Friday, 9 December 2016

Podcast: Star Wars and Technology

Chris, Fraser, Nick and Peter talk about the technology of the Star Wars galaxy. Can you really have all that hardware but so little software? Why didn't R2D2 just commit the Death Star plans to Github? And what's the point of science fiction?

To subscribe to the podcast, add this RSS feed to your preferred player.

Friday, 2 December 2016

Podcast: Currency Denominations

Nick, Peter and Fraser discuss why you never see £50 notes but get lots of €50 notes.

To subscribe to the podcast, add this RSS feed to your preferred player.

Saturday, 26 November 2016

Podcast: Pseudo Science

Chris, Nick and Fraser discuss why pseudo science crops up in some areas of life but others.

To subscribe to the podcast, add this RSS feed to your preferred player.

Thursday, 24 November 2016

Trump Scenario: Catch SSBN-22

This is the last in a suite of five scenarios developed by Aleph Insights, designed with the following question in mind:
“What will the US government’s principal strategic priorities be between 2017 and 2020?”
More background on the scenario development process, including caveats about scenario interpretation, is here. The baseline scenario is The Great-Again Gatsby. The other three alternative scenarios are Atlas HuggedFear and Loathing in Everywhere, and We Need to Talk about Donald.

Scenario Narrative

This scenario differs from the baseline in its assumptions about the US’s international position, and in particular its relationship with China.

Against the advice of Washington experts and his military chiefs, in the first few weeks of taking office, President Trump pointedly refused to affirm in unequivocal terms the US’s support for NATO, and has been evasive when questioned about his response to various Article V scenarios involving Russia and Eastern Europe. Although senior Representatives and NATO allies have emphasised that the US is bound to the Alliance regardless of the President’s statements, there has been clear nervousness internationally since Trump took office. Trump’s approach has been to build international trust through his personal relationships, in particular with Putin (“he’s also a guy who cares about getting a good deal”), rather than to trust in international bureaucracies.

But to many other governments, Trump’s approach is naive, and viewed as either a threat or an opportunity, depending on the nature of their historic relationship with the US. In 2018, Russia began to strengthen cooperation with China through an enhanced and more militarised Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. The improved military and economic cooperation in the East mean that China and Russia have acted with a greater sense of immunity from potential US curbs to their power (such as US sanctions or diplomatic efforts), which in turn has emboldened their approach to international affairs.
(Photo: Kremlin)

EU-US trade relations have been undermined by Trump’s protectionist tendencies. America’s traditional European allies feel cut adrift and have felt compelled to reach their own agreements with a resurgent Russia and an increasingly muscular China. Asian democracies, meanwhile, have been increasingly alarmed about the unfettered reach of China across its expanding sphere of influence, torn between maintaining cordial relationships with China due to economic necessity, and confronting China over its ever more confident assertions about various disputed territories. By mid-2018 tensions in the Pacific are high.

Exacerbating these tensions, President Trump remained true to his word by imposing tariffs on Chinese imports. His negotiating style has been confrontational and theatrical, involving sound bites and ultimatums. Successive trade agreement talks have fallen through, and the US has threatened increased levies on Chinese goods imported by the US. The impact of this impasse between the world’s two largest markets has started to be felt by the global economy. Growth has slowed markedly and free trade is diminished. While the US is insulated from some of the most severe effects of this ‘global cooling’, consumers have seen prices of most goods rise in real terms, and are struggling to afford many foreign-produced technology goods (although US manufacturing has seen a short term boost in sales).

It is against this backdrop that, in mid-2019, a crisis occurred with echoes of the Hainan Island Incident of 2001. During uncomfortable trade negotiations with China, the White House was forced to issue a press statement about a ‘maritime incident’. The statement referred to an unspecified US Navy vessel being involved in a collision with a vessel of unknown origin in international waters near Okinawa. After only a few minutes, Press secretary Hope Hicks ended the session in the packed White House press room by saying “Sorry, we have no more details at this time”.

China Central Television subsequently reported that: “A US nuclear-armed submarine was discovered patrolling Chinese national waters and has collided with a Chinese submarine on a routine and peaceful patrol. Both vessels were heavily damaged, and despite the heroic efforts of her crew the Chinese Shang-class submarine was lost with all hands. The brave People’s Liberation Army Navy rushed to the aid of the USS Georgia which was forced to the surface without power and would have sunk without Chinese assistance. Our heroic sailors are currently towing the stricken US boat to port, and all surviving US crew are under the watchful care of Admiral Wu Shengli.”

