国际贸易是互利合作，而非胜负博弈（国际论坛）

Core Viewpoint - The article argues that international trade, particularly the Sino-American trade relationship, is based on mutual cooperation rather than a zero-sum game, and that the U.S. trade deficit with China is a result of its own economic structure rather than a failure of Chinese trade practices [1][3]. Group 1: Factors Contributing to U.S. Trade Deficit - The U.S. has a low savings rate, with personal savings at 3.8% as of December 2024, while consumption accounts for about 70% of GDP, leading to a demand for imports that exceeds domestic production capacity [2]. - The hollowing out of U.S. manufacturing has seen the sector's contribution to GDP drop from approximately 25% in 1960 to around 10% currently, with manufacturing jobs decreasing from nearly 20 million in 1979 to just over 12 million today [2]. - The U.S. dollar's status as the world's primary reserve currency necessitates maintaining a trade deficit to provide international liquidity, which contributes to the long-term existence of the trade deficit [2]. Group 2: Misconceptions About Trade Deficit - Viewing the trade deficit as a loss is misleading; trade should be assessed based on overall economic benefits, including profits and value added, rather than just trade balances [3]. - Although China has a trade surplus with the U.S., it still relies on imports of key components from the U.S. and other developed countries, and it purchases significant services from the U.S., indicating a more complex economic relationship [3]. Group 3: Impact of Tariffs and Policy Recommendations - Imposing tariffs is unlikely to resolve the trade deficit and may harm the U.S. economy by increasing import costs, raising inflation, and ultimately burdening consumers and businesses [4]. - A study predicts that a broad 20% tariff could cost the average American household up to $4,200 annually [4]. - To address issues like manufacturing decline and wealth distribution, the U.S. should focus on internal reforms in education, manufacturing competitiveness, and infrastructure rather than blaming other countries [4].