Monthly Archives: November 2025

Immorality

Posted on by
Reply

The men and women of the People’s Republic of China government, led overwhelmingly by President Xi Jinping, are behaving in an utterly immoral fashion when it comes to lethal, illegal drugs and the precursors for manufacturing them.

Those men and women have been continually welching on the agreements they pretend to make to curb fentanyl and fentanyl precursors exports.

Even when Beijing toughens regulations on individual precursors, as it has done several times in recent years, including this summer, Chinese producers can get around the rules by slightly altering the chemical structure of their products.

This bit saucers and blows it.

China calibrates its cooperation on counternarcotics in response to the overall US relationship, said Vanda Felbab-Brown, a counternarcotics expert at the Brookings Institution.

That’s a polite way of saying that the PRC’s government men and women will continue to poison our children unless and until we kowtow to their demands.

Or maybe Xi and his syndicate simply are amoral, with no concept of what’s right or wrong or the differences between the two—only naked power for themselves, nationally, and egoistically globally.

This, more than any military or cyber superiority, is what makes the PRC exceedingly dangerous.

Wrong Answer

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Bill Hagerty (R, TN) and Treasury Scott Bessent disagree with The Wall Street Journal‘s editorial How to Make Banks Less Safe, an editorial with which I also disagreed. However, Hagerty and Bessent are wrong in their proposed solution.

They insist that the recent intermediate-sized bank “failures” (my euphemism quotes) stemmed from an intrinsic imbalance in protection for banks.

What explained the flight? A competitive imbalance: the biggest banks benefit from a perceived government guarantee that smaller institutions lack.

That protection imbalance is the Dodd-Frank entrench[ment of] the biggest banks as “too big to fail,” as Hagerty and Bessent correctly identified. Their solution is wrong, though.

…fortify our community banks against existential headwinds by raising the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. limit. This would put community banks on a more even playing field with their larger competitors, and provide small businesses more certainty to maintain their payroll and other operating accounts with community banks in times of stress.

The correct answer is to take the “too big to fail” protection away from the allegedly systemically important banks and put them on the level of play on which their smaller competitors operate. There is no such thing as too big to fail in a competitive free market. Instead, hold all banks, regardless of size, to the quality of their management teams and those teams’ risk decisions. Do this further in large part by leaving the FDIC’s insurance cap at $250,000. The big players using the big banks will do a better job of moving among banks that are better led than others.

The market, which is individuals, small business, and international behemoths, will in its aggregate do a far better job of identifying well- and poorly-run banks, and imposing performance discipline on all of them, than can any government decision-making, which by design, is rife with political input rather than limited to economic input.

Silliness

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) has directed DoD to begin nuclear weapons testing. It’s unclear, at this point, whether he wants to test the existing arsenal or test delivery systems under development or to be developed.

Rhode Island’s Progressive-Democratic Senator Jack Reed has the present installment of silliness, as paraphrased by The Wall Street Journal.

[B]reaking the testing moratorium would prompt Moscow and Beijing to restart full-fledged testing.
US nuclear testing, he added, would also provide justification for Pakistan, India, and North Korea, which last tested in 2017, “to expand their own testing regimes, destabilizing an already fragile global nonproliferation architecture.”

Russia already is in the early stages of full-fledged testing, as evidenced by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s bragging about his new nuclear hypersonic missiles, nuclear-powered nuclear-armed cruise missiles, and nuclear-armed torpedoes. The People’s Republic of China is expanding its own nuclear arsenal as fast as it can; such expansion doesn’t occur without testing.

Pakistan, India, northern Korea? The last has shown no restraint in testing nuclear missiles; it’s not even bound by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Baby Kim’s only reason for pausing is his publicly stated decision to focus on parallel development of his conventional forces. Pakistan and India have nuclear arsenals aimed at each other, and India faces a nuclear-armed and threatening enemy in the PRC. Neither Pakistan nor India are members of the NPT. There should be no doubt they’ll engage in testing as they develop their arsenals.

Demanding Instant Results

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration has threatened tariffs, raised and lowered them (though rarely as much as they were raised), and concluded on-again, off-again tariff agreements with the People’s Republic of China. The bulk of these moves have come within the opening months of Trump II, even though some moves were made during Trump I.

The good editors at The Wall Street Journal are taking a dim view of this. The opening of their lede:

President Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping struck their third trade truce in a year on Thursday, and the best we can say is that the deal averted more economic damage.

Later in the piece, they offered this…truism:

One lesson here is that trade wars aren’t easy to win, especially against a peer competitor.

To which I say, “Patience, Grasshoppers.”

Wars—and the PRC has been fighting this economic war with us for lots of years, even if we’ve been slow to recognize that—are rarely over in a day. WWI was fought over four years, and WWII took eight years out of our globe’s weal and life. Looking farther back was the 30 Years War and the 100 Years War. The barbarian’s 3-day invasion of Ukraine now is approaching its 4th year. Over in what is now the PRC, the period of the Warring States lasted 250 years, and the century of humiliation that the PRC still remembers (the opium wars were in the beginning of that period) lasted…100 years and a bit more.

The men and women of the PRC government take a long view of things, even a generational view. It would be good were the changing men and women of our government to take a similarly long view. The WSJ editorial board could contribute by doing the same.

Trump’s moves may, indeed, end up with no material net effect, or they may end in national disaster, or they may end in a renewed and refreshed century of Pax Americana. It’s years too early to tell.

Idiotic

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) made the rounds in Asia, working foreign policy goals with a measure of success that was greater than the shortfalls. Meanwhile, Progressive-Democrats kept the US government closed over their Never Trump, No Way snit centered on their demand to permanently extend Obamacare subsidies that they’d planned for expiry when they passed their own spending bill during the Biden reign, a discussion that would occur apace once the government is reopened.

During Trump’s trip took him out of the country while the Progressive-Democrats held the government closed, and because of that, Progressive-Democrats led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) bellyached loudly that Trump had left town during the shutdown. How dare he?

What’s being missed in the Progressive-Democrats’ plaints and what’s being actively ignored by the press is ex-President Jimmy Carter’s actions during the Iran hostage crisis. Carter promised to remain voluntarily imprisoned in the White House until those hostages were freed. He kept that promise for 444 days, with the hostages being released only the day before Ronald Reagan’s (R) inauguration, with Reagan having promised sterner responses to Iran’s hostage-taking.

Presidents holing up at home in response to every problem—serious or otherwise—that comes up only stupidly limits the President’s options and capabilities for dealing with other problems—serious or otherwise—that also crop up, even in today’s more modern communications environment.

It seems, though, that the Progressive-Democrats have chosen to ignore that lesson. They seem to have chosen, instead, to be upset that they can’t control a sitting President of the other party.