风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
为什么中美贸易战是不明智且无法获胜的
https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/why-us-china-trade-war-unwise-and-unwinnable
经济学家、诺贝尔奖获得者约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨解释了美国经济隐藏的弱点。
作者：大卫·J·克雷格 | 2019-20 冬季
哥伦比亚大学教授、世界银行前首席经济学家、2001 年诺贝尔经济学奖获得者约瑟夫·E·斯蒂格利茨 (Joseph E. Stiglitz) 接受《哥伦比亚杂志》采访，谈论他的最新著作《人民、权力和利润：进步资本主义》中的观点 对于一个不满的时代。
在《人民、权力和利润》中，您说美国正在全球化问题上与自己交战。 你是什??么意思？
显然，人们对全球化的看法非常两极分化。 一些人认为这是美国实力的一部分。 他们将近几十年来该国生活水平的提高及其全球经济主导地位归功于全球化。 其他人则将美国的许多问题归咎于全球化，特别是因为它使国内工人面临日益激烈的外国竞争。 因此，当第一派寻求更广泛的新贸易协议时，第二派则寻求重新谈判现有协议，使其更加有利于美国。
对全球化的一些批评有一定道理。 这些交易在很大程度上是由企业利益决定的，潜在收益被夸大，并且没有充分关注其对美国日益严重的不平等的影响。 然而，应对措施不应该是唐纳德·特朗普发动的那种贸易战——这些战争很可能没有赢家——而应该是更好管理的全球化，包括更好地管理经济和社会后果。 一些国家在帮助其公民向全球一体化程度更高的经济转型方面比美国做得更好。 例如，瑞典和挪威制定了产业政策，确保在旧工作岗位消失时创造新的就业岗位，并且它们在工人再培训计划上投入了大量资金。
然而大多数经济学家仍然认为，全球化促进了自由贸易以及商品、金钱和信息的便捷流动，是增长和繁荣的关键。
确实，国际贸易可以通过提高效率来促进经济增长。 但增长和繁荣的真正关键是教育、科学突破以及我们对如何组织大量人群以便更好地合作的理解的进步。 以法治为指导的经济体和以三权分立为基础的民主国家是社会组织取得巨大成就的例子。 今天的生活水平比 250 年前高得多的主要原因是我们建立了稳定的机构来促进人类创造力并使人们能够发挥其潜力。 美国当前政治时刻的真正威胁是对真理和我们的真理评估机构、对我们的大学以及更广泛的科学的攻击。
您写道，美国政府应该在教育、科学研究和基础设施方面投入更多资金。
我在《人民、权力和利润》中提出的基本问题之一是，我们已经失去了私营部门、公共部门和包括非营利组织、合作社、基金会、民间社会和大学在内的机构之间的平衡 。 科学技术进步是经济成功的核心，而这些进步的基础是基础研究，几乎所有这些都得到了政府的支持。 我们对基础研究以及教育和基础设施的投资不足。 所有这些都会损害未来的生活水平和美国的竞争力。
最近，我们看到经济民族主义死灰复燃，特朗普总统和其他世界领导人颁布了关税和其他限制性贸易政策。 这种趋势的根源是什么？
这涉及到很多因素，但肯定有一个强大的力量是，包括美国在内的许多发达国家的大部分人口最近表现不佳。 虽然顶层公民的收入猛增，但中层公民的收入却基本停滞，而底层公民的情况则更糟。 中产阶级的生活对于许多家庭来说似乎越来越遥不可及。 当然，我们不应该让怀旧情绪蒙蔽我们的视野。 人们很容易回顾过去的光鲜亮丽的版本，而忽略了普遍存在的种族和性别歧视的现实。 此外，时间之箭是朝一个方向移动的：我们无法回到二战后的几十年。
您认为关税在当今的全球经济中发挥作用吗？
通过关税和其他贸易壁垒将自己与他人隔绝，不会提供不满的人们所寻求的解决方案。 它不会恢复制造业工作岗位或煤矿工作岗位。 贸易战与
中国甚至不会将制造业带回美国：如果对中国商品加征关税使它们在美国的价格大幅上涨，企业就会简单地将工厂转移到其他发展中国家。 如果发生任何“外包”，生产可能会在很大程度上实现自动化。 创造的就业岗位需要的技能与失业工人所拥有的技能不同，而且这些就业岗位将分布在美国的不同地区。 关闭贸易的国家也关闭了新想法和由此产生的创新。
中美关税战即将进入第三个年头。 你能把这场争论放在具体的背景下吗？为什么它如此棘手？
冷战结束时，人们希望所有国家都能成为拥有自由市场经济的自由民主国家，这样每个人都会繁荣。 这些希望现在已经破灭了。 许多民主国家的增长已经放缓，财富的增长主要集中在顶层。 与此同时，中国经济——一个将市场与强有力的国家干预相结合的复杂体系——表现得非常好。 自大约五十年前我们与中国接触以来，大约7.5亿中国人民已经摆脱了贫困，收入增长了十倍多。 当时，没有人能够想象到，这个人均年收入在 150 美元左右的国家，到 2015 年，如果按照经济学家进行这种比较的标准方法（考虑到两国人民的购买力）来衡量，GDP 会超过美国。 当地环境中的权力。 美国公司不可能将中国公司视为竞争对手。 中国被视为一座金矿——一个美国商品的广阔市场，也是我们的公司可以进行大量投资并获得巨额回报的地方。 但近年来，中国企业实力增强，工资上涨，监管收紧。 因此，就连很多在美国充当中国拉拉队的企业也失去了热情。
