Russia hacks the Democrats??

One other piece of news that filled up the holiday period was that allegations sprang up everywhere stating the Russians hacked the Democrats and led to a change in the election result. My attitude is when something as serious as this arises, there needs to be evidence to support it. That evidence needs to be in sufficient detail to be plausible. “Fred assures me that there was,” is not evidence.

There are really two separate issues here. The first is, did the Russians hack the Democrats? A sub-question is, if yes, was it a Russian government agency, or just some private Russians? To answer the main question, we need to see evidence of when who was hacked, from where? The US Government might be a bit cagey about this, because if it announces when who was hacked from where, it starts to tell others what its capabilities are, and it may not want to do that, but if it does not, then it should have kept quiet in the first place. In WW II the British Government gave no warning to the people of Coventry that a raid was coming because they did not want to let the Germans know their enigma code was broken. That was a lot more serious than advertising that they tracked a hack on the Democratic National Congress. However, who was hacked, and with what security, is an important question because we know that Hillary Clinton had about 600,000 emails copied to the Weiner server. That should be more easily hacked, and any number of people, including but not restricted to, Russians, could have done it. For that matter, a number of industrious Republicans could have hacked it. To make this allegation stand, the details of the hack must be known.

There is one document on the web that claims to give the US government position (http://documents.latimes.com/read-us-…) Now intelligence gathering is difficult, but forming an opinion of what happened is just that; it is not evidence. Quoting: “Some analytic judgments are based directly on collected information others rest on previous judgments.” See the problem? The next problem arises when we consider the sources of the information. Quoting: “Many of the key judgments in this assessment rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.” In short, sources for many of the judgments came from “the behavior of Kremlin-loyal political figures, state media, and pro-Kremlin social media actors”. To me, the social media are not exactly reliable sources of facts. You might recall that the US Intelligence community, in public statements anyway, were sufficiently convinced that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that they unleashed a war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. For me, the problem is the reputation for reliability was shot then.

Interestingly, while the CIA and the FBI had “high confidence” in these assessments, the NSA had only “moderate confidence”. The NSA should be the expert in this field. The FBI asserted it had “high confidence” that Russia tried to undermine Hillary Clinton’s campaign, but then, a week out from the election, FBI Director Comey effectively torpedoed her campaign. Prior to Comey’s comments, Clinton had a 10% lead in the polls I saw, and in the next few days, the lead vanished. If Comey had such high confidence that Russia trying to destabilize Clinton’s campaign, and it concerned him, why did he do that? My final comment on that document – there are about three pages describing what could have happened, including allegations that a Romanian hacker was really the GRU, and the far more pages criticizing the balance of RT (Russian television). Yep, RT probably is biased, but is it as bad as Fox News? And just because RT may be biased, what has that got to do with hacking? And why cannot a Romanian hacker be just that?

Am I prepared to believe Russia hacked the Dems? Yep. I have little doubt the Russian Security Service is busy hacking whatever it can. As an aside, the US does this too. Recall Angela Merkel caught them out hacking her computer, and Germany is an ally. If the US does this to its allies, why would Russia be exempt, and if Russia found out the US was spying on it, why would it not do the same? Even if it did not know about US spying, that would not stop it from spying. So to summarize, I am happy to accept that Russia was prepared to spy on the Dems, but I would expect they would stay quiet about it. Other individual hackers, including Russians may not have been so quiet. So, for evidence we first need to know what exactly was hacked, and exactly who was it that did the hacking? Details. We need details.

The second allegation is more serious. This is that as a consequence of the hack, the Russian government altered the outcome of the election. This requires even more detailed evidence. What we have so far is the allegation that the Russians provided details that would be embarrassing to the Dems to Wikileaks. For that to alter the election, either the contents then became highly public, or alternatively the voters in the swing states are avid readers of Wikileaks. Personally, I feel the latter is ridiculous. I suspect the average rustbelt voter really has little or no interest in Wikileaks.

But let’s suppose that could be wrong. This implies there was something in these Wikileaks that was so sensational that it swung the election. What was it? Why haven’t I heard of it? But let us suppose I have been asleep at the wheel. It would not hurt to publish this series of embarrassments, after all the allegation is asserting that it is in the public domain. Then there is the question of who provided this information to Wikileaks. It is alleged that it was the Russian government, but Julian Assange denies that, and he should know. Now it is true that Assange could be lying, but if so we need evidence that is convincing. The problem is, this all looks more like the Democrats, and Democrat-appointed officials, having a general whinge at their loss.

Also interesting is that there have been no protests against the FBI Director Comey, whose allegation a week before the election that Clinton was under investigation almost certainly would lose her votes. There is firm evidence this occurred, but nobody seems to be particularly interested in it. The question is, why not?

Is there a solution to the Palestinian question?

Back from a quiet time, and look at what happened? The first was that at the end of 2016, New Zealand co-sponsored a UN resolution “demanding” that Israel stop building settlements in the occupied territories of the West Bank. This generated a surprising amount of heat, if not much light. For those who have read my fiction, I have advocated logic as a way of analyzing problems, and it seems to me this question is suitable for such an approach, not that it is likely to succeed.

We start by acknowledging where we are. Israel is a Jewish state, and it occupies by military force the West Bank, which was largely populated by Palestinians, many of whom were forced out of the rest of Israel. The two sides have been very antagonistic towards each other, and the objective is to try to find a solution where both can live in peace. The question is, what are the conditions that might lead to that outcome? In my opinion, the options are:

  1. Move the Jews out of the area. However, the Jews have such an invested infrastructure this option is not a starter.
  2. Move the Palestinians somewhere else. The problem is, where? People say Jordan, but Jordan is already overrun by Syrian refugees, and in any case, why does someone else have to pay the price? While most of the Jews came recently, the Palestinians have been there for a very long time. Whoever advocates this solution can do their own bit, by accepting a Palestinian family, providing them a home and jobs, and a guaranteed income until they can fend for themselves. In short, put your money where your mouth is. I bet there will not be sufficient takers to make a difference.
  3. Incorporate the Palestinians into Israel, with full citizenship, and enough money to make a start to life. That is a non-starter because Israel is a Jewish state, and a Muslim majority would be non-acceptable.
  4. Have a two state solution.

In my opinion, only (4) has any hope, but here the problem is the West Bank is not exactly large, and it is covered with a pox of Israeli settlements. Some people say, they are only 3% of the area. Before addressing that, we must ask, are the settlements legal?

When the first settlements were being considered, the legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry was asked whether international law permitted civilian settlement in the occupied territories. The reply: that would contravene the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The settlements are illegal because international law forbids an occupying power from moving part of its population to occupied territory. The territory is under military occupation, and it is for that reason the Arabs who live there do not have to be integrated into Israel.

Here is the legal dilemma from the Israeli point of view. Granting citizenship to the Palestinians would mean either Israel ceased to be a proper representative republic, or it would cease to be a Jewish state. Not granting such citizenship meant they were under military occupation, and international law should apply.

In this context, it seems that everybody who keeps asserting Russia violates international law and should be punished are strangely quiet on Israel. Instead we have the rather bizarre situation where the people of the West Bank fall into two subsets: settlers enjoy the full rights of Israeli citizens, while the Palestinians are still under military occupation and have essentially no rights. The question then is, how long will this go on? Obviously, the hard right of Israeli politics seems to think, forever. Whatever else they have, compassion for the Palestinians is not one of them.

Returning to the 3% problem, the area of the settlements is not the issue. The settlements are all connected to Israel proper by roads controlled by Israel that slice up the West bank. The settlements all demand water, sewage, electricity, and other services. All of these services are controlled by Israel, and are unavailable to the Palestinians, and worse than that, Israel would not let the Palestinians cross their fixed infrastructure, because they would expect it to be damaged.

If there is to be a two-state solution, the Palestinians have to go some way. They have to accept the right of Israel to exist, not because it is right but because there is no alternative. Incidents such as the recent one where a Palestinian drove a truck through some Israeli soldiers have to stop. First it is not right to kill people, and particularly those who are not directly responsible for your problems, and second it is counterproductive, because it just firms up Israeli opinion about them. The Palestinians have been severely wronged, and everybody should acknowledge that, but the Palestinians cannot progress by living in a morass of moaning about wrongs. That does not mean that others should not do something to help, though. When the United Nations voted to form Israel, they gave away that which they did not own. In the Naqba, about 700,000 Palestinians were displaced, and their property taken over by Israel. Of course, following the UN resolution, the Israelis could say they had no choice. Maybe, but if that was what the UN wanted, they should have purchased the Palestinian properties and given them to the Israelis. The fact of the matter is that Israel was founded on promises (Lloyd George offered the concept to Jews to help raise money for the war effort, which probably did not help the attitude of a certain Austrian corporal.), terrorism (it is the one shining example that proves that sometimes terrorism does work) and military force. One of the great ironies is that the Jews sent to Palestine in the late 1930s from Germany, organized by a certain Reinhardt Heydrich, set about terrorist activities against the British during WW II, while Heydrich was busy organizing the mass murder of Jews in Europe. The fact that the Palestinians and other “Arab” countries tried military means to right the wrongs done to the Palestinians is also irrelevant, although through their lack of effectiveness it has obviously made the problem worse.

But the past is irrelevant. We are here. If we accept that the two-state solution is the only possibility for civilized peace, then both sides must make serious concessions, and more to the point, the rest of the world that voted to create this problem has to come to the party with serious investment to make Palestine at least a plausible state. If you vote to give away that which you do not own, then you should be prepared to pay for it, to give the Palestinians some hope. The alternative is that the Palestinians live in perpetual military occupation, with no rights, and subjugated by a military force that does not like them one bit.

The recent example of a soldier who saw a Palestinian lying on the ground, and because he believed that Palestinian had injured an Israeli, he shot him. The Palestinian was subjugated, and would have been taken away for trial, but this soldier simply executed him. If you see interviews of Israelis, a large number (including some right wing rabbis I saw interviewed) seem to think the soldier was right. Sorry, but that is not civilized, it is not legal, and it most certainly is not helpful.

So if neither side is interested in reaching a solution, how does this end? I confess I have no idea, except I cannot see it ending well

The Syrian quagmire ending?

Probably the most newsworthy item at present again involves Syria, with the collapse of the rebel forces in Aleppo, and the associated reduction of that part of the city to rubble. We are starting to get images from the region, and it is clear that an enormous amount of money will be required to rebuild that part of the city. An effort has been made to offer the insurgents transport to insurgent held villages elsewhere, and what we see is a lit of civilians are going as well. To my mind, this indicates that the reason the rebels held Eastern Aleppo is because the civilians were sympathetic. In turn, that strongly suggests the rebellion is now down to religion: Sunnis attempting to get rid of the Shias. With Hezbollah and Iran involved, that is not going to happen.

One of the biggest disasters there is undoubtedly the high number of civilian casualties, and a number of commentators in the West have called for war crimes trials on certain Russians. At the same time, the West has been strangely quiet relating to casualties in Mosul, where the US is bombing, and, strangely enough, the attack is being managed by the Shias. This bombing and the inevitable casualties has raised the issue of justice and international law, and I am afraid from my point of view, many of those in the West are merely arm-waving and arguing that “they are war criminals”. Nobody denies that killing of civilians is bad, but what could Assad and the Russians do? The objective is to remove the rebels, and to be quite clear, the rebels included factions that wished to impose the strictest form of Islamic law. Women should be kept at home and do nothing but housework and breed. As for nobility amongst the rebels, I saw a TV clip from an observer who had been in eastern Aleppo, and saw a family “home invaded” by rebels looking for food. They took everything, and when the mother complained about feeding the children, they shot her through the jaw to stop her complaints. So much for the noble rebels. There is no way those involved in something like the al Nusra front can be expected to change their ways and be persuaded to become peaceful citizens, so Assad either has to defeat them, or let Syria be run by them and ISIS in full Wahabbi extremism.

Let us look at “International Law”. Who is the sovereign entity? Who imposes the law? As far as I can make out, it is at a very similar state to that of ancient Rome, except that there is no clear law-making entity. In ancient Rome, prosecutions were made by citizens, and the results tended to be resolved by the eloquence of the lawyer, or the standing of the participants. Thus during the late Republic, Clodius could organize a gang to beat up a politician he did not like, or even burn down someone’s house. Nothing would stop him. So-called international justice is a bit like that now: victor’s justice.

At the end of WW II, a lot of Nazis were tried for war crimes, not that there were such recognized crimes, although many were guilty of crimes under the German criminal code. Most people are not particularly concerned about the doubtful legality of the process because those found guilty were mainly really very bad people. But there were double standards. Any German who could be of any further use to one of the occupying powers was immediately granted immunity.

Then, if we consider killing innocent civilians to be a war crime, was the fire bombing of Hamburg a war crime? Of Tokyo? Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki war crimes? If not, why not? For me, the fire bombing of Dresden had to be a crime, because the war was clearly essentially over, Dresden had no military value then, and 35,000 civilians were killed for no good purpose. Why is that not a war crime? Hopefully, not because it was us that did it, not them. In more recent times, the invasion of Iraq has led to some unknown number of deaths, but certainly in the hundred thousand range.

My view is Syria will be better off with the Wahabbi extremists defeated. If so, and given a somewhat lacking of alternatives, I believe that the Russian bombing of Aleppo was a valid means of pursuing the war. Yes, innocent people were killed, but at least we now see the possibility of an end to the carnage. The question we must ask is, what was the alternative? Just leaving the rebels alone to rearm and reorganize? Prolong the misery indefinitely?

So what happens now? If there is going to be peace, how do you arrange that? Negotiate with ISIS and the al Qaeda derivatives? Separate the country and give them their Caliphate? Or have a secular government, and force the citizens to behave? That would be essentially a return to what Syria was before all this started. If you think you could do this without Assad, then nominate who will be the new government, and outline why will it work. How do you impose order? And most importantly, how do you get the economy of a country bombed to bits back running again? It took Germany many years after WW II, and the US put a lot of money in to get restoration going. Further, there was a well-established industry in Germany. Syria seems to have none of those advantages.

This will be my last post for 2016, but I shall be back mid January. In the meantime, I wish you all a Merry Christmas, and all the best for a successful and healthy 2017.

Where to now, economy?

While I write futuristic novels, none of them involve trying to predict the future; rather I use the future as an excuse to formulate a situation that has little merit other than to be the background to a story that is really looking at something else. However, like most people, I am curious about what could be coming. That includes wondering where the economy is going.

Some time ago I saw an interview with Mervyn King, an ex-Governor of the Bank of England. According to him, in a market economy banking crises are endemic because a market economy cannot provide all the required price and investment signals. This is effectively a statement that there is an inherent failure in the market economy, and it arises because nobody can predict the future, and there are the problems of positive feedback (where the effects of the problem make it worse) and hunting (where the correction dramatically overshoots and causes the opposite problem). Thus suppose commodity A suddenly has a shortage. Prices rise, the masses start acquiring A and the price rises further, but there is no fundamental reason for the rise. When reality strikes, prices drop, and keep dropping.

I recall in my youth the price of potatoes tanked, and farmers found themselves dumping them. My father immediately began renting land, and with a trailer, went around the potato dumps and picked up free seed. Next season, because everyone had got out of potatoes, and also partly because of adverse weather in places, prices leaped five times above average. At that point, my father made a lot of money, but immediately got out of potatoes, on the grounds that next year everyone would be back into them. Now, King’s point is, bankers lend to farmers, but they cannot know what next season’s prices will be, and hence cannot know whether the farmer will prosper or go bust. In New Zealand there are a number of dairy farmers who got into it with expensive farm conversions when prices were very high a couple of years ago. When the world became swimming in milk, the debts still had to be serviced.

The question then is, can anything be done about this? My guess is, so far there are no signs that anything better would work. A long time ago I was in the old USSR, a command economy, and basically it was not working at all well. Prices were stable, by command. I went into a restaurant and picked up a menu that was printed twenty years before and the prices held! The problem was, I also went into a major store to see an array of empty shelves. The prices might have been stable, but if the goods were not available, their price was irrelevant. In one of my trilogies, I proposed an economy that was stable, BUT there is no evidence it would actually work. The proposal was simply background to make the rest of the story easier to follow, and in any case, there were price rises due to resource shortages. However, there was no possibility of major recessions, or major booms. Perhaps I was dreaming?

Another one of King’s points was that while central banks avoided a catastrophe in 2007 – 2008, since then, the basic fundamentals have not been corrected. In particular, there is a serious disequilibrium between saving and debt, largely due to very low interest rates. The problem is, the longer this goes on, the harder it will be to return to some desirable “normal”.

King was also somewhat skeptical about the European Union, and noted that a single interest rate imposed on countries with varying rates of wage and cost inflation leads inexorably to divergence in competitiveness. Well, yes, it would. German banks would seem to have to take some major losses, but they seem reluctant to do so. (Note that Germany itself has defaulted on debt before.)

King’s way out is to boost productivity and growth, and he was enthusiastic about the TPP trade agreement. My guess is that Trump will kill that option.

The problem I see with that analysis is that King thinks society in the future will be more or less the same as now. I am less convinced. In many western countries, the biggest problem is that local manufacturing has been exported, and this has led to the hollowing out of middle classes. While the very top corporations are raking in huge profits (and paying increasingly less tax) the wage earners tend to find their wages actually reduced. Governments are compensating by increasing their borrowing, thus taking advantage of lower interest rates. The problem here is, with the exception of the US and others undertaking quantitative easing, while central banks might offer low interest rates, they do not lend because to do so without borrowing is simply to enlarge the money supply. The US has got away with quantitative easing largely because trillions of dollars have been secreted away in foreign banks as a consequence of tax avoidance. However, the debts remain.

For the general economies of countries like New Zealand, while the Reserve Bank recently lowered interest rates, the commercial banks actually slightly raised them. The reason: they need deposits, and as interest rates have dropped, people have gone searching for yield elsewhere. Here, a lot has gone into housing, largely because there is a shortage of houses, but this has not created a lot of new houses. Instead, as King would have noted, this must lead to a bubble happily fermenting, although because of the underlying shortage (which is politician induced) it may not burst. Here, politicians are the problem through sending perverse signals and regulations to the market. Money has also fled towards stocks, but again that tends to raise the price when more money goes there than into new ventures. Now, what happens if this bubble bursts? Governments are in so much debt they have little room to maneuver. By itself, politicians might consider that as merely unfortunate, but the problem then is the consequences, one of which I included in my novel ‘Bot War. I hope that consequence does not come to pass, but I am far from confident.

Governments want inflation

It is a bit like Alice in Wonderland: governments want some inflation; not too much but not too little. When there is inflation, debts shrink in real magnitude, and governments are notoriously deeply into debt. So, the more the better? Well, not quite. The classic example was Germany during the 1920s, where as soon as you got money, you spent it, or even better, converted it into something else that was not inflating. The German economy effectively collapsed, apart from isolated examples, such as the chemical industry. The reason they survived was because they exported much of their production to the US, and received their income in US dollars. They then paid their workers in something such as “aniline money”, which was convertible to US dollars, and their workers generally made purchases at company stores that sold in “aniline money”. So, in any economic problem, there are always some who survive, usually through being big enough.

There is the other side of the coin. While debtors see their debts inflate away, which in my opinion is essentially basic dishonesty, few want to lend, and if inflation gets high enough, nobody has anything liquid to lend. If you have money, it is converted into something else as quickly as possible. Workers don’t work very hard because the employer is not paying them. The instant they are paid, they are off to turn this paper into something else. So while governments want inflation to get their debts inflated away, and they will wave away the dishonesty aspect by arguing it is the people as a whole who benefit, they do not want it to be so big that people refuse to lend.

So why have inflation at all? One reason stated is that if there is next to zero inflation, the next downturn will lead to deflation, and during deflation people try not to spend, which exacerbates the problem. If people stop buying, there is no point in making the same amount of stuff. Companies either fire staff or go under, which leads to more unemployment and so many more people who cannot service their previous debt. This leads to a higher risk of bank failure. The risks of debt to equity ratios get worse, so more firms will go under, and that puts a lot more pressure on the banks. Another reason is that sustained low inflation means that there is little scope to cushion the next downturn, i.e. the banks have no tools left. As turnover drops, tax returns decrease in value but debt levels stay high, and accordingly the governments have less room to move. As you may notice in these situations, the whole reasoning for whatever is being decided is to make life easier for the banks, or for the government. The whole financial management system is designed to require the least effort from financial managers!

There is a problem here that can be left for a later post, but basically it lies in the possibility that the economies of the world are changing, the rules are changing, and we cannot use the past to predict what is likely to happen in the near future.

Which leaves the question, is zero inflation a disaster? In this context, after Isaac Newton left the British Mint, the value of the pound remained constant more or less until the first world war. During that time, Britain became an economic superpower. Since then, the value of the pound has tanked, and Britain is not. True, there is more involved in Britain’s decline, but the prolonged time during which there was effectively zero inflation did not do Britain any harm. (Note that some prices would, of course, rise. Property prices in certain parts of London rose because there was a shortage of land, but that does not count in the inflation concept.) Further, during that period there was significant investment that powered the Industrial Revolution. Of course it also contained horrible wealth inequality, but that was endemic, and was essentially a consequence of feudalism. There were also serious downturns, but there is no evidence whatsoever that that had anything to do with the value of money, and as yet I do not believe we have an answer to the question of economic cycles and their downturns. So my conclusion is, there is no reason whatsoever to argue that we need inflation, other than to make life for governments and bankers easier. That, in my view, is not an acceptable reason as it has little or no public value.

All of which leaves a problem for writers such as me who write futuristic novels. It seems to me that the world economic situation is changing, but it is far from clear what to? That it is changing is something I shall write about in a future post, but right now, if anyone has any comments along the “what to?” lines, I would love to hear them. In my ‘Bot War novel, the change is forced on the government because economic growth has become negative, and debt servicing takes up too much of the income. Accordingly, the government is forced to reduce current services, and this is not what is required when a crisis appears. But there have to be other possibilities. Your opinion?

Election hangover

Recently, I finished reading the last of “Dictator”, the third of Robert Harris’ trilogy nominally about the life of Marcus Tullius Cicero, but just as much about the collapse of the decaying Res Publica. The aim of Roman politicians was to gain power, or imperium. Few actually wanted to achieve anything, other than to put one over their “enemies” (any other Roman who was not helping them gain their power) or to gain the right to govern a province and get rich from the tithes they would impose. There were exceptions. Cato, and to a lesser extent, Cicero, wanted to maintain the “principles of the republic”, even if these were somewhat ill-defined and were bendable for convenience, while Gaius Julius Caesar genuinely wanted reforms, and was prepared to stamp down on the corrupt practices that he, too, had once engaged in.

In some ways, not a lot changes, although everything now is a lot milder. The vitriol slung between Trump and Clinton would be nothing for the times of the Res Publica. Trump said he would have Clinton investigated; Clodius was quite happy to organize a gang to beat a senator senseless. Even Pompey seemed to be almost afraid much of the time, but of course he obeyed the rules and disbanded his legions before returning to Rome. Caesar was not afraid, but then Caesar did not disband his legions, and he got assassinated.

I am always amused at the straw-clutching assertions made by the losing side. Thus we hear that Clinton won the popular vote. She did but that is irrelevant. About half the eligible population did not vote, and there are at least two possible reasons why not. One is, lack of interest. Another is that for many there is the feeling that if you are in a state that has no chance of changing, and you are in the minority, there is no chance your vote will matter, so why bother?.

Another thing that amuses me is the hand-wringing that went on after Trump won. Horrors! The sky was falling! If they were that concerned, why were they not out campaigning for Clinton? My personal view is that there were so many wild statements flung around during campaigning that we could conclude that such statements are necessary to win the election. If so, there could be a serious withdrawal from most of such statements by the winner.

So, is the sky falling? Is Trump going to be a total disaster, as some of the more noisy ones seem to assert? He won by making the most outrageous statements, but arguably that was what he had to do to win with the current voters. If that is true, then guess were the fault lies. But equally, if he is a man prepared to do whatever is required to achieve a goal, then he may very well retract from many of these positions when the goal is to be an effective president. I suppose we have to wait and see how much power Trump will actually have, but the American constitution is specifically designed to limit the power of any president. The president has to do deals with Congress, and even if Congress is majority Republican in both houses, during the election campaign it was clear that not all Republicans are going to back Trump no matter what. Further, Trump seems to be showing signs of dropping his most outrageous assertions.

I think it is far too early to guess what the Trump presidency will be like. My guess is the fight against global warming has not been done favours, although the US has signed the Paris agreement, and I doubt that will be revoked. Trump’s tax plan is similar to what Paul Ryan wants, so that may well get through. International trade may well suffer, and the US could hurt a country like New Zealand. However, whatever happens, the sky will not fall.

That raises the question, what would it take to bring America to its knees? Strictly speaking, it should be impossible, but there is one way: the bulk of the population cooperates in bringing it down. After all, that was why Rome fell. The average Roman decided that the Roman governance was worse than whatever the uncivilized masses could do, at least once the initial rape and pillage was over. So could anything like that happen now, in America? Of course not. However, if you want to have nightmares over something like that, on Dec 2 my ebook ‘Bot War is available, and if nothing else, it might show you how impossible it is. In this story, the general problem is not the terrorists and their robotic war machines, but rather the general population have no faith in their government. Is that lack of faith justified?

Some After-effects of the Earthquake

One of the interesting things about sea life is that the niches are so crowded that sometimes life clings to one very specialist zone. One of my favourite examples was a seaweed that grew on the southwest face of rocks in a harbour in a band of about ten centimeters depth, and then only in a spot that was about twenty meters long! Yes, that was somewhat exceptional, but the principle applies broadly, if not so strictly. Kaikoura is a great place for finding crayfish (rock lobster), and is reflected by the name, and the coast was a great place for other diverse marine life, including seaweed. During the recent quake, the land rose two meters. The places where I described certain seaweeds as originating from in some of my scientific papers are now high and dry, so the descriptions are no longer helpful. But this land rising will also be a serious disruption to marine life in the near intertidal zone because when the life form wants to be a specific distance below sea-level at low king tide, a two meter lift completely alters much of the environment.

This gives an interesting view from the environmentalists: they decree that none of the recently exposed wild-life shall be harvested, and instead be left to die. I am far from convinced this makes sense. Thus paua (a version of abalone) are hemophiliac, and if cut they die. They cannot return to the sea, and they cannot be shifted. What is the point in leaving them rot? I have heard the explanation, the nutrients will go back to the sea, but that is nonsense from my point of view. Such nutrients will only benefit plant life that can absorb it more or less immediately, and the ocean currents take the rest away. Some of the greenies seem incapable of putting numbers to their thoughts. I once saw one criticism of an attempt at aquaculture state that a particular one-acre pool was going to pollute the Pacific Ocean by deoxygenating it. Leaving aside the wave action during storms, and that the aquaculture was for seaweed, the Pacific is so huge such a statement merely displays a total lack of ability at elementary mathematics.

Back to more standard difficulties. Apart from small segments, the land to the north of Kaikoura is a very narrow coastal strip leading to almost vertical hills that are several hundred meters high. To the south there is a little flat land, then the road has to cross some very torn terrain. The earthquake dropped enormous amounts of rock onto the roads, and it will take months to clear reasonable access and stabilize the hills. The town has too little land for a significant airport, and while it has a port for small vessels, large ones cannot be accommodated.

So our TV programs showed tourists being evacuated on a navy transport ship. These are designed to have smaller landing craft that can more or less go anywhere. The tourists were taken out and had to climb a rope ladder to get into a hatch, where they would settle in a fairly mammoth area. The comfort levels would be low, because the military aims to get things done, but not with excessive comfort, but they aim to be able to do things as near to under any circumstances as possible.

Then in another news clip my attention was drawn to a ship just offshore. That did not look like any of ours, and we saw sailors in uniforms that were not like ours, and that was because it wasn’t and they weren’t. This particular ship was from the US navy, that happened to be in the region, and it dropped other activities to offer what help it could. Apparently there were also ships from the Australian and Canadian navies helping. Thank you, US, Canadian and Australian navies. In a disaster like this, one of the great assets of the military is that they get things done, and they have expertise and skills that really help when survival becomes an issue. Meanwhile our army has managed to open some sort of goat track route to get survival equipment in as well. So far, only in their near “go anywhere” trucks.

Meanwhile, in Wellington, it appears a number of buildings are going to have to be demolished. One of the interesting statements about the building code is, it is not designed to ensure a building will survive a major quake and be able to be used thereafter; it is designed so that the building will have enough structural integrity that nobody is going to get killed during the quake. My guess is property investors who have focused on apartments in the Wellington CBD are going to be a bit nervous for a while.

All of which makes my problems look a bit on the pathetic side. As far as I can tell (and with my recent hip replacement I am not yet sufficiently mobile to check a lot) my house has survived more or less intact, my children’s properties are essentially undamaged, and nobody nearby has sustained serious damage. All in all, things have worked out well for us.

So, back to the more mundane. Somehow I have to work out how to promote my latest ebook, ‘Bot War which will be published on December 2. Interestingly, I see some think that under President Trump, the US is headed towards disaster. I don’t think so, but my novel does give an alternative reason why some of what Trump says should be avoided.