- 2018-10-17
The global death journey started in 2016?
In December 2016, the attention of the global media was robbed of a piece of news concerning US-China relations: US President-elect Trump had a phone call with Taiwan’s Democratic Progressive Party President Tsai Ing-wen. Unsurprisingly, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs "has lodged solemn representations with relevant parties in the United States."
This news may be the latest of the frequent signs in 2016: this wave of globalization may soon come to an end.
There have been at least two waves of globalization in the history of the world. The latest wave of globalization began after the Second World War. China has not caught up with the first half of it, but since the reform and opening up in 1978, China has caught up with the second half of this wave of globalization. Now all parties seem to have a consensus: China is the biggest beneficiary of this period of globalization, although many people in China do not think so.
But today, this wave of globalization may end soon, and China needs to quickly prepare for it.
Because Mexico today may be China tomorrow.
Loser's anger
2016 has come to an end. The top ten global news for the whole year will definitely include these two things: Brexitists won the referendum; Trump won the US presidential election.
Future historians may say: 2016 was a year of major setbacks in free trade, and even the beginning of the end of the latest wave of globalization.
This wave of globalization, which has lasted for decades, has created a number of winners as well as a number of losers. If the workers and middle class of China and other developing countries are the biggest winners of this wave of globalization, then the workers of rich western countries are the biggest losers of this wave of globalization. At least Stephen Bannon, the director of the Trump campaign and recently appointed by Trump as his chief strategist and senior adviser, thinks so. In an interview with reporters, he bluntly said: Supporters of globalization destroyed the American working class, but created a middle class in Asia.
Regardless of whether his statement is correct or not, these words not only reflect his views, but also basically summarize the main reasons for Trump and many of his supporters' "anger". As he is about to enter the White House, Trump and his cabinet will work to reverse this kind of globalization, which they believe is not conducive to the interests of the United States.
Based on the same anger and fear, a large part of the voters who voted for Brexit in the British referendum were also voters in the old industrial base in central England that were crushed by this wave of globalization.
In fact, the anti-free trade and anti-globalization sentiments in the West are much earlier, and the social classes and political forces covered are much broader, but this sentiment finally took place in the 2016 Brexit referendum and the U.S. election. Get political expression.
For example, in the campaign for the US presidential election, the banner of anti-globalization was not only held high by Trump and his supporters, but also by Sanders, another candidate in the Democratic primary election. Hold high; Hillary Clinton, who originally supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), also clearly opposed the TPP during the campaign; and it is actually many working-class voters in the central United States who have traditionally supported the Democratic Party who actually sent Trump to the White House. The situation of the Brexit referendum is quite similar: Although the main cadres of the Brexit camp are all right-wing politicians-the leader of the British Independence Party, Farage, and the Conservative Party members (such as the current Foreign Secretary Johnson, etc.), It is the many Labour Party voters in central England that really made the Brexit victory a reality.
In order to let Chinese readers feel the aversion and even hatred of ordinary Americans towards free trade or globalization, I think it is necessary to translate the following comment:
A twice-unemployed American worker named Stephan Edwards left a message after an article by a scholar advocating the benefits of globalization: "We heard experts tell us how globalization is wonderful and how it makes everyone rich. , But we later looked around and found that our income was only half of what it was ten years ago, and if we calculate it in terms of purchasing power, it’s less than half of what it was ten years ago. You know, we don’t believe this set anymore. The only thing from the world Those who have benefited from the transformation are the hard laborers of the third world, and the rich and politicians of the United States... Our so-called elites cannot understand why we hate globalization. Of course, prices are lower, but this is for those who see it. It is meaningless for people whose work has been relocated to Mexico or India (my work has been relocated to these two countries twice). My situation is by no means unique. At this time, I am willing to launch trade The third world war in China, if this can reverse the status quo. We hate globalization so much that we would rather destroy this system than fall into poverty and despair in the name of globalization."
"The U.S. is turning to trade protectionism"
Why is there such a global hatred of people like Stephan Edwards in the United States?
George Friedman (George Friedman), the founder and chairman of a geopolitical forecasting website in the United States, analyzed the demands and political influence of these globalization losers in the United States: "Since 2008, supporters of American free trade and trade protectionism The political balance between these people has changed. A large part of the American population believes that they are deeply affected by free trade. This part of the population wants to end the expanding free trade or redefine its conditions. Those who believe that free trade generally benefits more The bad view has little influence now. The United States is now turning to trade protectionism."
So, from a broader and deeper perspective, how should we analyze the reasons for the Brexit referendum and the US election and predict their impact on the future?
Harry Dent, an American best-selling author and financial analyst who often makes amazing predictions, believes that the results of the Brexit referendum and the U.S. election are just a sign of a more ambitious trend, which is that since World War II The second wave of globalization went so fast, and to this day, it has caused very different groups to conflict with each other, and it is difficult to reconcile: "Indigenous workers v. foreign workers and immigrants... rich v. middle class and poor... bad Nipa v. Shia and other religious divisions...Young people v. The rapidly increasing burden of an aging society...Big government v. Personal freedom...In the United States, this kind of conflict is even more fierce: Red states that support the Republican Party v. The Blue State that supports the Democratic Party..."
Dante believes that the results of the Brexit referendum and the US presidential election marked the end of the second wave of globalization. He predicted that in the future there will be more and more frequent separatism and trade protectionism worldwide. , Anti-immigration policies are promulgated. Before the next wave of globalization advances, we will see countries and regions regroup around the common national, religious, political, and economic roots.
If Dante’s prediction is sensational, then the analysis of Clyde Prestowitz, who once served in the cabinets of Reagan and Clinton, is more balanced, rigorous, and more affected. It is widely recognized and valued.
Prestowitz was once a US trade official who supported globalization. He was an adviser to the Secretary of Commerce in the Reagan Cabinet. Later he served as the vice chairman of the Asia-Pacific Trade and Investment Committee during Clinton’s administration. He is now a US economic strategy researcher. Founder and director of the institute. In June of this year, long before Trump was elected President of the United States, he published a long article in the "Washington Monthly" that was regarded as a "must read" by many industry insiders, "Free Trade Is Dead" ". This article reviews the theory and practice of free trade in the United States after World War II, and believes that the main motivation for successive US governments to implement free trade policies after World War II was not the United States’ own economic interests, but geopolitical considerations; although Japan and South Korea later implemented it. A policy with strong trade protectionism, but the U.S. government continues to pursue a unilateral free trade policy for the sake of its geopolitical strategy. Later, with the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the acceptance of China by the World Trade Organization, the situation has changed even more unfavorable to the economic interests of the United States: many American companies have begun to invest and set up factories in countries with cheap labor such as Mexico and China. , The transfer of some manufacturing jobs to these low-cost countries has led to the loss of local jobs in the United States.
Prestowitz went on to point out that now some of the most famous American thought leaders who support free trade are clearly adjusting their views: the globalization super-trumpeter and "New York Times" columnist Thomas Friedman (Thomas Friedman) Friedman recently stated that “the victims of free trade with China are more than people initially expected.” The Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman has also admitted that he did not expect to deal with China. The extent to which trade affects the U.S. labor force; and the former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and long-time defender of orthodox trade theory Lawrence Summers is now calling for more “harmonization” rather than more "Globalization".
Prestowitz said that more importantly, the American public is also demanding change, and the 2016 US presidential election campaign was a response to this demand from the public. This campaign has dramatically weakened free trade. The main pillar of the U.S. economy and foreign policy after World War II.
Of course, even today after Trump’s victory, there are still many free trade supporters in the US business, politics, academia, and media. They are still fighting for reasons to argue that free trade and globalization are beneficial to the United States from various aspects. Outweigh the harm, but their voices have now been completely overwhelmed by the anti-globalization wave caused by Trump's simple and crude but very effective agitation. As Trump is about to move into the White House, the US administration will certainly go all out for at least the next four years to try to reverse the free trade policy of the past few decades.
At this point, I need to make a special statement: This article does not intend to comprehensively analyze all the reasons for the victory of Brexit and the rise of Trump. There are many reasons behind these two events. Trade is only one of the reasons, and perhaps not the most important reason. In addition, predicting that the United States may move toward trade protectionism in the future does not mean that I agree with this trend; and understanding why angry voters are angry does not mean that I agree with those who benefit politically from the anger of voters, but in the end It can only make these voters more angry and bewitching politicians; for the same reason, understanding the economic and social problems behind the Brexit and Trump victory does not mean that I agree with their solutions to the problem. In fact, some of their Policies and plans with a populist color, such as imposing 45% tariffs on Chinese imports from the United States, penalizing American companies that set up factories overseas, etc., will not only not cure the economic and social ills brought about by globalization, but on the contrary. It will aggravate these ills, just as the "Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act" signed into law by US President Hoover in 1930 tried to protect the US market with high tariff barriers, but it was later regarded by many economists and historians as causing the United States. And the main reason for the deterioration of the global economic depression.
Take the aforementioned Carrier News in the United States. Michael Hicks, a professor of economics at Ball State University in Indiana, pointed out that the average labor cost of Carrier in the United States is about an hour. 30 US dollars, in Mexico it is 3 US dollars per hour. He believes that the agreement reached by Trump and Carrier did not solve the long-term problems faced by the US manufacturing industry. One of the problems is that technology and automation have increased productivity and output, but The number of people employed in manufacturing has continued to decline. Senator Sanders, who competed with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, criticized Trump's agreement with Carrier as sending a signal to American companies that they can use work outsourcing to threaten the government in exchange for taxes. Relief.
China has become the standard bearer of free trade?
If the top ten global news in 2016 definitely include the Brexit referendum and Trump's victory, then what are the top ten news in China in 2016?
The following pieces of news, in terms of their importance, may be difficult to be included in this year's top ten news in China, but their importance may gradually emerge in a few years or decades:
1) On September 4-5, 2016, the G20 summit was held in Hangzhou, China. At this time, the US presidential election campaign is going on in the clamor of anti-globalization and anti-free trade. At the G20 summit in Hangzhou, Chinese President Xi Jinping called on the participating countries to abide by their commitment not to adopt new protectionist measures and build an open world economy. , Continue to promote trade and investment liberalization and facilitation.
2) October 1, 2016, China National Day. The International Monetary Fund gave China a "holiday gift" on this day: the renminbi was included in the special drawing rights (SDR) currency basket.
3) On November 19-20, 2016, shortly after Trump unexpectedly won the US presidential election, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Peru Summit was held in Lima, the capital of the country. Because the Trump campaign promised to abolish the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as the first thing after he took office, China was able to renew its efforts to establish a broader Asia-Pacific free trade area at this APEC summit. Martin Sandb, a writer for the Economics of the British "Financial Times", lamented: This time, "China has become a leader in the opening of the global economy. This is really a strange world."
However, globalization without the participation of the West, especially the participation of the United States, can only be regarded as "hemisphericalization" at best.