The problem is widespread—capacity utilization rates in China have declined over the past couple of years in every surveyed manufacturing sector except non-ferrous metals. Products linked to the property sector, such as plastics and non-metal minerals, are experiencing severe overcapacity because of weak demand in their downstream markets. But many other sectors are seeing declining capacity utilization, too, from machinery to food, textiles, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals.

Growing imbalances

The under-utilization of production capacity in China is concerning in its own right for foreign policymakers and businesses. It incentivizes firms to lower their prices in search of a market for their excess capacity. In the past, this has led to global over-supply, price declines, weak profitability, bankruptcies, and job losses.

But the drop in capacity utilization rates observed in the past few years is only one aspect of a more profound phenomenon that should draw equal concern for policymakers in Brussels and other economies—China’s growing domestic production surplus. Chinese companies, across a wide range of sectors, now produce far more than domestic consumption can absorb. This domestic surplus can produce low factory utilization rates. But it can also find its way into foreign markets, creating a growing trade surplus and, at times, global redundancies that threaten industrial ecosystems in other countries.

Those imbalances are not new, but they have reached unprecedented levels since the pandemic. In 2020, as COVID hit the global economy, China launched a stimulus program to boost industrial companies, with little support for household consumption. Beijing rolled out substantial tax credits, production subsidies, and interest rate cuts to keep struggling companies afloat and workers employed. When economic growth continued to disappoint bodog casino in 2023, Beijing’s policy support kept the emphasis on producers, as their bias against “welfarism” kept policymakers from stimulating consumption.

China’s growing support for its companies resulted in rapidly growing production capacity across many industrial sectors. From 2016 to 2020, investment and production capacity growth was concentrated in strategic sectors linked to the Made in China 2025 strategy, such as advanced electronics, particularly chips, and clean technology sectors. In other areas of the economy, the focus was instead on reducing capacity in the supply-side structural reform campaign from 2015 to 2019. However, this changed in 2020, with renewed growth across all manufacturing sectors, including non-strategic ones like steel products, household refrigerators, fertilizers, microcomputers, and machine tools.

This capacity build-up was supply-driven, and most often not matched by equivalent domestic demand. With little support from the government, household consumption labored under strict zero-COVID restrictions and failed to pick up enough in 2023 to deliver a consumption-led recovery. The property market downturn played a role, dampening demand for a wide range of goods, from machinery to plastics and furniture. As a result, consumption did not grow nearly as fast as industrial production and investment.

Déjà vu with a twist

Current growing overcapacity and domestic surplus is similar to previous occurrences, but it differs in three important ways. The first is timing. The previous wave of overcapacity and domestic surplus hit China six whole years after the 2008 investment boom because domestic demand was strong enough to absorb the capacity expansion until 2014. This time around, China’s investment boom immediately hit a wall because of the weakness of domestic demand.

The second difference is the list of affected sectors. China’s 2008 stimulus focused on construction, infrastructure, heavy industry, and mining. In recent years, however, support for infrastructure and construction was derailed by China’s acute property crisis starting in the second half of 2021. Distress in the property sector diverted credit to other industrial sectors—with the effect of concentrating China’s recent investment boom in manufacturing.

One last difference is how much support central and local governments have given failing enterprises with little consideration of profit and efficiency. In addition to generous credit and tax support measures, struggling companies were granted credit forbearances during COVID to help them face liquidity crunches and operational disruptions. Government support and prevention of market exit boosted the number of loss-making companies. In a crowded environment, with loose budget constraints, firms lowered prices and accepted razor-thin margins to retain market share. Perversely, it also pushed them to build additional capacity in hopes of offsetting lower margins with higher volumes, and because they knew from prior episodes that if authorities ultimately forced a market consolidation, survival would be determined based on scale, not financial health.

Trade spillovers: Bracing for impact

Because China’s previous cycles of policy-driven capacity expansion severely affected global markets—especially in steel and aluminum, but also in promising sunrise industries like solar panels—advanced economies are watching with intense concern and evaluating response options. In 2023, the number of EVs exported from China was already 7 times greater than in 2019 and 1.7 times greater year-on-year. China’s exports of solar cells in 2023 were five times larger than in 2018, and 40% above 2022 levels. These surges are potentially devastating to market-constrained producers in advanced economies.

The growing mismatch between fast-paced capacity expansion and slow-growing domestic demand in China will have trade impacts beyond green technology sectors too. China’s share of global trade expanded by 1.5 percentage points in 2020, arguably in the context of global supply chain disruptions that put China at a global advantage. But, importantly, that share did not come down as COVID-19 restrictions retreated everywhere. In select sectors, Chinese firms have been gaining significant global export shares in the past four years. In the electronic machinery sector, for example, China’s share of global exports grew more than 5 percentage points between 2019 and 2022 in 18 of 46 HS-4 product categories. In 2016-2019, that was the case for only 7 out of 46 categories. In lower-technology sectors such as textiles and furniture, China has also been re-gaining market shares it had lost in previous years due to diversification of production and relocation to lower-cost destinations.

Export gains are not the only spillover channel for China’s rapidly growing production capacity. In sectors where China used to be a net importer, such as the petrochemical sector, the combination of domestic production capacity increase and weak demand in China resulted in sometimes drastic declines in Chinese imports, affecting firms in Europe and the United States.

Low prices are not the only factor behind Chinese firms’ ability to export their growing capacity abroad. Competitiveness is another one. By lowering firms’ costs, allowing them to scale up, and increasing their ability to improve products as they “learned by doing,” state support made some Chinese companies fiercely competitive in global markets. The electric bodog poker review vehicle sector is a case in point. The top Chinese exporters of EVs, BYD and SAIC, are not the most affected by overcapacity—they are close to working at full capacity. Still, these carmakers were able to leverage the supportive environment of the past four years to become more efficient and more technologically competitive than their rivals. Facing low profit margins in China today, and intense competition, they are uniquely equipped and motivated to capture growth and profits outside of China.

The effects of this new wave of policy-driven capacity expansion in China are not yet all visible. In certain industries, the timeline from investment to production can stretch over years, meaning that funds allocated in 2021-2022 might only begin to materialize into market-ready products or services several years later, with a delayed impact on Chinese and global markets.

What’s more, although overcapacity created strong deflationary pressure within China, it has not yet impacted global prices to the same extent. In fact, China’s export prices were up in most sectors in 2023 compared to 2021, and the prices of imports from China rose more quickly than the prices of imports from other extra-EU countries in 2021-2022, before decelerating in 2023.

This is because many Chinese firms are still using overseas markets to make up for lower prices, margins, or even losses on the China market. But this China-world price discrepancy also means that Chinese firms could lower their export prices further in the future to gain market access, weed out competitors, or make up for new tariff barriers in the EU or the US.

Outlook

In the last two quarters of 2023, China’s capacity utilization rates have picked up, reaching 75.9%—a level similar to 2018-2019. However, China’s capacity expansion in manufacturing sectors will likely stay elevated in the long run, creating episodes of overcapacity and further effects on global trade.

In previous overcapacity cycles, cheap Chinese exports contributed to rising trade tensions and a series of anti-dumping investigations, such as the EU investigations on Chinese steel in 2016. Overcapacity also hurt Chinese companies’ profits and came with unsustainable debt growth. Reducing overcapacity thus became a priority for the Chinese government in 2016.

This time around, the Chinese government is also expressing awareness of the issue. The Government Work Report in March 2024, for example, mentioned strengthening “investment guidance for key sectors to prevent overcapacity, poor quality, and redundant development.” However, the solutions adopted will likely center on retiring obsolete capacity and letting the most uncompetitive companies shut down while continuing to support capacity expansion, innovation, and exports in others.

This policy mix is part of a broader economic strategy that emphasizes manufacturing and exports as key growth drivers. Beijing has made clear in recent years that it wants to prevent China from de-industrializing, including in low-tech industries that would otherwise naturally migrate to lower labor-cost countries. Since the 14th Five-Year Plan in 2021, Beijing has vowed to stabilize the share of the manufacturing sector in GDP—a reversal of a decade-long trend. Several key local governments have since announced quantified objectives for their share of manufacturing in the economy.

Beijing is also desperately looking to rebalance the economy away from the infrastructure and property sectors and toward new growth drivers. Yet in the absence of a clear strategy to prop up consumption, this means supporting the manufacturing industry—particularly in emerging sectors such as renewable energy and electric vehicles—as a core engine of growth. China’s March 2024 NPC meeting set an explicit focus on industrial policy favoring high-technology industries, with very little fiscal policy support for household consumption. This policy mix will only compound the trade impacts of China’s growing state-supported industrial capacity.

This sets China, the EU, and the US on a dangerous course of trade confrontation in 2024, with a high probability of trade defense action cases. The systemic nature of China’s trade surplus and market distortions, not confined to specific sectors, may also motivate larger actions. Strong measures such as revoking the Permanent Normal Trade Relations status or introducing a new tariff column for China are already on the radar of US politicians during an election year. But China’s growing manufacturing surplus is not only a problem for the US and the EU. In fact, China’s trade surplus with G7 countries grew by a third between 2019 and 2023 while it more than tripled with developing economies, setting a daunting barrier as they try to nurture their own industrial sectors. The spillovers of China’s domestic imbalances are already compelling a response from a broader set of countries, including Brazil, India, Mexico, and South Africa. If China’s imbalances continue, this emerging market pushback will also likely intensify.

To read the full report as published by the Rhodium Group, click here.

To read the full report, click here.

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

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is emerging as a significant phenomenon in the global economy. As multinational corporations pour capital into acquiring AI start-ups, investment in cognitive AI systems bodog sportsbook review is expected to reach USD 98 billion by 2023. The United States and China have established initiatives to pursue strategic dominance of AI, while several other developed countries are nurturing their own AI sectors. Such is the promise of creative destruction associated with AI that the concept of privacy, the nature of work, the accountability of governments, and the value of data must all be reviewed in response to AI-driven technological advancements. Indeed, concerns about the ensuing public interest implications have provoked a series of responses by national legislatures as States attempt to fill the regulatory vacuum.

While international economic law literature is becoming increasingly cognisant of AI, the interaction between AI and investment treaties remains uncharted territory. Scholars have addressed how AI will exacerbate the ‘digital divide’ within cross-border trade, contribute to data-driven research within international economic law, and even generate treaties to predict the outcome of negotiations. Broader issues of international arbitration have similarly been scrutinized within the context of AI, for predicting outcomes, selecting arbitrators, and calculating damages. In contrast, AI’s interaction with investment treaties has garnered little attention, and is the focus of this article.

The central thesis is that the international investment regime provides an unpredictable legal environment in which to adjudicate the emerging norms and ethics of AI. Reforms to drafting and to practice are necessary to prepare investment treaties for an AI-driven future.

This article proceeds in five Sections. Section 2 considers the components and regulation of AI. It is argued that AI regulation – including limitations on market access, utilization of automated decision-making systems, restrictions on cross-border data flows, and mandated algorithmic transparency – may constitute barriers to investment. Section 3 discusses the conditions for AI to be within the scope of protected investment in international investment agreements (IIAs). Section 4 analyses whether measures targeting AI are in compliance with substantive investment obligations. Having identified areas of potential breach, Section 5 finds that existing exceptions clauses within IIAs are too narrowly drafted to encompass the relevant policy concerns. As a result, Section 6 proposes three reformative measures to optimize investment treaties for the AI-powered investor and AI-powered host State.

The post bodog online casino|Welcome Bonus_to define these terms appeared first on bodog.

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is expanding rapidly. These technological breakthroughs present both opportunity and potential peril. AI technology offers great hope for increasing economic opportunity, boosting incomes, speeding life science research at reduced costs, and simplifying the lives of consumers. With so much potential for innovation, organizations investing in AI-oriented practices are already ramping up initiatives that boost productivity to remain competitive.

Like most disruptive technologies, these investments can both create and displace jobs. If appropriate and reasonable protections are not put in place, AI could adversely affect privacy and personal liberties or promote bias. Policymakers must debate and resolve the questions emanating from these opportunities and concerns to ensure that AI is used responsibly and ethically.

This debate must answer several core questions: What is the government’s role in promoting the kinds of innovation that allow for learning and adaptation while leveraging core strengths of the American economy in innovation and product development? How might policymakers balance competing interests associated with AI—those of economic, societal, and quality-of-life improvements—against privacy concerns, workforce disruption, and built-in-biases associated with algorithmic decision-making? And how can Washington establish a policy and regulatory environment that will help ensure continued U.S. global AI leadership while navigating its own course between increasing regulations from Europe and competition from China’s broad-based adoption of AI?

To read the full summary as it was published by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, click here.

To read the full report, please click here.

The post bodog poker review|Most Popular_organizations appeared first on bodog.

The technology war between the US and China has taken a new turn as the two countries’ race to subsidise their industries gathers pace. The lack of an ambitious response and flexible business support measures from the EU could have serious consequences for European competitiveness and industrial development.

Summary

This paper analyses the economic and political causes and developments in the technology war between the US and China, which began in 2015 and continues to escalate. The Biden Administration has complemented export control measures with a drive to maximise the technological distance between the two competitors through largescale incentives in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. However, these introduce dangerous imbalances into the global playing field, with the potential to affect other actors such as the EU.

Analysis

The most important trade war in the last few years has not been the tariff war initiated by Trump. In contrast to what some might think, it has been the technology war between the US and China, which began at the end of the Obama era, gathered pace during the Trump presidency and has further escalated under the Biden Administration. The war has two aspects: first, to stop China catching up with US technological supremacy (with all the associated economic and military implications) by blocking technology transfer; and, secondly, to maximise the technological distance between the US and China, subsidising national production. This latter aspect has major consequences for the EU, with the potential to create a dangerous lag in technology.

Enrique Feás is a Senior Analyst at the Elcano Royal Institute.

To read the full analysis, please click here.

The post bodog sportsbook review|Most Popular_distance between appeared first on bodog.

The post bodog casino|Welcome Bonus_WITA Academy Fellowship appeared first on bodog.

If life follows art, it is not hard to imagine a splintered world and political economy akin to George Orwell’s dystopia in 1984—a world divided into three global networks belonging to the states of Oceania, Eurasia and East Asia. In reality these could be divided by major CBDCs—a digital dollar, a digital euro and a digital yuan—with the digital ‘gold’ of Bitcoin perhaps serving as the currency for ‘disputed territories’. The Japanese art of joining broken bowls with gold, kintsugi, comes to mind.

In the early 2000s online and offline trade settlements were conducted using the US dollar, the world’s reserve currency, with online trade dependent on traditional financial settlement networks. Today however, there are different ways to settle online trade using units of account that are native to the internet. Since the invention of cryptocurrencies trade can be settled completely on-net—entirely on the internet—not via highly regulated offnet financial networks.

There are now over 19,000 cryptocurrencies. So far, these volatile and speculative units of account can be exchanged on over 500 digital exchanges. These exchanges enable conversion to other digital assets, such as non-fungible tokens—financial assets consisting of digital data stored in a blockchain—and stablecoin, less volatile units of account with prices linked to a commodity or fiat currency.

To read the full report from the Hinrich Foundation. please click here.

The post bodog casino|Welcome Bonus_So far, these volatile appeared first on bodog.

The U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council (TTC) held its second ministerial meeting in Saclay – Paris, France on May 15-16, 2022. U.S. co-chairs, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, and United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai were joined by EU Co-Chairs European Commission Executive Vice Presidents Margrethe Vestager and Valdis Dombrovskis to review progress, meet with a range of U.S. and EU stakeholders, and advance Transatlantic cooperation and democratic approaches to trade, technology, and security that deliver for people on both sides of the Atlantic.

Thanks to the close and enduring ties between the United States and the European Union, we have resolved long-standing bilateral issues, including disagreements on tariffs, and leveraged the strength of our partnership to counter non-market, trade distortive practices, and respond swiftly to Putin’s war with unprecedented sanctions and export control measures. Building on these successes, the United States and European Union, home to 780 million people who share democratic values and the largest economic bodog poker review relationship in the world, will advance the TTC agenda on a number of critical economic and technology policies and initiatives designed to strengthen our bilateral economies, meet current geopolitical challenges and update the rules of the global economy.

TTC working groups are deepening U.S.-EU cooperation by expanding access to digital tools for small- and medium-sized enterprises and securing critical supply chains such as semiconductors. They are collaborating closely on emerging technology standards, climate and clean tech objectives data governance and technology platforms, information and communications technology services’ (ICTS) security and competitiveness, and the misuse of technology threatening security and human rights. The TTC working groups are also coordinating on export controls, investment screening and security risks, and a range of global trade challenges, including countering the harmful impact of non-market, trade-distortive policies and practices on technological development and competitiveness in sectors of shared priority. To ensure that the government dialogues are informed by the broad perspectives of the U.S. and EU communities inform their work, the TTC working groups are continuing robust engagement with a diverse range of stakeholders, including those in industry, labor organizations, think tanks, non-profit organizations, environmental constituencies, academics, and other civil society members.

During their ministerial meeting, the U.S. and EU TTC co-chairs reviewed the outcomes generated by the joint working groups and announced key outcomes.

To read the full report from the White House, please click here.

The post bodog sportsbook review|Most Popular_Valdis Dombrovskis to appeared first on bodog.

To read the full report from the Inter-American Development Bank, please click here.

The post Bodog Poker|Welcome Bonus_Trade Education & appeared first on bodog.

The post bodog online casino|Welcome Bonus_Friday Focus on Trade appeared first on bodog.

To read the full report from the Center for Strategic & International Studies, please click here.

The post bodog poker review|Most Popular_only—lasting appeared first on bodog.