text:
The Power and the Money http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/ The economics and politics of instability, empire, and energy, with a focus on Latin America and the Caribbean, plus other random blather and my wonderful wonderful wife. And I'd like a cigar right now. en-US 2014-11-15T15:47:03-04:00 The numbers point to Kurdish independence rather soon http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2014/11/kurdish-oil-and-the-united-states.html Last week I was in Boston. There I met the man who would be the foreign minister of Kurdistan, if Kurdistan had a foreign ministry. I asked him about the ongoing battle between Kurdistan and the central government over the...
 Last week I was in Boston. There I met the man who would be the foreign minister of Kurdistan, if Kurdistan had a foreign ministry. I asked him about the ongoing battle between Kurdistan and the central government over the region's oil sales.

He responded simply. "It is a matter of principle. We want to sell our own oil."

Oh boy. Not that I blame the Kurds, but oh boy. Given that the Kurds do not consider the dispute a simple deal to be negotiated, I do not expect yesterday's settlement between Baghdad and Erbil to hold for long. Kurdistan will be declare independence within two years.

Under the Iraqi constitution, Kurdistan is due 17% of all Iraqi oil revenues. That is a lot; rather more than what the region can earn from its own production. The deal requires Kurdistan, however, to give up all control over its internal oil production to the central government.

That never happened. Rather, until January the post-occupation status quo (hammered out and guaranteed by the Americans) was that Kurdistan could sign production contracts with foreign companies in contravention of Iraqi law. Any oil produced under those contracts, however, would be turned over to the central government, which would sell it. Kurdistan would receive its 17% of total national oil revenues, from which it would pay the oil companies according to their contracts with the Kurdish government.

In January, though, Kurdistan started selling its oil directly. It promised to deduct those revenues from bill due it from Baghdad. One problem with that is that the government take in Kurdistan is much lower than in the rest of Iraq, which in effect meant less revenue for the central government. The other problem was that it violated Iraqi law. So Baghdad cut off all revenues to Kurdistan and threatened to sue anyone who bought Kurdish oil.

The U.S. played a passive-aggressive role towards Baghdad. It supported Iraq verbally, but when the Iraqis tried to enforce their rights in American courts it did nothing. The Justice Department could have weighed in ... but no. Radio silence. And so, the Texas judge ruled that the dispute was outside his jurisdiction. (By the way, this was the right thing for Washington to do. We owe the Kurds but we cannot be seen to be abetting violations of Iraqi law. Difference, split!) A good legal analysis from some Baker Botts lawyers can be found here.

Kurdistan succeeded at selling a lot of oil, but at a 20% discount. From January to last week, the Ministry of Natural Resources reported selling 34.5 million barrels. Of that, 21.5 million went through the new pipeline to Turkey and the rest went on trucks. Kurdistan earned $2.87 billion from the sales; $2.1 billion in cash and $775 million in swaps of crude for refined products. ($1.3 million of the cash is being held in escrow in Turkey.) That means that Kurdistan earned $83 per barrel on its exports at a time when Brent traded (on average) for $104 per barrel. And that is before deducting the $400 million that the country had to pay the truckers to move the stuff. (Some of the $400 million went to upstream producers, but Kurdistan has understandably mostly not been paying them. $31 per barrel is not an unreasonable trucking cost considering as trucking runs about $20 per barrel in the United States.)

Might the discount on Kurdish oil be due to low quality? After all, crude oil comes in different flavor. Heavier and more sulfur-ridden crudes are harder to refine and command lower prices per barrel than lighter "sweeter" crudes. Kurdish oil, however, is neither particularly heavy nor particularly sour. Oil from the Taq Taq is very light. Other grades from Kurdistan are relatively sour, but overall the quality resembles the Urals blend from Russia. Urals trades at around a $1-$2 discount against Brent, much less than $20. (The link will take you a historical time series; the discount has occasionally touched $3 for short periods; it has also occasionally fallen to zero.) Maya is heavier and more sour than Kurdish production, and its spread below WTI is only around $10. In other words, the Kurdish discount appears to be somewhere between $10 and $18 per barrel.

Kurdistan is earning less than it would under its deal with Iraq. Between January and September, Iraq exported $66.0 billion worth of crude. (We will avoid asking why Iraq cannot field a decent army with such revenues.) Add Kurdish production minus an $18 per-barrel-discount and Iraq as a whole exported more than $69.4 billion. 17% of that is $11.8 billion. Even the smaller 11% that the Kurds were actually receiving would have come to $7.6 billion. That is a whole lot more than the $2.5 billion the country actually got net of price discounts and transportation costs. And even that figure is deceptive, since Kurdistan will eventually need to start paying the oil companies their share of the revenue.

The rub is that Kurdistan expects its exports to grow. Right now, the place has been exporting about 126,000 barrels per day. The country hopes to hit 1m barrels per day by the end of 2015. At that level, Kurdistan is likely better off on its own unless oil production in the south also explodes. Which is likely in the long run (to a level of 7m bpd or more) but not by 2015 ... maybe around 2020.

In short:

Kurdish independence makes no economic sense right now. Nor does it make sense in the long run. But it will make sense for a brief shining period between 2o15 and 2020;

But Kurdistan has shown that it is willing to pay the economic cost of independence (and say so publicly to American academics);

The United States has only half-heartedly backed the Iraq central government in its legal fight against Kurdish oil exports;

Iraq has taken Kurdistan to international arbitration but that is a long slow process; and

Kurdistan is stepping up to the plate against the Islamic State.

Conclusion: the recent revenue-sharing deal will not last. Kurdistan will declare independence within two years.
 Energy Iraq Noel Maurer 2014-11-15T15:47:03-04:00 Vox fails World War 2 history http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2014/11/vox-fails-world-war-2-history.html Vox is a very useful website. I admire what they are trying to do. But sometimes they just completely screw things up. This time, they did so in their grandiosely-named "40 maps that explain World War II." The big problems...
 Vox is a very useful website. I admire what they are trying to do. But sometimes they just completely screw things up. This time, they did so in their grandiosely-named "40 maps that explain World War II."

The big problems start with Map 10: "The amphibious invasion of the United Kingdom that never happened." All you need to know about the problem is in the last line of the caption: "As the British advantage in the air grew, Hitler was forced to shelve his invasion plans."

Christ almighty, no. No. No no no. Nazi Germany had no way of successfully invading the British isles regardless of the outcome of the Battle of Britain. First, the Royal Navy was in the way, not just the Royal Air Force. Second, on four occasions the British military waved away the entire Royal Navy and Royal Air Force in order to game out an invasion ... and in all four exercises the invasion collapsed with days. Click the link for Alison Brooks' classic essay.

After that, the other problems are minor. Map 13 is about Operation Barbarossa. It is true that the Germans failed to take Moscow before winter set in, which was a serious problem ... but the order of the sentences in the caption implies that the Germans failed to take Moscow because winter set in, which is not what happened:

The Nazis were able to drive hundreds of miles east and reach the outskirts of Moscow by October. But then Stalin was saved by the bitterly cold winter. The Soviets had more experience operating in cold weather and were better prepared than the Nazis. German equipment was not designed for below-zero temperatures, German soldiers were under-dressed, and they lacked essentials such as antifreeze. Germany never took Moscow.

And while Map 1 points out the Allied economic advantage (meaning really the U.S., U.K., and USSR) the point gets lost in all the later discussions. Here are two examples. First, Map 19 recounts Free French victories in Africa and provides a much-needed antidote to the image of French fecklessness. The problem is that the caption says that the victories "deprived Hitler of much-needed resources," which is not true. The Axis did not draft African soldiers and the  area did not provide any strategic raw materials. (Frex, Gabonese oil production did not start until 1956.)

Second, Map 28 describes the Battle of Midway as a turning point, which it was in the sense of beginning the U.S. offensive ... but was not in terms of being key to a U.S. victory. By the summer of 1943 the U.S. had a wave of new carriers. Japanese-occupied Midway would be right on the doorstep of the main U.S. naval base. It would be thousands of miles away from Japan's. The U.S. would be able to bomb it at will (as we did Wake Island) and rather rapidly starve out the survivors. The Marianas campaign might be pushed back to 1945, but by then the U.S. would have overwhelming superiority. And then the atomic bombs are ready by August.

A later Marianas campaign might give the Soviets the time and inclination to occupy all of Korea instead of just the northern half ... which would make the Battle of Midway the turning point of a war that hadn't even started. You could call the South Korea the big winner of that battle.

But honestly, the implication that Operation Sealion could have worked is the real error. Not to take anything away from the Battle of Britain, which accomplished much, but keeping the Nazis out of London was not one of them.
 British Isles Germany History Japan War Noel Maurer 2014-11-14T16:12:24-04:00 What happened in Maryland? http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2014/11/what-happened-in-maryland.html Department of The Wire: the Maryland gubernatorial election. In a huge suprise, Republican Larry Hogan beat Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown by almost five points. This was a wowzer, given how blue Maryland is and how all the polls predicted a...
 Department of The Wire: the Maryland gubernatorial election. In a huge suprise, Republican Larry Hogan beat Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown by almost five points. This was a wowzer, given how blue Maryland is and how all the polls predicted a Brown victory ... although to be fair to the pollsters, there were no public polls in the final month of the campaign.

So what happened?

"Black people didn't vote," says my source in the Prince George's County government. (Who says I'm not plugged in? Take that, Luke!) Further calls to my people in Bethesda, Silver Spring, and Bowie revealed two further explanations: the rain tax and Anthony Brown's apparent failure to campaign. There are no exit polls, unfortunately, so there is no way to parse the data further.

(I have some more to say about the rain tax. Anyone interested? Bueller?)

All we know is that 46% of registered voters went to the polls in 2014, down from 73% in 2012 and (more relevantly) 53% in the 2010 gubernatorial election.* Which is consistent with the "black people didn't vote" explanation as well as the two reasons put forth for why they did not vote. More information tomorrow after a visit to middle-class voters in Baltimore County.

But this election does mean that Thomas Carcetti will not become President.

ADDENDUM: 2010 turnout can be calculated from data here and here. 2012 turnout can be calculated from data here and here. 2012 turnout can be calculated from data here and here. The data refer interchangeably to"eligible" and "registered" voters but it is clear from context that they mean registered.

I did some more poking around the Maryland election website cited above. In 2014, Governor O'Malley won 1,044,961 votes to win by 268,642. Comparing 2014 to 2010, turnout in the aforementioned Prince George's County (65% black and and 84% Democratic by registration) fell by 20,403. Turnout in Baltimore City (63% black and 84% Democratic) fell by 26,390. Turnout in Baltimore County (26% black and 60% Democratic) fell by 29,039. And turnout in Montgomery County (16% black and 61% Democratic) fell by 46,122. The total fall in turnout in the state's four big black and Democratic counties dropped in total by 121,954.

Wow. That is some serious lack of charisma from Anthony Brown ... or at least an incredible level of annoyance at the rain tax. "I can't bring myself to vote for a Republican, but Larry doesn't seem to have taken any crazy pills and I am annoyed at that rain tax. So to hell with it, I'll stay home." Hogan ran a vacuous campaign, but so did Brown. Actually, click that last link ... Brown ran a terrible campaign, worse than vacuous. Add to that the strong national headwind and ... wow.

Why do I care? After all, I live across the border in D.C. and Hogan is no apocalyptic Tea Partier; he isn't even a Free State version of Scott Walker. But he does have the power to kill the Purple Line. And that would be a bad thing that would make my life worse. My hope is that strong support from the business community and the fact that the project is getting lots of federal cash will change his mind. Those same arguments didn't convince Chris Christie or Rick Scott when faced with similar dilemmas, but Christie was running for President and Rick Scott was facing a silly project. (Scott is also an idiot.) So there is hope.
 US Politics Noel Maurer 2014-11-08T17:18:10-04:00 $50,000 homes in Palo Alto? http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2014/11/50000-homes-in-palo-alto.html Courtesy of Alex Harrowell, here is an interview Larry Page gave to the Financial Times. The interview is full of a lot of blather and show Page's resolute determination to avoid thinking about the negative consequences of technological unemployment. Most...
 Courtesy of Alex Harrowell, here is an interview Larry Page gave to the Financial Times. The interview is full of a lot of blather and show Page's resolute determination to avoid thinking about the negative consequences of technological unemployment. Most of the interview should make you a little angry, even if you agree with his contention that there is not enough innovation around making cheaper goods and physical services.

But not all of the interview is content-free. At one point, Mr. Page says: "Even more than technology, he puts this down to policy changes needed to make land more readily available for construction. Rather than exceeding $1m, there's no reason why the median home in Palo Alto, in the heart of Silicon Valley, shouldn't cost $50,000, he says."

