Suggested Answers to the Third Short Quiz

[johnkarls]

.

**********
PART FOUR – CHINA’S BID FOR TECHNOLOGICAL MASTERY

Question 1

Does Chapter 36 (The Interpreter) describe Britain’s 4/24/2019 decision to allow China’s Huawei to build Britain’s new 5G telecommunications network??? Was Matt Pottinger (Pres. Trump’s top China expert at the NSC) “the interpreter” who explained what China’s words and deeds really meant???

Answer 1

Yes and Yes.

Question 2

Does Chapter 37 (Irresponsible Stakeholder) describe Pres. Clinton’s ushering China into the World Trade Organization (WTO) that regulates and facilitates international trade only to see China reap the rewards of membership while violating its rules (subsidizing Chines firms, erecting barriers to imports and, most importantly, stealing intellectual property)???

Answer 2

Yes.

Question 3

Does Chapter 38 (The Awakening) focus for the last 4 of its 8 pages on the manufacture of semiconductor computer chips WITHOUT EVER MENTIONING --

(A) Taiwan produces “over 60% of the world’s semiconductors and over 90% of the most advanced ones” – per The Economist’s “special report on semiconductors” of 3/6/2023 (available at https://www.economist.com/special-repor ... -important), OR

(B) The CEO of the world’s largest chipmaker, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), visited the White House on 3/2/2025* when he and President Trump announced a fresh $100 billion investment in the United States that involves building five additional chip facilities – i.e., three new chip fabrication plants, two advanced packaging facilities and a major research and development center???

NB: The TSMC announcement on 3/2/2025 was 5 days after the 2/25/2025 publication of “Chokepoints” though one would think that someone who fancies himself an expert on trade sanctions would be “plugged in” and know about such things well in advance.

Answer 3

Yes and Yes – it never mentions either.

Question 4

BTW did we recognize that the 3/2/2025 TSMC announcement may mean TSMC and its principal owners & key employees have deployed their “Golden Parachutes” to land them in the U.S. while the PRC takes over Taiwan (please see Q&A-29 of the Second Short Quiz for our 5/21/2025 meeting on “Why Taiwan Matters: A Short History of a Small Island That Will Dictate Our Future” at viewtopic.php?f=851&t=2647&p=3498&hilit ... fad5#p3498)???

Answer 4

Yes.

Question 5

Does Chapter 39 (Let a Hundred China Policies Bloom”) give an interesting interpretation of the first Trump Administration’s attitude(s) toward China which coalesced, as we all knew, behind Trade Rep Robert Lighthizer’s tariffs???

Answer 5

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 6

Does Chapter 40 (The Clue: ZTE) comprise an irrelevant “smoke screen” that attempts to attribute Trump Trade Rep Robert Lighthizer’s tariffs to Pres. Obama’s obviously-irrelevant policy of excluding China’s Huawei and ZTE telecom equipment from handling U.S. and Allied national-security information???

Answer 6

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 7

Does Chapter 41 (The Validation: Fujian Jinhua) focus on the 2016 establishment of China’s new semi-conductor chipmaker, Fujian Jinhua, while continuing to ignore the fact that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) – as Edward Fishman ignored in Chapter 38 as noted above in Q-4 – produces “over 60% of the world’s semiconductors and over 90% of the most advanced ones” per The Economist’s “special report on semiconductors” of 3/6/2023???

Answer 7

Yes.

Question 8

For anyone’s wondering whether TSMC was similarly dominant in 2016, does a quick look at Wikipedia’s “TSMC” article confirms that it was???

Answer 8

Yes.

Question 9

Does Chapter 42 (The First Shot at Huawei) waste 7 pages on Huawei rather than focus on Trump Trade Rep Robert Lighthizer’s tariffs???

Answer 9

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 10

Does Chapter 43 (A False Start) inadvertently seem to focus for 2 pages on China’s “rare earths” before devoting its final 4 pages to microchip manufacturing (while continuing to ignore TSMC)???

Answer 10

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 11

Does Chapter 44 (“Backdoors” and “Betrayal”) continue to focus on Huawei???

Answer 11

Yes.

Question 12

Does Chapter 45 (The Second Shot at Huawei) record that the COVID-19 epidemic provided an excuse for a 5/15/2020 rule that banned companies all over the world from selling microchips to Huawei that were made using U.S. technology???

Answer 12

Yes.

Question 13

Chapter 46 (The Dominoes Fall), does Edward Fishman finally acknowledge TSMC’s overwhelming role in semiconductor microchip manufacturing??? Does he recognize as pivotal TSMC’s decision to side with the U.S. in the Chap. 45 “Second Shot” policy??? Did the U.K. following suit ensure the dominoes would fall???

Answer 13

Yes – Yes – Yes.

Question 14

Does the title of Chapter 47 (Iron Curtain) refer to the result of the U.S. destruction of Huawei by the first Trump Administration – in that per its final sentence, “As a new economic Iron Curtain descended across the globe, the United States risked ending up alone behind the wall”???

Answer 14

Yes, it so refers.

Question 15

Is the conclusion to Part Four re China ludicrous since NATO is completely dependent on the United States???

Answer 15

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!


**********
PART FIVE – RUSSIA’S INVASION OF UKRAINE

Question 16

Does Chapter 48 (The Practitioner) focus on “practitioner” Daleep Singh (deputy national security adviser for international economics) deciding on the second day of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, that the U.S. should sanction Russia’s central bank in order to stop the Russian tanks???

Answer 16

Yes.

Question 17

Did Daleep Singh NOT need to worry because instead of Obama’s non-lethal aid comprising blankets during Putin’s first invasion of Ukraine 2014-2015, the first Trump Administration gave the Ukrainians Javelin anti-tank weapons so that when Putin launched the SECOND Ukrainian War 2/24/2022 DURING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION when Putin thought he would defeat Ukraine IN 10 DAYS with his tanks lined up along the entire invasion route to Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital – ALL OF THE RUSSIAN TANKS WERE PROMPTLY INCINERATED BY PRES. TRUMP’S JAVELINS???

Answer 17

Yes.

Question 18

Does Chapter 49 (The Best-Laid Plans) record that the Biden Administration virtually-immediately in April 2021 levied “a flurry of new sanctions on Russia” while Russia was amassing 100,000 troops along the Ukraine border??? And that Biden got Putin to agree to a summit June 16 in Geneva???

Answer 18

Yes and Yes.

Question 19

Does Chapter 50 (“America Is Back”) ironically parrot the title from a Biden speech title??? Did Biden agree NOT to impose sanctions on Nord Stream 2 bringing Russian natural gas to Germany??? And did Biden withdraw from Afghanistan 2/29/2021 - 8/30/2021???

Answer 19

Yes and Yes and Yes.

Question 20

Does Edward Fishman fail to admit that the Afghanistan War is the only time in NATO’s history that Article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on all) has been invoked??? And despite NATO’s Article 5 support of the U.S. following 9/11, does Edward Fishman fail to mention that Biden did not even have the decency to tell our NATO allies that he, Biden, was pulling the plug leaving each of the NATO participants scrambling to rescue their own troops???

Answer 20

Yes and Yes.

Question 21

Worst of all and unmentioned by Edward Fishman, did Biden abandon Bagram, one of the world’s largest and most sophisticated air bases, and incredible amounts of state-of-the-art military equipment, to the Taliban??? If Biden was going to “turn tail and run” without even a “heads up” to our NATO allies, wouldn’t it have made more sense to have left via Bagram Air Base, than from the Kabul civilian airport where the Taliban was entrusted with security???

Answer 21

Yes and Yes.

Question 22

Hasn’t the Taliban enjoyed affluence from selling the American state-of-the-art weapons to other terrorists??? And isn’t Bagram Air Base now run by China which is only 400 miles from Bagram???

Answer 22

Yes and Yes.

Question 23

So even though Edward Fishman doesn’t pose the obvious question, is there any wonder that after witnessing the Nord Stream 2 and Afghanistan disasters, Putin would invade Ukraine post haste???

Answer 23

x What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 24

In Chapter 50 (Standing Athwart History, Yelling Stop), does Edward Fishman show any awareness that Biden “yelling stop” to Putin’s Ukraine invasion of 2/24/2022 was the result of Biden’s “standing athwart” the recent 2021 history of his disastrous Nord Stream 2 and Afghanistan disasters???

