|
|
【原文标题】What Threat, China?
【中文标题】我们的威胁的确是中国吗？
【登载媒体】Mises Daily
【来源地址】http://mises.org/daily/4858
【译 者】stupid_stacey
【翻译方式】 人工
【声 明】 本翻译供Anti-CNN使用，未经AC或译者许可，不得转载。
【译 文】
sino-america
每周在国家新闻媒体中都会听到关于崛起的中国如何对美国乃至其他国家，可能构成威胁的讨论。这已经是个老生常谈的问题了。那我们究竟应该如何对待中国的经济和军事实力？答案是：中国经济增长的本身不会对我们造成任何危害，而政治家们为应对其经济发展所采取的可能行为才是根本上唯一存在的威胁。在自由贸易与政治孤立的条件下，中国不可能成为我们的威胁。
如今中国的发展看起来在很多方面对美国构成了威胁。我们将在下文逐一讨论这些威胁。
来自中国的新经济实力的挑战
中国一直被视作一股危险的潜在经济力量。但简单的认为一个国家通过占有经济实力便能超越其他国家，是相当幼稚而不实际的。所谓经济就是一群个人、企业乃至政府，通过劳动制造商品和服务用来和别人或别的经济体进行交易。而这些交易意味着自愿的交换、合作和双边的收益，而不是武力。
因此经济本身不是“影响巨大的”，因为影响这个概念本身并不适用于生产与交换：人活着公司的生产不会强迫任何人。如果非要说有影响力的话，那也只是在和政府权力的连接上搭上边。
如果中国想和美国或是其他国家建立经济上的关系，也只能说双方自愿的交换。我所说的这个行为的主题，并不是一个单独的实体，而是几千万的不同的人。就绝大部分而言，只有个人或者个体公司是生产和交换过程中的主体，而非政府。
在自由贸易的环境下，不存在交易双方一亏一赚的情况。贸易双方都愿意用自己所有的换取别人所有的，其原因在于各自都为自己的利益考虑，这样贸易便会惠及双方。如果其中一方认为它不能从交换中收益，它就不会参与其中。
国际贸易也是一样：一些国家，也就是说将各种公司和工厂限定在地理疆域范畴内，他们集中力量生产自身具有相对优势的产品和服务，而这些优势由地理、科技、产量等因素决定。然后它们用所生产出的货物与别的国家所生产出的进行交换。
中国在制造纺织物、服装、数据库仪器和钢铁等产品上具有相对优势，而美国在生产交通工具、科学仪器、通信工具、化工等其他科技产品上具有相对优势。（值得提醒的是，双方在生产相同产品上还处于不同的生产阶段。）
当两国都集中精力生产其具有相对优势的产品，双方都能制造出更多量的总产品。这类似于两个以上的员工在各自专注于某项特定工作时比每项工作都做一点时产出更多，也就是说劳动的分工会推动生产更多的总产量。
中国所担任的角色就是同事：这个伙伴为全世界生产商品，而这些商品正式我们个人非常想占有和消费的。中国，像别的国家或是我们的合作者一样，都是我们的经济伙伴而非某种竞争者。
这个事实往往被那些无事生非的政客们掩盖。如果这个世界上不存在对我们的威胁，比如如果中国只不过是我们的一个爱好和平的伙伴，政治领袖们将没有那么容易的“领导”我们。 国内的政治家们需要寻找可以与之争辩的国外政客。因此便有了2007年参议员贝拉克奥巴马所作的“时刻准备着应对面前的威胁”的陈述。
“中国实力在上升，也不会消失。它既不是我们的敌人亦非我们的朋友，二十我们的竞争者。但是我们必须搞清楚，我们是否有足够的军方对军方的联系巩固和中国的关系，以确保我们可以稳定这个地区。”
与这位总统观点恰恰相反的是，事实上正是合作和交换才能稳定地区，这也是东南亚之所以已经相对稳定的原因。军方与军方的接触只会引起更加紧张的军事冲突。
我们应该期待更多的国家发展成为中国这般经济发达多产富饶的国家。如果这样的话，全世界每年将会有数百万的商品总量增长，这样一来每样商品的价格就会降低。换句话说，如果有数百个国家的生产量和中国或是美国一样多，那么就会有相当多的我们日常生活中想要或是需要的商品生产出来，并且它们的价格也会相应的降低，同时我们的生活水平也会得到极大程度的提高。
另外，那些拥有十亿人民和他们聪明智慧的国家，不停创造出的新的发明和新的科技智慧提高我们的生活质量。考虑一下，其他国家如果没有美国或是西方的先进技术和商品，或变得多么糟糕。甚至在那些最贫穷的地区、最落后的国家，人们必须依靠西方药物、汽车、通信工具、飞机等东西改善生活。然而中国的新产品将会优化我们所有人的生活。所以数十个而非一个发展到经济成熟期的国家，正是我们所期待的。
中国与我们争夺资源带来的威胁
