Joe Lu, CFA 2025年4月7日

川普總統於4月2日宣布的全面關稅代表了數十年來最大的經濟政策轉變。隨著美國有效關稅率達到1909年以來未見的水平，這些措施不僅關乎貿易平衡——它們正在重塑整個全球經濟體系。耶魯預算實驗室估計，這些關稅將使美國的有效關稅率提高到22.5%，這是一戰前以來的最高水平，甚至高於加劇大蕭條的斯穆特-霍利關稅。

雖然市場已經以顯著的波動性作出反應，分析表明這是一個根本性重新調整的開始，將在全球經濟中創造新的贏家和輸家。理解這一轉變的戰略意義對於在未來幾年中順利航行於不斷變化的經濟環境至關重要。

理解關稅策略

關稅結構本身揭示了政府的優先事項：

• 對所有進口商品徵收10%的基本關稅
• 對特定國家徵收更高的目標關稅：中國34%，台灣32%，歐盟20%，越南高達46%
• 對符合USMCA的墨西哥和加拿大商品給予豁免

除了創造收入外，這些關稅旨在解決美國9180億美元的年度貿易逆差，通過激勵國內製造業並消除政府認為不公平的貿易行為——包括關稅和非關稅壁壘。

政府的貿易顧問彼得·納瓦羅將目標描述為解決「今年1.2兆美元的貿易逆差」和自1979年以來累積的「18兆美元逆差」，相當於「大約三分之二的年度GDP」。這一框架將關稅定位為不僅是經濟工具，而是糾正數十年來削弱美國製造能力的貿易不平衡的矯正措施。

使這一策略特別重要的是它通過差異化對待將國家劃分為不同類別的方式。關稅率的模式創造了一個明確的層次結構，這將在未來幾年重塑全球貿易流動。與美國保持大額貿易順差的國家面臨最高的關稅，而那些擁有更平衡貿易關係的國家則獲得優惠待遇。

正如沃倫·巴菲特最近指出的，關稅在某種程度上起著「戰爭行為」的作用——這是一個清醒的評估，強調了其戰略而非純經濟性質的措施。這一特徵凸顯了可能進一步擾亂全球市場的升級和報復的潛力。

各國如何回應

不同國家的各種回應正在創造一個具有戰略地緣政治意義的棋盤，這將決定這一新貿易格局中的贏家和輸家：

對抗性方式（中國）

中國立即對所有美國進口商品徵收相應的34%關稅，同時增加了對稀土礦物的出口管制和對美國公司的限制。這導致了進一步升級，川普威脅如果中國不退讓，將在4月8日前加徵50%的額外關稅。

中國的回應超出了簡單的關稅匹配，包括：

1. 戰略性出口管制：將16個美國實體添加到其出口管制清單，禁止雙重用途物品進入中國

2. 「不可靠實體」指定：將11個美國機構列入其不可靠實體清單，禁止它們在中國進行進口、出口和投資活動

3. 稀土礦物限制：對高科技製造所需的七種稀土元素實施出口許可制度

4. 有針對性的農業禁令：停止從五家主要美國出口商進口雞肉和從一家主要生產商進口高粱

這種全面的報復表明中國不願迅速適應美國的要求，為可能進一步擾亂全球供應鏈和市場的長期貿易衝突設定了舞台。

合作方式（台灣，泰國）

台灣採取了相反的方法，拒絕報復性關稅，而是專注於移除自己的貿易壁壘，增加對美國的採購，並提出了27億美元的國內支持計劃。泰國同樣承諾購買更多美國能源和飛機，而不是進行報復。

台灣的五點回應策略展示了對政府優先事項的精妙理解：

1. 無報復性關稅：與中國不同，台灣明確拒絕了相互關稅

2. 消除非關稅壁壘：解決對美國肉類和汽車等進口的限制

3. 增加美國採購：承諾購買更多美國商品以解決貿易不平衡

4. 零關稅談判：提出零關稅作為討論的起點

5. 國內支持方案：提出27億美元幫助當地企業度過影響

正如台灣總統賴清德在最近向國民發表的講話中解釋的那樣，台灣將「積極消除非關稅壁壘」並「明確其在美國繁榮中的作用」，而不是採取對抗性策略。這種方法似乎是經過計算的，旨在確保關稅減免，同時保持台灣與美國的戰略關係。

台灣的半導體產業特別被排除在32%的關稅之外，這突顯了戰略重要性類股可能獲得特殊待遇，而不考慮更廣泛的國家指定。

混合回應（歐盟，日本）

歐盟給自己設定了四週的談判窗口，然後才考慮報復，而日本首相則表示願意直接與川普會面，討論他們面臨的24%關稅率。這些適度的回應表明，他們試圖在國內經濟關切與外交努力減少關稅之間取得平衡。

法國總統馬克龍主張採取更具對抗性的歐盟整體回應，包括可能的資本管制，以防止資金流向美國。歐盟內部的這種分歧為該集團的最終策略增添了更多不確定性。

這些各種回應正在創造獨特的市場影響，採取合作方式的國家可能比採取對抗性策略的國家更早獲得關稅減免。政府已指出「每個國家都在打電話」，表明關稅正如預期那樣發揮創造談判籌碼的作用。

這對金融市場意味著什麼

基於國家回應和經濟分析，以下是關鍵的市場影響：

面臨阻力的類股

1. 消費電子產品：插入牆壁的產品價格將隨著供應鏈調整而大幅上漲。由於中國以外沒有立即可替代的製造生態系統，這種干擾可能持續數年。電子產業面臨特殊挑戰，因為其複雜、全球整合的供應鏈無法在國內迅速複製。

2. 依賴進口的美國製造商：需要進口零部件的公司面臨更高的投入成本，而沒有立即的國內替代品。由於先前的關稅，鋼鐵行業的價格已經達到全球水平的兩倍。供應鏈中進口含量高的公司可能會看到3-5%的平均利潤率壓縮，某些類股的影響可能更高。

3. 消費品零售商：美國缺乏許多消費品的國內生產能力，對主要供應商的更高關稅將不可避免地導致價格上漲。定價能力有限且對進口商品敞口較大的零售商在這一環境中面臨特殊挑戰。

4. 歐洲奢侈品：20%的歐盟關稅加上25%的汽車關稅對歐洲製造商，特別是奢侈品類股，造成特殊壓力。歐洲高端品牌可能在美國關鍵市場的利潤和市場份額之間面臨艱難選擇。

潛在市場亮點

1. 墨西哥製造業：符合USMCA的商品擁有免關稅進入美國市場的優勢，墨西哥製造商獲得了相對於亞洲競爭對手的顯著競爭優勢。在墨西哥建立運營的公司可能受益於這種優惠待遇。

2. 美國國內生產商：已經在國內生產他人進口產品的公司（特別是鋼鐵、鋁和工業產品）可能受益於減少的外國競爭和潛在的回流。某些國內製造商可能會因替代效應而實現大幅收入增長。

3. 戰略豁免：台灣的半導體產業被特別排除在32%的關稅之外，這突顯了戰略重要類股可能獲得特殊待遇。被視為對美國國家安全利益至關重要的類股的公司可能會更成功地應對這一環境，無論其地理位置如何。

4. 具合作方式的市場：採取外交而非對抗方式的地區可能會更早獲得關稅減免和更穩定的貿易條件，對台灣（半導體以外）、泰國，以及相對於歐盟同行可能的英國表現出特別興趣。

5. 對通膨有反應的類股：在通膨期間歷來表現較好的類股值得關注。隨著關稅造成供應驅動的通膨壓力，具有定價能力的資產可能展現相對優勢。

經濟影響：預期什麼

分析顯示，隨著這些關稅重塑全球貿易流動，將產生幾個重要的經濟後果：

通膨壓力

消費品價格將隨著關稅的轉嫁而上漲，對電子產品、服裝和其他進口消費品的影響最為嚴重。與可通過貨幣政策解決的需求驅動型通膨不同，關稅引起的通膨代表了供應衝擊，聯邦儲備銀行在不冒經濟增長風險的情況下，解決這一問題的能力有限。

根據摩根大通的預測，由於關稅，美國通膨今年可能會飆升1-1.5%，可能將整體通膨率推至4%以上。這為聯邦儲備銀行創造了一個困難的環境，因為它面臨著通膨任務與支持經濟增長之間的競爭壓力。

供應鏈重組

在中國以外建立製造能力將需要數年時間而非數月，創造了一個延長的調整期。地緣政治分析師彼得·澤漢估計，即使加速投資，重建電子供應鏈也可能需要7-15年，這表明將有一個物價上漲和潛在短缺的延長過渡期。

公司面臨著是吸收更高成本、將其轉嫁給消費者還是投資於回流生產的艱難決策——所有這些在不確定的政策環境中都帶來顯著風險。彭博經濟學全球貿易政策不確定性指數首次超過10，相比一年前的僅0.4，反映了前所未有的不確定性。

家庭購買力

隨著價格上漲，美國家庭的購買力下降，可能會抑制消費支出，而消費支出驅動著約70%的美國經濟活動。耶魯預算實驗室估計，這些關稅可能使美國家庭的可支配實際收入減少3,789美元，對低收入和中等收入家庭的影響不成比例，因為他們在受關稅影響的商品上的支出佔收入比例更高。

這種購買力的下降對自由支配消費支出創造了特殊風險，可能加速經濟中已存在的衰退壓力。

潛在的滯脹

通膨上升和增長放緩的結合創造了類似1970年代的具挑戰性條件——這是一個對股票和債券都極具挑戰性的時期。傳統政策在滯脹環境中變得較無效，因為刺激增長可能會加劇通膨，而打擊通膨可能會加深經濟收縮。

債券基金經理傑弗里·岡拉克已將其衰退概率估計提高到超過60%，指出「最初的利差擴大逐漸...加速」——這一模式目前在信貸市場上可見，因為投資者減少風險敞口。

稅收重新分配

如果政府按照承諾使用關稅收入資助減稅，這可能會部分抵消對某些納稅人的負面經濟影響。政府預測關稅將每年產生6000億美元，未來十年產生6萬億美元，儘管許多經濟學家對這些數字提出質疑，認為它們沒有考慮到關稅生效後進口量的減少。

任何稅收優惠的分配將對確定關稅策略的淨經濟影響至關重要，特別是如果稅收減免對不同收入群體的影響不成比例，而這些群體承擔著最沉重的關稅負擔。

關稅不確定性中的市場考量

在這個快速演變的貿易格局中，市場參與者面臨著重大挑戰。需要監控的幾個關鍵因素包括：

近期市場動態

1. 現金部署模式：最近的數據顯示，機構投資者在市場對關稅公告作出反應時增加現金頭寸。這既反映了對波動性的防禦定位，也為情況發展帶來的機會做準備。

2. 固定收益趨勢：短期債券（2-5年期限）在這一調整期間相對於長期債務受到更多關注。隨著關稅影響流經公司資產負債表，企業信用質量指標受到更高度審查。

3. 類股輪動效應：資金流動表明，隨著格局的演變，高進口含量、有限定價能力或對對抗性市場有顯著敞口的類股出現變化模式。

長期結構性考量

1. 地理分佈：國家的外交方式而非僅是關稅率本身可能會驅動表現分化，可能創造新的區域表現模式。

2. 供應鏈結構：擁有靈活採購或多元化供應鏈的公司可能表現不同於更依賴單一來源地區的公司。供應鏈配置可能成為一個日益重要的市場因素。

3. 戰略類股處理：某些行業可能獲得優惠待遇，無論地理位置如何。台灣半導體的豁免表明，戰略考慮可能會超越更廣泛的關稅政策。

4. 國內製造業：有望從國內製造業增長中受益的行業可能呈現出不同的特徵，與面臨供應中斷的行業相比，可能在傳統類股分類中產生潛在分歧。

航行於變革中

當前的關稅制度不僅是對進口的稅收——它是全面重塑全球貿易的措施，將創造全新的經濟贏家和輸家模式。各國以各種方式回應，從對抗到合作，創造了全球市場動態的複雜轉變。

雖然在這一轉變期間市場波動不可避免，但專注於戰略而非戰術影響為理解市場變動提供了背景。關鍵不是預測日常波動，而是認識到這種根本性重組如何在國家和類股間創造新的競爭優勢和劣勢。

地緣政治分析師彼得·澤漢估計，即使加速投資，在中國以外重建電子供應鏈也可能需要7-15年，這表明將有一個具有各種市場影響的長期過渡期。這一時間表與重大貿易重新調整的歷史先例一致，通常在數年而非數月內展開。

這不是暫時的貿易爭端，而是新經濟時代的開始。那些理解即時影響和長期戰略影響的人將更有能力分析可能是數十年來全球貿易模式最重大轉變的局勢。

合作與對抗市場之間的差異、供應鏈靈活性因素，以及各類股市場調整速度的不同將共同影響未來幾年的市場行為。經濟歷史學家可能會將這一時期視為全球經濟關係和貿易模式的關鍵轉折點。

關於《Joe’s 華爾街脈動》

鉅亨網特別邀請到擁有逾 22 年美國投資圈資歷、CFA 認證的機構操盤人 Joseph Lu 擔任專欄主筆。
Joe 為美籍台灣人，曾管理超過百億美元規模的基金資產，並為總資產高達數千億美元的多家頂級金融機構提供資產配置優化建議。
Joe 目前帶領著由美國頂尖大學教授與博士組成的精英團隊，透過獨家開發的 "趨勢脈動 TrendFolios® 指標"，為台灣投資人深度解析全球市場脈動，提供美股市場第一手專業觀點，協助投資人掌握先機。

Trump Tariffs: Navigating the New Global Order

By Joseph Lu, CFA April 7, 2025

The sweeping tariffs announced by President Trump on April 2nd represent the largest economic policy shift in decades. With U.S. effective tariff rates now at levels not seen since 1909, these measures aren't just about trade balances – they're reshaping the entire global economic system. The Yale Budget Lab estimates these tariffs will increase the United States' effective tariff rate to 22.5%, the highest level since before World War I and higher than the Smoot-Hawley tariffs that exacerbated the Great Depression.

While markets have responded with significant volatility, analysis suggests this is the beginning of a fundamental realignment that will create new winners and losers across the global economy. Understanding the strategic implications of this shift is essential for navigating the changing economic landscape in the years ahead.

Understanding Trump’s Tariff Strategy

The tariff structure itself reveals the administration's priorities:

• A baseline 10% tariff on all imports
• Higher targeted rates for specific countries: 34% on China, 32% on Taiwan, 20% on the EU, and up to 46% on Vietnam
• Exemptions for USMCA-compliant goods from Mexico and Canada

Beyond revenue generation, these tariffs aim to address America's $918 billion annual trade deficit by incentivizing domestic manufacturing and eliminating what the administration sees as unfair trade practices – both tariff and non-tariff barriers.

The administration's trade adviser Peter Navarro has characterized the goal as addressing "the $1.2 trillion trade deficit this year" and the accumulated "$18 trillion deficit since 1979" that represents "about two-thirds of an annual GDP." This framing positions tariffs not just as economic tools but as a corrective measure for decades of trade imbalances that have eroded American manufacturing capacity.

What makes this strategy particularly significant is how it's sorting nations into distinct categories through their differential treatment. The pattern of tariff rates creates a clear hierarchy that will reshape global trade flows for years to come. Countries that have maintained large trade surpluses with the United States are facing the highest tariffs, while those with more balanced trading relationships receive preferential treatment.

As Warren Buffett recently noted, tariffs function as "an act of war" – a sobering assessment that underscores the strategic rather than purely economic nature of these measures. This characterization highlights the potential for escalation and retaliation that could further disrupt global markets.

How Countries Are Responding

The varied responses from different nations are creating a strategic geopolitical chessboard that will determine winners and losers in this new trade landscape:

Confrontational Approach (China)

China immediately imposed matching 34% tariffs on all U.S. imports while adding export controls on rare earth minerals and restrictions on U.S. companies. This led to further escalation, with Trump threatening an additional 50% tariff if China doesn't back down by April 8th.

China's response goes beyond simple tariff matching to include:

1. Strategic Export Controls: Adding 16 U.S. entities to its export control list, prohibiting dual-use items from entering China

2. "Unreliable Entities" Designation: Placing 11 U.S. agencies on its Unreliable Entity List, barring them from import, export, and investment activity

3. Rare Earth Mineral Restrictions: Implementing export licensing systems on seven rare earth elements critical for high-tech manufacturing

4. Targeted Agricultural Bans: Halting chicken imports from five major U.S. exporters and sorghum imports from one major producer

This comprehensive retaliation signals China's unwillingness to quickly accommodate U.S. demands, setting the stage for a protracted trade conflict that could further disrupt global supply chains and markets.

Cooperative Approach (Taiwan, Thailand)

Taiwan has taken the opposite approach, rejecting retaliatory tariffs and instead focusing on removing its own trade barriers, increasing U.S. purchases, and proposing a $2.7 billion domestic support package. Thailand similarly pledged to buy more U.S. energy and aircraft rather than retaliating.

Taiwan's five-point response strategy demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the administration's priorities:

1. No Retaliatory Tariffs: Unlike China, Taiwan explicitly rejected reciprocal tariffs

2. Removing Non-Tariff Barriers: Addressing restrictions on U.S. imports like meat and automobiles

3. Increased U.S. Purchases: Committing to buy more American goods to address trade imbalances

4. Zero-Tariff Negotiations: Offering zero tariffs as the starting point for discussions

5. Domestic Support Package: Proposing $2.7 billion to help local firms weather the impact

As Taiwan's President Lai Ching-te explained in a recent address to his nation, Taiwan will "proactively remove non-tariff barriers" and "make clear its role in American prosperity" rather than pursuing a confrontational strategy. This approach appears calculated to secure tariff relief while maintaining Taiwan's strategic relationship with the United States.

Taiwan's semiconductor industry was specifically excluded from the 32% tariff, highlighting how strategically important sectors may receive special treatment regardless of broader country designations.

Mixed Responses (EU, Japan)

The EU has given itself a four-week negotiation window before considering retaliation, while Japan's Prime Minister expressed willingness to meet directly with Trump to discuss the 24% tariff rate they face. These measured responses suggest an attempt to balance domestic economic concerns with diplomatic efforts to reduce tariffs.

France, under President Macron, has advocated for a more confrontational EU-wide response, including potential capital controls to prevent money from flowing to the U.S. This internal disagreement within the EU creates additional uncertainty about the bloc's ultimate strategy.

These varied responses are creating distinct market implications, as countries taking cooperative approaches may see earlier tariff relief than those pursuing confrontational strategies. The administration has noted that "every country is calling," suggesting tariffs are serving as intended to create negotiating leverage.

What This Means for Financial Markets

Based on country responses and economic analysis, here are the key market implications:

Sectors Facing Headwinds

1. Consumer Electronics: Products that plug into the wall will become significantly more expensive as supply chains adjust. With no immediate alternative manufacturing ecosystem outside China, this disruption could last for years. The electronics industry faces particular challenges due to its complex, globally integrated supply chains that cannot be quickly replicated domestically.

2. U.S. Manufacturers Reliant on Imports: Companies that need imported components face higher input costs without immediate domestic alternatives. Steel-using industries are already experiencing prices roughly double global levels due to previous tariffs. Companies with high import content in their supply chains could see margin compression of 3-5% on average, with much higher impacts in certain sectors.

3. Consumer Goods Retailers: The U.S. lacks domestic capacity for many consumer goods, and higher tariffs on major suppliers will inevitably lead to price increases. Retailers with limited pricing power and high exposure to imported goods face particular challenges in this environment.

4. European Luxury Goods: The combination of 20% EU tariffs plus 25% tariffs on vehicles creates particular pressure on European manufacturers, especially in the luxury segment. Premium European brands may face difficult choices between margins and market share in the critical U.S. market.

Potential Market Bright Spots

1. Mexican Manufacturing: With tariff-free access to the U.S. market for USMCA-compliant goods, Mexican manufacturers gain significant competitive advantages over Asian rivals. Companies with established operations in Mexico may benefit from this preferential treatment.

2. U.S. Domestic Producers: Companies that already produce domestically what others import (particularly in steel, aluminum, and industrial products) stand to benefit from reduced foreign competition and potential reshoring. Certain domestic manufacturers could see substantial revenue growth as substitution effects take hold.

3. Strategic Exemptions: Taiwan's semiconductor industry was specifically excluded from the 32% tariff, highlighting how strategically important sectors may receive special treatment. Companies in sectors deemed vital to U.S. national security interests may navigate this environment more successfully regardless of geographic location.

4. Markets with Cooperative Approaches: Regions taking diplomatic rather than confrontational approaches may see earlier tariff relief and more stable trading conditions, with particular interest in Taiwan (beyond semiconductors), Thailand, and potentially the UK relative to EU counterparts.

5. Inflation-Responsive Sectors: Sectors that historically perform better during inflationary periods warrant attention. As tariffs create supply-driven inflation pressures, assets with pricing power may show relative strength.

Economic Impact: What to Expect

Analysis suggests several important economic consequences as these tariffs reshape global trade flows:

Inflation Pressure

Consumer prices will rise as tariffs are passed through, with the heaviest impact on electronics, apparel, and other imported consumer goods. Unlike demand-driven inflation that can be addressed through monetary policy, tariff-induced inflation represents a supply shock that the Federal Reserve has limited ability to counteract without risking economic growth.

JPMorgan projects U.S. inflation could spike 1-1.5% this year due to tariffs, potentially pushing the overall rate above 4%. This creates a difficult environment for the Federal Reserve, which faces competing pressures between its inflation mandate and supporting economic growth.

Supply Chain Reorganization

Building manufacturing capacity outside China will take years, not months, creating an extended adjustment period. Geopolitical analyst Peter Zeihan estimates that rebuilding electronics supply chains could take 7-15 years even with accelerated investment, suggesting a prolonged transition period with elevated prices and potential shortages.

Companies face difficult decisions about whether to absorb higher costs, pass them to consumers, or invest in reshoring production – all of which carry significant risks in an uncertain policy environment. The Bloomberg Economics Global Trade Policy Uncertainty Index has exceeded 10 for the first time since its creation, compared to just 0.4 a year ago, reflecting unprecedented uncertainty.

Household Spending Power

The average U.S. household faces reduced purchasing power as prices increase, potentially dampening consumer spending that drives approximately 70% of U.S. economic activity. The Yale Budget Lab estimates these tariffs could reduce real disposable income by $3,789 per U.S. household, with disproportionate impact on lower and middle-income families who spend a higher percentage of income on goods affected by tariffs.

This reduction in purchasing power creates particular risks for discretionary consumer spending, potentially accelerating recessionary pressures already present in the economy.

Potential Stagflation

The combination of rising inflation and slowing growth creates challenging conditions reminiscent of the 1970s – a period notoriously difficult for both stocks and bonds. Traditional policy responses become less effective in stagflationary environments, as stimulating growth risks exacerbating inflation while fighting inflation risks deepening economic contraction.

Bond fund manager Jeffrey Gundlach has raised his recession probability estimate to over 60%, noting that "what starts out as spread widening gradually... accelerates" – a pattern currently visible in credit markets as investors reduce risk exposure.

Tax Revenue Redirection

If the administration uses tariff revenue to fund tax cuts as promised, this could partially offset negative economic impacts for some taxpayers. The administration projects tariffs will generate $600 billion annually and $6 trillion over the next decade, though these figures are disputed by many economists who believe they fail to account for reduced import volumes as tariffs take effect.

The distribution of any tax benefits will be crucial in determining the net economic impact of the tariff strategy, particularly if tax cuts disproportionately benefit different income groups than those bearing the heaviest tariff burden.

Navigating the Transformation

The current tariff regime represents more than just a tax on imports – it's a comprehensive reshaping of global trade that will create entirely new patterns of economic winners and losers. Countries are responding in dramatically different ways, from confrontation to cooperation, creating a complex shift in global market dynamics.

Though market volatility is inevitable during this transition, focusing on the strategic rather than tactical implications provides context for understanding market movements. Geopolitical analyst Peter Zeihan estimates that rebuilding electronics supply chains outside China could take 7-15 years even with accelerated investment, suggesting a prolonged transition period with various market implications. This timeline aligns with historical precedents of major trade realignments, which typically unfold over years rather than months.

This isn't a temporary trade spat but the beginning of a new economic era. Those who understand both the immediate impacts and long-term strategic implications will be better equipped to analyze what could be the most significant transformation of global trade patterns in decades.