美国临中国冲击2.0 威力强 更猛烈

美国临中国冲击2.0 威力强 更猛烈

中国冲击2.0即将到来（而且会更加严重）

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

美国正面临中国冲击2.0，而且比上次严重得多。

过去几年，中国一直在以我们从未见过的方式挑战美国。中国已经为这一刻酝酿了十多年。中国已成为全球最大的汽车出口国。嵌入式人工智能在中国风靡一时。美国在全球经济的主导地位有史以来第一次面临严重威胁。因此，我相信中国现在的表现比特朗普先生希望的要好得多。我认为美国的政策还没有完全理解这一挑战的本质，以及中国在这场博弈中已经取得了多大的进展。

我是麻省理工学院的教授大卫·奥特，他曾与他人合作撰写了一篇分析文章，探讨中国在21世纪初崛起成为世界低成本制造大国的过程。

他们认为他们正在与之竞争的中国，其实是20年前超越美国的中国，在家具制造、玩具和电子产品组装领域都占据了主导地位。但这并非我们现在面临的真正竞争。它对美国产业的冲击产生了深远的影响。尽管影响深远，但美国正处于更糟糕的境地的边缘。

中国已大幅提升价值链。这不仅仅是人工智能。还有太阳能电池、电池、机器人技术、量子计算。

这张看似简单、不起眼的图表，实际上鲜明地展现了全球经济前所未有的转变。它出自我为制作这部名为《中国综合症》的视频而苦苦思索的众多学术论文之一。本书分析了上世纪90年代和21世纪初，一个经济强国的崛起如何无情地摧毁了美国工业。

这本书之所以如此重要，是因为作者大卫·道恩、戈登·汉森和大卫·奥特。正是大卫·奥特警告说，另一场更严重的冲击即将到来。上世纪80年代末，美国几乎没有从中国进口任何东西。蓝线就是蓝线。美国公司主要在国内生产产品。因此，制造业自然而然地雇佣了大量工人。虚线就是虚线。但在90年代，中国经济经历了一场彻底的转型。他们从中央计划经济转向了市场经济。其中一项重大的转变是允许更多外国投资进入，这为跨国公司在中国生产和销售打开了大门。 2001年，中国加入世界贸易组织后，贸易壁垒几乎全部消除。中国出口激增，服装、家具、玩具、家电等应有尽有。突然之间，中国就成了这一切的制造者。到2007年，超过1.5亿中国工人从农村迁移到城市。美国公司是中国最大的客户。1991年，美国只有6%的支出用于购买中国产品。到2007年，这一比例飙升至4.6%。短短16年间，美国从中国进口的商品数量增长了11倍。中国制造的商品价格低得多，这对美国工人的影响是毁灭性的。制造业从业人员的比例从13%以上下降到8%多一点，而中国要对这一下降的四分之一负责。但这种损害也蔓延到了各种相关的当地产业。许多工人不仅失去了制造业的工作，实际上他们完全离开了劳动力市场。在美国一些地区，收入下降导致家庭支出下降。因此，零售商、餐馆和建筑企业也受到影响，被迫裁员。对大多数美国人来说，将工作岗位转移到海外无疑是一件好事。商品价格更低，股市也因效率提高而受益。但在一些制造业重镇，这对未受过高等教育的工人造成的负面影响令人震惊。大约十分之一因中国冲击而被解雇的工人最终加入了联邦残疾保险计划。一线希望是美国总体上仍然是世界领先的经济强国。随着企业将制造业转移到海外，它们在创新和技术进步方面投入了更多资金。实际上，美国企业提升了价值链。当中国在低成本制造业领域仍然占据主导地位时，美国在航空航天和制药等行业所需的先进制造业方面遥遥领先，因此，美国在全球经济实力争夺战中，挺过了中国带来的第一次重大挑战。
但这仅仅是个开始。本世纪初的美国经济，在很大程度上是由一个单一现象决定的，根据经济学家大卫·奥特的说法。我请他帮助我们理解第二次中国冲击，他认为这次冲击将比第一次更严重。

如今，美国正面临另一场彻底的经济转型。这场转型实际上始于
大约10年前，就像第一次中国冲击一样，对美国工人来说，大部分后果是将在第二个十年显现。

有趣的是，这第二波浪潮直接源于中国处理自身制造业问题。但相似之处也仅限于此，因为这一次，美国面临着失去世界主导经济强国地位的严重风险。中国的新经济战略不同于美国历史上面临的任何竞争对手。它极具侵略性，最终可能会适得其反，但美国正在犯的错误正中他们的下怀。因此，经过二十年的快速发展，中国在2007年成为美国最大的进口贸易伙伴。在接下来的几年里，两国继续拓展这种关系。2017年，美国从中国购买了价值5260亿美元的商品，约占美国进口总额的22%。

但随后情况开始发生变化。 2022年，美国从中国进口了5760亿美元。
按美元计算，这比2017年略有增加，但中国的份额却从22% 下降到仅17%。五年内，中国份额下降了5个百分点。

这是一个意义重大的变化，主要原因是美国在2018年对中国进口产品征收关税。如果对在中国生产的产品征收10%的关税，那么像越南这样的国家就更具吸引力了。但最初的关税实际上只是起到了催化剂的作用，促使企业考虑从其他低成本国家进口。

无论有没有关税，中国现在都是世界第二大经济体。随着生活水平的提高，制造成本也在上升。中国早已预见到这种情况，并已在制定计划来调整其经济。 2015年，中国宣布了“中国制造2025”。这是一项战略规划，旨在大力发展其至关重要的制造业。中国制定了这些五年规划，其中包含了其经济和社会发展的目标和指标。2015年的声明涵盖了建国以来的“十三五”和“十四五”规划。其目标是将重点从廉价的低技术产品转向技术密集型制造业，从而提升目前由美国主导的行业的价值链。他们究竟要如何实现这一目标呢？答案是投入巨额资金。政府开始设立国有投资基金，向特定行业注资。例如，去年5月，第三只基金成立，投资额接近500亿美元。在这支基金中，他们瞄准的是半导体公司，而中国在这个关键行业中落后。他们希望实现自给自足，这样美国或任何其他贸易伙伴就无法切断他们获取关键资源的渠道。这笔资金将提供给该行业的所有关键公司。因此，这些公司并非押注于一家公司，也不是成立一家100%的国有企业，而是激烈竞争，力争率先取得突破。每个行业都对中国本土公司设定了市场份额目标，其中大多数公司都力争80%或90%的国内销售额由其本土公司完成。我们说的是完全垂直整合的公司。即使是美国全球领先的图形芯片公司英伟达，也并非垂直整合的公司。他们设计了自己的GPU，但却由台积电在台湾制造。然后是补贴和税收激励，这构成了最大的资金投??入。例如，自2014年以来，任何购买新能源汽车的人都可以免征购置税，并享受额外的税收减免。他们正在实施大约一百万项其他政策，但最重要的是，他们投入了大量资金，而且这些政策正在发挥作用。澳大利亚战略政策研究所追踪了64项关键技术领域的领先科研创新。因此，我们可以纵观不同的时间段，看看哪些国家一直处于领先地位。从2003年到2007年，美国在64项技术中的60项中处于领先地位。中国仅在其中3项中处于领先地位。但快进到最近的数据，猜猜美国在多少个类别中处于领先地位。七个。在64个类别中，美国占据了7个。20年前，中国仅在三个类别中领先，而现在，中国在57个类别中领先。量子计算、疫苗和核医学是美国仅剩的几个领先类别。但中国近期的主导地位，使其在高性能计算、半导体设计和制造以及一些具有明确军事应用的技术（例如雷达、卫星定位、无人机和蜂群机器人）方面处于领先地位。现在，中国发表的研究成果远超其他国家的一个重要原因是，他们过去一直落后。但现在，他们已经不再落后了。例如，在先进的航空发动机领域，中国每年注册的专利数量占全球专利总数的70%以上，累计专利数量甚至超过了美国。撇开研究不谈，中国在短短四年内就跃升成为全球最大的汽车出口国。是的，2024年，他们卖出了570万辆全球汽车销量达数百万辆，远超日本和德国。汽车行业正在发生的事情，是一个很好的案例，可以研究一个拥有巨额补贴和其他政府激励措施的市场带来的影响。中国消费者的经济状况并不理想。在一个纯粹的自由市场中，这会导致汽车制造商放缓支出和投资，直到可自由支配支出的需求再次回升。但在中国，资金仍在源源不断地涌入。中国有超过100家不同的汽车制造商，都在竞相向经济不景气的消费者出售过剩的汽车。这导致了一些最剧烈的降价。降价幅度如此之大，以至于几乎没有一个品牌能够生存下来。Alex Partners 研究了中国129个电动汽车品牌，并估计其中只有15个品牌
能在5年后存活下来。国内市场如此扭曲，也是像比亚迪这样的中国公司大量出口汽车的原因。

积极的一面是，他们的汽车售价如此低廉，以至于他们唯一的生存之道就是找到更快、更便宜地生产汽车的方法。

比亚迪的生产成本在各个方面都比德国低。或许与这段视频最相关的信息是，所有这一切都是在没有美国参与的情况下完成的。仅仅25年前，中国还有42%的商品出口到美国。而到2023年，这个数字下降到了13%。

Loi Institute的这张可视化图表非常棒。蓝色表示该国最大的贸易伙伴是美国。红色表示中国。这些转变中有很多不同的因素在起作用，但我想强调一下美国正在犯的一个非常明显的错误。当美国首次面临中国冲击时，经济各部门不可避免地会遭受痛苦，因为它们正在迅速被取代。但美国最终通过将重心转向更高水平的制造业，保持了其经济实力。低成本制造业的就业岗位永久地消失了，但它们被其他行业的就业岗位所取代。中国也在做同样的事情，追求价值链更高层次的发展。然而，如今的美国却在做着完全相反的事情。靠征收关税来指望制造业回归美国是徒劳的。我认为《纽约时报》的这句话总结得很好。美国永远不会在Teimu上销售网球鞋，也不会组装AirPods。据估计，中国的制造业劳动力远远超过1亿，而美国只有1300万。认为美国能够甚至应该在半导体和网球鞋领域与中国竞争，近乎妄想。《中国综合症》一书的作者认为，美国正在实施的误导性贸易政策可能受到了第一次中国冲击的影响。美国经济普遍反弹，而美国某些地区却遭受了冲击，导致许多中产阶级感到被剥夺了权利。那么，这是否意味着美国应该效仿中国，大量举债，并向精心挑选的行业注入巨额资金？研究表明，可能并非如此。中国能够以惊人的速度发展一些市场，但这并不意味着其效率很高。2019年的一项政策评估分析了近100项学术研究，对政府政策在推动创新方面的有效性进行了排名。报告将任务导向型政策（也就是中国的做法）在证据质量、证据确凿性以及预期净收益方面排在最低。简而言之，中国实际上是在赌自己比自由市场更了解情况。他们押注，将资本配置到某些行业，比让企业纯粹为了利润而竞争，能够带来更好的经济增长。也许吧。但也有很多低效支出的例子。你可能听说过，中国有很多这样的“鬼城”。房地产开发一直是巨额资金注入的目标行业之一，因为中国希望吸引更多人离开农村，进入城市。这显然是件好事，但如果你建造这样的房产，而不是像正常市场那样，响应需求，那么，根据《商业内幕》的报道，你就会得到6500万套空置房屋。根据这项研究，最好的政策方法是为企业提供研发税收抵免，以激励其创新支出，而不是分配给股东，以及鼓励技术移民和贸易与竞争。谁知道，如果一家公司控制了一个市场，他们可能就不太愿意生产更好的产品？

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.