风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
金刻羽：中国如何超越世界
Keyu Jin: How China Leapfrogged The World
Rise of Asia 2025年3月8日
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkjRXUD5QKc
如果下一任美国总统唐纳德·特朗普决定加倍对中国的关税和技术制裁，该怎么办？随着新政府上台，特朗普明确表示他打算使用这些经济工具来遏制中国的崛起并破坏其技术野心。但这些策略真的会奏效吗？伦敦经济学院教授金刻羽深入探讨了为什么这些措施更有可能加剧紧张局势而不是带来预期结果。听听她怎么说。
如果下一任美国总统唐纳德特朗普决定在新政府上台后加倍对中国征收关税和实施科技制裁，情况会怎样？特朗普明确表示，他打算利用这些经济工具来遏制中国的崛起，破坏其科技雄心，但这些策略真的会奏效吗？伦敦经济学院的 KU Jinn 教授深入探讨了为什么这些措施更有可能加剧紧张局势，而不是带来预期的结果，听听她怎么说？
是的，我认为应用程序，我认为中国已经掌握了它，如果你看看今天，我的意思是，这非常讽刺，但今天美国下载次数最多的五个应用程序中有四个是中国的，我的意思是，这令人难以置信，也非常令人不安，但这是掌握商业模式加上数字加上大量数据加上世界上最高效的供应链，中国能够掌握，也能够渗透到世界各地世界上除了存在地缘政治问题的地方，但你必须记住，90％的人仍然生活在发展中国家呃，中国的效率和低成本，对于这些发展中国家非常有用，当然，这不是突破性技术，呃，我们可以掌握的技术，你需要创造力，所以一个开放的自由社会和所有这些东西，但要掌握高科技，我认为中国可以做得很好，即使使用逆向工程，这就是为什么我认为整个技术限制试图阻止中国掌握高科技和尖端技术将非常呃，它非常呃，非常呃，多孔和漏洞百出中国可以进行逆向工程，呃，你知道当然表面上有规模，有资金，有人才呃，但更深层次的竞争也是最激烈的竞争环境嗯，也许世界上某些产品的政策正在推动中国走在最前沿，如果你在中国市场取得成功，比如电动汽车电池或电动汽车本身，那么你就几乎走在了世界前沿，正如大卫所说，这些政策将产生适得其反的效果，我们已经看到了国家资源的动员，但我们谈论的不仅仅是国家，我们正在团结起来，让这些大型科技公司去攻克这些关键的瓶颈技术，每个人都在做芯片，包括 10cent、华为、阿里巴巴、杨百翰大学等等，他们正在合作，你知道，他们正在帮助许多公司管理逆向工程，但更重要的是，你实际上是在迫使公司或创新者尝试跨越式发展或规避，我知道芯片行业的许多公司都在想出替代的设计解决方案可以规避这些限制，仅凭国内产能就能生产出同样高效、强大的芯片，所以我认为，这会产生一种意想不到的后果，现在我们还没有系统证据，但你只需要看看历史事件，我想在拿破仑战争期间，你知道，我不认为英国切断了法国与棉纺厂的联系，或者类似的东西，然后它就刺激了创新，你知道，这种跨越式发展，我们看到了某种程度上我们已经看到了一些这样的事情正在发生，但正如大卫提到的，这些半导体或芯片公司与最终用户的距离很近，无论是人工智能公司还是电动汽车公司，它们都在附近，这种非常快速的反馈循环，而不是去美国或欧洲的总部，嗯，真的可以推动变革和创新，就像日本一样，芯片半导体行业成功的一部分，实际上，日本最终超越了美国，是日本电子产品业务的封锁和最终用户需求的循环，所以我对这些技术限制非常怀疑，我真的认为你在强迫你知道另一个非常伟大的国家，拥有伟大的美国，或者至少是一个有巨大潜力实现跨越式发展的国家，然后你谈到了小院子，对，但你想把它保持多小，有些人也在谈论EVS对国家安全的潜在威胁，所以你知道这个讨论可能会没完没了，是的中国的贸易是一次性冲击，是一次性冲击世界经济，而且从某种意义上说，大规模廉价劳动力之类的产品已经充斥全球，现在我们不需要深入讨论消费者方面的好处，我们谈论的是大量受益于廉价商品的消费者，而你知道政治往往关注钢铁制造商等的失业问题，尤其是在这个国家，但至少有一些证据表明，很多美国工作岗位被中国出口取代，这些工作岗位已经处于非常脆弱的地位，无论如何，这些工作岗位将转移到其他国家，墨西哥，甚至可能是越南和其他国家，如果你看看欧洲的对比经验，有人认为，很多受到东欧冲击的国家准备得更好应对中国冲击，政府也投入了比美国政府多得多的资源，帮助他们的工人顺利过渡到其他行业，并进行再培训、再技能培训等，但这种故事已经结束了，我认为纠结于此会错过未来的重点。我认为，未来与中国的贸易竞争更多的是针对德国、韩国等生产更高附加值中间产品的国家，无论如何，当我们谈论 WTO 规则和框架时，我认为没有重新思考，你知道问题是，2001 年中国加入时，它是一个非常小的国家，因此它利用了其发展中国家的地位，因为当时有些国家缺乏规则，因此它们无法更快增长，但增长真的太大了，或者在很短的时间内增长非常快，然后它所做的一切都对世界经济产生了巨大影响，这是第一次，这是世贸组织无法做到的，也准备不做，但我们也要争论一下发展中国家，他们对针对他们的规则有多满意，他们会说，很多规则都是对他们不利的，有利于发达经济体，损害了它们，他们甚至会争辩说，通过不让他们知道高附加值技术的进步，以创新为导向的发达经济体正试图让他们成为廉价生产的基础，同时赚取更高的附加值，阻止他们爬上那个阶梯，所以我认为你知道这个故事有多个方面但我认为，正如特朗普所倡导的那样，单边双边方法而不是多边方法才是解决问题的办法，首先，WTO 并没有说你不能获得国家补贴，对吧，它说的是，对于某些领域，特别是在绿色技术可再生能源方面，显然你需要国家支持来激励私营部门，这不是问题，问题在于这些补贴的全球影响以及它如何影响全球竞争，但如果所有国家都这样做，就很难理解它们各自的影响，你知道他们从波音公司获得的补贴显然具有国际影响，但这并不是我们真正争论的，对吧，所以我认为，特别是在可再生能源方面，没有国家的作用，呃，会失败，这会导致每个人都想要的那种绿色转型失败开始，但我想说，补贴的规模听起来确实很大，但大型基金，你想问取得了什么成就，实际上我想说，从某种意义上说，这是非常浪费的，因为他们还没有完全正确地将国家的作用与市场的作用结合起来，所以这实际上是一个学习过程，整个脉络计划实际上正在发展，从芯片，或者大型芯片，芯片基金，现在有一种新的想法，特别是在 2023 年，它已经建立起来，以改革这种模式，让市场发挥更大的作用，因为你知道他们有点帮助我不知道这是否是补贴，但只是帮助了很多很多芯片公司，如果你拥有一家芯片公司，你知道，作为一顶帽子，那么你会得到很多好处，显然这会造成很多浪费，所以我会说这并不成功，但地方政府引导资金在全国各地，你会说你会说呃，你可以看到中国科技公司的分布遍布全国各地，而不仅仅是在北京、上海和这与当地政府的支持有很大关系，但我们这里并不是在谈论财政补贴，融资部分如此重要的原因不仅仅是直接补贴，而是帮助他们协调银行贷款，这是因为中国的金融体系非常薄弱和不成熟，他们没有美国的生态系统，他们不能简单地筹集资金和资本来资助这些创新，它必须通过国家来引导，这就是为什么他们必须非常参与，没有它，你就不会有这样的工业部门，但它也是为了帮助他们吸引人才，为他们提供更便宜的土地，然后协调供应链，我的意思是想想EVS，一个政府或多个政府帮助协调围绕一家公司的整个供应链，这有很大帮助，我的意思是，该公司的产量在一年内增长了80%，因为电池制造商和制造商都联合起来了，所以我认为这是国家为企业提供的帮助非常重要，而不是少量的实际金融投资，所以我认为中国要成功，需要考虑效率而不仅仅是规模，那么你认为你同意库金教授的观点吗？美国对中国的制裁和关税将适得其反。
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
