Business Blog

Take a look at China hospital service quality and pricing put US hospitals to shame! Video: Taking Dad to Shenzhen for a Medical Checkup | 🇨🇳 Seniors Can Use Healthcare Vouchers + Exclusive Discounted Prices | Cheaper than Hong Kong Hospitals | Brain Health Screening | Prostate Screening | Multiple Checkup Packages | Private Transport Provided | Smooth Process | Premium Environment | Direct Billing with Multiple Insurance Providers 看看中國醫院的服務品質和收費水準，簡直讓美國醫院相形見絀、汗顏不已！視訊: 帶爸爸上深圳做體檢 | 🇨🇳 長者可用醫療券 + 專屬優惠價 | 平過香港醫院 | 腦健康篩查 | 前列腺篩查 | 多項體檢套餐 | 專車接送 | 流程暢順 | 頂級環境 | 多間保險免找數

https://rumble.com/v75bzws-take-a-look-at-china-hospital-service-quality-and-pricing-put-us-hospitals-.html
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP89eDFon/
👉 https://youtu.be/hqlau3-aMx0?si=a1v4FV_LjM9KB_hy

今次這集是帶爸爸上來深圳做前列腺篩查及腦健康篩查，爸爸年紀大很需要定期做前列腺篩查，另外都要做腦健康篩查，雖然他很精靈，但也要預防腦退化，一但驗到都可以把握時機治療，我們去的這間深圳新風和睦家醫院，現在長者可以用到醫療券，也會有醫療券專屬優惠價，優惠涵蓋的範圍很大，來過都知道和睦家醫院是很有規模，是高級私家醫院，在中國很多地區也有分院，成立已經有29年，這次我們就會全程分享爸爸檢查的流程。

深圳新風和睦家醫院
地址：深圳市福田區福強路4012號（沙尾站C出口 直走三分鐘左轉）

24小時香港客服熱線：+852 5801 1515
WhatsApp號碼 : +852 6673 5099

Taking Dad to Shenzhen for a Medical Checkup | Seniors Can Use Healthcare Vouchers + Exclusive Discounted Prices | Cheaper than Hong Kong Hospitals | Brain Health Screening | Prostate Screening | Multiple Checkup Packages | Private Transport Provided | Smooth Process | Premium Environment | Direct Billing with Multiple Insurance Providers

In this episode, we’re taking Dad to Shenzhen for prostate screening and brain health screening. As Dad gets older, regular prostate screening is essential. Additionally, we’re also doing a brain health screening. Although he’s still sharp, it’s important to prevent cognitive decline, and early detection allows for timely treatment if anything is found. The hospital we visited, Shenzhen New Frontier United Family Hospital, now allows seniors to use healthcare vouchers and offers special discounted rates for voucher users. The coverage of the discounts is extensive. Those who have been here know that United Family Hospital is a large-scale, premium private hospital with branches in many regions across China, established for 29 years. In this video, we’ll share the entire process of Dad’s checkup.

Shenzhen New Frontier United Family Hospital
Address: No. 4012 Fuqiang Road, Futian District, Shenzhen (Exit C of Shawei Station, walk straight for three minutes, then turn left)

24-hour Hong Kong Customer Service Hotline: +852 5801 1515
WhatsApp Number: +852 6673 5099

My dearest Xiaomi SU7 Max, It’s been about a month since we were last together. Now, every time I climb back into my Ford Mustang Mach-E, I can’t stop thinking about you—your long range, your modular interior, your absurdly large infotainment screen. 我最親愛的小米SU7 Max：自從我們上次相聚，已經過去了一個月。如今每當我坐回福特野馬Mach-E的駕駛座，總會不由自主地想起你 – 你那超長的續航里程、模組化的內裝設計，還有那大得不可思議的娛樂系統螢幕.

At night, I miss your adjustable color lighting. On weekends, the kids talk about your wireless karaoke mics, walkie-talkies and yes, that back-seat minifridge.

Please come back to America…for me. Always, Joanna

The Xiaomi SU7 Max—like other Chinese-made cars—is effectively blocked from the U.S. market. And yet, late last year, I spent two weeks test-driving one of China’s hottest cars around the mean streets of New Jersey. A friend who previously worked at Xiaomi bought the car and got a temporary permit to drive it in the U.S. He generously let me take it for an extended spin.

My time with the car confirmed what experts in the auto industry have long been saying: Holy crap, China is winning the digitally enhanced electric-car race.

Chinese EV makers such as Xiaomi, BYD and Geely have earned global accolades because their cars deliver longer battery ranges and deeply integrated digital platforms. We’re talking software that feels smooth like a brand new smartphone, not a screen you have to jab five times to load a map. Plus, they often cost tens of thousands of dollars less than Western competitors. In Europe and Mexico, they’re blowing past Tesla and other EV rivals.

