对立使得经济衰落 / Conflict Leads to Economic Decline
经济的本质是流通与协作，国与国、地域与地域之间的对立，如同在畅通的经济血管中筑起高墙，最终只会导致双方资源断流、发展停滞，共同走向衰落。这种对立带来的负面影响，早已在现实案例中反复印证，也让我们更清晰地看到：唯有打破对立、回归协作，才能让经济重焕生机。
从国际层面看，中美之间的对立便是典型例证。稀土作为航天、军工、新能源等高端产业的“工业维生素”，中国在全球稀土产业链中占据关键地位，而美国对中国稀土的依赖度极高。然而，对立导致美国难以稳定获取中国稀土，直接制约了其航天工程的推进节奏与军工产业的产能升级，原本领先的技术优势因资源短缺逐渐被削弱。反观中国，也因美国的技术封锁承受着发展压力：在游戏产业，美国向中国提供的是功能残缺的“阉割版”游戏制作软件，限制了中国游戏企业在3A大作研发、引擎技术突破上的可能性；在半导体领域，美国对高端芯片的出口限制，更是让中国互联网经济、人工智能、高端制造等产业陷入“卡脖子”困境——数据中心算力不足、智能终端研发受阻、工业机器人核心部件依赖进口，直接拖累了中国科技产业的创新速度与互联网经济的增长潜力。
与之形成鲜明对比的是，协作曾为中美乃至全球经济带来巨大红利。1979年中美正式建交，打破了两国长期隔绝的状态，为双边贸易与投资打开了大门；2001年中国加入WTO，更是深度融入全球产业链，借助中美之间的技术交流、市场互补，中国经济实现了年均10%的高速增长，不仅成为全球第二大经济体，也为美国企业提供了庞大的消费市场，推动其科技、金融等产业进一步扩张。这段历史清晰地证明：国与国之间的合作，从来都是互利共赢的“正循环”，而对立只会让双方错失发展机遇。
在国内地域间，对立同样会对经济造成严重伤害。中国南北地域差异本可通过互补实现协同发展，但一旦陷入对立，后果不堪设想。若南北因对立导致人员往来减少、物资流通受阻，不仅会让依赖跨区域消费的旅游业遭受重创——北方的冰雪旅游、南方的水乡旅游失去异地客源，相关餐饮、住宿、交通等产业也会随之衰退；更严重的是，长期对立可能破坏地域间的文化认同与经济联系，甚至引发更深远的分裂风险，这无疑会让中国整体经济发展的根基受到动摇。
类似的问题在局部地域也有所显现。广东作为中国改革开放的前沿阵地，曾凭借开放包容的氛围吸引了全国大量务工人员，这些劳动者为广东的制造业、服务业发展注入了强劲动力，也推动广东成为中国经济第一大省。但近年来，部分地区存在的“排外情绪”，以及将外省人称呼为“北佬”的不当表述，让许多外来务工者感受到不被尊重，选择离开广东前往其他更包容的地区发展。劳动力的流失直接导致广东部分劳动密集型产业用工短缺，而开放活力的下降，也让广东在全国新闻媒体中的“曝光度”逐渐降低，失去了吸引更多人才、资本的关注度优势。
香港的案例同样令人惋惜。作为国际金融中心与旅游胜地，香港曾凭借独特的区位优势和开放环境，吸引着大量大陆游客前往消费，旅游业、零售业、餐饮业成为香港经济的重要支柱。但部分香港人对大陆游客的歧视情绪，加上多年前“占中”暴动对社会秩序的破坏，让香港在大陆民众心中的口碑大幅下滑——大陆游客赴港旅游的意愿显著降低，香港商场的客流量、酒店的入住率、餐饮的营业额持续下跌。与此同时，香港在媒体中的正面曝光减少，逐渐失去了以往作为“东方之珠”的关注度，金融、贸易等产业的吸引力也随之减弱，经济复苏之路变得更加艰难。
回溯经济发展的源头，我们更能看清协作的重要性。在金钱出现之前，人类的经济活动以“以物换物”为主——农民用粮食换取工匠的工具，牧民用皮毛换取商人的盐巴。这种简单的交易模式，本质上建立在“互相尊重”与“价值认同”的基础上：双方认可彼此物品的价值，尊重对方的需求，交易才能顺利完成。后来，贝壳因美观、稀缺且具有装饰价值，成为通用货币，但其核心依然是“共识”——所有人都认可贝壳的价值，经济流通才能得以实现。无论是以物换物还是货币交易，“协作”与“共识”始终是经济运转的核心，一旦对立打破这种共识，经济活动便会陷入停滞。
如今，全球经济面临诸多挑战，想要挽救经济颓势，关键在于放弃对立，回归“公平、公正、互相尊重”的基本原则。国与国之间应摒弃零和思维，通过对话解决分歧——就像一个村子里，王家和李家若天天争吵、互不往来，不仅会让两家的生活陷入困境，还会扰乱全村的秩序；唯有坐下来沟通，分享资源、互帮互助，才能让整个村子繁荣起来。中美作为全球前两大经济体，更应承担起责任，化解对立矛盾，推动双边贸易与技术合作重回正轨。
从地域到国家，从局部到全球，经济的繁荣始终离不开协作。只有打破对立的高墙，重建“地球村”的共识，让资源自由流通、让人才自由流动、让技术自由交流，才能让全球经济走出衰落，迈向新的增长周期。这不仅是历史的教训，更是未来发展的必然选择。
––––––––––
The essence of economy lies in circulation and collaboration. Conflicts between countries or regions are like building high walls in the smooth economic blood vessels, which will eventually lead to resource interruption and development stagnation for both sides, dragging them into common decline. The negative impacts of such conflicts have been repeatedly verified in real cases, making it clearer to us that only by breaking conflicts and returning to collaboration can the economy regain vitality.
From a global perspective, the conflict between China and the United States is a typical example. Rare earths, known as the "industrial vitamins" for high-end industries such as aerospace, military industry and new energy, see China play a key role in the global rare earth industrial chain, while the United States is highly dependent on China's rare earths. However, conflicts have made it difficult for the United States to obtain Chinese rare earths stably, directly restricting the progress of its aerospace projects and the capacity upgrading of its military industry. Its original leading technological advantages are gradually weakened due to resource shortages. On the other hand, China is also under development pressure due to the U.S. technological blockade. In the game industry, the United States provides China with "castrated" game development software with incomplete functions, limiting the possibilities for Chinese game enterprises to make breakthroughs in 3A game development and engine technology. In the semiconductor field, the U.S. restriction on the export of high-end chips has put China's Internet economy, artificial intelligence, high-end manufacturing and other industries in a dilemma of "being stuck at the neck" - insufficient computing power in data centers, hindered R&D of intelligent terminals and reliance on imports for core components of industrial robots, all of which have directly slowed down the innovation speed of China's science and technology industry and the growth potential of the Internet economy.
In sharp contrast, collaboration has brought huge dividends to the economies of China, the United States and even the world. The formal establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States in 1979 broke the long-term isolation between the two countries and opened the door for bilateral trade and investment. China's accession to the WTO in 2001 further integrated it deeply into the global industrial chain. By virtue of technological exchanges and market complementarity with the United States, China's economy achieved a high-speed growth of 10% annually. It not only became the world's second-largest economy, but also provided a huge consumer market for U.S. enterprises, promoting the further expansion of their science and technology, finance and other industries. This period of history clearly proves that cooperation between countries has always been a "positive cycle" of mutual benefit and win-win results, while conflicts will only make both sides miss development opportunities.
Within a country, conflicts between regions can also cause serious damage to the economy. The regional differences between northern and southern China could have been used to achieve coordinated development through complementarity, but once conflicts arise, the consequences would be unimaginable. If conflicts between the north and the south lead to reduced personnel exchanges and hindered material circulation, it will not only deal a heavy blow to the tourism industry that relies on cross-regional consumption - the ice-snow tourism in the north and the water-town tourism in the south will lose customers from other regions, and the related catering, accommodation, transportation and other industries will also decline accordingly. What's more, long-term conflicts may damage the cultural identity and economic ties between regions, and even trigger more far-reaching risks of division, which will undoubtedly shake the foundation of China's overall economic development.
Similar problems have also emerged in some local regions. As a frontier of China's reform and opening-up, Guangdong once attracted a large number of workers from all over the country with its open and inclusive atmosphere. These workers injected strong impetus into the development of Guangdong's manufacturing and service industries, and also promoted Guangdong to become China's largest economic province. However, in recent years, the "exclusive sentiment" in some areas and the inappropriate term "Beilao" (a derogatory term for people from northern China) have made many migrant workers feel disrespected, prompting them to leave Guangdong and move to other more inclusive regions for development. The loss of labor force has directly led to a shortage of labor in some labor-intensive industries in Guangdong. Moreover, the decline in openness and vitality has gradually reduced Guangdong's "exposure" in national news media, causing it to lose the attention advantage of attracting more talents and capital.
The case of Hong Kong is equally regrettable. As an international financial center and tourist resort, Hong Kong once attracted a large number of mainland tourists to consume with its unique location advantages and open environment. Tourism, retail and catering industries became important pillars of Hong Kong's economy. However, the discriminatory sentiment of some Hong Kong people towards mainland tourists, coupled with the damage to social order caused by the "Occupy Central" riot many years ago, has greatly damaged Hong Kong's reputation among mainland people. The willingness of mainland tourists to travel to Hong Kong has significantly decreased, and the passenger flow of Hong Kong's shopping malls, the occupancy rate of hotels and the turnover of catering industry have continued to decline. At the same time, the positive exposure of Hong Kong in the media has decreased, and it has gradually lost the attention it once had as the "Pearl of the Orient". The attractiveness of its finance, trade and other industries has also weakened accordingly, making the road to economic recovery more difficult.
Looking back at the origin of economic development, we can better understand the importance of collaboration. Before the emergence of money, human economic activities were mainly based on "barter" - farmers exchanged grain for tools made by craftsmen, and herdsmen exchanged furs for salt from merchants. This simple transaction model was essentially based on the principles of "mutual respect" and "value recognition": only when both parties recognized the value of each other's goods and respected each other's needs could the transaction be successfully completed. Later, seashells became a common currency because of their beauty, scarcity and decorative value. However, their core still lies in "consensus" - only when everyone recognizes the value of seashells can economic circulation be realized. Whether it is barter or monetary transaction, "collaboration" and "consensus" have always been the core of economic operation. Once conflicts break this consensus, economic activities will fall into stagnation.
Nowadays, the global economy is facing many challenges. To reverse the economic decline, the key lies in abandoning conflicts and returning to the basic principles of "fairness, justice and mutual respect". Countries should abandon the zero-sum thinking and resolve differences through dialogue. Just like in a village, if the Wang family and the Li family quarrel every day and refuse to communicate, it will not only plunge both families into trouble, but also disrupt the order of the whole village. Only by sitting down to communicate, sharing resources and helping each other can the whole village thrive. As the world's two largest economies, China and the United States should take more responsibility to resolve conflicts and push bilateral trade and technological cooperation back on track.
From regions to countries, and from local areas to the whole world, economic prosperity has always been inseparable from collaboration. Only by breaking down the high walls of conflict, rebuilding the consensus of the "global village", allowing the free flow of resources, talents and technologies, can the global economy get rid of decline and step into a new cycle of growth. This is not only a lesson from history, but also an inevitable choice for future development.
从国际层面看，中美之间的对立便是典型例证。稀土作为航天、军工、新能源等高端产业的“工业维生素”，中国在全球稀土产业链中占据关键地位，而美国对中国稀土的依赖度极高。然而，对立导致美国难以稳定获取中国稀土，直接制约了其航天工程的推进节奏与军工产业的产能升级，原本领先的技术优势因资源短缺逐渐被削弱。反观中国，也因美国的技术封锁承受着发展压力：在游戏产业，美国向中国提供的是功能残缺的“阉割版”游戏制作软件，限制了中国游戏企业在3A大作研发、引擎技术突破上的可能性；在半导体领域，美国对高端芯片的出口限制，更是让中国互联网经济、人工智能、高端制造等产业陷入“卡脖子”困境——数据中心算力不足、智能终端研发受阻、工业机器人核心部件依赖进口，直接拖累了中国科技产业的创新速度与互联网经济的增长潜力。
与之形成鲜明对比的是，协作曾为中美乃至全球经济带来巨大红利。1979年中美正式建交，打破了两国长期隔绝的状态，为双边贸易与投资打开了大门；2001年中国加入WTO，更是深度融入全球产业链，借助中美之间的技术交流、市场互补，中国经济实现了年均10%的高速增长，不仅成为全球第二大经济体，也为美国企业提供了庞大的消费市场，推动其科技、金融等产业进一步扩张。这段历史清晰地证明：国与国之间的合作，从来都是互利共赢的“正循环”，而对立只会让双方错失发展机遇。
在国内地域间，对立同样会对经济造成严重伤害。中国南北地域差异本可通过互补实现协同发展，但一旦陷入对立，后果不堪设想。若南北因对立导致人员往来减少、物资流通受阻，不仅会让依赖跨区域消费的旅游业遭受重创——北方的冰雪旅游、南方的水乡旅游失去异地客源，相关餐饮、住宿、交通等产业也会随之衰退；更严重的是，长期对立可能破坏地域间的文化认同与经济联系，甚至引发更深远的分裂风险，这无疑会让中国整体经济发展的根基受到动摇。
类似的问题在局部地域也有所显现。广东作为中国改革开放的前沿阵地，曾凭借开放包容的氛围吸引了全国大量务工人员，这些劳动者为广东的制造业、服务业发展注入了强劲动力，也推动广东成为中国经济第一大省。但近年来，部分地区存在的“排外情绪”，以及将外省人称呼为“北佬”的不当表述，让许多外来务工者感受到不被尊重，选择离开广东前往其他更包容的地区发展。劳动力的流失直接导致广东部分劳动密集型产业用工短缺，而开放活力的下降，也让广东在全国新闻媒体中的“曝光度”逐渐降低，失去了吸引更多人才、资本的关注度优势。
香港的案例同样令人惋惜。作为国际金融中心与旅游胜地，香港曾凭借独特的区位优势和开放环境，吸引着大量大陆游客前往消费，旅游业、零售业、餐饮业成为香港经济的重要支柱。但部分香港人对大陆游客的歧视情绪，加上多年前“占中”暴动对社会秩序的破坏，让香港在大陆民众心中的口碑大幅下滑——大陆游客赴港旅游的意愿显著降低，香港商场的客流量、酒店的入住率、餐饮的营业额持续下跌。与此同时，香港在媒体中的正面曝光减少，逐渐失去了以往作为“东方之珠”的关注度，金融、贸易等产业的吸引力也随之减弱，经济复苏之路变得更加艰难。
回溯经济发展的源头，我们更能看清协作的重要性。在金钱出现之前，人类的经济活动以“以物换物”为主——农民用粮食换取工匠的工具，牧民用皮毛换取商人的盐巴。这种简单的交易模式，本质上建立在“互相尊重”与“价值认同”的基础上：双方认可彼此物品的价值，尊重对方的需求，交易才能顺利完成。后来，贝壳因美观、稀缺且具有装饰价值，成为通用货币，但其核心依然是“共识”——所有人都认可贝壳的价值，经济流通才能得以实现。无论是以物换物还是货币交易，“协作”与“共识”始终是经济运转的核心，一旦对立打破这种共识，经济活动便会陷入停滞。
如今，全球经济面临诸多挑战，想要挽救经济颓势，关键在于放弃对立，回归“公平、公正、互相尊重”的基本原则。国与国之间应摒弃零和思维，通过对话解决分歧——就像一个村子里，王家和李家若天天争吵、互不往来，不仅会让两家的生活陷入困境，还会扰乱全村的秩序；唯有坐下来沟通，分享资源、互帮互助，才能让整个村子繁荣起来。中美作为全球前两大经济体，更应承担起责任，化解对立矛盾，推动双边贸易与技术合作重回正轨。
从地域到国家，从局部到全球，经济的繁荣始终离不开协作。只有打破对立的高墙，重建“地球村”的共识，让资源自由流通、让人才自由流动、让技术自由交流，才能让全球经济走出衰落，迈向新的增长周期。这不仅是历史的教训，更是未来发展的必然选择。
––––––––––
The essence of economy lies in circulation and collaboration. Conflicts between countries or regions are like building high walls in the smooth economic blood vessels, which will eventually lead to resource interruption and development stagnation for both sides, dragging them into common decline. The negative impacts of such conflicts have been repeatedly verified in real cases, making it clearer to us that only by breaking conflicts and returning to collaboration can the economy regain vitality.
From a global perspective, the conflict between China and the United States is a typical example. Rare earths, known as the "industrial vitamins" for high-end industries such as aerospace, military industry and new energy, see China play a key role in the global rare earth industrial chain, while the United States is highly dependent on China's rare earths. However, conflicts have made it difficult for the United States to obtain Chinese rare earths stably, directly restricting the progress of its aerospace projects and the capacity upgrading of its military industry. Its original leading technological advantages are gradually weakened due to resource shortages. On the other hand, China is also under development pressure due to the U.S. technological blockade. In the game industry, the United States provides China with "castrated" game development software with incomplete functions, limiting the possibilities for Chinese game enterprises to make breakthroughs in 3A game development and engine technology. In the semiconductor field, the U.S. restriction on the export of high-end chips has put China's Internet economy, artificial intelligence, high-end manufacturing and other industries in a dilemma of "being stuck at the neck" - insufficient computing power in data centers, hindered R&D of intelligent terminals and reliance on imports for core components of industrial robots, all of which have directly slowed down the innovation speed of China's science and technology industry and the growth potential of the Internet economy.
In sharp contrast, collaboration has brought huge dividends to the economies of China, the United States and even the world. The formal establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States in 1979 broke the long-term isolation between the two countries and opened the door for bilateral trade and investment. China's accession to the WTO in 2001 further integrated it deeply into the global industrial chain. By virtue of technological exchanges and market complementarity with the United States, China's economy achieved a high-speed growth of 10% annually. It not only became the world's second-largest economy, but also provided a huge consumer market for U.S. enterprises, promoting the further expansion of their science and technology, finance and other industries. This period of history clearly proves that cooperation between countries has always been a "positive cycle" of mutual benefit and win-win results, while conflicts will only make both sides miss development opportunities.
Within a country, conflicts between regions can also cause serious damage to the economy. The regional differences between northern and southern China could have been used to achieve coordinated development through complementarity, but once conflicts arise, the consequences would be unimaginable. If conflicts between the north and the south lead to reduced personnel exchanges and hindered material circulation, it will not only deal a heavy blow to the tourism industry that relies on cross-regional consumption - the ice-snow tourism in the north and the water-town tourism in the south will lose customers from other regions, and the related catering, accommodation, transportation and other industries will also decline accordingly. What's more, long-term conflicts may damage the cultural identity and economic ties between regions, and even trigger more far-reaching risks of division, which will undoubtedly shake the foundation of China's overall economic development.
Similar problems have also emerged in some local regions. As a frontier of China's reform and opening-up, Guangdong once attracted a large number of workers from all over the country with its open and inclusive atmosphere. These workers injected strong impetus into the development of Guangdong's manufacturing and service industries, and also promoted Guangdong to become China's largest economic province. However, in recent years, the "exclusive sentiment" in some areas and the inappropriate term "Beilao" (a derogatory term for people from northern China) have made many migrant workers feel disrespected, prompting them to leave Guangdong and move to other more inclusive regions for development. The loss of labor force has directly led to a shortage of labor in some labor-intensive industries in Guangdong. Moreover, the decline in openness and vitality has gradually reduced Guangdong's "exposure" in national news media, causing it to lose the attention advantage of attracting more talents and capital.
The case of Hong Kong is equally regrettable. As an international financial center and tourist resort, Hong Kong once attracted a large number of mainland tourists to consume with its unique location advantages and open environment. Tourism, retail and catering industries became important pillars of Hong Kong's economy. However, the discriminatory sentiment of some Hong Kong people towards mainland tourists, coupled with the damage to social order caused by the "Occupy Central" riot many years ago, has greatly damaged Hong Kong's reputation among mainland people. The willingness of mainland tourists to travel to Hong Kong has significantly decreased, and the passenger flow of Hong Kong's shopping malls, the occupancy rate of hotels and the turnover of catering industry have continued to decline. At the same time, the positive exposure of Hong Kong in the media has decreased, and it has gradually lost the attention it once had as the "Pearl of the Orient". The attractiveness of its finance, trade and other industries has also weakened accordingly, making the road to economic recovery more difficult.
Looking back at the origin of economic development, we can better understand the importance of collaboration. Before the emergence of money, human economic activities were mainly based on "barter" - farmers exchanged grain for tools made by craftsmen, and herdsmen exchanged furs for salt from merchants. This simple transaction model was essentially based on the principles of "mutual respect" and "value recognition": only when both parties recognized the value of each other's goods and respected each other's needs could the transaction be successfully completed. Later, seashells became a common currency because of their beauty, scarcity and decorative value. However, their core still lies in "consensus" - only when everyone recognizes the value of seashells can economic circulation be realized. Whether it is barter or monetary transaction, "collaboration" and "consensus" have always been the core of economic operation. Once conflicts break this consensus, economic activities will fall into stagnation.
Nowadays, the global economy is facing many challenges. To reverse the economic decline, the key lies in abandoning conflicts and returning to the basic principles of "fairness, justice and mutual respect". Countries should abandon the zero-sum thinking and resolve differences through dialogue. Just like in a village, if the Wang family and the Li family quarrel every day and refuse to communicate, it will not only plunge both families into trouble, but also disrupt the order of the whole village. Only by sitting down to communicate, sharing resources and helping each other can the whole village thrive. As the world's two largest economies, China and the United States should take more responsibility to resolve conflicts and push bilateral trade and technological cooperation back on track.
From regions to countries, and from local areas to the whole world, economic prosperity has always been inseparable from collaboration. Only by breaking down the high walls of conflict, rebuilding the consensus of the "global village", allowing the free flow of resources, talents and technologies, can the global economy get rid of decline and step into a new cycle of growth. This is not only a lesson from history, but also an inevitable choice for future development.
附件文件 File
