那些各自以欧盟、美国和中国为最大贸易伙伴的国家
正文翻译
Largest Trading Partner EU vs. USA vs. China
那些各自以欧盟、美国和中国为最大贸易伙伴的国家
Largest Trading Partner EU vs. USA vs. China
那些各自以欧盟、美国和中国为最大贸易伙伴的国家
评论翻译
andremeda
I enjoyed this, but for some constructive criticism: who are the largest trading partners for EU, USA and China? I don't think you really needed to colour those 3 in their own colour, doesn't really serve a purpose imo
我很喜欢这篇文章，但也提出了一些建设性的批评:谁是欧盟、美国和中国最大的贸易伙伴?我不认为你真的需要用它们自己的颜色来着色，在我看来，这不符合你这标题。
I enjoyed this, but for some constructive criticism: who are the largest trading partners for EU, USA and China? I don't think you really needed to colour those 3 in their own colour, doesn't really serve a purpose imo
我很喜欢这篇文章，但也提出了一些建设性的批评:谁是欧盟、美国和中国最大的贸易伙伴?我不认为你真的需要用它们自己的颜色来着色，在我看来，这不符合你这标题。
bengyap
For US, it is
For EU, it is
For China, it is
对于美国来说，最大贸易伙伴是欧盟。链接略
对于欧盟来说，最大贸易伙伴是中国。
对于中国来说，最大贸易伙伴是美国。
For US, it is
For EU, it is
For China, it is
对于美国来说，最大贸易伙伴是欧盟。链接略
对于欧盟来说，最大贸易伙伴是中国。
对于中国来说，最大贸易伙伴是美国。
MrHyperion_
Perfectly balanced
完美的平衡。
Perfectly balanced
完美的平衡。
No-Key-7085
As all things should be
正如一切事物应该有的样子。
As all things should be
正如一切事物应该有的样子。
Yuio_Quaz
Very satisfying
多么让人心满意足。
Very satisfying
多么让人心满意足。
-V0lD
Wait, there is a flaw in my logic somewhere, could someone help me point it out?
The "size" of a countries "largest trading partner" should be measured as a sum of imports, exports, and a few other things. By that logic, if country A has a total trade of X with country B, then country B should also have a total trade of X with A. The X here is the total trade between two states, and should therefore not depend on which state's perspective you're looking at it from. In other words, it should be a commutative binary map to R.
Now, if say we define the total trade between the US and the EU to be t_{U,E}. Similarly, we call the total trade between the EU and China t_{E,C}, and between China and the US t_{C,U}.
If the EU is the largest trading partner of the US, but China is the largest trading partner of the EU. This implies that the EU trades more with China than with the US. Therefore, we can deduce that t_{E,C} > t_{U,E}. By that same logic, we have t_{U,E} > t_{C,U} and t_{C,U} > t_{E,C}.
But then we have t_{E,C} > t_{U,E} > t_{C,U} > t_{E,C}, which implies that t_{E,C} > t_{E,C}, giving a contradiction.
Where is the fault in the logic here? Is total trade between two states not a commutative operation, or is the data skewed because the sources are from different years?
等等，我的逻辑有个漏洞，有人能帮我指出来吗?
一个国家“最大贸易伙伴”的“规模”应该用进口、出口和其他一些东西的总和来衡量。按照这种逻辑，如果A国与B国的贸易总额为X，那么B国与A国的贸易总额也应该为X。这里的X是两个国家之间的贸易总额，因此不应该取决于你从哪个国家的角度来看待它。
现在我们定义美欧之间的贸易总额为t（U，E），类似，定义欧中之间的贸易为t（E，C），中美之间的贸易总额为t（C，U）。如果欧盟是美国最大贸易伙伴，中国是欧盟最大贸易伙伴。这就暗示，欧盟对华贸易比对美贸易更多。因此可以推断得出t（E，C）＞t（U，E）。同样的逻辑，我们可以得出t（U，E）＞t（C，U），并且t（C，U）＞t（E，C）。
但我们得到的是t（E，C）> t（U，E） > t（C，U） > t（E，C），这暗示t（E，C）> t（E，C）,这是矛盾的。
逻辑上的错误在哪里?是因为两个国家之间的贸易总额不是交换操作，还是因为来源不同年而导致数据扭曲?
Wait, there is a flaw in my logic somewhere, could someone help me point it out?
The "size" of a countries "largest trading partner" should be measured as a sum of imports, exports, and a few other things. By that logic, if country A has a total trade of X with country B, then country B should also have a total trade of X with A. The X here is the total trade between two states, and should therefore not depend on which state's perspective you're looking at it from. In other words, it should be a commutative binary map to R.
Now, if say we define the total trade between the US and the EU to be t_{U,E}. Similarly, we call the total trade between the EU and China t_{E,C}, and between China and the US t_{C,U}.
If the EU is the largest trading partner of the US, but China is the largest trading partner of the EU. This implies that the EU trades more with China than with the US. Therefore, we can deduce that t_{E,C} > t_{U,E}. By that same logic, we have t_{U,E} > t_{C,U} and t_{C,U} > t_{E,C}.
But then we have t_{E,C} > t_{U,E} > t_{C,U} > t_{E,C}, which implies that t_{E,C} > t_{E,C}, giving a contradiction.
Where is the fault in the logic here? Is total trade between two states not a commutative operation, or is the data skewed because the sources are from different years?
等等，我的逻辑有个漏洞，有人能帮我指出来吗?
一个国家“最大贸易伙伴”的“规模”应该用进口、出口和其他一些东西的总和来衡量。按照这种逻辑，如果A国与B国的贸易总额为X，那么B国与A国的贸易总额也应该为X。这里的X是两个国家之间的贸易总额，因此不应该取决于你从哪个国家的角度来看待它。
现在我们定义美欧之间的贸易总额为t（U，E），类似，定义欧中之间的贸易为t（E，C），中美之间的贸易总额为t（C，U）。如果欧盟是美国最大贸易伙伴，中国是欧盟最大贸易伙伴。这就暗示，欧盟对华贸易比对美贸易更多。因此可以推断得出t（E，C）＞t（U，E）。同样的逻辑，我们可以得出t（U，E）＞t（C，U），并且t（C，U）＞t（E，C）。
但我们得到的是t（E，C）> t（U，E） > t（C，U） > t（E，C），这暗示t（E，C）> t（E，C）,这是矛盾的。
逻辑上的错误在哪里?是因为两个国家之间的贸易总额不是交换操作，还是因为来源不同年而导致数据扭曲?
rich519
is the data skewed because the sources are from different years?
That’d be my best guess. The EU numbers are post brexit which seems like it’d be a shake up at least.
“因为来源不同年而导致数据扭曲?”
我猜测是这个原因导致的。欧盟的数据是英国脱欧后的数据，看起来至少会是一场震荡。
is the data skewed because the sources are from different years?
That’d be my best guess. The EU numbers are post brexit which seems like it’d be a shake up at least.
“因为来源不同年而导致数据扭曲?”
我猜测是这个原因导致的。欧盟的数据是英国脱欧后的数据，看起来至少会是一场震荡。
Cryzgnik
Where is the fault in the logic here?
The flaw in logic is that you have stated
The "size" of a countries "largest trading partner" should be measured as a sum of imports, exports, and a few other things.
while not explaining why you have proceeded to treat this "should" statement as a descxtion of the actual state of things. Just because it should be done that way, that doesn't mean it has been done that way. In all liklihood, "a country's biggest trading partner" was defined as "the country which exports to the named country more than to anywhere else".
“逻辑上的错误在哪里?”
逻辑上的缺陷，你已经陈述过了。
“一个国家“最大贸易伙伴”的“规模”应该用进口、出口和其他一些东西的总和来衡量。”
虽然没有解释为什么你继续把这个“应该”的陈述作为对事物实际状态的描述。仅仅因为它应该这样做，并不意味着它确实这样做了。很有可能，“一个国家最大的贸易伙伴”被定义为“对被点名国家的出口超过其他任何国家”。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Where is the fault in the logic here?
The flaw in logic is that you have stated
The "size" of a countries "largest trading partner" should be measured as a sum of imports, exports, and a few other things.
while not explaining why you have proceeded to treat this "should" statement as a descxtion of the actual state of things. Just because it should be done that way, that doesn't mean it has been done that way. In all liklihood, "a country's biggest trading partner" was defined as "the country which exports to the named country more than to anywhere else".
“逻辑上的错误在哪里?”
逻辑上的缺陷，你已经陈述过了。
“一个国家“最大贸易伙伴”的“规模”应该用进口、出口和其他一些东西的总和来衡量。”
虽然没有解释为什么你继续把这个“应该”的陈述作为对事物实际状态的描述。仅仅因为它应该这样做，并不意味着它确实这样做了。很有可能，“一个国家最大的贸易伙伴”被定义为“对被点名国家的出口超过其他任何国家”。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
alexmijowastaken
In all liklihood, "a country's biggest trading partner" was defined as "the country which exports to the named country more than to anywhere else".
Clicking on the wikipedia lixs shows that's not the case. The actual cause is that the US's data is from 2017, the EU's data is from 2020, and China's data is from 2018.
点击维基百科的链接就会发现事实并非如此。实际原因是美国的数据是2017年的，欧盟的数据是2020年的，中国的数据是2018年的。
In all liklihood, "a country's biggest trading partner" was defined as "the country which exports to the named country more than to anywhere else".
Clicking on the wikipedia lixs shows that's not the case. The actual cause is that the US's data is from 2017, the EU's data is from 2020, and China's data is from 2018.
点击维基百科的链接就会发现事实并非如此。实际原因是美国的数据是2017年的，欧盟的数据是2020年的，中国的数据是2018年的。
wannaGrow2
Which is wrong.
By logic the top trader must have a reciprocal top (for them) trading partner.
The reason for this discrepant situation is that the lists belong to different years, of which two are before Brexit and one is after.
P.s. Sorry for being fussy, I can't help.
哪个是错的。
从逻辑上讲，排名第一的贸易国必须有一个对等的排名第一的贸易伙伴。
出现这种差异的原因是，这些名单属于不同的年份，其中两个是在英国脱欧之前，一个是在英国脱欧之后。
补充：为我的吹毛求疵抱歉，我控制不住。
Which is wrong.
By logic the top trader must have a reciprocal top (for them) trading partner.
The reason for this discrepant situation is that the lists belong to different years, of which two are before Brexit and one is after.
P.s. Sorry for being fussy, I can't help.
哪个是错的。
从逻辑上讲，排名第一的贸易国必须有一个对等的排名第一的贸易伙伴。
出现这种差异的原因是，这些名单属于不同的年份，其中两个是在英国脱欧之前，一个是在英国脱欧之后。
补充：为我的吹毛求疵抱歉，我控制不住。
canonicalsadhu
Some of those wiki pages need an upxe. In 2021, China's biggest trading partners are ASEAN, EU, and US in that order.
拿分维基页面需要更新了。2021年，中国最大贸易伙伴是东盟，其次是欧盟和美国。
Some of those wiki pages need an upxe. In 2021, China's biggest trading partners are ASEAN, EU, and US in that order.
拿分维基页面需要更新了。2021年，中国最大贸易伙伴是东盟，其次是欧盟和美国。
IcedLemonCrush
ASEAN is not a customs unx, so it doesn’t make sense to count it as one thing. All of the member countries have different trade policies.
东盟不是关税同盟，因此把它当作一个整体是没有意义的。所有的成员国都有不同的贸易政策。
ASEAN is not a customs unx, so it doesn’t make sense to count it as one thing. All of the member countries have different trade policies.
东盟不是关税同盟，因此把它当作一个整体是没有意义的。所有的成员国都有不同的贸易政策。
Bren12310
How is the EU different? Seriously asking.
那欧盟又有什么区别？认真提问。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
How is the EU different? Seriously asking.
那欧盟又有什么区别？认真提问。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
IcedLemonCrush
There’s a unified law regarding foreign products and how they’re taxed. Member countries can’t make trade deals on their own, since all need to be part of the same agreement.
关于外国产品和如何征税有统一的法律。成员国不能单独达成贸易协议，因为所有成员国都需要成为同一协议的一部分。
There’s a unified law regarding foreign products and how they’re taxed. Member countries can’t make trade deals on their own, since all need to be part of the same agreement.
关于外国产品和如何征税有统一的法律。成员国不能单独达成贸易协议，因为所有成员国都需要成为同一协议的一部分。
-CeartGoLeor-
The EU is a single market, ASEAN is 10 seperate cooperating markets.
The EU makes trade laws & deals on behalf of its members, ASEAN countries do this individually.
欧盟是一个单一市场，东盟是10个独立的合作市场。
欧盟代表其成员国制定贸易法律和协议，东盟国家单独做这件事。
The EU is a single market, ASEAN is 10 seperate cooperating markets.
The EU makes trade laws & deals on behalf of its members, ASEAN countries do this individually.
欧盟是一个单一市场，东盟是10个独立的合作市场。
欧盟代表其成员国制定贸易法律和协议，东盟国家单独做这件事。
Soviet_Russia321
I don't necessarily mind it from a visual design perspective, but those colors did not need to be included in the legend. Based on context, I think it's pretty easy to infer that these darker borders indicate the economic blocs themselves, whose economies technically do the most trading internally within themselves, I guess.
That does mean the data on the three blocks in question goes unrepresented, and so I definitely think it would have been good to just color those countries as any other with one or three colors, and assumed people know where everything is. Either way, it would seriously shrink the legend which would definitely be an improvement. And I always advocate for the inclusion of a source lix somewhere in these kinds of maps.
从视觉设计的角度来看，我并不介意（中美欧没有标识其最大贸易伙伴），但这些颜色并不需要包含在图中。根据上下文，我认为很容易推断出这些较暗的边界表示经济集团本身，我猜，这些经济体内部的贸易最多。
这确实意味着这三个区块的数据没有被表示出来，所以我肯定认为用一种或三种颜色来表示这些国家会很好，并且假设人们知道所有这些颜色是什么含义。此外，我一直主张在这类地图中加上一个源链接。
I don't necessarily mind it from a visual design perspective, but those colors did not need to be included in the legend. Based on context, I think it's pretty easy to infer that these darker borders indicate the economic blocs themselves, whose economies technically do the most trading internally within themselves, I guess.
That does mean the data on the three blocks in question goes unrepresented, and so I definitely think it would have been good to just color those countries as any other with one or three colors, and assumed people know where everything is. Either way, it would seriously shrink the legend which would definitely be an improvement. And I always advocate for the inclusion of a source lix somewhere in these kinds of maps.
从视觉设计的角度来看，我并不介意（中美欧没有标识其最大贸易伙伴），但这些颜色并不需要包含在图中。根据上下文，我认为很容易推断出这些较暗的边界表示经济集团本身，我猜，这些经济体内部的贸易最多。
这确实意味着这三个区块的数据没有被表示出来，所以我肯定认为用一种或三种颜色来表示这些国家会很好，并且假设人们知道所有这些颜色是什么含义。此外，我一直主张在这类地图中加上一个源链接。
Scottland83
EU: the world’s number one supplier of supplies.
欧盟:世界上最大的物资供应国的供应国。
EU: the world’s number one supplier of supplies.
欧盟:世界上最大的物资供应国的供应国。
TheCreazle
I was a business man doing business
我是做生意的生意人。
I was a business man doing business
我是做生意的生意人。
_ChillboBaggins_
European imperialists operated by looting raw resources from the global south, bringing them back to Europe to manufacture, and then selling the finished manufactured goods to the very people they stole from. It was literally illegal in the UK to own textiles manufactured in India.
The Calico Acts (1700, 1721) banned the import of most cotton textiles into England, followed by the restriction of sale of most cotton textiles. It was a form of economic protectionism, largely in response to India (particularly Bengal), which dominated world cotton textile markets at the time.
So western industrialization is predicated on being a lecherous middle man that sells back to you the very thing it stole because Europe did not have the raw materials or agricultural productivity needed to industrialize anywhere close to how it has using imperialism. This dichotomy persists to this day as colonized countries have a hard time diversifying their economies from the de-development and deindustrialization inflicted on them that is only suited for an extractive economy. Not to mention many are still neocolonized to this day and thus are still actively being subjected to resource extraction, population exploitation, de-development, and deindustrialization.
Edit: oh boy, here come the Eurocentrics to suppress free and contradictory thought. They're real riled up, sensitive crowd
[Global North] countries drained $152tn from the global South since 1960. And that's a conservative estimate. Imagine the 1000's of trillions of dollars extracted during colonization.
欧洲帝国主义者从全球南方掠夺原始资源，将其带回欧洲制造，然后将制成品卖给他们偷来的人。在英国，拥有印度制造的纺织品实际上是非法的。
“《卡利科法案》(1700-1721年)禁止大部分棉织品进入到英国，随后限制了大部分棉织品的销售。这是一种经济保护主义，主要是为了应对印度(尤其是孟加拉)，当时印度主导着世界棉纺织市场。”
因此，西方工业化是建立在一个该死的中间人的基础上的，他们把偷来的东西卖给你，因为欧洲没有必要的原材料或农业生产力来实现迈向帝国主义的工业化。这种二分法一直持续到今天，因为被殖民的国家很难使其经济多样化，很难摆脱只适合采掘产业的去发展和去工业化给它们造成的影响。更不用说许多国家至今仍处于新殖民状态，因此仍在积极地遭受资源开采、人口剥削、去发展和去工业化的影响。
补充：欧洲中心主义者跑来压制自由，并提出相互矛盾的思想。他们是一群非常愤怒、敏感的人。链接：《自1960年以来，[全球北方]国家从全球南方吸收了152万亿美元》 这是一个保守的估计。想象一下在殖民时期被榨取的万亿级别的美元。仅1990-2015年间就有242万亿美元。
European imperialists operated by looting raw resources from the global south, bringing them back to Europe to manufacture, and then selling the finished manufactured goods to the very people they stole from. It was literally illegal in the UK to own textiles manufactured in India.
The Calico Acts (1700, 1721) banned the import of most cotton textiles into England, followed by the restriction of sale of most cotton textiles. It was a form of economic protectionism, largely in response to India (particularly Bengal), which dominated world cotton textile markets at the time.
So western industrialization is predicated on being a lecherous middle man that sells back to you the very thing it stole because Europe did not have the raw materials or agricultural productivity needed to industrialize anywhere close to how it has using imperialism. This dichotomy persists to this day as colonized countries have a hard time diversifying their economies from the de-development and deindustrialization inflicted on them that is only suited for an extractive economy. Not to mention many are still neocolonized to this day and thus are still actively being subjected to resource extraction, population exploitation, de-development, and deindustrialization.
Edit: oh boy, here come the Eurocentrics to suppress free and contradictory thought. They're real riled up, sensitive crowd
[Global North] countries drained $152tn from the global South since 1960. And that's a conservative estimate. Imagine the 1000's of trillions of dollars extracted during colonization.
欧洲帝国主义者从全球南方掠夺原始资源，将其带回欧洲制造，然后将制成品卖给他们偷来的人。在英国，拥有印度制造的纺织品实际上是非法的。
“《卡利科法案》(1700-1721年)禁止大部分棉织品进入到英国，随后限制了大部分棉织品的销售。这是一种经济保护主义，主要是为了应对印度(尤其是孟加拉)，当时印度主导着世界棉纺织市场。”
因此，西方工业化是建立在一个该死的中间人的基础上的，他们把偷来的东西卖给你，因为欧洲没有必要的原材料或农业生产力来实现迈向帝国主义的工业化。这种二分法一直持续到今天，因为被殖民的国家很难使其经济多样化，很难摆脱只适合采掘产业的去发展和去工业化给它们造成的影响。更不用说许多国家至今仍处于新殖民状态，因此仍在积极地遭受资源开采、人口剥削、去发展和去工业化的影响。
补充：欧洲中心主义者跑来压制自由，并提出相互矛盾的思想。他们是一群非常愤怒、敏感的人。链接：《自1960年以来，[全球北方]国家从全球南方吸收了152万亿美元》 这是一个保守的估计。想象一下在殖民时期被榨取的万亿级别的美元。仅1990-2015年间就有242万亿美元。
nanoman92
Britain had very easily available coal deposits, that helped them a lot in them it being the first. Although the colonial empire was very important as well.
For the rest of early industrializers...
Belgium was the 2nd and at the time had no colonies (in fact it went through a French and then Dutch occupation). What it did have? Easily accessible coal.
Then came France, which had lost all of its colonies to UK a few decades earlier and had just in aded Algiers, which wasn't particularly rich.
Prussia followed, again Prussia had no colonies in the 1840s.
I can go on... For most of the 19th century Britain was the only European country with actual large colonies. Only when Industrialization had happened European countries felt the need to export their products cheap and get more resources and thus started conquering the world in the 1880s. But industrialization had started way before that.
英国有非常容易获得的煤矿，这对他们成为世界第一助益甚多，尽管帝国殖民也很重要。
对于其他早期工业化国家来说：
比利时是第二个，当时没有殖民地(事实上，它经历了法国和荷兰的占领)。它有什么?容易获得的煤炭。然后是法国，它在几十年前丧失了所有的殖民地给英国，然后刚刚占领了阿尔及利亚，那里不是特别富裕。普鲁士紧随其后，19世纪40年代普鲁士没有殖民地。
我还可以继续……在19世纪的大部分时间里，英国是唯一一个拥有大量殖民地的欧洲国家。只有当工业化发生时，欧洲国家才觉得有必要廉价出口他们的产品，获得更多的资源，从而在19世纪80年代开始征服世界。但工业化在那之前就已经开始了。
Britain had very easily available coal deposits, that helped them a lot in them it being the first. Although the colonial empire was very important as well.
For the rest of early industrializers...
Belgium was the 2nd and at the time had no colonies (in fact it went through a French and then Dutch occupation). What it did have? Easily accessible coal.
Then came France, which had lost all of its colonies to UK a few decades earlier and had just in aded Algiers, which wasn't particularly rich.
Prussia followed, again Prussia had no colonies in the 1840s.
I can go on... For most of the 19th century Britain was the only European country with actual large colonies. Only when Industrialization had happened European countries felt the need to export their products cheap and get more resources and thus started conquering the world in the 1880s. But industrialization had started way before that.
英国有非常容易获得的煤矿，这对他们成为世界第一助益甚多，尽管帝国殖民也很重要。
对于其他早期工业化国家来说：
比利时是第二个，当时没有殖民地(事实上，它经历了法国和荷兰的占领)。它有什么?容易获得的煤炭。然后是法国，它在几十年前丧失了所有的殖民地给英国，然后刚刚占领了阿尔及利亚，那里不是特别富裕。普鲁士紧随其后，19世纪40年代普鲁士没有殖民地。
我还可以继续……在19世纪的大部分时间里，英国是唯一一个拥有大量殖民地的欧洲国家。只有当工业化发生时，欧洲国家才觉得有必要廉价出口他们的产品，获得更多的资源，从而在19世纪80年代开始征服世界。但工业化在那之前就已经开始了。
knightarnaud
The EU was the world’s largest trader of manufactured goods and services before Brexit. I assume that's still the case?
在英国脱欧之前，欧盟是世界上最大的制成品和服务贸易国。我想现在还是这样吧?
The EU was the world’s largest trader of manufactured goods and services before Brexit. I assume that's still the case?
在英国脱欧之前，欧盟是世界上最大的制成品和服务贸易国。我想现在还是这样吧?
SpaceShrimp
As trade with the UK would count as trade now, I assume the trade is larger than before Brexit.
由于与英国的贸易现在被算作贸易，我认为贸易量比英国退欧前要大。
As trade with the UK would count as trade now, I assume the trade is larger than before Brexit.
由于与英国的贸易现在被算作贸易，我认为贸易量比英国退欧前要大。
d3_Bere_man
But British trade with all other nations doesnt count anymore. As the UK had 50% of its trade with the EU the number hasnt changed
但是英国与其他国家的贸易已经不计算进来了。而英国50%的贸易是与欧盟进行的，这个数字没有改变。
But British trade with all other nations doesnt count anymore. As the UK had 50% of its trade with the EU the number hasnt changed
但是英国与其他国家的贸易已经不计算进来了。而英国50%的贸易是与欧盟进行的，这个数字没有改变。
lookoutforthetrain_0
Is that before or after sanctions against Russia?
是在制裁俄罗斯之前还是之后?
Is that before or after sanctions against Russia?
是在制裁俄罗斯之前还是之后?
666BRLN999
definitely before, the data seems quite old, possibly 5 or 6 years old, i looked up some data myself and a few countries are wrong.
肯定是之前的，这些数据看起来很旧，可能有5、6年了，我自己查了一些数据，一些国家的数据是错的。链接略
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
definitely before, the data seems quite old, possibly 5 or 6 years old, i looked up some data myself and a few countries are wrong.
肯定是之前的，这些数据看起来很旧，可能有5、6年了，我自己查了一些数据，一些国家的数据是错的。链接略
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
666BRLN999
Some interesting things here, Sri Lanka for example being one of the very few in Asia that has Usa as the largest Trading partner, according to 2020 Data, around 1/4 of their Exports go to Usa and 1/4 of their Imports come from China, overall though Trade volume with Usa was about $3.1bn while with China it was $4.3bn. Probably should be red aswell unless something drastically changed in 2021 Data that isn't available yet for me.
Another one is that Ethiopia isn't red, i looked at it again, Trade volume with EU was around $2.5bn in 2020, while their Imports from China alone stood at $2.75bn, overall incl. Hong Kong it was $3.2bn. Kazakhstan a bit surprising aswell but that is right for sure, alot of their Resource exports go to Europe, mainly Oil.
Tanzania is red aswell, overall Trade with EU was around $1.5bn, their imports from China alone stood at $4.3bn, on top of that $500m in exports. South Africa is correct though.
UAE is interesting aswell, you would think surely it's China over EU and apparently that is the case, Trade Volume with EU in 2020 was around $35bn, with China it was $70bn, with 10bn coming from Hong Kong. Seems like very outdated data was used here.
India is interesting for the fact Trade Volume with EU, USA and China is very similar but China is their main partner. Trade with EU in 2020 was around $77bn, with the Usa it was $76.5bn and with China it was $106bn. Bangladesh is definitely blue though.
这里有一些有趣的事情，例如斯里兰卡是亚洲少数几个将美国作为最大贸易伙伴的国家之一，根据2020年的数据，斯里兰卡约四分之一的出口流向美国，四分之一的进口来自中国，尽管与美国的贸易额约为31亿美元，而与中国的贸易额为43亿美元。可能也应该是红色的，除非2021年发生了重大变化，但我还没有数据。
另一个是，埃塞俄比亚不是红色的，我又看了一遍，2020年与欧盟的贸易额约为25亿美元，而他们仅从中国的进口就达到27.5亿美元，包括香港地区在内的进口总额为32亿美元。哈萨克斯坦也有点令人惊讶，但这是肯定的，他们的很多资源出口到欧洲，主要是石油。
坦桑尼亚也是红色的，与欧盟的贸易总额约为15亿美元，仅从中国的进口就达到43亿美元，此外还有5亿美元的出口。不过南非是正确的。
阿联酋也很有趣，你肯定会认为中国比欧盟比重更大，显然情况确实如此。2020年与欧盟的贸易额约为350亿美元，与中国的贸易额为700亿美元，其中100亿来自香港地区。这里使用的数据似乎非常过时。
印度与欧盟、美国和中国的贸易额非常相似，但中国是他们的主要合作伙伴。2020年，印度与欧盟的贸易额约为770亿美元，与美国的贸易额为765亿美元，与中国的贸易额为1060亿美元。
孟加拉国绝对是蓝色的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Some interesting things here, Sri Lanka for example being one of the very few in Asia that has Usa as the largest Trading partner, according to 2020 Data, around 1/4 of their Exports go to Usa and 1/4 of their Imports come from China, overall though Trade volume with Usa was about $3.1bn while with China it was $4.3bn. Probably should be red aswell unless something drastically changed in 2021 Data that isn't available yet for me.
Another one is that Ethiopia isn't red, i looked at it again, Trade volume with EU was around $2.5bn in 2020, while their Imports from China alone stood at $2.75bn, overall incl. Hong Kong it was $3.2bn. Kazakhstan a bit surprising aswell but that is right for sure, alot of their Resource exports go to Europe, mainly Oil.
Tanzania is red aswell, overall Trade with EU was around $1.5bn, their imports from China alone stood at $4.3bn, on top of that $500m in exports. South Africa is correct though.
UAE is interesting aswell, you would think surely it's China over EU and apparently that is the case, Trade Volume with EU in 2020 was around $35bn, with China it was $70bn, with 10bn coming from Hong Kong. Seems like very outdated data was used here.
India is interesting for the fact Trade Volume with EU, USA and China is very similar but China is their main partner. Trade with EU in 2020 was around $77bn, with the Usa it was $76.5bn and with China it was $106bn. Bangladesh is definitely blue though.
这里有一些有趣的事情，例如斯里兰卡是亚洲少数几个将美国作为最大贸易伙伴的国家之一，根据2020年的数据，斯里兰卡约四分之一的出口流向美国，四分之一的进口来自中国，尽管与美国的贸易额约为31亿美元，而与中国的贸易额为43亿美元。可能也应该是红色的，除非2021年发生了重大变化，但我还没有数据。
另一个是，埃塞俄比亚不是红色的，我又看了一遍，2020年与欧盟的贸易额约为25亿美元，而他们仅从中国的进口就达到27.5亿美元，包括香港地区在内的进口总额为32亿美元。哈萨克斯坦也有点令人惊讶，但这是肯定的，他们的很多资源出口到欧洲，主要是石油。
坦桑尼亚也是红色的，与欧盟的贸易总额约为15亿美元，仅从中国的进口就达到43亿美元，此外还有5亿美元的出口。不过南非是正确的。
阿联酋也很有趣，你肯定会认为中国比欧盟比重更大，显然情况确实如此。2020年与欧盟的贸易额约为350亿美元，与中国的贸易额为700亿美元，其中100亿来自香港地区。这里使用的数据似乎非常过时。
印度与欧盟、美国和中国的贸易额非常相似，但中国是他们的主要合作伙伴。2020年，印度与欧盟的贸易额约为770亿美元，与美国的贸易额为765亿美元，与中国的贸易额为1060亿美元。
孟加拉国绝对是蓝色的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
[dexed]
Can you give me the source? According to this website , India's largest trading partner is USA.
你能告诉我数据来源吗?据这个网站，印度最大的贸易伙伴是美国。
Can you give me the source? According to this website , India's largest trading partner is USA.
你能告诉我数据来源吗?据这个网站，印度最大的贸易伙伴是美国。
666BRLN999
yeah, both are sources are right, my data is from OEC Data 2020, yours from 2021.
here's the full article readable:
Trade volume with Usa was $112bn and with China $110bn, so while trade with China only increase slightly, it shot up drastically with the Usa compared to the previous year, 2020.
是的，两个来源都是对的，我的数据来自OEC Data 2020年，你的数据来自2021年。以下是链接：略
（印度当年）与美国的贸易额为1120亿美元，与中国的贸易额为1100亿美元，因此，尽管与中国的贸易额仅略有增长，但与前一年(2020年)相比，与美国的贸易额大幅增长。
yeah, both are sources are right, my data is from OEC Data 2020, yours from 2021.
here's the full article readable:
Trade volume with Usa was $112bn and with China $110bn, so while trade with China only increase slightly, it shot up drastically with the Usa compared to the previous year, 2020.
是的，两个来源都是对的，我的数据来自OEC Data 2020年，你的数据来自2021年。以下是链接：略
（印度当年）与美国的贸易额为1120亿美元，与中国的贸易额为1100亿美元，因此，尽管与中国的贸易额仅略有增长，但与前一年(2020年)相比，与美国的贸易额大幅增长。
很赞 3
收藏