Pages

Wednesday, April 05, 2017

Oh Kashmir!


Kashmir is one of India's biggest colossal disasters. Regardless of the past, and whatever maybe the reason, India's inability to manage Muslim dominated areas of Kashmir has led to dire consequences.


One of the contributing issues to this situation is the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. AFSPA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_(Special_Powers)_Act


It was a break down of Law and Order that resulted in the introduction of AFSPA. It is clear that this did not resolve the matter. It seems to have made matters worse.


The purpose of the Army is to defend the country. Soldiers are trained to kill/destroy enemy forces in case of an invasion. It is not the function of the Army to get involved in Law and Order issues in “Disturbed Areas”. That is the function of the local police. On occasion, during a crisis they would be assisted by the Central Reserve Police force.

In addition to the disastrous use of force to maintain Law & Order, there are multiple components at stake here:

  • Pakistan's Jihadi attitude.
  • The call for Azadi or merging with Pakistan
  • India's stance on Kashmir
  • Article 370

Pakistan's Jihadi Attitude:


The sparks to set things afire were initiated by Pakistan. India's AFSPA response to the “disturbances” added to the flames. The situation became explosive. Besides supporting the separatists, Pakistan engages and supports terrorist activities in Kashmir and other border areas. The response to this is beyond the scope of this opinion article.

The call for Azadi or merging with Pakistan:


What is being cast as a situation that requires a “political” solution is just another word for the majority Muslim population not wanting to be governed by a country where Hindus are a majority.

The following is an article that appeared in Outlook that interviews a few teenagers. It is ironic that they hold the peace sign in the photograph.



These are rebellious kids are addicted to their cause. When a child misbehaves, the parents usually steps in to disciplining them. In these cases the parents seem to have no control and the State has to step in. It is not possible to reason with them. The answer is to arrest and warn them once, twice and on the third incarcerate them in a boot camp where they are given continued excellent education along with disciple to make them productive citizens when they are released. They could be released if they provide a signed commitment that they will not engage in anti-State activity. If they break the commitment, it is back to boot camp.

Arundhati Roy is usually off the mark and impractical in her opinions, but her reporting is very relevant on the issues she reports on.



http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/azadi/297536


While there are die hard “Azadi” zealots who are unyielding, it is not just a matter of what Kashmir wants. It is also a matter of what India expects of Kashmiris.

The following hard hitting opinion bears some truth and also indicates the depth of the problem.


http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/stone-manifesto/297544


India spends on providing protection and Services to the Separatists who are calling for Azadi. Besides being outrages it tantamounts to stupidity. Paying for the very people who are against India's position. 


http://www.oneindia.com/india/india-spent-rs-356-crore-5-years-on-protection-privileges-for-kashmir-2202969.html


http://www.firstpost.com/india/kashmir-unrest-miffed-centre-to-toughen-stand-against-separatists-cut-funds-and-security-2993574.html


Kashmiriyat, Insaniyat (humanity) or Jamhooriyat (democracy), has been turned into Cash Me In, Insanity and Jihadi Jamboree. Inviting them for talks is fine, but if they cling to their position of demanding Secession, then there ought to be no seat for them at the table.

India's Stance on Kashmir:


India's stance on Kashmir has a lot to do regards the situation in Kashmir. In the past the approach seems to have been, we can talk, we will, we won't discuss Kashmir. Oh nol We will discuss anything but Kashmir. At least that is the perception people have. It has been a wishy washy approach to an issue that Pakistan and India have never agreed upon.


Some propose Kashmir ought to be given Independence. Really? Does that mean anytime there is a majority in a jurisdiction demanding Independence, it should be considered? What about the North East, and the agitation for Khalistan? On the International stage, what about Hong Kong? They have a different currency and would prefer autonomy from China. Besides “Kashmir” consists of Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh. All of these areas have strategic importance to India by way of rivers and border control. More autonomy is an option, not just for Kashmir, but under the federal structure of India applicable to all States. Independence is off the table.


It is only recently that thanks to the Modi administration that India has forcefully declared that Kashmir is an part of India. No ifs and buts, that is it. That said, any mention to the contrary has to been responded with, “Kashmir is an integral part of India”. This is the official party line and ought to be repeated as often as necessary if the topic is broached by any state or non-state party.


Second India has clearly stated that India will not discuss Kashmir with any external party. That means Pakistan, the UN and other external wannabe interlocutors. In this matter any discussion on Kashmir is “off the table.” It is strictly an internal affair and it is India's business to resolve. Any suggestion/approach by an external party ought to be responded with, “Sorry, Kashmir is an integral part of India, India will not entertain any discussion on Kashmir with anyone.” Finally, it's about time, this has been communicated by the Modi administration.


Third, India should politely refuse any discussion on this matter in the UN forum. India's position is that the past is the past. In the present context, with the new leadership, this is not an external issue that India will participate in the UN. The UN may bring this issue and discuss it, but India will not participate and will deny any resolution contrary to India's stated position.


Finally, Pakistan has to be put in its place. It has and continues to be a hostile and aggressive neighbour, behaving like a five year old child who is adamant that Kashmir belongs to it and will never give in. It is like a child that cannot be reasoned with. It will continue to whine, complain, cry to whoever will listen. India's message to Pakistan ought to be, “go to your time out corner, when you exhibit mature behaviour and India concurs, then and only then will there be bilateral talks. Until then India should break off all diplomatic and political interaction and communications. There are good people in Pakistan and it would benefit both countries if there are cultural, sports exchanges, cross border visits and business. By all means back channel discussion can continue. But from an official standpoint India treats Pakistan as “persona non grata”.


Article 370:


This is a major political issue. 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370. 


One asymmetrical aspect is non-Kashmiris cannot buy land or own businesses in Kashmir, while Kashmiris can own land and businesses in the rest of India. Autonomy of all States should be entertained under the federal framework of India.


In Summary:

  • The focus should be in establishing Law and Order without the army.
  • Political discourse is confined to Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh being an integral part of India.
  • The house of Kashmir is in disorder and it is incumbent of Kashmiris to put it in order, with help from the Center. 
  • Deal with the attempts by the hostile neighbour. 
  • The army's role is to stop intrusion from the border and collaborate with internal security forces only on specific occasions when overt conflict occurs. 
  • Establish three States; namely – Kashmir, Jammu snd Ladakh.
  • Consider modifying Article 370 with the entire country in mind, with inputs from all the states.

Wednesday, October 05, 2016

What should be India's Response to Pakistan


The recent position taken by PM Modi and Sushma Swaraj is to be applauded. Finally India is showing some spine. However, it needs to be taken a step further.

Pakistan has to be put in its place. It has and continues to be a hostile and aggressive neighbour behaving like a five year old child who is adamant that Kashmir belongs to it and it will never give in. It is like a child that cannot be reasoned with. India's message to Pakistan ought to be, “go to your time out corner, when you exhibit mature behaviour and India concurs, then and only then will there be bilateral talks. Until then India should break off all diplomatic and political interaction and communications. There are good people in Pakistan and it would benefit both countries if there are cultural, sports exchanges, cross border visits and business. Facilitate applications via web based applications. Apply on-line for a fee. It gets vetted and if approved, visa is granted upon arrival. By all means back channel discussion can continue. But from an official standpoint India treats Pakistan as “persona non grata”.

India's Stance on Kashmir:

India's stance on Kashmir has a lot to do regards the situation in Kashmir. In the past the approach seems to have been, we can talk, we will, we wont discuss Kashmir. Oh no we will discuss anything but Kashmir. At least that is the perception people have. It appears like a wishy washy approach to an issue that Pakistan and India has never agreed upon. So how should India go about addressing this disagreement?

Thanks to PM Modi's administration India has forcefully declared that Kashmir belongs to India, no ifs and buts, that is it. Any mention to the contrary has to be responded with, “Kashmir is an integral part of India”. This is the official party line and ought to be repeated as often as necessary if the topic is broached by any state or non-state party. However, it needs to be taken a step further.

India should clearly state that India will not discuss Kashmir with any external party. That means it will not be discussed with Pakistan, or the UN or other external wannabe interlocutors. In this matter any discussion on Kashmir is “off the table.” Issues in Kashmir are strictly internal affairs and it is India's business to resolve. Any suggestion/approach by an external party ought to be responded with, “Sorry, Kashmir is an integral part of India, India will not entertain any discussion on Kashmir.” This has been the communicated to Pakistan by the Modi administration. It has to be taken further and leads to the next step.


India should politely refuse any discussion on this matter in the UN forum. India's position is that the past is the past. In the present context, with the new leadership, this is not an external issue that India will participate in the UN. The UN may bring this issue and discuss it, but India will not participate and will deny any resolution contrary to India's stated position.

Friday, October 30, 2015

Addressing Pakistan's Nuclear Threat


The nuclear threat to India from Pakistan is real. Reports indicate that India's and Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is on par1. Reports also indicate that Pakistan is stockpiling nuclear warheads at the rate of about 20 a year2 and poised to become the third largest nuclear armed country3. India has repeatedly stated its traditional policy of not using nuclear weapons first and not targeting non-nuclear weapons nations. India has also indicated that it is prepared to convert these into bilateral or multilateral legally binding “No First Use” (NFU) agreements incorporating these two principles, while ruling out joining the non-proliferation treaty4. Pakistan on the other hand has made no such indications. Being the weaker of the two nations, it holds the nuclear option as a threat to mitigate massive losses in the event of an all out war. Pakistan Foreign Secretary Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry said that his country has “low-yield, tactical nuclear weapons” (TNWs) to deal with India’s so-called Cold Start doctrine5.

TNWs are usually short range lower-intensity “tactical” weapons, whereas strategic weapons are high-intensity long range weapons. This disclosure of possessing TNWs prompts India to update its Nuclear Doctrine6.

While India has always maintained it wishes to coexist peacefully with Pakistan, the reverse doesn't hold true. Consequently, India has to temper and measure its responses to Pakistan's border infractions with no clear advantage of possessing nuclear weapons. To counter this, India has to develop a strategy to counter this disadvantage.

