Name: 辜朝明直指中國經濟真相：消費疲軟、資產負債表衰退、超低國債殖利率的深層警訊！｜人物專訪 Part3 (辜朝明直指中國經濟真相：消費疲軟、資產負債表衰退、超低國債殖利率的深層警訊！｜人物專訪 Part3)
Uploaded: 2025-06-22T00:13:32.000Z
Duration: 9 min 26 s

The government there, or many opinion leaders, say, oh, Richard Koo is wrong.

那裡的政府或許多輿論領袖說，哦，理查德-顧是錯的。

我們沒有出現資產負債表衰退。

程度副詞

但任何衰退都是消費疲軟的表現。

Except in a very high-end semiconductor production, if it's a kind of ordinary jobs, ordinary manufacturing jobs, I'm sure you can find lots of bodies.

除了非常高端的半導體生產，如果是一種普通的工作，普通的製造工作，我相信你可以找到很多屍體。

The unemployment rate is low in the US, but people are not very happy with the jobs they have.

美國的失業率很低，但人們對現有的工作並不十分滿意。

If a better-paying manufacturing jobs comes, I'm sure they will move to those jobs instead of staying here.

如果有收入更高的製造業工作機會，我相信他們會去做那些工作，而不是留在這裡。

I mean, if unemployment rate was the only indicator on presidential election, Harris should have won, right?

我的意思是，如果失業率是總統選舉的唯一指標，哈里斯應該會贏，對嗎？

Unemployment was only 4.1%, a very low level.

失業率僅為 4.1%，處於非常低的水準。

But the fact that Harris lost to Trump means that that unemployment number is not very useful for election.

但事實上，哈里斯輸給了特朗普，這意味著失業率數字對選舉的作用不大。

And if I may give you another number, from 1980 to last year, how much did the New York Dow increase?

我再告訴你一個數字，從 1980 年到去年，紐約道瓊斯指數上漲了多少？

1980 年，那就是 40 多年，對嗎？

How much did the real wage of Americans increase in the same 40 years?

在這 40 年中，美國人的實際工資增長了多少？

That means, you know, next to nothing for most of the years, right?

這意味著，你知道，在大多數年份裡，幾乎什麼都沒有，對嗎？

This number is the median number, not average number.

這個數字是中位數，而不是平均數。

Average is much higher, because some people in the United States make lots of money.

平均值要高得多，因為美國有些人賺了很多錢。

That means 50% of the Americans had a wage growth, real wage growth, less than 15% in the last 40 years.

這意味著在過去 40 年中，50% 的美國人的工資增長（實際工資增長）低於 15%。

So a huge number of probably zero or negative to get 15, right?

所以，一個巨大的數字可能是零或負數，才能得到 15，對嗎？

正是這些人把票投給了特朗普。

So yes, unemployment rate is 4.1% at the time of election, I think.

是的，我想選舉時的失業率是 4.1%。

But were they having good jobs that were paying them?

但是，他們是否有好的工作，並能得到報酬？

Just moving to Mexico, no, Mexico's no good, let's move to Vietnam.

只是搬到墨西哥，不，墨西哥不好，還是搬到越南吧。

Because at the end of the day, everybody will be hit.

因為到頭來，每個人都會受到打擊。

I mean, if you're in a Trump's position, if you're trying to answer to the concerns of these people, you cannot let Vietnam take over the Chinese production, because still, your people will not have jobs.

我的意思是，如果你站在特朗普的立場上，如果你想回應這些人的關切，你就不能讓越南取代中國的生產，因為這樣一來，你的人民還是會沒有工作。

說到這裡，我們該搬到哪裡去呢？

I mean, individual business will have to do that as a business, but collectively, as long as Trump is in the White House, they cannot run away.

我的意思是，單個企業作為一個企業必須這樣做，但作為一個集體，只要特朗普還在白宮，他們就不能逃避。

Well, obviously, Taiwan either have to buy more American products or suffer.

很顯然，臺灣要麼多買美國產品，要麼就得吃虧。

I mean, they cannot sell as much as they used to be able to sell.

我的意思是，他們不能像以前那樣賣得那麼多了。

However, some of the Taiwan's product, like semiconductors, are very difficult to substitute.

然而，臺灣的一些產品，如半導體，很難被替代。

This is about the price elasticity of your product.

And luckily, Taiwan's largest export is semiconductors.

幸運的是，臺灣最大的出口產品是半導體。

No one can make as good semiconductors as the Taiwanese.

沒有人能像臺灣人一樣製造出如此優秀的半導體產品。

And so even if TSMC raised the prices to match the tariff, all the other users will have to buy that.

是以，即使臺積電提高價格以配合關稅，所有其他用戶也必須購買。

In which case, the effect on Taiwan will be minimal.

在這種情況下，對臺灣的影響將微乎其微。

There will be some impact, but Taiwan, Japan, where very highly sophisticated capital goods are produced, impact will be less.

會有一些影響，但臺灣、日本這些生產高精尖資本貨物的地方，影響會小一些。

So Taiwan may actually come out better than the others.

是以，臺灣實際上可能比其他國家更好。

Well, China thinks, or the policymaker thinks, that if you have enough innovation, the economy should do better.

中國認為，或者說政策制定者認為，如果有足夠的創新，經濟應該會更好。

And so Chinese government has put in lots of money, subsidies, to develop better manufacturing techniques and all of that.

是以，中國政府投入了大量資金和補貼，以開發更好的製造技術等。

Of course, their manufacturing capabilities have improved dramatically.

當然，它們的製造能力也有了顯著提高。

而中國人是富有創新精神的民族。

And many of the products are very, very interesting,  but if the economy is suffering from balance sheet recession, which I think is the case, people's first priority is not to buy the best product, but to repair your balance sheets by paying down debt, increasing savings.

許多產品都非常非常有趣，但如果經濟陷入資產負債表衰退（我認為情況就是如此），人們的首要任務就不是購買最好的產品，而是通過償還債務、增加儲蓄來修復資產負債表。

And if that trend continues, having great product could still not weaken the economy, but would not be helpful for the recovery because people just don't want to spend money on interesting products.

如果這種趨勢繼續下去，擁有好產品仍然不會削弱經濟，但卻無助於經濟復甦，因為人們就是不願意花錢購買有趣的產品。

They want to spend the money to pay down debt.

And I think that's what's happening right now.

The government there, or many opinion leaders say, oh, Richard Kuhn is wrong.

那裡的政府或許多輿論領袖說，哦，理查德-庫恩錯了。

Then I like to look at other indicators, and the indicator I like to look at most is the government bond yield.

然後，我喜歡看其他指標，我最喜歡看的指標是政府債券收益率。

And if you look at government bond yield in China, 10-year Chinese government bond yield, it's like 1.6%.

如果你看看中國的國債收益率，10 年期中國國債收益率大概是 1.6%。

This is a ridiculous rate for a country like China, where there should still be a lot of investment opportunities in the country.

對於中國這樣一個應該還有很多投資機會的國家來說，這個比例實在是太離譜了。

It should be at least 2% to 3%, that kind of range.

That's because people are not borrowing money, but people are saving money.

這是因為人們不是在借錢，而是在存錢。

But if there's someone saving money, someone has to borrow money.

但如果有人存錢，就必須有人借錢。

If everybody's saving and no one's borrowing, then the economy collapses, right?

如果每個人都儲蓄，沒有人借貸，那麼經濟就會崩潰，對嗎？

What we are seeing is that bond yield is 1.6 means very few people are borrowing.

我們看到的是，債券收益率為 1.6 意味著很少有人借貸。

So the banks and the insurance companies that get this money, they have no place to lend this money to.

是以，拿到這筆錢的銀行和保險公司就無處可借了。

The only borrower left is the government.

So they end up buying government bonds, which is why the bond yields come down to these ridiculously low levels.

是以，他們最終會購買政府債券，這就是為什麼債券收益率會降到低得離譜的水準。

這就是我們在日本看到的情況。

We saw this in the United States and Europe after 2008.

2008 年之後，我們在美國和歐洲看到了這種情況。

All of them are in balance sheet recession.

它們都處於資產負債表衰退期。

And so, you know, some people say, you know, Richard Ku's idea doesn't make sense.

是以，有人說，理查德-庫的想法沒有道理。

But looking at the bond yields, I sense that a huge number of Chinese are still saving money, and they're not borrowing and investing money, which means there's a deflationary gap left in the system.

但從債券收益率來看，我感覺到大量中國人仍在存錢，而不是借錢投資，這意味著系統中還存在通縮缺口。

And so even though innovative products are coming out, maybe Chinese will buy the innovative products by not buying something else.

是以，即使創新產品不斷湧現，中國人也可能會購買創新產品，而不是購買其他產品。

But the people who are no longer able to sell their products will then have to shrink, right?

但是，賣不出去產品的人就得縮水，不是嗎？

So if you look at the economy as a whole, the economy is still weak.

是以，從整體經濟來看，經濟依然疲軟。

And I think that's what we have in China today.

我認為，這就是我們今天在中國所看到的。

You know, when the bubble bursts, you have two problems, the borrower's problem and the lender's problem.

要知道，當保麗龍破裂時，你會遇到兩個問題，借款人的問題和貸款人的問題。

Borrower's problem is what I call balance sheet recession, which we just discussed.

借款人的問題就是我們剛剛討論過的所謂資產負債表衰退。

No one's borrowing money, everybody's saving money.

Financial crisis is the lender's problem.

All these financial institutions lend money to people who played in the bubble, and they cannot pay back anymore.

所有這些金融機構都把錢借給了玩保麗龍的人，而他們卻再也還不起了。

Then your non-performing loan increases, you cannot lend, and you might go bankrupt too if your non-performing loan is too large.

那麼，你的不良貸款就會增加，你就無法放貸，如果不良貸款過多，你也可能會破產。

For this financial crisis, I think Chinese government has done a lot already, starting September of last year.

對於這次金融危機，我認為中國政府從去年 9 月開始已經做了很多工作。

They put in a whole bunch of measures, including capital injection to big banks.

他們採取了一系列措施，包括向大銀行注資。

And so chances of China experiencing major financial crisis I think is limited.

是以，我認為中國發生重大金融危機的可能性有限。

And I understand that a lot of small banks have already gone bankrupt.

據我所知，很多小銀行已經破產。

But the big problem, like Lehman crisis or the Japan in 1997, that kind of crisis probably are not going to happen unless something really horrible happens somewhere else.

但像雷曼危機或 1997 年的日本那樣的大問題，除非其他地方發生了非常可怕的事情，否則這種危機可能不會發生。