Answer 24

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 25

Does Chapter 51 (Panic at the Pump) record Putin’s contempt in November 2021 for CIA Director and former Ambassador to Russia Bill Burns who traveled to Moscow only to discover Putin had left for his Black Sea palace 1,000 miles to the south??? And that Burns could not present a letter from Biden but was confined to talking by telephone to Putin???

Answer 25

Yes and Yes.

Question 26

Does “Panic at the Pump” record how world oil & gas prices produced “1970s-style inflation” without admitting that its primary cause was Biden’s anti-fossil-fuels global-warming policies???

Answer 26

Re the inflation – Yes.

Re the cause – What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 27

BTW, did Pres. Biden, like Pres. Obama, shun our organization’s plea to foster THORIUM FISSSION as the only non-carbon energy source that is cheaper than oil & gas???

Answer 27

ABSOLUTELY!!!

Quoting from our 11/24/2023 Letter to Pres. Biden which, in its totality, is available for download at viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2434&sid=c7af4eaed ... 0733a24e22 --

********************Beginning of Quotation from the Biden Letter********************

Both conventional uranium fission and proven thorium/fission share all of the following advantages: (a) producing no greenhouse gases; (b) eliminating the dependence of the U.S. and its allies on members of OPEC (the long-standing Organization of Petroleum-Exporting Countries) and, in the case of Europe, natural gas imports from Russia (in addition to oil & gas imports from OPEC); and (c) eliminating the gaping U.S. balance-of-payments deficit and resulting piling up of our foreign national debt.

However, proven thorium/fission has the following advantages over conventional uranium/fission –

[These advantages are virtually identical to those listed by Dr. Victor Stenger in The Huffington Post - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-s ... 92584.html.]

(1) LFTR’s (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors) require minimal containment chambers because meltdowns are physically impossible since LFTR’s operate near atmospheric pressure (this is both a safety and cost factor).

(2) LFTR’s do not require elaborate cooling systems because they operate well below the boiling point of molten salt and can be passively cooled (this is also both a safety and cost factor).

(3) Thorium is so stable that, as mentioned above, it is impossible to make a nuclear weapon from thorium which is why the U.S. turned to uranium and plutonium instead of thorium.

(4) Thorium has such an incredibly-high “burn-up” that there is virtually no long-lived radioactive waste.

(5) LFTR’s can safely consume uranium from decommissioned nuclear warheads and from spent uranium-reactor fuel rods. Indeed, the Oak Ridge MSRE in the 1960’s was able to use U-235, Pu-239 and U-233 at the same time as thorium. [NB: Since former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of NV prevented the opening of Yucca Mountain NV as the repository for our spent uranium-nuclear fuel rods, the spent uranium-nuclear fuel rods have been left on site at each uranium-nuclear plant to remain cool in the equivalent of home swimming-pools even though many of those uranium-nuclear plants are situated in high-volume air corridors!!!]

(6) Because LFTR’s are economically practical in small sizes, they can be mass-produced in factories and assembled near electrical demand so that the huge energy losses during electricity transmission are virtually eliminated -- though to replace huge uranium reactors, it would only be necessary to assemble several of the small modular thorium reactors into a larger plant.

(7) In addition, thorium is so plentiful that proven thorium supplies are capable of supplying 100% of the world’s energy (not just electricity) for more than 1,000 years. Indeed, virtually all of India’s “sand” beaches comprise thorium.

[Our calculation was 80 years of “proven” reserves of uranium for current (electricity only) usage multiplied by 3 (the minimum abundance factor of “proven” thorium reserves vs. “proven” uranium reserves) multiplied by 99 (usable thorium energy content vs. usable uranium energy content) multiplied by 5.8% (the percentage of total worldwide energy including transportation fuels, that comes from nuclear plants) = 1,378 years.]

ThEC15 was a worldwide conference on thorium research that was held in Mumbai, India, in 2015 by the Government of India and two of its agencies, BARC and NPCIL, along with HBNI and IThEO. The ThEC15 website (http://www.thoriumenergyworld.com/thec15-mumbai.html) contains 127 papers and speeches by 46 speakers from 30 different nations.

**********
In contrast to all of these advantages, wind and solar have never “held a candle” to fossil fuels in terms of cost which is why –

(1) wind and solar have always required massive subsidies – including the additional massive subsidies provided in the Inflation-Reduction Act of 2022;

(2) hydro power, though economic, is severely limited by the world’s extreme lack of dammable rivers; and

(3) only nuclear power can solve global warming without requiring military invasions of countries such as China.

The only reason why nuclear power has not long-since displaced fossil fuels is that Hollywood movies have done the “heavy lifting” for OPEC and the oil industry by falsely frightening the public about alleged dangers of nuclear power. Nevertheless –

(1) Gallup’s most-recent annual poll shows the majority of Americans favor the use of nuclear energy; and

(2) Pew Reserch’s most-recent annual poll confirms that this is true.

********************End of Quotation from the Biden Letter********************

Indeed, as we have studied many times –

THE LARGEST THORIUM REACTOR IS THE EARTH ITSELF WHICH IS WHY MOLTEN LAVA BILLOWS FROM ANY RUPTURE IN THE EARTH’S THIN SURFACE AND WHY THE CENTER OF THE EARTH IS 7,000 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT WHICH IS HOTTER THAN THE SUN’S SURFACE.

Question 28

Does Chapter 53 (“An Invasion Is an Invasion”) record how just before the invasion, the E.U. and the U.S. formulated an economic sanctions package that was pitifully impotent???

Answer 28

Re formulating the sanctions package – Yes.

Re “pitifully impotent” – What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 29

Does Chapter 54 (The Scholz Jolt) report that on 2/22/2014, the day after Putin’s televised meeting with his security counsel reaching a unanimous decision to invade Ukraine again, pitifully-poor international sanctions were met with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz cancelling Nord Stream 2 carrying Russian natural gas through the Baltic Sea to Germany, rendering it an $11 billion “useless heap of metal”???

Answer 29

Yes.

Question 30

Did Scholz’ bold but hopeless action produce an IMHO comedy in which British Prime Minister Boris Johnson commented on the pitifully-poor international sanctions by claiming “that the next round of sanctions would ‘really bite’”??? [“IMHO comedy” because Edward Fishman did not appear to think it was comic!!!]

Answer 30

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 31

Does Chapter 55 (Banks vs. Tanks) ignore the fact (see Q-17 above) that it was Pres. Trump’s Javelin anti-tank weapons that promptly incinerated Putin’s invasion force which he thought would conquer all of Ukraine in 10 days – NOT Obama’s non-lethal blankets NOR Biden’s sanctions??? BTW does Edward Fishman admit that Biden’s “Day Zero sanctions” ignored Russia’s energy sector even though, as the late Sen. John McCain was fond of proclaiming – Russia is “a gas station masquerading as a country”???

Answer 31

Yes and Yes.

Question 32

Does Chapter 56 (Pandora’s Box) refer to jeopardizing the role of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency by banning the Russian Central Bank from using the SWIFT system of settling international accounts – even though there were several rival systems including one established by Russia during its first invasion of Ukraine??? Does Chapter 56 disclose what effect banning the Russian Central Bank from using SWIFT had (or did not have)???

Answer 32

Yes, it does so refer.

No, it doesn’t disclose the result.

Question 33

Re the Chapter 57 title (Monetary Policy at the Point of a Gun), should Edward Fishman as a Stanford MBA know that “monetary policy” (as distinguished from “fiscal policy” which refers to running governmental deficits to increase demand to combat a recession) refers to lowering interest rates and increasing the money supply in order to increase demand to combat a recession???

Answer 33

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 34

Does the titular “Monetary Policy” instead refer to banning the Russian Central Bank from SWIFT???

Answer 34

Yes.

Question 35

Does the Chapter 58 title (A Potemkin Currency) or, in terms of the proverbial Potemkin villages, mean a FAKE currency, FAIL TO RING TRUE because the U.S. and E.U. were unwilling to “lay a glove on” Russian oil & gas???

Answer 35

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 36

Does Chapter 59 (Supply and Demand) describe Biden’s despicable decision to raid America’s “Strategic Petroleum Reserve” – which comprised storage of 714 million barrels of crude oil maintained by the US Dept of Energy for the express purpose of meeting emergencies – for 50 million barrels and then another 180 million barrels (and BTW per p. 384, another 15 million barrels just before the U.S. 2022 mid-term elections)??? Does Chap. 59 also describe Russia’s selling its crude oil rejected elsewhere, to India???

