AdaHsu wrote:
當所有的企業都到大陸找尋找各式各樣低成本的人力後，台灣的經濟要靠那種產業來維特？
軟體產業？IC工業？製造業？旅遊業？服務業？
殘留下來的產業又能提供多少就業機會？
企業再怎麼出走，也不可能完全走光，軟體業不是勞力密集的產業，是技術密集資本密集的產業；大陸再怎麼成為世界工廠也不可能取代台灣所有的製造業；旅遊業就更不用說了，太魯閣不會出現在大陸，阿里山也不會出走到大陸去，這是台灣特有獨有的，目前大陸出國旅遊團平均每團的支出是多少？如果這些支出是用在台灣，哪怕是只有少部份都足以深刻的刺激台灣的旅遊產業，經營旅遊產業的是哪些人？正是社會中下階層的勞工們，多一個團到風景區，那些小吃店、名產店就多一些客源多一些收入，交通運輸業者也會有更多的生意，觀光農業也更有發展的機會。
台灣也許比不過大陸的市場，但別忘了台灣也有他的特點，產業會出走就表示那個產業對岸的條件比較好，可是台灣也有比對岸好的地方，人往高處走，水往低處流，這不是禁得了的，台灣應該要做的是發展台灣特有的產業，既然台灣要融入世界就免不了比較利益的遊戲規則，適合到大陸發展的產業會逐漸移過去，適合到台灣來的產業自然也會進來，幾年以前的杜邦，今年的 Google 都要來台灣發展，杜邦可能會有污染不談，Google 要在台灣建立亞洲基地，發展全球備援系統，這些都是台灣的契機。
如果禁止三通是為了保護台灣的產業，那台灣根本就不應該加入WTO，可是台灣已經加入WTO，面臨全球競爭的壓力已經是無可避免，現在需要做的是要輔導各階層產業強化自己的競爭力，充份發揮比較利益下的台灣優勢，而不是用禁止三通來達到防止產業外移的目的。
東協組織已經要建立免關稅的貿易環境，台灣目前仍被排除在外，有越來越多的警訊告訴我們臺灣的確有邊緣化的危險，要禁止三通那就要尋找更有利的市場，可是那個市場在哪裡？要尋找更有利的市場也是比較利益的發揮，較適合新興市場的產業會過去，不適合的會留下，然後各自發展，最終對台灣都是有利的，目前全球的大企業哪一個不是跨越全球，製造工廠在大陸在中南美洲，研發中心客服中心在印度在大陸，企業總部在美國在歐洲，台灣真的有本錢違逆這股潮流嗎？
以前是對岸很想談，現在對岸不急著談，台商很重要，可是也有越來越多的全球企業到中國大陸佈局，隨著自由移動企業體的各個部門，企業擁有更多機會，也許未必成功，可是選擇多機會自然就多一點。
舉一個簡單的例子，清靜農場很美，可是入口的小吃攤卻是髒亂不堪；碧潭大家都知道，可是兩岸的攤商始終混亂不堪；深坑老街很有名，可是少了點文化氣息；日月潭就只能發展到這樣嗎？這還只是地方政府就可以做的事，台灣的生意人很聰明，但也很辛苦，因為他們必須單打獨鬥，缺少了整體發展，競爭力當然虛弱。
沒有人希望台灣空洞化，可是禁止三通真的保護的了中下階層的朋友嗎？別忘了，日後國外的大學也可以來台設校，出生率快速降低的台灣已經造成多少中小學老師的減班調動，台灣不只是中下層的勞工面臨競爭，整個台灣都必須面對強大的競爭壓力，這是全球化無可避免的後果，因此要保護中下階層的勞工不是要禁止三通，該做的是輔導他們發展自己的特長，建立自己的優勢，然後可以面對競爭。
攝影攝影攝影！
據我所知美日韓工廠外移大陸的嚴重性不遜於臺灣,臺灣之所以最嚴重也許是因為比起美日韓我們有更相近的文化,血緣背景吧!
美日在多久以前在少有所謂的大型工廠在自己的國內了,但他們的強盛並沒有因此在今天就變弱了...
