A Quote by Ma Jun

In America, you complain about job losses because of China, but here, we carry all of the environmental costs. — © Ma Jun
In America, you complain about job losses because of China, but here, we carry all of the environmental costs.
The economic costs, the financial costs, the job losses, the income losses, the fiscal costs of bailing out financial system are becoming larger and larger.
There are so many musicians, friends of mine, who play shows for ten people a night, or always desperately wanted a record contract. So even if every person on the planet loathes me, I have nothing to complain about. My job is not a bad job, so I can't complain.
Actions aimed at supporting deleveraging and balance-sheet repair - such as recognizing losses, writing down assets, and recapitalizing banks - carry longer-term benefits but short-term costs.
China is bearing the environmental cost for much of the world because China is the factory of the world.
Since environmental and health damage is not factored into reducing GDP - and in fact the resulting health costs and the costs of cleaning up the environment would also inflate GDP, a GDP obsessed government would try and dismantle environmental and health regulations.
America has hundreds of billions of dollars of losses on a yearly basis - hundreds of billions with China on trade and trade imbalance, with Japan, with Mexico, with just about everybody. We don't make good deals anymore.
Environmental agencies in China are hamstrung by local officials who put economic growth ahead of environmental protection; even the courts are beholden to local officials, and they are not open to environmental litigation.
I loved being in America. It was a great experience. People will be drawn to China because of the money but the lifestyle, everything about America, I couldn't recommend it enough.
I'm not as bearish as many others about China. Why? Because China must grow. So I am far more optimistic about China.
Some really large businesses that get a lot from China would like a NAFTA Superhighway system because it would reduce costs for them to transport containers from China and, as a result, increase their margins.
I realized that I don't like touring. I'll never complain about it because no one wants to hear about a relatively successful musician complain about the hardships of staying in a hotel.
It is economically irrational to exclude large environmental costs from the balance sheets of the producers and the consumers. You are only kidding yourself if you export those costs on to society as a whole.
You can't complain about the pressures, the paparazzi, the madness. Because that is the job. I've always understood that's the deal.
The majority of unskilled investors stubbornly hold onto their losses when the losses are small and reasonable. They could get out cheaply, but being emotionally involved and human, they keep waiting and hoping until their loss gets much bigger and costs them dearly.
The environmental movement could do a better job incorporating the message about the connection between poverty and environmental degradation, and building that message at the grassroots level.
China is investing in factories in Eastern Europe, not because their labor costs are lower, but because they want to be closer to their markets.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!