Name: 人為的低迷特朗普關稅令股市跌至歷史最低點 (‘Man-made downturn’: Trump’s tariffs plunge stock market to historic drop)
Uploaded: 2025-04-06T15:13:10.000Z
Duration: 9 min 59 s

Breaking news again today after Donald Trump's damage to the US economy comes into fuller view.

在唐納德-特朗普對美國經濟造成的破壞更加明顯之後，今天再次傳來爆炸性新聞。

The market's today once again taking a nosedive.

The Dow plunging 2,200 points, more than 5%.

道指暴跌 2200 點，跌幅超過 5%。

Even those good jobs numbers that were released this morning could not shake the market's pessimism as China retaliated against Donald Trump's tariff regime.

由於中國對唐納德-特朗普的關稅制度進行了報復，即使今天上午公佈的就業數據良好，也無法撼動市場的悲觀情緒。

The Chinese government imposed a 34% tax on all goods imported from the United States.

中國政府對所有從美國進口的商品徵收 34% 的稅。

As for Donald Trump, he is for now tripling down.

至於唐納德-特朗普，他現在是三下五除二。

Yesterday he said things were quote, going well.

Today he said on his site, Truth Social, that China had quote, played it wrong and panicked.

今天，他在自己的網站 "Truth Social "上說，中國引述了這句話，但打錯了，而且慌了手腳。

He added that the unemployment figures are a sign that his strategy is working, but those jobs numbers reflect the month before Donald Trump's so-called Liberation Day economic meltdown was put into motion.

他還說，失業率數字表明他的策略正在發揮作用，但這些就業數字反映的是唐納德-特朗普所謂的解放日經濟崩潰行動啟動前一個月的情況。

It puts him at odds with the chair of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, who said today that the tariffs would raise prices for consumers and will weaken the US economy.

這使他與美聯儲主席傑羅姆-鮑威爾（Jerome Powell）意見相左，後者今天表示，關稅將提高消費者的價格，並將削弱美國經濟。

It put him at odds with JP Morgan, who now predicts a 60% chance of a global recession this year.

摩根大通現在預測今年全球經濟衰退的可能性為 60%。

Their report is titled, quote, there will be blood.

他們的報告標題是："將有鮮血"。

The bank says Trump's tariffs will cost consumers $700 billion this year alone.

該銀行稱，僅今年一年，特朗普的關稅就將使消費者損失 7000 億美元。

It's a tax hike on a scale that LBJ imposed to pay for the Vietnam War.

這是一次大規模的加稅，就像當年雷鋒為了支付越戰費用而加稅一樣。

It also puts Trump at odds with members of the Republican Party.

這也讓特朗普與共和黨成員產生了矛盾。

NBC News reports this, quote, after the GOP-led Senate delivered a rare rebuke to Donald Trump on Wednesday by voting to undo his tariffs on Canada.

美國全國廣播公司新聞（NBC News）報道稱，美國共和黨上司的參議院週三罕見地斥責了唐納德-特朗普，投票撤銷了他對加拿大徵收的關稅。

Lawmakers in both chambers are weighing additional steps to rein him in.

參眾兩院的議員們正在權衡採取更多措施來約束他。

Senators are eyeing other mechanisms to rescind Trump's existing tariffs while limiting his ability to impose new ones.

參議員們正在關注其他機制，以取消特朗普現有的關稅，同時限制他徵收新關稅的能力。

Trump is also right now at odds with the business community, which is preparing to pass on the cost of Trump's tariffs to the American consumers.

特朗普現在還與商界發生衝突，商界正準備將特朗普的關稅成本轉嫁給美國消費者。

CNN reports this, quote, almost all consumer electronics, including smartphones and computer monitors, are likely to see price increases.

美國有線電視新聞網（CNN）對此報道稱，包括智能手機和電腦顯示器在內的幾乎所有消費電子產品都有可能漲價。

US toy companies are warning that prices could rise up to 50% because of tariffs on China and Vietnam.

美國玩具公司警告說，由於對中國和越南征收關稅，玩具價格最高可能上漲 50%。

Now, when it comes to cars, Washington Post reports this, quote, car dealers, who generally have a month or two worth of vehicles in stock, say they expect vehicle prices to jump significantly by summertime.

說到汽車，《華盛頓郵報》報道稱，汽車經銷商一般都有一兩個月的汽車庫存，他們預計到夏季汽車價格將大幅飆升。

Just about every vehicle will eventually be affected.

幾乎所有車輛最終都會受到影響。

Analysts expect an average markup of about $6,000 per car.

分析師預計，每輛車的平均加價幅度約為 6000 美元。

The American economy and American consumers paying the price for the gap between reality and Trump's tariff delusions is where we start today, once again with CNBC senior economics reporter, Steve Leisman.

美國經濟和美國消費者正在為現實與特朗普關稅妄想之間的差距付出代價，今天我們將再次從 CNBC 資深經濟記者史蒂夫-萊斯曼（Steve Leisman）開始。

Steve, where are we 24 hours after we first talked yesterday?

史蒂夫，在我們昨天第一次談話 24 小時後，我們現在在哪裡？

Well, we're quite a bit worse than we were.

我們現在的情況比以前更糟了。

I don't know if you remember, Nicole, we talked about that attempt yesterday of the market to rally and how it went nowhere.

我不知道你是否還記得，妮可，我們昨天談到了市場試圖反彈，但卻無功而返。

I wonder if I could step back and try to give viewers an idea of how an investor in the stock market is trying to figure out what the heck's going on here.

我想，我是否可以退後一步，試著讓觀眾們瞭解一下股票市場的投資者是如何試圖搞清楚這到底是怎麼回事的。

We don't know which companies have been affected by the tariffs directly, which companies will be affected by companies that were affected by the tariffs directly, which companies will be affected by retaliatory tariffs, which companies, which is all companies, will be affected by the downturn potentially in the economy here and how much.

我們不知道哪些公司直接受到了關稅的影響，哪些公司會受到直接受到關稅影響的公司的影響，哪些公司會受到報復性關稅的影響，哪些公司，也就是所有公司，會受到這裡潛在的經濟衰退的影響，以及影響的程度。

And of course, there's the consumer that has seen a decline in their sentiment about how they feel about the future and potentially a decline in their spending, which companies will be affected by that?

當然，消費者對未來的看法也有所下降，他們的支出可能會減少，哪些公司會是以受到影響？

What I'm showing here is the fog that's come over people right now.

我在這裡展示的是現在籠罩在人們頭上的迷霧。

So what do you do when you don't know what's gonna happen?

當你不知道會發生什麼的時候，你會怎麼做？

Well, you either don't buy or you sell, and there is selling going on because of the opacity of what's happening with these tariffs.

你要麼不買，要麼就賣，由於這些關稅的不透明，賣是有的。

沒有人知道它們是怎麼斷裂的。

You just read a wonderful, fabulous, horrible list of all the companies, all the ways that you can write right now that have been affected, but nobody knows how much further this goes.

你剛剛讀到了一份精彩、美妙、可怕的清單，上面列出了所有受到影響的公司，以及你現在可以寫下的所有方式，但沒人知道這還會發展到什麼程度。

We are now, Nicole, on a par with the great financial crisis and then the pandemic, and then in the third, in recent time, this downturn, this man-made downturn from the tariffs.

尼科爾，我們現在與大金融危機、大流行病以及最近的第三次經濟衰退、關稅造成的人為經濟衰退相提並論。

What precedents are there for manufactured economic crises?

有哪些人為製造經濟危機的先例？

I mean, COVID was a global pandemic that swept the world with a virus that was killing people, but what are the precedents?

我的意思是，COVID 是一種全球性的大流行病，病毒席捲全球，殺人如麻，但有什麼先例呢？

I mean, what are forecasters looking to where the economic crisis is literally made up by one man?

我的意思是，在經濟危機完全是由一個人造成的情況下，預測者們還能指望什麼呢？

Well, two men, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, perhaps in the 1930s, was one place.

嗯，兩個人，《斯穆特-霍利關稅法》（Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act），也許在 20 世紀 30 年代，是一個地方。

Perhaps Arthur Burns and how he poorly responded to the inflation of the 1970s.

也許是亞瑟-伯恩斯（Arthur Burns），以及他如何拙劣地應對 20 世紀 70 年代的通貨膨脹。

But it's hard to imagine, I don't know, a worse situation than this right now.

但很難想象，我不知道，還有比現在更糟糕的情況。

And I think one of the things, JPMorgan raised their recessions odds to 60%, as you know.

摩根大通將經濟衰退的機率提高到了60%。

What was interesting about that commentary was how they said this change in business sentiment about the policy mix, which is kind of like saying, we thought Trump was on our side, and now it appears as if he ain't here.

這篇評論的有趣之處在於，他們說企業對政策組合的情緒發生了變化，這有點像在說：我們以為特朗普是站在我們這邊的，現在看來他好像不在這裡。

There's a real feeling of leadership being MIA or AWOL or whatever military term you wanna use there, Nicole, which is the president's down in Florida, I believe he's golfing.

尼科爾，總統現在在佛羅里達州，我相信他正在打高爾夫。

The Republicans in Congress are probably the one group of people that could stop this, but we don't see them acting with any sense of urgency here to put a stop to these tariffs.

國會中的共和黨人可能是唯一能阻止這一切的人，但我們看不到他們有任何緊迫感來阻止這些關稅。

And they appear, I don't know, content or otherwise, not taking any urgent action to stop this.

他們似乎沒有采取任何緊急行動來阻止這一切，我不知道他們是滿足於現狀還是其他原因。

Remember, the Constitution gives Congress explicit power over tariffs.

請記住，《憲法》賦予國會明確的關稅權。

Yeah, I mean, it's so fascinating that another arena will have another sort of generation of people running around with pocket constitutions, right?

