By LARRY
ROMANOFF – September 24, 2020
作者拉里·罗曼诺夫——2020年9月24日
中文 英语
In
joining the WTO, China made substantial commitments to relax the restrictions
on foreign investment, on ownership of assets and the transfer of technology.
Coupled with increasingly open capital markets, these acquisitions created
convenient conditions for the expansion of foreign control of many economic
sectors, with takeovers increasing almost exponentially, led by US and European
multinationals. It was originally hoped that the large influx of foreign
corporations would inject vitality into the development of China's economy, and
it may have done so, but at the same time, has also brought serious negative
effects. In particular, foreign Joint Ventures evolved from initial cooperative
efforts to a situation where an increasing number of industries and industry
segments were dominated by a few foreign MNCs, forming virtual monopolies in
some cases.
在加入WTO时，中国做出了放松对外国投资、资产所有权和技术转让限制的实质性承诺。再加上资本市场日益开放，这些收购为扩大外国对许多经济领域的控制创造了便利条件，收购几乎呈指数级增长，由美国和欧洲跨国公司牵头。人们原本希望外国公司的大量涌入能为中国经济的发展注入活力，虽然这样做了，但同时也带来了严重的负面影响。特别是，外国合资企业从最初的合作发展到了越来越多的行业和行业领域由少数外国跨国公司主导的局面，在某些情况下形成了虚拟垄断。
These
foreign-funded enterprises now number about 450,000, and have grown at a
double-digit rate, often controlling a market share of 30% or more, accounting for
more than half of China's total exports and 20% of its tax revenue. In some
developed regions, these foreign enterprises once accounted for more than 40%
of all assets, 35% of all added value creation, and a large number of
employees. The number of foreign takeovers and acquisitions in China has been
growing at a rate of 50% or 60% in the recent few years. In 2010, China
recorded 1,800 mergers and acquisitions with a value of $82 billion. Among
other effects, these developments greatly increased the cost of commercial
development land in smaller centers like Suzhou and Kunshan, and other red
lights were flashing as well. And according to a World Bank study of
some 12,500 foreign firms in more than 100 Chinese cities, their return on
investment was well over 20% - much higher than that of domestic firms - but
with a much lower average tax burden. In a real sense, these firms were being
paid to take over the country's commerce.
这些外资企业目前约有45万家，并以两位数的速度增长，通常控制着30%或以上的市场份额，占中国出口总额的一半以上和税收的20%。在一些发达地区，这些外国企业曾经占全部资产的40%以上，占全部增加值创造的35%以上，拥有大量员工。近几年来，外国在华收购和收购的数量一直在以50%或60%的速度增长。2010年，中国记录了1800起并购案，价值820亿美元。除其他影响外，这些开发项目大大增加了苏州和昆山等较小中心的商业开发用地成本，其他红灯也在闪烁。根据世界银行对中国100多个城市的约1.25万家外国公司的研究，它们的投资回报率远远超过20%——远高于国内企业——但平均税负要低得多。从真正意义上说，这些公司获得的报酬是为了接管中国的商业。
Unfortunately
for China, the adage, "most pretty, first married" applies fully
here, in that the most attractive domestic firms are invariably the prime
targets of so-called "foreign investment", presenting a serious
threat to China's economic control and strategic industries. Initially,
most Chinese companies failed to anticipate the brutal and predatory nature of
US multinationals, and often unwittingly placed themselves in a position where
their brands disappeared at an alarming rate after entering a Joint Venture. A
lack of uniform standards and a firm hand on these multinationals coupled with
the expansion desires of local officials, led to the sale of many domestic
enterprises at too low a price, or the sacrificing of long-term benefits for
short-term gain. In any case, this all began to lead to the loss of prime
assets, foreign dominance, and a constant creeping erosion of domestic economic
control.
不幸的是，对中国来说，“最漂亮、第一次结婚”这句格言在这里完全适用，因为最具吸引力的国内企业总是所谓的“外国投资”的首要目标，对中国的经济控制和战略产业构成严重威胁。最初，大多数中国公司没有预见到美国跨国公司的残酷和掠夺性，往往在无意中把自己置于这样一种境地：在进入一家合资企业后，它们的品牌以惊人的速度消失。由于缺乏统一的标准和对这些跨国公司的严格控制，再加上地方官员的扩张欲望，导致许多国内企业以过低的价格出售，或者为了短期利益牺牲长期利益。无论如何，这一切都开始导致优质资产的流失、外国主导地位的丧失，以及国内经济控制权的不断削弱。
The
fact is that the foreign joint venture partners - contrary to their contractual
undertakings with the government in establishing these JVs - are unwilling to
develop and promote domestic brands for fear of losing captive technology to
latent competitors. The usual result is the transfer of bits of useless and
badly-outdated technology and the launch of a few low-end models instead of
genuine cooperation in R&D and marketing. We can argue their reluctance to
nourish potential competitors is understandable, but that commitment to share
was the basis of the very approval of those same JVs. The time to have
expressed that reluctance was before entering into those joint ventures which,
it must be pointed out, the Chinese government approached in good faith. The
result is very large-scale auto manufacturing that is almost totally dependent
on foreign firms with no benefit to the domestic industry. Once again the
foreign firms have reneged on their commitments and are in fact conspiring
through their actions to remove domestic brands from the market. This
determination is not casual. As I noted elsewhere, GM took a heavy financial
bath by pushing Saab auto into bankruptcy primarily if not solely to prevent a
Chinese firm from obtaining some useful auto technology. They do not care about
developing local talent or management expertise, but instead centralise
everything to maintain control. Local JVs in China will most often learn
little, the JV will have no useful technology transfer or osmosis, and only the
foreign partner will benefit.
事实是，外国合资伙伴不愿意开发和推广国内品牌，因为他们担心把自己掌握的技术输给潜在的竞争对手，这与他们与政府建立合资企业的合同承诺背道而驰。通常的结果是转移一些无用的、严重过时的技术，推出一些低端车型，而不是在研发和营销方面进行真正的合作。我们可以说，他们不愿培育潜在竞争对手是可以理解的，但这种分享的承诺正是这些合资企业获得认可的基础。必须指出的是，在加入这些合资企业之前，中国政府表达了这种不情愿的态度。其结果是大规模的汽车制造业几乎完全依赖外国公司，对国内产业没有任何好处。这些外国公司再次违背了自己的承诺，事实上正在通过自己的行动密谋将国内品牌从市场上撤出。这种决定并非偶然的。正如我在其他地方指出的那样，通用汽车通过推动萨博汽车破产，经历了一场沉重的财务洗礼，这主要是为了阻止一家中国公司获得一些有用的汽车技术，如果不只是为了防止这种情况的话。他们不关心培养本地人才或管理专业知识，而是把一切都集中起来以维持控制权。中国的本土合资企业通常学不到什么东西，没有有用的技术转让或渗透，只有外国合作伙伴才会受益。
This
circumstance of excessive and focused foreign investment inevitably leads to
foreign control of a country's economy, forming a direct
threat to the development of related domestic industries and to the basic
economic security of the nation. In a developing country like China, a high
level of foreign investment results in these firms controlling the rate of
expansion of various domestic market segments, curbing competition from
domestic firms and limiting their rate of growth and survivability. The
percentage by which foreign firms dominate a market is of great importance to a
developing nation, and most multinationals, especially American ones, have
market domination as a first purpose. If this percentage domination
reaches 30% of a general industry or 50% in a specific industry, the domestic
situation becomes dangerous. At this level, it can become almost impossible for
domestic firms to thrive or even compete effectively. A significant
number of foreign multinationals have each purchased many domestic firms, with
the result that China has in a sense "sold out" much of an industry
to foreigners, creating domestic difficulties almost impossible to repair.
这种外国投资过多、集中的情况，必然导致外国对一国经济的控制，对国内相关产业的发展和国家的基本经济安全构成直接威胁。在中国这样的发展中国家，高水平的外国投资导致这些企业控制着国内各细分市场的扩张速度，抑制了来自国内企业的竞争，限制了它们的增长速度和生存能力。外国公司主导一个市场的比例对发展中国家来说非常重要，大多数跨国公司，尤其是美国跨国公司，都把主导市场作为首要目标。如果这一比例在一般行业达到30%，在特定行业达到50%，国内形势就会变得危险。在这个水平上，国内企业几乎不可能兴旺发达，甚至无法有效竞争。相当多的外国跨国公司都收购了许多国内企业，结果导致中国在某种意义上把一个行业的很大一部分卖给了外国人，造成了几乎无法修复的国内困难。
Furthermore,
this investment-led development forces a synchronous expansion in Chinese
industry, creating a situation where Chinese firms are increasingly only a
cheap labor component of a foreign-owned supply chain. China in effect would
have become simply the blue collar workers for the foreign firms who controlled
the JVs, owned the technology and know-how, controlled the markets, and
expatriated their great majority share of the profits. As one example, in
a recent year, China exported more than 5 billion pairs of shoes, reaping less
than 20% of the total profits, while the remaining 80% went to the foreign
brands and their distribution channels. In this circumstance, China's
low-cost manufacturing creates low prices of goods in foreign markets and
rising prices at home for foreign goods but, as foreign multinationals
increasingly dominate local markets, the terms of trade worsen for China.
此外，这种以投资为主导的发展推动了中国产业的同步扩张，造成了中国企业越来越只不过是外资供应链中廉价劳动力组成部分的局面。实际上，中国只会成为外国公司的蓝领工人，这些公司控制着合资企业，拥有技术和专有技术，控制着市场，并将大部分利润外派到国外。例如，最近一年，中国出口了50多亿双鞋，只占总利润的不到20%，而剩下的80%流向了外国品牌及其分销渠道。在这种情况下，中国的低成本制造业在国外市场创造了低廉的商品价格，在国内为外国商品创造了不断上涨的价格，但随着外国跨国公司日益主导当地市场，中国的贸易条件恶化。
Since dominant foreign firms force domestic
wages to minimum levels, China's share of value-added production actually
decreases with these JVs. This predatory, and
skewed, division of labor would result in China remaining a poor country
forever. This is one reason that China's wage growth rate was initially low, at
a small percentage of that in countries like the US. The original
development model that permitted the disappearance of China's venerable
companies and established domestic brands, was one that also had a negative
effect on the pattern of social income distribution. It is clear it
was not China's goal to make the Chinese the workers of the world for rich
Western multinationals, but rather the objective was to build a society where
it is the Chinese who are well-off, rather than a few foreigners.
由于占主导地位的外国公司迫使国内工资降至最低水平，这些合资企业实际上降低了中国在增值生产中的份额。这种掠夺性的、扭曲的分工将导致中国永远是一个穷国。这是中国工资增长率最初很低的一个原因，只是美国等国家的一小部分。最初的发展模式允许中国的老企业和老牌国产品牌消失，也对社会收入分配格局产生了负面影响。显然，中国的目标不是让中国人成为富裕的西方跨国公司的世界工人，而是建立一个中国人富裕的社会，而不是少数外国人富裕的社会。
For
generations, the huge US multinational corporations, with the full backing of
the State Department, used their size and power as well as times of a strong
currency to buy up large sectors of many countries. When the US
had cash, its corporations went around the world buying up everything
attractive in sight, encouraged by the bullying of their government who would
bludgeon to death any nation that objected. Canada awoke one morning in
the 1950s to discover that US companies owned almost the entire country. Almost
all mining and manufacturing, lumber and paper, were owned or controlled by US
firms. Most products on the shelves may have been made in Canada, but were
manufactured by domestic subsidiaries of American firms. Canada's entire auto
industry consisted of American manufacturers. Most significant sectors of the
Canadian oil industry were American-controlled. Most of the wholesale trade was
American, as were much of the transportation and distribution networks. Almost
every program on Canadian TV was American. Almost every book used in Canada's
elementary and high schools, and universities, was written and published in the
US. It took Canada 50 years to buy itself back. It is always instructive to see
how negatively the US reacts to the reverse process. When Japan began buying US
assets in the 1980s, there was hell to pay. Rhetoric in the media was so strong
it seemed another war was imminent. Foreign companies wanting to expand in the
US - or the Right-Wing world, which includes Canada, Australia and the UK, will
have the process effectively shut down. For Japan, it was 'because you're
yellow'; for China, it's 'because you're communist'. And often veiled in a
cloak of "national security". The Economist magazine had an article
claiming that China's state-owned firms were on a shopping spree, and telling
us:
几代人以来，美国的大型跨国公司在国务院的全力支持下，利用自己的规模和实力，以及强势货币的时代，收购了许多国家的大型部门。当美国有了现金，它的公司就在世界各地买下眼前所有有吸引力的东西，受到政府欺凌的鼓励，政府会用棍棒打死任何反对的国家。20世纪50年代的一天早上，加拿大醒来后发现，美国公司几乎拥有整个加拿大。几乎所有的采矿和制造业，包括木材和纸张，都由美国公司拥有或控制。货架上的大多数产品可能是在加拿大制造的，但都是由美国公司的国内子公司制造的。加拿大的整个汽车行业都由美国制造商组成。加拿大石油工业的大部分重要部门都由美国控制。大部分批发贸易是美国的，许多运输和分销网络也是如此。加拿大电视台几乎所有节目都是美国的。加拿大小学、高中和大学使用的几乎每一本书都是在美国编写和出版的。加拿大花了50年时间才把自己买回来。看到美国对这一逆转过程的负面反应总是很有启发性的。当日本在20世纪80年代开始购买美国资产时，代价惨重。媒体的言辞如此强烈，似乎又一场战争即将爆发。希望在美国或右翼世界扩张的外国公司，包括加拿大、澳大利亚和英国，将实际上关闭这个过程。对日本来说，那是‘因为你是黄色的’；对中国来说，这是‘因为你是共产主义者’。而且常常披着“国家安全”的外衣。《经济学人》杂志刊登了一篇文章，声称中国的国有企业正在疯狂购物，并告诉我们：
"There
is, understandably, rising opposition to this trend. The notion that
capitalists should allow communists to buy their companies is . . . taking
economic liberalism to an absurd extreme."
可以理解的是，反对这一趋势的呼声越来越高。认为资本家应该允许共产党人收购他们的公司的想法正在把经济自由主义推向荒谬的极端。
We
might as well ask if Protestants should be able to buy assets in a Catholic
country or Arabs in a Jewish one, or maybe blacks in a white one. We are not so
effective as we imagine, at separating racism and bigotry from practical
commercial concerns. This is much more about Imperial Prerogative than
about security or form of government. I can buy you because I'm white and
therefore superior to you, and because it's my right granted to me by my
god. It is written in the Western Bible of Capitalism that commerce is God and
US multinationals are His Archangels. Certainly the analogy is fitting, since
the US approaches this with a truly religious fervor. The US Capitalist model
is founded on a Judeo-Christian white supremacy that is absolutely racist,
looking on much of the world with open contempt. "We can buy you, but you
can't buy us." It is due to this theological Capitalist model that
Americans have their overwhelming sense of entitlement to colonising the world,
and react so ferociously to the opposite taking place. But this is all nonsense
and American jingoism. There is no practical or philosophical principle to
support the thesis that American companies have a God-given right to enter any nation
without restriction and purchase anything they want.
我们不妨问问，新教徒是否应该能够在天主教国家购买资产，在犹太人国家购买阿拉伯人的资产，或者在白人国家购买黑人的资产。在将种族主义和偏见与实际的商业担忧区分开来方面，我们并不像我们想象的那么有效。这更多是关于帝国的特权，而不是安全或政府形式。我可以收买你，因为我是白人，因此比你优越，因为这是我的上帝赋予我的权利。西方资本主义圣经中写道，商业是上帝，美国跨国公司是他的天使长。当然，这个类比是恰当的，因为美国以一种真正的宗教热情对待这一点。美国的资本主义模式建立在犹太基督教白人至上的基础上，这种至上绝对是种族主义的，以公开的蔑视态度看待世界上很多地方。“我们可以收买你，但你不能收买我们。”正是由于这种神学资本主义模式，美国人有着压倒性的权利感，有权殖民世界，并对发生的相反情况做出了如此强烈的反应。但这完全是胡说八道和美国沙文主义。美国公司拥有上帝赋予的权利，可以不受限制地进入任何国家，购买他们想要的任何东西。这一观点既没有实际的原则，也没有哲学上的原则来支持。
The
good ship US is nowhere near as open and dedicated to market freedoms as
popular American jingoism suggests. This theory applies only when the US is
doing the buying and it is your ship that is sinking. The driving factor is
global corporate dominance. The agenda shared by all sections of the US
government, the multinational corporations, the European bankers, and the
media, is a determination to dominate the world's commerce, nation by nation
and market by market. This US drive for supremacy is not only military, but political,
economic and commercial. American companies seek domination because the US
capitalist model is a viciously predatory one that accepts no surrenders and
takes no prisoners. Wherever possible, it eliminates all competition and
dominates every market, striving for a market share of 100%, and will stop
at nothing to keep competitors in the dark and out of the market. Of course,
the US reacts violently to any foreign nation exercising such a predatory
agenda on its soil. Any approach by a foreign company to take over a
significant American business is seen not only as a potential economic loss,
but as a political, ideological, and possibly even a military, challenge. The
US government will assist American corporations in obtaining unfettered freedom
to purchase any and all viable assets in other countries, and will support this
with the military, if necessary. In fact, this is now, and has always
been, one of the main reasons for the existence of the US military - to use
threats of force to assist the US commercial domination of industry sectors
around the globe. More than 100 years ago, the US military hijacked the Kingdom
of Hawaii so Senator Bob Dole's relatives could obtain control of the
plantations.
好船美国远不像流行的美国沙文主义所说的那样开放和致力于市场自由。这个理论只适用于美国进行购买，而你的船正在下沉的情况。驱动因素是全球企业主导地位。美国政府各部门、跨国公司、欧洲银行家和媒体的共同议程是，一个国家一个国家、一个市场一个市场地主导世界商业的决心。美国对霸权的追求不仅是军事上的，还有政治、经济和商业上的。美国公司寻求主导地位，是因为美国的资本主义模式是一种恶毒的掠夺性模式，不接受投降、不俘虏。只要有可能，它就会消除所有竞争，主导所有市场，争取100%的市场份额，并且会不择手段地让竞争对手蒙在鼓里，远离市场。当然，美国对任何在其领土上实施这种掠夺性议程的外国都会做出激烈反应。外国公司接管美国重要业务的任何做法，都不仅被视为潜在的经济损失，还被视为政治、意识形态乃至军事挑战。美国政府将协助美国企业获得在其他国家购买任何和所有可行资产的不受限制的自由，并在必要时向军方提供支持。事实上，这一直是美国军队存在的主要原因之一——使用武力威胁来协助美国在全球工业领域的商业主导地位。100多年前，美国军方劫持了夏威夷王国，以便让参议员鲍勃·多尔的亲属获得种植园的控制权。
Upon
entering a country, US firms will typically overwhelm a market segment with
advertising to weaken and threaten domestic firms. Then, with their huge
reserves of available capital and financing, they will seek out and purchase
the major players in each industry segment, and close them down to kill the
brands. In the newly-created void, consumers are faced
with American or nothing, other choices having been obliterated. Virtually all
of the famous American consumer-goods companies operate in this predatory
manner: P&G, Pepsi, Coca-Cola are some of the worst. The list of venerable
foreign brands that have disappeared from various markets due to this predatory
mercantilism would shock most Americans who are isolated by a blanket of media
silence and never learn the truth about their own nation's behavior. Any
action by a domestic government to prevent such destruction of their renowned
brands is loudly condemned by the Americans, who will exert enormous political
and economic pressure on a weaker nation to conform to this American model. The
US government, in cooperation with the State Department and even the CIA, with
all its so-called NGOs, will combine their efforts to inflict this same agenda
on any nation weak enough to be overcome. Very often, the US government will
arrange for its industry groups to file actionable protests against these nations
or take charges to the WTO, in a bid to exert yet more pressure to open wider
the doors for its multinationals to plunder more easily. This is the
American definition of "a level playing field". Some
European industry groups like Nestle, Unilever and Danone have learned from the
Americans and copied their model quite effectively.
进入一个国家后，美国企业通常会用广告来压倒一个细分市场，削弱和威胁国内企业。然后，他们将利用现有的巨额资本和融资储备，寻找并收购每个行业领域的主要参与者，并关闭它们，以扼杀品牌。在新创造的空白中，消费者面临着要么美国要么什么都没有，其他选择都被抹去了。几乎所有著名的美国消费品公司都在以这种掠夺性的方式经营：宝洁、百事可乐和可口可乐是最糟糕的公司之一。由于这种掠夺性重商主义而从各个市场消失的知名外国品牌名单会让大多数美国人感到震惊，他们被媒体的沉默所孤立，从未了解自己国家行为的真相。美国国内政府采取的任何行动都会遭到美国的强烈谴责，他们会对一个实力较弱的国家施加巨大的政治和经济压力，迫使其遵循美国的模式。美国政府将与国务院乃至中央情报局及其所有所谓的非政府组织合作，共同努力把同样的议程强加给任何一个软弱到足以被克服的国家。很多时候，美国政府会安排其行业组织对这些国家提出可采取行动的抗议，或向世贸组织提起诉讼，以期施加更大的压力，为其跨国公司更容易地进行掠夺打开更大的大门。这是美国对“公平竞争环境”的定义。雀巢、联合利华和达能等一些欧洲行业组织向美国学习，并相当有效地复制了他们的模式。
These
practices were being extolled by foreign governments, banks, and experts in
so-called "think tanks", preaching the gospel of China's corporate
landscape reform by imparting foreign management practices and supposedly
transferring advanced technology. However, they were simultaneously - and
knowingly - working to channel many industries into foreign hands to the
long-term detriment of China as a whole. These threats occurred not only in important
strategic industries, but in home appliances, food and beverage industries,
light manufacturing, farm machinery, clothing, and so on. While China was being
praised for following the recipe advocated by mainstream Western
(developed-country) economics, the inherent fallacies in the wave of foreign
investment through outright purchase or M & A were being exposed. If this
process had been permitted to continue, one day all leading companies in all
industries in China would have been foreign-owned, and the Chinese people would
have had no remaining capacity or influence on their own industries and
markets. At that point, a nation would lose control of the foundations
of its own economic policies, including the regulation of everything from
monopolies to price regulation and its own technological progress. As well, the
nation would have slowly bled to death from the increasing outflow of profits
to these foreign multinationals. It is to China's credit that the
government awoke early to the dangers of the predatory form of Western
capitalism, in time to retain control of the nation's economy, industry and
resources, and to protect China's national interest. During this development,
the US government and its multinationals were whining and exerting every manner
of political pressure on China's government to further "open the
doors", to "embrace the free market" and give the US "a
level playing field". It is worth noting that the US would never permit
such industry domination on its own soil by any foreign companies, most
especially those from China. As always, American hypocrisy at its finest.
这些做法受到了外国政府、银行和所谓的“智库”专家的赞扬，他们通过传授外国管理实践和据说是在转让先进技术来宣扬中国企业景观改革的福音。然而，他们同时也在有意地将许多行业引入外国手中，对整个中国造成长期损害。这些威胁不仅出现在重要的战略行业，也出现在家电、食品饮料、轻工业、农业机械、服装等行业。虽然中国因遵循西方主流经济体（发达国家）倡导的方法而受到赞扬，但，通过直接收购或并购进行的外国投资浪潮中固有的谬误正在暴露出来。如果这个过程被允许继续下去，有朝一日，中国所有行业的龙头企业都将被外资拥有，中国人民将没有剩余的能力或对自己的行业和市场的影响力。到那时，一个国家将失去对自身经济政策基础的控制，包括对从垄断到价格监管的一切监管，以及自身的技术进步。此外，利润越来越多地流向这些外国跨国公司，中国也会慢慢流血而死。值得赞扬的是，中国政府很早就意识到了西方资本主义掠夺性形式的危险，及时地保留了对中国经济、工业和资源的控制，并保护了中国的国家利益。在这一发展过程中，美国政府及其跨国公司发出牢骚，对中国政府施加各种政治压力，要求其进一步“敞开大门”、“拥抱自由市场”，给美国提供“公平竞争环境”。值得注意的是，美国绝不会允许任何外国公司，尤其是来自中国的公司，在自己的土地上占据这种行业主导地位。和往常一样，美国的伪善表现得淋漓尽致。
The
US media also cooperate fully by demonising such a nation to their public, with
accusations of lacking a "rule of law" or of succumbing to
"economic nationalism" or "not playing by the rules". News
firms like the Financial Times solemnly warn us that today "Investors must
continue lobbying the Chinese government to resist the temptation of economic
nationalism." The FT also advises us that "If a potential transaction
risks provoking "nationalistic" objections, investors will need (to
be clever enough) to couch the deal "in the language of mutual
benefit"." It is interesting to read the Western spin on these takeovers
and acquisitions in China, the US government and many media columnists
attributing any difficulty to China's "economic nationalism", casting
an unfavorable moral cloud on China's decisions. But it was the US in the case
of Japan a few decades ago, and in the case of China today, that American
economic nationalism was the over-riding force in acquisition rulings. When
Japanese firms began buying up American icons in the 1980s, the US media were
almost having seizures about the threat from this "Yellow Peril". And
today economic nationalism is prevalent in US protectionism. Acquisition
attempts by Chinese companies in the US have not only encountered immense
difficulties but often slanderous personal attacks, entirely for political
reasons. CNOOC's $18.5 billion bid for Unocal, a US energy firm whose assets
were mostly in Asia, was denied on the grounds of US national security and
energy security. In fact, it was the Asian assets that were of most interest to
China, and the US refusal was clearly intended to inhibit China's attempts to
secure adequate energy sources. Huawei and ZTE have been shut out of American
markets and blacklisted from purchases because of supposed threats to US
"national security". Haier's proposed acquisition of Maytag, a major
US household appliance manufacturer, foundered due to an astonishing amount of
patriotic nationalism, where another US company overpaid by about 20% just to
keep the company out of Chinese hands.
美国媒体还充分配合，向公众妖魔化这样一个国家，指责其缺乏“法治”，或屈服于“经济民族主义”或“不按规则行事”。《金融时报》等新闻机构郑重警告我们，如今，“投资者必须继续游说中国政府抵制经济民族主义的诱惑”。《金融时报》还建议我们，“如果一项潜在的交易有可能引发“民族主义”的反对，投资者就需要（足够聪明地）用“互惠互利的语言”来指导交易。“阅读西方对中国收购和收购的说法很有意思，美国政府和许多媒体专栏作家都将任何困难归咎于中国的“经济民族主义”但在几十年前的日本和今天的中国，美国的经济民族主义是收购裁决中压倒一切的力量。当日本企业在20世纪80年代开始收购美国偶像时，美国媒体几乎对这种“黄祸”的威胁感到震惊“如今，经济民族主义在美国的保护主义中很普遍。中国公司在美国的收购尝试不仅遇到了巨大困难，而且经常遭到诽谤性的人身攻击，完全是出于政治原因。中海油以185亿美元收购优尼科的交易以美国国家安全和能源安全为由遭到拒绝。优尼科是一家美国能源公司，其资产主要集中在亚洲事实上，中国最感兴趣的是亚洲资产，美国的拒绝显然是为了阻止中国获取充足能源的努力。华为和中兴被排除在美国市场之外，并被列入黑名单，因为它们被认为对美国的“国家安全”构成威胁。海尔收购美国大型家电制造商美泰克的计划失败了，原因是其爱国主义情绪之大令人震惊。另一家美国公司为了不让美泰克落入中国之手，支付了大约20%的高价。
As
noted above, foreign Joint Ventures in China, mostly involving American firms,
but including some European, progressed to the point where they totaled almost
450,000, often controlling 30% or more of an industry and, in some regions,
accounted for 40% of all assets and 50% of all exports. The number of foreign
takeovers and acquisitions in China has been growing at a rate of 50% or 60% in
recent years and, in one year alone, 2010, China recorded almost 2,000 such
mergers with a value of almost $100 billion. Yet Chinese firms today own just
6% of global investment, while at their peak, Britain and America owned more
than 50%. Out of 1000 top global companies today, more than 600 are American.
How many US companies are in China? Hundreds of thousands. How many Chinese
companies are in the US? Maybe five. If you research the numbers, then you will
know who is buying up whom. The difference between the USA and China owning a
significant part of the worlds assets is a very simple one: China deserves it.
The USA has 300 million people, China has 1400 million people. There is nothing
wrong or sinister in China's corporations owning five times as many assets as
those of the US.
如上所述，在中国的外国合资企业大多涉及美国公司，但也包括一些欧洲公司，它们发展到了将近45万家的地步，通常控制着一个行业的30%或更多，在一些地区，它们占全部资产的40%，占全部出口的50%。近年来，外国在中国的收购和收购数量以50%或60%的速度增长，仅2010年一年，中国就记录了近2000起此类并购案，价值近1000亿美元。然而，中国企业如今只拥有全球投资的6%，而在其巅峰时期，英国和美国拥有超过50%的投资。在今天的1000家全球顶级公司中，有600多家是美国公司。有多少美国公司在中国？数十万人。有多少中国公司在美国？也许五个。如果你研究这些数字，你就会知道谁在收购谁。美国和中国拥有世界上相当一部分资产的区别很简单：这是中国应得的。美国有3亿人口，中国有14亿人口。中国企业拥有的资产是美国的五倍，这并没有什么错或险恶之处。
Yet
in the light of this, we are constantly faced with the astonishing ignorance of
Americans, in terms of anything occurring outside their borders, especially
involving the actions of their government and corporations. Consider this
comment from an American, posted in response to a typical article in the Wall
Street Journal: "Since China doesn't allow foreign companies to invest in
corporate assets in China, the US shouldn't allow China to buy corporate assets
in the US." This American, whose only source of information is the
pathologically-slanted US media, is apparently totally unaware of the extent to
which US companies have completed asset acquisitions in China. And that is to
the credit of the media and their columnists, on the same page as the US State
Department and the American MNCs, preaching competition, free trade and open
markets while demonising China and deceiving the American public.
然而，有鉴于此，我们一直面临着美国人惊人的无知，不管发生在他们境外的任何事情，尤其是涉及他们的政府和企业的行动。想想一个美国人在回应《华尔街日报》的一篇典型文章时说的这句话：既然中国不允许外国公司在中国投资企业资产，美国就不应该允许中国在美国购买企业资产，显然完全不知道美国公司在多大程度上完成了在中国的资产收购。这是媒体及其专栏作家的功劳，他们与美国国务院和美国跨国公司站在同一个版面上，宣扬竞争、自由贸易和开放市场，同时妖魔化中国，欺骗美国公众。
On
this topic, June 21, 2016, we had an article in the Wall Street Journal, the
mouthpiece of the State Department, by Andrew Browne, denigrating China for a
handful of attempted corporate investments in Germany, and further suggesting
the entire world is preparing "a protectionist backlash" against this
monster, the backlash "fueled by the rise of populist politics".
