風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
為什麽中美貿易戰是不明智且無法獲勝的
https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/why-us-china-trade-war-unwise-and-unwinnable
經濟學家、諾貝爾獎獲得者約瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨解釋了美國經濟隱藏的弱點。
作者：大衛·J·克雷格 | 2019-20 冬季
哥倫比亞大學教授、世界銀行前首席經濟學家、2001 年諾貝爾經濟學獎獲得者約瑟夫·E·斯蒂格利茨 (Joseph E. Stiglitz) 接受《哥倫比亞雜誌》采訪，談論他的最新著作《人民、權力和利潤：進步資本主義》中的觀點 對於一個不滿的時代。
在《人民、權力和利潤》中，您說美國正在全球化問題上與自己交戰。 你是什??麽意思？
顯然，人們對全球化的看法非常兩極分化。 一些人認為這是美國實力的一部分。 他們將近幾十年來該國生活水平的提高及其全球經濟主導地位歸功於全球化。 其他人則將美國的許多問題歸咎於全球化，特別是因為它使國內工人麵臨日益激烈的外國競爭。 因此，當第一派尋求更廣泛的新貿易協議時，第二派則尋求重新談判現有協議，使其更加有利於美國。
對全球化的一些批評有一定道理。 這些交易在很大程度上是由企業利益決定的，潛在收益被誇大，並且沒有充分關注其對美國日益嚴重的不平等的影響。 然而，應對措施不應該是唐納德·特朗普發動的那種貿易戰——這些戰爭很可能沒有贏家——而應該是更好管理的全球化，包括更好地管理經濟和社會後果。 一些國家在幫助其公民向全球一體化程度更高的經濟轉型方麵比美國做得更好。 例如，瑞典和挪威製定了產業政策，確保在舊工作崗位消失時創造新的就業崗位，並且它們在工人再培訓計劃上投入了大量資金。
然而大多數經濟學家仍然認為，全球化促進了自由貿易以及商品、金錢和信息的便捷流動，是增長和繁榮的關鍵。
確實，國際貿易可以通過提高效率來促進經濟增長。 但增長和繁榮的真正關鍵是教育、科學突破以及我們對如何組織大量人群以便更好地合作的理解的進步。 以法治為指導的經濟體和以三權分立為基礎的民主國家是社會組織取得巨大成就的例子。 今天的生活水平比 250 年前高得多的主要原因是我們建立了穩定的機構來促進人類創造力並使人們能夠發揮其潛力。 美國當前政治時刻的真正威脅是對真理和我們的真理評估機構、對我們的大學以及更廣泛的科學的攻擊。
您寫道，美國政府應該在教育、科學研究和基礎設施方麵投入更多資金。
我在《人民、權力和利潤》中提出的基本問題之一是，我們已經失去了私營部門、公共部門和包括非營利組織、合作社、基金會、民間社會和大學在內的機構之間的平衡 。 科學技術進步是經濟成功的核心，而這些進步的基礎是基礎研究，幾乎所有這些都得到了政府的支持。 我們對基礎研究以及教育和基礎設施的投資不足。 所有這些都會損害未來的生活水平和美國的競爭力。
最近，我們看到經濟民族主義死灰複燃，特朗普總統和其他世界領導人頒布了關稅和其他限製性貿易政策。 這種趨勢的根源是什麽？
這涉及到很多因素，但肯定有一個強大的力量是，包括美國在內的許多發達國家的大部分人口最近表現不佳。 雖然頂層公民的收入猛增，但中層公民的收入卻基本停滯，而底層公民的情況則更糟。 中產階級的生活對於許多家庭來說似乎越來越遙不可及。 當然，我們不應該讓懷舊情緒蒙蔽我們的視野。 人們很容易回顧過去的光鮮亮麗的版本，而忽略了普遍存在的種族和性別歧視的現實。 此外，時間之箭是朝一個方向移動的：我們無法回到二戰後的幾十年。
您認為關稅在當今的全球經濟中發揮作用嗎？
通過關稅和其他貿易壁壘將自己與他人隔絕，不會提供不滿的人們所尋求的解決方案。 它不會恢複製造業工作崗位或煤礦工作崗位。 貿易戰與
中國甚至不會將製造業帶回美國：如果對中國商品加征關稅使它們在美國的價格大幅上漲，企業就會簡單地將工廠轉移到其他發展中國家。 如果發生任何“外包”，生產可能會在很大程度上實現自動化。 創造的就業崗位需要的技能與失業工人所擁有的技能不同，而且這些就業崗位將分布在美國的不同地區。 關閉貿易的國家也關閉了新想法和由此產生的創新。
中美關稅戰即將進入第三個年頭。 你能把這場爭論放在具體的背景下嗎？為什麽它如此棘手？
冷戰結束時，人們希望所有國家都能成為擁有自由市場經濟的自由民主國家，這樣每個人都會繁榮。 這些希望現在已經破滅了。 許多民主國家的增長已經放緩，財富的增長主要集中在頂層。 與此同時，中國經濟——一個將市場與強有力的國家幹預相結合的複雜體係——表現得非常好。 自大約五十年前我們與中國接觸以來，大約7.5億中國人民已經擺脫了貧困，收入增長了十倍多。 當時，沒有人能夠想象到，這個人均年收入在 150 美元左右的國家，到 2015 年，如果按照經濟學家進行這種比較的標準方法（考慮到兩國人民的購買力）來衡量，GDP 會超過美國。 當地環境中的權力。 美國公司不可能將中國公司視為競爭對手。 中國被視為一座金礦——一個美國商品的廣闊市場，也是我們的公司可以進行大量投資並獲得巨額回報的地方。 但近年來，中國企業實力增強，工資上漲，監管收緊。 因此，就連很多在美國充當中國拉拉隊的企業也失去了熱情。
盡管通過零和視角看待世界是錯誤的，即中國的繁榮是以犧牲美國為代價的，但這正是特朗普和許多經濟民族主義者看待我們關係的視角。
當然，中國做的一些事情是違背我們利益的，正如我們做的一些事情也是違背中國利益的。 但一些指控毫無根據。 例如，中國被指控操縱貨幣，壓低幣值以便更容易出口商品，盡管它已經多年沒有這樣做了。 中國還因要求在華投資的外國公司與當地公司建立合資企業並經常分享其知識產權而受到批評。 但許多經濟學家認為這是一項很好的發展政策，因為它有助於像中國這樣的國家縮小與更先進國家之間的知識差距。
美國和中國麵臨的問題是，如何找到一種方法從貿易中獲得部分收益，同時認識到，在可預見的未來，我們的經濟和政治製度仍將存在巨大差異。 如果我們試圖使我們的經濟脫鉤，我們將付出高昂的代價。
本屆政府內部似乎越來越認為美國應該直接處理與其他國家的貿易爭端，而不是通過世界貿易組織。 世貿組織已經失去牙齒了嗎？ 還是美國自我膨脹的罪魁禍首？
美國在創建世貿組織過程中發揮了關鍵作用，現在又成為試圖破壞世貿組織的主要國家。 正如法治必須是運轉良好的國內經濟的基礎一樣，它也必須是跨境商業的基礎。 任何國際貿易體係都必須有爭端裁決機製，世貿組織上訴機構已經證明了自己的有效性和公平性。 （哥倫比亞大學國際與公共事務學院院長 Merit Janow '88LAW 曾擔任 WTO 上訴法官。）
特朗普政府試圖通過拒絕支持任命新的世貿組織法官、參與貿易戰而不是訴諸世貿組織解決爭端、專注於雙邊協議以及拒絕 其雙邊討論承諾不采取歧視性做法。 再加上特朗普政府單方麵廢除伊朗核協議、背叛敘利亞長期盟友等行為，美國甚至在許多朋友眼中都被視為無賴國家。
你寫道，美國經濟基本上已經崩潰。 考慮到美國相對較高的國內生產總值和強勁的股市，一些觀察家可能會認為這一評估過於嚴厲。 他們會缺少什麽？
美國經濟的許多方麵確實令人印象深刻。 多年來，它催生了許多重要的創新——從傳統
激光互聯網的電阻器——這不僅使美國人受益，而且使世界各地的人們受益。 但當今美國的經濟模式在經濟、社會或環境方麵都不可持續。 我們社會的很大一部分人表現不佳。 我們的預期壽命正在下降——這對於一個處於醫學研究前沿的國家來說是顯著的。 我們的人均碳排放量位居世界前列。 在2017年12月的減稅和2018年1月的企業支出增加之後，美國經濟經曆了“高糖期”，但這隻是短暫的。 大多數預測認為 2020 年的增長遠低於 2%——盡管我們可能會出現 1 萬億美元的赤字。
政府監管能解決這些問題嗎？
我們需要加強監管，以防止再次出現 2008 年那樣的金融危機，避免氣候變化的破壞性影響，並確保我們的經濟保持活力，確保我們的企業不會剝削人民——想想阿片類藥物危機 、兒童肥胖和糖尿病的流行，以及大眾汽車的“柴油門”。 美國經濟的很大一部分現在由少數幾家公司主導，因此需要政府監管以確保公司行為符合道德、資本主義按預期運行以及競爭蓬勃發展。
您批評自由放任的經濟學過於簡單化和短視。 為什麽這麽多美國人仍然認為低稅收和不受監管的市場對經濟增長至關重要？
我們已經進行了四十年的宣傳了。 但供給側經濟學的承諾從未實現。 不平等現象加劇，增長放緩，該國大部分地區麵臨停滯或更糟的情況，正如我之前所觀察到的，預期壽命正在下降。 我寫這本新書的部分原因是為了消除人們對這個長期存在的神話的誤解。 我們在一個又一個國家進行了四十年的這種實驗，但在一個又一個國家都失敗了。 是時候認識到這一點並尋找另一種經濟模式了。
您主張“進步資本主義”。 這意味著什麽？
我首先使用這個詞是為了強調進步的重要性——也就是說改變是可能的，我們可以擁有更高的生活水平和更開明的社會，例如，更大的平等和對人權的尊重。 但我們需要一種新的社會契約，一種在市場和政府之間實現更好平衡的契約。 我說“資本主義”是為了提醒我們，受到更好監管和治理的市場必須成為這一新社會契約的重要組成部分。
人們稱你為理想主義者。 你的樂觀情緒動搖了嗎？
過去幾年發生的事情足以動搖任何人的樂觀情緒。 盡管如此，全國各地的草根運動，尤其是我們的學生，一直讓我感到鼓舞，他們知道另一個世界是可能的，並且似乎決心為之奮鬥。
本文發表於《哥倫比亞雜誌》2019-20 年冬季版，標題為“重新思考全球化”。
書評：《不平等的代價》
