Tag Archives: foreign policy

Doctorings

Posted on by
Reply

And we have to learn about this from a German newspaper.  Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council functionary in the Trump administration, appeared in Congressman and Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff’s (D, CA) Star Chamber earlier.  Among other things, he claimed, on the matter of asking Ukraine to investigate corruption, including Burisma’s and the Bidens’ possible roles in the corruption,

was “inappropriate.” It “had nothing to do with national security,” he said he told [US Ambassador to the EU Gordon] Sondland.

Because, to this NSC staffer, everything looks like a national security thing.  There couldn’t possibly be any other purpose to a suggestion, like, say, a law enforcement thing, where ordinary corruption might involve American citizens.

But here’s the bit that we have to read about in other nations first because the American NLMSM didn’t want to mention it until Congressman and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D, CA) leaked it from Vindman’s official secret testimony:

He [Vindman] added that he had tried to fill in the word “Burisma” which was omitted from the White House’s rough transcript of the telephone call.

Vindman confessed to trying to doctor the transcript of the call. And we’re supposed to believe his testimony.

Aside: there’s nothing “rough” about the transcript; it is a plain transcript, made from notes taken during the telecon and from notes made immediately after it with the express purpose of producing a transcript. That Vindman had access to it for his attempted doctoring is a demonstration that the transcript was circulated among those present at the telecon to confirm its accuracy. Just like a trial court transcript is agreed by both defense and prosecution/plaintiff council.

PRC Personal Savings Rate

Posted on by
Reply

James Areddy had an extensive article on this in a recent Wall Street Journal.  It seems that the personal savings rate of People’s Republic of China’s citizens peaked around 2010 and has been trailing off ever since.  Areddy posited a number of reasons for this, and why it’s likely to continue.  Chief among them is the usual suspect of an increasingly less poor, if not increasingly prosperous, population wishing to live better rather than save more.  Another major reason seems to be the PRC’s one-child policy, lately relaxed legally, but not socially.  With fewer kids in the family, there’s less reason for parents to save against those kids’ future.

I see another reason, though, for the continuation of the fall-off in savings rate, and that continuation running to disastrously low levels, from a national economic perspective.  This is the aging of the PRC’s population.

That aging is driven by a couple of things. One is that folks get old before they die (duh), and today’s PRC population being healthier than yesterday’s, these folks are living longer.  The bookend to this is the shrinking—across generations—of the population of working age citizens.  This stems from that one-child policy, emplaced explicitly to shrink a population that had severe trouble feeding and housing itself and from the continued social lack of desire for more than one child in a family, and from the desire to live better materially today, now that folks are better off (or at least not so bad off).

With fewer folks working relatively to aging and retiring, this means there’ll be less public money to pay for old folks’ retirement (and retired) needs, so the old folks will need to spend their savings even faster than might be the case otherwise.

Another feedback loop likely is inflation.  This will accelerate the fall-off in personal savings. This inflation will be driven by that same shrinking labor force, this time reducing production output—the availability of goods and services—even as spending increases across all age demographics: a classic case of (relatively) too many yuan chasing (relatively) too few goods.

Leverage

Posted on by
Reply

Since so many American businesses—Apple, Alphabet, the NBA, to name a few—put their individual fiscal game ahead of American values, especially regarding Hong Kong and its citizens ongoing struggle for their own liberties (which just happen to lie at the core of our values), here are some thoughts on the fiscal value of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China.

Since 1997, mainland Chinese companies have raised $335 billion by floating in Hong Kong, tapping a broader range of shareholders than they could onshore.
…since the Hong Kong dollar is pegged to its US equivalent, and the city has no capital controls, a listing there can generate hard currency for foreign takeovers and investments. It would be harder to use a Shanghai stock sale for the same goal.

And [emphasis added]

For global investors, Shanghai and Shenzhen have become more accessible. But investors typically prefer Hong Kong’s legal protections, and they have other concerns about mainland markets, including the difficulties of moving money out.

And

Hong Kong is by far the largest offshore center for bond sales by Chinese firms. Companies can borrow for longer than they can onshore and, crucially, can raise funds in hard currency….

And

Hong Kong serves as the main offshore hub for yuan loans, bonds, and trading.

Interestingly [emphasis added],

When it comes to dollar bonds, big state-backed banks and industrial companies even prefer to sell these in Hong Kong…. US deals would be overseen by American regulators and would require greater disclosure.

And

Hong Kong is a preferred location for Chinese and international financiers or business people to conduct transactions because it has a Western-style legal and regulatory system that is seen as fair and nonpolitical.

In sum,

…Hong Kong stands out from its mainland rivals for its rule of law, competent regulators, low taxes, free movement of capital, and use of English.
Neither Shanghai nor [the People’s Republic of] China’s free-trade zones “can really compete with what Hong Kong is and does….”
…
Hong Kong is still [the People’s Republic of] China’s financial window on the world, and the rest of the world’s financial window on [the PRC].

RTWT; there’s more.

Sadly, too many of our major corporations don’t have the moral underpinnings to exercise that leverage.  Apple’s Tim Cook would rather the prestige of sitting as Chairman of a major university in Beijing.  Alphabet would rather work on censorable search engines for the PRC and help develop AI tools for the PRC’s government and People’s Liberation Army than it would work with our own defense establishment on such tools or refuse to support PRC censorship.  And we’ve seen, just in last couple of weeks, how the NBA as a whole, and its individual team staffs and players think their pocket books are more important than the rights of others.

Warren’s Assault on Hydrocarbons

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) want so ban new leases for oil and gas drilling offshore and on Federal lands, and she wants to ban fracking altogether. This assault on our national energy underpinnings would have far-reaching negative outcomes.

  • domestic natural-gas prices would jump to somewhere between $9 and $15 per million BTUs from last Friday’s $2.32
  • oil would rise to the $80-to-$85 range and could run to $150 during market shocks from last Friday’s $53.78
  • entire oil-field service companies would become obsolete
  • pipeline owners would suffer without replenishment, as existing wells peter out

Think how such price increases for basic transportation and such job losses would hammer “the little guy” that Warren pretends to so want to protect from Evil Big Business.

And some far-reaching positive outcomes: for Canada, Russia, and OPEC.

  • Canadian shale drillers
  • big global operators for which higher energy prices would offset losses on US assets.
  • Russia: our ability to free our friends and allies from dependence on Russian oil and gas
  • Russia and OPEC: the potential for political and economic dominance by these two from their enhanced ability to commit energy blackmail (both of which have demonstrated histories of engaging in such blackmail)—sources of market shocks

Here is a core part of Warren’s foreign policy.

Threat

Posted on by
Reply

Turkey’s President Recep Erdoğan is telling us and Europe to sit down and shut up about his invasion of Kurdish Syria, or he’ll loose millions of Syrian refugees on Europe. He especially objects to the way the EU is characterization his invasion:

Hey EU, get your act together. If you try to describe our current operation as an occupation, our task will be simple. We will open the gates and send 3.6 million refugees your way.

The irony here is simple. If Europe actually respected Union and national borders, this would be a toothless threat.

Of course, the irony will be lost on our Progressive-Democrats.