Archive for the ‘Big Business’ Category
Thursday, February 20th, 2020
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Bloomberg’s Business Nanny
The Sustainability Accounting board is a stalking horse for progressive politics.
The Editorial Board February 18, 2020
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink recently made a splash by threatening to vote against corporate managers who don’t disclose an array of non-financial information as directed by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board. But what is SASB, and where is this all going?
Michael Bloomberg founded SASB in 2011 as a shadow regulator for his policy agenda. SASB claims to be modelled on the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), a nonprofit with the imprimatur of the Securities and Exchange Commission that regulates how corporations account for and disclose financial information.
SASB’s nine-member standards board issues guidelines for what kinds of sustainability information corporations should report to investors. Yet while financial accounting is more or less uniform for all businesses, SASB standards vary across 77 industries. Tracking the minutia will provide a lifetime job guarantee for corporate auditors.
Consumer banks have to disclose how many “no-cost retail checking accounts” they provide “to previously unbanked or underbanked customers.” Investment houses must document loans that incorporate “environmental, social and governance” factors. Casinos have to report the share of employees who work where smoking is allowed.
SASB requires businesses in most high-paying industries to disclose workforce diversity. “Hiring foreign nationals to compensate for shortages in local talent can create risks related to perceived social implications,” SASB says. That’s interesting because Mr. Bloomberg’s private media company, Bloomberg LP, reports 17% of its U.S. workers are foreign nationals while 10% are black or Latino. Under SASB this means Bloomberg needs to “improve employee engagement and work-life balance” to recruit more minorities and women.
Some standards would require a wild goose chase, literally. Restaurants must report their share of cage-free eggs and pork produced without gestation crates. Why not grass-fed beef and hormone-free chicken—or vegan meals, as the outfit Vegan Finance suggested in a public comment posted on SASB’s website?
(more…)
Posted in Big Business, Big Government, Bloomberg, Election 2020, Elitism, Globalists, Government Regulation, Liberalism, Political Correctness, Progressive Movement, Social Justice, Wall Street | No Comments »
Tuesday, January 21st, 2020
Below are two articles about the book, ‘Profiles in Corruption’ by Peter Schweizer regarding the Biden family that will be released tomorrow. Nancy
‘Profiles in Corruption’ Contains 1,126 Endnotes, No Unnamed Sources
By Rebecca Mansour January 19, 2020
The forthcoming bombshell investigative book Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite contains 1,126 endnotes totaling 83 pages of source material, Breitbart News has learned.
In addition, the book contains no unnamed sources. Instead, it is based on hard evidence and documents, including: foreign and domestic corporate and legal records, tax liens, lobbyist disclosures, property records, White House visitor logs, federal bankruptcies, and federal criminal trial records.
Publishing giant HarperCollins has kept Profiles in Corruption under a strict embargo. The book will reportedly expose how five members of Joe Biden’s family—the “Biden Five”—scored “tens of millions of dollars” in taxpayer money and guaranteed loans. In addition, the book is said to contain never-before-reported bombshell revelations about Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, and Eric Garcetti.
Last week Amazon named the book its “most anticipated” nonfiction book based on pre-sale volume. Ten days before the book’s January 21 release, it had already hit #1 on Amazon across all book genres.
The book’s writer, Government Accountability Institute President and Breitbart News senior contributor Peter Schweizer, is a five-time New York Times bestseller author who penned Clinton Cash and Secret Empires. According to Axios, Schweizer and his GAI team of investigators spent a year and a half researching Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite.
Sean Hannity will kick off the book’s official launch on Monday.
nypost.com/2020/01/18/how-five-members-of-joe-bidens-family-got-rich-through-his-connections/
How five members of Joe Biden’s family got rich through his connections
By Peter Schweizer January 18, 2020
Political figures have long used their families to route power and benefits for their own self-enrichment. In my new book, “Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite,” one particular politician — Joe Biden — emerges as the king of the sweetheart deal, with no less than five family members benefiting from his largesse, favorable access and powerful position for commercial gain. In Biden’s case, these deals include foreign partners and, in some cases, even US taxpayer dollars.
The Biden family’s apparent self-enrichment involves five family members: Joe’s son Hunter, son-in-law Howard, brothers James and Frank, and sister Valerie.
When this subject came up in 2019, Biden declared, “I never talked with my son or my brother or anyone else — even distant family — about their business interests. Period.”
