Connect with us

CED Report: Achieving Free But Secure Trade Will Require Resilient Supply Chains

CED Report: Achieving Free But Secure Trade Will Require Resilient Supply Chains
PR Newswire
NEW YORK, July 19, 2022

NEW YORK, July 19, 2022 /PRNewswire/ — Today, the Committee for Economic Development, the public policy center of The Conference B…

Published

on

CED Report: Achieving Free But Secure Trade Will Require Resilient Supply Chains

PR Newswire

NEW YORK, July 19, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, the Committee for Economic Development, the public policy center of The Conference Board (CED), issued a new Solutions Brief, A Road Map to Achieving Free but Secure Trade with Resilient Supply Chains.

The report—the latest in CED's Sustaining Capitalism series—details the causes of the supply chain disruptions that have further weakened the global consensus for global trade and economic globalization; looks at the options of reshoring, nearshoring, and friend-shoring, and the implications for trade policy more broadly; and examines the special case of semiconductors. As the report emphasizes, achieving resilient supply chains and free but secure trade will require deeper collaboration between private and public sector leaders, given their interconnected roles in the production and flow of goods and services in the domestic and global economy.

"The US efforts to build resilient supply chains through the options of reshoring, nearshoring, and friend-shoring must be complemented by a trade policy that provides for growth through free but secure trade," said Dr. Lori Esposito Murray, President of CED. "Achieving this outcome, which is essential to both US national and economic security interests, requires close collaboration between leaders in the public and private sectors to identify supply chain priorities and resolve them with the most efficient and effective trade policies."

Key contributors to the supply chain crisis and changes in trading patterns:

Each of these factors would have been significant on its own. But, together, they elevate supply chain adequacy and resiliency to a national crisis. Key factors identified in the new Solutions Brief include:

Changes to the US-China trade and strategic relationship.

  • China's policies have made it harder for foreign companies to penetrate the country's domestic market, as it increasingly focuses on manufacturing for its own domestic market. China increasingly controls the complete value chain for various products.
  • China and the US remain strategic economic competitors around the globe: China's Belt and Road Initiative, for example, seeks to shift global trade patterns in China's favor. The two countries also compete in resource areas such as rare earth minerals and in geographic areas such as the Pacific.
  • The uncertainty and tensions surrounding the China/Taiwan relationship, particularly in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, have only furthered the erosion of trust in China as the world's premier manufacturing hub.
  • Globally, even during the height of the pandemic, China was a resilient exporter; its exports fell in Q1 2020 but stabilized by Q2 and rebounded by Q3 of that year—a very different scenario than in many other economies.

The COVID-19 pandemic.

  • Globally, the pandemic accelerated the trend toward greater regionalization as borders and economies closed and supply chains were disrupted.
  • More recently, lockdowns in China to combat the Omicron variant have had strong global ripple effects for many goods, from toys to autos to smartphones.
  • Examples include:
    • A shutdown in a Shenzhen port decreased import volumes in southern California ports by 14 percent.
    • A lockdown that affected a Shanghai factory led to a shortage in New York of Omnipaque, an iodinated contrast medium for medical imaging.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

  • The war forced a rapid disruption and reevaluation of supply chains—most critically, in energy.
  • Russia and Ukraine are major producers of other important international commodities such as grains, aluminum, steel, palladium, neon, and platinum. These supply chains have been disrupted by sanctions, war, and maritime blockade in the Black Sea.
  • Such events and the fallout from them are forcing companies to increasingly take geopolitical risks into account, pushing them toward supply chain diversification—in essence, toward a more regionalized system.
  • A June 2022 global poll of CEOs by The Conference Board found that 83 percent fear the reemergence of competing economic blocs, with 43 percent highly concerned about this development.

The transition to stakeholder capitalism.

