风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
特朗普的关税政策缺乏逻辑，且极具破坏性
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-tariff-economic-pain-china-mexico-rcna199404
2025年4月3日，曼哈顿研究所高级研究员杰西卡·里德尔
总统所谓的“解放日”对美国人民来说，只是一场痛苦而毫无意义的考验的开始。
唐纳德·特朗普总统将他的新关税声明描述为“解放日”，或许恰如其分地描述了他如何将家庭从钱包中“解放”出来。
毕竟，特朗普接手的是一个正在增长（尽管并不完美）的经济，但仅仅10周后，它就面临着消费者信心崩溃、商业投资瘫痪、物价上涨、失业加剧和股市暴跌的困境。商业周期不可避免地会带来偶尔的衰退，但这次经济衰退却罕见地完全是现任总统一手造成的。
总统莫名其妙地声称关税会以某种方式切断进口，同时又能通过对这些已不复存在的进口产品征税来筹集数万亿美元。
总统设定的10%的全球最低关税税率和高达50%的国家特定关税税率几乎站不住脚。这些税率并非旨在报复不公平的贸易行为。欧盟的平均关税税率为1.3%，略低于美国2025年前1.5%的水平，但欧盟将面临20%的关税。日本的平均关税税率为1.6%，美国将以24%的关税予以回击。尽管如此，一直遵循美国主导的贸易协定的加拿大和墨西哥预计也将很快过渡到全额关税。如果与之前的政策相结合，对中国的关税将达到54%。
白宫的关税税率并非基于与美国的关系。对欧盟（20%）、日本（24%）和以色列（17%）的关税税率比对伊朗（10%）的关税更严厉。俄罗斯——美国仍在从其购买部分进口产品——也受到保护，免于征收高于最低限度的关税。这些针对各个国家的关税税率背后缺乏连贯的战略。
特朗普继续为这些关税辩解，称其将带回他所谓的1890年麦金莱关税所创造的富裕乌托邦。他的经济团队或许会告诉他，1890年的关税之后，1893年爆发了严重的经济大萧条，经济崩溃了10%，失业率高达18%。尽管总统莫名其妙地将20世纪30年代的大萧条归咎于1913年为资助华盛顿而转向征收所得税而非关税，但实际上，加速大萧条的却是1930年的《斯姆特-霍利关税法》。
“最糟糕的情况”海耶斯称特朗普正在对美国经济施压
然而，特朗普不仅征收了工业化国家中最高的关税，而且还征收了自19世纪以来美国历史上最高的关税——甚至比导致大萧条的关税还要高。
这些令人痛苦的贸易限制措施据称是对贸易逆差的回应，而总统似乎并不理解贸易逆差，而且关税也无法解决这一问题。
谈到美国与我们北方邻国的贸易逆差时，他说：“我们每年要花费2000亿美元补贴加拿大。” 不仅实际缺口是640亿美元，而且贸易逆差也不是补贴。它仅仅意味着美国人购买的加拿大商品比加拿大人购买的美国商品多640亿美元。加拿大随后将这额外的640亿美元投资回美国，例如购买维持低利率的美国国债。换句话说，贸易逆差的另一面是资本账户盈余，因为国际收支净额为零。
这些令人痛苦的贸易限制措施据称是对贸易逆差的回应，而总统似乎并不理解贸易逆差，而且关税也无法解决这一问题。
美国存在贸易逆差，是因为其强劲的经济由消费者支出驱动，而且其低储蓄率鼓励国际投??资者将过剩的美元用于满足美国的投资需求。关税不会显著缩小这一贸易逆差，因为随着美元升值，进口的下降将与出口的下降大致相当。相反，任何贸易逆差的下降都可能是特朗普引发的经济衰退导致的消费需求放缓的结果。
只有共和党人才能阻止埃德·马丁的确认。
亚历山大·纳扎里安
特朗普对中国的关税可能会带来极具讽刺意味的后果。
梅格·里斯迈尔
关税也无法拯救制造业，制造业长期以来的失业主要源于自动化，而非外国竞争。或许美国可以通过将外国制造业转移到国内来略微增加制造业的就业岗位，但这些岗位的工资肯定会低于它们所取代的科技和软件开发等出口密集型产业的岗位，工作条件也更艰苦。
强迫美国人为一台美国烤面包机支付90美元（而不是为一台进口烤面包机支付30美元），这难道是进步吗？
贸易的魅力在于，它让美国能够专注于创造更高薪资、更宽松的工作条件，而缺乏美国经济资源的贸易伙伴则优先考虑对工人不太友好、薪资更低的行业。
此外，美国制造业（包括汽车行业）是汽车零部件等投入品的主要进口商。正因如此，特朗普宣布加征关税后，美国制造业陷入衰退，甚至连美国汽车制造商也面临巨额亏损。当这些关税本应扶持的制造业也遭受重创时，谁才是这场痛苦阴谋的赢家？
“特朗普正在用这些关税考验他的总统任期”：对大多数国家实施互惠关税
10:59
总统莫名其妙地声称，关税将以某种方式切断进口，同时还能通过对这些已不复存在的进口产品征税来筹集数万亿美元。现实情况是，关税是对美国进口商征收的税，而且——与任何商业税一样——大部分成本将转嫁给消费者。
2018年特朗普政府对洗衣机征收关税后，价格立即上涨了9%，直到2023年关税到期，价格才回落了9%。特朗普表示，即使他对汽车、食品、处方药和低收入者依赖的低成本消费品征收关税，他也“不在乎”进口价格上涨。关税甚至会导致国内企业提价，因为许多企业使用国外生产的投入品，而且即使是美国本土企业，在没有外国竞争的情况下也能更容易地提价。
总体而言，耶鲁大学预算实验室估计，如果其他国家采取报复措施，类似的关税税率将使中等收入家庭损失近4000美元。
承诺的税收增长也难以实现。 3.2万亿美元的关税税基意味着，20%的平均关税税率理论上每年可以增加6400亿美元的进口税。然而，由于关税商品需求下降，以及经济增长放缓导致税收收入普遍减少，实际收入将大幅减少。此后，任何剩余的收入都可能被用来救助农民和其他因美国出口报复性关税而受害的群体——特朗普第一任期关税收入的遭遇正是如此。最终，任何赤字削减都将是微不足道的，远不值得承受巨大的经济损失。
不幸的是，新一代人往往只能通过重复前辈的错误来学习。在《斯姆特-霍利关税法》和大萧条时期饱受苦难的一代人几乎已经逝去，而那些缺乏历史底蕴的新选民则被过于简单化的“停止向海外出口就业岗位”和“在美国本土生产我们所需的一切”的口号所诱惑。一丝令人鼓舞的消息是，如今的选民终于从自身经历中汲取了教训。一项新的盖洛普民意调查显示，对国际贸易的支持率——2007年为40%，去年为61%——今年已跃升至81%。这还是在最新一轮令人痛苦的关税实施之前。
正如C.S. 刘易斯曾经说过的：“经验是最残酷的老师。但你会学习，我的天哪，你真的会学习。”
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.”
