普朗特、英國退歐以及協商的藝術

唐納德·特朗普最著名的觀點就是建造一堵牆，然後讓墨西哥人來買單。墨西哥為什麼會同意這樣的要求？特朗普回答道，只要在談判中占有絕對優勢就能做到。但為什麼這個想法沒有實現？用特普朗的話來說：“我們的領導人太蠢了，我們的政客太笨了”，所以實現不了。

英國現在的問題很嚴重，誰都贏不了。英國在貿易上贏不了中國。英國也贏不了日本，因為有成百萬的日本車正在進入英國。英國也贏不了墨西哥，無論是邊境問題還是貿易方面。

這些問題暫且抛開不提，貿易逆差並不意味著這個國家是虧損的，交易量大就意味著金融活動多、消費者買到的商品更便宜等等。一個國家，若是所有的商品都自給自足，那它一定不夠繁榮。

按照特朗普的說法，如果美國的態度足夠強勢，那它便能為所欲為了。然而，如果特朗普知道了中國人也有很強的民族自豪感，知道了中國人對無禮行為的反應，或者說報復性的關稅，他一定會大吃一驚的。（中國雖然不是一個民主國家，但是中國領導人對公衆輿論十分敏感。）民族主義領導人都喜歡這類的東西。俄羅斯總統普京的是位強硬的領導人，一些人認為其外交政策的影響力足以證明他是成功的。但在經濟問題上，他的行為卻導致了一系列制裁，也使得經濟縮水、通脹增加。委內瑞拉攻擊外國投資者的行為以及蔑視美國的舉動也引發了類似的結果。

再來看英國的歐盟公投，支援英國退歐的競選者認為，歐盟甚至全世界都會急著同英國簽署自由貿易協定，任何相反的言論都是危言聳聽。如果歐盟給英國施加額外條件，只會證明他們的天真，還給英國退出歐盟提供了更充分的理由。

是的，其他的歐盟國家都願意同英國開展貿易往來，但他們也有興趣維護歐盟規則，阻止其他國家離開。他們需要說服自己的選民，因為很多選民都不希望英國進行私下交易。正是由於這些原因，英國首相卡梅倫的歐盟改革方案皆以失敗告終，沒有人能說服其他國家放棄對自己有利的條件。

貿易協定簽署之難也可以用同樣的道理來解釋，美國、歐洲、亞洲同樣適用。英國若想獲得產品和服務的貿易自由，就要同意勞動力自由遷徙以及歐盟攤派的預算，這些都是退歐人士難以接受的。除此之外，其他的猜測都是毫無根據的。兩國之間若想達成協議，雙方都要妥協，任何一方都不是隨心所欲的。政客們以為假裝強硬就能獲取更大的優勢，殊不知，如果世界各國都以強硬的態度來威脅對方，那麼沖突會增加，貿易會減少，不確定性也會增多。這樣一來，情況只會越變越糟。 

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. 

本文翻譯由兄弟財經提供

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