#speaker manufacturer in China

[trolleyspeaker]

Sound absorbing Cotton of Speakers

[ibrdjspeaker]

Exported China radio portable wireless speaker AS-2601

Portable Pa speaker factory from China | OEM Manfuacture project development | Worldwide B2B Supplier for made in China

For small and medium-sized dealers, assemblyed factories and chain stores.

Custom radio portable wireless speaker AS-2601 Drive unit: daul 6.5-inch woofer Power output: R.M.S 100W Material: Plastic Minimun: 50 pieces Features: built-in disco LED lighting

The built-in battery has a long battery life of 6 hours to meet your outdoor activities.

Guangzhou AUSMAN Audio Co., Ltd. Email: info@ausman-audio.com Whatsapp/WeChat: +86 18613169271

[ridenwithbiden]

Here's Another Putin Puppet. Good Job #OHIO Voters

"MUNICH (AP) - A Republican opponent of new U.S. funding for Ukraine argued at an international security conference Sunday that the package stuck in Congress wouldn't “fundamentally change the reality” on the ground and that Russia has an incentive to negotiate peace.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris and others have advocated passage of the $60 billion in aid at the Munich Security Conference, which coincided with Ukraine withdrawing troops from the eastern city of Avdiivka after months of intense combat.

But Sen. JD Vance, an Ohio Republican and ally of Donald Trump, said “the problem in Ukraine … is that there’s no clear end point" and that the U.S. doesn't make enough weapons to support wars in eastern Europe, the Middle East and “potentially a contingency in East Asia."

House Speaker Mike Johnson insists he won’t be “rushed” into approving the $95.3 billion foreign aid package from the Senate that includes the help for Ukraine, despite overwhelming support from most Democrats and almost half the Republicans.

If the package goes through, "that is not going to fundamentally change the reality on the battlefield,” Vance argued, pointing to limited American manufacturing capacity.

“Can we send the level of weaponry we’ve sent for the last 18 months?" he asked. "We simply cannot. No matter how many checks the U.S. Congress writes, we are limited there.”

“I think what’s reasonable to accomplish is some negotiated peace,” he said, arguing that Russia, Ukraine, Europe and the U.S. all have an incentive to come to the table now and that the two-year-old war will at some point end in a negotiated peace.

Ricarda Lang, a co-leader of one of Germany's governing parties, the Greens, responded that Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown repeatedly “that he has no interest in peace at the moment.”

Halting weapons supplies to Ukraine now would mean that "either you are prolonging the war or you give up Ukraine and Putin wins,” she said.

If Putin wins, "he, but also other forces like China, are going to learn that it’s possible to just change borders and that NATO is not going to hold it against us," Lang added. That would lead to “a world with less security, and … a world with less freedom for the EU but also for the U.S.”

Vance was part of a large group of U.S. lawmakers who attended the Munich conference. Several of his Senate colleagues met Zelenskyy on Saturday, but Vance did not join them.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, posted on social network X after the meeting that Zelenskyy came to the conference “laser focused with a strong message for America: Ukraine needs your support & we’ll use it well.”

Republican senators have been deeply divided on Ukraine."

[mariacallous]

In the ongoing battle to cut off the illegal flow of fentanyl into the United States, U.S. officials gained some ground this week—with China’s help.

The White House announced on Tuesday that China will more tightly regulate three ingredients used to make the deadly drug. U.S. officials had been pushing China to step up oversight of these chemicals since the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs added them to its list of controlled substances in 2022.

In a notice dated Aug. 2, the Chinese government said it will add the three ingredients—4-AP, 1-boc-4-AP, and norfentanyl—to its own list of controlled chemicals on Sept. 1.

The dry, acronym-laden Chinese regulatory document may not seem like much on its face, but it reflects a larger trend: The United States and China are in a rare moment where they have managed to sustain cooperation even as competition in other spheres escalates. It is a fragile balance, but for now the superpowers are edging forward on a number of major global issues.

China’s willingness, or lack thereof, to come to the United States’ aid in the fentanyl fight has for many years tracked the broader trajectory in the bilateral relationship.

Until 2019, China was the main source of fentanyl flowing into the United States. As the opioid epidemic exploded and fentanyl overdoses became a leading cause of death for Americans, U.S. officials were able to gain support from China to crack down on the trade and regulate production of all fentanyl-related substances, greatly reducing the direct flow of fentanyl from China to the United States.

But in the subsequent years, Chinese companies shifted to manufacturing upstream ingredients to supply fentanyl producers in Mexico, becoming the dominant supplier of these ingredients. As U.S.-China tensions rose, cooperation fell apart even as overdose deaths rose sharply in the United States. After then-U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in August 2022, which deeply angered Beijing, China fully cut off all counternarcotics talks with the United States along with all other major areas of joint action, showing that it was willing to weaponize cooperation to pursue better terms in the relationship.

When Chinese President Xi Jinping met with U.S. President Joe Biden in San Francisco last November, China notably retreated from its position, recommitting to working with the United States on several key topics—including fentanyl, artificial intelligence, climate change, and military-to-military communication—even as tensions remained high.

This about-face reflected a desire by both sides to stabilize the relationship for their own reasons. China watchers surmised that Chinese officials were seeking stability externally to devote more attention to solving the country’s economic slowdown internally. Meanwhile, on the U.S. side, the Biden administration was hoping to avoid further escalation after setting in motion its initial tough agenda and to forge progress on issues critical to U.S. interests, such as fentanyl.

China’s willingness to come to the table on fentanyl specifically has also been driven by sticks from the U.S. side. The Biden administration added China to its annual list of major illicit drug-producing countries last year for the first time, dealing a reputational blow to China.

“Even just being placed on the list has been a major irritant for the Chinese government, because China wants to present itself as the world’s toughest drug cop,” said Vanda Felbab-Brown, the director of the Initiative on Nonstate Armed Actors at the Brookings Institution who has written extensively on global counternarcotics policy.