在的自由贸易状态下，没有具有政治指向的政府垄断的军事力量，那么国家不可能伤害彼此。但是当存在“指挥国家”的政治家时，这就是另一种情况了。
政治家们相信，或者说至少努力让选民们相信，我们必须为能源战斗。而我们并不需要。作为个人，如果没有这样的认识，也没有反对那些将国家军队导向战争的政治家的意识，将会没有任何除了交换产品之外的获得能源的方法。
中美都可以获得他们需要的原料和原油，或者双方为了这些各种各样的资源展开竞争。而竞争的手段就是在世界市场竞标。出价高者胜出。
有限的资源，甚至说所有资源，都和商品一样，极为有限。因此，资源根据所需求情况被配置到各种地方被用作各种用途。这样竞争性的投标被公司和工厂使用，也在国内消费者购买时使用。
总而言之，日本这个自然资源缺乏的国家在二战后通过劳动和贸易取得经济成就远大于之前通过掠夺中国与朝鲜半岛获得的收益大得多。
恰恰相反的一个极具讽刺意味的事实是，政府对国内资源的保护常常成为战争的起因。但是当资源私有时，他们会努力避开市场。
如果每个国家都无法获得自己所需的足够资源，会怎么样？常人都能想到，这是不可行的。整个地球由各种化学成分组成:氧、氢、氮、碳、铁、镍等。人类仅仅获取了地球表面资源，甚至还没有开始发掘海底两英里的资源。世界每天都在创造出更多的可用资源。
因此，我们需要在挖掘新资源的仪器工具上投资国有资金，而非用于生产坦克枪支来为争夺资源的战争服务。
中国不从美国进口会带来的威胁
有些人说，必须找到一个远距离的市场。这是不对的。要求别的国家加入世界生产交换中的想法太理想化了，他们应该不受我们的干涉。如果一个国家由于没有别的贸易指向的国家，而不能发现出口市场，它就会在本国进行甚于产品的交换和消费。因为国内的消费需求永远不会满足。
但由于无知的政府官员和商人，他们募资发起活动，鼓舞人们用某种方法寻找海外市场，而战争是他们保证的手段。工业可以通过自身寻找国外市场，政府却常常插手其中，尝试用武力将国外市场变成“民主”和“贸易的伙伴”。这完全是不需要和不道德的。除此之外，战争摧毁了资源和商品，并带走了生产商品和开发资源的能力，这样做反而弄巧成拙。
军事威胁
中国正在变得资本化和繁荣化，而美国正在变得社会主义化也正在落后。有人担心中国将会成为主导力量。根据以上的情况，他们的人均经济增长超过我们只会让美国收益。
但是经济的增长意味着军事力量的增强，这就使得人们的担忧有根有据。在这个领域中，角色颠倒了：现在的美国恐惧中国的军事力量，就像中国担心美国潜在的军事侵略意图一样。
强大的军事力量只能来自于强大的经济实力。对于没什么能力拥有工厂、工具、机器和商品的国家来说，想生产坦克、导弹。战斗机和卫星系统也是不可能的。美国可以从中习得教训：我们需要尽一切所能积聚资本并提高劳动生产率。
但这样的考虑也错误的解读了当前的问题。军事威胁指挥来自于政治领袖而不是个体民众。因此，中央集权的单一民族结构正是问题所在。
与政府相反的是，个人和企业没有任何参与战争的动机。对他们来说，“战斗”的对手应该是具有企业精神的想法、制造过程和市场，或者是价格和利润。他们并没有真正的对手。当然现在的状况并不与之复合，特别是在商业已经于政府混为一体时。这就是为什么政府只是简单的维护法律而不投入工业中的原因。政企分离才能改变世界。
除此之外，每个国家的个人和企业都被卷入了生产和贸易的过程，为了他们的收益和利润不遭受损失，他们有理由阻止国家走向战争，
绝大多数时候我们并没有真的什么来自外部的威胁。“威胁”往往由两者构成，第一个是国家担心自身有意或无意的不友善的行为造成的别人的军事攻击；而第二个是，每个国家因为担心别人首先发起攻击，都在加强军事建设。这两种情况对冷战时期铁幕两边的国家都适用。而后者更适用于如今美国队中国军事建设的担心，反之亦然。
对于奉行孤立主义的中立国家来说，两种情况都不会发生。原因在于这样的国家努力使自己处于鲜被攻击的位置。历史证明孤立主义常常比“保卫”被侵略国更捍卫人民的生命。
关于外国和恐怖分子，我们必须问自己：“如果我们不去打扰他们，他们有什么理由必须来攻击一个总是游离于中间路线的国家呢？他们是想来侵略我们然后掠夺我们的大楼和家庭，然后运到自己的国家？他们难道是想偷走我们的银行存款？他们想定居在弗吉尼亚和俄克拉荷马而不是自己的家乡？他们究竟想获得什么？”
他们确实没有任何理由来打扰我们，除非我们因为插手他们的内政而干扰到了他们，或是我们现在有某项迫在眉睫的威胁。大多数冲突是有政治预谋的，当然不是市场竞争的产物。
货币与贸易威胁
十多年来，美国一直在抱怨中国人民币汇率太低。据我们的政治家们所说，这就导致了我们向中国出口了太多的商品，而我们的就业机会也因为更廉价的劳动力转移了。这个观点有许多谬误之处。
