普朗特、英国退欧以及协商的艺术

唐纳德·特朗普最著名的观点就是建造一堵墙，然后让墨西哥人来买单。墨西哥为什么会同意这样的要求？特朗普回答道，只要在谈判中占有绝对优势就能做到。但为什么这个想法没有实现？用特普朗的话来说：“我们的领导人太蠢了，我们的政客太笨了”，所以实现不了。

英国现在的问题很严重，谁都赢不了。英国在贸易上赢不了中国。英国也赢不了日本，因为有成百万的日本车正在进入英国。英国也赢不了墨西哥，无论是边境问题还是贸易方面。

这些问题暂且抛开不提，贸易逆差并不意味着这个国家是亏损的，交易量大就意味着金融活动多、消费者买到的商品更便宜等等。一个国家，若是所有的商品都自给自足，那它一定不够繁荣。

按照特朗普的说法，如果美国的态度足够强势，那它便能为所欲为了。然而，如果特朗普知道了中国人也有很强的民族自豪感，知道了中国人对无礼行为的反应，或者说报复性的关税，他一定会大吃一惊的。（中国虽然不是一个民主国家，但是中国领导人对公众舆论十分敏感。）民族主义领导人都喜欢这类的东西。俄罗斯总统普京的是位强硬的领导人，一些人认为其外交政策的影响力足以证明他是成功的。但在经济问题上，他的行为却导致了一系列制裁，也使得经济缩水、通胀增加。委内瑞拉攻击外国投资者的行为以及蔑视美国的举动也引发了类似的结果。

再来看英国的欧盟公投，支持英国退欧的竞选者认为，欧盟甚至全世界都会急着同英国签署自由贸易协定，任何相反的言论都是危言耸听。如果欧盟给英国施加额外条件，只会证明他们的天真，还给英国退出欧盟提供了更充分的理由。

是的，其他的欧盟国家都愿意同英国开展贸易往来，但他们也有兴趣维护欧盟规则，阻止其他国家离开。他们需要说服自己的选民，因为很多选民都不希望英国进行私下交易。正是由于这些原因，英国首相卡梅伦的欧盟改革方案皆以失败告终，没有人能说服其他国家放弃对自己有利的条件。

贸易协定签署之难也可以用同样的道理来解释，美国、欧洲、亚洲同样适用。英国若想获得产品和服务的贸易自由，就要同意劳动力自由迁徙以及欧盟摊派的预算，这些都是退欧人士难以接受的。除此之外，其他的猜测都是毫无根据的。两国之间若想达成协议，双方都要妥协，任何一方都不是随心所欲的。政客们以为假装强硬就能获取更大的优势，殊不知，如果世界各国都以强硬的态度来威胁对方，那么冲突会增加，贸易会减少，不确定性也会增多。这样一来，情况只会越变越糟。 

Trump, Brexit and the art of the deal 

BUILD a wall and get the Mexicans to pay for it—that is Donald Trump's most famous promise. Why would Mexico agree to such an arrangement? All that is needed, he implies, is for a firm hand to be taken in the negotiations. Why hasn't it been so far? One reason is that, in his words, "Our leaders are stupid. Our politicians are stupid" and as a result.

Our country is in serious trouble. We don't win anymore. We don't beat China in trade. We don't beat Japan, with their millions and millions of cars coming into this country, in trade. We can't beat Mexico, at the border or in trade.

Leave aside for the moment, the obvious point that a trade deficit doesn't mean the country is "losing"; more trade means more economic activity, cheaper goods for consumers and so on. A world in which each country tried to produce all the goods it needed within its borders would be a much less prosperous one. 

The assumption is that, if only America talked tougher, it would get what it wanted. But Mr Trump might be surprised to learn that the Chinese have a degree of national pride too and that their reaction to insults or tariffs would be to retaliate—their citizens would demand it. (China may not be a democracy but its leaders are sensitive to public opinion.) Nationalist leaders are fond of this kind of stuff. Vladimir Putin sells himself as a strong leader to his people, and some might see his foreign policy clout as proof of his success. In economic terms, however, his actions have led to widespread sanctions, a shrinking economy and higher inflation. Venezuela's attacks on foreign investors and nose-thumbing at America have had a similar result.

When it comes to the EU referendum in Britain, Brexit campaigners assert that the EU and the world will be only too keen to do a free trade deal with the UK. Any argument to the contrary is scaremongering. Furthermore, if they try to impose conditions on Britain, that is evidence of how nasty they are and an even greater reason to leave.

Yes, other countries in the EU have an interest in trading with Britain. But they also have an interest in maintaining their rules to discourage other countries from leaving. They need to appeal to their own voters, many of whom will not want Britain to get a sweetheart deal. It is precisely for these reasons that David Cameron failed to get fundamental treaty change in his negotiations with the EU; no British leader could persuade other countries to act against their own self-interest.

The same factors explain why it takes such a long time to get any trade deal passed, whether between the United States and Europe or with Asia. To get free trade on goods and services, Britain will have to agree to things—free labour movement, contributions to the EU Budget—that Brexit voters don't like. To pretend otherwise is whistling in the dark. Any deal between countries has to involve compromise, which means that no one country can get everything it wants. It is easy for politicians to pretend that tough talk of threats will change this picture. But a world in which countries are pushed by their voters into talking tough and making threats is a world in which there is more conflict, less trade and more uncertainty. It is a world in which everyone is worse off. 

本文翻译由兄弟财经提供

文章来源：http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2016/03/politics-and-economics