Our website is made possible by displaying non-intrusive online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling or pausing your ad blocker.
My gut feeling tells me this stock will hit LU in 2025. Even though there’s no media coverage or mainstream news about this technology yet, you can easily find information by Googling. Companies like Nvidia, TSMC, ASE, Intel, Global Foundries, Broadcom, Jabil, Foxconn, MediaTek, UMC, and Vanguard are investing billions into co-packaged optics technology to replace copper wires, improve energy efficiency, and boost bandwidth. This is the first listed company in BM to bring such cutting-edge technology. Trust in them and give them sometimes .
当你认为aiya，关税罢了，4月2日后全球股市有确定性了，肯定爆涨。给你一个暗示，今年美国需要refinance 9 trillion的债务。当你的gdp低过你的debt的interest，恭喜你，你是一个ponzi国家了。你认为中国央行为什么没买美债了呢？尤其是10年的国债。大家都在买金的意义何在？为什么国债的利息必须要按下去，为什么美国的deficit to gdp ratio必须要按下去3％呢（如今是7％）。为什么政府削减开销，美国的gdp会跌呢？如果你还不明白我说什么，你可以问chatgpt。为什么这里的各位会那么看死接下来的股市，也为什么关税是肯定会实现的事，毕竟他们需要钱来还债，没办法了只好想办法增加国家收入跟减少政府的spending。好吧，我说完了，我们一起目睹接下来的熊市吧。
The recent U.S. tariffs have a greater impact on Europe and China compared to Malaysia for several key reasons:
1. China and Europe Have Larger Exposure to U.S. Markets
• China and the EU are major exporters of high-value industrial and technological goods to the U.S. Any tariffs imposed have a substantial financial impact due to the sheer volume of trade.
• The U.S. tariffs on Chinese products are aimed at reducing reliance on China for key industries like semiconductors, batteries, and green technology.
2. Malaysia’s Role as a Secondary Supplier
• Malaysia’s E&E industry plays a strategic role in global supply chains, particularly in semiconductor back-end processing and testing.
• Since many multinational companies have already diversified operations to Malaysia as part of the “China+1” strategy, Malaysia is less directly affected by tariffs than China.
3. Tariff Rates and Product Categories
• U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods are typically broader and higher (often exceeding 25%) due to ongoing geopolitical tensions.
• The tariffs on EU exports focus on high-tech and green energy sectors (e.g., electric vehicles, machinery), which are major revenue sources for European companies.
• Malaysia’s tariffs, though significant, are targeted at specific goods rather than the entire industry.
4. Malaysia’s Trade Agreements and Diversification
• Malaysia is part of multiple trade agreements (e.g., RCEP, CPTPP), allowing it to mitigate U.S. tariffs by redirecting trade to other markets.
• European companies, on the other hand, rely more heavily on U.S. sales for premium products like automobiles and industrial machinery.
5. China’s Direct Competition with the U.S.
• Many of China’s industries, such as semiconductors and green energy, compete directly with U.S. firms, leading to aggressive tariff policies.
• Malaysia, in contrast, is viewed as a complementary partner in semiconductor supply chains rather than a direct competitor.
Conclusion
While Malaysia faces challenges due to U.S. tariffs, its impact is lower than in Europe or China because of its role as a diversified supplier in global supply chains, its trade agreements, and the more targeted nature of U.S. tariffs on its exports.
Semiconductors are not included in the recent U.S. tariffs for several key reasons:
1. Avoiding Disruption to the U.S. Tech Industry
• The U.S. relies heavily on Southeast Asian countries, including Malaysia, for semiconductor assembly, testing, and packaging.
• Imposing tariffs on Malaysian semiconductors would increase costs for U.S. companies like Intel, AMD, and Apple, which depend on Malaysian facilities.
2. Malaysia’s Role in the Global Supply Chain
• Malaysia is a major hub for the backend semiconductor process, such as assembly and testing, rather than front-end fabrication.
• The U.S. tariffs primarily target competitors like China in advanced semiconductor manufacturing, whereas Malaysia plays a supportive role in the supply chain.
3. Strategic Partnerships and U.S. Investment in Malaysia
• The U.S. is actively encouraging semiconductor investments in Malaysia, with companies like Intel and Texas Instruments expanding operations there.
• Tariffs could discourage these investments and push companies to seek alternatives outside of Malaysia.
4. The U.S. Focus on Restricting China, Not Allies
• U.S. semiconductor policies are aimed at limiting China’s access to advanced chips and manufacturing equipment, not restricting supply from friendly nations.
• Malaysia, as a trade partner, benefits from the “China+1” diversification strategy.
5. Maintaining Competitiveness Against China and Europe
• The U.S. wants to strengthen its semiconductor supply chain without increasing costs for American tech firms.
• Imposing tariffs on Malaysian semiconductors would harm U.S. firms more than it would hurt Malaysia.
Conclusion
Malaysia’s semiconductor industry is protected from tariffs because it plays a crucial role in the U.S. supply chain. Instead of imposing tariffs, the U.S. is focusing on restricting China’s semiconductor advancements while maintaining strong ties with Malaysia.
Trump’s stance on not taxing raw materials and parts that cannot be sourced from the U.S. is based on several key economic and strategic reasons:
1. Protecting U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness
• Many U.S. industries, such as automotive, aerospace, and electronics, rely on imported raw materials and components that are not produced domestically.
• Imposing tariffs on these essential inputs would increase production costs for American companies, making them less competitive globally.
2. Avoiding Inflation and Higher Consumer Prices
• If tariffs were applied to essential raw materials and components, U.S. manufacturers would pass the higher costs to consumers.
• This could lead to inflationary pressure, particularly in industries like technology, healthcare, and industrial manufacturing.
3. Strengthening the U.S. Supply Chain Without Disrupting It
• The goal of Trump’s tariffs is to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. and reduce reliance on China.
• However, taxing raw materials and specialized components that are not available domestically would disrupt production rather than encourage reshoring.
4. Encouraging “Friendshoring” Instead of Full Decoupling
• Rather than fully cutting off foreign suppliers, the U.S. wants to shift supply chains away from China to friendly countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, and Mexico.
• Exempting critical raw materials and parts from tariffs helps maintain these strategic partnerships.
5. Aligning with U.S. Industry Demands
• Many American industries have lobbied against tariffs on certain inputs, arguing that they would harm domestic manufacturing rather than protect it.
• For example, the semiconductor and automotive industries rely on imported raw materials like rare earth metals and specialty chemicals that the U.S. does not produce in sufficient quantities.
Conclusion
Trump’s tariff strategy is designed to hurt foreign competitors (especially China) while minimizing harm to U.S. industries. By exempting raw materials and parts that cannot be sourced domestically, he aims to avoid damaging American businesses and consumers while still promoting domestic manufacturing and supply chain diversification.
我给你条路看，bessent不止一次说过，treasury long term yield跟油价必须降下来。他们认为只要油价下来，通膨也会自然而然下来。这两句话，他从年头说到现在。为何不早早去部署呢？然后现在还要一直看短短的，而不看长期gdp会下滑，衰退可能即将到来的事实。手套可以买，不过我只会trade，不会hold，毕竟人家不是sleepy joe，人家天天都在改这个改那个。
As of April 3, 2025, semiconductors are currently exempt from President Donald Trump’s newly announced 10% baseline tariff on all imports to the United States. However, the administration has indicated plans to impose a 25% tariff on semiconductor imports in the near future, with the possibility of increasing this rate substantially over time. The implementation timeline for these semiconductor-specific tariffs has not been clearly defined, but the administration aims to encourage companies to relocate their manufacturing operations to the United States by providing a window of opportunity before the tariffs take effect.
As markets plunged on Thursday following President Trump’s sweeping reciprocal tariff announcement, two senior members of the Senate Finance Committee, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley and Democrat Senator Maria Cantwell, introduced a bipartisan bill that would curtail the President’s authority to impose tariffs unilaterally.
The proposed legislation, named the "Trade Review Act of 2025," is designed to restore congressional oversight over new tariffs, requiring President Donald Trump to secure congressional approval for any new trade levies within 60 days of their announcement.
The bill mandates that the President notify Congress of any new tariffs within 48 hours of their imposition, along with a detailed explanation and an analysis of how they might affect U.S. businesses and consumers. If Congress does not pass a joint resolution of approval within the 60-day window, the new tariffs would automatically expire.
(April 4): New Civil Liberties Alliance, a conservative legal group, on Thursday filed what it said was the first lawsuit seeking to block Donald Trump's tariffs on Chinese imports, saying the US president overstepped his authority.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Florida, alleges that Trump lacked the legal authority to impose the sweeping tariffs unveiled on Wednesday as well as duties authorised on February 1 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
“By invoking emergency power to impose an across-the-board tariff on imports from China that the statute does not authorise, President Trump has misused that power, usurped Congress’ right to control tariffs, and upset the Constitution’s separation of powers," NCLA senior litigation counsel Andrew Morris said in a statement.
White House representatives did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
NCLA filed the lawsuit on behalf of Simplified, a Florida-based retailer of home management products.
Trump on Wednesday announced that China would be hit with a 34% tariff, on top of the 20% he imposed earlier this year, bringing the total new levies to 54%.
The lawsuit asks a judge to block implementation and enforcement of the tariffs and undo Trump's changes to the US tariff schedule.
The lawsuit says presidents can only impose tariffs with Congress' permission and under complex trade statutes spelling out how and when they can be authorised.
"Such statutes require advance investigations, detailed factual findings, and a close fit between the statutory authority and a tariff’s scope," the lawsuit says.
The law Trump invoked has never been used to impose tariffs and only allows presidents to take actions that are necessary to address a specific emergency, the lawsuit said.
Trump has declared an emergency over China's alleged complicity in the US opioid epidemic, framing tariffs as a negotiating tool for ending the influx of the deadly drugs.
The lawsuit says that justification is a pretext for imposing tariffs aimed at reducing US trade deficits while raising tax revenue.
The case was assigned to US district judge Kent Wetherell, a Trump appointee who had halted a key part of former president Joe Biden's immigration policy in 2023.
It looks like there’s growing Republican dissent over Trump's latest tariff policies, especially with the introduction of the "Trade Review Act of 2025" by Senator Chuck Grassley. The bill aims to require congressional approval within 60 days for new tariffs, essentially limiting the president’s ability to impose sweeping trade barriers unilaterally.
Key takeaways from this development:
Dissent Within the GOP: Some Republicans, like Senators Jerry Moran and James Lankford, are questioning the broad and high tariffs, particularly on allies like Israel and Southeast Asia.
Impact on Markets: Wall Street saw its worst day since 2022, indicating concerns over recessionary risks tied to the tariffs.
Congressional Check on Tariffs: If Grassley's bill were to pass, it would restore congressional authority over trade policy, reversing the trend of executive control. However, with a Republican-controlled Congress supporting Trump, it’s unlikely to become law.
Bipartisan Pushback: Some Senate Republicans—like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul, and Mitch McConnell—already sided with Democrats in a resolution against Trump's tariffs on Canada.
Four Republican Senators — Rand Paul, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitch McConnell — voted with Democrats on Wednesday to undo President Trump’s 25% tariffs on Canadian imports. Senators voted 51-48 just hours after Trump unveiled his 'Liberation Day' reciprocal tariffs, applying 10% baseline tariffs on all imports.
If u r human take ur eye look properly..I also got comment the down posting there !!!.....only those human like U think this way..especially u SeA..bobo.
China produces around 90% of the world's rare earths, a group of 17 elements used across the defense, electric vehicle, energy and electronics industries. The United States has only one rare earths mine and most of its supply comes from China.
Beijing announced the controls late on Friday as part of a broader package of tariffs and company restrictions in retaliation for Trump's decision to hike tariffs against most Chinese products to 54%