|
川普又作怪之美國遲早被他搞垮 - Jim Edwards
|
瀏覽393 ｜回應6｜推薦0 |
|
|
|
請參考：
* Statement from Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell
* DOJ subpoenas the Federal Reserve in an escalating pressure campaign
本文原載於本部落格政治版的「川普觀察」專欄；今後該欄將以川普個人嚴刑為主。此欄則以川某錯誤的重大政策決定為焦點。經濟政策雖然有其個別的重要性，例如：
1) 經濟政策是專業領域，須由專業人士依通盤考量來決定；不能為黨派或個人的短期政治利益服務。
2) 不論「全球化」理論是不是還有時髦地位，經濟政策和經濟活動早就是全球性業務。本於牽一髮動全身的原則，美國政府的經濟政策並不是川痞一個人說了算。
但是，政治和經濟是一體之兩面，此欄雖然會刊登和經濟領域相關的分析/報導/評論，仍然以置於此版為宜。
‘Sell America’: Investors dump U.S. assets in fear of the end of Fed independence
Jim Edwards, 01/12/26
Whoever replaces Jerome Powell as chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve in May knows one thing: If they don’t do what President Donald Trump wants, they risk being criminally prosecuted. That was the unambiguous message in Powell’s extraordinary statement yesterday, in which he vowed to continue to set monetary policy independently despite the federal grand jury subpoenas investigating his statements to Congress about alleged cost overruns in the renovation of the Fed’s headquarters.
“This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. … Those are pretexts. The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President,” he said.
“This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions—or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.”
Markets moved back into “Sell America” mode overnight as traders digested the prospect of an incoming Fed chair who lacks independent credibility: The dollar sank 0.32% against a basket of international currencies; the yield on 5-year Treasuries moved sharply up, a sign that investors now regard U.S. government bonds as being suddenly more risky; gold futures—the traditional safe haven—rose 2.21% today to hit a new record high over $4,600 per troy ounce; and S&P 500 futures are down 0.66% this morning prior to the opening bell.
Wall Street analysts are almost universally negative about the news.
“The combined drop in the dollar, equities and Treasuries was a reminiscence of the ‘sell America’ days of last spring,” ING’s Francesco Pesole told clients this morning. “The downside risks for the dollar from any indications of further determination to interfere with the Fed’s independence are substantial. Again, the bond market will be the most important barometer, both on the short end of the curve if markets price back in more rate cuts, or in the long end with potential stress signs on independence risks. A sharp steepening of the curve could take the dollar on a fall.”
At Invesco Asset Management, analyst David Chao told Bloomberg, “The Fed subpoena is another example of how U.S. assets are becoming less attractive … Not only is the U.S. retrenching behind its Fortress America borders, the country is also becoming more predatory.”
The subpoenas may also trigger a burst of inflation, according to RBC Capital Markets’ Blake Gwinn. “Markets will start to price in greater inflation expectations, inflation risk premium, and term premium if the Fed’s independence comes under further attack,” he told the Financial Times. “We don’t appear to have hit it yet, but every action is another step closer to it.”
Counterintuitively, some analysts think that the investigation now makes near-term interest rate cuts less likely, because Powell and the other members of the Federal Open Markets Committee (FOMC) will be determined to show the markets that they are guided by the data and not legal threats.
“The move may also help Fed independence,” UBS’s Paul Donovan said in an email. “Powell’s defiance might signal a reluctance to quit as a Fed governor this year. There are signs the Senate may delay confirming the nomination of a new Fed Chair. Concerns about market reactions and perceptions of institutional independence (in the wake of legal challenges) may become hawkish considerations in setting interest rates.”
ING’s Pesole said, “Markets aren’t ready to price in a loss of Fed independence just yet, either on the view that Powell will indeed remain firm in his policy views (as he’s pledged to), the FOMC won’t be heavily affected, or that the DOJ subpoenas aren’t likely to lead to an indictment.”
Either way, there’s a real sense of uncertainty among asset managers right now. “The Fed as we have understood it as an institution over the past couple of decades is fading from view. It’s operating in a different environment,” ANZ’s chief economist, Richard Yetsenga, told the FT.
Here’s a snapshot of the markets ahead of the opening bell in New York this morning:
* S&P 500 futures were down 0.66% this morning. The last session closed up 0.65%.
* STOXX Europe 600 was down 0.1% in early trading.
* The U.K.’s FTSE 100 was flat in early trading.
