China Could Win

#7 - Seven Things You Can't Say About China.

This concludes the report on China based on the aforementioned book written by Senator Tom Cotton.

His final chapter stipulates that China could actually win the war for world domination.

China is tired of letting America run the show. The world runs on our currency, uses our language to conduct business, relies on our military strength and leadership. Xi is bound and determined to put an end to this. He has stated so openly. It is, of course, why China is accumulating military strength at breakneck speed and has infiltrated our society on so many levels.

The key, Senator Cotton concludes, is Taiwan. This tiny nation of 24 million manufactures 60% of the world's microchips and 90% of its advanced ones. Nothing China has done so far has seriously diminished our power. They believe a takeover of Taiwan will change that calculus.

Experts like Bloomberg Economics, super investor Ken Griffith and professor Ian Eaton, a specialist on China's planned invasion of Taiwan at US Naval War College, agree. They estimate an invasion of Taiwan could wipe out $10 Trillion in global wealth and destroy US economy on a scale comparable to the financial crisis of 2008. Everything from automobiles to I-phones to household appliances depends on chips made in Taiwan. What if China did not destroy their factories but only seized control? Think supply chains were interrupted by Covid? This disruption would be catastrophic the way things currently stand.

Chips are not like oil. You can't just buy them somewhere else.

But China has other reasons for being so consumed with Taiwanese assimilation.

They would control the "unsinkable aircraft carrier" (Douglass MacArthur). Using Taiwan as a base, they would quickly dominate the South China Sea and project unprecedented power into the Pacific. All of SE Asia would be threatened. 90% of Japan's oil and 60% of its natural gas come through the South China Sea. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia etc. would quickly move to appease. In time, even India. Based on history, once the pain became severe enough, Europe would likely capitulate.

At this time only 9 countries have the bomb. As fear of China escalates and faith in the US erodes, who knows how many will turn to nuclear weapons for safety? Think about it. We have only 4% of the world's population and 6% of its land mass. Not exactly controlling interest. Once China strangles our supply chains and brings allies and trading partners to their knees, how long can we remain top dog?

It is not only Senator Cotton who can imagine this outcome. Experts on Chinese intentions have been warning of this for 50 years. And yet all we have done until now is allow our military to debilitate, enrich their economy by buying their products, pay huge tariffs on what we export and, of course, welcome them into every nook and cranny of our society. Not exactly a foolproof strategy for dealing with a sworn enemy. So why have we not wised up and taken action? Answer - too many US companies, investors and politicians are making big money by cozying up to the Reds. Pure and simple.

So what can you and I do? Stay involved. In our elections, our schools, in which apps our kids use. Steer clear of rewarding companies who trade in China, of products made there, of celebrities who apologize. And, of course, buy American when you can. Most of all, elect leaders who believe...China Could Win.

Here's Why Tariffs Matter

Most people around the world either need or want to buy a car. But when it comes to choosing the model, American vehicles get short shrift. In other words, people outside the U.S. seem to shun buying U.S. vehicles. Instead, they’d rather buy their homegrown version.

Consider these car sales figures. In 2024, the U.S. imported 757,564 new vehicles made in the European Union, whereas the EU imported only 169,152 from America, according to the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association. Put in money terms, that’s EU sales to the U.S. of 38.5 billion euros ($43.9 billion) versus €7.8 billion (approximately $8.9 billion) sold to Europe. 

Make no mistake, some of the disparity is our choice. We like bigger cars. Petrol is cheaper here. Decent size parking spaces are available. But...

A big part of the reason is the tariff the EU places on all imports of cars and light trucks. Four times the 2.5% tariff on cars before President Trump's recent changes. That alone puts U.S. cars at a major disadvantage compared to automobiles made inside Europe.

Some of the best-selling U.S. trucks and cars are way more expensive in Europe.

For instance, in the U.S., a new Chevy Tahoe, a large SUV, has a starting list price of $59,000. In Norway, that goes up to $100,000 once taxes are added. Elsewhere in Europe, you’ll still pay more.

The taxes and other costs added can make the cost of even a used car eye-watering. For instance, FOX Business saw a 2021 Dodge Ram that was recently offered at 2.5 million Norwegian krone, the equivalent of $235,000. 

A new Ford Ranger truck will start at $33,808 in the U.S. but $40,000 in France and Germany. Outside of Europe the cost is the same in China and Japan.

A Jeep Grand Cherokee starts at $38,490 in the U.S. but $64,830 in France and $61,990 in Germany. In Japan and China it would cost around $61,990.

Now imagine similar disadvantages on thousands of US products worldwide. It just ain't fair.

Ten tariff questions that aren’t being asked — but should be.

Every time you hear some lame-brained news caster, talk show host or dumber than rocks politician lampooning President Trump's campaign to put America back on fair and equal footing...stop and ask yourself why other countries have been doing the exact same thing for their economies for decades.

1. President Trump’s so-called "trade war"

Many call the American effort to obtain either tariff parity or a reduction in the roughly $1 trillion trade deficit and 50 years of consecutive trade deficits a "trade war."

What do they call the policies of the past half-century by Europe, Asia, China and others to ensure asymmetrical tariffs, pseudo-health and security trade restrictions, and large surpluses?

A trade peace? Trade fairness?

2. Do nations prefer surpluses or deficits?

Why do most nations prefer trade surpluses and protective tariffs?

Are Europe, Asia, China and others stupid? Are they suicidal in continuing their trade surpluses and protective or asymmetrical tariffs?

Is the United States uniquely brilliant in maintaining a half-century of cumulative trade deficits?

Did Americans alone discover the advantages of a $1 trillion annual trade deficit and small or nonexistent tariffs?

Why don’t America’s trading partners prefer deficits like ours — given we have acted as though they are either advantageous or perhaps irrelevant?

3. Would our trade partners prefer to trade places with us?

Would our trade partners prefer to have America’s supposed benefits of a $1 trillion trade deficit?

Would the United States then "suffer" like they do by running up $200 billion annual surpluses?

4. What if wages went up at the rate of the stock market?

What would now be the reaction of the stock market if over the last decade, wages had increased at the rate of stocks — and stocks at the rate of wages?

5. Is Wall Street’s panic based on what might happen — or on what is happening?

Is Wall Street’s meltdown a fear of what might happen in the future? Or is it reacting to March’s latest jobs report that there were 93,000 more jobs created than predicted?

Was the Wall Street panic predicated on reports of much lower oil prices?

Did the furor arise over the March inflation report that the annualized inflation rate dipped to 2.6% per year?

6. Is the frenzy caused by the Trump economic agenda?

Is Wall Street’s worry that Donald Trump’s impending tax cuts, more deregulation, greater budget cuts and continued efforts to eliminate budget deficits and reduce national debt will stall economic growth?

7. What about North American neighbors?

If the US were running a $63 billion-plus trade surplus with Canada, refusing to meet its NATO requirements to spend 2% of GDP on defense, would Canada become concerned?

If Mexico were running a $171 billion trade deficit with the U.S., if Americans in Mexico were sending over $60 billion per year out of Mexico to the US, and if American drug dealers were making $20 billion by selling fentanyl and opioids to Mexico, would Mexico be angry?

8. Is the Trump agenda bad economic news?

Is the current panic over tariffs amplified by Trump’s other policies?

Is the sudden end of 10,000 illegal entries a day bothering Wall Street?

Are the media furious that the Red Sea is suddenly navigable again because the Houthis in Yemen have been bombed to oblivion (for the time being at least)?

Is the outrage due to the targeting of approximately $200 billion in budget cuts or plans to shave off $500 billion from the annual budget?

Does the conundrum arise because Trump is sanctioning Iran, unapologetically supporting Israel and seeking an end to the Ukraine war?

9. Was the Biden record preferable?

Should Trump try to match former President Joe Biden’s $7 trillion addition to the national debt?

Should he return to allowing 12 million illegal aliens into the country?

Was the 2021 Afghanistan pullout a good model?

Is Wall Street worried that Trump may copy the Biden New Green Deal, his electric vehicle mandates and more green regulations?

10. Why the negotiations and why now?

Why are 70 countries now wishing to negotiate tariffs with America, either down to zero or reciprocally to the same rate as ours?

Is that a good thing? If so, why did our trade partners not wish to lower their trade barriers far earlier?

Did they suddenly and spontaneously decide they were acting unfairly and, on their own prompt, now want to make amends?

What’s next?

If there soon is a rush of nations to cut a deal with the United States so as not to be left out of the American market, will there follow another hysterical Wall Street spasm — not to sell, but instead to buy stocks at bargain prices?

(Thank you Victor Davis Hanson for this brilliant assortment of "common sense" questions. Most are blindingly obvious and yet the Left so hates our President they refuse to consider.)

Truly Twisted

Heart-warming to see Senator Chris Van Hollen, Dem-MD, out there fighting for his constituents. On Wednesday, he traveled all the way to El Salvador on taxpayer money to retrieve deported gang member, Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Just two days after the MS-13 (same gang as Abrego) member who brutally raped and killed Rachel Morin, a young mother of five on her way to the grocery store, was convicted.

Coincidently, on the same day in the WH Press Conference, Rachel's mother recounted, blow by blow, the sadistic torture of her daughter before she was strangled to death. Thrown against walls, dragged through thorn bushes, etc. Rachel became a symbol of the violence perpetrated by Central and South American gang members here illegally. Rachel also lived in MD, yet Senator Van Hollen never called her family even once to offer condolences. No headlines in that and, besides, Trump did. And, of course, Biden didn't. Talk about tone deaf.

Now Senor Abrego was, of course, not involved in the Morin murder but he is...a DHS-confirmed member of MS-13, here illegally, twice arrested for brutally assaulting his wife (lord knows what else) and suspected of human trafficking. So one can readily see why the good Senator singled out this Maryland constituent for his personal crusade. Twisted - truly twisted.

Wish the LSM would stop hailing Abrego as "from Maryland." He is an MS-13 gang member from EL SALVADOR here illegally - not "from MD".

Could My Math Be Right?

Harvard has annual revenue of $6.5 billion. Expenses run $6.4 billion. So breakeven. Harvard's endowment of $50.7 billion generates an annual return of 9.6% or $4.9 billion. Endowment returns make up $2.7 billion in annual revenue or 37%. Presumably the remaining increases in net worth of $2.2B ($4.9B - $2.7B) are salted away.

Will somebody educate me as to why Harvard gets tax free status on its capital gains and needs government handouts from your taxes?

Not sure I get it.

More Leftwingers about to Bite the Dust

Seems viewers have had enough of the liberal garbage being spewed by your favorite late night host. Fallon, Colbert and Kimmel have all been cut back to four nights because viewership is off significantly. Who cares? Can't stay up that late anyway.

Have a Happy Easter.