伽馬波
版權所有，未經許可，不得轉載。
一場貿易戰開打，暴露出很多信息：美國精英界對中國的了解，還是極為的貧乏甚至是到了無知的地步。這裏貼出的是一個很活躍的美國國家安全分析師的大作。她二十五歲就獲得倫敦經濟學院國際關係專業的博士學位，年少得誌，分析的好像也有模有樣，代表了美國精英的思維能力和思維方式。川普就是這類美國人的代表。
貿易戰開打的理由是貿易的不平衡，川普覺得中國人占便宜太多，原因則是中國人的不對等貿易條件，人為的屏蔽自己的巨大市場，不讓美國商人進入。現在的川普，就是要打破這個壁壘。同時，作者她還很自豪的回顧了一下曆史：當年美國是如何崛起的，中國又是如何衰敗的。最終，又是因為共產黨的得勢，才讓中國有了今天這種“熊”樣子，隻能等著被美國人欺淩，不可能有還手之力。她的意思是說，美國精英界都一致性的支持川普的強硬，都覺得，隻要總統堅持下去，中國政府就必須屈服，沒有選擇，也不可能有選擇。
這種分析，粗看似乎很有道理，細看，漏洞百出。所以，在你笑中國人缺乏知識素養的時候，你也得注意到，美國精英的知識素養也充滿了“偽”：偽知識，偽邏輯，偽證據，最終變成強盜邏輯，隨後就基於這種強盜邏輯搞欲加之罪。
貿易戰，有其積極的成分，我讚成美國對中國施壓，促其作出改變，特別是涉及到劣根性的部分，沒有強大的來自外部的壓力，再過幾百年，中國人還會依舊，基於所謂的“中國特色”過日子。
盜版成風，舉國長期的藐視知識產權，確實是中國人的劣根性所在。強製性的技術轉移，以市場換技術，也是當初沒有辦法的辦法，而且，換的也是極為低端的技術。高級點，那時的中國人想學也把握不了，蛇吞象會被噎死的。
製造壁壘，人為的製造障礙，也是中國的劣根性。每個省和地區，都在想辦法的各自為政，才有了一再大量的低端重複，持續的浪費。據說，省級高速公路將實現年底前取消收費，如果做到，就是個不小的進步。貿易戰之後，如果能夠實現徹底的打破壁壘，讓市場流通更加流暢，是件好事，利國利民。
類似的做法和施壓沒有錯。這些美國精英，錯的是對中國國情的不理解，和無限度的霸道性施壓，帶有羞辱和不知天高地厚。
其一，算法不對。貿易差額遠沒有川普以為的那麽高，基於這種錯誤數據，他得出的打擊力度，就會誤導自己。估計他自己也明白，卻裝糊塗，看看中國人是不是好糊弄。
其二，開打之後，總統也一定明白，不可能像他想象的那樣，“將使美國變的更加強大，中國變的弱小甚至是崩潰”。我覺得，最極端的情況，即使中國和美國不再有貿易往來，中國也不會崩潰！畢竟，自己內部就有那麽大的一個市場，而且，經濟發展水平已經達到一個不錯的層次，基本的工業體係已經完善。倒是美國，已經失去了製造業，特別是低端部分的，失去了中國中國廉價的工廠，哪裏去找替代？誰有能力替代？替代不了的結果又會是什麽？美國人開始支付高價來自己生產？那麽，美國選民會不會答應？忽悠選民隻會有效於短期的一時，後麵呢？民眾也是有感覺的，特別是錢袋子發生巨大變化之後。
其三，川普自己一定明白，自己可用的時間並不多，他也想盡快的促成貿易協議，而且盡可能是自己誇口“可以”獲得的。但是，他麵對的是完全不同的對手，這個對手，比昔日的 俄國強大多了，沒有那麽容易打趴的。即使如此，他依然一次次的出口不遜，難不成，他不怕最終自己很難下台？這種博弈，就看中國政府的智慧了。
中國方麵也有兩難：如果下決心做大的政治改革，就此應對貿易戰，以此為契機實現民族複興，美國後麵一定會後悔，弄巧成拙，結果喚醒了 一頭巨獅。但是，美國政府在賭：中國共產黨不會擁有這般的睿智！權力大於一切。當前看，後者更可能是現實。這也是中國政府絕對不願意退讓的底線。就是這個底線，讓美國人看到了中國政府的真正軟弱所在，而且是可以充分利用的軟弱。中國政府最終可能隻能是作繭自縛，任人欺淩，就是為了一時的政權和權力結構體係的維持和安穩，這才是中國現在最可悲的地方。美國人賭的是中國政府不會有膽識，否則，結果將是強大無比的中國。
其四，對於中國來說，共產黨當年的獲勝，應該是件好事。美國人不承認這點，因為那是美國的失敗。但是，這是時代的選擇，不一定是人民的選擇。如果中國繼續是個戰火連天，支離破碎的大國，是又一個中東，對於美國，對於世界文明，也未必是什麽好事。
問題是，中國共產黨的與時俱進，會進步到什麽程度？
現在的中國就是中國人的中國，共產黨打算繼續對誰專政？
政治敏感性方麵的問題，就不繼續問了。多數，大家都心知肚明。
延伸閱讀：
Rebecca Grant: For Trump, the China trade war began long ago – and this is a war he’s determined not to lose
By Rebecca Grant, Published May 10, 2019, Fox News
Round 11 of U.S.-China trade talks wrapped with no deal Friday, after President Trump raised tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports from 10 percent to 25 percent. Beijing was close to a deal a week ago. Then China balked.
Wall Street is reacting to the uncertainty. So are American farmers and businesses.
"Tariffs will make our Country MUCH STRONGER, not weaker," the president tweeted Friday. "Just sit back and watch! In the meantime, China should not renegotiate deals with the U.S. at the last minute."
How can Trump appear so calm? He doesn’t like tariffs any more than you do. He actually wants U.S.-China trade to grow – but not until China changes two decades of bad behavior.
Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping left themselves plenty of diplomatic wiggle room this week. The tariffs don’t hit goods already in transit, which staves off their impact until late May. Trump also knows the Chinese can't immediately find alternative markets for $539 billion in goods, and that should keep them at the table.
The president was careful to delay tariffs for the rest of the $325 billion in products imported from China. That’s his style, and it’s an important point.
Sure, Trump likes to talk and tweet. But when it comes to action, he has proven quite methodical, even cautious, with the tools of U.S. power, both military and economic. True to form, he rolled out the China tariffs in small batches over the past year. He’s taking measured steps.
But the single most important element is Trump’s determination not to lose this trade war. He’s picked his battle.
Realize that for Trump, this trade war began long ago. And he’s long since accepted that America lost the first battle by not doing enough to engage China on trade rules from 2001 to 2017.
The U.S.-China trade deficit was about $118 billion (inflation-adjusted) when China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001 and started exporting goods with no tariffs. Last year it was $419 billion. True, U.S. sales to China went up, but not enough.
It should never have gone on for so long. Over the past 20 years, we let China gush out exports without getting fair access to China’s market.
Yes, U.S. companies do a lot of business in China. But Beijing throws in barriers and restrictions that limit sales. When Japan and Europe grew their exports from the 1950s to the 1980s, they abided by rules and allowed U.S. businesses to operate in their countries under fair terms. They were allies, not thieves.
The world hoped the Chinese would behave well. After all, they’re a powerhouse. They invented fireworks and gunpowder and sent spaghetti home with Marco Polo 700 years ago.
China was the world’s biggest economic power back when America was t3 colonies trading animal skins and using whiskey for money. There’s a reason your dishes are called “china.”
Beginning in the 19th century, internal turmoil, world events, some British imperialism, and a failure to industrialize knocked China off its game. Then came war and communism. America rose in the 20th century while China was in the dirt.
In the 1990s, China stepped slowly back into the world market. Fine. Trade grew slowly at first. But China set up all sorts of tricks and barriers to its huge domestic market. The result? Massive trade imbalances. In the U.S., Democrats and Republicans both turned a blind eye. You know the rest.
The peak came when China surpassed Canada as the top U.S. trading partner in 2015. Get this. Canada, with a population of 37 million people, buys $298 billion in U.S. goods per year. China, with 1.38 billion people, buys less than half that amount – just $120 billion in U.S. goods.
Even granting that Canada is our neighbor, which facilitates trade, these numbers show something is very wrong with China’s trade practices.
The Chinese want a win-win. They’ve said so. The U.S. wants fairness and reciprocity. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer won’t back down on key issues like intellectual property, forced technology transfer, tariff and non-tariff barriers, and enforcement of agreements.
Australia went 21 rounds negotiating its China trade deal back in 2015. But it worked out. China and Australia ended up with a positive deal for both sides, with 95 percent of products tariff-free.
Trump doesn’t want long-term tariffs. He wants a deal, and the markets know it.
As Trump once said, sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war. What you need generally is enough time and a little luck.
Rebecca Grant is a national security analyst based in Washington, D.C. She earned her Ph.D. in International Relations from the London School of Economics at age 25 then worked for RAND and on the staff of the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Since founding IRIS Independent Research, she has specialized in research for government and aerospace industry clients ranging from analysis of military campaigns to projects on major technology acquisition such as the B-21 bomber.
