諾獎得主保羅·克魯格曼：美國將如何輸掉貿易戰？

隨著中美貿易戰正式打響，美國經濟學家、諾貝爾經濟學獎得主保羅·克魯格曼也加入到對特朗普政策的批判中來。7月7日，他在美國《紐約時報》發表文章，題為《如何輸掉一場貿易戰？（How to Lose a Trade War）》，文章認為特朗普政府毫無策略性地掀起一場貿易戰，終將讓美國一敗塗地。

Trump』s declaration that 「trade wars are good, and easy to win」 is an instant classic, right up there with Herbert Hoover』s 「prosperity is just around the corner.」

特朗普說，「貿易戰是好事，取勝不難」，這是典型的赫伯特·胡佛口中的「四處皆繁榮」。

譯註：胡佛自1929年到1933年擔任美國總統，執政初期，他得意忘形地談論美國的經濟制度如何 「完美無缺」，吹噓「美國比以往任何國家的歷史上都更接近於最後戰勝貧困」。實際上，美國經濟已經危機四伏，1929年10月資本主義歷史上最嚴重的經濟危機率先在美國爆發。

Trump obviously believes that trade is a game in which he who runs the biggest surplus wins, and that America, which imports more than it exports, therefore has the upper hand in any conflict.

特朗普顯然相信貿易是一場遊戲，他能大獲全勝，而進口多於出口的美國在任何衝突中都能佔上風。

That』s also why Peter Navarro predicted that nobody would retaliate against Trump』s tariffs. Since that』s actually not how trade works, we』re already facing plenty of retaliation and the strong prospect of escalation.

這也是為什麼彼得·納瓦羅（白宮國家貿易委員會主任）預測說，沒人會對特朗普的關稅進行報復。可事實上，貿易並不是這麼一回事，我們已經面臨大量的貿易報復，而這種報復很可能會進一步升級。

But here』s the thing: Trump』s tariffs are badly designed even from the point of view of someone who shares his crude mercantilist view of trade. In fact, the structure of his tariffs so far is designed to inflict maximum damage on the U.S. economy, for minimal gain.

但問題是，即便在同意特朗普貿易觀點的人看來，特朗普的關稅計劃也很糟糕。事實上，迄今為止，特朗普政府設立的關稅結構對美國經濟造成了最大傷害，收益卻微乎其微。

Foreign retaliation, by contrast, is far more sophisticated: unlike Trump, the Chinese and other targets of his trade wrath seem to have a clear idea of what they』re trying to accomplish.

與此相反，外國的報復卻高明得多：中國和其他被美國貿易怒火波及的國家，看起來很明確自己的目標為何。

The key point is that the Navarro/Trump view, aside from its fixation on trade balances, also seems to imagine that the world still looks the way it did in the 1960s, when trade was overwhelmingly in final goods like wheat and cars. In that world, putting a tariff on imported cars would cause consumers to switch to domestic cars, adding auto industry jobs, end of story (except for the foreign retaliation.)

現在的重點是，除了緊盯貿易平衡不放以外，納瓦羅或特朗普似乎還認為世界會和20世紀60年代一樣，當時貿易的主要物品是小麥、汽車等最終產品。那時，對進口汽車徵稅會讓消費者轉而購買國內汽車，增加汽車製造業崗位，如果沒有外國報復，事情便就此結束。

In the modern world economy, however, a large part of trade is in intermediate goods – not cars but car parts. Put a tariff on car parts, and even the first-round effect on jobs is uncertain: maybe domestic parts producers will add workers, but you』ve raised costs and reduced competitiveness for downstream producers, who will shrink their operations.

然而在現代世界經濟中，大部分貿易都是半成品，不是汽車，而是汽車零件。對汽車零件徵收關稅，這對於工作崗位的第一波影響都是不確定的：也許國內的零件製造商會僱傭更多的工人，但卻提高了成本，降低了下游生產商的競爭力，為此，下游生產商將會縮減業務。

So in today』s world, smart trade warriors – if such people exist – would focus their tariffs on final goods, so as to avoid raising costs for downstream producers of domestic goods.

