Bill Overview
Title: Russia Trade and Investment Ban Act
Description: This bill requires the President to establish and maintain a total embargo on all trade with Russia, Crimea, and the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine. Additionally, the bill prohibits the purchase or sale (except for divestment purposes) of any publicly traded securities or related derivatives of entities incorporated in Russia, Crimea, or the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine, or their affiliates. The bill prohibits a U.S. person or person within the United States from evading or avoiding sanctions provided for by the bill.
Sponsors: Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in global trade or investment with Russia, Crimea, and the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine
Estimated Size: 35000000
- The bill proposes a total embargo on trade with Russia, Crimea, and parts of Ukraine, which directly affects entities involved in importing and exporting between these regions and the rest of the world.
- Companies and individuals who invest in Russian securities or derivatives will be impacted, particularly if they hold any investments that need to be divested.
- This will have cascading economic effects: entities within Russia, Crimea, and the specified Ukrainian regions will suffer from loss of markets and investment.
- The bill targets both U.S. citizens and entities as well as individuals or companies operating within the United States to comply with the embargo.
- Potential impacts on European and global trade partners that deal with Russian and Ukrainian markets, as secondary effects from shifting trade patterns and global market adjustments.
Reasoning
- The policy's immediate impact will be felt by those directly involved in trade or investment with Russia and the affected regions. However, its broader economic effects will diffuse across various sectors and populations, particularly in industries like energy, technology, and agriculture where trade dependencies might exist.
- Only a portion of the American population (an estimated 35 million) is directly impacted, due to factors like investment holdings and employment in related industries.
- This interview set examines a diverse range of U.S. demographics to provide a comprehensive view of the possible impacts of the policy, incorporating perspectives from directly affected individuals and broader ripple effects affecting secondary parties, such as consumers and indirect service providers.
Simulated Interviews
Energy Sector Executive (Houston, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The embargo will severely disrupt our operations, forcing us to find alternative suppliers which may increase costs.
- Our investments in Russian energy markets will have to be withdrawn, leading to immediate financial losses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Stock Market Data Analyst (San Francisco, California)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will create a lot of volatility in the market, affecting portfolios globally.
- While the firm has methods to manage risks, the immediate effect will be negative.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Logistics Coordinator (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We'll have to entirely revise our supply strategies, which could increase job stress and workload.
- Hopefully, new routes and partnerships can be developed quickly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Financial Advisor (New York, New York)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My concern is mainly about the loss of investments and the time it will take to divest.
- I'm hopeful that there will be some compensation, but it's unlikely.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Tech Industry Product Manager (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our company will feel some pressure in divesting from Russian tech assets and partnerships.
- The impact is not immediate but could affect future strategies and tech collaborations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Import/Export Business Owner (Miami, Florida)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While we don't trade directly with the regions involved, European supply chains could face disruptions.
- There's a general concern about the rising costs of goods and logistics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Fisheries Economist (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From a fisheries trade viewpoint, the policy poses significant shifts in trade patterns.
- The challenge will be economically viable substitutes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Defense Contractor Employee (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 36 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stability in the regions indirectly affects contract bids and operations.
- There might be an increased focus on local suppliers due to the geopolitical climate shift.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Graduate Student in International Relations (Baltimore, Maryland)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy increases research relevance and opportunities, possibly strengthening academic career prospects.
- Educational stress might increase due to focus on policy implications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Small Business Owner - Art Supplies (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's potential for raw material price volatility, which affects business stability.
- Long-term planning might be challenged due to uncertainty.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3000000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $4000000000)
Year 2: $3200000000 (Low: $2100000000, High: $4300000000)
Year 3: $3400000000 (Low: $2200000000, High: $4600000000)
Year 5: $3700000000 (Low: $2400000000, High: $5000000000)
Year 10: $4200000000 (Low: $2800000000, High: $5700000000)
Year 100: $5200000000 (Low: $3400000000, High: $7100000000)
Key Considerations
- Strong enforcement is necessary to prevent evasion and ensure compliance with the embargo, implying significant government efforts and resources.
- The impact on international relations, especially with Europe and other U.S. allies, may affect political and trade dynamics.
- The embargo might trigger retaliatory trade measures from Russia or impacted regions, influencing bilateral agreements and market conditions.