评论
打印
The events of the last week have crowded out reflection on economic policy. But things have been happening. Wilbur Ross, the US commerce secretary, described the trade deal reached with China earlier this month as “pretty much a Herculean accomplishment….This is more than has been done in the history of US-China relations on trade.”
上周的各种事件冲淡了有关经济政策的反思。但事情还是在发生。美国商务部长威尔伯?罗斯(Wilbur Ross)将本月早些时候美国与中国达成的贸易协议称为“一项非常伟大的成就...超过美中贸易关系史上所有成果”。
Past a certain point, exaggeration and hype become dishonesty and deception. In economic policy, as in almost everything else, the Trump Administration is way past that point. The trade deal is a “nothing burger” that a serious administration committed to helping American workers would likely not have accepted, and surely would not have hyped.
超过一定限度，夸大和炒作就会变成不诚实和欺骗。在经济政策领域，就像在几乎其他任何问题上一样，特朗普政府已远远超过这一限度。这项贸易协议“空有其表”，一个致力于帮助美国劳动者的严肃政府可能不会接受这项协议，也肯定不会炒作它。
On agriculture, China reiterated a promise that it has broken in the past to let in more beef. Previously, the US, as reciprocity, had been withholding publication of a permissive rule on Chinese poultry. Now we have relented. Advantage: China.
在农业领域，中国重申了其过去曾食言的进口更多美国牛肉的承诺。此前，按照对等原则，美国一直未发布让中国禽肉得以进入美国的规定。如今，我们松动了。受益者：中国。
Nothing else “achieved” has any meaningful nexus with US jobs. China will review product applications for eight biotech products. It promises to offer increased scope for US credit rating agencies, and electronic payment platforms. But it is far from clear that US firms will in fact be able to compete in China — and it is clear that if they do, it will be by hiring Chinese workers in China, not American workers in America. And finally, two US firms will get some enhanced ability to do bond and stock underwriting — again a benefit to shareholders and local staff rather than to US employment.
“已达成”的其他所有成果都与美国就业没有实质关系。中国将对8种生物科技产品的产品申请进行审核。中国承诺扩大美国信用评级机构以及电子支付平台的准入。但目前还远不清楚，美国公司是否真正能够在中国展开竞争，显然，如果要在华展开竞争，它们就要在中国聘用中国劳动者，而非在美国聘用美国劳动者。最后，有两家美国公司将获得在华开展债券和股票承销业务的更大自由，这将有利于股东和中国当地员工，但对美国就业毫无帮助。
What was given up? In addition to the leverage sacrificed by committing to issue the poultry rule, other meaningful concessions were made. First, the US has agreed to allow exports of liquefied natural gas to China. To at least a small extent, that would mean higher heating costs for US consumers and higher energy costs for US producers.
我们放弃了什么？除了因承诺发布禽肉规定而牺牲的筹码之外， 美国还做出了其他重大让步。首先，美国同意允许向中国出口液化天然气。这将意味着美国消费者的供暖成本以及美国生产商的能源成本将至少小幅提高。
Second, in the context of a trade negotiation, concessions were made on how US commodities regulators would view derivatives traded in Shanghai and how US bank regulators would treat Chinese banks doing business in the US. While I suspect the concessions were not major, this is reinforcing the valid concern that trade agreements may undercut the ability of regulators to protect American financial stability and more generally challenge regulatory sovereignty.
其次，在贸易谈判的背景下，在美国大宗商品监管者如何看待在上海交易的衍生品以及美国银行监管者将如何对待在美国开展业务的中资银行方面，美国做出了让步。尽管我推测这些让步并不大，但这巩固了以下合理担忧：贸易协议可能会削弱监管者保护美国金融稳定的能力，并在更普遍意义上挑战美国监管独立性。
Third, we agreed to embrace – by sending high level representatives – China’s One Belt One Road initiative. It is almost certainly better to be in than out of this tent, but we should be getting something in return for the legitimacy we are conferring.
第三，我们同意（通过派出高级代表）接纳中国的“一带一路”计划。加入其中几乎肯定要好于被排除在外，但我们的认可应得到某些回报。
Now it is true that a ludicrously hyped squib of a deal is much better than a trade war. So perhaps we should be pleased that President Trump and Mr Ross are so easily manipulated. Perhaps our officials know how bad a deal they got and are just hyping for political reasons. It is an irony of our times that those who most frequently denounce “fake news” seem to most frequently purvey it.
一项被过分炒作、令人失望的贸易协议确实远远好于打贸易战。因此，我们或许应该为特朗普和罗斯如此轻易地就被操纵感到高兴。或许，我们的官员知道他们获得的是一项多么糟糕的协议，炒作仅仅是出于政治原因。这是我们这个时代的讽刺：那些最频繁谴责“虚假消息”的人，似乎是虚假消息最频繁的散布者。
