Category: Economics

• Follow The Money On Development Deals

  “Follow the money” became a household phrase after the 1976 movie that told the story of Watergate, All the Presidents Men. Personal experiences over four decades in the consulting industry, working to create sustainable developments, often bring the phrase to mind.

  In a meeting a few weeks ago concerning a potential collaboration between our planning company and large engineering consulting firm, I was coached to tone down the fact that the design methods we invented and utilize reduce infrastructure. You might ask, why would reduced infrastructure (one key to a more sustainable world) be a negative condition for an engineering firm whose main purpose is to design the infrastructure that society must rely upon?

  Follow the money… Large engineering projects, as well as many architectural structures, are often quoted as a percentage of construction costs. The incentive is to increase, not decrease construction costs. We have the ability today to reduce the world’s infrastructure possibly up to 30%, which would be a major step towards reducing initial costs of commercial building and residential housing. It would have massive environmental benefits, and reduce the continual maintenance costs to the governmental authorities (forever) up to 30%.

  Follow the money… If the income of consulting firms is based upon construction costs, the consultants’ gross dollar billings would also be reduced by 30%. Firms that supply concrete, steel, pipes, etc would also have their gross income slashed by 30%. Does our world have a chance of becoming sustainable? Dream on!

  Follow the money… A decade ago I met with the president of one of the largest engineering firms in Minnesota. He wanted to know how our firm can produce so much work with so few people (I personally design all of the developments and had a drafting staff of two people). In ten minutes I designed a development of about 15 lots that showed homes, driveways, and all the final geometry, using the commercially available technology we had developed. “Oh my,” he said, and paused. I thought he would say, “We could reduce our staff by half,” but instead said , “You must put the plans on the shelf a few weeks, to justify the billing hours”. Then the enlightenment came to me. I had developed a software technology used in my own consulting business to produce engineering-accurate layouts in a fraction of the time of a CAD (Computer Aided Drafting)-based technology, but started to understand that this might be a hard sell.

  Follow the money… Large consultants often look at the floor of employees as a multiplier, meaning that each workstation will bring some multiple of profit. Suppose a technician costs $50,000 a year, and the multiplier is 3.5. After overhead, that technician represents $100,000 in potential profit. At a 150 person company, replacing one third of the staff by using more efficient technology and methods in the above example reduces the potential consulting income by five million dollars!

  Follow the money… Liability is another roadblock to sustainability. Why try something new when the old tried and true has worked for decades or centuries? In the consulting industry, licensed professionals risk their careers if a new concept causes a major failure, so they’re more likely to discourage anything without a proven history. The loss of a license to certify plans would have a devastating effect on a consultant’s personal finances. It is far safer to claim that the new method cannot work and talk the developer or municipality out of the idea.

  Follow the money… Today, few consultants are making any. Most are either hanging on (barely) or have shut their doors. The unemployment rate among architects, engineers, draftsmen, technicians, planners, and related occupations is very high. The exceptions are those lucky few that have won lucrative government contracts and are holding their own, or even thriving.

  Follow the money… The market reacts to design, innovation and value. The first Toyota Prius was an ugly miniscule car based upon the Echo, but it was highly efficient. Gas was cheap when it was first introduced, and sales were dismal. The first generation Prius had innovation, but lacked design. The next generation Prius came out as gas prices soared. When an attractive interior and exterior design was combined with innovation, it quickly became a symbol for a new era of green thinkers. Rising fuel prices turned the hybrid technology into an increasing value which fueled — so to speak — its success. Before the I-Pod there were many digital music players that were innovative. When players were combined with an attractive package design and the ability to download from the same vendor, the overall value created its success. Like the Prius and the I-Pod, land development itself is a “product”.

  Follow the money… The housing market crashed and many believe the commercial real estate crash to come will also be devastating. Funding for infrastructure keeps many consultants employed when the private development and building industry flounder.

  Those of us in the consulting industry must make some significant foundational changes if we are going to have a sustainable future, and claiming “Sustainability!” on the corporate web site is not enough. Unlike building construction, where being “green” typically increases costs, in land development, environmentally sound design and construction can cost significantly less if done right. That said, it does require more design effort with a greater attention to detail. It is possible to decrease both construction costs and environmental impacts say, 30%, but it could mean the consultant doubling his or her design efforts to do so. Not only does the firm lose 30% of its gross income if billing is based upon a percentage of construction costs, it must make a huge increase in effort to do so.

  Follow the money… In this new age of engineering and designing sustainable development, it is no longer possible to get the best result by simply using an off-the-shelf software to calculate the hydrology of the site (the drainage) within sewer pipes. Using surface flow along with natural materials that can filter pollutants from the run-off before drainage leaves the site requires a botanical engineering solution that blends knowledge of natural and manmade engineering. This requires a specialist, and the complexity that’s required to successfully design these systems with fail-safe methods goes far beyond pressing a software button. Small errors could have devastating results, and the consultant will be liable.

  For example, I installed a no-mow – low watering – fescue lawn, instead of sod, when my home was built last year. This landscaping worked great during the first year, giving us the look of a lawn look without having to mow it. We were told to water twice daily to get it established by the landscaping firm that claimed to be experts on this exciting new low impact landscaping. Well, watering fescue twice daily, it turns out, is the worst thing you can do, according to the prairie restoration consultants. We inadvertently turned our lawn into a fast growing prairie that needs more mowing than sod! But this is just one example of what can go wrong in this new era of sustainability. I was willing to invest, and I believe mistakes can be corrected and documented to reduce future errors. My landscape contractor installed something quite new in the industry, and took on a risk compared to suggesting safe sod. After the bugs are worked out the company will have a market edge and an example to show (but maybe not this year).

  So how can we force an industry to change?

  Lead with Money… Cities and developers hire firms assuming that they are going to use the latest techniques available to get the most efficient design possible. If the bidding process changed from seeking the lowest bidder to looking for the most advanced and efficient bidder, the industry would be rewarding innovation, competition, great design, and risk. Give priority to solutions that exceed the specifications. Contractors and consultants could be rewarded for coming up with revolutionary solutions.

  Lead with Money… The reward could be in the form of a bonus for innovation: For example if a plan saves 100 million in right-of-way purchasing, give half of the savings to the winning contractor and consultant. If the consultant is being paid a percentage of the construction costs (lets use 5% as an example) on a 100 million dollar project, then he or she would gross five million dollars. If they could win the consulting (engineering) contract by demonstrating the most efficient design instead of being the lowest bidder (or the most politically connected), and be paid a percentage of the demonstrated benefit, they would be making more for providing a higher degree of effort and perhaps taking on more risk. In the above example, if 30 million dollars is demonstrated to be a savings or increase in functionality, and 20% of the savings is rewarded back to the consultant, then the consultant would make 5% on the 70 million dollars (3.5 million dollars) and 20% on the 30 million in savings (6 million dollars). The gross revenue to the consultant would almost double.

  Lead with Money… Our military often awards bids for those projects that exceed the specifications. Vendors should compete not just on price, but to demonstrate how they exceeded the specifications. Governments as well as private developers could pick and choose based upon innovation, design, and value. Those taking the extra effort would flourish, and eventually the new higher standards would become the norm.

  How about forcing change through regulations? Regulations can only control minimum standards, pretty much guaranteeing monotony and stagnation. Instead, follow the money: To create a sustainable world, we need to exceed minimums, and foster innovation by rewarding risk, effort, and investment.

  Flickr photo, “George Is Keeping An Eye On You,” by We Love Costa Rica

  Rick Harrison is President of Rick Harrison Site Design Studio and Neighborhood Innovations, LLC. He is author of Prefurbia: Reinventing The Suburbs From Disdainable To Sustainable and creator of Performance Planning System. His websites are rhsdplanning.com and performanceplanningsystem.com.

  July 1, 2010

• The G-20’s New Balance of Power: The Productive Economy Still Matters

  As world leaders gather in Canada this weekend, the nations with the most influence won’t be the high-tech mavens. Joel Kotkin on why traditional industries still matter in the post-information age.

  Are we entering the post-information age?

  For much of the last quarter century, conventional wisdom from some of the best minds of our times, like Daniel Bell, Alvin Toffler and Taichi Sakaiya—in both East and West—predicted that power would shift to those countries that dominate the so-called information age. At the time, this was the right call, but it may increasingly be, if you will, old news. Although there’s no question that iPhones and 3-D movies are nifty—and hedge funds generators of massive wealth for investors and operators—we now may actually be entering what might be called the post-information age.

  As the ministers gather in Toronto this weekend for the G-20, we can see how overblown the efficacy of a virtual economy might be. The current star players on the field in terms of economic growth and fiscal strength generally derive their power not from information technology, media, or financial savvy but by the mundane but still important basic underpinnings of economic growth: agriculture, manufacturing and energy production.

  This is true among both the advanced countries as well as the developing ones. The stars of the West are not the brainy Brits or the entrepreneurial “creative” Americans but places like host Canada and Australia, whose place in the world economy relies heavily on the production of raw materials like uranium, iron ore, oil, timber, grains, fish and beef. Sure, they have some cutting-edge companies, nice (often heavily subsidized) film industries, and lots of smart people (after all, my wife is from Montreal!). But it’s the basics that drive their economies.

  So much so that Australia, braced by rising exports to Asia, has been growing well enough to let its interest rates rise, something that is all but unthinkable for the U.S. Fed, at least until the November elections. Due in large part to its commodity-based economy and more enlightened regulation, Canada’s banking system is widely considered the most stable in the advanced industrial world, with a rate of leverage 18 to 1 compared with the U.S.’s 26 to 1 and the EU’s scary 61 to 1. Budget deficits? Hardly an issue. Bank bailouts? Nary one.

  The flip side of the Canada-Australia coin are the high-performers who now excel in the field most of our high-tech pundits—starting with Megatrends’ John Naisbitt 20 years ago—generally disdain: manufacturing. Naisbitt called manufacturing “a declining sport” and was roundly applauded by Wall Street and other sources of economic “wisdom.” The most obvious contrary example is China, the modern equivalent of 19th-century Britain’s “workshop of the world.” But other, faster-growing economies among the G-20—Brazil, Turkey, India and South Korea, for example—also are rising fast largely on the back of manufacturers.

  None of this suggests that high-tech or information are unimportant. But by their nature industries like software are exceedingly mobile. In contrast, the basics in these rapidly growing economies involve large-scale investment and the presence of the right resources. It’s easier to move software development to Bangalore than soybean production or natural gas.

  In any case, it’s not smart to give up the basics—unless perhaps you are Liechtenstein or Monaco—and hope to have enough money left to sustain your drive into high-tech industry. Do you really think that the rising industrial powers have any intention of ceding media, finance, and technology to Americans, Japanese or Europeans? I would not count on it.

  History serves as an excellent guide here. Take the example of Great Britain—home of the Industrial Revolution—which should be considered a cautionary tale. In the 19th century and much of the 20th, even though the country depended on manufactured goods for its livelihood, British elite schools, financial institutions, and media all worked against “the needs of industry” to create what historian Martin Wiener has called “two unequal capitalist elites,” the more powerful of which had little interest in, and even disdain for, industrial activities. The “best” talent, and the most social prestige, favored the financial sector over the industrial. Production was particularly looked down upon: it was “the Cinderella of British industry.”

  There are also more recent examples supporting the notion that hard work and attention to the basics still matter. In the 1980s, Japanese firms that were widely written off as “copycats” eventually became primary innovators, particularly in automobiles, semiconductors, and computer games. Koreans were often then dismissed by both Americans and Japanese as unimaginative imitators; today South Korea’s electronics and car companies are surging not only in America but across the world. Now they have their gaze fixed on biotechnology and videogames.

  In the coming decades Chinese and Indian companies will seek to move from low-wage work to more specialized, and increasingly innovative, kinds of products—in everything from pharmaceuticals to fashion and finance. The enormous profits to be made from less “sexy” activities—ranging from manufacturing to call center and code writing—will provide the funds to invest in both the hard infrastructure and the necessary training to move decisively into ever higher-end activities.

  This contempt for production underpinned the decline of Britain as a great power, and could prove disastrous in mid-21st entury America as well. In the America envisioned by the advocates of the “creative economy,” our productive facilities would serve mainly as tourist attractions, much as we now visit restored pioneer villages. The problem is that it may work for a small, highly educated class and some financial managers, but not for the vast majority of Americans.

  In reality a more prosperous future is possible, but only if the country focuses both on developing the intellectual prowess of its citizenry and on maintaining the physical infrastructure necessary for key basic sectors like agriculture, energy, and manufacturing. A single-minded emphasis on nontangible industries—notably finance—is a dangerous delusion, as is particularly clear in both the Wall Street disaster of 2008 and the current devastation of the even more finance-dependent British economy and its exchequer.

  Fortunately, there is still time for America—still by far the world’s pre-eminent economy—to adjust to the realities of the post-informational economy. We remain the world’s leading agricultural power, and global demand for food, particularly proteins, will soar as the global population expands from six to nine billion by 2050. Many of these people will be more affluent, and provide prime markets for such American exports as soybeans, nuts, fruits, wine, beef, and chicken. Only a small number of Americans may work on farms, but over 10 percent are involved in some way with the marketing, processing, financing and research of agricultural-related activities.

  Similarly America can also enjoy the kind of energy-generated wealth that underpins Canada, Australia, and G-20 members Russia, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia. Our ruinous trade deficit in energy is largely a failure of will, faulty regulation and lack of proper incentives. In the short run, we have ample supplies of relatively clean natural gas—particularly in the Great Plains—as well as significant on-shore oil supplies and a prodigious capacity for renewable energy. In 10 years, with a pragmatic focus on these industries, we might not be an energy exporter but we could be fairly self-sufficient, perhaps only importing from our close Canadian cousins.

  At the same time, there is no compelling reason why America needs to abandon industry. Unlike Europe we will have an expanding workforce and growing domestic market. The manufacture of hard goods, which requires a sophisticated infrastructure and is generally energy-intensive, could turn out to be relatively easy to salvage for American workers. Like agriculture, manufacturing directly may employ a relatively small number of people, but many others benefit from the service industries that depend on it. Manufacturers also boost the tech sector; roughly one in four U.S. scientists and engineers work for industry.

  Although it may not be obvious to our trendy information-age pundits and their admirers among economic journalists, or perhaps some in the current administration, the U.S. is well-positioned to meet the requirements of the emerging post-information age. If we add our natural resource base and industrial capacity to our prodigious ability to innovate, the U.S. could not only compete against, but out-perform every major country in the G-20. The key now is summoning national and political will to exploit our advantages, assets that America sadly now appears to have in short supply.

  This article originally appeared in TheDailyBeast.com.

  Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in Febuary, 2010.

  Photo by rjason13

  June 26, 2010

• G-20 Summit: There is No One Size Fits All

  There is one thing you need to remember as you listen to the debate about economic and fiscal policy at the G-20 Summit this weekend in Toronto: There is No One-Size-Fits All. There is not even a “One-Size-Fits Twenty.”

  Back in 2001, I summarized the few things about finance and economics that most scholars agree will support a growing economy and healthy capital markets:

  “Four strategies can be shown to generally promote stable national financial systems: 1) having independent rating agencies; 2) having some safety net; 3) minimizing government ownership and control of national financial assets; and 4) allowing capital market participants to offer a wide-range of services.”

  As of today:

  1) Our rating agencies are independent of government, but not from the financial institutions who buy the ratings (who also buy the government, but I’ll leave that story to Matt Taibbi over at Rolling Stone …); 2) we bankrupted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in late 2009, before the end of the recession (and that doesn’t even count all the bailouts of Wall Street and Main Street); and 3) the government took ownership positions in all US major financial institutions during the bailout.

  I’ll come back to #4 to another time – Congress has vowed to ruin even that one before the 4th of July recess by passing the Wall Street Reform Act.

  The United States delegation to the G20 Summit consists of President Obama, his economic advisor Larry Summers and (your friend and mine) Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. At least one of them should know better than to go around insisting that every nation at the meeting should have the same policy as the United States: damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! In other words, just as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is firing up the helicopters, keep dropping dollar bills on the economy until something starts growing. In a letter sent to the G-20 leaders in advance of the Summit in Toronto, they made it clear that the rest of the G-20 countries should do the same. While President Obama writes in the letter that the G-20 should “commit to restore sustainable public finances in the medium term” the underlying context is that there should be more fiscal stimulus in the short term.

  I’m not the only economist to have said this before: When it comes to developing robust capital markets and a vibrant economy, there is no “one size fits all”. This lesson should be familiar to the US delegation. To make it clear, let’s look at the numbers.
  

  	2000	2001	2002	2007	2008	2009
  Consumer Inflation Rate
  Canada	2.7%	2.5%	2.3%	2.1%	2.4%		0.2%
  France	1.7%	1.7%	1.9%	1.5%	2.8%		0.4%
  Germany	1.5%	2.0%	1.4%	2.3%	2.6%		0.0%
  United Kingdom	2.9%	1.8%	1.6%	4.3%	4.0%		2.2%
  United States	3.4%	2.8%	1.6%	2.9%	3.8%		-0.4%
  Economic Growth Rate
  Canada	5.2%	1.8%	2.9%	2.7%	0.4%		-2.5%
  France	3.9%	1.9%	1.0%	2.3%	0.4%		-2.2%
  Germany	3.2%	1.2%	0.0%	2.5%	1.3%		-5.0%
  United Kingdom	3.9%	2.5%	2.1%	3.0%	0.7%		-4.8%
  United States	3.7%	0.8%	1.6%	2.0%	0.4%		-2.4%

  The numbers in question are 2007 through 2009, those associated with the current recession. I include 2000-2002 in the table to show what happened in the last recession, for a little perspective. The players in question are US, UK, France and Germany – I include Canada as a courtesy because they are the host country for the summit,. The first thing you’ll notice is that the US is the only one among the group that did not see positive prices increases last year – hence, their continued willingness to employ the cash-dropping helicopters.

  French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde is outspoken this week on the subject of getting the federal budget under control in France instead of expanding economic stimulus programs: she believes what’s best for France is to get the deficits under control, which means reducing the budget and not more spending. On this one, I’m with Minister Lagarde: Vive La Différence!

  There’s one more thing you need to know about economic growth and that is this: It takes more than a 2.4% increase to make up for a 2.4% decrease. Think of this way: if you start at 1,000 and reduce by 50%, you are left with 500. Now, at 500 if you get a 50% increase, you are only back to 750. To get from 500 back to 1,000, you need a 100% increase. As I wrote back in January: “At this rate, it will take 11 quarters (nearly 3 years) to catch up.” More government spending, however, will not provide a healthy long-term solution.

  Susanne Trimbath, Ph.D. is CEO and Chief Economist of STP Advisory Services. She will be participating in an Infrastructure Index Project Workshop Series throughout 2010. Her training in finance and economics began with editing briefing documents for the Economic Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. She worked in operations at depository trust and clearing corporations in San Francisco and New York, including Depository Trust Company, a subsidiary of DTCC; formerly, she was a Senior Research Economist studying capital markets at the Milken Institute. Her PhD in economics is from New York University. In addition to teaching economics and finance at New York University and University of Southern California (Marshall School of Business), Trimbath is co-author of Beyond Junk Bonds: Expanding High Yield Markets.

  Photo by carlossg

  June 25, 2010

• Immigrant Entrepreneurs Can Turbocharge Cleveland’s Flagging Economy

  In seeking to lure a Chinese lightbulb-maker to town, Cleveland leaders revealed both a vision and a blind spot.

  Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson and his team should be given credit for recognizing the tremendous opportunity in attracting foreign direct investment, or “FDI,” and the new jobs that it provides.

  According to a 2008 report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, foreign firms employed more than 5.3 million U.S. workers through their U.S. affiliates and have indirectly created millions of additional jobs. More than 30 percent of direct hires are in manufacturing. In Ohio, 600 foreign-based corporations from 28 countries are operating 1,000 facilities and employing about 180,000 people.

  One exciting new trend is the rise in the annual number of foreign investment projects in the U.S. renewable energy sector, jumping from 4 projects in 2003 to over 40 in 2008.

  In its eagerness to attract a foreign company offering energy-saving light bulbs, however, City Hall fell into traps which may have been avoided if had it tapped the cultural resources at their fingertips.

  When Mayor Jackson’s administration waded into unfamiliar waters to partner with an LED light bulb company in Ningbo, China, no one thought to talk with Chinese-American entrepreneurs and professionals living in Northeast Ohio. These individuals are eager to assist the City in helping identify appropriate partners in China, supporting the due diligence, and generally advising on a culture that dates back to 5,000 B.C. and has only opened-up in recent decades.

  As reported by Crain’s Cleveland Business, local immigrants were not viewed as a resource.

  ‘Why weren’t we informed; we could have helped you?’ asked Hong Kong-born immigration attorney Margaret Wong….

  Ms. Wong made the statement last Thursday evening, May 20, in the Red Room, a conference room attached to Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson’s office at Cleveland City Hall. She was there with a group of local small business owners, clergy and other civic leaders invited by the mayor to a meeting to enlist their support in his effort to bring Chinese lighting manufacturer Sunpu-Opto Semiconductor Co. to the city.

  Ms. Wong was asking chief of staff Ken Silliman why the Mayor, who was not present, hadn’t sought the assistance of people such as her and the others in the room sooner in his attempt to make Cleveland the U.S. beachhead of Sunpu-Opto, a maker of energy-efficient LED lighting.

  Mr. Silliman didn’t have a ready answer.

  The answer may be that in this region immigrants are often not viewed as a valuable resource to support the region’s business development, or viewed as people with the skills to help Northeast Ohio navigate the language, cultural and market barriers abroad.

  This must change.

  Yes, it is important that the City and the region aggressively pursue FDI, not only with passion, but also with skill, networks, and on-the-ground experience.

  To make these efforts successful, however, leadership should look to leverage the foreign-market experience of our immigrant entrepreneurs and innovators, particularly in relation to China and India, where booming economies, mounting foreign currency reserves, and relationship-based business culture create unique opportunities and challenges.

  Cleveland’s immigrants, some of whom enjoy business and governmental relationships in the homeland that go back generations, are eager to be a partner in revitalizing the city and the region. They are in a unique position to help our region capture our share of the $245 billion of foreign direct investment streaming into the U.S, to ramp-up our exports to global markets where 95% of the world’s consumers live, and to attract the world’s best and brightest innovators, entrepreneurs, and professionals driving a changing economy.

