林中斌 部落格 / Blog Chong-Pin Lin

How to Stop Trump’s Trade War Madness?

The New York Times Aug 15, 2019

accessed Aug 15, 2019

美國華府喬治城大學法學院教授，也是國務院重要諮詢機構和外交事務的出版機構 Council on Foreign Affairs資深研究員的Jennifer Hilman指出美國國會有憲法裡規定的權力限制川普總統輕率的中國貿易戰政策。

她點出國會可採取三項步驟停止這"貿易戰瘋狂"。

忍辱訣

Accessed July 15, 2019

忍辱訣

林中斌 2019年7月15日

不鑽胯下過，焉登拜將台 。(註1)

不嚐吳王穢，焉雪越國恥 。(註2)

不服圮(pi3)上叱，焉建留侯功 。(註3)

不忍辱中辱，焉為人上人。

緣起：

數日前，一位在下敬重但他選擇匿名的智者有所感而在臉書上分享他的經驗：

「…我年輕時也不太聽別人的意見。

如今，閱歷漸多，發現不論對年輕人或中老年人，真正有用的意見，都不好聽，有時甚至很刺耳。

所謂忠言逆耳，大多數人都聽不進去。

網路上很多人講過，受學生歡迎的大學教師，是會講笑話聊八卦，跟學生打成一片的老師。真正認真教學、訂出標準、要求學生的老師，反而被幹譙。

高度智慧的人，懂得從別人的經驗學習；

退而求其次的聰明人，懂得從自己的經驗學習；

至於大多數普通人，則是連自己的錯誤經驗，都得不到教訓，甚至別人再三提醒，還是不肯面對真正的問題。」

明知，不會討好，在下還是決定提供自己的經驗給年輕朋友們參考。

林中斌

附註

1.秦末，韓信微時，受欺於流氓，有生命危險。韓審度情勢，屈從流氓指示，鑽其跨下而過。後受劉邦築高台拜將，所向無敵，為漢高祖定天下，成就不世之功勳。

2. 越王勾踐，敗於吳王夫差，國滅受俘。勾踐以下奴身份伺奉新主，必恭必敬，以消其疑惑。甚至親嚐吳王糞便，協助御醫治癒吳王之疾。吳王終於信任勾踐，縱其歸越。勾踐臥薪嘗膽，十年生聚，十年教訓，舉兵伐吳。夫差兵敗自刎而亡。勾踐一雪滅國之恥。

3. 秦始皇滅六國統一天下。張良為韓國宰相之子，密謀以力士擲重錐刺殺秦始皇，事敗隱姓埋名以避追捕。一日在下邳過橋時，有老者故意拋其鞋於橋下，呵叱張良下橋撿起，又令張良服侍穿上。之後，此圮上老人令張良數日後清晨來橋上。數次晚到之後，張良才早到等候。圮上老人秘傳其兵書，教導之。張良日後運籌帷幄輔佐劉邦建立漢朝數百年之基業。其他功臣遭忌，被斬被關，惟張良全身而退，被封留侯，安享天年，祿傳子孫。

Stay the Course on China: An Open Letter to President Trump

Journal of Political Risk  July 18, 2019

Accessed July 19, 2019

Stay the Course on China: An Open Letter to President Trump

Journal of Political Risk July 18, 2019

http://www.jpolrisk.com/stay-the-course-on-china-an-open-letter-to-president-trump/

針對上週華盛頓郵報彙集100位美國的中國事物的學者、外交官建議川普勿把中國當敵人，這份名單提醒川普勿改變目前以中國為威脅的政策。

-- 這份名單裡大多數是美國軍人、情報專家、之前所謂“藍隊”的反中挺台美國學者、少數的民運和宗教人士。

-- 後者包括好友June Dryer 金德芳教授，35年前在 華府喬治城大學的學生現在名教授Toshi Yoshihara，敬重的臺大教授明居正等。

-- 可以說，美國的中國專家對華政策呈現分裂態勢。尚不能說美國兩黨一致反中。學術界、外交界、企業界不贊成以中國為永久敵人。軍情界及研究軍事、少數民族、宗教問題的學者不贊成川普改變目抗中政策。

"China is Not an Enemy" 

Washington Post July 3, 2019

Accessed July 4, 2019

"China is Not an Enemy" Washington Post July 3, 2019

●簽名的百位學者幾乎是美國研究中國的學者和擔任中國政策的文武官員和企業界顧問的「人物大全」名人冊。

The list of signatures at the end of the seven-point petitions is almost "Who is who" of scholars, government officials (both foreign service and defense department officers), and business world consultants in the U.S.

●在下數十年接觸的美方中國問題所有關鍵人物幾乎都在內。官員包括如共和黨的Douglas Paal 民主黨的Richard Bush。軍方的Dennis Blasko, 商界的Ian Bremmer。

●明顯不在內的有友台的Kurt Campbell 他在 2018年3月的Foreign Affairs發起質疑數十年華府已交往為主的中國政策的大辯論。他的博士似乎屬國際關係而非中國研究。還有長年駐北京的洛杉磯時報名記者Jim Mann。當然還有現在為川普總統依重的Michael Pillsbury白邦瑞。三位在下都認識，後二者可稱是好友。

-- Knowledgeable China experts in the U.S. do not support the zero-sum China policy under president Trump.

-- The popular notion in the U.S. that both Republican and Democratic parties are joined by China-bashing may not be blanketedly accurate.

一項新聞 兩篇報導

《自由時報》2019年7月26日A8版

《聯合報》2019年7月26日A14版

Accessed July 26, 2019

一項新聞 兩種報導

一項新聞，兩家媒體，報導內容，一疏一密。時代推進，特質轉換，歷史寡情，悲嘆何用?

美情報總監下台 川普鐵粉接班

《聯合報》2019年7月30日A12版

Accessed July 30, 2019

兩點觀察 Two observations：

●川普團隊的外交政策自我扞格。

川普手下的職業軍人和情報官比他自己更務實的觀察國際局勢。例如，他們認為北韓不會自毀核子武器，而他認為北韓將要自毀核子武器。

另外一例，由白邦瑞提出。川普手下很多人認為中國是邪惡的敵人，而川普不認為如此，否則她孫女為何三歲就學中文唱中國歌？當選總統前，川普一心一意要去中國賺大錢。白邦瑞說，川普只是不想看到中國超越美國成世界首強。

The Trump team has exhibited its cognitive dissonance in foreign policy with the professional soldiers and intelligence officers being the more realistic and even more hawkish on one side and the President himself being the less realistic and sometimes the less hawkish on the other side.

For example, the professionals have observed that North Korea will not abandon its nuclear weapons while Trump has indicated that North Korea will do so.

Dr. Michael Pillsbury indicated on July 25 that President Trump did not view China as enemy as many of advisors did. Pillsbury revealed that Trump just was concerned that China might replace the U.S. as the world's leader.

●台灣兩報國際新聞表現又再易位。https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2568702356494498&id=100000642779020

兩家媒體，一項新聞，內容對比，一疏一密。品質翻轉，不過四日。

Trump Struggles to Achieve 3 Percent Economic Goal as Growth Slows

Washington Post July 26, 2019

Accessed July 28, 2019

美國第二季度GDP 成長2.1%, 由第一季度3.1%下降。這是美國商務部美國時間週五7/26公佈的。

-- 川普要維持2019成長3%現在不確定了。

-- 他原先怪歐巴馬是唯一未達成3%的總統。現在他語氣緩和下來。

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/07/26/trump-promised-percent-or-better-economy-so-far-its-not-happening/

The Coming Economic Crash—And How to Stop It

Elizabeth Warren

Accessed July 24, 2019

2008金融危機之前，美國現任參議員華倫當時是哈佛大學教授， 曾在 2003, 2004, 2005 警告經濟危機將要到來。

2019.7.22她發表文章警告：經濟衰退將要在2020年底或2021年到來。

目前不利的跡象有三

-- 家庭債務上升

-- 公司債務上升

-- 製造業衰退

最近訪問300位企業經濟家，3/4認為經濟衰退將於2021年底前到來，1/2認為2020年底前到來。

已經有人批評她如此說是為了減低川普的聲勢，增加民主黨挑戰川普的力度。但她之前預言2008金融危機讓人不得不聽她現在的警告及建議。

至少這是個勇敢的賭博。到明年年底，若經濟仍然旺盛 ，她的選舉將垮的很慘; 若經濟果如她所說，她聲勢將大增。

The Coming Economic Crash — And How to Stop It

Jul 22, 2019

By Elizabeth Warren

https://medium.com/@teamwarren/the-coming-economic-crash-and-how-to-stop-it-355703da148b

