如果特朗普真的向中國(guó)加收關(guān)稅

Donald Trump has proposed a 45 percent tariff onimports from China, on the theory that this wouldprotect American jobs and promote Americanbusiness.

唐納德·特朗普(Donald Trump)建議對(duì)來(lái)自中國(guó)的進(jìn)口產(chǎn)品收取45%的關(guān)稅，理由是有助于保住美國(guó)的工作機(jī)會(huì)，促進(jìn)美國(guó)商業(yè)發(fā)展。

What’s more likely, though, is that the new tariffswould set off a cascade of global economicconsequences, mostly negative.

然而，更有可能發(fā)生的情況是，這一新關(guān)稅標(biāo)準(zhǔn)會(huì)帶來(lái)一系列大多為負(fù)面的全球性經(jīng)濟(jì)影響。

Trade between China and the United States — which reached $598 billion in 2015 — hasgenerated large economic benefits for Americans. Manufacturing many goods in China, whethersneakers or smartphones, has kept their prices lower than they would be if made here. That’sbeen a boon to American consumers, especially those with less money.

中美貿(mào)易的規(guī)模2015年已達(dá)5980億美元，為美國(guó)人帶來(lái)了巨大的經(jīng)濟(jì)利好。不管是運(yùn)動(dòng)鞋還是智能手機(jī)，企業(yè)將很多商品拿到中國(guó)生產(chǎn)，使其售價(jià)比在美國(guó)生產(chǎn)更低。這對(duì)美國(guó)消費(fèi)者來(lái)說(shuō)是種福利，尤其是對(duì)手上錢比較少的消費(fèi)者而言。

But more and more, economists are also recognizing a downside to free trade. Competition fromChina and other low-wage emerging economies has severely hurt some American workers. Onestudy figures that the United States lost at least two million jobs between 1999 and 2011because of Chinese imports. To many people, Mr. Trump’s solution may seem to make sense:Restrict those imports, save jobs and support American business.

不過(guò)，經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們也日漸認(rèn)識(shí)到自由貿(mào)易的負(fù)面影響。來(lái)自中國(guó)等低人工成本的新興經(jīng)濟(jì)體的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，嚴(yán)重影響了一些美國(guó)勞動(dòng)者的生計(jì)。據(jù)一項(xiàng)研究統(tǒng)計(jì)，因中國(guó)進(jìn)口商品影響，美國(guó)在1999至2011年間至少損失了200萬(wàn)個(gè)就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)。在不少人看來(lái)，特朗普提出的解決之道似乎有道理：限制這些進(jìn)口產(chǎn)品，保住工作機(jī)會(huì)，支持美國(guó)企業(yè)。

But if there were a 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods, at least part of that would probably bepassed onto consumers in the form of higher prices. Americans would end up buying fewerChinese things, and fewer things from anywhere else.

不過(guò)，如果對(duì)中國(guó)商品收取45%的關(guān)稅，其中至少有部分會(huì)通過(guò)更高的物價(jià)轉(zhuǎn)嫁到消費(fèi)者身上。結(jié)果是，美國(guó)人會(huì)購(gòu)買更少的中國(guó)商品，同時(shí)也購(gòu)買更少的其他商品。

Shrinking sales of Chinese products would generally hurt American businesses and workers. Aproduct labeled “Made in China” is not necessarily 100 percent Chinese, since many goods areassembled in China with parts from the United States and elsewhere. Sluggish purchases ofthese so-called Chinese products would reduce the sales of their American components, too.

中國(guó)產(chǎn)品銷售萎縮，會(huì)在整體上給美國(guó)企業(yè)和勞動(dòng)者帶來(lái)傷害。打著“中國(guó)制造”標(biāo)簽的商品不見(jiàn)得都是中國(guó)的，因?yàn)橐灿性S多產(chǎn)品是用來(lái)自美國(guó)和其他國(guó)家的零部件在中國(guó)組裝而成。所謂的“中國(guó)產(chǎn)品”銷售疲軟，也會(huì)減少美國(guó)零部件的銷售。

For this reason and others, quite a lot of the money spent on Chinese goods actually ends up inthe wallets of Americans. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco figured that 55cents of every $1 spent by an American shopper on a “Made in China” product goes to theAmericans selling, transporting and marketing that product. Suppressing Chinese importswould harm shopkeepers and truck drivers.

