Bill Overview
Title: China Trade Relations Act of 2022
Description: 2022 This bill withdraws normal trade relations treatment from China and expands the bases of ineligibility for this treatment to include specified violations of human rights and other actions by China. Specifically, during any period in which China engages in specified activities (e.g., performing forced abortion or sterilization or operating concentration camps where people are held against their will) or does not comply with certain standards (1) products from China shall not be eligible to receive nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations), (2) China may not participate in any U.S. program that extends credits or credit guarantees or investment guarantees, and (3) the President may not conclude any commercial agreement with China.
Sponsors: Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by the China Trade Relations Act due to altered trade relations and economic impact
Estimated Size: 300000000
- The bill specifically addresses trade relations between the U.S. and China, impacting businesses, workers, and consumers involved in these international transactions.
- U.S. companies importing goods from China could face higher tariffs, impacting their operations and potentially leading to higher prices for consumers.
- Chinese exporters would be directly affected as their goods would lose preferential trade status, leading to potential economic impacts on manufacturing and related sectors.
- The restriction on China's participation in U.S. credit and investment guarantee programs could impact financial and business sectors hoping to engage in investments with China.
- Human rights organizations and activists would see a legislative acknowledgment of human rights violations, potentially leading to policy shifts.
Reasoning
- The China Trade Relations Act of 2022 has potential cascading effects on different sectors due to its focus on altering trade dynamics between the US and China.
- Budgeting constraints imply that the policy’s impact will be assessed over its financial sustainability and its coverage to the most affected groups like manufacturing and retail.
- Financial models suggest a redistribution of costs with potential price increases for consumers and adjustments in business strategies for US companies heavily reliant on Chinese imports.
- The diversity in the US population suggests mixed responses from those who may view the policy as a means to promote human rights, versus those focused on trade-offs involving economic impacts.
- Small businesses, particularly in retail, might face challenges with supply chain disruptions, necessitating adaptations or even closures in extreme cases.
Simulated Interviews
Automotive Parts Manufacturer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about the increased costs due to tariffs. My business could suffer if I'm unable to source affordable materials from China.
- I understand the human rights motivations behind the policy, but it's going to make our operations challenging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Tech Industry Worker (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about potential outsourcing challenges but if this policy means more jobs locally, it might be better in the long run.
- It's a tough call balancing economic concerns with ethical standards.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retail Buyer (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supply chain disruptions are a major risk; I'm worried how it will affect pricing and availability of products.
- It's crucial to have alternatives but not at the expense of skyrocketing prices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Farmer (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's a potential market loss if trade relations worsen, but it could lead to exploring other markets.
- I support the human rights aspect but worry about personal financial impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Human Rights Activist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act represents a step forward in international human rights policy.
- I hope that it will lead to broader recognition and reduction in human rights abuses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Oil Industry Analyst (Houston, TX)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might shift focus to domestic oil markets, presenting some new opportunities.
- There's a balance in market dynamics that could play favorably or not based on policy impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Apparel Company CEO (Miami, FL)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could severely disrupt our supply chains, requiring negotiations and new partnerships.
- It's critical to evaluate its long-term financial viability for businesses like ours.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Economist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might be an essential move in recalibrating ethical trade relations.
- Expecting shifts in market behaviors that could affect GDP marginally over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Logistics Coordinator (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We're preparing for disruptions but managing logistics in this new landscape will be challenging.
- Need to reassess risk management strategies around supply chains.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Import Export Business Owner (Newark, NJ)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy's imposition means increased tariffs and altered trading terms; feeling unsure about future prospects.
- Adapting business strategies will be inevitable but possibly costly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $700000000)
Year 2: $350000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $600000000)
Year 3: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $500000000)
Year 5: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $450000000)
Year 10: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $400000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $30000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill may prompt strategic shifts in global trade alignment affecting both U.S. importers and exporters.
- Human rights considerations are central to the legislation, but may have secondary economic consequences.
- Potential retaliatory measures by China could impact U.S. exporters, complicating the economic landscape.
- Shifts in trade policy might bring about long-term benefits in terms of adopting sustainable and ethically-sourced products.