QA问答：尽管美国仍然是世界上最强大的经济体和国家，为什么美国不再建造世界上最大的机场航站楼、最大的桥梁或最高的建筑呢？
正文翻译
浙江宁波舟山港
回答一：
Inaki Arbelaiz, City Innovation Project Leader (2011-present) upxed January 29 城市创新项目负责人（2011-至今）
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Inaki Arbelaiz, City Innovation Project Leader (2011-present) upxed January 29 城市创新项目负责人（2011-至今）
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
From a foreign perspective, this question is a very interesting question dividing the attention between national pride, economic power, and the commercial reality of the need for infrastructure.The simple answer is that there is no need for it. The USA, geographically, is not any longer a transportation hub, but a transportation destination.
从外国人的角度来看，这是一个非常有趣的问题，问题的答案无外乎人们对民族自豪感、经济实力和基础设施需求的商业现实之间的关注。答案很简单，没有这个必要。从地理上来说，美国不再是一个交通枢纽，而是一个交通目的地。
从外国人的角度来看，这是一个非常有趣的问题，问题的答案无外乎人们对民族自豪感、经济实力和基础设施需求的商业现实之间的关注。答案很简单，没有这个必要。从地理上来说，美国不再是一个交通枢纽，而是一个交通目的地。
浙江宁波舟山港
The last list, the busiest cruise ports, is largely skewed due to Disney [sad but true]. Once you have that taken out [the Disney phenomena due to cruises], the countries where most of the population is divided between a set of islande [as Greece, Finland, and the Sea of China] will require the largest ports.
最后一份名单是最繁忙的邮轮港口，由于迪士尼的影响，排名出现了很大的偏差（悲伤，但事实如此）。一旦你排除了因游轮而产生的迪士尼现象，那些大部分人口被分割在一组组岛屿的国家（如希腊、芬兰和中国海）将需要最大的港口。
最后一份名单是最繁忙的邮轮港口，由于迪士尼的影响，排名出现了很大的偏差（悲伤，但事实如此）。一旦你排除了因游轮而产生的迪士尼现象，那些大部分人口被分割在一组组岛屿的国家（如希腊、芬兰和中国海）将需要最大的港口。
Same happens with airports:Due to regulations and the low cost phenomena, airlines do not have to land in the USA when doing a transatlantic flight when travelling from Europe to South America, one of the booming routes.Because of that, airports don´t need to be large on terminals [perhaps on non civil infrastructure such as landing lanes, but not on terminals]: a destination terminal needs to be much smaller than a hub because it is simply getting passengers in and quickly moving them out, contrary to hubs, that need to get passengers and house them for one to four-six hours.And so on.
机场也是如此：由于法规和低成本原因，航空公司从欧洲飞往南美洲的跨大西洋航班上不必降落在美国，这是一个蓬勃发展的航线。正因为如此，机场航站楼不需要太大：目的地终点站只需要比枢纽站小得多的航站楼，因为只需要简单地把乘客送进来，然后迅速把他们送出去，而枢纽站需要把乘客送进来，并为他们提供1到4到6个小时的住宿，等等。
机场也是如此：由于法规和低成本原因，航空公司从欧洲飞往南美洲的跨大西洋航班上不必降落在美国，这是一个蓬勃发展的航线。正因为如此，机场航站楼不需要太大：目的地终点站只需要比枢纽站小得多的航站楼，因为只需要简单地把乘客送进来，然后迅速把他们送出去，而枢纽站需要把乘客送进来，并为他们提供1到4到6个小时的住宿，等等。
But then, there is the question that nobody seems to be asking, or the issue to be understood: the problem with infrastructre is not to build it, it is to keep it.Of all the cities I have lived [not visited, lived], which are 12, with metro systems, Barcelona has by far the best public transport system and network. But it does not look fancy, nor is it “big”. It is, though, extremely reliable and the frecuency of trains is astounding [every 40s on peak times on the busiest lines, and never above 7 mins on valley times on weekend nights]. It is very integrated with buses, trams, metro, public bikes, and microbuses.
但是，有一个问题似乎没有人问，或者说有一个问题需要理解：基础设施的问题往往不是建设，而是维护。在我住过（不仅仅是走马观花，而是住过）的12个城市中，巴塞罗那拥有迄今为止最好的公共交通系统和网络。但看起来既不花哨，也不“大”。不过，该系统网络非常可靠，而且班次的频率令人震惊（在最繁忙的线路上，高峰时间每40秒一班，周末晚上的峰谷时间从不超过7分钟）。该系统把公共汽车、有轨电车、地铁、公共自行车和微型公共汽车融合成了一体。
但是，有一个问题似乎没有人问，或者说有一个问题需要理解：基础设施的问题往往不是建设，而是维护。在我住过（不仅仅是走马观花，而是住过）的12个城市中，巴塞罗那拥有迄今为止最好的公共交通系统和网络。但看起来既不花哨，也不“大”。不过，该系统网络非常可靠，而且班次的频率令人震惊（在最繁忙的线路上，高峰时间每40秒一班，周末晚上的峰谷时间从不超过7分钟）。该系统把公共汽车、有轨电车、地铁、公共自行车和微型公共汽车融合成了一体。
And finally, as a foreigner, roads in the USA are, well, with all due respect, a service design nightmare. It simply doesn´t make sense for a foreigner. They are way too big, and are designed as point ot point transportation lines. That is a recipe for a disaster. I do understand that the USA is a very large territory, don´t get me wrong. But apart from the need to connect such a huge territory, the roads are just to over-engineered in the capacity sense.A road is not more capable due to the lanes it has, but for the number of cars it can handle per a time unit.
最后，作为一个外国人，美国的道路，恕我直言，是一个设计的噩梦，这对外国人来说根本没有意义。美国得道路太大了，被设计成点对点的交通线路，这将导致一场灾难。我知道美国有广袤的领土，不要误解我。但是，除了需要连接如此巨大的领土之外，道路在容量方面的设计也过于过度。一条道路的能力不仅取决于拥有的车道数，而是取决于在一个单位时间内可以通行的汽车数量。
最后，作为一个外国人，美国的道路，恕我直言，是一个设计的噩梦，这对外国人来说根本没有意义。美国得道路太大了，被设计成点对点的交通线路，这将导致一场灾难。我知道美国有广袤的领土，不要误解我。但是，除了需要连接如此巨大的领土之外，道路在容量方面的设计也过于过度。一条道路的能力不仅取决于拥有的车道数，而是取决于在一个单位时间内可以通行的汽车数量。
But to sum it up:Infrastructure is the classic bussines case of the long run: they need to perform for 30 to 40 years.Because of that, the smartest strategy is usually to develop the “minimum viable product” or infrastructure: if you build it too big, it will become a monster that is too huge to maintain [a problem the USA is having right now].
但总结一下：基础设施是典型的长期商业案例：一般需要运行30到40年。正因为如此，最明智的策略通常是开发“最小可行性产品”或基础设施：如果你把基础设施建得太大，它就会变成一个大得难以维持的怪物（这是美国现在所面临的问题）。
但总结一下：基础设施是典型的长期商业案例：一般需要运行30到40年。正因为如此，最明智的策略通常是开发“最小可行性产品”或基础设施：如果你把基础设施建得太大，它就会变成一个大得难以维持的怪物（这是美国现在所面临的问题）。
Having the “-est” of anything is not important. They are usually not the most efficient things, products or services at all. They might be a pride element, but they are not efficient and most importantly, not a business case any longer. The tallest building is a FAR [floor to area ratio] nightmare for all the services that at the end eat up valuable surface.Lets put it this way:The most important car for Toyota is not the “-est” lexus or the “-est” Toyota Century. It is the very humble Corolla. It is their money earner, their bread.
拥有任何“最”的东西并不重要，这些通常不是最有效的东西、产品或服务。拥有“最”字名头的可能是一个值得骄傲的因素，但他们没有效率，最重要的是，不再是一个商业案例。对于所有的服务来说，最高的建筑是楼层面积比的噩梦，因为它最终会吞噬宝贵的外观。让我们这么说吧：对丰田来说，最重要的汽车不是“最贵”的雷克萨斯，也不是“最出色”的丰田世纪，而是非常不起眼的卡罗拉。这是丰田最赚钱的地方，是他们的面包。
拥有任何“最”的东西并不重要，这些通常不是最有效的东西、产品或服务。拥有“最”字名头的可能是一个值得骄傲的因素，但他们没有效率，最重要的是，不再是一个商业案例。对于所有的服务来说，最高的建筑是楼层面积比的噩梦，因为它最终会吞噬宝贵的外观。让我们这么说吧：对丰田来说，最重要的汽车不是“最贵”的雷克萨斯，也不是“最出色”的丰田世纪，而是非常不起眼的卡罗拉。这是丰田最赚钱的地方，是他们的面包。
评论翻译
Ben Clark
America’s roads make sense for why they were built: They were not actually a civilian project. They were a military one.America’s highway system was designed by the military to connect their bases and make logistics easier, not as a civilian transportation network. Hence, some of the oddities are explained:Wide roads, so oversized military vehicles can get down them; Weird paths (Going to military bases), rather than direct connections to population centers; Overengineered bridges (For the time anyway. Now, some of them are under-engineered - and the military is worried about it) and over/underpasses; big tunnels with only slight curves (that allow for the passage of things like ICBMs); etc.
