Important article on 5G

An article [PDF] by British philosopher Jeremy Naydler examines the global push to roll out 5G, and its staggering scope and implications:

In November this year (2018), the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authorized the rocket company SpaceX, owned by the entrepreneur Elon Musk, to launch a fleet of 7,518 satellites to complete SpaceX’s ambitious scheme to provide global satellite broadband services to every corner of the Earth. […]

Other companies, including Boeing, One Web and Spire Global are each launching their own smaller fleets, bringing the total number of projected new broadband satellites to around 20,000 – every one of them dedicated to irradiating the Earth at similar frequencies.

Why this sudden flurry of activity? The new satellite fleets are contributing to a concerted global effort to ‘upgrade’ the electromagnetic environment of the Earth. The upgrade is commonly referred to as 5G, or fifth generation wireless network. […] It amounts to geo-engineering on a scale never before attempted. While this is being sold to the public as an enhancement of the quality of video streaming for media and entertainment, what is really driving it is the creation of the conditions within which electronic or “artificial” intelligence will be able to assume an ever-greater presence in our lives.

[…] the introduction of 5G will also require hundreds of thousands of new mini mobile phone masts (also referred to as “micro-cells” or “base stations”) in urban centres throughout the UK, and literally millions of new masts in cities throughout the rest of the world, all emitting radiation at frequencies and at power levels far higher than those to which we are presently subjected. […] Not one inch of the globe will be free of radiation.

Given the scale of the project, it is surprising how few people are aware of the enormity of what is now just beginning to unfold all around us. […]

The question we should ask is whether we also want increasingly intense exposure of the natural environment and all living creatures, including ourselves, to more and more electromagnetic radiation. Is it likely that this does not entail any adverse health consequences, as both government and industry claim? […]

Is the general public even remotely aware of the scale of this effort? Has anyone outside the industry been sold on the benefits, nay the necessity, of blanketing the planet with 5G?

Does anyone seriously think that we need faster mobile internet, that this will somehow improve our lives? Are any politicians or public officials even trying to make this argument?

Have we conclusively established that constant, ubiquitous exposure to extremely high frequency electromagnetic radiation will not have adverse effects on human health?

Is the public (of any country) ever going to be asked what it thinks about this, or will the rollout be a fait accompli before anyone is even aware of what has happened?

Questions that urgently need asking, given the speed and apparent desperation with which our 5G future is being prepared.

Luttwak attack

For your amusement and edification, a link dump of interviews with, and an essay by, the great strategist Edward Luttwak, aka the Machiavelli of Maryland.

First, an interview with Japanese newspaper Sankei Shimbun in four parts: part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4.

The interview addresses the emerging US-China Cold War and the role Japan will/can play in it. Excerpt:

Maybe China is trying to make allies and friends through One Belt One Road Initiative?

Good luck to them. Good luck to them because that will not help them with Malaysia — Malaysia has caused them a bit of a problem — nor with Indonesia, nor with the Philippines, nor with Japan.

The only country which the Chinese can get is Korea — South Korea. The South Koreans do not like being independent. They were under Chinese rule, then they were under Japanese rule, then they were under American rule, and they don’t like to be independent. They just don’t.

Not everybody likes to be independent. They are too divided themselves. They are more comfortable having somebody else. So, the South Koreans are willing to go under the Chinese rule.

The only reason they don’t do it is because of North Korea. North Korea is the protector of Korean independence, not South Korea.

If the South Koreans were interested in being an independent power, they would not be quarreling with Japan, given the fact that their security depends on Japan 100%. The Americans could do nothing in Korea without Japanese cooperation. So, the fact that they are anti-Japanese means that they are not interested in real foreign policy, they are not interested in being independent, and so they can afford to shout about comfort women and this and that because they are not serious. They are not serious about it.

One of our problems in Korea is that we don’t like North Korean nuclear weapons, but North Korean nuclear weapons guarantee the independence of North Korea and therefore guarantee that Chinese influence cannot extend over the Korean Peninsula. Because if it were up to South Korea, it would [allow Chinese influence].

You know, the South Koreans are not interested in resisting Chinese domination because they are not interested in being independent. The Vietnamese are determined to be independent of China and they are quite confident that they can defeat any Chinese action against them. The South Koreans are not confident, but also they are not interested in defending. They are really not interested in being independent. Otherwise, they wouldn’t behave the way they do.

Right. That might not be not good news for the United States and Japan. The common perception is that, in order to deal with the North Korean nuclear issue, we need some kind of trilateral cooperation including South Korea.

Listen, South Korea faces immediate military dangers from North Korea. For example, their rockets — there are cheap rockets aimed at the Seoul area. Today, there are anti-rocket systems that are not expensive and work very well. South Korea doesn’t buy them. Today, you can buy anti-rocket interceptors.

Like Iron Dome?

Like Iron Dome. You can go and buy it, okay? You can go to Lawson’s and you buy it.

Why don’t they buy it? Because they are not really interested in self-defense.

When they have money, they do something like build a helicopter carrier and call it “Dokdo.” Do they need a helicopter carrier against North Korea? No.

So, in other words, their actions are not the actions of people who either want to defend themselves or to be independent. They don’t.

They just want to transition profitably from being protected by the United States to being protected by China. That is the only thing that they are interested in.

Not everybody wants to be independent. In that sense, the North Koreans are. Because of the politics of the Kim family, they want to be independent.

But South Korea does nothing.

Luttwak’s intriguing conclusion: a divided Korean peninsula with North Korea in possession of nukes may be the best possible scenario for the US.

Next, a review of the book Japan in the American Century in the London Review of Books:

With [Prime Minister Shinzo Abe] that means much more than phrase-making, as Pyle explains in detail: his Japan now accepts real responsibilities, e.g. to repel any attempt by China to act on its fanciful claim to the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea instead of begging the Americans to do so, e.g. preserving a dialogue with Putin in order to give him a reason for limiting Russia’s support for China (at one point Obama called Abe to try to persuade him to cancel an upcoming meeting, but he didn’t budge). It was not just a question of asserting personal leadership. To change long-settled habits of passivity, Abe established a National Security Council that is not just a gathering place for representatives of the foreign, defence and intelligence bureaucracies, as in most other countries, but an actual policy-making body operated by its own staff, the National Security Secretariat. It has been remarkably effective from the start, formulating Japan’s first post-1945 national security strategy and leading successful negotiations with the Chinese.

Finally, a lengthy interview on China and the logic of strategy in War on the Rocks. Excerpt:

Brad: So you’re the National Security Advisor to the new president, we see what China has done over the time that Xi has been in power, what should the U.S. policy toward China be?

Edward: Well it has to be engagement, but of a new kind. It’s an engagement in which United States simply becomes extremely positive on everything positive, and extremely harsh on anything negative. The famous, or perhaps not-so-famous Micron case in Taiwan, where a Fujian regional authority invests money to build a copy of a Micron plant, a shadow plant. And then they go and hire, offer triple salaries to any Micron employee who comes over to them carrying a laptop or server, or memory stick or whatever it is with Micron information. They get caught by doing all …

That should have led to a drastic response while at the same time trying to be positive when anything can be positive. In other words, one has to have a duality.

Brad: What would a drastic response look like?

Edward: Well a drastic response is very simple. To this day, the People’s Republic of China, with its many accomplishments, cannot produce an integrated circuit that is even remotely competitive. No Chinese intellectual property, integrated circuit or chip … as you know super computers, laptops, phones, all of what we call electronics, anything you’re going to build artificial intelligence on, does rest on integrated circuits or microprocessors or chips or whatever you call them. Those things, in order to be competitive, not just commercially but functional, for things like don’t generate so much heat that they melt down your battery kind of thing, those things, the Chinese are not able to do without using foreign intellectual capital and they can’t manufacture them. They have to be manufactured by Taiwan Semiconductor Corporation or the other people who can work on what’s called 7 nm, which is seven nanometers, which is seven billionths of a meter, right? They can’t do it.

Infrastructure: the thread

I have a bridge in Oklahoma to sell you

Investor and “extreme salesman” Adam Townsend has a few thoughts on US infrastructure spending. Behold, a Twitter thread that I think is worth preserving for posterity:

Adam Townsend
@adamscrabble
1. This is going to be a fun thread, it’s gonna be about finance and U.S. infrastructure. If that’s your groove, you’re going to swing. Lets begin… Historically, infrastructure financing has been done through public authority issuance of bonds….,

2. …the interest on which is tax-exempt to the recipient. There are three problems
Lower quality revenue stream projects need an equity component or a guarantee by a creditworthy public authority or municipality. These are becoming scarcer…

3. Construction costs tend to be higher when projects are built by the government rather than the private sector. These higher construction costs offset the benefit of lower interest rates, especially in today’s low rate environment when spreads between taxable…

4. and tax-free bonds are so small
Not all projects may meet the complex eligibility rules. Public bonds need to be issued in relatively large amounts so that there is a reasonable aftermarket. The money must also be spent on the project within a certain amount of time…

5. relative to the date the bonds are issued. These restrictions limit the extent to which the drawdown of the funds can be matched to the construction schedule. In today’s especially low short-term rate environment this means the project will have to pay a negative interest rate

6. arbitrage on money it actually doesn’t need yet or get a short term construction loan and run the risk that interest rates will rise between the date that the loan is taken down and the date of the long term refinancing.

7. now.. lets talk about NEW FUNDING MECHANISMS! were talking about…Pension funds, insurers and other institutions with long-term liabilities. The long-term nature of infrastructure programs means these investments are structurally well matched to the revenue flows…

8. from the debt that finances their construction, operation and maintenance.
Recently… the Japan Government Pension Investment Fund has been in cabinet-level talks. The GPIF will purchase debt issued by American corporations to finance infrastructure projects.

9. Up to 5% of the roughly $1.14 trillion in assets controlled by the megafund can go toward overseas infrastructure projects,,, [Related: “The US and Japan have emerged as new investment destinations, making up 11% and 3%, respectively, of the total global infrastructure assets, GPIF said,” but so far this total is only a few billion dollars]
I had this discussion at cabinet level with Trumps people… lets talk about it…

10. The Trump infrastructure tax financing plan
A major private sector, revenue neutral option to help finance a significant share of the nation’s infrastructure needs. For infrastructure construction to be financeable privately, it needs a revenue stream from which to pay…

11, …operating costs, the interest and principal on the debt,and the dividends on the equity.
The difficulty with forecasting that revenue stream arises from trying to determine what the pricing, utilization rates, and operating costs will be over the decades.

12. Therefore,an equity cushion to absorb such risk is required by lenders. The size of the required equity cushion will vary with the riskiness of the project. Assuming an average leverage will be about five times equity.

13. ok, now ure bored, so its gonna get crazy fun now, cool?
Some numbers,,,
Every $200 billion in additional infrastructure expenditures creates $88billion more in wages for average Americans and increases real GDP growth by more than a percentage point.

14, Each GDP point creates 1.2 million additional jobs.
I’m gonna blow ure mind now, buckle up!

The US has infrastructure needs of about $3.6 trillion through 2020, including…

15. $1.7 trillion for roads, bridges and transit alone
Traffic delays cost the U.S. economy more than $50 billion annually
iPhones are smarter than many of our air traffic control systems

As a reward for being such a great guest, here’s a pic of me and my cat

btw, Peter Navarro who was the tzar pushing the Infrastructure plan, was moved over to Trade tzar – where he is truly
🔥
🔥
🔥

A mot of people have asked about what Obama did with the 787 billion that was allocated for infrastructure. So, I am going to explain reality, sit back and read on. Lets begin anew…

118,000 bridges have been recorded as hazardous. This is about 30% of the American bridges yet account for only 6% of the United States population: Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota. Iowa alone has 25,000 bridges and only 3 million citizens.

These bridges do not have an industrial use. Of our 600,000 bridges most are trafficked only by livestock and people on a scenic walk. They have nothing to do with interstate commerce, GDP growth or national public infrastructure.

There are also 19,000 structurally deficient bridges in another 35 states, these states have a combined population of 175 million and more than 600 citizens per bridge.

80% of bridges in need of serious repair are in California. They have improperly used earmarked monies for general fund expenditures. Money was allocated, it was spent elsewhere by the state (wink and nudge to the State public employee pension system. More cat pix. /End

They apparently haven’t watched Burn After Reading

I think it’s safe to dispense with the idea, being promulgated by certain parties, that US intelligence is behind the Hong Kong protests/riots. One would have to be painfully naive to rule out the possibility of the US exploiting a chaotic situation in Hong Kong for its own ends. Many elements of the US establishment have made it clear that they support the protests. But it stretches credulity to claim that the CIA is capable of orchestrating a massive, open-source protest movement in a large and sophisticated Asian city. Seriously, think about it. As the Big Lychee helpfully reminds us, this is the same agency that saw its entire network in China caught and executed over a two-year period (I posted about this total debacle here). And if the “black hand” of the US is responsible for the current ructions in Hong Kong, was it also responsible for the 2014 democracy movement and the massive 2003 protest against Basic Law Article 23? That seems highly implausible, to say the least.

A Cambridge academic weighs in:

Jeppe Mulich
@jmulich
[Thread] The idea that foreign forces, and specifically the CIA, is either behind or heavily involved in the #antiELAB protests in Hong Kong seems to endure, somehow. So here are a few thoughts on why that is silly.

The first problem with the “foreign black hands” thesis is the underlying assumption that Hongkongers are unable to organize these protests themselves. That somehow they need the guiding hand of foreigners to mobilize.

That there simply is not enough motivation to take to the streets without outsiders stirring up trouble or offering incentives to do so. This is the same logic behind every colonial administrator or crony politician in history

complaining that the only reason the ‘natives’ or the ‘masses’ are protesting their rule is due to foreign troublemakers. It is devaluing the capacity and motivation of ordinary people and, in this case, it’s orientalist to boot.

The second problem with the thesis is that it greatly overestimates the capabilities of the CIA. Don’t get me wrong. The CIA is good at some things, and a lot of those things are deeply troubling and unethical.

Those things include funneling arms and finances to established groups of insurgents or to foreign regimes; extrajudicial rendition and detention; gathering particular types of intelligence and sharing it with select allies;

killing people with drones (sometimes even the intended targets); and supporting the more kinetic divisions of the US forces during on-the-ground military operations. They’ve also had some success with ruining Castro’s cigars and funding abstract expressionist art.

But none of these things are happening or would be relevant in HK today. There is no established insurgent group for the CIA to co-opt. There are no arms being funneled in (protesters use umbrellas, hard hats, dishwashing detergent, and a few Molotovs!)

Langley wouldn’t begin to know who to talk to in this type of leaderless, highly networked movement (look at their failures during the Arab Spring). I doubt they even have enough people proficient in traditional Chinese (let alone Konglish) to keep up with LIHKG and Telegram.

So, the idea of foreign black hands driving HK protests puts too little faith in the capacity of Hongkongers and too much faith in the capacity of those foreign forces. And worse, it plays directly into Beijing’s attempt at discrediting what is in fact a bottom-up mass movement

“A constitutional outrage”

Wow, just wow. I am coughing and spluttering with indignation at this gross violation of Democracy:

Parliament will be suspended just days after MPs return to work in September – and only a few weeks before the Brexit deadline.

Boris Johnson said a Queen’s Speech would take place after the suspension, on 14 October, to outline his “very exciting agenda”.

But it means the time MPs have to pass laws to stop a no-deal Brexit on 31 October would be cut.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow said it was a “constitutional outrage”.

The Speaker, who does not traditionally comment on political announcements, continued: “However it is dressed up, it is blindingly obvious that the purpose of [suspending Parliament] now would be to stop [MPs] debating Brexit and performing its duty in shaping a course for the country.”

In the meantime:

Leader of the House Jacob Rees-Mogg, who was at the meeting with the Queen, said the move was a “completely proper constitutional procedure.”

Jacob Rees-Mogg

Remember, folks, democracy is good… except when the people vote for bad things, like Brexit, in which case the people’s will can safely be ignored. But when the prime minister tries to implement the people’s long-thwarted will by using ruthless but entirely lawful tactics, like suspending parliament for an extra two weeks, this is “a smash and grab” on democracy and even “dictatorship,” and it must be stopped in its tracks, because democracy is good. Except of course when it isn’t.

I am reminded of Turkish PM Erdogan’s wise words: “Democracy,” he declared, “is like a tram. You ride it until you arrive at your destination, then you step off.”

By the way, wasn’t Britain supposed to leave the EU on March 29 by statute? What happened to that?

Running the numbers

Professor Balding does the math on US/China tariffs and finds that there may be somewhat less to the “trade war” than meets the eye:

Playing with some numbers here. YTD US exports to China are down 19% and imports from China are down 12%. To the horror of sky is falling people, these are borderline irrelevant numbers set against the US and global economies. Let’s have some perspective. For instance, 1/n

If US exports to China rose by an unprecedented amount of 19% rather than falling 19%, this would raise US GDP 0.1%. Just for illustration, imports and exports rising by those amounts rather than falling are equal to only 0.4% of US GDP. As a percentage of world GDP this 2/n

Amounts to 0.1% of world GDP. Put another way. This might be having a small impact on US and Chinese economies, it is irrelevant to the global economy. To put this number in perspective for China. If Chinese exports rose by 12% instead of falling by that amount you the US, 3/n

The Chinese economy would have grown by $63 billion. This would have added 0.45% to their economy. However this is a tiny number compared they reliance on credit. By comparison, China has added more $3 trillion in new credit since this time last year. In other words, 4/n

The marginal difference in trade is equal to 2% of rapidly expanding credit flows. Whatever your thoughts on the state of affairs a wee bit of reality is needed when blaming all nature of phenomenon on the not a trade war trade war. Done.

Meanwhile, in Thailand:

Thai officials glimpse a silver lining in the U.S.-China trade war as companies such as Sony Corp. move production to Southeast Asia’s second-largest economy.

At least 10 firms are in the process of relocating some production to Thailand from China, according to the National Economic & Social Development Council. More than a dozen others could potentially choose Thailand, it said in a statement.

“We may not see the impact on the economy now, but in the second half of 2019, it could become a positive factor for growth,” the agency’s Deputy Secretary-General Wichayayuth Boonchit said Monday.

Manufacturers are trying to escape US tariffs on imports from China.

The 10 firms moving some manufacturing to Thailand include Sony, Sharp Corp., Harley-Davidson Inc. and Delta Electronics Inc. Most have finalized locations near Bangkok or in the so-called Eastern Economic Corridor development zone, according to the economic and social development agency.