如果关税不好，为什么其他国家会对美国征收关税？
If tariffs are bad, why do other countries use them against the US?
译文简介
网友：为了保护本国经济、工人和制造业，他们征收关税，而不是像特朗普那样只是把关税当作报复工具，根本没有保护任何东西。遭受进口关税损失的是美国消费者，因为他们在购买那些在美国没有生产的进口商品时，必须支付这些关税。
正文翻译
Peter Dee
To protect their local economy, their workers and manufacuring, as opposed to trump who simply uses them as revenge tariffs and is protecting nothing. The people that suffer with import tariffs are US consumers, as they are the ones that pay those tariffs when they purchase those imported products that are not manufactured in the US.
为了保护本国经济、工人和制造业，他们征收关税，而不是像特朗普那样只是把关税当作报复工具，根本没有保护任何东西。遭受进口关税损失的是美国消费者，因为他们在购买那些在美国没有生产的进口商品时，必须支付这些关税。
To protect their local economy, their workers and manufacuring, as opposed to trump who simply uses them as revenge tariffs and is protecting nothing. The people that suffer with import tariffs are US consumers, as they are the ones that pay those tariffs when they purchase those imported products that are not manufactured in the US.
为了保护本国经济、工人和制造业，他们征收关税，而不是像特朗普那样只是把关税当作报复工具，根本没有保护任何东西。遭受进口关税损失的是美国消费者，因为他们在购买那些在美国没有生产的进口商品时，必须支付这些关税。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 5 )
收藏
If tariffs are bad, why do other countries use them against the US?
如果关税不好，为什么其他国家会对美国征收关税？
Tariffs are not bad in and of themselves. They are a tool.
Let’s take an example. Let’s say you want to ensure you have thriving domestic agriculture, so that, you know, your country can feed itself.
关税本身并不坏，它们是一种工具。
举个例子，假设你想确保国内农业蓬勃发展，以便你的国家能够自给自足。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
你有大量可耕地，但因为国内物价的原因，Triticalistan（一个虚构的国家）能够以你国内小麦价格的80%生产并销售小麦，而且Triticalistan的生产力很强。如果你什么都不做，国内的小麦农民将不得不转种其他作物，或者破产。很快，你的国家就没有人种小麦了。那么，你有两个选择：要么对小麦征收关税，抬高进口小麦的价格，直到国内小麦变得经济上可行，要么给国内小麦生产提供补贴。这样一来，你就确保在和Triticalistan发生矛盾，导致他们停止向你销售小麦时，你依然拥有国内的小麦产业。
这在针对性使用时是有效的。你可以选择你想要保护的行业，对这些产品征收关税。
墨西哥因为自由贸易和美国便宜的玉米，失去了农民和传统的玉米品种。为了保护文化遗产和基因多样性，墨西哥对玉米征收关税是非常合理的。如果他们对所有进口商品都征收关税，那将会伤害他们的经济，严重限制墨西哥人能购买的商品种类。
关税作为一种精确的工具可以有效实现特定目标，而一刀切的关税是一种笨重的工具，会摧毁一切。
Tariffs are not necessarily bad if they are applied properly.
Which means they are applied on specifically targeted goods/services in order to protect domestic producers of those goods. This only works if there are domestic producers alreadt, who are close to being competitive with the foreign producers.
Generically applying tariffs on all goods from certain countries is not properly targeted, and will inded almost always be a bad thing.
关税不一定是坏事，只要它们被正确使用。
这意味着它们应该针对特定的商品/服务，用来保护国内生产者。如果国内已经有生产者，并且这些生产者接近能够与外国生产者竞争，那么这种方式是有效的。
如果对某些国家的所有商品一律征收关税，这就没有针对性，实际上几乎总是坏事。
What do you mean by “work”? Tariffs can be used to protect a critical industry at the cost of making it less competitive on the global market. That means every country needs to weigh the pros and cons for each industry carefully. Is it ok for say potash fertilizer production to move outside the country, or would we rather pay more and have more expensive food?
你所说的“有效”是什么意思？关税可以用来保护一个关键行业，但这样做会让该行业在全球市场上的竞争力下降。这意味着每个国家需要仔细权衡每个行业的利弊。比如，是否愿意让钾肥生产迁出国家，还是我们宁愿支付更高的价格，换取更贵的食品？
像特朗普那样不加区别地征收关税简直是一场灾难——公司永远不知道下周关税会是多少，因此无法做出计划。唯一的安全选择就是将生产搬到国外，然后在最终产品上只处理一次关税问题。
US and Canada have been friends for better part of 70yrs. Why now. Yes, we've ad disagreements, but always resolved. Now you've elected a moron that thinks he has something to prove. Well guess what ?? We will , and can defend ourselves. And guess what, the guy that Shiztispants, tough it was going to be a cake walk. Well he needs to get is diaper changed again. Check the markets. Recession is also predicted. Everything tanked.
美国和加拿大已经是朋友70多年了。为什么现在会这样？是的，我们曾经有过分歧，但总是能够解决。现在你们选了一个傻瓜，他以为自己有些什么要证明的。结果怎么样呢？？我们可以，也能保护自己。而且，那个看似轻松的家伙，得再次换尿布了。看看市场，经济衰退也被预测了。所有东西都崩盘了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
You can easily google a list of world countries and their average tariff rate. None are at 25% flat rate on all imports from the USA. Other countries have tariffs on sexted products to protect a sexted manufacturing sector. Tariffs do work in some situations. Trump has sexted Canada and Mexico your two largest trading partners and placed a flat 25% import tariff on goods from those countries. Think that will work?
你可以很容易地通过谷歌搜索世界各国的平均关税率。没有哪个国家对来自美国的所有进口商品征收25%的统一关税。其他国家对特定的产品征收关税，以保护某个特定的制造业部门。在某些情况下，关税确实有效。特朗普选择了加拿大和墨西哥这两个最大的贸易伙伴，并对这些国家的商品征收25%的统一进口关税。你认为这样会有效吗？
Do you even know what a tariff is?
A tariff is a tax charged by a country on imports into the country.
Usually they are not ‘used’ against other countries or specific countries.
你知道什么是关税吗？
关税是一个国家对进口商品征收的税。通常，关税并不是针对其他国家或特定国家的。
Automobiles imported into the EU were charged 10% tariffs/taxes by the EU
Automobiles imported into the U.S. were charged 2.5% tariffs/taxes by the United States.
Sounds like the EU has higher taxes than the U.S. right?
举个例子，在特朗普之前（谁知道现在美国的关税是多少），
欧盟对进口汽车征收10%的关税/税。
美国对进口汽车征收2.5%的关税/税。
这听起来像是欧盟的税比美国高，对吧？
EU tariffs on pickup trucks are 10%
U.S. tariffs on pickup trucks are 25%
So who is using tariffs against who?
但关税通常因商品不同而有所不同。
欧盟对皮卡车的关税是10%。
美国对皮卡车的关税是25%。
那么，谁在对谁征收关税呢？
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Welcome to the Chaos Presidency.
现在的问题不是“关税”本身，而是它们如何被当作特朗普心血来潮的工具，以及关税执行的完全混乱——美国的企业每天都不知道他们要支付多少税。
欢迎来到混乱的总统时期。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
You have to specify what you mean by “tariffs don’t work” or “do work”. What’s the purpose? At the beginning of the American republic, tariffs had two functions: 1) they served in lieu of (other) taxes on the citizens to fund the government; and 2) they protected the nascent industries of the U.S. against the more efficient competition in Britain and other places. Tariffs served well for both these functions AT THAT TIME.
你必须明确“关税不起作用”或“起作用”的意思是什么？其目的是什么？在美国建国初期，关税有两个功能：1）代替（其他）税收来为政府提供资金；2）保护美国初创的工业，免受英国和其他地方更高效竞争者的冲击。关税在当时很好地履行了这两个功能。
最近，我们看到关税被用来惩罚其他国家，这可能会或不会“有效”，因为关税本质上是对我们自己公民购买的商品征税，并且由于价格会上涨以补偿关税，可能会引发通货膨胀。现在，关税收入进入财政部，因为这并不完全是坏事。然而，这可能会带来几个后果。
首先，可能会有报复，正如大萧条时期的斯穆特-霍利关税法所表明的那样，报复性关税会导致贸易停滞，扼杀我们和其他经济体的增长。如果我们对一些已经在与我们竞争的行业征收关税，虽然报复可能会减少这些产品的出口，但国内对这些产品的需求可能会增加。贸易平衡最初可能会受到影响，对于那些认为这比实际更重要的人来说，似乎这会是一个好事，直到被征收关税的国家的货币对美元贬值，恢复（至少在某种程度上）美元价格。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
如果你相信David Ricardo的观点，根据他的比较优势原则，每个人都能从贸易中受益，因此关税最终应该尽可能低，这样才对所有人都有好处。像欧盟这样的互惠自由（或低）贸易区对成员国是有益的。使用共同货币进一步使像德国这样的高效竞争者受益，因为他们的贸易成功不会使（曾经的德国马克）货币升值过多。
关税的另一个弊端是，虽然它们有助于保护初创工业免受外国竞争，但它们也会保护那些可能不会变得像应该那样高效和具有竞争力的国内产业。日本找到了在保护汽车等行业免受外国竞争的同时，通过关税保护国内竞争的可能优势与劣势，并允许日本国内汽车制造商之间进行激烈竞争，直到他们在世界舞台上变得相当有竞争力，这时他们能够至少在小型汽车（以及各种电子产品）领域超越美国制造商。
大多数经济学家相信Ricardo理论，并且通常是坚定的自由贸易支持者。然而，现实中有政治因素使得这一理论在实践中并不总是成立。因此，关税在某些功能上确实有效。
Against? They are not a weapon.
They are often created as part of a trade agreement, as in this case on Trump is tearing up any agreements including ones he's forgotten he negotiated.
They may used where a country subsidises an industry and it’s to balance that out. Not the fake subsidy that Trump is referring to with Canads as that's simply because Canadians don't want to buy US products. UK and EU countries are similar in that we import from the US pnly things we want to but from them but in many caes they are actually being manufactured here. That's anything from cars to Heinz products. There's a Heinz factory in Wigan (England) built in 1959.
反对？它们不是武器。
它们通常是在贸易协议的一部分中创建的，就像这个例子中，特朗普正在撕毁任何协议，包括他已经忘记自己谈判过的协议。
它们可能用于一个国家补贴某个行业时，作为平衡。并不是特朗普提到的关于加拿大的假补贴，因为那只是因为加拿大人不想购买美国的产品。英国和欧盟国家也类似，我们从美国进口的东西通常是我们想要的，但很多时候这些东西实际上是在我们这里生产的。从汽车到亨氏产品都有。亨氏工厂位于英格兰威根，建于1959年。
That is why it is called a trade war, Trump forcing tariffs on imports from other Countries, forces those other Countries to respond in kind with tariffs on imports from the United States.
Trump’s tariffs are isolating the United States economically from other Countries, causing the United States to be more expensive than importing tthe same goods from Countries without tariffs.
Meaning less people will want to buy U.S made products or export their products to the U.S for the American public to buy.
Tariffs are a lose/lose situation for the United States.
这就是为什么它被称为贸易战，特朗普对其他国家的进口加征关税，迫使这些国家以同样的方式对来自美国的进口加征关税。
特朗普的关税政策使美国在经济上与其他国家隔离，使得从没有关税的国家进口同样的商品变得更便宜。
这意味着人们不太愿意购买美国制造的产品，或者将他们的产品出口到美国供美国公众购买。
关税对美国来说是一种两败俱伤的局面。
Because they got away with it because we didn’t insist on reciprocity. They were on the gravy train.
For example, Canada imposes tariffs on American dairy products that exceed certain quotas. These tariffs can be as high as 298.5%
Not a good trading partner.
因为他们之前逃脱了责任，因为我们没有坚持互惠原则。他们享受了好处。
例如，加拿大对美国的乳制品征收超出某些配额的关税。这些关税最高可以达到298.5%。
不是一个好的贸易伙伴。
Tariffs are only bad if the US uses them
Basically, everything in the United States does now that Trump is in office again is open for the minority of the world to express dismay at the USA.
Likely yet another troll question.
关税只有在美国使用时才不好。
基本上，现在美国做的所有事情都为世界的少数人提供了表达不满的机会。
这可能又是一个挑衅问题。
I recently read somewhere, that 70% of everything Trump says is a lie. I think that's a credible number. At least when you include statements like “I am hungry”. Else I would assume the number to be higher.
我最近读到某个地方提到，特朗普所说的70%都是谎言。我觉得这个数字很有可信度，至少包括像“我饿了”这种说法。如果不包括这些，我猜数字可能还会更高。
So please take claims from Trump about all those bad countries and their unfair treatment of the USA with a big grain of salt.
所以，对于特朗普或者他的一些追随者说的每一句话，最好假设它是谎言或半真半假的。
至于特朗普所说的那些关于那些坏国家和它们对美国不公平待遇的言论，最好持怀疑态度。
So until recently, at least among the formerly allied national, no one used tariffs against the US. If tariffs existed (and let me clarify one thing: Overall, those tariffs were on level with US tariffs) they served the purpose of protecting certain industries.
