s******r
发帖数: 5309 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 WaterWorld 讨论区 】
发信人: sgrastar (人马座A星), 信区: WaterWorld
标 题: 好文推荐：Open Letter to Larry Kudlow
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Wed Jul 18 16:49:25 2018, 美东)
Open Letter to Larry Kudlow: You need a different China strategy
It might take a minor hit to growth, but China will survive a trade war with
the US, and Europe will have a larger piece of a market that still has much
room to expand
By DAVID P. GOLDMAN
Dear Larry: China threatens American preeminence and President Trump is
right to worry about it. But you’re going about it the wrong way, and your
approach will produce results very different from what you expect or want.
When you say: “I do not think President Xi has any intention of following
through on any of the discussions we’ve made and I think the President is
so satisfied with China on these so-called talks that he is keeping the
pressure on and I support that,” Beijing hears: “We can hurt China’s
economy so badly by reducing exports to the US that internal political
pressure will force President Xi to capitulate.”
This is a very big mistake, for two reasons. The first is that you do not
negotiate with China by trying to make its leader lose face.
China’s export dependence on the United States is shrinking, not growing.
Most of China’s exports are directed towards Asia.
Asia, moreover, provided the biggest growth margin in China’s exports.
Where are you going to impose tariffs on US imports from China? Americans
don’t want to pay higher prices for smartphones, or computers, or display
screens, or the other cheap consumer electronics that make the tech boom in
American equities possible in the first place.
The vast majority of China’s exports to the US are consumer goods,
especially electronics. Most of these goods are assembled in China from
imported components. China adds only a third or so the value added to these
goods. China has a chronic labor shortage and is shifting low-paid assembly
to lower-wage countries in Asia. If you tax consumer goods from China,
American consumers will pay more, and the Chinese will accelerate the shift
of low-wage employment to the new economic zone they are building in Asia
through the $1 trillion One Belt, One Road program.
This transition has been underway for years. Here’s a 2013 chart that I
published in a presentation for Reorient Group (now Yunfeng Financial), a
Hong Kong investment bank where I was a managing director.
In short, tariffs on consumer goods only will throw Br’er Xi into the briar
patch. You’re ten years late and $1 trillion short.
China cheats, China plays dirty, China steals technology, China muscles
American companies in joint venture, China does every manner of bad thing.
But that’s not the big problem. Don’t worry about the “crown jewels” of
American technology, as you said today on CNBC. Those are the old crown
jewels. The new crown jewels are coming out of Chinese laboratories.
In 2002, China’s biggest telecom equipment company, Huawei, was caught red-
handed with Cisco code, bugs and all. Now Huawei spends more on R&D than
Microsoft. It employs thousands of European engineers as well as tens of
thousands of Chinese. American graduate programs in math and physics are in
trouble because Chinese (and other foreign students) have stopped applying (
foreign students now comprise about four-fifths of the graduate students in
key STEM faculties). The Chinese aren’t coming to the US anymore because
they don’t have to: They can get as good an education in cutting-edge
technology at home. If we have lost our edge at the university level, how
long will our edge last at the corporate level? There’s virtually no
venture capital money going into anything to do with physics. It’s all
software.
There’s a bigger issue here, and that’s the failure of American observers
to anticipate China’s emergence as the world’s most powerful economy. We
couldn’t believe that a state-run economy directed by a Communist Party
could succeed. Back in 2001 Gordon Chang published the first edition of his
book The Coming Collapse of China. Since then per capital GDP in China has
quintupled. In 2015 the whole economics profession thought that China was
entering a financial crisis as its reserves fell by $1 trillion—except for
the Bank for International Settlements, which explained that Chinese
companies repaid $1 trillion of foreign debt with those reserves. China is
still growing at 6%-7% a year, which means that its economy doubles in size
every decade.
Unlike all the so-called emerging markets of the world—Brazil, Mexico,
Turkey, India and so forth—China moved its people from subsistence
agriculture to urban employment. 600 million people—the equivalent of two
Americas—moved from country to city in the last 35 years. And over that
period per capita GDP in China has risen by 45 times – that’s 4,500%.
It’s misleading to speak of a “Chinese model.” This is the Asian model,
invented by the Japanese after the restoration of the Emperor Meiji in 1868.
By 1905, Japan was able to beat Russia on land and sea; by 1936, it
designed and built the world’s best fighter plane, the Mitsubishi Zero.
Japan gave us a run for our money in 1941. Of course, Japan’s population
was half that of the United States, not to mention our British and other
allies. China has four times our population.
The United States is absolutely right to restrict Chinese access to US
technology. I have proposed even more stringent measures, for example, 100%
US content for any high-tech goods bought by the military. That just buys a
little more time. We need to worry less about what technology China may have
stolen in the past, and more about what kind of technology it may invent in
the future. If China leaps ahead of us in quantum computing—which it is
trying hard to do—they will secure an advantage as big as America’s
advantage in semiconductors during the 1970s and 1980s. That will be game
over.
Don’t hope for a coalition of the willing against China. Europe has already
taken the opportunity to cut deals with China behind our backs. Last week,
Germany’s top manufacturing companies — Volkswagen, BMW, Daimler, BASF and
Siemens — announced tens of billions of dollars of new investments in
China as Chinese Premier Li Keqiang posed for a photo op with German
Chancellor Merkel in Berlin. BMW will expand its joint venture with
Brilliance Auto to produce 519,000 vehicles a year. It also set up a joint
venture to produce an electric version of the Mini together with Great Wall
Auto. And it agreed to buy $4.7 billion worth of batteries from Chinese
producer CATL, which just announced a new plant in southern Germany.
Volkswagen earlier this year announced that it would invest $18 billion in
China by 2022 and construct six plants to build electric vehicles.
America now has 91 cars for every 100 people. China has 15 cars for every
100 people, and it has four times as many people. Do the math: If China
rises to the car ownership level of South Korea (46 cars per 100 people), it
will have to produce or import roughly 400 million cars to reach that level
. China already is the world’s biggest auto market (GM sells more cars
there in the US), and the Germans just got the inside track.
Meanwhile, Europe and Japan have signed the Japan-European Free Trade
Agreement, in what Germany’s Der Spiegel calls a “warning” to the US.
The world isn’t lining up with us. It’s lining up against US. China and
its One Belt, One Road economic sphere—stretching from Turkey to the
Philippines—represents the world’s fastest-growing consumer market. China
will open its market selectively, bribing our erstwhile friends and allies.
It might take a minor hit to growth (between 0.5% and 1% of GDP growth per
year, according to most estimates), but it will survive a trade war with the
US with an expanded Asian market.
The Chinese dragon does have a point of vulnerability, and that is
innovation. During the 1960s and 1970s, the United States invented CMOS chip
manufacturing, LED screens, the semiconductor laser, and the whole array of
technologies that created the digital age. We have made marginal
improvements on these technologies but haven’t invented anything really new
for half a century.
I’ll repeat what Dr. Henry Kressel and I proposed in the Wall Street
Journal right after Trump was elected:
First, encourage innovation, which is the precondition for economic growth.
The U.S. can’t bring back most of the jobs it has lost, but Americans can
create new and better ones. It goes without saying that Washington should
aggressively defend intellectual property rights and enforce anti-dumping
laws. But that isn’t enough.
Although private investors should take all the risks in commercializing new
technology, federal R&D support is key. The civilian spinoffs of defense
research gave us many of the new products of the past 30 years. Yet federal
R&D spending as a share of the economy has fallen almost in half, to 0.73%
of GDP in 2013 from 1.2% in 1987, at the peak of Reagan’s Strategic Defense
Initiative. The next administration should raise R&D spending back to 1.2%
of GDP by 2018.
Second, ensure that the resulting innovation turns into American jobs. High-
tech is capital intensive, and modern manufacturing is expensive. But CEOs
have learned that the market rewards companies that are light on capital
investment and big on share buybacks. To change this behavior, lawmakers
could give companies tax incentives to invest in capital assets in the U.S.
Washington should also enforce strict U.S. content rules for sensitive
defense technology. Many of the Pentagon’s military systems depend on
imported components. That’s a concern on security grounds alone.
Procurement rules should be changed to require that critical components be
manufactured in the U.S….
When Russia took a lead in the space race with the 1957 launch of Sputnik,
the U.S. responded with aggressive support for science and engineering
education. That helped make America the world’s leader in innovation. This
should be a Sputnik moment. High schools could offer intensive training in
science, technology and math. The U.S. should develop—with local, state and
federal support—technical institutes on the German model to channel
students into corporate internships and, ultimately, well-paid industrial
jobs. Americans are at a turning point. They can either resign themselves to
decline or revive their country’s industrial pre-eminence.
Your friend,
Dave | M*****8
发帖数: 17722 | 2
with
much
your
米国不事生产，专精插管吸血的食物链顶层族裔，
对米国的加剧贫富悬殊最清楚，因为是自己制造的。
担忧日用品价格的飙升，会使草根觉悟，对自己愤怒。
想轻松狠狠敲诈后清一笔，却不想使穷人仇恨转向自己。
【在 s******r 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 WaterWorld 讨论区 】
: 发信人: sgrastar (人马座A星), 信区: WaterWorld
: 标 题: 好文推荐：Open Letter to Larry Kudlow
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Wed Jul 18 16:49:25 2018, 美东)
: Open Letter to Larry Kudlow: You need a different China strategy
: It might take a minor hit to growth, but China will survive a trade war with
: the US, and Europe will have a larger piece of a market that still has much
: room to expand
: By DAVID P. GOLDMAN
: Dear Larry: China threatens American preeminence and President Trump is
| M*********d
发帖数: 1 | 3 这位作者的观点是十年前早已过时的观点 基本上是被中国庞大的市场前景吓到 早已不
是目前西方主流观点
就文章具体内容 有严重的偏颇 以偏概全 和 Cherry Pick的嫌疑
比如 作者显示图表中国到亚洲的出口额大于到美国的出口额 但作者没有显示中国对美
国的顺差远大于对亚洲各国
作者并没有深入分析中国在世界产业链的位置来分析贸易战的影响
with
much
your
【在 s******r 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 WaterWorld 讨论区 】
: 发信人: sgrastar (人马座A星), 信区: WaterWorld
: 标 题: 好文推荐：Open Letter to Larry Kudlow
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Wed Jul 18 16:49:25 2018, 美东)
: Open Letter to Larry Kudlow: You need a different China strategy
: It might take a minor hit to growth, but China will survive a trade war with
: the US, and Europe will have a larger piece of a market that still has much
: room to expand
: By DAVID P. GOLDMAN
