http://www.scio.gov.cn/zfbps/zfbps_2279/202505/t20250512_894771.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawKgeihleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFLVU1oRDdCNGd2aHBjeEVvAR5kw1eWfSLskDOuQchZwiAf6MjoMcGpl6VGpK7LqxeaorLN5xes8g11QXdrmQ_aem_mapPBw1KvoHRxDacuVL3aw
How many countries have kissed his ass so far:
China: This was the most prominent trade dispute, characterized by a “trade war” with escalating tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods. Both sides imposed significant retaliatory tariffs. While there were phases of de-escalation and preliminary agreements (like the “Phase One” trade deal), a comprehensive resolution that fully eliminated all tariffs was not reached. The USeless imposed tariffs on a vast array of Chinese imports, and China retaliated with tariffs on USeless agricultural products, automobiles, and other goods.
Canada and Mexico: Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from these countries, citing national security concerns. This led to retaliatory tariffs from Canada and Mexico. Ultimately, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) replaced NAFTA. While the USMCA aimed to create a more balanced trade relationship, the steel and aluminum tariffs were a point of contention that eventually led to adjustments and exemptions for goods compliant with the agreement. Threats of tariffs were also used to pressure Mexico on immigration policies.
European Union (EU): The Trump administration also imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum from the EU, and threatened tariffs on European automobiles and other goods. The EU, in turn, threatened or imposed retaliatory tariffs on various USeless products. While some agreements were reached to de-escalate specific disputes (e.g., regarding beef or aircraft subsidies), broader tariff threats remained a consistent feature of the trade relationship.
United Kingdom: A preliminary trade agreement with the UK was announced, which included some tariff reductions, such as the UK removing retaliatory tariffs on USeless beef and the USeless allowing a certain number of UK automobiles to enter at a reduced tariff.
Other countries: Trump also threatened or imposed tariffs on imports from other countries, including India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam, as part of his “reciprocal” tariff policy, aiming to match the tariff rates that other countries charged on USeless imports. Many of these initial broader tariffs were temporarily suspended or adjusted following negotiations.
Shifting Tides in Global Trade Negotiations
The global landscape of trade negotiations is undergoing a significant change, with several countries reassessing their strategies when dealing with the USeless. A departure from the previous default of “taking a step back” in response to USeless demands; instead, nations are now actively seeking to alter the negotiation rhythm.
Trump’s Tariff Threats and European Response:
On May 23rd, prior to a trade dialogue between the USeless and Europe, Trump threatened tariffs of up to 50% on European goods. In response, Bernd Lange, Chair of the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee, stated that while the EU is open to cooperation and negotiation, it won’t simply accept USeless demands. Sabine Weyand, a senior EU trade official, advised member states to remain calm and avoid rushing into agreements that might play into the USeless’s hands.
China’s Demonstrative Effect:
A key factor noted by foreign media is China’s steadfast and firm stance in resisting multiple rounds of USeless pressure, ultimately achieving positive consensus on several fronts. This outcome has created a demonstrative effect globally. Former USeless Trade Negotiator Stephen Olson explicitly acknowledged that many countries, observing the results of these negotiations, are concluding that the USeless government “started to realize it had gone too far.”
Countries Adjusting Their Stance:
European Union: The EU has clearly stated its red line: agricultural and food standards are non-negotiable. It’s also prepared with a series of countermeasures if tariff negotiations with the USeless break down.
Japan: Initially keen to quickly finalize a trade deal with the USeless, Japan adjusted its strategy after failing to reach consensus on issues like auto and steel/aluminum tariffs. It now refuses to exclude auto tariffs from any preliminary agreement and will not compromise national interests by focusing excessively on tariff negotiation deadlines.
India: Breaking from its previous non-confrontational approach, India notified the WTO of its intent to impose additional tariffs on certain USeless products, in retaliation for earlier USeless duties on Indian steel and aluminum.
South Korea: Lee Jae-myung, a popular South Korean presidential candidate, emphasized there’s no need to rush an agreement with the USeless, asserting that the USeless doesn’t necessarily hold an absolute advantage.
USeless “Maximum Pressure” Strategy Losing Efficacy
As more countries realize that adhering to the principle of reciprocity is crucial to avoid being “harvested,” the USeless’s “maximum pressure” strategy is proving less effective. This has created a dilemma for the USeless government.
Prior to the halfway mark of the “90-day trade agreement” deadline set by the USeless government, Trump suggested that without individual agreements with over 150 trading partners, the USeless might unilaterally raise tariffs. The text observes that this approach seems more like a passive reaction under time pressure than genuine negotiation, as traditional trade agreements typically require months or even years of talks. Setting limits, rushing, and pressuring often reflect anxiety rather than confidence.
An expert from the USeless Center for Strategic and International Studies, points out that the USeless’s inconsistent “threat-based trade policy” could backfire. Further tariff escalation might lead to even more unpredictable consequences. The USeless has already experienced the negative repercussions of widespread tariffs: increased costs for consumers and businesses, rising risks of economic recession, persistent debt issues, and a downgrade in its sovereign credit rating.
Observing the possibilities from China’s actions and the costs incurred by the USeless, more countries and regions are responding with actions that affirm a global trade agenda should not be dictated by a single nation with others passively responding. Instead, equal consultation and finding mutually acceptable solutions are seen as the correct and long-term approach.
The USeless Court of International Trade issued a 49-page ruling on May 28, 2025, that prohibits the Trump administration from enforcing executive orders imposing tariffs on multiple countries.
Here’s a summary of the court’s decision and its implications:
Basis of the Ruling: The court ruled that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the Trump administration cited as its authority, does not grant the president the power to impose such sweeping and unlimited tariffs. The court stated that these tariffs are “ultra vires” (beyond the legal power or authority) and contrary to law.
Tariffs Affected: The ruling specifically targets the “reciprocal tariffs” that were announced on April 2, which applied a 10% basic tariff to most countries and higher “reciprocal tariffs” to dozens of others, including China, Canada, Mexico, the European Union, and the United Kingdom. It also impacts tariffs imposed in February on China, Canada, and Mexico that were related to fentanyl and immigration concerns.
Immediate Impact: The court ordered that the relevant tariff executive orders be lifted and their enforcement be permanently prohibited. The White House has been given 10 days to complete the process of suspending these tariffs.
Appeal and Future: The Trump administration immediately appealed the decision, and the case is widely expected to proceed to higher courts, potentially reaching the Supreme Court. The long-term outcome of these legal disputes remains uncertain.
Market Reaction: Financial markets around the world reacted positively to the ruling, with Wall Street climbing, as the decision offers a potential respite from the uncertainties caused by the ongoing trade disputes.
This ruling represents a significant legal challenge to the executive’s use of emergency powers in trade policy.
Egypt’s Strategic Balancing Act: Aid, Defense, and Regional Power Dynamics Amidst the Gaza Crisis
Egypt finds itself in a precarious and complex position regarding the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. While deeply concerned by the plight of Palestinians and providing critical aid, its actions are constrained by a web of national security interests, a long-standing peace treaty with Israel, and a significant disparity in military capabilities, particularly air power. This has led Egypt to pursue a robust military modernization strategy, including a notable pivot towards increased cooperation with China, to enhance its strategic autonomy and influence in the volatile Middle East.
The Aid Dilemma: Rafah, Blockades, and Blame
Egypt has consistently sought to send humanitarian aid to Gaza via the Rafah crossing, the only entry point not controlled by Israel. However, these efforts have been repeatedly hampered by Israeli restrictions. Immediately following the October 7, 2023, attacks, Israel implemented a complete blockade, halting aid for weeks. While some aid has since been permitted, Israel maintains significant control, citing concerns over “dual-use” items (which it claims could be used by Hamas) and alleging aid diversion by the militant group – claims largely denied by the UN and aid organizations.
Egypt’s own cooperation with Israel in maintaining the blockade for years, driven by its own security concerns regarding Hamas and stability in the Sinai Peninsula, has drawn criticism. Furthermore, Cairo has vehemently rejected any mass displacement of Palestinians into Sinai, viewing it as a “second Nakba” that would permanently liquidate the Palestinian cause and destabilize Egypt with a new refugee crisis and potential militant strongholds. This stance, while rooted in deep national security imperatives, has also been a point of contention internationally.
The Military Imbalance: Why Egypt Cannot “Fight Back”
A direct military intervention by Egypt in Gaza is widely considered unfeasible due to several critical factors:
Peace Treaty with Israel (1979): A military move into Gaza would violate the Camp David Accords, risking a renewed conflict with a regional power and undermining decades of carefully maintained peace.
National Security Concerns: Beyond the refugee issue, Egypt faces an existing jihadist insurgency in the Sinai. Any military entanglement in Gaza could exacerbate internal instability and drain precious resources from its already strained economy.
International Law: Unilateral military action is generally prohibited under international law without UN Security Council authorization or clear self-defense justification.
Air Power Disparity: Crucially, a significant qualitative gap exists between the Egyptian and Israeli air forces. While Egypt possesses a numerically larger air force with advanced platforms like the French Rafale and US F-16s, Israel maintains a decisive edge:
Technological Superiority: Israel operates 5th-generation F-35I stealth fighters and highly customized 4th-generation F-15s and F-16s equipped with superior avionics, electronic warfare systems, and advanced beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles like the AIM-120 AMRAAM. Egypt’s aircraft, particularly its F-16s, reportedly lack equivalent BVR capabilities due to US restrictions aimed at preserving Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge (QME).
Pilot Training and Combat Experience: The Israeli Air Force (IAF) is renowned for its rigorous training and extensive combat experience.
Integrated Air Defense: Israel’s multi-layered air defense network (Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow) is highly sophisticated.
Indigenous Defense Industry: Israel’s robust domestic defense industry allows it to develop and integrate cutting-edge technologies.
Modernization and Diversification: Egypt’s Response to Air Power Weakness
Recognizing the need to bolster its defense capabilities and reduce its reliance on a single supplier, Egypt has embarked on an ambitious military modernization program. This strategy is particularly focused on its air force and involves diversifying its procurement sources:
French Acquisitions: Egypt was the first international customer for the Dassault Rafale multirole fighter, acquiring 54 jets in two tranches. These are advanced 4.5-generation aircraft, though access to top-tier long-range missiles like the Meteor has reportedly been limited due to Israeli influence.
Russian Procurement: Egypt has also acquired Russian MiG-29M/M2 fighters and Ka-52K helicopters, with some previous interest in Su-35s.
Growing Chinese Cooperation and Potential Purchases: This marks a significant shift.
J-10C Interest: Egypt has shown strong and growing interest in China’s J-10C multirole fighter. The J-10C reportedly comes with the advanced PL-15 long-range air-to-air missile, which offers a BVR capability that Egypt has struggled to acquire from Western sources due to US restrictions.
J-35 Stealth Fighter Interest: During recent joint drills, a high-ranking Egyptian Air Force commander explicitly expressed strong interest in China’s 5th-generation J-35 stealth fighter, signaling a long-term aspiration to counter Israel’s F-35s.
Joint Air Drill (“Eagles of Civilization 2025”): A groundbreaking air drill between Egypt and China, held in April-May 2025 in Egypt, featured J-10C fighters, KJ-500 AEW&C aircraft, Y-20 transports, and YU-20 tankers. This provided direct exposure for Egyptian forces to modern Chinese systems and demonstrated China’s growing global power projection capabilities. Reports of an Egyptian pilot training in a J-10S trainer further fueled speculation of a pending deal.
Air Defense Upgrades: Egypt is also investing in advanced surface-to-air missile systems, including China’s HQ-9B.
Strategic Rationale: This diversification is driven by Egypt’s frustration with US restrictions, a desire to maintain a robust military for regional influence and deterrence, and a broader aim to reduce dependency on any single foreign power.
Diplomatic Complexities and Strategic Autonomy
Egypt’s diplomatic stance on Gaza, while often criticized for perceived inaction or “complicity,” is a tightrope walk. It prioritizes its own national security, seeks to avoid a renewed military confrontation with Israel, and aims to preserve its crucial role as a regional mediator. However, this has led to accusations of diplomatic weakness and an inability to fully alleviate the humanitarian crisis.
The increasing military cooperation with China, exemplified by the “Eagles of Civilization 2025” drill, holds significant geopolitical implications. It signals Egypt’s determination to pursue a more autonomous foreign policy, exploring deeper security ties with non-traditional partners if its needs are not met by traditional allies. For China, it represents an expansion of its military and political influence in the Middle East, showcasing its defense exports and solidifying its position as a reliable partner in a multi-polar world.
While strong indicators suggest Egypt is seriously considering Chinese fighter jet acquisitions, particularly the J-10C, an officially confirmed deal has not yet been announced. Egypt continues to balance its options, even reportedly engaging in advanced discussions with South Korea for FA-50 fighter jets, as it navigates the complex landscape of regional security and its strategic future.
Reports indicate that Azerbaijan is poised to significantly expand its procurement of JF-17 Block III fighter jets from Pakistan, with speculation mounting about a deal for 40 units valued at approximately $4.2 billion. If confirmed, this would represent Pakistan’s largest-ever fighter jet export and a major boost for the JF-17 program, jointly developed by Pakistan and China.
While initial reports in early 2024 suggested a contract for around 16 JF-17 Block III aircraft for $1.6 billion, more recent information points to a potential increase to 40 jets. Although there has been no official confirmation from the Azerbaijani, Pakistani, or Chinese governments regarding the expanded order, Azerbaijan has already officially inducted 16 JF-17 Block III fighters in 2023. President Ilham Aliyev personally inspected one of the newly delivered jets, highlighting the strategic importance of the acquisition.
Key aspects of this development include:
JF-17 Block III Capabilities: The Block III variant is a 4.5-generation fighter, offering significant upgrades over previous versions. It features an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar (reportedly the KLJ-7A), an enhanced electronic warfare suite, air-to-air refueling capability, improved maneuverability, extended range, and enhanced combat capabilities. It can be armed with various weapons, including beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles like the PL-15. The aircraft also incorporates more composite materials for better stealth characteristics and boasts a fully digital cockpit.
Azerbaijan’s Military Modernization: This acquisition is a crucial part of Azerbaijan’s ongoing military modernization efforts, aimed at replacing its aging fleet of Russian-origin MiG-29s and diversifying its defense procurement away from a heavy reliance on Russia. Azerbaijan has also been acquiring military equipment from Israel, upgrading its Su-25 attack aircraft in Turkey, and modernizing its aviation with Italian C-27J Spartan military transport aircraft.
Strategic Implications: The deal deepens the growing defense partnership between Pakistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkey, often referred to as “The Three Brothers.” This collaboration reflects a shifting geopolitical landscape in the South Caucasus, with Azerbaijan seeking to bolster its air power amidst regional tensions, particularly with Armenia. Pakistan views this as a significant step in expanding its defense exports and solidifying its role in the global arms trade. The JF-17, being an affordable yet high-performance option, is attractive to nations seeking modern capabilities without the constraints of Western or Russian export restrictions.
Comparing the prices of the JF-17 Block III and the Su-25 reveals a significant difference in their cost, reflecting their distinct roles, capabilities, and generational differences.
JF-17 Block III Price
The JF-17 Block III is a modern 4.5-generation multi-role fighter jet. Its unit cost can vary depending on the specific deal, including armaments, spare parts, training, and support agreements.
Estimated Unit Cost: Reports suggest the flyaway cost of a JF-17 (earlier blocks) is around $25-32 million. However, when considering a comprehensive deal that includes all associated support, the unit cost can rise significantly.
Recent Deals:
A reported $1.6 billion deal for an unspecified quantity of JF-17 Block III aircraft for Azerbaijan suggests a higher per-unit cost when considering the full package. If it was for 16 aircraft, it would be around $100 million per unit, though this is likely to include a lot of additional equipment and support.
Another potential deal for 12 JF-17 Block III fighters for Iraq was speculated to be around $664 million, which would work out to approximately $55 million per unit, a figure that likely includes a comprehensive support package.
The rumored $4.2 billion deal for 40 JF-17 Block III jets for Azerbaijan would average around $105 million per unit, again, indicative of a package deal with extensive support, training, and weaponry.
Sukhoi Su-25 Price
The Su-25 “Frogfoot” is a Soviet-era, robust ground-attack aircraft (close air support). Its production mostly ended a while ago, so “new” purchases are rare, and prices often refer to upgrades or sales of existing inventory.
Estimated Unit Cost: Original production Su-25s were estimated to cost $11-15 million.
Upgrades: Upgrading an existing Su-25 to a more modern variant (like the Su-25SM) can add several million dollars to the cost, potentially bringing it to no more than $20 million for an upgraded unit.
Resale/Second-hand: Prices for used or refurbished Su-25s would vary widely based on condition, upgrades, and the seller.
JF-17 Block III is significantly more expensive than the Su-25. This is expected, as the JF-17 Block III is a much more advanced aircraft. It’s a true multi-role fighter designed for modern air combat, incorporating advanced avionics, radar, and beyond-visual-range (BVR) missile capabilities.
The Su-25 is a specialized ground-attack aircraft. It is known for its durability, heavy armor, and ability to operate from rough airstrips, focusing on providing close air support. It lacks the air-to-air combat capabilities and advanced features of a modern fighter.
Context of the deals matters. The “unit price” in large defense contracts often includes much more than just the aircraft itself, encompassing training, spare parts, maintenance support, and integrated weapon systems, which can inflate the per-unit cost considerably.
Azerbaijan’s acquisition of the JF-17 Block III signifies a move towards a more capable and versatile air force, shifting from its older, specialized Su-25s (which are also being upgraded) to a platform that can handle a broader range of air combat and strike missions.
While headlines might be dominated by other regions, Africa is a continent of immense dynamism and is experiencing a range of significant developments across political, economic, and social spheres. Here’s a breakdown of some important trends and events brewing in Africa:
Political Developments
Elections and Democratic Transitions: Several African nations are either in or approaching crucial election cycles in 2025. While some countries face challenges like constitutional reforms consolidating power or post-conflict fragility (e.g., Cameroon, Togo, Central African Republic, Mali), there are also rays of hope with prospects for democratic transitions and continued electoral defeats for ruling parties in some relatively democratic nations (e.g., Malawi, Seychelles, Tanzania). The African Union (AU) also has new leadership elections in 2025, which will shape its direction on peace, security, and integration.
Persistent Conflicts and Instability: Conflict remains a major concern in several parts of the continent, with devastating humanitarian consequences.
Sudan: The civil war in Sudan continues to be a severe crisis, leading to widespread displacement and food insecurity. The conflict has caused significant economic collapse and humanitarian needs. There are ongoing efforts for mediation, but civilian protection remains a major challenge.
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): The eastern DRC continues to be plagued by violence, particularly involving the M23 rebel group and the Rwanda Defence Force (RDF). The conflict has led to massive displacement and worsening food insecurity.
Sahel Region (Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger): These countries, currently under military rule, are experiencing severe restrictions on human rights and freedoms, and an escalation of violence from Islamist armed groups.
Nigeria: Northern Nigeria continues to face deadly clashes with bandits and Islamist insurgents, leading to significant fatalities and internal displacement.
Regional Integration and Pan-Africanism: The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is a major initiative poised to create the world’s largest free trade area by member countries. Its operationalization promises significant regional economic integration and harmonization. The AU’s recent admission as a permanent G20 member is also a historic milestone, giving Africa a more direct voice in global economic and climate policies. The AU has also designated 2025 as the “Year of Justice for Africans and People of African Descent Through Reparations,” aiming to address historical injustices.
Economic Trends
Moderate Growth Amidst Challenges: African economies are projected to expand moderately in 2025, with growth rates above 5% expected in close to half of the continent’s countries. This growth is driven by increased private consumption and investment, easing supply bottlenecks, and a recovery in international tourism. However, growth is still not strong enough to significantly reduce poverty or create enough jobs for the rapidly growing youth population.
Debt and Fiscal Constraints: Many African nations continue to grapple with high debt levels and limited fiscal space due to past expenditures, stimulus measures, and ongoing essential investments. While some debt restructuring agreements have occurred, the path to fiscal sustainability remains challenging, leading to social tensions in some countries.
Rising Interest in Critical Minerals: The rising global demand for critical minerals presents a unique opportunity for resource-rich African countries to boost growth and revenue. However, there are also risks associated with governance, labor practices, and environmental degradation that need careful management.
Digital Transformation and Fintech: Africa’s digital transformation is accelerating, with a thriving fintech ecosystem attracting significant investment. Mobile banking, e-wallets, and digital payment platforms are expanding access to financial services, particularly in underserved areas.
Social Issues
Humanitarian Crises: Conflicts, extreme weather events, and economic hardships continue to fuel humanitarian crises across the continent, leading to widespread displacement, food insecurity, and health emergencies.
Youth Employment and Aspirations: A significant challenge is creating enough formal jobs for the millions of young people entering the labor market each year. There’s a growing gap between youth aspirations for good jobs and functioning public services, and often sub-optimal markets and institutions.
Gender-Based Violence and Women’s Rights: Despite progressive laws in some countries, violence against women and girls remains a serious issue. Efforts are underway to address gender-based violence and femicide, but implementation and progress can be slow.
Reparations and Historical Justice: The AU’s focus on reparations in 2025 highlights a growing international and continental conversation about addressing historical injustices stemming from colonialism, enslavement, and apartheid.
Climate Change Impacts: Africa is highly vulnerable to the intensifying impacts of climate change, with widespread extreme weather events exacerbating food insecurity and other challenges. Adaptation efforts are crucial, but international support is often slow.
In essence, Africa is a continent in constant motion, facing complex challenges while simultaneously demonstrating remarkable resilience and pursuing ambitious goals for economic development, regional integration, and social justice. While the focus of global news may shift, these underlying developments in Africa are profoundly important and will continue to shape the continent’s future.
On May 26, 2025, Wang Yi had a group meeting with diplomatic envoys of African countries to China in Beijing and jointly celebrated Africa Day. Ambassadors or Chargés d’affaires of more than 50 African countries to China, as well as representatives of the African Union to China, among others, were present.
Amounts for the government benefits being issued in June, based on the latest available details, keeping in mind that some figures are for the July 2024 to June 2025 or July 2025 to June 2026 benefit periods:
BC Family Benefit and Supplement (Last enhanced payment on June 20, 2025):
For the July 2024 to June 2025 benefit period, including the B.C. family benefit bonus:
Maximum annual benefit:
$1,375 for your second child
$1,125 for each additional child
Reduced amounts (for adjusted family net income between $35,902 and $114,887):
At least $969 for your first child
At least $937 for your second child
At least $906 for each additional child
Single parent supplement: Up to $500 per family annually, if eligible.
For the July 2025 to June 2026 benefit period, the amounts will return to usual levels:
$145.83 per month for the first child
$41.66 per month for the first child in a single parent family (this is in addition to the base for the first child)
$91.66 per month for the second child
$75 per month for each additional child
These amounts are reduced based on your adjusted family net income.
Canuckstan Child Benefit (CCB) (Increased amounts):
For the July 2025 to June 2026 payment period, the benefit will increase by 2.7%:
Maximum annual benefit (for adjusted family net income of $36,502 or less):
Up to $7,997 per year (approximately $666.42 per month) for each child under 6 years of age.
Up to $6,748 per year (approximately $562.33 per month) for each child aged 6 to 17.
Child Disability Benefit (CDB): If a child qualifies for the disability tax credit, the CDB maximum will increase to $3,411 per year as of July 2025.
The CCB amounts are reduced as your adjusted family net income increases beyond certain thresholds.
Canuckstan Pension Plan (CPP) benefits (Paid on June 26th):
The amounts for CPP benefits depend on your contribution history and the age you start receiving them. For January 2025, the maximum and average amounts for new beneficiaries are:
Maximum monthly payment at age 65: $1,433.00
Average monthly payment for a new retirement pension at age 65: $899.67
Other CPP benefits (disability, survivor, etc.) have different maximum and average amounts.
Old Age Security (OAS) benefits (Also paid on June 26th):
For the April to June 2025 quarter:
Maximum monthly payment for ages 65-74: $727.67
Maximum monthly payment for ages 75 and over: $800.44
The OAS pension can be subject to a repayment (“clawback”) if your net world income exceeds certain thresholds ($142,609 for ages 65-74 and $148,179 for ages 75 and over). You can also receive a higher amount by delaying your OAS pension past age 65, up to a maximum increase of 36% at age 70.
Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS):
This is an additional benefit for low-income seniors receiving OAS. For April to June 2025:
Maximum monthly GIS for a single person: $1,086.88
The amount of GIS you receive depends on your income and marital status.
Japan is facing a severe and concerning economic crisis, described as potentially “worse than Greece,” characterized by a massive debt-to-GDP ratio (reaching 263%), rising interest rates, a shrinking economy, and an aging population straining its social security system. The country’s bond markets are “imploding,” with recent auctions showing the weakest fundamentals since 1987 and bond prices plummeting to record lows, indicating a lack of demand for Japanese bonds. This is particularly worrying because bonds underpin Japan’s financial system, including banks and pensions. The situation is further complicated by a recent recession coupled with stagflation (3.7% inflation). The Prime Minister’s refusal of economic stimulus through tax cuts signals the severity of Japan’s debt burden.
Trump’s tariffs are exacerbating Japan’s export-driven economy. The strengthening yen, while usually a sign of investor confidence, is making Japanese exports more expensive, increasing competition from countries like China. Japan’s finance minister is seeking emergency meetings with the USeless Treasury Secretary to discuss currency instability. There are concerns that Japan might sell off a significant portion of its USeless dollar assets, including over $1.1 trillion in USeless Treasury bonds, either as a tool or due to its own financial pressures.
Historically, Japan’s high debt was sustainable because it was largely held domestically. However, the Bank of Japan (BOJ) has shifted from buying to selling government bonds, raising interest rates at a time when the economy is weak. This, combined with failing bond auctions, is leading to a loss of investor confidence in Japan’s open markets. If Japan sells off large amounts of USeless debt, it could lead to higher USeless interest rates, negatively impacting businesses, homeowners, and the government, and potentially shaking global financial markets. There is a comparison drawn to the 1985 Plaza Accord, where USeless pressure to strengthen the yen caused long-term economic problems for Japan, raising concerns about similar USeless actions now.