I warned about an economic crash years before the 2008 crisis, but the people in power wouldn’t listen. Now I’m seeing serious warning signs in the economy again — and I’m calling on regulators and Congress to act before another crisis costs America’s families their homes, jobs, and savings.

I’ve spent most of my career getting to the bottom of what’s happening to working families in America. And when I saw the seeds of the 2008 crisis growing, I rang the alarm as loud as I could.

In 2003, I called out subprime lenders for tricking unsuspecting families — especially families of color — into refinancing into overpriced subprime mortgages. In 2004 and 2005, I warned that families were getting deeper into debt and hanging on only by borrowing against their homes, which put them in a vulnerable position if costs rose or a family member lost a job. In2006, I flagged that foreclosure rates were starting to go up, but that the mortgage lenders were still churning out loans because they had passed on the risk of defaults to investors in the form of mortgage-backed securities. Those trends — shady subprime lending, rising household debt, a mortgage market where lenders didn’t bear the risk of their loans — set the stage for the 2008 crisis.

But the people with the power to stop the crisis didn’t listen — not enough of them anyway. Not the banks, not Alan Greenspan or other federal regulators, not Congress. And when the crisis hit in 2008, working families lost it all while the big banks that broke the economy got a fat taxpayer bailout.

When I look at the economy today, I see a lot to worry about again. I see a manufacturing sector in recession. I see a precarious economy that is built on debt — both household debt and corporate debt — and that is vulnerable to shocks. And I see a number of serious shocks on the horizon that could cause our economy’s shaky foundation to crumble.

Our Precarious Economy

Household debt. A generation of stagnant wages and rising costs for basics like housing, child care, and education have forced American families to take on more debt than ever before. The student debt load has “more than doubled since the financial crisis.” American credit card debt matches its 2008 peak. Auto loan debt is the highest it has ever been since we started tracking it nearly 20 years ago, and a record 7 million Americans are behind on their auto loans — many of which have similar abusive characteristics as pre-crash subprime mortgages. 71 million American adults — more than 30% of the adults in the country — already have debts in collection. Families may be able to afford these debt payments now, but an increase in interest rates or a slowdown in income could plunge families over a cliff.

Corporate debt. Corporations are also deeply in debt. Leveraged lending — lending to companies that are already seriously in debt — has jumped by40% since Trump took office, spreading “systemic risk” throughout our financial system. These high-risk loans now make up a quarter of all American business loans, and they look a lot like the pre-2008 subprime mortgages: poorly-underwritten loans with minimal protections that are then packaged and sold to investors. I’ve warned regulators about my concerns — which experts share — but their tepid response shows they haven’t learned the lessons of the last crisis.

Manufacturing recession. Despite Trump’s promises of a manufacturing “renaissance,” the country is now in a manufacturing recession. The Federal Reserve just reported that the manufacturing sector had a second straight quarter of decline, falling below Wall Street’s expectations. And for the first time ever, the average hourly wage for manufacturing workers has dropped below the national average.

The country’s economic foundation is fragile. A single shock could bring it all down. And the Trump Administration’s reckless behavior is increasing the odds of just such a shock.

The administration may breach the debt ceiling in September, leading to economic turmoil that top economists say would be “more catastrophic” than the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. Trump’s trade war with China threatens American manufacturing and has already hurt American companies that investors think of as “industry bellwethers,” while feedingan all-time economic slowdown in China that could have dramatic ripple effects on the American economy. And Trump is goading the U.K. toward a no-deal Brexit, which even his own administration acknowledges would have “immediate and significant spillover effects” to our economy.

The financial markets agree that there is a serious risk of downturn in the near future. The U.S. Treasury yield curve — a barometer for market confidence — normally slopes upwards because investors demand higher yields for bonds with longer maturities. But this March, it inverted for the first time since 2007, signaling that investors are so worried that things are going to get worse that they’d rather lock in lower rates for the future today than risk long-term rates going even lower. The curve has inverted before each and every recession in the past half century — with only one false signal.

And experts agree. In a recent survey of nearly 300 business economists, three-quarters expect a recession by the end of 2021 — with more than half thinking it’ll come by the end of 2020.

Stopping the Next Downturn

The good news is that we have the chance to head off a crisis — just like we had a chance to head off the 2008 crisis — if we take bold action now to address the underlying problems in the economy:

• Reduce household debt: To put our economy — and our families — on firmer ground, it is essential to reduce household debt both by raising people’s wages and by bringing down their costs. That is the heart of my economic agenda. We can raise incomes by increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour, strengthening unions, ensuring that women of color get the wages they deserve, and empowering workers to elect at least 40% of board members at big American corporations. We can reduce costs and slash household debt by cancelling up to $50,000 in student loan debt for 95% of people who have it, bringing down the cost of rent, providing universal affordable child care and early education for all our kids ages 0–5, and making tuition free at every public technical school, two-year college, and four-year college.

• Monitor and reduce leveraged corporate lending: In response to the 2008 crisis, Congress created the Financial Stability Oversight Council — made up of the heads of the financial regulatory agencies — to monitor risks that cut across different markets. The risks of leveraged lending are exactly the kind of thing FSOC is supposed to monitor, but the Trump-era FSOC is falling down on the job. It should meet specifically to discuss these risks and announce a plan for addressing them. Federal regulators should also enforce leveraged lending guidance that is intended to stop banks from issuing these risky loans in the first place.

• Strengthen manufacturing: We need policies that reverse the manufacturing job losses of the past twenty years by investing in manufacturing instead of undercutting it. My Green Manufacturing Planwill mobilize our industrial base by making a $2 trillion investment in American green research, manufacturing, and exporting over the next decade. This will create more than a million high-quality jobs and help address the existential threat of climate change.

• Limit potential shocks to the economy: With a vulnerable economy, we should be reducing the odds of potential shocks that could push us into a downturn. The Trump Administration should stop pushing for a no-deal Brexit and start planning for how to insulate the American economy if that occurs. It should replace the trade-war-by-tweet with China with a coherent strategy — working with our allies — to respond to China’s trade tactics. We need to invest in strengthening critical American industries, instead of undercutting American companies. And we should take the prospect of breaching the debt ceiling off the table forever by either eliminating it or by automatically raising the ceiling to accommodate spending and revenue decisions authorized by Congress.

Warning lights are flashing. Whether it’s this year or next year, the odds of another economic downturn are high — and growing. Congress and regulators should act immediately to tamp down these threats before it’s too late.

夫人將軍 (Madame General)

Accessed July 22, 2019

夫人將軍 (Madame General)
《經濟學人》 2019.7.6 頁27&28
●美軍40步兵師成立於1917，歷經百戰，過去31位彪悍師長的傳承至今年6月29日交給慧秀堅毅的蘿拉●耶葛少將。
●今年54歲的夫人將軍曾任戰地黑鷹駕駛是美國史上第一位女師長。
●少將通常指揮一萬士兵。耶葛少將統御4個四千多人的戰鬥旅，總數超過一萬六。
●她出身大學預備軍官，1980年代從軍時，女人不准開坦克車、參加任何戰鬥任務。
●2000年之前，加拿大是唯一准許女人參加戰鬥單位的北約國家。美國要等到2013年歐巴馬總統才批准跟進。
●1973年美軍只有4.2% 女性；2017年比例增加至18.4%。
●1997年蘭德公司調查結果是：女性進入軍隊並沒有降低戰備、團結、和士氣。

林中斌 試摘譯 2019.7.22
敬請賜教

22強國譴責中國 促關新疆集中營

《自由時報》2019年7月12日A9版

Accessed July 14, 2019

22強國譴責中國 促關新疆集中營

《自由時報》2019年7月12日A9

這7月12日新聞有3特點:

-- 是重要事件，引發後續對立事件(7月13日，37國聯合發表相反看法的聯合信，亦要求聯合國納入記錄)。

-- 此重要事件為自由時報7月12日紙本報導，其他台灣大報紙本似乎忽略。

-- 自由時報之標題不無反中挺美之語氣，但內容7段中兩段似乎相反。其一轉載挺中環球時報申訴要點。其二報導先前譴責中國的土耳其總統最近挺中言論。

The Hidden Troubles of the F-35

exclusively obtained documents show evidence of a program grappling with serious technical problems

Defense News June 17, 2019

Accessed July 15, 2019

The Hidden Troubles of the F-35 exclusively obtained documents show evidence of a program grappling with serious technical problems

國防新聞(Defense News) 2019.6.17 頁1、32/33:

"過去幾年，美國防部主管指出對F35戰機各種關切，先是技術問題，然後是價格和維 修成本太高。

但是實際狀況更糟。最近國防新聞所獲資料現示:戰機有嚴重缺陷(category 1-A deficiencies)，如果不修正駕駛安全都不保...駕駛艙壓力突變引起耳朵和鼻竇尖銳的刺痛...頭盔及夜視照相機的瑕疵增加降落在航母的困難...。"

Supersonic Speeds Could Cause Big Problems for the F-35's Stealth Coating

Defense News June 17, 2019

Accessed July 15, 2019

Supersonic Speeds Could Cause Big Problems for the F-35's Stealth Coating

國防新聞(Defense News) 2019.6.17頁20:
在極端高度，美國海軍及陸戰隊用的F-35戰機只能在有限時間內飛超音速，否則會傷害機身構造及隱身的塗料。
這項缺陷在2011年12月測試時已發現。

"Xi's History Points to a Hardline on Hong Kong"

The New York Times July 5, 2019

Accessed July 10, 2019

"Xi's History Points to a Hardline on Hong Kong"

By Steven Lee Myens

New York Times July 5, 2019

Recent statements from China's official and semi-official sources and past statements of Xi including one in 1989 when he was in Fujian point to the probable unfolding events:

1. Mobilization of "a vast network of" pro-Beijing "supporters in Hong Kong" to counter and contain the mass movement.

2. Failing the measure above, Being may launch a pinpointed para-military operation on the leaders of the Hong Kong mass demonstrations, employing non-bloody instruments of war of paralysis.

3. Failing even that, the para-military forces will take over Hong Kong with the PLA stationed outside.

Cold-blooded analysis apart, one prays for the most peaceful and at least the least violent solution awaiting at the end of tunnel of uncertainty.

Chong-Pin Lin

July 10, 2019

Jeffrey Sachs, " China is not the source of our problems-- corporate greed is"

CNN May 27, 2019

Accessed June 3, 2019

Wise, sanguine, and clear-sighted.
這是篇美國哥倫比亞大學教授對中美貿易戰的分析：思路清晰而充滿智慧。
Excellent analysis that transcends the confine of ego, time, and space.
他超越了自我的侷限，眼前的侷限，和美國為中心的侷限。
This manifests the real greatness of America: the national ability to self-reflect.
他展示了美國真正的偉大：不斷自我反省的能力。

Chong-Pin Lin May 28, 2019
林中斌試摘要
感謝淡大戰略所林祐生翻譯
敬請賜正 2019.5.28

●China is being made a scapegoat for rising inequality in the United States. 
*中國不過是美國國內日益升高不平等的替罪羔羊

●We should understand that China is merely trying to make up for lost time after a very long period of geopolitical setbacks and related economic failures.
*我們應將此理解為中國不過是在彌補過去很長一段時間地緣政治上的挫折以及相應的經濟失敗(指的應該是19世紀40年代開始的一連串政治和經濟挫折)

●In 1839, Britain attacked China because it refused to allow British traders to continue providing Chinese people with addictive opium. Britain prevailed,
*1839年的鴉片戰爭肇因於中國拒絕英國商人繼續向中國輸入高度成癮性的鴉片，且英國取得了勝利。

