觀察者網全文翻譯：

    美國商務部上周公布的貿易數據顯示，雖然較上月略有收縮，但十月份的對華貿易逆差仍舊十分龐大。這個數據預示著，美國將對中國進行新一輪的強有力的經濟干預。

不幸的是，對中國問題的辯論往往陷入剪不清、理還亂的境地，因而沒有形成有效的措施。造成這種混亂的一個主要原因是，美國沒有一個真正針對中國的普遍利益訴求點。美國99%的階層對華主張完全異于那些1%階層。除非雙方在這個問題上達成共識，否則對華經濟關系將不會得到改善，龐大的工人階級也不會受益。

對華政策的核心焦點是人民幣升值問題。這種對美元的過高估值是中國毫不掩飾的讓人民幣匯率與美元掛鉤的結果。

中國政府常常被指責操縱匯率，但基于以下兩個事實，這種指責根本站不住腳。首先，這是一項官方政策，中國政府在調整匯率時相當透明，而非在半夜無人時悄悄出手。

其次，目前中國管理匯率的機制是，美國財政部一旦采取行動，中國政府隔日就會推出相應措施，比如大筆購入美國國債。
這似乎很荒謬，但卻是事實。中國保持其貨幣匯率的穩定是通過購買美國政府的巨額國債來實現的。

媒體天天在說，我們需要中國購買我們的債務。這是不正確的。其實還有許多其他潛在投資者，比如美國聯邦儲備委員會。然而，我們不能一邊指望中國購買美國國債，一邊又抱怨中國操縱貨幣。但這的確是他們操縱人民幣的方式。

當前的問題是，只有很少一部分人對中國本身不滿。大部分人是對中國不尊重輝瑞制藥和迪斯尼之類公司的專利和版權的行為不滿，對中國不準予像美林和高盛這樣的金融巨頭在中國全面開放市場不滿，對中國為沃爾瑪這樣的想要把店開到中國各地的零售連鎖店設置很多障礙不滿。而這些往往與人民幣被低估混為一談，從而制造一些經濟控告，反對中國政府。

人們可以爭辯以上事情孰輕孰重，然而卻對現實毫無幫助。沒有一個法庭可以用來控訴中國的經濟行為。中國是一個強盛的國家，它的GDP接近美國的80%。而蘇聯的GDP在鼎盛時期也不過是美國的一半。

我們永遠不打算對中國發號施令，告訴它什么該做，什么不該做。我們會像他們那樣平等地進行談判。這意味著，要從中國政府那里得到一些特許，我們必須在別的問題上作出讓步。

從這個角度看，那些對中國剽竊輝瑞和迪斯尼的知識產權大呼小叫的人堅決反對那些擔心人民幣被低估的人。如果中國作出一些讓步，同意加強鞏固美國專利和版權，那么它在提升貨幣價值方面幾乎不會讓步。同樣，如果中國給予美林和高盛在金融方面更多的權力，就要對美元重新進行評估。

關鍵是，與中國談判時，奧巴馬政府將偏袒某些利益而不顧對他人的損害。而工人階級在美元貶值方面有一個明確的利益訴求。

如果美元相對于人民幣貶值20%，進口中國商品強加20%關稅與出口分發20%的津貼將產生大約同樣的影響。美元貶值很有希望擊敗其他貨幣，這樣大大有助于減少貿易逆差，創造數以百萬計相對較高收入的制造業就業機會。

相比之下，如果中國加強鞏固輝瑞和迪斯尼的專利和版權，他們將會得到更高的利潤，但美國的工人們就幾乎得不到什么益處了。

簡而言之，中美談判存在一個非常明晰的階級劃分。1%的階層關注是否會讓他們更富有。99%的階層則關心貨幣貶值可以為他們創造數以百萬計的制造業就業機會。我們想要看看，奧巴馬政府到底站在哪一邊。

美國讀者相關評論：

評論1：老實說，中美貿易，我看不到美國占到什么優勢。甚至當我假裝思考美國本身利益時，我仍想不出什么辦法。底線是，中國廉價的制造業在未來數十年仍將繼續，如果不能長久就另當別論。你的服務業既不能彌補這種差距，也不能彌補你的高科技行業。如果美國是一個小國家，需要較少的制造業，你也許會像韓國、日本那樣還有盈余，可惜你不是。中國和他的政府國家利益至上。他不會浮動他的貨幣匯率。這會對國內企業有利。外部的人什么都做不了。不，你沒有發起嚴重的關稅或啟動任何一種與世界上最大的的制造商和消費市場的貿易戰爭的政治動力。

所以，只會讓情況越來越糟，也只能忍著。

評論2：誰設置的貨幣匯率？我們為什么不能回到過去的黃金標準呢？由于這些不公平的自由貿易協定，我們已經失去了我們在美國的制造基地。國會應該通過法律支持當地的生產商并鼓勵國內的制造業。

評論3：雖然我同意貝克博士在這個問題上關于政治力量和交易的描述，但我不同意對美國政府替代債權人的有效性這種相對草率的論述：

“還有許多其他潛在投資者，包括美國聯邦儲備委員會。”

把中國政府從這個債務市場排除在外，將：

1.立即抬高基準利率

2.立即抬高政府的其他預算赤字

但因為這樣一種措施沒有將中國從美國資本市場的其他領域排除出去，中國仍然可以有效地通過將流通中的美元轉移到資本市場的其他領域來實現美元和人民幣的掛鉤。這樣會導致如下結果：

1、美國債券違約保險費（財政部和“風險”債券之間的收益差）減少；

2、股權風險溢價減少；

3、中國政府在市政債券違約事件中的影響增強；

4、身份感和對美國企業的控制增強；

這就是問題所在：

中美外匯率對刺激美國制造業尋求復興的渴望正如貝克博士預測的并沒有明顯改變。

評論4：奧巴馬的嘴向著99%的階層，但他的行動（和米歇爾計劃一樣）則是向著頂端的1%階層。

從中國到歐洲再到美國，將會有一個全球性的抗議活動反對1%的精英階層，它將會使歐債危機和美債危機像之前歷史上的危機一樣更令人擔憂。

評論5：我認為這種說法是有問題的，如果人民幣升值，中國的出口商就只能自付增加的成本（接受更低的利潤率）以保持其市場份額。此外，如果中國人由于人民幣升值（或者增加勞動力成本）而失去一些工作機會，這些工作機會將轉移到亞洲其他低工資的國家，如越南、孟加拉，甚至會到墨西哥。越來越多的美國公司選擇墨西哥，甚至多于選擇中國，很大一部分原因就是因為海上運輸成本的上升。

此外，中國的工作崗位，很大一部分是由低技術，低附加值被低教育程度的人群（中國工廠里的女孩，來自農村的中國移民）所從事。這些工作機會現在或者將來都不能回到美國本土。這是很難的工作，往往需要美國的中產階級來做，即使他們最終會在這里。

評論6：你不能否認存在一個市場 “鐵腕”…….消費者總是購買他們感覺有“價值”的東西。

貿易戰爭不會停止，永遠不會！

根據消費者和市場份額來看，我們的競爭對手生產大部分制成品，他們比美國做的更好。在奧巴馬大蕭條時期很難有利潤！！！

即使在社會主義，利潤/中央經濟利潤也必須被兌現。奧巴馬就是個騙子。

    英文如下：

Economic Conflicts With China and Class War in the United States

The Commerce Department's release of trade figures last week showed another large deficit with China for October, albeit slightly lower than the record hit the previous month. This figure will renew the calls for stronger action against China.

Unfortunately the debate over China is often buried in confusion, leading to a situation that is not conducive to effective action. A major reason for this confusion is that there is not a common U.S. interest against China. The interests of the 99 percent differ greatly from the interests of the 1 percent. Until this fact is recognized more generally, there is no possibility that our economic relations with China will change in a way that benefits the vast majority of working people in the United States.

The central issue with China is the fact that the dollar is over-valued against the Chinese currency. This over-valuation is the result of the explicit Chinese policy of pegging its currency against the dollar.

The peg is often referred to as "manipulation," but it doesn't really fit the bill for two reasons. First, it is an official policy. China targets the value of its currency quite openly; it is not doing it in the middle of the night when no one is looking.

The second reason is that China's mechanism for targeting the value of its currency is something that on alternate days our Treasury actually requests. They buy up U.S. government debt.
If this seems absurd, it should because it is. The way in which China keeps its currency down against the dollar (or keeps the dollar up against its currency) is by buying huge amounts of U.S. government bonds.

The media often tells us that we need China to buy our debt. This is not true. There are plenty of other potential investors, including the Federal Reserve Board. However we cannot both want China to buy U.S. government debt and then complain about China's currency manipulation. This is how they "manipulate" their currency.

But the currency issue is only one of many complaints that routinely appear in the list of grievances against China. The longer list includes complaints that China doesn't respect the patents and copyrights of companies like Pfizer and Disney, they don't grant full access to financial giants like Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs, and they put up barriers to retail chains like Wal-Mart who want to open up stores across China. These sorts of items are often lumped together with the undervaluation of the Chinese yuan to make a sort of economic indictment against the Chinese government.
One can argue the merits of each of these issues, but that doesn't have anything to do with the real world. There is no court where we are going to prosecute China for its economic wrongdoing. China is a huge powerful country. Its GDP is nearly 80 percent of U.S. GDP. By comparison, at its peak the GDP of the Soviet Union may have been half as large as the GDP of the United States.

We are not ever going to be in a situation to dictate to China what it can and cannot do. We are going to have to negotiate with them as the equal that they are. This means that in order to get some concessions from China's government on issues that we care about we will have to give up on other issues.

