President Trump and President Putin Change the US – Russia Conversation

President Trump and President Putin meet in Helsinki, Finland to chart a better future

Q: What could be worse than another Cold War between the United States and Russia?

A: Nothing. There is nothing that could be worse than another Cold War breaking out between nuclear armed superpowers that could conceivably destroy all life on the planet many times over. At the push of a button.

Boom! In an instant we’d be blinded by a flash and our bodies would heat up to 3 million degrees in seconds and everyone on Earth would end up floating around as carbon dust for a few years at 100,000 feet before finally settling down on top of the nuclear-winter snow that would cover the entire planet for about 40-years. (Nuclear weapons experts call that snow/radioactive carbon dust mixture, ‘grey goo’)

It’s a miracle it didn’t happen during the 40-year long Cold War, but we came within seconds of such annihilation many times over the course of those perilous four decades.


What the Helsinki Meeting Represents

For some people, the meeting between America’s President Trump and Russia’s President Putin represents an opportunity to catch one or both presidents in some sort of verbal gaffe, or to capture a sound-bite and milk it for all it’s worth — while for others, it’s a meeting between the two major nuclear powers that represents the best opportunity in the 21st-century to reverse the downward spiral in relations between the two nuclear hyperpowers.

That’s what is at stake here.

Anything else (and that means everything else!) just isn’t as important when you’re playing at that level.

Whether 12 or 13 Russian nationals may or may not have interfered in the 2016 U.S. election is orders of magnitude less important than the chance of nuclear war breaking out between the superpowers.

Also orders of magnitude less important is the purported (but unproven) collusion between President Trump and his people, and certain Russian citizens who may, or may not be spies or some kind of fixers or operators, and also orders of magnitude less important is Hillary’s purported carelessness in using a non-government (and therefore, non-secure) server to send or receive classified emails that Russian agents (purportedly) were able to hack and read. (That’s a lot of ‘purportedly’s’ — but everyone in America is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law)

And those are all very interesting stories — unless a bigger story replaces them.

So let’s not get distracted by sensational headlines nor be complacent and forget about what’s really at stake.

The leaders of two nuclear powers met, apparently had a businesslike and friendly meeting, and important matters were discussed. That in itself was almost a miracle after the goings-on between the two superpowers over the past decade, which between them, possess over 13,300 nuclear warheads, while the rest of the declared nuclear powers in the world account for a total of 1065 nuclear weapons.

G7 comparison: Estimated Nuclear Warhead Inventories, 2018. Federation of American Scientists
Estimated Nuclear Warhead Inventories, 2018. Federation of American Scientists

Building On A Successful Helsinki Meeting

Rather than let the present momentum lapse, President Trump and President Putin must ‘strike while the iron is hot’ and schedule some arms control talks.

“If not us, who? If not now, when?” — President John F. Kennedy

In 1963, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (which banned atmospheric atomic and nuclear bomb testing) was signed by the United States and the Soviet Union and in 1996 was passed by the UN General Assembly.

The Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I) was signed by both sides in 1972 and ratified, which paved the way for SALT II in 1979 which was signed by both parties in 1979, but not ratified due to unrelenting bad press in the United States. However, both sides decided to adhere to the terms of SALT II even though it was never ratified. Which is the only reason we see near-parity in nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles between the United States and Russia today.

To keep the present momentum going, SALT II could be re-signed and ratified to pave the way for a SALT III treaty to be created — as per the original plan.

The logic of the SALT agreements is clear: The SALT I treaty limited Anti-Ballistic Missile sites and froze the number of missiles both sides could possess, while SALT II established numerical equality in nuclear weapon delivery systems and limited the number of Multiple, Independent Re-entry Vehicles (bombs) per missile, while the proposed SALT III was designed to drawdown and place firm and verifiable caps on the nuclear arsenals of both the United States and the Soviet Union to around 2400 each.

Before the present momentum between the two leaders fade, both men should push their respective administrations to re-commit to SALT II (as a formality) and ratify it before the end of 2018.

That would allow the necessary time to author a fresh SALT III agreement and schedule a signing ceremony for both SALT II and SALT III at the same time.

It’s not rocket science, it’s politics. But previous leaders just couldn’t get it done. Both sides have wanted to do this for almost 40-years, but (very suspiciously) something always cropped-up at the last minute to prevent forward progress on this most important of geopolitical issues.

“Things don’t happen, things are made to happen.” — President John F. Kennedy


Turning Nuclear Bombs into Electricity

At the end of the Cold War a deal was struck between the United States and Russia whereby excess nuclear bombs (remember; any number of nuclear bombs higher than 2400 for the United States and for Russia is complete overkill from a strategic defense perspective) were sold-off to nuclear power plants and used to produce many years worth of high grade, clean electricity.

The program was called the Megatons to Megawatts program and was called one of the greatest diplomatic achievements ever by Harvard’s Matthew Bunn.

The problem is that it had just begun to hit its stride when President Barack Obama unilaterally cancelled the program and after not much fanfare (only one NPR article) M2M ended.

Assuming both superpowers want to pare-down their nuclear arsenals to 2400 each, that leaves them with 4050 bombs (United States) and 4450 (Russia) to dispose-of. That’s 8500 bombs-worth of clean nuclear power! Folks, that’s enough nuclear fuel to power America until the year 2100 at present rates of usage.

It’s a shame that this noble program was ended long before the most amount of good could be obtained from the Megatons to Megawatts program.

Right now, President Trump could phone President Putin and offer to resume this super-successful program — and he might find a willing partner in Putin who seemed fine with M2M until it was suddenly cancelled in 2013.

Building on success is so much better than re-inventing the wheel, as the saying goes.


A Plug for the Big 5 – as Opposed to the G7

The trouble with the G7 is that the United States GDP, military, number of nuclear bombs, and balance of trade (and in many other metrics) is bigger than all the other G7 nations combined! The U.S. is just too big! It’s the proverbial elephant in the room. The other countries just can’t relate, so they overcompensate.

The recent problems between the U.S. and other G7 members at the recent Charlevoix G7 summit are systemic — the fault isn’t with any of the members. Whatsoever.

And now is as good a time as any for the United States to champion the creation of a new organization, an organization dedicated to superpowers and near-superpowers like Russia, China, Japan, and the EU. Alternatively, if one of those countries or blocs didn’t want to join, The Commonwealth of Nations could join instead.

In such an organization, members would find that the problems that superpowers and near-superpowers encounter would be similar problems and that solutions might also be found to be similar. At best, the world’s major powers could work together on their common problems, while middle powers like the remaining G7 nations (which would then be the G6 without the U.S.A.) could team up with the next 14 nations to create the middle-power ‘Next-20’ Group, or N20.

In that way, superpowers and near-superpowers would be grouped together (logical) and middle powers would be grouped together (also logical) and the previously noted systemic problems would disappear, allowing politicians to roll up their sleeves and get to work on common issues instead of struggling with one giant stuck in a group of middle powers.

Read about the astonishing differences between the U.S. and the other G7 powers here.


Geopolitical Momentum is Vital and Precious – It Must Never Be Wasted

Now that the two presidents have had their first major meeting that seemed to go very well, it’s time to capitalize on the goodwill before events sweep away those good feelings and once more, opportunities bigger than the sky are allowed to slip away!

Whether the next phone call between President Trump and President Putin is to discuss restarting the highly-successful Megatons to Megawatts program, or plans to meet with President Xi Jinping to discuss the Big 5 organization, or to build onto the world-changing SALT treaties — or some other plan the two presidents discussed — now is the time to build on the initial meeting success and positively change the conversation between superpowers and change the entire conversation that is happening in the global media because no other, better story appears to displace the existing conversation.

One of the ways leaders lead effectively… is to know when it’s time to change the conversation the media is having with itself and with its viewers.

I respectfully suggest, that time is NOW.

Written by John Brian Shannon

How President Trump Could Win the Tariff War

As we launch into the 2018 summer season of punishing tariffs and counter-tariffs and with the present bad feelings between the global powerhouses, perhaps a second look at what we are *actually* trying to accomplish is in order — and if a better way of accomplishing our goals appears — would today’s leaders be bold enough to employ such a change-up?

Taking the American position as an example; U.S. President Trump feels that American steel and aluminum are at a competitive disadvantage to countries like, well, every other country in the world, which is why he has instituted import tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum. Different tariffs have been levied by Trump on other imported items. All of which is supposed to help American steel and aluminum companies compete in the international marketplace and overcome decades of less-than-stellar reinvestment in U.S. rust belt industries such as steel and aluminum mining and smelting.

The pushback from exporting countries has been considerable and is expected to be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Trade war, much?


The First Rule in Every Crisis: Don’t Make it Worse!

While there is plenty of angst to go around, President Trump must remember that the entire situation was created by every U.S. president since President Carter, and that countries were never told to stop or slow the exports to the United States, nor told to lower their exports to other Western nations.

That means it’s time for President Trump to ‘play nice’ with exporting countries — which have done nothing more than play by the rules that America itself had set.

The problems of the $862.2 billion balance of trade deficit that America is trying to draw-down can be made worse via bad communications, additional tariffs, or clumsy handling of the situation. Let’s not do that.

Rather, let’s try to improve on trade deficit elimination as time rolls forward.


How to Make it Better

Apart from not making it worse, the present uncomfortable situation could be solved to every party’s satisfaction by designing a tariff regime to solve the fundamental problem instead of trying to address each good or service individually — creating a pathway, not only to solve immediate concerns — but to provide additional revenue to assist the above-noted and other American industries stung by poor vision, poor leadership, and poor management of U.S. trade policy from the 1980’s onward.

Instead of piecemeal (and high) tariffs that are seen as exorbitant in some quarters, President Trump should institute a standardized 5% across-the-board tariff on every single good imported into the United States.

The gross total revenue of that 5% tariff would far exceed the revenue that would be collected by the present bric-a-brac collection of deeply unpopular tariffs.

With an annual tariff revenue pool that would far exceed that of the present tariff regime, the United States could allocate generous and proactive funding to several of America’s poorly-performing economic segments, which spending would be completely at the discretion of the Trump Administration and its successors.

That’s an extra $120 billion (approx) for America annually.


Invite America’s Trade Partners to Drop Their Existing Tariffs and Match the New 5% Standardized Tariff

And then, pour yourself a nice cool drink Mr. President because you’ve won.

End of the trade war, the beginning of accumulating billions of dollars that can be directed to American industries that have suffered as a result of heretofore unrestricted imports from economies that benefit from low-cost labour and lower environmental standards.

Be part of the solution.

Nothing would put a salve on the present air of hurt feelings like a major signing ceremony between the U.S. and China where both countries see it’s in their best interests to drop the existing punitive tariffs and support and abide by a standardized 5% tariff regime.

No doubt that the EU, The Commonwealth of Nations, Russia, and other global exporters would enthusiastically sign a matching and standardized 5% tariff agreement with the Trump Administration.

Problem solved. And everyone makes more money!

That’s how to employ the ‘Art of the Deal’ to turn a negative into a positive.

Written by John Brian Shannon | Reposted from JohnBrianShannon.com

Why American Automakers Should Stop Building Cars in Other Countries

by John Brian Shannon | Reposted from JohnBrianShannon.com

At first glance, the idea that the ‘Big Three’ American automakers (Chrysler, Ford and GM) would stop manufacturing their cars and trucks in other countries might seem like a ground-breaking idea.

But it’s not as shocking as some new ideas that have come to light, such as putting engines in sailing ships enabling them to easily cross entire oceans, or passenger travel by aircraft instead of train, or that man should walk on the Moon by 1970.