According to Browne, China is "snapping up Western technology and
brands" at an alarming pace, with "trillions of dollars" to blow
around. Bu Browne tells us "China doesn't reciprocate. The world's second-largest
economy comes dead last in a list of countries ranked according to their
openness to foreign investment ..." Well, that's a surprise, given that
China had, at last count, nearly 450,000 registered foreign businesses, a very
large portion of which were American. Browne continues that China "is
sliding further backward", "squeezing out",
"hobbling", and otherwise hindering the poor American companies
desperately wanting to invest in China but who cannot. And even worse, China is
"maintaining strict limits" on the chaste and maidenly American banks
who, even more desperately, want to introduce China to a 2008 financial
meltdown ["an area in which they excel"] - but one with "Chinese
characteristics". Browne particularly laments that China's defense
industry "is completely off-limits" to American firms, apparently
unable to imagine why. As a contrast, he lists India as a shining example of a
nation that "will allow foreign investors [i.e. American vulture banks] to
buy 100% of defense ventures', neglecting to mention that his own country
(either the USA or Israel) would start a third world war before permitting
Russia or China, or indeed anyone from anywhere, to purchase 100% of KFC, much
less of a defense contractor. But Browne is nevertheless full of praise for
India, being "now more open than any other country in the world."
关于这个话题，2016年6月21日，国务院喉舌《华尔街日报》刊登了安德鲁·布朗的一篇文章，诋毁中国在德国进行的几笔企业投资尝试，并进一步暗示全世界正在准备对这个怪兽发起“保护主义反弹”，这种反弹“由民粹主义政治的崛起推动”。据布朗说，中国正在以惊人的速度“抢购西方的技术和品牌”，还有“数万亿美元”要花。布·布朗告诉我们，“中国不会做出回应。世界第二大经济体在一份根据对外投资开放程度排名的国家名单中倒数第二。”好吧，这是一个惊喜，因为中国最近有近45万家注册的外国企业，其中很大一部分是美国企业。布朗继续说，中国正在“进一步倒退”、挤压“步履蹒跚”，并以其他方式阻碍那些迫切希望在中国投资但又无法在中国投资的贫穷美国公司。更糟糕的是，中国正在对贞洁、贞洁的美国银行进行“严格限制”，这些银行甚至更迫切地想让中国陷入2008年的金融危机（“它们擅长的领域”）——但却具有“中国特色”。布朗特别感叹中国的国防工业对美国公司来说 "完全是禁区"，显然无法想象为什么。作为对比，他把印度列为 "允许外国投资者[即美国秃鹫银行]100%购买国防企业 "的国家的光辉榜样，却忽略了他自己的国家（美国或以色列）在允许俄罗斯或中国，甚至任何地方的任何人100%购买肯德基，更不用说国防承包商之前，会发动一场第三次世界大战。但布朗还是对印度充满了赞美，"现在比世界上任何其他国家都更开放"。
Interestingly,
in his tirade against China's "snapping up" everything in the world,
Browne provides no examples of these dearly-departed snapped-up, most
especially no examples of any such American firms slain in sacrifice. Of
course, that's because he has no examples to offer, but let's not spoil the
man's story. Browne does offer the obligatory and often-mentioned case of
Shuanghui buying the American meat firm Smithfield, as an example of
"China buying America", but neglects to mention that Shuanghui is not
in any sense a "Chinese" company, being listed in Hong Kong and
primarily owned by US vulture funds. The Shuanghui-Smithfield deal was in fact
a reverse takeover, giving the US firm Smithfield a position of dominant
control in an important sector of China's food supply. And, on the subject of
food, Browne informs us that China "jealously guards" its food
industry from foreign takeovers, apparently ignorant of the hundreds of Chinese
food companies purchased by American firms, or that Pepsi vows to become
"the largest food company in China". Browne then includes the also
obligatory accusation of China's "rampant theft of intellectual property",
apropos of nothing at all and, as always, with a total absence of evidence, a
slanderous accusation apparently equating to irrefutable evidence. I've dwelt
on this because Browne's article is typical of the daily flood of such articles
in the Wall Street Journal, all viciously slanderous, heavily biased,
intentionally misleading and always containing numerous fabricated facts and
false statements that could be sensibly categorised only as outright lies.
Browne fits the mold perfectly, so much so that I use his articles in my EMBA
classes as case studies in unethical journalism as well as in the propaganda
component of American imperialism. But this article is only one of thousands,
and from only one of dozens of US media outlets, all directed in a broad sense
and all forming part of the US' intense pressure on China to
"rebalance" its economy. I will deal with this topic in more depth
later, but a few observations are in order here.
有趣的是，在他反对中国“抢购”世界上所有东西的长篇大论中，布朗没有提到这些被抢购一空的亲人的例子，尤其是没有任何这样的美国公司被牺牲的例子。当然，这是因为他没有例子可供参考，但我们不要破坏这个人的故事。布朗的确举了双汇收购美国肉类公司史密斯菲尔德的案例，作为“中国收购美国”的一个例子，但他没有提到双汇在任何意义上都不是一家“中国”公司，在香港上市，主要由美国秃鹫基金持有。双汇与史密斯菲尔德的交易实际上是一次反向收购，让美国史密斯菲尔德在中国食品供应的一个重要领域占据了主导控制地位。此外，在食品方面，布朗告诉我们，中国“小心翼翼地保护”自己的食品行业不受外国收购，显然不知道美国公司收购了数百家中国食品公司，也不知道百事可乐发誓要成为“中国最大的食品公司”。布朗还提出了对中国“猖獗窃取知识产权”的强制性指控，这完全是无稽之谈，而且一如既往地，在完全没有证据的情况下，这种诽谤性指控似乎等同于无可辩驳的证据。我之所以这么说，是因为布朗的文章是《华尔街日报》每天大量刊登此类文章的典型代表，这些文章都是恶意诽谤、严重偏见、故意误导，而且总是包含大量捏造事实和虚假陈述，这些事实和陈述只能被合理地归类为彻头彻尾的谎言。布朗完全符合这个模式，以至于我把他在EMBA课程上的文章当作不道德新闻以及美帝国主义宣传部分的案例研究。但这篇文章只是数千篇文章中的一篇，也是几十家美国媒体中的一篇，它们都是以广义的视角进行的，都是美国对中国施加的“再平衡”经济的巨大压力的一部分。我将在后面更深入地讨论这个话题，但这里有几点看法。
The
US wants China to reduce its infrastructure development and cut back on
manufacturing and turn to services, on the claim this is more 'sustainable' and
will somehow save the world. Infrastructure is of course critical to a nation's
development and provides the momentum for it. If Wuhan to Chongqing takes 13
hours, there won't be much trade, but if a new high-speed rail line cuts that
trip to three hours everybody will be travelling and the momentum created by
that infrastructure will take on a life of its own. But for now let's
concentrate on the commercial sector. For manufacturing, the US is demanding
China reduce capacity by 30% or more, resulting in the output of most major
industries falling by that amount, and with many smaller industries
disappearing altogether. The Americans are not completely clear on how this
would help China, but let's ignore them for the moment. The important fact is
that this enormous manufacturing cutback will be borne by Chinese manufacturers
in China. But that raises a question: will the American manufacturers in China
also rebalance? Will they also reduce their capacities by 30%? Of course not.
They will be expanding by 30% to 50% in their determination to 'dominate
China's markets'. And that means the US will eventually be manufacturing 50% or
even 80% of all the goods in China - and 50% or more of all the goods in the
world, as it once did. The only difference will be that much of that manufacturing
will be done in other countries, but the net result will be the same.
美国希望中国减少基础设施建设，减少制造业，转向服务业，理由是这种做法更具“可持续性”，并能以某种方式拯救世界。基础设施当然对一个国家的发展至关重要，并为其提供动力。如果武汉到重庆需要13个小时，贸易不会太多，但如果一条新的高铁将这段行程缩短到3个小时，所有人都将出行，基础设施创造的动力将自行发挥作用。但现在让我们专注于商业领域。在制造业方面，美国要求中国将产能削减30%或更多，导致大多数主要行业的产出下降30%或更多，许多规模较小的行业完全消失。美国人还不完全清楚这将如何帮助中国，但让我们暂时忽略它们吧。重要的事实是，制造业的大幅削减将由中国的制造商承担。但这引发了一个问题：在中国的美国制造商也会重新平衡吗？他们还会减少30%的产能吗？当然不是。他们将以30%到50%的速度扩张，以实现“主导中国市场”的决心。这意味着美国最终将制造中国所有商品的50%甚至80%——以及世界所有商品的50%甚至更多，就像它曾经那样。唯一的区别是，大部分制造业将在其他国家进行，但最终结果将是一样的。
And
if American firms control 50% or more of China's manufacturing, they will
control the country's entire economy. If they control manufacturing, they will
control the choice of products being made, and their quality. They will control
all the cultural values contained in all those products, values which will be
entirely American. If they control that extent of manufacturing, they will also
control virtually all R&D, and will have the
power to decide which products reach the market and which are withheld. They
will be able to prevent new entrants to every market. If the Americans control
manufacturing, they will also control wage levels and benefits and,
eventually, labor laws. They will also control price levels, that
degree of market control being sufficient to set price levels for virtually all
products. Long before this finally played out, China would have lost
control of its economy and become a US economic colony. And that is the intent,
the Americans merely being a conduit for the transmission of this philosophy,
obtaining and following the orders issued from their masters, the European
banking families that control them. But let's not lose the main point: Browne's
article and the entire American bullying apparatus are directed entirely toward
attempts to force China to willingly abandon the precise strategy that produced
its astonishing development, abandon hope for any future progress, and turn all
its manufacturing capacity over to the Americans so as to become a US colony.
如果美国企业控制了中国制造业的50%或更多，它们将控制中国的整个经济。如果他们控制制造业，他们将控制产品的选择和质量。他们将控制所有这些产品中包含的所有文化价值观，这些价值观将完全是美国的。如果他们控制了制造业的规模，他们也将控制几乎所有的研发活动，并将有权决定哪些产品进入市场，哪些产品被扣留。它们将能够阻止新进入者进入每个市场。如果美国人控制了制造业，他们也将控制工资水平和福利，最终还会控制劳动法。它们还将控制价格水平，这种市场控制程度足以为几乎所有产品设定价格水平。早在这种情况最终出现之前，中国就会失去对经济的控制，成为美国的经济殖民地。这就是他们的意图，美国人只是一个传播这种理念的渠道，获取并遵循他们的主人、控制他们的欧洲银行家族发出的命令。但我们不要失去重点：布朗的文章和整个美国欺凌机器完全是为了迫使中国自愿放弃导致其惊人发展的精确战略，放弃对未来任何进步的希望，将其所有制造能力交给美国人，从而成为美国的殖民地。
Nestlé made a $12
billion purchase of Pfizer Inc.’s baby-food business, and has also purchased a
60% stake in Chinese candy maker Hsu Fu Chi for about $1.7 billion, in one of
the largest foreign takeovers of a Chinese company. Yum! purchased
China's Little Sheep hotpot chain, with 470 restaurants in the Chinese
mainland. AB InBev is on the shortlist to buy China's Kingway
Brewery, valued at $700 million. French giant LVMH has
acquired a stake in mainland fashion maker Ochirly. AstraZeneca has purchased
Guangdong BeiKang Pharmaceutical. Concord Medical Services (Carlyle
Group) has acquired a 52% stake in Chang'an Hospital, a 1,000-bed
facility in Shaanxi Province. US-based Medtronic, the company
involved in a US scandal with patients dying from defective heart pacemakers,
has purchased Chinese medical device maker China Kanghui Holdings for $816
million in cash. Boots, Europe's biggest pharmacy chain, purchased
a stake in China's Nanjing Pharmaceutical. Cardinal Health, the
second largest drug distributor in the US, acquired Zhejiang Dasheng Medic,
China's second largest company in terms of hospital sales. Not all applications
for takeovers of Chinese firms are approved. Coca-Cola's proposed
takeover of Huiyuan Juice was refused because it would have given the US
company dominant control of China's juice market, in fact about 80% of the
total market for those goods, and not the 20% the US media stated.