  There is precedent in leveraging ethnic and global networks for local development Northeast Ohio’s Jewish community, which enjoys extensive business, family and social ties in Israel, has helped the region attract tens of Israeli companies in recent years.

  What is needed now is a bold regional plan to take this formula for success to a larger scale, particularly targeting markets such as China where the government is encouraging its businesses to expand into the United States.

  The path to this global journey, however, should begin with a few short steps at home, launching a multi-purpose International Welcome Center which will help the region build a bridge to the world.

  The Welcome Center will not only provide a much-needed platform to coordinate local resources for attracting FDI, but it will also help educate the region on why the development of a global culture is an economic necessity and on what steps we can all take to welcome and partner with international resources, such as the immigrant talent living right now in Northeast Ohio.

  This represents a bit of conundrum. How do we recruit and welcome foreign companies, their executives, and their families, if we do not fully value our existing immigrant entrepreneurs and innovators? How do we attract foreign direct investment when overseas companies are feared as job-takers?

  In responding to the dichotomy of not welcoming immigrants while trying to lure foreign companies to Cleveland, Anne O’Callaghan, founder of the Welcome Center in Philadelphia said in her City Club of Cleveland speech last year:

  Do the region’s leaders think that foreigners should just stay in the homeland but still wire you their money?

  Northeast Ohio’s immigrant community is rich in technology, entrepreneurship, global market knowledge, and new wealth.

  To make a credible push to attract foreign companies which can establish manufacturing, research, and corporate headquarters in Northeast Ohio and in-source thousands of new jobs, the region can take a bold step forward by partnering with immigrants already here and put out the “welcome mat” for those who may arrive tomorrow.

  Richard Herman is a Cleveland lawyer, Co-Chair of TiE Ohio (The International Entrepreneur), and Co-Author of Immigrant, Inc. (Wiley & Sons, 2009).

  Photo by Caveman 92223 — On the 2010 US Tour

  June 24, 2010

• Millennial Surprise

  The boomer’s long domination of American politics, culture and economics will one day come to an end. A new generation–the so-called millennials–will be shaping the outlines of our society, but the shape of their coming reign could prove more complex than many have imagined.

  Conventional wisdom, particularly among boomer “progressives,” paints millennials–those born after 1983–as the instruments for fulfilling the promise of the 1960s cultural revolt. In 2008 the left-leaning Center for American Progress dubbed them “The Progressive Generation.” The center contrasted them favorably to the Xers, a cohort of 20 million fewer, and their “conservative views.”

  The case for the millennials’ left-leaning views can be traced to when the oldest millennials started to vote, in 2004. That year big loser John Kerry took the 18 to 29 vote by nearly 10 points. In the last election millennials supported Barack Obama over John McCain by a staggering 30 points. He outperformed McCain in every ethnic group, winning 54% of young white voters and a remarkable 76% of young Hispanics. Obama may still have won without millennial support, but only narrowly.

  This vote was shaped by important and perhaps lasting attitudes. Authors Morley Winograd and Michael Hais identified among these young voters a strong communitarian ethos, generally liberal social views and somewhat of a “green” agenda. They wrote that millennials’ embrace of the Democratic Party in 2008 could foreshadow a long-awaited leftward realignment paralleling that which occurred in the 1930s.

  Yet there are signs that millennial voters, if not shifting to the right, may have lost some of their progressive ardor. Recent polls suggest that younger voters are far less likely to vote this year than in 2008. Gallup reports that nearly half of voters ages 18 to 29 are not enthusiastic about turning up at the polls this November, a far higher number than senior or boomer voters.

  One reason for such a dramatic shift is likely the economy. The current recession has been very hard on younger workers–unemployment hits around 20% for workers between 16 and 24. The brunt of the recession has hit blue-collar, high school educated youths, but even the college crowd, the core of the Obama constituency, faces what appears to be dismal prospects in the years ahead.

  Not too surprisingly, a May Allstate-National Journal Heartland Monitor survey of voters 18 to 29 found only 45% of millennials still solidly behind the president’s economic agenda. This could have a depressing impact on the leftward lurch among millennials. Indeed one recent Harvard survey found only half of all young voters planned to vote Democratic for Congress this year, compared with 60% in 2006.

  If the downturn persists, we could see some changes in generational politics. In the 1970s a similarly dismal economy accompanied the boomers as they were entering the workforce in huge numbers. Then, as now, long-term unemployment and underemployment seemed the wave of the future.

  The hard times of the 1970s changed the politics of the boomers. The bungled presidency of Jimmy Carter did not do much for the credit of the Democratic Party. Boomers, who sided with Carter in 1976, ended up voting for Ronald Reagan in large numbers four years later. The relative prosperity of the Reagan years painted a basically conservative tinge to boomer voters, something that benefited both Republicans and more centrist Democrats like Bill Clinton.

  This change could occur again, but other factors may slow a rightward shift among millenials. Republican nativism–exemplified by the Arizona immigration law–may be a boon with boomer voters, who are overwhelmingly white (only one in four are non-white). In contrast, roughly two in five millennials are minority group members. The age group 18 and under is already majority “minority.”

  Another big factor will be social liberalism. On a host of critical issues–from interracial dating to gay marriage–millennials tend to be far more “progressive” than earlier generations. According to a recent Pew study, 63% of millennials believed society should accept homosexuality compared with only 48% of boomers.

  Millennials also tend to disapprove of such things as prayer in school compared with boomers or older generations. Although most express some religious commitment, there are more unaffiliated and basic non-believers than in previous generations. The GOP’s long-term embrace of a hard religious right positions will not pay off among millennial voters.

  Perhaps most troubling for Republicans–and this is a point emphasized by Winograd and Hais–are millennial views on government. Two-thirds, according to Pew, currently favor an expanded government role in the economy compared with roughly 40% of boomers. Not surprisingly, tea partiers, at least for now, are more likely to come from the older set than younger voters.

  Yet there is no lock for the Democrats. For one thing, expansive government is likely to be more attractive to those who are not yet paying taxes. As millenials head into their late 20s and early 30s, they may adopt different somewhat views. If the current public sector expansion proves ineffectual in creating jobs–after all not everyone can work for Uncle Sam–they could, like their boomer forebears, embrace a more private-sector oriented approach.

  More than anything else, both liberals and conservatives need to understand that this emerging generation may prove far less predictable than either side expects. Many “progressive” urbanists, for example, expect that most millenials will be happy to live in dense multifamily housing–largely as renters–as they enter their 30s. This is probably not altogether the case.

  Hais and Winograd argue that millenials may be more attracted to urban settings–as is often the case for younger, unmarried and childless people–than boomers and older generation. Yet their research also shows that more than twice as many–some 43%–identify suburbs as their “ideal place to live.” They embrace suburbs even more than boomers.

  Similarly, this generation also shares with the boomers a strong interest in homeownership–refuting the claim of some urban boosters that renting is the wave of the future. Instead they appear surprisingly traditional in terms of wanting marriage, kids and believing in following the rules. They may change things up, but still very much embrace the desire to achieve the “American dream.”

  In these and many ways, millennials are likely to continue redefining our society in ways that neither currently boomer dominated party will appreciate. Given the mess the boomers have left them, that may prove a difference worth celebrating.

  This article originally appeared in Forbes.com.

  Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in Febuary, 2010.

  Photo by rjason13

  June 22, 2010

• China’s Urban Challenge: Balancing Sustainable Economic Growth and Soaring Property Prices

  Today, Beijing seeks to balance strong economic growth and soaring prices amidst a severe global crisis and debt turmoil in advanced economies. The challenge is colossal – to provide urban space for more than 600 million people in the coming decades.

