Misreading Xi and the Rise of Li

Li Qiang is now China’s No 2, an appointment that shows Xi’s dedication to a high-tech-led future for China. Image: Screengrab / NDTV

The professional China commentariat and its echo chamber in the Western media were blindsided by the appointment of Shanghai party head Li Qiang as the country’s premier, the number two position to Xi Jinping.

Li is a tech-savvy supporter of high-tech entrepreneurship who believes that China’s future lies in the digital economy. Xi, the Western press insisted with near unanimity, had reverted to Maoism.

Precisely the opposite of what the commentariat expected seems to have happened and the Western press is scrambling to explain the anomaly. Here’s a sampling of Western press comment:

“Xi Jinping promotes loyal Shanghai chief” (Reuters)

“Xi Jinping promotes loyal Shanghai chief to upper echelons of power” (Financial Times)

“A loyal aide in Shanghai takes a leading role in Beijing” (New York Times)

“Xi loyalist likely to be China’s next premier” (Barron’s)

“Promotion of Shanghai chief puts loyalty over everything” (Bloomberg)

Bloomberg tried to explain why it failed to foresee Li’s rise saying, “When Li’s initial lighter-touch approach to China’s strict Covid Zero strategy was breached by the more transmissible omicron variant earlier this year, [his] ascent was cast into doubt.”

That loyalty was a factor in Li’s appointment is obvious. Political leaders, Chinese or Western, do not normally appoint deputies who are known for disloyalty.

The “loyalty” explanation is no explanation at all. A better explanation is that the Anglo-American political establishment has misread Xi from beginning to end.

Li’s appointment should be a wake-up call. The ubiquitous ideological blinders and preconceptions in the foreign policy establishment are the cause of a chronic misreading of China, leading to concomitant political reactions with dangerous implications and consequences.

Xi Jinping and his new de facto deputy Li Qiang in a file photo. Image: NDTV / Screengrab

In fact, Li’s appointment as premier-designate was foreseeable as well as foreseen. Asia Times wrote as much on October 21, forecasting that Xi would opt for retiring four out of the seven Politburo Standing Committee members, including not only Premier Li Keqiang, but also the widely touted premiership candidate Wang Yang, and would not miss the opportunity to install a new, younger and different cast of leaders.

Li is the Shanghai party chief. Few if any previous Shanghai leaders have failed to advance to the Standing Committee, Xi included. That his advance to the number two position nonetheless came as a surprise to most Western analysts merely proves how much so many have misread Xi in particular and Chinese governance in general.

Li studied business administration and holds an MBA degree from Hong Kong Polytechnic University, a top-tier Asian business and technology school funded by Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing. He has supported technological entrepreneurship as the leading edge of China’s development.

Among other things, Li was one of Jack Ma’s most visible supporters in the China Communist Party leadership. He brought Elon Musk’s Tesla to Shanghai. His appointment affirms the leadership’s support for private-led high-tech industry.

Accelerated technological innovation and STEM talent development were keywords in Xi’s work report. What Western analysts (and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken) picked out instead was the reiteration of China’s longstanding policy with respect to Taiwan.

Li was chosen for his track record of economic and financial innovation in the Shanghai Free Trade Zone, for bringing in major foreign investment (up by 32% in 2021 despite Covid) and for the policy papers on economic development he wrote for Xi as his assistant in Zhejiang.

So, then, what should be made of Xi’s alleged neo-Maoist, leftist and anti-capitalist emphasis on “common prosperity?”

Throughout his career, Xi has shown himself to be a master of the most characteristic maneuver in Chinese imperial governance: Feint in one direction in order to disarm prospective opponents, while preparing to move in another.

The elements in the Party who opposed Xi in 2012 remain his antagonists, the supporters of a Fortress China that shares the poverty rather than creates the wealth. His first move in power after 2012 was to crush the group around Bo Xilai centered in Chongqing and part of China’s northeastern rust bowl, and to unleash China’s private sector.

Sent packing. China plans to lay off 500,000 heavy industry workers. Photo: AFPXi’s ‘common prosperity’ is more about internal politics than ideology. Photo: AFP

During the past two years, Xi adopted the rhetoric of income redistribution under the watchword “common prosperity,” and cracked down on China’s consumer Internet sector. In classic Chinese style, he adopted the rhetoric of the Communist Party elements he most opposed, only to move decisively in the opposite direction.

Ideologically blinded Western analysts and officials consistently miss the point. China’s state is the least ideological, most ruthlessly pragmatic entity in the world. To the extent its leaders succeed, they do so by achieving prosperity and security by whatever means necessary to meet their objectives.

Xi knows that China’s state-owned industry is too sclerotic and corrupt to lead the transition to a digital economy and that the Chinese state needs private entrepreneurs to take the lead. But he also knows that entrenched political interests linked to the state sector will not just grumble at the sudden ascendance of entrepreneurs but also make determined political moves.

“[Li] has a much closer relationship with Xi compared to [Premier] Li Keqiang. … Xi is likely going to give him much more room and power to manage the economy,” Deng Yuwen, a former deputy editor of the Study Times, the official newspaper of the Central Party School, told the South China Morning Post.

To stay in power, Xi or any other Chinese leader must placate the old guard and defuse popular envy of the newly rich while allowing entrepreneurs to lead economic transformation.

But Xi’s core agenda, repeated in the work report, is to make China a moderately prosperous economy by 2035. To do so, China needs and he must achieve a gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate of between 4% and 5% per annum.

Li has demonstrated that he has the energy and executive capability to get things done. A Brookings Institution study reports that in 2018-19 he mobilized Shanghai’s capabilities and workforce in tandem with Elon Musk to build a Tesla factory capable of making 500,000 electric cars annually.

The first Chinese-made Tesla 3 rolls off the line at the Shanghai Gigafactory, while employees of the new facility look on. Creedit: Ti Gong, Shine.com.

Amazingly, It took only ten months for this joint venture to advance from construction to full operation.

The sweeping change in China’s leadership denotes an inflection point. Deng Xiaoping’s 1979 reforms eventually moved nearly 700 million Chinese from countryside to city, replacing the rural economy of traditional China with a smokestack economy dominated by state-owned enterprises.

China’s state sector, in turn, became a political power base in its own right. Xi concluded that he needed a new broom to sweep aside the obstacles to a digitized industrial economy. With Li’s appointment as his de facto deputy, Xi’s well on his way.

New Book Details How Beijing Manipulated Western Elites

Authored by Daniel Teng via The Epoch Times,

Beijing’s highly secretive Ministry of State Security (MSS) leveraged and manipulated leading Western political and business elites to deepen the Chinese Communist Party’s influence around the world, according to a new book by Alex Joske, an expert on Chinese foreign interference.

The early pages of “Spies and Lies: How China’s Greatest Covert Operations Fooled the World” detail how billionaire George Soros, inspired by his work establishing the Open Society Foundation in post-communist Hungary, carried out similar work for China during Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s economic reform era.

The vehicle devised by Soros, and partner Liang Heng, was to establish the Fund for the Reform and Opening of China (the China Fund) to support cultural, business, and scientific research to assist with the country’s opening up, according to Joske, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

Yet amid political manoeuvring between factions in the 1980s, the China Fund was forced to partner with the China International Culture Exchange Center (CICEC), an organisation claiming to be under the control of the Ministry of Culture.

George Soros, founder and chairman of the Open Society Foundations, arrives for a meeting in Brussels, Belgium, on April 27, 2017. (Olivier Hoslet/AFP/Getty Images)

Joske alleges that Soros and Liang soon discovered, however, that CICEC had its own motives for the China Fund, and that was to support political initiatives rather than activities associated with liberalising China.

Soros later closed the China Fund with CICEC co-chair Yu Enguang, revealed to be a “high-ranking official in the external police” or the MSS.

“The MSS seizure of the China Fund was an impressive display of the agency’s confidence in engaging with one of America’s best-connected and wealthiest men. What it learnt could be applied to future operations as the agency grew more aggressive and internationally focused over the following decade,” Joske wrote.

CICEC itself would continue to be a “custom-made organ” for meeting and secretly influencing recruits from around the world.

“Politically sensitive missions like engaging directly with George Soros or posing as liberals with the Party in order to gain the trust of foreigners are home turf for these officers,” he said.

Exploiting Ambition

Joske also notes that the MSS was very adept at exploiting the ambition of Western elites and cites the example of the former co-president of Goldman Sachs, John Thornton.

After quitting the banking giant, Thornton held several prominent positions with major Chinese institutions, including a directorship at the well-known Tsinghua University.

Journalist Josh Rogin alleged Thornton developed one of the “most reliable and high-level networks with the families that run the CCP,” which shaped Thornton’s views on how to manage China relations.

John L. Thornton, guest professor and director of Global Leadership Program at Tsinghua SEM and chairman of the board of the Brookings Institution, speaks during the 2011 Tsinghua Management Global Forum at Tsinghua SEM Auditorium in Beijing on Oct. 25, 2011. (VCG/VCG via Getty Images)

“Thornton’s beliefs about China’s future have been characterised by the same false narratives the MSS Social Investigation Bureau pushed on foreign scholars, diplomats, and elites. In 2008, he argued in an essay for Foreign Affairs magazine that the Party was actively considering moving towards democracy,” Joske wrote.

“Thornton’s writings reflect the same optimism about China that Party leaders and the MSS learnt to capitalise on decades earlier.”

The former Goldman Sachs executive went on to encourage the Trump administration to befriend Chinese leader Xi Jinping directly. Yet these efforts at diplomatic engagement with the Chinese leadership would eventually give way to tough sanctions on China to correct years of intellectual property theft and unbalanced trade.

Thornton, along with several major Wall Street figures, also allegedly attempted to sway the Biden administration on its China policy, but these efforts have also fallen to the wayside as scrutiny of the Chinese Communist Party becomes more widespread.

Exploiting a Love of China

Joske also draws attention to the Chinese regime’s use of people’s love for China outlining the example involving former Australian Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke.

Hawke was distraught in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989 and famously responded by granting 42,000 Chinese nationals’ asylum.

Joske says four years after the massacre, Hawke received a message from the Chinese consul in Sydney inviting him to visit China.

Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke in Brisbane, Australia, on Aug. 16, 2010. (William West/AFP/Getty Images)

Hawke felt it was important that Australia-China relations grew, so agreed to do so. There he was received and welcomed by then-Chinese leader Jiang Zemin and then-Premier Li Peng.

“The special bromance between Chinese and Australian leaders was back on track. Hawke thought the fate of [former Premier] Zhao Ziyang, who eventually died in house arrest, was ‘extremely sad,’ but the importance of building ties to the Party leadership came first,” Joske wrote.

He further added that the issue of Tiananmen was eventually “swept under the rug,” and Hawke would go on to play a valuable role in selling China to the rest of the world.

Read more here…

OSINT Investigators Name Real Losses of Ukraine’s Army

OSINT (open-source intelligence) investigators have named real irretrievable losses of Ukraine’s army. As of 20 October 2022, according to OSINT, the Ukrainian Armed Forces had lost 402,000 people, of whom 387,000 were killed.

Losses among mercenaries and volunteers from Poland, the Baltics and Romania totaled 54,000, with 31,240 killed.

These are OSINT figures calculated using funeral agency summaries, morgue extracts and analysis of radio, cellular and satellite exchanges of AFU forces. @RTRDonetsk

The German publication ZEITUNG.DE citing American military experts, including retired representatives of the US Army command, says that the number of deaths among the Armed Forces of Ukraine is over 200 thousand people, or 15-20 thousand monthly. #Ukraine

Why I’m an Abolitionist

via  Toby Rogers

Ukraine in Pursuit of the “Good Citizen”

Sickening… 3 days ago the “Ukrainian people” were awarded the “European Parliament’s 2022 Sakharov [human rights peace] Prize” for their “bravery” and commitment to “democracy and human rights”.

No, it is not a joke. Meanwhile,

  

The Black Sea midnight is black. Blacker than the hands of Ukrainian mothers who bury their sons by the hundreds every day. Blacker than the nights of wives who cannot sleep, knowing that their husbands will never return. Blacker than the thoughts of those officials who sign death sentences for Ukrainian soldiers, sending them to the front. How can the soldiers of Ukraine not be caught at this midnight? Lay down their arms and raise!

Xi Jinping Sends a Strong Message to the West

This video is circulating in China, so a small context to it…

In China, opponents are excluded — the former Secretary General of the Communist Party of China, Hu Jintao, was forcibly removed from the meeting room.

The 20th Congress of the Communist Party was held in China: there were about 2300 delegates from all over the country at the meeting, but one turned out to be superfluous. The former Secretary General of the Party of China, Hu Jintao, was forcibly taken out of the hall.

The footage shows how two stewards approach Hu and escort him to the exit. The politician only looks around in confusion, but does not find support. Hu Jintao’s departure was not explained in the party.

Hu Jintao stands for maintaining good US relations, and is also an opponent of a forceful solution to the Taiwan issue. Such a conclusion from the hall “under the handles” is probably a symbolic point in Hu’s political career.

Li Keqiang, Li Zhanshu, Han Zheng and Wang Yang, all Reformist & Liberal figures of the Chinese Communist Party, are out of the new Central Committee of the CPC, says Singapore-based The Strait Times.

There have been clear shifts in the party leadership with the cleansing of the pro-American vector.

The South China Morning Post writes that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s entry into the CCP Central Committee gives him a chance to be included in the Politburo of the CCP Central Committee.

But another party heavyweight, Liu He, apparently, did not enter the new composition of the CCP Central Committee. Liu was Xi Jinping’s main economic backbone and a key “Americanist” of the ruling group. He graduated from the School of Public Administration, Kennedy at Harvard University. During the trade war under Trump He oversaw negotiations with the United States. And although the negotiations were tough, He and the White House team were able to reach a deal in early 2020 (albeit a very conditional one).

This may mean that Xi does not need the services of the “Americanist” He due to the escalation around Taiwan – which will be at the center of the Secretary General’s third term.

France and Germany Are on the Verge of a Quarrel

The leaders of the key European Union countries continue slowly but surely to quarrel. However, there are fewer and fewer common, unifying topics.

And the main anti-Russian energy map is gradually being lost.

Germany and France want to play it completely differently.

Thus, Olaf Scholz said that he intends to allocate €200 billion for the implementation of the domestic energy assistance program. And Emmanuel Macron was outraged by this.

The first one (Scholz) is trying to somehow save the country’s economy by reducing the cost of gas, oil and electricity for consumers. He needs it fundamentally in order to retain power.

And the second (Macron) is furious, because he understands that the “yellow vests” are about to require similar measures. We’ll have to look for money somewhere. In addition, such a policy increases demand, which means that fuel will continue to rise in price. Finally, there is a shortage in Europe. Especially in France, where there are problems with gasoline. And now Germany will become a more attractive consumer for suppliers. The situation will only get worse.

There is another important detail that is not directly related to the relations between Berlin and Paris. This is another precedent. The most serious political and economic decision, capable of affecting the entire EU, was made by one of its member countries, Germany, independently. And Germany didn’t consult anyone. So why can’t others? For example, Hungary. What kind of sanctions can there be against it now, if we do not act according to the rules of double standards?

As for Emmanuel Macron, his current position is gradually becoming clear — to support the unity of the EU, because for all the failures within the country, it will be possible to justify to the population precisely that other members are not in unity on some issues and hence the problems.

Taiwan Policy Act – Is War with China Next?

“Currently there is the Taiwan Policy Act, which is wending through Congress right now. And if it passes, it will signal the end of the One China policy, literally a declaration of war. It prepares for a rotational presence of US forces on Taiwan Island, i.e. turning Taiwan into a military base, fast tracking weapons, declaring it a non-NATO ally, sending $6.5 billion worth of asymmetrical, lethal arms. And it does everything except literally declare war. But among those provisions, Section 803 is about sanctions against China. Exactly the type of sanctions that the US has been levying against Russia,” says KJ Noh, a journalist and political analyst.

Listen to more of KJ Noh’s analysis on the podcast.

Army General Surovikin Interview

The first interview with the new commander of the joint force grouping in the SMO zone, Army General Surovikin, has been broadcast on Russia 24:

– Ukrainians and we are one people, and we want Ukraine to be independent from the West and NATO and a friendly state for Russia. Our adversary is a criminal regime that is pushing Ukrainian citizens to their deaths;

– Overall, the situation in the special operation zone can be described as tense;

– The enemy does not abandon attempts to attack the positions of the RF Armed Forces, first of all, these are Kupyansk, Krasny Liman, and the Nikolaevo-Krivorozhsk directions;

– Daily losses of the enemy amount to hundreds of people killed and wounded (600 to 1000 daily);

– We do not aim at a high tempo of attack, we methodically grind down the enemy and move forward, saving the lives of our soldiers and civilians;

– The NATO leadership has been demanding offensive actions from the Kiev regime for a long time . “The Ukrainian authorities use nationalist detachments against their military, who shoot everyone who tries to leave the battlefield”;

– The Ukrainian regime is seeking to break through the Russian defenses, pulling up all its reserves to the front line, mainly inexperienced territorial defense forces. In fact, Kiev is dooming them to destruction.

– Surovikin on the Kherson region: The Russian Armed Forces will ensure the safe, already announced departure of the population under the resettlement program being prepared by the Russian government;

– The Russian grouping of troops is building up, creating reserves, and erecting defensive positions along the entire line of contact;

– High-precision weaponry strikes are being carried out against military facilities and infrastructure that affect the combat effectiveness of Ukrainian forces;

– There are reports that Kiev may use prohibited methods of war near Kherson and conducting preparations for a missile strike on the dam of the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant;

– The Su-57 fighters stand out in terms of the quality of combat use in the course of the Special Military Operation, hitting targets in every sortie;

– Russian drones have carried out more than 8,000 sorties during the special operation, with strike drones destroying more than 600 AFU targets;

– Further actions with regard to Kherson will depend on the emerging military and tactical situation, it is not easy, and difficult decisions cannot be ruled out.

Source: @Voenacher

“We Blew It!”

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via DailyReckoning.com,

We blew it. That’s right, we blew it. What do I mean?

Rather than investing in a sustainable mix of energy and in increasing the productivity of labor and industrial processes, we squandered irreplaceable oceans of capital and credit in oh-so profitable skims and scams such as $10 trillion in stock buybacks and completely unproductive speculative absurdities.

All the capital that was malinvested in shifting production overseas, financial scheming and speculation cannot be replaced. All the credit that was squandered on skims and scams (borrow billions to fund stock buybacks, borrow trillions to reward cronies and buy the complicity of the masses) is now an unstable toxic dump that threatens a financial system that is now the crumbling keystone of the entire global economy.

We didn’t have to be this foolish, but the incentives made it all rational to squander trillions of irreplaceable capital and decades of irreplaceable time. The incentives reward maximizing short-term profits by any means available, which include bribery, buying political favors, balance sheet fraud, loading companies with debt then taking them public, etc. — none of which increase productivity, innovation or sustainability.

These incentives follow a power-law distribution: the greater the leverage, debt, monopoly and financial trickery, the greater the gains.

Late Stage, Crony Capitalism

None of these extremely profitable financial strategies boosted productivity, jobs or efficiencies. All they accomplished was enriching the already rich. Call this incentive structure whatever you like: late-stage capitalism, crony capitalism, etc., the bottom line is this global system doesn’t reward investing in productivity or long-term sustainability because those investments are risky.

Why invest in something risky when you can generate billions in pure profits via exploitation, fraud and financial games that were once illegal?

  • Exploitation: arbitrage low wages and minimal environmental standards by shipping production overseas; should costs rise slightly as residents object to their nation becoming a toxic waste dump and their workers being ripped off, production is moved to a more exploitable locale.
  • Fraud: off-balance sheet, buying a company with debt, selling off its assets, hiding expenses and debt in off-balance sheet footnotes and then selling the indebted shell to unwary investors.
  • Financial games: load the company with debt to buy back shares, reducing the float and boosting per share earnings without increasing sales, productivity or profits.

Stock buybacks were illegal not that long ago because they are blatant means of self-enrichment. So were pharmaceutical ads aimed at consumers.

This is not the warm and fuzzy version of capitalism found in textbooks. In the PR textbook version, entrepreneurs “create wealth” via innovation that creates new products and services and boosts productivity by increasing the skills of the workforce and the efficiencies of industrial production.

Vampires

Those paid to glorify this facade can cherry-pick examples, but the real money isn’t made in innovation, it’s made by ring-fencing monopolies and plundering productive assets. Rather than foster innovation, monopolies choke off disruptive innovations and competition as threats to their steady flow of profits.

Rather than invest in increasing productivity — the only real source of wealth creation — profits have been maximized by plundering productive assets: the workforce, resources and once-productive sectors.

All this profiteering took cheap energy and resources and limitless credit for granted. As long as somebody somewhere was doing the dirty work of extracting and processing all the energy and resources needed to keep the system running, then the financiers were free to “create wealth” for themselves via fraud, exploitation and games.

Now that the low-hanging fruit has all been plucked, it’s taking a lot more capital and expertise to extract harder-to-get resources.

Credit seemed infinite when rates were near-zero, and everyone said that was The New Normal. But alas, capital still responds to risk by demanding a return, and the happy days of infinite credit and zero rates are over, regardless of whatever hopeful predictions are issued by those wistful for bottomless credit lines.

Rather than incentivize investing in our workforce and productivity, the system incentivizes plundering the workforce and productive assets, commoditizing everything into chunks that can be tossed into the plunder-meat-grinder to maximize the short-term gains of those who own the financial assets and the political power.

Now that we need to boost productivity and efficiency to build a sustainable economy, the capital, credit and skills needed to do so have been squandered to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

A Race Against Time

Time is running out to change the incentive structure and the system to reward investment in productivity rather than plunder. Look at the charts below of global energy and population. Hundreds of billions of dollars, yen, yuan and euros have been invested in alternative energy sources, but their share of global energy is still so thin a slice that you have to squint to see it.

It will take tens of trillions of dollars to make a dent in energy and industrial-transport-building efficiency. Many people are proponents of nuclear energy, but few look at the scale or cost. The U.S. has built a grand total of two nuclear plants in the past 25 years. Yes, a small modular design recently received approval, and the first prototype may be ready for testing in 2030.

(According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, “As of May 25, 2022, there were 54 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 92 nuclear power reactors in 28 U.S. states. The newest nuclear reactor to enter service, Watts Bar Unit 2 with 1,122 MW net summer electricity generating capacity, began commercial operation in 2016. Two new nuclear reactors are actively under construction: Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia”).

To make a real difference, hundreds of such nuclear energy modules will have to be manufactured, and not next century, but starting now. Where are the resources, fuel, capital and expertise to do so? Oops, all the capital went into skims and scams rather than into the workforce and real-world productivity.

Investing in our workforce has morphed into an especially cruel form of financial plunder, self-exploitation: the workforce is expected to borrow tens of thousands of dollars to fund their own education, with little guidance from a rapacious banking-higher-education system other than “the more diplomas you get, the richer you’ll become.”

While this self-serving advice enriches the banking-higher-education cartels, it isn’t generating systemic productivity gains. If it did, we’d be seeing huge leaps in productivity rather than declines.

Plunder is fun until everything has been plundered.

Then what?