特朗普的贸易战将对美国经济造成多大的伤害（下） [美国媒体]

How much will the Trump trade war hurt the USA economy?

特朗普的贸易战将对美国经济造成多大的伤害（下）




Andreas Mihardja
Well Trump is relatively smart in his approach of the US economy.
He decrease the federal tax income by 25 - 35% and to avoid an increase in the inflation rate he puts tariff to all imported goods from China and probably also from other countries in the future. The Fed get some of their losses back by the tariffs but the economy is not and will not be growing. It will be decreasing in the near future.
The question is why??
The country like China or any other country must have something to retaliate. I.e 60% of all Soybean produced in the USA goes to China. Corn for feedlots in Iowa goes most of it to China. The promised pigs sold to China could become history and has to be dumped in the local market. Beef that China is needing for their people suddenly is not for the Chinese market anymore. China will not retaliate by imposing tariff for US imports - they just prevent US import entering China. This regime is able to mobilize their population to not buy US products or consume US products. This in the agricultural sector. In the future Chevy could be forced to close their facilities in China because Cadillac is not wanted anymore and may be Mercedes or RR is taking over their market share. What about Boeing 380 planes order, could easy be produce by Airbus. Boeing will have to close many of their production facilities. Computers and Tablets or cell-phone. There will be a shortage since most of it are produced in China. This products will get more expensive - Well people will shop in Canada or Mexico - just across the border. Only those who has not much money have to buy it inside the USA. ——— who will win now?

特朗普在美国经济的做法上相对聪明。
他将联邦税收减少了25-35%，为了避免通货膨胀率的上升，他对来自中国的所有进口商品以及将来可能来自其他国家的进口商品征收关税。美联储通过关税收回了部分损失，但经济在现在和将来都不会增长。在不久的将来，它将有所下降。

问题是为什么？
像中国或任何其他国家一样的国家肯定有一些东西来进行报复。比如在美国生产的大豆中，60%都是销往中国的。在爱荷华州，玉米主要卖给中国。承诺卖给中国的猪可能成为历史，必须在当地市场倾销。中国人民所需要的牛肉突然不再是中国市场需要的牛肉了。中国不会以对美国进口征收关税作为报复措施--它们只是阻止美国进口进入中国。这个政权能够动员他们的人民不购买美国产品或消费美国产品。这只是在农业部门。

未来，雪佛兰可能被迫关闭他们在中国的工厂，而凯迪拉克不再需要了，所以梅赛德斯或RR可能正在接管他们的市场。波音380飞机的订单，很容易由空客生产。波音公司将不得不关闭他们的许多生产设施。电脑、平板电脑或手机。由于大部分是在中国生产的，所以会出现短缺。这种产品会变得更贵--人们会在加拿大或墨西哥购物--嗯，就在边境那边。只有那些没有多少钱的人才不得不在美国境内购买——现在，谁会赢？