深夜裡，我懷念你可調節的氛圍燈光；週末時，孩子們總念叨著你的無線卡拉OK麥克風、對講機，以及後座那個迷你冰箱。

為了我，請回到美國來吧。

永遠愛你的喬安娜

與其他中國製造的汽車一樣，小米SU7 Max實際上被擋在美國市場門外。然而去年底，我卻有幸駕駛這款中國最炙手可熱的電動車，在新澤西的複雜路況中度過了兩週試駕時光。一位曾在小米任職的朋友購入此車後申請了臨時行駛許可，慷慨地讓我進行了深度試駕。

這段經歷驗證了汽車業專家長期的判斷：天啊，中國正在這場數字化電動車競賽中取勝。

小米、比亞迪和吉利等中國電動車製造商之所以能獲得全球讚譽，是因為他們的車輛不僅提供更長的電池續航，更實現了深度整合的數字平台——那流暢如嶄新智能手機的軟體體驗，絕非需要戳擊五次螢幕才能加載地圖的遲滯系統。更關鍵的是，這些車型的售價往往比西方競品低數萬美元。在歐洲和墨西哥市場，它們正以驚人速度超越特斯拉及其他電動車對手。

Kowtow to US or your people starve / For those interested in knowing how the Venezuela-USA oil money management would work if the U.S. is allowed to do what it wants. By Hussein Askary, Vice-Chairman of the Belt and Road Institute in Sweden 屈服於美國，否則你的人民就得挨餓 / 對於那些有興趣了解，若美國獲准按其意願行事，委內瑞拉與美國之間的石油資金管理將如何運作的人來說——由瑞典一帶一路研究所副所長胡賽因·阿斯卡里撰文

Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s96Cp_OVKA&t=1904s 👈

it is useful to look at what the U.S. has done in Iraq since 2003. U.S. companies did not take over oil fields in Iraq. They are not interested in production. Chinese, Russian, and Iraqi national companies are the largest producers of Iraqi oil.

What the U.S. does is that it takes every single dollar of Iraqi oil exported every day. The money is send by the buyers of Iraqi oil, including Chinese companies, to a bank account in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The bank account is “protected” by the U.S. President since the signing of the Executive Order 13303 in May 2003 by President George W. Bush.

Every American president since then have renewed this signature under “national security emergency” pretext. This is how the U.S. controls Iraqi politics.

Last week, President Trump tweeted that he does not want Nouri Al-Maliki to become Prime Minister. Al-Maliki’s party and his coalition of Shia parties won the October 2025 elections which were recognized internationally with a landslide.

But the Iraqis must do what the U.S. President says, otherwise, the Iraqi people will starve next month as the U.S. Treasury will withhold the money from Iraq.

I explain this matter and other issues in West Asia related to U.S. policy, China, Belt and Road, and the Iran crisis in this interview:

對於那些有興趣了解，若美國獲准按其意願行事，委內瑞拉與美國之間的石油資金管理將如何運作的人來說——由瑞典一帶一路研究所副所長胡賽因·阿斯卡里撰文

觀察美國自2003年以來在伊拉克的行徑具有啟示意義。美國企業並未接管伊拉克的油田，他們對石油生產並不感興趣。中國、俄羅斯及伊拉克本國公司才是伊拉克石油的最大生產者。

美國的做法是：每日伊拉克出口石油所得的每一分錢，都會被匯入紐約聯邦儲備銀行的一個銀行帳戶——包括中國企業在內的伊拉克石油買家都必須將款項匯至此處。

該帳戶自2003年5月由喬治·W·布希總統簽署第13303號行政命令以來，就一直處於美國總統的「保護」之下。

此後歷任美國總統皆以「國家安全緊急狀態」為由延續這項簽署。這正是美國操控伊拉克政治的手段。

上週，川普總統發推文表明他不希望努里·馬利基出任總理。然而馬利基所屬政黨及其什葉派政黨聯盟在2025年10月獲得國際承認的大選中贏得壓倒性勝利。

但伊拉克人必須服從美國總統的指令，否則美國財政部下個月將扣押伊拉克的資金，導致伊拉克民眾面臨饑荒。

我在本次訪談中闡釋了此事，以及其他與美國政策、中國、一帶一路及伊朗危機相關的西亞局勢問題：

JEFF BEZOS WAS RIGHT to sack a large number of Washington Post staff last night, I’m sorry to say. By Nury Vittachi. JEFF BEZOS 昨晚解僱《華盛頓郵報》大量員工，其實是對的，我很遺憾地這麼說. 作者：Nury Vittachi

The paper yesterday booted out more than 300 staff in a mass culling of jobs.

Now before I am torn to shreds by my counterparts in the profession, let me add that I offer deep sympathy, on a personal level, for every individual who lost their jobs. I mean that. It’s a tough industry (I’ve been sacked from news outlets several times) and it always hurts to be shown the door.

REDUCTIVE AND SHALLOW

But something else MUST be said specifically about the people in the section of Washington Post coverage that I am familiar with—the ones who produce reductive, hostile, nuance-free coverage of mainland China and Hong Kong. Their work has been extremely harmful to all sides, and it is very, very good thing for everyone that it may be over.

The sackings of these people give the world a chance to rise above the shallow anti-China narrative that has been used to trigger an arms race, and instead move towards a world characterized by healthy geopolitical relationships based on trade and mutual respect: in other words, peace and understanding.

You want evidence? I have evidence. Look at the coverage for yourself.

‘TENTACLE WRITING’

For example, China correspondent Katrina Northrop was sacked by the Washington Post yesterday.

For the readers of the Washington Post, she took the huge, complex, richly cultured, beautifully complex Chinese nation, and reduced it to a malevolent force in Beijing that could do nothing except reach out, tighten its grip, and create crackdowns on everything.

• Her story on finance: “What does Beijing’s tightening grip over Hong Kong mean for the world’s most valuable stock exchange?”
• Her story on the tragic Hong Kong tower blocks fire: “First came the fire. Then came the political crackdown.”
• Her story on the Chinese beauty industry: “Amid Botched procedures, Beijing is cracking down on cosmetic surgery”.
• Her story on politics in Taiwan: “On today’s Washington Post front page, our investigation into the murky mix of organized crime and politics allowing Beijing to extend its reach into Taiwan.”
• Her story on China’s amazing rise in AI: “How China is Using AI to Extend Censorship and Surveillance”.

Get the message? Everything is in the language of tentacles – Beijing reaching out, gripping, tightening, cracking down.

But let’s not be unfair to Ms Northrop, who may be a very nice person, and who writes very well. She was simply following the over-arching “west-good-China-bad” narrative of her industry, like her colleagues.

AN AGGRESSIVE HOTEL?

Also sacked was Mike E Miller. In August last year, Miller lead-wrote an article in the Washington Post that reported that both China and the US were spending money on the island of Palau.

But he notably failed to highlight the fact that they were not doing the same thing at all. Chinese people were building a hotel to boost Palau’s tourism industry and employ locals. The US was building special harbors for warships for America’s planned war on China.

Incredibly, Miller’s article painted the Chinese as the aggressive ones! “China, which has the world’s largest navy, has been aggressively increasing its influence across the South China Sea and into the Western Pacific, seeking to becoming the predominant maritime power in a region the U.S. has long considered its domain,” he wrote.

How is a hotel designed to employ locals worse than a warship base? The Chinese-built tourist hotel, Mr Miller wrote, may be used to look at the US war preparations, he explained.

The cringeworthy level of bias was so transparent that a child could see through it. But he may be a nice person, just following orders.

FALSE VISION OF HONG KONG

Also sacked was Shibani Mahtani, who wrote wildly negative articles about Hong Kong. Residents of the city know that their home is one of the richest, safest places in the world, and literally the healthiest city on earth, with a longevity level that beats Japan.

But in her hands, it came across as a nightmarish place where awful things happened to the innocent.

To take just one example, Jimmy Lai was kept in solitary confinement, she told the world, omitting the rather crucial fact that he requested it.

Her writing gave the impression that Lai’s trial was about free speech, as she chose to downplay the crucial fact that the heart of it was foreign collusion—and a huge amount of hard evidence of this was shown during the trial. I mean, Mike Pompeo’s office literally talked to Lai as the US passed laws and sanctions that did incredible harm to the innocent people of Hong Kong. Why not report that?

Lai printed a positive portrayal of the terrifying Dragon Slayers Brigade, who went on to gather terrorist-grade bombs and firearms to try to mass-murder innocent people in Wan Chai.

How do these things make Lai a hero, Ms Mahtani?

Again, she may be a nice person, just following orders. But I’m blessed with a large number of friends in Hong Kong, of all political leanings, and I don’t know a single one who is not horrified by the deeply unfair coverage of their city and their country by foreign correspondents working for the west against China.

SHORTAGE OF JOURNALISTS

As for the journalists out of a job in this region, I have a suggestion.

The world has a massive shortage of journalists who can rise above Tentacle Writing (“crackdown”, “grip”, “tightening hold” “Beijing’s reach”) and write intelligently and even-handedly about East Asia, with insight and nuance and balance and fairness and honesty, even to the Chinese. I refer to people who can create bridges instead of walls.

Why not try being one of those? The world needs you.

JEFF BEZOS 昨晚解僱《華盛頓郵報》大量員工，其實是對的，我很遺憾地這麼說. 作者：Nury Vittachi

該報昨日進行大規模裁員，超過300名員工被解僱。

在我被同行撕碎之前，必須補充一句：就個人層面而言，我對每一位失去工作的人都深表同情。我是認真的。這是一個艱難的行業（我自己也曾多次被新聞機構解僱），被掃地出門永遠都很痛。

膚淺又簡化的報導

但有些話必須說，尤其是針對我所熟悉的《華盛頓郵報》某一類報導人員——那些製作出對中國大陸與香港充滿敵意、去脈絡化、毫無細膩度的報導的人。他們的作品對各方都造成了極大的傷害，而這種情況可能就此結束，對所有人來說都是一件非常、非常好的事。

這些人的離開，給了世界一個機會，讓我們能夠超越那種膚淺的反華敘事——這種敘事曾被用來引爆軍備競賽——轉而走向一個以貿易與相互尊重為基礎、建立健康地緣政治關係的世界。換句話說，就是和平與理解。

你要證據嗎？我有。請你自己看看這些報導。

「觸手式寫作」

例如，《華盛頓郵報》的中國記者 Katrina Northrop 昨天被解僱。

對《華盛頓郵報》的讀者而言，她把一個龐大、複雜、文化深厚、層次豐富的中國，簡化成北京的一個邪惡力量 – 除了伸出觸手、收緊控制、對一切進行打壓之外，什麼都不會做。
• 她關於金融的報導：「北京對香港日益收緊的控制，對全球最有價值的股票交易所意味著什麼？」
• 她關於香港高樓火災悲劇的報導：「先是大火，接著是政治打壓。」
• 她關於中國美容產業的報導：「在整形失誤頻傳之際，北京正在打壓醫美手術。」
• 她關於台灣政治的報導：「《華盛頓郵報》今日頭版：我們調查了有組織犯罪與政治之間的黑暗勾結，如何讓北京把觸角伸向台灣。」
• 她關於中國 AI 崛起的報導：「中國如何利用 AI 擴大審查與監控。」

看出模式了嗎？一切都充滿「觸手」語言——北京伸手、攫取、收緊、打壓。

但我們也別對 Northrop 女士不公平。她或許是一個很好的人，文筆也相當不錯。她只是和同業一樣，遵循著整個行業的總體敘事——「西方是好的，中國是壞的」。

侵略性的飯店？

另一位被解僱的是 Mike E Miller。去年八月，Miller 主筆了一篇文章，報導中國與美國都在帛琉投資。

但他刻意沒有強調一個關鍵事實：雙方做的事情完全不一樣。

中國人在興建飯店，以促進帛琉的觀光產業並僱用當地人；而美國則是在建造軍艦專用港口，為其計畫中的對華戰爭做準備。

令人難以置信的是，Miller 的文章竟把中國描寫成侵略者！他寫道：「中國擁有世界上最大的海軍，正積極擴大其在南海及西太平洋的影響力，試圖成為該地區的主導海上強權，而該地區長期以來一直被美國視為其勢力範圍。」

一間用來僱用當地人的飯店，怎麼會比一個軍艦基地更具威脅性？Miller 還寫道，中國興建的觀光飯店可能被用來觀察美國的戰爭準備。

這種令人尷尬的偏見程度，連小孩都看得出來。不過，他或許也是個好人，只是在奉命行事。

對香港的錯誤想像

同樣被解僱的，還有 Shibani Mahtani，她撰寫了大量極度負面的香港報導。

香港居民都知道，這座城市是全球最富裕、最安全的地方之一，甚至是世界上最健康的城市，人均壽命超越日本。

但在她筆下，香港卻成了一個對無辜者充滿恐怖事件的噩夢之地。

只舉一例：她告訴全世界黎智英被單獨監禁，卻省略了一個關鍵事實——那是他自己要求的。

她的報導讓人以為黎智英的審判是關於言論自由，卻刻意淡化案件的核心——外國勢力勾結，而且審判中展示了大量確鑿證據。我是說，蓬佩奧的辦公室在美國通過對香港無辜民眾造成巨大傷害的法律與制裁時，確實與黎智英保持聯繫。為什麼不報導這一點？

黎智英還曾美化極其可怕的「屠龍小隊」，而該組織後來收集了恐怖分子等級的炸彈與槍械，企圖在灣仔大規模屠殺無辜民眾。

這些事情，怎麼會讓黎智英成為英雄，Mahtani 女士？

再說一次，她或許是個好人，只是在照指示做事。但我在香港有許多朋友，政治立場各異，而我不認識任何一個不對西方記者針對他們城市與國家所做的極度不公報導感到震驚的人。

記者的真正短缺

至於這個地區失業的記者們，我有一個建議。

這個世界極度缺乏能夠超越「觸手式寫作」（「打壓」、「控制」、「收緊」、「北京的觸角」）的記者——能夠以洞見、細膩、平衡、公正與誠實，智慧而中立地書寫東亞，甚至對中國也保持公平的人。我指的是那些能夠搭建橋樑，而不是築牆的人。

何不試著成為那樣的記者？

世界需要你們。

American logistic expert reports from China video: China’s top universities are opening to foreign students. That’s a big problem for US schools when average cost in China is US$4,000/year, US$60,000/year in US. 影片有中文字幕: 中國頂尖大學正對外國學生開放招生。在中國年均學費為4,000美元，而美國高達60,000美元的情況下，這對美國院校構成了重大挑戰，嚴重影響他們的發財大計!

https://rumble.com/v75bdac-chinas-top-universities-are-opening-to-foreign-students.html
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8HoSqcp/

Chinese universities dominate the global rankings in hard sciences, Engineering, and Computer Science.