美国的公路为什么修成这样是有原因的：它们实际上不是民用项目，而是军用的。美国的高速公路系统是由军方设计的，目的是连接他们的基地，使后勤工作更容易，而不是作为一个民用运输网络。因此，一些奇怪的现象可以得到解释：宽阔的道路，超大的军用车辆可以通过；奇怪的路线（去军事基地），而不是直接连接人口中心；过度设计的桥梁、地上和地下通道（至少目前是这样。现在，其中一些是工程没有达到设计标准——军方对此感到担忧）；弯道很大的大隧道（允许洲际弹道导弹之类的东西通过）等。
America’s roads make sense for why they were built: They were not actually a civilian project. They were a military one.America’s highway system was designed by the military to connect their bases and make logistics easier, not as a civilian transportation network. Hence, some of the oddities are explained:Wide roads, so oversized military vehicles can get down them; Weird paths (Going to military bases), rather than direct connections to population centers; Overengineered bridges (For the time anyway. Now, some of them are under-engineered - and the military is worried about it) and over/underpasses; big tunnels with only slight curves (that allow for the passage of things like ICBMs); etc.
美国的公路为什么修成这样是有原因的：它们实际上不是民用项目，而是军用的。美国的高速公路系统是由军方设计的，目的是连接他们的基地，使后勤工作更容易，而不是作为一个民用运输网络。因此，一些奇怪的现象可以得到解释：宽阔的道路，超大的军用车辆可以通过；奇怪的路线（去军事基地），而不是直接连接人口中心；过度设计的桥梁、地上和地下通道（至少目前是这样。现在，其中一些是工程没有达到设计标准——军方对此感到担忧）；弯道很大的大隧道（允许洲际弹道导弹之类的东西通过）等。
Inaki Arbelaiz
Hi Ben,I know what you mean, but when oversized I meant roads with 10+ lanes. The oversizing you describe is quite common around the world. So much so, that the easy way in Europe to distinguish a regular road from a military road thet might be used as a landing runway is the material which is bring used.Thenks for the comment!
你好，@Ben Clark。我知道你的意思，但我指的是10条以上车道的道路。你所描述的超大尺寸的基础设施在世界各地都很常见。因此，在欧洲，区分一条道路是普通公路还是军用公路最简单的方法就是看道路使用的材料。谢谢你的评论！
Hi Ben,I know what you mean, but when oversized I meant roads with 10+ lanes. The oversizing you describe is quite common around the world. So much so, that the easy way in Europe to distinguish a regular road from a military road thet might be used as a landing runway is the material which is bring used.Thenks for the comment!
你好，@Ben Clark。我知道你的意思，但我指的是10条以上车道的道路。你所描述的超大尺寸的基础设施在世界各地都很常见。因此，在欧洲，区分一条道路是普通公路还是军用公路最简单的方法就是看道路使用的材料。谢谢你的评论！
Bruce Dyer
I think a strong case could be made for China followed by India as economic powerhouses. China practically owns America with its investments plus purchases of U.S. dollars which is likely the reason the dollar is still recognized as the international currency.
我认为一个强有力的理由是，中国成为经济强国，之后是印度。中国通过投资和购买美元实际上拥有美国，这可能是美元仍然被视为国际货币的原因。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I think a strong case could be made for China followed by India as economic powerhouses. China practically owns America with its investments plus purchases of U.S. dollars which is likely the reason the dollar is still recognized as the international currency.
我认为一个强有力的理由是，中国成为经济强国，之后是印度。中国通过投资和购买美元实际上拥有美国，这可能是美元仍然被视为国际货币的原因。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Paul Williams
Most US debt is not own by China .
大多数美国债务并不属于中国。
Most US debt is not own by China .
大多数美国债务并不属于中国。
Paul Williams
This was a superb answer minus the whole roads in the USA are too big or a nightmare point ! Roads have to be big in the USA . Roads in Canada are more or less the same as they’re in the United States !
这是一个极好的答案，整个美国的道路太大，这是一个噩梦！在美国，道路必须很大。加拿大的道路和美国的差不多！
This was a superb answer minus the whole roads in the USA are too big or a nightmare point ! Roads have to be big in the USA . Roads in Canada are more or less the same as they’re in the United States !
这是一个极好的答案，整个美国的道路太大，这是一个噩梦！在美国，道路必须很大。加拿大的道路和美国的差不多！
Inaki Arbelaiz
Hi Paul,The size of the roads seems to be a contentious issue with this answer ;-). With the size I mean the amount of lanes there are usually on USA roads, not the width of them or the length. As mentioned, the Braess paradox explains it much better than what I do. But often times the amount of lanes is placed to give the impression of capacity, rather than measured capacity.
But as we are talking about capacity and most importantly, efficiency, I have to add that in: roads are a big part of infrastructure.It is a s counter intuitive as the most efficient speed of use for a road or a street: on an open road, the most efficient speed is circa 90km/h, as it allows the road to have the highest vehicle number per hour. Increase that speed, and the distance between traffic increases dramatically, for safety and the “tunnel effect” that happens on the driver.
