中美冲突：1%阶层和99%阶层诉求完全不同

观察者网全文翻译：

    美国商务部上周公布的贸易数据显示，虽然较上月略有收缩，但十月份的对华贸易逆差仍旧十分庞大。这个数据预示着，美国将对中国进行新一轮的强有力的经济干预。

不幸的是，对中国问题的辩论往往陷入剪不清、理还乱的境地，因而没有形成有效的措施。造成这种混乱的一个主要原因是，美国没有一个真正针对中国的普遍利益诉求点。美国99%的阶层对华主张完全异于那些1%阶层。除非双方在这个问题上达成共识，否则对华经济关系将不会得到改善，庞大的工人阶级也不会受益。

对华政策的核心焦点是人民币升值问题。这种对美元的过高估值是中国毫不掩饰的让人民币汇率与美元挂钩的结果。

中国政府常常被指责操纵汇率，但基于以下两个事实，这种指责根本站不住脚。首先，这是一项官方政策，中国政府在调整汇率时相当透明，而非在半夜无人时悄悄出手。

其次，目前中国管理汇率的机制是，美国财政部一旦采取行动，中国政府隔日就会推出相应措施，比如大笔购入美国国债。
这似乎很荒谬，但却是事实。中国保持其货币汇率的稳定是通过购买美国政府的巨额国债来实现的。

媒体天天在说，我们需要中国购买我们的债务。这是不正确的。其实还有许多其他潜在投资者，比如美国联邦储备委员会。然而，我们不能一边指望中国购买美国国债，一边又抱怨中国操纵货币。但这的确是他们操纵人民币的方式。

当前的问题是，只有很少一部分人对中国本身不满。大部分人是对中国不尊重辉瑞制药和迪斯尼之类公司的专利和版权的行为不满，对中国不准予像美林和高盛这样的金融巨头在中国全面开放市场不满，对中国为沃尔玛这样的想要把店开到中国各地的零售连锁店设置很多障碍不满。而这些往往与人民币被低估混为一谈，从而制造一些经济控告，反对中国政府。

人们可以争辩以上事情孰轻孰重，然而却对现实毫无帮助。没有一个法庭可以用来控诉中国的经济行为。中国是一个强盛的国家，它的GDP接近美国的80%。而苏联的GDP在鼎盛时期也不过是美国的一半。

我们永远不打算对中国发号施令，告诉它什么该做，什么不该做。我们会像他们那样平等地进行谈判。这意味着，要从中国政府那里得到一些特许，我们必须在别的问题上作出让步。

从这个角度看，那些对中国剽窃辉瑞和迪斯尼的知识产权大呼小叫的人坚决反对那些担心人民币被低估的人。如果中国作出一些让步，同意加强巩固美国专利和版权，那么它在提升货币价值方面几乎不会让步。同样，如果中国给予美林和高盛在金融方面更多的权力，就要对美元重新进行评估。

关键是，与中国谈判时，奥巴马政府将偏袒某些利益而不顾对他人的损害。而工人阶级在美元贬值方面有一个明确的利益诉求。

如果美元相对于人民币贬值20%，进口中国商品强加20%关税与出口分发20%的津贴将产生大约同样的影响。美元贬值很有希望击败其他货币，这样大大有助于减少贸易逆差，创造数以百万计相对较高收入的制造业就业机会。

相比之下，如果中国加强巩固辉瑞和迪斯尼的专利和版权，他们将会得到更高的利润，但美国的工人们就几乎得不到什么益处了。

简而言之，中美谈判存在一个非常明晰的阶级划分。1%的阶层关注是否会让他们更富有。99%的阶层则关心货币贬值可以为他们创造数以百万计的制造业就业机会。我们想要看看，奥巴马政府到底站在哪一边。

美国读者相关评论：

评论1：老实说，中美贸易，我看不到美国占到什么优势。甚至当我假装思考美国本身利益时，我仍想不出什么办法。底线是，中国廉价的制造业在未来数十年仍将继续，如果不能长久就另当别论。你的服务业既不能弥补这种差距，也不能弥补你的高科技行业。如果美国是一个小国家，需要较少的制造业，你也许会像韩国、日本那样还有盈余，可惜你不是。中国和他的政府国家利益至上。他不会浮动他的货币汇率。这会对国内企业有利。外部的人什么都做不了。不，你没有发起严重的关税或启动任何一种与世界上最大的的制造商和消费市场的贸易战争的政治动力。

所以，只会让情况越来越糟，也只能忍着。

评论2：谁设置的货币汇率？我们为什么不能回到过去的黄金标准呢？由于这些不公平的自由贸易协定，我们已经失去了我们在美国的制造基地。国会应该通过法律支持当地的生产商并鼓励国内的制造业。

评论3：虽然我同意贝克博士在这个问题上关于政治力量和交易的描述，但我不同意对美国政府替代债权人的有效性这种相对草率的论述：

“还有许多其他潜在投资者，包括美国联邦储备委员会。”

