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!)

The Iran Nuclear Deal: Obligation or Opportunity?

by John Brian Shannon | Reposted from JohnBrianShannon.com

It’s always helpful to look at a country’s actions over the past 200 years to help understand what its intentions may be here and now, and in the future.

The burgeoning but relatively isolated country of Iran hasn’t militarily attacked another country for over 200 years, and it was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq that militarily attacked Iran in September 1980 — a conflict that finally ended in August 1988 with 1 million casualties and an economic cost of $680 million to $1 trillion dollars — with no clear winner and no benefit to either country.

After all that blood and treasure, no benefit to either country(!) although via the UN-sponsored peace accord and as a penalty to Iraq for starting the war, Iran gained access to the Shatt al-Arab waterway which runs into the Persian Gulf.

Since 2000, Iran has purportedly financed organizations (some listed as terrorist organizations, and others not) throughout the Middle East and most recently in Syria, Iraq, and perhaps Lebanon, in an attempt to exert some control on the various forces operating around their region. (Every country uses various methods to control what happens in its own region, so no news there)

But nothing captures the world’s attention like the Iran nuclear deal.

U.S. President Donald Trump says the deal is a bad one for the West and shouldn’t have been signed and wants to walk away from the deal, reserving the right to act unilaterally if he feels the country is a danger to the U.S.A. or its Middle East allies.

Last week, France’s President Emmanuel Macron flew to Washington to meet with the U.S. President to convince him to stay in the deal or to embrace a ‘third way’ which means renegotiating some of the agreement to better suit U.S. concerns.

Iran barely signed the previous agreement… so it will be interesting to see how the U.S. can get everything it wants from a renegotiated deal while still obtaining Iran’s signature to a new agreement. A deal isn’t a deal unless both sides sign on the dotted line.


Why Would the U.S. Care About Iran? (and Syria, for that matter)

From a strategic perspective, there isn’t a country in the world that could be less important to the security of the United States than Iran, and ditto for Syria.

Neither country has the kind of military that could threaten America, nor could they project their power anywhere near the North American continent.

Unless the United States is actively working for Israel — a country which has an irrational fear of Iran (again, Iran hasn’t invaded any other country for over 200 years) and is willing to spend billions or even another trillion dollars to wage another Iraq War-style conflict against Iran, there’s no reason for the U.S. to have any dealings with Iran whatsoever.

If the United States is actively working for Saudi Arabia — a country that views Iran as an unwelcome competitor in the race to dominate the region, the same advice applies. Why should the U.S. spend multi-billions and sacrifice thousands of young soldiers to satisfy the Saudi ambition to be the local hegemon?

Iran is a regional power at best, and will remain so for approximately the next 30-years as it hasn’t the capacity to be anything else.


Why is Iranian Oil in Such High Demand?

It’s not like Iran is withholding oil deliveries. On the contrary, Iranian oil is easily obtainable with a phone call — the country is highly motivated to sell every drop of oil due to high spending on social programmes by the Iranian government which are largely funded by oil revenue.

And Iran’s crude oil is rated either #2 (sweet) or #3 (semi-sweet) which means it’s in high demand around the world. Global oil producers have already pumped all their #2 sweet crude out of the ground years ago; only Iran and Venezuela have significant reserves of sweet crude in the 21st-century.

As for oil refineries, they need Iran’s (or Venezuela’s) #2 sweet crude oil to blend with the oil supplied by their producers which is almost always #4 (sour) or #4.75 (very sour) like the Canadian oil sands product.

Most refineries won’t accept sour crude oil unless plenty of #2 or #3 sweet crude is blended into the sour crude. It’s just too toxic to refine ‘sour’ as it requires a much more stringent maintenance protocol, meaning the refinery needs to shut down and go into ‘maintenance mode’ more often. That downtime represents a significant loss of revenue for oil refineries.

Therefore, as long as Iran continues to ship huge quantities of sweet crude, the United States should be facilitating that oil business instead of trying to curtail it.


The EU View of Iran is a Mature View

Say what you want about the Europeans, but they don’t allow themselves to be used by countries like Israel that have an irrational fear of Iran and want to use the United States and the EU to keep the Iranians ‘down’ and in their ‘proper’ place and thereby become the regional superpower, or countries like Saudi Arabia that want to use the United States and the EU to keep the Iranians ‘down’ and in their ‘proper’ place and thereby become the regional superpower.

To oversimplify the EU view; As long as Iran’s sweet crude continues to flow (it is) and as long as Iran isn’t actively invading any other country (it isn’t) then there’s no reason to use some imagined breach of the Iranian nuclear deal to launch another trillion dollar war in the Middle East. And, as always, the EU continues to refuse to allow itself to be used by regional powers such as Israel and Saudi Arabia.

In the final analysis, the EU’s position on the Iranian nuclear deal is the most enlightened of all and it is the view the United States should support.

Is NAFTA a Bad Deal for America?

by John Brian Shannon | Reposted from Letter to Britain

There seems to be only one man in all of America who thinks the NAFTA agreement between the three North American economies is a bad deal for the United States. Which would be a very ordinary thing except that man happens to be the president of the United States of America. At least for now.

The one great thing about the American electoral system is that U.S. presidents can serve only two concurrent terms in office, so no matter how bad or popular a U.S. president is, he or she can stay in office for a maximum of 8 years. Although nothing prevents them from running for their old job once another president has served, other than the fact that American voters have never returned a previous two-term president to office.

That law is a tiny part of what makes the United States exceptional in the world. The most meritorious or most popular presidential candidates rise to the top — but unlike other countries where leaders can serve several terms in office — the American system is refreshed by new leadership every 4 or 8 years. And that’s what makes America great.

‘New blood’, a ‘new vision’, a ‘breath of fresh air’, or however you wish to describe it, occurs at regular intervals. No wonder America is exceptional! It’s too bad they don’t do the same thing with members of the Senate and Congress — and yes, even the office of Mayor in every U.S. city. If they did, the United States would be twice as exceptional on account of all that new blood and fresh enthusiasm.

Alas, because only one office in the land is refreshed regularly, America is great from the top down only — not up and down and in the middle — at least where governance is concerned.


Where Donald Trump is Wrong

President Trump arrived on the scene 13 months ago and with no particular government experience behind him, declared that many things are wrong with America and he’s just the man to fix it. And he may be that man, but only time will tell.

Yet, we’re seeing a man who sees symptoms and sincerely wants to treat the symptoms instead of wanting to solve the underlying condition that created the symptoms in the first place.

Certainly no one can fault Donald Trump for being enthusiastic about America, about America’s history in the world, and no one can deny he’s a breath of fresh air to the Oval Office.

But we need to have a conversation about the present symptoms in order to ascertain what the underlying condition may be in present-day America, and for that, we must travel back in time to see how America lost its way.


When Henry Ford was right: Creating the American middle class by filling a transportation need

Henry thought that ‘everyman’ should own an automobile, instead of only railway barons with their obscene personal wealth able to afford motorized transportation. During a downturn in Ford company fortunes, Henry decided to increase the pay of his workers to $5.00 per day, and was thereafter able to cherry-pick whatever workers he wanted from Louis Chevrolet, Buick, General Motors, Cord, Packard, and others.

Once Henry had created a whole new economic classification which later came to be called ‘the American middle class’ so many people bought Ford vehicles that 16.5 million Model T’s were produced in less than 20 years of production.


The moral of this story? Paying higher wages created ‘the middle class’ — a growing cohort of workers earning good wages and able to afford a car, which catapulted Ford’s fortunes into the stratosphere.


The Post-war Boom

Early in the 20th-century, the U.S. became the most powerful manufacturing nation in the world and surpassed even longtime patent leader Germany as the country that received the most annual patent applications.

This occurred only because of strong patent law in the United States. Any inventor with a worthwhile invention brought their idea to America for one reason — because out of all the countries in the world only the U.S. offered the maximum level of legal protection for their idea, design, system, or machine.

Even German scientists brought their ideas to America to have them registered with the U.S. Patent Office!

For countries other than America, the existence of a strong U.S. Patent Office created a ‘brain drain’ in their own countries, meaning that all their scientists and inventors headed to America instead of registering their contraptions in their home country.

Having received their patent protection in the United States, it was a natural step to have their inventions manufactured in America. Although not its primary mandate, the U.S. Patent Office was often excellent at matching inventors with such suppliers or manufacturers as they required.

It was a clear case of the American government passing the right legislation at the right time to attract the best and brightest in the world.


The moral of this story? Not a tariff in sight!


Because the postwar economy was booming and expectations were high, the Baby Boom generation went on a buying spree that is unparalleled in history

All of which worked to make all those patent-holders and their manufacturing companies obscenely rich. And good for them! When you work hard, you should see a positive return for your effort.