Still, the idea that America’s Big Three automakers could stop building their cars in other countries might be seen as a novel idea.


Why Would American Automakers Want to Stop Building Cars in Other Countries?

Let’s take the case of the North American car market:

Chrysler, Ford, and GM have auto assembly plants in Canada, the United States and Mexico where they produce millions of cars and trucks per year. The majority of those vehicles are then sold into the U.S. because it’s a far bigger market than the Canadian and Mexican vehicle market combined.

Which means that many American auto industry jobs are lost to Canada and Mexico.

President Trump wants to lower the unemployment rate in his country and help make his domestic auto industry stronger and more responsive to the American market via high tariffs or restrictions on the number of cars Canada and Mexico could export to the United States.

The trade-off of that move would be worse relations with Canada and Mexico which have long benefited from Big Three auto factories located in their respective countries and Canada and Mexico would be loathe to lose those economic benefits.

And although I see U.S. President Donald Trump’s point on this — I’d rather talk about solutions that could work for all three countries.


What if There’s a Way for Each of the NAFTA Countries to Win?

Let’s pretend for a minute that we’re looking at the North American auto industry from the vantage point of 5-years in the future.

Five years on, let’s say that every Chrysler, Ford and GM car and truck sold in the United States is manufactured in the United States, unemployment is at an all-time low, and the American economy is rocketing along like it was in the 1960’s. Great!

What about Canada?

As the Big Three factories presently located in Canada would still remain, new licensee companies approved by Chrysler, Ford and GM could build all the Chrysler, Ford and GM vehicles required for the Canadian market and build 100% of them in Canada, while still keeping to U.S. auto company specifications and quality. Such licensee companies would be required to meet the same manufacturing standards and warranty terms.

Canadian companies like Magna International already produce a significant number of the parts required for all of the Big Three automakers; Extending their license to include vehicle assembly on behalf of one of the U.S. auto companies would be an easy transition.

Or, entirely new companies could be formed; One company (‘Chryton Co.’) could build all Chrysler cars and trucks for the Canadian market by purchasing the existing Chrysler manufacturing plants in Canada and paying the required per-unit license fees to Fiat Chrysler USA, while Canadian-owned ‘FordX’ could build every Ford car and truck for its Canadian dealers after paying its per-unit license fee to Ford USA. Likewise, GM vehicles would be built by a Canadian-owned and GM-approved company (‘AC Delco’) that would pay a license fee to GM USA for each vehicle it builds for the Canadian market.

In that way, all Chrysler, Ford and GM vehicles destined for the Canadian market would be manufactured in Canada by Canadian workers — and other than paying license fees to the respective USA auto manufacturer — the Canadian automotive manufacturing industry would be 100% Canadian. That’s 100% Canadian-owned and 100% Canadian-staffed. (They would still need to match U.S. manufacturing and warranty standards however)

Exactly the same could be done in Mexico for Mexican companies and consumers. (They would still need to match U.S. manufacturing and warranty standards)

And all Chrysler, Ford and GM cars and trucks destined for the U.S. market would be manufactured in the United States by American workers and the U.S. auto industry would find itself in the middle of an economic boom!


In an Era of 3D Printing, License Fees Will be Everything

Welcome to the future!

If you live in Canada and you want a Ford car you’d simply order the car online and the Ford-approved Canadian company 3D prints and otherwise assembles your Ford car and the car arrives at your local dealership a few days later.

You might even choose to watch it being 3D printed, painted, and assembled on your tablet or laptop computer.

Yes, other than upholstery and tires, etc. all 3D printed cars and trucks will be made from aircraft grade aluminum alloy as aluminum works better than steel for 3D printing.


Not Only The Big Three, But European and Japanese Automakers Too!

Imagine if EVERY new car and truck sold in Canada is built in Canada by Canadian companies that pay a license fee to the respective American, European, or Japanese automaker. That equals full employment in the Canadian auto sector, without the (understandable) griping by President Trump about American job losses.

Imagine if EVERY new car and truck sold in the U.S.A. would be built in the United States by American workers, and even European and Japanese vehicles sold in the U.S. would be built by U.S. companies that paid for the rights to 3D print and assemble those cars. That equals full employment in the American auto sector.

Imagine if EVERY new car and truck sold in Mexico would be built by Mexican companies that pay a license fee to the respective American, European, or Japanese automakers. That equals full employment in the Mexican auto sector, without any griping by President Trump about American job losses.

NOTE: I understand that hand-built cars like Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Aston Martin, etc. would decline to take part in such an arrangement, but those cars account for less than 1% of the North American market share. They would simply continue to export their cars to their North American customers as usual.

Again, manufacturing and warranty standards would need to be carefully vetted by the licensor before granting manufacturing rights to licensees. Even so, every country in this equation would ‘Win-Win-Win’.

And consumers could purchase a locally built vehicle that wasn’t shipped across the continent or thousands of miles of ocean.

Shop Local, and still get the ‘foreign’ car of your dreams!


Auto Manufacturers Would Make the Same Per Vehicle Profit in Foreign Countries as Now — But Via License Fees (only)

The era of ‘things-based’ globalization is morphing into ‘ideas-based’ globalization where things are designed in country ‘A’ by a company that retains 100% rights over who is allowed to 3D print and assemble its products in country ‘B’ — which could be literally anywhere on the planet.

Whether it’s T-shirt graphics electronically transmitted and licensed to a company thousands of miles away (as is done now) or whether licensed companies 3D print and assemble your foreign car in the city where you live — globalization might finally become all that it can and should be — creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in each country for workers in 3D printing/manufacturing factories that could literally build anything, anytime, for anyone, as long as they have purchased the proper license.

Such ‘On Demand’ manufacturing might become the biggest job creator ever and lower the tensions brought on by the endless competition between the world’s free trading nations.


Ready for the future? Order your locally-manufactured foreign car here.

(OK, just kidding… But it might be that easy in only a few years!)

How the West Could Double GDP Growth in Two Easy Steps

Written by John Brian Shannon |  Reposted from JohnBrianShannon.com

GDP Growth | Empowering the bottom-two economic quintiles via a Guaranteed Basic Income and a 21st century minimum wage will allow them to become part of the solution… instead of part of the problem.

We Have a Problem in the West

The top-three economic quintiles are doing just fine thank you very much, and any one of those top-three quintiles contribute more to society… than the bottom-two quintiles combined!

That includes the CO2 emission contributions of any one of the top-three quintiles by the way. And it includes the high level of government spending required for the enhanced infrastructure and security considered de rigueur for those who live near the top of the economic pyramid.

If you don’t believe that the top-three economic quintiles cost the government more, just take a drive around some of the ‘tony’ neighbourhoods in your city. Look at the streets (nice, broad thoroughfares and sidestreets that are always well paved, etc.) look at the decorative streetlights, the curbing, the sidewalks. Also don’t miss the world-class schools and recreational facilities. And of course, visit an international airport to see how many of the travelers boarding planes to sunny locales hail from the top-three economic quintiles. That would be most of the travellers in the airport.

While the top-three economic quintiles are driving their Land Rovers and taking exotic vacations and sending their kids to university (and yes, they do work hard for their money — nobody is saying any different) the bottom-two quintiles can’t.

While the top quintiles cost society much, they also contribute much. And why shouldn’t they contribute much? They’re the prime beneficiaries of that society.

At the end of it all we may conclude that (apart from their astonishing CO2 footprint and the astronomical security costs to ensure almost total security in their neighbourhoods) the top-three quintiles aren’t the problem when we’re talking about the economy.

Through no fault of their own the problem lies with the bottom-two economic quintiles and we can thank (some) economists and (some) politicians for this miserable state of affairs.


Shall We Toss the Bottom-Two Economic Quintiles into the Ocean?

Or should we allow them to become ‘part of the solution’ on the path to dramatically increasing national GDP growth?

If we did toss them in the ocean, just for argument’s sake; Who will pour your latte at your favorite coffee joint? For that matter, who will pick up your trash, man the gas station counter, feed the ducks in the city park, or cut your lawns and clean your swimming pool?

Wouldn’t you rather be earning your $100 per hour or whatever you earn, instead of spending your free time sweeping the sidewalks and changing burned-out streetlamps? Wouldn’t you rather be racing your personal watercraft with friends at your lakefront cottage? You work hard, you play hard. Great!

Now let the other people contribute too.


Maybe Those Bottom-Two Economic Quintile Types Aren’t So Bad!

As it stands now however, the bottom-two quintiles are a drag on the economy. There’s no hiding that fact.

Some are homeless and may engage in property crimes or other offenses. Others may find themselves often unemployed or in a permanent state of underemployment as 34% of all manufacturing jobs have left Western nations for Asia since 1975. (Not the fault of the bottom-two economic quintiles by the way)

And still others just can’t find their niche, nor do they have the education, nor the financial clout to engage in the type of business where they could succeed in personal terms, but also contribute to the overall economy.

They want to contribute(!!!) to their country but can’t find a way forward. And they’re not up for moving to Asia to reclaim their former manufacturing job. Nor should we expect them to.


Changing a Negative Into a Positive!

Many people have experienced the kind of drag induced by leaving your car’s emergency brake in the ‘on’ position as you travel down the highway. As soon as you realized your mistake and moved the e-brake to the ‘off’ position the car appeared to have 100 more horsepower.

But of course it didn’t. The motor had the same horsepower it always had, it’s just that by accidentally leaving the e-brake ‘on’ it took extra power to move the car.

So it is with the economy and the bottom-two quintiles.

Prior to all those manufacturing jobs leaving for Asia, the bottom-two economic quintiles contributed much to the economy. We used to call them ‘the middle class’ or ‘blue collar workers’ or ‘the rank and file’ and other descriptors.

But there just aren’t the jobs to employ them now. So many people (millions) have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits and have given up looking for a job, any job, that they’re no longer listed as officially ‘unemployed’. The corporate world, and governments too, appreciate that those are rarely reported stats. It makes them look bad and feel bad, but they don’t know why, or how, this has happened. In any case, it’s better for them that it’s rarely reported.

Yet, there is no need to leave two-fifths of the population in a permanent state of poverty and thereby not able to move ahead with their lives — let alone contribute to GDP.

A two-track plan could accomplish a number of good things for the overall economy.


Allowing the Bottom-Two Economic Quintiles to Become Part of the Solution, Instead of Part of the Problem

Working people always contribute more to the economy than non-working people. But what’s the use of getting a job if you can’t afford the monthly bus fare to get back and forth to work? It’s a very common thing nowadays.

Make your choice now; Eat for the month, or use your grocery money for subway fare. Pay the electricity bill, or buy a monthly bus pass to get back and forth to work. Buy some decent clothes for a job interview, got the job! now you can’t afford the bus fare to get you back and forth. Ugh!

These are the very real concerns of the McJobs era. It’s even multi-generational. Older workers may work as low-paid greeters at WalMart, while younger, low-paid workers at fast-food restaurants experience similar life choices.

Two-fifths of the working age population are a drag on the economy — but only because of poorly thought-out policies and on account of the race for corporate profits which were (and are still) improved by outsourcing jobs to developing nations. Bad!

Therefore, because the situation is so tragic ANY solution is better than allowing the status quo to continue!

