浙商網(wǎng)編者按：2010年10月3日，溫家寶第二次接受CNN聞名主持人扎卡里亞(Fareed Zakaria)的采訪。在此之前，也即9月尾時，溫家寶總理曾接受過扎卡里亞的專訪。這次采訪中，無論是Fareed Zakaria的題目照舊溫總理的回答都讓人印象深刻。

　　The Wish and Will of the People Are Not Stoppable，這是扎卡里亞采訪溫家寶之后發(fā)表的采訪手記標(biāo)題，取自溫家寶在回答關(guān)于政治改革一問時所提到的一句話，人民和人民的力量決定國家的歷史和將來，人們的意愿和意志是無法抗拒的。

　　10月7日，扎卡里亞同時發(fā)表了題為《中對美挑釁來自其人民而非貨幣》(The Real Challenge from China: Its People, Not Its Currency)的文章，指出美國所面對的來自中國的挑釁，不是人民幣匯率，而是受過高等教育的中國人。美國眾議院上月加大對對中國施壓，要求加快人民幣升值。在這次訪問中，扎卡里亞也談到了中國的人民幣的匯率題目。溫家寶指斥部分美國國會議員將中美關(guān)系，分外是中美貿(mào)易不平衡的題目政治化。在《中對美挑釁來自其人民而非貨幣》一文中，扎卡里亞也以美國應(yīng)當(dāng)自我反省的態(tài)度指出我們應(yīng)當(dāng)客觀看待人民幣匯率題目。

　　Fareed Zakaria原文譯文如下：

　　我附和兩黨合作的理念，哪怕只是看到民主黨和共和黨的形象被放在一路，都會露出微笑。我對本身說：“終于，美國的政府開始運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)了?！比欢S后我看到他們現(xiàn)實(shí)上達(dá)成的同等，于是開始懷念起原先的癱瘓來。

　　9月29日，眾議院獲得民主黨和共和黨的壓服性支撐通過了一項法案。該法案將通過進(jìn)步中國產(chǎn)品的關(guān)稅來責(zé)罰中國保持貨幣低估的做法。好像所有人都認(rèn)為法案的通過恰逢其時，其實(shí)不然。該法案往好了說是偶然義的作秀，往壞了說則是傷害的煽動，并不會如其所愿地解決題目。更令人擔(dān)憂的是，此舉反映了美國日益滋生的排華情緒，這種情緒出于對中國下一階段發(fā)展所帶來挑釁的誤解。

　　大概有人會說，中國保持人民幣低估可以幫助它的制造商將玩具、活動衫和電子產(chǎn)品以低價在海外市場販賣，尤其是美國和歐洲市場。但是中國之所以能夠成為世界工廠，這頂多算是可能因素之一。(其他因素包括工資低、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施完美、對企業(yè)友愛，以及馴服的工會和用功的工人。)單是讓人民幣升值并不具備改變這統(tǒng)統(tǒng)的魔力。

　　中國企業(yè)很多產(chǎn)品的生產(chǎn)成本比美國企業(yè)要低四分之一。讓這些產(chǎn)品的生產(chǎn)成本進(jìn)步20%并不能讓美國工廠具備競爭力(由于我們可以合理地假定，假如沒有政府干預(yù)，中國貨幣對美元將會升值20%左右)。最可能出現(xiàn)的效果是，人民幣升值將幫助到越南、印度和孟加拉等其他低工資國家，這些國家生產(chǎn)的產(chǎn)品與中國多有重合。因此沃爾瑪仍將以盡可能的低價進(jìn)貨，只不過到時候更多的商品來自越南和孟加拉而已。況且，這些國家與其他浩繁亞洲國家一樣，同樣讓本身的貨幣保持低估狀況。正如經(jīng)合組織發(fā)展中間研究部主任赫爾穆特-賴森(Helmut Reisen)最近在一篇評論中所言：“世界上并不止兩種貨幣。”

　　我們曾經(jīng)目睹過這一幕。從2005年7月到2008年7月，在美國政府的施壓之下，北京許可它的貨幣對美元升值21%。然而盡管人民幣大幅升值，中國對美國的出口卻在繼承猛增。當(dāng)然，全球陷入衰退之后，中國的出口也有所放緩，不過降幅并沒有那些此前沒有令其貨幣升值的國家那么大。因此即便產(chǎn)品價格略有上升，中國的體現(xiàn)也好于其他出口國。

　　把目光投向別處和曩昔，我們可以得出同樣的結(jié)論。1985年，美國通過《廣場協(xié)議》(Plaza Accord)逼迫日元升值。但隨后日元50%的大幅升值并未讓美國產(chǎn)品的競爭力進(jìn)步多少。耶魯大學(xué)教授史蒂芬-羅奇(Stephen Roach)指出，2002年至今，美元對我們所有貿(mào)易伙伴的貨幣匯率已經(jīng)貶值23%，然而美國出口并未因此繁榮起來。美國從全球90個國家的進(jìn)口高于出口。難道說這些國家都在操縱匯率嗎？抑或更有可能是我們整個國家強(qiáng)調(diào)消耗甚于投資和制造的效果？

