为他人的不幸而高兴，是不明智的，因为他们可能生存下来并在你的坟墓上跳舞。看到一些人乐此不疲地渲染中国的经济问题时，我想到了这个寻常道理。

一些西方政客、分析师和媒体似乎乐于抓住中国出现问题的任何证据——无论经济放缓、房地产和金融业问题、人民币疲软还是贸易减速，并带着一种“早就告诉过你”的自鸣得意。幸运的是，也有些人采取了更为平衡的观点。

比如芝加哥记者利里克·休斯·黑尔。今年1月，她曾预测中国经济需要一段时间才能从疫情中恢复过来——考虑到经济下滑的程度，这是明智的预测。她并非唯一持这种观点的人。华盛顿彼得森国际经济研究所的经济专家尼古拉斯·拉迪也认为，对中国过于悲观了。他最近撰文称，（西方）经济学家、记者和分析师近来出现一种共识，称中国的问题预示着一个更为严重的长期问题。拉迪认为，这种流行评价可能为时过早，可能是错误的。诚然，中国面临不少挑战，包括美国等对技术转让的限制等。但对形势的仔细解读“并不支持有关中国经济增长正陷入将持续数年的严重周期性下行的观点”。

另一位为中国立场发声的是得克萨斯大学奥斯汀分校的詹姆斯·加尔布雷斯教授。在最近的文章中，曾任中国国家计划委员会宏观经济改革首席技术顾问的加尔布雷斯驳斥了有关中国的困难源于高储蓄率、庞大银行存款等问题的说法。他指出，西方经济学家30年前曾向中国宣传过类似主张，即减少投资，增加消费。他说，这类口号“毫无意义，今天依然如此”。他发问：“中国应该有更多汽车，但道路更差，加油站更少吗……中国人是否需要更多食物和衣服？”这些反问涉及的问题，往往被那些不假思索的中国抨击者所忽视。

许多（西方）分析家热衷于抨击中国，却似乎忽略了这样一个事实，即目前全球经济面临衰退阴影的贸易放缓，更多是由美国而非中国的行为造成的。

特朗普采取加征关税及其他贸易限制措施，拜登加以扩大。这些措施的主要目标是中国，但就效果而言，也成功伤害了许多依赖中国强劲进口需求的国家。在保护主义和不信任的氛围中，世界根本无法繁荣发展——而这种氛围正是由西方国家积极营造的，目前的道路只会导致更多经济困难、社会痛苦甚至对抗。

一些西方国家几乎每天都对中国恶语相向，促使中方回应。经济抨击与良性竞争完全不是一回事，容易成为实际冲突的借口和诱因。这种情况下，谁会在谁的坟墓上跳舞是个悬而未决的问题。

-Beijing's challenges cannot be properly analysed and understood in a context where China bashing is normalised

-The West should stop its petty rhetoric or risk escalating frictions into confrontation, to no one's benefit

Anthony Rowley

It is unwise to rejoice at the misfortunes of others because they may live to dance on your grave. This bit of homespun wisdom comes to mind as I observe the way in which much of the world seems to be delighting in emphasising China’s economic problems.

Some Western politicians, analysts and media appear to be enjoying seizing on any evidence of trouble in China – whether it be an economic slowdown, property and financial-sector problems, a weakening yuan, or slowing trade – with a kind of smug “we told you so” satisfaction.

As reported in The New York Times, the White House was worried that “China’s struggles with high unemployment and an ageing workforce make the country a ‘ticking time bomb’ at the heart of the world economy”.

US President Joe Biden was sufficiently unrestrained (if not quite so country-specific as to mention China by name) when he warned that “when bad folks have problems, they do bad things”. Those are hardly the words of a major power leader who is supposed to exercise statesmanship and balance.

Fortunately, some others have adopted a more balanced view. One of those is Lyric Hughes Hale, a Chicago-based journalist who publishes the Hale China Report and who in January predicted that China’s economy would take time to recover from Covid-19 lockdowns – a sensible prediction given the depth of the downturn.

Hale, who with her late husband, economist David Hale, launched China Online, is not alone in this regard. Nicholas Lardy, a China economy specialist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) in Washington, also believes that the pessimism on China has been overdone.

Lardy notes in a recent PIIE commentary that a consensus has emerged among economists, journalists and analysts that China’s troubles “portend a far more serious long-term problem derived from flawed, insular, Communist Party-controlled policymaking” in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

This popular assessment is probably premature and perhaps wrong, Lardy says. He acknowledges that China faces many challenges – including restrictions on the transfer of technology imposed by the United States and other countries, a property bubble correction and high unemployment among younger workers. But he argues that a “careful reading” of the situation “does not support the view that China’s growth is now gripped by a severe cyclical downward spiral that will persist for several years”.

Another defender of China’s position is James K. Galbraith, a professor at the University of Texas, Austin, who effectively demolishes many of the arguments put forward by what can best be termed the brigades of China bashers, who are in full cry right now.

In a recent article, Galbraith, formerly a chief technical adviser for macroeconomic reform to China’s State Planning Commission, dismisses claims that China’s difficulties stem from problems such as a high savings rate, vast bank deposits and a growing need to boost consumption.

Western economists, he notes, were promoting a similar line 30 years ago to China, to invest less and consumer more. This mantra, he says, “made no sense to me then, and it still doesn’t today”.

“Should China have more cars but worse roads and fewer gas stations? … Does the population need more food and clothing, even though it was already mostly well-fed and decently dressed three decades ago?” he asks. These are rhetorical questions, to be sure, but they address issues that are frequently ignored by the more unthinking critics of China.

Is youth joblessness worsening in China? Beijing’s official figures offering fewer clues

05:18

Many analysts are so focused on the sport of China baiting that they appear to overlook the fact that the slowdown in trade that is now confronting the global economy with the spectre of recession has been brought about more by US than Chinese actions.

Tariffs and other trade restraints introduced in blunt form by former US president Donald Trump and then “refined” and expanded by President Joe Biden have been aimed chiefly at China but, insofar as they have been effective, they have also succeeded in hurting many countries that depend on strong import demand from China.

The world simply cannot thrive and grow in the atmosphere of protectionism and mistrust that is being actively engendered now by an essentially defensive West. On the contrary, the road currently being travelled can only lead to increasing economic difficulty, social suffering and perhaps even confrontation.

A good start to rescue and redemption would be to end the stream of petty and spiteful rhetoric that seems to pour forth almost daily from the West towards China and which often prompts Beijing to respond in a similar vein. This requires from political leaders what their title implies – leadership.

A situation of economic criticism and conflict (not at all the same thing as healthy competition) can all too easily provide an excuse and encouragement for physical confrontation, and who will dance on whose grave in that event is an open question.