: Dear Larry: China threatens American preeminence and President Trump is
| s******r
发帖数: 5309 | 4 这篇文章的重点不是贸易顺差。重点是批评疮破政府的贸易政策基于完全错误的对贸易
的理解，以为只有货物贸易才算贸易。 中国的市场前景依然很好，而且可能比10年前
想的还好，美国在中国市场最有可为的是服务业，不是制造业。
还有就是批评美国在担心中国偷美国的过时技术的同时，政府科研投入逐年下降。 而
中国在疯狂投资将来的技术，人才。缺乏技术优势的美国将来只能取代中国成为低端制
造业基地赚取微薄加工利润。 难道这是美国人想要的？
【在 M*********d 的大作中提到】
: 这位作者的观点是十年前早已过时的观点 基本上是被中国庞大的市场前景吓到 早已不
: 是目前西方主流观点
: 就文章具体内容 有严重的偏颇 以偏概全 和 Cherry Pick的嫌疑
: 比如 作者显示图表中国到亚洲的出口额大于到美国的出口额 但作者没有显示中国对美
: 国的顺差远大于对亚洲各国
: 作者并没有深入分析中国在世界产业链的位置来分析贸易战的影响
:
: with
: much
: your
| M*********d
发帖数: 1 | 5 所以这文章基本论调是 打贸易战对中国有好处 损害美国？ 这跟外交部说的有啥区别？
不要被迷惑
【在 s******r 的大作中提到】
: 这篇文章的重点不是贸易顺差。重点是批评疮破政府的贸易政策基于完全错误的对贸易
: 的理解，以为只有货物贸易才算贸易。 中国的市场前景依然很好，而且可能比10年前
: 想的还好，美国在中国市场最有可为的是服务业，不是制造业。
: 还有就是批评美国在担心中国偷美国的过时技术的同时，政府科研投入逐年下降。 而
: 中国在疯狂投资将来的技术，人才。缺乏技术优势的美国将来只能取代中国成为低端制
: 造业基地赚取微薄加工利润。 难道这是美国人想要的？
| s******r
发帖数: 5309 | 6 David Goldman是著名反华老将，和外交部有鸡毛关系？
别？
【在 M*********d 的大作中提到】
: 所以这文章基本论调是 打贸易战对中国有好处 损害美国？ 这跟外交部说的有啥区别？
: 不要被迷惑
| M*********d
发帖数: 1 | 7 看文章先看结论 然后再看论据 此文属于碰瓷的文章 | f***y
发帖数: 4447 | | s******r
发帖数: 5309 | 9 碰瓷？躺地上赖你的钱了？感觉你自己不知道自己在说啥。
【在 M*********d 的大作中提到】
: 看文章先看结论 然后再看论据 此文属于碰瓷的文章
| s******r
发帖数: 5309 | 10 光是苹果就有超过20%的市场在中国。几乎所有跨国品牌的股价都依赖中国市场增长。
这和是不是美国制造没有屁关系。
【在 f***y 的大作中提到】
: 出口美国只占了十分一
| | | M*********d
发帖数: 1 | 11 随便扫一眼 就知道文章问题很大
比如 他鼓吹美国创新 创新没错 但创新能把工作机会带回美国吗？ 创新只会减少就业
机会
所以川普不会听他的论点的
【在 s******r 的大作中提到】
: 碰瓷？躺地上赖你的钱了？感觉你自己不知道自己在说啥。
| M*********d
发帖数: 1 | 12 作者大致就是说 美国leave China alone 然后自己创新去领导世界 | s******r
发帖数: 5309 | 13 创新不能带来工作机会? 欢迎来地球旅游。
【在 M*********d 的大作中提到】
: 随便扫一眼 就知道文章问题很大
: 比如 他鼓吹美国创新 创新没错 但创新能把工作机会带回美国吗？ 创新只会减少就业
: 机会
: 所以川普不会听他的论点的
| b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 14 Back in 2001 Gordon Chang published the first edition of his book The Coming
Collapse of China. Since then per capital GDP in China has quintupled.
哈哈 | g******t
发帖数: 18158 | 15 你是大咪咪吗？说话怎么这个味
【在 M*********d 的大作中提到】
: 随便扫一眼 就知道文章问题很大
: 比如 他鼓吹美国创新 创新没错 但创新能把工作机会带回美国吗？ 创新只会减少就业
: 机会
: 所以川普不会听他的论点的
| b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 16 Arrogance is the son of success. | g******t
发帖数: 18158 | 17 床铺傻逼呗，人话不听听鬼话，裤子漏是个瘾君子，吸可卡因的，说的那些胡话是因为
嗑药没控制好量，嗑多了
Larry Kudlow's cocaine history not a problem for security clearance ...
www.businessinsider.com/larry-kudlow-cocaine-habit-john-kelly-1990s-2018-3
Mar 16, 2018 - Larry Kudlow entered a treatment program and said he was
sober for 23 ... "I went into drug rehab," Kudlow told The New York Times in
1994.
【在 M*********d 的大作中提到】
: 随便扫一眼 就知道文章问题很大
: 比如 他鼓吹美国创新 创新没错 但创新能把工作机会带回美国吗？ 创新只会减少就业
: 机会
: 所以川普不会听他的论点的
| m**********g
发帖数: 919 | 18 投资了半天连个芯片都造不出来的渣。
【在 s******r 的大作中提到】
: 这篇文章的重点不是贸易顺差。重点是批评疮破政府的贸易政策基于完全错误的对贸易
: 的理解，以为只有货物贸易才算贸易。 中国的市场前景依然很好，而且可能比10年前
: 想的还好，美国在中国市场最有可为的是服务业，不是制造业。
: 还有就是批评美国在担心中国偷美国的过时技术的同时，政府科研投入逐年下降。 而
: 中国在疯狂投资将来的技术，人才。缺乏技术优势的美国将来只能取代中国成为低端制
: 造业基地赚取微薄加工利润。 难道这是美国人想要的？
| d********9
发帖数: 3927 | 19 写这个的是犹太人。基本思想是贸易战治标不治本。美国自己的基础教育出了问题。不
过美国的繁荣都是建立在外来人才身上，美国世界第一的位置一旦被别国取代，那个人
才还愿意来美国？
别？
【在 M*********d 的大作中提到】
: 所以这文章基本论调是 打贸易战对中国有好处 损害美国？ 这跟外交部说的有啥区别？
: 不要被迷惑
| d********9
发帖数: 3927 | 20 不创新那来的财富？ 莫不是大家都把机器扔了回到石器时代，那倒是人人有工作。
【在 M*********d 的大作中提到】
: 随便扫一眼 就知道文章问题很大
: 比如 他鼓吹美国创新 创新没错 但创新能把工作机会带回美国吗？ 创新只会减少就业
: 机会
: 所以川普不会听他的论点的
| | | b******s
发帖数: 2919 | 21 左逼就喜欢提创新
好像想创新就能创新
麻痹的中共都做不到。 | d********9
发帖数: 3927 | 22 作者也没说出美国的解药在哪里，或者不敢说出来。
【在 M*********d 的大作中提到】
: 作者大致就是说 美国leave China alone 然后自己创新去领导世界
| a******9
发帖数: 20431 | 23 想不出解药前没必要吃毒药
：作者也没说出美国的解药在哪里，或者不敢说出来。
： | M*********d
发帖数: 1 | 24 辩证的看这个问题
财富可以从创新中得来
财富也可以通过转移得来
你觉得中国的最近三十年财富哪里来的？跟创新有关系吗？
【在 d********9 的大作中提到】
: 不创新那来的财富？ 莫不是大家都把机器扔了回到石器时代，那倒是人人有工作。
| d********9
发帖数: 3927 | 25 中国巨大规模的理科人才， 大部分人996, 你问中国财富哪里来？
美国印绿票子掠夺别国财富，搞的自己产业空心化。早放弃这种金融立国的基本国策，
早一天踏踏实实干活，早一天恢复元气。
。
【在 M*********d 的大作中提到】
: 辩证的看这个问题
: 财富可以从创新中得来
: 财富也可以通过转移得来
: 你觉得中国的最近三十年财富哪里来的？跟创新有关系吗？
| d********9
发帖数: 3927 | 26 解药就是放弃民主制度，放弃金融立国， 把传媒紧紧控制在国家手里，宣传清教徒的
价值观，不符合清教徒价值观的电影电视一律不让放。也就是希特勒搞过的。
【在 a******9 的大作中提到】
: 想不出解药前没必要吃毒药
:
: ：作者也没说出美国的解药在哪里，或者不敢说出来。
: ：
| M*********d
发帖数: 1 | 27 中国的财富来自于在世界产业链中找到一个装配工的位置 这也是美国给的 不要过于
膨胀 厉害国过了中国就是拉美
【在 d********9 的大作中提到】
: 中国巨大规模的理科人才， 大部分人996, 你问中国财富哪里来？
: 美国印绿票子掠夺别国财富，搞的自己产业空心化。早放弃这种金融立国的基本国策，
: 早一天踏踏实实干活，早一天恢复元气。
: 。
|
|