Why the US-China Trade War is Unwise and Unwinnable
https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/why-us-china-trade-war-unwise-and-unwinnable
Economist and Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz explains the hidden weaknesses of the American economy.
Joseph E. Stiglitz, a University Professor at Columbia, former chief economist of the World Bank, and recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics, spoke to Columbia Magazine about the ideas in his latest book, People, Power, and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent.
In People, Power, and Profits, you say that America is at war with itself over globalization. What do you mean by that?
It is clear that people have very polarized views about globalization. Some see it as part of America’s strength. They attribute to globalization much of the country’s increase in standards of living and its global economic dominance in recent decades. Others blame globalization for many of America’s problems, particularly because it has exposed domestic workers to increased foreign competition. So while the first group searches for ever wider new trade deals, the second seeks to renegotiate existing ones more in America’s favor.
There is a grain of truth in some of the criticisms of globalization. The deals were largely shaped by corporate interests, the potential gains were exaggerated, and insufficient attention was paid to the impact on America’s growing inequality. The response, however, should not be the kind of trade wars that Donald Trump is waging — there are likely to be no winners from those — but a better-managed globalization, including a better management of the economic and social consequences. Some countries have done a much better job than the US at helping their citizens transition to a more globally integrated economy. Sweden and Norway, for example, have instituted industrial policies that ensure that new jobs get created when old jobs disappear, and they’ve invested heavily in retraining programs for workers.
Yet most economists still argue that globalization, with its promotion of free trade and the easy movement of goods, money, and information, is the key to growth and prosperity.
It’s true that international trade can contribute to economic growth by allowing greater efficiencies. But the real keys to growth and prosperity are education, scientific breakthroughs, and advances in our understanding of how to organize large groups of people so that they might cooperate better. Economies that are guided by the rule of law and democracies based on the separation of powers are examples of profound achievements in social organization. The main reason standards of living are so much higher today than they were, say, 250 years ago is that we have built stable institutions that promote human creativity and enable people to live up to their potential. The real threat of our current political moment in the United States is the attack against truth and our truth-assessing institutions, against our universities, and against science more broadly.
You write that the US government should spend more on education, scientific research, and infrastructure.
One of the fundamental issues I raise in People, Power, and Profits is that we’ve lost the balance between the private sector, the public sector, and institutions that include not-for-profits, cooperatives, foundations, civil society, and universities. Scientific and technological advances are at the heart of economic success, and underlying these advances is basic research, almost all of which is supported by the government. We’ve underinvested in basic research as well as in education and infrastructure. All of this undermines future standards of living and American competitiveness.
We’ve seen a resurgence of economic nationalism lately, with President Trump and other world leaders enacting tariffs and other restrictive trade policies. What is at the root of this trend?
There are a number of factors involved, but surely one powerful force is that large segments of the populations of many advanced countries, including the US, have not done very well recently. While citizens at the top have seen their incomes soar, those in the middle have largely seen stagnation, and those at the bottom have fared even worse. A middle-class life seems to be growing out of reach for many families. Of course, we shouldn’t allow our vision to be clouded by nostalgia. It is easy to look back on a glossy version of the past, skipping over the realities of widespread racial and gender discrimination. Besides, the arrow of time moves in one direction: we can’t go back to the decades after World War II.
Do you think tariffs have any role in today’s global economy?
Closing ourselves off from others through tariffs and other trade barriers will not provide the solutions that discontented people are looking for. It will not restore manufacturing jobs or coal-mining jobs. The trade war with China won’t even bring manufacturing back to the US: if tariffs placed on Chinese goods make them significantly more expensive here, corporations will simply move their factories to other developing countries. To the extent that any “onshoring” occurs, production may largely be robotized. The jobs created will require different skills than those possessed by the workers who have lost their jobs, and they will be located in different regions of the US. Countries that shut themselves off from trade also close themselves off to new ideas and resulting innovations.
The US–China tariff war will soon enter its third year. Can you put this dispute in context — why is it so thorny?
At the end of the Cold War, there was a hope that all countries would converge to be liberal democracies with free-market economies, and that in doing so everyone would prosper. Those hopes have now been dashed. Growth in many democracies has slowed, and the increase in wealth has been mainly at the top. Meanwhile, China’s economy — a complex system combining markets with strong state intervention — has done very well. Some 750 million Chinese people have moved out of poverty, and incomes have risen more than tenfold since our engagement with China began, some fifty years ago. Back then, no one could have imagined that this country with a per capita annual income of around $150 would by 2015 have a larger GDP than that of the US when measured in the standard way economists make such comparisons, by considering the two populations’ purchasing power in local contexts. American firms could not have conceived of Chinese firms as rivals. China was viewed as a gold mine — a vast market for American goods and a place where our firms could make large investments and get large returns. But in the intervening years, Chinese companies have increased in strength, wages have risen, and regulations have been tightened. So even many of the corporations that served as China’s cheerleaders in the US have lost their enthusiasm.
Though it is wrong to view the world through a zero-sum lens, in which increased prosperity for China comes at the expense of the US, this is the lens through which Trump and many economic nationalists see our relations.
