Global games: scenarios for future shocks

“1) Supply Availability: Fossil fuel is not permanent panacea for our energy needs and it cannot be replenished. Various experts claim oil had “peaked” after the year 2000, and this contention is consistent with the current trajectory of oil prices. Royal Dutch Shell alone was forced to cut its reserve estimates five times in 2004 [1]. Major oil firms are desperately trying to boost flagging oil and gas production capacities and their quandary is exemplified by an over-reliance on moribund fields worldwide, a prominent one being the Ghawar wells in Saudi Arabia.

Oil is now being extracted from deeper sources through more expensive processes i.e. water injection. The price of oil will remain high.

Peak Oil is also called “Hubbert’s Peak,” named after Shell geologist Dr Marion King Hubbert. In 1956, Hubbert accurately predicted that US domestic oil production would peak in 1970 and that global production would peak in 1995. This would have transpired had the oil shocks of the 70s not delayed the peak for about 10-15 years.

2) Supply Stretch: Oil supply is so stretched that a concerted sabotage of two major pipelines in Russia or Saudi Arabia can precipitate pandemonium in the global economy. Hurricane Katrina, which, recently struck the oil producing Gulf Coast off the United States ratcheted oil to a record $70 per barrel. Major oil producing regions – Middle East, Central Asia, Russia and Venezuela – are bedeviled by terrorism and political volatility. Where stability exists, oil reserves are on a steep decline i.e. North America and the North Sea.

3) Environmental Factor: More hurricanes will ensue over the next few years in the Gulf Coast where most of the United States’ oil rigs and refineries are located. The “Atlantic multi-decadal mode” – where the “Atlantic Ocean and atmospheric conditions conspire” every “20 to 40 years” to “produce just the right conditions to cause increased storm and hurricane activity”[2]- all point to a fragile energy climate ahead. This is a factor omitted by popular literature on the looming energy crisis.

4) Global Financial Crisis: The euro-zone countries hold over $200 billion in US securities while Asia holds $1 trillion or more. This is enough to sink the US economy, though foreign parties are well aware of the dangers of redeeming these securities too soon. US domestic and foreign deficits have reached historic proportions[3]. In a classic Catch-22 situation, US monopoly on oil is being countered by a foreign hoard of US securities. A global hedge fund and banking crisis is looming as well. Banks had “created capital during the cheap oil period by lending more than they had on deposit, being confident that Tomorrow’s Expansion, fueled by cheap oil-based energy, was adequate collateral for Today’s Debt. The decline of oil, the principal driver of economic growth, undermines the validity of that collateral which in turn erodes the valuation of most entities quoted on Stock Exchanges.” (Campbell)

5) Soaring Prices: Goldman Sachs, among other reputed financial establishments, have already alerted markets of a possible “superspike” of US$105 per barrel. More recent projections place it even higher. In June 2005, despite repeated market assurances, OPEC raised its band system to US$40-US$50 (Reuters, June 24 2005). This band system may be revised further in lieu of a smooth global supply, which are not on the horizon.

THEORY:

The research is informed by the following theoretical assumptions:

The high price of oil is battering national economies, though the full extent of this will be actualized in the coming months or years. Current oil supplies have been inked and hedged in advance, at lower costs, though the rising band systems (or baskets) are placing a strain on any negotiated deals. To avoid a global industrial meltdown, or an outright collapse, oil supplies may have to be renegotiated in favor of major industrial powers like India and China to keep a crucial part of the global commerce running. There might be a further shift of basic, crucial manufacturing to these countries.

Here is a regional breakdown of scenarios underpinned by this research’s theoretical assumptions:

China: If its vast industrial expanse is threatened by an acute energy shortage, it might seize the purportedly oil-rich Spratly Islands, a chain of reefs also claimed by Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, Taiwan and the Philippines – all of whom are vested with greater legitimacy under the UN’s Law of Seas Convention. China’s recent moves to acquire Unocal, and even Exxon, hints at its desperation for oil. Further military escalations in the South China Sea are a distinct possibility to avert internal chaos. Taiwan may reunite with the mainland for economic reasons.

India: Now in a uniquely historical role to dictate terms to the West. Not only does it handle vital software infrastructure for MNCs, its call centers are crucial to international commerce. No other nation can produce call centers in such colossal numbers within a very short time. A shutdown of both – even for a day – will lead to financial mayhem. The linguistic edge India enjoys in terms of geopolitical power is largely ignored in international relations texts. Its industry is more service-oriented vis a vis China, and therefore less vulnerable to oil shocks.

Japan: Has been experimenting with alternative power sources for decades, some of which are already operational. Its military capabilities are limited.

Europe: Another region with a long tradition of experimentation with alternative energy. In a better position than most to weather an oil crisis.

South Korea: In a similar situation to Japan, but without a long track record of developing alternative power sources. Historically, it has resisted Chinese hegemony and might align itself to the US, even with a belligerent North Korea factored out.

Russia: Through its enormous reserves of oil and gas, Russia may aggrandize its geopolitical leverage in Europe. In the short-term, before a multifarious energy infrastructure is in place, the EU may have to make concessions to Russia.

Venezuela, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, North Africa and the Middle East: Has oil but no military capability to counter external threats.

Africa and South America: International Realism will leave little breathing space for these regions by virtue of their internal weaknesses.”

More by activist and researcher, Matthew Maawak.

Chinese best-seller takes on kooky fortunes and currency wars…

“The Battle of Waterloo. The deaths of six US presidents. The rise of Adolf Hitler. The deflation of the Japanese bubble economy, the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis and even environmental destruction in the developing world.
In a new Chinese best-seller, Currency Wars , these disparate events spanning two centuries have a single root cause: the control of moneyissuance through history by the Rothschild banking dynasty.
Even today, claims author Song Hongbing, the US Federal Reserve remains a puppet of private banks, which also ultimately owe their allegiance to the ubiquitous Rothschilds.
Such an over-arching conspiracy theory might matter as little as the many fetid tracts that can still be found in the west about the “gnomes of Zurich” and Wall Street’s manipulation of global finance.
But in China, which is in the midst of a lengthy debate about opening itsfinancial system under US pressure, the book has become a surprise hit andis being read at senior levels of government and business.

“Some senior heads of companies have been asking me if this is all true,”says Ha Jiming, the chief economist of China International Capital Corp, thelargest local investment bank.
The book also gives ammunition, however hay-wire, to many in China who argue that Beijing should resist pressure from the US and other countries to allow its currency, the renminbi, to appreciate….”

More by Richard McGregor at the Financial Times.

Comment:

Here we enter the world of conspiracy theory….but here’s a thought. Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean someone isn’t out to get you…

Global Games: Asians want to eat too..

“Imagine if five people were washed up on a desert island: four Asians and an American. In splitting up their duties, one Asian says he’ll fish; another will hunt, another will look for firewood, and another will cook. The American assigns himself the job of eating.“The modern economist looks at this situation and says the American is key to the whole thing,” says Schiff. “Because without him to eat, the four Asians would be unemployed.” The alternative: Without the American, the Asians might eat a little more themselves and even spend some time building a boat. This is happening as we speak: With the rise of the Chinese consumer class, the local citizenry is now spending, and the country is no longer totally dependent on exports. Which means they’re no longer totally dependent on us.

Readers of the financial press are surely familiar with the buzzword of the moment, decoupling. It’s used to describe how U.S.-Europe and U.S.-Asian trade relationships are becoming less dependent at the same time as European-Asian ties are growing. Most Asian nations, including China, are seeing more rapid growth in exports to Europe than to the U.S. And the U.S. now accounts for a declining share of European exports. The bearish interpretation: that the longtime global embrace of the dollar is loosening.”

More at the NewYorker by Duff McDonald.

Cold Fizzies in India: Coke headed for trouble…


October 29, 2007

Community Protests Coca-Cola Plant in India
October 25, 2007
http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2007/1054.html
Over 600 people marched and rallied against the Coca-Cola bottling plant in the village of Sinhachawar in Ballia district in India yesterday, demanding that the plant be shut down permanently. The community has accused the bottling plant of pollution and also illegally occupying land held by the village council. “We are demanding that the Coca-Cola bottling plant cease its operations permanently because they are destroying our land and water, the very source of our livelihoods,” said Mr. Baliram Ram of the Coca-Cola Bhagao, Krishi Bachao Sangharsh Samiti, the main organizer of the protest.

Norway Students Launch Campaign Against Coca-Cola
October 19, 2007
The India Resource Center has just completed a speaking tour of 5 universities in Norway – Oslo, Trondheim, Bergen, Vestfold and Ås. Organized by ATTAC Norway, the speaking tour was very successful, and now we have active and strong campaigns at all these universities. The student parliaments at Bergen and Vestfold have already passed resolutions against doing business with the Coca-Cola company. All universities have a single contract with Coca-Cola Norway that ends in December 2009, and students are mobilizing support to ensure that the contract is not renewed. Let us know if you want to join the campaign.

Criminal Charges Against Coca-Cola Likely in India
October 15, 2007
http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2007/1053.html
The state government of Kerala has initiated the process of filing criminal charges against the Coca-Cola company for pollution. In a notice to the Coca-Cola company on Friday, October 12, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board has asked the company to show cause as to why a criminal case should not be filed against it for polluting the environment. The action by the state government comes directly as a result of a longstanding demand of the campaign that the Coca-Cola company must also be held criminally liable for the damages it has caused in the community of Plachimada in India.

Campaign Expanding to Europe
Help us build a strong campaign against Coca-Cola in Europe. We would like to be in dialogue with friends in Europe to see how we can work together to challenge the abuses of Coca-Cola in India. In particular, we are interested in bringing the campaign to some of the company’s larger markets – Sweden, Germany, Italy, France, Spain and the UK. Contact us if you are interested!

Coca-Cola Loses University of Illinois Contract
August 6, 2007
http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2007/1051.html
The Coca-Cola company has lost its contract with the University of Illinois, giving another boost to the international campaign against Coca-Cola. Students and faculty at the University of Illinois, a prestigious public university with over 40,000 students, have campaigned for over two years to end the 10-year, exclusive “pouring rights” agreement with Coca-Cola because of the company’s unethical practices in India and globally. “This is a tremendous victory for the campus community and sends a strong message to the Coca-Cola company that it must respect human rights and the environment,” said Shivali Tukdeo of the Coalition Against Coke Contracts, a broad coalition of campus and community groups that led the campaign to remove Coca-Cola from campus.

Indian Campaign Forces Coca-Cola to Announce Ambitious Water Conservation Project
http://www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/2007/cokewwf.html
Campaña India Obliga a Coca Cola a Anunciar un Ambicioso Proyecto de Conservación de Agua
http://www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/2007/cokewwfespanol.html
July 30, 2007
The Coca-Cola company has recently announced, to much fanfare, a three-year, US$20 million partnership with the World Wildlife Fund on water conservation. At face value, such an announcement is obviously welcome. After all, who would object to water conservation projects in a world where over 1 billion people still lack access to clean drinking water? But the announcement by Coca-Cola deserves scrutiny – something sorely lacking from the media and even NGO’s – primarily because it is the Coca-Cola company that is announcing water conservation projects.

