China’s Subsidy Machine Is Reshaping Global Capitalism

ALL CAPITALI$M IS STATE CAPITALI$M

By Alex Kimani - Jun 08, 2026

• Governments are pouring record amounts into strategic industries, with global subsidies reaching $108 billion as countries try to secure supply chains.
• 
  
• China is outspending the West by a wide margin, providing firms with 3–8 times more state support than OECD peers and helping Chinese companies dominate sectors such as semiconductors and solar panels.
• 
  
• The result is a growing global subsidy race, as Western countries respond with tariffs and incentives while debating whether free-market capitalism can compete against China's state-backed industrial strategy.
• 
  

The COVID-19 pandemic and the geopolitical conflicts to follow exposed severe weaknesses in global supply networks, prompting governments, caught off guard and complacent, to pour money into critical sectors like semiconductors, critical minerals, and pharmaceuticals to prevent future shortages and reduce dependence on geopolitical rivals. Consequently, governments across the globe have increasingly been doling out state subsidies to local firms in a bid to secure supply chains, accelerate the transition to green energy, and protect domestic manufacturing against aggressive foreign competitors. A landmark report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has revealed that global state subsidies have surged to a total of $108 billion, good for an average of 1.3% of company revenues across 15 key industrial sectors and the highest level since the 2008-2009 financial crisis. But China takes this game far more seriously, giving the state natural resource power the West only dreams of, and making this the onset of what could be a subsidy race that changes the rules of capitalism in order to compete with Beijing.

According to the OECD, Chinese firms in strategic sectors received between three and eight times more state support than competitors in OECD countries over the past 20 years, giving Chinese firms a huge leg up in highly competitive markets. Indeed, OECD estimates that this massive government aid--spanning direct grants and below-market loans-- drove roughly 60% of Chinese companies' global market share gains over the past two decades. Chinese companies receive subsidies equivalent to roughly 2.5% of their revenue, compared to just 0.3% seen by firms in peer nations like Japan and South Korea.

The disparity is most extreme in the semiconductor and solar panel industries, with China's booming semiconductor sector receiving government subsidies equivalent to ~10% of revenues in recent years, compared to 2% of revenues for the global semiconductor sector. China's state-backed investment vehicles, including "Big Fund III" established in 2024, are channeling roughly $47.5 billion into advanced logic and memory capacity. And, Beijing’s largesse is driving massive growth here: China's integrated circuit (IC) exports surged by 83.7% year-over-year to $103.5 billion in the first four months of 2026, reflecting a massive expansion in domestic chip manufacturing capabilities driven by billions in state-backed investments and soaring domestic demand.

Chinese memory firms are now challenging global industry leaders: Domestic players like Yangtze Memory Technologies Corp (YMTC) and ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT) are rapidly taking market share and preparing for major public listings to fund further expansion, with YMTC poised to become the world's third-largest NAND flash producer after South Korea’s Samsung (OTCPK:SSNLF) and SK Hynix. Despite global trade restrictions, Chinese firms are achieving important breakthroughs: Chinese engineers have reportedly developed working prototypes of advanced EUV lithography machines, a critical step toward complete manufacturing self-sufficiency by 2028-2030. Additionally, companies like Huawei are pioneering new "logic folding" architectures to boost performance without relying on traditional miniaturization methods.

China’s solar panel manufacturing continues to receive heavy state funding, helping it to dominate the global market regardless of short-term market conditions.

State-backed Chinese subsidies averaged nearly 3.2% of annual firm revenues, enabling manufacturers to heavily outinvest competitors and secure over 80% control of the entire photovoltaic supply chain.

This generosity has incentivized Chinese producers to expand manufacturing under any market conditions. China's annual solar manufacturing capacity has reached approximately 1,200 GW, nearly double the total global installation demand. According to the OECD, this aggressive support has resulted in subsidy-fueled overcapacity and driven the average selling price of solar panels down by 90% over the last decade and a half, often forcing panels to be sold below the break-even point.

But while it may give states more power to wield, the OECD warns that these ongoing, large-scale subsidies are fueling global industrial overcapacity, artificially depressing international prices and undercutting firms that are actually better and more innovative.

And overly generous government subsidies have backfired on Chinese companies before. Whereas the overcapacity and subsequent price cuts have made solar energy highly affordable globally and driven historic deployment records in emerging markets (such as a 176% jump in Chinese module exports to Africa), it has also resulted in severe financial distress, declining profitability and heavy domestic consolidation for Chinese solar companies. To address those problems and maintain some balance, Beijing has begun to phase out support. For instance, the Chinese government reduced and fully abolished the 9% Value Added Tax (VAT) export rebate on photovoltaic products, while battery energy storage systems saw their export tax rebates reduced from 9% to 6%, with a full phase-out expected by 2027.

Meanwhile, Western nations and trading blocs are increasingly trying to come up with ways to keep China’s clean energy hegemony in check with its own incentives. But more often, with retaliation. Most recently, the U.S. unveiled significant levies across China’s renewable sector products, including 50% tariffs on solar cells (whether or not assembled into modules) and strict actions against Chinese steel, aluminum, and advanced batteries. The Trump administration has also announced a 100% punitive tariff on Chinese EVs, making entry into the American market prohibitive. Additionally, the European Commission has adopted definitive countervailing duties of up to 35.3% on BEVs from China, valid for five years. These are applied on top of the standard 10% vehicle import duty.

The uncomfortable reality is that Western economies assumed for decades that private capital, comparative advantage, and open markets would determine the industrial winner. However, China has spent that time building national champions with patient state capital, cheap financing, protected domestic markets, and long-term strategic planning. Tariffs can slow the flow of Chinese products across borders, but little else. The West’s biggest economies now face the choice of whether to try to compete with China on similar terms or whether there is still faith in a private market free-for-all to operate in the national interest.

By Alex Kimani for Oilprice.com

New Geometry Of Innovation: China’s Path From Peripheral Outpost To The Technological Core Of Global Change – Analysis

June 9, 2026 

 IFIMES
By Paweł Gałecki

The global economic architecture is undergoing one of the most significant transformations since the Industrial Revolution, and its epicenter is shifting from Western decision-making centers toward dynamic Asian ecosystems. China, which for the past four decades has been perceived in the economic consciousness primarily as the “world’s factory” – a place of cheap production, mass export, and global supply of components – is steadily evolving toward a model based on knowledge, research and development, and co-creation of technology. This fundamental metamorphosis is not merely a consequence of a natural economic cycle, but the result of a deliberate, long-term state strategy, supported by growing confidence from international corporations, academic institutions, and geopolitical partners from different continents. Statements by leaders of global technology corporations, strategists, and research experts clearly indicate that the narrative of China as merely an assembly site has been consigned to history. It has been replaced by a reality in which Beijing, Shanghai, Suzhou, and Shenzhen are becoming laboratories of the future, where solutions are born and then exported to the markets of Europe, North America, Africa, and the Middle East. This shift carries consequences for business models, supply chain architecture, regulatory standards, and long-term competitiveness strategies.

China as a Global Innovation Hub: Philips and Bosch Redefine the Future of Technology and Industry

Royal Philips, a Dutch conglomerate with more than a century of presence on the Chinese market, is an excellent example of strategic evolution. The company’s CEO, Roy Jakobs, recently stated unequivocally that China has transformed from a key market into one of the global centers of innovation. This assertion is not a marketing claim but a reflection of a deeply rooted operational strategy, whose pillar is the slogan “In China, for China, for the world.” Philips has built a comprehensive value chain in the Middle Kingdom: from advanced research and development, through production, commercial operations, sales and services, to strategic partnerships within the local healthcare ecosystem. Last year the group announced the establishment of the China Research and Innovation Headquarters in Beijing, which acts as a coordinator for regional R&D centers and an accelerator for localizing medical solutions. At the same time, the Suzhou facility integrates R&D functions, manufacturing, and global export, while Shenyang specializes in the development of computed tomography, serving as a global innovation center in this field. Such geographic and functional distribution of competencies demonstrates that China has ceased to be a peripheral outpost and has become a technological core generating value for more than a hundred countries where Philips provides its services.

Jakobs emphasized that the vast Chinese market and rapidly developing digital infrastructure create unique conditions for scaling innovations, which is crucial for the medical technology sector, where deployment time and accessibility of solutions can determine patients’ lives. The Chinese healthcare sector is currently undergoing a qualitative transformation: from models based on scale and reactive disease treatment toward proactive health management, therapy personalization, and continuous diagnostics. Artificial intelligence acts as a catalyst in this metamorphosis, enabling the processing of large medical datasets, optimization of hospital processes, and the development of telemedicine. By combining the global capabilities of corporations with China’s speed of adaptation and solution scalability, Philips intends to deepen cooperation in digital health, AI-based solutions, medical imaging, and green healthcare. Deep rooting in the local ecosystem, strengthened by investments in building capacity for medical personnel and alignment with China’s policy frameworks for sustainable development, becomes a strategic choice that allows the company to remain resilient and to influence both locally and globally.


A parallel but equally significant transformation is observed in the automotive sector, where Robert Bosch GmbH sees in China not only the largest and most dynamic market in the world, but above all a key source of technological innovation. Markus Heyn, member of the management board and chairman of Bosch Mobility, at the International Motor Show in Beijing in 2026 stressed that the group has full confidence in local domestic demand and research potential, which is reflected in the concentration of resources and prioritization of the Chinese market. A symbolic proof of deepening cooperation and the shift from supplier-recipient relationships to a value co-creation model is the joint development with a Chinese manufacturer of a low-voltage power solution. This system was designed specifically to meet the growing demand for computing power in vehicles, which are becoming increasingly software-integrated and dependent on advanced electronic systems. This solution will be developed and put into mass production in cooperation with Chinese customers, illustrating a new paradigm of collaboration where technologies are co-designed from the ground up rather than merely adapted to local specifications.

In 2025 Bosch Mobility achieved sales in China at the level of 122.3 billion yuan, which translates to about 17.83 billion US dollars and represents an annual growth of 4.9%. Importantly, about 70% of these revenues were generated by Chinese brands, which proves that local manufacturers have become the main driving force of innovation and consumers of advanced solutions. Bosch supported about 300 models of Chinese brands entering foreign markets. This path of knowledge transfer – from China to the rest of the world – is groundbreaking because it reverses the traditional direction of technology flow. For the German giant, China is currently the place where, outside Europe, the largest workforce engaged in the development of new technologies is located, and local R&D competencies, a global innovation network, and close cooperation with partners allow parallel development in electrification and intelligent transformation. Concentration on the local market and continued investment in expanding technological reach prove that the future of the automotive industry will be shaped in Chinese laboratories and production halls, and business success will depend on the ability to integrate with the local innovation ecosystem.