●Toward the end of the 19th century, China lost a war to the newly industrializing Japan, and was subjected to yet more one-sided demands by Europe and the United States for trade. These humiliations led to another rebellion, followed by yet another defeat, at the hands of foreign powers.
*19世紀末期，中國在軍事衝突中敗給新興工業化國家日本，並遭到歐美列強們要求了更多的單邊貿易要求。這些恥辱導致了另一波國內暴動，最終遭到數個列強共同鎮壓(八國聯軍)。

●China has roughly followed the same development strategy as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore before it. From an economic standpoint, it is not doing anything particularly unusual for a country that is playing catch up.The constant US refrain that China "steals" technologies is highly simplistic.
*中國基本上跟隨了日本、南韓、台灣以及新加坡的發展腳步。就以經濟學的角度來看，中國做為一個追趕中的國家，其實並沒有做出任何不尋常的舉動。美國不斷力圖阻止中國剽竊科技是過度簡化問題。

●Countries that are lagging behind upgrade their technologies in many ways, through study, imitation, purchases, mergers, foreign investments, extensive use of off-patent knowledge and, yes, copying. 
*科技落後的國家以多種方式追趕，包括了學習、模仿、購買、併購、引入外資、廣泛應用非專利知識，以及抄襲。

●And with any fast-changing technologies, there are always running battles over intellectual property. That's true even among US companies today -- this kind of competition is simply a part of the global economic system. Technology leaders know they shouldn't count on keeping their lead through protection, but through continued innovation.
*對任何變化快速的科技而言，知識產權的戰爭是不會停止的。即使是今日美國國內的公司之間也存在這樣的競爭關係，實際上知識產權的競爭是全球經濟體系的一部分。這些科技領先者們知道他們不應指望倚靠保護舊有的知識產權，而是投入更多創新

●The United States relentlessly adopted British technologies in the early 19th century. And when any country wants to close a technology gap, it recruits know-how from abroad. The US ballistic missile program, as it is well known, was built with the help of former Nazi rocket scientists recruited to the United States after World War II.
*19世紀工業革命正火熱時，美國人毫不留情的採用了英國人的先進技術。當任何國家試圖縮小科技差距時，往往會招聘國外專業人才。例如大家所熟知的，二戰後美國的彈道飛彈技術大力得益於一批歸順的納粹科學家。

●If China were a less populous Asian country, say like South Korea, with a little more than 50 million people, it would simply be hailed by the United States as a great development success story. 
*如果中國是個人口較少，像韓國一樣約莫5000多萬人口的國家，中國將會被美國頌讚為經濟發展成功的案例。

●Trade with China provides the United States with low-cost consumer goods and increasingly high-quality products. It also causes job losses in sectors such as manufacturing that compete directly with China. That is how trade works. To accuse China of unfairness in this is wrong -- plenty of American companies have reaped the benefits of manufacturing in China or exporting goods there. And US consumers enjoy higher living standards as a result of China's low-cost goods.
*和中國的貿易使美國人能以低廉的價格購買品質逐漸攀升的消費性商品。與此同時，也造成了大量失業，尤其是製造業這種直接與中國競爭的產業，而這正是貿易的運作方式。單單的指控中國是個錯誤，實際上許多美國公司受益於中國製造並出口到美國的商品。

●Yet under American capitalism, which has long strayed from the cooperative spirit of the New Deal era, today's winners flat-out reject sharing their winnings. As a result of this lack of sharing, American politics are fraught with conflicts over trade. Greed comprehensively dominates Washington policies.
*但是受到美國資本主義的影響，贏家們不願意面對新時代的合作精神，也就是向別人分享自己的勝利果實。這樣的結果就是美國的政治充滿著因貿易而起的衝突。貪婪正全面性的支配著華盛頓的政治。

●The real battle is not with China but with America's own giant companies, many of which are raking in fortunes while failing to pay their own workers decent wages.
*真正的戰鬥不應該是對著中國，而是美國自身內部的巨型企業們，這些巨型企業之中有許多財務狀況不佳，甚至連支付員工正常的薪水都有問題。

●Trump is lashing out against China, ostensibly believing that it will once again bow to a Western power. It is willfully trying to crush successful companies like Huawei by changing the rules of international trade abruptly and unilaterally.
*川普大力的抨擊中國，至少表面上看來他相信北京終究會向華盛頓的力量屈服。他故意以一些單邊的手段突襲，改變國際貿易的規則，試圖摧毀一些像華為這般成功的公司

●A trade war with China won't solve our economic problems. Instead we need homegrown solutions: affordable health care, better schools, modernized infrastructure, higher minimum wages and a crackdown on corporate greed.
*貿易戰並不會解決美中之間的經濟問題。自強才是解決問題的方法，包括了：合理負擔的健保、更好的教育、將基礎建設現代化、更高的最低收入限制，以及打擊企業的貪婪。

美中貿易戰的背後

《聯合報》2019年5月19日A12版

accessed May 20, 2019

佳文推薦。
資料豐富，涵蓋全面，見解精到。
林中斌 2019.5.19

全文聯結：https://udn.com/news/story/11321/3821265

美中貿易戰終於開打。目前任何人都難預測未來走向，但了解雙方背後的動因及侷限，或許有助釐清情勢。

作為發動者美國，動因最少有四項。第一當然是川普總統本人。四十三歲的他在一九九○年生平第一次政治專訪時就對「花花公子」雜誌讀者強調，「美國老被別國當成笑柄」，「一定要對外國硬起來」，「要把進口的每一輛賓士車、所有日本產品課上重稅」。到了二○一六年，高關稅匡正貿易逆差，更貫穿他整個選戰主軸。此外，「最大施壓」及「懸崖邊緣」也一直是他經商與從政時的典型談判風格。

第二，川普與他的鷹派策士都對現行國際秩序深感不滿，認為美國吃了大虧，而別的國家「搭便車」占太多便宜。所以除了廢除好幾個多邊協議（如氣候變遷、跨太平洋夥伴關係等），也已經或即將與加、墨、歐盟、日、韓等盟國重談貿易協定。中國大陸只是其中一齣大戲。

第三，目前美國兩黨及行政與國會非常難得地一致認為，中國大陸國力已經上升到必須出手壓抑，以免危及美國領導地位地步。部分人還不滿中共政治制度隨著經濟發展而更趨集權。少數人甚至拉高到「種族」或「文明」挑戰的層級。華府此共識一定讓談判代表在面對北京時底氣十足。

第四，在美國國內，關稅戰的正當性最夠，而且成本最低。大陸每年出口美國五千多億美元，而進口只有一千多億。所以美國打關稅戰，子彈充足又不太怕報復。藉關稅不但可以直攻中共的「製造二○二五」產業，還可以打開大陸服務業的龐大市場，何樂而不為？反之，如改打「操縱人民幣」，連許多政學界人士都不認可。如打「網路偷竊」，證據也嫌不足。所以除非大陸的報復重創美國經濟或波及其他利益，關稅戰仍可能持續。

但美國面臨的侷限也不少。首先，華府菁英圈子固然反中，但走出華府，一般人感受的還是「你中有我，我中有你」；而貿易戰必然兩敗俱傷。川普開打後的最新民調就顯示，四十五趴美國人認為美中貿易戰「長期會傷害美國經濟」，超過認為會「幫助美國經濟」的卅四趴。他或許更會警惕，四十二趴美國民眾認為民主黨拜登參議員較會處理對中關係，超過他自己的卅八趴。

第二，華府反中菁英迄今只有招式（如貿易戰），卻沒有章法。這一方面因為華府政學媒界一直忙於圍繞著川普進行激烈內鬥，一方面涉外菁英的士氣又普遍低落。川普上任後把國務院預算砍掉三分之一，中高階層官員大量辭職且常遇缺不補，連新進外交官都銳減二分之一。他的「美國優先」更導致盟友離心離德。其他國家如作壁上觀，美國單打獨鬥的效果自會打折。

更糟的是，美國多個智庫及專文已清楚表示，面對中共台海軍力，美國已經喪失過去每一項優勢。過去可以橫行無阻的航空母艦，現在不敢進入台灣周圍最少一千海里的海域。過去共軍找不到、瞄不準、穿不透（防禦體系）、或打不到美國航母，現在都可做到。過去不必擔心的衛星、通訊、後勤等，現在全都不安全。

換句話說，美國對中國大陸打關稅戰確實「心」「力」俱足。但要全面戰略對抗，或組建反中聯盟，或馳援「台灣民族主義」，恐怕都力有未逮。

或許正因看到美國的侷限，被動防守的北京迄今反應是硬中有軟。硬的是，不允許美國藉貿易談判改變大陸的政經體制；針對新增的高關稅宣布報復性的高關稅；針對南海及台灣則寸步不讓；針對川普自毀外交長城，則加緊外交出擊。

軟的是，只就事論事，不批評川普本人，習近平本人不出面講話；不承認進入美國所說的「競爭」階段，仍號稱堅持過去四十年的「交往」政策；關稅開徵日期壓到六月一日，以保留轉圜餘地。

綜上以觀，美國以攻為守，大陸以守為攻。台灣除了妥善因應高關稅的間接衝擊，也要迎接兩強打打談談的持久戰，尤其不應一廂情願地以為美國會因貿易戰而力挺「台灣民族主義」。（作者為台北論壇董事長、國安會前秘書長）

民主是最好的制度嗎？

accessed April 8, 2019

●2014年3月18日, 林中斌，"民主病了!" 聯合報 頁A15
●2014年12月4日,布萊爾(前英國首相)Tony Blair, "民主已死？Is Democracy Dead?" 紐約時報 New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/…/…/tony-blair-is-democracy-dead.html)
●2015年朝日新聞出版日文《民主是最好的制度嗎？》
●2018年6月台灣暖暖書屋文化事業股份有限公司出版郭書妤翻譯《民主是最好的制度嗎？》

"While China rose, a distracted America atrophied."

 Accessed Dec 24 , 2018

"俄羅斯宣布2019年起大學聯考要考中文"

https://chinaqna.com/a/49601?fbclid=IwAR3VTCVnkuJuunwDi9v8rgFtA2ngBZsUO2EBR-LikeWWwkNtSGWiYF_ieCQ

Accessed Dec 03 , 2018

-- 聽說普丁決定與中國長期合作。因為其內部研究結論是對抗不符合俄羅斯長遠的利益。

-- 貝加爾湖淡水前幾年已公佈提供給中國。可灌溉黃土高原，減輕穀類種植缺水的問題。

-- 中俄在低調商討莫斯科歸還滿清被帝俄所佔領的領土。因此唐努烏梁海是否為中國領土目前高度敏感。中國法院回答人民:此屬國家機密無法回答。

敬請賜正

林中斌 2018.12.2

“Electronic Manufacturing: The Great Chain of China”

Economist October 13,2018 pp61&62

accessed October 29, 2018

‧世界上一半手機在中國生產，中國工廠安裝世界上2/5的半導體，頻果最大的的200家供應商之中，357家在中國，只有63家在美國 (Of the production facilities operated by Apple’s top 200 suppliers, 357 are in China. Just 63 are in America.)。

‧美國增加入口關稅使許多公司移回美國生產。但效果有限。因為美國缺乏低薪作重複動作的人力。

‧美國對中國電子產品加進口關稅使許多外國電子公司移出中國。但外流有限因為中國這方面強項太：越南基本建設比不上中國；印度官僚制度缺乏效率使得建造工廠和僱用幾千人太麻煩。

林中斌 試摘譯 2018.10.29

"Trump Considers Firing Air Force Chief Over Space Force Pushback"/

"What are your thoughts on US president Donald Trump's proposed Space Force"

Foreign Policy October 04, 2018

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/04/trump-considers-ousting-air-force-head-over-space-force-pushback/

accessed October 22, 2018

●對川普總統建立太空軍之政策，美國國會兩黨議員反映由質疑到觀望。

●共和黨Neb.參議員Deb Fisher："我想從國防部直接聽到他們如何建立太空軍的計畫，以及從哪裡找得到太空部的人員。"（尚未得到）

●共和黨Texax參議員John Cornyn："傳統上，太空任務是空軍負責。至今我尚未聽到令我信服的說法解釋為何我們要成立另一軍種。"

2018.08.27 Defcense News 

"What are your thoughts on US president Donald Trump's proposed Space Force"

林中斌 試摘譯 敬請賜教 2018.10.22