浙商网编者按：2010年10月3日，温家宝第二次接受CNN闻名主持人扎卡里亚(Fareed Zakaria)的采访。在此之前，也即9月尾时，温家宝总理曾接受过扎卡里亚的专访。这次采访中，无论是Fareed Zakaria的题目照旧温总理的回答都让人印象深刻。

　　The Wish and Will of the People Are Not Stoppable，这是扎卡里亚采访温家宝之后发表的采访手记标题，取自温家宝在回答关于政治改革一问时所提到的一句话，人民和人民的力量决定国家的历史和将来，人们的意愿和意志是无法抗拒的。

　　10月7日，扎卡里亚同时发表了题为《中对美挑衅来自其人民而非货币》(The Real Challenge from China: Its People, Not Its Currency)的文章，指出美国所面对的来自中国的挑衅，不是人民币汇率，而是受过高等教育的中国人。美国众议院上月加大对对中国施压，要求加快人民币升值。在这次访问中，扎卡里亚也谈到了中国的人民币的汇率题目。温家宝指斥部分美国国会议员将中美关系，分外是中美贸易不平衡的题目政治化。在《中对美挑衅来自其人民而非货币》一文中，扎卡里亚也以美国应当自我反省的态度指出我们应当客观看待人民币汇率题目。

　　Fareed Zakaria原文译文如下：

　　我附和两党合作的理念，哪怕只是看到民主党和共和党的形象被放在一路，都会露出微笑。我对本身说：“终于，美国的当局开始运转了。”然而随后我看到他们现实上达成的同等，于是开始怀念起原先的瘫痪来。

　　9月29日，众议院获得民主党和共和党的压服性支撑通过了一项法案。该法案将通过进步中国产品的关税来责罚中国保持货币低估的做法。好像所有人都认为法案的通过恰逢其时，其实不然。该法案往好了说是偶然义的作秀，往坏了说则是伤害的煽动，并不会如其所愿地解决题目。更令人担忧的是，此举反映了美国日益滋生的排华情绪，这种情绪出于对中国下一阶段发展所带来挑衅的误解。

　　大概有人会说，中国保持人民币低估可以帮助它的制造商将玩具、活动衫和电子产品以低价在海外市场贩卖，尤其是美国和欧洲市场。但是中国之所以能够成为世界工厂，这顶多算是可能因素之一。(其他因素包括工资低、基础设施完美、对企业友爱，以及驯服的工会和用功的工人。)单是让人民币升值并不具备改变这统统的魔力。

　　中国企业很多产品的生产成本比美国企业要低四分之一。让这些产品的生产成本进步20%并不能让美国工厂具备竞争力(由于我们可以合理地假定，假如没有当局干预，中国货币对美元将会升值20%左右)。最可能出现的效果是，人民币升值将帮助到越南、印度和孟加拉等其他低工资国家，这些国家生产的产品与中国多有重合。因此沃尔玛仍将以尽可能的低价进货，只不过到时候更多的商品来自越南和孟加拉而已。况且，这些国家与其他浩繁亚洲国家一样，同样让本身的货币保持低估状况。正如经合组织发展中间研究部主任赫尔穆特-赖森(Helmut Reisen)最近在一篇评论中所言：“世界上并不止两种货币。”

　　我们曾经目睹过这一幕。从2005年7月到2008年7月，在美国当局的施压之下，北京许可它的货币对美元升值21%。然而尽管人民币大幅升值，中国对美国的出口却在继承猛增。当然，全球陷入衰退之后，中国的出口也有所放缓，不过降幅并没有那些此前没有令其货币升值的国家那么大。因此即便产品价格略有上升，中国的体现也好于其他出口国。

　　把目光投向别处和曩昔，我们可以得出同样的结论。1985年，美国通过《广场协议》(Plaza Accord)逼迫日元升值。但随后日元50%的大幅升值并未让美国产品的竞争力进步多少。耶鲁大学教授史蒂芬-罗奇(Stephen Roach)指出，2002年至今，美元对我们所有贸易伙伴的货币汇率已经贬值23%，然而美国出口并未因此繁荣起来。美国从全球90个国家的进口高于出口。难道说这些国家都在操纵汇率吗？抑或更有可能是我们整个国家强调消耗甚于投资和制造的效果？

　　将来的新中国

　　我们所面临来自中国的真正挑衅并不在于它赓续向我们输出廉价商品，而是恰恰相反：中国正在沿着价值链上行，这在将来可能构成对美国经济最大的新竞争。

　　曩昔30年的大部分时间里，中国将重要精力放在建设有形的基础设施上面。它当时尚无对人力进行投资的迫切必要，整个国家的重要目标是生产低劳动力成本、低利润率的产品。只要中国的工人成本低廉、工作用功，这就已经充足。然而中国还必要当代化的工厂、世界级的铁路、规模伟大的港口和高效的机场。所有这些都以人类历史上前所未有的速度和规模建成了。

　　如今中国盼望进入高品质产品和服务领域。这意味着中国下一阶段的经济发展必要以曩昔用于公路建设的划一决心投资于人力资本，这一点中国当局官员曾做出明确一定。1998年以来，北京当局大力扩张教育，教育投入占GDP的比重上升了近两倍。此后十年间，中国大学的数量翻了一倍，大门生的数量则增长了4倍，从1997年的100万人增长到2007年的550万人。中国还评比出9大院校，将它们视为中国版的“常青藤盟校”(Ivy League)。就在欧洲大学和美国州立大学在大规模减赤举措的冲击下风雨飘摇之际，中国却刚好朝着相反的方向前进。耶鲁大黉舍长理查德-莱文(Richard Levin)今年曾在演讲中指出：“这一容量的扩张是史无前例的。中国在短短十年的时间里建成了全球最大的高等教育部门。事实上，中国世纪之交以来仅大学扩招的人数便超过美国悉数大学招生人数。”

　　教育的效益

　　这一史无前例的教育投资对中国——以及美国意味着什么呢？芝加哥大学诺贝尔奖经济学家罗伯特-福格尔(Robert Fogel)研究工人受教育程度对经济的影响。在美国，一个中学卒业的工人其产出是一个受过九年级教育工人的1.8倍，大学卒业生则是其3倍。中国正在急速扩充中学和大学卒业生的供给。尽管中国在服务领域仍远远落后于印度，缘故原由是印度门生在英语和科技方面素质更高，但中国这两方面都在奋起直追，中国企业也将涉足广阔服务市场。福格尔信赖，高技能工人数量的上升将在一代人的时间里极大地提拔中国的年增加率，让中国GDP到2040年达到令人瞠目的123万亿美元。(是的，据他估算，2040年中国将成为全球迄今为止最大的经济体。)

　　不论这一不可思议的数字是否精确——我觉得福格尔对中国增加过于乐观了——显而易见的一点是，中国正在进入各种产业和工作的价值链上端，这些领域直到最近尚被视为西方世界的特权。这就是真正的中国挑衅。它并非来自北京的汇率操纵或隐性补贴，而是战略性投资和辛劳工作。回应这一挑衅最佳和最有用的体例并非威胁和关税，而是进行结构性改革和庞大投资，让美国经济重新充满活力，让它的工人具有竞争力。这才是我们必要达成的两党共识。(诚之)

　　英文原文如下：

　　The Real Challenge from China: Its People, Not Its Currency

　　I love the idea of bipartisanship. Just the image of Democrats and Republicans coming together makes me smile. "Finally," I say to myself, "American government is working." But then I look at what they actually agree on, and I begin to pine for paralysis。

　　On Sept. 29, the House of Representatives passed a bill with overwhelming support from both Democrats and Republicans. It would punish China for keeping its currency undervalued by slapping tariffs on Chinese goods. Everyone seems to agree that it's about time. But it isn't. The bill is at best pointless posturing and at worst dangerous demagoguery. It won't solve the problem it seeks to fix. More worrying, it is part of growing anti-Chinese sentiment in the U.S. that misses the real challenge of China's next phase of development。

　　There's no doubt that China keeps the renminbi, its currency, undervalued so it can help its manufacturers sell their toys, sweaters and electronics cheaply in foreign markets, especially the U.S. and Europe. But this is only one of a series of factors that have made China the key manufacturing base of the world. (The others include low wages, superb infrastructure, hospitality to business, compliant unions and a hard-working labor force。) A simple appreciation of the renminbi will not magically change all this。

　　Chinese companies make many goods for less than 25% of what they would cost to manufacture in the U.S. Making those goods 20% more expensive (because it's reasonable to suppose that without government intervention, China's currency would increase in value against the dollar by about 20%) won't make American factories competitive. The most likely outcome is that it would help other low-wage economies like Vietnam, India and Bangladesh, which make many of the same goods as China. So Walmart would still stock goods at the lowest possible price, only more of them would come from Vietnam and Bangladesh. Moreover, these other countries, and many more in Asia, keep their currencies undervalued as well. As Helmut Reisen, head of research for the Development Center at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, wrote recently in an essay, "There are more than two currencies in the world."

　　We've seen this movie before. From July 2005 to July 2008, under pressure from the U.S. government, Beijing allowed its currency to rise against the dollar by 21%. Despite that hefty increase, China's exports to the U.S. continued to grow mightily. Of course, once the recession hit, China's exports slowed, but not as much as those of countries that had not let their currencies rise. So even with relatively pricier goods, China did better than other exporting nations。

　　Look elsewhere in the past and you come to the same conclusion. In 1985 the U.S. browbeat Japan at the Plaza Accord meetings into letting the yen rise. But the subsequent 50% increase did little to make American goods more competitive. Yale University's Stephen Roach points out that since 2002, the U.S. dollar has fallen in value by 23% against all our trading partners, and yet American exports are not booming. The U.S. imports more than it exports from 90 countries around the world. Is this because of currency manipulation by those countries, or is it more likely a result of fundamental choices we have made as a country to favor consumption over investment and manufacturing?

　　Coming: The New China

　　The real challenge we face from China is not that it will keep flooding us with cheap goods. It's actually the opposite: China is moving up the value chain, and this could constitute the most significant new competition to the U.S. economy in the future。

　　For much of the past three decades, China focused its efforts on building up its physical infrastructure. It didn't need to invest in its people; the country was aiming to produce mainly low-wage, low-margin goods. As long as its workers were cheap and worked hard, that was good enough. But the factories needed to be modern, the roads world-class, the ports vast and the airports efficient. All these were built with a speed and on a scale never before seen in human history。

　　Now China wants to get into higher-quality goods and services. That means the next phase of its economic development, clearly identified by government officials, requires it to invest in human capital with the same determination it used to build highways. Since 1998, Beijing has undertaken a massive expansion of education, nearly tripling the share of GDP devoted to it. In the decade since, the number of colleges in China has doubled and the number of students quintupled, going from 1 million in 1997 to 5.5 million in 2007. China has identified its nine top universities and singled them out as its version of the Ivy League. At a time when universities in Europe and state universities in the U.S. are crumbling from the impact of massive budget cuts, China is moving in exactly the opposite direction. In a speech earlier this year, Yale president Richard Levin pointed out, "This expansion in capacity is without precedent. China has built the largest higher-education sector in the world in merely a decade's time. In fact, the increase in China's postsecondary enrollment since the turn of the millennium exceeds the total postsecondary enrollment in the United States."

　　The Benefits of Brainpower

　　What does this unprecedented investment in education mean for China — and for the U.S.? Nobel Prize–winning economist Robert Fogel of the University of Chicago has estimated the economic impact of well-trained workers. In the U.S., a high school-educated worker is 1.8 times as productive, and a college graduate three times as productive, as someone with a ninth-grade education. China is massively expanding its supply of high school and college graduates. And though China is still lagging far behind India in the services sector, as its students learn better English and train in technology — both of which are happening — Chinese firms will enter this vast market as well. Fogel believes that the increase in high-skilled workers will substantially boost the country's annual growth rate for a generation, taking its GDP to an eye-popping $123 trillion by 2040. (Yes, by his estimates, in 2040 China would be the largest economy in the world by far。)

　　Whether or not that unimaginable number is correct — and my guess is that Fogel is much too optimistic about China's growth — what is apparent is that China is beginning a move up the value chain into industries and jobs that were until recently considered the prerogative of the Western world. This is the real China challenge. It is not being produced by Beijing's currency manipulation or hidden subsidies but by strategic investment and hard work. The best and most effective response to it is not threats and tariffs but deep, structural reforms and major new investments to make the U.S. economy dynamic and its workers competitive. That's where we need bipartisan agreement. Someone? Anyone?（浙商网）