Monthly Archives: May 2020

Expanding Its Economic War

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China is expanding the economic war it’s been waging against the US to include an important American ally and friend in the Pacific: Australia.

China has blacklisted four red-meat-processing plants in Australia, suspending beef imports from them.
…
According to one analyst interviewed by national broadcaster ABC, the three plants [in Queensland] combined produce some 35% of beef exports to China, Australia’s largest trading partner.

People’s Republic of China Ambassador to Australia Cheng Jingye, in April:

Maybe the ordinary people will say “Why should we drink Australian wine? Eat Australian beef?”

The move comes as Australia calls for an investigation into the PRC’s role in its Wuhan Virus breakout and rapid spread to the rest of the world.

This is a war that we, and our Aussie friends (and the EU, should that entity find the courage), need to prosecute zealously to a strongly favorable conclusion. Japan and the Republic of Korea need to be ready to join the effort: the PRC will turn on them next.

The PRC, this Warring State, cannot be allowed to succeed in its economic destruction attempts or its threats of same. Crushing the bully also will prove favorable for the Republic of China, and it will prove beneficial for other nations trying to break away from the PRC, including in particular Vietnam.

Economic Recovery Post-Wuhan Virus

Posted on by
Reply

Paul Hannon and Saabira Chaudhuri wonder, in their Wall Street Journal piece, whether we’ll have the V-shaped recovery that President Donald Trump confidently predicts, or whether we’ll have a swoosh-shaped recovery a la the Panic of 2008 recovery. They don’t, though, seem to recognize key differences between the two situations, beginning with the underlying causes of the two dislocations.

The Panic was driven by economics: a credit crunch. The present situation is created by a Government-mandated closure of our economy in response to the rapid spread of the Wuhan Virus and its perceived danger; economics has nothing to do with it.

Recoveries from these also will be driven by entirely differing responses, as well.

The Panic of 2008 had a swoosh-shaped recovery because Obama’s regulatory environment inhibited recovery with its excessive and excessively micromanaging regulations, which produced the slowest post-recession recovery since WWII.

Whether the recovery from the Wuhan Virus situation and its associated government-mandated turnoff of our economy will be V-shaped or swoosh-shaped is yet to be seen, and its shape will be heavily dependent on how timid employees and employers are about reopening and consumers are about going out and…consuming.

The present recovery also will be heavily influenced by Progressive-Democrat governors standing in the way of reopening and recovery with their excessive and excessively long lockdown diktats.

The Ugliness of the Progressive-Democrat Patriarchy

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden has spoken. That’s the end of the story. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) has patted Tara Reade on her pretty little head, said “There, there,” and announced that

Now I’ve heard Joe Biden’s explanation. I think it’s sufficient[.]

The grande dame of the Progressive-Democratic Party, California Senator Dianne Feinstein, is on board, too.

I don’t know this person at all who has made the allegations. She [Tara Reade] came out of nowhere. Where has she been all these years? He was vice president.

Biden was Vice President; therefore he could do no wrong. Where has Reade been all these years? Where had Christine Blasey Ford been all those years, before Feinstein dragged her out into the open and viciously went after Brett Kavanaugh? Oh, wait—that’s different: Kavanaugh was never Vice President. Or a Progressive-Democrat.

This is the true color of Progressive-Democrats and of their Party. Women aren’t human beings; they’re just tools to be slapped down on the work bench to produce talking points and votes whenever those tools become useful.

Believe women only when it’s convenient to the Left’s patriarchy.

It isn’t #MeToo; it’s #YouTooMaybe.

It’s disgusting.

Reducing Investments

Posted on by
Reply

The Federal government is leading by example in withdrawing taxpayer dollars from People’s Republic of China businesses.

National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow and National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien have sent a letter (which was up on Scribd, but which has since been removed) to Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia instructing him to not allow Federal retirement funds—taxpayer dollars—to be invested in shares of stock in PRC businesses.

Scalia then relayed those instructions to Michael Kennedy, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Chairman. Scalia instructed Kennedy to reverse the board’s decision to move the TSP’s International Stock Index Investment Fund investments to match an international index that would explicitly include PRC companies in the mix.

Scalia noted a prior bipartisan group of Senators’ request that the management board not move to invest in entities that

include those involved in military activities, espionage, and human rights abuses by the Chinese government.

However, in response to the Senators’ request,

the Board declined to reverse the decision.

Scalia also noted the additional concerns carried in the O’Brien/Kudlow letter to him:

…risks to investors resulting from inadequate investor disclosures and protections under Chinese law…this investment risk is augmented by the Chinese government’s concealment of critical information concerning the novel coronavirus, which exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic and, they note, materially increases the risk that Chinese companies will be subject to sanctions or boycotts.

And he emphasized the concerns provided in Scalia’s to him:

Several of the companies listed on the [new index] arm the People’s Liberation Army, provide equipment that is used to oppress China’s religious minorities, and have violated US sanctions by engaging in economic activity with Iran and North Korea.

It’s about time, too.

Off-Books Lending in the People’s Republic of China

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China may be approaching a problem with off-books lending as its economy—restarting though it is—still is stumbling badly, which coupled with the government’s attempts to rein in debt creation generally, is making it difficult for businesses and individuals to obtain credit.

Off-balance-sheet entities are selling bonds to finance projects such as investing in warehouses, expanding underground metro networks, building data centers or renovating shantytowns.

Such debts, though, afford government at any level little direct oversight—which the PRC government levels especially desire—and they have often fed wasteful spending.

And

In all, borrowings by such local-financing vehicles make up about 9.5% of China’s total yuan bonds outstanding….

That’s a lot of hidden debt. To give some concreteness to such debt, in just the first four months of this year, the “local government financing vehicles” sector of such lending produced 1.46 trillion yuan ($206 billion).

These off-books lending efforts, though, have a more serious shortcoming than just lack of control by a controlling government: there is little recourse when borrowers default on the loans. Not all of those 9.5% will be defaulted on, but if even a third of those borrowings fail, that would be an even more severe hit to the PRC’s economy.

In contrast, crowdfunding—the process where an individual or private enterprise advertises a venture on a Web site and individual citizens voluntarily commit their own dollars to the project via that site—in the US raised almost $14 billion in voluntary cash payments via just four such Web sites—6.7% of that PRC hidden-debt financing.

Crowdfunding also has a distinct advantage over borrowing, especially when the borrowing is off the books of the lender: default is irrelevant; crowdfunding disburses only the cash actually raised. Think what a population an order of magnitude larger than ours could do with crowdfunding.

Fat chance, though, a government so desperate to maintain microcontrol over every individual citizen would ever afford the population over which it rules the freedoms that unfettered crowdfunding would represent—and fund.