#U.S.-China trade dispute

[thejakeformerlyknownasprince]

Your post on continuity errors reminds me that the one that bothers me most in Animorphs is that in book 8, Ax reads the entire World Book encyclopedia and apparently remembers all of it, but in later books he's never heard of World War Two (MM3) or the nation of China (#46). Maybe it's trivial, but it makes part of Ax's arc toward the end of the series when he wrestles with human atrocities seem kind of forced.

So. Your Mileage May Vary on this one, but. My read of MM3 is that Ax has specifically never heard of the Holocaust. Like, you're right that he has no context for U.S.-U.K. troops storming Normandy beaches, and doesn't instantly understand when/where he is the way Marco does. But I think it's possible he's read a few encyclopedia articles on the subject without knowing about that particular battle. Rachel mentions the Holocaust, Ax asks her what that is, and she briefly explains. If that got left out of a world history book or an almanac, then that's potentially a pointed omission.

It might fall in the same category as Tobias joking about his complete lack of knowledge of the War of 1812 (which he mentions in #8 and IIRC #23). I assume that that's a deliberate callout on Applegate's part — we really don't cover the War of 1812 in most U.S. schools, because it's such a bad mark on the U.S.'s history. The U.S. and U.K. get in a trade dispute, the U.S. invades Canada in revenge, the U.S. murders 1000s of Native Americans on the chance they might be allied with the British, the U.S. murders 1000s of enslaved Black Americans on the chance they might be allied with the British, the Brits burn the White House, everyone decides to call it a draw. The whole thing is shameful, to say the least.

If Ax's almanacs don't cover the Holocaust, then I think you can read MM3 as drawing pointed attention to that omission because the whole point of MM3 is that we sanitize history to force the issue of "glory in battle" and "we happy few, we band of brothers" after the fact. That said, it's also 100% possible that Ax's knowledge of human history is just inconsistently written. Because that's been known to happen as well.

As for him not having heard of China... Uhhh, okay, what if he's mostly just encountered the acronym PRC before, and doesn't remember what it stands for? I've seen world atlases refer to China just as PRC before.

[industrialpipefittings]

Recent Developments in the Steel Industry

As of early September 2024, the steel industry is experiencing dynamic changes, mainly due to trade disputes, price fluctuations, and labor issues impacting global supply chains. These trends, along with broader economic challenges like inflation, are shaping the steel market's direction.

Trade Disputes Over Coated Steel Imports

A significant development this week involves several U.S. steel mills filing trade petitions against imports of coated steel products from countries like Korea, India, and Turkey. These petitions allege unfair competition due to subsidies and product dumping at lower prices. If successful, it could lead to higher tariffs, reducing steel supply in the U.S. market and increasing prices domestically.

Labor Strikes Impacting U.S. Steel Demand

Labor strikes in the U.S. automotive industry are also affecting steel. As car manufacturers reduce production due to strikes, the steel industry could see a dip in demand. Additionally, this might lead to higher prices for scrap steel, creating more volatility in a supply chain already under pressure.

Global Steel Production Recovery

Despite these issues, global steel production is showing modest recovery, expected to grow by 1.7% in 2024. Much of this growth comes from infrastructure projects in Asia, particularly in China and India. However, trade disputes and inflation could impact this positive trend.

Price Volatility Due to Inflation

Steel prices remain volatile, driven by raw material costs like iron ore and coal, and energy prices, all affected by inflation and geopolitical tensions. As production costs rise, consumers might face increased prices for steel products, particularly in construction and manufacturing sectors. For more information on steel products and procurement, visit Udhhyog.

[xtruss]

Analysis: The China-Russia Axis Takes Shape

The bond has been decades in the making, but Russia’s war in Ukraine has tightened their embrace.

— September 11, 2023 | By Bonny Lin | Foreign Policy

Alex Nabaum Illustration For Foreign Policy

In July, nearly a dozen Chinese and Russian warships conducted 20 combat exercises in the Sea of Japan before beginning a 2,300-nautical-mile joint patrol, including into the waters near Alaska. These two operations, according to the Chinese defense ministry, “reflect the level of the strategic mutual trust” between the two countries and their militaries.

The increasingly close relationship between China and Russia has been decades in the making, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has tightened their embrace. Both countries made a clear strategic choice to prioritize relations with each other, given what they perceive as a common threat from the U.S.-led West. The deepening of bilateral ties is accompanied by a joint push for global realignment as the two countries use non-Western multilateral institutions—such as the BRICS forum and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)—to expand their influence in the developing world. Although neither Beijing nor Moscow currently has plans to establish a formal military alliance, major shocks, such as a Sino-U.S. conflict over Taiwan, could yet bring it about.

The cover of Foreign Policy's fall 2023 print magazine shows a jack made up of joined hands lifting up the world. Cover text reads: The Alliances That Matter Now: Multilateralism is at a dead end, but powerful blocs are getting things done."

China and Russia’s push for better relations began after the end of the Cold War. Moscow became frustrated with its loss of influence and status, and Beijing saw itself as the victim of Western sanctions after its forceful crackdown of the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. In the 1990s and 2000s, the two countries upgraded relations, settled their disputed borders, and deepened their arms sales. Russia became the dominant supplier of advanced weapons to China.

When Xi Jinping assumed power in 2012, China was already Russia’s largest trading partner, and the two countries regularly engaged in military exercises. They advocated for each other in international forums; in parallel, they founded the SCO and BRICS grouping to deepen cooperation with neighbors and major developing countries.

When the two countries upgraded their relations again in 2019, the strategic drivers for much closer relations were already present. Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 damaged its relations with the West and led to a first set of economic sanctions. Similarly, Washington identified Beijing as its most important long-term challenge, redirected military resources to the Pacific, and launched a trade war against Chinese companies. Moscow and Beijing were deeply suspicious of what they saw as Western support for the color revolutions in various countries and worried that they might be targets as well. Just as China refused to condemn Russian military actions in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, and Ukraine, Russia fully backed Chinese positions on Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang. The Kremlin also demonstrated tacit support for Chinese territorial claims against its neighbors in the South China Sea and East China Sea.

Since launching its war in Ukraine, Russia has become China’s fastest-growing trading partner. Visiting Moscow in March, Xi declared that deepening ties to Russia was a “strategic choice” that China had made. Even the mutiny in June by Wagner Group leader Yevgeny Prigozhin that took his mercenary army almost to the gates of Moscow did not change China’s overall position toward Russia, though Beijing has embraced tactical adjustments to “de-risk” its dependency on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Building on their strong relationship, Xi and Putin released a joint statement in February 2022 announcing a “No Limits” strategic partnership between the two countries. The statement expressed a litany of grievances against the United States, while Chinese state media hailed a “new era” of international relations not defined by Washington. Coming only a few weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, enhanced relations were likely calculated by Moscow to strengthen its overall geopolitical position before the attack.

It’s not clear how much prior detailed knowledge Xi had about Putin’s plans to launch a full-scale war, but their relationship endured the test. If anything, the Western response to Russia’s war reinforced China’s worst fears, further pushing it to align with Russia. Beijing viewed Russian security concerns about NATO expansion as legitimate and expected the West to address them as it sought a way to prevent or stop the war. Instead, the United States, the European Union, and their partners armed Ukraine and tried to paralyze Russia with unprecedented sanctions. Naturally, this has amplified concerns in Beijing that Washington and its allies could be similarly unaccommodating toward Chinese designs on Taiwan.

Against the background of increased mutual threat perceptions, both sides are boosting ties with like-minded countries. On one side, this includes a reenergized, expanded NATO and its growing linkages to the Indo-Pacific, as well as an invigoration of Washington’s bilateral, trilateral, and minilateral arrangements in Asia. Developed Western democracies—with the G-7 in the lead—are also exploring how their experience deterring and sanctioning Russia could be leveraged against China in potential future contingencies.

On the other side, Xi envisions the China-Russia partnership as the foundation for shaping “the global landscape and the future of humanity.” Both countries recognize that while the leading democracies are relatively united, many countries in the global south remain reluctant to align with either the West or China and Russia. In Xi and Putin’s view, winning support in the global south is key to pushing back against what they consider U.S. hegemony.

Alex Nabaum Illustration For Foreign Policy

In the global multilateral institutions, China and Russia are coordinating with each other to block the United States from advancing agendas that do not align with their interests. The U.N. Security Council is often paralyzed by their veto powers, while other institutions have turned into battlegrounds for seeking influence. Beijing and Moscow view the G-20, where their joint weight is relatively greater, as a key forum for cooperation.

But the most promising venues are BRICS and the SCO, established to exclude the developed West and anchor joint Chinese-Russian efforts to reshape the international system. Both are set up for expansion—in terms of scope, membership, and other partnerships. They are the primary means for China and Russia to create a web of influence that increasingly ties strategically important countries to both powers.

The BRICS grouping—initially made up of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—is at the heart of Moscow and Beijing’s efforts to build a bloc of economically powerful countries to resist what they call Western “Unilateralism.” In late August, another six states, including Egypt, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, were invited to join the group. With their growing economic power, the BRICS countries are pushing for cooperation on a range of issues, including ways to reduce the dominance of the U.S. dollar and stabilize global supply chains against Western calls for “Decoupling” and “De-risking.” Dozens of other countries have expressed interest in joining BRICS.

The SCO, in contrast, is a Eurasian grouping of Russia, China, and their friends. With the exception of India, all are members of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The accession of Iran in July and Belarus’s membership application put the SCO on course to bring China’s and Russia’s closest and strongest military partners under one umbrella. If the SCO substantially deepens security cooperation, it could grow into a counterweight against U.S.-led Coalitions.

Both BRICS and the SCO, however, operate by consensus, and it will take time to transform both groups into cohesive, powerful geopolitical actors that can function like the G-7 or NATO. The presence of India in both groups will make it difficult for China and Russia to turn either into a staunchly anti-Western outfit. The diversity of members—which include democracies and autocracies with vastly different cultures—means that China and Russia will have to work hard to ensure significant influence over each organization and its individual members.

What’s next? Continued Sino-Russian convergence is the most likely course. But that is not set in stone—and progress can be accelerated, slowed, or reversed. Absent external shocks, Beijing and Moscow may not need to significantly upgrade their relationship from its current trajectory. Xi and Putin share similar views of a hostile West and recognize the strategic advantages of closer alignment. But they remain wary of each other, with neither wanting to be responsible for or subordinate to the other.

Major changes or shocks, however, could drive them closer at a faster pace. Should Russia suffer a devastating military setback in Ukraine that risks the collapse of Putin’s regime, China might reconsider the question of substantial military aid. If China, in turn, finds itself in a major Taiwan crisis or conflict against the United States, Beijing could lean more on Moscow. During a conflict over Taiwan, Russia could also engage in opportunistic aggression elsewhere that would tie China and Russia together in the eyes of the international community, even if Moscow’s actions were not coordinated with Beijing.

A change in the trajectory toward ever closer Chinese-Russian ties may also be possible, though it is far less likely. Some Chinese experts worry that Russia will always prioritize its own interests over any consideration of bilateral ties. If, for instance, former U.S. President Donald Trump wins another term, he could decrease U.S. support for Ukraine and offer Putin improved relations. This, in turn, could dim the Kremlin’s willingness to support China against the United States. It’s not clear if this worry is shared by top Chinese or Russian leaders, but mutual distrust and skepticism of the other remain in both countries.

— This article appears in the Fall 2023 issue of Foreign Policy. | Bonny Lin, the Director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

[mariacallous]

The moment has been long in coming, but India is turning into a strategic actor in Southeast Asia. Amid a flurry of regional diplomacy, India has sealed an arms deal with Vietnam, sided with the Philippines over China on sovereignty disputes in the South China Sea, and enhanced defense cooperation with Indonesia. It is balance-of-power politics worthy of an international relations textbook: Even though most Southeast Asian governments have long made it their mantra not to choose geopolitical sides, China’s aggressive posture in and around the South China Sea is driving India and its partners in the region together. As yet, none of these relationships are on the level of alliances or include a serious force deployment component, but the trend is clear. And even though the United States and its Asian treaty allies are not involved, India’s moves raise the tantalizing possibility that it will increasingly complement the United States’ Indo-Pacific strategy to counter China in the coming years.

India’s strategic outreach had its humble beginnings in 1991, when New Delhi announced the Look East policy—a recognition of the geostrategic significance of Southeast Asia to Indian security. More a vision than a concrete set of measures, Look East was followed by the Act East policy in 2014, when India began to proactively engage with the region to prevent it from succumbing to Chinese domination. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who first announced Act East, India in recent years has steadily strengthened key partnerships across Southeast Asia, particularly with countries along the maritime rim of the Indo-Pacific. These moves are clearly designed to cooperate with Southeast Asian partners who also seek to maintain the rules-based international order and norms of behavior in the face of rising Chinese assertiveness in the region.

Last month, Vietnamese Defense Minister Phan Van Giang visited his Indian counterpart, Rajnath Singh, in New Delhi and announced that India would transfer a missile corvette to the Vietnamese Navy to enhance maritime security. The two sides also reportedly discussed stepped-up training for Vietnamese military personnel operating submarines and fighter jets, as well as cooperation on cybersecurity and electronic warfare. There is also ongoing speculation that Vietnam may soon purchase India’s BrahMos cruise missile, which is co-produced with Russia and could complicate Chinese military operations in disputed seas. To strengthen relations further, Hanoi and New Delhi have also been considering a potential trade deal.

These recent moves reinforce the “comprehensive strategic partnership” India and Vietnam have maintained since Modi’s 2016 visit to Vietnam. Hanoi maintains just four partnerships at this highest of levels—with China, India, Russia, and most recently South Korea. That underscores the high strategic value Hanoi places on New Delhi. By comparison, the United States is only a “comprehensive partner” for Vietnam, two levels below India’s status. Washington has struggled to raise the partnership.

The Philippines, a U.S. treaty ally, is steadily expanding and deepening its security partnership with India as well. Late last month, Philippine Foreign Secretary Enrique Manalo visited New Delhi and met with his Indian counterpart, S. Jaishankar. For the first time, India recognized the legitimacy of the 2016 arbitration ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in favor of Philippine sovereignty claims over China in the South China Sea. During the meeting, Jaishankar reiterated India’s call on China to respect this ruling. Both sides further vowed to enhance their defense partnership through increased interactions between defense agencies and by sending an Indian defense attaché to Manila. India also offered a concessional line of credit to the Philippines to buy Indian defense equipment. According to a diplomatic source close to the negotiations, “We are both maritime nations and there is great scope where we could identify various cooperative activities including, in the future, joint sales and joint patrols and exchanging information, best practices and anything to enhance [maritime domain awareness].”

Both nations have closely collaborated on security matters in recent years. In 2019, for example, India participated in a joint naval drill in the South China Sea with Japan, the Philippines, and the United States. In 2021, the Indian Navy conducted bilateral drills with the Philippines. In addition, a fourth round of high-level defense dialogue between India and the Philippines concluded in April, with the two sides pledging to deepen defense cooperation further. In 2022, the Philippines inked a major deal to purchase India’s BrahMos missiles. According to the Indian ambassador in Manila, India is exploring a preferential trade deal with the Philippines to boost their relationship, similar to what it is discussing with Vietnam.

Meanwhile, India’s security partnership with Indonesia has quietly been evolving in ways that also support the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy. In February, an Indian Kilo-class conventional submarine made a first-ever port call to Indonesia, underscoring that New Delhi’s undersea assets could have access to Indonesian ports sitting astride the strategic waterways traversing the vast archipelagic nation. Beijing already faces a major strategic headache in the form of the so-called Malacca dilemma—China’s vulnerability to having its most important trade route cut off by the United States and its allies in the narrow waters between Singapore and Malaysia. Add potential blockades of Indonesia’s Sunda Strait and Lombok Strait—two other strategic narrows—and China might have to rethink future military operations entirely.

Indo-Indonesian defense relations truly kicked off in 2018, when Modi visited Jakarta and elevated relations to a comprehensive strategic partnership. As part of this, the two nations signed a new defense cooperation agreement. That same year, India and Indonesia launched a new naval exercise, Samudra Shakti, that incorporated a warfighting component. Since then, the two navies have conducted four rounds, the last of which was in May and prioritized anti-submarine operations. The Indian Navy has further supported Indonesia with humanitarian and disaster relief operations, particularly following the Sulawesi earthquake and tsunami that hit Palu in 2018. New Delhi and Jakarta are exploring potential air force cooperation as well. Indonesia may also follow in the footsteps of the Philippines by purchasing BrahMos missiles.

On the economic side, the two nations are considering a preferential trade agreement, similar to what India is discussing with Vietnam and the Philippines. Other plans include enhancing links between Indonesia’s Aceh province and India’s Andaman and Nicobar Islands. These parts of the two countries are separated by just over 500 miles of sea, and Jakarta and New Delhi have been cooperating to boost trade and travel between them. India and Indonesia are also cooperating on developing infrastructure, such as a port at Sabang in Aceh, which could be viewed as India’s rival to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

India is also cooperating with Malaysia, another counterclaimant against China in the South China Sea, on the basis of an enhanced strategic partnership signed in 2015. In 2022, both Jaishankar and Singh met their Malaysian counterparts and expressed interest in deepening their partnership. After his meeting with Malaysian Defense Minister Hishammuddin bin Hussein, Singh described the engagement as “wonderful.” Although Kuala Lumpur’s decision earlier this year to cancel a deal to purchase Indian-made Tejas fighter aircraft may have dampened the partnership somewhat, the intent clearly remains to strengthen ties in line with upholding the mutual goal of maintaining the rules-based international order in the region—especially internationally recognized maritime borders and freedom of navigation, neither of which Beijing accepts. When Jaishankar met then-Malaysian Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah, the latter emphasized that India is a friend who shares the “ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific,” using the acronym for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Brunei is another emerging partner for India along the South China Sea. In 2021, the two nations renewed their defense agreement for five years, and they regularly engage in joint exercises, port visits by navy and coast guard ships, and official defense exchanges.

India’s strategic partnerships with Singapore and Thailand—a key partner and ally of the United States, respectively—are also close and long-standing. Singapore regularly engages in bilateral exercises, high-level dialogues, visits, and professional training with India. Modi visited Singapore twice in 2018, and on the first trip, he signed 35 memoranda of understanding agreements on a range of security and economic issues. For example, he signed a logistical agreement to boost bilateral naval cooperation and multiple agreements pertaining to investment in human capital. On his second trip, Modi attended the India-ASEAN summit, underscoring New Delhi’s emphasis on the region’s significance.

In 2022, Thailand and India took stock of their partnership and pledged to elevate defense engagements further, to include cybersecurity. Perhaps of greater importance is the economic side of their relationship. In a nod to New Delhi’s original Look East policy, Bangkok implemented its own Look West policy in 1997, in part to tap into the enormous Indian market. Moreover, Thailand and India are partnering with Myanmar to construct the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway that will significantly upgrade transport links between Southeast Asia and South Asia. Once the highway is completed, Modi and his government also want to add connections to Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam—another clear rival to China’s BRI.

India further has good relations with both Cambodia and Laos. In May, Cambodian King Norodom Sihamoni visited India, and the two sides reaffirmed “the strong civilizational bond between us.” Phnom Penh and New Delhi cooperate on a range of socioeconomic projects, de-mining, water conservation, and heritage protection. India’s engagement with Laos is less robust, but nevertheless, New Delhi and Vientiane are likely discussing ways to boost economic ties. This is all the more remarkable as both Phnom Penh and Vientiane are widely considered to be firmly in China’s camp.

Not all Indian engagements in the region are necessarily positive for the United States and its Indo-Pacific strategy, however. One notable example is India’s relationship with the military junta in Myanmar, which has plans to enhance its partnership with Beijing. New Delhi has yet to condemn the 2021 coup that brought it to power, and India refuses to join Washington in putting political pressure on the junta in the form of sanctions or through other means. To be sure, India is in a difficult spot as chaos in Myanmar has caused concerns that instability could spill over the border, where the Indian states of Mizoram, Manipur, and Nagaland have ethnic and kinship ties with Myanmar. New Delhi hopes that its continued cooperation with the Burmese junta will contribute to greater stability in the border region.

But even in Myanmar, India is doing some things that are in Washington’s interest. Modi’s joint statement with U.S. President Joe Biden last month, for example, mentions Myanmar and notes the importance of the junta releasing all political prisoners and returning to constructive dialogue. While this is hardly the condemnation of the regime Washington has been seeking, it is a start. Additionally, New Delhi in recent months confronted the junta on how it is apparently allowing Chinese workers to build a listening post to spy on India in the Coco Islands in the Bay of Bengal.

From a multilateral perspective, India has been active as well. Within the existing India-ASEAN framework, the two parties in May held their inaugural group military exercise, known as ASEAN-India Maritime Exercise, in the South China Sea. The exercise reportedly attracted the attention of China’s maritime militia, which was operating within Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone and approached the exercise participants.

Overall, India’s Act East policy is a net positive for the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy aimed at countering China. Washington should welcome and gently encourage New Delhi to do even more. For example, additional joint patrols in the South China Sea among India, the United States, and other nations—including those in the region—could bolster deterrence. Additional Indian infrastructure and development projects, as well as trade deals, could help lessen Beijing’s economic dominance of Southeast Asia.

Realistically, however, New Delhi rightly worries first and foremost about its own neighborhood, and its time and resources are inevitably constrained. China also maintains the inside track in Southeast Asia due to its growing power and proximity to the region. That said, New Delhi’s policy of outreach to Southeast Asia—even if it is sustained only at current levels—will help further undermine Beijing. That, in and of itself, is a big win for Washington and its Asian allies.

[bopinion]

2023 / 18

Aperçu of the Week:

"Experience is the hardest kind of teacher. It gives you the test first and the lesson afterward."

(Oscar Wilde)

Bad News of the Week:

What's true in security policy is also true in fiscal policy: if the U.S. isn't fit, the whole world gets sick. The world's (still) largest economy sets the tone. Many global trade flows, e.g. for energy, are conducted in U.S. dollars, and in many countries it has replaced the domestic currency - whether unofficially, as in Zimbabwe, or even officially, as in El Salvador. So what happens to the U.S. economy or the U.S. dollar has global implications.

In the process, there seems to be a kind of parallel universe. Normally, in the economy, when a so-called insolvency threatens, all the alarm bells go off: Employees look for new jobs, suppliers stop supplying, the bank cancels the credit line, creditors are left sitting on their claims. The company is simply bankrupt, at the end of its rope, with no future prospects. Except, perhaps, for a few fillet pieces that the competition buys up at bargain prices. This does not apply to the USA. Because it is effectively bankrupt. And no one seems to care.

The current debt level - only of the state, not of its companies (banking crisis) or citizens (mortgage and credit card crisis) - amounts to $31.38 trillion. This is significantly more than the gross domestic product (GDP) of $26.85 trillion. In fact, this can never be repaid. For comparison: in Germany, $2.73 trillion in debt is compared to a GDP of $5.32 trillion. And we feel that this is bad. The creditors of the USA sit primarily abroad - whether friendly like Japan or even downright hostile like China. And sleep apparently nevertheless calmly. And that even in the face of the current (once again) concrete threat of insolvency.

Normally, and this has been the case for decades, this is nothing more than a ritual: the money is no longer enough, Republicans and Democrats agree - sometimes with more, sometimes with less dispute - to ignore the debt ceiling, which is actually regulated by law, they obtain money on the markets without any problems and act as if nothing had happened. Until next time. Business as usual.

This year, things may turn out differently. Because the trench warfare between the duopoly parties could reach a new level. Which this time might not be done with a few government agencies and national parks closed for two weeks. Already since the in many ways ridiculous election of Kevin McCarthy as Republican majority leader in the House of Representatives, this has been publicly announced. Because the ultra-right MAGA freaks like Marjorie Taylor Green or Matt Gaetz have made it clear that they will play hard ball on this issue at the latest: rather cuts in social services as well as environmental protection than a suspension of the debt ceiling. For party-political reasons and without a shred of interest in economic or financial policy. At the same time, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warns that so far it has only been possible to avert default through "a series of extraordinary measures".

Strange that the U.S. nevertheless has a credit rating of AAA. Is that perhaps because the three relevant agencies, Standard & Poor, Moody's and Fitch, are all U.S.-based private firms? Or that no one wants to admit that there may be a systematic problem after all? In every banking crisis - and we have one right now that is nowhere as dramatic as in the U.S. - the term "too big to fail" makes the rounds. The land of unlimited opportunity, unreal projection surface for the hopes and dreams of large parts of the world's population, must not be allowed to fail. That is psychology. It's certainly not mathematics.

Good News of the Week:

More and more often, I notice on the train and in the supermarket that I'm the only one still wearing an FFP2 mask. Yet I'm not an overly anxious person. I am merely part of a vulnerable group for whom it is still better not to become infected with the corona virus. But that is my personal decision. And no longer a legal requirement. Because there isn't one anymore. Except in many doctors' offices, where masks are still mandatory if that's what the doctor wants - which objectively would have made sense even earlier, because after all, that's basically where a disproportionate number of viruses and bacteria are buzzing around.

Basically, I'm glad that the Word Health Organization (WHO) officially lifted the international health emergency due to Corona on Friday. After more than three years of a worldwide pandemic. In the balance, there are more than 20 million deaths. A health system that reached its limits and exceeded them in many countries. A mass death of retailers and cultural institutions. Lots of children and young people with mental health problems - or at least major failures as they grew up.

Many health policy decisions were right. Many were wrong. Some fellows discovered their social empathy. Some a penchant for conspiracy theories. Friendships and bonds of solidarity have grown. Or were destroyed. As is so often the case in life, the task now is to learn from the past for the future. Because it will not be the last challenge that human society will have to face - looking at the news, the multi-crisis still dominates.

Therefore, it is nice that we have at least left behind the frightening side effects of the Corona pandemic. Which will accompany us from now on as a "completely normal" respiratory disease with a potentially fatal outcome. Like the flu. Because let's face it: normality can be very reassuring.

Personal happy moment of the week:

Last Monday was May 1, a public holiday in Germany. And while on "Labor Day" (actually absurd that this day of all days is a public holiday) demonstrations of the trade unions for more workers' rights take place everywhere in Germany, the accent in Bavaria is elsewhere. Namely on the maypole. A tradition according to which an approximately 30 meter high, white-blue painted trunk is erected with muscle power - accompanied by music, dance and beer. Cancelled the last years because of Corona, it was nice to be able to celebrate this festival again this year. Even the rain had a mercy and took a break for the crucial three hours.

I couldn't care less...

...that the United Kingdom has a new head of state since yesterday, King Charles III. And so do Canada, Australia, New Zealand and 13 other Commonwealth countries. All the pomp, his costumes and rituals etc. show me one thing above all: monarchies are no longer in keeping with the times. And are not democratic.

As I write this...

...I am listening to music. Right now John Legend. And think about the fact that this is probably the only undoubtedly exclusively positive achievement of mankind: art. Whether it's music, poetry, performing or visual art, analog or digital, live or documented. The kind of creativity that does not seek a concrete use value, but stimulates, entertains, inspires, polarizes, makes you think. L'art pour l'art is something very beautiful.

Post Scriptum

Germany reached its "earth overload day" last week. So if all of humanity were as wasteful with resources as we are, it would need three Earths. We only buy green electricity and drive an all-electric car or use public transportation. We try not to throw away food and collect everything that can be recycled. We order as little as possible from Amazon (okay: also because we simply can't stand the working conditions of this company and its owner himself) and basically try to reduce our consumption (okay: this also saves money and has an educational value). And yet we are more part of the problem than part of the solution. Sigh...

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Brazil to expand its share in the world soybean and corn market

Brazil competes with the U.S. for soybean and corn international markets. The USDA projects the U.S. will lose its leadership in corn exports to Brazil.

In the last two years, U.S. corn exports have dropped by 30%, from 69.8 million tons in 2021 to 48.9 million tons in 2023.

Meanwhile, Brazil’s trade will reach 50 million tons this year, totaling a 138% export growth during the same period. However, even with a 5% reduction in area and 9% in harvest, the U.S. will produce substantially more corn than Brazil, 348.7 million tons against 125 million tons from the emerging country.

As the largest corn importer, China alters the dynamics of this market. The Asian country authorized importing the commodity from Brazil in November 2022, buying 1.1 million tons in the last two months of 2022 alone (Secex). The two leading suppliers for the Chinese market are the U.S. (15 million tons) and Ukraine (3 million tons). In the last three years, China has had consecutive cuts in imports and forecast a record harvest domestically. However, the disputes between China vs. the U.S. and Ukraine vs. Russia snarls the supply chain, paving the way for Brazil to gain market share.

Continue reading.

[cyarskj1899]

CONTAINED OUTRAGE: Outgoing Arizona Gov. Ducey tries one last MAGA stunt before he leaves

Sent from my iPhone

CONTAINED OUTRAGE: Outgoing Arizona Gov. Ducey tries one last MAGA stunt before he leaves

- Advertisement Above -

We’re all familiar with the Great Wall of China. And some of you may have heard of the Great Hedge in India, used by the British to control the salt trade. Well, now another type of barrier – in Arizona – may go down in the history books. Decrying an “invasion” from Mexico, outgoing Governor Doug Ducey has tried to contain it with – well – containers.

Using 9’ by 40’, 8800-pound shipping containers owned by the state, Ducey has been plugging holes in Donald Trump’s notorious border wall.

The containers are topped with razor wire and currently stretch for some 3 miles. Ducey had started around Yuma, but now has plans to spend $95 million adding another 10 miles – likely a complete waste of money, considering that incoming governor Katie Hobbs has promised to remove the ad hoc barrier.

Ducey is also almost certainly trespassing on federal land.

“There’s just no question that this is federal property,” Dinah Bear, formerly with the White House Council on Environmental Quality, told The Guardian. “There’s no legal difference between the land they’re putting the shipping containers on and Grand Canyon national park.”

Ducey filed a lawsuit in October disputing this fact, which is now before Judge David Campbell. The U.S. Forest Service is looking for a court order to avoid any conflict with local authorities.

In addition to the U.S. government, the Cocopah Indian Tribe has also spoken out against Ducey’s wall, saying that some of it encroaches upon their reservation.

And there’s been criticism from scientists as well: the Center for Biological Diversity has noted that the containers hurt certain migratory species that typically cross over the area.

Of course, keeping out migrating animals and keeping out humans are two entirely different balls of wax. Generally, such obstacles don’t pose much of a challenge to human crossers, especially since they can be extraordinarily difficult to guard.

It’s reported that the Great Hedge in India took some 12,000 British officers working in shifts to maintain

Also worth noting is the fact that – despite Republican claims to the contrary – the overwhelming majority of illegal drugs that come over the border – more than 90% – come through legal points of entry and through the mail.

Fentanyl isn’t being carried by undocumented workers trying to sneak into the country; it’s going through the ports of California and being delivered by the USPS.

Ducey is probably just trying to stand out in a field of Republican hardliners (some might say “assholes” is a more apt description).

There’s Greg Abbott of Texas, who has been shipping out migrants by bus. And Ron DeSantis, who is so intent on being an asshole that he literally goes to other states to find undocumented workers to abuse.

Douchey (whoops! – meant Ducey) is competing against them and perhaps trying to distinguish himself, even if it means wasting tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money on an eyesore that won’t do anything to change the situation.

Good job, Douchey!

Sent from my iPhone

[euro-industry-org]

Popular myths about American economic history

Economic science is not just about mathematical formulas and models. It is necessary to know history to understand what economic models and development strategies work and what will lead to an economic miracle.

The key to American success was not just luck, geography, etc. America became wealthy because of a successful foreign policy and sound economic policies, not because of any situational factors. This system has one architect - Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury and one of the founding fathers of the United States.

Ideological myths about the American economy

There are many myths surrounding the American economic miracle. For example, that it occurred due to the small role of the state and the policy of non-interference. There are also many myths around American free-trading and protectionism. Often libertarians rush to enroll Hamilton in their camp, that is, claim that he is a libertarian, although in fact Hamilton did not believe in the principle of “the market will solve everything”. In general, it is worth saying that American economic history is very diverse. America has undergone many shifts left and right in its economic policies and social policies.

The American state has systematically created new economic spaces and made every effort to encourage entrepreneurship in these new sectors of the economy. As a result, innovation was always there and the American economy was constantly expanding.

It's worth saying that there was no preference for methods here, as right-wing politicians and economists now like to issue. For decades, the guiding principle of lawmakers and economic policy implementers has been pragmatism, which means they can use whatever methods they want.

No one disputes that the wealth of all modern developed countries, as well as China, Poland, India and other fast-growing economies, is based on sound economic policy. The economic history of the United States and other successful countries shows us that the main thing to ensure is not the graphomania of economists or the implementation of delusional ideas of right-wing or left-wing ideologues, but a deliberate and continuous effort to support productivity.

In America there have always been conflicts and rivalries between government and business, and yet they worked together because they were interdependent. This unity has contributed to the constant renewal of the American economy and its growth. The intertwining of interests has always existed, and this pushed for compromises.

There has always been a choice of a new direction in America, and it has been based on a shared vision of where the American economy should go and what is needed to move it in that direction. Abstract ideas or ideological “truths” never provided direction. Pragmatism was so strong that ideology did not even influence the question of American economic development. The question revolved around how to achieve new growth and, of course, pay those who put the most effort into it.

Interestingly, the U.S. government was not the only government trying to change the American economy. Japan, China, and South Korea had created successful manufacturing-export type economies. In the U.S., export manufacturing policies were designed to redirect effort from sectors of the economy where there was high competition with imports in the domestic market, and to channel those resources into new areas that were to become new high value-added industries in the future.

The triumph of the “invisible hand of the market”

The invisible hand of the government has picked up the “invisible hand of the market” to tinker with new industries. Both the U.S. and Asian governments were adjusting the U.S. economy. On the one hand, the American market became a good place to sell Asian exports, especially steel, ships, electronics, automobiles, and some industrial equipment, which had a positive effect on American consumers; on the other hand, it became bad for America as it became more difficult for American manufacturers to compete with Asian manufacturers. In addition, most Asian companies belonged to friendly countries, which made it more difficult to fight sanctions and other protectionist measures, especially the imposition of sanctions under political pretexts such as human rights violations or the need to weaken a competitor's economy to deter hostile actions.

The damage to the U.S. economy has been significant, with manufacturing's share of GDP nearly halving from 21.2% to 12% in 30 years. Instead, the financial sector was deregulated. In addition, the Pentagon's budget has been bloated, all of which is essentially ballast for the U.S. economy as it generates no net income.

There is a common misconception that the decline in manufacturing is a consequence of the transition to a post-industrial society and is therefore normal. In reality, however, consumption of manufactured goods has hardly declined at all. It can be said that a fall in production is normal only if it is proportional to the fall in consumption. Moreover, those goods that have ceased to be partially or fully produced have become imported, and most of America's trade deficit consists of these very goods. That's about 5% of GDP.

The problem doesn't end there, and the money spent on buying imports could be used to invest in the production of export goods. East Asian countries have been increasing production, and they have done so primarily because the ideology of restructuring the U.S. economy said that this was normal and could be ignored. Asian countries did well thanks to extensive business lending. This allowed them to improve their technology base and engineering capabilities.

What America needs?

America needs modernization. Both Democrats and Republicans have successfully modernized in the past. America needs to move away from the current paradigm of minimizing intervention in the economy to a more proactive approach and take the lead. If the U.S. government does not change the American economy, other countries will do so, with negative consequences for America. No one knows what the configuration of the new economy will look like, which industries will emerge and which will die a natural death, as happened with the typewriter industry. The key is to choose a vector and push people in the right direction.

[chemanalystdata]

Steel Rebar Prices | Pricing | Trend | News | Database | Chart | Forecast

Steel Rebar prices are a critical element in the construction industry, significantly influencing project costs and timelines. Rebar, or reinforcing bar, is an essential material used to strengthen and hold concrete structures together. Fluctuations in its price can affect a wide range of industries, from residential construction to large-scale infrastructure projects. The pricing of steel rebar is influenced by various factors, including the cost of raw materials, global supply and demand, geopolitical events, and environmental regulations. Understanding these factors is crucial for businesses and contractors looking to manage construction budgets and anticipate cost changes.

The primary driver of steel rebar prices is the demand from the construction sector. As the global population grows and urbanization intensifies, the need for housing, commercial buildings, and infrastructure projects increases, driving up demand for construction materials like steel rebar. In emerging economies, particularly in Asia and the Middle East, large-scale infrastructure development has been a key driver of rebar consumption. Countries such as China, India, and Saudi Arabia have been at the forefront of this demand surge, as they invest in roads, bridges, and residential developments to support their growing populations. When construction activity is robust, the demand for steel rebar rises, leading to higher prices. Conversely, when the construction sector slows, either due to economic downturns or seasonal factors, the demand for rebar diminishes, putting downward pressure on prices. However, the global nature of the steel industry means that local price fluctuations are often influenced by international market conditions.

Get Real Time Prices for Steel Rebar: https://www.chemanalyst.com/Pricing-data/steel-rebar-1441Raw material costs are another significant factor in determining steel rebar prices. Rebar is primarily made from steel, which in turn is produced from iron ore and recycled scrap metal. The cost of these raw materials can fluctuate based on mining production levels, geopolitical events, and global market demand. Iron ore, a key component in steelmaking, is particularly susceptible to price changes due to supply disruptions or increased demand from major steel-producing nations like China. When the price of iron ore rises, steel manufacturers face higher production costs, which are then passed on to consumers in the form of higher rebar prices. Similarly, scrap steel, which is commonly used in electric arc furnaces for rebar production, can experience price volatility. If scrap steel becomes scarce or if recycling rates drop, the price of rebar is likely to increase as a result of higher input costs.

Geopolitical factors also play a significant role in shaping steel rebar prices. Trade tensions, tariffs, and sanctions can disrupt the flow of steel products and raw materials across borders, leading to price fluctuations. For instance, in recent years, the United States imposed tariffs on steel imports, including rebar, as part of broader trade disputes with countries like China. These tariffs increased the cost of imported rebar in the U.S. market, driving up prices for domestic construction companies. In addition to trade policies, political instability in key iron ore and steel-producing regions can impact supply chains. If production is halted due to conflict or government intervention, the reduced availability of rebar on the market can push prices higher.

Environmental regulations are increasingly influencing steel rebar prices as governments around the world impose stricter limits on carbon emissions and industrial pollution. The steel industry is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, and as a result, many countries are implementing policies to encourage cleaner production methods. Steel manufacturers are investing in new technologies to reduce their carbon footprints, such as using hydrogen in place of coal in steel production. While these initiatives are vital for reducing environmental impact, they come with significant costs, which are often reflected in the price of finished products like rebar. In countries with more stringent environmental regulations, steel producers face higher operating costs, which can lead to higher rebar prices. Conversely, in regions where environmental laws are less strict, steel manufacturers may have a cost advantage, allowing them to offer rebar at more competitive prices.

Currency exchange rates can also influence steel rebar prices, particularly in international markets. Since steel is a globally traded commodity, fluctuations in the value of major currencies like the U.S. dollar, euro, or Chinese yuan can impact the cost of buying and selling rebar across borders. When a country’s currency weakens relative to others, it becomes more expensive to import steel products, leading to higher domestic prices for rebar. On the other hand, if a currency strengthens, imported steel becomes cheaper, potentially lowering rebar prices. Exchange rate volatility adds an additional layer of complexity for companies operating in multiple markets, as they must factor in currency risk when budgeting for rebar purchases.

Technological advancements in steel production have the potential to impact steel rebar prices by improving efficiency and reducing costs. Innovations such as automation, data analytics, and energy-efficient production processes can help steel manufacturers lower their operating expenses, which may translate into lower rebar prices for consumers. However, the adoption of new technologies often requires significant capital investment, and not all manufacturers may be able to afford these upgrades. As a result, there could be disparities in rebar pricing between companies that adopt cutting-edge technologies and those that continue using traditional production methods.

Market speculation and trading in steel futures can also contribute to fluctuations in rebar prices. Like other commodities, steel is traded on futures markets, where prices are influenced by traders' expectations of future supply and demand. If traders anticipate a shortage of steel or increased demand for rebar, they may drive up futures prices, which can lead to higher spot prices for rebar in the short term. Conversely, if traders expect demand to decrease or if supply increases, futures prices may drop, potentially lowering the current price of rebar. This speculative element can add volatility to the market, making it challenging for construction companies to predict future rebar costs accurately.

In summary, steel rebar prices are influenced by a complex interplay of factors, including construction demand, raw material costs, geopolitical events, environmental regulations, supply chain disruptions, currency fluctuations, technological advancements, and market speculation. These factors create significant volatility in rebar pricing, which can have a profound impact on the construction industry and broader economy. Understanding these dynamics is essential for businesses and contractors looking to manage costs and mitigate risks in an unpredictable market.

Get Real Time Prices for Steel Rebar: https://www.chemanalyst.com/Pricing-data/steel-rebar-1441

Contact Us:

ChemAnalyst

GmbH - S-01, 2.floor, Subbelrather Straße,

15a Cologne, 50823, Germany

Call: +49-221-6505-8833

Email: sales@chemanalyst.com

Website: https://www.chemanalyst.com

[palmoilnews]

🇺🇸 * Nvidia plunged 9.5% on Tuesday, wiping nearly $300 billion off the chipmaker’s market cap and pulling chip stocks down with it.* It was reported during after-hours trade that the DOJ sent subpoenas to Nvidia and other companies, in a move that escalates the investigation into the dominant AI computing provider. Nvidia shares fell 1.4% in after-hours trade. 🇷🇺 Two high-speed Russian missiles struck Poltava, a city in eastern Ukraine, killing more than 50 people and wounding scores more. It was one of the deadliest attacks in the war and followed a string of Russian assaults across Ukraine that started last week. 🇺🇸 Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign said it would direct $24.5 million to state-level races. Most of the money will go to Democratic House and Senate campaigns. The Harris campaign is effectively planning for her time in office, because just how much the next president will be able to get done will depend on which party controls Congress. 🇺🇸 U.S. equities were lower at the close as losses in the Technology, Basic Materials and Oil & Gas sectors propelled shares lower. * Dow 40,936 (-626/-1.51%) * S&P 5,528 (-119/-2.12%) * Nasdaq 17,136 (-577/-1.36%) 🇬🇺 European stocks closed lower. The pan-European Stoxx 600 index provisionally ended down 1%, with all major bourses and the majority of sectors in the red. Mining stocks shed 3.28% and tech stocks lost 2.23%, while food and beverages were a rare outlier, adding 0.09%. ⛽️ Oil prices slumped to eight-month lows as potential end to a dispute in Libya that has disrupted output and worries about OPEC+ potentially increasing output later this weighed on sentiment. * Crude oil $70.34 (-3.21/-4.36%) * Brent crude $73.75 (-3.77/-4.86%) 👑 Gold prices eased to their lowest in more than a week, pressured by a firm dollar, while investors awaited U.S. non-farm payrolls data that could determine the size of the potential cut in the Federal Reserve’s September policy meeting. U.S. gold futures eased 0.3% to $2,520.40. 🌴 FCPO Nov (RM3,933) closed flat on the news that China will start an anti-dumping probe into canola imports from Canada and the fall of India's palm oil imports. China said on Tuesday it plans to start an anti-dumpinginvestigation into canola imports from Canada, after Ottawa moved to impose tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, sending prices of domestic rapeseed oil futures to a one-month peak. China's rapeseed meal futures CRSMcv1 prices jumped 6.03%. India's palm oil imports in August fell 27% from a month ago on ample stocks and as negative margins prompted refiners to curtail purchases of the tropical oil, five dealers said on Tuesday. Malaysia's August palm oil exports are seen at 1,376,412metric tons, according to Amspec Agri. Exports of Malaysian palm oil products for August fell 9.9% to 1,445,442 metric tons from 1,604,578 metric tons shipped during July, cargo surveyor Intertek Testing Services said.

[harimabiff1492]

U.S. & China's Economic Trade War

The economic relationship between the United States and China has been a complex and often contentious one, marked by trade disputes, accusations of currency manipulation, and concerns over intellectual property theft. In recent years, tensions between the two economic superpowers have escalated, leading to what some analysts are calling an economic war. At the center of the economic conflict…

[newsservicesnews]

Global Markets See Mixed Reactions Amid Economic Uncertainty

Global markets have experienced mixed reactions over the past week, driven by a combination of economic uncertainty and geopolitical tensions. Investors have been closely monitoring developments in the U.S. Federal Reserve’s monetary policy, as well as the ongoing trade disputes between major economies. This has led to fluctuations in stock prices, with some sectors performing better than others.

In the technology sector, companies have been navigating supply chain disruptions and rising production costs. However, despite these challenges, tech giants continue to innovate, with several companies announcing new product launches that have generated significant interest. Meanwhile, the energy sector has seen increased volatility due to fluctuations in oil prices and concerns over energy security, especially in Europe.

The global economy has also been influenced by recent events in the Asia-Pacific region. Japan and China, two of the largest economies in the world, have reported slower-than-expected growth, which has impacted global trade and investment flows. The situation has been further complicated by ongoing tensions in the South China Sea, which have raised concerns about potential disruptions to international shipping routes.

Business and finance news outlets have been abuzz with discussions on how these developments are likely to impact global markets in the near term. Analysts are divided, with some predicting a market correction, while others believe that the current volatility presents buying opportunities. The uncertainty has led to increased demand for safe-haven assets, such as gold and government bonds, which have seen a rise in prices.

Amidst all this, the gaming industry has also been making headlines. Latest Games news indicates that the industry is set to experience significant growth, driven by new console releases and the increasing popularity of mobile gaming. Major gaming companies are expected to report strong earnings in the coming quarters, which could provide a boost to market sentiment.

In conclusion, the global economic landscape remains uncertain, with various factors contributing to market volatility. Investors are advised to stay informed and consider diversifying their portfolios to mitigate risks. As always, staying updated with the latest business and finance news and Latest Games news will be crucial for making informed investment decisions.

[ainews]

A growing number of drivers are bristling at the increasing cost of imported cars in the United States. As tariffs have been implemented and the cost of materials for foreign-made cars has risen, the drive to buy imported cars has seen diminishing returns.

In some cases, the cost of imported cars has risen faster than other vehicle types. This has been fueled by the disputes between the Trump Administration and U.S. trading partners, such as China, Mexico, and Europe, as well as the rise in steel and aluminum tariffs. On top of these tariffs, the Trump Administration is also threatening to impose a 25 percent tariff on imported vehicles, which will likely cause even greater price increases for imported cars.

The rise in prices has caused many drivers to look for alternatives, including domestic cars or used vehicles. Domestic and used cars can be more affordable than new imports, and they provide drivers with increased safety and reliability. Furthermore, drivers don’t have to worry about the added cost of tariffs on imports or the possibility of uncertain future prices.

These factors have helped drive down demand for imported cars in the United States. While drivers may still be drawn to the attractive prices and styles of imported cars, many have decided to take a more conservative approach, choosing cars that provide the best value for their money.

[mariacallous]

The United States is a leading Indo-Pacific power with an abiding interest in sustaining a strong alliance network and maintaining a free and open regional order that delivers peace, stability, and economic prosperity. The Indo-Pacific is a dynamic region experiencing a rewiring of the lines of security and economic cooperation, as minilateral networks continue to grow and mega trade agreements take hold. The most significant development in the Indo-Pacific is the emergence of China as a peer competitor to the United States. Chinese actions that undermine vital U.S. interests include the use of coercion — whether in the form of gray-zone tactics, political interference, economic pressure, or military force — to weaken the U.S. alliance system in Asia, press unilateral territorial claims, and settle international disputes with disregard to international law. China also seeks to undermine democratic resilience in the region and incorporate Taiwan into the People’s Republic of China, even though its people reject the terms offered.

To sustain U.S. interests and efforts in the Indo-Pacific, we offer three sets of recommendations:

Deepening alliances, partnerships, and coalitions. The U.S. should deepen its security alliances, enhance minilateral cooperation initiatives such as the Quad, engage actively with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its individual members, including Indonesia, Singapore, and Vietnam; deepen relations with India; and redouble efforts to promote trilateral U.S.-Japan-Korea collaboration.

Increasing economic engagement and opportunity. The United States should strive to obtain economically meaningful outcomes through the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), devise supply chain resilience initiatives that foster cohesion with U.S. partners, partake in digital trade agreements, and restore trade liberalization to its policy toolkit. The United States should pursue membership in the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) to advance its economic and foreign policy interests, and it should coordinate with allies and partners to deliver infrastructure finance to enable regional connectivity in the physical and digital domains.

Enhancing deterrence and sustaining the long peace. On Taiwan policy, the United States should enhance communication with both Beijing and Taipei to strengthen deterrence and reassurance and to establish conflict-avoidance measures. Given North Korea’s nuclear and missile provocations, the United States must continue to reassure its allies, particularly South Korea, of its commitment to extended deterrence, while leaving room for engagement if the North Korean regime decides to return to the negotiation table. Since China is continuing to make aggressive moves to enforce its far-reaching sovereignty claims in the East China and South China seas, the United States must continue to assert the importance of a rules-based maritime order that includes freedom of the seas and unimpeded commerce.

[businesspr]

U.S., Chinese Officials Discuss Future Talks Between Biden and Xi

In talks in Beijing, the two sides made clear that many differences remain over Taiwan, technology export controls and trade disputes. source https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/28/world/asia/us-china-biden-xi.html