Negating the Washington Consensus, 否定华盛顿共识，美国准备全面抄袭中国经济政策

 Negating the Washington Consensus, the United States is ready to copy China's economic policy in an all-round way

In 1929, the U.S. financial industry collapsed, which directly triggered a serious economic crisis known as the Great Depression by later generations. This crisis directly affected all capitalist countries in the world, which in turn led to the rise of Nazi fascism and the outbreak of World War II. .

But the United States itself, the birthplace of the crisis, has avoided this catastrophe.

In 1933, Roosevelt was elected president of the United States and implemented the "Roosevelt New Deal", saving the entire United States from the economic crisis.

In essence, Roosevelt's New Deal negated the free market economy and greatly increased the government's direct or indirect intervention in the economy, thereby guiding the market economy back to the track the government wanted. Its theoretical basis is Keynesianism.

This theory was incompatible with the ideas popular in the European capitalist powers at that time, and was denounced as heresy, so European countries did not do this, and everyone was watching the jokes of the United States.

The final result was that the whole of Europe was destroyed by war because of the deep economic crisis, and the United States broke free from the quagmire of the economic crisis by relying on Roosevelt's New Deal, and made a lot of war fortune in the Second World War, and became the world's largest power after the war , its aircraft carriers and garrisons spread over more than half of the earth, and held more than 20,000 tons of gold reserves, accounting for more than 75% of the total gold reserves of all mankind at that time.

Roosevelt's New Deal laid the foundation of the empire for the United States, and generations of Americans have enjoyed dividends.

In 1961, the United States launched the Vietnam War, and then fell into the quagmire of the Vietnam War. During the Vietnam War, it emptied its country's wealth, and its national debt broke through the sky.

In 1973, the Bretton Woods system, which determined the status of the US dollar as an international currency, completely collapsed. The United States tore up its promise and refused to use gold to redeem the US dollar as agreed.

In 1975, the United States could no longer afford the cost of the Vietnam War and was forced to order the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam.

However, the emptied wealth of the United States cannot come back out of thin air with the end of the Vietnam War. After the national debt was overdrawn, the entire United States began to fall into severe inflation, and stagflation for a whole decade made the American people miserable.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected president of the United States. A series of new policies he adopted miraculously got rid of stagflation in the United States. Later generations collectively referred to Reagan's policies as Reagan economics.

The core of Reagan’s economics lies in rejecting Keynesianism, affirming that the U.S. has fallen into stagflation because the government’s regulation is too wide and the market failure is caused by the government’s disorderly regulation. Therefore, capital should be unbundled and the greed in the capital’s bones should be used to activate the U.S. economy.

Therefore, Reagan lifted a series of policies restricting capital, and even lifted the restrictions on the free flow of capital between different countries with global negotiations, opening the curtain of human global trade.

This behavior led to the frantic outflow of American manufacturing to the manpower depression in East Asia, and at the same time led to the high prosperity of the American financial industry. However, the entire United States can make a lot of money by relying on globalization.

As for the low-end manufacturing industry leaving the United States, there are some hidden dangers, but the problem is not big, and it is not worth mentioning compared with the total income.

As a result, the entire United States survived, and in just a few years it got rid of stagflation, and the economy of the entire country showed prosperity.

As a result, Reagan was rated by Americans as the greatest American president after World War II, and the neoliberal political and economic theory that Reagan pursued was also regarded as the truth.

In 1989, Latin American countries were deeply in debt crisis and asked the United States for help. Representatives from the United States and Latin American countries held a meeting in Washington to study how to help Latin American countries.

In the conference room, the United States proposed 10 policy measures that Latin American countries should reduce government intervention, promote trade and financial liberalization, reduce tariffs, open foreign investment, reduce state-owned enterprises, relax business controls, and protect intellectual property rights.

American experts say that we in the United States rely on this to get rid of stagflation and realize the miracle of economic take-off, so you have to do this first if you want us to save it. Giving money is worse than giving policy. If your policy is not good and you can’t get up, then we Sending money is also free.

After research by global experts, no one can point out the slightest mistake. Everyone can only nod and say yes, because the United States has indeed succeeded by relying on this.

These 10 policy measures are collectively referred to as the Washington Consensus by later generations.

The shock therapy derived from the Washington Consensus was even regarded as the standard by the Soviet Union and other countries, and it was swallowed up directly, all government intervention was abolished, all state-owned enterprises were sold off, and all markets were opened up. It is no wonder that the United States is so trusting that it cripples itself. In theory, I only blame myself for not operating well.

More and more countries around the world have reshaped their national economic systems in accordance with the Washington Consensus. It can be said that the global economic order for 30 years has been established by the Washington Consensus.

But there is an anomaly on the earth, called China, who only learned half of the Washington Consensus, and then stopped learning.

Yes, government intervention is lifted, but only half the way.

It was a state-owned enterprise, but only half of it was sold.

The market is open, but only half open.

For the remaining half, China's oil and salt will not enter, because it will not follow the Washington consensus.

The United States is very angry with China, an anomaly, and thinks that you are interfering in the market. It is an unfree conservatism that harms others and yourself. It will not only slow down your own economic development but also affect our market pricing, so it has been declared for many years China is a non-market economy country and does not recognize our market economy status.

And China says that we are a market economy, and our government’s intervention is appropriate and necessary. It belongs to proper supervision and has not affected the free pricing of market economic entities. The reason for this is that your Washington Consensus in the United States itself has huge problems. , is not suitable for us in China. The policies we formulate are the market economic system with Chinese characteristics that is most suitable for our own national conditions.

The United States is dismissive. I have a huge problem with the Washington Consensus? I think you have a huge brain problem, dare to question our economic system? I don't even look at how rich our country is.

In 2016, when China and the United States faced off in the South China Sea, two US aircraft carrier battle groups were forcibly forced back by the Chinese navy.

The little follower who has been disobedient for many years dared to show his teeth to the elder brother.

Shouldn't this be a lesson?

In 2018, when the United States launched a trade war against China, Trump directly pressed all the chips and played extreme pressure.

Either be obedient or collapse, I will show you the power of economic power under the Washington Consensus system.

The war lasted for five years, and the United States became weaker and weaker, while China became stronger and stronger. All kinds of hidden dangers hidden under the prosperous economy of the United States in the past began to be gradually exposed under this high-intensity economic confrontation.

Some people of insight in the United States gradually feel that something is wrong.

It seems that our Washington Consensus is really problematic.

Sullivan, the director of the Policy Design Department of the US State Department, is the author of most of Washington's large-scale government orders. He can be called the courage of the Biden administration. He recently made a big speech, openly questioning the Washington consensus, and trying to overthrow the current US economic system , plagiarize and imitate China's policies in a comprehensive manner.

Then the White House summarized Sullivan's speech into a report and posted it directly on the official White House website, indicating that the Biden administration also supported this speech.

When explaining why the US industrial base was hollowed out, Sullivan rejected the rationality of the market economy and directly shook the foundation of the entire US economic system. He said:

At the heart of all policy lies an assumption: that markets always allocate capital productively and efficiently — no matter what our competitors do, no matter how great our collective challenges are, no matter how many guardrails we remove.

These words are very clear. Sullivan believes that the US government has left its hands on the economy, and the theory that the market must be able to allocate capital productively and effectively is absolutely wrong.

If the rival government manages and guides the economy, we should also manage and guide the economy. Appropriate government intervention in the economy does not necessarily lead to bad results.

Sullivan then attributes the hollowing out of America's industrial base to an unregulated free market economy:

Now, no one -- certainly not me -- underestimates the power of the market. But in the name of oversimplified market efficiencies, entire supply chains for strategic goods — along with the industries and jobs that manufacture them — have been shifted offshore. The assumption that deep trade liberalization would help US exports of goods, rather than jobs and capacity, was a promise that did not materialize.

Another implicit assumption is that the type of growth does not matter. All growth is good growth.

For a long time, the United States believes that as long as the GDP increases, it is a good thing. As for which economic sectors cause the growth, it is not important. It is king to make money as soon as possible. The outflow of the industrial base from the United States is an indispensable part of globalization.

China also had this problem a few years ago, that is, the hollowing out of the manufacturing industry caused by the high prosperity of finance and real estate, as well as the disorderly expansion of Internet capital, which made acquisitions everywhere but did not engage in business because the money came in slowly.

Now American national policy expert Sullivan directly denies all this, saying that this is completely wrong, GDP is different from GDP, and one cannot just look at GDP growth data regardless of its type.

Today's GDP in the United States is mostly contributed by the financial industry, entertainment industry, and lawyer litigation industry. These are of no use in the country's confrontation, and the manufacturing industry is the foundation of the country.

This is common sense in China, and the common people know it, but in the United States, it was said publicly by the "awakened" Sullivan, and many Americans suddenly realized it, but there were still a large number of people who opposed it.

Explaining why China can challenge the United States in the economic field and repeatedly break through in the technological field, Sullivan said:

By the time President Biden took office, we had to face the reality that a large non-market economy had been integrated into the international economic order in a way that posed considerable challenges.

The People’s Republic of China continues to heavily subsidize traditional industrial sectors, such as steel, as well as key industries of the future, such as clean energy, digital infrastructure, and advanced biotechnology. Not only has the United States lost manufacturing, but it has eroded our competitiveness in key technologies that will define our future.

To put it simply, Sullivan summed up the reason why China's economic field overtakes in a corner as the Chinese government's large-scale subsidies for key industries.

In fact, it is not wrong at all, because this is indeed the reason why the United States lost to China in the field of photovoltaics and electric vehicles.

It is acceptable for steel and high-speed rail to be overtaken by China through industrial subsidy policies, but it is really unacceptable for the United States to overtake photovoltaics and electric vehicles.

Regardless of photovoltaics or electric vehicles, the pioneer is the United States, but today's ruler is China. The United States has been completely eliminated in the field of photovoltaics. There is only one Tesla in the field of electric vehicles in the world, and the rest are all Chinese companies.

