CAIRO/GAZA, July 6 (Reuters) - At least 16 people were killed in an Israeli strike on a school sheltering displaced Palestinian families in central Gaza on Saturday, the Palestinian health ministry said, in an attack Israel said had targeted militants. The health ministry said the attack on the school in Al-Nuseirat killed at least 16 people and wounded more than 50. The Israeli military said it took precautions to minimize risk to civilians before it targeted the gunmen who were using the area as a hideout to plan and carry out attacks against soldiers. Hamas denied its fighters were there. At the scene, Ayman al-Atouneh said he saw children among the dead. "We came here running to see the targeted area, we saw bodies of children, in pieces, this is a playground, there was a trampoline here, there were swing-sets, and vendors," he said. Mahmoud Basal, spokesman of the Gaza Civil Emergency Service, said in a statement that the number of dead could rise because many of the wounded were in critical condition. The attack meant no place in the enclave was safe for families who leave their houses to seek shelters, he said. Al-Nuseirat, one of Gaza Strip's eight historic refugee camps, was the site of stepped-up Israeli bombardment on Saturday. An air strike earlier on a house in the camp killed at least 10 people and wounded many others, according to medics. In its daily update of people killed in the nearly nine-month-old war, the Gaza health ministry said Israeli military strikes across the enclave killed at least 29 Palestinians in the past 24 hours and wounded 100 others.

White House spokeswoman Karina Jean-Pierre denied a report in the U.S. media on the 8th that President Joseph Biden did not receive treatment for Parkinson's disease. Biden had the first televised debate of the 2024 presidential election with Republican opponent Donald Trump on June 27, and his poor performance on the spot triggered discussions about his physical condition. The New York Times reported that a doctor specializing in the treatment of Parkinson's disease had "visited" the White House eight times from August last year to March this year. Facing the media's questions about Biden's health, Jean-Pierre asked and answered himself at a regular White House press conference on the 8th: "Has the president received treatment for Parkinson's disease? No. Is he currently receiving treatment for Parkinson's disease? No, he is not. Is he taking medication for Parkinson's disease? No." Jean-Pierre said Biden had seen a neurologist three times, all related to his annual physical examination. She also took out the report issued by the doctor after Biden's most recent physical examination in February this year. The report said, "An extremely detailed neurological examination was once again reassuring" because no symptoms consistent with stroke, multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease were found. The doctor who went to the White House mentioned by the New York Times is Kevin Kanal, a neurology and movement disorder expert at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland and an authority on Parkinson's disease. Jean-Pierre suggested that the doctor might have come to treat military personnel on duty at the White House.

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

Carlsberg to buy Britvic for 1,315p per share Carlsberg will also buy out Marston's from brewing joint venture Danish brewer plans to create integrated beverage business in UK Shares in Carlsberg, Britvic, Marston's all rise July 8 (Reuters) - Carlsberg (CARLb.CO), opens new tab has agreed to buy British soft drinks maker Britvic (BVIC.L), opens new tab for 3.3 billion pounds ($4.23 billion), a move the Danish brewer said would forge a UK beverage "powerhouse" and that sent both companies' shares higher. Carlsberg clinched the takeover with a sweetened bid of 1,315 pence per share - comprising cash and a special dividend of 25 pence a share - after the British company rejected 1,250 pence per share last month. The acquisition will create value for shareholders, contribute to growth and forge a combined beer and soft drink company that is unique in the UK, CEO Jacob Aarup-Andersen told investors on a conference call. "With this transaction we are creating a UK powerhouse," he said. He brushed off concerns from some analysts about integration risks, saying Carlsberg has a strong track record of running beer and soft drink businesses in several markets. Soft drinks already make up 16% of Carlsberg's volumes. COST SAVINGS As drinkers in some markets ditch beer for spirits or cut back on drinking altogether, brewers have looked to broaden their portfolio into new categories like hard seltzer, canned cocktails and cider, as well as zero-alcohol brews. Britvic sells non-alcoholic drinks in Britain, Ireland, Brazil and other international markets such as France, the Middle East and Asia. Carlsberg said the deal will deliver a number of benefits, including cost and efficiency savings worth 100 million pounds ($128 million) over five years as it takes advantage of common procurement, production and distribution networks. It will also see Carlsberg take over Britvic's bottling agreement with PepsiCo (PEP.O), opens new tab. Carlsberg already bottles PepsiCo drinks in several markets and there is scope to add more geographies in future, Aarup-Andersen said. arlsberg halted share buy backs on Monday as a result of the deal. Chief financial officer Ulrica Fearn said these would resume once Carlsberg reaches its revised target for net debt of 2.5 times EBITDA, from 3.5 times currently - a goal it expects to meet in 2027. "Whilst this represents a shift in the strategy away from organic top- and bottom-line growth and consistent returns to shareholders, we view it as a relatively low risk transaction with attractive financials," Jefferies analysts said in a note. Carlsberg also said on Monday it will buy out UK pub group Marston's (MARS.L), opens new tab from a joint venture for 206 million pounds. That will give it full ownership of the newly formed Carlsberg Britvic after the deal. ($1 = 0.7805 pounds) Get the latest news and expert analysis about the state of the global economy with Reuters Econ World. Sign up here. Reporting by Stine Jacobsen, Yadarisa Shabong and Emma Rumney Editing by Sherry Jacob-Phillips, Rashmi Aich, David Goodman and David Evans

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.