be asking, or the issue to be understood: the problem with infrastructre is not to build it, it is to keep it.Of all the cities I have lived [not visited, lived], which are 12, with metro systems, Barcelona has by far the best public transport system and network. But it does not look fancy, nor is it “big”. It is, though, extremely reliable and the frecuency of trains is astounding [every 40s on peak times on the busiest lines, and never above 7 mins on valley times on weekend nights]. It is very integrated with buses, trams, metro, public bikes, and microbuses.
但是，有一個問題似乎沒有人問，或者說有一個問題需要理解：基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的問題往往不是建設(shè)，而是維護(hù)。在我住過（不僅僅是走馬觀花，而是住過）的12個城市中，巴塞羅那擁有迄今為止最好的公共交通系統(tǒng)和網(wǎng)絡(luò)。但看起來既不花哨，也不“大”。不過，該系統(tǒng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)非常可靠，而且班次的頻率令人震驚（在最繁忙的線路上，高峰時間每40秒一班，周末晚上的峰谷時間從不超過7分鐘）。該系統(tǒng)把公共汽車、有軌電車、地鐵、公共自行車和微型公共汽車融合成了一體。
但是，有一個問題似乎沒有人問，或者說有一個問題需要理解：基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的問題往往不是建設(shè)，而是維護(hù)。在我住過（不僅僅是走馬觀花，而是住過）的12個城市中，巴塞羅那擁有迄今為止最好的公共交通系統(tǒng)和網(wǎng)絡(luò)。但看起來既不花哨，也不“大”。不過，該系統(tǒng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)非常可靠，而且班次的頻率令人震驚（在最繁忙的線路上，高峰時間每40秒一班，周末晚上的峰谷時間從不超過7分鐘）。該系統(tǒng)把公共汽車、有軌電車、地鐵、公共自行車和微型公共汽車融合成了一體。
And finally, as a foreigner, roads in the USA are, well, with all due respect, a service design nightmare. It simply doesn′t make sense for a foreigner. They are way too big, and are designed as point ot point transportation lines. That is a recipe for a disaster. I do understand that the USA is a very large territory, don′t get me wrong. But apart from the need to connect such a huge territory, the roads are just to over-engineered in the capacity sense.A road is not more capable due to the lanes it has, but for the number of cars it can handle per a time unit.
最后，作為一個外國人，美國的道路，恕我直言，是一個設(shè)計(jì)的噩夢，這對外國人來說根本沒有意義。美國得道路太大了，被設(shè)計(jì)成點(diǎn)對點(diǎn)的交通線路，這將導(dǎo)致一場災(zāi)難。我知道美國有廣袤的領(lǐng)土，不要誤解我。但是，除了需要連接如此巨大的領(lǐng)土之外，道路在容量方面的設(shè)計(jì)也過于過度。一條道路的能力不僅取決于擁有的車道數(shù)，而是取決于在一個單位時間內(nèi)可以通行的汽車數(shù)量。
最后，作為一個外國人，美國的道路，恕我直言，是一個設(shè)計(jì)的噩夢，這對外國人來說根本沒有意義。美國得道路太大了，被設(shè)計(jì)成點(diǎn)對點(diǎn)的交通線路，這將導(dǎo)致一場災(zāi)難。我知道美國有廣袤的領(lǐng)土，不要誤解我。但是，除了需要連接如此巨大的領(lǐng)土之外，道路在容量方面的設(shè)計(jì)也過于過度。一條道路的能力不僅取決于擁有的車道數(shù)，而是取決于在一個單位時間內(nèi)可以通行的汽車數(shù)量。
But to sum it up:Infrastructure is the classic bussines case of the long run: they need to perform for 30 to 40 years.Because of that, the smartest strategy is usually to develop the “minimum viable product” or infrastructure: if you build it too big, it will become a monster that is too huge to maintain [a problem the USA is having right now].
但總結(jié)一下：基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施是典型的長期商業(yè)案例：一般需要運(yùn)行30到40年。正因?yàn)槿绱?，最明智的策略通常是開發(fā)“最小可行性產(chǎn)品”或基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施：如果你把基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建得太大，它就會變成一個大得難以維持的怪物（這是美國現(xiàn)在所面臨的問題）。
但總結(jié)一下：基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施是典型的長期商業(yè)案例：一般需要運(yùn)行30到40年。正因?yàn)槿绱?，最明智的策略通常是開發(fā)“最小可行性產(chǎn)品”或基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施：如果你把基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建得太大，它就會變成一個大得難以維持的怪物（這是美國現(xiàn)在所面臨的問題）。
Having the “-est” of anything is not important. They are usually not the most efficient things, products or services at all. They might be a pride element, but they are not efficient and most importantly, not a business case any longer. The tallest building is a FAR [floor to area ratio] nightmare for all the services that at the end eat up valuable surface.Lets put it this way:The most important car for Toyota is not the “-est” lexus or the “-est” Toyota Century. It is the very humble Corolla. It is their money earner, their bread.
擁有任何“最”的東西并不重要，這些通常不是最有效的東西、產(chǎn)品或服務(wù)。擁有“最”字名頭的可能是一個值得驕傲的因素，但他們沒有效率，最重要的是，不再是一個商業(yè)案例。對于所有的服務(wù)來說，最高的建筑是樓層面積比的噩夢，因?yàn)樗罱K會吞噬寶貴的外觀。讓我們這么說吧：對豐田來說，最重要的汽車不是“最貴”的雷克薩斯，也不是“最出色”的豐田世紀(jì)，而是非常不起眼的卡羅拉。這是豐田最賺錢的地方，是他們的面包。
擁有任何“最”的東西并不重要，這些通常不是最有效的東西、產(chǎn)品或服務(wù)。擁有“最”字名頭的可能是一個值得驕傲的因素，但他們沒有效率，最重要的是，不再是一個商業(yè)案例。對于所有的服務(wù)來說，最高的建筑是樓層面積比的噩夢，因?yàn)樗罱K會吞噬寶貴的外觀。讓我們這么說吧：對豐田來說，最重要的汽車不是“最貴”的雷克薩斯，也不是“最出色”的豐田世紀(jì)，而是非常不起眼的卡羅拉。這是豐田最賺錢的地方，是他們的面包。
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 0 )
收藏
America’s roads make sense for why they were built: They were not actually a civilian project. They were a military one.America’s highway system was designed by the military to connect their bases and make logistics easier, not as a civilian transportation network. Hence, some of the oddities are explained:Wide roads, so oversized military vehicles can get down them; Weird paths (Going to military bases), rather than direct connections to population centers; Overengineered bridges (For the time anyway. Now, some of them are under-engineered - and the military is worried about it) and over/underpasses; big tunnels with only slight curves (that allow for the passage of things like ICBMs); etc.
美國的公路為什么修成這樣是有原因的：它們實(shí)際上不是民用項(xiàng)目，而是軍用的。美國的高速公路系統(tǒng)是由軍方設(shè)計(jì)的，目的是連接他們的基地，使后勤工作更容易，而不是作為一個民用運(yùn)輸網(wǎng)絡(luò)。因此，一些奇怪的現(xiàn)象可以得到解釋：寬闊的道路，超大的軍用車輛可以通過；奇怪的路線（去軍事基地），而不是直接連接人口中心；過度設(shè)計(jì)的橋梁、地上和地下通道（至少目前是這樣?，F(xiàn)在，其中一些是工程沒有達(dá)到設(shè)計(jì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——軍方對此感到擔(dān)憂）；彎道很大的大隧道（允許洲際彈道導(dǎo)彈之類的東西通過）等。
Hi Ben,I know what you mean, but when oversized I meant roads with 10+ lanes. The oversizing you describe is quite common around the world. So much so, that the easy way in Europe to distinguish a regular road from a military road thet might be used as a landing runway is the material which is bring used.Thenks for the comment!
