网上课堂的讨论中，一个老美学生这样讲中国

有个讨论的题目是“Should corporations become the world governance?”我贴了这么一段“No, corporations should not become world governance. While the two are somewhat related, one cannot completely replace the other. Corporations are established to make profit while the government is not primarily a profit making organization. A Government has a lot of social responsibility to it's people while a corporation is only responsible to it's owners or shareholders.
If corporations become world governance, a lot of social program will become history. It must be mentioned that some corporation engage in charitable and social programs, but it is never enough because that's not their primary interest.

然后一个老美说：I disagree. I think the opposite in some sense is true. If the world was a better place out there, I would say no, corporations should not become the world governance. However, you are missing one important component of that question. In this country we would believe that this is wrong. Our corporations in this free market are obviously not going to be good for local governance, because we have a great country that seems to know what it is doing.

The reason I say corporations should be somewhat world governance comes from the belief that many countries are bad at governing themselves, or at least have convoluted systems of either kings, religious zealots or Communists in charge. If a corporation could impact countries like Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China,Yemen, and North Korea and a few other places, then that would be good. Obviously, I don't think these countries are any better at running themselves, then corporations, and in many of these cases, corporations have provided the only method of interfacing with them, like in China. China is a good example of world governance. We can only impact China from a corporate point of view in my opinion.”

他说的也不是全无道理，但是我看后觉得很不舒服，该怎么驳他？因为是课程，所以不可写的太过激，但又想让他知道中国哪有他想象的那么差？把中国和North Korea放一起，看了就不爽。请大家出出注意。

所有跟帖： 

• tell'im he's bullshit! -ignorant.- ♀ (771 bytes) () 01/15/2004 postreply 00:16:00

• 这美国白痴本身说的就漏洞百出，自圆自编地胡说八道，别被他蒙了 -有几点一突即破- ♀ (564 bytes) () 01/15/2004 postreply 08:11:00

• 美国学生起码比你逻辑强， -你就别在这丢人了- ♀ (186 bytes) () 01/15/2004 postreply 16:04:00

• well, let us c what u've got? -pls?- ♀ (0 bytes) () 01/15/2004 postreply 17:33:00

• 您算猜对了，没去过就是没有资格议论，有种至少来把王力雄15次 -入藏再来议，负责任啊- ♀ (0 bytes) () 01/15/2004 postreply 17:40:00

• China and N.Korea in ideology -Baiwen- ♀ (280 bytes) () 01/15/2004 postreply 09:51:00

• 人说你冷战思维你还真往里跳啊 -花差花差农民- ♀ (168 bytes) () 01/15/2004 postreply 10:00:00

• 回复：人说你冷战思维你还真往里跳啊 -baiwen- ♀ (214 bytes) () 01/15/2004 postreply 10:41:00

• fouces on ideology is a sign -花差花差农民- ♀ (168 bytes) () 01/15/2004 postreply 11:07:00

• ideology makes friends -baiwen- ♀ (912 bytes) () 01/15/2004 postreply 11:43:00

• Agree: eating is #1 need -Baiwan- ♀ (1306 bytes) () 01/15/2004 postreply 11:14:00

• 回复：网上课堂的讨论中，一个老美学生这样讲中国 -看不懂英语阿- ♀ (0 bytes) () 01/18/2004 postreply 01:13:00