链勇经份贸多大圣 高级商务英语阅读 The attempt to blame trade deficits for a loss of jobs founders in theory and in practice.First,the model ignores the role of international investment flows.The flip side of America's trade deficit is the net inflow of foreign investment.The extra $435 billion that Americans spent on imports over and above exports last year was not stuffed into mattresses overseas.Those dollars quickly returned to the United States to buy U.S.assets,such as stocks,bank deposits,commercial and Treasury bonds,or as direct investment in factories and real estate.A principal reason why the United States runs a trade deficit with the rest of the world year after year is that foreign savers continue to find the U.S.economy an attractive place to invest. The EPI model ignores the growth and jobs created by the offsetting inflow of net foreign investment into the U.S.economy that the trade deficit accommodates.That net surplus of investment capital buys new machinery,expands productive capacity,funds new research and development,and keeps interest rates lower than they would otherwise be.EPI counts the jobs supposedly lost when we import cars but ignores the jobs created when BMW or Toyota builds an automobile factory in the United States that employs thousands of Americans in good-paying jobs. So it is the critics of trade who are guilty of counting the withdrawals but not the deposits in our national balance of payments account. Second,the central assumption of the EPI model-that rising imports directly displace domestic output-collides headlong with empirical reality.In fact,imports and domestic output typically rise together in response to rising domestic demand.During much of the 1990s,when imports and trade deficits were both rising rapidly,so too was domestic employment and manufacturing output. Between 1994 and 2000,when deficits supposedly claimed a "heavy toll"on U.S.employment, civilian employment in the U.S.economy rose by a net 12 million and the unemployment rate fell from 6.1 percent to 4.0 percent.During that same period,U.S.manufacturing output rose by 40 percent even though the volume of imported manufactured goods doubled. Manufacturing took a nosedive in 2001-2002,but rising imports were not the culprit.While manufacturing output was falling 4.1 percent in 2001 from the year before,real imports of manufactured goods were falling 5.4 percent after four straight years of double-digit increases.The same domestic recession that put the kibosh on domestic manufacturing output also curbed 第5页共7页高级商务英语阅读 The attempt to blame trade deficits for a loss of jobs founders in theory and in practice. First, the model ignores the role of international investment flows. The flip side of America's trade deficit is the net inflow of foreign investment. The extra $435 billion that Americans spent on imports over and above exports last year was not stuffed into mattresses overseas. Those dollars quickly returned to the United States to buy U.S. assets, such as stocks, bank deposits, commercial and Treasury bonds, or as direct investment in factories and real estate. A principal reason why the United States runs a trade deficit with the rest of the world year after year is that foreign savers continue to find the U.S. economy an attractive place to invest. The EPI model ignores the growth and jobs created by the offsetting inflow of net foreign investment into the U.S. economy that the trade deficit accommodates. That net surplus of investment capital buys new machinery, expands productive capacity, funds new research and development, and keeps interest rates lower than they would otherwise be. EPI counts the jobs supposedly lost when we import cars but ignores the jobs created when BMW or Toyota builds an automobile factory in the United States that employs thousands of Americans in good-paying jobs. So it is the critics of trade who are guilty of counting the withdrawals but not the deposits in our national balance of payments account. Second, the central assumption of the EPI model—that rising imports directly displace domestic output—collides headlong with empirical reality. In fact, imports and domestic output typically rise together in response to rising domestic demand. During much of the 1990s, when imports and trade deficits were both rising rapidly, so too was domestic employment and manufacturing output. Between 1994 and 2000, when deficits supposedly claimed a "heavy toll" on U.S. employment, civilian employment in the U.S. economy rose by a net 12 million and the unemployment rate fell from 6.1 percent to 4.0 percent. During that same period, U.S. manufacturing output rose by 40 percent even though the volume of imported manufactured goods doubled. Manufacturing took a nosedive in 2001-2002, but rising imports were not the culprit. While manufacturing output was falling 4.1 percent in 2001 from the year before, real imports of manufactured goods were falling 5.4 percent after four straight years of double-digit increases. The same domestic recession that put the kibosh on domestic manufacturing output also curbed 第 5 页 共 7 页