dingdong

Who’s “Protected” by Tariffs?

第11章 关税“保护”了哪些人？
 
A MERE RECITAL of the economic policies of governments all over the world is calculated to cause any serious student of economics to throw up his hands in despair. What possible point can there be, he is likely to ask, in discussing refinements and advances in economic theory, when popular thought and the actual policies of governments, certainly in everything connected with international relations, have not yet caught up with Adam Smith? For present-day tariff and trade policies are not only as bad as those in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but incomparably worse. The real reasons for those tariffs and other trade barriers are the same, and the pretended reasons are also the same.

我们若只是单单叙述世界各国的经济政策，很可能会使得每个认真学习经济学的学生垂头丧气。同学们可能会问：当今任何与国际关系相联系的流行的思想和政府的实际政策，还没有什么能赶得上亚当•斯密的时候，我们还来讨论经济理论的改良和发展，有什么意义呢？如今的关税和贸易政策之糟糕，比起17世纪、18世纪时的政策有过之而无不及。开征关税和设立贸易壁垒的真正原因相同，当局者所搬出的理由也相同。

Since The Wealth of Nations appeared more than two centuries ago, the case for free trade has been stated thousands of times, but perhaps never with more direct simplicity and force than it was stated in that volume. In general Smith rested his case on one fundamental proposition: “In every country it always is and must be the interest of the great body of the people to buy whatever they want of those who sell it cheapest.” “The proposition is so very manifest,” Smith continued, “that it seems ridiculous to take any pains to prove it; nor could it ever have been called in question, had not the interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers confounded the common-sense of mankind.”

自《国富论》问世两个多世纪以来，自由贸易论已经被阐述过无数次，但都不如《国富论》讲得那么简捷有力。亚当•斯密的立论大致基于这样一个基本命题：“在任何国家，人民大众的利益总在于而且必然在于，向售价最便宜的人购买他们所需要的各种物品。”他接着说道，“这个命题不证自明，费心思去证明它，倒是一件滑稽的事情；如果没有这班进出口商和制造商自私自利的诡辩混淆了人们的常识，也不会有人去质疑它。”

From another point of view, free trade was considered as one aspect of the specialization of labor:

从另一个角度来看，自由贸易可以被视为专业分工的一个方面：

But whatever led people to suppose that what was prudence in the conduct of every private family could be folly in that of a great kingdom? It was a whole network of fallacies, out of which mankind has still been unable to cut its way. And the chief of them was the central fallacy with which this book is concerned. It was that of considering merely the immediate effects of a tariff on special groups, and neglecting to consider its long run effects on the whole community.

然而，到底是什么使人们认为，在每一个家庭的管理中是精明的举措，用于一个大国的管理中，就可能是错的呢？这又是一张不容易梳理清楚的谬论网，而人类至今尚未能冲破它的羁绊。不过，其中的中心谬论则是本书要剖析的，即仅仅考虑了关税对特殊群体产生的立即影响，而忽略了考察关税对整个社会的长远影响。
 
2
 
An American manufacturer of woolen sweaters goes to Congress or to the State Department and tells the committee or officials concerned that it would be a national disaster for them to remove or reduce the tariff on British sweaters. He now sells his sweaters for $30 each, but English manufacturers could sell their sweaters of the same quality for $25. A duty of $5, therefore, is needed to keep him in business. He is not thinking of himself, of course, but of the thousand men and women he employs, and of the people to whom their spending in turn gives employment. Throw them out of work, and you create unemployment and a fall in purchasing power, which would spread in ever-widening circles. And if he can prove that he really would be forced out of business if the tariff were removed or reduced, his argument against that action is regarded by Congress as conclusive.

美国一家羊毛衫制造商，跑到国会向相关的委员会慷慨陈词，又到国务院向有关政府官员据理力争，说对英国羊毛衫减免进口关税，会给国家带来灾难。现在，他的羊毛衫售价每件30美元，但是同样品质的英国羊毛衫的售价仅为25美元。因此，要使他可以持续经营，就必须征收这5美元关税。不消说，他声称此举并非只顾自己，而是替他雇用的成千男女员工着想，替服务于这些员工的更多人着想。任由这些人丢掉饭碗，失业率会上升，购买力会下降，负面影响会像涟漪一样往外扩散。要是这个制造商能够拿出确凿的证据，证明减免关税定会使他倒闭出局，国会肯定认为他的反对意见无可辩驳。

But the fallacy comes from looking merely at this manufacturer and his employees, or merely at the American sweater industry. It comes from noticing only the results that are immediately seen, and neglecting the results that are not seen because they are prevented from coming into existence.

