Twinlight2019-09-17 13:27:35

美国要击退中国制造业的挑战,关键是要用成熟AI机器人的零人权优势打败中国的低人权优势

摘要:中国经济竞争力的主要优势在于其低人权优势,即以较底的成本雇佣大量高素质的蓝领和白领劳动力,对西方成熟的技术和产品进行低成本的复制,来挤压和摧毁西方的竞争对手。中国的卖点就在于这种低人权优势。要对抗中国的这种优势,美国就需要尽快把人工智能和机器人技术发展成熟,以机器人的零人权优势击败中国的低人权优势,从而把中国排挤出国际分工体系,促使其经济崩溃,就象当年通过压低石油价格把苏联排挤出世界能源市场,促使苏联经济崩溃一样。

大国竞争的关键在于其各自在国际分工中的位置。

扼杀一个大国的崛起的关键,就在于架空其在国际分工中的位置,让其变得可有可无,进而大大压低其收入,然后通过军备竞赛掏空其经济。

当年美国对待苏联的做法,就是通过压低中东石油价格,让石油变得格外容易获得(价格正比于获得资源难度),从而让依赖石油出口为生的苏联在国际分工中变得可有可无,进而不得不忍受极低的能源价格,导致经济收入锐减,再加上阿富汗战争和太空军备竞赛的消耗,经济就崩溃了。

苏联的解体当然有内部深刻的原因,但正如亲自参与了对苏经济战的美国前中央情报局官员施魏策尔所说,“使克里姆林宫陷入深渊的并不是哪一个事件或哪一项政策。里根政府的总体战略之所以有这么大的威力,是各种政策的综合效应。这些政策就像一阵阵强烈的飓风吹进虚弱的苏联体制之中”。里根政府精心设计好了一幅经济战的蓝图,而苏联则被美国牵着鼻子一步一步拖入了深渊。

今天国际学界、尤其是国际经济学界对中国认识千奇百怪,但荦荦大者不外乎三:其一曰中国崩溃论。即认为中国经济的高增长只是浮夸造成的假相,实际则是内部危机与全球化压力日益严重,难免崩溃。其二和其三都相反,认为中国经济创造了增长与繁荣的奇迹,但对此则按西方经济学两大阵营的传统学理形成两种相反的解释:古典自由经济学把“中国奇迹”归功于经济自由化或市场化的成功,而左派经济学或凯恩斯经济学则归功于“社会主义”或政府干预、管控的成功。

  我认为这三大主流认识都有严重偏差:中国经济持续高增长、在全球化中应对自如是事实,“虚假论”、“崩溃论”不对。但这种增长既不像偏左的论者那样可以解释为“政府成功”,也不像偏右论者所言可以解释为“市场成功”,更与所谓“市场政府双重成功”的“北京共识”不相干。除了低工资、低福利的传统优势外,中国更以“低人权”的“优势”人为压低四大要素(人力、土地、资金和非再生资源)价格,以不许讨价还价、限制乃至取消许多交易权利的办法“降低交易成本”,以拒绝民主、压抑参与、漠视思想、鄙视信仰、蔑视公正、刺激物欲来促使人的能量集中于海市蜃楼式的单纯求富冲动,从而显示出无论自由市场国家还是福利国家都罕见的惊人竞争力,也使得无论采用“渐进”的还是“休克疗法”的民主转轨国家都瞠乎其后。

  当然如果不对外开放,这种冲动也不会有多大能耐。但是在全球化时代对外开放后,中国由于在“专制-非福利”体制下免除了“民主分家麻烦大,福利国家包袱多,工会吓跑投资者,农会赶走圈地客”的“拖累”,便出现了空前快速的原始积累。而这种方式造成的危机,则靠外部资源(资本流入、商品输出)的增益来缓解,同时通过全球化把危机向外部稀释:在中国的铁腕强权压住自己的内部矛盾而维持表面“稳定”的同时,“中国因素”却使他国的内部矛盾激化:中国因素导致的资本流和商品流在自由国家打破了原有的力量平衡,加剧了劳资矛盾,在福利国家加剧了移民冲突,而在这两类国家都加剧了就业和公共财政困境。

  于是短短十余年间,中国制造的商品洪流般充满世界,世界各地的资本潮水般涌进中国。全球化中“中国的竞争”势不可挡,它既迫使福利国家降低福利水平,也迫使自由国家重树贸易壁垒,还使得不发达国家在吸纳资金、获得资源等方面面临更大困难。

  然而吊诡的是:由于先验偏好和信息不全,各家都力图对“中国的成功”作出有利于自己的解释:中国经济的非自由色彩令左派欣赏,而它的非福利色彩则令右派欣赏,同时它又以穷国快速发展的形象令第三世界艳羡。于是本来对现代左派和右派、对福利国家和自由国家、对发达国家和发展中国家都构成严重挑战的中国,却同时受到上述各方的称赞。然而称赞归称赞,由于上述“中国优势”不可复制(没有中国式的铁腕强权,任何国家无论左派还是右派执政,实行自由市场政策还是凯恩斯式的乃至社会民主的政策,都不可能这样来搞原始积累),而“中国挑战”又客观存在而且不可回避地日益严重,各方的对华关系从长远看都不乐观。

  而另一方面,中国的这种发展模式也在其内部形成“尺蠖效应”:“左派”得势则自由受损而福利未必增加,“右派”得势则福利丧失而自由未必增进。“左”时政府扩权却不可问责,“右”时政府卸责却不愿限权。左起来就侵犯平民私产而公共财富却未必得到保障,右起来公共资产严重流失而平民私产却未必受保护。一边“新国有化”一边又“权贵私有化”。左时“公权”侵夺个人领域却无心公共服务,右时放弃公共产品却不保护个人权利。政策趋左则压缩个人自由却并不开放公共参与,趋右则抑制民主参与却同时限制自由竞争。“左派”建不起福利国家,“右派”搞不成公平市场。正如孙立平所言:无论向左还是向右,得利的都是同一些强势者,而吃亏的也是同一些弱势者。用老百姓的话说就是“一个萝卜两头切,左右都是他得”。这样就使社会矛盾在一放一收的尺蠖式进程中日益发展和积累,而不能像宪政民主体制中那样,以左派争福利、右派争自由的“天平效应”来维护社会平衡。

  因此,中国的快速发展并没有像有些人设想的那样“把饼做大”就能缓解“分饼不公”的矛盾,而是出现了经济发展与内部外部矛盾同步持续深化的现象。过去在1989年后邓小平把统治合法性建立在经济增长上,他常说东欧垮了而我们没垮,就是因为我们经济搞得好。但是现在,经济高增长和社会不稳定同时发展的现象使人对此说日益怀疑,以至据说一些领导人开始羡慕起经济凋敝而表面上政治却很“稳定”的古巴和北朝鲜来,要学习后者的政治高压。但是这饮鸩止渴的做法最终只能导致更严重的不稳定。胡温政府的另一个趋势是值得肯定的,这就是比过去更强调公平和政府的公共服务责任问题。然而“尺蠖效应”的机制不解决,只怕是权易扩而责难问,现有体制下回复“大政府”只会形成扩权-卸责的又一轮循环。而走出“尺蠖效应”,就需要进行权责对应的宪政改革。

  而像中国这么大的国家,这么多人口,中国经济这么大的量,随着将来作为全球商品供应者和资本吸纳者的作用日益凸显,一旦出问题可能比1929年美国股市崩盘对全球的冲击更大。因此中国平稳顺利地转型不仅是国人之福,也是世界之福。而中国因“尺蠖效应”而发生社会爆炸,或因现行原始积累方式与福利国家和自由国家的双重冲突而导致国际秩序崩溃,则不仅是国人之祸,也是世界之祸。