(據說美國也不是遍地黃金,其實狀況跟臺灣也沒差多少,失業率也高,貧富差距更大)
而他們的國內依然保留著不易外移的產業,一些較精密 設計 研發之類的產業
我們臺灣也因該昇華至新的境界,而不是固守舊有的代工製造產業.
全球競爭力排名第五因該不是假的吧!
現在我們欠缺的是不是一些對我們自己的信心.一些屬於我們的文化?
我們因該經營出自己的品牌,走出自己的特有的道路. Giant(巨大) GARMIN(台灣國際航電)Maxxis Tires(瑪吉斯輪胎)D-LINK(友訊)都可以說是在各自領域中的龍頭品牌吧!(也許沒到龍頭也有前幾大吧)但你再外國隨便抓一個人來問他之不知道這是哪一國的品牌,大概有人說歐洲有人說日本,美國 但大概絕對不會有人說臺灣吧!Dopod(多普達)在歐洲掛在O2的牌子下面在大家口中前景看好的HomePLUG幾乎都是臺灣公司做的,但我們在臺灣卻幾乎都來找不到哪裡可以買,在歐洲也是掛在人家品牌下面吧!,而且整個從包裝到機器外觀幾乎沒有美學可言...
以上不覺得可惜嗎??? (我甚至懷疑他們知道Acer是臺灣公司嗎...)
小弟一些愚見如有冒犯敬請見諒
台灣的機會的多寡就一定跟中國牽扯到關係嗎？
別老是以為同樣黃皮膚、黑頭髮、講中國話、吃中國菜、讀中文就把中國看成是跟自己一國的，明明就是不一樣。
身邊的新加坡朋友一樣黃皮膚、黑頭髮、會講中國話、喜歡吃中國菜、看得懂中文，一樣在中國撈錢，但是人家也沒把自己是新加坡人給忘了，更不會跟我說新加坡跟中國是同一國的論調。
更別盡往好的看，中國好的很多，壞的更不少。
從台灣看中國，或許靠得太近看不到全部輪廓，那我們站遠一點看，看看二次大戰後率先承認中華人民共和國的英國怎麼看現在的中國。
8 January 2005: Spectator
China won’t be a superpower
By Martin Vandeer Wylder
Mr Zhang Yuchen, a Communist party member and former official of Beijing’s municipal construction bureau, has just built himself a new house in the suburbs of the Chinese capital: it is a replica of the 17th-century Château Maisons-Lafitte on the Seine, enhanced with wings copied from Fontainebleau and gardens based on Versailles. It cost him $50 million, and he displaced 800 peasant farmers to clear the site.
Meanwhile, Mr Liu Chuanzhi — a graduate of Xian military college, a former nominee for Time magazine’s 『25 Most Influential Global Executives’, and the founder of Lenovo, China’s biggest computer business — has just acquired for $1.25 billion the division of IBM which makes PCs, an iconic product of the technology age. Closer to home, my Christmas shopping this year consisted largely of bargain-priced but beautiful silk scarves from Shanghai; if I had bought anyone a digital camera it would probably have come from there too, and if I had fulfilled my secret urge and bought myself a Hornby 『Hogwarts Express’ train set, it would have come from a factory in Guangdong.
The Chinese, their money and their manufactured goods are everywhere, and pundits in search of New Year themes have been full of predictions about China as the coming global power. The great William Rees-Mogg, never one to hold back from a bold forecast, says this 『is beginning to look like the Chinese century’. The former diplomat Sir Jeremy Greenstock, on the Today programme, spoke of China as 『an increasingly large presence on our horizon’, conjuring the image of those huge alien spaceships that loomed over the world in the film Independence Day.
The People’s Republic, we are repeatedly reminded, is sustaining growth of 9 per cent a year, on the strength of massive inflows of foreign investment. It is now the second largest national economy after the US, measured in terms of 『purchasing power parity’ (PPP), and will soon be bigger than the whole of the EU. It has a prosperous middle class of 100 million people, most of them connected to the Internet and among them at least 10,000 whizz-kids like Mr Zhang and Mr Liu, with net assets of more than $10 million each. Every factory enterprise that makes another Chinese fortune destroys jobs in the US and Europe, while a large portion of the dollars China earns is reinvested in US Treasury bills to finance America’s notorious deficit — giving China, one way and the other, a hard-to-beat hand of cards in global economic affairs. Hence superpowerdom is Beijing’s for the taking, in this decade or the next.