China–Saudi Arabia Strategic Partnership and the Rise of a Multipolar Innovation Economy

Economic and technological cooperation between China and Saudi Arabia constitutes another pillar of the new architecture of global value chains, based on mutual transfer of competencies, long-term partnerships, and a strategic development vision. Rayan Al Amoudi, executive director for strategy and business development at Nesma Infrastructure & Technology and chair of the China-Saudi Arabia Technological Innovation Center, points out that bilateral relations long ago exceeded the boundaries of trade and engineering contracts and have evolved toward cooperation encompassing technology transfer, production localization, joint investments, digital transformation, and AI development. The Saudi firm focuses with Chinese partners on areas such as smart cities, critical infrastructure, energy, and digitization of operational processes, which perfectly align with the national modernization agenda. The contemporary Saudi market no longer seeks only ready-made imported products for Saudi Arabia but expects technology to come with the partner, enabling the building of local competencies, knowledge transfer, and independence from a pure consumption model. The pace of corporate cooperation has significantly accelerated, and Chinese technology companies, such as Huawei, have made a deep impression with their expansion, solution quality, and ability to deliver complete systems. Local perception of Chinese technology has markedly improved: more and more government institutions and companies realize that they offer an optimal price-to-quality ratio, fully capable of meeting the requirements of advanced infrastructure and digital projects.


Looking to the future, Saudi Arabia and China see strong cooperation opportunities in green infrastructure, water treatment, digital transformation, and AI data centers. Saudi Arabia’s geographic, energy, and political advantages make it highly competitive in building regional artificial intelligence hubs, and local firms expect to play a larger role in these projects by leveraging Chinese experience and technologies. Saudi Vision 2030 proves highly compatible with China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and deepening exchanges in technology, industry, education, and people-to-people contacts opens broad prospects for economic cooperation based on mutual gain and long-term stability.

The global economic order is ceasing to be dominated by a one-way flow of technology and capital and is moving toward a networked, multipolar innovation ecosystem in which China evolves from the role of end producer to a strategic partner co-creating standards, funding research, and scaling solutions.

The dynamics of European investment and technological cooperation with China are taking on particular strategic significance in the context of growing trade tensions, export restrictions, and customs measures along the European Union – United States – People’s Republic of China axis. While Washington consistently tightens trade restrictions, imposes protective tariffs on Chinese goods, introduces anti-subsidy mechanisms, and promotes a “de-risking” strategy aimed at reducing dependence on Chinese supply chains in strategic sectors, the European Union is in a difficult position of balancing between protecting its own industry, implementing the Green Deal objectives, and maintaining access to key technologies and markets. European giants such as Philips and Bosch are not withdrawing from China; on the contrary – they are deepening localization of research, co-creating products, scaling innovations, and treating the Chinese ecosystem as a source of solutions exported globally. Customs actions and trade barriers may, in the short term, lengthen supply chains, raise operating costs, and force restructuring of business models. However, at the same time these same mechanisms compel companies to greater flexibility, production localization in multiple regions, diversification of partnerships, and investments in compliance with new climate and digital standards.


European investment in China, as well as partnerships with Middle Eastern countries, show that the future of global trade will not be based on isolation and protectionism but on managed interdependence, where tariffs, regulations, and technological standards will become negotiating tools and quality filters rather than absolute barriers. For companies this means the necessity of building resilient, multipolar value chains with operational redundancy and localization of key competencies. For the European Union – balancing between strategic autonomy and openness to cooperation that accelerates economic and climate transformation. For China – continuing the transformation toward a knowledge-based, innovation – and sustainability-driven economy that will constitute a stable pillar of the new economic architecture of the twenty-first century.

The article presents the stance of the author and does not necessarily reflect the stance of IFIMES.


About IFIMES

IFIMES – International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan studies, based in Ljubljana, Slovenia, has special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council ECOSOC/UN since 2018. IFIMES is also the publisher of the biannual international scientific journal European Perspectives. IFIMES gathers and selects various information and sources on key conflict areas in the world. The Institute analyses mutual relations among parties with an aim to promote the importance of reconciliation, early prevention/preventive diplomacy and disarmament/ confidence building measures in the regional or global conflict resolution of the existing conflicts and the role of preventive actions against new global disputes.

View all posts by IFIMES →

STATE CAPITALI$M VS STATE CAPITALI$M

Pentagon’s ‘Deal Team Six’ aims to challenge China’s grip on rare earth power

Bloomberg News | May 15, 2026 | 

The Pentagon, headquarters of the US Department of Defense. Credit: Wikipedia under public domain licence

From an office a few blocks from the White House, a group of former Wall Streeters is at the forefront of the Pentagon’s plan to crack China’s critical minerals stranglehold.

Their goal is to create an independent source for the rare earth elements and magnets used in everything from microwave ovens to missiles. They want to prevent a repeat of last year, when President Donald Trump was forced to back down in his trade war after China cut off supplies.

The Pentagon group is known internally as “Deal Team Six” in a half-joking reference to the Navy’s elite special missions unit, Seal Team Six. It’s racing to put together creative deals with billions of dollars in equity stakes, long-term price floors, purchase commitments, loans and other financial tools.

“We’re at a five-alarm fire stage,” said Rush Doshi, who was China director at the National Security Council during the Biden administration. “There’s a sense that we don’t have time to ask if it would have been better if we did this with a pure market-mechanism method instead.”

Challenging China’s grip on the business — something Beijing spent decades building — has long been a US goal, but results were sparse. Even the most optimistic forecasts of the new Pentagon team suggest it will take at least until the end of the decade for US production to ramp up.

The aggressive dealmaking drive is a departure from the past decade, in which the US focused on limiting exports to China, blocking its deals in the US and prosecuting its spies and hackers. The Pentagon team, officially called the Economic Defense Unit, also plans to apply its new approach to vulnerabilities like undersea data cables and chemicals needed to make medications.

Some industry officials warn that the Pentagon’s rush to do deals has led it to back unproven companies and overlook potential conflicts of interest. They say that the goals are unrealistic and that the government approach encourages companies to exaggerate their capabilities to get funding.

The Trump administration “practically shouts from the rooftops that its decisions will be made for financial gain, rather than to create independent supply chains,” said Derek Scissors, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

The Pentagon denies that. “The War Department maintains strict impartiality, prioritizing solutions that directly benefit the warfighter,” spokesman Sean Parnell said. “We employ a rigorous vetting process for all prospective partners, ensuring every company delivers on its promised capabilities and marketed claims.”

The Pentagon team has said it’s got $200 billion in financing capacity over the next three years. Still, questions remain about how the dealmaking fits with laws on government investments.

“Little law currently exists” to govern the spurt of equity deals in particular, Senator Roger Wicker, the Mississippi Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, said at a hearing in February. He called for more coordination with Congress.

Though used in small quantities, rare earths are critical to as much as $1.2 trillion in value-added production, according to Bloomberg Economics.

The administration aims to be able to produce enough magnets to cover half the world’s demand by 2030. China produced 94% of rare earth magnets in 2024, according to the International Energy Agency.

While the Economic Defense Unit was formed in April, the current push dates back to the early weeks of the second Trump administration. Reporting to Deputy Secretary of Defense and private equity billionaire Stephen Feinberg, the EDU is working with other parts of the Defense Department and agencies like Commerce and the US International Development Finance Corp. to put together the deals.

When China began restricting supplies of rare earths and magnets last year in retaliation for Trump’s tariffs, the impact was almost immediate, with auto makers and other big users warning that they’d be forced to stop production. Beijing only eased the limits after Washington agreed to pull back on tariffs and restrictions on technology exports to China.

Since then, the administration has rushed to put together a non-Chinese supply chain for the permanent magnets made with rare earth elements.

In July, Feinberg spearheaded a deal with MP Materials Corp., the only rare earths producer in the US. The pact includes a $400 million equity investment, the first of its kind in modern Pentagon history, positioning the government to become the company’s largest shareholder. The Pentagon also set a price floor for some of MP’s rare earth products and guaranteed all of the magnets it will produce at a new facility will be purchased by defense and commercial customers for ten years.

Subsequent deals, some of them still in preliminary phases, range from a US magnet producer to a Brazilian rare earth miner that was later sold to a US company in a $2.8 billion deal.

To ensure there are buyers for the new non-Chinese magnets, administration officials have leaned on major automakers in the US to commit to purchasing deals, even though the companies have not yet produced them at scale, according to people familiar with the conversations.

Critics have accused the Pentagon of failing to properly screen for corruption and conflicts of interest. They note that Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm co-founded, is a major player in the same sectors where the Pentagon is investing, and that the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., is a partner at a firm that invested in Vulcan Elements, which has a $620 million conditional loan deal.

The Pentagon spokesman said Feinberg is “a man of integrity who has conducted himself ethically throughout his entire career.” Feinberg divested his stakes in his businesses after taking office to comply with federal ethics rules.

A spokesman for Trump Jr. said he is a passive investor in Vulcan through a fund and that he “does not ever interface with the federal government on behalf of any company he invests in or advises.”

A person familiar with the Pentagon’s thinking said EDU had not been aware of any Trump Jr. stake at the time of the deal because it was too small to surface in the vetting process. This person added that, even if they had known of the stake, there aren’t many firms that do what Vulcan does, and the department has to respond to market realities.

“They’re supporting projects meant to support the broader industrial base, not just shoring up defense needs,” said Chris Kennedy, an economic statecraft analyst at Bloomberg Economics. “That’s something that was nearly impossible” in the past, he said.

(By Kate O’Keeffe)

GREEN CAPITALI$M

Are solar panel prices about to surge? Why now might be the perfect time to invest

Copyright Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

By Liam Gilliver

Published on 17/05/2026 - EURONEWS

Geopolitical uncertainty, supply shortages and China’s recent tax reform are threatening to send the prices of solar panels soaring. But, is it really that severe?

Once an extortionate investment reserved for the ‘eco-elite’, solar has rapidly become one of the cheapest electricity sources in the world. But, are the tables about to turn?

Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels, composed of individual solar cells that convert sunlight into electricity, have plummeted in price by a staggering 90 per cent in the last decade. According to Our World In Data, costs have dropped by around 20 per cent every time the global cumulative capacity doubles.

At the same time, the price of solar batteries, which allow households to store electricity during peak times, have also decreased by 90 per cent since 2010 due to advances in battery chemistry and manufacturing.

The EU now describes solar as a “shining star” of Europe’s clean transition, accounting for almost a quarter (23.4 per cent) of its electricity consumption in 2024. In June last year, the sun was the main source of the electricity generated in the EU.

Amid the war on Iran, solar is helping to cushion households from volatile fossil fuel shocks. Recent analysis found that harnessing sunlight for power saved Europe more than €100 million per day throughout March by reducing gas imports.

If prices remain high, due to Iran’s stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz, experts say these savings could reach €67.5 billion by the end of the year.

The ongoing conflict in the Middle East has also bolstered interest in household electrification, with multiple energy firms across Europe reporting a recent spike in solar panel and solar battery inquiries.

However, as demand for solar panels soars, foreign tax policy, the price of silver and other influences could soon ignite a price surge.

Where does Europe get its solar panels from?

While the EU describes solar as having a “significant role in its transition towards cleaner, more affordable and secure” energy, it remains heavily reliant on countries outside of the bloc to make PV panels.

In 2024, the EU imported €14.6 billion in green energy products, including €11.1 billion worth of solar panels. China was by far the largest supplier of these panels, accounting for 98 per cent of all imports.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), China has invested more than $50 billion (€43 billion) in new PV supply capacity – 10 times more than Europe – and created more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs across the solar PV value chain since 2011. Today, the country’s share in all of the manufacturing stages of solar panels exceeds 80 per cent globally.

Related

• ‘Significantly lower energy bills’: How do solar batteries work and are they worth the investment?
• Blocked sunlight and changing clouds: How coal pollution is damaging our solar potential

“Chinese manufacturers have reached scale and cost levels that cannot be matched outside of China,” Jannik Schall of clean tech startup 1KOMMA5° tells Euronews Earth.

“There are factories in other countries, even in Europe, but they only focus on the final assembly of solar panels and cannot compete with China from a cost perspective.”

China’s monopoly on solar panels hasn’t been a clear victory for the country, with tight competition pushing companies to sell below cost. An IEA report from last year found that China-based solar companies had made cumulative net losses of around $5 billion (€4.3 billion) since the beginning of 2024.

This led to China’s Ministry of Finance and State Tax Administration announcing major reform to its generous renewables subsidies, which were originally designed to support foreign trading.

From 1 April 2026, the nine per cent VAT export rebate on solar products was eliminated, while the nine per cent VAT export rebate on battery products was reduced to six per cent. The VAT rebate on battery products will be completely scrapped from 1 January 2027.

Graph detailing China's solar exports. Ember

Just before the tax reform came into place, Chinese solar exports skyrocketed as countries scrambled to beat the price hike.

Energy think-tank Ember found that during March 2026, several European countries, including France, Italy, Poland and Romania, hit all-time records for the number of Chinese solar imports.

Will China’s VAT reform increase the cost of solar?

“The elimination of China’s VAT export rebates alone will cause module prices to rise by around 10 per cent,” Schall tells Euronews Earth. Solar modules is the standard-industry term for a single PV unit.

British newspaper The i has warned that one national solar installer has been forced to charge £800 (€918) more for an average rooftop installation.

So is a blanket price rise expected across the board? It’s not that simple.

Experts say that the market does not react this quickly, and the increasing price of solar panels won’t bite straight away.

Analysts do not expect the rise in cost to limit demand for solar, given its competitive pricing, either. However, it does demonstrate that even renewables are not completely shielded from the intricacies of geopolitics – an argument that frequently arises when speaking about fossil fuel shocks.

InfoLink Consulting, a Taipei-based firm that provides market intelligence, price forecasting and supply chain analysis for solar PV, says that while ground-mounted projects (often used in large-scale solar farms) have edged up in recent weeks, high order volumes have constrained any rise in average prices.

Meanwhile, the price of small-scale or ‘distributed’ solar power systems, like those installed directly on rooftops or carports, has continued to fall marginally, InfoLink said earlier this week (13 May).

How silver became solar’s crux

To understand why solar costs fluctuate, it’s important to understand how PV panels are designed.

Solar panels are predominantly made of glass, plastic polymer and aluminum. Silver, which is the most effective metallic conductor of electricity and heat, is also a key material for PV panels.

Despite representing less than five per cent of a total PV panel in terms of weight, silver paste accounts for up to 30 per cent of total solar cell costs, analysts at German technology group Heraeus state.

According to the Silver Institute, around 4,000 tonnes of silver, equivalent to 14 per cent of global silver consumption, were used for PV panel production in 2023 alone. Researchers warn this share is expected to increase to 20 per cent by 2030, a fourfold increase since 2014.

Chinese manufacturers have therefore been boosting efforts to tackle this, by replacing silver with cheaper metals such as copper. Experts predict switching from silver to copper-based metallisation could save the solar industry roughly $15 billion (€12.8 billion) per year globally.

However, the price of copper has also increased in recent years, albeit at a slower pace than silver.

“Driven by geopolitical uncertainty, supply shortages and increasing demand from AI data centres, prices for copper, aluminum and lithium have increased significantly since Q4 of 2025,” Schall explains.

“Silver prices have reached 150+ per cent increases within a few weeks in the beginning of 2026, making silver the biggest cost contributor in solar panels. These cost increases on the raw material side need time to trickle down through the value chain and are expected to reach end consumers this summer

1KOMMA5° forecasts that the additional high raw material costs, alongside China’s VAT elimination, could cause price increases of 15 to 20 per cent for individual components.

Schall adds that while residential customers will be affected by this in the “medium term” those wanting to install PV panels can still benefit from “more favourable prices” right now.

Euronews Earth reached out to two energy firms in Europe to ask whether they intend to raise their solar panel prices following China’s tax reform and the increasing price of silver. Both declined to comment.

Despite uncertainty, experts point out that solar prices are still around 50 per cent down compared to 2023, making it one of the cheapest sources of electricity in the world.

Possible Trump rescue of Spirit Airlines spurs debate

ALL CAPITALI$M IS STATE CAPITALI$M

By AFP

April 24, 2026


US President Donald Trump mused about buying embattled Spirit Airlines as it struggles to come out of bankruptcy unscathed - Copyright AFP/File Patrick T. Fallon

Elodie MAZEIN

Bargain US carrier Spirit Airlines, which filed for bankruptcy in 2025 for the second time in a year, could be spared by a controversial potential White House rescue package.

Trump confirmed on Thursday that he was hoping Spirit could be saved, sparing thousands of jobs.

“I think we’d just buy it,” Trump said in the Oval Office. “They have some good aircraft, have good assets, and when the price of oil goes down, we’ll sell it for a profit.”

Trump’s administration has been working on a potential $500 million package for the embattled airline, US media have reported in recent days.

Under a potential plan being discussed, the US government would make a loan to Spirit and receive warrants to take a large stake in the carrier, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Spirit had announced on February 24 an “agreement in principle” to restructure its debt with creditors, saying it expected to emerge from bankruptcy by early summer.

But only days later, the US-Israel alliance launched attacks on Iran, leading to a spike in oil prices.

That translated into a surge in jet fuel prices that proved to be “the straw that broke the camel’s back,” said Jan Brueckner, emeritus economics professor at the University of California, Irvine.

Jet fuel prices have more than doubled since the February 28 start of the war, prompting major US airlines to lower their profit forecasts, trim back on capacity growth plans or both.

As a no-frills carrier, Spirit adds pressure on larger airlines, which have responded with bare-bones “basic economy” offerings, according to Brueckner.

“It’s beneficial to preserve this type of competitive airline that helps keep fares low,” Brueckner said.



– ‘Socialist Donald Trump’ –



While a package sparing Spirit may benefit consumers, the potential solution has sparked blowback.

Critics include Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton, who called the plan “not the best use of taxpayer dollars” in a post on X.

“If Spirit’s creditors or other potential investors don’t think they can run it profitably coming out of its second bankruptcy in under two years, I doubt the US government can either,” Cotton said.

Tad DeHaven, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a free-market think tank, called the White House proposal a “mistake,” ruing a solution based around “politically engineered financing.”

The US bankruptcy process should move forward “whether that means reorganization, liquidation, or asset sales to other companies,” DeHaven said in a blog post.

“That outcome may be less tidy, but it’s still preferable to quasi-nationalization.”

Other critics include Colorado Governor Jared Polis, a Democrat.

“Now socialist Donald Trump is nationalizing the airlines,” Polis said on X. “What industry will the government take over next under his socialist regime?”

While the US government has provided direct relief to companies before, such cases have tended to be sector-wide and crisis-related, such as support packages for automakers and banks during the 2008 financial crisis.

Even in these circumstances, such moves have been political controversial.

But Trump has tested US norms resisting government stakes in businesses, announcing ventures that give Washington shares in semiconductor company Intel and rare earth company MP Materials, among others.

The White House has argued that these are strategic sectors for the country.

Trump administration officials have also criticized predecessor Joe Biden’s administration, which successfully blocked a proposed $3.8 billion takeover of the carrier by JetBlue, arguing it would harm consumers.

“I understand the airline is bankrupt because the previous administration blocked the merger, which was probably not a wise move,” White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said earlier this week.

Economist Brueckner said airlines face sharper pressures due to the Iran war “and the administration chose to initiate the War, and therefore they may feel some need to shelter companies from the consequences of the war.”

CRIMINAL  MONOPOLY CAPITALI$M

Ticketmaster parent execs privately laugh over price-gouging: 'These people are so stupid'

Matthew Chapman
March 12, 2026
RAW STORY




Vancouver, CANADA - Dec 3 2022 : Twitter account of popular US singer-songwriter Taylor Swift in Twitter website seen in iPhone on Live Nation logo background. (Photo: Koshiro K/Shutterstock)

Newly revealed internal communications show a pair of executives at entertainment venue giant Live Nation laughing about how much they are able to gouge people for concert tickets.

"In a series of chats from 2022, Ben Baker and Jeff Weinhold, two regional directors of ticketing for Live Nation amphitheaters, boasted about their ability to raise so-called 'ancillary fees' – like parking, lawn chair rentals and VIP access – and still get concertgoers to pay for them," reported Bloomber News. "In one exchange, Weinhold gloated about raising VIP parking costs at a Virginia concert venue to $250. 'These people are so stupid. I almost feel bad taking advantage of them,' Baker wrote, adding later, 'I gouge them on ancil prices.' In another exchange, he bragged about charging '$50 to park in the grass' and '$60 for closer grass.'"

“Robbing them blind, baby, that’s how we do it,” Baker wrote.

