My life is not guided by philosophy or theories
My life is not guided by philosophy or theories. I get things done and leave others to extract the principles from my successful solutions. I do not work on a theory. Instead, I ask: what will make this work? If, after a series of solutions, I find that a certain approach worked, then I try to find out what was the principle behind the solution. So Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, I am not guided by them…I am interested in what works…Presented with the difficulty or major problem or an assortment of conflicting facts, I review what alternatives I have if my proposed solution does not work. I choose a solution which offers a higher probability of success, but if it fails, I have some other way. Never a dead end.
We were not ideologues. We did not believe in theories as such. A theory is an attractive proposition intellectually. What we faced was a real problem of human beings looking for work, to be paid, to buy their food, their clothes, their homes, and to bring their children up…I had read the theories and maybe half believed in them.
But we were sufficiently practical and pragmatic enough not to be cluttered up and inhibited by theories. If a thing works, let us work it, and that eventually evolved into the kind of economy that we have today. Our test was: does it work? Does it bring benefits to the people?…The prevailing theory then was that multinationals were exploiters of cheap labor and cheap raw materials and would suck a country dry…Nobody else wanted to exploit the labor. So why not, if they want to exploit our labor? They are welcome to it…. We were learning how to do a job from them, which we would never have learnt… We were part of the process that disproved the theory of the development economics school, that this was exploitation. We were in no position to be fussy about high-minded principles.
清水照子 you need to upgrade your English. plz cut the crap, say sth works, sth more than bs.
NoStepOnSnek一个政治系统的根本特征取决于其个体成员的暴力能力 @清水照子 <#173259> His English is perfectly fine.
清水照子 @NoStepOnSnek <#173261>
“ Nobody else wanted to exploit the labor. So why not, if they want to exploit our labor?”
it doesnt even make sense.
i guess he tryed to say“nobody want to be exploited”
NoStepOnSnek一个政治系统的根本特征取决于其个体成员的暴力能力 @清水照子 <#173262> well, maybe it needs some refinement. But the general idea is sound.
perhaps he meant "the labor market"
清水照子 @NoStepOnSnek <#173264> anyway, there're lots of big words and too little fact. it's hard to tell if he support the ccp, or just have different opinion about the economy, by this crap. china takes advantage by lower cost labors. that's real. it's OK, nothing evil. but economic and politic is more than that. we can't get any concussion by "we all going to die someday". can we cut the crap and say sth works?
NoStepOnSnek一个政治系统的根本特征取决于其个体成员的暴力能力 @清水照子 <#173265> This article is more of a rebuttal to Chen's argument for a single-ethnic-national-state than anything else, I think you need not worry about it being affiliated with the ccp...
饭姐
natasha It is not your writing. Please provide the reference of it: Lee Kuan Yew: The Grand Master's Insights on China, the United States, and the World (Belfer Center Studies in International Security)
See:
https://fs.blog/2016/09/lee-kuan-yew-rule/
轻音部
NoStepOnSnek一个政治系统的根本特征取决于其个体成员的暴力能力 这回失礼了，说李光耀英语不好。。。
清水照子 @中野梓 <#173268> @NoStepOnSnek <#173269> 不盡然，你讀讀那句話“沒有任何人想剝削（主動語態）”，說這話的不是領導人只會被當成瘋子。而且這段話單獨拿出來沒有背景你能看懂嗎？
NoStepOnSnek一个政治系统的根本特征取决于其个体成员的暴力能力 中野梓好无聊～ @NoStepOnSnek <#173273> 不好说，其实翻译成劳动力和劳动者都合理，但是他说“主动语态”，可能是把labor当动词了
NoStepOnSnek一个政治系统的根本特征取决于其个体成员的暴力能力 @清水照子 <#173275> 给你看看这个，https://sites.middlebury.edu/econ0450f10/files/2010/08/bastiat.pdf
清水照子 @NoStepOnSnek <#173277> 這沒什麼特別的啊，就是一個自由貿易的支持者在把他的觀點盡可能通俗的推銷給國會和選民。這更接近辯論而非學術，這種場合雙方的觀點嚴格意義上都經不起推敲。
习特厚
钦明方泽忘了密码习特厚：习近平特别受到人民厚爱 我也没看懂那段话，有人可以解释一下吗？
我不认为这是perfect English 比如If a thing works, let us work it, 我在美国没听说过有人这么说。
NoStepOnSnek一个政治系统的根本特征取决于其个体成员的暴力能力 @清水照子 <#173280> 逻辑上对一个命题的反证，可以通过假设命题为真，并找出逻辑矛盾，名为proof by contradiction。Bastiate在这里假设了“低价劳动力是剥削”这个命题是真的，并作出了“这样太阳就是剥削”这样的逻辑矛盾，从而否认原命题，这怎么能说是经不起推敲呢？
NoStepOnSnek一个政治系统的根本特征取决于其个体成员的暴力能力 @钦明方泽忘了密码 <#173284> I didn't say it's "perfect English", I said it's "perfectly fine", meaning that it is entirely passable as fluent English, but not necessarily without error.
中野梓好无聊～ What we faced was a real problem of human beings looking for work, to be paid, to buy their food, their clothes, their homes, and to bring their children up…
从这里很明显看得出说话的人是干嘛的
清水照子 @NoStepOnSnek <#173285>a（完全自由市場）+b（完全封閉政策）小於全集（還存在中間光譜和政策組合），b（完全封閉政策）為假不能證明a（完全自由貿易）為真，只能證明a（完全自由貿易）和真命題有交集。而且經濟領域不適合完全套用理科，因為人和國家都不是完全理性的客觀實體，如果抽離掉交易對象的主觀意願，結果也可以很荒謬。
NoStepOnSnek一个政治系统的根本特征取决于其个体成员的暴力能力 @清水照子 <#173291> 啊，这篇文的结论我整个理解错了，“multinationals”我给理解成了“多国民族”，这是因为2047今天对这个有太多讨论，我先入为主了。借着这个最开始的错误，我把李光耀的观点理解成“外国廉价劳动力来undercut我们不是问题”，所以才给你发那个链接。其实“Multinational”应该是跨国公司，这里讨论的问题是新加坡自己的居民用极低价格为跨国公司劳动，与最低工资更有关系，这样的话或许这个视频与这个问题更有联系：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPShGzCiXBk&t
清水照子 @NoStepOnSnek <#173295> 我不是覺得觀點很奇怪，而是在東亞的低廉勞工政策已經證明是成功的現在，舊事重提顯得很奇怪，等於說了一堆廢話。而且“作者”又一副領導人口氣。但如果是李光耀在自傳中炫耀自己的政績那就再正常不過了，他等於是站在70年代剛獨立的時代背景下，那這等於說他預言了時代的脈搏。
如果一個人現在走到大街上神秘兮兮的跟我說：“十年前買fb的股票會賺大錢”，我會覺得他有病。這話只有放在巴菲特自傳裡才有意義。
NoStepOnSnek一个政治系统的根本特征取决于其个体成员的暴力能力 @清水照子 <#173300> 可能只是分享自己觉得有道理的一篇文吧。我们在这里说了这么半天，题主都还没来，或许应该等他来回复下看。
thphd2047前站长 清水照子第一条发言符合封号标准。
you need to upgrade your English. plz cut the crap, say sth works, sth more than bs.
- 抬杠
- 没看懂原文
- 语气缺乏对楼主基本尊重；人身攻击
清水照子第二条发言符合封号标准。
“ Nobody else wanted to exploit the labor. So why not, if they want to exploit our labor?”
it doesnt even make sense.
i guess he tryed to say“nobody want to be exploited”
看不懂英文可以学，连基本的礼貌都没有，还在这里如此大篇幅地指责人家nonsense
