美國要擊退中國製造業的挑戰，關鍵是要用成熟AI機器人的零人權優勢打敗中國的低人權優勢
摘要：中國經濟競爭力的主要優勢在於其低人權優勢，即以較底的成本雇傭大量高素質的藍領和白領勞動力，對西方成熟的技術和產品進行低成本的複製，來擠壓和摧毀西方的競爭對手。中國的賣點就在於這種低人權優勢。要對抗中國的這種優勢，美國就需要盡快把人工智能和機器人技術發展成熟，以機器人的零人權優勢擊敗中國的低人權優勢，從而把中國排擠出國際分工體係，促使其經濟崩潰，就象當年通過壓低石油價格把蘇聯排擠出世界能源市場，促使蘇聯經濟崩潰一樣。
大國競爭的關鍵在於其各自在國際分工中的位置。
扼殺一個大國的崛起的關鍵，就在於架空其在國際分工中的位置，讓其變得可有可無，進而大大壓低其收入，然後通過軍備競賽掏空其經濟。
當年美國對待蘇聯的做法，就是通過壓低中東石油價格，讓石油變得格外容易獲得（價格正比於獲得資源難度），從而讓依賴石油出口為生的蘇聯在國際分工中變得可有可無，進而不得不忍受極低的能源價格，導致經濟收入銳減，再加上阿富汗戰爭和太空軍備競賽的消耗，經濟就崩潰了。
蘇聯的解體當然有內部深刻的原因，但正如親自參與了對蘇經濟戰的美國前中央情報局官員施魏策爾所說，“使克裏姆林宮陷入深淵的並不是哪一個事件或哪一項政策。裏根政府的總體戰略之所以有這麽大的威力，是各種政策的綜合效應。這些政策就像一陣陣強烈的颶風吹進虛弱的蘇聯體製之中”。裏根政府精心設計好了一幅經濟戰的藍圖，而蘇聯則被美國牽著鼻子一步一步拖入了深淵。
今天國際學界、尤其是國際經濟學界對中國認識千奇百怪，但犖犖大者不外乎三：其一曰中國崩潰論。即認為中國經濟的高增長隻是浮誇造成的假相，實際則是內部危機與全球化壓力日益嚴重，難免崩潰。其二和其三都相反，認為中國經濟創造了增長與繁榮的奇跡，但對此則按西方經濟學兩大陣營的傳統學理形成兩種相反的解釋：古典自由經濟學把“中國奇跡”歸功於經濟自由化或市場化的成功，而左派經濟學或凱恩斯經濟學則歸功於“社會主義”或政府幹預、管控的成功。
我認為這三大主流認識都有嚴重偏差：中國經濟持續高增長、在全球化中應對自如是事實，“虛假論”、“崩潰論”不對。但這種增長既不像偏左的論者那樣可以解釋為“政府成功”，也不像偏右論者所言可以解釋為“市場成功”，更與所謂“市場政府雙重成功”的“北京共識”不相幹。除了低工資、低福利的傳統優勢外，中國更以“低人權”的“優勢”人為壓低四大要素（人力、土地、資金和非再生資源）價格，以不許討價還價、限製乃至取消許多交易權利的辦法“降低交易成本”，以拒絕民主、壓抑參與、漠視思想、鄙視信仰、蔑視公正、刺激物欲來促使人的能量集中於海市蜃樓式的單純求富衝動，從而顯示出無論自由市場國家還是福利國家都罕見的驚人競爭力，也使得無論采用“漸進”的還是“休克療法”的民主轉軌國家都瞠乎其後。
當然如果不對外開放，這種衝動也不會有多大能耐。但是在全球化時代對外開放後，中國由於在“專製－非福利”體製下免除了“民主分家麻煩大，福利國家包袱多，工會嚇跑投資者，農會趕走圈地客”的“拖累”，便出現了空前快速的原始積累。而這種方式造成的危機，則靠外部資源（資本流入、商品輸出）的增益來緩解，同時通過全球化把危機向外部稀釋：在中國的鐵腕強權壓住自己的內部矛盾而維持表麵“穩定”的同時，“中國因素”卻使他國的內部矛盾激化：中國因素導致的資本流和商品流在自由國家打破了原有的力量平衡，加劇了勞資矛盾，在福利國家加劇了移民衝突，而在這兩類國家都加劇了就業和公共財政困境。
於是短短十餘年間，中國製造的商品洪流般充滿世界，世界各地的資本潮水般湧進中國。全球化中“中國的競爭”勢不可擋，它既迫使福利國家降低福利水平，也迫使自由國家重樹貿易壁壘，還使得不發達國家在吸納資金、獲得資源等方麵麵臨更大困難。
然而吊詭的是：由於先驗偏好和信息不全，各家都力圖對“中國的成功”作出有利於自己的解釋：中國經濟的非自由色彩令左派欣賞，而它的非福利色彩則令右派欣賞，同時它又以窮國快速發展的形象令第三世界豔羨。於是本來對現代左派和右派、對福利國家和自由國家、對發達國家和發展中國家都構成嚴重挑戰的中國，卻同時受到上述各方的稱讚。然而稱讚歸稱讚，由於上述“中國優勢”不可複製（沒有中國式的鐵腕強權，任何國家無論左派還是右派執政，實行自由市場政策還是凱恩斯式的乃至社會民主的政策，都不可能這樣來搞原始積累），而“中國挑戰”又客觀存在而且不可回避地日益嚴重，各方的對華關係從長遠看都不樂觀。
而另一方麵，中國的這種發展模式也在其內部形成“尺蠖效應”：“左派”得勢則自由受損而福利未必增加，“右派”得勢則福利喪失而自由未必增進。“左”時政府擴權卻不可問責，“右”時政府卸責卻不願限權。左起來就侵犯平民私產而公共財富卻未必得到保障，右起來公共資產嚴重流失而平民私產卻未必受保護。一邊“新國有化”一邊又“權貴私有化”。左時“公權”侵奪個人領域卻無心公共服務，右時放棄公共產品卻不保護個人權利。政策趨左則壓縮個人自由卻並不開放公共參與，趨右則抑製民主參與卻同時限製自由競爭。“左派”建不起福利國家，“右派”搞不成公平市場。正如孫立平所言：無論向左還是向右，得利的都是同一些強勢者，而吃虧的也是同一些弱勢者。用老百姓的話說就是“一個蘿卜兩頭切，左右都是他得”。這樣就使社會矛盾在一放一收的尺蠖式進程中日益發展和積累，而不能像憲政民主體製中那樣，以左派爭福利、右派爭自由的“天平效應”來維護社會平衡。
因此，中國的快速發展並沒有像有些人設想的那樣“把餅做大”就能緩解“分餅不公”的矛盾，而是出現了經濟發展與內部外部矛盾同步持續深化的現象。過去在1989年後鄧小平把統治合法性建立在經濟增長上，他常說東歐垮了而我們沒垮，就是因為我們經濟搞得好。但是現在，經濟高增長和社會不穩定同時發展的現象使人對此說日益懷疑，以至據說一些領導人開始羨慕起經濟凋敝而表麵上政治卻很“穩定”的古巴和北朝鮮來，要學習後者的政治高壓。但是這飲鴆止渴的做法最終隻能導致更嚴重的不穩定。胡溫政府的另一個趨勢是值得肯定的，這就是比過去更強調公平和政府的公共服務責任問題。然而“尺蠖效應”的機製不解決，隻怕是權易擴而責難問，現有體製下回複“大政府”隻會形成擴權－卸責的又一輪循環。而走出“尺蠖效應”，就需要進行權責對應的憲政改革。
而像中國這麽大的國家，這麽多人口，中國經濟這麽大的量，隨著將來作為全球商品供應者和資本吸納者的作用日益凸顯，一旦出問題可能比1929年美國股市崩盤對全球的衝擊更大。因此中國平穩順利地轉型不僅是國人之福，也是世界之福。而中國因“尺蠖效應”而發生社會爆炸，或因現行原始積累方式與福利國家和自由國家的雙重衝突而導致國際秩序崩潰，則不僅是國人之禍，也是世界之禍。
在全球化形勢下，世界關切中國是必然的。如今發達國家壓中國把人民幣升值，這實際上就是中國現行原始積累方式與福利國家和自由國家體製衝突的體現。但人民幣升值實際上不能解決問題：由於現行鐵腕體製下中國內部不存在公平博弈，人民幣升值對中國“競爭力”的抑製很容易被強勢者向弱勢階層轉嫁壓力而緩解，因此人民幣升值在中國未必能像當年在日本那樣改善貿易平衡。而壓中國升值反而徒令一般中國人反感。
事實上，中國製造業工資水平如今不低於印度，但競爭力仍高於印度，顯然靠的並非單純經濟性的低工資優勢，而是“低人權”的優勢。正是這種隻要官商勾結就可以任意圈占農地、役使勞工、耗用資源的“優勢”，使得中國成為舉世罕見的“投資樂園”，連印度的塔塔財團也想躲開工資雖低但工會農會很厲害的本國，而向中國轉移資本。何況其他？
顯然，中國的“優勢”既不在於其市場更“自由”，也不在於其國家更“福利”，而就在於其更專製。筆者反對專製的態度眾所周知，但從來不以“專製妨礙經濟增長”為理由。事實上，專製“刺激”經濟增長，在非市場條件下有斯大林和納粹德國的例子，在市場條件下也有近代早期中東歐“二度農奴化”使商品性農業大發展的例子，而美國經濟史家福格爾的研究也表明，內戰前美國南方奴隸製經濟的“效率”不亞於、很可能還“優於”北方自由經濟。但是專製仍然應當反對，這不僅由於其不人道，也由於這種“效率”的畸形。別的國家不說，中國今天靠“低人權優勢”在全球吸納資本、輸出商品而形成驚人的高額“雙順差”，不僅讓別國頭疼，中國一般人民又能得益多少？超廉價的勞力、土地、資源付出，形不成有效進口需求，隻換來巨額的“綠紙”（帳麵美元）。中國人埋怨美國開動印鈔機就卷走了咱們的血汗，美國人埋怨中國的廉價貨砸了他們的飯碗，而一旦美元狂貶，美國完了，我們的血汗也白搭了。
今天美國對待中國的策略，就是認知到中國經濟是兩頭在外，主要依靠人力加工工業品出口來獲取經濟收入的經濟結構。那麽美國要架空中國在全球分工中的位置，就是要大力發展物聯網技術、人工智能和機器人技術，讓機器人在今後20年內大規模取代人工，使得生產工業品的成本變得格外便宜，從而大大壓縮中國的經濟收入，然後再通過台海戰爭、朝鮮半島戰爭和太空軍備競賽的消耗，瓦解中國經濟，進而謀求推動中國改朝換代。
中國政府戰略競爭的盲點，就在於其總是假設中國的低人工成本和質量優勢可以繼續，還假設中國在未來仍然將是世界主要的製造業基地。這個假設在人工智能和機器人技術成熟以後，將不再成立。因為機器人的勞動強度可以比人力高許多而成本可以比人力低許多，而且機器人也可以製造機器人。因此，未來的工業品生產本身將完全與人力無關。生產要素將會是工業機器人自身的軟件和芯片，而不是生產技能。主要的製造業基地，將是在設計、製造機器人的芯片的地方，而不是在機器人工作的地方。所以，隻需要把機器人設計和製造技術發展成熟，那麽一帶一路沿線連同中國自己的工業品市場，將實際上屬於設計和製造工業機器人芯片和軟件的公司---那些在美國東西海岸的人工智能軟件公司、半導體芯片公司、矽光子公司等等。中國充其量隻能收個作為工業機器人安置地的場地費。而且如果西方在亞歐大陸各國開辦大量的這樣的生產基地，中國本土基地也將變得可有可無，租賃費用也將大幅度下降，這將使得中國的收入大大減少。如果再配合上太空競爭、台海戰爭和朝鮮戰爭，中國經濟將因為失去國際競爭力而崩潰。
或許有人會說，中國的人工智能發展也不落後美國。我認為這並不改變整體趨勢。當中美兩國人工智能都普及了的時候，決定工業品價格的就不是勞動力了。而是土地、能源、原材料、稅率。中國跟美國比，誰的土地便宜，誰的能源便宜，誰的稅率低？顯然是後者。
土地成本：中國是美國的9倍
國內地價是美國地價的9倍，並且美國是永久性產權，我們是50年產權。例如，2000年浙江省慈溪市工業用地價格是18萬元/畝，目前美國地價僅為2萬美元/英畝，相當於2萬元人民幣/畝，如果按照現在許多縣城工業用地100萬元/畝算，是美國的50倍。
物流成本：中國是美國的2倍
國內物流成本是美國物流成本的2倍。以油價為例，中國的油價是美國的2倍，油價高，物流成本也就高。何況中國還有全世界少有的過路費、過橋費，物流成本能不高麽？
而美國的物流成本主要由三部分組成，一是庫存費用，二是運輸費用，三是管理費用。比較近20年來的變化可以看出，運輸成本在GDP中比例大體保持不變，而導致美國物流總成本比例下降的最主要原因是庫存費用的降低。
銀行借款成本：中國是美國的2.4倍
最便宜的國內借款成本年利率6%，是美國成本年利率2.5%的2.4倍。按每噸7000元人民幣或美國1100美元資金、4個月一周轉，國內借款成本年利率6%和美國成本年利率2.5%分別計算公司運營資金財務成本:國內是7000元*4*0.06/12=140元、折合22.58美元。美國是1100美元*4*0.025/12=9美元，國內比美國高出1.5倍。
這還是正常的銀行借款，如果資金來自年利率超過10%的銀行理財產品、年利率15%的私募基金、甚至是年利率20%的民間高利貸、企業不堪重負。
電力/天然氣成本：中國是美國的2倍以上
國內能源成本是美國能源成本的2倍以上。美國除開夏威夷的電價特別貴外(海島地區沒辦法)，其他州的電價都不貴，以德州為例，其電價折合人民幣才2毛錢。
由於我國對電力、天然氣直接定價的原因，企業用電用氣用油價格居高不下。按國內每噸耗電450度、電價0.76元/度計算，單位生產成本342元，折合55.16美元。美國設備自動化程度較高，單位用電量相應增加10%，每噸至500度，按照電價0.05美元/度計算，單位生產成本25美元，國內比美國高出1.2倍。
蒸汽成本：中國是美國的1.1倍
還有蒸汽部分，國內用熱電廠蒸汽，按每噸消耗蒸汽1.6噸、單價190元/噸計算，單位生產成本304元，折合49.0.美元，美國用天然氣鍋爐自製蒸汽，按天然氣價格為0.48美元/therm、單價14.52美元/噸計算，單位生產成本23.23美元，國內比美國高出1.1倍。
配件成本：中國是美國的3.2倍
國內配件成本是美國配件成本的3.2倍。國內設備性能略差，工人操作習慣不良，每噸單位配件成本約100元，折合16.13美元，而美國生產線設備性能較好，工人操作習慣好，每噸單位配件成本5美元，國內比美國高出3.2倍。
稅收成本：美國稅收優惠力度大
在中國，各種稅收不斷，把企業壓得喘不過氣。廣州一家物流公司，運送一批貨物到海南，總收入為1.9萬元，但利潤僅有216元，其中上稅需要1260元。
而美國的州政府最看重的是就業，常常給予企業優惠的稅收政策，比如房產稅優惠30年內有效，如果公司達產，30年內將給予3000萬美元的稅收減免。
清關成本：美國無需支付進出口清關成本
在美國投資辦廠無需支付進出口清關成本。國內企業原料均進口，假設進品環節費用不含內陸運費、關稅、增值稅、僅各類手續成本約為3500元/櫃，每櫃按20噸裝計，則為175元/噸，折合22.58美元/噸。
國內企業成品出口，假設出口環節費用不含陸運費，僅各類手續成本約為1600元/櫃，每櫃按20噸裝計，則為80元/噸，折合12.9美元/噸。如果加上運費等，成本還要大幅增加。
人工成本：中國成本優勢趨弱
盡管美國勞動力成本是國內勞動力成本的2.57倍，但美國自動化程度高，用工少。國內兩條月總產量為4500噸的生產線用工250人，美國設備改進，同產能兩條生產線才用工180人。
按照目前國內工人工資上漲趨勢，如考慮國內5年工資再翻倍、10年工資翻兩番計算，那麽中國在人工成本上也占不到任何優勢了。
目前全球最強50家人工智能創業公司。美國39家，中國僅3家。
目前全球最強21家物聯網公司。美國18家，中國無一上榜。
https://www.computerworlduk.com/galleries/data/most-powerful-internet-of-
things-companies-3521713/
1, SAP
2, GE
3, Rolls, Royce
4, DELL
5, ARM
6, Bosch
7, Cisco
8,Ingenu
9, AWS
10, Centrica
11，AT&T
12, 富士通
13，GOOGLE
14，HPE
15，IBM
16，英特爾
17，微軟
18，甲骨文
19, 高通
20，saleforce
21，三星
目前全球最強50家機器人公司。 中國僅3家上榜。
一句話，人工智能的時代，就是資源（土地/能源/原材料）為王的時代。誰控製著全球的主要資源，能夠拿到最便宜的資源，誰就占優勢。未來西方跟中國競爭的要點將是通過機器人取代人力，來架空中國作為世界工廠的地位，讓中國這個世界車間在全球分工體係裏完全被取代，讓中國經濟破產，社會動亂四起。在此基礎上，再對中國的國內政治形勢進行幹預，就變得現實可行了。最終，中國的結局並不會跟蘇聯的結局有什麽本質差別。
=========================
附錄：美國通過經濟戰打垮蘇聯經濟全過程
裏根政府上台後，認為蘇聯的擴張是美國國家安全的最大威脅，因此首要的任務就是要搞垮蘇聯。在內閣討論會上，國防部長溫伯格提出，技術創新是美國的一種獨特優勢，可以用它來損耗蘇聯的經濟。他認為，關鍵在於把美蘇的軍備競爭的重點從數量轉向質量。如果美國的技術創新在軍事領域的應用不受阻礙，就可以把蘇聯拋在後麵。在五角大樓的絕密文件中，溫伯格將此稱為“經濟戰”的一種方式。他相信，如果蘇聯無法從西方得到貸款和技術，它的日子就過不下去了。因此，美國應抓住每一次機會限製西方對蘇聯的技術貿易出口，遏製並打擊蘇聯可以換取外匯的那些領域。
美國中央情報局對蘇聯經濟格局做了分析後認為，蘇聯的弱點在於它對石油出口的依賴很大，如果國際石油價格下降，蘇聯出口換匯的能力就會下降。蘇聯外匯儲備下降，主權風險就增加，西歐的國家銀行給它發放貸款時就會三思而後行。蘇聯利用西歐的貸款下降，它用以改造技術的能力就會下降，在與美國的軍備競賽上就會落後。蘇聯傾全力與美國進行軍備競賽，會耗盡它的實力。
經過這些計算後，美國就從國際油價入手。20世紀70年代第一次石油危機後，國際油價攀升，蘇聯靠石油出口賺了一大筆錢。美國人估計，石油價格上漲1美元/桶，蘇聯一年就可以多獲得10億美元的硬通貨。如何才能壓低油價，打擊蘇聯出口換匯的能力呢？
20世紀80年代，影響國際油價的單個產油國隻有沙特阿拉伯。沙特的產量占歐佩克總量的40%，而且與其他歐佩克成員不同的是，沙特可以迅速地增加產量，它的石油儲備運用起來也很方便。換句話說，沙特具有其他產油國都沒有的生產彈性，能夠靠控製出口石油的量來影響國際油價。當時，世界石油市場的供略大於求，每天有200萬至300萬桶石油屬於過剩供應。許多歐佩克國家強烈要求沙特削減出口量，以將每桶石油的價格從32美元漲到36美元。
當時的美國中央情報局局長凱西便飛到沙特首都利雅得會見沙特親王，說明美國對油價的關心。當時，凱西的論據是，美國經濟需要低油價支持，沙特如果不向其他歐佩克國家屈服，就是支持美國，美國會感激沙特，會向沙特出售一些尖端武器，以保證沙特的安全。當時沙特擔心蘇聯的向南擴張會影響到自己的安全，沙特親王又是個對共產主義意識形態非常反感的人，美國的勸說立即得到了沙特的積極回應，雙方一拍即合。沙特認為美國的計劃符合沙特的利益，除了強大的美國可以給沙特提供安全保護外，低油價會讓歐洲停止從蘇聯購買天然氣而選擇從中東進口石油作為替代，還可以讓伊朗這個有可能在阿拉伯世界引起伊斯蘭革命的國家受到懲罰。沙特向美國人保證一定會頂住歐佩克組織要求減少石油產量與提高石油價格的任何努力。
美國用了一切辦法來壓低油價，其中之一就是縮減需求，包括縮減美國的戰略石油儲備。從1973—1974年阿拉伯產油國對西方國家實行石油禁運，引發了第一次石油危機後，西方國家就開始構建戰略石油儲備。也就是說，這些國家在平時要多購進一些石油，貯存在專門的地方，以備萬一石油進口中斷時，拿出來使用。美國的戰略石油儲備多藏在一些偏遠地區的自然地下岩洞中。美國國會原計劃到1990年時儲備7.5億桶石油，這要求美國每天要購進22萬桶。1983年，裏根政府宣布，因為政府預算緊縮，美國每天隻能購進14.5萬桶石油。除以之外，美國還要求西歐及日本時刻做好準備，一旦油價上漲，就拋售戰略石油儲備，以打擊石油投機，平抑油價。
1985年，沙特國王法赫德對美國進行了訪問，美國又說服他繼續維持石油產量，必要時甚至應多開采一些。對於沙特來說，這並不困難，因為沙特開采石油的成本非常低，平均每桶1.5美元。油價再低些，隻要石油出口多，對沙特來說仍然是筆利潤豐厚的買賣。
為了給沙特阿拉伯一些甜頭，美國政府通過國際銀行家告訴法赫德國王，美國財政部正在設計美元貶值的計劃，準備在未來12個月內讓美元貶值四分之一。這一消息對法赫德來說是無價之寶，使沙特有時間來安排它的境外財產，美元以外的資產當然會隨著美元的貶值大幅升值，沙特為此大概大賺了一筆。沙特當然要投桃報李，1985年夏末，沙特政府正式通知裏根政府，它準備增加石油產量，國際石油價格將急劇下跌。當年11月，每桶原油的價格從原來的30美元跌到了12美元。
對蘇聯來說，真是禍不單行。除了石油價格下跌、蘇聯出口的能源換回的外匯大幅縮水外，美元貶值使蘇聯換回的實際價值也更加縮水。美元貶值 四分之一，蘇聯出口換匯的實際收入也就減少了四分之一。
除了壓低油價外，美國還組織了一係列針對蘇聯的經濟戰：利用巴統委員會來限製西歐對蘇聯的技術出口，利用經合組織等國際機構來限製給蘇聯提供的貸款，鼓勵西歐國家利用各種替代能源，減少對蘇聯天然氣供應的依賴，等等。
巴統組織成立於1950年，是與北約差不多同時誕生的西方資本主義國家對付東方社會主義國家的“經濟戰”組織，其正式名稱為多國出口協調委員會(COCOM)，因總部位於巴黎，又被人簡稱為巴黎統籌委員會。巴統成立後至1953年，其成員國便由最初的美、英、法、意等七國發展成為包括加拿大、西德和日本在內的十五國。巴統是美國建議成立的組織，目的是聯合西歐北美國家對東方社會主義國家實行禁運，防止和限製西方的戰略物資、高技術及產品流向社會主義國家。
1982年1月，美國副國務卿巴克利、副國防部長伊克爾率領著一個代表團到巴黎參加巴統會議。他們提議，根據目前的情況，巴統委員會的工作程序要做三項改變。首先，美國想更嚴格地執行有關向蘇聯出售關鍵技術的禁令，包括先進計算機及其電子部件、光纖、半導體和各種冶金方法。美國還想限製西歐的公司把工廠遷入蘇聯境內，因為它擔心這些工廠將有助於蘇聯的軍事工業發展，擔心西歐工廠的先進的方法會被蘇聯利用，從而有助於蘇聯經濟的發展。其次，所有與蘇聯簽訂的價值超過一億美元的合同，都要自動交委員會審批，以確保敏感技術不會流到蘇聯。再次，美國要擴大該委員會從成立以來製訂的禁運清單，把它擴大到最新的技術與產品。