The Pentagon immediately entered crisis mode and the State Department began frenetic attempts to negotiate the safe return of the US submarine. The implications of a state-of-the-art US submarine containing its full complement of nuclear-armed ballistic missiles falling into Chinese hands did not need to be spelled out.  The US boat was swiftly taken to port in Shantou, as the Chinese government stated that it was seeking to ‘guarantee the containment of potentially hazardous materials’ and also ‘offer the highest level of medical care for the wounded’. President Putin has offered to send search and rescue ships to attempt to raise the lost Chinese boat, equating the loss to the Kursk disaster.
Bad Memories: the Wreck of the Kursk

In response, the US quickly mobilised the Pacific Fleet, sending a carrier group to international waters 70 miles from Taiwan, to ‘provide support and monitor the delicate situation’. Meanwhile, a number of plausible excuses were given to delay China’s return of the damaged submarine and its crew. While the Chinese have avoided any overtly provocative actions, such as parading the crew on television, they have questioned the aptitude of the US submarine commander and decried the violation of Chinese sovereignty that his alleged incursion represented. Japan and South Korea were drawn into the war of words, expressing deep concern about the proximity of US nuclear weapons so close to friendly nations in the Western Pacific. The US rebutted the accusations of violating Chinese waters, but refused to release details about the patrol path of the vessel. The debate about the true position and intent of the two submarines has been rancorous. Moscow and other members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation have expressed solidarity with China and offered assistance to “bring a swift and peaceful resolution” to the incident.

China too has mobilised its own naval presence in the area, and the proximity of the two fleets has become a cause for grave international concern. Chinese ships have had daily encounters with reconnaissance aircraft operating from the US carrier fleet. There have been a number of near misses in bad weather between the US aircraft and their Chinese interceptors. By the end of 2019 the situation has not been resolved, and China has largely been seen as winning the communications war. In November it offered a cynical ‘gesture of goodwill’ to the US families of the naval personnel still under guard in China, inviting them to visit for Thanksgiving at the expense of the Chinese people. The US government was able to do little to prevent the media circus of US families being greeted on Chinese soil.

President Trump and his entire cabinet have been heavily criticised by the media for their handling of the situation. European leaders have universally called for de-escalation of the situation, to be mediated by the UN, and pundits are seriously discussing triggers and likely outcomes for an armed conflict between China and the US. Public consciousness and cultural discourse has become filled with the imminent threat of war. The National Mall is occupied with an eclectic mix of peace campaigners, environmental activists and anti-Trump movement supporters. Popular musical artists have co-ordinated to stage a series of ‘One World’ peace concerts, which have acted as a focus for young people’s anxieties. In Oakland, California and Portland, Oregon, anti-war and anti-Trump protests have degenerated into riots resulting in a number of police officers being injured and millions of dollars of damage to private property being caused by fire.

Throughout the crisis, oil and other commodity prices have soared. The US economy has been hit by inflation and declining exports, with manufacturing in particular being badly affected by an increase in the cost of raw materials, although by early 2020 economic issues are far from the top of everyone’s concerns. Anti-US sentiment has increased around the world; the State Department has issued warnings against travelling to the Middle East, China and other parts of East Asia and advised ‘special precautions when traveling to Europe and Africa’. Stocks in big US multinational companies have fallen and the global situation has prevented free and easy travel. Financial institutions have begun making plans to close down major offshore departments to be repatriated to US soil. Trump has shouldered much of the blame for his management of the military and economic crisis. His prospects in the 2020 Presidential election look poor, in contrast to his potential Democratic rivals who are all offering a firm, sensible and decisive resolution to the situation.

Policy Implications

By early 2020, the US political system has become paralysed by the China submarine crisis. Resolving it and securing the return of the US submarine and its crew have been the sole focus of Trump’s administration. Economic conditions have worsened significantly, limiting the government’s ability to raise taxes, while spending on the military and intelligence agencies has risen dramatically during President Trump’s first term. The cumulative effect has been a significant squeeze on spending in by other departments and an increase in government borrowing. The US has lost standing internationally and has been made to appear aggressive and erratic. However, the very real threat of international conflict has forced NATO allies (reluctantly, in some cases) to support the US in its increasingly acrimonious diplomatic engagements with the Chinese and Russians.

Trump Scenario: We Need to Talk about Donald

This is the fourth in a suite of five scenarios developed by Aleph Insights, designed with the following question in mind:
“What will the US government’s principal strategic priorities be between 2017 and 2020?”
More background on the scenario development process, including caveats about scenario interpretation, is here. The baseline scenario is The Great-Again Gatsby. The three other alternative scenarios are Atlas HuggedFear and Loathing in Everywhere, and Catch SSBN-22.

Scenario Narrative

This scenario varies from the Baseline in its assumption about the personality and history of Donald Trump. In this scenario, President Trump is less pragmatic and less willing to listen to his advisers than in the baseline, and more divisive and unpredictable in his behaviour. Moreover, his personal history becomes a more significant issue during his tenure. 

From the start, the signs were that the Trump engine of government was disorganised and disunited. Trump remained indecisive over some key cabinet positions until mid-January, as he battled the conflicting interests of both rewarding his campaign supporters, and satisfying the GOP seniors. In the end, Trump went with loyalty over expertise, and the 2017 cabinet was light on experienced politicians and heavy with Trump cronies. Trump’s somewhat despotic image was reinforced by the high-profile firing of Steven Mnuchin over ‘political differences’, and media reports painted a picture of strong personality clashes and bureaucratic in-fighting between cabinet members and their staffers. Widespread accusations of bullying emerged, directed at senior White House officials and including high-profile Representatives, with insiders suggesting the oppressive culture was being driven from above by a President whose temperament and managerial style was a bad fit for the compromises and frustrations of political office. In public, the GOP remained united behind their President, but behind closed doors the party has seen a serious rift open up between Trump loyalists and the senior Republicans whose worst fears seemed to be coming to pass.

Meanwhile, outside the Oval Office, the liberal knives were out for President Trump from day one. The ‘Impeach Trump’ movement became more organised and better-funded, steered by a committee that included several technology billionaires as well as populist liberals such as Michael Moore. The movement called for whistle-blowers to come forward, and continued to conduct investigations into all facets of Mr Trump's business and political life. Impeach Trump continued to amass evidence of any dubious dealings in the President’s past, based on the assumption of guilt, with the tacit support of major media organisations whose relationship with Trump was abrasive from the start. 

Organised resistance
(Photo: David Shankbone)

The most damaging allegations that emerged related to Trump’s alleged use of various illegal tax avoidance schemes over a period of decades. These schemes, involving a series of sophisticated ‘cut out’ entities, foreign tax credits, offshoring, and several other tax dodges, proved difficult to trace back to the Trump business empire, let alone the man himself. Initially, the President was able to dismiss the claims as the imaginings of his embittered opponents, and for a time was able to turn the tables on his accusers and associate them with the ‘corruption that fills Washington’s swamp’. However, in late 2017 a cache of documents released by one whistle-blower, working for a transnational accountancy firm, proved a treasure trove for investigators. Documents obliquely suggesting that Donald Trump had directly authorised the use of the schemes emerged; further, the body of material cumulatively created a lurid picture of a network of investments and work-arounds which appeared to include laundering money for drug cartels via casinos and the breaking of US sanctions imposed against pariah regimes.

While many of Trump’s supporters were prepared to ignore the story, the US Department of Justice began preparations for a criminal investigation. The scandal has been exacerbated by Trump’s response to the case against him. For a long period of time, he simply refused to engage with any of the details. As evidence mounted, he continued to attack those making the allegations, rather than deal with the substance of the accusations. Finally, President Trump was forced to claim ignorance regarding the scheme. This has had a trebly damaging effect: first, the President has by implication been compelled to acknowledge this activity may have taken place; second, it has created severe doubts about the probity of a man who made trust a linchpin of his campaign for election; and finally, he has been made to look incompetent in his business dealings. By mid-2018, the ‘Trumpgate’ scandal had been dominating the news agenda for nearly a year, and combined with Trump’s temperamental and divisive leadership style, the President’s circle of friends in the House was dwindling rapidly.

The King in his Castle
(Photo: Gage Skidmore)

Although the Department of Justice investigation had barely begun, by Summer 2018 the talk on the Hill was of when, rather than if, Articles of Impeachment would be issued by Congress. A sufficient number of concerned Republicans were willing to support such a vote, the only disagreement being about whether or not the official investigation should be completed first. However, despite even his most trusted advisers urging him to step down for the good of the country and of the party, Trump’s erratic and combative behaviour only seemed to become more entrenched. Only when Vice-President Pence himself publicly called on the President to resign - following mid-term polls forecasting the worst Republican performance since 1974 - did Trump’s tactical withdrawal from office begin. Amid rumours of ill health, sparked by unexplained cancellations of public engagements, Trump stepped down in September 2018. In his final address to congress Trump talked of the progress he had achieved, how he had made America great again despite the conspiracies against him, and how he had no further work to do. Trump withdrew from public life and retreated with a small cadre of loyalists to Trump tower to reassume control of his business empire. Meanwhile, in DC, Mike Pence is limping on in 2020, immobilised by a strongly Democratic House and Senate, and the lack of a mandate. The resurgent Democratic party seem set for an easy victory in the upcoming Presidential election.

Policy Implications

The US government system has resisted a vocal and bullying President. Trump has been largely frustrated in his bids for his most extreme interventions; however, the US has been left isolated and economically weakened. During this period the administration has failed to introduce any new significant legislation, due to the strength and breadth of resistance to the President. Routine government business has carried on under the stewardship of civil servants and some of the more pragmatic political appointees. There has been a lot of brinkmanship over the passing of Federal budgets, leading to widespread uncertainty over almost everything linked to Federal funding, but budgets were eventually passed, allowing public services to be delivered. The confrontation has eased since Donald Trump stepped down, and President Pence has reverted to a pre-Trump status quo approach to government. In the wake of the Trump catastrophe, there has been a growth in calls to reform the electoral system so that college votes and popular votes align. Both parties now strike a much more sober and conventional tone in their political rhetoric.

(Read the final alternative scenario: Catch SSBN-22.)

Trump Scenario: Fear and Loathing in Everywhere

This is the third in a suite of five scenarios developed by Aleph Insights, designed with the following question in mind:
“What will the US government’s principal strategic priorities be between 2017 and 2020?”
More background on the scenario development process, including caveats about scenario interpretation, is here. The baseline scenario is The Great-Again Gatsby. The three other alternative scenarios are Atlas HuggedWe Need to Talk about Donald, and Catch SSBN-22.

Scenario Narrative

This scenario differs from the baseline in its assumption about social cohesion and unrest.

In his inauguration speech, President Trump pledged to deliver on his pre-election promises. He stated that the ‘wall’ on America’s southern border will be completed by the end of his first term as President, that Muslims will be subjected to additional checks before being permitted access to the United States, and that police will be supported in applying a number of new law enforcement measures (including ‘stop and frisk’ and the continued introduction of military equipment for police forces). 

Even before these policies had started to be implemented, they began to have an effect. The vision painted by the speech acted as a fillip to those opposing President Trump. A series of nationwide protests were organised by a coalition of activist groups representing Muslims, African Americans, Latinos and other civil rights interests. Over a number of consecutive days the protests, held under the banner ‘United Against Prejudice’ (UAP), brought the downtown areas of a number of cities to a standstill. A march in Birmingham, AL, descended into violence and led to the shooting dead of five protesters, including a pastor, by police. Footage of the shooting supported two competing narratives, mirroring the divided public attitude towards the protests. Some saw the protesters as the inciting party, and believed the police were acting in self-defence; others saw the incident as clear evidence of the heavy-handed and unrestricted deployment of lethal force against innocent, unarmed and mainly black civilians. The ‘Birmingham Five’ became a symbol of the UAP and its resistance against state oppression. 

Throughout 2017 the UAP became increasingly associated with violent disturbances, despite its attempts to distance itself from extremist elements. In response to the wave of protests and riots, grassroots vigilante groups sprang up across the US, and particularly in the South, coalescing in some cases around existing ‘prepper’ and white supremacist organisations. During the spring of 2017, vigilante groups were involved in a number of violent altercations with UAP protesters, spontaneous demonstrations, and innocent bystanders. As the situation worsened, President Trump repeatedly condemned violence from both sides. But statements made (against the advice of senior Police Commissioners), supporting the “rights of citizens to defend their homes”, were seen as tacit support for vigilantes. On 4 July, three Hispanic men - US citizens from the same family - were shot dead outside their home by a ‘self-defence’ group in Arizona. Throughout July, a widening spiral of fatal revenge attacks across the US started to give the impression of a government losing control of a country that was falling apart.

August 2017 brought record temperatures, drought, and further unrest across the US. Starting with a demonstration, then a riot, in Memphis, large-scale violent protests, not affiliated with the UAP, rose up in Baltimore, Memphis, New Orleans, Detroit, Miami, San Antonio and a host of smaller cities, and commentators began talking about a ‘Summer of Rage’. Using the emergency powers still officially in effect following the September 11 2001 attacks (and renewed by President Obama in 2016), the National Guard were mobilised on 14 August and deployed to downtown areas in major US cities. By the time the protests had died down or been quelled, 2 Guardsmen, 13 police officers, and 87 civilians had been killed, and damage was estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars. President Trump and UAP leaders shared a platform vowing to work together to end “all violent means of settling differences” and vowing to “bring harmony back to this great nation”. But in the perception of most observers across the political spectrum, the situation was only an ‘uneasy truce’.   

Keeping the Peace
(photo: Maryland National Guard)

In many ways, the violence emboldened President Trump in his pursuit of his most divisive policies. The ‘wall’ began construction in late 2017 across portions of America’s southern border, and in 2018 a new trade levy on Mexican imports was enacted by executive order, in order (nominally at least) to fund its construction. Vigilante patrolling of the border increased with the help of larger numbers of volunteers for the self-defence groups that have sprung up across the country. 

Against this continuing backdrop of protests, riots and sporadic outbreaks of violence between divided sections of communities, containing civil unrest has become the dominant focus of the Presidency. Many commentators have likened the situation to the late 1960s and the overlapping unrest associated with Vietnam protests and the civil rights movement. The President’s economic plans have stalled as politicians on all sides responded to domestic instability. Many leading Democrats have become champions for the protesting minorities. The economy has suffered as America’s image as a place to do business has been severely undermined.

Against this backdrop, US foreign policy has been given little attention by the media or the Presidency, aside from Donald Trump’s signing of the Terrorist Vetting Directive (TVD). This legislation enables the enhanced vetting of travellers from designated countries (all of which have significant Muslim populations), it also explicitly permits the overt use of profiling at airports and other entry points to the US. The TVD has damaged relations with a number of key allies in the Middle East and Asia, and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have both threatened to withdraw all security cooperation with the US. France and the UK, with their significant Muslim populations, have also publicly criticised the policy.

By 2020, many Americans feel bruised by the experience of the last three years. As the President looks to the upcoming election, it seems as if the country has never been more divided. His hardline attitude to protesters and his determination to see through his electoral promises have consolidated his support amongst conservatives. Yet, it is these very policies which have also entrenched opposition to the prospect of his second term. Trump enters the election campaign with only one option: to continue along the path he has chosen and hope that his ardent supporters outnumber his highly motivated opponents. No one knows what the future brings, but the hope is that it cannot be worse than the recent past.

Policy Implications

In this scenario the US government has been entirely preoccupied with dealing with social division and unrest. The resources of the police and other components of the domestic security apparatus have been diverted to containing this crisis. The legislative process has also been bogged down in trying to create new laws to deal with protesters and civil disobedience. Social programmes and investment have targeted the most severely affected areas. Regardless of the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election, it is likely to take a decade for the rifts between Americans to heal. The US must also look how to repair its international reputation. US global hegemony is diminished; China, which has maintained a low profile during this period, is now seen by many as a potentially more responsible partner than the US.

(Read the third alternative scenario: We Need to Talk about Donald.)

Trump Scenario: Atlas Hugged

This is the second in a suite of five scenarios developed by Aleph Insights, designed with the following question in mind:
“What will the US government’s principal strategic priorities be between 2017 and 2020?”
More background on the scenario development process, including caveats about scenario interpretation, is here. The baseline scenario is The Great-Again Gatsby. The three other alternative scenarios are Fear and Loathing in EverywhereWe Need to Talk about Donald, and Catch SSBN-22.

Scenario Narrative

This scenario differs from the baseline in its assumptions about President Trump’s economic and social policy.

In the first 100 days of the Trump Presidency, the new President laid out a radical programme of economic regeneration - the ‘Trump Plan’ - focusing on massive infrastructure projects and tax reduction. Many of the Trump Plan projects, geared towards renewing America’s transport, energy and communications infrastructure, have begun generating significant employment in ‘rust belt’ areas. Since 2017, employment has continued to rise (along its post-2009 trend) along with median wages, and some of the early, smaller projects have started delivering longer-term productivity benefits.

