PIMCO前总裁埃利安昨天在彭博观点撰文讨论中美贸易关系，分析员在这里分享并在重点段落下做简单而不完全的翻译，大家凑合着看。
What Game Theory Says About Trump’s TradeStrategy
Financial markets were of two minds last week about the impact of mounting trade tensions between China and the U.S.
On the one hand, the escalating tit-for-tat tariffs still affect only a relatively small part of the two countries’ economies. The consensus baseline remains that the measures should not have a significant and lasting downward impact on the economy and stocks and, ultimately, may help bring about trade that is still free but fairer.
市场共识仍然认为目前互加关税的举措不会对经济和股市产生严重而持续的负面影响，而且希望这些举措能带来一个仍然自由但是更公平的贸易体系。
On the other hand, each escalation (the latest is the July 10 announcement by the Trump administration of its intention to impose import duties on an additional $200 billion of Chinese products) increases the market’s downside risk scenario of slipping, either on purpose or inadvertently, into a full-blown trade warthat would significantly damage corporate earnings and the overall growth outcome.
但另一方面，每次双方举措升级都会提高全面贸易战的可能性，从而对企业盈利和增长带来严重后果。
And there is a third possible scenario for international trade that hasn’t yet captured the attention of markets: A “Reagan moment” that has an upside, though it is less probable than the downside scenario, that goes beyond tweaks to the existing system by deliveringchanges in the overall global economic landscape that favor the U.S. in both relative and absolute terms.
但还有第三种可能，虽然比上面负面情形发生的可能性更低，就是美国重获里根时刻，重塑一个对美国友好的全球经济体系。
Making firm predictions on the probability distribution of these three possible outcomes is challenging. The answer will depend on a lot morethan just economics and finance. Domestic politics also play an important role,and the current polarized environment adds to the complexity of reconciling competing expectations with reinvigorated global harmony.
Here are some insights from game theory on what to watch and expect.
1.An inherently cooperative game is increasingly playeduncooperatively:
The Trump administration is taking a disruptive approach to trade, and several other areas, by shaking things up as a means to fix what it views as asymmetrical components that undermine the fairness of the system and harm the U.S. It has resorted tounilateral tactics that combine actual tariff actions with threats of escalation, instead of continuing to rely on the rules-based system that has underpinned the post-World War II international economic order.
In game theory terms, the Trump administration has introduced a notable“uncooperative” element to the inherently “cooperative game” of international trade. Most economists worry about the implications for individual countriesand the system as a whole.
Trade wars tend to create a strong stagflationary impulse, disrupting growthand increasing costs and prices. The conflicts complicate domestic policy management and increase the risk of financial instability. They also risk causing serious fractures to the international economic and financial architecture, with consequences that can extend well beyond economics andfinance.
Given all this, the major question today is whether the current round of mounting trade tensions is a means to a better end — still-free but fairer trade — or an end in itself. Until now,the markets have attached a considerably higher probability to the former, more positive possibility, though every escalation in the tit-for-tat tariffs erodessome of the confidence in that outcome.
二战以后建立的以规则为基础的全球经济体系天然就是一个讲求合作性的系统，而特朗普目前的做法是采取颠覆性的不合作措施来改正这个系统那些对美国不利的方面。市场目前仍然对贸易战向好的一面发展这种可能性压了过高的筹码。
2. Further escalation is the most likely outcome for now:
For trade tensions to be a means to a better end, individual country behaviors must change in a manner that is visible, verifiable and durable. This is particularly true of China’s approach to intellectual property, market access limits and joint venturerequirements, which are a longstanding source of friction with the U.S., aswell as other countries. Until there are indications of durable change, the most likely American strategy will be to increase the pressure on China, eventhough that carries significant risks for all. The U.S. stance is intended to leave no doubt about the administration’s resolve and its commitment to affecting change, almost regardless of the domestic costs. But the U.S. could end up pushing China too far, too fast. That would threaten not just afull-blown trade war, but also increased geopolitical strains and financia ldisruptions (including because China is a large holder of U.S. government securities and a major participant in the dollar market).
未来中美双方冲突加剧是最有可能的结果。在中方做出显著改变以前，美国政府最可能做的就是不断施加更大的压力，即使这样做会对各方来讲都有显著风险。美国的立场是要毫无疑问地展示其政府不惜牺牲美国国内利益也要推动改变的决心。但是美国的举措可能会把中国推到墙角，不但会导致全面贸易战，甚至爆发地缘风险和金融危机。
3. The game is inherently unbalanced:
Whether by accident ordesign, the U.S. is now playing in an uncooperative game that it is well placed to win in relative terms. For many reasons, trade tensions are less damaging for the U.S. than for China, whose growth model is still notably dependent on foreign markets. This relative advantage is already evident in the performance of the equity and currency markets of the two countries. While this advantage certainly isn’t protection against some absolute damage, it gives the U.S. astronger hand to play.
美国在这场博弈中占有天然相对优势，因为贸易战对美国伤害远少于中国，这已经从股票市场和外汇市场得到的印证。这个优势令美国在博弈中占据强手地位。
The situation resembles the 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan embarked on amilitary spending race with the Soviet Union, a contest America was destined towin, albeit with costs and at considerable risk. This is an approach the Trump administration will be tempted to press further when it shifts its attentionback to the modernization of existing trading arrangements with other countries, including some of its closest allies.
这个情形就如当年美苏军备竞赛一样，美国是注定会赢的，即使博弈过程中美国也承受了成本和风险。这个就是特朗普政府在改变现有贸易体系努力中用来对付中国和美国盟友的策略。
4. Chinawill likely ultimately agree to some U.S. requests:
Because the game is unbalanced, China’s least costly strategy over time will be to seek a return to a cooperative approach to trade, even though the country is making gains onregional arrangements. This may only be possible by acceding to some U.S.requests. It may not be a first best outcome for China, but it’s a lot betterthan a full-blown trade war.
由于这场博弈是不均衡的，中国可能最终会同意美国的部分要求。对中国而言这不是最好的结果，但是总比全面贸易战好很多。
5. Public accusations and counter-accusations make trust difficult:
Restoring greater trust between China and the U.S. is key to re-establishing a durable cooperativegame. This requires behind-closed-door meetings that set aside accusations currently being levied by both sides, and focus on immediate confidence-gainingsteps as well a framework for resolving the inevitable misunderstandings and misperceptions that are likely to arise. The sooner these meetings resume in earnest, the lower the risks the current uncooperative game will turn into avery costly global trade war.
双方公开互怼只会丧失信任。双方应该尽快举行秘密会议来商谈解决办法。
