45%。这是最新调查里一个很扎眼的数字。将近一半的德国人承认，因为食品价格上涨，不得不在吃这 件事上"克制自己"。不是少买奢侈品，不是推迟旅行计划，而是从一日三餐里挤空间。一年前，这个比 例还是39%。一年时间，餐桌的紧张感又往前逼了一步。 当"吃什么"变成需要反复权衡的选择，任何关于经济韧性的宏大叙述，都会显得有点空。 德国长期被视为欧洲的稳定器。工业强国、财政纪律、社会保障，这些标签曾经让德国社会对风险有一 种天然的耐受力。但现在，最先感到压力的，恰恰是最基础的生活环节。不是因为德国人突然变穷了， 而是因为"日常成本"在悄悄改写生活的边界。 食品价格的上涨，从来不只是账单问题。 文︱陆弃 德国的经济信号，不在股市，也不在央行会议纪要里，而是在超市的货架前。 45%的人选择节省食品开支，这个动作背后，往往不是简单的"少吃点"，而是换更便宜的食材，减少新 鲜度，压缩营养结构。对中低收入家庭来说，这种调整并不轻松，却正在变成常态。 更值得注意的是心态的变化。 调查显示，52%的受访者对来年的个人财务状况持消极态度，47%的人保持相对积极。数字几乎对半， 但情绪的天平已经明显倾斜。对一个以稳健著称的社会来说，"消 ...

新华财经北京12月20日电 12月18日至20日，《财经》年会2026：预测与战略·年度对话暨2025全球财富 管理论坛在北京举行。中国科学院院士、中国科学院原院长白春礼在论坛上表示，随着科学与技术边界 加速融合，产业迭代周期显著缩短，技术路线快速演进，国际竞争明显前移，基础研究越来越成为产业 竞争的"先手棋"，越来越成为国家竞争力的"源头工程"。 白春礼指出，基础研究决定国家竞争力的源头，企业基础研究决定产业优势的长久性。必须把企业基础 研究摆在更加突出的位置，基础研究的重要性更加凸显主要体现在三个方面。一是国际竞争加速向基础 前沿前移，企业是否有良好基础研究基础，也决定了其能否直接地把"前沿原理"转化为"产业范式"。二 是科技创新和产业创新的边界更加模糊，基础研究到产业应用的明显缩短。同时，产业发展中遇到的瓶 颈，倒逼在机理、原理、算法与系统架构上实现突破。三是，企业在国家创新体系中的角色正在升级， 不仅体现在资金体量，更体现在算力、数据、工程平台与人才集聚能力。 同时，白春礼提到，企业对基础研究的认识与定位也发生趋势性转变，衍生出企业开展基础研究的新模 式，主要体现在三个方面：一是企业把基础研究当作"核 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the historical evolution of the semiconductor industry, particularly focusing on the DRAM market, highlighting how Japan and South Korea navigated challenges through long-term investments and strategic decisions, ultimately leading to shifts in market dominance. Group 1: Japan's Rise in DRAM - In 1976, Japan initiated a national program called VLSI to catch up with the U.S. in the semiconductor industry, focusing on DRAM as a standardized product with high capital requirements and significant scale effects [2] - From 1978 to 1984, Japanese companies expanded production during a downturn in the DRAM market, betting on long-term scale economies despite short-term financial losses [3] - By 1985, Japan's strategy paid off, capturing over 80% of the global DRAM market share, while U.S. companies like Intel exited the market due to unsustainable losses [5][6] Group 2: South Korea's Aggressive Strategy - In the 1990s, South Korea, particularly Samsung, adopted a similar strategy to Japan, investing heavily in DRAM during the Asian financial crisis, while Japanese firms opted for cost-cutting [7][9] - Samsung's aggressive investment during the crisis allowed it to gain a significant cost advantage over Japanese competitors, leading to a shift in market leadership by the 2000s [9][10] - The failure of Japan's Elpida to compete effectively against Samsung and SK Hynix resulted in the collapse of Japan's DRAM industry by 2012 [10] Group 3: Taiwan's Unique Approach - Taiwan's TSMC, founded by Morris Chang in 1987, focused solely on chip manufacturing without engaging in design, which was a departure from the integrated model prevalent at the time [11][13] - TSMC's strategy of maintaining neutrality and not competing with its customers allowed it to build trust and a strong customer base, leading to a self-reinforcing cycle of growth [13][14] - By the late 2010s, TSMC became the go-to manufacturer for leading chip design companies, solidifying its position in the industry despite high capital expenditures [14] Group 4: Lessons from the Semiconductor Industry - Success in capital-intensive industries requires long-term patience and the ability to endure short-term financial pressures, as demonstrated by Japan and South Korea's strategies [16] - Industry competition is a long-term game, where decisions made at critical junctures can have lasting impacts, as seen with Intel's exit from DRAM [17] - The ability to tolerate long-term failures is crucial for industry success, as evidenced by the supportive environments in Japan and Korea during their respective rises [18] - In capital-intensive sectors, maintaining clear boundaries and focusing on core competencies can provide a competitive edge, as illustrated by TSMC's approach [19]

Core Viewpoint - The recent suspension of maritime sanctions by both the US and China reflects a strategic retreat by the US, highlighting China's determination to counteract US pressures and protect its interests [4][15][27] Group 1: US Intentions and Actions - The US claims to restore its shipbuilding competitiveness and ensure national security, but it has resorted to administrative measures like the "301 investigation" to impose trade barriers against China [3][5] - The US has enacted a law imposing port fees and tariffs up to 100% on Chinese vessels and equipment, establishing significant trade barriers [3][5] Group 2: China's Response - China has implemented reciprocal measures against the US, aligning its fees with those imposed by the US and expanding the scope to include vessels with over 25% US ownership [6][12] - The Chinese response is structured to minimize global supply chain disruptions, with flexible terms such as limiting fees to five voyages per year and charging only at the first port of call [10][12] Group 3: Impact on US Companies - The measures have financially impacted US companies, with statistics showing that Matson Navigation Company incurred $640,000 in special port fees within a month, potentially leading to an annual cost of $8 million [9][10] - The economic pressure on US firms is significant, especially in light of existing economic challenges [9] Group 4: Global Implications - The suspension of sanctions has broader implications for global trade dynamics, challenging the US's dominant position and raising doubts among allies about US leadership [17][20] - The situation reflects a growing skepticism towards administrative interventions in market competition, with calls for fair competition and multilateral trade reforms gaining traction [19][20] Group 5: Future Outlook - The current suspension of sanctions is seen as a temporary measure, with potential for continued negotiations in maritime and logistics sectors [23][25] - The ongoing competition between the US and China is expected to persist, with China poised to respond firmly to any future US sanctions [27][29]

Core Insights - The report highlights China's rapid advancement in key industries over the past five years, raising concerns about the competitiveness of South Korean industries [1][2] - China's manufacturing sector has surpassed some developed countries, becoming a significant force globally, driven by technological advancements, government support, and a large domestic market [2][4] Industry Analysis - **Technological Progress**: China has significantly increased its R&D investment in key technology areas, enhancing its innovation capabilities [2][4] - **Policy Support**: The Chinese government provides strong policy backing for the manufacturing sector, creating a favorable environment for business growth [2][4] - **Market Demand**: A vast domestic market in China offers substantial growth opportunities for its manufacturing industry [2][4] Competitive Pressure on South Korea - South Korean industries, including electronics, automotive, and steel, are facing intense competition from Chinese companies [2][4] - **Technological Lag**: South Korean firms are perceived to be lagging in technological innovation compared to their Chinese counterparts [4] - **Market Size**: The relatively small domestic market in South Korea limits the rapid growth potential of its companies [4] - **Policy Constraints**: The South Korean government provides less robust support for its industries, affecting their competitiveness [4] Notable Chinese Companies - **Huawei**: Has surpassed South Korea's Samsung to become the second-largest global manufacturer of communication equipment [5] - **BYD**: Emerged as a strong competitor in the electric vehicle sector, challenging South Korea's automotive industry [5] - **CATL**: Has become one of the largest lithium battery manufacturers globally [5] South Korean Response Strategies - **Increased R&D**: South Korean companies are ramping up their R&D investments to achieve breakthroughs in critical technology areas [7] - **Market Expansion**: South Korean firms are actively seeking to expand into international markets to find new growth opportunities [8] - **Enhanced Policy Support**: The South Korean government is increasing its support for businesses to create favorable conditions for development [9] Future Outlook - The competition between Chinese and South Korean industries is expected to drive progress in both countries, contributing to global economic development [9][10]

Core Viewpoint - Germany's recent actions against China, including proposed tariffs on steel and threats of retaliation, reflect a shift in political strategy amid economic pressures, but these measures may ultimately backfire and highlight Germany's reliance on Chinese manufacturing capabilities [1][3][11]. Group 1: Economic Context - Germany's economy has stagnated for four consecutive years, with key industries like engineering, automotive, and machinery facing significant challenges [1]. - The German government is attempting to protect its domestic industries by increasing tariffs on Chinese steel, which is seen as a response to the competitive pressure from China [1][3]. - The German automotive association has warned that these tariff measures will increase costs and tighten supply chains, further complicating the economic landscape [3]. Group 2: Trade Dynamics - China's exports of machinery to Europe have surged from €20 billion six years ago to an expected €50 billion this year, indicating a significant shift in trade dynamics [5]. - For the first time, Germany is experiencing a trade deficit with China in machinery and automotive sectors, contrasting with the past when "German manufacturing" was synonymous with high quality [5][11]. - The competitive pricing of Chinese products, such as a machinery quote of €28,000 compared to a German quote of €130,000, underscores the challenges faced by German manufacturers [5]. Group 3: Political Implications - The German government's contradictory stance—calling for retaliation while simultaneously seeking to improve relations with China—reflects a broader political inconsistency [3][10]. - The current political climate in Germany is characterized by a desire to protect domestic industries while acknowledging the necessity of cooperation with China for cost-effective supply chains [8][11]. - The actions taken by German politicians are viewed as more of a political performance rather than effective measures against China, as the underlying economic realities remain unchanged [11]. Group 4: Future Outlook - The structural issues within Germany's economy, such as high production costs and inflexible systems, have been exacerbated by the rise of Chinese manufacturing capabilities [10][11]. - The ongoing trade tensions and tariff proposals may not yield the desired results for Germany, as the need for stable and affordable supply chains remains critical [11]. - The evolution of trade relationships indicates that Germany must address its internal challenges to remain competitive in a rapidly changing global market [10][11].

Core Viewpoint - The recent $8.5 billion mineral cooperation agreement between the U.S. and Australia highlights the urgency for the U.S. to reduce its dependence on Chinese rare earth resources, particularly in the context of military applications [1][10]. Group 1: U.S. Concerns and Military Dependency - The U.S. military relies heavily on rare earth elements, with 87% of its 153 major weapon systems dependent on Chinese processing [1]. - The F-47 fighter jet requires 8 to 12 kilograms of rare earths, and 70% of the heavy rare earths used in the U.S. come from China, indicating a significant vulnerability in the U.S. defense supply chain [1]. Group 2: Australia's Position and Resources - Australia ranks fourth globally in rare earth reserves, with 5.7 million tons, and possesses the only large-scale heavy rare earth production base outside of China, making it a strategic partner for the U.S. [6]. - The agreement is seen as mutually beneficial, with Australia aiming to enhance its position in the global mineral market while providing the U.S. with critical resources [6]. Group 3: Challenges and Realities - Despite the cooperation, Australia's rare earth reserves are significantly lower than China's, which holds 44 million tons, over seven times more than Australia [7]. - The timeline for Australia to scale up production to meet U.S. needs is unrealistic, with full-scale production not expected until 2028, while the U.S. seeks self-sufficiency within a year [7][10]. - The technological and industrial barriers that China has established over years cannot be easily overcome by mere agreements or investments, as China controls 90% of the global rare earth supply chain and extraction technology [7][8]. Group 4: Conclusion on the Agreement's Impact - The $8.5 billion agreement appears to be more of a political gesture to alleviate U.S. anxiety over rare earth dependence rather than a practical solution to the underlying supply chain issues [10]. - The global supply chain dynamics are complex and cannot be altered solely through political maneuvers; achieving true independence in rare earth supply will require substantial technological advancements and production capabilities [10].

Group 1 - The EU has included Chinese energy companies in its sanctions list against Russia for the first time, naming 12 companies, including a major refinery that processes Russian oil, indicating a strategic move against both Russia and China [1][3][5] - The sanctions aim to disrupt the energy cooperation between China and Russia, as the targeted companies account for 3% of China's total refining capacity and play a crucial role in importing and processing Russian oil [5][9] - The EU's actions are seen as an attempt to redefine global energy and political dynamics, with the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen labeling China as the "primary competitor" and pushing for a transition to clean energy to reduce dependency on China [3][7][9] Group 2 - China's Ministry of Commerce has responded strongly to the EU's sanctions, stating that they violate international law and threaten global energy security, and has indicated potential countermeasures, particularly concerning rare earth exports [9][11] - The sanctions may inadvertently harm the EU's own supply chains, as Brent crude oil prices have surged to $95 per barrel, prompting Chinese companies to shift production capacity to Southeast Asia and the Middle East [15][16] - The geopolitical landscape is shifting, with Russia continuing to support China by increasing oil imports, which could account for 12% of the EU's targeted oil exports, highlighting the deepening energy ties between China and Russia [9][11][18]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent actions taken by the U.S. under Trump's administration to secure rare earth resources, particularly focusing on agreements with Australia and Kazakhstan, while questioning the effectiveness and feasibility of these moves in reducing dependence on China [2][12]. Group 1: U.S.-Australia Rare Earth Agreement - The U.S. signed a deal with Australia to purchase rare earth minerals, claiming it aims to reduce reliance on China and create a "clean supply chain" [4][12]. - The agreement involves raw ore rather than refined products, highlighting that Australia lacks the capacity for significant processing, which still relies on China [4][6]. - The U.S. faces challenges in establishing a complete supply chain for rare earths, as the necessary technology and processing capabilities are not currently in place [6][10]. Group 2: U.S. Focus on Kazakhstan's Tungsten - The U.S. is pursuing tungsten resources in Kazakhstan, a critical metal for high-end manufacturing and military applications, with government loans to support domestic companies [8][12]. - Despite the direct approach, the U.S. still lacks the processing technology required to convert mined tungsten into usable materials, which remains a significant hurdle [8][10]. - The U.S. mining efforts may ultimately lead to dependence on China for processing, similar to the situation with rare earths [10][12]. Group 3: China's Position and Strategy - China maintains a strong position in the rare earth and tungsten markets, with a complete industrial chain and advanced processing capabilities developed over decades [10][14]. - The Chinese strategy focuses on enhancing regulatory and environmental standards while moving towards selling technology and products rather than just raw materials [14][16]. - China's international cooperation approach emphasizes mutual growth and infrastructure development, contrasting with the U.S. strategy of resource acquisition [16][18]. Group 4: Implications for Global Resource Competition - The article suggests that the real competition lies in the ability to convert resources into products and industries, rather than merely acquiring raw materials [18]. - The urgency in U.S. actions reflects a recognition of its vulnerabilities in the global resource landscape, particularly in high-end manufacturing [12][18]. - Continuous innovation and institutional support are essential for maintaining competitive advantages in the face of increasing international competition [18].

Group 1 - The core conflict arises from the U.S. banning the sale of lithography machines equipped with its technology to a certain Asian country, which retaliated by prohibiting the sale of rare earth products containing its technology and materials to the U.S. This represents a direct clash of industrial hard power between the two nations [1][3] - The U.S. leverages the monopoly of ASML on advanced EUV technology as a weapon, while ASML tightens export controls on DUV lithography machines to hinder the advanced chip industry of the Asian country. However, the U.S. may overlook the critical role of rare earth technology from the Asian country in the core components of ASML's lithography machines [3][5] - The Asian country has a significant advantage in the rare earth sector due to long-term technological accumulation, controlling 70% of global rare earth mining, 90% of separation processing, and 93% of magnet manufacturing. This dominance extends to the supply of rare elements needed for next-generation BEUV technology [5][7] Group 2 - Maintaining a strong defense of rare earth technology has become a core task for ensuring industrial security in the face of escalating competition [7]