During yesterday’s hearing before the House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust panel, the CEOs of Apple, Google, Amazon, and Facebook were unable to agree on whether or not China has been stealing technology and intellectual property (IP) from American companies. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg gave the only honest and straightforward answer to Rep. Greg Steube’s question, answering: “I think it’s well documented that the Chinese government steals technology from American companies.”
Yesterday, the CEO’s of the most powerful tech companies in the country, Apple, Google, Amazon, and Facebook, appeared before the House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust panel to discuss the market dominance of their firms and issues relating to censorship on their platforms. During the hearing, the CEOs were asked about whether or not they believe that the Chinese government steals technology from U.S. companies. The response was far from unanimous.
Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) asked the tech CEO’s during the hearing: “Do you believe that the Chinese government steals technology from U.S. companies?” Apple CEO Tim Cook responded in a neutral manner, focusing on his own company instead of the industry in general, stating: “I don’t know of specific cases where we have been stolen from by the government. I know of no case [of] ours where it occurred … I can only speak to firsthand knowledge.”
Google CEO Sundar Pichai, who’s company briefly attempted to launch a Chinese government-censored search engine , replied: “I have no firsthand knowledge of any information stolen from Google in this regard,” before later correcting himself, stating that Google acknowledged a China-linked cyberattack in 2009 in which a portion of the firm’s intellectual property was stolen.
Amazon CEO and richest man in the world, Jeff Bezos, responded that he had “heard many reports of that” but added: “I haven’t seen it personally.” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, however, gave an extremely straightforward response stating: “I think it’s well documented that the Chinese government steals technology from American companies.”
Zuckerberg made a point to note that China has been catching up to the U.S. in terms of tech dominance, stating: “If you look at where the top technology companies come from, a decade ago the vast majority were American. Today, almost half are Chinese.”
However, despite acknowledging the issue, neither Zuckerberg nor the other tech CEO’s had any response to Steube when he asked how Congress could protect American companies from “aggression and government intervention abroad.” Steube waited for 15 seconds in silence as the tech CEO’s failed to answer before yielding the rest of his time.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or contact via secure email at the address lucasnolan@protonmail.com
Pinkerton:
Josh Hawley Explains How to Take on China and Save America
23 May 2020 213
9:33
On May 20, speaking
from the Senate floor, Josh Hawley, the youngest member of the chamber, laid
out his plan for fixing international trade, taking on the People’s Republic of
China, and thereby, too, saving America.
In so doing, Hawley, populist firebrand that he is, showed that
he was willing to overturn the stale orthodoxies that have mildewed our economy
and undermined our security.
In his speech , Hawley
laid out the core problem: The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has taken
advantage of the flaws built into the current international economic system,
embodied in the World Trade Organization (WTO), that agglomeration of unelected
globalcrats. As Hawley put
it, “We must recognize that the economic system designed by Western policy
makers at the end of the Cold War does not serve our purposes in this new era.” He added, “And we should admit
that multiple of its founding premises were in error.”
Those founding premises, Hawley
continued, trace back to the save-the-world utopianism of our 28th president,
Woodrow Wilson. Having
entered World War One in 1917, Wilson had some strange ideas; for one thing, it
would be “a war to end all war,” and, he added, we must strive for “peace
without victory.” Yes, such concepts might seem a bit, well, unrealistic; you
know, like the musings of an ivory-tower professor. In fact, Wilson had been a
professor and subsequently, in fact, he held presidency of Princeton University
before winning the White House. So
maybe now we can see the origins of his vaulting but vacuous phrasemaking.
Indeed, without a doubt, Wilson was
a great talker; he wove webs of words and theories that have bewitched many
politicians since, inspiring them to be wannabe Wilsonians.
For instance, there was George W.
Bush, who said he heard “a
calling from beyond the stars,” summoning America to wars of choice, aimed at
“ending tyranny in our world.” Well,
we know how that worked out.
As Hawley said, “During the past two
decades, as we fought war after war in the Middle East, the Chinese government
systematically built its military on the backs of our middle class.” Exactly . While we were liberating Fallujah for
the third or fourth time, the Chinese were hollowing out our economy.
Of course, Bush wasn’t our only
warlike president in the past two decades; we also had Bill Clinton and Barack
Obama, both of whom launched foreign interventions as well, even as they were
welcoming Chinese products and influence into the U.S. Indeed, as an aside, one wonders
what Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden, thinks of all this: Has he learned the
lesson of Iraq and other quagmires? Has
he rethought trade with China? Those
are certainly good questions to be answered during the remainder of the 2020
campaign season.
Okay, back to Hawley. Having raised serious questions about
the status quo, he offered three specific answers:
First , we should withdraw from the World Trade Organization. As Hawley put it, the WTO was
built on a false promise: the idea that the nations of the world would converge
around a fair and non-manipulated trading system; as the Missourian put it,
“they wanted a single liberal market to support a single, liberal international
order that would bring peace in our time.” Yet in the decades of the WTO’s
existence, the countries of the world haven’t come together on much of
anything—except, perhaps, to snooker Uncle Sucker.
And we might pause to note Hawley’s
slyly ironic use of the words, “peace in our time.” That’s an allusion to the
catastrophically mistaken statement of British prime minister Neville
Chamberlain; back in 1938, Chamberlain made a wrongheaded deal with Adolf
Hitler, which he said would bring “peace in our
time.” Wrong!
Yes, Hawley is saying, the stakes
today are potentially that high; we can’t stay in an organization that has “not
been kind to America.” He
added, “The WTO’s dispute resolution process has systemically disfavored the
United States”—and favored China.
Second , Hawley says that having left the WTO, the U.S. should
negotiate new trade deals on a more reciprocal and bilateral basis; that is,
the U.S. should make a trade deal with, say, the United Kingdom—and then on to
another deal with the next potential trading partner. As Hawley explained, “We must
replace an empire of lawyers with a confederation of truly mutual trade.”
Indeed, Hawley argues that a new
focus on win-win trade deals—as freely determined by the two countries actually
involved in the deal, as opposed supranational WTO-crats—deals that would offer
a new opportunity for the U.S. to put together better alliances, based on
mutually beneficial economic and strategic relationships:
We benefit if countries that share
our opposition to Chinese imperialism—countries like India and Japan, Vietnam,
Australia and Taiwan—are economically independent of China, and standing
shoulder to shoulder with us. So
we should actively pursue new networks of mutual trade with key Asian and
European partners, like the economic prosperity network recently mentioned by Secretary
Pompeo.
We might pause over one of the
countries Hawley mentioned above, Taiwan. Its formal name is the Republic of
China (ROC), an island nation whose capital is Taipei. In other words, the ROC
is separate and very much distinct from the People’s Republic
of China, whose capital, of course, is Beijing. The two nations split in 1949,
when Mao Zedong’s Soviet-backed communists took over the mainland. In the decades since, the ROC,
population 23 million, has become a prosperous and free country, while the PRC
is merely … prosperous. (And,
of course, menacing .)
So it’s notable that Hawley has become a
strong champion of Taiwan, which stands not only as a bulwark against the PRC,
but also as proof that the Chinese people, if given a choice, will choose
freedom.
Third , Hawley wants to crack down on the ability of international
capital, including Wall Street, to hopscotch the world—and step all over the
people of the world. As Hawley explains about the current WTO dominion,
There is a reason why Wall Street
loves the status quo. There is a reason why they will object to leaving the WTO
and resist major reforms to our global economic system. That’s because they are on a
gravy train of foreign capital flows that keep their checkbooks fat.
Indeed, underneath all the
complexity of international finance, there’s a simple enough bottom line; Wall
Street, and global capital as a whole, profit from international arbitrage . This international “arb” is the
system of playing off one country’s tax-, regulatory- and wage-systems against
another country’s—and seeking to profit from both sides of the equation.
Indeed, here in the U.S., in the
last few decades, it’s been easy for financial companies to play this arbitrage
game. In effect, they have
issued the following ultimatum to American industrial companies: “You must outsource or relocate to China,
because the taxes/regulations/wages are lower there. If you do so, we’ll reward you by bidding
up your stock price here in the U.S. But if you don’t, maybe we’ll buy you,
replace the management, and then move to China. Or maybe we’ll buy your competitor, move it
overseas, where it can take advantage of the lower costs, undercut you—and put
you out of business.”
This ultimatum, repeated thousands
of times, reminds one of Marlon Brando’s famous line from The
Godfather : “I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse.”
Many millions of lost American jobs
later, we’ve learned how few companies have been able to refuse this sort of
“offer.”
Hawley makes it clear: As a nation,
we’ve dug ourselves into a deep hole. And
in the meantime, the PRC is on the move: On May 21, the South China
Morning Post , a Hong Kong-based newspaper under the sway of the Beijing
government, reported on the
PRC’s plan to allocate an additional $1.4 trillion for technological
mobilization. So yes, we
face a clear and present danger.
Fortunately, a clear-eyed
understanding of a threat is not the same as a downcast bowing down to it. What we need to do is build on
our understanding—and turn that understanding into action.
Hawley is just one senator, and in
terms of seniority, a very junior one at that. And yet he thinks with a wise
historical sweep that could—and should—change the policy course of America. As he said:
We can build a future that looks
beyond pandemic to prosperity—a prosperity shared by all Americans, from our
rural towns to the urban core. We
can build a future that looks past a failed consensus to meet our national
security needs in this new century.
Yes, if we can build that future for
ourselves—reuniting the nation around a renewed appreciation of the common
good, as well as a newfound apprehension of the common threat —then
we have a fighting chance. And
if America can pull together an alliance of other like-minded nations, all
fearful of the Red Dragon, then we all have a strong prospect of success.
Because darn few people anywhere
wish to live in tyranny. And the
Chinese Communist Party is tyrannical.
Josh Hawley: GOP Must Defend
Middle Class Americans Against ‘Concentrated Corporate Power,’ Tech
Billionaires
JOHN BINDER
The
Republican Party must defend America’s working and middle class against
“concentrated corporate power” and the monopolization of entire sectors of the
United States’ economy, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) says.
In an interview on The Realignment podcast,
Hawley said that “long gone are the days where” American workers can depend on
big business to look out for their needs and the needs of their communities.
Instead, Hawley explained that increasing “concentrated
corporate power” of whole sectors of the American economy — specifically among
Silicon Valley’s giant tech conglomerates — is at the expense of working and
middle class Americans.
“One of the things Republicans need to recover today is a
defense of an open, free-market, of a fair healthy competing market and the
length between that and Democratic citizenship,” Hawley said, and continued:
At the end of the day, we are trying to support and sustain here
a great democracy. We’re not trying to make a select group of people rich.
They’ve already done that. The tech billionaires are already billionaires, they
don’t need any more help from government. I’m not interested in trying to help
them further. I’m interested in trying to help sustain the great middle of this
country that makes our democracy run and that’s the most important challenge of
this day.
“You have these businesses who for years now have said ‘Well,
we’re based in the United States, but we’re not actually an American company,
we’re a global company,'” Hawley said. “And you know, what has driven profits
for some of our biggest multinational corporations? It’s been … moving jobs
overseas where it’s cheaper … moving your profits out of this country so you
don’t have to pay any taxes.”
“I think that we have here at the same time that our economy has
become more concentrated, we have bigger and bigger corporations that control
more and more of our key sectors, those same corporations see themselves as
less and less American and frankly they are less committed to American workers
and American communities,” Hawley continued. “That’s turned out to be a problem
which is one of the reasons we need to restore good, healthy, robust
competition in this country that’s going to push up wages, that’s going to
bring jobs back to the middle parts of this country, and most importantly, to
the middle and working class of this country.”
While multinational corporations monopolize industries, Hawley
said the GOP must defend working and middle class Americans and that big
business interests should not come before the needs of American communities:
A free market is one where you can enter it, where there are new
ideas, and also by the way, where people can start a small family business, you
shouldn’t have to be gigantic in order to succeed in this country. Most people
don’t want to start a tech company. [Americans] maybe want to work in
their family’s business, which may be some corner shop in a small town …
they want to be able to make a living and then give that to their kids or give
their kids an option to do that. [Emphasis added]
The problem with corporate concentration is that it tends to
kill all of that. The worst thing about corporate concentration is that it
inevitably believes to a partnership with big government. Big business and
big government always get together, always. And that is exactly what has
happened now with the tech sector, for instance, and arguably many other
sectors where you have this alliance between big government and big business …
whatever you call it, it’s a problem and it’s something we need to address.