首先，为压低成本，许多就业机会被转移到了拥有廉价劳动力的中国，这是一个事实。但是每年仍然有许多市场指向的力量在不断地变化，导致工作转移到别的国家。例如在很多国家不断变化的科技、生产能力、供给、价格、时间参数、资本可利用性以及顾客品位与偏好。
这些力量每年也会促使工作流向美国。道理同样适用于一个国家的不同地区。这样的经济变化正式市场进程之一而且数百年前就开始存在。
再者，基于美国政策基础的对市场和价格的曲解，也使得更多的工作转移到海外，这比一个国家人为造成的低汇率的影响大得多。比如说，美国的企业和资本利润税（跻身于世界最高之列），工会工资立法控制，联邦和各州最低工资的控制，数千页旨在调节和提高经营成本或阻止某些产品生产或以某种方式生产的规定。
无论如何，一个国家缺少足够工作的原因永远不会是因为工作被转移到了海外，因为国内需要做的工作总比做的人要多。正如我之前解释的那样，不同的国家在知道不同产品上拥有不同的相对优势。无论价格是以市场为基础还是政策基础，一旦价格确立，结果仍然会是这样：美国根据如今的情况在某些工业产业上有相对优势。美国，和其他国家一样，将会得到土壤，气候条件，自然资源，技术，技能，或对某些特定类型的生产劳动力价格的适当组合。
对每个人来说，永远有足够的工作去做。存在失业（不包括暂时性和“摩擦性”的失业）的原因就是：存在政府施加的高于市场的工资率，或者是由于持续性的经济破坏带来存在大规模失业。而这样的经济破坏往往是因为央行融资存款增长时，为了防止损失被发现和劳工、资金根据价格流失，政府将这些资金保存起来导致的。
这两种情况正是如今的美国正面临的，也正是导致目前失业的真实原因。我们的政治家们总是因为我们的经济问题向中国提出指责，但实际上他们才是应该被责怪的人。
事实是这样的，人民币的低汇率帮助美国的消费者以低价格购买货物。我们的政治家们推动中国提高汇率的同时促使我们为我们的进口支付更多，这样一来那些依靠政策的出口商便能从中获利。
另外，这是中国的货币，而不是我们的。中国理应按自己的意愿处理自己的货币。
但中国的领导人也应该承担一定过错：货币是个人和公司进行商品交换的中介，它的价格应该由市场决定，而不是政府的价格控制决定。
在中国政府看来，为了增加出口必须牢牢控制货币。根据亚当斯密的观点，这个古老的重商想法显然是不合理的。通过刻意的要求出口多于进口，促使国家对外卖出的商品比买进的多将会导致国内商品变少，而价格会提高。如果一个国家将所有生产出来的商品用于出口而不进口任何商品，这个国家将收回一堆现金却什么都不买。财富只有通过拥有更多的商品中来，而非更多的纸币。
现在，美国像疯了一样狂印钞票来确保将来价格的上涨和汇率降低，中国人认为他们也会因此被迫通货膨胀。他们的理由是，如果美元的数量和价格按照额外的银行储备的数量同比增长的话，除了降低自身的人民币数量或者也进行通货膨胀，中国将毫无办法保持人民币对美元稳定的汇率。中国必须上涨物价来降低人民币对美元的汇率，以免人民币相对于美元的汇率上涨。
这样的话，中国政府的确会被迫让人民币贬值，但这原因仅仅在于政府会坚持它的非理性商业经济操作。困扰中国的通货膨胀将会给中国人民带来压力，而这时完全不必要的。中国政府应该在美元贬值时让人民币升值，而不是让人民币贬值带来“竞争力”。由市场力量调整的货币升值，将会让各国的货币回归应有的位置，也会让两国长期的货币汇率维持在真正的水平。
如今，两个国家存在着权力的竞争较量，中国的进出口将趋于平衡。在这样的状况下，进入和出口的商品将实现等量，中国的国民将会以低价购买更多的商品，生活水平也同样会得到提高。
结论
中国或别的国家变得更加资本主义化或是富裕化，并不会给我们带来任何威胁。相反，让十亿人们加入生产，会增加全世界的商品供给，也会降低商品价格和提高人民生活质量。每个人都可以从贸易中获益。促使中美人民愿意交战的唯一原因只有他们亲爱的领导人的怂恿。对我们的国家安全都成真正威胁的只有那些政治家，而不是全世界的其他国家的经济增长。
【原文】
This topic needs no introduction. We hear discussions in the national media weekly about the possible threat an economically resurgent China poses to the United States — and even to other countries. So how concerned should we really be about China's economic and military might? Answer: China's economic development itself is not in any way harmful to us; ultimately, the only threats that exist as a result of its success come from potential actions taken by politicians as a response to its development. In a world of free trade and political isolationism, China could not possibly be a danger.
There are various ways in which China is currently seen to represent a threat to the United States. We will consider each of these threats in turn below.
The Threat from China's New Economic Power
China is seen as a potentially dangerous economic power. But it's naïve to think of a country as possessing economic power over another country, as there is no such thing. An economy is a group of individuals and businesses — and to some degree governments — working to produce goods and services that they then trade with one another and with other economies. This trade involves voluntary exchanges, cooperation, and mutual gain; it does not involve force.
An economy is therefore not "powerful," because the concept of power does not apply to production and exchange: people and businesses producing cannot force anything upon others. It is only with a connection to government power that they could have an influence.
For China to engage with the United States or any country economically, it must engage in voluntary exchange. And when I say "it," I mean hundreds of millions of different people, not a single entity. For the most part, only individuals and individual firms engage in production and exchange; governments do not.[1]
In a context of free trade, no one group gains at the expense of another. Trade is beneficial to both sides, with each side willingly giving up what it has for what the other side has, because it feels that it will be better off. If one side does not think it will benefit from a trade, it will not willingly engage in it.