On a street, the efficiency is differently measured : can taxes and economic activity pay the maintenance of that street, its safety?When a street has mainly a vehicular character, nobody buys on the shops. Nobody cleans the street (so to speak), and nobody sees how that street decais. That is the reason why dense cities are kicking the car out of them: a car uses the streets, but does not directly pay for them (the usage tax many cities have does not cover street maintenance).Hope it helps!
嗨，@Paul Williams，道路的大小似乎是这个答案的一个有争议的问题。我指的是美国道路上车道的数量，而不是宽度或长度。如前所述，布雷斯悖论比我所说的更好地解释了这一点。但通常情况下，设置车道的数量是为了给人一种有很大容纳能力的印象，而不是实际能容纳的容量。但当我们谈到容量，以及最重要的效率时，我必须补充一点：道路是基础设施的重要组成部分。
一条道路或街道最有效的使用速度，与直觉相反：在开阔的道路上，最有效的速度大约是90公里/小时，因为这一速度允许道路每小时有最多的车辆数量。为了安全和司机身上发生的“隧道效应”，提高车速，车辆之间的距离就会显著增加。在街道上，衡量效率的方式是不同的：税收和经济活动能否支持街道的维护和安全？
当一条街道主要以车辆为主时，没有人会在商店里买东西。没人打扫街道（可以这么说），也没人看到街道是如何运转的。这就是为什么人口密集的城市将汽车踢出城市的原因：汽车占用街道，但不直接支付街道费用（许多城市征收的使用税不包括街道维护费用）。希望这个回答有用！
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Hi Paul,The size of the roads seems to be a contentious issue with this answer ;-). With the size I mean the amount of lanes there are usually on USA roads, not the width of them or the length. As mentioned, the Braess paradox explains it much better than what I do. But often times the amount of lanes is placed to give the impression of capacity, rather than measured capacity.
But as we are talking about capacity and most importantly, efficiency, I have to add that in: roads are a big part of infrastructure.It is a s counter intuitive as the most efficient speed of use for a road or a street: on an open road, the most efficient speed is circa 90km/h, as it allows the road to have the highest vehicle number per hour. Increase that speed, and the distance between traffic increases dramatically, for safety and the “tunnel effect” that happens on the driver.
On a street, the efficiency is differently measured : can taxes and economic activity pay the maintenance of that street, its safety?When a street has mainly a vehicular character, nobody buys on the shops. Nobody cleans the street (so to speak), and nobody sees how that street decais. That is the reason why dense cities are kicking the car out of them: a car uses the streets, but does not directly pay for them (the usage tax many cities have does not cover street maintenance).Hope it helps!
嗨，@Paul Williams，道路的大小似乎是这个答案的一个有争议的问题。我指的是美国道路上车道的数量，而不是宽度或长度。如前所述，布雷斯悖论比我所说的更好地解释了这一点。但通常情况下，设置车道的数量是为了给人一种有很大容纳能力的印象，而不是实际能容纳的容量。但当我们谈到容量，以及最重要的效率时，我必须补充一点：道路是基础设施的重要组成部分。
一条道路或街道最有效的使用速度，与直觉相反：在开阔的道路上，最有效的速度大约是90公里/小时，因为这一速度允许道路每小时有最多的车辆数量。为了安全和司机身上发生的“隧道效应”，提高车速，车辆之间的距离就会显著增加。在街道上，衡量效率的方式是不同的：税收和经济活动能否支持街道的维护和安全？
当一条街道主要以车辆为主时，没有人会在商店里买东西。没人打扫街道（可以这么说），也没人看到街道是如何运转的。这就是为什么人口密集的城市将汽车踢出城市的原因：汽车占用街道，但不直接支付街道费用（许多城市征收的使用税不包括街道维护费用）。希望这个回答有用！
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Kristafer Ailslieger
I wonder what part of the U.S. you were in where you thought the roads were oversized. If anything, my feeling is that most of our roads are undersized, leading to too much congestion. And yes, the U.S. is a VERY big place and our road network is huge (and yet, in some places still insufficient) and it takes a lot to keep it maintained. Unfortunately, I think we often fail in that regard.
我想知道你在美国的哪个地方会觉得公路太大了。如果有什么不同看法的话，我的感觉是，我们大多数的道路都太小了，导致了太多的拥堵。是的，美国是一个非常大的地方，我们的公路网络非常庞大（然而，在一些地方仍然不够），要维持这些道路也需要很多资金。不幸的是，我认为我们在这方面经常失败。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I wonder what part of the U.S. you were in where you thought the roads were oversized. If anything, my feeling is that most of our roads are undersized, leading to too much congestion. And yes, the U.S. is a VERY big place and our road network is huge (and yet, in some places still insufficient) and it takes a lot to keep it maintained. Unfortunately, I think we often fail in that regard.