Alex asks, "Does anyone know what Larry Page means by this?" In comments, Alex adds, rightly, "He's [Larry Page] confusing incremental and order-of-magnitude changes, which is actually a very un-codery thing to do."

That's true, but Page isn't being crazy. He's off-base, likely by a factor of two, but acceptably so for an offhand comment in a general interview. Consider:

Imagine the city allowed as-right floor-area-ratios above ten for the whole city, with no setbacks other than the sidewalk right-of-way and no parking requirements. Multifamily 4-7 story housing in the less-regulated parts of the Sunbelt costs about $150 per square foot. In suburban Miami, basic modular construction (no frills, but in code) can go as low as $100. The reason construction costs are higher in California is not fully understood but much is due to the cost of planning delays — you need to line up financing in order to get a building permit. The more uncertain the planning, the higher the costs. So also imagine that the planning delays were gone.

In Brooklyn in the 1980s the Nehemiah Housing fund put up 1150-square-foot rowhouse for a cost (in 2013 dollars adjusted using the average wage index) of $93,100 ... that's about $81 per square-foot for a block-long row of small homes. That gets you a small apartment for $50,000; one upstairs and one downstairs. Later houses went up in Brooklyn for about $110 which is the ballpark for the $133 all-in unsubsidized cost for housing that went up in East New York in 2009.

Assuming a cost of $150 gets you a 300-square-foot efficiency for $50,000. (At $81 you get 625.) You could push the cost down to $80 by building to five stories and eliminating elevator requirements. For example, I was a teenager in a 670-square-foot three-bedroom one-bath apartment in a Manhattan walkup. You could build a similar unit pretty cheaply today. It would just happen to be illegal.

Land costs are an issue for Palo Alto and there are overhead costs. Land runs north of $3.9 million per acre, or $90 per square foot.  Google bought land for $75 per square foot. At a floor-area-ratio of five (e.g., five-story buildings covering the entire lot) that's about $18 per square foot of interior space. And then there's financing, sales cost, and profit … that will boost costs by 24% above development costs.

The total comes to $80 (construction) + $18 (land) + $23 (overhead) = $119 … or one small 420 square foot efficiency for $50,000. Assumes external staircases and corridors. Not a pretty building, no, but remotely possible.

Now, I doubt that there's enough demand to cover downtown Palo Alto with cheap five-story modular walk-ups filled with tiny efficiency apartments. So the claim that average costs in Palo Alto should be $50,000 is silly. But the claim that you should be able to buy an efficiency for $50,000 within a short commute is not. And you could cover Palo Alto with East New York-style rowhouses at a cost of $264,000 per unit for two 800-square foot units, including land. ($207,000 for the 2,321 square-foot lots; $133 per square foot construction for 1,640 square feet of building; 24% overhead.) Not bad. Hell, not bad at double that cost and maybe even doable for $202,000 at $80 construction cost and half the profit margin.

Eventually you can build this:

Which would look like this as you sped past on Highway 101 in your robocar:

That is completely awesome! I would live a couple blocks from that. Wait, I live Friendship Heights in D.C. near the city line with a certain part of Bethesda ... I do live a couple blocks from that! Too bad the local governments keep the development bottled up even where I live.

Am I wrong? Did I make a math mistake? If not, a cheap Bay Area is possible! Hell, it's easy. $50,000 efficiencies, here we come!

But I am a pessimist and doubt that it will ever happen. No two-story rowhouses, no five-story buildings. Be prepared for America's first gilded metro area!
 Noel Maurer 2014-11-04T17:09:22-04:00 Inexplicable Japanese scandal http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2014/11/inexplicable-japanese-scandal.html Germany has a lot of inexplicable political scandals, simply because standards are so high. Japan, not so much. There is one recent Japanese scandal which does on its face indeed seem scandalous, even by the lax standards of this glorious...
 Germany has a lot of inexplicable political scandals, simply because standards are so high. Japan, not so much.

There is one recent Japanese scandal which does on its face indeed seem scandalous, even by the lax standards of this glorious hemisphere ... but which upon further investigation seems to be the opposite of a scandal.

Yoichi Miyazawa, the trade minister, got in some trouble last week because his people spent public money to frequent an S&M club. Meh. The amount was only $170. Of course it should not have been expensed, but neither should $170 in tickets for the Equalizer.

But that's not the non-scandal. The non-scandal is that Minister Miyazawa turns out to own 600 shares in Tepco. Tepco, you might recall, is the operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. And Miyazawa's ministry would  ultimately be responsible for regulating Tepco. A clear scandal!

Well, maybe. Miyazawa owned those shares before the 2011 tsunami.

In other words, after taking an 80% loss the Minister Miyazawa has held on to some flatlining shares. It does look bad, I will admit, and he should sell them. But a serious scandal this really is not. Or am I missing something?
 Japan Politics Noel Maurer 2014-11-03T16:54:22-04:00 Not terrible news from Texas http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2014/10/not-terrible-news-from-texas.html Fracking! It's in the news all the time. The controversy never seems to dim. There are a lot of false fears about fracking ... but three very real ones. The first is that when the frack fluid gushes back out...
 Fracking! It's in the news all the time. The controversy never seems to dim.

There are a lot of false fears about fracking ... but three very real ones. The first is that when the frack fluid gushes back out of the ground it is a lot nastier than when it went in and the "flowback" needs to be disposed of somehow. The second is that it uses a lot of water. The third is earthquakes. (I doubt this is a surprise to most readers, but you never know.)

In fact, the earthquake problem is really a subset of the flowback disposal problem. Fracking production wells does not (we think) trigger earthquakes. But pumping the flowback back underground into abandoned old wells does lubricate the rocks and cause them to slip. The result is myriad small quakes. (Although a Richter 3 tremor can knock down poorly-built brickwork.)

And now  Texas and New Mexico are starting to deal with the last two issues. The Texas Railroad Commission just ruled that disposal well operators must go back 100 years through U.S. Geological Survey data within a 5½-mile radius. If geologists judge that the well caused a quake, the TRC will shut it down.

Meanwhile, New Mexico is looking to imitate Texas in encouraging the reuse of flowback in new fracking operations, thus saving on the amount of freshwater needed. ("Encourage" may be too strong a word; Texas simply allowed companies to reuse frack fluid without a permit if they own a lease.)

So, not terrible news from Texas.
 Energy Environment Texas Noel Maurer 2014-10-31T10:56:44-04:00 Oil prices and the new tight oil http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2014/10/oil-prices-and-the-new-tight-oil.html Oil is weird. Production usually doesn't decline with prices. The reason is that the big expenses for conventional wells are all up-front. Once you've made those investments, you can keep producing even at low prices. And usually any revenue is...
 Oil is weird. Production usually doesn't decline with prices. The reason is that the big expenses for conventional wells are all up-front. Once you've made those investments, you can keep producing even at low prices. And usually any revenue is better than none.

Tight oil — the stuff made by fracking — is different. Wells have high decline rates, sometimes dropping as much as 80% in the first year. So you gotta keep drilling to keep up production. The logical conclusion, then, is that when oil prices drop below the cost of drilling, the amount of production will rapidly start to fall. This should serve to stabilize oil prices.

But ... there are two counterpressures. The first is a secular decline in the cost of horizontal drilling and fracking. My friends at Laredo Petroleum have become very good at this ... and the Financial Times presents more evidence here. In the Permian Basin in Texas drilling costs have fallen from around $7 million per well in 2011 to $5 million today; IHS estimates that breakevens have dropped from $70 to $57 per barrel.

The second is something that does in fact occur in conventional oil as well: when prices slump, so does the demand for all the specialized inputs that oil operations need. Geologists, rigs, roughnecks, all will cut their prices. So will landowners: they will offer cheaper leases and accept fewer royalties. After all, some revenue is better than none. And oil service companies would prefer to take losses for a couple of years than have no business and risk losing all their skilled people and specialized equipment.

So maybe, just maybe, the logic is wrong and the recent fall in prices will not rapidly reverse itself as unconventional production falls.

More here and here.
 Energy Noel Maurer 2014-10-22T18:05:12-04:00 Luftwaffel http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2014/10/luftwaffel.html The old Air Ministry building in Berlin is quite impressive, if astoundingly ugly. Ironically, it missed damage from Allied bombing during the war. The Russians then ran their occupation zone out of the building. When they set up the puppet...
 The old Air Ministry building in Berlin is quite impressive, if astoundingly ugly. Ironically, it missed damage from Allied bombing during the war. The Russians then ran their occupation zone out of the building. When they set up the puppet German Democratic Republic, the council of ministers occupied the old Air Ministry until 1961, after which it housed Communist bureaucrats. When East Germany collapsed and became part of the Federal Republic, it became the home of the Treuhand, an organization charged with privatizing most of East Germany's communist economy. It now lies empty.

An impressive military structure sitting empty; I suppose it could serve as a metaphor for the current German armed forces. This report is shocking, particularly the pathetic status of the Luftwaffe. For those of you who cannot get through the paywall:

Transall C-160 transport planes: 44% inoperational

Helicopters: 78% inoperational

Eurofighters: 61% inoperational

Other fighters: 57% inoperational

Marder infantry fighting vehicles: 31% inoperational

U212 Submarines: 25% inoperational 75% inoperational

Transport planes have broken down delivering weapons to Kurdistan and medical supplies to Senegal.

Why even pretend to even have a military?
 Germany War Noel Maurer 2014-10-21T13:17:49-04:00 The meeting that wasn't; the soccer match that was http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2014/10/the-meeting-that-wasnt-the-soccer-victory-that-was.html Last Tuesday I was in Boston to meet with Prime Minister Edi Rama of Albania about electricity theft. I met the Prime Minister, but not as expected. He was outside the meeting room, chatting into his cellphone. He gave me...
 Last Tuesday I was in Boston to meet with Prime Minister Edi Rama of Albania about electricity theft. I met the Prime Minister, but not as expected. He was outside the meeting room, chatting into his cellphone. He gave me a hearty hello, but then went back to his conversation.

While waiting, I talked with one of the plainclothes security guards — sworn Massachusetts State Police officers working for Harvard, not Albanian secret service — and our conversation quickly segged from the NLCS (the Giants were going to play St. Louis around 6pm EST) to the ongoing Albania-Serbia match being played in Belgrade. A subminister joined our conversation; it seemed that the game had been stopped by a riot! Obviously the Serb fans started it, which under UEFA rules would mean an automatic 3-0 victory for Albania. (I that actually is the rule: Italy was awarded a 3-0 victory in 2010 when Serb fans broke up a Euro Cup qualifying match in Genoa.)

The prime minister then disappeared, which I thought was odd. We had the meeting with the energy subminister, the finance minister, and the economy minister. (The latter has a good shot at being prime minister some day.) After that, I flew back home to D.C.

Well. It turns out that somebody flew a remote-controlled helicopter carrying an Albanian-nationalist flag over the pitch. And not just any flag; this one was emblazoned with a map of Greater Albania, encompassing not only Kosovo but big chunks of Serbia proper. It also had portraits of Ismail Qemali and Isa Boletini. (The latter was from Kosovo and fought against Serbia during WW1.) A Serbian player grabbed the banner, then some Albania players tried to take it back, and a riot erupted.

Rumors have since flown that the prime minister's brother piloted the drone. The brother has denied it. But the kerfuffle forced the PM to miss his meeting with us. And since then it's gotten worse: the PM has had to cancel his planned visit to Belgrade. Serb fans have set Albanian flags on fire and there have been reports of attacks on Albanian-owned bakeries.

At the end of the day I am not particularly worried. The tensions are real, of course, but we are not about to see another round of Balkan wars. UEFA has not yet decided whether Albania or Serbia will be awarded a 3-0 victory; given the circumstances, it a good case could be made either way.

But it did ruin my trip up to Boston. No props to whomever flew in the flag, the players on the field, or the Serbs in the stands.
 Balkans Sports Noel Maurer 2014-10-21T12:15:12-04:00 Was independence essential to American economic success? http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2014/10/was-independence-essential-to-american-economic-success.html A couple of posts down, I cast some doubt on the assertion that continued British rule would have slowed American economic growth after 1776. I have now come across a Gavin Wright essay that makes just that case. Wright argues,...
 A couple of posts down, I cast some doubt on the assertion that continued British rule would have slowed American economic growth after 1776. I have now come across a Gavin Wright essay that makes just that case.

Wright argues, correctly I think, that a lot of early American growth was based on the creation of a labor market that excluded slavery from the Northwest (i.e., Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio), a relatively egalitarian land distribution, a unified national product market and deep capital markets. If those three things do not happen under continuing British imperial rule, then North America will be poorer.

