根据目前的选情，新拉力当选的概率应该大于创仆。如果新拉力胜出，其前景比较容易预测：她除了创造了美国历史上第一位女总统，以及第一次由夫妇俩相继担任总统等史无前例的现象之外，好象对美国以及世界既有的历史发展不会有什么大的冲击。对于二战以来逐渐兴起且方兴未艾的全球化进程，新拉力当选后顶多就象我赋予她的这个新的中文名字一样，会提供一个新的拉力。这对世界经济的长期发展倒可能还真的不是一件坏事。

可如果万一创仆胜出，那情况可能就比较复杂了。这也许就是为什么许多人不愿创仆当选的一个原因。因为正常人往往倾向于希望世界向大家可以预期的方向发展，而不愿无端增加不确定性以及由此而来的危险性。创仆这次参选，正象我给他的中文名字那样，虽然比较“创”，但更可能“仆”，总之是有点不靠谱。

谓予不信，且听我仅以全球化及中美贸易为例，简短解说如下。

从创仆的一些公开演说来看，他似乎是反对全球化以及自由贸易的。据观察者网此前报导，创仆曾多次公开指责中国进行不公平的贸易竞争从而导致美国的薪酬下降，让无数美国人丢了饭碗。中国向美国倾销钢材，扼杀美国的钢铁企业。他还声称，如果他当选总统，将对中国发动经济贸易战争，对中国出口产品征收45%的惩罚性关税。这个45%惩罚性关税，是目前大多数国家正常贸易关税的十倍以上，所以说他声称一旦当选，就将与中国开启贸易战，似乎已经不是什么危言耸听。

那么如果创仆当选，世界以及中美经济关系会如何发展呢？

这里，我们首先排除创仆开空头支票，先靠忽悠大家上位，但上台以后言而无信，不仅不对全球化及中美贸易进行限制，而且还可能变本加厉火上浇油地大搞特搞的可能性（尽管这种可能性其实不低）。

如果他说话算话，确实与中国开启了贸易战，那么后果将如何呢？

首先，大国之间的贸易战往往不是单边的。中国一方一定不会听之任之。中国方面，习总上台以后，中国经济的增长速度每况愈下，目前已接近改革开放后的历史低点。如果出口贸易被阻，中国的经济增长速度就将进一步下降。以习总的性格，一定不会对创仆的惩罚善罢甘休，所以会对美国及其盟国出口到中国的产品进行报复。假定中国对从美国进口的产品同样征收45%的关税。那么根据我用一般均衡模型的计算结果，这将不仅导致两国的GDP增长率均有下降，更重要的是，除了中国的土地及资源所有者之外，中美两国的资本所有者，熟练及非熟练工人的收入将全部有所下降，这才是真正的两败俱伤，而且各个阶层无一幸免。

其次，由于中国GDP的下降幅度将会大于美国，中国所承受的失业增加的压力也将更大。内忧外患，习总也许一怒之下，可能从提高关税开始，干脆重建独立自主自力更生的国民经济。这样一来，就会使得本来就已经遭到重创的世界经济雪上加霜。由自由贸易产生的额外收益全部丧失，其后果可能是包括美欧中俄诸国在内的世界性经济衰退。由于各国经济体增长下降，失业增加，极有可能引发动乱，并由此产生连锁反应，导致多国出现经济停滞衰退甚至经济危机。

正是由于经济学家们普遍看到了创仆有可能通过贸易战，推倒引发世界经济危机的第一张多米诺骨牌， 所以包括今年诺奖获得者Oliver Hart在内的近400名经济学家发表公开信，批评美国共和党总统候选人创仆。经济学家们在公开信中表示：“如果当选，创仆将会对美国民主制度、美国经济机构的运转以及美国的繁荣构成特殊的威胁。”

俗话说，有100个经济学家，就至少会有101种观点，可见经济学家本来对专业问题取得共识十分的不容易。但如果他们轻易就能取得共识，就象这次对创仆那样，那一定是他们看到了某种违反常识的低级错误。而这正是创仆当选所可能产生的一种结果。

附录：诺贝尔经济学奖获得者公开信

OPEN LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM RECIPIENTS OF THE SVERIGES RIKSBANK PRIZE IN ECONOMIC SCIENCES IN MEMORY OF ALFRED NOBEL
October 31, 2016

We are Nobel Laureates in Economics who strongly endorse and support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for President of the United States.

We have diverse views about many policy issues, such as how big a safety net the government should provide, how best to promote growth and innovation, and what tax rates and entitlement spending levels should be. But we have decided to sign this letter jointly to express our shared judgments that Hillary Clinton is eminently qualified to serve as President, and Donald Trump is unfit for this office.

Secretary Clinton has a long distinguished record of public service. When she puts forward serious proposals to invest in infrastructure, education, and innovation, and when she supports comprehensive immigration reform, she knows what she is talking about. She has shown that she believes in evidence-based policy-making, and she understands that we need to strengthen economic growth and to ensure that it produces broad-based prosperity. And she has the experience and temperament to manage the American economy in times of both strength and volatility.

By contrast, Donald Trump has no record of public service and offers an incoherent economic agenda. His reckless threats to start trade wars with several of our largest trading partners, his plan to deport millions of immigrants, his trillions of dollars of unfunded tax cuts, his casual suggestion that the United States could threaten default on its debt in order to renegotiate with our creditors as if Treasuries were a junk bond—each of these proposals could jeopardize the foundations of American prosperity and the global economy. His other rash statements about many subjects outside economics have also raised very serious concerns.

We do not all agree with every one of Secretary Clinton’s proposals, but in this election, the choice is clear: Hillary Clinton is by far the superior presidential candidate for our economy and our country.

Kenneth Arrow (1972)

Angus Deaton (2015)

Peter Diamond (2010)

Robert Engle (2003)

Oliver Hart (2016)

Daniel Kahneman (2002)

Robert Lucas (1995)

Eric Maskin (2007)

Daniel McFadden (2000)

Robert Merton (1997)

Roger Myerson (2007)

Edmund Phelps (2006)

Alvin Roth (2012)

Thomas Sargent (2011)

Thomas Schelling (2005)

William Sharpe (1990)

Robert Shiller (2013)

Christopher Sims (2011)

Robert Solow (1987)

Joseph Stiglitz (2001)

(modified with the addition of one name, November 2, 2016)