Global Competitiveness-Getting the U.S. back on Track

*This is my book report for reading Global Competitiveness-Getting the U.S. back on Track.

*This is a book written by some worrying people in the late 1980s about the seemingly likely decline of the United States. They were afraid that the U.S. was losing its competitive edge out to its international competitors, such as Japan and Germany. (Of course, no China-relating issues were mentioned in the first chapter depicting those days when Japan was the star performer, except the fact that China was one of the biggest exporters of immigrants to the U.S.) In the first chapter, author Richard D. Lamm insisted that everything in the U.S. ranging from its legal system to its political system, tax system, and even Americans' "hubris" be changed to regain the U.S. dominance over its competitors. The United States needs a "generation" to conduct institutional before it can lead in the pack again, he declared.

Well, it sounds quite strange to me. What I knew was that in the 1990s the United States led a revolution called Information Technology that saw a nearly decade of strong economic growth in the U.S. It did not, as Lamm believed, take a whole generation for the country to lead the world again.

The book was published in 1988 and probably had been in the making during the 1980s. Things happened beyond his wildest dreams almost in the wake of the book's publication. In the 1990s, things tipped in favor of the U.S. productivity and economy though its institutions or problems remained there, which he clamored to change or correct.

What on earth happened after the publication of Global Competitiveness-Getting the U.S. back on Track? The awfully sounding predictions, having a doomsday-of-the-U.S. air to them, made in the book proved upside down. I will read other books to find it out. But, as the first step, let me see what about the U.S. made Lamms squirm so uneasily in their chairs in the whole 1980s.

(Considering the upside down predictions, I have one more point to add, that is, predictions are no more than predictions. They just charter future changes based on current changes. They are all about changes. So, if predictions go awry, I'm amused, instead of amazed. They also remind me of the recent "Peaceful Rise of China". Will it last? Is it something we can take for granted? What can hinder it, stop it, or even reverse it?)

Which one is more difficult to learn, English or Chinese?

Of course, they are two greatest languages in the world. One exerts the most powerful synchronic influence over the face of the Planet. The other, on the contrary, is the strongest diachronic language that has been weaving together the history of a single largest country in population and later its much smaller neighbors since its first emperor froze the writing system of the language for the first time when the country proper came into being in A.D. 221.

Which one is more difficult for a foreign learner to learn to speak and write? I believe it is Chinese. Someone has commented that one needs three months to learn good English, three years to master French and at least thirty years to be proficient in German. As I see it, he has to double his efforts he has put in tackling German to speak and write good Chinese, and those foreigners who manage to speak and write good Chinese must be geniuses.

Does this sound a little too exaggerated? I believe not.

For one thing, most of native Chinese speakers (e.g. me) find it hard to write things in decent Chinese because they have long been isolated from the traditionally accepted and correct way of writing and do not know what rules to follow in their writing. When it comes to foreigners learning Chinese, they have to find decently and elegantly written Chinese texts and use them as examples. In everyday life in China, they may find that good Chinese writings are in short supply. It seems to me that the correct, smooth and natural tradition of writing Chinese was broken somewhere (during the Great Cultural Revolution?) so that its modern speakers are at a loss to know how to write their language. For example, earlier dated writings, more often than not, sound too old-fashioned, especially those written before 1949, and even before 1978. You can easily come across badly written news reports, government documents, corporate files, etc. Experts, or rather those of at least writing good Chinese, are hard to come by these days, I'm afraid.

For another, as far as I know, no complete and generally agreed Chinese grammar system has been established out of the language and the current system, if it is one, is believed to be a poor relation of its Western counterparts.

Communist bureaucrats and their ghost writers write bullshit

What you do is somewhat good---reform and openning up. But what you are talking and writing bores any sensible and thinking people stiff and sometimes I feel like vomitting because of what you say or write, meaning to "educate" me. First, the well-known "Three Represents". OK. You represent me. That is good though I have never voted you for one single time. But do you have to regurgitate the Represents every time you do something that you should do by law and by duty? For example, tax collectors collect taxes (and just to line your good regurgitating comrades's pockets), corrupted investigators investigate rotten "people's public servants" (the most powerful and richest "servants" in relation to their "masters" in the world!), or police officers police the red light district and keep it morally good and hygienically clean for a while.

Shut up! Keep quiet! I do not want to see your idiotic tongues wag.

One more thing. You should hire more sober-minded ghost writers, at least to make yourselve believe what you're bullshitting. Your present ones are awfully retarded and I bet they're delirious sometimes at night and give me for translation what they're dreaming about in their constantly disturbed nightmares.

Why don't I translate what I wrote?

Because I think translation is a stupid thing to do. I would like to reserve the difficult job for someone else to do. Tie him or her to my way of wild thinking in Chinese. Make s/he crazy, curse, and feel themselves to be idiots to be translators. And even worse, make them doubtful about their abilities of using the two languages involved and about the reason for their being.