Trump's China Policies

The following material is from a forthcoming book.

In 1972, Richard Nixon went to China to inaugurate a new China Policy. His goal was to create an economic bridge between China and the world, and turn the communist country into a more peaceful player. This was certainly a laudable goal, but Nixon missed one important detail: A violent dictatorship cannot change overnight without rethinking its policies. Nixon was a pragmatist (by admission) who thought he could develop an open-door policy with China through inducements that influenced China to become more like the USA.

Under Nixon’s initiative, no longer would America try to cajole the communist party to be kinder and more respectful toward its people, at least not at first. A new day had dawned, thought Nixon, when the U.S.A. offered to help China come into the 20th century by opening up U.S. markets to Chinese companies and facilitating lucrative trade deals with China on behalf American companies that wanted to move production facilities there (to counter union high wages in the USA). Nixon hoped that these new policies would influence the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) (that had been fascistically controlling the winners and losers in China) to desist from its violent revolutionary and anti-capitalist policies. (What Nixon had accomplished, however, was opening the door for China to exploit American economic freedoms and intellectual property for its own sake while remaining a brutal dictatorship bent on dominating the world)

The strategy of Nixon’s outreach in 1972 was to make China so rich and dependent upon trade with the world that they would modernize Chinese society and eventually treat its people better. The communists would eventually understand, thought Nixon, the actual value of capitalism and realize that protecting individual rights was the better policy when compared to concentration camps and communist purges of Chinese citizens.

Such a change, thought Nixon, would create a better and more peaceful world. We know that did not happen and the Chinese saw these trade policies as a way to undermine America and continue its goal of Chinese pre-eminence in the world.

Nixon’s mistake was his pragmatism. His desire to appease the Chinese and to assume that they could be “turned” toward capitalism through massive “bribes” and “favorable policies” meant he was willing to deal only with a short-term benefit (for him and his administration) while he ignored (or thought he could later deal with) the long-term consequences (that included the possibility that China would eventually turn the tables on us).

Do not believe that American Republicans were against this change in policy toward China. In the past, America’s anti-communists would have caused them to beware of any deal with a dictatorship like China. Certainly, many of the more vocal defenders of Taiwanese and Hong Kong capitalism looked aghast when they saw these trade policies become reality; and, indeed, many of them thought of Nixon as a traitor to capitalism. Indeed, many previously pro-capitalist politicians among the right were also pragmatists who believed that selling out America to China was not traitorous at all. Eventually, they were wrong about that too.

Now, after forty-five years of China policy, our entire society is based upon trade with China, while China has not changed its desire to overcome the U.S.A. They still have concentration camps, and they still jail and/or kill dissidents. Even worse, China has embedded itself in our universities, turned American college professors into spies and dupes, infiltrated American corporations bought American journalists who present the party line, and turn politicians into spies. Using bribery, and political scandal, they have corrupted our capitalist system and turned it into a fascist dictatorship. If only Trump had been a more eloquent thinker and speaker, he could truly have exposed this cabal that includes virtually every prominent Democrat and many prominent Republicans.

The worst aspect of American China policy is that major pragmatists (CEOs) in the corporate world want to be part of the China deals. In many cases, they preferred to close down their American factories in return for production facilities in China. In other cases, praised China policies and implied that the Chinese nation treated its people well. This was because the philosophy of pragmatism (that came out of Ivy League colleges) had been teaching CEOs to swim with the current, even if the “current” meant dealing with murderous dictatorships, racist radicals, and especially, even if it meant less popularity for these corporations in America.

Even today, many of America’s most important CEOs have no problem instituting “woke” philosophy in order to establish the surveillance state that will eventually keep Americans in line. Their tactic is to favor the progressive left as a way of continuing their drive to expand markets at the expense of political freedom. They think they can retain their near monopoly status in the USA by playing ball with the government’s desire to accommodate the Chinese state. They have no problem with the business/government alliance (fascism) as long as people do not get wise to what the left is doing on behalf of Communist China.

If we want to fight the tyranny of the Chinese communists and the threat they pose to our system of government, we must fight tyranny on principle – the principle that tyranny is force and it is evil. But, more importantly, we fight tyranny by defending and establishing a proper society based on the principles of freedom and individual rights that do not compromise with evil.

Today’s Republicans have traveled so far on the road toward liberalism that only a compromise with evil can keep them relevant. They can thank John Dewey (the pragmatist philosopher) and Richard Nixon for this current state of affairs. Despite Trump’s attitude toward China’s exploitation of America, during his Presidency, he seemed oblivious to what fighting for principles meant, and to the extent that he does not verbalize what it means to oppose China on principle, we are going to lose to China. The battle against China should be for individual rights – that are fast becoming irrelevant in America today.

We must ask the question, “What should Trump have done about the position of favoritism that past trade agreements gave to the Chinese?” The answer would have been simple. He should have negotiated fair deals with the Chinese without tariffs and he should have forced Chinese companies to compete with the world on a fair playing field. We should have been willing to cancel trade agreements that were unfavorable toward America.

This may have been difficult because the Chinese are brutal dictators who expect to win over Americans. Our inability to get fair trading terms from the Chinese would, therefore, have resulted in less trade between the two countries which would have led to new American competitors against the Chinese. This is because our country would have been able to resume manufacturing here as well as make good trade deals with other countries.

Overall, Trump’s policies were ineffective because he mimicked liberal policies and did not know he was doing it. His tariffs, in particular, did not work because his pragmatist anti-Chinese policies distorted his conservatism and gave the Chinese a reason to interfere in our elections, media and educational systems. They forced the Chinese to call in their deals with the many American politicians they had bribed over the years. Trump’s policies had the correct goal, but with incorrect means. His efforts to lower the regulatory impact of the left’s policies was effective in thwarting the negative economic impact of the Obama administration; but Trump’s policy of liberating the economy was thwarted by his very own covid policies. Eventually, he realized his goals were being destroyed by the left, especially Fauci and Birx. It was not until he was out of office that he questioned the shutdowns but by then it was too late.

To learn more about Mr. Villegas' written materials go to Robert Villegas on Amazon

Book Review: Coolidge by Amity Shlaes

Coolidge" is one of those books the political establishment would prefer you not read. Amity Shlaes does a masterful job of demonstrating the fundamental issues that consumed America during Coolidge's time and she shows Coolidge to be one of the few men whose ideas would have prevented or mitigated the damage done by the "Great Depression". In a time when most politicians clamored for spending as a solution to economic problems, Coolidge averred that austerity was the solution. By the time of his death the "spenders" had won the day and the defenders of economic freedom stood virtually silent. This book should be read by every high school or college student to remind him or her that there were times when men actually believed in not spending the people's money.

Book Review: The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure

The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure By John A. Allison

This is one of the most enjoyable new books I have read in some time.  You might find this hard to believe since it is about the financial crisis of 2007 – 2009.  Yet, it does more than dissect the financial crisis; it provides optimism and hope for the future.

John Allison knows what he is writing about.  As the former CEO of a successful bank (BB&T), he has the knowledge and experience that enable him to isolate the key causes of the financial crisis and explain them in simple, direct prose. 

As a business person who worked his way up the ranks at BB&T, Mr. Allison created a new American success story.  The result is over 40 years of active participation in the American economy and first-hand experience with the causes of the crisis.  Throughout those years, he participated in the decisions that helped BB&T survive and thrive.

Mr. Allison does an excellent job of identifying the various factors that created the financial crisis and he squarely places the blame on government regulations and policies.  This assessment provides some excellent principled observations based upon his unique vantage point as an actor in the American economy.  He clearly explains the roles of the Federal Reserve, the Clinton administration and Congress as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not to mention crony capitalism, which he aptly calls “crony socialism”.  Mr. Allison goes into detail on the role of each of these parties and even discusses how these factors influenced decisions he had to make at BB&T.

