Name: 看看首席執行官在特朗普就美國貿易急劇下滑發表言論後的直率反應 (See CEO's blunt reaction after Trump's remark about the steep drop in US trade)
Uploaded: 2025-05-15T00:29:40.000Z
Duration: 10 min 17 s

基礎被動語態

In 30 years from now, when the economic history books are written about Trump's trade war, you can be sure of one thing.

30 年後，當經濟史書上寫下特朗普的貿易戰時，你可以確定一件事。

There's going to be an entire chapter titled Dolls.

The White House appears to have latched on to this idea that promoting austerity, measures for kids, explains their case.

白宮似乎已經抓住了這一想法，即推行緊縮政策，為孩子們採取措施，就能說明問題。

And each day, there's a new message about dolls.

So let's take a look at how this has evolved, shall we?

讓我們來看看它是如何演變的，好嗎？

I want to start with Trump on Sunday when he was asked about the potential for empty shelves.

我想從週日特朗普被問及空貨架的可能性時說起。

I'm just saying they don't need to have $30.

But you're basically saying there could be some supply shortages because of the tariffs.

但你基本上是說，由於關稅，可能會出現一些供應短缺。

I'm basically saying we don't have to waste money on a trade deficit with China for things we don't need, for junk that we don't need.

我的意思基本上是說，我們沒必要為了我們不需要的東西，為了我們不需要的垃圾，浪費錢在與中國的貿易逆差上。

I would have gone with the pencil analogy longer because it just resonates with school-aged children and parents.

我本想再用鉛筆打個比方，因為它能引起學齡兒童和家長的共鳴。

但是，好吧，你的孩子不需要更多的垃圾。

But then Treasury Secretary Scott Besant had a new message for the boys and girls in America.

但是，財政部長斯科特-貝桑特（Scott Besant）卻給美國的男孩和女孩們帶來了新的資訊。

I would tell that young girl that you will have a better life than your parents.

我會告訴那個年輕女孩，你會過上比你父母更好的生活。

Because Vice President Advance today, he also mentioned the dolls and gave yet another explanation.

因為副總統 Advance 今天也提到了玩偶，並給出了另一種解釋。

What I'd ask people is not whether they want two dolls or five dolls or 20 dolls for their kids.

我想問人們的不是他們想要兩個娃娃、五個娃娃還是 20 個娃娃。

Would you like to, God forbid, if your country goes to a war and your son or daughter is sent off to fight, would you like to know that the weapons that they have are good American-made stuff, not made by a foreign adversary?

上帝保佑，如果你的國家參戰，你的兒子或女兒被派去打仗，你想不想知道他們手中的武器是美國製造的好東西，而不是外國對手製造的？

With me now, the co-founder, president, and CEO of Gerber Kawasaki Wealth and Investment Management, Ross Gerber.

現在和我在一起的是格伯-川崎財富與投資管理公司的聯合創始人、總裁兼首席執行官羅斯-格伯。

I got to ask you, if you think this doll argument is playing at all on Main Street, or Wall Street for that matter, is it reassuring anyone?

我想問你，如果你認為這個玩偶的論點在主街或華爾街有任何作用，它能讓人放心嗎？

Well, it's really troubling to have billionaires telling the American families, which for the most part are struggling still to get ahead.

讓億萬富翁來告訴美國家庭，這確實令人不安，因為大多數美國家庭仍在為出人頭地而掙扎。

And we've had the best economy in a long time with really low unemployment and real wage gains.

而且，我們的經濟在很長一段時間內都是最好的，失業率和實際工資都很低。

And Americans are in a pretty good financial spot.

So to then throw us into a recession and tell the average American family that they don't need dolls when you're sitting at the UFC in front row with all your friends who are billionaires and gold plating the White House.

所以，當你和你那些億萬富翁朋友們坐在終極格鬥錦標賽的前排，為白宮鍍金時，你卻讓我們陷入經濟衰退，並告訴普通美國家庭他們不需要玩偶。

You know, billionaires telling average Americans to deal with austerity is really poor messaging at best.

要知道，億萬富翁告訴普通美國人要應對緊縮政策，充其量不過是一種糟糕的資訊傳遞。

When I look at the dolls too, I think to myself, it seems very almost dismissive and reductive to think about all of this coming down to a conversation about dolls.

當我看到這些玩偶時，我也在想，如果把這一切都歸結為一場關於玩偶的對話，那似乎是非常輕率和不負責任的。

He was asked today about traffic slowing down at US ports.

他今天被問及美國港口交通放緩的問題。

We're seeing as a result, the ports here in the US, the traffic has really slowed and now thousands of dock workers and truck drivers are worried about their jobs.