Of course, there are some things that China does that are contrary to our interests, just as there are some things we do that are contrary to China’s. But some of the accusations thrown around have little merit. For instance, China has been accused of manipulating its currency, keeping its value low in order to export goods more easily, even though it has not been doing this for years. China has also been criticized for requiring foreign firms that invest there to enter joint ventures, and often to share their intellectual property, with local companies. But many economists think that this is a good developmental policy, because it helps a country like China close the gap in knowledge between it and more advanced countries.
The question facing both the US and China is how to find a way to reap some of the gains from trade while recognizing that, for the foreseeable future, there will remain large differences in our economic and political systems. We will pay a high price if we try to de-link our economies.
There seems to be a growing feeling within this administration that the US should handle trade disputes with other nations directly, rather than working through the World Trade Organization. Has the WTO lost its teeth? Or is the US guilty of self-aggrandizement?
The US played a pivotal role in creating the WTO, and now it is the principal country trying to undermine it. Just as the rule of law must underlie a well-functioning domestic economy, so too must it underlie commerce across borders. Any international trade system has to have a mechanism for adjudicating disputes, and the WTO appellate body has shown itself to be effective and fair. (The dean of Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, Merit Janow ’88LAW, has served as a WTO appellate judge.)
The Trump administration is attempting to erode the international rules-based trade regime by refusing to support the appointment of new WTO judges, by engaging in trade wars rather than turning to the WTO to resolve disputes, by focusing on bilateral agreements, and by refusing in its bilateral discussions to promise not to engage in discriminatory practices. When combined with the unilateral abrogation of the Iran nuclear agreement, the betrayal of long-term allies in Syria, and other such actions taken by the Trump administration, the US is looking even to many of its friends like a rogue country.
You write that the US economy is essentially broken. Some observers might find that assessment overly harsh, given America’s relatively high GDP and strong stock market. What would they be missing?
There are many aspects of the US economy that are truly impressive. Over the years, it has given rise to many important innovations — from the transistor to the laser to the Internet — that benefit not only Americans but people around the world. But America’s economic model today is not sustainable economically, socially, or environmentally. Large segments of our society have not been doing well. Our life expectancy is on the decline — remarkable for a country that is at the forefront of medical research. Our carbon emissions per capita are among the highest in the world. The US economy experienced a “sugar high” after the tax cuts of December 2017 and the corporate-expenditure increases of January 2018, but that was short-lived. Most forecasts see growth in 2020 at well below 2 percent — even though we are likely to be running a $1 trillion deficit.
Would government regulation solve any of these problems?
We need to have more regulation to prevent another financial crisis of the kind we had in 2008, to stave off climate change’s devastating effects, and to ensure that our economy remains dynamic and that our corporations don’t exploit people — think of the opioid crisis, the epidemic of childhood obesity and diabetes, and Volkswagen’s “dieselgate.” Large parts of the US economy are now dominated by just a few firms, so government regulation is required to ensure that corporations act ethically and that capitalism works as intended and competition thrives.
You’ve railed against laissez-faire economics as overly simplistic and short-sighted. Why do so many Americans still consider low taxes and unregulated markets essential for economic growth?
We’ve had four decades of propaganda saying as much. But the promises of supply-side economics were never realized. Inequality grew, growth slowed, large parts of the country faced stagnation or worse, and life expectancy, as I observed earlier, is now in decline. I wrote my new book partly to disabuse people of this persistent myth. We’ve had four decades of this experiment in country after country, and in country after country it has failed. It’s time to recognize this and to look for another economic model.
You advocate for “progressive capitalism.” What does that mean?
I use the term first to emphasize the importance of progress — to say that change is possible, that we can have higher standards of living and a more enlightened society, with, for example, greater equality and respect for human rights. But we need a new social contract, one that achieves a better balance between the market and government. I say “capitalism” to remind us that the market — better regulated and better governed — will have to be an important part of this new social contract.
People have called you an idealist. Has your optimism been shaken?
What’s happened in the last couple of years is enough to shake anyone’s optimism. Still, I am constantly heartened by the grassroots movements across the country, and especially by our students, who know that another world is possible and who seem determined to fight for it.
This article appears in the Winter 2019-20 edition of Columbia Magazine with the title "Rethinking Globalization."
Book Review: "The Price of Inequality"