然而，这里的谬误出在只看这家制造商和他的员工，或者只顾及美国羊毛衫业。这种谬误源自只注意看得见的立即结果，而忽略了那些被剥夺了出现机会而看不见的结果。

The lobbyists for tariff protection are continually putting forward arguments that are not factually correct. But let us assume that the facts in this case are precisely as the sweater manufacturer has stated them. Let us assume that a tariff of $5 a sweater is necessary for him to stay in business and provide employment at sweater-making for his workers.

向国会进行游说的人为求得关税保护，不断用与事实不尽相符证据进行申辩。然而，我们权且假设那家羊毛衫制造商以上所述的就是事实，假设为了使得它能在这个行业中继续维持下去，并能继续为现有员工提供工作机会，征收5美元的关税是必要的。

We have deliberately chosen the most unfavorable example of any for the removal of a tariff. We have not taken an argument for the imposition of a new tariff in order to bring a new industry into existence, but an argument for the retention of a tariff that has already brought an industry into existence, and cannot be repealed without hurting somebody.

我们刻意选择撤消关税这种最棘手的例子来做说明。我们没有讨论为了创造新的产业而设立新的关税这种情况，而是就维持业已保护一个行业能够存在的关税，同时撤消它又必然会伤害到一些人的既得利益的情况展开讨论。

The tariff is repealed; the manufacturer goes out of business; a thousand workers are laid off; the particular tradesmen whom they patronized are hurt. This is the immediate result that is seen. But there are also results which, while much more difficult to trace, are no less immediate and no less real. For now sweaters that formerly cost retail $30 apiece can be bought for $25. Consumers can now buy the same quality of sweater for less money, or a much better one for the same money. If they buy the same quality of sweater, they not only get the sweater, but they have $5 left over, which they would not have had under the previous conditions, to buy something else. With the $25 that they pay for the imported sweater they help employment—as the American manufacturer no doubt predicted — in the sweater industry in England. With the $5 left over they help employment in any number of other industries in the United States.

该项关税被取消了；那位制造商破了产；成千员工被遣散；靠这群人发财的商家直接遭受损失。这是看得到的立即结果。但还有一些结果，虽然追踪起来很困难，但同样直接同样真实。由于以往30美元一件的羊毛衫现在只卖25美元，消费者花更少的钱，就能买到同等品质的羊毛衫（或者花30美元，能买到品质更好的羊毛衫）。如果他们选择前者，不仅有羊毛衫穿，省下的5美元还可以拿去买别的东西。消费者掏25美元买进口货，是在促进英国羊毛衫业的就业，这也是那个美国制造商为我们所断言的。而消费者省下的5美元，则会促进美国其他产业的就业。

But the results do not end there. By buying English sweaters they furnish the English with dollars to buy American goods here. This, in fact (if I may here disregard such complications as fluctuating exchange rates, loans, credits, etc.) is the only way in which the British can eventually make use of these dollars. Because we have permitted the British to sell more to us, they are now able to buy more from tis. They are, in fact, eventually forced to buy more from us if their dollar balances are not to remain perpetually unused. So as a result of letting in more British goods, we must export more American goods. And though fewer people are now employed in the American sweater industry, more people are employed—and much more efficiently employed—in, say, the American washing-machine or aircraft-building business. American employment on net balance has not gone down, but American and British production on net balance has gone up. Labor in each country is more fully employed in doing just those things that it does best, instead of being forced to do things that it does inefficiently or badly. Consumers in both countries are better off. They are able to buy what they want where they can get it cheapest. American consumers are better provided with sweaters, and British consumers are better provided with washing machines and aircraft.

不过，由此带来的结果还不止这些。通过购买英国的羊毛衫，他们向英国人提供了美元，从而使得英国人可以拿这些美元去购买美国产品。事实上，英国人手上的美元最终只有拿去购买美国产品（这里暂且忽略汇率波动、贷款、信用等复杂因素）。由于关税减免，英国人得以出售更多的产品给我们，现在他们才有能力从美国买更多的产品。事实上，美元最终只能用来买美国产品，除非外国人持有美元永远不用。因此，作为允许进口更多英国产品的结果，是我们必然出口更多的美国产品。尽管美国羊毛衫业中就业的人数减少了，但更多人得以被其他行业雇用，而且是更有效率地雇用，例如洗衣机或飞机制造业。美国总的就业率并未下降。这样一来，美国和英国的整体生产就会增加。两国的劳动力资源都流向了各自的优势产业，而不必继续窝在缺乏效率或者成果差产业。两国的消费者都得到了实惠。他们可以买到最便宜的产品。进口羊毛衫能让美国的消费者受惠，进口洗衣机和飞机能让英国的消费者受惠。

（未完待续）

Trackback URI | Comments RSS