中國如何稱霸全球造船業(yè)？
How China Came to Dominate Global Shipbuilding
譯文簡介
唐納德-特朗普說，他想利用對中國船舶征收巨額費用來重啟美國造船業(yè)。專家警告說此舉很可能行不通，反而會抬高消費品的價格，損害美國經(jīng)濟。
正文翻譯
唐納德-特朗普說，他想利用對中國船舶征收巨額費用來重啟美國造船業(yè)。專家警告說此舉很可能行不通，反而會抬高消費品的價格，損害美國經(jīng)濟。
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 16 )
收藏
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?
唐納德-特朗普說，他想利用對中國船舶征收巨額費用來重啟美國造船業(yè)。專家警告說此舉很可能行不通，反而會抬高消費品的價格，損害美國經(jīng)濟。
中國今年將生產(chǎn)全球一半以上的新造船舶，而2000年這一比例僅為5%，而美國幾乎不生產(chǎn)任何船舶。那么，中國是如何變得如此占主導(dǎo)地位的？美國還能迎頭趕上嗎？還是說，這一提議只是特朗普全球貿(mào)易戰(zhàn)中的另一種談判策略？
"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.
"一個中國造船廠的產(chǎn)量就超過美國所有船廠總和"。更正一下，中國一個船廠一年的造船噸位就超過美國1945-2025年間的總產(chǎn)量。
It is probably true if commercial only.
如果只算商用船只的話，這個說法可能是真的。
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!
這很可能是真的，因為美國連海軍艦艇都在韓國建造！我們只建造那些帶核動力裝置的，比如航母和潛艇，而且我們造得也不多！
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.
他們的想法是：如果要交關(guān)稅，各國就不會跟美國貿(mào)易了。錯了。
他們還是會交關(guān)稅，因為除了美國市場，你還能把這些專門為美國制造的商品賣到哪里去？
隨著時間的推移，新船采購會轉(zhuǎn)向非中國制造，這將削弱中國的優(yōu)勢。
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，美國造船廠僅建造了5艘大型商船，總噸位7.6萬噸。相比之下，中國同年建造了4818萬載重噸船舶。
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.
這個引用似乎有故意誤導(dǎo)之嫌："2024年中國一家國有造船企業(yè)的商用船只噸位產(chǎn)量就超過了美國整個造船業(yè)自二戰(zhàn)以來的總和"。實際上，中國船舶集團(CSSC)是匯總了旗下多個船廠的產(chǎn)量。
全球最大的船廠是現(xiàn)代重工在韓國蔚山的船廠，不是中國的。
American kids gotta stop trying to become youtubers and become ship builders!
美國的孩子們別再整天想著當(dāng)油管網(wǎng)紅了，該去當(dāng)造船工人了！
Uh become shipbuilders when there's literally 0 infrastructure outside the navy for shipbuilding?
呃，在民用造船基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施幾乎為零的情況下當(dāng)造船工人？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
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.
問題在于就像視頻里說的，在美國造一艘船的成本是中國造一艘船的五倍多。也許美國應(yīng)該加強與韓國、日本等友好國家的合作，他們既有基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施又有專業(yè)技術(shù)，而不是把他們當(dāng)敵人。
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
我們首先得有個造船業(yè)。如果這個國家真的想重振制造業(yè)，企業(yè)十年前就該開始振興這些產(chǎn)業(yè)了。
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
重振制造業(yè)崗位是一種落后的想法，這些工作遲早都會被機器人取代，還不如想辦法發(fā)展科技而不是制造業(yè)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
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
我不是在提倡這個，我只是想說產(chǎn)業(yè)的發(fā)展不是由孩子們選擇什么職業(yè)決定的，而是由政策制定者和企業(yè)決定投資什么產(chǎn)業(yè)、在哪里投資。所以在美國造船業(yè)根本不存在的情況下，叫孩子們?nèi)ギ?dāng)造船工人毫無意義。
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.
說起來容易，但你試試跟Ishowspeed和他的粉絲們說這些。更困難的是美國已經(jīng)形成了一種自我強化的文化，就像一位中國政治家說的，在美國問一個五年級孩子將來想做什么，他們會給出當(dāng)網(wǎng)紅這類答案，而在中國，同齡孩子會想從事建筑、工程、軟件開發(fā)、商業(yè)、政治等工作。
What's incredible is that East Asia basically builds all (95%) of the world's ships
令人難以置信的是東亞地區(qū)幾乎包攬了全球(95%)的造船量。
South Korea now builds most of the ships the U.S. needs including some naval vessels.
韓國現(xiàn)在為美國建造了大部分所需的船只，甚至包括部分海軍艦艇。
the same with battery as well. east asian basically produces all of the worlds battery
電池產(chǎn)業(yè)也一樣，東亞基本上生產(chǎn)了全球所有的電池。
if there is no trade then you don't need ships. IQ 210 move by mr trump.
如果沒有貿(mào)易往來，那就不需要船只了。特朗普的這波操作智商高達210。
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.
當(dāng)中國一年就能造出一支海軍而美國毫無建造能力時，你覺得誰會主宰海洋？我們二戰(zhàn)能打敗日本，就是因為珍珠港事件后我們的造艦速度比損失艦船還快?，F(xiàn)在美國軍艦造價這么高，就是因為美國已經(jīng)不造船了。
"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... )
"美國確實擁有兩個強大的盟友——韓國和日本"，呵，說到這個..
（先是威脅撤回軍事支持，現(xiàn)在又對它們加征高關(guān)稅，以至于這兩個"強大的盟友"現(xiàn)在都開始和中國一起商討如何應(yīng)對美國了。這位"贏個不停"先生啊...）
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?？上Т蠖鄶?shù)人都沒有看到日本和韓國在特朗普第一個任期內(nèi)的貿(mào)易政策下獲得了多大的好處。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
@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 按你所說，如果他讓這些國家從他的執(zhí)政中獲益，現(xiàn)在又為何喊冤？
再說2020年與加拿大和墨西哥簽署新版"升級版"NAFTA貿(mào)易協(xié)定的不正是他嗎？為何現(xiàn)在又指責(zé)加墨不公平？
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.
改革開放以來，中國憑借巨大的貿(mào)易需求和占全球一半的造船能力，已成為全球航運最大的參與者，但它在海洋規(guī)則制定上仍然缺乏話語權(quán)。
為何如此？因為掌控海洋規(guī)則有三種途徑：
第一，控制關(guān)鍵水道的海軍艦艇；第二，連接航運網(wǎng)絡(luò)的遠洋貨輪；第三，作為海陸橋梁的港口。
前兩者是一體兩面，而港口則扮演核心的角色，可通過以下方式影響航運貿(mào)易規(guī)則：
通過調(diào)整港口的服務(wù)費、停泊費、裝卸費等基礎(chǔ)項目，差異化定價實質(zhì)上形成貿(mào)易壁壘。
根據(jù)不同水深的港口的碼頭設(shè)施、裝卸效率等影響航線規(guī)劃。
整合港口數(shù)據(jù)，占據(jù)信息不對稱優(yōu)勢，削弱貨主的議價能力。
結(jié)合金融體系，提升本國貨幣的結(jié)算地位，同時為長臂管轄提供執(zhí)行手段。
最終，可將本國港口航運技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)推廣為國際航運標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。
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，為何中國出口產(chǎn)品的利潤和價格難以提升？其中一個原因就是歐美掌控了全球港口的航運主導(dǎo)權(quán)，他們彼此熟稔，具有靈活的議價能力。
例如，我國的出口貨物多采用FOB模式（離岸價），即中國出口商只需將貨物運到港口，其余事情全部交給海外進口商。雖然這看似省事，適合早期搞外貿(mào)的白手起家的企業(yè)，但由于進口商完全掌控了從港口到航運的供應(yīng)鏈，出口商既沒有話語權(quán)，也沒有議價能力，還要承擔(dān)被欺詐、拖延、轉(zhuǎn)嫁的風(fēng)險。
最終羊毛出在羊身上。只要航運巨頭漲價，國外的進口商總有辦法把價格轉(zhuǎn)嫁給中國的出口商。
反正你沒有供應(yīng)鏈，沒有貨權(quán)，想轉(zhuǎn)賣他人也不敢隨便賣。最終形成路徑依賴，連漲價的資格都沒有，中國外貿(mào)只能賺辛苦錢。
所以國家經(jīng)貿(mào)部曾經(jīng)要求盡量采用CIF模式（到岸價），即我國出口商自己負責(zé)租船海運，但這事始終難以推行。即便有船，人在屋檐下不得不低頭，搞不好就麻煩一大堆，連官司都不敢打，因為對方把海洋上的立法執(zhí)法權(quán)玩得太溜了。
要知道除了倫敦海事仲裁員協(xié)會(LMAA)，還有真正的幕后大佬聯(lián)邦海事委員會(FMC)。
它兼具行政立法、準(zhǔn)司法和執(zhí)法三大職能，權(quán)力極大，凡是從美國始發(fā)的船舶，或裝載美國貨物的船舶，它都能管。
早在1月20日，聯(lián)邦海事委員會(FMC)主席就在巴拿馬公開鼓吹中國威脅論，同時表態(tài)支持特朗普動用美國主權(quán)基金升級巴拿馬運河的港口。
因為按照美國《港口現(xiàn)代化法案》，必須預(yù)留30%的泊位給美國船只。當(dāng)貝萊德集團和李嘉誠交易全球43個港口時，還引入了一家全球基建基金公司，或許就是想把這套美國船舶港口特權(quán)推廣到全世界。
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?
