咨询热线:020-62937072

4006-823-845

综合
  • 综合
  • 阳光私募

您现在的位置:首页 > > 每日荐读-政经 > 桥水Ray Dalio评「中美贸易战」:根深蒂固的价值观沟壑

桥水Ray Dalio评「中美贸易战」:根深蒂固的价值观沟壑

7606 2018-06-26 来源:公众号:CFO智库|Ray Dalio
摘要:作为中美两国经济互动的标志性人物,桥水基金创始人Ray Dalio近日撰文剖析了中美贸易争端的根本原因:中美的价值观的巨大差异。略感意外的是Ray Dalio明确认为中国未来一定会迅速发展,并且很有可能超过美国。

英文全文首发于LinkedIN领英,本文后半部分附上原文,以下是译文:

一位聪明的中国领导人(后文将保持匿名)告诉我,通过找出对方最需要的方式并试图把它交给他们并让他们回报,这样的协商是值得的,而不是找出会伤害对方的东西并强加在他们身上。因为小战争有快速失控的倾向,而成为大战争。任何曾经陷入过大战争的人都不希望他们会有大战争,因为战争真的太可怕了。他提到第一次世界大战是一个典型的例子,同时指出大多数战争都是如此。他希望中美贸易分歧不会从争端转向任何形式的战争。将争议分歧从争端转移到战争,是因为没有任何这样一个国际规则或国际组织(如世贸组织)是存在分歧的双方愿意去接受强制性仲裁的。所以他们用胡萝卜和大棒来互相测试力量,互相推拉,直至一方选择退后。因为中国和美国的领导人拥有可以使用的各种胡萝卜和大棒(例如经济,军事,网络等),他们现在正在决定使用哪一种,这种测试要进行到什么程度,另一方会在多大程度上遭受痛苦和能忍受多少。这种升级是以针锋相对的形式出现的,即一系列可能变得越来越大,越来越痛苦的升级,并且采取不同的形式,可以贸易之外(例如,包括资本战争)。我提到的这位睿智的中国领导人所传达的就是这一系列的升级很容易无法控制。作为对美国征收500亿美元关税的回应,中方回应称:“中方不愿打贸易战,但面对美方的短视,中方必须予以有力回击。”我们将立即采取同样的规模和相同的税收措施,双方达成的所有经济贸易成果都将无效。特朗普政府威胁要报复,再增加1000亿美元的关税。目前,与美国近20万亿美元的经济规模以及就同等购买力规模的中国经济相比,这些数字非常小。因此,目前双方发射的炮弹更多地具有象征意义和政治意义,而非实质性的经济意义。正因如此,现在感到兴奋还为时过早,正如之前提到的中国领导人所说,事态可能会持续并严重升级,双方都在密切关注。当我和比我更有见识的人相信贸易问题可以得到解决,这样每个人都更好,更具挑战性的争议围绕两国认为他们的国家应该如何运行以及这会如何影响他们对什么是“公平交易”和他们的公司应该如何得到支持。

价值观和方法论的根本区别

另一位睿智的中国高官告诉我,美国人和中国人之间最重要的文化差异源于这样一个事实:对美国人来说,个人是最重要的,而对中国人来说,家庭是最重要的。他解释说,这些根深蒂固的差异延伸到了美国人和中国人管理政府的方式上。他指出,在中国构成“国家”一词的是“State”和“Family”。

由于这些深层次的差异在关于什么是最好的观点看来,中国的领导人试图以家族领导经营家庭的方式来管理国家,从上到下,将集体利益置于个人的自身利益之上,每个成员都知道自己的位置,所以系统和谐地工作。在美国,情况恰恰相反。个人是最重要的,所以国家是自下而上的,个人的利益高于集体的利益,更公开的冲突和更少的尊重权力被认为是更可取的。这些差异以各种方式表现出来。例如,当高速公路需要通过个人财产,个人产权将会妨碍到的情况,美国比中国更有可能发生。在选择领导者时,中国的自上而下更多,而在美国更多的是自下而上。同样,中国的领导者更多地从上至下管理重点行业的公司,以支持国家利益,而在美国则相反,企业的管理方式是自下而上的。这就是摩擦根源所在。从美国的角度来看,有三大批评声音:

1.中国政府奉行一系列不断演变的干预政策和做法,旨在限制进口商品,服务和企业的市场准入,从而通过制造不公平的做法来保护其国内产业。

2.中国提供了重要的政府指导、资源,并定期支持中国的产业,包括其中最引起关注的从外国公司(尤其是在敏感行业)获取先进技术的政策。3.中国人正在窃取知识产权和/或没有充分保护知识产权 - 其中一些被认为是由国家发起的,其中一些被认为不在政府的直接控制之下。

换句话说,中国政府正在以美国不做也不喜欢的方式帮助中国企业进行竞争,并且正在制定计划(比如中国2025计划),而美国没有制定这样的计划,也没有针对中国制定的计划和目标。虽然这些不同的方法在大多数领域都存在,但它们在技术上尤其重要,因为这两个国家都知道,技术最强的国家将在其他大多数领域都是最强的。虽然其中一些分歧可以通过谈判达成两国的共同满意,但最核心的分歧是每个国家都坚信是最好的东西的延伸,这是无法谈判的。

中国现在是一个竞争对手,并且很快就会比美国强大得多

虽然贸易平衡问题很重要,但最重要的问题是:

1.考虑到这些国家不同的视角,它们将如何对待彼此;2.哪种体系最有效。很有可能(而且希望)我们所看到的贸易争端不会导致一场破坏性的战争,这样两国就会根据他们的方法的有效性发展到非常不同的地方。这将对他们个人的福祉以及他们的相对力量产生巨大的影响。因此,对这些国家的领导人来说,最重要的是要把注意力集中在他们需要做的事情上来让自己的国家发展得更好。在考虑这两种不同方法的效果如何时,重要的是要认识到,中国的“共产主义”和美国的“资本主义”现在都与30年前截然不同,因此,它们给民众带来的结果也大不相同。如果认为中国是一个共产主义国家,其工作方式与30年前共产主义在世界各地或中国的传统工作方式相似,即非常无效,那就大错特错了。相反,我们应该把中国正在发生的事情看作是“国家资本主义”,在这当中,具有战略重要性的公司正在得到支持,从而变得非常有竞争力。经济里蕴藏着企业家精神,市场有相当大的自由度。尽管不同,中国的运作方式更像是新加坡过去30年的运作方式,而不是中国30年前的运作方式,也不是“共产主义”国家传统上的运作方式。可以把它想象成具有中国文化特征的资本主义。与美国相比,最重要的目标是让有能力的决策者担任决策角色,以决定什么对整体最有利,并对完成这些任务负责。毫无疑问,中国的文化/方法非常有效,而且正在迅速改善。当我1984年第一次去那里的时候,我给了公司的领导们10美元的计算器,他们认为这很神奇,北京和上海的人们生活在大多数人认为的贫民窟里,没有热水,没有足够的热量,没有洗衣机和电视等基本电器。如今,中国在许多方面与美国一样或比美国更先进,而且进步得更快。毫无疑问,中国的文化/制度是非常有效的。虽然中国是一个竞争对手,并且很快会比美国大得多,但以修昔底德陷阱为形式的竞争是危险的,而且很怀疑长时间内这两个国家对彼此造成不可估量的损害的行为会结束。出于这些原因,我们希望并期望理性的头脑能够占上风,并且针锋相对的升级不会加速产生可怕的战争。

附Ray Dalio评论原文:

Chinese-American Misunderstandings, Disputes, and Wars

Ray Dalio

Co-Chief Investment Officer & Co-Chairman of Bridgewater Associates, L.P.

A wise Chinese leader who I will keep unnamed told me that it pays to negotiate by finding out what the other party wants most and try to give it to them and to have them reciprocate rather than to find out what will hurt the other party and give that to them because little wars have a tendency to quickly get out of control to become big wars and anyone who has ever gotten into a big war wishes that they hadn’t because they are so horrible. He referred to World War I as the classic example, while noting that it was true for most wars. He hopes that the Chinese-US trade disagreement doesn’t move from a dispute to a war of any sort.

What is moving the disagreement from a dispute to a war is the fact that there are no international rules or international organizations (like WTO) that the disagreeing parties are willing to go to for binding arbitration, so they use carrots and sticks to test each other’s strengths, pushing each other until one backs down. Because Chinese and American leaders have all sorts of carrots and sticks (e.g., economic, military, cyber, etc.) that they can use, they are now determining which ones to use, how far to push the testing, and how far the other will go in inflicting pain and enduring it. The escalations come in the form of tit-for-tats—i.e., a series of escalations that can become progressively larger and more painful, and that take different forms that can extend beyond trade (e.g., to include capital wars). It’s this series of escalations that the wise Chinese leader that I referred to conveyed can easily get beyond anyone’s control.

In response to the US putting on its $50 billion of tariffs, the Chinese responded saying, “the Chinese side doesn’t want to fight a trade war, but facing the shortsightedness of the US side, China has to fight back strongly. We will immediately introduce the same scale and equal taxation measures, and all economic and trade achievements reached by the two sides will be invalidated.” The Trump administration threatened to retaliate to that by adding another $100 billion of tariffs. Right now, these numbers are very small in relation to the US’s nearly $20 trillion economy and China’s economy, which is of comparable size in purchasing power terms, so that the shots that have been fired have been more of symbolic and political significance than of material economic significance. For that reason, it’s too early to get excited about them though, as the previously referred to Chinese leader said, they can escalate to become very serious, so we are all watching intently.

While I and people who are more knowledgeable than I believe the trade-balance issue can be solved so that everyone is better off, the more challenging disputes revolve around how the two countries believe their countries should be run and how that affects their perceptions of what “fair trade” is and how their companies should be supported.

The Fundamental Differences in Values and Approaches

A different wise and high-ranking Chinese official told me the most important cultural difference between Americans and the Chinese arises from the fact that to Americans the individual is of paramount importance while to the Chinese the family is most important. He explained that these deep-seated differences extend to how Americans and the Chinese run their governments, noting that the two characters that make up the word country in China are “state” and “family.” As a result of these deep-seated differences in views about what is best, leaders in China seek to run the country the way a family head would run a family, from the top down, putting the collective interest ahead of the individual’s self-interest, with each member knowing their place so the system works in a harmonious way. In the US, the opposite is true. Individuals are of paramount importance so the country is run from the bottom up, putting the interests of the individual ahead of the interests of the collective, with more open conflict and less respect for authority considered preferable. These differences become manifest in all sorts of ways. For example, when a highway needs to go through personal property, individual property rights will more likely stand in the way of that happening in the US than in China, and when leaders are chosen, it’s more from the top down in China while it’s more bottom up in the US. Similarly, leaders in China manage the companies in key industries more from the top down in support of the national interests, whereas the opposite is true in the US, where how companies are managed comes from the bottom up. That’s where the rub lies.

From the US perspective, there are three major criticisms:

1. The Chinese government pursues a wide range of evolving interventionist policies and practices aimed at limiting market access for imported goods, services, and businesses, thus protecting its domestic industries by creating unfair practices.

2. The Chinese offer significant government guidance, resources, and regularly support Chinese industries, most notably including policies designed to extract advanced technologies from foreign companies particularly in sensitive sectors.

3. The Chinese are stealing intellectual property and/or not adequately protecting it—some of which is believed to be state-sponsored and some of which is believed to be outside the government’s direct control.

In other words, the Chinese government is helping its companies compete in ways that the US doesn’t do and doesn’t like, and it is making plans to do that (e.g., the China 2025 plan) while the US doesn’t make such plans and objects to China making them. While these different approaches exist in most areas, they are especially important in technology because both countries know that the country that is technologically strongest will be strongest in most other ways. While some of these differences can be negotiated to both countries’ mutual satisfactions, the most core ones that are extensions of what each country deeply believes is best can’t be negotiated away.

China Is Now a Competitor and Will Soon Will Be Much Stronger Than the USWhile the trade-balance issue is important, the most important questions are a) how will these countries deal with each other given their different perspectives and b) which system will work best. Most likely (and hopefully) the trade dispute we are seeing won’t lead to a disruptive war so that both countries will evolve to very different places based on how effective their approaches are. That will have huge effects on their individual well-beings as well as their relative powers. For that reason, it is most important for the leaders of these countries to focus on what they need to do to get their own countries to do well.

In considering the question of how well these two different approaches will work, it’s important to recognize that both “communism” in China and “capitalism” in the US are now very different than they were 30 years ago and, as a result, they’re delivering very different results to their populations. It would be a mistake to think that China is a communist country that works similar to the way communism has classically worked around the world or in China 30 years ago—i.e., very ineffectively. Instead think of what’s happening in China as being “state capitalism,” in which strategically important companies are being supported to become very competitive while the economy has a lot of entrepreneurship and the markets have quite a lot of freedom. Though different, China is being run much more like Singapore has been run for the last 30 years than how China was run 30 years ago or than how “communist” countries have classically being run. Think of it as being capitalism with the Chinese cultural characteristics previously explained. In comparison to the US, it’s more from the top down with the paramount goal to have competent decision makers put into decision-making roles to determine what’s best for the whole and to be held accountable for accomplishing those things.

There is no doubt that China’s culture/approach has worked remarkably well and is rapidly getting better. When I first went there in 1984, I gave heads of companies $10 calculators, which they thought were amazing, and people in Beijing and Shanghai lived in what most people would consider slums without hot running water, adequate heat, and basic appliances like washing machines and TVs. Now it is as or more advanced than the US in many ways, and improving faster. There should be no doubt that the Chinese culture/system has been very effective. The chart below shows what has happened and what we expect will happen based on our leading indicators of what make countries succeed and fail (see "Why countries succeed and Fail; Productivity and Structural Reforms").

While China is a competitor and will soon be significantly larger than the US, and while such rivalries in the form of the Thucydides Trap (https://bit.ly/2th3Qtm) are dangerous, it is very doubtful that the capacities of either of these countries to inflict immeasurable harm on the other will end for a very long time frame. For these reasons, we hope and expect that rationale heads will prevail and tit-for-tat escalations won’t accelerate to produce horrible wars.

鼎实财富谨遵《私募投资基金募集行为管理办法》之规定,只向特定的合格投资者宣传推介相关私募投资基金产品。

阁下如有意进行私募投资基金投资且满足《私募投资基金监督管理暂行办法》关于"合规投资者"标准之规定,即具备相应风险识别能力和风险承担能力,投资于单只私募基金的金额不低于100万元,且个人金融类资产不低于300万元或者最近三年个人年均收入不低于50万元人民币。请阁下详细阅读本提示,并注册成为鼎实财富特定的合规投资者,方可获得鼎实财富私募投资基金产品宣传推介服务。

我已阅读并接受此认定书

尊敬的鼎实财富用户:
根据《私募投资基金募集行为管理办法》规定,您需要进行身份认证后才能访问。

  • 手机号码:
  • 验证码:
     
  • 密码:

我同意并已阅读《鼎实财富服务协议》

已有账号,马上登录