金刻羽 特朗普瞎折騰 中國超越世界

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