東南亞國家既gdp, 特別係越南, 升得好快
就係因為貿易戰加關稅, 好多廠直接走去其他東南亞國家
就算biden上場, 而家D extra關稅仲係effective緊架
你知唔知咩係國企?
能源尼D咁戰略性既資源一定係國企
好心你唔好淨係做網上智者啦
你有無去過越南？
大城市d路得兩行電單車咁闊
你估做完d貨，可以靠呢d配套實施同中國競爭做出口？
講乜嘢拜登，生意人就係取其利益
同埋依家講緊2020疫情呢年呀，你唔好係度講10年後預測呀
可以用台灣數據對比，台灣都正增長，不過台灣冇中國咁搞集中營將國民儅動物咁搞防疫。只單純講防疫，梗係發現一個殺一個最有效，咁做唔做先？
我講緊出口
你就係度講國企買煤
你自己了解清楚大家係度討論d乜先啦
er…算啦唔同你嘈, 自己去睇下D數據
係啦係啦
網上智者
做咩火藥味咁重？
其實討論都係睇有冇point姐
大家和氣討論，保持鎗頭對外。
有時眼見嘅數據未必事實，而身處當地去睇又另一回事。
1個讚
係囉，我都未攪到中印大戰，呢度就已經開戰。
我以第一手資料比大家睇睇，其實出口生意係睇行業，有啲好，有啲差，而我嗰行係 IT hardware 仲有增長，歐洲人不知買幾多 Made in China 嘅野，根本呢一兩年都有增長。呢個係事實，不過係有隱憂，晶片供貨係一大問題，而呢樣嘢係黑天鵝來嘅，因為呢行都養左唔少人，如果晶片真係連儲備都用完都係無貨，咁打台灣機會就好大，係為左 TSMC, 呢段大陸文如果係太平多十年，真係有機會發生，所以我唔敢大力咁串我同事。
但係如果維尼生意淡薄，不如賭搏去打一場，再輸埋，咁就會大洗牌。
2個讚
美國總統大選果陣七國咁亂，歐洲即刻同中國簽咗貿易條約
價值觀相近可以令大家行近d, 但利益先係最堅實保證。美國唔起返身，中國一定繼續惡落去。
1個讚
認同呀
IT hardware 比較高技術又多污染, 難D揾其他國家代替
但大陸永遠都係抄, 冇自己跟核心技術, 想掘起一定俾人鏈住喉嚨
EU 跌得咁金，加上Winnie the flu 親自出馬。
現實就係… 一講 錢，身不由己。
政治就睇當時政府（我呢度成日換政府） 同班黨員。
放棄過招，佢一齊讚頌党。習利路丫。
1個讚
萬物有時，只係我覺得未必如大家想像咁快
最近睇Discovery Science一個節目
都有同樣論點
如果你駁佢, 佢9成9會defense
所以首先要先認同佢
甚至比佢更偏激
佢先有可能會反思
" the show featured an Israeli psychologist called Eran Halperin, who made some really intriguing social experiments in his endeavors to find the “cure” to terrorism. Basically, he argues that instead of trying to counter terrorism with either violent or peaceful means, your best option is to… agree with it
This tactic is called “extreme reasoning”. The point is this. When you argue with people who hold views different from yours, you have your opinions and they have theirs - and it’s very likely that by countering their position with yours, the reaction would rather be the further entrenchment of their views. Instead of convincing people of the superiority of your view, you’d end up making them even more convinced in their own correctness. That’s how the human mind usually operates. So this researcher argues that we should agree with people’s opinion, instead. Or more precisely, create the initial impression that we agree with them. And then take it to the next step, and bring their own view to a new extreme. The example he used was with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His team of researchers chose a town mostly inhabited by conservative Israelis who were convinced they were in their right in that conflict - and he started bombarding them with messages that were essentially preaching to the choir, but then brought their view one step further. He told them that not only were they in their right in that conflict, but that the conflict was actually necessary for Israel, because it brought social cohesion to the Israeli society, and demonstrated their moral superiority. He displayed the ugliness and stupidity of their own argument to them by presenting an even more extreme version of it."
1個讚
con’t
“The result was shocking. After the initial confirmation bias stage, the respondents actually started to review their own convictions, and showed tremendous proneness to question their own beliefs. Seeing the new extremes that their own worldview could get to, they became gradually repulsed by it, and at the end of the experiment, they were more open to peaceful solutions and compromise in that conflict than before it.”
1個讚