Tag Archives: politics

The PRC and Intellectual Property Theft

Posted on by
Reply

In the absence of any serious legal protections against intellectual property theft in the People’s Republic of China, businesses operating there are engaging more and more in sweeping conference rooms there for bugs and equipping personnel with sanitary burner phones for use while in the PRC.

That’s a start for those willing to put their proprietary information at risk through a business venture inside the PRC or with a PRC-based business anywhere, but it’s inadequate by itself, as illustrated by this bit of naivete by the linked-to piece’s author:

Mr Trump wants China to unwind policies that require auto makers, cloud service providers and others to share technology with Chinese partners for the right to operate here. …for example, operate in 50-50 joint ventures with Chinese partners.
Those technology transfers, however, are distinct from the outright theft some companies say they face.

The distinction is little different from the distinction between extortion and robbery.  President Donald Trump needs to take concrete action to encourage the PRC to eliminate those policies.

Where national security information would be at risk, CFIUS needs to get more active.

Congress needs to take complementary action: perhaps barring companies from sharing their proprietary information, perhaps requiring companies wanting to do business with PRC-based companies or within the PRC to retain a controlling share of any partnership, perhaps other steps, also.

I am Shocked, Shocked

Posted on by
Reply

Recall Amazon.com’s playing off of several cities against each other in order to maximize the tax breaks and other returns that company might get for building its second headquarters in the “winning” city.  Now we discover this in the offing:

US cities vying for Amazon.com Inc’s second headquarters risk facing an unexpected consequence to victory: other companies will demand the same hefty tax breaks conferred on the online retail giant.

How amazing is that?  Other companies want in on the goodies.

I’m not shocked at that; I’m shocked that those cities’ managers didn’t see this coming.  Their lack of anticipation speaks poorly of their ability to respond to those demands.

It also speaks poorly of the competence of those cities’ managers.

Energy “Subsidies”

Posted on by
Reply

The Federal government is continuing its ethanol mandates in its misguided effort to clean up the fuel our cars burn as we get about our business.  In an op-ed earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal rightly decried the artificial, government-created and -propped up market in RINs, which oil refineries can trade around in order to get credit for ethanol that they’re unable to obtain and blend into the fuel they produce.  As the WSJ noted, one of several outcomes of this artificial market is this.

The core problem is that the federal government has distorted the energy market by using subsidies and mandates to support biofuels.

The Federal government has distorted far more than that. By diverting so much corn to ethanol production, the Feds have very greatly driven up the price of food—corn and corn products, meat animals fed on corn, other food crops that are corn substitutes—wheat, beans, etc—and on and on.

The solution is to end this political favoritism.

The favoritism here is in acceding to the wishes three Senators from corn-producing States: Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst (both R, IA) and Deb Fischer (R, NE).

The more direct solution is for the Feds to end the ethanol mandates and to get out of the energy and food markets altogether (the latter which also requires eliminating farm support subsidies, a much more politically difficult proposition even though the subsidies also markedly drive up the cost of food). A large side effect of that would be to strike a blow against political favoritism.

The Old Ball and Chain

Posted on by
Reply

Hillary Clinton made a speech in India in which she said some things that apparently she was too timid to say here in the US of A.  One thing she said was about white women:

…we don’t do well with married, white women. And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.

Because white women who don’t toe the line and vote for Clinton (or now, presumably, for the Progressive-Democratic Party candidate, whomever she might be in whatever race) just can’t think for themselves, they’re just the medieval-esque property of their lord and master husband.  Or of their male child if they don’t have a proper life with a husband.

It’s plain why she didn’t dare say such a thing in Texas, or middle Oklahoma, or farmland Iowa, or anywhere else but the West Coast and the northeast.  Or in Tennessee.  Even Missouri, where a Progressive-Democrat Senator proclaimed her offense from Clinton’s spew.  Or in Wasilla, AK.

At least Clinton didn’t go after all the ditzy blondes that didn’t vote her way.

Oh, wait….

Probing the Attempted Murder of an Ex-Spy

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that an ex-spy and his daughter were attacked in a British park with a view to killing at least the ex-spy.  The weapon used was a nerve gas that’s only made in Russia.  The investigation itself is pointing strongly at Moscow as the instigator of the murder attempt; although the investigation is not complete.  Now Russia is refusing to cooperate in the investigation unless certain conditions are met.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Moscow would only cooperate with the UK’s investigation into the nerve-agent poisoning of a former spy if London supplied the substance in question and opened up the probe to Russian officials.

Supplying a sample of the nerve agent—which use just incidentally also poisoned roughly 20 other folks associated with the discovery of the two victims, their transport to a hospital, and their treatment, thereby illustrating the indiscriminate nature of the attack—would be entirely reasonable.

That last, though, opening the investigation to the Russians should be unacceptable to the Brits for a couple of reasons.  One is that the Russians are unlikely to cooperate with, much less support, the investigation in any serious way regardless of any sharing by British investigators.

The larger reason, though, is that the opening would only provide Putin with another avenue for spying on Great Britain.