【讀者分享 🇨🇳🇺🇸】 中美貿易戰的最大贏家，只有中美兩國的權貴集團？ (Patreon)

Exports and imports can sometimes be exaggerated due to two major factors: the omission of value-added parts in manufacturing chains and profit shifting as a corporate strategy to avoid taxes. In the global manufacturing process, products often involve components and parts sourced from various countries, such as chips in iPhones and other electronics.

However, when calculating trade figures, only the final value of the product is typically considered. This means that the value-added contributions from different countries along the supply chain are not accurately reflected. Imports from China have significantly increased over the past three decades, often as a result of displacing imports from other U.S. trading partners.

For example, if a product is assembled in China but contains components manufactured in the US, the full value of those US components may not be accounted for in China's export figures. We can refer to the 2017 Bloomberg article titled "Suddenly, America's Trade Deficit Isn't So Awful" (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-22/suddenly-america-s-trade-deficit-isn-t-so-awful), as well as a report therein about tax reform by Goldman Sachs.

Second, multinational corporations often strategically shift profits to countries with lower tax rates to reduce their tax liabilities. By establishing subsidiaries or engaging in transfer pricing practices, companies can allocate profits to jurisdictions with more favorable tax regimes. This can lead to a discrepancy between where the economic activity takes place and where the profits are reported. In the context of trade deficits, this profit shifting can distort the numbers by inflating the value of imports from low-tax countries and reducing the reported value of exports.

For instance, if a US company shifts profits to a low-tax jurisdiction like Ireland, it can artificially inflate the US trade deficit with Ireland. The US actually benefits from China’s investment in its economy, illustrating the double-edged sword of trade deficits—flowing trade surplus back to the US in the form of investment. In export-driven economies, central banks often prefer to hold their reserves in dollar assets, particularly in treasury bonds, due to financial and political considerations.

This preference arises from the absence of a better alternative. It helps keep U.S. interest rates down under normal circumstances, reducing mortgage payments for millions of U.S. households while saving the federal government tens of billions of dollars a year in interest payments. While this grants Americans the privilege of accessing cheap borrowing to purchase fixed assets such as houses, which are often considered unaffordable, it also poses a significant financial risk similar to the credit crunch experienced during the 2008 financial crisis.

Therefore, it imposes a significant burden on working-class Americans who are adversely affected by trade imbalances. Trade imbalances between the US and China have benefited the rich and powerful on both sides. In the US, the wealthy have profited from rising stock and real estate values fueled by cheap money, while in China, the well-connected corporate elites have gained from increased resource allocation. It may be more of a wishful thinking to believe that economic redistribution in the US could alleviate some of the harm caused by imbalances.

However, other countries are unlikely to be deterred from buying dollar assets due to the rule of flight-to-safety. Beijing’s intention is undoubtedly to strengthen and advance its manufacturing base, shifting from low-skill to high-end products, and increasing its national power in technology and other countries’ reliance on its manufacturing chains. Therefore, its ambition through persistent trade surpluses is not solely driven by the interests of well-connected industrialists, but could also serve as part of a broader grand strategy aimed at outmatching the US in a geopolitical struggle.

Political considerations must be taken into account, and we should look at the issues beyond the domain of trade imbalances, especially when dealing with an authoritarian regime. Otherwise, we risk failing to see the bigger but crucial picture. It is as if we are studying the rationale behind Beijing's approval of letting Tesla build a super factory in Shanghai with numerous incentives solely through the lens of the business benefits for both sides derived from the deal, without considering the vision of an ambitious dictator.

The above points are just a display of the complex interplay between economic forces, class interests, and geopolitical considerations in shaping trade imbalances, particularly between the US and China. They highlight the need for a deeper understanding of their dynamics and their consequences on both sides. While some factors can impact the accuracy of trade figures, they do not negate the existence of trade imbalances between countries. However, understanding these complexities provides a more nuanced perspective on the true nature of trade relationships.

▶️ 蕭少滔：特朗普2.0：看不見中美貿易戰的好處，這是因為你太悲觀https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgQeSCO8J_8