美国经济学家克鲁格曼如政客 信口雌黄评论中国

光明日报刊载署名汪嘉波评论文章说，美国经济学家保罗.克鲁格曼近日在《纽约时报》发表的一篇题为《中国人的新年》的短文中大骂中国，在向人民币汇率发难的同时，竟然还呼吁美国政府放开手脚，与中国打一场贸易战争。克鲁格曼恶意抨击中国的做法令人震惊。

　　克鲁格曼说，中国政府人为地保持了很高的贸易顺差，奉行的是一种重商主义政策。他认为，中国的汇率政策具有掠夺性，并由此得出结论称，中国方面这种只顾本国 “出口工业”利益的汇率政策导致了美国失业大军的产生。“在未来几年内，中国的重商主义将会导致美国递减140万个工作岗位。”换言之，美国的失业问题是由中国造成的。

　　此外，按克鲁格曼的说法，制造美国房地产泡沫的罪魁祸首也是中国。他在文章中说：“中国的外汇储备大部分用作了美国国债的投资，这使得美国的利率保持在了一个较低的水平。从某种程度上说来，低利率对美国是有好处的——只是这种低利率却催生了房产泡沫。”　

　　最后，克鲁格曼再次推销他的“抛售美元储备”怪论，这位因获得诺贝尔奖而闻名于世的经济学家，不仅为贸易保护主义公开辩护，而且鼓动美国政府与中国展开贸易对抗，并预言美国肯定是这场战争的胜者。

　　克鲁格曼如此“雷人”的举动甚至让《华尔街日报》也备感吃惊。该报记者贝克在批评克鲁格曼无端指责中国的文章中说，新年伊始，一位美国备受推崇的经济学家公然反对国际社会公认的自由贸易原则，鼓吹以保护主义政策来解决美国的就业不足，并且公然叫嚣要与中国打一场贸易战，这实在令人吃惊。贝克认为，给中国扣上“重商主义”、“掠夺者”等帽子，其立意的确“新颖”，但论据不足。贸易战只能引发全球经济大萧条，并促成世界贸易规模急剧萎缩。美国的失业难题缘于金融危机引发的经济萧条、美国不断加重的“产业空心化”等问题，绝不可将美国的失业问题完全丢给中国。在人民币汇率问题上，要正视人民币过去数年间不断升值，且涨幅高达20%之多的事实，而美元的“问题和变数”，自然要由美方负责。

　　《纽约时报》的读者也在该报“网友评论栏”中表达了他们对克鲁格曼信口雌黄的不满和批评态度。读者们指责克鲁格曼“只有牺牲中国经济才能摆脱经济萧条”的理论，并认为克鲁格曼不该鼓吹贸易保护主义，散布“对中国发动经济战争”等不负责任的言论。独立经济学家的个性与自由固然值得尊敬，但这样的个性和自由却不可飞扬跋扈。全球化是人类社会的发展大势，越是在困难重重的关键时刻，世界各国越要在应对危机、促进世界经济复苏、稳定和发展等方面采取并遵循共同的立场和原则。

　　克鲁格曼恶意抨击中国的做法令人震惊。去年，克鲁格曼来华访问时曾表示，中国经济“因独特而无法预测”，但仅在几个月后，他就有了“判断并质疑的信心”。每次谈到中国，克鲁格曼的语气中就充满抱怨、强硬和蛮横，全无学者的儒雅和谦恭。难怪有人猜测，他是在捞取政治资本，正准备向政界进攻，试图成为美国政界的一颗新星。

　　克鲁格曼近一阶段发表的多篇攻击中国的文章中显然是在为美国的某些利益集团说话，甚至能够让人明显看出是在充当这些利益集团的代言人。当克鲁格曼指责中国操纵人民币汇率，甚至把经济危机的责任推给中国时，人们可以看出他与一些政客的距离何其相近。

　　克鲁格曼一贯标榜自己是独立经济学家，但人们至少从他有关中国经济的言论中看出，“独立”二字有很大水分。当克鲁格曼指责中国奉行重商主义时，他其实说出了那些笃信重商主义的美国人的心声，这些人希望扼制中国的出口能力，从而抑制中国前行。克鲁格曼长期以来一直摆出批判者的姿态，强调自己有一颗自由主义者的良心。当他探讨美国国内经济问题时，他的思想或许符合这样的表白。但是，当面对全球经济，面对美国的国家利益时，他却不能保持其“直面真理、独立生存的经济学范式”，难以摆脱成为“庇护本国政府经济行为”御用文人的俗套。克鲁格曼在中国访问时曾说：“无论何处都存在对学术自由的干扰。”克鲁格曼是一名经济学家，人们从他的反华文章中无法发现“经济学理论的光泽”，更看不到“公共知识分子的良心”。

