The Trump administration wants to scrap automatic federal protection for threatened plants and animals, a move that would anger environmentalists but please industry.

A proposal unveiled Thursday would no longer grant threatened species the same instant protection given to endangered species. It would also limit what can be declared a critical habitat for such plants and animals.

Officials with the Interior Department and Fish and Wildlife Service said Thursday that they wanted to streamline regulations. They said current rules under the Endangered Species Act were inconsistent and confusing.

Deputy Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said the new rules would still be very protective of endangered animals.

“At the same time, we hope that they ameliorate some of the unnecessary burden, conflict and uncertainty that is within our current regulatory structure,” he told reporters.

But conservationists called the changes a “wrecking ball” and a gift to big businesses.

“They could decide that building in a species habitat or logging in trees where birds nest doesn’t constitute harm,” the Center for Biological Diversity’s Noah Greenwald said.

Industries such as logging, mining and oil drilling have long complained that the Endangered Special Act has stopped them from gaining access to new sources of energy and has stifled economic development.
…

The financial leaders of the world’s 20 biggest economies meet in Buenos Aires this weekend for the first time since long-simmering trade tensions burst into the open when China and the United States put tariffs on $34 billion of each other’s goods.

The United States will seek to persuade Japan and the European Union to join it in taking a more aggressive stance against Chinese trade practices at the G-20 meeting of finance ministers and central bank presidents, according to a senior U.S. Treasury Department official who spoke on condition on anonymity.

But those efforts will be complicated by frustration over U.S. steel and aluminum import tariffs on the EU and Canada. Both responded with retaliatory tariffs in an escalating trade conflict that has shaken markets and threatens global growth.

“U.S. trading partners are unlikely to be in a conciliatory mood,” said Eswar Prasad, international trade professor at Cornell University and former head of the International Monetary Fund’s China Division. “[U.S.] hostile actions against long-standing trading partners and allies have weakened its economic and geopolitical influence.”

At the close of the last G-20 meeting in Argentina in March, the financial leaders representing 75 percent of world trade and 85 percent of gross domestic product released a joint statement that rejected protectionism and urged “further dialogue,” to little concrete effect.

Since then, the United States and China have slapped tariffs on $34 billion of each other’s imports and U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened further tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods unless Beijing agrees to change its intellectual property practices and high-technology industrial subsidy plans.

Trump has said the U.S. tariffs aim to close the $335 billion annual U.S. trade deficit with China.

U.S. Treasury Minister Steven Mnuchin has no plans for a bilateral meeting with his Chinese counterpart in Buenos Aires, a U.S official said this week.

Growth concerns

Rising trade tensions have led to concerns within the Japanese government over currency volatility, said a senior Japanese G-20 official who declined to be named. Such volatility could prompt an appreciation in the safe-haven yen and threaten Japanese exports.

Trump’s metals tariffs prompted trade partners to retaliate with their own tariffs on U.S. goods ranging from whiskey to motorcycles. The United States has said it will challenge those tariffs at the World Trade Organization.

The EU finance ministers signed a joint text last week that will form their mandate for this weekend’s meeting, criticizing “unilateral” U.S. trade actions, Reuters reported. The ministers will stress that trade restrictions “hurt everyone,” a German official said.

In a briefing note prepared for the G-20 participants, the International Monetary Fund said if all of Trump’s threatened tariffs — and equal retaliation — went into effect, the global economy could lose up to 0.5 percent of GDP, or $430 billion, by 2020.

Global growth also may have peaked at 3.9 percent for 2018 and 2019, and downside risks have risen due to the tariff spat, the IMF said.

“While all countries will ultimately be worse off in a trade conflict, the U.S. economy is especially vulnerable,” IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde wrote in a blog post. “Policymakers can use this G-20 meeting to move past

self-defeating tit-for-tat tariffs.”

Trade is not on host country Argentina’s published agenda for the July 21-22 ministerial, which focuses on the “future of work” and infrastructure finance. But it will likely be discussed during a slot devoted to risks facing the global

economy, much as in March, according to an Argentine official involved in G-20 preparations, who asked not be named.
…

The financial leaders of the world’s 20 biggest economies meet in Buenos Aires this weekend for the first time since long-simmering trade tensions burst into the open when China and the United States put tariffs on $34 billion of each other’s goods.

The United States will seek to persuade Japan and the European Union to join it in taking a more aggressive stance against Chinese trade practices at the G-20 meeting of finance ministers and central bank presidents, according to a senior U.S. Treasury Department official who spoke on condition on anonymity.

But those efforts will be complicated by frustration over U.S. steel and aluminum import tariffs on the EU and Canada. Both responded with retaliatory tariffs in an escalating trade conflict that has shaken markets and threatens global growth.

“U.S. trading partners are unlikely to be in a conciliatory mood,” said Eswar Prasad, international trade professor at Cornell University and former head of the International Monetary Fund’s China Division. “[U.S.] hostile actions against long-standing trading partners and allies have weakened its economic and geopolitical influence.”

At the close of the last G-20 meeting in Argentina in March, the financial leaders representing 75 percent of world trade and 85 percent of gross domestic product released a joint statement that rejected protectionism and urged “further dialogue,” to little concrete effect.

Since then, the United States and China have slapped tariffs on $34 billion of each other’s imports and U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened further tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods unless Beijing agrees to change its intellectual property practices and high-technology industrial subsidy plans.

Trump has said the U.S. tariffs aim to close the $335 billion annual U.S. trade deficit with China.

U.S. Treasury Minister Steven Mnuchin has no plans for a bilateral meeting with his Chinese counterpart in Buenos Aires, a U.S official said this week.

Growth concerns

Rising trade tensions have led to concerns within the Japanese government over currency volatility, said a senior Japanese G-20 official who declined to be named. Such volatility could prompt an appreciation in the safe-haven yen and threaten Japanese exports.

Trump’s metals tariffs prompted trade partners to retaliate with their own tariffs on U.S. goods ranging from whiskey to motorcycles. The United States has said it will challenge those tariffs at the World Trade Organization.

The EU finance ministers signed a joint text last week that will form their mandate for this weekend’s meeting, criticizing “unilateral” U.S. trade actions, Reuters reported. The ministers will stress that trade restrictions “hurt everyone,” a German official said.

In a briefing note prepared for the G-20 participants, the International Monetary Fund said if all of Trump’s threatened tariffs — and equal retaliation — went into effect, the global economy could lose up to 0.5 percent of GDP, or $430 billion, by 2020.

Global growth also may have peaked at 3.9 percent for 2018 and 2019, and downside risks have risen due to the tariff spat, the IMF said.

“While all countries will ultimately be worse off in a trade conflict, the U.S. economy is especially vulnerable,” IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde wrote in a blog post. “Policymakers can use this G-20 meeting to move past

self-defeating tit-for-tat tariffs.”

Trade is not on host country Argentina’s published agenda for the July 21-22 ministerial, which focuses on the “future of work” and infrastructure finance. But it will likely be discussed during a slot devoted to risks facing the global

economy, much as in March, according to an Argentine official involved in G-20 preparations, who asked not be named.
…

A former official at a Venezuelan state-run electric company pleaded guilty on Monday to U.S. charges that he participated in a scheme to solicit bribes in exchange for helping vendors win favorable treatment from state oil company PDVSA.

Luis Carlos De Leon Perez, 42, pleaded guilty in federal court in Houston to conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and to conspiring to commit money laundering, the U.S. Justice Department said.

He became the 12th person to plead guilty as part of a larger investigation by the Justice Department into bribery at Petroleos de Venezuela SA that became public with the arrest of two Venezuelan businessmen in December 2015.

The two men were Roberto Rincon, who was president of Tradequip Services & Marine, and Abraham Jose Shiera Bastidas, the manager of Vertix Instrumentos. Both pleaded guilty in 2016 to conspiring to pay bribes to secure energy contracts.

De Leon is scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 24. His lawyers did not respond to requests for comment.

De Leon was arrested in October 2017 in Spain and was extradited to the United States after being indicted along with four other former Venezuelan officials on charges they solicited bribes to help vendors win favorable treatment from

PDVSA.

An indictment said that from 2011 to 2013 the five Venezuelans sought bribes and kickbacks from vendors to help them secure PDVSA contracts and gain priority over other vendors for outstanding invoices during its liquidity crisis.

Prosecutors said De Leon was among a group of PDVSA officials and people outside the company with influence at it who solicited bribes from Rincon and Shiera. De Leon worked with those men to then launder the bribe money, prosecutors said.

De Leon also sought bribes from the owners of other energy companies and directed some of that money to PDVSA officials in order help those businesses out, prosecutors said.

Among the people indicted with De Leon was Cesar David Rincon Godoy, a former general manager at PDVSA’s procurement unit Bariven. He pleaded guilty in April to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Others charged included Nervis Villalobos, a former Venezuelan vice minister of energy; Rafael Reiter, who worked as PDVSA’s head of security and loss prevention; and Alejandro Isturiz Chiesa, who was an assistant to Bariven’s president.

Villalobos and Reiter were, like De Leon, arrested in Spain, where they remain pending extradition, the Justice Department said. Isturiz remains at large.
…

A former official at a Venezuelan state-run electric company pleaded guilty on Monday to U.S. charges that he participated in a scheme to solicit bribes in exchange for helping vendors win favorable treatment from state oil company PDVSA.

Luis Carlos De Leon Perez, 42, pleaded guilty in federal court in Houston to conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and to conspiring to commit money laundering, the U.S. Justice Department said.

He became the 12th person to plead guilty as part of a larger investigation by the Justice Department into bribery at Petroleos de Venezuela SA that became public with the arrest of two Venezuelan businessmen in December 2015.

The two men were Roberto Rincon, who was president of Tradequip Services & Marine, and Abraham Jose Shiera Bastidas, the manager of Vertix Instrumentos. Both pleaded guilty in 2016 to conspiring to pay bribes to secure energy contracts.

De Leon is scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 24. His lawyers did not respond to requests for comment.

De Leon was arrested in October 2017 in Spain and was extradited to the United States after being indicted along with four other former Venezuelan officials on charges they solicited bribes to help vendors win favorable treatment from

PDVSA.

An indictment said that from 2011 to 2013 the five Venezuelans sought bribes and kickbacks from vendors to help them secure PDVSA contracts and gain priority over other vendors for outstanding invoices during its liquidity crisis.

Prosecutors said De Leon was among a group of PDVSA officials and people outside the company with influence at it who solicited bribes from Rincon and Shiera. De Leon worked with those men to then launder the bribe money, prosecutors said.

De Leon also sought bribes from the owners of other energy companies and directed some of that money to PDVSA officials in order help those businesses out, prosecutors said.

Among the people indicted with De Leon was Cesar David Rincon Godoy, a former general manager at PDVSA’s procurement unit Bariven. He pleaded guilty in April to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Others charged included Nervis Villalobos, a former Venezuelan vice minister of energy; Rafael Reiter, who worked as PDVSA’s head of security and loss prevention; and Alejandro Isturiz Chiesa, who was an assistant to Bariven’s president.

Villalobos and Reiter were, like De Leon, arrested in Spain, where they remain pending extradition, the Justice Department said. Isturiz remains at large.
…

The United States launched five separate World Trade Organization dispute actions on Monday challenging retaliatory tariffs imposed by China, the European Union, Canada, Mexico and Turkey following U.S. duties on steel and aluminum.

The retaliatory tariffs on up to a combined $28.5 billion worth of U.S. exports are illegal under WTO rules, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said in a statement.

“These tariffs appear to breach each WTO member’s commitments under the WTO Agreement,” he said. “The United States will take all necessary actions to protect our interests, and we urge our trading partners to work constructively with us on the problems created by massive and persistent excess capacity in the steel and aluminum sectors.”

Lighthizer’s office has maintained that the tariffs the United States has imposed on imports of steel and aluminum are acceptable under WTO rules because they were imposed on the grounds of a national security exception.

Mexico said it would defend its retaliatory measures, saying the imposition of U.S. tariffs was “unjustified.”

“The purchases the United States makes of steel and aluminum from Mexico do not represent a threat to the national security,” Mexico’s Economy Ministry said in a statement.

“On the contrary, the solid trade relationship between Mexico and the U.S. has created an integrated regional market where steel and aluminum products contribute to the competitiveness of the region in various strategic sectors, such as automotive, aerospace, electrical and electronic,” the ministry added.

Lighthizer said last month that retaliation had no legal basis because the EU and other trading partners were making false assertions that the U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs are illegal “safeguard” actions intended to protect U.S. producers.
…

The United States launched five separate World Trade Organization dispute actions on Monday challenging retaliatory tariffs imposed by China, the European Union, Canada, Mexico and Turkey following U.S. duties on steel and aluminum.

The retaliatory tariffs on up to a combined $28.5 billion worth of U.S. exports are illegal under WTO rules, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said in a statement.

“These tariffs appear to breach each WTO member’s commitments under the WTO Agreement,” he said. “The United States will take all necessary actions to protect our interests, and we urge our trading partners to work constructively with us on the problems created by massive and persistent excess capacity in the steel and aluminum sectors.”

Lighthizer’s office has maintained that the tariffs the United States has imposed on imports of steel and aluminum are acceptable under WTO rules because they were imposed on the grounds of a national security exception.

Mexico said it would defend its retaliatory measures, saying the imposition of U.S. tariffs was “unjustified.”

“The purchases the United States makes of steel and aluminum from Mexico do not represent a threat to the national security,” Mexico’s Economy Ministry said in a statement.

“On the contrary, the solid trade relationship between Mexico and the U.S. has created an integrated regional market where steel and aluminum products contribute to the competitiveness of the region in various strategic sectors, such as automotive, aerospace, electrical and electronic,” the ministry added.

Lighthizer said last month that retaliation had no legal basis because the EU and other trading partners were making false assertions that the U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs are illegal “safeguard” actions intended to protect U.S. producers.
…

Democratic Republic of Congo’s plan to drill for oil in national parks could leave thousands of farmers and fishermen who rely on the land in a struggle to survive, rights groups said Monday.

The central African country announced last month that it was taking steps toward declassifying parts of Virunga and Salonga national parks, both recognized as world heritage sites by the United Nations, to allow for oil exploration.

The parks, which together cover an area about the size of Switzerland, are among the world’s largest tropical rainforest reserves and home to rare species including forest elephants.

Allowing drilling in the parks would cause a loss of biodiversity, release huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and pollute water that thousands of local people use for fishing and farming, according to several rights groups.

Congolese state spokesman Lambert Mende told Reuters that the government will study the potential impact of oil drilling on local communities before they proceed.

The government has previously defended its right to authorize drilling anywhere in the country and said it is mindful of environmental considerations, such as protecting animals and plants, in the two national parks.

“There are lake-shore communities, especially in Virunga, that are very dependent on fishing and on the park’s integrity,” said Pete Jones of environmental advocacy group Global Witness.

“That really needs to be taken into account and doesn’t seem to be part of the debate that’s happening, which is a shame,” he told Reuters.

Conservation group World Wildlife Fund (WWF) also said it is concerned about the impact of oil drilling on at least 50,000 people who benefit from the fishing industry in Virunga, and tens of thousands more who farm on the outskirts of the parks.

“The risks of pollution are clear and present. The fishing industry would suffer considerably if it gets to that point,” said Juan Seve, WWF country director in Congo.

The oil industry would be unlikely to create local jobs since specialists would be brought in from abroad, he added.

The U.N.’s cultural agency UNESCO has previously said that oil exploration should not be conducted at world heritage sites.
…

China’s economic growth slowed in the quarter ending in June, adding to challenges for Beijing amid a mounting tariff battle with Washington.

