【国外评论】如何赢得与中国的贸易战 [美国媒体]

How to Win a Trade War With China

如何赢得与中国的贸易战

Hint: Don’t fight it.

【日期】2018年4月7日



Donald Trump is right—the United States is not in a trade war with China.

唐纳德·特朗普是对的--美国不会与中国发生贸易战。

At least, not yet. As the rhetoric has flown back and forth between Washington and Beijing, breathless news coverage has made it seem as though the war of tariffs has already begun. It has not—hardly any new duties have been levied. At most, the world is in its July 1914 moment, with the clouds of trade war gathering but shots not yet fired. We’ll know soon enough whether that is indeed the correct historical analogy. For now, the war is just words, and it would be best for the planet if that’s as far as it goes, because the only way to win a trade war is not to fight it.

至少目前还没有。华盛顿和北京之间的口水战你来我往，新闻报道层出不穷，让人觉得关税之战似乎已经开始了。但是它没有--几乎没有任何新的关税被征收。充其量，世界正处于1914年的7月时刻，贸易战的乌云正在聚集，但尚未开火。我们很快就会知道这是否确实是正确的历史类比。就目前而言，这场战争不过是放狠话而已，如果只是这样，对地球来说将是最好的选择，因为赢得贸易战的唯一途径就是不打贸易战。

For many, the line between words and actions has dissolved into nothingness. Beginning with Trump’s early March Twitter bravado (“trade wars are good, and easy to win”), continuing with the announcement of tariffs first against steel and aluminum, and then against approximately $50 billion in imports from China, and then on Thursday with a possible further round on $100 billion more, financial markets have sold off sharply with each new salvo, keying off everything from tweets to detailed lists published by first the U.S. government and then by the Chinese government of exactly which products would be subject to what duties.

对一些人来说，语言和行动之间的界限已经没有差别。从特朗普3月初大张旗鼓地在Twitter上(“贸易战是好的，容易打赢”)放话开始，接着宣布对钢铁和铝的关税，然后对来自中国的大约500亿美元的进口产品宣布征收关税，再然后周四，又加上一轮1000亿美元的进口商品，金融市场在每一次放话后都出现大幅抛售，首先由美国政府从推特公布详细清单，然后由中国政府公布哪些产品将被征收什么样的关税。

Here’s a reality check: The announcement of levies against global steel and aluminum imports in early March led to the implementation of those levies on March 23, except that a full 50 percent of all U.S. steel imports (from Brazil, South Korea, Mexico, Canada and others) were then exempted from those tariffs. China then announced retaliatory tariffs as high as 25 percent on $3 billion of U.S. goods. Here too, the reporting has often been fuzzy: 25 percent tariffs on $3 billion of goods amounts to $750 million. What has actually happened? The U.S. is levying perhaps an additional $5 billion of tariffs on global steel and aluminum, which China is responding with less than $1 billion of its own. As a proportion of the nearly $19 trillion U.S. economy, that amounts to less than 0.0003 percent. As a proportion of the combined U.S. and Chinese economies, the number is insignificant.

下面是个实例:3月初宣布对全球钢铁和铝进口征收关税后，于3月23日实施这些征税，不过，美国进口总量中的50%(来自巴西、韩国、墨西哥、加拿大和其他国家的)钢材可免征这些关税。中国随后宣布对30亿美元的美国商品征收高达25%的报复性关税。在这方面，报告细节很模糊：对30亿美元商品征收25%的关税，相当于7.5亿美元。究竟是什么情况？美国正在对全球钢铁和铝征收50亿美元的关税，而中国对此的回应还不到10亿美元。在近19万亿美元的美国经济中，这一比例不到0.0003%。在中美两国经济总量中所占的比例，这一数字微乎其微。

Even the larger figures recently threatened, on $50 billion of Chinese goods including consumer items such as flat screen televisions—and China’s proposed retaliation on an equivalent dollar amount of U.S. exports including pork and soybeans—represent perhaps $25 billion tax on a reciprocal trade relationship that last year amounted to nearly $700 billion. Let’s say that goes even higher based on recent escalating rhetoric and threats. The numbers are still modest in the greater scheme. If this is July 1914, it is a July where the third cousin once-removed of the Archduke of Austria-Hungary was assassinated, three battalions of Austrian and Serbian troops were dispatched to the border and the rest of the continent enjoyed its summer holidays.

最近放话要进行更大额度的商品征税，对包括平板电视等消费品在内的500亿美元的中国商品加税----中国计划对美国出口的猪肉和大豆等同一美元价格的商品进行报复性增税-----对去年接近7，000亿元的互惠贸易数额来说，就是征收250亿美元的税款。根据最近不断升级的言论和威胁，我们可以说这个数额显示是有增高。但在更大数据中，这一数字占比仍然很有限。如果今天是1914的七月，在7月，奥匈大公被暗杀（斐迪南大公夫妇实际被暗杀日期是1914年6月28日），奥地利、匈牙利和塞尔维亚三方军队被派往边境，欧洲大陆其他地区国家也加入战火。

【译者注】斐迪南大公，奥匈帝国皇储，当时的皇帝约瑟夫一世，这位正是大名鼎鼎的茜茜公主的老公，他俩的儿子皇太子鲁道夫是个情种，与情人殉情而死，皇位承权这块大馅饼就掉斐迪南大公头上了。费迪南主张通过兼并塞尔维亚王国将奥匈帝国由奥地利、匈牙利组成的二元帝国扩展为三元帝国。这个计划塞尔维亚肯定不同意。于是在大公带着小老婆游山玩水之际，塞尔维亚狂热的民族主义者在1914年6月28日暗杀了这对夫妇。史称“萨拉热窝事件”，也是一战爆发的导火线。

The words just now are a shadow of the actions that most of us rightly fear, and it is vital that we all take a deep breath and make a concerted effort to distinguish threats, bluster and modest action from a global trade war that echoes the retrenchment of the 1930s. The infamous Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 levied duties of close to 60 percent on nearly 20,000 products, leading U.S. trade with the world to plunge nearly 75 percent. That was a trade war. What we are seeing today might be the first signs of one, but we are a long way from real conflict.

我们大多数人都害怕上述风声变成实际行动，重点是我们要谨慎，努力地去辨别威胁，嘴炮和适度的行动，这场全球贸易战呼应了上世纪30年代的紧缩政策。臭名昭着的“斯穆特-霍利法案”。1930年对近20，000种产品征收了近60%的关税，导致美国与世界的贸易下降了近75%。那是一场贸易战。我们今天看到的可能是一个初步迹象，但我们离真正的冲突还有很远。

【译者注】斯穆特-霍利法案——20世纪美国最愚蠢法案:1930年，美国认为外国人的工资和制造成本太低，美国制造商无法成功地与外国制造商竞争，因此建立了史无前例的贸易壁垒。“霍利一斯穆特关税法案”试图以高关税壁垒保护美国市场，使之免于外国竞争。结果是灾难性的：贸易伙伴随即采取报复性关税措施，以限制外国进口来保护本国市场，使美国的进口额和出口额都骤降50％以上，世界贸易额下降了70％，几千万人失业，加剧了大萧条状态，胡佛总统因此未能连任。

That makes it an opportune time not to go any further. It may be, of course, that the Trump White House has in this arena found an ideal outlet for its tendency to speak loudly and carry a small stick. China’s response to the threat of broad tariffs has been to immediately threaten its own measures, while agreeing that now is the time to revise many past practices. One of the main goals of these announced tariffs is to retaliate against China for years of forced intellectual property transfer and dubious requirements that companies setting up production lines or business in China must have a joint venture partner with a significant stake and then transfer IP to that partner.

如今这个紧张局面不应该再发展下去。当然，总是喜欢带根小棍子大声说话的特朗普和他的白宫团队，在这个竞赛场上，总能找到完美的发泄口。中国对广泛关税威胁的反应是受到威胁后正常措施，同时他们也表示愿意修改过去的一些做法。宣布这些关税的主要目的之一是报复中国多年来强制性要强求知识产权转让的行为，以及在中国设立生产线或业务的外国企业必须同一位拥有大量股份的伙伴合资，然后将知识产权转让给该合作伙伴的可疑要求。

While China released its own list of possible tariffs, high-level government officials have also signaled their willingness to review its past mercantile trade practices.

虽然中国公布了己方可能的征税清单，但高级政府官员也表示愿意审查其过去的商业贸易行为。

Thus, it might be that, as new economic adviser Larry Kudlow said several times this week, there will be no tariffs, and hence no trade war. If indeed that is how the next few months unfold (and by law it will be months before any of the nonsteel and aluminum tariffs are actually put in place), then the White House will have succeeded in using the threat of tariffs as an effective tool to force some changes in the U.S.-Chinese bilateral economic relationship. That undoubtedly will be treated as a victory.

因此，正如新任经济顾问拉里·库德洛本周多次表示的那样，可能不会有关税，所以不会发生贸易战。如果未来几个月真的是这样(根据法律，任何非钢铁和铝的关税都要过几个月才能生效)，那么白宫将成功地利用关税威胁迫使美中双边经济关系发生一些变化。这无疑将被视为一场胜利。

And yet, ending years of Chinese infringement of American intellectual property will not do much to ensure U.S. competitiveness or prosperity in the years to come. Nor will a somewhat more open Chinese market for American goods. China is becoming a domestic economic powerhouse, making much of what it needs for itself and spending tens of billions on artificial intelligence research, clean energy innovation and next-generation telecommunications, along with the trillions it intends to invest in global and domestic infrastructure. U.S. tariffs may annoy China, and they might dent the $700 billion in U.S.-China trade, but the endgame is not a glorious recreation of the 1950s with America a global powerhouse and the rest of the world struggling to catch up.

然而，就算结束了多年来中国对美国知识产权的侵犯，对确保美国在未来几年的竞争力提升或经济繁荣都没有太大帮助。中国市场也不会对美国商品更加开放。中国正在成为内需经济强国，大量满足自身需求，在人工智能研究、清洁能源创新和下一代电信等方面投入了数百亿美元，同时还打算在全球和国内基础设施上投资数万亿美元。美国的关税可能会惹恼中国，也可能会削弱美国与中国之间7000亿美元的贸易，终局不会重现20世纪50年代的荣光（译者注:该时期是美国高速发展的黄金时期），因为美国是一个全球强国，而世界其他国家也在努力追赶。

Trade statistics are highly problematic—we tend to fixate on the hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S deficits, when in fact a large percentage of that is U.S. companies assembling items nominally “made in China” and then selling them in America. The iPhone is perhaps the best example. It is treated as a U.S. import from China at its announced import price of more than $200, but as many economists have shown, only a fraction of that goes to China. The rest is distributed among global suppliers and Apple itself, but arcane “country of origin rules” make it seem otherwise. That is true for almost all products others than commodities and agricultural goods. Our current trade numbers reflect supply chains of the 1950s but how goods are actually made in the 21st century.

