Core Viewpoint - The long-term U.S. tariff policy cannot fundamentally resolve the "twin deficits" issue, which includes both trade and fiscal deficits [1][22]. Trade Deficit - The U.S. trade deficit reached a historical high of $1.3 trillion in 2022, with a year-on-year increase of 10.89%, and is projected to be $1.29 trillion in 2024, up 12.57% [3]. - The trade deficit with China remains significant, with a surplus of $319 billion in 2024, only a decrease of $76.7 billion from 2017 [2]. - The U.S. has maintained a trade deficit exceeding $1.1 trillion since 2021, with a deficit of $289.1 billion in the first two months of 2025, marking a year-on-year increase of 58.3% [3]. Fiscal Deficit - The federal budget deficit is projected to reach $1.781 trillion in 2025, accounting for 23.9% of the total budget and 5.9% of GDP, indicating a worsening trend compared to 2019 [5][7]. - Interest payments on national debt are expected to rise from $363 billion in 2019 to $965 billion in 2025, driven by a historic federal debt exceeding $36 trillion and rising interest rates [6][7]. Tariff Policy and Revenue - The U.S. government anticipates an average annual tariff revenue of $290 billion over the next decade, which is only 15.6% of the projected $1.859 trillion fiscal deficit in 2024 [2][21]. - The proposed tariffs, including a 145% tariff on China, are expected to generate $9.8 trillion in revenue from $27.7 trillion in imports over ten years, but the actual revenue may decline due to increased prices leading to reduced demand [20][21]. Structural Issues - The U.S. trade deficit is primarily a result of structural economic imbalances and the global reserve currency status of the dollar, which encourages high consumption and low savings [16][17]. - The U.S. has a high consumption rate of 67.9% of GDP, significantly above other developed countries, which contributes to the persistent trade deficit [14][16]. Impact on Competitiveness - Tariff barriers may increase global supply chain costs, potentially weakening the competitiveness of U.S. companies [22]. - The monopolistic position of U.S. tech companies allows them to generate substantial profits overseas, which may be threatened by retaliatory tariffs from other countries [11][12]. Conclusion - The "reciprocal tariffs" policy may yield short-term negotiation benefits and localized adjustments to the trade deficit, but it lacks the structural reforms necessary to address income inequality, savings rates, and fiscal sustainability [22].

美国财政部长贝森特表示，谈判"正在关注关税、非关税壁垒、政府补贴等多个要素"，暗示把 纠正对日贸易逆差作为主要议题。关于中美贸易战，贝森特表达了期待通过双边对话来缓和 紧张局面的想法…… 美国财政部长贝森特4月23日对日本经济新闻（中文版：日经中文网）等部分媒体表示， 在围绕关税的日美谈判中，"没有寻求特定货币目标的想法"。他还表示，谈判"正在关注关 税、非关税壁垒、政府补贴等多个要素"，暗示把纠正对日贸易逆差作为主要议题。 贝森特在华盛顿邀请了日本经济新闻以及美国主要媒体的部分记者，接受了提问。 贝森特在日美关税谈判中担任主导角色，他于16日和访问美国的日本经济财政再生相赤泽 亮正会面，开启了双边磋商。预计贝森特最早将于当地时间24日和目前正在美国访问的日本 财务相加藤胜信举行会谈。 关于在财务相会谈中成为焦点的汇率政策，贝森特指出，不打算寻求可促使日元贬值、美 元升值的货币目标或者货币协定。但同时表示："希望日本尊重七国集团（G7）的协议"，对 以诱导货币贬值为目的的外汇操作予以强烈牵制。 日本方面要求完全废除对等关税和汽车关税等，接下来将与美方寻找妥协点。 贝森特在与部分记者进行问答之前发表演讲，并指出 ...

点击小程序查看报告原文 Abstract 特朗普政府试图通过加征关税促使美国贸易逆差收窄，制造业回流，我们认为这两个目标难以通过关税实现。首先，关税难以使得美国贸易逆差收窄。 从理论来看，提升关税并不一定能够缩减逆差（扩大顺差）。根据勒纳对称定理，对进口征税等同于对本国的出口征税。从历史来看，1890年《麦金利关 税法案》后，美国顺差一度上升，但是1930年《斯穆特-霍利关税法案》后，美国顺差下降，甚至一度转为逆差，说明了关税和贸易顺差之间的复杂关 系。1890年，美国仍然处于工业化相对早期阶段，面临英国的竞争，关税可以保护其幼稚产业。而到了1930年《斯穆特-霍利关税法案》出台时，美国的 国际地位已经超过英国，在全球出口中的份额也已经超过英国。对于一个大国而言，关税可能同时导致其进口和出口下降，而贸易逆差未必收窄。 关税难以促使制造业回流美国。 前几年美国制造业投资一度加速，但并未持续，近来制造业新开工投资、短期的投资计划出现下滑。中国的中间品对美 国的出口远低于对新兴市场的出口，也反映美国制造业回流缓慢。全球制造业产业链更多的是调整到新兴市场国家，而非美国。与之相应的是，中国与美 国之间的供应链长度增加。 ...

对于谈判，石破茂表示，不会做出重大让步，也不急于达成协议。 专注于日企供应链研究的分析人士王岩告诉第一财经记者，在供应链深度交织的当前，试图通过所谓 的"零逆差"重构贸易格局，不仅违背经济规律，更可能引发全球经济衰退，"美国认为日本通过高关 税、技术壁垒等手段保护本土产业，导致美国商品难以进入日本市场。但这种指责显然忽略了美日产 业结构差异，贸易逆差本是国际分工的自然结果。" 2025.04. 23 本文字数：2047，阅读时长大约4分钟 作者 | 第一财经 潘寅茹 美日经贸谈判暗流涌动。据央视网报道，4月22日，日本首相石破茂透露，美国总统特朗普表示，希 望将对日贸易逆差缩减至零。 这已不是特朗普第一次公开表示希望把美日之间的贸易逆差缩减至零。2月上旬，石破茂访美期间， 特朗普就在双方的会面中强调了减少美国对日本贸易逆差的重要性。他表示，美国目前对日本存在约 1000亿美元的贸易逆差，并希望将这一逆差缩减至零。 日本汽车进口商协会的数据显示，2024年财年，美国汽车（不包括特斯拉）在日本销量超过1万辆。 由于特斯拉没有按地区详细披露其销售数据，但通过日本汽车进口商协会的数据估算，今年第一季 度，"其他品牌" ...

日本首相石破茂透露，美国总统特朗普表示，希望将对日 贸易逆差缩减至零。对于谈判，石破茂表 示，不会做出重大让步，也不急于达成协议。特朗普在汽车领域对日本的不满主要集中在日本进口美国 汽车的数量，以及日本针对汽车进口存在的诸如安全测试标准、环保标准等非关税壁垒。除了汽车及零 部件外，日本以大米、牛肉、水产品、马铃薯为代表的农产品贸易保护政策也被特朗普"点名批评"，后 者要求日本取消关税以外的限制。 ...

韩国工业部长：将与美方同行讨论贸易逆差问题。 ...

Group 1 - Trump's criticism of Powell's monetary policy has intensified, suggesting that the Federal Reserve should lower interest rates to prevent economic slowdown, especially in light of declining costs for energy and food [2] - Following Trump's remarks, the US dollar experienced a significant drop of 0.88% on April 21, reaching a low of 97.9137, while the euro and yen surged by 1.04% and 0.94% respectively [2] - The dollar has depreciated by 9% this year, with a nearly 6% decline occurring in April alone, while the euro and yen have appreciated by 11% and 10.74% respectively [2] Group 2 - The recent volatility in the currency market has seen the offshore yuan only slightly appreciating by 0.28% against the dollar this year, indicating uncertainty and chaos in the market due to Trump's tariff policies [3] - Trump's fluctuating tariff policies and interference with the Federal Reserve may undermine confidence in US economic decision-making and the credibility of the dollar [3] - The strong demand for the dollar as a global reserve currency has led to a high exchange rate, making US exports more expensive and imports cheaper, contributing to trade deficits and harming manufacturing [4] Group 3 - The ongoing trade negotiations between the US and EU, as well as Japan, have encountered significant deadlock, particularly regarding tariffs on industrial goods [5] - The US has maintained a firm stance on tariffs, with Japan denying any substantial progress in negotiations, especially concerning automotive and steel tariffs [6] - Future discussions on exchange rates are anticipated, with potential compromises expected, but not immediately, reflecting the complexities of the ongoing trade talks [6]

Group 1 - The article criticizes the U.S. tariff policy as a unilateral and reckless approach that undermines international trade order and serves political interests [1][10] - The U.S. has imposed various tariffs on imports from China and other countries, including a 20% tariff on all Chinese goods and 25% on steel and aluminum [2][3] - The implementation of "reciprocal tariffs" has led to significant increases in tariffs on imports from various countries, with rates reaching as high as 125% for certain goods from China [3][4] Group 2 - The article argues that the "reciprocal tariff" calculation method is flawed and does not accurately reflect trade imbalances, as it is based on arbitrary parameters set by the U.S. [4][5] - The U.S. tariff policy is said to violate World Trade Organization (WTO) principles, including the most-favored-nation treatment and non-discrimination rules [5][6] - The article highlights that the U.S. trade deficit is a structural issue that cannot be resolved through tariffs, as it is influenced by comparative advantages and international division of labor [7][8] Group 3 - The article notes that since the onset of the trade war in 2018, the overall U.S. trade deficit has not decreased, but rather has been redistributed among trading partners [8][9] - It emphasizes that high tariffs will not effectively fund domestic tax cuts, as tariff revenue is minimal compared to income and sales taxes [9][10] - The article warns that the tariff policy is likely to increase inflationary pressures in the U.S., ultimately burdening consumers [10][11] Group 4 - The article discusses the political pressures facing the U.S. tariff policy, with increasing opposition from both parties and concerns about its economic impact [10][11] - It highlights the potential for significant market volatility and economic downturns as a result of the tariff measures, with major financial institutions adjusting their growth forecasts [11][12] - The article concludes that the high tariffs may distort global resource allocation and weaken the U.S. industrial base, contradicting the political promises made by the Trump administration [12][13]

以下文章来源于智通财经APP ，作者智通编选 智通财经APP . 智通财经APP，连线全球资本市场。内容合作/内容举报请联系李先生： Tel: +86-15121009144 Email:zhitongcolumn@163.com 点击蓝字，关注我们 编者按： 美银邀请了科文顿・柏灵律师事务所(Covington & Burling)的高级顾问克里斯托弗・亚当斯，共同探讨 美国近期全球关税计划的影响。 美银提示，本文中任何第三方发言者的观点并不代表、也不应被理解为代表美银全球研究部门的观点。 亚当斯曾担任美国财政部中国事务高级协调员，负责协调美国政府内部的对华政策问题，领导与中国在 广泛的贸易和投资问题上的谈判，管理奥巴马和特朗普政府时期最高层级的美中经济政策对话。读者请 留意， 本文是从美国立场的视角来看谈判，从中国视角则是另外一种情况。 一、自 4 月 2 日以来美国的三大转变 克里斯・亚当斯先生表示，他在美国财政部和美国贸易代表办公室(USTR)任职时注意到，官员们认为传 统的谈判方式，尤其是与中国的谈判，困难重重，且由于未能解决贸易失衡问题，进展并不显著。目前 特朗普政府在与中国及其他国家的谈判中尝试 ...

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the article highlights the dramatic shift in Trump's trade policy, moving from aggressive tariffs to a more conciliatory approach within just ten days, raising questions about the sincerity of this compromise [1][3] - The U.S. Treasury market reacted negatively to the initial tariff announcements, with significant sell-offs leading to rising yields, indicating market concerns about the economic impact of the trade war [3][5] - The trade deficit has worsened during Trump's presidency, reaching a record $1.21 trillion in 2024, which is a 50% increase compared to before he took office, contradicting the intended goals of the tariffs [3] Group 2 - China's response to U.S. tariffs has been strategic, targeting American agricultural products and shifting imports to South American markets, effectively undermining Trump's tariff strategy [5][10] - The internal divisions within Trump's team are causing erratic policy changes, with conflicting factions influencing the direction of trade negotiations, leading to confusion and inconsistency in U.S. trade policy [7] - Japan's reaction to U.S. trade demands has been notably passive, contrasting with other allies who have retaliated, indicating a potential vulnerability in U.S.-Japan trade relations [7][10]