中国如何称霸全球造船业？
正文翻译
唐纳德-特朗普说，他想利用对中国船舶征收巨额费用来重启美国造船业。专家警告说此举很可能行不通，反而会抬高消费品的价格，损害美国经济。
评论翻译
Donald Trump says he wants to use big fees on Chinese ships to reboot US shipbuilding. Experts warn the move likely won’t work, and instead would raise prices for consumers and damage the US economy.
China will produce more than half of the world’s new ships this year, compared to 5% in 2000, while the US barely makes any at all. So how did China become so dominant, and could the US ever catch up? Or is the proposal intended as just another negotiating tactic in Trump’s global trade war?
唐纳德-特朗普说，他想利用对中国船舶征收巨额费用来重启美国造船业。专家警告说此举很可能行不通，反而会抬高消费品的价格，损害美国经济。
中国今年将生产全球一半以上的新造船舶，而2000年这一比例仅为5%，而美国几乎不生产任何船舶。那么，中国是如何变得如此占主导地位的？美国还能迎头赶上吗？还是说，这一提议只是特朗普全球贸易战中的另一种谈判策略？
Donald Trump says he wants to use big fees on Chinese ships to reboot US shipbuilding. Experts warn the move likely won’t work, and instead would raise prices for consumers and damage the US economy.
China will produce more than half of the world’s new ships this year, compared to 5% in 2000, while the US barely makes any at all. So how did China become so dominant, and could the US ever catch up? Or is the proposal intended as just another negotiating tactic in Trump’s global trade war?
唐纳德-特朗普说，他想利用对中国船舶征收巨额费用来重启美国造船业。专家警告说此举很可能行不通，反而会抬高消费品的价格，损害美国经济。
中国今年将生产全球一半以上的新造船舶，而2000年这一比例仅为5%，而美国几乎不生产任何船舶。那么，中国是如何变得如此占主导地位的？美国还能迎头赶上吗？还是说，这一提议只是特朗普全球贸易战中的另一种谈判策略？
@sirkeg1
"A single Chinese shipyard produces more ships than every American shipyard combined." Correction, a single Chinese shipyard in one year produced more tonnage of ships than the entire US produced from 1945-2025.
"一个中国造船厂的产量就超过美国所有船厂总和"。更正一下，中国一个船厂一年的造船吨位就超过美国1945-2025年间的总产量。
"A single Chinese shipyard produces more ships than every American shipyard combined." Correction, a single Chinese shipyard in one year produced more tonnage of ships than the entire US produced from 1945-2025.
"一个中国造船厂的产量就超过美国所有船厂总和"。更正一下，中国一个船厂一年的造船吨位就超过美国1945-2025年间的总产量。
@kenxie6487
It is probably true if commercial only.
如果只算商用船只的话，这个说法可能是真的。
It is probably true if commercial only.
如果只算商用船只的话，这个说法可能是真的。
@philipgrice1026
It's probably true as the US is having it's Navel ships built in Korea! We only build those that have nuclear power plants, i.e. aircraft carriers and submarines. And we don't build many of those!
这很可能是真的，因为美国连海军舰艇都在韩国建造！我们只建造那些带核动力装置的，比如航母和潜艇，而且我们造得也不多！
It's probably true as the US is having it's Navel ships built in Korea! We only build those that have nuclear power plants, i.e. aircraft carriers and submarines. And we don't build many of those!
这很可能是真的，因为美国连海军舰艇都在韩国建造！我们只建造那些带核动力装置的，比如航母和潜艇，而且我们造得也不多！
@lophiz1945
Their idea is: Countries won't trade with the US if they have to pay the fee. Wrong.
They will pay the fee because where else are you going to trade all those goods that were made for the US market?
Over time, new ship purchases will be non-Chinese. This will reduce Chinese dominance.
他们的想法是：如果要交关税，各国就不会跟美国贸易了。错了。
他们还是会交关税，因为除了美国市场，你还能把这些专门为美国制造的商品卖到哪里去？
随着时间的推移，新船采购会转向非中国制造，这将削弱中国的优势。
Their idea is: Countries won't trade with the US if they have to pay the fee. Wrong.
They will pay the fee because where else are you going to trade all those goods that were made for the US market?
Over time, new ship purchases will be non-Chinese. This will reduce Chinese dominance.
他们的想法是：如果要交关税，各国就不会跟美国贸易了。错了。
他们还是会交关税，因为除了美国市场，你还能把这些专门为美国制造的商品卖到哪里去？
随着时间的推移，新船采购会转向非中国制造，这将削弱中国的优势。
@13thbiosphere
In 2024, U.S. shipbuilders constructed just five large merchant vessels, totaling 76,000 gross tons. In comparison, China built 48.18 million deadweight tons (DWT) in the same year,
2024年，美国造船厂仅建造了5艘大型商船，总吨位7.6万吨。相比之下，中国同年建造了4818万载重吨船舶。
In 2024, U.S. shipbuilders constructed just five large merchant vessels, totaling 76,000 gross tons. In comparison, China built 48.18 million deadweight tons (DWT) in the same year,
2024年，美国造船厂仅建造了5艘大型商船，总吨位7.6万吨。相比之下，中国同年建造了4818万载重吨船舶。
@tooltalk
This seems deliberately misquoted: "A single Chinese state-owned shipbuilder produced more commercial vessels by tonnage in 2024 than the entire U.S. shipbuilding industry has since World War II." China's SOE CSSC produced more tonnage in aggregate at multiple shipyards.
The world's largest shipyard is in Ulsan, South Korea by Hyundai Heavy Industry, not China.
这个引用似乎有故意误导之嫌："2024年中国一家国有造船企业的商用船只吨位产量就超过了美国整个造船业自二战以来的总和"。实际上，中国船舶集团(CSSC)是汇总了旗下多个船厂的产量。
全球最大的船厂是现代重工在韩国蔚山的船厂，不是中国的。
This seems deliberately misquoted: "A single Chinese state-owned shipbuilder produced more commercial vessels by tonnage in 2024 than the entire U.S. shipbuilding industry has since World War II." China's SOE CSSC produced more tonnage in aggregate at multiple shipyards.
The world's largest shipyard is in Ulsan, South Korea by Hyundai Heavy Industry, not China.
这个引用似乎有故意误导之嫌："2024年中国一家国有造船企业的商用船只吨位产量就超过了美国整个造船业自二战以来的总和"。实际上，中国船舶集团(CSSC)是汇总了旗下多个船厂的产量。
全球最大的船厂是现代重工在韩国蔚山的船厂，不是中国的。
@maggiemomo9259
American kids gotta stop trying to become youtubers and become ship builders!
美国的孩子们别再整天想着当油管网红了，该去当造船工人了！
American kids gotta stop trying to become youtubers and become ship builders!
美国的孩子们别再整天想着当油管网红了，该去当造船工人了！
@Abe_06
Uh become shipbuilders when there's literally 0 infrastructure outside the navy for shipbuilding?
呃，在民用造船基础设施几乎为零的情况下当造船工人？
Uh become shipbuilders when there's literally 0 infrastructure outside the navy for shipbuilding?
呃，在民用造船基础设施几乎为零的情况下当造船工人？
@munyansebastien7127
The problem is, as said in the video, that ships would cost over 5 timesas much as those built in China. Perhaps the US should strenghten its ties to friendly countries like South Korea and Japan that have the infrastructure and expertise, rather than treat them as enemies.
问题在于就像视频里说的，在美国造一艘船的成本是中国造一艘船的五倍多。也许美国应该加强与韩国、日本等友好国家的合作，他们既有基础设施又有专业技术，而不是把他们当敌人。
The problem is, as said in the video, that ships would cost over 5 timesas much as those built in China. Perhaps the US should strenghten its ties to friendly countries like South Korea and Japan that have the infrastructure and expertise, rather than treat them as enemies.
问题在于就像视频里说的，在美国造一艘船的成本是中国造一艘船的五倍多。也许美国应该加强与韩国、日本等友好国家的合作，他们既有基础设施又有专业技术，而不是把他们当敌人。
@lilChinesekidchen
we need a ship building industry first. if this country was truly interested in bringing back manufacturing and industry, the corporations needed to start revitalizing those industries 10 years ago
我们首先得有个造船业。如果这个国家真的想重振制造业，企业十年前就该开始振兴这些产业了。
we need a ship building industry first. if this country was truly interested in bringing back manufacturing and industry, the corporations needed to start revitalizing those industries 10 years ago
我们首先得有个造船业。如果这个国家真的想重振制造业，企业十年前就该开始振兴这些产业了。
@lawrencel2544
bringing back manufacturing jobs is such a backward thinking. All these jobs will be replaced by robots. It's better to think of ways to advance technology instead of manufacturing
重振制造业岗位是一种落后的想法，这些工作迟早都会被机器人取代，还不如想办法发展科技而不是制造业。
bringing back manufacturing jobs is such a backward thinking. All these jobs will be replaced by robots. It's better to think of ways to advance technology instead of manufacturing
重振制造业岗位是一种落后的想法，这些工作迟早都会被机器人取代，还不如想办法发展科技而不是制造业。
@lilChinesekidchen
i'm not trying to advocate for that, i'm just making the point that industries are not led by what professions our kids choose. they're led by policy makers and corporations deciding what kind of production to invest in and where. so telling kids to become ship builders doesn't do anything if the industry doesn't already exist in the US
我不是在提倡这个，我只是想说产业的发展不是由孩子们选择什么职业决定的，而是由政策制定者和企业决定投资什么产业、在哪里投资。所以在美国造船业根本不存在的情况下，叫孩子们去当造船工人毫无意义。
i'm not trying to advocate for that, i'm just making the point that industries are not led by what professions our kids choose. they're led by policy makers and corporations deciding what kind of production to invest in and where. so telling kids to become ship builders doesn't do anything if the industry doesn't already exist in the US
我不是在提倡这个，我只是想说产业的发展不是由孩子们选择什么职业决定的，而是由政策制定者和企业决定投资什么产业、在哪里投资。所以在美国造船业根本不存在的情况下，叫孩子们去当造船工人毫无意义。
@panashejmombeshora4021
Hai, it's nice to say, but say that to Ishowspeed and everyone who looks up to that guy. It's really hard. And what's even harder is that America has built that self-reinforcing culture that, if as said by a famous Chinese politician, you go to America and ask a Grade 5 kid what they wanted to be, they would give very obvious answers like the one you stated up there, but in China, at that age they want to be in construction, engineering, software development, business, politics, etc.
说起来容易，但你试试跟Ishowspeed和他的粉丝们说这些。更困难的是美国已经形成了一种自我强化的文化，就像一位中国政治家说的，在美国问一个五年级孩子将来想做什么，他们会给出当网红这类答案，而在中国，同龄孩子会想从事建筑、工程、软件开发、商业、政治等工作。
Hai, it's nice to say, but say that to Ishowspeed and everyone who looks up to that guy. It's really hard. And what's even harder is that America has built that self-reinforcing culture that, if as said by a famous Chinese politician, you go to America and ask a Grade 5 kid what they wanted to be, they would give very obvious answers like the one you stated up there, but in China, at that age they want to be in construction, engineering, software development, business, politics, etc.
说起来容易，但你试试跟Ishowspeed和他的粉丝们说这些。更困难的是美国已经形成了一种自我强化的文化，就像一位中国政治家说的，在美国问一个五年级孩子将来想做什么，他们会给出当网红这类答案，而在中国，同龄孩子会想从事建筑、工程、软件开发、商业、政治等工作。
@hyrenaj2888
What's incredible is that East Asia basically builds all (95%) of the world's ships
令人难以置信的是东亚地区几乎包揽了全球(95%)的造船量。
What's incredible is that East Asia basically builds all (95%) of the world's ships
令人难以置信的是东亚地区几乎包揽了全球(95%)的造船量。
@K-Hsueh
South Korea now builds most of the ships the U.S. needs including some naval vessels.
韩国现在为美国建造了大部分所需的船只，甚至包括部分海军舰艇。
South Korea now builds most of the ships the U.S. needs including some naval vessels.
韩国现在为美国建造了大部分所需的船只，甚至包括部分海军舰艇。
@superpowerdragon
the same with battery as well. east asian basically produces all of the worlds battery
电池产业也一样，东亚基本上生产了全球所有的电池。
the same with battery as well. east asian basically produces all of the worlds battery
电池产业也一样，东亚基本上生产了全球所有的电池。
@김모치-z1h
if there is no trade then you don't need ships. IQ 210 move by mr trump.
如果没有贸易往来，那就不需要船只了。特朗普的这波操作智商高达210。
if there is no trade then you don't need ships. IQ 210 move by mr trump.
如果没有贸易往来，那就不需要船只了。特朗普的这波操作智商高达210。
@ayayoutuber
when they can build a navy in a year while usa don't have any capacity to build, who do you think will dominate the sea? we win ww2 against japan because we can build whole fleet after perl harbor faster than japan losing ships. our naval ship cost so much because USA no longer build ship.
当中国一年就能造出一支海军而美国毫无建造能力时，你觉得谁会主宰海洋？我们二战能打败日本，就是因为珍珠港事件后我们的造舰速度比损失舰船还快。现在美国军舰造价这么高，就是因为美国已经不造船了。
when they can build a navy in a year while usa don't have any capacity to build, who do you think will dominate the sea? we win ww2 against japan because we can build whole fleet after perl harbor faster than japan losing ships. our naval ship cost so much because USA no longer build ship.