是以，我們看到美國港口的運輸速度確實放緩了，現在成千上萬的碼頭工人和卡車司機都在為他們的工作擔憂。

When I see that, that means we lose less money.

當我看到這一點時，這意味著我們損失的錢更少。

So the business owners who can't afford to get their products here would obviously disagree, but what do you think the point he was trying to make was?

是以，那些沒錢把產品運到這裡的企業主顯然不會同意，但你認為他想表達的觀點是什麼？

Well, I think most importantly out of this, you know, to say it just sort of bluntly is that Trump doesn't understand the economy at all.

我認為最重要的是，特朗普根本不懂經濟。

And we're not losing money through deficits or global trade.

我們並沒有因為赤字或全球貿易而虧損。

You know, it's a transference of goods and capital for different needs.

要知道，這是為滿足不同需求而進行的商品和資本轉移。

And in America, for example, the doll argument is absurd because really what Americans want is choice and low prices.

以美國為例，玩偶的說法是荒謬的，因為美國人真正想要的是選擇和低價。

And that's what's really driven capitalism since the beginning of time is the idea of having full competition globally, which gives American consumers the best choices in the world.

自古以來，推動資本主義發展的真正動力就是全球範圍內的充分競爭，這為美國消費者提供了世界上最好的選擇。

When people from other countries come to America, one of the first things they say is they go to a grocery store and it blows their mind, the choices that they have.

當其他國家的人來到美國時，他們說的第一件事就是他們去雜貨店買東西，他們的選擇讓他們大吃一驚。

So taking choice away from Americans just isn't gonna play well.

是以，剝奪美國人的選擇權是行不通的。

So they can keep trying to sell Americans about austerity, but when people start losing jobs for real, it really dramatically affects real families.

是以，他們可以繼續向美國人兜售緊縮政策，但當人們開始真正失去工作時，就會對真正的家庭造成巨大影響。

We're gonna see a turn in sentiment against this administration if they don't come to terms with the fact that there isn't an immediate return to growth just when you completely throw the whole trade system into an imbalance.

如果他們不能接受這樣一個事實：當你將整個貿易體系完全置於失衡狀態時，並不能立即恢復增長。

So what we could have is a pretty bad recession and in the best case scenario, no growth.

是以，我們可能會面臨嚴重的經濟衰退，最好的情況是沒有增長。

And I just don't think it's so simple to say, well, things will just be great in the future.

我只是覺得，不能簡單地說 "嗯，未來一切都會好起來的"。

I've gone through some very hard times in America like the financial crisis.

我在美國經歷了一些非常艱難的時期，比如金融危機。

And so I think it's just really narrow-minded to run the ship into the dock and then say, don't worry, it'll only be a little bit of damage.

是以，我認為，把船撞向碼頭，然後說 "別擔心，只會造成一點損失 "的做法實在是太狹隘了。

You mentioned capitalism and you probably heard from the billionaire Trump supporter and Citadel CEO, Ken Griffin, who told Politico today, quote, tariffs open the door to crony capitalism.

你提到了資本主義，你可能聽說過億萬富翁特朗普的支持者、Citadel 公司首席執行官肯-格里芬（Ken Griffin）今天對 Politico 說的話，他說："關稅為裙帶資本主義打開了大門。

The government starts to pick winners and losers.

Now the trade framework that Trump announced with the UK today, Ross, it would lower tariffs on luxury cars like Rolls-Royce because everyone's getting one of those.

羅斯，特朗普今天宣佈的與英國的貿易框架將降低勞斯萊斯等豪華車的關稅，因為每個人都會買一輛這樣的車。

We took it from 25 to 10 on Rolls-Royce because Rolls-Royce is not gonna be built here.

我們把勞斯萊斯的投資從 25% 降到了 10%，因為勞斯萊斯不會在這裡生產。

It's a very special car and it's a very limited number too.

這是一輛非常特別的車，而且數量非常有限。

Raise your hand if you own a Rolls-Royce or that's your next purchase in the next, say, 10 days or 10 months.

如果你擁有一輛勞斯萊斯，或者這是你在未來 10 天或 10 個月內的下一個購買目標，請舉手。

Tell me, Ross, why is the argument that kids don't need dolls, but a Rolls-Royce and more luxury cars?

告訴我，羅斯，為什麼說孩子們不需要洋娃娃，卻需要勞斯萊斯和更多的豪華轎車？

Well, this is exactly the picking winners and losers things that tariff causes because the irony of this is that he's letting Aston Martin, Jaguars and Rolls-Royces, which the UK makes about 100,000 cars a year that they send to the United States.

這正是關稅造成的優勝劣汰，因為具有諷刺意味的是，他讓阿斯頓-馬丁、捷豹和勞斯萊斯（英國每年生產約 10 萬輛汽車運往美國）進入美國。

And he's basically giving them an advantage over companies like Ford and GM, which manufacture in Mexico that are still in a 25% tariff rate.

與福特和通用汽車等在墨西哥生產但仍被徵收 25% 關稅的公司相比，他基本上給了這些公司優勢。

So we've seen immediately the unions in Detroit reach out and say, hey, what are you doing?

是以，我們看到底特律的工會立即伸出援手，說："嘿，你們在做什麼？

You're picking winners and losers here and you're picking American companies as losers at this point.

你在這裡挑選贏家和輸家，而此時你挑選的輸家是美國公司。

So it's not like Ford and GM can just change the global supply chain every month when Trump at his whims changed tariffs.

是以，當特朗普隨心所欲地改變關稅時，福特和通用汽車也不可能每個月都改變全球供應鏈。

So not only does it pick winners and losers, it's the uncertainty and the constant change that really throws business into turmoil and what is really causing much more of the damage than even the tariffs themselves because consumers are pulling back, businesses are pulling back and everybody's going into defense and that's exactly how you get a recession.

是以，關稅不僅會挑出贏家和輸家，它的不確定性和不斷變化才真正讓企業陷入混亂，其真正造成的損害甚至遠遠超過關稅本身，因為消費者正在縮減開支，企業正在縮減開支，每個人都在進行防禦，而這正是經濟衰退的原因所在。

Well, market optimism in anticipation of US-China trade talks in Geneva this weekend and breaking this morning.

中美貿易談判將於本週末在日內瓦舉行，市場樂觀情緒將在今天上午爆發。

A major concession from US President Trump suggesting an 80% tariff for China is more likely than 145%.

美國總統特朗普做出重大讓步，暗示對中國徵收 80% 的關稅比 145% 更有可能。

Well, Chinese exports to the US sank by 21% in April, right, as new tariffs took effect.

四月份，隨著新關稅的生效，中國對美國的出口下降了21%。

But in a surprise to the markets, China's total exports actually rose more than 8% last month.

但令市場意外的是，中國上個月的出口總額實際上增長了 8%以上。

Well, Justin Wolfers joins me now as a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan.

賈斯汀-沃爾弗斯（Justin Wolfers）是密歇根大學經濟學和公共政策學教授，他現在加入我們的談話。

What can we expect from the first round of these talks between the US and China in Switzerland this weekend, do you think?

本週末，中美兩國將在瑞士舉行首輪會談，您認為我們能從中期待什麼？

Let me give you the optimist and then the pessimist.

讓我先給你們講講樂觀主義者，再講講悲觀主義者。

Look, the optimist in me is that both sides understand that this is unsustainable, that tariffs on China of 145% and China with retaliatory tariffs of 125% is effectively a trade embargo.

聽著，樂觀的我認為，雙方都明白這是不可持續的，對中國徵收 145% 的關稅，中國再徵收 125% 的報復性關稅，這實際上就是貿易禁運。

No one can afford to pay tariff rates like that.

And so what you've done is you've taken two biggest economies in the world and you've put a wall up between them.

所以，你所做的就是把世界上最大的兩個經濟體，在它們之間豎起了一堵牆。

And even if that were your medium term goal, you wouldn't want to do it all at once.

即使這是你的中期目標，你也不想一下子全部實現。

You've left American manufacturers unable to get parts or inputs into their production and likewise in China as well.

你們讓美國製造商無法獲得零部件或生產投入，同樣也讓中國製造商無法獲得零部件或生產投入。

So it's the American tariff on China is bad for people in America and bad for people in China.

是以，美國對中國徵收關稅對美國人民不利，對中國人民也不利。

China's tariff on America is bad for people in China and bad for people in America.

中國對美國徵收關稅對中國人民不利，對美國人民也不利。

The problem, of course, is that this is an issue that's been central to the president's...

當然，問題在於，這個問題一直是總統...

Yeah, I mean, let's have a look at these numbers.

是的，我的意思是，讓我們來看看這些數字。

China's overall exports grew by 8.1% in April.

4 月份，中國整體出口增長 8.1%。

That was due to a surge in Chinese exports to countries in Southeast Asia and to Europe.

這是因為中國對東南亞國家和歐洲的出口激增。

Can we expect that sort of growth to continue to other countries to balance...

我們是否可以期待這種增長繼續到其他國家，以平衡......

What is likely to be an expected decline to the United States, right?

對美國來說，什麼可能是預期的下降，對嗎？

字幕列表影片播放

看看首席執行官在特朗普就美國貿易急劇下滑發表言論後的直率反應 (See CEO's blunt reaction after Trump's remark about the steep drop in US trade)

sort

engage

basically

grocery