International trade works the same way: some countries (i.e., the various businesses and industries within a geographical border) focus on producing goods and services in which they have a comparative advantage for reasons of geography, technology, productivity, etc. They then take what they have produced and exchange it for what other countries have produced.
China has a comparative advantage in making items like textiles and apparel, data-processing equipment, and iron and steel. The United States has a comparative advantage in the production of such things as transportation equipment, scientific instruments, telecommunications equipment, chemicals, and other technologies. (It should be noted that both countries also perform different stages of the production process of the same goods.)
When each country focuses on what it is comparatively better at producing, both countries together can produce more total goods. Just as when two or more office workers can produce more by each focusing on a specific task than by each trying to do a little of every task, a division of labor results in more total work getting done.
China is the same as a coworker: it is a partner in producing goods for the world, goods that all of us individuals desire to obtain and consume. Like every country, and like our coworkers, China is our economic partner, not some type of competitor, and should be perceived as such.
This truth is obscured by meddling politicians. Our political leaders would not as easily be able to "lead" us if there were no threats in the world — i.e., if China was merely our peaceful coworker. Domestic politicians need to find foreign politicians to be at odds with. Thus we have statements like the one made in 2007 by then-Senator Barack Obama, who, by preparing for threats precipitates them:
China is rising and it's not going away. They're neither our enemy nor our friend. They're competitors. But we have to make sure that we have enough military-to-military contact and forge enough of a relationship with them that we can stabilize the region. (emphasis added)
Contrary to the president's ideas, it is in fact cooperation and exchange that stabilize regions, which is why Southeast Asia is already relatively stable. Military-to-military contact only causes more intense military-to-military conflict.
"Politicians believe, or at least try to get voters to believe, that we need to fight for resources. We don't."
We should wish for hundreds more countries to become as economically developed and productive as has China. Were this the case, there would be millions more goods developed in the world each year, thus reducing the unit cost of each good. In other words, were hundreds of nations producing as much as China or the United States, there would be a much greater abundance of the things we want and need in our daily lives at correspondingly lower prices, making our standards of living tremendously higher.
Additionally, another country with a billion brains and new ideas creating new inventions and new technologies could only improve our lives. Consider how much worse off the rest of the world would be if they didn't have American (or other Western) technologies and goods. Even the lives of those in the poorest, most backward countries are improved by having Western medicines, automobiles, telecommunications equipment, airplanes, and the like. New creations from China would further our own and others' prosperity. Having not one, but tens of new countries rising into economic adulthood is a thing we should hope for.
The Threat of China Fighting Us for Resources
Under free trade, and without politically oriented government-monopoly militaries, no country would be able to harm another. But with the existence of politicians "leading the country," it's a different story.
Politicians believe, or at least try to get voters to believe, that we need to fight for resources. We don't. Absent this mentality, and absent warring politicians leading national armies to fight, individuals would have no means to obtain resources except by trading their own production.
China and the United States can each obtain all the raw materials and oil they need, or both countries can compete with each other for varying amounts of both of these resources, by bidding the right prices in world markets. Highest bid wins.
Limited resources — and all resources, as well as all other goods, are always limited — are therefore allocated to the various uses in various locations in proportion to the urgency of the need for them. Such competitive bidding is what takes place between firms and industries — as well as between consumers — domestically.
After all, Japan, a country with few natural resources, became much more successful economically by laboring and trading to obtain resources after World War II than it was by stealing them from Korea and China before that.
"Like every country, and like our coworkers, China is our economic partner."
Crucially and ironically, government protection of domestic resources is often a cause of wars. But when resources are privately owned, they are not kept off the market (not to mention that more of them are produced).
What if there are not enough resources for each country to obtain the amount it needs? Logical thought reveals that this is not possible. The entire earth is comprised of chemical elements: oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, iron, nickel, etc. Man has literally only scraped the surface of the earth's resources, and has not even begun to obtain resources that lie two miles deep in the ocean, under its floor (not to mention those on other planets — billions and billions of other planets). The world is creating more resources, in usable form, daily.
Thus, what we need to do with our national capital is invest it in tools and machines that can dig for new resources, not consume it by having it instead produce tanks and guns to fight for existing resources.
The Threat of China Not Taking Our Exports
Some say that there is a need to "find a distant market." This is false. It would be ideal if other countries were involved in world production and exchange, but if they are not, so be it; they should be left alone. If a country can't find additional export markets because there are no additional trade-oriented countries, it can exchange and consume the remainder of its production in the home country, because there could never be a satiation of goods at home.
But because ignorant government officials and the businessmen who fund their campaigns feel a need to somehow find foreign markets, wars ensue. Industry can find foreign markets by itself; governments usually intervene to try to force foreign markets into becoming "democracies" and "trading partners." This is unneeded and immoral. Besides, because wars destroy goods and resources and the ability to create goods and resources, they are naturally self-defeating.
The Military Threat
As China is becoming more capitalistic and prosperous, and as America is becoming more socialistic and falling further behind, there is a popular concern that China will become dominant. As shown above, to the extent that this means their economy will grow larger per capita than ours, the United States can only benefit.
But to the extent that growing larger means military strength, the concerns are valid. In that case, the roles would reverse: America would now fear China's military might just as China has feared America's potential military aggression for many years (as also did the Soviets, who saw America as an aggressor).
A powerful military can come only from a powerful economy. Countries that have little capital and little ability to produce factories, tools, machines, and consumer goods likewise have little ability to produce tanks, missiles, fighter jets, and satellite systems. The lesson for the United States in this case is that we need to do everything possible to promote capital accumulation and increased labor productivity.
But even that consideration misses the real issue at hand. Military threats come only from political leaders, not from individual citizens. Thus, centrally controlled nation-state structures are the problem.
Individuals and businesses, in contrast to governments, have no incentive to go to war. For they "fight" with entrepreneurial ideas, production, and marketing; they fight with prices and profits — they have no armies. The previous statement, of course, does not apply when businesses are in bed with government — this is why government should simply uphold laws, not impose itself in industry. A separation of government and business would change the world.
Additionally, because the individuals and businesses of each country are engaged in both trade and production with one another, they have every incentive not to have their countries go to war, because their revenues and profits would suffer as a consequence.
"The real threats to our national security are politicians, not economic growth in countries around the world."
Ninety-nine percent of the time, there are no true military threats from other countries. "Threats" usually consist of either (A) a country fearing a military attack only because its own previous hostile actions have either intentionally or unintentionally brought the threat about, or (B) a country building up arms simply because the other is doing so and because each side is afraid the other side will attack first. Both of these cases applied to countries on both sides of the Iron Curtain during the Cold War (after all, the United States and its allies did invade Russia in 1918). And the latter case specifically applies to current US fears of a military buildup in China and vice versa.
Neither scenario would occur in countries that remained neutral and isolationist, because countries that keep to themselves are rarely attacked. And history shows that isolationism usually saves many more lives than does "defending" other countries that are aggressed upon.
With respect to foreign countries and terrorists, we have to ask: If we didn't bother them, what possible reason could they have to attack a country keeping to itself halfway around the world? Would they want to invade us and take our buildings and homes and ship them to their own country? Do they want to steal our bank accounts (in which case massive amounts of dollar bills flowing into their local bank accounts would only raise prices and dilute the effects of their new wealth)? Do they want to reside in Virginia and Oklahoma instead of their native lands? What would they actually gain?
They really have no reason to bother us unless either we have already upset them by interfering in their domestic affairs in the past or there's a threat that we will attack now. Most conflicts are politically contrived; they are certainly not outcomes of the marketplace.
The Currency and Trade Threats
For more than ten years the United States has been complaining that China pegs its currency too low. The result, American politicians claim, is that we import too many goods from China, and that our jobs are being shipped there so that cheaper labor can replace our more expensive labor. There are many things wrong with this view.
First, it is true to a degree that artificially low production costs in China will move some jobs there. But there are many market-based forces changing constantly that cause jobs to move to different countries each year. Examples are changing technology, production capabilities, supply and prices, time preferences, capital availability, and consumer taste and preferences in various countries.