On page 294, Wright suggests that the British parliament might have done less to exclude slavery from the Northwest. I am skeptical of that proposition. It is true that Indiana only rejected slavery because Congress would not have admitted it as a slave state under the written conventions on Senate balance. But it is also true that the imperial British parliament could have even more clearly and less contentiously banned slavery from the area. I do not see why London would be slower to act than Washington. After all, the Empire did ban slavery almost three decades before the United States.

Wright raises the issue of a more egalitarian land distribution but then drops it. It seems uncontestable that American policy fostered a more equal land distribution. (Certainly in what was then called the Northwest.) two propositions remain unclear: (1) how much those policies worked relative to an imperial counterfactual and; (2) how much they mattered to growth as opposed to distribution. Color me agnostic.

It is true that independence fostered the growth of American capital markets. But Canada developed solid capital markets and a strong banking system. It is possible that internal disunity under British rule would have delayed the creation of an American capital market, but I am skeptical. There certainly would have been less fear of default among British colonial provinces than American federal states.

What does that leave? Continued British rule might have led to interprovincial protectionism from each other combined with lower tariffs against Britain. Both outcomes are possible. Canadian history suggests otherwise, but only after a span of decades. For example, Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick only established reciprocal free trade in 1846. That on a continental scale would have made British North America poorer than our United States.

In short, had continued British rule fostered multiple small and protectionist provinces (as it did in Canada for a remarkably long time), then it would have been bad for North America.

But was that a likely outcome?
 Empire History USA Noel Maurer 2014-10-19T09:55:53-04:00 What would Lesser Mexico have been like? http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2014/10/what-would-lesser-mexico-have-been-like.html In comments, Will Baird asks what would have happened to Mexico had the United States taken even more territory in the Mexican-American War. The answer is that it depends. First things first: the current U.S.-Mexico border is improbable given the...
 In comments, Will Baird asks what would have happened to Mexico had the United States taken even more territory in the Mexican-American War.

The answer is that it depends.

First things first: the current U.S.-Mexico border is improbable given the result of the war. The U.S. invaded Mexico hoping to take everything north and east of the Rio Grande, plus California down to somewhere around Monterrey. (Yes, that would have left Los Angeles in Mexico.) The U.S. won all the battles in the north and asked for a settlement. Mexico refused. So eventually General Scott pressed all the way to Mexico.

The American envoy to the Mexican government, Nicholas Trist, was a member of the Whig Party and a vocal opponent of the war. President Polk had appointed him to negotiate with Mexico for precisely that reason; it gave him political cover against accusations that the war was just a land-grab for the slave states. (Northern Mexico was a good place to grow cotton.) The problem was that when the U.S. wound up occupying Mexico City because the Mexicans refused to negotiate, President Polk decided to expand his ambitions. He recalled Trist, intending to demand more Mexican territory. Trist, however, ignored his recall order. In fact, he took it to the Mexicans and said, in effect, "Negotiate with me, you idiots, because the next guy is gonna demand a lot more territory." The Mexicans agreed with this logic and negotiated a treaty that more-or-less gave us the current border. (Trist was not a bad negotiator: he was authorized to accept a border as far north as Monterrey or as far south as Tijuana; he pushed it as far as he could.) Treaty in hand, Trist returned to Washington, which put President Polk in an impossible position. The Whigs in Congress refused to vote money to continue the occupation of Mexico unless the President accepted a tariff increase.

At the time the Democrats were the party of free trade, which gave Polk three unpalatable choices. (1) Submit the Trist treaty to the Senate and give up on the dream of new slave states in Tamaulipas, Nuevo León, and Coahuila; (2) Get more Mexican territory but accept the permanent tariff increase to finance the occupation for the duration of the negotiations; or (3) get absolutely nothing beyond Texas when Congress refused to finance the army. He went with option (1).

But what if he had taken option (2)? Or what if Trist had obeyed orders and gone home? The U.S would have taken an additional swathe of northern Mexico. How would that have changed Mexican history?

The first question we need to answer is: how much more territory? We know that President Polk told his cabinet as early as May 30, 1846 (a mere 18 days into the war) that he preferred a boundary at the 26th parallel, although he would settle for less.1 When the Mexicans proved incalcitrant, he told his cabinet that he also wanted to seize the port of Tampico and "make the Sierra Madra [sic] the line."2 That is a pretty concrete counterfactual, and it provides us with a new border. It would run from a little north of Los Mochis, continue east to the north of Torreón and Saltillo. Between Saltillo and Monterrey it would turn south, skirting to the west of Ciudad Victoria and then darting to the coast right below Tampico. (It's the thick black line below.)

What effect would the new border have on Mexico? My first answer was that it would have nothing predictable until 1910. And upon consideration, that answer is probably right.

Some history: France invaded Mexico in late 1861, ostensibly over unpaid debts. In reality, the French had struck a deal with disgruntled Conservatives in Mexico, who were angered by the anti-clericalism of the Second Mexican Republic. In our world, the French pushed the Republican forces under Benito Juárez back to El Paso de Norte. (El Paso de Norte is now called Ciudad Juárez.) They then established the Second Mexican Empire under Maximilian. But they were reluctant to obliterate Juárez's forces so close to the United States. A year later, with the Civil War over, the U.S. began to give military support to Juárez. Slowly but surely, the Republicans pushed south, and by 1867 the Second Mexican Empire was no more.

The red arrows on the map represent the movements of the Juárez government. It retreated across the Coahuila state line at the end of 1863. In our history, Juárez took refuge in El Paso de Norte. That city bordered Union-controlled territory, at least once troops from California occupied West Texas in 1862.

My first thought was that the new border would have little effect on the course of the Intervention. The French would be reluctant to attack a Saltillo so near the U.S. border. Either that or Juárez would just cross into the U.S. and establish a government-in-exile. The Republicans would regroup, reinvade and win after 1865 just like they did in real history.

Except it isnt that simple. Is Chihuahua in Confederate or Union hands in early 1864? Coahuila is deep in Confederate territory. (In the real world, the state's Mexican governor supported the Confederacy.) The Confederacy supported the French. French troops would have cornered Juárez in Saltillo and destroyed the remains of his government, although the president himself might still escape to Union territory.

But Chihuahua would have been in Union territory. First, Coahuila might have been Confederate, but it would have been weakly Confederate. There is no drive on Chihuahua the way the Texans idiotically tried to invade New Mexico. Second, Chihuahua was filled with old Spanish military colonists who would have been fairly aggressively Union when the other option was dominated by slaveowning Protestants. Third, the main travel routes ran north-south, not east-west; the Californians that reconqured El Paso would have found it very easy to travel to Chihuahua City if need be.

So Juárez retreats across the U.S. border in this world, regroups, and reinvades after 1865. Would there be differences? Yes, probably. Would they be predictable? No. In short, losing the northern territories would have changed Mexican history, but until 1910 those changes would not have been predictable or systematic.

And after 1910? The collapse of the Porfiriato in 1910 and the rise of the subsequent regime was almost entirely a northern story. Take Sonora, Chihuahua and Coahuila out of the federation and you remove both the factions and personalities that drove the Mexican Revolution. So you either get no Mexican Revolution or an unrecognizable one.

At that point it's a mug's game to predict the result. But it won't look like modern Mexico. You'll still have a big semi-industrialized country — we are not talking Greater Guatemala. A succession of unstable military governments is the most likely outcome, but not the only one. All we can say is that Mexico would have been very different.

And the United States? I leave that as an exercise for the reader.

(1)    Diary, I, 438, 496; II, 16.

(2)    Quoted in Slavemaster President, p. 128. The author makes a weirdly unsubstantiated claim about "guerrilla resistance" on the same page; the book is not a reliable source about the Mexican-American War.
 History México Noel Maurer 2014-10-17T23:34:20-04:00 Counterfactual Mexicos? http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2014/10/alternate-mexicos.html In comments, Sam King-Walters asks about "counterfactual Mexicos." Short version: I think it's a fun essay, and John Coatsworth is a brilliant economic historian, but I don't think the conclusions are quite right. The essay, which I first read back...
 In comments, Sam King-Walters asks about "counterfactual Mexicos." Short version: I think it's a fun essay, and John Coatsworth is a brilliant economic historian, but I don't think the conclusions are quite right.

The essay, which I first read back in 2006, postulates three counterfactual scenarios for Mexico. In the first, Mexico declares independence in 1776 instead of 1821. In the second, Mexico declares independence between 1796 and 1808. In the third, independence happens on schedule, but the United States wins the War of 1812 and as a result does not invade Mexico in 1846.

In the first scenario, the U.S. loses the war of independence. (That is almost certainly true, although as Coatsworth concedes, the possibility of a Mexican independence revolt in 1776 is zero. But let's run with it.) The assumption is that Mexico remains chaotic for the same period as it did in reality, but since the chaos starts in 1776 instead of 1821 economic growth begin commensurately early. He allows economic growth to start in 1800 and doubles population growth. He also halves the growth of thirteen colonies laboring under British rule.

The problems? Well, first, I have no idea why continued British rule would halve the growth of the thirteen colonies. No, seriously, I have no idea. British taxes were not onerous and foreign trade did not drive American growth during the period. Nor is it likely that London would have prevented western settlement from occuring for very long, the Proclamation of 1763 notwithstanding. The slowdown in American growth just does not make sense; I need to hear a better justification to believe that a hypothetical British North America would have grown much slower than the actual United States.

As for the acceleration in Mexican growth, well, it ignores the contributions of one John Coatsworth. Political instability wasn't the only reason for slow growth; the country inherited some pretty lousy institutions from Spain. In addition, it had a terrible geography, which required railroads. It is plausible that a more stable Mexico might have started to build railroads around the same time as Spain did (1848), but that advances the onset of economic growth by only 25 years. And even that is not clear: the demand for industrial metals drove Mexico's economic growth in the late 19th-century. The demand for those metals would not change because Mexico became independent earlier. There is no reason why the country could not have had 100 years of independent chaos instead of 55. (And let's remember that Mexico actually had 65 years of chaos; the last ten years of Spanish rule were a mess.)

The above objections also apply to the scenario in which Mexico declares independence between 1796 and 1808. That said, Mexican independence during this period could well have led to Louisiana becoming part of Canada, and that would have greatly changed later history! Unless, of course, Britain transferred all or part of Louisiana to the United States, which is a not-improbable outcome.

It is true that Mexico would have benefitted from holding on to the territories lost to United States. But it is not true that Mexico would have held them with a British buffer or that Mexico would be much richer today. Would Mexico have held California? Maybe ... but with no American threat, London might have seen a very nice chance to take the territory for itself. Or, even more likely, the Californios would have declared independence. And even had Mexico held on to the territory, it is completely unclear to me why it would be any richer than the similar territories that Mexico retained after 1848. Sure, a Mexico with more area and population like Nuevo León and less like Chiapas is a richer Mexico, but that is not the scenario that the essay implies.

The final scenario (where the U.S. wins the War of 1812) fails for all of the above reasons plus a few more. First, it would have implied a declaration of independence by the Mexican elite in the middle of the Hidalgo Revolt, and that was not going to happen. Second, an American victory in the war of 1812 would have made American expansion into Mexico even more likely, as the country tried to preserve sectional balance between the free North and the slave South. Finally, even had the U.S. won the War and 1812, and even had said victory short-circuited an American invasion, and even had Mexico declared independence early, there is no reason to think that independent Mexico would have exhibited any less instability or started to grow any earlier.

Mexico has missed many opportunities (and grabbed others; things could have easily been worse!) but these three are not, I think, among them.
 History México Noel Maurer 2014-10-15T18:05:23-04:00 How Many 'White' People Are Passing? with apologies to Henry Louis Gates http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2014/10/how-many-white-people-are-passing-with-apologies-to-henry-louis-gates.html Hella more than you think. Frank Underwood, certainly. For most of its history, the stereotype of the racial line in the United States was the one-drop rule. You had any African ancestry and you were considered black. Of course, the...
 Hella more than you think. Frank Underwood, certainly.

For most of its history, the stereotype of the racial line in the United States was the one-drop rule. You had any African ancestry and you were considered black.

Of course, the stereotype of the American caste system never really held. The United States was never organized enough to universally enforce the one-drop rule. If you looked white enough to convince strangers, then it was possible for you to "pass" for white. We know that happened a lot. What we don't know is how common it was. Consider Daniel Sharfstein: "According to just about anyone who has considered the question, the migration [from black to white] is impossible to reconstruct... At best, such evidence is scattered across local archives and county courthouses, in library stacks and microfilm reels. Beyond the isolated anecdotes, there seems to be only silence."

Except that's wrong! The U.S. census identified people by race; the census-taker did the identification. So we can, in theory, find out how many people moved from black to white and what happened to them.

And here come Emily Nix and Nancy Qian to do the work! And what do they find?

Using the full population of de-identified historical Censuses for ten Southern states during 1900-1940, we document that over one-fifth of black males "passed" for white at some point during their lifetime, a tenth of whom later reverse-passed to being black; passing was almost always accompanied by geographic relocation to communities with a higher percentage of whites; occurred at all ages; and was positively associated with political-economic opportunities for whites relative to blacks, such as schooling, earnings and voting rights.

The figures in their paper are even more surprising than that. The one-fifth number (21%, to be more exact) is a lower bound: it refers to the individuals that they were able to identify across censuses with perfect confidence. Their most likely estimates are much higher. Consider Table 5: of Southern black children aged 5-14 in 1900, 43% of them were identified as white in 1940. (The absolute lower bound for that number is 28%.)

They also find, less surprisingly, 95-97% of "passers" moved counties and 54% switched states. In addition, passing was associated with crappier conditions for black people in the county of origin. They are going to code up lynching in future work but I doubt that the results will surprise.

But there is still a lot we want to know! How did passers do relative to non-passers, adjusting for socioeconomic status? Did they marry whites or blacks and how did their children identify? What determined the counties that they moved to, besides having a higher percentage of whites? How many moved to the North, and where? What determined reverse-passing, e.g. going back to identification as black?

The authors note that according to data from 23andme, the number of self-identified whites who would be black under the one-drop rule is about 20%. (The 23andme sample is far from random; I suspect the white people skew towards the descendents of Ellis Islanders.) If the Nix-Qian numbers are correct, however, then 20% is likely an underestimate unless one of three things is true: (1) The children of passers re-identified as black in significant numbers; (2) Passers showed significantly below-average fertility; or (3) Passers showed high levels of endogamy, that is, marrying other passers.

Even in Jim Crow America, the color line is turning out to have been extremely fuzzy.
 History USA Noel Maurer 2014-10-11T19:38:21-04:00 Devo Max 1.0, circa 1914 http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2014/10/devo-max-10-circa-1914.html This is a bit of a shaggy dog post about Ireland a century-ago and Scotland today, but I want to put it up anyway. In 1914, the British government finally passed a Home Rule bill for Ireland. Unfortunately, World War...
 This is a bit of a shaggy dog post about Ireland a century-ago and Scotland today, but I want to put it up anyway.

In 1914, the British government finally passed a Home Rule bill for Ireland. Unfortunately, World War I intervened and London never fully implemented the law. That helped fuel the Easter Rising of 1916. Britain and Ireland still might have remained united even with London's botched response to the revolt but for the government's misbegotten decision to extend conscription to Ireland in 1918. My understanding of Irish political history is limited, but finally put paid to the possibility of a peacefully united British Isles seems to have been the combined one-two-three-four punch of (1) suspend Home Rule; (2) put down the Rising with brutal force; (3) shoot the leaders of the rebellion; and (4) finally try to draft the Irish who had in fact already volunteered in large numbers .

How many Irish volunteered during the war? We know that 140,456 enlisted in the armed services over the course of the conflict. Of those, 55% gave their religion as Catholic, according to Keith Jeffrey in Ireland and the Great War.  That would come to a little under 15% of the 1911 Catholic male population aged 15-35. To that one should add the rough 58,000 Irishmen who were already serving the armed forces in 1914, but religious figures for them are hard to come by. A random guess of half would place the number of military-age Catholic men in the war at 20%.

That is not small. It is twice the percentage of military-age male Americans who served during the Vietnam War, and that war involved conscription and a far far lower risk of death. In fact, less than half of all military personnel actually went to SE Asia in 1965-73.

Anyway, to the point: many have argued that had Home Rule been implemented, then Ireland would still be part of the U.K. today. Which makes it surprising that the actual text of the act is so hard to track down! But I finally did. So what were the provisions of the Home Rule act and does it provide a model for Scotland?

Irish Home Rule, circa 1914:

Trade: Ireland would be part of the United Kingdom for commercial and customs purposes.

The West Lothian question: Home rule cut the number of Irish MPs from 103 to 42. That cut Ireland from being overrepresented (15% of seats against 10% of population) to underrepresented (6% of seats), but those MPs still had full voting privileges. Nothing EVEL here.

Tax collection: U.K. bureaucrats would continue to collect and administer all taxes. The funds collected in Ireland would then be remitted to the Irish parliament. This would save autonomous Ireland from the need to set up an internal revenue service.

Courts: The Privy council would remain the chief court of appeal, but it would now be the only court of appeal. In this, Ireland would become like the nominally-independent countries of the modern West Indies.

Services: The bill kept the U.K. in charge of the following: old age pensions, national insurance, post office banks and friendly societies. (But not the actual post office, which would fall under Irish control from the start.) The Irish parliament could take the reserved services over whenever it wanted with a one-year warning. The Royal Constabulary would move to Irish control after six years, although local police, prisons and courts would come under Dublin immediately.

Infrastructure: One service, however, would never be devolved: road-building. Under Article 19, Irish petrol taxes and car license fees would continue to go into the all-U.K. fund and Irish projects would be funded just as elsewhere under the Development and Roads Improvement Fund Act of 1909. The thing is, in practice the Road Fund simply returned car taxes to the county where they were collected. In other words, not a hidden subsidy.

Finance: This part got complicated. Basically, under Home Rule the imperial government (that is the phrase used in the act) would pay Ireland the cost of all Irish services as of 1912 plus £500,000. (Measured as a % of the British GDP, that would be the 2013 equivalent of £340 million.) The surplus was then slated to fall to £200,000 within six years. The Irish government could vary tax rates or impose new ones; if it cut taxes, the transferred sum would fall commensurately and if it raised them it would rise. The £500,000 was in addition to the existing net transfer of £1.5 million, for an initial subsidy of £2 million.

So far, so simple. But there were a few catches. First, £2 million was a realtively small amount of money even for the time. It came to 16% of all government spending in Ireland and only 1.5% of Ireland's nominal GDP in 1912. (From Ó Gráda, Ireland: A New Economic History.)

Second, if Irish expenses grew for any reason, then Dublin would have to finance them from new taxes or by borrowing. Increases in the revenue from existing taxes (say from economic growth) would go to London. Ireland could borrow on the markets, but that was a limited recourse and under an implicit British veto. Of course, the arrangement also provided security against a fall in revenues. The problem, really, would have been that the transferred sum was neither linked to economic growth nor inflation. It would not therefore have provided much of an automatic stabilizer for the Irish economy.

