作者：Nobel Ding
摘要： 在支持自由贸易几十年后，美国在2018年提高了进口关税，并对主要贸易伙伴（主要是中国）进行报复。
在支持自由贸易几十年后，美国在2018年提高了进口关税，并对主要贸易伙伴（主要是中国）进行报复。毫无疑问，特朗普不仅是在与中国对抗，也在挑战亚当·斯密，他是国家干预经济的坚定反对者。他认为，自由贸易不仅使人们获得经济利益，也有利于不同国家人民的团结（Smith, 1776）。从贸易战的初步结果来看，在美国对中国实施的孤立和经济制裁中，美国和中国都是输家。虽然特朗普一再坚持认为是中国在支付关税，但事实并非如此。中国的出口价格并没有下降，这意味着关税正落在美国消费者和公司身上（Krugman, 2019）。与中国合作而不是孤立和制裁会给美国带来更多好处。
After supporting free trade for decades, the United States raised import tariffs in 2018 and retaliated against major trading partners (mainly China). There is no doubt that Trump is not only confronting China but also challenging Adam Smith, who was a staunch opponent of state intervention in the economy. He believed that free trade not only enabled people to gain economic benefits but also benefited the unity of people from different countries (Smith, 1776). Judging from the preliminary results of the trade war, both the US and China are losers in the isolation and economic sanctions imposed by the US against China. Although Trump has repeatedly insisted that it is China who is paying the tariffs, it is not true. Export prices in China have not gone down, which means that tariffs are falling on American consumers and companies (Krugman, 2019). Cooperation with China rather than isolation and sanctions will bring more benefits to the United States.
近代以来的商人资本主义之后，人们对战争的根源有完全不同的看法。其中，亚当·斯密（1776）提出的绝对优势理论为国家的发展确立了最有效的经济方法。斯密认为，两国应该相互出口具有绝对优势的产品，通过自由贸易实现“互利共赢”，而不是战争和掠夺。在斯密之后，李嘉图（1817）进一步发展了比较优势理论，以证明经济方法的有效性。李嘉图认为，两个国家之间贸易的基础是生产力的相对差异。每个国家都可以出口具有比较优势的产品，进口具有比较劣势的产品，从而实现有利于两国的国际分工。斯蒂格利茨（2014）在斯密和李嘉图的理论基础上，进一步提出了动态比较优势理论，认为对经济增长和国际贸易至关重要的不是静态比较优势，而是动态比较优势。动态优势的重点是“禀赋”，即学习和创新的能力。学习和创新能力的提高可以演变和发展动态比较优势。在目前的中美贸易摩擦过程中，美国用传统的、静态的比较优势逻辑来考察比较优势的动态演变。这个过程的问题是缺乏对时代的开拓性考虑。
After the merchant capitalism in modern ages, people have completely different views on the root causes of war. Among them, the theory of absolute advantage proposed by Adam Smith (1776) established the most effective economic method for the development of the country. Smith believed that the two countries should export products with absolute advantages to each other, to achieve "mutual benefit and win-win" through free trade instead of war and plunder. After Smith, Ricardo (1817) further developed the theory of comparative advantage to demonstrate the effectiveness of economic methods. Ricardo believes that the basis of trade between two countries is the relative difference in productivity. Each country can export products with comparative advantages and import products that are at a comparative disadvantage, thereby realizing an international division of labour that is beneficial to both countries. Stiglitz (2014), based on the theories from Smith and Ricardo, further put forward the theory of dynamic comparative advantage, – arguing that what is vitally important for economic growth and international trade is not a static comparative advantage, but a dynamic comparative advantage. Dynamic advantage focuses on the ‘endowment’ which is the ability to learn and innovate. The improvement of learning and ability to innovate can evolve and develop dynamic comparative advantages. In the current U.S.-China trade friction process, the U.S. uses the traditional, static logic of comparative advantages to examine the dynamic evolution of comparative advantages. The problem of the process is the lack of pioneering consideration of times.
大量的实证研究表明，对外贸易可以促进经济增长。Coe和Helpman（1995）认为，对外贸易刺激了技术进步，增加了产出，从而促进了经济增长。他们通过数学模型证明了经济增长和全球贸易之间的正相关关系。Connolly（1997）的进一步研究发现，对外贸易通过促进国内的模仿和技术创新，达到了促进经济增长的目的。Weinstein和Lawrence（1999）对日本、韩国、美国和其他国家的相关数据进行了定量分析，得出的结论是对外贸易刺激了劳动生产率的提高，是经济增长的主要原因之一。也有研究支持贸易战中没有赢家的论点。Steinbock（2018）指出，在这场贸易战中，美国和中国的GDP将分别下降0.8%和0.4%。同时，由于中国的出口利润较低，中国可以很容易地将出口资源转移到其他地方或用于国内消费和投资，这意味着贸易战将对美国产生更大的影响（Ng，2020）。
A large number of empirical studies have shown that foreign trade can promote economic growth. Coe and Helpman (1995) believed that foreign trade stimulated technological progress, increased output, and thus promoted economic growth. They proved through mathematical models the positive correlation between economic growth and global trade. Further research by Connolly (1997) found that foreign trade achieves the purpose of promoting economic growth by promoting domestic imitation and technological innovation. Weinstein and Lawrence (1999) used quantitative analysis on relevant data from Japan, South Korea, the United States, and other countries to conclude that foreign trade stimulates the improvement of labour productivity and is one of the main reasons for economic growth. There are also studies supporting the argument that there is no winner in a trade war. Steinbock (2018) indicated that the GDP of the United States and China will fall by 0.8% and 0.4% respectively in this trade war. Also, due to China's low export profits, China can easily transfer export resources elsewhere or towards domestic consumption and investment, meaning the trade war will have a greater impact on the United States (Ng, 2020).
在特朗普政府挑战经济学的基本常识，获得中美贸易战的失败后，Amiti等人（2019）发现，加大贸易保护力度后，美国的中间产品和最终产品的价格急剧上升，美国的供应链网络正在发生巨大的变化，进口供应的品种减少，整个关税已经转嫁到国内产品价格。因此，关税的影响完全落在国内消费者和进口商身上。Fajgelbaum等人（2019）也发现，关税所针对的进口商品的价格并没有下降，这意味着关税完全转嫁到了含税价格上。这导致购买进口商品的美国消费者和公司损失了510亿美元，相当于GDP的0.27%。在考虑到关税收入和国内生产者收入后，实际收入损失总额为72亿美元，占GDP的0.04%。
After the Trump administration challenged basic common sense in economics and gained the defeat of the trade war between the US and China, Amiti et al. (2019) found that after increasing trade protection, the prices of intermediate and final products in the United States have risen sharply, the US supply chain network is undergoing tremendous changes, the variety of imported supply of has decreased, and the entire tariffs have been passed on to the domestic product price. Therefore, the impact of tariffs entirely falls on domestic consumers and importers. Fajgelbaum et al. (2019) also found that the price of imported goods targeted by tariffs did not decrease, which means that tariffs were completely passed on to tax-included prices. This resulted in the loss of US $51 billion to American consumers and companies purchasing imported goods, which amounts to 0.27% of GDP. After accounting for tariff income and domestic producer income, the total actual income loss was US $7.2 billion, or 0.04% of GDP.
关税对美国经济的消极影响是显而易见的。首先，更高的关税将影响消费者的支出。Nicita（2009）认为，当进口国提高进口关税时，会导致进口商品的价格上涨，使国内市场的商品价格上升。Marchand（2012）发现，关税变化和工资收入变化有负相关。Cavallo等人（2019）的研究表明，特朗普政府对中国征收的大部分关税最终会落在美国消费者身上。其次，征收关税将影响企业对全球价值链的参与。Bustos（2011）认为，增加中间产品的关税会提高其价格，这势必会增加国内企业最终产品的生产成本，对这些最终产品的出口产生不利影响，从而遏制国内企业的全球生产，减少企业对全球价值链的参与。第三，从制造业的就业来看，贸易战不可能给美国带来更多的本地就业机会。Li等人(2019)对美国双边和单边贸易保护主义政策所做的模拟显示，随着贸易战的升级，商品价格上涨将促进消费从制造业向服务业的转化，这将使美国失去更多的制造业就业机会。
The negative impacts of tariffs on U.S. economy are obvious. First, higher tariffs will affect consumer spending. Nicita (2009) believes that when the importing country raises import tariffs, it will cause the price of imported goods to rise and increase the price of goods in the domestic market. Marchand (2012) found that tariff changes and wage income changes have a negative relationship. Research by Cavallo et al.(2019) show that most of the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on China will eventually fall on American consumers. Second, the imposition of tariffs will affect companies' participation in the global value chain (GVC). Bustos (2011) believes that increasing the tariff on intermediate products will increase their prices, which will inevitably increase the production costs of the final goods by domestic enterprises, which will adversely affect the export of those final goods and thereby curb the global production of domestic enterprises and reduce the corporate participation in the GVC. Third, in terms of employment in manufacturing, the trade war is unlikely to bring more local employment opportunities to the United States. Simulation done by Li et al.(2019) of the U.S. bilateral and univariate trade protectionist policies shows that with the escalation of the trade war, higher commodity prices will promote the conversion of consumption from manufacturing to service industries, which will cost the United States more manufacturing jobs.
中美之间长期存在的巨大贸易逆差是美国发动贸易战的主要原因之一（Chong and Li, 2019）。然而，征收关税以减少中国对美国的出口贸易逆差是不可能成功的（Hosain等，2019）。美国的贸易逆差在20世纪90年代末开始增加，并在2005年左右稳定下来。因此，中国不可能是美国贸易逆差飙升的原因（Huang，2019）。克鲁格曼（2019）也提到，在特朗普任期内，美国整体贸易逆差没有减少，反而增加，从2016年的5440亿美元增加到2019年10月的6910亿美元。Wang等人（2020）的研究表明，全球产业链分工造成的国家间中间产品贸易流动是中国对美贸易顺差高的重要原因；传统的贸易总额统计严重高估了中国对美贸易的顺差。
The long and significant trade deficit between China and the United States is one of the main reasons for the United States to launch a trade war (Chong and Li, 2019). However, imposing tariffs to reduce China's export trade deficit with the United States is unlikely to succeed (Hosain et al., 2019). The U.S. trade deficit began to increase in the late 1990s and stabilized around 2005. Therefore, China cannot be the reason for the soaring U.S. trade deficit (Huang, 2019). Krugman (2019) also mentioned that during Trump's tenure, the overall US trade deficit has not decreased but increased, from US$544 billion in 2016 to US$691 billion as of October 2019. Wang et al. (2020) have shown that the flow of intermediate goods trade between countries caused by the division of labour in the global industrial chain is an important reason for China’s high trade surplus with the United States; traditional gross trade statistics have seriously overestimated China’s trade surplus in its trade with the United States.
回顾历史，过去的贸易战大多造成双方的损失。1930年，胡佛签署了《斯穆特·霍利关税法》，对2万多种进口商品征收高额关税，最终导致1929年至1934年全球贸易缩水约66%。美国也损失惨重；其国内生产总值一度下降30%，失业率达到20%以上（Irwin，1998；Taussig，1923）。1962年，欧共体对美国提高了关税壁垒，最终使欧洲无法获得廉价的鸡肉来源，美国的汽车工业也失去了快速现代化和转型的机会，最终导致了几十年的衰退。在美日贸易战中，日本在各个领域与美国达成妥协，似乎美国取得了巨大的胜利。然而，减少美国对日本逆差的效果只体现在《广场协议》的前几年。
Looking back at history, most of the past trade wars have caused both sides to lose. In 1930, Hoover signed the Smoot Holly Tariff Act, imposing high tariffs on more than 20 thousand imported goods, which eventually led to a shrinkage of approximately 66% in global trade between 1929 and 1934. The United States also suffered heavy losses; its GDP once fell by 30%, and the unemployment rate reached more than 20% (Irwin, 1998; Taussig, 1923). In 1962, the European Community raised tariff barriers against the United States, which ultimately prevented Europe from obtaining a cheap source of chicken, and the U.S. automobile industry also lost the opportunity to rapidly modernise and transform, which eventually led to decades of decline. In the Japan-US trade war, it seems that the United States achieved a great victory when Japan reached a compromise with the United States in all areas. However, the effect of reducing the US deficit with Japan was only reflected in the first few years of the Plaza Accord.
总之，经济合作而不是与中国打贸易战可以为美国带来更多的经济利益。一个更加开放的国际贸易体系对于美国和中国的经济增长、创造就业机会和减少贫困也至关重要。它在实现可持续发展目标方面也发挥着重要作用。(Vandenberg, 2017)。Lau（2018）认为，美国可以通过向中国出口能源、农产品和服务产品，并带来更多的增值产品，从而大大减少贸易逆差。实践证明，美国也从美韩自由贸易协定、北美自由贸易协定等一系列自由贸易协定中受益（Woldu等，2018；Heng和House，2018）。同时，这些自由贸易协定也在一定程度上增加了中国的经济成本，促使中国对其经济和贸易进行改革。在这个过程中，美国占据了主导地位（Meltzer and Shenai, 2019）。通过合作，中美这两个世界上最大的经济体可以优势互补，互惠互利。
In conclusion, economic cooperation rather than a trade war with China can bring more economic benefits for the United States. A more open international trade system is also vital for economic growth, job creation, and poverty reduction in both the United States and China. It also plays an important role in achieving sustainable development goals. (Vandenberg, 2017). Lau (2018) believes that the United States can significantly reduce the trade deficit by exporting energy, agricultural products, and service products to China, and bring more value-added products. The practice has proved that the United States has also benefited from a series of free trade agreements such as the United States–Korea Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement (Woldu et al., 2018; Heng and House, 2018). At the same time, these free trade agreements have also increased China’s economic costs to a certain extent, prompting China to reform its economy and trade. In this process, the United States has a dominant position (Meltzer and Shenai, 2019). Through cooperation, China and the United States, the two largest economies in the world, can complement each other's advantages for mutual benefit.
Nobel Ding is a senior at Stanford Online High School and Abbey College Cambridge.
Reference:
Amiti, M., Redding, S. J., & Weinstein, D. E. (2019). The impact of the 2018 tariffs on prices and welfare. Journal of Economic Perspectives,33(4), 187–210.
Bustos, P. (2011). Trade liberalization, exports, and technology upgrading: Evidence on the impact of MERCOSUR on Argentinian firms. American Economic Review,101(1), 304–40.
Cavallo, A., Gopinath, G., Neiman, B., & Tang, J. (2019).Tariff pass through at the border and at the store: Evidence from US trade policy(No. w26396). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Chong, T. T. L., & Li, X. (2019). Understanding the China-US trade war: Causes, economic impact, and the worst-case scenario. Economic and Political Studies,7(2), 185–202.
Coe, D. T.,& Helpman, E. (1995). International R&D spillovers. European Economic Review,39(5), 859–887.
Connolly, M. (2003). The dual nature of trade: Measuring its impact on imitation and growth. Journal of Development Economics,72(1), 31–55.
Fajgelbaum, P.D., Goldberg, P.K., Kennedy, P.J. & Khandelwal, A.K. (2019). The Return to Protectionism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135(1):1-55.
Heng, Y., & House, L. A. (2018). Do US agriculture suppliers benefit from South Korea-US Free Trade Agreement–the case of orange juice. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review,21(1030-2019-596), 883–894.
Hosain, S., & Hossain, S. (2019). US-China trade war: Was it really necessary? International Journal of Business and Economics,4(1), 21–32.
Huang, Y. (2019). US-China economic tensions: Origins and global implications. China International Strategy Review,1(1), 127138.
Irwin, D. A. (1998). The Smoot-Hawley tariff: A quantitative assessment. Review of Economics and Statistics,80(2), 326334.
Krugman, P.(2019). How Trump Lost His Trade War. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/opinion/trump-china-trade.html
Lau, L. J. (2018). A better alternative to a trade war. China and the World,1(02), 1850014.
Li, C., J. Wang, and J. Whalley. 2019. Trade Protectionism and US Manufacturing Employment. NBER Working Paper No. 25860. https://www.nber.org/papers/w25860.pdf
Marchand, B. U. (2012). Tariff pass-through and the distributional effects of trade liberalization.Journal of Development Economics,99(2), 265–281.
Meltzer, J. P., &Shenai, N. (2019). The US-China economic relationship: A comprehensive approach. Available at SSRN 3357900.
Ng, Y. K. (2020). Why does the US face greater disadvantages in the trade war with China?China & World Economy,28(2), 113–122.
Nicita, A. (2009). The price effect of tariff liberalization: Measuring the impact on household welfare.Journal of Development Economics,89(1), 19–27.
Ricardo, D. (1817). On the principles of political economy and taxation. London: John Murray.
Smith, A. (2010).The wealth of nations: An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Harriman House Limited.
Steinbock, D. (2018). US-China trade war and its global impacts. China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies,4(04), 515–542.
Stiglitz, J. E., & Greenwald, B. C. (2014).Creating a learning society: A new approach to growth, development, and social progress. Columbia University Press.
Taussig, F. W. (1923).The tariff history of the United States. GP Putnam's Sons.
Vandenberg P. (2017). Can Trade Benefit Employment? in: Win–Win How International Trade Can Help Meet the Sustainable Development Goals Edited, Asian Development Bank Institute, Tokyo, Japan: pp. 139-175.
Wang, S., Su, Q., & Zhao, X. (2020). The Cause, Measure and Benefit Analysis of Sino-US Trade Imbalance from the Perspective of Global Value Chain. Statistics & Information Forum, 2020-02
Weinstein, D. E., & Lawrence, R. Z. (1999). Trade and growth: Import led or export led? Evidence from Japan and Korea.
Woldu, H. G., Alborz, S., & Myneni, N. (2018). An empirical analysis of the impact of NAFTA on economic growth of its members. International Journal of Business & Economics Perspectives,13(1).1-