为什么美国不修复它的造船业?
Why tf doesn't the US fix it''s shipbuilding industry?
译文简介
网友：
正文翻译
Why tf doesn't the US fix it's shipbuilding industry?
为什么美国不修复它的造船业?
评论翻译
很赞 ( 1 )
收藏
Easier said than done.
You need money to do that and in order to do so you need commercial contracts
Jones act prevents this from happening but special interest around the Jones act is immense, with the public largely ignorant of it, so no political will to spend such massive political capital to move things.
Also the US is generally chronically opposed to any type of industrial policy. This is generally a good thing but sometimes you need to cop the cost for national security.
说起来容易做起来难。
做这件事需要钱，所以需要商业合同。
但《琼斯法案》阻止了这种情况的发生，但围绕《琼斯法案》的特殊利益十分庞大，而公众很大程度上对它一无所知，所以没有政治意愿花费如此巨大的政治资本来推动此事。
此外，美国通常长期反对任何类型的产业政策。这通常是一件好事，但有时我们需要为国家安全承担成本。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The Jones act would have been better if it required a certain percentage of shipping to be US built, registered, and crewed and applied to all shipping rather than just domestic. The requirement only applying to domestic shipping meant that our shipbuilding industry eventually specialized in this and this ended up being much less consequential than international shipping. I think our shipping industry also would have struggled under subsidized foreign competition, so some form of protectionism was always needed. We just implemented the wrong form of protectionism.
如果《琼斯法案》要求一定比例的航运船只在美国建造、注册和配备船员，并适用于所有航运而不仅仅是国内航运，那么就更好了。然而这一要求只适用于国内航运业，意味着我们的造船业最终专门从事这一行业，这一做法的意义最终比国际航运业要小得多。我认为我们的航运业也会在外国补贴的竞争中挣扎，所以某种形式的保护主义总是需要的。我们实施了错误的保护主义。
Under the Jones Act, the US commercial shipbuilding industry is limited to struggling to produce enough ships to keep themselves solvent, and even that isn't enough. See Philly Yard getting the NSSMV contract just to prevent them from going out of business.
根据《琼斯法案》，美国商业造船业只能努力生产足够的船只，以保持自己的偿付能力，但即使这样也不够。比如费城造船厂拿到NSSMV合同，只能防止他们破产。
但这仍然比没有《琼斯法案》的行业要好，因为那些行业基本上根本不存在。
I disagree, the jones act makes it so X amount of material has to be made and shaped in the United States. This makes a lot of American ship builders uncompetitive with the international market.
我不同意，《琼斯法案》要求一定数量的材料必须在美国制造和成型。这使得许多美国造船商在国际市场上缺乏竞争力。
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/washington-factory-trawler-idled-for-violating-the-jones-act-gets-a-waiver-signed-by-trump/?amp=1
Like look at the bullshit the boat had to go through.
看看这艘船都经历了些什么破事。
Those shipbuilders would have been uncompetitive anyway. Just look at other sectors, where the US has lost colossal levels of market share in manufacturing since 1950.
那些造船商本来就没有竞争力。看看其他行业就知道了，自1950年以来，美国在这些行业的制造业市场份额大幅下降。
Cool story, why not let people figure that out without all the red tape and bullshit.
It would appear you haven’t been around a shipyard before. We do have lots of great builders. Who do sell ships internationally, but they’re hands are tied by needless shit.
很酷的故事，为什么不让人们自己搞定，而不要搞那些繁文缛节和废话呢。
看来你以前没来过造船厂。我们有很多伟大的造船企业。他们在国际上卖船，但他们的手脚都被那些没用的东西捆住了。
We suffer from an acute lack of prioritization, from down at the program management level all the way up to foreign and industrial policy.
我们严重缺乏优先次序，从项目管理层面一直到对外和工业政策。
Japan, South Korea, and China all built up and maintain their commercial shipbuilding industries through subsidization and public industrial policy (I believe the term is "window guidance" in the context of Japanese government economic policy). Suffice to say, it would be difficult to replicate such strategies in the US for shipbuilding, especially when we have to compete with three major established commercial shipbuilding countries that have spent decades growing their respective domestic shipbuilding. I don't know how the US would go about reviving its shipbuilding to the same stature as its aviation industry in the current international market.
日本、韩国和中国，都是通过补贴和公共产业政策(我认为，在日本政府经济政策的背景下，这个词是“窗口指导”)建立和维持他们的商业造船业的。我只想说，美国造船业很难复制这样的战略，特别是当我们必须与三个主要的商业造船大国竞争时，它们已经花了几十年时间发展各自的国内造船。在当前国际市场上，我不知道美国要如何才能将其造船业恢复到与航空工业同等的地位。
Window guidance is the terms for loan quotas being given to strategic sectors (strategic economically not militarily in stuff like tech + steel). The Chinese indeed used to heavily follow this.
窗口指导是指给予战略部门的贷款配额(战略经济领域，而不是军事领域，比如科技+钢铁)。中国人过去确实大力效仿了这一点。
The Chinese indeed used to heavily follow this.
Yup, they got it from Japan, as did South Koreans and (I think) Taiwan. Iirc, window guidance is somewhat of a spiritual cousin to Imperial Japanese industrial policy, particularly that instituted in some of the areas Japan occupied and developed as a part of its empire. Areas like Formosa, Manchuria (now Jilin, Liaoning, and Heilongjiang), and the Korean Peninsula. Funny how that works...
是的，他们是从日本学的，韩国人和(我认为)台湾也是。如果我没记错，窗口指导在某种程度上是日本帝国工业政策的精神表亲，特别是在被日本占领并发展为这个帝国一部分的一些地区制定的政策。比如台湾、满洲(现在的吉林、辽宁和黑龙江)和朝鲜半岛。这很有趣……
Flying geese paradigm(雁行形態論), the only thing that Chinese scholars seriously challenge is the implicit assumption that Japan will have a permanent place at the head of the flying geese.
雁行形态论，中国学者唯一真正挑战的东西是一个含蓄的假设，即日本将在这个雁形阵中永远处于领头的位置。
the only thing that Chinese scholars seriously challenge is the implicit assumption that Japan will have a permanent place at the head of the flying geese
I don't think that needs challenging. Deterministic statements in economics, history, and geopolitics are usually bunk.
我不觉得这需要挑战。经济学、历史学和地缘政治中的确定性陈述通常是胡扯。
It's good timing that you ask this question on the very day that Reddit is filled with posts about Margaret Thatcher's statue being vandalized.
你问这个问题的时机很好，就在今天，Reddit上充斥着关于玛格丽特·撒切尔雕像遭到破坏的帖子。
撒切尔夫人的对手对她最大的抱怨之一，是她没有“拯救”英国的基础工业，比如造船业(还有煤矿，也值得注意)，这些行业亏损巨大，因为无法与其他国家低得多的劳动力和材料成本竞争。美国对政府支配工业的胃口更小，所以二战后将造船业国有化从未被认真考虑过。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I've mentioned this before but in short, US' intense protectionist policies on the maritime industry rendered the industry riddled with inefficiencies, high costs, and stagnation. This excerpt should be enlightening:
我之前提到过，但简单来说，美国对海运业的强烈保护主义政策导致海运业效率低下、成本高、发展停滞。这段摘录应该是有启发性的:
1922年一份有关造船的政府报告得出结论说，美国造船的成本比外国船厂造船的成本高出20%，到20世纪30年代，这一成本差异增加到50%。20世纪50年代，美国造船厂的价格是外国造船厂的两倍，到90年代，则是外国造船厂的三倍。据一家海事咨询公司的数据，如今，一艘美国制造的油轮的价格估计是全球同类船只价格的四倍，而一艘美国制造的集装箱船的价格可能是全球同类船只价格的五倍。在2007年至2017年期间，美国造船厂建造的911艘船舶中，约有91%是在国内销售的，这表明美国造船厂很少在价格或船舶特性上与外国造船厂竞争。
最后，要想振兴这个行业，第一步就是废除《琼斯法案》。不幸的是，没有政治资本这样做，因为对美国造船商来说，这是一个非常有利可图的被牢牢掌握的市场环境。当然，这种自满滋生了效率低下，使它们无法在全球舞台上与东亚的竞争对手竞争。
编辑:只是对我引用的节选表达一点观点，应该指出，《琼斯法案》是在20世纪20年代实施的。10年后，“这种成本差异在20世纪30年代增加到50%”，最终达到全球平均水平的5倍。要知道，该报告是在2019年发布的，而当前的全球经济环境已经发生了进一步的变化。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
renders them unable to compete with East Asian competitors in the global arena.
US shipbuilding has been rendered unable to compete due to the major government subsidization their competitors receive.
由于竞争对手获得的政府补贴，美国造船业已无法与之竞争。
Eh. Framing it as simply a subsidy issue is disingenuous, honestly, as US also engages in protectionist policies. US shipbuilders have had the entire domestic market walled off, especially with the Jones Act (1920), and it hasn't done them any favors. Cost overruns were already apparent in the 1930's and this has been compounding that today's "U.S.-built container ship may cost five times the global price".
嗯。坦率地说，把这个问题简单地归结为补贴是虚伪的，因为美国也在实施保护主义政策。美国造船商已经将整个国内市场与世界隔绝开来，尤其是1920年的《琼斯法案》，而且这并没有给他们带来任何好处。在20世纪30年代，成本超支就已经很明显了，而如今“美国建造的集装箱船的成本可能是全球价格的五倍”，更是雪上加霜。
Framing it as simply a subsidy issue is disingenuous, honestly, as US also engages in protectionist policies
No, it's not disingenuous. You are just lumping Japanese window guidance policy with the Jones Act to dismiss the former. The Jones Act is a distinctly different form of protectionism than East Asian government industrial policy. Even if the US were to drop the Jones Act, its shipbuilding industry wouldn't go anywhere. Without similar measures the US cannot compete in international commercial shipbuilding with Japan, China, or South Korea.
不，并不虚伪。你只是把日本的窗口指导政策和《琼斯法案》混为一谈，从而忽视了前者。《琼斯法案》是一种与东亚政府产业政策截然不同的保护主义形式。即使美国放弃《琼斯法案》，它的造船业也不会有任何起色。如果不采取类似措施，美国就无法在国际商业造船领域与日本、中国或韩国竞争。
老实说，这是我对当前经济状况最大的不满之一。该领域以李嘉图的比较优势理论为基础，虔诚地反对贸易保护主义。李嘉图的比较优势理论是在18世纪和19世纪早期欧洲工业化背景下形成的一种模型，在处理现代全球宏观经济学的复杂性方面，这种理论的能力差得可怕。
The Jones Act is a distinctly different form of protectionism than East Asian subsidies.
Because they're both protectionist policies. It's just that the Jones Act resulted in the industry being riddled with inefficiencies, high costs, and stagnation due to lack of competition. In short, US policy-makers' enacted a costlier form of protection with disastrous long-term effects.
因为它们都是保护主义政策。只是《琼斯法案》导致该行业充斥着低效率、高成本和由于缺乏竞争而停滞不前的问题。简而言之，美国决策者制定了一种成本更高的保护措施，带来了灾难性的长期影响。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I didn't argue that US policy makers shouldn't subsidize in a manner similar with their East Asian Rivals. It's just implementing similar window guidance policies and retaining the Jones Act would result in the public subsidizing a ships costing 5 times the global average. This would exacerbate the inherent issues even further as you're simply throwing money at the problem.
我并不是说美国的政策制定者不应该像他们的东亚对手那样进行补贴。只是如果实施类似于窗口指导的政策，并保留《琼斯法案》，将导致公众补贴一个成本是全球平均水平5倍的造船业。这将进一步加剧固有的问题，因为我们只是在这个问题上砸钱。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
In short, US policy-makers' enacted a costlier form of protection with disastrous long-term effects.
It's just implementing similar window guidance policies and retaining the Jones Act would result in the public subsidizing a ships costing 5 times the global average.
Ah, gotcha. I incorrectly inferred that you were suggesting that the US needs to remove protectionism altogether from the shipbuilding industry.
I agree that US shipbuilding industry as it currently exists is a money pit.
啊,明白了。我推断错了，以为你是在暗示美国需要彻底取消造船业的保护主义。
我同意，以现状而言，美国的造船业是一个烧钱机器。
The cost comes having to use locally made materials. If China is flooding the market with aluminum we can’t use it so materials cost a ton more. It’s bullshit
代价是必须使用本土制造的材料。如果中国向市场大量供应铝，我们就不能使用它，所以材料的成本会增加很多。这是扯淡。
Repealing the Jones Act without having some sort of incentivization or protection method to replace it won't improve things. In fact, it would probably make things even worse. The protectionist methods in the Jones Act weren't well thought out though, and ended up incentivizing domestic shipbuilders to specialize in domestic shipbuilding at the expense of international shipbuilding. There are two problems with this. First, international shipping has a much bigger overall market share. Second, because we can't compete in international shipping, domestic shipbuilding isn't likely to have the economies of scale to be cost efficient. Thus, what ends up happening is international shipping ships to large international ports. From there, rail and trucking takes over and domestic ships barely make a dent in the domestic shipping market.
在没有某种激励或保护方法来取代它的情况下，废除《琼斯法案》不会改善情况。事实上，这可能会让情况变得更糟。《琼斯法案》中的保护主义方法并没有经过深思熟虑，而且最终以牺牲国际造船为代价，激励国内造船商专注于国内造船。这有两个问题。首先，国际航运整体市场份额大幅提升了。其次，由于我们无法在国际航运领域竞争，国内造船不太可能具有规模经济效益。因此，最终导致了国际航运船只前往大型国际港口。从那时起，铁路和卡车运输就取而代之了，国内船舶只能勉强在国内航运市场上占有一席之地。
我认为，扭转这种局面的唯一办法是对国际造船进行直接刺激性投资。要赶上东亚国家，代价可能会非常高昂。这一代价是否值得是个值得探讨的问题。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Can we infer from the shipbuilding industry that was US to 100% re-shore, its price levels would go up 4-5x? I mean of course US won't stop all imports and cost can be lowered by NAFTA. But just to gauge the general picture, can one say so?
我们能从造船业推断出，美国100%靠岸，其价格水平会上涨4-5倍吗? 我的意思是，美国当然不会停止所有进口，北美自由贸易协定可以降低成本。但是，为了衡量整体情况，我们能这样说吗?
Can we infer from the shipbuilding industry that was US to 100% re-shore, its price levels would go up 4-5x?
Are you asking about trade in general? If so, the answer is no. You cannot make conclusions about the economics of other US industrial sectors based on the economics of US domestic shipbuilding. They are all highly varied and complex.
你问的是总体交易吗? 如果是的话，答案是否定的。你不能根据美国国内造船的经济状况来判断美国其他工业部门的经济状况。它们都是高度多样和复杂的。
Yes I'm aware of that and while being a Chinese I don't look forward to it because money. But there's a scary scenario that will turn US economy into something like its shipbuilding industry: when US/China war breaks out, nothing gonna be shipped out of East and SE Asia. If the war couples with turmoil in Europe (refugee/Russia), then practically US would rely on NAFTA to build most things.
是的，我知道这一点，作为一个中国人，因为钱的问题，我并不期望这种情况。但有一种可怕的情况会把美国经济变成像造船业一样的东西：当美国和中国爆发战争时，东亚和东南亚不会有任何东西被运出。如果战争和欧洲的动荡(难民/俄罗斯)结合在一起，那么实际上美国将依赖北美自由贸易协定来制造大部分东西。
and while being a Chinese I don't look forward to it because money
What?
Edit: Oh, I see. You are saying that you aren't cynically analyzing this for opportunities for China.
什么?
编辑:哦，我明白了。你的意思是，由于中国的机会，你并不是在冷嘲热讽地分析这个问题。
No, there really isn't. This scenario is about as likely as a genuine socialist revolution in the US.
不，其实不会。这种情况与美国发生真正社会主义革命的可能性差不多。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Militarily, the US is already focused around domestic production. Commercially, US companies will continue to use whatever global supply chains are still available, NAFTA included.
在军事上，美国已经把重点放在了国内生产上。在商业上，美国公司将继续使用包括北美自由贸易协定在内的任何可用的全球供应链。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Stillwell's "How Asia Works" notes that simple protectionism (like the Jones Act) is a recipe for corruption & inefficiency.
史迪威的《亚洲如何运作》指出，简单的保护主义(如《琼斯法案》)是腐败和效率低下的根源。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
而成功的亚洲龙虎则专注于其受保护行业的出口纪律:是的，企业得到了政府的大力支持，但它们必须证明自己能够通过出口在国际上竞争，否则就会被无情地淘汰，这样那些资源就会流向赢家。
美国航运现在很难复制这一点。但考虑到利害关系，可以说依然值得一试。
This would be very hard for US shipping to replicate now
Honestly, calling it "very hard" is an understatement, especially when considering the US' political environment. No US policy-maker will ever have the political capital to repeal the Jones Act especially with how divisive public discourse is.
老实说，称之为“很难”是一个保守的说法，特别是考虑到美国的政治环境。没有一个美国政策制定者拥有废除《琼斯法案》的政治资本，尤其是考虑到公众话语的对立性。
Definitely. Take the Commercial Aerospace Industry (one dominated by the US and EU) for example and how Chinese policy-makers are navigating through it. They have been trying for quite some time hasten COMAC's growth in order to enter the Aerospace market through significant subsidies (although nothing like the Jones Act). So, with the C919 eventually entering service, it's definitely an interesting development to analyze in the foreseeable future.
肯定的。以美国和欧盟主导的商业航空航天业为例，在看看中国的政策制定者是如何应对的。一段时间以来，他们一直试图通过大量补贴(尽管远远比不上《琼斯法案》)来加快中国商飞的发展，以图进入航空航天市场。所以，随着C919最终投入使用，在可预见的未来，这绝对是一个有趣的发展。
It is a large problem with no simple solution.
这是一个没有简单解决方案的大问题。
要想对我们的造船业进行资本重组需要数十亿美元，这需要国会提供资金。我们需要企业投资基础设施，签订航运和造船合同。我们需要成千上万的高技能工人来建造船只，操作它们，维护支持这些船只的基础设施，等等。
最重要的是，我们需要大量的公众支持来支持这种规模的努力，而这是很难得到的。
Or you could just repeal the jones act and let the industry figure it out. Certainly buying foreign materials would be a boon for the shipbuilding industry
或者你们可以直接废除《琼斯法案》，并让这个行业自己想办法解决。当然，购买外国材料对造船业来说是一个福音。
Or you could just repeal the jones act and let the industry figure it out.
The commercial shipbuilding industry in the US would instantly collapse because nothing will make US yards competitive with Korea and China, which even when factoring out subsidies have enormous competitive advantages. Just compare the average wages between the US and China in the manufacturing sector, Chinese workers earn about 25% that of their American counterparts.
那样的话，美国的商业造船业将立即崩溃，因为任何东西都无法让美国造船厂与韩国和中国竞争，即使扣除补贴，韩国和中国也拥有巨大的竞争优势。只要比较一下中美两国制造业的平均工资，中国工人的工资大约是美国工人的25%。
That’s a big claim. Boats are all custom and can not have failure points, these aren’t some mass manufactured product for consumers. I don’t think you could find a builder in the states that isn’t up the us governments ass that would agree with you.
这是一个很大的论断。船舶都是定制的，不能有故障点，它们并不是一些为消费者大规模生产的产品。我不认为你能在各州找到一个不让美国政府抓狂的造船商，能够符合你的观点。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
This won't work when East Asia already has the economies of scale and we don't.
当东亚已经拥有规模经济而我们没有的时候，这是行不通的。
Why doesn’t the US……(insert any topic here)…..the answer is that it is less profitable for rich people in the short term. That’s it. We ain’t about shit else anymore.
为什么美国不(插入任何话题)，答案是，短期内富人的利润会变少。就是这样。再没有其他别的什么原因了。
The US is just not competitive in anything except stem research (propped up by asian immigrants) and printing money.
除了理工科研究(由亚洲移民支撑)和印钞票，美国在任何方面都没有竞争力。
美国人又胖又懒，而且政治上严重倾向于无针对性的施舍和愚蠢的“美国制造”政策，而不是有针对性的专业化。
The US is just not competitive in anything except stem research (propped up by asian immigrants) and printing money. Americans are fat and lazy and politics heavily leans toward untargeted handouts and idiotic "make in murica" policies instead of targeted specialisation.
I know you hate America and the west and love China. But sinking so low as to essentially be racist and claim America’s only strength comes from Asians and generalise that Americans are just fat and lazy?
我知道你讨厌美国和西方，喜欢中国。但是你竟然能堕落实质性的种族主义的地步，声称美国唯一的力量来自亚洲人，并概括说美国人只是又胖又懒?
要知道，你这样做无助于消弭这里的刻板印象，即中国的骗子不过是种族主义者。
不过，你来这里的真正目的是在美国散播异议。所以我们为什么要把你的种族主义的自说自话当成事实呢?
unxs
工会。
Military planning is done considering NATO capabilities, not just the US. And R&D is a huge money hole, so if other NATO members can provide a specific capability it might not be a priority for the US, of for any other member, to spend money and resources on it.
我们要考虑到北约，而不仅仅是美国的能力，来进行军事规划。而且研发是一个巨大的烧钱无底洞，所以如果其他北约成员国可以提供一种特定的能力——那些能力可能不是美国的优先事项——任何其他成员国，都可以在这方面投入资金和资源。
If you look at Asian shipyards (I mean, visit them, look at satellite pictures, videos, whatever) the one thing you will notice is that they are gigantic. GIGANTIC.
如果你看看亚洲的造船厂(我的意思是，参观它们，看看卫星图片、视频，等等)，你会注意到一件事，它们是巨大的。巨大的。
如果你想与他们竞争，那么你需要从头开始彻底重建整个美国造船业。
这意味着，美国几乎所有现有的船厂都将倒闭(规模太小、缺乏最新技术、资金不足、可能选址不当)，这将立即引发大量愤怒。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
建造高效的大型船厂需要很长时间，潜在的受益者不会为了未来可能会发生一些事情而努力游说。
也许你可以考虑资助2-3个项目，给他们232条款的钢铁关税豁免等，这样他们就可以在不废除《琼斯法案》和扼杀当地工业的情况下开始创业。