Zhao Xue: In the author's opinion, the fundamental differences and demands of various camps in the United States are the delayed pushes behind the US -China trade negotiations.
The latest round of Sino -US trade negotiations fell into a deadlock again.On Friday, the US side officially raised tariffs on US $ 200 billion in goods imported from China to 25%, while the Chinese Ministry of Commerce stated that it would take countermeasures.
Sino -US trade negotiations that have been starting last year have not had too many new contents, because all issues involved have been the focus of Sino -US negotiations in the past two decades.The previous governments of the two countries have been clear about each other's position and negotiation bottom line, and even negotiating representatives of the two countries have many familiar faces.But even so, the difficulties of the progress of the negotiations, the dramaticization of the process, and the number of trapped in a deadlock still made Sino -US observer surprise.
The reason is that the comparison of the comprehensive strength of the two countries has changed significantly, the pressure of competition in the United States is increasing, and the iconic and willfulness of President Trump.However, from the author's opinion, the fundamental differences and demands of various camps in the United States are the pushing hands behind this trade negotiation.In other words, the negotiations are held between China and the United States, while in fact, it is more constrained by multiple wrestling and various views of the United States.
It should be pointed out that the internal camps in the United States referred to in this article are not simply equivalent to the eagle and pigeons in the US negotiating representatives.According to the author's observation, there are long time and complicated sources of views in the U.S. internal camp, which can be understood at least from the following three dimensions.
First, different views on the optimal economic development model.For a long time, the academic and political circles have long seen different views on how developing countries should make economic transformation.One opinion believes that as long as developing countries have comprehensively replicated the political and economic systems of developed countries (such as the United States), and implementing fast state -owned enterprises' privatization and liberalization of trade investment in economic policy, the economy of these countries can gradually catch up with developed countries.EssenceAnother view is that in the process of economic transformation, the government's guidance and intervention and protection measures at the initial stage of industrial development are essential, and it can better ensure the stable development of the economy and the long -term stability of society.The differences in these two views can be theoretically traced back to the dispute between neoclassicalism and New Keynes, and gradually evolved into the so -called Washington Consensus and Beijing Consensus debate in practice.
This difference also affects how the American academic and politicians view China's economic development model.A camp opposes the industrial policy of the Chinese government and is dissatisfied with the reform of state -owned enterprises.Another camp has a more positive attitude towards relevant policies and understands the practice of gradual stock reforms that China has implemented.
Second, different expectations for the long -term development trend of China's economy.In the past three decades, the mainstream voice of the United States is that with the tide of globalization and the gradual opening of the Chinese economy, the Chinese economy will inevitably integrate into the global trade and capital chain for a long time.In this process, American companies have strong competitiveness and high level of people's skills, and will benefit a lot, which is undoubtedly a situation of mutual benefit and win -win situation.
However, another sound has always existed, that is, globalization will damage the interests of the United States' low skills and low education classes.The large and low cost of the Chinese blue -collar class. Compared with other similar countries (such as Mexico and Vietnam), it will lead to the loss of low -end job opportunities in the United States.With the development of China, it will gradually damage the global competitiveness of the US high -end manufacturing industry.Therefore, the rise of the Chinese economy is not a chance to prosper, but a long -term loss.Especially after Trump came to power, this voice quickly evolved into a new political correctness.
Third, deal with different policies in China.It should be exogenous or endogenous for China's economic transformation, and there are two different views in the United States for a long time.A view that the U.S. government should promote the Chinese economy in the most favorable direction of the United States from the outside.In the process, it is necessary to use the economy or policy means to apply pressure, and even at the expense of positive confrontation with China.Similar policies are also the traditional practices of the United States to treat developing countries in other transformations, including various compulsory and prerequisite political and economic reform conditions that were previously added during the economic crisis of developing countries.
The other camps in the United States believe that China is different from other developing countries, with large economic volume, very different culture, and complex economic structure.Therefore, a better way is to maintain contact and patience to communicate, and to promote the Chinese economy on the same way of continuous prosperity in the foundation of common groundwork.The goodwill released in the process can eventually be converted into the return of the US economy.Blind toughness to China will make China a long -term headache, which can be described as a loss.
From the above three dimensions, it can be seen that it is also to protect the interests of the United States. For how to view the development model of the Chinese economy and how to deal with China, there are various sounds of ideology, demands and countermeasures in the United States.Specifically, national industrial policies are still free to compete in private companies, or above the interests of the United States. Radent changes are still progressive. Patient contact is still strongly pressured.stop.Some kinds of views may take advantage of some points, but in the long run, it is often periodic repeated.This is also in line with the relationship between China and the United States, the enemy, or friends, and friends in the past few decades.
The course of Sino -US trade negotiations is the best example.In the past year, the predecessor and current members of the US Trade Council, regardless of the eagle pigeons, have repeatedly appeared more chaotic, and more or less caused by the above -mentioned multi -dimensional cognitive differences.
Not only that, the current deepening of political confrontation in the United States, as well as the post-Truth Politics of ignoring the truth and ignoring the facts, has also significantly increased its internal camps in the United States.The difficulty of consensus.
The former caused the economic and trade issues of China to be prioritized to pursue its political purposes by various political factions, rather than focusing on the discussion of things and finding the best problem solving solutions.The latter makes the facts in Sino -US economic and trade relations irrelevant. Political figures can lie without fear, deceive the target people and consolidate their political prejudice.The political prejudice that ignores facts will further deepen the differences in the United States' claims to China.
Because of this, regardless of whether this trade negotiations can be reached or when it will reach an agreement, as long as the domestic political confrontation and the real political phenomenon of the post -change will not change, the frictions and disputes between China and the United States in terms of trade, finance, investment, science and technology in the future will not be inseparable.Avoid normalization and long -term.Perhaps the US government's replacement or the personal preferences of one or two politicians can easily cause a similar deadlock in Sino -US trade to impact the prospects of global economic growth and financial markets.This is undoubtedly a huge and long -term challenge for policies and investors.
Note: This article only represents the author's personal point of view.Editor of this article Xu Jin [email protected]
