Thai Digital Money - A Giant Step Closer to a CBDC Dystopia

It is pretty obvious that the global ruling class has the ultimate goal of forcing the serfs into a central bank digital currency (CBDC) ecosystem with the purpose of further controlling the unthinking and obedient  masses.  One central bank has taken significant steps in that direction and their moves may telegraph what lies ahead for the rest of us.

 

The Bank of Thailand (BOT), Thailand's central bank, is one of the world's central banks that is leading Thai citizens into the CBDC future.  According to the BOT's website, retail CBDCs (the CBDCs that are used by individual citizens as opposed to the banking sector) have the following benefits:

 

"1. Acting as part of the infrastructure to provide financial service providers with the opportunity to develop and improve their financial services. This will increase the opportunity for the business sectors and general public to gain access to financial services with ease, modern, and with more variety. Retail CBDC can easily connect with and is interoperable, which is different from the current financial system that has obstacles with connectivity and development of different financial services.

 

2. Accommodating financial innovation and financial technological development from the private sector. The development of Retail CBDC also takes into account systematic capacity to accommodate financial transactions conditions such as CBDC and Tokenized assets (Programmable payment/money) which allows to expansion in innovation from financial service providers and is highly beneficial for the future.

 

3. Protecting the balance between public and private finance. In the past several years, the rapid transition towards digital society has increased the role of digital money issued by the private sector (private money). Even though private money may address private sector transactions that are increasingly more complicated, however, there remains the issues of safety and risk. Therefore, CBDC is one channel that the general public can access public money that are considered risk-free money to fully accommodate digital financial transactions."

 

The Bank also states that the transition of the private sector toward digital money could lead to "monopolization of payment systems from over-reliance on certain private financial service provider. This may give such provider too much influence over the financial system and may impact domestic financial stability.  By issuing its own CBDC, the Bank of Thailand will play a key role in increasing the balance between private money and public money."

 

As such, the Bank started Project Bank Khun Phrom as a pilot project to test the effectiveness and safety of a retail CBDC beginning in 2022 and ending in the third quarter of 2023:

 

The project involved about 10,000 test participants and three private sector participants including the Bank of Ahydhya Public Company Limited, Siam Commercial Bank and 2C2P (Thailand) Company Limited.

 

Since the initial pilot project, the Bank in partnership with the government of Thailand have significantly expanded the experimental CBDC ecosystem.  In July 2024, Thai Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin announced that citizens over the age of 16 with incomes of less than 840,000 baht ($23,710 US) and savings less than 500,000 baht ($14,072 US) would qualify to receive a 10,000 baht ($292 US) payment with registration opening on August 1, 2024:

The 10,000 baht will be downloaded into a digital wallet which resides in an account on a government smartphone app called Tang Rat as shown here:

 

For those of us who subscribe to the belief that CBDCs will be programable (i.e. what they can be spent on and where they can be spent will be controlled by central powers), the Thai experiment will not disappoint.  Here are the current restrictions on how the 10,000 baht can be spent:

 

Note that purchases of the following products are forbidden:

 

Government lotteries, alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, marijuana, cottages, cottages, cannabis and cottage products, vouchers, cash cards, gold, diamonds, gems, gems, oil, fuel, natural gas, electrical appliances, electronic devices and communication tools. 

 

As well, spending on services is not allowed and people can only spend the "money" in their digital wallet at small stores; department and retail stores and large national and local wholesalers are excluded from the current program.  Spending must be face-to-face (i.e. no online purchases) and merchants who wish to withdraw cash must be in the tax system (i.e. corporate or VAT or personal income tax for those with assessable income).   As well, the 10,000 baht must be spent within 6 months of receipt and is restricted to spending within the wallet holder's domicile.

 

It is interesting to see the restrictions that are being placed on the Thai digital currency which is, in fact, also has the appearance of being a trial run for a universal basic income.  While the restrictions appear to be defensible, for example supporting small, local businesses and preventing people from spending money on products with questionable health benefits, in fact, such restrictions show us how easy it will be to use digital money for social engineering.  Given these restrictions, how hard is it to envision a CBDC future where only certain "good" citizens will have access to digital currencies and only be allowed to spend them on what governments deem are "acceptable" expenditures?  I also found it concerning that the 10,000 baht payment had to be spent within 6 months (i.e. think money that expires) and that it could only be spent within the holder's domicile (i.e. think 15 minute city).  It is very clear that, in the hands of a fascist government (or even some of today's governments including one that took great pride in locking their citizens out of their bank accounts), such restrictions could quickly get out of control.

We are now one giant step closer to a CBDC-based dystopia.

The World Economic Forum and What Worries the Global Ruling Class?

In an recent opinion piece on the World Economic Forum, author Maya Hossain Aziz, a Professor of International Relations at New York University examines four global risks in the post-pandemic era that are keeping the oligarchy awake at night:

 

 

Based on a multi-year prediction project at New York Univeristy and experts at Wikistrat, the author outlines four trends that the serf class should be concerning themselves about over the remainder of this decade:

 

1.) Power disperses in a post-superpower era - this is something that the World Economic Forum has been harping about for years as quoted from the 2020 Special Report "Shaping a Multiconceptual World":

 

"The technological advances and an economic rebalancing under way are causing the world to enter a new phase – one where the non-Western powers, as well as some non-state actors, see low-cost and relatively low-risk opportunities to weaken the United States and the Western alliance.

 

One area where this danger is pronounced is in East Asia. As China’s growth has vaulted it into the top ranks of global economic power, it has progressively shed its strategy of “hide and bide” and begun to exert itself in political and strategic affairs, in its region and beyond. The economic and export prowess of China is intrinsically challenging the dominance of the Western model in international affairs. Again, some of this is productive: China’s surge into Africa in the 1990s, in search of food, mineral and energy resources to power its growth, helped to pull more than a dozen African nations into middle-income status. But with global economic reach comes global interests and the temptation to project global power; now China has moved into a new phase of expansion – into a global network of ports, technology plays and infrastructure assets that in some theatres seem purposefully designed to challenge the West."

 

The author notes that "....Since the pandemic eased, the reality is we haven’t had enduring global leadership on much, and it’s hard to imagine that changing soon. This is partly because superpowers are terribly burdened with global wars and domestic challenges."  He also states that "...These powers will, of course, still be relevant, compete and attempt to 'lead' everywhere from space to AI and oil. But look for other actors to step up more to fill the leadership void, including 'geopolitical swing states' leveraging rare earth minerals (like Ghana) to reduce the dominance of superpowers; smaller states (e.g. Scotland) using climate funding as a foreign policy tool; the Global South moving away from trading in the US dollar, even attempting a new blockchain payment system."

 

2.) The impact of a big election year in 2024 - The author observes that this election year is particularly vulnerable to AI disinformation, cyber threats and accusations of electoral rigging.  Here's a quote:

 

"Yet, the larger issue is whether these elections will even make a tangible difference in local and global change; widespread government distrust in most political systems has not abated in our post-pandemic era. Let’s not forget democracy—declared the sole surviving source of political legitimacy by the US hegemon at the end of the Cold War—has been in decline globally for 18 consecutive years, according to Freedom House.

 

Anti-government unrest has recurred everywhere since the Arab Spring, representing an enduring global crisis of political legitimacy."

 

3.) A more complex global mental health crisis - this crisis is related to anxiety over climate change (eco-anxiety) created by governments that are failing to transition away from fossil fuels.  I hate to tell the braintrust at the WEF but most people, particularly in the West and among the world's most poor give very little thought to climate change as they struggle for food and affordable housing.

 

One mental health issue that the author raises that I do believe has merit is anxiety over the imposition of artificial intelligence on the world which is creating an underclass of those individuals who are being left behind as their jobs disappear and are replaced by computers.

 

4.) Shock events - there are three shock events that may impact a fragile global reality:

 

a.) emergence of a new global extremist group thanks to the decline of global leadership and multiple wars.

 

b.) an intentional cyber pandemic implemented by a bad actor or actors.

 

c.) climate change claims its first island nation in the post-pandemic era - Here's a quote:

 

"COP28 plan to phase out fossil fuels may take decades and it’s unclear if world leaders will follow through. What’s more probable is that in the meantime certain island nations (who emit only 0.3% of global emissions) will keep fighting their cause, whether it is through international law or new climate funds. But, if these islands do succumb to climate change, sinking a lot faster than we expect, how will climate activists and world leaders react?"

 

Again, my personal belief is that most people are paying only marginal attention to the global climate change "crisis" in light of the existential struggle for survival (i.e. paying their rent or mortgage and buying food an economic environment that has experienced significant inflation since the pandemic) in what is likely to be a looming economic crisis thanks to the massive and unsustainable levels of personal and government debt.

 

While these issues may be causing angst among the ruling class, the proletariat are distracted with the "shiny mirrors and baubles" of social media and are being led to believe by the Western mainstream media that all is well in society as long as the neoliberal agenda continues to be the choice of the electorate.  Most of us really don't care what issues are worrying the global ruling class whose agenda is being communicated by the likes of the World Economic Forum but it is interesting to see where their mindset takes them.

The 2024 Democratic Party Platform - Is Joe Biden Still in the Race?

With the Democrats releasing their 2024 election platform after the "coup"that removed Joe Biden from the race for the White House and replacing him with a candidate that the mainstream media has barely noticed over the past four years:

...it's an interesting exercise to look at certain details found in the now approved 2024 platform (archived here) which was compiled in July and released on Sunday August 18th, 2024.

 

First, although Joe Biden has been out of the race since July 21, 2024 and the Democratic Party has had a month to change their platform, references to a second Biden term appear scattered throughout the platform as shown in the following examples with my bolds throughout:

 

a.) page 2 - President Biden, Vice President Harris, and Democrats are running to finish the job. To grow our economy from the middle out and bottom up, not the top down. To reward work, not wealth. To lower costs. To tackle the climate crisis, lower energy costs, and secure energy independence. To protect communities and tackle the scourge of gun violence. To secure the border and fix the broken immigration system. To advance the President’s Unity Agenda. To strengthen American leadership worldwide.

  

b.) page 11 - Thanks to President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Minority Business Development Agency is now a permanent part of the Commerce Department, where it’s training underserved entrepreneurs. The SBA’s innovative Community Navigators program meanwhile helped 350,000 small businesses tap into resources that have helped them grow. In a second Biden term, we’ll make that Navigator program permanent, and include new lenders, new markets, and fairer taxes.

 

c.) page 16 - refers to a second Biden term less directly - Corporations are seeing record margins, but their share of federal taxes has fallen below 10 percent, down from 30 percent in the 1950s. It’s wrong. Trump doesn’t care: he slashed the corporate tax rate to 21 percent, down from 35 percent. President Biden will raise that rate back to 28 percent. And for those billion-dollar tax dodgers, the President signed a historic 15 percent corporate minimum tax into law. He also reached a global minimum tax agreement with 140 countries, so that big multinational companies will no longer be able to pit nations against one another in a race to the bottom. And, Biden will double the tax rate that American multinationals pay on foreign earnings to 21 percent; and end incentives, introduced by Trump, that encourage companies to shift jobs and operations overseas and book profits in low-tax countries.

 

d.) page 22 - refers to a second Biden term less directly - When the pandemic crushed supply chains, prices for everyday items, from food to gas to airfare, went up. But after supply bottlenecks eased, many companies didn’t lower prices in line with their falling costs. President Biden will keep calling those companies out for price gouging, and hold them accountable when they don’t pass savings on to consumers.

 

e.) page 46 - President Biden will continue to appoint justices and judges across the federal bench who are like Justice Jackson: brilliant jurists committed to defending American rights and freedoms.

 

f.) page 47 - In President Biden’s second term, he will continue selecting judges who will protect fundamental rights and who represent the diversity of the American experience. We will push for a Supreme Court that follows the rule of law, protects people's freedoms, and abides by the highest ethical standards.

  

g.) page 50 - President Biden, Vice President Harris, and Democrats are committed to restoring the reproductive rights Trump ripped away. With a Democratic Congress, we will pass national legislation to make Roe the law of the land again. We will strengthen access to contraception so every woman who needs it is able to get and afford it. We will protect a woman’s right to access IVF. We will repeal the Hyde Amendment. And in his second term, President Biden will continue to support access to FDA-approved medication abortion, appoint leaders at the FDA who respect science, and appoint judges who uphold fundamental freedoms.

  

h.) page 65 - In President Biden’s second term, he will push Congress to pass legislation that is consistent with our values as a nation. Legislation must secure the border, reform the asylum system, expand legal immigration; and keep families together by supporting a pathway for long-term undocumented individuals, improving the work authorization process, and securing the future of the DACA program.

  

i.) page 66 - In President Biden's second term, he will push Congress to provide the resources and authorities that we need to secure the border. This includes additional border patrol agents, immigration judges, asylum officers, cutting-edge inspection machines to help detect and stop the flow of fentanyl, and funding for cities and states that are sheltering migrants.

 

j.) page 68 - In his second term, President Biden will work with Congress to deploy more cutting-edge inspection machines to help detect fentanyl at our ports of entry. He will also leverage all resources of the federal government to stop tech platforms from being used for criminal conduct, including sales of dangerous drugs like fentanyl.

  

k.) page 74 - During President Biden’s second term, Democrats will continue to advocate for the safe and secure development of AI. We will invest in the AI Safety Institute to create guidelines, tools, benchmarks, and best practices for evaluating dangerous capabilities and mitigating AI risk. We will also prioritize funding for critical AI research and development that advances AI safety.

 

l.) page 75 - With a second term in office, President Biden will continue to work to prevent cancer, detect it early, deliver innovation, care for families facing cancer, and, ultimately, end cancer as we know it.

  

m.) page 80 - In his second term, President Biden will continue to promote a free, open, connected, prosperous, secure, and resilient Indo-Pacific. He will deepen economic engagement to drive inclusive growth. He will champion human rights. And he will continue to strengthen our traditional alliances and broaden regional partnerships to bolster deterrence and resist coercion.

 

n.) page 81 - In his second term, President Biden will remain focused on actions at home and abroad to outcompete China. He will continue to stand up to unfair economic practices, restrict the PRC’s access to advanced technologies that could be used to harm American interests, and reshore supply chains for materials and technologies critical for the 21st century.

  

o.) page 90 - President Biden has never and will never turn his back on our military. In his second term, he will continue to invest in upgrading to next-generation weapon systems, cutting-edge training opportunities, and deterrence capabilities such as our submarine force and the nuclear triad. 

  

In case you were wondering, Biden appears 287 times in the Democrats 2024 election platform document, compared to the current presidential candidate Kamala Harris whose name appears only 32 times.  Even Donald Trump appears more often than Harris with 150 mentions of his name.

 

In my opinion and given that the Democrats had nearly a month to edit their platform of any mention of a Biden second term in office, this would suggest that the Democrat Party leadership are a pretty lazy bunch who appear to be taking a 2024 election win and the support of Democratic voters for granted.

Russia and How to Flee the Western Neoliberal Agenda

The West is becoming increasingly polarized in its views on many issues, a great number of which are issues of morality.  The left believes that the right are actually "far right" and that they are racist, misogynistic, homophobic and religious ignoramuses and that they are "progressive" while the right believes that the left is pretty much responsible for the decay of society, the death of the family and the massive influx of illegal immigrants.  This polarization has become worse and worse over the past 10 years as left- and right-leaning politicians play on our differences.

 

There is, however, one nation that still retains its religious roots and is willing to allow Westerners who are disillusioned with the neoliberal agenda access to their traditional spiritual and moral values as you will see in this posting.

  

Here's how Russia's state news agency TASS reported these changes to Russia's immigration policies:

 

 

Here is the decree "On providing humanitarian support to persons who share traditional Russian spiritual and moral values" in Russian:

 

Here are some quotes from the decree starting with its intent:

 

"In order to protect fundamental human rights and freedoms, support individuals who have made a free choice in favor of spiritual, cultural, legal connection with Russian Federation..."

 

The decree changes Russia's immigration laws substantially as follows:

 

"Grant the right to apply for a temporary residence permit without taking into account the approved Government of the Russian Federation quotas and without submitting a document which:

 

1.) confirms proficiency in the Russian language

  

2.) confirms knowledge of the history of Russia and the basics of the legislation of the Russian Federation"

 

Eligible applicants include "foreign citizens and stateless persons who have expressed a desire to move to the Russian Federation to live from foreign countries citizenship or permanent residence based on non-acceptance of the policies implemented by these states, which impose destructive neoliberal ideological guidelines that contradict traditional Russian spiritual and moral values."

 

The decree goes on to state that there is a list of foreign states (which will be supplied by the government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs within 30 days) that are implementing policies imposing destructive neoliberal ideologies which contradict traditional Russian spiritual and moral values and have been approved by the Government.

  

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russia Federation will issue a temporary residence permit to applicants provided that there are no grounds for refusal.  The Ministry will issue a single-entry ordinary private visa for three months on the basis of a decision of the head of a diplomatic mission or consular office of the Russian Federation to issue a visa to a foreign citizen or stateless person.

While the Western media has us believing that Russia is part of the evil empire, in fact, in my two visits to the nation and areas well outside of the normal tourist attractions, I found that there was very little difference between life in Russia and life in the West other than language.  Russians were helpful when we needed assistance (or even when it appeared that we needed assistance and actually didn't) and were most curious about life in the West and how we viewed their nation and their leader.  Of all of the nations that I have visited and lived in during my lifetime, I would say that Russia has the potential to be quite a livable destination and were I at a different point in my life, the offer of a 3 month visa would be worth considering even as an exercise to gain a better understanding of Russia, its unique people and their spirituality and morality.

The Bank of Canada - Canada's Retail CBDC Future

During the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear to the world that Canada was at the leading edge of the globalist agenda for the world as the nation's response, particularly to the February 2022 Truckers' Protest, was among the most freedom crushing in the world, thanks largely to the Trudeau government's lockdown of Canadians' bank accounts.  Research that recently appeared on the Bank of Canada's website suggests that the nation's move toward a central bank digital currency (CBDC) is more or less a certainty, a development that should cause concern among Canadians that still embrace freedom.

 

The research paper entitled "The Role of Public Money in the Digital Age" by Bank of Canada researchers Francisco Rivadeneyra, Scott Hendry and Alejandro García:

...poses the argument that the increasing use of digital payments and the rise in cryptocurrencies accompanied by the decreasing use of cash is the perfect reason why Canada's central bank will need to impose a CBDC.  While the Bank of Canada claims that this paper does not express its own views, I would respectfully suggest that it is highly unlikely that a research paper that expresses a strong negative viewpoint of central bank digital currencies would appear on the Bank's website.  It might also be important to note that this is the 24th research paper on CBDCs to appear on the Bank's website. 

  

Let's look at two definitions to help put this development into perspective.  There are two main types of CBDCs with specific purposes:

 

1.) Wholesale CBDCs - these would be developed and rolled out to exclusively serve financial institutions to facilitate large-value and interbank settlement and liquidity management. 

 

2.) Retail CBDCs - these would be developed and rolled out to serve the general public.

 

What is particularly concerning about this recent paper is that the authors of the report propose that a retail CBDC will need to be implemented, a step well beyond many central banks that are currently focussing on entering the digital currency ecosystem through the use of wholesale CBDCs.

 

The authors claim that the Canadian monetary system functions relatively well today due to the following factors:

 

1.) having the Canadian dollar as the unit of account

2.) limited use of alternative units of account

3.) an efficient settlement of payments

4.) an exchange of different forms of money at par (cash and bank deposits)

5.) a relatively stable rate of inflation

The authors claim that over the long term, there are three interrelated and overlapping trends that pose risks to the monetary system:

 

1.) the overall digitalization of the economy and financial system is increasing demand for digital payments.

 

2.) due to the first trend and other conditions, use of cash has been declining at the point of sale for many years. 

 

3.) the emergence and proliferation of private cryptocurrencies and digital assets, including foreign CBDCs. 

These trends pose risks to the monetary system through three mechanisms:

1.) increased potential that fragmentation of the monetary system could create inefficiencies

2.) increased ability of issuers of private forms of money to exert market power

3.) increased difficulty implementing timely and adequate regulation due to the rapid pace of change

 

They claim that these risks could lead to a loss of the uniformity of money, adoption of alternative units of account and the ever present threat that some segments of the population could be excluded from the monetary system (as though central bankers ever cared about the unwashed serf class).

 

Since the authors claim that cash is likely to continue to decline in relevance to the point where it many no longer be viable as a method of payment, the Bank of Canada could step in with a retail CBDC to help fill the gap and maintain the relevance of public money in the economy by fulfilling the role of cash. (i.e. being equivalent to cash).

 

The authors state that because bank customers demand and expect that cash will be available when they request it, financial institutions make cash available through ABMs or in their branches.  That said, Canada's Bank Act does not have regulations that require banks to make good on their demand deposits in cash (for example just try going to your bank and withdrawing several thousand dollars should you happen to have that much in your bank account).  Banks only supply cash because their customers demand it.  The authors postulate that it is possible that a bank could choose not to make cash available to its customers which would mean that the customers of that bank could choose to move their deposits to institutions that still offer cash which could result in a risk to the solvency of the non-cash offering bank.  This situation could become even worse if banks colluded on a strategy to all become cashless at which point customers would have little option, a scenario that is not out of the realm of possibility given that Canadian banks are not required by law to redeem deposits in cash as I noted above.  Should a scenario like this take place, banks could avail themselves of the opportunity to massively increase user fees for those who have the temerity to demand cash as well as those who use digital forms of payments (i.e. credit and debit card transactions).

 

Not only are the authors concerned about the disappearance of cash and the decline in its use, they are concerned about the growing use of crypto assets and stablecoins which are currently widely considered to be investment vehicles rather than a useful means of payment.  With Big Tech companies considering the process of creating money, there is a greater chance that the monetary system could become increasingly fragmented.

 

As a solution to this "monetary nightmare" envisaged by the Bank of Canada, the actors suggest that the issuance of a CBDC to complement the role played in public money by cash would be the best alternative.  Here's a quote from the conclusion of the paper with my bold:

 

"In a future where cash is less relevant and is no longer a competitive payment alternative to private money, issues could arise in the uniformity of the Canadian dollar in its many different forms or with the exertion of excessive market power by private money providers.  Similar thinking about the role of public money in the monetary system is also emerging in other advanced economies.

Given this role of retail public money, it is likely that a digital form of cash, a CBDC, will be needed in order to maintain the status quo. Cash and a CBDC could continue to support:

1.) the Canadian dollar unit of account

2.) the uniformity of money

3.) monetary and regulatory sovereignty

4.) the overall confidence in the stability of the financial and monetary systems

A retail CBDC with qualities like those of cash would be able to work with other components of the monetary framework (e.g., financial regulation, deposit insurance) to support a well-functioning monetary system."

 

By implementing a CBDC, the Bank of Canada could still retain its alleged control over the Canadian economy through the use of its ability to impose monetary policies with the aim of economic stability.  Should Canada's private banking sector choose to abandon cash, under a CBDC ecosystem, Canadians could still withdraw their money from digital services by converting it into the Bank of Canada’s digital loonies. They could also exit the private banking system entirely by moving money from their bank accounts into a CBDC "chequing account", just as they can do so now by withdrawing their money in cash.

 

As I have noted in the past, the spectre of CBDCs should be a cause of great concern for those who want to maintain what little remains of their privacy and their freedom.  Given that some central bankers have said the quiet part out loud and announced the potential use of programmable CBDCs to control the spending of individuals and the accompanying fact that the Trudeau government used its powers to lock Canadians out of their bank accounts for supporting an anti-government viewpoint, we should all be very apprehensive that the Bank of Canada's proposal for a retail central bank digital currency is even being considered given that central bankers around the world are not known for their abilities as original thinkers.  Nor do they have any interest in our freedom.