The worst case scenario is if Pakistan, when pushed to the wall, experiences a break down in the change of command resulting in a rogue nuclear attack, which is then responded to by India, with force majure, resulting in a Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD)7 and the possible annihilation of Pakistan. No one in their right mind would wish this, but the specter of nuclear war prompted George Fernandes, as India's Defense Minister in 2003, to allude to this response8.

Given the possibility of MAD, what should India do?

On 7 October 2001, less that a month after the 9/11 attack, the US officially launched Operation Enduring Freedom9, invading Afghanistan, demanding that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden and to expel Al Qaeda. Preparations started on Sept 26th 2001, fifteen days after the attack.

India's Nuclear Doctrine, besides specifying the response, should include comprehensive processes and protocols to ascertain, confirm and communicate that a nuclear attack has taken place. There can be absolutely no scope for error in determining and communicating this to the Prime Minister. India's nuclear doctrine should specify how long it will take from verification of incident, to communication, to action. Once the decision is taken to act, the impact of the response should be over in minutes.

The issue being debated currently is what should India's response be if Pakistan detonates a TNW, even if it targets Indian ground forces in Pakistan's territory10. The question is should India unleash its nuclear arsenal on Pakistan, shrug it off and continue fighting or initiate a measured response?

A Nuclear Weapon is a Nuclear Weapon and even if one TNW is launched by Pakistan, India should respond with such force that it debilitates Pakistan and prevents it from responding. This response could well be with conventional weapons that targets military installations and known TNW installations which by their very nature are situated close to the border.

It is imperative that all conceivable scenarios be identified and responses vetted militarily and politically such that if a situation arises depending on its nature, the option(s) are presented to the Prime Minister and the PM's council for a Go/No Go decision. This includes whisking away the PM and the PM's council to a “safe” location. Until this point there is no room for debate. A decision making process must be followed based on an established criteria. The PM may choose to make a few calls to the Pakistani counterpart before deciding.

That said, a number of initiatives ought to be taken as preventive measures. A nuclear attack can occur from Land, Air or Sea. The challenge for India is to institute defensive mechanisms to thwart any such attacks. This includes:
  • Comprehensive border security
  • Naval and Air patrolling and exercises to ensure readiness
  • Develop Interceptor missiles to form an “Iron Dome”
  • Accumulate significant conventional weapons with missile delivery systems
  • Maintain a strategic nuclear advantage
  • Regular testing of India's nuclear readiness, both defensive and offensive
  • In depth intelligence of Pakistan's nuclear deployments both Strategic and Tactical with significant Conventional Weapons pointed at these nuclear deployments
  • Satellite surveillance systems with Infrared capability
  • Develop autonomous air and ground combat systems
In summary a strong defense is the best offense to respond to any conflict that India might encounter with Pakistan. In addition this should be accompanied by preparedness and flawless execution of the nuclear doctrine, should the need arise.

Notes:


Monday, May 11, 2015

The Brilliance in Modi’s Land Bill Strategy


By issuing an ordinance, which is a privilege granted in the Indian Democratic “Socialist” constitution and by reissuing it to extend it before the Rajya Sabha can vote on it, the Modi government has probably given a window of opportunity to initiate land acquisition in critical disputed areas. Furthermore, by adjusting their opening bid to stave off major objections, the Modi administration has taken a “balls to the wall approach” by calling a Joint Session to pass the amendments, since it is likely to be stalled in the Rajya Sabha.

This article by Swaminathan Aiyar provides some insights to the way Modi could succeed in getting his way.

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Swaminomics/new-land-bill-will-win-not-lose-votes-for-modi/

There are stipulations in the Land Acquisition Act that are major obstacles to Rural Land Acquisition, most of which is categorized as either Agricultural or Forest regardless of no forest cover and no agricultural activity taking place. These are:
  • Social impact assessment
  • Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Both of the above pertain mostly to the landless that rely on the land they do not own for their subsistence. There is also a consent clause which may or may not apply.

Given the right price, conditions and benefits, farmers could be convinced that they stand to gain by selling their land. It is dealing with the affected landless that can present an insurmountable challenge. This is what Modi’s modification is attempting to overcome. The amendments facilitate the preference to industrialize established “corridors” rather than developing new industrial corridors for large projects in the hinterland.

Scaling down the obstacles mentioned above, would result in a “pro farmer” bill for the land owners. At most the amendments can be cast as an “anti-farming” bill since it may result in farm land being acquired for non-farming purposes. People who might be affected adversely are the landless who squat on land, often to the frustration of the rightful owner.

Addressing the Social Impact goes hand in hand with Relocation and Rehabilitation. Past experiences have shown the success rate of rehabilitating the landless, even when attempted with the best of intentions. It requires significant intervention at the personal level. It may look good on paper, successful execution is another matter.

Land Acquisition is a State issue and there are provisions permitted for the States to address the hurdles mentioned above. The NDA could have quietly gone about pursuing the development strategy in NDA controlled States and let the Opposition controlled States deal with their obstructive approach.

Rahul Gandhi has responded in typical Indian obstructionist manner in hoping that by thwarting development, the Congress can claim failure of the NDA and thereby make a better show at the next election.  By making this a National issue,  and banking on  the NDA showing the fruits of development, show casing happy farmers, Modi could point to Rahul claiming we have proved him wrong.
Rahul is right in stating that an election cannot be won by angering 67% of the population. 

