Luck or not? Ever since President Donald Trump introduced his first round of new tariffs, it’s been a waiting game to see just how much they’ll impact the global economy. This week, one of the earliest signs was revealed — and it wasn’t pretty. South Korea’s Customs Service reported that exports for the first 20 days of April declined by 5.2% compared to the same period last year. That singular data point is a “key bellwether” for where trade is heading, Min Joo Kang, a senior economist at ING, said in a note on Monday. Nursing Jobs up to $96/hr job.incrediblehealth.com Nursing Jobs up to $96/hr Ad The decline in exports came after Trump enacted a 25% tariff on all aluminum, steel and auto imports. All other South Korean imports were also briefly subject to a 25% “reciprocal” tariff before Trump delayed it until July. Instead, imports from there are subject to a nearly universal 10% tariff. That was evident in the data, which showed that car and steel shipments fell 6.5% and 8.7%, respectively, year over year for the first 20 days of April. Overall exports from South Korea to the US declined by 14.3% from last year. The bright spot was semiconductor exports, which rose 10.2% compared to last April. Semiconductors remain exempt from US tariffs, but Trump has said he aims to implement tariffs as high as 25% on the product. For now, the South Korean data suggests that “US tariffs are complicating global trade dynamics,” Kang said. Vehicles produced by South Korean automaker Kia Motors are lined up ready to be shipped at the Port of Pyeongtaek on April 3. - Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images Vehicles produced by South Korean automaker Kia Motors are lined up ready to be shipped at the Port of Pyeongtaek on April 3. - Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images Tubes are stacked inside a small metal fabrication plant in Seoul, South Korea, on February 11. - Jeon Heon-Kyun/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Tubes are stacked inside a small metal fabrication plant in Seoul, South Korea, on February 11. - Jeon Heon-Kyun/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock But things can often change on a month-to-month basis, so it might be too early to jump to any conclusions, cautioned Lee Branstetter, an economics and public policy professor at Carnegie Mellon University. It is, however, “reasonable to attribute part of the export decline to the Trump-related disruptions in trade,” he told CNN. Irina Gorbman Fine Art Morning Awakening Original Oil On Canvas By Irina Gorbman - Wall Art In Yelloworangepurple | Size 36" H X 60" W | IGAT1027 Perigold Irina Gorbman Fine Art Morning Awakening Original Oil On Canvas By Irina Gorbman - Wall Art In Yelloworangepurple | Size 36" H X 60" W | IGAT1027 Ad Branstetter, who previously served as senior economist for international trade and investment on former President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, said he expects forthcoming trade data from other American trade partners to paint a similar picture. But those changes might not show up as fast because it can take a while for new tariffs to manifest in trade data, he added. Nevertheless, the International Monetary Fund is warning global economic growth will slow to 2.8% this year from the 3.3% rate it predicted last year, according to new forecasts released Tuesday. The slowdown expected in the United States was even steeper, with its economy likely to grow only 1.8%, compared with a 2.8% expansion in 2024. The IMF cited “trade tensions and extremely high levels of policy uncertainty” as reasons for the downward revisions. Forthcoming trade data likely won’t be cut and dry The chaos that’s ensued from Trump’s on-and-off tariffs makes it increasingly hard to draw firm conclusions from forthcoming trade data. Lakefront & Hot Tub Rentals - Lakefront & Hot Tub Cabins bigbearcoolcabins.com Lakefront & Hot Tub Rentals - Lakefront & Hot Tub Cabins Ad For starters, it’s possible that some countries’ data will show exports to the US increased this month as businesses sought to take advantage of the “reciprocal” tariff pause. Another major factor at play is the overarching uncertainty from Trump’s trade policies. For instance, the president recently claimed he’s negotiating deals with other nations, which he said could be finalized in a matter of weeks. At the same time, he’s also threatened new tariffs. That uncertainty could be causing businesses to pause international orders altogether. That means some countries’ exports could decline, said Branstetter. For instance, one toy company CNN spoke with earlier this month said it stopped ordering goods from China over fears tariffs will continue to rise. The trade picture for South Korea and the US could change, however, if talks between the two nations are sucessful. South Korean Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok and Trade Minister Ahn Duk-geun are set to meet with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on Thursday. The Trump administration has said it wants to prioritize trade deals with allies like South Korea. For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
-
-
-
-
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment