美国国家利益称：特朗普是正确的，美国不能再输了！ [美国媒体]

The conventional wisdom of the international expert class is that “you can't win a trade war.” What they really mean is that you can't win a trade war in a fair game . If all sides start in balance, the rules are the same for everyone, and no player has coercive power over any other, the winning strategy is for everyone to cooperate. Economics 101.

众所周知贸易战中大家常常说的一句话是:“贸易战中没有赢家。”这句话的真正意思是，你不能在一场公平的比赛里赢得一场贸易战。如果一开始各方实力平衡，规则对每个人都是一样的，没有哪个国家对其他国家拥有压倒性的力量，那么人人互相合作就是共赢的策略。经济学里的老东西了。

But if one country starts with a massive trade deficit, the existing rules are written to favor its opponents. And when the country with the trade deficit just happens to be the most powerful country in the world, it's safe to say that there are multiple paths to victory.

但是，如果一个国家一开始就存在巨大的贸易赤字，那么现有的规则就会对对手有利。当这个有贸易赤字的国家恰好是世界上最强大的国家时，可以肯定地说，胜利变得可以有多种途径。

Despite being widely ridiculed in the press, the homespun wisdom encapsulated in President Donald Trump's April 4 tweet that “When you’re already $500 Billion DOWN, you can’t lose!” is essentially correct. The only thing incorrect was the figure. The U.S. trade deficit was $568 billion in 2017, and that figure incorporates America's trade surplus in services. America's trade deficit in goods alone was a whopping $811 billion.

尽管在媒体上遭到了广泛的嘲笑，但唐纳德•特朗普总统在4月4日的推特中总结出的朴素智慧格言:“当你已经没了5000亿美元时，你不能再输了!”这句话基本上是正确的。唯一有些不正确的是数字。2017年美国的贸易赤字为5680亿美元，这个数字还包含了美国的贸易顺差。也就是说2017年仅美国的商品贸易赤字就高达8110亿美元。

The headlines on April 4 blamed Trump for a 350-point intraday fall in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. They neglected to credit Trump's for the fact that by the close of trading the Dow was up 610 points on the day. In fact, over the three months of Trump's “trade war” to date, the Dow has beenessentially flat (up 170 points).

4月4日的头条新闻将道琼斯工业平均指数盘中下跌350点归咎于特朗普。但他们忽略了事实，即在收盘时，道琼斯指数当天上涨了610点。事实上，在特朗普“贸易战”爆发的三个月里，道琼斯指数基本保持平稳(上涨170点)。

Nor is market volatility particularly high. It's now back at 2015–2016 levels, after a particularly calm 2017. That's right: Trump's first year in office war marked by historically low stock market volatility. All in all, the Dow has risen more than 30 percent since Election Day, 2018. Ah, the perils of using the market as a guide to politics.
Push or Pull

市场波动性也不是特别高。在经历了一个极度平稳的2017年之后，现在已经回到了2015-2016年的水平。这是正常的:特朗普就任总统的第一年股市波动率处于历史低位。总的来说，自特朗普就任总统以来，道琼斯指数已经上涨超过了30%。人们总喜欢把相应市场涨跌当作政策好坏的风向标。

Trump is right to push on trade. A simple return to anything resembling a balanced international trading system would result in massive gains for the United States. What presidential advisors Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross call the deficit drag depresses the American economy by about 3 percent overall. That is to say, if international trade were balanced, the American economy would be 3 percent larger than it is now.

特朗普推动贸易的做法是正确的。任何类似于平衡的国际贸易体系的回归，都会给美国带来巨大的收益。总统顾问彼得·纳瓦罗和威尔伯·罗斯所称的赤字拖累了整个美国经济大约3%。也就是说，如果国际贸易平衡，美国经济将比现在增长3%。

To be fair, there are lots of reasons why countries run trade deficits, and not all of them are bad. For example, the fact that foreigners want to invest in the dynamic U.S. economy pulls money in, which ultimately has to go somewhere. But it's wrong to say that a trade deficit doesn't matter at all. It all depends on the context.

公平地讲，各国存在贸易赤字的原因有很多，但并非所有的赤字都是坏的。例如，外国人想要投资美国经济，这一事实吸引了资金流入，而资金最终必将流出。但说贸易赤字根本不重要是错误的。这完全取决事实情况。

The United States has consistently run a trade deficit since 1976. The worst deficit of all time was in 2006, when it hit $762 billion. That was 5.5 percent of GDP, nearly double the 2.85 percent deficit recorded in 2017. The trade deficit shrank sharply during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) as consumers cut back, an “improvement” that was not at all a sign of strength. But the dramatic rise in the deficit between 2001 and 2006 didn't do the economy any favors, either.

自1976年以来，美国外贸就一直保持着赤字。有史以来最严重的贸易赤字发生在2006年，达到了7620亿美元。这相当于GDP的5.5%，几乎是2017年2.85%的赤字的两倍。全球金融危机期间，随着消费者削减支出，贸易赤字大幅减少，这一“改善”虽然不是经济增强的迹象。但2001年至2006年之间赤字的急剧上升显然也并没有给经济带来任何好处。

When trade flows change due to economic shocks, as in 2008–2009, the direction of causality is clear: the GFC caused a reduction in the U.S. trade deficit, and you can't give the government any credit for that. But sometimes trade flows are changed as a direct result of government policy, and when that happens the government really is pulling the strings.

当贸易势头因金融危机而改变时(如2008-2009年)，产生的因果关系显而易见:金融危机导致美国贸易赤字的减少，虽然这不能增加政府信用。但有的时候，贸易流向的变动是政府政策的直接结果，而当这种情况发生时，真的是有政府在背后搞鬼。

China's entry into the WTO in 2001 was one such policy intervention that dramatically revised the rules of the international trading game. Like the creation of NAFTA (1994) and the WTO (1995), it was an active intervention in the economy that drove up the U.S. trade deficit. As a result, economic growth that would have happened in the United States under the old rules went instead to China.

中国在2001年加入世贸组织就是这样一种政策干预，它极大地改变了国际贸易游戏规则。就像《北美自由贸易协定》(1994)和世贸组织(1995年)的建立一样，对经济的积极干预导致了美国的贸易逆差。结果，旧规则下的美国经济增长转向了中国。

In much the same way, if the Trump administration actively intervenes to tilt international trading rules back in America's favor, that will boost U.S. economic growth—at the expense of its trading partners. That's hard luck for Canada, Mexico, the European Union and (most of all) China. Depending on your point of view, it may not be right or fair. But that's the fact.

同样，如果特朗普政府积极干预，使国际贸易规则向美国倾斜，这将促进美国的经济增长，而损害其贸易伙伴的利益。这对加拿大、墨西哥、欧盟和(最重要的)中国来说都是不吉利的。在很多人的观点看来，它是不正确或不公平的。但这是事实。

Tit-for-tat

你来我往

Put under pressure by the Trump administration, America's trading partners are bound to squeal , and sure to mobilize Trump’s unpopularity against him. Truth be told, global trading rules are so complicated that it's virtually impossible to tell how level the playing field is, or which way it's tilted. But one thing seems certain: with a $568 billion trade deficit, the U.S. is not the overall beneficiary of the current rules.

在特朗普政府的压力下，美国的贸易伙伴肯定会大声吵闹，并肯定会煽动反对特朗普的势力。说实话，全球交易规则非常复杂，几乎不可能判断出这些规则的水平有多高，又或者它是如何倾斜的。但有一件事似乎是肯定的:美国有5680亿美元的贸易赤字，美国并不是现行规则的整体受益者。

The European Union and China have threatened the United States with tit-for-tat tariffs on iconic American products like Kentucky bourbon, Harley-Davidson and even fresh Maine lobsters. That may generate news headlines, but the simple fact is that Trump's potential tariff list is $151 billion longer than Angela Merkel's and $376 billion longer than Xi Jinping's. Europe and China can't win a trade war, and they know it.

欧盟和中国对美国标志性产品如肯塔基波本威士忌、哈雷戴维森甚至缅因州新鲜龙虾征收报复性的关税，威胁美国。这些事情登上了新闻头条，但事实是，美国的潜在关税清单比德国的要高出1510亿美元，比中国的要高出376亿美元。欧洲和中国不可能赢得贸易战，他们知道这一点。

If Trump is smart, he won't use his bargaining leverage just to sell more bourbon and lobster, popular as that might be in Kentucky and Maine. He'll use it to safeguard and expand America's technological lead. Amidst all the talk of American decline, people seem to forget just how much the U.S. leads Europe and Asia in high technology. That's the real foundation of America's future prosperity.

如果特朗普是个聪明人，那他不会用贸易战手段来卖出更多的波本威士忌和龙虾，这在肯塔基州和缅因州可能很流行。他将用它来保护和扩大美国的技术领先地位。在所有有关美国药丸的讨论中，人们似乎忘记了美国在高科技领域的领先地位。这才是美国未来繁荣的真正保障。

The Trump administration has repeatedly used the authority of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to block direct Chinese purchases of American technology—and rightly so. In the brewing trade war with China, the administration could go further to rein in illegal Chinese practices like forced technology transfer and outright technology theft .

特朗普政府一再利用美国外国投资委员会的权威，阻止中国直接购买美国技术——这是正确的。在与中国酝酿的贸易战中，美国政府可能会进一步遏制中国的非法行为，比如强制技术转让和直接盗窃技术。

Trump could also pressure the European Union to roll back harsh data privacy rules that unfairly disadvantage American internet companies. China has a long history of directly blocking American companies from accessing the Chinese internet. Now the European Union seems intent on following China's lead through seemingly even-handed regulations that disproportionately affect foreign firms—nearly all of them American.

特朗普还可能向欧盟施压，要求其撤销苛刻的数据隐私规定，这些规定对美国互联网公司构成了不公平的劣势。长期以来，中国一直直接阻止美国公司访问中国互联网。现在，欧盟似乎有意效仿中国的做法，通过看似公平的法规来限制外国企业——几乎所有的外国企业都是美国企业。

American foreign policy has long been dominated by people who seemed to care more about being admired for their good works than about getting the best deal for the American people. That yearning for external validation has clearly been thrown to the wind. But being tough on trade is not enough by itself.

长期以来，美国的外交政策一直被那些似乎更关心自己的出色表现被民众所称道的人所主导而非想为美国人民争取最佳利益，对外界评论显然已被抛诸脑后的人所主导。但对贸易一味的采取强硬态度是不够的。

To win a trade war, the Trump team also has to play smart. Given all the weapons in at their disposal and all the advantages on their side, they should be able to win a trade war without a fight, the way Reagan beat the Soviet Union without firing a shot. With Europe in political turmoil and China on the verge of economic meltdown , a burst of presidential bluster might be all it takes for America to win on trade.

要赢得贸易战，特朗普团队也必须表现得聪明。考虑到他们拥有的所有武器和他们这一方的所有优势，他们应该能够不战而胜地打赢一场贸易战，就像里根一枪不开就能打败苏联一样。欧洲正处于政治动荡之中，中国正处于经济崩溃的边缘，美国要想在贸易上取胜，可能只需要总统震臂高呼一声就够了。