贸易战谁赢了？耶鲁教授说出美国贸易赤字的真相

（原标题：贸易战谁赢了？耶鲁教授灵魂拷问，“谈恋爱”吵架谁能赢？）

导读

情侣吵架没有胜利者，结局不是握手言和，就是两败俱伤。耶鲁大学高级研究员史蒂芬·罗奇（Stephen Roach）认为，中美经贸问题答案也一样。“恋爱中产生矛盾，需要双方达成共识”，而不是“甩锅”给其中一方。

在第八期“新时代大讲堂”上，罗奇从经济学的角度断了一场“家务事”。他直言：“贸易赤字的原因是预算赤字带来的低储蓄率，这是我们的错。但是我们不想承认，因为把它怪罪给中国更容易。”

重温这段演讲，从一个浅显易懂的比喻出发，罗奇剖析了中美经贸摩擦因何而来又将何去何从。

史蒂芬·罗奇 在第八期“新时代大讲堂”上 的英文主旨演讲

↓↓

美国应如此，中国也一样。 我们需要共同努力，构建持久的关系。 And I would say that's true of the United States. It's also true of China. Both of us need to work better in building a lasting relationship.

左边是一项位于华盛顿的皮尤研究中心进行的民意调查结果，调查了近15年来美国民众对中国的看法。 On the left it is...the latest reading from a poll put out by the Pew Research Center in Washington, which samples American views toward China over the last 15 years.

持负面看法的比例在2019年创下新高，比一年前增长了13个百分点，是这项调查自启动以来比例最高的一年。参与这项调查的人显然不太爱中国。 Unfavorable hit a record high this year, up 13 percentage points from a year ago, the highest in the inception this survey. The ones in this survey didn't particularly love China.

有害的政治观点很不幸已经渗透到了主流社会。而且很显然这种观点在两党都存在，无论是共和党还是民主党。 While the poisonous political views in the United States...unfortunately, have permeated into mainstream as well. And this is a view that is evident on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and Democrats alike.

贸易战没有真正的赢家

贸易战中无人获胜。 No one wins a trade war.

这是采购经理人指数，衡量中美两国的制造业活动。 This is purchasing managers' sentiment, which measures manufacturing activity in the US and China.

你猜怎么着，我们两方都在输。 这条线显示了制造业是在扩张还是收缩。 And guess what? We're both losing. This is the line which denotes whether the manufacturing sector is expanding or contracting.

今年（2019）8月，两国都出现了收缩迹象。 In August of this year, last month, we both went into negative territory.

来看看股市。 这张图显示了中美股市走势。 这是2018年7月6日，贸易战首日关税生效时的股市表现。 Look at the stock market. It shows the equity markets, US and China, day one of the trade war when the tariffs first went into effect, July 6, 2018.

自从那时起，两边的股市都有震荡。 中国股市实际上比美国股市上涨多一倍。 Since that period, both markets have gone up and down. The Chinese market is actually up twice as much as the US market.

谁在赢得贸易战？ 贸易战中没有真正的赢家。 Who's winning the trade war? No one is really winning the trade war.

因为我们与中国的关系，使得美国经济遭受持续性创伤。 这种观点并非凭空出现。 The view that America is suffering lasting damage because of our relationship with China is not something that we made up out of thin air.

30年前指责日本，如今又指责中国

我们国家本身存在很多问题。 不幸的是，每当问题出现时，我们总是指责他人，因为这样做很省事。 We have a lot of problems in the United States. And unfortunately for us, it is very convenient for us always when we have problems to blame them on somebody else.

30年前我们曾经指责日本，如今我们又在指责中国。 We did that to the Japanese 30 years ago. We're doing it again with China.

我在耶鲁教书。 已经教了10年，来给各位上30秒免费的宏观经济学课。 I teach at Yale, been doing it for 10 years. And a little 30-second free of charge lesson in macroeconomics.

我们在讲宏观经济学入门课程的第二周就会告诉学生，储蓄等于投资。 你们都明白这个道理，毕竟都那么聪明。 We teach our students literally in the second week of their basic introductory course in macroeconomics, that saving must equal investment. You all know that. You're smart.

当一个低储蓄率的国家想增长时，他们必须选择减慢增长率，或是从国外吸收储蓄盈余。 And when savings-short countries want to grow, they must therefore either slow their growth rate down, or import surplus savings from abroad.

当他们选择后者时，他们需要形成国际收支逆差来吸引资本。 当你出现国际收支逆差时，你会与很多国家出现贸易逆差。 And when they have to do that, they have to run a balance-of-payments deficit to attract the capital. When you have a balance-of-payments deficit, you have a big trade deficit with lots of countries.

这里有份名单，去年（2018）我们与102个国家和地区存在商品贸易逆差。 Here's the list. We had trade deficits last year with a hundred and two countries and regions.

中国，如之前所示，占比最大达到47%。 国家和地区 China, the biggest, 47% I just showed you. But by higher math take China out, there are still a hundred and one left.

贸易赤字的原因是预算赤字带来的低储蓄率，这是我们的错。 但是我们不想承认，把它怪罪给中国更容易。 The reason again is...a shortfall of savings. That is our fault in large part because of budget deficits. We don't want to admit that. It's easier for us to blame that on China.

这是基本的宏观经济学。 我们在耶鲁会教这个，很多大学也教这门课。 Basic macro. We teach it at Yale, teach it at most universities.

几位特朗普政府现任顾问，我就不说名字了，确实是耶鲁毕业的，可能宏观经济学没学好。 Several, which I will remain nameless, of the the current advisors of the Trump Administration actually did go to Yale. Didn't do very well in their macro courses.

美国的“证据”，根本不能作为呈堂证供

美国在这场关税战中咄咄逼人的主要依据，源于一份2018年3月由美国贸易代表发布的文件，里面列出了多项对中国的指控，包括强制技术转让、窃取知识产权、网络攻击以及为国有企业提供的非法支持。 The case for the US turning aggressive in this tariff war is a case that was made in great detail by our US trade representative in a document published in March of 2018, that laid out a lot of allegations with respect to forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, cyber hacking and illegal support for State-owned enterprises.

在这个问题上我已经详细撰文阐述过。 不过我想跟在座的各位说的是，对于科技领域相关指控的证据，尤其是指控中方盗窃知识产权的证据，大多出自右边这两份报告。 但实际上这类报告是不被允许引入美国法庭作为呈堂证供的，最多只能作为间接证据。 如果真要深入研究的话，很多时候它们连间接证据也算不上。 I've written a fair amount abo ut this. But the one thing I would tell you about today, is that the evidence on the technology front, especially the intellectual property, the allegations of intellectual property theft, which is derived largely from these two reports that you see on the right, is not the type of evidence that would actually be allowed to be introduced in a US court of law. It's circumstantial evidence at best, and a good deal worse than that, if you really want to dig into it.

在如今中美谈判中备受瞩目的这些问题上，我们未能对相关指控给出令人信服的有力证据。 We have not made a compellingly strong case on the issues that are now a headline in the negotiations between us.

在我看来，总统先生继续错误地坚持认为中国会为关税买单。 尽管关税是由进口商买单，而这些进口商大多在美国。 The president continues to insist completely incorrectly in my view that China pays for the tariffs, even though the tariffs of course are collected on importers who largely reside in the United States.

我们国家如今在贸易冲击面前其实更易受伤害，贸易总额接近占到国内生产总值的30%，相比1930年左右只占11%。 Our country is actually more vulnerable to a trade shock today with trade equaling close to 30% of GDP right now versus 11% back then than it was during that earlier period.

“冷战”思维早已过时了

这是一种不同类型的冲突： 我们与前苏联之间是意识形态冲突，目前的冲突无关意识形态，这是经济冲突。 This is a different type of conflict. Our conflict with the former Soviet Union was an ideological conflict. This is not about ideology. This is an economic conflict.

对于仅仅因为我们赢过第一场冷战，就强大到能够赢得另一场冷战的想法，我心存疑虑。 The idea that just because we won the first Cold War, we're strong enough to win another one. I would draw that into question.

中美两国都对对方怀有深深的恐惧，中国害怕美国遏制它，遏制它的增长，直至其无法达成2050年目标。 Both the US and China have deep existential fears of one another. China fears that the US wants to contain it, contain its rise to the status till which it expires by 2050.

美国非常害怕中国试图主导未来新兴行业，如果美国失去主导，那我们就没有经济前途。 And the US has deep fears that China's trying to capture the emerging industries of the future. Without that we will have no economic future.

看看几位学者制作的这张指数图，中国在创新领域确实是在迎头赶上。 它会超过美国吗？ 在何种条件下？ 这是我们需要在与中国的谈判中解决的事情。 If you look at an index assembled by a bunch of academics, China's definitely catching up on the innovation front. Will it surpass the US and on what terms? Those are the things we need to work out in our negotiations with China.

这份贸易协议已经被讨论了许久。 我认为我们需要在互相信任的基础上，用一种不同的方式对不同问题进行协商，重建两国关系。 This deal that...it's been talked about for so long. What we need to do I think is...think about a different way to negotiate on different issues that can really build the relationship back together on the basis of mutual trust.

我关注的是市场准入方面的进程。 我们能进入中国市场吗？ 这可是全世界增长最快的市场。 中国有渠道进入美国市场。 So I'm looking for progress on market access. Will we have access to China's market? Most rapid growing market in the world. China has access to ours.

我关注的是调整两国宏观经济结构，中国减少储蓄，美国增加储蓄。 I'm looking for macroeconomic adjustments in both countries where we save more and China saves less.

我也期待中美共同引领互联网领域，这是一个全球性问题，而非双边问题。 I'm looking for us to take joint leadership in the cyber area. This is a global problem, not a bilateral problem.

我们可以做得更好。 我们必须做得更好！ We can do better. We must have better.

谢谢各位。 Thank yo u very much.