Trump getting fed up with good calls with Putin where Putin says he is working toward peace and then turns around and attacks civilians. Trump is selling weapons to NATO who will give them to Ukraine, and says Putin has 50 days to end the war or 100% tariffs will go on countries buying from Russia, like India and China.
“In 2024, Congress passed the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which prohibited operating or hosting “a foreign adversary controlled application (e.g., TikTok)” within the United States. The law required TikTok to find a buyer by January 19, 2025, or else shut down operations within the United States.
Ultimately, neither happened…Trump issued the executive order on his first day, “instructing the Attorney General not to take any action to enforce the Act for a period of 75 days from today.” He has since issued two additional orders further extending the deadline
…
“But no president has the authority to simply postpone the enforcement of a law passed by Congress. The fact that Congress seems content to let Trump decline to enforce it does not obviate the law itself. And for that reason, if Congress will not repeal the law, then it should insist Trump enforce it.”
“The term “axis,” however, suggests that all four powers have a unified view of what they want the global order to look like and have a grand plan to get there. It sounds mischievous and conspiratorial, and it’s most certainly inaccurate. What’s occurring is less a strong, cohesive grouping bounded by ideology and long-term considerations and more a collection of bilateral relationships whose interests sometimes converge — until they don’t.”
“China on Friday signaled it would approve the export of rare earth minerals to the US, hours after White House officials said the two sides had reached a deal, in what would be a major breakthrough following weeks of negotiations over US access to the key materials.”
“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.”