Or is it? The time is surely ripe to rehearse the counter-arguments on this one, and let me start by declaring a bias: the last day I stood in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square was 4 May 1989, which was the first day the students marched in with their banners, and were there to stay until the tanks crushed them a month later. Before and after that traumatic moment, I made many visits to Taiwan, a country which achieved prosperity and democratic progress by refusing to be part of China. In the same era I was often in Tokyo, where hotel bookstalls were full of tomes by American gurus predicting the rise of Japan as the global giant of the 21st century on the strength of its fabulous industrial and financial supremacy; after the Tokyo stock market collapsed — never to recover — at the end of 1989, the books were pulped and the arguments never heard again.
So it is worth reminding ourselves why China is not necessarily destined for greatness, and certainly does not deserve our unmixed admiration. First, its present growth rate is very far from sustainable, dependent as it is on slave wage rates, corrupt bureaucracy, near total absence of environmental controls and a financial system which is at best rickety and at worst, by Western standards, insolvent. Second, as Bill Emmott wrote in 2003 in 20:21 Vision, China today is in fact only 『a modest country at best’, whose gross domestic product per capita, even on a PPP basis, is still only a fraction of that of neighbours such as South Korea, and on a par with Ukraine.
And although China is obviously far from modest in population, at 1.3 billion, it could be overtaken on that front within a couple of decades by India, which also has claims to superpower status in terms of technology, weaponry and what China most glaringly lacks, a democratic government that the world respects.
Militarily, on the other hand, China is very big, at least in one sense — and it has unresolved territorial issues over Taiwan (which the US might feel obliged to defend) and the South China Sea that might one day lead to conflict. According to a helpful public website provided by the CIA, China has 208,143,352 men between the ages of 15 and 49 who are fit for conscript military service. But only 2.5 million of them are permanently in uniform, many of their senior officers are busy making fortunes in real estate, the defence budget is surprisingly small because Beijing is so bad at collecting taxes, and the national stock of long-range missiles of the sort which really make you a global player numbers only about 20, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies. That would make a pretty short fireworks display compared with what America has in its armoury.
Finally, then, to statesmanship. The Chinese government chipped in £31 million for the tsunami earthquake relief, half of what the British public has so far donated and a fraction of Japan’s offering, but a hundred times more than miserly South Korea. If China was in any useful sense a leader of its region, this would be the moment for Mr Hu or Mr Wen to step into the spotlight, but they have already been upstaged by President Bush. And no one even bothers to ask them what they think of the continuing war in Iraq.
As for all the other fashionable issues on which statesmen like to pontificate, China scores no points at all on human rights and very few on public health: it made a hash of the Sars epidemic, and has only belatedly faced up to HIV/Aids, which according to the World Health Organisation could afflict ten million Chinese by the end of the decade. In the battle to eradicate poverty, it can claim about 300 million successes, but a billion failures. On global warming, China signed the Kyoto protocol while remaining one of the most shameless offenders on the planet, a situation which can only worsen as its manufacturing prowess increases.
It is, in fact, a vast environmental hazard zone, as any recent visitor to its dustbowl provinces and smog-laden industrial towns can confirm. To quote the CIA again, 『Air pollution (greenhouse gases, sulphur dioxide particulates) from reliance on coal produces acid rain; water shortages, particularly in the north; water pollution from untreated wastes; deforestation; estimated loss of one fifth of agricultural land since 1949 to soil erosion and economic development; desertification; trade in endangered species.’
So there is no sense in which the rest of Asia or the world should, or does, seek to march to China’s drum. And there are a great many reasons to bet that China’s economic surge will not go onwards and upwards for long. Let us wish Mr Zhang and Mr Liu a prosperous New Year, but let us not confuse a fast buck with a bid for global leadership.
