美国人发明了一个英语新词Chimerica---中美国 东方文化西方语

[hepingdao]

拿英语中的单词Chinese（中文）、China（中国）和其他的语言、国名拼起来就可以形成新词，比如Chinglish就是Chinese与 English的合成词，表示“中式英文”。美国商业周刊撰稿人皮特•恩加迪奥（Pete Engardio）对中国和印度的崛起深信不疑，将China和India合成创造了Chindia一词，不妨翻译为“中印度”。我的印度同事们对这个词非常欣赏，因为印度终于和中国平起平坐，而不是把印度与巴基斯坦相提并论，动辄就什么“印巴”、“印巴”的。不过，印度朋友们不要高兴得太早，随着印度实力的升级，中国的地位也在提高，印度还未必够得着。经济史学家尼尔•弗格森（Niall Ferguson）就把China和America合并出Chimerica这个英语新词，即“中美国”。

到底什么是“中美国”呢？在弗格森的定义中，这个概念主要是指最大消费国（美国）和最大储蓄国（中国）构成的利益共同体，以及这个利益共同体对全世界经济的影响。但是我想我们还可以从另一个角度来观察，联系30年来中国改革开放思想解放的进程和美国应对金融海啸的政策选择来说明到底什么是“中美国”。

先看中国。在中国改革之初面临的一个敏感的核心问题就是如何看待市场经济。在当年中国人的固有观念中，“市场经济”是“资本主义”的同义词，所以在相当长的一段时间内，包括改革开放以后的若干年内，“市场经济”充其量是社会主义计划经济的一种“有益的补充”。邓小平在1987年2月6日的一次谈话中说：“ 为什么一谈市场就说是资本主义，只有计划才是社会主义呢？计划和市场都是方法嘛！”（《邓小平文选》第三卷203页）可惜，邓公的这次谈话并没有为国人所知，也不为主流学者们所接受。1990年12月24日邓小平再次指出：“资本主义和社会主义的区分不在于计划还是市场这样的问题。社会主义有市场经济，资本主义也有计划控制。”（《邓小平文选》第三卷364页）此后一再强调，“不要以为一说计划经济就是社会主义，一说市场经济就是资本主义，不是那么回事，两者都是手段，市场也可以为社会主义服务。”直到这时，中国人终于醒过梦来：原来市场就是个手段！于是中国人爽快地承认自己也是市场经济，由于这个问题而僵持多年的“入世”谈判也迎刃而解，中国经济也在十几年中连续上了几个台阶，GDP总值已经超过了西方G8集团中的6个。

再说说美国。美国人对待市场经济的虔诚，就像当年中国人相信计划经济一样。记得里根总统说过：The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help（世界上最恐怖的英语句子就是：我是政府官员，我帮你们来了）。在中国人遇事“找市长”的时候，美国人只知道“找市场”，用“看不见的手”来实现资源的最优配置。然而，令美国人始料未及的是，就是这只“看不见的手”驱动了欲望的杠杆，竟然在美国搅起了经济大地震，并引发了全球范围内的金融海啸。现在轮到美国朋友们反思曾经让中国人困惑的计划与市场的问题了。我在不久前的一篇博文中引用过纽约时报专栏作家托马斯•弗里德曼（Thomas Friedman）的话，这位以《世界是平的》（The World is Flat）而著名的作家不再乐观地认为世界是平的，因为这个世界实际上是“又热、又平、又挤”（hot, flat and crowded）。弗里德曼甚至突发奇想，说他幻想美国能变成中国，just one day, one little day（就一天，短短一天），在这一天美国要干什么呢？弗里德曼说有了这样一天美国的政令就可以走出白宫，在全国颁布和实施所有必要和有效的监管法规，让市场走上正轨。然后，从第二天起，美国式的自由经济就可以重振旗鼓再铸新的辉煌了。今年诺贝尔经济学奖的获得者、也是纽约时报专栏作家的保罗•克鲁格曼（Paul Krugman）的一篇文章题目是：Let’s Get Fiscal，意指以政府财政支出的手段挽救经济，他认为挽救经济仅靠银行的降息无济于事，联邦政府要有大的作为：“目前是从事某些重大基础建设的良机，推动建设计划吧！”

这样看来，在中国人接受了市场经济不过是经济成长的一种手段之后的若干年后，美国人也终于认识到政府计划也是经济成长的一种手段，在崇尚平等的社会主义体制和追求效益的资本主义体制之间，其实是“把一块泥，捻一个你，塑一个我，将咱两个一齐打破，用水调和，再捏一个你，再塑一个我，我泥中有你，你泥中有我 ”的关系。这就是我所理解的英语新词Chimerica（中美国）的含义。不过，美国人也担心这个“中美国”的利益共同体不够结实，发明了“中美国”这个词的经济史学家尼尔•弗格森昨天在《华盛顿邮报》发表了Team 'Chimerica'的文章，提醒准总统奥巴马：不要等到明年四月的G20峰会才行动，就职后第二天便赶快召开“中美国”的“G2峰会”吧！否则，中国便会在北京召开新的“G1峰会”了！

Team 'Chimerica'

By Niall Ferguson
Monday, November 17, 2008; Page A19

Future historians, I suspect, will look back on Saturday's anticlimactic G-20 gathering in Washington less as Bretton Woods 2.0 and more as a rerun of the London Economic Conference of 1933. Back then, representatives of 66 nations completely failed to agree on a concerted international response to the Great Depression. The fault lay mainly with the newly elected U.S. president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who vetoed European proposals for currency stabilization.

This time around, it wasn't the newly elected Democrat but the outgoing Republican who wielded the veto. Even before his counterparts reached Washington, President Bush made it clear that recent events had done nothing to diminish his faith in free markets and minimalist regulation. Over the weekend, it was the United States that resisted European calls for a new international regulatory body, opposed significant redefinition of the International Monetary Fund's role and showed no interest in the idea of a global stimulus package.

A real opportunity has been missed.
Just as happened in the 1930s, what began as an American banking panic has now escalated into a global economic crisis. And just as happened in the 1930s, a lack of international coordination has the potential to turn a recession into a deep and protracted depression.

The problem that seems scarcely to have been discussed over the weekend is that each national government is currently responding to the crisis with its own monetary and fiscal measures. Some central banks have already slashed official rates to close to zero. Some treasuries have already launched multibillion-dollar bailouts and stimulus packages. The devil lies in the different timing and magnitudes of these measures. The absence of coordination makes it almost inevitable that we will see rising volatility in global foreign exchange and bond markets, as investors react to each fresh national initiative. The results could be nearly as disruptive as the protectionist measures adopted by national governments during the Depression. Now, as then, a policy of "every man for himself" would be lethal.

At the heart of this crisis is the huge imbalance between the United States, with its current account deficit in excess of 1 percent of world gross domestic product, and the surplus countries that finance it: the oil exporters, Japan and emerging Asia. Of these, the relationship between China and America has become the crucial one. More than anything else, it has been China's strategy of dollar reserve accumulation that has financed America's debt habit. Chinese savings were a key reason U.S. long-term interest rates stayed low and the borrowing binge kept going. Now that the age of leverage is over, "Chimerica" -- the partnership between the big saver and the big spender -- is key.

In essence, we need the Chinese to be supportive of U.S. monetary easing and fiscal stimulus by doing more of the same themselves. There needs to be agreement on a gradual reduction of the Chimerican imbalance via increased U.S. exports and increased Chinese imports. The alternative -- a sudden reduction of the imbalance via lower U.S. imports and lower Chinese exports -- would be horrible.

There also needs to be an agreement to avoid a rout in the dollar market and the bond market, which is what will happen if the Chinese stop buying U.S. government bonds, the amount of which is now set to increase massively.

The alternative to such a Chimerican deal is for the Chinese to turn inward, devoting their energies to "market socialism in one country," increasing the domestic consumption of Chinese products and turning away from trade as the engine of growth.

Memo to President-elect Barack Obama: Don't wait until April for the next G-20 summit. Call a meeting of the Chimerican G-2 for the day after your inaugural. Don't wait for China to call its own meeting of a new "G-1" in Beijing.

Niall Ferguson, a professor of history at Harvard University, is the author most recently of "The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World."
_________________
为网友服务: 端茶倒水勤打扫!