　　將來的新中國

　　我們所面臨來自中國的真正挑釁并不在于它賡續(xù)向我們輸出廉價商品，而是恰恰相反：中國正在沿著價值鏈上行，這在將來可能構(gòu)成對美國經(jīng)濟(jì)最大的新競爭。

　　曩昔30年的大部分時間里，中國將重要精力放在建設(shè)有形的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施上面。它當(dāng)時尚無對人力進(jìn)行投資的迫切必要，整個國家的重要目標(biāo)是生產(chǎn)低勞動力成本、低利潤率的產(chǎn)品。只要中國的工人成本低廉、工作用功，這就已經(jīng)充足。然而中國還必要當(dāng)代化的工廠、世界級的鐵路、規(guī)模偉大的港口和高效的機(jī)場。所有這些都以人類歷史上前所未有的速度和規(guī)模建成了。

　　如今中國盼望進(jìn)入高品質(zhì)產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)領(lǐng)域。這意味著中國下一階段的經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展必要以曩昔用于公路建設(shè)的劃一決心投資于人力資本，這一點(diǎn)中國政府官員曾做出明確一定。1998年以來，北京政府大力擴(kuò)張教育，教育投入占GDP的比重上升了近兩倍。此后十年間，中國大學(xué)的數(shù)量翻了一倍，大門生的數(shù)量則增長了4倍，從1997年的100萬人增長到2007年的550萬人。中國還評比出9大院校，將它們視為中國版的“常青藤盟?！?Ivy League)。就在歐洲大學(xué)和美國州立大學(xué)在大規(guī)模減赤舉措的沖擊下風(fēng)雨飄搖之際，中國卻剛好朝著相反的方向前進(jìn)。耶魯大黌舍長理查德-萊文(Richard Levin)今年曾在演講中指出：“這一容量的擴(kuò)張是史無前例的。中國在短短十年的時間里建成了全球最大的高等教育部門。事實(shí)上，中國世紀(jì)之交以來僅大學(xué)擴(kuò)招的人數(shù)便超過美國悉數(shù)大學(xué)招生人數(shù)。”

　　教育的效益

　　這一史無前例的教育投資對中國——以及美國意味著什么呢？芝加哥大學(xué)諾貝爾獎經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家羅伯特-福格爾(Robert Fogel)研究工人受教育程度對經(jīng)濟(jì)的影響。在美國，一個中學(xué)卒業(yè)的工人其產(chǎn)出是一個受過九年級教育工人的1.8倍，大學(xué)卒業(yè)生則是其3倍。中國正在急速擴(kuò)充中學(xué)和大學(xué)卒業(yè)生的供給。盡管中國在服務(wù)領(lǐng)域仍遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)落后于印度，緣故原由是印度門生在英語和科技方面素質(zhì)更高，但中國這兩方面都在奮起直追，中國企業(yè)也將涉足廣闊服務(wù)市場。福格爾信賴，高技能工人數(shù)量的上升將在一代人的時間里極大地提拔中國的年增加率，讓中國GDP到2040年達(dá)到令人瞠目的123萬億美元。(是的，據(jù)他估算，2040年中國將成為全球迄今為止最大的經(jīng)濟(jì)體。)

　　不論這一不可思議的數(shù)字是否精確——我覺得福格爾對中國增加過于樂觀了——顯而易見的一點(diǎn)是，中國正在進(jìn)入各種產(chǎn)業(yè)和工作的價值鏈上端，這些領(lǐng)域直到最近尚被視為西方世界的特權(quán)。這就是真正的中國挑釁。它并非來自北京的匯率操縱或隱性補(bǔ)貼，而是戰(zhàn)略性投資和辛勞工作?；貞?yīng)這一挑釁最佳和最有用的體例并非威脅和關(guān)稅，而是進(jìn)行結(jié)構(gòu)性改革和龐大投資，讓美國經(jīng)濟(jì)重新充滿活力，讓它的工人具有競爭力。這才是我們必要達(dá)成的兩黨共識。(誠之)

　　英文原文如下：

　　The Real Challenge from China: Its People, Not Its Currency

　　I love the idea of bipartisanship. Just the image of Democrats and Republicans coming together makes me smile. "Finally," I say to myself, "American government is working." But then I look at what they actually agree on, and I begin to pine for paralysis。

　　On Sept. 29, the House of Representatives passed a bill with overwhelming support from both Democrats and Republicans. It would punish China for keeping its currency undervalued by slapping tariffs on Chinese goods. Everyone seems to agree that it's about time. But it isn't. The bill is at best pointless posturing and at worst dangerous demagoguery. It won't solve the problem it seeks to fix. More worrying, it is part of growing anti-Chinese sentiment in the U.S. that misses the real challenge of China's next phase of development。

　　There's no doubt that China keeps the renminbi, its currency, undervalued so it can help its manufacturers sell their toys, sweaters and electronics cheaply in foreign markets, especially the U.S. and Europe. But this is only one of a series of factors that have made China the key manufacturing base of the world. (The others include low wages, superb infrastructure, hospitality to business, compliant unions and a hard-working labor force。) A simple appreciation of the renminbi will not magically change all this。

　　Chinese companies make many goods for less than 25% of what they would cost to manufacture in the U.S. Making those goods 20% more expensive (because it's reasonable to suppose that without government intervention, China's currency would increase in value against the dollar by about 20%) won't make American factories competitive. The most likely outcome is that it would help other low-wage economies like Vietnam, India and Bangladesh, which make many of the same goods as China. So Walmart would still stock goods at the lowest possible price, only more of them would come from Vietnam and Bangladesh. Moreover, these other countries, and many more in Asia, keep their currencies undervalued as well. As Helmut Reisen, head of research for the Development Center at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, wrote recently in an essay, "There are more than two currencies in the world."

　　We've seen this movie before. From July 2005 to July 2008, under pressure from the U.S. government, Beijing allowed its currency to rise against the dollar by 21%. Despite that hefty increase, China's exports to the U.S. continued to grow mightily. Of course, once the recession hit, China's exports slowed, but not as much as those of countries that had not let their currencies rise. So even with relatively pricier goods, China did better than other exporting nations。

　　Look elsewhere in the past and you come to the same conclusion. In 1985 the U.S. browbeat Japan at the Plaza Accord meetings into letting the yen rise. But the subsequent 50% increase did little to make American goods more competitive. Yale University's Stephen Roach points out that since 2002, the U.S. dollar has fallen in value by 23% against all our trading partners, and yet American exports are not booming. The U.S. imports more than it exports from 90 countries around the world. Is this because of currency manipulation by those countries, or is it more likely a result of fundamental choices we have made as a country to favor consumption over investment and manufacturing?

　　Coming: The New China

　　The real challenge we face from China is not that it will keep flooding us with cheap goods. It's actually the opposite: China is moving up the value chain, and this could constitute the most significant new competition to the U.S. economy in the future。

　　For much of the past three decades, China focused its efforts on building up its physical infrastructure. It didn't need to invest in its people; the country was aiming to produce mainly low-wage, low-margin goods. As long as its workers were cheap and worked hard, that was good enough. But the factories needed to be modern, the roads world-class, the ports vast and the airports efficient. All these were built with a speed and on a scale never before seen in human history。

　　Now China wants to get into higher-quality goods and services. That means the next phase of its economic development, clearly identified by government officials, requires it to invest in human capital with the same determination it used to build highways. Since 1998, Beijing has undertaken a massive expansion of education, nearly tripling the share of GDP devoted to it. In the decade since, the number of colleges in China has doubled and the number of students quintupled, going from 1 million in 1997 to 5.5 million in 2007. China has identified its nine top universities and singled them out as its version of the Ivy League. At a time when universities in Europe and state universities in the U.S. are crumbling from the impact of massive budget cuts, China is moving in exactly the opposite direction. In a speech earlier this year, Yale president Richard Levin pointed out, "This expansion in capacity is without precedent. China has built the largest higher-education sector in the world in merely a decade's time. In fact, the increase in China's postsecondary enrollment since the turn of the millennium exceeds the total postsecondary enrollment in the United States."

　　The Benefits of Brainpower

　　What does this unprecedented investment in education mean for China — and for the U.S.? Nobel Prize–winning economist Robert Fogel of the University of Chicago has estimated the economic impact of well-trained workers. In the U.S., a high school-educated worker is 1.8 times as productive, and a college graduate three times as productive, as someone with a ninth-grade education. China is massively expanding its supply of high school and college graduates. And though China is still lagging far behind India in the services sector, as its students learn better English and train in technology — both of which are happening — Chinese firms will enter this vast market as well. Fogel believes that the increase in high-skilled workers will substantially boost the country's annual growth rate for a generation, taking its GDP to an eye-popping $123 trillion by 2040. (Yes, by his estimates, in 2040 China would be the largest economy in the world by far。)

　　Whether or not that unimaginable number is correct — and my guess is that Fogel is much too optimistic about China's growth — what is apparent is that China is beginning a move up the value chain into industries and jobs that were until recently considered the prerogative of the Western world. This is the real China challenge. It is not being produced by Beijing's currency manipulation or hidden subsidies but by strategic investment and hard work. The best and most effective response to it is not threats and tariffs but deep, structural reforms and major new investments to make the U.S. economy dynamic and its workers competitive. That's where we need bipartisan agreement. Someone? Anyone?（浙商網(wǎng)）