|
|
【中文标题】奥巴马和罗姆尼，谁更了解中国？
【原文标题】Obama vs. Romney: Who’s Right on China?
【登载媒体】时代周刊
【原文作者】Michael Schuman
【原文链接】http://business.time.com/2012/10/24/obama-vs-romney-whos-right-on-china/
2012年10月22日，共和党总统候选人米特•罗姆尼和美国总统巴拉克•奥巴马，在佛罗里达伯克莱顿林恩大学进行第三场选举辩论。
巴拉克•奥巴马总统和共和党总统候选人米特•罗姆尼在星期一的那场辩论中，最令人吃惊的是他们几乎没有谈到中国。在这个话题真正被提出来之前，辩论已经进行了1小时15分钟。他们所讨论的其它话题——恐怖主义、中东、阿富汗——其实并不重要。展望未来几十年，中国超级力量的崛起，在我看来是美国外交政策所面临的唯一重大挑战。我们已经开始从单一的美国式和平转向两极世界，无论其结果是一个新的冷战局面，还是一个更加和平、繁荣的地球，都要取决于华盛顿如何对待这个越来越富有、越来越有主见、越来越强大的北京。
这意味着，美国下一任总统所奉行的中国政策对美国的未来和世界的政治经济稳定局面，具有至关重要的作用。所以问题就是：奥巴马和罗姆尼的中国政策，到底哪一个更合理、更明智？
这不是一个简单的问题。两位候选人对中国的攻击基本上毫无意义，只是为增加自己的政治筹码，坐在家里的选民对毫无说服力的结果心灰意冷。无论是奥巴马还是罗姆尼，中国都可以轻松地被描绘成一个不负责任的对手，一个利用各种恶毒贸易手段窃取美国就业岗位和技术的小偷。两人都尽力说服选民，他会比另外一个家伙对中国采取更强硬的态度，来保护美国和美国工人的利益。让我们来看一看美国与中国经济关系中几个最重要的方面，候选人对此的态度都是怎样的。
中国的汇率
在我看来，有关中国最具误导性的语言出自罗姆尼之口，是有关中国的汇率问题。以下是罗姆尼在星期一辩论中的发言：
“我从第一天开始就认为〔中国〕是汇率操纵者，这让我们只能在就业岗位流失的产业中增加关税……我们必须明白，我们不能坐以待毙，让就业机会一年到头地流失。”
罗姆尼实在是已经落伍了，有关中国汇率的所有问题，在过去几年中已经被谈滥了。中国的确没有让汇率依市场规律自由地变动，也的确有人认为，人民币对美元的汇率上升速度应当比目前更快。但是，更坚挺的人民币将会消除美国与中国之间的贸易赤字的理论，早已被揭穿了。2005年之后，人民币对美元的汇率已经上升了30％，但是从2005年到2011年，美国与中国的贸易赤字上升了46％。其原因早已超越了汇率问题，而是与两个经济体的结构和他们之间的贸易关系有关。给中国贴上“汇率操纵者”的标签无益于改善两国的经济关系。
而且还会让事情进一步恶化。如果把这个帽子扣在中国头上，北京极有可能采取的报复手段是让越来越富裕的中国消费者没有机会购买美国商品——这恰恰是已经在美国本土和其它国家的糟糕经济环境中狼狈不堪的美国公司最担心的问题。如果“汇率操纵者”的帽子也让来自中国的进口商品被施加惩罚性关税，那么美国消费者购买这些商品的价格会上升，他们本来已经被债务和失业榨干油水的钱包还能变得更瘪吗？美国人的消费能力减弱，对那些在中国生产商品，回国销售的美国企业，也没有任何好处。
奥巴马在汇率问题上更加理性，他在辩论中说，人民币已经升值不少，“实际上，从1993年到现在，汇率正处于对美国出口商最有利的阶段。”
贸易摩擦
两位候选人在贸易问题上并没有太大的分歧，都表现出强硬的态度，都声称中国的不公平贸易行为让美国流失了就业机会。以下是罗姆尼在周一辩论中的一个典型表态：
“我们还要确保，与中国之间的贸易关系一定要对我们有利。我一年到头都在看到公司倒闭、工人下岗，全都是因为中国不守规矩的行为。”
中国真的不遵守规则吗？在某种程度上说，是的。政府的确在通过直接或者间接的手段补贴企业，外国公司进入中国市场面对种种限制。但是，总体来说，两位候选人（以及美国民众）必须要摒弃一个念头，就是中国的贸易政策削弱了美国经济。事实是，中国具有真正的竞争优势，主要是大规模、低成本、高质量的劳动力。来自美国和其它国家的公司纷纷在中国建立生产基地，将其劳动力资本化，其原因并不是中国政府玩弄汇率花招，也不是想尽办法帮助国有企业。这个等式无法仅靠一些贸易政策就可以发生变化。
这并不是说美国的政策不能帮助某些美国企业与中国竞争，或者在国际市场上获利，美国当然需要对中国施压，更彻底地向美国出口商和投资人敞开市场。就像罗姆尼所指出的，中国必须更好地保护知识产权。奥巴马实际上已经提出了一个让中国改善贸易活动的好方法——利用国际贸易组织。以下是奥巴马针对这个问题的发言：
“我知道美国人眼睁睁地看着就业机会向海外流失，商业和工人与中国在不平等的基础上进行贸易活动……这就是为什么我们所提出的针对中国的贸易案例比任何国家都多的原因——上一届政府已经连续两个任期这样做了。我们几乎赢得了提出的所有的案例，这是事实。”
中国严肃看待他们在WTO中的责任，WTO也被视为一个相对中立的评判方。好好利用WTO的办公室，要比直接与中国对抗效果好得多。
就业
两名候选人都认为，与中国对抗会让美国产生更多的就业机会。总体来说，这是没错，让中国对美国出口保持更大程度的开放或许会在本土创造更多的就业岗位。但是罗姆尼的态度有些过于激进了。他在创造1200万就业岗位的行动清单中，添加了“制裁”中国这一项。我不明白，为什么对美中贸易采取强硬的态度，能创造出具体的就业岗位数量。两名候选人要小心，为创造就业岗位而采取的各方面努力——比如对中国产品施加更高的关税——最终不会让美国经济受益。在周一的辩论中，奥巴马重申对中国轮胎给予惩罚性关税的案例：
“中国的廉价轮胎潮水般涌入美国，我们果断采取行动制止了这个趋势，从而挽救了全美无数的就业岗位。”
关税或许保护了一些轮胎企业的员工，但是似乎美国人在轮胎上的消费明显上升了。彼德森国际经济研究所的调查显示，2011年，美国人在轮胎上的消费因为关税的原因上升了11亿美元。这就是试图利用贸易保护政策来保住就业岗位所带来的问题。
谁最了解中国？
在中国问题上，两个人都没有给我留下深刻印象。他们似乎沦为“我们应当‘反抗’北京”这种陈词滥调的受害者，对过去几十年来两个国家的实力对比变化视而不见。对于一个自称商业领袖的人，我对罗姆尼过分简单化的对华政策感到吃惊。一谈到中国，罗姆尼就从一个自由市场经济的王者、一个私有企业的领袖变成关税和国家保护主义的拥趸。我担心他这种好斗的性格会破坏与北京之间的关系，并且导致对方的报复行为。
奥巴马的话也没有太多的实质性内容，但是在我看来，他的确比罗姆尼从更高层次看到了美国与中国的关系。与中国竞争，并不仅仅是搞定汇率和贸易纠纷，还要让美国劳动者准备好与一个崛起的中国在未来做更激烈的竞争。奥巴马在周一的辩论中这样说：
“长远来看，要与中国保持足够的竞争力，我们必须确保打理好本国的业务。如果我们没有世界一流的教育水平，不继续为科研做投入，不在国内培养伟大的企业，我们必定是输家。”
奥巴马意识到，美国需要利用一切优势来保持自身的竞争力。罗姆尼似乎认为，保持竞争力唯一需要的是减税。两人都谈到要营造一个公平的竞技场，奥巴马对于实现这一目的的方式更有说服力、更具眼光。
原文：
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks about China during the third and final debate with U.S. President Barack Obama at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida, on Oct. 22, 2012
The most shocking part of the third debate between President Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Monday was how little attention they paid to China. I counted an hour and 15 minutes before the subject even came up in earnest. That’s not to say the other topics discussed — terrorism, the Middle East, Afghanistan — aren’t important as well. But looking out over the next several decades, the rise of China to superpower status is, in my opinion, the single most important foreign policy challenge facing the U.S. We’re shifting back to a bipolar world from Pax Americana, and whether that results in a new Cold War or a more peaceful, prosperous globe will depend on how Washington handles a richer, more assertive and more powerful Beijing.
That means the China policy of the next President of the U.S. is of crucial importance for the future of America and the economic and political stability of the world. So the big question is: Does Obama or Romney have a sounder, smarter strategy on China?
It is not an easy question to answer. Both candidates have engaged in rather unproductive attacks on China to score political points with an electorate frustrated by the feeble recovery at home. To both Obama and Romney, China can easily be portrayed as an irresponsible adversary, stealing American jobs and technology through various nefarious trade practices. Each candidate has tried to convince voters he’d be tougher on China than the other guy in protecting American interests and workers. Let’s look at some major issues with regard to America’s economic relationship with China and where the candidates stand on them:
CHINA’S CURRENCY
For me, the most misguided statement on China comes out of Romney’s mouth. That concerns China’s currency. Here’s what Romney said during Monday’s debate:
On day one, I will label [China] a currency manipulator, which allows us to apply tariffs where they’re taking jobs … We have to understand that we can’t just surrender and lose jobs year in and year out.
Romney is really out of date on this one. The whole issue with China’s currency has been overblown for years. Yes, it is true that China does not have a freely traded currency properly valued by market forces, and some believe it should be appreciating against the dollar more rapidly than it has been. But the idea that a stronger Chinese currency can eradicate the U.S. trade deficit with China has been debunked. Since 2005, the Chinese currency (the yuan) has appreciated by more than 30% against the dollar. But the U.S. trade deficit with China increased by 46% from 2005 to 2011. The reasons why the U.S. has a persistent trade deficit with China goes well beyond the value of China’s currency, into the structure of the two economies and how they are connected together. Labeling China a “currency manipulator” won’t do very much to alter the economic relationship between the two nations.
And it might just make matters worse. Sticking such a tag on China will very likely cause Beijing to retaliate with measures aimed at keeping American goods out of the hands of increasingly wealthy Chinese consumers — something U.S. companies, suffering from feeble economic growth at home and in other markets, can’t afford to have happen right now. If the “manipulator” label ends up resulting in punitive tariffs on Chinese goods imported into the U.S., the prices of those goods will increase for American consumers, further straining the wallets of a workforce already strained by debt and joblessness. Suppressed consumption in the U.S. won’t do any good for American retailers or the many U.S. companies that manufacture their products in China for sale at home.
Obama is much more reasoned on the currency issue. He noted in the debate that the yuan has appreciated, saying that “actually currencies are at their most advantageous point for U.S. exporters since 1993.”
TRADE CONFLICTS
There’s not much space between the two candidates on the issue of trade. Both like to talk tough on this issue; both like to claim that unfair practices by China cost American jobs. Here’s a typical comment, from Romney in Monday’s debate:
We’ll also make sure that we have trade relations with China that work for us. I’ve watched year in and year out as companies have shut down and people have lost their jobs because China has not played by the same rules.
