United States and China cargo containers

Comments 15

美国多边困境的一块双边遮羞布

May 23, 2018 Stephen S. Roach

发自纽黑文——美中两国似乎已经从贸易战的悬崖边上撤了回来，这是个好消息。虽然细节披露不多，但5月19日达成的协议消解了紧张局势并承诺展开进一步谈判。而坏消息则是这一系列谈判的框架是有缺陷的：要想解决美国在一个相互联系的世界中产生的基础经济失衡问题，光靠跟任何一个国家达成协议都是杯水车薪。

针对国际经济问题的双边和多边解决方案之间长期存在着脱节。1930年5月，1028名美国知名学术经济学家向时任总统的赫伯特·胡佛（Herbert Hoover）写了一封公开信，敦促他否决尚未通过的斯穆特-霍利（Smoot-Hawley）关税法案。胡佛忽视了这一建议，结果随之而来的全球贸易战把一场原本小规模的萧条搞“大”了。而如今特朗普总统对如何实现“让美国再度伟大起来”这句口号的解读方式也与前者异曲同工。

政客们一直都偏爱双边的观点，因为这可以将矛盾简单化：你通过针对特定国家来“解决”问题。相比之下多边手段得到了大多数经济学家的赞同，因为它强调了储蓄和投资之间错配所导致的国际收支扭曲。而这种简单和复杂之间的对比正是经济学家经常在公众辩论中落入下风的明显重要原因。须知这门晦涩的学科从来都不是以清晰明了著称的。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

Xinhua/Xiao Yijiu via Getty Images

Cem Ozdel/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 15 in all 15 Comments on this article

Jon Anda Jul 1, 2018

Steve, the savings point is well known (thanks to you over many years). But I wonder why there’s so little talk of it’s mirror image, consumption. In the US we don’t pay the externality-adjusted price of hardly anything (think electricity, fuel, water, meat, plastic, etc.) and for many goods consumption is subsidized at the producer level (fossil fuels and agriculture in particular). Whether by Pigovian taxes (ala a carbon tax), a broader VAT, or producer subsidy cuts (which other countries are already doing for fossil fuels) couldn’t we level the playing field for consumption vs. savings to ease trade imbalances? Seems a whole lot better than tariffs.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Strassmann May 31, 2018

Steve, you noted that the Trump deal is an equivalent to a tax hike on American families. The fact is that Trump continues a policy of increasing corporate profitability despite rising tariffs. Increased profits are gains that are not received by average families but mostly by the top 1% of shareholders.

Summary: The proposed increases in tariffs should be also examined how that affects inequality of wealth.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Ellis May 27, 2018

The author of this piece is taking a very complicated route to explain that despite all the political bluster by Trump aimed at a particular constituency at home the Trump administration essentially folded when faced with the likely high costs to the US of embarking on a major trade war with China. In an Alice in Wonderland reversal we now have the ludicrous spectacle of Trump proposing to prop up a major player in the Chinese technology sector who has been guilty of all kinds of abuses based on empty compliance promises. Like much of Trump administration policy overseas it's largely Potemkin villages aimed at winning political capital which collapse with the first puff of wind. Globabilized interdependence is not a myth.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
nigel southway May 27, 2018

This guy is stuck in a free trade mode. The plan is to manufacture what we consume and consume what we make. so, we won’t be as sensitive to such trade activity. Bring on the trade war, tariffs etc... we will win as China needs the trade more than we do.
- John Ellis May 27, 2018
  
  You mean he's addressing reality whereas you're existing in some 21st century version of Smoot Hawley. Basically the US folded when faced with reality.
  - nigel southway May 27, 2018
    
    We cannot continue with this free trade multilateral world order nonsense.
    
    I find the comments offensive to consider the western world to be just consumers for the growth of low cost countries, and being subjected to harmful labor arbitrage that depletes our ability to manufacture for ourselves .....we won’t have a sustainable economy or planet if we go on this way… this is old and tired thinking… It won’t make us prosperous and we have/will become a wealth transfer machine for the rest.
    
    You used the free traders tired old chestnut of the Smoot-Hawley scenario… be aware that most of the growth and prosperity in the western world was undertaken with high tariffs.
    