把中国政府从这个债务市场排除在外，将：

1.立即抬高基准利率

2.立即抬高政府的其他预算赤字

但因为这样一种措施没有将中国从美国资本市场的其他领域排除出去，中国仍然可以有效地通过将流通中的美元转移到资本市场的其他领域来实现美元和人民币的挂钩。这样会导致如下结果：

1、美国债券违约保险费（财政部和“风险”债券之间的收益差）减少；

2、股权风险溢价减少；

3、中国政府在市政债券违约事件中的影响增强；

4、身份感和对美国企业的控制增强；

这就是问题所在：

中美外汇率对刺激美国制造业寻求复兴的渴望正如贝克博士预测的并没有明显改变。

评论4：奥巴马的嘴向着99%的阶层，但他的行动（和米歇尔计划一样）则是向着顶端的1%阶层。

从中国到欧洲再到美国，将会有一个全球性的抗议活动反对1%的精英阶层，它将会使欧债危机和美债危机像之前历史上的危机一样更令人担忧。

评论5：我认为这种说法是有问题的，如果人民币升值，中国的出口商就只能自付增加的成本（接受更低的利润率）以保持其市场份额。此外，如果中国人由于人民币升值（或者增加劳动力成本）而失去一些工作机会，这些工作机会将转移到亚洲其他低工资的国家，如越南、孟加拉，甚至会到墨西哥。越来越多的美国公司选择墨西哥，甚至多于选择中国，很大一部分原因就是因为海上运输成本的上升。

此外，中国的工作岗位，很大一部分是由低技术，低附加值被低教育程度的人群（中国工厂里的女孩，来自农村的中国移民）所从事。这些工作机会现在或者将来都不能回到美国本土。这是很难的工作，往往需要美国的中产阶级来做，即使他们最终会在这里。

评论6：你不能否认存在一个市场 “铁腕”…….消费者总是购买他们感觉有“价值”的东西。

贸易战争不会停止，永远不会！

根据消费者和市场份额来看，我们的竞争对手生产大部分制成品，他们比美国做的更好。在奥巴马大萧条时期很难有利润！！！

即使在社会主义，利润/中央经济利润也必须被兑现。奥巴马就是个骗子。

    英文如下：

Economic Conflicts With China and Class War in the United States

The Commerce Department's release of trade figures last week showed another large deficit with China for October, albeit slightly lower than the record hit the previous month. This figure will renew the calls for stronger action against China.

Unfortunately the debate over China is often buried in confusion, leading to a situation that is not conducive to effective action. A major reason for this confusion is that there is not a common U.S. interest against China. The interests of the 99 percent differ greatly from the interests of the 1 percent. Until this fact is recognized more generally, there is no possibility that our economic relations with China will change in a way that benefits the vast majority of working people in the United States.

The central issue with China is the fact that the dollar is over-valued against the Chinese currency. This over-valuation is the result of the explicit Chinese policy of pegging its currency against the dollar.

The peg is often referred to as "manipulation," but it doesn't really fit the bill for two reasons. First, it is an official policy. China targets the value of its currency quite openly; it is not doing it in the middle of the night when no one is looking.

The second reason is that China's mechanism for targeting the value of its currency is something that on alternate days our Treasury actually requests. They buy up U.S. government debt.
If this seems absurd, it should because it is. The way in which China keeps its currency down against the dollar (or keeps the dollar up against its currency) is by buying huge amounts of U.S. government bonds.

The media often tells us that we need China to buy our debt. This is not true. There are plenty of other potential investors, including the Federal Reserve Board. However we cannot both want China to buy U.S. government debt and then complain about China's currency manipulation. This is how they "manipulate" their currency.

But the currency issue is only one of many complaints that routinely appear in the list of grievances against China. The longer list includes complaints that China doesn't respect the patents and copyrights of companies like Pfizer and Disney, they don't grant full access to financial giants like Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs, and they put up barriers to retail chains like Wal-Mart who want to open up stores across China. These sorts of items are often lumped together with the undervaluation of the Chinese yuan to make a sort of economic indictment against the Chinese government.
One can argue the merits of each of these issues, but that doesn't have anything to do with the real world. There is no court where we are going to prosecute China for its economic wrongdoing. China is a huge powerful country. Its GDP is nearly 80 percent of U.S. GDP. By comparison, at its peak the GDP of the Soviet Union may have been half as large as the GDP of the United States.

We are not ever going to be in a situation to dictate to China what it can and cannot do. We are going to have to negotiate with them as the equal that they are. This means that in order to get some concessions from China's government on issues that we care about we will have to give up on other issues.

From this standpoint, the interests of those yelling about China's "pirating" of Pfizer and Disney's intellectual property are 180 degrees at odds with those concerned about the undervaluation of the yuan. If China gives up some ground in agreeing to stronger enforcement of U.S. patents and copyrights, then it is going to give up less ground in agreeing to raise the value of its currency. Similarly, if China agrees to give Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs more access to its financial sector, it will be at the cost of progress on revaluing its currency.

The point is that in pushing various demands in its negotiations with China, the Obama administration will be favoring certain interests to the detriment of others. The bulk of the working population has a clear interest in having a lower valued dollar.

If the dollar falls by 20 percent relative to the yuan, this would have roughly the same impact as imposing a 20 percent tariff on importing Chinese goods and giving out a 20 percent subsidy on exports to subsidy. Since the dollar is likely to fall against other currencies as well, this could go far toward bringing down the trade deficit, creating millions of relatively high-paying manufacturing jobs.

By contrast, Pfizer and Disney will see higher profits if China's increases enforcement of their patents and copyrights, but this will provide little benefit to workers in the United States. Similarly, Goldman Sach's increased access to China's financial markets is not going to create jobs for workers in the United States.

In short, there is a very clear class divide in U.S. negotiations with China. The 1 percent have their laundry list of special concerns that will make them even richer. The 99 percent care about a lower-valued currency to create millions of manufacturing jobs. We will see which side the Obama administration is on.

相关评论：

1、Honestly, I see no way for the US to win in terms of trade with China. Even when I pretend to think in American interests, I can find no solution. The bottom line is that China will have cheaper manufactur­ing for decades to come, if not longer. Your service sector won't make up for the discrepanc­y, nor your tech sectors. If the US was a smaller country that required less manufactur­ing you might be able to win a surplus like Korea/Japa­n does, but you're not. Yes, China and its government has national interest at heart. It will not float its currency. It WILL favor domestic enterprise­s. There's nothing anyone on the outside can do about it. No, you don't have the political impetus to initiate serious tariffs or start any kind of trade war with the world's largest manufactur­er and consumer market.

So, too bad, live with it.

2、Who sets the rate of currency? Why don't we go back to the good old Gold Standard ? We have lost our manufactur­ing base in USA because of these unfair free trade agreements Congress should pass laws to favor local producers and encourage domestic manufactur­ing.

3、While I agree with Dr. Baker's descriptio¬n of the political forces and trade-offs on this matter, I respective¬ly disagree with this relatively cavalier statement regarding the availabili¬ty of alternate creditors for the US government¬:

"There are plenty of other potential investors, including the Federal Reserve Board."

Excluding the Chinese government from participat¬ing in this debt market will

(a) immediatel¬y drive up baseline interest rates, and

(b) immediatel¬y drive up other government¬'s budget deficit.

But because such a measure does not exclude China from participat¬ing in other areas of the US capital market, China could still effectivel¬y peg its currency to the US dollar by shifting its flow of dollars into these other areas of that market. Such a response would result in:

1) a decrease in US bond default premiums (the yield spreads between Treasury and 'risky' bonds)

2) a decrease in the equity risk premium (the difference in the implied discount rates for equity versus Treasury securities¬),

3) increased influence by the Chinese government in the event of municipal bond defaults,

4) increased ownership and control of US firms, and

And this is the problem:

5) no appreciabl¬e change in the US-China foreign exchange rate to spur the much desired renaissanc¬e in the US manufactur¬ing sector that Dr. Baker predicts.

4、Obama's mouth will be for the 99% and his actions (and Michelle's holiday plans) will be with the top 1% of the 1%.

There is going to be a global revolt from China to Europe to America against the top 1% and it will make concerns over currency and Euro debt look like the good old days.

5、I think there are problems with this argument. If the Yuan increases in value, Chinese exporters will simply eat some of the increased costs (and accept lower profit margins) to maintain their market shares. Also, if the Chinese do lose some of these jobs because of a rising Yuan ( or rising labor costs), many of these jobs will simply move to other low wage platforms in Asia, such as Vietnam or Bangladesh­, or to Mexico. Many American firms are increasing­ly choosing Mexico over China for production purposes for a number of reasons, including the rising cost of transporta­tion by sea.

Also, the jobs in question in China are largely low skilled, low value added jobs performed by workers with very little education (Chinese factory girls, Chinese migrants from the countrysid­e). These jobs are not coming back to U.S. soil, now or in the future. And these are hardly jobs that would allow an American to join the Middle Class, even if they did end up here.

6、You cannot deny the "Iron Hand" of Markets...­..........­.....consu­mers always buy what they
percieve as "Value" !

Trade Wars never work, ever !

Our Competitor­s do a better Job of most manufactur­ed goods than the USA, according to consumers and Market Shares. Hard to make a Profit in the OBAMA DEPRESSION ! ! !
Profits must be honored even in Socialist/­Central Economies. Obama is a Fraud !

原文链接：http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/economic-conflicts-with-c_b_1144116.html