贸易统计数据存在很大问题--我们倾向于关注美国数千亿美元的赤字，而事实上，其中很大一部分产品是美国公司组装的名义上的“中国制造”，然后在美国销售。iPhone就是最好的例子。它被视为美国从中国进口的产品，其宣布的进口价格超过200美元，但正如许多经济学家已经说明的那样，只有一小部分零件来自中国。其余部分的供应商分布在全球以及苹果公司自己本身，但神秘的“原产地规则”却让人觉得并非如此。除了商品和农产品之外，几乎所有产品都是如此。我们目前的贸易数据反映的是20世纪50年代的供应链，但商品实际上是在21世纪制造的。

That is in part why China’s possible tariffs against U.S. commodities could hurt more than U.S. tariffs against Chinese goods: Our pork and soybeans are basically all-American, whereas a goodly portion of Chinese imports have parts from countries around the world sourced by American companies domiciled in the U.S.

这也是为什么中国对美国商品征收的关税比美国对中国商品征收的关税更有害的部分原因：我们的猪肉和大豆基本上都是美国产的，而中国进口商品的相当一部分是来自世界各地，在美国注册的美国公司。

The final problem with the tariffs is that China is the fastest-growing export market for American goods and perhaps the largest potential market for U.S. services. Those services include Chinese tourism to the United States and Chinese students studying here, whose economic ripple effects are surely under-reported (a Chinese student paying rent shows up in no trade number, for instance). And those numbers don’t include China investing tens of billions in the U.S. to buy companies with its surplus dollars, nor its trillion-dollar investment in U.S. bonds.

关税的最后一个问题是，中国是美国商品消费增长最快的出口市场，或许也是美国服务业最大的潜在市场。这些服务包括中国赴美旅游和在美国留学的中国学生，他们的经济连锁反应数据肯定是没有被报道过的(例如，支付租金的中国学生没有出现在贸易数据中)。而这些数字中没有包括中国公司在美国投资了数百亿美元用以购买盈余美元的那部分额度，也没有包括中国对美国债券的万亿美元投资。

All of those promising, fast-growing economic avenues are threatened not just by U.S. tariffs but by a plethora of White House policies that make the United States less welcoming to foreign capital and business. Those include more onerous restrictions on student visas and more limitations on foreign investment, such as the recently nixed $100 billion semiconductor deal, which would have seen Qualcomm acquired by a Singapore company with deep business in China. Yes, as the administration is fond of reminding, the United States remains a global market like no other, but with multiple economic centers emerging, the U.S. is not nearly as central as it was. Foreign countries and businesses have more options and more markets than ever, and the more friction the U.S. creates, the more attractive those options become.

所有这些充满希望、快速增长的经济途径不仅受到美国关税的威胁，还受到白宫诸多政策的威胁，这些政策使得外国资本和企业对美国的喜欢程度降低。其中包括严格的学生签证，以及对外国投资的更多限制，比如最近达成的价值1000亿美元的半导体交易，高通将被一家在中国有着深厚业务能力的新加坡公司收购。是的，正如奥巴马政府经常提及的那样，美国仍然是一个全球市场，但随着多个经济中心的崛起，美国的中心地位已经没有以前那么重要了。外资与企业的选择和市场，比以往任何时候都更丰富，而美国制造的摩擦越多，这些选择和市场就越有吸引力。

Starting a trade war with a series of pallid actions is, therefore, the ultimate mistake. It interferes with one of the fastest-growing import and export markets in the world for the United States without generating nearly enough actual revenue to make a difference except to the already vulnerable domestic American industries and consumers that are purportedly protected. It does little to halt China’s future trajectory as a domestic innovator with its own intellectual property that relies less on the United States than in the past, and punishes China for acts already committed that cannot be retroactively reversed.

因此，用一系列苍白的行动发起贸易战最终会是错误的。对美国来说中国是世界上增长最快的进出口市场之一，除了那些据称受到保护的美国国内产业和消费者之外，它并没有产生足够多的实际收入来发挥作用。它无力阻止中国作为一个国内创新者未来的发展，中国拥有自己的知识产权，对美国的依赖程度远不如过去，追溯性的惩罚中国已经犯下的错误无法逆转如今的局势。

Trump’s hot rhetoric may prove successful in the very modest sense of preventing some of the past abuses. Given the changed nature of China’s economy, that won’t matter nearly as much going forward even if the abuses continue, but some adjustment on China’s part would at least restore some level of trust between the two countries. That would certainly be for the best. It would also be a small step for such a large threat, compared with the much greater harm that might result. If, on the other hand, we do plunge into an actual trade war, the U.S. is unlikely to emerge stronger and China is unlikely to weaken. The only way for Trump to win his trade war is if it is never fought.

特朗普热情洋溢的言辞可能会在预防以往的一些弊端上，证明其成功的意义。考虑到中国经济性质的变化，即使这种（“窃取”知识产权全）行为继续下去，这也不会有多大影响，但中国方面愿意做出一些调整，至少会恢复两国之间的某种程度的信任。那肯定是最好的。与可能造成的更大伤害相比，这也是对威胁的一点小让步。另一方面，如果我们真的陷入一场贸易战，美国没可能变得更强大，中国也不太可能会削弱。特朗普赢得贸易战的唯一途径是，这场战争从未开始。

Zachary Karabell is head of global strategy at Envestnet and author of The Leading Indicators: A Short History of the Numbers That Rule Our World. He is a contributing editor at  Politico Magazine.

