And think how much unlimited misery and death will be created if we ever are foolish enough to use these weapons in war.

The troubling part of the solutions offered by the 3 authors (and most of the debates taking place today) above is that they are very much a top-down approach to building economic security. Consider how the foreclosure problem has focused almost exclusively on the interests of the lending institutions while solutions for homeowners are a footnote to the discussions; consider how the bailout is being funded by the taxpayers instead of the companies who got themselves into the mess (see Nader who suggested implemented a securities speculation tax to fund the $700 billion); consider how little concern there is for the declining real wage of American workers since the 1970s while corporate tax income (as a % of overall federal revenue) have declined steady for over 50 years (despite massive record profits).

I laugh when I hear liberals and critics (typical offenders) say the end of capitalism is near. Its the “end of history” thesis all over again. More regulation is inevitable and necessary. There need to be checks against market failures and greed. I would agree with Forbes that the free-market perhaps shouldn’t bear all the blame: if the regulatory schemes/enviroment allowed for the crazy speculation, then companies were certainly sensible in pursuing profit. But at what cost? It appears we’ve been extremely shortsighted in how we evaluate costs - its not merely about costs to the company, its owners, or its employees, but to society as a whole. Who will bear this burden?

As has been summed up quite well by Gretchen Morgensen, Kevin Phillips, and others, the most troubling aspect of our trajectory is that the gains of our current financial system are heavily privatized while nearly all the costs are socialized. More balance and sensibility are required in our financial capital markets so we can protect our human capital. This is critical if we are to cope with the scales of our decisions in an increasingly interconnected and globalized world.

By selecting green energy as the priority crisis and solution would we be overly focused and relying too much on politicians picking winners and losers? The opportunities for waste, inefficiency and corruption abound and the recent examples provided by an Alaska Senator, Illinois Governor and $50 billion fraud-missing SEC don’t inspire confidence in government.

Wouldn’t a cut in the corporate tax rate as recommended by Steve Forbes stimulate investment broadly in productive industries, not just in energy, and make U.S. products more competitive globally? A cut in capital gains taxes should also stimulate investment in private sector companies which produce what the marketplace demands, not what politicians decide. Such tax cuts could have an immediate impact across the entire economy, without the lag-time of building a green energy infrastructure in select states.

I agree that if the economic crisis is not solved first and decisively we are unlikely to make much progress on the other crises. It appears the upper middle class, the investor class, is paralyzed by a rational fear. While now may be an ideal time to buy stocks, real estate, autos and other major items, it takes uncommon courage to do so while facing uncertainty.

The incoming government has committed to raising income, capital gains and estate taxes, to “spread the wealth” and expand Medicare. All this is in addition to a massive stimulus funded by debt. Such an atmosphere does not stimulate risk-taking but rather a “hunker down” mentality. Until the agenda is clarified we may be in a slow or no growth period for some time. This would not bode well for much progress on any of our crises.

If I had the chance to talk to the editors of the Economist, I would tell them they should read Arjun Makijani’s book, Carbon-Free, Nuclear Free: A Road Map for U.S. Energy Policy. (Arjun is a MIT trained physicist and you can download the book free at his website, see http://www.ieer.org/)

I say this is because the Economist argues against supporting alternative energy initiatives in a most dismissive manner. I suspect they have their own agenda which likely supports nuclear power rather than alternative sources.

Yes, putting solar collectors on rooftops in Germany probably was not the best idea, but please notice that the photo the Economist uses is not in Germany but in a desert environment, probably California, Arizona or Nevada. If you read Arjun’s book, you will see that locating large numbers of collectors in these environments can generate huge amounts of power which then can be routed elsewhere. This is only one aspect of the detailed plan which he has created that clearly shows the US can generate all the electricity it needs without building any nuclear or coal-fired power plants.

We at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation are circulating an Appeal to the Next President of the United States of America for a nuclear weapons-free world. The Appeal calls on the next President to take seven specific steps in making a nuclear weapons-free world a reality in the coming years.

So please visit http://www.makeworldsafer.com, and help us make the world nuclear-free!