The People’s Republic of China and Private Economies

The government of the People’s Republic of China does not trust the people over whom it reigns. This is illustrated by its broad distrust of those folks’ private enterprise.

Xi Jinping, long distrustful of the private sector, is moving assertively to bring it to heel.

And

The government is installing more Communist Party officials inside private firms, starving some of credit and demanding executives tailor their businesses to achieve state goals.

And

The push is driven by a deepening conviction within the country’s leadership that markets and private entrepreneurs, while important to China’s rise, are unpredictable and not to be fully trusted.

Bringing the PRC into the World Trade Organization, engaging with the nation economically—even helping the nation economically—in order to enhance freedom and prosperity for the ordinary folks of the PRC was worth the try those 50 years, more or less, ago.

It’s clear now, though, and it’s been clear for some decades, that the government men of the PRC have no intention of enhancing that freedom of prosperity. Those men intend only to enhance their power domestically, to dominate neighboring nations, and to set the global world order, replacing not just us, but the West altogether.

Yet this is the PRC that Joe Biden wants us to cozy up to.

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.