雀巢斥资120亿美元收购了辉瑞公司的婴儿食品业务，还以约17亿美元的价格收购了中国糖果制造商许福记60%的股份，这是对一家中国公司最大的外国收购之一。太棒了！收购了中国的小肥羊火锅连锁店，在中国大陆有470家餐厅。百威英博在收购中国金威啤酒厂的候选名单上，价值7亿美元。法国巨头LVMH收购了大陆时装制造商奥奇里的股份。阿斯利康收购了广东北康药业。康科德医疗服务集团收购了长安医院52%的股份。长安医院位于陕西省，拥有1000张床位。总部位于美国的美敦力公司卷入了美国心脏起搏器缺陷导致患者死亡的丑闻，该公司已以8.16亿美元现金收购了中国医疗器械制造商中国康辉控股有限公司。欧洲最大的连锁药店博姿收购了中国南京制药的股份。美国第二大药品经销商红衣主教医疗集团收购了中国医院销售额第二大的浙江大胜医疗集团。并非所有收购中国公司的申请都获得批准。可口可乐收购汇源果汁的提议遭到了拒绝，因为它会让这家美国公司主导中国果汁市场的控制权，事实上，中国果汁市场约占这些产品总市场的80%，而不是美国媒体所说的20%。
We
also have a distressing number of acquisitions proposed by predatory American
banks and hedge funds, firms that should rationally be prohibited from this
kind of commerce since they have neither knowledge of, nor
long-term interest in, these industries, and this kind of 'investment' is
always a one-way street. Typically, they financialise a company and then
destroy it, forcing quality degradation, cutting staff and expenses to the
bone, then extracting an enormous profit from an IPO, after which the shrunken
skeleton often struggles to survive. These US financial institutions are
heavily supported by political and media pressure, but should be banned totally
from all commercial categories of what is called 'foreign investment'. Warburg
Pincus bought a share of Huiyuan; Goldman Sachs tried
to purchase Shineway, China's largest meat producer, after already purchasing
Shuanghui and orchestrating its takeover by Smithfields. The Carlyle
Group tried to purchase Xuzhou, one of China's largest construction
machinery companies. What does Goldman Sachs know about operating a
meat company, or Carlyle about construction machinery? Clearly, they don't
intend to own and operate, but to financialise and extract cash; nothing else
would attract them. The US media proudly boast of the many mergers and
acquisitions initiated by these vultures but never provide the public with
details of the destruction and eventual demise of many of the victims.
我们还有大量掠夺性的美国银行和对冲基金提出的收购计划，这些公司理应被禁止从事此类商业活动，因为它们对这些行业既不了解，也没有长期利益，而这种“投资”永远是单向的。通常情况下，它们会将一家公司融资，然后将其摧毁，迫使其质量下降，削减员工和开支，然后从IPO中获取巨额利润，之后，萎缩的骨架往往难以生存。这些美国金融机构受到政治和媒体压力的大力支持，但应该被完全禁止进入所谓的“外国投资”的所有商业类别。华平收购了汇源股份；高盛试图收购中国最大的肉类生产商鑫威，此前该公司已经收购了双汇，并策划了史密斯菲尔德对双汇的收购。凯雷集团试图收购中国最大的工程机械公司之一徐州。高盛对经营肉类公司了解多少，凯雷对工程机械了解多少？显然，他们不打算拥有和经营，而是想融资和提取现金；其他任何东西都不会吸引他们。美国媒体自豪地吹嘘这些秃鹫发起的许多并购活动，但从未向公众提供许多受害者遭到破坏并最终死亡的细节。
Just
as no one should be able to buy and sell foreign currencies except for direct
use in international trade, so likewise these so-called financial groups,
criminal vultures and scavengers all, should be prohibited from purchasing
stakes in foreign companies except as silent shareholders through a stock
exchange.
正如除了在国际贸易中直接使用外，任何人都不应该买卖外汇，同样地，这些所谓的金融集团、犯罪集团和清道夫都应该被禁止通过证券交易所购买外国公司的股份，除非它们是沉默的股东。
These
American banks, hedge funds and other so-called financial groups have left a
trail of hundreds of corpses around the world, most often in
undeveloped countries from which the news never escapes into the West, and this
trail absolutely includes not only corporations but national governments as
well. In 1997, Bankers like Goldman Sachs, people like George Soros, and
stealthy predators like the US FED were happy to pump billions into Asian
financial markets, creating bubbles while destroying currencies, then
absconding with a massive profit and leaving behind devastated national
economies. Americans blithely refer to "The Asian Financial Crisis",
apparently ignorant of the fact that their own institutions and speculators
caused it solely from greed, while bankrupting Thailand in the process.
这些美国银行、对冲基金和其他所谓的金融集团在世界各地留下了数百具尸体的踪迹，最常见的是在不发达国家，这些国家的消息永远不会传到西方国家。这条踪迹绝对不仅包括企业，也包括各国政府。1997年，高盛这样的银行家、乔治·索罗斯这样的人，以及美联储这样的秘密掠夺者乐于向亚洲金融市场注入数十亿美元，在破坏货币的同时制造泡沫，然后带着巨额利润潜逃，留下了遭受重创的国民经济。美国人兴高采烈地提到了“亚洲金融危机”，显然不知道自己的机构和投机者完全是贪婪导致了这场危机，而在这一过程中，泰国破产了。
*
Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been
translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150
foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well
as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired
management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions
in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export
business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University,
presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr.
Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books
generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors
to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2
— Dealing with Demons).
罗曼诺夫的作品他的文章被翻译成32种语言，发表在30多个国家的150多个外语新闻和政治网站上，以及100多个英语平台上。拉里·罗曼诺夫是一名退休的管理顾问和商人。他曾在国际咨询公司担任高级管理职位，并拥有国际进出口业务。他曾在上海复旦大学担任客座教授，向EMBA高级班讲授国际事务方面的案例研究。罗曼诺夫住在上海，目前正在撰写一系列十本书，这些书通常与中国和西方有关。他是辛西娅·麦金尼新书集的撰稿人之一。（第二章）。当中国打喷嚏的时候对付恶魔
His
full archive can be seen at
他的完整文章库可以在以下看到：
https://www.moonofshanghai.com/ and http://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/
He
can be contacted at:
他的联系方式：
2186604556@qq.com
Copyright
© Larry Romanoff, Moon of Shanghai, Blue Moon of Shanghai, 2022
