US stocks retreat despite Trump-Xi call
WASHINGTON: Wall Street stocks lost ground Thursday as investors digested US jobless claims data while President Donald Trump held a long-awaited call with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
Shortly after trading began, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 0.3 percent to 42,301.28, while the broad-based S&P 500 Index lost 0.2 percent at 5,957.76.
The tech-focused Nasdaq Composite Index fell 0.2 percent to 19,428.73.
All three indexes opened higher before fluctuating in early trading.
The movements came as Trump and Xi held a phone call according to Chinese state media, amid hopes that the leaders can help the world's two biggest economies reach a longer-lasting truce in trade tensions.
Wall Street climbs as tech boost offsets economic worries
While Washington and Beijing slapped tit-for-tat levies on each other's goods in recent weeks – bringing tariff levels to three digits and snarling supply chains – they reached a deal to de-escalate in May.
Trump has since accused China of violating the terms of their pact, a claim that Beijing pushed back on.
'Of all the bilateral deals, the most important one is with China,' said Christopher Low of FHN Financial, adding that markets are awaiting any signs of developments.
Investors were also digesting jobless claims data which ticked higher for the week ending May 31, with concerns that the figures are signaling weakening labor market conditions.
Meanwhile, Commerce Department data released early Thursday showed that the US trade deficit narrowed sharply in April on a pullback in imports while Trump's global tariffs kicked in.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
'Isolating' Pakistan not in US interest: think tank
A US think tank has advised the Trump administration to pursue a pragmatic and interest-driven relationship with Pakistan, emphasising that isolating the South Asian nation is counterproductive to American national security interests. "Isolating Pakistan is not in the United States' national security interests. Pakistan's cooperation, even if selective and limited, is better than its intransigence," reads a report of Hudson Institute, a research organization promoting American leadership for a secure, free, and prosperous future. Titled "Engaging Pakistan in a New Era of US Foreign Policy", the report is the product of the US-Pakistan Study Group, comprising seasoned diplomats and analysts. Contributors include Former Ambassador Husain Haqqani, Sahar Khan, Michael Kugelman, Ambassador Cameron Munter, Ambassador Anne Patterson, Ambassador Robin Raphel, Harlan Ullman, Dr Marvin Weinbaum, and Uzair Younus. The report says the United States and Pakistan have a long history of working together. Moving forward, both countries could benefit from identifying common interests and cooperating accordingly. Even selective or limited cooperation from Pakistan is seen as more valuable than disengagement. The report says the recent India-Pakistan crisis reportedly brought the two nuclear-armed South Asian countries to the brink of war before the United States intervened and pulled them back. "This crisis highlights the need for continued US engagement with Pakistan, a critical country in a geostrategic location with which Washington has historically had a complex relationship," it adds. The relationship between Pakistan and the United States has weathered many ups and downs. In the opening months of his second term, President Donald Trump has indicated that he intends to adopt a more pragmatic foreign policy, one that maintains relations even with countries that hold beliefs or values different from his own, according to the report. As a result, the relationship between the United States and Pakistan has a better chance of improvement than it has enjoyed in recent yearsif both countries' leaders are able to focus on shared interests rather than ideological differences. In the aftermath of the 2025 crisis, US policymakers are emphasising the importance of engaging with both India and Pakistan to prevent and manage crises between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. Given the serious threat posed by any future conflict or nuclear escalation in South Asia, the United States is encouraged to take an active role in mediation efforts during such crises. The experience of past administrations has shown that Pakistan's strategic calculus about India is unlikely to change through either incentives or pressure. Instead, a more realistic approach is advisedone that accepts Pakistan's self-perception and works within that framework rather than attempting to reshape it. Another area of mutual interest is counterterrorism. While the United States continues to monitor terrorist groups, Pakistan also faces internal threats from militant extremist organizations.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Apple of discord
Listen to article When Jon Stewart does a segment on international politics or economics, you pay attention. My apologies for the double negative in the next sentence, but it conveys my sentiment adequately: there is nothing not to like there. Stewart and John Oliver both remain prescient in their comedic timing, activism and political acumen. Recently, Stewart hosted a segment with author and journalist Patrick McGee, who has written a book on the relationship between China and Apple. It is called Apple in China: The Capture of the World's Greatest Company. The explosive book claims Apple accidentally built China into a tech superpower while trapping itself in the process. Based on 200+ interviews with former Apple executives, it posits that Apple's $275 billion investment in China exceeded the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe. Starting in 2003, Apple's pursuit of cheap manufacturing evolved into something unprecedented under Tim Cook. The company trained 28 million Chinese workers and transferred cutting-edge knowledge through what McGee calls "the Apple Squeeze" — sending thousands of engineers to educate suppliers like Foxconn. This massive technology transfer inadvertently supported China's plan for technological independence. Ironically, Apple created its own competition. Chinese companies it trained now outcompete Apple domestically, while Apple has discovered it can't easily leave — replicating operations elsewhere would cost hundreds of billions. As Apple grew more successful, it became politically captured, removing VPN apps and storing Chinese data locally to maintain access. McGee believes the world's most valuable company became trapped by its own success, transforming from a symbol of innovation into the unwitting architect of its biggest rival's rise. The book doesn't outright present a solution or reset to fix this paradox. The reason I mentioned the Jon Stewart interview at the outset rather than the book itself is that, in that interview, McGee seems to offer some alternatives. They discuss President Trump's desire to reshore the industrial base — agreeing with the principle, but noting it may not be possible given business bottom lines and balance sheets. McGee goes on to say: "I'm a big fan of friend-shoring rather than reshoring. Right, we should be doing what we did in China, but with allied nations like India, like Mexico." I'll get back to the idea of "friend-shoring" in a bit. But you have to appreciate that his timing is perfect. The world was still taking stock of the "deepseek moment" when more surprises were sprung: Chinese advances in quantum computing; the tough competition Tesla is facing from BYD and other Chinese EV companies; and, last but not least, the short-lived India-Pakistan war which tanked Dassault's stocks while skyrocketing Chengdu's. It's definitely a question on every analyst's mind: how did we end up here? Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world of magical realism and some twist of fate presented you the 'culprit' on a platter? I find McGee's quest to do just that. But the real world doesn't work that way. In fact, I remain highly sceptical of people who come bearing gifts of simplistic explanations. You are entitled to question my assertion that the explanation here is simplistic. This, of course, is a very well-crafted and documented book, full of internally consistent nuances. But there lies a problem too. Despite so much neatly packed information, the book has a broader contextual deficit. Remember, there is a very effective strategy to influence a reader's mind if you are a clever writer — and it involves the exploitation of the cognitive load theory. The theory states that our working memory can only hold a small amount of information at any one time, and that instructional methods should avoid overloading it to maximise learning. This method does the opposite. You subject the reader's mind to information overload. While too many details build your credibility, shock, horror (depending on the nature of information), and confusion can break your mental defences and leave you prone to the author's manipulations. Even if we want to put a positive spin on this, McGee's work has a context problem, an agency problem, and a resolution problem. Context problem — because there is hardly any in-depth inquiry into why other markets in the same price range (India, Mexico) lost this opportunity to China. India's case is quite interesting, by the way. It's not as if India wasn't in competition. In fact, an entire book can be written on how Maruti Suzuki and the service industry built India's economy today. But in the end, it's a matter of priorities: automobiles over smart technology; services over manufacturing; low-hanging fruit over strategic planning; training over immediate profit. We know who chose what. Agency problem — because at least its central thesis robs China of its agency. A cultural distinction has to be made. Perhaps a better rebuttal of this two-dimensional image of China is presented by Kai-Fu Lee in his brilliant book, AI Superpowers. It tells the story of original, intense entrepreneurial competition and innovation, strategic planning and investment, cultural factors that drive rapid iteration and risk-taking, and indigenous innovation capabilities. You can see why I'm suspicious. Resolution problem — because third-world problems are presented both as the diagnosis and the resolution. Friend-shoring, so to speak. This is what I hear: "Hey, this idea didn't work the first time. Let's do it all over again in similar situations and not learn anything from the mistakes. We invested in a third-world country and now it's giving us tough competition. Let's now pick another one with an emergent democracy deficit and replicate the model. What could go wrong?" I'm not a big fan of decoupling, but even if a de-risking effort has to be made, here's what I would have done: brought Apple's infrastructure to Canada near the US border. Canada has a lot of land and a smaller population. Then, in consultation with the Canadian and US governments, I would have brought in foreign, cheaper labour to the new plants and cities. This way, high-paying jobs like designing and engineering could be kept in the US, while building a product and labour value chain with total customisation options. This way, the US regains control of its technology and reshoring becomes feasible. Canada and the US move closer, talent from third-world countries gets a better life even in these anti-immigration times, and Canada adds to its working population. But for some reason, these guys won't tell you such solutions exist. India has an even stronger lobby than I originally thought.
Business Recorder
5 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Trump says fresh US-China trade talks in London next week
WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump on Friday announced a new round of trade talks with China in London next week, a day after calling Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in a bid to end a bitter battle over tariffs. US-China trade truce 'The meeting should go very well,' said Trump, adding that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer would meet a Chinese team in the British capital on Monday.