正是由于這樣的原因，花在中國(guó)商品上的大量資金最后實(shí)際上是進(jìn)了美國(guó)人的腰包。舊金山聯(lián)邦儲(chǔ)備銀行(Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco)的一項(xiàng)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，美國(guó)消費(fèi)者在“中國(guó)制造”的商品上花費(fèi)的每一美元，都有55%落到了銷售、運(yùn)輸和為這種產(chǎn)品做推廣的美國(guó)人手中。限制中國(guó)進(jìn)口商品，將會(huì)損害美國(guó)店主和卡車司機(jī)的利益。

In fact, making Chinese-made goods more expensive would ripple through American shoppingmalls. An extra $20 for, say, children’s clothing from China is $20 not spent on a new baseballglove for a child, or a birthday gift for a grandmother. A tariff on China would dent the sales ofall kinds of products, even those made in the United States.

事實(shí)上，中國(guó)制造的商品價(jià)格上漲帶來(lái)的影響，還會(huì)波及美國(guó)各大購(gòu)物中心。比如，為一件來(lái)自中國(guó)的童裝多花20美元，可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致一個(gè)美國(guó)家庭為孩子少買一副新的棒球手套，或?yàn)樽婺干儋I一件生日禮物。對(duì)中國(guó)增收關(guān)稅，會(huì)影響各種產(chǎn)品的銷售，包括在美國(guó)生產(chǎn)的那些。

It seems likely that such a tariff would burden American consumers while doing little to createjobs for them. Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Sean Lowry at the Peterson Institute for InternationalEconomics, studying the impact of a 35 percent tariff imposed on Chinese tire imports byWashington in 2009, found that American consumers had to spend an extra $1.1 billion ontires, while the tariff protected no more than 1,200 jobs. About $900,000 for every job saved,in other words.

而且這項(xiàng)關(guān)稅在給美國(guó)消費(fèi)者帶來(lái)負(fù)擔(dān)的同時(shí)，似乎也不會(huì)對(duì)創(chuàng)造工作機(jī)會(huì)產(chǎn)生太大助益。針對(duì)華盛頓在2009年對(duì)中國(guó)輪胎產(chǎn)品收取35%關(guān)稅這一決策所產(chǎn)生的影響，彼得森國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)研究所(Peterson Institute forInternational Economics)的加里·克萊德·赫夫鮑爾(Gary Clyde Hufbauer)和肖恩·勞里(Sean Lowry)曾做過(guò)一項(xiàng)研究，結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)美國(guó)消費(fèi)者不得不為此在購(gòu)買輪胎上多花11億美元，與此同時(shí)這項(xiàng)關(guān)稅卻只保住了不超過(guò)1200個(gè)工作崗位。換句話說(shuō)，我們?yōu)檫@每個(gè)工作崗位付出的代價(jià)大約為90萬(wàn)美元。

A big tariff would also harm China. Depressing its exports to the United States would dealanother blow to an economy already enduring its worst slowdown in 25 years. In the longerterm, increasing the cost of doing business in China would probably prompt manufacturers ofbasic consumer items to consider moving out of China.

收取高額關(guān)稅也會(huì)損害中國(guó)的利益。抑制中國(guó)對(duì)美出口，會(huì)讓一個(gè)本就遭遇25年來(lái)最嚴(yán)重的增速放緩的經(jīng)濟(jì)體雪上加霜。從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)看，在中國(guó)做生意的成本增加，可能會(huì)促使基本消費(fèi)品的生產(chǎn)商考慮將生產(chǎn)線撤離中國(guó)。

That process is already underway. As the Chinese economy has advanced, wages of its workershave risen. A recent survey by the Japan External Trade Organization found that a Chinesefactory worker earns $424 a month — the highest salary in developing Asia. That has causedmany companies producing labor-intensive goods, like clothing or electronics, to shift factoriesfrom China to other countries or to diversify their sources of supply to keep costs down.

這個(gè)過(guò)程已經(jīng)開(kāi)始了。隨著中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)水平提高，勞動(dòng)者工資也不斷上漲。日本貿(mào)易振興機(jī)構(gòu)(Japan ExternalTrade Organization)最近的一項(xiàng)調(diào)查顯示，中國(guó)工廠員工的人均工資達(dá)到了每月424美元(約合2740元人民幣)，在亞洲的發(fā)展中國(guó)家里是最高的。這導(dǎo)致生產(chǎn)服裝、電子元件等勞動(dòng)密集型產(chǎn)品的企業(yè)，將工廠從中國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)到了其他國(guó)家，或使其供貨來(lái)源多樣化，以繼續(xù)保持低廉的生產(chǎn)成本。

Though higher costs in China might prompt some companies to move production back to theUnited States, a more plausible destination would be other emerging economies with lowercosts. A factory worker earns, on average, $230 a month in India, $185 in Vietnam and $100 inBangladesh, according to the Japanese survey.

盡管中國(guó)的生產(chǎn)成本增加，有可能會(huì)促使一些企業(yè)將其生產(chǎn)環(huán)節(jié)移回美國(guó)，但它們還有一個(gè)更合理的選擇，即將生產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移到成本更低的其他新興國(guó)家。上述日本機(jī)構(gòu)的調(diào)查數(shù)據(jù)顯示，印度工廠員工的平均工資是每月230美元，越南是185美元，在孟加拉國(guó)則是100美元。

Foxconn, the Taiwan-based company that assembles iPhones in China for Apple, announcedlast year that it would build as many as 12 new factories in India. That means your nextsmartphone or pair or bluejeans would more likely be made in Mumbai than in Minneapolis.

富士康是一家臺(tái)灣企業(yè)，在中國(guó)大陸為蘋果公司組裝iPhone。該公司去年宣布將在印度新建至多12座工廠。這意味著你的下一部智能手機(jī)或者下一條牛仔褲很有可能不是在明尼阿波利斯生產(chǎn)的，而是在孟買。

And the Chinese government’s response would probably be tariffs of its own on Americangoods and services rather than lowering barriers for American companies doing business inChina. It moved quickly to retaliate for the tariff on Chinese tires with punitive duties onAmerican products. Because the Chinese market has become critical for many Americancompanies — whether Apple, Starbucks or Boeing — any steps taken by the Chinesegovernment to curtail their ability to operate in China would be bad news for them.

中國(guó)政府的反應(yīng)很可能不是降低美國(guó)公司在中國(guó)開(kāi)展業(yè)務(wù)的障礙，而是對(duì)美國(guó)商品和服務(wù)征收關(guān)稅。中國(guó)輪胎被征收的時(shí)候，它就迅速采取行動(dòng)，對(duì)美國(guó)產(chǎn)品征收懲罰性關(guān)稅。由于中國(guó)逐漸成為很多美國(guó)企業(yè)——無(wú)論是蘋果、星巴克，還是波音——的關(guān)鍵市場(chǎng)，中國(guó)政府采取的任何削弱它們?cè)谥袊?guó)的運(yùn)營(yíng)能力的措施，對(duì)它們而言都是壞消息。

Mr. Trump’s tariff proposal addresses a real and legitimate concern about the effect ofcompetition from low-wage countries on American workers. But that doesn’t mean it’s going tosolve the problem — and it could create even more.

低工資國(guó)家確實(shí)給美國(guó)勞動(dòng)者帶來(lái)了競(jìng)爭(zhēng)壓力，特朗普關(guān)稅提議針對(duì)的這個(gè)關(guān)注點(diǎn)是真實(shí)的、正當(dāng)?shù)?。但是，這并不意味著這項(xiàng)建議可以解決問(wèn)題——它反而有可能帶來(lái)更多問(wèn)題。