Both sides have called this meeting productive and reports in the press suggest that, in the careful world of international diplomacy, it suggests Xi will attend a summit of Pacific Rim nations in San Francisco next month where he will meet face to face with U.S. President Joe Biden.

It’s all part and parcel of the diplomatic focus the U.S. government has trained on China since Balloon-Gate blew everything up earlier this year. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited to help get everybody talking again. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen established a pair of “economic working groups” with her counterparts. U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo went to Shanghai Disneyland. Even John Kerry, the Biden administration’s envoy on climate change, was in Beijing this summer to talk with Chinese officials about how we’re all cooking the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels.

But what made the Schumer delegation stand out was its bipartisanship. Sens. Mike Crapo (R-ID), John Kennedy (R-LA) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) were part of the group, as were Sens. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) and John Ossoff (D-GA), and it provides further evidence that the American side wants Sino-U.S. relations to be less heated and more predictable. And this is not a terrible idea when you’re talking about interactions between nuclear-armed states with huge militaries and economies.

bodog sportsbook review

Yes, that’s right. Donald Trump was many things, including hard to predict – here he is this past weekend, talking about “The Silence of the Lambs”, as one typically does during a campaign speech – but U.S. trade policy regarding China went through a necessary rearrangement during his administration, and the Section 301 tariffs enacted during his time in the White House are its chief result.  

The United States for years ran hundreds of billions of dollars in annual goods trade deficits with China. With the tariffs in place to provide some relief from Chinese import competition, and now with something like a bona fide industrial policy to complement them, the supply chains on which the U.S. relies have begun to diversify. There are factories – long term investments that will pay economic dividends for years to come – being built across the country. They represent the industries of the future, and it looks like they’re gonna be good union jobs. The tariffs laid the groundwork for that.

The Chinese government obviously doesn’t like these tariffs and wants them removed. The complaints against Chinese trade policy that raised them in the first place haven’t been addressed. China still heavily subsidizes key industries to the point of overcapacity, and looks likely to try to export its way out of its current economic doldrums.

And hey: Good luck with that! But the United States shouldn’t be the destination for those inevitably dumped imports. Make nice with the Chinese, engage with its leadership, sure. But the tariffs should stay up, and the U.S. should continue to improve its industrial resilience.

To read the full blog post, click here

The post Bodog Poker|Welcome Bonus_evidence that the American appeared first on bodog.

In 2018, the Trump administration initiated an investigation into China’s technology, intellectual property, and innovation practices under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The investigation found that Chinese acts and policies were burdening U.S. commerce, which prompted the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to impose tariffs worth more than $500 billion on imports from China. Our team has been closely tracking the effects of these tariffs, including gathering data on exclusion requests filed by U.S. importers and analyzing what the information can tell us. We received helpful input from The Lincoln Network as well.

There have been four tariff lists, or tranches, in the last four years. The tariffs were imposed on more than 10,000 product categories: 818 in tranche 1, 279 in tranche 2, 5,733 in tranche 3, and 3,207 in tranche 4A. Although tranche 4 was split into 4A and 4B, 4B tariffs were suspended as part of trade negotiations in 2019. The USTR also established the process by which interested parties could request exclusion from tariffs.

As for exclusion requests, since our last Section 301 update, the number filed hasn’t changed. As of September 6, 2021, importers had filed 52,746 product exclusion requests: 10,814 for tranche 1, 2,869 for tranche 2, 30,283 for tranche 3, Bodog Poker and 8,780 for tranche 4A. Exclusions are valid for one year, at which point U.S. importers can apply for an extension.

The USTR has been reviewing extension requests and recently announced that it would reinstate Section 301 tariff exclusions for 352 products. To determine which imports would receive an exemption until the end of the year, the USTR reviewed whether products can be sourced from the United States or elsewhere.

In light of the recent USTR announcement and its impact on industries and workers, we are updating our Section 301 data and turning to sector-level analysis. This update focuses on consumer technology products. Consumer technology imports cover a wide range of products, such as clinical thermometers, gaming devices, drinking water coolers, and even tracking devices, representing a fairly large share of the goods targeted by the section 301 tariffs. In 2017 (the year before the tariffs were imposed), the customs value of consumer technology product imports was approximately $198 billion. We used a list of HTS codes derived from public comments filed by the Consumer Technology Association for our analysis.

Our key findings include:

1. Consumer technology product importers have been actively filing for exclusion requests. These U.S. importers have filed an exclusion request for 99% of their products that have been subject to the tariff.
    
