时间: 19:45:41 来源: 上锁的房间 作者: 我的网站 点击: 4124
不要恋爱要结婚

我们结婚了

有求于人还态度倨傲,韩国外长没听懂中方的意思但老大却懂了_我的网站

hold

一 |     

Tian Xuan Photo: Courtesy of Tian
    Tian Xuan Photo: Courtesy of Tian
In economic theory, "overcapacity" - for which no universally accepted definition exists - is inherently a recurring feature of the market economy's dynamic "balance - imbalance - rebalance" cycle. The Western narrative that equates China's sizable production capacity directly with "overcapacity" defies economic logic and rigor; in reality, it represents a politicization of trade and economic issues.
First, it confuses the concepts of "capacity scale" and "overcapacity." China's overall industrial capacity utilization remains within a reasonable range. Periodically lower utilization in traditional sectors reflects a normal adjustment as these industries advance toward high-end, intelligent, and green production. Ample capacity in certain emerging industries is precisely what meets surging global demand for high-end, smart, and green solutions. Therefore, equating scale with excess is typical equivocation.
Second, "overcapacity" itself is a dynamic feature of market economies, where no fixed balance persists indefinitely. Judging capacity based solely on static snapshots violates basic economic principles.
Third, it is erroneous to simplistically link trade surpluses or industrial subsidies to overcapacity, while ignoring the macro context of global specialization and cross-border savings-investment structures. It also disregards the reality that reasonable capacity utilization ranges differ across economies at varying stages of development. Imposing a single standard on China is neither scientific nor rigorous.
China's global competitiveness in green technology stems from sustained, large-scale investment in innovation, a comprehensive industrial and supply chain system, massive application scenarios, and intense market competition - not from alleged government subsidies. After decades of long-cycle R&D, Chinese industries have achieved breakthroughs in core technologies such as power batteries and photovoltaic modules.
During the 14th Five-Year Plan period (2021-25), China's nationwide R&D spending grew at an average annual rate of 10 percent. Economies of scale have continuously diluted production costs. China's ultra-large domestic market and full-chain supporting ecosystem provide an optimal testing ground for new technologies - from pilot verification to mass deployment. With more than 200 million market entities driving fierce competition, enterprises are constantly compelled to cut costs, raise efficiency, and upgrade products, thereby forging dual advantages in price and performance that we see today.
There is no direct causation between subsidies and overcapacity. Industrial subsidies are a globally recognized practice, typically aimed at correcting market failures and advancing critical technologies. China's subsidies are granted on an impartial basis to all types of market entities, in full compliance with WTO rules, and have not triggered disorderly capacity expansion.
Currently, capacity utilization in China's green industries remains within a reasonable range. Support is primarily directed toward R&D, technological breakthroughs, and consumer-side incentives through market-based mechanisms - not toward fueling overcapacity. Crucially, China's high-quality capacity has reduced the global cost of green transition, representing an opportunity rather than a shock to world development.
Against the backdrop of global carbon neutrality goals, labeling China's new energy capacity as "overcapacity" is entirely untenable. According to the International Energy Agency, global data center electricity consumption will approach 1 trillion kWh by 2030, with 40 percent of incremental power needing to come from renewables. Demand for wind power, photovoltaics, power batteries, and related green energy solutions remains far from saturated - so claims of "overcapacity" are groundless.
China's capacity plays a central role in advancing the global energy transition. Over the past decade, the levelized cost of electricity from wind and solar globally has fallen by more than 60 percent and 80 percent respectively - improvements largely attributable to Chinese innovation and manufacturing, which have directly lowered the cost threshold for worldwide green transformation.
The US journal Science crowned the global renewable energy surge led by China among its Top 10 Breakthroughs of 2025. Leveraging its technological and scale advantages, China is well positioned to supply abundant, high-quality green energy equipment and solutions, meet fast-growing renewable demand from data centers, industrial production, and other sectors, and tangibly support countries in implementing the Paris Agreement. In short, China is a pivotal force driving the global low-carbon transition.
The so-called "China Shock 2.0" is fundamentally a protectionist narrative rooted in Cold War thinking - a politically motivated claim inconsistent with facts. The rapid development of China's modern industries is driven by innovation and sustained institutional reform, not by dumping allegedly excess capacity abroad. Rather than posing a shock, China's industrial progress offers a "China Opportunity 2.0." It delivers multiple dividends to global development - innovation dividends, market dividends, and growth dividends - while injecting stability and vitality into global industrial chains through an open and win-win approach.
China's high-quality green and high-tech exports have tangibly accelerated the global green transition and reduced production costs worldwide. Meanwhile, as the world's largest goods consumption market and the second-largest importer for 17 consecutive years, China provides enormous market opportunities for economies around the globe. Moreover, China's open-source collaboration and technology sharing in frontier fields such as artificial intelligence and the digital economy enable developing countries to bridge the digital divide at lower cost and share in the benefits of the technological revolution.
The facts demonstrate that China's emerging technologies and products represent a "China Opportunity 2.0" - driving global technological progress, accelerating the green transition, improving livelihoods across nations, and bolstering the industrialization of developing economies. This open and mutually beneficial cooperation stands as the true engine of global economic recovery and sustainable development. 
This article is compiled based on an interview with Tian Xuan, dean at the Guanghua School of Management and Boya Distinguished Professor of Finance of Peking University. [email protected]

二 |     

韩国外长终于来到了中国并与中国外长进行了会谈,表面上看,这次韩国外长访华是应我国外长的邀请而来,但实际上是韩国有求于我国而来,但从会谈情况看,中方弄懂了韩国的意思,但中方三点讲话韩外长却没有懂,老大却懂了而且非常担忧。原因何在呢?
韩方有求于我方,因为韩国目前的处境非常艰难特别是投靠老大以后日子反而更难过了
求人应该有一个求人的样子,韩国外长来中国之前,韩国已经面临非常恶劣的环境和难以解决的难题。
一是韩国总统的支持率已经降至24%,达到了30多年来韩国历任总统的最低点,韩方急需通过与中方缓和关系来给自己的政绩加分。
二是半岛局势在韩美日的刺激下日益增大了不确定性,而面对朝方日益增强的军事能力,韩方也是心里越来越感受到风险在加大,急需求助中方为半岛局势降温。

三 |

三是缓和韩中关系强化经济合作,因为韩国没有想到自己加入西方阵营对付中方以后日子过得更惨了,急需缓和与中方的经贸关系谋取自身的经济利益。
本来中韩经贸关系密切,韩国也赚取了大量的经济利益,搭上了我国经济发展的快车赚得盆满钵满。但韩国却一心投靠了西方阵营全面放弃了中国市场而,并积极地与盟友一起对我国的科技、经济、文化等方面进行全方位的打击,还在我国的核心利益台海、南海问题上上蹿下跳,希望抑制中国的发展同时提升自己的国际地位和经济发展能力。但剧本却拿反了,老百姓的日子反而过得更惨了。
韩国经济面临了一系列严峻的问题导致经济处于经济崩溃边缘,韩国2023年的GDP增长率仅为1.4%,创下了近三年来韩国经济增长的最低水平。
韩国曾经的优势汽车产业已经远远被我国市场所抛弃,韩国汽车行业正逐渐退出我国的主流市场,2023年韩国的起亚、现代等品牌汽车在我国的销售量暴跌了30%。韩国造船业的市场份额正被中国取代,截至今年3月全球总造船订单中国占了59%,而韩国占仅有24%。
韩国曾经不可一世的半导体由于积极参与欧美对我国的制裁,导致原有的半导体特别是芯片行业的优势难以出货,随着我国芯片自主研发,韩国的半导体销售额下降了37.5%,直接导致了韩国对华由贸易顺差成为贸易逆差。
韩国因为向主人效忠而对华赴韩旅游采取了各种不友好的政策,导致以中国游客为主的韩国旅游业遭到重创,现在形成反转大量的韩国人来华旅游,而韩国一直期待的中国去韩国旅游热潮并没有如愿出现,反而越来越被国人抛弃。特别是韩国的物价水平大幅度上涨,也急需与中方缓和关系而解决经济难题。
中韩国会谈本来是韩国有求于我,韩方的态度却非常倨傲,中方虽然态度十分客气但立场坚定不会让步!
韩方无论是地缘政治、半岛稳定、经济发展以及中日韩峰会等议题上求中国“帮忙”。但韩国外长的态度却是倨傲在此前,完全不知道世界上谁是大小王,还以为自己是“会牌”呢?谁都能管。

