王飞跃的个人博客分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/王飞跃

博文

[转载]中国慢了,长大了 (NYT)

已有 20638 次阅读 2012-4-27 02:58 |个人分类:感言社会|系统分类:海外观察|关键词:face,3,black,color,中国| 中国, color, face, black |文章来源:转载

中国慢了,长大了

China Slows Down, and Grows Up

By RUCHIR SHARMA

Published: April 25, 2012

 

美国媒体:中国放缓经济乃世界之福

超过一半的美国人认为中国已经是世界领先经济体了,对于国内生产总值仍不到美国一半的中国来说,这着实是一个让人惊讶的误解。正如乔治·奥维尔曾经说过:“谁是当下王者,谁就会看上去百毒不侵。”中国经济已经飞速增长三十载,它的“百毒不侵”已经超越了西方世界的想象。然而现在,有迹象表明中国的增长率正在减速到最符合美国利益的时候:足够快到保持世界经济增长的主要支柱,又不会快到成为一个威胁美国地位的破坏性力量。

 

美国纽约时报刊登专栏作家、摩根士丹利投资管理公司新兴市场股票基金负责人儒驰·沙尔玛(Ruchir Sharma)的分析文章称,中国经济放缓重燃人们对其未来的大辩论,不过人们仍普遍对中国抱乐观态度,这一观点也被国际货币基金组织(IMF)所证实,IMF预计中国国内生产总值将以8%的增长率继续增长5年。不过,少数悲观主义者则从中嗅到经济即将崩溃的警告信号--劳动力市场动荡,房地产泡沫多多和前所未有的投资过热。其实双方都不对,中国不过是到了所有“经济奇迹”显着减速的阶段,而不是灾难性的减速阶段。

  文章指出,众所周知,每一个发展中国家都会在人均收入达到500015000美元之间时遇到“中等收入陷阱”,并在追赶富国的道路上有所停滞。这样的例子比比皆是,如巴西、墨西哥和马来西亚。但更鲜为人知的是,即使有少数经济体打破“中等收入陷阱”,该国或该地区经济在人均收入达到5000美元左右时虽仍会增长,但增速会变慢。这便是上世纪70年代的日本、80年代的台湾和90年代的韩国曾经经历的情况,这三地的经济增长率均从9%左右降至5%左右,仅仅因为经济体越大,越难以快速增长。

  中国的人均收入水平已在去年超越5000美元,有种种迹象表明中国经济开始像日台韩曾经那样减缓增长:人们对更高工资的要求增多,新兴投资的需求却不断减少。中国增长模式与上世纪70年代的日本极其类似,所以中国很可能遵循70年代日本经济的发展轨迹。中国仍将继续追赶美国,但未来510年间经济增长率将降至6%7%。届时,中国经济体将变得更大,并有可能再次减速。

  文章称,这个过程正在进行中,它预示着全球经济基本力量的转移。中国在2007年已经成为全球GDP增长的最大贡献国,并从那时起就一直着引领世界经济的增长。但摩根士丹利的一项研究发现,如果美国仍保持2.5%的增速,而中国增速降至6.5%,那么美国将在2012年取代中国成为全球GDP的最大贡献国--美国贡献23%,而中国的贡献率则降至18%,并且美国还将保持自身的经济领头羊地位直至2015年。

  那些豪赌中国经济将保持两位数增长的投资者会受到此番经济减速的困扰,并会开始寻找更安全的投资地点。鉴于欧洲和日本的增长率仍在2%以下,全球注意力中心将移至提高美国的竞争力之上,资本也将随之流动。

  中国放缓的经济为油价的下跌创造了条件,这对美国经济增长不利。近年来,世界对石油需求的增长与中国息息相关,中国经济每增长1%,油价便会随之增长10%30%

  文章还表示,中国经济放缓也将帮助复苏美国的制造业。中国正在经受“奇迹经济体”成熟化的苦楚:货币增值,工资、地价和交通费均增高。然而,美国货币走软,工资水平停滞不前,房地产业垂死挣扎。美元兑多国货币屡创新低,包括兑人民币。长期的衰退使美国于2008年在世界制造业的全球份额降至8%的最低水平,但随后开始缓慢增长。波士顿咨询集团预测,中国将于2015年丧失大部分的成本优势,制造业的就业机会将从中国转移回美国。

  这些变化大部分会朝着更好的方向重塑全球经济力量的平衡。中国经济若崩溃、增长率降至0%,将会是世界经济的大灾难,但这并不太可能会发生。主要的原因是因为中国领导人充分理解到目前的经济减速是不可避免的,他们主动放低经济增长率,而不是于减速相对抗(这只会让情况更糟)。

  文章最后称,过去15年中经济保持两位数增长的中国,好比是一个有着突破性技术的公司--摧毁了对手、吸收了资本、抢走了工作、发展得太快以至于对手都无法匹敌。中国将经济增长率降至6%7%将使中国变成一个更为正常的对手,一个他国能够与之业务往来并齐头并进的国家,一个让世界省去诸多担忧的国家。

 

 

MORE than half of Americans think China is already the world’s leading economy — an astonishing misperception, given that China’s gross domestic product is still less than half of America’s. As George Orwell once observed, “Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible.” China has grown at a breakneck pace for so long that its aura of invincibility has grown to outsize proportions in the Western imagination.