Answer 36

Yes and Yes.

Question 37

Does Chapter 60 (The Rubik’s Cube) re-visit the so-called 12/5/2022 “price cap” economic sanction against Russian oil & gas exports WHICH FAILED TO HALT THE 2/24/2022 RUSSIAN INVASION OF UKRAINE??? Did Edward Fishman first visit the 12/5/2022 “price cap” sanctions in his book’s Introduction when he attempted to define a “chokepoint” (ref. Q-1 of the Second Short Quiz)???

Answer 37

Yes and Yes.

Question 38

Does Chapter 61 (“What Other Option Do We Have”?) chronicle another group of IMHO-pitiful E.U. sanctions that Edward Fishman brazenly quotes the Wall Street Journal as comprising “the toughest sanctions yet on Russia”??? So why is the “toughest” of a pitiful group of sanctions remarkable if the world crude oil price had now “rocketed” (Fishman’s adjective) to $120/barrel and Putin was profiting handsomely from his invasion of Ukraine???

Answer 38

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 39

Does Chapter 62 (The Service Providers’ Cartel) describe some of the details underpinning the ill-fated 12/5/2022 “price cap” sanction such as withholding G-7 maritime insurance even if Russia provided an alternative???

Answer 39

Yes.

Question 40

Does Chapter 63 (An Economic War of Attrition) claim that Ukraine was buoyed by U.S. military aid which has been characterized by virtually everyone except Edward Fishman as “too little and too late”??? Does the end of the Chapter recognize once more that Russia’s oil & gas exports were the whole ball game???

Answer 40

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Re oil & gas being the whole ball game, the penultimate sentence of the chapter says so but is then contradicted by the final sentence which says – “It was imperative, in other words, for the price cap to work.”

Question 41

Does Chapter 64 (A Partitioned Market) claim that even though the 12/5/2022 “price cap” economic sanction against Russian oil & gas exports failed to halt the Russian war against Ukraine, it did succeed in “partitioning” the world oil & gas market??? In other words, does this simply mean a minor price fracture pursuant to which India and China buy virtually all of Russia’s crude oil but at a slight discount because they are virtually the only buyers???

Answer 41

Yes and Yes.


**********
PART SIX – THE WORLD ECONOMIC RUPTURE

Question 42

Does Chapter 65 (“Small Yard and High Fence”) focus on the Biden Administration’s protectionist (vs. free trade) policies for three “foundational technologies” – semiconductor chips, biotech and clean energy???

Answer 42

Yes.

Question 43

Does Chapter 66 (The Scramble for Economic Security) mention BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) by way of describing the de-coupling of the world economy into silo-like trading blocks in order to achieve economic security??? BTW, is this an IMHO predictable reaction to economic sanctions???

Answer 43

Re BRICS – Yes.

Re a “predictable reaction” - What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 44

Does Chapter 67 (Breaking the Chokepoints) focus on such things as cryptocurrencies, semiconductor microchips, etc.??? Incredibly, does Edward Fishman bring in clean-energy technology WITHOUT MENTIONING NUCLEAR (which is the only clean-energy source cheaper than oil & gas) MUCH LESS THAN THORIUM-FISSION???!!!

Answer 44

Yes, Chap. 67 does so focus.

AND YES, FISHMAN FAILS TO MENTION NUCLEAR AND THORIUM FISSION AS THE ONLY SOLUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING!!! [Please see Q&A-27 for details about thorium-fission.]

Question 45

Does Chapter 68 (Strategy and Sacrifice) address the question of whether economic warfare is worth it??? HOWEVER, is Edward Fishman’s discussion of the issue IMHO worthless because many, if not most, of his premises are wrong???

Answer 45

Re addressing the Q of whether economic warfare worth it – Yes.

Re whether Fishman’s premises are wrong - What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!


**********
CONCUSION – IMPOSSIBLE TRINITY

Question 46

Does Edward Fishman’s conclusion contain many interesting observations and predictions???

Answer 46

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 47

Does his Conclusion’s title refer to a “trinity” of economic interdependence, economic security, and geopolitical competition???

Answer 47

Yes.

Question 48

Does Edward Fishman claim that “any two of these can coexist, but not all three”???

Answer 48

Yes.

BTW, whether his claim is accurate - What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!