【08.11.18美 外交政策聚焦】中国不能复制20世纪的美国经济
【中文链接】2008/11/19 消息来源：星岛环球网
http://www.backchina.com/news/2008/11/19/18937.html
【英文链接】
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5679
最近的《纽约时报》社论《中国行，……就行（As Goes China, so Goes…）》向中国提出经济和金融危机建议，其中大部分建议是错的。这篇社论萃取了宏观经济学家关于中国经济正确未来方向的传统智慧的基本点：减少出口、扩大进口、建立现代消费经济。
事实上，这样的转变更具破坏性。此外，在高能源成本、低碳足迹（carbon footprint）的未来，无论是中国还是世界都无法承受一个20世纪美国经济的克隆体。
要让中国消费者消费，政府就需要在国内花更多钱，投资公共项目，提供更多的社会福利（包括医疗和养老金），让公民感觉得自己没有必要未雨绸缪存那么多钱。纽时社论认为，中国“必须做更多事情开启民众的存款，鼓励他们消费”。而且这样的转变是容易的——因为中国政府有“庞大的预算盈余”，“有余钱可花”。
然而，试图把中国重塑成美国式的大众消费经济体，可能导致经济、环境、甚至政治灾难。这是一条通往过去的路，而不是通往未来的路。
这和克林顿及布什政府经济政策有讽刺性的相似之处，目睹西方金融和经济系统今年的崩溃，中国人（或者其他人）怎么会希望效仿这种模式。纽时社论没有提到这种转变内含的经济混乱和政治风险，没有提到中国不能永远依赖廉价能源和对自然资源破坏，没有提到建造依赖私人汽车的21世纪城市的荒唐。建立可确保长期生存的经济机制和政策是一项艰巨的挑战，要求中国找到一个完全不同的方向。
中国已经感受到世界经济放缓的影响。政府采取行动提高最贫困的中国人的收入可能相对容易。但除非经济可以制造并分销他们希望买入的产品和服务（一些产品和服务无法迅速大规模生产，例如高等教育或医疗服务等），否则主要的结果将是通胀，而不是真实生活水平的重大提高。此外，中国消费者对未来黯淡时光的迹象非常敏感。当中国经济仍然处于动荡转型期，刺激消费信心和消费需求将是困难的任务。
制造产品组合的快速转变对于工人和企业而言可能也是极有破坏性的。很多中国出口厂家没有能力把自己的产品转变为国内产品。大部分出口企业生产的是供富裕的西方消费者消费的产品，跟中国消费底层所需要的基础商品和服务很不同。而且很多出口厂家在沿海地区，要转移的话代价昂贵，很多现有的设施和工人将被抛弃。
在过去三十年，由于超量的出口和白热化的投资，中国增长了13倍，但它的经济是失衡的。纽时社论说到中国过剩的出口和怠惰的消费，但忽略了那些不便利的事实。它没有提到大众消费型的中国经济会遇上的环境、全球气候变化和自然资源的限制。难道纽时编委会没有读过纽时自己精彩的中国环境系列报道吗？没有细读弗里德曼（Thomas Friedman）的新书《热、平、拥挤（Hot, Flat, andCrowded）》吗？即使不大大提高消费，中国经济已经与物质和经济现实发生冲突了。
如果目标是西式的消费经济，中国的能源需求将是巨大的。然而它的主要能源资源煤越来越显示出问题，空气和水污染失控，全球气候遭到破坏。尽管保护资源可以带来一些好处，但它的保护潜能远不及美国。继续依赖津贴能源肯定是死路一条：从长期来看，进口石油会变得难以承受或者难以获得，而且中国通过煤取得国内能源的做法所带来的环境负面效应将变得压倒一切。
刺激消费无疑可以帮助中国熬过这场经济风暴。但纽时社论没有思考中国走这条路的话如何熬过长期的政治风暴。目前政权的合法性在于给中国所有人带来更美好的生活。如果大部分民众发现他们的经济生活变得更糟而不是变得更好，政权的生存就会受到威胁。中国领导人已经开始担心这些趋势，并警告公众未来还会有更艰难的时期。当然，他们还会把责任推给外界环境。一些最富有的中国人已经遭遇重大损失。刺激消费可以提供短期的安慰，但将把中国进一步引上不可持续经济之路，并最终暴露政治弱点。
纽时社论提出的简单处方是把中国变成20世纪的美国，而不考虑这条道路的长期可能性。索罗斯（GeorgeSoros）最近接受中国《财经》杂志访问时表示，“我希望中国、美国都采取节能和替代能源措施，以此作为刺激经济的方式，这正是我们走出目前全球危机所需要的。”
在纽时发表这篇社论两周后，中国宣布4万亿元人民币的刺激方案，应对经济衰退。我希望中国领导人在设定开支的时候，要更加留意索罗斯的观点，而不是纽时编委的观点。（原标题：中国经济；作者：Samuel Bleicher）
The Chinese Economy Samuel Bleicher | November 18, 2008
Editor: John Feffer
http://www.fpif.org/graphics/icon_share.gif
http://www.fpif.org/graphics/icon_feedback.gif
Foreign Policy In Focuswww.fpif.orgA recent New YorkTimes editorialgives China broad advice on the economic and financial crises, most ofit wrong. Headlined "As Goes China, so Goes…" (an allusion to the oldU.S. presidential election bromide, "As goes Maine, so goes theNation), the editorial distills the essence of the macroeconomists'conventional wisdom about the proper future direction of the Chineseeconomy: reduce exports, expand imports, and create a modern consumereconomy. The Times implies that China's government budgetsurplus, high individual savings rate, and endless consumer and socialwelfare needs make the task easy, if only Chinese policymakers wouldcatch on. In fact, this transformation would be far more disruptive.Moreover, neither China nor the world can survive the creation of aclone of the 20th-century U.S. economy in the coming era of high-costenergy and low-carbon footprints.
To get China's consumers to spend, the government will need tospend more at home, investing in public works projects and providingmore social benefits — including health insurance and pensions — so itscitizens don't feel they have to save so much for a rainy day.
Noting that private consumer spending amounts to only aboutone-third of the Chinese GDP (in the United States it has been over70%), the editorial says China "must do more to unlock the savings ofits citizens and encourage them to spend." And the switch would be easy— the Chinese government has a "huge budget surplus" and "money tospare"to execute this policy.
Attempting to reshape China into an American-style mass consumereconomy, however, is a recipe for economic, environmental, and probablypolitical, disaster. It’s a path to the past, not the future.
This prescription bears an ironic similarity to the economicpolicies of the Clinton and Bush administrations, and one wonders whythe Chinese (or anyone) would want to emulate that model after watchingthe Western financial and economic systems collapse this year. Theeditorial makes no reference to the economic dislocations and politicalrisks inherent in this transformation, or the unsustainable reliance oncheap energy and natural resource destruction, or the folly of building21st-century cities dependent on the private automobile. Creatingeconomic institutions and policies that ensure long-term viability is aformidable challenge that will require China to find a dramaticallydifferent direction.
China is already feeling the impact of a slower world economy.Both economic growth and export growth have braked sharply. Theslowdown threatens job creation, direly needed to absorb millions ofrural Chinese seeking employment in the cities.
Government action to increase the income of the poorest Chinesewould be relatively easy. But unless the economy can manufacture anddistribute the products and services they want to buy — some of which,like higher education or healthcare services, cannot be quickly massproduced — the primary result will be inflation rather than asignificant improvement in real standards of living. Moreover, Chineseconsumers, unlike Americans, are extremely sensitive to indications ofbad times ahead. The China Daily recently reporteda typical Chinese consumer postponing purchase of a new bicycle afterreading the news about the financial crisis, although it has notaffected her at all. Stimulating consumer confidence and consumerdemand when the Chinese economy is in turmoil and transition will be adifficult task.
As industrial economies sputter, China is now in aposition to pick up some of the slack: selling more of its own goods athome and buying more from the rest of the world.
Rapid transformation of the manufactured product mix could also beextremely disruptive for workers and businesses. Many Chinese exportfactories will not be able to redirect their production to domesticproducts. Much of the export complex provides discretionary-purchasegoods, from toys to TVs, for rich Western consumers. These products aremarkedly different from the more basic goods and services needed by thebottom half of China's consumer economy. Moreover, export factories arelocated near the coast, where a huge coast-oriented transportationinfrastructure delivers goods overseas to distributors and retailers.Comparable domestic distribution and marketing systems do not exist,since none is needed for exports. Overall, it would probably be cheaperfor new businesses to build new factories in central and western China,with new workers and new distribution systems, rather than redirectexport manufacturing facilities. Many existing facilities and workerswill be abandoned.
The national economic statistics may mask these impacts withpositive aggregate numbers, but the human costs do not show up in theGDP. And the political implications are troublesome. Already, toyworkers are protesting their lost jobs and lower wages since the Mattellead-painted toys scandal reduced demand for their output. As the Westreduces its imports, the number of protesting workers will grow. Astronger social safety net and reduction in income inequality, not moreprivate goods consumption, are China's most critical needs.
China has grown 13-fold over the last 30 years, thanksto hypercharged exports and white hot investment. But its economy islopsided.
While telling a tale of excessive exports and stagnant consumerspending, the editorial misses the inconvenient truth. It does notmention the environment, global climate change, or natural resourceslimitations to a mass-consumption Chinese economy. Did the editorialboard read the Times' own excellent series ofarticles on the Chinese environment last winter, or peruse Thomas Friedman'snew book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded?The Chinese economy is already on a collision course with physical andeconomic realities, without any dramatic increase in consumption.
China's energy needs, if the goal is a Western-style consumereconomy, are enormous. Yet its primary energy resource, coal, isincreasingly problematic because of uncontrolled air and waterpollution as well as global climate disruption. While conservationcould yield some benefits, it has nowhere near the potential ofconservation in the United States. Continuing to build the economy onsubsidized energy is certainly a dead end: over the long term, oilimports will become unaffordable or unavailable and the adverseenvironmental effects of China's domestic energy production from coalwill become overwhelming.
China's current urban planning assumes a transportation system,based on private autos, which requires unsustainable infrastructure andenergy consumption. The designs of the architectural wonders of newBeijing and Shanghai's Pudong district make them unlivable withoutautomobiles. China is heavily subsidizing the cost of oil and gasoline,largely to satisfy urban consumers who recently acquired autos (withgovernment encouragement). Gasoline prices are comparable to prices inthe United States, far less than those in Europe. In ahigh-energy-cost, small-carbon-footprint world, these Chinese urbanareas may well become completely unworkable.
Other resource and environmental problems are also severe. China isrunning out of water in the northern half of the country. It is stillcutting forests, mining coal, and operating factories in destructive,unsustainable ways that not only harm "the environment" in theabstract, but have concrete and immediate adverse economic effects onagricultural productivity, potable water, and human health.
Aboost to consumer spending would undoubtedly help China weather the economic storm.
But the editorial doesn't consider how China mightweather the long-term politicalstorm from following this path. The current regime bases its legitimacyon delivering a better life to everyone in China. Current governmentleaders, as unelected officials, have no claim to loyalty in hard timesfrom any segment of the public. If a significant percentage of thepeople find their economic life getting worse instead of better, theviability of the regime will be threatened. Chinese leaders are alreadyworriedabout these trends and warning the public of harder times ahead, whichthey of course blame on external circumstances. Some of the richestChinese are alreadysufferingenormous losses. Stimulating consumer spending could provide short-termrelief, but it would lead China further down the path to anunsustainable economy and ultimately to political vulnerability.
Ultimately, the editorial's facile prescriptions are a recipe forturning China into a 20th-century America, without considering theunfeasibility of that path over the long term. George Soros succinctlydescribed a better prescription for China and the United States in arecent interview in Caijing Magazine, China'scounterpart to The Economist:
I hope both the U.S. and China will introduce energy saving andalternative energy generation as a way of stimulating the economybecause that is what you need to come out of this global recession thatwe are currently facing. The global economy was supported by U.S.consumers spending more than they were earning. That is finished. Thathas come to an end. Something else has to take its place, and in myview, the world is facing the problem of energy shortage and globalwarming. To build this requires very large investments and thoseinvestments should provide the motor for the world going forward.Otherwise we will be in a worldwide recession, and at the same time, weare going to be cooked together.
Two weeks after the Times published this editorial, China announced a 4-trillion-yuan ($586 billion) stimulusplanto combat its economic decline. One hopes that, as the Chineseleadership shapes this spending, it will pay more attention to GeorgeSoros than The New York Times editorialboard.
Samuel Bleicher is currently principal in his consulting firm, The Strategic Path LLC.From 2001 to 2007, he served as Chief Strategist for New Initiatives inthe Overseas Buildings Operations Bureau of the U.S. State Department.He is also a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.
He can be reached at: Bleicher at StrategicPathLLC dot com
页:
[1]