« September 27, 2009 - October 3, 2009 | Home | October 11, 2009 - October 17, 2009 »

Week of October 4, 2009 - October 10, 2009

New Reserve Currency


Ickyma posted about the decline of the dollar yesterday, and today comes a report that a UN official has also suggested a new reserve currency:

UN calls for new reserve currency

Speaking at the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Istanbul, UN undersecretary-general for economic and social affairs, Sha Zukang, said:

"Important progress in managing imbalances can be made by reducing the reserve currency country's 'privilege' to run external deficits in order to provide international liquidity," ... "It is timely to emphasise that such a system also creates a more equitable method of sharing the seigniorage derived from providing global liquidity."

But Luis Souza says talk of "Secret Discussions" is bunk:

A Change Coming to the World Monetary System?

There's nothing secret about the Khaleeji or about the currency swap agreements China is making with its closest trade partners. Even if the news really originated from Chinese officials, it should be taken more as pressure on the US than anything else. The only reason for these nations to work on their own is in case the US is unwilling to cooperate, which doesn't make much sense. Cooperating with the lender nations is the best way to avoid the dollar's collapse. The lender nations will possibly first de-peg their currencies from the dollar and peg them to the SDR (the IMF's Special Drawing Rights). This still leaves a lot of control for the US, given that the dollar still makes up more than 40% of the SDR. Afterwards the lender nations could slowly enter the SDR with small weights and then expand from there (the Khaleeji, the Real, the Ruble and the Yuan should be the first to enter the SDR).

Souza continues to what he sees as the deeper problem:

Going back to the SDR, kicking the problem upstairs can indeed deal with the dollar's expiration as world reserve currency. A new reserve currency system seems to be well on its way to development, similar in approach to the old Ecu. Such a development might make way for an orderly shift away from the dollar.

But as I wrote last time on this issue, there's more to this problem than simply finding a new reserve currency system. What Rickards seems not yet to be aware of is that the problems the US is facing today may soon become common to all other international players, even those adopting the SDR as reserve currency. What if there's no more growth, in physical terms?

If the flows of energy and matter to the economy fail to grow during an extended period of time, Central Banks will be caught between a rock and a hard place; they can either continue with present expansionist policies and be left powerless to the degradation of their currencies (and rise of precious metals) or they can limit the abstract currency supply and treat it essentially as a commodity currency. Whatever the option, in the long run, Central Banks will be dealing with limited supply currencies.

In the case of gold, Central Banks still have some options, like opening the Mints and mobilizing the dozens of tons of monetary jewelry worldwide into the bullion pool, thus effectively expanding supply (and even increasing velocity). But for the other precious metals this is not an option. Silver, for instance, may become a serious problem. Industrial usage depleted the world stock to the point that in weight terms, it is now down to less than a sixth of the world gold stock[1]; compounding that is the traditional lack of silver reserves at Central Banks. Silver is easy to falsify, having a density similar to that of lead, but in small bullion pieces it is still safe. With newer precious metals such as palladium or platinum the situation is similar. Platinum especially is even denser than gold and also impossible to falsify in practical terms.

The End of Growth may bring to an end a monetary system that existed during a brief period of time from a historical perspective--officially during the last four decades--in practice since WWII. It was fed by growth and in its turn fed growth itself, in a feedback loop that brought about the world of today--a world that tomorrow will be the past.

Fracking and Flammable Water


LIFE IN THE RED ZONE: Flammable Water in Fort Lupton, Colorado.

from Water Under Attack

No lie - the water from this guy's spigot catches fire. He said the same happens to his neighbor to the North. Local news found a lot of neighbors with the same problem.

"It's right in the middle of the crops that feed our country."

"What blows my mind is The Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. I thought they were there to work for the people. They're not there to work for the people. They are there to work and help the oil and gas companies. And I asked him who's there for the people? And he told me, 'Nobody. Call an attorney.' That's what they told me."

Her mother passed away, so Amy Goodman wasn't broadcasting today, but Democracy Now offered a pertinent discussion on Natural Gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale:

Environmental Battle Brews in New York over Natural Gas Drilling

Albert Appleton, Former commissioner of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection and former director of the New York City Water and Sewer System, warns that it only takes a small percentage of failures to contaminate water for drinking and nature. He suggests that NYC's vaunted clean water is at risk.

Living in the City


Morning in the city. The car alarm that was beeping ten minutes ago is back on.

Around 4 AM last night, in the street below my bedroom windows, some woman started yelling and cursing at someone else down there. I heard some people in my building yelling at her to STFU, and then her yelling back. Eventually I dozed off again. I live in Federal Hill, among numerous bars, restaurants and a parking garage. I prefer natural ventilation and have adapted to sleeping through a background noise of patrons arguing or reveling as they make their way to their cars or townhouses. My wife hasn't.

After three years of walking five quick blocks to the office, I'm moving nine miles away so I can swim in the mornings. I'll be biking and riding the light rail to work. I've been throwing things out as we prepare to move, but I remembered this morning that no one had set the trash bins out for collection last Wednesday, so they are already overflowing. We supposedly have a trash schedule, but the building's owners moved out two years ago, essentially leaving no one in charge. No one bothers to lock the bins, so passers-by stuff beer cans, pizza boxes, dog waste, whatever, in our bins. The city won't collect loose trash, so the bins just fill up with more and more loose, foul-smelling trash. Yes, I see rats at night.

Despite the problems, I've enjoyed living in such a walkable part of the city (WalkScore = 92). I like waking up later, not having a stressful commute and walking home for lunch. I like walking to everything, not having a car, not worrying about moving between parking spaces. My wife, OTOH, doesn't feel safe here, would rather drive than walk and feels trapped in the apartment. When I read New Urbanists arguing for denser cities, I am sympathetic, but I am aware of the practical complaints suburban-raised Americans will have with city life.

In his latest book, The Architecture of Community, Léon Krier argues for traditional walkable cities. He sees modern architecture as destructive of urban fabric. I've heard a local architect express the theory that a few buildings should be, "heroes" while most others should be, "good soldiers." Can modernist buildings be good soldiers?

Modern Problems

(Krier) begins with a rather provocative thought experiment:

"If, one day, for some mysterious reason, all the buildings, settlements, suburbs, and structures built after 1945--especially those commonly called 'modern'--vanished from the face of the earth, would we mourn their loss?"

"What if, instead, all of the pre-modern buildings--the ones we consider historic--disappeared? Would we weep more for them?"

... Krier contends that modernism, whatever its virtues in small scale, has been nothing but a disaster in larger scales--a force that has managed to sterilize cities aesthetically, ruin years of expertise in building trades, and lead planners and developers to compose cities in unsustainable ways.

...

Modern architecture and contemporary urban planning have grown up at a time of copious energy supplies, particularly in fossil energy. That energy supply is anomalous in history and quite possibly running out soon. So shouldn't we make cities that are more traditional in shape and size, which have survived centuries?

...

Whatever Krier's taste in building styles, his point about the structure and sustainability of cities is unassailable. Too many cities grow like cancers, spreading without planning, with various functional zones--residential, commercial, recreational--isolated from one another. Communities should be mixed from the start, growing by duplication, with the 10-minute walk being the measure of proper scale. (Forward-thinking cities like Portland have tried to plan around the 20-minute walk or bike ride.)

For now, Krier laments, we are wrapped up in celebrating green efforts only in high-profile individual buildings. "Sustainable development or city is a powerful myth with little reality," he writes, adding that the notion of sustainable planning exists only as hypothesis. "For the time being, the abuse of the term 'sustainable' erodes its social and political persuasiveness and postpones the advent of eventual solutions."

Witold Rybczynski also believes the sustainability movement has gone awry. He expresses what I noticed about the 2007 Solar Decathlon. All the examples were essentially rural or suburban houses.

The Green Case for Cities

Putting solar panels on the roofs doesn't change the essential fact that by any sensible measure, spread-out, low-rise buildings, with more foundations, walls, and roofs, have a larger carbon footprint than a high-rise office tower--even when the high-rise has no green features at all.

The problem in the sustainability campaign is that a basic truth has been lost, or at least concealed. Rather than trying to change behavior to actually reduce carbon emissions, politicians and entrepreneurs have sold greening to the public as a kind of accessorizing. Keep doing what you're doing, goes the message. Just add a solar panel, a wind turbine, a hybrid engine, whatever. But a solar-heated house in the burbs is still a house in the burbs, and if you have to drive to it, even in a Prius, it's hardly green.

Architectural journals and the Sunday supplements tout newfangled houses tricked out with rainwater-collection systems, solar arrays, and bamboo flooring. Yet any detached single-family house has more external walls and roof--and hence more heating loads in winter and cooling loads in summer--than a comparable attached townhouse, and each consumes more energy than an apartment in a multifamily building. Again, it doesn't really matter how many green features are present. A reasonably well-built and well-insulated multifamily building is inherently more sustainable than a detached house. Similarly, an old building on an urban site, adapted and reused, is greener than any new building on a newly developed site.

A Thoreau-like existence in the great outdoors isn't green. Density is green. Does this mean that we all have to live in Manhattan? Not necessarily. Cities such as Stockholm and Copenhagen are dense without being vertical. And closer to home is Montreal, where the predominant housing form is a three- or four-story walk-up. Walk-ups, which don't require elevators, can create a sufficient density--about 50 people per acre--to support public transit, walkability, and other urban amenities. Increasing an area's density requires changing zoning to allow smaller lots and compact buildings such as walk-ups and townhouses.

But one man's ceiling is another man's floor. There goes another car alarm.

« September 27, 2009 - October 3, 2009 | Home | October 11, 2009 - October 17, 2009 »
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address