中方明确表态，145%关税一点都不能留，美国已经没得选

Group 1: Tariff Negotiations - China has made it clear that the 145% tariffs must be completely removed, leaving no room for negotiation [1][3] - The Chinese government rejects any form of "discounted compromise" and insists on the removal of unilateral tariffs as a prerequisite for negotiations [3] - The U.S. administration's proposal to reduce tariffs from 145% to 50%-60% is seen as a mere numerical game by China, which is not interested in the level of tariffs but in ending the use of trade as a weapon [3] Group 2: Economic Impact - The tariffs imposed by the Trump administration are beginning to negatively affect the U.S. economy, with rising prices reported by e-commerce platforms like Amazon and Temu [5] - Consumer spending patterns are shifting, with a decrease in restaurant traffic and an increase in essential goods expenditure, indicating a brewing macroeconomic storm [5] - The costs associated with tariffs are permeating every segment of the supply chain, ultimately being borne by American consumers [5] Group 3: Strategic Timing - The critical phase of the tariff negotiations may occur in July, coinciding with the expiration of a 90-day suspension period for "reciprocal tariffs" [7] - If the U.S. fails to reach agreements with Japan and Europe by mid-July, China's negotiating position will significantly strengthen [7] - The delayed economic impacts of tariffs are expected to culminate in July, potentially delivering a severe blow to the Trump administration as inflation and employment data emerge [7] Group 4: Strategic Resilience - China demonstrates strategic resilience by maintaining a firm stance on tariff negotiations while expanding its global market presence through initiatives like the Belt and Road [9] - The Chinese manufacturing sector, accounting for over 30% of global production, is redefining market rules, challenging the effectiveness of U.S. tariffs [9] - The ongoing tariff conflict reflects a clash of governance philosophies, with China adopting a rules-based approach to counter unilateralism, while the U.S. focuses on transactional tactics [9]