中国 VS 美国：如何比较超级大国
As Barack Obama prepares forthe 'no-necktie summit' with the Chinese
leader Xi Jinping in California, wedecided to look at the two
superpowers and compare data such as health, wealthand environmental
development – an inherently tricky task given the countries'markedly
different systems. Can it be done? Join the debate here ...
奥巴马正在加利福尼亚准备与习“无领带峰会”，让我们也来看看这两个超级大国之间的数据比较吧，例如健康、财富、环境发展。鉴于两个国家明显不同的体制，这是个艰巨的任务。这能够完成吗？加入辩论吧！
中国VS美国 数据比较
As the US president Barack Obama prepares for hismeeting with the
General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, Xi Jinping,we decided
to take another look at both Chinaand the USand see whether the two
superpowers can be compared.
共产党总书记习会面的时候，让我从另一角度观查中国和美国，看这个两个超级大国是否能够相比较。
We last did this in 2011 butwere intrigued to see how it would look with
updated data (where possible) andwith the addition of some of your
suggestions. This is by no means thedefinitive guide and many of the
indicators, though they illustrate someinteresting points, may not
adequately capture the complex issues at the heartof both countries.
我们在2011年做过统计，但是我们仍想看到它的最新数据以及人们附加的建议。这儿没有任何明确的导向和指示，来引导我们阐述这些要点，因此有可能不能充分的扑捉到，一些关系这两个国家命脉的复杂问题。
As one commenter,@file124528 wrote:
"The United Stateshas an elected government. The American government is
legitimate. And there isa separation of legislative, judicial, and
executive powers.
China is ruled by the Chinese CommunistParty. There is no separation of powers. No checks and balances. No independentpress."
网友@file124528写到：
美国有一个民选政府。美国政府是合法的。这是一个独立立法机构，公正的行政机构。
中国是由中国共产党统治。权力没有被分割，没有制衡和公平，没有独立的新闻媒体。
This is one potential issuethat the data may fail to frame sufficiently.
However, we have tried to includeas many of the suggested indicators
mentioned in the comments to broaden therange of measures.
数据完全可能败于体制，这是一个潜在的问题。然而，我们试图囊括更多评论者的建议来扩大比较的范围。
（论据一：人均GDP）
We've added GDP per capitaas @despoticonation suggested that a GDP per
capita comparison "is moreinsightful in reflecting the amazing
differences in the standard of living forthe people of China comparedto
the US".China's GDP per capita was$9,100, whereas the USboasted a figure
of $48,900.
我们增加了人均GDP的建议，人均GDP更能反映不同国家人民之间的不同生活水准。中国的人均GDP是9100美元，而美国有48900美元。
There is also an extremecontrast in the respective current account
balance - the US has the world's largest deficit burden, whileChinahas
the world's greatest budget surplus.
在各自账户平衡上，两国也有很大的对比。美国拥有世界上最大的赤字负担，而中国拥有世界上最大的预算盈余。
Pollution per capita andinvestments in alternative sources of energy
generation were also suggestedindicators. Although we couldn't feature
all of them on the graphic, we haveincluded the collated data in the
downloadable spreadsheet.
人均污染和人均可替代资源投资也是建议内容。虽然我们不能把它们放在图形中，但是我们已经把它们放在下面的表格中可供下载。
（论据二：环境污染）
The World HealthOrganization (WHO) publish data on indoor air, outdoor
air and water pollutionby country showing estimated numbers of deaths
and disability-adjusted lifeyears (DALY) attributable to these
environmental factors. According to WHO, OneDALY can be thought of as
one lost year of "healthy" life.
世界卫生组织（WHO）公布了每个国家的室内空气污染、室外空气污染和水污染。根据环境要素，预测了死亡人数和伤残调整生命年（DALY）。一个DALY
可以被认为是从一个健康的寿命中减掉的年限。（例如：芙兰朵露·斯卡雷特本来可以活300年，但是博丽灵梦在红魔乡随地大小便造成环境破坏，芙兰的
DALY变成299年，则芙兰的明年的今天就是她的忌日了。）。
So if we take the DALYmeasure and apply it to outdoor pollution, we get
the following results: China records 1.4 DALYs per 1,000 capita peryear,
whereas the USreports a figure of 0.8.
如果我们采用DALY标准并应用于室外污染，我们得到以下结果：中国每年是1.4个伤残/每千人，美国是0.8个/每千人。
Also there were an estimated275,600 deaths attributable to outdoor air
pollution in 2002 in Chinacompared with 41,200 in theUS.Urban outdoor
air pollution is estimated to cause 1.3 million deaths worldwideper
year.
同时估计中国有27.6万人死于室外空气污染，美国是4.1万人，全球估计有130万人。
上图显示中国和美国在室外空气污染上每千人死亡率。（2002年）
WHO's figures also show uswater pollution by country. These
environmental health factors reveal someinteresting differences. Whereas
improved water and sanitation stands at 100%in the US - there wasn't
asingle estimated death due to diarrhoea in 2002 - in China 44% had
improved sanitationin 2002 with an estimated 95,600 deaths due to
diarrhoea.
世界卫生组织展示给我们各个国家的水污染情况。环境健康因素揭露了其中的不同。美国在提升水资源卫生支持上是100%，2002年这儿没有一个预期死亡死于腹泻。中国有44%环境改善力度，在2002年有9.56万人死于腹泻。
According to theInternational Energy Agency, China's share of total
renewables in the globalprimary energy supply stands at 15.6% compared
with 4.2% in the US.
根据国际能源机构的数据显示，中国在全球初级能源供应总量可再生能源的份额占15.6%，美国有4.2%。
（论据三：失业）
In the previous post,contributor J.Nathan Matias discussed the
difficulties faced when trying tocompare data, especially a subject such
as unemployment which unfortunately isnot recorded uniformally across
the world. Matias concluded that "thedisparity between American and
Chinese unemployment results from differences ofmeasurement rather than
actual differences".
在以前的帖子中，.贡献者Nathan Matias当比较数据所面临的困难，尤其是失业这个不幸的没有被世界各地记录的项目。.Nathan Matias认为中国和美国的失业差异是由于统计方法而不是自然差异。
We've used an estimated 2012figure from the CIA World Factbook. For
Chinathe unemployment rate, according to CIA Factbook is 6.4%, with 8.2%
in the US. However,the official unemployment rate published by China
recorded registered urbanunemployment, which excludes private
enterprises and migrants, at 4.1% in 2012
我们使用CIA2012年估计数据。中国失业率是6.4%，美国是8.2%。但是中国官方发布的城镇注册失业者是4.1%，不包括私企、农村移民。
Matias would bring ourattention to the difference in calculations to
explain the vast differencethese two indicators could hide if you were
to just take the headline figure:
如果你只是看了标题图表的话，Nathan Matias将向我们解释这两者之间的隐藏的统计差异：
Giles, Park, and Zhang in"What is China'sTrue Unemployment Rate?" (China
Economic Review, Volume 16, Issue 2, 2005,Pages 149-170) explain:
"Official statistics count as unemployed onlythose individuals who
register for unemployment benefits with localgovernments, and are not
based on representative sample surveys. Notsurprisingly, the official,
or registered, unemployment rate is widely believedto significantly
understate the true unemployment rate.
Giles,
Park,和Zhang在《中国真正的失业率是什么？》（中国经济评论，16卷，2期，2005年，149-170页）解释：官方统计失业者只有统计那些
在当地注册领取失业金的人，而不是基于有代表性的抽样调查。相比真实的失业率，这毫不奇怪：官方统计的失业率是被广泛低估了。
The US, on theother hand, uses the Current Population Survey of 66,000
households across morethan 2,000 selected regions to model a more
accurate picture of unemployment inany given month. This number is
higher, and in theory, more accurate, thansimply measuring the number
claiming unemployment benefits.
另一方面，美国在任意月内跨越2000个选定区调查了66000户家庭，给出的失业数据更加准确。相比只是简单的测量领取失业救济金的人数而言，理论上抽取样本越多，结果越精确。
When Giles and colleaguesperformed a population survey to correct the
Chinese numbers, they found thatunemployment could be as much as 3-7%
higher than reported. That's between 38and 89 million unemployed people
who aren't counted (by 2002 populationfigures)."
当.Nathan Matias和他的同事进行人口调查纠正中国的数据时，他们发现失业率可能比中国官方数据高3-7 %。这儿大约3800万到8900万人口没有被统计（2002人口数据）。
来源：CIA世界概况
（论据四：人口比率）
Another commenter statedthat not enough attention had been given to the
male/female ratio in China. Thepopulation pyramids above from the CIA
World Factbook show how the populationof each country breaks down by
gender and age. Can you spot any interestingpatterns?
另一位评论者说，这儿没有足够重视考虑中国男女比例。上面的人口金字塔图表来自于CIA世界各个概括，该图表显示了人口已经打破了性别和年龄比例。你能够发现什么？
来源：CIA世界概况
（论据五：家庭平均收入）
Also average householdincome was also another indicator that was
requested by our users. Forbesreported the results of the Survey of
Chinese Consumer Finances, collected by Tsinghua Universityand funded by
Citibank (China)Co., Ltd, in 2010 and they made for some interesting
reading:
The average annual householdincome in China, convertedinto US dollars,
was $10,220, compared with $84,300 in the US(the median USincome is
$47,300.) One of the few similarities was average household assets:in
both China and the US,the average family's assets were about eight times
its average income.
同时家庭平均收入应我们的用户要求作为另一个指标。福布斯报道了这个结果，源自清华大学和花旗银行（中国）有限公司2010年的《消费者财务调查》；他们提供了一个有趣的资料：
中国家庭平均年收入折合成美元是10220美元，美国是84300美元（美国中等收入是47300美元）。两者间少有的共同点是平均家庭资产是平均家庭收入的八倍。
All the data we havegathered is in the spreadsheet for you to download.
Do you think it is possibleto compare two countries such as Chinaand the
US?What measures would you have liked to seen included?
我们将所有的数据聚集在下面的表格中供您下载。您认为这样对比中国和美国是否合理？哪一种对比方法是您喜欢看到的。
0.00%(0)
0.00%(0)
0.00%(0)