你好，@Ben Clark。我知道你的意思，但我指的是10條以上車道的道路。你所描述的超大尺寸的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施在世界各地都很常見。因此，在歐洲，區(qū)分一條道路是普通公路還是軍用公路最簡單的方法就是看道路使用的材料。謝謝你的評論！
I think a strong case could be made for China followed by India as economic powerhouses. China practically owns America with its investments plus purchases of U.S. dollars which is likely the reason the dollar is still recognized as the international currency.
我認(rèn)為一個強(qiáng)有力的理由是，中國成為經(jīng)濟(jì)強(qiáng)國，之后是印度。中國通過投資和購買美元實(shí)際上擁有美國，這可能是美元仍然被視為國際貨幣的原因。
Most US debt is not own by China .
大多數(shù)美國債務(wù)并不屬于中國。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
This was a superb answer minus the whole roads in the USA are too big or a nightmare point ! Roads have to be big in the USA . Roads in Canada are more or less the same as they’re in the United States !
這是一個極好的答案，整個美國的道路太大，這是一個噩夢！在美國，道路必須很大。加拿大的道路和美國的差不多！
Hi Paul,The size of the roads seems to be a contentious issue with this answer ;-). With the size I mean the amount of lanes there are usually on USA roads, not the width of them or the length. As mentioned, the Braess paradox explains it much better than what I do. But often times the amount of lanes is placed to give the impression of capacity, rather than measured capacity.
But as we are talking about capacity and most importantly, efficiency, I have to add that in: roads are a big part of infrastructure.It is a s counter intuitive as the most efficient speed of use for a road or a street: on an open road, the most efficient speed is circa 90km/h, as it allows the road to have the highest vehicle number per hour. Increase that speed, and the distance between traffic increases dramatically, for safety and the “tunnel effect” that happens on the driver.
On a street, the efficiency is differently measured : can taxes and economic activity pay the maintenance of that street, its safety?When a street has mainly a vehicular character, nobody buys on the shops. Nobody cleans the street (so to speak), and nobody sees how that street decais. That is the reason why dense cities are kicking the car out of them: a car uses the streets, but does not directly pay for them (the usage tax many cities have does not cover street maintenance).Hope it helps!
嗨，@Paul Williams，道路的大小似乎是這個答案的一個有爭議的問題。我指的是美國道路上車道的數(shù)量，而不是寬度或長度。如前所述，布雷斯悖論比我所說的更好地解釋了這一點(diǎn)。但通常情況下，設(shè)置車道的數(shù)量是為了給人一種有很大容納能力的印象，而不是實(shí)際能容納的容量。但當(dāng)我們談到容量，以及最重要的效率時，我必須補(bǔ)充一點(diǎn)：道路是基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的重要組成部分。
一條道路或街道最有效的使用速度，與直覺相反：在開闊的道路上，最有效的速度大約是90公里/小時，因?yàn)檫@一速度允許道路每小時有最多的車輛數(shù)量。為了安全和司機(jī)身上發(fā)生的“隧道效應(yīng)”，提高車速，車輛之間的距離就會顯著增加。在街道上，衡量效率的方式是不同的：稅收和經(jīng)濟(jì)活動能否支持街道的維護(hù)和安全？
當(dāng)一條街道主要以車輛為主時，沒有人會在商店里買東西。沒人打掃街道（可以這么說），也沒人看到街道是如何運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)的。這就是為什么人口密集的城市將汽車踢出城市的原因：汽車占用街道，但不直接支付街道費(fèi)用（許多城市征收的使用稅不包括街道維護(hù)費(fèi)用）。希望這個回答有用！
I wonder what part of the U.S. you were in where you thought the roads were oversized. If anything, my feeling is that most of our roads are undersized, leading to too much congestion. And yes, the U.S. is a VERY big place and our road network is huge (and yet, in some places still insufficient) and it takes a lot to keep it maintained. Unfortunately, I think we often fail in that regard.
我想知道你在美國的哪個地方會覺得公路太大了。如果有什么不同看法的話，我的感覺是，我們大多數(shù)的道路都太小了，導(dǎo)致了太多的擁堵。是的，美國是一個非常大的地方，我們的公路網(wǎng)絡(luò)非常龐大（然而，在一些地方仍然不夠），要維持這些道路也需要很多資金。不幸的是，我認(rèn)為我們在這方面經(jīng)常失敗。
Hi kristafer,It is a math paradox known as the Braess paradox: the more lanes you have, the more congested and less efficient a network of roads results.Braess's paradox - WikipediaNot only that: adding lanes and increasing the apparent capacity of a route results as well on an increased congestion of said road. Seems counter intuitive (it is very counter intuitive), but usually reducing the capacity of private transportation leads to a much more efficient public transportation system, that carries much more people per sq.m than individual car.
這是一個被稱為布雷斯悖論的數(shù)學(xué)悖論：車道越多，道路網(wǎng)絡(luò)就越擁堵，效率越低。不僅如此：增加車道和增加一條路線的表面容量也會導(dǎo)致該道路的擁堵加劇。似乎有違直覺（這是非常違背直覺的），但通常減少私人交通的容量會造就一個更有效的公共交通系統(tǒng)，每平方米承載的人會比私家車更多。
（注：布雷斯悖論（名字來自德國數(shù)學(xué)家迪特里希·布雷斯）指在一個交通網(wǎng)絡(luò)上增加一條路段反而使網(wǎng)絡(luò)上的旅行時間增加；這一附加路段不但沒有減少交通延滯，反而降低了整個交通網(wǎng)絡(luò)的服務(wù)水準(zhǔn)，這種出力不討好且與人們直觀感受相背的交通網(wǎng)絡(luò)現(xiàn)象主要源于納什均衡點(diǎn)并不一定是社會最優(yōu)化。）
I see your point and I think I understand it. I suppose it is somewhat similar to what I have observed with airport hubs—the idea works to a point, speeding up air travel and improving efficiency, but then the airport becomes so large and attracts so many planes and people that it actually increases congestion and slows things down. Perhaps not a perfect analogy, but I think conceptually similar.
我明白你的意思，我想我明白。我想這有點(diǎn)類似于我觀察到的機(jī)場樞紐——這個想法在某種程度上是有效的，它加快了航空旅行，提高了效率，但是機(jī)場變得如此之大，吸引了更多的飛機(jī)和人，這實(shí)際上增加了擁堵，減慢了速度。也許這不是一個完美的類比，但我認(rèn)為概念上是相似的。
Well, I see your point of view as a foreigner because the way we see things in the US is way different from the way you foreigner see things.I have visited Europe severally and I cant deal with their tiny roads. It makes no sense to me but that is what define our economies. There are over 1 million heavy trucks weighing averagely 60,000 to 80,000 pounds with average lenght of 70 feets plying US highways and roads daily of which no country in the world including China that have such heavy truck daily on their road. They need wide roads to make their turns without getting stucked on the road, that is the USA and thats part of what makes us different
嗯，我理解你作為一個外國人的觀點(diǎn)，因?yàn)槲覀冊诿绹词虑榈姆绞胶湍銈兺鈬丝词虑榈姆绞酵耆煌Ｎ以?jīng)去過歐洲，但我不能應(yīng)付他們的小道路。這對我來說有點(diǎn)說不通，但正是這一點(diǎn)定義了我們經(jīng)濟(jì)。每天有超過100萬輛、平均重量6萬到8萬磅、平均長度70英尺的重型卡車，在美國的高速公路和公路上行駛，而包括中國在內(nèi)的世界上沒有一個國家的道路上每天有這樣的重型卡車。這些車需要寬闊的道路，這樣轉(zhuǎn)彎時才不會被困在路上，這就是美國，這就是我們與眾不同的部分原因。
Nevertheless your are transporting more goods by railways than in Europe - if you would do some improvement to your railsystem (fixing rails properly to their sleepers, install double track lines at more places) your railway system would even be able to take more loads from the road…
盡管如此，你們用鐵路運(yùn)輸?shù)呢浳镞€是比歐洲多。如果你們對鐵路系統(tǒng)做一些改進(jìn)（將鐵路正確地固定在枕木上，在更多的地方安裝雙軌鐵路），你們的鐵路系統(tǒng)甚至可以取代更多公路上承載的貨物……
We did that already. WE had the empire state building, the golden gate bridge etc. We got the #1 of a thing for a while and moved on. We moved past building and infrastructure a long time ago. Now we are working on 5g, robot cars and flying people to mars.
我們已經(jīng)做過了。我們有帝國大廈、金門大橋等。我們有一段時間獨(dú)占鰲頭，然后繼續(xù)前進(jìn)。我們很久以前就經(jīng)歷過了建筑和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施（建設(shè)時期）?，F(xiàn)在，我們正在研發(fā)5G、機(jī)器人、汽車和載人飛向火星。
Because the US is bankrupt. It is a country that prefers spending almost a trillion dollars per year in weapons instead of building an universal and free healthcare system like many countries in the world as the Europeans. If a US citizen gets ill, it's probable he or she gets a heart attack after receiving the hospital bill.While Donald Trump pumps a healthy 5 percent fiscal déficit every year based on tax cuts for the wealthiest people, the national debt increases to a record 23 trillion dollars. It is Now more that 100 percent of the GDP. As an example, many teachers from Washington are now paying from their pockets many school materials because federal budget for education is going to increase Defense projects. More aircraft carriers and F-35 jets instead of educating youngsters.While the federal reserve prints fiat money out of thin air assuring the collapse of the dollar, China and Russia are buying almost all the available gold, platinum and other precious metals in the markets. It is said that real amount of Chinese gold reserves is 20,000 tons instead of 2,200 tons they declare. That is enough to blow the dollar whenever they want. The real amount of US gold reserves is well below the 8,000 tons officialy declared and it has been proven by germans is low quality gold (mixed with Tungsten).The US has become an economy based on debt, wall street brokers and speculation rather than investing in infraestructure and tangible assets. Do you really think Amazon or Google are valued at +1 trillion dollars?That is why China will surpass the US in less than 7 years to become the worlds most powerful economy. They are net gold and silver savers. They invest heavily in educating their youth. And they really invest in advanced and REAL TANGIBLE infraestructure; Airports, highways, bridges, skycrappers, maritime ports, etc.
因?yàn)槊绹飘a(chǎn)了，這是一個寧愿每年花費(fèi)近1萬億美元在武器上的國家，而不是像世界上許多國家一樣建立一個普遍的免費(fèi)醫(yī)療體系。如果一個美國公民生病了，他或她很可能在收到醫(yī)院賬單后心臟病發(fā)作。雖然唐納德·特朗普每年為最富有的人減稅，造成5%的醫(yī)療財(cái)政赤字，但國家債務(wù)卻增加到了創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄的23萬億美元?，F(xiàn)在已經(jīng)超過了GDP的100%。
例如，由于聯(lián)邦預(yù)算減少教育預(yù)算，增加國防預(yù)算，華盛頓的許多教師現(xiàn)在都在自掏腰包支付學(xué)校的教學(xué)用品費(fèi)。買更多的航空母艦和F-35戰(zhàn)機(jī)，而不是教育年輕人。當(dāng)美聯(lián)儲憑空印鈔票以避免美元崩潰時，中國和俄羅斯卻在購買市場上幾乎所有可買到的黃金、鉑金和其他貴金屬。據(jù)悉，中國實(shí)際的黃金儲備是2萬噸，而不是他們所宣稱的2200噸。這足以讓美元隨時崩潰。
美國黃金儲備的實(shí)際數(shù)量遠(yuǎn)低于官方公布的8000噸，德國也已證實(shí)美國黃金儲備是低質(zhì)量的黃金（摻鎢）。美國已成為一個基于債務(wù)、華爾街經(jīng)紀(jì)人和投機(jī)的經(jīng)濟(jì)體，而不是基于基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和有形資產(chǎn)投資的經(jīng)濟(jì)體。你真的認(rèn)為亞馬遜或谷歌價值1萬億美元嗎？這就是為什么中國將在不到7年的時間里超過美國，成為世界上最強(qiáng)大的經(jīng)濟(jì)體。他們是金銀的凈儲蓄者，他們在教育年輕人方面投入巨資，他們真的在先進(jìn)的有形基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施上投資：機(jī)場、公路、橋梁、摩天大樓、海港等。
The only flaw is assuming throwing more money at these issues will fix them.Education is notorious for losing funds in bureaucracy and administration. Teachers still end up having to buy supplies no matter how much money you dump on them.Healthcare costs are as high as they are because hospitals figured out the maximum they could convince insurance companies to pay, not because they actually cost that much.