China hawks have long questioned the value of engagement, arguing that the United States gets strung along by China’s performance of cooperation and then is asked to pay too high a price for real progress. But so far, the renewed bilateral anti-drug efforts haven’t been just talk.

As seen in other areas of mutual concern since the San Francisco summit, this isn’t an era of headlining breakthroughs, but progress is possible. A new U.S.-China counternarcotics working group started meeting in January, and it yielded some results even before this week: Beijing has cracked down on online sales platforms for fentanyl, added more fentanyl substances to its list of regulated drugs, and worked with Washington to arrest a Chinese national accused of money laundering for the Mexican Sinaloa Cartel.

The latest move, announced after U.S. and Chinese officials met in Washington last week, builds on this momentum. According to Chinese regulations, companies trying to export the three precursor chemicals will have to submit their export contracts and show proof that the importer is conducting legal business to the Chinese Commerce Ministry to obtain an export license.

Counternarcotics experts said this should reduce the volume of exports to Mexico, but it isn’t a panacea. One issue: Hundreds of thousands of small factories produce chemicals in China, so enforcement is a challenge. Another broader problem: Combating the fentanyl trade resembles a game of whack-a-mole—cartels have continued to find new ways to produce fentanyl using different precursor chemicals every time new restrictions are imposed.

Nonetheless, experts and U.S. officials welcomed China’s move. “When you’re dealing with something as complicated as the fentanyl supply chain, there is no single action that is going to solve [the problem],” said a senior U.S. administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “We think that each one of these steps is an important step forward, and it’s a lot further than we were before cooperation resumed.”

Going forward, there is hope for further progress. “China has indicated their intention to schedule additional precursors,” the senior U.S. official said. “There are two key ones that we’re focused on that they’re aware of as well.”

In a statement to Foreign Policy, Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said, “We hope that the U.S. side can work with China in the same direction, and continue our cooperation based on mutual respect, managing differences, and mutual benefits.”

But with the United States continuing to introduce new measures to compete with China on emerging technology and tensions simmering in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, will there be enough motivation to sustain engagement on fentanyl and other issues going forward?

Several experts and U.S. officials told Foreign Policy that the outlook is cautiously optimistic for now. “Given the status of the U.S.-China relationship, I think China has an incentive to cooperate,” said Zongyuan Zoe Liu, a senior fellow for China studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and columnist at Foreign Policy. China still hopes such efforts will smooth tensions and “perhaps open the door for other conversations in the context of a stable U.S.-China relationship.”

China may also be motivated to repair its reputation. “China continues to be rather explicit that it expects payments for its cooperation,” said Felbab-Brown, adding that one of the issues high on China’s agenda is being removed from the list of major illicit drug-producing countries.

“I think China recognizes the role that they play in this global problem and the opportunity to be a global leader in finding the solution,” the senior U.S. official said. “We continue to hope that that remains a persuasive reason for China to continue to engage with us on this particular issue set.”

[lepartidelamort]

Cocksucking Four-Eyed Faggot Johnson Condemns Russians and Chinese People as Evil, Demands Ukraine Money

By Andrew Anglin

Well, that didn’t take long.

RT:

In a dramatic break from his party’s hardline conservative base, US House Speaker Mike Johnson this week praised the country’s deep state, called Russia, China, and Iran an “axis of evil,” and vowed to put his job on the line to funnel more than $60 billion to Kiev. For months, Johnson has resisted bringing a $95 billion foreign aid bill to a vote, arguing that neither he nor his fellow Republicans could support the bill – which would give $14 billion in military aid to Israel and $60 billion to Ukraine – without it being tied to an overhaul of US border security. However, after a series of recent meetings with US intelligence chiefs, Johnson has changed his tune. “This is a critical time right now, a critical time on the world stage,” Johnson told reporters on Wednesday. “I think providing lethal aid to Ukraine right now is critically important. I really do. I really do believe the intel and the briefings that we’ve gotten.” “I believe [Chinese President] Xi [Jinping] and [Russian President] Vladimir Putin and Iran really are an axis of evil,” he continued. “I think they’re in coordination on this. I think that Vladimir Putin would continue to march through Europe if he were allowed.”

Oh, fuck you, faggot.

Ironically, the fact that these people keep saying that in order to justify attempting to destroy Russia actually justifies Russia marching through Europe.

What sort of adult says people are “evil”? What does that even mean?

Does he mean they are possessed by demons and/or worship Satan? What is an “evil person”?

In case anyone isn’t aware, let me tell you: this guy took this Speaker position from Kevin McCarthy on the promise of not funding the Ukraine. McCarthy was an extremist war shill, and was removed because he was out of control, just funding everything Brandon wanted.

Now, it turns out, Johnson is the exact same thing. This cocksucker came down from his Speaker seat to break a tie on an amendment to FISA which required the government to get a warrant before spying on people, voting in favor of no warrant.

Democracy is always tyranny. It doesn’t matter what you want. It doesn’t matter who you vote for. The people you vote for will just continue doing the things you don’t want. First they will lie to you, and try to convince you that you actually do want these things, and if that doesn’t work, they just do it anyway.

Neocon Jew David Frum coined the term “Axis of Evil” to describe a series of Islamic countries the US wanted wars with more than 20 years ago. Now here we are, yet again, with a completely unregulated government obsessed with wars for the Jews.

The Ukraine money doesn’t actually mean anything. It’s a long story that many people have already broken down in detail, so I won’t do it here, but the short story is that this is just a payout to people in Washington and to arms manufacturers. They don’t have the weapons to send.

“Funding Wars Good for the Economy”

The fact that they are actually saying “this is good for the military industrial complex and therefore the American economy” is still incredible. I heard this the first time a few months ago from some Jew promoting this bill, or maybe it was Mitch McConnell, and I was shocked. For the longest time, people would complain about US war projects and say “this is just a payout to the military industrial complex,” and now the government just says “yeah, you’re right – and that’s good!”

Biden just made a statement about the bill, saying it is going to build American jobs manufacturing weapons. I don’t think it will actually do that, but even if it did, how is “we should fight wars to help our economy” something that is justifiable?

War is horrible. Look at the videos from Gaza and the Ukraine. This is a nightmare. People should not be promoting war. It is psychopathic to have a national policy that says “we need more wars because it’s good for our economy.” It’s not good for the economy. There is some weird myth about how World War II ended the Great Depression. Insofar as that is true, it’s because the entire economy was shut down and turned into a war machine.

There is no specific profit for a nation in fighting wars. Especially not in the current year. Living space is not an issue because people are willing to live in midrise condos. Furthermore, global trade makes stealing people’s resources pointless, especially in light of how expensive modern war machines are. Faggots used to say that the war with Iraq was “about oil,” which is so retarded it makes your skull numb to try and think about it. Saddam was selling oil very cheap. US spent trillions of dollars fighting a war against Iraq – orders of magnitude more than they could ever spend on Iraqi oil (and then didn’t even keep control of the oil fields anyway).

Chinese people are obsessed with money, and they are also obsessed with avoiding wars. It’s because wars are bad for business. Look at the difference between China’s economic growth and US economic growth over the last 50 years. It’s a ridiculous thought to even compare the two.

The reason the US wants wars is that they can’t think of anything else. Yes, the US has a very powerful “economy,” but it is an absurd monstrosity that is not capable of real world honest competition. The US has to maintain the position of global military superpower, or the dollar fails and the US economy and therefore the state fails. The only way to do that is through war.

The Trump 2016 platform was an actual plan to shift the US into a mode of actually being competitive economically and ending the wars. That could have worked back then. It wouldn’t work now. Now, America is very doomed, and their only remaining idea is to light the whole world on fire and hope their enemies are the ones who suffer the worst burns.

All of these government people are morons and lunatics and they all belong in jail.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

[The Daily Don]

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 27, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

APR 28, 2023

Catie Edmondson and Carl Hulse in the New York Times yesterday noted that House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) cannot bring his conference together behind a budget plan. He wanted to pass a bill demanding major concessions from President Biden before the Republicans would agree to raise the debt ceiling, both to prove that he could get his colleagues behind a bill and to put pressure on the Biden administration to restore the old Republican idea that the only way to make the economy work is to slash taxes, business regulation, and government spending.

McCarthy was pleased to have passed his measure with not a single vote to spare, but it appears he got the vote because everyone knew it was dead on arrival at the Senate. According to Edmonson and Hulse, McCarthy got the bill through only by begging his colleagues to ignore the provisions of the measure because it would never become law. He urged them to focus on the symbolic victory of showing Biden they could unite behind cuts.

But today at the Brookings Institution, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan outlined a very different vision of the global economy and American economic leadership. First of all, just the fact this happened is significant: Sullivan is a national security advisor, and he was talking about economics. He outlined how Biden’s “core commitment,” “his daily direction” is “to integrate domestic policy and foreign policy.”

Sullivan argued for a new economic approach to the challenges of the twenty-first century. The Biden administration is trying to establish “a fairer, more durable global economic order, for the benefit of ourselves and for people everywhere.”

The U.S. faces economic challenges, he noted, many of which have been created by the economic ideology that has shaped U.S. policy for the past 40 years. The idea that markets would spread capital to where it was most needed to create an efficient and effective economy has been proven wrong, Sullivan said. The U.S. cut taxes and slashed business regulations, privatized public projects, and pushed free trade on principle with the understanding that all growth was good growth and that if we lost infrastructure and manufacturing, we could make up those losses in finance, for example.

As countries lowered their economic barriers and became more closely integrated with each other, they would also become more open and peaceful.

But that’s not how it played out. Privileging finance over fundamental economic growth was a mistake. The U.S. lost supply chains and entire industries as jobs moved overseas, while countries like China discarded markets in favor of artificially subsidizing their economies. Rather than ushering in world peace, the market-based system saw an aggressive China and Russia both expanding their international power. At the same time, climate change accelerated without countries making much effort to address it. And, most of all, the unequal growth of the older system has undermined democracy.

Biden has attempted to counter the weaknesses of the previous economic system by focusing on building capacity to produce and innovate, resilience to withstand natural disasters and geopolitical shocks, and inclusiveness to rebuild the American middle class and greater opportunity for working people around the world.

After two years, the results have been “remarkable.”

Large-scale investment in semiconductor and clean energy production has jumped 20-fold since 2019, with private money following government seed money to mean about $3.5 trillion in public and private investment will flow into the economy in the next decade. Building domestic capacity will bring supply chains home and create jobs.

But this vision is not about isolating the United States from other countries. Indeed, much of the speech reinforced U.S. support for the positions of the European Union.

Instead, the U.S. is encouraging our allies—including developing nations—to build similarly to increase our united economic strengths and to enable the world to address climate change together, a field that offers huge potential for economic growth. The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework with 13 Indo-Pacific nations is designed to create international economic cooperation in that region, and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity, which includes Barbados, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Peru, and Uruguay, is designed to do the same here in the Americas. The U.S.-E.U. Trade and Technology Council and our trilateral coordination with Japan and Korea are part of the same economic program.

With this economic approach, the U.S. does not seek to cut ties to China, but rather aims to cut the risks associated with supply chains based in China by investing in our own capacities, and to push for a level playing field for our workers and companies. The U.S. has “a very substantial trade and investment relationship” with China that set a new record last year, and the U.S. is looking not to create conflict but to “manage competition responsibly” and “work together on global challenges like climate, like macroeconomic stability, health security, and food security.” “But,” he said, “China has to be willing to play its part.”

In today’s world, Sullivan said, trade policy is not just about the tariff deals that business leaders have criticized the administration for neglecting. It is about a larger economic strategy both at home and abroad to build economies that offer rising standards of living for working people.

The administration is now focusing on labor rights, climate change, and banking security in this larger picture. Through organizations like the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment the administration hopes to mobilize hundreds of billions of dollars in financing in the next seven years to build infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries and to relieve debt there.

