simonshen patreon

【國際關係深度評 🇺🇸🇨🇦】徵收加拿大關稅，可以走到《特朗普大宅協定》這終極一步嗎？

🕑 Added 2025-02-05 01:01:01 +0000 UTC

Comments

KTH

又唔駛太驚侵侵放棄對抗獨裁國家，其實睇返最近侵侵做既事，全部都係針對住中共同俄羅斯既預防性措施，巴拿馬，格陵蘭，加墨關稅，退出世衞，都係對抗眾多獨裁國既措施。獨裁國家本身已經緊密合作，並唔會因為侵侵既舉動而更加緊密。

miuying yu

因為執政理念的差異，相信有些發展政策缺乏延續性，甚至因為反對而反對，從而影響其國家的利益。

George

In a recent article in Foreign Policy,¹ Stephen Walt talked about the significant foreign policy changes under Trump, arguing that his administration's aggressive approach—characterized by tariffs, withdrawal from international organizations, and confrontational rhetoric—could lead to a shift in global alliances and increased resistance from other nations. Walt contrasted two theories of IR: balance-of-threat theory, which suggests that countries will unite against perceived threats, and the theory of collective goods, which highlights the challenges of organizing coordinated opposition. He posited that Trump’s belligerent and radical policies are likely to backfire, resulting in diminished U.S. leadership and increased collaboration among global rivals, as traditional allies begin to view the U.S. as unreliable and potentially hostile. Ultimately, he warned that the U.S. risks alienating its closest partners and losing its global standing. His arguments predominantly focus on traditional theories like balance-of-power and collective goods, while he still views the fabric of the ever-changing world through a conventional lens and seems dismissive of the harms caused by leftist governments. However, it’s essential to recognize that the complexities of contemporary global affairs extend beyond these frameworks. Liberalism, especially in its progressive form, has led to significant changes in how states interact, often promoting ideals such as globalization, human rights, and multilateralism. Over the past few decades, these movements have catalyzed significant shifts in social, economic, and political spheres across the West. The emphasis on values such as human rights, environmental sustainability, and social justice has transformed the priorities of nations and alliances on the global stage. However, many of these movements have swung too far—or, to put it bluntly, getting too extreme and losing touch with reality—in recent years, resulting in backlash and polarization, which have led to the rise of MAGA and nationalism in the name of “revolution of common sense”, trends that Trump’s administration capitalizes on. Moreover, focusing solely on Trump’s policies may unintentionally downplay the underlying structural issues within the international system that paved the way for such a drastic shift. The erosion of trust in institutions, the impact of economic inequality, and disillusionment with globalization are all factors that have intensified global tensions and reshaped alliances. To cope with these challenges, Trump tends to impose maximum pressure on rivals to display his determination and gain an advantageous position at the negotiation table. He might abruptly reverse course on some sweeping tariffs, stunning his adversaries and sparking a significant zigzag in capital markets while underscoring his willingness to risk significant economic disruptions to make a point. Undoubtedly, he prioritizes his economic agenda and the MAGA missions above short-term market volatilities that could unsettle investors. He shows no fear that economic fundamentals and US close bond with its traditional allies might have been compromised by his bold and unorthodox actions. Like it or lump it, Trump's brisk pace of sweeping and assertive reforms in less than a month has highlighted the essential elements of his MAGA roadmap, through which he can proudly stake the claim to fulfilling his campaign promises. Yet some of his actions, such as revoking the security details for some former top officials, seem to be driven more by personal grudge than by political necessity. However, I hope Trump and his administration grasp that now is the critical juncture for the US to maintain its involvement in global affairs. A coalition of dictatorships—an ambitious pseudo-communist one in Beijing, an empire-revival-fueled one in Moscow, and a fundamentalist one in Tehran—has been united by a shared animosity towards the West and an agenda to reshape historical narratives. In the absence of proactive US engagement, these leaders are poised to foster a significantly more tumultuous and perilous world. ¹ Walt, Stephen, “What IR Theory Predicts About Trump 2.0,” Foreign Policy, 3 Feb, 2025. (https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/03/ir-theory-trump-balance-power/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2RyLTZGLgrNwyDZdorZA1i-KoNZF5HvdLCxfUzY6mQKpYHjVXIDhyQaFc_aem_l53oOqnTmvGbELZIipkYIg)

堅離地書院 College

似乎 Trump 的成敗很難用微觀衡量，他的微觀目標每天都改變，但宏觀方向相對容易 measure

堅離地書院 College

關稅戰怎樣過度到文中說的第二階段（貨幣戰），目前實在太初步

堅離地書院 College

以往可以同一個陣營有延續性，同時避免個人腐敗；任期限制也不是所有國家都有，英國以往很多首相都可以做十多年

miuying yu

在商言商，各國領袖謀求所在國的利益，減少貿易逆差也是可以理解，但持續性則受到民主制度選舉的影響，如何能夠做到高瞻遠矚，不受到任期的局限呢？東方大國無論在經濟上，科技上，軍事上都是有計劃謀略的，這些似乎是佔優勢(相對而言)

HO Wong

關稅有冇用先不論，Trump2.0撞足四年板後，肯面對真正問題所在，已經係上天保佑！

KTH

其實單靠貨幣值操控對貿易順逆差影響係互相抵消的，即係對貿易順逆差無影響的。而家係美國加進口關稅令出口國通過貨幣貶值去應對。美國加關稅本質的確係增加咗進口成本減低進口需求，個成本係由消費者，進口商，出口商之間去承擔，而且世界貿係有好多替代品。如果侵閂咗一道進口門，開返另一道美國本土設廠之門，長期會引進更多外國企業去美國設廠。所以關稅對出口國係確實有影響，短期可能通過中間人承受去抵消影響，出口國用埋貨幣貶值去短期抵消影響但又增加入口成本長期黎講無法維持。長期當美國搵到代替品咁被加關稅國家既貨品需求下降關稅既影響就會鞏固。至於對美國既影響，同被加關稅國既貿易逆差短期未必改善到長期應該有改善，總體貿易逆差短長期都未必改善到。改變貿易逆差始終都靠加強美國出口唔係靠關稅或貨幣政策。對美國消費者既影響因有替代效應加上進出口商分擔關稅短期長期都唔大。