La compañía Coca-Cola con gran fanfarria ha anunciado recientemente una alianza de tres años por valor de US$20 millones con el World Wildlife Fund (Fondo Mundial para la Vida Silvestre) para conservación del agua. A simple vista, obviamente tal anuncio sería bienvenido. Después de todo, ¿quién se opondría a un proyecto de conservación de agua en un mundo donde más de 1 billón de personas todavía carece de agua potable? Sin embargo, el anuncio de Coca Cola merece ser escrutado a fondo – algo que los medios no hacen, ni siquiera las ONGs – principalmente porque es nada menos que la compañía Coca Cola la que anuncia estos proyectos de conservación de agua.

Factsheet on Coca-Cola in English
http://www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/2004/Brochure.pdf
Coca-Cola Hechos en Español
http://www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/2004/cokefactespanol.html
Coca-Cola Fatos no Português
http://www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/2005/cokefactportuguese.html
Coca-Cola Fakten auf Deutsch
http://www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/2006/cokefactdeutsch.html

SUPPORT US!! Make an Online Donation
http://www.indiaresource.org/donate/index.html

To unsubscribe, please send an email with Subject UNSUBSCRIBE to info@IndiaResource.org

Global Games: India nuke deal bites the dust…

“In Washington, DC, the US-India Business Council (USIBC) emerged from hibernation (it was formed in 1975) in the 1990s to lobby for US business interests in India. The USIBC is housed, conveniently, in the US Chamber of Commerce in Washington, from where it pushes against the walls erected in India to protect the national economy from those who want to make dollars out of rupees. For the nuclear deal, the USIBC and the US Chamber of Commerce’s Coalition for Partnership with India drew upon the lobbying expertise of Patton Boggs and Stonebridge International. They had a vested interest in the deal, because it would have allowed U.S. firms to gain contracts in the Indian nuclear sector. In March 2007, the USIBC hosted a 230-member business delegation to India, the Commercial Nuclear Executive Mission. Tim Richards of General Electric (GE) gingerly said of the trip, “We know India’s need for nuclear power” (there is, in fact, no such need; nuclear power would only cover a maximum of seven percent of India’s energy needs). Ron Somers, president of USIBC, said of the purported $60 billion boondoggle that would have come as a result of the deal, “The bounty is enormous.”

As the deal fizzled out, the nuclear moneymen grieved. Russia and France had also already lined up to supply India, and both had begun to lobby the Nuclear Suppliers Group to give the deal a free pass. A few days after Singh told Bush their deal was in cold storage, seventy French delegates from twenty-nine nuclear firms met with three hundred Indian delegates in Mumbai for a discussion on a potential France-India nuclear deal. French Ambassador to India Jerome Bonnafont eagerly anticipated the restarting of nuclear cooperation between the two states, which would provide substantial contracts for the French nuclear industry. They want to make Francs out of Rupees.”

Vijay Prashad, on how the communists spiked the nuclear deal in India.

Comment:

Excellent news. Nuclear energy is touted falsely as the energy of the new age. Actually, it’s wildly expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary, since merely upgrading existing infrastructure and cutting back on a few fighter jets and pointless space programs, will probably do as much for energy needs in the third world with less expenditure. But, while good nukes have nothing good about them, bad nukes (i.e., nuclear weapons) probably aren’t such a bad thing for weaker countries to pack, so long as the major powers aren’t willing to give them up themselves.

Another of those perverse contradictions of the state system.

Clarification:

In case this sounds as though I am recommending a nuke arms race in Asia, I should add that packing a few (minimal) weapons acts as a deterrent to neighbors who might otherwise feel emboldened to lob a few themselves (or to  superpower ambition, as in the case of non- nuclear Iraq). I advocate it as I advocate guns for the citizenry. That doesn’t mean I think you should be building chemical weapons in your basement, nor does it mean I think the rest of the world should be so stupid as to waste their money on endless nuclear and space boondoggles as the US – to its lasting detriment – has.

Of course, as a libertarian, I would say that any billionaire who wishes to explore space on his own (inside his head or out) should be free to do so. I am just opposed to the Feds using their toy money (it’s a toy once it’s in their hands; it’s real enough in ours) to play Darth Vader on our dime.

Alexander Cockburn on Naomi Klein’s literary shock and tell…

“Leftists used to think that at least as a general axiom, if not by a precise deadline, capitalism was doomed. When I first arrived in the United States in the early 1970s, there was enough exuberance in the air even for mild-mannered reformers to be pushing plans for the abolition of the Federal Reserve, World Bank and kindred institutions.But today most of these same leftists deem capitalism invincible and fearfully lob copious documentation at each other detailing the efficient devilry of the executives of the system. The internet serves to amplify this pervasive funk into a catastrophist mindset. It imbues most of the English-speaking left west of the Atlantic after seven years of Bush and Cheney, and frames Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine, The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

At the outset Klein permits herself a robust trumpet blast as intrepid pioneer:

“This book is a challenge to the central and most cherished claim in the official story — that the triumph of deregulated capitalism has been born of freedom, that unfettered free markets go hand in hand with democracy. Instead, I will show that this fundamentalist form of capitalism has consistently been midwifed by the most brutal forms of coercion, inflicted on the collective body politic as well as on countless individual bodies.”

The arc of triumph she is alluding to spans the half century from the Eisenhower administration’s onslaughts on political and economic nationalism in Iran and Guatemala in the early 1950s, to the US attack on Iraq in 2003 and its subsequent occupation. These are not decades where official apologetics have been entirely without challenge until Ms. Klein embarked on her researches. There are shelves worth of books on the ghastly consequences of the covert interventions and massacres organized or connived at by the United States in the name of freedom and the capitalist way. Klein’s own bibliography attests that there has plenty of detailed work on the neoliberal onslaught that gathered strength from the mid-70s on, marching under the intellectual colors of one of her arch villains, the late Milton Friedman, the Chicago School economist….”

More here at Counterpunch.

