Why Not Another Manhattan Project?

Whenever Doom and Gloomers start talking about how bad things are in America, the question always arises: Why not just pull another Manhattan Project to solve it? Whatever "it" is.  The idea being that any existential crisis for America could be met by an all-out effort of the magnitude of the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Moon Project, both being seen in their days as solving the existential crises of their day.

The differences I see between conditions in the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's and those today revolve around resources, specifically petroleum (energy) and strategic minerals (materials). America no longer has cheap, plentiful quantities of oil, iron, chromium, manganese, cobalt, platinum and others. The US is 100% dependent on foreign suppliers for 17 minerals and more than 50% dependent for another 24. Some examples include:

Element	Percent Dependent	Uses	Source Countries
Arsenic	100	Semiconductors: Gallium Arsenide	Monoco,China,Belgium
Bauxite	100	Principle ore of aluminum	Jamaica,Brazil,Guinea,Australia
Cesium	100	Photoelectron cells, catalyst	Canada
Indium	100	Semiconductors: Indium arsenide	China,Canada,Japan,Belgium
Strontium	100	Specialty glass, Ferrite ceramic magnets	Mexico,Germany,China
Thorium	100	Heat resistant ceramics, potential nuclear reactor fuel (LFTR)	India,France
Gallium	99	Semiconductors: Gallium arsenide, solar panels	Germany,United Kingdom,china,Canada
Vanadium	96	Steel and titanium alloys, catalyst in production of H2SO4	Republic of Korea,Austria,Canada,Czech Republic
Bismuth	92	Medicine, cosmetics, low-melting alloys	China,Belgium,United Kingdom
Platinum	91	Catalyst, jewelry, Platinum-Cobalt magnets	Germany,South Africa,United Kingdom,Canada
Germanium	90	Semiconductors, catalyst, anti-microbial	China,Belgium,Germany,Russia
Iodine	88	Disinfectant, essential nutrient, catalyst, photography	Chile,Japan

On May 10, 1940, when Germany ended the "phony war" and attacked the west through Holland and Belgium, America had less than a 6 months supply of rubber. More than 90% of America's rubber came from the Dutch East Indies, and this supply was in jeopardy. America responded with the formation of a Corporation to purchase at least a year's supply of rubber, the building of synthetic-rubber plants, and an effort to bring into production new sources of natural rubber in South America.

This type of response, the "market-driven" one, holds that increased needs will lead to increased supply. It also helps to reinforce the traditional lore of "Yankee Ingenuity", the concept that Americans are a bit smarter than others and can always invent their way out of a crisis.

American Business

Remember these sayings: "The business of America is business"and "What's good for General Motors is good for America"? There was a time when America and Americans prospered when business prospered. That time is long gone. America prospered when business prospered because American businesses produced goods and services that Americans wanted and needed at a fair price, paying good and decent wages. General Motors existed to make cars, and paid great salaries, which allowed its workers to join the middle class. General Electric (GE) manufactured electrical equipment. Banks and Savings and Loans offered bank accounts and mortgages so that Americans could save and buy homes. As these companies prospered so too the towns and cities they were located prospered as the people that worked for them prospered. But sometime between the '70s and the '90s, the business of American Business became the pursuit of profit, rather than to produce goods and services. GE became a finance corp, rather than a manufacturer. GM made cars, rather than a maker of car loans. Banks, well, there used to be Glass-Steagall. Look back to the period 1890 - 1930. This was the gilded era, the age of trusts, the time when businesses were operated to maximize profits and a tiny elite received the vast majority of the wealth at the expense of the many. The economy cycled through boom and bust. Then came the Progressive movement. Theodore Roosevelt broke some trusts. The excesses of the 20's and the Great Depression led to the New Deal, which may or may not have ended the Great Depression. Ultimately, only the spending on World War II and the investments of the American People (remember War Bonds) stimulated the recovery from that economic slump. After World War II, American Government, Businesses and the American People worked together in a sort of partnership where everyone prospered. The middle class grew. More people owned houses. American Businesses prospered. There was something for everyone. But the '40s, '50s, and '60s were boring for some. A few felt that businesses didn't have enough power, didn't make enough profit. Richard Nixon, that liberal president, was making laws and regulations that some business men didn't like. Lewis Powell, the future Supreme Court Justice, wrote a memo saying that such regulations were destroying the free market system. This was the start of the revolt of the businesses that became a landslide towards the deregulation movement that led to the Great Recession, the fracture of the partnership between the American Middle Class, Government and Business, and the turn towards Ultimate Profit as the ultimate objective. The current imbalance, the inequality of wealth, the top 0.1% taking 90% of the wealth, can only last so long. It is basically incompatible with the concepts of American Freedom. Either the 99% will seek some form of revolution, or the elites will permanently destroy American Freedoms to ensure that they continue to extract the wealth they expect. The implicit bargain of the American Dream has always been that the rich elites can be rich so long as the average man has a chance, some potential, of joining them. Once the 99% wake up and realize that they no longer have upward mobility, that they have no chance of making it, they will revolt. Last weekend I watched "Siege on Wall Street". For those who haven't seen it, here's a plot summary. An ex-Army security guard is struggling to pay for his wife's cancer treatments. He invests his savings on Wall Street, where his broker invests in real estate. The Great Recession hits, and his investments go under water just when he needs to liquidate to pay for his wife's treatments. He is called to put up $60k, which he doesn't have, because he has maxed his credit cards paying the pharmacy co-pays. He hires an attorney to file an injunction against the brokerage firm, but the attorney doesn't file in time. The bank starts foreclosure. When his wife finds out the situation, she feels so guilty that she commits suicide. Devastated, out hero hauls out his old M-16 and takes on Wall Street. "Siege on Wall Street" taps into the frustration from the Great Recession and the resulting bail-outs that caused the American taxpayers to pay for the excesses of Wall Street, and which did little for all the victims on Main Street. It's the common man's wet dream of revenge for the pain which didn't seem to be shared by the players that caused the problem. In the movie, our hero's broker expresses his shared pain: The broker's wife is outraged that they can't vacation in Bermuda that year. The broker shows little remorse that our hero has lost his wife. Ultimately, our hero gains satisfaction with his assault weapon. Setting aside Hollywood fantasy, the real danger to America is the loss of democracy. All that excess wealth winds up bending Washington towards perpetuating the status quo. What is conservatism but preservation of the status quo? The Occupy Wall Street movement may have been put down, but how long will it stay down? And how much spending on security will be necessary when the 99% decide they have no chance?

A Tale of Two Countries

Here in America where history is taken to be a most boring subject we tend to think our country and its wonderful freedoms developed spontaneously around the time of the tea party. Likewise, we look at Mexico and see a land of violence, drugs and corruption with limited freedoms. Without remembering a little bit of history, it's hard to understand how our two neighboring countries developed the way they did. It is important, since if you look at any two border towns sitting side by side you will find stark differences in infant mortality, income, political determination, longevity, and yes, to quote Donald Trump, individual determination. Why? My guess it's largely due to political differences, and that has a warning for both our countries.

Mexico, until recently, was run by the elites, and organized for the elites. The common man had little political determination (you can vote for anyone so long as they are PRI) and the system was set up to allow maximum exploitation for the good of the elites. The US, by comparison, gave much more freedom to everyone and allowed the common man a say in who was in charge. What is interesting, and what most everyone forgets (or never learned) is that both Mexico and America started out exactly the same way.

Both Mexico and the US were founded by European powers intent on extracting the maximum of wealth from the new continent for the good of the ruling elite at the expense of the new colonists and native people. Remember Cortez and his galleons? The Spanish colonies Mexico, Central and South America, enslaved the natives, set (a few of) the colonists as ruling powers, and extracted everything, gold, silver, crops, they could. England tried exactly the same in America. Remember Pocahontas saving John Smith? Smith was out amongst the natives because Powhatan wouldn't come into the Virginia colony, and Smith was trying to coerce him into coming by for a visit. The English were trying to copy the Spanish practice of capturing the local chief and holding him for ransom to extract all the resources of the natives. Cortez would capture the local chief and ransom him for a room full of gold and two of silver, but he would never let the chief free until all the people were enslaved. Fortunately, the natives of North America were a bit more wary, and the technique never worked.

So instead, the ruling elite of the English colonies forced the settlers into indentured servitude. If the natives couldn't be harnessed to create wealth, the common man would have to do. With an entire continent to disappear into, the prospect of years of slavery paled in comparison. We forget that in the Virginia colony, the penalty for giving resources to the natives, or running away to live off the land like the natives, was death. Again fortunately, there was a lot of land to disappear into, and the whole operation failed. And that was what set the stage for American colonies that operated for the benefit of everyone, not just the elites.

So perhaps if the Spaniards had not been so successful in their methods, or if the natives had been a bit more resistant, the people of Mexico, Central and South America might have more freedoms and more prosperity.

And it also provides a cautionary tale for America. If the trends of concentrating wealth in the hands of the elite continue, and if those elites continue to shape our government to suit their purposes, the ultimate end will probably be a decline in wealth, health, and well being for all.

Waiting on the Doctor

I have a high intolerance of waiting for physicians. First, I studied medicine at the UTHSC in San Antonio but decided not to practice, so I have spent some time in the medical community and find nothing special about it that would make their time more valuable than mine. Second, I work as an IT consultant and bill by the hour, so my time is valuable (also). Physicians are some of the most backward people, technologically speaking. (Some are also the most forward.) 

So when I recently went to see a new physician for the first time, and was told "The Doctor is not out of surgery yet; it will be quite a wait" I was less than thrilled. Some physicians are prone to this: Anesthesiologists that also practice pain management. Ophthalmologists that perform cataract procedures. Surgeons. Urologists. Some are good about segregating their days, but others aren't.

Have you ever had to wait for a physician and been told you had to stay? Or told you will lose your place? 

How hard would it be, in this day of text messages, smartphones and apps, to design a program that would automatically message all the patients to let them know the schedule has been pushed? Seems simple to me. Isn't patient satisfaction a consideration? I have spent a good deal of my life waiting on physicians. I have never, not once, heard an apology for delays. It's as if the business of medicine (which is the primary concern) trumps everything. I would think that it is time that the physicians start acting like businesses and practice some customer care. It might improve their bottom line.

Freedom in the "Free Market"

Not too long ago I was looking for events that I could take my new girlfriend to see. I mentioned an upcoming Jackson Browne concert at Bass Concert Hall in Austin, and it went over well. When I tried to find tickets I found out that the way things work here is that all the concert tickets are snapped up as soon as they go on sale and then re-listed on one of the online ticket exchanges, such as Ticket City or Stubhub.

Having mentioned the show I felt obligated to follow through. I would end up purchasing two $74.00 face tickets at a multiple of the face price. Now, I had the money at the time, I had the girlfriend at the time, everything's cool. Midway to the concert, I no longer have the girlfriend. So, not being that great a fan of Jackson Browne, I decided to look into selling the tickets.

I went to one of the services and started through the listing process. When I hit the pricing page, I found out, through their "help" widget, just where the money was going. On a $74 face ticket, here's the distribution I might see:

Face:	74.00	74.00
Price:	102.35	209.19
Buyer Sees:	125.00	250.00
Payout:	92.11	188.27
Buyer's Fee:	22.65 22.1%	40.81 19.5%
My Fee:	10.24 10.0%	20.92 4.8%
Total Fees:	32.89 32.1%	61.73 29.5%

Damn! Nice work if you can get it! Here's a service that holds no inventory, has very little labor costs, and provides, what? From one side, a valuable service: providing a marketplace that allows buyer and seller to come together safely and efficiently. On the other side, a service that facilitates that which we used to consider both illegal and amoral: ticket scalping.

I always knew I was in the wrong business.

Let's Talk About Nukes

In 2008, President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for advocating the elimination of nuclear weapons. The US and Russia negotiated new treaties and eliminated a substantial number of nuclear warheads, principally their oldest and biggest. A nuclear world is a laudable goal. Alas, it was not meant to be. For a variety of reasons, now, in 2015, the major powers (Russia and China) are modernizing and increasing their nuclear forces, while the smaller powers (Pakistan, India, North Korea and Iran) are increasing their stockpiles or working towards that goal, while many non-nuclear countries (for example, Saudia Arabia and South Korea) are thinking seriously of joining the club. The US has relied on nukes for 70 years. Immediately after World War II, people in the US were tired of fighting, tired of sacrificing, and the notion of maintaining large, standing armed forces to deter the USSR in Europe was an anathema. Despite misgivings, the atomic bomb at first and the hydrogen bomb later fit with America's predilection for overwhelming firepower and superior technology. The USSR kept between 2.8 and 5.3 million men under arms, while the US demobilized to less than a million (from >8 million at the peak of WWII). At its peak, the USSR had over 500 infantry divisions and 50 tank divisions, while the US peaked at 90 infantry and 16 tank divisions. To keep the USSR out of Western Europe, the US gambled on nuclear deterrence, and won. At the end of the cold war, the idea of decreasing or eliminating nuclear weapons grew attractive. There is precedence for attempting to ban classes of weapons, as the world's experience with chemical weapons after WWI shows. The dual issues of nuclear proliferation and nuclear winter were much better understood in the 1990's, and mayny former nuclear proponents, such as Sam Nunn, came out in favor of eliminating them to prevent the spread of nukes to non-nuclear states and/or terrorists. Fast forward to 2015, and we see a new interest in nuclear weapons in almost every country except the US. And while the world would might be a better place without nukes, it doesn't appear that the US can make that happen all alone. Instead, we should consider modernizing out forces to maintain parity with the other major world powers. In fact, US nuclear forces have become dangerously outdated and underfunded. This is remarkable, because nuclear weapons are much cheaper to procure than conventional forces. President Eisenhower relied on the "better bang for the buck" throughout his term to deter the USSR while allowing the domestic economy to grow and prosper. While there is a tendency to regard nuclear weapons expenses as wasted money (after all, we'll never use them, right?) the benefits of deterring our enemies is money well spent. In addition, while we can afford to make mistakes with conventional weapons, the price of a mistake when dealing with nukes is much greater. We really can't afford to not maintain our nuclear forces, especially since China and Russia are modernizing their. It is unfortunate in the extreme that we must rely on nuclear weapons to keep the US safe. It is unfortunate that we have to lock the doors of our homes and cars. It is unfortunate that we have to take precautions against terrorists. But we can't afford to see the world the way we wish it to be, as opposed to the way it is today. Seventy years after the creation of nuclear weapons by the US, we still exist as a country in part due to the existence of these weapons, and we will probably continue to do so for the foreseeable future.