Peter Walker从两国历史与文化视角评价美中关系
https://ics.um.edu.my/img/files/CCSV9N1/05-Ling-Guo.pdf
——论彼得沃克《大国竞合》
Powerful, Different, Equal: Overcoming the Misconceptions and Differences between
China and the U. S.
林德顺、郭帅帅 Ling Tek Soon, Guo ShuaiShuai
当代中国研究期刊 Contemporary China Studies 第9辑，第1期，2022年4月，第95-99页
美中两国作为世界上最大的两个经济体，分别代表着东方与西方的主要声音。近年来，美中关系持续恶化让人担忧，如何把握美中关系的未来走势、挑战与机遇成为当下应该思考的重要问题。为此，美国国际关系学者彼得·沃克（Peter B. Walker）的《大国竞合》（Powerful, Different, Equal: Overcoming the Misconceptions and Differences between China and the U.S.）一书所提供的角度和观点，深具参考价值。
本书作者从美国学者的视角出发，系统分析了美中两国世界观和价值观的差异，及其对两国关系的巨大影响。书中第一章主要分析了历史对国家治理体制的影响。彼得沃克认为美中的历史和文化根基对美中两国的国家治理和思维模式具有直接影响。中国古代频发的自然灾害、北方少数民族的袭击以及儒家文化的传播，使得历届中国政府都强调集体主义和相互依存，鼓励传统、合作和顺从的
行为。而美国的建立则是由于部分欧洲人不满足经济机会只对上层人士开放和欧洲对人权和自由的限制，因此美国创立之初便将政治自由、个人自由、私营企业驱动的经济和追求“美国梦”的理想看
的高于一切，因此他们更重视独立、自力更生、竞争、自信和自身1 林德顺 , 马来亚大学中国研究所高级讲师，邮箱：lingteksoon@um.edu.my;郭帅帅 , 马来亚大学文学暨社会科学学院 , 博士研究生，电子邮箱：s2000797@siswa.um.edu.my
本书英文书名直译为：“强大、不同、平等：克服美中的差异与误解”利益。
在彼得沃克看来，美国的创立者所设计的三权分立、两党制、总统任期制等制度虽然并不总是实用、有效和合理，但其主要设计和功能一直延续了下来，并帮助美国建立和维持了地球上最大的国家和经济实体。而中国通过考试制度选拔人才所打造的贤能政府治理模式也十分成熟。因此文化和历史所塑造出了美中两国的治理模式都具有相当的稳定性，在短期内不可能发生改变。
作者在第二章探讨了文化特性对个人的影响。彼得沃克认为文化塑造个人的心态、行为、价值观和动机。美国文化源于早期的拓荒者的职业道德、远大抱负和乐观主义，以及工业革命所特有的独创性，这些特质使美国成为了全球最大的经济体。但是近年来，美国的极化愈加严重，导致美国成为一个二元化社会，“赢家”和“输家”概念分明，政党两极化，不同社会阶层的期待和愿望不同。尤其是”联合公民案“的裁决将政治捐款纳入言论自由的范围后，大量富有的个人和企业通过政治献金来
支持某些极端的政治观点，而这些观点又通过政治家而推入立法机构，造成美国政府中温和派减少和极端派增加。中国的文化特性与美国具有根本的区别。中国的集体主义文化和儒家思想不仅认为家庭和社会应当优先于个人，而且认为世界是多元的而不是二元的，因此强调集体和妥协。在彼得沃克看来美国的职业道德、抱负和创造力弥补了各政党之间的分歧，能够使政府内部在两极分化的严重分析下，仍然保持美国全球经济的领导地位，而中国的儒家文化价值观仍然影响中国人的日常生活，因此无论政权如何更迭，美中双方的价值观不会发生大的改变。
第三章彼得·沃克讨论了文化对美中经济的影响。彼得·沃克美中独特的历史与文化塑造了美中截然不同的经济模式。在其看来，美国经济的驱动力主要有五点：一是创新与科技，二是移民带来的充足劳动力；三是丰富的资源和良好的生存环境，四是强劲的消费市场，五是州政府和联邦政府的支持。而中国的经济模式则极具中国特色，他认为中国经济模式的基础是社会的尊卑秩序，它吸引最优秀、最聪明的人进入仕途，而非从事商业，这种模式下政府官员能够调节经济，确保关键的经济杠杆。通过比较美中两国经济发展模式，彼得·沃克认为美中两种经济发展模式在历史上都十分成功并极具韧性。近 150 年来，美国一直是全球最大的经济体，而林德顺、郭帅帅 从两国历史与文化视角评价美中关系。近 40 年来，中国的经济表现同样出色。在美国和中国经济经历的历次危机中，两国经济模式都延续了下来，但特朗普上台后所采取的与历史增长动力相反的立场，从长远来看，对美国经济造成了伤害。美中之间的零和博弈注定是有害无益的。
第四章彼得·沃克探讨了历史和文化对美中两国教育的塑造及其差异。美国的教育主要委托各州和地方政府管理，联邦政府在缺乏教育体系能够培养美国经济竞争力所需人才方面的作用不断减弱。地方财政压力导致个地方政府削减教育开支，造成各地教师频繁罢工。而中国教育则深受儒家文化影响。在彼得·沃克看来，美中教育模式的主要区别主要五点：美国强调批判性思维和个人发展，而中国教育则强调聆听和记忆。美国课程涵盖广泛的选修科目，而中国课程更加标准化，重视历史、文化、语文、英语和数学等科目。美国仅将标准考试作为大学录取程序的一部分，而中国的大学录取近乎完全依赖于考试。中国公立学校对教师的尊重程度和教师素质明显比美国更高。与美国父母相比，中国父母在教育过程中的参与度更高。而美国的大学体系比中国成熟。
第五章彼得·沃克探讨了历史和文化对美中两国对人权问题的影响。彼得·沃克认为美中对人权问题的分歧主要有三点原因：一是个人主义国家与集体主义国家的区别；二是美国的绝对人权观和中国的相对人权观的区别；三是个别国家及其现任政府的历史长度。美中两国核心价值、对人权具有重要影响的差异在于两国处理问题的态度，美国的意识形态是二元价值观，而中国则关注和谐与平衡。在美国看来，人权是绝对的和不可侵犯的，而中国在人权问题上采取了不同的，不那么绝对的方式，鉴于中国古代经常发生的自然灾害和动乱，中国政府总是将生存的基本需求置顶。中国虽然
在人权方面存在争论，但也面临着相同难题，即如何对待少数群体，其中不仅包括少数族裔，也包括性少数群体、宗教群体以及女性权利等。在以上诸多方面彼得·沃克认为由于中央政府力量和作
用不同，中国政府在保护少数族裔方面比美国做的更好，而性少数群体在美中均存在者较大争议，而宗教自由和女性权利方面，美中两国情况基本相似。
第六章彼得·沃克探讨了历史和文化对美中两国民主的形式。彼得·沃克认为美国式民主重视个体，强调个人主义，而中国的民主重视全体“人民“，强调集体主义。美国选举制度强调通过积极参与投票，建立民治、民享政府。中国则运用民意调查或其他工具来了解人民的需求和事务的轻重缓急，并将其反映在政府的决策和行动中。在彼得·沃克看来当下美国的民主制度表现不甚理想，其具体表现为：选举投票率低迷、党派偏见日益严重、国会和行政部门忽视了民意。但其认为当下美国的民主制度虽然显得混乱不堪且缺乏条理，但也展现了惊人的成效和韧性。彼得沃克认为中国民主制度开始于 1954 年成立的中国人民政治协商会议。同美国民主制度相比，中国民主制度重视问题和措施，在民主协商过程中，讨论的是某个人担任某种职位。对于社会中遇到的问题，中国习惯采用渐进的方式来解决大部分问题：风险越大、实验规模就越大，试验后再做出相关重大决策。彼得沃克认为，这样的民主形式，虽然耗时更长，但是风险也低得多。在其看来，中国民主协商制度比美国
民主制度表现更为出色，因此他认为相比中国，美国政府面临着更多严峻的挑战。
第七章彼得·沃克探讨了历史和文化对美中两国战争观的影响。彼得沃克认为门罗主义的推行让美国在西半球处于强势地位，但美国军事力量尤其是海军实力不足以支撑起美国的强势，多年来美国发起的海外军事参与，如伊拉克战争、反恐战争为美国带来了严重的经济负担。无论是处于战争成本还是道德原因，美国国内已经逐渐达成共识，不能再继续充当“世界警察”。中国深受儒家思想和东方价值观影响，重文轻武。中国对利用稀缺资源进行对外战争持怀疑态度，因此在过去的 40 年，中国政府制定的战略表现出了高度的务实主义。经过多年的发展，中国是否改变“韬光养晦”战略，仍难以做出定论，但彼得沃克看来，军事侵略有悖于儒家思想和根深蒂固的实用主义。因此彼得沃克看来，美中之间爆发直接军事冲突的可能性很小，两国必将展开竞争，但主要是经济和社会领域。
第八章彼得·沃克探讨了历史和文化对美中两国的未来之路。在彼得沃克看来，当下美中关系对话虽然多集中在分歧上，但事实上两国有许多共同点，美国和中国作为全球最大的两个国家，一个领导西方，一个领导东方，要成功解决全球重大问题，两国必须携手。美中之间合作的最大障碍是美国对中国的不了解，而造成这种问题根源在于美中两国都有独一无二的文化，都非常成功，但又截然不同，因此美中之间应加强接触，消除误解，在全球问题上通力林德顺、郭帅帅 从两国历史与文化视角评价美中关系合作，将惠及全球。
整体来看，彼得·沃克在著作《大国竞合》中，以通俗易懂的语言和丰富多元的案例揭示了美中历史与文化对两国的影响。就研究视角而言，彼得沃克作为一个熟读中国历史、政治、文学等中国问题学者，长期活跃在美中两国之间，兼具中西方国家文化的特质，其对美中两国的评价突破了西方中心论，更具兼容性。就研究主题而言，此书有意识地扩大了研究视角，尝试从历史文化的角度探讨了美中之间存在的巨大差异，所提出的“文化塑造论”为美中关系现状提供了一种新的解释。众所周知，当下美中关系正陷入紧张之中，对于其所提出的“文化塑造论”也仅是做了一个初步的尝试，我们还需要更多的国际关系学人通力合作，加强对话，借鉴和吸纳更多优秀地国际关系学著作，加强理论构建，解释文化对两国政治、民主、人权等方面的异同，推动中美关系研究的深入发展。
YouTube中國人工作就是比別人勤勞?! 美國官員自以為瞭解中國 中國的巨大優勢是?!【國際360】20240808?@全球大視野Global_Vision?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_0dejUKFEI
今天我们很高兴彼得先生能加入我们，就很多问题进行交谈和对话，所以现在让我给彼得机会介绍一下他的工作经历和背景，让我先从我对中国的兴趣开始，大概 40 年来我一直很感兴趣，所以我研究了很多我喜欢的人的传记，比如作曲家、作家等等，所以我对东方和西方有了更好的理解，我认为西方的哲学和宗教是我所说的二元论，所以它们天生就是评判性的，所以你有好坏天堂地狱等等，这主要受到基督教的影响，是的，非常受犹太教和基督教信仰的影响，好吧，我发现这非常有吸引力，我不喜欢人们总是寻找赢家和输家的想法，所以当我开始研究东方宗教时，我从佛教和印度教开始，好吧，我非常喜欢这个想法和谐与平衡，所以我只是说我基本上是一个西方人，一个东方人。当我 60 岁时，我告诉我的助手，我想每 6 到 8 周去中国一次，待一个星期，那是什么时候开始的，呃，大概是 15 年前开始的，好吧，但我去过中国 80 多次，因为我在 Mckenzie 的专业是保险，所以我为世界各地的大型保险公司提供咨询，所以大约在 2000 年初，那是你第一次去中国，是的，第一次旅行，我之前也去过一些地方，那时中国只有自行车，没有汽车，哦，在 80 年代，是的，在 80 年代和 90 年代初，但这是我第一次真正花时间在中国，我最终写了一本书，因为我厌倦了在西方媒体上阅读关于压迫腐败的政府和不快乐的被压迫人民的报道，好吧，我对自己说，我已经去过中国 80 多次，为什么我从来没有见过这些不快乐的被压迫人民，好吧，但是你去过城市和农村，但我想大概 75% 会去大城市，大城市，好吧，其他大部分时间，我和家人、孩子们在这里玩得很开心，嗯，是的，但是我对中国的整体感觉很好，所以我写了一本书，主要探讨了美国和中国之间的真正差异，因为美国总是说我们的模式是唯一正确的模式，最终每个人都会成为一个民主国家，顺便说一句，我根本不相信这一点，所以美国是一个个人主义模式，可以追溯到逃离欧洲，中国是一个集体模式，嗯，我们有一个相对不喜欢听到这些话的政府，从设计上来说，政府相对较弱，所以当开国元勋们开始制定美国宪法时，他们基本上说，让我们尽一切努力将政府被允许做的事情降到最低，因为这应该是一个由人民拥有和为人民服务的国家，嗯，另一方面，中国有一个非常强大的中央政府，可以追溯到几千年前我一直认为，部分原因是人们需要团结起来，防止北方的逃兵，还有许多灾难，天气灾难，需要人们团结起来进行重建，所以这个模型非常类似，美国有一条天然的国家边界，比中国安全得多，是的，我们没有同等的，我的意思是，当定居者抵达美国时，这个国家基本上是由印度人拥有的，他们在美国相对不成熟，基本上不是很好，但美国总统似乎在紧急情况下也拥有很大的权力，国会也可以制定新的法律来推翻旧的法律，是的，你知道，在紧急情况下，也许这使得美国在处理危机时相当灵活，在和平时期，政府可能会尽量减少规模，是的，但有一个非常显着的区别，那就是美国最优秀、最聪明的年轻人几乎总是从商，而不是从政，他们和医疗领域，因为那是你赚最多钱??的地方，赚很多钱，赚很多钱，没错，最优秀和最聪明的人，回到中国的官话传统，通常会进入公共服务和政府，对吧，但净效应是，你知道，如果我想想我在中国政府遇到的人，他们受过高等教育，他们往往很世故，在不同的行业工作过，但你怎么比较这种美国制度和欧洲国家？因为你知道整个过程我们称之为现代文明，无论是科学革命还是工业革命，它们实际上都是在欧洲开始的，但欧洲国家的政治制度与美国有何不同，或者它们相似，它们相似之处在于它们都是民主国家，所以你依靠选票来选择你的领导人但是民主出现得晚得多，从 18 世纪到 19 世纪，没有一个欧洲国家是民主党，没有一个是民主的，是的，大多数是的，但是，欧洲也有根深蒂固的阶级制度，而美国从一开始就没有阶级制度，我的意思是，目的是为每个人提供平等的机会，因为他们正在逃离欧洲，而欧洲是一个阶级制度，嗯，但我认为经济的发展方式相当相似，我认为美国的不同之处在于，美国非常依赖移民来创造，所以很多伟大的发明发现都来自美国，可以追溯到欧洲人，他们经常移民到美国，因为他们想逃避压迫，从中国人的角度来看，当我和很多中国人交谈时，无论他们来自不同的背景，当他们谈论美国时，他们似乎有一个更大的画面，他们谈论西方，他们知道西方的崛起始于欧洲，因此他们喜欢