四 |

韩国以前先是声称应该按照惯例中方外长先去访问韩国,然后再访问中方,结果中方没有理睬;最后韩方只能降低身份自己先访问中方,这种小国寡民心态也体现在了与中国外长的会见之中。

五 |

韩方在与中方会谈时,实际上心态与韩国的现实并不相称,与所谋求的求人态度反差过大,想求人又不想有一个好的态度。
5月14日韩国外长介绍与中方会谈的细节,本来想在气势上给自己加分和解脱,却实际上透露出已经谈崩了!
朝方说目前趋冷的韩中关系是在尝试纠正,韩国对华关系仍处于调节、变化调整的阶段。本来想跟中方示好,却非要说是关系调整,本来是韩国自己放弃与中国的友好关系,却还要说是修正以前比较好的关系;本来是想让中方帮助他们解决目前的困局,却称现阶段谋求打造双边关系可持续发展。

六 | 直白的意思就是:调整太友好的关系到正常的关系,但不承认主动示好。虚伪吧?

关系半岛问题,朝方表示中国主动发挥的作用被削弱,韩方对中方的期望值也有所降低。意思就是中方没有答应帮忙,结论就是谈崩了。
韩方说双方谈了一些敏感性内容,不对外泄露,直白地理解就是双方各说各的, “畅所欲言”没有形成结论性意见。
本来这次是韩方外长来寻求中方帮助的,但韩方的静态却好像是中方有求于韩方式的,而且感觉上好像是韩方外长居高临下训话中方。
但现实呢?韩方外长表态称,韩方不赞成零和博弈,希望同中方增进互信、扩大共识、聚焦合作,避免地缘政治因素的制约,共同开启中韩合作的新局面。
而中方强调了三个底线,第一个底线是合力推动中韩关系健康稳定发展,要求韩方恪守一个中国原则,必须妥善慎重处理涉台问题。第二个底线是中韩经贸关系发展符合时代潮流,中韩经贸合作的规模大,希望中韩共同反对贸易保护主义。

七 | 第三个底线是中国正加快发展新质生产力,中国经济对韩方有巨大的机遇,韩国要从本国利益出发慎重选择。

韩方要的中国没有答应,中方的要求韩方没有懂,但老大懂了却非常担忧
韩国和日本都是美国插手亚太局势、对抗中国的马前卒,都是制约中国、介入南海和东海的跳板,更是希望借助日本和韩国之手祸乱台海、扰乱中国的发展、给中国制造麻烦和混乱。
美国一方面是在韩国部署包括萨德导弹等形成对中国和朝鲜的战略威慑;另一方面挑动韩国与朝鲜的关系制造半岛危机,从而在我国周边制造各种混乱。
在科技和经济上通过限制韩国半导体产业特别是三星、海力士等芯片巨头的对华出口管制,打压和限制中国半导体产业的发展,影响和限制中国对韩国和朝鲜的影响力。

八 |

但在韩国完全投靠欧美以后,事实上已经破坏了中韩合作的基础,如果不能解决根本性的战略选择,中韩的经济合作基础就已经不再存在,只剩下各取所需的经济贸易往来。在中国日新月异的发展和巨大的市场利益之下,韩国要想搭上中国经济的快车就非常困难了。

九 |

中韩外长的会谈,既释放了两国关系缓和的信号,中韩关系强调的是“实用主义外交”与美方“价值观外交”的博弈,中方提倡的两国之间相互尊重、合作共赢正在成为国际主流。这一点韩国没有听懂,还在强调自己的架子、形象、傲慢和无知,而美国却已经看懂了,从而也是美国最担心的局面会出现,即接下来的中日韩峰会如果提前凝聚共识,日韩与中国无论是在经贸合作还是地缘政治上的的走近都是美国最担心的和不愿意看到的。(麒鉴说财经)

Current article:http://t9jpif.shengyaodanrongchui.buzz/news/20260826_8468968.html

Published on:03:30:13


本文标签: 时间都去哪了 铁线虫 杨光的快乐生活

回到顶部