我身邊的美國朋友都支持貿易戰,

打印 (被閱讀 次)

堅信貿易戰可以終止美國被其他國家占便宜的現象,並寄希望於貿易戰給美國帶來經濟繁榮,和高質低價的商品。幾天前,有閑和朋友之一共飲咖啡,那天正值Meuller 報告出台,聊天中,朋友要提到上述貿易戰觀點。我對此不置可否,用下麵這個hypothetical 的case 的分析提出不同的思考方向,不包括個人立場。

中國生產的海爾冰箱是市場上價格最低的,目前,trump政府要對美國商人收取進口稅,海爾冰箱的價格也就被提高了。美國市場上還有三星,LG,GE等等,本來他們的價格高於海爾,但是加了關稅的海爾價格又越過他們了。新的價格不符合商家和消費者的價格期待,此時,銷售商當然要給沒有加進口稅的三星,LG,以至於與進口毫無關係的美國的GE漲價。因為原來這些牌子的貨就比中國的價格高。資本家不會等到因為消費者不再購買價格高的海爾,停止進口海爾。資本家會在海爾提高價格的同時全麵提高其他牌子的價格,造成全麵漲價。這樣,海爾的價格仍舊是最低的,三星,LG, GE仍舊與海爾保持著未加額外關稅時的價格距離。

資本家在對中國產品增加關稅時趁火打劫,也稱為市場經濟。想來也有道理,市場定價很大的一部分是商品質量,信譽,牌子,技術和產品發展史等等,總不能因為增加了中國關稅,就讓海爾比三星還貴吧? 貿易戰的受益者有兩方,一個是政府增加了收入,再一個是資本家獲取更高的附加值。商品市場中還有一個重要的一方是消費者,沒有消費者,政府和資本家誰也賺不到錢,百姓消費者在此之中得到的是通貨膨脹。貿易戰是國際的,造成的是世界市場動蕩。

trump 與當年羅斯福一樣都需要增加政府財政,羅的Revenue Act of 1935 征的是富人的稅,達到了增加政府財政收入的目的。trump要得到選票,以減少business 的稅得到資本家的支持,又重新調整了個人所得稅,可是trump還要增加軍費。財政收入的缺口從哪裏補?trump的策略是提高進口稅。貿易戰的結果至少有三方被影響,增加政府財政收入,更加充實了資本家的錢袋,而這兩個群體得到的錢是從普通消費者的口袋中拿走的。羅斯福的Revenue Act of 1935 增加的政府財政收入來自於富人的錢袋,五百萬以上收入的稅率是75%,而trump 的貿易戰的利益獲得者,包括政府和資本家的錢來自於普通消費者的錢包。

我的朋友和她的家人都是很成功的美國upper middle class。 她是一個醉心研究的學者,她的丈夫和兒子各自有自己的financial firm。30 幾年的婚姻一直是AA製,夫妻各自年收入屬於multimillions 的category。 我也有興趣知道她的,以及我的其他美國朋友支持貿易戰的原因。在此不述。這個隻是case analysis,不包括個人立場。

Fanreninus 發表評論於
I suggest that you expand a little bit more on the potential impact of an increase in the price of goods in the absence of a corresponding increase in economic activities. It may cause inflation rates to rise, and prompt the Fed to raise interest rate in an effort to dampen inflation. This can not only cause economic growth to slow further, but also lower government tax revenue and increase budget deficits. In the end, it will make a bad social and economic polarization even worse.
笑薇. 發表評論於
回複 '大榮確' 的評論 : 知道hypothetical 什麽意思嗎? 真實的報道是洗衣機加稅,不僅洗衣機全麵漲價,烘幹機也無緣無故漲價。我隻是把已經出現的問題移到另一個hypothetical case裏麵。一個常用的分析方法。另外,至於中國電冰箱的容量,占市場份額與此文無關,trump 加稅是根據市場份額而定嗎?順著你的思路多說一句與本文無關的話,你說的海爾沒有大容量冰箱不是事實。你不用去home deport ,網上就可以查到。 說過了,此文沒有個人立場。
大榮確 發表評論於
樓主的例子沒有實質數據支持。你自己去賣家電的地方看看好了,Homedepot,Lowe's, Costco等等。不管是貿易戰之前還是之後,海爾不但從來不是冰箱和白色家電的主流品牌,而且也不是主要品種。美國家用冰箱大多都是大容量的,20cuf左右。海爾在美國市場主要是小型冰箱,幾個cuf,往往放在不顯眼的角落,畢竟一般家庭都不需要。海爾冰箱因關稅漲價,不可能是非競品的其他品牌冰箱漲價的理由。這兩年經濟繁榮才是很多民生產品漲價的根本因素。就業增長了,收入增加了,人們有錢了,消費需求自然上漲,對價格也不太斤斤計較了。東西好賣了,廠家趁機漲價多賺一筆是很正常的經濟現象。隻要經濟增長,通貨就永遠膨脹。
sufficient 發表評論於
greencardwaiting 發表評論於 2019-04-23 10:36:27

