|
Astounding. Washington DC's think tank industry - the beltway
welfare program for former government officials - is rolling out
defenses for Sovereign Wealth Funds owned by the Middle Eastern and
Chinese governments. Gerald Hyman writes in Washington Post that SWF's are good.
Will he also advocate increased U.S. government ownership of the U.S.
economy as well as purchases of foreign companies by the Fed?
Does he fancy Ben Bernanke as a CEO of a holding company owning several
businesses, and Robert Gates as the chief of several private defense
contractors in Europe and Asia? Or is he an inconsistent hypocrit.
Or has his employer, the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
received a hefty grant from an SWF to push these views? Ya gotta
pay the light bill at the think tank... and pay the hefty K Street
rental rates for the offices.
Take a look at Pat Mulloy's testimony
before the Senate Banking Committee on SWF's for a reality check.
It's the most popular article on this site as I write this.
Hyman is wrong on so many levels. First is the source of
those funds. Oil prices pumped up on war risk premiums ($100 oil)
and international governmental monopolies (OPEC) fund the Middle
Eastern state-owned investment companies. China's government
owned investment funds are financed by gargantuan trade surpluses
caused by government currency manipulation.
Second, and most
importantly is national security. China is the biggest
perpetrator of espionage in the international community. This claim is from the FBI, not me. Just
type "espionage" in the search engine on this site to see the results
you get from many sources. How do you protect military secrets
held by defense contractors when foreign governments own the
contractors? Build an internal "Chinese wall"?
Foreign policy can and does dominate the decision making in companies owned by SWF's. It is inherent.
Mr. Hyman should pull his head out of the sand for a few hours to read Unrestricted Warfare,
which is authored by two Chinese military officers advocating financial
and other non-military means for penetrating the enemy in a
comprehensive and largely undetectable war effort. And then he
should reread the article he wrote.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed