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

NEW DELHI, July 9 (Reuters) - India's beleaguered Paytm (PAYT.NS), opens new tab has secured approval from a government panel that oversees investments linked to China to invest 500 million rupees ($6 million) in a key subsidiary, three sources with direct knowledge of the matter said. The approval, which still has to be vetted by the finance ministry, will remove the main stumbling block to the unit, Paytm Payment Services, resuming normal business operations. Paytm Payment Services is one of the biggest remaining parts of the fintech firm's business, accounting for a quarter of consolidated revenue in the financial year ended March 2023. A separate unit, Paytm Payments Bank, was wound down this year by order of the central bank due to persistent compliance issues, triggering a meltdown in Paytm's stock. The government panel had earlier held back approval due to concerns about the 9.88% stake in Paytm held by China's Ant Group. India has intensified scrutiny of Chinese businesses since a 2020 border clash between the two countries. All in all, Paytm has been waiting for the nod from the government panel for about two years and without it, it would have had to also wind down its payment services business, which was forbidden from taking on new customers in March 2023. Once the approval has been formalised, it will be able to seek a so-called "payment aggregator" licence from the Reserve Bank of India. The sources, two of whom are government sources, declined to be identified as the decision has not been formally announced. India's foreign, home, finance and industries ministries, whose representatives sit on the panel, did not reply to emails seeking comment. A Paytm spokesperson said the company does not comment on market speculation. "We will continue to make disclosures in compliance with our obligations under the SEBI Regulations, and will inform the exchanges when there is any new material information to share," the spokesperson said.

Taking the initiative to plead guilty to Boeing is not small, but it can avoid being exposed to more problems when it is publicly tried, which is a "minor penalty" for Boeing. So now the families of the crash victims are very opposed to the move, demanding that the trial continue to be open. But after all, Boeing is America's oldest industrial son, whether it is Trump or Biden, and finally have to gently put down, give a chance. The Justice Department had been seeking a guilty plea from Boeing as early as May, when it launched the investigation. After all, if you plead guilty, you only need to pay a fine, and if you really go to court, you don't know how many quality problems Boeing will be exposed by your witnesses. Boeing also knew it had too many flaws, and paying a $243.6 million fine and bringing in a third party to monitor its compliance for three years, totaling more than $400 million in additional expenses, is small change for Boeing. Given Boeing's style in the past few years, this fine may not even force Boeing to tighten production line management. Just this kind of "reconciliation" that completely excludes the victims of the crash can not get the families to agree. Paul Cassell, an attorney for the victims' families, said he plans to ask the federal judge overseeing the case to reject the agreement and "hold this case to an open trial so that all the facts of this case can be presented in a fair and public manner before a jury." The demand is reasonable, but the US judge will most likely side with Boeing.

A couple of days ago, a Quad summit meeting in Sydney scheduled for May 24 was abruptly canceled. The US president had to pull out of his long-anticipated trip to Australia and Papua New Guinea. Instead, the heads of the four Quad member states got together on the margins of the G7 Summit in Hiroshima on May 20. The main reason for the change of plans was the continuous struggle between the White House and Republicans on the Hill over the national debt ceiling. If no compromise is reached, the US federal government might fail to meet its financial commitments already in June; such a technical default would have multiple negative repercussions for the US, as well as for the global economy and finance at large. Let us hope that a compromise between the two branches of US power will be found and that the ceiling of the national debt will be raised once again. However, this rather awkward last-minute cancellation of the Quad summit reflects a fundamental US problem - a growing imbalance between the US geopolitical ambitions and the fragility of the national financial foundation to serve these ambitions. The Biden administration appears to be fully committed to bringing humankind back to the unipolar world that existed right after the end of the Cold War some 30 years ago, but the White House no longer has enough resources at its disposal to sustain such an undertaking. As they say in America: You cannot not have champagne on a beer budget. The growing gap between the ends that the US seeks in international relations and the means that it has available is particularly striking in the case of the so-called dual containment policy that Washington now pursues toward Russia and China. Even half a century ago, when the US was much stronger in relative terms than it is today, the Nixon administration realized that containing both Moscow and Beijing simultaneously was not a good idea: "Dual containment" would imply prohibitively high economic costs for the US and would result in too many unpredictable political risks. The Nixon administration decided to focus on containing the Soviet Union as the most important US strategic adversary of the time. This is why Henry Kissinger flew to Beijing in July 1971 to arrange the first US-China summit in February 1972 leading to a subsequent rapid rapprochement between the two nations. In the early days of the Biden administration, it seemed that the White House was once again trying to avoid the unattractive "dual containment" option. The White House rushed to extend the New START in January 2021 and held an early US-Russia summit meeting five months later in Geneva. At that point many analysts predicted that Biden would play Henry Kissinger in reverse - that is he would try to peace with the relatively weaker opponent (Moscow) in order to focus on containing the stronger one (Beijing). However, after the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it became clear that no accommodation with the Kremlin was on Biden's mind any longer. Still, having decided to take a hard-line stance toward Moscow and to lead a broad Western coalition in providing military and economic assistance to Kiev, Washington has not opted for a more accommodative or at least a more flexible policy toward Beijing. On the contrary, over last year one could observe a continuous hardening of the US' China policy - including granting more political and military support to the Taiwan island, encouraging US allies and partners in Asia to increase their defense spending, engaging in more navel activities in the Pacific and imposing more technology sanctions on China. In the meantime, economic and social problems within the US are mounting. The national debt ceiling is only the tip of an iceberg - the future of the American economy is now clouded by high US Federal Reserve interest rates that slow down growth, feed unemployment and might well lead to a recession. Moreover, the US society remains split along the same lines it was during the presidency of Donald Trump. The Biden administration has clearly failed to reunite America: Many of the social, political, regional, ethnic and even generational divisions have got only deeper since January 2021. It is hard to imagine how a nation divided so deeply and along so many lines could demonstrate continuity and strategic vision in its foreign policy, or to allocate financial resources needed to sustain a visionary and consistent global leadership. Of course, the "dual containment" policy is not the only illustration of the gap between the US ambitions and its resources. The same gap inevitably pops up at every major forum that the US conducts with select groups of countries from the Global South - Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America or the Middle East. The Biden administration has no shortage of arguments warning these countries about potential perils of cooperating with Moscow or Beijing, but it does not offer too many plausible alternatives that would showcase the US generosity, its strategic vision, and its true commitment to the burning needs of the US interlocutors. To cut it short, Uncle Sam brings lots of sticks to such meetings, but not enough carrots to win the audience. In sum, US foreign policy under President Joe Biden reminds people of a very advanced and highly sophisticated smartphone that has a rather weak battery, which is not really energy efficient. The proud owner of the gadget has to look perennially for a power socket in order not to have the phone running out of power at any inappropriate moment. Maybe the time has come for the smartphone owner to look for another model that would have fewer fancy apps, but a stronger and a more efficient battery, which will make the appliance more convenient and reliable.

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.