The BRI has had considerable influence on China, on BRI host countries and the world. It would be wrong to see it as a declining force simply because Beijing is allocating less finance to BRI projects: many of the BRI’s initial goals were achieved early on in its first decade. The BRI has evolved over time to suit Beijing’s strategic goals. This special edition of the tracker examines the BRI’s impact on trade flows through the ports sector – critical logistics nodes along the BRI. We look at the ports built, bought, operated and used by China’s state-owned national champions. 

First, bodog casino  maps out China’s footprint across global port ecosystems in a detailed map. Banach, who is MERICS Futures Fellow, explains the more deeply Chinese SOE’s are entrenched in a port, the more strongly it is pulled into China’s orbit at the expense of trade with other partners. 

Second, MERICS Lead Analyst Jacob Gunter builds on Banach’s quantitative analysis with a qualitative look at how China’s involvement in ports develops. Gunter details China’s presence in Mediterranean and Northern European shipping ecosystems and how ports can spread distortions emanating from China’s own economic model. He examines how port networks create potential dependency and influence risks. 

Banach and Gunter then take a closer look at four Mediterranean ports with Chinese participation. In each case study, they assess Chinese SOEs’ strategic and commercial success or failure. The case studies look at port holdings or operations in Greece, Spain, Algeria, and Israel and offer a way to benchmark Beijing’s desired outcomes and how far they are being achieved. 

Finally, they suggest what the future of the BRI might look like, drawing on President Xi Jinping’s speech to Third BRI Forum and their own research. The future BRI can be expected to leverage its extensive built infrastructure further, while shifting focus towards green energy and telecoms equipment. China’s green transition industries suffer from overcapacity, so they need export outlets, while telecoms giants like Huawei and ZTE must secure and expand their footprints in more neutral markets to compensate for restrictions on their activities in liberal democratic markets. 

The post bodog casino|Welcome Bonus_across global port ecosystems appeared first on bodog.

The post bodog sportsbook review|Most Popular_by developed countries appeared first on bodog.

The post bodog sportsbook review|Most Popular_brief appeared first on bodog.

Chinese leaders frame the BRI as “win-win” cooperation focused solely on development and connectivity. Beijing has gone to great lengths to minimize BRI’s links to the People’s Liberation Army and to downplay the initiative’s geostrategic overtones. Nevertheless, many governments have become worried about ulterior motives behind BRI projects, many of which have dual-use commercial-military capabilities and are increasingly connected to Chinese digital technologies and networks and satellite systems.

The Asia Society Policy Institute’s – Weaponizing the Belt and Road Initiative – examines key BRI projects in the Indo-Pacific and explores relevant Chinese doctrine, the involvement of the People’s Liberation Army with BRI, and assesses the potential military and geostrategic advantages to China from BRI ports and other projects.

This project is led by ASPI Vice President for International Security and Diplomacy Daniel Russel, with support from ASPI Senior Program Officer Blake Berger. The project and the report benefitted from advisement from experts and officials in Singapore, Australia, Japan, Vietnam, China, and the United States as well as to the expert advisory group whose distinguished members generously shared their time and wisdom to support this effort.

Key Findings:

• A Multi-Purpose Platform: BRI’s belts, corridors, and roads provide Beijing with a versatile vehicle to support its foreign and economic policies and a brand that links multiple streams under one rubric. These include the Silk Road Economic Belt; the Maritime Silk Road; the Digital Silk Road; the BRI Space Information Corridor; and the Health Silk Road.
• Benign, Win-Win Cooperation: Beijing consistently frames the BRI purely as a win-win economic and development endeavor as part of an effort to promote China’s image as a responsible and benevolent power.
• Civil-Military Fusion: Chinese laws mandate that even overseas infrastructure be designed to meet military standards. These laws authorize the military to commandeer ships, facilities, and other assets of Chinese-owned companies. China’s push for civil-military integration builds-in dual-use commercial and military functionality in BRI infrastructure and associated technologies.
• “First Civilian, Later Military”: Beijing’s approach seeks to lay the groundwork for military utilization without raising red flags. Many BRI ports are built along a “port-parks-city” development model that integrates the port with industrial parks and support industries like shipbuilding and resupply services that enhance the port’s capacity to support Chinese vessels, including navy ships. The presence of Chinese state-owned and private enterprises, often with operational control of port management, augment the potential military utility of the port.
• Extraterrestrial BRI: Through the Digital Silk Road and the BRI Space Information Corridor, Beijing is providing access to its Beidou Satellite network, constructing digital networks, and providing surveillance, communications, “Smart Cities,” and other technologies. These Chinese technologies boost Beijing’s intelligence and surveillance capabilities, while also feeding the collection of “big data” that is useful to military planners.  
• “Strategic Strongpoints”: China is not building overseas naval bases but instead is developing ports with dual-use functionality from the South China Sea into the Indian Ocean and on to the Middle East. These ports are “Strategic Strongpoints” in close proximity to maritime chokepoints and critical sea lanes. They are designed to support the Chinese military’s logistics network and improve its ability to operate further from home.  
• Platforms for Leverage: These Chinese “Strategic Strongpoints” are integrated platforms for leveraging and projecting power in support of a wide range of strategic objectives. Strong political, trade, financial, and technological ties generate influence over host country governments. Beijing has used loans, aid, trade, disaster relief, military and high-level diplomacy, arm sales, and less respectable means to gain a strong foothold in the Indo-Pacific. 
• Facilitating a Favorable Environment: The levers of influence that accrue from the BRI network enables Beijing to exercise persuasion, or coercion, in order to operate in a more compliant and advantageous environment. This dovetails with China’s systematic push to expand its influence in multilateral rule-setting institutions and some cases to create new ones. BRI’s many belts and roads seem to lead toward a regional (or even more extensive) ecosystem that structurally favors China’s interests. 
• Disadvantaging Competitors: The BRI network allows China to bring goods to market faster and cheaper than competitors. Dual-use “Strategic Strongpoints” can impede U.S. power projection by complicating things like port access and overflight in the region. China’s provision of digital services creates dependencies and its collection of “big data” creates advantages. China’s trade ties, financial leverage, and expanding engagement are having an impact on the security environment by increasing the operational constraints on the U.S. military, particularly in a crisis when third-party countries may be averse to taking actions that China would oppose.
• Sphere of Influence: The trend is toward an increasingly Chinese-dominated political, economic, technological, and strategic ecosystem in the Indo-Pacific. The challenge posed by BRI lies not in enhanced PLA capabilities per se, but in Beijing’s enhanced ability to project its sovereignty, rules, or undue influence based on a unilateral assertion of “core interests.” The exercise of this power challenges the rules-based international order. Should Beijing be successful in leveraging BRI as a hegemonic device, America’s ability to safeguard that order and maintain regional peace and stability would be compromised.
• Not a Foregone Conclusion: While Beijing has made significant strides in strengthening its influence, the emergence of a Sino-centric regional ecosystem is by no means certain. China does not seem to offer a global vision that its neighbors are eager to embrace. And China’s own economic conditions, especially given the fallout of COVID-19, are far more fraught than in previous years. BRI projects rarely prove to be profitable, many have been scrapped or are stalled, and recipient countries are increasingly unable to meet payments on existing debt. Thus, Beijing can hardly be expected to continue to pump massive capital into the initiative, particularly in light of the voices within Chinese society calling for resources to be redirected to domestic priorities.
• Opportunity to Compete: There is still abundant opportunity for the U.S. and likeminded states to compete — and to out-compete — China for influence and credibility in the Indo-Pacific. The problem presented by China’s “weaponization” of the BRI is not primarily a military one, and its solution can’t be primarily military either. The U.S. and likeminded partners should work together to provide a credible alternative to the BRI and to what Beijing is offering in other domains.

Daniel R. Russel is the Vice President of International Security and Diplomacy at Asia Society Policy Institute.

Blake H. Berger is the Senior Program Officer at the Asia Society Policy Institute.

To download the full report, please click here

The post bodog casino|Welcome Bonus_rule-setting appeared first on bodog.

This report reviews Belt and Road financing and investment trends since 2013 and ways of aligning investment and financing activities associated with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) with sustainable development principles. The report identifies a “common core” of standards and regulations that major multilateral development banks, leading national development banks and Chinese institutions have established and employed to make finance and investment practices economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable. The report also provides a systematic framework for investment and financing standards along the Belt and Road, and puts forward eight main principles which are directly related to investment and financing activities. These include environmental protection, social development, programme harmonization, project full-cycle financial and debt sustainability, openness and transparency in procurement, risk management and control, objective project evaluation.

