诺奖得主批川普贸易战 Trump's Trade Confusion

美诺贝尔经济学奖得主：美国应尊重中国发展的权利

中央广播电视总台国际在线 2018年04月20日 11:53

　　4月12日，诺贝尔经济学奖获得者、美国哥伦比亚大学教授约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨在纽约哈佛俱乐部出席“2018高层峰会：新世界格局下的中美商务关系”。（摄影：钱珊铭）

　　国际在线报道（中国国际广播电台记者 钱珊铭）：美国诺贝尔经济学奖得主斯蒂格利茨近日在纽约表示，美国应尊重中国发展的权利，不应通过贸易保护主义措施来试图削减美对华贸易逆差。

　　诺贝尔经济学奖获得者、美国哥伦比亚大学教授约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨近日在纽约举行的中美商务关系高层峰会上指出，中国仍是一个发展中国家，正在致力于自身建设的方方面面，美国应尊重中国发展的权利。他说：“美国应该尊重中国发展的权利。中国提出的‘中国制造2025’战略也是基于其发展中国家的基本国情。中国虽然是个巨大的发展中国家，但他们的人均收入只有美国人的五分之一。所以，他们需要发展。事实上，很多发展中国家都希望能大力发展经济，提高人均收入水准。目前，中国正在致力于推动消费继续成为其经济增长的驱动力、处理环境问题、进行税制改革等。”

　　斯蒂格利茨指出，美国不应将自己的法律标准强加于中国，更何况美国的这些标准本身就存在缺陷。

　　针对特朗普指责中国“强迫美国企业转让技术”，斯蒂格利茨指出，美国企业通过合资的方式进入中国之前，就已经了解了中方对外国直接投资提出的要求，即外国企业在合资过程中需要进行一定程度的技术转让。这样的规定并不是专门针对美国企业的。如果不赞同这一交易准则，美国企业可以选择不进入中国市场。然而事实是，许多美国企业都很贪心，一方面想要在中国巨大的市场中分一杯羹，另一方面又反悔不愿意转让技术，转而用美国的标准去指责中国。

　　斯蒂格利茨说，中国已承诺进一步扩大开放，正在不断放宽外资准入标准，取消原有的许多限制。与此同时，中方也希望这是一个互利互惠的过程，然而美国经常以“国家安全”为由对中国提出的各项需求加以拒绝。斯蒂格利茨说：“中国表示将进一步扩大开放，也欢迎更多的外国投资。当然，他们也希望这是一个互利互惠的过程。例如，中方希望能将他们的一些科技产品销往美国市场，也希望购入一些美国的科技产品。中方也愿意扩大赴美投资。然而，美国经常以‘国家安全’为由拒绝这些投资。”

　　斯蒂格利茨指出，特朗普政府采取的贸易保护主义措施，无益于美国经济的发展，最终将为美国各行业发展、就业、消费等带来一系列负面影响。

　　他说，美中双方暂未达成双边投资协定，而世贸组织成员也没达成多边投资协定。因此，如果美中双方在投资领域发生分歧，应通过双边谈判着力解决。而一旦在贸易方面发生争端，则应诉诸于世贸组织，基于相关法律法规进行磋商解决，而不是像美国这样通过单边施加压力、推高贸易壁垒、挑起贸易争端来达成自己的目的。斯蒂格利茨说：“世贸组织具备争端解决机制。如果美方认为中方违反了世贸组织的行为准则，可以向世贸组织提出诉讼要求。但特朗普政府并没有在WTO框架下采取任何行动，这使得我们都在猜测，所谓的中国违反贸易准则到底是真的还是假的？反倒是中国已经将美国301征税建议及进口钢铁、铝产品232措施诉诸世贸组织，而美国很有可能在此过程中违反了世贸组织的相关规定。”

　　斯蒂格利茨强调，无论是对待贸易还是投资，美国政府都应采取理性的方式，通过对话磋商与中方在贸易规则、技术转让、知识产权保护等问题上寻求达成共识。

Trump's Trade Confusion
Apr 5, 2018 JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ

Writing for PS since 2001 
243 Commentaries

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor at Columbia University and Chief Economist at the Roosevelt Institute. His most recent book is Globalization and Its Discontents Revisited: Anti-Globalization in the Era of Trump.

