这个问题带来的必然结果就是：

　　When nations are short of saving and want to invest and grow, they must borrow surplus saving from abroad and run current account deficits in order to attract the foreign capital.

　　当各国缺乏储蓄，又希望投资和增长时，他们必须从国外借入盈余储蓄，并常年保持账户赤字，从而吸引外资。

　　These balance-of-payments deficits — which the US has experienced in every year since 1982 (with the exception of 1991, when the US ran a small surplus by charging other nations for its military campaign to wage the Gulf War) — are a recipe for trade deficits.

　　自1982年以来美国每年都经历过国际收支赤字（1991年除外，当时美国向其他国家收取发动海湾战争的军事行动的少量盈余），这些国际收支逆差是造成贸易逆差的主要原因。

　　But since the trade deficits stem from macro saving-investment imbalances, they tend to be broad based, or multi-lateral, in scope. Indeed, in 2018, the United States had merchandise trade deficits with 102 countries.

　　不过，由于贸易逆差源于宏观储蓄-投资失衡，它们的范围往往是广泛的，或者说是多边的。事实上，2018年美国对102个国家的商品贸易出现逆差。

　　而这也是抨击中国的漏洞所在。美国政府以为消除中国的逆差就能“让美国再次伟大”。

　　Yes, China accounted for fully 48% of America’s massive $879 billion merchandise trade deficit in 2018. That makes it a lightning rod in the current US policy debate. Eliminating the Chinese piece of the deficit, goes the argument, is the only way to “make America great again” and thereby alleviate pressures on American workers.

　　没错，2018年，美国8790亿美元商品贸易逆差中，中国占了整整48%。在关于当前美国政策的讨论中，中国也就成了众矢之的。他们认为，“让美国再次伟大”的唯一办法是消除中国的这一部分逆差，从而也能够减轻美国工人的压力。

　　If it were only that easy.For a saving-short US economy, there is no bilateral fix for a multilateral problem.

　　要是有这么简单就好了。对于储蓄不足的美国经济，多边问题没有双边解决办法。

　　这是一场“打鼹鼠”游戏

　　如今，美国把火力都对准了中国，对于这种做法，斯蒂芬·罗奇打了一个比方：

　　A China-centric solution is like “whack-a-mole.”

　　以中国为核心的解决方案就像“打鼹鼠”游戏。

　　whack-a-mole：“打鼹鼠”，指无用而重复的工作，解决问题的尝试是表面的，结果只是暂时的。

　　因为根本问题并未得到解决：

　　Eliminating one piece of the trade deficit without fixing the saving problem — a very real possibility in light of a further depression of domestic saving following from the ill-timed Trump tax cuts of late 2017 — simply means that trade will be diverted from China to other foreign producers.

　　由于2017年末特朗普减税的时机不合时宜，直接的可能性是国内储蓄进一步低迷。在不解决储蓄问题的情况下，消除一部分贸易逆差，只意味着贸易将从中国转移到其他外国生产商手中。

　　Inasmuch as China is one of America's lowest cost foreign suppliers, that means the trade diversion will invariably go to higher cost foreign producers — the functional equivalent of a tax hike on American consumers.

　　由于中国是美国成本最低的外国供应商之一，这意味着贸易转移必然会流向成本较高的外国生产商。这就相当于在美国消费者头上增税。

　　所以，针对中国的猛烈攻击还可能对美国经济产生反作用。

　　这便引发了一个更深层次的问题：为什么美国政府还要推行这样的战略呢？

　　The answer is as much an outgrowth of hegemonic overreach as it is a reflection China's alleged unfair trading practices.

　　答案既是霸权扩张的结果，也是针对所谓中国的不公平贸易行为的反映。

　　With the dollar pre-eminent as the world's reserve currency, the United States has developed a sense of entitlement toward open-ended budget deficits that are funded by dollar-denominated debt issuance in its own currency.

　　随着美元作为世界储备货币地位的加强，美国越发觉得自己有资格无限制扩大财政赤字，这种财政赤字是以发行美元计价的本币债券作为支撑的。

　　Never mind the inefficiencies of a healthcare system that eats up 18% of GDP, or a defense budget that is essentially equal to the combined military outlays of the next seven largest defense budgets around the world.

　　所以，不用管低效的医疗体系了，尽管它消耗了18%的GDP，也不用管国防预算了，尽管它庞大到相当于位居美国之后7个军费支出大国之和。

　　Washington would rather pursue fiscal recklessness than come clean with the American public. And it would rather blame the consequences of such a strategy on the trading practices of others than take a long hard look in the mirror.