比较欧洲和中国之间的主要差异是什么，然后
从那里开始，他们尝试
然后他们接下来会转向我们和中国之间的主要差异是什么，是的，因此我必须从你的角度来看，如果你比较欧洲和中国，比较欧洲和美国，你知道主要差异是什么
无论是政治制度还是机构或其他背景，你看我们和中国之间的对比似乎更加引人注目
是的，但是如果你比较欧洲和中国，特别是在 16、17、18、19 世纪，当欧洲崛起时，差异可能不同或不同类型的差异，你会如何看待
我的意思是，显然在 19 世纪鸦片战争之前，欧洲人和中国之间并没有那么多的互动，我认为
尤其是英国，它在某种程度上占据了主导地位，我认为这造成了中国和欧洲人之间的高度紧张，我认为美国人在鸦片战争中发挥了作用，但那不是一个戏剧性的角色，我认为呃我会说美国，欧洲人总体上也更具侵略性，他们似乎
他们的政府拥有更集中的权力，是的，以促进工业化，对吧，这就是为什么
第一次世界大战和第二次世界大战发生在那些欧洲国家之间，我认为我的意思是，对我来说，19 世纪发生的主要事情是中国错过了工业革命，这非常有趣，所以
所以清朝是由马努斯统治的，坦率地说，你有例子
比如皇后石室把国库花在重建颐和园上
而不是海军，这是海军的本意，所以我认为马努斯在昌朝统治下的内向性导致对世界其他地方发生的事情缺乏兴趣，没有任何真正的求知欲，所以当你第一次看到英国人
这里是我们所有的发现，这就是我们能够现代化的回应，当时的 EMP 或皇帝
我们没有什么可学的我认为当时的中国对欧洲的情况一无所知，或者说知之甚少，否则你会认为他们的行为可能会有所不同，是的，绝对如此，所以如果你回顾中国的历史，如果你错过了工业革命，它确实影响了大多数发达的西方国家，而美国和英国可能发挥了重要作用，这也是为什么你知道历史学家经常谈论德国曾经是一个落后地区或国家，你知道甚至没有统一，直到 19 世纪下半叶末，德国才开始成为一个强国，是的，那么德国怎么能做到这一点，而其他欧洲国家，比如波兰，我不知道，却没有做到这一点，是的，在亚洲，日本也取得了成功，但人们也在谈论日本如何成功掌握工业化进程，而中国却一直落后，如果你以这两个例子为例，我的意思是，它们的共同点是德国和日本呃，出于军事原因，他们非常渴望建立自己的工业实力，所以中国，我的意思是日本在军事上非常积极，俄罗斯呃和其他地区，所以我认为一旦你开始走这条路，那么你就会想要建造船只，想要建立一支军队，想要建造一切与军事实力相关的东西，德国也完全一样，德国显然是 19 世纪末欧洲战争中非常重要的参与者，然后在第一次世界大战和第二次世界大战中非常积极和活跃，所以我认为在这两种情况下，工业化都伴随着军事旋转，你知道战争创造了资本主义所以资本主义是在欧洲兴起的，而不是在
亚洲，因为他们一直处于战争状态，而这些战争创造了对
不同类型的组织、不同类型的融资的需求，显然
创造了鼓励商业的需要，因为商业会给你钱来资助战争，因此所谓的
军国主义国家工业化方式实际上出现得更早，比如从文艺复兴时期开始，意大利城邦，比如威尼斯，它们本质上是军国主义的
国家，一方面他们需要商业，另一方面他们需要强大的军队或军事力量，所以后来
呃，后来的呃呃，像德国和日本，他们需要做更多，否则
他们将无法挤进成为一个强国，所以所有的欧洲大国，比如法国，你知道路易十四和其他利奥尼亚，他们所以所有的欧洲大国都有这种军国主义工业化的特征，所以也许这是中国愤怒的另一种解释，他们从来没有想过或不想走那条路，我认为 chin
dasty 也许有另一个原因，因为他们就像你提到的少数民族
控制主要势力，你知道，即使是像威尼斯这样的城市国家，如果他们想崛起，他们也需要每个人都能够战斗，每个人都能够做生意，是的，但是如果中国政府这样做，这意味着所有的财政资源和军事力量都将转移到那些会造成威胁的人手中，所以也许这是他们不走那条路的另一个原因，而对于日本来说，一旦他们有了天皇，他们就是每个人的神，似乎这个问题至少可以解决，我不知道，所以这是一个观点，是的，当然，我们现在变得非常不同，因为我们不依赖 M，你知道他们没有更多的国王王后，但后来的美国也像今天一样，你看看美国这个军事呃综合工业综合体，m 类似于那种传统，是的，非常强大，所以发展中的人们认为这似乎是任何国家实现工业化的必要因素之一，你需要它来创造巨大的激励和对重工业的需求是的，对许多其他事情的需求以及对技术采用的需求，否则您将被击败，是的，被杀死，所以那是一种观点，当然，美国有很多不同的特点，比如他们尽量缩小政府规模，但对于欧洲人来说这是不可能的，如果你这样做，也许你将成为下一个被摧毁的国家，是的，你如何看待这种观点，这本质上是布拉尔和斯巴特的观点，你知道战争创造了资本主义，所以人们说为什么资本主义从未在东方兴起，呃在亚洲，呃，这提供了一种解释，当然，根据马克斯·韦伯的观点，他有不同的观点，他的宗教信仰是不同的基督教徒，他们更注重工业，他们喜欢拯救，但这种观点似乎与历史不太一致，因为犹太人也非常像中国人或佛教徒，也许他们都擅长做我不知道是的呃那些事情，但他们无法崛起，也许是因为缺乏集中军事主义是的，工业化
动机，你称之为国家意志，利用这种意志来动员资源，以不同的方式组织国家，与欧洲国家竞争，是的，但美国能够做到这一点，呃，也许不是一开始，但美国知道这一点，他们知道欧洲人的行为方式，所以美国后来也建立了军队，也通过内战进一步增强了美国的军事能力，以便很好地发挥作用，所以中国当中国变得有点心态，我们确实需要一支国家军队进行军事化，那是在内战和抗日战争期间，这帮助中国人最终组织军事，MH 进行战斗，凭借这种军事呃战斗力，你进入了社会计划时代，但在社会计划时代，虽然你有强大的军事思维，但你不允许市场繁荣，所以你错过了一部分，安达解决了这个问题，他不仅继承了这种军事机构能力，还允许市场，而中国可能只有市场，但知道这种缺乏，我认为有美国和欧洲之间的两个根本区别
欧洲一直是一个非常分裂的大陆
所以你们有语言差异，有文化差异，有宗教差异，还有
19 世纪战争几乎一直持续，我的意思是
直到第一次世界大战，然后在第二次世界大战中爆发，所以我认为
分裂，尽管他们试图通过创建欧盟在一定程度上解决这个问题，但主要国家之间仍然存在相当大的差异，这是一个拥抱美国和中国的优势在于基本上拥有一个单一语言的大型一体化国家，嗯，美国还有一个额外的优势，那就是虽然它参与了战争，但战争从来不发生在自己的土地上，所以我认为美国经济成功的原因之一是他们能够避免战争，而不是选择性地加入战争，就像他们在第一次世界大战和第一次世界大战中所做的那样，对吧，然后是中国，同样的事情，我的意思是中国面临的挑战是军阀的内部斗争和内战，但是一旦被邓小平统治，中国就变得非常注重市场驱动的经济和消费主义，邓小平在短时间内就做得非常出色，所以这很有趣，所以你知道东欧国家也进行了市场改革，他们的经济基础要优越得多，你知道他们每个人都有一个社会计划，他们建立了许多工业，包括矿业工业，为什么 AFA 会引入市场改革，他们无法像中国那样表现良好，所以你提到了邓小平领导层和东欧国家领导层之间的主要区别是什么，他们在哪里从某种意义上说，他们错了，他们有更好的市场改革基础，他们没有经历文化革命，所以你对此有什么看法，是的，我认为中国一直拥有的巨大优势就是规模，好吧，所以当你拥有今天的 14 亿消费者人口时，即使你看看亚洲四小龙，当你看看香港、新加坡、台湾和韩国时，他们也无法创造任何接近中国创造的经济足迹，部分原因是这个国家的规模，中国的人口，是的，所以规模经济非常重要，这也可以解释美国与欧洲国家相比的成功，我们的规模要大得多，所以即使德国工程师可能非常优秀，日本工程师可能非常优秀，但你的经济规模非常有限，是的，所以另一方面，嗯，较小的国家也可能有一些优势，例如，你知道你需要发展经济，你需要大规模生产，你需要全球市场，但新加坡的规模可能很大他们只需要一小部分全球市场
就能支持他们的工业化，而中国需要整个地球，地球的资源非常有限，因此
也可能使较小的国家更容易在
创建全球市场方面进行
是的，你知道，我听说在新加坡 60 年代、50 年代和 70 年代的工业化过程中，他们拥有庞大的制造业部门，但仅凭这个市场
就能够支持许多人的就业，对于中国来说，你不能只依赖这一点，是的，你需要依赖
也许其他更大的市场，例如纺织品，但全球的纺织品市场非常有限，美国给中国一些配额，就是这样，我从台湾经济学家那里听说，他们说我们给了他们 Coda，很快
coda 就满了，然后他们不得不寻找替代市场，幸运的是，中国打开了改革的大门，因此中国成为台湾最大的全球市场，以吸收他们的
工业产出，因此从这个角度来看，中国更难现在全球市场在哪里
美国也在试图缩小中国的全球市场，这可能会让你觉得这会让中国的工业化进程更难完成。首先，我认为遏制中国的想法是一个荒谬的想法，因为如果你看看中国的经济势头，如果你看看文化优势，中国人就是比美国人更努力，而且不可否认，欧洲人也持同样的观点，他们说美国人比欧洲人更努力。欧洲人，哦，不，绝对的，我的意思是看看欧洲，我的意思是罢工的次数，嗯，呃呃，假期的次数，我的意思是当我们麦肯锡从法国和西班牙雇佣美国员工时，我的意思是他们只是习惯了一种要求低得多的模式，而中国的员工又要努力得多，所以在麦肯锡工作过，在我们许多美国办事处工作过，然后在中国也是一样，这是非常不同的，如何不同，首先，如果你去问大多数美国人，说你是每周工作六天而不是五天，你要从早上 9 点工作到晚上 9 点，呃，他们会说你疯了，我的意思是，但这只是不会被接受的，在美国是这样的，对吧，但在 19 世纪，也许美国人的平均工作量和中国人一样努力，他们每天工作 6 天甚至 7 天，也许，也许在战争时期等困难时期，但嗯，我想我的意思是，如果我想想我父亲，他在 20 年代、30 年代和 40 年代长大，他的工作时间与今天在美国工作的人没有什么不同，好吧，好吧，当我在 M 的北京或上海办事处工作时呃，如果你观察的话，你会看到深夜灯亮着，然后你会看到人们在白天在办公桌前睡着了，因为他们基本上没有睡觉，也许后来有一种模式，你必须比早些的人更努力，是的，所以你我们美国人比欧洲人更努力，中国人必须比美国更努力才能崛起，否则就不可能，所以就像德国和日本一样，他们需要成为更加军国主义的国家，否则他们就没有机会崛起，因为国家已经完全被占领了，就像你知道在学术界，你知道在美国，这对所有教授来说都是很正常的，他们呆在办公室直到晚上 8 点 9 点，有时甚至是午夜，但我去欧洲旅行，如果你这样做，其他人会看不起你，为什么你需要这么努力工作，当然，所以大约五点或四点，每个人都锁上别人的门，说我们回家吧，是的，呃，但是呃你
确切地说，我们在工业化方面是一个后来者，也许这可以解释为什么我们在其他方面表现不同，但
与我们相比，中国甚至更晚，这也许可以解释一下
但在未来，一旦中国富裕起来，你会看到印度人走路更卖力，中国人
开始放松，他们想在四点左右下车，他们只想工作
你知道，一周 3 天或 5 天，是的，我会说中国人比
印度人工作更聪明，所以我给你举个例子，我当时正在德里
我和家人一起去北部的拉贾斯坦邦，我们在这条美丽的六车道高速公路上，从德里出来，六车道高速公路非常好
每个方向都很好，但大约 50 英里后它变成了一条土路，哦，好吧，我说，好吧，发生了什么事，哦，新市长，哦，不支持拉贾斯坦邦，不尊重他们
所做的，所以他只是阻止了这条路，好吧，所以我称之为经济印度的非理性非常严重，这是非常严重的，所以即使印度人民非常聪明，他们培养出
更多高端学生，我们在麦肯齐学院看到的，几乎比其他任何国家都多，但印度没有像中国那样的体制，中国有大量受过高等教育的人，他们在党内是精英阶层，他们都站在同一战线上，我的意思是让所有印度人，我的意思是从穆斯林和印度教徒开始，他们不是一个统一的国家，对吧，我认为美国 150 年来一直是世界顶级经济体，我认为美国对其他国家在做什么几乎没有什么好奇心，因为他们已经习惯了我们是第一的想法，他们反对中国成功的一个原因是，这是一种有赢家和输家的二元思维模式，所以美国人真的相信，如果中国非常成功，他们就会赢，我们就会输，是的，如果你向中国人解释这一点，他们会说为什么你看看，为什么不
你只是说我们不想双方都赢吗如果你只是想想我们的政府，听政府的人谈论中国，他们对中国一无所知，他们知道，我说，我很好，我说，拜登政府，甚至特朗普政府，他们有很多人似乎非常了解中国，所以他们可以设计出很好的政策来遏制中国，让我们可以说他们非常有信心，我会说他们对中国的了解过于自信，好吧，我想如果你问他们告诉我关于儒家思想的事情，他们会说，哦，我们都知道，儒家学院被放在美国是为了监视，当你说不，我在谈论儒家价值观时，你不会发现超过 5% 的美国人可以解释任何关于儒家思想的事情，我在北京大学，他们说，皮特，我们有一个由 16 名国会议员组成的代表团，所有人都非常关注中国，其中 16 人对中国持消极态度去过中国三次，一个去过中国一次，14 个从未去过中国，我不知道，好吧，差不多，但仍然是一个非常小的数目，对吧，当你听国会议员对中国的态度非常激进，总是解释中国及其运作方式时，他们经常会说，中国不可避免地会成为一个民主国家，因为中国人民非常不高兴，你说你有什么证据，他们实际上没有任何证据，因为他们从未去过，你怎么解释，也许另一方面，这可能是自然的，因为我相信那些国会议员大部分都去过欧洲，甚至日本，但中国最近才成为发展中国家，你知道，发展中，所以他们没有机会，谁想去一个落后的欠发达国家，对吧，没有动机你去，你知道，当中国刚刚崛起时，他们可能还没有机会，我的意思是，我只是看到这是基于 150 年的领先地位而产生的过度自信 150 年，好吧，我的意思是这可以追溯到 19 世纪后期，当时工业革命真正获得了蒸汽，嗯嗯，美国谈到了盗窃知识产权，这在 19 世纪是一件独特的事情，美国在华盛顿有一个庞大的部门，其唯一的工作就是从英国人那里窃取知识产权，是的，所以这种情况已经持续了很多年，是的，实际上，同样的英国人，当他们崛起时，他们花费了大量精力从意大利窃取技术，是的，你知道，它仍然来自阿拉伯人，所以这这这这一直在永远，没错，但后来你成为了一个创新者，从那时起，他们开始认为你知道你一直是创新者，我们是第一，这是真的，但我的意思是中国是创新的，但以不同的方式，中国更多地是应用驱动，所以当 iPhone 问世时像 iPhone 和互联网，以及我所说的伟大的经济理念，它们往往来自美国，但是如果你看看应用程序的实际发展，是的，所以如果你拿 iPhone 来看中国所有围绕 iPhone 建立的企业，它非常令人印象深刻，规模巨大，但实际上对美国来说也是如此，正如你提到的，在 19 世纪，美国是欧洲的学生，是的，他们学习的所有技术都是复制的，甚至偷窃，但你知道，通过这个过程，你后来会成为顶尖的，也许中国还处于早期美国的阶段，主要是学习和模仿，但后来中国会成为顶尖的创新者，因为你已经开始看到科学，很多人是对的，也许这对印度来说是一个自然的过程，有一天可能会和现在一样，也许印度现在或未来几十年仍然是学习复制的优秀学生，但最终他们可能会成为顶尖的创新者，我记住，在 19 世纪，如果你在百科全书中搜索一位著名的美国科学家从事纯科学研究，你会发现没有，但到了 19 世纪，到 19 世纪末，美国在工业化、电子商务和应用方面已经处于领先地位，但在纯科学研究方面却一无所获。但进入 20 世纪后，我们便处于领先地位，在早期，我们实际上依靠来自欧洲的移民，因为他们经历了两次战争，是的，但后来我们开始拥有自己的非常著名和非常有创新精神的科学家，越来越多的非美国人，你再也看不到欧洲人的名字了，也许这只是一个自然的过程，所以现在你仍然看到中国非常擅长学习、模仿，但你永远不知道，也许 20 年后，中国也可能会开始非常创新，不仅是技术，而且在基础研究方面也是如此，是的，政府现在正在向大学投入资金，大学正在改革他们的教育方式，所以这可能是一个自然的模式，但可能不会一直如此，因为我最终无法走向前沿，但在很多方面，中国已经在那里了，我的意思是，如果你看看武威，武威是全球技术和电信领域的领导者，拥有 5G，这是非常令人印象深刻的，如果你看看中国在电动汽车领域所做的，对吧，以及他们在高铁领域所做的，对吧，所以我认为中国在很多领域都超越了世界其他国家，你认为美国现在的政策实际上是在推动或鼓励中国人成为芯片 IND 的创新者，否则他们为什么会有动力购买我们的芯片要便宜得多，而且质量高，价格低，你自己做，现在你说你自己做，我们卖给你，这可能会把中国推到那里，这就是你想变得合理独立的原因，因为你不能指望全球化，嗯，我个人认为，遏制中国的运动历史将回顾这是一个非常愚蠢的想法，因为你正在做的是你真正鼓励中国翻番减少在美国有优势领域的投资，如果你推动全球化或经济发展，你会发现，一旦中国人真正独立于美国，他们就会有长久的记忆，他们不会回到美国说好吧，现在让我们做朋友吧，他们会说你支持我们，现在我们匹配了你，我们要走自己的路，这将是洛杉矶。
hi today we're very happy to have uh Mr Peter walk to to join us to have a
conversation and dialogue about lot of issues and uh so now let me uh give uh
Peter the chance to introduce uh himself about his work experience and his
background let me just start with my uh interest in China which has been pretty high for probably 40 years so I studied biographies of a lot of my favorite people so composers authors Etc so I got to develop a better understanding of the East versus the Wes I think Western philosophies and religions are what I would call dualistic by
Nature so they're inherently judgmental so you have good bad Heaven hell Etc is
that mostly influenced by this Christianity yes very influenced by judeo Jewish and Christian faith okay and I just in find that very appealing I don't like the idea that people are constantly looking for winners and losers and uh so when I started the
Eastern religions and I started with Buddhism and Hinduism okay I like very much the idea of Harmony and balance so I just said I'm just basically an easterner in a western body when I hit 60 I told my assistant I wanted to go to China every 6 to8 weeks for a week so when was that which uh that started probably 15 years ago okay but I made over 80 trips to China because my field at in at Mckenzie was insurance so I was advising large insurance companies around the world so around the early 2000 so that was your first trip to China yeah first trips well I did some earlier trips when China was all bicycles no cars oh in the ' 80s yes in the ' 80s and and early '90s but this was the first time I really spent dedicated time in China and I wound up writing a book because I got so tired of reading in the western press about the oppressive corrupt government and the unhappy oppressed people okay and I said to myself I've made over 80 trips how come I've never met any of these unhappy oppressed people okay but you you travel to both the cities and the rural area yeah but I'd say probably 75 % would have been big cities big cities okay most of the other time I Was Here For Pleasure with my family with my kids and uh okay yeah so but I developed a pretty good feel for China overall so I I wrote a book that largely uh examines the real differences between the US and China because the US is always saying our model is the only right model that
ultimately every everyone is going to become a democracy by the way I don't believe that at all so the US is an individualistic model going back to escaping Europe China is very much a collective model MH uh us has a relatively they don't like to hear these
words a relatively weak government by Design so when the founding fathers
start to develop the constitution in the US they basically said let's do everything we can to minimize what the government is allowed to do because this is should be a country of by and for the people okay um and China on the other hand had a very strong central government has going back thousands of years it's always at that in part I
think because people need to come together to protect against the evasions from the North and then also the number of catastrophes weather catastrophes that required people to come together to kind of rebuild so the model was very much so the US simp have a natural National border so much safer compar to totally China yeah we had no equivalence I mean when settlers arrived in IND in the US the country was basically owned by Indians who were relatively unsophisticated in the US in a not very
nice way basically but seems to the the US president you know in the time of emergency for example perhaps also has a lot of power yes and and the Congress can also you know set up new laws to overrule yes you know the old old ones right in a time of emergency maybe so that makes the US quite a flexible dealing with crisis and also during
peaceful time maybe government try to minimize the size yeah but but there is a one very significant difference is the best and the brightest young people in the US almost always go into business go to business do not government they and and medical field yeah because that's where you make most of make a lot of money make a lot make a lot of money exactly okay and the best and the brightest going back to the Mandarin tradition in China generally would into public service and government right right yes but the net effect is you know if I think about the people I've met in the Chinese government they are Highly Educated they tend to be pretty worldly and have had jobs in different sectors but how would you compare this kind of us system with European countries
because you know the the whole process we call you know soal modern civilization whether that be Scientific Revolution or Industrial Revolution they actually started in Europe and but how the European countries political system
differ from the US or they're similar they're similar in the sense that they're both democracies MH so you rely on votes to select your leaders but there democracy comeon much later right starting in the 18th century 19th century none of the European country was Democrat was had a democracy yeah it was on the mor most yeah but and and you also had Europe was very deeply ingrained class system whereas the us from the very beginning was not a class system I mean the purpose was equal opportunity for everyone because they were escaping Europe which was a class system right right um but I think the economies evolved in in Fairly similar
ways the I think the difference in the US is the US relied very much on
immigration for creativity so a lot of the Great Inventions discoveries they
came out of America really can be traced back to Europeans okay who immigrated to
the United States frequently because they wanted to escape oppression okay seems from the Chinese point of view you know when I talk to lots of Chinese whether they from different background when they talk about the US seem they
have they have a much bigger uh picture in their mind is they talk about West
and they know that the rise of the West started in Europe so therefore they like
to compare what's the major difference between Europe and China then starting
from there they try to then they next they move to what the major difference between us and China yeah so therefore I would have to know from a your point of view you know if you compare Europe with China and compare Europe with the US what kind of you know major difference
in terms of whether that be political system or institutions or some other
background you you see the contrast between us and China seems much striking
larger yes but if you compare Europe and China especially in the 16 17 18 19
century when Europe rose up maybe the difference was different or different type of difference how would you see
that well I mean I mean obviously there wasn't that much interaction between the
Europeans and China until the Opium Wars in the 19th century right and I think
especially Great Britain which kind of took the lead I think that created a pretty high level of tension between
China and the Europeans right I think the Americans played a role in the Opium Wars but it wasn't a dramatic role and I
think the uh I'd say the U the Europeans in general were more aggressive also they they seem
their their government had a more centralized power yeah to to facilitate industrialization right like that's why
first world war second world war took place among those European countries well I I think I mean to me the the main
thing that happened in the 19th century is that China missed the Industrial Revolution that's a very interesting so
so you had the Ching Dynasty run by by the Manus uh where frankly you have examples
like Empress shishi who spent the treasury on rebuilding the Summer Palace
as opposed to the Navy which is what it was meant for yeah so I I think the inward focus of the Manus under the
Chang Dynasty uh led to a lack of interest in what was going on in the
rest of the world and not any real intellectual curiosity so when you had the Brit show up for the first time with
here are all of our discoveries and here's what's enabling us to modernize the response from the EMP or Emperor at
