您当前位置:上虞上元教育 >> 外语培训 >> 外语资讯 >> 浏览文章

对华贸易让美国人赔了多少 On Trade Angry Voters Have a Point

来源:上元教育   【上元教育:技能改变命运,上元成就未来】   2016/3/19 9:05:43

Were the experts wrong about the benefits of trade for the American economy?


The nation’s working class will have another opportunity to demonstrate its political clout Tuesday night, as primary voters go to the polls in Illinois and Ohio, Rust Belt states that have suffered intensely from the loss of good manufacturing jobs. Last week, the insurrection handed Michigan’s Democratic primary to Bernie Sanders while continuing to buoy the insurgent Republican candidacy of Donald Trump.

随着伊利诺伊州和俄亥俄州的初选选民前往投票站,这两个丢失了大量就业机会的传统工业州的美国工人阶级周二晚将再次有机会展示他们的政治影响力。上周,密歇根州的造反选民把民主党初选的胜利送给了伯尼·桑德斯(Bernie Sanders),同时继续保持了非正统的唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)在共和党总统候选人中的领先地位。

Voters’ anger and frustration, driven in part by relentless globalization and technological change, may not propel either candidate to the presidency. But it is already having a big impact on America’s future, shaking a once-solid consensus that freer trade is, necessarily, a good thing.


“The economic populism of the presidential campaign has forced the recognition that expanded trade is a double-edged sword,” wrote Jared Bernstein, former economic adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

“总统竞选活动中的经济民粹主义迫使人们认识到,不断扩大的贸易是一把双刃剑,”副总统小约瑟夫·R·拜登(Joseph R. Biden Jr.)的前经济顾问贾里德·伯恩斯坦(Jared Bernstein)写道。

What seems most striking is that the angry working class — dismissed so often as myopic, unable to understand the economic trade-offs presented by trade — appears to have understood what the experts are only belatedly finding to be true: The benefits from trade to the American economy may not always justify its costs.


In a recent study, three economists — David Autor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, David Dorn at the University of Zurich and Gordon Hanson at the University of California, San Diego — raised a profound challenge to all of us brought up to believe that economies quickly recover from trade shocks. In theory, a developed industrial country like the United States adjusts to import competition by moving workers into more advanced industries that can successfully compete in global markets.

在最近的一项研究中,三位经济学家,麻省理工学院的戴维·奥托尔 (David Autor)、苏黎世大学的戴维·多恩 (David Dorn),以及加州大学圣迭哥分校的戈登·汉森(Gordon Hanson),对我们的教育让我们所有人都相信是正确的理论提出了深刻的挑战,该理论认为一个经济体会从贸易冲击中迅速恢复过来。从理论上讲,像美国这样的工业发达国家,应该通过把劳动力转移到能在全球市场上竞争的更先进的产业来应对出口竞争。

They examined the experience of American workers after China erupted onto world markets some two decades ago. The presumed adjustment, they concluded, never happened. Or at least hasn’t happened yet. Wages remain low and unemployment high in the most affected local job markets. Nationally, there is no sign of offsetting job gains elsewhere in the economy. What’s more, they found that sagging wages in local labor markets exposed to Chinese competition reduced earnings by $213 per adult per year.


In another study they wrote with Daron Acemoglu and Brendan Price from M.I.T., they estimated that rising Chinese imports from 1999 to 2011 cost up to 2.4 million American jobs.

在另一份他们与麻省理工学院的达隆·阿齐默鲁(Daron Acemoglu)和布兰登·普莱斯(Brendan Price)合写的研究报告中,他们估计,1999年至2011年累计从中国进口商品的成本是高达240万美国人的就业机会。

“These results should cause us to rethink the short- and medium-run gains from trade,” they argued. “Having failed to anticipate how significant the dislocations from trade might be, it is incumbent on the literature to more convincingly estimate the gains from trade, such that the case for free trade is not based on the sway of theory alone, but on a foundation of evidence that illuminates who gains, who loses, by how much, and under what conditions.”


Global trade offers undeniable benefits. It helped pull hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty in a matter of a few decades, an unparalleled feat. It ensured Apple could benefit from China’s ample supply of cheap labor. Consumers around the world gained better-priced, better-made goods.


Still, though trade may be good for the country over all — after netting out winners and losers — the case for globalization based on the fact that it helps expand the economic pie by 3 percent becomes much weaker when it also changes the distribution of the slices by 50 percent, Mr. Autor argued. And that is especially true when the American political system has shown no interest in compensating those on the losing side.

虽然如此,但奥托尔提供证据表示,尽管在考虑了谁赢谁输之后, 贸易对一个国家在整体上有好处,但当考虑到它把蛋糕的分配改变了50%之后,支持贸易帮助全球经济蛋糕增长了3%的证据就比较弱了。而且当美国的政治体制对补偿在这种贸易中失利的一方表现得没有兴趣时,情况尤其是这样。

The impact of China’s great leap into the market economy — which drew hundreds of millions of impoverished peasants into the manufacturing sector, mostly making goods for export to the United States and other wealthy nations — is waning. China’s wages are rising fast. Its exports and economy are slowing.


Trade with other parts of the world has not been as disruptive. For all the criticism of Nafta, most economists assess its impact on American workers as modest. Trade flows with Mexico were smaller and more balanced than those with China. American manufacturing employment remained fairly stable in the years after Nafta came into force in 1994, plummeting only after China entered the World Trade Organization in 2001 and gained consistent access to markets in the United States.


The Chinese export onslaught, however, left a scar on the American working class that has not healed. That disproportionate impact suggests Washington officialdom might do well to reassess its approach to future trade liberalization. Most important, it points to reconsidering how policy makers deal with trade’s distributional consequences.


英语新概念1培训    英语新概念2培训 
日语初级培训          韩语初级培训


编辑:互联网  点击数: