Core Viewpoint - The trade protectionist policies implemented by the Trump administration since 2017 have not led to the expected long-term prosperity for the U.S. economy, but rather have caused structural impacts on the U.S. economy and the global trade system [3][8]. Short-term Benefits and Long-term Costs of Tariffs - The asymmetric tariff design has temporarily boosted some manufacturing capacity in the U.S., with companies like Samsung and TSMC announcing investments in U.S. facilities [4]. - However, U.S. manufacturers relying on global supply chains face rising cost pressures, with a McKinsey report indicating a 37% average increase in total supply chain costs for companies shifting production from Asia to Mexico and Vietnam [4]. - Tariff policies have raised import prices, eroding consumer purchasing power, with Goldman Sachs estimating that the cost passed to consumers could rise from 22% to 67% if tariffs continue [4][10]. Dynamics of Trade Relations and Erosion of U.S. Centrality - The use of tariffs as negotiation tools has weakened the U.S.'s relationship with multilateral trade systems, leading to a diversification of global trade networks [5]. - Data shows that trade with the EU and other economies is shifting away from the U.S., with the EU increasing its trade share with China while decreasing its trade with the U.S. [5][14]. Monetary Policy Dilemma - The Federal Reserve faces a challenging balance between maximizing employment and stabilizing prices, with recent data indicating a weakening job market [6][16]. - Inflation remains a concern, with the core consumer price index rising to 3.1%, complicating the Fed's monetary policy options [6][17]. Growth Prospects: Debt, Inflation, and Tariff Constraints - Despite short-term resilience, U.S. economic growth is constrained by government debt exceeding $37 trillion, rising inflation, and the impacts of tariffs [7][20]. - If tariffs are fully implemented, GDP growth could decline by an average of 0.5 percentage points from 2025 to 2026, with significant price increases for consumer goods [7][22]. Impact of Trade Protectionism on Global Value Networks - The U.S. trade protectionist policies disrupt the free flow of goods and services, leading to increased costs and efficiency losses that ultimately harm the U.S. economy [13]. - The U.S. is losing its traditional core position in global value chains as countries seek to reduce reliance on the U.S. market [14][15].

Group 1 - Multiple federal agencies, including ICE, FBI, and DEA, conducted a heavily armed raid on a construction site for a battery plant in Georgia, jointly invested by Hyundai and LG [1][3][5] - The operation aimed to arrest illegal immigrants, resulting in the detention of 475 workers, primarily Korean nationals [7][13] - The raid has been described as the largest crackdown on illegal immigration by the current Department of Homeland Security [13][20] Group 2 - Hyundai's investment in Georgia includes a vehicle manufacturing plant and a battery factory, with a total investment of $26 billion, marking it as the largest economic investment project in the state's history [15][17] - The construction of the battery plant is currently halted due to the raid, which has raised concerns among foreign investors about the treatment of their workforce [19][23] - The U.S. immigration policy has made it difficult for foreign companies to hire skilled labor, leading to the use of B1 visas for workers, which are not intended for employment [18][19] Group 3 - The raid reflects a shift in U.S. immigration enforcement under the Trump administration, which has increased the pressure on companies employing illegal immigrants [20][21] - The situation has implications for other foreign investments, as companies like Hyundai Heavy Industries are also looking to invest in the U.S. shipbuilding industry [24][30] - The U.S. shipbuilding industry has been struggling due to protectionist policies, and partnerships with companies like Hyundai Heavy Industries are seen as a potential solution to revitalize this sector [26][29]

