【L.A Times】'Buy American' -- why not?

渔音谦谦

'Buy American' -- why not?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-hindery1-2009sep01,0,5121065.story

The governments of most major developed countries support their own industries and, in these economic times, it only makes sense for Washington to do likewise.

By Leo Hindery Jr., Leo W. Gerard and Donald Riegle
September 1, 2009

Federal government purchases make up about 20% of the U.S. economy, yet the United States is almost alone among the major developed nations and China in not having a significant "buy domestic" government procurement program.

No single economic stimulus initiative would do more in the short and long term to resuscitate U.S. employment, especially manufacturing employment, and to materially reduce our economy-zapping massive trade deficit than a fair "buy American" program.

However, when even a fairly limited program was put forward in February as part of the economic stimulus plan, you would have thought that protectionist cowboys from the U.S. had attacked global motherhood and apple pie.

Representatives of our major trading partners immediately began discussing among themselves how to respond to the United States' alleged "protectionist drive," with China raging the loudest. Editorials overly influenced by the nation's self-serving free-traders hit several newspapers across the country, with the New York Times warning that "rather than supporting employment at home, the 'Buy American' effort could ultimately cost American jobs." And the usually credible Peterson Institute estimated that such an initiative would save or create a meager 9,000 jobs. But out of a total U.S. labor force of 155 million, the correct answer has to be at least a couple million or more because we are talking about transitioning so much of the U.S. economy -- most of nearly $3 trillion in annual government purchases -- to domestic-only origins.

In his first inaugural speech, President Franklin Roosevelt said that the nation's greatest task was "to put people to work." At the time, 13 million Americans were unemployed, and the economy was much better balanced between manufacturing and services.

Now, however, there are nearly 30 million effectively unemployedAmericans, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics figures for July. Manufacturing industries now represent just 11.5% of GDP; the number of people working in manufacturing account for only 9% of the jobs in the country; and we have run an average trade deficit in manufactured goods of more than $500 billion a year over the last five years.

The United States, with its enormity and geographic diversity, simply cannot prosper in the long term with less than 12% of its GDP coming from manufacturing. And because federal government purchases are strongly weighted toward manufactured goods, "buy American" would be a significant immediate boost to manufacturing's regeneration.

It is naive and irresponsible to believe, as some in the administration do, that a service job is just as good as a manufacturing job. In fact:

* Compensation in manufacturing jobs was on average 15% greater than in non-manufacturing jobs in 2008, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis figures.

* Service jobs do very little to help the U.S. balance of trade and mostly just move incomes around the country.

* Manufacturing has by far the largest multiplier effect of all job sectors, creating $1.40 of additional economic activity for each $1 of direct spending, 2.5 other jobs on average for each job in the sector and, at the upper end, 16 associated jobs for each high-tech manufacturing job, according to a 2009 Milken Institute report.

In February, the loudest screams in opposition to the modest "buy American" requirements proposed in the stimulus package came here at home from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Consumer Electronics Assn., and overseas from China.

Yet both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the electronics association are dominated, in their finances and thus in their policies, by multinational overseas companies that have large-scale operations in countries with their own significant buy-domestic programs.

It was particularly galling to hear objections from China, which is responsible for a staggering 78.5% of the U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods so far this year.

China had an implicit buy-domestic program for years, and now, as part of its own stimulus program, it has a very explicit, countrywide "buy Chinese" policy. On May 26, Beijing said that henceforth government procurement must use only Chinese products and services unless they are not available within the country or can't be bought on reasonable commercial or legal terms.

"Buy American" provisions of one form or another have been around since the 1930s, and it is not opportunistic, unfair or inappropriate, as some have said, for us to have a strong one now, subject, as with other countries' programs, to goods being available in-country on reasonable terms.

It is important to note that "buy American" will have little or no impact on the cost of purchases by workers, as this initiative targets only purchases by the federal government, the effects of which are thus almost entirely captive to our own economy. That said, for the vast majority of Americans, the gains in lower prices because of trade and cheap imports long ago began to be outweighed by wage losses.

But it's not only Congress that needs to do the right thing; there seems to be problems as well with some in the administration.

In April 2008, during the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised that he would "ensure that our government procurement policies strengthen, rather than compete against, the interests of our domestic businesses and that they help create jobs for American workers."