“The world needs an international economic system that works for our wage-earners, works for our industries, works for our climate, works for our national security, and works for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries,” Sullivan said. That means replacing the idea of free markets alone with “targeted and necessary investments in places that private markets are ill-suited to address on their own.” Rather than simply adjusting tariff rates, it means international cooperation.

And, Sullivan said, “it means returning to the core belief we first championed 80 years ago: that America should be at the heart of a vibrant, international financial system that enables partners around the world to reduce poverty and enhance shared prosperity. And that a functioning social safety net for the world’s most vulnerable countries is essential to our own core interests.”

This strategy, he said, “is the surest path to restoring the middle class, to producing a just and effective clean-energy transition, to securing critical supply chains, and, through all of this, to repairing faith in democracy itself.” He called for bipartisan support for this approach to the global economy.

Sullivan noted that the phrase “a rising tide lifts all boats” came from President John F. Kennedy, not from later supply-side ideologues who used it to defend their tax cuts and business deregulation. “President Kennedy wasn’t saying what’s good for the wealthy is good for the working class,” Sullivan said, “He was saying we’re all in this together.”

Sullivan quoted Kennedy further: “If one section of the country is standing still, then sooner or later a dropping tide drops all the boats. That’s true for our country. That’s true for our world. [And] economically, over time, we’re going to rise—or fall—together.”

“And that goes for the strength of our democracies as well as for the strength of our economies.”

Foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen noted that David Wessel of Brookings asked Sullivan for a quick summary of this new economic vision. Sullivan answered: “We’re at a moment now where we need to build capacity to build the goods & invent the technologies of [the] future & we’re going to make the investments to do that—us, +everyone who wants to be in on [the] deal. & then we’re going to build the resilience we need…so that no natural disaster or geopolitical shock can stop us from getting things we need when we need them….”

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[gusty-wind]

Comer: Mountain of Evidence Reveals Joe Biden Abused his Public Office for his Family’s Financial Gain - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

Below are Chairman Comer’s remarks as prepared for delivery.

Since assuming our Republican majority in January, the House Oversight and Accountability Committee has uncovered a mountain of evidence revealing how Joe Biden abused his public office for his family’s financial gain.

For years, President Biden has lied to the American people about his knowledge of and participation in his family’s corrupt business schemes.

At least ten times, Joe Biden lied to the American people that he never spoke to his family about their business dealings.

He lied by telling the American people that there was an “absolute wall” between his official government duties and his personal life.

Let’s be clear: there was no wall. The door was wide open to those who purchased what a business associate described as “The Biden Brand.”

Evidence reveals that then-Vice President Joe Biden spoke, dined, and developed relationships with his family’s foreign business targets. These business targets include foreign oligarchs who sent millions of dollars to his family. It also includes a Chinese national who wired a quarter of a million dollars to his son.

Joe Biden also lied to the American people about his family making money in China. He has continued to lie about it even when the House Oversight Committee uncovered bank wires revealing how the Bidens received millions from Chinese companies with significant ties to the Chinese intelligence and the Chinese Communist Party.

Just this week, we uncovered two additional wires sent to Hunter Biden that originated in Beijing from Chinese nationals. This happened when Joe Biden was running for President of the United States. And Joe Biden’s home is listed as the beneficiary address.

To date, the House Oversight Committee has uncovered how the Bidens and their associates created over 20 shell companies -- most of which were created when Joe Biden was Vice President – and raked in over $24 million dollars between 2014-2019.

We’ve also identified nine members of the Biden family who have participated in or benefited from these business schemes.

What were the Bidens selling to make all this money?

Joe Biden himself.

Joe Biden is “The Brand.” And Joe Biden showed up at least two dozen times with business targets and associates sending signals of access, influence, and power to those prepared to pay for it.

The American people demand accountability for this culture of corruption.

They demand to know how these schemes have compromised President Biden and threaten our national security.

They demand safeguards to be put in place to prevent public officials from selling access to their public office for private gain.

Under the leadership of Speaker Kevin McCarthy, House Republicans have now opened an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

By opening an impeachment inquiry, our investigation is now focused on whether President Biden engaged in impeachable offenses under the U.S. Constitution.

It empowers Congress, elected by The People, to continue providing the answers, transparency, and accountability that the American people demand and deserve.

In recent history, Democrats inflicted much damage on the credibility of congressional investigations by peddling the Russia Collusion Hoax.

But this Committee, under this majority, will not pursue such witch hunts based on manufactured allegations, innuendo, and no real evidence.

Today, the House Oversight Committee will examine over two dozen pieces of evidence revealing Joe Biden’s corruption and abuse of public office. This includes e-mails, text messages, bank records, and testimony of Biden business associates.

We will hear from legal and financial experts about this evidence and crimes that may have been committed as Joe Biden was sold around the world.

The House Oversight Committee, along with the Committees on the Judiciary and Ways and Means, will continue to follow the money and the evidence to provide accountability so that Americans know their public offices are not for sale.

I now yield to Jim Jordan, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee for his opening statement.

[beardedmrbean]

(Bloomberg) -- Italy has signaled to the US that it intends to pull out of a controversial investment pact with China before the end of the year.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni reassured US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy during a meeting in Rome last week that while a final decision hasn’t been taken, her government is favoring an exit from its role in China’s massive Belt and Road Initiative, according to people present at the talks.

Italy signed onto the infrastructure initiative in 2019 when Giuseppe Conte was premier, becoming the only Group of Seven country to become part of the deal. Participation will automatically renew in 2024 unless Rome actively exits the agreement.

Italy, like much of Europe, has been caught between escalating tensions between Washington and Beijing, which have compounded in light of Beijing’s continued support for Russia. European countries are struggling to balance a desire to engage with China on trade and investment while pushing back against claims of economic coercion.

A spokesperson for Meloni declined to comment. McCarthy’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stressed that the two countries have seen “fruitful cooperation” in trade, manufacturing and clean energy since signing the agreement.

“The two sides should tap further into potential in BRI cooperation and step up mutually beneficial cooperation across the board,” foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin told reporters at a regular press briefing on Wednesday.

The US has actively pressured Rome to take a public stance on the issue, and ditch the pact, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions are private.

Meloni’s diplomatic advisers are still discussing the details and timing of a decision, fearing economic retaliation from China, and nothing will likely be made public before the start of the G-7 leaders summit in Hiroshima, Japan, on May 19, according to the people.

The potential move is closely linked to Meloni’s stance on Chinese investments in Italy and in particular on an upcoming choice on whether to use executive power to curtail the influence of China’s Sinochem Holdings Corp., the largest shareholder in tire maker Pirelli & C. SpA, the people said. That decision has been delayed to the end of May.

Bloomberg reported last month that Italian officials are discussing a range of options as part of talks with Pirelli investors over the company’s ownership structure. The government could take a more neutral stance on Sinochem’s role as part of the overall decision on Belt and Road exit, one of the people added.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

President Biden "has carefully and cautiously waged war in Ukraine with no American troops." He just "had one of the best first term off-year elections in history." Nancy Pelosi? Ron Klain? Jill Biden?

• No. That was Newt Gingrich — leader of the Republican revolution of 1994, which swept him in as Speaker of the House.

• "Quit Underestimating President Biden," Gingrich wrote in a column this week. "[C]onservatives' hostility to the Biden administration ... tends to blind us to just how effective Biden has been on his terms."

Why It Matters: Gingrich has a point. If you look at Biden's legislative accomplishments, he has exceeded expectations for a Congress where Democrats hold narrow majorities, and a country that's split in two.

Gingrich, 79, Told Me: "I was thinking about football and the clarity of winning and losing. It hit me that, measured by his goals, Biden has been much more successful than we have been willing to credit."

Biden Agrees. Advisers tell me he hasn't made a formal decision about running again — that'll come over Christmas, ultimately made by him and the first lady.

• But his friends tell me they think only two things could stop him: health or Jill.

With Republicans controlling the House, Biden won't be able to pass much in the second term. But the subtext of his Year 3 and 4 travel around the country will be: Look at my results.

• He'll argue that he helped produce record-low joblessness, America-first jobs in manufacturing and computer chips, and the largest infrastructure and green energy bills in history.

The Way The White House Will Sell The Record: "The most significant economic recovery package since Roosevelt ... The largest infrastructure plan since Eisenhower ... The most sweeping gun reform bill since Clinton ... Landmark China competitiveness legislation that's already bringing manufacturing jobs back from overseas ... The largest climate change bill in history."

Gingrich had this hard talk for his own party: "Today there is not nearly enough understanding (or acknowledgement) among leading Republicans that our system and approach failed."

• "We need to rethink from the ground up how we are going to Defeat Big Government Socialism — including almost inevitable second-time Democrat Presidential Nominee Biden."

• "This is a much bigger challenge than I would have guessed before the election."

The Bottom Line: A month ago, it would have been tough to imagine a leader of the GOP's '90s-era New Right arguing that Joe Biden is not just a winner — but a role model.

[trolleyspeaker]

How are portable speakers assembled in speaker factory ?

[ibrdjspeaker]

Supply Partners for Plastic Loudspeaker Enclosures-Variety of Choices to Meet Different Market Demands

Different markets have different needs and preferences.

As a supply partner, we offer a wide selection of plastic loudspeaker enclosures to meet the needs of different markets.

Whether your customers are looking for classic styles or innovative designs, we have the right solution so you can meet their needs and expand your market share.

Get more in the article from AUSMAN Audio Blog

What Are The Plastic Materials For Speaker Enclosures?

[onedirectdeals]

ULTIMEA 7.1 Soundbar for TV, Virtual Surround Sound System Home Cinema with Smart App, Peak Power 410W TV Sound Bar, Adjustable Wireless Subwoofer & 4 Wired Surround Speakers, Poseidon D70, 2024 Model

Price: Buy Now Last Updated: From the brand Shop ULTIMEA Soundbar Product Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 40 x 7 x 9 cm; 9.96 kg Date First Available ‏ : ‎ 18 Jun. 2024 Manufacturer ‏ : ‎ ULTIMEA ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0D7C8P2HW Item model number ‏ : ‎ U2600 Country of origin ‏ : ‎ China Guaranteed software updates until ‏ : ‎ unknown 7.1ch Surround Sound System: Building on the 5.1ch soundbar of the Poseidon D50, we…

[mariacallous]

Once upon a time, a very long time ago, about two years ago, companies—like the beloved children’s character Winnie the Pooh—lived, if not all by themselves, then at least far from geopolitics.

How rapidly the world has changed since then. Last year, a staggering 93 percent of multinationals reported losses linked to political instability, up from 35 percent in 2020, a new survey from WTW and Oxford Analytica found. Companies should brace themselves for even more turbulence this year. And next year. And the year after that. Businesses, which have for decades operated in a world where they could float above any squabbling among countries, are discovering that charmed era has ended.

Weeks after Russia invaded Ukraine, BP decided to let go of its 19.75-percent stake in the Russian oil and gas giant Rosneft and two joint ventures in Russia—which meant it had to write down more than $20 billion in the first quarter of 2022. The German DIY chain Obi Baumarkt sold its Russian stores to local staff for 10 euros. The Italian bank UniCredit has lost $1.3 billion, ExxonMobil has lost more than $3 billion, and H&M has lost nearly $200 million. Indeed, every company leaving the country (and hundreds have made announcements to that effect) is incurring substantial losses—if they manage to leave.

Companies wishing to depart need the approval of Russian authorities, and as of March this year, they also have to make a “mandatory donation” to the Russian government. Meanwhile, companies operating in China, or exporting to the country, know that they risk becoming a target if their home governments say or do something that displeases Beijing; this has happened to companies as diverse as Ericsson and Taiwanese pineapple farms. And when President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan met U.S. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy in California earlier this month, Beijing responded by dispatching an “inspection flotilla” to the Taiwan Strait, where its threat of inspections was certain to wreak havoc on shipping companies and their customers in one of the world’s busiest waterways. This time, the flotilla didn’t carry out any inspections, but global shipping companies and manufacturers rightly concluded there will be more such outings.

