英報：麵對中國的超越，英國勸告美國收斂霸權！

英報：麵對中國的超越，英國勸告美國收斂霸權！
 
 
各方觀察家本周都注意到一則消息：中國經濟規模將在2016年超越美國。該預測來自於國際貨幣基金組織，發表在4月的世界經濟半年展望中。2016距離現在隻有幾年時間，並且這也是一世紀以來美國首次失去世界最大經濟體的地位，這必然會成為不同觀點的討論對象。

First, let's consider the economics. China has been the world's fastest growing economy for more than three decades, growing 17-fold in real (inflation-adjusted) terms since 1980. It is worth emphasising that most of this record growth took place (1980-2000) while the rest of the developing world was doing quite badly by implementing neoliberal policy changes – indiscriminate opening to trade and capital flows, increasingly independent central banks, tighter (and often pro-cyclical) fiscal and monetary policies, and the abandonment of previously successful development strategies.
首先從經濟上考慮。中國曆經30年的高速發展，自1980年以來經濟規模實際上增長了17翻（排除通漲因素）。值得強調的是，在中國達成這個增長紀錄的主要的時期（1980－2000），世界其它發展中經濟體卻做的一塌糊塗。在推行新經濟自由主義中，這些國家放棄了以前成功的發展策略，不加區別的開放貿易和資本流動，增加中央銀行獨立性，緊縮財政和貨幣政策。

China clearly did not embrace these policy changes, which were promoted from Washington by institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, and later the WTO. (China did not even join the WTO until 2002.) It is true that China's growth acceleration included a rapid expansion of trade and foreign investment. But these were heavily managed by the state, to make sure that they fitted in with the government's development goals – quite the opposite of what happened in most other developing countries. China's goals included producing for export markets, promoting higher levels of technology (with the goal of transferring technology from foreign enterprises to the domestic economy), hiring local residents for managerial and technical jobs, and not allowing foreign investments to compete with certain domestic industries.
盡華盛頓通過IMF、世界銀行以及後來的WTO不斷鼓吹這些經濟政策，但中國顯然沒有接受它們。中國的高速發展中確實包含了快速的貿易擴張和外國投資，但與其它發展中國家放任自流不同，這些都牢牢處於國家的控製下，以確保它們符合政府製訂的發展目標。中國的目標包括為出口市場提供產品，提升科技水平（包括從外國企業轉讓技術到本土），增加本國人在管理和研發方麵的就業，以及禁止外國投資在特定領域和本土經濟競爭。

China's economy is still very much state-led, with the government controlling most of the financial system, the exchange rate, and about 44% of the assets of major industrial enterprises. That is why China was able to plow through the world recession with GDP growth of 9.8%, despite losing about 3.7 percentage points of GDP due to falling net exports.
中國經濟目前仍然很大程度由國家引導，政府控製了大部分的金融係統，匯率，以及主要工業企業中44％的資產。這也就是為什麽中國能夠在全球經濟衰退中達到9.8％的增長率，即時當時由於出口減少造成了3.7％的GDP損失。

Now for the politics and international implications. First, much of the discussion of China's rise is written from a Washington perspective – that is, from the perspective of an empire. From this view, China's rise is a "threat". Since this view sees the supremacy of Washington and its allies as good for the world, China's rise is also seen as a threat to the world. It is assumed that China will become an empire like the United States, but will not be so "benevolent" as the United States is.
This view is not supported by the facts. To take just current and recent history, it is the United States that invaded Iraq, leading to an estimated million deaths, is occupying Afghanistan, bombing Pakistan and Libya, and threatening Iran. The United States' and its allies' control over many developing countries' economic policies through the IMF, World Bank and other institutions has also caused a lot of damage over the past few decades.

現在再從政治和全球角度上來考慮。關於中國崛起的討論大部分是從華盛頓的角度進行－－－也就是從帝國的位置來看。在這個角度而言，中國的崛起是個威脅。因為它把華盛頓及其盟友看成對世界有益的一方，而中國的崛起則被認為是對世界的威脅。在這種觀點下，中國如果成為類似美國的帝國，也絕不會像美國那麽“仁慈”。
但卻沒有實事去支撐這個觀點。從現在和最近的紀錄看，實際是美國入侵伊拉克導致了數以百萬人的死亡；是美國占領阿富汗，轟炸巴基斯坦和利比亞；是美國在不斷威脅伊朗。美國及其盟友通過國際基金組織、世界銀行以及其它機構控製眾多的發展中國家經濟，並且在過去幾十年對它們造成了巨大傷害。

So, a shift of power toward a more multipolar world is likely to give us a more peaceful and just world. In fact, it is already happening: the majority of South America, for example, is now governed by democratic left governments that have produced positive reforms that benefit the majority – something that was practically impossible to achieve while Washington dominated the region. And of course, the vast majority of people in the United States also stand to benefit from a smaller US role in the world, as we transition back to a republic from an empire: less spending on senseless wars, fewer casualties, fewer enemies, less distraction from our real problems at home.
China's foreign policy is mainly geared toward securing the raw materials and trade that will fuel its growth and development. This is done through commercial transactions. Of course, its corporations – like those of the rich countries – have come under criticism in various countries. But China does not try to tell other countries what their foreign policy towards other countries, or their overall economic policies, should be – as the United States often does. This is an important difference between a country that pursues its own national and economic interests, and an empire that seeks to impose its own order on the world.

世界權利向多極世界的轉變更可能是通過和平和公平的方式。事實上，這種情況正在發生：多數的南美國家現在由民主左派執政，他們的改革造福了大部分民眾，而這在華盛頓控製時期是幾乎不可能做到的。這種轉變也對美國有益，大部分美國人民會從減少世界角色的扮演中獲益，如果我們從現在的帝國變回共和國，美國可以把更少的把錢花在無意義的戰爭上，更少的傷亡，更少的敵人，以及在處理我們自身事務時更少的幹擾。
中國的對外政策主要是保障原材料和貿易的順暢，以滿足國內的增長需求，這個過程是在商業原則下進行的。確實，中國的企業也像其它富國企業一樣受到不同國家的指責，但中國並不會去試圖要求別國的外交或經濟政策該如何如何做；而這卻是美國經常在做的。國家追求自身和經濟利益與帝國尋求把自己的規則強加給世界的重要區別就在於此。

A few months ago, press reports, using an exchange rate measure of GDP, announced that China had become the world's "second largest economy" just this year. But by a purchasing power parity (PPP) measure, which adjusts for the difference in many prices between China and the US, China had become the second largest economy years ago. A technical matter: if we measure China's economy in dollars at current exchange rates, it reached $5.9tn in 2010, as compared with $14.7tn for the US. By a purchasing power parity measure, its economy reached $10.1tn in 2010. It is that measure that the IMF projects to grow to $18.98tn in 2016, putting the US in second place at $18.81tn.

幾個月前，媒體報道按匯率衡量中國GDP今年已經成為世界第二大經濟體。但如果以實際購買力PPP來衡量－－這會根據中美不同物價進行修正，中國在很多年前就已經是第二大經濟體。從技術上說：以現在的美元匯率計算，2010年中國經濟規模為5。9萬億美元，美國為14萬億美元。而以購買力計算，中國的經濟規模為10.1萬億美元。IMF正是以此預測到2016年，中國經濟規模將達到18.98萬億，超過第二位美國的18.81萬億.

However, it is likely that even the IMF's PPP measure understates China's GDP: economist Arvind Subramanian has estimated that China's PPP GDP in 2010 was already about even with that of the United States. An IMF spokesperson, quoted this week by the Financial Times, weighed in on the debate:
"The IMF considers that GDP in purchase power parity (PPP) terms is not the most appropriate measure for comparing the relative size of countries to the global economy, because PPP price levels are influenced by non-traded services, which are more relevant domestically than globally … The Fund believes that GDP at market rates is a more relevant comparison. Under this metric, the US is currently 130% bigger than China, and will still be 70% larger by 2016."

IMF的PPP計算方式仍有可能低估了中國的GDP，經濟學家 Arvind Subramanian早在2010年就估計中國經濟已經和美國大致相當。

但本周金融時報引述了IMF發言人的話：“IMF認為以PPP計算的GDP並不是衡量國家間經濟規模最恰當的方式。PPP的價格水平受到非貿易服務的影響，這主要由國內市場決定。IMF相信以市場匯率計算的GDP是更合適的比較方式。根據這個指標，美國現在的經濟規模超過中國130％，即時到達2016年也仍然比中國大70％。”

---------------------------------------------------
轉貼，僅供參考，不負責核實其內容真實性。