3, Rolls, Royce
美国人认为，通过了这些协议后，从西方流向苏联的高技术产品显然减少了。1975年，在美国出售给苏联的全部产品中，高技术产品占了32.7%，销售总额达2.19亿美元。到了1983年，出售给苏联的高技术产品在全部产品中所占的比例下降为5.4%，其总额只有区区 3 900 万美元。
The key to repelling the challenge of China's manufacturing industry is to use the zero human rights advantage of mature AI robots to defeat China's low human rights advantage.
Abstract: The main advantage of China's economic competitiveness lies in its low human rights advantage, that is, it employs a large number of high-quality blue-collar and white-collar workers at a lower cost, and low-cost reproduction of mature technologies and products in the West to squeeze and destroy the West. Competitors. The selling point of China lies in this low human rights advantage. To counter this advantage of China, the United States needs to mature artificial intelligence and robotics as soon as possible, and defeat China’s low human rights advantage with the zero human rights advantage of robots, thus pushing China out of the international division of labor system and causing its economic collapse, just like In the same year, the Soviet Union was pushed out of the world energy market by lowering the price of oil, which caused the collapse of the Soviet economy.
The key to competition among big countries lies in their respective positions in the international division of labor.
The key to stifling the rise of a big country is to vacate its position in the international division of labor, making it dispensable, thereby greatly reducing its income and then hollowing out its economy through an arms race.
The United States’ treatment of the Soviet Union in the past was to make oil more exceptionally easy to obtain by lowering the price of oil in the Middle East (price is more difficult than obtaining resources), thus making the Soviet Union dependent on oil exports a dispensable in the international division of labor. In turn, the extremely low energy prices have to be endured, leading to a sharp drop in economic income. Together with the consumption of the Afghan war and the space arms race, the economy has collapsed.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union certainly has deep internal reasons, but as the former US Central Intelligence Agency official Schweitzer, who personally participated in the economic war against the Soviet Union, said, "It is not an incident or a policy that makes the Kremlin into the abyss. The reason why the Reagan administration’s overall strategy has such great power is the combined effect of various policies. These policies are like a strong hurricane blowing into the weak Soviet system. The Reagan administration carefully designed a blueprint for economic warfare, and the Soviet Union was dragged into the abyss by the United States.
Today, the international academic community, especially the international economics community, has a strange understanding of China, but the big ones are nothing more than three: one is the collapse of China. That is to say, the high growth of China's economy is only a false phase caused by exaggeration. In reality, the internal crisis and the pressure of globalization are becoming more and more serious, and it is inevitable that it will collapse. The second and the third are opposite. They believe that the Chinese economy has created a miracle of growth and prosperity. However, according to the traditional theory of the two camps of Western economics, two opposite interpretations are formed: classical liberal economics credits the "Chinese miracle" The success of economic liberalization or marketization, while the leftist economics or Keynesian economics is attributed to the success of "socialism" or government intervention and control.
I think that the three major mainstream understandings are seriously biased: China's economy continues to grow at a high rate, and it is a fact that it is comfortable in globalization. The "false theory" and "collapse theory" are wrong. However, this kind of growth can neither be interpreted as “government success” as the leftist commentator, nor can it be interpreted as “market success” as the right-wingers say, and “Beijing’s double success”. Consensus is irrelevant. In addition to the traditional advantages of low wages and low welfare, China has lowered the prices of the four major factors (human, land, capital and non-renewable resources) with the “lower human rights” advantage, so as not to bargain, limit or even cancel many trading rights. The approach of “reducing transaction costs” to reject democracy, suppress participation, ignore ideas, despise faith, defy justice, and stimulate material desires to motivate people to concentrate on the mirage-like impulse of seeking wealth, thus showing whether the free market countries or welfare The amazing competitiveness that is rare in the country also makes the transitional countries that adopt “gradual” or “shock therapy” even worse.
Of course, if you don't open up to the outside world, this impulse will not be much more capable. However, after opening up to the outside world in the era of globalization, China was excused from the "autocratic and non-welfare" system. "Democratic separation of households is troublesome, welfare countries have more burdens, trade unions scare away investors, and farmers will drive away the entourage." "Towed", there has been an unprecedented rapid accumulation of raw. The crisis caused by this method is alleviated by the gain of external resources (capital inflow, commodity output), and the crisis is externally diluted through globalization: the iron fist power in China suppresses its internal contradictions and maintains the surface "stability." At the same time, the "China factor" has intensified the internal contradictions of other countries: the capital flow and commodity flow caused by the Chinese factor have broken the original balance of power in the free country, exacerbated the contradiction between labor and capital, and intensified the immigration conflict in the welfare state. Employment and public finances have been exacerbated in both countries.