美國人認為，通過了這些協議後，從西方流向蘇聯的高技術產品顯然減少了。1975年，在美國出售給蘇聯的全部產品中，高技術產品占了32.7%，銷售總額達2.19億美元。到了1983年，出售給蘇聯的高技術產品在全部產品中所占的比例下降為5.4%，其總額隻有區區 3 900 萬美元。
1983年的3月，巴克利又率一個金融專家小組赴歐洲穿梭訪問，以關緊西歐向蘇聯提供貸款的閥門。美國人發現，西歐人向蘇聯提供了大量低息貸款，以籌建蘇聯通向歐洲的天然氣管道。巴克利便與西歐國家的代表在經合組織的框架內展開了談判，最後把蘇聯重新定義為“相對富裕的國家”，而不是原來的“中間借貸國”。此外，華盛頓還提議，停止對較富裕的國家的貸款提供補貼。如此一來，蘇聯從西歐借的貸款利息上升了許多，大約從原來的7%―8%上升為17%。
此外，1983年春天，美國官員還將一項協議強加給了國際能源機構，限製歐洲從蘇聯進口的天然氣比例，規定西歐從蘇聯進口的天然氣不得超過其能源需求量的30%。這項協議於1983年5月在威廉斯堡的西方七國首腦會議上正式簽署，它切斷了蘇聯從西歐獲取硬通貨的渠道，也使西歐國家不得不轉向其他方向去尋找代替能源。
1985年，美國對蘇聯發動的“經濟戰”進入了白熱化階段。石油價格暴跌與美元貶值使蘇聯的外匯收入銳減，蘇聯預期從西歐獲得的出口貸款、硬通貨和技術不是被停止就是被砍掉了，這使蘇聯從西伯利亞通往西歐的天然氣管道工程大大推遲，原計劃得到的硬通貨也泡湯了。天然氣管道項目推遲對蘇聯來說是個巨大的災難。1980年，莫斯科以為這條天然氣管道1985年就可完工，將使蘇聯每年獲得80億至100億美元的收入。如果到90年代第二條管道也完工，每年就可獲得150億至300億美元的收入。然而，由於裏根政府的經濟戰，蘇聯修建第二條天然氣管道的計劃徹底失敗。蘇聯苦苦等待巨額硬通貨，經濟陷入了混亂。美國人估計，因為建設兩條天然氣管道的計劃完全泡湯，蘇聯大概損失了150億至200億美元。同時，因為美國嚴格限製西歐盟國向蘇聯出口技術，蘇聯在這方麵的損失也有數十億。
1985年是蘇聯領導人頻繁更迭的年代，安德羅波夫、契爾年科相繼去世，戈爾巴喬夫接手的是一個搖搖欲墜、危機四伏的帝國。蘇軍在阿富汗進退兩難；在它原來控製的東歐勢力範圍內，波蘭的反對派在美國的支持下公開挑釁蘇聯社會主義模式；蘇聯的經濟在美國的打壓下陷入了一片混亂；美國的“戰略防禦倡議”(星球大戰計劃)逼著蘇聯把僅剩的一點資源都投到了軍事領域。戈爾巴喬夫本來指望著向西歐出口能源來換取更多的硬通貨，以籌措購買技術和進口生活消費品的資金，最終實現他的改革計劃。但在美國的經濟攻勢下，他的一切計劃都落空了，蘇聯隻好通過出售黃金來維持正常的貿易。
==================================
英文翻譯：
The key to repelling the challenge of China's manufacturing industry is to use the zero human rights advantage of mature AI robots to defeat China's low human rights advantage.
Abstract: The main advantage of China's economic competitiveness lies in its low human rights advantage, that is, it employs a large number of high-quality blue-collar and white-collar workers at a lower cost, and low-cost reproduction of mature technologies and products in the West to squeeze and destroy the West. Competitors. The selling point of China lies in this low human rights advantage. To counter this advantage of China, the United States needs to mature artificial intelligence and robotics as soon as possible, and defeat China’s low human rights advantage with the zero human rights advantage of robots, thus pushing China out of the international division of labor system and causing its economic collapse, just like In the same year, the Soviet Union was pushed out of the world energy market by lowering the price of oil, which caused the collapse of the Soviet economy.
The key to competition among big countries lies in their respective positions in the international division of labor.
The key to stifling the rise of a big country is to vacate its position in the international division of labor, making it dispensable, thereby greatly reducing its income and then hollowing out its economy through an arms race.
The United States’ treatment of the Soviet Union in the past was to make oil more exceptionally easy to obtain by lowering the price of oil in the Middle East (price is more difficult than obtaining resources), thus making the Soviet Union dependent on oil exports a dispensable in the international division of labor. In turn, the extremely low energy prices have to be endured, leading to a sharp drop in economic income. Together with the consumption of the Afghan war and the space arms race, the economy has collapsed.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union certainly has deep internal reasons, but as the former US Central Intelligence Agency official Schweitzer, who personally participated in the economic war against the Soviet Union, said, "It is not an incident or a policy that makes the Kremlin into the abyss. The reason why the Reagan administration’s overall strategy has such great power is the combined effect of various policies. These policies are like a strong hurricane blowing into the weak Soviet system. The Reagan administration carefully designed a blueprint for economic warfare, and the Soviet Union was dragged into the abyss by the United States.
Today, the international academic community, especially the international economics community, has a strange understanding of China, but the big ones are nothing more than three: one is the collapse of China. That is to say, the high growth of China's economy is only a false phase caused by exaggeration. In reality, the internal crisis and the pressure of globalization are becoming more and more serious, and it is inevitable that it will collapse. The second and the third are opposite. They believe that the Chinese economy has created a miracle of growth and prosperity. However, according to the traditional theory of the two camps of Western economics, two opposite interpretations are formed: classical liberal economics credits the "Chinese miracle" The success of economic liberalization or marketization, while the leftist economics or Keynesian economics is attributed to the success of "socialism" or government intervention and control.
I think that the three major mainstream understandings are seriously biased: China's economy continues to grow at a high rate, and it is a fact that it is comfortable in globalization. The "false theory" and "collapse theory" are wrong. However, this kind of growth can neither be interpreted as “government success” as the leftist commentator, nor can it be interpreted as “market success” as the right-wingers say, and “Beijing’s double success”. Consensus is irrelevant. In addition to the traditional advantages of low wages and low welfare, China has lowered the prices of the four major factors (human, land, capital and non-renewable resources) with the “lower human rights” advantage, so as not to bargain, limit or even cancel many trading rights. The approach of “reducing transaction costs” to reject democracy, suppress participation, ignore ideas, despise faith, defy justice, and stimulate material desires to motivate people to concentrate on the mirage-like impulse of seeking wealth, thus showing whether the free market countries or welfare The amazing competitiveness that is rare in the country also makes the transitional countries that adopt “gradual” or “shock therapy” even worse.
Of course, if you don't open up to the outside world, this impulse will not be much more capable. However, after opening up to the outside world in the era of globalization, China was excused from the "autocratic and non-welfare" system. "Democratic separation of households is troublesome, welfare countries have more burdens, trade unions scare away investors, and farmers will drive away the entourage." "Towed", there has been an unprecedented rapid accumulation of raw. The crisis caused by this method is alleviated by the gain of external resources (capital inflow, commodity output), and the crisis is externally diluted through globalization: the iron fist power in China suppresses its internal contradictions and maintains the surface "stability." At the same time, the "China factor" has intensified the internal contradictions of other countries: the capital flow and commodity flow caused by the Chinese factor have broken the original balance of power in the free country, exacerbated the contradiction between labor and capital, and intensified the immigration conflict in the welfare state. Employment and public finances have been exacerbated in both countries.
In just over a decade, the goods produced in China have been flooded with the world, and capital flows from all over the world have flooded into China. The "China's competition" in globalization is unstoppable. It not only forces the welfare state to lower the welfare level, but also forces the free country to re-establish trade barriers. It also makes the underdeveloped countries face greater difficulties in absorbing funds and obtaining resources.
However, the paradox is that due to a priori preferences and incomplete information, each family tries to make an explanation for "China's success": the non-free color of the Chinese economy makes the left enjoy, and its non-welfare color makes the right enjoy. At the same time, it envied the third world with the rapid development of poor countries. Therefore, China, which originally poses serious challenges to the modern left and right, to the welfare state and the free country, to the developed and developing countries, has been praised by the above parties. However, praise is praised, because the above-mentioned "China advantage" cannot be copied (there is no Chinese-style iron fist power, no country, whether left or right, or a free market policy or a Keynesian or even social democratic policy, can not do this primitively. Accumulation), and the "China Challenge" is objective and unavoidably increasingly serious. The relations between China and the United States are not optimistic in the long run.
On the other hand, China's development model also has a "small effect" within it: the "leftist" gains freedom and the welfare does not necessarily increase, while the "rightist" gains welfare loss and freedom may not increase. When "Left", the government's power expansion is not accountable. When "right", the government dismissed it but did not want to limit power. The left is a violation of civilian private property and public wealth may not be guaranteed. On the right, public assets are seriously lost and civilian private property may not be protected. On the one hand, “new nationalization” and “private privatization”. On the left, "public power" invades the personal sphere but does not care about public services. When it is right, it gives up public goods but does not protect individual rights. The policy tends to the left to compress individual freedom but not to open public participation. To the right, it inhibits democratic participation while restricting free competition. The "leftist" can't build a welfare state, and the "rightist" can't make a fair market. As Sun Liping said: Whether it is to the left or to the right, the winners are the same strong people, and those who suffer are the same disadvantaged. In the words of the common people, "a radish is cut at both ends, and he is the one who is left and right." In this way, social contradictions are increasingly developed and accumulating in the process of scale-up, and not in the constitutional democratic system, to maintain the social balance by the "balance effect" of the left-wing struggle for welfare and the right-wing freedom.
Therefore, China's rapid development has not been able to alleviate the contradiction of “unfairness of the cake” as some people have imagined, but the phenomenon of economic development and internal and external contradictions has continued to deepen. In the past, after Deng Xiaoping, Deng Xiaoping established the legitimacy of the rule on economic growth. He often said that Eastern Europe was paralyzed and we were not guilty because our economy was doing well. But now, the phenomenon of high economic growth and social instability at the same time makes people increasingly skeptical about this, and it is said that some leaders have begun to envy Cuba and North Korea, which are economically declining and seemingly politically "stable", to learn. The political high pressure of the latter. But this practice of quenching thirst can only lead to more serious instability. Another trend of the Hu Wen government is worthy of recognition. This is more emphasis on fairness and government public service responsibility than in the past. However, the mechanism of the "small-scale effect" is not resolved. I am afraid that it is easy to expand and blame. The reply to the "big government" under the existing system will only form another round of expansion of power-removal. And to get out of the "size and effect", it is necessary to carry out constitutional reforms corresponding to powers and responsibilities.
And a country as large as China, with so many people, such a large amount of China's economy, will become more and more prominent as a global commodity supplier and capital absorber in the future. Once the problem may be more than the impact of the US stock market crash in 1929 on the world. Bigger. Therefore, China's smooth and smooth transformation is not only the blessing of the people, but also the blessing of the world. The collapse of the international order caused by China’s “explosive effect” or the collapse of the current primitive accumulation method with the welfare state and the free country is not only a disaster for the people but also a disaster for the world.
In the context of globalization, the world’s concern about China is inevitable. Nowadays, developed countries are pressing China to appreciate the renminbi. This is actually the embodiment of the current primitive accumulation of China and the conflict between the welfare state and the free state system. However, the appreciation of the renminbi cannot solve the problem in fact: due to the fact that there is no fair game within China under the current iron fist system, the suppression of China’s “competitiveness” by the appreciation of the renminbi is easily alleviated by the pressure of the strong people to pass on the weaker classes. Therefore, the appreciation of the renminbi may not be in China. It can improve the trade balance as it did in Japan. The pressure on China’s appreciation has made the Chinese people resentful.
In fact, the wage level of China's manufacturing industry is now no lower than that of India, but its competitiveness is still higher than that of India. Obviously, it is not the economic low-wage advantage, but the advantage of “low human rights”. It is precisely this kind of "advantage" that can occupy the farmland, the labor, and the resources as long as the collusion between the government and the business makes China become a rare "investment paradise". Even the Tata consortium in India wants to avoid the low wages. But the union farmers will be very powerful in their own country, and transfer capital to China. What about other?
Obviously, China's "advantage" is not because its market is more "free", nor because its country is more "welfare", but because it is more authoritarian. The author's attitude toward autocracy is well known, but it has never been based on the fact that "authoritarianism hinders economic growth." In fact, authoritarianism “stimulates” economic growth. Under non-market conditions, there are examples of Stalin and Nazi Germany. Under market conditions, there are also examples of the early development of commodity agriculture in Central and Eastern Europe in the early modern period, while the US economy The study of Shijiafugeer also shows that the "efficiency" of the slavery economy in the southern United States before the civil war is no less than, and probably more than, superior to the northern free economy. But authoritarianism should still be opposed, not only because of its inhumanity, but also because of this "efficiency" malformation. Other countries do not say that China today relies on "low human rights advantages" to absorb capital and export goods globally and form an astonishingly high "double surplus", which not only makes other countries have a headache, but how much can the Chinese people benefit? Ultra-cheap labor, land, and resources are not enough to make effective import demand, and only a huge amount of "green paper" (book dollar) is exchanged. The Chinese complained that the US started the printing press and took away their blood and sweat. The Americans complained that China's cheap goods had smashed their jobs, and once the US dollar was arrogant, the United States was finished, and our blood and sweat were also vain.
Today, the United States’ strategy toward China is to recognize that the Chinese economy is an economic structure that relies on manpower to process industrial exports to obtain economic income. Then the United States wants to vacate China’s position in the global division of labor, that is, to vigorously develop Internet of Things technology, artificial intelligence and robotics, so that robots can replace labor on a large scale in the next 20 years, making the cost of producing industrial products extremely cheap, and thus greatly Compressing China’s economic income, and then dismantling the Chinese economy through the consumption of the Taiwan Strait War, the Korean Peninsula War, and the space arms race, and then seeking to promote China’s change.
The blind spot of the Chinese government's strategic competition is that it always assumes that China's low labor costs and quality advantages can continue, and that China will remain the world's major manufacturing base in the future. This assumption will no longer be established after the artificial intelligence and robotics technology mature. Because the labor intensity of the robot can be much higher than the manpower and the cost can be much lower than the manpower, and the robot can also manufacture the robot. Therefore, the future industrial production itself will be completely independent of manpower. The factors of production will be the software and chips of the industrial robot itself, not the production skills. The main manufacturing base will be where the robot's chips are designed and manufactured, not where the robots work. Therefore, only need to develop the robot design and manufacturing technology, then the Belt and Road along with China's own industrial products market will actually belong to the company that designs and manufactures industrial robot chips and software--the artificial intelligence on the east and west coasts of the United States. Software companies, semiconductor chip companies, silicon photonics companies, etc. At best, China can only collect a site fee for the placement of industrial robots. Moreover, if the West opens a large number of such production bases in the countries of Asia and Europe, the Chinese local base will become dispensable, and the rental expenses will also drop significantly, which will greatly reduce China's income. If we cooperate with space competition, the Taiwan Strait War and the Korean War, the Chinese economy will collapse due to the loss of international competitiveness.
Some people may say that the development of artificial intelligence in China is not behind the United States. I don't think this will change the overall trend. When the artificial intelligence of both China and the United States has become popular, it is not the labor force that determines the price of industrial products. It is land, energy, raw materials, and tax rates. Compared with the United States, China’s land is cheap, whose energy is cheap, and whose tax rate is low? Obviously the latter.
Land cost: China is 9 times that of the United States
Domestic land prices are nine times the US land price, and the United States is a permanent property right, and we are 50 years of property rights. For example, in 2000, the price of industrial land in Cixi City, Zhejiang Province was 180,000 yuan/mu. At present, the land price in the United States is only 20,000 US dollars/acre, equivalent to 20,000 yuan/mu. If many industrial land in the county is 1 million yuan/mu. Calculated, it is 50 times that of the United States.
Logistics cost: China is twice as large as the United States
Domestic logistics costs are twice the cost of logistics in the United States. Take oil prices as an example. China's oil price is twice that of the United States. Oil prices are high and logistics costs are high. What's more, China still has a few tolls and bridge fees in the world, can logistics costs be low?
The logistics cost in the United States is mainly composed of three parts, one is the inventory cost, the second is the transportation cost, and the third is the management fee. Compared with the changes in the past 20 years, it can be seen that the proportion of transportation costs in GDP remains largely unchanged, and the main reason for the decline in the proportion of total logistics costs in the United States is the reduction in inventory costs.
Bank borrowing costs: China is 2.4 times that of the United States
The cheapest domestic borrowing cost is 6% per annum, which is 2.4 times the US annual interest rate of 2.5%. According to the 7,000 yuan per ton or US$1,100 funds, 4 months a week, the domestic borrowing cost 6% annual interest rate and the US cost annual interest rate 2.5% calculate the company's working capital financial cost: domestic 7,000 yuan * 4 * 0.06 / 12 = 140 yuan, equivalent to 22.58 US dollars. The United States is $1,100*4*0.025/12=9 dollars, which is 1.5 times higher than the United States.
This is still a normal bank loan. If the funds come from bank wealth management products with an annual interest rate of more than 10%, private equity funds with an annual interest rate of 15%, and even private usury loans with an annual interest rate of 20%, the company is overwhelmed.
Electricity/natural gas costs: China is more than twice as large as the US
Domestic energy costs are more than twice the cost of the United States. The United States except Hawaii (the island area is not available), the electricity prices in other states are not expensive. In Texas, for example, the electricity price is equivalent to 2 cents.
Due to the direct pricing of electricity and natural gas in China, the price of gas for oil used by enterprises is high. According to the domestic electricity consumption of 450 degrees per ton, electricity price of 0.76 yuan / degree, the unit production cost of 342 yuan, equivalent to 55.16 US dollars. The degree of automation of equipment in the United States is relatively high, and the unit electricity consumption is increased by 10%. From ton to 500 degrees, according to the electricity price of 0.05 US dollars / kWh, the unit production cost is 25 US dollars, and the domestic price is 1.2 times higher than that of the United States.
Steam cost: China is 1.1 times that of the US
There is also steam, domestic thermal power plant steam, according to 1.6 tons of steam per ton, unit price of 190 yuan / ton, unit production cost of 304 yuan, equivalent to 49.0. US dollars, the United States with natural gas boilers homemade steam, according to natural gas price of 0.48 US dollars / Therm, unit price of 14.52 US dollars / ton, unit production cost of 23.23 US dollars, domestically 1.1 times higher than the United States.
Cost of accessories: China is 3.2 times that of the United States
The cost of domestic parts is 3.2 times the cost of US parts. The performance of domestic equipment is slightly worse, workers' operating habits are poor, the cost per ton of parts is about 100 yuan, equivalent to 16.13 US dollars, while the performance of American production line equipment is good, workers operating habits are good, the cost per ton of parts is 5 US dollars, domestic is higher than the United States 3.2 times.
Tax cost: US tax incentives are strong
In China, various taxes are constantly on the rise, and companies are overwhelmed. A logistics company in Guangzhou, which transports a batch of goods to Hainan, has a total income of 19,000 yuan, but the profit is only 216 yuan, of which 1,260 yuan is taxed.
The US state government is most concerned about employment, and often gives preferential tax policies to enterprises. For example, property tax concessions are valid for 30 years. If the company reaches production, it will give 30 million U.S. dollars in tax relief within 30 years.
Customs clearance costs: the United States does not have to pay for import and export customs clearance costs
There is no need to pay for import and export customs clearance costs when investing in the US. The raw materials of domestic enterprises are all imported. It is assumed that the cost of the incoming goods does not include inland freight, customs duties, value-added tax, and the cost of all kinds of formalities is about 3,500 yuan/cabinet. For each cabinet, according to 20 tons, it is 175 yuan/ton. 22.58 US dollars / ton.
Domestic enterprises export finished products, assuming that the export link costs do not include land freight, only the cost of various procedures is about 1,600 yuan / cabinet, and the cost per cabinet is 20 yuan / ton, equivalent to 12.9 US dollars / ton. If you add shipping costs, etc., the cost will increase significantly.
Labor cost: China's cost advantage weakens
Although the US labor cost is 2.57 times the domestic labor cost, the United States has a high degree of automation and less labor. The domestic production line with a total output of 4,500 tons in two months employs 250 people. The US equipment has been improved, and 180 production lines have been used in two production lines with the same capacity.
According to the current trend of rising wages of domestic workers, such as considering that domestic five-year wages will double again and that 10-year wages will quadruple, China will not have any advantage in labor costs.
In a word, the era of artificial intelligence is the era when resources (land/energy/raw materials) are kings. Whoever controls the world's major resources and gets the cheapest resources will have an advantage. The key to the future competition between the West and China will be to replace China with robots to overhang China's status as a world factory, so that China's world workshop will be completely replaced in the global division of labor system, causing China's economic bankruptcy and social unrest. On this basis, it is realistic and feasible to intervene in China's domestic political situation. In the end, China’s ending will not be fundamentally different from the outcome of the Soviet Union.
===========================
Appendix: The United States defeats the Soviet economy through economic wars
After the Reagan administration came to power, it believed that the expansion of the Soviet Union was the greatest threat to US national security, so the first task was to smash the Soviet Union. At the cabinet discussion, Defense Minister Weinberger argued that technological innovation is a unique advantage of the United States and can be used to deplete the Soviet economy. He believes that the key is to shift the focus of US-Soviet arms competition from quantity to quality. If the application of technological innovation in the US is not hindered, the Soviet Union can be left behind. In the top secret documents of the Pentagon, Weinberg called this a "economic warfare". He believes that if the Soviet Union cannot get loans and technology from the West, its days will not pass. Therefore, the United States should seize every opportunity to limit Western exports of technology trade to the Soviet Union, to contain and combat those areas in which the Soviet Union can exchange foreign exchange.
The US Central Intelligence Agency analyzed the Soviet economic structure and concluded that the weakness of the Soviet Union is that it relies heavily on oil exports. If international oil prices fall, the ability of Soviet exports to exchange foreign exchange will decline. When the Soviet Union’s foreign exchange reserves fell, the sovereign risk increased, and the National Bank of Western Europe would think twice before giving it a loan. The Soviet Union’s use of Western European loans fell, its ability to transform technology would decline, and it would lag behind in the US arms race. The Soviet Union’s efforts to compete with the United States for an arms race will exhaust its strength.
After these calculations, the United States starts with international oil prices. After the first oil crisis in the 1970s, international oil prices climbed and the Soviet Union made a large sum of money from oil exports. Americans estimate that oil prices will rise by $1 per barrel, and the Soviet Union will receive an additional $1 billion in hard currency a year. How can we lower the price of oil and combat the ability of the Soviet Union to exchange foreign exchange?
In the 1980s, the only oil producers that affected international oil prices were Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia's production accounts for 40% of OPEC's total, and unlike other OPEC members, Saudi Arabia can increase production quickly, and its oil reserves are also very convenient to use. In other words, Saudi Arabia has a production elasticity that no other oil-producing country has, and it can influence the international oil price by controlling the amount of oil exported. At that time, the supply of the world oil market was slightly greater than demand, and between 2 million and 3 million barrels of oil per day belonged to excess supply. Many OPEC countries have strongly demanded that Saudi Arabia cut its exports to increase the price of oil per barrel from $32 to $36.
At that time, the head of the US Central Intelligence Agency, Casey, flew to the Saudi capital, Riyadh, to meet with the Saudi prince, explaining the US concern for oil prices. At that time, Casey’s argument was that the US economy needed low oil price support. If Saudi Arabia did not surrender to other OPEC countries, it would support the United States. The United States would be grateful to Saudi Arabia and sell some sophisticated weapons to Saudi Arabia to ensure Saudi Arabia’s security. At that time, Saudi Arabia worried that the southward expansion of the Soviet Union would affect his own security. The Saudi prince was also a person who was very disgusted with communist ideology. The US persuasion immediately received a positive response from Saudi Arabia, and the two sides hit it off. Saudi Arabia believes that the US plan is in line with Saudi Arabia’s interests. In addition to the strong US can provide Saudi Arabia with security protection, low oil prices will allow Europe to stop buying natural gas from the Soviet Union and choose to import oil from the Middle East as an alternative. The countries that caused the Islamic revolution in the world were punished. Saudi Arabia has assured the Americans that they will withstand any OPEC efforts to reduce oil production and increase oil prices.
The United States has used every means to drive down oil prices, one of which is to reduce demand, including reducing the US's strategic oil reserves. From 1973 to 1974, the Arab oil-producing countries imposed an oil embargo on Western countries, triggering the first oil crisis, and Western countries began to build strategic oil reserves. That is to say, these countries usually purchase more oil and store it in a special place, in case the oil import is interrupted, and use it. The US's strategic oil reserves are mostly hidden in natural underground caves in some remote areas. The US Congress originally planned to reserve 750 million barrels of oil by 1990, which requires the United States every day.