2. Approval and denial outcomes for consumer technology product exclusion requests mirror overall product trends, with only 13% to 14% approved, and approval rates higher in the first two tranches than the third and fourth tranches.
    
3. Based on the 8-digit HTS codes for those consumer technology product imports on the section 301 list, China’s share of U.S. bodog online casino imports declined from 33.2% in 2017 to 19.4% in 2021. This is a larger change than seen in overall imports, for which China’s share declined from 22% to 18%. This may reflect the relatively large presence of consumer technology products in section 301 lists combined with USTR’s relatively high rate of denials for exclusion requests.
    
4. For the consumer technology products subject to the tariffs, there was some shifting from China to other countries, but not as much as policymakers may have hoped. China’s share of U.S. imports in the affected product areas declined from 35.8% to 27.5% over 2017 to 2021. Meanwhile, those shares increased for several Southeast Asian economies such as Vietnam, Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea, and Malaysia. Mexico’s share remained relatively flat.
    
5. Based on more detailed 10-digit HTS data (the level at which extensions are often granted), we find that approximately 40% of consumer technology product tariff exclusions received an extension.

Exclusions

As previously mentioned, consumer technology product importers have filed exclusion requests for 99% of the products that have been subject to the tariff (table 1), or 21,583 of the 21,896 consumer technology products. Overall, the outcomes for consumer technology product exclusion requests mirror statistics for other products (table 2). Of the 52,746 product exclusion requests, 6,802 (13%) were granted an exclusion and 45,944 (87%) were denied. For consumer technology products, there were 21,583 exclusion submissions, 3,097 (14%) of which were approved and 18,486 (86%) were denied.

Table 1. Consumer technology products subject to Section 301 tariffs: tariff exclusion requests filed and not filed (as of April 7, 2022)

Table 2. Summary tables: Outcomes for tariff exclusion requests

Table 3 reports the outcomes for exclusion requests for all products by tranche, while Table 4 reports the same data for consumer technology products.

Table 3. Outcomes for tariff exclusion requests: all products

Table 4. Outcomes for tariff exclusion requests: consumer technology products

Outcomes vary by tranche. Overall, the approval rating was 34% for tranche 1, 37% for tranche 2, 5% for tranche 3, and 7% for tranche 4A. Overall consumer product outcomes are similar, with the approval ratings of 29% for tranche 1, 40% for tranche 2, 6% for tranche 3, and 7% for tranche 4A.

Extensions

As USTR reviews requests extensions for tariff exclusions, the reasons or categories differ. Table 5 lists the number of consumer technology products granted an extension by decision category, including standard extensions granted, Covid-19 extensions, and reinstatements. A small share (2%-3%) of extensions for these products was Covid-related. The share of those reinstated increases over time. (These statistics are based on 10-digit HTS data and hence the absolute figures will not compare with those of the 8-digit-based statistics. We only did this to show the distribution of types of extensions, which had to be done at the 10-digit level.)

Table 5. Extensions granted for consumer technology products (calculated at the 10-digit level)

Overall, statistics based on 10-digit HTS indicate that 40% of consumer technology product exclusions granted received extension at some point since 2018.

Note that a product could have received an extension multiple times. For example, “Wireless communication apparatus that can receive audio data to be distributed to wireless speakers (described in statistical reporting number 8518.22.0000)” received an extension on both September 2, 2020, and March 28, 2022.

Some shifting of trade partners

Among consumer technology products subject to the tariffs, there was some shifting from China to other countries, but not as much as policymakers may have hoped. In this case, we use HTS 4-digit level codes to capture broader substitutions and product reclassifications. The data indicate that China’s share of U.S. bodog online casino imports declined from 35.8% to 27.5% over 2017 to 2021, or an 8.3 percentage point decrease. Yet China remained by far the largest import source, with Mexico relatively flat and a far second at 17.51% in 2021. Meanwhile, shares increased for Southeast Asian economies such as Vietnam, Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea, and Malaysia (figure 1).

Further analysis should include these calculations at the 4-, 6-, 8- and 10-digit levels in order to assess whether and to what extent product shifting within fairly detailed categories occurred (i.e., if there was a tariff on imported blue widgets with white polka dots from China, was there a consumer shift to blue widgets with red polka dots from China, or perhaps a shift to just plain blue widgets from Vietnam?).

