如果關稅不好，為什么其他國家會對美國征收關稅？

If tariffs are bad, why do other countries use them against the US?

2025-03-21 大號兒童 4309 3 5 收藏糾錯&舉報

譯文簡介

網(wǎng)友：為了保護本國經(jīng)濟、工人和制造業(yè)，他們征收關稅，而不是像特朗普那樣只是把關稅當作報復工具，根本沒有保護任何東西。遭受進口關稅損失的是美國消費者，因為他們在購買那些在美國沒有生產(chǎn)的進口商品時，必須支付這些關稅。

正文翻譯

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.

為了保護本國經(jīng)濟、工人和制造業(yè)，他們征收關稅，而不是像特朗普那樣只是把關稅當作報復工具，根本沒有保護任何東西。遭受進口關稅損失的是美國消費者，因為他們在購買那些在美國沒有生產(chǎn)的進口商品時，必須支付這些關稅。

評論翻譯

https://www.quora.com/If-tariffs-are-bad-why-do-other-countries-use-them-against-the-US
If tariffs are bad, why do other countries use them against the US?

如果關稅不好，為什么其他國家會對美國征收關稅？

Bobboi
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.

關稅本身并不壞，它們是一種工具。
舉個例子，假設你想確保國內(nèi)農(nóng)業(yè)蓬勃發(fā)展，以便你的國家能夠自給自足。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處

You’ve got plenty of arable land, but because of the prices of things in your country, Triticalistan can produce wheat and sell it to you for 80% of the price that you can sell your domestic wheat, and Triticalistan is very productive. If you just allow things to stand, your domestic wheat farmers have to change crops, or go bust. And soon you have nobody growing wheat domestically. So, you have two options. You either impose tariffs on wheat, to drive up the price on imported wheat until domestic wheat becomes financially viable, or you subsidize domestic wheat production. And that way you make sure you have a domestic wheat industry, in case you have a falling out with Triticalistan, and they stop selling you wheat.

你有大量可耕地，但因為國內(nèi)物價的原因，Triticalistan（一個虛構的國家）能夠以你國內(nèi)小麥價格的80%生產(chǎn)并銷售小麥，而且Triticalistan的生產(chǎn)力很強。如果你什么都不做，國內(nèi)的小麥農(nóng)民將不得不轉種其他作物，或者破產(chǎn)。很快，你的國家就沒有人種小麥了。那么，你有兩個選擇：要么對小麥征收關稅，抬高進口小麥的價格，直到國內(nèi)小麥變得經(jīng)濟上可行，要么給國內(nèi)小麥生產(chǎn)提供補貼。這樣一來，你就確保在和Triticalistan發(fā)生矛盾，導致他們停止向你銷售小麥時，你依然擁有國內(nèi)的小麥產(chǎn)業(yè)。

And this is something that is effective if it is targeted. You pick and choose industries you want to protect, and levy tariffs on just those products.

這在針對性使用時是有效的。你可以選擇你想要保護的行業(yè)，對這些產(chǎn)品征收關稅。

Mexico lost farmers, and heritage varieties, of maize, because of free trade and how cheap American maize is. It would be very reasonable, to preserve their cultural heritage, and to preserve genetic diversity, for Mexicans to impose tariffs specifically on maize. If, however, they were to impose tariffs on all imports, that would hurt their economy, and severely limit the diversity of goods Mexicans could purchase.

墨西哥因為自由貿(mào)易和美國便宜的玉米，失去了農(nóng)民和傳統(tǒng)的玉米品種。為了保護文化遺產(chǎn)和基因多樣性，墨西哥對玉米征收關稅是非常合理的。如果他們對所有進口商品都征收關稅，那將會傷害他們的經(jīng)濟，嚴重限制墨西哥人能購買的商品種類。

Tariffs works well as a precision tool to achieve a specific goal. Blanket tariffs are a blunt instrument that smashes everything.

關稅作為一種精確的工具可以有效實現(xiàn)特定目標，而一刀切的關稅是一種笨重的工具，會摧毀一切。

Alex Heney
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.

關稅不一定是壞事，只要它們被正確使用。
這意味著它們應該針對特定的商品/服務，用來保護國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)者。如果國內(nèi)已經(jīng)有生產(chǎn)者，并且這些生產(chǎn)者接近能夠與外國生產(chǎn)者競爭，那么這種方式是有效的。
如果對某些國家的所有商品一律征收關稅，這就沒有針對性，實際上幾乎總是壞事。

Brian Rauchfuss
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?

