Tag Archives: markets

Overseeing PRC Telecomm

Posted on by
2

The Senate has started looking into tightening oversight of People’s Republic of China telecomms that are operating in the US.

In a forthcoming report, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will level sharp criticism at a group of telecom regulators for failing to scrutinize the Chinese companies and the way they handle data going back nearly two decades. Senate investigators who briefed The Wall Street Journal on their findings said that without proper oversight the Chinese companies “present an unacceptable amount of risk.”

It’s a start.

But even with suitably proper oversight, a larger question remains unaddressed, much less unanswered: why are these companies allowed to operate in the US at all? They are, after all, arms of the PRC government, not free enterprise entities competing on their own recognizance and beholden to the laws of the political jurisdiction within which they operate.

And this:

Representatives for American carriers warned the Senate investigators that the US moves could cause Beijing to retaliate by cutting off their business with Chinese carriers to provide services. That, the carriers have said, would potentially hurt their customers in China, such as US companies, and hinder the carriers’ ability to cooperate with US intelligence-gathering requests.

Couple things about this. Cutting off American carriers’ business inside the PRC would be relatively minor for operations in a nation that demands domestic partners and technology sharing as a condition of doing business within that nation and that demands government-accessible backdoors into foreign companies’ critical software suites as a condition of doing business within that nation.

The bit about hindering US carriers’ ability to cooperate with US intelligence-gathering requests emphasizes a critical difference between us and the PRC. US carriers’ cooperation with our government’s intel requests is entirely voluntary, for all the political pressure a carrier might face for noncompliance. PRC telecomm companies operating in the US have no such option: PRC government requests for intel-related information are required to be satisfied. The only request aspect relates to the type of information the PRC government requires to be collected.

Export Incentives Coupled with Domestic Disincentives

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China has moved to shut down the domestic marketing of wild animals on fears [wild animal traders’] goods sparked the coronavirus pandemic. This is a seeming response to growing international pressure on the PRC to cut that out for that reason.

[The People’s Republic of] China’s National People’s Congress on February 24 imposed a ban on the sale and consumption of wild animals in the country.

However.

Less than a month later, [The People’s Republic of] China’s Ministry of Finance and tax authority said on March 17 they would raise value-added tax rebates on nearly 1,500 Chinese products, including offering a 9% rebate on the export of animal products such as edible snakes and turtles, primate meat, beaver and civet musk, and rhino horns….

As the Congressional Research Service, cited in the article at the link, mentioned, the export move

could spread the risk to global markets[.]

You think?

The CRS’ report further noted,

Absent in [The People’s Republic of] China’s policy push are incentives to encourage the sale of pharmaceuticals, PPE, and other medical products overseas[.]

Hmm. Makes me wonder just what the PRC is up to, really.

 

The CRS’ report can be read here.

Capitalism

Posted on by
Reply

William McGurn had a piece in Monday’s Wall Street Journal about Bernie Sanders’ (I, VT) attitude toward capitalism, centered on Sanders’ view that every economically successful person is necessarily selfishly greedy, and by extension, that that person’s success is from the fundamental zero-sum nature of capitalism.

Sanders is wrong.

At the bottom of capitalism is an entirely voluntary exchange between two people, each seeing to his own interest. At the end of the exchange, each has satisfied his own interest: each is better off from the exchange than he was before it because each has gained something that he wanted and didn’t have.

And: each, with that exchange, has made the other better off, too.

It scales up. Businesses prosper by making their customers better off, and by giving those businesses their custom, customers make those businesses better off. The better each does—at satisfying both themselves and the others—the better the other does, too.

Both of these are lost on folks like Sanders, and Joe Biden. They don’t even conceive the notion.

Their blinders notwithstanding, though, it’s hard to find a more moral economic system. It’s also hard to find a less zero-sum economic system.

Tariff Relief

Posted on by
Reply

Several US companies are saying that the existing tariff regime that’s applied to imports from the People’s Republic of China is hurting imports of chemicals necessary for the manufacture of disinfectants and sanitizers. Accordingly, medical supply companies and other businesses have filed dozens of applications for tariff relief/exception related to those imports.

If such relief is granted to an importing company, it should be contingent on that company acting expeditiously to move its supply chain out of the PRC. The move also must include non-PRC suppliers that import their own component supplies from the PRC. “Expeditiously” should be explicitly defined in the relief document as a time frame or a production milestone, and the relief should automatically expire if that deadline/milestone isn’t met.

Tariff relief should be granted to all Wuhan Virus-related imports from the PRC, with the same “expeditious” criterion attached, and existing relief should be modified to include the criterion.

Reporting To/Working For

Posted on by
Reply

Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) is going to release an Executive Order this week outlining requirements for safely beginning to reopen the Texas economy as the Wuhan Virus situation begins—begins, mind you—to start [sic] to wind down.

The details of the order were not immediately clear.

The NLMSM isn’t, yet, particularly upset by this lack of clarity at this point, and neither should they be. Still, the statement invites a remark from me (if for no other reason than that it’s my blog, and I’ll blog if I want to, blog if I want to, blog if I want to).

The details needn’t be made available to the press at all before the EO is published for the public’s consumption. That’s not a matter of withholding information from the press, it’s a matter of priorities.

Abbott doesn’t work for the press; he works for us Texas citizens. Of course he should report to his bosses before he reports to anyone else. The press is only a tool—and not the only tool—for carrying out that responsibility.

Full stop.