Core Viewpoint - The proposal by U.S. Treasury Secretary Best to impose a 200% tariff on Chinese goods was met with silence from G7 leaders, indicating a lack of support from European nations due to economic considerations [3][6][14] Economic Impact on Europe - China has been the largest trading partner for the EU for several years, with trade volume exceeding several hundred billion euros in 2024 [3] - European industries such as automotive, luxury goods, and machinery heavily rely on the Chinese market, and following the U.S. proposal could result in over 100 billion euros in annual losses for Europe [3][5] - Imposing high tariffs on Chinese goods would increase living costs and trigger inflation in Europe, creating a dual challenge for governments in terms of fiscal and social stability [5] European Trade Policy - The EU's decision-making process requires consensus among multiple countries, making it more cautious in trade policy compared to the U.S. [5] - Previous debates within the EU regarding tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles highlight the complexity and challenges of reaching agreements on trade measures [5] U.S. and European Relations - Best's criticism of Europe as "lagging" is seen as politically charged and does not reflect the reality of recent EU actions, such as significant sanctions against Russia [6][12] - The EU maintains a more rational approach to trade with China, emphasizing cooperation and dialogue while asserting its strategic autonomy [12] Shift in U.S. Strategy - With the failure of the trade war against China and lack of European support, the U.S. is now turning its focus to India, attempting to impose high tariffs on Indian goods [13] - India's increasing emphasis on independence in international relations may hinder the effectiveness of U.S. pressure tactics [13]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the fragility of trade agreements made by the Trump administration, highlighting the potential for these agreements to be more about political posturing than actual economic benefits. It emphasizes that the agreements may not lead to the expected outcomes and could result in a shift in global trade dynamics away from U.S. dominance [5][7][27]. Group 1: Trade Agreements and Their Viability - The U.S. and China have agreed to pause the implementation of 24% tariffs for 90 days, indicating a potential thaw in trade tensions, but the effectiveness of these agreements remains questionable [5]. - Many of the trade agreements, such as those with the EU and Japan, lack concrete details and written records, leading to skepticism about their enforceability and actual economic impact [11][19]. - The commitments made by countries to purchase U.S. goods, such as the EU's promise to buy $750 billion in energy products, are viewed as unrealistic given the current export levels from the U.S. [13][14]. Group 2: Economic Impact and Criticism - The Trump administration's trade policies have resulted in the highest tariffs in nearly a century, costing American households an average of $2,400 annually [8]. - Job losses in the manufacturing sector have continued, with 11,000 jobs lost in July alone, contradicting the administration's claims of job creation through these policies [8]. - The article argues that the focus on tariffs has led to increased costs for consumers and has not effectively brought manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. [25]. Group 3: Global Trade Dynamics - The article suggests that the aggressive trade policies have led to a shift in alliances, with traditional U.S. allies like the EU and Japan seeking closer ties with China and reducing their dependence on the U.S. [25][27]. - The potential for a "anti-U.S. alliance" is highlighted, as countries look to diversify their trade relationships in response to U.S. policies [25]. - The article concludes that the Trump administration's approach may lead to the decline of the existing international trade system, with new rules potentially being established without U.S. leadership [27].

因合规考虑，自2025年4月21日后，暂停更新展示历史观点回溯模拟净值图。 本文表述观点，仅代表作者发稿当时的个人想法与思考笔记，仅供读者参考而不作为任何投资 建议。作者保留根据市场环境、新信息等适度修正观点的权利。投资有风险，入市需谨慎。 《 游资主导A股独立走强，短期趋势重回向上 》 申明： 每周思考总第642期 ——名升实降，结合中美贸易及关税谈判进程，可以清晰看到中国经济1-4月的反弹及5月后开启的整 体回落，我们依旧认为始于去年10月的经济回升中涵盖了中美贸易抢出口行为，如今这一窗口已正式 关闭，中国当前因美方贸易战导致的国内工业品囤积问题及PPI持续下探现象，是典型的康波萧条周 期特征 ；海外方面，美国PPI及其他重要物价数据显著跳升，同样映射了在上半年相对物美价廉的中 国商品抢出口窗口关闭后， 美国消费商品已开始转向国内生产，具体指征为美国工业产出的小幅提 升及工业商品价格的大幅跳升，美国经济开始正式承受贸易战下的成本反馈冲击 ，另一方面同期披 露的美国7月财政赤字再次显著跳升，这是可预期的大幅发债重启后现象但持续性仍待观察，美国滚 动年度财政赤字已从1年前的9%降低至6%，而就业市场也已出现持 ...

8月15日，阿拉斯加埃尔门多夫军事基地，特朗普与普京结束近三小时会谈后面对镜头宣布：对华石油关税加征计划暂缓。此刻，新德里的官员们正彻夜难 眠——就在三天前，印度刚刚收到美国50%的关税罚单。 同一时间，两个大国，两种待遇。当中国获得90天的关税豁免延期时，印度对美出口的500亿美元商品却被推上关税断头台。这种戏剧性反差背后，是特朗 普政府精心计算的战略棋局。 8月11日深夜，白宫灯火通明。距离中美关税暂停措施到期仅剩几个小时，特朗普终于拿起笔，在行政令上签下名字。这份文件将对华关税暂停期延长90 天。原定8月12日中午到期的关税战暂停协议获得续命，中美贸易战再度按下暂停键。 签字前几小时，特朗普还在社交媒体喊话，要求中国把对美国大豆采购量"提高至原来的四倍"。这种极限施压是他的典型谈判风格——在紧要关头制造压 力，试图榨取更多利益。但中方没有接招。 中国早已找到新的大豆供应国。巴西大豆不仅质量更优，价格更低，运输还更稳定。中国海关数据显示，2025年上半年从巴西进口大豆同比增长23%，而美 国大豆份额降至十年最低点。 签字后，美国对华关税维持在30%，中国对美关税保持在10%。一场可能让双方关税飙升至三位数 ...

8月6日，特朗普以"印度购买俄罗斯石油资助战争机器"为由，对印度输美产品叠加25%的惩罚性关税。印度外交部当天深夜反击，直指美国行为"不公平、 不正当、不合理"，誓言采取一切措施捍卫国家利益。莫迪在公开讲话中强硬表态："农民的福祉是至高无上的，印度永远不会损害农民、奶农和渔民的生计 ——即使我个人将为此付出沉重代价。" 印度反击：WTO战场与历史炮弹 面对关税重压，印度迅速启动多线反击。 在WTO框架下，印度累计对美加征关税清单已扩大至64.54亿美元，锁定大豆、葡萄酒等共和党关键选区商品，同时瞄准苹果、谷歌等科技巨头的数字服务 税。更犀利的反击来自外交战场：印度外交部披露欧盟2024年进口俄罗斯天然气高达675亿欧元，而美国自身仍在进口俄罗斯六氟化铀用于核工业、钯用于 电动汽车产业。 印度陆军东部战区在社交媒体翻出1971年旧账，展示泛黄的报纸头条——"美国20亿美元军援巴基斯坦对抗印度"，配文"了解历史真相"，引发印度网民集体 嘲讽美国"历史性虚伪"。 贸易战中的双输困局 日本野村证券警告，印度纺织出口可能在三个月内"因关税窒息"，但第三方国家正虎视眈眈：越南、墨西哥伺机抢夺电子订单，泰国觊觎汽车零部件转 ...

"若协议得以执行，结果将是：欧盟对美货物出口缩减、部分产业竞争力下降并向美转移；欧盟购买更 多美国能源产品，为美能源行业提供支撑，这显然更符合美国利益" 【观察】 数据显示，2024年，美国对欧盟的货物贸易逆差为2356亿美元。药品、汽车零部件和工业化学品是欧盟 对美国出口的主要产品。美国政府曾就此指责欧盟"欺骗"美国，要求欧盟方面进行"公平贸易"。 对于美欧贸易协议，美方乐见其成。白宫表示，"这将从根本上重新平衡世界两大经济体之间的经济关 系"。美国前商务部长卡洛斯·古铁雷斯称之为"美国对欧盟的巨大胜利"。据白宫消息，美国航空协会、 农场主联合会、钢铁协会等相关行业协会均表示满意。 欧盟方面则批评声音不断。西班牙《国家报》称，该协议强化了美欧关税的不对等。15%的关税不仅远 高于美国4月2日对欧盟实施的10%"对等关税"，更高于本届美国政府上台前约1.32%的平均关税。彭博 社称，协议激怒了欧盟国家商界和许多行业组织。德国工业联合会称其发出了"灾难性信号"。欧洲汽车 制造商协会总干事西格丽德·德弗里斯警告，美国对进口汽车及零部件维持高关税，将削弱欧盟汽车产 业的国际竞争力。 根据美国与欧盟日前达成的一项框架 ...

先说说背景吧。特朗普今年1月上台后，美国就开始重启贸易战模式，对全球很多国家加关税，名义上是保护本土产业，其实也为了施压俄罗斯。俄罗斯自 从2022年打乌克兰以来，西方就搞石油禁运和价格上限，但俄罗斯靠"影子舰队"绕过去了，很多油卖给了中国、印度这些国家。美国想用二级制裁堵这个口 子，就是不光罚俄罗斯，还罚买家。 特朗普和普京的会晤明天就开了，在阿拉斯加的安克雷奇基地，焦点是乌克兰问题。美国想用关税杠杆撬动俄罗斯让步，但欧洲担心特朗普太软，会让普京 占便宜。欧洲领导人前几天开视频会，英法德乌克兰欧盟北约都参加了，商量怎么劝特朗普别妥协。 贝森特在G7会上提这个，就是想看看欧洲的反应。G7包括美国、加拿大、英国、法国、德国、意大利和日本，本来是西方阵营的核心，但贸易事儿上，大 家利益不一致。欧洲国家，尤其是德国和法国，跟中国贸易额巨大，汽车、机械、奢侈品啥的都靠中国市场。要是真对中国加200%的关税，那不光是石油 问题，整个供应链都得乱套，通胀得蹭蹭涨，企业利润直线掉。 贝森特描述那场面挺逗的，他说自己环视一圈，问完后，那些欧洲领导人就跟小学生被老师点名似的，低头看鞋子，谁都不吭声。这不是啥夸张修辞，是他 亲口 ...

| | | | 集运指数（欧线）期货日报 | | | 2025/8/13 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 项目类别 | 数据指标 环比 最新 | 最新 | | 数据指标 | | 环比 | | EC主力收盘价 | -78.6↓ EC次主力收盘价 | 1333.100 | | | 1700.1 | -20.40↓ | | 期货盘面 | EC2510-EC2512价差 -42.60↓ EC2510-EC2602价差 | -367.00 | | | -154.90 | -44.50↓ | | EC合约基差 | | 902.38 60740 | +22.12↑ 4786↑ | | | | | 期货持仓头寸（手） EC主力持仓量 | | | | | | | | SCFIS（欧线）（周） | -62.38↓ SCFIS（美西线）（周） | 2235.48 | | | 1,082.14 | -47.98↓ | | SCFI（综合指数）（周） | 1489.68 -61.06↓ 集装箱船运力（万标准箱） | | | | 1,227.97 | 0.00↑ | | 现 ...

Core Viewpoint - The implementation of Trump's "midnight tariffs" is a contentious strategy that raises questions about its effectiveness as a political tool versus its potential to harm the U.S. economy and global supply chains [1][5][11]. Group 1: Economic Impact - The average U.S. import tariff has increased from 2.3% to 15.2%, indicating a significant rise in trade barriers [3]. - The U.S. government collected a record $113 billion in tariffs by June 2025, but analysts suggest that a substantial portion of this cost is borne by American companies themselves [3][5]. - Rising tariffs are expected to lead to increased consumer prices, causing concern among supermarket owners and importers about their ability to sustain operations [3][9]. Group 2: Industry Effects - Key industries affected by the tariffs include semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, automotive, steel, aluminum, copper, and timber, with semiconductors facing tariffs as high as 100% [3]. - The automotive and steel sectors are particularly hard-hit, raising questions about their ability to absorb the financial burden of increased tariffs [3][9]. - Major companies like Ford, Tesla, and Intel have reported disappointing financial results, suggesting that high tariffs may lead to broader challenges for U.S. businesses [9]. Group 3: Political and Global Reactions - Public sentiment is largely against the tariffs, with 62% of American voters opposing them, reflecting a growing discontent with the administration's economic policies [5]. - Switzerland has been significantly impacted, with tariffs on its exports to the U.S. rising from 31% to 39%, leading to diplomatic tensions [5]. - The potential for retaliatory measures from other countries raises concerns about a new wave of global trade conflicts, which could exacerbate economic instability [11]. Group 4: Long-term Considerations - The strategy of increasing tariffs may lead to a shift towards "de-dollarization" and localized supply chains, challenging the long-term viability of U.S. economic dominance [9]. - Historical precedents, such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of the 1930s, serve as a cautionary tale about the long-term consequences of protectionist policies [11]. - The effectiveness of tariffs in revitalizing U.S. manufacturing remains uncertain, as global supply chains are deeply entrenched and costly to disrupt [11].

来源：环球市场播报 美国银行周二指出，贸易战引发的全球衰退仍是市场最大的尾部风险，但8月市场紧张情绪略有缓解。 其他风险因素依然存在：债券收益率无序跃升（20%）、AI股票泡沫（14%）和美元贬值（6%）。总 体来看，尽管前两大风险的差距缩小，且投资者对政策长期保持紧缩有所准备，但地缘政治和宏观因素 仍在主导资产配置。 贸易情绪虽有所改善，但通胀和收益率令利率路径充满不确定性，这对股票、信贷和久期策略至关重 要。贸易战仍是头条风险，但通胀正迎头赶上；下一批数据公布和下月调查将揭示这一转变是否持续。 最新全球基金经理调查显示，29%的受访者将贸易战衰退列为首要威胁，较7月的38%有所下降。通胀 风险以27%的得票率紧随其后，基金经理警告粘性通胀或阻碍美联储降息，这种情境可能抑制经济增长 和风险偏好。 ...