Figure 1. Changes in US import shares in consumer technology product areas affected by setion 301 tariffs, 2017-2021

Conclusion

Exclusion outcomes for consumer technology products differed across tranches. The analysis could be extended to other sectors, especially given the recent changes in USTR reporting. Since the release of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, the USTR developed internal procedures that describe the process of determining which products qualify for a tariff exclusion. These changes may help policymakers to get a better understanding of the impact of Section 301 tariffs, though the reasons for USTR decisions on exclusions and extensions remain vague.

The U.S. International Trade Commission recently announced a new factfinding investigation that will examine the impact of the section 301 tariffs and the section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.

Also, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is about to commence a statutory four-year review of the Section 301 actions. That review will consider “the effectiveness [of the tariffs] in achieving the objectives.”

Beyond assessing changes in China’s intellectual property rights regime and technology transfer regime, it is not clear what criterion USTR will use to determine effectiveness. Questions that officials asked at the public hearings, however, often focused on whether there was existing domestic production or potential for domestic production, as well as the possibility of third-country sources. Finally, enough time has passed to allow for an assessment of downstream effects of the tariffs, as well as an assessment of whether and to what extent the tariffs spurred domestic production in the subject product area and/or a diversion to third party sources.

Christine McDaniel is a Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center. Her research focuses on international trade, globalization, and intellectual property rights.

Polina Prokof’yeva is a second-year MA student in the Department of Economics at George Mason University. Polina graduated from Concord University with a BS in geography.

To read the full commentary by the Mercatus Center of George Mason University, please click here.

The post bodog casino|Welcome Bonus_Association for our analysis appeared first on bodog.

THE NUMBERS: 

U.S. goods imports from China

Jan.-Feb. 2022        $90.1 billion
Jan.-Feb. 2018        $84.6 billion

WHAT THEY MEAN:

Reviewing her limited short-term options for easing inflation, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen last week noted possible removal of Trump-era tariffs on Chinese goods. Three bits of background data on these tariffs, then some tentative conclusions:

1. Scale: Tariff System Roughly Doubled in Size: In 2017, the last full year before imposition of the administration’s “Section 232” and “Section 301” tariffs,* the U.S. tariff system brought in $32.9 billion in revenue on $2.34 trillion in imports. Dividing tariff revenue by import value, this yields a “trade-weighted” tariff average of 1.4%, though in a system (as PPI’s Ed Gresser noted in testimony last week) very unevenly weighted toward taxation of consumer goods and low-income families. By 2019, the administration had added to this system a battery of administratively imposed tariffs, including:  (a) “232” tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum, valued in 2017 at about $50 billion; (b) “301” tariffs of 7.5%, 10%, and 25% on about $350 billion in Chinese goods, and (c) a few smaller decisions such as “201” or “safeguard” tariffs on washing machines and solar panels.

In 2021, all this brought in $85 billion on $2.83 trillion in imports, essentially doubling the overall U.S. tariff average to 2.9%. As of early 2022, the Biden administration has unwound some of the metals tariffs through agreements with the EU, Japan, and the U.K.; the tariffs on Chinese goods, though with some promise of a revived “exclusion” process for businesses especially damaged by extra tariff costs remain in place.

2. Effects on U.S. Imports from China Noticeable but Modest: China’s share of U.S. imports has dropped, but the actual value of imports from China is now above pre-tariff levels. More precisely, imports of Chinese-made and -assembled goods totaled $506 billion in 2017, or 21.6% of overall U.S. imports. The Chinese import total dropped temporarily after the 301 tariffs went into effect over the course of 2018 and early 2019, to $451 billion or 18.1% of a $2.493 trillion 2019 total. By 2021, though, they had rebounded to $505 billion — essentially equal to the figure for 2017, though this was a smaller share of a much expanded $2.83 trillion U.S. import total.**

3. Little if Any Effect on China’s Overall Exports: The larger “301” impact on China’s global trade seems very small. Statistics published by China’s Ministry of Commerce show Chinese worldwide exports at $2.42 trillion in pre-tariff 2017, then $2.66 trillion in 2018 and a slightly dented $2.64 trillion in 2019, followed by a post-COVID surge to $3.3 trillion in 2021. This suggests that any damage to China’s export economy was small and quickly healed.

4. U.S. Economy and Inflation: Finally, returning to the Treasury Secretary’s concerns and setting trade flows aside, tariffs are generally an unattractive form of taxation. This is because they not only directly raise the cost of imported goods as a sales or excise tax would, but in contrast to sales or excise taxes, they also enable rent-seeking price increases throughout the domestic economy. These neither increase supply nor move demand towards an equilibrium, and therefore have both growth-reducing and inflation-encouraging effects.

Taken as tax policy, the “232” tariffs on steel and aluminum raised metals-buyers’ tariff payments from $0.3 billion in 2017 to $3.2 billion in 2021, or by about $3 billion per year. The “301” tariffs are likewise focused on industrial inputs bought heavily by manufacturers and construction firms ($3 billion more on auto parts, $2.5 billion on electrical components, $1.1 billion on basic chemicals, and so on) and much more expensive. With Chinese import totals for 2017 and 2021 essentially identical, buyers paid $13.5 billion in tariffs in 2017, and $56.6 billion in 2021. Estimates of the 301 contribution to last year’s 7% spike in U.S. inflation range from 0.3% to 0.5% from higher import prices, to a more recent Peterson Institute estimate of 1.3% with domestic-price-raising effects included.

Hence Dr. Yellen’s interest. Her cautious comment on a potential decision to dial tariffs back: “There would be some desirable effects. It’s something we’re looking at.”

*  “232” and “301” stand for sections of U.S. trade law.  The 232 section enables Presidents to impose tariffs on ‘national security’ grounds; the 301 section enables them to impose tariffs as retaliation for overseas policies which impose a “significant burden on U.S. commerce”.

** On the other side of the trade-balance sheet, U.S. export trends to China followed a similar post-tariff-and-Chinese-retaliation track, dropping from $130 billion in 2017 to $106 billion in 2019, then rebounding to $151 billion in 2021.

***  Had China retained the 21.6% share imports it held in 2017, the 2021 total would have been around $600 billion.  (Assuming all else equal, of course.) Vietnam, whose exports to the U.S. jumped from $46 billion to $102 billion in these years, picked up about half of the missing $100 billion; secondary beneficiaries include India, Mexico, and a few other mid-income countries.

FURTHER READING

The post bodog casino|Welcome Bonus_ With Chinese import totals appeared first on bodog.

After a full year, and as a new administration and Congress assume power, it’s important to evaluate the effectiveness of the deal at achieving its goals.

It’s not a pretty picture.

The dispute between the U.S. and China came with a hefty price tag. Americans have paid tens of billions in extra taxes to trade with China since 2018, as well as billions of dollars in subsidies to farmers. At the same time, it did nothing to further U.S. strategic objectives.

The post Bodog Poker|Welcome Bonus_policies regarding technology appeared first on bodog.

“At the direction of President Donald J. Trump, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is initiating an investigation addressing two significant issues with respect to Vietnam. USTR will investigate Vietnam’s acts, policies, and practices related to the import and use of timber that is illegally harvested or traded, and will investigate Vietnam’s acts, policies, and practices that may contribute to the undervaluation of its currency and the resultant harm caused to U.S. commerce. USTR will conduct the investigation under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. As part of its investigation on currency undervaluation, USTR will consult with the Department of the Treasury as to issues of currency valuation and exchange rate policy.

“United States Trade Representative Robert Bodog Poker E. Lighthizer said, ‘President Trump is firmly committed to combatting unfair trade practices that harm America’s workers, businesses, farmers, and ranchers. Using illegal timber in wood products exported to the U.S. market harms the environment and is unfair to U.S. workers and businesses who follow the rules by using legally harvested timber. In addition, unfair currency practices can harm U.S. workers and businesses that compete with Vietnamese products that may be artificially lower-priced because of currency undervaluation. We will carefully review the results of the investigation and determine what, if any, actions it may be appropriate to take.’

“USTR will issue two separate Federal Register notices next week that will provide details of the investigation and information on how members of the public can provide their views through written submissions.”

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2020/october/ustr-initiates-vietnam-section-301-investigation.

The two Federal Register notices were published on October 8. Initiation of Section 301 Investigation: Vietnam’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Currency Valuation, 85 Fed. Reg. 63637-68 (Oct. 8, 2020); Initiation of Section 301 Investigation : Vietnam’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to the Import and Use of Illegal Timber, 85 Fed. Reg. 63,639-70 (Oct. 8, 2020).

In each notice of initiation, USTR reviews the concerns leading to the 301 investigation, indicates that consultations with Vietnam have been requested, provides a timeline for the public to submit written comments and indicates that because of uncertainties from COVID-19, USTR is not scheduling a public hearing but “will provide further information in a subsequent notice if it will hold a hearing”. Public comments in both investigations are due on November 12, 2020.

The currency investigation flows from the following concerns identified in the notice of initiation.

“The Government of Vietnam, through the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV), tightly manages the value of its currency—the dong. The SBV’s management of Vietnam’s currency is closely tied to the U.S. dollar. Available analysis indicates that Vietnam’s currency has been undervalued over the past three years. Specifically, analysis indicates that the dong was undervalued on a real effective basis by approximately 7 percent in 2017 and by approximately 8.4 percent in 2018. Furthermore, analysis indicates that the dong’s real effective exchange rate was undervalued in 2019 as well.

“Available evidence also indicates that the Government of Vietnam, through the SBV, actively intervened in the exchange market, which contributed to the dong’s undervaluation in 2019. Specifically, the evidence indicates that in 2019, the SBV undertook net purchases of foreign exchange totaling approximately $22 billion, which had the effect of undervaluing the dong’s exchange rate with the U.S. dollar during that year. Analysis suggests that Vietnam’s action on the exchange rate in 2019 caused the average nominal bilateral exchange rate against the dollar over the year, 23,224 dong per dollar, to be undervalued by approximately 1,090 dong per dollar relative to the level consistent the equilibrium real effective exchange rate.” 84 FR 63637-38.

The public is asked to provide written comments on six issues:

“• Whether Vietnam’s currency is undervalued, and the level of the
undervaluation.

“• Vietnam’s acts, policies, or practices that contribute to undervaluation of its currency.

“• The extent to which Vietnam’s acts, policies, or practices contribute to the
undervaluation.

“• Whether Vietnam’s acts, policies and practices are unreasonable or discriminatory.

“• The nature and level of burden or restriction on U.S. commerce caused by the undervaluation of Vietnam’s currency.

“• The determinations required under section 304 of the Trade Act, including what action, if any, should be taken.” 85 FR at 63638.

In the timber investigation, the background information which led to the initiation of the investigation is described as follows:

“Vietnam is one of the world’s largest exporters of wood products, including to the United States. In 2019, Vietnam exported to the United States more than $3.7 billion of wooden furniture. To supply the timber inputs needed for its wood products manufacturing sector, Vietnam relies on imports of timber harvested in other countries. Available evidence suggests that a significant portion of that imported timber was illegally harvested or traded (illegal timber). Some of that timber may be from species listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

“Evidence indicates that much of the timber imported by Vietnam was harvested against the laws of the source country. Reports indicate that a significant amount of the timber exported from Cambodia to Vietnam was harvested on protected lands, such as wildlife sanctuaries, or outside of and therefore in violation of legal timber concessions. Cambodia nevertheless remains a significant source of Vietnam’s timber imports. Similarly, timber sourced from other countries, such as Cameroon and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), may have been harvested against those countries’ laws.

“In addition, Vietnamese timber imports may be traded illegally. For example, it appears that most timber exported from Cambodia to Vietnam crosses the border in violation bodog online casino of Cambodia’s log export ban. In addition, aspects of the importation and processing of this timber also may violate Vietnam’s domestic law and be inconsistent with CITES.” 85 FR 63639.

Public comments are sought on the following six issues:

“• The extent to which Vietnamese producers, including producers of
wooden furniture, use illegal timber.

“• The extent to which products of Vietnam made from illegal timber,
including wooden furniture, are imported into the United States.

“• Vietnam’s acts, policies, or practices relating to the import and use
of illegal timber.

“• The nature and level of the burden or restriction on U.S. commerce caused by Vietnam’s import and use of illegal timber.

“• The determinations required under section 304 of the Trade Act, including what action, if any, should be taken.” 85 FR 63639.

USTR must make a determination within twelve months of the initiation of the two investigations. USTR can seek agreement with Vietnam to address the U.S. concerns.

The investigations are being started roughly one month before the November 3 U.S. elections. Obviously, if President Trump is reelected, the investigations will continue. If former Vice President Biden is elected, it is unclear what his Administration would do with the pending investigations (if USTR has not completed them by January 20, 2021)., although presumably the investigations would be continued and completed.

The two Federal Register notices are embedded below.

Terence Stewart, former Managing Partner, Law Offices of Stewart and Stewart, and author of the blog, bodog poker review|Most Popular_Congressional

To read the original blog post, click here. 

The post Bodog Poker|Welcome Bonus_those countries’ laws. appeared first on bodog.