All for One and One for All

In the wake of the most recent foreclosure boom, which has brought about one of the most rapid and unchallenged property transfers since Indian Removal in the 1830s, many are left asking: what can I do with all this bargain real estate? This question has become particularly pressing for those in the banking and investment industries who – contrary to the broader national trends – have experienced a rather substantial influx of capital relative to depreciating property values thanks to recent government reforms under the stimulus package.

The most immediate answer for many has been converting their newly acquired real estate into high margin rental properties and apartment complexes. This does make sense in large, booming cities such as New York and especially the nation’s capital where rising foreclosure rates have accompanied rapid cost of living increases and rising demand for rental housing, resulting in a unique opportunity to rent out foreclosed homes at a rate much higher than the monthly mortgage payments of the previous owner, who may very well become the new tenant, only now sharing half of his or her former home with another family. However, in smaller cities whose centers have been abandoned, many have explored other options and pursued creative solutions. I have heard of cases in which foreclosed inner city homes were converted into homeless or battered women shelters for tax purposes.

All of this is very pragmatic, but it is clear that very few property owners are thinking strategically and collectively about the issue. This is one case in which “every man for himself” seems an imprudent policy. We should be saying "all for one and one for all." Whole city blocks could be consolidated, and with unemployment where it is, it may even be feasible start building factories again for the first time in decades. This is just one of many options; however, it is imperative that we do something substantial and innovative with the opportunity we have created for ourselves. Some large conglomerates of bankers such as Bank of America have been leading the way, and my hope is that others will follow.

Mutually Assured Destruction

Since the Patriot Act as recently expanded by Congress this year opened up a booming black market for electronic information, two unforeseen consequences have emerged. The first being information terrorism wherein terrorists acquire small but potentially destructive pieces of information, and this thus far has proven about as unthreatening as any other form of terrorism that has developed since the creation of the military-industrial complex. The second, however, is a bit more disturbing. Lethal information has become so cheap that virtually anyone who has the capital can put his or herself in a position to blackmail another person or even destroy their public image. It has come to the point that many are being encouraged by information advisers (who usually also sell information as it were) to hoard massive files of dirt on friends and foes by some logic of Mutually Assured Destruction, i.e. that the only way to prevent these conflicts is for everyone to know about every backdoor deal, illegitimate child, and blow job in the life of everyone else.

Somehow our historical memories have forgotten that M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) was part of a scheme (a rather brilliant one I might add) by the industry to justify significant purchases of weapons, and in particular, the development of high-margin pseudo-weapons like nuclear warheads and mustard bombs. That so many have actually now fallen victim to such a logic is a testament to the power of suggestion and the insidious tenacity of narrative. However, it would be better if we would all wake up and smell the coffee instead of blindly falling for the oldest trick in the book. The Cold War is almost over, but that does not mean we should forget its lessons.

Do the Math

While Iraq has been one of the most conventionally profitable wars for many in the community, it has rightfully devolved into a public relations nightmare. The American people have seen little economic gain from the strategic destabilization of Iraq, and although the withdrawal of excess combat troops has temporarily changed perceptions of the invasion, it will not be long before an over-sensitive American public begins to ask where the billions of dollars are going each month. Basically, Obama or the next president will have to at least maintain a faint appearance of progress in the situation if we are to see this thing through.

Of course, this is where the United States' legendary humanitarian record comes into play. Even critics of America's foreign policy acknowledge that no empire has been quite so merciful to those who do not stand in its way. We can buy a lot of time in Iraq if we establish a long-term humanitarian commitment to the country and its people.

When I speak of an humanitarian mission, I am not referring to the original plan of bringing democracy to Iraq. In fact, speaking about spreading democracy in the media so much has actually caused quiet conversations about the nature of American democracy itself, and the more the topic comes up, the more people start to question the American political machine. In this particular case, I believe that PR men can learn a thing or two from the economics department, specifically the illusion of percentages.

It is well-known that when one wants to fortify one's argument with quantitative authenticity, the best tactic is to use carefully calculated percentages, which are seen as easier to understand and more tangible than raw figures. In the Iraq case, the United States should shift to a careful discourse of humanitarian percentages. For example, there is a virtually endless supply of civilian Iraqi refugees and displaced persons, easily over four million total with over a million living in Syria alone. Now, as of present the U.S. government has only granted some hundreds, maybe a few thousand of these refugees visas, while the yearly influx of foreign immigrants and workers to the United States easily numbers in the hundreds of thousands. If the U.S. were to double or triple the number of Iraqi refugees given residence in the country, it would only represent a slight increase in total immigration, and quotas could be adjusted so as to create no difference whatsoever. This act could be presented as an increase in the humanitarian role of the U.S. in Iraq through let's say a 300% increase in total refugees accepted. With the economy as it is, it is likely than many will eventually choose to return home or emigrate to another country anyway when presented with the opportunity. This is just one of the ways in which the classic game of percentages might be employed to rectify a potentially awkward situation in the coming years.

Elephant in the Boardroom

My first post should appropriately begin with the elephant in the boardroom, that is, the Afghanistan lithium fiasco. When the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, many were excited about the mineral riches the country had to offer, as is the case whenever a relatively undeveloped country is tapped for the first time. The Soviets had discovered lithium deposits during the occupation in the 1970s, and with the rise of cell phones, cameras, iProducts, and electric cars with lithium batteries, Afghanistan’s lithium had become the elephant in the boardroom of every entrepreneurial mineral extraction firm in the country.

It’s 2010 and not an ounce of lithium has been extracted from Afghanistan’s rocky crust. Why? Simple. One particular group - i.e. the Louis Berger Group - got greedy. Normally a project of this size, meaning the extraction of an amount of lithium equal to a significant percentage of the world’s current supplies, must be a team effort. Securing such massive supplies and essentially assuming control of an entire country with virtually no remaining ideological state apparatuses is a huge undertaking, one that cannot be achieved by a handful of corporations no matter how much capital they possess. American work crews should have been blasting through Afghanistan’s bedrock years ago, but because the boys on the ground wanted it all for themselves and did not possess the means to secure these lithium reserves immediately, it has become increasingly likely that Chinese companies will eventually take the lion’s share when all is said and done. As a result, we will all have to move a significant amount of our capital to the Chinese markets in order to maximize our gains; a considerable risk given the capriciousness of the Chinese economy. What’s worse is that with recent reports released by the Pentagon about these rich lithium reserves - a foolish PR stunt by the Obama administration - the American public has now been promised something they will never get: lithium profits and super-cheap gadgets and gidgets. This is further proof that those who are in the hot-seat for the moment are thinking very narrowly. We need to think long-term about this situation, before this veritable treasure trove completely slips through our collective grasp.

Going Rogue

For anyone with any considerable amount of capital or property, the internet seems an almost hostile environment. It is a space where - to a large extent - one's wealth has much less sway than in the more material world of real objects and structures, printed media, and tangible, inviolable private space and property. Moreover, the internet has undermined intellectual property rights and exclusive access to information, the very institutions that allow those of advantaged position to maintain that position. Most of all, the internet is a neo-bourgeois space where the voices of the rational, enlightened few are drowned in a sea of mainstream noise. One might notice that there are countless many homeless vagabonds blogging in public libraries, while members of the enlightened "class" of property-owning men of reason rarely maintain blogs, especially of their own authorship. Those who do represent these perspectives - too often - prove beholden to special interests or personal agendas that undermine not only the quality of their content but the unity of their collective voices.

It would seem as though the powers of destruction will not be content until every last one of us becomes another homeless blogger whiling away in cyberspace; however, I firmly believe in the incontestable inequality of men. Never has competition between global elites been more fierce than in the present, and in a time when the need for cooperation is urgent. When Karl Marx said, "democracy is the road to socialism," he had precisely such a world in mind. This blog, in some sense, is an attempt to reconcile misguided differences, and although it will come at the personal cost of lost material advantage, my hope is that by generating a genuine public forum for society's disparate few, the collective gains will far exceed the sum of our individual losses.

So, when I say "going rogue," I certainly do not mean in the sense of the most recent display of sympathetic irrationality by the darling beauty queen of the Republican mainstream; rather, I mean truly breaking away from an alarming paradigm, which is that of individualistic fear-based public misinformation on the part of many of society's most powerful players in the highest ranks of the media. Although this description may make clear enough for those in the know who the target of my critique may be, I wish not to name names at present. Such an act at this juncture would undermine the goal of this socio-intellectual endeavor. Though I may critique individuals through my discussion of current events and pressing trends, know that the stick with which I strike is merely an olive branch of peace, a peace on the magnitude of something much greater than the force of my chiding twig.

What entitles me to speak authoritatively in such a manner? I have been well acquainted with the order of things for quite some time, and unlike many of my cohort that fell along the wayside ideologically, spiritually, and intellectually, I have remained firm in my belief that a rational, systematic and most importantly practical approach to any issue is always in the common interest. By applying this approach, I hope to bridge the tiny space between us in hopes that we may cross in safety to a more coherent future.