Does China play by the rules? To a certain extent, no. The government does subsidize Chinese industry, both directly and indirectly. Foreign companies face restrictions in accessing the China market. In general, though, both candidates (and the American public at large) have to get beyond the idea that specific trade policies in China have somehow undercut the U.S. economy. The reality is that China has real competitive advantages, mainly a large, low-wage, quality workforce. Companies from the U.S. and elsewhere have moved production to China to capitalize on that workforce, not because the Chinese government fools around with its currency or helps its state enterprises. There isn’t a whole lot trade policy can do to change that equation.
That isn’t to say U.S. policy can’t assist specific American industries and companies in competing with or benefiting from China. The U.S. needs to press China to open markets more widely to U.S. exporters and investors. China, as Romney continually points out, has to do a much better job of protecting intellectual-property rights. Obama has actually struck upon a pretty good way of pressing China to improve its trade practices — utilizing the World Trade Organization. Here’s what Obama said on this front:
I know Americans had seen jobs being shipped overseas; businesses and workers not getting a level playing field when it came to trade … That’s the reason why we have brought more cases against China for violating trade rules than the other — the previous Administration had done in two terms. And we’ve won just about every case that we’ve filed, that has been decided.
China takes its WTO responsibilities very seriously, and the organization is seen as a relatively impartial arbiter of such disputes. Rather than going head to head with Beijing, using the good offices of the WTO could produce some real results.
JOBS
Both candidates claim that standing up to China will create more jobs for Americans. That may be true in very general terms. Opening up China to American exports and investment would probably create more jobs at home. But Romney takes this too far. He adds “cracking down” on China to his list of methods to create 12 million new jobs. I don’t see how he can promise that taking a harder line on U.S.-China trade can somehow produce a specific number of jobs. Both candidates also have to be wary that efforts to protect jobs — by imposing tariffs on Chinese products, for example — don’t in the end help the U.S. economy. For example, in Monday’s debate, Obama repeated a claim that slapping tariffs on Chinese-made tires helped American workers:
We had a tire case in which they were flooding us with cheap Chinese tires. And we put a stop to it and as a consequence saved jobs throughout America.
Perhaps the tariff helped a few employees of tire companies. But the policy also likely caused Americans to spend more on tires. A study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics figured that Americans spent $1.1 billion more on tires in 2011 because of the tire tariff. That’s the problem with using protectionist policies in an attempt to preserve jobs.
WHO’S BEST ON CHINA?
Neither candidate impresses me all that much on China. Both seem to suffer from the out-of-date notion that we can “stand up” to Beijing, as if the power balance between the two nations hasn’t drastically changed over the past decade. I find Romney’s rather simplistic approach to China a bit surprising for a guy who claims to be a business guru. Romney morphs from a champion of free markets and private enterprise into a proponent of tariffs and state protection when it comes to China. I fear his combative attitude would sour relations with Beijing and lead to retaliation.
Obama’s rhetoric is not helpful either, but, in my opinion, he does see America’s relationship with China in much broader terms than Romney. Contending with China doesn’t just mean fixing currencies and resolving trade disputes. It requires preparing the American workforce for even more intense competition from a rising China in the future. Here’s what Obama said on Monday:
Over the long term, in order for us to compete with China, we’ve also got to make sure, though, that we’re taking care of business here at home. If we don’t have the best education system in the world, if we don’t continue to put money into research and technology that will allow us to create great businesses here in the United States, that’s how we lose the competition.
Obama realizes the U.S. will need all the advantages it can get in order to maintain its competitiveness. Romney seems to believe all the U.S. requires to maintain its competitiveness is tax breaks. Both candidates talk about creating a level playing field with China. Obama has a stronger, wider vision of how to make that happen.
|
评分
-
1
查看全部评分
-
|
狗仔卡
发表于 2012-10-29 09:27
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
发表于 2012-10-29 16:05
