From the perspective of the two major markets of the United States and China, the autonomous driving industry has fallen into a low tide in recent years. For example, last year, Cruise Origin, one of the twin stars of Silicon Valley autonomous driving companies and once valued at more than $30 billion, failed completely, its Robotaxi (driverless taxi) operation qualification was revoked, and autonomous driving models have been discontinued. However, as a new track with the deep integration of digital economy and real economy, automatic driving is a must answer: on the one hand, automatic driving will accelerate the process of technology commercialization and industrialization, and become an important part of the game of major powers; On the other hand, autonomous driving will also promote industrial transformation and upgrading by improving the mass travel service experience, seeking new engines for urban development, and injecting new vitality into the urban economy.

The June US Nonfarm Payrolls (NFP) data showed an increase of 206,000 jobs, exceeding expectations. Political uncertainty and the People's Bank of China's pause in gold purchases influence gold market dynamics. Recent technical developments in the gold market, including breaking the triangle formation and subsequent rally, indicate the potential for higher prices. Despite a bullish outlook, further consolidation is possible before a significant surge. The recent US Nonfarm Payrolls (NFP) data revealed a rise of 206,000 jobs in June, surpassing the market expectation of 190,000, despite a downward revision from 272,000 to 218,000 for May. The unemployment rate increased to 4.1% and the wage inflation declined to 3.9% year-over-year. These mixed employment signals have increased the likelihood of a rate cut by the Federal Reserve in September. Additionally, political developments in France, where the left-wing New Popular Front led by Jean-Luc Mélenchon is poised to win a significant number of seats, add to the global economic uncertainty. Meanwhile, the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has paused its gold purchasing program, potentially waiting for a further price pullback. These factors collectively influence gold prices, providing a complex backdrop where the prospect of lower interest rates, political uncertainty, and central bank purchasing strategies are likely to drive market dynamics and investor behaviour in the coming months. Bullish Trends in Gold Prices The announcement of the NFP data has dropped the US Dollar Index and boosted gold prices. Since the gold market broke the triangle formation on Wednesday and formed an inside candle on Thursday, the break above Thursday's high on Friday initiated a strong rally, closing the price at higher levels. The red line was the first resistance of this breakout where the gold closed the last week. A clear break above this level may initiate another surge higher. The breakout of the triangle suggests higher prices, but the risk environment remains, as June was a correction month. It looks like the price is preparing for higher levels, but the possibility of consolidation before the surge cannot be ignored. Bottom line In conclusion, the increase in US employment, despite mixed signals in wage inflation and unemployment, has increased the likelihood of a Federal Reserve rate cut, boosting gold prices while weakening the US Dollar Index. Political uncertainties in France and the pause in gold purchases by the People's Bank of China further contribute to the complex economic landscape, indicating potential volatility ahead. The gold market's recent technical developments, including breaking the triangle formation and the subsequent rally, suggest readiness for higher prices. However, the possibility of consolidation before another significant surge remains, necessitating careful observation by investors as the market navigates these multifaceted influences.

U.S. and Australian officials said on Monday (July 8) that both countries are committed to improving financial connectivity in the Pacific and strengthening banking services in the region to resist China's growing covetousness. According to Reuters, at the two-day Pacific Banking Forum co-hosted by the United States and Australia, Australian Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones said that Canberra hopes to be the partner of choice in the Pacific region, both in banking and defense. "If there are countries acting in this region whose main goal is to promote their own national interests rather than the interests of Pacific island countries, we will be very concerned," Jones said at the first day of the forum in Brisbane. He made this comment when asked about Chinese banks filling the vacuum in the Pacific region. The report said that as some Western banks have interrupted their long-standing business relationships with banks in small Pacific island countries, while others are preparing to close their businesses, these Pacific island countries face many challenges and their ability to obtain US dollar-dominated banking business is limited. The report said that experts said that Western banks are taking de-risking actions to meet financial regulations, which makes it more difficult to do business in Pacific island countries. This in turn weakens the financial resilience of these island nations. At the same time, Washington is also stepping up efforts to support Pacific island nations in limiting China's influence. Brian Nelson, U.S. Treasury Undersecretary for Counterterrorism and Financial Intelligence, said, "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." The report said that neither the United States nor Australia has yet announced detailed plans at the forum, but comments from officials from both countries reflect the growing unease among Western countries that have traditionally had influence in the Pacific region about China's growing influence in the region.

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

On Monday, executives from the three major chip giants in the US - Intel, Qualcomm, and Nvidia - met with US officials, including Antony Blinken, to voice their opposition to the Biden administration's plan of imposing further restrictions on chip sales to Chinese companies and investments in China. The Semiconductor Industry Association also released a similar statement, opposing the exclusion of US semiconductor companies from the Chinese market. First of all, we mustn't believe that the appeals of these companies and industry associations will collectively change the determination of US political elites to stifle China's progress. These US elites are very fearful of China's rapid development, and they see "chip chokehold" as a new discovery and a successful tactic formed under US leadership and with the cooperation of allies. Currently, the chip industry is the most complex technology in human history, with only a few companies being at the forefront. They are mainly from the Netherlands, Taiwan island, South Korea, and Japan, most of which are in the Western Pacific. These countries and regions are heavily influenced by the US. Although these companies have their own expertise, they still use some American technologies in their products. Therefore, Washington quickly persuaded them to form an alliance to collectively prevent the Chinese mainland from obtaining chips and manufacturing technology. Washington is proud of this and wants to continuously tighten the noose on China. The New York Times directly titled an article "'An Act of War': Inside America's Silicon Blockade Against China, " in which an American AI expert, Gregory Allen, publicly claimed that this is an act of war against China. He further stated that there are two dates that will echo in history from 2022: The first is February 24, when the Russia-Ukraine conflict broke out, and the second is October 7, when the US imposed a sweeping set of export controls on selling microchips to China. China must abandon its illusions and launch a challenging and effective counterattack. We already have the capability to produce 28nm chips, and we can use "small chip" technology to assemble small semiconductors into a more powerful "brain," exploring 14nm or even 7nm. Additionally, China is the world's largest commercial market for commodity semiconductors. Last year, semiconductor procurement in China amounted to $180 billion, surpassing one-third of the global total. In the past, China had been faced with the choice between independent innovation and external purchases. Due to the high returns from external purchases, it is easy for it to become the overwhelming choice over independent research and development. However, now the US is gradually blocking the option of external purchases, and China has no strategic choice but to independently innovate, which in turn puts tremendous pressure on American companies. Scientists generally expect that, although China may take some detours, such as recently apprehending several company leaders who fraudulently obtained subsidies from national semiconductor policies, China has the ability to gradually overcome the chip difficulties. And we will form our own breakthroughs and industrial chain, which is expected to put quite a lot of pressure on US companies. If domestic firms acquire half of China's $180 billion per year in chip acquisitions, this would provide a significant boost for the industry as a whole and help it advance steadily. The New York Times refers to the battle on chips as a bet by Washington. "If the controls are successful, they could handicap China for a generation; if they fail, they may backfire spectacularly, hastening the very future the United States is trying desperately to avoid," it argued. Whether it is a war or a game, when the future is uncertain, what US companies hope for most of all is that they can sell simplified versions of high-end chips to China, so that the option of external purchases by China continues to exist and remains attractive. This can not only maintain the interests of the US companies, enabling them to obtain sufficient funds to develop more advanced technologies, but also disrupt China's plans for independent innovation. This idea is entirely based on their own commercial interests and also has a certain political and national strategic appeal. Hence, there is no shortage of supporters within the US government. US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen seems to be one of them, as she has repeatedly stated that the US' restrictions on China will not "fundamentally" hurt China, but will only be "narrowly targeted." The US will balance its strict suppression on China from the perspective of maintaining its technological hegemony, while also leaving some room for China, in order to undermine China's determination to counterattack in terms of independent innovation. China needs to use this mentality of the US to its advantage. On the one hand, China should continue to purchase US chips to maintain its economic fundamentals, and on the other hand, it should firmly support the development of domestic semiconductor companies from both financial and market perspectives. If China were to continue relying on exploiting the gaps in US chip policies in the long term, akin to a dependency on opium, it would only serve to weaken China further as it becomes increasingly addicted. China's market is extremely vast, and its innovation capabilities are generally improving and expanding. Although the chip industry is highly advanced, if there is one country that can win this counterattack, it is China. As long as we resolutely continue on the path of independent innovation, this road will definitely become wider. Various breakthroughs and turning points that are unimaginable today may soon occur.