Congress Wants A Trade War
Burton G. Malkiel随着全球金融危机加深，贸易保护主义思潮正在抬头。美国众议院(House of Representatives)版本的经济刺激方案包含了一项条款，规定基础设施项目只可采用美国自产钢材及其他产品。而包裹在“买美国货”爱国主义华丽外衣下的参议院(Senate)版本甚至包含了更加反自由贸易的条款。这场“买美国货”运动不符合经济学原理，它威胁到了贸易和资本流动的稳定性，有可能使当前的全球衰退最终演变为上世界30年代的大萧条。福克斯新闻(Fox News)周二采访总统奥巴马(Barack Obama)时问及他对“买美国货”的看法，奥巴马说，美国不应发出贸易保护主义信号。他在接受美国广播公司(ABC)电视节目访问时还称，他并不愿意看到刺激计划中有任何内容引发一场贸易战。显然，奥巴马是对的。假如我们不允许美国50个州之间自由贸易，那么像我这样住在新泽西州的人就买不到夏威夷的菠萝加州的葡萄酒和蔬菜堪萨斯州的小麦德州和路易斯安那州的石油，而我们也不会向美国其他地区销售药品，那生活将比现在糟的多。正是自由贸易带来的生产分工让我们所有人都能过上更好的日子。全球贸易也是一个道理。如果我们能从中国进口便宜的服装，同时向他们销售电脑和数据存储设备，那么我们两国都会获益。诚然，自由贸易并不能让每个人获益，这也是为什么自由贸易是个很难推销的概念，特别是在经济困难时期。如果我是一名纺织厂工人，来自中国的进口导致我的工厂关门并连带我失业，那我感受到的痛苦肯定要比其他消费者因为买到便宜服装而感到的欣喜深刻得多。但痛苦的毕竟只是少数，获益的才是多数。虽然个人买到便宜商品的好处无法与一位纺织工人因此失业的痛苦相比，但全民得到的好处肯定要超过由此付出的代价。充满竞争的市场引发了创新革命，也因此诞生了美国如此有活力的经济体。对于那位失业工人，我们应当向他提供再就业培训和调整期的帮助，并提高过渡期内失业工人的生活保障。同时，我们还需改革我们的教育体制，帮助人们做好走向今日社会的准备，同时传授那些灵活的技能，让我们的人民能够为现在甚至还无法想像的未来社会做好准备。但“买美国货”条款只会招来其他国家的报复，并可能引起“以邻为壑”政策在全球的盛行。美国货条款在近期达沃斯举行的世界经济论坛(World Economic Forum)上引发了明显担忧，美国最紧密的贸易伙伴怒气冲天。该条款将禁止获得刺激计划救助资金的基建项目选用加拿大的钢材和其他原材料。只有在美国缺乏钢材，或者国内价格过高将把项目整体成本推高25%以上的情况下才能选择外国钢材。如果“买美国货”条款获得通过，奥巴马本月晚些时候首访加拿大时，那儿的人们不会给他好脸色。欧洲和中国对此的态度一样明确。欧盟(European Union)已经表态，如果美国违反双方贸易协定和世界贸易组织(WTO)规定，欧盟不会坐视不管。报复行动和贸易战可能一触即发。作为全球最大的出口商，其他国家的报复行动给美国造成的失业人数可能要比“买美国货”条款创造的就业人数还要多。美国弥补赤字所倚靠的国际资本流动也可能因此发生变化。此外，该条款还可能延误一些本可以动工的基建项目，因为要备齐全部美国产原料可能没那么快。毕竟，美国国内的钢材产量尚不能满足需求。1930年时，全球经济就如今日一样摇摇欲坠，当时的美国国会通过了斯姆特－霍利关税法》(Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act)，实质上停止了美国进口。我们的贸易伙伴随即进行了报复，全球贸易急剧下滑。多数经济史学家们现在得出结论，该法对当时的全球大萧条负有很大责任。之后，时任美国总统的赫伯特•胡佛(Herbert Hoover)做了任内最后几件事，其中之一就是签署了要求所有联邦政府项目使用美国原材料的《买美国货法案》(Buy America Act, 该法至今仍然有效，不过从上世纪80年代起就已经放松)，从而让局势变得更糟。今天，我们必须避免重蹈覆辙。 “买美国货”条款和其他形式的贸易保护主义能够带来的只有失业而非就业。它们是对全球经济下滑做出的不负责任会弄巧成拙的回应。“以邻为壑”政策带来的将是更多的乞丐和敌对的邻国。让我们期望奥巴马能够让他的民主党同僚听从他本人和英国首相工党领袖布朗(Gordon Brown)的劝告。正如布朗在达沃斯所言“保护主义无法保护任何人，尤其是穷人。”（编者按：本文作者Burton G. Malkiel是普林斯顿大学经济学教授《漫步华尔街》(W.W. Norton出版社2007年第九版)一书的作者）相关阅读各国竞相构筑新的贸易壁垒 2009-02-06欧盟欲状告“购买美国货”条款 2009-02-04在人民币汇率上做文章是错误的 2009-02-02金融保护主义新威胁迫在眉睫 2009-02-02
Burton G. MalkielAs the world-wide recession deepens, protectionist sentiments are rising. The House of Representatives' version of the economic stimulus bill contains a provision that only American-made steel and other products be used for the infrastructure projects. Wrapped in the cloak of 'Buy American' patriotism, the Senate version of the bill contains even stronger anti-free-trade provisions.This Buy American momentum is bad economics, and by threatening to destabilize trade and capital flows, it risks turning a global recession into a 1930s-style depression. Asked about Buy American on Tuesday, President Barack Obama told Fox News that 'we can't send a protectionist message.' He said on ABC News that he doesn't want anything in the stimulus bill that is 'going to trigger a trade war.' He's right.Suppose that we did not allow free trade between the 50 American states. Citizens like me in New Jersey would be far worse off if we could not buy pineapples from Hawaii, wine and vegetables from California, wheat from Kansas, and oil from Texas and Louisiana while we sell pharmaceuticals to the rest of the country. The specialization that trade makes possible allows all of us to live better.The situation is the same with respect to world trade. Both we and the Chinese are better off if we can import inexpensive clothing from China and sell them large-scale computers and data storage equipment.To be sure, such trade does not make everyone better off, and that is why free trade is often a tough sell, especially during times of hardship.If I am a textile worker