《中国日报》：（赵忠秀）Sound trade policy a boon for US
（来源：中国日报2024-11-08）
MA XUEJING/CHINA DAILY
Former US president Donald Trump has won the presidential election and will be sworn in as the 47th US president on Jan 20. President Xi Jinping on Thursday extended congratulations to Donald Trump on his election as president of the United States.
Xi urged the two countries to find the right way to get along in the new era, so as to benefit both countries and the wider world. The statements made by the Chinese leader indicate the correct path that the world's two largest economies should follow. Hopefully, both the current US president and the president-elect will take heed of such suggestions.
In particular, the US has imposed tariffs on more than $300 billion worth of Chinese goods since 2018. It's a big concern that during the election campaign, Trump threatened to impose 60 percent tariffs on imports from China (worth about $427 billion in 2023) and 10 percent tariffs on all imports (worth more than $3 trillion).
However, it should be noted that many US presidents have prioritized practical measures over impractical election pledges after being sworn in.
Tariffs are never a "panacea" for all the economic and social ills of the US. Can tariffs help boost domestic manufacturing, increase national wealth, compensate for the loss of government revenue due to tax cuts, pay for childcare, and even combat inflation? Can tariffs on Chinese products have helped bring manufacturing and employment back to the US?
Even US economists have dismissed such claims as being exaggerated, unsubstantiated and logically fallible. In fact the tariffs failed to boost US manufacturing and, instead, cost more jobs than they created. Among the studies are those by the Tax Foundation and US-China Business Council, as well as some other prominent economists including David Autor at the economics department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The study by Autor and others — basically, the same team that conducted a study on the "China shock" — is particularly interesting, as it found that the tariffs failed to achieve their goal of bringing jobs back to the US. Due to other countries' retaliation, the cumulative effect of Trump's tariffs — that is, the effect of the original tariffs, retaliatory tariffs and subsidies granted to farmers — was slightly negative for US jobs.
Also, some economists agree that the proposed broad-based tariffs may increase the cost of entry for overseas competitors and thus reduce imports, encouraging some US enterprises to increase their production. But studies show the tariffs would raise the costs for US manufacturers and businesses that depend on foreign inputs.
Contrary to the claim that China will pay the cost of those tariffs, not US consumers, numerous studies have shown that the costs of tariffs were, in reality, borne by Americans as a whole, if not only consumers. According to a 2018 study led by Mary Amiti of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the extra tariffs "had little to no impact on the prices received by foreign exporters". Importers, too, had to pay part of the cost of the tariffs, as their profit margins shrunk.
There's no doubt any new tariffs would increase the costs for consumers. Kimberly Clausing and Mary Lovely of the Peterson Institute estimate the annual cost for a typical US household to be about $2,600, while Budget Lab at Yale puts the extra cost at $1,900 to $7,600 per household.
Therefore as to the claim that "smart tariffs will not create inflation", and would even "combat inflation", economists say it is completely untenable. Autor at the MIT said the proposal to impose tariffs will have "a very large effect on prices almost immediately", which, in turn, could trigger a recession.
Besides, according to a study by the Peterson Institute, the proposed policy combination — import tariffs, deportation of illegal immigrants and efforts to erode the US Federal Reserve's independence — will drive up consumer prices. To be precise, the inflation rate, which otherwise would have been 1.9 percent in 2026, is projected to reach between 6 percent and 9.3 percent if tariff threat is realized.
Many Americans see tariffs as a remedy for the country's economic ills, because the US' manufacturing sector has been hollowed out, and inflation remains a big concern. But economists have been warning that extra tariffs increase commodity costs and raise inflation, hurting ordinary people. In a country whose supply chains are spread across the world and where labor costs are rising, extra tariffs on imports alone cannot bring manufacturing back or solve the problems facing US manufacturing. As a matter of fact, protectionist tariff policies will, more likely than not, exacerbate economic instability and increase economic costs.
Also, over-reliance on tariffs could result in higher living costs and increase the inflationary pressure on the people, ultimately undermining the health of the US economy. So policymakers should adopt a more rational approach to evaluating the long-term impacts of tariffs, temper protectionist impulses and strike a balance between increasing employment and maintaining the stability of the global supply chains, so as to ensure sustainable development.
The author is president of the University of International Business and Economics, Beijing. The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.
If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.
附原文链接
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202411/08/WS672d46e4a310f1265a1cc233.html
【译文】
健全的贸易政策对美国大有裨益
赵忠秀
美国前总统唐纳德·特朗普赢得了本次总统选举，并将于明年1月20日宣誓就任美国第47任总统。习近平主席于周四(11月7日)致电唐纳德·特朗普，祝贺其当选美国总统。
习主席敦促两国在新时期走出一条正确的相处之道，以造福两国，惠及世界。习主席的表态指明了世界两大经济体应遵循的正确道路。 希望现任美国总统和即将上任的特朗普总统都能听取这些建议。
2018年之后，美国对价值超过3000亿美元的中国商品征收了关税。 更令人担忧的是，在竞选期间，特朗普宣称计划对从中国进口的商品（2023年总值约4270亿美元）征收60%的关税，并对所有其他进口商品（价值超过3万亿美元）征收10%的关税。
我们当然也注意到，许多美国总统在上任后，通常会优先考虑更务实的措施，而不是竞选时的激进承诺。
关税从来不是解决美国所有经济和社会问题的“万灵药”。 关税究竟能否像特朗普所言，促进国内制造业、增加国家财富、弥补减税造成的政府收入损失、支付儿童保育费用、甚至对抗通货膨胀？对中国产品加征关税，有是否有助于将制造业和就业带回美国？
就连美国经济学家也对这些说法持怀疑态度，认为这些说法夸大其词，缺乏证据，甚至有些在逻辑难以自洽。 事实上，多项研究表明，特朗普时代的关税未能提振美国制造业，其所导致的就业岗位损失甚至大于其所创造的就业岗位。 这些研究包括税收基金会 (Tax Foundation) 和美中贸易全国委员会 (US-China Business Council) 的研究，以及麻省理工学院经济系大卫·奥特（David Autor）等著名经济学家的研究。
奥特等人的研究——也就是首先对“中国冲击”进行研究的那个团队——特别有趣。他们发现，特朗普关税未能实现将就业岗位带回美国的目标。由于其他国家的报复，特朗普关税的累积效应——即最初关税、相对国家的报复性关税和给予农民补贴的总效应——对美国整体就业甚至略有负面影响。
一些经济学家认为，拟议中的广泛关税固然会增加海外竞争对手的进入成本，从而减少进口，鼓励部分美国企业增加本土生产。但研究也显示，这种做法代价高昂，因为关税将增加依赖外国投入品的美国制造商和企业的成本。
与“关税成本将由中国而非美国消费者承担”的说法相反，大量研究表明，关税的成本如果不是由美国消费者承担，至少在整体上也是由美方承担。 根据纽约联储玛丽·阿米蒂（Mary Amiti）及其团队在2018年的一项研究，特朗普加征的关税 “对外国出口商的价格几乎没有影响”。 由于利润率缩水，进口商也承担了关税的部分成本。
毫无疑问，特朗普的新关税计划将增加消费者的成本。彼得森国际研究所的Kimberly Clausing和Mary Lovely估计，若得到执行，典型的美国家庭的年均开支将增加约2600美元，而耶鲁大学预算实验室的估计则在1900美元至7600美元之间。
因此，对于 “聪明的关税不会引发通胀”，甚至“有助于抗通胀”的说法，经济学家普遍认为站不住脚。 麻省理工学院的奥特表示，新一轮关税计划如果实施，“几乎会立刻对价格产生重大影响”，进而可能引发经济衰退。
此外，彼得森国际研究所的一项研究显示，特朗普拟议中的政策组合——进口关税、驱逐非法移民和削弱美国美联储的独立性的举措——将推高消费者物价。更确切地说，如果关税威胁成为现实，原本预计在2026年仅为1.9%的通胀率，将飙升到6%至9.3%。
许多美国人认为，关税是解决国家经济问题的灵丹妙药，尤其是在美国制造业日益空心化的今天。 但经济学家一直警告说，额外关税会抬高商品成本，加剧通膨，最终损害普通民众的利益。在美国这个供应链遍布全球、劳动力成本高昂的国家，仅靠增加进口关税并不能有效促使造业回流，也无法解决美国制造业面临的根本问题。 事实上，保护主义关税政策很可能会加剧经济不稳定，增加经济成本。
此外，过度依赖关税可能会导致民众生活成本上升，增加通胀压力，最终损害美国经济的健康。美国决策者应当更理性地评估关税的长期影响，抑制保护主义冲动，在增加就业和维护全球供应链稳定之间取得平衡，以确保经济运行的可持续性。
提及的部分文献
Amiti, Mary, Stephen J. Redding, and David E. Weinstein (2019), "The impact of the 2018 tariffs on prices and welfare."Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33 (4): 187-210.
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.33.4.187
Autor, David, Anne Beck, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson (2024), “Help for the Heartland? The Employment and Electoral Effects of the Trump Tariffs in the United States”. NBER Working Paper, No. W32082.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w32082
Clausing, Kimberly A., and Mary E. Lovely (2024), "Why Trump's tariff proposals would harm working Americans",Peterson Institute for International Economics Policy Brief, 24-1.
McKibbin, Warwick J., Megan Hogan, and Marcus Noland (2024), "The international economic implications of a second Trump presidency".