From this standpoint, the interests of those yelling about China's "pirating" of Pfizer and Disney's intellectual property are 180 degrees at odds with those concerned about the undervaluation of the yuan. If China gives up some ground in agreeing to stronger enforcement of U.S. patents and copyrights, then it is going to give up less ground in agreeing to raise the value of its currency. Similarly, if China agrees to give Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs more access to its financial sector, it will be at the cost of progress on revaluing its currency.

The point is that in pushing various demands in its negotiations with China, the Obama administration will be favoring certain interests to the detriment of others. The bulk of the working population has a clear interest in having a lower valued dollar.

If the dollar falls by 20 percent relative to the yuan, this would have roughly the same impact as imposing a 20 percent tariff on importing Chinese goods and giving out a 20 percent subsidy on exports to subsidy. Since the dollar is likely to fall against other currencies as well, this could go far toward bringing down the trade deficit, creating millions of relatively high-paying manufacturing jobs.

By contrast, Pfizer and Disney will see higher profits if China's increases enforcement of their patents and copyrights, but this will provide little benefit to workers in the United States. Similarly, Goldman Sach's increased access to China's financial markets is not going to create jobs for workers in the United States.

In short, there is a very clear class divide in U.S. negotiations with China. The 1 percent have their laundry list of special concerns that will make them even richer. The 99 percent care about a lower-valued currency to create millions of manufacturing jobs. We will see which side the Obama administration is on.

相關評論：

1、Honestly, I see no way for the US to win in terms of trade with China. Even when I pretend to think in American interests, I can find no solution. The bottom line is that China will have cheaper manufactur­ing for decades to come, if not longer. Your service sector won't make up for the discrepanc­y, nor your tech sectors. If the US was a smaller country that required less manufactur­ing you might be able to win a surplus like Korea/Japa­n does, but you're not. Yes, China and its government has national interest at heart. It will not float its currency. It WILL favor domestic enterprise­s. There's nothing anyone on the outside can do about it. No, you don't have the political impetus to initiate serious tariffs or start any kind of trade war with the world's largest manufactur­er and consumer market.

So, too bad, live with it.

2、Who sets the rate of currency? Why don't we go back to the good old Gold Standard ? We have lost our manufactur­ing base in USA because of these unfair free trade agreements Congress should pass laws to favor local producers and encourage domestic manufactur­ing.

3、While I agree with Dr. Baker's descriptio¬n of the political forces and trade-offs on this matter, I respective¬ly disagree with this relatively cavalier statement regarding the availabili¬ty of alternate creditors for the US government¬:

"There are plenty of other potential investors, including the Federal Reserve Board."

Excluding the Chinese government from participat¬ing in this debt market will

(a) immediatel¬y drive up baseline interest rates, and

(b) immediatel¬y drive up other government¬'s budget deficit.

But because such a measure does not exclude China from participat¬ing in other areas of the US capital market, China could still effectivel¬y peg its currency to the US dollar by shifting its flow of dollars into these other areas of that market. Such a response would result in:

1) a decrease in US bond default premiums (the yield spreads between Treasury and 'risky' bonds)

2) a decrease in the equity risk premium (the difference in the implied discount rates for equity versus Treasury securities¬),

3) increased influence by the Chinese government in the event of municipal bond defaults,

4) increased ownership and control of US firms, and

And this is the problem:

5) no appreciabl¬e change in the US-China foreign exchange rate to spur the much desired renaissanc¬e in the US manufactur¬ing sector that Dr. Baker predicts.

4、Obama's mouth will be for the 99% and his actions (and Michelle's holiday plans) will be with the top 1% of the 1%.

There is going to be a global revolt from China to Europe to America against the top 1% and it will make concerns over currency and Euro debt look like the good old days.

5、I think there are problems with this argument. If the Yuan increases in value, Chinese exporters will simply eat some of the increased costs (and accept lower profit margins) to maintain their market shares. Also, if the Chinese do lose some of these jobs because of a rising Yuan ( or rising labor costs), many of these jobs will simply move to other low wage platforms in Asia, such as Vietnam or Bangladesh­, or to Mexico. Many American firms are increasing­ly choosing Mexico over China for production purposes for a number of reasons, including the rising cost of transporta­tion by sea.

Also, the jobs in question in China are largely low skilled, low value added jobs performed by workers with very little education (Chinese factory girls, Chinese migrants from the countrysid­e). These jobs are not coming back to U.S. soil, now or in the future. And these are hardly jobs that would allow an American to join the Middle Class, even if they did end up here.

6、You cannot deny the "Iron Hand" of Markets...­..........­.....consu­mers always buy what they
percieve as "Value" !

Trade Wars never work, ever !

Our Competitor­s do a better Job of most manufactur­ed goods than the USA, according to consumers and Market Shares. Hard to make a Profit in the OBAMA DEPRESSION ! ! !
Profits must be honored even in Socialist/­Central Economies. Obama is a Fraud !

原文鏈接：http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/economic-conflicts-with-c_b_1144116.html