As we will see, this is far from the case …
(more…)
Posted in American History, Andrew Breitbart, Big Business, Big Government, Book Reviews, Corruption/Crime, Deep State, Democrats, Election 2020, Foreign Policy, Joe Biden, Legal Issues, Obama Administraiton and Policy, Political Corruption, Politics, Transparency, Women Candidates | No Comments »
Saturday, January 18th, 2020
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Is Donald Trump ‘profoundly unconservative’?
No. It doesn’t match his shrinking regulations and limiting government
by Allan H. Ryskind Allan H. Ryskind, a former editor and owner of Human Events, is the author of “Hollywood Traitors” (Regnery, 2015)
December 31, 2019
Prominent liberal Fareed Zakaria insists that Donald Trump “has been profoundly unconservative” because he’s abandoned what “Republicans used to call the core of their agenda — limited government.” But it’s hard to take the charge seriously, even though some conservatives have sent his piece around for comment to see if he’s onto something. Yet no politician in recent memory has restricted the reach of government at both the federal and state level more than the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Mr. Trump’s drastic shrinking of federal economic regulations, opening vast expanses of federal lands for energy exploration, drawing overseas businesses home with tax breaks and passing major tax cuts for corporations and individuals have generated an explosion of well-paying jobs, personal wealth and soaring wages, as well as the lowest level of unemployment for minorities on record. Some 7 million new jobs have been created during Mr. Trump’s presidency and more than 100 million American shareholders have watched the market jump 55 percent since his election.
You’d think Mr. Zakaria would be celebrating Mr. Trump’s low-tax, pro-growth economic agenda as not only core Republicanism but virtually Reaganesque. Increasing prosperity by stimulating market forces without enacting high taxes and big government programs is, of course, how conservatives try to keep government limited.
Mr. Zakaria concedes that Mr. Trump has delivered what conservatives have wanted in the realm of “social and cultural policy,” such as “appointing judges, tightening rules related to abortion and asylum, etc.” but suggests they have little to do with taming the Leviathan.
Really? Stacking the courts with judges steeped in the philosophy of federalism is, of course, precisely the way to limit government on both the economic and cultural fronts. Mr. Zakaria may ignore the threat, but Democratic Party presidential candidates, along with their media support groups, are panicked over the president’s court selections.
(more…)
Posted in Abortion, Administrative State, Big Business, Big Government, Class Warfare, Congress, Conservatism, Constitution, Deep State, Democrats, Donald Trump, Economy, Election 2020, Energy, Environmental Issues, Globalists, GOP, Government Regulation, Judges, Legal Issues, Liberalism, Nationalism, Progressive Movement, Radical Left, Redistribution of Wealth, Spending, Taxation, Taxes, Transparency | No Comments »
Saturday, January 4th, 2020
GUEST EDITORIALS
- Published: 01 October 2019
- Written by James D. Veltmeyer, MD
EDITORIAL – The ongoing attacks by the political establishment on President Donald Trump –which began even before he was elected – are without parallel in history. The savagery, frenzy, and outright hysteria displayed by the President’s enemies within the Democrat Party, the media, and the various power centers of the globalist elites have no prior precedent.
This President has been spied on, lied about, made the subject of phony foreign dossiers, insulted, ridiculed, scorned, mocked and threatened. We have witnessed Hollyweird celebrities advocate for blowing up the White House, demand the President be beaten, jailed or even assassinated, and his children tortured and sexually abused.
We have seen politicians in Washington try to convict the President of non-existent crimes, investigate him and his family members for everything from tax returns to guests at his hotels, project on to him crimes that they themselves have committed, and seed his Administration with leakers and double-agents.
No other President in American history has been treated in such a shameful manner. Not Lincoln. Not FDR. Not Nixon. Not Reagan.
What is it about this President that has roused such demons in his political foes? What is it about this President that drives his opponents to the brink of insanity? What is it about this President that so terrifies and terrorizes the Pelosis, Schiffs, Schumers and the George Soroses?
Is it simply that he is not part of the club, a brash outsider with a different style? Is it merely because he’s outspoken and tramples on political correctness? Is it because he’s sometimes unpresidential in his demeanor ( at least in their minds )?
Not at all. After all, aren’t these the same folks who loved Bill Clinton whose extracurricular activities involved cigars and staining blue dresses in the Oval Office?