In just over a decade, the goods produced in China have been flooded with the world, and capital flows from all over the world have flooded into China. The "China's competition" in globalization is unstoppable. It not only forces the welfare state to lower the welfare level, but also forces the free country to re-establish trade barriers. It also makes the underdeveloped countries face greater difficulties in absorbing funds and obtaining resources.
However, the paradox is that due to a priori preferences and incomplete information, each family tries to make an explanation for "China's success": the non-free color of the Chinese economy makes the left enjoy, and its non-welfare color makes the right enjoy. At the same time, it envied the third world with the rapid development of poor countries. Therefore, China, which originally poses serious challenges to the modern left and right, to the welfare state and the free country, to the developed and developing countries, has been praised by the above parties. However, praise is praised, because the above-mentioned "China advantage" cannot be copied (there is no Chinese-style iron fist power, no country, whether left or right, or a free market policy or a Keynesian or even social democratic policy, can not do this primitively. Accumulation), and the "China Challenge" is objective and unavoidably increasingly serious. The relations between China and the United States are not optimistic in the long run.
On the other hand, China's development model also has a "small effect" within it: the "leftist" gains freedom and the welfare does not necessarily increase, while the "rightist" gains welfare loss and freedom may not increase. When "Left", the government's power expansion is not accountable. When "right", the government dismissed it but did not want to limit power. The left is a violation of civilian private property and public wealth may not be guaranteed. On the right, public assets are seriously lost and civilian private property may not be protected. On the one hand, “new nationalization” and “private privatization”. On the left, "public power" invades the personal sphere but does not care about public services. When it is right, it gives up public goods but does not protect individual rights. The policy tends to the left to compress individual freedom but not to open public participation. To the right, it inhibits democratic participation while restricting free competition. The "leftist" can't build a welfare state, and the "rightist" can't make a fair market. As Sun Liping said: Whether it is to the left or to the right, the winners are the same strong people, and those who suffer are the same disadvantaged. In the words of the common people, "a radish is cut at both ends, and he is the one who is left and right." In this way, social contradictions are increasingly developed and accumulating in the process of scale-up, and not in the constitutional democratic system, to maintain the social balance by the "balance effect" of the left-wing struggle for welfare and the right-wing freedom.
Therefore, China's rapid development has not been able to alleviate the contradiction of “unfairness of the cake” as some people have imagined, but the phenomenon of economic development and internal and external contradictions has continued to deepen. In the past, after Deng Xiaoping, Deng Xiaoping established the legitimacy of the rule on economic growth. He often said that Eastern Europe was paralyzed and we were not guilty because our economy was doing well. But now, the phenomenon of high economic growth and social instability at the same time makes people increasingly skeptical about this, and it is said that some leaders have begun to envy Cuba and North Korea, which are economically declining and seemingly politically "stable", to learn. The political high pressure of the latter. But this practice of quenching thirst can only lead to more serious instability. Another trend of the Hu Wen government is worthy of recognition. This is more emphasis on fairness and government public service responsibility than in the past. However, the mechanism of the "small-scale effect" is not resolved. I am afraid that it is easy to expand and blame. The reply to the "big government" under the existing system will only form another round of expansion of power-removal. And to get out of the "size and effect", it is necessary to carry out constitutional reforms corresponding to powers and responsibilities.
And a country as large as China, with so many people, such a large amount of China's economy, will become more and more prominent as a global commodity supplier and capital absorber in the future. Once the problem may be more than the impact of the US stock market crash in 1929 on the world. Bigger. Therefore, China's smooth and smooth transformation is not only the blessing of the people, but also the blessing of the world. The collapse of the international order caused by China’s “explosive effect” or the collapse of the current primitive accumulation method with the welfare state and the free country is not only a disaster for the people but also a disaster for the world.
In the context of globalization, the world’s concern about China is inevitable. Nowadays, developed countries are pressing China to appreciate the renminbi. This is actually the embodiment of the current primitive accumulation of China and the conflict between the welfare state and the free state system. However, the appreciation of the renminbi cannot solve the problem in fact: due to the fact that there is no fair game within China under the current iron fist system, the suppression of China’s “competitiveness” by the appreciation of the renminbi is easily alleviated by the pressure of the strong people to pass on the weaker classes. Therefore, the appreciation of the renminbi may not be in China. It can improve the trade balance as it did in Japan. The pressure on China’s appreciation has made the Chinese people resentful.
In fact, the wage level of China's manufacturing industry is now no lower than that of India, but its competitiveness is still higher than that of India. Obviously, it is not the economic low-wage advantage, but the advantage of “low human rights”. It is precisely this kind of "advantage" that can occupy the farmland, the labor, and the resources as long as the collusion between the government and the business makes China become a rare "investment paradise". Even the Tata consortium in India wants to avoid the low wages. But the union farmers will be very powerful in their own country, and transfer capital to China. What about other?
Obviously, China's "advantage" is not because its market is more "free", nor because its country is more "welfare", but because it is more authoritarian. The author's attitude toward autocracy is well known, but it has never been based on the fact that "authoritarianism hinders economic growth." In fact, authoritarianism “stimulates” economic growth. Under non-market conditions, there are examples of Stalin and Nazi Germany. Under market conditions, there are also examples of the early development of commodity agriculture in Central and Eastern Europe in the early modern period, while the US economy The study of Shijiafugeer also shows that the "efficiency" of the slavery economy in the southern United States before the civil war is no less than, and probably more than, superior to the northern free economy. But authoritarianism should still be opposed, not only because of its inhumanity, but also because of this "efficiency" malformation. Other countries do not say that China today relies on "low human rights advantages" to absorb capital and export goods globally and form an astonishingly high "double surplus", which not only makes other countries have a headache, but how much can the Chinese people benefit? Ultra-cheap labor, land, and resources are not enough to make effective import demand, and only a huge amount of "green paper" (book dollar) is exchanged. The Chinese complained that the US started the printing press and took away their blood and sweat. The Americans complained that China's cheap goods had smashed their jobs, and once the US dollar was arrogant, the United States was finished, and our blood and sweat were also vain.
Today, the United States’ strategy toward China is to recognize that the Chinese economy is an economic structure that relies on manpower to process industrial exports to obtain economic income. Then the United States wants to vacate China’s position in the global division of labor, that is, to vigorously develop Internet of Things technology, artificial intelligence and robotics, so that robots can replace labor on a large scale in the next 20 years, making the cost of producing industrial products extremely cheap, and thus greatly Compressing China’s economic income, and then dismantling the Chinese economy through the consumption of the Taiwan Strait War, the Korean Peninsula War, and the space arms race, and then seeking to promote China’s change.
The blind spot of the Chinese government's strategic competition is that it always assumes that China's low labor costs and quality advantages can continue, and that China will remain the world's major manufacturing base in the future. This assumption will no longer be established after the artificial intelligence and robotics technology mature. Because the labor intensity of the robot can be much higher than the manpower and the cost can be much lower than the manpower, and the robot can also manufacture the robot. Therefore, the future industrial production itself will be completely independent of manpower. The factors of production will be the software and chips of the industrial robot itself, not the production skills. The main manufacturing base will be where the robot's chips are designed and manufactured, not where the robots work. Therefore, only need to develop the robot design and manufacturing technology, then the Belt and Road along with China's own industrial products market will actually belong to the company that designs and manufactures industrial robot chips and software--the artificial intelligence on the east and west coasts of the United States. Software companies, semiconductor chip companies, silicon photonics companies, etc. At best, China can only collect a site fee for the placement of industrial robots. Moreover, if the West opens a large number of such production bases in the countries of Asia and Europe, the Chinese local base will become dispensable, and the rental expenses will also drop significantly, which will greatly reduce China's income. If we cooperate with space competition, the Taiwan Strait War and the Korean War, the Chinese economy will collapse due to the loss of international competitiveness.
Some people may say that the development of artificial intelligence in China is not behind the United States. I don't think this will change the overall trend. When the artificial intelligence of both China and the United States has become popular, it is not the labor force that determines the price of industrial products. It is land, energy, raw materials, and tax rates. Compared with the United States, China’s land is cheap, whose energy is cheap, and whose tax rate is low? Obviously the latter.
Land cost: China is 9 times that of the United States
Domestic land prices are nine times the US land price, and the United States is a permanent property right, and we are 50 years of property rights. For example, in 2000, the price of industrial land in Cixi City, Zhejiang Province was 180,000 yuan/mu. At present, the land price in the United States is only 20,000 US dollars/acre, equivalent to 20,000 yuan/mu. If many industrial land in the county is 1 million yuan/mu. Calculated, it is 50 times that of the United States.
Logistics cost: China is twice as large as the United States
Domestic logistics costs are twice the cost of logistics in the United States. Take oil prices as an example. China's oil price is twice that of the United States. Oil prices are high and logistics costs are high. What's more, China still has a few tolls and bridge fees in the world, can logistics costs be low?
The logistics cost in the United States is mainly composed of three parts, one is the inventory cost, the second is the transportation cost, and the third is the management fee. Compared with the changes in the past 20 years, it can be seen that the proportion of transportation costs in GDP remains largely unchanged, and the main reason for the decline in the proportion of total logistics costs in the United States is the reduction in inventory costs.
Bank borrowing costs: China is 2.4 times that of the United States
The cheapest domestic borrowing cost is 6% per annum, which is 2.4 times the US annual interest rate of 2.5%. According to the 7,000 yuan per ton or US$1,100 funds, 4 months a week, the domestic borrowing cost 6% annual interest rate and the US cost annual interest rate 2.5% calculate the company's working capital financial cost: domestic 7,000 yuan * 4 * 0.06 / 12 = 140 yuan, equivalent to 22.58 US dollars. The United States is $1,100*4*0.025/12=9 dollars, which is 1.5 times higher than the United States.
This is still a normal bank loan. If the funds come from bank wealth management products with an annual interest rate of more than 10%, private equity funds with an annual interest rate of 15%, and even private usury loans with an annual interest rate of 20%, the company is overwhelmed.
Electricity/natural gas costs: China is more than twice as large as the US
Domestic energy costs are more than twice the cost of the United States. The United States except Hawaii (the island area is not available), the electricity prices in other states are not expensive. In Texas, for example, the electricity price is equivalent to 2 cents.
Due to the direct pricing of electricity and natural gas in China, the price of gas for oil used by enterprises is high. According to the domestic electricity consumption of 450 degrees per ton, electricity price of 0.76 yuan / degree, the unit production cost of 342 yuan, equivalent to 55.16 US dollars. The degree of automation of equipment in the United States is relatively high, and the unit electricity consumption is increased by 10%. From ton to 500 degrees, according to the electricity price of 0.05 US dollars / kWh, the unit production cost is 25 US dollars, and the domestic price is 1.2 times higher than that of the United States.
Steam cost: China is 1.1 times that of the US
There is also steam, domestic thermal power plant steam, according to 1.6 tons of steam per ton, unit price of 190 yuan / ton, unit production cost of 304 yuan, equivalent to 49.0. US dollars, the United States with natural gas boilers homemade steam, according to natural gas price of 0.48 US dollars / Therm, unit price of 14.52 US dollars / ton, unit production cost of 23.23 US dollars, domestically 1.1 times higher than the United States.
Cost of accessories: China is 3.2 times that of the United States
The cost of domestic parts is 3.2 times the cost of US parts. The performance of domestic equipment is slightly worse, workers' operating habits are poor, the cost per ton of parts is about 100 yuan, equivalent to 16.13 US dollars, while the performance of American production line equipment is good, workers operating habits are good, the cost per ton of parts is 5 US dollars, domestic is higher than the United States 3.2 times.
Tax cost: US tax incentives are strong
In China, various taxes are constantly on the rise, and companies are overwhelmed. A logistics company in Guangzhou, which transports a batch of goods to Hainan, has a total income of 19,000 yuan, but the profit is only 216 yuan, of which 1,260 yuan is taxed.
The US state government is most concerned about employment, and often gives preferential tax policies to enterprises. For example, property tax concessions are valid for 30 years. If the company reaches production, it will give 30 million U.S. dollars in tax relief within 30 years.
Customs clearance costs: the United States does not have to pay for import and export customs clearance costs
There is no need to pay for import and export customs clearance costs when investing in the US. The raw materials of domestic enterprises are all imported. It is assumed that the cost of the incoming goods does not include inland freight, customs duties, value-added tax, and the cost of all kinds of formalities is about 3,500 yuan/cabinet. For each cabinet, according to 20 tons, it is 175 yuan/ton. 22.58 US dollars / ton.
Domestic enterprises export finished products, assuming that the export link costs do not include land freight, only the cost of various procedures is about 1,600 yuan / cabinet, and the cost per cabinet is 20 yuan / ton, equivalent to 12.9 US dollars / ton. If you add shipping costs, etc., the cost will increase significantly.
Labor cost: China's cost advantage weakens
Although the US labor cost is 2.57 times the domestic labor cost, the United States has a high degree of automation and less labor. The domestic production line with a total output of 4,500 tons in two months employs 250 people. The US equipment has been improved, and 180 production lines have been used in two production lines with the same capacity.
According to the current trend of rising wages of domestic workers, such as considering that domestic five-year wages will double again and that 10-year wages will quadruple, China will not have any advantage in labor costs.
In a word, the era of artificial intelligence is the era when resources (land/energy/raw materials) are kings. Whoever controls the world's major resources and gets the cheapest resources will have an advantage. The key to the future competition between the West and China will be to replace China with robots to overhang China's status as a world factory, so that China's world workshop will be completely replaced in the global division of labor system, causing China's economic bankruptcy and social unrest. On this basis, it is realistic and feasible to intervene in China's domestic political situation. In the end, China’s ending will not be fundamentally different from the outcome of the Soviet Union.
Appendix: The United States defeats the Soviet economy through economic wars
After the Reagan administration came to power, it believed that the expansion of the Soviet Union was the greatest threat to US national security, so the first task was to smash the Soviet Union. At the cabinet discussion, Defense Minister Weinberger argued that technological innovation is a unique advantage of the United States and can be used to deplete the Soviet economy. He believes that the key is to shift the focus of US-Soviet arms competition from quantity to quality. If the application of technological innovation in the US is not hindered, the Soviet Union can be left behind. In the top secret documents of the Pentagon, Weinberg called this a "economic warfare". He believes that if the Soviet Union cannot get loans and technology from the West, its days will not pass. Therefore, the United States should seize every opportunity to limit Western exports of technology trade to the Soviet Union, to contain and combat those areas in which the Soviet Union can exchange foreign exchange.
The US Central Intelligence Agency analyzed the Soviet economic structure and concluded that the weakness of the Soviet Union is that it relies heavily on oil exports. If international oil prices fall, the ability of Soviet exports to exchange foreign exchange will decline. When the Soviet Union’s foreign exchange reserves fell, the sovereign risk increased, and the National Bank of Western Europe would think twice before giving it a loan. The Soviet Union’s use of Western European loans fell, its ability to transform technology would decline, and it would lag behind in the US arms race. The Soviet Union’s efforts to compete with the United States for an arms race will exhaust its strength.
After these calculations, the United States starts with international oil prices. After the first oil crisis in the 1970s, international oil prices climbed and the Soviet Union made a large sum of money from oil exports. Americans estimate that oil prices will rise by $1 per barrel, and the Soviet Union will receive an additional $1 billion in hard currency a year. How can we lower the price of oil and combat the ability of the Soviet Union to exchange foreign exchange?
In the 1980s, the only oil producers that affected international oil prices were Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia's production accounts for 40% of OPEC's total, and unlike other OPEC members, Saudi Arabia can increase production quickly, and its oil reserves are also very convenient to use. In other words, Saudi Arabia has a production elasticity that no other oil-producing country has, and it can influence the international oil price by controlling the amount of oil exported. At that time, the supply of the world oil market was slightly greater than demand, and between 2 million and 3 million barrels of oil per day belonged to excess supply. Many OPEC countries have strongly demanded that Saudi Arabia cut its exports to increase the price of oil per barrel from $32 to $36.
At that time, the head of the US Central Intelligence Agency, Casey, flew to the Saudi capital, Riyadh, to meet with the Saudi prince, explaining the US concern for oil prices. At that time, Casey’s argument was that the US economy needed low oil price support. If Saudi Arabia did not surrender to other OPEC countries, it would support the United States. The United States would be grateful to Saudi Arabia and sell some sophisticated weapons to Saudi Arabia to ensure Saudi Arabia’s security. At that time, Saudi Arabia worried that the southward expansion of the Soviet Union would affect his own security. The Saudi prince was also a person who was very disgusted with communist ideology. The US persuasion immediately received a positive response from Saudi Arabia, and the two sides hit it off. Saudi Arabia believes that the US plan is in line with Saudi Arabia’s interests. In addition to the strong US can provide Saudi Arabia with security protection, low oil prices will allow Europe to stop buying natural gas from the Soviet Union and choose to import oil from the Middle East as an alternative. The countries that caused the Islamic revolution in the world were punished. Saudi Arabia has assured the Americans that they will withstand any OPEC efforts to reduce oil production and increase oil prices.
The United States has used every means to drive down oil prices, one of which is to reduce demand, including reducing the US's strategic oil reserves. From 1973 to 1974, the Arab oil-producing countries imposed an oil embargo on Western countries, triggering the first oil crisis, and Western countries began to build strategic oil reserves. That is to say, these countries usually purchase more oil and store it in a special place, in case the oil import is interrupted, and use it. The US's strategic oil reserves are mostly hidden in natural underground c