US importers bore almost the entire burden of tariffs that President Donald Trump placed on more than $300 billion in Chinese goods, raising the cost of goods bought by American companies, a report by an independent US government agency found.
The US International Trade Commission, a bipartisan entity that analyzes trade issues, found an almost one-to-one increase in the price of US imports following the so-called section 301 tariffs, it said in a report on Wednesday. The report came in response to a directive from Congress as part of a law passed last year.
The conclusions back the longtime assertion of US Chamber of Commerce and independent academic economists that the cost of the tariffs hurt American firms rather than those in China, and contradict Trumpâs claim that his trade partner paid the ultimate cost of the duties.
President Joe Bidenâs administration has kept the tariffs on imports of Chinese goods in place for more than two years and is currently undertaking a review of the duties to evaluate their effectiveness and decide if they should continue. (...)
US importers bore almost the entire burden of tariffs that President Donald Trump placed on more than $300 billion in Chinese goods, raising the cost of goods bought by American companies, a report by an independent US government agency found.
The US International Trade Commission, a bipartisan entity that analyzes trade issues, found an almost one-to-one increase in the price of US imports following the so-called section 301 tariffs, it said in a report on Wednesday. The report came in response to a directive from Congress as part of a law passed last year.
The conclusions back the longtime assertion of US Chamber of Commerce and independent academic economists that the cost of the tariffs hurt American firms rather than those in China, and contradict Trumpâs claim that his trade partner paid the ultimate cost of the duties.
President Joe Bidenâs administration has kept the tariffs on imports of Chinese goods in place for more than two years and is currently undertaking a review of the duties to evaluate their effectiveness and decide if they should continue. (...)
if china can broker peace and help make things "right" they should be encouraged and applauded
i would be happy to see it or any progress
the challenge:
we already know (if we believe zelensky)
that putin/russia would have to give up its brutal medieval conquest
give back what is has stolen (included the people it has forcibly kidnapped)
compensate the victims and pay to rebuild the horrific destruction it has intentionally committed
that is probably a bitter pill for any megalomaniac to swallow
Even worse or better, depending on your POV, is that this along with US economic sanctions, will drive the world away from the Dollar as the prime international reserve currency. When this happens, the US is toast. The policies of our current administration seems to be doing all it can to undermine the dollar on purpose hastening this end. Sanctions do not work as intended anymore. Not that they ever did much anyway. The work arounds are too easy.
I understand the need for partisan framing, but sanctions are pretty much a bipartisan/universal thing. Even for free market fetishists.
Even worse or better, depending on your POV, is that this along with US economic sanctions, will drive the world away from the Dollar as the prime international reserve currency. When this happens, the US is toast. The policies of our current administration seems to be doing all it can to undermine the dollar on purpose hastening this end. Sanctions do not work as intended anymore. Not that they ever did much anyway. The work arounds are too easy.
mobius said the issue seems to be resolved
what this guy may not know is that mobius via franklin/temp has invested billions in china since the 80s
to suggest that he (either through frank/temp or mobius cap partners) isn't aware of the rules and regs is silly
he probably didn't read the article
Well no, actually. That is my point. And within, a question. Why would an individual take the time and trouble to gain virtual followers to his comedy at the expense of common tragedy. It's not exactly satire. Perhaps its insecurity or loneliness. There's a lot of that going around. The internet thrives on it through sites and content providers just like this. Hey I'm for open access. People have to decide for themselves what will satisfy their jones. Call me rhetorical. I can take it.
Judging the quality/intent of jokes comes with baggage.
That is readily apparent. Irony like sweets to the sweet.
Well no, actually. That is my point. And within, a question. Why would an individual take the time and trouble to gain virtual followers to his comedy at the expense of common tragedy. It's not exactly satire. Perhaps its insecurity or loneliness. There's a lot of that going around. The internet thrives on it through sites and content providers just like this.
Hey I'm for open access. People have to decide for themselves what will satisfy their jones. Call me rhetorical. I can take it.
Judging the quality/intent of jokes comes with baggage.
Well no, actually. That is my point. And within, a question. Why would an individual take the time and trouble to gain virtual followers to his comedy at the expense of common tragedy. It's not exactly satire. Perhaps its insecurity or loneliness. There's a lot of that going around. The internet thrives on it through sites and content providers just like this.
Hey I'm for open access. People have to decide for themselves what will satisfy their jones. Call me rhetorical. I can take it.