if you have nothing substantive to contribute other than parroting and puffing your own intestinal gas, the last thing you want to do to pretend that you are well learnt and intelligent because it will only make you that much more hollow intellectually speaking.
greencardwaiting 發表評論於
在文學城裏,如果你真想讓別人知道你的想法就不要用英文,因為沒有人來文學城看英文,而且你的英文真的不怎麽樣。想看英文去NYT,WP,或者WSJ。哪裏不比文學城裏的人的英文要好?

sufficient 發表評論於 2019-04-23 08:33:01
sufficient 發表評論於
匡吉 發表評論於 2019-04-23 08:30:20
哪兒冒出來個假洋鬼子,非尼瑪要在這裏飆英文,能讀不會寫,你煩不煩呀?沒人願意看你的,你寫有個屁用呢
===============================================

I guess that I do not have to respond to an idiot and a jap want to be like you.
sufficient 發表評論於
greencardwaiting 發表評論於 2019-04-22 19:49:07
Trump的貿易戰是means,不是ends。即使是progressive的NYT,也常有文章指出中國對知識產權赤裸裸的掠奪和偷竊實在是需要遏製。
===============================================================================

Give me a freak break, protecting IP just like national security is no more than just an excuse for US to disguise its own failures and as bargaining chips to gain advantages in negotiating with China.
匡吉 發表評論於
哪兒冒出來個假洋鬼子,非尼瑪要在這裏飆英文,能讀不會寫,你煩不煩呀?沒人願意看你的,你寫有個屁用呢
sufficient 發表評論於
二舅 發表評論於 2019-04-22 19:42:32
哪兒冒出來個假洋鬼子,非尼瑪要在這裏飆英文,能讀不會寫,你煩不煩呀?
================================================================

I will just respond to your gripe just once. I can read and write (somewhat). But, I do not know how to type Chinese. I came to this country in my formative years. With that said, I thought this place is for all to voice their substantive opinions, but not as your kinds to pop empty rants.
sufficient 發表評論於
匡吉 發表評論於 2019-04-22 19:25:51

Fair? You got to be kidding me, right? Americans cannot even agree with themselves what fairness means. It is even more so in among nations regarding to commercial interests. What is even worse that this definition of fairness is constantly shifting with time for US. According to WTO, it recognizes that developed nations with its mature industries have natural advantages over the infant industries of the developing nations. Therefore, it allows limited measures by the developing nations to protect its infant industries. All industrialized nations including US had in their past done exactly the same thing while they were in developing stage. It was with this assumptions in mind that both US and China entered negotiation for China to join WTO. At 2001 when the deal was struck, US thought it was fair deal because it believed its competitive edge would allow its industries to exploit the Chinese market. When Donald Trump cried unfairness of the deal, it was no more than a partisan politic to offer excuses for its own failures. It was like that you agreed to buy a house ten years ago with a mutually agreed price and your own belief that this house would go up in value with time. Ten years later, maybe it is due to your own mismanagement or neighborhood deterioration, your house value went down. Now, you are arguing that the house price you paid for was not a fair deal and demand that your monthly mortgage should be cut to suit your definition fairness. Do you think that is fair? To you maybe, but not to the seller and the bank.
時傳祥 發表評論於
我身邊的中國人與中國政府也支持貿易戰。大打大贏,中打中贏,小打小贏。
greencardwaiting 發表評論於
Trump的貿易戰是means,不是ends。即使是progressive的NYT,也常有文章指出中國對知識產權赤裸裸的掠奪和偷竊實在是需要遏製。
二舅 發表評論於
哪兒冒出來個假洋鬼子,非尼瑪要在這裏飆英文,能讀不會寫,你煩不煩呀?
匡吉 發表評論於
支持貿易戰,還有一個原因可能是出於公平,正義吧?中國的各種貿易壁壘,補貼,傾銷等實在是太不公平了
Sam大樹 發表評論於
日用品漲價10%,對高端中產影響不大。
減稅得到的好處也較多。