你所說的“有效”是什么意思？關稅可以用來保護一個關鍵行業(yè)，但這樣做會讓該行業(yè)在全球市場上的競爭力下降。這意味著每個國家需要仔細權衡每個行業(yè)的利弊。比如，是否愿意讓鉀肥生產(chǎn)遷出國家，還是我們寧愿支付更高的價格，換取更貴的食品？

Careless blanket tariffs like Trump is so fond of are an unmitigated disaster - companies never know what the tariffs are going to be next week, and so can’t make plans. The only safe option is to move production outside the USA and then only deal with the tariff chaos once with the final product.

像特朗普那樣不加區(qū)別地征收關稅簡直是一場災難——公司永遠不知道下周關稅會是多少，因此無法做出計劃。唯一的安全選擇就是將生產(chǎn)搬到國外，然后在最終產(chǎn)品上只處理一次關稅問題。

Joe Bean
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.

美國和加拿大已經(jīng)是朋友70多年了。為什么現(xiàn)在會這樣？是的，我們曾經(jīng)有過分歧，但總是能夠解決?，F(xiàn)在你們選了一個傻瓜，他以為自己有些什么要證明的。結果怎么樣呢？？我們可以，也能保護自己。而且，那個看似輕松的家伙，得再次換尿布了?？纯词袌觯?jīng)濟衰退也被預測了。所有東西都崩盤了。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處

Gutboi
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?

你可以很容易地通過谷歌搜索世界各國的平均關稅率。沒有哪個國家對來自美國的所有進口商品征收25%的統(tǒng)一關稅。其他國家對特定的產(chǎn)品征收關稅，以保護某個特定的制造業(yè)部門。在某些情況下，關稅確實有效。特朗普選擇了加拿大和墨西哥這兩個最大的貿(mào)易伙伴，并對這些國家的商品征收25%的統(tǒng)一進口關稅。你認為這樣會有效嗎？

Jeff M.
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.

你知道什么是關稅嗎？
關稅是一個國家對進口商品征收的稅。通常，關稅并不是針對其他國家或特定國家的。

For example- before Trump(who knows what any U.S. tariff is hour by hour at the moment)
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?

舉個例子，在特朗普之前（誰知道現(xiàn)在美國的關稅是多少），
歐盟對進口汽車征收10%的關稅/稅。
美國對進口汽車征收2.5%的關稅/稅。
這聽起來像是歐盟的稅比美國高，對吧？

Except tariffs are often different from item to item.
EU tariffs on pickup trucks are 10%
U.S. tariffs on pickup trucks are 25%
So who is using tariffs against who?

但關稅通常因商品不同而有所不同。
歐盟對皮卡車的關稅是10%。
美國對皮卡車的關稅是25%。
那么，誰在對誰征收關稅呢？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處

The issue right now is not ‘tariffs’ themselves- but how they are being used as cudgels for any bee Trump gets up his bonnet. And the total chaos of the implementation of the tariffs- American businesses don’t know from day to day what taxes they will be paying.
Welcome to the Chaos Presidency.

現(xiàn)在的問題不是“關稅”本身，而是它們?nèi)绾伪划斪魈乩势招难獊沓钡墓ぞ?，以及關稅執(zhí)行的完全混亂——美國的企業(yè)每天都不知道他們要支付多少稅。
歡迎來到混亂的總統(tǒng)時期。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處

Stuart Meyer
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.

你必須明確“關稅不起作用”或“起作用”的意思是什么？其目的是什么？在美國建國初期，關稅有兩個功能：1）代替（其他）稅收來為政府提供資金；2）保護美國初創(chuàng)的工業(yè)，免受英國和其他地方更高效競爭者的沖擊。關稅在當時很好地履行了這兩個功能。

Lately, we see tariffs being used to PUNISH other countries and this might or might not “work” since the tariff is essentially a tax on what our own citizens want to buy and there is the likelihood of inflation since prices will initially go up to account for the tariffs. Now the tariffs go into the coffers of the Treasury since it isn’t all bad. However, there are likely going to be several consequences.

最近，我們看到關稅被用來懲罰其他國家，這可能會或不會“有效”，因為關稅本質上是對我們自己公民購買的商品征稅，并且由于價格會上漲以補償關稅，可能會引發(fā)通貨膨脹?，F(xiàn)在，關稅收入進入財政部，因為這并不完全是壞事。然而，這可能會帶來幾個后果。

First, there is likely going to be RETALIATION which, as with the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the Great Depression served to kill off trade and stifle our and other economies. If we have industries already competitive with the ones on which we are going to put tariffs, there will be more use of domestic products although the retaliation will likely reduce the exports of those products. The balance of trade will initially be affected and for those who think this is more important than it really is, that will seem to be a plus UNTIL the currency of the targeted (with tariffs) country deteriorates with respect to the dollar restoring (at least somewhat ) the price in dollars.

首先，可能會有報復，正如大蕭條時期的斯穆特-霍利關稅法所表明的那樣，報復性關稅會導致貿(mào)易停滯，扼殺我們和其他經(jīng)濟體的增長。如果我們對一些已經(jīng)在與我們競爭的行業(yè)征收關稅，雖然報復可能會減少這些產(chǎn)品的出口，但國內(nèi)對這些產(chǎn)品的需求可能會增加。貿(mào)易平衡最初可能會受到影響，對于那些認為這比實際更重要的人來說，似乎這會是一個好事，直到被征收關稅的國家的貨幣對美元貶值，恢復（至少在某種程度上）美元價格。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處

If you believe David Ricardo, everyone benefits from trade due to his principle of Comparative Advantage so tariffs ultimately would be better for all if set as low as possible. Mutual free ( or low ) trade zones such as the EU are beneficial to the members. The use of a common currency further benefits such efficient competitors as the Germans since their trade success cannot cause (what was once the Deutschmark ) their currency to rise too much.

如果你相信David Ricardo的觀點，根據(jù)他的比較優(yōu)勢原則，每個人都能從貿(mào)易中受益，因此關稅最終應該盡可能低，這樣才對所有人都有好處。像歐盟這樣的互惠自由（或低）貿(mào)易區(qū)對成員國是有益的。使用共同貨幣進一步使像德國這樣的高效競爭者受益，因為他們的貿(mào)易成功不會使（曾經(jīng)的德國馬克）貨幣升值過多。

Another disadvantage of tariffs, while useful to protect infant industries from foreign competition, they serve to protect domestic industries which might not become as efficient and competitive as they could be. The Japanese found a way to get the possible advantages and disadvantages by keeping such industries as autos protected from foreign competition by tariffs but also allowing vicious competition among Japanese domestic auto mfrs until they were quite competitive on the world stage at which time they were able to outcompete American mfrs at least in small cars (and various electronic products.)

關稅的另一個弊端是，雖然它們有助于保護初創(chuàng)工業(yè)免受外國競爭，但它們也會保護那些可能不會變得像應該那樣高效和具有競爭力的國內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)。日本找到了在保護汽車等行業(yè)免受外國競爭的同時，通過關稅保護國內(nèi)競爭的可能優(yōu)勢與劣勢，并允許日本國內(nèi)汽車制造商之間進行激烈競爭，直到他們在世界舞臺上變得相當有競爭力，這時他們能夠至少在小型汽車（以及各種電子產(chǎn)品）領域超越美國制造商。

Most economists believe in the THEORY of Ricardo’s argument and are usually inveterate free traders. However, there are political considerations which make the idea work in theory but not always in the real world. Thus, tariffs often DO work for certain functions.

大多數(shù)經(jīng)濟學家相信Ricardo理論，并且通常是堅定的自由貿(mào)易支持者。然而，現(xiàn)實中有政治因素使得這一理論在實踐中并不總是成立。因此，關稅在某些功能上確實有效。

Helen Jones
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.

反對？它們不是武器。
它們通常是在貿(mào)易協(xié)議的一部分中創(chuàng)建的，就像這個例子中，特朗普正在撕毀任何協(xié)議，包括他已經(jīng)忘記自己談判過的協(xié)議。
它們可能用于一個國家補貼某個行業(yè)時，作為平衡。并不是特朗普提到的關于加拿大的假補貼，因為那只是因為加拿大人不想購買美國的產(chǎn)品。英國和歐盟國家也類似，我們從美國進口的東西通常是我們想要的，但很多時候這些東西實際上是在我們這里生產(chǎn)的。從汽車到亨氏產(chǎn)品都有。亨氏工廠位于英格蘭威根，建于1959年。

John Bradley
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.

這就是為什么它被稱為貿(mào)易戰(zhàn)，特朗普對其他國家的進口加征關稅，迫使這些國家以同樣的方式對來自美國的進口加征關稅。
特朗普的關稅政策使美國在經(jīng)濟上與其他國家隔離，使得從沒有關稅的國家進口同樣的商品變得更便宜。
這意味著人們不太愿意購買美國制造的產(chǎn)品，或者將他們的產(chǎn)品出口到美國供美國公眾購買。
關稅對美國來說是一種兩敗俱傷的局面。

Jim Anders
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.

因為他們之前逃脫了責任，因為我們沒有堅持互惠原則。他們享受了好處。
例如，加拿大對美國的乳制品征收超出某些配額的關稅。這些關稅最高可以達到298.5%。
不是一個好的貿(mào)易伙伴。

Karl D (aka Gonzo)
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.

關稅只有在美國使用時才不好。
基本上，現(xiàn)在美國做的所有事情都為世界的少數(shù)人提供了表達不滿的機會。
這可能又是一個挑釁問題。

P. D.
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.

我最近讀到某個地方提到，特朗普所說的70%都是謊言。我覺得這個數(shù)字很有可信度，至少包括像“我餓了”這種說法。如果不包括這些，我猜數(shù)字可能還會更高。

So with everything that clown or one of his cronies tells, it is safe to assume it is a lie or half truth at best.
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，對于特朗普或者他的一些追隨者說的每一句話，最好假設它是謊言或半真半假的。
至于特朗普所說的那些關于那些壞國家和它們對美國不公平待遇的言論，最好持懷疑態(tài)度。

Tariffs are a way to protect certain industries against competition or, in certain cases like tariffs on Chinese EVs, to compensate for unfair advantages that have the purpose of gaining monopolistic power like Chinese financial support for Chinese EV manufacturers.
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.

關稅是一種保護某些行業(yè)免受競爭的方法，或者在某些情況下（比如對中國電動車的關稅），是為了彌補不公平的優(yōu)勢，目的是獲得壟斷力量，比如中國政府對中國電動車制造商的財政支持。
直到最近，至少在以前的盟國之間，沒有人會對美國加關稅。如果有關稅（讓我澄清一下：總體而言，這些關稅與美國的關稅相當），它們的目的通常是為了保護某些行業(yè)。

What happens now is not so much about economics, but about politics and about standing up to a bully. It’s about influcting pain in reverse, while causing as little discomfort as possible for the own population, to prevent Trump and his MAGA cult from causing more damage to the world economy than they have already done.

現(xiàn)在發(fā)生的事情不完全是經(jīng)濟問題，而是政治問題，是對抗一個霸凌者的問題。其目的是反向施加痛苦，同時盡量減少自己民眾的不適，以防止特朗普和他的MAGA崇拜者對全球經(jīng)濟造成更多的損害。

You might have noticed, that EU tariffs against the US don’t touch all products yet, but only easily substituted products like Bourbon, peanut butter or Harley Davidsons?
Why do you think is the reason behind this? Certainly not to generate government income from tariffs!

你可能注意到，歐盟對美國的關稅并沒有涉及所有產(chǎn)品，而是針對那些容易替代的產(chǎn)品，比如波本威士忌、花生醬或哈雷摩托車？
你覺得這背后的原因是什么？肯定不是為了從關稅中獲取政府收入！

George Long
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.

因為美國自己加了不合理的關稅，其他國家顯然不會為了滿足特朗普而屈服。他真的指望他們會乖乖地讓步嗎？他就像個幼稚的惡霸，天真無知。

Donna Porcella
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.

對其他國家進行轟炸也很糟糕。這就是戰(zhàn)爭開始的方式。我們現(xiàn)在看到的是由特朗普總統(tǒng)發(fā)起的“貿(mào)易戰(zhàn)”。

S Perro
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.

關稅通常用來保護那些無法獨立生存的行業(yè)。所以一般來說，它不是一個好的工具，因為它鼓勵那些不可行的行業(yè)。在某些情況下，它是有用的，尤其是在制造國勞動成本很低的情況下，比如中國。大多數(shù)西方國家無法與亞洲的勞動成本競爭。

Christian Donzel
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 “l(fā)umber” 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.

“關稅”問題并不大，只要它們穩(wěn)定并且反映了實際需要。一個國家甚至可以接受來自另一個國家的進口在預定數(shù)量、重量或體積之前是免關稅的。但它們需要被認真管理，而不是作為敲詐工具或沒有必要的手段。美國并沒有生產(chǎn)足夠的鋁。它們買了90%的鋁都是從加拿大進口的。由于美國對加拿大提高了關稅，不會再有更多的鋁被提煉出來。美國出口的鋁將變得更貴，銷售量也會減少?！澳静摹标P稅事件就像白宮制作的一出最愚蠢的劇作，演員從未見過木材，只是像六歲小孩一樣想象它是什么樣的。

Brad
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!!!!!

因為關稅不好，民主黨害怕特朗普總統(tǒng)在經(jīng)濟上取得成功，而民主黨一直失敗。也許就是簡單的事實，特朗普總統(tǒng)真的理解經(jīng)濟運作，而民主黨卻不理解?。。?/b>

Erik
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.

它們不是特朗普試圖強制執(zhí)行的最糟糕的事情。它鼓勵國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)，這可能會導致商品和服務的成本降低。各國不想依賴其他國家，而特朗普不想讓美國依賴中國。所以，從理論上講，關稅并不是“壞的”。

關稅美國

很贊 ( 5 )

收藏

如果關稅不好，為什么其他國家會對美國征收關稅？

如果關稅不好，為什么其他國家會對美國征收關稅？