为时已晚：变局已至
作者：瑞·达利欧
一些人仍相信，关税带来的混乱终将随着更多的谈判与更审慎的安排而趋于平息，从而实现一种更理性的制度化。但我现在从越来越多直接面临这些问题的人那里听到的声音却是：一切已经太迟了。
举例而言，许多向美国出口产品的企业，以及那些从美国以外国家向美国进口的公司，都表示他们不得不大幅削减与美国的往来。因为他们认识到：不管关税如何演变，这些问题都不会自行消失。与美国大幅“去耦”的现实，已成为他们必须未雨绸缪的方向。
最显而易见的是：
在中国的美国生产商和投资者、与美国有业务往来的中国生产商和投资者、在美国的中国生产商和投资者、以及与中国合作的美国生产商和投资者，现在都必须着手准备替代性方案，而不能再将希望寄托于未来某一轮谈判的好转。
如今，“降低中美依赖、警惕冲突风险”的意识已不再是少数人的担忧，而是逐渐成为多数国家、多数领域（包括贸易关系、资本市场联系、地缘政治关系与军事关系）中的普遍共识。
与此同时，尽管尚未被完全认知，但越来越多的人已开始意识到：美国作为全球最大工业品消费国和债务资产制造者的角色，正在走向不可持续的极限。
依靠向美国出售商品和提供贷款，并指望能以“硬通货”（即未经贬值的美元）收回投资，是一种幼稚的想法。因此，各国必须制定新的应对计划。
简而言之，巨大的贸易与资本失衡，正在制造不可持续的局面，存在被中断的重大风险。这些失衡必须下降——即，过度失衡 + 去全球化 = 更小的贸易与资本不平衡。
更广义地说，基于我长期追踪的大量指标，我认为：
1、我们正处于货币体系、国内政治秩序和国际秩序全面崩解的边缘，其根本原因在于基本面极度扭曲，且可被清晰测量与识别；
2、当前事态的演变，与历史上多次体系崩坏的过程极为相似——因此，我们正经历的是一个“旧故事的当代表达”：关于货币体系、国内社会政治秩序与国际地缘政治格局如何演变与更替；
3、未来，美国可能会因自己设置的难题，而被全球更多国家“绕过”——这些国家会适应与美国的“脱钩”，并在美国之外重建新的连接路径与合作网络；
4、如果这一进程被以最优方式管理，其结果将远好于最糟路径所带来的深远代价。
在我看来，最佳的出路应是冷静、理性、协调的“工程式处理”：
将失衡与自给需求视为共同挑战，协力推进“优雅的去杠杆化”与“健康的再平衡”。
例如，正如我在新书《国家如何破产：大周期的运行逻辑》中所阐述的那样，美国政府债务问题的解决可以通过一项“三部分、3%的方案”实现，比我们当前所处的轨迹要好得多。
但令人遗憾的是，至今我们尚未看到更优解法的施行，反而在不断加剧的冲突与波动中，正在吸取一些代价极为沉重、不可逆转的教训。
正因如此，我担心我们已经越过了了解并合理应对这一全球秩序巨变的理想时机。投资者、政策制定者及各类决策者应停止随市场短期波动和政策公告而不断摇摆，而应以冷静、睿智、协作的态度，认真面对世界秩序的根本性变革。
此处所表达的观点，仅代表我个人意见，并不代表桥水基金的立场。
Some people believe that the tariff disruptions will settle down as more negotiations happen and greater thought is given to how to structure them to work in a sensible way. However, I am now hearing from a large and growing number of people who are having to deal with these issues that it is already too late. For example, many exporters to the United States and importers from other countries that trade with the U.S. are saying they have to greatly reduce their dealings with the United States, recognizing thatwhatever happens with tariffs, these problems won't go away, and that radically reduced interdependencies with the U.S. is a reality that has to be planned for.Most obviously, American producers and investors in China, Chinese producers and investors in China that deal with Americans, American producers and investors in the United States that deal with Chinese, and Chinese producers and investors in United States that deal with Americans must now go about making alternative plans, regardless of what the next round of trade negotiations are like. While this need to minimize U.S. - China interdependence and worry about conflict is now broadly recognized, this view is now becoming more commonly believed by most people in most countries who are dealing with most issues related to trade relations, capital markets relations, geopolitical relations, and military relations with the United States.
Though not yet fully realized, it is also increasingly being realized thatthe United States' role as the world's biggest consumer of manufactured goods and greatest producer of debt assets to finance its over-consumption is unsustainable, so assuming that one can sell and lend to the U.S. and get paid back with hard (i.e. not devalued) dollars on their U.S. debt holdings is naive thinking, so other plans have to be made.
Said more simply, enormous trade and capital imbalances are creating unsustainable conditions and major risks of being cut off, so they must come down -i.e.,excessive imbalances + deglobalization = smaller trade and capital imbalances.
More broadly, what I am saying is that, based on many of my indicators,it appears that:
1) we are on the brink of the monetary order, the domestic political and the international world orders breaking down due to unsustainable, bad fundamentals that can be easily seen and measured,
2) the progression of events leading to these increasing disorders is similar to those that have progressed many times throughout history, so this one looks like a contemporary version of the old story of how monetary, domestic political and social, and international geopolitical orders change,
3) there is a growing risk that the United States, imposing these challenges to deal with, will increasingly be bypassed by a world of countries that will adapt to these separations from the United States and create new synapses that grow around it, and
4) if these circumstances are managed in the best ways, the outcomes will be much better than if they are managed in the worst ways
In my opinion, what would be best is calm, analytical, and coordinated engineering and implementation, with the imbalances and the needs for self-sufficiencies treated as shared challenges, to produce the “beautiful" deleveragings and rebalancings that need to take place. For example, as explained in my new book,How Countries Go Broke: The Big Cycle,there is a "3-Part, 3-Percent Solution" to dealing with the U.S. government debt problem that would lead to much better results than the path that we appear to be on. Unfortunately, thus far we haven’t seen the better ways and have instead seen disturbing fighting and volatility that are teaching lessons that are leading to irreversible bad consequences.
For these reasons, I fear that we are moving beyond the ideal time to be knowledgeable about and properly plan for these big changes in the world order, and believe that investors, policy makers, and other decision-makers need to stop undulating their views and positions in reaction to the day-to-day market moves and policy announcements and instead deal with these big fundamental changes in the world order calmly, intelligently, and, ideally, cooperatively.
The views expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of Bridgewater.
赞(19)
