Foreign Takeovers of Domestic Companies

Great Britain is concerned with

strik[ing] a middle ground between welcoming foreign investment and protecting strategic industries from takeover, particularly amid concerns around acquisitions by Chinese state-backed companies.

Thus,

Under…proposed rules, investors would have to notify the government about transactions involving 17 sectors including nuclear, artificial intelligence, transport, energy, and defense.

That would seem to make a foreign investment law unnecessarily byzantine, and require revisiting at some aperiodic intervals.  After all, what’s not strategic today might turn out strategic tomorrow. This is illustrated by the timing of this proposal.

The rules update a takeover regime dating back 20 years that the government says is no longer adequate.

Well, NSS.

I have a better idea (also because I don’t lack for hubris). Don’t worry about strategic sectors. Bar all foreign takeover transactions unless and until they’re approved by a CFIUS-like facility. It would work for us, too.

City Pensions

They’re in trouble. You knew that, though, as city budgets have long favored spending more than revenue, especially spending on public union pensions and other retirement benefits, and so debts piled up—and continue to amass.

One particular arena where that’s having potentially deleterious effect is in pensions with benefits like paid (or mostly paid) health plans.

Cities and states can’t afford to keep the same medical benefits they promised government retirees.
For all 50 states combined, revenue declines for 2020 and 2021 could reach 13% cumulatively, according to Moody’s Analytics projections, while the average cost of an employer health-care plan for an individual increased 4% in 2020 to $7,470, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation nonprofit.

The current excuse is the Wuhan Virus situation having crushed sales-tax income and tourism dollars. In the end, though, the specific crisis du jour isn’t important: there always will be a crisis that will crush city revenues. An example of the reach of any crisis is this:

The Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund sponsored a self-insured health-care plan for its retirees from 1975 to 2018, said fund spokesman David Graham.
“With no dedicated funding source for this plan, it eventually became unsustainable,” Mr Graham said in a written statement, adding that retirees would have had to increase their contributions to keep the health-care fund solvent.

There’s a hint, in that “dedicated funding source.” There needn’t be one could retiree pension health “benefits” be structured differently.

That brings me to the “potentially deleterious” bit. Deleteriosity is only potential because the overall situation presents opportunity: privatizing health plan provision, returning the provisioning to true health insurance—premiums based on the risks being transferred to the coverage provider—and using the free market and its intrinsically competitive nature to govern both customer costs—those premiums—and product quality.  Quality especially would include the breadth of insurance products offered: single or a very few health matters insured; suites of preventive health care insurance for standard items like colds and flu, annual checkups; a broad range of other coverage offerings that might be relatively specific or relatively broad.

That opportunity often will be beyond an individual city’s capability to implement, but aggregations of cities might approach the capacity, and certainly at the national level, the health coverage industry can be privatized and included in the nation’s free market economy. At that point, cities would be able to step out of the health coverage business altogether beyond—perhaps—providing a cafeteria of market plans purchased on the open, free market for their city employee retirees.

More opportunity: with retirees responsible for choosing their own plans with which to satisfy their own needs and desires and paying for those plans with their own money—as grown adults, they really are capable of that without Big Brother Government or overreaching unions “helping”—they’ll take both their health and their insurance costs seriously.

Defunding by Another Name

Shoplifting has been decriminalized in California. Store management teams that take it on themselves to grab shoplifters can be sued for the effrontery of protecting store property.

Police stopped apprehending shoplifters because it wasn’t worth their time as thieves were released.

It’s broader than that.

Some large retailers including Goodwill, Walmart and Bloomingdale’s sought to punish shoplifters by requiring them to take a class in “life skills” to avoid a criminal complaint. The San Francisco city attorney then sued the educational company that provided the classes for extortion and false imprisonment.

This sort of larceny has exploded since the decriminalization, and the thefts have cost businesses in the state billions of dollars.

This is “defunding” law enforcement at the fount.

Here’s the start, from that, of an economic trend that could get very uncomfortable for Californians if the decriminalization isn’t reversed:

A[] Walgreens store in San Francisco, the seventh this year, is closing after its shelves were cleared by looters.

“Defund” law enforcement at the source.

Briar Patch

Throw me in that one, Br’er Xi. He’s upset that the US is selling arms to the Republic of China so that nation would have a better chance to defend itself against a People’s Republic of China physical invasion effort.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said Monday that Beijing has decided to impose sanctions on Lockheed Martin Corp, Boeing Co’s defense division, and Raytheon Technologies Corp, as well as other US entities involved in the planned $1.8 billion weapons package.

Zhao added

[The People’s Republic of] China “firmly opposes” and condemns US arms sales to Taiwan, which “severely damage Chinese sovereignty and security interests[.]”

Not so much. There’s no damage to the PRC’s sovereignty from helping a nation to defend itself against attack.

Throw me on into that patch. Our high tech companies—not only our military-oriented or dual-use tech companies—don’t need to be doing business with our chiefest enemy under any circumstances. That trade is only a means of transferring our tech to our enemy.

We need also to work with the RoC to develop offensive and defensive cyber weapons so that both of us can better defend against and counterattack to decisive victory against a PRC cyber invasion.

Shutting Down Research

Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t want serious research into his advertising targeting to be done.

Facebook is demanding that a New York University research project cease collecting data about its political-ad-targeting practices….
The dispute involves the NYU Ad Observatory, a project launched last month by the university’s engineering school that has recruited more than 6,500 volunteers to use a specially designed browser extension to collect data about the political ads Facebook shows them.

In particular,

Scraping tools, no matter how well-intentioned, are not a permissible means of collecting information from us….

Facebook says (Zuckerberg says; it’s his company, and he retains controlling interest) that it already maintains an advertisement database that contains information such as who paid for an ad, when it ran and the geographic location of people who saw it, but the company does not maintain—in that database—data concerning its targeting methods. NYU wants those targeting data, too, including data on what political ads ran in which state and political race, what ads are targeted to what audiences, and how those ads are funded.

Zuckerberg doesn’t want those usages and techniques exposed.

His bottom line: “Don’t you dare scrape the data we scrape from our users and tell the world what the data are that we scrape, how much of it we scrape, how we use it, how we charge others for the sale or use of those data.”