杰米·戴蒙的观点是正确的：一项全面的美欧贸易协定确实能确保西方世界未来数代的繁荣（参见9月29日发表的社论《西方世界复兴计划》）。然而《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》原本正是为这一目的而设——旨在让美国及其盟友共同制定太平洋地区的贸易规则——但遗憾的是，当2016年两位总统候选人都表示反对后，该协定便在华盛顿而非东京宣告夭折。从经济层面来看该协定并无不妥，只是缺乏足够强大的支持力量为其辩护。
Jamie Dimon is right that a sweeping U.S.-Europe trade agreement could secure the West’s strength for generations (“A Plan for the Western World’s Revival,” op-ed, Sept. 29). But the Trans-Pacific Partnership was designed for exactly that purpose—to let America and its allies write the Pacific’s trade rules—and it died in Washington, not Tokyo, when both 2016 presidential candidates turned against it. The economics weren’t wrong. The deal had no constituency strong enough to defend it.
任何新的贸易协定都应当像工程师设计零部件那样来制定：必须考虑到其实际承受的负荷，而非仅凭主观设想。这意味着必须让美欧双方的劳动者、制造商及投资者都能切实从中受益，确保一旦协定被废除他们便会遭受实际损失；同时还需分阶段落实各项优惠措施，使其尽早显现成效——最好是在下一次选举之前，而非经过十年改革之后。
Any new deal must be designed the way an engineer designs a part: for the loads it will actually carry, not the ones he hopes for. That means building in workers, manufacturers and investors on both sides who would lose something real if the deal were abandoned, and phasing benefits so they arrive early and visibly—before the next election, not after a decade of reform.