Core Viewpoint - The ongoing US-EU trade negotiations are facing significant challenges, with both sides having substantial differences in their core demands, making a comprehensive agreement unlikely [1][5][6]. Group 1: Trade Negotiations - The EU is striving to reach a preliminary bilateral trade agreement with the US by July 9, while also preparing for all possible outcomes, including a retaliatory list [1]. - The US currently imposes a 50% tariff on EU steel and aluminum products, a 25% tariff on automobiles, and a 10% baseline tariff on nearly all other goods [1]. - The EU has decided to postpone retaliatory measures against US products worth €210 billion until July 14 to allow more time for negotiations [1]. Group 2: Strategic Perspectives - The political leadership in the US has undergone a profound change in its strategic perception of the EU, while European political elites have not yet adjusted their views, leading to a significant gap in mutual understanding [2]. - The Biden administration emphasizes the importance of European allies, but the return of Trump has altered the strategic dynamics, with the US viewing the EU as a contributor to its trade deficit [2][3]. Group 3: Internal EU Disagreements - Within the EU, there are significant internal disagreements regarding the acceptance of a 10% baseline tax rate, with countries like Germany and Italy being more amenable compared to France [5]. - The EU is willing to make concessions on purchasing US agricultural products and liquefied natural gas, but the US insists on addressing its trade deficit, focusing on non-tariff barriers [5]. Group 4: Future Relations - The relationship between the US and EU is expected to remain fraught with distrust and conflict, extending beyond trade to include technology, investment, and geopolitical strategies [6]. - European political elites are increasingly anxious about their competitive position in the global technology race, leading to a consensus on the need for strategic autonomy and resilience [7][12]. Group 5: Economic and Technological Interaction - The US and EU are both adopting protective measures in their economic policies, leading to increased competition and mutual suspicion [9][10]. - The US is focusing on protecting traditional industries and advancing critical technologies, while the EU aims to bolster its own industries and regulatory frameworks [9][10]. Group 6: Supply Chain Security - Both the US and EU are restructuring their supply chains to enhance economic resilience, but they are doing so independently [11]. - The US has been actively forming agreements with countries for critical mineral supply chains, while the EU is prioritizing supply chain security as a core economic strategy [11]. Group 7: Strategic Autonomy - In response to the "America First" policy, Europe is seeking to strengthen its strategic autonomy by enhancing its industrial policies and reducing reliance on the US [12]. - The EU is also working on developing its own security frameworks, recognizing the need to rely less on NATO and the US for defense [12].

Economic Growth - India's economy grew by 7.4% in Q1 2023, marking the highest quarterly growth in a year, up from 6.2% in the previous quarter [1] - The country is positioned to benefit from supply chain shifts due to US-China trade tensions, with May's new export orders reaching a three-year high [1][3] Manufacturing Sector - India's manufacturing PMI in May was 57.6, indicating strong expansion despite a slight month-on-month decline [2] - The automotive sector is also thriving, with vehicle exports projected to reach 5.36 million in FY 2024/25, a 19.2% increase from the previous year [6] Technology Transfer and Innovation - Over the past decade, India has successfully captured technology transfers across various sectors, including smartphones and pharmaceuticals, leading to significant industrial upgrades [3][4] - The country has transitioned from merely assembling products to developing local manufacturing capabilities, as evidenced by a rise in smartphone exports from $2.1 billion in 2018 to $11 billion in 2022 [4] Government Initiatives - The Indian government has implemented policies like "Make in India" and the Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme to encourage local manufacturing and technology adoption [9][10] - These initiatives have bolstered foreign investment confidence and facilitated local enterprise participation in high-tech sectors [10] Workforce and Infrastructure - India's large population provides a significant labor force and consumer market, but challenges remain in literacy and labor participation rates, which are below 50% [21][22] - Infrastructure issues, such as inadequate roads and power supply, continue to hinder manufacturing growth [21][22] Future Outlook - India's economic growth is currently concentrated in urban and IT sectors, necessitating broader structural improvements in income and consumption to sustain long-term growth [22][23] - The country is at a pivotal point in the global manufacturing landscape, with the potential to become a major economic power if it continues to reform and upgrade its technological and human resources [23]

Core Viewpoint - The article argues that ASEAN should adopt a strategy of "doing nothing" in response to the U.S. government's tariff war, rejecting unequal negotiations to better protect its own interests and hold the U.S. accountable for its protectionist actions [1]. Group 1: Economic Impact of U.S. Tariffs - The article highlights that U.S. President Trump’s claims of Asian economies "stealing jobs" are unfounded, as the U.S. unemployment rate is projected to average 3.8% from 2021 to 2024, one of the lowest among developed countries [3]. - The U.S. GDP is expected to reach a record $29.3 trillion in 2024, maintaining its status as the world's largest economy, while the service sector contributes 81% of GDP and employs 79% of the workforce, indicating that manufacturing's role in job creation is minimal [3]. - ASEAN has significantly contributed to U.S. prosperity, supplying critical semiconductor and machinery components essential for U.S. manufacturing competitiveness [4]. Group 2: ASEAN's Response Strategy - ASEAN should not grant tariff concessions to the U.S., reaffirming its core values of non-alignment, multilateralism, and mutual respect [5]. - ASEAN should persuade the U.S. business community that an open and stable market aligns with long-term interests, as U.S. companies have profited significantly from ASEAN's openness [5]. - The article suggests that the ultimate burden of U.S. tariffs will fall on American companies reliant on Southeast Asian supply chains, which will face increased costs, logistical delays, and diminished competitiveness [5]. - ASEAN is encouraged to enhance economic resilience, improve regional integration, diversify trade partners, and expand strategic partnerships, while also promoting diversification in currency settlement and payment systems for a more autonomous future [5].

Group 1: Overview of Chinese Companies Going Public in the U.S. - The trend of Chinese companies listing in the U.S. continues to rise, with 25 companies successfully going public by March 31, 2025, primarily on the Nasdaq [1] - Nasdaq has become the preferred exchange for Chinese companies, accounting for over 80% of IPOs in 2024, reflecting a 79% increase since 2019 [8] Group 2: Advantages of Nasdaq for Chinese Companies - Nasdaq offers a registration system that emphasizes the authenticity and completeness of information disclosure, allowing companies that may not meet domestic listing standards to secure funding [3] - The market environment in the U.S. features a robust legal framework and strict information disclosure requirements, enhancing corporate governance and attracting international investors [4] - Nasdaq provides significant liquidity advantages, with over 50% of total trading volume in the U.S. stock market occurring on its platform, enabling companies to complete secondary financing in as little as six months [5] Group 3: Haoyunlai's Nasdaq Listing Plans - Haoyunlai has announced its Nasdaq listing plan, positioning itself as a representative of industry innovation and strategic foresight [1][10] - The company has received multiple national awards, reinforcing its status as a leader in business model innovation and digital technology application, which supports its upcoming Nasdaq listing [10] - Haoyunlai's cloud-based platform aims to revolutionize the commercial ecosystem by linking millions of merchants and consumers, enhancing customer retention for physical stores, and creating new digital job opportunities [11]

Core Viewpoint - The rapid increase in internet-related civil and commercial disputes, particularly in areas like live streaming sales and paid content, poses challenges in balancing user rights protection and platform development [1] Group 1: Trends in Internet Disputes - The number of internet-related civil and commercial disputes has significantly increased, with cases rising from over 200 in 2022 to around 700 in the following year [3] - Common types of disputes include information network sales contract disputes, product liability disputes, and network service contract disputes, often arising from issues like fraud, product quality, and service cancellations [3] Group 2: Responsibilities of Platforms - Platforms are expected to actively assume both platform and social responsibilities, ensuring consumer protection through rigorous vetting of merchants and maintaining adequate compensation funds for high-risk products [4] - The courts aim to balance user rights and platform development by correctly applying laws such as the Civil Code and the E-commerce Law, while considering the unique characteristics of the digital platform industry [4] Group 3: Live Streaming Sales Disputes - The number of consumer disputes related to live streaming sales is on the rise, with a diverse range of products involved, reflecting an increasing consumer demand in this sector [7] - In live streaming sales, merchants have a heightened duty of care, and platforms must adhere to a fault liability principle to determine responsibility [8] Group 4: Regulation of Digital Platforms - Courts can regulate digital platform operations by properly adjudicating cases related to new transaction models, combating infringement, and providing judicial guidance through typical case publications [11] - The judiciary aims to establish clear rules for new types of disputes arising from digital platforms, such as data ownership and algorithm regulation [11] Group 5: Competition and Legal Framework - "Involution" competition can lead to resource waste and a focus on short-term results over long-term innovation, necessitating judicial oversight to ensure fair competition [12] - Courts should apply laws like the Anti-Monopoly Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to maintain fairness in competitive practices [12]