超过美国，既是目标，也是我们的追求。 美国霸权这个词我们几乎听了无数遍，但你有没有想过，美国霸权到底依赖的是什么？ 一提到美国霸权，很多人会想当然地认为是军事实力，是美元，这个答案当然也没有错。但从另一个角度来看，还不足够有说服力。 毕竟军事实力，那更多是震慑威慑，并不会对霸权起到实质性的作用，而美元也是一样的道理，它可以自由流通，不管是美联储加息还是降息，对美国乃至 全球来说，都有好有坏，其结果不存在完全的可控。 所以，从这个角度来看，这些是美国的"霸权"，但也不完全是美国的"霸权"。 美国真正的霸权是什么？其实是美国庞大中产组成黑洞一样的消费市场。 Property play the state the state t and the state the state of the state CHAND 255 t and the first the first t and the the state in 2 2004 GENE the state TENNER WNGHE and 11 3 3 international and and ST CONTRACT 2005 898 and and 999 ...

今天又听到有人说，美国股市"高科技七姐妹"牛得很，市值不断上涨但是市盈率并不高，而中国同类科技股市盈率太高了。这种论调我听了二十多年了， 起初我也觉着有道理，但追踪分析发现，其中破绽不少。吹捧美国经济、美国股市的人，其实不在意真正的经济学原理，而是预先设定了美国"强者恒 强"，中国只能做跟随者的宣传框架、理论框架、话语框架。其中最典型的是：这些人在上世纪八九十年代宣传美国蓝筹股的市盈率十倍很合理，但是当 道琼斯指数市盈率涨到二十多倍时，他们还认为合理；这些人在2010年之前宣传美国债务/GDP比率60%左右很完美，现在债务/GDP比率超过119%了，他 们也是异口同声说没问题。这是很奇怪的逻辑和很奇怪的宣传。 来源：鹏友来开会 他们的核心破绽是：吹捧美国经济、美国股市的人，完全不考虑美国霸权，把霸权所导致的一系列不公平分配、不公平计价、不公平转移，完全忽略不 计，极力营造并宣传霸权框架下的美国超级跨国公司的无比正确、无比优秀、不可超越。 然而，在2008年美国金融危机爆发后，美国霸权笼罩下的国际经济金融领域的不公平现象得到充分暴露，美国霸权的反噬效应也日益突出。这是包括中国 在内的广大发展中国家呼吁建立更加公 ...

"北约国家必须立刻停止买俄罗斯石油，还要对中国加征50%到100%的关税——这样才能结束战争！"近期，美国总统特朗普在自创社交 平台上发布的"致全世界的信"，再次将国际舆论推向风口浪尖。这个充满火药味的帖文，不仅延续了他一贯强硬的"交易艺术"风格，更 将矛头直指中国，试图以"关税大棒"逼迫盟友站队，却意外暴露了美国霸权在全球舞台上的裂痕。 特朗普的涉华言论并非孤立事件。之前他在福克斯新闻采访中坦言，俄乌冲突是他"唯一没能搞定"的外交难题。这位曾自诩"擅长与普京 打交道"的总统，如今却陷入了尴尬：谈判桌上拿不出具体方案，只能在战场外制造声势。他嘴上喊着对俄"强硬"，却又称局势是"一个 巴掌拍不响"，暗示泽连斯基与普京都有责任；转头便将矛头转向中国，声称"只要北约对中国加征高额关税，就能利用中国对俄罗斯的 影响力结束战争"。 这种看似"神逻辑"的关联，实则暴露了特朗普的策略本质：将国内"交易思维"复制到国际政治，试图用经济施压代替外交智慧。在他的 认知里，全球经济是一张可以随意涂写的画布，关税是"画笔"，制裁是"颜料"，只要盟友跟着美国"统一行动"，就能逼迫俄罗斯回到谈 判桌。然而，现实是：中国与俄罗斯的关系建立 ...

Group 1 - The core concern of the U.S. regarding China is not merely a perceived "threat," but rather the challenge posed by China's rise to U.S. global hegemony [1][30] - The U.S. has historically employed strategies to suppress rising competitors, such as Japan and the Soviet Union, but these methods have not been effective against China [4][11] - China's unique development path, which diverges from U.S. expectations, has led to its emergence as a top global power [2][13] Group 2 - China's economic model combines market economy with socialist principles, successfully addressing efficiency and equity [15] - The rise of Chinese companies in the electric vehicle sector, such as BYD and NIO, highlights China's growing influence in global markets despite U.S. attempts to impose tariffs and restrict technology transfers [17][20] - China's advancements in high-tech industries, including drones and quantum computing, indicate a significant challenge to U.S. technological dominance [19][20] Group 3 - The U.S. has attempted to undermine Chinese companies like Huawei through sanctions, but these efforts have often backfired, leading to increased Chinese innovation [22][24] - China's response to U.S. military pressure in the South China Sea and Taiwan has involved strategic countermeasures, including military exercises and infrastructure investments [26][28] - The Belt and Road Initiative has allowed China to strengthen its economic ties globally, particularly in regions like Africa and Southeast Asia, challenging U.S. influence [28][30]

Group 1 - The article highlights the rapid changes in the international political landscape, indicating a potential decline of U.S. hegemony and a shift towards a multipolar world order [1][11] - The U.S. is facing significant challenges both domestically and internationally, with its trade policies being questioned and losing effectiveness [3][5] - Traditional allies, such as India and Japan, are showing signs of independence from U.S. influence, indicating a broader trend of shifting alliances [6][9] Group 2 - China's new global governance proposal is gaining recognition and support from various countries, contrasting with the U.S. unilateral approach [11][12] - The principles of China's initiative emphasize equality, international law, multilateral cooperation, and a people-centered approach, resonating with many nations [11] - The article concludes that the recent international events signal a profound transformation in global power dynamics, with countries seeking to maximize their interests in the context of great power competition [11][12]

Group 1 - The article discusses the immediate economic impact of Trump's decision to impose a 10% tariff on Chinese goods, which has created tension in global markets and affected US-China trade relations [1] - China's response includes retaliatory tariffs on US products, strict controls on rare metal exports, and adjustments to the RMB exchange rate, demonstrating China's resilience and strategic capabilities [1][3] - The US's focus on Ukraine's rare earth resources is driven by the pressure from China's export controls, highlighting the importance of rare earths in US high-tech and military industries [3][5] Group 2 - The article criticizes the US for its self-serving actions in international relations, particularly its demands from Ukraine, which could exacerbate the country's already precarious situation [5][7] - Ukraine lacks the technology and resources to effectively utilize its rare earth resources, making the US's demands appear exploitative and detrimental to Ukraine's future [5][7] - The ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the US's actions are seen as attempts to maximize benefits at the expense of Ukraine, raising concerns about the long-term implications for the country [5][7] Group 3 - The article concludes that Trump's actions reflect a disregard for international norms and ethics, while China's strong economic position and industrial capabilities have allowed it to effectively defend its interests [7] - The evolving dynamics of US-China trade relations and the international landscape will continue to be significant, with China expected to maintain its influential role [7]

Group 1 - The article discusses Trump's shift in strategy regarding technology exports to China, allowing companies like Nvidia and AMD to sell chips to China while requiring a 15% revenue share from these sales [2][6][8] - This move indicates a potential failure of the U.S. technology war against China, as it suggests a relaxation of previous restrictions and a shift towards monetizing U.S. technological dominance [4][6][8] - Trump's approach is characterized as a transactional strategy, where he leverages U.S. security concerns to extract financial benefits from American companies, effectively turning national security into a revenue-generating mechanism [6][14][16] Group 2 - The article highlights concerns that this new policy could undermine the competitive position of U.S. companies, as they may face higher costs that could be passed on to consumers, ultimately affecting their market dynamics [11][9] - There is a cautionary note regarding the potential risks of allowing Chinese access to U.S. technology, particularly the fear of embedded security vulnerabilities in exported chips [13][14] - The article suggests that this shift could lead to a broader opening of U.S. markets to China, potentially extending beyond technology to other sectors like military and aerospace, as long as the revenue-sharing model is maintained [8][9][16]

Group 1 - The current US-India relationship is characterized by tension, with India leveraging low-cost Russian oil to produce refined products for the EU, which angers the US [1][3] - The US has imposed a 25% additional tariff on Indian goods, raising the total tariff to 50%, significantly impacting sectors like textiles and jewelry, which employ millions [3][5] - India's Prime Minister Modi has expressed a firm stance against compromising on agricultural interests, indicating a strong resistance to US pressure [3][5] Group 2 - Modi's government is responding to US tariffs by reducing import duties on cotton and promoting "Make in India" initiatives, aiming to decrease reliance on external markets [5][7] - India is actively seeking new export markets, having signed a free trade agreement with the UK and negotiating with the EU to mitigate the impact of US tariffs [7][8] - The upcoming UN General Assembly in September may provide a platform for Modi and Trump to discuss their differences, but the outcome remains uncertain [7][8]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the implications of the U.S. imposing tariffs on India, highlighting India's resistance and the potential backlash against U.S. hegemony in global trade [1][4][19]. Group 1: U.S.-India Relations - The U.S. initially sought to align India as a strategic partner in the Asia-Pacific region but faced challenges due to India's non-compliance on issues like energy and military procurement, particularly regarding Russian oil and arms [3][10]. - The U.S. tariffs are seen as a means to enforce compliance, but India is responding assertively, indicating it will not remain silent or compliant [5][11]. Group 2: India's Strategic Position - India is positioned as a significant market with a population of 1.4 billion, making it a key player in global supply chains and a leader among developing nations [7][10]. - India's recent actions, such as advocating for the Global South at the G20 and increasing orders from Russia, demonstrate its intent to assert independence from U.S. influence [10][12]. Group 3: Potential Consequences for the U.S. - The imposition of tariffs on India may backfire, as India holds critical positions in certain supply chains that could complicate U.S. interests [12]. - If India successfully resists U.S. pressure, it could inspire other allies like Japan, the EU, and Australia to reconsider their alignment with U.S. policies, potentially leading to a broader backlash against U.S. trade practices [13][18]. Group 4: Broader Implications - The article suggests that India's resistance could act as a catalyst for structural changes in global trade dynamics, challenging U.S. dominance [15][19]. - The U.S. may struggle to maintain its multi-front sanctions strategy, especially as allies begin to question their roles in supporting U.S. initiatives [14][20].

Group 1 - Indian Prime Minister Modi's upcoming visit to China in late August marks his first trip to the country in seven years, highlighting its significance [1] - Following the announcement of Modi's visit, US President Trump expressed the possibility of imposing new tariffs on China, particularly targeting countries purchasing Russian oil [3] - Trump's threats against China are seen as part of a broader strategy to counteract the growing cooperation between China and Russia, indicating a desire to maintain US dominance [5][7] Group 2 - The US has reduced tariffs on India from an initial 250% to 25%, reflecting a significant concession amid ongoing trade tensions [7] - Trump's aggressive stance towards both China and India is perceived as an attempt to exert pressure, but it may backfire, as indicated by India's response to the situation [5][6] - The dynamics of US-India trade are likely to be affected by the imposition of higher tariffs, which could complicate future negotiations [5]