A Misunderstanding

This time by Europe’s nations. The annual China-EU CEO and Former Senior Officials Dialogue is a secretive congregation of 40 chief executives, top officials, and academics from Europe and the People’s Republic of China, and it was quietly canceled last month. Europe’s organizers rejected the PRC’s attempts to ban from attending anyone who dared criticize the PRC.

So far, so good.

The misunderstanding is this:

…difficult balance Europe is trying to strike between safeguarding business interests and upholding democratic values….

Those aren’t opposing interests that must be “balanced”—traded off one against the other—in order to achieve some sort of supposed optimum. They are synergistic interests, each of which potentiates the other.

But they’re far more than that, too. Each is a Critical Item for the other; if either doesn’t exist, the other cannot exist.

Democratic values provide the necessary economic framework for enhancing business interests. It is those democratic values that are at the core of liberty, in this context particularly of private property rights. John Adams recognized private property ownership as necessary for individual safety, security, and happiness. Adam Smith wrote roughly contemporaneously of the necessary role private property holds in achieving national prosperity. Hernando De Soto wrote of the criticality of private property rights to individual liberty and to the prosperity of the nations in which free peoples reside. Absent these values, the only interests that get enhanced are those of a few oligarchs and those populating the government reigning over that economy.

Business interests from within that economic framework feed back into those democratic values by increasing the economic prosperity not only of business owners, but of business’ employees and of the nations’ consumers (keep in mind, too, that employees are themselves consumers). It’s a direct feedback loop: all parties to a voluntary exchange—a business interest as carried out within that democratic framework—are made better off than they were before the exchange since each gains something of value to him that he did not have before. This applies for business-business exchanges, business-employee exchanges, business-consumer exchanges.

The feedback loop is an extended one, also. As businesses produces what consumers want, more gets consumed, which produces funds for more production, more hiring, more innovation, more of what consumers want—and greater prosperity for all participants however indirectly they participate. And, as Adams recognized, that greater prosperity enhances individual freedoms.

Europe’s prosperity—and its freedom in the face of aggressively acquisitive nations like the PRC and Russia—depends on those nations clarifying their misunderstanding.

Pocket Veto

This week, the House passed the National Defense Appropriation Act with enough votes that, if repeated, would override a Presidential veto.

President Donald Trump has said he’ll veto the bill because it doesn’t include repeal of Section 230, which confers immunity from publication-related liability on Facebook, Twitter, Alphabet, and a few others.

Now the bill goes to the Senate for passage, and then to the President.

Here’s the thing, folks. As I write this post, it’s 9 December. Congress recesses at COB 18 December.

If Congress doesn’t extend its session and not go on recess as currently scheduled, the President can simply not sign the bill into law, and it’ll be pocket vetoed with no opportunity for an override vote in each house.

Here’s what Article I, Section 7 of our Constitution has to say on Presidential vetoes [emphasis added]:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

We’re already inside those 10 days.

Wrong Resolution

Recall that Huawei Technologies Co’s Deputy Chair and CFO Meng Wanzhou is facing US criminal wire and bank fraud charges related to her alleged violations of US sanctions on Iran, which she did on Huawei’s behalf. She’s in the middle of extradition proceedings in Canada en route to getting her here.

Now there’s a resolution in the works: DoJ officials are talking about a “deferred prosecution agreement,” in which Meng would admit her wrongdoing in those cases and then be allowed to return to the People’s Republic of China directly from Canada.

This is the wrong resolution. The case should be resolved by bringing her into the US and letting a trial court resolve the matter.

More EU Bad Faith

Finance operations, a key industry for Great Britain but not so much for the European Union, is being excluded from existing Brexit transition negotiations. That much is on the Brits as well as the EU, but the EU is abusing the mutual error.

In anticipation,

European regulators have demanded banks base certain operations currently conducted in London in the EU post-Brexit. … The EU last week committed to rules governing derivatives that will prevent London-based traders at EU banks from continuing business seamlessly after Brexit is completed on New Year’s Eve.

Derivatives trading is a significant fraction of the Brits’ financial industry, and the new rules prevent even London-based branches of EU banks from trading with UK-regulated firms unless those transactions occur in other jurisdictions recognized by both sides.

As Tim Cant, a London-based Partner at Ashurst Group, notes,

This is part of a wider strategy of moving finance into the EU[.]

It’s also part of the EU’s wider strategy of punishing Great Britain for its effrontery and of warning the more uppity remaining member nations to not even think about doing such a dastardly thing as leaving their Betters in Brussels.

Dominate

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has what should be a resounding warning of the threat to our freedom represented by the People’s Republic of China in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal.

Beijing intends to dominate the US and the rest of the planet economically, militarily, and technologically.

With particular reference to the US, dominate is a euphemism. The PRC intends political domination, also (as the example Ratcliffe supplies involving PRC pressure on an American Congressman illustrates), all of which is to say they intend to conquer the US, whether it formally occupies us or not.

The PRC already is dictating policy to nominally American entertainment and news companies, and it has gotten companies like Alphabet to refuse to do business with our Defense establishment in critical areas like artificial intelligence while enthusiastically doing business with the PRC government on…artificial intelligence.

The PRC has gotten Alphabet to censure search results in the PRC and Facebook and Twitter to censure communications in the PRC while getting Alphabet, Facebook, and Twitter to enthusiastically censure American citizens’ communications here in the US.

The PRC’s Confucius Centers at our colleges and universities actively indoctrinate students into the wonders of PRC communism while threatening those institutions’ management teams with removal of significant funding if they dare interfere.

This all is prior to and supportive of Ratcliffe’s characterization of the PRC economic war against us as rob, replicate, and replace.

This is a struggle for the United States’ existence as an independent polity.

Unfortunately, dangerously, with Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s overt friendliness with the PRC and his disdain for the threat—they’re not a patch on our jeans, guys, and China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man…. They’re not bad folks, folks … They’re not competition for us—it’s not at all certain that Biden would take Ratcliffe’s warning at all seriously, were he to be inaugurated.

And that’s not including his son Hunter’s…cozy relationship…with members of the PRC government.