  • Consumers are increasingly demanding to know more about companies' social commitments, including the extent of their commitments to responsible and ethical sourcing.
  • Additionally, important steps toward developing a greener economy raise significant supply chain issues. For instance, China controls 85 percent of rare-earth refining, making supply chain diversification and resilience difficult in the short term and shifting more emphasis on developing new sourcing from "friends" in the medium term.
Key recommendations:

While the issue of supply chains directly affects the strategy and business models of private sector companies, the challenge can only be solved by collaboration between private and public sector leaders. As detailed in the Solutions Brief, CED's recommendations for achieving free but secure trade with resilient supply chains include:

Establish formal consultation/collaboration groups for leaders in the public/private sectors to fully understand global supply chains and determine priorities for supply chain challenges.

  • Collaborate more closely with business to identify sources of potential weaknesses in supply chains. Steps include:
    • Establish criteria of potential risk, including threats to national security, possible predatory pricing, threats to public health, possible economic disruption, and considerations of market strengths and weaknesses of US industries.
    • Develop practical solutions, including onshoring, nearshoring, and friend-shoring.
    • Prioritize supply chain challenges for semiconductors and critical minerals, given their significant role in the ability of the US to compete and thrive in the global economy.
    • Establish formal consultative groups of port authorities and their customers to establish clear priorities for efficient and effective operations.

Improve the feasibility of solutions for each unique, prioritized supply chain risk developed by public and private sector leaders.

  • Make reshoring more feasible:
    • Eliminate or streamline unnecessary regulation preventing factories from locating in the US.
    • Consider tax credits for location of factories here in a way that minimizes market distortions; consider domestic subsidized production for special cases (e.g., semiconductors).
    • Target investments to improve roads and ports; include a supply chain focus in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law spending; solve the truck driver shortage; train more Americans for careers in logistics.
  • Expand nearshoring opportunities:
    • Convene a special "Three Amigos" (US, Mexico, Canada) postpandemic summit on supply chains, seeking ways to strengthen links and reduce barriers to trade.
    • Establish a tri-national private sector advisory council under USMCA to advise the three governments on nearshoring opportunities and North American economic integration.
    • Help the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement countries grow their economies by building their infrastructure for resiliency and integrate more fully into US supply chains.
    • Reengage with South America to expand US trade relationships.
  • Strengthen friend-shoring opportunities:
    • Build country partnerships with supportive countries. Many countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East would qualify.
    • Find ways to help new countries become "friends" in supply chains; strengthen economic assistance to build links to US supply chains (e.g., helping reach US standards on labor rights), including targeted assistance from USAID, Economic Support Funds, and development finance.
    • Deepen the mission of the US Foreign Commercial Service to include knowledge of supply chains of US producers. Doing so will help US companies better understand foreign supply chains.

Deepen trade policy engagement: promote supply chain resilience through new trade agreements.

  • The US should develop a plan for a reformed World Trade Organization—in particular, its dispute resolution mechanisms—and continue to promote the benefits of an open global trading system.
  • The US should consider opening negotiations for additional bilateral and regional trade agreements. It should consider USMCA as a possible model to attract domestic support, given it passed the Congress with bipartisan support and had backing from labor.
  • The US should launch discussions to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the follow-on agreement to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
  • The US needs to prioritize protection of intellectual property.

Invest in R&D.

  • Increase government funding of basic research, which has lagged despite the important role this funding has in ensuring US competitiveness.
  • Such funding should include further investments in critical technologies such as advanced materials manufacturing, biotech, power-storage solutions, semiconductors, AI, quantum computing, and advanced cyber networking.
  • Increase private sector R&D funding to meet the competitive demands of effectively and efficiently reshoring and nearshoring advanced manufacturing capacity.

Determine alternatives to lockdowns as a response to the next public health crisis.

  • Economic lockdowns helped trigger the current supply chain disruptions. Important lessons can be drawn that can help avoid a draconian response to the next major public health challenge. Lessons include:
    • Determine business plans for future disruptions: Businesses should update their business plans/playbooks now with lessons learned for future disruptions. They should also coordinate with state and local officials to ensure that essential business infrastructure that requires public sector support to continue operating in a future public health crisis is addressed.
    • Determine essential businesses: Private sector leaders should coordinate with public sector leaders on the federal, regional, and state levels. They should use the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic to determine and prioritize essential businesses that would need to operate in a public health emergency and the requirements that the workforce would need to operate in person and remotely.