Based on the recommendations of this publication, UNDP and CDB plan to continue working with Chinese and international stakeholders to develop concrete policy guidelines and manuals for harmonized, SDG informed best practice investment and financing standards along the Belt and Road.

To access the original source: Click here

The post bodog online casino|Welcome Bonus_Created with Sketch. appeared first on bodog.

This volume consists of a series of parallel essays on the global economic order by U.S. and Chinese scholars who have participated in our dialogue. The value of this text is found not only in the ideas presented by the essayists but also in the opportunity to “listen” to each other as we manage our differences and seek a shared reform agenda for the global economic order. This report starts the journey.

Titles Include: 

1 | Sino-U.S. Joint Action for Stabilizing the World Economy: Common Interests and Shared Responsibilities
2 | More Responsible Stakeholders: A Challenge to Washington and Beijing 
3 | The Belt and Road bodog casino Initiative: How China and the United States Could Avoid Conflict and Promote Cooperation
4 | Infrastructure in Asia: Competition or Cooperation? 
5 | The Future of Global Reserve Currency
6 | Global Reserve Currencies: Currency Internationalization and the International Monetary System
7 | MDBs as Critical Bridges for U.S.-China Global Interactions 
8 | The United States, China, the Global Financial Safety Net and IMF Resources: Scope for Cooperation?
9 | China’s Leadership Is Central for the Success of WTO Reform 
10 | The United States and China Should Be Allies on WTO Reform 
11 | What the Huawei Case Can Teach Us about the U.S.-China Power Game 
12 | China and the United States: Digital Protectionism vs. Digital Free Trade 

These essays were drafted during the Spring of 2019 and reflect data that may have changed since that period.

This report is made possible by the generous support of Carnegie Corporation of New York.

To read original collection, click here

The post bodog casino|Welcome Bonus_scholars, former policymakers, appeared first on bodog.

Despite the various U.S. sanctions related to Xinjiang, the explosive tensions involving the National Basketball Association and Hong Kong, and other possible flare-ups, the United States and China are still resuming trade talks in Washington today. With all of these bilateral issues, an election cycle, and an impeachment prospect circling about, these talks may be the last chance during this presidential term to resolve economic tensions and avoid an “economic iron curtain” and decoupling. If U.S. officials are to make any progress in breaking the logjam, basic facts on the nature and trajectory China’s economic system will have to play a bigger role.

Team Trump’s mix of competent and impulsive escalatory moves on China have gained momentum, while most of this administration’s other adventures have been mired in partisan quicksand, because behind the mass of half-cocked allegations thrown at Beijing the past two years lies a starkly rational, and bipartisan, basis for concern. China regularly trumpets to the world that its commitment to liberalization is unflinching. As a September 2018 white paper issued by Beijing put it: “Reform and opening-up are China’s basic policies, and provide fundamental driving force for its development. China will not reverse course, but only deepen its reform. China will not close its door to the world, but only open wider.”

A raft of recent policy steps is offered as evidence: tariff reductions, new regulations governing intellectual property, and market openings in finance, autos, and pharmaceuticals. At the same time, Beijing has called out Washington for its widespread use of subsidies, buy American programs, and the managed trade campaign Trump is pushing. With Washington’s attacks on the World Trade Organization and other long-standing international institutions, Beijing even claims to be the defender of globalization in the face of U.S. mercantilism.

It is sad that there is such a large grain of truth in characterizations of U.S. nativism and affronts to multilateralism. But the more important driver of not just U.S. but global economic concerns, which drew such an audience for the pugnacious unilateralism of Trump in the first place, has been China’s flagging convergence with global market norms over the past decade. Western patience with developing China’s slow transformation was contingent on sufficient proof that it was not illusory. No advanced economy has as much confidence today compared to a few years ago that China is still on that path.

Market Metrics

Neither posturing from Washington or Beijing nor business position papers from the United States or Europe is sufficient to resolve economic discord. The path back to productive negotiations and a constructive future must be illuminated with an objective, quantitative reckoning of China’s economic policy trajectory, one that economists inside and outside China can agree on. The place to start is with a clear understanding of “reform,” which we define in its most traditional sense—as marketization domestically and liberalization internationally. This must include an economy built on market prices for basic inputs (land, labor, capital) and final goods and services alike, open entry and exit into markets for domestic and international participants, and fundamental protection of property rights. There is no room for a separate but equal mirror-economy of significant size where politics sets the prices, manipulates market participation, and commandeers property at will.

Viewed from these foundational principles, a dispassionate look at China’s economic core shows that behind piecemeal improvements reform is regressing.

The most important indicator is the outright U-turn that has occurred in the distribution of credit away from the Chinese private sector and toward state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Despite contributing less than a quarter of gross domestic product (GDP), SOEs now receive the great majority of bank loans. In the past five years, private companies have found more opportunities to list on China’s stock markets and issue bonds, but these components make up only a fraction of China’s total financial system. Moreover, whether they obtain financing via bank loans or corporate bonds, private companies end up paying higher interest rates than their state-owned cousins. In addition, almost all of the recent bond defaults have been for debt issued by private firms not well-protected SOEs. This pattern makes no economic sense given the fact that private firms earn a much higher return on assets that SOEs do. The flip side of the profit story is the stark difference in the debt picture, with SOEs accounting for the vast majority of the country’s corporate debt and having far higher debt-to-asset ratios than private firms.

A related measure is continually recurring over-investment in government-priority sectors. We see companies continuing to build in sectors way beyond what likely demand would suggest because of state signals of support. As a result, industrial capacity utilization rates go up and down in China like a roller coaster. This seesaw pattern originally was most visible in real estate and infrastructure-related sectors such as steel and glass, but it has spread into high-tech sectors from solar panels and wind turbines to electric vehicles and robotics. For example, China now has over 450 electric car producers who will in 2019 share a total market of at most 1.8 million passenger vehicles, or 4,000 vehicles per firm. That is not nearly enough sales to provide economies of scale for any producer.

Underwriting systemic misallocation of resources is ubiquitous state support. Official subsidies from the formal fiscal budget in China are enormous. As a proportion of the economy, explicit subsidies have fallen, but when other kinds of state largesse—free land, cheap natural resources, and below-market credit—are included, implicit support still accounts for almost 3 percent of GDP according to conservative sources, and possibly much more. For many sectors this translates into a massive proportion of total economic activity. Going back to electric vehicles, between 2009 and 2017, total government spending accounted for over 40 percent of all sales between 2007 and 2017. And despite China’s claim to be weaning manufacturers and consumers off subsidies, we estimate that in 2018 formal sectoral subsidies alone still totaled 123 billion yuan ($17.6 billion).

The story is much the same in the other sectors covered by the “Made in China 2025” plan, from commercial aircraft to semiconductors. Some would note the direct and indirect support Boeing and Airbus have at times received, but they are far more commercially successful than their Chinese counterpart, the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC). As of early 2017, COMAC had pumped at least $8 billion into the C919; total spending by now is likely close to $10 billion, yet the aircraft is far behind schedule, still years away from entering commercial service, and is technically inferior to and less efficient than the Airbus’s A320 and Boeing’s 737. The C919 is the quintessential white elephant and emblematic of the reality that state preferences trump market logic in today’s China.

Not only do China’s distortions push too many firms and funds into priority sectors, racking up waste and debt, too few companies suffer from their poor choices. In a market-driven economy, producers that jump into saturated markets with essentially no demand go bust or merge with wiser firms. In China, manufacturers in sector after sector—from autos to solar to steel to robotics—are being extended financial life lines that they use to tread water, taking up market share their competitors depend on to prove their comparative advantage. Despite passing its first bankruptcy law in 1986, formal corporate insolvency in China is as rare as phoenix feathers and unicorn horns. In 2017, the United States had roughly 24,000 corporate bankruptcies while China, with much more breathless lending, had just 5,665. Even the tiny former socialist country of Romania had more, with 8,371.

The story on external liberalization is more mixed, in a positive direction, but despite official claims, China’s doors are not “opening wider and wider.” Tariffs have fallen but non-tariff barriers have taken their place and then some. Discrimination in the application of sanitary and phytosanitary standards, licensing, and government procurement is standard practice. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development reports that China still has one of the most restrictive environments for foreign direct investment of just about any country due to continuing obstacles to equity ownership, screening procedures for actual investments, and rules regarding key staff. Another sign of these obstacles is how difficult it is for foreign firms to acquire Chinese companies. According to our calculation, only about 5 percent of purely domestic merger deals go through special state reviews, whereas the figure jumps to around a quarter of all deals when foreign companies are involved. Not only does the Chinese state continue support beyond any reasonable limit, they often balk when foreign buyers want to come to the rescue. The “not for sale” sign on Chinese companies is a pillar in the edifice of a state-directed economic system.

Getting Real and Sitting Down

These metrics present a clear picture: China has modified its prior path toward marketization in ways that are not adequately acknowledged. The consequences for China’s development trajectory are also apparent as capital misallocation translates into a declining productivity contribution to economic growth. As the World Bank has shown, the long-term cost for China will be dramatic: a comprehensive reform package would result in China’s per capita income growing to nearly $50,000 by 2046; by continuing on its current path, incomes will be far lower, and that all assumes the country doesn’t suffer a financial crisis.

Just as China needs to face the facts or else face the music, the United States needs to fully reassess its approach toward both its bilateral negotiations and the global economy. Washington has the facts on its side, and it would benefit immeasurably from taking a principled approach in defense of markets not just in its demands from Beijing but in its own aspirations and behavior as well. A more principled posture would be more effective because it is so much more compatible with allied alignment. A recent CSIS report by Matthew P. Goodman and his team shows that the biggest weakness in the U.S. negotiation strategy has been neglect of friends and allies, all of whom share similar concerns about China’s trajectory and could be helpful in many ways.

Most important, marketization is the right horse for both China and the United States to bet on because it is the only thing that will work to secure China’s future growth. Neither doubling down on indigenous innovation, state-directed credit, artificial intelligence-enabled surveillance and control, and decoupling, nor the managed trade formulas Washington is employing, will bring about an economically successful China whose prosperity benefits the United States and the global economy. In that regard, a mutually beneficial outcome from the negotiations should be possible simply by the United States sticking to its principles and China following its core national interest and not making tactical changes simply to placate the demands of others.

Scott Kennedy is a senior adviser and Trustee Chair in Chinese Business and Economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Daniel H. Rosen is a senior associate (non-resident) with the Trustee Chair in Chinese Business and Economics at CSIS and founding partner of the Rhodium Group.

To read original article, click here

The post bodog online casino|Welcome Bonus_is standard practice. appeared first on bodog.

Overview of China and the U.S.: Cooperation, Competition and/or Conflict

This report is an experimental net assessment that addresses China’s emergence as a global superpower, and its competition with the United States. The report is entitled China and the U.S.: Cooperation, Competition and/or Conflict.

The report has been extensively bodog casino updated and expanded since its original publication. Besides incorporating various new reports on Chinese economic and military developments, the report also includes key quotes from the recently released Chinese White Paper commemorating the CCP’s 70 ^th anniversary. These quotes are now the best example of China’s indirect criticism of recent U.S. policy towards China, and strategy and actions towards other states, as well as its economic progress and plans to take lead on global development.

The entire report, and the report is available on the CSIS web site in several forms:

• Key sections are available on the CSIS web site in PDF form by clicking on each section title. The size of some of these PowerPoints may present problems for some IT systems, but quick comparisons of different Chinese and U.S. policy statements and assessments, and of the graphics and data that summarize the trends and issues involved are only possible if PowerPoint is used. The PDF versions are smaller but make it far more difficult to quickly compare a broad range of different trends.

• A PDF version of the full report is available on the CSIS web site (https://www.csis.org/analysis/china-and-united-states-cooperation-competition-andor-conflict) as well, which can be accessed here (https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/191001_China_Grand_Strategy.pdf). This document allows the user to skim through comparisons of all the net assessment’s different sections, but the assessment’s length and the PDF format make it difficult to explore given issues in detail.

Selected Excerpts from the Report:

 PART TWO: China’s Emerging Economic Power provides official assessments of the important of economic developments and competition in Chinese strategy and U.S. assessments of the trends in Chinese forces, and the provides a wide range of graphics, maps, and data that show rate of Chinese growth. It assesses trends in trade and technology as well as total economies, and the potential causes of limits to China’s growth and emergence as an economic superpower. (https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/191001_China_Grand_Strategy_Part%202_.pdf)

PART THREE: SHAPING ECONOMIC COMPETITION TO SERVE STRATEGIC INTERESTS notes reporting by the U.S. Office of the Secretary of Defense that stresses the leading impact of China’s economic growth on its competition with the U.S. It examines the importance of China road and belt initiatives, and its growing share of the global economy and trade. (https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/191001_China_Grand_Strategy_Part%203_.pdf)

 PART SIX: PART SIX: CHINA, THE U.S., AND OTHER ASIAN POWERS — COMPETING CLAIMS IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC focuses on the competing Chinese and other country claims in the Western Pacific and the Chinese build-up of forces in the South China Sea that is a key U.S. strategic concern. It analyzes the economic, trade, energy, and strategic influence impact of these issues as well as their military importance. (https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/191001_China_Grand_Strategy_Part%206.pdf)

To access full report, click here

The post Bodog Poker|Welcome Bonus_and the U.S.: Cooperation, appeared first on bodog.

In 2013, President Xi Jinping proposed that China would create a “Silk Road Economic Belt” across Central Asia and Europe and a “21st Century Maritime Silk Road” running through the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean, on to the Middle East and Europe — programs meant to revive ancient trade routes and reinforce existing ones. Beijing quickly wove these two visions together and dubbed them the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

While seemingly aimed at regional economic corridors, the BRI is in fact global and motivated by economic and strategic interests. A successful BRI would allow China to more efficiently utilize excess savings and construction capacity, expand trade, consolidate economic and diplomatic relations with participating countries, and diversify China’s import of energy and other resources through economic corridors that circumvent routes that are controlled by the U.S. and its allies.

The initiative is generally popular in the developing world, where almost all countries face infrastructure deficiencies and a shortage of resources to overcome them. Through large amounts of loans to participating countries to construct infrastructure in various sectors, the BRI can potentially bring significant benefits to these countries by filling their infrastructure gaps and boosting economic growth.

While popular with developing countries, the initiative has received various criticisms from advanced industrial economies: that the program lacks transparency and serves to facilitate China’s export of its authoritarian model; that the commercial loan terms are bringing on a new round of debt crises in the developing world; and that the projects have inadequate environmental and social safeguards.

This paper examines the implementation of BRI infrastructure projects in Africa in light of available information and concludes that African experiences with the BRI are quite heterogeneous. Some of the major borrowers have debt sustainability problems, while others have integrated the loans from China into sound overall macroeconomic programs. Some of the major borrowers are authoritarian countries with poor records of human rights, but other major participants are among the more democratic countries of Africa. It is hard to make simple generalizations about BRI in Africa. For this reason, it would be wise for Western countries to tone down their rhetoric on BRI, as many of the projects will probably work out well. It would help if Western countries provided more support to the International Monetary Fund to help countries manage their borrowing and to the World Bank to provide more infrastructure financing that increased options for the developing countries of Africa.

To read full report, click here

The post bodog casino|Welcome Bonus_Washington, DC 20004 appeared first on bodog.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) remains a topic of great interest. But there is little knowledge about China’s internal voices. Dissent remains rare, yet there has been considerable pushback on BRI policy and decision making. This is because there is an array of structural problems with the BRI’s design. BRI is entirely an economic program, run by various parts of the economic bureaucracy. But it does not give bureaucrats sufficient mandate to pursue their interests within China’s internal politics. So the BRI is attractive for central SOEs and dealmakers but unattractive to local leaders who are held accountable for whatever goes wrong in their respective areas. Although overt criticism is rare, failure to carry out orders is common. China’s leaders have responded to critiques of the BRI, radically changing its official focus and policy. It has moved from a geoeconomic export policy to part of China’s toolkit in the current US trade war. But there is no indication that the structural problems will be addressed, thus limiting the BRI’s ability to achieve its goals, and as such, pushback will continue.

The post Bodog Poker|Welcome Bonus_direction appeared first on bodog.