美國臨中國衝擊2.0 威力強 更猛烈

美國臨中國衝擊2.0 威力強 更猛烈

中國衝擊2.0即將到來（而且會更加嚴重）

China Shock 2.0 Is Coming (and it’s much worse)

Hamish Hodder  2025年9月17日
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UojNHa7NYcI

美國正麵臨中國衝擊2.0，而且比上次嚴重得多。

過去幾年，中國一直在以我們從未見過的方式挑戰美國。中國已經為這一刻醞釀了十多年。中國已成為全球最大的汽車出口國。嵌入式人工智能在中國風靡一時。美國在全球經濟的主導地位有史以來第一次麵臨嚴重威脅。因此，我相信中國現在的表現比特朗普先生希望的要好得多。我認為美國的政策還沒有完全理解這一挑戰的本質，以及中國在這場博弈中已經取得了多大的進展。

我是麻省理工學院的教授大衛·奧特，他曾與他人合作撰寫了一篇分析文章，探討中國在21世紀初崛起成為世界低成本製造大國的過程。

他們認為他們正在與之競爭的中國，其實是20年前超越美國的中國，在家具製造、玩具和電子產品組裝領域都占據了主導地位。但這並非我們現在麵臨的真正競爭。它對美國產業的衝擊產生了深遠的影響。盡管影響深遠，但美國正處於更糟糕的境地的邊緣。

中國已大幅提升價值鏈。這不僅僅是人工智能。還有太陽能電池、電池、機器人技術、量子計算。

這張看似簡單、不起眼的圖表，實際上鮮明地展現了全球經濟前所未有的轉變。它出自我為製作這部名為《中國綜合症》的視頻而苦苦思索的眾多學術論文之一。本書分析了上世紀90年代和21世紀初，一個經濟強國的崛起如何無情地摧毀了美國工業。

這本書之所以如此重要，是因為作者大衛·道恩、戈登·漢森和大衛·奧特。正是大衛·奧特警告說，另一場更嚴重的衝擊即將到來。上世紀80年代末，美國幾乎沒有從中國進口任何東西。藍線就是藍線。美國公司主要在國內生產產品。因此，製造業自然而然地雇傭了大量工人。虛線就是虛線。但在90年代，中國經濟經曆了一場徹底的轉型。他們從中央計劃經濟轉向了市場經濟。其中一項重大的轉變是允許更多外國投資進入，這為跨國公司在中國生產和銷售打開了大門。 2001年，中國加入世界貿易組織後，貿易壁壘幾乎全部消除。中國出口激增，服裝、家具、玩具、家電等應有盡有。突然之間，中國就成了這一切的製造者。到2007年，超過1.5億中國工人從農村遷移到城市。美國公司是中國最大的客戶。1991年，美國隻有6%的支出用於購買中國產品。到2007年，這一比例飆升至4.6%。短短16年間，美國從中國進口的商品數量增長了11倍。中國製造的商品價格低得多，這對美國工人的影響是毀滅性的。製造業從業人員的比例從13%以上下降到8%多一點，而中國要對這一下降的四分之一負責。但這種損害也蔓延到了各種相關的當地產業。許多工人不僅失去了製造業的工作，實際上他們完全離開了勞動力市場。在美國一些地區，收入下降導致家庭支出下降。因此，零售商、餐館和建築企業也受到影響，被迫裁員。對大多數美國人來說，將工作崗位轉移到海外無疑是一件好事。商品價格更低，股市也因效率提高而受益。但在一些製造業重鎮，這對未受過高等教育的工人造成的負麵影響令人震驚。大約十分之一因中國衝擊而被解雇的工人最終加入了聯邦殘疾保險計劃。一線希望是美國總體上仍然是世界領先的經濟強國。隨著企業將製造業轉移到海外，它們在創新和技術進步方麵投入了更多資金。實際上，美國企業提升了價值鏈。當中國在低成本製造業領域仍然占據主導地位時，美國在航空航天和製藥等行業所需的先進製造業方麵遙遙領先，因此，美國在全球經濟實力爭奪戰中，挺過了中國帶來的第一次重大挑戰。
但這僅僅是個開始。本世紀初的美國經濟，在很大程度上是由一個單一現象決定的，根據經濟學家大衛·奧特的說法。我請他幫助我們理解第二次中國衝擊，他認為這次衝擊將比第一次更嚴重。

如今，美國正麵臨另一場徹底的經濟轉型。這場轉型實際上始於
大約10年前，就像第一次中國衝擊一樣，對美國工人來說，大部分後果是將在第二個十年顯現。

有趣的是，這第二波浪潮直接源於中國處理自身製造業問題。但相似之處也僅限於此，因為這一次，美國麵臨著失去世界主導經濟強國地位的嚴重風險。中國的新經濟戰略不同於美國曆史上麵臨的任何競爭對手。它極具侵略性，最終可能會適得其反，但美國正在犯的錯誤正中他們的下懷。因此，經過二十年的快速發展，中國在2007年成為美國最大的進口貿易夥伴。在接下來的幾年裏，兩國繼續拓展這種關係。2017年，美國從中國購買了價值5260億美元的商品，約占美國進口總額的22%。

但隨後情況開始發生變化。 2022年，美國從中國進口了5760億美元。
按美元計算，這比2017年略有增加，但中國的份額卻從22% 下降到僅17%。五年內，中國份額下降了5個百分點。

這是一個意義重大的變化，主要原因是美國在2018年對中國進口產品征收關稅。如果對在中國生產的產品征收10%的關稅，那麽像越南這樣的國家就更具吸引力了。但最初的關稅實際上隻是起到了催化劑的作用，促使企業考慮從其他低成本國家進口。

無論有沒有關稅，中國現在都是世界第二大經濟體。隨著生活水平的提高，製造成本也在上升。中國早已預見到這種情況，並已在製定計劃來調整其經濟。 2015年，中國宣布了“中國製造2025”。這是一項戰略規劃，旨在大力發展其至關重要的製造業。中國製定了這些五年規劃，其中包含了其經濟和社會發展的目標和指標。2015年的聲明涵蓋了建國以來的“十三五”和“十四五”規劃。其目標是將重點從廉價的低技術產品轉向技術密集型製造業，從而提升目前由美國主導的行業的價值鏈。他們究竟要如何實現這一目標呢？答案是投入巨額資金。政府開始設立國有投資基金，向特定行業注資。例如，去年5月，第三隻基金成立，投資額接近500億美元。在這支基金中，他們瞄準的是半導體公司，而中國在這個關鍵行業中落後。他們希望實現自給自足，這樣美國或任何其他貿易夥伴就無法切斷他們獲取關鍵資源的渠道。這筆資金將提供給該行業的所有關鍵公司。因此，這些公司並非押注於一家公司，也不是成立一家100%的國有企業，而是激烈競爭，力爭率先取得突破。每個行業都對中國本土公司設定了市場份額目標，其中大多數公司都力爭80%或90%的國內銷售額由其本土公司完成。我們說的是完全垂直整合的公司。即使是美國全球領先的圖形芯片公司英偉達，也並非垂直整合的公司。他們設計了自己的GPU，但卻由台積電在台灣製造。然後是補貼和稅收激勵，這構成了最大的資金投??入。例如，自2014年以來，任何購買新能源汽車的人都可以免征購置稅，並享受額外的稅收減免。他們正在實施大約一百萬項其他政策，但最重要的是，他們投入了大量資金，而且這些政策正在發揮作用。澳大利亞戰略政策研究所追蹤了64項關鍵技術領域的領先科研創新。因此，我們可以縱觀不同的時間段，看看哪些國家一直處於領先地位。從2003年到2007年，美國在64項技術中的60項中處於領先地位。中國僅在其中3項中處於領先地位。但快進到最近的數據，猜猜美國在多少個類別中處於領先地位。七個。在64個類別中，美國占據了7個。20年前，中國僅在三個類別中領先，而現在，中國在57個類別中領先。量子計算、疫苗和核醫學是美國僅剩的幾個領先類別。但中國近期的主導地位，使其在高性能計算、半導體設計和製造以及一些具有明確軍事應用的技術（例如雷達、衛星定位、無人機和蜂群機器人）方麵處於領先地位。現在，中國發表的研究成果遠超其他國家的一個重要原因是，他們過去一直落後。但現在，他們已經不再落後了。例如，在先進的航空發動機領域，中國每年注冊的專利數量占全球專利總數的70%以上，累計專利數量甚至超過了美國。撇開研究不談，中國在短短四年內就躍升成為全球最大的汽車出口國。是的，2024年，他們賣出了570萬輛全球汽車銷量達數百萬輛，遠超日本和德國。汽車行業正在發生的事情，是一個很好的案例，可以研究一個擁有巨額補貼和其他政府激勵措施的市場帶來的影響。中國消費者的經濟狀況並不理想。在一個純粹的自由市場中，這會導致汽車製造商放緩支出和投資，直到可自由支配支出的需求再次回升。但在中國，資金仍在源源不斷地湧入。中國有超過100家不同的汽車製造商，都在競相向經濟不景氣的消費者出售過剩的汽車。這導致了一些最劇烈的降價。降價幅度如此之大，以至於幾乎沒有一個品牌能夠生存下來。Alex Partners 研究了中國129個電動汽車品牌，並估計其中隻有15個品牌
能在5年後存活下來。國內市場如此扭曲，也是像比亞迪這樣的中國公司大量出口汽車的原因。

積極的一麵是，他們的汽車售價如此低廉，以至於他們唯一的生存之道就是找到更快、更便宜地生產汽車的方法。

比亞迪的生產成本在各個方麵都比德國低。或許與這段視頻最相關的信息是，所有這一切都是在沒有美國參與的情況下完成的。僅僅25年前，中國還有42%的商品出口到美國。而到2023年，這個數字下降到了13%。

Loi Institute的這張可視化圖表非常棒。藍色表示該國最大的貿易夥伴是美國。紅色表示中國。這些轉變中有很多不同的因素在起作用，但我想強調一下美國正在犯的一個非常明顯的錯誤。當美國首次麵臨中國衝擊時，經濟各部門不可避免地會遭受痛苦，因為它們正在迅速被取代。但美國最終通過將重心轉向更高水平的製造業，保持了其經濟實力。低成本製造業的就業崗位永久地消失了，但它們被其他行業的就業崗位所取代。中國也在做同樣的事情，追求價值鏈更高層次的發展。然而，如今的美國卻在做著完全相反的事情。靠征收關稅來指望製造業回歸美國是徒勞的。我認為《紐約時報》的這句話總結得很好。美國永遠不會在Teimu上銷售網球鞋，也不會組裝AirPods。據估計，中國的製造業勞動力遠遠超過1億，而美國隻有1300萬。認為美國能夠甚至應該在半導體和網球鞋領域與中國競爭，近乎妄想。《中國綜合症》一書的作者認為，美國正在實施的誤導性貿易政策可能受到了第一次中國衝擊的影響。美國經濟普遍反彈，而美國某些地區卻遭受了衝擊，導致許多中產階級感到被剝奪了權利。那麽，這是否意味著美國應該效仿中國，大量舉債，並向精心挑選的行業注入巨額資金？研究表明，可能並非如此。中國能夠以驚人的速度發展一些市場，但這並不意味著其效率很高。2019年的一項政策評估分析了近100項學術研究，對政府政策在推動創新方麵的有效性進行了排名。報告將任務導向型政策（也就是中國的做法）在證據質量、證據確鑿性以及預期淨收益方麵排在最低。簡而言之，中國實際上是在賭自己比自由市場更了解情況。他們押注，將資本配置到某些行業，比讓企業純粹為了利潤而競爭，能夠帶來更好的經濟增長。也許吧。但也有很多低效支出的例子。你可能聽說過，中國有很多這樣的“鬼城”。房地產開發一直是巨額資金注入的目標行業之一，因為中國希望吸引更多人離開農村，進入城市。這顯然是件好事，但如果你建造這樣的房產，而不是像正常市場那樣，響應需求，那麽，根據《商業內幕》的報道，你就會得到6500萬套空置房屋。根據這項研究，最好的政策方法是為企業提供研發稅收抵免，以激勵其創新支出，而不是分配給股東，以及鼓勵技術移民和貿易與競爭。誰知道，如果一家公司控製了一個市場，他們可能就不太願意生產更好的產品？

China Shock 2.0 Is Coming (and it’s much worse)

Hamish Hodder  2025年9月17日
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UojNHa7NYcI

The US is facing China Shock 2.0, and it's much worse than last time.

In the last few years, China has been challenging the US in a way we've never seen before.China has been plotting this moment for over a decade. China has become the world's largest car exporter. Embodied AI is all the rage in China.
For the first time ever, America's global economic dominance is under serious threat. So, China is doing a lot better than I'm sure Mr. Trump would like them to be doing right now. I do not think US policy is uh fully come to grips with the nature of the challenge and how far along China is in uh in playing that game.

This is David Otter, an MIT professor who co-authored an analysis of China's rise to becoming the world's lowcost manufacturer in the early 2000s.

The China they think they're competing with is the China that overran US and furniture manufacturing and toys and assembly of electronics 20 years ago.
But that's really not the battle that we're facing now. Its shock to American industries had farreaching consequences. But as impactful as this has been, the US is on the brink of something much worse.

China has moved way up the value chain.
It's not just artificial intelligence.
It's solar cells. It's batteries. It's
robotics. It's quantum computing.
This rather simple, unassuming chart is
actually a stark illustration of an
unprecedented shift in the global
economy. It's from one of the many
academic papers I tortured myself with
for this video titled The China
Syndrome. It's an analysis of how the
rise of an economic power ruthlessly
gutted American industries in the '9s
and early 2000s. And it's particularly
relevant because of who authored it.
David Dawn, Gordon Hansen, and David
Otter. The same David Otter who is
warning of another much worse shock
that's on the horizon. In the late 80s,
the US was barely importing anything
from China. That's the blue line here.
American companies were largely
manufacturing their products
domestically. And so naturally, a large
number of workers were employed in
manufacturing. That's the dotted line.
But in the 1990s, China's economy
underwent a complete transformation.
They pivoted from a centrally planned
economy to a marketoriented one. One big
change was allowing more foreign
investment, which opened the door for
multinational corporations to produce
and sell within China. In 2001, the
barriers for trading with China were all
but eliminated when they joined the
World Trade Organization. China's
exports exploded. Clothes, furniture,
toys, appliances. They suddenly were
manufacturing all of it. By 2007, more
than 150 million Chinese workers had
migrated out of rural areas and into
urban cities. American companies were
China's biggest customers. In 1991, just
6% of spending was on Chinese products.
That rocketed to 4.6% by 2007. In just
16 years, the US was importing 11 times
more goods from China. Manufacturing
goods in China was simply far cheaper
and the impact on American workers was
devastating. The share of people
employed in manufacturing fell from more
than 13% to just over 8% and China is
responsible for about a quarter of that
decline. But the damage also spread into
all kinds of adjacent local industries.
Many workers didn't just lose employment
in manufacturing, they actually left the
workforce entirely. In some regions of
America, the decline in incomes caused a
decline in household spending. And so,
retailers, restaurants, and construction
businesses also suffered and were forced
to do layoffs. It's certainly true that
for most Americans, the shipping of jobs
overseas was a net positive. Goods were
cheaper to buy and the stock market
benefited from increased efficiency. But
the negative side effects on
non-oleducated workers in some of these
manufacturing towns were shocking. About
1 in 10 workers who were laid off due to
the China shock ended up on federal
disability insurance programs. The
silver lining was that the US overall
remained a leading economic power. As
companies moved manufacturing overseas,
they invested more into innovation and
technological advancement. Effectively,
American companies moved up the value
chain. While China was still dominating
in lowcost manufacturing, America was
far ahead in the advanced manufacturing
required in aerospace and pharmaceutical
industries for example and so the US
survived China's first major challenge
in the battle for global economic power.
But this was just the beginning. The US
economy at the turn of this century was
defined in large part by a single
phenomenon according to the economist
David Ort. I asked him to help us
understand the second China shock which
he says will be worse than the first.
Today the US is facing another radical
economic shift. It actually started
about 10 years ago and just like the
first China shock, most of the
consequences for American workers are
going to be seen in the second decade.
Funnily enough, this second wave is a
direct result of China's handling of its
very own manufacturing problems. But
that's where the similarities end
because this time the US is at serious
risk of losing its position as the
world's dominant economic power. China's
new economic strategy is unlike any
competition the US has faced in its
history. It's hyperaggressive and it may
end up backfiring on them, but the
mistakes America is making play right
into their hands. So after two decades
of incredibly fast development, China
becomes America's biggest import trading
partner in 2007. And for the next few
years, they continued expanding this
relationship. In 2017, the US bought
$526 billion worth of goods from China,
which was about 22% of all US imports.
But then things began to shift. In 2022,
the US imported 576 billion from China.
That is slightly more in dollar value
than 2017, but China's share declined
from 22% to just 17%. They lost 5
percentage points in 5 years. That's a
meaningful change, and it was caused
primarily by tariffs that America put on
Chinese imports in 2018. If there's a
10% tax to have something manufactured
in China, it makes countries like
Vietnam relatively more attractive. But
that first tariff really just acted as a
catalyst for businesses to consider
importing from other low-cost countries.
Tariff or not, China was now the second
largest economy in the world. And as the
standard of living rises, so too does
the cost to manufacture. China had seen
this coming for some time and was
already building a plan to adapt their
economy. In 2015, China announced made
in China 2025. It was a strategic plan
targeted at making huge developments to
their allimportant manufacturing sector.
China does this thing where they create
these 5-year plans with their goals and
targets for what they want to achieve
economically and socially. This 2015
announcement included the 13th and 14th
5-year plan since the country's
foundation. The goal was to shift focus
away from cheap low tech goods and
towards technologyintensive
manufacturing to move higher up the
value chain in industries currently
dominated by the US. And how exactly
were they going to do that? By throwing
money at it, a lot of money. The
government began establishing
state-owned investment funds to inject
capital into specific sectors. In May of
last year, for example, the third fund
was set up with nearly $50 billion US to
be invested. In this particular fund,
they were targeting semiconductor firms,
a critical industry in which China lags
behind. They want to be self-sufficient
so that the US or any other trading
partner can't cut off their access to a
critical resource. This funding is
provided to all the key firms in the
industry. So rather than a bet on one
company or setting up a 100% state-owned
enterprise, the firms compete intensely
to be the first to make a breakthrough.
Each industry has market share targets
for Chinese-owned firms, most of which
are pushing for 80 or 90% of domestic
sales to be made by their own Chinese
companies. And we're talking complete
vertically integrated companies. Even
Nvidia, America's worldleading graphics
chip firm, isn't vertically integrated.
They designed their GPUs, but they're
manufactured in Taiwan by TSMC. And then
there's the subsidies and tax
incentives, which form the biggest
capital injection. For example, since
2014, anyone who purchased a new energy
vehicle has been exempt from purchase
tax and received additional tax
exemptions. There's about a million
other policies that they're using, but
the bottom line is that they're spending
big and it's working. The Australian
Strategic Policy Institute tracks the
leading scientific and research
innovation across 64 critical
technologies. So we can look across
different time periods and see which
countries have been leading the way.
From 2003 to 2007, the US led in 60 of
the 64 technologies. China led in only
three of them. But fast forward to the
most recent measurement and guess how
many categories the US is leading in.
Seven. 7 out of 64 and China who led in
just three categories 20 years ago is
leading in 57. Quantum computing,
vaccines, and nuclear medicine are among
the few remaining categories that the US
leads in. But China's recent dominance
puts them at the top of high performance
computing, semiconductor design and
fabrication, and a number of
technologies that have a clear military
application. radar, satellite
positioning, drones, and swarming
robots. Now, a big reason why China is
publishing so much more research than
other countries is that they've been so
far behind. But they're not behind
anymore. In advanced aircraft engines,
for example, they're registering more
than 70% of the world's patents each
year and have even surpassed the US in
cumulative patents. Looking beyond the
research, in just four years, China shot
up to become the world's largest
exporter of cars. Yep, in 2024, they
sold 5.7 million cars to the world, far
exceeding even Japan and Germany. What's
happening in the auto industry is a
really good case study for the impacts
that come from a market that has huge
subsidies and other kinds of government
incentives. The economy is not in great
shape for Chinese consumers. And in a
pure free market, this would lead
automakers to slow their spending and
investment until demand for
discretionary spending lifted again. But
in China, money has still been pouring
in. There's well over 100 different
Chinese automakers, all competing to
sell an excess of cars to people in a
struggling economy. And it's caused some
of the most violent discounting of
prices. So violent that almost none of
these brands will survive. Alex Partners
looked at 129 electric vehicle brands in
China and estimates that only 15 of them
will be viable in 5 years time. This
incredibly warped domestic market is
also why Chinese companies like BYD have
been exporting a heap of vehicles. On
the positive side, they're selling cars
for so ridiculously cheap that the only
way they can survive is by figuring out
how to build cars faster and cheaper.
BYD's production costs are cheaper than
Germany's in every category. And maybe
the piece of information that's most
relevant to this video, all of this has
been done without the US. It was only 25
years ago when China was exporting 42%
of its goods to the US. In 2023, that
number was 13%.
This visualization from the Loi
Institute is just great. Blue means the
country's biggest trading partner was
the US. Red means China. There's so many
different factors that play a role in
these shifts, but I want to highlight
one very obvious mistake the US is
making. When America faced its first
China shock, there was inevitable pain
for sectors of the economy who were
being rapidly displaced. But the US
ultimately maintained its economic
strength by shifting focus to higher
level manufacturing. Low-cost
manufacturing jobs were permanently
lost, but they've been replaced by jobs
in other industries. China is doing the
same, pursuing development higher up the
value chain. The US today, however, is
doing the complete opposite. Throwing
around tariffs and hoping for a return
to manufacturing in the US is futile. I
think this New York Times quote sums it
up pretty well. America was never going
to be selling tennis sneakers on Teimu
or assembling AirPods. China's
manufacturing workforce is thought to be
well in excess of a 100 million compared
to America's 13 million. It's bordering
on delusional to think that the United
States can or should even want to
compete with China in semiconductors and
tennis sneakers alike. The authors of
China Syndrome suggested that the
misguided trade policy America is
implementing may have been influenced by
the first China shock. The US broadly
bounced back while certain pockets of
America suffered leading to much of
middle America feeling disenfranchised.
So, does that mean that America should
do exactly what China is doing, load up
on government debt and inject obscene
amounts of money into cherrypicked
industries? Well, the research says
probably not. China has been able to
develop some of their markets incredibly
quickly, but that doesn't mean that it's
being done efficiently. There's a 2019
policy review that analyzed nearly 100
academic studies to rank the
effectiveness of government policies on
driving innovation. It ranked
missionoriented policies, which is
China's approach, the lowest on quality
of evidence, conclusiveness of evidence,
and the expected net benefit of the
approach. To oversimplify it, China is
essentially betting that they know
better than the free markets. That their
allocation of capital to certain
industries will produce better economic
growth than just leaving it to
businesses to compete purely for profit.
Maybe. But there's also so many examples
of inefficient spending. You might have
heard that China has a bunch of these
ghost cities. Well, property development
has been one of the sectors targeted
with huge cash injections because China
wants to bring more people out of rural
areas and into urban cities. That's
obviously a good thing, but if you build
properties like this rather than in
response to demand like a normal market,
well, you get 65 million empty homes
according to Business Insider. The best
policy approaches according to that
study are research and development tax
credits for companies to incentivize
spending on innovation rather than
distributing to shareholders and also
skilled immigration and trade and
competition. Who knew that if a
corporation controlled a market that
they might be less inclined to make a
better product? If you need something to
watch next, then check out one of these
videos here and thanks for watching.