THERE IS A HIDDEN AGENDA IN FRANCE'S POLITICAL UPHEAVAL

A timeline of recent events in France:

-         June 10 – Result of European parliament election:

Rassemblement national RN (rightwing populist) - 30 seats

Besoin d’Europe (Macron’s alliance) – 13 seats

Reveriller l’Europe (socialist) – 13 seats

LFI (left wing) – 9 seats

Marine Le Pen, the head of RN competed with Macron at the second run of last French presidential election.)

-         June 10 - President Macron called for snap parliament elections.

-         June 30 - First round voting of National Assembly election

-         July 7 - Second round of voting

Macron’s alliance lost heavily to his main rival RN.

There are many challenges facing France, such as: immigration, racism, religious discrimination, demographic (population getting older), high taxation, high debt, excessive restriction on protest and use of force by police.

Macron called the snap election to French parliament to change the power structure in French politics.

RN, the right-wing populist is predicted to win the snap parliamentary election.  Macron wanted to show to the nation that Marine Le Pen’s policy is not possible in practice.  When the RN wins the election, Macron would appoint a RN leader to be prime minister.  He would have to govern according to right-wing policies.  Such policy would be highly unpopular, weakening RN in the vital presidential contest in 2027. Furthermore, he wants to show that the French electorate made a mistake in supporting RN, hoping they will make a better decision, by supporting Macron’s alliance in the presidential election.

France’s government system is semi-presidential.  The president is elected every five years for no more than 2 consecutive terms. Parliament is also elected for a 5-year term.  The president appoints the prime minister from the majority party in parliament.  It is possible to have the president and the prime minister from different parties.

With the American system, the President and congress are elected separately.  The presidential is the head of state and head of government.  His power is circumscribed by congress. 

In the UK, the prime minister is leader of the majority party and ceremonially appointed by the constitutional monarch, the latter has no governing power.  Brexit was advocated by Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party.  The Tory prime minister misjudged the situation and called for a referendum.  He lost the vote and resigned.   But Farage, not being in Parliament, does not have to bear responsibility for the aftermath of Brexit he advocated. 

Macron is barred from running for president in 2027, but he hopes his alliance will succeed.  He would then retain his influence and run again in 2032.  He would then be just 55 years old.

WEIGHT OF FOREIGN TRADE IN CHINA'S ECONOMY

This post is to encapsulate a recent speech by Huang Jifan on the evolution of China’s foreign trade.   Huang, now retired, was the mayor of Chongqing from 2010 to 2016. Before that he was the vice-mayor of Shanghai.  A scholarly official who exposits Chinese economy in speeches.    

1.      Weight of foreign trade in GDP:

a.      Chinese government brought forward the idea of circulation in 2017.

When foreign trade is over 60% of GDP, it is external circulation accented.

When foreign trade is below 40% of GDP, it is internal circulation accented.

b.      1950 to 1980 China’s foreign trade accounted for <10% of GDP

After 1980, with reform and opening, this percentage reached over 60%.

After entry to WTO, this weight increased impressively, reaching 71% in 2006.

Due to western economic recession from 2008 and China’s $586 billion stimulus package, China turned to internal trade and investment for growth.  The weight had fallen to ~38% in 2016. This percentage was maintained up to 2023.  During this period, GDP increased at a higher rate than foreign trade.

c.      For comparison, U.S. foreign trade weight is about 25% in the past 50 years. Japan had undergone similar changes after WWII.  Up to 1975 the average weight was >70%, afterwards it went down to about 35%.

2.      There is no close-the-door, but more opening with new perspective:

a.      Promote imports, such as the Shanghai Import Expo since 2018.

b.      Reduce import tariff: Average tariff rate in 2010 – 26%; 2005 – 15% and in 2003 – 6%.

c.      Encourage outward Foreign Direct Investment.

d.      Open interior regions to foreign trade.

e.      Opening used to be for products, now to cover service, cultural, health, financial etc.

f.        Improve foreign trade environment.

3.      Upgrade products and production:

a.      Upgrade the products:

In 2010, China exported USD1,500 billion, of which 70% was labor intensive items.

In 2022, China exported USD3,300 billion, of which 90% was in the category of electronic, machinery etc.

b.      From 2019 to 2023, China’s trade with southern neighbors increased over 50%, as labor intensive industries moved from China to this region.

c.      Now, 50% of the world's ships are built in China, 10 years, they were built in South Korea and 30 years ago, they were built in Japan.

d.      Before 2010, processed products took 40-50% of export, only 30% was manufactured in China. 

In 2023, processed products only took 20%, 70% are manufactured in China.

e.      Despite Trump’s and Biden’s war, China’s Foreign Direct Investment increased remarkably:

1980s – US$4-50 billion per year.

1990s – USD8-90 billion per year.

2000s – US$120 billion per year.

2012-2022-US$140 billion per year.

f.        Foreign Direct Investors not only came to produce for export, but also for the huge domestic market as well.                                                                                                                                                                  

COMMENTS:

China has achieved spectacular results by actively managing its economy.  This enables her to withstand external shock from U.S. recession and trade war.  This has increased China’s confidence and standing in global affairs.

The only thing that Huang did not mention is the 2008 stimulus package (amounting to almost a quarter of the annual GDP) led to the over-built housing crisis in the 2020s.

OXYCONTIN

How a Prescription Drug led to America's opioid epidemic

Click Me

The story took some 25 years in the making, involving a rich philanthropic family, several well-known large corporations, and the world’s largest consultancy. Some 500,000 people died during this epidemic and 2 million lives have been ensnared.

-          The Sackler family was until recent years known for their philanthropy, donating to famous museums all over the world.  Beginning in the 1940’s, Arthur Sackler made a fortune by pioneering the promotion of drugs to users and doctors.

-          In 1952, Arthur Sackler and his two younger brothers, all doctors, acquired a small drug maker, which was later turned into Purdue Pharma.

-          In 1984, Purdue started to sell a sustained release morphine as MS Contin in the U.S.

-          In 1995, the FDA approved Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin, pure morphine with high dosage, mixed with a continuous release ingredient.  It was based on the theory that this drug would not give the initial high desired by drug abusers.  It also unwittingly permitted Purdue to imply that OxyContin might pose a lower risk of abuse than traditional painkillers because it was a time-release narcotic.  The FDA required Purdue to provide warnings on information about OxyContin: the breaking, chewing, or crushing a tablet could release a “potentially toxic” dose of narcotic and that the risk of overdose from the drug was particularly acute for so-called “opioid naïve” patients, or those who had not taken narcotics before.  The drug’s label also noted that oxycodone-containing painkillers were “common targets for both drug abusers and drug addicts.”

-          Originally meant for relieving pains of terminal cancer patients, Purdue started to aggressively market OxyContin even for chronic pains.

-          2007, U.S. Justice Dept ended a 4-year investigation into Purdue Pharma, fined the drug maker $634.5 million for downplaying the abuse and addiction dangers of OxyContin. Three of its executives were fined $34.5 million.

-          After this, Purdue continued to aggressively promote the drug, just avoiding saying that it is safer than other opioids.

-          2008-2018, various defendants were fined in millions of dollars for their inappropriate handling of opioid drugs.

-          2012 – OxyContin’s patent expires and ushers in generic makers.

-          In 2017, due to more overdose cases, state attorneys began to investigate.

-          In 2019. Purdue Pharma filed for bankruptcy protection with the goal of emerging as a quasi-charity that would steer all its future profits toward resolving the opioid drug epidemic.  Purdue estimated the value of $8 billion over time.  The Sackler family would add $4.5 billion (later increased to $6 billion) in exchange for shielding them from future civil liability.

-          McKinsey advised opioid makers Purdue Pharma, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson and Mallinckrodt to help them increase sales, despite the growing public outcry over opioid epidemic. Settlement $573 million.

-          Parties involved in the making and distribution of opioid drugs:

-          Brand-name opioid makers:

o   Purdue Pharma Inc.,

o   Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals (to pay $5 million over 9 years),

o   Endo Pharmaceuticals

o   Allergan (to pay $2.02 billion over 7 years.),

o   Mallinckrodt

               Generic opioid makers:

Mallinckrodt’s SpecGx,

Teva Pharmaceutical (to pay $3.34 billion over 13 years),

Activis Generics (formerly Watson Pharmaceuticals)

            Opioid distributors:

McKesson, Cardinal Health, AmerisourceBergen – to pay total of $21 billion over 18 years.

            Pharmacy benefits managers:

Caremark, Express Scripts, OptumRx

Pharmacies:

Walmart (to pay $2.7 billion over 6 years),

CVS (to pay $4.9 over 10 years)

Walgreens (to pay $5.52 billion in 15 years),

Costco Wholesale

COMMENTS:

In the state attorneys general lawsuit, the plantiffs charge that corporate greed trumped the public's health at every turn. Greed drove opioid manufacturers and distributors to overproduce and to oversell.

As concerns sthe justic system: Andrew Kolodny, co-director of opioid policy reseach at Heller School for Social Policy and Management, said, "If you want to prevent corporate executives and board members from taking action that can lead to a massive loss of life, the individuals who take those actions must be held individually accountable." Mr Kolodny has testified in past opioid litigations.