Two Ways to Solve Gross Inequality and Increase GDP:

  1. Legislate a standardized $15/hr wage right across the country. In this way, people who would rather work will be able to afford to eat for the month AND pay their electricity bill AND have enough money for bus fare to travel back and forth to a job. Perhaps Mom and Pop can front them the money to buy some decent ‘job interview appropriate’ clothing and help in other ways such as babysitting young children, etc. However, we can’t expect Mom and Pop to pay for all of those things, as their time and resources are limited too.
  2. A guaranteed basic income (GBI) of $1088/month per adult (a generally recognized amount, accepted by researchers and governments)
    In some cases, this would effectively ‘top-up’ the monthly income of welfare recipients and Old Age Security recipients to $1088/month from all sources. It would likewise replace all other low-income schemes, grants, etc. So much duplication of services exist that entire government departments could be down-sized (by attrition) thereby saving some government departments up to 5% in their annual budgets. Especially police and court budgets. And the multi-billion dollar SNAP programme and Food Banks could be eventually discontinued, for example.

With 21st century policies in place, the bottom-two quintiles could then afford(!) to look for a job, afford(!) to move to a different jurisdiction to accept a job offer, afford(!) to return to vocational school or attend night school to brush-up on job-skills, or afford(!) to move to a safer neighbourhood where they aren’t afraid to take the bus to a night shift job they’ve been offered.

As soon as they report on their annual tax return that they’re earning any amount over the poverty line, then their GBI payments would be discontinued. Success!


If policymakers want the present situation to continue to deteriorate; Just keep on doing what you’ve been doing, and you’ll keep on getting what you’ve been getting

But if we want the bottom-two quintiles to contribute to the economy like they did in past decades, policymakers must set payscales at rates that are relevant to 21st century cost of living standards (they’re not now!) and they must institute a GBI that replaces all low-income schemes and empowers people to either; move to a job, retrain for a job, afford transportation to and from a new job, and in the meantime, maintain their home / electricity connection / phone connection / internet connection / job interview and other employment-related clothing needs / childcare / normal caloric intake / buy medicine, and afford other necessities in our modern world until they get back to work.

How can you get a job nowadays if you can’t afford an internet connection? Do you know? (I don’t know. Can that still be done in the year 2017? Probably not)

The time for navel-gazing is over. It’s time to get brave and release the brakes from the economy and allow the bottom-two quintiles to again contribute to the economy by passing legislation that’s designed to make people part of the solution, instead of part of the problem!

Europe: The EU’s Immigration Conundrum

Reposted from JohnBrianShannon.com

by John Brian Shannon

Recent reports about immigration in Europe suggest a real macroeconomic benefit to welcoming millions of refugees and economic migrants into the country

And that’s true. Even poverty-stricken refugees consume goods and services.

If we look at the German example; One million Middle Eastern refugees have been accepted into Germany since 2010 and all of them eat food, pay rent, pay electricity bills, take the bus, buy clothing, go to movies — and in many other ways add revenue to the economy.

If each of those million refugees spend 10 euros per day (equal to their daily food spending) that’s 10 million euros per day. Totalled, their monthly food spend equals 300 million euros in Germany alone.

If we extrapolate the German example further, we see that almost everything in Germany has a sales tax attached to it, and for those that have become employed, they’re paying income tax on their earnings.

Therefore, Germany is earning nearly 1 billion euros per day from their 1 million refugees

Of course, there are the high costs of accepting refugees and some may remain on social welfare programmes for as long as 2 years. German taxpayers pay for that. But after the 2-year mark, it’s all good.

No wonder Chancellor Merkel looks at immigration with such optimism. From an economic standpoint Merkel is 100% right; It really is the best thing for Germany. A brilliant but domestically unpopular policy by one of the greatest Chancellors in German history.

And let’s also recognize that this latest wave of immigrants is additional to the existing German immigrant pool — the first wave of which began in the 1970’s, and that generation are now a cohort of decent, hardworking, and family-oriented people. A benefit to the German economy almost every day since they arrived.

It’s not all Apple strudel and yodeling in Germany, however

Crime is much higher due to those massive levels of immigration. In Germany, girls can’t even attend a women’s music festival without a high probability of being molested by immigrant men. And the same holds true throughout Europe, especially in Sweden (of all places) and in Greece.

So what’s the point? Gain more in taxes so that women must hide in their homes?

That’s a bad deal for half the population, the female half.

Thus far, the lack of leadership on what is expected of new arrivals to Europe is astonishing and breathtaking all at once.

Refugees and economic immigrants from Day 1 of their arrival in Europe, should’ve been handed water bottles and pamphlets (written in their language) describing the rules of European culture, the rights of the person in EU society, the culture of respect for law and order — and not a gloss-over job but a poignant list of laws and societal norms that must be adhered to while travelling or living in Europe.

And printed in bold letters front and back of the pamphlets:

“It’s not your *right* to emigrate to our countries, it’s a *privilege* therefore consider yourselves guests while in our countries.”

Would you allow a guest to your home to wear muddy boots and to walk all over your expensive carpets and furniture? Obviously not.

Then neither should you allow your guests to molest your girls, rob subway passengers, and engage in rioting and looting.

Nor should we allow immigrants (or anyone) to defile EU culture — culture being the mass of our thoughts, brought into the light.

“I will not let anyone walk through my mind with their dirty feet.” — Mahatma Gandhi

It’s a very human thing to help people experiencing hardship and fleeing from countries due to conflict or famine there. The fact that we still do this (although not as well as in prior decades) gives hope for humanity.

But it’s been bungled up til now in the EU and it needs to be fixed. ASAP.

Finally, refugees should be given a temporary landed immigrant card (a photo ID) that allows them to stay in the EU for up to 4 years

After that; ‘It’s time to go back home and rebuild your country, with the skills, money and experiences you’ve acquired during your time in the West.’

European countries should now, even at this late stage, attempt to:

1) Educate refugees/economic migrants about European legal and cultural standards, from Day 1 of their arrival.
2) Continue to provide the normal social benefit for each adult, until they find a job.
3) Continue to provide safe housing until reasonable accommodation can be found.
4) Continue to monitor those people to make sure they are finding services, housing, jobs, and are not being targeted by Middle Eastern ‘mafia’ types within their own community.
5) Provide a free airline ticket at the 4-year mark to allow them to return to their home country. If they don’t want to return to Syria (for example) they could exchange their ticket for another of similar value (to Cairo, for example)
6) By accepting and paying for the living expenses of refugees and economic migrants (where they don’t have their own funds) for four years, and by educating them to Western norms, and by helping them to find safe shelter and jobs, etc. it’s truly a privilege for those people to be in Europe, and they should conduct themselves accordingly.
7) If not, they should be deported as soon as they are convicted of any crime (and obviously, their 4-year pass cancelled)

Every day, we teach others how to treat us

If we teach others that it’s acceptable to walk into our homes wearing their muddy boots and to walk all over the carpets and furniture, we deserve everything that we get from those people.

If we (gently) teach them about the rules of our house and provide the support they need, we are teaching them that we’re their benefactors and that we’re people to be respected.

Thus far, we’ve been teaching the refugees the wrong things, and they’ve responded in kind. (Input = Output)

It’s a failure of vision and it’s a failure of leadership. And the experiment with mass immigration flows from the Middle East will end in the failure of some EU member nations.

We’ve already seen blowback from this mishandled affair via the Swiss voting in a 2014 referendum to leave the EU, and Brexit in 2016, with surely more exits to follow.

It’s a problem that won’t go away until EU leaders address the fundamental problems of mass migration, problems which (in the absence of proper guidance) begin on Day 1 of a refugee’s arrival.

Related Articles:


Bonus Graphic: A Snapshot of the European Migrant Crisis in 2015

Europe immigration crisis
Reports suggest there are many macroeconomic benefits to welcoming millions of refugees to the EU. It’s not all Apple strudel and yodeling, however.

Maximilian Dörrbecker (Chumwa)Own work, using data and information from these web sites: Eurostat dataset migr_asyappctzm (direct download) Eurostat dataset tps00001 (direct download) FRONTEX Migratory Routes Map This base map by alexrk  | CC BY-SA 2.0