Live Nation has been accused in a series of lawsuits of holding a monopoly over venues, that squeezes both performers and ticketholders alike — resulting in people being charged hundreds or thousands of dollars more than reasonable to see concerts, shows, and performances around the country. They also own the booking platform Ticketmaster, which has infamously hiked booking fees to higher and higher levels over the years, and can often be the only way to book tickets for Live Nation owned venues. The fiasco surrounding tickets for Taylor Swift's Eras Tour brought many of these issues into national focus.

The company has also been accused in litigation of stonewalling congressional investigators.


This comes as the Trump administration Justice Department's antitrust division reached a settlement with Live Nation, which requires them to pay $200 million to several states, allow third-party sellers access to Ticketmaster, limit their exclusivity agreements, divest 10 of its amphitheaters, and cap service fees for amphitheater tickets to 15 percent of ticket price.

This settlement has been rejected by over two dozen state attorneys general as inadequate to resolve Live Nation's monopoly power, since it doesn't require Ticketmaster to be divested altogether, and state-level litigation is expected to continue.

Aluminum price surge propels Chinese tycoon to $48 billion fortune

STATE CAPITALI$M IS STILL CAPITALI$M

Bloomberg News | March 10, 2026 | 

Credit: China Hongqiao | LinkedIn

When Zhang Bo took over his father’s industrial empire in 2019, it was already a sprawling industrial giant and one of the world’s biggest producers of aluminum.

Since then, the stock of his China Hongqiao Group has risen 585%, quietly turning Zhang into Asia’s richest metals tycoon with a fortune of about $48 billion.

Zhang, the world’s largest private producer of the metal, has a grip on low-cost output at a critical moment for global demand. He’s a supplier to China’s biggest tech firms like Huawei Technologies Co., Xiaomi Corp., and BYD Co. Aluminum has spiked more than 25% in the past year, fueled by demand from new energy vehicles to solar panels and wind turbines, while geopolitical shocks like the war in Iran have added to volatility. The metal rose to the highest in almost four years on Monday.

The widening Middle East conflict has disrupted local smelters, which account for 9% of global primary aluminum supply. An effective halt on shipments via the Strait of Hormuz, off Iran’s coast, has also choked shipments of the metal. That positions Chinese aluminum producers like Zhang’s to plug emerging supply gaps if global output slows.

“Their influence and personal wealth expanded because the industrial platform they built reached a scale where the market could no longer ignore it,” Harry Yu, senior partner at family office advisory Fung, Yu & Co said of the Zhang clan. “Families like this tend to stay low-profile because their power sits in production systems and supply chains, not in branding.”

Chinese aluminum smelters in the past years have grappled with access to bauxite, the ore used to produce aluminum, as political instability in Guinea and export restrictions in Indonesia disrupted shipments. Jakarta’s drive to keep more processing at home further tightened global supply. Zhang and his father, however, had moved ahead of peers to lock in upstream resources.

Hongqiao began developing bauxite mines in Guinea, the largest mining country for the raw material, around 2014. That’s given better access to bauxite than rivals, Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Michelle Leung said. Securing upstream resources in the early days has contributed to earnings growth, she said.

The company is now one of the lowest-cost producers globally through power plants in China, bauxite mines in Guinea and alumina plants in Indonesia.

Since he controls a significant share of primary aluminum output – which totaled nearly 73 million tons globally in 2024 – Zhang Bo’s decisions affect global supply and price expectations. Hongqiao’s share placements and refinancing are also closely watched by investors, affecting sentiment for aluminum equities across the region.

In the last year alone, his family’s wealth has gained 110%, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, placing the clan among the wealthiest in Asia as of 2025. Zhang declined to comment.

Zhang Xuexin, the patriarch of rival firm Xinfa Group, is worth more than $35 billion.

Since taking over the helm from his father, Zhang Bo has helmed a major pivot by relocating a chunk of aluminum capacity to China’s mountainous Yunnan province to tap cheap green hydropower and align himself with China’s broader energy transition. He later expanded into high-end aluminum products used in electric vehicles as demand from traditional sectors such as property, construction waned.

Still the company is highly exposed to aluminum price volatility, while weaker-than-expected economic growth in major economies amid escalated trade and geopolitical tensions poses major downside risk to demand for the most widely used industrial metal.

Early days

The family’s history in aluminum goes back to 1994, when his father, Zhang Shiping, founded Weiqiao Textile Co. By the early 2000s, the elder Zhang began using excess energy from his textile plants to fuel a venture in aluminum.

The Chinese aluminum industry expanded rapidly in the late 1990s as the country moved toward a more market-oriented economy. While state-owned giants remained dominant, as they did in strategically important sectors such as oil and steel, aluminum’s economics hinged less on political control and more on access to cheap electricity. Hongqiao capitalized on that dynamic by building its own captive power plants, allowing it to scale rapidly and maintain some of the industry’s lowest production costs.

By 2017, the company had overtaken global titans like Russia’s Rusal and China’s state-owned Chalco to become the world’s largest producer. Chalco has since grown bigger in terms of aluminum production, closely followed by its privately-owned rival.

MONOPOLY CAPITALI$M

Live Nation settles antitrust case with US Justice Dept, states object


By AFP
March 9, 2026


Live Nation has reached a tentative settlement with the Justice Department in the antitrust case brought against the US entertainment giant - Copyright AFP/File Giuseppe CACACE

Live Nation reached a tentative settlement with the US Justice Department on Monday in the federal antitrust case brought against the entertainment giant, a senior official said.