The world’s second-largest economy expanded by 6.7 percent, down from the previous quarter’s 6.8 percent, the government reported Monday.

Even before the dispute with Washington erupted, forecasters expected growth to cool after Beijing started tightening controls on bank lending last year to rein in surging debt.

Economic activity is expected to decline further as global demand for Chinese exports weakens and lending controls weigh on construction and investment, major contributors to growth.

Beijing has responded to previous downturns by flooding the state-dominated economy with credit. But that has swelled debt so high that global rating agencies have cut China’s government credit rating.

Chinese leaders are in the midst of a marathon effort to encourage self-sustaining growth driven by domestic consumption and reduce reliance on exports and investment. 

Consumer spending is rising more slowly than planned, leaving economic growth dependent on debt-supported investment.
…

China’s economic growth slowed in the quarter ending in June, adding to challenges for Beijing amid a mounting tariff battle with Washington.

The world’s second-largest economy expanded by 6.7 percent, down from the previous quarter’s 6.8 percent, the government reported Monday.

Even before the dispute with Washington erupted, forecasters expected growth to cool after Beijing started tightening controls on bank lending last year to rein in surging debt.

Economic activity is expected to decline further as global demand for Chinese exports weakens and lending controls weigh on construction and investment, major contributors to growth.

Beijing has responded to previous downturns by flooding the state-dominated economy with credit. But that has swelled debt so high that global rating agencies have cut China’s government credit rating.

Chinese leaders are in the midst of a marathon effort to encourage self-sustaining growth driven by domestic consumption and reduce reliance on exports and investment. 

Consumer spending is rising more slowly than planned, leaving economic growth dependent on debt-supported investment.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump advised British Prime Minister Theresa May to sue the European Union instead of negotiating with the bloc, as part of her Brexit strategy.

“He told me I should sue the EU,” May told BBC television. “Sue the EU. Not go into negotiations — sue them.”

Her revelation about how Trump advised her ended several days of speculation about what advice the U.S. leader had offered the prime minister.

Trump said last week in an interview with The Sun newspaper that he had given May advice, but she did not follow it. The president told the newspaper ahead of his meeting with May that she “didn’t listen” to him.

“I would have done it much differently. I actually told Theresa May how to do it but she didn’t agree, she didn’t listen to me. She wanted to go a different route,” Trump said.

Trump did not reveal what advice he offered May in a press conference with her Friday. Instead, he said, “I think she found it too brutal.”

He added, “I could fully understand why she thought it was tough. And maybe someday she’ll do that. If they don’t make the right deal, she may do what I suggested, but it’s not an easy thing.”

May also told the BBC that the president had advised her not to walk away from the negotiations “because then you’re stuck.”

For the past few months, British politics have been obscured by squabbling, irritability and bravado about how, when and on what terms Britain will exit the European Union, and what the country’s relationship will be with its largest trading partner after Brexit.

Britons narrowly voted to leave the EU in a referendum in June 2016.

 
…

U.S. President Donald Trump advised British Prime Minister Theresa May to sue the European Union instead of negotiating with the bloc, as part of her Brexit strategy.

“He told me I should sue the EU,” May told BBC television. “Sue the EU. Not go into negotiations — sue them.”

Her revelation about how Trump advised her ended several days of speculation about what advice the U.S. leader had offered the prime minister.

Trump said last week in an interview with The Sun newspaper that he had given May advice, but she did not follow it. The president told the newspaper ahead of his meeting with May that she “didn’t listen” to him.

“I would have done it much differently. I actually told Theresa May how to do it but she didn’t agree, she didn’t listen to me. She wanted to go a different route,” Trump said.

Trump did not reveal what advice he offered May in a press conference with her Friday. Instead, he said, “I think she found it too brutal.”

He added, “I could fully understand why she thought it was tough. And maybe someday she’ll do that. If they don’t make the right deal, she may do what I suggested, but it’s not an easy thing.”

May also told the BBC that the president had advised her not to walk away from the negotiations “because then you’re stuck.”

For the past few months, British politics have been obscured by squabbling, irritability and bravado about how, when and on what terms Britain will exit the European Union, and what the country’s relationship will be with its largest trading partner after Brexit.

Britons narrowly voted to leave the EU in a referendum in June 2016.

 
…

Liang Liang is feeling a lot of stress lately. He owns an import wholesale business in Los Angeles.

“I have been watching the news every day — when will the tariffs be put in place? When are my goods arriving; it’s a fight against time. I’m trying to order all my products for the rest of the year,” he said. His goods, such as toys and T-shirts, come from China through the largest port complex in the United States, the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

He expects a 10 to 20 percent increase in shipping costs because of the trade war between the United States and China.

Shipping costs likely to rise

China is the largest trading partner for both ports. As tariffs from both countries increase the cost of goods, manufacturers and retailers may order fewer products, which will cause a decrease in trade volume between the two countries, according to Stephen Cheung, president of the World Trade Center Los Angeles.

“Once that happens, you’re going to see an increase in the rates for shipping because then you don’t have the volume to justify the goods going back and forth,” he said.

Cheung explained that shipping costs will affect all goods between the U.S. and China, not just the ones on the list to be taxed. He said the trade and logistics sector, which includes the ports and the supply chain of trucks and warehouses, will be the first to feel the effects of the trade war.

Liang said he will absorb the cost and live with smaller profits, up to a point.

“If the tariffs increase by another 20 percent, we’ll have to raise our prices,” he said.

“The consumers are going to feel it in their wallets very quickly,” Cheung said.

​Supply chain may be less reliable

The U.S. as a manufacturing center depends on parts from China, but that supply may become less reliable as the trade war continues. Cheung said there may be uncertainty about whether the products will be produced or “whether they will be in the same price, so this potentially can have a huge aspect in terms of our exporting capability not only to China but to the rest of the world, Cheung said. “And there are a lot of jobs that are tied to this,” he added.

Officials at the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles said it is too early to tell the impact of the trade tariffs.

“We’ll have to wait and see how various businesses restructure their supply networks and adjust to the tariff environment,” said Duane Kenagy, the Port of Long Beach’s interim deputy executive director.

He said so far, the port has seen record container volumes this year, but there is concern.

“The impacts of a sustained long-term trade war could be devastating to both economies,” Kenagy said.

Political theater?

Liang said he has hope, saying he thinks the trade war is actually political theater for the U.S. and China.

“China also has its position on trade. The Chinese government also has to be accountable to the 1.4 billion people of China. I think China and the U.S. will disagree over trade on the surface. (For Trump), it’s a show for the November midterm elections, so he can be accountable to the electorate,” Liang said.

Washington has been critical of China’s unfair trade practices and concerned with a trade imbalance. The U.S. imported more than $500 billion of Chinese goods last year compared to $130 billion of U.S. products exported to China.

These concerns and issues of American intellectual property are reasons the Trump administration announced tariffs on an additional $200 billion in Chinese imports.

“If you’re utilizing this as a tactic, that’s fine. What are the steps that you’re going to use to mitigate some of these damages that will be happening to the local community? These are huge issues that have not been addressed yet,” Cheung said.
…

Liang Liang is feeling a lot of stress lately. He owns an import wholesale business in Los Angeles.

“I have been watching the news every day — when will the tariffs be put in place? When are my goods arriving; it’s a fight against time. I’m trying to order all my products for the rest of the year,” he said. His goods, such as toys and T-shirts, come from China through the largest port complex in the United States, the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

He expects a 10 to 20 percent increase in shipping costs because of the trade war between the United States and China.

Shipping costs likely to rise

China is the largest trading partner for both ports. As tariffs from both countries increase the cost of goods, manufacturers and retailers may order fewer products, which will cause a decrease in trade volume between the two countries, according to Stephen Cheung, president of the World Trade Center Los Angeles.

“Once that happens, you’re going to see an increase in the rates for shipping because then you don’t have the volume to justify the goods going back and forth,” he said.

Cheung explained that shipping costs will affect all goods between the U.S. and China, not just the ones on the list to be taxed. He said the trade and logistics sector, which includes the ports and the supply chain of trucks and warehouses, will be the first to feel the effects of the trade war.

Liang said he will absorb the cost and live with smaller profits, up to a point.

“If the tariffs increase by another 20 percent, we’ll have to raise our prices,” he said.

“The consumers are going to feel it in their wallets very quickly,” Cheung said.

​Supply chain may be less reliable

The U.S. as a manufacturing center depends on parts from China, but that supply may become less reliable as the trade war continues. Cheung said there may be uncertainty about whether the products will be produced or “whether they will be in the same price, so this potentially can have a huge aspect in terms of our exporting capability not only to China but to the rest of the world, Cheung said. “And there are a lot of jobs that are tied to this,” he added.

Officials at the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles said it is too early to tell the impact of the trade tariffs.

“We’ll have to wait and see how various businesses restructure their supply networks and adjust to the tariff environment,” said Duane Kenagy, the Port of Long Beach’s interim deputy executive director.

He said so far, the port has seen record container volumes this year, but there is concern.

“The impacts of a sustained long-term trade war could be devastating to both economies,” Kenagy said.

Political theater?

Liang said he has hope, saying he thinks the trade war is actually political theater for the U.S. and China.

“China also has its position on trade. The Chinese government also has to be accountable to the 1.4 billion people of China. I think China and the U.S. will disagree over trade on the surface. (For Trump), it’s a show for the November midterm elections, so he can be accountable to the electorate,” Liang said.

Washington has been critical of China’s unfair trade practices and concerned with a trade imbalance. The U.S. imported more than $500 billion of Chinese goods last year compared to $130 billion of U.S. products exported to China.

These concerns and issues of American intellectual property are reasons the Trump administration announced tariffs on an additional $200 billion in Chinese imports.

“If you’re utilizing this as a tactic, that’s fine. What are the steps that you’re going to use to mitigate some of these damages that will be happening to the local community? These are huge issues that have not been addressed yet,” Cheung said.
…

As the Trump administration announces tariffs on an additional $200 billion in Chinese imports, the largest port complex in the United States is bracing for its impact. For the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, China is the largest trader, and what happens at these ports can ripple through the rest of the U.S. economy. VOA’s Elizabeth Lee reports.
…

As the Trump administration announces tariffs on an additional $200 billion in Chinese imports, the largest port complex in the United States is bracing for its impact. For the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, China is the largest trader, and what happens at these ports can ripple through the rest of the U.S. economy. VOA’s Elizabeth Lee reports.
…

Suspiciously cheap diamonds, jeans for $1 and a pair of skis for next to nothing. It’s not a dream, these are actual bargains at a store in a small town in Alabama. What it sells are the contents of lost airline baggage. Every year airline companies lose about 20 million suitcases, and while most of them find their way back to their owners, thousands of bags are never picked up. As Daria Dieguts found out, some of these lost items end up here at the lost baggage store in Alabama.
…

Suspiciously cheap diamonds, jeans for $1 and a pair of skis for next to nothing. It’s not a dream, these are actual bargains at a store in a small town in Alabama. What it sells are the contents of lost airline baggage. Every year airline companies lose about 20 million suitcases, and while most of them find their way back to their owners, thousands of bags are never picked up. As Daria Dieguts found out, some of these lost items end up here at the lost baggage store in Alabama.
…

The United States has formally lifted a crippling ban on exports to the Chinese telecommunications giant ZTE. 

The Commerce Department said Friday that it had removed the ban after ZTE deposited $400 million in a U.S. bank escrow account as part of a settlement reached last month.

ZTE has already paid a $1 billion fine that is also part of its settlement with the U.S. government. 

“While we lifted the ban on ZTE, the department will remain vigilant as we closely monitor ZTE’s actions to ensure compliance with all U.S. laws and regulations,” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a statement. He described the terms of the deal as the strictest ever imposed in such a case.

The Chinese company is accused of selling sensitive technologies to Iran and North Korea, despite a U.S. trade embargo. 

In April, the Commerce Department barred ZTE from importing American components for its telecommunications products for the next seven years, practically putting the company out of business. However, Trump later announced a deal with ZTE in which the Chinese company would pay a $1 billion fine for its trade violations, as well as replace its entire management and board by the middle of July.

Lawmakers from both parties have criticized Trump’s efforts and have taken steps to block the White House’s efforts to revive ZTE. The Senate passed legislation last month included in a military spending bill that would block ZTE from buying component parts from the United States. That legislation now moves to a joint committee of House and Senate members who will decide the fate of the ZTE measure in a compromise defense bill. 

Most of the world first heard of the dispute over ZTE in May after one of Trump’s tweets. “President Xi of China and I are working together to give massive Chinese phone company, ZTE, a way to get back into business, fast. Too many jobs in China lost. Commerce Department has been instructed to get it done!” Trump said.
…

The United States has formally lifted a crippling ban on exports to the Chinese telecommunications giant ZTE. 

The Commerce Department said Friday that it had removed the ban after ZTE deposited $400 million in a U.S. bank escrow account as part of a settlement reached last month.

ZTE has already paid a $1 billion fine that is also part of its settlement with the U.S. government. 

“While we lifted the ban on ZTE, the department will remain vigilant as we closely monitor ZTE’s actions to ensure compliance with all U.S. laws and regulations,” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a statement. He described the terms of the deal as the strictest ever imposed in such a case.

The Chinese company is accused of selling sensitive technologies to Iran and North Korea, despite a U.S. trade embargo. 

In April, the Commerce Department barred ZTE from importing American components for its telecommunications products for the next seven years, practically putting the company out of business. However, Trump later announced a deal with ZTE in which the Chinese company would pay a $1 billion fine for its trade violations, as well as replace its entire management and board by the middle of July.

Lawmakers from both parties have criticized Trump’s efforts and have taken steps to block the White House’s efforts to revive ZTE. The Senate passed legislation last month included in a military spending bill that would block ZTE from buying component parts from the United States. That legislation now moves to a joint committee of House and Senate members who will decide the fate of the ZTE measure in a compromise defense bill. 

Most of the world first heard of the dispute over ZTE in May after one of Trump’s tweets. “President Xi of China and I are working together to give massive Chinese phone company, ZTE, a way to get back into business, fast. Too many jobs in China lost. Commerce Department has been instructed to get it done!” Trump said.
…

The White House released a report Thursday contending that the United States’ war on poverty — a drive that started over 50 years ago to improve the social safety net for the poorest citizens of the world’s largest economy — is “largely over and a success,” contrasting with other reports on the nation’s poor.

The report, authored by President Donald Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, called for federal aid recipients to be pushed toward work requirements.

The report says poverty, when measured by consumption, has fallen by 90 percent since 1961. It also says that only 3 percent of Americans currently live under the poverty line.

“The timing is ideal for expanding work requirements among non-disabled working-age adults in social welfare programs,” according to the report. “Ultimately, expanded work requirements can improve the lives of current welfare recipients and at the same time respect the importance and dignity of work.”

U.N. report

The council’s report contrasts with a U.N. report on poverty in the U.S. that was released last month. That report said about 12 percent of the U.S. population lives in poverty, and that the U.S. “leads the developed world in income and wealth inequality.”

Phillip Alston, a U.N. adviser on extreme poverty and the author of the report, wrote in December 2017 that he believed Trump and his administration, along with U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, “will essentially shred crucial dimensions of a safety net that is already full of holes.”

In April, Trump signed an executive order outlining work mandates for low-income citizens on federal aid programs. These programs included Medicaid, which provides federal health insurance for low-income individuals, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides these low-income individuals with assistance in food purchasing.

Both programs were among those introduced in the 1960s, during the administration of then-President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat who coined the term “war on poverty” during his first State of the Union address.

Four state mandates

The Trump administration has already permitted four states — Kentucky, Indiana, Arkansas, and New Hampshire — to implement work requirement programs for Medicaid recipients, the first such restrictions enforced on the program. In June, however, a federal judge struck down Kentucky’s mandate, writing that the administration’s waiver “never adequately considered whether [the program] would in fact help the state furnish medical assistance to its citizens, a central objective of Medicaid.”

Anne Marie Regan, a senior staff attorney for the Kentucky Equal Justice Center, one of the organizations that successfully challenged the Kentucky waiver, told VOA that while she didn’t know the specifics of other states’ Medicare waivers, she thought similar challenges could be successful because of the administration’s insistence on work requirements.

Regan said her state’s proposal would have removed 95,000 people from health care coverage.

“The war on poverty is certainly not over,” Regan said. “There’s certainly still a great need for a safety net.”

In June, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed a farm bill that includes work requirements for some adults who receive food assistance benefits. Every Democrat, along with 20 Republicans, voted against the bill, which is not expected to pass the Senate.
…

The White House released a report Thursday contending that the United States’ war on poverty — a drive that started over 50 years ago to improve the social safety net for the poorest citizens of the world’s largest economy — is “largely over and a success,” contrasting with other reports on the nation’s poor.

The report, authored by President Donald Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, called for federal aid recipients to be pushed toward work requirements.

The report says poverty, when measured by consumption, has fallen by 90 percent since 1961. It also says that only 3 percent of Americans currently live under the poverty line.

“The timing is ideal for expanding work requirements among non-disabled working-age adults in social welfare programs,” according to the report. “Ultimately, expanded work requirements can improve the lives of current welfare recipients and at the same time respect the importance and dignity of work.”

U.N. report

The council’s report contrasts with a U.N. report on poverty in the U.S. that was released last month. That report said about 12 percent of the U.S. population lives in poverty, and that the U.S. “leads the developed world in income and wealth inequality.”

Phillip Alston, a U.N. adviser on extreme poverty and the author of the report, wrote in December 2017 that he believed Trump and his administration, along with U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, “will essentially shred crucial dimensions of a safety net that is already full of holes.”

In April, Trump signed an executive order outlining work mandates for low-income citizens on federal aid programs. These programs included Medicaid, which provides federal health insurance for low-income individuals, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides these low-income individuals with assistance in food purchasing.

Both programs were among those introduced in the 1960s, during the administration of then-President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat who coined the term “war on poverty” during his first State of the Union address.

Four state mandates

The Trump administration has already permitted four states — Kentucky, Indiana, Arkansas, and New Hampshire — to implement work requirement programs for Medicaid recipients, the first such restrictions enforced on the program. In June, however, a federal judge struck down Kentucky’s mandate, writing that the administration’s waiver “never adequately considered whether [the program] would in fact help the state furnish medical assistance to its citizens, a central objective of Medicaid.”

Anne Marie Regan, a senior staff attorney for the Kentucky Equal Justice Center, one of the organizations that successfully challenged the Kentucky waiver, told VOA that while she didn’t know the specifics of other states’ Medicare waivers, she thought similar challenges could be successful because of the administration’s insistence on work requirements.

Regan said her state’s proposal would have removed 95,000 people from health care coverage.

“The war on poverty is certainly not over,” Regan said. “There’s certainly still a great need for a safety net.”

In June, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed a farm bill that includes work requirements for some adults who receive food assistance benefits. Every Democrat, along with 20 Republicans, voted against the bill, which is not expected to pass the Senate.
…

The Turkish lira recovered some losses Thursday hours after it hit record lows. New Treasury and  Finance Minister Berat Albayrak, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s son-in-law, sought to reassure nervous markets that the central bank’s independence was not in question.

The wild currency gyrations following Albayrak’s appointment underscore concerns over what economic policy Erdogan will adhere to now that he has consolidated power following his June re-election.

The lira approached five to the dollar late Wednesday in a nearly 30 percent depreciation since the beginning of the year.

The heavy decline is a result of worries over Erdogan’s economic expansion policy.

Although growth has soared more than 7 percent, inflation has surpassed 15 percent — a 15-year high — while the current deficit has widened to more than 6 percent of national income.

Analysts say after the June election, key ministers led investors to believe Erdogan would adopt austerity measures to rein in inflation. They are concerned the president, with the appointment of his son-in-law, may be seeking more control over monetary issues while excluding two prominent government figures from any say on policy.

“The two faces of market-friendly policies, Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Simsek and Finance Minister Naci Agbal, are being excluded from policymaking roles,” economist Inan Demir of Nomura International Securities said.

“Before the elections,” he continued, “Agbal and Simsek had been talking to investors before the election, promising a return to orthodoxy that would generate a cooldown in the economy. The appointment of his son-in-law [Berat Albayrak] as the economy czar, would lead many investors to believe Erdogan will take tighter control of the economy, which would essentially annul promises of Agbal and Simsek.”

Agbal and Simsek are credited with persuading Erdogan to agree to an emergency hike in interest rates in May to protect the lira after steep falls. The Turkish president subscribes to the unorthodox view that low interest rates curb inflation, describing high interest rates as “the mother and father of all evils.”

Erdogan unnerved markets Tuesday by declaring his belief that “we will see interest rates fall in the period ahead.” Investors say any interest rate reduction would result in the total collapse of the currency, and that further increases are needed to secure the lira.

In a move to calm investors, Albayrak Thursday pledged to cut inflation, saying structural reform and fiscal discipline would be enforced, and he guaranteed the central bank’s independence. His statement saw the lira bounce back slightly.

Words, though, might not be enough. “It depends on how Albayrak will act really,” economist Demir said. “It’s possible if he manages to reassure the markets by actions, then the sell-off can subside. Otherwise, we will see an ongoing fall in lira assets going forward.”

Analysts warn there is skepticism about whether Albayrak will follow through on his commitment to fiscal discipline. Erdogan’s re-election campaign centered on the promise to continue with massive public construction projects and opposition to interest rate increases.

Political considerations

Political analyst Atilla Yesilada of Global Source partners suggests that political considerations could outweigh economic concerns.

“Something needs to be done. And the traditional recipe is belt-tightening and structural reforms in the traditional sense, to curtail domestic demand,” he said. “The challenge there is not that Erdogan is incapable of signing off for such a recipe. He is facing local elections in March 2019, which are extremely important, and the voters need to be fed, and that is the opposite of what the traditional recipe requires.”

A critical test of the direction Erdogan might choose will come at a July 24 meeting of the central bank. “If the central bank cannot find an opportunity to hike, the markets will take it very badly,” Demir said.

The failure of the central bank to act likely would increase worries about the introduction of capital controls to restrict money from leaving Turkey in a bid to protect the lira.

Demir said such a move would be counterproductive as it would end much of the international investment. Turkey needs to borrow about $5 billion monthly to cover the difference between its imports and exports.

As speculation rises over the threat of capital controls, Demir acknowledged investors now are asking about the risk of such a move. Pressure for decisive action by the central bank at its meeting July 24 is seen as critical to stemming the risk of an investor stampede out of the Turkish market.
…

The Turkish lira recovered some losses Thursday hours after it hit record lows. New Treasury and  Finance Minister Berat Albayrak, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s son-in-law, sought to reassure nervous markets that the central bank’s independence was not in question.

The wild currency gyrations following Albayrak’s appointment underscore concerns over what economic policy Erdogan will adhere to now that he has consolidated power following his June re-election.

The lira approached five to the dollar late Wednesday in a nearly 30 percent depreciation since the beginning of the year.

The heavy decline is a result of worries over Erdogan’s economic expansion policy.

Although growth has soared more than 7 percent, inflation has surpassed 15 percent — a 15-year high — while the current deficit has widened to more than 6 percent of national income.

Analysts say after the June election, key ministers led investors to believe Erdogan would adopt austerity measures to rein in inflation. They are concerned the president, with the appointment of his son-in-law, may be seeking more control over monetary issues while excluding two prominent government figures from any say on policy.

“The two faces of market-friendly policies, Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Simsek and Finance Minister Naci Agbal, are being excluded from policymaking roles,” economist Inan Demir of Nomura International Securities said.

“Before the elections,” he continued, “Agbal and Simsek had been talking to investors before the election, promising a return to orthodoxy that would generate a cooldown in the economy. The appointment of his son-in-law [Berat Albayrak] as the economy czar, would lead many investors to believe Erdogan will take tighter control of the economy, which would essentially annul promises of Agbal and Simsek.”

Agbal and Simsek are credited with persuading Erdogan to agree to an emergency hike in interest rates in May to protect the lira after steep falls. The Turkish president subscribes to the unorthodox view that low interest rates curb inflation, describing high interest rates as “the mother and father of all evils.”

Erdogan unnerved markets Tuesday by declaring his belief that “we will see interest rates fall in the period ahead.” Investors say any interest rate reduction would result in the total collapse of the currency, and that further increases are needed to secure the lira.

In a move to calm investors, Albayrak Thursday pledged to cut inflation, saying structural reform and fiscal discipline would be enforced, and he guaranteed the central bank’s independence. His statement saw the lira bounce back slightly.

Words, though, might not be enough. “It depends on how Albayrak will act really,” economist Demir said. “It’s possible if he manages to reassure the markets by actions, then the sell-off can subside. Otherwise, we will see an ongoing fall in lira assets going forward.”

Analysts warn there is skepticism about whether Albayrak will follow through on his commitment to fiscal discipline. Erdogan’s re-election campaign centered on the promise to continue with massive public construction projects and opposition to interest rate increases.

Political considerations

Political analyst Atilla Yesilada of Global Source partners suggests that political considerations could outweigh economic concerns.

“Something needs to be done. And the traditional recipe is belt-tightening and structural reforms in the traditional sense, to curtail domestic demand,” he said. “The challenge there is not that Erdogan is incapable of signing off for such a recipe. He is facing local elections in March 2019, which are extremely important, and the voters need to be fed, and that is the opposite of what the traditional recipe requires.”

A critical test of the direction Erdogan might choose will come at a July 24 meeting of the central bank. “If the central bank cannot find an opportunity to hike, the markets will take it very badly,” Demir said.

The failure of the central bank to act likely would increase worries about the introduction of capital controls to restrict money from leaving Turkey in a bid to protect the lira.

Demir said such a move would be counterproductive as it would end much of the international investment. Turkey needs to borrow about $5 billion monthly to cover the difference between its imports and exports.

As speculation rises over the threat of capital controls, Demir acknowledged investors now are asking about the risk of such a move. Pressure for decisive action by the central bank at its meeting July 24 is seen as critical to stemming the risk of an investor stampede out of the Turkish market.
…