The new Solutions Brief, A Road Map to Achieving Free but Secure Trade with Resilient Supply Chains, can be accessed here.

About CED
The Committee for Economic Development (CED) is the public policy center of The Conference Board. The nonprofit, nonpartisan, business-led organization delivers well-researched analysis and reasoned solutions in the nation's interest. CED Trustees are chief executive officers and key executives of leading US companies who bring their unique experience to address today's pressing policy issues. Collectively they represent 30+ industries, over a trillion dollars in revenue, and over 4 million employees. www.ced.org 

About The Conference Board
The Conference Board is the member-driven think tank that delivers trusted insights for what's ahead. Founded in 1916, we are a non-partisan, not-for-profit entity holding 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt status in the United States.
www.conference-board.org

 

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ced-report-achieving-free-but-secure-trade-will-require-resilient-supply-chains-301589036.html

SOURCE Committee for Economic Development of The Conference Board (CED)

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Beloved mall retailer files Chapter 7 bankruptcy, will liquidate

The struggling chain has given up the fight and will close hundreds of stores around the world.

Published

on

It has been a brutal period for several popular retailers. The fallout from the covid pandemic and a challenging economic environment have pushed numerous chains into bankruptcy with Tuesday Morning, Christmas Tree Shops, and Bed Bath & Beyond all moving from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation.

In all three of those cases, the companies faced clear financial pressures that led to inventory problems and vendors demanding faster, or even upfront payment. That creates a sort of inevitability.

Related: Beloved retailer finds life after bankruptcy, new famous owner

When a retailer faces financial pressure it sets off a cycle where vendors become wary of selling them items. That leads to barren shelves and no ability for the chain to sell its way out of its financial problems. 

Once that happens bankruptcy generally becomes the only option. Sometimes that means a Chapter 11 filing which gives the company a chance to negotiate with its creditors. In some cases, deals can be worked out where vendors extend longer terms or even forgive some debts, and banks offer an extension of loan terms.

In other cases, new funding can be secured which assuages vendor concerns or the company might be taken over by its vendors. Sometimes, as was the case with David's Bridal, a new owner steps in, adds new money, and makes deals with creditors in order to give the company a new lease on life.

It's rare that a retailer moves directly into Chapter 7 bankruptcy and decides to liquidate without trying to find a new source of funding.

Mall traffic has varied depending upon the type of mall.

Image source: Getty Images

The Body Shop has bad news for customers  

The Body Shop has been in a very public fight for survival. Fears began when the company closed half of its locations in the United Kingdom. That was followed by a bankruptcy-style filing in Canada and an abrupt closure of its U.S. stores on March 4.

"The Canadian subsidiary of the global beauty and cosmetics brand announced it has started restructuring proceedings by filing a Notice of Intention (NOI) to Make a Proposal pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). In the same release, the company said that, as of March 1, 2024, The Body Shop US Limited has ceased operations," Chain Store Age reported.

A message on the company's U.S. website shared a simple message that does not appear to be the entire story.

"We're currently undergoing planned maintenance, but don't worry we're due to be back online soon."

That same message is still on the company's website, but a new filing makes it clear that the site is not down for maintenance, it's down for good.

The Body Shop files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy

While the future appeared bleak for The Body Shop, fans of the brand held out hope that a savior would step in. That's not going to be the case. 

The Body Shop filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States.

"The US arm of the ethical cosmetics group has ceased trading at its 50 outlets. On Saturday (March 9), it filed for Chapter 7 insolvency, under which assets are sold off to clear debts, putting about 400 jobs at risk including those in a distribution center that still holds millions of dollars worth of stock," The Guardian reported.

After its closure in the United States, the survival of the brand remains very much in doubt. About half of the chain's stores in the United Kingdom remain open along with its Australian stores. 

The future of those stores remains very much in doubt and the chain has shared that it needs new funding in order for them to continue operating.

The Body Shop did not respond to a request for comment from TheStreet.   

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super…

Published

on

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super Tuesday primaries have got it right. Barring cataclysmic changes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president in 2024.

