如果美国在贸易战中失败，是否会动用武力来摧毁中国呢？这是一个由一位美国网友提出的问题，许多 人看到这个问题时不禁会感到震惊。美国似乎总是习惯将复杂的贸易争端引向战争的极端，而忽略了其 中隐藏的现实成本、规则和底线。那么，如果美国真的在关税战中落败，是否会选择对中国动武？这种 做法又是否能够成功呢？ 中美之间的关税战 中美之间的关税战可以追溯到2018年。最初，双方开始相 互加征关税，税率一轮高过一轮，且涉及的商品范围不断扩大，从钢铝、机电到新能源产品等一系列商 品。美国的目标很明确，通过提高关税，设立价格壁垒，试图限制中国商品进入美国市场，削弱中国在 中高端制造领域的性价比优势，并迫使中国的产业链发生迁移。 然而，中国并没有选择退缩。中国的 回应是"对等反制"，同时加速内需的活跃和供应链的强化，逐步补强产业链的关键环节，提升整个产业 的竞争力。除此之外，中国还在积极扩大外贸市场的多元化，将风险分散到多个不同的国家和地区。这 些年，无论是在展会的热度、东盟和"一带一路"订单的比例，还是跨境电商的小包大包增长，都显示出 中国市场在不断壮大。 到如今，随着"休战延90天"的协议，以及"取消大比例加征关税、暂停24% ...

Core Viewpoint - The trade protectionist policies of the Trump administration, characterized by high tariffs, have significantly disrupted the global economic landscape, escalating tensions and testing the global trade order [2][8]. Group 1: Tariff Policies - The Trump administration initiated a tariff war starting in late July, imposing tariffs as high as 250% on various countries, including the EU, UK, Israel, Japan, and India [2]. - Initially, tariffs ranged from 10% to 41%, targeting economic partners and allies that had previously reached trade agreements with the U.S. [2]. - The announcement of additional tariffs on imported pharmaceuticals was made on August 5, with claims that it would promote domestic production and lower drug prices, despite expert opinions suggesting it would harm American consumers [2][3]. Group 2: Global Reactions - Countries that previously conceded to U.S. tariffs, such as Japan and the EU, are now reflecting on their decisions, realizing that concessions did not prevent further tariff impositions [5][6]. - Brazil and other nations are preparing countermeasures against U.S. tariffs, indicating a shift towards resistance rather than submission [5][6]. - The ongoing tariff policies are causing negative impacts on the U.S. economy, with rising costs leading to potential layoffs and business closures [5]. Group 3: Future Implications - The current situation presents a critical juncture for nations to choose between continued submission or collective resistance against U.S. trade policies [6][8]. - The trade dynamics suggest that a united front among countries could diminish the effectiveness of Trump's tariff strategies, promoting a return to a more balanced global trade order [8].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing legal battle regarding the Trump administration's imposition of high tariffs on multiple countries raises questions about the limits of executive power and whether such actions are unconstitutional [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing to debate whether the Trump administration's tariff actions constitute an overreach of authority [1]. - The case stems from an appeal against a ruling by the U.S. International Trade Court that temporarily blocked the President's broad use of tariffs [1]. - The court is examining the interpretation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and whether it grants the President unlimited tariff authority without Congressional approval [2][4]. Group 2: Historical Context and Arguments - The Trump administration's tariffs, which range from 10% to 41%, are based on a broad interpretation of IEEPA, which critics argue has never granted such extensive tariff-setting powers [4][5]. - Historical precedents, such as the Nixon administration's temporary tariffs, are being cited, but the current tariffs lack a specified end date and alter the established tariff schedule [5][6]. - The government argues that IEEPA allows for broad import regulation, while critics assert that the act does not explicitly mention tariffs and that Congress has not authorized such expansive powers [6][8]. Group 3: Potential Outcomes and Implications - If the court rules against the Trump administration, it may lead to significant financial implications, including the potential requirement for the government to refund tariffs already collected [7][9]. - The total tariffs collected under IEEPA and other trade laws have exceeded $150 billion, nearly double the amount from the previous fiscal year [8]. - The complexity of refunding tariffs raises questions about who would be eligible for refunds, as the costs are often passed through the economic system [9].

Agreement Details - The steel and aluminum tariffs will remain unchanged at 50% [1] - The reciprocal tariff imposed by the US on Japan will be reduced from 25% to 15%, and the auto tariff will also be lowered to 15% [1] - Japan is expected to increase imports of US rice within the established minimum import quota [1] - Japan will invest $550 billion in the US, with the US expected to receive 90% of the profits [1] Market Reactions - Commonwealth Bank noted that the tariffs could put pressure on Japan's fiscal outlook, potentially affecting Japanese government bonds and the yen [1] - Citibank suggested that the trade agreement could pave the way for the Bank of Japan to raise interest rates earlier than currently anticipated [1] - Otus Consulting indicated that the agreement is a timely boost for Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and the Liberal Democratic Party, alleviating market concerns [1] - Mitsubishi UFJ stated that the agreement could support the yen's performance, but political uncertainties in Japan may dampen investor sentiment [1] - OCBC Bank highlighted that the yen still faces political risks and potential changes in Japan's credit rating following the trade agreement [1] Additional Insights - ANZ mentioned that the yen is unlikely to see sustained significant gains from the trade agreement, as tariffs pose a negative growth constraint on the Japanese economy [2] - Saxo Bank characterized the $550 billion investment as a political show, while the reduction of tariffs from 25% to 15% is meaningful and may boost sentiment in Japan's export-driven sectors [2] - Sony Financial Group described the trade agreement as mixed news for the Japanese stock market, noting that while the 15% tariff is manageable, the $550 billion investment could lead to capital outflows [2] - SBI Shinsei Bank indicated that the 15% tariff rate is within the Bank of Japan's expectations, and if corporate earnings perform well from April to June, a rate hike could occur as early as October [2] - Sumitomo Mitsui stated that the agreement is positive for the Japanese economy, but the impact of political instability is more significant, suggesting continued pressure on the yen [2] - TD Securities noted that while the market views the agreement as an unexpected positive, Trump's demand for Japan to open its agricultural market poses a potential risk that could further destabilize Japan's already fragile political situation [2]

Group 1 - The upcoming "U.S. National Day" event at the Osaka Expo on July 19 will be attended by U.S. Treasury Secretary Yellen, marking her first visit to Japan since taking office and the first since the U.S.-Japan trade negotiations began in April [1] - Japan is seeking to discuss tariff issues with Yellen during her visit, as reported by Japanese government sources, although U.S. officials indicate that the visit will primarily focus on the expo without formal bilateral talks [1][5] - Japan's optimism regarding the trade negotiations has diminished as the U.S. has rejected Japan's requests to withdraw the so-called "reciprocal tariffs" and has pressured Japan to increase imports of U.S. goods [5][8] Group 2 - The U.S. plans to raise the "reciprocal tariff" rate on Japan to 25% starting August 1, which is higher than the previously announced 24% [11][14] - This increase in tariffs has caused significant concern within Japan, especially with the upcoming Senate elections, as it may negatively impact the ruling party's chances [21][22] - The Japanese government is under pressure to negotiate effectively with the U.S. to protect national interests, with opposition leaders criticizing the government's handling of the negotiations [22][23] Group 3 - Japan's perception of its special relationship with the U.S. has been shaken by the recent tariff announcements, leading to feelings of betrayal among Japanese officials [24][26] - There are calls within Japan for a shift towards greater economic independence and collaboration with other countries to mitigate reliance on the U.S. [28]

Group 1 - The U.S. will impose a 30% tariff on goods imported from the EU and Mexico starting August 1, marking a significant escalation in trade tensions [1][3] - Trump has sent letters to 25 trade partners, with new tariffs ranging from 20% to 50%, creating greater uncertainty in the global economic landscape [1][3] - The EU and Mexico are under pressure to negotiate, but Trump has indicated that tariffs may increase if no agreement is reached [3][4] Group 2 - The EU has suspended plans to impose a digital tax on U.S. tech giants in an effort to reach a compromise, but the U.S. continues to demand high tariffs on key EU exports [4][5] - European leaders, including French President Macron and Spanish Prime Minister Sanchez, have expressed strong opposition to the proposed tariffs and are preparing countermeasures [5][6] Group 3 - The German automotive industry, particularly BMW and Volkswagen, is expected to be severely impacted by the tariffs, along with French luxury goods and Italian machinery [6] - Mexico is seeking diplomatic solutions to the trade disputes and has formed a delegation to negotiate various issues with the U.S. [6][8] Group 4 - The U.S. is also set to impose tariffs of 25% to 40% on imports from Japan and South Korea, further complicating international trade relations [7] - Increased tariffs on imports from Brazil could lead to higher prices for essential goods in the U.S., including coffee and orange juice, affecting consumer costs [7][8] Group 5 - The termination of the "tomato agreement" with Mexico will result in approximately 17% tariffs on Mexican tomatoes, potentially raising prices and impacting employment related to tomato imports in the U.S. [8]

