[0428]《卫报》面对中国的超越，英国红裤衩劝告美国收敛 ...

这文章怎么看都是红裤衩

原文地址：
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/27/china-imf-economy-2016

2016: when China overtakes the USAfter more than a century as the world's largest economy, the US will need to adjust to its declining global hegemony
Mark Weisbrot guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 27 April 2011 20.30 BST Article history
2016；当中国取代自己长达一世纪世界最大经济体地位时，美国需要调整不断削弱中的全球霸权。
2011年4月27日,Mark Weisbrot,英国卫报

Various observers have noted this week that China's economy will be bigger than that of the United States in 2016. This comes from the International Monetary Fund's (IMF's) latest projections, which were made in its semi-annual April world economic outlook database. Since 2016 is just a few years away, and it will be the first time in more than a century that the United States will no longer be the world's largest economy, this development will be the object of some discussion – from various perspectives.
各方观察家本周都注意到一则消息：中国经济规模将在2016年超越美国。该预测来自于国际货币基金组织，发表在4月的世界经济半年展望中。2016距离现在只有几年时间，并且这也是一世纪以来美国首次失去世界最大经济体的地位，这必然会成为不同观点的讨论对象。

First, let's consider the economics. China has been the world's fastest growing economy for more than three decades, growing 17-fold in real (inflation-adjusted) terms since 1980. It is worth emphasising that most of this record growth took place (1980-2000) while the rest of the developing world was doing quite badly by implementing neoliberal policy changes – indiscriminate opening to trade and capital flows, increasingly independent central banks, tighter (and often pro-cyclical) fiscal and monetary policies, and the abandonment of previously successful development strategies.
首先从经济上考虑。中国历经30年的高速发展，自1980年以来经济规模实际上增长了17翻（排除通涨因素）。值得强调的是，在中国达成这个增长纪录的主要的时期（1980－2000），世界其它发展中经济体却做的一塌糊涂。在推行新经济自由主义中，这些国家放弃了以前成功的发展策略，不加区别的开放贸易和资本流动，增加中央银行独立性，紧缩财政和货币政策。

China clearly did not embrace these policy changes, which were promoted from Washington by institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, and later the WTO. (China did not even join the WTO until 2002.) It is true that China's growth acceleration included a rapid expansion of trade and foreign investment. But these were heavily managed by the state, to make sure that they fitted in with the government's development goals – quite the opposite of what happened in most other developing countries. China's goals included producing for export markets, promoting higher levels of technology (with the goal of transferring technology from foreign enterprises to the domestic economy), hiring local residents for managerial and technical jobs, and not allowing foreign investments to compete with certain domestic industries.
尽华盛顿通过IMF、世界银行以及后来的WTO不断鼓吹这些经济政策，但中国显然没有接受它们。中国的高速发展中确实包含了快速的贸易扩张和外国投资，但与其它发展中国家放任自流不同，这些都牢牢处于国家的控制下，以确保它们符合政府制订的发展目标。中国的目标包括为出口市场提供产品，提升科技水平（包括从外国企业转让技术到本土），增加本国人在管理和研发方面的就业，以及禁止外国投资在特定领域和本土经济竞争。

China's economy is still very much state-led, with the government controlling most of the financial system, the exchange rate, and about 44% of the assets of major industrial enterprises. That is why China was able to plow through the world recession with GDP growth of 9.8%, despite losing about 3.7 percentage points of GDP due to falling net exports.
中国经济目前仍然很大程度由国家引导，政府控制了大部分的金融系统，汇率，以及主要工业企业中44％的资产。这也就是为什么中国能够在全球经济衰退中达到9.8％的增长率，即时当时由于出口减少造成了3.7％的GDP损失。

Now for the politics and international implications. First, much of the discussion of China's rise is written from a Washington perspective – that is, from the perspective of an empire. From this view, China's rise is a "threat". Since this view sees the supremacy of Washington and its allies as good for the world, China's rise is also seen as a threat to the world. It is assumed that China will become an empire like the United States, but will not be so "benevolent" as the United States is.
This view is not supported by the facts. To take just current and recent history, it is the United States that invaded Iraq, leading to an estimated million deaths, is occupying Afghanistan, bombing Pakistan and Libya, and threatening Iran. The United States' and its allies' control over many developing countries' economic policies through the IMF, World Bank and other institutions has also caused a lot of damage over the past few decades.