the time was very much we have nothing to learn from the West I think so that time China really was not aware or know
very little about what's going on in Europe exactly otherwise you think they might have behaved differently than yeah
absolutely absolutely so if you think about Chinese history if you missed the Industrial Revolution which was really
affecting most of the advanced Western countries and the US and the UK probably
played a prominent role that's also why you know historians often talk about you
know Germany used to be a backward area or Nation you know was not even unified
and and until maybe late uh second half of 19th century then Germany start to
emerge as a as a power yes uh so how could Germany uh do that whereas other
European nations like Poland I don't know failed to achieve that yeah and also in Asia Japan you know came uh into
place and uh but people also talk about how come Japan succeeded in capturing
the the process of industrialization whereas China keep falling behind if you
take those two examples I mean what was uh the common denominator is both
Germany and Japan uh were very anxious to build up their industrial might for for military reasons so China I mean Japan was very aggressive militarily Visa China Visa
Russia uh and other areas so I think once you start down that track then you
want to be able to build ships you want to be able to build an army you want to be able to build everything that goes with military might and Germany exactly the same Germany was a you know obviously a very major player in European wars in the late 19th century
and then very aggressive and active in World War I and World War II so I think
a lot in those two cases the industrialization followed a military
spin you know war created a capitalism so capitalism arise in Europe not in
Asia because they had a constant state of wars and those war created demand for
different type of organization different type of financing and obviously uh
created the need to encourage Commerce because that give you the money to to finance Wars and therefore so-called
militaristic State way of industrialization actually came much earlier like starting from Renaissance those Italian city state like Venice they were essentially militaristic uh State on one hand they
need Commerce on one other hand they need strong army or military so later on
uh as a later uh uh like Germany and Japan they need to do more otherwise
they would not be able to squeeze in to become a power so all the European powers like in France you know Louis the 14 and other Leonia and they so all the European powers had this feature of militaristic industrialization so maybe that's another explanation for for China's fure they never thought of or wanted to go that road I I think chin
dasty perhaps has another reason because they are like you mention the minority
to control the major hand people you know like even like a city state like a
Venice if they want to rise up they need uh essentially everyone to be able to
fight and everyone to be able to do business yeah but if Chinese government the Chinese government do that that means all the the financial resources and the minitary power will shift to to the hand people that will create a threat so maybe that's an additional reason they didn't take that route whereas for Japan once they have the
Emperor who they you know the god the god of everyone that seem that problem
at least can be solved I don't know so that's one perspective yeah of of course
us that become very different now because us does not did not rely on M you know they did not have any more kings queens but the us later on also like today you look at the US this military uh comp complex industrial complex m is something analogous to that uh that kind of tradition yes very
strong in that so people developing count think that this seems to be one of
the essential element for any country to become industrialized you need that to create the huge incentive and demand for
heavy Industries yes for lots of other things and for technology adoption and otherwise you will be defeated yeah be be killed so that's that's one View and of course the US has a lot of different features like they minimize the size of
government but that's impossible for European if you do that perhaps you will be the next one to to be to be destroyed
yeah how do you think this kind of perspective this is essentially the view of uh brale and and sbat you know the think of war created capitalism so people say why capitalism never arises in East uh in Asia uh this provide one
explanation of course according to Max Weber that he has a different view his a religions different Christian people
they are more industr they like to save but that view seems not very consistent
with history because the Jewish people also you know very INR is were like to say Chinese or the Buddhist people
perhaps they all they may be also good at doing I don't know yeah uh those kind of things but they were not able to rise
maybe because of the lack of centralized militaristic yeah industrialization
motive what you call like a national will to use that will to mobilize resources to organize the nation in a different way to compete with the European nations yeah but the US was able to do that uh maybe not in the very
beginning but the us know that right they know the European how they behave so the us later on also built a military also through the Civil War that further enhanced the the US military capacity so that good play a role so China when China became sort of kind of have a mind set where we do need a national Army to be militarized was during the Civil War and the war against Japan so that helped the Chinese finally to to be organized militarily MH to fight and with that military uh fighting capacity that you
enter the social planning era but a social planning era although you have a strong military kind of mindset but you did not allow Market it flourish so you miss one part Anda solved that he not only inherited this kind of kind of military institutional capacity but also allowed Market whereas the chiny had maybe just Market but know this kind of lack of this I think there's there's two fundamental differences between the US
and and Europe Europeans have always been a very highly fragmented continent
right so you've got language differences you have cultural differences you have religious differences and you also have
the fact that war in the 19th century was almost a constant state I mean right
up through World War I and then kicking in in World War II so uh I think that
fragmentation and even though they tried to solve it to some extent by creating the EU there are still fairly significant differences among the major countries it was a huge Advantage for the US and China to basically have a large single language integrated country right um and the US had the added advantage of while it was involved in
Wars it was never on their own land so one of the reason I think for the economic success of the US is is they were able to avoid war other than selectively joining as they did obviously in World War I and World War War I right right and then China the same thing I mean China the challenge
for many years was the internal fighting of the Warlords and the Civil War uh but
once under dung China became very focused on Market driven economy and and
consumerism uh dung just did an extraordinary job in a short period of time so this is interesting so you know
East European countries also conducted Market reform and they economic Foundation was much more Superior you
know they had a social plan everybody they built a lot of Industries including Min Industries how come AFA introducing
Market reform they could not perform as well as China so you mentioned about
ding what's the major difference between dingin leadership versus you know the leadership in East European countries
where did they go wrong in a sense you know this they have they had a much better Foundation to the market reform
they did not go through culture reevolu fing so what's your you know view on this yeah I think a huge Advantage China
has always had is just scale okay so when you've got a consumer population
today of a billion four um e even when you look at the Asian tigers so when you
looked at Hong Kong and Singapore and Taiwan and Korea they have not been able
to create anywhere near the economic footprint that China has created in part
because of the the scale of the country the population in China yes okay so
economy of scale is very important that may also explain the US success compared to European countries us had much larger
scale right so even though German Engineers they may be very good the Japanese may be very good but your scale
of economy is very limited yes right so on the other hand um there's also maybe
some Advantage for smaller countries for example you know you you need to develop an economy you need a mass production
and you need a global market but uh the size of Singapore because perhaps they only need a tiny bit of Global Market
that can support their industrialization yes whereas China need the entire Earth and the Earth is very limited so that
may also make it smaller countries somehow easier under way of in terms of
creating Global Market yeah uh you know I heard that during Singapore's industrialization process in the' 60s uh
' 50s '70s they had a huge sector of uh manufacturing work but that market alone
is able to support lots of people's employment uh for China you cannot just rely on that yeah you need to r on
perhaps other much larger market such as textile and but the textile Market globally is very limited the US give
China some quota that's it I heard from you know Taiwanese Economist they say you know us give them Coda and soon the
coda was filled then have they have to search for Alternative Market this fortunately China open their door for
reform so China become taiwan's largest possible Global Market to absorb their
uh industrial output so then you look from that point of view it's harder for China where's the global market now the
US is also trying to shrink China's Global Market so that may will make you think that will make China's
industrialization process harder to to Finish Well harder first of all I think the idea of containing China is a ridiculous idea because if you look at the economic momentum of China if you look at the cultural advantages Chinese people just work harder than Americans and and there's no denying that that's
also the same view from the Europeans they say Americans work much harder than the Europe Europeans oh no absolutely I
mean look at European I mean the number of strikes um and and uh uh and the number
