評論
打印
Finance and economic: Free exchange: Better than a wall
財經：自由交換：美墨兩國的經濟隔閡比墻還厚
Understanding NAFTA, a disappointing but under-appreciated trade deal.
理解北美自由貿易協定——一個令人失望而又被低估的貿易協定。
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has long been a populist punchbag.
北美自由貿易協定一直以來，都被當作民粹主義者的攻擊目標。
In the American presidential campaign of 1992, Ross Perot—an oddball Texas billionaire and independent candidate—claimed to hear a “giant sucking sound” as Mexico prepared to hoover up American jobs.
在1992年美國總統大選時，羅斯佩羅——得克薩斯州一位性格古怪的億萬富翁，同時也是1992年美國總統大選的無黨派候選人——聲稱在墨西哥準備好掠奪美國的工作機會時，他仿佛聽到了 “巨大的吮吸聲”。
Since its enactment, right-wing conspiracy theorists have speculated that NAFTA is merely a first step towards “North American Union”, and the swapping of the almighty dollar for the “amero”.
自從北美自由貿易協定簽訂以來，右翼陰謀論者就在猜測NAFTA只是邁向“北美聯盟”的第一步，并且還將用阿梅羅(北美聯合貨幣)來代替無所不能的美元。
Donald Trump, who plans to renegotiate (or scrap) the deal, mined a rich vein of anti-NAFTA sentiment during his campaign, calling it “the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country”.
川普在競選活動中已然利用了民眾反北美聯盟的情緒，他宣稱這是“這個國家通過的最為糟糕的貿易協定”，而他現在正準備重新商定(或者說廢除)該貿易協定。
Even NAFTA’s cheerleaders (a more reticent bunch) might concede that the deal has fallen short of their expectations.
即使是NAFTA的支持者(一個更為緘默的人群)也不得不承認這份貿易協定未能達到他們的預期。
But it is in none of the signatories’ interests to rip it up or roll it back.
但沒有一個簽署國愿意去撕毀協定或者降低它的效力。
America and Canada opened talks on a free-trade area with Mexico in 1990, shortly after securing their own bilateral deal, and it was bringing in Mexico that proved so contentious in America.
在美國和加拿大在達成雙邊協定后不久，1990年，他們又與墨西哥就“自由貿易區”展開了會談，打算將墨西哥這個地理位置有爭議的美洲國家納入自由貿易區。
When NAFTA took effect in 1994, it eliminated tariffs on more than half of its members’ industrial products.
1994年北美自由貿易區(NAFTA)生效后，超過半數的成員國的工業制品都被免除關稅。
Over the next 15 years the deal eliminated tariffs on all industrial and agricultural goods.
在接下來的15年間，這份貿易協定免除了所有工業制品和農產品的關稅。
(The three economies would have further liberalized trade within the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Mr Trump scotched in one of his first acts as president. )
(這三個經濟體本可以在泛太平洋合作伙伴框架下進一步開放貿易，然而特朗普先生卻在他當上總統后立馬將其取締。)
Americans hoped lower trade barriers would foster growth in cross-border supply chains—a “Factory North America” —to rival those in Europe and Asia.
美國希望更低的貿易壁壘可以促進跨境供應鏈，即所謂的“北美工廠”的發展，以便與歐洲和亞洲的競爭者抗衡。
By moving parts of their supply chains to Mexico, where labor costs were low, American firms reckoned they could cut costs and improve their global competitiveness.
美國公司認為，通過把部分供應鏈轉向勞動力成本低廉的墨西哥，他們可以降低成本，提高全球競爭力。
American consumers might also benefit from cheaper goods.
美國的消費者也可以從較為低廉的商品中受惠。
For its part, Mexico sought improved access to America’s massive market, and sturdier positions for its firms within those North American supply chains.
就墨西哥自身而言，它找到了一種進入美國巨大市場的更好途徑，并鞏固了它在北美供應鏈中的地位。
Both countries hoped the deal would boost Mexico’s economy, raising living standards and stanching the flow of migrants northward.
美墨兩國都希望北美自由貿易協定可以振興墨西哥經濟，提高墨國人民生活水平，并在一定程度上遏制移民進入美國。
NAFTA was no disaster.
北美自由貿易協定(NAFTA)并不是什么壞事。
Two decades on, North America is more economically integrated.
20年以來，北美地區在經濟上更為交融。
Trade between America and Mexico has risen from 1.3% of combined GDP in 1994 to 2.5% in 2015.
美國和墨西哥兩國的貿易額從1994年僅占兩國總國內生產總值的1.3%上升至2015年的占比2.5%。
Mexico’s real income per person, on a purchasing-power- parity basis, has risen from about $10,000 in 1994 to $19,000.
在購買力平價的假設下，墨西哥人均實際收入從1994年的10000美元增長至19000美元。
The number of Mexicans migrating to America has fallen from about half a million a year to almost none.
移民至美國的墨西哥人口數也從每年大約50多萬人下降至幾乎為零。
And yet the deal has disappointed in many ways.
但是，這份貿易協定還是有些不盡如人意的地方。
Mexican incomes are no higher, as a share of those in America, than they were in 1994.
1994年以來，墨西哥人均收入所占美國人均收入的比例幾乎沒有增長。
(Chinese incomes rose from about 6% of those in America to 27% during that time. )
(形成對照的是，中國人均收入占美國人均收入之比從6%上升至27%。)
Estimates suggest that the deal left Americans as a whole a bit better off.
計劃是北美貿易協定會使美洲這一個整體經濟狀況越來越好。
But the gains have proved too small, and too unevenly distributed, to spare it continued criticism.
但是事實是，該協定產生的利收益太少，且利益分布太不均衡，以至于它一直以來都遭受批評和指責。