The 2024 United States National Defense Strategy - The High Cost of Rebuilding the American Military Machine

The Commission on the National Defense Strategy for the United States recently released its final report to Congress and the President of the United States (whoever they may be) and some of the conclusions are eye-opening.

 

Here is the cover page of the 2024 edition of the National Defense Strategy report:

 

The authors of the report found that, among the senior civilian and military leaders of the Department of Defense and other departments; congressional leaders from relevant committees; private sector representatives; former government officials; experts in the think tank, academic, and federally funded research and development centre communities; and foreign allies that they met with, there was "near-unanimous recognition of the significant challenges to U.S. national security and broad agreement on the need for substantial and wide-ranging change" and that the national security system was outdated, bureaucratic and too political to make the changes that are necessary to protect America's role as global "police force" quickly enough.  There is also a reliance on decades-old military equipment and a culture of risk avoidance that is handicapping the U.S. military's ability to maintain its current role in the current unipolar world that is under threat from two growing superpowers.

 

The report opens by observing that both China and Russia are the major powers that seek to undermine U.S. global interest and that, in many ways, China is outpacing the United States and has negated America's military advantage in the Western Pacific over the past two decades.  In both cases, the report states that military spending by the superpowers-in-waiting is rising;  in 2024, Russia is estimated to spend 35 percent of its federal budget or 7.1 percent of its GDP on national defense and China announced a 7.2 percent increase in its official defense spending bringing it to 1.6 percent of GDP (excluding very significant off-budget items).  This compares to roughly 3 percent or 12 percent of government spending for the United States.  As well, China and Russia's "no limits" partnership formed in February 2022 along with the joint military and economic partnership with Iran and North Korea presents a growing threat to U.S. interests.

  

The report goes on to note that all-out war with a peer or near peer would be devastating for several reasons:

 

1.) massive military and personnel costs which is problematic given that recent recruitment shortfalls have resulted in decreased size of the Army, Air Force and Navy. 

 

2.) risk of cyberattacks on America's critical infrastructure.

 

3.) global economic recession due to disruptions to supply chains, manufacturing and trade.

 

4.) denied access to critical minerals needed to run the American economy and build weapons systems.

 

5.) hold U.S. space assets at risk.

  

Here is a quote with my bolds:

 

"The U.S. public are largely unaware of the dangers the United States faces or the costs (financial and otherwise) required to adequately prepare. They do not appreciate the strength of China and its partnerships or the ramifications to daily life if a conflict were to erupt. They are not anticipating disruptions to their power, water, or access to all the goods on which they rely. They have not internalized the costs of the United States losing its position as a world superpower. A bipartisan “call to arms” is urgently needed so that the United States can make the major changes and significant investments now rather than wait for the next Pearl Harbor or 9/11. The support and resolve of the American public are indispensable."

 

The authors of the report recommend that the U.S. Joint Force be structured to simultaneously:

 

1.) defend the homeland, maintain strategic deterrence, prevent mass casualty terrorist attacks, maintain global posture, and respond to small-scale, short-duration crises.

 

2.) lead the effort, with meaningful allied contribution, to deter China from territorial aggression in the Western Pacific—and fight and win if needed

 

3.) lead NATO planning and force structure to deter and, if necessary, defeat Russian aggression

 

4.) sustain capabilities, along with U.S. partners in the Middle East, to defend against Iranian malign activities.

 

As I noted above, the authors have taken notice of the decreased ability of the U.S. military to recruit new personnel which you can clearly see on this graphic from RealClear Defense:

 

Here is another quote from the Commission's report that is rather sobering for young Americans (with my bold):

 

"Redoubled recruiting efforts, new incentives for service, and more flexible personnel systems are needed to offset a lack of propensity for and interest in military service among the eligible population. Military retention remains high, demonstrating that personnel in service largely choose to remain in uniform. The nation must also consider the possibility that future conflict could overwhelm the capacity of the active-duty force and should plan now to better prepare the reserve components and, potentially, a broader mobilization.  More broadly, we support calls for increased levels of public and civil service to help provide a renewed sense of engagement and patriotism among the American people."

 

Get ready for a full-fledged, Vietnam War-style draft which, as one might expect, will not impact the offspring of the ruling class.

 

Of course, the recommended solution to the problem is a greater level of funding.  According to the report, Department of Defense spending ranged from 4.9 percent to 16.9 percent of GDP during the Cold War as shown here:

 

 

Keep the 4.9 percent to 16.9 percent of GDP numbers in mind.  During the Cold War, it is important to remember that DoD spending relied on top personal marginal income tax rates of 70 percent and corporate tax rates averaging 50 percent.  As such, the Commission makes the following recommendations:

 

1.) DoD should immediately review all major systems against likely future needs, emphasizing battlefield utility and prioritizing agility, interoperability, and survivability.  DoD should invest more in cyber, space, and software, which have enabled warfighting for decades but are now central to conflict and have global reach.

 

2.) Congress should pass a supplemental appropriation immediately to begin a multiyear investment in the national security innovation and industrial base. Funding should support U.S. allies at war; expand industrial capacity, including infrastructure for shipbuilding and the ability to surge munitions production; increase and accelerate military construction to expand and harden facilities in Asia; secure access to critical minerals; and invest in a digital and industrial workforce.

 

3.) DoD should immediately begin making structural changes and prioritization adjustments to spend national security funds more effectively and more efficiently. DoD should address its recruitment challenges, rewrite regulations to speed defense procurement (and address cultural impediments and risk aversion), and shift the R&D paradigm to adopt technological innovation from outside the department for warfighting purposes. The U.S. government should review national security authorities for agencies other than DoD and look for ways to enable and facilitate information-sharing, coproduction, and export controls to better work with allies.

 

4.) Congress should revoke or override the caps in the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act that serve as the basis for the FY 2025 budget request.

  

a.) For FY 2025, real growth in defense and nondefense national security spending is needed and, at a bare minimum, should fall within the range recommended by the 2018 NDS Commission.  Increased spending should be allocated to emphasize near-term readiness demands to restore and reinforce deterrence.  

Here is a graphic showing the budgetary shortfall when compared to the 2018 NDS Commission:

 

b.) Given the severity of the threats, the FY 2027 and later budgets for all elements of national power will require spending that puts defense and other components of national security on a glide path to support efforts commensurate with the U.S. national effort seen during the Cold War.

 

c.) Larger amounts of defense spending should be accompanied by sufficient resources to build capacity at the departments of State, Commerce, and Treasury; intelligence, trade, and investment agencies; the U.S. Agency for International Development; and the Department of Homeland Security and focus these organizations on national security missions. The United States should continue to provide support to its allies, which it relies on to fight with (or for) it.

 

d.) The ballooning U.S. deficit (and I might add debt) also poses national security risks. 

  

And, here's the key to the last recommendation:  

"Therefore, increased security spending should be accompanied by additional taxes and reforms to entitlement spending."

  

In other words, U.S. taxpayers should get used to the idea of increased taxes and decreases in entitlement spending for things like Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security at the same time as the nation's military industrial intelligence complex sticks its snout in the seemingly endless trough of taxpayer dollars.

If we look at the budgets for America's military during the Cold War which ranged from 4.9 percent to 16.9 percent of GDP and use the same percentages with the current GDP of $28.63 trillion (current dollars), the Pentagon's budget would range from $1.403 trillion to $4.838 trillion.  This compares to Fiscal Year 2024 spending of $948.6 billion on defense, $1.2 trillion on Social Security and $1.2 trillion on Medicare.

  

In closing, you can bet that this list of individuals that testified at the National Defense Strategy Meetings certainly had an impact on the Commission's recommendations for a larger U.S. military:

 

 

When you ask the military and its insiders what they want, it's highly unlikely that they are going to say "a smaller military" or "peace", isn't it?  Another Cold War is a wet dream for these men and women not to mention the upper floor, corner office dwellers at the nation's defense contractors.