  在全球化形势下,世界关切中国是必然的。如今发达国家压中国把人民币升值,这实际上就是中国现行原始积累方式与福利国家和自由国家体制冲突的体现。但人民币升值实际上不能解决问题:由于现行铁腕体制下中国内部不存在公平博弈,人民币升值对中国“竞争力”的抑制很容易被强势者向弱势阶层转嫁压力而缓解,因此人民币升值在中国未必能像当年在日本那样改善贸易平衡。而压中国升值反而徒令一般中国人反感。

  事实上,中国制造业工资水平如今不低于印度,但竞争力仍高于印度,显然靠的并非单纯经济性的低工资优势,而是“低人权”的优势。正是这种只要官商勾结就可以任意圈占农地、役使劳工、耗用资源的“优势”,使得中国成为举世罕见的“投资乐园”,连印度的塔塔财团也想躲开工资虽低但工会农会很厉害的本国,而向中国转移资本。何况其他?

  显然,中国的“优势”既不在于其市场更“自由”,也不在于其国家更“福利”,而就在于其更专制。笔者反对专制的态度众所周知,但从来不以“专制妨碍经济增长”为理由。事实上,专制“刺激”经济增长,在非市场条件下有斯大林和纳粹德国的例子,在市场条件下也有近代早期中东欧“二度农奴化”使商品性农业大发展的例子,而美国经济史家福格尔的研究也表明,内战前美国南方奴隶制经济的“效率”不亚于、很可能还“优于”北方自由经济。但是专制仍然应当反对,这不仅由于其不人道,也由于这种“效率”的畸形。别的国家不说,中国今天靠“低人权优势”在全球吸纳资本、输出商品而形成惊人的高额“双顺差”,不仅让别国头疼,中国一般人民又能得益多少?超廉价的劳力、土地、资源付出,形不成有效进口需求,只换来巨额的“绿纸”(帐面美元)。中国人埋怨美国开动印钞机就卷走了咱们的血汗,美国人埋怨中国的廉价货砸了他们的饭碗,而一旦美元狂贬,美国完了,我们的血汗也白搭了。

今天美国对待中国的策略,就是认知到中国经济是两头在外,主要依靠人力加工工业品出口来获取经济收入的经济结构。那么美国要架空中国在全球分工中的位置,就是要大力发展物联网技术、人工智能和机器人技术,让机器人在今后20年内大规模取代人工,使得生产工业品的成本变得格外便宜,从而大大压缩中国的经济收入,然后再通过台海战争、朝鲜半岛战争和太空军备竞赛的消耗,瓦解中国经济,进而谋求推动中国改朝换代。



中国政府战略竞争的盲点,就在于其总是假设中国的低人工成本和质量优势可以继续,还假设中国在未来仍然将是世界主要的制造业基地。这个假设在人工智能和机器人技术成熟以后,将不再成立。因为机器人的劳动强度可以比人力高许多而成本可以比人力低许多,而且机器人也可以制造机器人。因此,未来的工业品生产本身将完全与人力无关。生产要素将会是工业机器人自身的软件和芯片,而不是生产技能。主要的制造业基地,将是在设计、制造机器人的芯片的地方,而不是在机器人工作的地方。所以,只需要把机器人设计和制造技术发展成熟,那么一带一路沿线连同中国自己的工业品市场,将实际上属于设计和制造工业机器人芯片和软件的公司---那些在美国东西海岸的人工智能软件公司、半导体芯片公司、硅光子公司等等。中国充其量只能收个作为工业机器人安置地的场地费。而且如果西方在亚欧大陆各国开办大量的这样的生产基地,中国本土基地也将变得可有可无,租赁费用也将大幅度下降,这将使得中国的收入大大减少。如果再配合上太空竞争、台海战争和朝鲜战争,中国经济将因为失去国际竞争力而崩溃。

或许有人会说,中国的人工智能发展也不落后美国。我认为这并不改变整体趋势。当中美两国人工智能都普及了的时候,决定工业品价格的就不是劳动力了。而是土地、能源、原材料、税率。中国跟美国比,谁的土地便宜,谁的能源便宜,谁的税率低?显然是后者。

土地成本:中国是美国的9倍

国内地价是美国地价的9倍,并且美国是永久性产权,我们是50年产权。例如,2000年浙江省慈溪市工业用地价格是18万元/亩,目前美国地价仅为2万美元/英亩,相当于2万元人民币/亩,如果按照现在许多县城工业用地100万元/亩算,是美国的50倍。

物流成本:中国是美国的2倍

国内物流成本是美国物流成本的2倍。以油价为例,中国的油价是美国的2倍,油价高,物流成本也就高。何况中国还有全世界少有的过路费、过桥费,物流成本能不高么?

而美国的物流成本主要由三部分组成,一是库存费用,二是运输费用,三是管理费用。比较近20年来的变化可以看出,运输成本在GDP中比例大体保持不变,而导致美国物流总成本比例下降的最主要原因是库存费用的降低。

银行借款成本:中国是美国的2.4倍

最便宜的国内借款成本年利率6%,是美国成本年利率2.5%的2.4倍。按每吨7000元人民币或美国1100美元资金、4个月一周转,国内借款成本年利率6%和美国成本年利率2.5%分别计算公司运营资金财务成本:国内是7000元*4*0.06/12=140元、折合22.58美元。美国是1100美元*4*0.025/12=9美元,国内比美国高出1.5倍。

这还是正常的银行借款,如果资金来自年利率超过10%的银行理财产品、年利率15%的私募基金、甚至是年利率20%的民间高利贷、企业不堪重负。

电力/天然气成本:中国是美国的2倍以上

国内能源成本是美国能源成本的2倍以上。美国除开夏威夷的电价特别贵外(海岛地区没办法),其他州的电价都不贵,以德州为例,其电价折合人民币才2毛钱。

由于我国对电力、天然气直接定价的原因,企业用电用气用油价格居高不下。按国内每吨耗电450度、电价0.76元/度计算,单位生产成本342元,折合55.16美元。美国设备自动化程度较高,单位用电量相应增加10%,每吨至500度,按照电价0.05美元/度计算,单位生产成本25美元,国内比美国高出1.2倍。

蒸汽成本:中国是美国的1.1倍

还有蒸汽部分,国内用热电厂蒸汽,按每吨消耗蒸汽1.6吨、单价190元/吨计算,单位生产成本304元,折合49.0.美元,美国用天然气锅炉自制蒸汽,按天然气价格为0.48美元/therm、单价14.52美元/吨计算,单位生产成本23.23美元,国内比美国高出1.1倍。

配件成本:中国是美国的3.2倍

国内配件成本是美国配件成本的3.2倍。国内设备性能略差,工人操作习惯不良,每吨单位配件成本约100元,折合16.13美元,而美国生产线设备性能较好,工人操作习惯好,每吨单位配件成本5美元,国内比美国高出3.2倍。

税收成本:美国税收优惠力度大

在中国,各种税收不断,把企业压得喘不过气。广州一家物流公司,运送一批货物到海南,总收入为1.9万元,但利润仅有216元,其中上税需要1260元。

而美国的州政府最看重的是就业,常常给予企业优惠的税收政策,比如房产税优惠30年内有效,如果公司达产,30年内将给予3000万美元的税收减免。

清关成本:美国无需支付进出口清关成本

在美国投资办厂无需支付进出口清关成本。国内企业原料均进口,假设进品环节费用不含内陆运费、关税、增值税、仅各类手续成本约为3500元/柜,每柜按20吨装计,则为175元/吨,折合22.58美元/吨。

国内企业成品出口,假设出口环节费用不含陆运费,仅各类手续成本约为1600元/柜,每柜按20吨装计,则为80元/吨,折合12.9美元/吨。如果加上运费等,成本还要大幅增加。

人工成本:中国成本优势趋弱

尽管美国劳动力成本是国内劳动力成本的2.57倍,但美国自动化程度高,用工少。国内两条月总产量为4500吨的生产线用工250人,美国设备改进,同产能两条生产线才用工180人。

按照目前国内工人工资上涨趋势,如考虑国内5年工资再翻倍、10年工资翻两番计算,那么中国在人工成本上也占不到任何优势了。

目前全球最强50家人工智能创业公司。美国39家,中国仅3家。


目前全球最强21家物联网公司。美国18家,中国无一上榜。
https://www.computerworlduk.com/galleries/data/most-powerful-internet-of-
things-companies-3521713/

1, SAP

2, GE

3, Rolls, Royce

4, DELL

5, ARM

6, Bosch

7, Cisco

8,Ingenu

9, AWS

10, Centrica

11,AT&T

12, 富士通

13,GOOGLE

14,HPE

15,IBM

16,英特尔

17,微软

18,甲骨文

19, 高通

20,saleforce

21,三星

目前全球最强50家机器人公司。 中国仅3家上榜。

一句话,人工智能的时代,就是资源(土地/能源/原材料)为王的时代。谁控制着全球的主要资源,能够拿到最便宜的资源,谁就占优势。未来西方跟中国竞争的要点将是通过机器人取代人力,来架空中国作为世界工厂的地位,让中国这个世界车间在全球分工体系里完全被取代,让中国经济破产,社会动乱四起。在此基础上,再对中国的国内政治形势进行干预,就变得现实可行了。最终,中国的结局并不会跟苏联的结局有什么本质差别。

 

=========================

附录:美国通过经济战打垮苏联经济全过程

 

里根政府上台后,认为苏联的扩张是美国国家安全的最大威胁,因此首要的任务就是要搞垮苏联。在内阁讨论会上,国防部长温伯格提出,技术创新是美国的一种独特优势,可以用它来损耗苏联的经济。他认为,关键在于把美苏的军备竞争的重点从数量转向质量。如果美国的技术创新在军事领域的应用不受阻碍,就可以把苏联抛在后面。在五角大楼的绝密文件中,温伯格将此称为“经济战”的一种方式。他相信,如果苏联无法从西方得到贷款和技术,它的日子就过不下去了。因此,美国应抓住每一次机会限制西方对苏联的技术贸易出口,遏制并打击苏联可以换取外汇的那些领域。

美国中央情报局对苏联经济格局做了分析后认为,苏联的弱点在于它对石油出口的依赖很大,如果国际石油价格下降,苏联出口换汇的能力就会下降。苏联外汇储备下降,主权风险就增加,西欧的国家银行给它发放贷款时就会三思而后行。苏联利用西欧的贷款下降,它用以改造技术的能力就会下降,在与美国的军备竞赛上就会落后。苏联倾全力与美国进行军备竞赛,会耗尽它的实力。

经过这些计算后,美国就从国际油价入手。20世纪70年代第一次石油危机后,国际油价攀升,苏联靠石油出口赚了一大笔钱。美国人估计,石油价格上涨1美元/桶,苏联一年就可以多获得10亿美元的硬通货。如何才能压低油价,打击苏联出口换汇的能力呢?

20世纪80年代,影响国际油价的单个产油国只有沙特阿拉伯。沙特的产量占欧佩克总量的40%,而且与其他欧佩克成员不同的是,沙特可以迅速地增加产量,它的石油储备运用起来也很方便。换句话说,沙特具有其他产油国都没有的生产弹性,能够靠控制出口石油的量来影响国际油价。当时,世界石油市场的供略大于求,每天有200万至300万桶石油属于过剩供应。许多欧佩克国家强烈要求沙特削减出口量,以将每桶石油的价格从32美元涨到36美元。

当时的美国中央情报局局长凯西便飞到沙特首都利雅得会见沙特亲王,说明美国对油价的关心。当时,凯西的论据是,美国经济需要低油价支持,沙特如果不向其他欧佩克国家屈服,就是支持美国,美国会感激沙特,会向沙特出售一些尖端武器,以保证沙特的安全。当时沙特担心苏联的向南扩张会影响到自己的安全,沙特亲王又是个对共产主义意识形态非常反感的人,美国的劝说立即得到了沙特的积极回应,双方一拍即合。沙特认为美国的计划符合沙特的利益,除了强大的美国可以给沙特提供安全保护外,低油价会让欧洲停止从苏联购买天然气而选择从中东进口石油作为替代,还可以让伊朗这个有可能在阿拉伯世界引起伊斯兰革命的国家受到惩罚。沙特向美国人保证一定会顶住欧佩克组织要求减少石油产量与提高石油价格的任何努力。

美国用了一切办法来压低油价,其中之一就是缩减需求,包括缩减美国的战略石油储备。从1973—1974年阿拉伯产油国对西方国家实行石油禁运,引发了第一次石油危机后,西方国家就开始构建战略石油储备。也就是说,这些国家在平时要多购进一些石油,贮存在专门的地方,以备万一石油进口中断时,拿出来使用。美国的战略石油储备多藏在一些偏远地区的自然地下岩洞中。美国国会原计划到1990年时储备7.5亿桶石油,这要求美国每天要购进22万桶。1983年,里根政府宣布,因为政府预算紧缩,美国每天只能购进14.5万桶石油。除以之外,美国还要求西欧及日本时刻做好准备,一旦油价上涨,就抛售战略石油储备,以打击石油投机,平抑油价。

1985年,沙特国王法赫德对美国进行了访问,美国又说服他继续维持石油产量,必要时甚至应多开采一些。对于沙特来说,这并不困难,因为沙特开采石油的成本非常低,平均每桶1.5美元。油价再低些,只要石油出口多,对沙特来说仍然是笔利润丰厚的买卖。

为了给沙特阿拉伯一些甜头,美国政府通过国际银行家告诉法赫德国王,美国财政部正在设计美元贬值的计划,准备在未来12个月内让美元贬值四分之一。这一消息对法赫德来说是无价之宝,使沙特有时间来安排它的境外财产,美元以外的资产当然会随着美元的贬值大幅升值,沙特为此大概大赚了一笔。沙特当然要投桃报李,1985年夏末,沙特政府正式通知里根政府,它准备增加石油产量,国际石油价格将急剧下跌。当年11月,每桶原油的价格从原来的30美元跌到了12美元。

对苏联来说,真是祸不单行。除了石油价格下跌、苏联出口的能源换回的外汇大幅缩水外,美元贬值使苏联换回的实际价值也更加缩水。美元贬值 四分之一,苏联出口换汇的实际收入也就减少了四分之一。

除了压低油价外,美国还组织了一系列针对苏联的经济战:利用巴统委员会来限制西欧对苏联的技术出口,利用经合组织等国际机构来限制给苏联提供的贷款,鼓励西欧国家利用各种替代能源,减少对苏联天然气供应的依赖,等等。

巴统组织成立于1950年,是与北约差不多同时诞生的西方资本主义国家对付东方社会主义国家的“经济战”组织,其正式名称为多国出口协调委员会(COCOM),因总部位于巴黎,又被人简称为巴黎统筹委员会。巴统成立后至1953年,其成员国便由最初的美、英、法、意等七国发展成为包括加拿大、西德和日本在内的十五国。巴统是美国建议成立的组织,目的是联合西欧北美国家对东方社会主义国家实行禁运,防止和限制西方的战略物资、高技术及产品流向社会主义国家。

1982年1月,美国副国务卿巴克利、副国防部长伊克尔率领着一个代表团到巴黎参加巴统会议。他们提议,根据目前的情况,巴统委员会的工作程序要做三项改变。首先,美国想更严格地执行有关向苏联出售关键技术的禁令,包括先进计算机及其电子部件、光纤、半导体和各种冶金方法。美国还想限制西欧的公司把工厂迁入苏联境内,因为它担心这些工厂将有助于苏联的军事工业发展,担心西欧工厂的先进的方法会被苏联利用,从而有助于苏联经济的发展。其次,所有与苏联签订的价值超过一亿美元的合同,都要自动交委员会审批,以确保敏感技术不会流到苏联。再次,美国要扩大该委员会从成立以来制订的禁运清单,把它扩大到最新的技术与产品。

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。

1983年的3月,巴克利又率一个金融专家小组赴欧洲穿梭访问,以关紧西欧向苏联提供贷款的阀门。美国人发现,西欧人向苏联提供了大量低息贷款,以筹建苏联通向欧洲的天然气管道。巴克利便与西欧国家的代表在经合组织的框架内展开了谈判,最后把苏联重新定义为“相对富裕的国家”,而不是原来的“中间借贷国”。此外,华盛顿还提议,停止对较富裕的国家的贷款提供补贴。如此一来,苏联从西欧借的贷款利息上升了许多,大约从原来的7%―8%上升为17%。

此外,1983年春天,美国官员还将一项协议强加给了国际能源机构,限制欧洲从苏联进口的天然气比例,规定西欧从苏联进口的天然气不得超过其能源需求量的30%。这项协议于1983年5月在威廉斯堡的西方七国首脑会议上正式签署,它切断了苏联从西欧获取硬通货的渠道,也使西欧国家不得不转向其他方向去寻找代替能源。

1985年,美国对苏联发动的“经济战”进入了白热化阶段。石油价格暴跌与美元贬值使苏联的外汇收入锐减,苏联预期从西欧获得的出口贷款、硬通货和技术不是被停止就是被砍掉了,这使苏联从西伯利亚通往西欧的天然气管道工程大大推迟,原计划得到的硬通货也泡汤了。天然气管道项目推迟对苏联来说是个巨大的灾难。1980年,莫斯科以为这条天然气管道1985年就可完工,将使苏联每年获得80亿至100亿美元的收入。如果到90年代第二条管道也完工,每年就可获得150亿至300亿美元的收入。然而,由于里根政府的经济战,苏联修建第二条天然气管道的计划彻底失败。苏联苦苦等待巨额硬通货,经济陷入了混乱。美国人估计,因为建设两条天然气管道的计划完全泡汤,苏联大概损失了150亿至200亿美元。同时,因为美国严格限制西欧盟国向苏联出口技术,苏联在这方面的损失也有数十亿。

1985年是苏联领导人频繁更迭的年代,安德罗波夫、契尔年科相继去世,戈尔巴乔夫接手的是一个摇摇欲坠、危机四伏的帝国。苏军在阿富汗进退两难;在它原来控制的东欧势力范围内,波兰的反对派在美国的支持下公开挑衅苏联社会主义模式;苏联的经济在美国的打压下陷入了一片混乱;美国的“战略防御倡议”(星球大战计划)逼着苏联把仅剩的一点资源都投到了军事领域。戈尔巴乔夫本来指望着向西欧出口能源来换取更多的硬通货,以筹措购买技术和进口生活消费品的资金,最终实现他的改革计划。但在美国的经济攻势下,他的一切计划都落空了,苏联只好通过出售黄金来维持正常的贸易。

==================================

英文翻译:

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

Chinucks2019-09-17 13:44:53
那些机器人一半在中国
Twinlight2019-09-17 13:46:56
中国的能源和原材料无法自给。都进入人工智能时代的结果,是资源为王
农业砖家2019-09-17 13:51:43
老赖,在NYC近郊区Albany住得咋样啊?
FarewellDonkey182019-09-17 13:53:27
傻波依,那是中产阶级的基础。咱美国总统能被一群机器人选出来支持当政么,工作职位呢?
老生常谈122019-09-17 14:17:39
二赖子在几坛美化日寇侵华吞亚烧杀抢掠三光政策为一带一路
农业砖家2019-09-17 15:03:44
老赖是你讲的那种人
timray2019-09-17 16:24:07
看看美国的农业,荷兰的农业,就可以知道只靠人工便宜打价格战是没有出路的。工业也将会一样。
timray2019-09-17 16:25:56
马拉松光靠弯道超车是赢不了的:)
timray2019-09-17 16:30:41
那是因为曾经以为你会是伙伴。既然你傲娇地要”全面民族对抗文明对抗“,谁会和你继续玩下去?:)