of holidays I mean when when we McKenzie hire people inth America from France and from
Spain I mean they just are used to a model that is far less demanding whereas
China is is again dramatically harder worker so having worked at McKinsey and
worked in many of our us offices and then the same in China it's very different how how different well well first of all if you were to go to most Americans and say you're going to work six days a week not five you're gonna
work from 9 to nine uh they'd say you're crazy I mean
but that's just just it would not be accepted that's R in the US right but in the you go back to 19th century perhaps
of the American average Americans work as hard as Chinese they work for 6 days even seven days per per day perhaps yeah
may maybe during times of challenge like War times but um I think I mean if I
think about my father who grew up in the 20s 30s and 40s his hours were not
dissimilar from people working in the US today okay okay when I would work with
the Beijing or Shanghai office at McKenzie uh you you would just if if you
watch you would see the lights on very late at night and then you'd see people falling asleep at their desk during the
day cuz they basically got no sleep maybe there's a pattern later Comer you have to work harder than the earlier
ones yeah so you us people American people work harder than Europeans the Chinese people have to work harder than
the US in order to come up otherwise it's impossible so just like the Germany and the Japan they need to be far more
militaristic State otherwise they could there's no chance for them to rise up because the state was already fully
occupied like you know in Academia you know in the US it's so normal for all
the professors stay in their office until 8 9 sometimes even midnight but I
travel to Europe it's impossible if you do that the people other people will look down at you why why do you need to
work so hard sure so around five or four everybody just lock other people's door say let's go home yeah uh but uh you
precisely us is a latecomer in terms of industrialization maybe that explains why us behave differently otherwise but
China compared to us is much even later Comer that's maybe one one way to
explain but in the future once China become rich you will see Indians Indian people walk much harder and the Chinese
start to relax and they want to get off around four and they only want work for
you know 3 or 5 days a week yeah I would say the Chinese work much smarter than
the Indians do so I'll give you an example I was living I was visiting Deli
I was my family and I were going to go to rajastan in the north we were on this
beautiful six Lane highway coming out of Delhi six Lane Highway very good well
each way okay and and but it turned into a dirt road after about 50 miles oh okay
all right I said well what happened oh the new mayor oh doesn't support rajastan and doesn't respect what they
do so he just stopped the road okay so the amount of ir what I would call economic irrationality in India is huge
this is huge so even though the people are very smart and they turn out more
high-end students which we saw at McKenzie than almost any other country you do not have anything like the system
in China where you've got large numbers of Highly Educated people advanced
meritocratic in the party and they're all on the same page I mean getting all Indians I mean just start with the
Muslims and the and the Hindus um they are they are not a United Country right
I I think the US for 150 years has been the top economy in the world I think one
reason you see very little intellectual curiosity in the US about what other
countries are doing uh is because they've been so used to the idea that we're number on one reason they push
back against China's success is because it's a dualistic mindset with winners and
losers so Americans genuinely believe that if China is very successful they
win we lose yeah that's and and you explain that to Chinese people and they say why do you look at it that why don't
you just say don't we want both sides to win if you just think about in our government and listening to government
people talk about China they know nothing about China the rain they know and I talk I well I talked I the the
Biden Administration and the even the Trump administ they have a lots of people seem they know China very well so
well so that they can design good policy to contain China let's let's just say they
very confident I would say grossly overconfident in what they know about China okay I think if you ask them what
are tell me about Confucianism they say oh we know all about that the Confucian
institutes were put in the US to spy when you say no I'm talking about
the Confucian values you wouldn't find more than 5% of Americans who could
explain anything about Confucianism I was at peing University and they said Pete we had a delegation of 16 Congress
people all very focused on China in a negative way of the 16 one had been to
China three times one had been to China once 14 had never been to China who are
they I don't know okay okay just about but still it it it it's a it's a very
small number right and when you when you listen to congressman who generally are
very aggressive about China and always explaining China and the way it works so
they'll frequently say well it's inevitable that China will become a democracy because the Chinese people are
so unhappy and you say well what evidence do you actually they don't have
any evidence because they never been and how do you explain maybe on the
other hand maybe natural because I believe those congressmen most of them have gone to Europe or even to Japan but
China just recently become Dev you know s developing developed so therefore they have not had the chance who want to go
to a backward underdeveloped country right the incentive was not there you go
to you go to you know more devop or equal when China just recently stting to emerge maybe they did not have the
chance yet I mean I I just see it as a level of overconfidence based on 150 years of
being number one 150 years okay and yeah I mean it goes back to literally the late 1800s when the Industrial
Revolution really gained Steam mhm uh and the US talks about uh the theft of
intellectual property like this is a unique thing during the 19th century the
US had a huge Department in Washington whose only job was to steal int elect
property from the Brits yes yes so so this has been going on for years yeah
and actually the same Brits they when during their time you know rise up they
spent lot of energy stealing technology from Italy yeah you know and ital still still
technology from Arabs yeah so this this this has been going on forever forever
that's right but later on you has become an innovator so and and since then they start to thinking you know have always
been innovator and we're number one that's that's true but it it's I mean China is innovative but in a different
way China is much more application driven so when the iPhone comes out the
things like the iPhone and the internet and and what I would call call the big economic ideas they tend to come from
America uh but if you look at the actual development of applications yeah so if
you take the iPhone and look at all the businesses in China that have been built
around the iPhone it's pretty impressive and huge but the same actually for the
us as you mentioned in the 19 century us was a student of Europe yes and all the
technology the learn they copied even they stole but you know through that
process later on you become on the top yeah maybe China was still in the stage
of like early us yeah mostly r on learning and mimicking y but uh later on
China will become you know a innovator on the top because you already start to see science many weere right maybe
that's a natural process for indiaan someday may be the same you know India maybe nowaday or perhaps next decades is
still very good student of learning copying and but eventually they may
become on the top become a you know uh innovator in the frontier I remember
that in the 19th century us if you if you search for encyclopedia you search
for a famous American scientist doing pure science you find none zero but the
19th century by the end of 19th Cur us was already become a top in terms of industrialization in terms of eCommerce
in terms of application but uh zero in pure scientific research but once enter
the 20th century entering then us become on the top and in the early stage us walk actually rely on immigrants from
Europe because they have the two Wars yeah but later on us start to have its own very famous and very Innovative uh
scientists more more more un Americans and they you don't longer see European names maybe that's just a natural
process so nowadays you still see China as you know very good at learning
mimicking but you never know I don't know maybe 20 years down the road China may also start to have very Innovative
uh not just the technology but also in terms of basic research yeah the government is now pumping money into
universities and universities are reforming their way of educating people
so this maybe a natural pattern but may not always be will because me c eventually could not move to the
frontier but in many ways China's already there I mean if you look at wuwei wuwei was the global leader in
technology and Telecom with 5G and that was that was pretty impressive and if you look at what China has done in EVS
right uh and what they did in High-Speed Rail right uh so there are a lot of areas where China has I think
leapfrogged the rest of the world you think of the US policy now actually is actually pushing or encouraging Chinese
to do to become innovator in chip IND otherwise why would they have the incentive it's much cheaper to buy us
chips and high quality low price you do on your own very costantly and now you
say you do on your own we W sell to you that may actually push China to there the the reason you do want to become re
reasonably independent as you can't count on globalization MH um I personally think that the contained
China movement history will look back on that as a very foolish idea because what
you're doing is you're really encouraging China to double down on its investment in the areas where us has a
strength and if you push the ultimate globalization or Economic Development you you're going to find that the
Chinese once they get truly independent of the US they have long memories
they're not going to go back to the US and say well okay now let's be friends they're going to say you W there for us
and now we've matched you we're going to go our own way which would be a Los
