On what grounds can we, as free trade advocates, assert that globalization can harm the country? A straightforward explanation suffices: In standard analyses of trade, economists usually assign fixed values to a country’s productive capabilities and define trade as the exchange of the goods and services, with each country supplying those items in which its productive capabilities are relatively greatest. With this definition, trade can easily be shown to offer benefits to both parties. Economic analysis repeatedly bears this out. Hence, economists emphatically reject tariffs and other forms of protectionism as impediments to those benefits. We accept this conclusion for the assumed scenario. But when productive capabilities are changing, not fixed, the world enters a whole new ball game. As long shown by many economists - the latest being Nobel Prize winner Paul Samuelson - the end result of that productivity change, even after the period of adjustment, may be better for one’s country or it may be worse, depending on circumstances. 

    More concretely, when the United States trades semiconductors for Asian t-shirts, for example, that is trade in the narrow sense. And we concur with the most basic theoretical conclusion that this exchange clearly benefits both countries. But when Intel properly pursues the interests of its shareholders by building a multi-billion dollar semiconductor plant in China rather than the United States, a shift in comparative productive capability suddenly occurs. Globalization is not simply free trade; it is trade plus shifting productivity. We have not sent China consumer goods, but the capability to produce more effectively.

    基于什么樣的推理,自由貿(mào)易支持者可以斷言,全球化有損國(guó)家利益?一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的解釋就足夠了.  在貿(mào)易的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化分析中,經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家通過給一個(gè)國(guó)家的生產(chǎn)能力賦予一個(gè)固定值,而把貿(mào)易定義為商品與服務(wù)的交換,這樣每個(gè)提供這些商品和服務(wù)項(xiàng)目的國(guó)家其生產(chǎn)能力都被最大化.這樣的定義之下,貿(mào)易更容易就被顯示為對(duì)雙方都是有利的. 經(jīng)濟(jì)分析就是不斷地證明這種互利.因此,經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家特別強(qiáng)調(diào)地不駁斥關(guān)稅和其它有礙這些互利實(shí)現(xiàn)的保護(hù)措施. 在假定條件下我們接受這個(gè)結(jié)論. 但由于生產(chǎn)能力是變化的, 世界進(jìn)入一場(chǎng)全新的比賽中. 如同長(zhǎng)久以來被許多經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家所證實(shí), 最近的一次證實(shí)來自諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)金得主鮑爾. 薩繆爾森，這種生產(chǎn)能力最終會(huì)改變,即使是調(diào)整期過后,可以更有利于一個(gè)國(guó)家,也可能進(jìn)一步惡化,這取決于當(dāng)時(shí)的環(huán)境條件.

    更具體一些來說,當(dāng)美國(guó)用半導(dǎo)體與非洲T恤進(jìn)行貿(mào)易交換時(shí),這是狹義上的貿(mào)易. 我們同意最基本的理論性結(jié)論,這種交換明顯對(duì)兩個(gè)國(guó)家均有利.但是,當(dāng)英特爾公司為正當(dāng)追求自己股東的利益而在中國(guó)建立一個(gè)數(shù)十億美金投入的半導(dǎo)體工廠,而不是在美國(guó)廠時(shí),相對(duì)生產(chǎn)能力就突然發(fā)生改變了. 全球化不是簡(jiǎn)單的自由貿(mào)易,它是貿(mào)易+生產(chǎn)能力的改變. 我們沒有向中國(guó)輸送消費(fèi)品,但擁有更有效生產(chǎn)消費(fèi)品的能力.