The favourable consequence of powerful U.S. patent protection combined with a huge and growing manufacturing base, created a booming economy and concomitant high consumer confidence which provided an unexpected result — usually about 9 months later.

Yes, during the boom times when one family member earned enough to support an entire family, the birthrate in America skyrocketed, creating even more demand as Americans began to have more children per fertile woman.


The moral of this story? When one breadwinner could support a spouse and up to 4 children, afford a new car every 3 years, a couple could own their own home via a 10-year mortgage and enjoy a refreshing vacation every year, the American economy was operating at full output!


American Foreign Policy in the Postwar Era

In the 41 years leading up to 1974, the Saudi government had been selling their oil to America for only the price of production (sans profit) as their contribution to the Cold War effort.

Interestingly, they were allowed to reinvest their cost of production payments in crude oil deliveries and refined oil products — so although they made zero profit on the crude oil as it came out of the ground — they were able to amass considerable wealth by speculating on oil stocks.

But that ended when it was perceived by the Saudis in 1973 that America was favouring Israel, a country that had never delivered billions of barrels of free oil to America.

When America’s oil supplier felt slighted, they decided that they wanted to get paid for their oil after all. ‘Oh, and, we’re pulling back on our Cold War commitment too.’

Which is why the Soviets thought they could successfully invade Afghanistan and tone the world’s opium supply down to almost zero.

When the Saudis suddenly wanted to be paid for their oil and they simultaneously lowered their Cold War commitment to America, the U.S. economy slowed.

With 20/20 hindsight, the ensuing economic disaster was only a symptom of a bungled foreign policy that caused a dramatic increase in new car registrations of foreign cars (with their better gas mileage) moving from 4% of all U.S. new car registrations in 1970 to 65% of new car registrations by 2017. Not only that, but up to 75% of the parts used in today’s American cars are made in Asia.

Therefore, the problem clearly isn’t NAFTA which came into effect in January 1994.

Here’s how that looks expressed as a math equation:
America -10 trillion dollars Japan +10 trillion dollars
(If you’re not into math, the symbol means ‘therefore’)

It could be argued that the United States took a highly principled stand on account of the people of Israel, but it was America’s decision alone, and it cost America 10 trillion dollars and poisoned relations with their oil-producing and Cold War ally, Saudi Arabia.


The moral of this story? The problem of offshoring American manufacturing jobs began in 1973 due to an American foreign policy decision which took place long before NAFTA had been created. Blaming Japan for American capital flight since 1974, or blaming NAFTA (which wouldn’t be created for 20-years) is disingenuous.


Social problems in 1960’s and 1970’s America: Racism, weak civil rights for women, and the Vietnam War worked to reverse America’s earlier gains

A lost generation occurred in the 1960’s where The People lost faith in their elected representatives, but they didn’t lose faith in the institutions of government.

President Carter worked to restore the faith the American people felt toward the executive branch of government by working on some very noble causes and meeting with some success. President Reagan moved things forward by strengthening the U.S. economy, infusing Americans with newfound confidence by offering loan guarantees to struggling American automobile manufacturers and dramatically increasing military spending.


The moral of this story? President Carter and President Reagan didn’t fix America by blaming other countries — they did it by empowering American citizens with tax changes and supporting American industry with loan guarantees to at-risk corporations, with huge defense spending increases, and plenty of positive exhortations about what made America great in the first place.


Every American, Canadian, or Mexican captain of industry wanted NAFTA back in 1994

If NAFTA was so grievous to be borne, why did almost every CEO in North America want NAFTA?

But some U.S. Congressmen and Senators were nervous prior to NAFTA on account of so many job losses in the American economy since 1974 and they were concerned that even NAFTA could go wrong. And let’s face it, some members were creating a negative stir so that new U.S. president Bill Clinton would feel compelled to direct more federal funding to their districts in advance of the accord, in case NAFTA failed.

In reality, the only U.S. and Canadian companies that lived in fear of NAFTA were ones that didn’t keep up with the times. In the booming 1980’s and 1990’s economy, some companies decided they wouldn’t modernize and consequently continued to spend millions per month on electricity costs (for example) instead of reinvesting their (then record) profits in newer, energy-efficient factories or foundries.

For other corporations in the mergers era, it seemed a time to slow capital spending in order to maintain high profit margins and pay record-high dividends to their shareholders. But when the bull market finally came to its end, many businesses were suddenly cash poor and couldn’t afford a new, energy-efficient factory or foundry. Which was brilliant tactical thinking, but abysmal strategic thinking.