(Left) President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 21, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump stands on stage during a campaign event at Big League Dreams Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 27, 2024. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; David Becker/Getty Images)

With Nikki Haley’s withdrawal, there will be no more significantly contested primaries or caucuses—the earliest both parties’ races have been over since something like the current primary-dominated system was put in place in 1972.

The primary results have spotlighted some of both nominees’ weaknesses.

Donald Trump lost high-income, high-educated constituencies, including the entire metro area—aka the Swamp. Many but by no means all Haley votes there were cast by Biden Democrats. Mr. Trump can’t afford to lose too many of the others in target states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Majorities and large minorities of voters in overwhelmingly Latino counties in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley and some in Houston voted against Joe Biden, and even more against Senate nominee Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas).

Returns from Hispanic precincts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts show the same thing. Mr. Biden can’t afford to lose too many Latino votes in target states like Arizona and Georgia.

When Mr. Trump rode down that escalator in 2015, commentators assumed he’d repel Latinos. Instead, Latino voters nationally, and especially the closest eyewitnesses of Biden’s open-border policy, have been trending heavily Republican.

High-income liberal Democrats may sport lawn signs proclaiming, “In this house, we believe ... no human is illegal.” The logical consequence of that belief is an open border. But modest-income folks in border counties know that flows of illegal immigrants result in disorder, disease, and crime.

There is plenty of impatience with increased disorder in election returns below the presidential level. Consider Los Angeles County, America’s largest county, with nearly 10 million people, more people than 40 of the 50 states. It voted 71 percent for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Current returns show county District Attorney George Gascon winning only 21 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan primary. He’ll apparently face Republican Nathan Hochman, a critic of his liberal policies, in November.

Gascon, elected after the May 2020 death of counterfeit-passing suspect George Floyd in Minneapolis, is one of many county prosecutors supported by billionaire George Soros. His policies include not charging juveniles as adults, not seeking higher penalties for gang membership or use of firearms, and bringing fewer misdemeanor cases.

The predictable result has been increased car thefts, burglaries, and personal robberies. Some 120 assistant district attorneys have left the office, and there’s a backlog of 10,000 unprosecuted cases.

More than a dozen other Soros-backed and similarly liberal prosecutors have faced strong opposition or have left office.

St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner resigned last May amid lawsuits seeking her removal, Milwaukee’s John Chisholm retired in January, and Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby was defeated in July 2022 and convicted of perjury in September 2023. Last November, Loudoun County, Virginia, voters (62 percent Biden) ousted liberal Buta Biberaj, who declined to prosecute a transgender student for assault, and in June 2022 voters in San Francisco (85 percent Biden) recalled famed radical Chesa Boudin.

Similarly, this Tuesday, voters in San Francisco passed ballot measures strengthening police powers and requiring treatment of drug-addicted welfare recipients.

In retrospect, it appears the Floyd video, appearing after three months of COVID-19 confinement, sparked a frenzied, even crazed reaction, especially among the highly educated and articulate. One fatal incident was seen as proof that America’s “systemic racism” was worse than ever and that police forces should be defunded and perhaps abolished.

2020 was “the year America went crazy,” I wrote in January 2021, a year in which police funding was actually cut by Democrats in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. A year in which young New York Times (NYT) staffers claimed they were endangered by the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) opinion article advocating calling in military forces if necessary to stop rioting, as had been done in Detroit in 1967 and Los Angeles in 1992. A craven NYT publisher even fired the editorial page editor for running the article.

Evidence of visible and tangible discontent with increasing violence and its consequences—barren and locked shelves in Manhattan chain drugstores, skyrocketing carjackings in Washington, D.C.—is as unmistakable in polls and election results as it is in daily life in large metropolitan areas. Maybe 2024 will turn out to be the year even liberal America stopped acting crazy.

Chaos and disorder work against incumbents, as they did in 1968 when Democrats saw their party’s popular vote fall from 61 percent to 43 percent.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The…

Published

on

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

Doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in Washington in a file image. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.

There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.

President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.

President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.

“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.

Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.

By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.

The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.

“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.

This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”

The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.

A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.

Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending