type
status
date
slug
summary
tags
category
icon
password
What America’s presidential election means for world trade 美国总统大选对世界贸易意味着什么
Illustration: Ben Hickey 插图：本 · 希基
Oct 6th 2024|WASHINGTON, DC
2024 年 10 月 6 日华盛顿特区
In the 1990s presidential hopefuls fought over how much America should open itself up to commerce with other countries. Nowadays, the trade debate revolves around how much America should close itself off. Donald Trump is the more radical of the two candidates, with a vision for tariffs that would turn the clock back nearly a century on economic strategy. Kamala Harris is less extreme but still sees a world in which America is best served by soft protectionism, featuring subsidies for favoured industries.
20 世纪 90 年代，总统候选人们就美国应该在多大程度上向其他国家开放贸易而争论不休。如今，贸易争论的焦点是美国应该在多大程度上封闭自己。唐纳德 · 特朗普是两位候选人中较为激进的一位，他的关税愿景将使经济战略倒退近一个世纪。卡玛拉 · 哈里斯没有那么极端，但仍然认为软保护主义对美国最有利，其特点是对受青睐的行业进行补贴。For Mr Trump the direction of travel is absolutely clear. In his first term in the White House he called himself a “tariff man”, arguing that levies on foreign countries were a way to maximise American economic power. He started with tariffs on washing machines and solar panels, then turned to steel and aluminium, before finally getting into a trade war with China. And that may have been a mere prelude for what he would do in a second term.
对于特朗普先生来说，前进的方向是绝对明确的。在白宫的第一个任期内，他称自己为 “关税人”，认为对外国征税是最大化美国经济实力的一种方式。他首先对洗衣机和太阳能电池板征收关税，然后转向钢铁和铝，最后与中国展开贸易战。这可能只是他在第二个任期内要做的事情的前奏。He has vowed to slap a tariff on all imports into America. Earlier in the campaign he said this universal tariff might be 10%; recently he has upped the ante to 20%. But his fiercest statements are focused on China, threatening tariffs of up to 60% on made-in-China goods. He has also mooted stripping China of its most-favoured-nation status, a decision that would strike at the foundations of the already weakened World Trade Organisation.
他发誓将对所有进入美国的进口商品征收关税。在竞选初期，他表示普遍关税可能为 10%；最近他把赌注提高到了 20%。但他最激烈的言论集中在中国，威胁对中国制造的商品征收高达 60% 的关税。他还提议剥夺中国的最惠国待遇，这一决定将冲击已经被削弱的世界贸易组织的基础。From a legal perspective, Mr Trump ought to have a fairly easy path to putting higher tariffs on China. He could deem China to be in violation of the trade deal signed during his first term (China’s imports from America have fallen far short of unrealistic targets) and then increase tariffs as punishment. The path to a universal tariff is more fraught, however. Some experts think that Mr Trump might declare America’s trade deficit to be a national emergency, allowing him to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which would give him the authority to implement his desired across-the-board levy. Companies would be likely to challenge that in court, and may well end up successfully overturning the tariff. But the legal process would take months, giving Mr Trump plenty of time to throw the global trading system into chaos.
从法律角度来看，特朗普应该有一条相当容易的途径对中国征收更高的关税。他可能会认为中国违反了他第一任期内签署的贸易协议（中国从美国的进口远远低于不切实际的目标），然后提高关税作为惩罚。然而，实现普遍关税的道路更加充满挑战。一些专家认为，特朗普可能会宣布美国的贸易逆差进入国家紧急状态，从而允许他援引《国际紧急经济权力法案》，这将赋予他实施他想要的全面征税的权力。公司可能会在法庭上对此提出质疑，并很可能最终成功推翻关税。但法律程序需要几个月的时间，这让特朗普有足够的时间让全球贸易体系陷入混乱。
Chart: The Economist 图表：《经济学人》Many Republicans remain sceptical—rightly—about the economic effects of tariffs. Yet Mr Trump will have one argument that will appeal to them: tariffs would help to pay for the tax cuts they want. America imports about $3trn-worth of goods a year, so a 10% tariff would, in theory, generate roughly $300bn of federal revenue. The trouble is that tariffs would weigh on American growth, especially as other countries retaliate. Mr Trump’s trade policies would take the economy on a contentious and risky path.