(more…)
Posted in Administrative State, American History, Big Business, Big Government, Border Security, Brexit, China, Chuck Schumer, Clinton, Conservatism, Corporate Cronyism, Corruption/Crime, Deep State, Democrats, Donald Trump, Election 2020, Elitism, England, EU ( European Union), Europe, FBI Director, Foreign Policy, George Soros, George W. Bush, Global Warming, Globalists, Globalization, History, Illegal Immigration, James Comey, Liberalism, Migration - Islamic, National Defense, Nationalism, Obama, Obama Administraiton and Policy, One World Government, Open Borders, Political Corruption, Progressive Movement, Radical Left, Resistance, Socialism, Soros, Sovereignty, Trade Agreements, U.S. Presidents, USMCA | No Comments »
Monday, December 30th, 2019
“Oh My” is right !!! Nancy
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Elizabeth Warren Has a Plan, Oh My
She may not win the nomination, but her ideas show where the American left wants to go
By the Editorial Board, December 27, 2019
She’s the candidate with a plan for everything: That’s Elizabeth Warren’s brand. But even that sells her ambitions short, as we discovered after a tour of her 60-some policy papers. Ms. Warren is proposing a transformation of American government, business and life that exceeds what the socialist dreamers of a century ago imagined.
Her standing in the polls has fallen after missteps over Medicare, but she is still in the top candidate tier. Her ideas deserve to be taken seriously because they show where the American left wants to go:
***
• Wealth tax: Tax net worth over $50 million at 2% a year, and 6% above $1 billion. To prevent the rich from yachting off, add a 40% “exit tax” on assets over $50 million upon renouncing U.S. citizenship. Estimated revenue: $3.75 trillion over a decade from 75,000 households. Most economists, including many Democrats, call that number a fantasy. Courts might also find the tax unconstitutional.
• Medicare for All tax:Charge companies with at least 50 workers an “Employer Medicare Contribution,” equal to 98% of their recent outlays on health care, while adjusting for inflation and changes in staff size. These varying fees “would be gradually shifted to converge at the average health care cost-per-employee nationally.” Estimated revenue: $8.8 trillion over a decade. If receipts fall short, add a “supplemental” tax on “big companies with extremely high executive compensation and stock buyback rates.”
• Global corporate tax: Raise the top business rate to 35%. Apply this as a world-wide minimum on overseas earnings by U.S. companies. Businesses would “pay the difference between the minimum tax and the rate in the countries where they book their profits.” Apply a similar minimum tax to foreign companies, prorated by the share of their sales made in the U.S. Estimated revenue: $1.65 trillion over a decade.
• Corporate surtax: Tax profit over $100 million at a new 7% rate, without exemptions. This would go atop the regular corporate rate. Estimated revenue: $1 trillion over a decade from 1,200 public companies.
• Slower expensing: “Our current tax system lets companies deduct the cost of certain investments they make in assets faster than those assets actually lose value.” Closing this “loophole,” she says, would raise $1.25 trillion over a decade.
• Higher capital gains taxes: Tax the investment gains of the wealthiest 1% as ordinary income, meaning rates near 40% instead of today’s 23.8%. Apply the tax annually on gains via a “mark to market” system, even if the asset hasn’t been sold. Estimated revenue: $2 trillion over a decade.
(more…)
Posted in Anti-Capitalists, Banking, Big Business, Big Government, Congress, Democrats, Donald Trump, Election 2020, Elizabeth Warren, Entitlements, Liberalism, Medicare/Medicaid, Obama Administraiton and Policy, Obamacare, Politics, Progressive Movement, Radical Left, Regulations, Seniors, Small Business, Socialism, Spending, Taxation, Taxes, Transparency, Women Candidates | No Comments »
Monday, December 30th, 2019
www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/12/hellish-legacy-dingell-family-daniel-greenfield/
|
|
 |
| The Hellish Dingell Legacy
Posted: 28 Dec 2019 11:46 PM PST
A decade ago, Time Magazine unveiled an in-depth article on the death of Detroit. One of the politicians whom the article blamed for Detroit’s woes was Rep. John Dingell.
The Dingell clan has held a congressional seat outside Detroit since 1932. Their 87-year tenure has not coincidentally coincided with the decline of a thriving industrial city into a post-apocalyptic wasteland.
But it’s been good for the Dingells, three of whom have sat in their congressional seat since the days of Herbert Hoover, the rise of Hitler, and the radio age, and fattened their pockets on its sinecures.
Dingell Sr. was the son of Polish immigrants who started out in politics as a union boss, jumped into a newly created seat, and kept it through eleven elections before passing it on to his son. Dingell Jr, outdid daddy by becoming the longest serving member of Congress in American history. Before he died, he passed on the seat to his second wife, whom he married when she was 28 and he was 55 years old.
She was a GM lobbyist who married the Congressman from GM. What was good for GM was good for the Dingells.
By 2014, Dingell Jr. was listed as the third richest member of Congress from Michigan with a net worth of $3.5 million. When Debbie took over for him next year, her net worth was up to $3.6 million. The salary for House members was $174,000. The median household income is $57,000 in the 12th.
Not bad for a family whose business was and is the 12th district from western Detroit through Ann Arbor. Much of the Dingell money came through GM. And Rep. John Dingell had vocally fought for the GM bailout. The GM couple, which had millions in GM stock, had a lot riding on taxpayers bailing them out.
Taxpayers spent billions and the Dingells got millions in an arrangement made in the depths of hell.
|
Posted in American History, Big Business, Big Government, Corporate Cronyism, Corruption/Crime, Daniel Greenfield, Democrats, Donald Trump, Legal Issues, Lobbyists, Obama Administraiton and Policy, Political Corruption, Transparency | No Comments »
Saturday, December 28th, 2019
IMPRIMIS
The following is an abridged version of a talk delivered at Hillsdale College on October 2, 2019, during the College’s 175th anniversary gala. Videos of this and other speeches delivered during the gala are available at fourpillars.hillsdale.edu.
Today many condemn the idea of nationalism by connecting it to race hatred (e.g., white nationalism). But historically, the modern nation-state has proven uniquely suitable to preserving individual rights. The American nation in particular was successful in uniting individuals of different races, ethnic backgrounds, and creeds into one people based on shared principles, a unique physical space, and a common national story. Our nation is the best example in human history of positive nationalism.
The key to this benign nationalism is American citizenship, based on an understanding of American exceptionalism and formed by the American melting pot. But today, our citizenship is eroding and, along with it, American nationalism in the positive sense is disappearing.
American citizenship is eroding in three ways.
First, we are blurring the line between mere residents and citizens. We have between 45-50 million non-native-born residents in the U.S. today—the largest absolute number we’ve ever had. There’s no legal problem with the 30 million of them who have green cards or have acquired citizenship—although even 30 million is a challenge for the American melting pot to assimilate and integrate.
But we also have, according to a recent Yale and MIT study, about 20 million people who are here illegally. In regard to them, the classical ingredients of American citizenship—the right to leave or enter the country as one pleases, for example, or to vote in elections, or to reside here as long as one pleases—are being blurred.
(more…)
Posted in 2010 Census, 2020 Census, A Force for Good in the World, American Exceptionalism, American History, Big Business, Big Government, Border Security, California, Class Warfare, Constitution, Democracy, Democrats, Demographics, Diversity, Donald Trump, Economy, Education, Founding Fathers, Illegal Immigration, Indoctrination of students, Legal Immigration, Legal Issues, Liberalism, Multiculturalism, Open Borders, Political Correctness, Progressive Movement, Radical Left, Sanctuary Cities, Social Justice, Sovereignty, Victor Davis Hanson | No Comments »
Wednesday, December 18th, 2019
This is the first article that I have read that clearly discusses how the USMCA will help American farmers. It also points out the differences between NAFTA and the USMCA. Nancy
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Got Trade? Dairy Farmers Stand to Gain From the USMCA
The newly signed deal is sweet relief to farmers in rural districts like mine in North Carolina.
By Ted Budd Mr. Budd, a Republican, represents North Carolina’s 13th Congressional District. December 14, 2019
The trade agreement negotiated in 2018 by the U.S., Mexico and Canada languished for more than a year as congressional Democrats pressed the Trump administration to extract concessions from Mexico on labor regulations and pharmaceutical patents. The amended USMCA, successor to the North American Free Trade Agreement, was signed this week, putting an end to 14 months of political wrangling. But to those of us who live in farm country, the pact means a lot more than politics.
To Sam Dobson, whose farm in Statesville, N.C., has been in his family for 150 years, the USMCA represents hope. He is a seventh-generation dairy farmer, and the USMCA boosts the chances that his son Chase will be the eighth. “In agriculture, your goal is to leave a legacy and not a liability, and the No. 1 goal for us on our farm is to leave our farm and our legacy just a little bit better than we found it when we got it,” says Mr. Dobson.
Since Nafta came into force, U.S. agricultural exports to Canada and Mexico have quadrupled, from $9 billion in 1993 to $39 billion in 2017, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation. But dairy farmers were left behind as other agricultural exports boomed. U.S. milk prices are in the fourth year of a slump due to chronic oversupply. Canada has historically restricted how much U.S. milk it imports, putting U.S. dairy farmers at a disadvantage.
Farmers in Iredell County, N.C., which I represent in Congress, produce more than 3 billion gallons of milk a year, according to the American Dairy Association of North Carolina. In the 1970s, there were more than 200 dairy farms in Iredell County. Now there are 22. This is a trend that goes far beyond North Carolina. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that 2,731 dairy farms across the U.S. closed last year due to a combination of low profit margins and a gradual decline in milk consumption. “Without these agreements,” Mr. Dobson says, “you’re going to see a disappearance of the industry.”
(more…)
Posted in Agriculture, Big Business, Big Government, Canada, Congress, Donald Trump, Economy, Election 2020, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Legal Issues, Mexico, Trade Agreements, USMCA | No Comments »
Tuesday, November 19th, 2019
Well, guess I won’t be eating anymore of their chicken sandwiches ! Amazing what a company will do to increase their market share ! How disappointing. Nancy
EXCLUSIVE: Chick-fil-A To Stop Donations To Charities With Anti-LGBT Views
November 18, 2019 Cameron Sperance, Bisnow Boston
As Chick-fil-A expands globally and into more liberal parts of the U.S., the chicken chain plans to change which charities it donates to after years of bad press and protests from the LGBT community. Chick-fil-A Loyola Water Tower/Facebook A Chick-fil-A store in Chicago Beginning next year, Chick-fil-A will move away from its current philanthropic structure, Bisnow has learned. After donating to more than 300 charitable organizations this year, the Atlanta-based fast-food chain will instead focus on three initiatives with one accompanying charity each: education, homelessness and hunger. “There’s no question we know that, as we go into new markets, we need to be clear about who we are,” Chick-fil-A President and Chief Operating Officer Tim Tassopoulos said in an interview with Bisnow. “There are lots of articles and newscasts about Chick-fil-A, and we thought we needed to be clear about our message.” The new initiative will no longer include donating to organizations like the Salvation Army, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Paul Anderson Youth Home, Chick-fil-A says, all of which sparked criticism in the past from the LGBT community due to the organizations’ stances on homosexuality. The move comes after several U.S. airports rejected the company from concessions deals earlier this year. More recently, the landlord of the first Chick-fil-A in the U.K. announced eight days into its lease the pop-up venue would not be welcome to extend — all because of the company’s perceived anti-LGBT stance. The company is also months from opening its first location in Boston, where the late Mayor Thomas Menino pledged to ban the company from opening within city limits after Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy voiced his opposition to gay marriage in 2012. Starting next year, the Chick-fil-A Foundation plans to give $9M to organizations like Junior Achievement USA to support education, Covenant House International to fight homelessness and community food banks for its hunger initiative in each city where the chain operates. The company intends to dedicate $25K to a local food bank each time it opens a new location. “This provides more focus and more clarity,” Tassopoulos said. “We think [education, hunger and homelessness] are critical issues in communities where we do business in the U.S.”
Posted in Big Business, Charities, Cultural Marxism, Culture Rot, Diversity, Free Speech, Liberalism, Political Correctness, Progressive Movement, Radical Left, Same Sex Marriage, Social Issues, Social Justice | No Comments »
Friday, November 15th, 2019
This is an article you have to read as there is so much new information in it regarding China and how our financial markets are being used to finance China’s expansion of their technological and military advances. Nancy
IMPRIMIS – HILLSDALE COLLEGE
Why and How the U.S. Should Stop Financing China’s Bad Actors
October 2019 • Volume 48, Number 10 • Roger W. Robinson, Jr.
Roger W. Robinson, Jr.
Chairman, Prague Security Studies Institute
Roger W. Robinson, Jr. is president and CEO of RWR Advisory Group and co-founder and chairman of the Prague Security Studies Institute. He earned a B.A. from Duke University and an M.A. from George Washington University. He served as senior director of international economic affairs on President Reagan’s National Security Council, where he was the principal architect of the secret economic and financial strategy that proved decisive to the defeat of the Soviet Union. He later served as chairman of the Congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Prior to his government service, he was a vice president in the international department of the Chase Manhattan Bank.
The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on September 9, 2019, during a conference on the topic, “Understanding China.”
In the early 1980s, I served on President Reagan’s National Security Council. Prior to my time at the White House, I was a vice president at Chase Manhattan Bank, in charge of its USSR and Eastern Europe division. It was my job to assess the creditworthiness of the countries in that part of the world, and I had come to realize that the Soviet Union had relatively modest hard currency income—and that what little it had came largely from the West.
In 1982, the Soviets had an empire stretching from Havana to Hanoi, but their hard currency revenue totaled only about $32 billion a year—roughly one-third the annual revenue of General Motors at the time. They were spending about $16 billion more annually than they were making, with the funding gap—the USSR’s life support—being financed by Western governments and banks.
President Reagan had long believed that the Soviet Union was economically vulnerable, because he knew it lacked the entrepreneurship, technological dynamism, and freedoms that are the prerequisites of a strong modern economy. And when he learned that we in the West were financing its brutal regime, he committed to slowing, and ultimately terminating, that flow of discretionary cash.
Our European allies had a completely different approach. Their belief in Ostpolitik, as the Germans called it, presupposed that commercial bridge-building would lead to geopolitical cooperation. If the West would offer financing and trade with the Soviets, peace and prosperity would result. Meanwhile, the Soviets were using the proceeds of Western loans, hard currency revenue streams, and technological support to build up their military, expand their empire, and engage in anti-Western activities.
The Reagan administration drew the line on a project called the Siberian Gas Pipeline, a 3,600-mile twin-strand pipeline that stretched from Siberia into the Western European gas grid. If completed, not only would it become the centerpiece of the Soviets’ hard currency earnings structure, but Western Europe would become dependent on the USSR for over 70 percent of its natural gas, weakening Western Europe’s ties to the U.S. and leaving the continent open to Kremlin extortion. Moreover, the pipeline was being financed on taxpayer-subsidized terms, since France and Germany viewed the USSR as a less developed country worthy of below-market interest rates.
The U.S. at the time had a monopoly on oil and gas technology that could drill through permafrost—which we had developed for Alaska’s North Slope—and we imposed oil and gas equipment sanctions on the USSR and European companies that were helping to build the Siberian pipeline. At one point, despite the strain it placed on relations with our NATO allies, we closed the U.S. market entirely to companies that continued to supply the pipeline project over our objections. Four of the six affected companies went under within six months, and Europeans woke up to the fact that they could do business with us or the Soviets, but not both.
As a result of these efforts we capped Soviet gas deliveries to Western Europe at 30 percent of total supplies, delayed the first strand of the pipeline by years and killed the second strand, and eventually helped dry up the bulk of Western credits to the USSR. In a secret deal, we also persuaded the Saudis to pump an additional two million barrels of oil per day and decontrolled prices at the wellhead in this country, knocking oil prices down to about $10 a barrel—significant because for every dollar decrease in the price of a barrel, the Soviets lost some 500 million to one billion dollars. In short, the Soviet Union never recovered from these economic and financial blows. It defaulted on some $96 billion in Western hard currency debt shortly before the total collapse of the Soviet empire.
The story with China today has certain similarities, but with one big difference: the U.S. has been playing the role of the naïve Europeans. Since adopting the Kissinger policy of engaging with China in the 1970s, our government has operated on the assumption that economic and financial relations with China would lead Beijing to liberalize politically. And since 2001, when we backed China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, the pace at which we have given China access to our best technology and capital and trade markets has accelerated. Yet China has shown no signs of embracing individual freedoms or the rule of law.
Instead, with our support, the Chinese have launched a massive campaign to become the world’s leading superpower. We know about the “Belt and Road Initiative,” a strategic undertaking to place huge segments of the world under China’s influence or outright control. We know about “Made in China 2025,” a strategy designed to dominate key technology sectors—from artificial intelligence and quantum computing to hypersonic missiles and 5G. We know about China’s practice of forced technology transfers: requiring American companies to share their trade secrets and R&D in order to do business in China. We know about China’s predatory trade practices. We know many of these things only because President Trump has brought them to the forefront of national attention, for which he deserves credit. And the ongoing tariff war is a good thing in the sense that we’ve finally begun to take a stand.
(more…)
Posted in American History, Banking, Big Business, Big Government, China, Congress, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, France, Germany, Globalists, Globalization, Legal Issues, Liberalism, Military, Missle Defense, President Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan, Russia, Transparency, U.S. Presidents, Wall Street | No Comments »
