“China, which views democratically governed Taiwan as its own territory, detests Lai as a “separatist”. Lai and his government reject Beijing’s sovereignty claims, saying only Taiwan’s people can decide their future.
On Thursday at his keynote national day speech, Lai said the People’s Republic of China had no right to represent Taiwan, but that the island was willing to work with Beijing to combat challenges like climate change, striking both a firm and conciliatory tone, drawing anger from China.
The Saturday announcement from China’s commerce ministry could portend tariffs or other forms of economic pressure against the island in the near future.
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, which on Thursday said that Lai’s speech promoted “separatist ideas” and incited confrontation, responded to the announcement by saying the fundamental reason behind the trade dispute was the “DPP authorities’ stubborn adherence to the stance of ‘Taiwan independence'”.
“The political basis makes it difficult for cross-Strait trade disputes to be resolved through negotiation,” it added.
In May, China reinstated tariffs on 134 items it imports from Taiwan, after Beijing’s finance ministry said it would suspend concessions on the items under a trade deal because Taiwan had not reciprocated.
The Cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) between China and Taiwan was initially signed in 2010 and Taiwanese officials had previously told Reuters that China was likely to pressure Lai by ending some of the preferential trading terms within it.”
“US Navy warships have twice been called upon to defend Israel from massive Iranian ballistic missile attacks and have used SM-3 interceptors to defeat the incoming threats.
The Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), a key air-defense interceptor made by RTX and, for some variants, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, was first used in combat in April to shield Israel from an unprecedented attack, and then it saw combat again in October when Iran attacked a second time. The weapons, which can cost between $10 million and almost $30 million depending on the variant, were fired by American destroyers in the area.
Navy leadership has said that it needs many more SM-3s to counter threats in the Pacific, like China, but it’s burning through these weapons in conflicts in the Middle East without sufficient plans to replace them.
Archer Macy, a retired Navy admiral, told Business Insider that the SM-3 is particularly important in a fight with China because the interceptor is designed to counter China’s “apparent preference for long-range theater weapons.””
The U.S. needs to pull together its different resources in different domains to successfully compete against China, including not just militarily, but taking an active diplomatic and economic role in Asia.
Surely, Trump won’t dishonestly take credit for this.
“The oil market could see a major supply glut in 2025 thanks to booming production from non-OPEC states like the US and sagging demand in China, according to the International Energy Agency.
The IEA said in its November Oil Market Report that the world’s oil market is on track for a one-million barrel-a-day surplus next year.
The excess is largely being driven by a weakening economy in China. Demand for oil in the world’s second-largest economy contracted for six straight months in a row as of September, IEA data shows. This accounted for the “main drag” on demand this year, the report said.
Meanwhile, the agency is predicting strong oil production among non-OPEC producers led by countries like US, Guyana, Argentina, and Brazil.
Altogether, non-OPEC producers are on track to expand oil production by 1.5 million barrels a day, it estimated. That amount is more than the agency’s forecast for world oil consumption to grow by 990,000 barrels a day next year.”
…
“The US has become the largest oil producer in the world, pumping out more crude than any other country in history for the last six years in a row, according to the US Energy Information Administration. Domestic production hit a record 13.4 million barrels a day in August, according to data from the Energy Information Administration.”
“Trina Solar was in line to receive nearly $1.8 billion in tax credits under President Joe Biden’s climate law, as one of several Chinese solar businesses setting up factories in the United States to benefit from the incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act. But President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to dismember Biden’s climate agenda, and has called for taking a hard line against economic competition from China.
Trina said Trump’s victory had “nothing to do” with the sale of the factory near Dallas to the Georgia-based battery manufacturer Freyr.
“Rather, it is based on the company’s long-term growth in the country,” a spokesperson said in a statement.
But analysts said the news illustrated the impact of Trump’s victory on energy markets.”
“China has published baselines for a contested shoal in the South China Sea it had seized from the Philippines, a move that’s likely to increase tensions over overlapping territorial claims.
The Foreign Ministry on Sunday posted online geographic coordinates for the baselines around Scarborough Shoal. A nation’s territorial waters and exclusive economic zone are typically defined as the distance from the baselines.
Both China and the Philippines claim Scarborough Shoal and other outcroppings in the South China Sea. China seized the shoal, which lies west of the main Philippine island of Luzon, in 2012 and has since restricted access to Filipino fishermen there. A 2016 ruling by an international arbitration court found that most Chinese claims in the South China Sea were invalid but Beijing refuses to abide by it.
Ships from China and the Philippines have collided several times as part of increased confrontations, and the Chinese coast guard has blasted Philippine vessels with water cannons.
China’s move came two days after Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed two laws demarcating the government’s claims in the disputed waters.”
The U.S. trade deficit is a problem, and the best way to solve it is by a weaker dollar. Free trade is good, broad tariffs are bad, and the trade deficit is best dealt with by a weaker dollar.
“The Chinese factory charged me $10 for a cart that cost them $9 to manufacture. U.S. retailers bought it from me for $15, then sold it to consumers for $30.
To recap: The factory made $1, I made $5, and retailers made $15, minus freight and U.S. tariffs.
The freight costs went to shipping lines, U.S. railroads, truckers, warehouses, and America’s highest-paid union workers—longshoremen at the Port of Los Angeles. As for those tariffs: Do the Chinese actually pay them, as former President Donald Trump claims? That would be illegal, as U.S. Customs charges tariffs only to the “importer of record,” which must be a U.S. entity. The monies collected go directly to Uncle Sam and retailers add them to their cost of goods, as with any other expense.
So each Magna Cart created $21 in profits, of which 95 percent went into American pockets. Selling 5 million carts meant a $100 million gain to the U.S. economy. Yet the official trade statistics framed that as a $75 million addition to the trade deficit.”
…
“Wouldn’t American profits be even higher if these things were made in the U.S.A? That’s a big no, because many products simply wouldn’t exist. My original plan had been to manufacture in the United States. Then I saw the factory quotes, and I realized my babies would have to retail for more than $100. Thanks to China, tens of millions of Americans can now carry their chairs and gear to the beach with ease, and move heavy loads without tweaking their backs for under $40. (It used to be $30. Sigh.)
So why can’t we move all that manufacturing to other low-wage countries? Because only China has the massive workforce (800 million strong), the infrastructure, and the natural resources to supply 380 million Americans (plus 7.6 billion others globally) with every gizmo and gadget imaginable.
The nearly $500 billion that America imports annually from China enriches our economy by trillions. The math is so simple, you’d think even politicians could understand it.”