[Yokogawa Viewpoint]Five central SOEs delisted from the U.S. and the U.S.-China financial decoupling started | Pelosi | Inside the CCP | The 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China

[The Epoch Times, August 13, 2022]Hello, viewers and friends, I am Yokogawa, and welcome everyone to “Yokogawa ViewpointChannel, Friday, August 12.

Today’s focus: The five central SOEs have been delisted from the New York Stock Exchange. Both sides are accelerating their decoupling. The CCP is closing in to prepare for war? There are three trends in the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. What is worth observing is the recurrence of the succession crisis in the history of the CCP;PelosiAfter follow-up by many countries, it became fashionable to visit Taiwan; some thoughts on Chinese and Western medicine and empirical science.

The delisting of five central enterprises from the New York Stock Exchange startsUS-China financial decoupling Closed for war?

The five central SOEs were delisted from the New York Stock Exchange. This is a very interesting thing. Chinese companies listed in the United States are mainly for the purpose of making money. With the help of Wall Street, many important steps have been omitted, and even the essential audit of American companies has been exempted. This is a special treatment, which shows Wall Street’s attitude towards the CCP.

However, since the start of the trade war, Wall Street has faced increasing pressure, and finally had to require Chinese companies listed in the United States to submit financial information or face delisting. This also shows how reluctant the United States is to Chinese companies listed in the United States. After all, the entanglement of interests is too deep.

I was talking with a friend yesterday that the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War were parallel systems that had nothing to do with each other. They were purely confrontational and muscle-strengthening. The collapse of the Soviet Union had no impact on the United States at all.

But the CCP is completely different from the Soviet Union. You have me, I have you, and even decoupling is inseparable. In particular, the multinational consortiums in the United States are always reluctant to give up. Since March this year, the US Securities Regulatory Commission began to gradually include Chinese companies in the pre-delisting list, every month. By the end of July, 261 Chinese companies listed in the United States had already been listed. 159 companies were included in the pre-delisting list. Among the five state-owned enterprises delisted this time, four have been included in the pre-delisting list in early May.

In view of the lessons learned by the three Chinese operators, China Unicom, China Mobile and China Telecom, which were forcibly delisted from the New York Stock Exchange in early 2020, the five large state-owned enterprises took the initiative to delist this time. In fact, the CCP has also taken measures to accelerate the decoupling.

I think this delisting is a large state-owned enterprise. Although it is said to be the company’s own decision, I think there is a high-level consideration to avoid the important large state-owned enterprise from being affected by the US stock market. Whether this is related to the tensions in the Taiwan Strait is hard to say now, but decoupling to reduce the influence of the United States on the Chinese economy may be a trend in the future.

If the CCP wants to invade Taiwan by force, partial isolation and relative financial independence are essential. Now this close connection is not good for the United States, but it is also bad for the CCP. At least the United States has more means of sanctions. Decoupling may not be something Wall Street would like to see, but it would be good for America.

The succession crisis and short-term relief unique to the CCP in history

Let’s talk about the recentInside the CCPThe news is mainly about the card position battle of provincial and ministerial officials before the 20th National Congress. Many positions are being replaced, but I think it does not matter who these positions are changed. Which election is the personnel layout at the provincial and ministerial level. have a significant impact on the direction of development? It is nothing more than guessing which faction is the new one, and which faction is stepping down. In fact, no matter which faction is in power, it will also carry out the orders and deployments from the central government, without exception.

Some people are also discussing the Beidaihe meeting. The Beidaihe Conference was first initiated by Mao Zedong. Later, it was used as the summer office of some important central organs. It was also cancelled during the Hu Jintao era. Xi Jinping has never officially resumed the Beidaihe Conference, although some matters will be handled in Beidaihe. We will meet in Beidaihe in the summer, but I am very skeptical about how important this meeting is and whether there are any issues that cannot be discussed at the regular meeting of the Standing Committee rather than in Beidaihe.

The CCP has very strict regulations on the gathering of central leaders in informal occasions, mainly because they are afraid of forming small groups and threatening the top leaders. From this perspective, Xi Jinping does not need to let the elders have the opportunity to do something in Beidaihe during summer vacation. Small gestures, the informal meeting in Beidaihe is unnecessary. So I am not very interested in the so-called Beidaihe Conference.

In fact, in terms of personnel arrangements, there is one thing that is very worthy of attention at the 20th National Congress, which is the issue of successors. In the history of the CCP, the succession crisis is a long-term event that even affects the CCP’s survival. This is not possible in a democratic country.

In the Mao Zedong era, it was basically Mao himself who appointed his successor. According to the CCP’s own party history, Mao had successively appointed or trained five successors. The first was Liu Shaoqi. The successors, although they are of the same generation, should not be the successors in principle. It was not until the 7,000-person meeting in 1962 that Liu Mao had disagreements, and he was completely overthrown to death during the Cultural Revolution. Deng Xiaoping was defeated together with Liu Shaoqi during the Cultural Revolution. Although it fell three times, the last time it was used was to deal with the economic collapse, and it was not regarded as a successor. The only purpose of Mao Zedong’s economic recovery was to continue political tossing. The third successor was Lin Biao, who was also the first and only successor to be written into the party constitution. Not long after the Ninth National Congress, he broke with Mao and died in a plane crash in Mongolia.

The first three are veterans before the establishment of the Communist Party of China, and they are of the same generation as Mao, so it is not appropriate to say that they are successors. The last two are really considered successors, one is Wang Hongwen, a rebel from the Shanghai General Department of Industry, and the other is unbearable, so I had to say that I couldn’t find it and had to do it. Finally, I chose one before I died. Hua Guofeng, this unplanned and temporary arresting measure made the successor Hua Guofeng have no basis, and how could he fight against those wily veterans.

It can be seen from the issue of successors in the Mao era that as a lifelong dictator, the biggest problem for successors is that they cannot be too competent, which will pose a threat, such as Liu Denglin, so they will be removed before they can become successors. It can’t be too mediocre, because if you take over, you will be eliminated, such as Hua Guofeng. The crisis has always existed. The reason why there is no real crisis is that the first generation of political leaders are still there. Although they are second-tier, Mao, Zhu De, Zhou Enlai, etc. belong to the first-tier. These people can stabilize the situation. .

By the time of reform and opening up, the issue of successors had not been resolved. Strictly speaking, Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang were both the successors trained by Deng Xiaoping, but they were still the successors designated by the strong man rather than the institutional successors. Deng Xiaoping got rid of it himself. Similar to Mao Zedong’s temporary appointment of Hua Guofeng, Deng Xiaoping also temporarily found Jiang Zemin as his successor. The reason why the crisis did not break out was Deng’s help to calm it down. By the time Deng died, Jiang had already gained a firm footing.

19 Big Breaks of Balance and 20 Big Three Possibilities

Starting from Jiang, there has been a relatively stable succession system, that is, the party leader generally serves two terms of 10 years. At the end of the first term, the next generation of leaders will enter the leadership and serve as deputy. The first is the designation of alternate generations, that is, Deng Wei Jiang appointed the successor. He was named Hu Jintao, and it was later agreed between generations that Hu joined his successor Xi Jinping in his second term. According to this relatively stable inheritance method, a designated or agreed successor should have entered the Standing Committee at the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. Knowing that this did not happen because Xi was going to be re-elected, there are several possibilities for the 20th National Congress:

1) If Xi is not re-elected, his peers will take over; 2) If Xi is re-elected, he will designate the next generation of successors, that is, the 21st Congress will step down and let this person succeed; 3) The 20th Congress will not appoint a successor, Xi will rule for life, and the CCP successor crisis will reappear , there may still be a bloody storm.

In comparison history, Chinese dynasties are basically passed down from father to son, and there will not be too many problems. From this point of view, the inheritance problem of the Kim family in North Korea has been solved very well and is very stable. Democracies are elections, and there is no designated issue of training successors, and they are also very stable. In this way, the CCP’s regime is indeed in an unstable state, and the probability of a crisis is much greater than that of ordinary regimes.

PelosiAfter visiting Taiwan became fashionable

After Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, many national parliaments will follow up, some are originally planned, some are ready to start, and now there are Lithuania, the United Kingdom, Germany and the European Parliament. Lithuania was the first. On August 7, a delegation led by the Deputy Minister of Transport and Communications visited Taiwan for 5 days. It should be in Taiwan now. By the way, the term “visiting” has been hot recently.

Note that this is not a parliamentary delegation, but a delegation led by government officials. Then there is a delegation from the German Bundestag’s Human Rights Committee scheduled to visit Taiwan in October, including all six Bundestag parties, and has made it clear that it will not be threatened by Beijing to change.

In November or early December, a delegation from the British House of Commons’ foreign affairs committee could visit Taiwan, which was planned at the beginning of the year and delayed due to a member’s coronavirus infection. After the previous visit of the Vice President of the European Parliament to Taiwan, members of the European Parliament are preparing to organize a delegation to visit Taiwan at the end of the year to promote the bilateral investment agreement. In fact, it is mainly to express their support for Taiwan. When visiting Taiwan became fashionable, the CCP lost more than just face.

Some Thoughts on Traditional Chinese Medicine and Western Medicine and Empirical Science

Finally, let’s talk about some feedback after the last show, mainly about the debate between Chinese and Western medicine. In fact, I am not discussing Chinese and Western medicine. I am talking about logical thinking. For example, there is a message saying that in the material world, science is universal. only standard. I agree with another audience’s message. This is empirical science from the West. It is science in a narrow sense, while science in a broad sense should be the knowledge or method of studying the laws of nature and the relationship between man and nature.

In fact, the previous message also partially acknowledged that the universality and standards of science only exist in the material world, that is, they do not necessarily apply to the spiritual world. Science itself cannot be the standard, because people’s understanding of nature is constantly developing, nor can the understanding of a certain stage be used as the standard. Truth is not absolute at a certain level. For example, in physics, there is a dispute between relativity and quantum mechanics. Which one is absolute truth? In physics, there are two systems. We cannot use quantum mechanics as a standard to evaluate relativity. There are also the once very popular chaos theory, super cool theory and so on.

I have read a book, but I forgot the name. It talks about the relationship between physics and religion. It is mentioned that when Western physics proposes a brand-new theory to explain the universe, it is often not the counterparts in physics but the religious circles that first accept it. There is also a saying that when a scientist is struggling to climb a mountain, the theologian is already sitting on the top of the mountain and waiting. I just want to explain here that you can let go of your thinking and don’t limit yourself.

When it comes to positive science, since we have talked about physics with many incompatible theories, it is necessary to talk about the other extreme, the theory of evolution, which has a monopoly on life science research. In the field of life sciences, this is at the top, but by the standards of Western empirical science, this is something less scientific and more religious.

Because there are three stages of empirical science: observation, hypothesis, and designing experiments to confirm the hypothesis, but evolution has only two stages, observation and hypothesis, without experimental proof. The theory of evolution here is actually the hypothesis put forward after Darwin’s observation. So far, science has not proven that evolution has occurred between different species, and quantitative change has never accumulated evidence of qualitative change.

Several years ago, I talked about the theoretical flaws of the theory of evolution. Some listeners left a message saying that modern rice evolved from wild rice and is already a completely different species. Rice was domesticated from wild rice, but is still a species. And there is also the problem that artificially cultivated crops are closer to the theory of intelligent design than evolution, which is considered by the mainstream as a substitute for creationism and rejected by American school education. I will not give specific examples.

If anyone disagrees, you are welcome to propose the experimental basis on which the theory of evolution has been confirmed, not observations, but designed experiments, and not intra-species variation, but jumps between different species.

If you like my show, please don’t forget to subscribe, like and retweet. Okay, thank you for watching, and thank the audience for their support of my show. See you on the next show.

Yokogawa Viewpoint“Production team

Responsible editor: Li Hao#

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Never miss any important news. Subscribe to our newsletter.