您现在的位置:首页 > 新闻 > 正文

【中英双语】中国的贫困线:中央王国的底层生活

更新:2016-06-12 11:56:38  |  来源:转载  |  阅读:51
标签:贫困线王国双语

Life at the bottom of the middle kingdom 

中国的贫困线
中央王国的底层生活

This week China raised its rural poverty line to 2,300 yuan a year. It's about time. China's official definition of poverty has traditionally been quite miserly. In a 2008 paper Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion of the World Bank noted that China's rural poverty line was "one of the lowest lines in the developing world".

本周,中国提升了农村贫困线, 每年2300元。该是时候(调整)了。中国官方定义的贫困标准向来是相当吝啬的。在2008年的一篇论文中,世界银行的陈绍华(音译)和Martin Ravallion注意到 ,中国的农村贫困线是"发展中国家最低的贫困线之一。"

中国的贫困

So how generous is 2,300 yuan by international standards?

因此,按照国际标准,2300元是多么的大方啊?

Some news reports (see here) implied that China's new line still falls below the World Bank's global poverty standard of $1.25 a day. That seems obvious: 2,300 
yuan per year is 6.3 yuan per day, or a little less than $1 at today's exchange rate.

一些新闻报道(见这里)暗示,中国的新贫困线仍低于世界银行的全球每天1.25美元的贫困标准。这似乎是显而易见的: 2300元每年相当于6.3元每天,按照今天的汇率稍低于1美元。

But the World Bank's poverty line is not set at market exchange rates. It's $1.25 in 2005 Purchasing-Power-Parity (PPP) dollars. By the World Bank's definition, you 
are poor if your purchasing power (ie, your command over goods and services) is less than that of an American subsisting on $1.25 a day in 2005.

但是,世行的贫困线并不随着市场汇率而变化。
购买力平价(PPP)美元2005年是1.25美元。根据世界银行的定义,如果您的购买力(即,对商品和服务的掌握)小于2005年美国的每天1.25美元的生存费用,你就是穷人。

That's simplifying a bit, because international comparisons of purchasing power are fraught with difficulties. Fish, for example, is an abundant staple in coastal 
countries but an expensive treat in landlocked, mountainous regions. If you found a Bolivian enjoying the same amount of fish as a Chilean, you should not conclude
that the two are equally well off. Likewise, the hilsa is a middle-class favourite in Bangladesh, but an out-of-stock specialty item in America. Only rich Americans 
can eat as much hilsa as middle-class Bangladeshis. Nonetheless, in theory, the international poor consume the same amount as an American living on $1.25 a day in 2005. 

以上是简化了的,因为比较国际间的购买力是充满困难的。例如,鱼,在一个沿海国家,鱼是充足的日常食品,但在内陆和山区,鱼是昂贵的食物。与一个智利人相比,如果你发现了一个玻利维亚人享有相同数量的鱼,你不应该得出这样的结论说两人同样富裕。

同样的,鲥鱼是在孟加拉国的一个中产阶层的喜爱,但在美国就是缺货的特殊商品。只有富有的美国人才可以像孟加拉的中产阶级那样尽情的吃鲥鱼。。

然而,从理论上讲,国际贫困人口消耗数额与2005年美国人一天生存消费1.25美元数额相同。

This point is I think still poorly understood. When people hear that almost 1.4 billion (1,374m) people live on less than a $1.25 a day, they comfort themselves 
with the thought that a dollar stretches much further in a poor country than it does in America. They may have fond memories of backpacking around India or 
Guatemala on a shoestring during their younger days. But that is false comfort. 
The World Bank knows full well that a dollar packs more punch in a poor country. When it says someone is living on $1.25 a day, it means they are living on what 
that would buy you in America in 2005, not what it would buy you in Guatemala, India or China.

我认为这一点还是知之甚少。当人们听到了近14亿人口(1,374百万)每天生活费不到1.25美元时,他们用这样的想法安慰自己:即一美元在贫困国家作用比在美国要大得多。
在他们年轻的时候,他们可能有在印度或危地马拉徒步背包旅行的愉快记忆。但是,这是虚假的安慰。世界银行清楚地知道,一美元在一个贫穷国家更有效力。
当一个人说每天生活费1.25美元时,这意味着他们的生活在你生活过的2005年的美国,而不是生活过的什么危地马拉,印度和中国。 

Once that's understood, how does China's new poverty line stack up? To make the comparison, you have to account for differences in purchasing power over time, as 
well as between countries. China's poverty line is set at 2010 prices. Thanks to inflation, 6.3 yuan in 2010 bought only as much as 5.46 yuan in 2005.

理解了这点之后,中国新的贫困线如何比较呢?为了进行比较,你不得不去查明随着时间的推移,国家的区别,购买力所存在的差异。中国的贫困线基准于2010年的价格水平。由于通货膨胀,2010年的6.3元仅相当于2005年的5.46元。

That adjusts for time, what about place? According to the World Bank, 5.46 yuan in China in 2005 stretched about as far as $1.33 in America in the same year. (That's 
using the 2005 consumption PPP rate of 4.089.) So by that calculation, China's new poverty line is eight cents higher than the World Bank's.

调整得是时候,而地点呢?根据世界银行,5.46元在中国2005年大概相当于同年美国的1.33美元。 (应用2005年消费购买力平价汇率4.089 ) ,因此,通过计算,中国的贫困线比世界银行标准高了八美分。

However, China deems a person poor if their income is less than $1.33 (at 2005 PPP) a day. The World Bank says they're poor if their consumption is less than 
$1.25 a day. The difference between income and consumption is saving. So if someone consumes $1.24 and saves 9 cents, they are poor by the World Bank's 
definition, but not by China's. That might make China's definition of poverty more stringent than the World Bank's. 

然而,中国的穷人标准是,如果他的收入低于1.33美元每天(在2005年购买力平价)计算。 "世界银行的说法是,穷人指的是消费低于每天1.25美元的人。

收入和消费之间的不同就在于储蓄二字。因此,如果有人每天消费1.24美元同时储蓄了9美分,按世界银行的定义这人是穷人,但按中国的定义则不是(穷人)。这可能使中国的贫困定义严格于世界银行的定义。

But that's not the end of it. In China, the PPP estimates are biased. They are based on an international comparison of prices overseen by the World Bank but 
carried out by China's National Bureau of Statistics. It looked at prices in 11 Chinese cities. But China's cities are much more expensive than China's villages. Some effort was made to correct for this, but not enough. Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion argue that the price level the NBS reported was 37% higher than the 
rural prices China's villagers face.

但是,这不是它的结束。在中国,购买力平价估计数有偏颇。购买力平价估计数是由世界银行通过不同国家间价格的对比得到,而在中国,这些是中国的国家统计局完成的。基于对中国11个城市的价格考察。但是,中国城市的花费比中国农村的花费要贵的多。曾经做出过一些努力去校正它,但还不够。陈少华和马丁·拉瓦雷认为,国家统计局的报告是价格水平比中国农村人面对的农村价格高出了37%。

If that's the case, then China's new poverty line is equivalent not to $1.33 per day, but to $1.83 per day (1.334*1.37) in 2005 $PPP. That is comfortably higher 
than the World Bank's global standard. But it's still a miserable existence.

如果是这样的话,那么中国的新贫困线相当于不是1.33美元每天,而是每天1.83美元(1.334 * 1.37)对照于2005年的(美元)购买力平价 。这要明显的高于世界银行
的全球(贫困)标准。但它仍然是一个凄惨的存在。



国外网民评论翻译:

guest-iijslnmDec 3rd 2011, 00:05 60顶
I am living in rural China as a primary school English teacher, and am close friends with the family of one of my brightest and most hard-working students, Lauren. They have six children (the one child policy is not enforced here) and live in a one bedroom shack on school grounds. The family's income is 1,700 RMB/month, which is considered poor according to the new poverty definition. However, this amount is certainly enough to feed the family and survive while the children are young (currently they are 1 -10 years old). What concerns me is when the children reach high school age, when education is not free or mandatory. At this point, families like Lauren's simply can't afford to send all these kids to high school, let alone college. 
Is this poverty? I've been thinking about this for a while...Lauren's family has more than enough to exist, but not nearly enough to help their children advance into a modern economy. It certainly provides an argument to China to step up funding high school, or to increase scholarships to bright students and their families.

我正在中国农村当一名小学英语教师,我的亲密朋友,Lauren,她家有我(教授的)最聪明以及最刻苦的学生。
她们有六个孩子(这块儿没有强制计划生育),居住在校园一个简陋的房子里。家庭月收入是1700 RMB,按照新的贫困线定义,这个家庭是贫困的。然而,这些收入足以养育整个家庭同时保证孩子在年轻的时候(一般指1-10岁)存活。让我忧心的是,当孩子们到了上学的年龄,当教育不是免费或义务教育时。在这个时候,像Lauren这样的家庭通常很无法负担起把所有孩子都送入中学,更不用说大学了。

这是贫困吗?我考虑了好一会儿...Lauren的家庭所有足够生存所需了,但要帮助他的孩子们进去现代社会还不太够。这当然给中国提供了争论的机会,去加快资助高中,或提供给好学生和他的家庭奖学金。



New Conservative 回复 SinomanDec 2nd 2011, 14:03 56顶
Worldwide 1.374 billion people live on less than 1.25$. In China, the number is 208 million.

世界范围内13亿7千4百万人生活费低于1.25美元。在中国,这个数字是2亿8百万。



jomiku 回复 SinomanDec 2nd 2011, 15:25 49顶
Sinoman, 1.4 billion people, not Chinese. Read it over again.

sinoman,14亿人不是指中国人。重读一遍文章吧。



shaun39Dec 2nd 2011, 11:43 46顶
Classifications are only meaningful where they support targeted intervention, or where they offer particular insight.
In the case of vague, nominal income based poverty lines, the definition is completely vacuous. It's not a measure of incomes; it's not a measure of income distributions; it's certainly not a good measure of living standards, and it isn't a tool for targeting intervention.
Really, why bother?
Stick to education targets, infrastructure targets, employment support, etc. At least there, clumsy government metrics have some bearing on the allocation of government funding. But poverty lines are about as much use as star signs.

只有在他们支持有针对性的干预的地方,或者在他们提供特别的洞察力的地方,这种分类才有意义。
在含糊不清的情况下,基于名义收入的贫困线,完全是空洞的。它不是一个衡量收入的方法,不是衡量收入分配的方法,当然不是一个很好的衡量生活水平的方法,它不是靶向干预的工具。
说真的,何必呢?
坚持教育的目标,基础设施建设目标,就业支持等等。那里至少有笨拙的政府在政府资金分配上承受了一些指标。但是,贫困线还是一样广泛使用的星级标志。



rep3Dec 3rd 2011, 10:12 45顶
>But the World Bank's poverty line is not set at market exchange rates. It's $1.25 in 2005 Purchasing-Power-Parity (PPP) dollars. By the World Bank's definition, you are poor if your purchasing power (ie, your command over goods and services) is less than that of an American subsisting on $1.25 a day in 2005.
This is the crux of the problem. PPP is measured through identical goods in different countries, but for the truly impoverished, there is no identical good. 
A poor America may still own a car, but it takes a middle class Vietnamese to own a scooter. An average British family may own a washing machine, but a Bedouin tribe in Sudan definitely will not. And this is only comparing the lower middle class. 
When it comes to those below poverty line, subsistence farming + barter rules the day in the country side while low paying labour jobs support those in urban shanties. There is no easy way to statistically measure poverty between countries in cases like this.

(引用)"但是,世行的贫困线并不随着市场汇率而变化。
购买力平价(PPP)美元2005年是1.25美元。根据世界银行的定义,如果您的
购买力(即,对商品和服务的掌握)小于2005年美国的
每天1.25美元的生存费用,你就是穷人。"
这就是症结所在。购买力平价通过不同国家间相同货物比较得来,但对比真正的贫穷,还没有一个东西能用来比较。
一个美国穷人可能仍会拥有一辆小汽车,但相对的一个越南中产阶级也就只有一辆小摩托车。英国中层家庭可能拥有一个洗衣机,但在苏丹的贝都因人部落绝对不会有。并且这里只比较了底层中产。
当谈到那些生活在贫困线以下的,自己农业+以货易货控制着乡下的日常生活,而在城市棚户区里低薪劳动力就业支持着那些。在这种情况下没有一个好的方式去衡量不同国家间的贫困。



SinomanDec 2nd 2011, 13:42 44顶
"When people hear that almost 1.4 billion (1,374m) people live on less than a $1.25 a day".
This saying is not true. Are all chinese live everyday under 1.25$???? Apparently not.
2300¥ is just a lever for poverity! 
when i read this sentence, I could not continue to read this passage!~
i suggest the writer think something more carefully!

"当人们听说几乎有14亿(1374百万)人每天生活费低于1.25美元。"
这种说法不正确。每一个中国人生活费都低于1.25美元????显然不是。
2300元只是贫困线!
当我读到这个句子,我无法接着往下读!
我建议作者更加仔细思考思考!



Rudy HaugenederDec 3rd 2011, 11:48 41顶
As much as I try, I can't picture living on so little money. It is impossible, no matter how hard I try. I see the images found online or on television, but I can't relate. Just impossible. Hell, I can't even relate to homelessness that surround me every time I drive through downtown Victoria, BC, Canada: dozens of people begging, wandering. I see. I talk to them, joke and laugh and share a cigarette. But I can't relate to their plight, no matter how much I try, even though I fully understanding it could easily -- too easily -- happen to me, even though Statistics Canada figures say that compared to others, I live in poverty, even as I sit in my comfortable home in the middle of the night, drinking a decaf coffee, smoking a cigarette, eating a peanut butter sandwich, typing on my older laptop, feeling guilty about driving an old Lexus, and not being able to relate to living on $1.25 daily. I guess I must be mentally ill. If there is reincarnation, perhaps I will understand some day.
How about you? Any problems relating?

再怎么我也无法想象靠那么一丁点儿钱生存。无论尝试何种办法也不可能。我在网上或电视上看到这种情况,但我无法认同。只是因为不可能。见鬼,我甚至无法认同那些无家可归者,每次我开车经过维多利亚市区,BC,加拿大;几十个人乞讨,流浪。我明白了。我同他们谈话,开开玩笑乐呵乐呵,分享雪茄烟。但我无法认同他们的困境,无论我怎么努力,即便我完全明白很容易---很容易---某天我也变成这样,即便加拿大统计数据说相对于其他人,我生活在贫困之中,即便我午夜里能够呆在舒适的家里,喝点咖啡,抽根雪茄烟,吃点花生酱三明治,在我的手提电脑上打字,驾驶一辆旧凌志车感到愧疚,并且不能认同靠每天1.25美元生活。我猜我精神不正常了。如果有转世轮回,或许某天我能明白这点。
你呢?认同这点有问题吗?



PL123Dec 2nd 2011, 19:04 39顶
I am sure there are many poor rich Americans. :D

我确信有很多没钱的美国富人。



compal 回复 PL123Dec 4th 2011, 08:27 4顶
Very much so when it comes to taxation.

(回楼上)是有很多,当征税的时候。



fundamentalistDec 2nd 2011, 15:46 37顶
Poverty at that level is hard for those in the US to imagine.

生活在美国的人是很难想象那种程度的贫困的。



ginmartiniDec 3rd 2011, 01:22 36顶
I assume food that is grown and eaten is not counted as income. Is that correct?

我认为种植并吃掉的食物并未计算在收入以内。是不是这样?



rewt66 回复 fundamentalistDec 2nd 2011, 18:11 36顶
Absolutely, fundamentalist.
$1.25 a day? You *might* be able to eat on that amount - if you ate potatoes and beans. Not a balanced diet, though. Shelter? Forget it. And that means you have nowhere to cook your potatoes. Clothes? Only if you went to a second-hand store, and even then, it means you don't eat...

绝对的,原教旨主义者。
1.25美元一天?你或许能够吃那么(少的)量--如果你吃土豆和豆子的话。
尽管说不是一个均衡的饮食。
庇护所?忘了它吧。这也意味着你没有地方去烹饪你的土豆。
衣服?除非你去二手市场(购买),即使如此,这也意味着你没钱吃东西了...



pasamDec 2nd 2011, 22:55 35顶
The Economist appears to be more fair in the study of poverty in China. One factor that was not considered is the "CRY IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD" that the Yuan is highly overvaluecd. The Economist should have evaluated how true is that CRY? If there is any truth in that CTY, that truth goes in favour of China fighting poverty at home. I remember a survey where the Economist said that 86% of Chinese population feels that their government is moving in the right direction and the next best in the World was Brazil with 50%! Was that a yardstick of "DEMOCRACY" ?

"经济学人"好像在研究中国贫困方面更加公平了。没有考虑到的一个因素是"在发达世界哭泣""元"被高估了。经济学家应该评估一下"哭泣"的真实度?如果有道理,真理赞成中国在国内对抗贫困。我记得经济学家的一个调查,里面说86%的中国人觉得中国政府正在朝正确的方向前进,第二好数据的国家是巴西,数据是50%!(从数值上看)这是"民主"的衡量标准吗?(译注:前面可能是指"元"比主要发达国家货币的能量要低)



Bill88888888 回复 guest-iijslnmDec 3rd 2011, 10:31 32顶
The family you described must be minorities in China that one-child policy does not apply. Usually, the oldest child will start to work once free schooling is over at grade 9. Then there are three incomes for the family so they can afford to pay for higher education of other siblings.

你描述的这种中国家庭一定是没有使用一胎政策的极少数(家庭)。通常,一旦最大的孩子在学校完成了九年义务教育,他(她)就将去工作。这样家庭就会有三份收入,因此能负担起其他兄弟姐妹的更高昂的教育开支。



Adam MorganDec 2nd 2011, 18:14 32顶
I'm not convinced that this is a better way. From my experience, of looking at statistics of who is poor -- and who is middle class -- almost all governments want to minimize the number of poor and maximize the number in the middle class.
A better way, than a quantitative definition, is a sampling of the general population and the target population (in this case, the poor) and simply ask: "Do you think you're poor?"
I'm sure if this were asked in China, the results would be significantly different than the quantitative definition.

我不确信这是个更好的方式。根据我的经验,从统计数据上看哪些是穷人、哪些是中产--几乎所有的政府都想缩小穷人的数量同时把中产阶级的数量最大化。
比起定量定义,一个更好的方式是简简单单的在一般人群和目标人群中(在这个例子中是穷人)简单的提问:"你认为自己是穷人吗?"
我确信如果在中国提问出这些问题,结果将与与定量定义明显不同。



keller377 回复 SinomanDec 3rd 2011, 01:29 31顶
Where exactly does the article say all Chinese are under the World Bank's poverty line?

文章确切位置在哪里有说所有中国人都生活在世行的贫困线以下?



Joseph Tan 回复 fundamentalistDec 3rd 2011, 04:33 30顶
It is relative. There are also poverty stricken people in America,

这是相对的。美国也有穷的响叮当的人。



Bill88888888Dec 3rd 2011, 10:22 29顶
The article states at the end "But it's still a miserable existence." 
Of course, in general there is nothing more miserable than being poor and not enough to eat. However, it is comfortable to know that the poverty line is higher than the international norm.

文章最后写到:"但这仍然是个悲惨的存在"。
当然,一般来说,没有比贫穷和饥饿更加悲惨的事情了。然而,得知中国贫困线比国际标准要高这令人欣慰。



VLHCDec 2nd 2011, 16:08 29顶
Beijing might consider poverty to be a bad thing, but as far as certain religious leaders are concerned, it is the essence of their culture, so it is conceivable some might see this as an attempt at justifying further "cultural genocides".

北京也许认为贫穷是个坏事,但是至于涉及到的一些宗教领袖,这是他们的文化的精髓,因此有些人或许会把它看成一种尝试对"文化种族灭绝"进行辩护的观点是可以想象的。



Bill88888888 回复 Joseph TanDec 3rd 2011, 10:24 25顶
There are also poverty stricken people in America. However, because of social safety system, the social welfare subsidize the poor to average living standard for the poorest.

美国也有穷的叮当响的人。然而,由于社会保障体系,对穷人的社会福利补贴使最贫穷的人的生活水平均衡了。



burgess2135Dec 2nd 2011, 20:23 25顶
Economist in Dec. says that Chinese government raised its poverty line to 2300 yuan per year. It is shocking, partially because this is the first time for me to acknowledge this from a seemingly formal source. Former data about the poverty issues in China bat around on the net, but hardly believable. The real poverty status quo never comes from the central government, except various poverty lines in local channels and their improvement. Today, there it is. It is good news, isn't?

经济学人12月份报道说中国政府把贫困线提高至2300元每年。真是震惊,部分原因是因为这是我第一次从一个看似正式的来源承认这点。以前关于中国贫困的问题在网上泛滥,但几乎不可信。真实的贫困情形从不来自于中央政府,除了地方频道和它们的改善的多种贫困线。今天,有了。这是个好消息,不是吗?



New Conservative 回复 east windDec 4th 2011, 22:39 22顶
You remember that I'm an American. For the entire time I've lived in Taiwan Chen Suibian has been in prison. I don't like the DPP because I'm a big fan of the ROC's current flag. 
And unlike you I've actually been to the rural school and stayed there for a few weeks, not just seen one on TV. The people and the teachers do a great job with limited resources. 
But the resources are limited. They can't charge extra for admission, but they are allowed to charge for things like textbooks, pencils, or other school supplies. 
For rural farmers with an annual income of 1200 yuan, a 100 yuan text book fee is a big deal. I don't fault the schools, they aren't making some sort of profit off of it, just that they have an unfunded mandate that they have to make up somehow. 
That they still have to do it when China is sitting on that much money is a deeper question.

你记住我是一个美国人。我全部的时间都住在台湾,陈水扁已经进监狱了。我不喜欢民进党,因为我是中华民国现有旗帜的粉丝。
并且不像你 我曾经亲自到过乡下学校,并在那里呆过几周,不只是在电视上观看。有限的资源下,人们和教师做了伟大的工作。
但是资源是有限的。行政上他们不能收取额外的费用,但是他们被允许对实物收费,比如教科书,铅笔或其他学校用品。
对于年收入1200元的乡下农民来说,一本100元的教科书是一个大问题。我不去找学校的错误,他们没有通过这件事谋取私利,只是他们有需要以某种方式弥补的资金没有着落的任务。
当中国坐拥那么多的钱的时候,他们仍不得不这么做,这是个深层次的问题。



east windDec 6th 2011, 05:13 20顶
@ New Conservative
YES INDEED..
Chinese people all over the world ----whether in New York, or Kunming, or Montreal, or Paris--- places the top priority for the education of their children
Millions of stories throughout the history of the Chinese, including those who are immigrants about the parents sacrifiging everything for their children's education
In China today--- the Govt strongly believes that education is the KEY to the future
Every Chinese Govt official knows that Premier WEN is very particular about the education and welfare of Chinese children
Any govt official who do not carry out the Govt to perfect the educational system will get into serious serious trouble
This Chinese obsession with the education of the young is something you WILL NEVER EVER understand --- I know I am wasting my time trying to explain this phenomenon
You will never ever understand...
..
@ New Conservative
是的,确实..
中国人遍布全世界----不管是纽约,或昆明,或蒙特利尔,或巴黎---最注重子女的教育。
贯穿中国历史的数以百万的故事,包括
在中国今天---政府强烈的相信,教育是未来的关键。
每一个中国官员知道前总理温非常关心中国孩童的教育和福利。
任何不去使教育系统更加完善的政府官员都将会陷入大大的麻烦
这种对中国年轻人教育的着魔是你永远无法明白的---我知道跟你解释这个现象是在浪费时间。
你绝不会明白的...



xPeruDec 6th 2011, 19:49 19顶
I did the calculations to work out how much I'd have to earn if I was back in the UK in order to buy what I buy here in Peru on $20,000 a year.
The answer: £140,000 a year.
The big ramp ups were school fees - I have two kids in private schools; cigarettes and housing. Eating out in restaurants. going to the cinema, and food shopping are all about 300% more expensive in the UK. Transport is about 15x more expensive.
Official ppp figures might work for the poor, but it is about 10x cheaper to live in Peru than the UK if you have a middle class lifestyle.
The price of the freedom I have in Peru as opposed to the tyranny in UK is priceless.

我做了一下计算,计算出如果我回到英国去购买我在秘鲁2万美元一年买的东西要花费多少呢?
答案是:14万英镑英镑。
大开销是学校花费-我有两个孩子读小学;吸烟和住房。饭馆的饭钱。看电影,还有食物购买所有这些方面在英国都比秘鲁贵300%。交通贵15x。
官方购买力平价指数可能服务于穷人,但比起来,如果按中产阶级生活方式,生活在秘鲁比生活在英国便宜10x。
我在秘鲁生活价格的自由与在英国的专制对比是无价的。



east windDec 5th 2011, 00:04 19顶
@ New Conservative
Stop spreading mis-information
Stop making up stories
During our university days---we had to spend some time ---working in the poor countryside
If any school ever goes short of funds ---the School's headmaster would apply to the Education Department for more money
And they will definitely 100% get it
CHINA IS Determined to invest BIG, BIG into education
CHINA have a twin prong of (1) developing a super education (2) Massive urbanization
As I said---You Taiwanese Separatists will never give up demonizing China
Its better you guys visit your leader Chen Shui Bian in Prison---he's lonely
....
停止传播错误信息
停止编造故事
在我们的大学时光里---我们花费了一些时间--在贫困的乡下工作。
如果有任何学校缺少资金---学校的校长将会向教育部门申请更多的钱。并且他们一定能100%拿到钱。
中国决心大力,大力的投资教育。
中国有像双胞胎那样的两方面(计划):
(1)发展一个超级的教育
(2)大规模城市化
就像我说的--你们台湾分裂分子永远不会放弃妖魔化中国。
你们这些家伙最好去监狱拜访你们的领导陈水扁---他寂寞啊



east windDec 4th 2011, 14:06 19顶
@ New Conservative
Stop making up stories to spread anti-China propaganda
You Taiwanese Separarists of the "Chen Shui-Bian" Clique will do or say anything to disredit China
CHINA has a law that makes a FREE 9-year education compulsary 
The punishment for any school charging extra fees are very severe
NO school in would even dare to charge any fees
All the village-level CPC Party cadres are ever vigilant to nab any school staff who dares to break the LAW
..
停下编造故事去传播反中国的宣传言论了吧。
你们台湾分裂主义"陈水扁"小集团为了贬损中国什么都敢去说,什么都敢去做。
中国有法律规定的强制的、免学费的九年义务教育。
收取额外费用的任何学校所要受到的惩罚是非常严厉的。
甚至没有学校敢收取任何费用。
所有的基层中共党组织时刻保持警惕去逮捕胆敢违反这项法律的任何学校工作人员。



Yingnam FongDec 4th 2011, 13:00 18顶
30 years ago, probably more than 80% of the Chinese population lived below the poverty line. Not it is less than 20%. It has been a super mega work done to change that. Such amazing attainment could not have been done by any other men except the technocrats of CCP, China. China can now proudly show to the world the reckoned rate though it has made no clear commitment as to when the poverty can be narrow down to a single digit. Anyway, its all amazing to see the China's miracle once and again.

30年前,或许中国人超过80%都生存在贫困线以下。现在百分数低于20%。改变这些是一场极大的工程。这种令人惊诧的成就,除了科技主义者的中共以外没有其它任何人能够完成。虽然对于何时能将贫困缩小到很低水平中共并没有给出明确的承诺,但是中国仍然能够骄傲的把估算率展示给世界。总之,一次又一次的看见中国奇迹令人惊诧。



PL123 回复 New ConservativeDec 5th 2011, 19:12 17顶
I am not from Mainland China. I have no idea of such law. 
Do you think he/she will read it. I seldom read his post!! 
Anyway, the law of China are written so perfect but to enforce it is just too difficult. Well sometimes in Germany is not better, at least they try. The Chinese government and the people need re-education on moral, may be 墨子 theory can help China. They are more communism and practical than Confucius. Confucius was just too pretentious, even hypocritical IMO. I know ewakorn will argue about that...

我并非来自中国大陆。我不知道这个法律。
你认为他/她会去读它吗。我很少读他的邮件!!
无论如何,中国法律写的很完美但是实施起来太困难。额,有时候在德国(法律)的情况也不咋地,但至少他们尝试了。中国政府和人民需要在道德方面重新接受教育,或许墨子理论能够帮助中国。他们比孔子更加共产主义和更加实际。在我看来,孔子有些太自命不凡了,甚至伪善。我知道关于这件事上 ewakorn 将会去辩论...



hmmmmmmmDec 5th 2011, 06:54 17顶
A better measurement would be calorie intake, purchase and ownership of products. Rural people in China like rural people everywhere don't spent money besides the town market. Most of the consumables, such as food and simple services are either provided by themselves or barter at the village level. 
They are still poor, but it's always funny when people in the developed country think about the $1.25/day are spent buying food or pay rent...which are very urban type of expenses.

一个更好的方式应该是卡路里摄入,购买的物品和物品拥有量。
中国农民像任何其它地方的农民一样,除了在城镇市场,不会在其它地方花费钱财。大多数耗费品,比如食物和最基本的服务要么是自己生产的要么是农村水平上以物易物。
他们还很穷,但这通常很有趣当发达国家人民考虑着1.25美元花费在购买食物或支付房租...那种典型的城市消费方式。



silent night 回复 smallguineaDec 8th 2011, 20:11 16顶
@ smallginea
You don't need to waste your time to talk about the poor in China with east wind,because "east wind" don't believe anything if it is bad for China.
But what east wind said that "The schoolbus accident you described happened in an urban area---not in the rural" is sure.
As to your wrote"BBC TV Documentary show a teenage Chinese girl living in the rural having to walk several miles through country-roads to get to her school which have only 5 students.This school was not closed down"
------In some poor rural areas,it is possible that schoolboys and schoolgirls walk several miles through country-roads to get to her school,but a 5-students-school is unimaginable although it also is possible for some special reason.If the public media report,something will get an improvement,after all,in improving education area,most people and organizations will pay more attention than any others.

你不需要浪费时间在同 east wind 谈论中国的贫困问题上,因为"east wind"不相信任何关于中国负面的新闻。但是east wind所说的"你所描述的校车事故不是发生在农村而是市郊"是事实。
至于你写的"BBC 的电视纪录片展示了一个生活在中国农村的十几岁的女孩儿不得不走上几英里山路去上只有5个学生的学校上学。"
------在一些贫困农村地区,男女学生需要走上几英里山路去上学,这种情况是可能的,但只有5个学生的学校太匪夷所思了,即便在一些特殊区域可能存在这种情况。如果公共媒体报道,情况将会得到些改善,毕竟,在改善教育方面,大多数人和组织比其他人更加关心教育。



east windDec 5th 2011, 15:55 16顶
@ New Conservative
When the Chinese farmer's land is being acquired for development-- he will be given another piece of land----plus some money as compensation

@ New Conservative
当中国农民的土地要被征地开发--他将被给予另一片土地----同时还有一些用作补偿的钱



PL123 回复 east windDec 5th 2011, 13:22 16顶
In fact, it is true there are still LOT of rural farmer's children can't go to school for some reasons. Parents ignore their right to go to school, parents want to use children to beg for money, parents thinking girl are useless and force them to help housework, school is too far away.
Even in big cities you can see little girl beggers begging for money. May be you cn said that they are criminal organized crime. Yes, until CPC there are so many criminals. Under Mao seems no one dare to do criminal things. 
I am not such a person deny children work in factory (that is Western standard). I think they can be allowed to work in factory to help family financial problem, but not as a adult worker. Half day work half day school is totally fine with me. 
In principe you are correct that CPC gave farmer land to farm, but many of them has no government certificate to prove that they own the land. Or even worse the provincial government force them in the name of advance/progress away with lousy compensation. 
Remember CPC was a farmer party, now CPC is capitalist control. Another 5% when not 1%.
Take it easy mate. :D
Recently I saw a picture of a chinese teacher peddling children on a boat from one end of the lake to the other end. It is like a school bus. He is a real Chinese Hero !! We need more of this people, not those chinese newly rich who enjoy sunny day in California!! And certainly not those using black money to visit Oxford, Harvard or MIT etc etc.貪官:官職與收入不相稱

事实上,由于种种原因,确实仍有很多农村地区农民的孩子们无法入学。父母忽视了孩子们上学的权利,父母们想用这些孩子去讨钱,父母认为女孩无用并且强迫她们做家务,上学太远。
即便在大城市,你也能看到讨钱的小女孩。或许你会说他们是有组织犯罪。是的,中共执政之前有太多犯罪了。毛的统治下似乎没人敢去犯罪。
我不是那种否认儿童在工厂工作的人(那是西方标准)。我认为孩子们能被允许在工厂工作去帮助解决家庭财政问题,但不要被当做大人去工作。我认为半天工作半天学习刚刚好。
原则上来说,你所说的中共把土地给农民去耕作是事实,但是农民中的许多人没有政府的证书证明他们拥有这块土地。更糟糕的是省政府用开发的名义强迫农民(搬离),同时给予糟糕的补偿。
记住中共是个农民政党,现在中国由资本家控制。5%相对于(蒋介石时代?)1%
放松伙计。
近期我看到了一个中国教师用船将孩子从湖岸一边摆渡到另一边。很像校车。他真是个中国英雄!!我们需要更多的这种人,不是那些享受加州阳光的中国新贵!!并且当然不是那些用黑钱访问牛津,哈佛或麻省理工大学等等,等等。貪官:官職與收入不相稱



smallguinea 回复 east windDec 6th 2011, 13:23 15顶
The school bus incident happened in Gansu, in the boonies.
Try again.

发生在甘肃郊区的校车事故。
再试试



PL123 回复 east windDec 5th 2011, 16:42 15顶
I think you are wrong! The farmer will be compensated for a huge sum and he doesn't have to work anymore. :D

我认为你错了!(被征地的)农民将被补偿一大笔钱并且以后也不需要去工作了。



east windDec 5th 2011, 10:53 13顶
/..
@ PL123
I wrote that every FARMER --- and I mean every FARMER had been given his own lot of land to farm for FREE
He gets a land and a house
(Under the 1978 "Family Responsibility System" the "Farm-Collectives" gave every member of its own Disbanded Commune a piece of land ---whose size was based on the size of the family)
He can gets 3 meals a day without any problem
NOT ONLY THAT...
The "Land-Distribution" program was so successful that it created a farm-surplus labor of 250 million "Migrant workers"
These migrant workers go to the cities to work and to make some extra incomes for their families back home on the farms
It's true that they have only the basics --- and not the luxuries like cars, holidays to Europe or holidays houses in the French Riveria
As such they are classified as poor

我写到每一个农民---我的意思是每一个,已经被免费给予他很多土地去耕种。
他得到一份土地和一个房屋
(在1978年"家庭联产承包责任制"下,集体农场给予解散后每一个成员自己的一份土地---土地大小根据家庭成员数量决定)
他能搞定一日三餐无需任何麻烦
还不止这些...
"土地分配"计划太成功了以至于造就了2.5亿"农民工"。
这些农民工去大城市工作并且为农村家里赚取额外的收入。
确实他们只有最基本的(东西)---并没有像汽车,欧洲度假或法国河畔假日房屋(这些东西)
因为如此他们被归类于贫困人口



east windDec 5th 2011, 05:38 15顶
@ New Conservative
China can afford to finance the FREE 9-year compulsary education
The monies for the maintainance of all schools are already being budgetted for
As I had said---any school that require the neccessary operating expences can apply for it---and they can get it 
Use your common sense---
If China can afford to invest USD 2 trillion into AMerican debt instruments---she can easily afford to fund her schools
The Chinese Govt is 1000% committed and determined to build up a super superb educational system
And will spare no efforts to achieve it
Stop spreading mis-information
AS far as I know---there are NO programs in China that sends Western teachers to the remote areas that you claimed to have been sent
There are simply NO SUCH programs
You are making up "grand-mother" stories / fairy tales to shoot China down a peg or two

中国能够负担得起免费的九年义务教育所需要的资金。
所有学校所需的款项已经提前预算好了。
正如我曾说过的--任何需要必需的运转费用的都可以去申请资金--并且能够获得资金
用你的大脑想一想,
如果中国能买得起2万亿美国国债--她当然能轻易提供学校费用。
中国政府承诺,并确定1000%去建立一个超一流的教育体系。并且将不遗余力的实现它。
停止传播错误信息
据我所知---中国根本没有那种项目,即你所谓的派教师到偏远地区
根本没有这种项目
你在开某种玩笑来打击中国的威风



east windDec 4th 2011, 14:11 15顶
@ New Conservative
The BBC TV Documentary Programmes had even shown such a school that you described as being in the most remote poorest area 
AND the BBC TV had faithfully/truthfully shown how these poor people children get an education without having to pay any fees---because the Chinese Govt allocated enough funds to finance the school
CHINA has USD 3.2 trillion in the forex reserves

BBC的电视纪录片计划已经放映了这样一个被你描述成在最偏远贫困地区的学校。
并且BBC电视已经忠诚的/如实的展示了那些贫民孩子如何不支付任何费用就能获得免费教育---因为中国政府分配了足够的资金来资助学校。
中国有3.2万亿美元外汇储备。



tocharianDec 12th 2011, 00:30 14顶
The Great Helmsman said:
"The feudal landlord class was the main social base of imperialist rule in China, while the peasants were the main force of the Chinese revolution. If help was not given to the peasants in overthrowing the feudal landlord class, then a strong force of the Chinese revolution could not be organized to overthrow imperialist rule. Therefore, the peasant problem becomes the basic problem of the Chinese revolution. In order to lead the Chinese revolution to victory, the proletariat had to mobilize and arm the peasants, carry out the land revolution and build solid revolutionary base areas in the countryside"

伟大的舵手说过:
"封建地主阶级是中国帝国主义统治的主要社会基础,而农民是中国革命的主要力量。如果在推翻封建地主阶级时不给予农民帮助,那中国革命的强大力量就不会被组织起来去推翻帝国主义统治。因此,农民问题成为中国革命的基本问题。为了领导中国革命走向胜利,无产阶级不得不动员并武装农民,实现土地革命以及建立农村革命根据地。"



east windDec 6th 2011, 09:17 14顶
@ smallguinei
I stand by what I said--- and I am entitled to express my opinion here---that's called "FREEDOM Of EXPRESSION"
You are entitled to disagree just as I am entitled to express my opinion
Nobody is forcing you to agree
Please express what you feel like expressing
I a

我忠实于我所说的---并且在这里我有资格表达我的观点---这被叫做"言论自由"
你有资格不同意就像我有资格表达我的观点
没有人强制你去同意
请表达你想要表达的

关注我们