在人生康波中选对的,看金融资讯选康波财经
我的额度
贷款攻略 国内宏观经济 中国智库在英国《金融时报》刊文,警示特朗普慎用对华贸易战
中国智库在英国《金融时报》刊文,警示特朗普慎用对华贸易战
摘要:美国总统特朗普应明白是自动化技术革新导致美国失业加剧,而并非中国。十年前,一位美国母亲邦吉奥尼(Sara Bongiorini)出版了一本书,书名是《没有“中国制造”的一年》。这本书记载了她

美国总统特朗普应明白是自动化技术革新导致美国失业加剧,而并非中国。

十年前,一位美国母亲邦吉奥尼(Sara Bongiorini)出版了一本书,书名是《没有“中国制造”的一年》。这本书记载了她和家人长达一年的“抵制”中国产品的实验,并描绘了其日常生活的不便及遇到的问题,其中提到她甚至找不到一根为丈夫庆祝生日用的非中国制造的蜡烛。

她四岁的儿子韦斯对母亲的抵制行动表示抗议,请求买他喜欢的中国制造玩具。作者最后得出结论,如果没有中国制造的商品,家庭生活费用将会大幅增加。一年的试验中面临的问题之多,使她在未来的10年中都没有勇气再尝试这种没有“中国制造”的日子。

十年后,中国产品相比之前越来越多地出现在美国家庭中,中美两大经济体之间相互依赖性增强。2016年中美双边贸易额达到5190亿美元,中美两国已互为彼此的第二大贸易伙伴。过去十年中,中国为美国提供的商品和服务分别增长了98%和132%。

今天,美国总统特朗普及其团队却意欲与中国开展贸易战,以此实现增加就业的目标。

具有讽刺意味的是,不少人应该已经注意到,特朗普的西服、领带,女儿伊万卡琳琅满目的鞋子,其支持者头戴的红色帽子,以及他们手中挥舞的美国国旗,都是由“中国制造”。

有人甚至开玩笑说,义乌这个中国东南部的小城市,作为中国商品出口的重要集散地,提前成功预测到特朗普会在美国总统竞选中获胜,因为他们注意到,特朗普竞选产品的订单数远远超过对手希拉里。

毋庸置疑,无论特朗普及其团队如何花言巧语,中美之间的经济贸易关系纽带都不会轻易被斩断。

英文版刊于3月27日英国《金融时报》

事实上,中美间的贸易为美国创造了可观的收益。美国经济分析所(BEA)统计表明,2015年,美国出口中国最大类别的产品为高附加值产品,这将为美国带去丰厚的回报。

当下美国大量新增就业岗位来源于对中国的出口。一份来自牛津经济研究院的经济报告指出,中美贸易已为美国创造了260万个工作岗位,相当于特朗普在美国大选中4%的选票数。中美双边贸易对美国的贡献已达到2160亿美元,占美国2015年GDP总量的1.2%。

与此同时,中国还不断新增对美投资,现已持有超过一万亿美元国债(占美国长期国债总额的5.5%)。与之形成鲜明相比的是,美国在国防预算及国债方面的支出大幅增长。仅在阿富汗和伊拉克,美国政府花费纳税人的钱就高达1.6万亿美元以上。十多年来,是中国帮助美国政府在战争及巨额支出的环境下,维持了经济以及金融的稳定。

坦率地讲,成千上万的美国人,不管是从当前中美经济关系中受益的,还是因可能的贸易战失去工作和陷入生活困境的,失业和物价上涨,都是美国经济难以承受的代价。

未来,美国与中国的贸易和经济往来将会为美国消费者创造更多的价值。2015年,美国从中国就进口了价值2338亿美元的消费品(不包括食品和汽车)。据牛津经济研究院统计,中美贸易帮助每个美国家庭每年节约850美元。因此,美国对中国可能施加的任何经济制裁终将会损害美国家庭消费者的经济利益。

此外,对于高新技术与高附加值的美国企业,中国是一个庞大且增长迅速的市场。经济学家智库(EIU)的报告指出,中国人均可支配收入超过1万美元的人口已达到1.32亿,2030年可能会达到4.8亿人。

我们最终必须问自己,谁将更多承受中美贸易战之痛?有人说中国短期内会失去更多,但从长远看,由于中国经济的弹性以及增长与发展的巨大潜力,美国终将承受更坏的结果。

这一观点可以从以下证据得到证实。由于美国封锁对中国的芯片出口,中国已利用自有知识产权自主研发了芯片产业。从而降低了中国对进口的依赖,导致美国芯片业的市场份额缩水。

那么美国希望看到一个怎样的中国呢?一个经济开放的中国还是一个被迫进行贸易保护主义的国家?

