贸易政策陷入奇特的悖论，越是对我们实事限制，贸易逆差就越是扩大，美国着急了！

Group 1 - The core argument is that the trade surplus is fundamentally a result of global savings allocation, with China's high savings rate influenced by various factors such as social security development, cultural traditions, and demographic characteristics [1] - China's infrastructure and industrial upgrades require significant investment, which is not fully absorbing domestic savings [1] - The U.S. has a low savings rate coupled with a high consumption model, contributing to the trade imbalance [1] Group 2 - The U.S. export controls on China are based on two contradictory assumptions: that technology blockades can delay China's technological progress and that these blockades will not significantly impact U.S. businesses and global trade [3] - The technology blockade has led to three unintended consequences: increased R&D investment in China, changes in the global innovation ecosystem, and a direct suppression of U.S. exports of high-value products to China [3][10] Group 3 - Traditional mechanisms for adjusting trade imbalances, such as exchange rate adjustments and structural reforms, are partially ineffective in the context of U.S.-China trade [5] - China has taken measures to expand domestic demand, with final consumption contributing over 80% to economic growth in 2023, but this transition is gradual [5] - The U.S. complaints about trade imbalances are primarily focused on goods trade, while the U.S. maintains a surplus in services trade [5] Group 4 - The evolution of global value chains is often overlooked in discussions of U.S.-China trade imbalances, as the value added to products like the iPhone is not fully captured in trade statistics [7] - The domestic value added in Chinese exports has increased from about 60% in the early 2000s to approximately 75% currently, but it remains lower than the U.S. [7] Group 5 - The complex structure of global value chains means that reducing exports from China could harm global supply chains, including U.S. companies, by increasing costs for imported intermediate goods [8] - The U.S. technology nationalism reflected in export controls faces challenges in a highly globalized technological landscape, potentially hindering both global technological progress and U.S. innovation capabilities [10] Group 6 - Addressing the U.S.-China trade imbalance requires moving beyond confrontational frameworks to find new balance points, emphasizing the need for nuanced management of technology flows and multilateral cooperation [12] - The future of U.S.-China trade relations may evolve into a model of "competitive interdependence," where both countries compete in various sectors while remaining interdependent in areas like climate change and global health [14] - For China, the key to addressing trade imbalances lies in continuing economic structural transformation and increasing domestic consumption, while the U.S. needs to reassess the costs and benefits of its technology blockade policies [14]