广东珠海机动车违章信息查询入口

策马翻译培训 EU interpretation training | A zh-en 1 www.cemachina.com Euit EU interpretation training 欧盟口译训练 cemachina.com Copyright © 2010 CEMACHINA.COM, All Rights Reserved 策马翻译培训 EU interpretation training | A zh-en 2 www.cemachina.com 如何保住全球化成果？ HOW TO PRESERVE THE OPEN ECONOMY AT A TIME OF STRESS Is the spread of prosperity in the interests of citizens of today's high-income countries? Is globalisation of their economies in their interest? 对于今天高收入国家的国民而言，繁荣 的传播是否符合他们的利益？这些国家经 济的全球化是否符合他们的利益呢？ These distinct questions are raised in my mind by two important columns from Lawrence Summers ( "America needs to make a new case for trade" on April 27 and "A strategy to promote healthy globalisation" on May 4). In these, Mr Summers argues that the international economic policies of the US need to be coupled more closely to the interests of its workers. Many Europeans will concur. 劳伦斯•萨默斯 (Lawrence Summers)为 英国《金融时报》撰写的两篇重要专栏文章 （4月 27日的《美国需要重新解释贸易的原 因》(America needs to make a new case for trade)及《如何推动健康的全球化》(A strategy to promote healthy globalisation)），让我脑海中浮现了这两 个独特的问题。萨默斯在文中主张，美国的 国际经济政策需要更紧密地与本国工人的利 益联系起来。很多欧洲人会示赞同。 This is not to argue that the interests of citizens of high-income countries are more important than those of others. On the contrary, the view that increases in incomes of the poor offset equivalent losses for the rich is morally compelling. But politics is national. Unless or until a global political community emerges, politics will respond 这并不是说，高收入国家国民的利益比 其他人的利益更为重要。相反，穷人收入增 长抵消了富人收入相应损失的观点，从道义 上讲颇为发人深思。但政治植根于国家层面。 除非（或直到）世界上出现一个全球政治共 同体，否则政治将只会对国家利益的感知做 出反应。 策马翻译培训 EU interpretation training | A zh-en 3 www.cemachina.com only to perceptions of national interest. So is the rising prosperity of China, India and other emerging economies in the interests of today's high-income countries? The correct answer to this is: not necessarily. It would be absurd to pretend otherwise. 那么，中国、印度及其它新兴国家的日 益繁荣是否符合当前高收入国家的利益呢？ 正确是：不一定。如果假装不是这样， 那就有些荒谬了。 The big advantages of the spread of prosperity include a wider distribution of innovation and bigger opportunities for profitable exchange. The rise of the US brought such benefits to the UK. Also valuable (though not certain) is greater political stability in previously impoverished countries. 繁荣传播开来的几大好处包括：创新的 传播范围会扩大，以及进行有利可图的交流 的机会增多。美国的崛起就曾为英国带来此 类益处。此外，同样有价值的（虽然并不确 定）是以往的穷国在政治上会更加稳定。 The big disadvantage is greater competition for scarce resources. Power is a scarce resource: if country A has more, country B has less. Resources are also limited. If commodity prices rise, the terms of trade (the relative prices of exports and imports) of net importers will deteriorate: countries have to sell more exports to obtain given imports. 一大坏处则是对稀缺资源的竞争加剧。 能源是一种稀缺资源：如果甲国的能源增多， 那乙国的能源就会减弱。资源也是有限的。 如果大宗商品价格上涨，净进口国的贸易条 件（进出口相对价格）将会恶化：即为了获 取特定数量的进口，国家不得不出口更多的 商品。 Since the end of 2001, US terms of trade have deteriorated by an eighth, as commodity prices have soared and the currency devalued. This has turned an 18 per cent increase in real gross domestic product between the last quarter of 2001 and the fourth quarter of 2008 into a 16.4 per cent increase in real national income. The difference is not huge. But it is worth $220bn (£113bn) in today's dollars. So countries may indeed be harmed by the prosperity of others. (See charts.) 2001年底以来，随着大宗商品价格飙升 和本币贬值，美国贸易条件的恶化幅度已达 八分之一。这使得 2001 年第四季度到 2008 年第四季度 18%的实际国内生产总值(GDP) 增长，转化为了 16.4%的实际国民收入(NI) 增长。两者之间的差别不大。但以目前的美 元汇率计算，价值 2200亿美元。所以说一个 国家的确会被其它国家的繁荣所伤害。（见 图表） The answer to this is: so what? As Willem Buiter has pointed out ( Economic Internationalism 101, Maverecon, May 5 ), 对此的答复是：那又如何？正如威廉姆 •比特(Willem Buiter)所指出的（《经济国 际主义 101问》，英国《金融时报》Maverecon 策马翻译培训 EU interpretation training | A zh-en 4 www.cemachina.com nothing can be done to halt the diffusion of "knowledge, skills, technology, management systems" and so forth.* Or at least nothing rational or decent can be done. Of course, the US could launch an unprovoked blockade or even war against China or India. To mention such ideas is to reveal their strategic and moral bankruptcy. 专栏，5月 5日），任何方法都无法阻止“知 识、技能、科技及管理系统”等事物的扩散。 *或者说，至少没有什么理性或体面的方法能 做到这一点。当然，美国可能对中国或印度 进行无缘无故的封锁，甚至挑起战端。不过， 即使只是提出此类想法，也反映出他们在战 略与道义上的破产。 The US could, it is true, try to halt the flow of ideas. The UK tried to halt the spread of technology to the US in the early 19th century: it failed. The Chinese empire once made it a capital crime to export silkworms: that failed, too. Similarly, protectionism against the emerging countries might slow their growth, but would not halt it. Yet it would guarantee a breakdown in international relations that threatened hopes of a peaceful future. 诚然，美国可以试图阻止观点的流动。 英国 19 世纪初就曾尝试阻止技术向美国传 播，但以失败告终。中国古代也曾将出口桑 蚕定为死罪，但也以失败告终。同样，针对 新兴市场的保护主义措施可能会减缓它们的 增长，但却无法令它们止步。不过，这样做 倒肯定能导致国际关系的破裂，从而威及人 们对于未来和平的希望。 To repeat, nothing can be done about the rise of emerging countries, as they follow the lead of the west. What cannot be helped must be accepted. This takes us to my second question. Given the rise of the emerging world, should the developed world limit the globalisation of its own economies? Of course, so long as high-income countries depend on imports of commodities, trade will be essential. Self-sufficiency is a mirage. It is a question rather of how much openness to trade and movement of capital and labour there should be. 再重复一遍，没有什么可以阻止新兴国 家的崛起，它们正沿着西方强国的脚印前行。 无法补救的事情就必须接受。这将我们带到 了我第二个问题。考虑到新兴国家的崛起， 发达国家是否应限制本国经济的全球化？当 然，只要高收入国家还依赖大宗商品进口， 贸易就不可或缺。自给自足只是痴心妄想。 更确切地说，这个问题应该是，在贸易及资 金与劳动力流动方面，应该允许多大的开放 度。 One issue has been the huge current account deficits of the US. Yet these are at last contracting, as export growth explodes (see chart). 美国的巨大经常账户赤字向来是一个 问题。但随着出口增长的迅速扩张，赤字终 于开始缩小了。（见图表） On trade more narrowly, the basic 如果只看贸易，基本的观点已广为人 策马翻译培训 EU interpretation training | A zh-en 5 www.cemachina.com point is well known: free trade is in the interests of the country adopting the policy, unless it has monopoly power. But - an important "but" - the benefits and costs are likely to be unevenly distributed. The latter is particularly likely for trade between rich and poor countries. Free movement of capital or labour may also harm important interest groups within a country even if it raises aggregate incomes. The freer movement becomes, the harder it may also be to impose taxes and regulations on those able to move. 知：除非一国拥有垄断权力，否则自由贸易 对于那些采纳这种政策的国家有利。但是（这 是一个很重要的“但是”），利益与代价往 往不能均匀分配。就富国与穷国之间的贸易 而言，后者尤其可能如此。就算是总收入得 以提升，资本与劳动力的自由流动还是可能 伤害一国的重要利益集团。此外，流动越自 由，政府就越难以对那些能够流动的对象征 收税赋并加以管理。 As Mr Summers argues, it is hard for a democracy to proceed with policies that a large minority believes are against their interests. If the fall-back position is not to be protectionism, itself no more than an inefficient tax and subsidy programme, more creative options must be chosen. The most obvious point, at least for the US, is the need to shift the provision of security from employers to the state. Corporate welfare states are unsustainable in a dynamic and open economy. 正如萨默斯所言，一个民主政体难以推 进大量少数派认为与其利益相抵触的政策。 如果退一步的立场不是采取保护主义（保护 主义本身不过是低效的税收及补贴计划）， 那么我们必须选择更具有创造性的。至 少对美国来说，最明显的一点，是必须将提 供保障的主体从雇主转到国家身上。在一个 具有活力的开放经济体内，“公司福利国家” 是不可持续的。 Yet if the US is to have a more generous welfare state, including universal health provision, as in every other high-income country, taxes will have to be raised. Indeed, they will have to be raised even to meet existing commitments. Mr Summers argues, in response, for international action against harmful tax competition. He argues, too, for greater international agreement on regulation. In some areas, notably finance, the latter makes sense. But the view that the US must obtain such agreements if it is to raise some of the 不过，如果美国希望像其它所有高收入 国家那样，成为一个更为慷慨的福利国家， 包括提供全民医保，那么美国将必须提高税 收。事实上，即使要满足现有的福利义务， 美国也将不得不提高税收。作为回应，萨默 斯主张采取国际行动，以打击有害的税收竞 争。他同时主张，在监管方面形成更广泛的 国际共识。在某些领域，尤其是财政领域， 后一种主张颇有道理。有人认为，美国要想 提高其在发达国家里最低的税收水平，并改 进最为薄弱的监管，它必须获得这种共识， 但这种观点缺乏说服力。如果瑞典的税收可 以达到 GDP 的 56%，那么美国的税收保持在 GDP仅 34%的水平，并非税收竞争。资本和劳 策马翻译培训 EU interpretation training | A zh-en 6 www.cemachina.com lowest levels of taxation and weakest regulation in the advanced world is unpersuasive. If Sweden's taxes can be 56 per cent of GDP, it is not tax competition that keeps the US at just 34 per cent. The mobility of capital and people is an excuse, not a justification, for low US tax levels. 动力的流动是美国低税收水平的一种借口， 而非正当理由。 What is desperately needed is an honest debate about these issues. Such a debate would, I believe, reach four fundamental conclusions. First, whether or not citizens of the US (or other high-income countries) welcome it, the global spread of economic development is ineluctable. Second, protection against imports is a costly and ineffective way of dealing with the consequences. Third, parties of the centre-left should argue for redistributing the spoils of globalisation, not sacrificing them. Finally, a necessary condition is higher taxation of the winners. But the chief obstacle to that is a lack of domestic political will. Globalisation is not a reason for low taxes, but an excuse. It should be discarded. 目前亟需的是对这些问题进行开诚布 公的辩论。我相信，这种辩论将得出 4 个基 本结论。首先，无论美国（或其它高收入国 家）公民是否欢迎，经济发展向全球扩散的 趋势是不可避免的。其次，针对进口的保护 是应对这些后果的一种代价高昂且缺乏效率 的方式。第三，中间偏左党派应该主张重新 分配全球化的“战利品”，而不是将牺牲它 们。最后，一个必要的条件是提高赢家的税 收。但实现这点的主要障碍在于国内政治意 愿的匮乏。全球化不是低税收的理由，而是 借口。我们应抛弃这种想法。 Everybody should remember, above all, that the opening of the world economy is the west's greatest economic policy achievement. It would be a tragedy if it were to turn its back on the world when the rest of humanity is at last turning towards it. 最重要的是，每个人都应该牢记，全球 经济开放是西方最大的经济政策成就。如果 在其他人最终转向自己的时候，西方却转身 背对这个世界，那么这将成为一出悲剧。 * http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon * http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon / 如何保住全球化成果？ HOW TO PRESERVE THE OPEN ECONOMY AT A TIME OF STRESS 4�®É›° �î«­¶néª˝>‰˘e6÷$yuƒªóZÅ÷˜