我们还应该考虑到,当今世界经济中最系统的经济周期存在于中美之间:美国消费者购买中国产品,中国就有更多的外汇储备用于购买大量美国长期国债。

通过投资中国制造业与资本市场,美国跨国公司与投资者赚取巨额利润并带回美国,其平均收益要比购买美国长期国债高出许多倍。如果中国被迫实施贸易保护主义,这种良性循环将会被打破,最终会从根本上危害美国的利益。这是特朗普必须注意的底线。

如今特朗普团队不断采取强硬立场与表态的根本原因是,他的政府已经失去了对美国实际失业问题及其根源的关注。

将美国制造业就业机会的流失归咎为中国产品的冲击从根本上来说是错误的。事实上,制造业失业的产生是由于技术的革新,人工智能、自动化、电子化制造和管理等技术方面的进步极大地提高了生产效率和生产力,并取代了大量制造业的就业机会。

例如,1999年,生产一部轿车平均需要0.1个劳动力,但是2014年这一数字减少到0.07,这意味着机械和机器人的发展夺走了汽车制造业的就业机会。另外,吸纳劳动力的传统行业,如汽车制造、机械和化工等产业,在美国增长日益缓慢,甚至出现了下滑。

进一步说,即使有些产业要离开中国,他们的最终目的地也不一定是美国,而有可能是其他国家。如果特朗普先生简单地采取贸易保护措施,责怪中国,而没有考虑到技术进步所造成的影响,那么他不仅会掩盖事实,还将会损害美国人民的福祉。

还有一个问题是如何减少中美贸易赤字?与其发动一场针对中国出口的贸易战争,倒不如增加美国对中国的出口,改变美国长期以来一直对中国实施的严格高科技出口管制措施。

中国高科技市场发展迅速,到2020年前,中国对民用航空、机床、集成电路和其他高端产品的进口需求将高达6000亿美元,这大约是2015年中美贸易赤字的两倍。据估计,如果美国放宽对中国高科技出口的管控,中国将会从美国进口高达600亿美元产品。面对这个庞大和快速增长的市场,美国有什么理由不放松管制,向中国扩大出口呢?

现在是特朗普及其团队做出抉择的时候了,零和游戏中的保护主义行为和出口限制政策只能使中美都陷入困境。美国选择对中国更加积极的出口政策,将产生双赢的结果,并将维护世界上两个最大的经济体间良性的经济循环。

中国已与美国一起对经济全球化做出了巨大贡献。但是今天,当中国仍然坚定地支持全球化的时候,特朗普政府的一些言论和潜在政策却偏离了以前美国政府确立的不可逆转的全球化趋势。这也将无助于特朗普实现“让美国再次伟大”的目标,只会将这个伟大的国家引入困境。

总之,我希望明智的美国人能够意识到中美贸易战将造成的危害,跟我一起反对这样一场战争。(作者王文系中国人民大学重阳金融研究院执行院长、教授,原为英文文章,刊于3月27日英国《金融时报》。)

以下为英文稿件:

A US-China Trade War Would Cause Huge Damage and Benefit Nobody

By Wang Wen

The authoris a professor and executive dean at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies , Renmin University of China. His latest book is The Anxieties of the US.

Trump needs to see that automation, not China, is main reason for loss of US jobs.

A decade ago, an American mother, Sara Bongiorini, published a book called A Year Without ‘Made-in-China’. It chronicled her family’s experiment with a year-long “boycott” of Chinese products. The book describes daily inconveniences and problems: she could not even find a non-Chinese-made candle for her husband’s birthday.

Her four-year-old boy, Wes, rebelled against his mother’s boycott, demanding his favorite Chinese-made toys. Ms Bongiorni concluded that without products “Made in China” she and her family would face a mounting cost-of-living. The problems became so great that in the following decade she lost her enthusiasm to conduct a second trial of the boycott experiment.

Ten years later, Chinese products are found in more American homes than ever before and the two economies have grown increasingly interdependent. Bilateral trade volumes reached $519bn in 2016, meaning that China and the US are now each other’s second-largest trading partner. Over the past decade, the goods and services China has provided for the US increased by 98 per cent and 132 per cent respectively.

But today, President Donald Trump and his team express the intention to launch a trade war with China, with the goal of increasing employment in the US.

We find irony here, because many have noticed how Mr Trump’s suits and ties, his daughter Ivanka’s line of shoes, the red caps his supporters wear and even the US flags they wave, are all actually made in China.

Some have even joked that it was in Yiwu, a city in southeast China and an important export hub, where people first successfully predicted Mr Trump’s general election victory after noting that orders for Trump’s campaign products greatly outnumbered those for Hillary Clinton, his main challenger.

Without a doubt, the significant economic and trade ties that have evolved and underpin US-China relations will not be easily severed, regardless of Mr Trump and his team’s rhetoric.

Indeed, trade between the US and China has created substantial benefits for Americans. Statistics available from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) indicate that the top American export categories to China in 2015 are generally high value-added, bringing substantial profits back to the US.

Today, a large number of new US jobs are created by exports to China. An Oxford Economics report demonstrates US-China trade has created 2.6m jobs for the US, equivalent to 4 per cent of the votes cast for Mr Trump in the general election. The economic contribution of bilateral trade in the US has reached $216bn, accounting for 1.2 per cent of US GDP in 2015.

