Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 10034 The variables I chose for our 2017 scenarios are: • Political and Economic Alignment: Uni- polar vs. Multipolar: The primary debate in the US elections was whether or not our leadership would push to maintain a global empire or to sacrifice the empire in order to preserve North America. The North American faction won the election – how that will translate into the deployment of the US military or the management of US alliances and trade policies globally has yet to be determined. This is one of the reasons we are delighted that the Saker will be joining us again this year for quarterly reports on The Emerging Multipolar World. The possibility for a meaningful shift to a multipolar world is one of the reasons I felt it was important to revisit the global agriculture model in The Global Harvest and What It Means to Investors. It is my hope that this report will inspire you to think, “What if?” At the heart of the debate between a unipo- lar and multipolar world is the question of whether we will have a human culture or if we will continue to shift to an inhuman, transhumanist culture. This is – by far and away – the most important variable of all. • Return on Investment to Taxpayers: Positive vs. Negative: The US federal budget and regulations have been designed to centralize control of the economy rather than to optimize the economy. The result has been a negative return on investment to taxpayers. We have seen a similar dynamic in the European Union. In part, this reflects the desire to run the economy by rules instead of allowing markets, com- munication, and allocation to be driven by freely determined prices. The new US President has indicated a desire to turn things positive for taxpayers. However, the win-lose relationship between the Popsicle Index and the Dow Jones Index is old and deep. Can we turn this situation into a win-win relationship? This choice is not as important as whether we choose to have a human culture or not. However, optimiz- ing the economy may help us share natural resources and protect the environment as we move towards creating a more human culture. Here are the resulting four scenarios for 2017 and beyond. 2017 Scenario #1: Popsicle Index Rising A commitment to human values, environmen- tal stewardship, market economics and global cooperation are successful. Weighting = 30% • Multipolar World • Positive Return on Investment to Taxpayer Initially, a combination of Donald Trump’s blunt talk, Brexit negotiations, and European elections serve to unravel both old and new world orders. However, fundamental economics III. 2017: Get Ready, Get Ready, Get Ready!!! The Popsicle Index is a quality of life measurement coined by Catherine Austin Fitts, “as the percent- age of people in a community who be- lieve that a child can leave their home, walk to the nearest possible location to buy a popsicle, and come home alone safely.” — Wikipedia, “Quality of Life”