    If you want more education look at the works of Ian Fletcher ..
    
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWZkHozvDfM
    
    We need a far better economic balance going into the future…. Better Balance is all I am asking for.
    - John Ellis May 27, 2018
      
      Are you seriously suggesting that the growth and prosperity of the Western world was greater in 1939 or 1945 than it is in 2018? The increase in western wealth that has occurred in the era of GATT and the WTO has massively surpassed what preceded it. Either you're simply ignorant of the facts something else.
      
      And I'm more interested in the works of David Ricardo than Ian Fletcher...Ian Fletcher?
      - nigel southway May 28, 2018
        
        Hmmm…I guess some people don’t want to learn anything new In case it upsets their religious beliefs. Even when the current situation demands a look. Very disappointing and dangerous.
        On trade and tariffs, I was looking at a far broader time frame. …the USA mid 1800s till now.
        
        The immediate post war period saw international trade as a small component of all economies.
        
        But. Since 1980 global trade has grown 8 times but GDP is flatlined or worse with heavy wasteful financialization, labor arbitrage, massive wealth inequity, huge unstable increases in trade imbalances, and continued growth in national debt… with no plan to sustain the planet.
        
        You go figure that out …..once you decide which planet you are on.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      - nigel southway May 28, 2018
        
        Hmmm…I guess some people don’t want to learn anything new In case it upsets their religious beliefs. Even when the current situation demands a look. Very disappointing and dangerous.
        
        On trade and tariffs, I was looking at a far broader time frame. …the USA mid 1800s till now.
        
        The immediate post war period saw international trade as a small component of all economies.
        
        But. Since 1980 global trade has grown 8 times but GDP is flat-lined or worse with heavy wasteful financialization, labor arbitrage, massive wealth inequity, huge unstable increases in trade imbalances, and continued growth in national debt… with no plan to sustain nations and the planet.
        
        You go figure... …..once you decide which planet you think your are on.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards May 23, 2018

So apparently the author feels that China's Mercantilism and flouting of the agreements made when it joined the WTO was perfectly fine it is all the US's fault. China is an innocent put upon little lamb. The fact the authors primary is Morgan Stanley says it all. After all what is good for Morgan Stanley is De Facto what is right.
- John Ellis May 27, 2018
  
  He didn't say that at all. You seemed more concerned with the writer's job than what he actually said.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- lt lee May 24, 2018
  
  What China's merchantilism? It is totally nonsense.
  Accumulating specie money, aka real money, such as gold and silver is one thing, accumulating US dollar (fiat money) is a different thing. Gold and silver are considered money because they have limited supply at any one time. They could not be created from thin air. Hence they are worthy of accumulation. In contrast, the US government can issue dollar as close to zero cost.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Godfree Roberts May 24, 2018
  
  China has not flouted her WTO agreements at all. On the contrary, according to the WTO, China is a low-frequency offender compared to the US and the EU.
  
  China's crime is beating the US and the EU–who designed China's accession conditions adversary and unfairly–at their own game. Unpardonable.
  - stephan Edwards May 24, 2018
    
    So strong arming companies into giving up intellectual property is perfectly within the WTO rules. Locking them out of the Chinese Market as soon as there local "Partner" has learned what they have to teach is perfectly within WTO rules. Expecting to able to enter US Market sectors while keeping their own equivalent Market sectors that's all good to the the WTO. In that Mr. Roberts the WTO isn't a trade organization it is best a joke at worst ...... well not worth staying in.
    - lt lee May 24, 2018
      
      What "strong arming companies" are you talking about?
      
      Companies exist to maximize profit, if investing in China with financial and technological assets in China produce less profit, long term and long term, than elsewhere, no company would invest in China.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/RdDhchH/zh;

美国多边困境的一块双边遮羞布

To continue reading, subscribe now.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Europe’s Power Deficit

The Looming Taiwan Crisis

What Next for Venezuela?

Taking Vaccines the Last Mile

The Road From Thatcherism

A Very Greek Brexit?

Science and Subterfuge in Economics

What Will Succeed GDP?

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register