Yet Commerce Secretary Gary Locke recently waived important portions of the "buy American" obligation for the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, saying they would be inconsistent "with the public interest." And the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has been working for the last month to curtail the inclusion of any such provisions in future U.S. legislation.

All of this is wrongheaded. Rather than diminishing the already modest "buy American" provisions of the stimulus package, we should, in ways consistent with our World Trade Organization obligations, be expanding them to cover all national government procurement as other major powers do. And pending legislation that would ably accomplish most of this is Sen. Sherrod Brown's (D-Ohio) and Rep. Mike Michaud's (D-Me.) Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment Act.

At the same time, however, as we are adopting our own buy-domestic requirements, it is critical -- because the issues are linked -- that China and the U.S. also quickly agree on a fundamental readjustment of our bilateral trade relationship to better serve the long-term interests of both nations.

"Buy American" is neither un-American nor anti-globalization. It is simply good, necessary, balanced and reciprocal economic policy.

Leo Hindery Jr. is chairman of the Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation and an investor in media companies. Leo W. Gerard is international president of the United Steelworkers and a member of the executive council of the AFL-CIO. Former Michigan Sen. Donald W. Riegle Jr. is a member of the Smart Globalization Initiative and chairman of government relations at a global advisory company.


Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

渔音谦谦

我觉得挺好的一篇观点长评。经济类的偏多。这方面的不太在行。有能力的筒子可以试试。

海角驯鹿

你不翻译我们咋看得懂?