扎卡里·卡拉贝尔：恩维斯特网全球战略主管，着有《领先指标；统治我们世界的数字简史》一书。《政治杂志》》特约编辑。
Neal Levine · University of Toledo · 20h +11
Tell that we are not in a tradecwar with China? Right. Explain that one to the stock market. Explain that one to many people’s retirement that have lost billions of dollars because of this incompetent abd stupid game of Trump’s. Tell that to Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan and Wisconsin Farmers who grow soy beans that there is no trade war. Oh by the way, there is no winning in a trade war. We are losing already.

你说我们没有与中国打贸易战？好吧。来给解释下股票市场。给众多退休人员解释下，因为特朗普的无能和进行这种愚蠢游戏损失的数十亿美元。大声告诉爱荷华，印第安娜，俄亥俄，密歇根和威斯康星种植大豆的农民们，没有贸易战。哦，顺便说一下，在贸易战中没有胜利者。我们已经在亏损了。

Tammy McKinnon · Florida State University · 19h +4
Rasmussen:
Even as President Trump imposes tariffs on billions of dollars in Chinese goods to balance the trade playing field, voters here continue to view China as an economic threat and think the U.S. government has been too easy on it. 
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 73% of Likely U.S. Voters consider China a bigger threat to the United States economically than militarily. Only 13% say China’s a bigger military threat, and just as many (14%) are undecided.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/ ... ugh_enough_on_china
This should NOT be debatable. China is cheating and it is all by design (read my post above)
https://morningconsult.com/2018/ ... -reviews-americans/

拉斯姆森：
正如特朗普总统为了数十亿美元的贸易竞争平衡，对中国商品增税，在这里的选民们将继续把中国视为经济威胁，认为美国政府一直对它太和蔼了。
拉斯姆森最新的报告，全国电话和在线调查发现，对比美国经济和军事，73%的美国选民们认为中国可能是一个更大的威胁。13%的人确认中国是一个大的军事威胁，（14%）的人不确定。
毫无疑问，中国是骗子，这都是设计好的（看我的帖子）

Neal Levine · University of Toledo · 18h +7
Tammy McKinnon and China hold 1/3 of our debt. Really? It is not as simple as you want it to be. Sorry

回楼上中国持有我们1/3的债务。难道不是真的吗？很遗憾它不像你想的那么简单。

Robin F. Korving · Eigenaar/owner at Korving Media, Communicatie & Training · 18h +8
Since when does public opinion equal fact? Small wonder most believe tariffs are the way to go, Trump and others have been spewing anti China and tariff rhetoric for two years. Meanwhile people that actually know what they are talking about say the exact opposite.

舆论从什么时候起就等同于事实了？难怪大多数人认为关税是错误的，特朗普和其支持者两年来一直不断叫嚣反中国，以及增税。与此同时，实际上知道他们在说什么的人表达的看法的恰恰相反。

Brian Olafson · 17h
Neal Levine I have seen various figures for China/US debt so am no longer sure about a correct figure. Last one I saw said it was $1 trillion.

回Neal Levine，在我见过的中国/美国债务的各种数据里，我不确定这图的真实性。我看到的最后一张图是1兆美元。

Jim Parker · Ventura College · 17h +1
Tammy the U.S. has been on the loosing end of trade with China ever since China jumped into the world trade market.China has the most manufacturing of CHEAP items in the world.This is how China is fueling their military build up.If the U.S. said they were going to be limiting trade with China that would be an extremley large blow to China's economy.Tariffs are actually nothing to China as they just increase their products prices.The U.S. has its farmers worried due to the tariffs on U.S. agriculture products.The question is can China survive without these agricultural products and if so how long ??

回上面的那个塔米，从美国与中国开展贸易到现在，结果就是中国一跃成为世界贸易市场。中国拥有世界上最廉价的产品制造。这昂中国推动了他们的军事建设。如果美国说他们会限制与中国的贸易，这对他们的经济将是一个巨大的打击。进口征税不过是让中国商品更贵一点罢了。对美国农产品的关税让美国农民担心了。可问题是，中国没有这些农产品，那么如何长期生存呢？？

Vikisha Waldkirch · University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee · 17h +3
Jim Parker china can purchase several of the items from others like Brazil and Argentina. I believe based on Chinese history, they have been preparing for a trade war for a long time. They are prepared to endure the consequences of the trade war. The US are not.

楼上滴，中国可以购买一些来自其他国家如巴西和阿根廷的产品。据中国的以往的历史来看，我相信他们一直有做好长期贸易战的准备。他们准备接受贸易战的后果。美国可不是。

Kevin Lenihan · Clark University · 16h +2
We have been losing all along. That's Trump's point. And the only way to change that is to risk some harball. What would your approach be, begging the Chinese to "come to their senses and play fair!" See how far that gets you.

我们一直在亏损。这是特朗普的说的。而唯一能改变的，就是做些冒风险的事情。不然你打算用什么方法，恳求中国人“醒悟过来，公平竞争！”看看你能走多远。

Scott Henricks · Mound, Minnesota · 16h +4
Tammy McKinnon Go back to Florida State and take a econ 101 class and bring the 60% of respondents who think trade wars are the way to resolve this issue. You have a Koolaid swillers understanding of econ.
The way you fix a trade probelm is through TRADE DEALS like TPP that set the rules that people have to operate under. You have American companies like the one I work for continue to grow our exports to China, you don't get in a trade war that harms American companies exports.
Turn off Fox Noise and learn something beyond what your spoon fed.