* Japan’s Nikkei 225 was closed today.
* China’s CSI 300 was up 0.65%.
* The South Korea KOSPI was up 0.84%.
* India’s NIFTY 50 was up 0.42%
* Bitcoin was at $90.4K.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
本文於 修改第 4 次
|
|
川普關稅全民買單之數據 1 -- Trevor Jennewine
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
The Stock Market Sounds an Alarm as Wall Street Gets Bad News About President Trump's Tariffs. History Says This Will Happen Next.
Trevor Jennewine, The Motley Fool, 02/07/26
The S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) has essentially traded sideways in 2026, but history says the benchmark index could decline sharply in the coming months.
Several recent studies show President Trump's tariffs are siphoning money away from U.S. companies and consumers, and the S&P 500 just flashed a warning last seen during the dot-com crash in October 2000.
Here's what investors should know.
Recent studies suggest President Trump's tariffs will slow economic growth
President Trump has repeatedly argued that foreign exporters will pay his tariffs for the privilege of doing business in America. He went further last month in an editorial published by The Wall Street Journal, claiming foreign companies were "paying at least 80% of tariff costs." He even linked a study from the Harvard Business School to validate his claim.
What's the problem? The study Trump linked made no such claim. In fact, the researchers arrived at the opposite conclusion. The report states, "Our results suggest that U.S. consumers paid up to 43% of the tariff burden, with the rest absorbed by U.S. firms."
Those results roughly align with research from other institutions. Goldman Sachs economists report that U.S. companies and consumers collectively paid 84% of tariffs in October 2025. And they estimate consumers alone will bear 67% of the burden by July 2026.
Similarly, the Kiel Institute examined shipments totaling $4 trillion between January 2024 and November 2025, and the researchers concluded, "Foreign exporters absorb only about 4% of the tariff burden." The other 96% is passed along to U.S. importers and consumers.
Trump's tariffs are effectively a tax on consumption, which means they reduce buying power for consumers and raise input costs for businesses. That's a problem because consumer spending and business investments account for approximately 85% of GDP. By siphoning money away from consumers and businesses, tariffs threaten to slow economic growth.
The stock market sounds an alarm last witnessed during the dot-com crash
The S&P 500 recorded an average cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings (CAPE) ratio of 39.9 in January 2026, marking the fourth consecutive monthly reading above 39. Prior to that, the S&P 500 last recorded a monthly CAPE ratio over 39 during the dot-com crash in October 2000. The CAPE ratio is used to determine whether entire stock market indexes are overvalued, and multiples above 39 have historically correlated with dismal future returns.
The table shows the S&P 500's best, worst, and average performance over different time periods following a monthly CAPE reading above 39.
|
Time Period
|
S&P 500's Best Return
|
S&P 500's Worst Return
|
S&P 500's Average Return
| |
Six months
|
16%
|
(20%)
|
0%
| |
One year
|
16%
|
(28%)
|
(4%)
| |
Two years
|
8%
|
(43%)
|
(20%)
|
Data source: Robert Shiller. Table by author. S&P 500's 成績單
As shown, after recording a monthly CAPE ratio above 39, the S&P 500 has returned an average of 0% during the next six months. But the index has declined by an average of 4% in the next year, and it has declined by an average of 20% in the next two years.
The big picture
The S&P 500 currently trades at an expensive valuation that has historically portended steep losses. Such an outcome is arguably more likely in the current market environment because President Trump's tariffs threaten to slow economic growth.
Of course, past performance is never a guarantee of future results. Investors may tolerate higher valuation multiples because artificial intelligence (AI) is likely to drive higher earnings growth in the future. Indeed, S&P 500 companies reported an acceleration in earnings in 2025, and Wall Street expects another acceleration in 2026.
So, investors should not sell their portfolios in anticipation of a market drawdown. Instead, now is a good time to sell any stocks in which you lack conviction. It's also a good time to be more conservative when you put money into the market. Rather than investing every dollar, consider building a cash position in your portfolio.
Above all, focus on creating wealth over the long term rather than navigating volatility in the short term. The S&P 500 has returned 10.2% annually over the last 30 years, and there is no reason to believe the next 30 years will be much different.
Should you buy stock in S&P 500 Index right now?
Before you buy stock in S&P 500 Index, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and S&P 500 Index wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $436,126!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,053,659!*
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 885% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 192% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
See the 10 stocks »
*Stock Advisor returns as of February 7, 2026.
Trevor Jennewine has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Goldman Sachs Group. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The Stock Market Sounds an Alarm as Wall Street Gets Bad News About President Trump's Tariffs. History Says This Will Happen Next. was originally published by The Motley Fool
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
本文於 修改第 3 次
|
|
川普團隊暴行背後的政治考量 - Timothy Snyder
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
這篇評論從政治運作層面分析：川普團隊在美國各地「清除非法移民」行動的政治目的；以及人民應對的方法。幫助我們了解一些「門道」。
史奈德教授也觸及「言談行為」在這類運作功能性(1)。
附註：
1. 史奈德教授沒有使用奧斯汀這個概念；只是我認為：他「危險文字」的用法，以及阿蘭特的 “the banality of evil” (至少在某些脈絡中)，可以視為奧斯汀理論下的「子集合」。此外，我以前翻譯過阿蘭特上述用詞；不過，最近讀的幾篇文章讓我感到：自己過去對該詞的了解，並非阿蘭特對它的「用法」。因此，我此處引用該詞的英文；中譯暫時闕如。
The Political Logic of Trump’s Violent Lawlessness
Timothy Snyder, 01/27/26
The moral horror of ICE and Border Patrol agents executing US citizen observers is enough to denounce the Trump administration’s campaign of cruelty in Minnesota. But it is also important to recognize how it reflects the political logic of turning an entire country into a lawless border zone.
TORONTO – The moral horror wrought by US President Donald Trump’s second administration is incontrovertible. The execution of Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive-care-unit nurse and US citizen, by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol agents on the streets of Minneapolis, Minnesota, was recorded from all angles by brave observers and seen by people around the world.
It follows the public killing of Renée Nicole Good, a 37-year-old Minneapolis mother and fellow US citizen, earlier this month, and an untold number of unseen deaths and disappearances in American concentration camps like “Alligator Alcatraz.”
Given this, the radical has become the pragmatic. Trump, and everyone else responsible for these outrages, should be impeached and convicted. ICE should be disbanded, as should its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security. And the people who have killed – both publicly and privately – should be investigated and hauled before judges and juries.
But the logic of the killings is as important as the killings themselves. While a truth in itself, the moral horror is also a sign of the administration’s lies and lawlessness, a political logic known from 20th-century Soviet and Nazi totalitarian regimes, and from attempts to replace the rule of law with personal tyranny.
In a constitutional regime like the United States, the law applies everywhere and at all times. In a republic like America, it applies to everyone. For that logic of law to be undone, the aspiring tyrant looks for cracks in the system that can be pried open.
One of these cracks is the border, where the country ends. Because the law ends there, too, an obvious move for the tyrant is to turn the whole country into a border, where no rules apply. Joseph Stalin did this in the 1930s, with border zones and deportations preceding the Great Terror. Hitler did it, too, in 1938, with immigration raids that targeted undocumented Jews and forced them to flee the country.
Trump, by his own admission and that of his cabinet members, is following the same playbook. He is using ICE, nominally a border authority, to enforce his own whims on a US state of his choosing – a Democratic Party stronghold with deep-rooted civic idealism. It is not legal to attack a city over its politics, or to flood its streets with federal agents to gain information about a state’s voters.
The border becomes the pretext to undo the law everywhere, at all times, and against anyone. It is the crack that can be opened. The wedge is the lies, which begin as clichés and memes that the government pounds into our heads, and which the media repeat, mindlessly or with malice.
One of these clichés is “law enforcement,” which is uttered over and over like an incantation. “Law enforcement” is not a noun like “table” or “house”; it is not a fixed thing. It is an action, a process that Americans have a right to see and judge for themselves. People enforcing the law do not wear masks, nor do they trespass, assault, batter, and kill at will. Public executions carried out by Trump’s goons do a great disservice to the local, state, and federal authorities whose job is to police effectively, particularly when such state terror is defined as “law enforcement.”
The lies continue as provocative inversions, or what I called “dangerous words” in my book On Tyranny. In this case, the Trump administration is using “terrorist” and “extremist” – terms long favored by tyrants – to defame those killed by their policies. Their “messaging” reflects what Hannah Arendt called “the banality of evil” – or, as Václav Havel put it, the evil of banality. Words turn into reality with the collaboration of those who hear them.
