Sino-US Realestate Relations

Should We Worry About Chinese Land Purchases in the US? || Peter Zeihan

For a while I've thought the hype about China overtaking the US was overwrought because it's the over-rot in the US we should worry about. In fact, the ones who wanted to promote the rot were the ones promoting China.

There was a year during the Obama administration when DC came up with 90,000 pages of new regulations -- that's what they mean by an increase in productivity. Does this add to inflation? No. Because it all makes things better. When you factor in the qualitative improvements this quantitative improvement has brought about, there is no inflation (see car prices). Since Sputnik, the Federal government has injected itself (and our money) into the education of our children, and achievement scores have gone way down. But when you factor in that the young folks are much better people these days (ask'em), well, it's all good. And now that the Federal Government is in charge of the climate, Wall Street will only be flooded with cash.

In the 1980s I read that the USSR's rate of capital investment was growing yearly and way higher than in the USA, and I thought "Uh-oh for us." Then I read that all that capital investment was producing a negative return -- that they weren't just running on a treadmill to get ahead, but running on a treadmill and falling behind -- and I thought "Uh-oh for them." As regards Communist China, we've transitioned into the "Uh-Oh for them" stage but we are still in the "Uh-oh for US."

The Chinese leadership blamed political reform in the USSR for the collapse of the communist regime and vowed not to make that mistake. This is like blaming the cancer on the desperate remedies used to slow its spread. Now they've tossed that politically convenient "two systems" pledge (allowing limited political and economic freedom) onto the Ashheap of Chinese History. What desperate measures will Xi Jinping use to avoid that same fate?

How Long Was Rome on the Rhine?

Europe Goes Nuclear: Is America Leaving NATO? || Peter Zeihan

While hitchhiking through West Germany in 1971, a young German picked me up and wanted the US to end its occupation -- he might have meant "of Native American land" but, since the US had 200,000 troops staring down the Red Army at the Fulda gap, I figured he was talking about Germany. I told him to look at a map of the USA: everyone outside of NYC and DC would easily agree to leave -- if it was about occupation rather than preventing the next horrendous war.

I mentioned that "The Red Army" was a two-day drive -- by armored division -- from the Rhine. If the West Germans didn't want tank tracks down their backs, they'd have to replace those 200,000 American "occupiers" (and the accompanying security guarantee) with half a million Germans in jackboots. Then the rest of Europe would build out their militaries, not because they feared Russia but because they feared Germany. (I'd made some Dutch friends and they told me that they were so fond of Germany they loved having two of them.)

President Trump asked the Germans to stop starving their military while gobbling up Russian energy and they laughed at him (literally, there's video) -- that's some costly laughter. He provided Ukraine with the stingers and Javelins that stalled Putin's drive on Kyiv. If I remember correctly, the Biden administration paused "lethal" aid (for a lengthy and thorough process of review) when assuming power. That's like ringing the dinner bell for someone like Putin. I swear, Washington DC is so overrun with self-centered, self-dealing fools that Donald Trump looks good.  Ditto the Capital of Europe -- is it really Defacto Brussels or just Defacto?

At some point, the American military guarantee for Europe will end. Since the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, it's wise to ask: How will Europeans prevent the internecine slaughters that lay ahead? And at what point will the US get dragged in?

Them Spears need Warheads

The Grater of Empires State.

 'LOSER STATE'

 Governor of New York -- The Empire State -- Democrat Kathleen Hochul argues the political targeting of Republican Donald Trump by a rogue prosecutor and Judge was a "One and Done" deal -- in effect admitting that it was political. Kevin O'Leary, Chairman of O'Leary Ventures, begs to differ. There were no victims in the case and seeing a radical leftist prosecutor jump to the defense of international bankers would be amusing but for the likely "decline and economic fallout" that follows as money flows out of the city and state to fairer lands. 

If the judge had dismissed the case instead of (rather gleefully, it seems) slapping The Donald with a $355 million fine (and 9 percent interest), the "one and done" argument may have gained some traction.  Not now. It used to be "the process is the punishment" but now the punishment is followed by more punishment. A corrupt politician can get his loser son-in-law -- let's call him Hunter -- a high-paying job by threatening a businessman with the "Trump Treatment."  It would be an equity hire. You see, the corrupt pols now have equity in your business -- otherwise known as a protection racket.

Making small fortunes in New York

Come to think of it, nothing!

Andrew Sullivan: What I got wrong about Trump 

Conclusions are often reached -- with a jump, sometimes a leap.

I've read some of Andrew's considerable punditry over the decades. Born in the UK, he was a Gay supporter of the 1980s Super Conservative, Magaret Thatcher -- a rather select demographic in the USA, but the Labor Party had screwed up so badly in the 60s and 70s (with help from a rather timid Tory establishment) that he may have had considerable company at Oxford. After his move to America, he joined The New Republic -- a not-quite far-left magazine -- and branded himself a "gay conservative" who was also a principled anti-communist (The Cold War was still on). But when you live among progressives, it's easy to think you are a conservative. Progressives have a two-step program: 1) Give Us Power! 2) Wonderful Things Happen!

Conservative Progressives also have a two-step program. 1) Give Us Power...2) Wonderful things happen? If you change the exclamation mark into a question mark, while sounding a bit less sure of yourself, you have the difference. Don't ask too many questions, though, because the answers might make you an actual, Constitutional Conservative. Defending constitutional interpretations that help your political movement doesn't count (Trump's an Insurrectionist, yay! So take their guns away!).