现在再从政治和全球角度上来考虑。关于中国崛起的讨论大部分是从华盛顿的角度进行－－－也就是从帝国的位置来看。在这个角度而言，中国的崛起是个威胁。因为它把华盛顿及其盟友看成对世界有益的一方，而中国的崛起则被认为是对世界的威胁。在这种观点下，中国如果成为类似美国的帝国，也绝不会像美国那么“仁慈”。
但却没有实事去支撑这个观点。从现在和最近的纪录看，实际是美国入侵伊拉克导致了数以百万人的死亡；是美国占领阿富汗，轰炸巴基斯坦和利比亚；是美国在不断威胁伊朗。美国及其盟友通过国际基金组织、世界银行以及其它机构控制众多的发展中国家经济，并且在过去几十年对它们造成了巨大伤害。

So, a shift of power toward a more multipolar world is likely to give us a more peaceful and just world. In fact, it is already happening: the majority of South America, for example, is now governed by democratic left governments that have produced positive reforms that benefit the majority – something that was practically impossible to achieve while Washington dominated the region. And of course, the vast majority of people in the United States also stand to benefit from a smaller US role in the world, as we transition back to a republic from an empire: less spending on senseless wars, fewer casualties, fewer enemies, less distraction from our real problems at home.
China's foreign policy is mainly geared toward securing the raw materials and trade that will fuel its growth and development. This is done through commercial transactions. Of course, its corporations – like those of the rich countries – have come under criticism in various countries. But China does not try to tell other countries what their foreign policy towards other countries, or their overall economic policies, should be – as the United States often does. This is an important difference between a country that pursues its own national and economic interests, and an empire that seeks to impose its own order on the world.

世界权利向多极世界的转变更可能是通过和平和公平的方式。事实上，这种情况正在发生：多数的南美国家现在由民主左派执政，他们的改革造福了大部分民众，而这在华盛顿控制时期是几乎不可能做到的。这种转变也对美国有益，大部分美国人民会从减少世界角色的扮演中获益，如果我们从现在的帝国变回共和国，美国可以把更少的把钱花在无意义的战争上，更少的伤亡，更少的敌人，以及在处理我们自身事务时更少的干扰。
中国的对外政策主要是保障原材料和贸易的顺畅，以满足国内的增长需求，这个过程是在商业原则下进行的。确实，中国的企业也像其它富国企业一样受到不同国家的指责，但中国并不会去试图要求别国的外交或经济政策该如何如何做；而这却是美国经常在做的。国家追求自身和经济利益与帝国寻求把自己的规则强加给世界的重要区别就在于此。


A few months ago, press reports, using an exchange rate measure of GDP, announced that China had become the world's "second largest economy" just this year. But by a purchasing power parity (PPP) measure, which adjusts for the difference in many prices between China and the US, China had become the second largest economy years ago. A technical matter: if we measure China's economy in dollars at current exchange rates, it reached $5.9tn in 2010, as compared with $14.7tn for the US. By a purchasing power parity measure, its economy reached $10.1tn in 2010. It is that measure that the IMF projects to grow to $18.98tn in 2016, putting the US in second place at $18.81tn.

几个月前，媒体报道按汇率衡量中国GDP今年已经成为世界第二大经济体。但如果以实际购买力PPP来衡量－－这会根据中美不同物价进行修正，中国在很多年前就已经是第二大经济体。从技术上说：以现在的美元汇率计算，2010年中国经济规模为5。9万亿美元，美国为14万亿美元。而以购买力计算，中国的经济规模为10.1万亿美元。IMF正是以此预测到2016年，中国经济规模将达到18.98万亿，超过第二位美国的18.81万亿.

However, it is likely that even the IMF's PPP measure understates China's GDP: economist Arvind Subramanian has estimated that China's PPP GDP in 2010 was already about even with that of the United States. An IMF spokesperson, quoted this week by the Financial Times, weighed in on the debate:
"The IMF considers that GDP in purchase power parity (PPP) terms is not the most appropriate measure for comparing the relative size of countries to the global economy, because PPP price levels are influenced by non-traded services, which are more relevant domestically than globally … The Fund believes that GDP at market rates is a more relevant comparison. Under this metric, the US is currently 130% bigger than China, and will still be 70% larger by 2016."

IMF的PPP计算方式仍有可能低估了中国的GDP，经济学家 Arvind Subramanian早在2010年就估计中国经济已经和美国大致相当。
但本周金融时报引述了IMF发言人的话：“IMF认为以PPP计算的GDP并不是衡量国家间经济规模最恰当的方式。PPP的价格水平受到非贸易服务的影响，这主要由国内市场决定。IMF相信以市场汇率计算的GDP是更合适的比较方式。根据这个指标，美国现在的经济规模超过中国130％，即时到达2016年也仍然比中国大70％。”

========================================================
本文仅用于翻译练习，请勿用于商业目的。欢迎指正翻译错误。
往期请参见：http://www.docin.com/zczfr
========================================================这文章怎么看都是红裤衩

原文地址：
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/27/china-imf-economy-2016

2016: when China overtakes the USAfter more than a century as the world's largest economy, the US will need to adjust to its declining global hegemony
Mark Weisbrot guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 27 April 2011 20.30 BST Article history
2016；当中国取代自己长达一世纪世界最大经济体地位时，美国需要调整不断削弱中的全球霸权。
2011年4月27日,Mark Weisbrot,英国卫报

Various observers have noted this week that China's economy will be bigger than that of the United States in 2016. This comes from the International Monetary Fund's (IMF's) latest projections, which were made in its semi-annual April world economic outlook database. Since 2016 is just a few years away, and it will be the first time in more than a century that the United States will no longer be the world's largest economy, this development will be the object of some discussion – from various perspectives.
各方观察家本周都注意到一则消息：中国经济规模将在2016年超越美国。该预测来自于国际货币基金组织，发表在4月的世界经济半年展望中。2016距离现在只有几年时间，并且这也是一世纪以来美国首次失去世界最大经济体的地位，这必然会成为不同观点的讨论对象。

First, let's consider the economics. China has been the world's fastest growing economy for more than three decades, growing 17-fold in real (inflation-adjusted) terms since 1980. It is worth emphasising that most of this record growth took place (1980-2000) while the rest of the developing world was doing quite badly by implementing neoliberal policy changes – indiscriminate opening to trade and capital flows, increasingly independent central banks, tighter (and often pro-cyclical) fiscal and monetary policies, and the abandonment of previously successful development strategies.
首先从经济上考虑。中国历经30年的高速发展，自1980年以来经济规模实际上增长了17翻（排除通涨因素）。值得强调的是，在中国达成这个增长纪录的主要的时期（1980－2000），世界其它发展中经济体却做的一塌糊涂。在推行新经济自由主义中，这些国家放弃了以前成功的发展策略，不加区别的开放贸易和资本流动，增加中央银行独立性，紧缩财政和货币政策。

China clearly did not embrace these policy changes, which were promoted from Washington by institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, and later the WTO. (China did not even join the WTO until 2002.) It is true that China's growth acceleration included a rapid expansion of trade and foreign investment. But these were heavily managed by the state, to make sure that they fitted in with the government's development goals – quite the opposite of what happened in most other developing countries. China's goals included producing for export markets, promoting higher levels of technology (with the goal of transferring technology from foreign enterprises to the domestic economy), hiring local residents for managerial and technical jobs, and not allowing foreign investments to compete with certain domestic industries.
尽华盛顿通过IMF、世界银行以及后来的WTO不断鼓吹这些经济政策，但中国显然没有接受它们。中国的高速发展中确实包含了快速的贸易扩张和外国投资，但与其它发展中国家放任自流不同，这些都牢牢处于国家的控制下，以确保它们符合政府制订的发展目标。中国的目标包括为出口市场提供产品，提升科技水平（包括从外国企业转让技术到本土），增加本国人在管理和研发方面的就业，以及禁止外国投资在特定领域和本土经济竞争。

China's economy is still very much state-led, with the government controlling most of the financial system, the exchange rate, and about 44% of the assets of major industrial enterprises. That is why China was able to plow through the world recession with GDP growth of 9.8%, despite losing about 3.7 percentage points of GDP due to falling net exports.
中国经济目前仍然很大程度由国家引导，政府控制了大部分的金融系统，汇率，以及主要工业企业中44％的资产。这也就是为什么中国能够在全球经济衰退中达到9.8％的增长率，即时当时由于出口减少造成了3.7％的GDP损失。

Now for the politics and international implications. First, much of the discussion of China's rise is written from a Washington perspective – that is, from the perspective of an empire. From this view, China's rise is a "threat". Since this view sees the supremacy of Washington and its allies as good for the world, China's rise is also seen as a threat to the world. It is assumed that China will become an empire like the United States, but will not be so "benevolent" as the United States is.
This view is not supported by the facts. To take just current and recent history, it is the United States that invaded Iraq, leading to an estimated million deaths, is occupying Afghanistan, bombing Pakistan and Libya, and threatening Iran. The United States' and its allies' control over many developing countries' economic policies through the IMF, World Bank and other institutions has also caused a lot of damage over the past few decades.

