Trump Live Updates: Latest News on CDC Vaccine Panel, Iran Nuclear Talks and More – The New York Times https://www.byteseu.com/1090860/ #Conflicts #Customs(Tariff) #DonaldJ #FederalBudget(US) #ImmigrationAndEmigration #Iran #Protectionism(Trade) #trump
https://www.europesays.com/uk/159141/ Medical device ban shows EU would rather echo protectionism – Opinion #EU #Europe #European #EuropeanUnion #Protectionism
Trump Relays Putin’s Plans to Retaliate Against Ukraine: Live Updates https://www.byteseu.com/1074944/ #Customs(Tariff) #DonaldJ #FederalBudget(US) #ImmigrationAndEmigration #Protectionism(Trade) #trump #Ukraine
"McGee argues that the technology transfer facilitated by Apple to China, via small decisions compounding over decades, ultimately made it the biggest corporate investor into Made in China 2025, President Xi Jinping’s bold plan to end reliance on Western technology. “Here was America’s most famous tech giant volunteering to play the role of Prometheus, handing the Chinese the gift of fire,” McGee writes.
Yet the overarching argument of the book — that the US company made China into the tech behemoth it is today — begs the question of why Apple didn’t make the same kind of investment in the US. And amid Trump’s second term, when he has repeatedly threatened tariffs on the company if it doesn’t onshore manufacturing, this query has new urgency.
But the reality is that Trump’s nagging will never be able to recreate the ecosystem that local governments in China, with the help of Taiwanese suppliers such as Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., created to lure Apple. A simplistic answer from a scholar early in the book is that China was a “low wages, low welfare and low human rights” nation. Suppliers could exploit a massive underclass of migrant workers, and local authorities could quickly suppress any labor unrest or media reports of it.
If there were any voices I wanted to hear more of in the book, it wasn’t the dozens of Cupertino, California, engineers but these Chinese workers who turned Apple into the $3-trillion-dollar company it is today. (Apple has publicly called claims in the book untrue and full of inaccuracies.)
But if there’s a lesson for Trump — or American consumers — here, it is that electronics manufacturing jobs can come at a high cost for workers. It’s hard to imagine that these are the kinds of positions Trump’s base is hoping for, in an area where automation would be welcome."
"Several traditional and electric-vehicle makers—and their suppliers—are considering shifting some auto-parts manufacturing to China to avoid looming factory shutdowns, people familiar with the situation said.
Ideas under review include producing electric motors in Chinese factories or shipping made-in-America motors to China to have magnets installed. Moving production to China as a way to get around the export controls on rare-earth magnets could work because the restrictions only cover magnets, not finished parts, the people said.
If automakers end up shifting some production to China, it would amount to a remarkable outcome from a trade war initiated by President Trump with the intention of bringing manufacturing back to the U.S.
“If you want to export a magnet [from China] they won’t let you do that. If you can demonstrate that the magnet is in a motor in China, you can do that,” said a supply-chain manager at one of the carmakers.
China in April began requiring companies to apply for permission to export magnets made with rare-earth metals, including dysprosium and terbium. The country controls roughly 90% of the world’s supply of these elements, which help magnets to operate at high temperatures. Much of the world’s modern technology, from smartphones to F-35 jet fighters, rely on these magnets."
https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/car-companies-production-rare-earth-shortage-aaf87ad2
"China’s advances in manufacturing have caused a series of problems, however — both for its economy and for the rest of the world. Critics say one of the main weaknesses is the propensity to produce market distortions — sometimes on a monumental scale.
Local governments, whose leaders are measured by their ability to deliver economic growth, latch on to new central government policies to attract subsidised industries to their areas.
The result is duplication and state-backed overcapacity supercharged by competition that drives prices down — good for consumers but not for corporate profitability or local government finances.
“We have seen these boom-and-bust cycles,” says the EU Chamber in China’s Eskelund, pointing to the solar and battery industries. “The government actually gives policy guidance and . . . everyone seems to be rushing in the same direction.”
The EV sector was a case in point, he says, where only about three out of 112 manufacturers are making a profit. “We see waste at an absolutely colossal scale,” Eskelund says."
https://www.ft.com/content/724431ad-26db-4f6d-acab-ccb3cad11daa
"President Xi Jinping’s government is considering a new version of its master plan to boost production of high-end technological goods, according to people familiar with the matter, signaling its intention to keep a firm grip on manufacturing as President Donald Trump looks to bring more factories back to the US.
Officials are drawing up plans for a future iteration of Xi’s flagship “Made in China 2025” campaign, according to the people, who asked not to be identified discussing deliberations that aren’t public. The plan over the next decade would prioritize technology including chip-making equipment, one of the people said, adding that it may not carry a similar name to avoid drawing criticism from Western countries.
Policymakers who are separately preparing Beijing’s next Five-Year Plan starting in 2026 are looking to maintain the share of manufacturing in gross domestic product at a stable level over the medium to long-term, one of the people said, underlining how the rebalancing of China’s economy sought by the US may prove elusive.
As part of deliberations, officials have discussed whether the next Five-Year Plan should include a numerical target for consumption in terms of its share in China’s GDP, according to the person. They are currently leaning against that, as authorities are concerned they lack effective tools to spur spending by households and are reluctant to commit to a specific number, the person said."
"The lose-lose economic policy is exactly what the US government is pursuing. The national security requirement, as seen by the US political elite, is that the costs imposed on China (in terms of slower growth rate, delayed technological development etc.) be greater than the equivalent costs to the United States. A recent Foreign Affairs article by Stephen G. Brooks and Ben A. Vagle cites a number of scenarios conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington that find in almost all cases that the lose-lose policy is more damaging to China than to the United States. Similar conclusion was reached by a Beijing thinktank cited by the Wall Street Journal (“Beijing Braces for a Rematch of Trump vs. China”, WSJ, May 2, 2024, p. 8): the GDP loss to China would be three times as big as to the US.
Whether the policy will indeed produce such an outcome can be doubted. The legitimate discussion among economists and political scientists should thus focus on whether the lose-lose policy would improve US relative position or make it worse."
Trump Escalates Tariff Threats, Targeting Europe and Apple - The president threatened both Apple and the European Union with higher tariffs on social ... - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/23/us/politics/trump-tariffs-eu-apple.html #unitedstatesinternationalrelations #unitedstatespoliticsandgovernment #internationaltradeandworldmarket #politicsandgovernment #protectionism(trade) #customs(tariff) #europeanunion #appleinc #europe
Trump Live Updates: Budget Bill Vote, Tariffs and Ukraine Peace Talks https://www.byteseu.com/1023047/ #Customs(Tariff) #DonaldJ #FederalBudget(US) #ImmigrationAndEmigration #Protectionism(Trade) #trump #Ukraine
Trump Live Updates: Deportations, Comey’s Instagram Post and More https://www.byteseu.com/1020283/ #Customs(Tariff) #DonaldJ #FederalBudget(US) #ImmigrationAndEmigration #Protectionism(Trade) #trump #Ukraine
“To reverse the rise of #protectionism, #nationalism and #authoritarianism across the world—and restore #stability, #sustainability and #prosperity—it will be necessary to restore #political, #democratic #liberalism.” www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/econom...
Globalisation has shattered. W...
@economics @economics-that-works
“An increasing number of Chinese industries are in acute rivalry with high-value American industries, and China’s gains are our losses. The US cannot remain a military superpower without being an industrial superpower.”
Michael Roberts reviews the book: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2025/05/13/geonomics-nationalism-and-trade/
"Today, a well-paying manufacturing job requires a hard science background, centered around engineering, technical proficiency, or in many cases, wiring and operating complex automated technology.
"We don’t want to bring back the jobs of yesterday — we want to enable the operational efficiency and innovation of tomorrow," Kenworthy says, stressing the need to "skate to where the puck is going" as manufacturing roles continue to evolve.
The exact type of manufacturing the U.S. hones in on will factor heavily as well. Textile and garment industry jobs aren't likely to attract American workers, Kenworthy theorizes, given the relatively low pay, poor hours and high physical demands. The focus instead should be on "anything in the high-tech sector," including the semiconductor sector, pharmaceuticals, automotive and aerospace, all of which beget the need for highly-skilled, well-trained workers with engineering backgrounds.
The problem right now, though, is that the infrastructure to educate and entice these workers simply doesn't exist, and there are currently no plans to build that out anytime soon, all while the Trump administration has sought to deport the very people who would want those manufacturing jobs the most.
"A broad program to empower and build a next-generation manufacturing workforce would be what is necessary to make this effective," Kenworthy posits. "Without that, all this effort to bring manufacturing back to the United States is not going to be effective.""
ASEAN joins Japan, China and South Korea in protectionism warning https://www.byteseu.com/981515/ #asean #China #Japan #joins #Korea #Protectionism #South #warning
"Japan’s finance minister has publicly identified the country’s more than $1tn holdings of US Treasuries as a “card” in its trade negotiations with the Trump administration, in a rare baring of teeth by America’s closest ally in Asia.
Speaking during a television interview on Friday, Katsunobu Kato was asked whether Japan would use its traditional stance as a non-seller of Treasuries as a tool in trade talks with Washington.
“It does exist as a card,” said Kato, adding that “whether or not we use that card is a different decision”.
Japanese holders, including the government, own $1.13tn of Treasuries, the largest hoard held by a foreign nation.
There is no suggestion that Tokyo is considering any sales of official Treasury holdings. But traders said that even the reference to such an action as a “card” could add to volatility in a US bond market that has lurched violently since April 2 when Donald Trump announced sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs on US trade partners."
https://www.ft.com/content/912f861f-26c8-4bcd-aca0-75a09e5767cc
