In yesterday’s posting, we looked at a few things Putin might have overlooked in his ongoing — since 2014 — invasion of Ukraine. Of course, there are things that a number of pundits in Europe and the United States are overlooking as they (with great sorrow, of course) declare that if Putin wants to take over Ukraine, or even a little bit here, a trifle there, until he has the whole thing in his new empire, what concern is it of anyone else?
Terrible for the Ukrainians, of course, but aren’t the Russians justified in marching in to protect all Russian-speaking people and all Slavs, when it comes to that? After all, nobody had a problem with Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938 using the same rationale, and nothing bad came out of that . . . did it? Greater Germany, Greater Russia, what’s the difference?
In any event, most of Europe’s energy needs are being met by Russia, so it’s in everyone’s best interests to give Putin what he wants. Hasn’t appeasement always worked? Just ask Neville Chamberlain and the millions who died in World War II.
|Fort Ross: Russian settlement in California|
Yes, a lot of
people are saying we shouldn't be concerned with what Putin is doing to Ukraine
with his ongoing, eight-year invasion and his insistence that Ukraine is really
part of Russia. They forget that the U.S. also shares a border with
Russia, and that Putin has declared that Alaska properly belongs to Russia.
Should we also mention that Russia had colonies in California, not too far from
San Francisco? Is the west coast of the United States also Russian
In any event, it’s a moot point. Putin has invaded, and the question remains what to do about it. We’re not experts in how to respond militarily, but we do know what would take the wind out of Putin’s sails very quickly economically and politically. The quick and easy answer for President Zalensky is a two-pronged strategy: 1) Immediately institute a global Manhattan Project-type effort to get fusion power commercially viable and take away Russia’s energy leverage. 2) Implement the Economic Democracy Act in Ukraine to nullify Putin’s efforts to undermine the Ukrainian economy.
|Thirty years in the future, or less than ten?|
The experts are saying that we are still thirty years away from commercially viable fusion power. Reading the analysis, however, it appears evident that the real issue is the resources devoted to the effort. Some of the experts claim that with an all-out effort — which can be justified on many grounds — the time necessary can be cut to less than a decade. All that’s needed is money.
. . . and that’s where the Economic Democracy Act comes in.
Current monetary and fiscal dogma says you can’t do anything that requires financing until you either accumulate savings by cutting consumption below what is produced in the past, or you manipulate the money system and redistribute savings by means of inflation from people who aren’t using savings for investment to those who do. This means that if financing sources are tapped out and you don’t dare issue more government to redistribute purchasing power, you are stuck, hence the prediction that commercially viable fusion power must wait thirty years.
|Keynesian economics, morally and economically bankrupt|
That’s the bad news. The good news is that current monetary and fiscal dogma is based on a fallacy that has been proven wrong more times in history than we can count or recount. The fact is that anything of value can be turned into money, and that includes not only past accumulations of unconsumed production, but future increases in production.
In fact, if you’re talking about where to get the financing for something you want to produce in the future, it’s far better to monetize the present value of future production, than use accumulated past savings. The supply of past savings is limited to what was not consumed in the past. The supply of future savings is limited only by can be produced in the future. If you want to finance unlimited power, do you want to use limited financing, or let the project finance itself out of its own — immense — future profits?
|Putin is willing for you to die for him.|
What about the aspirations of people in Ukraine and elsewhere who are so anxious to become Russian that they’re willing to fight to the death (usually other people’s) to do so? Well, if people want to be Russian, they should be allowed to do so . . . but not at the expense of other people or what belongs to them.
Once the Ukrainian economy is on a sound footing with an Economic Democracy Act in full swing, everyone in the country can be given a choice. They can remain in Ukraine or be bought out at fair market value and permitted to go to any country in the world that will have them. Of course, the only things emigrees could take with them would be their money and personal effects — no Ukrainian investments or title to real estate. Financing such a buyout would not be a problem, as money can legitimately be created to purchase anything of value as long as it is not for consumption.
In fact, this program should be carried out even if Putin finds he has overreached himself and his government falls. There is rising discontent in Russia over Putin’s increasingly authoritarian rule — and the Russians, while they will put up with a lot, cannot be pushed forever. The bloodbath of World War I led to the downfall of Tzarist Russia, just as the Chechnyan revolt helped bring Putin to power. Putin is neither immune nor as powerful as he wants others to believe. There is evidence that he is using a created crisis in Ukraine to bolster his own weakening power, and it might not be working as well as he hoped — or at all.