#easing tariffs

[worldpharmatoday]

CPHI & PMEC China Sees Surge in International Attendance as Global Pharma Trade Outlook Strengthens

CPHI & PMEC China (June 24-26th) returns to the Shanghai New International Expo Center amid a marked surge in international interest, with industry momentum rebounding following a string of positive developments in global trade and pharmaceutical investment. The 2025 edition is set to become the largest pharma event ever held in Asia, with more than 90,000 attendees and over 12,000 international executives expected.

The recent trade tariff reprieve[1], alongside an improving global outlook for pharma – i.e. higher valuations and improved capital expenditure by biotech and big pharma – is transforming into greater international interest at CPHI & PMEC China. International executives will visit the event in record numbers as pharma companies look for new ingredient suppliers and equipment providers.

Another key trend emerging is the increasing interest from global pharmaceutical companies in Chinese biotech assets – not only for access to the domestic market, but also for international licensing opportunities. Western drug makers are actively exploring strategic licensing deals that leverage China’s rapidly evolving biotech landscape as a springboard for global launches.

Notably, CPHI & PMEC China has also seen rapidly rising interest from the Middle East, where national strategies are underway to establish regional manufacturing hubs. Executives from across the Gulf are actively engaging with the event in search of new suppliers and equipment partners, joining bigger delegations from India and the United States — China’s long-standing strategic trade partners in the pharmaceutical supply chain.

“The news cycle has shifted to a more positive outlook for global trade between China, the USA, and India. However, setting aside these evolving dynamics, the more important point is that the fundamentals of the industry remain incredibly strong. We’re seeing global pharma achieving record numbers in discovery targets and returning to growth, alongside the rise of new manufacturing hubs around the world. Why is this important for CPHI & PMEC China? Because international attendees are coming to tap into the vast network of ingredient, manufacturing, and starting material companies within China. These are the partnerships that drive global manufacturing growth,” commented Natasha Jennings, Head of Global Growth Marketing. “Further strengthening the outlook, we’re witnessing a robust domestic market and the emergence of new manufacturing centers in Southeast Asia — both of which are contributing to increased demand for China-based ingredient partners.”

Significantly, the event’s audience reflects industry demand, with a rising number of senior professionals. In fact, four out of five international attendees in 2025 are expected to have purchasing power, with over 50% holding senior executive roles.

Additionally, this year’s event will be preceded by a one-day Natural Extracts Buyer Programme (June 23rd at the Grand Mercure Shanghai Century Park), with a Pharma Machinery Buyer Programme running in parallel [June 24-25 at the International Visitor Lounge, SNIEC Shanghai].

Jennings added, “what we’re seeing at CPHI & PMEC China is a significantly strengthening business case for global sourcing, with China serving as the key hub for an expanding range of partners. The difference today, compared to years past, is that global executives are no longer looking for fewer partners — they’re actively seeking more options. Many come to China not only to select primary and secondary suppliers, but also to evaluate reserve options and develop longer-term plans. It’s an incredibly exciting time to build new networks here, and with trade tensions easing, we’re seeing a resurgence in global partnerships.”

CPHI & PMEC China is at the heart of the world’s second-largest pharma economy and its largest manufacturing centre. In total, 3500 exhibitors and executives from 150 countries will explore a massive 230,000+SQM of exhibition space, spanning 12 different zones – including two additions for ‘BioTech’ and ‘Fluid & Precision Equipment’.

Running alongside the exhibition will be host of additional opportunities including the CPHI Celebration Awards & Networking Party, a dedicated conference – featuring the 10th Biopharmaceuticals Outlook Summit & 2025 International Regulatory Agencies Updates and Q&A Session – the Innovation Gallery & Tour, and even, regional Plant Visits. Registrations are now open. Please visit https://reg.cphi-china.cn/en/user/register

[coochiequeens]

Women’s goods are taxed at a higher rate than men’s, an invisible bias that is estimated to cost women $2.5bn a year"

Perhaps with so much talk of boycotts women should boycott unnecessary purchases that would cost more due to pink tariffs and taxes.

Women pay 3% more in tariffs than men, though it could be more. Photograph: Thomas Barwick/Getty Images

By Alaina Demopoulos Mon 17 Mar 2025

Many shoppers know about the so-called pink tax – a needless markup on products marketed to women, even if those products are essentially the same, just cheaper, when sold to men. Personal care items such as razors, deodorants and shampoo fall into this category. But shoppers may be less aware of “pink tariffs”, or taxes on imported goods labeled as “women’s items”.

Pink tariffs are one reason women’s clothing tends to cost more than men’s at the checkout counter, and why some women might buy sweatpants or oversized sweaters technically made for “men” – it could save them some cash.

As first reported by the 19th, two Democratic House members, Lizzie Fletcher of Texas and Brittany Pettersen of Colorado, introduced a bill this session calling on the treasury department to study pink tariffs, and publish any findings on how these taxes might lead to a gender bias in retail.

The move comes amid Donald Trump’s continued tariff war, when more Americans are paying attention to how tariffs work and affect their day-to-day lives. (On TikTok, young people especially balked at how the taxes on China-made goods might affect Temu or Shein fast-fashion prices.) Ed Gresser, vice-president and director for trade and global markets at the centrist thinkthank Progressive Policy Institute, said in a statement that the bill “will help us design a better and fairer system”, noting that gender bias in clothing “likely costs women at least $2.5bn per year”.

Fletcher noted that women pay 3% more in tariffs than men, though in some cases it could be more. Things don’t get easier if shoppers head to a genderless aisle: unisex clothing, the 19th also reported, gets taxed the same rate as womenswear. Pink tariffs can also apply to personal care items, sneakers and toys marketed toward young girls as opposed to boys.

Sheng Lu, a professor of fashion and apparel studies at the University of Delaware, says the wide margin between tariffs on women’s and men’s clothing are “the results of decades-old negotiations” influenced by simple misogyny. “Men dominated these discussions, and women were not fully considered in these negotiations, and that’s a very important reason for the impact and legacy of the pink tariffs.”

The first US tariff laws were written in the 18th century and eased by the early 1900s with the implementation of income tax. After the 1929 stock market crash, President Herbert Hoover brought tariffs back, though those decreased after the second world war during the era of free trade agreements. Tariffs became a hot topic during Trump’s first presidency, when he proposed taxes intended to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. (Fashion designers say that’s easier said than done, as China has become a world innovator in apparel manufacturing techniques.)

Studies show that women drive 70-80% of all consumer spending, which is also an incentive for governments to set higher import taxes on their clothing. One study found that in 2015, the tariff burden for US households on women’s clothing was $2.77bn more than on men’s clothing.

Women’s clothing also tends to be made from human-made fibers such as polyester, which is taxed more than cotton, one of the US’s largest exports. “Fashion brands cannot totally absorb these tariffs by themselves, so they are eventually passed to consumers,” Lu said.

The US Harmonized Tariff Schedule, a labyrinthian code which lays out set tariff rates for all categories of goods, contains what Susan Scafidi, director of Fordham’s Fashion Law Institute, calls “financial microaggressions”.

One example: men’s silk brief underwear is taxed at 0.9%, while women’s silk underwear is taxed at 2.1%. Meanwhile, overcoats are taxed by a combination of price per kilogram plus an additional percentage; a wool blend overcoat for men has a tariff rate of 38.6 cents per kilogram plus an additional 10% of the value; a women’s wool overcoat is taxed 64.4 cents per kilogram, plus an additional 18.8%.

You could make the argument that men’s clothing, which tends to be larger than women’s, weighs more, justifying the discrepancy – a higher tariff makes up for the difference in weight. But Scafidi doesn’t buy it. “The average women’s coat may be a little lighter than a man’s, but certainly many of the weights are similar or identical to each other, and that does not account for such a huge difference in tariffs,” she said.

Though Scafidi would like to see the elimination of pink tariffs, she’s not confident that will happen anytime soon. “Tariffs make money in a way that voters don’t see,” she said. The actual markup of an item due to tariffs is hidden from customers, unlike a sales tax, which is printed on a receipt or shown online during checkout. “We can see a price tag, we can see sales tax, but we don’t see the tariffs right in front of our faces when we shop. Those are invisible to us, so there is no incentive for politicians to roll them back.”

Still, the pink tariff’s cousin, the pink tax, is well known, partly due to a heavily covered 2015 study by the New York City department of consumer affairs that in turn inspired ad campaigns from companies including Burger King and the European Wax Center drawing attention to the issue. California and New York state have since enacted laws that prohibit businesses from charging different prices for “substantially similar” but gendered products.

Scafidi imagines that if retailers were required to list out how tariffs affect prices, then people would be more likely to demand change. “Pink tariffs can add up a little bit at a time, drip by drip, like slow water torture,” she said. “It’s unfair at so many levels, but it’s unlikely to be corrected.”

[newindiaabroad]

Nvidia Becomes First $4 Trillion Company Amid AI Boom

On July 9, Nvidia made history by becoming the first company to surpass $4 trillion in market value, marking a defining moment in Wall Street’s confidence in the transformative power of artificial intelligence.

Led by co-founder and electrical engineer Jensen Huang, Nvidia's stock surged as high as $164.42 after the market opened, briefly pushing its valuation past the $4 trillion threshold before dipping slightly.

Steve Sosnick of Interactive Brokers noted, “The market has an incredible certainty that AI is the future. Nvidia is certainly the company most positioned to benefit from that gold rush.”

Nvidia’s valuation now exceeds the GDP of nations like France, the UK, and India, showcasing how central AI has become to economic outlooks. Investors are betting big that AI will spark a new wave of automation, robotics, and productivity growth—disrupting traditional industries in the process.

The California-based chipmaker’s success is also lifting broader markets. Even amid ongoing tariff tensions, Nvidia’s momentum and investor optimism have helped the S&P 500 and Nasdaq hover near record highs.

Much of this recovery stems from relief that former President Trump has eased some of the harshest tariffs announced earlier this year. Still, trade uncertainty remains, especially with new tariff actions recently introduced.

Despite facing U.S. export restrictions to China, Nvidia continues to expand globally. Its AI infrastructure deal in Saudi Arabia, signed during Trump’s May visit, reflects strategic growth even within complex geopolitical landscapes.

With AI driving explosive market gains and Nvidia at the center of the storm, the chip giant is not just rewriting stock market records—it’s redefining global economic influence.

[kazifatagar]

Guan Eng Now Urges Govt to Halt SST Expansion, Tariff Hike Amid US Retaliatory Duties

KUALA LUMPUR – DAP national adviser Lim Guan Eng has urged the government to pause its sales and service tax (SST) expansion and electricity tariff hike in response to the US imposing 25 percent retaliatory tariffs on Malaysian exports effective Aug 1. The former finance minister said halting these hikes would ease burdens on businesses and households already grappling with rising costs. He…

[kamalkafir-blog]

Boeing plane lands back in China for delivery as tariff war eases

SEOUL (Reuters) -A new Boeing 737 MAX landed back in China on Monday, flight tracking data showed, a sign the U.S. planemaker was resuming deliveries to Chinese customers as Beijing and Washington ease their tariff war. Boeing, which halted deliveries of new planes to China in April as the world’s two largest economies ramped up tariffs on each other, said at the end of May deliveries would…

[kevinmmiller]

The Beginning of the Return of Healthy Bond and Credit Markets in the United States 2025

I’ve been a devoted reader of James Bianco and his online postings on LinkedIn however I must disagree with his recent assessment of the current state of US Bond Markets, particularly with relation to the pricing and cumulative assets under management...

Photo by Masood Aslami on Pexels.com I’ve been a devoted reader of James Bianco and his online postings on LinkedIn however I must disagree with his recent assessment of the current state of US Bond Markets, particularly with relation to the pricing and cumulative assets under management in $TLT #ETF. A major United States Bond 20-Year Spread ETF, that is currently under the management of the…

[thekeymonster]

✨ATTENTION!✨

🩵🩷🤍TRANS PRIDE MOTH KITTEN PLUSH CAMPAIGN is ✨LIVE!✨🤍🩵🩷

As with all Makeship campaigns, we have 21 days to meet the minimum requirement of 200 preorders for the plush to go into production. Help meet that goal by sharing and ordering! As with all my pride moth kitten plushies if the campaign is successful a portion of the proceeds will be going to The Trevor Project.

Cute plushies for a great cause!

Here is the campaign link again for your scrolling ease! Thank you for the support and shares!

🏳️‍⚧️TRANS PRIDE MOTH KITTEN PLUSH🏳️‍⚧️

(Also: International people! While I may be based in the US, Makeship is a Canadian company and if the campaign is successful, the plushies will ship from the manufacturer in China. So you don’t have to deal with US tariff hell if you choose to support this campaign.)

[worldpharmatoday]

CPHI & PMEC China Sees Surge in International Attendance as Global Pharma Trade Outlook Strengthens

[phoenixyfriend]

Ko-fi prompt from @liberwolf:

Could you explain Tariff's , like who pays them and what they do to a country?

Well, I can definitely guess where this question is coming from.

Honestly, I was pretty excited to get this prompt, because it's one I can answer and was part of my studies focus in college. International business was my thing, and the issues of comparative advantage (along with Power Purchasing Parity) were one of the things I liked to explore.

-----------------

At their simplest, tariffs are an import tax. The United States has had tariffs as low as 5%, and at other times as high as 44% on most goods, such as during the Civil War. The purpose of a tariff is in two parts: generating revenue for the government, and protectionism.

Let's first explore how a tariff works. If you want to be confused, then you need to have never taken an economics class, and look at this graph:

(src)

So let's undo that confusion.

The simplest examples are raw or basic materials such as steel, cotton, or wine.

First, without tariffs:

Let us say that Country A and Country B both produce steel, and it is of similar quality, and in both cases cost $100 per unit. Transportation from one country to the other is $50/unit, so you can either buy domestically for $100, or internationally for $150. So you buy domestically.

Now, Country B discovers a new place to mine iron very easily, and so their cost for steel drops to $60/unit due to increased ease of access. Country A can either purchase domestically for $100, or internationally for $110 (incl. shipping), which is much more even. Still, it is more cost-effective to purchase domestically, and so Country A isn't worried.

Transportation technology is improved, dropping the shipping costs to $30/unit. A person from Country A can buy: Domestic: $100 International: $60+$30 = $90 Purchasing steel from Country B is now cheaper than purchasing it from Country A, regardless of where you live.

Citizens in Country A, in order to reduce costs for domestic construction, begin to purchase their steel from Country B. As a result, money flows from Country A to B, and the domestic steel industry in Country A begins to feel the strain as demand dwindles.

In this scenario, with no tariffs, Country A begins to rely on B for their steel, which causes a loss of jobs (steelworkers, miners), loss of infrastructure (closing of mines and factories), and an outflow of funds to another country. As a result, Country A sees itself as losing money to B, while also growing increasingly reliant on their trading partner for the crucial good that is steel. If something happens to drive up the price of B's steel again, like political upheaval or a natural disaster, it will be difficult to quickly ramp up the production of steel in Country A's domestic facilities again.

What if a tariff is introduced early?

Alternately, the dropping of complete costs for purchase of steel from Country B could be counteracted with tariffs. Let's say we do a 25% tariff on that steel. This tariff is placed on the value of the steel, not the end cost, so:

$60 + (0.25 x $60) + $30 = $105/unit

Suddenly, with the implementation of a 25% tariff on steel from Country B, the domestic market is once again competitive. People can still buy from Country B if they would like, but Country A is less worried about the potential impacts to the domestic market.

The above example is done in regards to a mature market that has not yet begun to dwindle. The infrastructure and labor is still present, and is being preemptively protected against possible loss of industry to purchasing abroad.

What happens if the tariff is not implemented until after the market has dwindled?

Let's say that the domestic market was not protected by the tariff until several decades on. Country A's domestic production, in response to increased purchasing from abroad, has dwindled to one third of what it was before the change in pricing incentivized purchase from B. Prices have, for the sake of keeping this example simple, remained at $100(A) and $60(B) in that time. However, transportation has likely become better, so transportation is down to $20, meaning that total cost for steel from B is $80, accelerating the turn from domestic steel to international.

So, what happens if you suddenly implement a tariff on international steel? Shall we say, 40%?

$60 + (0.4 x 60) + 20 = $104

It's more expensive to order from abroad! Wow! Let's purchase domestically instead, because these prices add up!

But the production is only a third of what it used to be, and domestic mines and factories for refining the iron into steel can't keep up. They're scaling, sure, but that takes time. Because demand is suddenly triple of the supply, the cost skyrockets, and so steel in Country A is now $150/unit! The price will hopefully come down eventually, as factories and mines get back in gear, but will the people setting prices let that happen?

So industries that have begun to rely on international steel, which had come to $80/unit prior to the tariff, are facing the sudden impact of a cost increase of at least $25/unit (B with tariff) or the demand-driven price increase of domestic (nearly double the pre-tariff cost of steel from B), which is an increase of at least 30% what they were paying prior to the tariff.

There are possible other aspects here, such as government subsidies to buoy the domestic steel industry until it catches back up, or possibly Country B eating some of the costs so that people still buy from them (selling for $50 instead of $60 to mitigate some of the price hike, and maintain a loyal customer base), but that's not a direct impact of the tariff.

Who pays for tariffs?

Ultimately, this is a tax on a product (as opposed to a tax on profits or capital themselves, which has other effects), which means the majority of the cost is passed on directly to the consume.

As I said, we could see the producers in Country B cut their costs a little bit to maintain a loyal customer base, but depending on their trade relationships with other countries, they are just as likely to stop trading with Country A altogether in order to focus on more profitable markets.

So why do we not put tariffs on everything?

Well... for that, we get into the question of production efficiency, or in this case, comparative advantage.

Let's say we have two small, neighboring countries, C and D, that have negligible transportation costs and similar industries. Both have extensive farmland, and both have a history of growing grapes for wine, and goats for wool. Country C is a little further north than D, so it has more rocky grasses that are good for goats, while D has more fertile plains that are good for growing grapes.

Let's say that they have an equal workforce of 500,000 of people. I'm going to say that 10,000 people working full time for a year is 1 unit of labor. So, Country C and Country D have between the 100 units of labor, and 50 each.

The cost of 1 unit of wool = the cost of 1 unit of wine

Country C, having better land for goats, can produce 4 units of wool for every unit of labor, and 2 units of wine for every unit of labor.

Meanwhile, Country D, having better land for grapes, can produce 2 units of wool per unit of labor, and 4 units of wine per unit of labor.

If they each devote exactly half their workforce to each product, then:

Country C: 100 units of wool, 50 units of wine Country D: 50 units of wool, 100 units of wine

Totaling 150 units of each product.

However, if each devotes all of their workforce to the product they're better at...

Country C: 200 units of wool, no wine Country D: no wool, 200 units of wine

and when they trade with each other, they each end up with 100 units of each product, which is a doubling of what their less-efficient labor would have resulted in!

The real world is obviously much more complicated, but in this example, we can see the pros of outsourcing some of your production to another country to focus on your own specialties.

Extreme examples of this IRL are countries where most of the economy rests on one product, such as middle-eastern petro-states that are now struggling to diversify their economies in order to not get left behind in the transition to green energy, or Taiwan's role as the world's primary producer of semiconductors being its 'silicon shield' against China.

Comparative advantage can be used well, such as our Unnamed Countries (that are definitely not the classic example of England and Portugal, with goats instead of sheep) up in the example. With each economy focusing on its specialty, there is a greater yield of both products, meaning a greater bounty for both countries.

However, should something happen to Country C up there, like an earthquake that kills half the goats, they are suddenly left with barely enough wool to clothe themselves, and nothing for Country D, which now has a surplus of wine and no wool.

So you do have to keep some domestic industry, because Bad Things Can Happen. And if we want to avoid the steel example of a collapse in the given industry, tariffs might be needed.

Are export tariffs a thing?

Yes, but they are much rarer, and can largely be defined as "oh my god, everyone please stop getting rid of this really important resource by selling it to foreigners for a big buck, we are depleting this crucial resource."

So what's the big confusion right now?

Donald Trump has, on a number of occasions, talked about 'making China pay' tariffs on the goods they import into the US. This has led to a belief that is not entirely unreasonable, that China would be the side paying the tariffs.

The view this statement engenders is that a tariff is a bit like paying a rental fee for a seller's table at an event: the producer or merchant pays the host (or landlord or what have you) a fee to sell their product on the premises. This could be a farmer's market, a renaissance faire, a comic book convention, whatever. If you want to sell at the event, you have to pay a fee to get a space to set up your table.

In the eyes of the people who listened to Trump, the tariff is that fee. China is paying the United States for access to the market.

And, technically, that's not entirely wrong. China is thus paying to enter the US market. It's just the money to pay that fee needs to come from somewhere, and like most taxes on goods, that fee comes from the consumer.

So... what now?

Well, a lot of smaller US companies that rely on cheap goods made in China are buying up non-perishables while they can, before the tariffs hit. Long-term, manufacturers in the US that rely on parts and tools manufactured in China are going to feel the squeeze once that frontloaded stock is depleted.

Some companies are large enough to take the hit on their own end, still selling at cheap rates to the consumer, because they can offset those costs with other parts of their empire... at least until smaller competitors are driven out of business, at which point they can start jacking up their prices since there are no options left. You may look at that and think, "huh, isn't that the modus operandi for Walmart and Amazon already?" and yes. It is. We are very much anticipating a 'rich get richer, poor go out of business' situation with these tariffs.

The tariffs will also impact larger companies, including non-US ones like Zara (Spanish) and H&M (Swedish), if they have a huge reliance on Chinese production to supply their huge market in the United States.

If you're interested in the repercussions that people expect from these proposed tariffs on Chinese goods, I'd suggest listening to or watching the November 8th, 2024 episode of Morning Brew Daily (I linked to YouTube, but it's also available on Spotify, Nebula, the Morning Brew website, and other podcast platforms).

[choppedcowboydinosaur]

I agree but I don't think tariffs are the best way to go about this.

I'm not saying the news is going to try to create a recession out of thin air while the market actually isn't doing that bad

I'm just saying that boomer retirement funds and real estate portfolios taking a hit doesn't seem to have an impact on the local economy

[kazifatagar]

Positive Outlook for Local Equities as US-China Tariff Truce Eases Global Concerns

KUALA LUMPUR: The recent agreement between the United States and China to temporarily reduce tariffs is seen as a positive development for the Malaysian equity market. Analysts suggest the move lowers the risk of a potential recession in the US and globally, while also encouraging stronger foreign investment inflows into the local market. The benchmark index target remains unchanged for now,…

[10bmnews]

Boeing plane returns to China for delivery as tariff war eases

A Boeing 737 MAX 8, the second jet intended for use by a Chinese airline to be returned to its manufacturer, lands at Boeing Field, as trade tensions escalate over US tariffs with China, in Seattle, Washington, US April 22, 2025. — Reuters SEOUL: A new Boeing MAX landed back in China on Monday, flight tracking data showed, a sign the US planemaker was resuming deliveries to Chinese customers as…

[mariacallous]

"Trump is having difficulty finding a Treasury Secretary who will support tariffs but also ease industry and Wall Street fears over trade war and financial stability"

"Amity Island mayor is having difficulty finding sheriff who will allow beaches to remain open during shark season but also ease vacationgoers concerns over summer swim safety."

[primepaginequotidiani]

PRIMA PAGINA Financial Times di Oggi sabato, 10 maggio 2025

[eugenedebs1920]

Whoopidy f*ckn dooo….

I love how this administration creates a problem, then toots their own horn when they “fix” the problem they created in the first f*ckin place!

So we’re exactly in the same spot we were before dumbass did the tariffs.

Yay! Way to go Trump! You fixed a problem you made… 👍