US Textile Trade Protectionism Intensified

< p > as early as 1789, the first temporary protective measure of the United States Congress was the import of gloves, < a target= "_blank" href= "http://www.91se91.com/" > cap < /a > a target= "_blank" href= "_blank" > "clothes" tax. At that time, the US economy was smaller, agriculture, "less", "less", "textile", "textile", "less", "clothing", "clothing", "clothing", "clothing", "clothing" production, representing the pillar industries of the United States.

< /p >

Today, more than two centuries later, the protectionism of textile trade in the United States has intensified in P.

The trading partners look forward to their eyes and look forward to gaining more opportunities with their joint efforts to create the "twenty-first Century trade agreement", but even for the closest partners, the United States will not show mercy.

< /p >

In the 224 years since the first Congress of the United States, trade protectionism in textiles and clothing has always been a feature of US trade policy. P

It controls the so-called "market confusion" by means of high tariffs, voluntary export restrictions and protective measures. In the past 30 years, the United States has been implementing import quotas, forcing the export market of the US market to comply with the "multi fibre import agreement", "anti-dumping and countervailing restrictions" and so on. It also specifically adopts a special safeguard mechanism for China's accession to the WTO (the mechanism also needs to extend the quota for three years), plus regulations such as "violation of the rules".

To meet the needs of US textile giants, they also formulated the complicated rules of origin in trade agreements, forcing importers to comply with them.

The campaign to protect the domestic textile industry and restrict imports has resulted in a large number of stringent rules.

The following is a brief description of textile trade protectionism to be understood in the context of TPP (p Pacific Partnership) negotiations.

< /p >

< p > though people say "textile and clothing" as one, they are very different industries.

Clothing production is a capital intensive industry, tailoring and sewing fine, rules and regulations are complex. Rich countries and regions such as the United States, Canada, the European Union, Hongkong, South Korea and Taiwan are of high quality. Other countries and regions such as the mainland, India, Turkey and Pakistan are also very wrong.

Textile is mainly used for clothing production, which is a labor-intensive industry, mainly including spinning and weaving, and dispersed in various developing countries all over the world.

Although there are still some clothing manufacturers in the United States, they are mainly military uniform companies, which are still protected by the terms "buy American goods".

New York and Losangeles still have smaller organizations serving high-end fashion market, but most American apparel manufacturers are gradually pferring their factories to Mexico, Caribbean and Central American countries to earn high profits, and then allow them to enjoy preferential tariff treatment.

All of these indicate that the US textile trade protection policy has a long history.

< /p >

< p > < strong > < a > href= > http://www.91se91.com/news/index_s.asp > > market > /a > protection from harm and harm to oneself. < /strong > /p >

< p > if the United States does not have the clothing industry, everyone will think that the abolition of import tariffs is reasonable, which will bring tangible benefits to everyone who needs clothes.

However, up to now, the United States still maintains a higher tariff on clothing.

In reviewing the US trade policy recently, WTO found that for many years, the United States has not changed its import tariff protection.

Although the total tariffs are relatively low, there are still a large number of trade goods entering the United States through zero tax or duty free, but tariffs on textile and garment industry have always been the highest in history.

If you take anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties on imported timber, steel, cement, electrical appliances, flooring, paint, nails and other construction materials, you will clearly see that the US import restrictions are mainly on textile, clothing, food and daily necessities.

From this point of view, it is the most unfavorable to the low-income group in the United States.

< /p >

< p > imagine, in 2012, the average tariff of all imported goods in the United States was 4.7%, which is the average import tariff charged to 10 thousand and 500 kinds of imported goods.

Last year, however, the real import tax rate in the United States was only 1.3%, which proved that the United States had more or less import tariffs on imported products.

In 2012, some importing American textile and clothing paid 32% of the total tariff related tariffs. The US textile industry insisted on reducing the competitiveness of foreign garment producers by means of tariffs and promoting more advantages of locally produced textiles.

High tax rates are commonly used for all "normal trade relations" partners.

But if you want to be a low tariff or completely exempt trade agreement partner, the premise is that clothing, including textiles, should be produced in countries that sign specific agreements, such as Latin American countries.

In fact, this is meaningless to the American clothing industry.

< /p >

In the TPP negotiations, as in most of the existing trade agreements and concessionary plans, the United States adheres to the so-called "yarn promotion" principle of origin, extending the preferential treatment to the special free trade agreement or preferential area that it has signed with other countries in the P negotiations.

From weaving yarn and fiber spinning to garment industry, this is true.

Textiles and clothing, such as those from China and Vietnam, have to pay higher tariffs and make them less competitive. They also greatly restrict the competitiveness of the international trade in clothing in the United States, and make the textiles in the US market more expensive than those in China, India, South Korea or other non TPP countries. This measure has done harm to the interests of the American consumers.

< /p >

< p > < strong > let consumers subsidize weavers /strong < /p >

< p > the conditional access system of textile and apparel in the United States has fundamentally eliminated the market competition, so that the us a href= "http://www.91se91.com/news/index_c.asp" > textile > /a > export has to further raise the price. This offset the anticipated benefits of importers to varying degrees, while the textile weave of the United States has not competed with the world's textile producers in terms of quality and price. The purpose is only to comply with the hidden rules of the national textile and garment industry.

Under the "yarn promotion" rule, it is the domestic textile producers who make profits from the clothing trade, not the domestic clothing consumers.

< /p >

Under the rule, American textile and garment producers can take the cost from production, R & D and other production processes to the White House for "political treatment", while they are constantly selling the fallacy, surviving "deep water" and being smokled by imports. "P"

Textile and clothing are highly complex industries. There are about 9000 enterprises in the United States, but the market is mainly controlled by the top 50 enterprises in China. They occupy 60% of the market share, while garment manufacturers account for only 16% of the textile industry.

Even if the industry really loses trade competition under the control of "yarn promotion", it has many other sources of income.

Trade protectionism has prompted mothers in the United States to consider frugal food consumption, reduce consumption and subsidize their textile producers with limited money to support their families.

< /p >

The negotiation between P and 11 Pacific Rim countries to create a so-called "twenty-first Century trade agreement" may lead to another agreement, that is, how to make Americans more free to trade and choose service targets.

However, if the a href= "http://www.91se91.com/news/index_p.asp" > US < /a > the government continues to follow the beaten track and overly favours the domestic textile industry, then it can only prove that trade protection is at an end.

< /p >