经济萎缩首现,特朗普"功劳"?最新民调揭示残酷真相

marsbit2025-05-09 tarihinde yayınlandı2025-05-10 tarihinde güncellendi

4月30日,美国商务部报告显示2025年第一季度经济出现萎缩(这是自2022年以来的首次下滑),唐纳德·特朗普总统迅速作出回应。"这都是拜登的错,"他说,并补充道"你们甚至可以说下个季度也是拜登的锅"。当天晚些时候,他在企业高管会议上宣称"这是拜登的经济",并在Truth Social上发文总结:"这是拜登的股市,不是特朗普的。"

到周末,总统调整了说辞。在接受NBC《会见新闻界》采访时被问及经济责任归属时,他表示:"好的部分属于特朗普经济,坏的部分属于拜登经济。"

但美国民众认同特朗普的说法吗?最新民调显示答案是否定的:

• 盖洛普民调显示,46%受访者认为特朗普对当前经济状况负主要责任(3月为43%),27%选择拜登,21%认为两人责任均等。虽然民主共和两党支持者立场分明,但无党派人士以43%对24%的比例将主要责任归咎于特朗普。

• 5月6日晨间咨询公司民调显示,将经济责任归咎于特朗普的选民比例从2月的39%、3月的46%升至53%。调查指出:"选民现在更倾向于质疑现任总统的经济政策。"

两项关键民调揭示了不同群体对特朗普经济责任的看法:

NPR/PBS新闻/马里斯特民调显示,60%美国人认为现状是"特朗普自身政策所致",39%认为是"继承自前朝"。在2024年大选中转向支持特朗普的关键群体中,无党派人士(39-61)、18-29岁年轻人(34-66)、西裔选民(32-68)均持相似观点。56%受访者不满特朗普的经济政策,仅40%表示认可——在摇摆群体中支持率更低(约三分之一)。

《经济学人》/YouGov5月6日民调直接提问"谁该为经济现状负责",51%美国民众和55%登记选民选择特朗普(拜登分别为28%和31%)。仅有23%温和派选民、22%无党派及西裔选民、19%年轻人认为拜登责任更大。

该民调还验证了特朗普对GDP报告的其他指控:75%登记选民认为他应对股市"负很大/部分责任";对于"这是拜登的股市"的说法,57%选民明确反对(支持者仅24%)。

综上所述,尽管总统将经济问题归咎于前任,但美国民众并不买账。这种责任归属的快速转移或许源于特朗普"作茧自缚"——他凭借鲜明言论和大胆行动牢牢吸引公众注意力的同时,也放大了其标志性经济政策(特别是无差别高关税)的影响力。他与前任政策的强烈对比,使民众难以理解拜登政策为何仍在持续影响经济。

无论好坏,现在这已是特朗普的经济。若表现不佳,他和他的政党必将付出代价。

İlgili Okumalar

Chainlink Adds 6,100 Wallets In Two Days In Strongest Growth Burst Of 2026

Chainlink experienced its strongest wallet growth burst of 2026, adding approximately 6,100 new addresses in just two days. This notable increase in network participation occurred despite LINK's price trading in a difficult market environment alongside other altcoins. The surge in new wallets is seen as a positive signal for user and investor interest, suggesting the ecosystem continues to attract attention even when price action is weak. Wallet growth is considered a useful metric as it measures real participation rather than just price speculation. For an infrastructure project like Chainlink, whose value is tied to oracle services, data, and real-world assets, such growth indicates ongoing engagement with its core technology. However, the article notes that this data point, while constructive, is not conclusive on its own. The nature of the new wallets—whether they belong to small holders, new users, or exchange-related entities—remains unclear. The report maintains a balanced perspective, stating that while this wallet growth is a positive adoption signal for LINK bulls, it does not guarantee a price increase. Skeptics may question whether this user growth translates into value capture for the token. The key takeaway is that this burst of activity should be monitored alongside other factors like transaction volume, price structure, and broader market trends for a more complete picture. The signal requires follow-through in price and demand to be fully validated.

bitcoinist3 dk önce

Chainlink Adds 6,100 Wallets In Two Days In Strongest Growth Burst Of 2026

bitcoinist3 dk önce

In the AI Era, What's Left for Bitcoin?