The settlement, which still requires the approval of a judge, comes just days after the start of an antitrust trial against Live Nation in New York.

The case was initiated under then-president Joe Biden when the Justice Department labeled Live Nation a monopolist that controlled virtually all live entertainment in the United States.

The settlement requires Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster, to open up the ticketing platform to competitors and to allow other concert promotors to stage events at certain Live Nation venues, the official said.

Live Nation will also divest up to 13 amphitheaters and pay $280 million in damages to the nearly 40 states that were parties to the antitrust lawsuit against the California-based company.

New York and a number of other states declined to join the settlement, however, and said Monday that their litigation would continue.

“For years, Live Nation has made enormous profits by exploiting its illegal monopoly and raising costs for shows,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said.

“The settlement recently announced with the US Department of Justice fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case, and would benefit Live Nation at the expense of consumers,” James said in a statement.

“We will keep fighting this case without the federal government so that we can secure justice for all those harmed by Live Nation’s monopoly.”

Live Nation is a behemoth in its industry: in 2025 it organized more than 55,000 events worldwide, drawing 159 million attendees.

Beyond promotion, it holds stakes in 460 venues and, since 2010, has controlled Ticketmaster, the world’s leading ticket seller.

The Justice Department had accused Live Nation of abusing its dominant position to pressure artists and venues into signing with it, stifle competition, and impose excessive fees on fans.

The Trump administration’s decision to press forward with the case against Live Nation had surprised many observers, who had interpreted last month’s resignation of Justice Department competition chief Gail Slater as a sign the case would be dropped.

‘While No One’s Looking,’ Trump DOJ Settles Antitrust Case With Live Nation-Ticketmaster

“This settlement is the clearest sign yet that this administration serves big business, not the people.”

The Ticketmaster logo appears on a smartphone screen in the Apple app store on on March 6, 2026.
(Photo by Thomas Fuller/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Mar 09, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

 Trump Justice Department on Monday reportedly reached a tentative deal with Live Nation—the owner of Ticketmaster—to settle a Biden-era antitrust lawsuit that aimed to break up the company, accusing it of illegally monopolizing the live entertainment industry.

News of the settlement, which would not require a breakup of Live Nation, came days after the trial began, with a lawyer for the Trump Justice Department’s decimated antitrust division saying last week that the company abuses its market power and earns its massive profits “through illegal action.” The antitrust division’s counsel in the case, David Dahlquist, was apparently not made aware of the settlement until he appeared in court Monday morning.

Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, said it is “highly unorthodox for the Justice Department’s lead litigator to be left out of the loop on the settlement and highly prejudicial to the jury’s deliberations.”

“According to every observer, this trial was already going well for the Justice Department and states,” said Hepner. “They had just won summary judgment and a jury had already heard evidence of Live Nation’s longstanding pattern of retaliation against venues who had attempted to open the market to competition. State AGs are once again left to clean up the mess left by this Administration’s incompetence.”

Under the settlement, which must be approved by a judge, Live Nation “would pay a fine of up to $280 million and divest itself of at least 13 amphitheaters across the country as it opens up its ticketing processes so that competitors can share in the sale of tickets,” the Associated Press reported.

The National Independent Venue Association (NIVA), a trade group representing thousands of independent live entertainment venues, festivals, and promoters, noted in a statement that the reported $280 million settlement amount “is the equivalent of four days of [Live Nation’s] 2025 revenue, which means they could potentially make it back by this Friday.”

“The reported settlement does not appear to include any specific and explicit protections for fans, artists, or independent venues and festivals,” said Stephen Parker, NIVA’s executive director. “Reported details also indicate that ticket resale platforms could be further empowered through new requirements for Ticketmaster to host their listings, which would likely exacerbate the price gouging potential for predatory resellers and the platforms that serve them.”

“If these facts are true,” Parker added, “NIVA views this as a failure of the justice system.”

The antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation was filed in 2024 after a nearly two-year investigation launched amid mounting public outrage aimed at Ticketmaster, spurred in part by its botched presale of Taylor Swift concert tickets in 2022. Then-President Joe Biden’s Justice Department filed the complaint in partnership with 30 state attorneys general, most of whom vowed Monday to continue the fight without the Trump administration’s support.

“For years, Live Nation has made enormous profits by exploiting its illegal monopoly and raising costs for shows,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James. “My office has led a bipartisan group of attorneys general in suing Live Nation for taking advantage of fans, venues, and artists, and we are committed to holding Live Nation accountable.”

The settlement deal comes weeks after Gail Slater, the former head of the Justice Department’s antitrust arm, was pushed out by DOJ leadership. Prior to Slater’s removal, Live Nation executives and lobbyists had reportedly been negotiating the terms of a possible settlement with senior Justice Department officials outside of the antitrust office, heightening corruption concerns.

Emily Peterson-Cassin, policy director at the Demand Progress Education Fund, said in a statement that “this settlement amounts to a slap on the wrist that tinkers around the edges of the real problem: Live Nation’s monopoly.”

“Instead of breaking up Live Nation and Ticketmaster, Live Nation will now get to continue forcing the vast majority of live venues to use Ticketmaster,” said Peterson-Cassin. “Following the ousting of Gail Slater and the gutting of the government’s antitrust enforcement capabilities, this settlement is the clearest sign yet that this administration serves big business, not the people.”