Without a vibrant market economy, socialists and communists do not know how to price anything. Prices allocate scarce resources and motivate future production. The famous 20th-century Austrian economists, Hayek, von Mises and others, provided logical proof of how a socialist economy could not function without market-determined reference prices. A major reason the communist/socialist economies of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union collapsed was that they failed to innovate and increase productivity. During the later years of Eastern European socialism, the black or underground economies were growing, rather than diminishing, as the state-owned enterprises failed to provide the goods and services the people were demanding. The Swedes provide an interesting case of the rapid growth of the government sector after 1945 until 1995 when government spending peaked out at about 70% of GDP. It was apparent to most Swedes that the “welfare state” was not working as advertised. In most countries, the increases in government spending are more popular than the increases in taxes to pay for all of the new and expanded programs. As a result, more and more government spending is paid for through the issuance of government debt. Eventually, the growing debt burden causes such a rise in interest payments that government increasingly borrows to pay the previous debt. At some point, a fiscal death spiral begins where the interest payments increasingly eat away at the government programs until the system collapses. Greece is a recent example of a country living beyond its means for so long that it could no longer borrow and hence living standards have been falling sharply for much of the last decade.

Not only does China prop up these authoritarian dictators, but Chinese companies also have notoriously poor labor standards in Africa and have little regard for workers’ welfare. China’s outsized influence also means that many African leaders are consistent supporters of China’s agenda. Many of Africa’s 54 nations vote with China at the U.N., including voting for China’s chosen candidates to run U.N. agencies (like the World Health Organization). Chinese candidates at global rule-making bodies help China champion its preferred standards for emerging fields, especially in tech. If Beijing is successful, it will lock in standards that advantage its own companies in fields that will shape the global economy for decades to come. And building momentum at the U.N. for holding China accountable for its lack of transparency over the coronavirus outbreak will be difficult. For these reasons and more, the United States must counter China’s influence in Africa. Senior U.S. officials should regularly engage with many African countries, negotiating free trade agreements that benefit both the American people and the citizens of these nations and encouraging investment from U.S. companies interested in Africa. The U.S. must also promote the fact that individual liberty and economic freedom are what brought much of the world out of the desperate poverty we witnessed just decades ago. They are proven antidotes to the oppression and poverty that plague some African nations today. The emergence of more democratically led nations in Africa serves the interest of a more peaceful, more prosperous, and more stable world.

Beijing also helps many African leaders maintain their hold on power. Those leaders often direct China’s “no-strings-attached” aid to their own birth regions, to cabinet officials, or to other places that will ensure they stay in power. What problems does this pose for the U.S.? From a national security perspective, China is our primary global adversary, and it uses its influence over African nations to constantly undermine democracy and spread the poison of authoritarianism. America and the entire world are safer when the planet is populated with democracies because democracies don’t go to war with one another. Moreover, the U.S. military is constantly on guard against Chinese aggression in the Pacific. With Africa’s huge Atlantic coastline, it would be considerably more dangerous if China developed a base of operations in the Atlantic. From an economic perspective, Africa has abundant natural resources that the rest of the world needs and China has considerable influence over the export of these resources to other nations. For example, minerals such as cobalt and manganese are critical to the manufacture of many advanced technologies. Chinese companies dominate the global supply chain of cobalt, especially in Africa. If the Chinese government sees a strategic advantage in doing so, it may cut off the U.S. and the rest of the world. From a human rights perspective, the Chinese Communist Party supports leaders who keep their people under their thumb by working with them when others won’t. It encourages some of the continent’s most brutal dictators to maintain their authoritarian governments.

For decades, communist China has been wielding its influence in African countries, establishing strong financial interests and convincing growing nations that its authoritarian communism is a better form of government than democratic models of individual liberty and economic freedom. China’s stronghold on Africa poses serious national security and economic problems for the American people and human rights issues for many Africans. That’s why our elected leaders need to be taking immediate steps to reverse this course. U.S. taxpayers are by far the largest contributors of humanitarian aid to the African continent, and private American philanthropic aid is enormous. Yet the Chinese Communist Party’s influence means that many African rulers side with Beijing over Washington on key strategic issues in places like the United Nations?from glossing over human rights abuses to preventing a thorough investigation of the causes of the coronavirus outbreak. China’s influence takes several forms. First, African nations have long needed to develop their infrastructure, including roads, buildings, and communications networks, and China is sometimes the only willing lender. That also means that Chinese state-owned companies have been the main entities doing the building. But things get pretty nefarious after that. China has built extravagant palaces and government buildings for free in many poor countries to gain even more influence with government officials. Burundi, the world’s fifth least-developed country, got a new $22 million presidential palace. Zimbabwe is about to get a $100 million parliament building. All this money spent in some of the world’s poorest countries didn’t help struggling citizens one iota.