The reason for all this is that the Chinese government’s ten-year large-scale subsidies starting around 2010 directly led to China’s investment in these two industries far exceeding that of the United States.

It is said that the invisible hand of the market economy is sensitive and quick, while the visible hand of government intervention is slow and slow, but it fails in industrial policy.

In the 2010s, countless people questioned that photovoltaics are cheating money, and that electric vehicles are cheating money.

Let alone the 2010s, by 2018 most people were saying that photovoltaics and electric vehicles were deceitful, and it was not until 2019 that the market finally recognized the golden value of these two industries.

The market economy has lagged behind for 9 years. During the 9 years, the market has been skeptical about the photovoltaic and electric vehicle industries. Only a few people are willing to invest. Even Tesla in the United States has repeatedly suffered short-selling forces during these 9 years. Attacks, many times on the verge of breaking the capital chain.

However, China has gathered industry experts and economic experts to gather the wisdom of national elites to jointly study and judge the direction of the industry. After confirming that this industry is feasible and a sunrise industry, it will concentrate its national power on large-scale investment, and then will not waver.

It is equivalent to a super-large main force in the market economy who is optimistic about this industry, invests wildly, and abruptly creates industrial prosperity.

In fact, this is also considered a market economy, that is, the main body of the investment market is a bit large, and it is ridiculously large.

This kind of state investment guides the industry, and then the free competition of market entities to determine the winner, combines the advantages of Keynesianism and free market economy, and is unique to my country's socialist market economy.

Ten years later, the effect has also come out. When global capital recognized photovoltaics and electric vehicles and decided to invest a large amount of resources in this industry, China had already used industrial policy subsidies to complete cornering overtaking, and European and American capital never recovered. Chance.

And such things happen frequently in all emerging industries. At present, the industries that Europe and the United States still retain their advantages are all industries that have accumulated technology for a hundred years. As long as they are emerging, once China's industrial subsidy policy is implemented, the development speed of domestic enterprises will be accelerated. It is far faster than European and American companies, and then overtakes in abrupt corners.

Now Sullivan in the United States has recollected it, and strongly urges the United States to follow suit, and also implement industrial subsidy policies, directly use government funds to intervene in the market, and guide the development of market players.

In fact, the policies that Sullivan has formulated for the Biden administration in recent years have already been doing this. For example, starting from January 1, 2023, electric vehicles produced in the United States will also enjoy government subsidies. This policy Obviously, it is copying China's 2010 electric vehicle subsidy policy.

It is a pity that the United States lags behind by a full 13 years.

The industrial subsidy policy clearly violates the principles of the free market economy and the Washington Consensus, and its acceptance is too low in the European and American world, which believes in the free market economy.

Therefore, on the one hand, Sullivan bombarded the Washington Consensus and tried every means to dismantle the theoretical basis of the free market economy. On the other hand, he used various easing words to smear industrial policy.

His original words are as follows:

Modern American industrial strategy identifies specific sectors that are fundamental to economic growth, that are strategic from a national security standpoint, and that private industry cannot by itself make the investments necessary to secure our national ambitions.

It deployed targeted public investment in these areas, unleashing the power and ingenuity of private markets, capitalism, and competition, and laying the groundwork for long-term growth.

It helps American business do what American business does best—innovate, scale, and compete.

It's about crowding out private investment, not replacing it. It's about making long-term investments in sectors critical to our national well-being -- not about picking winners and losers.

There is a long tradition in this country. In fact, even though the term "industrial policy" has become obsolete, it still quietly works for the United States in some form -- from DARPA and the Internet to NASA and commercial satellites.

Looking back now at the course of the past few years, the initial results of this strategy are remarkable.

The words are very euphemistic, but the meaning is very clear. Sullivan firmly believes that private industry alone cannot make the necessary investment to ensure our national ambitions. To deal with competition from China, the United States must concentrate national power on large-scale industries in the field of innovation. invest.

Dcades of Western economics have collapsed because of China's economic success.

The title of the article published by the British "Financial Times" was directly written: "The New Washington Consensus: Yesterday's American Economic Orthodoxy Becomes Today's Heresy".

Dumb public knowledge has spread from the field of literature to the field of economics. They make a living by advocating "market economy", "globalization", "free trade" and the Washington consensus, and argue from various angles that as long as you do this, you can make the country rich Strong people.

As a result, the patriarch has now directly changed his words and said that these are all wrong. We must follow China to play with the big government and small market, saying that using government power to intervene and guide the market is the kingly way to "ensure our national ambitions."

Is it because Sullivan advocates China's economic policy so much because he is a pro-China faction?

Wrong, Sullivan is a die-hard anti-China faction, not just a general anti-China faction, but the most die-hard anti-China element among high-level American politicians. He was once regarded by the American media as one of the core anti-China hawks.

Even in this speech asking the United States to copy China's economic policy, Sullivan still insisted on the old tone of China threat theory.

When explaining why he adjusted his economic policy to deal with China’s challenges, Sullivan said that the existence of China threatened the socio-economic foundation of democracy. The original words were:

The so-called "China shock" to our domestic manufacturing sector was particularly severe - with large and long-lasting effects - and was not adequately anticipated or adequately addressed as it unfolded.

Taken together, these forces wear down the socioeconomic foundations on which any strong and resilient democracy rests.

After the speech, the host asked Sullivan: "So the United States is determined to prevent China from competing with the United States in advanced technology?"

Sullivan replied:

"U.S. companies export semiconductors, biotechnology, clean energy technology, etc. to China. These governments do not want to make one size fits all. However, in terms of the most advanced semiconductor and memory chip technology, the United States will not allow certain categories of technology to be sold to China. , because the United States regards it as national security. The United States will maintain its technological leadership over every country and become the world's leading technological innovation power. At this point, the United States will not feel any apology."

To put it simply, the fundamental purpose of Sullivan overturning the Washington consensus and requiring the United States to study China and copy China as soon as possible is to surpass China's development speed and suppress China again.

This kind of die-hard anti-China elements who never forget to suppress China even when copying China's economic policies can only be said to be so black that they are naturally fans.

The modern high-tech industry has a huge characteristic, that is, the initial investment is huge, and then the winner takes all. It is difficult for a company to survive before it becomes an industry leader.

But the profits of these high-tech industries are huge, and only these industries can make a country enter the ranks of developed countries.

Therefore, none of the backward countries that implement the Washington Consensus and believe in a completely free market economy can escape the middle-income trap, and can only stay in the low-end processing industry forever.

Because the high-tech industry has the characteristics of winners take all, latecomers will never catch up.

Unless the power of the state is used to concentrate capital investment and abruptly help the company through the early stage of serious losses, you can almost think of this as a venture capital fund with a capital volume of 10 trillion yuan, which is optimistic about a certain industry, and then spends money frantically to help This industry is developing rapidly. After the industry develops to the top, the subsidy will be cut off, and then the tax will be paid back.

If you think about it for a while, you will know how terrifying this is, and it is not at all the speed of development that ordinary market economies can imagine.

Sullivan wants the United States to learn this, but is it so easy to learn?

Our country's strategies are all conspiracy and clear cards. You can read and learn at will, and you can give away documents for free. We don't care if you change your name and copy them.

But if you want to play this way in the United States, you must first conduct a great theoretical debate. Should it be a big government or a big market, who is the core that dominates the economy, and how to determine the boundaries of power?

The government uses taxpayers' money to subsidize some enterprises in a certain industry, so why not subsidize our industry? Is there bribery and benefit transfer in it? What is your reason for squandering taxpayers' money like this? Was there a democratic vote? Why not use the money to give benefits to voters? Why no tax cuts? Why not increase medical subsidies?

With just a few opposition parties raising their arms, these issues can make the ruling party smoke.

Another is policy continuity.

It is impossible to subsidize an industry to produce results in one or two years. China's photovoltaic industry and electric vehicle industry have been subsidized for ten years before they saw the light of day and finally got rid of the stigma of the fraudulent industry.

In the United States, as long as there is another president in the middle, will the previous industrial subsidy policy still be adhered to?

For spending so much money and taking such big risks, the former president owes all the credit for his success, and all the responsibility for his failure.

Why? I'm not stupid, why would I do such a stupid thing, I might as well use this money to subsidize a new industry, at least the risks and benefits are my own.

For example, the electric vehicle subsidy policy was formulated by Biden. If the next president is Trump, will Trump continue to implement this policy honestly and give Biden achievements?

It is definitely impossible. Trump will stop Biden's policy if he finds a reason.

Therefore, even if the costly industrial subsidy policy is implemented in the United States, it will definitely be stopped or greatly reduced by the next president. As long as the next president is sensible, he will definitely do so.

But this will lead to the discontinuity of the industrial subsidy policy in the United States, and the country will compete slowly step by step. If your industrial subsidy policy is interrupted or slowed down, it means that the previous money is wasted. The high-tech industry The winner-take-all rule doesn’t give you any kindness.

The United States insists that the free market determines everything, because the private subject of the market economy under the capitalist system has continuity, but the government does not, so industrial investment can only be made by private enterprises.

If the United States wants to change all this, it will almost have to fundamentally subvert the American system. The impact and cost will be no less than that of the Soviet Union when it abolished public ownership and directly changed it to private ownership through shock therapy.

It’s not so easy to change. Many things can’t be learned if you don’t want to. The price of hard learning is too high, and the United States can’t afford it.

So we named this system the socialist market economic system with Chinese characteristics. Every word is not superfluous, and there is no way to learn one less word.

We can run this system so smoothly because the system itself is tailor-made by the Chinese political elite according to China's actual national conditions.

It is impossible for other countries to copy, because you cannot have exactly the same national conditions as China, and copying by force is a dead end.

You can refer to learning, but you can't apply it mechanically, because those who learn from me live, and those who resemble me die.

Sullivan completely denies China's system, and even believes that China is a threat to democracy. He only praises China's economic system and asks the United States to copy China's industrial subsidy policy, thinking that copying this will repress China.

What is the difference between this and the Qing government's practice of only admiring European and American warships and weapons, while scorning other political and economic systems?

Isn't it the second Westernization Movement that learns form but not gods, playing with the skills of the barbarians in order to control the barbarians without affecting the Qing government and being beaten continuously.

The United States wants to deny the Washington consensus and suppress China by copying China's work.

In fact, we don't mind this. We are afraid that the United States will not be able to copy homework well. It is not that we have not seen the ability of copying homework in the United States during the new crown.

否定华盛顿共识，美国准备全面抄袭中国经济政策

1929年，美国金融业崩溃，直接引发了被后人称之为大萧条的严重经济危机，这一危机直接波及了全球所有资本主义国家，进而导致了纳粹法西斯的上台和第二次世界大战的爆发。

但危机的发源地美国自己却避开了这一劫。

1933年，罗斯福当选美国总统，推行了“罗斯福新政”，把整个美国从经济危机里救了出来。

罗斯福新政从本质上说就是否定自由市场经济那一套，大幅增加政府对经济的直接或间接干预，从而引导市场经济返回政府希望的运行轨道上，其理论基础为凯恩斯主义。

这一学说和当时流行于欧洲资本主义强国的思想水火不容，被斥之为异端邪说，所以欧洲国家没有这么干，大家都在看美国的笑话。

最后的结果是整个欧洲因深陷经济危机不可自拔而毁于战火，美国靠着罗斯福新政挣脱了经济危机的泥潭，并在第二次世界大战中大发战争财，战后一跃成为世界第一强国，其航母和驻军遍布大半个地球，并持有超过2万吨黄金储备，占当时全人类黄金总储量的75%以上。

罗斯福新政为美国打下了帝国根基，让数代美国人吃到了红利。

1961年，美国发动越南战争，然后深陷越南战争的泥潭，在越战中打空了自己国家的财富，国债突破天际。

1973年，确定美元国际货币地位的布雷顿森林体系彻底崩溃，美国撕毁承诺，拒绝再按照约定用黄金来兑付美元。

1975年，美国再也无法承受越战的费用，被迫下令美军撤离越南。

但美国被打空的财富并不能随着越战的结束而凭空回来，国债透支后整个美国开始陷入了严重通货膨胀，整整十年滞涨让美国民众苦不堪言。

1980年，里根当选美国总统，他采取的一系列新政策让美国最终奇迹般的摆脱了滞涨，后人将里根的政策统称为里根经济学。

里根经济学的核心在于否决凯恩斯主义，认定美国陷入滞涨是因为政府管的太多太宽了，市场失灵是政府乱管导致的，所以应该为资本解绑，依靠资本骨子里的贪婪来激活美国经济。

因此里根解除了限制资本的一系列政策，甚至和全球谈判解除了资本在不同国家间自由流动的限制，拉开了人类全球化贸易的帷幕。

这一行为导致美国的制造业疯狂流出到东亚人力洼地，同时导致美国金融业高度繁荣，但整个美国总账算下来，靠全球化能赚很多很多钱。

至于低端制造业离开美国，有点隐患，但问题不大，和总收益比起来不值一提。

整个美国因此活了，短短几年时间就摆脱了滞涨，整个国家的经济呈现出繁荣景象。

里根因此被美国人评为二战后最伟大的美国总统，而里根奉行的新自由主义政治经济理论也被奉为真理。

1989年，拉美国家深陷债务危机不可自拔，向美国求救，美国和拉美国家代表在华盛顿召开了一个会议，研究如何帮助拉美国家。

在会议室，美国提出了拉美国家应该减少政府干预，促进贸易和金融自由化，减少关税，开放外资，减少国企，放松商业管制，保护知识产权等10条政策措施。

美国专家说，我们美国就是靠这个摆脱滞涨，实现经济腾飞奇迹的，所以你们想让我们救那也得先搞这个，送钱不如送政策，要是你们政策不行，自己起不来，那我们送钱也是白送啊。

全球专家研究后无人能指出半点不对，大家只能点头称是，因为美国确实靠这个成功了呀。

这10条政策措施，被后人统称为华盛顿共识。

而由华盛顿共识引申出来的休克疗法，甚至被苏联等国家奉为圭臬，直接一口吞了下去，废除政府全部干预，把国企全部变卖，开放全部市场等，信任到把自己搞残了也不怪美国的理论，只怪自己没操作好。

全球越来越多的国家按照华盛顿共识重塑了自己国家的经济体系，可以说到如今30年的全球经济秩序都由华盛顿共识奠定。

但地球上有个异数，叫中国，学华盛顿共识只学了一半，然后就不学了。

是解除政府干预了，但只解除了一半。

是卖国企了，但只卖了一半。

是开放市场了，但只开放了一半。

剩下的一半，中国油盐不进，就是不按华盛顿共识来。

对中国这个异数美国很生气，认为你这样属于干涉市场，是不自由的保守主义，害人害己，不仅会拖慢你自己的经济发展也会影响我们的市场定价，所以多年来都宣称中国是非市场经济国家，不承认我们的市场经济地位。