At the same time, China has consistently made new investments in the US, and now holds over $1tn in US Treasury bonds (5.5 per cent of the total amount of T-bonds). In stark contrast to this is the US’s lavish expenditure on its defence budget and huge national debt. In Afghanistan and Iraq alone, the US government has spent more than $1.6tn of taxpayer money. China has helped the US maintain its economic and financial stability over more than a decade of war and overspending.

To be frank, the US economy cannot afford the cost of unemployment and price increases for millions of Americans who now benefit from US-China economic ties, and who would lose their jobs and livelihoods as the inevitable consequence of a trade war.

In the future, trade and economic exchange with China can create great value for American consumers. Around $233.8bn worth of consumer goods (excluding food and cars) were imported from China to the US in 2015. According to Oxford Economics, US-China trade helps each American family save $850 every year. Thus, any economic sanctions the US may levy against China would undermine its own economy by hurting consumers at home.

Furthermore, for high-tech and high value-added American enterprises, China is an enormous and fast-growing market. An Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) report shows that the Chinese population with more than $10,000 of disposable income has reached 132m, and this figure is estimated to hit 480m by 2030.

Ultimately, we must ask ourselves who would suffer more in a US-China trade war? Some have said that China might lose more in the short term, but in the long run, because of China’s economic resilience and high potential for growth and development, the US will suffer the worst outcome.

In fact, there is some evidence to support this point of view. Thanks to the US blockade on chip exports to China, China has independently developed a chip industry using its own intellectual property, thus lowering China’s dependence on imports, causing the market share for the US chip industry to shrink.

So, what sort of China does the US prefer? A China with an open economy, or one forced into protectionism?

We must also take into account that the most systemically significant economic cycle in the world economy today exists between the US and China: while US consumers buy Chinese products, China has more foreign exchange reserves that it uses to buy a large amount of US T-bonds.

By investing in China’s manufacturing and capital markets, US multinational companies and investors earn profits and bring them back to the US at an average yield many times greater than US T-bonds. If China is forced to act as a protectionist this positive cycle will break down, fundamentally harming the US. This is a bottom line Mr Trump must be mindful of.

The fundamental reason for team Mr Trump’s tough stance and rhetoric is that his administration has lost its focus on the US’s real unemployment problem and its root causes.

Fundamentally, it is a mistake to blame US manufacturing job losses on Chinese products. In fact, these job losses are triggered by evolving technologies, such as artificial intelligence, automated and electronic manufacturing and management. All these technological advancements substantially increase efficiency, productivity and have replaced manufacturing sector jobs.

In 1999, the average labour needed for producing a car was 0.1, but by 2014 this figure was reduced to just 0.07, implying that machines and robots are taking jobs away from the automobile industry. Traditional employment-absorbing sectors, such as automobiles, machinery and chemical industries, are growing slowly, or even declining in the US.

Even if these industries were to leave China, their final destinations are not necessarily in the US, and are more likely to end up in other countries. If Mr Trump simply adopts protectionist measures and blames China without considering the influence of technological advancement, he will not only obscure the facts, but also hurt the wellbeing of the American people.

But the question remains, how can the US-China trade deficit be reduced? Rather than launching a trade war against Chinese exports, we may look at America’s exports to China for a solution. The US has long imposed strict high-tech export controls for China.

Nevertheless, China’s high-tech market is fast expanding. China’s import demand for civil aviation, machine tools, integrated circuits and other high-end products will reach $600bn by 2020, which is approximately twice the amount of the US-China trade deficit in 2015. It is estimated that if the US eases its high-tech export restrictions on China, China will import as much as $60bn of these products from the US. Facing this huge and rapidly growing market, why doesn’t the US loosen controls and expand high-tech exports to China?

It is time for Mr Trump and his team to make a choice. Protectionist actions and tight controls over exports in a zero-sum game will get both China and the US into trouble. The other choice is to adopt a more positive export policy towards China that is conducive to achieving a win-win outcome for both parties, and maintaining the beneficial economic cycle shared between the world’s two largest economies.

China has contributed greatly to globalisation alongside the US. But today, while China still strongly reaffirms globalisation, some remarks and potential policies of the Trump administration deviate from the irreversible trend of globalisation which was set in place by previous US administrations. Again, this will not help Mr Trump’s goal to “Make America Great Again”, and will only push the great country into troubled waters.

In conclusion, I hope wise Americans see the harm that a US-China trade war will cause, and at the same time join me to oppose such a war.

(欢迎关注人大重阳新浪微博:@人大重阳,微信公众号:rdcy2013)

PC文章详情
国内宏观经济 更多

热门贷款

借现金-满易贷
扫码查额度得优惠
最新资讯
资讯
问答
金融课堂
白衣护卫
百科
热门
×
您在哪个城市工作
机构仅办理当地工作人士申请
北京
其他城市
康波财经
值得信赖的贷款资讯平台
客服电话
95055