Resin cutting sheet is made of resin as binder, glass fiber mesh sheet as bone, combined with a variety of materials, alloy steel, stainless steel and other difficult to cut materials, cutting performance is particularly remarkable.Dry type, wet type two kinds of cutting, so that the cutting precision is more stable, at the same time, the choice of cutting material and hardness, can greatly improve your cutting efficiency, save your production costs. Cutting Disc,Cutting Disc Saw Blades,Metal Cut Off Grinding,Disc Saw Blades Blade Behappy Crafts (suzhou)Co.,Ltd , https://www.haoyuebehappy.com
The "Article 301" investigation revealed that it was reported that Trump, who was on the "on-the-job vacation", would break the holiday and rush back to the White House to sign the administrative memorandum and instruct the US Trade Representative (USTR) Wright Heze to decide whether to launch " Section 301 "Investigation.
The so-called "Article 301", the common name of Article 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974. According to a White House senior official at a telephone briefing on the 12th, the focus will be on Chinese companies that “is suspected of infringing US intellectual property rights and forcing US companies to transfer technology, especially US companies are forced to share advanced technologies with Chinese partnersâ€. The issue was launched. Once the US decides to launch an investigation, it will first consult with China, and the investigation process may last up to one year.
After the US Trump administration took office, it is a clue to keep an eye on China's intellectual property protection issues. The First Financial Journal consulted the "Special 301 Report 2017" issued by USTR this year, which included 11 US trading partners, including China and India, in the list of key observation countries with weak intellectual property protection. The report also detailed the IPR for China. Dissatisfaction with protection and technology transfer.
However, different from the past, apart from the US political circles' approval of the Trump administration, the business community and the academic community almost agreed that Trump does not seek the multilateral coordination mechanism of the World Trade Organization (WTO), but from the historical heap. The dusty outdated trade investigation clause to attack China is a complete stun, not only depreciating the WTO system created by the United States, but also triggering a trade war and creating a lose-lose situation.
The “Article 301†survey is a US trade enforcement Tool prior to the establishment of the WTO. From the "Trade Law of 1974" to today, the US government conducted a total of 122 "301 articles" investigation. However, since the official operation of the WTO in 1995, the organization's multilateral coordination mechanism has given the United States a better trade defense mechanism. Therefore, since 2001, the US government has only used a “301 clause†survey on intellectual property protection issues in Ukraine in 2013.
When Trump came to power, he said that one of its trade policy priorities is to use as much resources as possible to encourage other countries to open their markets to US products and services, and to provide adequate and effective protection and enforcement of US intellectual property rights. To achieve this, the main purpose of Trump's government trade policy will be to ensure that intellectual property owners in the United States have full and fair opportunities to use their rights globally and benefit from it.
According to the Trump administration, IP-intensive industries directly or indirectly support 45 million jobs, accounting for 30% of the total employment in the United States, and the annual economic losses in the United States due to counterfeiting products, copying software and industrial espionage. More than 300 billion US dollars.
It is worth noting that USTR has repeatedly criticized China for intellectual property protection and technology transfer in the 2017 Special 301 Report released in April this year.
The report not only continues to list China as a key observation country, but also claims that China is the place where a large number of infringements are committed, including stealing trade secrets, online piracy and counterfeiting, and exporting large quantities of physical pirated and counterfeit products to markets around the world.
In the case of US companies being forced to share advanced technology with Chinese partners, the report pointed out that “China has to impose US companies on China to develop its intellectual property rights or transfer intellectual property rights to China as a condition for US companies to enter the Chinese market. China imposes adverse conditions. Foreign intellectual property licensors and US companies are required to localize their R&D activities in China. There are structural barriers to civil and criminal intellectual property enforcement and pharmaceutical innovation."
The Chinese Ministry of Commerce has responded to this report and believes that the report lacks objective standards and impartiality. Sun Jiwen, spokesman of the Ministry of Commerce, said: "For a long time, the United States has unilaterally issued the "Special 301 Report", which judges and accuses the intellectual property rights of other countries, lacks objective standards and impartiality, and is generally opposed by the countries concerned."
The trade war that is destined for a double loss In fact, the US business community may be deeply disturbed by the potential trade wars after the Trump administration has released a “301 clause†investigation into China. The US think tank community even more agrees that the Trump administration’s unilateral trade behavior is “unworthy and unsatisfactory,†and it is easy to counterattack.
David Dollar, a senior researcher at the Brookings Institution's John Thornton China Center, has served as director of the World Bank's China Bureau for many years. He recently reported with his colleague Haas that the Trump administration is in the “Article 301†survey. Misjudgment.
In the latest article entitled "Trump standing on the edge of opening a trade war with China", Du Dawei and other scholars said that China's exports to the US account for less than 5% of China's GDP. "Although the US market is right Chinese exporters are still very important, but the role of the US market in promoting China's economic growth is not as it was 20 years ago. With China's economic growth model shifting from exports and investment to more dependent on services and consumption, the US market is against China. The relative importance of economic growth will continue to shrink."
"A serious trade war will be a problem for China, but it is not serious enough to allow China to contract under pressure." Du Dawei and others pointed out that historically, China has always taken appropriate measures for trade. Revenge.
On the value chain issue, a value-added link included in a US-made "Made in China" product comes from US allies such as Japan and South Korea. If punitive measures are taken, it can be expected that multinational companies will resist such trade protectionist measures on a large scale.
"American companies hope that the US government will negotiate with China on market access, but they do not want to trade with China." Du Dawei and others summed up in the article, "If the United States really adopts protectionist measures, such as full import tariffs on Chinese products. Then China will definitely retaliate."
China has a lot of choices, including the possibility of buying aircraft, soybeans and other commodities, and withdrawing more business opportunities for US high-tech companies in China. Du Dawei and others said: "The United States has no big bargaining chip in China. Any attempt to unilaterally oppress China to abandon its industrial policy risks may lead to a trade war, that is, 'double loser'."
Behappy cutting discs deliver excellent cutting performance on metal pipes, tubes, flat sheets and more thanks to the power of innovative our echnologies
The US 301 clause against China is launched at the touch of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: the trade war will only lose
Abstract In response to US President Trump's signing of an administrative memorandum to launch a trade investigation against China, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying responded on the 14th that China and the United States have no future in the trade war and will not lose. "Article 301" investigation early...
In response to US President Trump's signing of an administrative memorandum to launch a trade investigation against China, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying responded on the 14th that China and the United States have no future in the trade war and will not lose.