The Drive for Exports

第12章 出口狂热

EXCEEDED ONLY BY the pathological dread of imports that affects all nations is a pathological yearning for exports. Logically, it is true, no thing could be more inconsistent. In the long run imports and exports must equal each other (considering both in the broadest sense, which includes such “invisible” terms as tourist expenditures, ocean freight charges and all other items in the “balance of payments”). It is exports that pay for imports, and vice versa. The greater exports we have, the greater imports we must have, if we ever expect to get paid. The smaller imports we have, the smaller exports we can have. Without imports we can have no exports, for foreigners will have no funds with which to buy our goods. When we decide to cut down our imports, we are in effect deciding also to cut down our exports. When we decide to increase our exports, we are in effect deciding also to increase our imports.

所有国家对出口都怀有病态的渴求，这种影响仅次于各国对进口怀有的病态恐惧。从逻辑上讲，真的没有比这种事情更矛盾的了。长期而言，进口与出口必然相等（这里的进出口指“国际收支账户”里的所有项目，包括“无形”项目，如旅游消费、海运费用等）。出口偿付了进口，反之亦然。只要我们希望得到报偿，那么我们的出口越多，进口量也就必然越大。进口的数量减少了，我们的出口也必然更少。倘使没有进口的话，我们就不可能出口，因为外国人没有美元可以用来买美国的产品。所以，当我们决定削减进口的时候，其实等于决定削减出口。当我们准备扩大出口的时候，其实等于准备扩大进口。

The reason for this is elementary. An American exporter sells his goods to a British importer and is paid in British pounds sterling. But he cannot use British pounds to pay the wages of his workers, to buy his wife’s clothes or to buy theater tickets. For all these purposes he needs American dollars. Therefore his British pounds are of no use to him unless he either uses them himself to buy British goods or sells them (through his bank or other agent) to some American importer who wishes to use them to buy British goods. Whichever he does, the transaction cannot be completed until the American exports have been paid for by an equal amount of imports.

其中的道理非常简单。一位美国出口商把商品卖给英国进口商，换回的是英镑。但是这位老兄在国内没法用英镑来支付员工工资、用英镑来给太太买衣服、或买戏票。他需要美元来支付这一切。他拿着英镑没有用处，除非他拿去购买英国的产品，或者把手里的英镑（通过银行或代理商）卖给美国进口商，让他们用于进口英国产品。不管采用哪一种方式，在美国的出口以等量的进口支付之前，都无法实现银货两讫。

The same situation would exist if the transaction had been conducted in terms of American dollars instead of British pounds. The British importer could not pay the American exporter in dollars unless some previous British exporter had built up a credit in dollars here as a result of some previous sale to us. Foreign exchange, in short, is a clearing transaction in which, in America, the dollar debts of foreigners are canceled against their dollar credits. In England, the pound sterling debts of foreigners are canceled against their sterling credits.

如果交易不是以英镑，而是以美元进行，情形也会一样。除非以前曾有英国出口商输出产品到美国，并因此有美元积累，否则英国进口商没办法以美元支付美国出口商。简单地说，外汇是一笔票据清算的交易，在美国，是将外国人的美元债权和他们的美元债务冲销。在英国，外国人的英镑债权则和他们的英镑债务冲销。

There is no reason to go into the technical details of all this, which can be found in any good textbook on foreign exchange. But it should be pointed out that there is nothing inherently mysterious about it (in spite of the mystery in which it is so often wrapped), and that it does not differ essentially from what happens in domestic trade. Each of us must also sell something, even if for most of us it is our own services rather than goods, in order to get the purchasing power to buy. Domestic trade is also conducted in the main by crossing off checks and other claims against each other through clearing houses.

我们没有必要去纠缠所有这些问题的技术细节，在任何一本关于外汇的好教科书中都找得到相关说明。然而，必须指出的一点是，对外贸易从本质上来讲并无任何神秘之处（除开那些笼罩其上的神秘难解的东西来看的话），它与国内贸易没有什么本质上的差异。每个人都必须卖些东西给别人，才能获得购买力，才有钱去买别人的东西；只不过我们中的大多数人卖的是自身的劳务，而不是出售商品。国内交易大多也是通过银行等结算机构，以注销买卖双方支票和其他支付的方式进行。

It is true that under the international gold standard discrepancies in balances of imports and exports were sometimes settled by shipments of gold. But they could just as well have been settled by shipments of cotton, steel, whisky, perfume, or any other commodity. The chief difference is that when a gold standard exists the demand for gold is almost indefinitely expansible (partly because it is thought of and accepted as a residual international “money” rather than as just another commodity), and that nations do not put artificial obstacles in the way of receiving gold as they do in the way of receiving almost everything else. (On the other hand, of late years they have taken to putting more obstacles in the way of exporting gold than in the way of exporting anything else; but that is another story.)

在国际金本位制度下，进出口贸易差额有时确实可以靠交运黄金的来结算，但也可以用交运棉花、钢铁、威士忌、香料，或其他普通商品来结算。这里主要的 区别在于，当金本位制存在的时候，黄金的需求几乎可以无限扩张（部分原因是黄金被公认为是终极国际“货币”，而不仅仅是另一种普通商品），各国不象限制其它任何商品进口那样限制黄金的输入。（另一方面，近年来，它们限制黄金的输出，采取的措施甚于限制其它任何商品出口，那却是另一码事。）

Now the same people who can be clearheaded and sensible when the subject is one of domestic trade can be incredibly emotional and muddleheaded when it becomes one of foreign trade. In the latter field they can seriously advocate or acquiesce in principles which they would think it insane to apply in domestic business. A typical example is the belief that the government should make huge loans to foreign countries for the sake of increasing our exports, regardless of whether or not these loans are likely to be repaid.

如今某些人，在谈论国内贸易时，头脑清醒并且很有理智，当话题转到对外贸易，他们立刻变得情绪激动、头脑糊涂得令人难以置信。在后一种情况下，他们会极力主张或原则上默认一些在国内贸易上他们会认为是疯狂愚蠢的主张。一个典型的例子是相信政府为了达到增加出口的目的应当向国外提供大量贷款，而不考虑这些贷款有多少能收得回来。

American citizens, of course, should be allowed to lend their own funds abroad at their own risk. The government should put no arbitrary barriers in the way of private lending to countries with which we are at peace. As individuals we should be willing to give generously, for humane reasons alone, to people who are in great distress or in danger of starving. But we ought always to know clearly what we are doing. It is not wise to bestow charity on foreign people under the impression that one is making a hardheaded business transaction purely for one’s own selfish purposes. That could only lead to misunderstandings and bad relations later.

不消说，美国的公民们拿自己的钱去冒险，放贷到国外的，政府不应该设置任何障碍，阻止民间贷款给我们的友邦。作为个人，仅仅出于人道的考虑，我们就应该慷慨解囊，资助处于严重贫困和饥饿威胁之下的人们。不过，我们必须自始至终明了我们这种行为的性质。我们对于国外民族予以慈善救济时，却给人以正 在做着一笔精明的纯粹是基于自己商业利益的交易的印象，那就太不明智了。这只会造成以后的误解和恶劣关系。

Yet among the arguments put forward in favor of huge foreign lending one fallacy is always sure to occupy a prominent place. It runs like this. Even if half (or all) the loans we make to foreign countries turn sour and are not repaid, this nation will still be better off for having made them, because they will give an enormous impetus to our exports.

可是，在主张对外大量贷款的论调中，一个谬论始终占有重要位置。其说法是：即使放到国外贷款有一半（或者全部）变成呆账，得不到偿还，国家仍然可以由这种贷款而获益，因为它们将强劲地拉动我们的出口。

It should be immediately obvious that if the loans we make to foreign countries to enable them to buy our goods are not repaid, then we are giving the goods away. A nation cannot grow rich by giving goods away. It can only make itself poorer.

那些用于帮助外国购买我们产品的贷款，要是拖欠不还，就等于我们拿产品去白送，这是明摆着的事实。一个国家不可能靠无偿的商品输出而变得富有，这样做只会使这个国家变得更穷。

No one doubts this proposition when it is applied privately. If an automobile company lends a man $5,000 to buy a car priced at that amount, and the loan is not repaid, the automobile company is not better off because it has “sold” the car. It has simply lost the amount that it cost to make the car. If the car cost $4,000 to make, and only half the loan is repaid, then the company has lost $4,000 minus $2,500, or a net amount of $1,500 It has not made up in trade what it lost in bad loans.³

把这种说法用在私营企业身上，没人质疑其正确性。如果一家汽车公司贷款5,000美元给一个人买等价的车子，而这个买家最后没有偿清贷款，那么这家汽车公司不可能因为“售出”这辆车子而增加收益。它损失的是生产这辆车的所有成本。如果这辆车的生产成本是4,000美元，而买家只还一半的贷款，那么这家汽车公司的净损失是4,000美元减去2,500美元，也就是1,500美元。坏账造成的损失，并没有从它的销售业绩中赚回来。{书后注3:黑兹利特用的5 000美元这个数字并不确切。现在一辆新车的平均价格要20 000美元左右。（戴维·亨德森（David R. Henderson）的〈同通胀娱乐与博弈〉（Fun and Games With Inflation），刊于《财富》1996年3月18日，第36页）}

If this proposition is so simple when applied to a private company, why do apparently intelligent people get confused about it when applied to a nation? The reason is that the transaction must then be traced mentally through a few more stages. One group may indeed make gains—while the rest of us take the losses.

对于私人公司来说如此简单的事实，为什么用于国家，那些聪明人却会犯糊涂呢？原因在于，要认清这种交易的实质，需要人们把放宽眼界多看几步。某个群体确实可以从中获益，而其他所有的人则蒙受了损失。

It is true, for example, that persons engaged exclusively or chiefly in export business might gain on net balance as a result of bad loans made abroad. The national loss on the transaction would be certain, but it might be distributed in ways difficult to follow. The private lenders would take their losses directly. The losses from government lending would ultimately be paid out of increased taxes imposed on everybody. But there would also be many indirect losses brought about by the effect on the economy of these direct losses.

例如，专门或是主要从事出口贸易的人，可能会从政府海外贷款坏账中得到净收益，这是确实无误的。整个国家因此而蒙受损失是肯定的，只不过难以追踪哪些人遭受了多少损失。私人放贷损失由放贷者自己直接承受，而政府贷款的损失，最后则必须靠加重税负来解决。此外，这些直接的损失会对经济造成不良影响，从而造成更多间接损失。

In the long run business and employment in America would be hurt, not helped, by foreign loans that were not repaid. For every extra dollar that foreign buyers had with which to buy American goods, domestic buyers would ultimately have one dollar less. Businesses that depend on domestic trade would therefore be hurt in the long run as much as export businesses would be helped. Even many concerns that did an export business would be hurt on net balance. American automobile companies, for example, sold about 15 percent of their output in the foreign market in 1975. It would not profit them to sell 20 percent of their output abroad as a result of bad foreign loans if they thereby lost, say, io percent of their American sales as the result of added taxes taken from American buyers to make up for the unpaid foreign loans.

从长远来看，贷款收不回来对美国的企业和就业并没有好处，而是有害的。对用于购买美国产品的贷款，外国买主的赖账每多一美元，国内买主终将损失一美元。因此，出口业获益的同时，依靠内销为主的行业将蒙受损失，长期下来，二者得失大体相当，甚至许多从事出口的企业，其净收益也会受损。例如，1975年美国的汽车公司约有15%的产量销往海外市场。假如给国外贷款，出口量可增加到20%。但如果贷款收不回来，导致美国消费者的税负加重，造成汽车公司的国内销售额减退10%，对这些汽车公司来说也是得不偿失。

None of this means, I repeat, that it is unwise for private investors to make loans abroad, but simply that we cannot get rich by making bad ones.

重申一下，这里并不是说私人投资者向海外贷款是不明智的，这里要说的是，我们不能靠收不回来的贷款变得富有。

For the same reasons that it is stupid to give a false stimulation to export trade by making bad loans or outright gifts to foreign countries, it is stupid to give a false stimulation to export trade through export subsidies. An export subsidy is a clear case of giving the foreigner something for nothing, by selling him goods for less than it costs us to make them. It is another case of trying to get rich by giving things away.

基于这个道理，那些靠对外贷款呆账，或者直接赠与外国的方式，制造出口大增的做法，是愚蠢的，企图通过出口补贴的方式拉动出口的做法，愚不可及。出口补贴以低于生产成本的价格，出售产品给外国人，补贴部分等于白送。这是企图靠送人东西来发家致富的另一个例子。

In the face of all this, the United States government has been engaged for years in a “foreign economic aid” program the greater part of which has consisted in outright government-to-government gifts of many billions of dollars. Here we are interested in just one aspect of that program—the naive belief of many of its sponsors that this is a clever or even a necessary method of “increasing our exports” and so maintaining prosperity and employment. It is still another form of the delusion that a nation can get rich by giving things away. What conceals the truth from many supporters of the program is that what is directly given away is not the exports themselves but the money with which to buy them. It is possible, therefore, for individual exporters to profit on net balance from the national loss — if their individual profit from the exports is greater than their share of taxes to pay for the program.

美国政府不顾这些常识，多年来一直实施“对外经济援助”计划，主要是政府对政府的直接赠予，金额动辄高达数十亿美元。这里我们只对支持那些计划的一种说法感兴趣——许多支持此种政策的人愚蠢地相信这样可以“拉动出口”，相信这是维持美国的繁荣和就业的聪明做法，甚至是必要的措施。这依然是靠送东西能让国家致富的另一错觉。这一计划蒙蔽了许多的支持者，其关键在于：美国直接送出去的，不是出口商品本身，而是用来购买出口的钱。因此，个别出口商有可能从国家的损失中获利——如果他们从出口所得到的个人利益大于该计划分摊给他们的税负的话。

Here we have simply one more example of the error of looking only at the immediate effect of a policy on some special group, and of not having the patience or intelligence to trace the long-run effects of the policy on everyone.

只看某项政策对某个特殊群体产生的立即影响，而没有耐心或智慧去考察该政策对每个人造成的长远影响，这样的错误，我们在这里又多了一个实例。

If we do trace these long-run effects on everyone, we come to an additional conclusion—the exact opposite of the doctrine that has dominated the thinking of most government officials for centuries. This is, as John Stuart Mill so clearly pointed out, that the real gain of foreign trade to any country lies not in its exports but in its imports. Its consumers are either able to get from abroad commodities at a lower price than they could obtain them for at home, or commodities that they could not get from domestic producers at all. Outstanding examples in the United States are coffee and tea. Collectively considered, the real reason a country needs exports is to pay for its imports.

如果我们真的去考察每个人所受的长期影响，我们还可以得到另外一个结论。与几个世纪以来大部分政府官员所奉行的教条恰恰相反，这个结论，正如约翰•穆勒非常清楚地所表达的那样：对外贸易对任何国家能有利益，最终并不在于其出口，而是在于其进口。是进口，让一个国家的消费者能以比国内更便宜的价格，买到外国的商品；是进口，让他们买到国内制造商不生产的商品（在美国尤为突出的是咖啡和茶叶）。总的来说，一个国家需要出口的真正理由，是赚钱来支付其进口。