“President Donald Trump will extend the deadline for TikTok to divest its U.S. assets by another 90 days, the White House said Tuesday, marking the third time enforcement of the 2024 law has been punted.”
…
“In Congress, Republicans are increasingly frustrated by the repeated extensions, but are still granting Trump space to negotiate a deal.
“We voted that it should be banned, and I look forward to the day that they can’t continue to propagate Chinese talking points,” said Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) on Tuesday before the announcement.
Few lawmakers have been willing to voice their frustrations publicly, wary of crossing the president, even as they’re frustrated by a TikTok negotiation that shows little sign of movement.
One exception is Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), the head of the House select committee on China, who warned in a public op-ed in March that nothing short of complete divestment from Beijing would suffice.”
“China has a virtual monopoly in the sector, dominating the entire supply chain from the extraction of rare earths to their processing and the manufacture of permanent magnets.
According to the International Energy Agency, the country accounts for some 61 percent of rare earths extraction and 92 percent of refining. Moreover, it provides nearly 99 percent of the EU’s supply of the 17 rare earths, as well as about 98 percent of its rare earth permanent magnets. Global demand for these minerals is expected to increase by 50 to 60 percent by 2040.”
Wealthy people and great entrepreneurs aren’t going to not start that great business because they will pay more taxes if they make it big. Either way, if successful, they would have done something great and will be rich.
The most profitable and flexible workforce for Americans is illegal immigrants.
When we put tariffs on China, we are saying every country on Earth can get low inputs from China except America, making American business less competitive.
“Just how mad is Beijing about President Donald Trump’s decision to revoke student visas for Chinese nationals? Not as mad as it says, and not as mad as one might expect. Publicly, China’s leadership will likely complain that Trump’s action is yet another attempt to thwart the country’s rise. But in reality, Beijing would probably just as soon keep its smartest kids at home.”
“By examining alternative studies and methodological adjustments, Winship contends that the negative effects of trade with China have been significantly exaggerated and that populist narratives blaming this trade for U.S. economic decline aren’t supported by rigorous evidence.
The originators of the China shock theory examined how Chinese imports affected certain U.S. locales compared with others—not with the entire country—based on initial industry composition and employment size. By these metrics, areas heavily exposed to Chinese imports showed disproportionately worse manufacturing job losses.
However, Winship points out that even if we accept these estimates, the findings suggest only relatively modest employment effects.
To put things in perspective, Winship gives the example of two hypothetical commuting zones with 200,000 working-age residents and 20,000 manufacturing workers. Data from the theory’s proponents indicate that moving from low (10th percentile) to high (90th percentile) exposure to Chinese imports would result in a loss of roughly 2,700 manufacturing jobs—just a 1.4-percentage-point drop in overall manufacturing employment.”
…
“In addition, Winship flags multiple methodological issues. Once other economists revised the proponents’ methods, the estimated negative impact shrank dramatically. Various followup studies found the China shock effect on manufacturing employment to be 50 percent smaller than initially claimed.
Further research revealed that job losses in exposed areas were often offset or even outweighed by employment gains in other sectors. One detailed Census Bureau study even found that firms with greater Chinese import exposure increased manufacturing employment, reallocating jobs to more efficient domestic production lines enabled by cheaper imports.
Moreover, the steady decline in U.S. manufacturing employment began decades before China’s WTO entry. Between the late 1970s and 2000, factory employment had already decreased substantially, mostly because of technological advances and shifting consumer demand.
Notably, there was no sudden acceleration of this decline after China joined the WTO. The rate of manufacturing job losses remained consistent with earlier trends, undermining claims that Chinese trade uniquely devastated American manufacturing.
Furthermore, former manufacturing workers generally did not face permanent unemployment. In fact, unemployment rates among this group were lower in recent years compared to the late 1990s, before the peak of Chinese imports. Many workers transitioned successfully into other sectors, belying the notion of an enduring displacement crisis. It’s also worth noting that there are around half a million unfilled manufacturing jobs today.”
…
” evidence from Trump’s first term showed that his tariffs often hurt American firms more than their foreign competitors. With broader and higher tariffs, we can only fear the worst.”
The insanity, cuelity, and incompetence of Trump on the global stage is pushing forward a global transition that needed to happen. Europe needs to pay its fair share to defend itself and the world can’t continue to let China take advantage of the system. The U.S. led world order is undemocratic and deeply flawed, but what is the alternative?
The Biden administration went to Europe and asked if war breaks out in the Pacific, are you with us? Europe said no. Yet, they expect the U.S. to protect them from Russia.
“Tiananmen Square is a vast space in the center of Beijing with monumental, communist-era buildings along two sides and the mausoleum of Mao Zedong, who founded the communist era in 1949, on the south end.
University students occupied this symbolically important site in the spring of 1989. Their calls for freedoms divided the party leadership. The decision to send in troops marked a decisive turning point in the evolution of modern China, keeping the party firmly in control as it loosened economic restrictions.”
“Russia is catching up to Ukraine in drone production thanks to greater financial resources, production lines far from the front lines and especially help from China, a senior Ukrainian official told POLITICO.
“Chinese manufacturers provide them with hardware, electronics, navigation, optical and telemetry systems, engines, microcircuits, processor modules, antenna field systems, control boards, navigation. They use so-called shell companies, change names, do everything to avoid being subject to export control and avoid sanctions for their activities,” said Oleh Aleksandrov, spokesperson for the Ukrainian Foreign Intelligence Service. “Yet officially, China sticks to all the rules. Yet only officially.”
Beijing has repeatedly denied supplying any drones or weapons components to Russia, calling Ukrainian protests “baseless accusations and political manipulation.” But Aleksandrov said Russia has a critical dependency on the supply of Chinese spare parts for both tactical and long-range drones.”
…
“Pavlo Palisa, a former top military commander and now deputy head of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s office, said in a statement that so far this year, 80 percent of the damage to Russia’s equipment and personnel has been done with drones. In May alone, Ukrainian drones destroyed 89,000 Russian targets.”
…
“Kyiv says that its access to new drones has been curtailed by China, while Beijing has placed no such restrictions on Russia.”