The Press-Dispatch
Issue link: https://www.ifoldsflip.com/i/1473058
China's stars dim for investors By strangling the Chinese econo- my and crushing human rights, Pres- ident Xi Jinping is rapidly turning China into a bad gamble for Western investors and multinational corpora- tions. China's dictator has run into in- creasing, if carefully expressed, crit- icism from top-profile figures within the Chinese Communist Party—in- cluding Premier Li Keqiang—over Xi's ideological struggle to promote state capitalism alongside his quix- otic and increasingly troubled ze- ro-COVID-19 policy. Due to China's increasingly diffi- cult regulator y environment, UBS, the largest private investment bank in the world, has already dropped China's gross domestic product growth rate estimate this year from 5.5% to 3.0%—hardly what the world thinks of as Chinese levels of growth. Li has publicly stated that this drop in the growth rate is unacceptable, especially as the economy hasn't slowed this badly since 1990. Before Xi, China's economic growth was much higher. China's average annual GDP growth rate un- der Yang Shangkun (1988-1993) was 8.6%; under Jiang Zemin (1993-2002), it was 9.8%; and under Hu Jintao (2002-2012), it was 10.4%. Yet Xi managed just 6.5% even be- fore COVID-19, a growth rate more typical of Latin America than the world-dominating power Xi hopes China will become. In fact, China's economic growth rate has been on a downward trend ever since Xi as- sumed his role as the general sec- retar y of the Chinese Communist Party. It peaked at 7.9% in 2012 and declined ever y year as he ran down the relatively free-market economy he inherited, hitting just 2.3% growth in 2020. The problem is Xi's adherence to a state-dominated ideology rooted in Communist China's founder Mao Ze- dong's socialist vision, and this has led him to clash with top party officials such as Li and Vice Premier Liu He. They have recent- ly clashed on issues ranging from tech policy regulations to crackdowns on private education to capricious and brutal COVID-19 restrictions. Both the premier and vice premier have stated that they supported the development and public stock listings of technology companies, a rare frank rebuke to a sitting leader. Xi continues to attack both human freedom and economic prosperity. This year, he's been pressuring top leaders within the Chinese Commu- nist Party to speed up regulations for technology companies to enable his authoritarian vision of a complete sur veillance network over his people to protect his increasingly unpopular reign. For example, China implemented a personal information protection law in 2021, which is a threat to tech- nology companies currently operat- ing within China. This led companies such as Microsoft to shut down its LinkedIn ser vice there in the same year, citing compliance require- ments. LinkedIn's shutdown brings an end to the last major Western social media site operating in China, as oth- er major social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and WhatsApp have al- ready been blocked within the coun- tr y. James Zimmerman, an American lawyer based in the Beijing office of law firm Perkins Coie LLP, stated that Chinese markets have become "less and less palatable for Western companies" due to the "reputational risks of operating in an en- vironment with extreme content censorship, and tighter regulator y con- ditions." In other words, dancing for authoritarian regimes that murder their own people apparently is bad for business. Meanwhile, just this month, Xi doubled down on his zero-COVID-19 policy and implemented new lock- downs with mass testing drives in Shanghai and Beijing, just a week after numerous cities were finally breathing free after previous restric- tions were eased. This has forced businesses to shut down and has been disrupting supply chains and has put Chinese jobs at risk. Xi's authoritarianism is attracting increasing backlash overseas. Nu- merous Western nations, such as the United States, Canada, and those in the European Union, imposed sanctions on China for its ongoing genocide against Uyghur Muslims, among the largest internment of ethnic and religious minorities since World War II. Forty-four countries, including the U.S., the U.K., and most of Western Europe, released a joint statement stating, "We will continue to stand to- gether to shine a spotlight on China's human rights violations. We stand united and call for justice for those suffering in Xinjiang." Meanwhile, China has even begun hunting down Uyghurs abroad, re- ceiving help from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Biden's green new deal is increasing greenhouse gases Here's an amazing but true statis- tic. After more than a decade of de- clining carbon emissions here in the United States, in 2021, President Joe Biden's first year in office, emissions rose. In other words, not only have Biden's energy policies been a di- saster for our economy and national security as we have become more de- pendent on Russia and Iran, but they haven't worked as a global warming solution. To understand the utter futility of Biden's "renewable energy" crusade, we must go back about 15 years in time to when the amazing shale rev- olution, thanks to energy pioneers such as Harold Hamm of Oklaho- ma, the man who drilled the Bakken Shale in North Dakota, began. These new drilling techniques have vast- ly expanded America's natural gas production over the past decade and turned America into the world's lead- ing oil and gas superpower. Because clean natural gas produc- tion soared and replaced coal as the No. 1 source of power generation, not only did America get rich off these bountiful resources but we also reduced our greenhouse gas emis- sions. In fact, over the six years cov- ering 2014 through 2020, we led the world in our reductions in carbon di- oxide emissions. Our emissions fell by 22%. That was more than former President Barack Obama's cap-and- tax plan would have reduced these emissions. Ironically, the 10-year trend of declining car- bon dioxide emissions actually ended when Biden took office. The conventional explana- tion for this is that as the economy opened up after COVID-19, emis- sions rose. People were flying less and driving their cars a lot more. But that is only part of the stor y. Iconoclastic environmentalist Mi- chael Shellenberger explains the bigger stor y: "In 2021, emissions in the U.S. in- creased mostly because of increased coal use, *not* because of higher econ growth. Why? Because natural gas became more expensive. Why? Because of inadequate supply. Why? Chronic 'under-investment in pro- duction & pipelines, thanks to ESG & climate activists,'" he wrote recently. We need to add Biden's war on fos- sil fuels to that mix. The Energy De- partment data confirms that in 2021, coal use rose in the U.S. and natu- ral gas consumption fell. That was because Biden's Green New Deal agenda made coal a more attractive alternative in terms of costs. So Biden's agenda has backfired. More evidence rolls in from the rest of the world. Germany has acknowl- edged that it will burn more coal in the years ahead to get cheap pow- er. But they aren't going to get much of it from the U.S. Rather, they'll get it from China, which has tripled its coal output and doesn't care at all about whether its increased production will negatively affect the environment. China has among the laxest environ- mental laws in the world. So none of this is stopping climate change. China has been one of the biggest winners from the Biden war on ener- gy. The second winner is Russian dic- tator Vladimir Putin, who is waltzing to the bank. Russia has made $100 billion selling oil and gas to the U.S. and others at inflated prices. Meanwhile, Biden's war on coal production at home has led to a more than doubling of the world price of coal, and in some cases, the price in- creases in Europe have risen tenfold because of mining restrictions. I don't oppose coal production, and I believe the environmentalist movement's crusade against coal as part of our energy mix makes no economic sense. We are simply Submit Letters to the Editor: Letters must be signed and received by noon on Mondays. Email: editor@pressdispatch.net or bring in a hard copy: 820 E. Poplar Street, Petersburg OPINION SCOTUS decisions will change political landscape With the Supreme Court con- cluding one of the most historic and consequential terms in its histor y, it leaves in its wake consequences and implications for the direction of our countr y. One ver y important result may well be a movement of Black and Hispanic voters to the right. It is reasonable to conclude that conser vatives are happy with where this court has taken us and liberals are not happy. More specifically, those who be- lieve in the original vision of the coun- try, that it is about individual liberty and that the Constitution is designed to limit the federal government to few and well-defined areas, are happy. And those who believe that the vision of the founders is no longer relevant today, or that the country was flawed from the beginning and their job today is to fix those flaws, are not happy. To continue to drill down, many may con- clude that this recent court session will deepen the divide between those al- ready on the right and those on the left. However, decisions of this court bear directly and positively on Black and Hispanic realities and challenges, and it is most reasonable to conclude the political result will be migration of Black and Hispanic voters to the right. For sure Blacks and Hispanics will hear other wise from propagandists on the left. Most of the headlines have been focused on the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade. But there were other critically im- portant decisions with far-reaching implications. In the case of Carson v. Makin, the court found that the state of Maine was in violation of First Amend- ment protection of "free exercise" of religion where state funds used to pay tuition for public and private schools could not be used for religious schools. In Kennedy v. Bremerton, the court ruled that Bremerton School District violated free exercise of re- ligion and free speech protections of the First Amendment when Bremer- ton High School fired its football coach for praying at the 50-yard line at the conclusion of football games. In New York State Rifle and Pis- tol Association v. Bruen, the court found a New York State law requiring "proper cause," that is, a special rea- son to carr y a handgun, in violation of the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms. As Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked in the hear- ing of the case, "Why isn't it good enough to say I live in a violent area and I want to defend myself?" For Black Americans, who live in some of the most dangerous commu- nities in the nation, the court's decision guaranteeing them the right to defend themselves is important and good news. For Black and Hispanic Americans, whose children are disproportionately trapped in failing public schools, the court's clarifying protections and guar- antees that strengthen the ability for parents to choose where to send the children to school is very good news. The court's decisions firming up re- ligious freedom protections of the First Amendment and disabusing the faulty notion that the U.S. Constitution is in- different to sanctity of life and provides for abortion rights will move Blacks and Hispanics to the political right. Black and Hispanic voters are be- ginning to see what the cultural cha- os of the left has done to their fami- lies and communities. The recent election of Mayra Flores as a Republican and the first Mexican-born member of Congress is case in point. She garnered 51% of the vote in a district in Texas that has never before elected a Republican. She ran as a candidate raised with "strong conservative values that fo- cused on faith, family and hard work." Her campaign poster branded "God, Family, Countr y" in both En- glish and Spanish. I truly believe the recent Supreme Court session will sit well in Amer- ica's Black and Hispanic communi- ties and gives good reason to expect strong implications for change in the nation's political landscape. Star Parker is president of the Cen- ter for Urban Renewal and Education and host of the weekly television show "Cure America with Star Parker." Change the Constitution? This Fourth of July, watching people fight over what the Constitution means, I ask people, if you could change the Constitution, what would you change? "The forefathers knew what they were doing," said one woman. But the Constitution originally accept- ed slavery. It's good that we can amend it. So what should we change? "Add a balanced budget amend- ment," suggests Glenn Beck. David Boaz of the Cato Institute recommends 18-year terms for the Su- preme Court. "Maybe confirmation fights would be less bitter and partisan." Others suggest term limits for Con- gress. Stossel TV's Mike Ricci takes the idea further. "If your father, mother, siblings, uncle, cousins were elected to federal office, you can't be." That would curb Kennedy/Bush-like dynasties. Several people said they want to elim- inate the Commerce Clause. It gives government virtually unlimited power over the economy, complains tech jour- nalist Naomi Brockwell, "forcing peo- ple to participate in federal pension pro- grams...enabling the War on Drugs." Some want an amendment to stop the growth of Washington regulatory agencies like the Food and Drug Ad- ministration, Environmental Protec- tion Agency, and Federal Communi- cations Commission. Economist Don Boudreaux calls them "a grave threat to Americans' liberties and prosperity." The Supreme Court took a small step in restraining their power last week when it ruled that EPA bureau- crats can't set emission rules all by themselves. Congress has to vote on that. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif, propos- es overturning Citizens United. He says that would stop those who "spend millions of dollars corrupting elections (and) would return our democracy to the town halls and citizen involvement that our founders envisioned." I doubt that. Limits on political speech increase(insiders' power. Christina Martin of the Pacific Le- gal Foundation wishes the Constitu- tion did more to protect the rights of the individual. "How about a right to earn a living? How about a right to not have the government steal from you?" But some young people told us they want to eliminate rights already in the Constitution, like free speech. "Being able to speak your mind is important," said one, "as long as it's not in a way that is going to be long- term harmful to people." Ouch. Who decides what is harm- ful? Will he get to censor my videos? The Bill of Rights also includes the right to bear arms. Babylon Bee's Kyle Mann would add some lines to clarify that "you can't pass laws re- stricting ownership of firearms." Others want to get rid of the Sec- ond Amendment. "We have police of- ficers. We have a military," said one woman in Times Square. "So do we really need them? No." I'm glad another person corrected her. "The only reason we stand on freedom is because we got the right to bear arms!" he says. "(Because of the Second Amendment) We're all a micro government in our own way." We are all "micro governments?" I like that. The Goldwater Institute's Tim and Christina Sandefur would add "pro- tections against the abuse of eminent domain" and "ban subsidies to spe- cial interests." I like changes that might limit gov- ernment power, and I wonder: How did government grow so powerful when the Constitution was created to limit government's power? Podcaster Michael Malice says it's be- cause the Constitution is often ignored. "The First Amendment says the right of people to peaceably assemble shall not be infringed, (but) not even libertar- ians bothered to invoke that to fight the lockdowns and quarantining." Malice is an anarchist who says he'd put the Con- stitution "in the trash, where it belongs." I disagree. So did most people we asked. "Our founders wrote documents ... designed to give you life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," says pod- caster Dave Rubin. "Perhaps they should've done it in bold so more people would've paid attention." More people should. My short videos are my attempt to let young people know that our Constitution limits government power and that rights belong to)individ- uals. Most simply don't know that. John Stossel is creator of Stossel TV and author of "Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media." Race for the Cure By Star Parker Give Me a Break John Stossel Eye on the Economy By Stephen Moore Heritage Viewpoint By Peter St. Onge C-2 Wednesday, July 13, 2022 The Press-Dispatch See DIM on page 3 See DEAL on page 3