The contrasting article, heavily left leaning and socialist in bent, feels Rahul has scored a point. In actuality, Rahul has bet on Modi not delivering.


And so if Modi wins, India wins and it would be a justified set back for Rahul and his party.

Friday, April 03, 2015

Why not institute guidelines that get rid of Floor Space Index

The setting of FSI is a constant battle in India. The forgone conclusion is that we have to build up in Urban areas. The debate is how high?

Why not get rid of FSI and allow builders to build as high as they want with the following stipulation:

  1. Government chalks out green space for parks and play ground as part of the city’s master plan.
  2. The building can have as many flats as can be accommodated, however 50% of the units must be a mix of studio and 1 BHK staff quarters that are strictly for servants and staff. Structure should be within defined plot boundaries.
  3. Number of car parking spaces is 1.5 times the number of flats plus parking spaces for two wheelers, plus parking for visitors.
  4. Building contracts with a private power supplier for power. Subsidized for the Staff.
  5. The building recycles its water and minimizes its water consumption. Water is priced at a premium for owners, subsidized for staff.
  6. The building has its own sewage treatment plant (STP) that is part of the recycling system. Local Power Generation from Bio-Gas, Bio-Mass.
  7. One lift for every ten floors.  One service lift for every 20 floors.
  8. Rainwater harvesting
  9. Common areas lighted with solar power.
  10. The building does garbage separation – compostable (wet), recyclable, thrash.
  11. The only commercial activity allowed is a convenience store for residents.
  12. Usual fire, hazard, safety infrastructure.
More conditions can be added to get rid of FSI all together.

Friday, March 27, 2015

Disappointment in Sydney


1. India cannot beat this Australian team with just one all rounder, besides the keeper. A rematch would probably lead to the same outcome.

Saurav Ganguly articlualted it best without mentioning the importance of all rounders. He said Australians have deep batting.

Here are some stats:

G. Maxwell, in at 4, scored 23 (14b, 3x4, 1x6) Bowled 5-0-18-0
S. Watson, in at 5, scored 28 (30b, 2x4, 1x6) Bowled 4-0-29-0
J. Faulkner, in at 7, scored 21 (12b, 3x4, 1x6) Bowled 9-1-59-3 (1nb, 1 wide)
M. Johnson, in at 9, scored 27 not out, (9b,4x4,1x6) Bowled 10-0-50-2 (2 wides)

These four all rounders added 100 runs! Each one of them bagged a 6! Everyone except Watson scored more runs than the balls they faced. Watson missed only by 2. Compared to the other three, he was a Turtle.

Starc and Hazelwood are the two only bowlers in the team.

Finch 81 of 116b,7x4,1x6, Watson and Clarke 10 of 12b, 1x4, were the only three batsmen that scored less runs than balls faced. Finch was the stabilizer, Smith and the others were the accelerators.

Everyone in the team except Clarke bagged a 6.

Note to selection committee "Think Strategy". It is a game of Brawn AND Brain

2. India pretty much had a cake walk to the Semis. SA was the only real competition India faced. Australia is clearly the better team. Their pace bowling was superior. The pitch is tuned for pace. Australia butchered India's bowling, India did not respond in kind.

3. Batting second changed the nature of the game. Scoring over 300 is a requirement at this stage of the game. Could India have pulled it off if they batted first?

4. Australia has about 25 Million people. If we selected and trained cricketers from our Middle Class pool of 250 Million people, India's B Team should beat any country's A Team! This is an environmental issue that involves facilities, opportunities and culture.

5. Strike should be rotated to the set batsmen. Every dot ball is a run for the other side. Kohli - 13 balls 1 run! Indians lack the killer instinct. When the odds are against you, you go down fighting, take big hit risks not running risks and getting run out.

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

The Rise of Automation


John Maynard Keynes, wrote an article in 1930 titled - Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren where he takes “wings into the future.” What can we reasonably expect the level of our economic life to be a hundred years hence?  His basic premise is that productivity will continue to increase rendering more and more humans jobless.


2030 is more than a decade away and John Maynard's forecast is amazingly on target. Advances in automation, is affecting workers in developed countries and the impact is undeniable.

“Nonemployed - As robots grow smarter, American workers struggle to keep up”:


This trend will continue to pick up pace and in the future we will see more and more jobs being performed by robots. So what does the future hold? Watch this video on humans need not apply:


And the alarm it raised for the author of the following article:


Computers are becoming smarter and the implications are described in this talk:


The children of the 21st Century will have bigger challenges in bringing up their children, than the 20th Century generation. The world has changed so much since our parenting experience. While the pace of change is accelerating society's ability to keep pace with its impact is not.

Society will have problems coping with the rate of change being brought about by technological advances and innovation. The rate of change is accelerating and every indication is that the effect on mankind will be cataclysmic unless it is planned for.

The following is a Sixty Minutes feature: Are robots hurting job growth?


