4.30.2010
Is Greece Just the Tip of the Iceberg?
NYU professor and economist Nouriel Roubini, who is unfortunately often right about these things, believes that the current debt crisis in Greece is merely the start of a broader global trend toward increased inflation and sovereign defaults. It is difficult to argue with Roubini's logic, which, if followed to its natural end, would mean dramatic growth problems for the global economy. While he was one of the earliest economists to board the housing crisis train, Roubini has had some misses as well, particularly in picking the direction of the stock market. We can only hope that his latest prediction is in the latter camp rather than the former...
An Investment-Driven Solution to Green Development Problems: The S-REIT (Part 2 in a Series)
This post is Part 2 in a series and is excerpted from a recent thesis on the applicability of the REIT tax structure to large-scale solar development. Part 1 can be found here. Parts 3-5 can be found at the following links: Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.
The Solar Development Framework of Today
The Investment Framework
Investors interested in solar development currently have a few different avenues into the sector. A non-exhaustive list of the most common vehicles currently available includes limited liability corporations (LLCs), private-equity structures, master lease partnerships (MLPs) 1 and publicly traded solar development company stocks. 2 All have benefits as well as limitations. The first two forms, the LLC and private equity investments, both, to some extent, stimulate solar development and provide investors with access to the solar market. However, both vehicles lack the inclusivity required to be considered tools for common investors. This is due to a number of factors, including minimum investment requirements, limited knowledge regarding these vehicles, and a dearth of options. Because of this, the common retail investor is not able to use these vehicles to gain access to solar projects. Investors in both forms face additional risks ranging from illiquidity to lack of transparency and valuation conflicts. Private equity investors can face the additional risk of long lock-up periods with reduced or limited access to cash as well as what are often high fees. 3 Because of these issues and the risks of investing in these vehicles, they cannot accomplish the goal of attracting new sources of capital to the sector.
Investors in the latter two forms, the MLP and publicly traded solar stocks, don’t necessarily confront the same risks as investors in LLCs and private equity vehicles. For example, these publicly traded options are more accessible and liquid and grant investors greater insight into operations due to the availability of SEC filings. However, both MLPs and stocks can be volatile. Though higher returns often accompany a greater appetite for risk, investor attitudes coming out of recent financial market crises have reduced the effectiveness of these vehicles as tools to broaden the investor base of solar development. Going forward, this trend toward lowered risk appetite could become ever more prominent as a large segment of the US population looks forward to asset protection rather than appreciation ahead of the retirement of the baby boomer generation. Both vehicles are also rather limited in their available options, and the MLP investment has the additional downside of not necessarily being allowed in retirement accounts.
For the right investors in the right situations, each of the above investments offers opportunities, and often very lucrative ones. However, the risks and barriers to entry of these vehicles reduces their ability to act as conduits for large-ascale investment into the solar sector.
The Incentive Structure
As noted above, the current vehicles for solar development are insufficient to meet the capital needs of the space. However, an argument could be made that even larger problems exist with the incentive structures currently in place to stimulate solar PV development. The imbalance between potential capacity and America’s energy demand on the one side and the lack of solar development on the other is the best evidence that the incentives currently in place are not sufficient to meet the needs of the industry. Though strong arguments can be made by either side in the energy subsidization debate, the fact is that it has long been the policy of the US federal government to provide subsidies to the energy industry as a tool to supplement research as well as production. 4 Because it is unlikely that the basic policy to provide incentives for energy production will change anytime in the foreseeable future, it makes sense to put into place the most efficient and effective incentives possible. Unfortunately, the history of PV incentives has proven that new ideas are needed.4.29.2010
The List: Private v. Public Sector Pay
Blawgconomics is typically a huge fan of the old maxim about lies, damned lies and statistics. However, that said, and even considering factors such as geographic variation, age differences and skills disparities, this comparison of private v. public sector pay based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data is at the very least thought provoking in a time of historic government spending and deficits.
The Domino Effect of the Brown Gaffe
Americans are certainly used to politicians making mistakes. Indeed, regardless of political leanings, one thing all Americans seem to be able to agree on is that whoever is in office could be making less of them. The United States has also, particularly with the advent of 24 hour news channels and the ability of individuals with no more than a phone and an internet connection to share intimate moments with the world, become accustomed to the odd candidate trip-up on the campaign trail. Most often this includes a barely audible four-letter word mumbled to an aide almost out of earshot (then there's Joe Biden...).
However it has been some time since a pol in the States has made a game-changing campaign trail slip-up on the order of the comment British incumbent PM and Labour Party Leader Gordon Brown made this week. With the May 6th general election just about a week away, Brown had the misfortune to be recorded calling a woman 'bigoted' as he sped away from a campaign stop and after she asked him a question about immigration.
This has been a particularly interesting election cycle in England. Until recently, and after over a decade playing second fiddle, the Tories under David Cameron seemed poised to easily regain power. However, the belated introduction of televised debates to the mix has led to the resurrection of the Liberal Democrat Party through the strong showing of leader Nick Clegg. Despite the rise of the Lib Dems, however, many analysts predicted that either Labour or the Tories would still be able to get a majority. This is because, despite favorable polling for the Lib Dems, it was felt that many voters would stick with Labour or Conservative candidates to ensure that their vote counted in a majoritarian Parliament.
Brown's mistake may, however, have changed the entire calculus of the race. With poor results in the debates and now with a shock gaffe to his name, Brown and his Labour party are running third. Therefore, voters will be less likely to vote Labour just to make sure that their voice is heard, and may be more willing to go with the Lib Dems. Final result? Likely a coalition government between one of the two leading parties with the Liberal Democrats as a junior member. A coalition with the Labour Party seems a more natural fit ideologically. However, the desire of the Liberal Democrats to share a bit of the spotlight after several generations in the background should not be underestimated and could lead to an interesting (and probably tenuous) Tory/Lib Dem marriage.
UPDATE: Cameron wins third debate, Clegg maintains position. Gordon Brown's tenure as Prime Minister would appear to be all but over as David Cameron, long though to be next in line for PM, won today's third and final pre-election debate. This should solidify his frontrunner status for undecided voters. Additionally, the likelihood of a coalition government or possibly a hung parliament increased as Nick Clegg, head of the traditionally outsider Liberal Democrats seemed to solidify his position behind the Tory.
However it has been some time since a pol in the States has made a game-changing campaign trail slip-up on the order of the comment British incumbent PM and Labour Party Leader Gordon Brown made this week. With the May 6th general election just about a week away, Brown had the misfortune to be recorded calling a woman 'bigoted' as he sped away from a campaign stop and after she asked him a question about immigration.
This has been a particularly interesting election cycle in England. Until recently, and after over a decade playing second fiddle, the Tories under David Cameron seemed poised to easily regain power. However, the belated introduction of televised debates to the mix has led to the resurrection of the Liberal Democrat Party through the strong showing of leader Nick Clegg. Despite the rise of the Lib Dems, however, many analysts predicted that either Labour or the Tories would still be able to get a majority. This is because, despite favorable polling for the Lib Dems, it was felt that many voters would stick with Labour or Conservative candidates to ensure that their vote counted in a majoritarian Parliament.
