text:
Riaz Haq writes this data-driven blog to provide information, express his opinions and make comments on many topics. Subjects include personal activities, education, South Asia, South Asian community, regional and international affairs and US politics to financial markets. For investors interested in South Asia, Riaz has another blog called South Asia Investor at http://www.southasiainvestor.com and a YouTube video channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkrIDyFbC9N9evXYb9cA_gQ
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Shale Revolution Poses Threat to Saudi Economy, Power and Influence?
US EIA report on vast shale oil and gas reserves (over a trillion barrels) in many countries, including Pakistan (9.1 billion barrels of oil and 105 trillion cubic feet of gas), has prompted a warning to Saudi government from Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal. While the Prince's warning is about economic impact, I see much broader long term implications of it for the US-Saudi alliance and the power and influence of the Saudi royalty in much of the region and the rest of the world.
The top ten countries together have 345 billion barrels of shale oil reserves These include Russia (75 billion barrels), United States (58 billion barrels), China (32 billion barrels), Argentina (27 billion barrels), Libya (26 billion barrels), Venezuela (13 billion barrels), Mexico (13 billion barrels), Pakistan (9.1 billion barrels), Canada (8.8 billion barrels) and Indonesia (7.9 billion barrels). Notable on this list are US and China, the top 2 consumers of oil in the world, both having vast shale oil reserves of their own.
In an open letter to Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi and other Saudi ministers, published on Sunday via his Twitter account, Prince Alwaleed said demand for oil from OPEC member states was "in continuous decline". He said Saudi Arabia's heavy dependence on oil was "a truth that has really become a source of worry for many", and that the world's biggest crude oil exporter should implement "swift measures" to diversify its economy, according to news media reports.
Shortly after the Prince issued his warning, a report from OPEC published this week showed the group's oil export revenue hit a record high of $1.26 trillion in 2012. However, forecasts from the group raise doubts over whether that level of earnings can be sustained in the face of competition from shale oil. Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter, is now pumping at less than its production capacity because of declining consumer demand, Prince Alwaleed said in the letter.
Saudi dependence on oil stems from the fact that nearly 92% of the Saudi government budget this year comes from oil , according to Wall Street Journal. The growing shale oil production in the United States means Saudi Arabia will not be able to raise its production volume to 15 million barrels of oil per day, Prince Alwaleed said. Current capacity is about 12.5 million bpd; a few years ago the country planned to increase capacity to 15 million bpd, but then put the plan on hold after the global financial crisis in 2008.
Oil-rich Gulf nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Iran have used their petrodollars to influence events in the Middle East and West Asia. They have funded their favorite sectarian groups to fight bloody proxy conflicts in Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan and Syria. Saudis have bankrolled radical Sunni groups in Pakistan while Iran has financially backed Shia Hezbollah in Lebanon and other radical Shia groups in Iraq and Pakistan. Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UAE have supported pro-West elements to roll back democracy in Egypt.
Even if Saudis do heed Prince Alwaleed's warning and succeed in diversifying their economy, it is highly unlikely that the desert Kingdom would be able sustain its current power and influence over the long haul. This is going to be bad news for the rulers who will respond with violence to resist change. But it is potentially good news for the Saudi people and the Arab and Muslim world at large. It'll open up opportunities for reforms leading to positive changes in the Middle East and the surrounding region.
Related Links:
Haq's Musings
Pakistan's Vast Shale Oil and Gas Reserves
Saudi vs Turkish Influence in Pakistan
Shale Gas in Pakistan
Power Shift After Industrial Revolution
Pakistan Needs Shale Gas Revolution
Will Saudi Society Change Peacefully?
Pakistan Starts Tight Gas Production
25 comments:
So why would we be worried about Saudi economics? Let them worry about it. We have enough to worry about at home already.
- July 30, 2013 at 5:06 PM
- Riaz Haq said...
Argus: "So why would we be worried about Saudi economics? Let them worry about it. We have enough to worry about at home already."
Because what happens in Saudi Arabia affects Pakistan. As Adel al Jubeir, a senior aide to Saudi King, reportedly put it: "We in Saudi Arabia are not observers in Pakistan, we are participants."
- July 30, 2013 at 5:11 PM
The USA is expected to produce more oil than the KSA by 2020!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shale Gas has changed the energy landscape in the USA. Europe is also trying to follow suit but they are far behind at this point in time. Really bad news for the oil producing Middle Eastern countries.
Don't think they are capable of coping with the crises. Not all of them can try to survive by becoming tourist places like Dubai.
Happens when you don't do forward planning and expect Aayaashi to continue forever.
- July 30, 2013 at 8:24 PM
As you sow so shall you reap.
KSA and Qatar are the main funders of the world terrorism.
Qatar seeks to create problems for syria and iran to continue its gas supply to europe. This evil is supported by the USA, who are ready to anything in return for petrodollars.
Similarly KSA wants to curb iran and syria to continue crude oil supply to europe. Again support by the USA
The axis of evil is the KSA, qatar and USA link. The iran syria pipeline projects would burst this evil axis.
The world will be a much safer place once these countries lose economic power.
Non aligned countries like Iran have to show the way. The USA is the most selfish and self serving regime in the world by creating an impression that US is always right.
The biggest misfortune is that eastern philosopy and culture is being seen as less modern and the people of Asia are embracing western ideas and views at face value.
For eg. Love marriage, Exposive clothing are seen as modern and forward without thinking about pros and cons.
Instead we fight with each other based on religion and trying to convert by force.
We want another jesus, buddha and muhammad to make these fools understand that "united we stand, divided we fall" and "love is the biggest service to god" not hating other religions and people.
- July 30, 2013 at 10:22 PM
ok some clarification oil shale and shale oil are two different things.
Oil shale which the US has 3 trillion barrels worth of contains kerogen which can be processed into oil.
Shale oil is normal crude oil found in previously uneconomic shale formations.
In any case as an Exxon CEO famously quipped man did not leave the stone age because we ran out of stone!
Similarly we will find an oil solution well before there is this neo malthusian peak oil moment!
I am sure of this LENR,solar,grid storage,nuclear fusion...the kind of investments and the kinds of results people are getting give me hope for the very near future.
The absolute tragedy of the muslim world is the relatively less civilized countries of the GCC have the oil and influence to impose their primitive ways while the relatively civilized countries Turkey,Egypt,Lebanon etc have no or little oil!
This hopefully will be recified shortly!
- July 31, 2013 at 3:09 AM
Hopefully it will curb Wahabis' killing of Shias and funding of Muslim-Muslim wars such as in Syria.
- July 31, 2013 at 10:11 AM
- Riaz Haq said...
Shams: "Hopefully it will curb Wahabis' killing of Shias and funding of Muslim-Muslim wars such as in Syria."
I agree, and also hope that it'll also reduce Iran's funding of Shia radicals who wage wars against Sunnis for control of Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, and proxy sectarian wars in other parts of the Muslim world.
- July 31, 2013 at 10:16 AM
Iran is not Arab. It is a highly sophisticated society with advanced technology at par with Israel. It builds its own civil structures, its own missiles, rockets, rocket engines, satellites, ships, submarines, airplanes, fighter jets, motor cars and nuclear centrifuges. Also, there is not an iota of evidence that Shias ever attacked Sunnis, and if ever anything is done, it is some degree of retaliation in extreme cases of brutality against Shias. It even donated a gas pipeline to highly Talibanistic Pakistan, and it is helping highly Al-Qaeda-istic Afghanistan. So your premises is flawed, as it mostly is.
All shia ayatollahs have barred any action against any Muslim, whatever the sect, or disrespect for Sunni religious heads.
Iran is not going the fate of the Arabs.
- July 31, 2013 at 11:23 AM
- Riaz Haq said...
Shams: "Iran is not Arab. It is a highly sophisticated society with advanced technology at par with Israel...."
Iran is sophisticated?
At par with Israel?
They are not at par even with Pakistanis.
That's your Shia bigot speaking from inside you.
Pakistan gave Iran its centrifuges along with design details in 1980s, and now we are in 2013 and Iran still does not have a nuclear bomb. Experts who have studied it believe Iranian scientists are incompetent, citing the fact that it took UK and Pakistan less than 5 years to build a bomb after they started the effort.
In "Confront & Conceal" by David Sanger, there is a secret assessment of US scientist Gary Samore about the incompetence of Iranian nuclear scientists. Iranians have taken much much longer and still not achieved what the Brits, Indians and Pakistanis did in much shorter time to build nuclear capability.
As to the Ayatollahs, they are brutal as was demonstrated by mass executions of opponents they ordered after the fall of the Shah.
They don't hesitate to kill their fellow Ayatollahs either by issuing fatwas against each other
- July 31, 2013 at 11:24 AM
Wrong, as always. You are an ignorant bigot.
Pakistan was able to complete its program because the US and UK looked the other way, and in fact indirectly helped Pakistan by not intervening. The goal was to contain India while India could contain China. The world's nuclear control regime was weaker, and Pakistan had not signed the NPT. The entire Muslim world, including Iran, supported Pakistan financially and morally.
In Iran's case, it is exactly the opposite. Still, with all the anti-Iran hysteria in the Muslim world against Iran, Iran is where it is.
Going to the original point at discussion, Iran is not likely to fall like Arabic world.
- July 31, 2013 at 1:59 PM
- Riaz Haq said...