Here is an opinion piece on the same subject:


Kurzeweil, who is considered by some to be the world's leading artificial intelligence (AI) visionary, coined the phrase, “Singularity” to describe the moment in the future when humans and machines will supposedly converge. He sees this happening by 2029 just fifteen years away.



Pundits are conflicted about this trend as portrayed in these TED talks:


Listen to the last 60 secs, of the opposing talk below, if you don't have the time. The title is half misleading. Innovation is not dead. Whether it will contribute to growth is the issue. Innovation will make things better for some and hurt others.


Notice the difference in age between the two speakers. Both agree on the rising income gap and the impact of automation. Education will be revolutionized by technology. This is not acknowledged by the second speaker. It will become more accessible. But, will people take advantage of it. What the US faces today and in the near future, the developing world will experience, not too far in the future. Innovation will continue, however currently, there is a diminishing rate of uplifting return due to innovation. More people are being rendered jobless due to automation. The first speaker acknowledges the challenges, and has a Utopian response; the second predicts society will be unable to cope and he challenges the current generation to deliver innovation that have the same uplifting impact as the past generations did.

The companion article: “The Forthcoming Leisure Age”, is all about an age of abundance while recognizing that many people will experience some hardships during this transition.

Jeremy Rifkin has coined the phrase, “The Zero Marginal Cost Society,” and written a book pointing out that the rapid advances in technology is “speeding us to an era of nearly free goods and services.”



He explains the impact on society in a talk he gave at the Churchill Club:


None of these opinions delve into the massive socioeconomic-political changes that need to take place to address this trend.

Growing income inequality is a world wide phenomenon. For instance say one person makes 5,000 a month and another makes 10,000. Both get a 5% increase which takes their wages to 5,250 and 10,500 respectively. The income gap of 5,000 becomes 5,250. The wages for an unskilled or same skilled job is not going to keep pace with jobs that require special skills. It doesn't take a new set of skills to perform existing manual jobs like "load carrying", picking fruits and vegetables, etc.  Any wage increase is not because of upgraded skills. It will be paying more for people doing the same job,  to keep pace with inflation. The solution to the rising income gap is to reduce the cost to these people by way of subsidized housing, food, healthcare and education. Just about all countries provide these subsidies in some form or the other. The outlay for these “hand outs” is going to increase and needs to be planned for.

Developing countries face the problem of lack of opportunity for their citizens while developed countries are losing jobs to automation. Both are faced with people willing to work but lack opportunities. Furthermore, every country is faced with ‘Takers’ who are unproductive people, be it due to unavailability of opportunity, inability, age, or unwillingness to work.

With increasing automation, more and more jobs will be eliminated, which will increase the supply of workers and put a downward pressure on wages. There will be more and more people who are unable, or incapable and hence shut out from the "automated economy".

The short term solution to this problem is for the "productive" people the “Makers” to support the "unproductive" people the “Takers”. This is being practiced in some form or the other by every country.

Given the current socioeconomic-political situation this solution is not sustainable. We will be faced with a decreasing number of Makers that will have to support an increasing number of Takers.

The undeniable facts are:

Automation and design for manufacturing will become localized, but it will require fewer workers. The developing world will benefit and affected by this trend.

In the US the Middle Class that comprised mainly of Joe Plumber, Jack Electricians and Bob the construction man is being decimated. Wages are either stagnant or declining.

In the Developing World the opposite holds true, the Middle Class is growing and wages are improving for skilled, semi skilled and workers. But this “dividend” may be short lived. The rate at which technology is adopted by the Developing World is increasing as well. The downside of not increasing productivity is increased costs and reduced efficiency.

Barring a man or nature made catastrophe, we can see a new world order with the “Forthcoming Age of Leisure,” as described in the article of the same name.

The Forthcoming Leisure Age


While technologists point to the advances in automation that will displace many jobs that humans perform, economists are scratching their heads and are not looking beyond the near future. Sociologists haven't a clue other than forecasting an ominous future. Educators are noting that we are moving towards an unstructured world and our current education system is tailored to a factory oriented assembly line. Technologists, economists, sociologists and educators focus on their own silos of expertise and don't look at the complete picture. Opinions are expressed in the context of the silos of each opinion maker. Politicians are concerned about getting elected, responding to the immediate needs of their constituents and responding to crisis. There needs to be some thought given to what children born today will encounter when they reach middle age and in their twilight years. There are competing predictions. However there is no analysis that ties it all together in a socioeconomic and political context.

The companion article, “The Rise of Automation” provides references to information that covers the State of the Art in the beginning of the 21st Century and what experts see coming.

This article takes a comprehensive view of the developments and forces at play in looking at what the future could well turn out.

In the beginning of the 22nd Century:

The year 2100 has ushered a new era in the US. Automation has penetrated every aspect of American life. Cars are self driven. So are trains, buses and planes. Robots do the cooking and cleaning. Everything conceivable that required human effort has been automated. Robots even look after children and the invalid. The US continues to attract the best and the brightest of the world. Innovation has taken center stage. Only the most sophisticated, delicate and intricate tasks need to be performed by humans. That too is a rarity. It is an era of plenty. Energy is plentiful; mostly safe renewable solar, wind and nuclear energy. Even defense is highly automated, consisting of missiles, jet fighters that fly by themselves, drones and micro-drones. These micro-drones can seek and incapacitate an individual by stinging them with a powerful sedative or kill them with a lethal injection. Hunger and poverty have been banished. There is no shortage of essential goods and creature comforts. Technological breakthroughs in energy, automation in manufacturing, construction, farming etc. have brought the cost of goods and services down significantly and it has become economical and viable to just give everyone their basic necessities along with robots to serve them. Everyone is given Monthly Basic Credits (MBCs) – Housing Credits, Food Credits and Discretionary Credits. Education and Healthcare are free. People can earn more Credits in a variety of ways, reminiscent of jobs as defined in the 21st Century, to afford more. Inflation is virtually non-existent since everything is indexed to the Credits. A commodity costs the same number of Credits regardless. Money has ceased to be important and the notion of banking and investing has been disbanded which precipitated the demise of Wall Street. Wall Street that held sway until the mid 21st Century exists only in name. There is peace and happiness. It took significant changes and cataclysmic shifts to get to this situation. Even with a few detractors, the majority agree that the solution achieved is as close to Utopia as one can get.

The path to the Age of Leisure:

In the early 21st Century, the US consisted of:

  • Makers, who added “real” value to the economy
  • Takers, who lived of entitlements and subsidies

With the advent of automation, more and more people were forced out of work. The Taker population comprised of not only habitual Takers, but others forced into this predicament due to the unavailability of jobs or their inability to function as a Maker in the highly specialized environment. As more and more automation set in, even the service economy was affected and service jobs like gardening, burger flipping etc. got automated. This created a major rift between the Haves and the Have Nots. The country had a dwindling set of Makers, Servers (Service Providers) and an expanding population of Takers.

Food Stamps to the Rescue:

To counter the trend of increasing poverty, the Food Stamp Program and Unemployment Benefits were expanded. Providing and extending these entitlements were heavily fought over by fiscal conservatives. They had a point. Money spent on entitlements did nothing to solve the problem. Government and the poor had one thing in common. Both lived beyond their means and spent more than they had. Furthermore, money poured at the bottom and near bottom of the pyramid bubbled up to the top and the income gap widened. The government could not cope with rising unemployment. The consumer market collapsed and this set a downward spiral in the price of produce and manufactured goods. Massive deflation set in. The country got thrown into deep depression. The entire Farm to Fork chain had been automated and the bottom fell out in the agriculture economy. With falling prices, farmers defaulted on their loans and instead of giving farmers subsidies, the Thinkers in government suggested that the government take over farms. With the ever expanding Food Stamp program, it made eminent sense for the government to own agriculture. Many farmers opted out and surrendered to the government. With government owning a significant portion of food production, a Food Stamp Economy emerged, wherein Food Stamps were involved in most transactions pertaining to produce and processed food. The monetary relief on the government was significant. The Food Stamp program became a success. Hunger and malnutrition was eliminated. Farmers benefited too, many migrated to cities and became Takers. The ones that stayed back approached farming as a hobby. Many city dwellers moved to rural America and chose the simple rural life of being close to nature and mother earth. The back to nature form of living gained popularity. But the situation in cities deteriorated. Homelessness was on the rise to unprecedented levels. The country was driven to the brink of disaster by uncontrollable law and order. Prisons were over flowing and the government started building more prisons to accommodate the increasing population of criminals.

Enter Housing Credits:

While the situation got worse; on the verge of reaching a tipping point of anarchy, the Thinkers in government citing the success of the Food Stamp program recommended applying this principle to Housing and just give minimum housing to Takers. The rationale was instead of building more prisons, why not build housing. Food was already taken care of and housing will take care of giving people a roof over their heads. And so along with Food Stamps, the government started issuing Housing Credits. This brought about significant relief to the situation and more Monetary relief.

The Collapse of Commodity Prices:

Extensive recycling and reuse resulted in judicious use of non-renewable resources. This extended the availability of non-renewable resources for the 22nd Century and beyond. The drop in demand cratered the prices of raw material. Mining, refining, transportation, manufacturing, delivering was automated with minimal human intervention. Technological breakthroughs in energy, automation in manufacturing, construction, etc. brought the cost of goods and services down even further. With the collapse of prices and subsequent defaults, the Thinkers in the government recommended take over of mines and oil fields. Fossil fuels were yesterday’s energy source and demand for it evaporated. With that the debate on climate change was put to bed. The cost of goods dropped to such an insignificant level that it became economical and viable to just give the Takers the essentials that they needed along with robots to serve them as well to enjoy a comfortable Quality of Life of Leisure, since energy was cheap and everything was automated.

The New US:

The US became completely self sufficient. Trading with other countries decreased to a negligible level. The world was forced to survive without relying on the US economy. Europe and the BRICS countries picked up the slack. In the past the US was accused of being a war monger, involved in an expansionist foreign policy. The rhetoric shifted and the rest of the world began accusing the US of being an isolationist. China that once copied US innovations indiscriminately started crying fowl since Chinese innovations were being replicated in the US. The Dollar continued to be an International Currency, but most of the Dollars circulated overseas since the US found little use for it. A Dollar to US Credit exchange emerged. This was utilized by tourists visiting the US, by US citizens wishing to travel abroad and for existing trade to acquire Rare Earths and the like. The entire Product Cycle from Supply Chain, Manufacturing and Distribution being automated required very little human intervention. The new order was not Capitalism, Socialism or Communism. Scholars wrestled with what to call it. Branding this socioeconomic order as an “ism” was rejected. That debate still goes on.

