订阅

多平台阅读

微信订阅

杂志

申请纸刊赠阅

订阅每日电邮

移动应用

商业

特朗普总说美国在节节败退,但华为的高管不这样看

Alan Murray 2016年08月15日

开放和多元化的政策给美国带来了科技上的领先,但也使得不少美国人被全球化甩在了身后。


唐纳德·特朗普昨天经济演说的一大特点是他说的大部分内容是米特·罗姆尼、保罗•莱恩、甚至后里根时代的任何一位共和党总统候选人早就说过的。降低税率、取消“遗产税”、减少干预、为家庭提供税收减免,无视赤字影响,这些一直以来都是共和党政策的基本点。大家可以认为,造成这种情况的是特朗普的新任经济顾问拉里·库德罗和史蒂芬·摩尔。40年来,两人一直在为共和党人士的供应侧经济演说设计论点。

不过,特朗普的不同之处在于他还加上了“美国为先”的沙文主义,或者说明确拒绝自二战以来持续推动世界经济增长的全球化。这是他对劳工阶层发出的危险诱惑,他说自己将“让美国再次变得伟大”,途径是限制移民以及和中国、墨西哥等国重新商讨贸易条约,并在这个过程中保护美国人的就业机会。昨天特朗普说:“从我们放弃‘美国为先’的政策开始,我们就一直在重建其他国家,而不是我们的祖国。”

碰巧,昨天我和华为发言人谭乔伊一起吃了晚饭。可以说,华为是最全球化的中国企业。谭乔伊向我展示了华为最新的“全球竞争力指数”。这个指数通过40项指标来衡量各个国家的科技能力,而科技能力可以说是未来经济增长的关键。其中居于首位的是哪个国家呢?美国。中国则远远落后,排名第23;墨西哥当然更是如此,排在第32位。

华为认为美国在全球经济争夺中处于上风,特朗普及其追随者则认为我们在节节败退,原因何在?这是2016年大选中的一条悖论。包括我在内,许多人都认为相对开放的贸易和移民政策正是美国活力的根源所在,从而让美国在最关键的科技竞赛中领先于其他国家。然而,对那些觉得自己被全球化远远抛在身后的人来说,特朗普却很有吸引力,希拉里也越发如此。

正是出于这个原因,尽管特朗普发表了供给侧经济演讲,但我仍要说,两位候选人都没有促进商业发展。在今天最成功的企业战略中,全球化仍是重中之重。美国政界这拨人却一直对全球化投反对票。无论谁赢得大选,这对企业来说都是坏消息。

顺便说一下,没有提词器的特朗普要有趣多了。我想他不一定会养成用提词器的习惯。(财富中文网)

译者:Charlie

校对:詹妮

What was striking about Donald Trump’s economic speech yesterday was that most of it could have been given by Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, or indeed any other GOP candidate of the post-Reagan era. Cut tax rates, eliminate the “death tax,” reduce regulation, create tax breaks for families, and ignore the impact on the deficit – these are long-time staples of Republican politics. You can credit that to Trump’s new economic advisers Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore, who have been crafting supply-side economic talking points for GOP politicians for four decades.

But what makes Trumponomics different is his addition of “America first” jingoism – the explicit rejection of the globalization that has powered economic growth since World War II. This is his siren call to the working class: he will “make America great again” by restricting immigration and renegotiating trade deals with China, Mexico, and others – protecting U.S. jobs in the process. “When we abandoned the policy of America First,” he said yesterday, “we started rebuilding other countries instead of our own.”

By coincidence, I had dinner last night with Joy Tan, who runs communications for Huawei – arguably the most global of China’s large companies. She presented the company’s latest “global connectivity index” which rates countries’ tech prowess, arguably the key to future economic growth, based on 40 different indicators. Number one on the Huawei list? The United States, which ranked far ahead of China, at number 23, and certainly Mexico, at 32.

Why does Huawei think the U.S. is winning the global economic battle, while Trump and his followers think we are losing? That’s the paradox of Election 2016. Many – myself included – would argue that relatively open trade and immigration policies are at the very root of the dynamism that has allowed the U.S. to continue to lead the world in the all-important technology race. But Trump – and Clinton, to a growing extent – are appealing to those who feel globalization has left them in the dust.

Which is why, despite Trump’s new supply-side rhetoric, I continue to argue that neither candidate in this race is pushing the agenda of business. Globalization is still at the very center of today’s most successful corporate strategies. But it has been voted off the island of American politics. That’s bad news for business, regardless of who wins.

By the way, Trump is far more entertaining without a teleprompter. I doubt he will make using one a habit.

我来点评

  最新文章

最新文章:

500强情报中心

财富专栏