中國以可承受的價格建造高質(zhì)量的船舶，使得貨物運輸成本更低。這樣西方國家的民眾就能以更便宜的價格購買商品，提高生活水平。為什么要仇視中國呢？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
They are greedy. they want all benefits without paying required price.
他們太貪婪了，想要所有的好處卻不愿意付出應(yīng)有的代價。
I don't think China makes much that is quality. Even their EV cars, I'm not getting into a ticking time bomb.
我不認為中國能制造多少高質(zhì)量的產(chǎn)品。就連他們的電動汽車也是，我可不想坐進一個定時炸彈里。
@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 就像我在一個節(jié)目里看到的采訪，有個人說他認為中國產(chǎn)品都是劣質(zhì)的，自己從來不買中國貨。結(jié)果節(jié)目組去到他家，發(fā)現(xiàn)到處都是中國制造的產(chǎn)品，哈哈。
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.
美國的成本這么高，工人還覺得全世界都欠他們這些"優(yōu)秀美國人"的，這怎么跟中國競爭？令人驚訝的是美國居然能撐這么久。
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.
他們能撐到現(xiàn)在是因為在服務(wù)業(yè)和高科技產(chǎn)品上有優(yōu)勢，現(xiàn)在這些優(yōu)勢都沒有了，只能強行重啟。
As long as the dollar remains the dominant world's reserve currency, the USA would continue to last.
只要美元還是世界主要的儲備貨幣，美國就能繼續(xù)撐下去。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
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....
中國不僅主導(dǎo)了造船業(yè)，還主導(dǎo)了綠色科技、核電、電動汽車、工程機械、鐵路、機床、工具、鋼鐵、金屬精煉、化工、醫(yī)藥...幾乎所有領(lǐng)域。在少數(shù)尚未完全主導(dǎo)的行業(yè)也已是重要的參與者。
按購買力平價計算(這才是比較國家經(jīng)濟規(guī)模的正確方法)，中國十年前就成了世界最大的經(jīng)濟體，之后每年都在擴大與第二名的差距。幸好第二名美國還有盟友幫忙制衡中國...哦，等等...
China China China again. Always their fault.
中國，中國，又是中國，永遠都是中國的錯。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Do you prefer Putin, Putin, Putin?
They have it in Great Britain.
那你更喜歡聽普京，普京，普京嗎？
英國媒體就是這么干的。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
50-years of senseless wars will usually cause a nation to fall behind.
持續(xù)50年的無謂戰(zhàn)爭通常會讓一個國家落后。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
In this case it has more to do with the US ceasing to subsidize the ship building industry.
這個案例中更多是因為美國停止了對造船業(yè)的補貼。
? @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 看看周圍吧。這不是個別現(xiàn)象，美國制造業(yè)整體都在衰退。
而且你說錯了，美國仍然通過《瓊斯法案》補貼造船業(yè)。
他們只是無法在全球市場競爭了，他們連自己制定的游戲規(guī)則都玩不轉(zhuǎn)了
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
諷刺的是在這方面美國是自己成功的受害者。其他領(lǐng)域的成功導(dǎo)致貨幣升值和工資上漲，使得造船這種相對低薪的工作難以在就業(yè)市場上競爭。這基本是美國所有制造業(yè)面臨的問題...美國的勞動力成本是世界其他地區(qū)的四倍以上，只能做高利潤的精品產(chǎn)品。