Global Games: James Kunstler on the need for change…

“We have to make other arrangements for living. We have to behave differently in the Western World, but particularly in North America. We’re going to have to do farming differently; we’re going to have to do commerce and trade differently; we’re going to have to do schooling differently; we’re going to have to learn to make some things in our own countries again….”

More by James Kunstler at the Rude Awakening.

Comment:

Exurbanization — the trek to small towns and rural areas, enabled by the Internet – is one development along these lines. I think others include the rise of what Daniel Pink calls the free agent nation — people opting for working for themselves, instead of for others; for self-sufficiency over consumerism; for certain forms of survivalism.

I am not overly pessimistic about recession. I guess, like many people in the middle class, who saw a dramatic decline in living standards in the last few years, I have got used to adjusting to things. And I have found that “doing without” is not only not scary – it’s positively liberating…and creative. Nothing like learning how to forage for fenders at Junk Yard Dog or do cordon bleu cooking on a ramen noodles budget.

One of the arguments we (Bonner and I) make in “Mobs” is that people don’t really need a lot of the stuff they think they do. It’s all relative. A lot of it is simply status. We make quite a thesis of that and it’s something I fervently believe. Take college education. Having waded through a few degrees myself, I can assure you that most of that knowledge – all, I would say — can be got much cheaper and faster in other ways. Hanging out with intelligent people and working with other people have useful aspects to them, for sure, but on the whole, unless you are in some of the sciences , engineering, or medicine, the negatives exceed the positives.

Somethings get ruined – perhaps permanently – by education. Intuition, street smarts, independent thinking. Then you get a nation that will let any expert tell them anything. Just what’s led us into the financial and military mess we are in now.

Get the book. Not just because it will help me eat (that too). But it really does put the picture together – financial and socio-economic. Don’t fall for the guff. We are not that helpless. We don’t need politicians and pundits to run our lives….

Glen Greenwald on why criticizing Tom Friedman is justified….

In response to the gentle souls who think harsh criticism of Thomas Friedman is “mean,” here is Glen Greenwald, author of the NY Times best seller, How Would a Patriot Act? on what it is that makes the columnist a richly deserving target. in his public persona, of course. We have nothing against Friedman personally, needless to say. He may be the nicest of human beings in private life – but his public views are as lethal as any weapon of mass destruction. They need to be defused….

The Tom Friedman disease consumes Establishment Washington

(Friday, Dec. 1, 2006 – later updated

Someone e-mailed me several days ago to say that while it is fruitful and necessary to chronicle the dishonest historical record of pundits and political figures when it comes to Iraq, I deserve to be chastised for failing to devote enough attention to the person who, by far, was most responsible for selling the war to centrists and liberal “hawks” and thereby creating “consensus” support for Bush’s war — Tom Friedman, from his New York Times perch as “the nation’s preeminent centrist foreign policy genius.”

That criticism immediately struck me as valid, and so I spent the day yesterday and today reading every Tom Friedman column beginning in mid-2002 through the present regarding Iraq. That body of work is extraordinary. Friedman is truly one of the most frivolous, dishonest, and morally bankrupt public intellectuals burdening this country. Yet he is, of course, still today, one of the most universally revered figures around, despite — amazingly enough, I think it’s more accurate to say “because of” — his advocacy of the invasion of Iraq, likely the greatest strategic foreign policy disaster in America’s history.

This matters so much not simply in order to expose Friedman’s intellectual and moral emptiness, though that is a goal worthy and important in its own right. Way beyond that, the specific strain of intellectual bankruptcy that drove Friedman’s strident support for the invasion of Iraq continues to be what drives not only Tom Friedman today, but virtually all of our elite opinion-makers and “centrist” and “responsible” political figures currently attempting to “solve” the Iraq disaster.

In column after column prior to the war, Friedman argued that invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam was a noble, moral, and wise course of action. To Friedman, that was something we absolutely ought to do, and as a result, he repeatedly used his column to justify the invasion and railed against anti-war arguments voiced by those whom he derisively called “knee-jerk liberals and pacifists” (so as not to clutter this post with long Friedman quotes, I’m posting the relevant Friedman excerpts here).

But at the same time Friedman was cheering on the invasion, he was inserting one alarmist caveat after the next about how dangerous a course this might be and about all the problems that might be unleashed by it. He thus repeatedly emphasized the need to wage the War what he called “the right way.” To Friedman, the “right way” meant enlisting support from allies across Europe and the Middle East for both the war and the subsequent re-building, telling Americans the real reasons for the war, and ensuring that Americans understood what a vast and long-term commitment we were undertaking as a result of the need to re-build that country.

Only if the Bush administration did those things, argued Friedman, would this war achieve good results. If it did not do those things, he repeatedly warned, this war would be an unparalleled disaster.

Needless to say, the Bush administration did none of the things Friedman insisted were prerequisites for invading Iraq “the right way.” And Friedman recognized that fact, and repeatedly pointed it out. Over and over, in the months before the war, Friedman would praise the idea of the war and actively push for the invasion, but then insert into his columns statements like this:

And so I am terribly worried that Mr. Bush has told us the right thing to do, but won’t be able to do it right.

But: Despite the Bush administration’s failures to take any of the steps necessary to wage the war “the right way,” Friedman never once rescinded or even diluted his support for the war. He continued to advocate the invasion and support the administration’s push for war — at one point, in February, even calling for the anti-war French to be removed from the U.N. Security Council and replaced by India, and at another point warning that we must be wary of Saddam’s last-ditch attempt to negotiate an alternative to war lest we be tricked into not invading — even though Friedman knew and said that all the things that needed to be done to avert disaster were not being done by the administration.

Put another way, these are the premises which Friedman, prior to the invasion, expressly embraced:

(1) If the war is done the right way, great benefits can be achieved.
(2) If the war is done the wrong way, unimaginable disasters will result.
(3) The Bush administration is doing this war the wrong way, not the right way, on every level.
(4) Given all of that, I support the waging of this war.

Just ponder that: Tom Friedman supported the invasion of Iraq even though, by his own reasoning, that war was being done the “wrong way” and would thus — also by his own reasoning — create nothing but untold damage on every level. And he did so all because there was some imaginary, hypothetical, fantasy way of doing the war that Friedman thought was good, but that he knew isn’t what we would get.

To support a war that you know is going to be executed in a destructive manner is as morally monstrous as it gets.. ……”

Housing Bubble trouble – Playing Monopoly in Charm City…

A piece I wrote two years ago sounds prescient now. I am posting it again today, because of the response I received about the Stormfront piece. I wonder if in an oblique way, the question I ask at the end doesn’t say more about where some of the anxieties on display about race and culture really have their root….

“June and downtown Baltimore is a few degrees cooler than the tropics but more stifling. There is greenery here but also more concrete and glass buildings, overheated asphalt, an endless twinkling stream of cars, and lightless parking lots. Not a bullock cart or rickshaw in sight to break the monotony.

Mornings, the sun beats down, late afternoon, a convectional shower or a muggy stillness. Near the water — sticky dimpled thighs, sticky floral shirts, and sticky wafer cones. The Harbor is all the rage. Again. We old timers remember the past and shake our heads. Not again. But the newcomers are believers. This time it’s different. This time — it’s for real.

Mencken’s tough old broad is moving on up. So they say, anyway.

“They” are quite a crew. Leading the cast — Streuver Bros., Eccles, and Rouse, fat from earlier gentrification schemes, now churning soil relentlessly wherever you look, like that sixty million dollar rehab of a shuttered Proctor and Gamble soap factory.

From Federal Hill on up, billboards announce the opening of glittering apartment complexes under the gritty eyes of the old ones. Everywhere, streets are cordoned off and the grind of bulldozers shatters the familiar buzz of traffic. Little Italy, Bayview, Locust Point, Butcher’s Hill, Brewer’s Hill, even Union Square, home of the old cynic, is back in fashion again.

“You want to buy where there’s building going on,” says Dave, nudging his gleaming white SUV around a grimy corner not too far from Druid Hill Park. Nearby, a couple of construction workers are swaying on a scaffold in front of the house, opposite a three-story brick row house with windows boarded up. Municipal notices are plastered like band-aids over the house fronts.

Dave is showing me a house on the outskirts of Reservoir Hill which is “hot, hot, hot,” according to the real estate web site where I first saw it. Dave is a broker officially, but actually, he tells me, he does this because it helps his own investing. He grew up in Baltimore and then spent ten years in California where he lived through the dotcom crash. Shortly after, he pulled his money out, clubbed together with some friends, and started buying property in San Francisco.

“Then I moved back here,” he smiles wolfishly. “It was dirt cheap compared to SF.”

But even the dirt is expensive now. The Housing Authority of Baltimore pimps burnt-out shells in drug-shadowed ghettos for a small fortune. A hundred grand gets you a dank, rotting hieroglyph, a skeleton with gouged out eyes and a deadline — two years and two hundred grand more in rehab work to be completed as specified. The city is getting tough with delinquent landlords, finally. All down St. Paul Street and Calvert, near the railway station, there are notices to repair… or else. Last time round, the city sold the boarded up homes to individual investors, but it didn’t work. One rehab wasn’t enough to pull up a block, so the little guys gave up and became absentee landlords. It wasn’t worth it to them. Then the drug gangs moved in and the middle class fled. This time around, the BHA has got wise. The houses are being offered in blocks to scare away the small fry and get in people who mean business. Eight shells on North Avenue in a package. A block near the Greenmount cemetery. Even the shadiest of neighborhoods have catchy little monikers — Sandtown, Old Goucher, Marble Hill.

And people are buying. Greenmount Avenue, once the bright line between the drug havens and respectable Baltimore, is now porous. It’s not just the city which is buying and improving housing stock either; Johns Hopkins University, bulging with massive donations, is throwing its turgid coils past Greenmount, pushing the drug line back. The Hospital area used to be a war zone. Today, North Broadway is another hot neighborhood, a future prospect for hospital employees. South, near the Bayview campus, modest row-houses are nearly two hundred thousand; further north, near the main campus, in what used to be the student ghetto of Charles Village, small row-houses are over 200, the bigger ones between 300 and 400 and on the main thoroughfare, Charles Street, half a million. Charles Village is no ghetto anymore. The old dormitories have been rebuilt stylishly, a Xando’s and Ruby Tuesday at the corner, dark green awnings plump and cool in the heat. Hopkins has cleared a flourishing corridor through the city, but elsewhere? Who knows.

There is no Xando’s on Druid Hill Drive for sure. Litter floats across the street. A surly looking man slumped on the steps of a house blows smoke out of the corner of his mouth and narrows his eyes at us. The SUV gleams temptingly. I give a nervous glance back. “Think it’ll be okay?” “Oh yeah,” says Dave. I wonder how many times he has been down this street to show the place. In the ad it was a graceful neglected marvel, painted a delicate teal with a decorative tin roof inside and five fireplaces. Reservoir Hill and the fringes were once the home of the great merchants of Baltimore, and their streets have some of the grandest and most ornamental architecture in the city. Flourishes of woodwork, imposing marble mantels and floors, elegant spiral staircases, swirling wrought-iron work. In the 20s, Gertrude Stein once lived in a mansion here. Then things changed. The residents became absentee landlords, the mansions were chopped up into apartment blocks, drugs took over, and the neighborhood fell into the shadows.

Until the last three years. Suddenly the poor cousin of Bolton Hill is selling for half a million.

