風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
特朗普的關稅政策缺乏邏輯，且極具破壞性
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-tariff-economic-pain-china-mexico-rcna199404
2025年4月3日，曼哈頓研究所高級研究員傑西卡·裏德爾
總統所謂的“解放日”對美國人民來說，隻是一場痛苦而毫無意義的考驗的開始。
唐納德·特朗普總統將他的新關稅聲明描述為“解放日”，或許恰如其分地描述了他如何將家庭從錢包中“解放”出來。
畢竟，特朗普接手的是一個正在增長（盡管並不完美）的經濟，但僅僅10周後，它就麵臨著消費者信心崩潰、商業投資癱瘓、物價上漲、失業加劇和股市暴跌的困境。商業周期不可避免地會帶來偶爾的衰退，但這次經濟衰退卻罕見地完全是現任總統一手造成的。
總統莫名其妙地聲稱關稅會以某種方式切斷進口，同時又能通過對這些已不複存在的進口產品征稅來籌集數萬億美元。
總統設定的10%的全球最低關稅稅率和高達50%的國家特定關稅稅率幾乎站不住腳。這些稅率並非旨在報複不公平的貿易行為。歐盟的平均關稅稅率為1.3%，略低於美國2025年前1.5%的水平，但歐盟將麵臨20%的關稅。日本的平均關稅稅率為1.6%，美國將以24%的關稅予以回擊。盡管如此，一直遵循美國主導的貿易協定的加拿大和墨西哥預計也將很快過渡到全額關稅。如果與之前的政策相結合，對中國的關稅將達到54%。
白宮的關稅稅率並非基於與美國的關係。對歐盟（20%）、日本（24%）和以色列（17%）的關稅稅率比對伊朗（10%）的關稅更嚴厲。俄羅斯——美國仍在從其購買部分進口產品——也受到保護，免於征收高於最低限度的關稅。這些針對各個國家的關稅稅率背後缺乏連貫的戰略。
特朗普繼續為這些關稅辯解，稱其將帶回他所謂的1890年麥金萊關稅所創造的富裕烏托邦。他的經濟團隊或許會告訴他，1890年的關稅之後，1893年爆發了嚴重的經濟大蕭條，經濟崩潰了10%，失業率高達18%。盡管總統莫名其妙地將20世紀30年代的大蕭條歸咎於1913年為資助華盛頓而轉向征收所得稅而非關稅，但實際上，加速大蕭條的卻是1930年的《斯姆特-霍利關稅法》。
“最糟糕的情況”海耶斯稱特朗普正在對美國經濟施壓
然而，特朗普不僅征收了工業化國家中最高的關稅，而且還征收了自19世紀以來美國曆史上最高的關稅——甚至比導致大蕭條的關稅還要高。
這些令人痛苦的貿易限製措施據稱是對貿易逆差的回應，而總統似乎並不理解貿易逆差，而且關稅也無法解決這一問題。
談到美國與我們北方鄰國的貿易逆差時，他說：“我們每年要花費2000億美元補貼加拿大。” 不僅實際缺口是640億美元，而且貿易逆差也不是補貼。它僅僅意味著美國人購買的加拿大商品比加拿大人購買的美國商品多640億美元。加拿大隨後將這額外的640億美元投資回美國，例如購買維持低利率的美國國債。換句話說，貿易逆差的另一麵是資本賬戶盈餘，因為國際收支淨額為零。
這些令人痛苦的貿易限製措施據稱是對貿易逆差的回應，而總統似乎並不理解貿易逆差，而且關稅也無法解決這一問題。
美國存在貿易逆差，是因為其強勁的經濟由消費者支出驅動，而且其低儲蓄率鼓勵國際投??資者將過剩的美元用於滿足美國的投資需求。關稅不會顯著縮小這一貿易逆差，因為隨著美元升值，進口的下降將與出口的下降大致相當。相反，任何貿易逆差的下降都可能是特朗普引發的經濟衰退導致的消費需求放緩的結果。
隻有共和黨人才能阻止埃德·馬丁的確認。
亞曆山大·納紮裏安
特朗普對中國的關稅可能會帶來極具諷刺意味的後果。
梅格·裏斯邁爾
關稅也無法拯救製造業，製造業長期以來的失業主要源於自動化，而非外國競爭。或許美國可以通過將外國製造業轉移到國內來略微增加製造業的就業崗位，但這些崗位的工資肯定會低於它們所取代的科技和軟件開發等出口密集型產業的崗位，工作條件也更艱苦。
強迫美國人為一台美國烤麵包機支付90美元（而不是為一台進口烤麵包機支付30美元），這難道是進步嗎？
貿易的魅力在於，它讓美國能夠專注於創造更高薪資、更寬鬆的工作條件，而缺乏美國經濟資源的貿易夥伴則優先考慮對工人不太友好、薪資更低的行業。
此外，美國製造業（包括汽車行業）是汽車零部件等投入品的主要進口商。正因如此，特朗普宣布加征關稅後，美國製造業陷入衰退，甚至連美國汽車製造商也麵臨巨額虧損。當這些關稅本應扶持的製造業也遭受重創時，誰才是這場痛苦陰謀的贏家？
“特朗普正在用這些關稅考驗他的總統任期”：對大多數國家實施互惠關稅
10:59
總統莫名其妙地聲稱，關稅將以某種方式切斷進口，同時還能通過對這些已不複存在的進口產品征稅來籌集數萬億美元。現實情況是，關稅是對美國進口商征收的稅，而且——與任何商業稅一樣——大部分成本將轉嫁給消費者。
2018年特朗普政府對洗衣機征收關稅後，價格立即上漲了9%，直到2023年關稅到期，價格才回落了9%。特朗普表示，即使他對汽車、食品、處方藥和低收入者依賴的低成本消費品征收關稅，他也“不在乎”進口價格上漲。關稅甚至會導致國內企業提價，因為許多企業使用國外生產的投入品，而且即使是美國本土企業，在沒有外國競爭的情況下也能更容易地提價。
總體而言，耶魯大學預算實驗室估計，如果其他國家采取報複措施，類似的關稅稅率將使中等收入家庭損失近4000美元。
承諾的稅收增長也難以實現。 3.2萬億美元的關稅稅基意味著，20%的平均關稅稅率理論上每年可以增加6400億美元的進口稅。然而，由於關稅商品需求下降，以及經濟增長放緩導致稅收收入普遍減少，實際收入將大幅減少。此後，任何剩餘的收入都可能被用來救助農民和其他因美國出口報複性關稅而受害的群體——特朗普第一任期關稅收入的遭遇正是如此。最終，任何赤字削減都將是微不足道的，遠不值得承受巨大的經濟損失。
不幸的是，新一代人往往隻能通過重複前輩的錯誤來學習。在《斯姆特-霍利關稅法》和大蕭條時期飽受苦難的一代人幾乎已經逝去，而那些缺乏曆史底蘊的新選民則被過於簡單化的“停止向海外出口就業崗位”和“在美國本土生產我們所需的一切”的口號所誘惑。一絲令人鼓舞的消息是，如今的選民終於從自身經曆中汲取了教訓。一項新的蓋洛普民意調查顯示，對國際貿易的支持率——2007年為40%，去年為61%——今年已躍升至81%。這還是在最新一輪令人痛苦的關稅實施之前。
正如C.S. 劉易斯曾經說過的：“經驗是最殘酷的老師。但你會學習，我的天哪，你真的會學習。”
Trump's tariffs are incoherent and destructive
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-tariff-economic-pain-china-mexico-rcna199404
By Jessica Riedl, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute
The president's so-called “Liberation Day” is the beginning of a painful and pointless ordeal for the American people.
President Donald Trump’s describing his new tariff announcement as “Liberation Day” is perhaps an apt description of his “liberating” families from their wallets.
After all, Trump inherited a growing (if imperfect) economy that just 10 weeks later is facing collapsing consumer confidence, paralyzed business investment, rising prices, deepening job losses and a cratering stock market. Business cycles will inevitably bring occasional downturns, but this economic decline has the rare attribute of being entirely self-inflicted by the current president.
The president inexplicably claims that tariffs will somehow cut off imports while also raising trillions of dollars from taxing these imports that no longer exist.
The president’s minimum global tariff rate of 10% and country-specific rates as high as 50% are nearly impossible to justify. They are not designed to retaliate against unfair trading practices. The European Union, whose 1.3% average tariff rate is slightly below America’s pre-2025 rate of 1.5%, would be hit with a 20% tariff. Japan’s 1.6% average tariff rates would be answered with America’s 24% tariff. Canada and Mexico, which have followed U.S.-led trade deals, are nonetheless expected to be soon transitioned to these full rates, too. Tariffs on China would reach 54% when combined with earlier policies.
Nor are the White House tariff rates based on relationships with the U.S. The tariff rates on the European Union (20%), Japan (24%) and Israel (17%) are more punitive than the tariff on Iran (10%). Russia — from whom America still purchases some imports — is also protected from above-minimum tariffs. There is no coherent strategy behind these country-by-country tariff rates.