These forces also cause jobs to be moved to the United States each year. The same is true between different geographical regions in the same country. Such economic changes are part of the market process and have been occurring for hundreds of years.
Moreover, American-policy-based distortions of the marketplace and of market prices cause many more jobs to move overseas than does one country's artificially low currency. Some examples are US corporate and capital-gains taxes (which are among the highest in the world), union-legislated wage controls, federal and state minimum-wage controls, and thousands of pages of regulation that raise operating costs or prevent certain products from being produced and certain production methods from being employed. (An example of the latter would be the prohibition against building oil refineries in the United States, which results in their being built overseas instead.)
"A separation of government and business would change the world."
Regardless, the absence of available jobs in any country is never due to jobs having been shipped offshore, as there is always more work to be done domestically than there are people to do it. As I explained earlier, different countries have different comparative advantages in producing various products. No matter what market-based or policy-based price signals have been created, the result will always be such that the United States has a comparative advantage in some industry based on current conditions. The United States, like other countries, will always have the right mix of soil, weather conditions, natural resources, technology, skills, or labor prices for some particular types of production.
There will always be work available for everyone to do. The only reason there would be unemployment — excluding temporary or "frictional" unemployment — is if (A) there were government-imposed above-market wage rates, or (B) there were mass unemployment stemming from an ongoing economic bust brought about by a central-bank-financed credit boom and kept in place by government policies preventing losses from being realized and preventing labor and capital from moving to where they should be according to market prices.
Both of these conditions are what the United States currently faces and are the cause of our current unemployment. American politicians blame China for our economic problems when they themselves are to blame.
The fact is that China's artificially low currency helps American consumers obtain more goods at lower prices. By pushing China to revalue its currency, our politicians choose to make us pay more for our imports so that politically connected exporters can benefit instead.
Besides, it's China's currency, not ours; China should be able to do whatever it wants with its currency.
But the Chinese leaders are to be faulted as well: a currency is a medium of exchange used by individual people and companies to engage in trade. Its price should be determined by the market, not by government price controls.
The Chinese government believes it must manipulate its currency for the sake of increasing exports. This old mercantilist notion was shown to be fallacious by Adam Smith. By intentionally exporting more than it imports, a country sends out more goods than it takes in, resulting in fewer goods at higher prices domestically. If a country exported all goods and imported no goods, it would be left with a stash of cash but nothing to buy with it. Wealth comes from having more goods, not more paper bills.
Now, with the United States printing money like mad and ensuring future price inflation and currency declines, the Chinese believe they will also be forced to inflate. Their reason is that if the quantity of money — and thus the height of prices — increase in the United States in proportion to the amount of extra bank reserves created by the Fed, China will not be able to maintain its peg to the dollar without increasing its own supply of money and its own inflation rate in response; it must inflate in order to devalue the yuan against the dollar, lest the yuan increase in value against the dollar.
And the Chinese government will indeed be forced to devalue but only because it insists on continuing its illogical mercantilist economic manipulations. The inflationary suffering China will inflict upon its people in this case is wholly unnecessary. Instead of devaluing to be "competitive," it should let its currency rise as the US dollar falls. Such a rise, brought about by market forces adjusting the currencies to the respective prices in each country, would keep the real exchange rate between the two countries constant.
With purchasing-power parity existing between the two nations (i.e., with the yuan–dollar exchange rate kept at market-clearing prices), China's exports would more closely equal imports. In this situation, where as many goods would enter the country as would exit, Chinese citizens would have more goods available at lower prices, and their living standards would improve.
Conclusion
There are no threats from China or any other country becoming more capitalistic and wealthy. To the contrary, having a billion people join in producing and adding to the world supply of goods can only reduce world prices and increase living standards. Everyone benefits from trade. The only reason Chinese and American citizens would want to fight each other is if their dear leaders encouraged them to. The real threats to our national security are politicians, not economic growth in countries around the world. |
评分
-
1
查看全部评分
-
|
狗仔卡
发表于 2010-12-2 17:29
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
发表于 2010-12-2 17:57
