mindless consumerism

What Does the U.S. Downgrade Mean?

It will be interesting to see what happens on the various stock indexes tomorrow.  Asian markets (which opened 8pm EST today) were down and futures for the exchanges are all off.  Others are worried but many in the U.S. government and financial establishment are blaming S&P or saying its numbers are off or saying it doesn’t matter because other (major Western) debt rating agencies still have the U.S. at AAA.  Some say it will not have long-term effects and others are worried about contagion or market meltdowns and what this will do to already flagging Western economies and the still-emerging emerging economies.

From my (humble) perspective, this is what is going down:

The S&P downgrade might be somewhat flawed and comes from a flawed institution, but it is spot on and much too late.

This is, in itself, not going to be disastrous and completely crash an already declining system.  It might get ugly but it has to happen.  Bubbles need to deflate and right now there is much too much monopoly money in the system simply because Western governments are terrified of their populations realizing that their lifestyle is unsustainable and so have been (with the complicity of the financial system) pumping trillions into the financial system, and preventing losses from being counted.  That is why we don’t really have a capitalistic, free market system today because the financial systems (that which is usually but falsely referred to as ‘the market’) and politicians have colluded to keep a ‘too big to fail’ and corrupt system afloat.  Anyway, that is why S&P’s downgrade is overdue (but let’s not hope it is too late to fix the system).  And that is also why S&P’s downgrade will NOT be the cause of further financial decline… because the system is already gaining momentum downward… it is already in decline.

Yes, there are other (Western) ratings agencies that are still maintaining that U.S. government debt is AAA, but it is they who are mistaken… or, more likely, are too afraid to also admit that the emperor just might not be wearing any clothes.  (So, again, hats off to S&P for finally waking up.)

As well, S&P should not be blamed here or vilified.  It seems clear that the markets were beginning to price in the next, anticipated round of quantitative easing by the U.S. federal reserve and bailouts of the banking systems (who, after all, are the ones loaning billions of dollars to countries like Greece and Ireland and the rest of the PIIGS).  That is, the market was confident that the financial and banking system would be bailed out yet again by governments/taxpayers and therefore the market exuberance that has brought stock markets high again after the 2008 collapse was beginning to build once even more.  Essentially, this is classic market distortion and on a huge scale.  Thankfully, S&P’s downgrade seems to be one event that caused at least a little bit of reality to set in.

Sure, the U.S. economy is not a basket case and it could still pay its bills.  But the era of American Exceptionalism has ended.  The U.S. economy has been hollowed out, its financial system is rotten to the core (and I am not exaggerating here… just look into the whole murky world of financial derivatives) and what we are witnessing is the end of the American Empire.  So, what the S&P downgrade means is that it will become increasingly difficult for the U.S. to service its debt, maintain spending (to maintain its position in the world), and maintain the standard of living that most U.S. citizens aspire to.  The U.S. is now AA+ and will probably be downgraded further.  What this means is that buying U.S. treasuries will become less desirable as will the U.S. dollar.

Leave it to Zero Hedge to quickly sift through the opinion/information out there when trying to make sense of this.  The following quote comes from QBAMCO’s Paul Brodsky and Lee Quaintance, courtesy of ZH) and lucidly identifies what the downgrade means:

The stark difference separating nominal return of principal and interest from the return of inflation-adjusted principal and interest for holders of US Treasury obligations is the critical issue. The necessity to manufacture more money to service and repay existing Treasury debt suggests substantial diminution of the purchasing power of existing US dollars in which Treasury interest and principal have to be repaid. We believe unlevered holders of Treasury obligations are locking-in negatve real interest rates and levered holders of longer duration Treasury obligations are at great risk of capital loss in real terms.

What they are saying is that by purchasing U.S. treasuries one would be losing money because the U.S. government would–in the future–pay back the principle and interest in weakened, future U.S. dollars… and that is because the U.S. has to print money to pay its debt and will have to print even more in the future (since it seems incapable of dealing with its problems).  Describe this any way you want but the U.S. dollar is a bad investment that will only get worse.

What the ridiculous ‘debt-ceiling debate’ did was pretty much cement in many people’s minds that the U.S. political system is corrupt and incompetent.  It is a fascinating political system but it is ruled by political ideology and corrupting corporate interests… which means it has no seeming capacity to solve actual problems.  I watched some of the Sunday morning political shows today and it is strange how the pundits and politicians seem to be walking around in another reality.  The spell of American Exceptionalism/Empire is very strong and most inside that system just cannot get a grasp of anything else.  Call it what you want: the blue pill (or is it the red pill?), the koolaid, spectacle, the ideology of empire, but the ideal/illusion that has fed the American Dream is for some all-encompassing and continues to colour the perceptions of many inside that system.

China and other emerging markets/economies will certainly be affected… because they already have been affected.  But imagine what this means.  The U.S. consumes an enormous amount of resources and commodities.  The U.S. military spends slightly more than all of the rest of the world combined.  It is the U.S., along with other Western nations, that keeps the emerging markets humming.  China could not survive without the U.S. current rate of consumption… that is why they have been buying so much U.S. debt.  But they will be paid is the future U.S. dollar that will be worth much less than it is now and the flood of printed U.S. monopoly money also creates inflation in those countries buying the debt too (kind of a double whammy… and that is why so many countries are actively trying to devalue their currencies too).  So, when Vladimir Putin said today or yesterday that the U.S. is basically a parasite living off of other countries, he was partly right.  IN fact, it is a fascinating, abstracted form of economic exploitation.

At any rate, tomorrow will be interesting.  I unfortunately will be preoccupied for most of the day so I will not be able to follow the goings-on very closely but what is of real consequence is not whether North American markets will take a beating but the near future and whether politicians and policy makers can get their act together enough to steer us through this mess.  (My bet is that they will do nothing but jockey for political position and hand over more wealth to the financial system that got us in this mess in the first place… god help us all.)

Peace.
.

Update on Middle East Protests and Role of Social Media

I came across a very interesting article hosted at GlobalResearch.ca (based off of research from The Economist) which really puts the protests in the Middle East into a proper perspective:

“The Numbers Behind the Middle Eastern and North African Revolts”
by Washington’s Blog
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23312

In the article, the author makes the very convincing case (again, based off of some research from The Economist) that points to the role of high unemployment, the population that is under 25, corruption and lack of democracy, GDP per person, censorship, etc.  If I were to add anything to the analysis, I would add the relative decline in oil production and the rise in population over the years (pegged in some way to standard of living over say the past forty years).  But it is an eye-opening piece and is really a good corrective to the utter drivel that is bandied about in most of the Western press about how social media is the cause behind all the unrest.  As I mentioned in “Social Media and Mainstream Media: Engines of Distraction and Propaganda,” such an easy explanation fits nicely with the script most Westerners want to believe and is, most importantly, a narrative that is very easy to digest.  Just imagine, as people virtually stalk old high school flames or play Farmville on Facebook while tweeting that they just ate something yummy, they can rest assured knowing that their social media habit is contributing to the democratization of the rest of the world.

Such beliefs have taken on absurd proportions in some surprising places.  Take this piece from the (left-leaning) alternative site AlterNet… the ‘him’ in the quote is the young Google marketing executive whom I mentioned in my previous post:

In a CNN interview from Tahrir Square, Wolf Blitzer asks him, ‘First Tunisia, now Egypt… what’s next?’

‘Ask Facebook,’ Ghonim responds. ‘I want to meet Mark Zuckerberg one day and thank him, actually… this revolution started online.’ Take that, Malcolm Gladwell!

Yes, ‘take that Malcolm Gladwell!’  (Malcolm Gladwell, a well-respected writer for the New Yorker has argued, much to the chagrin of the Apple-Facebook-Twitter acolytes, that there is much more to a social/political revolution than the branded communications medium being used by some in the movement, see here.)  So, according to this AlterNet writer, I guess if we want to know which authoritarian regime is going to fall because of public protests, we are to ask Mark Zuckerberg or whomever it is that heads Twitter.  I have always respected AlterNet, especially their coverage of issues leading up to the Iraq War.  But, like most things, it can become too successful and I think has, in recent years, descended more into pop culture worship, especially the new world of heavily branded, mass-consumer technology.  The pithy “take that…” comment is perhaps symbolic of what plagues a lot of Western media (even the so-called ‘alternative’ press): a mass-consumer, branded technological determinism that has more to do with marketing than reality.

Woe is us….

Apple Pulls WikiLeaks App

Hmmm… it seems the Apple Afficianados are at it again.  An app providing easy access to WikiLeaks materials has been removed from Apple’s app store with little explaination from the company.  See this:

Apple Nixes WikiLeaks iPhone App. Will Google Follow? Andy Greenberg, Forbes’ Blogs

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/12/21/apple-nixes-wikileaks-iphone-app-will-google-follow/

Yet again, major ‘tech’ companies prove they are not really interested in the information revolution but tying their devices to your bank account and controlling the information landscape for their own purposes.  I’m sure that Apple’s lawyers had a hand in this–likely wanting to protect themselves from the wrath of the U.S. goernment–but it still speaks to the fact that all the hype about world-changing, game-changing, information technologies that empower the individual like never before is just marketing clap-trap… in reality, Apple and others are only self-interested with the desire to turn all media usage into consumer-driven, micro-transactions.   Why engage with humanity, the environment or the wider world when you can blankly stare into the blue light of little, corporate-controlled LED screens where your perfected consumer image is constantly reflected back to you?

.

The CBC and its Obsession with Twitter

[Update: I subsequently found... or, more correctly, was shown the Land & O'Leary Exchange email address as the program announces it at the end of the show.  It must be well buried on the website, as I could not find it but I despite all this I still stand behind what follows.  And even though I now know the email address, I am not forwarding my comments as they probably do not care about such viewpoints anyway as it doesn't really square with the narrative they need to keep telling.]

Don’t get me wrong, as far as mainstream media as sources of reliable information goes, the CBC is a treasure.  (In fact, some of my favourite media sources (especially when it comes to television) are public or state-sponsored broadcasters (CBC, PBS, BBC, Al Jazeera International).  As someone who devotes most of his life to studying the media, I can confidently say these can be or tend to be very good sources.  (BTW, my favoured source of news and current events are independent websites, radio, magazines and research institutes.)

So, I am not a CBC-basher or idealogue who thinks that public broadcasting is akin to Communism, but I am very frustrated with the likes of the CBC and their obsession with social media, specifically Twitter and Facebook.  Sure, it’s popular amongst the ‘kool’ kids… those in high-school or think they still are in high school and feel an undying need to ‘run with the pack’  and who visualize themselves looking cool while others are watching them use their cool gadgets (and thinking to themselves: ‘Man, I’m so connected’).  That’s annoying but OK.  I can put up with such posturing but when it starts to really take over, then that is when I begin to worry.

I just tried going to the Lang & O’Leary Exchange website to make a comment about some recent programming but could not find, anywhere on the CBC’s vast website, any way to send an (e)letter to the editor.  Instead, apparently, the only way you are supposed to contact the program’s staff is to follow them to some proprietary service, hand over all you private information, and then you’ll have the pleasure of reading, in 140 characters or less, some inane fact or thought passing through their heads.

Now, if this was a private news source, then I would not mind so much.  If some news business thinks that it will expand its news-reading audience by limiting its interactions to a narrow space within the media-sphere that is primarily occupied by youth (who tend not to consume news), then that is their business decision.  But a public broadcaster has a different mandate: it is meant to serve the public at large and in various capacities.  To my mind, cordoning yourself off inside the proprietary space of another media service is not a wise way of going about this.

Perhaps it is just another way that the kool kids (that is, those who tend to swallow gallons of branded koolaid) tend to hijack things, in this case tax-payer-supported broadcasting, and turn it into just another mirror that reflects themselves to themselves while they think everyone is looking at them with undying admiration.  It is just like high school cliques all over again.  (And, really, isn’t Facebook just one giant, interactive high-school yearbook?)

It’s too bad as I like the program (especially when Kevin O’Leary is absent, hehe ) as they tend to have interesting guests and cover a lot of issues.  Perhaps I am being too harsh, but it is a travesty when, in the 21st century, a viewer cannot easily contact the editors/producers of a tax-payer funded program on a public broadcaster.

.

Hmmm… I wonder… what are the important ‘twends’ that the Twitterati are twittering about now?

…and now?

… how about now?

.

400 000 Dollars (USD) and Dr Housing Bubble

400 000 dollars (U.S. funds).  That was the average price increase in commercial home real estate somewhere (Pasadena) in California from 2000 to 2007.  California, the land of make-believe… and where the Governator was just a few years ago yelling “Don’t Be Economic Girly-Men!!” but is now presiding over a dysfunctional electoral system, consecutive multi-billion budget shortfalls, and a treasury which has to resort to I.O.U.s from time to time.  Dr. Housing Bubble?  He (it), was a blog that I started reading well over two (or even three) years ago, I guess.  It quickly became my regular reading, especially a year or so ago.

At any rate, it offers a very interesting perspective on the housing market in the middle of la la land, which means: the heart of the housing-bubble/mortgage-fraud system that began to overtake the U.S. and the rest of the world’s investors as well.

Anyway… the thing that struck me when I first saw this headline, is that somehow that number (400,000) seemed to really sum up the recent past for me.  It seems like a dream, these last ten years have seen the explosion of the spectacular and the bizarre, wonderous heights and utter hopelessness.  All summed up by the explosion in real asset prices and the greed, opportunity, and expectations that moved along with it.  This illusion is roughly measured (as if any measure can estimate this) by the figure of $400,000 USD.

$400,000… in U.S. dollars… the world’s reserve, and declining, currency.  But it does not matter since most currencies/debt are intertwined these days.  In the span of seven crazy years, the cost of a house went up 400,000.  That is the abstract measure of ‘the market’ or the collective mind or whatever.  And while prices have fallen in the U.S. and elesewhere (and even other ‘safe’ countries like Canada are looking like they are not immune), there is still a lot of that increase which lingers, especially since prices for many goods and services have also increased.  So, 400,000… that is a big number when talking about a price increase.

Most economists and politicians talk as if inflation might be something to worry about in the future.  But I think it is already here.