Investing in Canada’s pension plan in China in volatile conditions


There is an old saying that fools and their money will soon break up. As a result, the most important questions when making or holding an investment are: Can you sell it? In other words, what are the risks that you may not be able to sell at any price?

From this perspective, why is the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board investing a whopping 11% of its assets in China? So is it effectively invested in China’s war machinery? Isn’t it like investing 11% of the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) in Germany in 1938, for example? Yes, the businessmen were advocating appeasement because they were making money there. They learned risk in a difficult way. But it was worse than that. American and British technology has contributed significantly to the development of the German weapons industry.

To a greater extent, China has captured the imagination of Western democratic enterprises, along with our money and technology. Who still has to say that the Beijing administration simply steals what it can’t legally obtain, especially technology for military use? There are reports of foreign investment in joint ventures that have led to pressure on investors as Chinese partners have the technology and infrastructure to do so on their own.

To be sure, China makes a lot of money and definitely has a lot of opportunities to make more. But just by switching it on, the central bank of China could impose currency control, making it impossible to withdraw money. There are already case reports that it is difficult or almost impossible to transfer large amounts of money from China. The smartest people in Hong Kong, in particular, have left the country in large numbers and have money with them. At that time, they can even get a passport.

We already know that Canadian citizens cannot leave if Beijing decides to block their departure. Who needs to be reminded that it includes Michael Kovrig and Michael Spaver, who were held in terrible situations? Can anyone at the CPP go see an investment in China without wondering what’s next?

Western democracy is generally accepted as not to buy what is produced by those who work in slave labor or equivalent serfdom. Therefore, I don’t want to buy cotton produced by Uighurs held at a camp in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region in China. Then there is the theory that the Chinese administration should not enable technology that abuses human rights. Given our technical interdependence and the dedication of the Chinese Communist Party, it is impossible to distinguish between purposes.

In the frontispiece of Peter Navarro’s book, there is an important question: “Crouching Tiger: What Does Chinese Militarism Mean for the World?” Navarro quotes Professor John Mearsheimer’s words in 2004. My answer is no. “

For half a century, Beijing has boosted its influence around the world, expanding China’s territory to India and the South China Sea. Following the integration of Hong Kong, there is little doubt that Taiwan will come next. China’s Xi Jinping, you must believe to have a wisdom that was better than Hitler’s Germany. China’s approach is to gain enough economic and military power to eliminate the need for an obvious war. Navarro calls it a salami slice. This means invading by any means, unless there is serious hostility.

Former US President Richard Nixon’s reconciliation with China was based on the proposal that economic development and interdependence would lead to improved domestic affairs, the emergence of peaceful and prosperous members of world society, and alleviation of international tensions. .. However, Nixon was misunderstood in a fundamentally important way. The Western world benefits from all sorts of low-cost production, but it’s not just that the West benefits from low-priced accessories. China has become a top-end core supplier of high-tech such as Boeing, General Motors and Apple. It resulted from replacing innovation and manufacturing in Western democracy. But what if these multinationals are unable to remit their profits home? What if all that foreign investment was simply nationalized without compensation?

Western democracy faces many fundamental challenges, especially the failure to provide decent education, skills training, and rewarding employment to a wider population. It’s the other side of the coin when it comes to assessing relations with China. So my question is these: why does CPP fund our clearly warlike competitors? And what if those investments become worthless?

Colin Alexander’s degree includes a master’s degree in economics from Oxford University. Currently available on Amazon is his new paperback and ebook, The Ballad of Sunny Ways. This is a cunning poem that was popular during the politically correct pandemic era.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Posted on