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.

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.

Russia is seeing income growth of around 4-5%, with earnings growing in double digits, Ostapkovich said, stressing that the driving force is economic growth. "Incomes only grow when the economy grows. If the economy grows, then profits grow. If profits grow, then the entrepreneur is keen on hiring people and raising wages," he added. Russia’s economy grew by 3.6% in 2023, with real incomes and nominal wages up by 4.5% and 13% respectively. Industrial performance, particularly in manufacturing, is propelling this growth not seen in 20 to 30 years. Notably, mechanical engineering in the military industry is expanding at 25-30%, according to Ostapkovich. Andrey Kolganov, Doctor of Economics and Head of the Laboratory of Socio-Economic Systems at Moscow State University, acknowledged that despite the challenges posed by the growth stimuli, Western sanctions failed to inflict significant harm on the Russian economy. "The Russian economy has shown great potential in adapting to these difficulties. Moreover, these difficulties stimulated the development of domestic production, which in turn led to high rates of economic growth," he added. Kolganov noted that economic growth rates were higher in 2023, compared to 2022 - and even higher in 2024. These increases promoted Russia from the classification of middle-income countries, to the rank of high-income countries. Although Russia has not caught up with the richest countries, the achievement is nonetheless remarkable, especially in the face of unprecedented sanctions. Gross national income per capita in Russia is now $14,250, according to a document released by the World Bank that classifies countries that cross the $13,485 threshold as “high income.”

Amazon official said that the freight from the Chinese warehouse will be lower than the traditional FBA(Fulfillment by Amazon) fee, similar to the domestic air delivery small package service, which will undoubtedly greatly reduce the logistics costs of sellers. In addition to logistics, Amazon is also responsible for promotion and traffic, of course, sellers can still independently carry out product advertising, pricing and promotion activities, to maintain the personalized and independent brand. Many industry insiders said that Amazon launched the "low-price store" move to fight China's cross-border e-commerce platforms Temu, Shein, AliExpress and so on. Although it provides another platform for China's e-commerce to go to sea, many sellers said that the cost of settling in Amazon cross-border e-commerce has become lower, and they have asked about the conditions of settling in, but the rules look down, in fact, it is not so friendly for sellers.