Recently, various media in mainland China have criticized the "Chinese comprehensive national strength first theory of Andrdquo; Andrdquo; Andrdquo; and the videos of" China's comprehensive national strength first theory of national strength first theory of national strength.Many critics even exaggerated his resignation as the culprit that caused the United States to be alert to China and launch a trade war.There is also a joint letter of the alumni of the great alumni to punish his Andrdquo;
Some people even expanded their spearheads to intellectual groups. Criticive intellectuals did not provide the country with correct opinions in the trade war, and even seriously misjudged, and then criticized the so -called "literati and Chinese mistakes Andrdquo;
The author believes that it is okay to criticize Hu's exaggeration, lack of study, or even welcoming the intention;On his body, he was too wronged; it was too much to punish him; as for the expansion of the criticism of "literati andrdquo; and that, it was even more wrong.
It is said that the Hu family is because of the occurrence of the Sino -US trade war. It does have nothing to do with Hu's, and he has no influence of the country and the people.The shallow cause of the Sino -US trade war is the long -term accumulated trade imbalance between China and the United States, and the root cause of the imbalanced of this imbalanced, that is, China's long -term support exports (including subsidies for various industrial policies), suppress imports to suppress importsVarious policies.
The deep reasons for the Sino -US trade war include the opposite of China's political and economic direction in recent years, and began to vigorously promote the Chinese model / road / wisdom / solution, andBrick organizations and other international plans and organizations have caused the United States to believe that China competes with its scope and world leadership, and then adopts measures to curb China's Andrdquo; including suppressing China's high -tech industry.
Whether it is the problem of trade itself or the problem of China's political and economic direction, it is not what Hu can affect, and it has nothing to do with him.Isn't it wrong to attribute the responsibility of the trade war to him?Hu's is just a literati who often cooperates with official media propaganda. Even high -level think tanks are not considered. There are even rumors that ridicule his self -proclaimed story of "think tank Andrdquo;. He lacks the influence of mistakes and people.
As for the United States' trade war on China, because China is high -profile or even exaggerated to promote its development achievements, it has caused the United States to be vigilant. This statement itself cannot withstand the scrutiny, at least exaggerated.What is the strength of China, even if there is no public opinion, it will be displayed in statistical numbers and various other public information. Isn't the United States clear?
With the author's rigorous attitude towards American economic researchers, I am afraid that Chinese statistical statistics and public opinion propaganda may be clearly analyzed.The core of the problem is that China has conducted high -profile publicity, but China's foreign trade policy, economic development model, and even political and economic strategy.Besides, the US decision -making level knows Hu, and I heard Hu's Andrdquo; even if he hear, would he believe his exaggeration?
Of course, the United States curbing China's Andrdquo "reverse rise of Andrdquo; this deep root of the trade war, high -profile publicity of the Chinese model / road / wisdom / solution with relevant Chinese departments, and high -profile publicity and external publicity of" human destiny community Andrdquo;"The diagnosis of the pulse for the development of the world's economic development, indicating the direction of Andrdquo; leading the United States to believe that China is to compete with it with its power.
However, all these are advocated by the relevant departments, especially the Wenxuan department, rather than the proposal of Hu's; the proposal of some concepts is indeed some scholars, but not Hu.
Moreover, from time to time, the relevant departments began to vigorously promote these. It was in the first half of 2017 or before, and Hu's proposed that "China's first theory of Andrdquo;I want to participate in and echo the advocacy of some departments. Therefore, it is not because Hu's bragging leads to high -profile publicity of the relevant departments, but the high -profile publicity of the relevant departments has triggered Hu's bragging.
In this sense, it was not Andrdquo; but Andrdquo; but Andrdquo;
If there is a problem, take one or two literati who running the train to set up, take their top tank, make a scapegoat, and say that they "mistakenly understand Andrdquo;How about it?Are they running the train with their mouths, isn't it the result of the true intentions of the relevant departments correctly?The practice of finding a person's top tank and a scapegoat is inappropriate whether it is official or the folk.
Of course, some people say that the real intention of criticizing Huto is to criticize the relevant departments behind him.This statement can be understood, but isn't it a way to pick a soft persimmon pinch?
As for some people expand their spearheads to intellectuals, they have begun to criticize the so -called Andrdquo; that is even more absurd. Even if some intellectuals and literati have important influence on relevant national decision -making institutions, they are at most of their staff and the staff andJust the think tank. The final decision is always the relevant government departments. The number of intellectuals and literati is large, and there are different opinions on any economic, social, and political issues.
Government departments of a country need to open their words, let all kinds of intellectuals and even all sectors of society speak freely, listen to their opinions with an open mind, and make final decisions in a comprehensive balance.Similar suggestions similar to your own point of view, rejecting the opposite of yourself, and even prohibiting it from spreading (such as online stickers).
Listening to the suggestions of intellectuals and not listening to the advice of those people are both the power of government departments and should also become their responsibility.And once you decide to listen to the suggestions of some intellectuals, you should be brave to bear the consequences of decision -making.If the final effect is not satisfactory, you should first review your own decision errors, instead of being too crowded, accusing Andrdquo; of course, the relevant government departments can no longer trust these intellectuals in the future and adopt their suggestions.
However, if you punish it, it will not only shirk responsibility, be too humane, but also endanger the freedom of speech of intellectuals. Who else dares to make suggestions for the country in the future?
Specifically, in this Sino -US trade war, among the intellectuals, there are both Professor Lin Yifu that clearly advocated those who stop the war in the United States and return to teeth (Andrdquo;).The war stops and fights Andrdquo; will not succeed, clearly advocates those who adjust, resolve the contradictions between China and the United States, and eliminate the roots of trade in trade (Andrdquo; see a series of articles published in the "Lianhe Zaobao"), and alsoThere are many people who have viewed between the two (Andrdquo; Andrdquo;).
In fact, the folk is not the case.In these different judgments and claims, there are always correct ones.How can the intellectual groups criticize in general and have not provided the country with correct opinions, and even serious misjudgment?How can we criticize and "literati and Chinese andrdquo;? The question is whether the relevant government departments have comprehensively listened to the opinions of different intellectuals and different literati and whether they made the right choice. This is the core of the question.
In the 1960s, the famous "Cultural Revolution andrdquo; The Cultural Revolution andrdquo; During the" Three Villages Andrdquo; Three Villages andrdquo; Incident, the famous literati Wu Yan, Deng Tuo, and Liao Musha were persecuted.Among them, Wu Yan and Deng Tuo were persecuted to death, and Liao Misha was lucky to survive.After the Cultural Revolution, Mr. Liao wrote "Dan Deng Tuo Shi", two of which:
And "There is an article in the society, and I have always been fortunate to cover the Qiankun andrdquo;.
End only, hoping to draw an end to the hustle and bustle of "Hu's mistakes andrdquo; and the" literati mistakes of the literati and literati.
People who contradictions between China and the United States and eliminating the roots of trade (Andrdquo; see the series of articles published by the Lianhe Zaobao in the "Lianhe Zaobao"), and there are many people with many views between the two (Andrdquo in the middle "and Andrdquo;To.
In fact, the folk is not the case.In these different judgments and claims, there are always correct ones.How can the intellectual groups criticize in general and have not provided the country with correct opinions, and even serious misjudgment?How can we criticize and "literati and Chinese andrdquo;? The question is whether the relevant government departments have comprehensively listened to the opinions of different intellectuals and different literati and whether they made the right choice. This is the core of the question.
In the 1960s, the famous "Cultural Revolution andrdquo; The Cultural Revolution andrdquo; During the" Three Villages Andrdquo; Three Villages andrdquo; Incident, the famous literati Wu Yan, Deng Tuo, and Liao Musha were persecuted.Among them, Wu Yan and Deng Tuo were persecuted to death, and Liao Misha was lucky to survive.After the Cultural Revolution, Mr. Liao wrote "Dan Deng Tuo Shi", two of which:
And "There is an article in the society, and I have always been fortunate to cover the Qiankun andrdquo;.
End only, hoping to draw an end to the hustle and bustle of "Hu's mistakes andrdquo; and the" literati mistakes of the literati and literati.
The author is a professor of economics at Shanghai University of Finance and Economics in China
In these different judgments and claims, there are always correct ones.How can the intellectual groups criticize in general and have not provided the country with correct opinions, and even serious misjudgment?How can we criticize and "literati and Chinese andrdquo;? The question is whether the relevant government departments have comprehensively listened to the opinions of different intellectuals and different literati and whether they made the right choice. This is the core of the question.
