US and China to start talks over trade war this week 1 hour ago Share Save Peter Hoskins Business reporter Laura Bicker China Correspondent Reporting fromBeijing Getty Images The SM Kwangyang container ship docked at the Port of Long Beach in Long Beach, California, US, on Sunday, 27 April, 2025.Getty Images US and Chinese officials are set to start talks this week to try to deescalate a trade war between the world's two biggest economies. Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng will attend the talks in Switzerland from 9 to 12 May, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs says. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and US Trade Representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer will represent Washington at the meeting, their offices announced. Since returning to the White House, President Donald Trump has imposed new import taxes on Chinese goods of up to 145%. Beijing has hit back with levies on some goods from the US of 125%. But global trade experts have told the BBC that they expect negotiations to take several months. It will be the first high-level interaction between the two countries since Chinese Vice-President Han Zheng attended Trump's inauguration in January. Mr Bessent said he looked forward to rebalancing the international economic system to better serve the interests of the US. "My sense is that this will be about de-escalation, not about the big trade deal, but we've got to de-escalate before we can move forward," he said in an interview with Fox News. "If the United States wants to resolve the issue through negotiations, it must face up to the serious negative impact of unilateral tariff measures on itself and the world," a Chinese commerce ministry spokesperson said on Wednesday morning. Chinese State Media reported that Beijing had decided to engage with the US after fully considering global expectations, the country's interests and appeals from American businesses. The report added that China's is open to talks but reiterated that if the country decides to continue to fight this trade war – it will fight to the end. The trade war has triggered turmoil in financial markets and sent shockwaves across global trade. What tariffs has Trump announced and why? Car giant Ford and Barbie maker Mattel warn over tariffs costs Trump considering 100% tariffs on movies not made in the US Two trade experts told the BBC that they were not particularly optimistic about the talks, at least in the initial phase. "You have to start somewhere, so I'm not saying it isn't worthwhile. Just unlikely to be the launch event people are hoping to see," said Deborah Elms, Head of Trade Policy at the Hinrich Foundation. "We should expect to see a lot of back and forth, just like what happened last time in 2018," Henry Gao, Professor of Law at Singapore Management University and a former Chinese lawyer on the World Trade Organization secretariat said. "I would expect the talks to drag on for several months or even more than a year". Financial markets in the Asia-Pacific region were mixed after the announcements, while US stock futures rose. Stock futures are contracts to buy or sell an underlying asset at a future date and are an indication of how markets will trade when they open. Investors are also waiting for the US central bank to make its latest announcement on interest rates on Wednesday afternoon. Additional reporting by Bianca Mascarenhas
-
-
-
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