舒畅：对著名经济学家Jeffrey Sachs批评川普关税战的个人看法

舒畅：Jeffrey Sachs错了吗？中美贸易战的另一种解读

最近在YouTube上看到一场由著名经济学家Jeffrey D. Sachs主讲的演讲，他再度猛烈批评川普时期发动的对华关税战，称这是一种“两败俱伤”的错误政策。他认为，对中国加征关税只会抬高美国国内商品价格，伤害消费者利益，同时也不利于全球经济的稳定。他更进一步表示，这种政策最终将引发市场恐慌、全球供应链破裂，甚至会对美国股市和就业造成严重打击。

这些观点当然出自一位在国际经济政策领域极具影响力的学者之口，听起来也颇具逻辑。但我作为一位普通的观察者，却觉得现实发展似乎并不完全支持他的结论。至少到目前为止，我们并未看到他所预言的经济恶果出现。

最显著的一个事实是：美国的股市并没有“暴跌”，反而节节上涨。在2024年末到2025年中期，美股几大指数屡创新高，尤其是科技股板块表现强劲。这是否意味着他的预测过于悲观？当然，经济政策的影响有时会滞后，但我们也不能无视眼前的现象。

再说中美贸易的实际结构。从过去几十年的贸易数据来看，中国长期保持对美巨额顺差，即中国出口到美国的产品远超美国出口到中国的数量和价值。换句话说，美国在这场贸易结构中原本就是“吃亏”的一方。Sachs所谓“双方受伤”，如果用这个现象来对照，似乎并不完全成立。

**一个国家大量倾销低价商品到另一个国家市场，挤压本地制造业和就业，这真的公平吗？**在这种背景下，川普政府的做法，即通过加征关税进行贸易平衡的调整，其实也未必全然错误。至少从战略目标来看，是希望刺激美国本土制造业复苏、削弱对中国的依赖，从国家利益角度并非无理取闹。

我也注意到，Sachs没有对中国的政治与经济行为做出多少批评。他始终强调“全球合作”“平等互利”，但现实中我们看到的，却是一个越来越强势、越来越具有扩张性的中国。中国的经济崛起固然令人钦佩，但随之而来的，是在东南亚地区施加的压力、对台湾的军事威胁、南海的强硬态度，还有对全球技术与产业链的重新布局。这些都不能简单地归结为“和平发展”。

**经济从来不是孤立的系统，它背后承载的是地缘政治、国家安全与制度竞争。**在这种大背景下，单纯地从关税引发价格上升就断言这是“错误政策”，未免太片面了。Sachs作为学者，他的专业能力无疑令人敬佩，但在这个复杂多变的世界中，仅靠理论而脱离现实，是否也会导致判断失准？

我不是经济学家，我只是从日常的新闻、数据和国际局势中，观察出另一种逻辑。如果中国在没有任何制衡的情况下继续输出产能、挤压他国经济空间，而世界其他国家却不作出应对，那才是“对未来不负责任”的表现。

(以下是英文版)

Shuchang: Was Jeffrey Sachs Wrong? A Different View on the U.S.-China Trade War

Recently, I came across a speech on YouTube by renowned economist Jeffrey D. Sachs, in which he once again harshly criticized former President Trump's tariffs on Chinese imports. According to Sachs, the trade war is a lose–lose strategy that hurts both sides: American consumers pay higher prices, while the global economy suffers from uncertainty and disruption. He even predicted that such policies would lead to stock market crashes and job losses in the U.S.

These views certainly sound logical, especially coming from someone with Sachs’ international prestige. But as an ordinary observer, I can’t help but feel that reality doesn’t fully support his conclusions—at least not yet.

Most notably, the U.S. stock market hasn’t crashed. It’s been rising steadily, even reaching new highs throughout 2024 and 2025, especially in the tech sector. If Sachs' prediction of economic disaster were correct, we should have seen more concrete warning signs by now. While economic consequences can take time to emerge, the immediate outlook seems more resilient than he anticipated.

Furthermore, when we look at the structure of U.S.–China trade, it’s clear that China has long benefited from a significant surplus. China exports vast amounts of low-cost goods to the U.S., while American products face higher barriers entering China. In this context, the idea that both sides are equally hurt by tariffs seems questionable. In fact, one could argue that tariffs were a necessary correction to a fundamentally imbalanced relationship.

If one country floods another with cheap products and undermines local industries and jobs, is that fair trade? Trump’s policy may have been controversial, but the strategic intention—to revive U.S. manufacturing and reduce dependency on China—was not without merit.

What’s more troubling is Sachs’ lack of critique toward China's own behavior. He speaks passionately about global cooperation and mutual benefit, but appears silent on China’s increasingly assertive posture in Asia, its pressure on Taiwan, militarization in the South China Sea, and broader efforts to reshape global supply chains in its favor.

Let’s not forget: economics is never isolated from geopolitics, national security, and systemic competition. To claim tariffs are simply “wrong” because they raise prices misses the broader strategic picture. Sachs is no doubt a brilliant economist, but even great minds can misjudge reality when theory outpaces real-world dynamics.

I’m not an economist, just an engaged observer. But from what I see, unchecked Chinese economic expansion, combined with its political ambitions, poses a serious challenge to global peace and fairness. If the U.S. fails to respond, the cost could be far greater than a few percentage points in consumer prices.