The Real Evil Of Globalization

Globalization has destroyed America- but, maybe, not quite how you think.

The usual attack on globalization’s is that it sent jobs- American jobs- manufacturing and services- to other countries; and the attacks are valid- though there are proponents of globalization who can show the benefits of it.

But, globalization has caused prices to go lower and lower, as people who are willing to work for less and less, are located.

As prices go down, volume, over margin, becomes vital. Volume requires scale. As companies scale, small companies- and any potential newcomers to an industry- die.

Monopolies, or effective monopolies, or duopolies, form, pushing prices (and wages) downward.

As a result, competition, and entrepreneurship, decline. It just becomes way too hard and way too expensive to compete in an industry, or to launch a new product- or to develop one to sell to the few remaining distribution outlets- or to fight any knock-offs in court.

America will soon be comprised only of many large companies … and their employees. There will be room for some small businesses that compete on service … which means business owners will have to work day and night – on a greater level than ever- to stay independent. And the key tasks for employees of large companies will be routine tasks (such as customer service) and back-end technological work.

In other words- a nation of boring jobs and boring people with self driving cars, moving sidewalks, silver jumpsuits we all will wear- and a robotic existence.

All of this due to companies- and consumers- seeking the lowest prices.

Advertisements
Neil-Siskind-lawyer-picture

The Shifted Path of Capital Principle- by NEIL SISKIND

I’ve developed “The Shifted Path of Capital Principle” to explain that, in the modern U.S. economy, capital often flows from the Fed, to banks, and then directly into assets- as opposed to moving from the Fed, to banks, and into the broader economy through investments by businesses in their respective operations and through income growth, as in prior U.S. economies and ages- which leads to potentially-dangerous asset inflation, without more general economy-wide inflationary pressures, and even with economy-wide deflation.

In the old economy (or, the Industrial Age), assets such as homes and stock prices were beneficiaries of industry and inventiveness, hard labor, and prosperity. These factors, or characteristics, led to earnings growth for companies, and wage growth and income growth for employees and executives, and, in turn, led to higher stock prices for companies and rising home demand from, and rising home prices for, employees and consumers. This path of capital, from business investment and growth outward to the larger economy, also led to higher product prices, as demand grew, and as U.S. labor was finite. Eventually, inflation set-in, interest rates increased, and the economy slowed. Stock prices would reflect earnings declines (or earnings growth, if company pricing-power permitted for price increases to outpace inflation), and home prices would level-off or decline as interest rates rose and as demand slowed. Eventually, as interest rates declined, a new up-cycle in the economy would begin.

In the modern economy (or, the digital economy), dollars flow more directly from the Fed into assets. Dollars flow directly from the Fed to banks, and then into homes which are used as generators of income and profit, rather than as places to live as the result of employment, income growth, and economic prosperity, as has, historically, been the norm. Houses and apartments become trading vehicles and short-term income generators. On the equities side, dollar denominated debt is incurred by companies to buy their own company stock to push up the price and their EPS. This flow of debt capital directly into stocks- instead of into companies’ operations, where it leads to earnings growth through productivity, ingenuity, and capex, resulting in sales, pricing power, and stock price growth- works to “directly” (rather than through a more indirect “trickle through”) and, some might say, “artificially”, cause stock prices to rise, irrespective of any growth in earnings, or even in revenues.

At the same time as inexpensive debt capital is being used by businesses and investors to inflate assets, it’s also being used by businesses to deflate prices and wages.

The combination of cheap debt and a higher stock price is used by companies to increase “scale” through heightened marketing and acquisitions. The scale allows for lower input costs, and, thus, lower consumer prices, and lower wages as competition declines. The scale provides for higher profits, due to a greater industry presence and more revenues driven by size and low prices, and fewer competitors. Big companies grow bigger, and small competitors have lesser and lesser abilities to compete because technology causes consumers to care less about location, convenience, and relationship than about price, alone.

All of the above, taken together, means that the path of capital leads to less price and wage inflation, but more investment-oriented, or even risk-oriented uses of capital, as capital flows directly from the Fed to banks, and from banks to assets- instead of into capex, innovation, productivity, and wage growth.

