American census 2010 and the future of American foreign policy

The 2010 American census is here. There are several demographical trends in the U.S. that could be revealed through this process. First, more people will move out of the rusty belt area and into Florida, California and Texas, increasing the power of these populated states even more. Second, the percentage of white population will drop and probably soon will cease to be the majority of this country. Third, the importance of women in general will grow as the service industry expands.

It is quite obvious that the face of America is undergoing great change. In another 30 years, America will be very different from now. This transformation may not be as stable as people hope.

The new demography is favorable to current democrats' policy as urban population increases. Republicans maybe pushed to more extreme policy choices, but sooner or later, it has to adjust its stand so that it could recapture the center. Ethnic and religious divide will deepen and culture conflict might erupt from time to time, causing social tensions and complicating policy making processes. losing male dominance of the society may mean priority switch towards more women interests. Overall, the past center-right core ideological position of this country could gradually edge left. Therefore, if we step back and review the rise of Obama and the passage of the health care reform, they might be some critical events in a much longer trans-formative era.

Then, what's the implication of these changes for foreign policy? More domestic conflict, negotiation, and compromise will remake the American consensus, which may take a long and painful struggle over power. Such internal focus could reduce the attention paid to foreign affairs or commitment to international regimes. The cost of maintain the stability of the international system will continue to rise and America will find itself hard to manage all the aspects of the system without pooling resources with others. Therefore, soft power or moral influence will become more and more critical for American dominance.

America maybe less intrusive physically or militarily, but it could utilize more of its enormous propaganda power to assert pressure on its enemies. Also it may be more dependent on non-governmental entities to execute foreign policies.

The challenge for China in the future in dealing with the U.S. is that it may face a weaker counterpart, but the counterpart may pose no less threat to the Chinese interests. However, a more diversified U.S. could provide more opportunities for China to allying itself with. Overtime, they may finally find more common ground than now.

A whole new game

When American ping pong team visited China, Time's cover story titled "a whole new game". 30 years later, the Game officially began. Back then, it was new because of the cold war backdrop and the reversal of a long hostility between the two countries. Now the game is played by the world's two biggest powers who are closely tied in many ways, some even not discernible by their own people. This new game is familiar in some respect. Some episode looks like the old European power politics, some like the somewhat old Japan game, some still have the reminiscence of the cold war game, some even been played 100 years before in the more than 200 years relations. But somewhere in the midst of all these, something is fundamentally "unfit", or unseen. Game maybe the old game, but the players are quite different, consider how "different" China is. Or, players may be the same, the GAME is a whole new one (a super globalized global system).

So here we are, using as much learned theory as we can to try to explain as much phenomena we are experiencing as we can. And yet, no emperor's cloth neatly fit. And we are in fact naked (ignorant). Not only do we not know where China will go, we have no clue as to where America will go neither. Since none of the previous single variable models extrapolates the complicated interactions between the two which in turn enmeshed in a even more sophisticated world system. What modern society hate most is uncertainty and unpredictability, which is exactly what the situation is now.

To make things worse, some "smart" people believe they knew how the game works, or should work. Some also believe that despite the smoke, the game remains the same. Therefore, the players should do what they believe to be the right thing: mostly, act as usual, as nothing has ever changed. The "smart" flock realize that they had to do some so that people would recognize them as smart. But the "postmodern" turn of events constantly blow them, their prediction and prescription away.

So what do we do now? My suggestion: drop the assumptions and rebuild the foundation of the game. New rules, fairer, new partnership, no preconditions, and new strategies based on fresh payoff schemes. In the new game, no past hubris or grudge counts anymore, just a whole new way of looking and thinking for the future.

克鲁格曼及其政治经济学

克鲁格曼先生不是一个纯经济学家，可能这种东西也不存在。他是一个有“良心”的，带有鲜明政治意图的政治经济学家。他对美国国内政治经济的评论，我们不好评头品足，可是这位象牙塔学者一旦出了美国国界，就有一种难以遏制的冲动：把所有问题归咎于美国以外的任何人。这种廉价的美利坚民族主义在精深的经济学包裹之下，既另外国人折服，又令美国人舒服。克先生在1997年亚洲金融危机时就应用了“全员要素生产率”来预测和解释危机的发生。但他却鲜有提及美国金融机构在危机中所扮演的角色。现在危机轮到美国身上，他又要把一顶“操纵汇率”的帽子扣到中国的头上。如此还不足以平息克先生的怒气，他还在纽约时报的评论文章中建议美国国会运用政治手段，给中国的出口品加上10%的惩罚性关税。

按照克先生的建议，中国的出口会减少，贸易顺差下降，失业增加，不过这都不是美国的问题。克先生还大胆分析，中国也不敢用抛售美国国债的方式抗议，因为这样中国的损失会更大。即便中国的抛售导致美元贬值，那对美国出口增长和逆差下降还大有好处。可是这对美国的老百姓有什么好处呢？显然，美国对中国的出口不会大幅增加，美国的基本日用品会涨价，从而导致短期消费下降，最终这些消费品的生产会转移到其他第三世界国家，美国的失业率不会因此有任何变动。究其原因，美国目前的高失业率主要是房地产，建筑业，IT和金融服务业萧条导致的，而不是国际贸易。要重新增加就业，就需要美国管好自己的经济，出台政策有效遏制房地产市场恶化，通过金融改革尽快使金融业恢复正常运作，合理运用刺激经济资金促进高科技工业的进步。然而以上这些目前进展都不顺利。奥巴马政府和美国国会由于各种政治纠纷延误了重要的改革立法和经济恢复工作。

美国的现状令克先生非常恼火而又无能为力。中国在此刻正好成为他泄愤的目标。克先生文中说中国的汇率政策抵消了世界各国的经济刺激政策。巧合的是前两天克先生还撰文说，抵消联邦政府经济刺激政策的是美国州和地方政府的财政紧缩政策。由于地方政府的“吝啬”，导致全国刺激经济的努力相互中和，效果欠佳。那么到底是地方政府的作为还是中国的汇率问题让克先生的经济计划未能实现呢？

克先生是世界知名的诺贝尔奖获得者，甚至抢在奥巴马总统之前获得如此殊荣。他不会不知道美国目前的经济衰退和失业问题是美国华尔街发端在先，美国政府对经济复苏管理不当在后造成的，更别提美国发动的两场旷日持久的战争。他也不会不知道，中国政府稳定汇率、振兴经济的政策措施是引领世界走出衰退阴影的领航标。汇率改革以来，人民币已经升值近20%，并且声明目前的汇率稳定政策是应对美国经济危机的暂时办法，最终会实现人民币的自由浮动。可是他还是选择向美国财政部施压，要求其在4月15日的报告中指责中国为汇率操控国。原因何在？

答案就在美国国内政治的“气候变化”。自从共和党斯考特布朗年初赢得了马萨诸塞州肯尼迪参议员病逝后留下的席位，民主党又先后有多位重量级人物主动退出今年年底的美国国会中期选举。当前民主党控制的国会只有20%左右的民调满意度，尽管共和党也不怎么得民心，但选举中执政党比在野党受打击的可能性要大得多。民主党面临在参众两院失去优势的危险，很可能重蹈1994年克林顿第一任期内国会中期选举的旧辙。如此，则克鲁格曼心仪的各种社会政治改革就会再一次前功尽弃。要保住民主党的优势，就需要在年内尽快降低失业率，回复民众对经济增长的信心。显然，克先生对此并不乐观。在他看来，把美国的种种问题归咎于中国可能是最安全的政治选择：一来批评中国从来都是美国政客的无风险赌博；二来可以捎带抨击过去布什政府“放纵”中国汇率问题的错误政策；三来可以赢得国内保守工会和各种反华势力的支持与配合，拿到选票；最后还可以振振有词的搬出“公平竞争”以驳斥自由贸易的“滥用”。总之，为了保住选举，保住美国人的福利，保住克鲁格曼先生的政治理想，牺牲中国的利益，牺牲中美友好关系都不在话下，哪怕是倒退80年，再搞一个斯姆特-霍利关税法案，也在所不惜。

这就是《一个自由主义者的良心》（克氏2007年畅销书书名）。这就是这种“自由主义者”在遇到国内难题时所想到的出路：一面赤裸裸的威胁、恐吓中国，另一面把中国抹黑成损人而自肥的恶棍。如果奥巴马政府听信了这样的“理论”，采用了这样的“政策”，那么其效果就一定是克先生经常挂在嘴边的所谓WMD(大规模杀伤性武器，克鲁格曼形容华尔街制造的经济危机为金融WMD)。而不论他如何试图安慰美国人，说服他们相信单方面制裁中国不会对美国有丝毫伤害，玩火的结果都肯定会是MAD（相互确保摧毁，冷战时美苏核对抗的后果）。