FutureChina Global Forum 2024 | Fireside chat with Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong 新加坡国务资政李显龙先生 炉边对话

At Business China’s FutureChina Forums, industry experts and academic thought leaders gather to share their insights on China and the world.
The FutureChina Global Forum was held on 18 October 2024
在通商中国的慧眼中国系列论坛上，行家、学者齐聚一堂， 分享关于中国与世界的洞见。
与2024年10月18日举行的 #慧眼中国
--
Follow us for more events from Business China:
关注我们，抢先得知通商中国活动详情：
Facebook: / businesschinasg
Instagram: / businesschinasingapore
LinkedIn: / businesschinasg
Website: businesschina....

[@bangthingneng9433]

Your excellency EX-PM, talking about powerful countries in term of Economic/trades balances/equitable in relation to I deserved & you entitled then it might bring them into a deadlock situations or finally agreed to the adjustments for mutual benefits.
It sound fair & justifiable as both are mutually benefitial to the deal. However, as a big country with big population, shouldn't that there shall be a more justice & humanitarian sense in justifying the moral behind seeking for equitability in the name of trades balance. Yes, it is morally right for advance with small population nation to seek justification in that sense but for a big country with extremely large population though it is morally resposible to fulfil the requirements of others but it doesn't necessarily beneficial, serve or fulfil the need to provide for a large population nation. Meaning, the emphasis/advantages is placed more on less populated nations but not on large populated nation.
For a relatively big country & advance but with much much smaller population , hitting balances could mean they're covered well but not for a large population nation. Example, 100M & 1 Billion population. Trades equitable balance means it has covered for 100M in country A & also 100M people in country B , but how about country B which is still struggle for the needs of the balance of 900M of its people & neither do country A could trade further with country B as it has achieved its full/optimum purchases dictated by its 100M people. Any further purchase is not possible or it will give rise to excessive or wastages. In any sense ,it is not possible becos country A has achieved full purchasing states. This is to say, becos of equitable trades, country B must deprive 900M of its people. Not only that, country A , which has already achieved its goal could not & without the necessary characteristic would not be able to do or provide further trades to country B. Meaning, in achieving mutually benefitial/balance of trades/equitable, I can provide to your full achievement but you can't provide to my full achievement. Country B sacrifices more then country A simply becos in fulfillment of balance of trades. Furthermore, this will entails country B losing all the way when dealing with less populated country .
My point is that shouldn't there be a way to gauge & define a proper definition for a real balance with regards to the disparity in populations to arrive at actual defination in a trade balance.
In actual facts, the world already has its mechanism & is functioning as medium of balances in trades. As most of us are ignorance then a smart country will capitalised on it as a bargaining point.
For better world
Bang
Disclaimer - for academic purposes only & based value judgments.

[@shawnkuo3335]

今天怎麼沒有粉紅色襯衫！😊可愛的李先生

[@陈琛-w3m]

48分45秒提问者，蒋昌建