As Bitcoin falls below $60,000, the author reflects on the relationship between AI and Bitcoin, seeing them as two sides of the same coin. In the AI era, the cost of generating content has plummeted, making fake text, images, and videos increasingly easy and cheap to produce. This has led to a fundamental shift: while AI dramatically lowers the cost of information production, it also undermines trust and authenticity online. What becomes truly valuable is not more content, but the ability to verify what is real—"verifiability." This perspective offers a new lens for Bitcoin. Its massive energy consumption, often criticized as wasteful, is reinterpreted. While AI burns energy to enhance "capability" and efficiency, Bitcoin burns energy to produce "verifiability." Its purpose is not to be trusted but to enable a system where no trust in intermediaries—banks, platforms, or developers—is needed. Every transaction and the entire ledger's history is secured by cryptography and a decentralized network of nodes, making it independently verifiable. AI cannot forge a transaction on the Bitcoin network because the system is designed for proof, not generation. The author draws a historical parallel to the Renaissance: the printing press drastically reduced the cost of copying knowledge, while double-entry bookkeeping reduced the cost of trust in commerce. Today, AI is the new printing press, reducing content creation costs to near zero. Blockchain, and Bitcoin as its pioneer, may be the modern equivalent of double-entry bookkeeping—a foundational technology for verifying digital asset ownership and historical records without centralized authorities. Thus, AI and blockchain are not competitors. AI lowers the cost of creation; blockchain lowers the cost of verification. In an age where AI can generate anything, true scarcity may lie not in more content, but in independently verifiable facts. Whether the market will reprice Bitcoin accordingly remains uncertain, but its core value proposition as a "machine for producing verifiability" becomes strikingly relevant.

marsbit1 saat önce

In the AI Era, What's Left for Bitcoin?

marsbit1 saat önce

In the Age of AI, What's Left for Bitcoin?

Author: Sevclub, Seven Research Amid Bitcoin's recent drop below $60k, the author reflects on a growing sense that AI and Bitcoin are two sides of the same coin. Today, encountering any content triggers a new default question: "Was this made by AI?" The cost of generating convincing text, images, and video is now negligible. While the internet lowered information *distribution* costs, AI is crashing information *production* costs to near zero. The consequence is a flood of content where truth and falsehood are increasingly indistinguishable. In this environment, what becomes truly valuable is not more information, but the ability to verify what is real—"verifiability." This reframes the common criticism that Bitcoin "wastes electricity." AI consumes power to produce "capability" (e.g., more powerful models). Bitcoin consumes power to produce something else: "verifiability." Bitcoin's core purpose isn't about belief or trust in any institution, developer, or even its creator. It's about enabling independent verification. Every bitcoin's origin, every transaction, and the integrity of the entire ledger are secured by mathematics, cryptography, and a global network of nodes. AI can fabricate convincing media, but it cannot falsify a transaction on the Bitcoin network. The expended energy makes篡改历史 (tampering with history) prohibitively expensive, purchasing a globally verifiable ledger. The author draws a historical parallel to the Renaissance. The printing press drastically reduced the cost of copying knowledge, while double-entry bookkeeping reduced the cost of trust in commerce—one enabled creation, the other verification. Today, AI is the new printing press, driving content production costs toward zero. The question becomes: what is this era's "double-entry bookkeeping"? Blockchain appears to be the leading candidate. It doesn't verify which news is true or which image is real, but it provides a foundational layer for independently verifying asset ownership and historical records in the digital realm without centralized authorities. Therefore, AI and blockchain are not in competition. AI lowers the cost of *generation*. Blockchain (and Bitcoin as a prime example) lowers the cost of *verification*. One creates, the other proves. Whether Bitcoin ultimately succeeds remains uncertain, facing potential challenges from quantum computing, regulation, and technical evolution. However, the author now sees it less as a "machine for making bitcoin" and more as a "machine for making verifiability." In an age where AI can generate anything, true scarcity may no longer be "more content," but "more independently verifiable facts." Whether the market will price this accordingly is a separate question.

链捕手1 saat önce

In the Age of AI, What's Left for Bitcoin?

链捕手1 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
活动图片