　　作为一个生机勃勃的发展中国家，中国乐于倾听不同的声音，也有雅量对待来自世界各个角落的质疑和批评。但是，中国却不能接受无理的抨击和恶意的讥讽，更不能认同和容忍那些带有恐怖主义色彩的威胁性言论。

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Chinese New Year

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 31, 2009
It’s the season when pundits traditionally make predictions about the year ahead. Mine concerns international economics: I predict that 2010 will be the year of China. And not in a good way.

Actually, the biggest problems with China involve climate change. But today I want to focus on currency policy.

China has become a major financial and trade power. But it doesn’t act like other big economies. Instead, it follows a mercantilist policy, keeping its trade surplus artificially high. And in today’s depressed world, that policy is, to put it bluntly, predatory.

Here’s how it works: Unlike the dollar, the euro or the yen, whose values fluctuate freely, China’s currency is pegged by official policy at about 6.8 yuan to the dollar. At this exchange rate, Chinese manufacturing has a large cost advantage over its rivals, leading to huge trade surpluses.

Under normal circumstances, the inflow of dollars from those surpluses would push up the value of China’s currency, unless it was offset by private investors heading the other way. And private investors are trying to get into China, not out of it. But China’s government restricts capital inflows, even as it buys up dollars and parks them abroad, adding to a $2 trillion-plus hoard of foreign exchange reserves.

This policy is good for China’s export-oriented state-industrial complex, not so good for Chinese consumers. But what about the rest of us?

In the past, China’s accumulation of foreign reserves, many of which were invested in American bonds, was arguably doing us a favor by keeping interest rates low — although what we did with those low interest rates was mainly to inflate a housing bubble. But right now the world is awash in cheap money, looking for someplace to go. Short-term interest rates are close to zero; long-term interest rates are higher, but only because investors expect the zero-rate policy to end some day. China’s bond purchases make little or no difference.

Meanwhile, that trade surplus drains much-needed demand away from a depressed world economy. My back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that for the next couple of years Chinese mercantilism may end up reducing U.S. employment by around 1.4 million jobs.

The Chinese refuse to acknowledge the problem. Recently Wen Jiabao, the prime minister, dismissed foreign complaints: “On one hand, you are asking for the yuan to appreciate, and on the other hand, you are taking all kinds of protectionist measures.” Indeed: other countries are taking (modest) protectionist measures precisely because China refuses to let its currency rise. And more such measures are entirely appropriate.

Or are they? I usually hear two reasons for not confronting China over its policies. Neither holds water.

First, there’s the claim that we can’t confront the Chinese because they would wreak havoc with the U.S. economy by dumping their hoard of dollars. This is all wrong, and not just because in so doing the Chinese would inflict large losses on themselves. The larger point is that the same forces that make Chinese mercantilism so damaging right now also mean that China has little or no financial leverage.

Again, right now the world is awash in cheap money. So if China were to start selling dollars, there’s no reason to think it would significantly raise U.S. interest rates. It would probably weaken the dollar against other currencies — but that would be good, not bad, for U.S. competitiveness and employment. So if the Chinese do dump dollars, we should send them a thank-you note.

Second, there’s the claim that protectionism is always a bad thing, in any circumstances. If that’s what you believe, however, you learned Econ 101 from the wrong people — because when unemployment is high and the government can’t restore full employment, the usual rules don’t apply.

Let me quote from a classic paper by the late Paul Samuelson, who more or less created modern economics: “With employment less than full ... all the debunked mercantilistic arguments” — that is, claims that nations who subsidize their exports effectively steal jobs from other countries — “turn out to be valid.” He then went on to argue that persistently misaligned exchange rates create “genuine problems for free-trade apologetics.” The best answer to these problems is getting exchange rates back to where they ought to be. But that’s exactly what China is refusing to let happen.

The bottom line is that Chinese mercantilism is a growing problem, and the victims of that mercantilism have little to lose from a trade confrontation. So I’d urge China’s government to reconsider its stubbornness. Otherwise, the very mild protectionism it’s currently complaining about will be the start of something much bigger.