風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
金刻羽：中國如何超越世界
Keyu Jin: How China Leapfrogged The World
Rise of Asia 2025年3月8日
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkjRXUD5QKc
如果下一任美國總統唐納德·特朗普決定加倍對中國的關稅和技術製裁，該怎麽辦？隨著新政府上台，特朗普明確表示他打算使用這些經濟工具來遏製中國的崛起並破壞其技術野心。但這些策略真的會奏效嗎？倫敦經濟學院教授金刻羽深入探討了為什麽這些措施更有可能加劇緊張局勢而不是帶來預期結果。聽聽她怎麽說。
如果下一任美國總統唐納德特朗普決定在新政府上台後加倍對中國征收關稅和實施科技製裁，情況會怎樣？特朗普明確表示，他打算利用這些經濟工具來遏製中國的崛起，破壞其科技雄心，但這些策略真的會奏效嗎？倫敦經濟學院的 KU Jinn 教授深入探討了為什麽這些措施更有可能加劇緊張局勢，而不是帶來預期的結果，聽聽她怎麽說？
是的，我認為應用程序，我認為中國已經掌握了它，如果你看看今天，我的意思是，這非常諷刺，但今天美國下載次數最多的五個應用程序中有四個是中國的，我的意思是，這令人難以置信，也非常令人不安，但這是掌握商業模式加上數字加上大量數據加上世界上最高效的供應鏈，中國能夠掌握，也能夠滲透到世界各地世界上除了存在地緣政治問題的地方，但你必須記住，90％的人仍然生活在發展中國家呃，中國的效率和低成本，對於這些發展中國家非常有用，當然，這不是突破性技術，呃，我們可以掌握的技術，你需要創造力，所以一個開放的自由社會和所有這些東西，但要掌握高科技，我認為中國可以做得很好，即使使用逆向工程，這就是為什麽我認為整個技術限製試圖阻止中國掌握高科技和尖端技術將非常呃，它非常呃，非常呃，多孔和漏洞百出中國可以進行逆向工程，呃，你知道當然表麵上有規模，有資金，有人才呃，但更深層次的競爭也是最激烈的競爭環境嗯，也許世界上某些產品的政策正在推動中國走在最前沿，如果你在中國市場取得成功，比如電動汽車電池或電動汽車本身，那麽你就幾乎走在了世界前沿，正如大衛所說，這些政策將產生適得其反的效果，我們已經看到了國家資源的動員，但我們談論的不僅僅是國家，我們正在團結起來，讓這些大型科技公司去攻克這些關鍵的瓶頸技術，每個人都在做芯片，包括 10cent、華為、阿裏巴巴、楊百翰大學等等，他們正在合作，你知道，他們正在幫助許多公司管理逆向工程，但更重要的是，你實際上是在迫使公司或創新者嚐試跨越式發展或規避，我知道芯片行業的許多公司都在想出替代的設計解決方案可以規避這些限製，僅憑國內產能就能生產出同樣高效、強大的芯片，所以我認為，這會產生一種意想不到的後果，現在我們還沒有係統證據，但你隻需要看看曆史事件，我想在拿破侖戰爭期間，你知道，我不認為英國切斷了法國與棉紡廠的聯係，或者類似的東西，然後它就刺激了創新，你知道，這種跨越式發展，我們看到了某種程度上我們已經看到了一些這樣的事情正在發生，但正如大衛提到的，這些半導體或芯片公司與最終用戶的距離很近，無論是人工智能公司還是電動汽車公司，它們都在附近，這種非常快速的反饋循環，而不是去美國或歐洲的總部，嗯，真的可以推動變革和創新，就像日本一樣，芯片半導體行業成功的一部分，實際上，日本最終超越了美國，是日本電子產品業務的封鎖和最終用戶需求的循環，所以我對這些技術限製非常懷疑，我真的認為你在強迫你知道另一個非常偉大的國家，擁有偉大的美國，或者至少是一個有巨大潛力實現跨越式發展的國家，然後你談到了小院子，對，但你想把它保持多小，有些人也在談論EVS對國家安全的潛在威脅，所以你知道這個討論可能會沒完沒了，是的中國的貿易是一次性衝擊，是一次性衝擊世界經濟，而且從某種意義上說，大規模廉價勞動力之類的產品已經充斥全球，現在我們不需要深入討論消費者方麵的好處，我們談論的是大量受益於廉價商品的消費者，而你知道政治往往關注鋼鐵製造商等的失業問題，尤其是在這個國家，但至少有一些證據表明，很多美國工作崗位被中國出口取代，這些工作崗位已經處於非常脆弱的地位，無論如何，這些工作崗位將轉移到其他國家，墨西哥，甚至可能是越南和其他國家，如果你看看歐洲的對比經驗，有人認為，很多受到東歐衝擊的國家準備得更好應對中國衝擊，政府也投入了比美國政府多得多的資源，幫助他們的工人順利過渡到其他行業，並進行再培訓、再技能培訓等，但這種故事已經結束了，我認為糾結於此會錯過未來的重點。我認為，未來與中國的貿易競爭更多的是針對德國、韓國等生產更高附加值中間產品的國家，無論如何，當我們談論 WTO 規則和框架時，我認為沒有重新思考，你知道問題是，2001 年中國加入時，它是一個非常小的國家，因此它利用了其發展中國家的地位，因為當時有些國家缺乏規則，因此它們無法更快增長，但增長真的太大了，或者在很短的時間內增長非常快，然後它所做的一切都對世界經濟產生了巨大影響，這是第一次，這是世貿組織無法做到的，也準備不做，但我們也要爭論一下發展中國家，他們對針對他們的規則有多滿意，他們會說，很多規則都是對他們不利的，有利於發達經濟體，損害了它們，他們甚至會爭辯說，通過不讓他們知道高附加值技術的進步，以創新為導向的發達經濟體正試圖讓他們成為廉價生產的基礎，同時賺取更高的附加值，阻止他們爬上那個階梯，所以我認為你知道這個故事有多個方麵但我認為，正如特朗普所倡導的那樣，單邊雙邊方法而不是多邊方法才是解決問題的辦法，首先，WTO 並沒有說你不能獲得國家補貼，對吧，它說的是，對於某些領域，特別是在綠色技術可再生能源方麵，顯然你需要國家支持來激勵私營部門，這不是問題，問題在於這些補貼的全球影響以及它如何影響全球競爭，但如果所有國家都這樣做，就很難理解它們各自的影響，你知道他們從波音公司獲得的補貼顯然具有國際影響，但這並不是我們真正爭論的，對吧，所以我認為，特別是在可再生能源方麵，沒有國家的作用，呃，會失敗，這會導致每個人都想要的那種綠色轉型失敗開始，但我想說，補貼的規模聽起來確實很大，但大型基金，你想問取得了什麽成就，實際上我想說，從某種意義上說，這是非常浪費的，因為他們還沒有完全正確地將國家的作用與市場的作用結合起來，所以這實際上是一個學習過程，整個脈絡計劃實際上正在發展，從芯片，或者大型芯片，芯片基金，現在有一種新的想法，特別是在 2023 年，它已經建立起來，以改革這種模式，讓市場發揮更大的作用，因為你知道他們有點幫助我不知道這是否是補貼，但隻是幫助了很多很多芯片公司，如果你擁有一家芯片公司，你知道，作為一頂帽子，那麽你會得到很多好處，顯然這會造成很多浪費，所以我會說這並不成功，但地方政府引導資金在全國各地，你會說你會說呃，你可以看到中國科技公司的分布遍布全國各地，而不僅僅是在北京、上海和這與當地政府的支持有很大關係，但我們這裏並不是在談論財政補貼，融資部分如此重要的原因不僅僅是直接補貼，而是幫助他們協調銀行貸款，這是因為中國的金融體係非常薄弱和不成熟，他們沒有美國的生態係統，他們不能簡單地籌集資金和資本來資助這些創新，它必須通過國家來引導，這就是為什麽他們必須非常參與，沒有它，你就不會有這樣的工業部門，但它也是為了幫助他們吸引人才，為他們提供更便宜的土地，然後協調供應鏈，我的意思是想想EVS，一個政府或多個政府幫助協調圍繞一家公司的整個供應鏈，這有很大幫助，我的意思是，該公司的產量在一年內增長了80%，因為電池製造商和製造商都聯合起來了，所以我認為這是國家為企業提供的幫助非常重要，而不是少量的實際金融投資，所以我認為中國要成功，需要考慮效率而不僅僅是規模，那麽你認為你同意庫金教授的觀點嗎？美國對中國的製裁和關稅將適得其反。
Keyu Jin: How China Leapfrogged The World
Rise of Asia 2025年3月8日
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkjRXUD5QKc
What if the next US president, Donald Trump, decides to double down on tariffs and tech sanctions against China? With a new administration in power, Trump is making it clear that he intends to use these economic tools to curb China's rise and disrupt its tech ambitions. But will these tactics actually work? Keyu Jin, professor from London School of Economics dives into why these measures are more likely to fuel tensions than bring about the intended results. Listen to what she has to say.
what if the next US president Donald
Trump decides to double down on tariffs
and Tech sanctions against China with a
new Administration in power Trump is
making it clear that he intends to use
these economic tools to curb China's
rise and disrupt its Tech Ambitions but
will these tactics actually work KU Jinn
Professor from the London School of
Economics dives into why these measures
are more likely to fuel tensions than
bring about the intended results listen to what she has to say
yeah I think um applications I think
China has mastered it right and if you
look at today I mean it's very ironic
but four out of the five of the most
downloaded apps in the US today are
Chinese I mean that's mindboggling it's
very disturbing also but it's the
Mastery of um you know a business model
plus digital plus huge amount of data
plus the most efficient supply chain in
the world and that China is able to
master and also able to to penetrate you
know around the world except for where
there are geopolitical concerns but you
have to remember that 90% of the people
are still living developing countries uh
China's efficiency and therefore lowcost
Sligh quality is very uh useful for
these developing countries and of course
um that's not breakthrough Technologies
uh the the ones that us can master and
that you require creativity and so an
open free society and all that stuff but
but to master high-tech I think China
can do very well even with reverse
engineering which is why I think this
whole technological restrictions trying
to stop China's uh uh Mastery of
high-tech and Cutting Edge technology
will be very um it's very it's very uh
uh porous and leaky China can do reverse
engineering and uh you know of course on
the surface there's the scale there's
the finance there's a talent uh but
deeper down it's also you know
competition the fiercest compet
competitive environment uh maybe in the
world for certain products is pushing
China to be at the very Frontier and if
you win in Chinese market like the EV
batteries or EVS itself you're pretty
much at the frontier of the
world well you know as David mentioned
these there's going to be a backfiring
of these policies and we're already
seeing this National mobilization of
resources but we're not talking just
about the state we're talking about
you're rallying to get these big Tech
players to to go after these critical
bottleneck Technologies everybody's
doing chips including you know 10cent
Huawei Alibaba BYU and so forth um and
they are teaming up uh they are you know
helping lots of companies manage that
reverse engineering and but what's more
you're actually forcing companies to or
innovators to try to Leap Frog or
circumvent and I know many companies in
the chip sector that are coming up with
alternative design solutions that can
circum vent these restrictions and be
able to produce uh equivalently
efficient and Powerful chips with with
just domestic capacity so um I think
there is a uh that kind of unintended
consequence now we don't really have
system evidence yet but you just have to
look at historical episodes uh I think
during the Napoleonic Wars um you know I
don't think England was cutting France
off from cotton Mills or or things like
that and then it just spurred that
Innovation and that you know that leap
frogging um and uh we're seeing an
extent we're seeing some of that already
happening but also as David mentioned
you know the proximity of these
semiconductors or chips company to the
end users whether it's AI companies or
EV uh companies they're all within the
vicinity that kind of very rapid
feedback loop rather than going to the
you know the headquarters in in the US
or Europe um can really spur uh change
and Innovation just like in Japan part
of the success of the chips
semiconductors industry that actually
Japan eventually overtook the US was the
the the the block in of the Japanese
electronics business and the end user
demand in that kind of uh loop so I I'm
very skeptical of these technological
restrictions I really do think you're
forcing uh you know another very great
nation with great U or at least a nation
with a big potential uh to Leap Frog and
then you talked about the small yard
right but how small do you want to keep
it some people are also talking about
EVS being a potential to national
security threat so you know this
discussion can be endless yeah that's
China's trade was a onetime shock it was
a onetime shock to the world economy and
it's kind of pretty much done in that
sense of you know massive scale cheap
labor uh kind of products that have
flooded the world now we don't need to
go into the benefits of the consumer
side we're talking about a huge number
of um consumers who benefit from cheaper
uh Goods um whereas you know politics
often focus on the jobs lost by the
steel makers and so forth especially in
this country but at least some evidence
have shown um that a lot of the US jobs
let's say that were displaced by Chinese
uh exports were already at kind of in a
very vulnerable position going to be Ed
anyways these jobs would have moved over
to other countries Mexico or even
potentially Vietnam and others and if
you look at contrasting experience in
Europe um it's argued that uh a lot of
these countries that have been subject
to the Eastern European shock was much
better uh uh prepared to deal with the China
shock uh and the government also put in
a lot more resources than the US
government in helping their uh workers
transition into other sectors uh in a
smoother way and retraining reskilling
Etc but that kind of the story is kind
of over I think dwelling on that is
going to miss uh the point going forward
I I actually think going forward um the
the competition in terms of trade with
China is more towards uh countries like
Germany uh uh or or South Korea that
makes higher value added intermediate
Goods not really a lot of overlap uh
with the US uh in any case uh when we
talking about WTO rules and and uh the
framework yes I think there isn't
rethinking you know the problem was that
in the beginning when China joined in 20
2001 it was a very small country by size
and so it was taking advantage of its
developing country position as there
were some lack uh lack rules for
developed countries so that they can
grow faster except that grew really
really way too big or very very it grew
very rapidly in a very short sped of
time and then everything it did had a
big impact on the world economy and that
was a first and that was what the WTO
was not able and prepared to do but we
also have to argue on the developing
Countryside how satisfied are they with
the rules towards them right they'd say
that a lot of these rules are stacked
against them benefiting the advanced
economies and hurting them and they'd
even actually argue that potentially um
by by not letting them you know progress
on the higher value added technology
Orient Innovation oriented uh the
advanced economies are trying to make
them cheap production uh uh uh you know
manufacturing uh base while they earn
the higher value added and preventing
them from climbing up that ladder so I
think you know there are multiple sides
to the story but I think a a unilateral
bilateral approach rather than a
multilateral As Trump was advocating is
now the solution to the problem first of
all WTO doesn't say you can't have state
subsidies right it says that for for for
certain areas especially when it comes
to Green Tech Renewables obviously you
need to you need to to to have the state
support to incentivize the private
sector that's not the issue the issue is
really over the global ramifications of
these subsidies and how it affects
Global competition but if all the
countries are doing it it's going to be
very hard to to to understand you know
what the the respective impact is you
know they sub Boeing get subsidies that
obviously has International implications
but that's not really what we're
fighting about right so I think
especially when it comes to Renewables
not having the state role uh would fail
would help you know fail the kind of the
green transition that everybody wants to
uh embark on um but I'd say that the
size of the subsidies yes it sounds
really big in China but the big funds
you want to ask what what the the
achievements have been and actually I'd
say that it's been very wasteful in some
sense because they haven't quite gotten
the mixture right between what the role
of the state is and how big the market
the role of the market should be so it's
actually a learning process where that
whole venation uh program is actually
evolving and from the chips uh or the
the big chips uh the the the chips fund
uh there's now a new thinking especially
in 2023 that's been established to
reform uh this kind of uh model and to
have the market play a much bigger role
uh because you know they were they were
kind of um helping I don't know if it's
subsidies but just helping lots and lots
of uh a chips company if you have a
chips company you know as a hat then you
get lots of benefits and obviously that
created a lot of waste and so I would
say that was not successful but the
local government guided funds around the
country you would say you would say that
uh you can see that the distrib
distribution of the technology companies
in China are really all over all over
the country not just in Beijing shinen
and Shanghai and that has a lot to do
with this the support of local
government but here we're not really
talking a financial subsidy the reason
that the financing part is so important
and this is not just direct subsidies
just helping them coordinate bank loan
is how weak and immature the financial
system is in China they don't have the
US ecosystem they can't just raise money
and raise Capital easily to fund these
Innovation it has to be channeled
through the state that's why they have
to be very involved without that you
wouldn't have that kind of industrial
sector but it's also about helping them
attract Talent getting them cheaper land
and then coordinating supply chain I
mean think about the EVS one government
or many governments helped uh coordinate
an entire supply chain around one
company and that that helps a lot I mean
that company saw you know an 80% uh rise
in production over a year because the
battery makers and the manufacturers are
all coring together so I think it's that
kind of help that the state offers as
businesses that has been very critically
important rather than the the small
amount of actual Financial investment so
I think China to be successful needs to
think about efficiency more than just
scale so what do you think do you agree
with Professor KU Jin that Us's
sanctions and tariffs on China will
backfire share your thoughts and leave
your comments below if you like what you
watched hit the like button and don't
forget to subscribe to our channel for
more interesting content