反正現在是越窮越倒黴,千萬別變窮人。
東升公社 發表評論於
清漪園 發表評論於 2019-04-22 10:07:48
有意思!我認為我屬於中產下層,今年補交的聯邦稅是去年的3倍,非常惱火。
-----------------------------------------------------------------
今年要多交稅!非常惱火+1
sufficient 發表評論於
老農民說兩句 發表評論於 2019-04-22 12:19:39
美國兩黨在貿易戰上沒有分歧,隻有幾個中國人在唧唧歪歪地為美國人著急
===================================================================
You have just highlighted one of the major shortcomings of a democracy. You know such a way cannot solve the problems and it can only aggravate the problems, but you have to do it because you are a politician and your job depends not on how well you can run the country in the long run but on how well you can satisfy the immediate desires of a bunch of short sighted and ignorant voters, who in frustrations mostly resort to their raw animalistic but often times faulty instincts rather than well analyzed rationale.
無法弄 發表評論於
我認識的美國人也支持貿易戰。就美國的政策來說它在走下坡路。貿易戰對中國也不是壞事,學會守規矩是要付出代價的。中國的路大體上是對的,米國要保持領先不容易
fonsony 發表評論於
如真正自由貿易,美帝會輸。
fonsony 發表評論於
@二,產品轉去印越,但他們不會進口更多,僅中國會進口更少,因中國為貿易問題,很多產品中國是夾硬要買美貨。
sufficient 發表評論於
二胡一刀 發表評論於 2019-04-22 12:44:06

You seem to be just another economic illiterate. The initial impulses for US to move its manufactures to China came from at least two considerations: first, to lower the production cost and second, to position themselves to take advantage of the growing domestic market on China(its consumer markets is fast surpassing that of the US). There are already scores of US companies today heavily depending on China's market for its own revenue growth. Moving the manufactures out of China did not necessarily lower the production cost, most of them do not. In addition, it will put themselves out of the main loop of China's consumer market in the long run.
二胡一刀 發表評論於
貿易戰的目的是為了遏製中國,寧願產業轉移到印度,越南去,這中間會出現陣痛,但是對美國的長遠利益來說是好事。就國內土共那個鬼樣我也支持貿易戰,不然包子不知道自己幾斤幾兩。
westshore 發表評論於
其實看看房屋保險在這兩年的漲幅就知道了,因為進口材料迅速漲價,修複房子的費用大概長了20%,保險自然漲價。
美國人基本沒有什麽國際概念,認為美國就是世界,不能理解貿易戰如果川普獲勝,也就是美元的末日,因為中國將被迫放棄美元,其他國家也不得不放棄美元。而如果美元沒有了統治地位,也就不會有這樣便宜的國內價格,消費者的支出會大幅度上升。
美國社會的反智主義是西方發達國家最強烈的。
老農民說兩句 發表評論於
美國兩黨在貿易戰上沒有分歧,隻有幾個中國人在唧唧歪歪地為美國人著急
Californian 發表評論於
堅信貿易戰可以終止美國被其他國家占便宜的現象,並寄希望於貿易戰給美國帶來經濟繁榮,和高質低價的商品。幾天前,有閑和朋友之一共飲咖啡,那天正值Meuller 報告出台,聊天中,朋友要提到上述貿易戰觀點。
===================================================================
看來您那富翁朋友也有情緒化時候。貿易戰是對前十幾年全球資本化泛濫的回調,而不是終結。通過重新定義關稅和政策調整來保護美國競爭力和爭強因外包而弱化的美國企業,這是以消耗美國全球的領導力為代價的,非常合情合理。陣痛難免,不同利益集團得失不同。


sufficient 發表評論於
I suggest you to push further into the secondary effects of the heightening of prices of goods without corresponding heightening of economic activities. It will introduce higher inflation(the CPI) causing the inflation biased fed to increase the interest rate in an effort to stamp out the inflationary pressure and consequently slowing the general economic activities. At the end, governmental income from taxation will be correspondingly reduced and so will increase of the government spending deficits. At the end, it will further deepen the already heightened social and economic polarization.
清漪園 發表評論於
有意思!我認為我屬於中產下層,今年補交的聯邦稅是去年的3倍,非常惱火。
登錄後才可評論.