The Fed would create a lot of electronic dollars to loan to itself (new public debt)- however many trillions the Democrat Party leaders deemed useful, and allocate that pot of money to various contractors known to be sympathetic to Democrat Party politicians.
Because a green new deal would require some copious latitude for condemnations, expropriations and relocations of sundry establishment content found to obstruct government eco-redesign plans, some Supreme Court quibbling would ensue for some time, so a leftist court would be de rigueur for implementation of the Von Green Deal plan.
Giving the U.S.A. a great tax increase again would be necessary to fund the deal and make it seem like it would pay for itself. Maybe a 50% tax on the income of the top 5% earners. $12,000 of free income for all would end unemployment and employment for some.
It would all go very smoothly and the dawning of the Age of Aquarius would arrive at last.
Physicists generally believe the laws of the Universe haven't changed. There was an idea about a possible variable speed of light, yet that was not developed too far. One might want to throw out the word 'eternal' from the cosmology criterion. The Universe is believed to have had a beginning at T=0 and now is about 13.3 billion years old (unless it is an unobservable Multiverse- the boundaries could never be observed with the present physics knowledge and tech). So if it has any sort of eternal character about it that would be in one direction-outward as time and matter runs down, unless of course it is an eternally recurrent Universe that expands and contracts like a yo yo (an improbable idea and it would require constant never changing laws ad infinitum).
The reason for the assumption that the laws of physics haven’t changed since the start of the Universe is based on observations of the Universe together with the body of physics knowledge theory development and how that correlates with observations. One need distinguish between the laws of physics that exist in nature and human ideas about what those laws are. Physicists and their theories are fallible. Their ideas evolve over time and usually improve. https://www.livescience.com/solution-to-worst-prediction-in-physics.html
The Universe has a thermodynamic nature- it started highly organized and compact and unwinds to expand in a disorganized form. Initially there was just one force and field, highly compact, and it expanded and cooled down in to four primary forces that exist today. At very high temperature such as occurred at the start of the Universe the forces unify.
There is a Multiverse theory wherein each unique Universe has its own laws. Yet once the Universe starts it irreversibly flows ‘downslope’ as it were unwinding along within its particular balances of physical structure.
Physical laws are discovered rather than invented, so it is quite right that the understanding and description of physical laws may change. What does not change is the operating mechanics of any given universe. It is the operating laws of a universe that make it that particular universe.
An analogy might be that of a square box with three dimensions and six sides including the top and bottom. A box in that Universe could not have ten sides, or two sides, and be a square box. It would be possible to redefine what a side is and say for example that all of the sides of the box excluding the top and bottom are just one sides (ignoring the corners), yet the box that must exist in the Universe would be the same box regardless of how it is described (assume that there is one perfect example box that really exists to describe). In that same Universe a box described as having six sides could not be a box described as having three sides without either a logic or categorical error/inconsistency in the definition of sides.
Descartes' Meditations about first principles of thought and certainty (epistemology) of what is known or knowable began with self-reflection on thought. Zhuangzi had a famous saying about a man dreaming he is a butterfly and vice versa- the east had several thinkers who considered the possibility that reality as illusory before Descartes. Descartes' main differentiation from his predecessors is in his development of reason as the tool for epistemology and certainty. He wrote the Meditations of a Method while employed as a mercenary in Switzerland where he spent a lot of time inside an oven that was used as a sauna.
U.S. Foreign policy has remained fairly constant the past two years. What has changed is the emergence of characteristics of the policy initiatives in Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan that show a certain variegated approach toward bellicose rhetoric and military disengagement.
President Trump has directed negotiations with the Taliban that excluded the lawful government of Afghanistan and the media reports they are close to reaching a deal for the United States to withdraw half of its troops right away and possibly more later in exchange for three promises or wishes the Trump team asked. President Trump seems to have short-term profit strategy in his foreign policy, yet with Afghanistan long-term commitment is required to create a Taliban-free culture that isn’t a coordinating center for Eastern hemispheric terrorism.
What would have happened if the United States had allowed the Nazi party to return to Germany in 1963? The answer probably is that today it would be run by the 4th Reich of Nazis. Germany required a half century before it really changed, and Afghanistan will require a century more or less of U.S. garrisons working with the Afghan people before it has a culture that can co-exist with the west (although the west need be tolerant of Muslim moral norms generally and should not expect to coerce those to change).
The President’s North Korean diplomacy with North Korea is good, yet bad because that nation continues to develop nuclear weapons and systems to deliver them. Since China was saturated with W-54 small nuke technology by the Clinton administration’s allies, and as Pakistan has that too, there may be a deep feeling that portable man and drone carried nuclear weapons are a thing of the second world’s future so they can play around with the western leaders until the time is better for changing balances. I wonder if President Trump has any awareness of that, if it is so.
President Trump has expanded U.S. ground forces in Poland at their request to defend against the Russian menace, that is more of a result of Democrat party insistence than anything else, that bad relations with Russia rise, that the Ukraine was usually not part of Russia and Russians should have no interest or claim on it or the Crimea. If Germany does not require U.S. forces to make sure that young Adolph II does not seek to be the Chancellor, some of those could be shifted to Afghanistan to garrison it for a century to make sure the Taliban does not let a profusion of terror training and bomb making underground clinics arise amidst the mass stoning of women that were westernized and lynchings of anyone that worked with the United States.
Iran has been given sanctions (as has Russia) and stern warnings, yet nothing will follow that. President Reagan walked softly and carried a big stick while President Trump has a boastful mouth and threats that are like one huge, dark cloud passing in the summer desert sky. He is fundamentally a man of profit and peace with recalcitrance to spend on fighting- wars are costly. Still, some defense allocations are necessary to keep the peace, rather than rash withdrawals or commencement of hostilities. With illegal immigration from Latin America and elsewhere over the southern U.S. border the President has shown a consistent approach of defending U.S. national interests. As the Chief enforcement officer of the U.S.A. he has worked to stop illegal entry into the nation. China policy has also been a consistent program to require Chinese compliance with equal rights and normal responsibilities of trading partners; primarily the United States. The President has used tariffs to enforce the policy as well as other measures. Prior President were loose with China trade policy and a lot of U.S. business relocated to China. That trend developed so far that much U.S. manufacturing capacity was being lost. Analysts have said that the policy of Wall Street was to have tech employment on the American coasts, flood the nation with illegal aliens in the center to keep wages down and manufacture things in China. The President has resisted that apparently, though he too is a billionaire. His foreign policy is consistent enough.
Growing the meat of beef cattle
without a whole cow; a meat growing mechanism without stomachs, flatulence,
without a brain or legs, sitting on a warehouse shelf somewhere and fed with artificial
nutrients might be a project that bio-scientists might investigate to develop
and replace the present global warming gas, cattle raised for slaughter
technosystem that badly affects the planetary ecosphere because of the vast
numbers of cattle. The growing product would have no head, no nervous system or anything not required for direct support of growing the meat. It would be meat minimalism shaped perhaps as a large New York steak five foot in diameter and two feet thick. It would have no genetic engineering or pesticide contact. It would be an all-natural food.
Manufacturing beef in a way that
would be comparable to growing watermelons would free up the acreage exploited
for cattle grazing and stop the CO2 from those multiple stomachs and a-holes. New businesses such as The Mindless Meat Company could sprout.
Meeting the meat challenge should be within the capacity of science and technology.
It should be hard to believe that British leaders and Eurocrats given months or years to figure out how to make Northern Ireland a free trade zone able to govern its own trade and set its own rules, yet remain a British client state. It isn't unbelievable as it should be. Politicians these years don't have full wattage in their brains ordinarily.Britain and Northern Ireland would have a joint foreign origin trade control criteria that wouldn't let foreign interests exploit North Ire as a back door to England for easy dump in England.
The Yellowstone magma reserve
underground has the energy to create enough electricity to enable a national
electric vehicle in-line power grid. Removing all of the nation's fossil fuel
cars and replacing them with electric would be a good way to reduce greenhouse
gases. https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/observatories/yvo/
The down side of exploiting
Yellowstone's geothermal power is that it might induct more heat from down
below and precipitate a super-eruption.
A number of other factors could
make the super-volcano erupt sooner than expected...
That includes unforeseen plate tectonic
activity and meteors from space striking some area of the surface sending
shockwaves along.
At the least the US Government
should form a scientific committee to investigate all of the variables and
constants about the super-volcano to discover how it might be safely harnessed
to produce electric power. There is so much heat that salt-water could be
siphoned from the Pacific in pipelines and evaporated to make freshwater for
agriculture elsewhere in the nation, after passing through turbines to make
electricity for the nation auto grid. It might be possible to refill Lake Bonneville and other water storage areas and develop agriculture with irrigation across much of the S.W. It might be quicker to siphon saltwater to Deming New Mexico and create a border canal with double covers to spill it in and evaporate-condense on the lid to desalinate it as it flows in locks east and west. There is no harm in getting more bang for the buck with a better than a fence boundary security barrier with millions of gallons of fresh water for agriculture, drinking and recreation in Arizona, New Mexico, California and the Sonora desert. Perhaps both methods should be invested in with research at the least.
President Trump's effort to cut a peace and mostly retreat deal with the Taliban seems too much like an appeasement deal to let the Taliban return to power. The President's betrayal of Afghan security forces looks pretty bad. The United States doesn't need another Vietnamization of the war policy failure- though in the case of Vietnam it was the best choice perhaps remaining. https://www.thedailybeast.com/zalmay-khalilzad-says-afghan-taliban-agree-in-principle-to-peace-deal-but-they-scoff-at-trumps-bluff President Trump should establish strong defrappe bases in several areas of Afghanistan that are designed by engineers for good security and look toward a special air force of small drone to police the nation. Twenty thousand soldiers in permanent bases to provide security and reinforcement for non-Taliban Afghan forces ought to be enough. The United States has been in Europe since 1940 and no one is calling for complete withdrawal. In fact the President recently expanded troop deployments in Poland- a location that is unlikely to have an invading Russian Army any time soon, and where they can enjoy sausage and beer off duty. Central Asia has a lot of racists and America haters. It is a location from which defense against China, should they attack the United States perhaps with hundreds of suitcase nukes on drone, would be practical for containment of expanding Red Army elements. More so than Europe, American forces in the Eastern hemisphere have a purpose in serving in Afghanistan. President Trump should drop the Taliban appeasement plan, and reconsider his appeasement plan of the North Korean Dictator too. The President could establish a permanent new branch of the Army called the Afghan Corps that would return those interested in serving there for a decade, if they wish. It could have Marines serving in the same Afghan Corps units as the Army- and perhaps be more accessible to foreign enlistment for service. The Trump appeasement deal seems designed to try to influence Democrat voters to check his box in 2020 since Republicans might hate the plan already. The President might indicate support for legal dope smoking in the military too if he goes even further toward looking for Democrat voter support. Iran must be really worried now that President Trump is showing such a willingness to give the enemy whatever they want. The Afghan appeasement deal seems like one a hopeful rube would make; a rube silly enough to believe the Taliban won't actually purge regular government forces and take everything for themselves. Maybe the President is turning toward Rand Paul libertarian isolationism. President Obama would have been roundly criticized for an appeasement policy deal with the Taliban. A commitment to Afghanistan for the long haul is required to police it from radicals and to assure those that partner with Americans that they won't be left to twist slowly in the wind when the desire for instant gratification by U.S. politicians is thwarted. Those that choose to work with the United States for the benefit of their nation and themselves, as well as in support of U.S. interest in security, have a life-long exposure to victimization by the Taliban. If the United States once again betrays those that trust it, that can't be good for the prospect of seeking future alliances that might be required.
