Wednesday, June 12, 2024

China has a ‘near monopoly’ on many critical minerals. JPMorgan says it could be the next battleground with the U.S.

Will Daniel
Mon, Jun 10, 2024

China has a “near monopoly” on the mining of many raw materials that are critical for the production of semiconductors and other technologies, JPMorgan said Monday, highlighting the importance of key minerals in the escalating U.S.-China trade war.

President Biden upped the ante in the ongoing spat with China last month when he targeted Chinese products including solar cells, EVs, batteries, steel, aluminum, medical equipment, and more with a raft of new tariffs.

“The Biden administration’s latest tariff announcement on $18 billion of Chinese imports has elevated the debate on whether China’s dominance in the critical minerals supply chain will emerge as the latest battleground for U.S.-China strategic competition,” wrote JPMorgan’s executive director of strategic research, Amy Ho, and global head of research, Joyce Chang, in a note to clients.

In 2022, China produced 68% of the world’s rare earth minerals, which are used for things like magnets and batteries, and 70% of its graphite, which is used in lubricants, electric motors, and even nuclear reactors.

However, China’s real dominance lies in its mineral processing capabilities, according to JPMorgan. China processed 100% of the world’s graphite supply in 2022, 90% of rare earths, and 74% of cobalt (another critical mineral for batteries).

“Increasing dependence on critical minerals, which are key inputs to semiconductors, EVs, military weapons etc., has raised concerns that China could use its dominance in this supply chain to retaliate against U.S. industrial policy,” Ho and Chang warned.

The U.S. and China’s tit-for-tat trade war began in 2018, when then-President Donald Trump slapped tariffs on a range of Chinese goods and commodities, including solar panels and steel, citing the country’s intellectual property (IP) theft and unfair trade practices. Since then, tensions between the world’s two largest superpowers have only escalated, with a high-stakes battle over semiconductor IP and manufacturing taking center stage amid the AI boom.

Import-only minerals

Of the minerals that the U.S. Geological Survey has identified as critical to the U.S. economy and national security, the U.S. was 100% reliant on imports for 12 of them.

1. Arsenic

Top source: China

Applications: Semiconductors

2. Cesium

Top source: Germany

Applications: Research and development

3. Fluorspar

Top source: Mexico

Applications: Manufacturing of fuel, foams, refrigerants, and more

4. Gallium

Top source: Japan

Applications: Integrated circuits and optical devices

5. Graphite

Top source: China

Applications: Lubricants, batteries, and fuel cells

6. Indium

Top source: South Korea

Applications: Liquid crystal display screens

7. Manganese

Top source: Gabon

Applications: Manufacturing of steel and batteries

8. Niobium

Top source: Brazil

Applications: Manufacturing of superalloys

9. Rubidium

Top source: China

Applications: Electronics research and development

10. Scandium

Top source: Japan

Applications: Manufacturing of alloys, ceramics, and fuel cells

11. Tantalum

Top source: China

Applications: Manufacturing of electronic components, capacitors, and superalloys

12. Yttrium

Top source: China

Applications: Manufacturing of ceramics and lasers

China is the top source for five out of 12 of these critical minerals, and the second or third top source for an additional three: Fluorspar, Galium, and Scandium. But China isn’t the only nation the U.S. relies on for key minerals. Mexico, Japan, and Korea are among the other top sources.

The U.S. relies on imports for 50% or more of its supply of an additional 29 minerals beyond the dozen listed above. This includes a 90% plus net import reliance for titanium, 14 rare earths, and bismuth.


Will China weaponize its ‘near monopoly’ on critical minerals?

With the U.S.-China trade war heating up, minerals could prove an exploitable weak point for Beijing. In a worst-case scenario where China increases export restrictions for key minerals or implements a full ban, the electronics, oil refining, defense, and EV sectors would be especially at risk, JPMorgan’s Ho and Chang noted.

Still, for now, JPMorgan’s strategists don’t foresee a serious mineral turf war taking place. “There are growing concerns that China will weaponize its position, but we expect China’s response to remain proportionate and limited based on past actions,” they wrote Monday, adding that the U.S. can also look to alternative suppliers and substitutes.

The pair offered a few recommendations for how the U.S. can stabilize its supply of critical minerals to protect the defense industry, support the EV transition, and prevent economic fallout from a potential commodity trade war.

First, Ho and Chang noted that creating new U.S. mining capacity isn’t an option to fix the U.S.’s reliance on mineral imports. New mining operations take years to start, come with environmental risks, and regulatory approval in the U.S. is often uncertain. It takes 16.5 years, on average, for a mining project to move from discovery to production in the U.S., according to the International Energy Agency. And securing a permit for a mine alone takes an average of seven to 10 years.

Instead of new mining operations, Ho and Chang recommended the diversification of mineral sourcing, the implementation of new mineral mining technologies, and strategic stockpiling of key minerals. They estimated that technological innovation and recycling could reduce demand by 20% to 40%, while material substitution could alleviate strains on supply and reduce costs over the next few decades. In addition, strategic stockpiling by the US government and corporations could act as a buffer against sudden supply chain disruptions.

“More opportunities exist to diversify critical mineral suppliers than there are for oil, and the countries that are in the process of broadening their mining and process capabilities include allies such as Canada, Australia, the EU, and Japan,” they added. “The U.S. should remain optimistic.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Norway just loosened China’s stranglehold on rare minerals critical to the global economy—and it’s a huge win for Europe and the U.S.


Fortune· Rodger Bosch—AFP/Getty Images


Paolo Confino
Tue, Jun 11, 2024

Norway just struck a gold mine. Well, a rare mineral mine.

The Norwegian mining company, Rare Earths Norway, just uncovered the largest deposit of rare earth elements in Europe. The discovery has major implications not just for the company, which is certainly poised for a windfall, but for global geopolitics.

Rare Earths Norway found the deposit in the Fen Carbonatite Complex located in the southern tip of the country, according to a press release. These rare elements, which are a family of 17 metals, are used in a host of consumer electronics like smartphones and flat-screen TVs. They’re also critical to the green-energy transition because they are key components in products like electric vehicles and wind turbines. But, as the name suggests, they are in short supply around the world. By dint of geography or luck, the vast majority of rare earth elements are found and extracted in China, giving the world’s second largest economy extraordinary influence in determining their supply and demand across the world. Currently, China accounts for 70% of the extraction of these elements from the ground and 90% of their processing, according to research from the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, an independent energy research institute.

Norway’s discovery would finally make Europe a player in the industry.

“It is important to state that there is absolutely no extraction of rare earth elements in Europe today,” Rare Earths Norway CEO Alf Reistad told CNBC.

Rare Earths Norway’s discovery comes at a time when Europe and the U.S. have had tense trade relations with China. Many of those tensions are wrapped up in national-security issues as well. Europe is wary of China, given its allyship with Russia, which has been largely ostracized on the continent, certainly by members of the European Union. Meanwhile, the U.S. and China are engaged in what one economist called a “forever” trade war. The U.S. has accused China of intentionally oversupplying global markets with certain products, like electric vehicles. The concern is that because China has cornered the market on rare elements it could also manipulate that market by doing the opposite and purposefully withholding supply to drive up prices—something it has threatened to do, but hasn’t yet pulled the trigger on.

Norway has already made some strides in trying to chip away at Europe’s dependence on China to get access to the materials. In January, the Norwegian parliament voted 80–20 to allow offshore, deep-sea mining of rare minerals in remote waters to the north of the country. Norway, which is already a major producer of oil and natural gas, would become the first country to allow its seabed to be mined for rare minerals. Current plans would see Norway mine 108,000 square miles, an area roughly the size of Colorado. The newly discovered deposit only strengthens Europe’s hand against rivals like China.

Though the fact that these reserves were located in China was due to chance, China’s ability to make the most of them and use them as a strategic geopolitical tool—even a cudgel—was intentional. Through years of domestic industrial policy, China secured patents in the technology needed to extract the rare elements, directing huge amounts of government resources toward the project, and investing heavily in extracting ore from deposits across the globe.

Once its dominance was established, the Chinese government sought to protect it. Last year, China banned the export of technology used to extract gallium and germanium, two elements used in chip manufacturing. China’s strong market position was also favored by lax labor standards. “This dominance has been achieved through decades of state investment, export controls, cheap labor, and low environmental standards,” the Oxford Institute researchers wrote.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Survey: Christians favor Israel over Palestinians in Israel-Hamas war, but Catholic-Jewish relations hazy

Marc Ramirez, USA TODAY
Updated Tue, June 11, 2024 

More Christians are likely to support Israel rather than Palestinians in the the latest war between Israel and Hamas, a survey of American Christians has found, with Catholics standing out as the major Christian group least likely to support Israel and pro-Israel policies.

This was despite Jews' favorable view of Catholics compared to other Christian denominations, the researchers behind the survey wrote, indicating that relations between Jews and Catholics in the U.S. remain complicated despite the long strides the two faith communities have made over the last 60 years.

“We hope this study provides yet another impetus for American Jews and Catholics to rethink their relationship and start correcting these fissures,” wrote authors Motti Inbari, a professor of Jewish studies at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke and Kirill Bumin, associate dean of Metropolitan College, Boston University.

The survey of 2,033 Christian adults, conducted in March, was part of the researchers' ongoing research project measuring American Christian attitudes toward Jews, Israel and the broader Israel-Hamas conflict.

It found 40% of Christians support Israel, compared to just 8% who support Palestinians. One in 3 supported neither or both. Support for Israel remained highest among evangelicals, with 47% saying they either strongly supported, supported, or leaned toward supporting Israel, compared to 32% of Catholics.

In a 2023 survey of American Jews conducted by Inbari and Bumin, 44% of respondents said they viewed Catholics positively, compared to 32% who said they had similar perspectives of Protestants and Muslims and 21% who said they had such views of evangelicals.

Seven in 10 Christians said religious beliefs had little to do with how they felt about the conflict. The figure was highest among Catholics (79%) and lowest among evangelicals (62%), a third of whom credited their beliefs for their support of Israel.

Arthur Urbano, a professor of theology at Providence College, a Catholic institution in Rhode Island, said he wasn’t surprised by the high portion of Catholics who expressed that view given the Catholic Church’s complex position on relations with Israelis and Palestinians in general. Urbano was not affiliated with the survey.

Urbano noted that the church’s diplomatic relations with Israel, formally established in 1993, followed improved relations with Jews after the Second Vatican Council, the congress of 2,300 Catholic bishops called by Pope John XXIII beginning in 1962 to reconcile church doctrine with the zeitgeist. At the same time, he said, there existed “a small, but important Palestinian Catholic community for which the Catholic Church has pastoral responsibility.”

That’s knowledge Urbano said he finds lacking among many Catholics he encounters in college classrooms or at parish adult education classes, despite the church’s consistent support of a two-state solution to the conflict and recognition of a Palestinian state in 2015.

Palestinian Christians celebrate Easter Sunday Mass at the Catholic Holy Family Church in Gaza City, on March 31, 2024, amid the ongoing battles Israel and the Hamas militant group.

The church’s religious teachings on the meaning of the State of Israel, a subject he said was intentionally avoided during Vatican II, are vague. While they now require more consideration, “it’s not surprising that most Catholics, who probably only hear about Israelis and Palestinians from news media and not the pulpit, have a view that‘s mostly politically formed.”


Christian attitudes largely unaffected by the war

Christian attitudes about Jews and the larger Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been largely unaffected by the current conflict, the survey found, with results similar to those found in previous ones.

“The scale of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not seem to impact how most respondents perceive the conflict and which party to the conflict they support,” said Bumin, of Boston University's Metropolitan College. “Once attitudes about the conflict are formed and crystalized, new information is not likely to significantly dislodge them.”

More than half of respondents said they supported Israel because Israelis had the right to defend their state, while 3 in 10 said it was because Israel is the closest U.S. ally in an unstable region. Slightly less said it was because Jesus was a Jew.

Nearly half said Hamas was mostly to blame for the war, while 39% said both sides were to blame. One in 5 said Israel’s response was mostly unjustified, compared to 45% who called it mostly justified.

Police prepare to break up an encampment on the campus of the Art Institute of Chicago after students established a protest encampment on the grounds on May 4, 2024 in Chicago, Illinois. More than 2,000 people have been arrested nationwide as students at colleges and universities around the country have staged protests calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.More

One in 4 said it was “probably true” Israel was committing genocide, compared to 41% who said such charges were “probably false.” One in 5 said it was probably true that Israel was targeting Palestinian civilians, while more than half said that charge was probably false.

Age was a significant predictor of attitudes toward Israel, which the researchers said was partly evidenced by widespread protests against the war on college campuses. Respondents aged 50 to 64 were most supportive of Israel, while those under 30 were less likely to express strong support.

“Older people have the experience of viewing Israel and Jews fighting for their survival in a hostile world, while younger generations have seen Israel mostly as an aggressor toward the Palestinians,” Inbari said.

The survey also found that attitudes varied among first-generation immigrants based on how long they’d lived in the U.S.

“American pro-Israel culture changes immigrant attitudes over time,” Inbari said.

Conservatives were 28% more likely to strongly support Israel, the survey found, while adherents of premillennialism, the belief in Jesus’ second coming and subsequent 1,000-year rule, were 83% more likely to support Israel.

Temple University’s Students for the Justice in Palestine and Philly Palestine Coalition chant on April 25, 2024 during a rally and march on campus in Philadelphia. They are calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war and for the university to divest from companies with ties to the Israeli government.

Meanwhile, Black Americans were much less likely to support Israel than those of other racial or ethnic backgrounds. The likelihood of strongly backing Israel also fell among those who support a two-state solution, those with a positive view of Muslims and those with a high level of education.

'An unspeakable tragedy which can never be forgotten'

The survey found Catholics were least supportive of Jewish interests and causes, with 29% saying the statement “Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust" was "probably true."

Matthew Tapie, director of the Center for Catholic & Jewish Studies at Saint Leo University in Florida, called the statement an “immoral and repugnant idea" and one "absolutely opposed" to church teachings and “the solemn and serious attitude toward the Shoah” – the Hebrew word for "destruction" that is often associated with the Holocaust – exemplified by leaders such as Pope Francis and St. Pope John Paul II.

“The Shoah is an unspeakable tragedy which can never be forgotten,” said Tapie, an associate professor of theology who also serves as a member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s committee for ethics, religion and the Holocaust. “It is a major fact of history and must concern all people today.”

Tapie, also unaffiliated with the survey, said Catholics should strive to understand the views of both Palestinians and Jews, especially those in Israel.

A similar survey of American Christians conducted in July 2022 by Saint Joseph’s University’s Institute for Jewish-Catholic Relations in Philadelphia found that American Catholic views of Jews had significantly improved since the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council in 1965. Before that, the authors said, the church had taught that Jews were responsible for Christ’s crucifixion.

Adam Gregerman, a professor of theology and religious studies at Saint Joseph's and co-director of the institute, was also unaffiliated with the more recent survey. While it was difficult to find a consistent through-line in the newer data, he said, it's important to remember the positive strides that once-troubled Jewish-Catholic relations have made over the last several decades.

“For the most part, there’s much to celebrate in the relationship between Jews and Christians in America,” Gregerman said. “The trajectory has been a positive one. That really deserves the most attention.”

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: In Israel-Hamas war, Christians side with Israel, new survey suggests
Experts skeptical of Trump’s promise to end taxes on tips

Ashley Murray
Mon, June 10, 2024 



The idea “smells more of campaign politics than a really well thought out and principled tax policy proposal," said an economist with a right-leaning think tank. (Photo by Mark Makela/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — Economists across the ideological spectrum raised doubts about the cost and workability of former President Donald Trump’s proposal over the weekend to exempt tips from federal taxes if he wins in November.

During a campaign rally Sunday in Las Vegas, where hundreds of thousands work in the hospitality industry, Trump promised service workers that they would no longer have to pay federal taxes on tipped income if the presumptive Republican nominee wins a second term.

The roughly 6 million tipped workers in the U.S., as of the latest data available from 2018, make up a small fraction of the country’s 150 million taxpayers, but campaigning on tax cuts for certain demographics is increasingly a top issue leading up to November’s presidential election.

“This is the first time I’ve said this, and for those who work at hotels and people that get tips, you’re gonna be very happy because when I get to office we are going to not charge taxes on tips, on people making tips,” Trump said to cheers at the rally.

Trump said he will “do that right away, first thing in office,” though changing the tax code would require an act of Congress.
Tax code due for update

Large portions of the sweeping 2017 tax law that Congress passed along party lines during the Trump administration are set to expire at the end of 2025, and lawmakers and advocates are already trotting out their priorities.

Tipped workers made an average $6,000 on top of their base wages in 2018, and together they paid about $38 billion in taxes on tips, according to the latest Internal Revenue Service figures. In 2018, the IRS collected about $7 trillion in overall taxes.

“In terms of the macroeconomic impact, it’s pretty small,” said Erica York, senior economist and research director at the right-leaning Tax Foundation.