Such events have delivered a brutal awakening to companies, which until just a couple of years ago persisted in believing that they could keep operating in a largely peaceful sphere. The 2023 political risk survey conducted by Oxford Analytica for the insurance broker WTW, published on April 18, delivers sobering figures. Last year, 68 percent of companies bought political risk insurance, which provides cover for war, civil wars, coups, government expropriations, and similar misfortunes, up from 25 percent in 2019.

Even compared to last year, the fear of geopolitics has skyrocketed. In the 2022 survey, 16 percent of the executives interviewed predicted deglobalization would significantly strengthen; in this year’s report, 48 percent do (and another 38 percent believe it will simply strengthen). Last year, 12 percent of the executives predicted decoupling from China would significantly increase; now 42 percent do. Beijing has been all too happy to oblige. The Financial Times reported that between mid-February and mid-April this year, China imposed sanctions on the U.S. defense contractors Lockheed Martin and Raytheon; launched an investigation into U.S. chipmaker Micron; and harassed the U.S. due diligence firm Mintz, Japan’s Astellas Pharma group, and the Big Four consultancy Deloitte.

A sizable majority of executives have lost faith in globalization. “It’s a sea change in companies’ attitudes about geopolitical risk,” Sam Wilkin, WTW’s director of political analysis, told me. “There has been a huge change in perception, mostly as a result of the conflict in Ukraine and, for U.S. companies, the confrontation with China. Companies have started taking wars and conflicts seriously.” (Full disclosure: I serve as an occasional advisor to another division of WTW.)

Companies are taking wars and conflicts seriously because they’re being affected by both—including conflicts of the less visible kind. Twenty percent of the companies surveyed have sustained political risk-related losses in Russia or Ukraine, and 48 percent have done so in the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. “Political uncertainty manifested in the war in Ukraine and the growing uncertainty around China and a potential war in the Pacific over Taiwan: Link this to continued uncertainty over rogue states like North Korea and Iran, and it’s no surprise that political uncertainty and the impact it has on international business is growing,” said Simon Bergman, the CEO of M&C Saatchi World Services. “The West’s inability to accurately predict large state actors’ behavior has been manifest over the past 12 months, and this will continue into 2024 and beyond.”

Political risk insurance cover was created years ago with the backing of several Western governments to allow companies to operate in riskier countries. Today, though, simply operating in the globalized economy is so risky that nearly 7 in 10 companies are buying this insurance. “Companies’ ability to do business in Russia and China will continue to deteriorate,” Bergman said. “When, and it’s when, China acts on Taiwan, the international reaction will significantly impact global businesses, and many of them depend on China for commercial products. The impact will be significant if not crisis-bringing.”

Nearly two-thirds of the executives surveyed by Oxford Analytica are concerned about state-backed cyber aggression, and nearly 60 percent worry about sanctions targeting individuals and companies. More than 50 percent worry about state-backed manipulation of financial markets, and more than 40 percent are concerned about state-backed intellectual-property theft.

So dire is the situation for the corporates surveyed that Russia and China now account for the largest political risk losses, followed by India, Brazil, and (thanks to Brexit) the United Kingdom. In 2020, companies sustained their largest political risk losses in Iran, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Angola, and Libya—a much more predictable bunch of countries, and much more manageable losses because most companies had smaller operations there than in Russia or China. China taking the place of the Angolas and Libyas of the world, measured in business risk, is a dramatic turn of events.

“The risk the business community is most worried about is the West vs. China, because Western countries are showing that they’re willing to treat China as a systemic competitor,” Wilkin said. “And now it’s possible to imagine a major economy leaving the globalized economy. In 2020, we still had some of the usual suspects ranking as the world’s riskiest. Back then, you could operate in politically risky countries because you had diversified operations including many countries with no or little political risk. Now political risk has shifted major world economies that used to be major investment destinations. Companies are worrying about going out of business as a result of political risk.”

It has come to this: Businesses are worried about going bust not as a result of misunderstanding the market or making foolish investments—but as a result of geopolitics. Western companies in particular are extremely vulnerable now that globalization’s ultimate prize, China, is not just battling the United States over global power but also battling its own private sector, lest it become uncomfortably powerful. So severe was Beijing’s recent crackdown of China’s most successful tech giants that the companies’ shares plummeted when President Xi Jinping was reelected to a third term last fall.

“If the rate of change on the outside exceeds the rate of change on the inside, the end is near,” GE’s legendary CEO Jack Welch said. It’s not looking good for the companies that have done precisely what they were supposed to do and spent the past three decades integrating themselves into the globalized economy.

[industrynewsupdates]

Innovations Driving Growth in the Metal Stamping Market

The global metal stamping market size was estimated at USD 236.83 billion in 2023 and is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.2% from 2024 to 2030. 

Growing consumer electronics industry is likely to remain a key driving factor based on application of metal frames in mobile phones, headphones, speakers, and gamepads & controllers. In mobile phones, metal stamping is used in manufacturing antennas, chassis, and camera lens holders as it offers high tolerance, corrosion resistance, electrical conductivity, and a smooth finish. According to GSM Association, the global number of unique mobile subscribers was 5.31 billion in January 2021 and this number is growing at a rate of 1.8% per annum. This is likely to propel the demand for mobile phones and eventually metal stamping in coming years. 

Gather more insights about the market drivers, restrains and growth of the Metal Stamping Market

The U.S. is one of the prominent player in the industry. However, emergence of COVID-19 and subsequent temporary lockdown measures countrywide impacted operations of the industry. Downstream demand from key sectors including automotive, aerospace, industrial machinery, and others was largely disrupted owing to challenges in supply chain and dried-up demand from end-use customers. The situation has normalized as rate of vaccination has picked up pace. Growing demand for metal stamping in the U.S. has compelled manufacturers to expand their facilities.

For instance, in December 2020, General Motors Co. announced its plans about investing USD 6 million in its metal stamping facility in Parma, Ohio, U.S. The investment will be used to construct four new metal assembly cells to support increasing production of Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickup trucks.

According to International Energy Agency (IEA), global EV sales surpassed 3.4 million, out of which, China accounted for over 50% in 2021. Government initiatives, such as electric car subsidies to local manufacturers to support growth of EVs are major factors responsible for increased production. This is likely to boost the usage of sheet metal during production of auto components.

These components include chassis, interior and exterior structural, and transmission components. This, in turn, is expected to drive market growth during the forecast period. Market growth can be hindered as automobile manufacturers are replacing metals with plastic and carbon fiber as they assist in weight reduction of vehicles. A 10% reduction in weight of the vehicle results in a 5% to 7% increase in fuel efficiency.

Increasing production of lightweight vehicles owing to stringent government regulations in various countries is anticipated to drive demand for substitute products. For instance, in the U.S., developments in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations to enhance fuel efficiency are encouraging use of these substitute products in automobiles, which, in turn, is likely to hamper the market for metal stamping.

Metal Stamping Market Segmentation

Grand View Research has segmented the global metal stamping market report based on process, press type, thickness, application, and region:

Process Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2018 - 2030)

• Blanking

• Embossing

• Bending

• Coining

• Flanging

• Others

Press Type Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2018 - 2030)

• Mechanical Press

• Hydraulic Press

• Servo Press

• Others

Thickness Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2018 - 2030)

• Less than & up to 2.5 mm

• More than 2.5 mm

Application Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2018 - 2030)

• Automotive

• Industrial Machinery

• Consumer electronics

• Aerospace

• Electrical & Electronics

• Building & Construction

• Telecommunications

• Others

Regional Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2018 - 2030)

• North America

o U.S.

• Europe

o Germany

o UK

o Italy

• Asia Pacific

o China

o India

o Japan

• Central & South America

• Middle East & Africa

Browse through Grand View Research's Advanced Interior Materials Industry Research Reports.

• The global copper pipes and tubes market size was estimated at USD 22.52 billion in 2023 and is estimated to grow at a CAGR of 5.9% from 2024 to 2030.

• The global aerostructure materials market size was estimated at USD 82.63 billion in 2023 and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 7.2% from 2024 to 2030. 

Key Companies & Market Share Insights

Some of the key players operating in the market include CAPARO, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd and Goshen Stamping Company.

• CAPARO is mainly engaged in the designing, manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of value-added steel and niche emerging products. The group operates in North America, the UK, the Middle East, and India with its various subsidiaries such as Bull Moose Engineering Livonia, Caparo Engineering India Ltd – Chennai, and Caparo Middle East, among others.

• Nissan Motor Co., Ltd is engaged in the manufacturing, sales, and related business of automotive products. The company has several subsidiaries, dealers, and joint ventures, which are involved in R&D, design, production, automobile finance, and digital operations.

• Goshen Stamping Company specializes in producing high volumes with a combination of medium to high-speed presses with progressive dies. The company operates 36 presses ranging from 30-ton OBIs up to 400-ton SSDC. Its press bed sizes are up to 84" x 48" with stroke ranges from 2" to 8" for stamping. It offers a wide range of stampings in various materials such as carbon based steel, stainless steel, aluminum, or other metals.

• AAPICO Hitech Public Company Limited and Gestamp are some of the emerging market participants.

• AAPICO Hitech Public Company Limite is engaged in OEM auto parts manufacturing, car dealerships, and IoT connectivity and mobility. OEM auto parts manufacturing is further segmented into stamped or pressed parts, forged & machined parts, and plastic parts & plastic fuel tanks.

• Maoming Xingli Kaolin Co., Ltd. has a high-quality mine named acicular kaolin mine that spreads across 800 acres. The company offers several products such as bone china clay, clay for porcelain, kaolin clay, porcelain clay, and others. Its key focus is on washed kaolin (without acid), 90-degree ball clay, and 90- degree kaolin.

Key Metal Stamping Companies:

• Acro Metal Stamping

• Manor Tool & Manufacturing Company

• D&H Industries, Inc.

• Kenmode, Inc.

• Klesk Metal Stamping Co

• Clow Stamping Company

• Goshen Stamping Company

• Tempco Manufacturing Company, Inc

• Interplex Holdings Pte. Ltd.

• CAPARO

• Nissan Motor Co., Ltd

• AAPICO Hitech Public Company Limited

• Gestamp

• Ford Motor Company

Recent Developments

• In November 2023, Generational Growth Capital, an equity firm based in Milwaukee, U.S. acquired Federal Tool & Engineering, BP Metals, and Rockford Specialties based in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Illinois, U.S. respectively. The three manufacturers are metal stamping and structural steel manufacturers. This will enable the new entity to tap into various benefits such as expanding its manufacturing capacity, and support customers with interrupted delivery through a strong logistics supply chain.

• In October 2023, Ryerson acquired Norlen Inc., a metal stamping fabricator based Wisconsin, U.S. for an undisclosed sum. The latter mainly caters to the agricultural and defense markets.

• In June 2023, General Motors announced that it would be investing more than USD 500 million into its Arlington, Texas, U.S. assembly plant to produce the next generation SUVs. It intends to purchase new equipment for metal stamping, the body shop and other assembly parts.

Order a free sample PDF of the Metal Stamping Market Intelligence Study, published by Grand View Research.

[sa7abnews]

Walz's honeymoon with China gets fresh scrutiny as Harris camp blasts 'lying' critics

New Post has been published on https://sa7ab.info/2024/08/09/walzs-honeymoon-with-china-gets-fresh-scrutiny-as-harris-camp-blasts-lying-critics/

Walz's honeymoon with China gets fresh scrutiny as Harris camp blasts 'lying' critics

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is facing scrutiny from Republicans over what they say are pro-China remarks, including an interview in which the Democratic vice presidential nominee said he does not agree with the idea there needs to be an adversarial relationship with the communist government.Walz worked briefly in China as a teacher, traveling to Guangdong in 1989 for a teach abroad program to teach English and American history. He later became a member of Congress and governor of Minnesota. The Wall Street Journal, citing local media reports, reported that one trip to China doubled as his honeymoon in 1994, and he planned his wedding date to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown.In an interview from 2016, Walz said he believed there was potential for a strong relationship between China and the U.S., although he also said China needed to play “by the rules” on human rights and the environment.FORMER MINNESOTA LAWMAKERS UNLOAD ON HARRIS’ ‘PARTISAN’ VP PICK TIM WALZ: ‘VERY THIN-SKINNED’ “I’ve lived in China and, as I’ve said, I’ve been there about 30 times. … I don’t fall into the category that China necessarily needs to be an adversarial relationship. I totally disagree, and I think we need to stand firm on what they’re doing in the South China Sea, but there’s many areas of cooperation we can work on,” he said in the interview with Agri-Pulse Communications.In the interview, he noted he was on the congressional executive commission on China, a bipartisan commission that focuses on human rights.Walz taught the same year as the Tiananmen Square crackdown by the communist regime against pro-democracy protesters. He later started a company to organize trips to China and, as he noted in his remarks, has visited the country dozens of times, conducting summer education trips to China. The New York Post reported that he said after his initial travel there, “No matter how long I live, I will never be treated that well again.”It’s brought criticism from some on the right who believe Walz is soft on the threat coming from the Chinese Communist Party.Former acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell said “communist China is very happy with [Walz] as Kamala’s VP pick.””No one is more pro-China than Marxist Walz,” Grenell said.James Hutton, a former assistant secretary at the Department of Veterans Affairs, said Walz “doesn’t see China as a problem.””This is a guy who will have to learn the truth of the vicious nature of the dictatorship in Beijing. Communist tyranny may not be a bad thing to Walz, but the rest of the world knows. Walz is dangerous.””Tim Walz owes the American people an explanation about his unusual, 35-year relationship with Communist China,” Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said.The Harris campaign and some Democrats have pushed back against that criticism. “Throughout his career, Gov. Walz has stood up to the CCP, fought for human rights and democracy and always put American jobs and manufacturing first. Republicans are twisting basic facts and desperately lying to distract from the Trump-Vance agenda: praising dictators and sending American jobs to China,” spokesperson James Singer said in a statement to Fox News Digital.”Vice President Harris and Governor Walz will ensure we win the competition with China and will always stand up for our values and interests in the face of China’s threats.” WHERE DOES TIM WALZ STAND ON ISRAEL?Others, including Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin, noted that Walz criticized Beijing for cultural genocide in Tibet and Xinjiang in 2009, accompanied Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a visit to Tibet and had met with the Dalai Lama. He has also co-sponsored resolutions on key human rights issues.Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., told the Post his selection is “an affirming signal that a Harris-Walz administration would continue to make human rights a key part of the United States’ relationship with China.”Meanwhile, on Chinese social media platform Weibo, opinions were split on what the Walz pick indicated.”In 2014, he said in an interview with U.S. media that he ‘cares a lot about human rights and democracy in China.’ He was also a member of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. He has bad intentions,” another said.Fox News’ Eryk Michael Smith contributed to this report.

[audio-luddite]

Small World.

That GR Research guy in Texas liked an amplifier, two actually from a company named Galeon. One was a 75 Watt per side transistor and the other a 60 Watt per side Tuber. It turns out that the person behind this company is that guy that did a questionable TAS review of that Technics amp.

Hmm a reviewer and a manufacturer and a competitor. Here is a hint of conflict of interest.

I like Texans. I have known a few and find them good people and up front about stuff. My natural tendency is to like them until they go too far. So GR Research liked the transistor amp but loved the tuber. He is a tube lover so that is his preference and well thereby hangs the tale.

The Galeon company owner is Thomas Tan his site is Thomas&stereo. The products are found under Galeon audio

Galeon is based in Quebec which is why he uses the French word Galeon for what in English is Galleon the type of ship. He sells stuff in USD.

His stuff has been praised, but..... Every review is 5 stars? Hmmmm. The pictures of the tube amp show Chinese tubes (Psvane) and those have lets call it a checkered history. The tube amps are made in China by a company called Doge. Thomas knows them and well everything is made in China now. The Doge Website is off line so... My spidy senses are tingling.

I am going to focus on the tuber the TS 120. It is rated 50 Watts RMS per side and is an integrated amp with tone controls. It is advertised as a 60 Watt unit (120/2) and claims up to 100 Watts peak. RMS is truth kids. It only has two tubes in front of the power tubes and one must be the differential thing. That is not enough to properly buffer the amp from outside reactance and have tone controls. The main part sure seems similar to a Dynaco Mk III with tone controls. I have my doubts.

Mr Thomas does a soliloquy on how he worked to voice the sound using specific capacitors and resistors to get just what he wanted.

OK stop right there. You can either have accuracy or voice. A perfect amplifier would have no voice. What goes in comes out with enough power to drive speakers. Making it sound they way you prefer is tailoring distortion.

Speaking of speakers the output impedance is not very good. The damping factor is listed as low as 5.6 and as high as 10.8. One is poor the other is worse. That means the speaker reactance will actually change the frequency response. I had doubts about the ARC with a 30 to one damping factor.

I know enough to be dangerous, but the TS 120 is actually less powerful than the ARC Cl60 and has fewer tubes per side and the ARC has a bunch of FETs to buffer the input and do fancy electrical things.

My feeling is the TS120 would sound a lot like the Dynaco Mk III with nicer parts. Nicer parts help only so much. People still like the Mk III.

If I had a lot of money I would love to try it out as I think the ARC would kick its ass. The price of the beast is almost 5k bucks in USD and for that you can get a great preamp with phono and the ARC power amp with money to spare.

At first I toyed with this thing as a candidate for my son-in-law. Now no fucking way.

Does this guy still pretend to do unbiased reviews?