Group 1 - The US government has imposed tariffs on a wide range of countries, including traditional allies like Japan, South Korea, and India, as well as the EU, leading to a significant trade conflict [1] - The EU initially responded with concessions but later shifted to a more aggressive stance, launching retaliatory tariffs against US goods, including a 20% tariff on EU products and a potential 25% tariff on automobiles [1][4] - The trade dispute has roots in long-standing disagreements over subsidies in the aerospace sector, with the WTO ruling against EU subsidies to Airbus, allowing the US to impose tariffs on $7.5 billion worth of EU goods [1][2] Group 2 - The US Trade Representative announced plans to impose an additional 15% tariff on European Airbus planes and is considering new tariffs on $4 billion worth of European goods, including Italian cheese and Scottish whiskey [2] - The EU has prepared a detailed retaliation list targeting $95 billion worth of US exports, including aircraft, automobiles, and agricultural products, indicating a strong response to US tariffs [4] - The EU's response includes significant concessions, such as reducing tariffs on US lobster from 20% to 5% and committing to purchase $75 billion worth of US liquefied natural gas and oil over three years [4][5] Group 3 - The German automotive industry is particularly affected, with exports to the US valued at $34.9 billion, and a potential 27.5% tariff could impose an additional $2.3 billion in costs on BMW alone [5] - The European aluminum industry faces challenges due to a 50% tariff on aluminum products while benefiting from zero tariffs on scrap aluminum, leading to a raw material shortage for local producers [7] - The IMF has noted that the trade tensions have led to a restructuring of global supply chains, with Asian manufacturers gaining market share at the expense of European companies [9]

Core Viewpoint - Trump's economic plans are facing unprecedented challenges due to recent political developments in the U.S., particularly regarding his tariff policies, which may lead to significant consequences for the U.S. economy and its global standing [1][3]. Group 1: Tariff Policy Challenges - A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals declared Trump's tariff policies unconstitutional, leading to an immediate halt in their execution [3]. - Trump's team has appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn this ruling, which reflects ongoing judicial challenges to his tariff policies [4]. - The Supreme Court's conservative majority may provide some advantage to Trump, but the controversy surrounding the tariff policies is greater than anticipated [4]. Group 2: Economic Implications - The trade agreements with the EU, Japan, and South Korea involve supply chains worth hundreds of billions of dollars, with potential global trade impacts exceeding one trillion dollars [4]. - Economists warn that forced supply chain restructuring could disrupt global industry layouts, increase production costs, and potentially lead to inflationary pressures in the U.S. [7]. - Historical evidence suggests that while protectionist measures may yield short-term gains, they ultimately weaken national economic competitiveness [7]. Group 3: Geopolitical and Domestic Reactions - Trump's aggressive trade strategies are eroding U.S. international credibility, with European leaders expressing dissatisfaction and allies like Japan and South Korea diversifying their supply chains away from the U.S. [11]. - Domestically, there is growing opposition to Trump's tariff policies, even among some Republicans, with concerns that these measures exacerbate federal financial burdens [13]. - The Supreme Court's eventual ruling on the tariff policies could significantly impact Trump's political standing and the future of U.S. trade policy [13].

Group 1 - The complex historical relationship between the US and Mexico is highlighted, with significant territory changes occurring after the Mexican-American War in the 19th century [1] - Mexico has become a key beneficiary of industrial transfer from the US, particularly in the automotive sector, due to its geographical proximity and low labor costs, leading to a complete supply chain system [1] - Major US automotive companies like General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler have established production bases in Mexico, resulting in significant cost advantages for vehicles produced there compared to those made in the US [1] Group 2 - The US's unilateral trade disputes and tariff impositions have negatively impacted the Mexican economy, despite the USMCA trade agreement, causing uncertainty for Mexico [3] - The potential imposition of punitive tariffs by the US on Mexican goods could increase consumer costs in the US and weaken the price competitiveness of Mexican products [3] - Initially, the Mexican government took a strong stance against US trade policies but eventually chose to compromise due to economic pressures, leading to a temporary halt in US tariff plans [3] Group 3 - Recently, the Mexican government has begun to adopt protectionist measures similar to those of the US, considering increased tariffs on countries without free trade agreements, particularly targeting Chinese products [5] - This strategy aims to mitigate the impact of US tariffs on Mexican industries but may inadvertently raise domestic prices and burden consumers [5] - Mexico's reliance on the US market is evident, with nearly 80% of its exports directed to the US, limiting its bargaining power in trade negotiations [7] Group 4 - The trade policies of the US are seen as a trap for Mexico, as they attempt to shift domestic issues onto trade partners, creating a challenging environment for both Mexico and Canada [7] - Mexico's attempts to transfer costs to other trading partners through tariffs are viewed as short-term solutions that do not address the underlying issues of competitiveness [7] - The ongoing trade war, characterized by tariff impositions, is likely to disrupt global supply chains and increase living costs for consumers worldwide, hindering economic recovery [7]

