Security and Logic

July 4, 2021

Background
A long-awaited, unclassified Preliminary Assessment of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence  is an unexpected silver lining to the Covid-19 pandemic: The $2.3 trillion relief bill signed by then-President Donald Trump actually required the Pentagon to continue investigating UAPs and release its findings to the public. Worldwide sightings by reputable and plentiful eyewitnesses abound. The good news is that now there’s a required-by-law disclosure mechanism in place akin to the White House Press Secretary’s regular briefings. The bad news is that this first report admits that a significant portion of these sightings do not conform to current U.S. technology. The objects are able to accelerate instantly at speeds in excess of anything we’re capable of, change directions suddenly, impervious to g-forces that should rip them apart, and dive into the ocean and emerge flying at such speeds. Among other things, these observations suggest an intelligence able to make gravity at will, and by extension, gravitational shields that make them invulnerable to anything we have. To put that in perspective, we are of course aware of gravity, but we don’t even know what it is. The report leaves open the possibility that some of the events may be attributable to “technologies deployed by China, Russia, another nation, or a non-governmental entity.” That begs the question, if that is so, why are they investing so heavily on comparatively primitive systems like hypersonic missiles?

The Problem
The intelligence community’s thunderous silence on the subject is not reassuring. If anything, it tacitly admits that we are at the mercy of a superior intelligence. That of course opens the door to security concerns that transcend anything humanity has ever experienced, at least not in recorded history: the possibility of extraterrestrial invasion, enslavement, or even outright extermination. Long ago Carl Sagan said that “extraordinary claims require for validation extraordinary evidence.” This UAP report is that evidence.

Despite unparalleled ongoing and worsening tensions and disputes, emergency links exist between Russia and the U.S., and presumably with China, to avoid thermonuclear war. The possibility of extraterrestrial invasion by beings with vastly superior technological knowhow should not be ignored. Accordingly, if an agreement, even in principle, does not exist to instantly activate a (currently dormant) planetary command, then the great powers should give it the priority it deserves. No one knows if other less-benign extraterrestrials are on the way.

Megadrought

Click any image to expand

A Questionable Strategy

June 12, 2021

China United States

China United States

Historical Background
When they “opened” China in 1972 President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger did not anticipate the consequences that would follow. Nixon’s primary motive was to take advantage of the then adversarial Sino-Soviet relationship to open another front in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Declassified documents published by the National Security Archive and the George Washington University’s Cold War Group of the Elliott School of International Affairs reveal that agreement on Taiwan was absolutely necessary for diplomatic normalization. Indeed, nearly 9 pages of the 46-page record of the First Zhou-Kissinger meeting on July 9, 1971 show that Kissinger disavowed Taiwanese independence and committed to withdraw two-thirds of U.S. military forces from the island once the Vietnam War ended. However, Nixon’s resignation and Ford’s political weakness precluded conclusion of the normalization process. Chairman Mao also was interested in a rapprochement with the U.S. for the very same reason Nixon was –a counter to China’s dangerous confrontation with the Soviets. Near the end of Nixon’s trip to China February 21-28, 1972, the two governments issued what is known as the Shanghai Communiqué. In it the United States declared that it “acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain that there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.” Furthermore, Nixon stated that the United States did not support Taiwanese independence.

Trade between the two countries started to grow in earnest after 2000, when Congress voted to grant China “permanent normal trade relations,” which paved the way for China’s accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001. Since then the Chinese economy has grown exponentially. Now it’s the world’s second largest economy, by some estimates on track to overtake the U.S. by 2030 or earlier.

A Questionable Strategy
The Trump Administration’s strategy was geared to create conditions to slow down, halt, and (hopefully) reverse China’s economic growth. It erected tariffs, ousted prominent Chinese high-tech firms from the American market, and delivered de facto ultimatums to other countries telling them, in no uncertain terms, to do the same. Now the Biden Administration seems to be following the script. So far these efforts have been unsuccessful. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates China’s economy will grow by 8.2% in 2021 and the U.S. by 3.1%, and in 2020 our trade deficit actually rose 17.7 % to $679 billion, highest since 2008. As for America’s efforts to persuade other countries to –in effect- boycott China, there are at least three fundamental reasons why this too is likely to be, to say the least, difficult. Firstly, China is already the number one or number two trading partner with most of the world, including NATO members (it recently became France’s largest customer of cosmetics, surpassing Germany and the U.S.). Secondly, embargoes and tariffs are only going to encourage China even more to redouble its efforts to become self-sufficient in high tech and other critical fields, increase domestic consumption to reduce the role of exports as its primary engine of growth, and open its economy further to attract even more foreign investors eager to sell to its vast pool of increasingly wealthy consumers. Thirdly, and more ominously, President Xi made it clear that while he hopes to reunify Taiwan with China peacefully and even outlined a five-point proposal to do so, he also stated that “we make no promise to renounce the use of force and reserve the option of taking all necessary means.” Accordingly, they have engaged us in an arms race that, given the size of our existing debt and the uncontestable need for long-term massive investment here at home, is simply unsustainable. This begs the question, if this strategy of confrontation fails to deliver, is there a peaceful Plan B waiting to replace it?

Sobering Facts
Higher Education
The United States is trying to preserve the dwindling technological advantage it enjoyed since the end of World War II, but it doesn’t bode well. There’s a high-tech STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) crisis: foreign-born non-citizens currently account for 81% of electrical engineering majors and graduate students in the U.S.; and in computer science –critical for innovation and research in fields such as cyber and artificial intelligence, American-born students make up just 21% of the student body. Furthermore, this is not an aberration. According to the World Economic Forum, in 2016 China had at least 4.7 million native-born recent STEM graduates, followed by India with 2.6 million. In contrast, the U.S. only had 568,000, and of those, half were foreign-born. In addition, although China’s total population is four times larger than the U.S., it has eight times as many native-born STEM graduates. Other estimates see Chinese graduates aged 25 to 34 rising 300 percent by 2030 compared to just 30 percent in the U.S. and Europe. The numbers speak for themselves.

Student Debt
According to the College Board, over the past 30 years the average cost to attend a public four-year institution has more than tripled, and at private four-year schools it more than doubled. This documented trend far outpaced the incomes of the lower and middle-classes. As a result –according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York- about 54% of all American students take out loans to pay for college. Their average debt topped $37,500 in 2020, and collectively they now owe $1.6 trillion. Based on the current rate of growth, by some estimates student loan debt will reach $2 trillion by 2024. For students, paying off student loans as soon as possible after graduation is a fundamental priority. Unlike mortgages, which can be extinguished in foreclosure, and credit card loans, which are dischargeable in bankruptcy, student loans are not. Students that are unable to pay the loans back for any reason are haunted by collectors for life and their credit scores depressed. This state of affairs strongly encourages youngsters to choose careers with the highest possible rates of compensation, and STEM-related are not at the top of the list. Employment in them is limited and neither guaranteed nor widespread, and more lucrative options are widely available. That is detrimental to the national interest. It all but ensures that in just a few years we’ll find ourselves lagging further and further behind China and India, a prescription for irrelevance.

Military Aspects
According to the U.S. Department of Defense’s 2020 Annual Report to Congress about military and security developments in China, the latter is for practical purposes mobilizing “all relevant aspects of its society and economy for use in competition and war.” The report further warns that “China has already achieved parity with –or even exceeded- the United States in several military modernization areas, including (a) shipbuilding (it already has the largest navy in the world, currently with 350 ships and submarines including over 130 major surface combatants; in comparison, the U.S. Navy’s total battle force is approximately 293 ships as of early 2020. In addition, China is the top ship-building nation in the world by tonnage and is increasing both its production capacity and capability for all naval classes); (b) land-based conventional ballistic and cruise missiles, and (c) integrated air defense systems. On June 2, 2012, at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta disclosed that “by 2020 the Navy will redeploy its forces from today’s roughly 50/50 percent split between the Pacific and the Atlantic to about a 60/40 split between those oceans.” If Secretary Panetta’s ratio still applies as of this writing, the U.S. has approximately 176 ships in the Pacific. That amounts to just 50% of China’s current (and growing) fleet, deployed mostly near its protective home-based missile umbrella. In view of these facts and given the rate of Chinese shipbuilding is it reasonable to expect that the U.S. Navy will be able to overpower its Chinese counterpart 10,000 miles away just a few years from now?

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Innovative Thinking is in Order
Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan as well as the Bulletin of Concerned Scientists have repeatedly warned us about the consequences of nuclear war. Clearly it’s not lack of awareness but that they lacked –and lack- the power to abolish them. One wonders, who does, and might fear of a new world order beyond their control be behind this?

When Winston Churchill replaced coal with oil for the Royal Navy he also transformed it into a strategic commodity. Ever since then direct or indirect control of the world’s deposits has been a bone of contention among the industrialized powers. When the U.S. embargoed Japan’s oil supplies, the latter, in desperation, attacked Pearl Harbor to destroy the American Fleet which they perceived as a threat, and invaded the (then) Dutch East Indies to get the oil it needed to run its economy. Similarly, Hitler, blockaded by the Royal Navy (with U.S. help), and afraid of a possible future Soviet embargo of indispensable raw materials, including oil, attacked the latter. We all know the result, no point in counting the dead. There are two things we as a species must learn from this –if we want to survive. The first is that the devastation of World War II would be nothing more than a dress rehearsal if it were to be repeated with today’s (and future) weapons. The second is that the bone of contention must be replaced with a non-polluting, universally and easily available energy carrier that cannot be controlled or hoarded by any one nation or group of nations: hydrogen. More explicitly, we must trade all fossil fuels, including oil and the wealth derived from them, for survival. It’s as simple as that. The technology to do so exists, and climate change is firmly and relentlessly nudging us in that direction. We just need to heed.

Update – May 2021

May 23, 2021

A Strategic Commodity
Winston Churchill’s decision to replace coal by oil for the primary source of power of the Royal Navy forced Britain, which at the time had no known domestic oil fields, to seek, acquire and maintain control of oil deposits in distant lands. On May 21, 1901 the Shah of Persia signed the first oil concession agreement of the 20th Century bestowing upon an Englishman called William Knox D’Arcy a special and exclusive privilege to search for, obtain, exploit, carry away and sell natural gas, petroleum, asphalt and ozerite throughout the whole extent of the Persian Empire for a period of sixty years. In 1908 oil was discovered at Masjid I-Suleiman in southern Persia, and within a year the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) was formed. Six years later, on June 14, 1914, at Churchill’s behest -and coincidentally just fourteen days before the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria that sparked World War I- Parliament passed a bill to fund the British Government’s acquisition of a 51% interest in APOC. Thereafter Churchill promptly placed two directors on its board and negotiated a secret contract to provide Britain with a 20-year supply of oil under favorable terms. Thus, with one stroke, Churchill promoted oil to a strategic commodity and an instrument of national policy. While this British monopoly (and later, American and Russian) of the world’s oil fields amassed immense wealth for them, it also created a suffocating dependence for the (then) up and coming German and Japanese Empires that led to World War II.

Worth noting is that China, then hibernating, did not compete in the struggle for control of foreign oil deposits. Now the Asian giant –with a population four times larger than the United States- has awakened, become wealthy and powerful, and ominously served notice that it is intent on reclaiming Taiwan, which it sees as Chinese territory, and on monopolizing whatever fossil fuels may be found in the South China Sea –in its eyes a non-negotiable imperative to ensure oil self-sufficiency for its navy. In other words, the dynamics that existed in 1914 and 1941 never subsided; this time around they’re enhanced by weapons capable of ending life as we know it in a matter of minutes. There is however a sliver of hope: the universal understanding that fossil fuels, including oil, are the cause of climate change. Either we abolish their use or they will abolish us.

Clarification
As to the purpose and intent of this website, both are disclosed in the “About Us” page. Equally important, this is not a “for profit” enterprise catering to special interests; rather, we simply seek to leave a better world for our children and grandchildren.

Though not one of our collaborators is a polymath, we all face impending anthropomorphic catastrophes encompassing nearly every known discipline. Our technology, which continues to evolve at a breathtaking speed, has far outpaced our level of spiritual maturity. Artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and robotics –to name three- now threaten to wrest any vestigial control we may still have over terminal weaponry, and primitive traits like dominance, greed and lust for power still call the shots.

Anthropomorphic climate change is impervious to our needs and wants; its ramifications reach into every aspect of human endeavor –economic, psychological, military, social, and directly impacts the availability of water, energy and food, and population growth. In response, we have attempted to amass a kernel of pertinent, cutting-edge knowledge as reported by renowned specialists, and used it to suggest an original, non-permanent structural blueprint to restrain our aforementioned traits from destroying us all.

We believe hydrogen is the answer. If mass produced by electrolysis of seawater using solar energy primarily, it could be burned to create a new source of pure water to conquer drought, compensate for the depletion of aquifers and melting glaciers, ensure the production of food, and make it possible to plant trees anywhere, even in the driest deserts, to help recycle the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere. Crucially, unlike desalination, which is impractical or impossible in inland areas and a heavy consumer of energy, our suggested system would also generate electricity, not just by burning the hydrogen itself but by using gravity as shown on the front page diagram. Fusion, on the other hand, transforms hydrogen into helium. Inevitably, in time, with future and cumulative demand stemming from technologies and schemes not yet invented, our supply of water would permanently and irretrievably decline.

New Technologies and Discoveries
Great progress has been, and continues to be made, at every critical technological junction to make this feasible and economical. The price of solar panels declined about 80% from 2000 to 2020 (there’s no reason why residential consumers must be compelled to remain attached to the grid other than to continue to subsidize public utilities, which burn fossil fuels), a catalyst was discovered that minimizes the production of chlorine gas while producing hydrogen by electrolysis of salt water, numerous corrosion resistant materials for bipolar plates are being tested, and, crucially, a turbine capable of burning hydrogen directly and uninterruptedly, without fuel cells, already exists.

What’s Missing
While undoubtedly brilliant, these projects exist in a vacuum, isolated from each other: they’re not part of an all-encompassing team dedicated to replace fossil fuels with hydrogen. One way to compensate for that shortfall would be to amalgam a group of grassroots volunteer experts in the many disciplines involved to develop and publicize a comprehensive, technically-detailed blueprint that our political leaders would be hard-pressed to ignore.

Climate Change and Nuclear War Revisited

April 29, 2021

Background

Click to expand
Click to expand

On April 19, 2021, at a press conference about climate change, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres said that “we are on the verge of the abyss.” The evidence supporting his conclusion is overwhelming. Increasingly severe storms, droughts, wild fires, rising seas, and mass extinction of thousands of species are already taking place. The good news is that most, if not all world leaders agree that our species must come together immediately to tackle this relentless threat. The bad news is that what they say they’re willing to do is simply not enough.

Reality
Let’s put things in perspective. Like slow-moving magma, climate change threatens to destroy the world as we know it over a period of decades. In contrast, the threat of nuclear war resembles a category 30 hurricane. Indeed, the danger of war with Russia, China, Iran and North Korea is higher than ever. NATO’s slow-motion expansion to the Ukraine, an existential threat to Moscow, predictably led to Russia’s annexation of the Crimea, Sebastopol, and its military facilities. China, a civilization thousands of years old and a great power over the centuries and in different epochs, is in the process of reasserting its heritage. In its eyes, that includes, as a matter of right, an Anschluss with Taiwan, ownership of much of the South China Sea, and premier technological prowess. Meanwhile, Iran’s nuclear program, if consummated into nuclear weapons and ICBMs, would challenge America’s dominance over the Persian Gulf’s oil resources and threaten the very existence of Israel, its arch foe. In this case the issue is whether Iran can permanently rather than temporarily be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons and ICBMs. In addition, other simmering, unresolved conflicts such as between China and India and India and Pakistan, all nuclear armed and with a history of wars between them, could at any time flare up into all-out wars. At a minimum, either conflict would likely cause a nuclear winter and destroy civilization as we know it. Obviously then, it is nothing short of a preposterous fantasy to believe that a unified global response to climate change led by China and the U.S., the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, can be compartmentalized in the absence of an agreed-upon permanent structural framework that prevents anyone from seeking to forcibly dominate the world now or in the future. Fortunately it is not impossible.

A Blessing in Disguise
Our technological knowhow has far outstripped our spiritual maturity. Our quest for dominance, to have others do unpleasant, back-breaking, poorly-paid work so we and our descendants can indefinitely live privileged lives, in no way differs from what the Sea Peoples, Genghis Khan, Rome, the Mayans, and many other war faring civilizations did. The difference is that they did not have the means to destroy the world; we do. In that sense climate change could be a much needed catalyst to bind and contain that trait. For example, humanity might create a system based on a universal currency, possibly Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) for all nations based on their per capita contribution to the production of green hydrogen from seawater, rather than on military prowess. Countries with abundant capital but with limited sunshine could invest in countries with abundant sunshine and seawater but with limited capital. Thus, an agreed-upon universal formula would allocate SDRs to each country. The hydrogen would be used to generate electricity and to power vehicles; it would also create a new source of pure water to relieve over-stressed aquifers and disappearing glaciers, fight desertification, plant trees and crops, and reduce the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere. More importantly, it would preempt companies with the rights to high-tech means of energy generation such as cold fusion, anti-gravity, anti-matter, from forming cartels akin to today’s OPEC.

Deeds, not Words
This suggestion would reveal the true desire for cooperation and commitment by all nations to halt the rapidly worsening effects of climate change, eliminate disputes over control over the world’s energy supplies, create a framework for equal purchasing power, and greatly reduce the ability (and reason) of all nations to spend untold amounts of money on weapons and war.

Winning Over Republican Voters

November 9, 2020

Republican States

The frenzy of election day may be behind us, but the turmoil and uncertainty continue: the calm before the storm, if you will.  The reason for that grim assessment is because the Democrats did not win the hearts of roughly half the population. In simple terms, unless they come up with a coherent plan that addresses the needs and concerns of rural Republicans, which are indeed deeply ingrained, the United States risks becoming a failed state.

On the global stage our behavior is viewed as alternating current, unpredictable and unworthy of our oft-claimed position of moral leadership. Incidentally, leadership must be earned; it cannot be imposed. If we attempt to do so we’ll follow the Roman Republic, only without Julius Caesar and Augustus.

Ogallala Depleted 2020

One good place to earn leadership attributes would be with the Ogallala Aquifer, currently being depleted at an alarming rate. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine one single issue that could surpass its importance to the eight states that depend on it for dear life. As it happens, with the exception of Colorado and New Mexico, they’re all Republican.

So here’s your chance, Democrats. Come up with a plan to replace the depleted water in the Ogallala region, reassure oil producing states like Texas and North Dakota that something is in the works to replace the revenue that they’ll inevitably lose this century as oil follows coal into oblivion, and you may earn their gratitude and recognition.

The U.S. and China at Crossroads

When it comes to Sino-American relations, few westerners have the knowledge, understanding and experience of former Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger. Speaking at the National Committee on U.S. China Relations Gala Dinner on November 14, 2019, he explained:

• The (U.S.) relationship with China started because both felt threatened by the Soviet Union.
• The U.S. and China have different and unrelated histories and cultures.
• The U.S. believes that solutions to problems bring about permanent stability; in contrast, the Chinese believe that no problem ever gets finally solved, and that every solution is an entry ticket to a new set of problems.
• They view each other as adversaries rather than potential partners.
• At the moment neither country can dominate the other, a new experience for two nations who think of themselves as exceptional.
• This is the first time in recorded history that two economic superpowers (the Soviet Union was never an economic peer of the U.S.) are competing economically, politically, culturally, technologically and militarily on a global scale, a prerequisite for a dangerous state of permanent conflict between their core interests.
• Modern economics and technology link the world into one system. Its collapse would be catastrophic for everyone.
• If both countries view their competition as a confrontation with the conviction that one side can achieve a permanent victory over the other, then the result would be catastrophic, worse than the two world wars combined.
• In addition to the Chinese challenge, the U.S. has assumed responsibilities in peacetime for many regions and problems throughout the world.
• He believes that people like him have a duty to work for a relationship in which both countries can talk frankly to the other about the dangers they see and the opportunities before them, to create centers of decision near their presidents in which a Sino-American dialogue can take place on a permanent basis; neither can afford policies of mutual, reciprocal threats. He further thinks that this endeavor will be very difficult and that there will be disagreements on many issues.

The Time Factor
Doctor Kissinger is of course correct about all of the above, particularly in that neither country can presently dominate the other. However, that equilibrium is transitory. The indisputable fact is that issues abound, among them the South China Sea, Taiwan, and North Korea, that could potentially elevate an already tense but, so far, peaceful competition to an all-out military confrontation. Under the circumstances, some American hawks might argue that the best chance to score a “permanent victory” over China is now. Conversely, keenly aware of that possibility, China’s counterparts might redouble their efforts to achieve, if they haven’t already, a state of mutually assured destruction on the extraordinary assumption that only that would effectively deter an American preemptive attack. So, unlike the Soviet Union, which never had an economy strong enough to withstand the arms race nor a population four times larger than the U.S., the stage is set for Doctor Kissinger’s dreaded and dangerous state of “permanent conflict” to set in.

Time on China’s Side
There are several reasons why China is on track to overtake the U.S. economically, and by extension, militarily. The first is that its all-powerful Communist Party can and does concentrate its resources where it sees fit; when a decision is made, it’s quickly executed. Secondly, but equally important, is that its economy does not depend on the yuan being the reserve currency of the world. Instead, it’s supported by its manufacturing prowess and the size of its growing domestic consumer base. As a result, China is now the first or second trading partner of almost every country in the world, including stalwart allies of the U.S., and its “one road one belt policy” is poised to magnify that position many fold. Thirdly, China’s sheer number of STEM graduates (4.7 million in 2016, according to the World Economic Forum) combined with America’s paltry 284,000 native-born STEM graduates means that the ratio is 16.5 to 1 in China’s favor. Inevitably then, barring necessary fundamental systemic and demographic changes in the U.S. that might allow it to remain competitive, it’s just a matter of time before China overtakes the U.S. intellectually. In fact, it’s already started. Today it has a commanding, overwhelming lead in the number of awarded bachelor’s degrees in science and engineering, and

Bachelor's Degrees By Country

in 2016 it passed the U.S. in the number of peer-reviewed science and engineering articles.

Peer-Reviewed S&E Articles 2004-2016

And China’s lead is not limited to STEM-related fields. It now makes advanced jet engines for military and civilian use, to the point that Germany, the country that first deployed jet fighters in World War II, has expressed interest in buying them. In addition, China is also at the forefront in reclaiming desert land (land restoration), cancer treatment, photovoltaic usage, and many other subjects.

Fourthly, as with everything else, the dollar’s role as the reserve currency of the world must necessarily come to an end. There are only two transitional choices: gradual and imperceptible, which might avoid economic shock, or, paralyzed by political necrosis, wait for the ax to fall.

Effect on Trade
There is no doubt that the perennial fiscal and trade deficits of the U.S., are unsustainable. But tariffs, the equivalent of palliative care, are not a cure for the underlying ailment. It is beyond the scope of these few words to analyze our trade deficit with all the countries with which we have one. With respect to China, the much-celebrated trade truce of December 2019 whereby China agreed to purchase more agricultural products, particularly soy beans, in exchange for freezing tariffs on Chinese goods, is fatally flawed. Firstly, it fails to consider that, given the scope of its success in reclaiming desert land, China may eventually grow enough soy beans to meet domestic demand, and, if trends continue, it will soon also manufacture everything we excel at, but cheaper. This projection is based on its education performance and the fact that in terms of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) its economy already passed the U.S.:

U.S. vs China PPP

the same income buys a higher standard of living in China than in the United States. At that point, would it make sense for them to buy from us what they produce at a lower price, and conversely, won’t it make sense for our consumers to buy their (cheaper) goods?

Fatal Flaw
With bipartisan support, on December 9, 2019 the Congress’s Armed Services committees released a compromise bill that would authorize $738 billion in military spending in 2020. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the federal budget deficit will average $1.2 trillion between 2020 and 2029. In other words, the accumulated deficit (currently over $22 trillion) will become $34 trillion by 2029. Accordingly, military spending in 2020 will account for 61.5% of the deficit. No telling what it will average between 2021 and 2029.

Clearly, Congress and the Pentagon assume that the country’s ability to spend beyond its means will not be curtailed by extraneous events and circumstances. In any event, no officials are publicly dwelling on the possibility that the dollar’s role as the reserve currency of the world may end in the coming decade and how that would impact the nation’s ability to borrow without triggering hyperinflation. At any rate, the lack of public debate on the subject is reminiscent of the proverbial ostriches sticking their heads in the sand.

The writing is on the wall. Germany, the largest economy in Europe and a key NATO ally, is presently not budging, despite strenuous American pressure, on its determination to complete the Nord stream 2 pipeline. It would increase Russia’s hard currency income, bypass and deprive the Ukraine from transit revenue, and directly supply Germany with Russian gas. Turkey, another nominal NATO ally, is also adamant about buying Russian S-400s despite express American objections and threats of sanctions. China, the world’s second-largest oil consumer (behind the U.S.), and the only other country with a (budding) oil exchange (priced in yuan), has agreed to expand oil purchases from Saudi Arabia. Unknown if the latter will agree to get paid in yuan. But the elephant in the room is that many countries will be phasing out fossil fuels to power their vehicles, and that includes China, the world’s largest auto market. Inevitably then, the demand for U.S. currency will collapse and the dollar will cease to be the reserve currency of the world. However, far from making provision for this day of reckoning, we persist on pursuing a doomed policy of global domination. Indeed, since 1776 the U.S. has been at war 93% of the time, which explains to a large extent our $22 trillion (and counting) debt.

Based on the above, a responsible solution to our fast-approaching predicament will require fundamental, permanent changes in our national philosophy and attitude, as well as a corresponding shift in spending allocations and priorities. Change is coming; our choice is to adapt to it either willingly or unwillingly. Hopefully we’ll choose the former.

Possible Solutions
The first is to become the world’s largest producer of hydrogen from electrolysis of sea water using solar energy exclusively, not just to become self-sufficient but to export it to China and India to help them phase out fossil fuels, eliminate the smog choking their cities, and make enough water to conquer drought. Simultaneously, that would greatly reduce our trade deficit, to the point that it might even flip it into a surplus.

The second would be to restructure all public utilities in all hydrogen-producing states. They would be relieved of their mandate to generate electricity; instead they would only maintain and service the distribution grid.

Third, all new and existing buildings in sun-drenched states would be outfitted with solar panels and batteries for night use. The electricity they generate would be pooled to satisfy domestic demand; the rest would be used to produce hydrogen. It would be distributed to domestic and foreign users, in that order. Property owners would be credited a prorated share of net income from sale of the hydrogen which would be automatically used to amortize their mortgages. That should spur new construction of affordable housing, and stimulate the economy.

Fourth, a global treaty should be entered into to make Special Drawing Rights (SPRs) the reserve currency of the world. Individual countries would earn them based on their production (landlocked countries may invest elsewhere) or consumption of green hydrogen on a per capita basis. This mechanism would create a global incentive to produce green hydrogen, wean the world from fossil fuels and nuclear fission, and give all countries, regardless of size and population, a pathway to supportable wealth.

Fifth, based on a more tranquil global environment, the U.S. defense budget would not have to be larger than the next seven nations combined. It could be reduced and the difference invested in badly needed infrastructure to make the country competitive in the global economy.

Sixth, a complementary temporary 15% tax on individuals exceeding $10 million net worth would enacted.

A Seminal Discovery

June 9, 2019

In 2018 a research group led by Professor Dr. Marc Koper at Leiden University in the Netherlands discovered a catalyst that minimizes the production of chlorine gas during salt water electrolysis. The catalyst consists of two metal oxides: iridium oxide with a layer of manganese oxide only a dozen nanometers thick. The former exhibits high catalytic activity for the formation of both oxygen gas and chlorine gas while the latter acts as a membrane that prevents the chlorine ions and suppresses the formation of chlorine gas.

This seminal discovery, no less important than the wheel, can enable the direct production of hydrogen from seawater and its eventual byproduct –very pure fresh water- later, when the hydrogen is used as a fuel.

Likely Consequences
The discovery has profound scientific, geopolitical, economic, military and environmental implications.

Scientific
Selectivity in electrolysis is one important measuring bar on the efficiency of a catalytic converter. Therefore, the discovery that manganese oxide has the ability to selectively block the transport of chloride ions literally opens the floodgates to possible large scale production of hydrogen directly from the ocean: a free, unlimited, renewable, widely available energy carrier whose sole byproduct is pure water.

Geopolitical
Producers of fossil fuels will face terminal competition from hydrogen-exporting countries throughout the world. Examples could be Iceland, whose vast geothermal resources could be used to produce hydrogen; Hawaii and most tropical islands worldwide; Central America, Mexico, the Mediterranean countries, coastal Africa, South America, and South Asia, all with copious sunlight and unlimited seawater. Furthermore, unlike fossil fuels, no one can claim ownership of the ocean, and by extension, of the hydrogen in it.
The enmity between the U.S. and Iran will likely subside because oil, the raison d’être for the conflict, will ultimately disappear.
Israel will be directly impacted; the inevitable demise of America’s ability to spend with abandon on the military –heretofore unimaginable- will nudge it to reach a mutually acceptable accommodation with the Palestinians.

Economic
In time, the petrodollar agreement between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia will become moot. As consumption of oil drops and eventually ends, there will be no need for dollars to buy it and the greenback will lose its status as reserve currency of the world. America will face a day of reckoning with respect to its perennial yearly deficits and accumulated debt. Russia, OPEC and other fossil fuel producers will have to figure out how to survive without that source of revenue since China, India, Japan and Europe –collectively the largest consumers of energy- will no longer need them.
A new politically-neutral medium of international exchange –not necessarily a fiat currency, since all currencies in the world are fiat- could be introduced to succeed the petrodollar. For example, Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) could be adopted as such based on a formula that, among other things, progressively rewards a country for its per capita production of hydrogen and -conversely- progressively penalizes it for possession of weapons of mass destruction, exports of heavy weapons, and interference in the internal affairs of others.

Inequality
Unlike fossil fuels, hydrogen could, in time, substantially reduce the yawning wealth inequality between rich and poor nations as well as between rich and poor people within them. Ownership of production of hydrogen and water –and therefore the rights to its profits- could be shifted from shareholders to homeowners. That could usher in a permanent self-funding system for large-scale construction of affordable housing for the working classes.

Climate Change
If and when the world embraces this discovery and hydrogen replaces fossil and fission fuels for the generation of electricity and mobile applications, the dumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will cease. That will effectively shut down the engine wreaking havoc with the planet’s climate.

Drought and Food
If hydrogen-powered plants are built on mountaintops in remote inland deserts, where desalination is impractical or impossible, vast amounts of new pure water will be manufactured as a byproduct. This will support a much-needed expansion of agriculture to feed the world’s fast-growing population and the mass planting of trees to help recycle the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere.

Conclusion
Change is coming. To paraphrase former President Barack Obama, it is something you can count on.

The Green New Deal Considered

May 15, 2019

Background
Forget the Muller report. Assuming “the Russians” did in fact attempt to influence our elections, which incidentally, is entirely possible, by what right other than might do we criticize them for doing so when we ourselves ignore the Charter of the United Nations, and thus international law, to influence elections, seek regime changes, impose sanctions on friend and foe alike, and wage wars whenever and wherever we please?

The Muller saga, pounced on ad nauseam by mainstream media in their never-ending quest to attract yet more readers (and revenue), has distracted voters from demanding that our elected representatives publicly acknowledge, debate and solve the following litany of issues threatening the very existence of the nation, and the world:

• Permanent federal budget deficits –$1.09 trillion in fiscal year 2020;
• A Pentagon-requested $718 billion defense budget for fiscal year 2020 (more than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, United Kingdom and Japan combined), and almost equal to the entire current federal deficit;
• The rapidly rising national debt, $22 trillion as of February 2019 ;
• $122 trillion in federal unfunded liabilities: Social Security, Medicare Parts A, B and D, debt held by the public, and federal employee and veteran benefits, projected to grow to $157 trillion by 2023;
• $5.96 trillion in unfunded liabilities of state-administered pension plans;
• Chronic trade deficits ($621 billion in 2018, the last surplus was in 1975);
• The extreme danger of nuclear war, whether intentional, by error or accident ;
• The already abysmal (and growing) wealth and income inequality gap, particularly in the United States;
• Anthropomorphic climate change, the cause of the ongoing Anthropocine extinction, also known as the Sixth extinction of thousands of species on which we all depend on for dear life.

A full analysis of each of the above symptoms, they’re not the disease, is well beyond the scope of these few words. Suffice it to say though, that any and all attempts to mitigate their consequences have been at best ineffective, and they’re getting worse.

Here’s our existential predicament. The infinite demand for the petrodollar insures than no country other than the U.S. has the privilege to print as much electronic or paper money as it wishes without triggering hyperinflation. Should the petrodollar lose its precious status as reserve currency of the world, our government would be forced to either balance its budget or default (as Spain did in its heyday)  and watch helplessly as our national credit rating plummets and skyrocketing interest rates plunge us into the bottomless abyss of bankruptcy and irrelevance.

Pricing oil in dollars requires three things: that the world’s major oil producers continue doing so, that the demand for oil permanently remains uniformly high and steady worldwide, the exact opposite of what’s required to fight climate change, and that oil consumers remain tethered to this dictum. As it happens, these buyers include most of Europe, China, India and Japan who, according to International Monetary Fund, together account for over 51% of the world’s nominal GDP. Should any of these three conditions suddenly disappear, the value of the dollar would collapse virtually overnight. The instantaneous loss of value of dollar-denominated assets, including the stock market, and other currencies pegged to the dollar would affect everyone, from billionaires, who have the most to lose, to the individual retirement account (IRAs) of ordinary people invested in equities.

OPEC producers are crucial to the scheme because together they account for approximately 82% of the world’s proven oil reserves. Today the longstanding petrodollar agreement with Saudi Arabia  is, to understate it, under great stress. Venezuela, with the world’s largest proven reserves (300,878 million barrels), Iran, 4th largest, (158,400 million barrels), and Russia, all heavily sanctioned by the U.S., understandably seek to free their economies from the dollar and the American-controlled financial system, (SWIFT). The U.S., with 5% of the world’s population and 11th in terms of domestic reserves (35,000 million barrels), is the second biggest consumer of oil –20.5 million barrels of oil per day (2018), or nearly 20% of the world’s total oil consumption. Clearly there’s a mismatch between our relatively small domestic reserves, how much we consume, and our existential need to perpetuate the dollar’s reserve currency status. At the same time China, currently the biggest consumer of oil, is the only other nation with a fully-functional alternate but budding oil exchange, and it’s priced in gold-backed renminbi, not dollars. Thus, China, Russia, Iran and Venezuela, in the aggregate, pose a serious and growing challenge to the dollar’s dominance. The writing is on the wall: the strong-arm policy of sanctions and wars may win short-term (Pyrrhic) victories, but in the long run, barring the existence of feasible contingent plans to cope with reality, the policy is not supportable.

Historical and Current Precursors
In 1913, Henry Ford the first hired 52,000 workers, mostly men, to keep a workforce of 14,000 that worked nine-hour shifts for $2.25 per day . For many, obviously, these grueling conditions were not worth the pay; most simply walked away from the line, and in doing so brought production to a halt. To combat the high turnover, Ford raised compensation from $2.25 to $5 per day, half wages and half bonuses. However he also introduced paternalistic conditions. The company created a committee called the Social Organization. It literally visited employees at their homes to ensure they would not drink or gamble, and force recent immigrants, which were many, to learn English. The ruse worked because the compensation was higher than what the competition paid. Turnover dropped and morale and productivity increased. These well-paying blue-collar jobs and the job security associated with them became the foundation of the once-heralded “American dream,” now a distant memory.

To be sure, this business model was always an uneasy marriage of convenience. Employers were forced to pay high labor costs; in exchange, workers could afford to consume American-made manufactured goods without incurring unsupportable debt. But as with all dreams, this one finally ended with the advent of the global economy. Multinational manufacturers realized that much higher profits were possible if they relocated production to countries with vastly lower labor and benefits costs in untapped markets such as China, and they did so in droves. Predictably, the real purchasing power of the American middle class flat lined. At the same time, the purchasing power of their Chinese peers rose at an unprecedented rate. At some point, for the multinationals, it ceased to be a case of seeking higher profits; they had to follow the trend to remain competitive in their never-ending struggle for market share. To put it in perspective, in 1955 the biggest employer in the U.S. was General Motors, a manufacturer of goods made in the U.S. by American workers; in contrast, today it’s Wal-Mart, a distributor of foreign-made goods, mainly Chinese.

For American workers, particularly non-college educated white males, it was a divorce with devastating economic, health, social, and demographic consequences. Data shows that the suicide rate in the U.S. has reached a 30-year high, and that it’s continuing to increase; in 2017 it was the 10th leading cause of death. Then there’s the opioid epidemic. In 2017 in California, 1,444 non-Hispanic whites died of opioid use, compared with 483 Hispanics and 147 Blacks. Nationwide, that same year 47,000 Americans died as a result of an opioid overdose, including prescription opioids, heroin, and fentanyl; and in the Midwest opioid overdoses increased 70 percent from July 2016 through September 2017. In addition, as a consequence of the aforementioned profound changes, higher divorce rates, and greater labor force participation, women now account for 54 percent of all single-person households. That too had a price. A National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief shows that more than 8 percent of adults older than 20 reported having depression during a given two-week period, and that the prevalence among women was almost double that seen in men.

Even the government has been affected. Tax revenue is much lower that it should be had the median wage kept pace with corporate profits and the income of the top 10 percent of the population, and it has had to pay more in entitlements to the 39.7 million people living below the poverty line.

Relevance of the Green New Deal
The Green New Deal, proposed by progressive lawmakers in the Democratic Party, is a comprehensive, legitimate and timely plan to address critical issues. While it does not propose to significantly reduce a military budget currently larger than the next 7 nations combined, it does seek to mitigate the consequences of climate change and to help the poor and disenfranchised. But the plan fatally fails to address a core ideological objection of middle and working class Republicans, namely that the government should not run much of the national economy. Thus, the Green New Deal, which would expand the government’s role in running the economy, will likely increase the ideological divide tearing at the fabric of our nation. Republicans and Democrats must find an ideological compromise to overcome their entrenched zero-sum attitude; otherwise, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, we’ll all drown together rather than individually.

Timeframe of Climate Change
Anthropomorphic Climate Change began in 1750 with the First Industrial Revolution. It has taken us this long to realize that humanity is now in a make or break situation with respect to fossil fuels, and that even if we do stop using them abruptly today, right now, it’s going to take far longer than the lifespan of the next several human generations for the Earth to heal. Accordingly, the transition away from fossil fuels will have to occur on an “Earth” timescale, which is to say that from a human point of view it’s going to be permanent and irreversible. That implies that those who yearn to assume the role of (temporary) leaders in the next election cycle must be willing to take on the unprecedented responsibility of plotting a new course in uncharted waters with no less than the survival of the species at stake. By the same token, we the voters share that responsibility. After all, we’ll be electing them into office.

New Taxes Won’t Achieve the Desired Result
Proposals have been floated to combat inequality and/or fund the Green New Deal. One is to enact a 2% “wealth tax” on Americans with a net worth of more than $50 million and an additional 1% on net worth above $1 billion; another is to create a 70% tax bracket on income above $10 million. While both would certainly raise revenue, there are at least four important reasons why they might not trigger the permanent systemic changes that need to be made to fight climate change and reduce inequality. Firstly, any and all laws can be reversed -witness Trump’s efforts to erase Obama’s legacy and the long-ago demise of Eisenhower’s 90% top tax rate. Future administrations could and may well do the same. Secondly, some wealthy people who would be taxed might do everything in their power, and they have plenty of it, to preempt or fatally dilute any tax increases. Thirdly, the construction jobs that would be created in upgrading and modernizing our physical infrastructure, an indisputable necessity, would last only a few years and consequently not permanently reduce today’s inequality. Fourthly, it is not above politicians to divert tax revenue to fund their unrelated pet projects, even when funds have been specifically earmarked by Congress for some other purpose.

A Way Out
In sum, if voting taxpayers truly wish to fight climate change and inequality and to have a direct say in how their tax money is spent, one way to do so is to create a well-regulated, privately-funded, tax-exempt, nonprofit scheme to gradually and imperceptibly steer the country and the world away from fossil fuels to green hydrogen.

WordPress theme: Kippis 1.15
Translate »