而中国说我们就是市场经济，我们政府的干预是适当的和有必要的，属于恰当监管，并没有影响市场经济主体的自由定价，之所以这么做是因为你美国的华盛顿共识本身就有巨大问题，不适合我们中国，我们制定的政策是最适合本国国情的中国特色市场经济体制。

美国不屑一顾，我的华盛顿共识有巨大问题？我看是你的脑子有巨大问题吧，敢质疑我们的经济体制？也不看看我们国家多有钱。

2016年，中美南海对峙，美国2个航母战斗群被中国海军强行逼退。

多年的小跟班不听话了，敢对大哥龇牙了。

这不得教训教训？

2018年，美国对中国发动贸易战争，特朗普直接一把压了全部筹码，玩极限施压。

要么听话，要么崩溃，我让你看看华盛顿共识制度下经济强国的力量。

战争一打就是5年，美国越打越弱，中国越打越强，美国过往繁荣经济下掩盖的种种隐患在这种高强度经济对抗下开始逐渐暴露。

美国的一些有识之士渐渐感到有点不对劲了。

好像，我们的华盛顿共识确实问题很大啊。

沙利文，美国国务院政策设计部主任，华盛顿的大笔杆子，大半政令都出自此人之手，堪称拜登政府的文胆，最近发表重磅谈话，公开质疑华盛顿共识，试图推翻美国现行经济体制，全盘抄袭模仿中国政策。

然后白宫把沙利文的讲话总结成报告，直接挂在了白宫官网上，说明拜登政府也是支持这一讲话的。

在解释为什么美国工业基础被掏空时，沙利文上来就否决了市场经济的合理性，直接动摇了美国整个经济体系的根基，他说：

所有政策的核心都有一个假设：市场总是富有成效和有效地配置资本--无论我们的竞争对手做了什么，无论我们共同面临的挑战有多大，无论我们拆除了多少护栏。

这话很清晰了，沙利文认为美国政府撒手不管经济，认为市场一定能富有成效和有效地配置资本这一理论是绝对错误的。

如果竞争对手的政府出手管理和引导经济，那我们也要出手管理和引导经济，政府对经济的适当干预并非一定会导致坏的结果。

然后沙利文把美国工业基础被掏空的原因归结于不受监管的自由市场经济上：

现在，没有人--当然不是我--低估市场的力量。但是，在过度简化的市场效率的名义下，战略物资的整个供应链--连同制造这些供应链的产业和就业机会--都转移到了海外。深度贸易自由化将帮助美国出口商品，而不是就业和产能的假设，是一个承诺，但没有兑现。

另一个隐含的假设是，增长的类型并不重要。所有的增长都是好的增长。

长期以来，美国认为只要GDP增长了那就是好事，至于是哪些经济部门导致的增长这个并不重要，尽快搞钱才是王道，工业基础流出美国这本就是全球化必不可少的一部分。

中国前几年也有这个问题，就是金融和地产高度繁荣导致的制造业空心化问题，还有互联网资本无序扩张，到处收购但就是不搞实业，因为来钱慢。

如今美国的国策专家沙利文直接否定了这一切，说这是完全错误的，GDP和GDP不一样，不能只看GDP增长数据而不管其类型。

美国如今的GDP大头是由金融产业、娱乐产业、律师诉讼产业贡献的，这些在进行国家对抗的时候一点作用都没有，制造业才是国家的根基。

在中国这是个常识，老百姓都知道，但到了美国却是由“觉醒者”沙利文公开说出来，好多美国人才恍然大悟，但还是有大量的人反对。

在解释为什么中国可以在经济领域挑战美国，并在技术领域屡屡突破时，沙利文说：

到拜登总统就职时，我们不得不面对这样一个现实：一个庞大的非市场经济已经以一种带来相当大挑战的方式融入国际经济秩序。

中华人民共和国继续对钢铁等传统工业部门以及清洁能源、数字基础设施和先进生物技术等未来关键产业进行大规模补贴。美国不仅失去了制造业，还削弱了我们在决定未来的关键技术方面的竞争力。

简单说，沙利文把中国经济领域弯道超车的原因总结为中国政府对关键产业的大规模补贴。

其实说的一点都没错，因为这确实就是美国在光伏和电动汽车领域输给中国的原因。

钢铁和高铁被中国通过产业补贴政策反超了美国还能接受，但光伏和电动汽车被中国反超了，美国是真的接受不了。

无论光伏还是电动汽车，先行者都是美国，但如今的统治者是中国，光伏领域美国已彻底出局，电动汽车领域全球只剩一家特斯拉，其他全是中国公司。

导致这一切的原因就是因为中国政府从2010年左右开始的十年大规模补贴，直接导致中国对这两个产业的投资额远远超过美国。

都说市场经济这只看不见的手是灵敏且迅速的，而政府干预这只看得见的手是迟钝且缓慢的，但在产业政策这一块失灵了。

2010年代无数人质疑光伏就是骗钱的，质疑电动汽车就是骗钱的。

别说2010年代，就是到2018年大部分人都在说光伏和电动汽车是骗人的，直到2019年市场才最终认可这两个产业的黄金价值。

市场经济整整落后了9年，足足9年时间里市场对光伏和电动汽车产业都是将信将疑的，只有少数人愿意投资，就连美国的特斯拉在这9年里都屡屡遭到做空势力攻击，多次濒临资金链断裂的窘境。