Group 1 - The core issue in the US-EU trade negotiations revolves around tariffs on automobiles and agricultural products, with a potential temporary trade agreement being sought [1][2] - If the negotiations succeed in capping agricultural tariffs at or below 10% and making concessions on automobile tariffs, it could significantly reduce global supply chain pressures and improve corporate profit outlooks [1][4] - The EU is pushing for a 10% tariff on agricultural exports, while the US has proposed a 17% tariff, indicating a gap in expectations that needs to be bridged [3] Group 2 - The EU is focusing on automotive tariffs and has suggested delaying the implementation of retaliatory measures against US tariffs on steel and aluminum, which are set to automatically resume soon [2][3] - Any potential agreement is heavily dependent on the personal views of former President Donald Trump, who has not publicly commented on the ongoing negotiations [2][3] - The outcome of the trade talks will have significant implications for global stock markets, with a positive result potentially leading to a continuation of low volatility and upward trends [4] Group 3 - The US is considering sector-specific tariffs on industries such as pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, with the final results of investigations under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act expected soon [5][6] - The EU is preparing countermeasures in case negotiations fail, including potential tariffs on $24.5 billion worth of US goods and an additional list targeting up to €72 billion [7] - The EU's countermeasures are strategically aimed at politically sensitive US states and industries, indicating a calculated approach to trade relations [7]

Group 1: Tariff Announcements - President Trump announced plans to impose tariffs on specific industries, including pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and metals, with a proposed 50% tariff on copper [2][4] - The copper tariffs are expected to be implemented in late July or on August 1, following a significant increase in copper futures prices, which saw a peak increase of 17.3% [2][4] - Trump indicated that pharmaceutical tariffs could reach as high as 200%, allowing companies a transition period of one to one and a half years to adjust their supply chains back to the U.S. [5][6] Group 2: Current Tariff Levels - Existing tariffs include a 25% tariff on automobiles and a 50% tariff on steel and aluminum, aimed at protecting national security [7][8] - The steel and aluminum tariffs were recently increased from 25% to 50%, effective June 4, 2023, with no exceptions for certain trade partners [8] Group 3: Market Impact - The announcement of copper tariffs led to a significant market reaction, with COMEX copper futures reaching nearly $5.90, marking the largest intraday gain since 1988 [2][4] - Goldman Sachs reported that the investigation into copper imports has caused severe market distortions, with U.S. imports exceeding 400,000 tons, resulting in inventory levels surpassing 100 days of consumption [4]

Group 1 - The article discusses the potential short-term and non-binding nature of any preliminary trade agreement between the US and EU, with a focus on tariffs imposed by the US on imports from 14 countries starting August 1 [1][4] - The EU is negotiating to maintain a 10% baseline tariff while seeking exemptions for sensitive industries like aircraft and spirits, and discussions are ongoing regarding a 25% reduction in auto tariffs [1][5] - There is a significant divergence within the EU regarding the acceptance of agreement terms, with Germany advocating for a deal while France emphasizes a strong stance against high tariffs [5][6] Group 2 - The economic impact of US-EU trade negotiations is expected to vary, with a baseline scenario suggesting a potential agreement later this year that could exert short-term pressure on European economic growth and corporate profits [2] - Recent data indicates a decline in Germany's exports, particularly to the US, with a 7.7% drop in May, marking the lowest level in three years, which may signal challenges for European exports in the coming months [7][8] - The possibility of a breakdown in negotiations could lead to higher tariffs and economic recession for Europe, although there remains optimism for a compromise that could benefit both parties, particularly in defense spending and energy procurement [8]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent trade agreements between the United States and Vietnam, highlighting the differences in negotiation outcomes with Japan and the implications for U.S. trade policy under Trump [3][4][6]. Group 1: U.S.-Vietnam Trade Agreement - The U.S. has agreed to reduce tariffs on Vietnamese products from 46% to 20%, while imposing a 40% tariff on goods transshipped through Vietnam to the U.S. Vietnam will maintain zero tariffs on U.S. goods [3][4]. - The agreement reflects a broader strategy by the U.S. to maintain a competitive tariff differential with other countries, with a minimum differential of 8.2% and a maximum of 20% [6][15]. Group 2: U.S.-Japan Trade Negotiations - Japan's negotiations with the U.S. have stalled, with Japan insisting on comprehensive exemptions from tariffs, while the U.S. focuses on specific tariff rates [11][16]. - The U.S. has threatened to impose tariffs as high as 35% on Japanese goods, indicating a tougher stance compared to the agreement with Vietnam [10][24]. - Japan's position as a major investor in the U.S. has not translated into favorable trade terms, as the U.S. perceives Japan as a "spoiled ally" [11][24]. Group 3: Broader Implications for Trade Policy - The article suggests that the U.S. may adopt a phased approach to tariff negotiations, granting exemptions to countries making progress while applying pressure to those lagging behind [21]. - The potential for a trade agreement with India is highlighted, with India facing a 26% tariff and seeking a similar arrangement as Vietnam [18][19]. - The article notes that the U.S. is likely to be more flexible in negotiations with non-allied countries compared to traditional allies like Japan [17][21].