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

South Korea's Minister of Health and Welfare Cho Kyu-hong said at a press conference on the 8th local time that after comprehensively considering the suggestions of frontline interns and the situation on the front line of medical care, the government decided that from that day on, all interns and residents who resigned would not be given administrative sanctions such as revoking their medical licenses. Cho Kyu-hong also said that for interns and residents who have returned to work and those who have resigned and are preparing to re-register for internship courses in September, the government will make special cases to try to minimize the internship gap and not affect the relevant doctors from obtaining specialist medical licenses. Cho Kyu-hong said that the government believes that in order to minimize the diagnosis and treatment gaps for critically ill and emergency patients and ensure the smooth training process of interns and residents, it is in the public interest, so it has made a decision not to punish interns and residents who resigned. It is hoped that major hospitals will complete the resignation processing of doctors who have not returned to work before July 15 and determine the scale of vacancies. Previously, large general hospitals in South Korea, such as Seoul National University Hospital, Yonsei University Severance Hospital, and Seoul Asan Medical Center, suspended or limited their medical services in an effort to cancel all penalties against interns and residents.

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.

On the 8th, the Argentine government promulgated the "Foundations and Starting Points for Argentine Freedom" comprehensive bill and a package of fiscal measures, marking the official entry into force of the government reform bill. According to the official gazette of the Argentine government, Argentine President Milley, Chief Cabinet Minister Guillermo Francos and Economy Minister Luis Caputo jointly signed Decrees No. 592 and No. 593 to promulgate these two new reform measures. The comprehensive bill declared Argentina to enter a one-year public emergency in the administrative, economic, financial and energy fields, and granted the president special powers in these fields. It also includes the relaxation of economic regulations, labor reforms and the implementation of a large-scale investment incentive system. The package of fiscal measures involves anti-money laundering, tax deferral, tariffs, re-imposition of high-salary income tax and reduction of personal property taxes. On June 28, after six months of negotiations, the two reform bills were finally passed by the Argentine Congress.

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.