In this sense, those who actively lie are complicit in the killings in Minnesota and any more to come. But those in the media who choose to treat propaganda as the story, who begin from lies rather than from events, are also complicit. The border is the crack, the lies are the wedge, and the people who accept those lies are opening it wider.
Words matter, whether uttered first or repeated. They create an atmosphere, they normalize – or they do not. We must choose to see, to call things by their proper names, to condemn people who lie.
Behind the moral horror of these public executions is a political logic. The two are connected. Those who resist the Trump administration’s lawlessness and the lies understand this. In Minneapolis and many other places, they are doing right – and giving the endangered American republic its best chance of survival.
Timothy Snyder, the inaugural Chair in Modern European History at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto and a permanent fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna, is the author or editor of 20 books. He has been writing for PS since 2010.
推薦閱讀
The Economic Roots of Iran’s Protests
Djavad Salehi-Isfahani sees a society caught between internal reform it does not trust and external pressure it increasingly fears.
PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2026 has arrived, and you have exclusive access.
Click the button below to explore the issue, featuring long-form commentary, exclusive interviews, concise predictions, and more from global leaders and experts.
READ NOW
本文於 修改第 3 次
|
|
拍照存證 -- Daniel Arkin
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
Nationwide protests begin over ICE in Minneapolis amid mixed messages from Trump
DOJ opens federal civil rights probe into the death of Alex Pretti, but holds back on Renee Good
川瘋及其官員的倒行逆施，終將引爆全美各地民憤；古稱「暴政必亡」；今曰「讓選票給你好看」。
“Hit Record'
In Minneapolis, smartphones have proven a crucial way for the public to document immigration enforcement efforts — and check the Trump administration's version of tragic events.
Daniel Arkin, 01/30/26
Leila Register / NBC News (Leila Register) 事件相關照片集錦
In the snow-covered streets of Minneapolis, smartphones are recording the first draft of modern American history.
Everyday people have in recent weeks fanned out across the city to document protests and film tense interactions with federal immigration officers. They have also borne witness to tragedy. The fatal shootings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti were captured on shaky video by bystanders clutching smartphones in the bitter cold and standing within shouting distance of the victims.
The cellphone recordings quickly ricocheted across social media. They were shared again and again, dissected and debated by journalists, politicians, lawyers, activists and millions of people. In a poll published Jan. 13, Quinnipiac University poll found 82% of registered voters have seen video of the Good shooting — and that number has likely grown.
The raw videos do not answer every question, but they have become foundational to the public’s understanding of the killings.
“No longer attached to activism in community associations or local parties, so many people feel that all they can do when angry, outraged, now appalled, is share an image. It is a new political ecosystem,” said Sherry Turkle, a clinical psychologist who teaches at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Turkle, who studies technology and the internet, believes these ordinary residents have been “tutored by digital culture.”
“They think first of image sharing,” she said.
In capturing these fatal shootings, Minneapolis eyewitnesses have pushed the Trump administration’s controversial Operation Metro Surge to the center of the national conversation, fueling bipartisan pushback that led the White House to pull a key law enforcement official out of the city. The amateur videographers also provided raw material that news organizations have analyzed, resulting in reports that contradict some of the Trump administration’s claims.
The very act of filming immigration agents is a contentious subject, viewed by some opponents of the Trump administration as a necessary civic duty and decried by some federal officials as an impediment to immigration enforcement.
In early July, before the aggressive Minnesota operation started, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said violence against federal officers encompasses “videotaping them where they’re at” in the field. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, in a speech after Good’s killing, took the opposite tack and urged people in his state to “take out that phone and hit record.” Interactions between federal agents and activists now regularly feature each side pointing smartphones at the other.
“Help us create a database of the atrocities against Minnesotans,” Walz said, “not just to establish a record for posterity, but to bank evidence for future prosecution.”
Yet these Minnesotans have chronicled more than chaos and violence in their midst. The residents protesting Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Trump administration have also filmed what they view as acts of grassroots political resistance and social solidarity in one of the Midwest’s bastions of progressivism: singing and chanting in the streets, forming human chains around public schools.
“From people whom I’ve talked to there, some of the organizing here was built on the bones that came out of the George Floyd movement,” said Jelani Cobb, the dean of Columbia Journalism School, referring to the protests against police brutality and racial inequality that started in Minneapolis in May 2020.
“These questions about police accountability and the use of force that came to the forefront in the aftermath of George Floyd are still very impactful there,” Cobb added.