In the modern economy, a mature economic cycle means less price and wage pressures, and more asset bubbles and financial imbalances from misallocations of cheap credit. As the Fed looks at accepted economic indicators to evaluate inflationary pressures, it misreads signals to indicate low risk (because of low price inflation), and then keeps rates too low for too long, as asset imbalance grow- until it’s too late to ease out of the situation or achieve a soft landing.

Flat and inverted yield curves are misread to only reflect low inflation expectations (including misreading flat and inverted curves to reflect low term premiums due solely to low inflation expectations) rather than portending asset crashes, and investors’ expectations of eventual slower or negative growth.

When the Fed does decide to act because it sees credit and asset bubble risks, this divergence in how debt capital has affected prices (to cause product and wage de-flation vs. asset in-flation) puts the Fed into no-win scenarios. By raising interest rates where economic growth and inflation are muted, but where assets grow pricey, causes public and political outrage because the Fed is deflating assets that have been the engine of the economy (such as real estate) while pushing already low growth and low inflation even lower. The Fed’s attempts to limit systemic risk from asset risk, where the Fed has let asset bubbles fester, is difficult where growth and inflation are muted.

Business cycles don’t die of old age. The Fed often kills them. In the modern economy, if the Fed fails to raise interest rates (by choice or by external pressures), a business cycle will still come to an end, only in a different manner- despite investors’ preferring not to recognize this. If growth and inflation are low and the Fed maintains low interest rates to extend a business cycle, asset prices and debt will become inflated, and, instead of an economic slowdown, we have asset crashes and a financial crisis, which can be triggered by any variety of events.

One way or another, sooner or later, a business cycle ends.

Recommendations for achieving maximum financial stability-

Because of the shifted path of capital, the Fed’s assumptions about, and regular and standard measurements of financial risks to the general public and to the financial system, should also shift:

The shifted path of capital in the modern economy must be understood, embraced, and recognized at earlier stages of an economic cycle so that assets, and entire economies and financial systems, don’t have to be compromised by interest rate hikes to control asset prices (in economies which do not, otherwise, call for rate hikes due to low growth and/or low inflation), resulting in significant asset price crashes, following significant asset price inflation and misuses of debt capital that were permitted to occur for too long.

Because of the shifted path of capital, legislators should better understand the path of capital once it leaves the Treasury, and the reason for the path, and create laws and policies that better protect the public and the financial system in this new economic paradigm, or else take necessary legislative measures to reverse the trajectory of this modern paradigm:

Mere awareness of and de-risking from the shift in the path of capital through the economy earlier-on in cycles (through the Fed’s early identification of pockets of instability and then raising of interest rates in response) is not enough, especially since it’s unrealistic to expect the Fed to be able to time monetary policy precisely enough, and since such a policy, alone, would significantly shorten business cycles. Legislators and policy makers must understand the underlying reasons for the shift, where liquidity provided by the Fed, now, very often bypasses what is believed to be supply side stimuli- businesses, and, in particular, businesses’ investments in their operations (as opposed to in their stocks)- and goes directly into assets and asset growth activities, allowing for stock prices to rise, even when earnings don’t, and allowing deflation to take hold where only the largest companies that scale the fastest and the largest by acquiring other smaller assets in their respective industries, and, then, achieving the lowest prices and downward wage pressures from less competition, can survive, and, on the consumer side, allowing for (or causing) the cost of shelter to detach from incomes. With that understanding, legislators must create new federal legislation to maximize more long-term sustainable growth without the constant risk of asset bubbles followed by asset crashes from the Fed tightening on monetary policy to control asset and credit bubbles, while, otherwise, preferring to keep rates low to encourage economic expansion. New legislation should include changes to the Fed’s mandates, and changes to the Fed’s policies, tools, and the Fed’s standards of measurements of economic risks from low interest rates and liquidity (such as wage inflation, which may be slow to come, if ever, even as assets grow out of control), and changes to bank regulations; or else we have to understand the underlying economic reasons for the shift, and, if the shift is deemed to be a net-negative evolution of our economy, attempt to use legislation and regulations to have the root causes of the shift minimized or reversed by creating changes to investor, borrower, and bank incentives, and to make structural changes to the economy.

 

Deal Or No Deal?: There Will Be No China “Trade Agreement”- By NEIL SISKIND

If you’re making certain business and investment decisions with the hopes and expectations of a U.S.-China trade agreement, I would urge you to curb our enthusiasm as follows:

1. We have never had a “trade agreement” with China. It’s not like NAFTA, where we have to replace a prior trade agreement. The “agreement” is this: If you stop violating international laws and accepted global trade practices, and you can regain access to our market, without tariffs.

It’s no different than the trade agreement offered for the past year, which China has refused. We won’t be executing any “trade agreement” as you know one- meaning, a preferential or free trade agreement between or among parties in order to reduce (or eliminate) tariffs, quotas, and other trade restrictions on items traded between the signatories; where both, or multiple countries, loosen their trade restrictions to help out businesses so that they can prosper better between the different countries. Under this definition, no bilateral, mutual, trade agreement will happen- at least not anytime soon.

Any trade understanding (or agreement to try to agree someday) between the parties will be a list of terms and requirements of China in order for it get U.S. market access, sans tariffs- which may include immediate removal of tariffs on U.S. goods and purchases of more U.S. products. It will be a unilateral obligation- not a “trade agreement”.

2. The term “trade war” over-simplifies this dispute. This dispute’s inceptions was not one nation’s implementation of tariffs and barriers, or the use of subsidies or dumping, to protect a market or industry, followed by another nation’s similar response. China has been operating in an unacceptable manner in contravention of global practices and acceptable legal and commercial standards for many ways. China’s practices are not just to protect a product or an industry, but the use of a mercantile approach, and illegal activity, and oppressive terms, to gain global power, to which the U.S. has- finally- responded. That’s more than a trade war and tit-for-tat tariffs. Our tariffs on China goods are more like sanctions for practices and behaviors contrary to accepted global trade. Theft, corporate espionage, economy-wide subsidies, forced technology transfers, forced joint ventures- things that go beyond tariffs or trade barriers are at play. There are barriers to operating in the Chinese markets that affect all aspects of commerce, law, trade, and monetary policy. When you look at the situation through this lense, you see why we do not have a typical “trade war” and why we can’t expect a typical, or easy, or immediate, resolution, but, rather a solution that is more multifaceted and multidimensional, and multi-year, in nature.

3. Allies enter into trade agreements to expand and guaranty free trade relationships. Adversaries do not enter into trade agreements as a way to resolve animosities and differences. Trade agreement, like any other agreements, require signatures- but also mutual respect and trust.

4. A temporary deal, or a deal with conditions or contingencies, is not a “trade agreement”. I suspect there will be a tariff deal with China where we will lower our impending 25% rate on China’s goods to 10% or 15% with a time frame for China to alter its practices, while China removes tariffs on our goods- particularly, any retaliatory tariffs- and makes an agreed amount of purchases of U.S. products. The material and substantive differences between a “deal on trade” and a “trade agreement” is the permanence, or lack thereof, of terms. There can be no permanence, and, thus, no certainty for businesses (and for investors) if a deal has numerous qualifications and deadlines. That is not a trade agreement- that is an agreement to maybe agree in finality upon the occurrence of complex contingencies. A resolution of the trade war is not just about sales to China; that would just be a stop-gap measure for China. It’s about “finality”, “certainty”, and clear rules of engagement, such that supply-side business planning and investment that stimulates economic growth is incented and can flourish.

Is it just semantics? No. If the Trump administration announces a “deal” has been reached, the first question is:

Does China have to do anything to keep the tariff rate from rising? If the answer is “yes” (and the list is long), then it’s not a trade agreement- and it’s uncertain.

The core differences between a “trade agreement” (and of any agreement) and a less valuable “working structure” or “agreement with conditions”: “the essence of finality” and “a reasonable certainty of terms over time”.

A trade agreement has tariff rates (or zero rates) that are fixed and final (unless one party violates their tariff rate or manipulates the sale(s) of a category of products or of an industry to benefit its own countries’ companies and/or industries). The tariffs in a “trade agreement” are not contingent on one party making structural political, legal, and economic changes to the satisfaction of the other. Such conditions, complexities, contingencies, cause A lack of definiteness and lack of clarity in the relationship.

You can call it an “agreement” you can call it a “deal”. Whatever it’s called, if it’s not “final”, or “certain”, and if it’s filled with conditions and contingencies- it’s not valuable to a company or to an economy.

