Tag Archives: political economy

Another Example

Posted on by
Reply

…of the folly of doing business with companies domiciled inside the People’s Republic of China.

The particular company is Ant, a financial institution that PRC regulators lately decided its owner Jack Ma was getting too impudent regarding government actions—was getting too big for his britches—so the regulators blocked Ant from going public unless and until it massively reorganized and at least to significant extent downsized.

Now let’s back up in time a little bit.

In 2018, an exclusive group of global private-equity firms and mutual-fund managers including Silver Lake, Warburg Pincus LLC, Carlyle Group Inc, and T Rowe Price Group Inc took part in a coveted fundraising by Ant that raised $14 billion and minted the financial-technology giant as the world’s most valuable startup.
More than $10 billion of the money came from international investors, which bought shares in an offshore shell company set up by Ant to raise funds in US dollars. The unusual arrangement came about because in order to secure a payment license to operate Alipay, its highly popular mobile app, Ant had to be domiciled in mainland China. But that also limited the company’s ability to raise funds directly from foreign investors.

That’s the why. Now the what.

The global investors agreed to terms that were highly favorable to Ant, and which limited their ability to cash out if the company didn’t end up going public, according to people familiar with the matter. Ant also didn’t provide a listing time frame or guarantee investors a return while it stayed private, the people added.
The foreign investors didn’t receive any voting rights in Ant…. None was given a seat on Ant’s board.

They can’t recoup their investment; they didn’t even get a say in the governance of the company. Just “Here’s a boatload of money. Y’all have a gud time, y’hear?”

Now that was an exceedingly dumb thing for those investors, supposedly experienced in investing, in international finance, and in investing in PRC businesses, to agree. But the larger thing is demonstrated by the PRC government men’s behavior: investing in a PRC business, or investing inside the PRC, is exceedingly dumb.

Yet More Spending

Posted on by
Reply

This time on “child care” checks written by the IRS.

The [House Progressive-Democrats’] 22-page bill proposes that the Internal Revenue Service provide $3,600 to every child under the age 6 and $3,000 per child ages 6-17 to families earning less than $75,000 per year, or couples earning less than $150,000. The payments would be distributed monthly, over the course of a year, beginning this July.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D, MA) compounds the cynicism of this move:

The pandemic is driving families deeper and deeper into poverty, and it’s devastating. We are making the Child Tax Credit more generous, more accessible, and by paying it out monthly, this money is going to be the difference in a roof over someone’s head or food on their table[.]

That’s plainly not true. The Wuhan Virus situation has done/is doing no such thing. Governments at a variety of levels of jurisdiction are driving, devastatingly, families deeper and deeper into poverty with those governments’ mandates to close down all businesses, churches, and other public gathering places, thereby depriving families of their jobs, without any regard to the uselessness of those lockdowns.

We don’t need any IRS checks. We need our economy reopened so our businesses can go back to making and selling, our citizens can go back to work, and our families can go back to making their way.

At least the bill is amazingly short and blatant, though.

Well, NSS

Posted on by
Reply

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka might be getting buyer’s [sic] remorse over the election of now-President Joe Biden (D).

Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO, wishes President Biden hadn’t canceled the Keystone XL oil pipeline his first day in office, agreeing the move will cost a thousand union jobs and 10,000 projected construction jobs.

Especially:

If you destroy 100 jobs in Greene County, Pennsylvania, where I grew up, and you create 100 jobs in California, it doesn’t do those 100 families much good. If you’re looking at a pipeline and you’re saying we’re going to put it down, now what are you going to do to create the same good-paying jobs in that area?

And

You know, when they laid off at the mines back in Pennsylvania, they told us they were going to train us to be computer programmers. And I said, “Where are the computer programmer jobs at?” “Uh, they’re in, uh, Oklahoma and they’re in Vegas and they’re here.” And I said, “So, in other words, what we’re going to be is unemployed miners and unemployed computer programmers as well.” I think what doesn’t get understood quite enough in the country, particularly in DC politics, is that that culture is very, very important to the people who live there[.]

NSS, indeed.

Another thing that’s carefully unaddressed by Green New Dealers and Progressive-Democrats is the timing of the destroyed jobs and when “replacement” jobs actually might become available. Even were “learning to program” or “making solar collectors” serious alternatives, they’re not going to be available for years, the Left’s empty words about programming jobs, at least, being immediately available notwithstanding.

“Employment Levels”

Posted on by
Reply

Candidates to replace term-limited Bill de Blasio (D) as mayor of New York City are coming out of the woodwork like the city’s rats. The opening sentence of a Wall Street Journal article covering their plans to “job recovery” is riddled with irony.

More than three dozen New York City mayoral candidates are vying for one of the toughest jobs in the country: leading the nation’s largest city back to pre-pandemic employment levels while trying to find the funding to do so.

The candidates—the city—do not need to “find the funding” to put folks back to work. In an actual free market environment, private employers provide the funding for their own employees. They get that funding from private citizens buying those employers’ goods and services. The city—any government—is a cost center for every business in it jurisdiction, from the taxes the city exacts (some of them actually legitimate charges) to the regulations (very few of them serving any legitimate purpose, being merely revenue centers for the bureaucracy charging them) it imposes.

Returning New York City to pre-Wuhan Virus situation levels is breathtakingly cost-free—and revenue-generating for the city: get out of the way, let the businesses reopen so folks can go back to work, let schools reopen so kids can go back to school—reducing both private and public medical costs—and letting even more folks go back to work.

It’s just that straightforward. It shouldn’t be as hard as even well-meaning, but overthinking, politicians make it.

Opposition

Posted on by
Reply

Republicans in the Senate put Progressive-Democrats on the record on a number of amendments to Party’s budget reconciliation move—itself a deliberate act to sideline any dissent—which Republicans offered during a Thursday afternoon through Friday morning vote-a-rama. Party’s budget reconciliation then was voted up strictly along party lines.

Here’s some of what the Senate’s Progressive-Democrats oppose. Notice that every one of these would have enhanced Americans’ national security, economy, and individual liberty had they had the support of even a single Progressive-Democrat.

  • 50-50 on a failed amendment to support the border wall
  • 50-50 on a failed amendment supporting the free exercise of religion
  • 50-50 on a failed amendment to oppose packing the Supreme Court
  • 50-50 on a failed amendment opposing stimulus checks for people in prison
  • 50-50 on a failed amendment opposing the Biden administration’s move to restrict oil and gas leasing on federal lands
  • 50-50 on a failed amendment opposing a federal carbon tax