回Tammy，认为贸易战是解决问题途径的去佛罗里达州看看60%的受访者是怎么想的。你的经济学知识是填鸭得来的吧。
你解决贸易问题的方式就是通过像TPP贸易协议制定人们必须遵守的规则。如果你有像我一样，在出口中国的美国公司工作，你不会想要贸易战，这会损害美国企业出口额。
远离福克斯新闻一类的媒体，正紧去学点东西吧。

David Clodfelder · Purdue University · 16h +2
Nice to see you defending China and their stealing $300 billion from our economy each year. You liberal tree stumps are very predictable and simply stupid !

很高兴看到你捍卫每年从我们经济盗窃走3000亿美元的中国。你的自主立场蠢透了！

Elizabeth Smith · 13h +1
Neal Levine You would be shocked or perhaps not, to know that the bulk of the people do not know that, when I post that same exact thing on another site, many blasted me saying I didn't know what I was talking about...LOL I was left speechless.

回Neal你可能会震惊，也许不会，当我在另一个网站上发布同样的东西时，发现了大多数人啥都不懂，他们里面许多人指责我，说我根本不知道自己在说什么……哈哈，我无话可说了。

James T. Lalos · Works at Self-Employed · 11h
If you trend out the stockmarket over the past 10 years the Dow should end 2018 at about 25,200. It was 26,600 this past January, some 11 months before the end of the year--way overvalued. If we get to 25,200, the "Trump" stock trend is nothing more than the Obama stock trend. If the Dow is less than 25,200 at year's end, then Trumponomics have indeed failed relative to the stock market.

如果你关注过去10年里对外发布的股市预测，2018年末，道琼斯工业平均指数应该会在25200点左右。今年1月份是26600点，距离年底还有11个月，这显然被高估了。如果我们到了25200，“特朗普”的股票趋势只不过是跟随奥巴马的股票趋势而已。如果年底道琼斯指数低于25200点，那么相对于股市而言，特朗普经济学确实失败了。

Paul Minot · Psychiatrist at Maine General Health · 11h
Tammy McKinnon I have no doubt that this is what a majority of people believe. The problem is that those folks have absolutely zero understanding of the global economy. Neither do I, but at least I KNOW how ignorant I am. If Trump follows the polling numbers and dives into a trade war to "punish" China, it's likely we are all going to get a very painful education.

回Tammy，我毫不怀疑，这是大多数人所相信的。问题是，这些人对全球经济完全没有任何了解。我也不知道太多，但至少我知道自己有多无知。如果特朗普真是紧跟民意调查结果，投入贸易战来“惩罚”中国，我们很可能都会受到非常痛苦的教训。（烦躁，为毛这么多人要回这个Tammy蠢货呢？）

Emil Kaneti · 9h
Neal Levine China holds about 15% of our debt not 1/3 but your point is well taken. How did China acquire our debt? By running trade surpluses for many many years

回Neal，中国持有约15%的债务而不是1/3，但你的观点没错。中国是如何获得我们的债务？经济贸易顺差已经很多年了。

Robert Jackson · 9h
Neal Levine Incorrect. China holds 7.2% of US debt followed by Japan at 7%. 65% of US debt is held in the US.

回Neal，不对。中国持有美国7.2%的债务，其次是日本持有7%。65%的美国债务依旧是美国在持有。

Elizabeth Pengson · 8h
Tammy McKinnon 
|actually,China can survive without USA.. they have been dealing with other countries/continents to do tradfde for ages.. even countries like Switzerland which doesn't do trade with US have made deal with china.. meanwhile.. for US products.. china is our biggest market.. & it is with tha thug epopulation 1.2 plus billion.. 
the bottomline of t his fiasco.. don;t mess with people who practically invented global trade.. as they did with the SILK ROAD. from BC period.. this is what they know the best..

回Tammy，事实上，中国可以在没有美国的情况下生存。他们与其他国家/大陆做贸易已经有很长时间了……即使像瑞士这样不与美国贸易的国家也与中国达成了协议。与此同时，在美国的产品出口中...中国是我们最大的市场，那是一个有着十二亿人口的市场。
失败的底线就是不要惹那些实际上发明了全球贸易的人...他们从公元前时期就开始了丝绸之路...这是他们所知道的最成功的路线...

Phil Van Schepen · 3h
Emil Kaneti after you all comments here are just a waste of time. Congrats on intelligent discourse. 
The primary losers in a trade war would be agricultural providers.
The question is do we let farmers suffer to enforce intellectual property rights for manufacturers.
Macro vs micro.
Chinese influence on the stock market fluctuations are short term and therefore not a concern in the overall picture.
China cannot allow the US economy to tank as they hold so much of our debt. 
Intellectual property in the long run is more important than pork or corn.

Emil Kaneti你这里的所有评论只是浪费时间。祝贺你有很好理解力。贸易战的主要输家将是农产品供应者。问题是，我们是否要让农民为制造商争取知识产权而受苦。从宏观与微观来看。中国对股市影响力是短期的，因此在总体上不受关注。中国不能让美国经济陷入困境，因为他们持有我们这么多的债务。从长远来看，知识产权比猪肉或玉米更重要。

Jean Cassidy · UC Berkeley · 3h
Scott Henricks Thanks. Everyone seems to forget that we had a deal that would have allowed us to put pressure on China's trade deals with the help of neighboring countries -TPP. Trump took us out of it.

Scott Henricks，谢谢。似乎每个人都忘了，我们有一个协议，将允许美国针对中国的贸易向周边国家提供帮助——通过TPP施加压力。特朗普把我们带歪了。

Michael McKibbon · 19h +7
Idiot.

