海外之声 | 特朗普斥数十亿税款为他造成的问题善后：用税款补贴美国农业是巨大浪费

观点速递

本文作者是卡托研究所Herbert A. Stiefel贸易政策研究中心的副主任西蒙·莱斯特。原文首先刊于《纽约每日新闻》。

作者指出，特朗普政府提议补贴农业部门来抵消报复性关税影响的手段只会让问题复杂化，美国的贸易政策已陷入保护主义的泥沼，只会在错误的方向上越走越远。

中文译文如下：

特朗普斥数十亿税款为他造成的问题善后：用税款补贴美国农业是巨大浪费

西蒙·莱斯特

翻译：刘家志

审校：熊若洁

2018年7月24日

最近，无论是亲密的盟友还是崭露头角的竞争对手，无论是来自何地的钢铁和铝产品，甚至无论是何种商品（除中国制厨房水槽外），都成为了特朗普总统征收关税的对象。不难预见，美国贸易伙伴对此采取的措施就是向美国出口的商品征收报复性关税。现在，特朗普政府为了应对报复，提议补贴受到关税的打击最大的农业部门来抵消报复性关税的影响。接下来，随着市场扭曲的升级和扩散，其他各级政府自然会扩大补贴规模。

农业补贴并不是什么新鲜事。美国农业部门一直以来都有大量补贴，让许多美国的贸易伙伴长期以来都感到忿忿不平。当特朗普抱怨加拿大对乳制品征收高额关税时，加拿大也抱怨美国补贴乳制品。如今美国又对农业补贴只能让问题复杂化。特朗普政府提出的农业补贴将通过大萧条时期的资助计划《商品信贷公司宪章法》进行。某种程度上，补贴是恰当的，因为如今的贸易战不难令人想起到大萧条时代的斯穆特-霍利关税。

很多人都在问，这样的境地何时才是尽头？我们是否会面临美国所有对进口和出口商品都要征收极高关税的处境？经济会受到怎样的影响？到目前为止，虽然经济依然保持强劲，但要看到的是受关税影响的贸易额依然较小。

随着关税影响的贸易量上升，经济受到的影响会愈发明显。现在不乏失业的新闻报道，而且不少上市公司也受牵连，这种影响还可能会蔓延到股市。也许股市受挫才能影响特朗普的政策？

结束这种破坏性贸易政策的一种方法是让国会介入。国会对贸易有宪法性权力，所有关税都是根据法律赋予国会的权力来实现的。国会可以而且应该重新审视法规，并约束特朗普在关税方面的行动。

国会还应该阻止实施农业补贴。早在20世纪90年代，共和党领导的国会就通过了《自由农业法》，来改革和减少农业补贴。如果共和党人真的像宣称那样支持自由市场和有限政府，就不应该说一套做一套。

美国的贸易政策已陷入保护主义的泥沼，形成对比的是世界其他地区正在推进贸易自由化。欧盟和日本最近签署了一项意义深远的贸易协定，同意削减双向贸易关税，并以其他方式实现贸易自由化。特朗普一直不满欧盟对汽车征收高关税。如今欧洲对日本生产商逐步取消关税，但对美国生产商的关税仍会持续。

特朗普本来也可以达成类似的贸易协议，但他选择不这样做。如今特朗普总统已经就任一年半，但尚未着手新的贸易谈判。根据有关农业补贴的新闻报道，“特朗普农业救助计划的第三个要素将为美国农民寻找国外新市场进行资源投入。”开辟新市场的最佳方式是通过贸易协定谈判降低关税。

但是，特朗普政府不仅没有谈判降低关税，反而征收更高的关税，结果当然招致报复性关税；现在又对农业进行补贴。贸易政策可谓是在错误的方向上还越走越快。

英文原文如下：

Trump Spends Billions in Taxpayer Dollars to Fix a Problem He Created: Taxpayer Subsidies Thrown at U.S. Agriculture Are a Huge Waste

Simon Lester

  24 July 2018

President Trump has been imposing tariffs left and right, on close allies and on budding rivals, and on steel and aluminum from everywhere and on everything but the kitchen sink from China. The predictable response from U.S. trading partners was to impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports. Now, in response to that retaliation, the Trump administration is proposing to counter the retaliatory tariffs with subsidies to the agriculture sector, which has been particularly hurt by these tariffs. Next up, presumably, is more subsidies by other governments, as the market distortions escalate and proliferate.

Agriculture subsidies are nothing new. The U.S. agriculture sector is already heavily subsidized, which has long been an irritant for many U.S. trade partners. When Trump complains about high Canadian tariffs on dairy products, Canada responds with complaints about U.S. dairy subsidies. These new subsidies just add to the problem. The Trump administration’s proposed agriculture subsidies will be carried out through the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, a Depression-era funding program. That is appropriate somehow, as the Trump administration’s trade war harkens back to the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the same era.

The question many people are asking is, where does this end? Will we reach a new status quo in which all tariffs on goods imported and exported from the United States are subject to significantly higher taxes? And what will that do to the economy? The economy has stayed strong so far, but the amount of trade subject to tariffs is still small.

As the amount of trade covered grows, the impact on the economy will become more apparent. We are already seeing reports of lost jobs, and as publicly listed companies feel the pain, the effects are likely to spread to the stock market. Perhaps that will be enough to sway Trump?

One way to put an end to this destructive trade policy is for Congress to step in. Congress has the Constitutional power over trade, and all of these tariffs are taken pursuant to authority Congress had delegated by statute. Congress can and should revisit the statutes, and rein in Trump’s actions on tariffs.

It should also step in to stop the agriculture subsidies. Back in the 1990s, a Republican-led Congress passed the Freedom to Farm Act, in order to reform and reduce farm subsidies. If the Republicans want to be the party of free markets and limited government, they should act like it.

At the same time U.S. trade policy is mired in protectionism, the rest of the world is pressing forward with trade liberalization. The EU and Japan recently signed a far-reaching trade agreement, cutting tariffs on trade in both directions, and liberalizing in other ways as well. Trump has been complaining about high EU tariffs on cars. Japanese producers will now see those tariffs phased out, but American producers will still be subject to them.

Trump could also negotiate such trade agreements, but he has chosen not to. We are now a year and a half into the Trump presidency, and no new trade negotiations have started. According to press reports about the agriculture subsidies, “[t]he plan’s third element would put resources toward finding new markets for U.S. farmers to sell their products abroad.” The best way to open new markets is to negotiate lower tariffs through trade agreements.

But instead of negotiating lower tariffs, the Trump administration has been imposing higher tariffs, which, of course, led to the retaliatory tariffs, and now to the new agriculture subsidies. Trade policy is going in the wrong direction, and the pace is picking up.

内容整理 罗梦宇

图文编辑 罗梦宇

审校  田雯

监制  朱霜霜

点击查看近期热文

欢迎加入群聊

为了增进与粉丝们的互动，IMI财经观察建立了微信交流群，欢迎大家参与。

入群方法：加群主为微信好友（微信号：imi605）,添加时备注个人姓名（实名认证）、单位、职务等信息，经群主审核后，即可被拉进群。

欢迎读者朋友多多留言与我们交流互动，留言可换奖品：每月累积留言点赞数最多的读者将得到我们寄送的最新研究成果一份。

关于我们

中国人民大学国际货币研究所（IMI）成立于2009年12月20日，是专注于货币金融理论、政策与战略研究的非营利性学术研究机构和新型专业智库。研究所聘请了来自国内外科研院所、政府部门或金融机构的90余位著名专家学者担任顾问委员、学术委员和国际委员，80余位中青年专家担任研究员。

研究所长期聚焦国际金融、宏观经济理论与政策、金融科技、财富管理、金融监管、地方金融等领域，定期举办高层次系列论坛或讲座，形成了《人民币国际化报告》《金融机构国际化报告》《中国财富管理报告》《金融科技二十讲》等一大批具有重要学术和政策影响力的产品。

2016年，研究所入围《中国智库大数据报告》影响力榜单列高校智库第4位，并在“中国经济类研究机构市场价值排行榜（2016）”中名列第32位。

国际货币网：www.imi.org.cn

微信号：IMI财经观察

（点击识别下方二维码关注我们）

理事单位申请、

学术研究和会议合作

联系方式:  

010-62516755 

[e-mail]

只分享最有价值的财经视点

We only share the most valuable financial insights.