KleefBlog

Theresa May Spurned in Austria After Making Sweetest Brexit Offer Yet

By now, we all know Theresa May, Britain’s Prime Minister since July of 2016.

‘Articulate deal-seeker who vocalizes well-written speeches on behalf of the UK and a Prime Minister offering the sweetest divorce deal in history.’

And yet in Austria on Friday among the friendliest of European allies, Theresa May couldn’t buy a friend.

It seems the European Union just doesn’t want a Brexit deal with the United Kingdom. (Which is their right, of course)

We should question the logic of such a stance, however. Surely there must be something to negotiate in the way of a Brexit deal so that politicians on both sides of the English Channel aren’t eaten alive by their own corporations after March 29, 2019 for not paving a way forward for industry.

In the absence of a timely Brexit deal, the day after the official Brexit date is likely to result in very heated exchanges with CEO’s landing in European capitals to vent their fury at their own political class. The UK won’t be exempt from this anger, either.

Perhaps this is one reason why Theresa May has gone far out of her way to offer the EU a sweetheart deal (complete with £40 billion to sweeten the pot and to salve hurt feelings) and trekking all over Europe for the past two years so that powerful corporate CEO’s will appreciate all her hard work in this regard and not take their frustrations out on her.

That’s thinking ahead, Theresa! Because in the event of a no-deal Brexit… it will hit the fan like, well, few times in the postwar era.

As usual, Britain will be on the right side of history. And we’ll all thank Theresa May for her monumental efforts to reach a deal before the cutoff date — even as continental CEO’s are pounding their fists on the desks of EU politicians for not accepting that sweetheart deal.

If so, I hope Theresa May is found having a wonderful luncheon in the White House on March 30, 2019 after formalizing a trend-setting trade deal with President Donald Trump! Because the EU politicians certainly won’t be enjoying their day. To put it mildly.


All is Not Lost

One of the smartest and most experienced politicians on the planet is thinking ahead.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called for a meeting with Theresa May at the beginning of September that could kick-start stalled Brexit negotiations into high gear — which until now have been relegated to the British Prime Minister making polite speeches throughout Europe, receiving polite but tepid applause, and hearing the same message countless times, ‘That’s just not something we can do, Theresa.’

The rest of the Prime Minister’s summer seems to be about walking in the Swiss Alps sprinkled with some minor appearances throughout Europe to promote her super-diplomatic, uber-polite and overly soft Brexit proposal based on the Chequers document, that will no doubt continue to be rebuffed by the EU leaders and negotiators she meets. (A disheartening summer for Ms. May)

By September she may be ready for high level meetings with the continent’s most capable and most experienced politician. Let’s hope for Britain’s sake that Theresa May doesn’t feel too ‘beaten down’ on account of her many discouraging summer meetings, or it’s going to go all the EU’s way.


A Desultory Summer for Theresa May, Then a Restive Conservative Party Caucus, Followed by Meetings With Europe’s Most Experienced Leader

What could possibly go wrong?


Whatever your summer plans: Enjoy the summer!

And do take the time to thank God, your parents, your favorite high school teacher or whomever is important or profound to you, that you aren’t Theresa May forced to shuttle around Europe all summer only to be told, ‘No, no, no, and more no’ at each stop for offering the most generous and overly soft divorce settlement in history — one that is practically dripping with Rote Grütze and honey — without receiving a single encouraging word from her hosts all summer, and then having to return to a fractious party ready to toss her overboard on account of her overly generous Brexit proposals.

“Curiouser and curiouser!” cried Alice.

Written by John Brian Shannon | Reposted from Letter to Britain

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

Brexiteers Davis and Johnson Abandon May’s Soft Brexit

Major Resignations in Theresa May’s Government

Over the past 24-hours two senior officials in Theresa May’s government have resigned due to differences in what kind of Brexit each seeks.

And frankly, it’ll be a blessing. Far less paint will be peeled off the walls each week at 10 Downing Street, if you catch my meaning.

Even though both David Davis and Boris Johnson were and are strong proponents of Brexit (which Prime Minister Theresa May also claims to be) governing the country becomes an impossible task when three people fight each other daily to steer the ship of state.

Every Prime Minister must tolerate some division within the party caucus to be sure. Less so, but still important is to allow a variety of views within Cabinet so that it doesn’t become a sterile place where ideas go to die. But there comes a point when too much division becomes the main issue — instead of the people’s business being the main issue.

Which is why it’s important Theresa May stuck to her guns and didn’t make any last-minute deals (of a kind that a lesser PM might have made) to keep the crew together. Not that Davis and Johnson are going anywhere as they’ll remain Conservative Party backbenchers.

Certainly, Margaret Thatcher would’ve told Davis and Johnson to ‘go fish’ some time ago and probably would have physically evicted them from the room. 😉 (You never knew with Maggie!)


Whether You Agree with Davis and Johnson or Not, this Streamlines Whatever Brexit Modality Theresa May Pursues

While some would like the strongest possible Brexit — Britain’s future will be better with a Brexit agreement that doesn’t ruin relations with the EU, one that includes some kind of reasonable free trade deal, one that allows the UK and the EU to cooperate on a wide range of issues such as, but not limited to; A common rulebook where and when feasible, the Galileo project, the ECJ (where UK courts would include, but not be limited or bound by ECJ rulings and opinions) NATO, and agreeable relations or even membership with other important European institutions.

Theresa May’s sole goal (it seems) is to get a deal with the EU. Which is a noble goal in itself.

The flip side of that is when the agreement Theresa May intends to present is so diluted that her Cabinet walks out the door. Yet, the Prime Minister may still be proven right by events yet to unfold.

It’s obvious to all but the most politically tone-deaf that no matter what agreement is presented to the EU mandarins, it is likely to be swiftly rejected. Including Theresa May’s super-diplomatic, uber-polite and overly-soft Brexit proposals.


But if That’s the Case, Why Try at All?

As an experienced bureaucrat slogging it out in the Home Office for a decade Theresa May knows something that hardcore Brexiteers don’t. And that is, those who get ‘stuck with the bill’ wind up paying many times over.

Let’s look at three scenarios, and let’s see who gets stuck with the bill:

  1. Hard Brexit faction presents an uncompromising Brexit deal to the EU: The European Union declines the deal offered and the blame is on Britain ‘for being so unreasonable’ and from that point on… every single thing that ever goes wrong in Europe, the World, and the Solar System… will be the fault of *those* unreasonable Brexiteers. And it’s not that EU people are evil, it’s just human nature to feel that way when jilted.
  2. Soft Brexit faction presents a soft agreement for signing in Brussels which is accepted by the EU: It’s seen as a ‘Win-Win’ for both sides. But the EU ‘wins’ by a slight margin and when you’ve effectively ‘dumped your partner’ sometimes it’s a good thing to let them ‘win’ a little bit. The worst that can happen in such a case is that the next UK Prime Minister will try to improve the deal and may or may not succeed in that endeavor. Likely, as time rolls on, both sides will arrive at a better agreement and both can claim credit with their respective voters for any future agreements. Not a bad scenario at all.
  3. Soft Brexit faction presents a soft agreement for signing in Brussels which *isn’t* accepted by the EU: At that point, the British can walk away from the table knowing in their hearts and with the whole world as a witness that they ‘tried their best’ to accommodate the concerns of the people in Brussels but they just couldn’t strike a deal. (A sort of ‘no fault’ divorce) And Brexit proceeds on a WTO-style basis with a flurry of à la carte agreements signed following March 29, 2019 allowing EU cars to be sold in the UK and UK airlines to operate over continental Europe, for two examples.

In scenario #1: Britain and the Hard Brexiteers get stuck with the bill for about the next century. Maybe longer. ‘Those intransigent Brits! A bloody difficult people they are!’

In scenario #2: Britain gets stuck with the larger part of the bill and in the following years must work incrementally towards the final Brexit arrangements they were originally seeking. ‘Damn, Theresa, couldn’t you do any better? Oh well, we got a Brexit of sorts, you’re forgiven.’

In scenario #3: The EU gets stuck with the bill and the world decrying EU intransigence. And Theresa May *probably* gets re-elected in a landslide.


Summary

The lesson from this story is that when the chips are down and you *must* bring home a win *always* go with the plan that is *guaranteed to work*.

Which in the real world often isn’t the most glorious, most exciting, nor the most popular plan. Unfortunately.

But when a plan works, it’s a win. And beautiful or ugly, if the plan works that’s all that matters.

Written by John Brian Shannon

Will a ‘No Deal’ Brexit Harm UK Manufacturing?

Certain pro-EU commentators paint a picture of either a catastrophic Brexit crash-out (Hard Brexit) or a ‘non-Brexit’ where the UK would retain few of the rights gained by a full Brexit but would still be chained to the responsibilities of EU membership (Soft Brexit) whether via the so-called ‘Norway’ model or the ‘Norway-plus’ model, or via any other model such as the ‘Canada’ model.

Those same commentators excitedly cite potential UK manufacturing job losses in the post-Brexit timeframe even though the UK is primarily a service based economy (80.2% in 2014 and rising) and they forget to factor-in the astonishing changes occurring every day in Britain’s manufacturing sector.


UK Manufacturing = Less Than 10% of GDP

Manufacturing in the UK accounts for less than 10% of GDP (2016) and provides jobs for 3.2 million workers (2016) but a recent PwC report says that by 2030 half of all UK manufacturing jobs could be automated. That’s less than 12-years from now. And it could happen much faster and on a much larger scale than that.

Repeat; Up to half of all UK manufacturing jobs will be lost within 12-years. It’s uncertain whether British workers are aware of these looming changes.

Economic impact of artificial intelligence on the UK economy
The economic impact of artificial intelligence on the UK economy. Image courtesy of PwC. Click on the image to view or download the PDF report.

What’s Great for UK Businesses Won’t be Great for Foreign Workers

In 2018, of the 3.1 million UK manufacturing workers (a stat that falls with each passing year as automation increases) we find that over half of manufacturing workers in the UK are citizens of other countries — primarily from eastern Europe, but also western Europe.

So, expect UK-based eastern European workers to be replaced by automation.

Increasing automation and Artificial Intelligence (AI) will cause UK companies to choose between UK-born workers and eastern European workers, and it’s likely that hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of eastern Europeans will be returning home with plenty of UK coin in their pocket. (And why not, they earned it)

I hope you didn’t expect the UK to lay-off its own British-born workers in order to protect the jobs of eastern European-born workers as automation proceeds, did you? Would EU companies show that level of courtesy to UK workers in the European Union, were the situation reversed?

Profits for UK manufacturing companies are projected to rise significantly as automation and AI become one with the system, while UK-born manufacturing workers should find themselves at 100% employment.

What’s not to like?


UK Manufacturing Job Losses Due to Automation – Not Brexit

If you’re one of the EU elites who fear that hundreds of thousands of eastern European workers in Britain will lose their UK manufacturing jobs due to Brexit you couldn’t be more wrong.

Let’s be perfectly clear; Half of all UK manufacturing jobs will be lost to automation by 2030 — and it won’t be on account of Brexit!


Summary

The narrative that says the UK economy will be severely damaged on account of manufacturing job losses due to a Hard Brexit is a complete and utter fantasy.

Every day from now until 2030, automation and AI will replace eastern European workers, Brexit or no Brexit. Meanwhile, British-born manufacturing workers will find themselves at full employment.

It’s all good!

Written by John Brian Shannon


Related Articles:

  • How will artificial intelligence affect the UK economy? (PwC)
  • The economic impact of artificial intelligence on the UK economy (PwC)
  • What would be the cost to the UK of regulation by a foreign power and major competitor? (BrexitCentral.com)
  • Why the UK Needs a Tax on Job-Stealing Robots (kleef.asia)

Why the UK Needs a Tax on Job-Stealing Robots

Q: Why does the UK need a tax on job-stealing robots?
A: To pay Universal Credit to millions of soon-to-be-replaced workers.

And why do we need Universal Credit in one of the richest countries on the planet?

Because unemployment skyrocketed due to the recession in the 1980’s, it skyrocketed again when millions of UK jobs began to be offshored in 1990, and again when millions of immigrants arrived in Britain looking for work.

And because automation and robotics are about to change the world more than all of the above combined!


Bye Bye UK Jobs (Offshoring)

Since 1990, but beginning in earnest around 2000, UK businesses began outsourcing much of their manufacturing to Asian and non-Asian countries that offer low-cost labour.

This had an immediate and positive effect on company profits in Britain and resulted in just as immediate job losses in the UK as millions of ‘man-hours’ shifted to Asia. Consequently, the unemployment rate shot up, and eventually, many of those formerly employed people ended up on some kind of social assistance, or moved back home to Mom and Dad’s house, or they lived a precarious life staying with friends until they could land a job.

Those who didn’t find a job or who weren’t able to stay at Mom and Dad’s house, or weren’t able to mooch off their circle of friends any longer, ended up homeless; either on social assistance or not.

And as some of you already know unemployment insurance benefits only last for so long.

A sad thing about homelessness is that it causes a dramatic rise in crimes like theft, vandalism, hooliganism and other social ills as the homeless watch those fortunate enough to have a job/a home/a warm bed, etc., and resent their success. It’s not evil you’re seeing, it’s human nature.

You’d feel the same way if your company terminated your employment and by the time you got out looking for work there were millions more job applicants than jobs available.

But for UK companies, offshoring jobs scored a solid 6 out of 10 as a means to improve profit.


Enter, The Immigrant Workforce

Some UK companies decided to hire the immigrant workers that arrived on Britain’s shores by the millions and were willing to work for a lower hourly rate than native Britons.

For many companies, this was an even better solution than offshoring jobs which sometimes resulted in questionable quality or problems related to timely delivery of products that were produced offshore and then shipped to Britain.

Some British companies were able to lay-off hundreds of workers on a Friday and have their immigrant counterparts start work on the following Monday without skipping a beat. Of course, there may have been language barriers or quality control issues at first, but on the main cutting their labour costs by one-half (or more) worked wonders for profitability, if not always productivity.

For UK companies, hiring low-cost immigrant workers, probably scores around 8 out of 10 as a means to improve profit.


Rise of the Machines (Job-Stealing Robots)

In the corporate world, the quest to lower costs and increase profits never fades.

That is why cars replaced horses, ships were fitted with powerful engines instead of sails, it’s why jobs were (and still are) offshored to countries that can manufacture items at the lowest cost, and it’s why jobs were taken from British workers and given to low-cost immigrant workers in the UK.

But the big daddy of them all is just around the corner as human workers are replaced by machines.

For companies, this cost savings/quality improvement represents the greatest business opportunity to arise since the Neolithic Period when Trog first sold Grok a bag of salt he’d dug out of the ground.


Once Human Labour Becomes Redundant, Then What?

In robotized factories, labour costs are almost microscopic when compared to the other costs of doing business. Quality can improve by orders of magnitude and companies can devote even more time, money, and effort to sales and marketing to keep all those machines busy 24-hours per day, 365-days per year, without sick days, arguments with superiors, or paid holidays.

Almost any job can be done by robots, even policing can be done via millions of cameras set up around the country and monitored by small groups of people in a control room hundreds of miles away. In the case of a stolen car for example, as soon as the theft is reported to a website, the website programme can then steer the stolen vehicle to the side of the road and shut off the engine, and an automated tow truck could go out to recover the vehicle. We’re almost there now…

And robots never go on strike for better wages.

Companies that replace most of their workers with automation represent the best way yet to improve build quality, to lower costs, to operate 24-hour production runs that last 365-days of the year, and to increase profits.

Hey, who needs a large Human Resources department when only 5 employees work in a 5 million square foot factory and all executive positions are hired via a points-based website?

For UK companies, hiring robots scores a perfect 10 out of 10 as a means to improve profit.


Almost HALF of all U.S. Jobs Lost to Automation by 2033 (PwC Report)

This is a lot closer to happening than most people think.

“A 2017 report from PricewaterhouseCooper predicted that 30 percent of jobs across the nation will be automated in the next 15 years.

Predictions for outside of the U.K. aren’t any better. In the U.S., job loss estimates range from 33 percent of jobs by 2030 to 47 percent of jobs by 2033. Around 137 million workers in Southeast Asia could lose their jobs to automation within the same period.” — Futurism.com


Shall We Prepare For That Eventuality or Wait for Something Magical to Happen?

Waiting until then to do something about it isn’t responsible leadership. Neither is hoping that something magical will occur to solve our self-made problems.

If the 1% own all the automated factories and services but nobody except the kids of the 1%’ers have jobs, to whom will those companies sell their goods?

As more and more people are replaced by machines and as their unemployment insurance runs out and as fewer and fewer humans are required to operate a company, more and more people will find themselves on Universal Credit in the UK — so we better start NOW to make it sustainable!

The benefits for companies to automate are such that automation is coming no matter what, therefore, taxing job-stealing robots to support people on Universal Credit is the only relevant option.

Yes, the Protestant work ethic; A truly great thing.

But if machines are doing all the work, humans will become largely redundant insofar as work is concerned and companies will still need people to purchase their wares — otherwise what’s the point of all that automation?


Avoiding a Societal Crash Bigger Than the 1929 Stock Market Implosion

It’s almost too late to address this looming crash. But if politicians got energized this societal catastrophe could be managed, if not quite averted.

Automation WILL happen, it’s not something that can be ignored. Change is coming. And we’d better be ready.

For now, it’s a relatively simple fix;

Theresa May’s government needs to increase Universal Credit payments to (the anti-poverty standard metric of) £1088 per month, to include full medical and dental coverage, and provide full prescription medicine coverage — with no barriers to enter the Universal Credit system other than applicants must be adults who reside in the UK and earn less than £1088 per month.

This monthly amount and the healthcare benefits that go along with Universal Credit should also automatically apply to the country’s senior citizens to ‘top-up’ their pension to that amount, if they report less than £13,056 (from all sources) on their annual tax return.

In this way, every automated vegetable farm can sell its produce, every automated dairy can sell its milk, every rancher can raise their livestock, and every automated delivery company can get paid for their investment in all that amazing technology, because, well, at the end of the day, people need to eat and producers need to get paid.

And the UK can pay for it all without changing the existing tax regime other than adding a 5% tax on the daily output of every robot and automated system in the country.

Will companies go for it? You know they will.


How to Pay For It

Once people see they can exist without starving to death courtesy of their £1088 per month+benefits, people may decide they can earn a (taxable) living from their own home-based business — hand-painting landscapes on canvas, or running (taxable) Airbnb accommodations from their home, or becoming a (taxpaying) tour guide. Who knows. But artists, lodgers, public speakers, or those who create anything desirable or those who sing or play a musical instrument (well) may become well-rewarded for their unique and creative talents and pay taxes once again.

A 5% tax on robots and other automation devices or systems that work 24-hours per day, 7-days per week, 365-days per year without labour strife, without complicated accounting, without employer contributions to pension plans etc., without sick days and so much more — or pay a number of humans to fulfill that task?

It’s really a no-brainer. Humans can’t begin to compete with automation. What matters is keeping all those consumers alive and purchasing which after all, is what makes the economy function.

Companies will make so much more profit they won’t mind paying a 5% tax on the daily output of every robot and other automated device. Quality will improve, production and productivity will go through the roof, and companies and countries that get on it first will find the largest possible benefit.

Here’s to automation and to artistic endeavors!

Written by John Brian Shannon


Want to get up to date on Brexit? Click Here.