如果特朗普真的向中國加收關稅

Donald Trump has proposed a 45 percent tariff onimports from China, on the theory that this wouldprotect American jobs and promote Americanbusiness.

唐納德·特朗普(Donald Trump)建議對來自中國的進口產(chǎn)品收取45%的關稅，理由是有助于保住美國的工作機會，促進美國商業(yè)發(fā)展。

What’s more likely, though, is that the new tariffswould set off a cascade of global economicconsequences, mostly negative.

然而，更有可能發(fā)生的情況是，這一新關稅標準會帶來一系列大多為負面的全球性經(jīng)濟影響。

Trade between China and the United States — which reached $598 billion in 2015 — hasgenerated large economic benefits for Americans. Manufacturing many goods in China, whethersneakers or smartphones, has kept their prices lower than they would be if made here. That’sbeen a boon to American consumers, especially those with less money.

中美貿(mào)易的規(guī)模2015年已達5980億美元，為美國人帶來了巨大的經(jīng)濟利好。不管是運動鞋還是智能手機，企業(yè)將很多商品拿到中國生產(chǎn)，使其售價比在美國生產(chǎn)更低。這對美國消費者來說是種福利，尤其是對手上錢比較少的消費者而言。

But more and more, economists are also recognizing a downside to free trade. Competition fromChina and other low-wage emerging economies has severely hurt some American workers. Onestudy figures that the United States lost at least two million jobs between 1999 and 2011because of Chinese imports. To many people, Mr. Trump’s solution may seem to make sense:Restrict those imports, save jobs and support American business.

不過，經(jīng)濟學家們也日漸認識到自由貿(mào)易的負面影響。來自中國等低人工成本的新興經(jīng)濟體的競爭，嚴重影響了一些美國勞動者的生計。據(jù)一項研究統(tǒng)計，因中國進口商品影響，美國在1999至2011年間至少損失了200萬個就業(yè)機會。在不少人看來，特朗普提出的解決之道似乎有道理：限制這些進口產(chǎn)品，保住工作機會，支持美國企業(yè)。

But if there were a 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods, at least part of that would probably bepassed onto consumers in the form of higher prices. Americans would end up buying fewerChinese things, and fewer things from anywhere else.

不過，如果對中國商品收取45%的關稅，其中至少有部分會通過更高的物價轉嫁到消費者身上。結果是，美國人會購買更少的中國商品，同時也購買更少的其他商品。

Shrinking sales of Chinese products would generally hurt American businesses and workers. Aproduct labeled “Made in China” is not necessarily 100 percent Chinese, since many goods areassembled in China with parts from the United States and elsewhere. Sluggish purchases ofthese so-called Chinese products would reduce the sales of their American components, too.

中國產(chǎn)品銷售萎縮，會在整體上給美國企業(yè)和勞動者帶來傷害。打著“中國制造”標簽的商品不見得都是中國的，因為也有許多產(chǎn)品是用來自美國和其他國家的零部件在中國組裝而成。所謂的“中國產(chǎn)品”銷售疲軟，也會減少美國零部件的銷售。

For this reason and others, quite a lot of the money spent on Chinese goods actually ends up inthe wallets of Americans. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco figured that 55cents of every $1 spent by an American shopper on a “Made in China” product goes to theAmericans selling, transporting and marketing that product. Suppressing Chinese importswould harm shopkeepers and truck drivers.

正是由于這樣的原因，花在中國商品上的大量資金最后實際上是進了美國人的腰包。舊金山聯(lián)邦儲備銀行(Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco)的一項研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，美國消費者在“中國制造”的商品上花費的每一美元，都有55%落到了銷售、運輸和為這種產(chǎn)品做推廣的美國人手中。限制中國進口商品，將會損害美國店主和卡車司機的利益。

In fact, making Chinese-made goods more expensive would ripple through American shoppingmalls. An extra $20 for, say, children’s clothing from China is $20 not spent on a new baseballglove for a child, or a birthday gift for a grandmother. A tariff on China would dent the sales ofall kinds of products, even those made in the United States.

事實上，中國制造的商品價格上漲帶來的影響，還會波及美國各大購物中心。比如，為一件來自中國的童裝多花20美元，可能會導致一個美國家庭為孩子少買一副新的棒球手套，或為祖母少買一件生日禮物。對中國增收關稅，會影響各種產(chǎn)品的銷售，包括在美國生產(chǎn)的那些。

It seems likely that such a tariff would burden American consumers while doing little to createjobs for them. Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Sean Lowry at the Peterson Institute for InternationalEconomics, studying the impact of a 35 percent tariff imposed on Chinese tire imports byWashington in 2009, found that American consumers had to spend an extra $1.1 billion ontires, while the tariff protected no more than 1,200 jobs. About $900,000 for every job saved,in other words.

而且這項關稅在給美國消費者帶來負擔的同時，似乎也不會對創(chuàng)造工作機會產(chǎn)生太大助益。針對華盛頓在2009年對中國輪胎產(chǎn)品收取35%關稅這一決策所產(chǎn)生的影響，彼得森國際經(jīng)濟研究所(Peterson Institute forInternational Economics)的加里·克萊德·赫夫鮑爾(Gary Clyde Hufbauer)和肖恩·勞里(Sean Lowry)曾做過一項研究，結果發(fā)現(xiàn)美國消費者不得不為此在購買輪胎上多花11億美元，與此同時這項關稅卻只保住了不超過1200個工作崗位。換句話說，我們?yōu)檫@每個工作崗位付出的代價大約為90萬美元。

A big tariff would also harm China. Depressing its exports to the United States would dealanother blow to an economy already enduring its worst slowdown in 25 years. In the longerterm, increasing the cost of doing business in China would probably prompt manufacturers ofbasic consumer items to consider moving out of China.

收取高額關稅也會損害中國的利益。抑制中國對美出口，會讓一個本就遭遇25年來最嚴重的增速放緩的經(jīng)濟體雪上加霜。從長遠看，在中國做生意的成本增加，可能會促使基本消費品的生產(chǎn)商考慮將生產(chǎn)線撤離中國。

That process is already underway. As the Chinese economy has advanced, wages of its workershave risen. A recent survey by the Japan External Trade Organization found that a Chinesefactory worker earns $424 a month — the highest salary in developing Asia. That has causedmany companies producing labor-intensive goods, like clothing or electronics, to shift factoriesfrom China to other countries or to diversify their sources of supply to keep costs down.

這個過程已經(jīng)開始了。隨著中國經(jīng)濟水平提高，勞動者工資也不斷上漲。日本貿(mào)易振興機構(Japan ExternalTrade Organization)最近的一項調(diào)查顯示，中國工廠員工的人均工資達到了每月424美元(約合2740元人民幣)，在亞洲的發(fā)展中國家里是最高的。這導致生產(chǎn)服裝、電子元件等勞動密集型產(chǎn)品的企業(yè)，將工廠從中國轉到了其他國家，或使其供貨來源多樣化，以繼續(xù)保持低廉的生產(chǎn)成本。

Though higher costs in China might prompt some companies to move production back to theUnited States, a more plausible destination would be other emerging economies with lowercosts. A factory worker earns, on average, $230 a month in India, $185 in Vietnam and $100 inBangladesh, according to the Japanese survey.

盡管中國的生產(chǎn)成本增加，有可能會促使一些企業(yè)將其生產(chǎn)環(huán)節(jié)移回美國，但它們還有一個更合理的選擇，即將生產(chǎn)轉移到成本更低的其他新興國家。上述日本機構的調(diào)查數(shù)據(jù)顯示，印度工廠員工的平均工資是每月230美元，越南是185美元，在孟加拉國則是100美元。

Foxconn, the Taiwan-based company that assembles iPhones in China for Apple, announcedlast year that it would build as many as 12 new factories in India. That means your nextsmartphone or pair or bluejeans would more likely be made in Mumbai than in Minneapolis.

富士康是一家臺灣企業(yè)，在中國大陸為蘋果公司組裝iPhone。該公司去年宣布將在印度新建至多12座工廠。這意味著你的下一部智能手機或者下一條牛仔褲很有可能不是在明尼阿波利斯生產(chǎn)的，而是在孟買。

And the Chinese government’s response would probably be tariffs of its own on Americangoods and services rather than lowering barriers for American companies doing business inChina. It moved quickly to retaliate for the tariff on Chinese tires with punitive duties onAmerican products. Because the Chinese market has become critical for many Americancompanies — whether Apple, Starbucks or Boeing — any steps taken by the Chinesegovernment to curtail their ability to operate in China would be bad news for them.

中國政府的反應很可能不是降低美國公司在中國開展業(yè)務的障礙，而是對美國商品和服務征收關稅。中國輪胎被征收的時候，它就迅速采取行動，對美國產(chǎn)品征收懲罰性關稅。由于中國逐漸成為很多美國企業(yè)——無論是蘋果、星巴克，還是波音——的關鍵市場，中國政府采取的任何削弱它們在中國的運營能力的措施，對它們而言都是壞消息。

Mr. Trump’s tariff proposal addresses a real and legitimate concern about the effect ofcompetition from low-wage countries on American workers. But that doesn’t mean it’s going tosolve the problem — and it could create even more.

低工資國家確實給美國勞動者帶來了競爭壓力，特朗普關稅提議針對的這個關注點是真實的、正當?shù)摹５?，這并不意味著這項建議可以解決問題——它反而有可能帶來更多問題。