So… the question is; If corporations employ poor strategic thinking, should taxpayers be forced to bail them out?


Why should U.S. taxpayers bail out industries that choose high shareholder returns over sound financial management?

In the 1970’s and 1980’s, some American automakers needed the federal government to subsidize them with billions of taxpayer dollars to save them from implosion. That’s only one example out of thousands of U.S. companies that accepted or have lobbied for federal subsidies. Canada is just as bad as the United States on this point. Governments in both countries spend more on corporate welfare than they do on citizen welfare — times two!

Now in 2018, President Trump wants American taxpayers to pay even more for their cars (and anything else made of steel or aluminum) via a 25% tariff on steel imports and a 10% tariff on aluminum.

For one example, Trans Canada Pipeline will be forced to pay the tariff on the steel pipe for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Although steel is a small part of the overall cost of building a pipeline, the cost of the multi-billion dollar project will now rise by 5% or more. Just for comparison, 5% on 10 dollars is 20 cents — but 5% on 5.4 billion dollars adds 270 million dollars to the overall project cost.


The moral of this story? While Donald Trump’s motives are obviously ultra-pure, tariffs are simply a de facto form of taxation that U.S. citizens will pay because a few American corporations preferred high profits/high shareholder returns over competitiveness


Is there ever a good case for tariffs?

In a word, yes. Everything that’s imported into the U.S. (or any country) should face a globally standardized 5% tariff because every government needs money to improve port facilities, to streamline customs, and to maintain the transportation corridors that are essential to trade flows.

Even countries with free trade agreements like the NAFTA countries should institute a standardized 5% tariff on every good that crosses their border — and be required by legislation to use that money to improve transportation corridors and border security.

Consumers would find that presently high tariff items would drop in price, and zero tariff items would rise by 5%, but the trade-off would be astonishingly better roads, bridges, tunnels, rail links, airports and seaports, complete with better security. Every citizen would like to spend fewer hours per week stuck on congested highways, in airports, and enjoy faster and more secure delivery of goods.

Suddenly we wouldn’t be talking about ‘trade wars’ we’d be talking about improved trade, improved infrastructure, and a complete standardization and levelization of tariffs between every country.

And instead of heated rhetoric from politicians, we’d become more efficient throughout our countries and less efficient corporations wouldn’t continue getting rewarded for not re-investing in their businesses.

Could North Korea become the ‘Accidental’ Nuclear War?

by John Brian Shannon | Image Credit: ICAN

During the height of the Cold War, nothing was more feared than the accidental nuclear war where *someone* somewhere misinterpreted a radio call, or misunderstood a communication emanating from the other side.

While this may seem implausible to some, miscommunication and misreading of the other side’s intentions did occur during the 40-year, tension-filled Cold War.

It happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and again when the Three Mile Island nuclear facility exploded, and again when President Reagan famously proclaimed during a speech rehearsal, “I have today signed legislation declaring the Soviet Union illegal… the bombing begins in five minutes,” on live radio. Little did the President know that *someone* had accidentally left the microphone switch in the ON position. (See how easy it happens?)

In less than a minute dozens of Soviet nuclear missile silo doors popped open ready to fire at the press of a button and annihilate the United States (just in case Reagan’s words were true and the U.S. was preparing to fire on the Soviets) fortunately, the Soviet ambassador in Washington phoned the White House to ask if it was a communication error. The problem was solved because somebody thought enough of the human race to pick up the phone and call the office. Phew!


It’s not inconceivable that something similar could happen in our 21st-century. U.S. President Donald Trump posts many times per day on Twitter and none of those tweets are invitations to North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-Un for tea at the White House.

With U.S. warships and aircraft patrolling the South China Sea and tensions throughout the region set to ‘HIGH’ (permanently, it would seem) there is plenty of potential for negative interaction that could set off a sequence of events that couldn’t be stopped. Resulting in the extermination of all life on planet Earth in the worst-case scenario.

‘All life on Earth’ is too important to leave in the hands of Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un, we see how many times politicians fail (as normal humans do) and that failure could result in the end of humanity and all other life on the planet.

We’re living in a time where one wrong tweet or one wrong retort, could end all life on the planet.

Are we content to sleepwalk towards a nuclear confrontation between an old and trusted nuclear superpower on the one hand, and a brave, brash, and new, nuclear power on the other hand? Because that’s what’s happening. We’re sleepwalking towards nuclear war.

America might be lucky and lose only Guam, Honolulu, and the west coast cities of North America; Certainly, all of North Korea would be pounded into dust, and even if Seoul, South Korea wasn’t directly impacted by nuclear weapons it would likely sustain millions of casualties from the nuclear fallout caused by nuclear detonations in the north.

And Japan might face millions of casualties in the worst-case scenario as both North Korea and Japan have some terrible (ancient) history between them.

Shouldn’t Rex Tillerson, America’s excellent Secretary of State be speaking weekly to the UN General Assembly to convince them of the need for urgent, high level diplomatic talks between North Korea, other countries in the region, and America?

Hey, maybe it’s all handled, and we’re all concerned for nothing.

But how would we know, when all we read are angry tweets from one President (how can you blame him, when out of the blue his country was threatened with nuclear attack?) and even angrier retorts by North Korea’s leader.

Something is going on between North Korea and America and it isn’t good. And it isn’t public.


The Cold War was an immeasurably bigger problem than the present Korean crisis and it was completely solved by some of the brightest minds that ever lived, taking only months to handle once they had made up their minds to solve it.

On a much smaller scale than the North Korean situation, solving ‘The Troubles’ in Northern Ireland took 30 months once both sides had fully committed to negotiating and end to that toxic conflict.

There is no reason that diplomacy couldn’t solve the North Korean crisis, it’s just that there isn’t any public pressure on politicians to do so. (Yawn) “Pass the milk, it’s just a potential nuclear war.”

Hot-headed rhetoric between nuclear powers isn’t going to solve anything, but failing to bring negotiators from both sides to the negotiating table only works to prolong the number of months that the world remains imperiled by the threat of accidental nuclear war.


The Sum of All Fears

If you haven’t watched that old but great movie lately, maybe now is a good time to review what could occur when a third party covertly attempts to trigger a nuclear conflict between two adversaries.

Once the missiles have left their silos, it’s too late to stop them — even if the main protagonists find out seconds after launch they’ve been duped by a third party.

“Oops, boom!” if you’re an English-speaker and “죄송합니다” if you speak Korean.


There are plenty of good causes out there in the world, but helping to prevent a nuclear war that could wipe out all life on Earth must rank as the very best of good causes.

If you care about life on Earth, please take a few moments to email or call your government representatives and tell them you’d rather not live in a post-nuclear-apocalypse.

Thanks!

Signed: All life on Earth


Related Article:

  • North Korea Catches America’s Attention (kleef.asia)
  • See what Donald Trump is Tweeting right now (Twitter)

Why can’t we have a level energy subsidy playing field?

by John Brian Shannon |  Reposted from JBS News

All I’m asking for is that renewable energy gets the same subsidies as fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Is that so unreasonable?

You can determine the subsidy costing by any method you choose using a per unit of energy formula — per Barrel of Oil equivalent (BOe) or per kW/h, or any other unit of energy formula you want.

North America’s energy security (similar could be said for Europe, Asia and Australia) is better served by LETTING THE MARKET CHOOSE what’s best for the continent and that can only happen when all energy producers play on the same subsidy playing field. (The cream will rise to the top)

Renewable Energy adds to national security, while Conventional Energy leaves industrialized nations vulnerable

North America’s (for example) biggest national security vulnerability (aside from bio-warfare) comes from literally hundreds of thousands of miles of electrical transmission corridors (pylons and power lines) and pipelines that crisscross the continent.

Every Pentagon General, along with every military rank down to Corporal knows it would be boringly easy for even the most inept enemy of the United States and Canada (both national grids are interconnected) to destroy the North American grid with as little as three well-placed air-to-ground missiles, or alternatively, three truck bombs. Those interconnect sites are unbelievably unprotected.

If that were to happen in mid-winter, millions of North Americans would die, and that’s indisputable.

That it hasn’t happened, proves to me that North America doesn’t have any ‘real’ enemies or it would have occurred a long time ago. (Yes, the U.S. and Canada are ‘irritated’ at some countries and some countries are ‘irritated’ at us — but by virtue of the fact that *they haven’t hit us where we’re most vulnerable* proves they aren’t real enemies, they’re only ‘irritants’)

Centralized Power vs. Decentralized Power

Conventional grid adherents are living in a previous century — a central grid WAS the best thing for North America in the 20th-century — but those days are long gone!

Fossil fuel supporters should stop helping our enemies, which they do by supporting a conventional national grid that even the U.S. military 3X over couldn’t protect!

Decentralized power is the ONLY choice for an energy-secure America!

Make better investment returns on Renewable Energy by leveling the subsidy playing field

I understand that many people are heavily invested in fossil fuels and nuclear power — and I don’t blame them, they were safe and secure investments for decades, but such industries now run counter to the national interest — good investment returns aside!

And yes, the ONLY reason you have those high returns is that those industries are heavily-subsidized by U.S. and Canadian taxpayers; Oil & Gas get $80 billion per year in the U.S. and about $10 billion annually in Canada, nuclear a bit less — but nobody really knows for sure, not even the governments — because it’s all mashed together with nuclear fuel production, long-term ‘spent fuel’ storage, nuclear warhead production and nuclear warhead disposal. (I suspect a similar situation in Europe)

Normal citizens can’t see this because those white elephants are obscured by mountains of cash!

Efficient investment vs. Inefficient investment

Energy companies have become like the Big 3 during the 1960’s and 1970’s, big, powerful, lazy, and wholly unwilling to adapt to changing market conditions.

Remember when 95% of cars registered in the U.S.A. were domestic built and sold? Well, due to the laziness of the Big 3, nowadays less than 35% of new car registrations are North American makes, and more than half of the parts are supplied by Asia or Mexico!

You call that progress???

It’s killing North America!

Renewable Energy creates more jobs than Conventional Energy (even using fossil fuel industry stats!)

Millions of people unemployed in North America because the 1% wanted higher investment returns on their energy stocks! UN-AMERICAN in the extreme!

Energy companies and their investors MUST become patriotic by becoming ‘fleet of foot’ and able to adapt to the already changed national security paradigm — and become ‘ENERGY COMPANIES’ instead of (only) Oil & Gas or (only) nuclear or (only) coal companies.

Profit is a great thing! Energy companies should make plenty of profit because energy is an ultra-important factor in the 21st-century. However, uneven energy subsidies are not a great thing.

Putting a square peg in a square hole, not a square peg in a round hole

When we train soldiers, we don’t try to put a square peg in a round hole — we choose those people based on their merit.

(The best snipers become our snipers, the best tank captains become our tank captains, and the best fighter pilots don’t peel potatoes aboard our warships!) Rather obvious when you think about it, isn’t it?

By the same token, if electricity companies were to embrace ALL energy (they don’t do that now because some energy is highly subsidized and some isn’t) they could then have the option to put a round peg in a round hole and a square peg in a square hole. As it should be!

I must add that gas-fired power generation is increasingly important towards meeting demand — moreso as renewable energy comes on stream. Natural gas burns one million times cleaner than brown coal (lignite) and up to ten-thousand times cleaner than the best black coal (anthracite) and gas power plants can be just as local to demand centres as required — quite unlike hydro-power dams and coal-fired power plants, and even nuclear power plants which usually aren’t welcome near city centres.

READ: Full cost accounting for the life-cycle of coal (Harvard Medicine)

Again, by setting an even subsidy playing field, THE MARKET will choose which kind of power to use in what location — and don’t worry — your precious investment returns will be just as high as they are now. Maybe higher!

As for U.S. jobs, solar produces more jobs than all other producers put together — and rising exponentially!

Renewable energy vs. 'green bullets'
More workers in solar than in all fossil fuel power generation combined (U.S.A.) — Statista

Summary

By setting a level subsidy playing field, the cream will rise to the top, and the market will choose which peg to put in which demand hole — nothing could be more efficient!

And in that case, renewable energy will win hands down!

National security will become greatly enhanced as industrialized nations will no longer be dangling from a thread via the hundreds of thousands of miles of pylons and power lines that will no longer be required, as renewable energy is local energy, while conventional energy must carry electricity many thousands of miles.

Stop choosing profits over national security!

Stop arguing against national security, stop arguing against a free market, and stop arguing that you can’t make the same or better profits via renewable energy. It’s intellectually dishonest.

And for those who want to send me ‘green bullets’ — bring it!


Related Articles:

  • Trump’s Quixotic Energy Policy (Project Syndicate)
  • On the economics of wind and solar power (The Beam)
  • Mr Trump: Tear down those energy subsidies! (kleef.asia)
  • Energy Darwinism: The Case for a Level Playing Field (JBS News)