而中国集中了产业专家和经济专家，把国家精英的智慧集合起来联合研判产业走向，确定这个产业可行，是朝阳产业后，就集中国家力量大举投资，然后绝不动摇。

相当于市场经济中一个超级大的主力资金看好这个产业，疯狂砸投资，硬生生的制造出了产业繁荣。

其实这也算市场经济，就是投资的这个市场主体，体型有点大，大到离谱。

这种国家投资引导产业，然后由市场主体自由竞争决胜出优胜者的做法，结合了凯恩斯主义和自由市场经济的优势，是独属于我国的社会主义特色市场经济。

十年之后的效果也出来了，等全球资本认可光伏和电动汽车，决定把资源开始大量倾斜进这个行业时，中国早就利用产业政策补贴完成了弯道超车，欧美资本再也没有追回的机会。

而这样的事情频频发生在所有的新兴产业中，目前欧美还保有优势的行业全是那种已经积累百年技术的行业，只要是新兴的，中国产业补贴政策一上，国内企业的发育速度就会远远快于欧美企业，然后硬生生的弯道超车。

现在美国的沙利文回过味来了，强烈要求美国跟着学，也搞产业补贴政策，直接利用政府资金干预市场，引导市场主体发展。

事实上沙利文这几年给拜登政府制定的政策就已经是在这么搞了，比如从2023年1月1日开始，在美国生产的电动车也将享受政府提供的补贴了，这一政策明显就是在抄袭中国2010年出台的电动汽车补贴政策。

可惜，美国落后了足足13年。

产业补贴政策这个事情明显违反自由市场经济原则，明显违反华盛顿共识，在信奉自由市场经济的欧美世界接受度太低。

所以沙利文一方面炮轰华盛顿共识，想方设法拆掉自由市场经济的理论基础，一方面用各种缓和的词汇给产业政策涂脂抹粉。

他的原话是这样说的：

现代美国的工业战略确定了一些特定的部门，这些部门是经济增长的基础，从国家安全的角度来看具有战略意义，私营工业自身无法进行必要的投资来确保我们的国家雄心。
它在这些领域部署了有针对性的公共投资，释放了私人市场、资本主义和竞争的力量和聪明才智，为长期增长奠定了基础。
它有助于美国企业做美国企业最擅长的事情--创新、规模和竞争。
这是关于私人投资的拥挤，而不是取代它。它是关于对我们国家福祉至关重要的部门进行长期投资--而不是挑选赢家和输家。
在这个国家有着悠久的传统。事实上，即使“产业政策”这个词已经过时，它仍然以某种形式静静地为美国工作--从DARPA和互联网到NASA和商业卫星。
现在，回顾过去几年的历程，这一战略的初步成果是显著的。

说的很委婉，但意思很明确，沙利文坚定的认为私营工业自身无法进行必要的投资来确保我们的国家雄心，美国要应对来自中国的竞争必须要集中国家的力量在创新领域进行大规模产业投资。

几十年的西方经济学，崩塌了，因为中国在经济领域的成功。

英国《金融时报》发的文章标题直接写为：《新华盛顿共识：昨天的美国正统经济观念成为今天的异端邪说》。

傻眼的公知已经从文学领域，蔓延到了经济领域，自己靠鼓吹“市场经济”、“全球化”、“自由贸易”和华盛顿共识的一切来吃饭，从各种角度论证只要你这么做就能富国强民。

结果如今祖师爷直接改口说这些全是错的，要跟着中国一起玩大政府小市场，说动用政府力量大力干预和引导市场才是王道，才能“确保我们的国家雄心”。

沙利文如此推崇中国的经济政策，是不是因为他是个亲华派？

错，沙利文是个铁杆反华派，还不是一般的反华，是整个美国高层政客中最铁杆的反华份子，曾被美媒认为反华鹰派核心之一。

就算在这次要求美国复制中国经济政策的讲话中，沙利文也依然坚持中国威胁论的老腔调。

在解释自己为什么要调整经济政策以应对中国挑战时，沙利文说中国的存在威胁了民主赖以存在的社会经济基础，原话是：

所谓的“中国冲击”对我们国内制造业的冲击尤其严重--具有巨大而持久的影响--没有得到充分的预期，也没有在它展开时得到充分的解决。

总之，这些力量磨损了任何强大和有弹性的民主赖以存在的社会经济基础。

在讲话结束后，主持人问沙利文：“所以美国是下定决心要阻止中国在先进技术上与美国竞争吗？”