Brown's mistake may, however, have changed the entire calculus of the race. With poor results in the debates and now with a shock gaffe to his name, Brown and his Labour party are running third. Therefore, voters will be less likely to vote Labour just to make sure that their voice is heard, and may be more willing to go with the Lib Dems. Final result? Likely a coalition government between one of the two leading parties with the Liberal Democrats as a junior member. A coalition with the Labour Party seems a more natural fit ideologically. However, the desire of the Liberal Democrats to share a bit of the spotlight after several generations in the background should not be underestimated and could lead to an interesting (and probably tenuous) Tory/Lib Dem marriage.
UPDATE: Cameron wins third debate, Clegg maintains position. Gordon Brown's tenure as Prime Minister would appear to be all but over as David Cameron, long though to be next in line for PM, won today's third and final pre-election debate. This should solidify his frontrunner status for undecided voters. Additionally, the likelihood of a coalition government or possibly a hung parliament increased as Nick Clegg, head of the traditionally outsider Liberal Democrats seemed to solidify his position behind the Tory.
4.27.2010
The Legal Protections of the [Journalist?] Blogger
Am I a journalist? I certainly don't feel like one. I have never broken a story, reported live from a battlezone or interviewed a politician or person of the moment. If the answer is no, what would make me a journalist? Would it be access to press events? Recognition by others? Is any blogger a journalist? In my opinion, I am not a member of the press. I am simply someone who has some ideas that he is lucky enough to be able to share with the public. However, some bloggers do believe that they are journalists, and many are beginning to look more and more like the traditional model of the paid journalist, a fact which could prove the pivotal point in upcoming litigation.
Jason Chen, an editor of the site Gizmodo, had property confiscated yesterday in relation to a possible theft. Gizmodo focuses on technology, and the property in question was a next generation iPhone that Chen bought from someone who 'found' it in a bar for $5,000. Though there are many points of law that could be disputed in this case, from search and seizure to property doctrines of finders to others, the most interesting aspect could be the treatment of Chen, who could be a bit more protected if given the status of a journalist. It may be that this issue is never resolved during the process. However, if it is, and the court finds that Chen is a journalist, it could be an interesting embrace of just how much the media has evolved in the internet age.
UPDATE: More background info for the curious.
Jason Chen, an editor of the site Gizmodo, had property confiscated yesterday in relation to a possible theft. Gizmodo focuses on technology, and the property in question was a next generation iPhone that Chen bought from someone who 'found' it in a bar for $5,000. Though there are many points of law that could be disputed in this case, from search and seizure to property doctrines of finders to others, the most interesting aspect could be the treatment of Chen, who could be a bit more protected if given the status of a journalist. It may be that this issue is never resolved during the process. However, if it is, and the court finds that Chen is a journalist, it could be an interesting embrace of just how much the media has evolved in the internet age.
UPDATE: More background info for the curious.
4.26.2010
Repairing WWII's Egyptian Legacy
Many Americans' visions of WWII include images of the European front from a Hollywood film, or perhaps a map of the Pacific theater from a high school history book. What many people forget, if they ever knew it in the first place, is that a significant portion of the war was fought in Northern Africa. Notably, a number of operations took place in Egypt during 1940 and 1941, at which point several areas were heavily mined by both sides.
Unfortunately, the mines were never removed (though this article is a bit dated, The BBC ran a similar story today, and few of the relevant facts have changed), and now serve as a constant reminder of the war for citizens, many of whom have either been injured by mines and old ordinance or know people who have. Egyptian officials blame the responsible forces, particularly the British who were occupiers at the time, and have requested assistance in removal efforts. To date, the British have offered limited assistance, particularly in the form of old maps indicating where mines were laid. Unfortunately, shifting sands have reduced the effectiveness of such tools, making more sophisticated removal efforts necessary.
Ironically, the British already contribute millions of pounds per year to mine removal efforts, but only to signatories to The Ottawa Convention, which bans the use of anti-personnel mines. And Egypt refuses to sign the convention on the grounds that it does not want to absolutely foreclose the option to utilize mines in the future for self-defence efforts.
Though the current standoff is resulting in injuries to the Egyptian people, there is hope that the situation could reach a potentially positive end. The Egyptian government is preparing to seek damages. However, this is a novel issue, and it is unclear how any potential action would result, making this legal route a risky one with no guarantee of remedy. Alternatively, it could join the treaty regime. This would lead to multiple positive results, including the receipt of aid to increase safety, an Egyptian prohibition from using mines in the future, and alleviation of international tensions. It would also positively end a sad chapter in history, which seems to be the best possible outcome. Though WWII has left its mark on many individuals and many nations, this is one situation where the story does not need to continue being written.
Unfortunately, the mines were never removed (though this article is a bit dated, The BBC ran a similar story today, and few of the relevant facts have changed), and now serve as a constant reminder of the war for citizens, many of whom have either been injured by mines and old ordinance or know people who have. Egyptian officials blame the responsible forces, particularly the British who were occupiers at the time, and have requested assistance in removal efforts. To date, the British have offered limited assistance, particularly in the form of old maps indicating where mines were laid. Unfortunately, shifting sands have reduced the effectiveness of such tools, making more sophisticated removal efforts necessary.
Ironically, the British already contribute millions of pounds per year to mine removal efforts, but only to signatories to The Ottawa Convention, which bans the use of anti-personnel mines. And Egypt refuses to sign the convention on the grounds that it does not want to absolutely foreclose the option to utilize mines in the future for self-defence efforts.
Though the current standoff is resulting in injuries to the Egyptian people, there is hope that the situation could reach a potentially positive end. The Egyptian government is preparing to seek damages. However, this is a novel issue, and it is unclear how any potential action would result, making this legal route a risky one with no guarantee of remedy. Alternatively, it could join the treaty regime. This would lead to multiple positive results, including the receipt of aid to increase safety, an Egyptian prohibition from using mines in the future, and alleviation of international tensions. It would also positively end a sad chapter in history, which seems to be the best possible outcome. Though WWII has left its mark on many individuals and many nations, this is one situation where the story does not need to continue being written.
Op-Ed: Predicting the Electoral Impact of Immigration Reform
Editor's Note: Contributor Patrick DeCourcy is back with another thought-provoking position piece. In this post, Pat explores one theory of the impact on the electorate that a potential immigration reform bill centered on illegal alien amnesty would have, and explores its significance against the backdrop of the recent healthcare bill. A few comments before we move on to Pat's post....
First, some of the numbers below might be a bit overstated. Though Hispanic voters predominantly go with the Democrats, voter turnout in this demographic is notably low (even in a country of notably low turnout). Additionally, it is likely true that turnout numbers would be even lower among first generation immigrants. Nonetheless, the analysis itself is sound, and it is undoubtedly correct that Democrats would be the ones to benefit from amnesty, possibly in a game-breaking manner. Secondly, though Pat's position is clear in his analysis of immigration reform and its impact on the electoral process, he does not discuss underlying arguments for or against amnesty (aside from, of course its negative impact on the GOP). This is an incredibly difficult topic. Our essentially open-border policy is rare in the developed world, with controls on entrance approaching laughable status in some cases. However, there are interesting and valid sides in this debate.
For one, though it is true that unprotected borders have resulted in increased drug trafficking and crime, it is also true that migrant workers, many of them illegal, form the backbone of many industries in many parts of the country. Additionally, though in some cases, illegal workers have a negative impact on the job market for citizens, making them legal would result in increased tax revenues and a balancing of the negative drain that their current access to entitlements results in. In light of these conflicts and others, there are clearly difficult issues to work through in immigration reform. For this reason alone, it is one of many issues I am glad we can discuss on the site without an accompanying responsibility to actually resolve.
Obamacare was recently passed and there is very little potential that it will be repealed. Entitlement laws never get repealed, they only get expanded, typically leading to tax increases. See Social Security, Medicare, SCHIP, and Medicaid for examples. The only entitlement program in recent memory that was scaled back was welfare during the Clinton years, and even that was a marginal reduction. So, despite hoping that Republicans and Conservatives argue for its repeal, it is not really a plausible scenario. Even the rosiest 2010 midterm election projections have the GOP taking the House and perhaps the Senate, but no one has projected a veto-proof majority in the Senate. With Obama as President, any attempt to repeal Obamacare will be vetoed and there is nothing the GOP will be able to do about it. For repeal to even be a possibility, the Republicans will have to have majorities in both houses and win the White House from Obama. The earliest this can happen is 2013, which is a damn shame.
Despite all this, most hard working Americans and taxpayers are outraged by Obamacare. I predict they will turn out in large numbers at the polls this November. However, I am sad to admit this might not matter. Democrats have proven that they will do ANYTHING to maintain their power and expand government. Backroom deals? No problem. Bribes? Everyone does it. Secret agreements with corporations? Oh well. Fund organizations like ACORN who have been caught registering thousands of fraudulent voters? Sounds good to me.
And this brings us to the next issue Congress will be taking up: Amnesty for illegal immigrants, or the less descriptive and euphemistic name - Comprehensive Immigration Reform. If enacted this year, it could create tons of votes for progressives and socialists; in other words, the Democratic party. Most political observers claim Hispanic immigrants break 8 or 9 to 10 for Democrats. Lets say we start with the common estimate of 20 million illegal aliens. Assuming 90-95% are Hispanic, that yields about 18-19 million Hispanic illegal aliens. Out of that 18-19 million who obtain citizenship and register as Democrats, even the low-ball prediction of 8/10 would lead to 14-15 million new Democratic voters. And that's ballgame for the Republican Party in this country as this would counter any gains the GOP makes with independent voters. Amnesty will end the war between the right and left; the left will have won.
First, some of the numbers below might be a bit overstated. Though Hispanic voters predominantly go with the Democrats, voter turnout in this demographic is notably low (even in a country of notably low turnout). Additionally, it is likely true that turnout numbers would be even lower among first generation immigrants. Nonetheless, the analysis itself is sound, and it is undoubtedly correct that Democrats would be the ones to benefit from amnesty, possibly in a game-breaking manner. Secondly, though Pat's position is clear in his analysis of immigration reform and its impact on the electoral process, he does not discuss underlying arguments for or against amnesty (aside from, of course its negative impact on the GOP). This is an incredibly difficult topic. Our essentially open-border policy is rare in the developed world, with controls on entrance approaching laughable status in some cases. However, there are interesting and valid sides in this debate.
For one, though it is true that unprotected borders have resulted in increased drug trafficking and crime, it is also true that migrant workers, many of them illegal, form the backbone of many industries in many parts of the country. Additionally, though in some cases, illegal workers have a negative impact on the job market for citizens, making them legal would result in increased tax revenues and a balancing of the negative drain that their current access to entitlements results in. In light of these conflicts and others, there are clearly difficult issues to work through in immigration reform. For this reason alone, it is one of many issues I am glad we can discuss on the site without an accompanying responsibility to actually resolve.
Obamacare was recently passed and there is very little potential that it will be repealed. Entitlement laws never get repealed, they only get expanded, typically leading to tax increases. See Social Security, Medicare, SCHIP, and Medicaid for examples. The only entitlement program in recent memory that was scaled back was welfare during the Clinton years, and even that was a marginal reduction. So, despite hoping that Republicans and Conservatives argue for its repeal, it is not really a plausible scenario. Even the rosiest 2010 midterm election projections have the GOP taking the House and perhaps the Senate, but no one has projected a veto-proof majority in the Senate. With Obama as President, any attempt to repeal Obamacare will be vetoed and there is nothing the GOP will be able to do about it. For repeal to even be a possibility, the Republicans will have to have majorities in both houses and win the White House from Obama. The earliest this can happen is 2013, which is a damn shame.
Despite all this, most hard working Americans and taxpayers are outraged by Obamacare. I predict they will turn out in large numbers at the polls this November. However, I am sad to admit this might not matter. Democrats have proven that they will do ANYTHING to maintain their power and expand government. Backroom deals? No problem. Bribes? Everyone does it. Secret agreements with corporations? Oh well. Fund organizations like ACORN who have been caught registering thousands of fraudulent voters? Sounds good to me.
And this brings us to the next issue Congress will be taking up: Amnesty for illegal immigrants, or the less descriptive and euphemistic name - Comprehensive Immigration Reform. If enacted this year, it could create tons of votes for progressives and socialists; in other words, the Democratic party. Most political observers claim Hispanic immigrants break 8 or 9 to 10 for Democrats. Lets say we start with the common estimate of 20 million illegal aliens. Assuming 90-95% are Hispanic, that yields about 18-19 million Hispanic illegal aliens. Out of that 18-19 million who obtain citizenship and register as Democrats, even the low-ball prediction of 8/10 would lead to 14-15 million new Democratic voters. And that's ballgame for the Republican Party in this country as this would counter any gains the GOP makes with independent voters. Amnesty will end the war between the right and left; the left will have won.
4.25.2010
Sometimes Walking Softly Gets the Job Done
Long a bone of contention between a nation in hyper-growth on the one hand, and a nation with a worrying trade imbalance on the other, the yuan's peg to the dollar is closer than ever to facing a major restructuring. Analysts and US policymakers believe that the yuan is up to 40% undervalued due to its peg against the greenback, making Chinese exports to the US cheaper than they should be. Conversely, this leads to US goods being relatively overvalued for Chinese consumers, creating a double dip for US producers who have to compete against artificially cheap goods at home and face reduced market appetite abroad.
The US has made the currency peg a main talking point in almost every discussion it has had with Chinese leaders over the past 5-10 years. However, as some of China's neighbors have recognized for a long time, China's leadership does not necessarily appreciate being dictated to. Many believe that this has lead to a situation where the currency regime may have been left in place more for politics than actual economic reasons.
Despite this long-time game of political one-upmanship, it appears that China is ready to make a move. Though this is a bit simplified, some analysts believe that the People's Bank may either move to a crawling peg, which would allow more fluctuation against the dollar, or perhaps a crawling peg based on a basket of currencies, which would allow for fluctuation and would additionally reduce some of the initial appreciation that removing the peg would expect to bring. In anticipation of these potential changes, longtime critics of the peg have been notably silent lately in an attempt to avoid further politicizing the situation.
The process leading up to the potential restructing of China's currency regime could hold broader lessons for the future. Though the currency peg has been an issue for some time now, Chinese authorities have made only superficial adjustments over the past few years, reflecting a pushback against pressure from the international community. However, the flip side is that this same pressure is what made the message from the international community clear; to be a true global player, sometimes you need to play nice with your international friends. Big sticks are clearly still necessary, and should always be at the ready in international diplomacy. However, at the same time it cannot be forgotten that sometimes it is the walking softly part of the equation that ultimately tips the balance in your favor.
The US has made the currency peg a main talking point in almost every discussion it has had with Chinese leaders over the past 5-10 years. However, as some of China's neighbors have recognized for a long time, China's leadership does not necessarily appreciate being dictated to. Many believe that this has lead to a situation where the currency regime may have been left in place more for politics than actual economic reasons.
Despite this long-time game of political one-upmanship, it appears that China is ready to make a move. Though this is a bit simplified, some analysts believe that the People's Bank may either move to a crawling peg, which would allow more fluctuation against the dollar, or perhaps a crawling peg based on a basket of currencies, which would allow for fluctuation and would additionally reduce some of the initial appreciation that removing the peg would expect to bring. In anticipation of these potential changes, longtime critics of the peg have been notably silent lately in an attempt to avoid further politicizing the situation.
The process leading up to the potential restructing of China's currency regime could hold broader lessons for the future. Though the currency peg has been an issue for some time now, Chinese authorities have made only superficial adjustments over the past few years, reflecting a pushback against pressure from the international community. However, the flip side is that this same pressure is what made the message from the international community clear; to be a true global player, sometimes you need to play nice with your international friends. Big sticks are clearly still necessary, and should always be at the ready in international diplomacy. However, at the same time it cannot be forgotten that sometimes it is the walking softly part of the equation that ultimately tips the balance in your favor.
4.24.2010
Shanghai's Charging Bull Drips with Symbolism
One has to admire the nerviness of the Chinese. After declaring that their city would rival New York as a financial capital by 2020, Shanghai leaders commissioned a near-replica Beast of Bowling Green to grace the city's waterfront. Though appropriately a bit redder than the original, the new bull is reportedly about the same size as its inspiration. It is scheduled to be unveiled next week at the Shanghai World Expo, an event which will be attended by the creator of both sculptures, Arturo DiModica.
Though merely a sculpture, the bull will be seen by many as a symbol of the relentless forward progress of the Chinese people. And rightly so. Shanghai is no New York, nor is it London, and it is unlikely to be so by 2020. However, titles and status are transient by nature. It was not so long ago that Wall St. literally served as a defense against Native Americans, and it is now, depending on the list, the first or second largest financial center. Additionally, the rise of The City is paved with continental counterparts who could at one time or another make legitimate claims to being the 'financial capital of the world.' The stories of the current top financial centers underscores the sometimes fleeting nature of such titles given the benefit of temporal perspective. By the same token it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that the financial leader of the fastest growing nation on earth will, within decades, be able to claim the mantle of the world's greatest financial center.
The financial crisis, Wall St. scandals, and recent fraud charges levelled against Goldman Sachs have prompted many Americans to focus on internal issues as regulators, politicians and bankers struggle to determine how the US financial system should be structured and governed. However, despite current headlines, the powers that be should not lose sight of the fact that, in the long term, it may not be internal forces that pose the largest threats to New York's global status.
In light of this threat, and with financial reform seemingly inevitable, politicians may need to make some tough decisions about whether it is more important to plan for the future or to play politics in a populist overreaction to what are admittedly recent excesses. Unfortunately, though there is hope for the former, history and rhetoric perhaps point to the latter.
UPDATE: Pictures from the upcoming fair...
Though merely a sculpture, the bull will be seen by many as a symbol of the relentless forward progress of the Chinese people. And rightly so. Shanghai is no New York, nor is it London, and it is unlikely to be so by 2020. However, titles and status are transient by nature. It was not so long ago that Wall St. literally served as a defense against Native Americans, and it is now, depending on the list, the first or second largest financial center. Additionally, the rise of The City is paved with continental counterparts who could at one time or another make legitimate claims to being the 'financial capital of the world.' The stories of the current top financial centers underscores the sometimes fleeting nature of such titles given the benefit of temporal perspective. By the same token it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that the financial leader of the fastest growing nation on earth will, within decades, be able to claim the mantle of the world's greatest financial center.
The financial crisis, Wall St. scandals, and recent fraud charges levelled against Goldman Sachs have prompted many Americans to focus on internal issues as regulators, politicians and bankers struggle to determine how the US financial system should be structured and governed. However, despite current headlines, the powers that be should not lose sight of the fact that, in the long term, it may not be internal forces that pose the largest threats to New York's global status.
In light of this threat, and with financial reform seemingly inevitable, politicians may need to make some tough decisions about whether it is more important to plan for the future or to play politics in a populist overreaction to what are admittedly recent excesses. Unfortunately, though there is hope for the former, history and rhetoric perhaps point to the latter.
UPDATE: Pictures from the upcoming fair...
4.21.2010
Goldman Situation Risks Becoming a Discussion on Politics Rather than Merits
It remains to be seen whether or not Goldman Sachs will face penalties for its role in a large debt packaging transaction currently under investigation by the SEC. However, whether or not the firm did anything wrong when it created and sold a mortgage-backed instrument the SEC claims was destined to fail has taken a backseat to questions regarding the timing of the SEC's announcement and its proximity to the White House's latest push toward financial industry reform.
While regulation and reform in the financial industry are about as close to foregone conclusions as anything gets to be in Washington, questions are arising about the action against Goldman due to the party line split among SEC commissioners in voting to bring the action and the curious timing of several events over two days which included the breaking of the story in news outlets and the purchase of the Democratic National Committee of ad space related to the suit, both before the SEC made its announcement.
The SEC is supposed to be a non-partisan entity which maintains independence from the White House and political entities. Therefore coordination with politicians, and particularly those serving on a party's national committee, would show at the very least the taint of bias, something regulators work hard to avoid. However, the head of the SEC is essentially an at-will employee serving at the President's leisure. To think that a conversation took place between the White House and the SEC before this major announcement was made, particularly with a number of Goldman alum in positions of power in the current administration and with the interesting timing of some of the events that transpired doesn't require one to be a conspiracy theorist.
Many Americans are so fed up with Wall St. that they won't care if the White House and SEC talked before action commenced. Indeed, many in this segment of the population would probably embrace concerted action, whether or not it is strictly allowed. However, enough Americans who are upset with Wall St. still believe that following rules is important that the allegations of back door dealings and coordination will leave a bad taste in some mouths. Reform is coming, as to some extent it should. But it should not come on the backs of scapegoats as the result of politicized back door dealings. If Goldman Sachs defrauded investors, it should face penalties. However, it should not be used as a political pawn the larger reform game, a move which risks painting reforms which are needed with a tainted brush.
While regulation and reform in the financial industry are about as close to foregone conclusions as anything gets to be in Washington, questions are arising about the action against Goldman due to the party line split among SEC commissioners in voting to bring the action and the curious timing of several events over two days which included the breaking of the story in news outlets and the purchase of the Democratic National Committee of ad space related to the suit, both before the SEC made its announcement.
The SEC is supposed to be a non-partisan entity which maintains independence from the White House and political entities. Therefore coordination with politicians, and particularly those serving on a party's national committee, would show at the very least the taint of bias, something regulators work hard to avoid. However, the head of the SEC is essentially an at-will employee serving at the President's leisure. To think that a conversation took place between the White House and the SEC before this major announcement was made, particularly with a number of Goldman alum in positions of power in the current administration and with the interesting timing of some of the events that transpired doesn't require one to be a conspiracy theorist.
Many Americans are so fed up with Wall St. that they won't care if the White House and SEC talked before action commenced. Indeed, many in this segment of the population would probably embrace concerted action, whether or not it is strictly allowed. However, enough Americans who are upset with Wall St. still believe that following rules is important that the allegations of back door dealings and coordination will leave a bad taste in some mouths. Reform is coming, as to some extent it should. But it should not come on the backs of scapegoats as the result of politicized back door dealings. If Goldman Sachs defrauded investors, it should face penalties. However, it should not be used as a political pawn the larger reform game, a move which risks painting reforms which are needed with a tainted brush.
4.20.2010
Cameras in the SCOTUS?
At a House hearing last week, Justices Thomas and Breyer were prompted to discuss the idea of introducing cameras into Supreme Court oral arguments. As neither seemed very keen on the idea, citizens will have to continue jumping in the pre-dawn queue for the foreseeable future if they wish to witness this fascinating aspect of our government.
This is fortunate for the silent Thomas, as the average American might wonder exactly what purpose he serves on the court if they were to witness his almost comic refusal of his right to ask questions during proceedings. Another group breathing a sigh of relief is practitioners, who sometimes seem to be nervous enough without the potential added factors of a nationwide audience and heightened media scrutiny.
UPDATE: The Senate seems to think cameras would be a good idea...this is clearly a story that has some legs.
This is fortunate for the silent Thomas, as the average American might wonder exactly what purpose he serves on the court if they were to witness his almost comic refusal of his right to ask questions during proceedings. Another group breathing a sigh of relief is practitioners, who sometimes seem to be nervous enough without the potential added factors of a nationwide audience and heightened media scrutiny.
UPDATE: The Senate seems to think cameras would be a good idea...this is clearly a story that has some legs.
Bullet-Proof but Not Recession-Proof; The Future of James Bond
Nikki Finke and the appropriately named Mike Fleming put together a story yesterday regarding the future of the James Bond film franchise. Apparently the woes of the broader economy have hit the franchise's parent studio MGM particularly hard, putting production of Bond 23 on ice for the time being.
Fortunately, though the ailing studio controls the rights to the next film currently, Bond-producer EON retains a great deal of autonomy from MGM, particularly for the film business. It is this autonomy which leads many to believe that the delays could merely be tactics aimed at avoiding triggering clauses giving MGM certain rights to the film. This posturing could ultimately see the franchise link up with another studio for the long term.
As the next film was only in pre-production, and with further delays seemingly inevitable, it may be a while before Bond 23 hits theaters. However, the current posturing could be good for the long-term future of the franchise, consolation, albeit a small one, for long-time fans eagerly awaiting the next installment in the series.
Fortunately, though the ailing studio controls the rights to the next film currently, Bond-producer EON retains a great deal of autonomy from MGM, particularly for the film business. It is this autonomy which leads many to believe that the delays could merely be tactics aimed at avoiding triggering clauses giving MGM certain rights to the film. This posturing could ultimately see the franchise link up with another studio for the long term.
As the next film was only in pre-production, and with further delays seemingly inevitable, it may be a while before Bond 23 hits theaters. However, the current posturing could be good for the long-term future of the franchise, consolation, albeit a small one, for long-time fans eagerly awaiting the next installment in the series.
4.17.2010
The Case of the Stolen Club Identity, Or: Z v. Ortiz
While some (particularly Bostonians) may view Jay-Z's current lawsuit against Red Sox slugger David Ortiz as a frivolous case of a Yankee fan harassing a rival's player, there may be something to the plaintiff's case in Z v. Ortiz (liberties taken on the case name).
Apparently Mr. Ortiz, who has been a guest of Jay-Z's 40/40 club in Manhattan, has named his club in Santo Domingo the Forty/Forty Club. Although observant visitors to Latin America have undoubtedly noted that eerily familiar brandnames and logos are nearly ubiquitous and can be found from the largest market to the most out-of-the-way jungle hut, most brands are not too concerned with enforcement actions against small scale violaters; it is just not worth their time and effort. However, the high profile Ortiz's use of such a high profile name in such a high profile location (particularly in the baseball world) was sure to draw attention.
It is not clear that Jay has actually suffered damages to the tune of $5 million as he is alleging in his federal court complaint. However, as often happens in these situations, it would not be surprising to at the very least see the club's name change soon. If Blawgconomics might be so bold, we might suggest something like Twenty Eight/Zero, serving the duel functions of avoiding legal recourse and bringing the name more in-line with reality. As baseball fans will of course know, 40/40 is a reference to the rare feat of hitting 40 home runs in the same season one steals 40 bases, a club which Ortiz has never quite been able to break into.
Apparently Mr. Ortiz, who has been a guest of Jay-Z's 40/40 club in Manhattan, has named his club in Santo Domingo the Forty/Forty Club. Although observant visitors to Latin America have undoubtedly noted that eerily familiar brandnames and logos are nearly ubiquitous and can be found from the largest market to the most out-of-the-way jungle hut, most brands are not too concerned with enforcement actions against small scale violaters; it is just not worth their time and effort. However, the high profile Ortiz's use of such a high profile name in such a high profile location (particularly in the baseball world) was sure to draw attention.
It is not clear that Jay has actually suffered damages to the tune of $5 million as he is alleging in his federal court complaint. However, as often happens in these situations, it would not be surprising to at the very least see the club's name change soon. If Blawgconomics might be so bold, we might suggest something like Twenty Eight/Zero, serving the duel functions of avoiding legal recourse and bringing the name more in-line with reality. As baseball fans will of course know, 40/40 is a reference to the rare feat of hitting 40 home runs in the same season one steals 40 bases, a club which Ortiz has never quite been able to break into.
4.15.2010
The List: Government Expenditures on Alcohol
Blawgconomics would like to think that it is above making homonymic puns about government waste and getting wasted, but any such claim could probably be classified as disingenuous at best. Along those lines, The Washington Times has put together a list of some of the more notable expenditures that have been made by the State Department on alcohol during the past year. The article can be found here.
Program Alert: British Political Debates Live on C-Span
The Anglophilic among Blawgconomics' readers are perhaps familiar with C-Span's live airings of Prime Minister's Questions every Wednesday. Anyone who enjoys the quick wit of the weekly masterclass (particularly when compared with what passes for debates in America's Capitol) in debate style of PMQs would do well to tune in over the next few weeks as the network (with the help of siblings 2, 3 and .org) will be airing Britain's political debates, both live and on tape delay.
The debates are notable on a few fronts. For one, there is a real chance that Labour could relinquish power for the first time in over a decade depending on how voters rate the performance of the (maybe too) polished Tory David Cameron against that of the incumbent PM and Labour member Gordon Brown. Additionally, the Liberal Democrats seem poised to increase their influence to a level which hasn't been seen in generations. Finally, the debate could produce London's very own Kennedy/Nixon moment; this will be the first televised debate in the nation's history. Though each of the three attendees, Brown, Cameron and Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg have been well coached (in some cases by battle-worn American consultants) this is still the first go around for each, and it will be interesting to see who, if anyone, is remembered by history as 'the one with the sweaty forehead.'
UPDATE: Clegg Wins? According to several polls, the Liberal Democrat leader did indeed make the most favorable impression. None of the candidates made any serious gaffes, but apparently samples of British voters didn't think that the two major party candidates did enough to address issues they felt were important. As noted above, the next two Thursdays will see the candidates meet again ahead of the May 6th election.
The debates are notable on a few fronts. For one, there is a real chance that Labour could relinquish power for the first time in over a decade depending on how voters rate the performance of the (maybe too) polished Tory David Cameron against that of the incumbent PM and Labour member Gordon Brown. Additionally, the Liberal Democrats seem poised to increase their influence to a level which hasn't been seen in generations. Finally, the debate could produce London's very own Kennedy/Nixon moment; this will be the first televised debate in the nation's history. Though each of the three attendees, Brown, Cameron and Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg have been well coached (in some cases by battle-worn American consultants) this is still the first go around for each, and it will be interesting to see who, if anyone, is remembered by history as 'the one with the sweaty forehead.'
UPDATE: Clegg Wins? According to several polls, the Liberal Democrat leader did indeed make the most favorable impression. None of the candidates made any serious gaffes, but apparently samples of British voters didn't think that the two major party candidates did enough to address issues they felt were important. As noted above, the next two Thursdays will see the candidates meet again ahead of the May 6th election.
4.14.2010
The List: USNWR Law School Rankings
So, they might be leaked, and everyone should probably wait until the real thing comes out tomorrow, but we just couldn't resist. Courtesy of lawschoolpredictor.com (and many of the other sites this is floating around on) the U.S. News and World Report 2010 Law School Rankings are available.
UPDATE: The official rankings are now out. There are no huge discrepencies from yesterday's leaked copy based on a quick side by side comparison (though the eagle-eyed Journal Editors who undoubtedly note the typos we typically sneak into each post might be able to catch a mistake or two). With the official rankings come individual category rankings, including those for International Law, IP, Dispute Resolution, and Part-Time programs.
UPDATE: The official rankings are now out. There are no huge discrepencies from yesterday's leaked copy based on a quick side by side comparison (though the eagle-eyed Journal Editors who undoubtedly note the typos we typically sneak into each post might be able to catch a mistake or two). With the official rankings come individual category rankings, including those for International Law, IP, Dispute Resolution, and Part-Time programs.
4.12.2010
Is the Tea Party the 'New Green' of American Politics?
Though some stubbornly debate whether the votes cast for Ralph Nader in 2,000 allowed George Bush to win that election, it is not difficult to make the case that the 2000's could have looked a lot different if the Green Party candidate had not participated in the election. The convential wisdom says that more Nader voters would have otherwise voted for Al Gore than George Bush. There are many examples of how removing this drain on the Gore vote could have turned the election in his favor; Florida only serves as the best of them. Though many remember the Sunshine State for recounts, hanging chads and judicial intervention, less remember that if Nader hadn't ran and even a tiny majority of his 97,000 votes had gone to Gore, the former Vice President would have been sending moving vans down Pennsylvania Ave. instead of down to Tennessee in January of 2001. However, though Bush, and therefore the Republican Party, benefitted from the impact of a third party's participation in 2000, a new third party movement could very well cost the GOP seats in this fall's midterm elections.
On the back of anger over healthcare and low approval ratings many expect that grassroots support will allow Republicans to make up seats or even gain majorites in each house of Congress this fall. However, the very same voters who have become most upset with the Democrats since President Obama took office could ensure their continued dominance of the legislative branch if the GOP does not play its cards correctly. This is because it is unclear whether the groundswell of grassroots support, best exemplified by the Tea Party, will galvanize conservatives or fracture them. For example, in some cases, the Tea Party movement has embraced Republican lawmakers and vice versa. In others, there has been criticism of those conservatives who aren't 'conservative enough,' and even alliances with other small but established parties such as the Libertarians. Like the Greens proved in 2000, it is possible that even a fraction of votes that would otherwise go to Republican candidates this fall going to a different 'Tea Party Approved' candidate could cost the GOP elections.
Analyzing elections is tricky business at best, and it is difficult to know exactly how things could play out between now and November. However, Democratic leadership might not be as afraid of the Tea Party as the voices of the movement claim. Grassroots movements can be powerful things. However, that power can be unpredictable, and in this case, it might not be clear what its impact is until after election day.
On the back of anger over healthcare and low approval ratings many expect that grassroots support will allow Republicans to make up seats or even gain majorites in each house of Congress this fall. However, the very same voters who have become most upset with the Democrats since President Obama took office could ensure their continued dominance of the legislative branch if the GOP does not play its cards correctly. This is because it is unclear whether the groundswell of grassroots support, best exemplified by the Tea Party, will galvanize conservatives or fracture them. For example, in some cases, the Tea Party movement has embraced Republican lawmakers and vice versa. In others, there has been criticism of those conservatives who aren't 'conservative enough,' and even alliances with other small but established parties such as the Libertarians. Like the Greens proved in 2000, it is possible that even a fraction of votes that would otherwise go to Republican candidates this fall going to a different 'Tea Party Approved' candidate could cost the GOP elections.
Analyzing elections is tricky business at best, and it is difficult to know exactly how things could play out between now and November. However, Democratic leadership might not be as afraid of the Tea Party as the voices of the movement claim. Grassroots movements can be powerful things. However, that power can be unpredictable, and in this case, it might not be clear what its impact is until after election day.
Speculating on a Post-Stevens Supreme Court
With ABC News reporting this morning that another name, Leah Ward Sears, has been added to the short-list of potential replacements for retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the future makeup of the Court is becoming increasingly unclear. Luckily, our friends at Newsy.com have provided a video highlighting some of the prevailing views of how the Court could change with Stevens' departure. Loyal readers will note that this marks the first time we have had a video up on the site. As always, comments and feedback are appreciated.
4.10.2010
FT Headline Highlights Problems in the Field of Economic Theory
In its weekend print edition, the Financial Times trumpeted the inaugural meeting of George Soros' Institute for New Economic Thinking with the headline 'Economists agree on need for fresh ideas, but not much else.' Aside for providing a tailor-made header for the next edition of The Onion, the line highlights a neverending problem for policymakers; the world's leading economists hardly ever agree on what the biggest issues facing economies are. Additionally, even less members of the economic community can agree on the reasons underpinning such issues. Finally, and perhaps most troubling, it seems that even fewer are able to come to a consensus on solutions.
However, not all is dismal when it comes to disagreement on economic topics. Indeed, if a correct consensus on the proper course for economies were ever to emerge, it would likely render much of the financial media and arguably a majority of legislation, (and therefore Blawgconomics) meaningless. And surely nobody, despite the positive factors underpinning such a potentially utopian development, would want that.
However, not all is dismal when it comes to disagreement on economic topics. Indeed, if a correct consensus on the proper course for economies were ever to emerge, it would likely render much of the financial media and arguably a majority of legislation, (and therefore Blawgconomics) meaningless. And surely nobody, despite the positive factors underpinning such a potentially utopian development, would want that.
A Deal Forged in the Furnaces of Brussels
Earlier this week, German giant Daimler agreed to an equity swap arrangement with Franco-Japanese Renault-Nissan aimed at technology sharing as tougher emissions standards have forced automakers to reevaluate the composition of their fleets. The deal was particularly important for Daimler; If one disregards boutique and sportscar manufacturers, the Mercedes-maker currently ranks last among European automakers in emissions tests.
The link-up, though limited in scope, provides a great example of the impact rulemaking can have on corporate behavior; Daimler is famously protective of its technology, one of the factors that lead to the failure of its most famous merger. Therefore, many see the link-up as an admission by the firm that it would not be able to meet the EUs tougher standards alone. Emissions standards also notably provided one of the catalysts for the recent and ongoing drama between Porsche and Volkswagen.
Such deals could provide a blueprint for American makers as the Obama administration has, similarly to its EU counterpart, implemented higher emissions goals. Though the financial health of the companies can be likened to the physical health of Washington DC residents during the Cherry Blossom Festival, (emphasis on the pollen-inducing sneezing and headaches, not the flowers) continued government intervention makes it a virtual certainty that whoever is actually left of the Big Three will meet Washington's goals. As American makers are a step behind overseas counterparts, this could potentially come in the form of similar arrangements between US firms and foreign competitors in the future.
The link-up, though limited in scope, provides a great example of the impact rulemaking can have on corporate behavior; Daimler is famously protective of its technology, one of the factors that lead to the failure of its most famous merger. Therefore, many see the link-up as an admission by the firm that it would not be able to meet the EUs tougher standards alone. Emissions standards also notably provided one of the catalysts for the recent and ongoing drama between Porsche and Volkswagen.
Such deals could provide a blueprint for American makers as the Obama administration has, similarly to its EU counterpart, implemented higher emissions goals. Though the financial health of the companies can be likened to the physical health of Washington DC residents during the Cherry Blossom Festival, (emphasis on the pollen-inducing sneezing and headaches, not the flowers) continued government intervention makes it a virtual certainty that whoever is actually left of the Big Three will meet Washington's goals. As American makers are a step behind overseas counterparts, this could potentially come in the form of similar arrangements between US firms and foreign competitors in the future.
Stevens Resigns; Political Posturing Begins
In a follow up to a story posted earlier this week Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has indeed handed in his resignation to President Obama. Though the administration has an opportunity to shape the court for years, it is likely that the President will be wary of selecting someone with well-known and publicised partisan views in anticipation of potentially strong pushback from the 41-seat Senate Republican caucus.
Though President Obama and his advisors would no doubt like to pick from a pool of candidates that represent views in lockstep with theirs, political considerations are often one of the main factors in such decisions. This has particularly been true in recent years with Court appointees facing higher levels of scrutiny than in the past as more information on their views is readily available and as partisanship fuels what is often vitriolic and idealogical questioning rather than reasoned analysis over qualifications. Among the previously noted frontrunners, many feel that moderate-left candidates Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Judge Diane P. Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit are least likely to face strong opposition, making them, in addition to their qualifications, attractive candidates.
Some hot buttons likely to be covered during the confirmation hearing of whoever is ultimately appointed include campaign finance, prisoner rights issues, particularly for those convicted of terrorist activities, and potentially entitlements programs such as healthcare. Regardless of whether these topics, and others, are appropriate in confirmation hearings, parties often engage in political statement-making when the stakes are so high for an appointee. In a political environment like today's, upcoming judicial confirmation hearings are not likely to be any different.
Though President Obama and his advisors would no doubt like to pick from a pool of candidates that represent views in lockstep with theirs, political considerations are often one of the main factors in such decisions. This has particularly been true in recent years with Court appointees facing higher levels of scrutiny than in the past as more information on their views is readily available and as partisanship fuels what is often vitriolic and idealogical questioning rather than reasoned analysis over qualifications. Among the previously noted frontrunners, many feel that moderate-left candidates Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Judge Diane P. Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit are least likely to face strong opposition, making them, in addition to their qualifications, attractive candidates.
Some hot buttons likely to be covered during the confirmation hearing of whoever is ultimately appointed include campaign finance, prisoner rights issues, particularly for those convicted of terrorist activities, and potentially entitlements programs such as healthcare. Regardless of whether these topics, and others, are appropriate in confirmation hearings, parties often engage in political statement-making when the stakes are so high for an appointee. In a political environment like today's, upcoming judicial confirmation hearings are not likely to be any different.
4.04.2010
An Investment-Driven Solution to Green Development Problems: The S-REIT (Part 1 in a Series)
This post is Part 1 in a series and is excerpted from a recent thesis on the applicability of the REIT tax structure to large-scale solar development. Parts 2 through 5 may be found at the following links: Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.
Though the environmental movement has undoubtedly gained steam over the past few decades, both in the US and abroad, the world’s natural resources are still being depleted, with projections suggesting that supply will struggle to keep pace with demand as the developing world catches up to the West. 1 Oil, coal and natural gas, resources that account for more than 85% of energy consumed in the US 2, are becoming more difficult and dangerous to find and extract and many sources of these minerals are controlled by dictators and unfriendly states. 3
Because of these factors and others, many experts see the future of energy lying not in fossil fuels, but in so-called new renewable resources such as wind, thermal and solar power. The latter holds particular promise. Indeed, according to some projections, the supply of solar energy is so great that the power of the sun could be used to meet the entire global demand for energy in the future. For example, Amory Lovins has observed,
However, despite great potential and inherent benefits both in the short- and long run solar power remains an underdeveloped resource. In fact, all new renewables, a list including wind and some other minor sources in addition to solar, met only 2% of global energy demand as of 2007. 7 There are many reasons for this. For one, fossil fuels are still heavily subsidized, leading to price advantages over renewables in many cases. 8 Additionally, traditional forms of regulation at both the transmission and distribution levels ‘tend to favor continuously supplied centralized fossil fuel generation over renewable generation, that is often more distributed and intermittent…’ 9 Other factors hindering the development of solar as a leading resource include political opposition from utilities due to distribution management issues and producers of fossil fuels who are concerned that future supply from renewable resources could cut into profits. 10
Though the environmental movement has undoubtedly gained steam over the past few decades, both in the US and abroad, the world’s natural resources are still being depleted, with projections suggesting that supply will struggle to keep pace with demand as the developing world catches up to the West. 1 Oil, coal and natural gas, resources that account for more than 85% of energy consumed in the US 2, are becoming more difficult and dangerous to find and extract and many sources of these minerals are controlled by dictators and unfriendly states. 3
Because of these factors and others, many experts see the future of energy lying not in fossil fuels, but in so-called new renewable resources such as wind, thermal and solar power. The latter holds particular promise. Indeed, according to some projections, the supply of solar energy is so great that the power of the sun could be used to meet the entire global demand for energy in the future. For example, Amory Lovins has observed,
‘The sunlight falling on the Earth every ~70 minutes equals humankind’s entire annual energy use. An average square meter of land receives each year as much solar energy as a barrel of oil contains, and that solar energy is evenly distributed across the world within about twofold. The U.S., “an intense user of energy, has about 4,000 times more solar energy than its annual electricity use. This same number is about 10,000 worldwide [, so] …if only 1% of land area were used for PV, more than ten times the global energy could be produced….”’ 4
A scenario where solar energy exclusively provides the world’s energy supply may seem closer to science fiction than current reality. However, the potential alone of the numbers above should provide a strong incentive to maximize solar research and the deployment of solar technology. In addition to the future of solar and the aforementioned concerns surrounding fossil fuels there are a number of other short-term benefits to shifting energy demand toward solar energy. Economic benefits include job creation 5, and the potential economic growth frontrunner nations could gain as leaders in providing solutions meeting the globe’s growing demand for solar products. 6 Economies maximizing the use of solar technology could also benefit short-term from the evening out of supply curves, providing more certainty and less price fluctuation than those which are fossil fuel dependent.
The Future of the Supreme Court
With Justice John Paul Stevens turning 90 this month and apparently contemplating retirement, the Obama administration will likely have another opportunity to fill a Supreme Court seat hot on the heels of Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation last year. Though the administration claims (somewhat unbelievably) that it has not discussed the situation, the list of interviewees from the last go-round could provide guidance on a potential second appointment for Obama. According to Bloomberg, Elena Kagan and Diane Wood are among the front runners. Either would represent just the fourth female justice in US Supreme Court history. Confirmation of a female would also mark the first time that three women were seated concurrently on the highest court in the land, with Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg currently serving.
4.03.2010
Economic Reasons for Promoting Social Change
In this weekend's Financial Times there is a short article, easy to miss amongst louder headlines describing tensions in Gaza and the growing friendship between Russia and Venezuela. It describes the struggles that are daily faced by those brave women who are attempting to practice law in the male-dominated world of Saudi Arabia.
The article is notable for two reasons. First, stories of both verbal and actual lashings, refusals to allow practicioners to speak in or even to enter courtrooms, and the relegation of women to family law (which is not, in any way meant as a slight to family law; there are simply women who wish to practice in other areas), are all useful for providing perspective. For all of the talk of the trials (no pun intended) and tribulations of learning and practicing law in the US, it is a rare American lawyer in contemporary times who will have faced anything approaching a fraction of the difficulty that their female Saudi counterparts face on a daily basis.
Secondly, both in the lawyering context and in a broader sense, it is striking that an entire nation is purposely depriving itself of the resources of half of its population. Blawgconomics is by no means an expert on the ways of Islamic society, and typically we find that politics and religion are far more awkward concepts to intersect than law and economics. However, throughout the Muslim world, the inability of women to do everything from practice law to appear in public alone deprives those societies of valuable resources in an increasingly integrated world. And, while it is a difficult matter to discuss Islamic society through Western-tinted glasses, it must nonetheless be true that reducing the resources of a society leaves it worse off. While this is bad, it is just possible that it could lead to a positive impact at some point in the future.
Despite glass ceilings, gender stereotyping, the ongoing debate regarding work/life/family balance and the fact that discrimination against women undoubtedly takes many forms in modern Western society, it is also true that examples of women in positions of power, both in the halls of politics and at the heads of companies are plentiful and well-known enough to render a list of them unnecessary. It would unquestionably make businesses, courts, economies and nations worse off if these women were replaced across the board with less-qualified men, as silly as such a notion might sound. However, this system describes the current state of affairs in states such as Saudi Arabia. Though such an outcome seems a far way off, it is not inconceivable that one day, a realization of the negative impact on economies of this system could lead Islamic societies to give more freedom to women, a true example of economics providing the platform for positive social change.
Human rights advocates would certainly like to think that their efforts are what shape the debate in everything from civil rights abuses to torture to the topic at hand. However, it is often money that talks and forces change. The current and ongoing position of women in Islamic states could be a great future example of this. And, if someday it is a realization that the negative impact of purposely and systematically reducing resources available to a state's economy is what gains rights for women rather than some sort of idealized and hypocritical notion of Western-style enlightenment, that will be just fine.
The article is notable for two reasons. First, stories of both verbal and actual lashings, refusals to allow practicioners to speak in or even to enter courtrooms, and the relegation of women to family law (which is not, in any way meant as a slight to family law; there are simply women who wish to practice in other areas), are all useful for providing perspective. For all of the talk of the trials (no pun intended) and tribulations of learning and practicing law in the US, it is a rare American lawyer in contemporary times who will have faced anything approaching a fraction of the difficulty that their female Saudi counterparts face on a daily basis.
Secondly, both in the lawyering context and in a broader sense, it is striking that an entire nation is purposely depriving itself of the resources of half of its population. Blawgconomics is by no means an expert on the ways of Islamic society, and typically we find that politics and religion are far more awkward concepts to intersect than law and economics. However, throughout the Muslim world, the inability of women to do everything from practice law to appear in public alone deprives those societies of valuable resources in an increasingly integrated world. And, while it is a difficult matter to discuss Islamic society through Western-tinted glasses, it must nonetheless be true that reducing the resources of a society leaves it worse off. While this is bad, it is just possible that it could lead to a positive impact at some point in the future.
Despite glass ceilings, gender stereotyping, the ongoing debate regarding work/life/family balance and the fact that discrimination against women undoubtedly takes many forms in modern Western society, it is also true that examples of women in positions of power, both in the halls of politics and at the heads of companies are plentiful and well-known enough to render a list of them unnecessary. It would unquestionably make businesses, courts, economies and nations worse off if these women were replaced across the board with less-qualified men, as silly as such a notion might sound. However, this system describes the current state of affairs in states such as Saudi Arabia. Though such an outcome seems a far way off, it is not inconceivable that one day, a realization of the negative impact on economies of this system could lead Islamic societies to give more freedom to women, a true example of economics providing the platform for positive social change.
Human rights advocates would certainly like to think that their efforts are what shape the debate in everything from civil rights abuses to torture to the topic at hand. However, it is often money that talks and forces change. The current and ongoing position of women in Islamic states could be a great future example of this. And, if someday it is a realization that the negative impact of purposely and systematically reducing resources available to a state's economy is what gains rights for women rather than some sort of idealized and hypocritical notion of Western-style enlightenment, that will be just fine.
4.02.2010
New Lawsuit Reopens Debate on Prisoner Rights
Over the past decade or so since the US government started experimenting with alternative prison arrangements for individuals accused and convicted of terror-related activities, a debate has raged between those who point to the perception that this behavior makes us no better than the police states we fight against and those who note the lack of terrorist attacks since September 11th. A new lawsuit represents the latest chapter in the debate, though it certainly won't be the last. In this latest fight for prisoner's rights, five current and former prisoners are suing the Bureau of Prisons for its use of Communication Management Units, areas where communications between prisoners face a higher level of scrutiny due to their convictions for terror-related activities.
Although in many of the recent cases dealing with enemy combatants, prisoners rights, rights of the accused etc., plaintiffs had solid cases backed by treaty law, customary international law and the Constitution, it is tougher to see where the merits in this case may lay. The suit claims violations of freedom of association and that the treatment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. However, it is well established that certain rights are left behind at the prison gates, and it seems unlikely that plaintiffs in this case will be able to convince the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia that their rights are more important than the State's interest in maintaining a safe prison system. This is particularly true now that two successive administrations from either side of the aisle have presided over the set-up, making it a less politically sensitive issue. However it is always difficult to know exactly how such a case will end up. Indeed, it is often true that the only certainty in such cases is that people on at least one side of the prisoner rights debate will be upset with the outcome.
Although in many of the recent cases dealing with enemy combatants, prisoners rights, rights of the accused etc., plaintiffs had solid cases backed by treaty law, customary international law and the Constitution, it is tougher to see where the merits in this case may lay. The suit claims violations of freedom of association and that the treatment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. However, it is well established that certain rights are left behind at the prison gates, and it seems unlikely that plaintiffs in this case will be able to convince the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia that their rights are more important than the State's interest in maintaining a safe prison system. This is particularly true now that two successive administrations from either side of the aisle have presided over the set-up, making it a less politically sensitive issue. However it is always difficult to know exactly how such a case will end up. Indeed, it is often true that the only certainty in such cases is that people on at least one side of the prisoner rights debate will be upset with the outcome.
4.01.2010
The List: America's Top Earning Hedge Fund Managers
No, this isn't an April Fool's joke...top hedge fund managers make billions of dollars a year. Find out who leads the pack here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)