Many of them now accept international students, and are marketing their schools in foreign countries.

US schools already face serious financial challenges, from the steep decline in international student enrollment. Foreign families typically pay full tuition and room and board, and American colleges rely on those higher fees.

Chinese universities pose an existential problem, going forward. They are qualitatively superior, even in Western surveys. And the over cost of attendance is a mere tenth of going to a top American program.

中國高校在硬科學、工程學和計算機科學領域的全球排名中占據主導地位。許多中國大學如今不僅接納國際學生，更積極在海外進行招生推廣。

美國院校已因國際生源急劇減少面臨嚴峻財務壓力——外國家庭通常全額支付學費與食宿費用，這些高昂費用正是美國高校的重要收入來源。

從長遠來看，中國大學正形成一種存續性挑戰：即使在西方調查中，其教育質量也表現卓越，而就讀總成本僅相當於頂尖美國院校的十分之一.

The “kill line” exposed the freedom in US is fake available to only the top 5% elites. SCMP: Leading chipmaking engineer Xu Zhenpeng said the United States no longer offered the freedom that researchers once expected – a key reason for his decision to leave US to continue his work in China. 美國「斬殺線」揭露了美國的自由是虛假的，僅供頂層5%的精英享有。」《南華早報》報導：頂尖晶片製造工程師徐振鵬表示，美國已無法提供研究人員曾經期待的自由 – 這是他決定離開美國返回中國繼續開展工作的關鍵原因。

Here is a typical story of idolizing the West, of believing the Western moon is especially round. Over the past few decades, countless such people have been seen: Over a decade ago, an elderly couple in Shanghai sold their only apartment, scraping together over 3 million RMB… to send their daughter to study in Canada. After graduation, she stayed there, married a white man, and had two mixed-race children. 以下是一個典型的崇洋, 西方月亮特別圓的故事，過去幾十年看到這樣的人不計其數: 十幾年前，上海一對老夫妻賣掉唯一的房子，湊了300多萬…

Back then, the old couple stood at the mouth of their Shanghai alley, watching the movers load their large furniture onto the truck, piece by piece emptying their entire home. They were full of anticipation, paving their daughter’s path across the ocean. The 3 million RMB nearly drained all their savings; they even gambled away their future. At that time, their daughter stood among the crowd, smiling and saying, “I’ll give you the best life.” That promise became the source of their initial courage, and now, their deepest thorn.

From then on, they began a life of renting and moving from place to place. During those years, some people asked if they regretted it. They would wave their hands dismissively, smiling and saying, “If our child has a promising future, what does our hardship matter?” Their words were full of pride, carrying a long-term trust in the future. They firmly believed their daughter’s happiness was their own happiness. But that trust increasingly resembled an empty shell. As time stretched on, phone calls became fewer and fewer. Greetings shifted from the initial “Mom, Dad, you’ve worked so hard” to “I’ve been quite busy lately, let’s talk next time.” Later, even the sound of her voice became rare from the telephone receiver. In her family in a foreign land, the daughter gradually faded from their lives.

Now in their seventies, the old couple’s health is declining, and medical expenses are like a bottomless pit. Coupled with monthly rent of several thousand RMB, their pension is stretched unbearably thin. The boundaries of their life are narrowing, like a silkworm’s cocoon tightening around them. They tried contacting their daughter, asking her to visit, even pleading just for a long-distance call to prove she still remembered their years of upbringing. But the replies were always brief, distant excuses: “Work is busy,” “The kids are clinging to me,” “I can’t get away.” The words spoken were always “inconvenient,” but between the lines, there was no trace of “difficulty.” The daughter’s voice was always gentle, but her attitude was as cold as a winter windowpane. On the other end of the line, the old couple were like two lost travelers, sensing the end of life’s journey, unable to find their harbor.

They began to doubt the decision they once took such pride in—selling their home to send their daughter abroad. Because in Shanghai, life without one’s own apartment is now incredibly difficult. Rents have nearly tripled over the past 20 years; even young people struggle, let alone elderly retirees living on pensions. That house, which was their parents’ foundation for living, had long since turned into their daughter’s tuition, transformed into bricks and mortar in a foreign land. What they thought would buy reunion now seemed only to have bought a life of mere subsistence.

“Raising children for old-age security” has been a fundamental principle for millennia in tradition, a pillar of family ethics. But this principle has been torn to shreds in the era of globalization. Especially in the context of cross-border marriages, parents’ expectations appear pale and insignificant, even becoming abandoned burdens. In a foreign land, culture and family structures are redefined. For the parents, after their daughter married in Canada, she had her own husband, children, and family; her new, seemingly glamorous identity essentially severed the bonds of kinship back home. The traditional center of gravity collapsed, the modern span lengthened, resulting in the parents’ endless sighs of longing.

👉 Behind this incident lies a sting that prompts us to reflect on family. Setting aside the hardships of this old couple, the whole society faces similar issues: The once highly-anticipated act of “sending children abroad,” how many people are now quietly reassessing it? From the 1980s to the 1990s, the intention to go abroad carried a halo; it was a goal many families strived for. But today, generation after generation of “left-behind elderly” are competing for limited eldercare resources, and the complications of past choices are gradually being exposed. The curbstone hit by a walking stick while grocery shopping, the shrinking social circle due to medical costs, the silent solitude at home—these don’t just constitute life’s inconveniences but a kind of撕裂 identity困境 (torn identity dilemma).

👉 Tracing the roots, in the 20 years since globalization unfolded, countless families have enjoyed the opportunities and hopes it brought, becoming beneficiaries. But does “a better future for the next generation” necessarily mean sacrificing the parents? Perhaps most of the time, it’s hard to find a completely flawless methodology. Over the years, the old couple did receive remittances, a few letters of greeting. But money can buy medicine, letters can hardly dispel loneliness, and what’s missing behind it all is the interweaving and warmth of human connection and blood ties.

👉 The old couple never blamed their daughter. They would even tell neighbors on the phone, “Her career is going well, and her two children are very well-behaved.” But every night, when streetlights stream through the window of their rented room, they remain two solitary figures, quietly reminiscing about the era when she was still “by their side.” By the dining table, their daughter’s childhood schoolbag still hangs on the worn corner of a chair. The old recording of the TV series “Shanghai Beach” plays from the radio. Sometimes they are lost in thought, sometimes they whisper: “When a person goes far away, the heart follows and goes far away too.” At the end of the story, life never gave them much respite. They even began to wish they could hang a painting of their own on the rental wall—as long as the frame was steady, then everything would seem less rushed.

以下是一個典型的崇洋, 西方月亮特別圓的故事，過去幾十年看到這樣的人不計其數: 十幾年前，上海一對老夫妻賣掉唯一的房子，湊了300多萬……

送女兒去加拿大讀書，畢業后女兒留在那兒嫁給了白人還生了兩個混血寶寶。

那時候，老兩口站在上海的巷口，看着搬家公司將大件傢具裝上車，一件件抽空整個家。他們滿懷期待，為女兒鋪設遠洋的路。300萬幾乎掏空了所有積蓄，甚至連未來都賭了進去。彼時，女兒站在人群中，微笑着說：“我會讓你們過上最好的生活。”那句承諾，成了他們最初的勇氣源頭，也是如今最深的刺。

從此，他們開始了租房輾轉的生活。那些年間，也曾有人問他們後悔嗎？他們連連擺手，笑着說：“孩子有出息，我們苦一點算什麼。”這句話滿是驕傲，帶着對未來的漫長信任。他們堅信，女兒的幸福就是自己的幸福。只是，那份信任越來越像一紙空殼。時間拉長，電話越打越少，問候語從一開始的“爸媽你們好辛苦”變成“最近挺忙，下次再聊吧”。再後來，連電話聽筒中都鮮有聲音。女兒在異國他鄉的家庭里，漸漸消失在他們的生活里。

老兩口如今70多歲，身體越來越差，藥品花費多得像無底洞。加上每月幾千塊錢的房租，他們的退休金被壓得透不過氣。生活的邊界越來越窄，像是蠶繭逐漸收緊。他們試過聯繫女兒，請她回來看望，甚至只求一個長途拜訪來證明她還記得養育之恩。可得到的回答永遠是簡短疏離的理由：“工作忙，孩子纏着，走不開。”說出口一直是“不方便”，字裡行間卻沒有一點“困難”。女兒總是聲音溫柔，態度卻冷漠得像冬日的玻璃窗。而電話另一端的老兩口，卻像兩個迷失的旅人，察覺生命的盡頭，無法尋回他們的避風港。

他們開始懷疑那個曾讓自己驕傲的決定–賣掉房子，讓女兒出國。因為在上海，如果沒有自己的房子，如今的生活可謂寸步難行。租房的價格在過去20年裡翻了近三倍，年輕人尚且難熬，更別提靠退休金生活的老人。而那個屬於父母安身立命的房子，早已變成了女兒的學費，落成異國的一塊磚瓦。那些原以為能換回團圓的付出，現在看來只能換來生活的苟且。

