7 c N. d- a9 P9 w8 o; T" Z f中国将在未来2年至3年吸收剩下的多余劳动力。目前尚无证据表明，西方资本真的在中国获得了大幅超额回报，而中国正在大规模补贴其国内资金成本。可以说，中国内地银行比日本银行在上世纪80年代的情况还要糟糕。未来20年至30年，与中国的独生子女政策相比，欧洲的人口结构问题根本算不了什么。中国正面临严重的环境问题，已经不能食品自给。试想，按全球标准支付食品价格将给中国政治稳定造成何种影响……诸如此类的问题还有很多很多。/ J' Q! K' t( H; k8 ?
# S" O3 U) S: Q3 b' Q& d未来30年，中国会变得更加强大吗？这一点是肯定的。中国将成为世界上最大的经济体吗？没人真正知道。+ a- d& X9 w" r [
, i$ n9 R. J! |我猜想，数年后，当中国经济出现急刹车时，金融报刊就会撰写发人深省的文章，解释所有人如何误读了中国的增长奇迹，以及限制中国未来20年发展的重大结构性增长障碍（当然，这也是错的）。* l% K8 N: Y& y
1 G1 F; F0 @% d* t; n; G
那么，我自己如何看待这一点呢？ & j5 F; e6 o. K7 }; A, y7 v2 b' B$ Z7 d! ^/ ^4 o
首先——这些观点中多数都非常有力。显然，在中国的政治稳定、银行系统脆弱性和环境等方面，都存在严重问题。我今年早些时候去北京时发现，中国政府官员似乎真的担心，如果不能维持两位数的经济增长，将出现社会动荡。他们似乎也远不能确信，未来几十年中国一定能够保证经济增长和政治稳定。. a$ g+ D8 |% X0 i* z0 i
: Y2 \9 a, l7 H0 @1 @# R
那么，为什么我仍然倾向于认为，中国经济规模确实会在20年内超越美国呢？* }9 E5 [- f- R
* A$ @- J1 e! G2 G) _: UI got lots of correspondence about my column last week – in which I suggested that the era of American global dominance is coming to a close. Some of it was rank abuse – accusing me of everything from “penis envy” to loathing of the United States. 6 u$ Y" \. @3 s. I
k- A: A0 W4 Y; a3 W
But there was also a much more reasoned line of argument. This was essentially that I had been much too credulous about Goldman Sachs's projection that the Chinese economy will be larger than that of the US by 2027. I got lots of e-mails making this point. Here is one (the author prefers to remain anonymous):; o, _; Y6 E* b6 `
; ]# ~" V( Z8 h' L# k6 w$ p
“You should go back and read the pieces in the 80's on Japan overtaking US, before that there was a Brazilian miracle, and the 50s the Soviets were going to take over the world because THEY have figured out how to get things done."# e; y0 j/ S( i* x \/ V: ?
3 w/ {( c" D }% hLinear earnings projections did wonders for the internet stock valuations in the 1990s (you just had to extrapolate the same growth rate 10 years into the future), and it seems like political scientists are guilty of the same sin. All of a sudden structural issues in the Chinese society do not matter, (of course 15 years ago the orthodox view was that sustainable long-term economic growth was impossible without democracy and this was why China simply could not grow without an extensive political reform). 7 w( y. ~* i1 \; v. E 4 N# c; m1 L! J4 G1 [/ |1 N# DChinese growth has been driven by additions of labour and capital. This is a one time event, and while it is a very lengthy event (worked for 20+ years in the USSR) you do run out of growth eventually. The US growth story has persisted for so long because it is a free and creative society and over the long term it can keep increasing its productivity. ' c: c4 |, z% K2 H, h) U- R: ^5 p0 d; g: B" D4 n3 p
China will absorb the remaining surplus labour in the next 2-3 years. There is no evidence that western capital actually earns a significant excess return in China and China massively subsidizes its domestic cost of capital. Chinese banks are arguably in a worse shape than the Japanese banks were in the 80s. The Chinese one child policy will make European demographic problems pale in comparison over the next 20-30 years. The country is facing massive environmental issues, it is no longer self sufficient in terms of food. Just think what paying global food prices will do to political stability in China… the list goes on and on…. 2 y+ S2 S1 R1 e) i/ V, @
$ w7 v# _- ?5 y
Will China be a lot stronger and more powerful in 30 years - sure. Will China be the LARGEST economy in the world? No one really knows… # A. w3 `0 m+ }- o Q6 |: [& o
( {, ^* I5 O) }0 J0 d) T/ l
My bet is that when the Chinese economy comes to a screeching halt a couple of years from now the financial press will be writing thoughtful pieces explaining how everyone has gotten the growth story wrong and significant structural growth impediments that would limit Chinese growth for the next 20 years (of course that would be wrong too)” ) n) c$ C. \5 O$ G9 H1 I( D& \: V# L1 h
So what is my response to this?) w5 J3 `8 ]0 z( D
5 p* d9 `" C7 r+ W |* A
First – most of these points are powerful ones. Clearly there are big questions about Chinese political stability, about the fragility of the banking system, about the environment and so on. When I was in Beijing earlier this year, the Chinese authorities seemed to be genuinely fearful of social unrest, if they were unable to keep the economy growing at double-digit rates. Even they seemed far from confident that future growth and stability is guaranteed for generations to come a" H6 O: U8 @! u7 \# ?, o! N) F: b6 `
So why am I still inclined to think that the Chinese economy will indeed be larger than that of the US within 20 years?; E% N2 m+ b& T* w- l6 B; \
3 f$ V) Y W6 t( e3 [, c% m
The first and possibly weakest reason is that I've heard predictions of an imminent Chinese crack-up for the last 15 years and – so far – nothing has happened. I worked as a foreign correspondent and editor in Asia from 1992-97, when memories of Tiananmen were still fresh. All the fears about China that are being expressed today - about democracy, the banking system, the state-owned enterprises, unrest in the countryside, protectionism in the west – were being expressed then, but with even more force. However China has kept growing. Of course, its possible that all these predictions of doom will be vindicated eventually. We will all be dead eventually, as well. But in the meantime, China's economic momentum is absolutely formidable.# v, y8 ~5 k* w/ D8 F2 V
8 |, Y) g: n C9 dThe second and most important point is that this is a number's game. The reason that China will eventually be the world's largest economy is that its population is roughly four times that of the United States. Predictions that Japan would over-take the US, popular in the late 1980s, were always implausible. The difference in population size would have meant that the average Japanese would have had to become more than twice as rich as the average American for Japan to surpass America – and that was never going to happen.; f# a: n3 G5 j% j4 v( _' J k" U
( H! K, M# h& [' V- U: Y) h
By contrast, if you want to argue that China will never overtake the US, you would have to believe that China cannot achieve a GDP-per-capita of just 25% of American levels. And yet there are several examples of Asian “tiger economies” that have already got to that level and well past it – Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore (the latter, admittedly a micro-state) - some of them managing tricky transitions from authoritarianism to democracy, without stopping growth.5 C, ]6 k4 g) j1 |4 C( O0 G
9 [+ R5 {* m0 e5 M( |1 g- LMy colleague Martin Wolf points out that if China were to achieve the GDP-per-capita levels of Portugal – the poorest country in western Europe – its overall GDP will be larger than that of the US and the European Union combined. ' R9 w# k: o5 l/ P, N1 s" L8 ~: S( E' e( x1 q$ B9 Z! c. v
So you don't have to dismiss all the arguments about Chinese politics, the environment, social unrest and so on – to believe that the Chinese economy will eventually over-take America. You merely have to note that industrialisation and rapid economic growth are very powerful processes once they get rolling. They can survive a great deal of social unrest – and even the occasional war – and keep powering on.0 t" ?9 m: x0 Z* N3 \
# d$ w% ~+ J2 k. q
[ 本帖最后由 日月光 于 2007-6-30 14:22 编辑 ]作者: jinbeibei 时间: 2007-6-30 20:28
