经济学家：在贸易战中中国有可能限制进入市场，打乱供应链 [美国媒体]

China is unlikely to take trade diktats from President-elect Donald Trump and instead use ample tools from multilateral trade rules to financial resources to fight back, a leading economist said.

某知名经济学家称，中国不大可能接受美国新当选总统特朗普在贸易方面提出的苛刻条款，并将使用从多边贸易规则到金融资源的各种充足工具进行反击。

"We will see some sort of action and the risk is that even small actions—given that the China may push back very hard—could very quickly escalate into a tit-for-tat battle that erupts into a trade war," Cornell University economist Eswar Prasad told CNBC.

康奈尔大学经济学家Eswar Prasad对CNBC表示，“我们将会看到特朗普政府的某些举动，但即使是很小的动作，也存在着中国可能进行强烈反击，也可能很快升级成为一个以牙还牙的战斗，最终爆发成贸易战的风险”。

"The notion that the U.S. needs to push back against unfair trade is something that is crucial for Trump to establish some credibility with some actions."
-Eswar Prasad, Cornell University economist

“关于美国需要与不公平贸易做斗争的想法其实是因为特朗普需要通过做出某些举动来获得民众信任，这对他来说很重要”
-康奈尔大学经济学家Eswar Prasad

Already a verbal sparring war has carried on in the transition to Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20.

在特朗普1月20日就职之前的这段过渡期内，一场口水仗就已经开始了。

This week, Trump's pick ofRobert Lighthizer, an official in the Reagan administration and harsh critic of China's trade practices, to be his chief trade negotiator, also caught Beijing's official notice in standard diplomatic language at a daily briefing in Beijing by the foreign ministry spokesman.

本周，特朗普提名Robert Lighthizer为首席贸易代表，他曾在前里根政府里任职，也是中国贸易实践的尖锐批评者。这也在北京举行的外交部每日例行发布会上引起了外交部新闻发言人的注意。

"As has been repeated multiple times and proven by facts, China-U.S. economic cooperation is in its essence for mutual benefit and win-win results," China's foreign ministry said in a statement released late Wednesday.

中国外交部在周三晚间发表声明表示，“我们此前已多次说过，并且这已经被事实证明，中美经贸合作的本质是互利共赢。”

"After years of development, China and the U.S. have been closely bonded by converging interests. For issues that crop up in our economic relations, proper solutions shall be found on the basis of mutual respect and equal treatment. China and the U.S. should work together to ensure the sound and steady development of bilateral economic ties, as this serves the common interests of the two countries and peoples."

“经过多年的发展，中美之间已经形成了联系紧密的利益纽带。对于双方经贸关系中存在的问题，双方应在相互尊重、平等相待的基础上寻找妥善的解决办法。中美双方应共同努力来维护两国经贸关系的稳定发展，这符合两国和两国人民的共同利益。”



Matt Mawson | Getty Images
So what can China do if the diplomatic route doesn't pan out?

那么如果外交这条路不管用了，中国又能做些什么呢？

As the second largest holder of U.S. Treasurys, China has a lot of leverage against the world's largest economy, but it's unlikely to use that as a tool against the U.S. since there are few other options for its money, said Prasad.

Prasad称，作为美国国债的第二大持有国，中国对美国这个世界第一大经济体有着巨大的影响力，但是中国不大可能将其用作与美国对抗的工具，因为可供中国的钱作的选择很少很少。

"The far more potent weapon that the Chinese have is to use either overt or covert measures to restrict the access of American companies to the Chinese market, which is still a pretty fast growing market," he told CNBC's Squawk Box.

Prasad表示，“中国所拥有的更有效的武器是，使用公开或者隐蔽的手段来限制美国公司进入中国市场，这个增速还是挺快的市场。”

"(They can also) disrupt the supply chains that many Americans manufacturers have come to rely on and of which China is a critical component, so that really is one way China can inflict pain on U.S. businesses and on the U.S. economy," he added.

“（中国也可以）打乱许多美国生产商已经依赖的供应链，在这一供应链上中国是关键的组成部分，所以这确实是中国可以伤害美国企业和美国经济的一种办法。” 他补充道。

"This could quickly backfire on Mr. Trump and the U.S.economy."

“这将导致特朗普先生和美国经济搬起石头砸自己的脚。”


Reddit评论：

[–]TheMamba42 8 指标 1 天前
There is no reasonable scenario in which we outlast China in a trade war.

我们能在贸易战中比中国挺得更久这样的剧本一个合理的都找不到啊。

[–]toomanyjoyrides 6 指标 1 天前
We would probably "win" at the cost of unnecessarily fucking our economy.

（回复上一贴）我们可能能”赢“，代价是毫无必要的摧毁我们的经济。

[–]dolphins3 6 指标 1 天前
Don't forget turning the USA into an international pariah.

（回复上一贴）别忘了将美国变成一个国际唾弃的贱民。

[–]TomoNews -2 指标 1 天前
How do you figure exactly?
China's domestic economy is a sham. It's only real economy is its export sector, and most of those goods go to the US. If the US stops buying from China, then China is screwed. Not the other way around.

（回复首帖）你怎么想的？
中国的经济就是虚假的繁荣。它真实的经济水平就是出口那部分，而且大部分的货物都是出口到美国。如果美国停止从中国购买东西，中国就完蛋了，无路可走。

 [–]Treci_the_Dragon 3 指标 1 天前
 While are close to correct on their domestic economy, there are a few reasons why it would hurt the US a lot if we go to a trade war with China.
 1) they hold the largest share of US debt on the international market. While it could be argued with China's manipulation of their currency we owe  them less then we should, it is still a lot.
2) They are one of the largest countries on the planet. They have the largest army (numerically), have nuclear capabilities, and hold veto powers on the UN Security Council. Getting in a pissing competition is bad with them is bad for the US, especially when the world is shifting more and more to the Pacific.
 3) Our allies would loath us. You have to remember that the US isn't the only nation China deals with. If there is a trade war, counties will pick sides. This would cause turmoil on the global economy and the US will be seen as the instigators (due to Trump's actions and what he said).
 While you are correct that in the long term the US would "win" this trade war (stronger middle class in the US, more variety of resources in the US, more options for the US to go to). That said, the amount of short term damage would not be worth the long term victory at this current moment.

（回复上一贴）不管他们的经济是否真实，确实能找到一些为什么我们和中国打贸易战将伤害美国的原因。
（1）他们在国际市场上有最大规模的美国国债。当然可以争议的是中国操纵汇率导致我们欠他们的钱变少了，但还是很多啊。
（2）他们是地球上最大的国家之一。他们在数量上有着最大规模的军队，有核武器，在联合国安理会有否决权。和他们搞情绪化的竞争对双方都不好，特别是当世界的重心越来越转向太平洋的时候。
（3）我们的盟友们可能不会追随我们。你得明白美国并不是中国唯一有联系的国家。如果贸易战打起来了，其他国家就要站队。这将引起全球经济的混乱，美国将被视为一个煽动者（考虑到特朗普的所作所为）。尽管你说的美国从长期来看会”赢得”贸易战是正确的（美国中产阶级更多，美国资源种类更丰富，美国的选择更多），但是在现阶段，短期的损失就已经无法弥补长期的胜利。

 [–]TomoNews 1 指标 15小时前
（引用上一回复）
【They hold the largest share of US debt on the international market.】

“他们在国际市场上持有最大规模的美国国债”

This is factually incorrect. Japan holds the largest share. Not China. Also, China floating its currency freely is key to narrowing the trade deficit that produced those large Treasury holdings in the first place.

这是错的，日本是最大规模的持有者，不是中国。中国通过自由浮动人民币汇率就是缩小贸易赤字以产生这些巨额美国国债的关键因素。

【They are one of the largest countries on the planet.】

“他们是地球上最大的国家之一”

 Doesn't mean anything. India is also very large.

毫无意义，印度也很大。

【They have the largest army (numerically)】

“他们在数量上有着最大规模的军队”

 Again, doesn't mean anything. They have no power in the sea or in the air or ability to project themselves that far beyond their own shores.

还是毫无意义。他们在海空方面毫无能力，也没有离开他们自己海岸的投射能力。

【especially when the world is shifting more and more to the Pacific.】

“特别是当世界的重心越来越转向太平洋的时候”

 This is exactly why China needs to be confronted. The US guarantees security in the Pacific and China wants to replace the US as the  military power in the region.

这就是为什么我们需要和中国对抗。美国保证太平洋的安全，然后中国想要把美国在此处的军力取而代之。

【If there is a trade war, counties will pick sides.】

“如果贸易战打起来了，其他国家就要站队”

Are we in a uni-polar world (with the US as the leader?) or multi-polar world? China is trying to assert itself globally. Xi Jinping is trying to set himself up as rule for life in China. The days of China as a "frenemy" is coming to close.

我们活在一个单极世界（美国是唯一领袖）还是一个多极世界？中国在全球到处主张权利。习近平正在试图在中国搞终身统治。中国作为亦敌亦友关系的日子马上就要到来了。

[–]DBDude 2 指标 23小时前
They already restrict access to their markets. They have very burdensome regulations that limit foreign car sales to only a percent or two of the market. If you want to avoid all of the high tariffs and taxes and other red tape, you have to partner with a Chinese company, give them 50% ownership of the business, and share all of your technology with them (which means they'll be making duplicates of your car in another plant within a year, undercutting your sales).

他们已经对自己的市场设置也严格的进入标准。他们有很多烦人的法规来限制外国的汽车只能占据1%或2%的市场份额。如果你想要避免所有的高关税和各种税负以及繁文缛节，你就得找一个中国公司作为合作伙伴，给他们50%的股份，把你所有的科技成果分享给他们（这意味着他们一年内就可以在其他工厂里复制你的汽车，掏空你的销量）