英國《旁觀者》:中國成不了超級大國 (吳士芒/譯)
文後編輯者「龍芯」的評論見解，我覺得可真是一針見血啊。
)
陳水扁：「成立經發會，開始拼經濟。」（90.05.19，就職周年電視演說）
陳水扁：「出國拚完外交，回國開始拼經濟了。」（90.06.05，機場SNG）
陳水扁：「女兒喜事辦完了，我要開始拼經濟啦。」（90.09.27，女兒婚宴，納莉風災）
陳水扁：「要開始全力拼經濟！」（90.11.05，澎湖助選）
陳水扁：「新政府要三大改造，開始拼經濟。」（91.03.17，世台會演說）
陳水扁：「政府要全力拼經濟。」（91.05.12，扶輪社演說）
陳水扁：「我當了外公，很開心，可以開始拼經濟了。」（91.10.07，抱著金孫）
陳水扁：「未來致力拼經濟、大改革，以贏回民眾的支持。」 （91.12.07，市長選舉開票感言）
陳水扁：「任內最重要任務就是拼經濟。」（92.04.12，競選連任，水蓮網路會客室）
陳水扁：「致中結婚後，我總算可以開始專心拼經濟了。」 （94.06.11，兒子訂婚，中南部水患）
陳水扁：「國民黨選出黨主席後，就可一起開始拼經濟。」（94.06.27，非凡電台專訪）
陳水扁：「年底選完後成立第二次經發會，開始拼經濟。」（94.11.01，金商獎頒獎典禮）
陳水扁：「年底選完後成立第二次經發會，開始拼經濟。」（94.11.25，選舉助選）
剛剛朋友寄給我的，每次拼經濟都有成效的話，台灣已經變成經濟強國了~~~
希望在上面的，多多到民間走走，皇帝也是可以遊遊江南的，瞭解一下民間現在的痛苦~~
想到這篇
感處很深
連最近的大陸都沒去過，最近打算存點錢，從香港座火車一直北上看看這個中國大陸
不過說真的
台灣一直屬於鎖國政策，真不知道是經濟重要還是政治重要，專業重要還是權力重要
在台灣說真的很糟糕10年來都沒有進步
1.ADSL到底有多快?
2.ADSL費用合不合理?
3.重機車的生存性?何不見原廠代理公司?
4.國產 車=國產車??
5.人民的素質?? 一堆人推崇『安全氣囊無用論』Orz
..............................等很多
一天到晚都是政黨在鬥爭，一年一次選舉，每個月爆料一次醜聞，每天一次的殺人放火車禍受虐..
Orz
離題了
台灣是個特殊的地理，畢竟也是要靠東亞洲吃飯的
當人民沒飯吃的時候，這些政黨也不會鬥爭了，因為我們養不起這一"堆"人
我就是對於看到很多單親小孩的遭遇，很不削那些父母親的人
sammy98 wrote:
><
不過說真的
台灣一直屬於鎖國政策，真不知道是經濟重要還是政治重要，專業重要還是權力重要
在台灣說真的很糟糕10年來都沒有進步
1.ADSL到底有多快?
2.ADSL費用合不合理?
3.重機車的生存性?何不見原廠代理公司?
4.國產 車=國產車??
5.人民的素質?? 一堆人推崇『安全氣囊無用論』Orz
..............................等很多
一天到晚都是政黨在鬥爭，一年一次選舉，每個月爆料一次醜聞，每天一次的殺人放火車禍受虐..
Orz
離題了
台灣是個特殊的地理，畢竟也是要靠東亞洲吃飯的
當人民沒飯吃的時候，這些政黨也不會鬥爭了，因為我們養不起這一"堆"人
那我說明一下好了~
在台灣說真的很糟糕10年來都沒有進步
1.ADSL到底有多快?~因為有人抗議電磁播~所以無法安裝(一安裝隔天就被拆~電信公司那敢裝呢?!
)2.ADSL費用合不合理?~就算合理好了~還是有人認為不合理阿~所以也沒用!!3.重機車的生存性?何不見原廠代理公司?~那種騎重機車的人~還說要開放騎高速公路~還好沒開放否則一定死傷不計其數阿~因為水準完全不夠~
4.國產 車=國產車??~乾脆開垃圾車好了~5.人民的素質?? 一堆人推崇『安全氣囊無用論』Orz~台灣人沒理性以不是一天二天的事了~
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X