The Supply Chain for Climate Change
Here is why you struggle with weight problems and sugar addiction: Anti-inflationary policies of the early 1990s helped the United States to organize new responsibilities for the global supply chain with a collapsed Soviet Union.
The United States took the opportunity to welcome a v1.5 Rising China into the international world order by shifting manufacturing abroad to China in exchange for a closed-loop monetary policy that kept U.S. consumable goods prices lower than the stagnant wages kept pocketbooks barren. These changes necessitated women (wives, actually) into the workforce to balance multiple geographic forces: latchkey kids, after-school specials, fears of disintegrating marriages? Check. Check. Check. The countervailing forces initiated new risk management strategies into the supply chain (hello bottled water and sugar), even padding the USDA food pyramid with 6–11 services of carbohydrates.
And it worked. It solved a crucial problem that cemented the United States as the global leader of the free world and space above, drew upon a booming economy from a well-leveraged Internet, and radically redrew the world.
Years later hipsters would tell us about their favorite microbrews; then years after that every town in America would have its own microbrew distribution.
The United States is in an unprecedented advantage to take leadership of the next global supply chain, its financial systems, and worldwide security of the agriculture productivity. The programmatic success begins and ends under the unconventional definition of the climate requirements of the Green New Deal but the collaboration of efforts across States and Nations will bring about an era of what was once called American Exceptionalism. This is our mission.
The world is fundamentally different than before, with new advantages and challenges. The leveraged potential of an Internet embedded with AI is the new force for economic advantage. The Moon, and competition with China for the first permanent habitat of mankind on a celestial body, is the driving force of anti-inflationary policy that establishes the world order of the best and the brightest, not the International Space Station. The supply chain needs changes, not just from runaway sugar, but to establish localized dominance over the food security that each country and municipality wants for itself; and, China is still rising out of its crippling mid-century poverty and adding a billion new people to its population. Americans are trapped in an endless cycle of expecting AI to facilitate their media consumption patterns instead of their education capacity, and AI in the hands of monetary elites around the world gives rise to the risk of localized despots. Oh yeah, carbon dioxide. To quote Kevin Costner in Bull Durham: “we’re dealing with a lot of shit, man.”
We’re going to need money, a whole lot of money, and a damn good purpose.
How we got here
Buckle up: the attacks on 9/11 in 2001 broke what might have been called the syndication model of American culture, exported abroad and domestically. Of course media and media capitalism provide critical collaboration functions for the coordination of popular understanding and imagination in the States, and abroad. As the attacks occurred, the nation was working out what the Internet would mean for the existing and new models of coordination and capitalism.
Napster, the wildly popular song sharing platform, was a critical disaster because it black-hole’d the music industry business model, which was in the process of redirecting itself to fill in the gaps of the shifting export industry.
This is why Sean Parker is affiliated with Mark Zuckerberg so significantly. As the United States built up its additional apparatus with respect to its security execution, for the search for terrorists, on the offensive, the company needed to be advised by the kid who had destructed the last media supply chain. The event issued a fundamentally new model of the American security apparatus, in that all of the former models had to be sunset and the transition to the new models could not be built until the social network model had been established and tested. As a result, the United States fed a tremendous amount of money into Internet monitoring at the expense of civil liberties, which necessarily led to that big-eared, funny-named, civil-liberties lawyer becoming our President.
The use of Human Intelligence and traditional forms of Kompromat probably accelerated during earlier times of development and uncertainty, as one of the remaining foreign services programs the United States had outside of media. After President Bill Clinton had began sunsetting our intelligence apparatuses to construct policy and peace for after the fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of multinational diplomatic space institutionalism revitalized its NASA purpose.
This broadens the understanding why the terrorist plots were so devastating and the effects of the terrorism so pronounced for the United States; and, why the seeming under-abundance of caution during that era promulgated us into forever wars: tracking an era of strange, networked financing through small groups in Afghanistan, etc. The strengthened FBI help track down terrorists financial networks which had grown, or not yet been decommissioned, during the previous Presidencies and not been reduced until the terrorist successes.
These background changes probably led to an excessive running wild of the Jeffrey Epstein-style of international networked trade in intelligence and sex work, and its horrors, and its unintended consequences. Within this parable of destruction, recognizing that the 2016 election offered a woman who was the wife of President Bill Clinton and a man immune to sexual scandal and Kompromat who vowed he disavowed Jeffrey Epstein is a kind of proof of this.
Among the critical strategies of the President Trump administration are the err.. uh, prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and creation of the QAnon facilities, with its catchy conspiratorial leanings to #SaveTheChildren, which should be.
These are held in bay by post-Soviet Russia by the infamous Trump pee take, prepared in the infamous yet discombobulated Steele Dossier, which is classic intelligence Kompromat bulk-heading between the actions of the President Trump administration changing the relationship dynamics of intelligence in one axis that guarantees US-Russia relationships remain stabilized on all axes.
This.. uh, insurance, which was gathered years before Trump announced his formal candidacy, after he had become a figure of note, and elevated during the campaigns at strategic times is alarming, and how candidates are built. This helps corroborate his pre-existing relationships and platform offerings in ways the security complex can shape to its secret, dark, necessary, civil needs.
For better or worse, or worse for wear, the Presidency of Mr. Trump included our personal relationships with President Vladimir Putin growing close, so close you could feel the men kissing, and effectively brought to the attention of nearly all Americans the crucial importance to clean up our supply chains.
Human rights violations always have a source. The world has become fully interconnected; political networks stretching tendrils grown over centuries into the vast societies a world over, a stakeholder class of managed growth.
Jeffrey Epstein… died, in August of 2019. While other boys amid the Philadelphia scuffle dreamed of claiming his private islands, and while recognizing what troubles of veracity and corruption already persisted throughout the media, I chose to make a concerted effort to focus on the deficit of leadership that probably resulted in a vulnerable supply chain, and subsequent threats to the networks of abused women which probably defined its purchase in American culture, such as the dirty dealings of L Brands.
I reached out to the one reference point I had in the Defense industry, made through AI and the Aerospace Corporation, and notified him that whatever landscape persisted within the dark webs of defense were likely up for grabs.
The supply chains are best understood as a system of networked relationships the United States engages in with the world, rather than a functional conduit for delivering goods and services to our shores. These relationships serve to monetize and add liquidity to resources each country possesses at any given time. The overwhelming capacity for the United States and China to produce goods and services means that negotiations engage with what we want to do.
Our supply chains are insecure, fundamentally, from a defense point of view.
Money can be made by profiting from the arbitrage of the defense discussion and the public and public political discussion. What sets my ventures apart is that I have constructed relationships through the fiduciary obligations of the former corrupt supply chains which are so valuable for our defense priorities that they remain in place despite their morally destructive origination story.
What we can do is leverage growing national priorities to secure the supply chains for post-war defense risk management, which itself is a critical action that establishes a security posture against war itself, and leverage a broader pan-national agenda of climate defense for expanding the national financial markets to a scale upwards of trillions of dollars such that specific supply lines can be re-oriented towards their peaceful, moral, and normalizing conclusion.
To do this requires some creative re-engineering for modern macro-finance in specific sectors which account for key societal variables which will benefit the new created climate economy on the other side. To do this must also be done without destabilizing other large sectors of the economy which either directly depend on their structural factor or indirectly through hidden non-linearities.
The principal calculus for this supply chain management is risk assessment of the secondary and tertiary inputs of the production sectors of the economy. It is simplistic to boil down the principal components of society to agriculture and the healthy rearing of children, but in a certain fundamental sense this way is the maximum foundation platform that can freely build society on top.
This procedure requires significant changes to the status quo of defending our supply chain through interventional provocation as a matter of political parry and the ever wafting shifts of public interest and political concern. In this way, the shifting platform of defense needs to be operating from the Office of the President so that its operative priorities can be shifted across administrations with continuity. This radically dramatic construction sets the risk posture of the Executive Branch much higher than existing norms, checks, and balances postulate, particularly when considering the drastic benchmarks for climate change which must be met by 2030 and changes to emission which must be resolved entirely by 2040. This procedure also carries my greatest fears, that of the Great Chinese Famine, which is widely regarded the deadliest famine in human history and one of the greatest man-made disasters in human history.
Introducing the Beatles: Warren, Biden, Castro, Sanders
So, recognizing that the supply chains are in the midst of a massive reorganization of human rights, offers us a brief moment to ask what our missionary intent should be within the world. For me, there has never been any question that the United States has only two areas of foreign citizenry worth securing and defending: universal housing and access to food and water.
These may seem reductionist, especially in a world in which brewing conflict and climate discord seem to be the norm; but, they actually represent a shift from traditional thinking that opens more doors for the international human rights and non-profit infrastructure that can peacefully administer its efforts.
For most of the modern post-World Wars era, including the origination of the American suburban sprawl and the institutional American security complex, the leadership of the foreign policy establishment has been focused around food production and food productivity. During the unprecedented worldwide growth of population from 1950s to today, the global policy infrastructure was in such deficit that the solution collided science into production, just as the United States had successfully done to win the second World War. Even reconsidering the massive mobilization efforts for Victory, including building the Eisenhower National Defense Highway System, and structural rebuilding of Europe, the era could be recognized as laying down a conduit of its supply.
The transition away from inflationary politics based around agricultural productivity creates serious and detrimental consequences for the rural farmers of the United States as much as it does for the status quo of the supply chain. This makes the current Republican GOP platform of its proposed constituency agenda very vulnerable to necessary supply chain reform.
The only reliable way of security for the ports of entry to the supply chain is through human intelligence, where agents on the ground fortify shipments.
When this is done equitably across all security and defense agencies without competitive infighting, the Executive Branch may set up a sequence of three critical turning points under its jurisdiction: supply, finance, and agriculture.
The Trump administration appears to have used Covid-19 to try to push through all three transformations within a single administration, in one year.
The expertise of the Democratic establishment will have succeeded in making our national health and election infrastructure suitable for digital innovation.
If the American insurance industries are half as powerful as the GOP and the Republican opposition to ACA say they are, America has new markets open.
To somewhat misquote Dwight Eisenhower, “Every gun that is made…[is] a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”
To somewhat misquote Ben Affleck: “What the hell are we trying to save?”
A New Hope: The United States of America
For better or worse, American capitalism runs on one of two fuels: spending money on goods and services, primarily from those earning wages; and, development of corporate enterprises to spin out government technology.
Which means any time the government needs new technology, the political and defense leadership both need to know how constituencies are affected.
With this top-down approach, the supply chain and its production sectors sparkle with changes sort of like a rotating gemstone in the spotlight: colors appears to shift rapidly and spontaneously from one place to another but the startling unpredictability of the clockwork will have a simple explanation. The choice of leadership is what facets of the economy are prioritized and in what order. The American challenge of this leadership is that democracy requires a low-touch approach to voter persuasion through the Congressional structures. The two-party system dooms America to strange cleavages of partisan priority coalitions and a four-year ambiguity followed by singular election decisions.
At the same time, nothing short of a cultural armada through diplomatics and media representation will be necessary to coordinate the clockwork for those on the ground around the world. Why? Because the world operates within the Fourth Estate, the media, and news these days spread like global wildfire.
There are those who say an ironclad grip of authoritarianism is what America needs to adopt. There are those who say China has pole position and helping its two billion future citizens is a losers’ folly of a managed American decline.
There are those who say the best defense is a strong offense; and to build the weapons of the future is the only way to ensure nobody ever has to use them.
There are those who believe peace consists, very largely, in the fact of desiring it with all one’s soul. There are those who believe wars boost weak economies.
The establishing of priorities for specific industries helps to create a platform the United States can shape into full suites of economic goods which represent the monthly purchasing concerns of the individual citizens. These priorities need to embed innovation or assist technological markets that the security and defense industries need to fulfill political leadership obligations voted on by elected officials. The pace of change needs to be effective enough that the costs to the consumer are consistent with the expenditures of the defense requirements, and the government management needs to be administrated.
Which means the leadership must choose something Americans care about.
Build toys. The best toys. With AI. Baby toys. In the US, to China, to Africa.
Write books. Educational. Teach children how to live in a world with AI.
Build schools. Not too expensive. Mostly online. Export them worldwide.
Train leaders. Online. Serendipitously. Stand out of the way as they work.
Eat local. But keep communities fed. There is enough food to go around.
Build houses. Use robots. We’re going to need them on the Moon.
Meanwhile, what the investment fund will be creating is the support structure for the primary initiatives of Starlight and Academy to ensure that the whole of the American economy grows, supports national defense, and educates.
The strength of the initiatives of Climate Change and Space support this fund.
Coordinating the Foreign Stakeholders
Ryan Reynolds of Mint Mobile and Mike Sievert of T-Mobile both operate networks reliant on the infrastructure of major carriers. What these two services do is broker transactions for surplus bandwidth remaining as the major carriers conduct their transmissions across their networks. Major carriers own their towers; secondary carriers rent surplus when and where the bandwidth becomes available. The latter is much cheaper, at expense to efficiency and latency; the former is a much better investment for assets. The diversity of tiers and cost of cell phone service for consumers depends on this relationship between major carriers and secondary demand buyers, and the frameworks and algorithms for understanding these economic auction were transformative when they were invented. These models of secondary licenses are similar to the relationship of rail carriers, such as how municipally owned New Jersey Transit operates at lower cost by leasing secondary to Amtrak.
Paul Graham of Y Combinator and Marissa Mayer are in position to develop a third category of digital schoolhouse in the Sunshine School model, and will have the support of Pete Buttigieg as a high-profile ambassador to China. The digital and administrative infrastructure that these schools operate on builds a new third platform for security which opens up proper coordination abroad.
The manufacture and design of AI toys in America offers many potential facets of compromise with China in the territory of intellectual property and digital security. Manufacturing of the previous era allowed China to build its internal production systems; then, create its new regional markets selling counterfeits and knock-offs that were outside of the United States control, with its tacit support. Then, as intellectual property protection became an issue, the supply chain shifted digital recycling to China; now, electronics are made in China, shipped worldwide, transfer through dozens of corporate and legal entities, arrive back to China for recycling into parts, and developed on the cheap into original Chinese products which are sold to those Chinese regional markets.
An optimal solution will open China up to the importing of American-made AI toys which upload their data to off-line proprietary clouds built by Microsoft.
The later generation of AI toys are shipped to Africa, to schools that are set up and developed with non-profits in advance as American technology outposts.
The system of collaboration invites Africa to develop its own inland shipping and logistics infrastructure, for the purpose of recycling and food delivery, in effect, initiating the same regional markets creation that China did previously.
These systems can be financially supported by capital inflationary measures, or, instead, by the exchange of fixed income measures for commodities on an open market. In this model, India, and its successful design and distribution of inland shipping systems can be transported to new markets in Africa, whether through expertise, explicit deliveries, or secondary allocations of monetary resources opened up with American investors and Famine Action Mechanism.
The secondary allocations mechanism greatly increases the corporate wealth of America; while, capital inflationary measures can be seen as a wealth tax. These two poles provide space for an American-led State apparatus to work on relationships across India, Africa, and China as a matter of Foreign Policy with the heft of Defense and Financial buy-in; the Biden administration is ready.
The Fiddlers On The Roofs
There are several scenes in The Fiddler on the Roof center on the struggles of a devout father as he sees culture transform the experiences of his children, and the confounding choices they make in lovers. The point is that deeply insular religiosity collides with the spectacle of faith and values. The spectacle is first described by Debord as not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images, in his polemic against consumerist culture and advanced capitalism. The work is often misinterpreted as a socialist or Marxist philosophy; The Conquest of Cool could be thought of as its counterargument. As time went on, authors reinterpreted its themes as failures of meritocracy.
The point is that humans are always interpreting their personal values within an evolving social relationship with society at large, and that these drives are so powerful they seem to supersede even our bonds of family, faith, and geography. As a result, our memes which transmit across culture should be considered powerful transformative forces; but, also potentially very painful weapons to the formulations of safe and sociable society. For every Obama is too Hollywood, there is Republicans defend traditional institutions of marriage.
These prevailing wisdoms create tremendous responsibilities for the future Presidents whom must govern in the eras after AI now that we live in an era of social media — special responsibilities for the first Jewish President; perhaps for all small community and new diversity candidates, just as were carried by Mr. Obama, as the groundbreaking first black President, and John F. Kennedy.
Indeed, House Representatives of today are ever to intend to become elevated to the highest offices in the land; and, the United States is ever to intend to transition to a pluralistic nation while preserving the American Dream for all, then its leaders today must already transform the politics of society to bring in to understanding all Americans to this phenomenon which so dominates life.
Finding More Money to Pay for It: Spy Kids
Inviting women into the secret societies is long overdue, though I would like us to remain men and women and remember that much of the schism of the gender frustrations today stem from economic policies of the mid-century that were put in place in earnest to help American couples develop families.
There are long standing discrepancies in access across strata of race, gender, class, and other factors in our society, and this is not an apology for systemic wrongdoing; but we invite change by accepting how we arrived at this point.
The solemn right of the individual remains in the servitude to that individual.
By welcoming women who have strong voices and platforms for which they can influence change, we are able to create memberships which continue to nurture democracy through the same platforms made available to men. The breadth of the inclusion can be continued by the platform of even exchange.
The selection of defense of the supply chain in the era of human intelligence comfortably aligns with the passionate compassion of the women on this list.
This arrangement will contribute to decommissioning of marriage programs.
Earlier this summer I found myself amid peculiar circumstances. My beloved red Mini Cooper S was in the shop and I was driving my dad’s Volkswagen.
I had begun getting calls from strange figures through familiar channels. One was from a Caltech alum who had gone on to a great career at Caltech/JPL and claimed to have classified Secret or Top Secret Department of Defense clearances. He had wanted me to buy-in to two sophisticated satellite systems he had gathered access to for specialized technologies that I had previously presented to entrepreneur circles as an opportunity. I had begun developing a system for using similar satellite data to prevent failures of first responders in moments after the ignition of wildfires, and had been well known to insiders.
During my downtime I liked to drive to nearby State Parks to practice my daily runs with my dog, and had begun naming each of them with characteristic intent. Tyler State Park, and its adjoining Newtown community college, had become the center of technology for a system called Library, which I believe has the potential to become to future of education post-artificial intelligence future. Washington’s Crossing had become the landmark I sought when I felt the country had needed to find itself on the path of revolution, breaking free from the powerful control of the news media that the angry President Trump seems to have reign over. I enjoyed believing that I was in some small way the General Washington of a threatened rebellion of artificial intelligence experts who sought to create a more perfect and more equitable union with the power of these new technologies, whereas the Presidency of Donald Trump enforced a biblical wrath and authoritarian rule that was crippling to our democracy.
None of this had been communicated to me, and no official anointments were ever made; in fact, by midsummer most of my emails simply went unanswered as I wrote and wrote, and had gone unanswered for most of the last two years.
But shortly before or after my Brie Larson moment of truth in spring of the previous year, I had emailed a member of a high ranking division of the U.S. Government with a request. The prevailing news media had been that the U.S. was victimized by Russian psyops during the Presidential election. I had spent several years in New York and Silicon Valley in companies that had had a close enough relationship to international affairs of artificial intelligence that I seemed to have developed a solid understanding of the relationships and the technology. The lying of the Trump administration seemed to be intensifying the bots and fake content swarming across social media of all stripes, and the irrationally powerful denizens of the Philadelphia security sector seemed to have so thoroughly decided to kowtow to the monetary windfalls of the Trump administration that they were ready to let Rome burn.
If the United States were at war with Russia, real or imaginary, across social media, then they surely had technology to ‘beam’ specialized content to one individualized person to create ‘serendipitous’ insight into their scrolling of content on news feeds and their reception of content from bots: “if were are really at threat to our democracy by Russia, then such a system must exist; if you are so sure your system works, then plug me into it.” Like nearly every one of my emails from that period, the periods prior and after, it went un-replied.
But, eighteen months later I found myself driving to Washington’s Crossing in New Jersey in an anger that pandemic response had continued to stall and that fires raged across the western United States and Australia. I wondered why all my genuinely good work had gone unanswered, and why seemingly connected individuals were reaching out to me in person with seemingly no awareness or admittance of how they found me. Was I being lied to? Was I over extending my own belief in myself? Had I been plugged in to a system without having been told? Were the systems larger than I had imagined?
You can imagine that eighteen months of discouraging results might be a hard experience to parse, and so I relied on a simple set of heuristics to get me by.
On the one hand, I obeyed Pascal’s Wager like gospel: if I had even a slightest influence in mending the catastrophic events of the Trump administration, I had a responsibility to do any actions which I believed might further helping the cause. I was careful to do my best to only speak on behalf of intelligence I had a special insight or expertise in, but also accepted that I may have to yell into the void of unanswered emails loudly. Who knew, maybe it was all true.
On the other hand, if I had strange influence into a system I could not know or did not yet understand, how could I know who else was in the system or who would operate with what morals or motives? The best I could do was to watch their emotions as big ideas or opportunities were presented, such as when one entrepreneur was more than happy to set in motion the death kneel to the oil industry when an unprepared nation, in the midst of a confusing pandemic, was already selling barrels of oil for less than zero dollars on the open market. Or, another entrepreneur who was ready to vacuum up billions upon billions of dollars of European support based on an economic policy guaranteed to lead to economic and labor market collapses — before the pandemic, anyway.
When these interventions felt more motivated by Trump-style opportunism and greed than mediated by requirements of operating under the guidelines of lawful action and systematic best interest of the country, I had to compel myself to persuade different actions, divert direction to the most appropriate leadership I might reach, or construct programmatic goals with stakeholders that would ensure non-destructive outcomes. This latter operation actually quite substantially has fortified increased inequality in our country because only the largest stakeholders were already capable of acting quickly, with well-known public strategic alliances and security or defense obligations. It is, in retrospect, this haphazard management at the top-level administration of the President of the United States which contributes to long term inequality.
So, with these puzzles rattling around my imagination and commingling with my intuition one summer day, I drove to Washington’s Crossing with my dog.
I figured, hey, if I was half as important as I started to wonder whether I might be, then surely I would be complicating some security protocol in another car.
I figured, hey, if I had to be observed from space, or if somehow my state-by-state location carried some significance, then surely one agency might accuse another agency of lying if my digital communication said I was in one location and my physical footprint suggested I was not there. I knew that U.S. agencies preferred twice-confirmed sources of information as truth; this would be two.
So, as my pup and I went running I let these thoughts percolate in my head; and to my shock and surprise I deviated my run early and returned to the car parking lot to find a red Mini Cooper S quickly driving towards the park exit.
This, was intrigue. Danger, and fear. I hopped in my dad’s car and drove carefully, quickly, to follow before the distance grew and his car disappeared.
If this was not my imagination, I thought, then if I stayed in the park, delayed myself a while, then surely he would begin following me, maybe, I wondered?
I delayed through several turns in another part of the park, towards where the actual Crossing of the Delaware occurred on that Christmas night in Trenton.
After several minutes turned into ten, I began feeling very silly and yet equally assured that the moment was the right one. To this day I don’t believe there is any other way to feel this particular sense of now-ness. And, I turned my dad’s car around and back on to the road towards the exit of the park, along, and in my head, turning towards and then into the exit, when just as suddenly a red Mini Cooper S came steering steadily, but quickly, in the entrance of the park.
He made long eye contact with me as I studied his face for detail and memory.
Yes: true story. It really did feel like a meme.
That’s all I have to say about that.
SpaceX for Infrastructure
Before we can talk about the supply chain and children’s toys and education, we need to solve an international crisis of the United States infrastructures.
China has created an awesome force of catapulting influence in the world by accepting American debt, then leveraging that debt to take on currency rates and loans that advantage it for the construction of infrastructure in foreign countries, to help with preparation of climate mitigation or energy systems.
While this is generally advantageous for all the world, the United States will face a future war posture with China on the financial markets if the United States does not enter into a political and international agenda which satisfies its needs at home. Only then can the United States be trusted to engage in a global foreign policy which allows foreign and international brokers create a peaceful global agenda which includes China’s continued integration into it.
Before we can do this we need to untangle the last century of United States reliance on “infrastructure” as a crude partitioning of defense and legislated spending to state by state budgets. Like most of American politics, gridlock builds because local domestic concerns of the constituents drive Senatorial elections, but don’t necessarily always pay the bills. And, so, defense spending helps grease the wheels, overpaying a little here, building upon a necessary workforce there, flying the President in to your State for a loud thank you.
But as distribution networks for media have substantially increased, and the use of evermore sophisticated analytics have increased the reach and capacity to target messages to constituencies, a strange phenomena of nationalization has taken over localized elections, with both sides owning what they perceive as their piece of the government and defense pie. While the Trump Presidency represented the false promises of a leadership that could wield this power for the cleaving of representative influence that could break open this defense spending, the actual result was calamity of confusion and authoritarianism.
Which brings me to the most controversial doctrine of the entire dissertation.
Deep within the bowels of the defense complex, the United States government grants the value of a human life a monetary value. This bitter bite of a poison apple is passed from one agency to another for any policy which even touches defense or the defense priorities of our nation. Whether the politicians know this is debatable, and whether they know this calculus well enough to create policy which values the sacredness of human life is highly likely to be no. But, deep within some secret-enough sector of the government accounting office is a group of people that calculate the cost-benefit analysis of each particular initiative and give it a thumbs up or thumbs down. Under normal leadership, and during peacetime or eras of thoughtful management, these assessments help guide political judgement for selecting between several good policies. If the United States finds itself in the middle of an extended crisis, or a war, or so caught off guard that the country becomes a victim of terrorist attacks, this calculus shifts uncomfortable. One can imagine that each branch and agency within the federal government needs to find ways to transfer money between one another, either for accounting or tactical reasons, particularly within the executive branch. As a result… accidents happen. When this occurs within the jurisdictions of macro-political negotiations with pseudo-adversaries on the world stage, a failure of policy in one domain may mean a failure of mission in another. There are a thousand ways for a chain of command to… go slack.
Among these national agencies, NASA Human Spaceflight missions have kept a doctrine since the end of the Apollo era that no value could be assigned to the life of an astronaut. This ensures a kind of fair playing field for creating multi-national missions which no specter of war posturing or other systematic failures which put foreign nationals at undue risk. On the other hand, failures of expensive unmanned space hardware can save lives but serve its function.
Massive international miscoordinations between skittish pseudo-adversaries with old planet-killer technologies like ballistic missiles, nuclear power, and bioterrorism threats occur with surprising regularity without robust spy networks, worldwide communication systems, deep diplomatic ties and trusted institutions, forthright and thoughtful national leaders in charge.
A Lockheed Martin scientist was interviewed in the days after Sputnik. When asked whether he was fearful that the Soviet Union beat the United States to space, he basically answered “they were working on it; we were working on it; one of us had to be first; and, they drew the winning straws.” Management.
So, when a politically sensitive jurisdiction of the government defense structure is taken over by an entrepreneur, a huge part of their value is their capacity to effectively, and humanely, manage this existential threat matrix.
SpaceX does this. Tesla does this. Elon Musk is the greatest of all time.
To ask oneself how to do this with Infrastructure, and to do this with Supply Chain, means leveraging this cooperation to join a new network of new diplomacy, herein not exclusionary to the original network of diplomacy.
There are likely no greater leadership gratitudes or challenges in America.
Furthermore, this new diplomatic world leadership diplomacy needs its own Academy to help educate leaders and communicate its paradigm to the public.
I have tried my best to create the conditions for all the initiatives to succeed.