William Frantz
First we need to answer a larger question, when is free trade bad?
I’m a conservative leaning libertarian. I usually vote Republican. But I’m tired of so many people on the right (and recently the left also), proclaiming that free trade is always the best policy. It’s not.
Free trade advocates point out that raising taxes (or adding tariffs) always results in higher costs for consumers. This is true. It doesn’t matter if we are talking about raising sales tax, adding tariffs, raising corporate taxes, raising income taxes, or taxing specific products like cigarettes; raising taxes will always raise prices.
However, it’s important to keep in mind that the relationship between taxes and costs is not direct. It’s driven by the supply/scarcity ratio. Suppliers set their prices based on what the market will bear; never more, never less. Suppliers might tinker with prices in the short term but they are just testing the market. Over the long run, prices settle to what the market will bear. It would be foolish to do otherwise because that’s always the way to maximize profit.
Here’s the problem. If a single supplier (or cabal of suppliers) has majority control over the scarcity, then free trade doesn’t work. Free trade relies on market driven scarcity in order to deliver the optimal balance between consumers and suppliers. If OPEC controls most of the oil production, they can create scarcity by limiting production. That results in greater demand (relative to supply) and that results in higher prices and that creates higher profit margins for all oil suppliers (including OPEC). Once a supplier has “cornered the market”, they control scarcity. That’s bad.
It would be prudent for a government to prevent any supplier from cornering the market. For example, if most steel came from China then China could control scarcity in their favor. Placing a tax on foreign steel would raise prices sure, but it would also encourage more domestic production. Having a large amount of domestic production capability is a hedge against China cornering the steel market.
Having said all that, the best argument against steel tariffs is that there’s no risk of a foreign supplier cornering the market. Most steel used in America actually comes from American suppliers. We are perhaps in greater risk of American suppliers controlling scarcity. Another good argument might be (unlike oil), it’s easy for new suppliers to enter the market. If China did corner the steel market and start tinkering with scarcity, new suppliers would enter the market and stop them. This kind of happened in WWII as much of America’s industrial capacity switch from making cars to making steel (and tanks and planes).
I will say, that if you wanted to corner a market, it’s best to corner the market on an essential, ingredient good. Oil and steel are good examples since they are used in so many things (they are very “inelastic”). You can seriously reduce scarcity without reducing demand. Cornering the market on a complex product, isn’t as useful. Having majority control over the television market doesn’t allow you to tinker much with scarcity. Consumer demand would simply drop as the size of the market shrunk.
How much will tariffs hurt the economy? Some, but apparently Trump’s economic advisors believe that pain is less than the pain we’d face if a foreign supplier cornered the market. I’m not sure why they think that’s likely, but they do.
Will the tariffs ignite a trade war that hurts the economy even more than a steel oligopoly? No, that seems unlikely. There might be some blow back but in view of the entire, national economy, these tariffs are tiny.

首先我们需要回答一个更大的问题：什么时候自由贸易是不好的？
我是个保守倾向的自由主义者。我通常把票投给共和党。但我厌倦了这么多右翼人士(最近也是左翼人士)，宣称自由贸易永远是最好的政策。不是。

自由贸易倡导者指出，提高税收(或增加关税)总是会给消费者带来更高的成本。这没错。我们谈论的是提高销售税、增加关税、提高公司税、提高所得税，还是对香烟等特定产品征税，都无关紧要：增税总是会提高物价。

然而，重要的是要记住，税收和成本之间的关系不是直接的。这是由供应/稀缺性的比率驱动的。供应商根据市场承受的价格来制定价格；永远不会太高，也不会太低。供应商可能会在短期内调整价格，但他们只是在测试市场。从长远来看，价格取决于市场的承受能力。否则这样做是愚蠢的，因为这总是使利润最大化的方法。

问题出在这里。如果一个单一的供应商(或供应商集团)对稀缺性拥有大部分的控制权，那么自由贸易就行不通。自由贸易依赖于市场驱动的稀缺，以实现消费者和供应商之间的最佳平衡。如果石油输出国组织控制了大部分石油生产，他们就可以通过限制产量来制造短缺。这导致需求增加(相对于供应)，价格上涨，为所有石油供应国(包括欧佩克)创造了更高的利润率。一旦供应商“垄断了市场”，他们就控制了稀缺。这很糟糕。

如果政府不让任何供应商垄断市场，这是一种谨慎的做法。例如，如果大多数钢铁来自中国，那么中国就可以控制对它们有利的稀缺性。对外国钢铁征税肯定会提高价格，但也会鼓励更多的国内生产。有大量的国内生产能力对冲中国囤积钢材市场。

话虽如此，反对钢铁关税的最佳理由是，外国供应商不存在垄断市场的风险。美国使用的大多数钢材实际上来自美国供应商。我们可能面临着美国供应商控制稀缺的更大风险。另一个很好的理由可能是(与石油不同)，新供应商很容易进入市场。如果中国确实垄断了钢铁市场，并开始修补钢铁短缺的问题，那么新的供应商就会进入市场并阻止它们。这种情况发生在第二次世界大战中，因为美国的工业产能从制造汽车转向制造钢铁(以及坦克和飞机)。

我要说的是，如果你想垄断一个市场，那最好以一种基本的原料来垄断市场。石油和钢铁是很好的例子，因为它们被用于很多东西(它们非常“无弹性”)。你可以在不减少需求的情况下，降低稀缺性。在一个复杂的产品上占据市场，这招就没那么有用了。拥有对电视市场的多数控制权，并不能让你对电视市场的稀缺性进行过多的修补。随着市场规模的缩小，消费者的需求将会下降。

关税会对经济造成多大的伤害？一些，但显然特朗普的经济顾问认为，如果一个外国供应商垄断了市场，我们后来所面临的痛苦要比我们现在所面临的痛苦要大。我不知道他们为什么认为这是可能的，但他们确实这么认为。

关税是否会引发一场贸易战争，这场战争对经济的伤害甚至超过寡头对钢铁的垄断？不，那似乎不太可能。关税是否会引发一场贸易战争，这场战争对经济的伤害甚至超过钢铁寡头垄断？不，那似乎不太可能。

Don Ramsey
It’s not a war yet, but the indicators have people frightened. The Dow is down 700, and while everybody seems to worry about the impending tariffs, what they don’t realize is the amount of agricultural goods we sell to China. Most of our soya beans and a considerable amount of sorghum go to them. Should China retaliate for the tariffs they could hurt the American farmer by taking their business elsewhere.

这还不是一场战争，但这些指标让人害怕。道琼斯工业平均指数下跌700点，虽然每个人似乎都担心即将到来的关税，但他们没有意识到的是我们向中国出售的农产品数量。我们大部分的大豆和大量的玉米都会卖给他们。如果中国对关税进行报复，他们可能会把自己的业务转移到其他地方，从而伤害美国农民的利益。

Lesley Newland
It will hurt the economy of the whole world. Look at most of the labels of goods in your home. Made in China. Most of the food is grown, packed and/or produced in China. All this has happened because the majority of people will buy because of price not country of origin. The result of this means that over the last few decades China has cornered the market and local producers and manufacturers have been overpriced.
One of the reasons this sort of thing has happened, interesting enough, is people like Trump save money having their goods made in China. Check out where his red hats were made. His expensive ugly ties and shirt etc….Made in China.
It's just ridiculous.

这将损害整个世界的经济。看看你家里的大部分商品标签。都是中国制造。大部分食品是在中国种植、包装和/或生产的。所有这一切会发生，是因为大多数人会因为价格而不是来源国购买商品。这意味着，在过去几十年里，中国垄断了市场，而当地生产商和制造商的价格过高。

这类事情发生的原因之一，很有趣，就是像特朗普这样的人把钱存起来，把他们的产品放在中国制造。看看他的红帽子是在哪里做的。他昂贵的难看的领带和衬衫等….都是中国制造。
这么做真是太荒谬了。

Robin Daverman, International Traveler
How much will the Trump trade war hurt the USA economy?
A tariff is not money paid by foreign countries to the US. A tariff is a tax paid by the US consumers to the US government. You don’t get a cent from China, or EU, or Canada, or Mexico. You give your money to the US government when you buy stuff. This is what a tariff is.
Let’s take a look at an example here. Say, you used to buy shoes made in China for $50. Mr. Trump slaps a 100% tariff on it. Now you have to pay $100 for the same pair of shoes. Now here is an American company, who could not compete on the low-range before because the cheapest shoes it can make is $90. So now, seeing that the cheap shoes in stores now cost $100, the American company will of course take advantage of the new price and set the price of its cheap shoes at $100. So now, because the two pairs of shoes are priced the same, you end up spending half of the time buying American shoes, and half of the time buying Chinese shoes. In dollar terms, before the tariff, you give away $50 and get a pair of shoes back. With the tariff, you give $100 to get the same pair of shoes. Of this $100 of YOUR MONEY, the shoe itself costs $50. The other $50, you give it to the government. Or you can give all $100 to the American shoe company.
What it means, is that by slapping a 100% tariff on the Chinese shoes, it essentially shrinks the shoe market by half for the Chinese shoemaker, and bestowed this half of the market to the American shoemaker. But stop here and think a bit - where does this market come from? From the US consumers! Now they have to pay $100 for what they used to pay only $50. The Chinese are not paying a dime. All the money comes from the US consumers.
And where would this money go? Well, half of it goes to the US government. They collect tariffs. The other half goes to the US shoemaker, and will be split three ways - the employees, the management, and the shareholders. Given the way the labor cost has been going in the last 50 years, the shareholders will get the most. The management will squirrel away a healthy chunk. The employees get to keep their minimum wage. Voila!
The total amount of the tariff is actually quite moderate. $50 - $60 billion, spread among 300+ million people, that’s like somewhere around $200’s worth of stuff affected, per person. So what if everybody pays a couple hundred bucks more for household stuff? Just treat it as a tax on your daily consumer products. Nonetheless, almost all economists are pissed at it, because this is not your Tiffany tax, or your Lamborghini tax. This is your Walmart tax, and guess who goes to Walmart? The lower and middle class people. These people, as a whole, are already tapped out in debt, with no retirement savings whatsoever, so it’s your classic Regressive tax that targets the poor more than the rich. So it will make inequality more severe.
But that’s not what worries the Wall Street. Generally speaking, people without money don’t really exist as far as the Wall Street is concerned. What Wall Street is worried about is mainly Chinese retaliation. They can, and they will, slap a tariff on American good sold in China, and that could pinch the bottom line of a number of blue chip companies like Boeing and Agriculture companies. The Trump base. In a U.S.-China trade war, Trump voters likely get hurt the most
This particular round of tariff is like striking a match in the forest. It’s just a match. You can stump it out and bury it under the dirt. Or you can throw some dry sticks on it, and see the fire gets bigger and bigger, until it engulfs the whole forest.

