真‧原文连结 https://tinyurl.com/3axpjtyy China Called Trump’s Bluff There is a lesson here for anyone Trump threatens. By Jonathan Chait When President Donald Trump launched his trade war on the world, he issued a stern warning: “Do not retaliate and you will be rewarded.” China ignored the warning. It was rewarded anyway. This morning, Trump largely suspended his trade war in return for nothing but promises of ongoing discussions. There is a lesson here for everybody Trump threatens, whether countries or businesses or universities. The unveiling of the Trump global tariff regime was accompanied by a distinct form of dominance theater. The president and his gang assured his targets that if they submitted to his tariffs, he would repay their compliance. Any country that dared defy him would suffer terribly. “I wouldn’t want to be the last country that tries to negotiate a trade deal with @realDonaldTrump,” posted Eric Trump. “The first to negotiate will win—the last will absolutely lose. I have seen this movie my entire life.” Most of the world accepted this advice, only to discover the difficulty of making global trade deals with a president who doesn’t seem to understand how trade works. Foreign diplomats expressed repeated frustration as they failed to ascertain what Trump even wanted from them, let alone what he was prepared to offer in return. To date, only the United Kingdom has managed to resolve its trade status with the United States. China, however, retaliated with countermeasures of its own, imposing steep tariffs on American imports. Trump decided to make an example of the country. “Based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the World’s Markets, I am hereby raising the Tariff charged to China by the United States of America to 125%, effective immediately,” he announced on Truth Social. (This figure eventually increased to 145 percent.) Other countries, which had showed proper respect, would receive a merciful reprieve. “The world is ready to work with President Trump to fix global trade, and China has chosen the opposite direction,” claimed Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Trump held out for one month before backing down. Under the new 90-day agreement, tariffs on Chinese goods will come down to 30 percent; China’s tariffs on American goods will likewise decline to 10 percent. “The consensus from both delegations is that neither side wanted a decoupling,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced at a press conference in Geneva, as if the whole thing had been one big misunderstanding. The decades of China allegedly “ripping off” the United States were apparently forgotten, along with China’s insolence in retaliating and the supposed need for the U.S. to reduce its reliance on Chinese imports. The administration isn’t even pretending that it forced China to pay any special price for its defiance. It is memory-holing the entire “do not retaliate” episode and moving on as if the point this whole time was to get along better with Beijing. As an exercise in trade policy, this makes no sense. But to treat Trump’s behavior as if it were narrowly tailored to the objective of reordering global trade misses the symbolic role it plays. Trump is performing a character, the presidential version of the boss he played in The Apprentice, sitting in a plush leather chair doling out justice to quavering supplicants. His threats of conquest against Canada, Greenland, and Panama, and his unilateral renaming of the Gulf of Mexico, advance no practical objective. Indeed, they generate resentment that weakens his leverage over those countries. Trump’s best chance to add Greenland to the United States, for example, would have been to use a soft touch, rather than to insist that he would have it one way or another. The purpose that these gambits seem to serve is to establish Trump as the boss man lording his power over vulnerable targets. The original target of this ritual was Mexico. Trump’s crowds used to delight when he would respond to any defiance by announcing, “The wall just got 10 feet higher.” Nobody believed that Trump was planning to literally increase the height of the wall. The point was to show that Trump was in charge, and that anybody who tried to stand up to him would be punished. This makes for an unusual style of governing, to say the least, and even a decade into the Trump era, the president’s targets often respond with confusion. But the evidence suggests a fairly clear pattern: Although Trump instructs his targets to submit, doing so merely sets them up for more humiliation and abuse. Consider a handful of recent cases. Columbia University agreed to the Trump administration’s invasive demands, only for the administration to come back and issue even more. The powerful pharmaceutical lobby decided not to resist Trump’s nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose weird ideology poses an existential threat. Not only has Kennedy declined to back down from his extreme positions; the administration has escalated its war on the industry by cutting funding for scientific research and taking steps to impose limited price controls. By contrast, when Harvard defied Trump’s list of demands, the administration claimed that its letter threatening the university had been released in error, and complained that the famous university had acted unreasonably. True, Trump has escalated by targeting Harvard’s tax-exempt status, but he stands little chance of winning in court, and defying court orders won’t help him make Harvard pay taxes that it does not legally owe. Similarly, after Canadians elected Mark Carney as prime minister and he insisted that his country could never be purchased or taken, Trump responded with a friendly Oval Office meeting in which he seemed to accept Carney’s refusal. By contrast, when Harvard defied Trump’s list of demands, the administration claimed that its letter threatening the university had been released in error, and complained that the famous university had acted unreasonably. True, Trump has escalated by targeting Harvard’s tax-exempt status, but he stands little chance of winning in court, and defying court orders won’t help him make Harvard pay taxes that it does not legally owe. Similarly, after Canadians elected Mark Carney as prime minister and he insisted that his country could never be purchased or taken, Trump responded with a friendly Oval Office meeting in which he seemed to accept Carney’s refusal. Trump is a classic bully who craves submission and fears conflict. His fervent supporters want him to be Michael Corleone, but he’s more like Biff Tannen. Standing up to Trump does not mean that you win. But giving in guarantees that you lose. ... https://imgur.com/yQDfckg 於是我拜托Chat GPT帮忙一下 文章重点摘要与翻译 1. 川普的「贸易战逻辑」： 川普一开始对全球各国祭出关税威胁，声称「不要报复，就会获得奖励」。但中国无视警 告、进行报复性关税後，最终却在谈判中获得了减税优惠，显示川普的威胁不具持久性或 一致性。 “不要报复就有奖励”成了空话，中国反击後最终却得到让步。 2. 其他国家的遭遇： 多数国家选择配合，希望取得贸易协议，但川普政府态度飘忽不定，连具体目标都说不清 楚。只有英国成功与美国重新确立贸易关系。 许多外交官抱怨难以弄清川普究竟想要什麽，更别说谈成具体条件。 3. 川普对中国的「示范惩罚」： 川普曾把对中国的惩罚性关税提高到145%，以展示其强硬立场。然而，一个月後却突然退 让，双方签订90天协议，将中美互相关税大幅下调。 原本强调「中国要为无礼付出代价」的立场，最终不了了之。 4. 川普行为的本质： 文章认为，川普的政策并不是真正为了重塑全球贸易，而是一种“权力表演”。他扮演《 谁是接班人》节目中的「老板」，对各方发号施令，目的只是展现「我才是老大」。 这些行为像是在演戏，强调川普的统治者形象，而不是追求实际利益。 5. 对不同对象的对待方式： 哥伦比亚大学顺从後反而被加码施压。 药厂未抵抗川普任命甘乃迪 Jr.，结果遭到更多政策攻击。 哈佛大学则选择强硬回应，川普反而撤回部分威胁。 加拿大总理卡尼坚决拒绝美国对格陵兰的主权意图後，川普也选择和解。 与其顺从，不如坚决拒绝，结果往往比较不糟。 6. 结论： 文章将川普形容为一位「需要别人屈服、却害怕冲突」的典型霸凌者。他追求的是「胜利 感」而非双赢，导致整体政策结果经常是两败俱伤。 面对川普，反抗不一定能赢，但顺从几乎必输。 -------------- 关键句是 "China ignored the warning. It was rewarded anyway... There is a lesson here for everybody Trump threatens, whether countries or businesses or universities." 比较贴近原意的翻译建议： 「中国无视警告、进行反击，结果反而得到了奖励。这对所有被川普威胁的对象来说，是 一个值得思考的教训。」 或： 「川普曾警告各国不要报复，但中国选择反击，最终却得到了让步。这对其他受他威胁的 国家与机构，提供了一个反直觉的启示。」 原文的「rewarded」并不是正面表彰的「尊重」，而是一种对毫无服从却仍得到好处的反 讽，整篇文章是在批评川普政策的虚张声势与不一致。翻译若淡化这层批判，会误导读者 对整体文意的理解。 大概是这样。 -------------- 股票点 川普的关税战（尤其是对中国与其他贸易夥伴的高关税政策）若持续发展，有几种可能的 走向，以及对全球经济的潜在影响： 未来走向可能的三种情境 1. 短期内战术性缓和（如90天降税协议） 可能情境：川普为了缓和金融市场或选举压力，对某些国家或产品暂时调降关税，换取象 徵性让步或「谈判进展」。 目的：塑造「他掌控局势、对手让步」的形象。 风险：政策不稳定，企业与国家难以做长期规划。 2. 全面升级为「新冷战」式经济对抗 可能情境：若川普连任成功或再次强调「中国威胁论」，可能进一步提升对中关税，甚至 扩展到科技封锁、资本市场限制。 延伸领域：除商品贸易外，可能扩及晶片、AI、稀土等战略领域。 风险：全球供应链持续断裂，美中双方经济都受损。 3. 逐步制度化「关税常态化」与「双边谈判模式」 可能情境：川普建立一种「用高关税当起点，逼对方谈判」的全球经贸策略，拒绝多边体 系（如WTO），转向双边协议。 结果：全球贸易规则碎片化，对中小型出口国最不利。 投资人与政策制定者的应对建议 企业：分散供应链、提升弹性，降低对单一市场（尤其中国或美国）的依赖。 政府：推动本地制造转型、技术升级，强化与其他国家的贸易合作（如 CPTPP、RCEP）。 投资人：提高对地缘政治风险的敏感度，配置部分资产至避险资产如黄金、美国国债、以 及不易受贸易战影响的内需型产业。 ※ 引述《KotoriCute (乙醯胺酚)》之铭言： : 原文标题： : 大西洋月刊：中国反抗了特朗普，然後得到了尊重，这对所有被他威胁的对象来说都是一个 : 教训 : ※请勿删减原文标题 : 原文连结： : https://caus.com/all-articles/news/417499/ : ※网址超过一行过长请用缩网址工具 : 发布时间： : May 12, 20259:48 pm : ※请以原文网页/报纸之发布时间为准 : 记者署名： : 乔纳森·蔡特 : ※原文无记载者得留空 : 原文内容： : 当特朗普发动对全世界的贸易战时，他发出严厉警告：「不要报复，你将得到奖赏。 ” : 中国无视了这一警告，结果还是得到了奖赏。 今天早上，特朗普基本暂停了他的贸易战， : 换来的只是继续谈判的承诺。 : 这对所有被特朗普威胁的物件——无论是国家、企业还是大学——都是一个教训。 : 特朗普推出全球关税体系时，还伴随着一种明显的“主宰式表演”。 他和他的团队向目标 : 对象保证，如果他们接受他的关税，就会得到回报。 任何敢於反抗的国家都会遭受严重後 : 果。 : “我不会想成为最後一个和特朗普谈判贸易协定的国家，”埃里克·特朗普发帖说，“第一 : 个谈判的国家会赢，最後一个会输惨。 我这辈子一直都在看这部电影 : 大多数国家接受了这个建议，结果却发现，要与一个根本不了解贸易原理的总统达成全球贸 : 易协定非常困难。 : 外国外交官反覆表达挫败感，他们甚至无法弄清楚特朗普到底想要什麽，更别说他能提供什 : 麽作为交换。 : 截至目前，只有英国成功解决了与美国的贸易地位问题。 : 而中国则以强硬手段回应，对美国产品徵收高额关税。 特朗普决定以中国为例杀鸡儆猴。 : “鉴於中国对世界市场表现出的缺乏尊重，我特此宣布，美国对中国徵收的关税立即提高到 : 125%。” 他在Truth Social上宣布。 这个数字最终上升到了145%，而其他“表现出适当尊 : 重”的国家将获得宽恕的缓刑。 : “世界已经准备好与特朗普合作解决全球贸易问题，而中国选择了相反的方向，”商务部长 : 霍华德·勒特尼克表示。 : 特朗普坚持了一个月，随後就退缩了。 : 根据新的90天协议，中国商品的关税将降至30%，中国对美国产品的关税也将降至10%。 : “双方代表团的共识是，谁都不希望脱钩，”财政部长斯科特·贝森特在日内瓦的新闻发布 : 会上宣布，仿佛整个过程不过是一场误会。 : 中国被指「几十年来一直占美国便宜」的说法显然已被遗忘，中国的“冒犯性报复”也被忽 : 视，美国减少对中国产品依赖的必要性也不再被提起。 政府甚至没有假装自己让中国为反 : 抗付出任何代价。 : 他们正在抹除“不要报复”这一整段历史，表现得仿佛整个行动的目的就是为了与北京更好 : 相处。 : 从贸易政策角度来看，这毫无逻辑。 但如果把特朗普的行为仅仅视为重塑全球贸易格局的 : 努力，那就错过了象徵意义。 : 特朗普扮演的是一种角色，是他在《学徒》中演过的老板的总统版本，坐在豪华皮椅中向战 : 战兢兢的请求者“发落正义”。 : 他对加拿大、格陵兰和巴拿马的征服威胁，以及对墨西哥湾的单方面改名，都没有任何实际 : 目标。 事实上，这些行为只会引发愤怒，削弱他对这些国家的影响力。 : 比如，要把格陵兰“并入”美国，特朗普最好的策略应是采取温和手段，而不是一口咬定“ : 非要不可”。 : 这些策略的真正目的，是树立特朗普作为“老板”的形象，向脆弱目标炫耀权力。 : 最初的「仪式性目标」是墨西哥。 特朗普的支援者曾为他回应反抗时说「墙要再高三米」 : 而欢呼。 没人真认为他真要把墙加高，重点是传达：特朗普说了算，谁要反抗就会被惩罚 : 。 : 这种风格的治理方式十分反常，即使特朗普时代已经持续了十年，很多物件仍然一头雾水。 : 但事实显示出清晰的模式：尽管特朗普要求物件屈服，真正屈服的人反而会面临更多羞辱 : 和压迫。 : 看看最近几起例子。 哥伦比亚大学满足了特朗普政府的过度要求，结果政府进一步提出更 : 多要求。 强大的制药行业游说团体没有抵制特朗普提名小罗伯特·甘乃迪，尽管他的极端 : 思想可能带来生存危机。 不仅甘乃迪没有放弃极端立场，政府还升级了与行业的对抗，削 : 减科研资金，并采取措施实施有限的价格控制。 : 反过来，哈佛拒绝了特朗普提出的一系列要求后，政府却声称发给哈佛的威胁信“系误发” : ，还抱怨哈佛反应“无理”。 诚然，特朗普进一步对哈佛的免税地位发起攻击，但他在法 : 庭上胜诉的几率不大，违反法院命令也无法迫使哈佛缴纳本不该缴的税。 : 同样地，加拿大选出马克·卡尼担任总理后，他坚称自己的国家绝不会被收购或吞并，特朗 : 普却在椭圆办公室与他举行友好会晤，似乎接受了卡尼的拒绝。 : 这些谈判中真正复杂的地方在於：在与特朗普打交道中，“赢”往往是不可能的，因为整个 : 关系就是一个两败俱伤的局面。 : 特朗普似乎无法理解「双赢」的可能性，而他将合作关系转变为剥削关系的做法，最终导致 : 双方都受损。 : 在贸易问题上，这一点尤为明显。 特朗普的保护主义倾向在全球范围内制造了痛苦，却没 : 有带来任何实质收益。 : 他对本国企业和民间社会的压迫，也破坏了美国最具创新能力的一些机构，而他唯一得到的 : ，是自己权力的扩张。 : 特朗普是一个典型的恶霸，渴望他人服从，害怕真正的冲突。 他狂热的支援者希望他是迈 : 克尔·柯里昂（电影《教父》三部曲中的主角，由阿尔·帕西诺饰演，是一个冷静、聪明、 : 深谋远虑的黑帮家族继承人，代表着一种沉稳而致命的权力形象），但他更像比夫·塔南（ : 电影《回到未来》系列中的反派角色，由汤玛斯· F·威尔逊饰演。 他是一个愚蠢、霸道 : 、粗暴的恶霸，经常欺负别人，是典型的浅薄粗鲁型反派。 ）。 : 反抗特朗普并不意味着你会赢，但屈服则注定失败。 : 心得/评论： : 中国自己就是一个国际恶霸当然知道要怎麽跟恶霸打交道 : 恶霸不会给予任何主动向他示弱的人任何仁慈 : 主动向他示弱只是奖励他继续这种的行为 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 210.208.112.50 (台湾) ※ 文章网址: https://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/Stock/M.1747121162.A.789.html ※ 编辑: ntpcgov (60.251.107.164 台湾), 05/13/2025 19:52:33