我想知道你在美国的哪个地方会觉得公路太大了。如果有什么不同看法的话，我的感觉是，我们大多数的道路都太小了，导致了太多的拥堵。是的，美国是一个非常大的地方，我们的公路网络非常庞大（然而，在一些地方仍然不够），要维持这些道路也需要很多资金。不幸的是，我认为我们在这方面经常失败。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Inaki Arbelaiz
Hi kristafer,It is a math paradox known as the Braess paradox: the more lanes you have, the more congested and less efficient a network of roads results.Braess's paradox - WikipediaNot only that: adding lanes and increasing the apparent capacity of a route results as well on an increased congestion of said road. Seems counter intuitive (it is very counter intuitive), but usually reducing the capacity of private transportation leads to a much more efficient public transportation system, that carries much more people per sq.m than individual car.
这是一个被称为布雷斯悖论的数学悖论：车道越多，道路网络就越拥堵，效率越低。不仅如此：增加车道和增加一条路线的表面容量也会导致该道路的拥堵加剧。似乎有违直觉（这是非常违背直觉的），但通常减少私人交通的容量会造就一个更有效的公共交通系统，每平方米承载的人会比私家车更多。
（注：布雷斯悖论（名字来自德国数学家迪特里希·布雷斯）指在一个交通网络上增加一条路段反而使网络上的旅行时间增加；这一附加路段不但没有减少交通延滞，反而降低了整个交通网络的服务水准，这种出力不讨好且与人们直观感受相背的交通网络现象主要源于纳什均衡点并不一定是社会最优化。）
Hi kristafer,It is a math paradox known as the Braess paradox: the more lanes you have, the more congested and less efficient a network of roads results.Braess's paradox - WikipediaNot only that: adding lanes and increasing the apparent capacity of a route results as well on an increased congestion of said road. Seems counter intuitive (it is very counter intuitive), but usually reducing the capacity of private transportation leads to a much more efficient public transportation system, that carries much more people per sq.m than individual car.
这是一个被称为布雷斯悖论的数学悖论：车道越多，道路网络就越拥堵，效率越低。不仅如此：增加车道和增加一条路线的表面容量也会导致该道路的拥堵加剧。似乎有违直觉（这是非常违背直觉的），但通常减少私人交通的容量会造就一个更有效的公共交通系统，每平方米承载的人会比私家车更多。
（注：布雷斯悖论（名字来自德国数学家迪特里希·布雷斯）指在一个交通网络上增加一条路段反而使网络上的旅行时间增加；这一附加路段不但没有减少交通延滞，反而降低了整个交通网络的服务水准，这种出力不讨好且与人们直观感受相背的交通网络现象主要源于纳什均衡点并不一定是社会最优化。）
Kristafer Ailslieger
I see your point and I think I understand it. I suppose it is somewhat similar to what I have observed with airport hubs—the idea works to a point, speeding up air travel and improving efficiency, but then the airport becomes so large and attracts so many planes and people that it actually increases congestion and slows things down. Perhaps not a perfect analogy, but I think conceptually similar.
我明白你的意思，我想我明白。我想这有点类似于我观察到的机场枢纽——这个想法在某种程度上是有效的，它加快了航空旅行，提高了效率，但是机场变得如此之大，吸引了更多的飞机和人，这实际上增加了拥堵，减慢了速度。也许这不是一个完美的类比，但我认为概念上是相似的。
I see your point and I think I understand it. I suppose it is somewhat similar to what I have observed with airport hubs—the idea works to a point, speeding up air travel and improving efficiency, but then the airport becomes so large and attracts so many planes and people that it actually increases congestion and slows things down. Perhaps not a perfect analogy, but I think conceptually similar.