The Passage of Fundamental Rights:

The Thinkers in government then went about proposing a set of Fundamental Rights (re-branded entitlements) that were passed by Congress. Basic food and housing were institutionalized as the Right to Food and Right to Housing. To this was added Right to Education; which was essentially free and dispensed through Massive Open On-line Courses (MOOCs), and the Right to Health Care; which was also highly automated and given free. The much fought over and maligned Affordable Care Act that came into existence in 2014 was re-branded as Right to Health and made Universal.

Cradle to Grave Security:

With cradle to grave support provided for by the government, there was no need for 20th Century entitlement programs - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Disability, Welfare were all eliminated. With the basic set of Rights established, all forms of Subsidies and Entitlements were eliminated. Everyone was entitled to these Rights and in order to avail of these Rights a set of Responsibilities were established to maintain social balance and harmony. This provided more Monetary relief to the government. A new category of people emerged; Servers, who served Makers; Servers who served affluent Makers, Makers who preferred to be served by humans rather than robots.

Credits Replace Currency:

In implementing these fundamental rights the government established a new currency of exchange called Credits. Since Food Stamps and Housing Credits were already in place, all of this were rolled into a Basic Credit System of Food Credits, Housing Credits, and Discretionary Credits. These were commonly called FC, HC and DC. Discretionary Credits could be applied to anything. Education and Healthcare did not require any Credits. Takers were able to live within the Basic Credits they were given. The income inequality that widened in first part of the 21st Century vanished. Makers earned more Credits by virtue of their occupation and contribution to society, much like the 21st Century, which allowed them to live a more “affluent” life style. Makers had choice regarding housing. They could upgrade their housing by applying Discretionary Credits or chose to live a simple lifestyle on their entitled Housing Credits. They could use their Discretionary Credits (entitled and earned) for whatever they chose. Inheritance rights were preserved. People, who inherited property, turned in their unused Housing Credits. The Commercial and Rental Real Estate market collapsed with dwindling demand. It became the property of the government by default. A small demand for Servers emerged created by Makers who wished to be served by Humans. The oldest profession continued to exist. Servers got paid for services provided.

A Focus on Quality of Life:

To enhance the Quality of Life, the Thinkers in government, promoted the idea of Entertainment Centers called Forever Lands, much like Las Vegas and Disney Land in each and every City and Town. People could utilize their Discretionary Credits to access the recreational facilities provided. Gambling was curtailed, in that when a person exhausted their Discretionary Credits, they had to quit and wait till they got their next allotment or earned more DCs. Many activities were free; others were purchased with Discretionary Credits. Many tournaments, games enabled people to earn Discretionary Credits that they could use for special privileges like golfing, horse back riding, fishing etc. There were many avenues like volunteering, taking courses etc. to earn DCs and that could be used to acquire things to satisfy human vanity, such as human made items or works of art. While Forever Lands were accessible to everyone, exclusive Country Clubs were set up as well that required significant DCs to access. These were the places frequented by affluent Makers. What resulted was a true meritocracy wherein competence and creating value earned more DCs. The more one earned the more they could afford, while no one was denied their Basic Rights. There were other things established to ensure Quality of Life. For instance by using Discretionary Credits, people were able to take vacations. A Time Share like system allowed individuals and families to select the type of vacation they wished to have. Airfare, ground transportation and lodging required Discretionary Credits. Food Credits covered Food. The more Discretionary Credits a person possessed the more they could afford, like upgrades to a more luxurious vacation. An exchange facility was established whereby a person, couple or family living in one location could exchange places with their equivalent in another location. This flexibility was popular among Takers. Takers with young children could move around as and when they wished provided they were able to find an exchange opportunity. Another phenomena that emerged is that some Takers excelled in creativity and every once in awhile an art form or innovation would emerge and achieve some recognition. This earned them more Discretionary Credits. It was not uncommon for a Maker to transition into a Taker and then re-emerge as a Maker.

Inflation and Deflation Eliminated:

Goods and Services were pegged to Credits and their cost in Credits remained the same. For instance a Pound of Salt; the very basic essential was pegged at One Food Credit. The price of all food items was derived in relation to a Pound of Salt. Each individual was given one Housing Credit per month. A family of four was entitled to a four bedroom apartment. With this system of Credits, inflation or deflation was completely eliminated.

The Demise of Wall Street:

With the establishment of Credits which was a virtual currency; with inflation/deflation beaten, the notion of banking and investing was disbanded which led to the demise of Wall Street. Makers consisted primarily of Innovators, Entrepreneurs, Entertainers, Artists, Educators, Lawyers, Doctors, etc. which earned them Discretionary Credits. The demand for Bankers, Brokers, Investment Counselors, and Economists dropped, except for a few in the government to deal with International Trade, which was minimal.

