金刻羽 特朗普瞎折腾 中国超越世界

金刻羽：中国如何超越世界

Keyu Jin: How China Leapfrogged The World

Rise of Asia 2025年3月8日

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkjRXUD5QKc

如果下一任美国总统唐纳德·特朗普决定加倍对中国的关税和技术制裁，该怎么办？随着新政府上台，特朗普明确表示他打算使用这些经济工具来遏制中国的崛起并破坏其技术野心。但这些策略真的会奏效吗？伦敦经济学院教授金刻羽深入探讨了为什么这些措施更有可能加剧紧张局势而不是带来预期结果。听听她怎么说。

如果下一任美国总统唐纳德特朗普决定在新政府上台后加倍对中国征收关税和实施科技制裁，情况会怎样？特朗普明确表示，他打算利用这些经济工具来遏制中国的崛起，破坏其科技雄心，但这些策略真的会奏效吗？伦敦经济学院的 KU Jinn 教授深入探讨了为什么这些措施更有可能加剧紧张局势，而不是带来预期的结果，听听她怎么说？

是的，我认为应用程序，我认为中国已经掌握了它，如果你看看今天，我的意思是，这非常讽刺，但今天美国下载次数最多的五个应用程序中有四个是中国的，我的意思是，这令人难以置信，也非常令人不安，但这是掌握商业模式加上数字加上大量数据加上世界上最高效的供应链，中国能够掌握，也能够渗透到世界各地世界上除了存在地缘政治问题的地方，但你必须记住，90％的人仍然生活在发展中国家呃，中国的效率和低成本，对于这些发展中国家非常有用，当然，这不是突破性技术，呃，我们可以掌握的技术，你需要创造力，所以一个开放的自由社会和所有这些东西，但要掌握高科技，我认为中国可以做得很好，即使使用逆向工程，这就是为什么我认为整个技术限制试图阻止中国掌握高科技和尖端技术将非常呃，它非常呃，非常呃，多孔和漏洞百出中国可以进行逆向工程，呃，你知道当然表面上有规模，有资金，有人才呃，但更深层次的竞争也是最激烈的竞争环境嗯，也许世界上某些产品的政策正在推动中国走在最前沿，如果你在中国市场取得成功，比如电动汽车电池或电动汽车本身，那么你就几乎走在了世界前沿，正如大卫所说，这些政策将产生适得其反的效果，我们已经看到了国家资源的动员，但我们谈论的不仅仅是国家，我们正在团结起来，让这些大型科技公司去攻克这些关键的瓶颈技术，每个人都在做芯片，包括 10cent、华为、阿里巴巴、杨百翰大学等等，他们正在合作，你知道，他们正在帮助许多公司管理逆向工程，但更重要的是，你实际上是在迫使公司或创新者尝试跨越式发展或规避，我知道芯片行业的许多公司都在想出替代的设计解决方案可以规避这些限制，仅凭国内产能就能生产出同样高效、强大的芯片，所以我认为，这会产生一种意想不到的后果，现在我们还没有系统证据，但你只需要看看历史事件，我想在拿破仑战争期间，你知道，我不认为英国切断了法国与棉纺厂的联系，或者类似的东西，然后它就刺激了创新，你知道，这种跨越式发展，我们看到了某种程度上我们已经看到了一些这样的事情正在发生，但正如大卫提到的，这些半导体或芯片公司与最终用户的距离很近，无论是人工智能公司还是电动汽车公司，它们都在附近，这种非常快速的反馈循环，而不是去美国或欧洲的总部，嗯，真的可以推动变革和创新，就像日本一样，芯片半导体行业成功的一部分，实际上，日本最终超越了美国，是日本电子产品业务的封锁和最终用户需求的循环，所以我对这些技术限制非常怀疑，我真的认为你在强迫你知道另一个非常伟大的国家，拥有伟大的美国，或者至少是一个有巨大潜力实现跨越式发展的国家，然后你谈到了小院子，对，但你想把它保持多小，有些人也在谈论EVS对国家安全的潜在威胁，所以你知道这个讨论可能会没完没了，是的中国的贸易是一次性冲击，是一次性冲击世界经济，而且从某种意义上说，大规模廉价劳动力之类的产品已经充斥全球，现在我们不需要深入讨论消费者方面的好处，我们谈论的是大量受益于廉价商品的消费者，而你知道政治往往关注钢铁制造商等的失业问题，尤其是在这个国家，但至少有一些证据表明，很多美国工作岗位被中国出口取代，这些工作岗位已经处于非常脆弱的地位，无论如何，这些工作岗位将转移到其他国家，墨西哥，甚至可能是越南和其他国家，如果你看看欧洲的对比经验，有人认为，很多受到东欧冲击的国家准备得更好应对中国冲击，政府也投入了比美国政府多得多的资源，帮助他们的工人顺利过渡到其他行业，并进行再培训、再技能培训等，但这种故事已经结束了，我认为纠结于此会错过未来的重点。我认为，未来与中国的贸易竞争更多的是针对德国、韩国等生产更高附加值中间产品的国家，无论如何，当我们谈论 WTO 规则和框架时，我认为没有重新思考，你知道问题是，2001 年中国加入时，它是一个非常小的国家，因此它利用了其发展中国家的地位，因为当时有些国家缺乏规则，因此它们无法更快增长，但增长真的太大了，或者在很短的时间内增长非常快，然后它所做的一切都对世界经济产生了巨大影响，这是第一次，这是世贸组织无法做到的，也准备不做，但我们也要争论一下发展中国家，他们对针对他们的规则有多满意，他们会说，很多规则都是对他们不利的，有利于发达经济体，损害了它们，他们甚至会争辩说，通过不让他们知道高附加值技术的进步，以创新为导向的发达经济体正试图让他们成为廉价生产的基础，同时赚取更高的附加值，阻止他们爬上那个阶梯，所以我认为你知道这个故事有多个方面但我认为，正如特朗普所倡导的那样，单边双边方法而不是多边方法才是解决问题的办法，首先，WTO 并没有说你不能获得国家补贴，对吧，它说的是，对于某些领域，特别是在绿色技术可再生能源方面，显然你需要国家支持来激励私营部门，这不是问题，问题在于这些补贴的全球影响以及它如何影响全球竞争，但如果所有国家都这样做，就很难理解它们各自的影响，你知道他们从波音公司获得的补贴显然具有国际影响，但这并不是我们真正争论的，对吧，所以我认为，特别是在可再生能源方面，没有国家的作用，呃，会失败，这会导致每个人都想要的那种绿色转型失败开始，但我想说，补贴的规模听起来确实很大，但大型基金，你想问取得了什么成就，实际上我想说，从某种意义上说，这是非常浪费的，因为他们还没有完全正确地将国家的作用与市场的作用结合起来，所以这实际上是一个学习过程，整个脉络计划实际上正在发展，从芯片，或者大型芯片，芯片基金，现在有一种新的想法，特别是在 2023 年，它已经建立起来，以改革这种模式，让市场发挥更大的作用，因为你知道他们有点帮助我不知道这是否是补贴，但只是帮助了很多很多芯片公司，如果你拥有一家芯片公司，你知道，作为一顶帽子，那么你会得到很多好处，显然这会造成很多浪费，所以我会说这并不成功，但地方政府引导资金在全国各地，你会说你会说呃，你可以看到中国科技公司的分布遍布全国各地，而不仅仅是在北京、上海和这与当地政府的支持有很大关系，但我们这里并不是在谈论财政补贴，融资部分如此重要的原因不仅仅是直接补贴，而是帮助他们协调银行贷款，这是因为中国的金融体系非常薄弱和不成熟，他们没有美国的生态系统，他们不能简单地筹集资金和资本来资助这些创新，它必须通过国家来引导，这就是为什么他们必须非常参与，没有它，你就不会有这样的工业部门，但它也是为了帮助他们吸引人才，为他们提供更便宜的土地，然后协调供应链，我的意思是想想EVS，一个政府或多个政府帮助协调围绕一家公司的整个供应链，这有很大帮助，我的意思是，该公司的产量在一年内增长了80%，因为电池制造商和制造商都联合起来了，所以我认为这是国家为企业提供的帮助非常重要，而不是少量的实际金融投资，所以我认为中国要成功，需要考虑效率而不仅仅是规模，那么你认为你同意库金教授的观点吗？美国对中国的制裁和关税将适得其反。

Keyu Jin: How China Leapfrogged The World

Rise of Asia 2025年3月8日

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkjRXUD5QKc

What if the next US president, Donald Trump, decides to double down on tariffs and tech sanctions against China? With a new administration in power, Trump is making it clear that he intends to use these economic tools to curb China's rise and disrupt its tech ambitions. But will these tactics actually work? Keyu Jin, professor from London School of Economics dives into why these measures are more likely to fuel tensions than bring about the intended results. Listen to what she has to say.

what if the next US president Donald

Trump decides to double down on tariffs

and Tech sanctions against China with a

new Administration in power Trump is

making it clear that he intends to use

these economic tools to curb China's

rise and disrupt its Tech Ambitions but

will these tactics actually work KU Jinn

Professor from the London School of

Economics dives into why these measures

are more likely to fuel tensions than

bring about the intended results listen to what she has to say

yeah I think um applications I think

China has mastered it right and if you

look at today I mean it's very ironic

but four out of the five of the most

downloaded apps in the US today are

Chinese I mean that's mindboggling it's

very disturbing also but it's the

Mastery of um you know a business model

plus digital plus huge amount of data

plus the most efficient supply chain in

the world and that China is able to

master and also able to to penetrate you

know around the world except for where

there are geopolitical concerns but you

have to remember that 90% of the people

are still living developing countries uh

China's efficiency and therefore lowcost

Sligh quality is very uh useful for

these developing countries and of course

um that's not breakthrough Technologies

uh the the ones that us can master and

that you require creativity and so an

open free society and all that stuff but

but to master high-tech I think China

can do very well even with reverse

engineering which is why I think this

whole technological restrictions trying

to stop China's uh uh Mastery of

high-tech and Cutting Edge technology

will be very um it's very it's very uh

uh porous and leaky China can do reverse

engineering and uh you know of course on

the surface there's the scale there's

the finance there's a talent uh but

deeper down it's also you know

competition the fiercest compet

competitive environment uh maybe in the

world for certain products is pushing

China to be at the very Frontier and if

you win in Chinese market like the EV

batteries or EVS itself you're pretty

much at the frontier of the

world well you know as David mentioned

these there's going to be a backfiring

of these policies and we're already

seeing this National mobilization of

resources but we're not talking just

about the state we're talking about

you're rallying to get these big Tech

players to to go after these critical

bottleneck Technologies everybody's

doing chips including you know 10cent

Huawei Alibaba BYU and so forth um and

they are teaming up uh they are you know

helping lots of companies manage that

reverse engineering and but what's more

you're actually forcing companies to or

innovators to try to Leap Frog or

circumvent and I know many companies in

the chip sector that are coming up with

alternative design solutions that can

circum vent these restrictions and be

able to produce uh equivalently

efficient and Powerful chips with with

just domestic capacity so um I think

there is a uh that kind of unintended

consequence now we don't really have

system evidence yet but you just have to

look at historical episodes uh I think

during the Napoleonic Wars um you know I

don't think England was cutting France

off from cotton Mills or or things like

that and then it just spurred that

Innovation and that you know that leap

frogging um and uh we're seeing an

extent we're seeing some of that already

happening but also as David mentioned

you know the proximity of these

semiconductors or chips company to the

end users whether it's AI companies or

EV uh companies they're all within the

vicinity that kind of very rapid

feedback loop rather than going to the

you know the headquarters in in the US

or Europe um can really spur uh change

and Innovation just like in Japan part

of the success of the chips

semiconductors industry that actually

Japan eventually overtook the US was the

the the the block in of the Japanese

electronics business and the end user

demand in that kind of uh loop so I I'm

very skeptical of these technological

restrictions I really do think you're

forcing uh you know another very great

nation with great U or at least a nation

with a big potential uh to Leap Frog and

then you talked about the small yard

right but how small do you want to keep

it some people are also talking about

EVS being a potential to national

security threat so you know this

discussion can be endless yeah that's

China's trade was a onetime shock it was

a onetime shock to the world economy and

it's kind of pretty much done in that

sense of you know massive scale cheap

labor uh kind of products that have

flooded the world now we don't need to

go into the benefits of the consumer

side we're talking about a huge number

of um consumers who benefit from cheaper

uh Goods um whereas you know politics

often focus on the jobs lost by the

steel makers and so forth especially in

this country but at least some evidence

have shown um that a lot of the US jobs

let's say that were displaced by Chinese

uh exports were already at kind of in a

very vulnerable position going to be Ed

anyways these jobs would have moved over

to other countries Mexico or even

potentially Vietnam and others and if

you look at contrasting experience in

Europe um it's argued that uh a lot of

these countries that have been subject

to the Eastern European shock was much

better uh uh prepared to deal with the China

shock uh and the government also put in

a lot more resources than the US

government in helping their uh workers

transition into other sectors uh in a

smoother way and retraining reskilling

Etc but that kind of the story is kind

of over I think dwelling on that is

going to miss uh the point going forward

I I actually think going forward um the

the competition in terms of trade with

China is more towards uh countries like

Germany uh uh or or South Korea that

makes higher value added intermediate

Goods not really a lot of overlap uh

with the US uh in any case uh when we

talking about WTO rules and and uh the

framework yes I think there isn't

rethinking you know the problem was that

in the beginning when China joined in 20

2001 it was a very small country by size

and so it was taking advantage of its

developing country position as there

were some lack uh lack rules for

developed countries so that they can

grow faster except that grew really

really way too big or very very it grew

very rapidly in a very short sped of

time and then everything it did had a

big impact on the world economy and that

was a first and that was what the WTO

was not able and prepared to do but we

also have to argue on the developing

Countryside how satisfied are they with

the rules towards them right they'd say

that a lot of these rules are stacked

against them benefiting the advanced

economies and hurting them and they'd

even actually argue that potentially um

by by not letting them you know progress

on the higher value added technology

Orient Innovation oriented uh the

advanced economies are trying to make

them cheap production uh uh uh you know

manufacturing uh base while they earn

the higher value added and preventing

them from climbing up that ladder so I

think you know there are multiple sides

to the story but I think a a unilateral

bilateral approach rather than a

multilateral As Trump was advocating is

now the solution to the problem first of

all WTO doesn't say you can't have state

subsidies right it says that for for for

certain areas especially when it comes

to Green Tech Renewables obviously you

need to you need to to to have the state

support to incentivize the private

sector that's not the issue the issue is

really over the global ramifications of

these subsidies and how it affects

Global competition but if all the

countries are doing it it's going to be

very hard to to to understand you know

what the the respective impact is you

know they sub Boeing get subsidies that

obviously has International implications

but that's not really what we're

fighting about right so I think

especially when it comes to Renewables

not having the state role uh would fail

would help you know fail the kind of the

green transition that everybody wants to

uh embark on um but I'd say that the

size of the subsidies yes it sounds

really big in China but the big funds

you want to ask what what the the

achievements have been and actually I'd

say that it's been very wasteful in some

sense because they haven't quite gotten

the mixture right between what the role

of the state is and how big the market

the role of the market should be so it's

actually a learning process where that

whole venation uh program is actually

evolving and from the chips uh or the

the big chips uh the the the chips fund

uh there's now a new thinking especially

in 2023 that's been established to

reform uh this kind of uh model and to

have the market play a much bigger role

uh because you know they were they were

kind of um helping I don't know if it's

subsidies but just helping lots and lots

of uh a chips company if you have a

chips company you know as a hat then you

get lots of benefits and obviously that

created a lot of waste and so I would

say that was not successful but the

local government guided funds around the

country you would say you would say that

uh you can see that the distrib

distribution of the technology companies

in China are really all over all over

the country not just in Beijing shinen

and Shanghai and that has a lot to do

with this the support of local

government but here we're not really

talking a financial subsidy the reason

that the financing part is so important

and this is not just direct subsidies

just helping them coordinate bank loan

is how weak and immature the financial

system is in China they don't have the

US ecosystem they can't just raise money

and raise Capital easily to fund these

Innovation it has to be channeled

through the state that's why they have

to be very involved without that you

wouldn't have that kind of industrial

sector but it's also about helping them

attract Talent getting them cheaper land

and then coordinating supply chain I

mean think about the EVS one government

or many governments helped uh coordinate

an entire supply chain around one

company and that that helps a lot I mean

that company saw you know an 80% uh rise

in production over a year because the

battery makers and the manufacturers are

all coring together so I think it's that

kind of help that the state offers as

businesses that has been very critically

important rather than the the small

amount of actual Financial investment so

I think China to be successful needs to

think about efficiency more than just

scale so what do you think do you agree

with Professor KU Jin that Us's

sanctions and tariffs on China will

backfire share your thoughts and leave

your comments below if you like what you

watched hit the like button and don't

forget to subscribe to our channel for

more interesting content