In 2016, I told progressive friends, who seemed too confident about Hillary Clinton's chances, to watch a Trump rally on YouTube rather than just repeat a Trump "quote" ad infinitum. Rather than making a prepared speech, he spoke extemporaneously. He would wander off-topic for a few minutes and then, almost magically, pick up where he left off. Often the "quote" was a spontaneous remark that got twisted by a Trusted Commentator with Reliable Sources (certified by The Political Commentator Cartel). It is like taking a vaguely complimentary remark Trump made about Vladimir Putin and using it to prove he's a Russian Spy (oh, wait, they did that). But as you watched Trump at his rallies, you actually felt like you knew him. He certainly was not trying to fool anyone.

I feared Trump would leave a lot of Obama's people in place and they would undermine his presidency, which is what happened (he left office with a dozen knives in his back). As a businessman, he assumed the people would do their jobs and not do him dirty. Obama put ideologues in place, and they were loyal to the movement, and their knives were out. The bureaucracy voted 97 percent for Hillary (some voted for the Green Party), so thinking Trump could become a dictator is delusional. When I watched Trump rallies, I didn't get those Mussolini vibes (who was, by the way, a socialist). 

Trump was immediately framed as a Russian spy by the Clinton Campaign and Democrats in the bureaucracy and Congress (OK, some were pretending to be Republicans). Somehow, that doesn't make Congressman Adam Schiff, who lied daily to the voters about Trump's supposed "Russian Connections," a threat to Democracy.  Indeed, the Democrats think that qualifies him for the Senate.

After these efforts fizzled, Nancy Pelosi impeached Trump because he wanted to investigate obvious Biden family corruption in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the Biden family took millions from Ukraine, and are now giving billions back -- but that's no reason to question their motives.

Trump deported thousands of ruthless gang members here illegally, who no doubt promptly returned when Biden opened the border. Who cares more about actual minority Americans?

If Andrew really worries about Dictatorship he would worry about the Democrats who went after Trump supporters and locked people up without trial. The DC Dems are actively defending their Democracy by destroying America's.

Will Trump's assuming office in 2025 entail risks? Of course. But endorsing the course the Statist Democrats have set, with their fake frame jobs and divide and conquer tactics, entails much greater risks. So, on balance, I'll go with the Donald.

He could have implicated Tucker, too

I recommend watching Taras Bulba, the 1962 movie based on Gogol's novel, before watching Vladimir Putin's interview with Tucker Carlson. He begins with a History lesson that is more of a his-story lesson. The movie is more entertaining and only a little longer. Tony Curtis plays a Cossack who grew up in Brooklyn, New York. 

Illustration for the novel by Pyotr Sokolov, 1861

Das Flick

Here is how Vladimir should have started his presentation:

"Tucker, Donald Trump really is my puppet in the USA. Unfortunately, he lost his value due to the heroic efforts of Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration, and the New York Times. We recruited him in High School, and our entire investment in him went down the drain!

"Also, I want to thank you, Tucker, personally, for your help in our massive disinformation campaigns. You are worth your weight in gold, my friend. But instead of gold, you'll get rubles. I hear the Chinese like them."

What a missed opportunity! If he gave that little speech, he would be hailed as a great truth-teller. Then the Davos crowd would give him Ukraine, they'd be so happy. Oh, well.

Under the Leadership of Comrade Stalin...

Don't Know Much about History

I attended a "Renaissance Weekend Lite" in 1970 sponsored by young progressives for the benefit of some idealistic young folk from our Steel Town. The presentation included a panel of Stalinists -- followers of the infamous Communist Dictator. They self-identified as Stalinists, proudly out-of-the-closet (if they were ever in). Their predictable presentation left me unsurprised and unimpressed. I thought we'd all listen politely and pass on. Instead, I was amazed by the questions from the crowd.

It was Social Justice Warrior softball stuff. The answers were ripped from the pages of Pravda circa 1952, prefaced with "Under the Leadership of Comrade Stalin." Yep, all sorts of wonderful things were achieved in the USSR for the workers or the environment or racial tolerance, which pleased almost everyone but...me. I raised my hand and said, "I can't believe what I'm hearing here..." followed by a brief summary of, you know, what actually occurred (including a dead Caspian Sea as well as a lot of dead Ukrainians).  My little rant brought a hostile frown to the face of the panel and immediately ended the questioning period. I guess I pooped The Party.

Later the organizers told me they were quite impressed by what I said. They explained they wanted to provide a variety of viewpoints. I said, "Did I miss the Young Republicans?" I guess I came mighty close to being one because they never invited me back.

The Prisoner of Zenda Election

 If Trump Is Convicted of a Crime, How Much, If Any, Support Would He Lose?

Up to 55 percent, apparently.

In 2015 I wasn't a Trump supporter and told those who were that the Media went after Trump to increase his support in the Republican base (who dislike the media for good reason) and assure his nomination, while driving away the middle, resulting in a huge win for Progressives. They probably had polls showing this.

Obviously, the progressive's use of the MSM to defeat Trump didn't work. The use of the Justice system in 2024 could have a similar result, elevating the Democrats' abuse of the courts to a major campaign issue that could significantly damage the Party's reputation. They convinced a lot of people that the Justice system was unfair and ripe with abuse in 2020. They've convinced a lot more since -- making it an issue most Americans can agree on.

The Democrats focus-group everything. I'm sure their focus groups on Impeaching Trump brought them great Joy. In the end, having to stand on the stage with Dr. Anthony Fauci may have hurt him more.

Who is that masked Beauracrat?

If Trump's polls are running high in the run-up to the election, we'll hear how Hitler also spent time in jail (but nothing about Nelson Mandela).