Category: international affairs

Categories
defense & war international affairs Internet controversy

Outernet Integrity

internet, outernet, China, censorship

The Internet is a global network. Update a website or type an email over here, in a jiffy it ends up over there, even if “there” is thousands of miles away.

Now, in cases where the connections of the interconnection get disrupted, the electrons (well, “packets”) are routinely diverted to a more stable path. This inherent path redundancy gives the Internet high fault tolerance — an impressive resilience against localized failures.

But not always. Certainly not if we’re talking about a major undersea data cable. Were such a cable accidentally severed — or deliberately severed, by a hostile power practicing for war, say, the People’s Republic of China — transmission of data between affected countries may stop dead until the cable can be fixed.

Declan Ganley wants to cure this particular vulnerability by building an alternative he calls the Outernet, a space-based version of the Internet that bypasses the earthbound network entirely. (Currently, even the satellite-ferried data of Starlink must pass through the terrestrial network.)

To kill Ganley’s vision, the Chinese Communist Party first tried to bribe him with a $7.5 billion offer of partnership; i.e., de facto control of the Outernet by the CCP. The Party’s emissary hinted that if Ganley declined, his company Rivada Networks would be plagued by lawfare.

Ganley declined, and Rivada got hit by the lawfare: “160 legal exchanges” and $36 million in legal fees over three years. Nevertheless, Rivada is on course to launch six hundred satellites in 2026.

Was Declan Ganley ever tempted?

No. “I have a soul to be accountable for,” he explains.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
international affairs political economy regulation

Rents After the Chainsaw

Javier Milei, Argentina, free markets, regulations, housing

Argentina’s Ministry of Deregulation — yes, it now has one — reports that by June 2024, little more than half a year after chainsaw-wielding libertarian candidate Javier Milei won the presidential election, the housing market boomed . . . into a magnificent recovery.

Back in March, Reason magazine observed that listings on the Argentinian real-estate platform Zonaprop had increased from 5,500 before Milei’s deregulation “to 15,300 today, a staggering 180 percent rise.”

Why the big jump?

Strict national rent controls had been imposed in 2020, by the previous administration. When Milei lifted them, replacing them “with nothing,” tenants and landlords could then make whatever arrangements they could agree upon.

One method of evading the punishing controls had been switching to an Airbnb model of renting, with contracts renewable every three months. Such expedients were almost mandatory . . . given Argentina’s galloping inflation. But they introduced their own kinds of uncertainty.

Owners also took units off the market.

Annual rentals plummeted under this anti-market regime. In late 2023, Valentina Morales saw maybe “12 apartments advertised in the entire Palermo neighborhood,” a region with a population of almost 250,000.

Rents on the few apartments available with annual contracts skyrocketed. Tenancies were required by regulation to last for three years, with arbitrary and unrealistic caps on rent increases. And rent had to be paid only in pesos. But since inflation did not pause under the pre-Milei regime, owners were forced to guess how high inflation would go over the three years . . . and they charged accordingly.

Now? All such nonsense is gone.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture international affairs national politics & policies too much government

This Is What Businessman Rule Looks Like

Donald Trump

President Trump is doing something many of his supporters said they wanted him to do: act not like a normal politician but like a businessman, for Americans, as if we were stockholders in a for-profit company.

Bring in the dough. Efficiently.

“Saudi Crown Prince Pledges $1 Trillion Investment in US During Meeting with Trump,” an article at The Epoch Times tells us. The Saudi potentate is boosting, the story runs, an “investment partnership with the United States from $600 billion,” and the prince in question, Mohammed bin Salman — his reputation previously sullied by the part he played in the gruesome assassination of a journalist —  explains that the “investments will focus on what he described as ‘real opportunities’ in areas such as artificial intelligence and magnets.”

The article notes that the “Saudi Foreign Ministry said in a Nov. 17 post on X that the crown prince, widely known as MBS, would meet Trump ‘to discuss bilateral relations, ways to strengthen them across various fields, and issues of mutual interest.’”

Now, that latter discussion of diplomatic issues appears normal. That is, what we expect two heads of state to do when conferring.

But all this talk of extra investment? Micromanaging foreign investment within the United States?

That’s never been the recipe for republican governance and can so easily and quickly devolve into plutocratic socialism-for-the-rich. There’s no shouting “limited government” about what Trump boasts of regarding “the deals” he makes for the U.S. 

For “us.”

But it does fit what many had hoped he would be: a businessman taking charge of the corporation that is the unitary “United States.” A fix-it man for the federal Leviathan.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
defense & war international affairs Internet controversy

Decapitation Diplomacy

China, Japan, Taiwan, war, foreign policy

The Chinese Communist Party has presided — is presiding — over the largest peacetime military buildup in history. 

And China’s “wolf warrior” diplomats constantly reflect this fact.

Earlier this month, during a parliamentary session, Japan’s new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi was pressed by an opposition lawmaker on scenarios that could trigger the clause in Japan’s constitution concerning “survival-threatening situations,” thus allowing collective self-defense. Takaichi explicitly stated that Chinese military action against Taiwan — such as a naval blockade, invasion, or interference with U.S. forces — could qualify. 

No “strategic ambiguity” there!

But as scandalous as Takaichi’s answers were to the Communist Party in China, it was the response of Xue Jian, consul general of the People’s Republic of China, in Osaka, Japan, that raised more than eyebrows: “I have no choice but to cut off that filthy head that barged in without hesitation — are you ready?” This was followed by a red emoji, an angry icon.

It has since been deleted.

Last Friday, lawmakers from both Takaichi’s party and Komeito (a centrist, socially conservative party) demanded Xue’s immediate recall; a petition with more than 50,000 signatures circulated online. 

But Takaichi herself is under pressure to apologize.

I agree with the Scribbler’s take over at StopTheCCP.org: “It would be disappointing if instead of ‘muddling through,’ the Japanese government as led by its new prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, submitted to China’s malicious demands and formally retracted her very reasonable statement about Taiwan.”

The only apologies should come from the CCP’s Osaka Decapitator.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
budgets & spending cuts international affairs political economy

Was Milei Bailed Out?

Javier Milei, Argentina, bailout, foreign policy

You saw it on the news, newscasters almost gloating: Argentina’s peso plunged — triggered by  low reserves and political defeats for President Javier Milei.

Then the U.S. Treasury under Secretary Scott Bessent finalized a $20 billion currency swap line with Argentina’s central bank. This was on top of direct U.S. purchases of pesos in the market and plans for another $20 billion from private sources. The deal was seen as a U.S. strategic play to counter instability in Latin America.

Some called it a bailout.

Were Milei’s radical reforms saved at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer?

Bessant was asked this, yesterday, directly on MSNBC, and had a response: “Do you know what a swap line is?”

I had to brush up on it. (I don’t engage in any cross-currency swaps, understandably, not being a major corporation, a central bank, or a sovereign state.) A currency swap is a financial agreement between two parties to exchange principal amounts and interest payments in different currencies over a set period — a temporary loan in one currency backed by collateral in another, designed to provide liquidity, hedge exchange rate risks, or access cheaper funding without the full risks of outright borrowing.

“In most bailouts you don’t make money,” Bessent said. “The U.S. government made money.”

In an exchange, both parties gain. But in any exchange involving extended spans of time, there is risk, so any initial win for Treasury could be wasted by a failure of Milei’s course.

Unlike American politicians opposing inflation, Milei’s been quite honest with Argentinians: “To cure inflation, you have to go through a recession. There is no way around it.” So why Milei didn’t just peg the Argentine peso directly to the U.S.; why a “crawling peg” rather than strict? Milei has been clear: he lacked political clout.

Milei insists that his crawling peg reform isn’t gradualism (which he despises), and that the swap isn’t a bailout; Bessant agrees, saying the swap’s “a profitable move for America.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Note: Milei’s party gained in the most recent election.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
defense & war international affairs

Strongly Stated Ambiguity

China, Taiwan, strategic ambiguity, war, foreign policy

“Because they know the consequences,” President Donald Trump told Norah O’Donnell on CBS’s 60 Minutes the Sunday before last, after meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in South Korea. 

“The Chinese military is encroaching on Taiwan’s sea lanes, its airspace, its cyberspace. I know you have said that Xi Jinping wouldn’t dare move militarily on Taiwan while you’re in office. But what if he does?”asked O’Donnell. 

“Would you order U.S. forces to defend Taiwan?”

Mr. Trump’s reply was ambiguous: “You’ll find out if it happens.” 

Labeled “strategic ambiguity,” U.S. policy regarding a threatened Chinese invasion of Taiwan has long been undeclared, designed to keep China guessing as to our intentions without giving Taiwan a military guarantee.

But then the president added, “And he [Xi Jinping] understands the answer to that.”

The Chinese regime “knows,” Trump explained to O’Donnell, “they understand what’s gonna happen.” He further declared that Xi “has openly said, and his people have openly said at meetings, ‘We would never do anything while President Trump is president.’” 

Mr. Trump’s most surprising disclosure was that Taiwan “never came up” in his two-hour talk with the Chinese ruler, with the president insisting that Xi “never brought it up” “because he understands” “very well” “what will happen.” 

Indeed, military might is the only thing that Xi and the Chinese Communist Party understand. 

As I argued on Around the World With Dane Waters last week, a Chinese takeover of Taiwan would be economically and strategically catastrophic for Asia and the world. Not to mention, disastrous for freedom.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom international affairs

La Libertad Avanza

Javier Milei, Argentina, freedom, bail out

“It’s a landslide victory compared to expectations,” Lizzy Burden announced for Bloomberg Television, going on to report that U.S. President Donald Trump has taken some of the credit for the successes, Sunday, of President Milei’s party, La Libertad Avanza (Liberty Advances).

On Truth Social, Trump wrote “BIG WIN in Argentina for Javier Milei . . . He’s making us all look good.”

But how does this redound to Trump’s, er, biglyness? 

Well, Trump provided a bailout. 

That’s the term used in the news for a $20 billion currency swap plus $20 billion private loan facility — that is, private funds directed by the negotiating agents at U.S. Treasury. This stabilized Argentina’s peso after a September crisis triggered by Milei’s party’s losses at Buenos Aires polls a month earlier.

Regardless, Liberty Advance’s current win defies recent polls showing a dip to around 40 percent, in part because of hardship from Milei’s “austerity” drive — slashed subsidies, fired public workers, deregulated industries.

It also defied North American expectations. Leading up to October 26, we heard little good news from the land named for the element silver: major U.S. outlets such as the New York Times and NPR, and British media including The Guardian, emphasized Argentina’s dire straits reveling in the “irony” or “failure” of Milei’s “libertarian experiment,” often with a strong whiff of schadenfreude toward “Trump-lite” policies.*

But Milei’s biggest successes should not be ignored: inflation has dropped from 211 percent to under 5 percent monthly. Another factor in his victory is how rural voters, lives improved by freer trade, outweighed disgruntled government workers, newly disemployed.

Mostly, though, I bet Argentines were fearful of a return to Peronism.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 * Of course, Milei’s “shock therapy” and “austerity” (and other leftist bugaboos) were unmatched by anything Trump has done — if anything, Trump’s “Milei Lite.” 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment First Amendment rights international affairs social media

Quit Banging on Brits

U.K., censorship, free speech, freedom, British, police

We hear so much bad news about censorship coming out of the United Kingdom that it’s almost shocking when something good happens instead.

That good news is a retreat from harassing innocent people for posting online too freely for the taste of British police enforcers.

In the big picture, the change in policy by the Metropolitan Police Service is but a minor tactical withdrawal in the pursuit of a censorship agenda that is otherwise proceeding on all fronts. It’s not so minor for people like, say, comedy writer Graham Linehan.

Several weeks ago, Linehan was arrested at Heathrow Airport by five armed officers.

“I was arrested at an airport like a terrorist, locked in a cell like a criminal, taken to hospital because the stress nearly killed me, and banned from speaking online.” His sin was posting a few tweets critical of transgender activists.

The charges against Linehan have been dropped. 

And from now on, says the Met, it will stop investigating “non-crime hate incidents.” A spokesperson explains that the commissioner “doesn’t believe officers should be policing toxic culture war debates. . . .” 

The “non-crime hate incidents” will still be logged, though.

The policy of harassing Britons for cranky words has been softened before, by the Tories. When Labour came in, the new government promptly hardened things again.

And further caution: Met policy is not government policy. 

So this particular hammer for banging upon speakers daring to offend the easily offendable could come swinging down again at any moment.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights international affairs

Pigs Not Flying Over England

UK, censorship, free speech, 4CHAN

It can’t govern itself. But the UK, eager to govern the United States, is trying to impose fines on the loose-talk website 4Chan for ignoring British censorship demands.

Preston Byrne, a lawyer representing 4Chan, has responded to UK regulator Ofcom’s attempt to impose the fines — more than $26,000 to start — with instructions to get lost.

Ofcom Enforcement Czar Suzanne Cater says that this fine “sends a clear message that any service which flagrantly fails to engage with Ofcom and their duties under the Online Safety Act can expect to face robust enforcement action.”

How robust, though? 

Byrne: “4chan’s constitutional rights remain completely unaffected by this foreign e-mail. 4chan will obey UK censorship laws when pigs fly. In the meantime, there’s litigation pending in DC. Ofcom hasn’t yet answered. . . .

“That fine will never be enforced in the USA. The UK is welcome to try to enforce it in an American court if they disagree.”

The Trump administration has stressed its opposition to the UK’s global-censorship agenda. So what is going on here? 

It appears that when some people over-zealously seek to dominate others, the weaker they are the more desperate — and in their desperation they become more belligerent. Since the United Kingdom is in no position to launch an invasion of the United States in order to force us . . . well, they might just shut up already. 

Britain’s leadership is in disarray. The country is very weak — a least, unless it teams up with a more powerful country, like China. Which is what the UK indeed seems to be doing. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
defense & war general freedom international affairs

China’s Long Reach

China, war, invasion, land, internet

“Is China preparing for war?” CBS’s Scott Pelley asked General Tim Haugh last Sunday on 60 Minutes. 

“There was no other reason to target those systems. There’s no advantage to be gained economically. There was no foreign intelligence-collection value,” replied the general. “The only value would be for use in a crisis or a conflict.”

Systems? The segment featured Chinese infiltration into the computer system controlling electricity and the water supply for Littleton, a town of 10,000 residents in Massachusetts.

Littleton’s manager, Nick Lawler, pointed to how disastrous losing control of the computer system could become, noting that with that control an evil force — in this case, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — “can poison the water.”

Literally as well as figuratively.

Once head of the National Security Agency and the U.S. Cyber Command, Haugh explained that the CCP is “certainly attempting every single day to be able to target telecommunications, to be able to target critical infrastructure.”

Even in little bitty Littleton. Talk about “unrestricted warfare”!

We have known for years that China’s Communists were tyrants; responsible for arguably a hundred million deaths due to murder, torture and starvation; subjugating Tibet; harvesting organs from political prisoners; placing more than a million Uyghurs in concentration camps; canceling all political rights in Hong Kong. These totalitarians also threaten to invade Taiwan and lay claim, ridiculously, to 90 percent of the South China Sea . . . which they are policing. 

Then we discovered the Chinese had opened police stations in the United States and other countries to harass and silence Chinese dissidents who had managed to escape to our shores. 

Now, it is hardly a surprise that the CCP has intruded into our electrical grids and water systems, while buying up farmland near American military bases.

Xi Jinping and the Chicoms are far worse than our rivals. While a far starker problem for those living in Asia, we are not safe from the Chinese State. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts