2025年4月的白宫椭圆形办公室里，特朗普对着幕僚们断言： "中国会是第一个举手投降的。"他手中挥舞着中美贸易逆差数据，坚信庞大的出口额意味着中 国对美国市场的"绝对依赖"。 彼时，这份充满傲慢的预判，被视作开启对华关税战的"底气"。 然而，现实的剧本却朝着完全相反的方向展开。当中方的反制清单落地时，不仅特朗普的幻想碎了一地，更牵一发而动全身，重塑了全球经济博弈的格局。 而这场由误判点燃的较量，至今仍在改写大国竞争的逻辑。 美国的预判 2025年4月，特朗普政府突然宣布对中国输美商品加征"对等关税"，税率从34%飙升至84%，涉及金额超3000亿美元，这一举措被特朗普称作"让美国重新伟 大的关键一步"。 其团队私下推演的剧本是， 中国对美出口占总出口的19%，如此规模的依赖足以让北京在三个月内妥协。 《纽约时报》披露的内部文件显示，美方决策的核心依据是2024年中美贸易逆差数据，中国对美顺差达2758亿美元，美方认为，中国比美国更需要这场交 易。 但第一个意外很快出现。 4月10日，中国商务部公布对等反制清单，对美国所有商品加征对等关税，涉及金额与美方完全对等。 这场"以牙还牙"的反击，让白宫的"速胜剧本"首 ...

Group 1 - The U.S. Department of Commerce announced a dramatic reversal by restoring exports of EDA software, aircraft engines, and ethane to China, influenced by major companies like Intel and General Electric fearing a loss of billions in revenue [1] - The trade war that began in spring 2025 is seen as a textbook case demonstrating the failure of hegemonic thinking in a multipolar world and the conflict between unilateralism and systemic resilience [1][2] - Initial U.S. tariffs aimed at China were based on a misjudgment of the economic interdependence and the strategic resolve of China, leading to significant operational disruptions in U.S. industries [2][4] Group 2 - The U.S. government's attempt to isolate China through a "tariff alliance" backfired, as allies like the EU and Japan pursued their own interests, undermining U.S. efforts [4] - China's strategic depth in the market was highlighted by the rapid adaptation of its industries, such as the successful launch of domestic chip production and electric vehicle market penetration in Europe [4][5] - The economic backlash in the U.S. was swift, with rising prices for Chinese goods and declining consumer confidence, impacting major companies like Tesla [5][7] Group 3 - The political division within the U.S. exacerbated the situation, with the Federal Reserve resisting pressure to lower interest rates, leading to a perception of economic surrender [7] - The U.S. military faced urgent supply issues due to reliance on Chinese rare earth materials, while China had already prepared for such scenarios [7]

Core Argument - The speech by Stephen Milan, Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, equates U.S. military presence and the dollar system to "global public goods," suggesting that other countries should bear a "fair share" of the costs through acceptance of U.S. tariff policies, which reflects a "tariff-funded hegemony" logic [1][2] Group 1: Misinterpretation of Economic Concepts - The characterization of U.S. military deployment as a "global public good" distorts the economic concept, as public goods are defined by non-competitiveness and non-exclusivity, while U.S. military bases serve its own geopolitical interests, indicating a self-serving nature [1] - The U.S. military presence creates security pressure for non-allied countries rather than providing public welfare, exemplified by the tensions arising from NATO's eastward expansion [1] Group 2: Dollar System and Economic Benefits - Although approximately 50% of global trade is settled in dollars, this monetary hegemony primarily benefits the U.S., which gains substantial "seigniorage" revenue from issuing the world currency [2] - The U.S. has created a risk-shifting and "tide harvesting" mechanism through its monetary policies, such as the Federal Reserve's unlimited quantitative easing in 2020, which imposed inflationary pressures on the global economy [2] - The U.S. employs financial sanctions through systems like SWIFT, highlighting the exclusivity of the dollar system, while framing it as a "public good" is a mockery of international economic realities [2] Group 3: Coercive Economic Policies - The proposed solutions under the "tariff-funded hegemony" include coercive measures such as accepting tariffs, increasing purchases from the U.S., and direct payments to the U.S. Treasury, which force other countries to adjust their economic policies for U.S. interests [3] - This approach of economic bullying contradicts the principles of equal negotiation and mutual benefit advocated in modern international relations [3] Group 4: Internal Economic Challenges - The U.S. faces significant fiscal pressures and economic challenges rooted in its own policies, including high military spending and imbalanced fiscal policies, which have led to substantial national debt [3] - Blaming external factors for these internal issues and attempting to impose tariffs as compensation is an ineffective strategy that does not address the underlying problems [3] Group 5: Future of International Relations - The current global landscape necessitates multilateral coordination and cooperation to address complex challenges, rather than unilateral dominance and bullying [4] - Any attempts to maintain hegemony by forcing the world to pay for U.S. privileges are counterproductive, and major powers should focus on promoting peace, development, and genuine global public goods [4]