Dave fumbles with the lock box and then pushes the door in. The place is dark and there is an overpowering smell of mold. He switches on his torch. “Watch your step.” The floors are crisscrossed with planks and the walls have been stripped down to the frame. The torchlight bounces off the wood and onto a black tendril of exposed wire. Through the fragment of a door, we can see what must be the kitchen area, although there are no appliances to prove it. The torchlight gestures toward the stairs and I follow. The contours of the stairs, still gracious, sweep us upward to the next floor.

“What do you think?” he asks as I look around at the torn walls, the gaping emptiness of the roof, the piles of plaster and rubble, the broken frames that lean menacingly toward us in the gloom.

“I know it looks like a lot of work now, but seriously, you could do it for maybe, eighty, ninety.”

A hundred plus ninety.

“Across the street is selling for two fifty,” he adds. How long would it take? “Three — four months.” He shrugs. “Maybe faster. Depends on who you know.”

Who I know.

I know Ralph, the handyman at my old condo. But Ralph is retired and likes to sleep in or play b-ball with his grandson. I wasn’t certain he was the right person to turn me a profit on a broken down mansion in Druid Hill.

And if it took longer? “Then you just sell it next spring.” That wolf smile again.

Next spring? The bottom might drop out of this thing by then.

“Don’t you think we might be in a bit of a bubble here?” I asked, as we gingerly picked our way through the debris and climbed down the stairs back to the front door. Outside, the sun was still beating down. “Naah. Way too much demand. This stuff goes on the market and it’s gone in days. Too many people around now.”

If so, they weren’t in Druid Hill. The smoker had left leaving his smoke hanging like a Cheshire smile in the hot air.

“People from DC, you mean?” Everyone was talking about them. That’s why the area around the train station was so hot suddenly. A few years back, you would have risked being shot if you’d been out there in the night. Now, someone had bought up even that raggedy old Chesapeake restaurant, fixed it up, and was trying to sell it. People were talking of trendy cafes and artsy shops. A place to eat after the theater. Night life. Station North, they called it now. And even four streets away, past the drug line of Greenmount, houses were selling steadily in Greenmount West.

Live Baltimore, the housing campaign, has signs all over Union Station in DC about it. Pictures of a solitary potted plant and the caption, “If you call this a yard, you need to get out of DC.” Designed by a Baltimore ad agency, the Campbell Group, Live Baltimore has been selling the idea to Washingtonians of all stripes but especially mid-level managers, administrators, librarians, people who work in DC but don’t make the big salaries that the law firms and businesses pay. A townhouse that would cost a million in DC is “only” half a million here. And with Penn Station connected at the umbilicus by the speedy little MARC train, Baltimore is now a DC suburb. Or so they say.

Too bad they forget to mention that the half-a-million dollar mansion is only a street or two away from an open-air market for drugs. Or that Patterson Park, now selling for a quarter of a million, used to be a row of flophouses. Or that the drug problem isn’t going anywhere soon. Or the school problem. Or the jobs problem. Or the race problem.

The Baltimore problem.

We got into the SUV. “Look — there’s always a risk,” he said, pulling out into the street. “Nothing’s guaranteed in life. But you can see this is for real. Everyone wants in on this. It’s not coming down anytime soon. Maybe never.”

“Didn’t they said that about the tech stocks too?”

He shook his head. “You really are pessimistic, y’know? A home isn’t a piece of paper. There’s value there. The people who saw that value and bought in five years ago, they had the vision.”

Five, ten, fifteen years ago, those Druid Hill houses couldn’t be given away. And the landlords boarded up the windows and let them sit vacant for years, eyesores that destroyed the neighborhood. I knew an artist who fell in love with one of those beautiful ruined ghosts and sunk his savings trying to breath life back into it. After ten years of smashed windowpanes, broken steering wheels, reefers and condoms tossed into his yard, he gave up, sold for a loss, and went to France. He had vision. I wondered what he was thinking now.

“You better buy now,” said Dave, as we swung back onto North Avenue. “Look at the construction.” He was right. Right across from Penn Station, land had been cordoned off for condominiums. “Station North Town homes,” said the sign. “Starting in the two hundreds.” They’d probably all been sold and sold again, though there was not yet a brick in place. That fast commute to DC was going to lure a whole new population into the city and landlords were ready for them. Yuppie analysts driven out of New York by the prices. Californian dotcom couples hardened by million-dollar sticker tags for modest bungalows. Baltimore looked cheap to them. Baltimore was cheap for them. They weren’t making Baltimore salaries. After 9/11, the federal government began hiring with a vengeance — computer analysts, accountants, engineers. In DC’s bedroom communities, in Virginia and Maryland, recession never hit. The defense giants, Northrop, Lockheed, Boeing, and the newcomers, Titan, CACI, began hiring as though their lives depended on it — which in a way they did — and the money was great.

The money is still great. You only have to skim the Washington Post’s online ads to realize where all the housing money is coming from. Bush has created the biggest government program since FDR.

And it’s all going to the middle-class and upper middle-class who want to put it someplace where it will grow, not crash and burn like the stock market. More and more money looking for a safe hideout. And what’s safer than land? What’s easier to understand? The primal urge to own your own dirt, to put a roof over your head. Land’s the only thing that lasts, Katy Scarlett….

Dave handed me a card. A mortgage banker. “She’s good,” he says confidentially. “Someone who’ll give you a fair deal. Not just looking for a commission.”

Were there any fair deals left? The real estate web sites consider Baltimore “fair value” now, not overvalued but not undervalued anymore, either. But the old-timers aren’t so certain. They’ve lived through the winds of gentrification twice before and each time things have sunk back. Of course, there’s more money coming in now — from the federal government, from private developers, from the city. But if you look closer, you begin to wonder.