In some respects, the videos coming out of Minnesota are part of a wider global story stretching back decades. In the years since smartphones became ubiquitous consumer products, civilians worldwide — in Ukraine, in Iran, in Syria — increasingly use handheld cameras to document civil unrest, political protests and armed conflict. In repressive regimes, citizen-shot video frequently challenges ruling powers’ narratives.
Pretti himself was holding a phone just moments before he was shot dead. He was also wearing a holstered gun that local officials said he was permitted to carry, and one video shows that an agent removed the firearm from Pretti’s waist before he was shot. “The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart, in a monologue about the killing that aired Monday night, argued that Pretti’s mobile device was the reason he was perceived as a “threat.”
“He was brandishing a weapon — a handheld, aluminum, 1080p, 60fps, weapon of mass illumination,” Stewart said, referring to smartphone image quality. “Because there is nothing more dangerous to a regime predicated on lies than witnesses who capture the truth.” (predicated on：基於 …，立足於 …，以 … 為基礎)
The proliferation of the Minneapolis videos also underscores the influence of dramatic, fast-moving visual imagery in the internet age. TikTok videos, YouTube clips and Instagram photos sometimes prove more indelible than words alone. “Young people especially look at the world in this way,” said Douglas Rushkoff, a media theorist who coined the phrase “going viral.”
The killings of Good and Pretti have drawn wide attention over the last three weeks, but they are not the only people who have been struck by bullets in the course of the administration's immigration crackdown. Immigration officers have shot a total of 13 people since September, NBC News previously reported, four fatally.
In the weeks and months ahead, eyewitness videos will not be the only evidence considered by investigators. Good’s fatal encounter with ICE officer Jonathan Ross was recorded in part on his own phone and released to the public after the original viral video circulated widely.
Investigators are likewise reviewing body-camera videos from multiple Border Patrol agents involved in the Pretti killing, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson confirmed to NBC News. None of that video has been released to the public, and the federal agents have not been publicly identified.
In the meantime, citizen-shot video continues to define public perception, even inspiring some social media influencers and content creators to weigh in on current events.
The public is simultaneously learning more about the ground-level people behind the iPhone camera lens. Stella Carlson, the Minneapolis resident who recorded Pretti’s fatal encounter, told CNN this week that she felt comfortable remaining at the scene as long as she did because of the “collective actions” across the city since thousands of federal officers descended on the state.
“I knew that this was a moment, and we all have to be brave and we all have to take risks,” Carlson said, “and we’re all going to be given moments to make that decision.”
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
印度與歐盟簽署貿易協定 ---- Shivangi Acharya等
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
‘Mother of all deals’: How India-EU trade deal creates $27 trillion market
川普前兩天促成中、加合；現在又成就歐、印合。明年拿諾貝爾和平獎有望？
India, EU reach landmark trade deal, tariffs to be slashed on most goods
Shivangi Acharya/Manoj Kumar/Philip Blenkinsop, 01/27/26
Summary
* India-EU deal to reduce tariffs on nearly 97% of EU exports
* India's tariffs on EU cars to fall sharply to 10% over years
* EU to cut tariffs on 99.5% of Indian goods
* Trade pact to save European firms 4 billion euros in duties
* Agreement opens vast and guarded Indian market to EU firms
NEW DELHI, Jan 27 (Reuters) - India and the European Union struck a long‑delayed deal on Tuesday that will slash tariffs on most goods, aiming to boost two‑way trade and reduce reliance on the United States amid growing global trade tensions.
The deal is expected to double EU exports to India by 2032 by eliminating or reducing tariffs in 96.6% of traded goods by value, and will lead to savings of 4 billion euros ($4.75 billion) in duties for European companies, the EU said.
The EU will cut tariffs on 99.5% of goods imported from India over seven years, with tariffs to be cut to zero on Indian marine goods, leather and textile products, chemicals, rubber, base metals and gems and jewellery, India's trade ministry said in a statement.
India and the EU said agriculture-related items like soya, beef, sugar, rice and dairy have been kept out of the purview of the trade deal.
"Yesterday, a big agreement was signed between the European Union and India," Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said earlier.
"People around the world are calling this the mother of all deals. This agreement will bring major opportunities for the 1.4 billion people of India and the millions of people in Europe," he said.
The two-decade-long EU–India trade talks gained momentum after Washington imposed a 50% tariff on some Indian goods, and as U.S. allies pushed back against President Donald Trump’s tariff threats and his bid to take over Greenland.
Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney, in a speech that got a standing ovation in Davos last week, urged middle powers to come together to avoid becoming victimised. He is planning to visit India to sign deals on uranium, energy and minerals, after striking a deal recently with China.
Before signing the deal with New Delhi, the EU agreed a pact with the South American bloc Mercosur, following deals last year with Indonesia, Mexico and Switzerland. During the same period, New Delhi finalised pacts with Britain, New Zealand and Oman.
"Europe and India are making history today," European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said. "This is only the beginning."
Trade between India and the EU stood at $136.5 billion in the fiscal year through March 2025, compared to $132 billion of trade between India and U.S., and $128 billion between India and China.
The formal signing of the India-EU deal would take place after legal vetting expected to last five to six months, an Indian government official aware of the matter has said.
"We expect the deal to be implemented within a year," the official added.
The vetting process in the EU region could be subject to some setbacks as in the case with Mercosur. EU lawmakers have voted to challenge the EU-Mercosur agreement in the bloc's top court.
OPENING UP GUARDED SECTORS
The EU accord with India would open up the south Asian nation's vast and highly guarded market, with New Delhi slashing tariffs on cars to 10% over five years from as high as 110%, according to an EU statement, benefiting European automakers such as Volkswagen, Renault, Mercedes-Benz and BMW.
The reduced tariffs on autos would be granted to 250,000 cars a year valued over 15,000 euros and will be cut to 30%-35% as soon as the deal is implemented, both sides said.
India is also slashing tariffs on alcoholic beverages like wines to 75% immediately from 150%, which would be lowered to 20% gradually. Tariffs on spirits will be lowered to 40%, the EU said.
The deal will also cut tariffs on a slew of EU goods coming to India including machinery, electrical equipment, chemicals and iron and steel, the EU said.
However, there was no immediate relief for Indian companies hit by carbon tax under the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) that started on January 1.
Besides steel, the decarbonisation-oriented levy applies to cement, electricity, fertilisers and other products as well.
India said it has got a commitment from EU that it will get flexibilities on the carbon tax if they are granted to any third countries.
Separately, the EU agreed to provide financial support of 500 million euros over the next two years to help India in cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
($1 = 0.8422 euros)
Manoj Kumar, Thomson Reuters, Manoj Kumar is a Senior Economics Correspondent based in New Delhi. He covers macroeconomy with a focus on India's economic policies for manufacturing, trade and the rural economy. He has written on a broad range of topics including India's annual budgets, taxation, inflation, youth unemployment, protests and the impact of government policies on people. Previously, he worked with the PTI news agency and The Tribune newspaper covering ministries of finance, commerce & industry, and petroleum besides parliament.