关税是一种保护某些行业免受竞争的方法，或者在某些情况下（比如对中国电动车的关税），是为了弥补不公平的优势，目的是获得垄断力量，比如中国政府对中国电动车制造商的财政支持。
直到最近，至少在以前的盟国之间，没有人会对美国加关税。如果有关税（让我澄清一下：总体而言，这些关税与美国的关税相当），它们的目的通常是为了保护某些行业。
现在发生的事情不完全是经济问题，而是政治问题，是对抗一个霸凌者的问题。其目的是反向施加痛苦，同时尽量减少自己民众的不适，以防止特朗普和他的MAGA崇拜者对全球经济造成更多的损害。
Why do you think is the reason behind this? Certainly not to generate government income from tariffs!
你可能注意到，欧盟对美国的关税并没有涉及所有产品，而是针对那些容易替代的产品，比如波本威士忌、花生酱或哈雷摩托车？
你觉得这背后的原因是什么？肯定不是为了从关税中获取政府收入！
Because the US imposed unreasonable tariffs themselves and other countries were (obviously) not going to vectored off just to satisfy Mr Trump. Did he really expect they would just lie down and have him walk all over them? He is like a childish bully. Bur naive.
因为美国自己加了不合理的关税，其他国家显然不会为了满足特朗普而屈服。他真的指望他们会乖乖地让步吗？他就像个幼稚的恶霸，天真无知。
Dropping bombs on countries is bad too. That is how wars start. What we are seeing now is a “trade war” started by President Trump.
对其他国家进行轰炸也很糟糕。这就是战争开始的方式。我们现在看到的是由特朗普总统发起的“贸易战”。
Tariffs are used to protect an industry when that industry isn’t able to survive on its own. So, in general it isn’t a good tool because you are encouraging an industry that isn’t viable. In certain cases, it can be useful when the country of manufacture has a labour cost that is very low like China. Most western countries cannot compete with Asian labour costs.
关税通常用来保护那些无法独立生存的行业。所以一般来说，它不是一个好的工具，因为它鼓励那些不可行的行业。在某些情况下，它是有用的，尤其是在制造国劳动成本很低的情况下，比如中国。大多数西方国家无法与亚洲的劳动成本竞争。
The “tariffs” aren’t really a problem as soon as they are stable and reflect a functional need. One country can even accept that imports from another country are tariff-free until a predefined amount, weight or volume. But they need to be managed seriously, not as an instrument of racket and without any need. The US aren’t producing enough aluminum. They buy 90 % of those they export from Canada. Nobody will find more aluminum to extract in the US because the US are rising the tariffs against Canada. Aluminum the US export will cost more and sell less. The “lumber” episode of the “tariffs” sitcom from White House Productions, Inc. was one of the most stupid theater play people have ever seen, the actor never saw any lumber and just imagined what it is, like a six years old boy.
“关税”问题并不大，只要它们稳定并且反映了实际需要。一个国家甚至可以接受来自另一个国家的进口在预定数量、重量或体积之前是免关税的。但它们需要被认真管理，而不是作为敲诈工具或没有必要的手段。美国并没有生产足够的铝。它们买了90%的铝都是从加拿大进口的。由于美国对加拿大提高了关税，不会再有更多的铝被提炼出来。美国出口的铝将变得更贵，销售量也会减少。“木材”关税事件就像白宫制作的一出最愚蠢的剧作，演员从未见过木材，只是像六岁小孩一样想象它是什么样的。
Because tariffs are bad, it's the Democrats who are afraid President Trump will succeed with the economy where the Democrats keep failing. Maybe it is the simple fact that President Trump actually understands how the economy works and the Democrats do not!!!!!
因为关税不好，民主党害怕特朗普总统在经济上取得成功，而民主党一直失败。也许就是简单的事实，特朗普总统真的理解经济运作，而民主党却不理解！！！
They’re not the worst thing Trump is trying to enforce. It encourages domestic production which could lead to lower costs for goods and services. Countries don’t want to be reliant on other countries, and Trump doesn’t want the US to be reliant on China. So no, they’re not “bad” in theory.
它们不是特朗普试图强制执行的最糟糕的事情。它鼓励国内生产，这可能会导致商品和服务的成本降低。各国不想依赖其他国家，而特朗普不想让美国依赖中国。所以，从理论上讲，关税并不是“坏的”。