我明白你的意思，我想我明白。我想这有点类似于我观察到的机场枢纽——这个想法在某种程度上是有效的，它加快了航空旅行，提高了效率，但是机场变得如此之大，吸引了更多的飞机和人，这实际上增加了拥堵，减慢了速度。也许这不是一个完美的类比，但我认为概念上是相似的。
Marcel Chineke
Well, I see your point of view as a foreigner because the way we see things in the US is way different from the way you foreigner see things.I have visited Europe severally and I cant deal with their tiny roads. It makes no sense to me but that is what define our economies. There are over 1 million heavy trucks weighing averagely 60,000 to 80,000 pounds with average lenght of 70 feets plying US highways and roads daily of which no country in the world including China that have such heavy truck daily on their road. They need wide roads to make their turns without getting stucked on the road, that is the USA and thats part of what makes us different
嗯，我理解你作为一个外国人的观点，因为我们在美国看事情的方式和你们外国人看事情的方式完全不同。我曾经去过欧洲，但我不能应付他们的小道路。这对我来说有点说不通，但正是这一点定义了我们经济。每天有超过100万辆、平均重量6万到8万磅、平均长度70英尺的重型卡车，在美国的高速公路和公路上行驶，而包括中国在内的世界上没有一个国家的道路上每天有这样的重型卡车。这些车需要宽阔的道路，这样转弯时才不会被困在路上，这就是美国，这就是我们与众不同的部分原因。
Well, I see your point of view as a foreigner because the way we see things in the US is way different from the way you foreigner see things.I have visited Europe severally and I cant deal with their tiny roads. It makes no sense to me but that is what define our economies. There are over 1 million heavy trucks weighing averagely 60,000 to 80,000 pounds with average lenght of 70 feets plying US highways and roads daily of which no country in the world including China that have such heavy truck daily on their road. They need wide roads to make their turns without getting stucked on the road, that is the USA and thats part of what makes us different
嗯，我理解你作为一个外国人的观点，因为我们在美国看事情的方式和你们外国人看事情的方式完全不同。我曾经去过欧洲，但我不能应付他们的小道路。这对我来说有点说不通，但正是这一点定义了我们经济。每天有超过100万辆、平均重量6万到8万磅、平均长度70英尺的重型卡车，在美国的高速公路和公路上行驶，而包括中国在内的世界上没有一个国家的道路上每天有这样的重型卡车。这些车需要宽阔的道路，这样转弯时才不会被困在路上，这就是美国，这就是我们与众不同的部分原因。
Uwe Waibel
Nevertheless your are transporting more goods by railways than in Europe - if you would do some improvement to your railsystem (fixing rails properly to their sleepers, install double track lines at more places) your railway system would even be able to take more loads from the road…
尽管如此，你们用铁路运输的货物还是比欧洲多。如果你们对铁路系统做一些改进（将铁路正确地固定在枕木上，在更多的地方安装双轨铁路），你们的铁路系统甚至可以取代更多公路上承载的货物……
Nevertheless your are transporting more goods by railways than in Europe - if you would do some improvement to your railsystem (fixing rails properly to their sleepers, install double track lines at more places) your railway system would even be able to take more loads from the road…
尽管如此，你们用铁路运输的货物还是比欧洲多。如果你们对铁路系统做一些改进（将铁路正确地固定在枕木上，在更多的地方安装双轨铁路），你们的铁路系统甚至可以取代更多公路上承载的货物……
Andrew Bachynski
We did that already. WE had the empire state building, the golden gate bridge etc. We got the #1 of a thing for a while and moved on. We moved past building and infrastructure a long time ago. Now we are working on 5g, robot cars and flying people to mars.
我们已经做过了。我们有帝国大厦、金门大桥等。我们有一段时间独占鳌头，然后继续前进。我们很久以前就经历过了建筑和基础设施（建设时期）。现在，我们正在研发5G、机器人、汽车和载人飞向火星。
We did that already. WE had the empire state building, the golden gate bridge etc. We got the #1 of a thing for a while and moved on. We moved past building and infrastructure a long time ago. Now we are working on 5g, robot cars and flying people to mars.
我们已经做过了。我们有帝国大厦、金门大桥等。我们有一段时间独占鳌头，然后继续前进。我们很久以前就经历过了建筑和基础设施（建设时期）。现在，我们正在研发5G、机器人、汽车和载人飞向火星。
Tomas Castillo, studied at Universidad De Las Américas UDLA
Because the US is bankrupt. It is a country that prefers spending almost a trillion dollars per year in weapons instead of building an universal and free healthcare system like many countries in the world as the Europeans. If a US citizen gets ill, it's probable he or she gets a heart attack after receiving the hospital bill.While Donald Trump pumps a healthy 5 percent fiscal déficit every year based on tax cuts for the wealthiest people, the national debt increases to a record 23 trillion dollars. It is Now more that 100 percent of the GDP. As an example, many teachers from Washington are now paying from their pockets many school materials because federal budget for education is going to increase Defense projects. More aircraft carriers and F-35 jets instead of educating youngsters.While the federal reserve prints fiat money out of thin air assuring the collapse of the dollar, China and Russia are buying almost all the available gold, platinum and other precious metals in the markets. It is said that real amount of Chinese gold reserves is 20,000 tons instead of 2,200 tons they declare. That is enough to blow the dollar whenever they want. The real amount of US gold reserves is well below the 8,000 tons officialy declared and it has been proven by germans is low quality gold (mixed with Tungsten).The US has become an economy based on debt, wall street brokers and speculation rather than investing in infraestructure and tangible assets. Do you really think Amazon or Google are valued at +1 trillion dollars?That is why China will surpass the US in less than 7 years to become the worlds most powerful economy. They are net gold and silver savers. They invest heavily in educating their youth. And they really invest in advanced and REAL TANGIBLE infraestructure; Airports, highways, bridges, skycrappers, maritime ports, etc.