  For months, the famous hedge fund wizard, James Chanos, has been predicting a severe Chinese property slump. As he puts it, “Dubai times 1,000 – or worse,” with the “potential to be a similar watershed event for world markets as the reversal of the U.S. subprime and housing boom.”

  The contrarian investor Chanos made his fortune on Wall Street by foreseeing the collapse of Enron and other high flying companies whose stories were “too good to be true.” He is not the only skeptic on China, but certainly one of the most prominent and articulate. And yet, China’s real estate market is very different from those of the U.S. or Dubai.

  In Dubai, the problem had to do with too much leverage. In China, consumers buying residential properties are required to put down 30 percent before taking out a mortgage. For a second home, the down payment is 50 percent, irrespective of their net worth. Home purchase is predicated on affordability.

  In the pre-crisis U.S., perverse incentives were magnified by low interest rates, sometimes minimal down payment and loans to those with poor credit histories. Excessive debt was sliced, repackaged and securitized into mortgages. Banks and ratings agencies engaged in unethical conduct. Appropriate regulatory oversight was absent.

  In the long-run, the containment of rapid price increases is vital for China’s economic growth and social cohesion. In the short-run, volatile price fluctuations are difficult to avoid in the large urban centers. These large agglomerations are evolving into “global cities”, which are driven not just by local conditions, but by global trade and investment.

  Soaring prices
  In “China bubble” predictions, Chinese property markets are typically portrayed as unitary or homogeneous. Yet, there is huge variation among cities and regions. In 2009, the urban GDP per capita was highest in Shenzhen reaching almost US$13,800 USD, whereas in Hefei it was about US$6,100.

  Until recently, the concern for the soaring prices in the property markets has been focused primarily on the high-end segment of the first-tier cities. Since the 1980s, the economic ripple effect of the successful first-tier cities – such as Shenzhen, Beijing, and Shanghai – has been spreading into new generations of Chinese cities.

  By the early 2000s, second-tier cities – from Suzhou and Shenyang to Chengdu and Chongqing – attracted significant attention with investments from global corporate giants. Third-tier cities – from Ningbo and Fuzhou to Wuxi and Harbin – have been following in the footprints, while inspiring still others, such as Kunming and Hefei.

  Yet for the most part soaring prices characterize primarily residential properties – almost exclusively the high-end segment of the most prosperous first-tier cities.

  In March, property prices in 70 Chinese cities soared by a record 11.7 percent from the previous year. In response, the government rolled out a series of measures to curb the domestic housing market amid concerns over asset bubbles.

  In early May, the People’s Bank of China raised the reserve requirement ratio for major banks by half a percentage point. Property stocks were expected to face further decline. Following Beijing and Shenzhen, the Shanghai municipal government released regulations for the property sector to curb housing speculation and soaring prices.

  Some observers worried that tightening policies may deter property developers from starting new projects and purchasing land, thereby cutting the supply and pushing up prices next year. And yet, despite these measures, housing prices rose 12.8 percent in April from a year earlier. At the same time, China’s urban fixed-asset investment increased by 26.1 percent year-on-year to $684.63 billion. The growth rate was 4.4 percentage points lower from the same period of 2009.

  As public concern over “skyrocketing housing prices” continued to simmer, the real estate tycoon Ren Zhiqiang was hit by a shoe at a forum in Dalian. The attacker was fuming over soaring housing prices.

  Last month, home prices in 70 Chinese cities rose by 12.4 percent year-on-year. The growth rate was 0.4 percentage points lower than in April, as property sales in first-tier cities (including Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen) contracted following the string of government measures. New home prices rose 15.1 percent year-on-year, down 0.3 percentage points from April.

  
  

  In a bid to curb soaring prices, the government has tightened scrutiny of developers’ financing, curbed loans for third-home purchase, raised minimum mortgage rates and tightened down-payment requirements for second-home purchases.

  By early summer, new home sales in Beijing were down 70 percent. Property transactions in Shanghai slumped around 70 percent and in Shenzhen by 62 percent month-on-month in May.

  Why have prices soared so frantically and what could be done about it?

  Toward new developments and new business models
  In the West, the great urban centers – from Paris to New York City and Tokyo – evolved into great metropolises in a century or two. In China, the first-tier cities – such as Shenzhen, Beijing, and Shanghai – are morphing into global cities in barely decades.

  Understandably, the residents of the first-tier cities would like to own an apartment in their home city. However, these cities also attract the wealthy across China, prosperous investors in East Asia and multinational property companies worldwide.

  Additionally, the high price-to-rent ratios have been driven by speculation, the desire for long-term investment, and few investment instruments.

  Even buyers contribute to soaring prices. To facilitate the marriage of their son or daughter, parents are often willing to devote their savings to real estate. As the young couple and their parents put income and savings into a purchase of a single apartment, excessive prices are driven even higher.

  In addition to great demand, the soaring prices reflect supply dilemmas. Currently, residential real estate development is geared to high-end and high-margin properties, which ensure a significant cash flow for cities. In the leading cities, the direct and indirect GDP contribution by real estate can amount to some 25-35 percent of the GDP; in other cities, this contribution is relatively higher. Ironically, luxury developments support local incomes, which maintain economic growth nationwide.

  As long as high-end real estate offers high margins where affordable housing does not, regional governments, which possess the land rights, have an incentive to prioritize luxury projects.

  The government seeks to sustain real estate market development and thus to support growth critical for China’s economy. It also seeks to ensure affordable housing vital to Chinese people. As debt problems are escalating in the West, reconciling these goals – economic growth and affordable housing – poses a difficult challenge.

  

  A shift towards affordable mass-market – reportedly only 10 percent of total residential sales – is critical. In the current business model, high margins come from a very narrow high-end segment of the market. This made sense in the early days of Chinese real estate when only few wealthy people could afford a home.

  Today, far more Chinese are able and willing to acquire a home. A new era requires a new business model, which can be based on the broad middle-class segment of the market.

  Conclusion: China is not Japan déjà vu
  In China’s property markets, some argue that the risks are now so great that a decade of little or no growth, as Japan experienced in the 1990s, can no longer be dismissed. They see parallels with Japan in the late 1980s, when authorities responded to the export slump caused by the revaluation of the yen after the 1985 Plaza Accord. As Tokyo adopted a low interest rate policy to boost an expansion in domestic demand, it also created conditions for a massive economic bubble.

  Yet, contemporary China’s situation is very different. First of all, in China, there remains a large shortage of residential property that meets new living standards.

  In Japan, property price increases were more than 30 percent in the latter half of the 1990s. In China’s prosperous coastal cities, they have been around 12 percent in 2003-2009.

  In Japan, the health of the banks deteriorated rapidly with the asset bubble. In China, the share of non-performing loans declined from almost 20 percent to less than 2 percent in the 2000s.

  In Japan, the asset bubble occurred after the eclipse of the high-growth era. Instead of a potential growth rate of 3-4 percent, China, assuming stability in the international and domestic operating environment, may enjoy relatively high growth for another decade or two. In such circumstances, even rapid price fluctuations in the first-tier cities can be tolerable, even if they are not preferable.

  

  Ultimately the difference between Japan and China is reflected by demand. Japan in the 1980s was already highly urbanized and its city population was plateauing. In China, the situation is very, very different.

  Today, there are some 360 million urban residents in China. In the next three decades, the figure is expected to grow to 970 million. What Beijing is trying to achieve is unique in history – to create urban space to more than 610 million people, within a single generation.

  In such an environment, periods of overheating will occasionally be accompanied by dramatic price increases.

