China's economy slows in April as trade war blues hit retail sales, housing and investment
China's economy showed signs of slowing in April as President Donald Trump's trade war took a toll, with retail sales, property and investment coming in weaker than economists had forecast.
Industrial production slowed as Trump's painfully high tariffs of up to 145% , and 125% retaliatory duties imposed by Beijing, took effect and shipments were curtailed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Diesel and crude spike higher on Israel attack, though no Iranian oil facilities impacted
Oil futures prices soared Friday on the back of Israel's attack on Iran, but there were no indications any oil-related facilities had been impacted by the multi-pronged offensive by the Israeli military. 'Non-nuclear energy infrastructure has not been expressly threatened by any party thus far,' S&P Global Commodity Insights (SPGCI) (NYSE: SPGI) said in a 'factbox' summary of key energy-related developments stemming from the Israeli attack. Ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) on the CME commodity exchange settled at $2.3587/gallon, an increase of exactly 17 cts/g or 7.77%.Friday's ULSD settlement is the highest since February 27. The one-day increase of 17 cts/g is the highest since Jan. 10. The last time ULSD increased as much as December 2022, when it rose more than 18 cts/g. But the gain that day was 5.97%; today's was 7.77%. The higher ULSD levels followed increases in global crude markets, which at first tend to rise or fall more in percentage terms than products like gasoline or diesel in reaction to real or potential disruptions in oil supply or demand. But that did not occur Friday, with ULSD rising more than the two key crude benchmarks in percentage terms. Brent, the global crude benchmark, rose $4.87/barrel on the CME, an increase of 7.02% to settle at $74.23/b. West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. crude benchmark, climbed $4.94/b to $72.98/b. That marked a percentage gain of 7.26%.What's at stake through any widening of the war to include Iranian capacity to produce crude was spelled out by SPGCI in its factbox. The SPGCI segment, which houses the legacy Platts business, said Iran produced about 3.25 million b/d of crude in May. Of the countries in the OPEC+ group of oil exporters, only Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iraq produced more. The U.S. is the world's largest crude producer with output of about 13.24 million b/d, according to the latest report by the Energy Information Administration. But since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the takeover by its Islamic leaders–and its breach with most other Arab oil producers–the nightmare scenario for oil consumers has always been that Iran would take steps to close the Strait of Hormuz, which is the entrance to the Persian Gulf. Some portion of oil exports from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq and Iran all pass through the Strait of Hormuz. But despite those fears that have now been in place for more than 45 years, a closure has never happened. Several analysts Friday said it was not likely to happen this time either. The Strait of Hormuz is 'obviously the major concern,' Paul Sankey of independent research firm Sankey Research said in an interview with CNBC. But he added that if Iran took steps to close the passage, 'all hell will break loose. I'm sure Donald Trump is going to be at the forefront of that unleashing of hell.' But Sankey was not fully downplaying the impact from the Israeli attacks. He said the 'speed of the move we've seen is actually as fast as we saw during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. ' 'Recently the oil market hasn't been characterized by reacting to geopolitical risk as much as you would think,' he said. 'On this occasion, we're doing a Russia-Ukraine reaction. So you have to ask yourself, why is that?' Sankey said if there is a loss of output from Iran, it will be difficult to turn to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve to fill the gap. Reserves were drawn down by the Biden administration to compensate for the loss–real and anticipated–of Russian oil following its invasion of Ukraine in other option to fill any gap, Sankey said, is spare capacity in several Middle East countries; Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq. But the problem with that spare capacity is that much of it is behind the Strait of Hormuz. 'I think the market is pricing real fear about spare capacity,' Sankey said. 'That's why the move has been so aggressive.' Richard Joswick, the head of near-term oil analysts at SPGCI, said 'the key is whether oil exports will be affected.' He noted that when Iran and Israel went back and forth with attacks last year, oil prices did move higher at first. The higher levels didn't stick for long once it became clear that the attacks had no impact on supply. But the SPGCI report also quoted J.P. Morgan analysts who said the 'worst case-scenario' of lost output would be a decline of Iranian supplies of 2.1 million b/d. That could spike the price of dated Brent–the physical benchmark that is drawn from the market for several different crudes–to $120 to $130/b. Retail prices take time to react to moves big and small in futures prices, though wholesale prices will be expected to move on the same day to reflect higher futures prices. Pilot Flying J makes its retail pump prices available through a downloadable spreadsheet. As of 2 p.m. Friday, there was no indication of a surge in retail diesel prices as a result of the Israeli attack; any increases were small and of an amount that would be considered part of the normal day-to-day fluctuation. That lack of movement is not surprising given that the attack just happened. When disruptions to physical supplies occur, like with a hurricane or pipeline outage, price spikes can be more rapid. That has not happened yet. Patrick DeHaan, the head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, which tracks retail prices, said in a post on X that diesel could rise between 10-30 cts/g over the next two weeks. More articles by John Kingston Onstage in Chicago, CHRW talks tech and staffing; RXO sees language order hitting capacity Logistics GDP share rose in '24, not likely to drop: CSCMP report Trump signs bill killing California ZEV-related waivers, state immediately files lawsuit The post Diesel and crude spike higher on Israel attack, though no Iranian oil facilities impacted appeared first on FreightWaves.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Amazon, Temu and other e-commerce sides hawk "No Kings" merch
"No Kings" merchandise is cropping up for sale on Amazon, Temu and other online retailers ahead of the planned nationwide protests against the Trump administration scheduled for Saturday. Hundreds of t-shirts, hats, signs and posters are for sale across the internet alluding to the demonstrations. On China-based a seller shipping goods from a U.S.-based warehouse offers a t-shirt reading "No Kings in America" and featuring the statue of liberty and American flag for $5.20. On Amazon, a search for No Kings yielded 1,000 results. Much of the merchandise available on the e-commerce giant's site is printed on demand, meaning not in stock. Sellers print t-shirts or make the goods as soon as they are ordered to avoid sitting on unwanted inventory. A wide variety of posters and yard signs are also available for sale on Esty's website. Walmart, which has distanced itself from an ad promoting No Kings day that was funded by Walmart heiress Christy Walton, offers a more limited amount of merchandise related to the events on its website. It's common for sellers to quickly mock up merchandise tied to current events. For example, retailers were quick to start selling apparel featuring images of President Trump with a bloodied ear after he was shot at a rally last year in an assassination attempt. The No Kings protests are scheduled to coincide with a military parade in Washington, D.C., to celebrate the army's 250th anniversary. "In America, we don't do kings," the No Kings website reads. "They've defied our courts, deported Americans, disappeared people off the streets, attacked our civil rights, and slashed our services. The corruption has gone too. far. [cq] No thrones. No crowns. No kings." Video shows Air India plane crashing in Ahmedabad Air India plane crashes shortly after takeoff, carrying more than 240 people Israel ready to launch operation into Iran, U.S. officials say
USA Today
34 minutes ago
- USA Today
Senate keeps provision curbing judge's orders in Donald Trump's budget bill
Senate keeps provision curbing judge's orders in Donald Trump's budget bill Some of Trump's fellow Republicans said they wouldn't have supported the provision if they had known it was in the House-passed measure, but it remains in the Senate draft of the legislation. Show Caption Hide Caption House passes President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' The House passed President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' It will now move onto the Senate. The Senate version of Trump's legislative priorities keeps a provision that experts say threatens the enforcement of court orders against the government. Trump has complained about judges blocking his policies. The provision would require litigants to post bonds before judges could enforce their orders. WASHINGTON – A controversial provision in the House-passed version of President Donald Trump's package of legislative priorities, which critics warn would hinder the enforcement of court orders, remains in the Senate version of the bill. The head of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, released his draft of the legislation June 13 that included the provision that Trump requested to combat court orders blocking his policies. Some fellow Republicans in the narrowly divided Congress have said they would oppose the bill over the provision or that it would be removed through a parliamentary maneuver. But its inclusion in the Senate draft reflects the support of leadership to include and defend it. Legislation would require litigants to post bonds before courts could enforce orders The provision would require judges to collect bonds from litigants challenging the government before blocking policies through injunctions or temporary restraining orders. Without a bond, the provision would prevent judges from enforcing their orders through contempt proceedings. Judges have always been able to collect bonds in civil lawsuits, essentially to ensure that defendants are reimbursed if they eventually win their cases. But judges traditionally don't collect bonds in cases against the government because the disputes are over policy rather than money like in a lawsuit between two businesses. Trump and his Republican allies would like to change that. He signed a memo in March directing the Justice Department to ask for bonds in all civil cases against the administration. Judges have temporarily blocked dozens of his policies. If the legislation were enacted, it would undo those blocks until judges set bonds. Bonds could reach trillions of dollars in cases against government Judges could set a nominal bond of $1, according to legal experts. But if they set a larger bond that litigants couldn't afford, judges wouldn't be able to enforce their orders and the Trump administration could ignore them, experts said. In February, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan refused a request from Trump's White House Office of Management Budget to require a bond from the National Council of Nonprofits when she blocked the government from freezing all federal grants. She said it could have required trillions of dollars because that was how much was at stake in the case but that OMB would suffer no monetary damage from the case. 'The court declines,' Alikhan wrote. Some GOP lawmakers opposed the provision they weren't aware was in House-passed bill If the Senate changes the legislation, the House would have to vote on the bill again. Some GOP lawmakers have voiced opposition to the provision at raucous town halls. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Nebraska, said May 27 he was unaware of the provision and didn't support it when he voted for the bill. The House approved the bill on a 215-214 vote, so any potential loss of support could hurt the bill's chances. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, said May 30 the bond provision 'will not be' in the Senate-approved bill because she expected it to be removed by the parliamentarian under a rule requiring everything in the legislation to have an impact on the budget.
