热点思考 | 美方视角下的特朗普关税策略（申万宏观·赵伟团队）

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the renewed threats of tariffs from Trump in October, highlighting China's more composed response and increasing divisions within the U.S. regarding tariff strategies [1][6]. Group 1: Changes in China's Tariff Strategy - The uncertainty surrounding tariffs stems from non-tariff measures taken by the U.S. since September, including the expansion of sanctions by the BIS and new export controls on rare earths [2][7]. - Two new changes in China's tariff strategy are noted: first, China is using tactical agreements to gain strategic development space, such as the TikTok agreement and agricultural purchases, which do not harm its core interests but satisfy Trump's demands; second, compared to the previous tariff conflict, China has increased its proactivity by halting soybean purchases and creating negotiation topics before meetings [2][10]. Group 2: Deficiencies in Trump's Tariff Strategy - Trump's strategy of releasing strong statements before meetings is a common tactic aimed at increasing negotiation leverage, but this year, China's response differs from previous conflicts [3][11]. - Think tanks like Cato and AEI criticize the design of reciprocal tariffs, arguing they are economically unviable and not suitable as negotiation leverage due to issues like incorrect incentives, unsustainable high tariffs, and collateral damage to domestic supply chains [3][13][25]. - Recommendations for U.S. strategy include reducing reliance on broad high tariffs and focusing on non-tariff barriers and targeted measures, such as a narrow and deep export control list and expanding positive incentive systems [3][14][25]. Group 3: Desired Trade Agreements with China - The U.S. political focus is on strategic and security issues, contrasting with Trump's preference for visible negotiation outcomes, which often prioritize economic topics over diplomatic and security concerns [4][15]. - Criticism arises regarding Trump's short-term transactional approach, which is seen as neglecting long-term strategic interests, particularly in areas like export controls and agricultural agreements [4][16][17]. - The absence of a formal agreement is viewed as more detrimental to the U.S., with Trump facing pressure to reach a verifiable agreement due to economic costs primarily borne by the U.S. [4][18][19]. Group 4: Feasibility of Trade Agreements - Large-scale trade agreements are deemed unlikely to align with U.S. interests, with a preference for smaller, more manageable agreements that can provide temporary relief despite limited strategic significance [5][19][27].