是啊，我是說，另一個舞臺上將會有另一代人拿著袖珍憲法到處跑，這太吸引人了，對嗎？

As we sort of tumble through this unknown, Steve Leisman, thank you very much for starting us off again.

史蒂夫-萊斯曼（Steve Leisman），當我們在這個未知的世界裡輾轉反側時，非常感謝你再次為我們開場。

Joining our conversation, executive editor and New York bureau chief for The Economist, Charlotte Howard is with us.

經濟學人》雜誌執行主編兼紐約分社社長夏洛特-霍華德（Charlotte Howard）將參與我們的對話。

Also joining us, former Republican congressman, MSNBC political analyst, David Jelley is here, and Michael Linden's here.

此外，前共和黨國會議員、MSNBC 政治分析師大衛-傑利和邁克爾-林登也在這裡。

He served as a senior advisor in the Office of Management and Budget under President Biden.

他曾在拜登總統時期擔任管理和預算辦公室高級顧問。

He's now campaign director of the group Families over Billionaires, which has to be filling a whole lot of steam behind a mission statement like that.

他現在是 "家庭勝過億萬富翁 "組織的競選主管，該組織的使命宣言背後一定充滿了動力。

Tell me, Michael, what this week's sort of political events at the beginning of the week, the Cory Booker filibuster, the sweeping rebuke of Trump and Musk in Wisconsin, and the margins narrowing so dramatically in Florida, and then the sort of man-made economic calamity of the last 48 hours.

邁克爾，請告訴我，本週初發生了哪些政治事件，科裡-布克（Cory Booker）的 "拉布"，特朗普和馬斯克在威斯康星州的全面抨擊，佛羅里達州的差距大幅縮小，以及過去48小時內的人為經濟災難。

I mean, this week has been eye-opening, I think, for a lot of people.

我的意思是，這一週讓很多人大開眼界。

On this very same day that Donald Trump imposes these massive tax hikes that will largely be paid by working people in this country, his allies in Congress are, right now, even as we speak, trying to pass a massive tax cut for mostly wealthy people and billionaires, as the name of my organization suggests.

就在唐納德-特朗普實施大規模增稅的同一天，他在國會的盟友們，就在我們發言的時候，正試圖通過一項針對富人和億萬富翁的大規模減稅計劃，正如我們組織的名稱所暗示的那樣。

And the mix here of asking wealthy, asking working people and everyday Americans to pay more at the grocery store and imposing this economic crisis, while saying to very wealthy people and giant corporations, we're gonna give you another tax break, it's just not what anybody in America was asking for, no matter who they voted for.

一方面要求富人、工薪階層和普通美國人在雜貨店支付更多的錢，並強加這場經濟危機，另一方面卻對富人和巨頭公司說，我們會再給你們減稅，這種混合的做法並不是任何美國人所要求的，無論他們投票給誰。

And I think you're starting to see that all over the country.

我認為全國各地都開始出現這種情況。

It's an unbelievably toxic mix of both bad economics and horrible politics.

這是一個令人難以置信的混合體，既有糟糕的經濟學，又有可怕的政治學。

Let's stick with the bad economics first, Charlotte.

夏洛特，我們還是先說說糟糕的經濟學吧。

這是有根據的，也是有先見之明的。

Are you, is there anything that surprises you as the week has turned out to be the worst case scenario, economically speaking?

從經濟角度看，本週是最糟糕的一週，您是否感到意外？

I think what's interesting is I've heard several people describe the market response as a panic.

我覺得有趣的是，我聽到一些人把市場反應形容為恐慌。

It seems like a rational response to a completely irrational policy.

這似乎是對完全不合理的政策的理性迴應。

And I very much agree that this is a bet that seems very odd politically.

我非常同意，這個賭注在政治上似乎非常奇怪。

I mean, it's a bad reading of recent history, America's economy has been the envy of the world for the past few years.

我的意思是，這是對近代歷史的錯誤解讀，美國的經濟在過去幾年裡一直是世界羨慕的對象。

It's a bad reading of basic economics, the goal of going after a completely balanced trade levels with every country in the world.

這是對基本經濟學的錯誤解讀，是追求與世界各國貿易水準完全平衡的目標。

That's not actually a worthy goal in and of itself, right?

這本身並不是一個值得追求的目標，對嗎？

And so the bet that Donald Trump articulates is about raising revenue, about bringing manufacturing back.

是以，唐納德-特朗普闡述的賭注是增加收入，讓製造業迴歸。

If manufacturing were to come back to the United States, that payoff would be not at a large scale and certainly not in a timeframe that would benefit Donald Trump himself politically.

如果製造業迴歸美國，這種回報不會是大規模的，當然也不會在一個有利於唐納德-特朗普本人政治利益的時間框架內實現。

So there are ways in which both on the substance technically and on the politics, it is, I agree, just very strange.

是以，無論是在技術上還是在政治上，這都是非常奇怪的。

But the market response is completely predictable given the policies that Trump announced.

但從特朗普宣佈的政策來看，市場的反應是完全可以預見的。