因为美国破产了，这是一个宁愿每年花费近1万亿美元在武器上的国家，而不是像世界上许多国家一样建立一个普遍的免费医疗体系。如果一个美国公民生病了，他或她很可能在收到医院账单后心脏病发作。虽然唐纳德·特朗普每年为最富有的人减税，造成5%的医疗财政赤字，但国家债务却增加到了创纪录的23万亿美元。现在已经超过了GDP的100%。
例如，由于联邦预算减少教育预算，增加国防预算，华盛顿的许多教师现在都在自掏腰包支付学校的教学用品费。买更多的航空母舰和F-35战机，而不是教育年轻人。当美联储凭空印钞票以避免美元崩溃时，中国和俄罗斯却在购买市场上几乎所有可买到的黄金、铂金和其他贵金属。据悉，中国实际的黄金储备是2万吨，而不是他们所宣称的2200吨。这足以让美元随时崩溃。
美国黄金储备的实际数量远低于官方公布的8000吨，德国也已证实美国黄金储备是低质量的黄金（掺钨）。美国已成为一个基于债务、华尔街经纪人和投机的经济体，而不是基于基础设施和有形资产投资的经济体。你真的认为亚马逊或谷歌价值1万亿美元吗？这就是为什么中国将在不到7年的时间里超过美国，成为世界上最强大的经济体。他们是金银的净储蓄者，他们在教育年轻人方面投入巨资，他们真的在先进的有形基础设施上投资：机场、公路、桥梁、摩天大楼、海港等。
Because the US is bankrupt. It is a country that prefers spending almost a trillion dollars per year in weapons instead of building an universal and free healthcare system like many countries in the world as the Europeans. If a US citizen gets ill, it's probable he or she gets a heart attack after receiving the hospital bill.While Donald Trump pumps a healthy 5 percent fiscal déficit every year based on tax cuts for the wealthiest people, the national debt increases to a record 23 trillion dollars. It is Now more that 100 percent of the GDP. As an example, many teachers from Washington are now paying from their pockets many school materials because federal budget for education is going to increase Defense projects. More aircraft carriers and F-35 jets instead of educating youngsters.While the federal reserve prints fiat money out of thin air assuring the collapse of the dollar, China and Russia are buying almost all the available gold, platinum and other precious metals in the markets. It is said that real amount of Chinese gold reserves is 20,000 tons instead of 2,200 tons they declare. That is enough to blow the dollar whenever they want. The real amount of US gold reserves is well below the 8,000 tons officialy declared and it has been proven by germans is low quality gold (mixed with Tungsten).The US has become an economy based on debt, wall street brokers and speculation rather than investing in infraestructure and tangible assets. Do you really think Amazon or Google are valued at +1 trillion dollars?That is why China will surpass the US in less than 7 years to become the worlds most powerful economy. They are net gold and silver savers. They invest heavily in educating their youth. And they really invest in advanced and REAL TANGIBLE infraestructure; Airports, highways, bridges, skycrappers, maritime ports, etc.
因为美国破产了，这是一个宁愿每年花费近1万亿美元在武器上的国家，而不是像世界上许多国家一样建立一个普遍的免费医疗体系。如果一个美国公民生病了，他或她很可能在收到医院账单后心脏病发作。虽然唐纳德·特朗普每年为最富有的人减税，造成5%的医疗财政赤字，但国家债务却增加到了创纪录的23万亿美元。现在已经超过了GDP的100%。
例如，由于联邦预算减少教育预算，增加国防预算，华盛顿的许多教师现在都在自掏腰包支付学校的教学用品费。买更多的航空母舰和F-35战机，而不是教育年轻人。当美联储凭空印钞票以避免美元崩溃时，中国和俄罗斯却在购买市场上几乎所有可买到的黄金、铂金和其他贵金属。据悉，中国实际的黄金储备是2万吨，而不是他们所宣称的2200吨。这足以让美元随时崩溃。
美国黄金储备的实际数量远低于官方公布的8000吨，德国也已证实美国黄金储备是低质量的黄金（掺钨）。美国已成为一个基于债务、华尔街经纪人和投机的经济体，而不是基于基础设施和有形资产投资的经济体。你真的认为亚马逊或谷歌价值1万亿美元吗？这就是为什么中国将在不到7年的时间里超过美国，成为世界上最强大的经济体。他们是金银的净储蓄者，他们在教育年轻人方面投入巨资，他们真的在先进的有形基础设施上投资：机场、公路、桥梁、摩天大楼、海港等。
Christian Brown
The only flaw is assuming throwing more money at these issues will fix them.Education is notorious for losing funds in bureaucracy and administration. Teachers still end up having to buy supplies no matter how much money you dump on them.Healthcare costs are as high as they are because hospitals figured out the maximum they could convince insurance companies to pay, not because they actually cost that much.
唯一有缺陷的假设是：在这些问题上投入更多的资金就能解决问题。教育投资在官僚主义和行政管理中损失的资金是臭名昭著的。不管你在老师身上花多少钱，他们最终还是得去买教学用品。医疗保险成本之所以如此之高，是因为医院计算出了他们能说服保险公司支付的最大金额，而不是因为他们实际上花了那么多钱。
The only flaw is assuming throwing more money at these issues will fix them.Education is notorious for losing funds in bureaucracy and administration. Teachers still end up having to buy supplies no matter how much money you dump on them.Healthcare costs are as high as they are because hospitals figured out the maximum they could convince insurance companies to pay, not because they actually cost that much.
唯一有缺陷的假设是：在这些问题上投入更多的资金就能解决问题。教育投资在官僚主义和行政管理中损失的资金是臭名昭著的。不管你在老师身上花多少钱，他们最终还是得去买教学用品。医疗保险成本之所以如此之高，是因为医院计算出了他们能说服保险公司支付的最大金额，而不是因为他们实际上花了那么多钱。
Marshall Reed Kuehl
Education funding has always been local and the Federal government has traditionally been uninvolved. The Feds have also stayed out of health care except of medicare aid. You know that debate. Less military spending could be used for Federal “cement" infrastructure projects and even that seems to be difficult to do.
教育经费一直是地方政府负责的，联邦政府历来不参与。除了医疗援助外，联邦政府也不参与医疗保险。你知道那场辩论。减少军事开支可以用于联邦“水泥”基础设施项目，但即便如此，似乎也很难做到。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Education funding has always been local and the Federal government has traditionally been uninvolved. The Feds have also stayed out of health care except of medicare aid. You know that debate. Less military spending could be used for Federal “cement" infrastructure projects and even that seems to be difficult to do.
教育经费一直是地方政府负责的，联邦政府历来不参与。除了医疗援助外，联邦政府也不参与医疗保险。你知道那场辩论。减少军事开支可以用于联邦“水泥”基础设施项目，但即便如此，似乎也很难做到。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Robert Baron
Not quite, we in the US prefer to spend more money on healthcare than any of the top 20 economies, in order that we have a lower life expectancy than any of the other top 20.China may surpass the the US in less than 7 years, but it might not. China has it’s own problems that it needs to resolve just as the US has problems that it needs to resolve
不完全是，我们美国人比前20名经济体中的任何一个都更愿意在医疗保健上花更多的钱，但结果是我们的预期寿命比其他前20名经济体都低。中国可能在不到7年的时间里超过美国，但也可能不会。中国有自己的问题需要解决，就像美国有自己的问题需要解决一样。
Not quite, we in the US prefer to spend more money on healthcare than any of the top 20 economies, in order that we have a lower life expectancy than any of the other top 20.China may surpass the the US in less than 7 years, but it might not. China has it’s own problems that it needs to resolve just as the US has problems that it needs to resolve
不完全是，我们美国人比前20名经济体中的任何一个都更愿意在医疗保健上花更多的钱，但结果是我们的预期寿命比其他前20名经济体都低。中国可能在不到7年的时间里超过美国，但也可能不会。中国有自己的问题需要解决，就像美国有自己的问题需要解决一样。
Tomas Castillo
Mmmmm I don't think so. The New Donald Trump national budget proposses massive cuts for medicaid and obamas medicare programs. Same as education and environment protection.And as usual, all that money will be redirected to the massive defense budget that will reach 1 trillion dollars considering veterans payments.All this spiced with a very healthy record +1 trillion dollars fiscal déficit that will be covered with more debt. It reaches now +23 trillion dollars.Trump budget includes deep cuts to health care and safety net programs
嗯，我不这么认为。新的唐纳德·特朗普的国家预算提议大规模削减医疗补助和奥巴马的医疗保险项目，教育和环境保护预算也是如此。和往常一样，所有这些钱将被重新分配到庞大的国防预算中，考虑到退伍军人的报酬，国防预算将达到1万亿美元。所有这一切都与一个创纪录的1万亿美元的财政赤字有关，这将创造更多的债务，现在债务已经超过23万亿美元了。川普的预算包括大幅削减医疗保险和安全网项目的预算。
Mmmmm I don't think so. The New Donald Trump national budget proposses massive cuts for medicaid and obamas medicare programs. Same as education and environment protection.And as usual, all that money will be redirected to the massive defense budget that will reach 1 trillion dollars considering veterans payments.All this spiced with a very healthy record +1 trillion dollars fiscal déficit that will be covered with more debt. It reaches now +23 trillion dollars.Trump budget includes deep cuts to health care and safety net programs
嗯，我不这么认为。新的唐纳德·特朗普的国家预算提议大规模削减医疗补助和奥巴马的医疗保险项目，教育和环境保护预算也是如此。和往常一样，所有这些钱将被重新分配到庞大的国防预算中，考虑到退伍军人的报酬，国防预算将达到1万亿美元。所有这一切都与一个创纪录的1万亿美元的财政赤字有关，这将创造更多的债务，现在债务已经超过23万亿美元了。川普的预算包括大幅削减医疗保险和安全网项目的预算。
很赞 0
收藏