Group 1 - The U.S. government has expanded the scope of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to include hundreds of derivative products, with a 50% tariff imposed on 407 product codes due to their steel and aluminum content [1] - The new tariff list took effect on August 18, marking the highest actual tariff rate since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which poses a significant negative impact on the international economy [1] - Historical evidence suggests that previous tariff wars have had adverse effects, with the current complex global supply chains increasing the systemic risks associated with tariff misuse [1][2] Group 2 - The U.S. is attempting to construct a new set of trade rules that reflect its own interests, effectively transferring its domestic costs to global trade partners, which goes beyond normal trade policy into protectionism [2] - The so-called "fair trade" approach by the U.S. is a guise for maintaining its economic monopoly, as it enforces unilateral tariffs that undermine the World Trade Organization's principles [2] - The imposition of asymmetric tariffs distorts global supply chains and converts reasonable economic benefits of trade partners into monopolistic gains for the U.S. government [2] Group 3 - From the perspective of global value chain restructuring, the U.S. trade policy reveals a dual paradox: most of the tariff costs will ultimately be borne by U.S. companies, and the restructuring of supply chains primarily concentrates in ASEAN regions, leading to secondary dependencies [3] - The excessive use of tariffs is unlikely to reduce trade deficits or protect industries, instead causing structural imbalances in global economic governance [3] - The current tariff strategy may not restore the economic glory of the past but could accelerate the decline of the U.S.'s dominant position in global trade [3]

墨西哥总统称考虑对部分国家加征关税 中方：反对以各种名目对华设限 中新网北京9月5日电(记者 郭超凯)中国外交部发言人郭嘉昆9月5日主持例行记者会。 有记者提问：据报道，墨西哥总统辛鲍姆表示，墨政府正在考虑对没有与墨西哥签署贸易协议的国家加 征关税，其中包括中国。中方对此有何评论？ 郭嘉昆：我不了解你提到的具体情况。中墨经贸合作是互利共赢的，合作成果惠及彼此人民。中方始终 倡导普惠包容的经济全球化，反对各种形式的单边主义、保护主义和歧视性、排他性措施。我们坚决反 对在他人胁迫下，以各种名目对华设限，损害中方正当权益。相信有关国家将坚持独立自主，妥善处理 有关问题。(完) 来源：中国新闻网 编辑：万可义 广告等商务合作，请点击这里 本文为转载内容，授权事宜请联系原著作权人 中新经纬版权所有，未经书面授权，任何单位及个人不得转载、摘编或以其它方式使用。 关注中新经纬微信公众号(微信搜索"中新经纬"或"jwview")，看更多精彩财经资讯。 ...

Core Viewpoint - Fujifilm's decision to relocate production from China back to Japan has resulted in unexpected consequences, as the company is still subjected to a 15% tariff on camera imports to the U.S., highlighting the challenges of navigating trade policies and the complexities of global supply chains [1][2][5]. Group 1: Background and Decision - The decision to move production back to Japan was made in response to fears of high tariffs on cameras produced in China amid escalating U.S.-China trade tensions [2]. - Fujifilm believed that relocating to Japan would shield them from tariffs due to the historically strong U.S.-Japan relationship [2]. Group 2: Current Situation and Impact - The U.S. Department of Commerce has imposed a 15% anti-dumping tax on Japanese camera imports, which has taken Fujifilm by surprise [2][5]. - This tariff could result in Fujifilm incurring additional costs of several million dollars annually, which will likely lead to increased camera prices for consumers [7]. Group 3: Broader Implications - Fujifilm's experience illustrates the indiscriminate nature of U.S. trade protectionism, affecting both competitors and allies alike [9]. - The case serves as a cautionary tale for companies considering relocating production to avoid trade risks, as such moves may not yield the expected benefits [9]. - The situation emphasizes the importance of maintaining competitive product quality and innovation in a complex international trade environment, as demonstrated by companies like Huawei and DJI [11][12][14].