当中国一年就能造出一支海军而美国毫无建造能力时，你觉得谁会主宰海洋？我们二战能打败日本，就是因为珍珠港事件后我们的造舰速度比损失舰船还快。现在美国军舰造价这么高，就是因为美国已经不造船了。
@diasporist
"What the US does have are two strong allies - South Korea and Japan", yeah, about that..
(Threatening to withdraw military support and now levying high tariffs on them, so much so that both of the "strong allies" are now looking for a response to US together with CHINA. Mr. Can't stop winning... )
"美国确实拥有两个强大的盟友——韩国和日本"，呵，说到这个..
（先是威胁撤回军事支持，现在又对它们加征高关税，以至于这两个"强大的盟友"现在都开始和中国一起商讨如何应对美国了。这位"赢个不停"先生啊...）
"What the US does have are two strong allies - South Korea and Japan", yeah, about that..
(Threatening to withdraw military support and now levying high tariffs on them, so much so that both of the "strong allies" are now looking for a response to US together with CHINA. Mr. Can't stop winning... )
"美国确实拥有两个强大的盟友——韩国和日本"，呵，说到这个..
（先是威胁撤回军事支持，现在又对它们加征高关税，以至于这两个"强大的盟友"现在都开始和中国一起商讨如何应对美国了。这位"赢个不停"先生啊...）
@tooltalk
Not necessarily. too bad that most can't see how Japan and South Korea benefited enormously under Trump's trade policy during his first term.
未必如此。可惜大多数人都没有看到日本和韩国在特朗普第一个任期内的贸易政策下获得了多大的好处。
Not necessarily. too bad that most can't see how Japan and South Korea benefited enormously under Trump's trade policy during his first term.
未必如此。可惜大多数人都没有看到日本和韩国在特朗普第一个任期内的贸易政策下获得了多大的好处。
@miki_9034
@tooltalk As you said, if he allowed them to benefit from his administration, why is he crying foul?
Also isn't he the one who singed a new "improved" NAFTA trade agreement with Canada & Mexico in 2020? Why is he blaming Canada & Mexico of unfairness?
@tooltalk 按你所说，如果他让这些国家从他的执政中获益，现在又为何喊冤？
再说2020年与加拿大和墨西哥签署新版"升级版"NAFTA贸易协定的不正是他吗？为何现在又指责加墨不公平？
@tooltalk As you said, if he allowed them to benefit from his administration, why is he crying foul?
Also isn't he the one who singed a new "improved" NAFTA trade agreement with Canada & Mexico in 2020? Why is he blaming Canada & Mexico of unfairness?
@tooltalk 按你所说，如果他让这些国家从他的执政中获益，现在又为何喊冤？
再说2020年与加拿大和墨西哥签署新版"升级版"NAFTA贸易协定的不正是他吗？为何现在又指责加墨不公平？
@Benny-tx5qd
After the reform and opening up, China has become the largest participant in global shipping by relying on its huge trade demand and half of the world's shipbuilding capabilities, but it still has no say in the rules of the ocean.
Why is this? Because there are three ways to control the rules of the ocean:
First, naval warships that control key waterways, second, ocean freighters that connect shipping networks, and third, ports that act as land and sea bridges.
Needless to say, the first two are the two sides of the same coin, while the port plays a core role and can influence the rules of shipping and trade through the following methods.
By adjusting basic projects such as port service fees, parking fees, loading and unloading fees, differentiated pricing will essentially form trade barriers.
Influence route planning through ports, terminal facilities, loading and unloading efficiency, etc. at different water depths.
Integrate port data, occupy the advantage of information asymmetry, and weaken the bargaining power of shippers.
Combined with the financial system, improve the country's currency settlement status and also provide means of execution for long-arm jurisdiction.
Finally, the country's port shipping technical standards can be promoted to international shipping standards.
改革开放以来，中国凭借巨大的贸易需求和占全球一半的造船能力，已成为全球航运最大的参与者，但它在海洋规则制定上仍然缺乏话语权。
为何如此？因为掌控海洋规则有三种途径：
第一，控制关键水道的海军舰艇；第二，连接航运网络的远洋货轮；第三，作为海陆桥梁的港口。
前两者是一体两面，而港口则扮演核心的角色，可通过以下方式影响航运贸易规则：
通过调整港口的服务费、停泊费、装卸费等基础项目，差异化定价实质上形成贸易壁垒。
根据不同水深的港口的码头设施、装卸效率等影响航线规划。
整合港口数据，占据信息不对称优势，削弱货主的议价能力。
结合金融体系，提升本国货币的结算地位，同时为长臂管辖提供执行手段。
最终，可将本国港口航运技术标准推广为国际航运标准。
After the reform and opening up, China has become the largest participant in global shipping by relying on its huge trade demand and half of the world's shipbuilding capabilities, but it still has no say in the rules of the ocean.
Why is this? Because there are three ways to control the rules of the ocean:
First, naval warships that control key waterways, second, ocean freighters that connect shipping networks, and third, ports that act as land and sea bridges.
Needless to say, the first two are the two sides of the same coin, while the port plays a core role and can influence the rules of shipping and trade through the following methods.
By adjusting basic projects such as port service fees, parking fees, loading and unloading fees, differentiated pricing will essentially form trade barriers.
Influence route planning through ports, terminal facilities, loading and unloading efficiency, etc. at different water depths.
Integrate port data, occupy the advantage of information asymmetry, and weaken the bargaining power of shippers.
Combined with the financial system, improve the country's currency settlement status and also provide means of execution for long-arm jurisdiction.
Finally, the country's port shipping technical standards can be promoted to international shipping standards.
改革开放以来，中国凭借巨大的贸易需求和占全球一半的造船能力，已成为全球航运最大的参与者，但它在海洋规则制定上仍然缺乏话语权。
为何如此？因为掌控海洋规则有三种途径：
第一，控制关键水道的海军舰艇；第二，连接航运网络的远洋货轮；第三，作为海陆桥梁的港口。
前两者是一体两面，而港口则扮演核心的角色，可通过以下方式影响航运贸易规则：
通过调整港口的服务费、停泊费、装卸费等基础项目，差异化定价实质上形成贸易壁垒。
根据不同水深的港口的码头设施、装卸效率等影响航线规划。
整合港口数据，占据信息不对称优势，削弱货主的议价能力。
结合金融体系，提升本国货币的结算地位，同时为长臂管辖提供执行手段。
最终，可将本国港口航运技术标准推广为国际航运标准。
@Benny-tx5qd
Then why is China's export profit and price not increasing? One of the reasons is that Europe and the United States hold the dominance of global port shipping, are familiar with each other, and have flexible bargaining power.
For example, our export goods often adopt the FOB model, that is, Chinese exporters only need to transport the freight to the port and all other goods to overseas importers, which seems to be troublesome and suitable for early poor and poor enterprises that started out with foreign trade. However, because the importers fully control the supply chain from port to shipping, exporters have no right to speak, no bargaining power, and have to bear the risk of being cheated, delayed and transferred.
In the end, the wool came out of the sheep. As long as the shipping giant raises prices, foreign importers can find ways to pass on the prices to Chinese exporters.
Anyway, you don't have the supply chain, don't have the right to goods, and you don't dare to sell it casually if you want to sell it to others. In the end, you form an inertial dependence and you are not qualified to raise prices. China's foreign trade can only make hard-earned money.
Therefore, the Ministry of Economic and Trade of the State once asked to use CIF as much as possible, that is, our own exporters will take freight to charter ships to sea, but this matter has always been difficult to promote. Even if we have a boat, people have to bow their heads under the roof. If they don't do it well, there will be a lot of trouble, and they don't even dare to sue because the other party has played the legislative and law enforcement power on the ocean too smoothly.
You should know that in addition to the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA), there is also the real big boss of the Federal Maritime Commission.
It has three major functions: administrative legislation, quasi-judicial and law enforcement, and has great power. It can be managed by ships starting from the United States or ships loading American goods.
As early as January 20, the chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) publicly promoted China's threat in Panama and also expressed support for Trump to use US sovereign funds to upgrade the port of the Panama Canal.
Because according to the U.S. Port Modernization Act, 30% of the berths must be reserved for U.S. ships. When BlackRock traded 43 ports around the world with Li Ka-shing, it also brought in a global infrastructure fund company. Maybe it was just trying to expand this set of US ship port privileges to the world.
那么，为何中国出口产品的利润和价格难以提升？其中一个原因就是欧美掌控了全球港口的航运主导权，他们彼此熟稔，具有灵活的议价能力。
例如，我国的出口货物多采用FOB模式（离岸价），即中国出口商只需将货物运到港口，其余事情全部交给海外进口商。虽然这看似省事，适合早期搞外贸的白手起家的企业，但由于进口商完全掌控了从港口到航运的供应链，出口商既没有话语权，也没有议价能力，还要承担被欺诈、拖延、转嫁的风险。
最终羊毛出在羊身上。只要航运巨头涨价，国外的进口商总有办法把价格转嫁给中国的出口商。
反正你没有供应链，没有货权，想转卖他人也不敢随便卖。最终形成路径依赖，连涨价的资格都没有，中国外贸只能赚辛苦钱。
所以国家经贸部曾经要求尽量采用CIF模式（到岸价），即我国出口商自己负责租船海运，但这事始终难以推行。即便有船，人在屋檐下不得不低头，搞不好就麻烦一大堆，连官司都不敢打，因为对方把海洋上的立法执法权玩得太溜了。
要知道除了伦敦海事仲裁员协会(LMAA)，还有真正的幕后大佬联邦海事委员会(FMC)。
它兼具行政立法、准司法和执法三大职能，权力极大，凡是从美国始发的船舶，或装载美国货物的船舶，它都能管。
早在1月20日，联邦海事委员会(FMC)主席就在巴拿马公开鼓吹中国威胁论，同时表态支持特朗普动用美国主权基金升级巴拿马运河的港口。
因为按照美国《港口现代化法案》，必须预留30%的泊位给美国船只。当贝莱德集团和李嘉诚交易全球43个港口时，还引入了一家全球基建基金公司，或许就是想把这套美国船舶港口特权推广到全世界。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Then why is China's export profit and price not increasing? One of the reasons is that Europe and the United States hold the dominance of global port shipping, are familiar with each other, and have flexible bargaining power.
For example, our export goods often adopt the FOB model, that is, Chinese exporters only need to transport the freight to the port and all other goods to overseas importers, which seems to be troublesome and suitable for early poor and poor enterprises that started out with foreign trade. However, because the importers fully control the supply chain from port to shipping, exporters have no right to speak, no bargaining power, and have to bear the risk of being cheated, delayed and transferred.
In the end, the wool came out of the sheep. As long as the shipping giant raises prices, foreign importers can find ways to pass on the prices to Chinese exporters.
Anyway, you don't have the supply chain, don't have the right to goods, and you don't dare to sell it casually if you want to sell it to others. In the end, you form an inertial dependence and you are not qualified to raise prices. China's foreign trade can only make hard-earned money.
Therefore, the Ministry of Economic and Trade of the State once asked to use CIF as much as possible, that is, our own exporters will take freight to charter ships to sea, but this matter has always been difficult to promote. Even if we have a boat, people have to bow their heads under the roof. If they don't do it well, there will be a lot of trouble, and they don't even dare to sue because the other party has played the legislative and law enforcement power on the ocean too smoothly.
You should know that in addition to the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA), there is also the real big boss of the Federal Maritime Commission.
It has three major functions: administrative legislation, quasi-judicial and law enforcement, and has great power. It can be managed by ships starting from the United States or ships loading American goods.
As early as January 20, the chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) publicly promoted China's threat in Panama and also expressed support for Trump to use US sovereign funds to upgrade the port of the Panama Canal.
Because according to the U.S. Port Modernization Act, 30% of the berths must be reserved for U.S. ships. When BlackRock traded 43 ports around the world with Li Ka-shing, it also brought in a global infrastructure fund company. Maybe it was just trying to expand this set of US ship port privileges to the world.
那么，为何中国出口产品的利润和价格难以提升？其中一个原因就是欧美掌控了全球港口的航运主导权，他们彼此熟稔，具有灵活的议价能力。
例如，我国的出口货物多采用FOB模式（离岸价），即中国出口商只需将货物运到港口，其余事情全部交给海外进口商。虽然这看似省事，适合早期搞外贸的白手起家的企业，但由于进口商完全掌控了从港口到航运的供应链，出口商既没有话语权，也没有议价能力，还要承担被欺诈、拖延、转嫁的风险。
最终羊毛出在羊身上。只要航运巨头涨价，国外的进口商总有办法把价格转嫁给中国的出口商。
反正你没有供应链，没有货权，想转卖他人也不敢随便卖。最终形成路径依赖，连涨价的资格都没有，中国外贸只能赚辛苦钱。
所以国家经贸部曾经要求尽量采用CIF模式（到岸价），即我国出口商自己负责租船海运，但这事始终难以推行。即便有船，人在屋檐下不得不低头，搞不好就麻烦一大堆，连官司都不敢打，因为对方把海洋上的立法执法权玩得太溜了。
要知道除了伦敦海事仲裁员协会(LMAA)，还有真正的幕后大佬联邦海事委员会(FMC)。
它兼具行政立法、准司法和执法三大职能，权力极大，凡是从美国始发的船舶，或装载美国货物的船舶，它都能管。
早在1月20日，联邦海事委员会(FMC)主席就在巴拿马公开鼓吹中国威胁论，同时表态支持特朗普动用美国主权基金升级巴拿马运河的港口。
因为按照美国《港口现代化法案》，必须预留30%的泊位给美国船只。当贝莱德集团和李嘉诚交易全球43个港口时，还引入了一家全球基建基金公司，或许就是想把这套美国船舶港口特权推广到全世界。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@Vermilion2049
China builds high quality ships at affordable prices. Making goods cheap to transport. So the people in the west can buy things cheaper and have a better standard of living. Why the hate?
