CCP-MLB, etc.

 

It appears that major US corporate entities are now subsidiaries of the CCP. CCP-Coca Cola. CCP-Delta. CCP-NBA. CCP-MLB. CCP-Google. CCP-Facebook.  CCP-Twitter. CCP-Microsoft. CCP-Oracle. CCP-CNN. CCP-ABC.  CCP-CBS. CCP-AP. CCP-Disney. Etc. If they were honest, they would all include their not-so-silent partner in their logos.

Most American corporations that function internationally are now de facto branches of the CCP. They are cowed by the CCP. They are intimidated by the CCP. They are beholden to the CCP. They take marching orders from the CCP.  All of the major American companies doing business in China have to include a “partnership” with the CCP.

Perhaps all those American corporations thought they were the dog that wags the tail, that the CCP would be beholden to them. Turns out to be the opposite. After Jack Ma “embraced supervision,” all of the CEOs of those major American corporations suddenly realized that the tail was wagging them. The cost of their participation in the Chinese market was not just sharing intellectual property with the CCP; it was allowing the CCP to dictate their policies, their politics, all of their activities. It became painfully obvious that any slight of the CCP could upend the Corporation completely (even Ron Coase, the student of the Corporation, in his last book, tried to convince the world that China really was a Capitalist country; is he rolling in his grave? I doubt it; he himself was always a socialist).

Those entities that had long since come under the domination of the CCP, such as the CCP-WHO, appear almost prescient. And now we have the international order becoming a subsidiary of the CCP:  CCP-Macron. CCP-Merkel. CCP-Davos. Perhaps even CCP-Boris. CCP-The Great Reset. Hotel California may have to relocate to Beijing. George H.W. Bush had no idea what his New World Order was going to be.

Of course, many of the CEOs favor the Chinese (totalitarian) model anyway and are eagerly doing China’s bidding without even being bidden.

But then they are only following the Biden brand, an entity that has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of the CCP (bought and paid for) for a while now. Not only will Capitalist Corporations sell China the rope to hang them with, they will sing the song and dance the dance China tells them to, and then sign the confession China puts under their noses,  and “embrace the supervision” China designs for them, until China just swallows them entirely. Is this the way the Western World ends? Not with a bang? Not even with a whimper? But with a beg to be swallowed by a totalitarian system?

How disgustingly craven can our intellectual, political, and economic masters be? It looks like we are about to find out.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 27 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    I think all who see the truth in this post should redirect that knowledge to the circumstances surrounding America’s 2020 elections. They are connected.

    • #1
  2. The Scarecrow Thatcher
    The Scarecrow
    @TheScarecrow

    God I wish this were the ravings of a madman. But it sure looks like a statement of the current reality to me.

     If, after all the coming wars are over, and something like The West arises again, I hope someone is wise enough to identify our mistakes, and adjust Capitalism/free markets/individual freedom and responsibility to make this not happen again.

    • #2
  3. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk and
    @Misthiocracy

    Niall Ferguson’s documentary from 2009:

    • #3
  4. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    I would love to boycott Coke, Delta, et.al. but I already choose their competitors.

     

    • #4
  5. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    The Revolution dreamed of by Marxists involves seizing control of the means of production.   The CCP has realized that direct seizure isn’t necessary.   For the right price, the owners will sell control of the means of production to absolutely anyone.    And many laissez-faire types won’t say a word … it’s  private companies engaged in private transactions.

    • #5
  6. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    This post seems unsupported by meaningful facts.

    I don’t like corporate Wokeism, and I don’t like the ChiComs.  I don’t see any evidence, though, of any of the listed corporations being ordered about by the ChiComs.

    To me, this looks like an unfounded conspiracy hypothesis.

    There is a good policy point here, but I disagree with the way that it is made.  I think that there is a corrupting influence in doing business with a tyrannical and wicked regime like the ChiComs.  I’m skeptical about blaming the corporations.  I’m more inclined to blame our government policies, especially the free trade system.

    I used to be strongly pro-trade.  I’ve become more skeptical of this in recent years, and more inclined to agree with some protectionist policies.

    • #6
  7. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Let’s say I’m the CEO or a Board member of a major public corporation.  Our analysis indicates that China is potentially a major source of revenue for our products.  I have a fiduciary duty to our shareholders to make deals to enhance revenue and the share price.  We certainly have some control over what those deals entail and should be under no obligation to “do the bidding” of the CCP.  However, I fail to see how certain of the requisites of running a public company don’t require me at least to enter into negotiations for the purpose of expanding our market.

    • #7
  8. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Let’s say I’m the CEO or a Board member of a major public corporation. Our analysis indicates that China is potentially a major source of revenue for our products. I have a fiduciary duty to our shareholders to make deals to enhance revenue and the share price. We certainly have some control over what those deals entail and should be under no obligation to “do the bidding” of the CCP. However, I fail to see how certain of the requisites of running a public company don’t require me at least to enter into negotiations for the purpose of expanding our market.

    I’ll bet you can get some feedback on this issue from some of the staunch free trade advocates here. Would dealing with the CCP in these arrangements be a component of free trade, you think?

    • #8
  9. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Let’s say I’m the CEO or a Board member of a major public corporation. Our analysis indicates that China is potentially a major source of revenue for our products. I have a fiduciary duty to our shareholders to make deals to enhance revenue and the share price. We certainly have some control over what those deals entail and should be under no obligation to “do the bidding” of the CCP. However, I fail to see how certain of the requisites of running a public company don’t require me at least to enter into negotiations for the purpose of expanding our market.

    Is your only duty to your shareholders maximizing the short term share price?  Or are there other, longer term obligations?

    • #9
  10. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Let’s say I’m the CEO or a Board member of a major public corporation. Our analysis indicates that China is potentially a major source of revenue for our products. I have a fiduciary duty to our shareholders to make deals to enhance revenue and the share price. We certainly have some control over what those deals entail and should be under no obligation to “do the bidding” of the CCP. However, I fail to see how certain of the requisites of running a public company don’t require me at least to enter into negotiations for the purpose of expanding our market.

    Is your only duty to your shareholders maximizing the short term share price? Or are there other, longer term obligations?

    There’s a balancing between the two inherent in decisions such as this.  It’s up to the decision-maker to strike the balance, but ignoring a market isn’t what the decision-maker is paid to do.  I’m told that Buicks are (or were?) big in China.  Should GM pull out of the market because CCP bad?

    • #10
  11. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    The Revolution dreamed of by Marxists involves seizing control of the means of production. The CCP has realized that direct seizure isn’t necessary. For the right price, the owners will sell control of the means of production to absolutely anyone. And many laissez-faire types won’t say a word … it’s private companies engaged in private transactions.

    Part of the problem is that China is basically being given the money to buy the corporations, BY the corporations.  Before “free trade” began, China was too poor to do that kind of thing, and it seems like it should have been allowed – if not required – to remain poor.

    • #11
  12. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Let’s say I’m the CEO or a Board member of a major public corporation. Our analysis indicates that China is potentially a major source of revenue for our products. I have a fiduciary duty to our shareholders to make deals to enhance revenue and the share price. We certainly have some control over what those deals entail and should be under no obligation to “do the bidding” of the CCP. However, I fail to see how certain of the requisites of running a public company don’t require me at least to enter into negotiations for the purpose of expanding our market.

    Is your only duty to your shareholders maximizing the short term share price? Or are there other, longer term obligations?

    There’s a balancing between the two inherent in decisions such as this. It’s up to the decision-maker to strike the balance, but ignoring a market isn’t hat the decision-maker is paid to do. I’m told that Buicks are (or were?) big in China. Should GM pull out of the market because CCP bad?

    Maybe.   Should art dealers and museums have done business with Nazi Germany because they were reliable suppliers of rare art?   Should arms merchants supply Iran?   Hezbollah?    ISIS?   Russia?   Their money is as good as anyone else’s. Or do we draw distinctions?   What about Cuba?     Was Obama right to lift restrictions?

    • #12
  13. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Let’s say I’m the CEO or a Board member of a major public corporation. Our analysis indicates that China is potentially a major source of revenue for our products. I have a fiduciary duty to our shareholders to make deals to enhance revenue and the share price. We certainly have some control over what those deals entail and should be under no obligation to “do the bidding” of the CCP. However, I fail to see how certain of the requisites of running a public company don’t require me at least to enter into negotiations for the purpose of expanding our market.

    Is your only duty to your shareholders maximizing the short term share price? Or are there other, longer term obligations?

    There’s a balancing between the two inherent in decisions such as this. It’s up to the decision-maker to strike the balance, but ignoring a market isn’t hat the decision-maker is paid to do. I’m told that Buicks are (or were?) big in China. Should GM pull out of the market because CCP bad?

