Talking Tariffs, Turmoil, and Tax Cuts

On Wednesday night, I joined Chris Hayes for a conversation about—what else?—tariffs and their impact on financial markets and the broader economy.

周三晚上，我和克里斯·海耶斯 (Chris Hayes) 一起讨论了关税及其对金融市场和整体经济的影响——还有什么？

You can watch the entire episode here .

您可以在这里观看整集。

My segment, with Odd Lots co-host Joe Weisenthal (who has been writing sharp commentary on all of this in his weekly newsletter), starts around 15:20.

我的节目由 Odd Lot 联合主持人 Joe Weisenthal（他在每周通讯中对所有这些内容发表了尖锐的评论）在 15:20 左右开始。

We started by acknowledging that all of the chaos we’re seeing in financial markets, along with rapidly rising recession risk, is both self-inflicted and designed to produce these outcomes.

我们首先承认，我们在金融市场上看到的所有混乱，以及迅速上升的衰退风险，都是我们自己造成的，也是为了产生这些结果而设计的。

In other words, the people who gave us this disastrous trade policy—Peter Navarro, Howard Lutnick, and the president himself—are intentionally creating market turmoil and driving the U.S. economy into a ditch.

换句话说，那些给我们带来灾难性贸易政策的人——彼得·纳瓦罗、霍华德·卢特尼克和总统本人——正在故意制造市场动荡，并将美国经济推入深渊。

This was never a secret plan.

这从来都不是一个秘密计划。

We were repeatedly told to brace for near-term “ pain ” during the “ detox ” phase of this experiment.

我们被反复告知，在该实验的“排毒”阶段要做好应对近期“疼痛”的准备。

“WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, AND IT WILL ALL BE WORTH THE PRICE THAT MUST BE PAID” ~D.J.

“我们将使美国再次伟大，这一切都值得付出的代价”~D.J.

Trump

特朗普

We didn’t talk about the ridiculous methodology that was used to apply higher (than 10%) individual tariffs on imports from 57 countries.

我们没有谈论对来自 57 个国家的进口商品征收更高（超过 10%）的单独关税的荒谬方法。

The administration is billing them as “reciprocal” tariffs, with President Trump claiming that “we’re charging them half of what they’re charging us.” But that isn’t remotely accurate, as the economist who is credited with developing the formula explains here .

政府将它们称为“互惠”关税，特朗普总统声称“我们向他们收取的费用是他们向我们收取的费用的一半”。但正如这位被认为开发了该公式的经济学家在此解释的那样，这根本不准确。

Since Trump’s tariff announcement, there’s been retaliation from our trading partners, a 90-day pause on the so-called “reciprocal” tariffs (except with China), a a pause in retaliation by the EU , a sharp escalation between the U.S. and China, and now—maybe?—the start of a cooling off period between the two great superpowers.

自特朗普宣布关税以来，我们的贸易伙伴进行了报复，所谓的“互惠”关税暂停了90天（与中国除外），欧盟暂停了报复，美国和中国之间的紧张局势急剧升级，现在——也许？——两个超级大国之间开始了冷静期。

During our conversation with Chris, Joe and I agreed that the only way to make sense out of this whole trade war is to recognize that China—more than any other nation—seems to be in Trump’s crosshairs.

在我们与克里斯的谈话中，乔和我一致认为，摆脱整个贸易战的唯一方法是认识到中国——比任何其他国家——似乎更成为特朗普的瞄准目标。

For whatever reason, his long-standing (and almost entirely misguided ) beef with U.S. trade deficits is most acutely focused on China.

无论出于何种原因，他长期以来（而且几乎完全被误导）对美国贸易逆差的不满主要集中在中国身上。

We’re talking about a dramatic realignment that has damaged—perhaps irreparably—the U.S. dollar’s status as the global reserve currency.

我们谈论的是一场戏剧性的调整，它损害了——也许是不可挽回的——美元作为全球储备货币的地位。

As Mosler put it:

正如莫斯勒所说：

His point is that the trade war has a caused a strategic shift that will undermine the desire to net export products to the United States.

他的观点是，贸易战引发了战略转变，将削弱向美国净出口产品的愿望。

As Warren likes to say, “Exports are a cost, and imports are a benefit.” He’s talking about the real stuff that gets produced abroad and then sent to Americans who get the benefits that come from consuming whatever we’re importing.

正如沃伦喜欢说的那样，“出口是成本，进口是收益。”他说的是在国外生产的真正的东西，然后送到美国人那里，他们从消费我们进口的东西中获得好处。

In real terms, our trading partners are losing something.

事实上，我们的贸易伙伴正在失去一些东西。

In financial terms, they’re gaining something: US dollar-denominated financial assets.

从财务角度来看，他们正在获得一些东西：以美元计价的金融资产。

As I explained in this post, it’s almost—but not quite—like getting something for nothing.

正如我在这篇文章中所解释的，这几乎（但不完全是）就像不劳而获一样。

Larry Summers actually laid it out pretty well here.

拉里·萨默斯（Larry Summers）实际上在这里很好地阐述了这一点。

Anyway, you’re hearing a lot of people talk about how other countries are turning away from U.S. assets.

不管怎样，你会听到很多人谈论其他国家如何放弃美国资产。

There’s something to that.

这是有原因的。

Our foreign policy, including but not limited to the way we’re dealing with our trading partners, has damaged our “brand” as a trusted ally and moral leader in the world.

我们的外交政策，包括但不限于我们与贸易伙伴打交道的方式，损害了我们作为世界值得信赖的盟友和道德领袖的“品牌”。

But headlines like this one from Reuters are missing a big part of the story.

但像路透社这样的头条新闻却遗漏了故事的很大一部分。

Ultimately, it’s the desire to export stuff to the U.S. in the first place that results in the accumulation of U.S. dollar assets.

最终，向美国出口商品的愿望首先导致了美元资产的积累。

If we lose access to a lot of the stuff the rest of the world was happy to produce and ship to us in exchange for credits to their U.S. dollar bank accounts, we really are killing the goose that was laying the golden eggs.

如果我们无法获得世界其他国家乐于生产并运送给我们的许多东西，以换取他们的美元银行账户的信用，那么我们真的是在杀鸡取卵。

I don’t think anyone knows how this ends.

我想没有人知道这一切会如何结束。

The temporary pause only leaves us hanging in limbo for another 90 days (or until the president’s next change-of-heart).

暂时的暂停只会让我们在接下来的 90 天里陷入困境（或者直到总统下次改变主意）。

Meanwhile, the ratcheting up of tariffs with China is obliterating trade between the two countries.

与此同时，对中国关税的提高正在削弱两国之间的贸易。

At some point, the tariffs get high enough to effectively grind trade to a halt.

在某些时候，关税会变得足够高，足以使贸易陷入停滞。

And then what?

然后呢？

Can the two leaders work something out before we reach the point of no return?

在我们走上不归路之前，两位领导人能否解决一些问题？

Is President Trump hell-bent on trying to crush the Chinese economy, such that he’s willing to use alternative geopolitical (non-tariff) measures?

特朗普总统是否一心想压垮中国经济，以至于愿意使用替代性地缘政治（非关税）措施？

That would put us in a much more perilous place.

这将使我们处于更加危险的境地。

Finally, we touched on what’s happening with the reconciliation package that’s supposed to deliver the president’s One Big Beautiful Bill.

最后，我们谈到了和解方案的进展情况，该方案旨在实现总统的一项美丽的大法案。

We learned earlier this week that the House passed the Senate’s version of the budget framework.

我们本周早些时候获悉，众议院通过了参议院版本的预算框架。

I keep hearing Democrats and media pundits reporting that the House did something that will require $1.5 trillion or more in spending cuts, with $880 billion aimed at Medicaid.

我不断听到民主党人和媒体专家报道称，众议院采取了一些措施，需要削减 1.5 万亿美元或更多的支出，其中 8800 亿美元用于医疗补助。

That isn’t actually right.

这实际上是不对的。

Here’s what the Senate budget resolution calls for.

这是参议院预算决议的要求。

The chart below comes from the conservative Cato Institute, and they’re mad as hell precisely because the Senate didn’t insist on any spending cuts to offset the huge cost of the proposed package.

下图来自保守派卡托研究所，他们非常生气，正是因为参议院没有坚持任何支出削减来抵消拟议方案的巨额成本。

Instead, the Senate budget resolution calls for an aspirational $4 billion (over 10 years) cut, which, as I pointed out with Chris Hayes, is effectively zero.

相反，参议院预算决议要求削减 40 亿美元（10 年内），正如我和克里斯·海耶斯指出的那样，削减实际上为零。

Obviously, the House and Senate are going to have to come together and agree on the actual details.

显然，众议院和参议院必须齐心协力就实际细节达成一致。

The budget resolution is just a framework to outline the broad contours of what’s to come.

预算决议只是一个框架，概述了未来的大致轮廓。

Nothing can pass until republicans iron out all of the details and even then it could be a tumultuous few months before anything crosses the finish line.

在共和党人敲定所有细节之前，任何事情都无法通过，即便如此，任何事情都可能要经过几个月的动荡才能跨过终点线。

Many republicans, including the self-proclaimed deficit hawks, want draconian cuts (like the ones outlined in the earlier House version ).

许多共和党人，包括自称为赤字鹰派的人，都希望进行严厉的削减（就像众议院早期版本中概述的那样）。

But cuts of $1.5 trillion (or more) are not baked into the budget agreement that moved through both chambers.

但 1.5 万亿美元（或更多）的削减并未纳入参众两院通过的预算协议中。

Predictably, democrats are complaining about the budgetary impacts, lampooning republicans for moving forward with a plan that will “blow a hole” in the deficit.

可以预见的是，民主党人正在抱怨预算影响，讽刺共和党人推进一项将“炸开”赤字的计划。

Yeva Nersisyan wrote about that here .

Yeva Nersisyan 在这里写了相关内容。

As usual, neither side appears to be approaching any of this with an MMT lens—i.e. thinking carefully about real resource constraints and inflation risk.

与往常一样，双方似乎都没有用 MMT 镜头来处理这一切——即仔细思考实际资源限制和通胀风险。

So we’re looking at a package that could usher in $1.5 trillion in new tax cuts as well as $521 billion in new spending, all of hitting the economy when inflation is poised to accelerate due to the tariffs themselves and the supply-chain disruptions that will amplify inflationary pressures.

因此，我们正在考虑一项可能带来 1.5 万亿美元新减税以及 5,210 亿美元新支出的一揽子计划，所有这些都会在通胀因关税本身和供应链中断而加剧通胀压力而加速时对经济造成打击。

The Lens is a reader-supported publication.

《镜头》是一本由读者支持的出版物。

To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

要接收新帖子并支持我的工作，请考虑成为付费订阅者。