SCOPE, the city program offering rehab properties, sounds like a public-spirited effort — Selling City Owned Properties Efficiently. What could be wrong with that? But what the efficient part only hints at is the raw truth that the city makes a profit when it sells those properties through the commercial agents. The city makes money; the realtors who get to broker the deal make money. But the homeowners who buy and then put in the mandated hundred or two hundred thousand dollars worth of work are spending money and spending it on spec., because there’s no guarantee that prices are going to keep going up, although that’s the chorus from everyone — the banks, the realtors, the mortgage brokers, the newspapers. And if prices fall 5%, or god forbid 20%, as they did after the last few spasms of gentrification, what happens to that two or three hundred grand you owe on a gutted shell that no one can live in but on which you still have to pay mortgage and taxes?

Shells for a shell game….

The greater fool theory is in full throttle. People trying to buy and sell before they get left holding the bag. With New York Times bestsellers salivating over an impending real estate crash, the hot potato jumps from hand to hand quicker and quicker, buyers flipping before the ink gets cold on the deal. And they’re making money. Baltimore properties are up on average around 20% a year over the last few years.

“I wouldn’t want to put much money down,” I say hesitantly. Not to worry, I didn’t need any money down, it seemed. 100% financing — hadn’t I heard of it?

Apparently anyone with a pulse can get a loan. Appraisers boost house values — appraisal fraud is at an all-time high — but it keeps everyone happy; the banks make loans based on the inflated values knowing that the loans aren’t any good, only it doesn’t matter because they’re going to get sold off in packages as securities; the buyers borrow money they don’t plan to return because they’re going to turn a quick profit by selling fast; the investors — many of them foreign — buy the packaged securities because with the dollar falling American real estate looks cheap.

An elaborate, delicate house of cards teetering on disaster.

“I don’t have much of a credit history,” I falter. His eyes shift away. “But I do have savings.” They brighten.

In this intricate leveraged game, cash — real hard cash — is in short supply in America, even though, ironically, it’s an excess of liquidity in international markets that’s driving the assets boom at home.

“That helps,” he says. “The more you can put down, the more house you can buy.”

But how much house do I want to buy? A single woman, I don’t really need a house, but if rents go the way prices are going, I might soon be as priced out of the rental market as I am out of the housing market. A house isn’t a home to me, really, but a hedged bet on the market. Commodities are not something a novice can easily get into, and aren’t commodities taking a beating this quarter anyway? Gold has been up for some time, but might be on its way down. Your average savings account isn’t paying more than three percent. Bonds — too much complicated math. Short of buying jewelry or stuffing the mattress, land’s the answer.

So, how much land does a man need? Tolstoy once asked the question and answered it. Six feet. Enough to die in.

But the American mortgage industry has no use for parsimonious solutions, however elegant. Six feet of house will not get them interested in you. You have to borrow beyond a certain amount, and in most cases you’ll be slapped with a penalty if you pay back too early. Seems like they need to make the loan more than you need to borrow the money.

Having savings doesn’t help either. They don’t want to know you have the money to pay them back. They’d rather have proof that you’re used to the drip-drip of intravenous credit. They want you brain-dead and hooked up to their monthly payments. They need you playing their lethal little game. They need you to be one more sweaty little Sisyphus, shoulder to the rock.

And with the dollar plummeting, you don’t know how not to be. If you don’t buy, you risk being left behind as prices thunder away, pulverizing your savings into the dust. If you buy at these inflated prices, you know you’ve gifted over a chunk of your savings to someone who bought before 1999 and you’d be doing it just when the market has probably topped out and is ready to fall. To those who have, more will be given; to those who lack, what little they have will also be taken away. So says the Gospel somewhere, and the Bush government is working overtime to prove it. In fact, the current housing boom is the biggest re-distributor of wealth since the New Deal, only this time it’s from those who haven’t homes to those who have.

Not that many homeowners, unless they’re ready to retire, can directly cash in their inflated assets by selling. For a conservative minority, the housing boom has only meant another reason for the city to raise property taxes, forcing some of those on fixed incomes out of their overpriced digs. But for the vast majority of homeowners, the new boom has turned their homes into an ATM card through refinancing and home equity loans that allow them to tap the appreciation for new credit. And the creditors are lining up to give the junkies their fix.

It’s predatory banking and it’s no different from what sleazy credit card companies do when they mass-mail plastic purchasing to penniless immigrants, students in debt, grandmas on fixed incomes, the struggling poor, and those on the verge of bankruptcy. They want you to go under. And when you do, they want to be there to collect.

Loan sharking of the worst kind. But at least you could easily pick out the old-time loan sharks. They were the polyester-suited, gold-chained hustlers on the corner, charging you 20 percent as they forked over a billfold with their greasy pinkie-ringed paws. But today’s loan shark is camouflaged as your neighborhood banker in wire-rimmed glasses and button-down shirt, ready at your elbow with a no-money down, 100% financed, adjustable rate mortgage under 4%. There’s even negative amortization. That’s right. They’re willing to pay you to borrow money. Your monthly payment is kept artificially low because not only are you not paying the principal you borrowed, you’re not even fully paying the interest. So the amount you’re borrowing actually keeps rising. And the more interest rates rise, the bigger that amount becomes until at some point the bank decides to pull the cozy rug from under your feet and your monthly payment skyrockets to cover both P and I. That’s when all those $30,000 wage-earners brandishing $300,000 plus homes bite the dust. All over the country, it’s already beginning. Foreclosures are up dramatically this year. In Allegheny County in Pennsylvania, officials talk about a Depression era level. If it hasn’t brought prices down any, it’s only because these days the banks are holding back and selling through the realtors not just to recoup costs, but at profit-making prices. It’s only because at swanky auction houses like Alex Cooper in Baltimore, properties that go to auction are frantically bid up by greedy speculators and their shills who want to keep the game going.