US President Donald Trump's recently announced import tariffs on steel, aluminum, and $60 billion in other goods that the US imports from China each year are in keeping with his record of responding to nonexistent problems. Unfortunately, while Trump captures the world's attention, serious real problems go unaddressed.

NEW YORK – The trade skirmish between the United States and China on steel, aluminum, and other goods is a product of US President Donald Trump’s scorn for multilateral trade arrangements and the World Trade Organization, an institution that was created to adjudicate trade disputes.

Before announcing import tariffs on more than 1,300 types of Chinese-made goods worth around $60 billion per year, in early March Trump sweeping tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum, which he justified on the basis of national security. Trump insists that a tariff on a small fraction of imported steel – the price of which is set globally – will suffice to address a genuine strategic threat.

Most experts, however, find that rationale dubious. Trump himself has already undercut his national-security claim by exempting most major exporters of steel to the US. Canada, for example, is exempted on the condition of a successful renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, effectively threatening the country unless it gives into US demands.

But there are a host of issues in contention, involving, for example, lumber, milk, and cars. Is Trump really suggesting that the US would sacrifice national security for a better agreement on these minor irritants in US-Canadian trade? Or perhaps the national-security claim is fundamentally bogus, as Trump’s secretary of defense has suggested, and Trump, as muddled as he is on most issues, realizes this.

As is often the case, Trump seems to be fixated on a bygone problem. Recall that, by the time Trump began talking about his border wall, immigration from Mexico had already dwindled to near zero. And by the time he started complaining about China depressing its currency’s exchange rate, the Chinese government was in fact propping up the renminbi.

Likewise, Trump is introducing his steel tariffs after the price of steel has already increased by about 130% from its trough, owing partly to China’s own efforts to reduce its excess capacity. But Trump is not just addressing a non-issue. He is also inflaming passions and taxing US relationships with key allies. Worst of all, his actions are motivated by pure politics. He is eager to seem strong and confrontational in the eyes of his electoral base.

Even if Trump had no economists advising him, he would have to realize that what matters is the multilateral trade deficit, not bilateral trade deficits with any one country. Reducing imports from China will not create jobs in the US. Rather, it will for ordinary Americans and create jobs in Bangladesh, Vietnam, or any other country that steps in to replace the imports that previously came from China. In the few instances where manufacturing does return to the US, it will probably not create jobs in the old Rust Belt. Instead, the goods are likely to be produced by robots, which are as likely to be located in high-tech centers as elsewhere.

Trump wants China to reduce its bilateral trade surplus with the US by $100 billion, which it could do by buying $100 billion worth of US oil or gas. But whether China were to reduce its purchases from elsewhere or simply sell the US oil or gas on to other places, there would be little if any effect on the US or global economy. Trump’s focus on the bilateral trade deficit is, frankly, silly.

Predictably, China has answered Trump’s tariffs by threatening to respond to their imposition with tariffs of its own. Those tariffs would affect US-made goods across a wide range of sectors, but disproportionately in areas where support for Trump has been strong.

China’s response has been firm and measured, aimed at avoiding both escalation and appeasement, which, when dealing with an unhinged bully, only encourages more aggression. One hopes that US courts or congressional Republicans will rein in Trump. But, then again, the Republican Party, standing in solidarity with Trump, seems suddenly to have forgotten its longstanding commitment to free trade, much like a few months ago, when it forgot its longstanding commitment to fiscal prudence.

More broadly, support for China within both the US and the European Union has been waning for a number of reasons. Looking beyond the US and European voters who are suffering from deindustrialization, the fact is that China is not the gold mine it was once perceived to be for American corporations.

As Chinese firms have become more competitive, wages and environmental standards in China have risen. Meanwhile, China has been slow to open up its financial markets, much to the displeasure of Wall Street investors. Ironically, while Trump claims to be looking out for US industrial workers, the real winner from “successful” negotiations – which would spur China to open its markets further to insurance and other financial activities – is likely to be Wall Street.

Today’s trade conflict reveals the extent to which America has lost its dominant global position. When a poor, developing China started increasing its trade with the West a quarter-century ago, few imagined that it would now be the world’s industrial giant. China has already surpassed the US in manufacturing output, savings, trade, and even GDP when measured in terms of purchasing power parity.

Even more frightening to many in the advanced countries is the real possibility that, beyond catching up rapidly in its technological competence, China could actually lead in one of the key industries of the future: . AI is based on big data, and the availability of data is fundamentally a political matter that implicates issues such as privacy, transparency, security, and the rules that frame economic competition.

The EU, for its part, seems highly concerned with protecting data privacy, whereas China does not. Unfortunately, that could give China a large advantage in developing AI. And advantages in AI will extend well beyond the technology sector, potentially to almost every sector of the economy. Clearly, there needs to be a global agreement to set standards for developing and deploying AI and related technologies. Europeans should not have to compromise their genuinely held concerns about privacy just to promote trade, which is simply a means (sometimes) to achieving higher living standards.

In the years ahead, we are going to have to figure out how to create a “fair” global trading regime among countries with fundamentally different economic systems, histories, cultures, and societal preferences. The danger of the Trump era is that while the world watches the US president’s Twitter feed and tries not to be pushed off one cliff or another, such real and difficult challenges are going unaddressed.

23 Comments on this article

  •  

    But Stiglitz, as chairman of the U.N. Commission on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System, said nothing about the risk weighted capital requirements for banks, which act like tariffs and odiously distort the allocation of credit to the real economy 
    https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-basel-committees-tariffs-of-35-risk.html

    Read less
  •  

    Just looking at the issue from the financial side (instead of the product side): the trade balance is (typically the largest) part of the current account balance which is trade plus services. And the current account reflects the cross-border transfer of wealth. A current account deficit represents the amount of domestic assets which have moved into foreign ownership. Since the Vietnam War, the US has transferred domestic assets into foreign ownership (i. e. return on those assets goes abroad). I am surprised that apparently no one in the American intelligentsia is worried about this. The US used to be the world's largest creditor and has now become the world's largest debtor? Is that really irrelevant???

    Read less
  •  

    "Reducing imports from China will not create jobs in the US. Rather, it will increase prices for ordinary Americans and create jobs in Bangladesh, Vietnam, or any other country that steps in to replace the imports that previously came from China."

    Really? This is the best argument that mainstream economists can muster in favor of "free"-trade? No wonder nobody takes them seriously, other than those who benefited from the current regime.

    So, once there's balanced trade with all involved, what's going to happen? Ah, yes, jobs in the US, cause fiscal policy will work without fear of import leaks, or imports distorting the US economy in favor of bubble sectors (FIRE sector).

    Read less
  •  

    Well said ANTON LJUTIC. !

    I don't know if Mr Stiglitz is entirely correct in his assessment, but at least he's making intelligent noises. And as you say there's not much sign of intelligent response.

    Read less
  •  

    ".... Or perhaps the national-security claim is fundamentally bogus,...."

    Not much 'perhaps' about it. Most of the US' constant bleating about 'national security' is bogus.

    Read less
  •  

    Ash Carter, in an interview to 'Politico' in February had said that economists had not provided real answers for dealing with China. William Galston, he served in Clinton's first term in office, says that China is yet to ratify the Government Procurement Agreement that it agreed to do so when it joined WTO in 2001. it is about non-discriminatory opportunity in government procurement. 

    Joseph Stiglitz, who discovered a niche for himself, opposing free trade and all the other nice things for the Fund and for Wall Street, suddenly discovers virtue in free trade because Trump is now considering imposing tariffs on China.

    One thing is clear: whether or not Trump wins, economists have both lost it are still losing it.

    Read less
    •  

      "Joseph Stiglitz, who discovered a niche for himself, opposing free trade and all the other nice things for the Fund and for Wall Street, suddenly discovers virtue in free trade because Trump is now considering imposing tariffs on China."

      That's quite unfair based on the content of the above article. Stiglitz is simply pointing out the extent to which 'Free marketeers' have changed their position because somebody is beating them at their own game. Not that US republicans are much concerned with the productive economy when there is much more to be made from the financial markets.

      Read less
  •  

    Please, just this once, apply your energy and knowledge to the problem of reducing the trade deficit with China, rather than arguing it doesn't matter, or will resolve itself, or is a really good thing, or there is some other bigger problem. Just accept it as a problem and provide a solution -- like a bright ambitious student.

    Read less
    •  

      Yes, Robert, but have you considered that the trade deficit with China just might not be a problem ?

      If it ain't (actually) broke it don't (actually) need fixed.

      Read less
  •  

    The border wall is to stop ILLEGAL immigration.

    •  

      "The border wall is to stop ILLEGAL immigration."

      Fat chance that will work. Like the illegals are going to bump into it and decide to go home.

      Read less
  •  

    There isn't a single reply yet that coherently addresses Stiglitz's argument. It's all just contrarian noise. Especially intriguing is George's statement that China is just looking after it's own interests. I guess Trump isn't? And "Make America first" is not a tribal call to close ranks? 

    Let America begin saving more and spending less and we will see the deficit problem disappear overnight and America run a surplus on trade. But so long as America keeps consuming goods and services that they aren't producing, the difference will have to be made up by their neighbours. Balance of trade is an accounting IDENTITY and it can't be changed by clever arguments. Imports have to be earned with exports or else put on a bill and added to the debt (check the US Capital Account of the BoP!). And what a lot of people seem to miss is that we do not borrow their MONEY. Their money is just a vehicle, a unit of account It cannot be used to buy anything in America. What we do borrow is their goods and services. To be repaid in the same manner, sometime in the future. And it won't be easy to go from full tilt borrowing to repaying.

    Problem is, it is awfully expensive to ring the world with military bases, prosecute wars, foment or suppress insurrections (depending on their flavour) and forego billions in tax cuts and loopholes for the wealthy individuals and corporations without tightening the proverbial belt - always politically unpopular. And if the belt isn't tightened then there will be more borrowing. And this President seems keen on loosening rather than tightening the belt. 

    A wise man would bet on persistent trade deficits at least during this Presidency. But, perhaps, that is not the problem. Mr. Stiglitz has offered an opinion on what the real problem today is (and what isn't). You may disagree with him, but if you do, please explain why your opinion should be preferable to his. Don't just rant.

    Read less
  •  

    However you slice it, it costs more to make things in developed countries than in less developed ones. 

    Much like software updates that are essential to keep our computers operating at peak efficiency, all the US can do to sustain if not increase our exports is to sell something state of the art or something at lower cost than anyone else. 

    The former commands a premium whereas the latter creates or keeps market share. Tariffs to punish our trading partners because they have lower labor costs simply hurts the US consumer; they're a tax by any other name. 

    At best, Trump the Terrible might be able to make some headway removing trading abuses and non tariff barriers in exchange for removing his tariffs. In any case, he better do it soon before his base realize the cost they're paying for his confrontational hubris

    Read less
    •  

      I think the best gloss that can be put on Trump's tariffs is that they might be only an attempt at a negotiating strategy. It looks like high risk strategy to me. 

      If he was playing poker I'd be inclined to put a few 'bucks' on his hand being less than impressive.

      Read less
  •  

    Firstly 
    How sad that a nobel price economist measuring trade by dollar amount and not what actually being trade.
    Yes it is labor, taxes and profits what is actually being traded.
    Now when you measure the correct economic elements than you can clearly see that that the U.S. has a 30 million labor deficit with China alone and about 500 billion in taxes if those labor would be employed in the U.S. 
    please do not give me the nonsense that the U.S. has full employment with 80 million people out of the workforce labor participation is barely above 60 percent.
    Are all these 80 million people all millioners.
    Secondly 
    Tariffs never worked to uphold the economic democracy the very basics of economic rights of individuals to be able to sell their labor for a fair market value in their respective economic jurisdiction without any interference by governments policies especially trade arrangements that directly discriminate against them. 
    Only good old quotas did the work to uphold the economic democracy but laughably it’s against the WTO rules. 
    And who is that signed against economic democracy?

    Read less
  •  

    Free trade? Hey, how about free trade in IDEAS... Can the $250/hour Stiglitz Economic Call Center name a single Economics idea that couldn't be imported from a Bangalore
    Economic Call Center for $5/hour... And if this were to happen - how would $250/hour Stiglitz Call Center feed itself and pay the rent?

    Read less
  •  

    I have read joe’s new book. It’s all about defending the rabid fanatical religious ideology of free trade and globalization, not outlining what is right for the western nations.

    What really stinks is that he describes the real pain the failed practice of free trade and globalization is generating, yet the religious ideology must still come first….. 

    What is real scary is that this blind purest thinking still exists, and these wonks are teaching the next generation of economists!!!

    Read less
  •  

    Absolutely perfect time to use the 4th technology industrial revolution to drive harmony, balance and most importantly a global overarching arching policy mapping to Smart Cities, urbanisation and UN2030SDG and 2050 Zero Emissions target. 

    This time round there needs to be mapping and accountability across an eco system as in the digital era, and the circular business models, eco systems online and offline are key. 

    The stakeholder should include tech vendors, nations, regulations, trade, intellectual property, fintech, crypto, security blockchain, AI... 
    1:demarcation between tangible assets and fintech in respect of the choice and penetration offline at point of sale. 
    2: Consideration for the consumer in respect of retaining democracy and having a voice and empowerment to protect their online privacy, dignity, data, identity and most importantly how to get support when bullying, financial theft, harassment, trolling as today there is no effective support to help 
    3. Policy between Human and robot employment demarcation, control, and safety

    Read less
    •  

      All sizzle and no meat in these words

  •  

    The word “fair” should have been in the first paragraph, not in the last, where Stiglitz writes, “In the years ahead, we are going to have to figure out how to create a “fair” global trading regime among countries with fundamentally different economic systems, histories, cultures, and societal preferences.” What does he think Trump is doing but to start correcting now what America and the world has snoozed on as technologies and governments have changed? This is a perfect time and incentive for economists and others to wake up to what is now made very public: the trade inequities that have smuggled their inevitable way into the world’s political and economic systems. It would be interesting to know what Stiglitz means by his in quotation marks “’fair’”, and who might be able to concoct a living formula for his special four preferences, and whether they are relevant. Trump may have caused "confusion", but let's hope that those confused by his actions are able to discern the unfairness that Trump has pointed out in bold and begin “to figure out” now, not in the future, how to come to his aid and help rebalance the skewed scales of trade.

    Read less
    •  

      "Trump may have caused "confusion"...."

      He certainly has. And that in itself is no bad thing, because it must surely persuade economists and political theorists to interrogate their rather tired and threadbare beliefs.

      Read less
  •  

    Your last paragraph says it all if you realize that the history and culture of China and others, define as fair, that which benefits their tribe (country) and that it is foolish not to grab what is available while it is available. Adam smith's theories assume a western mindset of individuals competing against other individuals or companies not the ''groups'' prominent in Asian culture.

    Read less
    •  

      Interesting point, George.

      The US rapidly heads for collective action in time of war. The selfish interests of the individual, considered de rigeur for peacetime, go straight into the bin for the duration.

      Read less
登录后才可评论.