沙利文回答说：

“美国公司向中国出口半导体、生物技术、清洁能源技术等等，这些政府并没有要一刀切。但是，在最先进的半导体、存储芯片技术上，美国不会允许将某些类别的技术出售给中国，因为美国将其视为国家安全。美国要保持对每个国家的技术领先地位，成为世界领先的技术创新强国，在这一点上美国不会感到任何歉意。”

简单的说，沙利文推翻华盛顿共识，要求美国尽快研究中国、复制中国的根本目的，是为了超越中国的发展速度，重新压制中国。

这种连抄袭中国经济政策的时候都念念不忘打压中国的铁杆反华份子，能如此推崇中国的经济政策，只能说一个人黑到深处自然粉。

现代高科技行业有个巨大的特性，就是前期投入巨大，然后赢家通吃，在没有成为行业领导者之前企业连活下去都困难。

但这些高科技行业的利润都十分巨大，只有这些行业才能让一个国家迈入发达国家的行列。

所以所有执行华盛顿共识，所有信奉完全自由市场经济的落后国家，没有一个能迈过中等收入陷阱，永远只能停留在低端加工业。

因为高科技行业具备赢家通吃的特性，后发者永远追不上来。

除非以国家的力量集中资金投入，硬生生的帮企业渡过严重亏损的前期，你差不多可以把这看做是一个十万亿资金体量的风投基金看好某个行业，然后疯狂砸钱帮助这个行业快速发展，等这个行业发展到头部后再断掉补贴，然后收税回本。

你稍微想想就知道这有多恐怖，根本不是普通市场经济可以想象的发展速度。

沙利文想让美国学这套，但有这么好学么？

我国的策略都是阳谋，明牌，你可以随便看随便学，文件都可以白送，你改个名字照抄我们都不在意。

但是你美国想这么玩，那就首先要进行理论大辩论，到底应该是大政府，还是大市场，到底谁才是主导经济的核心，权力边界该怎么确定？

政府拿纳税人的钱去补贴某个行业的某些企业，凭什么不补贴我们行业？里面是否存在贿赂和利益输送？你们这么挥霍纳税让人的钱理由是什么？有没有经过民主投票？为什么不拿这些钱去给选民发福利？为什么不减税？为什么不增加医疗补贴？

随便几个反对党振臂一呼，这些问题就能让执政党满头冒烟。

再一个就是政策持续性。

补贴一个行业不可能一两年就出成果，中国的光伏行业和电动车行业补贴了足足十年才见到曙光，才终于摆脱了骗钱行业的骂名。

放在美国，只要中间换个总统，还会坚持前任的产业补贴政策么？

花那么多钱，担那么大风险，成功了功劳都是前任总统的，失败了所有责任都自己背。

凭什么？我又不傻，干嘛要做这种蠢事，我不如把这钱拿去补贴一个新产业了，至少风险和收益都是我自己的。

举个例子，电动车补贴政策是拜登制定的，如果下任总统是特朗普上台，那特朗普还会老老实实继续执行这个政策给拜登送政绩么？

肯定不可能的，特朗普找个理由就会停掉拜登的政策。

所以耗资巨大的产业补贴政策即便在美国执行，也一定会被下一任总统叫停或大幅缩减规模，只要下任总统是理智的就一定会这么做。

但这就会导致美国的产业补贴政策没有连续性，而在国家竞争中一步慢步步慢，如果你的产业补贴政策被中断或减缓，那其实等于前面的钱都白砸了，高科技产业赢家通吃这个规则可不会跟你讲什么情面。

美国奉行自由市场决定一切，就是因为资本主义制度下市场经济私人主体具有连续性，而政府没有，所以产业投资只能私人企业来做。

如果美国想改变这一切，就几乎要从根本上颠覆美国的制度，其影响和代价不亚于当年苏联废弃公有制，直接用休克疗法改为私有制一样。

没那么好改的，很多东西不是想学就学，学不了，硬学代价过大，美国付不起。

所以我们把这一套命名为中国特色社会主义市场经济制度，每一个字都不是多余的，少一个字都没法学。

我们能把这套制度运转的如此流畅，那是因为这套制度本身就是中国政治精英根据中国实际国情量身定制的。

其他国家想照抄是不可能的，因为你不可能和中国的国情一模一样，硬抄那是死路一条。

可以参考学习，但不能生搬硬套，因为学我者生，似我者死。

沙利文彻底否定中国的制度，甚至认为中国是民主的威胁，只单纯推崇中国的经济制度，要求美国照抄中国的产业补贴政策，觉得抄了这个就能重新压制中国。

这和当年清政府只推崇欧美的军舰和武器，其他政治经济制度一概蔑视的做法，又有什么区别？

不就是第二个学形不学神的洋务运动嘛，玩师夷长技以制夷不影响清政府被继续暴打。

美国想否定华盛顿共识，想通过抄中国作业来压制中国。

这个其实我们不介意的，就怕美国抄作业都弄不好，新冠的时候又不是没见识过美国的抄作业能力。