According to Chinese movie ticketing platform Taopiaopiao, the box office for the 2024 Spring Festival holidays surpassed last year's 6.766 billion yuan and entered the top two in the history of Chinese Spring Festival holidays box office. I recently watched three movies, and I think they are all good. However, their overall level is not higher than the movies from last Spring Festival holidays. The higher box office compared to last year reflects the strong potential for movie consumption in Chinese society. Our filmmakers need to make further efforts. The current development of Chinese movies has many advantages. People often complain that our film creation faces various "restricted areas," but in terms of societal topics, the space for Chinese film creation is relatively large and relaxed. For example, Zhang Yimou's film Article 20 shows protest scenes and boldly explores the issue of judicial injustice in depth. A few years ago, the film I Am Not Madame Bovary specifically discussed the sensitive issue of petitioning. Another film, Johnny Keep Walking! which was aired last year, also touches on serious social issues. The breadth and depth of these films' topics lay the foundation for their attractiveness. The improvement of China's basic film production level has played a role in boosting their success, resulting in Hollywood films being collectively pushed off the Chinese box office charts. Now, almost any domestic film can be considered "watchable." The next step is to produce world-class masterpieces and promote the collective advancement of Chinese films on the global stage. The three movies that I watched are YOLO, directed, written and starring Jia Ling, a representative of the new generation of female Chinese directors, Pegasus 2, directed by Han Han and Article 20. They are all realistic-themed films, and the actors who play the main characters have some overlap. Although each of them is good, as mentioned earlier, I personally feel that their overall quality is not as good as films screened during last year's Spring Festival holidays. So I have a feeling that Chinese movies have been spinning in place for a year in such a good market environment. Of course, I am not an expert, so what I say may not be correct, or it may be biased. The production level of Chinese films, in terms of technology, has caught up. Domestic films have surpassed Hollywood in the domestic market through competition, which is a great achievement. However, I hope that this does not mark the beginning of a "decoupling" between Chinese movies and the rest of the world, but rather a turning point for Chinese films to reach a higher level domestically and to go global. This requires Chinese realistic films to not only be loved by domestic audiences but also become increasingly "understandable" to foreigners, allowing them to empathize with us through these films. If Chinese films can gradually go global through market-oriented approaches, it will be a new process for the international community to re-recognize and understand China, and to establish common values between us. The earliest understanding of the US by the Chinese people came entirely from the shaping of news propaganda. Later, American films and TV works entered China, showcasing the rich American society. Now, Western media's portrayal of China is completely stereotyped. If Chinese films and other popular culture do not go global, and if a large number of secular elements from China do not appear on the global internet, the outside world's perception of China is likely to be dictated by Western media for a long time. So I hope that China's excellent film market can incubate outstanding works that are loved and enjoyed globally. Not only should our cultural policies provide greater space, but our internet public opinion should also be more tolerant of the interweaving and mutually influencing between Chinese and Western cultural elements. We should not restrict those elements in Chinese films that can resonate with both Chinese and foreign audiences. For example, comedies should not only make Chinese people laugh, but also be understandable to foreigners. Chinese films need to establish their own big stars, including top-tier female stars. In the past, Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan became famous in the West, but they were primarily seen as "Hollywood stars." It is a more challenging journey for Chinese stars to gain international recognition through their own films. The success of Chinese films and Chinese stars worldwide is definitely a complementary process. The backgrounds of our film stories should also be carefully selected and more diverse, enhancing the visual quality and international appeal of the films. Feng Xiaogang's film Be There or Be Square was entirely set in the US, and later, there was another film called Lost in Thailand, both of which achieved good results. Choosing such backgrounds should be encouraged as one of the approaches. In conclusion, I am delighted by the comprehensive recovery of the Chinese film market, and I also hope that the films nurtured by this market will continue to progress. To achieve this, we need to keep introducing the world's best films and collaboratively cultivate the aesthetic taste of the Chinese people alongside Chinese films. Chinese films have already stood up, but they should not monopolize this vast market. Instead, the Chinese market should serve as the stage for them to expand globally.

US politicians are advocating for steep tariffs, echoing the protectionist Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. Despite potential international retaliation, risks to global economic rules and a shift from post-World War II principles, US politicians have promised to increase trade barriers against China, causing concerns for the sustainability of global economic harmony. A century ago, the Republican Congress passed the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. This post-World War-I effort to protect the US from German competition and rescue America's own businesses from falling prices sparked a global wave of tariff hikes. While long forgotten, echoes of Fordney-McCumber now reverberate across the US political landscape. Once again, politicians are grasping the tariff as a magic talisman against its own economic ills and to contain the rise of China. The Democratic Party of the 1920s opposed tariffs, because duties are harmful to consumers and farmers, but today both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump favor national delivery through protectionism. Trump promised that his second term, if elected, would impose 60-percent tariffs on everything arriving from China and 10-percent tariffs on imports from the rest of the world, apparently including the imports covered by 14 free trade agreements with America's 20 partners. He initially promised 100-percent tariffs on electric vehicles (EVs), but when Biden declared that he was hiking tariffs on EVs from China to 100-percent, Trump raised the ante to 200-percent. On May 14, 2024, the White House imposed tariffs ranging from 25 percent (on items such as steel, aluminum and lithium batteries) to 50 percent (semiconductors, solar cells, syringes and needles) and 100 percent (electric vehicles) on Chinese imports. US government officials offer "national security" and "supply chain vulnerability" as the justification for levying high tariffs. To deflect worries about inflation, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai declared, "first of all, I think that that link, in terms of tariffs to prices, has been largely debunked." Contrary findings by the United States International Trade Commission and a number of distinguished economists, as well as Biden's own 2019 statement criticizing Trump's tariffs - "Trump doesn't get the basics. He thinks tariffs are being paid by China… [but] the American people are paying his tariffs" - forced Tai's office to wind back her declaration. The fact that prohibitive barriers to imports of solar cells, batteries and EVs will delay the green economy carries zero political weight with Trump and little with Biden. Nor does either of them worry about the prospects of Chinese retaliation and damage to the fabric of global economic rules. Historical lessons - unanticipated consequences of the foolish Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 - are seen as irrelevant by the candidates and their advisers. The US' lurch from its post-World War II free trade principles offers China a golden opportunity. On the world stage, China will espouse open free trade and investment. China will encourage EV and battery firms to establish plants in Europe, Brazil, Mexico and elsewhere, essentially daring the US to damage its own alliances by restricting third country imports containing Chinese components. Whether the fabric of global economic rules that has delivered astounding prosperity to the world will survive through the 21st century remains to be seen. Much will depend on the decisions of other large economic powers, not only China but also the European Union and Japan, as well as middle powers, such as Australia, Brazil, Chile, ASEAN and South Korea. Their actions and reactions will reshape the rules of the 21st century. If others follow America down this costly path, the world will become less prosperous and vastly more unpredictable. If they resist, the US risks being diminished and more isolated. The author is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute of International Economics. bizopinion@globaltimes.com.cn

Australia pledged on Tuesday to increase investment in Pacific island nations, offering A$6.3 million ($4.3 million) to support their financial systems. Some Western banks are cutting ties with the region because of risk factors, while China is trying to increase its influence there. Some Western bankers have terminated long-standing banking relationships with small Pacific nations, while others are considering closing operations and restricting access to dollar-denominated bank accounts in those countries. "We know that the Pacific is the fastest-moving region in the world for correspondent banking services," Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers said in a speech at the Pacific Banking Forum in Brisbane. "What's at stake here is the Pacific's ability to engage with the world," he said, with much of the region at risk of being cut off from the global financial system. Chalmers said Australia would provide A$6.3 million ($4.3 million) to the Pacific to develop secure digital identity infrastructure and strengthen compliance with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing requirements. Experts say Western banks are de-risking to meet financial regulations, making it harder for them to do business in Pacific island nations, where compliance standards sometimes lag, undermining their financial resilience. Australia's ANZ Bank is in talks with governments about how to make its Pacific island businesses more profitable amid concerns about rising Chinese influence as financial services leave the West, Chief Executive Shayne Elliott said Tuesday. ANZ is the largest bank in the Pacific region, with operations in nine countries, though some of those businesses are not financially sustainable, Elliott said in an interview on the sidelines of the forum. "If we were there purely for commercial purposes, we would have closed it a long time ago," he said. Western countries, which have traditionally dominated the Pacific, are increasingly concerned about China's plans to expand its influence in the region after it signed several major defense, trade and financial agreements with the region. Bank of China signed an agreement with Nauru this year to explore opportunities in the country, following Australia's Bendigo Bank saying it would withdraw from the country. Mr. Chalmers said Australia was working with Nauru to ensure that banking services in the country could continue. ANZ Bank exited its retail business in Papua New Guinea in recent years, while Westpac considered selling its operations in Fiji and Papua New Guinea but decided to keep them. The Pacific lost about 80% of its correspondent banking relationships for dollar-denominated services between 2011 and 2022, Australian Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones told the forum, which was co-hosted by Australia and the United States. “We would be very concerned if there were countries acting in the region whose primary objective was to advance their own national interests rather than the interests of Pacific island countries,” Mr. Jones said on the first day of the forum in Brisbane. He made the comment when asked about Chinese banks filling a vacuum in the Pacific. Meanwhile, Washington is stepping up efforts to support Pacific island countries in limiting Chinese influence. "We recognize the economic and strategic importance of the Pacific region, and we are committed to deepening engagement and cooperation with our allies and partners to enhance financial connectivity, investment and integration," said Brian Nelson, U.S. Treasury Undersecretary for Counterterrorism and Financial Intelligence. The United States is aware of the problem of Western banks de-risking in the Pacific region and is committed to addressing it, Nelson told the forum's participants. He said data showed that the number of correspondent banking relationships in the Pacific region has declined at twice the global average rate over the past decade, and the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank are developing plans to improve correspondent banking relationships. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in a video address to the forum on Monday (July 8) that the United States is focused on supporting economic resilience in the Pacific region, including by strengthening access to correspondent banks. She said that when President Biden and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese met at the White House last year, they particularly emphasized the importance of increasing economic connectivity, development and opportunities in the Pacific region, and a key to achieving that goal is to ensure that people and businesses in the region have access to the global financial system.

At the beginning of this year, Elon Musk had a fortune of $251 billion and could almost single-handedly solve world hunger. However, Tesla's stagnant sales, the endless struggle to buy Twitter, and the volatility of Tesla's stock price meant he lost a lot of money this year. According to Forbes, Musk is the billionaire with the most losses so far this year, with his wealth shrinking at a rate of about $5 billion a month. According to the website, his wealth shrank by more than 10% from the end of 2023 to June 28, 2024. As the website explains: Between December 31, 2023, and June 28, the last day of regular stock market trading for the first half of the year, Musk's net worth fell from $251.3 billion to $221.4 billion, a bigger drop than any other billionaire tracked by Forbes, but Musk remains the richest person on the planet. The main reason for the dip in Musk's pocketbook is that a Delaware judge in January canceled Musk's then-record Tesla compensation package worth $51 billion, which led Forbes to cut the value of the equity award by 50 percent because of uncertainty about whether Musk would receive those stock options. Excluding that bonus, Musk's wealth has remained volatile over the past six months, with the value of his 13 percent stake in Tesla shrinking by about $20 billion as falling profits and car deliveries sent the stock down 20 percent. But that was partly offset by the growth of Musk's stake in his generative artificial intelligence startup xAI to $14.4 billion (Musk also has a roughly $75 billion stake in private aerospace company SpaceX, a $7 billion stake in social media company X, And smaller stakes in other companies, such as brain experimentation startup Neuralink).

New York CNN — A record number of passengers are expected to pass through US airports this holiday travel week. You’d think this would be a great time to run an airline. You’d be wrong. Airlines face numerous problems, including higher costs, such as fuel, wages and interest rates. And problems at Boeing mean airlines have too few planes to expand routes to support a record numbers of flyers. Strong bookings can’t entirely offset that financial squeeze. The good news for passengers is they will be spared most of the problems hurting airlines’ bottom lines — at least in the near term. Airfares are driven far more by supply and demand, not their costs. But in the long run, the airlines’ difficulties could mean fewer airline routes, less passenger choice and ultimately a less pleasant flying experience. Profit squeeze Industry analysts expect airlines to report a drop of about $2 billion in profit, or 33%, when they report financial results for the April to June period this year. That would follow losses of nearly $800 million across the industry in the first quarter. Labor costs and jet fuel prices, the airlines’ two largest costs, are both sharply higher this year. Airline pilot unions just landed double-digit pay hikes to make up for years of stagnant wages; flight attendant unions now want comparable raises. Jet fuel prices are climbing because of higher demand in the summer. According to the International Air Transport Association’s jet fuel monitor, prices are up 1.4% in just the last week, and about 4% in the last month. Adding to the airlines’ problems is the crisis at Boeing, as well as the less-well-publicized problems with some of the jet engines on planes from rival Airbus. Since an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max jet lost a door plug on a January 5 flight, leaving a gaping hole in the side of the plane 10 minutes after takeoff, the Federal Aviation Administration has limited how many jets Boeing can make over concerns about quality and safety. As a result, airlines have dramatically reduced plans to expand their fleets and replace older planes with more fuel efficient models. In some cases, airlines have asked pilots to take time off without pay, and carriers such as Southwest and United have announced pilot hiring freezes. In addition to the problems at Boeing, hundreds of the Airbus A220 and A320 family of jets globally have also been grounded for at least a month or more to deal with engine problems. Just about all the planes with those engines have been out of sevice for at least a few days to undergo examinations. And Airbus has also cut back the number of planes it expects to deliver to airlines this year because of supply chain problems. Problems for flyers For now, competition in the industry remains fierce: There are 6% more seats available this month compared to July of 2023, according to aviation analytics firm Cirium. And that’s helped to drive fares down — good news for passengers, but more bad news for airlines’ profits. Southwest announced in April that it would stop serving four airports to trim costs — Bellingham International Airport in Washington state, Cozumel International Airport in Mexico, Syracuse Hancock International Airport in New York and Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental Airport. Many more cities lost air service during the financial hard times of the pandemic. While upstart airlines are driving prices lower for travelers, those discount carriers might not survive long term. As the major carriers are making less money, many of the upstarts are flat-out losing money.