But somebody knows what everybody pretends they don’t — that someday this is all coming down. Otherwise, why have so many realtors sold their homes and begun to rent? Why have the bankruptcy laws been tightened up effective from October this year just as interest rates start the slow but inexorable climb that will make defaults cascade into an avalanche?

“You’ve got to believe,” says Dave, watching me finger the card slowly before I put it in my wallet. “This city is only going to get better.” He opens the door and I slide out. He smiles, the little sunbursts on his green and yellow shirt smile, even the SUV, opulently, extravagantly energy-inefficient, smiles. I feel the spoilsport I am.

I think suddenly about how the stock market “crashed” and nothing really changed — not so many jobs maybe, but no bread lines or gas lines, people still spending and living as they’ve always done. I think about all the doomsday predictions before the war, and yes, it’s a mess but the Middle East didn’t implode, nuclear war hasn’t broken out. I think about the dollar bears and how, this spring, the Euro has fallen instead. America acts and the world falls in line… for the most part, anyway. A Chavez here, a Kim Il there, a little grumbling, but no more. I remember someone saying, it doesn’t pay to bet against America. I wonder with a sinking feeling if I’ve been wrong all along.

Dave shouts out, “You’ll see!”

Then, just for a second, I do see. How it works, what it lives on, this country of perpetual optimism. As he waves to me from the car, he looks suddenly boyish, quintessentially American, puer aeternus despite the first bulge of middle age.

And it’s I who feels old suddenly and somehow cheated. Not because I didn’t buy a house four years ago, but because having grown up in the third world, in an old culture, I’ve never bought and could never buy what seems to ultimately drive this country and fuel its endless consumption, its bountiful credit — I’ve never made a down payment on that relentless waking dream in which it sleepwalks toward the future, the brittle dream that tomorrow is always better than today….”

Lila Rajiva, “Playing Monopoly in Charm City,” Dissident Voice

 

 

 

 

 

 

Globalization in India: Commie- Corporate kiss-up

“In case of the Communists, it is not electoral but ideological defeat, indeed ideological annihilation, that their leaders have led them into. When was the last time we heard our Communist leaders extolling Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Zhou or even Fidel Castro? Not for a long time. The bankruptcy of official communism is obvious even to them, at least in their candid moments in front of the mirror every morning. Even for the CPI and CPI(M) to merge into a genuine modern socialist party is too creative and productive an outcome to be handled since top and middle management retrenchments would be inevitable. Also, the Cannot-Leave-Nice-Housing-Effect applies here too, and so the most we find by way of communist transformation is a perverse alliance with organised big business in trying to cheat very poor and unorganised peasants of their land in an economy where runaway paper money printing threatens a hyperinflation.

Nobody in power wants to address the rotten state of our public finances, since all of them have contributed to causing the stench. Our Finance Minister finds time to attend posh parties and publish books while presiding over an RBI-supported capital flight of India’s super-rich: “ultrahigh networth individuals are looking forward to buy overseas equities and real estate” Business Standard (25 April 2007) blithely said. The Finance Minister should have been instead burning the midnight candle getting public budgets and government accounting cleaned and healthy nationwide.

We in India have had more than enough time and democratic experience to have developed by now a set of normal conservative, liberal democrat, social democrat and socialist parties. That we have nothing of the kind speaks to the rot in the political culture we are witnessing in our capital and other major cities. Politically, we may be in for an especially ugly, unpleasant and incoherent few years starting with the presidential election currently underway.”

From the Independent Indian.

(Dr. Subroto Roy is Contributing Editor, The Statesman.)

And more:

“Cleaning up public budgets and accounts would pari passu stop corruption in its tracks, as well as release resources for valuable public goods and services. A beginning may be made by, for example, tripling the resources every year for three years that are allocated to the Judiciary, School Education and Basic Health, subject to tight systems of performance-audit. Institutions for improved political and administrative decision-making are necessary throughout the country if public preferences with respect to raising and allocating common resources are to be elicited and then translated into actual delivery of public goods and services.

This means inter alia that our often dysfunctional Parliament and State Legislatures have to be inspired by political statesmen (if any such may be found to be encouraged or engendered) to do at least a little of what they have been supposed to be doing. If the Legislative Branch and the Executive it elects are to lead this country, performance-audit will have to begin with them.

The result of healthy public budgets and accounts, and an economy with functioning public goods and services, would be a macroeconomic condition for the paper-rupee to once more become a money that is as good as gold, namely, a convertible world currency again after having suffered sixty years of abuse via endless deficit finance at the hands of first the British and then numerous Governments of free India that have followed.

It may be noticed the domestic aspects of such an agenda oppose almost everything the present Sonia-Manmohan Congress and Jyoti Basu “Left” stand for — whose “politically correct” thoughts and deeds have ruined India’s money and public budgets, bloated India’s Government especially the bureaucracy and the military, starved the Judiciary and damaged the Rule of Law, and gone about overturning Family Values. While there has been endless talk from them about being “pro-poor”, the actual results of their politicization of India’s economy are available to be seen with the naked eye everywhere.

One hundred years from now if our souls returned to visit the areas known today as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc, we may well find 500+ million inhabitants still below the same poverty-line despite all the gaseous prime ministerial or governmental rhetoric today and projections about alleged growth-rates.

If the Congress and “Left” must oppose any real “classical liberal” or conservative agenda, we may ask if the BJP-RSS could be conceivably for it. The answer is clearly not. The BJP-RSS may pontificate much about being patriotic to the motherland and about past real or imagined glories of Indian culture and religion, but that hardly ever has translated concretely into anything besides anti-Muslim or anti-Christian rhetoric, or breeding superstitions like astrology even at supposedly top technological institutes in the country….”