Tag Archives: politics

Not the Right Answer

Posted on by
Reply

Nvdia’s honcho, Jensen Huang, thinks the administration’s export controls on chips is a failure. He claims all the controls have done is to galvanize[] Beijing to push ahead faster with its own artificial-intelligence technologies.

The local companies are very talented and very determined, and the export controls give them the spirit, energy and the government support to accelerate their development[.]

No doubt. That’s not the whole story, though. Forcing the PRC to spend its own resources on those developments rather than importing the latest and greatest, and then reverse engineering them, copying them, skipping development steps—freeloading off our expenditures—is good for us.

Aside from that, ever since the beginning of the Industrial Age, Western political, economic, and intellectual freedoms have powered Western innovation far ahead of anything dictatorships have been able to achieve, from Russia, the USSR, mainland China, pre-WWII Japan. That’s why they were at such pains to copy Western developments rather than developing their own. The copying was, for a long time, a major component of post-WWII Japan, too.

Rather than giving up on chip export control, we need to tighten them further to the point of cutting off chip exports to the PRC altogether, and we need to get Europe to do the same. There’s no reason to doubt the fundamental innovative superiority of the West so long as we preserve those political, economic, and intellectual freedoms and expand them by getting our governments out of the regulatory way. Free markets always will do better at enhancing our innovative prowess than centrally planned markets in the long run, and in the intermediate run, as well.

Rome Said to Carthage

Posted on by
Reply

Rome Said to Carthage

“You don’t need those weapons,” in prelude to the Third Punic War, which ended in the complete destruction of Carthage.

The People’s Republic of China objects to the US’ Golden Dome plans, a defense system in orbit, among other places, that would defend our nation against missile attack from any direction and from any source or launch site. PRC Foreign Minister Mao Ning gaslights that Golden Dome has a

strong offensive nature and violates the principle of peaceful use in the Outer Space Treaty[.]

He neglects to mention, though, the PRC’s overt military threats against the Republic of China and each of the nations rimming the South China Sea. Those threats, too, come against the backdrop of the PRC’s massive and rapid buildup of the PLA[1], a buildup that consists exclusively of offensive weapons. That buildup has achieved, so far,

  • four million men under arms
  • world’s largest navy
  • world’s largest coast guard
  • world’s largest naval militia
  • huge fishing fleet whose ships are designed for rapid arming
  • world’s largest submarine fleet
  • third largest, second most advanced (and steadily growing and improving) air force
  • arsenal of ballistic anti-ship missiles
  • nuclear capable theater ballistic missiles
  • large, growing ICBM fleet
  • global reach hypersonic missiles that when fully deployed will give it first strike capability
  • stated willingness to use its “ordinary” nuclear ICBMs in a first strike without concern for the destruction it would absorb from return strikes
    • Mao Zedong: “What if they killed 300 million of us? We would still have many people left.” That promise remains unretracted

Now, Beijing is saying to us, “You don’t need those weapons.”

[1] Cotton, Tom, Seven Things You Can’t Say About China

There’s a Hint There

Posted on by
Reply

John Bolton has a Wall Street Journal op-ed in which he claims to be worried about the fate of the President’s National Security Council. I’ll leave aside the fact that his source is either a dishonest leaker or a voice in his head. This is what he buried toward the end of his piece:

Scowcroft’s model [of an NSC structure] bestowed a key advantage on the president: creating interagency staff who reached into bureaucratic depths gave him [the President] greater insight into potential agency agendas and disagreements before they rose to higher levels, thereby reducing the risks of confrontation and delay. A dramatically constrained NSC staff wouldn’t have such abilities.

Maybe—just maybe—it would be better to clean out the bureaucracies at those other agencies, eliminating agency agendas and the bureaucrats who push them, at the expense of the agenda of the White House for which they work.

Maybe—just maybe—it would be better to thin those agencies’ payrolls to shallow out those bureaucratic depths.

Maybe—just maybe—it would be better to install agency chiefs and deputies/assistants who would work with each other to resolve more of the disagreements, then consciously bring the remaining disagreements to the President for him to resolve—which is part of a President’s job.

No maybe, this time—it most assuredly would be better to fire those bureaucrats who would rather be confrontational than work as part of the team they were hired to be part of.

The Biden Coverup

Posted on by
Reply

What’s to be done about those who participated in the coverup? How do we hold them accountable—and by accountable, I mean how do we see them suitably and publicly punished?

The press’ complicity in the coverup is well known by all of us not already in thrall to their writings and television natterings. Most of us have learned to take their words skeptically, and we’ve moved on to other news and commentary sources, newer and perhaps no more trustworthy, but that’s yet to be demonstrated.

The Progressive-Democratic Party’s politicians, though—they’re another matter. As The Wall Street Journal pointed out, the only Party member willing to expose the emperor was the back bencher Minnesota Congressman Dean Phillips, who openly campaigned for President late in Party’s primary Potemkin contest on the premise that Biden wasn’t up to another four years either physically or mentally. Party castigated him as a traitor to his party, an opportunist, and a Republican cat’s paw. Then, in a remarkable—and instructive—demonstration of Party’s dedication to democratic elections and to democracy of any form, Party canceled altogether their sham primary and pronounced by fiat Kamala Harris its candidate.

Party politicians other than Phillips contributed to the coverup of Biden’s growing mental incompetence either directly through their pronouncements of his fitness or indirectly through their studied silence on Biden’s capacities.

In sum, Party politicians openly lied to us citizens, and as the WSJ also put it, they denied the American people a better presidential choice, or at least in the eyes of some 77 million of us, a better alternative candidate for the office. They denied even their own voters the opportunity to choose a better alternative.

Party and Party politicians lied to all of us about so foundational a matter as who will lead our nation in its time of peril, who will exercise American influence around the world on matters central to our economic and political national security.

If Party politicians are willing to lie to us—have lied to us—about such a basic matter, what else will they lie to us about if reelected to their existing offices, or worse, if reelected to majorities in the House and Senate and in the White House?

No, It Isn’t

Posted on by
Reply

Clean Energy Is Under Attack Even Where It’s Booming goes the Wall Street Journal headline. There’s a hint regarding that buried in the middle of the article:

The hit to the power sector could prove significant. More than three-fourths of the proposed solar projects and more than one-third of the wind farms in long queues to connect to the power grid needed tax incentives to be economically viable as of January, said Corianna Mah, analyst at Enverus Intelligence Research.

No, clean energy is not under attack. Market-distorting, vote-buying subsidies and tax credits are under attack—as they should be. Clean energy will do fine when the market—us consumers—want it. If clean energy projects cannot succeed without those handouts, they aren’t economically—or technologically—viable.

See, for instance, natural gas. Oil, even cleaned-up coal, too, once the costs of regulatory impediments designed as actual attacks on hydrocarbon energy are subtracted off. But wait—oil subsidies…. Those are a tiny fraction of all those clean energy subsidies and tax credits. But yes, oil subsidies need to go away, also.