专栏名称: 经济学人双语精读
本公众号提供《经济学人》最新期刊的双语精读与赏析,以及外刊好词好句的学习,每周2~3篇,欢迎关注!
目录
相关文章推荐
51好读  ›  专栏  ›  经济学人双语精读

经济学人观点解读丨德国问题

经济学人双语精读  · 公众号  · 国际  · 2017-07-08 20:22

正文

请到「今天看啥」查看全文


大家好,今天我们来讲《经济学人》最新一期的封面文章:德国的问题。这是一篇关于自由贸易和贸易保护主义之争的文章。大家都知道,特朗普上台后大肆鼓吹贸易保护主义,而德国总理默克尔则批评特朗普的贸易保护主义和孤立主义。咋一看,德国成了自由贸易的捍卫者。但《经济学人》的这一篇文章则指出,德国本身的问题,其实也不利于自由贸易。这到底是怎么回事儿呢?我们一起来看这篇文章:

这篇文章可以分为三部分:第一部分讲了以美国为代表的贸易保护主义和以德国为代表的自由贸易主义之间的对抗;第二部分讲了为什么代表自由贸易的德国并不利于自由贸易;第三部分则提出方法论:德国应采取哪些措施,才能配得上“自由贸易的捍卫者”这个称号。

我们先来看第一部分:


文章一开始便交代了故事的背景:G20集团峰会在德国汉堡召开。G20的召开,则为保护主义盛行的美国和倡导自由贸易的德国之间可能爆发的冲突埋下了伏笔。


特朗普上台后,退出了跨太平洋伙伴关系协定(TPP),要求就北美自由贸易协定(NAFTA)重新展开谈判,并且要提高关税,一场可能发生的贸易战争搞得人心惶惶。而德国总理默克尔则大力支持自由贸易,抨击特朗普的贸易保护主义和孤立主义,并且即将和欧盟、日本达成自由贸易协定。


当然,自由主义和保护主义哪个能占上风,结果很明朗。特朗普认为,关税能带来公平的竞争,《经济学人》认为他这种观点 too young too naive,提高关税,不仅不利于公平竞争,而且对各方都不利。但是另一方面呢,特朗普指出了一个难以忽视的真相:德国贸易顺差达到3000亿美元,为世界之最。《经济学人》认为,这并不利于捍卫自由贸易。










(向上滑动启阅)

第一部分


THE battle-lines are drawn. When the world’s big trading nations convene this week at a G20 summit in Hamburg, the stage is set for a clash between a protectionist America and a free-trading Germany.

President Donald Trump has already pulled out of one trade pact, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and demanded the renegotiation of another, the North American Free-Trade Agreement. He is weighing whether to impose tariffs on steel imports into America, a move that would almost certainly provoke retaliation. The threat of a trade war has hung over the Trump presidency since January. In contrast, Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor and the summit’s host, will bang the drum for free trade. In a thinly veiled attack on Mr Trump, she delivered a speech on June 29th condemning the forces of protectionism and isolationism. An imminent free-trade deal between Japan and the European Union will add substance to her rhetoric (see article).

There is no question who has the better of this argument. Mr Trump’s doctrine that trade must be balanced to be fair is economically illiterate. His belief that tariffs will level the playing field is naive and dangerous: they would shrink prosperity for all. But in one respect, at least, Mr Trump has grasped an inconvenient truth. He has admonished Germany for its trade surplus, which stood at almost $300bn last year, the world’s largest (China’s hoard was a mere $200bn). His threatened solution—to put a stop to sales of German cars—may be self-defeating, but the fact is that Germany saves too much and spends too little. And the size and persistence of Germany’s savings hoard makes it an awkward defender of free trade.










接下来,文章进入了第二部分,开始分析德国贸易顺差的原因、利弊,我们一起来看:


何为贸易顺差?简单说,就是国民储蓄超过了国内投资。德国为什么会有如此大的贸易顺差?外国人认为这是因为政府采取了重商主义的政策,而德国官方则认为,这是源于德国社会的老龄化,需要增加储蓄。但《经济学人》认为,以上原因都不准确。


该杂志认为,德国的贸易顺差,源于几十年前工会和企业之间达成的一个协定,该协定控制工人工资,以确保出口型产业的竞争力。这个协定既然存在,必然有其历史方面的原因:正是这种适度的工资控制,德国外向型经济才得以走出战后阴影,并迅速发展。(Such moderation served Germany’s export-led economy well through its postwar recovery and beyond. )


德国的这一模式令世界羡慕。和谐的劳资关系是德国经济得以领先的主要原因之一。企业进行投资的时候,不用担心工会的要挟;政府资助职业培训体系令他国羡慕。在美国,制造业岗位流失,没有大学文凭的工人前景愈加暗淡,这是特朗普民族主义得以盛行的原因之一。德国虽然也面临这种情况,但蓝领工人的岗位较美国更多,这也是民粹主义政党处于德国政坛边缘的一个原因。


但这一模式也有消极的一面(the adverse side-effects ),而且越来越明显。它导致德国经济和全球贸易极度不平衡。控制工资导致国内支出下滑,进口减少。随后,《经济学人》通过一项数据加以说明:消费者支出占GDP的比重下降到54%,而英国这一比例为65%,美国为69%。而且德国并非唯一:瑞典、单买、荷兰贸易顺差都逐年增加。


对于一个充分就业的大型经济体来说,如果其经常账户盈余超过GDP的8%,就会给全球贸易体系带来过渡的负担。为了抵消这些顺差,并保持足够的需求量来维持就业,世界其他国家必须以同等规模借贷并支出。在有些国家,比如说意大利、希腊和西班牙,持续的赤字最终导致了危机。在上世纪70年代和80年代,德国保持高储蓄有利于稳定,而现在,则拖累了全球增长,并成为特朗普等贸易保护者的靶子。










(向上滑动启阅)

第二部分:


At bottom, a trade surplus is an excess of national saving over domestic investment. In Germany’s case, this is not the result of a mercantilist government policy, as some foreigners complain. Nor, as German officials often insist, does it reflect the urgent need for an ageing society to save more. The rate of household saving has been stable, if high, for years; the increase in national saving has come from firms and the government.

Underlying Germany’s surplus is a decades-old accord between business and unions in favour of wage restraint to keep export industries competitive (see article). Such moderation served Germany’s export-led economy well through its postwar recovery and beyond. It is an instinct that helps explain Germany’s transformation since the late 1990s from Europe’s sick man to today’s muscle-bound champion.

There is much to envy in Germany’s model. Harmony between firms and workers has been one of the main reasons for the economy’s outperformance. Firms could invest free from the worry that unions would hold them to ransom. The state played its part by sponsoring a system of vocational training that is rightly admired. In America the prospects for men without college degrees have worsened along with a decline in manufacturing jobs—a cause of the economic nationalism espoused by Mr Trump. Germany has not entirely escaped this, but it has held on to more of the sorts of blue-collar jobs that America grieves for. This is one reason why the populist AfD party remains on the fringes of German politics.

But the adverse side-effects of the model are increasingly evident. It has left the German economy and global trade perilously unbalanced. Pay restraint means less domestic spending and fewer imports. Consumer spending has dropped to just 54% of GDP, compared with 69% in America and 65% in Britain. Exporters do not invest their windfall profits at home. And Germany is not alone; Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands have been piling up big surpluses, too.

For a large economy at full employment to run a current-account surplus in excess of 8% of GDP puts unreasonable strain on the global trading system. To offset such surpluses and sustain enough aggregate demand to keep people in work, the rest of the world must borrow and spend with equal abandon. In some countries, notably Italy, Greece and Spain, persistent deficits eventually led to crises. Their subsequent shift towards surplus came at a heavy cost. The enduring savings glut in northern Europe has made the adjustment needlessly painful. In the high-inflation 1970s and 1980s Germany’s penchant for high saving was a stabilising force. Now it is a drag on global growth and a target for protectionists such as Mr Trump.










从上我们可以看出,世界是处于不断发展变化的,没有哪一种方法可以一劳永逸。在不断发展变化的世界中,我们必须革新自己,不断创新、改变,才能适应时代发展的潮流。

既然观点已经挑明,那下面就要谈一谈方法论,文章也便进入了最后一部分:


第一个方法便是顺其自然,就是老子所说的“无为”:德国的巨大贸易顺差可能会像中国那样,因为工资上涨而逐渐缩小。失业率不足4%,适龄工作人口会逐渐减少。房价在数十年的下滑之后,可能会重新上涨,这意味着相对减薪。但是,德国人小心谨慎的天性根深蒂固,去年工资仅上涨2.3%,增速比前两年还要慢,靠这种调整,贸易顺差可能需要很多年才能调整到合理水平。


第二个方法是政府增加开支。德国的结构性预算余额在2010年为赤字,占GDP的比例超过3%,现在已稍有盈余。官员认为这是谨慎之举,但是考虑到私营部门的高储蓄,这种说法又很难成立。德国经济在数字化方面落于人后,平均下载速度在全球排在第25位。德国妇女的劳动参与率较低,如果政府提供更多的课后托儿服务,就能让更多的母亲全职参加工作。有人认为这种扩张不太可能,因为就业已经很充分。然而在市场经济中,要获取稀缺资源有一个可靠又可信的方法——付更多钱。


最重要的是,德国早就该认识到自己的过度储蓄是个缺点。默克尔表示支持自由贸易,但她和她的同胞需要知道,德国的贸易顺差本身就是对自由贸易的威胁。










(向上滑动启阅)

第三部分


Can the problem be fixed? Perhaps Germany’s bumper trade surplus will be eroded as China’s was, by a surge in wages. Unemployment is below 4% and the working-age population will shrink, despite strong immigration. After decades of decline, the cost of housing is rising, meaning that pay does not stretch as far as it used to. The institutions behind wage restraint are losing influence. The euro may surge. Yet the German instinct for caution is deeply rooted. Pay rose by just 2.3% last year, more slowly than in the previous two years. Left to adjust, the surplus might take many years to fall to a sensible level.

The government should help by spending more. Germany’s structural budget balance has gone from a deficit of over 3% of GDP in 2010 to a small surplus. Officials call this prudence but, given high private-sector savings, it is hard to defend. Germany has plenty of worthwhile projects to spend money on. Its school buildings and roads are crumbling, because of the squeeze on public investment required to meet its own misguided fiscal rules. The economy lags behind in its readiness for digitalisation, ranking 25th in the world in average download speeds. Greater provision of after-school care by the state would let more mothers work full-time, in an economy where women’s participation is low. Some say such expansion is impossible, because of full employment. Yet in a market economy, there is a tried and trusted way to bid for scarce resources: pay more.

Above all, it is long past time for Germany to recognise that its excessive saving is a weakness. Mrs Merkel is absolutely right to proclaim the message of free trade. But she and her compatriots need to understand that Germany’s surpluses are themselves a threat to free trade’s legitimacy.










本公众号将取消之前分类,重新分为以下两个模块:“经济学人观点解读”和“经济学人语言解析”。“经济学人观点解读”主要对一篇文章的内容、观点进行介绍,每周一篇,更新时间为周六、周日;“经济学人语言解析”是对该文章的语言点进行解析,每周两篇,分“(上)(下)”两部分,更新时间为周一至周五随机两天。

敬请期待吧!


• end •

iOS用户赞赏通道

一起分享 世界的点滴



▲向上滑动


公众号

经济学人双语精读



新浪微博

经济学人双语对照





长按右方二维码

关注我们ˉ►








请到「今天看啥」查看全文