导读

你听说过“China Shock”吗？它原本是个经济学概念，如今却被拿来解释美国几乎所有的社会问题——从制造业流失到社会撕裂。

今年，这个说法更是升级成了“China Shock 2.0”。

但这一论调真的站得住脚吗？起底工作室记者与诺贝尔经济学奖得主詹姆斯·赫克曼教授展开了一场深入对话。



问：很多人都在讨论所谓的“中国冲击2.0”，您怎么看这种说法？

Q: A lot of people are talking about "China Shock 2.0". How do you view this "China Shock"?

答：所谓“中国冲击”，可以这样理解：假设你经营一家公司，生产某种产品，比如刹车片。如果同样的产品在中国广州生产成本更低，那么按照正常关税进口后，就可能取代美国本土的产品。

A: The "China Shock" is alleged as the following. Suppose you have a company that's making a product, maybe brake linings, or something that can be made more cheaply someplace in, say, Guangzhou. When that product from Guangzhou is imported under a fair tariff regime, it replaces the product that is in that industry that was there before.

所以“中国冲击”就是指原本工厂里的工人因此失业——这一点的确存在，他们确实丢了工作。但这种分析很片面，忽略了很多细节。实际上，普通人反而能买到更便宜的商品，所有制造商（也就是中间环节的企业）也能用更便宜的原材料在美国制造新产品，甚至降低旧产品的成本。

And so the "China Shock" is the consequence that those workers who were previously working in that factory lose their jobs. And there's no question about it, they do lose their jobs. But that analysis is very incomplete. So, what's missed in the "China Shock" story is the fact that those individuals, those goods come in more cheaply, and they help all the producers, the intermediate producers, the ones who use those inputs to build new goods in the US, or even to build old goods at cheaper prices.

比如进口的服装、家具，还有中国制造的电子产品。现实是，人们以非常低的价格买到这些商品，这意味着他们的实际收入增加了，钱更值钱了。

Take, for example, the importation of clothing, or the importation of furniture, or electronics from China. Now, what happens is that people are able to buy a product at much lower price, which means then that the income, which they had before, is greater. They can get more value.

消费者得到了好处，但在“中国冲击”的论调中被忽略了；生产者同样受益，也被忽视了。很多政客只盯着失业人数，不去考虑更广泛的收益，导致他们很难理解美国从中获得的好处。

So there's a consumer welfare gain that's not counted in the "China Shock" story. And there's a producer welfare gain that's not counted. There are a lot of these politicians who look only at the job loss. And because they don't count the full other range of benefits, it gets to be very difficult for them to understand.

他们还忽略了一个事实：中国的生产成本更低，这意味着我们可以把资源转向效率更高的制造业，去生产其他类别的产品。

And they also forget the fact that China can actually produce these goods more cheaply means we have an opportunity to build other goods in possibly a far more effective way. So it shifts our resources to more productive items.



问：按您说的，“中国冲击”其实提振了美国的消费经济，那为什么这种论调还会大行其道？

Q: As you said, the "China Shock" actually boosts the US consumption economy. But why is this "China Shock" narrative so popular?

答：看看美国的选举制度就知道了——众议院的民意代表都是从一个个小地方选出来的。如果你所在的城镇受到中国产品的冲击，比如一家中国企业生产的刹车片导致当地一些岗位流失，那俄亥俄州突然失业、心怀不满的刹车片生产工人就会把票投给反华的议员。

A: See, the way that American elections operate these days, and it's always been, that what you have is the House of Representatives, and these delegates are elected from these small regions. So if your town has been impacted negatively by a brake lining company from China, and jobs are lost, you'll have a lot of unhappy brake lining people who are living in Ohio, who now suddenly are out of work. So they are very bitter. So they will vote against China.

而“我现在能在商店里买到更便宜的衣服——多亏了中国强大的生产力”，这种事很难引起集体共鸣。人们不会上街跳舞欢呼：“看，我能买到中国产的便宜鞋、更好的车和电子产品，我要庆祝一下。”这不引人关注。但失业是引人关注的事件。

The fact that I can buy an article of clothing more cheaply at a store now, thanks to Chinese productivity, it doesn't have the same ring to it. People aren't jumping around the streets and saying, "Oh, look, I can get cheaper shoes or better cars or better electronics from China. And therefore, I will celebrate that." It's not as dramatic. Job loss is dramatic. So it's just a question of diffusion.

问题就在于：收益过于分散，而失业的负面影响却很集中。特朗普正是利用这一点来收割选票，深入那些落后选区，比如西弗吉尼亚的煤矿区、俄亥俄州和宾夕法尼亚州的工厂，进而扭曲人们对经济收益的认识。

It's the concentration of the loss and the diffusion of the gains that really is the problem. And then Trump has just picked that up as a way to get votes in disaffected areas, like coal mines in West Virginia, plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and to therefore misrepresent the economic benefits of these gains.



问：您怎么看待特朗普提出的“让制造业重返美国”？您觉得结果会怎样？

Q: How do you assess this Trump's saying, "bringing manufacturing back to the US"? What will be the outcome?

答：这种想法很愚蠢，暴露了对经济学的无知。当纽约联邦储备银行揭露关税的真实成本时，特朗普暴跳如雷。要知道，九成的关税成本都由美国消费者买单。关税本质上就是一种税。他们抛出这种论调，说中国在占美国的便宜——其实不只是中国，其他国家也一样。他们的逻辑是：只要加征报复性关税，就能在谈判中占据更有利的位置。

A: It's stupid. I mean, honestly, it shows ignorance of economics. Trump was really angry when the New York Fed showed correctly that the cost of these tariffs, 90 percent of the cost of tariffs was being borne by American consumers. It's a tax. You know, they can call it a tariff. They say, the argument is out there that China is cheating us, or other countries are cheating. It's not just China. And so the idea is if we put retaliatory tariffs, we're going to get much better tariff treatment.

总体来看，关税阻碍了贸易和低成本生产带来的好处。但问题的部分症结其实在于政治因素。这不仅仅是把政治凌驾于贸易和经济之上的问题，更是因为美国越来越担心中国成为世界强国。中国体量巨大，增长迅猛，充满活力，早已引发了广泛讨论。

Generally speaking, the tariffs prevent gains from trade and cheaper production. You see, part of the problem, though, is political. It's not just a matter of politics above trade, economics. Because there's a growing fear of China as a world power. Because China is now huge. It's growing. It's dynamic. And, you know, there's been a whole discussion.

这种心态源于美国长期以来对世界霸主地位的享受。自二战以来，甚至更早，美国就一直稳坐这把交椅，如今却面临前所未有的挑战。而应对这个挑战绝非易事。现在的对手不是俄罗斯，而是中国。对中国的恐惧也因此产生。

The feeling, and Americans like the idea of being the No 1 power in the world. And they have had that position since World War II, maybe even before, but certainly after. And now it's challenged. And that challenge doesn't come lightly. And the competitor now is not Russia, it's China. And so there's a fear of China.

马基雅维利在《君主论》里说过：维持统治最好的办法，就是制造一个外部敌人来凝聚国内民心。如果你想增强内部凝聚力，就需要在社会之外找一个共同的敌人。这一策略今天依然适用。

There's a book by Machiavelli. You know, The Prince? Machiavelli, the best way that you can make, keep power in your own state is you have an external enemy. So if you want to be able to build cohesion in your society, you'd have an external enemy outside your society. And it's still a message today.

只要存在外部威胁，大家就会团结在你周围。在这种情况下，中国成了那个外部威胁。他们说中国威胁了你的工作、你的价值观，还说中国人来美国是为了偷走你的生活方式。这种政治手段很高明，但在经济上却很糟糕，根本解决不了实际问题。

If you can have an external threat, people will rally around you. In this case, if the Chinese are the external threat. So they're threatening your jobs, they're threatening your ideas. And all these Chinese are here to steal your way. So it's good politics, but it's not particularly good economics. And it doesn't really help in a lot of areas.



问：互联网让世界相连，拉近了各国的距离，中国年轻人能很好地了解美国社会。但为什么美国的年轻人不来中国看看，更好地了解一下中国呢？

Q: The internet makes the global countries connected and young Chinese can know American society pretty well. But why don't American young people come to China, and understand a little better of China by themselves?

答：看看现在很多美国年轻人，整天泡在网上，看那些胡编乱造的故事，听信各种小道消息。你希望他们更理性，但我觉得他们从来都不理性。比起中国，他们更感兴趣的是玩自拍，还有歌星泰勒·斯威夫特。

A: Well, I think if you look at a lot of American young people, they're on the internet looking at wild, fabricated stories from various sources. You're giving them a rationality, which I don't think they possess. I think they're more interested in their taking selfies and Taylor Swift than they are in China.

美国当下的核心问题之一是房价太高。这在很大程度上是各种政治活动的恶果，至少部分如此。

One of the biggest issues in America now is the housing price. Housing is very expensive. But you see, it's a result of a lot of political activity that's occurred, partially a result.

曾经凝聚美国社会的政治共识正在瓦解，取而代之的是党派之争，甚至充满怨恨。对立情绪让人们水火不容，派系之间分歧严重。

And the political unity that used to characterize American society is disintegrating in part. There really is a sense of partisanship and rancor. And there's a sense of people who are actually very hostile to each other. Factions that are divided.

而且不仅是两党之争，还有另一层面对抗：精英阶层对抗普通大众。美国人很讨厌精英，很多人都有这种心态。有很大一部分人觉得自己被时代抛弃了，他们甚至把中国看作问题的根源之一——因为他们被政客洗脑了。如果你去美国中部，就会看到那些死气沉沉的城镇，到处是失业者，或者只能勉强糊口，拿着微薄的薪水，前途无望。

It's not just Republicans and Democrats. And there's a feeling of the elites versus the plain, regular people. There's a large group of Americans who feel that they've been left behind. And they actually see China as part of the problem. They've been told that. So you go to middle, these parts of middle America and you'll see very depressing towns. People who are very unemployed or not very well employed with low wages, bad expectations.

除此之外，还有毒品问题。不只是芬太尼，各种其他毒品、阿片类药物泛滥成灾。人们直接睡在大街上。放在以前的美国，以及在中国，都绝不会容忍这种事。政客们张口一说，就把中国归结为问题的根源，同时把美国精英阶层当靶子。

And you add to that, drugs. There's been a huge drug issue. A lot of people using not just fentanyl, but other kinds of drugs as well. Opioids. Sleeping on the street. You see, in the US in the past, see, in China, you wouldn't tolerate that. And it's easy to blame the Chinese as part of a general problem. The Chinese and the elites.

我很欣赏中国政界人士的说法，他们常谈国际共识，那种使命感和凝聚力——大家同舟共济，相互扶持，共克时艰。但在美国，情况正好相反，各派系之间内斗不断，甚至相互倾轧，根本不在乎其他人的利益。他们只想成为唯一的赢家，把这看作一场零和博弈。

See, what I like in the Chinese politicians' rhetoric is they talk about international purpose. There's a sense that you're all in it together and we're together in it. But increasingly in America, you're getting these factions that compete against each other. And they don't care about the rest of those other factions. They want to win themselves. So they see it as a zero-sum game.

拜登上台后，表现并不比特朗普强，甚至可能还不如特朗普，简直已经老迈昏庸。他满脑子只想着收买选票。就拿学贷减免来说，这项政策针对的是一群特定人群——那些通过贷款完成大学教育的人。他们并非社会最底层，而是受过高等教育的人。可还有很多没读过大学的人，他们根本供不起，却要为大学生们的助学贷款买单。这其中的逻辑是：数百亿美元的债务，实际是由更穷的人变相支付给了富人或高收入阶层。但拜登不在乎这些，他只想要这些大学毕业生的选票。

When Biden was president, it was no better than Trump, maybe worse. He was completely senile. He was just trying to buy votes. Think of the student loan issue. So you had a group of people and they were not the poorest people. These are people who borrowed money to go to college. There were a number of people who didn't go to college. They couldn't afford it. And they were supposed to pay the bills of people who did go to college. And so the idea was that billions of dollars should be paid by people poorer to these people who are richer or relatively earn more. But Biden didn't care about that. He wanted to get these voters.



问：美国一直想做的，就是在竞争中赢过中国。他们总是说要“赢”。我想问，在人工智能时代，怎么才算所谓的“赢家”？

Q: There is a saying that the US wants to out-compete China. They always say we want to win. And my question is, how do you define "winner"? In the age of AI?

答：谁能在开放市场中拥有最多的筹码，谁就是赢家——这是最稳妥的判断标准。业界仍然认为，英伟达的芯片水平之高，中国目前还无法企及。但我相信中国会研发出属于自己的芯片，甚至更先进的芯片。这种竞争能保持活力，促进行业不断进步。

A: Well, whoever buys it most in an open market exchange. I think that's safe. There's still a notion that Nvidia has a good chip. And it's not quite what the Chinese have. I'm sure the Chinese will develop their own version, a better version maybe. So that kind of competition will keep things active.

记者：孟哲 王宁 孔闻峥

本文来自公众微信号：中国日报双语新闻