尽管通过零和视角看待世界是错误的，即中国的繁荣是以牺牲美国为代价的，但这正是特朗普和许多经济民族主义者看待我们关系的视角。
当然，中国做的一些事情是违背我们利益的，正如我们做的一些事情也是违背中国利益的。 但一些指控毫无根据。 例如，中国被指控操纵货币，压低币值以便更容易出口商品，尽管它已经多年没有这样做了。 中国还因要求在华投资的外国公司与当地公司建立合资企业并经常分享其知识产权而受到批评。 但许多经济学家认为这是一项很好的发展政策，因为它有助于像中国这样的国家缩小与更先进国家之间的知识差距。
美国和中国面临的问题是，如何找到一种方法从贸易中获得部分收益，同时认识到，在可预见的未来，我们的经济和政治制度仍将存在巨大差异。 如果我们试图使我们的经济脱钩，我们将付出高昂的代价。
本届政府内部似乎越来越认为美国应该直接处理与其他国家的贸易争端，而不是通过世界贸易组织。 世贸组织已经失去牙齿了吗？ 还是美国自我膨胀的罪魁祸首？
美国在创建世贸组织过程中发挥了关键作用，现在又成为试图破坏世贸组织的主要国家。 正如法治必须是运转良好的国内经济的基础一样，它也必须是跨境商业的基础。 任何国际贸易体系都必须有争端裁决机制，世贸组织上诉机构已经证明了自己的有效性和公平性。 （哥伦比亚大学国际与公共事务学院院长 Merit Janow '88LAW 曾担任 WTO 上诉法官。）
特朗普政府试图通过拒绝支持任命新的世贸组织法官、参与贸易战而不是诉诸世贸组织解决争端、专注于双边协议以及拒绝 其双边讨论承诺不采取歧视性做法。 再加上特朗普政府单方面废除伊朗核协议、背叛叙利亚长期盟友等行为，美国甚至在许多朋友眼中都被视为无赖国家。
你写道，美国经济基本上已经崩溃。 考虑到美国相对较高的国内生产总值和强劲的股市，一些观察家可能会认为这一评估过于严厉。 他们会缺少什么？
美国经济的许多方面确实令人印象深刻。 多年来，它催生了许多重要的创新——从传统
激光互联网的电阻器——这不仅使美国人受益，而且使世界各地的人们受益。 但当今美国的经济模式在经济、社会或环境方面都不可持续。 我们社会的很大一部分人表现不佳。 我们的预期寿命正在下降——这对于一个处于医学研究前沿的国家来说是显着的。 我们的人均碳排放量位居世界前列。 在2017年12月的减税和2018年1月的企业支出增加之后，美国经济经历了“高糖期”，但这只是短暂的。 大多数预测认为 2020 年的增长远低于 2%——尽管我们可能会出现 1 万亿美元的赤字。
政府监管能解决这些问题吗？
我们需要加强监管，以防止再次出现 2008 年那样的金融危机，避免气候变化的破坏性影响，并确保我们的经济保持活力，确保我们的企业不会剥削人民——想想阿片类药物危机 、儿童肥胖和糖尿病的流行，以及大众汽车的“柴油门”。 美国经济的很大一部分现在由少数几家公司主导，因此需要政府监管以确保公司行为符合道德、资本主义按预期运行以及竞争蓬勃发展。
您批评自由放任的经济学过于简单化和短视。 为什么这么多美国人仍然认为低税收和不受监管的市场对经济增长至关重要？
我们已经进行了四十年的宣传了。 但供给侧经济学的承诺从未实现。 不平等现象加剧，增长放缓，该国大部分地区面临停滞或更糟的情况，正如我之前所观察到的，预期寿命正在下降。 我写这本新书的部分原因是为了消除人们对这个长期存在的神话的误解。 我们在一个又一个国家进行了四十年的这种实验，但在一个又一个国家都失败了。 是时候认识到这一点并寻找另一种经济模式了。
您主张“进步资本主义”。 这意味着什么？
我首先使用这个词是为了强调进步的重要性——也就是说改变是可能的，我们可以拥有更高的生活水平和更开明的社会，例如，更大的平等和对人权的尊重。 但我们需要一种新的社会契约，一种在市场和政府之间实现更好平衡的契约。 我说“资本主义”是为了提醒我们，受到更好监管和治理的市场必须成为这一新社会契约的重要组成部分。
人们称你为理想主义者。 你的乐观情绪动摇了吗？
过去几年发生的事情足以动摇任何人的乐观情绪。 尽管如此，全国各地的草根运动，尤其是我们的学生，一直让我感到鼓舞，他们知道另一个世界是可能的，并且似乎决心为之奋斗。
本文发表于《哥伦比亚杂志》2019-20 年冬季版，标题为“重新思考全球化”。
书评：《不平等的代价》
Why the US-China Trade War is Unwise and Unwinnable
https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/why-us-china-trade-war-unwise-and-unwinnable
Economist and Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz explains the hidden weaknesses of the American economy.
Joseph E. Stiglitz, a University Professor at Columbia, former chief economist of the World Bank, and recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics, spoke to Columbia Magazine about the ideas in his latest book, People, Power, and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent.
In People, Power, and Profits, you say that America is at war with itself over globalization. What do you mean by that?
It is clear that people have very polarized views about globalization. Some see it as part of America’s strength. They attribute to globalization much of the country’s increase in standards of living and its global economic dominance in recent decades. Others blame globalization for many of America’s problems, particularly because it has exposed domestic workers to increased foreign competition. So while the first group searches for ever wider new trade deals, the second seeks to renegotiate existing ones more in America’s favor.
There is a grain of truth in some of the criticisms of globalization. The deals were largely shaped by corporate interests, the potential gains were exaggerated, and insufficient attention was paid to the impact on America’s growing inequality. The response, however, should not be the kind of trade wars that Donald Trump is waging — there are likely to be no winners from those — but a better-managed globalization, including a better management of the economic and social consequences. Some countries have done a much better job than the US at helping their citizens transition to a more globally integrated economy. Sweden and Norway, for example, have instituted industrial policies that ensure that new jobs get created when old jobs disappear, and they’ve invested heavily in retraining programs for workers.
Yet most economists still argue that globalization, with its promotion of free trade and the easy movement of goods, money, and information, is the key to growth and prosperity.