现在再从政治和全球角度上来考虑。关于中国崛起的讨论大部分是从华盛顿的角度进行－－－也就是从帝国的位置来看。在这个角度而言，中国的崛起是个威胁。因为它把华盛顿及其盟友看成对世界有益的一方，而中国的崛起则被认为是对世界的威胁。在这种观点下，中国如果成为类似美国的帝国，也绝不会像美国那么“仁慈”。
但却没有实事去支撑这个观点。从现在和最近的纪录看，实际是美国入侵伊拉克导致了数以百万人的死亡；是美国占领阿富汗，轰炸巴基斯坦和利比亚；是美国在不断威胁伊朗。美国及其盟友通过国际基金组织、世界银行以及其它机构控制众多的发展中国家经济，并且在过去几十年对它们造成了巨大伤害。

So, a shift of power toward a more multipolar world is likely to give us a more peaceful and just world. In fact, it is already happening: the majority of South America, for example, is now governed by democratic left governments that have produced positive reforms that benefit the majority – something that was practically impossible to achieve while Washington dominated the region. And of course, the vast majority of people in the United States also stand to benefit from a smaller US role in the world, as we transition back to a republic from an empire: less spending on senseless wars, fewer casualties, fewer enemies, less distraction from our real problems at home.
China's foreign policy is mainly geared toward securing the raw materials and trade that will fuel its growth and development. This is done through commercial transactions. Of course, its corporations – like those of the rich countries – have come under criticism in various countries. But China does not try to tell other countries what their foreign policy towards other countries, or their overall economic policies, should be – as the United States often does. This is an important difference between a country that pursues its own national and economic interests, and an empire that seeks to impose its own order on the world.

世界权利向多极世界的转变更可能是通过和平和公平的方式。事实上，这种情况正在发生：多数的南美国家现在由民主左派执政，他们的改革造福了大部分民众，而这在华盛顿控制时期是几乎不可能做到的。这种转变也对美国有益，大部分美国人民会从减少世界角色的扮演中获益，如果我们从现在的帝国变回共和国，美国可以把更少的把钱花在无意义的战争上，更少的伤亡，更少的敌人，以及在处理我们自身事务时更少的干扰。
中国的对外政策主要是保障原材料和贸易的顺畅，以满足国内的增长需求，这个过程是在商业原则下进行的。确实，中国的企业也像其它富国企业一样受到不同国家的指责，但中国并不会去试图要求别国的外交或经济政策该如何如何做；而这却是美国经常在做的。国家追求自身和经济利益与帝国寻求把自己的规则强加给世界的重要区别就在于此。


A few months ago, press reports, using an exchange rate measure of GDP, announced that China had become the world's "second largest economy" just this year. But by a purchasing power parity (PPP) measure, which adjusts for the difference in many prices between China and the US, China had become the second largest economy years ago. A technical matter: if we measure China's economy in dollars at current exchange rates, it reached $5.9tn in 2010, as compared with $14.7tn for the US. By a purchasing power parity measure, its economy reached $10.1tn in 2010. It is that measure that the IMF projects to grow to $18.98tn in 2016, putting the US in second place at $18.81tn.

几个月前，媒体报道按汇率衡量中国GDP今年已经成为世界第二大经济体。但如果以实际购买力PPP来衡量－－这会根据中美不同物价进行修正，中国在很多年前就已经是第二大经济体。从技术上说：以现在的美元汇率计算，2010年中国经济规模为5。9万亿美元，美国为14万亿美元。而以购买力计算，中国的经济规模为10.1万亿美元。IMF正是以此预测到2016年，中国经济规模将达到18.98万亿，超过第二位美国的18.81万亿.

However, it is likely that even the IMF's PPP measure understates China's GDP: economist Arvind Subramanian has estimated that China's PPP GDP in 2010 was already about even with that of the United States. An IMF spokesperson, quoted this week by the Financial Times, weighed in on the debate:
"The IMF considers that GDP in purchase power parity (PPP) terms is not the most appropriate measure for comparing the relative size of countries to the global economy, because PPP price levels are influenced by non-traded services, which are more relevant domestically than globally … The Fund believes that GDP at market rates is a more relevant comparison. Under this metric, the US is currently 130% bigger than China, and will still be 70% larger by 2016."

IMF的PPP计算方式仍有可能低估了中国的GDP，经济学家 Arvind Subramanian早在2010年就估计中国经济已经和美国大致相当。
但本周金融时报引述了IMF发言人的话：“IMF认为以PPP计算的GDP并不是衡量国家间经济规模最恰当的方式。PPP的价格水平受到非贸易服务的影响，这主要由国内市场决定。IMF相信以市场汇率计算的GDP是更合适的比较方式。根据这个指标，美国现在的经济规模超过中国130％，即时到达2016年也仍然比中国大70％。”

========================================================
本文仅用于翻译练习，请勿用于商业目的。欢迎指正翻译错误。
往期请参见：http://www.docin.com/zczfr
========================================================