“特朗普的贸易战将对美国经济造成多大的伤害？”
关税不是外国向美国支付的钱。关税是美国消费者向美国政府缴纳的税款。你不会从中国，欧盟，加拿大，或者墨西哥得到一分钱。你只会在买东西的时候把钱给了美国政府。这就是关税。

让我们来看一个例子。比如说，你以前花50美元买中国制造的鞋。特朗普对此征收100%的关税。现在你得付100美元买同一双鞋。现在有一家美国公司，他们以前不能在低档鞋上竞争，因为它能做的最便宜的鞋是90美元。所以现在，看到商店里的廉价鞋现在要花100美元，这家美国公司当然会利用新的价格，把它的廉价鞋的价格定在100美元。所以现在，因为这两双鞋的价格是一样的，你最终花了一半时间买美国鞋，一半时间买中国鞋。以美元计算，在关税之前，你可以省出50美元，然后买一双鞋回来。提高关税之后，你得花100美元才能买到同一双鞋。在“你的”100美元的钱中，鞋本身要花50美元。另外50美元是你给政府的钱。或者你可以把100美元都支付给美国的鞋公司。

它的意思是，通过对中国鞋征收100%的关税，它实质上将中国制鞋商的鞋类市场缩减了一半，并将这一半的市场分给了美国。不过，停下来想想--这个市场是从哪里来的？来自美国消费者！现在，他们不得不支付100美元，而他们过去只付50美元。中国人一毛钱也没付。所有的钱都来自美国消费者。

这些钱会去哪里？嗯，有一半是给美国政府的。他们收取关税。另一半则由美国制鞋厂分拆，分为三种：员工、管理层和股东。考虑到过去50年来劳动力成本的增长方式，股东们将得到最大的回报。管理部门会把一大笔钱存起来。雇员们则维持他们的最低工资。完美！

关税总额其实是相当适中的。500亿美元-600亿美元，分布在3亿人当中，这相当于每个人大约价值200美元的东西。那么，如果每个人都花几百美元买家庭用品呢？只要把它当作对你日常消费品的税就行了。尽管如此，几乎所有的经济学家都对此感到愤怒，因为这不是你的蒂凡尼税，也不是你的兰博基尼税（奢侈品税）。这是你的沃尔玛税，猜猜谁会去沃尔玛？中下阶层的人。总体来说，这些人本身就已负债累累，并且没有任何退休储蓄，所以，你的典型的回归税是针对穷人而不是富人的。这样会使社会不平等更加严重。

但这并不是华尔街担心的问题。一般来说，就华尔街而言，没有钱的人并不存在。华尔街担心的主要是中国的报复。他们可以、也将会对在中国销售的美国商品征收关税，这可能会影响波音和农业公司等一些蓝筹股公司的利润。而特朗普阵营。在美国-中国贸易战中，特朗普选民可能会受到最大伤害（新闻链接）。

这一轮关税就像在森林里划火柴一样。这只是一根火柴。你可以把它熄灭然后埋在土里。或者你可以在上面扔一些干柴，看着火势越来越大，直到它吞没了整个森林。