It’s true that international trade can contribute to economic growth by allowing greater efficiencies. But the real keys to growth and prosperity are education, scientific breakthroughs, and advances in our understanding of how to organize large groups of people so that they might cooperate better. Economies that are guided by the rule of law and democracies based on the separation of powers are examples of profound achievements in social organization. The main reason standards of living are so much higher today than they were, say, 250 years ago is that we have built stable institutions that promote human creativity and enable people to live up to their potential. The real threat of our current political moment in the United States is the attack against truth and our truth-assessing institutions, against our universities, and against science more broadly.
You write that the US government should spend more on education, scientific research, and infrastructure.
One of the fundamental issues I raise in People, Power, and Profits is that we’ve lost the balance between the private sector, the public sector, and institutions that include not-for-profits, cooperatives, foundations, civil society, and universities. Scientific and technological advances are at the heart of economic success, and underlying these advances is basic research, almost all of which is supported by the government. We’ve underinvested in basic research as well as in education and infrastructure. All of this undermines future standards of living and American competitiveness.
We’ve seen a resurgence of economic nationalism lately, with President Trump and other world leaders enacting tariffs and other restrictive trade policies. What is at the root of this trend?
There are a number of factors involved, but surely one powerful force is that large segments of the populations of many advanced countries, including the US, have not done very well recently. While citizens at the top have seen their incomes soar, those in the middle have largely seen stagnation, and those at the bottom have fared even worse. A middle-class life seems to be growing out of reach for many families. Of course, we shouldn’t allow our vision to be clouded by nostalgia. It is easy to look back on a glossy version of the past, skipping over the realities of widespread racial and gender discrimination. Besides, the arrow of time moves in one direction: we can’t go back to the decades after World War II.
Do you think tariffs have any role in today’s global economy?
Closing ourselves off from others through tariffs and other trade barriers will not provide the solutions that discontented people are looking for. It will not restore manufacturing jobs or coal-mining jobs. The trade war with China won’t even bring manufacturing back to the US: if tariffs placed on Chinese goods make them significantly more expensive here, corporations will simply move their factories to other developing countries. To the extent that any “onshoring” occurs, production may largely be robotized. The jobs created will require different skills than those possessed by the workers who have lost their jobs, and they will be located in different regions of the US. Countries that shut themselves off from trade also close themselves off to new ideas and resulting innovations.
The US–China tariff war will soon enter its third year. Can you put this dispute in context — why is it so thorny?
At the end of the Cold War, there was a hope that all countries would converge to be liberal democracies with free-market economies, and that in doing so everyone would prosper. Those hopes have now been dashed. Growth in many democracies has slowed, and the increase in wealth has been mainly at the top. Meanwhile, China’s economy — a complex system combining markets with strong state intervention — has done very well. Some 750 million Chinese people have moved out of poverty, and incomes have risen more than tenfold since our engagement with China began, some fifty years ago. Back then, no one could have imagined that this country with a per capita annual income of around $150 would by 2015 have a larger GDP than that of the US when measured in the standard way economists make such comparisons, by considering the two populations’ purchasing power in local contexts. American firms could not have conceived of Chinese firms as rivals. China was viewed as a gold mine — a vast market for American goods and a place where our firms could make large investments and get large returns. But in the intervening years, Chinese companies have increased in strength, wages have risen, and regulations have been tightened. So even many of the corporations that served as China’s cheerleaders in the US have lost their enthusiasm.
Though it is wrong to view the world through a zero-sum lens, in which increased prosperity for China comes at the expense of the US, this is the lens through which Trump and many economic nationalists see our relations.
Of course, there are some things that China does that are contrary to our interests, just as there are some things we do that are contrary to China’s. But some of the accusations thrown around have little merit. For instance, China has been accused of manipulating its currency, keeping its value low in order to export goods more easily, even though it has not been doing this for years. China has also been criticized for requiring foreign firms that invest there to enter joint ventures, and often to share their intellectual property, with local companies. But many economists think that this is a good developmental policy, because it helps a country like China close the gap in knowledge between it and more advanced countries.
The question facing both the US and China is how to find a way to reap some of the gains from trade while recognizing that, for the foreseeable future, there will remain large differences in our economic and political systems. We will pay a high price if we try to de-link our economies.
There seems to be a growing feeling within this administration that the US should handle trade disputes with other nations directly, rather than working through the World Trade Organization. Has the WTO lost its teeth? Or is the US guilty of self-aggrandizement?
The US played a pivotal role in creating the WTO, and now it is the principal country trying to undermine it. Just as the rule of law must underlie a well-functioning domestic economy, so too must it underlie commerce across borders. Any international trade system has to have a mechanism for adjudicating disputes, and the WTO appellate body has shown itself to be effective and fair. (The dean of Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, Merit Janow ’88LAW, has served as a WTO appellate judge.)
The Trump administration is attempting to erode the international rules-based trade regime by refusing to support the appointment of new WTO judges, by engaging in trade wars rather than turning to the WTO to resolve disputes, by focusing on bilateral agreements, and by refusing in its bilateral discussions to promise not to engage in discriminatory practices. When combined with the unilateral abrogation of the Iran nuclear agreement, the betrayal of long-term allies in Syria, and other such actions taken by the Trump administration, the US is looking even to many of its friends like a rogue country.
You write that the US economy is essentially broken. Some observers might find that assessment overly harsh, given America’s relatively high GDP and strong stock market. What would they be missing?
There are many aspects of the US economy that are truly impressive. Over the years, it has given rise to many important innovations — from the transistor to the laser to the Internet — that benefit not only Americans but people around the world. But America’s economic model today is not sustainable economically, socially, or environmentally. Large segments of our society have not been doing well. Our life expectancy is on the decline — remarkable for a country that is at the forefront of medical research. Our carbon emissions per capita are among the highest in the world. The US economy experienced a “sugar high” after the tax cuts of December 2017 and the corporate-expenditure increases of January 2018, but that was short-lived. Most forecasts see growth in 2020 at well below 2 percent — even though we are likely to be running a $1 trillion deficit.
Would government regulation solve any of these problems?
We need to have more regulation to prevent another financial crisis of the kind we had in 2008, to stave off climate change’s devastating effects, and to ensure that our economy remains dynamic and that our corporations don’t exploit people — think of the opioid crisis, the epidemic of childhood obesity and diabetes, and Volkswagen’s “dieselgate.” Large parts of the US economy are now dominated by just a few firms, so government regulation is required to ensure that corporations act ethically and that capitalism works as intended and competition thrives.
You’ve railed against laissez-faire economics as overly simplistic and short-sighted. Why do so many Americans still consider low taxes and unregulated markets essential for economic growth?
We’ve had four decades of propaganda saying as much. But the promises of supply-side economics were never realized. Inequality grew, growth slowed, large parts of the country faced stagnation or worse, and life expectancy, as I observed earlier, is now in decline. I wrote my new book partly to disabuse people of this persistent myth. We’ve had four decades of this experiment in country after country, and in country after country it has failed. It’s time to recognize this and to look for another economic model.
You advocate for “progressive capitalism.” What does that mean?
I use the term first to emphasize the importance of progress — to say that change is possible, that we can have higher standards of living and a more enlightened society, with, for example, greater equality and respect for human rights. But we need a new social contract, one that achieves a better balance between the market and government. I say “capitalism” to remind us that the market — better regulated and better governed — will have to be an important part of this new social contract.
People have called you an idealist. Has your optimism been shaken?
What’s happened in the last couple of years is enough to shake anyone’s optimism. Still, I am constantly heartened by the grassroots movements across the country, and especially by our students, who know that another world is possible and who seem determined to fight for it.
This article appears in the Winter 2019-20 edition of Columbia Magazine with the title "Rethinking Globalization."
Book Review: "The Price of Inequality"