许多共和党人对关税的经济影响仍然持怀疑态度，这是正确的。然而，特朗普先生将有一个对他们有吸引力的论点：关税将有助于支付他们想要的减税费用。美国每年进口价值约 3 万亿元的商品，因此理论上 10% 的关税将产生约 3000 亿美元的联邦收入。问题在于关税将拖累美国经济增长，尤其是在其他国家采取报复措施的情况下。特朗普的贸易政策将使经济走上一条充满争议和危险的道路。Ms Harris’s views on trade, as on many other topics, are cloudier. She is certainly not a champion of free trade. When Mr Trump renegotiated America’s trade deal with Mexico and Canada in 2020, she was one of only ten senators to vote against it, arguing that it was especially weak in its environmental protections. And like Mr Biden, Ms Harris displays no enthusiasm for traditional trade negotiations. At the same time she is most definitely not a “tariff woman”. She regularly describes Mr Trump’s universal-tariff idea as a national sales tax, and has made it the focal point of her criticism of Mr Trump’s economic plans, citing estimates that it would raise prices for the typical family by about $4,000 per year.
与许多其他话题一样，哈里斯女士对贸易的看法更加模糊。她当然不是自由贸易的拥护者。当特朗普于 2020 年重新谈判美国与墨西哥和加拿大的贸易协议时，她是仅有的十名投反对票的参议员之一，认为该协议在环境保护方面尤其薄弱。与拜登一样，哈里斯女士对传统贸易谈判没有表现出热情。同时她绝对不是一个 “关税女人”。她经常将特朗普的普遍关税想法描述为全国销售税，并使其成为她批评特朗普经济计划的焦点，理由是估计这将使普通家庭的物价每年上涨约 4,000 美元。As for what she would do, Ms Harris’s positions appear to largely build on President Joe Biden’s approach to trade on two fronts. First, she is calling for subsidies to build up the country’s manufacturing muscle. In her platform she has called it the “America Forward” tax credit, saying it would direct tens of billions of dollars to help America succeed in the industries of the future, including clean energy—potentially similar to the industrial subsidies in Mr Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act that have worried other countries.
至于她将做什么，哈里斯女士的立场似乎很大程度上建立在乔 · 拜登总统在两个方面的贸易方针的基础上。首先，她呼吁提供补贴以增强国家的制造业实力。在她的政纲中，她将其称为 “美国前进” 税收抵免，称这将引导数百亿美元帮助美国在包括清洁能源在内的未来行业取得成功，这可能类似于拜登减少通货膨胀中的工业补贴令其他国家担忧的行动。The second front is a willingness to take punitive trade actions against China “when it breaks the rules”, as she puts it. The implication is that she would continue to support tariffs on China, similar to the increases recently implemented by the White House against Chinese electric vehicles and semiconductors, among other things. To her mind, the distinction is that her tariffs are strategic, whereas Mr Trump’s reflect a blunderbuss approach. Many economists are less sanguine: a little protectionism is better than a lot but it still is harmful to growth.
正如她所说，第二条战线是 “当中国违反规则时” 愿意对中国采取惩罚性贸易行动。这意味着她将继续支持对中国征收关税，类似于白宫最近对中国电动汽车和半导体等产品实施的加征关税。在她看来，区别在于她的关税是战略性的，而特朗普的关税则体现了一种错误的做法。许多经济学家并不那么乐观：一点保护主义总比大量保护主义好，但它仍然对经济增长有害。All this should leave the world with a rather discouraging view of where America is headed on trade. Under Mr Trump America would build up its tariff walls. Ms Harris is less keen on walls but she is not about to build bridges. ■
所有这些都应该让世界对美国的贸易走向抱有相当令人沮丧的看法。在特朗普的领导下，美国将建立关税墙。哈里斯女士不太热衷于围墙，但她也不打算建造桥梁。 ■
- Author:NotionNext
- URL:https://tangly1024.com/article/eco-002
- Copyright:All articles in this blog, except for special statements, adopt BY-NC-SA agreement. Please indicate the source!