"This ‘new energy economy’ rests on the belief - a centerpiece of the Green New Deal and other similar proposals both here and in Europe - that the technologies of wind and solar power and battery storage are undergoing the kind of disruption experienced in computing and communications, dramatically lowering costs and increasing efficiency,” he says. “But this core analogy glosses over profound differences between systems that produce energy and those that produce information. Increases in consumption, speed, or carrying capacity cause hardware to expand, not shrink. The energy needed to move a ton of people, heat a ton of steel or silicon, or grow a ton of food is determined by properties of nature whose boundaries are set by laws of gravity, inertia, friction, mass, and thermodynamics - not clever software.” In other words, there is a major difference between the possibilities for technological progress in the things that use energy - smartphones and computers, for example - and in the ways to make energy. “Sometimes, the old or established technology is the optimal solution and nearly immune to disruption,” says Mr. Mills. “We still use stone, bricks, and concrete, all of which date to antiquity. We do so because they’re optimal, not ‘old.’ So are the wheel, water pipes, electric wires. Hydrocarbons are, so far, optimal ways to power most of what society needs and wants.” This is partly why 70% of U.S. voters recently told Rasmussen that they favor the government encouraging increased oil and gas production to reduce dependence on foreign sources. Most people want reliable, affordable energy and hydrocarbons give it to them.

When President Biden says that the U.S. will become energy independent by way of programs like the Green New Deal, perhaps the first question to ask is, “Does that make sense?” For any thinking person cognizant of even the basic energy facts, the answer should come back, “No.” The bulk of U.S. energy consumption in 2020, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, broke down as follows: 79% from petroleum, natural gas and coal and 9% from nuclear-generated electricity. Solar and wind - the darlings of Green New Dealers - provided less than 5%. So, are so-called green sources going to replace hydrocarbons anytime soon? Common sense suggests not. But if that isn’t good enough, there is plenty of data supporting a negative answer. One man steeped in facts and figures is Mark Mills of the Manhattan Institute. He puts it this way: “Scientists have yet to discover, and entrepreneurs have yet to invent, anything as remarkable as hydrocarbons in terms of the combination of low-cost, high-energy density, stability, safety, and portability. In practical terms, this means that spending $1 million on utility-scale wind turbines, or solar panels will each, over 30 years of operation, produce about 50 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) - while an equivalent $1 million spent on a shale rig produces enough natural gas over 30 years to generate over 300 million kWh.” Mr. Mills says there is a fundamental misunderstanding about technological development that contributes to fanciful notions - like the president’s - that solar, wind and batteries can become dominant sources with a mere declaration from the White House or lobbying Congress.

The goal since the Armistice in 1953 has been the reunification of the Korean Peninsula. However, North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons ― and its abominable human rights record ― has to date made these efforts unsuccessful. South Korea and the United States continue to work toward convincing North Korea to denuclearize completely and verifiably in exchange for security assurances, the lifting of sanctions and economic development assistance and a path to normal relations, with the expectation that North Korea will make progress on human rights. All agreements eventually failed because North Korea was and is determined to retain its nuclear weapons. United States ― and South Korea ― policy continues to be that we will never accept North Korea as a nuclear-weapon state. To do so would result in a nuclear arms race in the region, with other countries seeking nuclear weapons, and the possibility that North Korea could provide a nuclear weapon and/or fissile material for a dirty bomb to a rogue state or terrorist organization. The government of President Yoon Suk Yeol and the administration of President Biden are committed to strengthening bilateral allied relationship between South Korea and the U.S. This is good not only for our two countries but also for the region and the world. The challenge for the Yoon administration will be improving inter-Korean relations. And progress on inter-Korean relations will depend heavily on North Korea’s willingness to meaningfully negotiate with the U.S. and South Korea on complete and verifiable denuclearization. Concurrently, we should know that it will be difficult getting North Korea to denuclearize completely and verifiably, especially after Russia’s invasion of a Ukraine that gave up its nuclear weapons for security assurances.

More importantly, the 2023 Cadillac Lyric will take more than 45 minutes to recharge on a “fast” charger. We want every car in America to take seven to ten times as long as current cars to fuel up while simultaneously providing a 12% to 15% shorter total mileage range? That’s progress? It’s worth it, Bernie Sanders and AOC tell us. It’s worth it to save the planet. Even if true, that is debatable, but are electric vehicles really going to make the world better? Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, says no. “When you manufacture an EV, you produce so much more carbon dioxide that by the time it gets to the showroom it has already put out more than twice as much carbon dioxide as a normal gas powered vehicle.” Mr. Harris went on to point out. It takes about 100 barrels of oil (equivalent in energy) to make one battery for a car but that single battery only stores about one barrel of oil in energy. If there was a business plan for this whole EV thing, that would seem like important data to consider. The math is not promising. Finally, there is the question of how all the electricity for these cool cars is generated? Of the top 10 U.S. electric power plants in 2019, nine had steam turbines powered by nuclear energy, coal, and natural gas. So all those electric cars intended to lower our use of traditional energy sources will be overwhelmingly fueled by traditional energy sources. The electric car is being forced upon us by government fiat, not by consumer demand. It is less efficient, travels fewer miles, has no meaningful support infrastructure, it eliminates existing jobs and it doesn’t really lower our carbon footprint.

Why is the government pledging to fund and build hundreds of thousands of chargers? How many gas stations did the federal government build? None. The free market worked instead. Like so many whimsical ideas of those who spend other people’s money and have no accountability, the government building charging stations is a colossally bad idea. If the government funds charging stations and forces auto makers to make EVs, they will effectively be putting gas station owners out of business. Who will pay to recoup their investment? Who will pay to have the underground fuel tanks dug up and disposed of? You and me of course, in taxes. How long does it take to charge an electric vehicle? A recent Wall Street Journal article pointed out that a 1900 mile trip in a modern gas-powered car takes about 30 hours of driving time. An electric car, even when charged on a “fast” charger, turns that same trip into 58 hours on the road. Let’s look at a typical gas powered auto in the U.S. today. That auto holds 12 gallons of gas, which on average takes less than 7 minutes to fill, including credit card payment, fuel selection and pump return after the vehicle is full. The average car can travel between 300 and 350 miles on that one tank of gas. Cadillac just announced the all electric 2023 Cadillac Lyriq. It claims that the car can travel 300 miles on a full charge, though variations in weather, like extreme heat or winter cold, can seriously reduce that number. Skeptics say even an average of 250 miles may still be a high estimate.

Joe Biden plans to convert the American automobile market to 100% electric vehicles. EVs made up just 2% of U.S. auto sales in 2020. In fact industry analysts say American electric car sales actually fell in 2020 by about 10%. Despite the clear lack of consumer interest, President Biden is insisting the government knows better. He wants every single vehicle sold in the United States by 2035 to be electric. The 2023 cars are right around the corner, so in just 12 model years we are going to go from 98% gas powered cars to 100% electric cars? Is this really what America needs? What are the benefits? The concept of a world full of sleek, silent electric cars sounds like a cool idea. The real question is in the details. Is there a business plan? Preferably one that has been put together by people with a background in business, not by a bunch of government bureaucrats? It doesn’t seem so. There are several simple, yet very practical questions that need to be asked and answered before we take even one more step on this EV path. Experts estimate there are about 115,000 gas stations in our 50 states. Each station has multiple pumps, so the number of actual gas pumps is in excess of 1 million. How many electric charging stations are there? Estimates vary wildly, but suffice to say you wouldn’t head out on a cross country journey expecting one at your beckon-call anywhere you happen to be. Mr. Biden has promised 500,000 charging stations, paid for by Uncle Sam. The president is proposing $174 billion tax dollars be spent on things like establishing grant and incentive programs for state and local governments and the private sector to build a national network of 500,000 EV chargers by 2030.