蠢货

Rebecca Hargens · 17h +10
Tammy, manufacturers in this country rely HEAVILY on components made in China. That is what has reduced the costs of just about everything. You want a computer with all parts made in the USA? Get ready to pay $3000 or more. You want a car with all parts made in the USA? You might want to start saving because your YUGO is about to cost what a Maserati does right now.
Trump has handed you a line and you took it, sinker and all. 
With $25/hour jobs being replaced with $11/hour jobs, and the cost of living not going down accordingly, this country will become China. Where we work for $5 hour and generations of family live under the same roof - not because they want to, but because they HAVE to. No one will be able to afford anything. The gap between the haves and have nots will become a gigantic chasm. 
Trump has already cost me a lot of money in my 401k. A lot. And there are millions out there who just lost a chunk of their retirement and have no way of making it up now. 
I second Michael's motion.

Tammy,在这个国家，制造商严重依赖中国制造的组件。这就是降低了一切成本的原因。你想要一台所有部件都是美国制造的电脑吗？准备支付3000美元或更多。你想要一辆美国制造零件的车吗？你可能得开始存钱了，因为你的YUGO成本和现在的玛莎拉蒂差不多。特朗普说了句话你就以为是全部的真相了。25美元/小时的工作被11美元/小时的工作所取代，但是生活不会相应地降低成本，这个国家就会变成中国。我们在那里的工作每小时只有五美元收入，好几代的人生活在同一个屋檐下——不是因为他们想，而是因为他们不得不这样做。没有人能买得起任何东西。富人和穷人之间的差距将会变成一个巨大的鸿沟。

Ed Peska · Solon High School · 17h
Rebecca Hargens ...Look at those wages you cite. Now explain why they are so high here, compared to China. The reason is, unions and the "collective bargaining" power of their members. IF unions did not have as much influence as they do, perhaps wages would not be so high, and instead of "needing" China to produce items for us, we could keep those jobs here instead.

回楼上，看见你引用的那些工资数据。现在解释了，比起中国，产品为什么在这里这么贵，。原因是工会和成员的“集体讨价还价”的力量。如果工会不具有相当的影响力，也许工资不会太高，也不会“需要”中国生产产品，对我们来说，我们可以把这些工作机会留着而不是送出去。

Michael Jimenez · University of Texas at San Antonio · 16h +3
With the market down 11% in the last two months, “Trump’s market” has averaged 10% growth in the past 16 months. 
Obama’s stock market averaged more than 14% annually over 8 years.
Look up S&P 500 annual returns.

过去两个月，市场下跌了11%，“特朗普的市场”在过去16个月平均增长了10%。奥巴马的股票市场在8年内平均每年超过14%。
查查标准普尔500的年回报收益。

Vikisha Waldkirch · University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee · 16h +1
Tammy McKinnon the things that China as done per your examples , are they exclusively China? Hasnt the US done the same thing to other nations, i.e CUBA.

Tammy ，那些你举的中国例子的事情，他们是存在于中国？美国到其他国家没有做同样的事情吗，比如古巴。

Scott Henricks · Mound, Minnesota · 16h +4
Tammy McKinnon Stock market went up under Trump on the promise of large corporate tax cuts. Later this year you will see what the cost of those tax cuts are and Republican spending spree will increase the deficit 80% this year alone and the deficit will be back over a trillion a year by next year.
Grats to your side, you got deficit back over a trillion a year and you didn't even need to crash the economy to do it. Well done idiot.
PS Trump inherited a record market, something you clowns seem to ignore.

Tammy，在特朗普承诺大公司减税的情况下，股市上涨。今年晚些时候，你会看到这些减税的代价是什么，共和党的支出狂潮只会增加80%的赤字，明年赤字将超过一兆。祝贺你，你有赤字超过一兆的年份了，你甚至不需要做什么让经济崩溃。做得好的白痴。
PS：特朗普是市场记录的接任者，你们这些小丑似乎忽略了这一点。

James Berry · Oregon State University · 14h
Ed Peska And people working for low wages would be unable to buy them.

穷人将失去购买力。

Lee Archer · 2h
Marc Raymond Marc Raymond as a matter of fact they did. Before collective bargaining and Henry Ford, American workers did not earn enough to buy the cars they were building. It wasn’t until Ford gave out $5/day wages ,( which compare to the prevailing 2.50/day wages was a humongous pay difference) that the workers could afford the cars they were building. So to bring back the jobs from China and build them at an affordable price, companies/shareholders will need to take a pay cut(ie less profit). Do you think that will happen? If not, then the price of cars will 
skyrocket like they did when they were first manufactured and most people will not be able to afford them again.

事实上是这样的。
在工会和亨利·福特谈判之前，美国工人的收入不足以购买他们正在建造的汽车。直到福特开出了5元/天的工资，（这和当时的2.50元/天工资相比，差别很大），工人们可以买得起他们正在建造的汽车。
因此，为了把工作从中国带回美国，并以合理的价格支付这些岗位薪酬，公司/股东们将需要进行减薪（即利润较低）。
你觉得这会发生吗？
如果不这样做的话，那么汽车的价格就会像他们最初制造的那样高得离谱，许多人都买不起。

Mike Cronin · USNA · 19h +1
So how do we stop the 500 billion a year drain on our economy. Sure there many who benefit from this situation, but the country as a whole loses badly. The cheap stuff we get to buy is like an addictive drug that destroys the economy.
Since we can’t control our budget deficit, we then borrow back the money we have sent to China, another element in our determined self destruction.
Thinking of our self as a world power and leader while this goes on is delusional.

那么，我们要如何阻止经济上每年5000亿的流失。
当然，有很多人受益于这种情况，但整个国家遭受了严重的损失。
我们买的便宜东西就像是一种会破坏经济的上瘾药物。
既然我们无法控制我们的预算赤字，那么我们只好再向中国借款，这是已经确定是我们自我毁灭中的另一项举动。
我们认为自己是一个世界强国和领导者，而这是一种妄想。

Steven Litvintchouk · Columbia University in the City of New York · 18h +2
Some things can't be fixed.
Businesses are flocking to China because their middle class is now bigger than America's. Business goes where the consumers are. And the Chinese middle class has more purchasing power relative to their cost of living than Americans do.
We absolutely have to stand up to Chinese abuses of the trade system. But after we've done all that, China will still be a major economic superpower.
Asia isn't going to magically go away no matter what America does.

有些事情是无法修复的。
企业蜂拥到中国，是因为现在对美国商业来说消费者在那里。中国中产阶级的购买力比美国人的购买力要高。我们必须坚决反对中国对贸易体系的滥用。但在我们做了能做的一切后，中国仍将是一个主要的经济大国。
不管美国做什么，亚洲都不会奇迹般地消失。

Brian Olafson · 17h +5
First off the $500 billion is Trumps number and as per usual it is wrong. The correct number is closer to $350billion. Second, that does not mean the US is losing $350 billion to China each year. The overall economic impact is significantly more complicated than the nominal trade deficit.

首先，5000亿美元是特朗普说的数字，和往常一样，这是错误的。正确的数字接近3500亿美元。第二，这并不意味着美国每年对中国损失3500亿美元。总体经济影响比名义贸易赤字要复杂得多。

Steven DeAmaral · Hankuk University of Foreign Studies · 14h +1
It doesn't destroy the economy. The article says it pretty well: trade balance is an arcane measure of who is "winning" in trade.

它不会破坏经济。这篇文章说得很好：贸易平衡是衡量谁在贸易中“获胜”的一种标准。

Steven Litvintchouk · Columbia University in the City of New York · 18h +4
Notice how the author of this article had no alternative suggestions as to what to do about Chinese abuses of the trade system, such as theft of intellectual property.
I dislike tariffs. But I'm enough of a realist to acknowledge that so far, nothing else has worked.
The time to turn the other cheek and ignore China's abuses is over. If you don't like tariffs, suggest some other response to China that would work.

请注意，这篇文章的作者对中国滥用贸易制度(如盗窃知识产权)提出的建议。我不喜欢关税。但我是一个现实主义者，得承认到目前为止，没有其他有效办法。对中国的滥用行为不能再视而不见。如果你们不喜欢关税，就想想对中国采取其他可行的应对措施。

Scott Henricks · Mound, Minnesota · 16h +6
TPP would have been a good start. Continue to support alternative energy research so we can develop better technology then the other guy. At the end of the day the best technology that can be mass produced wins the battle, not tariffs. Fund the EXIM bank to support more US exports, China is certainly funding their version of the same bank.
The clown in the White House shoots the country foot and then whines about how much the foot hurts.
Do you want more ideas because I could go all day.

TPP将是一个良好的开端。继续支持替代能源研究，这样我们就可以开发出比其他人更好的技术。最终，依靠能够大规模生产的科技会赢得这场战斗，而非关税。为EXIM银行提供资金以支持更多的美国出口，中国当然也会在为他们的类似银行提供资金。白宫的小丑开枪击中了国家的脚，然后大家齐齐抱怨脚有多痛。
你们想要更多的想法，我可以想一整天。

Ch Hoffman · Host of "Breakfast with Charles Hoffman" .. at A cereal comedy · 2m
if you weren't an "I love Trump even if he's a fukkin' moron ideologue", you'd realize that there is no "China cheats at everything" issue at all. China has a lower standard of living, and any product made in China will be priced lower when labor costs are a major component.
Don't even try to rationalize the rantings of your hero, the Pervert-in-Chief; it's not worth the effort

如果你不是“我爱特朗普，即使他是个愚蠢的白痴”当中的成员，你就会意识到，根本不存在“中国的所有都是作弊得来的”这种问题。中国的生活水平较低，当劳动力成本成为主要构成部分时，中国制造的任何产品的价格都会很便宜。
不要再试图为你们的英雄、变态首领的咆哮找借口了，这是不值得的。

Rebecca Hargens · 17h +3
WE ARE IN A TRADE WAR WITH CHINA (not Brazil, SK, Mexico, etc.). Trump will kill this country. Cost of products here in the USA will skyrocket because we rely on Chinese made components.

我们正在和中国进行贸易战(不是巴西，韩国，墨西哥等)。特朗普会杀死这个国家。美国的产品成本将飙升，因为我们依赖于中国制造的零部件。

Marc Raymond · Philadelphia, Pennsylvania · 14h +1
We're in 20 trillion dollars negative, we own nothing, we are selling our country away peice by peice to China........ And your solution is the status quo? What kind of liberal are you exactly? Lol

我们有20万亿美元负债，我们一无所有，我们正在把我们的国家卖给中国...。。。你的解决办法就是维持现状？你到底是什么样的自由主义者？

James Sullivan · Gonzaga University · 10h
It will all be worth it if we can put Walmart to the sword

如果我们能一剑砍了沃尔玛，这一切都是值得的。


Brian Olafson · 17h +1
I doubt Congress will let Trump advance his position any further. If they do they are as dumb as many think. What Trump has done so far is clumsy but not all that bad. The trade deficit, the real one, with China needs to be addressed as does the issue of intellectual property. Also, the article cites a $700 billion trade deficit which is factually wrong as the real number if about half that.

我怀疑国会会让特朗普进一步提升自己的地位。如果他们确实如大家所想的那样愚蠢。特朗普到目前为止所做的很笨拙，但并不是那么糟糕。和中国的贸易逆差是真正的贸易逆差，需要像对待知识产权问题一样加以解决。此外，该文章引用了7000亿美元的贸易赤字，事实上，如果真实数字大约是其一半，那么赤字数据就是错误的

James Lee · Owner at Self-Employed · 16h
Why scared? This is the exact reason why China keeps on stealing trade secrets and become a national security threat. 
I say take china on. They have more to lose than us. 
Why is it company have to pass knowledge transfer to do business in China?

为什么害怕？确切的原因是中国一直在窃取商业秘密，成为国家安全的威胁。
要我说接受中国的挑战。他们会比我们损失更多。
为什么公司要把知识产权转移到中国才能做生意？

Kevin Lenihan · Clark University · 16h +1
One more thing: the goal of 1930's tariffs was protectionism. The goal of Trump's tariffs is to obtain a better deal. The hope is that the tariffs are temporary, a tool to create the necessary leverage to get a better deal. It might not work, but it would help if liberals at least can understand the difference between 1930s tariffs and what Trump is attempting. God, does everything have to be explained to Lefties?

1930年关税的目标是保护。特朗普征收关税的目的是为了达成更好的协议。人们希望关税是暂时的，是一种创造必要杠杆以达成更好交易的工具。这可能行不通，自由派至少应该能够辨别上世纪30年代的关税与特朗普试图采取的措施之间的差异。天哪，所有的事都要向偏左的家伙解释吗？

Rolando Lucero II · ITSLP · 13h
sure, China will get a better deal

当然，中国将获得一个更好的交易

Kevin Lenihan · Clark University · 13h
Rolando Lucero II You base that statement on what?

楼上，你在说啥

Dominik Schenk · Pittsburg State University · 12h
Trump is too f***ing stupid to make a better deal. His reputation is a fraud
God, does everything have to be explained to the righties?

特朗普太蠢了，不可能做成更好的买卖。他是有名的骗子
上帝啊，一切都要向偏右的家伙解释吗？

Kevin Lenihan · Clark University · 11h
Dominik Schenk He might be too stupid. But who on the Left...or anywhere...has made a good deal for us with the Chinese? Did Obama even try?

楼上的，他可能太笨了点。但是谁左了…或者其他什么…只是为我们能和中国人做一笔好交易？奥巴马试过了吗？

James Sullivan · Gonzaga University · 10h
If Trump didn't lie all the time more people would trust him.

如果特朗普不一直说谎，会有更多的人信任他。

Douglas Lindsey · Colorado Mesa University · 16h
Any way you look at it China is winning the Trade War with US, the question really is how to we fight back?

不管你们怎么看中国与美国的贸易战的胜利，真正的问题是我们该如何反击？

Florence J. Juarez · 10h
"ending years of Chinese infringement of American intellectual property will not do much to ensure U.S. competitiveness or prosperity in the years to come."
No the author is just stating fact... something the poor Trumptards cannot understand. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle as much as you would like. The only way out of the pot is invest in automation / innovate. Stop wishing the 50s would come back.

然而，就算结束了多年来中国对美国知识产权的侵犯，对确保美国在未来几年的竞争力提升或经济繁荣都没有太大帮助
好吧，作者是实话实说，但是特朗普无法理解这东西。你不能凭喜好把妖怪放回瓶子里去。唯一的出路是投资自动化/创新行业。不要寄希望重回50年代的荣光了。

Walter Ziobro · 15h
No need for tariffs. The tax cut, which allowed US companies to repatriate their foreign earnings with lower taxes, is a much better approach. Let's let that have its full effect, first.

不需要加关税。减税政策，使美国公司以较低的税收返还其在国外的收入，这是一个更好的办法。我们应该先让它发挥全部作用。

Christopher Jones · Colorado Springs, Colorado · 14h
Qualcomm not going to broadcom is not really the worst, they did it for the wrong reasons, but blocking that deal WAS a good idea for maintaining a US company in a leadership position. Broadcom doesn't do R&D, they buy successful companies and then coast on their market segment dominance. Qualcomm actually DOES do R&D and that is a benefit for us as a country.

没被博通收购，这对高通还不是最糟糕的，他们动机不纯，阻挠这笔交易是为了维持美国公司处于领导地位。博通不做研发，他们各种收购成功的公司，然后占领他们的细分市场优势。高通公司确实是在做研发，这对我们整个国家来说是有好处的。

Humberto Effio · 31m
Today is power to control commodities and areas consolidated countries and their resources the winners today will. Be Australia. Argentina.brazil.countries with food. The USA power with Europe will impose more tariff to Russia Iran n.korea .japan will return to be second 
Economy with investing in resources already in place .chile Bolivia Peru
Mexico. Will be supply all to USA and Canada.

现今能控制住商品和地区的才是强权，巩固好国家及其资源，才能当赢家。澳大利亚，阿根廷，巴西，等国家盛产食物。美国强权与欧洲将对俄罗斯、伊朗、朝鲜征收更多关税。日本会重返第二。投资现有资源的经济。--智利、玻利维亚、秘鲁墨西哥。将全部供给美国和加拿大。