Core Points - The trade friction between Brazil and the United States has escalated rapidly, entering the WTO dispute resolution process, reflecting deeper issues in the global trade order [1] - The U.S. imposed high tariffs on Brazil's major export products under the guise of "national security," while Brazil opted to respond through multilateral mechanisms [1][2] Tariff Conflict - In April, the U.S. government announced a 10% tariff on Brazilian exports, seen as a "tentative warning," with minimal impact on key products like coffee and beef [2] - By July, the U.S. increased tariffs to 50% on most products, making Brazil one of the countries most affected by U.S. tariffs [2][3] - Brazil's Congress quickly passed a law allowing for retaliatory measures against U.S. imports, emphasizing the importance of national sovereignty and international rules [2][3] Economic Impact - The tariffs have led to a significant decline in Brazil's export expectations, with the export expectation index dropping to 46.6, marking a 21-month low [5] - The U.S. is Brazil's second-largest trading partner, accounting for 12% of Brazil's exports and 15.5% of imports, with a projected bilateral trade volume of approximately $91.5 billion in 2024 [5] - Key sectors such as coffee, beef, and steel are expected to suffer losses exceeding $1 billion due to the tariffs [5][6] Political Ramifications - The tariff conflict has become a sensitive issue in Brazil's election cycle, particularly affecting regions that heavily rely on exports to the U.S. [6] - Public sentiment towards the U.S. has soured, with negative perceptions rising to 48%, as many view the tariffs as an infringement on Brazil's sovereignty [6] Multilateral Challenges - Brazil has formally requested consultations with the WTO regarding the U.S. tariffs, accusing the U.S. of violating multiple trade rules [8] - Concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of the WTO's dispute resolution mechanism, particularly given the U.S.'s history of ignoring rulings under the pretext of national security [8][9] Strategic Adjustments - Brazil is diversifying its export strategy to reduce reliance on the U.S. market, strengthening ties with countries like China and India [9] - Initiatives include enhancing cooperation in agriculture and minerals, and increasing the use of local currency in trade [9][10] Conclusion - The U.S.-Brazil tariff dispute transcends bilateral issues, highlighting fractures in the global trade order, with Brazil seeking to leverage multilateral cooperation and adjust its export strategies [10]

Group 1: Market Dynamics - The bond market is no longer responding to central bank narratives, with a significant rise in yields across major economies, including the US, UK, Germany, and France, reaching historical highs [1][6][18] - Investors are increasingly skeptical of central bank promises and are focusing on the expanding fiscal deficits of governments, as highlighted by the IMF's warnings regarding the US debt burden [1][2][6] Group 2: US Debt Situation - As of April 2025, the US national debt has surpassed $36.4 trillion, with $9.5 trillion maturing within the next 12 months, leading to a reliance on new debt issuance [2][4] - Interest payments for the US government are projected to approach $1 trillion in 2025, surpassing both healthcare and defense spending, indicating a significant financial burden [2][4] Group 3: Global Debt Trends - The UK and Japan are also facing severe debt challenges, with UK 30-year bond yields reaching 5.64%, the highest since 1998, and Japan's debt exceeding 250% of GDP [4][6] - France's fiscal deficit remains above 5% of GDP, raising concerns about its ability to manage debt effectively [4][6] Group 4: Market Sentiment and Investment Shifts - The bond market is punishing governments with poor fiscal discipline, leading to higher required yields as investors seek compensation for risk [6][10] - Traditional safe-haven behaviors are diminishing, with investors prioritizing inflation and debt concerns over the historical safety of bonds [6][10] Group 5: Precious Metals Performance - Gold and silver have emerged as preferred safe-haven assets, with gold prices rising over 33% in 2025, significantly outperforming the S&P 500 [10][12] - Silver prices have also surged, driven by industrial demand, particularly in solar energy and electric vehicles, with a projected supply gap of 149 million ounces in 2025 [10][12] Group 6: Central Bank Actions and Currency Dynamics - Central banks are increasing their gold reserves, with global demand reaching a record 4,974 tons in 2024, as they diversify away from dollar-denominated assets [11][16] - The weakening of the US dollar, with its share in global reserves dropping to 57.4%, is contributing to the attractiveness of gold and silver as alternative assets [14][16]