【讀者分享 🇺🇸🇨🇳】 回應蕭少滔：特朗普要打的，不只是貿易戰
Added 2024-03-31 12:31:00 +0000 UTC我覺得不應該將事情局限於貿易政策。 各國的工業政策industrial policy，例如拜登的IRA和Chips Act應該放在一起思考。
我覺得Michael Pettis 關於中美經濟的推文很有用。他其中一個主要觀點就是中國，加上日本、德國（也許要包括南韓和台灣），都以大量補貼工業政策去增加出口，而這些淨出口是必然有人去吸收的，現在美國就在做這角色。
【按：可參考 Matthew Klein / Michael Pettis 以下書籍。】
這無關乎甚麼貨幣戰爭或美元霸權，只是經濟學上的數學公式，大量國家的工業政策導致出口貨品有競爭性，但這些國家又不向其他國家賺買貨物或服務，其淨額必然表現為其他國家的貿易逆差。而為了填補這差額，美國就必然要大量發行資產如美債供淨出口國家購買。
所以關稅政策不單止是「貿易戰」，而更是美國會否容忍中國繼續甚至加強這種淨出口（習似乎是認為增加工業出產可以令中國擺脫衰退），而負担更多的債務。
美國需要持續舉債，不是因為美國人先駛未來錢，而是要應付中國引以為榮、並當成重要經濟成果的淨出口。
所以美國關稅或其他工業政策，並非只是「保護主義抬頭」，而是美國如何對待自身為各國的工業補貼政策埋單這件事。現在看來不管是民情或從公共財政的角度看（若加上人口結構就更立體但已超出我所知），美國都不太有胃口去繼續。
如此推想，無論大選後誰上台，美國下任政府都不得不面對這攤子。就算不打關稅戰，也必然會加強工業政策、以及平衡預算（起碼要令債務增長低放經濟增長）。由此而來的政策，似乎必然是令習的期望落空。而這不會是某人上台就能改變的，是結構性的轉變。
▶️ 蕭少滔：特朗普2.0：看不見中美貿易戰的好處，這是因為你太悲觀https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgQeSCO8J_8
Comments
後天會分享你的前一段回應 🙏
堅離地書院 College
2024-04-01 16:20:54 +0000 UTCPlease feel free to share.
George
2024-04-01 09:37:35 +0000 UTC多謝教授及其高質素讀者
HK Glory
2024-04-01 08:35:06 +0000 UTC美國貿易逆差（經常帳逆差），同美國國庫債卷發行量，並沒有必然關係，更加唔係一個爛攤子。¹ 貿易赤字本身，並唔代表貿易本身公平與否，需要考慮生產國嘅動機及行為。 讀者文章之中，所提到「經濟學上的數學公式」，其實係國際貿易之中嘅Balance of Payment ²，當中分開經常帳（current account）及資本帳（capital+financial account）。而所謂凈出口國，係指該國出口總值，扣除進口總值之後係正數，即係貿易順差（紀錄於經常帳順差上），從順差所獲得嘅外匯，會於資本帳赤字顯示佢嘅流向。兩個帳目係分開統計，但係同一國家、同年度數字，大置上係一正一負嘅平衡。 以文章內所舉列嘅凈出口國，都透過貿易順差賺取外匯，流入美國國庫債卷。美國國庫債卷，好處在於市場夠大、流動性高、風險低，＿但係美債唔係唯一選擇＿，正常私企可以FDI，正常中國人會想盡辦法『潤』—連人帶錢走資 ³，中東佬投資體育洗白，連習近平都唔咁心於買美債、借錢畀美國政府，而選擇去好多流氓國家攪一帶一路，呢啲全部都會反映於相關國家資本帳赤字。 此外，各國嘅Balance of Payment，都存在『三角債』嘅關係；中國對美國出現經常帳順差嘅同時，美國對澳洲係有順差 ⁴，中國對澳洲係逆差︰攏統而言，响經常帳，中国欠澳洲、澳洲欠美國、美國欠中国，而資金流向於資本帳填數（述語上唔正確，但咁講容易啲去明白）。呢度只係簡單舉例，澳洲經貿總額，遠遠比唔上美中兩國，但係呢個三角債關係，係存在於環球各國嘅貿易及資金往來，唔應該只係睇雙邊質易。 講起澳洲對中国有經常帳順差（貿易順差為主），你以為澳洲政府、以至澳洲人，會揸人民幣債卷嗎？此外，好多呢啲外匯，跟住就係去咗派息畀美國及其他國家嘅FDI及 portfolio investment啊。澳洲因為儲蓄率低，依賴海外投資，令整體資本帳出現順差，倒過來就係整體經常帳逆差… 有人覺得你個國家值得投資，點會係爛攤子呢？ 同意關稅並不一定係保護主義，Paul Krugman早十幾年前已經提出中国貨幣操控，應以關稅制裁。美國對發展中國家嘅補貼性經濟政策（匯率操控或直接補貼），一般都隻眼開隻眼閉，雖然美國藍領受害，但係消費者亦同時得益；但係當該國家展示敵意，美國亦毫不手軟去對付，80年代嘅日本就係好例子。美國近期一系列政策，已經係大國博奕，唔多講。 ¹上世紀後半，於美元唔再同黃金掛勾之後，有一個Twin Deficit Hypothesis，來自 GDP數式重整，指稱財政赤字與經常帳赤字一同出現。老實講，除咗响課本教導算式重整嘅演譯，過去廿年都未有再聽過。 ² https://www.rba.gov.au/education/resources/explainers/the-balance-of-payments.html ³ 潘石屹已經完美示範 ⁴ 所以當特朗普就任總統初期，以經常帳赤字等同貿易不公平（謬誤），向加拿大、墨西哥開刀，重新談判北美自由貿易協議之時，佢又打電話嚟澳洲，要取消簽訂十幾年嘅貿易協議，當時澳洲首相譚保反問一句，澳洲係逆差一方啊，求求你唔好攪我哋澳洲人啦！
悉尼 袋鼠
2024-04-01 06:56:56 +0000 UTCThank you, let's share? 🙏
堅離地書院 College
2024-04-01 06:56:08 +0000 UTC這篇在原文的回應留言。這個時代，通常分享人都不希望被查證身份，除非是主動希望公開。
堅離地書院 College
2024-04-01 06:55:35 +0000 UTCExports and imports can sometimes be exaggerated due to two major factors: the omission of value-added parts in manufacturing chains and profit shifting as a corporate strategy to avoid taxes. In the global manufacturing process, products often involve components and parts sourced from various countries, such as chips in iPhones and other electronics. However, when calculating trade figures, only the final value of the product is typically considered. This means that the value-added contributions from different countries along the supply chain are not accurately reflected. Imports from China have significantly increased over the past three decades, often as a result of displacing imports from other U.S. trading partners. For example, if a product is assembled in China but contains components manufactured in the US, the full value of those US components may not be accounted for in China's export figures. We can refer to the 2017 Bloomberg article titled "Suddenly, America's Trade Deficit Isn't So Awful" (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-22/suddenly-america-s-trade-deficit-isn-t-so-awful), as well as a report therein about tax reform by Goldman Sachs. Second, multinational corporations often strategically shift profits to countries with lower tax rates to reduce their tax liabilities. By establishing subsidiaries or engaging in transfer pricing practices, companies can allocate profits to jurisdictions with more favorable tax regimes. This can lead to a discrepancy between where the economic activity takes place and where the profits are reported. In the context of trade deficits, this profit shifting can distort the numbers by inflating the value of imports from low-tax countries and reducing the reported value of exports. For instance, if a US company shifts profits to a low-tax jurisdiction like Ireland, it can artificially inflate the US trade deficit with Ireland. The US actually benefits from China’s investment in its economy, illustrating the double-edged sword of trade deficits—flowing trade surplus back to the US in the form of investment. In export-driven economies, central banks often prefer to hold their reserves in dollar assets, particularly in treasury bonds, due to financial and political considerations. This preference arises from the absence of a better alternative. It helps keep U.S. interest rates down under normal circumstances, reducing mortgage payments for millions of U.S. households while saving the federal government tens of billions of dollars a year in interest payments. While this grants Americans the privilege of accessing cheap borrowing to purchase fixed assets such as houses, which are often considered unaffordable, it also poses a significant financial risk similar to the credit crunch experienced during the 2008 financial crisis. Therefore, it imposes a significant burden on working-class Americans who are adversely affected by trade imbalances. Trade imbalances between the US and China have benefited the rich and powerful on both sides. In the US, the wealthy have profited from rising stock and real estate values fueled by cheap money, while in China, the well-connected corporate elites have gained from increased resource allocation. It may be more of a wishful thinking to believe that economic redistribution in the US could alleviate some of the harm caused by imbalances. However, other countries are unlikely to be deterred from buying dollar assets due to the rule of flight-to-safety. Beijing’s intention is undoubtedly to strengthen and advance its manufacturing base, shifting from low-skill to high-end products, and increasing its national power in technology and other countries’ reliance on its manufacturing chains. Therefore, its ambition through persistent trade surpluses is not solely driven by the interests of well-connected industrialists, but could also serve as part of a broader grand strategy aimed at outmatching the US in a geopolitical struggle. Political considerations must be taken into account, and we should look at the issues beyond the domain of trade imbalances, especially when dealing with an authoritarian regime. Otherwise, we risk failing to see the bigger but crucial picture. It is as if we are studying the rationale behind Beijing's approval of letting Tesla build a super factory in Shanghai with numerous incentives solely through the lens of the business benefits for both sides derived from the deal, without considering the vision of an ambitious dictator. The above points are just a display of the complex interplay between economic forces, class interests, and geopolitical considerations in shaping trade imbalances, particularly between the US and China. They highlight the need for a deeper understanding of their dynamics and their consequences on both sides. While some factors can impact the accuracy of trade figures, they do not negate the existence of trade imbalances between countries. However, understanding these complexities provides a more nuanced perspective on the true nature of trade relationships.
George
2024-04-01 03:55:50 +0000 UTC讀者分享很有質素。請問係咪作者本身唔想出名？點解唔俾返Credit佢？
Louisa Tse
2024-04-01 01:45:58 +0000 UTC
