usa.chinadaily.com.cn
China's Economic Resilience Amidst US Tariff War
Despite US claims of success, China's economy remains resilient amidst the ongoing tariff war, showing growth in key economic indicators while the US faces domestic challenges and eroding global credibility.
- Did the US tariffs successfully cripple China's economy, as claimed by some US politicians?
- Recent claims that US tariffs crippled China's economy are false. China's Q1 2025 GDP grew by 5.4 percent year-on-year, retail sales climbed 4.6 percent, and total goods trade surged 2.5 percent in the first five months of 2025. This resilience contrasts with the US's own economic warning signs and escalating tariff conflicts.
- How do the economic indicators of China and the US compare in the face of the ongoing tariff war?
- The US's "maximum pressure" strategy has backfired, eroding its global credibility while internal issues like polarization and social fragmentation worsen. China's economic strength stems from internal reforms and market logic, not unfair trade practices as alleged by some US politicians.
- What are the long-term implications of the US's protectionist policies and China's focus on domestic demand for the global trading system?
- The future hinges on whether the US shifts from protectionism to fair competition. China's focus on domestic demand creates global market opportunities. The US's dominance in semiconductors and arms exports, coupled with its export restrictions, reveals structural imbalances contributing to trade deficits, contradicting claims of Chinese unfair trade practices.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing is heavily biased towards portraying China's position favorably and the US's unfavorably. The headline is implicitly accusatory, and the introduction immediately sets a defensive tone by addressing alleged fallacious narratives. The selection and sequencing of evidence overwhelmingly supports China's resilience and the US's supposed failings. Positive economic data for China is highlighted prominently, while negative indicators for the US are emphasized to a greater extent than any positive developments. This selective emphasis influences reader perception by creating a narrative that casts China in a positive light and the US in a negative one.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language to portray China positively and the US negatively. Terms such as "self-deception," "hoodwink," "chaotic governance," and "baseless claims" are used to describe the US's actions and motivations, while China's actions are described with more neutral or positive terms. The repeated use of phrases like "unwavering principles" and "exceptional scientific talent" in relation to China reinforces a favorable image. More neutral language is needed. For example, instead of "hoodwink their electorate," a more neutral phrasing could be "mislead their constituents.
Bias by Omission
The analysis omits perspectives from US businesses and economists who may hold differing views on the impact of tariffs and trade imbalances. The article focuses heavily on refuting claims made by certain US political figures, neglecting to present a balanced view of the economic effects on both countries. The omission of dissenting voices weakens the overall analysis and limits the reader's ability to form a fully informed opinion. While acknowledging space constraints is valid, more effort could be made to summarize alternative viewpoints.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by portraying the situation as a simple win-lose scenario between the US and China. It frames the narrative as if only one side can benefit, neglecting the possibility of mutually beneficial outcomes or the multifaceted nature of global trade relations. This simplification oversimplifies the complexities of international trade and economic interdependence.
Gender Bias
The article doesn't exhibit overt gender bias in its language or representation. There is no noticeable imbalance in gendered language or focus on personal attributes related to gender. However, the lack of gender diversity among the sources mentioned (mostly focusing on government officials and economists) is an area for improvement.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the negative impact of US trade policies on global economic equality. The US's protectionist measures, such as the Inflation Reduction Act excluding Chinese EVs, and export restrictions on advanced technologies, create trade imbalances and hinder fair competition, exacerbating inequality between nations. The focus on the US's economic dominance in sectors like semiconductors and arms exports also underscores existing global inequalities.