養兒防老，是傳統中千百年來的底線，也是家庭倫理的支柱。可這條底線，卻在全球化時代被撕扯得七零八落。尤其在跨國婚姻的語境下，父母的期待顯得蒼白而不起眼，甚至成了被遺棄的累贅。在異國他鄉，文化和家庭結構都被重新定義。對父母而言，女兒嫁到加拿大後有了自己的丈夫、孩子、家庭，光鮮的身份從本質上隔絕了國內的親情聯結。傳統的重心崩塌，現代的跨度拉長，成就父母思念無盡的嘆息。

👉事件背後刺痛着我們對家庭的思考。拋開老夫妻一家的坎坷，整個社會都在面對相似的問題：曾被寄予厚望的“送孩子出國”，如今被多少人悄然重估？在上世紀80年代至90年代，出國意圖曾帶着光環，是許多家庭的努力目標。可到了今天，一代代“留守老人”正在爭搶有限的養老資源，曾經的選擇逐漸暴露併發症。買菜時拐杖磕到的路邊石，藥費開銷壓低社交範圍， 孤寂的家中一片沉默，構成的不只是生活不便，而是一種撕裂的身份困境。

👉追根溯源，在全球化鋪開后的20年裡，無數家庭都曾享受過它帶來的機會與希望，成為得益者。但“下一代更好的未來”是否一定意味着犧牲父母？或許多數時候，我們很難找到全然無瑕的的方法論。這些年來，老夫婦也收到過匯款，收到過幾封問候的信。可錢能買葯，信卻難解孤寂，而這背後，缺失的正是人情血脈之間的交織和溫度。

👉老兩口從未怪罪女兒，他們甚至會在電話里告訴鄰居：“她事業做得好，兩個孩子也很乖。”但每個晚上，當街燈從出租房的窗外灑入，他們仍是孤影兩個，靜靜回憶那個她還“在自己身邊” 的時代。餐桌旁，兒時女兒的書包還掛在破舊的椅角，港劇《上海灘》的老錄音從收音機里響起，他們時而出神，時而低語：“人走得遠了，心也跟着走遠了。”故事的盡頭，生活始終沒有給他們幾分緩和的喘息，他們甚至開始奢望能在租房牆上留一幅屬於自己的畫 — 只要畫框穩當，那一切就顯得沒那麼倉促了。

Video: Updated speakers & sound systems set up ready to Karaoke, rock and roll, may deploy DJI Neo2 for Aero film shooting on Saturday Feb 7th 3-11pm 音響系統全面升級完畢，已架設完成，準備於2月7日星期六下午3點至晚上11點，歡唱卡拉OK、盡情搖滾，並或將動用DJI Neo2進行空中拍攝!
https://rumble.com/v759a16-updated-speakers-and-sound-systems-set-up-ready-to-karaoke-rock-and-roll-fe.html
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8HYuGgx/

International Monetary Fund Official Announcement: China’s Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) GDP at $43.49 Trillion, Leading the U.S. by $13 Trillion… 国际货币基金组织官宣：中國購買力平價(PPP) GDP43.49萬億，領先美國13萬億…

Recently, a figure in a report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is quietly rewriting the global economic rankings: measured by purchasing power parity (PPP), China’s GDP reached 290 trillion yuan, while the U.S. stood at 217 trillion yuan—a difference of 71 trillion yuan in China’s favor. But strangely, this doesn’t seem to have caused much of a stir, as most people are still focused on another number: measured by exchange rates, China’s GDP is only about 70% of that of the United States.

It’s like two completely different rulers measuring two entirely different “world number ones.” So the question arises: which ruler measures the real world? A cup of coffee selling for over ten yuan in Beijing and another selling for five or six dollars in New York—what economic truth lies behind them?

Don’t you also find it puzzling? On the same planet, how can there be two ways to measure economic size? On one hand, the exchange rate method converts each country’s GDP into U.S. dollars at current exchange rates for comparison. On the other hand, purchasing power parity (PPP) disregards exchange rate fluctuations and focuses only on how much real goods and services the same amount of money can buy in different countries. The difference is substantial.

Take the 2025 data, for example. By the exchange rate method, U.S. GDP is $30.5 trillion, while China’s is $19.2 trillion, roughly 63% of the U.S. figure. This is a picture we’ve seen for many years, almost becoming a kind of “common sense.” But if we switch rulers and use PPP calculations, the picture flips instantly: China’s PPP-adjusted GDP reaches $43.1 trillion, while the U.S. stands at around $30 trillion.

The IMF’s more specific forecast indicates that China’s PPP GDP is approximately $40.72 trillion (about 290 trillion yuan), while the U.S. is about $30.5 trillion (around 217 trillion yuan), putting China ahead by 71 trillion yuan. This means that if measured by purchasing power, China’s economic size had already surpassed that of the United States in 2014.

Why do the two measurement methods yield such vastly different results? The core lies in exchange rate fluctuations and price levels. Over the past few years, the Federal Reserve’s consecutive interest rate hikes strengthened the U.S. dollar, leading to a relative depreciation of the Chinese yuan. This directly lowered the dollar-denominated size of China’s economy. At the same time, the U.S. experienced higher inflation, with rising prices boosting its nominal GDP figures.

The PPP method, however, attempts to strip away these interferences by asking a more fundamental question: For instance, if a McDonald’s Big Mac sells for 19.8 yuan in Beijing and $4.79 in New York, does the burger in Beijing truly represent less economic value than the one in New York? Clearly not—the same bread, beef, and sauce create similar value. The exchange rate method measures the “appearance” of money, while PPP measures the “substance” of how many tangible goods can be purchased.

最近，國際貨幣基金組織（IMF）一份報告里的一個數字，正在悄悄改寫全球經濟的排名表：按購買力平價（PPP）計算，中國的GDP達到了290萬億元人民幣，而美國是217萬億元人民幣，中國足足多了71萬億元。 但奇怪的是，這事兒好像沒掀起太大波瀾，因為大多數人還在盯着另一個數字：按匯率算，中國GDP只有美國的七成左右。

這就像兩把完全不同的尺子，量出了兩個截然不同的“世界第一”。 那麼問題來了，到底哪把尺子量的才是真實的世界？ 一杯在北京賣十幾塊人民幣的咖啡，和一杯在紐約賣五六美元的咖啡，背後到底藏着怎樣的經濟真相？

你是不是也覺得納悶，同一個地球，怎麼衡量經濟大小還能有兩套說法？ 一邊是匯率法，把各國GDP按當前匯率換成美元來比大小；另一邊是購買力平價（PPP），它不管匯率怎麼波動，只關心同樣一筆錢，在不同國家到底能買到多少實實在在的東西。 這區別可大了去了。

就拿2025年的數據來說，按匯率法，美國GDP是30.5萬億美元，中國是19.2萬億美元，中國大約是美國的63%。 這個畫面我們看了很多年，似乎成了某種“常識”。 但如果我們換把尺子，用PPP來計算，畫面瞬間翻轉：中國的PPP GDP達到了43.1萬億美元，而美國則在30萬億美元左右。

國際貨幣基金組織（IMF）更具體的預測是，中國PPP GDP約為40.72萬億美元（約290萬億元人民幣），美國約30.5萬億美元（約217萬億元人民幣），中國領先了71萬億元人民幣。 這意味着，如果用購買力這把尺子，中國的經濟規模在2014年就已經超過了美國。

為什麼兩把尺子量的結果天差地別？ 核心就在於匯率波動和物價水平。 過去幾年，美聯儲連續加息，美元走強，人民幣相對貶值，這直接壓低了用美元計算的中國經濟規模。 同時，美國經歷了較高的通脹，物價上漲推高了其名義GDP的數字。

但PPP方法試圖剔除這些干擾，它問的是一個更本質的問題：比如，一個麥當奴的巨無霸漢堡在北京賣19.8元，在紐約賣4.79美元，難道北京那個漢堡所代表的經濟價值就真的比紐約的低嗎？ 顯然不是，同樣的麵包、牛肉、醬料，創造的價值是相近的。 匯率法量的是錢的“面子”，而PPP量的才是能買到多少實物的“裡子”。

US hospitals whether they call themselves for profit or non profits have only one mission that is to make as much money as possible. Patients life or death not their number one concern! 美國醫院，無論自稱營利或非營利機構，實則僅有一個核心目標——盡可能牟取最大利潤。患者的生死存亡，絕非他們的首要關切!

Personal observation when visiting a friend in hospital last evening, the killing line of a US verses a Chinese hospital in HK & China. 昨晚探訪住院友人時的個人觀察，比較美國與香港及中國大陸醫院的核心差異, 看到美國醫院的“斬殺線”

In US:
Security screening at the entrances mean’t US not safe
Check for ID means long lines
Everything done manually, no AI or Robotic employed throughout the hospital
Everything charged to patient including a paper napkin or a toothpick
Patients not fluent in English big problem
Insurance company dictates when you get discharged before recovery
Insurance company determines if you get further treatments

Do you see the same conditions in China and HK

在美國：
· 入口安檢意味著社會安全隱患
· 身份核對導致長時排隊
· 全程人工操作，未見人工智能或機器人應用
· 連紙巾或牙籤等小物皆向患者收費
· 非英語母語患者就醫障礙顯著
· 保險公司能在患者未康復時強制要求出院
· 後續治療方案由保險公司裁定

在中國大陸及香港，是否會看到相同狀況？