“If you think of it in terms of what Congress is going to be debating next year, one of the big challenges that lawmakers are going to face is the revenue impact. Every dollar of tax revenue for one type of tax cut is $1 less for another type of tax cut. So it’s going to be a real exercise in prioritizing trade-offs across different policies,” York said.

Trump has vowed to extend all tax cuts enacted under his watch, but the cost of extending them over the next decade would reach $4.6 trillion, according to estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation and nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Trump’s proposal to tipped workers “smells more of campaign politics than a really well thought out and principled tax policy proposal,” York added. “And I think the elephant in the room for both candidates is that they haven’t fully addressed ‘what are you going to do about these huge expirations that are scheduled to happen next year?’”

The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for further detail.
Incentivizing tipped work

Andrew Lautz, associate director for the Bipartisan Policy Center, said while tipped workers are a “small slice” of the tax base, “you’re talking about a potentially large chunk of revenue that you’re giving up on an annual basis,” depending on how the policy would be rolled out.

“Our current tax system is certainly not designed to treat all income equally, but this proposal, if it were enacted into law, would sort of add a new category of income that is not subject to tax,” Lautz said. “And you know what economic theory would say is that, all else equal, making that change would incentivize people to have tips which are not taxed under this proposal versus regular wage income.”

There is also the potential for “misuse,” he added.

“If Donald Trump is president again next year, and even if he’s not, but this proposal sort of catches interest from policymakers in Congress, it’s very well possible that this could be on the table,” Lautz added.

Janet Holtzblatt, senior fellow at the left-leaning Tax Policy Center run by the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, said Trump’s proposal to eliminate taxes on tips is “unusual.”

“Because tips are a substitute for the wages and salaries that the rest of us get, and if you don’t tax tips, you’re basically not taxing tip workers (on) their wages, making it a tax advantage on their earnings. Those of us who don’t work in industries where tips are paid, we would not get the same tax advantage,” Holtzblatt said.
Minimum wage

Several localities’ wage laws allow employers to pay service workers hourly rates well below the federal minimum wage.

Holtzblatt said the “solution” is for localities to raise the minimum wage for service workers for multiple reasons.

“Tips are not always a predictable form of income,” she said. “And there’s a great deal of variation, the tips that the server gets at the top-notch restaurant are going to be very different than the tips the person in the diner gets.”

President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign responded to Trump’s “wild campaign promise” by saying that Biden supports increasing the minimum wage and eliminating the tipped minimum wage, “a much bigger deal” than Trump’s proposal, a campaign spokesman wrote in a Monday email to States Newsroom.

Ted Pappageorge, secretary-treasurer for Culinary Workers Union Local 226, which has 60,000 members in Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada, said the organization has for decades “fought for tipped workers’ rights and against unfair taxation.”

“Relief is definitely needed for tip earners,” Pappageorge said in a statement over the weekend. “But Nevada workers are smart enough to know the difference between real solutions and wild campaign promises from a convicted felon.”

The post Experts skeptical of Trump’s promise to end taxes on tips appeared first on Nevada Current.


A waiter serves drinks outside a restaurant in July 2020 in New York City. Low-wage workers in many states saw a big boost in their pay during the COVID-19 pandemic, between 2019 and 2022. Jeenah Moon/Getty Images


Conservative Economist Has ‘A Lot Of Confidence’ Donald Trump Would Be Bad For Wallets

Lee Moran
Updated Mon, June 10, 2024 


An economist at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute think tank spelled out the negative consequences that Donald Trump’s policies may have on Americans’ wallets should the former president and now-presumptive GOP presidential nominee return to the White House.

Trump has repeatedly promised during his 2024 campaign to bust inflation.

But Michael Strain, the AEI’s director of economic policy studies, told The New York Times in an article published Saturday: “I think we can say with a lot of confidence that President Trump’s trade policies and immigration policies would result in price spikes.”

Trump’s proposal to deport between 15 and 20 million undocumented immigrants would “cause a severe supply shock to the labor market, which could increase the overall cost of living,” the newspaper quoted Strain as predicting.

Last month, the Labor Department said consumer inflation had eased slightly with prices rising by 0.3% from March to April ― compared to 0.4% in the previous month.

Trump, however, has talked about slapping a 10% tariff on all imports into the United States, a move that other economists have suggested would also contribute to rising prices.

Read the full Times article here.