 

Now, however, there are signs that China’s growth is slowing to a rate that is ideal for the interests of the United States: fast enough to remain an important pillar of global economic growth, but not fast enough for China to remain a disruptive threat to American power.

The news of a slowdown in China, which just posted its worst quarter since 2009, has reignited the debate over its future. The consensus remains bullish, and is captured in the latest forecast by the International Monetary Fund, which expects China’s G.D.P. to continue growing at an annual rate of around 8 percent for five more years. A bearish minority, however, reads the warning signs — labor unrest, a housing bubble, an unprecedented investment binge — as a sign of impending collapse. Neither side has got it right. In fact, China has reached a stage at which all “miracle economies” have slowed significantly, but not disastrously.

It is well known that developing nations hit a “middle-income trap,” and stop catching up to rich nations, when per-capita income reaches about $5,000 to $15,000 (in current dollars). The examples (Brazil, Mexico, Malaysia) are numerous. What is less known is that even those rare economies that broke through the middle-class trap started to decelerate — still catching up, but more slowly — after reaching a per capita income of around $5,000 (in current dollars). Japan in the 1970s, Taiwan in the 1980s and South Korea in the 1990s all slowed from a growth rate of about 9 percent to around 5 percent, simply because the bigger the economy, the harder it becomes to grow fast.

China passed the $5,000 per capita income level last year, and is now showing the same signs of deceleration that Japan, Taiwan and South Korea exhibited at that level: rising labor demands for higher wages and a decreasing demand for new investments. China’s growth model is similar to Japan’s in the 1970s, and the most likely scenario is that China will follow the path of Japan in that decade, when its growth rate slowed to 5 percent. China will continue to catch up to the United States, but its growth will slow to a pace of around 6 to 7 percent over the next 5 to 10 years. At that point, China’s economy will be even larger, and may decelerate again.

This process is under way, and it signals a basic power shift in the global economy. China became the biggest contributor to global G.D.P. growth in 2007, and it has held the lead ever since. But if the United States continues to grow at its current pace of about 2.5 percent, and China slows to 6.5 percent, then the United States will regain the lead this year — contributing 23 percent of global growth in 2012, compared to 18 percent for China — and it will hold that lead at least through 2015, according to Morgan Stanley research.

Investors who have bet big on near-double-digit growth in China will be troubled by this slowdown and will start looking for a safer destination. With Europe and Japan both growing at less than 2 percent, the focus of global attention will shift to the improving competitive position of the United States, and capital flows will follow.

China’s slowdown is setting the stage for a drop in the price of oil, which has had a crippling effect on growth in the United States. In recent years China has accounted for nearly half of global growth in oil demand, and every 1 percent of G.D.P. growth in China added 10 to 30 percent to the price of oil.

China’s slowdown is also opening the door to a revival in American manufacturing. China is suffering many symptoms typical of a maturing miracle economy, from a strengthening currency to rising wages, land prices and transport costs, while the United States has a weak currency, stagnant wages and a moribund property market. The dollar is near record lows (in inflation-adjusted terms) against many of its trading partners, including China. The long-term decline in the United States’ share of global manufacturing exports bottomed out in 2008 at 8 percent, but has since been inching higher. The Boston Consulting Group predicts that by 2015, China will have lost most of its cost advantages, accelerating the “reshoring” that is already bringing some factory jobs back home from China.

These shifts will reshape the global balance of economic power, mostly for the better. A collapse in China to zero percent growth would be disastrous for the world economy, but it is unlikely, in large part because Chinese leaders understand that the current slowdown is inevitable. They are lowering growth targets and trying to manage rather than fight the deceleration (which would only make it worse).

At the near double-digit growth rate of the last 15 years, China was the equivalent of a company with disruptive technology — destroying competitors, lifting suppliers, sucking in capital, stealing jobs and moving so fast that rivals couldn’t keep up. A smooth downshift to 6 or 7 percent makes China a more normal rival, one the world can do business with and compete head to head against — one that should generate a lot less worry.

Ruchir Sharma, the head of emerging market equities at Morgan Stanley Investment Management, is the author of “Breakout Nations: In Pursuit of the Next Economic Miracles.”

 

 

Special report: Manufacturing and innovationIn this special report

A third industrial revolution

As manufacturing goes digital, it will change out of all recognition, says Paul Markillie. And some of the business of making things will return to rich countries

OUTSIDE THE SPRAWLING Frankfurt Messe, home of innumerable German trade fairs, stands the “Hammering Man”, a 21-metre kinetic statue that steadily raises and lowers its arm to bash a piece of metal with a hammer. Jonathan Borofsky, the artist who built it, says it is a celebration of the worker using his mind and hands to create the world we live in. That is a familiar story. But now the tools are changing in a number of remarkable ways that will transform the future of manufacturing.

One of those big trade fairs held in Frankfurt is EuroMold, which shows machines for making prototypes of products, the tools needed to put those things into production and all manner of other manufacturing kit. Old-school engineers worked with lathes, drills, stamping presses and moulding machines. These still exist, but EuroMold exhibits no oily machinery tended by men in overalls. Hall after hall is full of squeaky-clean American, Asian and European machine tools, all highly automated. Most of their operators, men and women, sit in front of computer screens. Nowhere will you find a hammer.

And at the most recent EuroMold fair, last November, another group of machines was on display: three-dimensional (3D) printers. Instead of bashing, bending and cutting material the way it always has been, 3D printers build things by depositing material, layer by layer. That is why the process is more properly described as additive manufacturing. An American firm, 3D Systems, used one of its 3D printers to print a hammer for your correspondent, complete with a natty wood-effect handle and a metallised head.

This is what manufacturing will be like in the future. Ask a factory today to make you a single hammer to your own design and you will be presented with a bill for thousands of dollars. The makers would have to produce a mould, cast the head, machine it to a suitable finish, turn a wooden handle and then assemble the parts. To do that for one hammer would be prohibitively expensive. If you are producing thousands of hammers, each one of them will be much cheaper, thanks to economies of scale. For a 3D printer, though, economies of scale matter much less. Its software can be endlessly tweaked and it can make just about anything. The cost of setting up the machine is the same whether it makes one thing or as many things as can fit inside the machine; like a two-dimensional office printer that pushes out one letter or many different ones until the ink cartridge and paper need replacing, it will keep going, at about the same cost for each item.

Additive manufacturing is not yet good enough to make a car or an iPhone, but it is already being used to make specialist parts for cars and customised covers for iPhones. Although it is still a relatively young technology, most people probably already own something that was made with the help of a 3D printer. It might be a pair of shoes, printed in solid form as a design prototype before being produced in bulk. It could be a hearing aid, individually tailored to the shape of the user’s ear. Or it could be a piece of jewellery, cast from a mould made by a 3D printer or produced directly using a growing number of printable materials.

But additive manufacturing is only one of a number of breakthroughs leading to the factory of the future, and conventional production equipment is becoming smarter and more flexible, too. Volkswagen has a new production strategy called Modularer Querbaukasten, or MQB. By standardising the parameters of certain components, such as the mounting points of engines, the German carmaker hopes to be able to produce all its models on the same production line. The process is being introduced this year, but will gather pace as new models are launched over the next decade. Eventually it should allow its factories in America, Europe and China to produce locally whatever vehicle each market requires.

They don’t make them like that any more

Factories are becoming vastly more efficient, thanks to automated milling machines that can swap their own tools, cut in multiple directions and “feel” if something is going wrong, together with robots equipped with vision and other sensing systems. Nissan’s British factory in Sunderland, opened in 1986, is now one of the most productive in Europe. In 1999 it built 271,157 cars with 4,594 people. Last year it made 480,485 vehicles—more than any other car factory in Britain, ever—with just 5,462 people.

“You can’t make some of this modern stuff using old manual tools,” says Colin Smith, director of engineering and technology for Rolls-Royce, a British company that makes jet engines and other power systems. “The days of huge factories full of lots of people are not there any more.”

As the number of people directly employed in making things declines, the cost of labour as a proportion of the total cost of production will diminish too. This will encourage makers to move some of the work back to rich countries, not least because new manufacturing techniques make it cheaper and faster to respond to changing local tastes.

The materials being used to make things are changing as well. Carbon-fibre composites, for instance, are replacing steel and aluminium in products ranging from mountain bikes to airliners. And sometimes it will not be machines doing the making, but micro-organisms that have been genetically engineered for the task.

Everything in the factories of the future will be run by smarter software. Digitisation in manufacturing will have a disruptive effect every bit as big as in other industries that have gone digital, such as office equipment, telecoms, photography, music, publishing and films. And the effects will not be confined to large manufacturers; indeed, they will need to watch out because much of what is coming will empower small and medium-sized firms and individual entrepreneurs. Launching novel products will become easier and cheaper. Communities offering 3D printing and other production services that are a bit like Facebook are already forming online—a new phenomenon which might be called social manufacturing.

The consequences of all these changes, this report will argue, amount to a third industrial revolution. The first began in Britain in the late 18th century with the mechanisation of the textile industry. In the following decades the use of machines to make things, instead of crafting them by hand, spread around the world. The second industrial revolution began in America in the early 20th century with the assembly line, which ushered in the era of mass production.

As manufacturing goes digital, a third great change is now gathering pace. It will allow things to be made economically in much smaller numbers, more flexibly and with a much lower input of labour, thanks to new materials, completely new processes such as 3D printing, easy-to-use robots and new collaborative manufacturing services available online. The wheel is almost coming full circle, turning away from mass manufacturing and towards much more individualised production. And that in turn could bring some of the jobs back to rich countries that long ago lost them to the emerging world.

 

 



http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2374-564069.html

上一篇:[转载]经济学人:第三次工业革命
下一篇:[转载]反华人的美国 --- 种族主义和种族岐歧视的端源

2 赵凤光 crossludo

评论 (0 个评论)

数据加载中...
扫一扫,分享此博文

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备14006957 )

GMT+8, 2018-9-21 21:40

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部