Mr. Allison’s explanation of the crisis details the damage done by the government as it sought to increase home ownership.  He doesn’t put stated intentions ahead of results.  He doesn’t argue that the end justifies the means.  On the contrary, he lets no one off the hook, clearly identifying the coercive actions and policies that caused the recession.  He explains how the principles of the free market could have prevented the crisis – had we been in a free market.  He even points out the irony of having the two men most responsible for the crisis write the legislation (Dodd/Frank) that would ensure it did not happen again.  Not likely, according to John Allison.

After thoroughly explaining the causes of the crisis, Mr. Allison proceeds to offer free market solutions.  His explanation of the principle of supply and demand is excellent and more broadly explained than I’ve read before; and he clearly shows how the various actions of government violated this principle and caused serious harm to both rich and poor.  As he states:

“The reason the United States entered the recession was not a lack of demand; it was because our resources had been misallocated, so we could not continue to consume (demand) at the same level.  Trillions of dollars of capital had been misallocated to housing, and millions of workers had learned the wrong skills.  However, we did not have the resources (capital and labor) to meet the demand—that is the demand was illegitimate because of the lack of productivity of our economic system.”[1]

I found that this particular discussion coincided well with similar explanations made by classical economists such as Henry Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises and others.  Henry Hazlitt tells us:

“If we try to run the economy for a single group or class, we shall injure or destroy all groups, including the members of the very class for whose benefit we have been trying to run it.”[2]

Mr. Allison is clear about his basic principles.  He understands that economic success can only come about in a nation of free people who benefit or suffer from their own decisions.  He understands that production engaged in by free individuals, not consumption, will improve economic conditions and he understands that re-distribution brings little in the way of economic stimulus. 

I recommend this book for anyone who wants to understand why our economy is in the doldrums.

---

[1] Page 185

[2] Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt, Paperback, Three Rivers Press, Page 158

Book Review: Free Market Revolution, How Ayn Rand's Ideas Can End Big Government

Free Market Revolution –  How Ayn Rand’s Ideas can End Big Government

By Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

Reviewed by Robert Villegas

If you were offered a book about how to live without guilt and be more successful, would you be interested?  If it taught you that success is good and more is better, would you be intrigued?  If it helped you understand the incessant attacks on capitalism by politicians, journalists and social planners, would you check it out?

The book is called “Free Market Revolution, How Ayn Rand’s ideas Can End Big Government”.  Its goal is to clarify some important philosophical and economic issues and convince you that Ayn Rand’s ideas have the solutions we need for a civilized society.  It challenges some of history’s falsehoods and provides a new way of looking at economics.  It can help voters, students, business people and even politicians understand the factors that move society.

The authors, Yaron Brook and Don Watkins point readers toward a new moral and political theory that challenges the corruption of today’s world.  Ayn Rand was an iconoclast who, even today, stirs both anger and respect among the millions who read her books.   Her philosophy is a full-fledged integrated system with all the characteristics of a complete, consistent frame of reference.  Objectivism, as it is called, is entirely original. 

Mr. Brook and Mr. Watkins are enthusiastic salesmen for Ayn Rand’s ideas.  Their presentation is flawless.  Yaron is already famous as the Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute.  His stirring speeches and commentary can be found on youTube.com and PJTV, not to mention Fox News and other networks.  Don is a fellow of the institute and a perennial radio and television guest as well as an op-ed writer for Investor’s Business Daily and USA Today to name a few.

“Free Market Revolution” covers two key aspects of Ayn Rand’s philosophy: her morality of self-interest and her advocacy of laissez faire capitalism.  Rand’s philosophical approach creates an internally consistent and powerful argument for political freedom.  Find an energetic and innovative entrepreneur and you’re likely to find someone who has read Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged”.

