Not influenced by the price of cheese: China ‘evaluating’ US offer to engage in trade negotiations Comments come a week after Trump claimed talks were already taking place Amy Hawkins Fri 2 May 2025 06.55 EDT Share Beijing is “evaluating” an offer from the US to engage in trade negotiations, the Chinese government has said, a week after Donald Trump claimed talks were already under way. China’s commerce ministry said on Friday: “The US has recently taken the initiative on many occasions to convey information to China through relevant parties, saying it hopes to talk with China.” On Thursday, influential commentators in China said the country was ready to engage in talks. The suggestion that Beijing was potentially willing to negotiate with Washington – along with a better than expected report on US jobs - sent markets higher on Friday on both sides of the Atlantic. Ren Yi, a nationalist blogger who writes under the nickname Chairman Rabbit, wrote that he had learned from sources that the US had “frequently and proactively contacted the Chinese side through various channels, hoping to negotiate with the Chinese government on economic and trade issues”. China has denied claims made by US officials that talks were already under way, or that China had initiated them. Trump said last week that Xi Jinping, China’s leader, had called him. China’s foreign ministry accused the US of “misleading the public” on the status of negotiations. Ren wrote: “If China had given in and taken the initiative to give in to the United States, then naturally there would not have been the United States taking the initiative to contact China.” Containers are stacked on the deck of cargo ship One Manhattan in New Jersey. Why is Trump ending the ‘de minimis’ tariff loophole on low-value imports? Read more The commerce ministry said on Friday that Washington needed to show “sincerity” in negotiations and that it should not engage in “coercion and extortion”. China has repeatedly accused the US of bullying in its approach to trade policies. The two countries have been at loggerheads since Trump launched a new US-China trade war in early April, with US tariffs on Chinese goods now at 145% while China’s retaliatory tariffs have reached 125%. But although neither side wants to be seen to blink first, the US and China have already introduced a number of exceptions to their respective tariffs to soften the blow of a trade war that risks upending the global economy. Chinese factory activity slowed in April. The statistics bureau blamed “sharp changes in [China’s] external environment” for the decline. This week Xi called on officials to adjust to changes in the international environment, although he did not mention the US by name. Elsewhere, Chinese propaganda has been more explicit. This week the foreign ministry released a video that accused the US of bullying and said that bowing to such behaviour would be like “drinking poison”. A US executive order to close a multibillion-dollar tariff loophole, known as “de minimis”, came into effect on Friday. The ending of the de minimis regime, which allowed low-value goods to be shipped to the US without paying customs fees, primarily affects Chinese exporters. Scott Bessent said this week he was confident that China would want to reach a deal. The US treasury secretary said: “First, we need to de-escalate, and then over time, we will start focusing on a larger trade deal.”
-
-
-
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