[Emphasis added]
Hawley blasted the free trade-at-all-costs doctrine that has
dominated the Republican and Democrat Party establishments for decades,
crediting the globalist economic model with hollowing “out entire industries,
entire supply chains” and sending them to China, among other countries.
“The thing is in this country is that not only do we not make
very much stuff anymore, we don’t even make the machines that make the stuff,”
Hawley said. “The entire supply chain up and down has gone overseas, and a lot
of it to China, and this is a result of policies over some decades now.”
As Breitbart News reported, Hawley detailed in the interview
how Republicans like former President George H.W. Bush’s ‘New World Order’
agenda and Democrats have helped to create a corporatist economy that
disproportionately benefits the nation’s richest executives and donor class.
The billionaire class, the top 0.01 percent of earners, has
enjoyed more than 15 times as
much wage growth as the bottom 90 percent since 1979. That economy has been
reinforced with federal rules that largely benefits the wealthiest of
wealthiest earners. A study released last month
revealed that the richest Americans are, in fact, paying a lower tax rate than
all other Americans.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on
Twitter at @JxhnBinder .
Tucker
Carlson Exposes D.C. ‘Conservatives’ for Doing Big Tech’s Bidding
Rich Polk/Getty
21 Dec 20190
3:53
Fox News host Tucker Carlson slammed establishment conservatives
for taking money from big tech companies to do their bidding, on Tucker
Carlson Tonight, Friday night.
The popular host, known for his no-holds-barred denunciations of
establishment conservatives as well as Democrats, revealed massive spending by
the establishment conservative Koch Foundation to protect big tech in
Washington.
Tucker revealed that Americans for Prosperity, a “purportedly
conservative group” controlled by the Kochs, launched an ad campaign trying to
stave off the closing net of antitrust enforcement against Google and Facebook.
The ads targeted Republican and Democrat state attorneys general that were
investigating alleged antitrust violations by big tech companies.
The Koch-funded group also targeted members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee with digital ads urging them to “oppose any effort to use
antitrust laws to break up America’s innovative tech companies,” reported
Carlson.
The Fox host ran through a laundry list of allegedly
“conservative” D.C. think tanks that take money from big tech, and often
advocate against regulating them over political bias or any other matter.
“In all, the Koch network quietly spent at least $10 million
defending Silicon Valley companies that work to silence conservatives.”
“Google has given money to at least 22 right-leaning
institutions that are also funded by the Koch network,” reported Carlson.
“Those institutions include the American Conservative Union, the
American Enterprise Institute, the National Review Institute, the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Mercatus Center.”
Carlson explained that this spending gets results.
“In September of 2018, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and
three other groups funded by Google and the Kochs sent a joint letter to
the Attorney General at the time, Jeff Sessions, expressing grave concerns over
the DoJ’s plans to look into whether search engines and social media were
hurting competition and stifling speech.”
Carlson also called out The Heritage Foundation, arguing that
its shilling for big tech meant that it “no longer represents the interest of
conservatives, at least on the question of tech.”
“A recent paper by Heritage,
entitled ‘Free Enterprise Is
the Best Remedy For Online Bias Concerns,’ defends the special
privileges that Congress has given to left-wing Silicon Valley monopolies. And
if conservatives don’t like it, Heritage says, well they can just start their
own Google!”
This is despite the fact that Google
publicly snubbed the foundation last year, canceling the formation of a planned
“A.I ethics” council after far-left employees of the tech company threw a hissy fit over the fact
that Heritage president Kay Coles James was set to be one of its members.
Are you an insider at Google,
Facebook, Twitter or any other tech company who wants to confidentially reveal
wrongdoing or political bias at your company? Reach out to Allum Bokhari at his
secure email address allumbokhari@protonmail.com .
Allum Bokhari is the senior
technology correspondent at Breitbart News.