Part 1 of the book is entitled “The Problem”.  It begins by setting the context for the book, discussing the recent resurgence of interest in Atlas Shrugged and explains the intellectual and economic malaise that needs Ayn Rand as antidote.  This section also analyzes the essential arguments of the left; especially the argument from need and the argument from greed.  It counters these arguments with the suggestion that liberating the un-free market will restore America’s once powerful place in the world.

Part 2 makes up the rest of the book and provides some of the most fascinating ideas ever put to print. It includes a re-evaluation of the concept of selfishness, the role that it plays in both life and the economy, and informs us of the discovery, made by Ayn Rand, that business success is not accomplished by predatory behavior but by innovation, production and win/win trades.  Brook and Watkins challenge the idea that economic transactions are “zero-sum” (which gets at the heart of the Marxist critique of capitalism).  The authors show that free markets are the engines necessary for improving human life.

In many respects, the book has the feel of a symphony.  It starts with a basic theme, allegro, stays there for a while as it develops; then boldly explores both harmony and rhythm; until finally, at the end, it finishes with a crescendo of energy and power.   By the time we arrive at the last chapter, entitled “Stopping the Growth of the State”, we have thoroughly examined the concept of selfishness and discovered its positive aspects and the role it plays in making society vibrant, innovative and life-enhancing; we've found a solid argument that declares capitalism to be moral; we’ve examined altruism and how it thwarts life and success; we’ve studied the division of labor, supply and demand, prices and their role in creating efficient markets; and we’ve studied how it happened that many people in society have moved from an entitlement morality to an entitlement mentality. 

The last chapter brings us full circle, exploring Rand’s philosophy further, identifying the major contradiction that has created our economic decline and provides a strategy that will end big government.

Both Yaron Brook and Don Watkins are competent writers, able to explain broad philosophical and economic concepts in a way that makes them real for the average reader.  This book is destined to become a manifesto for prosperity and peace in the world.  I highly recommend it.

The War on Women...Again

Senatorial candidate, Representative Todd Akin of Missouri has committed political suicide by making a very poor choice of words about “forcible rape”.  However, the uproar against it reeks of political opportunism for both Democrats and Republicans.  I think it is very nasty of politicos to raise the “war against women” mantra again. For Republicans, it has given them an opportunity to throw another Republican under the bus, albeit one who probably deserves it (and who may actually be a Trojan horse, bought, paid for and delivered by the Democrats).  

I think it is reprehensible to attempt to make political hay out of an issue that is very important and needs to be debated by reasonable people seeking reasonable solutions.  Certainly, there is no such thing as “forcible rape”.  All rape is forcible.  That is a fact.  But to use this statement to tar and feather all Republicans is unscrupulous and unfair. 

Keep in mind, I’m not a big defender of Republicans and have done my share of ridiculing them.  But the idea that there is a war on women does a disservice to the women who have been raped and it unfairly tarnishes the reputations of the many Republicans who also care about women who have been raped.  Democrats are no more for women or against them than are Republicans.  If you want to have a reasonable debate, let’s stop calling people names and tarnishing them with having a war on anything.  According to this faulty logic, you could equally say that Democrats have a war on women because so many women have lost their jobs since Obama has been President. 

The mistake here is in the practice of invoking collectivism; the grouping of people, in this case, according to ideas that many of them do not hold.  There are many women Republicans who don’t feel they are at war with women. Some Republican women, a few, even favor a woman’s right to abortion.  In fact, they think that free market principles and policies are the best way to help women as well as men (and blacks and gays).  Many Republicans believe that you don’t help people by expropriating money from one group, and then using that money in wasteful and even harmful ways presumably to help another group…such as paying approximately $1,000,000 per job created – most of which jobs do not return the “investment” (like jobs are supposed to do).  It doesn’t take a Republican to adhere to sound economic principles - it takes a sound thinker adhering to individual rights.  In fact, this wasteful spending could be said to represent a war by the Democrats on the entire country.

Regarding tax payers paying for abortions or the consequences of rape, I first would like to state that I am in favor of a woman’s right to do whatever she and her doctor decide is in her best interests.  I fully support a woman’s right to control her body and to make all decisions without the interference of government (or men). I consider the idea of outlawing abortions to be a violation of the woman’s individual rights.  On this point, I disagree with many of my Republican friends who have a different view of the good and how it is derived. 

However, I do not support the idea that government should use tax payer dollars to fund abortions.  I consider it immoral to force one individual to pay for the needs of any other individual.  If I want to help women get abortions, I should support that privately with private donations and not ask the government to do it.  Using tax payer dollars to pay for abortions, houses, solar panels, cars, factories and windmills, etc. is wrong. 

The key question is what is the proper role of government?  I hold that each individual is properly responsible for him or herself and I consider it evil to demand that other people pay for anyone else’s stuff.

The fact that I don’t support the right of a person to take my money and give it to someone else does not mean I am at war against women.  Welfare and welfare services, or any government services (even those that support big corporations and thieving CEOs), are not a right.  No person has a right to demand that other people lose their rights in order to pay for someone elses "rights".  To insist that it is proper to take other peoples’ money by force is wrong – yet that is what the leftists (and some on the right) do.  This violation of individual rights is what the advocates of abortion are demanding.  They are demanding that government, meaning the tax payer, pay for abortions and contraception.  They have a right to abortions and contraception if they want to purchase them…but they don’t have a right to force other people to pay for them.

But I consider the issue of funding abortions to be part of a larger struggle for freedom.  People should be free to use their hard earned money as they see fit - and that right is more important than someone else's need. 

The real issue in this election is about fiscal solvency.  The issue of funding abortions is an important part of that debate but it is only part of the wider debate.  Most of us are aware that once the present crop of Democrats is done implementing their re-distribution policies, if we elect them again, there won’t be any money for anything…and that includes money for abortions and rape victims.  If we become insolvent as a country, there won’t be any benefits for anyone, seniors, women or government cronies.  There won’t be any money to scream about and demand (as a right) because the Democrats will have forced us into bankruptcy…and bankruptcy means there is no more money. 

Supporting the Democrats and their spending, even their spending on abortion, will not make things better…it will eventually cause the financial and economic collapse of our country.  That would cause a real war on women…and men…and children…and Blacks…and Hispanics…and…and…and.  I

f you want our country to collapse, vote for the Democrats.

THE SAVAGES

The savages

are standing 'round the tree,
after killing the man
who planted it,
all clamoring for a pear,
all screaming for a share,
because, they say,
they've been oppressed.

The savages

will whine about their need,
with not the sense
to save the seed.

Copyright 2012 by Robert Villegas, Jr.

Read the Book!!

I realize you're busy and you don't have time to do something so wasteful as to read a book, especially one that is over 1000 pages long and is only a mere work of fiction. 

I realize that your life is so important that you should not be bothered with something so demanding as to read a mere book.  Yet, I wonder why your already brilliant intellect has yet to land upon, on its own, the brilliance and newness of the ideas in this book. 

I realize this book is considered by many to be one of the most monumental books of all time and that it teaches ideas and principles that few other books have offered ever in history; ideas that challenge the entire history of Western thought; ideas that will help you understand your life and world events.  I know you think I'm asking too much.

I know that if you have any vestige of honesty in you, this book will help you save your life, if you'd only read it.  But that's all right, I shouldn't ask so much of you as to want that for you. 

I realize that you don't want other people to "dictate" your thoughts to you.  Yet, I also realize that the ideas you practice, the thoughts of ghosts and demons and "being yourself" are all ideas dictated to you by others.  This book, on the other hand, dictates nothing. 

Sure, I realize you'll do fine plodding along for the rest of your life and that you are suffering from not knowing the ideas and principles that this book can teach you. 

And I'm sure it hasn't occured to you that your not having read this book has made it impossible for you to understand me on important topics. 

Just go along living the way you do while the world that has read the book passes you by. 

So I'll try this: does it make any difference to you that other people are also recommending it?