Democracy Turned on its Head:

Centralized democracy as practiced till the late 21st Century was disbanded. The country transitioned itself into self governance. District lines were drawn to contain approximately one million adults. Each district was represented by a Mayor and his/her Council Members. Each Council member had a specific area of oversight such as; Human Rights, Commerce, Law, Education, Environment, Agriculture, Health, Safety, Code of Conduct, Quality of Life etc. Council members were elected by citizens from a pool of experts. The elected local representatives consisting of Mayor and Council Members gained more power over national issues through a Council System. Council Members met regularly with their counterparts through teleconferencing. Changes to existing rules and regulations were ratified at Quarterly National Conferences. The President became like the King/Queen of England, a nominal head. Debate by citizens was encouraged and dissension tolerated. Places called Rebel Worlds and Opinion Worlds were set up where people could voice their opinions, suggestions and complaints. Issues had to be backed by facts. People were warned when making wild allegations, which had to be retracted or face litigation. Legitimate issues resulted in petitions that were debated and voted upon, then taken up by the Mayor and the Council Member to be ratified. If the resolution had a multi-district or national implication, it was taken up at the appropriate Council Meeting to be ratified at the appropriate level. Changes proposed at the Council Meeting were sent back to the people for debate and discussion and voted upon again. These petitions were at times debated for months and years and went through many cycles of voting before being agreed upon. All proposals and resolutions had to pass the Fairness Principle.

The Fairness Principle: The Fairness Principle was guided by the following:
  • Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
  • The needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few.
  • Equality of Rights extended to every human.
  • Minority Rights had to be protected, no matter how small the Minority.
  • Equal opportunity for all did not mean everyone was equal.
Additional privileges were awarded in proportion to Merit. The establishment of Fundamental Rights was accompanied by a System of Responsibilities. For instance, even though the population was falling, preventive measures to ensure a healthy population and prevent teenage pregnancies were introduced. This involved all girls of child bearing age to have a “reversible” birth control procedure. Approval was required of single women and couples wishing to bear children, which included a course on parenting and passing of tests. One of the tests that had to be taken was DNA analysis. This was a contentious issue but the law was passed nevertheless after much debate. By analyzing and matching the DNA, it was possible to determine the physical and mental characteristics of the baby. Draconian as this may sound, it actually worked very well once instituted. Women were given the choice of either artificial insemination or fertilized implants to ensure a healthy baby. This DNA analysis suited single women who wished to have children. Women were permitted to have only two children after which they had to undergo the reversible “birth control” procedure. The “two children law” was fiercely contested by conservatives. So an amendment was introduced whereby, couples/individuals wishing to have more than two children had to qualify and obtain permission. After much debate and wrangling a quantifiable set of qualifiers was agreed upon. To monitor and address obesity children had an embedded capsule in their body that broadcasted their vital signs. This capsule served as an embedded health monitor that notified health services if any intervention was required. The benefit of this was that the children grew up to live a long and healthy life. Broadcasting a person’s position was another feature which enabled monitoring of children. This monitoring, even after an individual reached adulthood, became a contentious issue. The ACLU fought this vigorously, but had to rescind because of its inherent medical benefits. Broadcasting the person’s location enabled delivery of emergency services.

The Leisure Reality of the 22nd Century: 

The age old saying, “An idle mind is a devil’s workshop,” is an axiom that transcends generations and holds true for the human race. Kids will be kids, they challenge authority and some get into trouble. For many years a group of educationalists critiqued the “assembly line” education system that was devised for the industrial age and prepared graduates for “structured” work in a “structured” environment. Factories requiring organized human labour ceased to exist long ago. Working on innovation involves a significant amount of flexibility and self direction. The criticism of these educationalists came home to roost in this new era. A child could grow up and chose not to seek a “job”, and would have to have the tools to keep preoccupied and out of trouble. The emphasis of education was reoriented to prepare children for this unstructured society by instilling civic responsibility and discipline. Schools taught children to think independently, work in groups to solve problems with adequate assistance and minimal supervision. Habitual offenders were assigned to boot camps to remedy their behaviour. As a result, the criminal population declined and included only the “hopeless” cases.

Towards a new World order:

The tumultuous period the US went through while automation displaced humans, was decried by the rest of the world as the end of Capitalism. On the one hand, the GDP increased rapidly, the US became a net exporter of goods and food grains, and the trade deficit was wiped out. And yet the plight of people deteriorated. The US economic indicators looked good but people’s lives were being decimated, the rest of the world was not faring better, except that both the economic indicators and the Quality of Life was deteriorating. It was then that the US realized that the economic principles in vogue were irrelevant and that a rapid transition to a new world order was the solution. The emergence of the US from its predicament reinstated its position of world leader and the beacon for other countries to follow. With plenty to give and nothing to want, US took an active role in aiding the rest of the world and replicate its success. As more and more countries adopted the US way, people freely moved between these countries.

A path to a new world order emerged where borders were soon to become meaningless and the term; “citizenship” would become a term of association as opposed to a term of privilege or rights. The world started looking more and more like it does from space; a Blue Marble with people living in harmony and peace.