中国以可承受的价格建造高质量的船舶，使得货物运输成本更低。这样西方国家的民众就能以更便宜的价格购买商品，提高生活水平。为什么要仇视中国呢？
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
China builds high quality ships at affordable prices. Making goods cheap to transport. So the people in the west can buy things cheaper and have a better standard of living. Why the hate?
中国以可承受的价格建造高质量的船舶，使得货物运输成本更低。这样西方国家的民众就能以更便宜的价格购买商品，提高生活水平。为什么要仇视中国呢？
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@simonren4890
They are greedy. they want all benefits without paying required price.
他们太贪婪了，想要所有的好处却不愿意付出应有的代价。
They are greedy. they want all benefits without paying required price.
他们太贪婪了，想要所有的好处却不愿意付出应有的代价。
@thewingedringer
I don't think China makes much that is quality. Even their EV cars, I'm not getting into a ticking time bomb.
我不认为中国能制造多少高质量的产品。就连他们的电动汽车也是，我可不想坐进一个定时炸弹里。
I don't think China makes much that is quality. Even their EV cars, I'm not getting into a ticking time bomb.
我不认为中国能制造多少高质量的产品。就连他们的电动汽车也是，我可不想坐进一个定时炸弹里。
@buff_li9001
@thewingedringer Just like when I watched an interview on a program, a person said they think China is a low-quality product and they never buy Chinese goods. However, when the program team came to their home, they found many Chinese products haha
@thewingedringer 就像我在一个节目里看到的采访，有个人说他认为中国产品都是劣质的，自己从来不买中国货。结果节目组去到他家，发现到处都是中国制造的产品，哈哈。
@thewingedringer Just like when I watched an interview on a program, a person said they think China is a low-quality product and they never buy Chinese goods. However, when the program team came to their home, they found many Chinese products haha
@thewingedringer 就像我在一个节目里看到的采访，有个人说他认为中国产品都是劣质的，自己从来不买中国货。结果节目组去到他家，发现到处都是中国制造的产品，哈哈。
@Shytot-1
How can the USA compete with China when the USA is too expensive and the workers think the world owes them a living for being so American and awesome? What is surprising is how the USA has managed to last as long as it has.
美国的成本这么高，工人还觉得全世界都欠他们这些"优秀美国人"的，这怎么跟中国竞争？令人惊讶的是美国居然能撑这么久。
How can the USA compete with China when the USA is too expensive and the workers think the world owes them a living for being so American and awesome? What is surprising is how the USA has managed to last as long as it has.
美国的成本这么高，工人还觉得全世界都欠他们这些"优秀美国人"的，这怎么跟中国竞争？令人惊讶的是美国居然能撑这么久。
@ngoyemichel5406
They could endure because they had an edge on services and high tech products, they've lost that edge, now they're pushing for a reset.
他们能撑到现在是因为在服务业和高科技产品上有优势，现在这些优势都没有了，只能强行重启。
They could endure because they had an edge on services and high tech products, they've lost that edge, now they're pushing for a reset.
他们能撑到现在是因为在服务业和高科技产品上有优势，现在这些优势都没有了，只能强行重启。
@gk.4102
As long as the dollar remains the dominant world's reserve currency, the USA would continue to last.
只要美元还是世界主要的储备货币，美国就能继续撑下去。
As long as the dollar remains the dominant world's reserve currency, the USA would continue to last.
只要美元还是世界主要的储备货币，美国就能继续撑下去。
@Aendavenau
China doesnt just dominate shipbuilding, they dominate green tech, nuclear power, electric cars, construction equipment, trains, machines, tools, steel, metal refinement in general, chemistry, medicine.... almost everything and they usually are a player or making moves in the few industries they dont totally dominate.
According to PPP (Purchasing power parity, the method you are supposed to use when comparing the size of countries economies) China became the largest economy a decade ago and has continued to increase its margin to the number two every year since. Luckily the nr 2, the US, has allies that can help keep China in check... oh wait....
中国不仅主导了造船业，还主导了绿色科技、核电、电动汽车、工程机械、铁路、机床、工具、钢铁、金属精炼、化工、医药...几乎所有领域。在少数尚未完全主导的行业也已是重要的参与者。
按购买力平价计算(这才是比较国家经济规模的正确方法)，中国十年前就成了世界最大的经济体，之后每年都在扩大与第二名的差距。幸好第二名美国还有盟友帮忙制衡中国...哦，等等...
China doesnt just dominate shipbuilding, they dominate green tech, nuclear power, electric cars, construction equipment, trains, machines, tools, steel, metal refinement in general, chemistry, medicine.... almost everything and they usually are a player or making moves in the few industries they dont totally dominate.
According to PPP (Purchasing power parity, the method you are supposed to use when comparing the size of countries economies) China became the largest economy a decade ago and has continued to increase its margin to the number two every year since. Luckily the nr 2, the US, has allies that can help keep China in check... oh wait....
中国不仅主导了造船业，还主导了绿色科技、核电、电动汽车、工程机械、铁路、机床、工具、钢铁、金属精炼、化工、医药...几乎所有领域。在少数尚未完全主导的行业也已是重要的参与者。
按购买力平价计算(这才是比较国家经济规模的正确方法)，中国十年前就成了世界最大的经济体，之后每年都在扩大与第二名的差距。幸好第二名美国还有盟友帮忙制衡中国...哦，等等...
@caprisuns1231
China China China again. Always their fault.
中国，中国，又是中国，永远都是中国的错。
China China China again. Always their fault.
中国，中国，又是中国，永远都是中国的错。
@neverknowsbest2879
Do you prefer Putin, Putin, Putin?
They have it in Great Britain.
那你更喜欢听普京，普京，普京吗？
英国媒体就是这么干的。
Do you prefer Putin, Putin, Putin?
They have it in Great Britain.
那你更喜欢听普京，普京，普京吗？
英国媒体就是这么干的。
@SkywalkerDavis
50-years of senseless wars will usually cause a nation to fall behind.
持续50年的无谓战争通常会让一个国家落后。
50-years of senseless wars will usually cause a nation to fall behind.
持续50年的无谓战争通常会让一个国家落后。
@the_rzh
In this case it has more to do with the US ceasing to subsidize the ship building industry.
这个案例中更多是因为美国停止了对造船业的补贴。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
In this case it has more to do with the US ceasing to subsidize the ship building industry.
这个案例中更多是因为美国停止了对造船业的补贴。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@generalen517
@the_rzh look around. This is not an isolated issue. US manufacturing is dying in general.
And you are incorrect, the US is still subsidizing their shipbuilding industry through the Jones Act.
They simply can't compete on the global market anymore; they're losing at their own game
@the_rzh 看看周围吧。这不是个别现象，美国制造业整体都在衰退。
而且你说错了，美国仍然通过《琼斯法案》补贴造船业。
他们只是无法在全球市场竞争了，他们连自己制定的游戏规则都玩不转了
@the_rzh look around. This is not an isolated issue. US manufacturing is dying in general.
And you are incorrect, the US is still subsidizing their shipbuilding industry through the Jones Act.
They simply can't compete on the global market anymore; they're losing at their own game
@the_rzh 看看周围吧。这不是个别现象，美国制造业整体都在衰退。
而且你说错了，美国仍然通过《琼斯法案》补贴造船业。
他们只是无法在全球市场竞争了，他们连自己制定的游戏规则都玩不转了
@leeswecho
ironically IMO in this respect America is a victim of its own success. It's success in other areas caused its currency to appreciate and its wages to rise, making it difficult for relatively low wage shipbuilding jobs to compete in the jobs marketplace. This is basically the problem plaguing every single American manufacturing sector...it's labor rates are four or more times higher than most of the rest of the world, forcing it only to be able to work on the most high-margin, boutique things
讽刺的是在这方面美国是自己成功的受害者。其他领域的成功导致货币升值和工资上涨，使得造船这种相对低薪的工作难以在就业市场上竞争。这基本是美国所有制造业面临的问题...美国的劳动力成本是世界其他地区的四倍以上，只能做高利润的精品产品。
ironically IMO in this respect America is a victim of its own success. It's success in other areas caused its currency to appreciate and its wages to rise, making it difficult for relatively low wage shipbuilding jobs to compete in the jobs marketplace. This is basically the problem plaguing every single American manufacturing sector...it's labor rates are four or more times higher than most of the rest of the world, forcing it only to be able to work on the most high-margin, boutique things
讽刺的是在这方面美国是自己成功的受害者。其他领域的成功导致货币升值和工资上涨，使得造船这种相对低薪的工作难以在就业市场上竞争。这基本是美国所有制造业面临的问题...美国的劳动力成本是世界其他地区的四倍以上，只能做高利润的精品产品。
很赞 16
收藏