唯一有缺陷的假設(shè)是：在這些問題上投入更多的資金就能解決問題。教育投資在官僚主義和行政管理中損失的資金是臭名昭著的。不管你在老師身上花多少錢，他們最終還是得去買教學(xué)用品。醫(yī)療保險成本之所以如此之高，是因?yàn)獒t(yī)院計(jì)算出了他們能說服保險公司支付的最大金額，而不是因?yàn)樗麄儗?shí)際上花了那么多錢。
Education funding has always been local and the Federal government has traditionally been uninvolved. The Feds have also stayed out of health care except of medicare aid. You know that debate. Less military spending could be used for Federal “cement" infrastructure projects and even that seems to be difficult to do.
教育經(jīng)費(fèi)一直是地方政府負(fù)責(zé)的，聯(lián)邦政府歷來不參與。除了醫(yī)療援助外，聯(lián)邦政府也不參與醫(yī)療保險。你知道那場辯論。減少軍事開支可以用于聯(lián)邦“水泥”基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施項(xiàng)目，但即便如此，似乎也很難做到。
Not quite, we in the US prefer to spend more money on healthcare than any of the top 20 economies, in order that we have a lower life expectancy than any of the other top 20.China may surpass the the US in less than 7 years, but it might not. China has it’s own problems that it needs to resolve just as the US has problems that it needs to resolve
不完全是，我們美國人比前20名經(jīng)濟(jì)體中的任何一個都更愿意在醫(yī)療保健上花更多的錢，但結(jié)果是我們的預(yù)期壽命比其他前20名經(jīng)濟(jì)體都低。中國可能在不到7年的時間里超過美國，但也可能不會。中國有自己的問題需要解決，就像美國有自己的問題需要解決一樣。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Mmmmm I don't think so. The New Donald Trump national budget proposses massive cuts for medicaid and obamas medicare programs. Same as education and environment protection.And as usual, all that money will be redirected to the massive defense budget that will reach 1 trillion dollars considering veterans payments.All this spiced with a very healthy record +1 trillion dollars fiscal déficit that will be covered with more debt. It reaches now +23 trillion dollars.Trump budget includes deep cuts to health care and safety net programs
嗯，我不這么認(rèn)為。新的唐納德·特朗普的國家預(yù)算提議大規(guī)模削減醫(yī)療補(bǔ)助和奧巴馬的醫(yī)療保險項(xiàng)目，教育和環(huán)境保護(hù)預(yù)算也是如此。和往常一樣，所有這些錢將被重新分配到龐大的國防預(yù)算中，考慮到退伍軍人的報酬，國防預(yù)算將達(dá)到1萬億美元。所有這一切都與一個創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄的1萬億美元的財(cái)政赤字有關(guān)，這將創(chuàng)造更多的債務(wù)，現(xiàn)在債務(wù)已經(jīng)超過23萬億美元了。川普的預(yù)算包括大幅削減醫(yī)療保險和安全網(wǎng)項(xiàng)目的預(yù)算。