dingdong

第11章 关税“保护”了哪些人？
 
（接前面部分）

3

Now let us look at the matter the other way round, and see the effect of imposing a tariff in the first place. Suppose that there had been no tariff on foreign knit goods, that Americans were accustomed to buying foreign sweaters without duty, and that the argument were then put forward that we could bring a sweater industry into existence by imposing a duty of $5 on sweaters.

现在，让我们换个角度来看一下这个问题，看看新开征一种关税会带来的影响。假设美国对进口针织品还不曾征收关税，美国人已经习惯购买售价不含关税的进口羊毛衫。现在，有种论调说：我们可以通过对进口羊毛衫征收5美元的关税来催生国产羊毛衫制造业。

There would be nothing logically wrong with this argument so far as it went. The cost of British sweaters to the American consumer might thereby be forced so high that American manufacturers would find it profitable to enter the sweater business. But American consumers would be forced to subsidize this industry. On every American sweater they bought they would be forced in effect to pay a tax of $5 which would be collected from them in a higher price by the new sweater industry.

这种论调本身逻辑并没有什么问题。关税抬高了英国羊毛衫在美国的售价，使得美国厂商进入羊毛衫行业有利可图。然而，美国消费者将被迫补贴这个产业。他们每买一件国产羊毛衫，事实上就等于被迫缴纳5美元的税，这体现为新羊毛衫产业的较高价格。

Americans would be employed in a sweater industry who had not previously been employed in a sweater industry. That much is true. But there would be no net addition to the country’s industry or the country’s employment. Because the American consumer had to pay $5 more for the same quality of sweater he would have just that much less left over to buy anything else. He would have to reduce his expenditures by $5 somewhere else. In order that one industry might grow or come into existence, a hundred other industries would have to shrink. In order that 50,000 persons might be employed in a woolen sweater industry, 50,000 fewer persons would be employed elsewhere.

一些原来并不受雇于羊毛衫产业的美国人现在改入这一行。这是事实。但是整个国家的从业人数或就业机会并无任何净增长。由于消费者不得不多花5美元去购买同品质的羊毛衫，可用于购买其他产品的钱就少了5美元。他将不得不因此缩减相应的开支。为了使一个产业发展或生存而开征关税，很多其他产业将不得不萎缩。为了让50 000人能够受雇于羊毛衫产业而开征关税，其他产业的从业人数将不得不因此损失50 000人。

But the new industry would be visible. The number of its employees, the capital invested in it, the market value of its product in terms of dollars, could be easily counted. The neighbors could see the sweater workers going to and from the factory every day. The results would be palpable and direct. But the shrinkage of a hundred other industries, the loss of 50,000 other jobs somewhere else, would not be so easily noticed. it would be impossible for even the cleverest statistician to know precisely what the incidence of the loss of other jobs had been—precisely how many men and women had been laid off from each particular industry, precisely how much business each particular industry had lost—because consumers had to pay more for their sweaters. For a loss spread among all the other productive activities of the country would be comparatively minute for each. It would be impossible for anyone to know precisely how each consumer would have spent his extra $5 if he had been allowed to retain it. The overwhelming majority of the people, therefore, would probably suffer from the illusion that the new industry had cost us nothing.

然而，新产业是容易看得见的。其从业人数、投入的资本、产品市场规模，测评起来都很容易。邻居们每天都能看见羊毛衫厂的工人上下班。这些结果直接并且明显。但是，许多其他产业的萎缩、及其损失的50 000个工作机会，却不是能够很容易被觉察到的。即使是对最聪明的统计专家来讲，要确切地了解因为消费者不得不在羊毛衫上多花一些钱而给其他产业造成的损失——确切地知道有多少男女工人被某一个别的行业所解雇，确切地知道每一个行业所丢掉的生意——也是不可能的。因为损失被分摊到了美国其他所有生产活动中，人们一时很难看出某种生产活动承受损失前后的明显差别。要知道倘使那5美元可以被留下来，每个消费者原本会怎么花掉它是不可能的。绝大多数人因此误以为新产业并没有使他们付出任何代价。这种错觉，将使国人受到进一步的损害。

4

It is important to notice that the new tariff on sweaters would not raise American wages. To be sure, it would enable Americans to work in the sweater industry at approximately the average level of American wages (for workers of their skill), instead of having to compete in that industry at the British level of wages. But there would be no increase of American wages in general as a result of the duty; for as we have seen, there would be no net increase in the number of jobs provided, no net increase in the demand for goods, and no increase in labor productivity. Labor productivity would, in fact, be reduced as a result of the tariff.

我们必须注意到，这种对羊毛衫征收的新关税并不会提高美国人的工资水平。诚然，征收这种关税将使在羊毛衫产业中工作的美国人，其工资只要处于美国的平均水准上下（就技能相当而言）就行，而不必该行业的英国工人工资水平竞争。然而，并不存在由关税而带来的美国工资水平普遍的增长。因为，象我们所看到的，这里并不存在就业数量的净增长，也没有对商品需求的净增长，以及劳动生产率的净增长。事实上，作为关税保护的一种结果，劳动生产率是降低了。

And this brings us to the real effect of a tariff wall. It is not merely that all its visible gains are offset by less obvious but no less real losses. It results, in fact, in a net loss to the country. For contrary to centuries of interested propaganda and disinterested confusion, the tariff reduces the American level of wages.

由上所述，我们已可见到关税壁垒的实质影响。所有看得到的利益，都被损失给冲销掉了，虽然这些损失不那么明显，但确有其事。结果，整个国家承受了净损失。对于关税的功效，数百年来有过无数出于自利的宣传，也有过并非出于自利的认识混乱，事实却与这一切误导截然相反——关税降低了美国的工资水平。

Let us observe more clearly how it does this. We have seen that the added amount which consumers pay for a tariff-protected article leaves them just that much less with which to buy all other articles. There is here no net gain to industry as a whole. But as a result of the artificial barrier erected against foreign goods, American labor, capital and land are deflected from what they can do more efficiently to what they do less efficiently. Therefore, as a result of the tariff wall the average productivity of American labor and capital is reduced.

让我们来进一步阐明其中的原因。如前所述，消费者多花钱购买受关税保护的产品，能够用来购买其他产品的钱就会相应减少。产业作为一个整体并没有从中获得净收益。但由于人为地对外国产品设立壁垒，造成美国的劳动力、资本和土地，从相对效率较高的产业，移转到相对效率较低的产业上。因此，美国劳动力和资本的平均生产力，必然由于关税壁垒而降低。

If we look at it now from the consumer’s point of view, we find that he can buy less with his money. Because he has to pay more for sweaters and other protected goods, he can buy less of everything else. The general purchasing power of his income has therefore been reduced. Whether the net effect of the tariff is to lower money wages or to raise money prices will depend upon the monetary policies that are followed. But what is clear is that the tariff—though it may increase wages above what they would have been in the protected industries—must on net balance, when all occupations are considered, reduce real wages—-reduce them, that is to say, compared with what they otherwise would have been.

倘若我们现在从消费者的角度加以分析的话，我们会发现，用同样多的钱所能买的东西更少了。由于他不得不支付更多钱去买羊毛衫和其他受关税保护的产品，所以能买的其他每一样东西都减少了。消费者收入的整体购买力随之下滑。关税的净效果，到底是降低名义工资，还是提高名义物价，要看当时实行的货币政策。很清楚的一点是，尽管受保护产业的工资水平或许能比不受关税保护时要高，若把所有产业的情形都考虑在内的话，和本来应有的整体水平相比较，关税一定会降低实质工资。

Only minds corrupted by generations of misleading propaganda can regard this conclusion as paradoxical. What other result could we expect from a policy of deliberately using our resources of capital and manpower in less efficient ways than we know how to use them? What other result could we expect from deliberately erecting artificial obstacles to trade and transportation?

只有历经一代又一代谬论的影响，被长期误导，才会觉得上述结论似是而非。资本和人力资源，由于经济政策的影响，被刻意运用在比较缺乏效率的地方，我们还能够期待得到与上面不一样的结果吗？贸易和运输，被刻意设立的人为壁垒所阻碍，我们还能期待有其他不同的结果吗？

For the erection of tariff walls has the same effect as the erection of real walls. It is significant that the protectionists habitually use the language of warfare. They talk of “repelling an invasion” of foreign products. And the means they suggest in the fiscal field are like those of the battlefield. The tariff barriers that are put up to repel this invasion are like the tank traps, trenches and barbed-wire entanglements created to repel or slow down attempted invasion by a foreign army.

设立关税壁垒的效果，跟筑墙挡道没有两样。值得注意的是，贸易保护论者习惯用战争术语，诸如，应该“击退”舶来品的“入侵”。他们在财政上的建议和在战场上所采用的招式一样。设立关税壁垒以击退舶来品的入侵，就像布设坦克陷阱、战壕、铁丝网，用以抵御或延缓敌军的攻势。

And just as the foreign army is compelled to employ more expensive means to surmount those obstacles — bigger tanks, mine detectors, engineer corps to cut wires, ford streams and build bridges—so more expensive and efficient transportation means must be developed to surmount tariff obstacles. On the one hand, we try to reduce the cost of transportation between England and America, or Canada and the United States, by developing faster and more efficient planes and ships, better roads and bridges, better locomotives and motor trucks. On the other hand, we offset this investment in efficient transportation by a tariff that makes it commercially even more difficult to transport goods than it was before. We make it a dollar cheaper to ship the sweaters, and then increase the tariff by two dollars to prevent the sweaters from being shipped. By reducing the freight that can be profitably carried, we reduce the value of the investment in transport efficiency.

就象外国军队要克服这些障碍就得付出更高的代价——部署更大的坦克；使用地雷探测器；派出工兵剪除铁丝网、架桥、抢滩一样，在外贸中要克服关税壁垒，需要加大投入开发更有效率的运输方式。一方面，我们试图通过开发速度更快和效率更高的飞机与船只，投资修筑更好的公路和桥梁，投入使用更好的火车和载货汽车，尽力去降低英国与美国，或是加拿大与美国之间的运输成本；另一方面，我们设立关税，使得从经济效益上看较以往更难运输货物，因为它抵消了我们在高效率运输上的投资。我们努力降低羊毛衫运输成本1美元，接着又花掉2美元支付为阻止羊毛衫运入美国而增收的关税。由于减少了本来可以获利的部分运载量，我们减少了运输效率中投资的价值。

（未完待续）

Trackback URI | Comments RSS