whose job is lost because Chinese imports have caused my factory to close, I feel the pain far more acutely than consumers feel the benefits of cheap clothing. The pain tends to be localized while the benefits are spread broadly. No one person's benefit can compare with the loss felt by the textile worker. But the total benefits do exceed the costs. And competitive markets have spurred the innovation revolution that has made the U.S. the economic powerhouse that it is.The solution for the displaced worker is job retraining and adjustment assistance, and to improve the safety net available to displaced workers during the transition period. We also need to revamp our educational system so that it prepares workers for the jobs that are available today -- and imparts the flexible skills that make our citizens ready for the future jobs that we cannot even imagine.Buy American provisions invite retaliation by other nations, and the spread of 'beggar thy neighbor' policies throughout the world.This House provision caused a palpable anxiety during the recent World Economic Forum at Davos, and America's closest allies are furious. 'Buy American' would effectively ban Canadian steel products and other raw materials from infrastructure projects receiving stimulus funds. Foreign steel would only be allowed if domestic products were either unavailable or drove up the cost of the project by 25% or more. If the provision is not diluted, Mr. Obama will find a very hostile reception during his first international trip to Canada later this month.Hostility has been no less evident in Europe and China. The European Union has said that it will not stand by idly if the U.S. violates its trade agreements and its obligations to the World Trade Organization. The risks of retaliation and a trade war are very real.Since the U.S. is the biggest exporter in the world, retaliation could cost America more jobs than the provision would create. It could also destabilize the global capital flows on which the U.S. depends to fund its deficits. Moreover, the provision could delay some shovel-ready infrastructure projects, since sufficient American-made materials may not be immediately available. The U.S. does not manufacture enough steel to meet domestic demand.In 1930, just as the world economy was sinking as it is today, the U.S. Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which essentially shut off imports into the U.S. Our trading partners retaliated, and world trade plummeted. Most economic historians now conclude that the tariff contributed importantly to the severity of the world-wide Great Depression.Later, as one of his last acts, President Herbert Hoover made the situation even worse by signing a 'Buy America Act' requiring all federal government projects to use American materials. (That act is still on the books although it was weakened during the 1980s.) We must avoid repeating the disastrous mistakes of the past.Buy American provisions and other forms of protectionism will destroy jobs, not create them. They are an irresponsible and self-defeating response to a downturn in world economic activity. Beggar-thy-neighbor policies create more beggars and hostile neighbors. Let's hope that President Obama presses his Democratic colleagues in Congress to listen to him, and to British Prime Minister and Labour Party head Gordon Brown. As Mr. Brown put it at Davos, 'Protectionism protects nobody, least of all the poor.'(Editor's Note: Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University and the author of 'A Random Walk Down Wall Street,' 9th ed. (W.W. Norton, 2007).)
Burton G. MalkielAs the world-wide recession deepens, protectionist sentiments are rising. The House of Representatives' version of the economic stimulus bill contains a provision that only American-made steel and other products be used for the infrastructure projects. Wrapped in the cloak of 'Buy American' patriotism, the Senate version of the bill contains even stronger anti-free-trade provisions.This Buy American momentum is bad economics, and by threatening to destabilize trade and capital flows, it risks turning a global recession into a 1930s-style depression. Asked about Buy American on Tuesday, President Barack Obama told Fox News that 'we can't send a protectionist message.' He said on ABC News that he doesn't want anything in the stimulus bill that is 'going to trigger a trade war.' He's right.Suppose that we did not allow free trade between the 50 American states. Citizens like me in New Jersey would be far worse off if we could not buy pineapples from Hawaii, wine and vegetables from California, wheat from Kansas, and oil from Texas and Louisiana while we sell pharmaceuticals to the rest of the country. The specialization that trade makes possible allows all of us to live better.The situation is the same with respect to world trade. Both we and the Chinese are better off if we can import inexpensive clothing from China and sell them large-scale computers and data storage equipment.To be sure, such trade does not make everyone better off, and that is why free trade is often a tough sell, especially during times of hardship.If I am a textile worker whose job is lost because Chinese imports have caused my factory to close, I feel the pain far more acutely than consumers feel the benefits of cheap clothing. The pain tends to be localized while the benefits are spread broadly. No one person's benefit can compare with the loss felt by the textile worker. But the total benefits do exceed the costs. And competitive markets have spurred the innovation revolution that has made the U.S. the economic powerhouse that it is.The solution for the displaced worker is job retraining and adjustment assistance, and to improve the safety net available to displaced workers during the transition period. We also need to revamp our educational system so that it prepares workers for the jobs that are available today -- and imparts the flexible skills that make our citizens ready for the future jobs that we cannot even imagine.Buy American provisions invite retaliation by other nations, and the spread of 'beggar thy neighbor' policies throughout the world.This House provision caused a palpable anxiety during the recent World Economic Forum at Davos, and America's closest allies are furious. 'Buy American' would effectively ban Canadian steel products and other raw materials from infrastructure projects receiving stimulus funds. Foreign steel would only be allowed if domestic products were either unavailable or drove up the cost of the project by 25% or more. If the provision is not diluted, Mr. Obama will find a very hostile reception during his first international trip to Canada later this month.Hostility has been no less evident in Europe and China. The European Union has said that it will not stand by idly if the U.S. violates its trade agreements and its obligations to the World Trade Organization. The risks of retaliation and a trade war are very real.Since the U.S. is the biggest exporter in the world, retaliation could cost America more jobs than the provision would create. It could also destabilize the global capital flows on which the U.S. depends to fund its deficits. Moreover, the provision could delay some shovel-ready infrastructure projects, since sufficient American-made materials may not be immediately available. The U.S. does not manufacture enough steel to meet domestic demand.In 1930, just as the world economy was sinking as it is today, the U.S. Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which essentially shut off imports into the U.S. Our trading partners retaliated, and world trade plummeted. Most economic historians now conclude that the tariff contributed importantly to the severity of the world-wide Great Depression.Later, as one of his last acts, President Herbert Hoover made the situation even worse by signing a 'Buy America Act' requiring all federal government projects to use American materials. (That act is still on the books although it was weakened during the 1980s.) We must avoid repeating the disastrous mistakes of the past.Buy American provisions and other forms of protectionism will destroy jobs, not create them. They are an irresponsible and self-defeating response to a downturn in world economic activity. Beggar-thy-neighbor policies create more beggars and hostile neighbors. Let's hope that President Obama presses his Democratic colleagues in Congress to listen to him, and to British Prime Minister and Labour Party head Gordon Brown. As Mr. Brown put it at Davos, 'Protectionism protects nobody, least of all the poor.'(Editor's Note: Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University and the author of 'A Random Walk Down Wall Street,' 9th ed. (W.W. Norton, 2007).)