Reporting by Shivangi Acharya and Manoj Kumar, Additional reporting by Kate Abnett, Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
Stay up to date with the latest news, trends and innovations that are driving the global automotive industry with the Reuters Auto File newsletter. Sign up here.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
中、加簽署合作協議 -- 陳言喬
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
胡承渝兄在「保釣論壇」上分享了這篇報導/分析。陳言喬先生的評論相當中肯；不過，下文標題有點小問題。開「去美國化」第一槍的不是加拿大；開「第一槍」的是中國，狠狠補第二槍的是川痞/川瘋/川建中/川利歐這位揚言「把美國變大變強」的呆呆兼混混。
加拿大開了「去美國化」第一槍 到底誰會後悔？
陳言喬，聯合報，2026-01-20
加拿大總理卡尼(Mark Carney)上周訪問中國大陸，宣布以最惠國待遇的6.1%關稅先期開放4.9萬輛陸製電動車，結果被美國多名官員指「他一定會後悔」，美國的意思大概指卡尼很笨引進了豺狼。殊不知，加拿大此舉是開了「去美國化」的第一槍。
簽多項協議出乎意料 本幣互換更挑戰美元霸權
作為美國最忠實、執行美國政策最堅定的盟友加拿大，此次由總理卡尼率領6名核心部長與多名省長訪中，多數觀察家原以為頂多與中方簽幾個諒解備忘錄、重啟幾個高級別的對話機制就差不多了，沒想到卡尼完全推翻他前任杜魯道對中國的所有貿易戰相關條款，與中方簽了15項協議，還發表中加聯合聲明。
加拿大引進陸製電動車只是貿易合作的其中一項，根據相關報導，加拿大還將加大供應中國大陸石油、稀土、天然氣、木材，甚至還破天荒出口鈾235核原料，這算是西方首個給中國出口核原料的國家。而大陸將全量進口加拿大31種農產品與螃蟹、龍蝦等農產品，並把加拿大油菜籽關稅從百分之百降到15%。
此外，雙方簽下2000億人民幣本幣互換協議，以後兩國做生意，直接用人民幣和加元結算，去美元化，額度用完可商議再擴容，這算是直接挑戰美元霸權。
加拿大還將主動提名中國大陸加入CPTPP(跨太平洋夥伴全面進步協定)，支持中國海洋訴求，不認可美方扣押中方船隻，公開反對美國打伊朗，還跟中方商討安全合作，簽反恐協議，準備進口陸製的監控和電子干擾設備、商議與北斗合作等。
卡尼說「新世界秩序」 要跟美國翻桌？
加拿大總理卡尼在會見大陸總理李強說的那段話更是讓西方世界大為詫異，根據電視畫面，卡尼很慎重的照稿念：「世界變化很大，自從上次會面之後，我們在伙伴關係中取得的進展，為我們適應新世界秩序奠定了良好的基礎，這是一項具有全新重點、更深層次意義和更明確目標的合作，我期待在未來幾年裡實現它的承諾。」
卡尼說出「新世界秩序」後引發加拿大內部保守派的擔憂和批評，這是要跟美國翻桌了嗎？加拿大今年要重新續約談判「美加墨協定」，恐將要搬石頭砸自己腳。
在加拿大公布一系列的加中協議當下，美國運輸部長達菲警告加拿大，「一定會後悔把中國汽車引進本國市場」。美國貿易代表葛里爾也認為，加拿大會對關於中國電動車稅率的決定感到後悔。
「金融沙皇」會是蠢蛋？看出鄰居靠不住
美國指責加拿大，認為卡尼作太多讓步，愚不可及。但卡尼是蠢蛋嗎？
卡尼是哈佛大學經濟系、牛津大學經濟學博士，年紀輕輕就擔任高盛集團的高管，39歲成為加拿大資深副財政部長，42歲出任加拿大央行行長，成功解決2008年金融危機。48歲被延攬為英國央行行長，成為英國318年歷史首位外籍行長，協助穩定英國脫歐後的金融秩序。最後成為彭博社董事長與聯合國氣候行動與金融特使。2025年辭去所有商界職務投入選舉，以高達85%得票率成為加拿大自由黨黨魁，成為加拿大從未擔任過民選職位的總理。
卡尼在全球有「金融沙皇」之稱，作為一個頂級的投資專家與金融家，基本要素是要有遠見，有警覺心，且分析問題精準，從他過往處理過多個跨國重大政治經濟難題也可印證，所以他應該不是美國人所說的笨蛋，但他為何在這次訪問中國時做出這麼多讓人訝異的決策？
因為卡尼看到了加拿大的生存威脅，看到了南面鄰居的不可靠性。加拿大長久被美國當成「資源殖民地」，木材、礦產被美國予取予求，還配合美國執行各種政策，包括協助美國逮捕華為孟晚舟，結果沒得到好處，還被美國關稅施壓、威脅自己變成美國第51州，情何以堪？
這次隨行訪中的加拿大工業部長趙美蘭(Melanie Joly)在北京說：「從年初開始世界各地有很多突發事件，也許是委內瑞拉、也許是伊朗，顯然我們南邊那位有很多不可預測性。有很多事情是我們無法控制的，但我們和誰做生意是我們可以控制的，這正是企業正在尋找的穩定性、可靠性。中國2024年對加拿大投資500億美元，中國是我們的第二大客戶，是我們第二大的出口市場，我們現處於與中國合作的新時代，我們來到這裡，將創造更多的確定性，可以繼續致力於穩定加拿大人的繁榮。」
難道趙美蘭換了位置換了腦袋？她在2022年擔任加拿大外長的時候還大力批評中國是「破壞性的全球力量」，現在卻大聲讚美中國。
維持單一舊模式 就是風險最大化
卡尼應該是看到委內瑞拉、格陵蘭下的不可預測性，而展開一種多中心平衡的戰略對沖，這不代表他們心中的中國已沒了「破壞性」，更多是想藉此向美國抗議：「你可以把關稅當作懲罰盟友的工具，那我也理所當然要為自己尋找更多生存空間」。
從事金融工作多年經驗的卡尼深知，繼續依賴美國、維持單一舊模式，那本身就是風險的最大化，就是一頭待宰的羔羊。「我並沒有背叛，而是清醒的自我保護」。
加拿大的轉身，代表首個西方世界以具體行動展現對美國的不信任與反制，加拿大開了「去美國化」的第一槍。法國的馬克宏也跟進，提議歐盟對美國啟動「反脅迫工具」，這工具原本是要來對付中國的，現在卻準備用到美國身上，真的是卡尼說的，「我們都要適應新世界秩序」了。
當美國的盟友都開始紛紛指責美國、棄美國而去之際，台灣要怎麼辦？
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
彭博為聯準會事件警告川痞 -- Mary Helen Gillespie
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
International central bankers on the statement by Federal Reserve Chair Powell on 11 January 2026
Billionaire Michael Bloomberg sends strong message on the economy
Bloomberg warns that the Department of Justice probe of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is a “disaster.”
Mary Helen Gillespie, 01/15/26
The dramatic escalation of pressure by the White House on the Federal Reserve and Chair Jerome Powell to lower interest rates is ticking off billionaire Michael Bloomberg.
Bloomberg is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, and the founder of Bloomberg Philanthropies.
He’s also the former mayor of New York City whose name has been bandied about frequently as a possible presidential candidate.
I’m reminding you of this right up front as a gentle reminder of his multi-hyphenate expertise in matters of business and politics.
The Trump administration's criminal investigation of Powell, which came to light earlier this week, is a “dangerous” move on both economic and political fronts, Bloomberg wrote in a Jan. 15 opinion piece on Bloomberg.
“When the administration interferes with monetary policy, it’s harder for the central bank to deliver what the White House wants: a lower cost of finance,’’ Bloomberg wrote.
“This is a formula for financial panic and economic disaster.’’
Powell pushes back against DOJ probe
The unprecedented threat of criminal charges against the head of the U.S. independent central bank came to light late Jan. 11.
Powell announced that the Department of Justice issued subpoenas to his office related to the cost of the $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed’s headquarters and whether Powell perjured himself describing the work and expense to Congress.
“The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,” a defiant Powell said in a two-minute video. (Read the transcript here.)
DOJ Powell probe unsettles global economic, finance leaders
The unprecedented criminal investigation against a sitting Fed chair rattled not only economists, industry heads, and politicians, but also members of the Trump administration and its allies.
While the initial reaction of markets appears subdued, financial leaders including J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon warned of potential global economic destabilization that could erupt if President Donald Trump’s campaign for lower interest rates led to a rupture in Fed independence.
One Trump insider described the fallout from the DOJ probe in three words to The Wall Street Journal on Jan. 13: “A huge cluster.”
Bloomberg calls for the White House to back down on Fed chair
“For the country’s sake — and, by the way, to avoid the collapse in popular support that would likely follow a severe financial-market backlash — the administration needs to think again,’’ he said.
Trump has denied knowledge of the criminal probe and said it was not related to his year-long demands that the independent central bank drastically lower interest rates.
He has, however, continued to criticize Powell as a “bad” Fed chair.
The DOJ has not commented.
Bloomberg says investors favor central bank independence
Bloomberg offered additional explanation.
* “Once investors think that monetary policy is set according to short-term political calculations, they’ll expect lower interest rates and therefore, after a delay, higher inflation…
* “That prospect in turn will raise longer-term rates (which the central bank can’t directly control), increase the cost of credit, discourage private investment, and make public debt (which in the U.S. is already rising unsustainably) harder to service.’’
Bloomberg said an independent Federal Reserve shields the executive branch from monetary policy pressure “which helps the economy and, except in the very short term, serves the government’s political interests as well.”
Bloomberg offers the White House an option
“This is a formula for financial panic and economic disaster. The president needs to change course,’’ Bloomberg said.
President Trump should “blame overzealous officials for this latest development, declare a ceasefire and say he has no intention of running monetary policy out of the White House.’’
The administration should then stop its multiple efforts to control the central bank, he added.
“Persisting with this campaign of intimidation is a decision everyone involved will come to regret,’’ Bloomberg said.
This story was originally published by TheStreet on Jan 15, 2026, where it first appeared in the Fed section. Add TheStreet as a Preferred Source by clicking here.
Related:
Fed faces 2026 upheaval as economy shifts, Powell exits
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