    Maybe. Should art dealers and museums have done business with Nazi Germany because they were reliable suppliers of rare art? Should arms merchants supply Iran? Hezbollah? ISIS? Russia? Their money is as good as anyone else’s. Or do we draw distinctions? What about Cuba? Was Obama right to lift restrictions?

    I’m not convinced that those analogies are similar.  And I admit to playing a bit of devil’s advocacy here.  But, given some of the assertions in the O/P, I think conservatives need to take a look at their views on capitalism (maximizing wealth).  

    • #13
  14. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Let’s say I’m the CEO or a Board member of a major public corporation. Our analysis indicates that China is potentially a major source of revenue for our products. I have a fiduciary duty to our shareholders to make deals to enhance revenue and the share price. We certainly have some control over what those deals entail and should be under no obligation to “do the bidding” of the CCP. However, I fail to see how certain of the requisites of running a public company don’t require me at least to enter into negotiations for the purpose of expanding our market.

    Is your only duty to your shareholders maximizing the short term share price? Or are there other, longer term obligations?

    There’s a balancing between the two inherent in decisions such as this. It’s up to the decision-maker to strike the balance, but ignoring a market isn’t hat the decision-maker is paid to do. I’m told that Buicks are (or were?) big in China. Should GM pull out of the market because CCP bad?

    Maybe. Should art dealers and museums have done business with Nazi Germany because they were reliable suppliers of rare art? Should arms merchants supply Iran? Hezbollah? ISIS? Russia? Their money is as good as anyone else’s. Or do we draw distinctions? What about Cuba? Was Obama right to lift restrictions?

    I’m not convinced that those analogies are similar. And I admit to playing a bit of devil’s advocacy here. But, given some of the assertions in the O/P, I think conservatives need to take a look at their views on capitalism (maximizing wealth).

    Do Christians ignore their Christian principles for the job? This , in a way, touches on how Biden and Pelosi divide the abortion issue between their religion and their job.

    • #14
  15. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Let’s say I’m the CEO or a Board member of a major public corporation. Our analysis indicates that China is potentially a major source of revenue for our products. I have a fiduciary duty to our shareholders to make deals to enhance revenue and the share price. We certainly have some control over what those deals entail and should be under no obligation to “do the bidding” of the CCP. However, I fail to see how certain of the requisites of running a public company don’t require me at least to enter into negotiations for the purpose of expanding our market.

    Is your only duty to your shareholders maximizing the short term share price? Or are there other, longer term obligations?

    There’s a balancing between the two inherent in decisions such as this. It’s up to the decision-maker to strike the balance, but ignoring a market isn’t hat the decision-maker is paid to do. I’m told that Buicks are (or were?) big in China. Should GM pull out of the market because CCP bad?

    Maybe. Should art dealers and museums have done business with Nazi Germany because they were reliable suppliers of rare art? Should arms merchants supply Iran? Hezbollah? ISIS? Russia? Their money is as good as anyone else’s. Or do we draw distinctions? What about Cuba? Was Obama right to lift restrictions?

    I’m not convinced that those analogies are similar. And I admit to playing a bit of devil’s advocacy here. But, given some of the assertions in the O/P, I think conservatives need to take a look at their views on capitalism (maximizing wealth).

    Do Christians ignore their Christian principles for the job? This , in a way, touches on how Biden and Pelosi divide the abortion issue between their religion and their job.

    I don’t believe Pelosi or Biden – among so many others – are actually against abortion for their supposed religion, either.

    • #15
  16. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Let’s say I’m the CEO or a Board member of a major public corporation. Our analysis indicates that China is potentially a major source of revenue for our products. I have a fiduciary duty to our shareholders to make deals to enhance revenue and the share price. We certainly have some control over what those deals entail and should be under no obligation to “do the bidding” of the CCP. However, I fail to see how certain of the requisites of running a public company don’t require me at least to enter into negotiations for the purpose of expanding our market.

    Is your only duty to your shareholders maximizing the short term share price? Or are there other, longer term obligations?

    There’s a balancing between the two inherent in decisions such as this. It’s up to the decision-maker to strike the balance, but ignoring a market isn’t hat the decision-maker is paid to do. I’m told that Buicks are (or were?) big in China. Should GM pull out of the market because CCP bad?

    Maybe. Should art dealers and museums have done business with Nazi Germany because they were reliable suppliers of rare art? Should arms merchants supply Iran? Hezbollah? ISIS? Russia? Their money is as good as anyone else’s. Or do we draw distinctions? What about Cuba? Was Obama right to lift restrictions?

    I’m not convinced that those analogies are similar. And I admit to playing a bit of devil’s advocacy here. But, given some of the assertions in the O/P, I think conservatives need to take a look at their views on capitalism (maximizing wealth).

    Do Christians ignore their Christian principles for the job? This , in a way, touches on how Biden and Pelosi divide the abortion issue between their religion and their job.

    I don’t believe Pelosi or Biden – among so many others – are actually against abortion for their supposed religion, either.

    They do a lot of pretending.

    • #16
  17. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Let’s hypothesize that, within six months, all incorporated businesses in the U.S. stopped doing business in China–from GM selling Buicks to Apple making iPads to Walmart importing most of what they sell.  Query what effect that would have on our economy, both in terms of employment and the cost of substitute goods.  How many jobs lost?  How much inflation?

    • #17
  18. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Let’s hypothesize that, within six months, all incorporated businesses in the U.S. stopped doing business in China–from GM selling Buicks to Apple making iPads to Walmart importing most of what they sell. Query what effect that would have on our economy, both in terms of employment and the cost of substitute goods. How many jobs lost? How much inflation?

    For one thing, I can see how you might end up with inflation, at least short term.  But that doesn’t mean that “trading” with China is what kept inflation down.  It could mean that there were a lot of other wrong things going on/being done, and “trading” with China was kind of a temporary relief valve that was going to fail eventually anyway.

    • #18
  19. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Let’s hypothesize that, within six months, all incorporated businesses in the U.S. stopped doing business in China–from GM selling Buicks to Apple making iPads to Walmart importing most of what they sell. Query what effect that would have on our economy, both in terms of employment and the cost of substitute goods. How many jobs lost? How much inflation?

    What if we did some research and arrived at some number of years, (say it turned out to be twenty), over which some significant portion of what is being targeted here went to CCP China, (say eighty per cent), and we stopped doing that amount over a similar period and allowed nothing new to go to CCP China but moved much of what was there home and to acceptable trade partners?

    • #19
  20. Nanocelt TheContrarian Member
    Nanocelt TheContrarian
    @NanoceltTheContrarian

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    It depends on what the meaning of ‘meaningful’ is. For example: you don’t see Disney sucking up to China to get its movies produced and released there? You don’t see the NBA kowtowing to China? You don’t think Jack Ma “embracing supervision” and having his IPO halted and his company taken away from just for offering a little constructive criticism on financial systems in China had any impact on Corporate CEOs of American firms? The rock you’re hiding under must be the size of Camelback Mountain, or the entire Superstitions.

    China was given the gift of membership in the WTO without ever having to obey WTO rules, This was mostly payback by the Clintons for Chinese financing of Clinton’s 1996 re election campaign (remember “no controlling legal authority”?) and W (his brother from another mother)followed through on that and China’s economic rise took off like a rocket.

    That arrangement has pretty much backfired on us.  Give me some evidence that will convince me I’m wrong. I’ll be happy to study it.

    Meanwhile, I’ll stick to my Yossarian delusions. Hope for the best; expect the worst.

    What profiteth it a man if he gain the whole world but lose his own soul—or his freedom?

    • #20
  21. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Let’s say I’m the CEO or a Board member of a major public corporation. Our analysis indicates that China is potentially a major source of revenue for our products. I have a fiduciary duty to our shareholders to make deals to enhance revenue and the share price. We certainly have some control over what those deals entail and should be under no obligation to “do the bidding” of the CCP. However, I fail to see how certain of the requisites of running a public company don’t require me at least to enter into negotiations for the purpose of expanding our market.

    Is your only duty to your shareholders maximizing the short term share price? Or are there other, longer term obligations?

    This is one of the side questions posed in Safely Home by Randy Alcorn, published in 1999 I think.

    Is it worth being in business or partnership if it increases share price but utilizes prison slave labor while defining down criminals to Christians who don’t worship at a CCP approved church and possess a Bible lacking a CCP stamp of approval?

    • #21
  22. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Let’s hypothesize that, within six months, all incorporated businesses in the U.S. stopped doing business in China–from GM selling Buicks to Apple making iPads to Walmart importing most of what they sell. Query what effect that would have on our economy, both in terms of employment and the cost of substitute goods. How many jobs lost? How much inflation?

    Part of the concern is there’s an expectation that eventually, we will arrive at a point when trade with China is SO onerous or so entirely untenable (like war) that we must stop it completely and all the things you mention in your comment would happen all at once with all the negatives.

    But to wean ourselves off to more reasonable levels, so a war with China would leave us uncomfortable but not destructively incapacitated, should be something we should pursue immediately.

    • #22
  23. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk and
    @Misthiocracy

    • #23
  24. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk and
    @Misthiocracy

    Stina (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Let’s hypothesize that, within six months, all incorporated businesses in the U.S. stopped doing business in China–from GM selling Buicks to Apple making iPads to Walmart importing most of what they sell. Query what effect that would have on our economy, both in terms of employment and the cost of substitute goods. How many jobs lost? How much inflation?

    Part of the concern is there’s an expectation that eventually, we will arrive at a point when trade with China is SO onerous or so entirely untenable (like war) that we must stop it completely and all the things you mention in your comment would happen all at once with all the negatives.

    But to wean ourselves off to more reasonable levels, so a war with China would leave us uncomfortable but not destructively incapacitated, should be something we should pursue immediately.

    < devil’s advocate mode = on >

    Isn’t that the same argument the eco-Left makes about weaning civilization off oil?

    < devil’s advocate mode = off >

    • #24
  25. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Misthiocracy got drunk and (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Let’s hypothesize that, within six months, all incorporated businesses in the U.S. stopped doing business in China–from GM selling Buicks to Apple making iPads to Walmart importing most of what they sell. Query what effect that would have on our economy, both in terms of employment and the cost of substitute goods. How many jobs lost? How much inflation?

    Part of the concern is there’s an expectation that eventually, we will arrive at a point when trade with China is SO onerous or so entirely untenable (like war) that we must stop it completely and all the things you mention in your comment would happen all at once with all the negatives.

    But to wean ourselves off to more reasonable levels, so a war with China would leave us uncomfortable but not destructively incapacitated, should be something we should pursue immediately.

    < devil’s advocate mode = on >

    Isn’t that the same argument the eco-Left makes about weaning civilization off oil?

    < devil’s advocate mode = off >

    No, one has people as operatives on both sides, the other has people on one side.

    • #25
  26. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Misthiocracy got drunk and (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Let’s hypothesize that, within six months, all incorporated businesses in the U.S. stopped doing business in China–from GM selling Buicks to Apple making iPads to Walmart importing most of what they sell. Query what effect that would have on our economy, both in terms of employment and the cost of substitute goods. How many jobs lost? How much inflation?

    Part of the concern is there’s an expectation that eventually, we will arrive at a point when trade with China is SO onerous or so entirely untenable (like war) that we must stop it completely and all the things you mention in your comment would happen all at once with all the negatives.

    But to wean ourselves off to more reasonable levels, so a war with China would leave us uncomfortable but not destructively incapacitated, should be something we should pursue immediately.

    < devil’s advocate mode = on >

    Isn’t that the same argument the eco-Left makes about weaning civilization off oil?

    < devil’s advocate mode = off >

    The left (and you pretending to be the left) seems completely unaware that much money is being spent in the private energy sector to find alternatives to oil. We have not lacked in creativity and have even found other, more efficient engines and hybrids.

    So I don’t see how your point is valid when we have R&D invested in pursuing other methods.

    Its a lot easier to move existent technologies to be produced in different areas (China vs America) then to advocate for the creation of a non existent technology. Those are entirely different arguments.

    • #26
  27. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy got drunk and (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Let’s hypothesize that, within six months, all incorporated businesses in the U.S. stopped doing business in China–from GM selling Buicks to Apple making iPads to Walmart importing most of what they sell. Query what effect that would have on our economy, both in terms of employment and the cost of substitute goods. How many jobs lost? How much inflation?

    Part of the concern is there’s an expectation that eventually, we will arrive at a point when trade with China is SO onerous or so entirely untenable (like war) that we must stop it completely and all the things you mention in your comment would happen all at once with all the negatives.

    But to wean ourselves off to more reasonable levels, so a war with China would leave us uncomfortable but not destructively incapacitated, should be something we should pursue immediately.

    < devil’s advocate mode = on >

    Isn’t that the same argument the eco-Left makes about weaning civilization off oil?

    < devil’s advocate mode = off >

    No, one has people as operatives on both sides, the other has people on one side.

    There is also a difference between “weening ourselves” off OUR OWN oil, versus “weening ourselves” off OTHER COUNTRIES’ oil.

    • #27