Shams: "Pakistan was able to complete its program because the US and UK looked the other way, and in fact indirectly helped Pakistan by not intervening...."
I never defend any Sunni Arab nations like you defend Shia Iran.
Iran had more than ten years in 1990s before the US started to act against it..should have been more than enough to do what Pak did in less than 5 years...especially when Pak gave them detailed design and some centrifuges
So you are the ignorant bigot here
- July 31, 2013 at 2:02 PM
You keep missing the point. In your article you say that unless Saudis "diversify", with shale gas they will be doomed. Iran is also well diversified. It is one of the large steel makers and aluminum smelters. Huge in other industries. Nearly one trillion in GDP (PPP). That is almost the size of Saudi Pakistan, and UAE combined.
Iranian ayatollahs have unanimously voted against a nuclear bomb. Iran got its centrifuges going in 2007, only after the Russians put a nuclear power plant in Iran. I think your facts and your analysis are good only for the fake TV show that you come on.
You should see what Israelis are saying
You have always been against a Pakistani nuke. I have reminded you about 10 times what you said re. it on a British Airways flight when you were returning from Israel/Egypt, and I from the Netherlands.
Pakistan spent from 1975 to 1991 before it had a lab grade bomb. That does not sound like 5 years to me.
I am not pro-Iran as much as I am against your fake assertion of knowledge.
- July 31, 2013 at 2:03 PM
- Riaz Haq said...
Shams: "You keep missing the point. In your article you say that unless Saudis "diversify", with shale gas they will be doomed. Iran is also well diversified. It is one of the large steel makers and aluminum smelters"
Your claim that Iran has diverse economy is false. 80% of Iran's foreign earning come from oil exports.
Here's Ahmadinejad talking about: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/01/20131170271867822.html
The Iranian Ayatollah's fatwa is bogus...it's a strategy to get as far as the "screw-turn" close to a bomb to avoid being attacked by US.
You have a long history of vigorous defense of all things Shia regardless of merit.
You even support butchers like the Asad family of Syria simply because you consider them as Shia.
Your recollection of our BA flight conversation in mid-1990s is either faulty or a deliberate lie.
As to Pakistan, its weapons program only began after the Indian tests in 1974, and Pakistan was a screw-turn away from the bomb in mid-1980s when Aslam Beg under Zia threatened to use it against India when India carried out massive war exercises near Sindh border to intimidate Pakistan.
Your ignorance is only exceeded by your extreme bigotry.
- July 31, 2013 at 2:05 PM
- Hopewins said...
^^RH: "Your claim that Iran has diverse economy is false. 80% of Iran's foreign earning come from oil exports"
"It just shows your misguided yardstick is volume of exports rather than domestic production and consumption of everything from autos to cement to food and beverage."
Here it the famous quote:
Strange, is it not? When I point out that 80% of our foreign earnings come from 'Chadar, Chawal, Chamdi', indicating a narrow & shallow economy, you reply by calling me misguided for confusing between exports and the domestic economy.
And now you are saying that Iran is not diversified because 80% of its foreign earning come from petro-products. Have you considered your own suggestion and reflected on their domestic economy?
Please make up your mind and let us know.
- July 31, 2013 at 7:13 PM
- Riaz Haq said...
HWJ: "And now you are saying that Iran is not diversified because 80% of its foreign earning come from petro-products. Have you considered your own suggestion and reflected on their domestic economy?"
First, I mentioned autos and steel in response to your ridiculous claim that Pakistan has no industry.
Second, Pakistan's exports are more diversified than Iranian exports. Unlike Iran's oil making up 80% of exports, Cotton and cotton products, leather and rice accounted for 63.7% of Pakistan's exports in the first nine months of 2012-13.
- July 31, 2013 at 10:44 PM
- Hopewins said...
^^RH: "Second, Pakistan's exports are more diversified than Iranian exports."
Technically, this is true. But we are still there at the bottom along with major oil-exporters like Iran and Nigeria. Here are the simple index comparisons of product diversification of exports:
A) BRICS Rankings
1. China Score: 29
2. Russia Score: 45
3. India Score: 51
4. Brazil: 52
5. South Africa: 55
B) Next Eleven (N-11) Rankings
1. South Korea Score: 12
2. Mexico Score: 20
3. Turkey Score: 43
4. Philippines Score: 59
5. Indonesia Score: 61
6. Egypt Score: 62
7. Vietnam Score: 67
8. Sri Lanka Score: 71
9. Pakistan Score: 82
10. Iran Score: 117
11. Nigeria Score: 121
- August 1, 2013 at 2:47 PM
- Riaz Haq said...
HWJ: "Here are the simple index comparisons of product diversification of exports"
Thanks for sharing this international trade data:
It confirms my point that both Pakistani and Saudi international trade is more diversified than Iran's.
- August 1, 2013 at 4:22 PM
- Hopewins said...
^^RH: "Thanks for sharing this international trade data:
That's the wrong link. The rankings, comparisons and scores are here:
Note an interesting anomaly: The rating for Pakistan is correct, but the ratings for Saudia and UAE are CONTAMINATED.
Why? Because UAE serves as a hub for Indo-Pak trade and Saudia serves as a hub for inter-Arab trade between West Asia and North Africa.
So many of the things that show up as "exported" by UAE are actually Indian and Pakistan exports to each other. Similarly, many of the things that show up as "exports" by Saudia are actually exports of the West-Asian and North African countries to each other.
Same is true, incidentally, for Hong Kong, as it is a trade gateway for China.
- August 1, 2013 at 8:04 PM
- Riaz Haq said...
Here's a Saudi Gazette story on US oil reserves:
NEW YORK — US proved oil reserves grew by a record amount in 2011, according to a government report Thursday, in the latest indicator of the North American energy boom.
The US added 3.8 billion barrels of crude in 2011, a 15 percent increase, according to the US Energy Information Administration. The amount represents a record volumetric increase in oil reserves for the second year in a row, EIA said.
Proved oil reserves stood at 29.0 billion barrels in 2011 (vs 257 billion barrels in Saudi Arabia), the highest volume since 1985.
"Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing in shale and other tight rock formations continued to increase oil and natural gas reserves," said EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski.
"Higher oil prices helped drive record increases in crude oil reserves, while natural gas reserves grew strongly despite slightly lower natural gas prices in 2011."
The data came as US petroleum producers continue to push oil output to levels not seen since the early 1990s.
Energy companies have also boosted natural gas output in recent years due to the shale boom. While natural gas output varies monthly somewhat due to incremental investment decisions, US natural gas production has been at record levels in recent years.
The US added 31.2 trillion cubic feet (0.9 trillion cubic meters) of natural gas reserves in 2011, an increase of 9.8 percent, the EIA said. The 2011 natural gas volumetric increase was the second largest in US history after the 2010 rise.
- August 3, 2013 at 7:02 AM
- Riaz Haq said...
Here's a Brookings Inst view of impact of IRan-US ties on US-Saudi ties:
The hints, and they are no more than hints, of an improved Iranian-American relationship have led to some interesting (to put it mildly) reactions from Saudi Arabia. For the first time, the Saudi government gave up its yearly opportunity to present its view of the world in an address to the United Nations General Assembly. The Saudis let it be known that their unhappiness with American foreign policy in the region — on Iran, on Syria, on the Palestinian issue — led to this demurral. Saudi commentators and media have raised the specter of the U.S. selling out Riyadh in a grand geopolitical bargain with Tehran. Are we headed for another "crisis" in Saudi-American relations?
In a word, no. There is nothing new here. The United States and Saudi Arabia have faced much more serious differences in the past, without the bilateral relationship being fundamentally altered — the 1973-74 oil embargo, the differences over the Camp David Accords and the Iranian Revolution in the late 1970's, the profound crisis of 9/11 and the Iraq War. The episodic crises, both real and imagined, between Riyadh and Washington are, in fact, baked in the cake. They are the result of two enduring elements of the relationship: 1) the structural fact that the Saudis are the much weaker party in the partnership, and 2) the mistaken belief of many, more in the U.S. than in Saudi Arabia, that the de facto alliance is built on a complete complementarity of interests.
In any alliance between a weaker and a stronger party, the weaker is always tugged between the opposite, but equally dangerous, fears of entrapment and abandonment. When the United States and the Soviet Union were at daggers drawn in the Cold War, America's Western European allies feared being dragged into a war not of their own choosing. When the U.S. and the USSR engaged in détente, the Europeans worried that their interests would be ignored. But the Western Europeans had nowhere else to go. There was not a third global power to which they could look for security. The British and the French acquired their own, small nuclear forces. The French made symbolic gestures of independence, like withdrawing from NATO's military command. But nobody thought London or Paris could stand up to the Soviets on its own. In the end, the Western Europeans stuck with the U.S. and NATO because they did not have any reasonable alternative.
As the United States moves forward on the Iranian front, it is important for the Obama Administration to keep the Saudis informed and, as necessary, reassured about the continuity of American strategic goals in the Gulf. American diplomacy can also point out to its Gulf partners the benefits that could accrue to all concerned from a more normal relationship with Iran, as has at least one important Saudi commentator in recent days. Neither the inflated hopes nor exaggerated fears of other actors should distract the Administration from its cautious but promising outreach to Iran.
- October 16, 2013 at 11:31 AM
- Riaz Haq said...
Here's an excerpt of a Dawn piece on Saudi funding referring to EU data:
A recent report by the European Parliament reveals how Wahabi and Salafi groups based out of the Middle East are involved in the "support and supply of arms to rebel groups around the world." The report, released in June 2013, was commissioned by European Parliament's Directorate General for External Policies. The report warns about the Wahabi/Salafi organisations and claims that "no country in the Muslim world is safe from their operations ... as they always aim to terrorise their opponents and arouse the admiration of their supporters."
The nexus between Arab charities promoting Wahabi and Salafi traditions and the extremist Islamic movements has emerged as one of the major threats to people and governments across the globe. From Syria, Mali, Afghanistan and Pakistan to Indonesia in the East, a network of charities is funding militancy and mayhem to coerce Muslims of diverse traditions to conform to the Salafi and Wahabi traditions. The same networks have been equally destructive as they branch out of Muslim countries and attack targets in Europe and North America.
- October 17, 2013 at 11:03 PM
- Riaz Haq said...
#Saudi Prince Bandar sees "major shift" in relations with the #USA
http://aje.me/19sZmzj via @AJEnglish #SaudiArabia #America
- October 22, 2013 at 7:26 PM
- Riaz Haq said...
#SaudiArabia winning war on shale oil by producing more at lower prices. #shale #USA http://fw.to/W7QRFkl
If you believe all the recent stories about how Saudi Arabia is losing the price war it started against U.S. tight oil producers last year, the new Oil Market Report from the International Energy Agency offers a reality check. The Saudis are winning, though they're paying a heavy price for it.
The narrative about U.S. shale's resilience in the face of the Saudi decision to drive up production, prices be damned, centers on the American industry's ability to cut costs and use innovative technology to repel the brute force onslaught. There is a kind of David versus Goliath charm to this story, but the data don't bear it out. The IEA, the world's most respected independent source of information about the oil market, has changed its methodology for measuring U.S. output: It now polls producers, instead of relying on data from states. And the switch has caused the agency to revise production data for the first half of 2015, showing a noticeable slowdown.
The U.S. is still pumping more than it did last year, but the output is declining.
IEA data show monthly contractions of 90,000 barrels a day in July and almost 200,000 barrels a day in August. Output is dropping for all seven of the biggest U.S. shale plays. The IEA predicts that the U.S. production of light tight oil -- the type pumped by frackers -- will go down by 400,000 barrels a day next year, about as much as Libya currently produces. That drop will account for most of the 500,000 barrels a day drop in production outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries that the agency predicts for 2016. Production is also dropping in Canada: It's below 4 million barrels a day for the first time in 20 months.
The IEA doesn't believe shale oilers' incantations about drastically lower marginal cost of producing oil from already drilled wells. It points out that tight oil wells dry up much faster than traditional ones: Recent data show that output drops 72 percent within 12 months of startup and 82 percent in the first two years of operation. "To grow or even to sustain production levels requires continuous investment," the IEA report says. Low oil prices reduce frackers' access to the capital they need, and rig counts are falling again -- in early September the drop was the steepest since May.
The number of active rigs has fallen by 40 percent from a year ago. They are far more productive, because they are only being used in the most profitable locations, but that tactic has largely exhausted itself. A steeper production decline cannot be staved off for much longer.
None of this should come as a surprise. If there is one thing the Saudis know about, it's oil. They know all about the new technology used by U.S. shale, too: They work with the same international service companies and attend the same conferences. They did not make a dumb mistake gambling with their only economic advantage. The IEA reported: "On the face of it, the Saudi-led OPEC strategy to defend market share regardless of price appears to be having the intended effect of driving out costly, 'inefficient' production."
The perception that Saudi Arabia is losing the oil war is based on the absence of a spectacular rout in the U.S. -- the shale industry hasn't collapsed, right? -- as well as the Saudis' own fiscal difficulties. The kingdom is certainly running through its foreign currency reserves faster than shale oil output is falling:
So what, price wars are costly. And victory in them doesn't usually mean the complete destruction of the losing side. Rather, the Saudis seek submission.
- September 13, 2015 at 7:37 AM
- Riaz Haq said...
Does #Obama Have This Right in #MiddleEast? #Israel #SaudiArabia #Iran #Syria #Libya #Iraq #Kurds #ISIS #Terrorism http://nyti.ms/1XM1LNh
Sulaimaniya, Iraq — As one could see from President Obama's recentinterview in The Atlantic, he pretty much hates all the Middle East's leaders including those of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Iran and the Palestinians.
Obama's primary goal seems to be to get out of office being able to say that he had shrunk America's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, prevented our involvement on the ground in Syria and Libya, and taught Americans the limits of our ability to fix things we don't understand, in countries whose leaders we don't trust, whose fates do not impact us as much as they once did.
After all, the president indicated, more Americans are killed each year slipping in bathtubs or running into deer with their cars than by any terrorists, so we need to stop wanting to invade the Middle East in response to every threat.
That all sounds great on paper, until a terrorist attack like the one Tuesday in Brussels comes to our shores. Does the president have this right?
The Kurdish government, which was allowing a strong opposition party to emerge and a free press, is now backtracking, with its president, Massoud Barzani, refusing to cede power at the end of his term, and the stench of corruption is everywhere. The Kurdish democratic experiment is hanging by a thread. More U.S. aid conditioned on Kurdistan's getting back on the democracy track would go a long way.
"It is one big game of survivor out here," said Dlawer Ala'Aldeen, president of the Middle East Research Institute in Kurdistan. "America needs to constructively engage the Kurds, offer them conditional help and make them the partner that America deserves. Here, everyone listens to and likes America. [The Kurdish] people want America to protect them from Iran and Turkey."
Kurdistan and Tunisia are just what we dreamed of: self-generated democracies that could be a model for others in the region to follow. But they need help. Unfortunately, Obama seems so obsessed with not being George W. Bush in the Middle East that he has stopped thinking about how to be Barack Obama here — how to leave a unique legacy and secure a foothold for democracy … without invading.
- March 23, 2016 at 7:39 PM
- Riaz Haq said...
#SaudiaArabia sees #Trump's #Riyadh visit and #US-#Arab-#Islamic summit as a golden opportunity to assert leadership
US President Donald Trump's first official foreign trip since taking office will include three key summits on May 20-21, attended by 55 leaders and representatives from across the Islamic world, as well as several business activities, cultural, intellectual and sports celebrations.
Observers looking to follow Trump's visit and related events can now do so via the official website which was launched Tuesday at www.riyadhsummit2017.org, along with associated mobile apps and social media feeds.
Held under the slogan "together we prevail," the main events will be the Saudi-US Summit, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)-US Summit, and the Arab-Islamic-American Summit. In addition, a high-profile counter-terrorism event will be held at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, as well as the Tweeps 2017 social media summit.
The high-profile visit "will renew our mutual commitment to global security and further strengthen already deep business, cultural and political ties," the website said.
On his first day in the Kingdom, Trump will visit the King Abdulaziz Historical Center, a cultural landmark highlighting the prominent history of the Arabian Peninsula and its historical role in the spread of Islam.
The Saudi-US Summit will also feature a series of bilateral meetings between King Salman and Trump, and "focus on re-affirming the long-standing friendship, and strengthening the close political, economic, security and cultural bonds between the two nations."
The GCC-US Summit, held at the King Abdulaziz Convention Center in Riyadh, will see GCC leaders meet with Trump to discuss threats to regional security and stability and the building of stronger commercial ties between the US and the Gulf.
The Arab Islamic American Summit will see Trump meet with leaders of the world's Islamic nations "to address ways of building more robust and effective security partnerships to counter and prevent the growing threat of terrorism and violent extremism around the globe through promoting tolerance and moderation."
The visit by Trump also coincides with a string of associated events, including one entitled Tweeps 2017. That event — held at the Ritz Carlton Riyadh — will see the Twitter-loving US president meet with figures including King Abdallah of Jordan, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, and Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai. That event will include a variety of panels, including one on countering radical views on social media platforms, which will be moderated by Faisal J. Abbas, editor in chief of Arab News.
- May 17, 2017 at 2:43 PM


text:
I never intended this blog to be exclusively devoted to Big Ten expansion issues (and one of these days, I'll get back to my regularly-scheduled moaning about the respective states of the Illini, Bears and White Sox as well as analyzing the inevitable Bulls trade deadline rumors that make "Texas to the Big Ten" seem like a lock by comparison), yet a number of recent comments from all of the wonderful readers out there and news events necessitate another follow-up post. If you haven't already read them, here are the original Big Ten Expansion Index post and follow-ups #1 and #2. As a side note, there's been a bit of speculation that I must be an unemployed stoner or doctoral student (or both) to have the time to write such long posts. In reality, I'm actually an extremely time-pressed attorney that is raising twin babies at home, which is why I hadn't written anything prior to the Big Ten Expansion Index post for a period of 6 months. Thus, these blog posts are the product of halfway-cognizant insomia (and I really wish I was joking about that). Anyway, let's go through everything in general categories:
1. Missouri Would Have a $10 Million Financial Boost with Big Ten Membership (and Texas would, too) – The St. Louis Business Journal has presented an analysis that shows that it would make at least $10 million per year more in the Big Ten compared to the Big 12. This is based on the current Mizzou revenue share in the Big 12 of around $8.4 million and the Big Ten's revenue figures of today (which would assuredly jump with the addition of a conference championship game and additional Big Ten Network subscribers). What's also noted in the article (but not emphasized since this is written from the Mizzou point of view) is that the Texas revenue share in the Big 12 was around $10.2 million last year (which was the most in that conference), which is even less than what I was basing my financial assumptions on in the original Big Ten Expansion Index post. For all of the squawking from non-Texas Big 12 fans that I've seen on virtually every blog and message board that has reviewed my blog posts, the supposed Texas control of revenue in the Big 12 amounts to less than a $2 million per year advantage over Missouri (not chump change, but not exactly dominating, either). Yet, according to the St. Louis Business Journal's numbers, that $2 million difference would pale in comparison to the minimum $10 million per year boost that either Missouri or Texas (or any other Big 12 school) would receive by going to the Big Ten.
As Deep Throat once said to Bob Woodward in a dingy parking garage, "Follow the money." Even if you reasonably believe that a school like Texas would ultimately have to reject an invite from the Big Ten due to political factors (which I fully acknowledge is a critical issue), the financial calculations from the St. Louis Business Journal would show why Texas would at least look at Big Ten membership seriously and that this isn't a proposal that's going to be ignored from the beginning (as a lot of non-Texas Big 12 fans seem to believe). Let's put it this way: if some other company proposed to give you a $10 million raise for doing the exact same thing as you're doing now, chances are that you aren't just going to completely ignore it and say, "Nope. I'm not even going to listen." Non-Texas Big 12 fans (as well as fans from a lot of other conferences) want or hope that's what Texas is going to respond to an offer of at least $10 million more per year (or to put it in more impactful terms using simple multiplication, a minimum of an extra $100 million over the course of 10 years): "Nope. I'm not even going to listen." This isn't even accounting for the fact that (1) people seem to expect Texas to just let Missouri walk away to double its TV money and concurrently weaken the already poor Big 12 contract (thereby pulling the Longhorns' TV revenue down even further) and (2) the academic funding from the CIC dwarfs the athletic side of the equation.
I can completely accept the argument that the Texas state legislature could kill this deal from a political standpoint, but I don't think anyone can reasonably believe that any school is going to just automatically turn down at least $100 million over the course of 10 years without performing some heavy due diligence and analysis to see whether it's worth it. Plus, it's not as if it's only the beancounters from Wu-Tang Financial are considering this a real possibility. For the skeptics out there that the Texas fan base would be completely against this, please look back at the comments from Texas alums to my prior posts along with the links to various Longhorns blogs and message boards and see what they're saying. In addition to all of that, here's yet another fairly positive discussion from the Texas blog Burnt Orange Nation. Once again, think like a university president as opposed to a sports fan here. The Big Ten offers Texas and every other school in the Big 12 (and frankly, every other BCS conference) more money for the athletic department via its TV contract and more money for academics via the CIC. Any university president is at least going to evaluate that type of proposal with some heavy consideration.
2. Notre Dame Almost Joined the Big Ten in 2003 – Last week, Notre Dame basketball head coach Mike Brey spilled the previously unknown beans about how extremely close the Fighting Irish were to joining the Big Ten when the ACC raided the Big East back in 2003. If you read the initial Big Ten Expansion Index post, you'll know that every single Big Ten school makes about twice as much TV money as Notre Dame's NBC contract (and as shown by my first follow-up post, the additional money Notre Dame receives from the Big East basketball TV contract basically amounts to a rounding error to any school in the Big Ten). What's interesting to me about the Brey story is that Notre Dame was so close to joining the Big Ten even when it wasn't in its financial interest to do so at that time (since the NBC contract was the gold standard for college sports in 2003). Now that it is arguably very much in Notre Dame's financial interest to join the Big Ten, maybe the "Notre Dame will never join a conference" line of thinking isn't as iron-clad as previously thought.
Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick even acknowledged that the Big Ten makes substantially more TV money than what the Irish receive from NBC in this Chicago Tribune story from last month. Look at Swarbrick's quotes closely in that article. While that story was widely cited by the national media as Notre Dame supposedly preemptively rejecting the Big Ten, as a fellow attorney, I recognize and respect how carefully parsed Swarbrick's statements were and that he effectively didn't say anything at all. If Notre Dame were to join the Big Ten tomorrow, there is absolutely nothing that Swarbrick said that would've been a lie. Still, Notre Dame depends upon alumni support more than any other BCS school and Sully's comment on my Big Ten Expansion Index post is indicative of what they're thinking. I'd still wager that Texas has more of chance of being invited and accepted into the Big Ten than Notre Dame at this point in time.
3. The East Coast Family – I've seen a fairly large number of suggestions that the Big Ten ought to go to the 14-school route with a full-on Big East raid of Rutgers, Syracuse and UConn. The argument is that while none of those schools by themselves can deliver the New York City market, putting all of them together could very well do so plus gain traction in New England on top of that. It's a plausible scenario, but I still stand by my stance on the only way that it would be worth it to have a 14-school conference: "… using a historical NBA superstar comparison, if the 12th Big Ten member has to be at least at the level of Kobe Bryant, then the 13th and 14th Big Ten members have to be both Michael Jordan and Wilt Chamberlain." I'm confident that Texas fans will beat down any cable provider in its home state that doesn't carry the Big Ten Network on basic cable. I'd also say the same about a slew of other Big 12 schools, including Nebraska and Missouri. However, I just don't have that confidence in any of the Big East schools or even three of them together to deliver their own markets. The Big Ten would only make a move for sure things and the problem is that the northeastern schools are the least sure moves out there (even if they have the greatest potential number of households). Once again, the only "plausible" scenario that I see the Big Ten going up to 14 schools is that it absolutely must take Texas A&M in order to get its real target of Texas, in which case a 14th school on top of them is needed to round everything out. 3 additional schools would need to add over $60 million to the conference pot in order to maintain the per school revenue status quo, so it would take 3 blockbuster schools in order to do that. I believe that the objective of a 14-school Big Ten is to make markets irrelevant – at that point, it's all about making the Big Ten Network into an ESPN-esque must-have channel in every home in the country. Otherwise, it's not worth it to expand to that size.
Others have asked again that I examine some ACC schools, such as Maryland and Boston College. Those types of schools are definitely enticing from an academic and TV market perspective (and I'd love Miami in particular for a lot of reasons), but I'll reiterate that I don't think that the Big Ten is going to be likely to lure anyone from there even with that conference's own TV issues. There's a scene from Wall Street where Bud Fox is livid that Gordon Gekko has decided to break-up Blue Star Airlines (where Fox's father worked at as a union leader). Fox asks Gekko, "Why do you need to wreck this company?" Gekko screams back, "Because it's WRECKABLE, alright?!" In terms of college conferences, the Big 12 and Big East are wreckable in a way that the other BCS conferences aren't at this time, which is why I've continued to focus on expansion candidates from those two particular conferences. The ACC, in contrast, has a collection of academically-minded universities that have similar goals from top to bottom much like the Big Ten and Pac-10.
At one time, I was completely convinced that the Big Ten would look eastward if it ever decided to add a school other than Notre Dame. However, I'm suspending that thought until the marquee Big 12 schools like Texas are completely off the table.
4. Nationwide Conference Fallout – Finally, part of the fun of speculating about what the Big Ten would do in expansion is how the other conferences would respond. How would the Big 12 react if it loses a school? What about the Big East? Will the Pac-10 finally go to 12 schools itself? How would the non-BCS conferences be affected?
If Notre Dame were to move to the Big Ten, it would probably be the biggest news but also have the least impact on other conferences (at least football-wise). The Big East would have to replace a basketball member, which would likely come in the form of an all-sports school to finally give its football conference 9 teams. Current Conference USA members Memphis, East Carolina and Central Florida (UCF) are considered to be the main options for the Big East, which is a whole lot of "meh" for a conference really needs a marquee football member that it probably won't ever obtain (even though the conference has done pretty well overall since the ACC raid in 2003). Still, Notre Dame going to the Big Ten doesn't take away anything from Big East football. Syracuse or Rutgers going to the Big Ten, though, takes a whole lot away from the Big East. If the Big East ends up having to add one or more of the aforementioned options from C-USA in that scenario, that's going to be a significant blow to the conference's national reputation. I personally think that the Big East's automatic BCS bid will be safe if it only loses one school since the states that the conference represents are just too politically and publicly powerful through the media to kick out, but you might see a split from the Catholic basketball schools at that point (which would have massive repurcussions in conference alignment for basketball).
In the event that one or more Big 12 schools leave for the Big Ten, I believe that BYU and Utah would be the consensus top candidates (in that order). I put BYU ahead of Utah for the simple fact that BYU delivers Utah's market plus a national fan base with its Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) members (similar to Notre Dame's hold on Catholics). BYU's religious underpinnings wouldn't concern the Big 12 seeing that it has Baylor as a member and that school only started to allow dancing a few years ago. (As you'll see, though, those religious underpinnings will automatically kill BYU's chances elsewhere.) A lot of the public seems to think that TCU would get into the Big 12 if there was an open spot, but this is another classic case of people thinking like sports fans as opposed to university presidents. If there's one point that I hope everyone that has read my posts understands, it's that the lack of major TV markets in the Big 12 outside of the state of Texas is specifically what makes that conference vulnerable (and why Missouri and Nebraska would accept a Big Ten invite in a heartbeat and I think Texas and Texas A&M would strongly consider it). So, TCU provides exactly as much TV value to the Big 12 as Cincinnati and Iowa State would to the Big Ten: none whatsoever. The Big 12 isn't going to add yet another Texas school when the conference's #1 issue is not having enough of a presence outside of Texas. Thus, the only way that TCU gets into the Big 12 is if BOTH Texas and Texas A&M leave the Big 12 at the same time and the conference decides that it needs TCU to shore up its Texas home base. Other schools that might be in the mix for the Big 12 are New Mexico (who is very underrated as an expansion candidate in my opinion since it's a flagship with a good fan base in a growing state) and Boise State (who is very overrated as an expansion candidate since they're very hot now yet I'm not sure if they bring that much value when they go through an inevitable down period). In any event, the Mountain West is almost certainly screwed as a conference if the Big 12 loses a school.
The Pac-10 expansion situation is extremely difficult to predict because of this simple fact: any expansion candidate needs unanimous approval from all 10 members in order to receive an invite. In contrast, the Big Ten needs an 8-3 majority to add a school. So, the unanimous vote requirement is the key to virtually everything in the Pac-10. I can't tell you how many people that I've seen suggest that the Pac-10 will eventually invite BYU without understanding why it would neverever happen. Let's think about this for a couple of seconds: in order for this to occur, it would require the University of California-Berkeley to vote affirmatively to share money and associate itself with BYU and the LDS. If that disconnect isn't obvious to you for some reason, let's spell it out at a rudimentary level: California liberals have complete disdain for the LDS because of how much money that the church poured into the state to kill all of the gay rights propositions over the past few years. BYU happens to be the intellectual nerve center of the LDS. The most liberal institution in the most liberal city in California (if not the entire United States) happens to be the University of California-Berkeley. You will see riots in Berkeley that would harken back to the 1960s if Cal even considered for a moment to allow BYU to join the Pac-10. This isn't even accounting for other ultra-liberal schools in the Pac-10 like UCLA and Oregon.
Utah is a little more palatable, but remember that the Pac-10 couldn't even agree on inviting Texas back in the 1990s (otherwise, the Longhorns would now be members of that West Coast conference). If a clearly academically and athletically superior Texas couldn't get a unanimous vote from the Pac-10, I don't know if Utah would even stand a chance. Granted, the Pac-10 would probably like a mulligan on Texas and they'd take Colorado, as well, but with the revenue disparity between the Big Ten and Pac-10 so large today, I doubt that Texas would choose the Pac-10 over the Big Ten at this point if it ever left the Big 12. Also note that having each school play both USC and UCLA annually is critically important for recruiting, ticket selling and TV purposes. This year's Pac-10 football champ of Oregon, for example, had most of its players come from Southern California who were hypnotized by all of the green and yellow hues on the Ducks' uniforms. This is also the case for virtually every other Pac-10 school. Therefore, if the Pac-10 were to propose to go up to 12 schools, anyone that has to give up games against USC and/or UCLA in order to play a Utah-level school will automatically vote against expansion, as well (unless you're talking about another top TV market like Texas). Academics are also as important to the Pac-10 as the Big Ten, so any candidate that doesn't have top academic credentials (i.e. Boise State and UNLV) is going to rejected by the likes of Stanford. With such a high standard to get expansion approved in the Pac-10 and a lack of any obvious expansion candidate on the West Coast, the Pac-10 is probably going to end up standing pat no matter what happens.
I have a ton more thoughts on how other conferences might react, but I'll save for those for a later date. Keep those comments coming and I'll provide more feedback in the near future.
(Image from Population Statistic)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Well, getting back to my real life after 6 weeks with the grands and my daughter/son-in-law took a bit more than I expected; I missed last week. I came home to a million tiny fires to tend and our 23rd Oscar costume party. Glad to get back to some flash fiction and the fabulous Fictioneers! Thanks Rochelle for always tending the fires here. Thanks to CE Ayre for this weeks photos.
Fade To Black
"I don't believe in foolish superstitions." Ella swatted the air with disdain. "Black cats are only that: black cats. No different than a white cat, or one with spots. It's nothing."
Brian narrowed his eyes as she spoke. "Just being together is a risk; your family will never allow it. This seems like another sign."
She laughed. "My family can't stop us. Don't let them get in your head."
"Seriously? Tell me again what your brothers did to the last guy you got serious with–– then tell me not to worry about a black cat blocking our getaway."
(98 words)
* * *
KAPOW! Have you stopped by Tales From the Motherland Facebook page to spread some fairy dust? I'm grateful for each Like. Follow me on Twitter, LeBron James does (for real… well, he did. But he may have dropped me recently)! Most importantly, if you like a post I've written, hit Like and leave a comment. Honest, constructive feedback is always appreciated. Click Follow; you'll get each new post delivered by email, no spam.
©2011-2019 All content and images on this site are copyrighted to Dawn Quyle Landau and Tales From the Motherland, unless specifically noted otherwise. If you want to share my work, I'm grateful, but please give proper credit and Link back to my work; plagiarism sucks!


text:
Insane Levels of Inequality – Which Hurt the Economy – Are Skyrocketing
Preface: All capitalist systems have some inequality. We don't want to prevent all inequality … just economy-wrecking levels:that is a myth.
Rampant Inequality – Which Hurts the Economy – Is Skyrocketing
A who's-who's of prominent economists in government and academia have all said that runaway inequality can causefinancial crises.
Extreme inequality helped cause the Great Depression, the current financial crisis … and the fall of the Roman Empire.
But inequality in America today is actually twice as bad as in ancient Rome , worse than it was in in Tsarist Russia,Gilded Age America, modern Egypt, Tunisia or Yemen, many banana republics in Latin America, and worse than experienced by slaves in 1774 colonial America.
Inequality has grown steadily worse:
It is worse under Obama than under Bush.
A recent study shows that the richest Americans captured more than 100% of all recent income gains. And see this.
There are 2 economies: one for the rich, and the other for everyone else.
Alan Greenspan said:
Our problem basically is that we have a very distorted economy, in the sense that there has been a significant recovery in our limited area of the economy amongst high-income individuals…
They are fundamentally two separate types of economies.
Why is Inequality Going Through the Roof?
The world's top economic leaders have said for years that inequality is spiraling out of control and needs to be reduced. Why is inequality soaring even though world economic leaders have talked for years about the urgent need to reduce it?
Because they're saying one thing but doing something very different. And both mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans are using smoke and mirrors to hide what's really going on.
And it's not surprising … Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says that inequality is caused by the use of money to shape government policies to benefit those with money. As Wikipedia notes:
A better explainer of growing inequality, according to Stiglitz, is the use of political power generated by wealth by certain groups to shape government policies financially beneficial to them. This process, known to economists as rent-seeking, brings income not from creation of wealth but from "grabbing a larger share of the wealth that would otherwise have been produced without their effort"[59]
Rent seeking is often thought to be the province of societies with weak institutions and weak rule of law, but Stiglitz believes there is no shortage of it in developed societies such as the United States. Examples of rent seeking leading to inequality include
- the obtaining of public resources by "rent-collectors" at below market prices (such as granting public land to railroads,[60] or selling mineral resources for a nominal price[61][62] in the US),
- selling services and products to the public at above market prices[63] (medicare drug benefit in the US that prohibits government from negotiating prices of drugs with the drug companies, costing the US government an estimated $50 billion or more per year),
- securing government tolerance of monopoly power (The richest person in the world in 2011, Carlos Slim, controlled Mexico's newly privatized telecommunication industry[64]).
(Background here, here and here.)
Stiglitz says:
One big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy …. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today's inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest.
Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth …. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.
Bloomberg reports:
The financial industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars every election cycle on campaign donations and lobbying, much of which is aimed at maintaining the subsidy [to the banks by the public]. The result is a bloated financial sector and recurring credit gluts.
Indeed, the big banks literally own the Federal Reserve. And they own Washington D.C. politicians, lock stock and barrel. See this, this, this and this.
Two leading IMF officials, the former Vice President of the Dallas Federal Reserve, and the the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Moody's chief economist and many others have all said that the United States is controlled by an "oligarchy" or "oligopoly", and the big banks and giant financial institutions are key players in that oligarchy.
Economics professor Randall Wray writes:
Thieves … took over the whole economy and the political system lock, stock, and barrel.
No wonder the government has saved the big banks at taxpayer expense, chosen the banks over the little guy, andsaid no to helping Main Street … while continuing to throw trillions at the giant banks.
No wonder crony capitalism has gotten even worse under Obama.
No wonder Obama is prosecuting fewer financial crimes than Bush, or his father or Ronald Reagan.
All of the monetary and economic policy of the last 3 years has helped the wealthiest and penalized everyone else. See this, this and this.
Economist Steve Keen says:
"This is the biggest transfer of wealth in history", as the giant banks have handed their toxic debts from fraudulent activities to the countries and their people.
Stiglitz said in 2009 that Geithner's toxic asset plan "amounts to robbery of the American people".
And economist Dean Baker said in 2009 that the true purpose of the bank rescue plans is "a massive redistribution of wealth to the bank shareholders and their top executives".
Quantitative easing doesn't help Main Street or the average American. It only helps big banks, giant corporations, and big investors. And by causing food and gas prices skyrocket, it takes a bigger bite out of the little guy's paycheck, and thus makes the poor even poorer.
As I noted in March 2009:
The bailout money is just going to line the pockets of the wealthy, instead of helping to stabilize the economy or even the companies receiving the bailouts:
- Bailout money is being used to subsidize companies run by horrible business men, allowing the bankers to receive fat bonuses, to redecorate their offices, and to buy gold toilets and prostitutes
- A lot of the bailout money is going to the failing companies' shareholders
- Indeed, a leading progressive economist says that the true purpose of the bank rescue plans is "a massive redistribution of wealth to the bank shareholders and their top executives"
- The Treasury Department encouraged banks to use the bailout money to buy their competitors, andpushed through an amendment to the tax laws which rewards mergers in the banking industry (this has caused a lot of companies to bite off more than they can chew, destabilizing the acquiring companies)
As I wrote in 2008:
The game of capitalism only continues as long as everyone has some money to play with. If the government and corporations take everyone's money, the game ends.The fed and Treasury are not giving more chips to those who need them: the American consumer. Instead, they are giving chips to the 800-pound gorillas at the poker table, such as Wall Street investment banks. Indeed, a good chunk of the money used by surviving mammoth players to buy the failing behemoths actually comes from the Fed.
Government Policy Is Increasing Inequality
Without the government's creation of the too big to fail banks (they've gotten much bigger under Obama), the Fed's intervention in interest rates and the markets (most of the quantitative easing has occurred under Obama), andgovernment-created moral hazard emboldening casino-style speculation (there's now more moral hazard than ever before) … things wouldn't have gotten nearly as bad.
Goosing the Stock Market
Moreover, the Fed has more or less admitted that it is putting almost all of its efforts into boosting the stock market.
Robert Reich has noted:
Some cheerleaders say rising stock prices make consumers feel wealthier and therefore readier to spend. But to the extent most Americans have any assets at all their net worth is mostly in their homes, and those homes are still worth less than they were in 2007. The "wealth effect" is relevant mainly to the richest 10 percent of Americans, most of whose net worth is in stocks and bonds.
AP writes:
The recovery has been the weakest and most lopsided of any since the 1930s.After previous recessions, people in all income groups tended to benefit. This time, ordinary Americans are struggling with job insecurity, too much debt and pay raises that haven't kept up with prices at the grocery store and gas station. The economy's meager gains are going mostly to the wealthiest.
Workers' wages and benefits make up 57.5 percent of the economy, an all-time low. Until the mid-2000s, that figure had been remarkably stable — about 64 percent through boom and bust alike.
David Rosenberg points out:
The "labor share of national income has fallen to its lower level in modern history … some recovery it has been – a recovery in which labor's share of the spoils has declined to unprecedented levels."
The above-quoted AP article further notes:
Stock market gains go disproportionately to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, who own more than 80 percent of outstanding stock, according to an analysis by Edward Wolff, an economist at Bard College.
Indeed, as I reported in 2010:
As of 2007, the bottom 50% of the U.S. population owned only one-half of one percent of all stocks, bonds and mutual funds in the U.S. On the other hand, the top 1% owned owned 50.9%.***
(Of course, the divergence between the wealthiest and the rest has only increased since 2007.)
Professor G. William Domhoff demonstrated that the richest 10% own 98.5% of all financial securities, and that:
The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.
As Tyler Durden notes:
In today's edition of Bloomberg Brief, the firm's economist Richard Yamarone looks at one of the more unpleasant consequences of Federal monetary policy: the increasing schism in wealth distribution between the wealthiest percentile and everyone else. … "To the extent that Federal Reserve policy is driving equity prices higher, it is also likely widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots….The disparity between the net worth of those on the top rung of the income ladder and those on lower rungs has been growing. According to the latest data from the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances, the total wealth of the top 10 percent income bracket is larger in 2009 than it was in 1995.Those further down have on average barely made any gains. It is likely that data for 2010 and 2011 will reveal an even higher percentage going to the top earners, given recent increases in stocks." Alas, t his is nothing new, and merely confirms speculation that the Fed is arguably the most efficient wealth redistibution, or rather focusing, mechanism available to the status quo. This is best summarized in the chart below comparing net worth by income distribution for various percentiles among the population, based on the Fed's own data. In short: the richest 20% have gotten richer in the past 14 years, entirely at the expense of everyone else.
Lastly, nowhere is the schism more evident, at least in market terms, than in the performance of retail stocks:
Saks chairman Steve Sadove recently remarked, "I've been saying for several years now the single biggest determinant of our business overall, is how's the stock market doing." Privately-owned Neiman- Marcus reported "In New York City, business at Bergdorf Goodman continues to be extremely strong."
In contrast, retail giant Wal-Mart talks of its "busiest hours" coming at midnight when food stamps are activated and consumers proceed through the check-outs lines with baby formula, diapers, and other groceries. Wal-Mart has posted a decline in same-store sales for eight consecutive quarters.
Indeed, as CNN Money pointed out in 2011, "Wal-Mart's core shoppers are running out of money much faster than a year ago …" This trend has only gotten worse: The wealthy are doing great … but common folks can no longer afford to shop even at Wal-Mart, Sears, JC Penney or other low-price stores.
Durden also notes:
Another indication of the increasing polarity of US society is the disparity among consumer confidence cohorts by income as shown below, and summarized as follows: "The increase in equity prices has raised consumer spirits, particularly among higher-income consumers. The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence index for all income levels bottomed in February/March of 2009. The recovery since then has been notable across the board, but nowhere as much as for those making $50,000 or more."
When a country's finance sector becomes too large finance, inequality rises. As Wikipedia notes:
[Economics professor] Jamie Galbraith argues that countries with larger financial sectors have greater inequality, and the link is not an accident.[66][67]
Government policy has been encouraging the growth of the financial sector for decades:
(Economist Steve Keen has also shown that "a sustainable level of bank profits appears to be about 1% of GDP", and that higher bank profits leads to a ponzi economy and a depression).
Unemployment and Underemployment
A major source if inequality is unemployment, underemployment and low wages.
Government policy has created these conditions. And the pretend populist Obama – who talks non-stop about the importance of job-creation – actually doesn't mind such conditions at all.
The"jobless recovery" that the Bush and Obama governments have engineered is a redistribution of wealth from the little guy to the big boys.
The New York Times notes:
Economists at Northeastern University have found that the current economic recovery in the United States has been unusually skewed in favor of corporate profits and against increased wages for workers.
In their newly released study, the Northeastern economists found that since the recovery began in June 2009 following a deep 18-month recession, "corporate profits captured 88 percent of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1 percent" of that growth.
The study, "The 'Jobless and Wageless Recovery' From the Great Recession of 2007-2009," said it was "unprecedented" for American workers to receive such a tiny share of national income growth during a recovery.
The share of income growth going to employee compensation was far lower than in the four other economic recoveries that have occurred over the last three decades, the study found.
Obama apologists say Obama has created jobs. But the number of people who have given up and dropped out of the labor force has skyrocketed under Obama (and see this).
And the jobs that have been created have been low-wage jobs.
For example, the New York Times noted in 2011:
The median pay for top executives at 200 big companies last year was $10.8 million. That works out to a 23 percent gain from 2009.
Most ordinary Americans aren't getting raises anywhere close to those of these chief executives. Many aren't getting raises at all — or even regular paychecks. Unemployment is still stuck at more than 9 percent.
"What is of more concern to shareholders is that it looks like C.E.O. pay is recovering faster than company fortunes," says Paul Hodgson, chief communications officer for GovernanceMetrics International, a ratings and research firm.
According to a report released by GovernanceMetrics in June, the good times for chief executives just keep getting better. Many executives received stock options that were granted in 2008 and 2009, when the stock market was sinking.
Now that the market has recovered from its lows of the financial crisis, many executives are sitting on windfall profits, at least on paper. In addition, cash bonuses for the highest-paid C.E.O.'s are at three times prerecession levels, the report said.
The average American worker was taking home $752 a week in late 2010, up a mere 0.5 percent from a year earlier. After inflation, workers were actually making less.
AP pointed out that the average worker is not doing so well:
Unemployment has never been so high — 9.1 percent — this long after any recession since World War II. At the same point after the previous three recessions, unemployment averaged just 6.8 percent.
– The average worker's hourly wages, after accounting for inflation, were 1.6 percent lower in May than a year earlier. Rising gasoline and food prices have devoured any pay raises for most Americans.
– The jobs that are being created pay less than the ones that vanished in the recession. Higher-paying jobs in the private sector, the ones that pay roughly $19 to $31 an hour, made up 40 percent of the jobs lost from January 2008 to February 2010 but only 27 percent of the jobs created since then.
Alan Greenspan noted:
Large banks, who are doing much better and large corporations, whom you point out and everyone is pointing out, are in excellent shape. The rest of the economy, foreign sales and foreign workers. As APnoted in 2010:Corporate profits are up. Stock prices are up. So why isn't anyone hiring?
Actually, many American companies are — just maybe not in your town. They're hiring overseas, where sales are surging and the pipeline of orders is fat.
The trend helps explain why unemployment remains high in the United States, edging up to 9.8% last month, even though companies are performing well: All but 4% of the top 500 U.S. corporations reported profits this year, and the stock market is close to its highest point since the 2008 financial meltdown.
But the jobs are going elsewhere. The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, says American companies have created 1.4 million jobs overseas this year, compared with less than 1 million in the U.S. The additional 1.4 million jobs would have lowered the U.S. unemployment rate to 8.9%, says Robert Scott, the institute's senior international economist.
"There's a huge difference between what is good for American companies versus what is good for the American economy," says Scott.
Many of the products being made overseas aren't coming back to the United States. Demand has grown dramatically this year in emerging markets like India, China and Brazil.
Government policy has accelerated the growing inequality. It has encouraged American companies to move their facilities, resources and paychecks abroad. And some of the biggest companies in America have a negative tax rate … that is, not only do they pay no taxes, but they actually get tax refunds.
And a large percentage of the bailouts went to foreign banks (and see this). And so did a huge portion of the money from quantitative easing. More here and here.
Capital Gains and Dividends
According to a study published last month by a researcher at the U.S. Congressional Research Service:
The largest contributor to increasing income inequality…was changes in income from capital gains and dividends.
Business Insider explains:
Drastic income inequality growth in the United States is largely derived from changes in the way the U.S. government taxes income from capital gains and dividends, according to a new study by Thomas Hungerford of the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.
Essentially, what Democrats have been saying about income inequality — that it's in a large part due to favorable taxation and deduction policies for high income Americans — is largely right
The study … conclusively found that the wealthy benefitted from low tax rates on investment income, which in turn caused their wealth to grow faster.
Essentially, taxing capital gains as ordinary income would make the playing field more fair, and reduce over time income inequality.
Joseph Stiglitz noted in 2011:
Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride.
Indeed, the Tax Policy center reports that the top 1% took home 71% of all capital gains in 2012.
Ronald Reagan's budget director, assistant secretary of treasury, and domestic policy director all say that the Bush tax cuts were a huge mistake. See this and this.
Article taken from The Big Picture – http://www.ritholtz.com/blog
URL to article: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/02/why-are-inequality-levels-skyrocketing/


text:
The home, its technology and its inhabitants are now becoming more and more connected. Many of us now have WiFi networks in the home. We can sit with notebooks on our laps, wireless routers connected to our internet connection allow us to connect entertainment systems, iPads and other network appliances, printers, external drives, Smartphones and more.
Many other devices are now being developed that also offer the benefits of connectivity. For example Internet TV is almost here with products like Google TV being right on our doorstep.
Many years ago I had the opportunity to spend a day at the Arthur Anderson offices in Chicago for a glimpse of the future. An example was an intelligent fridge with a bar code reader that created a shopping list and could automatically send the list to the local grocery delivery company.
Bill Gates had a master plan of having a Windows CE engine in home appliances, creating an intelligent house. Smart Appliances will I'm sure be in the home soon and the idea Gates had was that if they all used Windows CE, they would all have a common platform to communicate not only with each other and with your mobile computer, perhaps your home appliances.
The European Commission has perhaps seen the light in setting up The Hydra Project. "The Hydra middleware allows developers to incorporate heterogeneous physical devices into their applications by offering easy-to-use web service interfaces for controlling any type of physical device irrespective of its network technology such as Bluetooth, RF, ZigBee, RFID, WiFi, etc. Hydra incorporates means for Device and Service Discovery, Semantic Model Driven Architecture, P2P communication, and Diagnostics. Hydra enabled devices and services can be secure and trustworthy through distributed security and social trust components of the middleware."
This has the potential to reduce the risk of being tied to specific brands of computing, communications and other technology by providing middleware that everyone can work with. Of course the home is only one place that can benefit from this concept. It applies equally to telemedicine (monitoring patients in the home), business automation, security, agriculture, manufacturing, warehousing and pretty much any industry you can think of.
Once again Science Fiction is about to become reality. It's taken a while, but looks like we are getting there.
The following video shows an e-home controlled by voice or even by your X Box Controller and of course you can control it from your iPhone:


text:
We are just over a week in to Lent 2014, and I have to say, it's been a rough week, a really, really rough week. Here is a reminder of what I am trying to do without:
- My daily Diet Coke
- My almost-daily alcohol intake
- My multi-time-a-day Facebook check
- My weekly novel
- My bi-weekly bargain hunting at Target, Costco and other, mind-numbingly overstocked stores for little things I really don't need
I knew I put a lot of things of things on that list, but I felt called to all of them, because they center on a common theme: distraction. Distraction is a dragon I have to face and I felt encouraged recently after watching an interview with Steven Pressfield, the author of The War of Art. He said that when face our dragons, our greatest fears, they go "poof." They disappear before our very eyes and we get to the treasure on the other side.
Steven, you were wrong. I'm a week into facing my dragon and it hasn't even blinked. If anything, its hot breath on my neck is starting to make me sweat.
I deleted the bookmarks for Facebook on my phone and browsers, but every time I sit down to work, I am conscious of the fact that only eight keystrokes separate me from a broken promise and the Promised Land. I think of the articles I'm missing and the information I'm having to do without, the pictures of adorable kids I don't get to "like." Sigh. I find myself at the market and the library (the two "stores" I've let myself enter), perusing each and every shelf for just the right thing, the thing I don't need, but that would bring me joy to consume. On these unusually warm winter nights, I long for a cold glass of white wine. Finally, and perhaps funniest of all, I find myself daydreaming of Diet Coke. I have actually caught myself fantasizing about pulling through the McDonald's drive-thru and taking my first sip through their perfectly calibrated straws.
I have felt bereft this week, mourning the loss of my first level addictions, the habits that give me the quickest highs. But I'm also saddened by how quickly and easily I've turned to other distractions. Instead of going deeper into my work and writing, I've revamped powerpoints I made for classes just weeks ago. I've swept and dust-bustered every room in the house. I spent an entire evening researching a new broccoli recipe, and several hours the next day preparing it, and my family doesn't even like broccoli. Neither do I. What am I doing?
I know exactly what I'm doing. If I want to put a positive spin on it, I'm acting on a desire to keep busy, to find something new, joyful and fun. If I want to be realistic, I'm acting on a compulsion to get out of my own skin. Whatever you call it, it's something I've struggled with for as long as I can remember.
My parents, who have always been seekers, found a book in the late eighties called The Enneagram: A Christian Perspective by Richard Rohr and Andreas Ebert. The enneagram is an ancient tradition that introduces nine patterns of thinking and behavior that most of us, despite all our illusions of being unique, free and mysterious, actually fall into fairly neatly.
The Nine Personality Types of the Enneagram
1. The Reformer. The principled, idealistic type. Ones are conscientious and ethical, with a strong sense of right and wrong. At their best: wise, discerning, realistic, and noble. They typically have problems with resentment and impatience.
2. The Helper. The caring, interpersonal type. Twos are empathetic, sincere, and warm-hearted. At their Best: unselfish and altruistic, they have unconditional love for others. They typically have problems with possessiveness and with acknowledging their own needs.
3. The Achiever. The adaptable, success-oriented type. Threes are self-assured, attractive, and charming. At their Best: self-accepting, authentic, everything they seem to be. They typically have problems with workaholism and competitiveness.
4. The Individualist. The introspective, romantic type. Fours are self-aware, sensitive, and reserved. At their Best: inspired and highly creative, they are able to renew themselves and transform their experiences. They typically have problems with melancholy, self-indulgence, and self-pity
5. The Investigator. The perceptive, cerebral type. Fives are alert, insightful, and curious. At their best: visionary pioneers, often ahead of their time, and able to see the world in an entirely new way. They typically have problems with eccentricity, nihilism, and isolation.
6. The Loyalist. The committed, security-oriented type. Sixes are reliable, hard-working, responsible, and trustworthy. At their best: internally stable and self-reliant, courageously championing themselves and others. They typically have problems with self-doubt and suspicion.
7. The Enthusiast. The busy, productive type. Sevens are extroverted, optimistic, versatile, and spontaneous. At their best: they focus their talents on worthwhile goals, becoming appreciative, joyous, and satisfied. They typically have problems with impatience, impulsiveness and distraction.
8. The Challenger. The powerful, aggressive type. Eights are self-confident, strong, and assertive. At their best: self- mastering, they use their strength to improve others' lives, becoming heroic, magnanimous, and inspiring. Eights typically have problems with their tempers and with allowing themselves to be vulnerable.
9. The Peacemaker. The easy-going, self-effacing type. Nines are accepting, trusting, and stable. At their best: indomitable and all-embracing, they are able to bring people together and heal conflicts. They typically have problems with inertia and stubbornness.
**These descriptions were excerpted from the Sukha Wellness Center blog in Avila Beach, CA. For longer descriptions of each type, you can go to their blog by clicking on their name.
Although the list at first glance might seem like fodder for cocktail party conversation, or a cheesy pick up line, the enneagram is actually brilliant psychology. Rohr often says in his work that, "We don't see things as they are; we see things as we are." In other words, our vision is shaped by our own personal experiences, prejudices, and default settings. Two people can experience the same behavior, the same opportunity, or the same outcome and perceive it completely differently. Too often, we think that means the other is wrong. In contrast, the enneagram offers us a way to see the reactions of others more compassionately. It doesn't mean you give in to their wishes, or desires (unless you're a two), but that you understand and acknowledge their position, which is simply the basis of good, interpersonal, communication skills.
My parents were immediately able to identify themselves in the numbers (my dad's an eight and my mom's a three) and became more conscious of the choices they were making. In some ways, they literally became different people, because they saw themselves for the first time, as they were, not how they had imagined themselves to be. I assume their conversations also included psychoanalysis of their four kids, but they didn't project their ideas on us. Rather, they left the book open on their nightstand, which I took as a personal invitation to join in.
When I was seventeen, I thought I might be a nine, because I'm pretty easy-going and flexible. I wanted to be a four, because really, what teenage girl doesn't think of herself as an artist? But when it came right down to it, I'm a seven at heart. I can turn any time into a good time. Bad things are never really that bad. If something is fun, my first question is, how can we make it funner? (If you need any proof that I am a seven, look no further than my use of that word. I'm an English professor, yet my lexicon would be incomplete with out the grammatically-incorrect adjectives, funner and funnest. Tim says you should look no further than me on the dance floor, our summer vacation plans, or the stash of candy in my car.)
Being a seven has brought me through some of the darkest days of my life, from my mother's cancer, to my unplanned pregnancy and adoption, to the miscarriage of our first child together and even this long recession that has so decimated our small business. But in every dark night, I discover a patch of moonlight to dance in. I instinctively locate the pinprick of brightness and worm my way in. Once there, I push against the boundaries of the night that try to hem me in. I force back the darkness, sadness and pessimism, with hope and humor and joy, until the ones I love are standing in the light again.
That's the bright side of being a seven.
The dark side is what I am facing this Lent. Sevens are easily distractible, frequently bored and hard to pin down. We don't like to make decisions, or stay put for too long. We knew FOMO long before it became a "thing." It's in our DNA. (For readers over 40, FOMO is the Fear of Missing Out and it's sweeping the nation.) If a seven isn't careful, the consequence of their shadow side is a history littered with abandoned people and projects, a life that stays on the surface of everything, because depths always leads to darkness.
Enneagram teachers make it clear that there is a whole range of health and maturity for each person within their own number. An unhealthy, or unredeemed person of any type does a lot more damage (unconsciously and frequently with good intentions) simply by following their instincts, than someone with more self-awareness and control.
Giving up so many of my favorite things is not about self-denial, asceticism, or weird Catholic guilt. It's about self-awareness and freedom. When I feel an overwhelming urge to do something new, I want to do it for the right reason, not because I am running away from something else.
One of the highlights of my past week was talking to my little sister. I was telling her how I was trying to give up my distraction patterns for Lent. She laughed at me, since she doesn't drink Diet Coke and hates to shop. She's pregnant, so booze is not an option. She is not a seven, so my struggles are not hers. After she had finished teasing me, I asked her what she does when faced with Blaise Pascal's realities of existence: boredom, inconstancy and anxiety. She is an eight, like my father, so after a moment's pause, she admitted that she picks a fight with her husband, not consciously of course, but she'll see what he's doing and find something to criticize. If nothing appears, she'll bring up an oldie, but a goodie from the past. She's not being mean, she's quick to explain; she's just looking for an "out," a place to put her energies. Then it was my turn to laugh, because it would never occur to me to create conflict as a stress-reliever.
But we all do it.
In our own way and in our own time, we act on compulsions that are as natural to us as breathing and as unnatural to others as breathing under water.
Are you curious about yours? This is my best advice when trying to figure it out. Which type do you want to be? That's for sure not you. Which one gives you a sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach as you read about it? Bingo. You might be on to something there.
At the bottom of the blog are a couple links to websites about the enneagram if you want to learn a little more about it. I can't recommend them highly, because I haven't used them on my journey, but they are certainly a place to start. The names I've found to be helpful are Rohr, Hudson and Riso, but I am sure there are others, who have come after them. My one caveat is this: working with the enneagram isn't a parlor trick, or something you do for a feel-good experience. As my dad likes to say, "If it doesn't bring you to your knees, you're not doing it right."
The Enneagram Institute. The 9 Types. International Enneagram.


text:
The problem with many of today's compact digital cameras is the size of the sensor chips that are used in them. Most compacts use a minuscule 1/2.5-inch CCD that's so small even the best lenses struggle to record enough detail. The high level of noise produced by the smaller chips is also a major drawback.
So, when Kodak announced that its latest 8MP compact would use the larger 1/1.8-inch size CCD, it seemed as though the world's best-known photographic brand was finally offering a digital camera that could take great photos in low light and with superior resolution.
And do you know what? Kodak very nearly managed to pull it off, but someone must have decided at the very last minute to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by clamping a soft lens on the front and upping the JPEG compression to a dangerously high level.
The EasyShare V803 offers good specifications on paper, and in an affordable package that's about the dimensions of a medium-size bar of soap. It's even available in a range of attractive colours to suit almost anyone's personality.
To the rear there's a generous 2.5-inch LCD, while at the front there's a Kodak Retinar 3x optical zoom with a range of 36mm-108mm. Until recently, Kodak used Schneider-Kreuznach lenses on many of its compacts, but the super-sharp German glassware has been replaced with a design of Kodak's own making. Sadly, sharpness is lacking and images appear soft and mushy, particularly around the edges.
As you'd expect at such a low price point, the V803 is no leviathan, but it feels solid nonetheless in its high-impact plastic shell. The controls are easy to use and, apart from having to ensure the lens is extended even when you simply want to view your photos, it's a doddle to master. The scene modes are easy to select and the panoramic function works like a dream - it even stitches the image together for you in-camera.
Another interesting feature is Kodak's Picture Perfect technology, a post-shooting function that can adjust levels and tweak an image once you've shot it. It does take a good ten seconds to do all the computing and manipulation, but you can save the tweaked image as a copy rather than over-writing the original file.
How usable is it?
So, this seems like it could be a very usable, affordable and attractive compact camera... until you begin to examine the images it produces. Noise is the first thing that strikes you (certainly no better than a 1/2.5-inch CCD).
The second disappointment is the softness of the lens, which gives a degree of purple fringing and internal reflection. Finally, the JPEG compression ratio which is applied to the saved images is simply too high and a lot of detail is squandered. Unfortunately, unlike most digital cameras, the amount of compression can't be reduced.
Picture taking with the V803 can be a painful experience because, despite the quoted shutter delay of less than 0.4 seconds, the auto-focus mechanism has a tendency to be unreliable, slow and inaccurate. So forget about taking action shots - this camera takes us back to the early days of digital photography, when every shot had to be anticipated carefully because of the agonising delay of the shutter response.
This is almost bordering on unusable and that may have something to do with the Kodak lens... certainly, the Schneider-Kreuznach mechanisms on previous models felt snappier when focusing.
In its attempt to produce an impressive 8MP compact, Kodak has done the right thing by choosing a larger CCD sensor. However, the only aspect of the camera that's worthy of praise is the colour reproduction. Sadly it's wasted the opportunity - what's the use of vibrant colour if your pictures are soft due to JPEG compression and you miss action shots because of a slowcoach shutter?
Via PhotoRadar


text:
Posted On: Sep 12, 2012
We are excited to announce that Amazon CloudFront, the easy-to-use content delivery network , has added a new edge location in Madrid, Spain. This is our first edge location in Spain and this new location will speed up the delivery of static, streaming and dynamic content to end users in and around Spain. Each new edge location helps lower latency and improves performance for your end users.
If you're already using Amazon CloudFront, you don't need to do anything to your applications as requests are automatically routed to this location when appropriate. The Amazon CloudFront location in Madrid supports all Amazon CloudFront features including support for dynamic content, cookies, low minimum content expiration periods, live streaming to multiple devices using FMS 4.5 or Live Smooth Streaming, streaming media, private content, invalidation, and custom origins.
To learn more about Amazon CloudFront, please visit the detail page for the service.


text:
Used DS Cars in Lancashire
Evans Halshaw aim to help you find a used DS car in Lancashire that's right for you. With a range of different DS models, you can browse our second-hand DS cars in Lancashire. Our price guarantee, also gives you peace of mind as we constantly review and update our used DS vehicles to offer you the best price. Explore online our used DS cars for sale in Lancashire, or find out more by contacting us.


text:
The Bent Brick's Second Act
It takes some major cojones for a restaurateur to admit defeat. When the Bent Brick owner Scott Dolich announced the departure of chef Will Preisch from his modernist-leaning kitchen, he broadcast an entirely new direction for the confusing (or confused?) follow-up to his beloved, farm-centric Park Kitchen. Gone are the conceptual experiments that clashed with the laid-back space. In their place? Homey roasts, house-made sausages, and inviting tavern sides.
The reborn Bent Brick is almost aggressively down-home, with a colorful caddy of homemade condiments, a kids' menu hand-scrawled in red crayon, and a near-fetishized utilization of Old Bay seasoning. But when the food arrives, cutesy descriptors fade to dishes nothing short of satisfying. Picture crispy duck-fat-fried jo-jos dipped in cool and creamy ranch; juicy "hamburger dogs" oozing cheese beneath bright pickle relish; and grilled flatiron steaks accompanied by a long list of add-on sides, from steak house–style creamed kale to Dungeness crab salad chunked with salt cod.
The Bent Brick
1639 NW Marshall St
The choose-your-own-adventure menu is a fitting answer to the growing demand for options friendly to food allergies and aversions. But the new Bent Brick also captures Dolich's station in the food world—a dad with school-age tykes, back in the kitchen after years of investing in the creativity of younger chefs. Ten years ago, Dolich earned high marks for experimentation at Park Kitchen. But he's the first to admit that he's learned a lot about what diners want over the years. "In Portland, it doesn't always have to be modern or challenging," he says. "It just has to be delicious.