张维为对话斯蒂格利茨：被特朗普损坏的全球化，该康复了
12:44
在阅历了长年累月的计票之后，拜登终究抢先特朗普胜出。
所以人们有了另一种期盼：民主党拜登入主白宫，被特朗普损坏的全球次序会从头康复吗？
这四年，特朗普损坏的可不少：退出国际组织、大谈美国优先，从前树立全球化次序的美国，成了次序的最大阻止。
但我国在这个进程中，一直秉持敞开心态，从未抛弃推进全球化，“一带一路”、进博会便是举动。我国构建的这些全球化渠道，也正在让国际获益。
近来，环绕“新自在主义与全球化危机”，复旦大学我国研究院院长张维为对话诺贝尔经济学奖得主、国际银行首席经济学家斯蒂格利茨。本文为第三部分“推举就能救美国吗？”，更多内容请点击#张维为对话斯蒂格利茨#。
杨晗轶：阅历了几十年的经济全球化，各国之间，至少我国和美国之间的联络已适当严密，几乎是一种内涵的联络。我有一个问题，咱们知道全球化的优点不成比例地流向了富人和权贵，已然他们在全球化傍边获得了巨大的优点，为什么他们要支撑那些煽动“脱钩”的政治实力呢？假如他们不支撑这些实力，“脱钩”又怎样脱得成呢？
斯蒂格利茨：这个问题很有意思。我以为，美国所发生的状况是，大公司从前是1980年开端的这一轮全球化的首要推手，但后来的形势打开令它们大感绝望。而他们之所以会感到绝望，部分原因是它们从前把我国当作一座金山，以为13亿人口的巨大商场能够发生巨额的赢利。成果实际状况没有彻底遂它们的愿望。它们的确获得了不少赢利，但赢利在逐步下降。
我以为这背面有几个原因：
榜首，我国的工资水平现已上涨，不再是廉价劳动力的来历，因而这些企业在向其他劳动力更廉价的国家搬运。它们学会了怎样外包，但我国不再像曩昔那样被视为外包赢利的来历。
第二，有的美国企业挣钱靠的是无视环保标准，而现在我国在环保标准方面比曩昔标准多了。因而它们只能去找下一个答应自己蹂躏环境的国家。期望它们找不到这样的当地。
第三，我国在打开本乡企业方面做得十分超卓，我自己开的沃尔沃轿车便是中资企业一切。事实上我国现已获得巨大的前进，而中资企业在我国国内商场的竞赛也十分剧烈。
关于你提出的问题，一个最直接的答案是美国企业远远不像曩昔那样，积极支撑中美坚持严密联络。它们对知识产权被盗和企业向某些商场扩张受约束等状况有许多诉苦。但我以为它们最底子的不满仍是，我国不再像曩昔期望的那样一直是巨额赢利的来历。
张维为：咱们咱们都赞同，我国或许算得上全球化几个最首要的获益方之一。即便是今日，大部分我国人依然支撑全球化。我个人以为，美国大公司作为一个全体在很大程度上获益于全球化。但如你在书中所说到的，美国由于政治体系、政治制度问题、各种僵局等原因，大公司的收益并没有得到比较公正的分配，在整个美国社会，至少一部分收益应该分配给一般民众。这也是为什么许多美国人对全球化怒火中烧。
现在，咱们看到中美之间的科技战、交易战，看到美国对华为、抖音、蚂蚁集团的阻遏和约束。我在想，这是不是一种你所说的经济权利的延伸，美国大企业在美国政府的支撑下对立中资企业。我以为当下存在这样的状况，它们惧怕跟咱们打开自在公正的竞赛。
斯蒂格利茨：在我看来，很明显各种企业一直以来都在寻求政府协助。有个笑话是这么说的，企业信任竞赛，但只信任其他职业应该竞赛，自己的职业最好不要有竞赛，竞赛都是他人的事，人都是这么想的。我发现商人们永久对立补助，除非自己的职业是受补助的目标。“自在商场”是对他人而言的，而不是对自己而言的。每个企业都说自己状况特别，需求协助和维护，竞赛对我来说是有害的，是不公正的。这是企业的天分，你得习气这一点。这便是实际，但公共政策应当竭力制止大公司使用政府权利来为自己的利益服务。这不是政府该做的事。
我以为咱们依然需求多边主义。经济学家说得很有道理，交易真实的优点是全球性的，区域性交易协定解决不了这个问题。这或许导致我搭档贾格迪什·巴格沃蒂所指的“意大利面碗”现象，不同交易协定之中的条款相互堆叠、使规矩复杂化。
对我而言，我以为最大的应战在于，“铁幕”坍毁也便是暗斗正式完毕之后，弗朗西斯·福山写了本很有影响力的书《前史的完结》，这是一种盲目乐观的梦想，梦想一切国家终究都会成为自在主义民主国家和自在商场经济体。其时支撑交易自在化的理由之一是，它将加快前史完结之日的到来，到时一切国家都将是自在民主国家，奉行自在商场经济。
现在已没人信任这种梦想了。咱们的政治和经济制度没有朝相同的结尾收敛，未来国际各国或许会在不同体系下各自前行。这一点具有十分严重的含义，由于假如一切人都在同一套经济体系里边，游戏规矩拟定起来比较简单；但假如几种不同的经济体系一起存在，要拟定可谓公正、合理的规矩就十分困难。
应战在于，当你认识到交易纷歧定能导致体系趋同，未来不同的政治和经济体系将一起存在，要怎样对交易收益加以使用？在这个需求咱们环绕气候变化、大盛行、全球昌盛以及帮助赤贫国家打开协作的年代，国际要怎样组织起来？需求协作的方面还有许多。咱们要怎样一方面协作，一方面接受一个实际，即咱们支撑的政治和经济体系大不相同？
在这种含义上，咱们将成为竞赛者，虽然我不愿意这样表述，可是咱们对社会未来打开方向的愿景的确差异很大。咱们不需求对互相进行说教，但咱们保有天壤之别的观念。问题在于，在那样一个国际里，假如咱们期望在地球可接受范围内享用远离抵触的充足日子，互相间要怎样和平共处，并打开许多必要的协作？
张维为：听完斯蒂格利茨教授这番心态敞开、引人深思的言语，我觉得你才是美国总统的抱负人选。这将为人类带来许多福祉。
回到关于全球化的问题，我以为出于能够了解的原因，这个进程将阅历从头适应和调整。区域化趋势将变得更强，或许会呈现某种方式的欧洲一体化、亚洲一体化和北美一体化。而我国则是这种趋势中的新要素，由于按购买力平价核算，我国现在现已是全球最大经济体，是130个国家的最大交易同伴。我国建议一种新式的、树立在共商、共建、同享等核心理念上的全球化，详细体现在“一带一路”建议上，它是规划最大的（国际协作渠道）。我诚心期望它对一切国家都敞开，现在它现已是国际最大的、根据互利准则的新式全球化渠道。有些美国企业现已参加，欧洲企业正在参加，总的来说这是个雄伟的项目。咱们需求一些这样的着眼全人类的巨大项目，衷心期望大多数国家都能从中获益。
（翻页检查英文版）
Yang Hanyi：After decades of economic globalization, we have become, at least China and the United States has become so tightly and almost intrinsically bound with each other. And I have one question, which is that since the rich and powerful- we know that the benefits of globalization have gone disproportionately to the rich and powerful- and since they are the ones that have been tremendously benefited from globalization, why should they support those political forces advocating for decoupling? If they don't support those forces and how could decoupling effort ever be successful?
Stiglitz: That's a very interesting question. I think what has happened in the United States is that the corporate interests that were very much behind the globalization as it occurred beginning in 1980 have become disillusioned with the way things have turned out. And I think they've gotten disillusioned partly because they thought there was a gold mine in China. They thought that a huge market of 1.3 billion people was going to generate huge amounts of profits. And it turned out to be not so. They've gotten a lot of profits, but those profits have declined. I think there are a couple of reasons for that. The first is wages in China have gone up. So it's not the source of cheap labor that it was before, that's why they're going to other countries where labor is cheaper. So they've learned how to outsource, but China is not viewed in that way as the source of profits as it was before. Secondly, some of the American corporations made profits out of ignoring environmental and other standards. And China now is being much better with environmental standards. And so they're looking for other places where they can abuse environmental standards. Hopefully they won't find any, but but that's... The third is that China has been very successful in developing its own companies. The auto industry, you have a very successful auto (industry). I drive a Volvo which is owned by a Chinese company. The reality is that China has made enormous progress, and competition inside of China, from Chinese companies is very intense. The direct answer to your question is the corporate agenda for a linkage has been very strongly weakened. They complain a lot about the theft of intellectual property or restrictions on expansion in certain markets. But I think the underlying complaint is really that it's not being the source of profits that it once was hoped to be.
Zhang Weiwei: As we all agree, perhaps China is one of the few major beneficiaries of globalization. Even today, most Chinese support globalization. From my point of view, US corporations have also on the whole benefitted a lot from globalization. But I think due to what you have mentioned in your book, the political system, political institutional issues, gridlocks, whatever, somehow the interests have not been fairly distributed, at least part of it is redistributed across American society for the ordinary people. That's why a lot of people have grievances against globalization.
And I was wondering, at this time there is this tech war, trade war between China and United States. We saw the restriction on Huawei, Tiktok, and Ant Group. I wonder whether there is also what I call an extension of what you have described as power, economic power, US corporations supported by US government vis-a-vis the Chinese companies. I think there is an element of that. They are afraid of what we call the free and fair competition.
Stiglitz: I think clearly companies have always turned to governments for help. The joke is they believe in competition, but in other sectors, not their own, and for other people, the same thing. I always noticed businessmen were always against subsidies except in their own sector. Free market is something that applies to other people, but not to myself. Every company always says I'm in a special circumstance where I need assistance, protection, competition will be destructive, unfair. So that's the nature and you just have get used to it. That's the reality, but public policy should be very much not to allow large corporations to use the power of government to advance their interests.That's not what government is supposed to be doing.
I think there is still a need for multilateralism. Economists have made a strong argument that the real benefits of trade are global, and regional trade agreement don't resolve that.You can get what my colleague Jagdish Bhagwati refers to "Spaghetti Bowl" of complications of overlapping trade agreements with different provisions. To me, I think the biggest challange is the following. After the collapse of the Iron Curtain, the end of the cold war officially, Francis Fukiyama wrote this very influential book called The End of History, and it's sort of pollyannaish fantasy that we will all wind up as liberal democracies and free market economies.One of the arguments for trade liberalization was that it would hurry on the day of End of History where everybody is a liberal democracy and a free-market economy. That fantasy, nobody believes in that any more. We're not converging to the same political and economic system, we're likely to have, going forward, different parts of the world working on different systems. That has very important implications, because the rules of game are easy to write if everybody is in the same economic system. But when there are different economic systems, writing what might be called fair, reasonable rules are really difficult.
The challenge is going to be, once you regonize that trade is not going to be necessarily leading into the convergence, there's going to be different politcal and economic systems，how do we take advantage of the gains to trade; how do we organize a world where we have to cooperate on climate change, on pandemics, on global prosperity, on assitance to poor countries, so many areas that we have to cooperate. How do we get that cooperation, and at the same time, recognize, we will be arguing for very different political and economic systems?
We will be, in that sense, I don't want to say, competitors, but there are very different visions that we will be putting forward for the direction of society. We don't have to lecture each other, but we have very diffrent views. And the question is, how in that kind of world do we live peacefully together, cooperate in the many many areas that we have to cooperate, if we're going to succeed in living a prosperous life without conflict and within our planetary boundaries?
Zhang Weiwei: Having heard this very open-minded, thought-provoking statement from Professor Stiglitz, I think, ideally, Professor Stiglitz, you have to become the US president. That will bring so much welfare and benefit to mankind. Come back to Kris's question concerning globalization, I agree that there will be readjustment for understandable reasons. Regionalization will become stronger, perhaps there will be a kind of European integration, Asian integration, North American integration. And there's a new element, because China now is, by purchasing power (parity), already the largest economy, with 130 countries as its largest trading partner, China is advocating what we call a new type of globalization based on the key message of what we call "discussing together, building together, and benefitting together" as characterized by this Belt & Road Initiative, which is the largest scale... I hope really it's open to all countries, it's a platform- at the moment the world's largest platform- for a new type of globalization based on mutual benefit. Some US companies have already joined in, European companies are now joining in, but this is a grand project. We need some grand projects for mankind. Hopefully most countries will benefit from it.
告发/反应
相关文章
习近平宣布重要讲话着重，有必要持续深化学习运用邓小平理论，把他创始的我国特色社会主义作业持续面向行进
赵乐际王沪宁丁薛祥李希韩正到会 蔡奇掌管
中共中央举办留念邓小平同志诞辰120周年座谈会 习近平宣布重要讲话
原标题：中共中心举办留念邓小平同志诞辰120周年座谈会习近平宣布重要讲话着重，有必要持续深化学习运用邓小平理论，把他创始的我国特色社会主义作业持续面向行进赵乐际王沪宁丁薛祥李希韩正到会 蔡奇掌管8月2...
我国拼装美国iPhone机型的产线罢工？供应链厂商：纯属误传
南边财经4月13日电，今天早间，天风证券闻名分析师郭明錤在交际渠道上表明，在我国担任拼装美国iPhone机型的产线在4月9日已中止出产，现在没有有恢复出产的音讯。 4月13日下午，从相关供应链厂商...
成都7岁姐姐与3岁弟弟河湾失踪已13天！家族：排查数公里流动人口没发现新头绪
7月17日，有网友发布寻人启事，四川成都7岁姐姐和3岁弟弟在河湾迷路。家族忧虑落水或被人抱走。此事引发重视。寻人启事内容显现，失踪姐姐名叫卿嫣然，本年7岁，弟弟名叫卿胡建，本年3岁，于2024年7月1...
杨幂赵丽颖刘诗诗杨紫景甜古装大剧待播，2023年爆款花落谁家
记者 师文静2022年，《梦华录》《星汉绚烂》《苍兰诀》《唐朝诡事录》《沉香如屑》《卿卿日常》等不同类型的古装剧成为各大渠道“热度破万”超级爆款剧，古装大剧肉眼可见地回暖。据统计2023年有五六十部...
普京得票超87%，就中俄关系、台湾问题表态
（观察者网讯）在俄乌连绵两年多的战火中，俄罗斯2024年大选投票已完毕。莫斯科当地时间3月18日清晨，俄罗斯中心推举委员会（CEC）发布的开端计票成果显现，在已完结99.01%的计票中，俄罗斯现任总统...
诺奖得主等数十位经济学家签署宣言 对立美关税方针
中新网4月20日电 据美国商业内情网站20日报导，包含两位诺贝尔奖得主在内的数十位经济学家联名签署公开信，批判美国总统特朗普的关税方针具有“误导性”，并正告这或许导致“自找的经济衰退”。据报导，到当地...