  China, the urbanization rate is about 45 percent, whereas in Japan and other advanced countries it is more than 80 percent. As these nations reflect very different levels of economic development and different levels of individual prosperity, their real estate markets are different as well.

  Despite its rapid pace of expansion, China’s real estate is still at a very preliminary stage. The marketplace is so colossal that there are no precedents, no simple models.

  Yet the prospects for a robust growth remain intact. The key will be not to allow that growth to become threatened by a property bubble – while providing affordable housing for the rapidly-expanding new middle-class.

  Dr. Dan Steinbock is Research Director of International Business at India, China and America Institute (USA) and Senior Fellow at Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China). The brief is part of the author’s ongoing project on emerging megapolises worldwide. A highly abbreviated version of the brief has been published by China Daily, China’s leading English-language daily in May.

  Photos and Illustrations: Dan Steinbock and China’s National Bureau of Statistics

  June 21, 2010

• Stimulus, Spending and Animal Spirits: How to Grow the Economy

  The most fanatical Keynesians are losing their composure. Brad DeLong, a prominent Berkeley economist and Keynesian, is virtually yelling that “We Need Bigger Deficits Now!”, emphasis his. Paul Krugman does DeLong one better, calling proponents of fiscal responsibility madmen.

  They are following the gospel of John Maynard Keynes, who famously advocated government deficits to pay people to dig holes, increasing demand and therefore economic activity. This is, to be polite, bunk.

  It is worse than that actually. The logic implies that any government expenditure funded by debt will result in sustained economic growth. The result has been a stimulus plan that completely lacks coherence. Instead, we have a hodgepodge of spending initiatives that provide a temporary illusion of growth, but that will leave us with little that is long-term, except for huge hangover of debt which will be a drag on economic activity for years.

  Keynesian stimulus theory comes about because of what is called a liquidity trap, a situation where the interest rate is zero, because no one wants to invest. The logic is that you can spend your way out of a liquidity trap; that by spending, government can increase sales. Eventually the increased sales will cause businesses to invest, driving interest rates up.

  It is an article of faith among Keynesian economists that if the stimulus is big enough, it will generate sustained long-term growth. Call this the Tinkerbell Principle. You only have to believe in animal spirits to have expectations of a better future.

  Consequently, when the spending doesn’t achieve the desired result, Keynesians always call for more deficit spending, just as we see in the above-linked DeLong and Krugman arguments. And, when that doesn’t work, like a broken record, they will call for more, but there can never be enough.

  There is a case to be made for expectations, but they need to be rational. The recession was similar to a bank run, which can kill a bank, even when there is no initial weakness to generate the run. In this case, we had a run on the world’s financial system. Call it a regime shift from a good equilibrium to a bad equilibrium.

  Can government spending alone bring us back to a good equilibrium? It can if you believe in animal spirits, but I don’t.

  I believe that people are not excessively stupid. Economists call this concept rational expectations, the idea that most people can see obvious consequences most of the time.

  I believe that people spend out of wealth: the value of the assets they hold and the present value of future income. This may not be an easily calculated number, but people keep track of it. It is something like a fielder’s response when a batter hits a ball. This is a complex problem, but fielders respond instantly. The fielders are moving in the correct direction at the correct speed to intercept the ball while the bat is still in motion.

  Finally, I believe that people try to smooth consumption. That is, they like to eat a little every day rather than go without for several days and binge on other days.

  Let’s analyze typical deficit-financed government spending programs using these beliefs. Somebody is going to have to repay the debt someday. It can be the person who receives the money, some other person who is currently working, or some future worker.

  If the person who receives the money is the one who must repay it, she will normally save it. Her wealth has not changed, she knows that she will have to repay the money, and she’s not excessively stupid. She’ll want the money there when she needs it. We saw this with the Bush “tax rebates.” Consumers saved the rebates, and the administration did not see the consumption boost they had anticipated.

  There is another possibility though. She could be what we call ‘liquidity constrained’, holding no cash and unable to borrow. Her wealth is still unchanged, but she wants to smooth consumption — keep it at a relatively steady level — so she may spend some or all of the money. However, this implies that her future spending stream will be reduced. We’re taking from tomorrow’s economy to support spending today. This may be justifiable on humanitarian grounds, but it doesn’t generate sustained long-term economic growth.

  Suppose it is another worker who will repay the government debt. His wealth has just decreased. He’ll spend less, and, also being a consumption smoother, he’ll start spending less right now. Again, there is nothing here to generate sustained long-term economic growth.

  Finally, suppose it is some future worker who will repay the debt. He or she will enter life or the workforce with a debt. I’ll ignore the ethical implications of enabling increased consumption by current citizens by imposing, without consent, debt on future workers; instead, I’ll stick just to the economics.

  Our future worker starts a career, absent some other endowment, with a negative net worth. Over the course of his career he’ll spend and invest less than if he had started with a zero net worth. Again, this is not a prescription for sustained long-term economic growth.

  What we have to face is that by borrowing to consume now, we are taking away from the future. This is just not the way to achieve sustained long-term economic growth.

  So what to do if you are a politician who thinks something must be done?

  The liquidity trap comes about because no one wants to invest. What government should do in response is try to increase demand for investment. This would increase economic activity now and in the future. Increased demand for investment can be created by investing in public capital that makes private capital more productive, and by lowering the cost of borrowing.

  When the government borrows and invests the money in projects that increase private capital’s productivity, it is increasing the return to capital. Increasing returns to private capital increases the demand for private capital and investment. Current and future economic activity is increased.

  We have lots of examples of these types of investments, including canals, dams, highways, public utilities like the Tennessee Valley Authority, and more.

  The other approach to increasing investment is to lower the interest rate. This is difficult to do directly when the interest rate is zero, but the government can achieve the same result another way. An investment tax credit effectively lowers investors’ borrowing costs.

  So, if the government is going to actively stimulate the economy, it would be far better to invest in public capital that improves the returns to private capital. It will also help to provide a meaningful investment tax credit. Consumers could then rationally expect their future income stream, hence their wealth, to improve. With increased wealth their spending will increase, and we will be on our way to sustained long-term economic growth.

  Flickr photo “Búho Real” by sıɐԀ ɹǝıʌɐſ

  Bill Watkins is a professor at California Lutheran University and runs the Center for Economic Research and Forecasting, which can be found at clucerf.org.

  June 19, 2010

• The Downside of Brit-Bashing

  Obama may be spanking BP’s brass today. But the other crisis—Europe’s economic mess—reminds us why it’s important that the U.S. and U.K. stick together.

  The controversy over the BP spill threatens to drive US-UK relations to a historic low point. When recently in London, several people worried that the President may be engaging in “Brit-bashing” at the expense of our historically close ties. This theme has been widely picked up in the UK press.

  “It’s the gushing geyser of Obama’s anti-British rhetoric,” screams Melanie Phillips this week in the Daily Mail,” that now urgently needs to be capped.” Indeed, however much President Obama wants to beat up the Tony Hayward, who certainly deserves to be both tarred and feathered, he might want to consider how “Brit-bashing” may not be in our long-term interest. This is particularly true at a time hat the world’s other big crisis—the collapse of the euro—offers a unique opportunity to shore up our now beleaguered “special relationship.”

  The British Empire may be little more than a historical relic, but the current euro crash could make those old ties between mother country and her scattered former colonies, including America, more alluring. After a decade marked by sputtering movement towards greater integration with Europe, the United Kingdom, particularly its beating heart—London—might be ready to drift away from the continent and back towards America and Canada and the rest of the world beyond.

  This process will be accentuated by the fact that while Europe’s population and economy, particularly on its southern and eastern tiers, seems set to decline even further, the future of North America—largely due to mass immigration and its large resource base—continues to appeal to British investors and companies. In addition, the rise of other parts of the world, notably Russia, India and China, suggests that Britain’s future, like that of North America, rests increasingly outside of Europe.

  Social forces in Britain today will accentuate these trends. In London today you do hear many European languages, but the big money you see around posh places in Mayfair more often speaks not Italian or French, or even German, but Hindi, Arabic , Russian and, increasingly, Chinese. London today is not so much a British city as a global one, with a percentage of foreign-born residents—roughly one-third—equivalent to that of such prominent American multi-racial capitals as New York or Los Angeles.

  Just take a look at the over 200,000 people who became UK citizens last year, up from barely 50,000 annually a decade earlier. The EU accounted for barely three percent of the total; all of Europe, including the former Soviet bloc, represented eight percent. In contrast the biggest source of new subjects was from the Indian subcontinent—roughly 30%—and Africa, which provided another 27 percent.

  This ethnic transformation—much like the one taking place and widely celebrated by Obamanians in the United States—helps tie Britain, despite its proximity to the continent, more to the rest of the world. The UK may not be ready for its own version of Barack Obama, but a post-European future seems increasingly likely through ties of both blood and money. To be sure, in the coming year the level of immigration may decline under the Tories, whose party competes for voters with nativist groups. But economics—and the disastrous state of the Euro—may prove an even larger factor in the country’s transformation.

  Already there is growing concern that the sovereign debt issues of places like Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal—the so-called swilling PIGS—could force Britain, with its already weak economy, to raise interest rates and cut its budgets more than might be advisable. Last month London’s FTSE 100 has lost fifteen percent of its value as a result of the euro crisis, a steep fall made only marginally tolerable by the even worse results on the continent. Future euro-moves could prove even more threatening. Wide ranging attacks on financial speculation, so popular in an increasingly hegemonic Germany, are like a gun aimed at Britain’s economic core. After all, the UK’s exports are built not around cars, steel or fashions but its role as the world’s banker, consultant and business media center. “The euro zone,” complains one columnist in the right-leading Daily Telegraph, “may be leading us into a double-dip recession.”

  But declining euro-enthusiasm is not limited to those considered conservative “nutters” by Britain’s continentally-minded sophisticates. You don’t have to be an unreconstructed Thatcherite to resist tying the country to the future feeding of widely irresponsible “Club Med” countries or kowtowing to Berlin. Rather than the Germans and their PIGS, Britain may be better off linking with both the BRIC countries—Brazil, Italy, India and China—as well as a rebounding North America.

  As the ultimate capitalist entrepot, Britain’s trump lies in being hugely attractive to Americans. In this respect, beating up BP, however justified, may also be squandering an opportunity to solidify a relationship that is needed on so many fronts from battling Islamic extremism—the Brits and the Canadians are our only strong reliable allies—to preventing German-style controls over the global entrepreneurial economy.

  Herein lies our opportunity. Although not “anti-European,” Britons tend to be “deeply skeptical about the institutions of the European Union,” notes Steve Norris, a former MP, onetime chairman of the ruling Conservative party and two times that party’s candidate for Mayor of London. As he puts it: “The British do not want a federal Europe in which significant powers pass from sovereign parliaments to Brussels.”

  Although Labour also resisted rapid integration into Europe, the current government under the new Prime Minister David Cameron, Norris notes, has made it clear that it is even more resistant to this trend. This may prove an embarrassment to Cameron’s historically Europhile deputy prime minister, the Liberal Independent’s Nick Clegg, but the movement away from Europe seems increasingly inevitable.

  For one thing, the future of the euro may depend on expanding Brussels’ control of member nation’s budgets, something few British MPs of any party are likely to embrace. Attempts by France and Germany to expand the power of Brussels to save the Euro are likely to chase away even the most devoted Europhiles in Britain.

  All this is good news for a strengthened US-UK alliance—something that should not be threatened by excessive “Brit bashing.” For all its many shortcomings, Great Britain remains one of the globe’s great outposts of both civilization and dynamic market capitalism. Its economic power may be a shadow of what it once was, but its cultural, political and role as a transactional center keep the place globally relevant.

  A Britain both more Atlanticist and global also can play a more positive role by adding its weight to ours in slowing a shift to protectionism, battling terrorism and in resisting the now ballyhooed trend towards state-based capitalism. And that would bode well for Britain itself, allowing the country to play to fundamental strengths that derive from its unique historical legacy.

  This article originally appeared in The Daily Beast.

  Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in Febuary, 2010.

  Photo by Public Citizen

  June 16, 2010

• L.A.’s Economy Is Not Dead Yet

  “This is the city,” ran the famous introduction to the popular crime drama Dragnet. “Los Angeles, Calif. I work here.” Of course, unlike Det. Sgt. Joe Friday, who spoke those words every episode, I am not a cop, but Los Angeles has been my home for over 35 years.

  To Sgt. Friday, L.A. was a place full of opportunities to solve crimes, but for me Los Angeles has been an ideal barometer for the city of the future. For the better part of the last century, Los Angeles has been, as one architect once put it, “the original in the Xerox machine.” It largely invented the blueprint of the modern American city: the car-oriented suburban way of life, the multi-polar metropolis around a largely unremarkable downtown, the sprawling jumble of ethnic and cultural enclaves of a Latin- and Asian-flavored mestizo society.

  Yet right now even the most passionate Angeleno struggles to feel optimistic. A once powerful business culture is sputtering. The recent announcement of Northrop Corp.’s departure to suburban Washington was just the latest blow to the region’s aerospace industry, long our technological crown jewel. The area now has one-fourth as many Fortune 500 companies as Houston, and fewer than much-smaller Minneapolis or Charlotte, N.C.

  Other traditional linchpins are unraveling. The once thriving garment industry continues to shift jobs overseas and has lost much of its downtown base to real estate speculators. The port, perhaps the region’s largest economic engine, has been mismanaged and now faces severe threats from competitors from the Pacific Northwest, Baja, Calif., and Houston. Although television and advertising shoots remain strong, the core motion picture shooting has been declining for years, with production being dispersed to such locations as Toronto, Louisiana, New Mexico, Michigan, New York and various locales overseas.

  Once a reliable generator of new employment, over the past decade L.A. has fared worse than any of the major Sun Belt metros–including hard-hit Phoenix–losing over 167,000 jobs between 2000 and 2009. Historic rival New York notched modest gains, while the rising big metro competitors, Dallas and Houston, enjoyed strong and steady growth. L.A. may not be Detroit, and probably never will be, but its once proud and highly diversified industrial base is eroding rapidly, losing one-fifth of all its employment since 2004. In contrast to the rest of the country, unemployment still continues to rise.

  To give you an idea how much L.A. has sunk, look to this year’s Forbes best city rankings, which measures both short- and mid-term job growth. Once perched in the upper tier of major cities, Los Angeles now ranks a pathetic 59th out of 66 large metro areas, far below not only third-place Houston and fourth-place Dallas but also New York and even similar job-losing giants like San Francisco and Philadelphia.

  It takes a kind of talent to sink this low given L.A.’s vast advantages: the best weather of any major global city, the largest port on this side of the Pacific, not to mention the glamour of Hollywood, the Lakers and one of the world’s largest and most diverse populations of creative, entrepreneurial people.

  Jose de Jesus Legaspi, a prominent local developer, pins much of the blame for this on what he describes as “a parochial political kingdom”–with Antonio Villaraigosa, mayor since 2005, wearing the tinsel crown. A sometimes charming pol utterly bereft of economic acumen, Villaraigosa is a poor manager who is also highly skilled at self-promotion. His idea of building an economy revolves around subsidizing downtown developers and pouring ever more funds into the pockets of public sector workers. No surprise then that L.A. suffers just about the highest unemployment rate of any of the nation’s 10 largest cities outside Detroit. One in five county residents receive some form of public aid.