Trump continues to justify these tariffs as bringing back what he characterizes as the wealthy utopia created by the 1890 McKinley tariff. His economic team may wish to inform him that the 1890 tariffs were followed by a severe 1893 depression that saw the economy collapse by 10% and the unemployment rate hit 18%. And while the president bizarrely blamed the 1930s Great Depression on the 1913 move toward income taxes over tariffs to fund Washington, it was actually the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff law that accelerated the Great Depression.
These painful trade restrictions are supposedly a response to trade deficits that the president does not seem to understand and whose tariffs will not fix.
Referring to America’s trade deficit with our northern neighbor, he says, “We’re spending $200 billion a year to subsidize Canada.” Not only is the actual gap $64 billion, but a trade deficit is not a subsidy. It merely means that Americans purchased $64 billion more of Canadian goods than Canadians purchased of our goods. Canada then takes those extra $64 billion and invests them back in the United States, such as buying Treasury bonds that keep interest rates low. In other words, the flip side of a trade deficit is a capital account surplus, as the balance of international payments nets to zero.
These painful trade restrictions are supposedly a response to trade deficits that the president does not seem to understand and whose tariffs will not fix.
America runs trade deficits because it has a strong economy powered by consumer spending and because its low savings rate encourages international investors to spend those excess American dollars funding America’s investment demands. Tariffs will not notably shrink this trade deficit, as the decline in imports will be roughly matched by a decline in exports as the dollar becomes more expensive. Instead, any falling trade deficit would likely result from a Trump-induced recession’s slowing consumer demand.
Republicans are the only ones who can stop Ed Martin’s confirmation
Nor will tariffs rescue the manufacturing sector, in which long-term job losses have been driven more by automation than by foreign competition. Perhaps America can modestly increase manufacturing employment by onshoring foreign manufacturing, but these jobs will surely have lower wages and tougher working conditions than the jobs they replace in export heavy industries like technology and software development.
Is it progress to force Americans to pay $90 for an American toaster (rather than $30 for an imported toaster) while killing millions of export industry jobs in the process? The beauty of trade is allowing America to focus on creating higher-paying jobs with easier working conditions, while its trading partners without our economic resources prioritize jobs in less worker-friendly, lower-paying industries.
Moreover, U.S. manufacturing — including the auto industry — is a lead importer of inputs such as auto parts. Which is why the U.S. manufacturing sector has fallen into a decline with Trump’s tariffs announcement, and even U.S. automakers are bracing for heavy losses. When the very manufacturing sector these tariffs are supposed to help is also suffering from them, then who exactly are the winners in this painful scheme?
The president inexplicably claims that tariffs will somehow cut off imports while also raising trillions of dollars from taxing these imports that no longer exist. The reality is that tariffs are a tax on American importers, and — like any business tax — much of the cost will be passed on to consumers.
When the Trump administration imposed a tariff on washing machines in 2018, prices immediately jumped by 9% until the tariff expired in 2023, at which point those prices dropped back by 9%. Trump has stated he “couldn’t care less” if import prices rise even as he imposes tariffs on cars, food, prescription drugs and low-cost consumer goods on which lower earners rely. Tariffs even cause domestic companies to raise prices because many use inputs produced abroad and because even U.S.-based companies will have an easier time raising prices without foreign competition.
Overall, the Yale Budget lab estimates that similar tariff rates would cost the median-earning family nearly $4,000 if other nations retaliate.
Nor will the promised tax revenue surge materialize. A tariff tax base of $3.2 trillion means that an average tariff rate of 20% could theoretically raise $640 billion annually in import taxes. However, actual revenues will be drastically reduced by falling demand for tariffed items, as well as a broader reduction in tax revenues due to slower economic growth. From there, any remaining revenues will likely be spent bailing out farmers and other victims of the retaliatory tariffs on American exports — which is exactly what happened with Trump’s first-term tariff revenues. Ultimately, any deficit reduction will be marginal and not remotely worth the significant economic damage.
Unfortunately, new generations often learn only by repeating the mistakes of earlier ones. The generation that suffered under the Smoot-Hawley tariffs and the Great Depression is almost entirely gone, leaving new history-challenged voters to be seduced by overly simplistic calls to “stop exporting jobs abroad” and “produce everything we need right here in America.” The sliver of encouraging news is that today’s voters are finally learning from its own experience, as a new Gallup Poll shows that support for international trade — which was 40% in 2007 and 61% last year — has leaped to 81% this year. And that is before the latest painful tariffs are implemented.
As C.S. Lewis once said, “Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn.”