From a legal perspective, a promise for a promise creates a binding agreement. But, from a business planning perspective, without “finality” and “certainty”, can it really be said that a useful deal has been made, one upon which accurate business investments, capex, and quantifiable capital risks can occur?

If an announcement comes from the Trump administration that a “deal” has been reached- look beyond the headline print … and read the fine print.

5. If China really wants a trade agreement, and truly plans to change, why show up at the G20 entirely empty-handed?

6. What’s past is prologue. Since the G20, China has done nothing to show good faith or to gain our trust or show any intention to change:

It has not passed a law to stop its people from mailing Fentanyl to Americans, as promised.

It agreed to implement only a “temporary” auto tariff reduction, and only back to the level where it already wrongly was- and hasn’t even done it.

And, oh … yes …  China bought some edamame from us.

Are these the bases for all our hopes?

7. The more U.S. products that China agrees to purchase, the more persuaded I am that they want to avoid other non-tariff related topics or changes. China’s leaders no doubt believe that if they target the Trump administration’s financial sensibilities, they can avoid more significant legal and political changes.

8. I take President Xi Jinping’s recent comment related to nothing interfering with its determined policy on Taiwan, as a strong warning to the U.S. “Foreign interference in China’s Taiwan reunification issue is intolerable”, Xi said. There are more than tariff and economic issues separating the parties, including power and influence over North Korea.

9. President Trump has not exactly been solidifying agreements during his presidency: N. Korea, China auto tariffs and Fentanyl laws, health care reform, USMCA finalization, the govt. shutdown … this president’s track record for finalizing agreements is unimpressive. We are still yet to see if China will agree to any or many of the administrations requirements.

 

Even if China completely capitulates, in many ways, there still will be no trade agreement.  Unless the President completely abandons his concerns and principles on China’s trade practices and economic structure, China will have to pay tariffs for access to our market until new policies and behaviors begin and are verified with benchmarks, standards, and inspections. Changed practices, especially on allowing foreign ownership in all industries, can only be established through a pattern of many transactions, which, by definition, will require time.

Some people think this is now about optics– and any sort of positive announcement on the relationship and the resulting good optics will be enough for the markets and for America. Those people would be wrong. This is about revenues and margins and the economy.  Optics won’t help with business planning and visibility. Stocks can never do well over time without good earnings- which require reasonable levels of visibility into costs, pricing, and supply chain management issues. Sure, stocks might rally on news of “an agreement to maybe one day agree” … but earnings will be the ultimate decider. Anything other than a binary approach to either raise tariffs to a fixed long-term rate (at least until all required changes are made), or to totally forego any tariffs on China in exchange for certain immediate actions, will cause a continued lack of certainty and visibility for businesses.

Keep two thing in mind when your optimism tells you that we may soon have a good trade agreement with China:

First, we still haven’t even been able to finalize a trade agreement with Canada!

Second, the Trump administration can’t even get an agreement on international issues (immigration) with the Democrat Party … but you’re banking on one being reached with the Communist Party?

Anything less than a binary result- either a permanent tariff rate, or permanent removal of tariffs, means that in our relationship with China, uncertainty … is for certain.

 

 

____________________________

endnote

China made an enormous miscalculation with retaliatory tariffs to our retaliatory tariffs. Our initial tariffs were in retaliation to years of unfair and illegal trade practices by China, which we have been complaining about for decades, through several presidential administrations. For China to retaliate to our tariffs for activities and practices that we explained and complained were unfair, and to which we were retaliating, was an act of complete disregard for international relations, international law, international practices, and for the interests or concerns of any other nation except for its own. Rather than address our retaliatory tariffs, China chose to challenge us, attempt to one-up us, antagonize us, and create a riff in relations, with the goal of continuing its practices of IP theft, corporate espionage, and protectionism, and ransacking our technological innovations; and China’s economy is paying a price for its leaders’ arrogance and decision to agitate an enemy, rather than cooperate with the world. Perhaps the Chinese leadership needs to re-read Sun Tzu’s advice in Art of War about understanding their enemy- and themselves. Or perhaps, in the long run, China will prevail in their long-term ambitions. Only time will tell. After all, Sun Tzu’s strategies are long-term ones that are grounded in fortitude … and patience.

There Will Be No China Trade Deal!- by NEIL SISKIND

First of all, we never had a China trade deal in the past. It’s not like NAFTA, where we need to replace something that we have. We don’t need a “trade deal” with China. The “deal” is: “Stop breaking the law and defying international trade rules and practices, and then we will accept your products without tariffs”. That is the “deal”. We are not signing anything.

Moreover, China has to go first. We will not be providing access to our market without tariffs to help China keep growing until we see changes in important behaviors- which will take months- really, years. We’re not going to allow China to get its footing back and back on its path of world conquest just to find out that it isn’t doing what it promised- again. How about: “No trust and verify”.

There will be no China “trade deal”. If anything, we will be in a military conflict with China in the next few months over the Taiwan issue.

 

Neil S. Siskind, Esq., President
The Siskind Law Firm
Tel: 646.530.0006

Neil Siskind is the Founder & Chairman of The Fatherhood Assignment
Neil-Siskind-photo
Learn more at:  http://www.neil-siskind-the-fatherhood-assignment.org/

Neil Siskind is the Conservator of the Neil S. Siskind Nature Preserve
Neil-Siskind-Picture

The Neil S. Siskind Nature Preserve is over 8 acres of environmentally-pristine waterfront land in a magnificent setting along New York’s majestic Hudson River. The Preserve includes a variety of species of animal and plant life, and is a precious example of the thoughtful maintenance of New York’s priceless open spaces. The land’s uses are limited to outdoor recreation such as hiking and climbing, and the study of ecology, nature and land use. The Neil S. Siskind Nature Preserve allows for the intelligent contemplation of our valuable natural resources and the most effective ways to maximize them and keep them protected.

Neil Siskind, Founder, “National Fatherhood Day” – March 29th

Neil-Siskind-pics
To encourage recognition of the needs of boys and girls who are living without fathers or father-figures in their lives.

Read about the non-profits and charities whose missions Neil Siskind supports and promotes: www.neilsiskindsupports.com
Caring is Free®

You can read what clients and associates say about Neil Siskind at: http://siskindlawfirm.com/neil-siskind-bio/.

Neil Siskind’s Volunteer Work:

– Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Volunteer

– Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, My Fundraiser- Help Neil Siskindhelp children with cancer to be more comfortable: http://mskcc.convio.net/site/TR?px=3182108&fr_id=2632&pg=personal

– Make-A Wish Foundation- Help Neil Siskind make sick children’s wishes come true by creating your own fundraiser: Neil-Siskind/Help-Make-A-Child-Smile.htm

– DonorsChoose.org- Donate to one of my needy public classrooms: http://www.donorschoose.org/NeilSiskindGiving

– Champion Children– We seek to inspire people through stories of children who have overcome challenges: http://siskindlawfirm.com/neil-siskind-champion-children/


Neil Siskind’s Pro Bono
 Work:

– Saving Senior Citizens- Protecting New York’s senior citizens from fraud and financial abuse www.savingseniorcitizens.com

– Senior FreeStart Business– Pro Bono: We seek to help put senior citizens in the right direction so that they can face the challenges of the modern economy: http://siskindlawfirm.com/free-start-business/

– Veteran FreeStart Business– Pro Bono: We seek to help put Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans in the right direction so that they can face the challenges of the modern economy: http://siskindlawfirm.com/free-start-business/

– In development: The Neil S. Siskind School of Hope: A free school to teach inner-city youths the skills of entrepreneurship and importance of economic self-sufficiency.

Neil Siskind’s Government Work:

– Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, Boston, MA, 1994, Intern
– Office of Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Newington, CT, 1992, Intern
– Hartford County Department of Probation, Hartford, CT, 1991, Intern

Neil Siskind’s Community Assistance:

Financed & operated a legal clinic providing low-cost legal services to struggling Long Islanders during the recession to help clients resolve debt, organize finances, and launch new businesses.

Neil Siskind’s Professional Curriculum Vitae: http://neilsiskind.com/

Sponsored Advertisements

Inventors, IP Owners, Manufacturers
Learn How To Bring Products To Market And To Expand Your Distribution Channels
The Complete Guide To The Ways To Manufacture & Sell Your Products

 

 

Trade: China Is Ruining The World- by NEIL SISKIND

The U.S. did nothing wrong to China. China has had years of protectionism, mercantilism, and illegal behaviors, and has refused and declined to abide by international expectations, laws, and activities related to trade, and has failed to allow fair access to its market.

The U.S. responded (finally) to these protectionist and illegal activities, with tariffs.

China should have stopped there, and started negotiating with us.

This would have been difficult enough for China.

But, instead, it chose to retaliate to our retaliation to their protectionist, illegal, and mercantile activities (after many years of patience on our part)- which showed the world what China really is- a bad actor on the global stage that is just looking for power and trouble.

And now they are starting even more trouble by asserting power over Taiwan.

China is a troublemaker nation. It has no respect for national autonomy- except for its own- and has no respect for law, human rights, being a member of a global community- or anything right or just. It deserves its recent decline- and we are right to stand strong.

China should never have retaliated to our initial tariffs. It was arrogant, greedy, short-sighted, and detrimental to its own goals in all respects- and harmful to world peace.

 

Neil S. Siskind, Esq., President
The Siskind Law Firm
Tel: 646.530.0006

Neil Siskind is the Founder & Chairman of The Fatherhood Assignment
Neil-Siskind-photo
Learn more at:  http://www.neil-siskind-the-fatherhood-assignment.org/

Neil Siskind is the Conservator of the Neil S. Siskind Nature Preserve
Neil-Siskind-Picture

The Neil S. Siskind Nature Preserve is over 8 acres of environmentally-pristine waterfront land in a magnificent setting along New York’s majestic Hudson River. The Preserve includes a variety of species of animal and plant life, and is a precious example of the thoughtful maintenance of New York’s priceless open spaces. The land’s uses are limited to outdoor recreation such as hiking and climbing, and the study of ecology, nature and land use. The Neil S. Siskind Nature Preserve allows for the intelligent contemplation of our valuable natural resources and the most effective ways to maximize them and keep them protected.

Neil Siskind, Founder, “National Fatherhood Day” – March 29th

Neil-Siskind-pics
To encourage recognition of the needs of boys and girls who are living without fathers or father-figures in their lives.

Read about the non-profits and charities whose missions Neil Siskind supports and promotes: www.neilsiskindsupports.com
Caring is Free®

You can read what clients and associates say about Neil Siskind at: http://siskindlawfirm.com/neil-siskind-bio/.

Neil Siskind’s Volunteer Work:

– Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Volunteer

– Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, My Fundraiser- Help Neil Siskindhelp children with cancer to be more comfortable: http://mskcc.convio.net/site/TR?px=3182108&fr_id=2632&pg=personal

– Make-A Wish Foundation- Help Neil Siskind make sick children’s wishes come true by creating your own fundraiser: Neil-Siskind/Help-Make-A-Child-Smile.htm

– DonorsChoose.org- Donate to one of my needy public classrooms: http://www.donorschoose.org/NeilSiskindGiving

– Champion Children– We seek to inspire people through stories of children who have overcome challenges: http://siskindlawfirm.com/neil-siskind-champion-children/


Neil Siskind’s Pro Bono
 Work:

– Saving Senior Citizens- Protecting New York’s senior citizens from fraud and financial abuse www.savingseniorcitizens.com

– Senior FreeStart Business– Pro Bono: We seek to help put senior citizens in the right direction so that they can face the challenges of the modern economy: http://siskindlawfirm.com/free-start-business/

– Veteran FreeStart Business– Pro Bono: We seek to help put Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans in the right direction so that they can face the challenges of the modern economy: http://siskindlawfirm.com/free-start-business/

– In development: The Neil S. Siskind School of Hope: A free school to teach inner-city youths the skills of entrepreneurship and importance of economic self-sufficiency.

Neil Siskind’s Government Work:

– Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, Boston, MA, 1994, Intern
– Office of Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Newington, CT, 1992, Intern
– Hartford County Department of Probation, Hartford, CT, 1991, Intern

Neil Siskind’s Community Assistance:

Financed & operated a legal clinic providing low-cost legal services to struggling Long Islanders during the recession to help clients resolve debt, organize finances, and launch new businesses.

Neil Siskind’s Professional Curriculum Vitae: http://neilsiskind.com/

Sponsored Advertisements

Inventors, IP Owners, Manufacturers
Learn How To Bring Products To Market And To Expand Your Distribution Channels
The Complete Guide To The Ways To Manufacture & Sell Your Products