no7of2001

楼上的，这是原文库，等人认领呢

渔音谦谦

你不翻译我们咋看得懂?
海角驯鹿 发表于 2009-9-1 19:18

这篇文章有点偏重于经济方面呢。我不太擅长这方面。
所以等着有能力的筒子翻译，更原汁原味一点啦。

rhapsody

我觉得挺好的一篇观点长评。经济类的偏多。这方面的不太在行。有能力的筒子可以试试。
渔音谦谦 发表于 2009-9-1 18:49

个人倒觉得一般。。。当然，主要是三个作者的身份决定了他们的立场（和观点所在）。。。

渔音谦谦

个人倒觉得一般。。。当然，主要是三个作者的身份决定了他们的立场（和观点所在）。。。
rhapsody 发表于 2009-9-1 20:14

Leo Hindery Jr的文章我在外交政策网上面看过一篇。我觉得那一篇写的比这篇好一些。

渔音谦谦

领之。。慢慢翻。。。

gabirella

The governments of most major developed countries support their own industries and, in these economic times, it only makes sense for Washington to do likewise.
大多数发达国家都支持民族工业的发展。但是，在如今全球经济总体下滑的现实面前，此举仅在美国行得通。
By Leo Hindery Jr., Leo W. Gerard and Donald Riegle
September 1, 2009
利奥 亨得利，利奥 W杰拉德，唐纳德W 里格尔合作写于2009年9月1日
Federal government purchases make up about 20% of the U.S. economy, yet the United States is almost alone among the major developed nations and China in not having a significant "buy domestic" government procurement program.
联邦政府为刺激经济所付出的资金占了美国经济总量的20%。然而，在所有主要发达国家之中，几乎仅有美国是这样的。而且，就连中国也没有出台类似的政策，规定由政府统一，即所谓的“买国货”。
No single economic stimulus initiative would do more in the short and long term to resuscitate U.S. employment, especially manufacturing employment, and to materially reduce our economy-zapping massive trade deficit than a fair "buy American" program.
从近期和长远来看，在复苏美国就业市场，尤其是制造业市场以及减少对经济有副作用的巨大贸易逆差方面，“购买美国货”比任何一项经济刺激方案都有效。
However, when even a fairly limited program was put forward in February as part of the economic stimulus plan, you would have thought that protectionist cowboys from the U.S. had attacked global motherhood and apple pie.
然而，在今年二月份出台的经济刺激计划中，包括了一条相对有限的“购买美国货”的方案。你当时应该会这样想：这样做，无疑让美国的贸易保护主义者破坏了全球经济秩序。
Representatives of our major trading partners immediately began discussing among themselves how to respond to the United States' alleged "protectionist drive," with China raging the loudest. Editorials overly十分 influenced by the nation's self-serving free-traders hit several newspapers across the country, with the New York Times warning that "rather than supporting employment at home, the 'Buy American' effort could ultimately cost American jobs." And the usually credible Peterson Institute estimated that such an initiative would save or create a meager 9,000 jobs. But out of a total U.S. labor force of 155 million, the correct answer has to be at least a couple million or more because we are talking about transitioning so much of the U.S. economy -- most of nearly $3 trillion in annual government purchases -- to domestic-only origins.我们主要贸易伙伴国的代表立刻开始讨论如何应对所谓的美国贸易保护主义势头。在这其中，中国的呼声最大。在中国国内，自由贸易者主张自给自足式贸易，受这种思想影响的评论纷纷见诸报端。纽约时报发出警告，“‘买美国货’最终可能会导致美国就业市场的进一步恶化，远非挽救之。”信用度较高的彼特森研究所则估计，“买美国货”仅能保住或者增加9000个岗位。然而，基于美国155，000，000的劳动力总量和我们正在讨论的美国经济转型问题的考虑，至少增加数百万的就业岗位才有可能解决目前严峻的就业问题。所谓的经济转型，就是在每年将近3万亿美元的政府购买中，大部分都将以美国国内市场为投资对象。
In his first inaugural speech, President Franklin Roosevelt said that the nation's greatest task was "to put people to work." At the time, 13 million Americans were unemployed, and the economy was much better balanced between manufacturing and services.
在富兰克林 罗斯福总统的第一篇就职演讲中，他曾提到“让每个国民都有工作”是美国最重要的任务。那时有13，000，000的美国人失业，而且在制造业和服务业方面，经济的平衡性要比现今好得多。
Now, however, there are nearly 30 million effectively unemployedAmericans, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics figures for July. Manufacturing industries now represent just 11.5% of GDP; the number of people working in manufacturing account for only 9% of the jobs in the country; and we have run an average trade deficit in manufactured goods of more than $500 billion a year over the last five years.
然而，根据劳务统计局的数据显示，美国现有将近3千万的失业者。制造业仅占国内生产总值的11.5%；制造业的就业量仅占总就业人数的9%；在过去五年里，美国每年在制造业上的平均贸易逆差就超过了5000亿美元。

The United States, with its enormity and geographic diversity, simply cannot prosper in the long term with less than 12% of its GDP coming from manufacturing. And because federal government purchases are strongly weighted toward manufactured goods, "buy American" would be a significant immediate boost to manufacturing's regeneration.
由于国土面积大，地理环境多样化，如果制造业所作的贡献还不及国内生产总值的12%，那么从长远来看，美国经济不可能繁荣得起来。由于联邦政府的购买大幅倾向于制造品，因此“购买美国货”将会极大地刺激制造业的革新。
It is naive and irresponsible to believe, as some in the administration do, that a service job is just as good as a manufacturing job. In fact:
奥巴马政府中的一些人认为，服务业的工作和制造业的工作一样好。这显然是幼稚，并且不负责任的观点。事实上：
* Compensation in manufacturing jobs was on average 15% greater than in non-manufacturing jobs in 2008, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis figures.
经济分析局的数据显示，2008年制造业工作的报酬要比平均高出非制造业工作报酬的15%。
* Service jobs do very little to help the U.S. balance of trade and mostly just move incomes around the country.
在促进平衡美国贸易平衡方面，服务业的作用微乎其微。大部分时候，服务业仅仅是使人们的收入在国内流转。
* Manufacturing has by far the largest multiplier effect of all job sectors, creating $1.40 of additional economic activity for each $1 of direct spending, 2.5 other jobs on average for each job in the sector and, at the upper end, 16 associated jobs for each high-tech manufacturing job, according to a 2009 Milken Institute report.
米尔肯研究所2009年的一份报告显示，制造业促进了各行各业收益的增加，其拉动的每1.4美元的经济活动就产生了1美元的直接投资，针对每个就业岗位新增了2.5个其他岗位；并最终针对每个高科技制造业岗位，增加了16个相关岗位。
In February, the loudest screams in opposition to the modest "buy American" requirements proposed in the stimulus package came here at home from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Consumer Electronics Assn., and overseas from China.
今年二月份美国政府出台了经济刺激方案，其中“购买美国货”这一条在当时遭到了来自包括美国商务部、美国消费电子协会和中国的强烈反对。
Yet both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the electronics association are dominated, in their finances and thus in their policies, by multinational overseas companies that have large-scale operations in countries with their own significant buy-domestic programs.
但不管是美国商务部还是消费电子协会，在资金来源和政策决策方面，都由海外跨国公司所操纵。在推崇购买国货的国家，这些公司都拥有大规模的运营项目。
It was particularly galling to hear objections from China, which is responsible for a staggering 78.5% of the U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods so far this year.
中国的廉价商品大批涌入美国，造成了美国在制造品上高达78.5%的贸易逆差。这时候中国居然站出来反对“购买美国货”，难免让人觉得恼火。
China had an implicit buy-domestic program for years, and now, as part of its own stimulus program, it has a very explicit, countrywide "buy Chinese" policy. On May 26, Beijing said that henceforth government procurement must use only Chinese products and services unless they are not available within the country or can't be bought on reasonable commercial or legal terms.
在过去几年里，中国一直在比较隐蔽地推行购买国货的政策。而现今，又在全国大张旗鼓地搞“购买中国货”，作为其经济刺激计划的一部分。5月26日，中国政府宣布，此后政府采购的商品必须只用中国国内的产品和服务，除非出现在国内买不到或者不能根据合理的商业和法律条款购得的情况。
"Buy American" provisions of one form or another have been around since the 1930s, and it is not opportunistic, unfair or inappropriate, as some have said, for us to have a strong one now, subject, as with other countries' programs, to goods being available in-country on reasonable terms.
自上世纪30年代，“购买美国货”就以不同的形式出现了。一些人认为，考虑到其他国家的经济政策，美国政府出台的“购买美国货”的强硬政策，其实是针对在国内能以合理的价格买到的商品。因此，这一举措并非偶然，并且公正而合理。
It is important to note that "buy American" will have little or no impact on the cost of purchases by workers, as this initiative targets only purchases by the federal government, the effects of which are thus almost entirely captive to our own economy. That said, for the vast majority of Americans, the gains in lower prices because of trade and cheap imports long ago began to be outweighed by wage losses.
值得注意的是，“购买美国货”的方案仅仅针对联邦政府的购买行为，而在工人工资支付方面的影响甚微。因此，该方案的作用仅对美国本土经济管用。对大多数美国人来说，很久以前通过贸易和廉价进口而以较低代价获得的收益，已经被工资下降所产生的负面影响盖过。
But it's not only Congress that needs to do the right thing; there seems to be problems as well with some in the administration.
但不仅仅只有国会需要摆出正确的姿态；似乎政府也存在一定的问题。
In April 2008, during the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised that he would "ensure that our government procurement policies strengthen, rather than compete against, the interests of our domestic businesses and that they help create jobs for American workers."
2008年4月，在美国总统竞选期间，巴拉克 奥巴马作出承诺，“确保我们政府的采购政策巩固国内的商业利益，而非与之竞争，并且要为美国工人创造就业机会。”
Yet Commerce Secretary Gary Locke recently waived important portions of the "buy American" obligation for the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, saying they would be inconsistent "with the public interest." And the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has been working for the last month to curtail the inclusion of any such provisions in future U.S. legislation.
然而，美国商务部部长盖里 洛克（音译）最近同意放弃宽频技术机会计划所需承担的“购买美国货”的重要责任，并称如果让其承担其责任，则会与公众利益相悖。而就在上个月，美国贸易代表办公室就一直在努力减少类似条款在未来美国法律中的出现。
All of this is wrongheaded. Rather than diminishing the already modest "buy American" provisions of the stimulus package, we should, in ways consistent with our World Trade Organization obligations, be expanding them to cover all national government procurement as other major powers do. And pending legislation that would ably accomplish most of this is Sen. Sherrod Brown's (D-Ohio) and Rep. Mike Michaud's (D-Me.) Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment Act.
所有的这一切都属判断失误。为了与我们在世贸组织所履行的义务保持一致，我们应该增加经济刺激方案中“购买美国货”的条项，像其他主要发达国家那样使其覆盖所有的政府采购行为，而非减少。
At the same time, however, as we are adopting our own buy-domestic requirements, it is critical -- because the issues are linked -- that China and the U.S. also quickly agree on a fundamental readjustment of our bilateral trade relationship to better serve the long-term interests of both nations.
然而，在我们采用购买国货这一政策的同时，中国和美国能够迅速在双边贸易关系的根本调整上达成共识，这一点非常关键，因为事事相连。
"Buy American" is neither un-American nor anti-globalization. It is simply good, necessary, balanced and reciprocal economic policy.
“购买美国货”既非反美，亦非反全球化。这一经济决策既好，而且必要，稳定，互惠互利。
Leo Hindery Jr. is chairman of the Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation and an investor in media companies. Leo W. Gerard is international president of the United Steelworkers and a member of the executive council of the AFL-CIO. Former Michigan Sen. Donald W. Riegle Jr. is a member of the Smart Globalization Initiative and chairman of government relations at a global advisory company.
利奥 亨得利任新美国基金会全球化项目主席，也是一名媒体公司投资人。利奥 W杰拉德是美国联合钢铁工人协会的国际主席，也是美国劳工总会与产业劳工组织的行政委员会成员。密西根前任参议员唐纳德W 里格尔也是新美国基金会全球化项目的成员，同时也是一家全球化咨询公司政府关系部门的主席。

渔音谦谦

你太强大了。。。我已经短消息了小R啦。。。

亲爱的。。。啵一个。。。辛苦了。。揉揉手指。

gabirella

不让姐姐你失望就好咧

渔音谦谦

不让姐姐你失望就好咧
gabirella 发表于 2009-9-10 08:48

要不要我帮你补备注资料。作者简介什么的。？

gabirella

好嘛，我现在正忙呢，你帮我弄下嘛，辛苦了喔

rhapsody

'Buy American' -- why not?
“买美国货”——为什么不呢？

The governments of most major developed countries support their own industries and, in these economic times, it only makes sense for Washington to do likewise.
大多数发达大国的政府都支持其民族工业的发展。在如今全球经济总体下滑的现实面前，对于美国政府而言，只有实行类似的措施才是合乎情理的。

Federal government purchases make up about 20% of the U.S. economy, yet the United States is almost alone among the major developed nations and China in not having a significant "buy domestic" government procurement program.
联邦政府的采购支出占到了美国经济总量的20%。然而，在所有发达大国（以及中国）的行列中，美国几乎是唯一没有可观的“买国货”政府采购计划的国家。

No single economic stimulus initiative would do more in the short and long term to resuscitate U.S. employment, especially manufacturing employment, and to materially reduce our economy-zapping massive trade deficit than a fair "buy American" program.
无论从短期还是长期来看，在复苏美国就业——尤其是制造业就业方面，以及在实质性地减少损害经济的巨大贸易逆差方面，一项合理的“买（美）国货”计划比任何一项经济刺激方案都行之有效。

However, when even a fairly limited program was put forward in February as part of the economic stimulus plan, you would have thought that protectionist cowboys from the U.S. had attacked global motherhood and apple pie.
然而，当一项只是相当有限的“买国货”计划被包含在今年二月份出台的经济刺激计划之中的时候，你可能会有这样的想法：美国的贸易保护主义者破坏了全球（经济）秩序和美国价值观。

Representatives of our major trading partners immediately began discussing among themselves how to respond to the United States' alleged "protectionist drive," with China raging the loudest. Editorials overly influenced by the nation's self-serving free-traders hit several newspapers across the country, with the New York Times warning that "rather than supporting employment at home, the 'Buy American' effort could ultimately cost American jobs." And the usually credible Peterson Institute estimated that such an initiative would save or create a meager 9,000 jobs. But out of a total U.S. labor force of 155 million, the correct answer has to be at least a couple million or more because we are talking about transitioning so much of the U.S. economy -- most of nearly $3 trillion in annual government purchases -- to domestic-only origins.
我们主要贸易伙伴国的代表立刻开始讨论如何应对所谓的美国贸易保护主义势头。这其中，中国的呼声最大。而在国内，受到自私自利的自由贸易者思想过度影响的评论纷纷见诸报端。纽约时报发出警告，“‘买国货’最终可能导致美国就业状况的进一步恶化，而非挽救之。”信用度较高的彼特森研究所则估计，这项计划仅能保住或者增加微不足道的九千个岗位。但是，基于美国一亿五千五百万的劳动力规模，至少增加两百万甚至更多的就业岗位才有可能解决目前严峻的就业问题，因为我们谈论的是将美国经济的一大部分——即每年将近3万亿美元的政府购买的大部——转移到美国国内市场来。

In his first inaugural speech, President Franklin Roosevelt said that the nation's greatest task was "to put people to work." At the time, 13 million Americans were unemployed, and the economy was much better balanced between manufacturing and services.
在富兰克林·罗斯福总统的第一篇就职演讲中，他曾提到“让每个国民都有工作”是美国最重要的任务。那时有一千三百万的美国人失业，而那时经济在制造业和服务业比重的平衡性要比现今好得多。

Now, however, there are nearly 30 million effectively unemployedAmericans, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics figures for July. Manufacturing industries now represent just 11.5% of GDP; the number of people working in manufacturing account for only 9% of the jobs in the country; and we have run an average trade deficit in manufactured goods of more than $500 billion a year over the last five years.
但如今，根据劳务统计局七月份的数据显示，美国现有将近三千万的失业者。制造业仅占国内生产总值的11.5%；制造业的就业人数仅占总就业规模的9%；在过去五年里，美国平均每年在制成品上的贸易逆差就超过了5000亿美元。

The United States, with its enormity and geographic diversity, simply cannot prosper in the long term with less than 12% of its GDP coming from manufacturing. And because federal government purchases are strongly weighted toward manufactured goods, "buy American" would be a significant immediate boost to manufacturing's regeneration.
由于幅员辽阔、地形多样，如果制造业对国内生产总值当的贡献还不到12%的话，美国从长远来看不可能变得繁荣起来。由于联邦政府的采购大幅倾向于制成品，因此“买国货”会立刻极大地刺激制造业的革新。

It is naive and irresponsible to believe, as some in the administration do, that a service job is just as good as a manufacturing job. In fact:
认为服务业的工作和制造业的工作一样好——正如政府中的某些人那样——是幼稚，并且不负责任的。事实上：

* Compensation in manufacturing jobs was on average 15% greater than in non-manufacturing jobs in 2008, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis figures.
经济分析局的数据显示，2008年制造业工作的报酬要比非制造业工作的报酬平均高出15%。

* Service jobs do very little to help the U.S. balance of trade and mostly just move incomes around the country.
在促进美国的贸易平衡方面，服务业所起的作用微乎其微。服务业多半只是使人们的收入在国内流转。

* Manufacturing has by far the largest multiplier effect of all job sectors, creating $1.40 of additional economic activity for each $1 of direct spending, 2.5 other jobs on average for each job in the sector and, at the upper end, 16 associated jobs for each high-tech manufacturing job, according to a 2009 Milken Institute report.
米尔肯研究所2009年的一份报告显示，在所有就业领域里，制造业所产生的乘数效应（译注：这是一个经济学术语）显然是最大的——其每1美元的直接投资能拉动1.4美元的额外经济活动，其每个就业岗位平均能带动2.5个其他的新增岗位，而在高端领域，每个高科技制造业岗位就能催生16个相关的就业岗位。

In February, the loudest screams in opposition to the modest "buy American" requirements proposed in the stimulus package came here at home from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Consumer Electronics Assn., and overseas from China.
今年二月，对于经济刺激方案里提出的适度的“买国货”条款，最强烈的反对呼声来自本土的美国商务部、美国消费电子协会，以及海外的中国。

Yet both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the electronics association are dominated, in their finances and thus in their policies, by multinational overseas companies that have large-scale operations in countries with their own significant buy-domestic programs.
但不管是美国商务部还是消费电子协会，在资金来源方面——进而是政策决策方面——都受到海外跨国公司的操控。而这些公司拥有的大规模营运项目所在的一些国家也各自有着可观的买国货项目。

It was particularly galling to hear objections from China, which is responsible for a staggering 78.5% of the U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods so far this year.
尤其让人觉得恼火的是，这时候中国居然站出来反对“买美国货”——正是中国造成了美国在制成品上惊人的78.5%的贸易逆差。

China had an implicit buy-domestic program for years, and now, as part of its own stimulus program, it has a very explicit, countrywide "buy Chinese" policy. On May 26, Beijing said that henceforth government procurement must use only Chinese products and services unless they are not available within the country or can't be bought on reasonable commercial or legal terms.
在过去几年里，中国一直隐蔽地推行购买国货的计划。而如今，作为其经济刺激计划的一部分，中国已是明确地在全国范围内实行“买中国货”方针。5月26日，中国政府宣布，从今以后政府采购必须只用中国国内的产品和服务，除非出现在国内买不到，或者不能根据合理的商业或法律条款购得的情况。

"Buy American" provisions of one form or another have been around since the 1930s, and it is not opportunistic, unfair or inappropriate, as some have said, for us to have a strong one now, subject, as with other countries' programs, to goods being available in-country on reasonable terms.
自上世纪30年代起，“买国货”条款就以不同的形式一直存在着。而且就像一些人所说的，美国出台强势的“买国货”条款不是投机取巧，不是妨害公平，也不是不当举措；该条款的适用对象，正如其他国家出台的方案那样，是在国内能以合理的价格买到的商品。

It is important to note that "buy American" will have little or no impact on the cost of purchases by workers, as this initiative targets only purchases by the federal government, the effects of which are thus almost entirely captive to our own economy. That said, for the vast majority of Americans, the gains in lower prices because of trade and cheap imports long ago began to be outweighed by wage losses.
值得注意的是，“买国货”条款仅仅适用于联邦政府的采购行为，对于工人的购物成本影响甚微。因此，该方案所起的作用几乎只局限于美国本土经济。话虽如此，对于绝大多数美国人来说，很久以前通过贸易和廉价进口品而从低价格中获得的收益，已开始被工资的损失盖过了。

But it's not only Congress that needs to do the right thing; there seems to be problems as well with some in the administration.
但不仅仅只有国会需要摆出正确的姿态；政府内部某些人士似乎也存在一定的问题。

In April 2008, during the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised that he would "ensure that our government procurement policies strengthen, rather than compete against, the interests of our domestic businesses and that they help create jobs for American workers."
2008年4月，在竞选美国总统期间，巴拉克·奥巴马曾作出承诺，“确保我们的政府采购政策能巩固国内的商业利益，而非与之竞争，并且能为美国工人创造就业机会。”

Yet Commerce Secretary Gary Locke recently waived important portions of the "buy American" obligation for the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, saying they would be inconsistent "with the public interest." And the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has been working for the last month to curtail the inclusion of any such provisions in future U.S. legislation.
但是，美国商务部长骆家辉最近同意放弃宽带技术机会计划所需承担的“买国货”的重要责任份额，并称如果让其承担责任，则会“与公众利益”相悖。而就在上个月，美国贸易代表处就一直在努力减少类似条款在未来美国法律中出现。

All of this is wrongheaded. Rather than diminishing the already modest "buy American" provisions of the stimulus package, we should, in ways consistent with our World Trade Organization obligations, be expanding them to cover all national government procurement as other major powers do. And pending legislation that would ably accomplish most of this is Sen. Sherrod Brown's (D-Ohio) and Rep. Mike Michaud's (D-Me.) Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment Act.
这一切都属于顽固不化。我们不应缩小经济刺激方案中“买国货”条款的适用范围，而是在不违背我们在世贸组织应履行义务的前提下，将该条款扩大到能够覆盖所有政府采购的程度，就像其他大国所做的那样。有望达成这个目标的酝酿立法是（俄亥俄州民主党）参议员谢罗德·布朗和（缅因州民主党）众议员麦克·米肖提出的贸易改革、责任、发展与就业法案。

At the same time, however, as we are adopting our own buy-domestic requirements, it is critical -- because the issues are linked -- that China and the U.S. also quickly agree on a fundamental readjustment of our bilateral trade relationship to better serve the long-term interests of both nations.
但与此同时，当我们批准买国货条款时，中国和美国要能迅速在双边贸易关系的根本调整上达成共识，这一点非常关键，因为这关乎两国的长期利益。

"Buy American" is neither un-American nor anti-globalization. It is simply good, necessary, balanced and reciprocal economic policy.
“买国货”既不是非美国的，也不是反全球化的。这就是一项既有效，又必要、且平衡、互利的经济政策。

rhapsody

已发：http://bbs.m4.cn/thread-195706-1-1.html