The Trump Plan

President Trump’s tax cuts have also been a political success. Republican control of both the House and Congress enabled the President to pass a number of measures favouring business and low-income earners. Consumer confidence has grown over Trump’s first term and commentators now refer to the ‘Trump Boom’ of 2017-18. US industrial output has been further buoyed by the President’s combative approach to international trade treaties. By early 2020, President Trump’s approval ratings have actually increased from their nadir when he took office.

To the surprise of many, President Trump also seems committed to a progressive, libertarian social agenda. Significantly, Trump Plan investment has been targeted on urban regeneration as well as heavy industry, the administration has actively back-pedalled on many of its pre-election pledges regarding immigration, and Trump has been vocal in his desire to ‘heal the wounds’ in American society. He has reached out to ethnic minorities, appointing a Muslim Attorney General in 2018 (“Muslims are great people - the best people”), and has expressed support for the Black Lives Matter movement, addressing a 2017 demonstration in Washington DC in terms linking prospects for black people to his economic program: "I want to make sure everyone in this country is safe, which means supporting the police, but it also means making sure people of color don’t have to live in fear. I'm going to make this country heal, make it whole, and make it great again. And I'm going to get this country working again. I want you to know that not only do I believe sincerely that black lives matter, I also believe that black jobs matter."

Not everybody is happy with this. The President’s failure to deliver on a number of key election promises, such as his commitment to reduce immigration, has frustrated some of his more radical supporters. This came into sharp focus in 2019 when a report was released detailing the significant number of non-legal immigrants working on Trump Plan infrastructure projects. Social conservatives are also mobilising in response to the President’s failure to appoint their preferred picks to the Supreme Court and his public refusal to support repeal of Federal gay marriage legislation or challenges to Roe v Wade. The 2018 State of the Union address was seen as a turning point for many social conservatives with President Trump declaring that “the choice of the individual will always come before the decree of the government”. This language was seen as particularly inflammatory in the context of women’s access to birth control and abortion services.

(Photo: Elvert Barnes Protest Photography)

Small-government Republicans, while happy with tax cuts, are increasingly resistant to the large increases in Federal spending and the longer-term economic consequences that go with it. They have become alarmed by the burgeoning deficit being racked up by the Government. The mid-terms, which saw the Republican majorities in both houses reduced, made it harder for the President to continue with his economic programme. The Trump Plan is starting to look vulnerable, and markets reflect longer-term concerns about its sustainability: the dollar has steadily declined through to 2020, and interest rates have been steadily rising to counter the inflationary effects of government spending. In the domestic arena then, President Trump’s most vociferous criticism is unexpectedly coming from his right.

There are also concerns that the President has weakened the US internationally. He has alienated the EU and other key allies through his lack of commitment to climate change agreements and his general indifference towards stability in the Middle East and the security of Eastern Europe. The US has also come into conflict with the EU and China over free trade and the implementation of US tariffs on key imported materials and goods - the so called ‘Trade Wall’ that President Trump has been accused of erecting - and by 2020 there are signs that the economic self-determination being promoted by the President is starting to have an effect on the global economy.

President Trump is gearing up for the 2020 election with a distinctly tarnished lustre. Pessimism surrounding the US economy’s longer-term prospects is emerging as the central theme of attack for his Democratic rivals. As the incumbent, and given his populist economic track record to date, he looks like the favourite to win, but many see a recession and subsequent disillusionment looming on the horizon.

Policy Implications

The focus of the US Government during President Trump’s first term has been on delivering economic growth and particularly increased employment (although Trump has also devoted an unexpected level of energy into trying to patch up the divisions in US society). Deficit reduction has been far from a concern for this administration, and the huge levels of spending that have gone towards funding infrastructure projects have raised significant concerns within the Treasury about inflation, longer-term economic prospects, and the spectre of stagflation. Trump Plan spending has also had to be counterbalanced by reduced spending in other areas, and throughout this period departments have been asked to identify efficiencies or divert their spending to support the overall goal of job creation; Federal government has also been mandated to purchase American-made goods whenever possible. With regards to international affairs, the President has taken a fairly laissez-faire approach, unless it has related to trade negotiations. His attention to security matters has tended to be sparing.

(Read the second alternative scenario: Fear and Loathing in Everywhere.)