RUSSIA TODAY-71

Many people believe the United States has serious problems and they are not mistaken. However, I could ask compared to what? Here is a country that is clearly in greater peril than the USA. Below is a credible scenario supported by FACTS. I sent this to a long time friend of mine now living in London. We worked together for several years at Mobil Oil. He is a PhD in geology (now retired) who grew up in Leningrad, worked in the Soviet Union, and came to the USA in the middle 1980's. He agrees with what I have presented here, but hopes he does not live long enough to actually see the collapse of motherland Russia: Are you familiar with a man named Ilan Berman? He is Vice-President of an organization called the American Foreign Policy Council and an author of a recent book – Implosion: The End of Russia and What it Means for America. I heard him discuss his book over the weekend. He was born in this country and has made many trips to Russia. His parents were “Refuseniks” (otka3hnk). Berman talks about three intersecting trend lines that are difficult for the Russian government to deal with individually and taken together eventually will be catastrophic for the country. The first trend line is demographics: Berman says that Russia is dying. The replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. As you know there are many countries in Europe with a lower fertility rate (F.R.) than that and Russia is one of the lowest at 1.6. In the last 8 months or so there has been an uptick in the F.R., but demographers say that is not at all unusual and the trend is clearly negative. There are other reasons for Russia’s declining population. Through natural death and emigration Russia is losing ½ million people per year. Currently the population is 142.9 million with a projected population of 107 million by 2050. The male life expectancy is 60 years – the same as Madagascar. The female life expectancy is 73 years – the same as Saudi Arabia. Russia experienced no “peace dividend” as did the United States after the end of the Cold War. The spending in Russia on health services is the same as it was in the mid 1990’s. These are all United Nations statistics. There has been a collapse of the family after the end of the Cold War. Previously the family was the glue that held people together even if not everyone in the extended family liked each other. Russia has the highest divorce rate in Europe and 60% of the divorces end in the 1st decade of marriage causing fewer multi-children families. Even during the Cold War abortion was high and was the main method of birth control. It is even higher now with an official estimate of 1.2 million abortions/yr. According to some medical people outside of the government that number may actually be twice as large. Therefore abortion may be approaching 2% of the population/yr. The Russia government admits there is an epidemic of AIDS in the Russian population with 1% being HIV positive and is fueled by drug use. Worldwide 1/5 of heroin consumption is in Russia and 1/3 of drug users are HIV positive. The population is fleeing. The pace of the exodus rivals that at the time of the breakup of the Soviet Union. Of Russians in general 1/5 want to emigrate and fully 40% of young people in the 18 – 35 age bracket want to leave. The 2nd trend line is that Russia is transforming: The Muslim population in Russia is currently about 15% or 21 million. It is projected to be close to 20% by the end of this decade and 50% by the middle of the century. The same maladies that plague non-Muslim Russians are significantly less in the Muslim population: i.e., lower rates of abortion, divorce, drug use, AIDS & HIV, and a higher fertility rate. And more like Western Europe rather than the USA, these Muslims are not well integrated into Russian society. Everyone has heard of the problems the Russian government has had with Muslim extremists in the North Caucasus, and in particular in Chechnya and Dagestan. This problem and this area are not in the world’s headlines as much now as previously. That does not mean that the trouble has abated; on the contrary it has migrated into the Russian heartland. Recently in the capital city of Kazan in Tatarstan two Muslim clerics were assassinated for not being radical enough. Rather than having the problem under control, the Russian government may have to face several Chechnya’s in the future. The third trend line: the Chinese are coming. The Russia Far East is huge; it is 4 million sq. miles. Berman says in the Soviet Union his parents were told where to live, as were tens of millions of other people. Now people are essentially free to migrate wherever they chose and they chose NOT to live in the Far East of Russia. In Western Siberia and the Far East there are 25+ million people, that works out to about 6 people / sq. mi. – not exactly the population density of Hong Kong. The Eastern part of Russia is an energy super area, especially for oil & natural gas, as well as exploitable for many mineral deposits so it does matter. The Chinese are making large financial investments there and increasingly so. Clearly the Chinese government sees this as an important area in their future. The airline distance from Moscow to Vladivostok is 4000 miles. The distance from Beijing to Vladivostok is 830 miles or almost five times closer. This land has been disputed between Russia and China for centuries. In 2001 there was a treaty concerning this area signed by Russia and China. The Russians wanted the agreement to have a long term “sunset” clause thereby extending the treaty well into the future. The Chinese said no, let’s have a 20 year length. The Chinese figured the demographics would change in their favor and they could then be bargaining from a stronger position. Clever those Chinese. Vladimir Putin seems to think only in the short term. He has a close circle of followers who engage in massive corruption, kickbacks, and graft. Putin used to give lip service to “managed democracy”, but does not even bother with that now. For Russia to fundamentally change that system would have to go and there is not the least chance of that happening. Putin has described the collapse of the Soviet Union as one of the greatest calamities of the 20th century. And both Bush and Obama thought they could do business with him? What is the operative word here: naive or stupid? Putin may very well have achieved recent international success with his handling of Syria and Iran vis-à-vis the USA, but it could also be interpreted as drawing attention away from the internal problems of Russia. Not much is likely to change in Russia in the next few years, however the real challenge for the USA in the next 20 to 30 years will be dealing with the weakness not the strength of Russia. And a still nuclear-armed Russia may look westward and attempt to again gain hegemony over Eastern Europe.

BIG SPENDING POLITICOS-70

In these troubling financial times will the American public become increasingly aware of the unprecedented (with the possible exception of WWII where the survival of the nation was at stake) expansion and expense of the federal government? According to Republicans, they are the party of smaller, more efficient government with concomitant lower federal taxes and lower expenditures while the Democrats are the party of big, expensive government and high taxes. Does that scenario stand up to scrutiny? I tell you what – let’s do something novel and exegetically look at some pertinent data then attempt to arrive at a conclusion. D’accord? As I have shown previously in a blog essay (THE USA SPENDING & DEBT PROBLEM), here are the increases of the national debt during the terms of recent presidents: Ronald Reagan $1 ¾ trillion in 8 years G.H.W. Bush $1.5 trillion in 4 years Bill Clinton $1.5 trillion in 8 years G.W. Bush $4.9 trillion in 8 years Barack Obama $6.0 trillion in 4 years For a historical perspective let’s look at the national debt over the centuries. In analyzing this type of data over a long time span the logical and legitimate method is by using inflation adjusted dollars. Here then are some inflation adjusted (2012 dollars) figures down through the centuries and decades. I will follow up with an analytical commentary: YEAR DEBT YEAR DEBT 1791 $1.8 billion 1940 $704 billion 1801 $1.5 billion 1946 $3.2 trillion 1811 $842 million 1949 $2.4 trillion 1821 $1.8 billion 1957 $2.2 trillion 1831 $1.0 billion 1975 $2.3 trillion 1835 $0.0* 1980 $2.5 trillion 1843 $1.0 billion** 1986 $4.4 trillion 1851 $2.0 billion 1987 $4.8 trillion 1861 $2.4 billion 1990 $5.7 trillion 1866 $40 billion 2000 $7.6 trillion 1888 $41 billion 2003 $8.5 trillion 1900 $58 billion 2009 $12.7 trillion 1919 $365 billion 2010 $14.3 trillion 1930 $222 billion 2013 $16.8 trillion *President Andrew Jackson paid off the debt – the only time in USA history where the country had no debt. ** At the end of the financial Panic of 1837 – 1843 the national debt had increased to the 1831 level. Everyone can draw their own conclusions concerning these numbers, however I will mention a few factors I find significant: (1.) When considering the absolute size of the debt through time it has to be remembered that the economy of the country grew tremendously. Therefore the sustainability of the debt has to be considered in light of the ratio of the debt to the gross domestic product (GDP) of the country at the time. Nevertheless, there has been a real increase in the debt over the centuries. (2.) Even a casual reading of the numbers reveals that only in the last four decades or so has there been a monotonic increase in the debt. (3.) The periods of war (1861-1866 Civil War; 1900-1919 WWI; 1940-1946 WWII) reflect a sharp increase in the debt as the federal government borrowed and spent money to carry on its wars. The Great Depression also saw a large increase in the national debt, going from $222 billion in 1930 to $704 billion in 1940. In the 47 years following the end of the Civil War there were 36 years of surpluses and 11 years of deficits. During this period 55% of the national debt was paid off. As a rough proxy for the GDP, the USA population over the years is as follows: 1791 (4 million); 1860 (31 ½) million; 1915 (100 million); 1940 (132 million); 1968 (200 million); 2006 (300 million); and today circa 315 million. Using the past population of the country as a ratio to the current population and multiplying this ratio to the debt at that time gives an idea of the comparative debt then to now. E.g., in 1791 the population was 4 million, so multiplying the 1791 debt ($1.8 billion) by the ration of 315 million (current population) over 4 million gives an adjusted 1791 debt of $142 billion. This is a far cry from our current national debt of $16.8 trillion. In truth, using population as a measure for the country’s GDP is an imprecise method for comparing the size of the debt relative to its productivity at various times in the history of the country. The increase in the country’s GDP owing to its increased mechanization in the gathering of resources, production of goods and services, and distribution of its products will clearly outstrip the mere in crease in the population of the country. Yet recovering valid GDP data beyond more recent times is also problematic. Perhaps one can say, without being overly precise, that by any measure, the debt to GDP ration has increased over time; especially in the last four decades or so. For the first time in the history of our country, federal spending exceeded $1 trillion in fiscal year 1987 ($1.004 T). The president at that time was Ronald Reagan – who, if I am not mistaken, was a Republican. For the first time in history, federal spending exceeded $2 trillion in fiscal year 2003 ($2.011 T). The president at that time was G.H.W. Bush – who, if I am not mistaken, was a Republican. For the first time in history, federal spending exceeded $3 trillion in fiscal year 2007 ($3.107 T). The president at that time was G.W. Bush – who, if I am not mistaken, was a Republican. The increase in federal spending from 1987 to early 2013 is astronomical. Barack Obama is on tract to break this Republican trend by being the first (Democrat) president to preside over federal spending exceeding $4 trillion. And given the size of the national debt increase during his administration, his is by far the biggest spending federal government in history. Democrats have lived up to their reputation as high tax and spend politicos and Republicans have shown that they are not pikers when it comes to spending the people’s money either. Currently the federal budget is approx. $3.8 trillion. From $1 trillion in 1987 to almost $4 trillion in 2013, even though not corrected for inflation, this is such an explosive expansion in federal government spending that everyone from left wing Democrats to right wing Republicans should not only be alarmed, but be prepared to vote for politicians who will promise and then act on reversing this ruinous trend. Think about it: What are the odds that corrective action will be taken? I am not sanguine that it will happen before the country undergoes a severe financial depression with serious social unrest. Can anyone envision Democrats and Republicans stopping to blame the other party for the country’s troubles long enough to agree on a solution that will save the country any time soon? Based on recent history it is beyond my imagination.

OUR WEIGHTY COUNTRY-69

According to a program of studies designed and implemented with the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 69% (approximately 160 million) of adult Americans are overweight. This is defined as having a Body Mass Index (BMI) of greater than 25. The BMI is calculated by the formula: BMI = mass (kg.) / (height (m.)) sq. or mass (lbs.) / (height (in.)) sq. x 703. An obese person has a BMI > 30 (36% of adults) and a person classified as extremely obese has a BMI > 40 (6%). The obesity rate in this country has doubled since the 1970’s. It is true there is no accounting in the survey of factors such as the size of an individual’s frame and their musculature to the extent that one person may be classified as a bit overweight, while another person is not considered overweight. However, when considering those factors the reverse could actually be true. Still, these are averages that are definitive overall. I can personally attest to this massive (so to speak) change in the heft of the American people. In a 1939 extended family photo of 38 people (I was the cute little tyke in the front row) one woman could be described as fat (obese) and two as “chubby” (overweight); that is all. The rest of us were not overweight. There is a hypothesis that during the Great Depression being poor meant being thin while now, owing to the abundance of cheap, but high caloric fast food, being poor means being overweight. There may be some validity to that, however I also believe being overweight means putting on the feedbag too often. Clearly there seems to be a more widespread (again, so to speak) tendency for a lack of discipline pervading the American population to a greater extent now than in the past. As with other excesses, this also applies to eating. A further breakdown of the weight situation of American adults by gender and race is given below: OVERWEIGHT OBESE EXTREMELY OBESE White Males 74% 36% 4% Black Males 70% 39% 7% Hispanic Males 82% 37% 4% White Females 60% 32% 7% Black Females 82% 59% 18% Hispanic Females 76% 41% 6% In 2012 I briskly walked 760 miles in segments from 2 to 5 miles that is the equivalent in distance of walking from Plano to Texarkana and back, twice. That seems like a lot, yet it is only circa 15 miles/week for 50 weeks. At a walking rate of 15 minutes/mile I thereby burned approx. 54,720 Kcals (190 hrs. @ 288 Kcals/hr.). The classical definition of a calorie is the amount of energy it takes to heat one gram (one cubic centimeter or 1/1000 of a liter) of water one degree Celsius. The calorie associated with weight loss/gain is really 1000 calories (commonly referred to as a Kcal or the amount of energy it takes to heat one kilogram, 1000 cc, or one liter of water one degree Celsius). There are approx. 3600 Kcals burned per pound of weight loss, therefore I lost about 15 lb. (only!) of weight for one year’s worth of walking (calories continue to be burned for a while after exercise stops so I may be understating the weight loss a bit). Look at it in the long term. By walking 50 weeks per year at the same distance/week the weight loss would be at least 15 lbs. and over 5 years, everything being the same, it would amount to 75 lbs. or a bit more (270,000+ Kcals). Of course everything would not be the same, nor would I want it to be else I would look like an inmate in the Civil War Andersonville military prison camp. Ironically, my exercise regimen means that I have to eat more than I would otherwise just to keep from expiring. Now for the amusing part of this essay which I extracted from my 2007 blog essay, Fools, Frauds, and Fakes and applied it to the weight problem of myriad Americans with a story as told by Jack Cashill in his 2005 book Hoodwinked: How Intellectual Huckstered Have Hijacked American Culture. Paul Ehrlich was not a fraud or a liar. He was a good old-fashioned fool and fanatic who sincerely believed all of the folderol he espoused. His exegetic antagonist would be a man named Julian Simon. Ehrlich wrote a number of best selling books – the two most famous were The Population Bomb in 1968 and The Population Explosion in 1991. Among the crack pot predictions he made were: “By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people [this writer’s note: the current world population is 7+ billion].” He predicted that by 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 years because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million [the current USA population is about 315 million]. He envisioned the president of the USA dissolving congress during the food riots of the 1980’s, followed by the United States suffering a nuclear attack for its mass use of insecticides. Jack Cashill opined that Ehrlich was postulating that the United States would get nuked for killing bugs! In his 1968 book Ehrlich’s most optimistic outcome for the world in the next decade or so was that a new Pope would give his blessing for abortion and only half a billion people would die of starvation. The most pessimistic prediction was that worldwide famine would cause a nuclear war and the most intelligent survivors would be cockroaches. And you may have thought I was grossly exaggerating when I intimated this guy was a real nut case. But don’t think he was some obscure ‘mad as a hatter’ recluse writing out of his basement in his B.V.D.’s. His book The Population Bomb sold 3 million copies and he made 20 appearances on the Johnny Carson show alone. Ehrlich helped push the Sierra Club and Greenpeace to even more leftwing radical positions – which is like encouraging an alcoholic to belly up to the bar more often; and he was, surprise, a founding father of Earth Day. The left just loved him, tendentiously supporting him and his risible theories, ipse dixit. He was awarded a $345,000 MacArthur Foundation grant and the Crawford Prize from the Swedish Academy of Sciences, the Nobel equivalent for environmentalists. Jack Cashill says about him, “In his naturalist faith, and rejection of God, Ehrlich hews to type. Giving Ehrlich the benefit of doubt, his is not the conscious fraud of the Bunco artist, but rather the self-deception of the blowhard. He appears to have drunk often at the well of his own snake oil.” Julian Simon became increasingly tired of hearing Ehrlich’s twin themes of population increase disasters and acute shortages of natural resources so he decided to challenge Ehrlich. Simon attended Harvard on a naval ROTC scholarship and served as a junior officer after graduation until the completion of his tour of duty. He received a Ph.D. in business administration from the University of Chicago and then returned to New York to work in direct marketing. Not finding that line of work fulfilling, he went to the University of Maryland as a professor of business administration until he died in 1998. Simon made a famous bet with Ehrlich. He told Ehrlich to pick any five commodities and hold them for ten years. If scarcity caused the prices to rise at the end of ten years, then Simon would buy then from Ehrlich thereby giving Ehrlich the profit difference. However if the prices declined then Ehrlich would have to pay Simon the difference between the current price and what Ehrlich purchased them for. Ehrlich picked chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Not only did the prices decline on all five commodities, but of 35 standard metals 33 dropped in price as did oil and food. Ehrlich paid Simon $570.07 and he paid himself much more in lost reputation. Ehrlich allowed as how the bet might have been a mistake – he could have laid long odds that it was. Simon also had a thing or two to say about Al Gore’s book Earth in the Lurch (well, perhaps the actual title is Earth in the Balance). Simon said, “The book is as ignorant a collection of clichés as anything ever published on the subject.” And he exposed the clichés of vanishing farmland, poisonous DDT, deadly dioxin, and lethal Agent Orange with hard and undeniable data. Al Gore never tried to answer Simon anymore than he tried to justify calling the internal-combustion engine the most destructive invention of man in history. To this day some on the paralogistic left still support Ehrlich in his long ago discredited chimerical theories and Ehrlich himself said just last year that refutation of his predictions is like the man falling from a building who has not yet reached the ground and stating all is well. If Ehrlich were alive 100 years from now he would likely still dispositively be saying, you just wait and see, the world is about to end – et c’est definitif.