因此，在如今的世界上，聰明的貿易保護者——如果真有這樣的人的話——會將徵稅對象集中於製成品，以避免導致本國產品的下游生產者成本增加。

True, this would amount to a more or less direct tax on consumers; but if you』re afraid to impose any burden on consumers, you really shouldn』t be getting into a trade war in the first place.

沒錯，這會讓消費者或多或少承擔更多的直接稅，但如果擔心給消費者增加負擔，特朗普一開始就不該打貿易戰。

But almost none of the Trump tariffs are on consumer goods. Chad Bown and colleagues have a remarkable chart showing the distribution of the Trump China tariffs: an amazing 95 percent are either on intermediate goods or on capital goods like machinery that are also used in domestic production:

特朗普的關稅幾乎不針對消費品。查德·波恩和他的同事做了張很好的圖表，可以看出，高達95%的對華徵稅商品為半成品和包括機械在內的生產資料（即資本品，指一切協助生產其他商品或服務的物品），而這些資本品國內生產也需要用到。

Is there a strategy here? It』s hard to see one. There』s certainly no hint that the tariffs were designed to pressure China into accepting U.S. demands, since nobody can even figure out what, exactly, Trump wants from China in the first place.

這算什麼戰略？很難看出來。實在看不出這種關稅結構能迫使中國接受美國的要求，其實從一開始也沒人知道特朗普究竟想從中國得到什麼東西。

China』s retaliation looks very different. It doesn』t completely eschew tariffs on intermediate goods, but it』s mostly on final goods. And it』s also driven by a clear political strategy of hurting Trump voters; the Chinese, unlike the Trumpies, know what they』re trying to accomplish:

中國的報復就很不一樣了，沒有對半成品徵收關稅，而主要針對最終產品，且目標主要在打擊特朗普支持者。與特朗普及其幕僚不同，中國人知道自己的目標。

What about others? Canada』s picture is complicated by its direct response to aluminum and steel tariffs, but those industries aside it, too, is following a far more sophisticated strategy than the U.S.:

其他國家呢？加拿大情況比較複雜，它對鋼鋁關稅做出了直接反應，但除了這些產業，加拿大的應對策略也比美國更精明。

Except for steel and aluminum, Canada』s retaliation seemingly attempts to avoid messing up its engagement in North American supply chains. In broad terms, Canada is not targeting imports of American capital equipment or intermediate inputs, focusing instead on final goods.

除了鋼鋁，加拿大的報複試圖避免搞亂北美供應鏈。廣義上說，加拿大沒有針對從美國進口的生產設備或半成品徵稅，而是將矛頭對準了最終商品。

And like China, Canada is clearly trying to inflict maximum political damage.

與中國一樣，加拿大顯然意在給美國造成最大的政治打擊。

Trade wars aren』t good or easy to win even if you know what you』re trying to accomplish and have a clear strategy for getting there. What』s notable about the Trump tariffs, however, is that they』re so self-destructive.

貿易戰可不是什麼好事，就算你知道自己的目標，並且有清晰的策略去實現，也不容易取勝，更何況特朗普的關稅政策是自毀性的。

And we can already see hints of the economic fallout. From the Fed』s most recent minutes:

我們已經能看出貿易戰對經濟的影響了。美聯儲最新的公告顯示：

「[M]any District contacts expressed concern about the possible adverse effects of tariffs and other proposed trade restrictions, both domestically and abroad, on future investment activity; contacts in some Districts indicated that plans for capital spending had been scaled back or postponed as a result of uncertainty over trade policy. Contacts in the steel and aluminum industries expected higher prices as a result of the tariffs on these products but had not planned any new investments to increase capacity.」

「許多分行擔憂，關稅和其他國內外貿易限制措施可能對未來投資行為產生負面影響。某些分行表示，貿易政策的不確定性已經讓資本開支計劃縮減或推遲。鋼鋁行業人士預計，對這些產品徵收關稅會讓價格升高，但他們沒有投資增產的計劃。」

So Trump and company don』t actually have a plan to win this trade war. They may, however, have stumbled onto a strategy that will lose it even more decisively than one might have expected.

因此，特朗普和他的幕僚實際上並沒有打贏貿易戰的計劃，倒是可能隨便制定了一個策略，這個策略將導致美國比預想中更徹底地一敗塗地。

喜歡這篇文章嗎？立刻分享出去讓更多人知道吧！