  But the real power in L.A. today is not so much Villaraigosa but what the Los Angeles Weekly describes as a “labor-Latino political machine,” whose influence extends all the way to Sacramento. These politicians represent, to a large extent, virtual extensions of the unions, particularly the public employees.

  The rise of the Latino-labor coalition does stir some pride among Hispanics, but it has proved an economic disaster for almost everyone who doesn’t collect a government paycheck–L.A.’s city council is the nation’s highest paid–or subsidy. Although perhaps not as outrageously corrupt as the Chicago machine, it is also not as effective. L.A.’s version manages to be both thuggish and incompetent.

  According to an analysis by former Mayor Richard Riordan, the city’s soaring pension liabilities will grow by an additional $2.5 billion by 2014, by which date the city will probably be forced to declare bankruptcy.

  So is the city of the future doomed for the long term? Not necessarily. Although Latino politicians and “progressive” allies strive to derail entrepreneurialism, our grassroots remains stubbornly entrepreneurial. This is particularly true of Latino and other immigrant businesspeople in Los Angeles. In 2006, for example, roughly 10% of the foreign born population was self-employed, almost twice the percentage of the native born.

  To be sure, much of this activity takes place in smaller area municipalities–Burbank, Glendale, Lynwood, Monterey Park–that are mercifully outside the reach of the City of Los Angeles, which accounts for somewhat less than half of L.A. County’s 10 million people. But as Legaspi, who came to L.A. from Zacatecas, Mexico, in 1965, points out, ethnic enterprises–Armenian, Iranian, Israeli, Korean, Chinese as well as Mexican and Salvadoran–continue to thrive even within the city limits. You rarely find in L.A. the kind of desolation found in dying cities like Detroit or Cleveland or even large swaths of New York or Chicago.

  All this suggests there’s still hope for Los Angeles to blossom further as a hub for international trade, global culture and fashion. But to achieve that goal the city needs a government that will nurture its grassroots rather than stomp or extort them. “Los Angeles is a potential great world city, but it needs to be ruled like a world city,” Legaspi points out. Until that happens, our putative city of the future will exist more as dreamscape than reality.

  This article originally appeared in Forbes.com.

  Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in Febuary, 2010.

  Photo by k.landerholm

  June 15, 2010

• An Awakening: The Beginning of the Great Deconstruction

  The federal debt climbed above $13 trillion this month. An easier way to define the national debt is to comprehend that we each owe more than $39,000 to the Chinese, Japanese, and Arabs of the Persian Gulf. The budget deficit will exceed $1.5 trillion this year and forty-seven states are running deficits. California has a $19 billion deficit and its legislature’s landmark response was to pass a law banning plastic bags. Our cities are in worse shape. The former mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan, says that a bankruptcy by that city is inevitable. At the same time, the United States’ Congress voted themselves a 5.8% pay increase. It is no wonder why Americans are nervous.

  Americans are stressed out because of debt, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll. They are trimming their debt at the fastest rate in more than six decades, according to the Federal Reserve. The average amount owed on credit cards is $3,900, the poll said. That’s down from $5,600 last fall and $4,900 last spring. Household debt fell 1.7 percent last year to $13.5 trillion, according to the Fed. It was the first annual drop, based on records going back to 1945. As Americans get their own house in order, the approval rating for Congress has fallen to an all time low. The public will likely make them pay for their angst in November.

  The American people are about a year ahead of the politicians. The spending by Washington, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and by politicians in general, is unsustainable. The people understand that it must be changed. As Senator Tom Coburn (OK) told me last week, either we change our ways or they will be changed for us. Leaders like Senator Coburn will begin The Great Deconstruction. The nation can no longer afford the government it has created.

  

  The Department of Energy was created by President Carter in 1977 after an OPEC embargo caused gas lines and rationing. In 1977, America imported 33% of its oil. The DoE’s goal was to eliminate our dependence on imported oil. The DoE budget for 2010 was $26.4 billion. It employs 116,000 workers. We now import 66% of our oil. America can no longer afford such an inefficient bureaucracy. Bureaucracies like the DoE that have lost sight of their purpose must be deconstructed.

  Senator Coburn is preparing legislation to rescind $120 billion in 2010 spending by rescinding 2010 budget increases, consolidating 640 duplicative governmental agencies, returning unspent appropriations and cutting wasteful spending. A few examples:

  • Congress has a discretionary budget of $4.7 billion per year. They voted themselves a 6% increase in 2010. Coburn wants this increase rescinded for a saving of $250 million.
  • The Department of Education spends $64.2 billion per year. They spend $1 billion each year administering 207 separate programs at 13 different federal agencies to “encourage” students to take math and science.
  • The Department of Agriculture owns 57,523 buildings. More than 4,700, valued at $900 million, are vacant. Despite this vacant space they spend $193 million per year renting an additional 11 million square feet.

Our politicians have perfected the art of spending money, or as we now know, wasting money. Last year, they loaded spending bills with $11 billion of earmarks – after spending $860 billion on a Stimulus Bill. A new breed of politician, like Senator Coburn, will begin the long process of deconstruction.

There is precedent for deconstruction. In 1945, federal spending ballooned to $106 billion, $93 billion of which was for defense. The deficit jumped from $40 billion in 1938 to $253 billion in 1945. A Democrat President and a Republican Congress established the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government in 1947. President Truman put a former Republican President, Herbert Hoover, in charge. It became known as the Hoover Commission. It created the structure of government that exists today and generated savings of $7 billion at the time. A total of 273 recommendations were presented to Congress in a series of nineteen separate reports. A 1955 study concluded that 116 of the 273 recommendations were fully implemented and that another 80 were mostly or partly implemented. By 1949, the federal budget had fallen to $40 billion.

It will come to be known as The Great Deconstruction because it must occur at every level of government. Federal spending is unsustainable. Moody’s is already speculating that we may lose our AAA rating. The states are in crisis with 46 in deficit. The press is referring the California as a “failed state” and “our Greece”. The $860 billion Stimulus Bill sent approximately 30% to the states to support their public employees. But it was a one-year fix. This year, the states are burning through their reserves and next year, they will be forced to cut services, raise taxes, or both. Connecticut, the wealthiest state on a per capita basis with personal income of $54,397 in 2009 (Department of Commerce) saw its Fitch rating lowered from AA+ to AA. Connecticut needs to borrow $956 million to close a budget gap this fiscal year and it borrowed $947.6 millionto cover last year’s deficit.

The cities are no better off with many states raiding their reserves. Many cities are exploring municipal bankruptcy, Chapter 9, as a way out of unsustainable contracts. The Great Deconstruction will take a decade or more. Like the Hoover Commission before it, this process will transform the role of government, and the image of government as it transforms the cost of the people’s business.

***************************************************

The Great Deconstruction is a series written exclusively for New Geography. Future articles will address the impact of The Great Deconstruction at the national, state, county and local levels.

Robert J. Cristiano PhD is the Real Estate Professional in Residence at Chapman University in Orange County, CA and Director of Special Projects at the Hoag Center for Real Estate & Finance. He has been a successful real estate developer in Newport Beach California for twenty-nine years.

Other works in The Great Deconstruction series for New Geography
The Great Deconstruction :An American History Post 2010 – June 1, 2010
The Great Deconstruction – First in a New Series – April 11, 2010
Deconstruction: The Fate of America? – March 2010