In truth, the Golden State is becoming a semi-feudal kingdom,
with the
nation’s widest gap between middle and upper incomes—72 percent, compared
with the U.S. average of 57 percent—and its highest poverty rate. Roughly half
of America’s homeless live in Los Angeles or San
Francisco , which now has the highest property crime rate among major
cities.
December 20, 2019
California Preening
The Golden State is on a path to high-tech feudalism, but there’s
still time to change course.
“We are
the modern equivalent of the ancient city-states of Athens and Sparta.
California has the ideas of Athens and the power of Sparta,” declared then-governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007. “Not only can we lead California into the future
. . . we can show the nation and the world how to get there.” When a movie star
who once played Hercules says so who’s to disagree? The idea of California as a
model, of course, precedes the former governor’s tenure. Now the state’s
anti-Trump resistance—in its zeal on matters concerning climate , technology, gender, or
race—believes that it knows how to create a just, affluent, and enlightened
society. “The future depends on us,” Governor Gavin Newsom said at his
inauguration. “And we will seize this moment.”
In
truth, the Golden State is becoming a semi-feudal kingdom, with the
nation’s widest gap between middle and upper incomes—72 percent, compared
with the U.S. average of 57 percent—and its highest poverty rate. Roughly half
of America’s homeless live in Los Angeles or San
Francisco , which now has the highest property crime rate among major
cities. California
hasn’t yet become a full-scale dystopia, of course, but it’s heading in a
troubling direction.
This
didn’t have to happen. No place on earth has more going for it than the Golden
State. Unlike the East Coast and Midwest, California benefited from
comparatively late industrialization, with an economy based less on auto
manufacturing and steel than on science-based fields like aerospace, software,
and semiconductors. In the mid-twentieth century, the state also gained from
the best aspects of progressive rule, culminating in an elite public university
system, a massive water system reminiscent of the Roman Empire, and a vast
infrastructure network of highways, ports, and bridges. The state was
fortunate, too, in drawing people from around the U.S. and the world. The
eighteenth-century French traveler
J. Hector St. John de CrèvecÅ“ur described the American as “this new man,”
and California—innovative, independent, and less bound by tradition or old
prejudice—reflected that insight. Though remnants of this California still
exist, its population is aging, less mobile, and more pessimistic, and its
roads, schools, and universities are in decline.
I n the second half of the
twentieth century, California’s remarkably diverse economy spread prosperity
from the coast into the state’s inland regions. Though pockets of severe
poverty existed—urban barrios, south Los Angeles, the rural Central Valley—they
were limited in scope. In fact, growth often favored
suburban and exurban communities, where middle-class families, including
minorities, settled after World War II.
In the
last two decades, the state has adopted policies that undermine the basis for
middle-class growth. State energy policies, for example, have made California’s
gas and electricity prices among the steepest in the country. Since 2011,
electricity prices have risen five
times faster than the national average. Meantime, strict land-use
controls have raised housing costs to the nation’s highest, while taxes—once
average, considering California’s urban scale—now exceed
those of virtually every state . At the same time, California’s economy has shed
industrial diversity in favor of dependence on one industry: Big Tech. Just a
decade before, the state’s largest firms included those in the aerospace,
finance, energy, and service industries. Today’s 11 largest companies hail from
the tech sector, while energy firms—excluding Chevron, which has moved much of
its operations to Houston —have disappeared. Not a
single top aerospace firm—the iconic industry of twentieth-century
California—retains its headquarters here.
Though
lionized in the press, this tech-oriented economy hasn’t resulted in that many
middle- and high-paying job opportunities for Californians, particularly
outside the Bay Area. Since 2008, notes Chapman University’s Marshall
Toplansky, the state has created five times the number of low-paying, as
opposed to high-wage, jobs. A remarkable 86 percent of new jobs paid below the
median income, while almost half paid under $40,000. Moreover, California,
including Silicon Valley, created fewer high-paying positions than the national
average, and far less than prime competitors like Salt Lake City, Seattle, or
Austin. Los Angeles County features the lowest pay of any of the nation’s 50
largest counties.
N o state advertises its
multicultural bona fides more than California, now a majority-minority state.
This is evident at the University
of California , where professors are required to prove their service to “people
of color,” to the state’s high
school curricula , with its new ethnic studies component. Much of California’s
anti-Trump resistance has a racial context. State Attorney General Xavier
Becerra has sued the administration numerous times over immigration policy
while he helps ensure California’s distinction as a sanctuary for illegal
immigrants. So far, more than 1
million illegal residents have received driver’s licenses, and they qualify
for free
health care , too. San Francisco now permits illegal immigrants to vote
in local elections .
Such radical
policies may make progressives feel better about themselves, though they seem
less concerned about how these actions affect everyday people. California’s
Latinos and African-Americans have seen good blue-collar jobs in manufacturing
and energy vanish. According to one United
Way study ,
over half of Latino households can barely pay their bills. “For Latinos,” notes
long-time political consultant Mike
Madrid ,
“the California Dream is becoming an unattainable fantasy.”
In the
past, poorer Californians could count on education to help them move up. But
today’s educators appear more interested in political indoctrination than
results. Among the 50 states, California ranked 49th
in the performance of low-income students. In wealthy San Francisco, test
scores for
black students are the worst of any California county. Many minority residents,
especially African-Americans, are fleeing the state. In a recent UC Berkeley
poll, 58 percent of black expressed interest in leaving California, a higher
percentage than for any racial group, though approximately 45 percent of Asians
and Latinos also considered moving out.
Perhaps
the biggest demographic disaster is generational. For decades, California
incubated youth
culture ,
creating trends like beatniks, hippies, surfers, and Latino and Asian art,
music, and cuisine. The state is a fountainhead of youthful
wokeness and rebellion , but that may prove short-lived as millennials leave. From
2014 to 2018, notes demographer Wendell Cox, net domestic out-migration grew
from 46,000 to 156,000. The exiles are increasingly in their family-formation
years. In the 2010s, California suffered higher net declines in virtually every
age category under 54, with the biggest rate of loss coming among the 35-to-44
cohort.
As
families with children leave, and international migration slows to one-third of
Texas’s level, the remaining population is rapidly aging. Since 2010,
California’s fertility rate has dropped 60 percent, more than the national
average; the state is now aging 50 percent more rapidly than the rest of the
country. A growing number of tech firms and millennials have headed to
the Intermountain
West .
Low rates of homeownership among younger people play a big role in this trend,
with California millennials forced to rent,
with little chance of buying their own home, while many of the state’s biggest
metros lead
the nation in long-term owners . California is increasingly a greying refuge for
those who bought property when housing was affordable.
A fter Governor
Schwarzenegger morphed into a progressive environmentalist, climate concerns
began driving state policy. His successors have embraced California
“leadership” on climate issues. Jerry Brown recently
told a
crowd in China that the rest of the world should follow California’s example.
The state’s top Democrats, like state senate president pro tem Kevin DeLeon,
Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti, and billionaire Democratic presidential
candidate Tom Steyer, now compete for the green
mantle.
Their
policies have worsened
conditions for
many middle- and working-class Californians. Oblivious to these concerns, Greens
ignore practical ideas—nuclear power, natural gas cars, job creation in
affordable areas, home-based work—that could help reduce emissions without
disrupting people’s lives. Ultra-green policies also work against the
state’s proclaimed goal of building more
than 3.5 million new housing units by 2025. In accordance with its efforts to
reduce car use, the state mandates that most growth occurs in already-crowded
coastal areas, where land prices are highest. But in cities like San Francisco,
the cost of building
one unit for
a homeless person surpasses $700,000. California’s inland regions, though
experiencing population gains, keep losing state
funding for decrepit
highways in
favor of urban-centric, mass transit projects—yet transit use has stagnated,
especially in greater
Los Angeles .
The
state, nevertheless, continues its pursuit of policies that would eliminate all
fossil fuels and nuclear power—outpacing national or even Paris Accord levels
and guaranteeing ever-rising energy prices. Mandating everything from electric
cars to
electric homes will only drive more working-class Californians into “energy
poverty.” High energy prices also directly affect the manufacturing and
logistics firms that employ blue-collar workers at decent wages. Business
relocation expert Joe
Vranich notes
that industrial firms account for many of the 2,000 employers that left the
state this decade. California’s industrial growth has fallen to the
bottom tier of states ; last year, it ranked 44th, with a rate of growth one-third to
one-quarter that of prime competitors like Texas, Virginia, Arizona, Nevada,
and Florida.
Similarly,
the high energy prices tend to hit the interior counties that, besides being
poorer, have far less temperate climates. Cities like Bakersfield , capital of the state’s
once-vibrant oil industry, are particularly hard-hit. High energy prices will
cost the region, northeast of the Los Angeles Basin, 14,000 generally high-paid
jobs, even as the state continues to import
oil from Saudi Arabia .
California’s
leaders apply climate change to excuse virtually every failure of state policy.
During the California drought, Brown and his minions
blamed the “climate” for the dry period, refusing to take responsibility
for insufficient
water storage that would have helped farmers. When the rains returned and
reservoirs filled, this argument was forgotten, and little effort has been made
to conserve water for next time. Likewise, Newsom and his supporters
in the
media have
blamed recent fires on changes in the global climate, but the disaster had as
much to do with green mandates against control led burns and brush
clearance than
anything occurring on a planetary scale. Brown joined greens
and others in blocking such
sensible policies.
Few
climate advocates ever seem to ask if their policies actually help the planet.
Indeed, California’s green policy, as one
paper demonstrates,
may be increasing total greenhouse-gas emissions by pushing people and
industries to states with less mild climates. In the past decade, the state
ranked 40th in per-capita reductions, and its global carbon footprint is
minimal. Renewable energy may be expensive and unreliable, but state
policy nevertheless enriches the green-energy
investments of tech
leaders ,
even when their efforts—like the Google-backed Ivanpah
solar farm —fail
to deliver affordable, reliable energy.
I t’s not so surprising,
given these enthusiasms, that progressive politicians like Garcetti —who leads a city with
paralyzing traffic congestion, rampant inequality, a huge
rat infestation , and proliferating homeless camps—would rather talk about
becoming chair of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.
Reality
is asserting itself, though. Tech firms already show signs of restlessness with
the current regulatory regime and appear to be shifting employment
to other state s, notably Texas , Tennessee , Nevada , Colorado , and Arizona . Economic-modeling
firm Emsi estimates that
several states—Idaho, Tennessee, Washington, and Utah—are growing their tech
employment faster than California. The state is losing momentum in professional
and technical services—the largest high-wage sector—and now stands roughly in
the middle of the pack behind other western states such as Texas, Tennessee,
and Florida. And Assembly Bill 5, the state law regulating certain forms
of contract
labor ,
reclassifies part-time workers. Aimed initially at ride-sharing giants Uber and Lyft , the legislation also
extends to independent contractors in industries from media to trucking.
At some
point, as even Brown noted, the
ultra-high capital gains returns will fall and, combined with the costs of an
expanding welfare state, could leave the state in fiscal chaos. Big Tech could
stumble, a possibility made more real by the recent
$100 billion drop in the value of privately held “unicorn” companies,
including WeWork. If the tech economy slows, a rift could develop between two
of the state’s biggest forces—unions and the green establishment—over future
levels of taxation. More than two-thirds
of California cities don’t have any funds set aside for retiree health care and
other retirement expenses. The state also confronts $1 trillion in pension
debt, according to former Democratic state senator Joe
Nation . U.S. News & Report ranks California, despite the tech boom,
42nd in fiscal health among the states.
And a
rebellion against the state’s energy policies is already under way.
Recently, 110
cities ,
with total population exceeding 8 million, have demanded changes in
California’s drive to prevent new natural gas hookups. The state’s Chamber of
Commerce and the three
most prominent ethnic chambers —African-American, Latino, and Asian-Pacific—have
joined this effort.
Californians
need less bombast and progressive pretense from their leaders and more
attention to policies that could counteract the economic and demographic tides
threatening the state. On its current course, California increasingly resembles
a model of what the late Taichi Sakaiya called “high-tech feudalism,” with a
small population of wealthy residents and a growing mass of modern-day serfs.
Delusion and preening ultimately have limits, as more Californians are
beginning to recognize. As the 2020s beckon, the time for the state to change
course is now.