贸易保护主义-中英文

贸易保护主义-中英文Trade Protectionism贸易保护主义1 The fact that trade protection hurts the economy of the country that imposes it is one of the oldest but still most startling insights economics has to offer. The idea dates back to the origin of economic science itself. Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, which gave birth to economics, already contained the argument for free trade: by specializing in production instead of producing everything, each nation would profit from free trade. In international economics it is the direct counterpart to the proposition that people within a economy will all be better off if all people specialize at what they do best instead of trying to sell sufficient.1.贸易保护伤害贸易伙伴国的经济，这一经济学上的见解，虽然老套但仍令人吃惊。

它的来历可以追溯到经济学的起源。

当亚当•斯密写出《国countries do in agriculture. Or governments may protect intellectual property inadequately, causing underproduction of new knowledge. In such cases production and trade, guided by distorted prices, will not be efficient.2.区分国内自由贸易和对所有国家开放的自由贸易是很重要的。

前者是意在增加本国财富的条例（称为“国家效益”条例），后者是意在增加每一个贸易参与国财富的条例（称为“国际效益”条例）。

以上两种情况都是基于自由市场决定价格这一假设之上的。

但政府也可能通过像补贴生产的手段调控市场价格。

列如近些年欧洲政府对航空，电子，钢铁行业的补贴，所有工业国对农业的补贴。

政府还可能过度保护知识产权，导致新技术不能充分发挥它的价值。

在这种情况下，生产和贸易受调控的价格影响，无法实现其最佳效益。

3 The cosmopolitan-efficiency case for free trade is relevant to questions such as thedesign of international trade regimes. For example, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade oversees world trade among member nations, just as the International Monetary Fund oversees international macroeconomics and exchange rates. The national-efficiency case for free trade concerns national trade policies; it is, in fact, Adam Smith’s case for free trade. Economists typically have the nation-efficiency case in mind when they talk of the advantage of free trade and of the folly of protectionism.3.自由贸易所产生的国际效益与诸如国际贸易体制的设立等问题有关。

例如，就像国际货币基金组织调控国际宏观经济和汇率一样，关税贸易总协定负责监督所有成员国之间的贸易。

而自由贸易中的国家效益与国家的贸易政策有关；这事实上就是亚当•斯密的自由贸易论。

但当经济学家谈到利用自由贸易，讽刺贸易保护主义时，他们首先想到的通常是国家效益。

4. This case, as refined greatly byeconomists in the postwar period, admits two theoretical possibilities in which protection could improve a nation’s economic wellbeing. First, as Adam Smith himself noted, a country might be able to use threat of protection to get other countries to reduce their protection against its exports. Thus, threatened protection could be a tool to pry open foreign market, like oysters, with “a strong clasp knife,” as Lord Randolph Churchill put it the late nineteenth century. If the protectionist threat worked, then the county using it would gain doubly: form its own free trade and from its trading partners’ free trade as well. However, both Smith and later economists in Britain feared that such threats would not work. They feared that the protection imposed as a threat would be permanent and that the threat would not lower the other countries’trade barriers.4.这种观点，在二战后被经济学家热捧，他们认同能够有助于国家经济的两种理论。

首先,正如亚当•斯密本人所指出的,一个国家可能通过贸易保护来胁迫其他国家减少针对其出口产品的贸易保护。

因此，贸易保护的威胁也可以作为工具来撬开国际市场，像牡蛎,伦道夫·丘吉尔勋爵利用它作为“一把强势的折刀”打入19世纪末的市场。

如果贸易保护威胁论有效，那么利用它的国家将会得到双重影响：形成自己内部的自由贸易和形成与贸易伙伴国的自由贸易。

然而，斯密和之后的经济学家都担心这种威胁不会有效。

他们担心贸易保护的威胁是永久性的，而这种威胁并不能降低其他国家的贸易壁垒。

5.The trade policy of the united states today is premised on a different assessment: that indeed U.S markets can, and should, be closed as a means of opening new markets abroad. This premise underlies sections 301 through 310 of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and competitiveness Act. These provisions permit, and sometimes even require, the U.S government to force other countries into accepting new trade. They can , for instance,take the form of voluntary quotas on exports of certain goods to the United States. Thus, they may simply force weak nations to redirect their trade in ways that strong nations desire, cutting away at the principle that trade should be guided by market prices.5.美国如今的贸易政策是以不同的评估意见为前提的:即事实上美国市场能够,并且应该被关闭,以打开新的国外市场。

这个前提是基于1988年《综合贸易竞争法》的301条到310条,这些条款允许,有时甚至需要,美国政府迫使其他国家接受新的贸易。

例如,他们可以采取自愿的形式将某些商品出口到美国。

因此,他们可能只是迫使弱小国家定向向贸易强国出口他们需要的产品,违背了贸易应遵循市场价格的原则。

6.The second exception in which protection could improve a nation’s economic well-being is when a country has monopoly power over a good. Since the time of JohnStuart Mill, economists have argued that a country produces a large percentage of the world’s output of a good can use an “optimum”tariff to take advantage of its latent monopoly power and, thus, gain more from trade. This is, of course, the same as saying that a monopolist will maximize his profits by raising his price and reducing his output.6.其次，当一个国家能够垄断一种商品时，贸易保护就能够增加这个国家的经济利益。