Third, the whole set-up was transitory. Article 26 stated that once all combined Irish and imperial tax revenues collected in Ireland exceeded all combined Irish and imperial expenses in Ireland over three consecutive years, then Parliament would revisit the finance question. In short, once Irish tax revenues exceeded expenses, then London would have a license to cut all subsidies. On the other hand, if revenues fell further behind expenses, then Ireland would be on its own unless Parliament acted.

Of course, Ireland would still have representation in the national parliament, so it might be able to defend (or even expand) its subsidy. Absent faith in the political influence of its representatives in London, however, the Irish parliament in Dublin would have to be nuts to take over the reserved services from the U.K.

Defense: Note that defense was not included. Ireland would pay nothing for the protection of the British army and Royal Navy.

Scottish Home Rule, circa 2014:

Under modern Home Rule, with some adjustments for scale and context, Scotland would see its current fiscal relationship swapped for a lump sum equal to the amount of current U.K. non-defense spending in Scotland plus 4%, presumably adjusted for inflation.

That is really not all that different from the current set-up, under which Scotland gets a block-grant for devolved functions set at 10.03% of English spending on those functions. The big difference is that under a Home Rule-like proposal the grant would no longer be effectively indexed to U.K.-wide economic growth ... and who would want to accept that?

In addition, a modern equivalent of the 1914 Home Rule act would cut Scottish seats in Parliament from 59 to 36. That is less than a solution to the West Lothian question. Moreover, Scotland is barely overrepresented at Westminster in 2014, whereas Ireland was massively overrepresented in 1914.

The current status of Scotland, then, looks a lot like Irish Home Rule with a more generous funding formula. Devo Max, which cuts Scotland off entirely from the U.K. fiscal regime, is rather more autonomy and not a whole lot less insurance. There are better arrangements than Devo Max (consider either American or Canadian fiscal federalism) but the Home Rule proposals of a century ago are not one of them.

Of course, nobody is saying they were! I just ran across a copy of the bill and got curious as to why the precedent never seemed to come up in the modern debate. And now I know.
 British Isles History Noel Maurer 2014-10-09T00:20:50-04:00 How Putin wields Russia's energy weapon http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2014/09/the-unbearable-confusion-of-russias-energy-weapon.html We don't mean lasers. Rather, we mean Russia's shut-off of gas to Ukraine. At first glance, it looks like the Russian Federation is trying to muscle the Ukrainian State by letting the latter freeze in the dark as winter sets...
 We don't mean lasers. Rather, we mean Russia's shut-off of gas to Ukraine.

At first glance, it looks like the Russian Federation is trying to muscle the Ukrainian State by letting the latter freeze in the dark as winter sets in.

At second glance, however, it looks like a commercial dispute between Gazprom (the Russian gas producer) and Naftogaz (the Ukrainian gas distributor). The two companies are locked into a bilateral monopsony-monopoly, where Gazprom needs Naftogaz to supply its product to Europe, and Naftogaz needs Gazprom to provide its product, but neither can depend on a settled and impartially-enforced body of contract law the way they could if both were located inside, say, the European Union or the United States.

In the second view, the problem is a bilateral monopoly where Naftogaz keeps trying to use its geographic position to extort benefits from Gazprom. Naftogaz did enjoy a discount off Gazprom's usual export price until mid-2009. (See below chart.)

Even before losing the discount, however, Naftogaz resorted to simple nonpayment of its debts to Gazprom, or what laymen might call theft. Consider:

2006:

Jan 1, 2006:   Naftogaz-Gazprom negotiations break down; Gazprom cuts shipments;

Jan 4, 2006:   Agreement to increase Ukrainian transit rate, gas prices to Ukraine also raised.

2008-09:

Dec 01, 2008:   Naftogaz pays $268 million on arrears of $2.4 billion;

Dec 19, 2008:   Naftogaz pays another $800 million on arrears of $2.15 billion,;

Dec 30, 2008:  Naftogaz pays $1.52 billion, rejects $614m in penalties;

Jan 01, 2009:   Gazprom cuts taps, pressure drops 6% in Poland and 35% in Romania;

Jan 07, 2009:   Gazprom cuts all gas to Ukraine;

Jan 19, 2009:    Naftogaz agrees to $1.5 bn in back payments, rejects late fees, agreement on $230, changing to 80% of the "market" price, starting in 2010;

Nov 20, 2009:  Russia waives fines for Ukraine from violating take-or-pay provisions.

2010:

Feb 8, 2010:     Yanukovich beats Timoshenko;

Apr 21, 2010:   Yanukovich signs deal to extend Russian lease on Sevastopol until 2017 in return for a 30% discount on gas prices, to a max of $100 per mcm;

Jun 08, 2010:  International arbitration orders Ukraine to return $5 bn in gas to RosUkrEnergo;

Sep 07, 2010:   Russia calls to merge Naftogaz and Gazprom;

Sep 22, 2010:   Putin: "Let's form a unified economic space, unify our economic legislation ... and then we can extend our internal prices to our partners."

2014:

Feb 22, 2014:  Yanukovich flees to Russia in the face of massive protests;

Feb 27, 2014:  Russian troops appear in Crimea;

Mar 17, 2014:  Russia annexes Crimea;

Apr 1, 2014:     Gazprom cancels Ukraine's gas discount because Sevastopol is no longer part of Ukraine, price retroactively jumps to $485;

May 30, 2014: Ukraine pays $786m to Gazprom, Gazprom claims $4.5 bn owed;

June 15, 2014:  Supplies to Ukraine cut off

Some of the incidents in the above list look political. See April 1, 2014, and no it is not a joke that Gazprom stated that it was cancelling the discount due Ukraine for hosting a Russian naval base because Russia had just annexed that territory. But more look like straight-up business disputes. And if Russia seems to be gaining the upper hand in those disputes, well, consider the following:

In 2013, Russia exported about 139 bcm to Europe. As of right now, cutting Ukraine off will only allow Gazprom to export about 120 bcm. But by 2017 the South Stream pipeline across the Black Sea will be opened, and it will be rapidly joined by expansions in the North Stream pipeline through the Baltic Sea. At that point, Gazprom won't need Ukraine anymore in order to export to Europe.

OK, so there are two interpretations. (1) Russia is using gas as a weapon; and (2) Ukraine is just a bad customer. Which is correct?

Both ... but the first is what matters. Consider the context. If Putin believed it was in the strategic interest of the Russian Federation, then he could and would order Gazprom to offer Ukraine discounts galore. Gazprom may be a commercial operation ... but it is not independent. So while it is true that a wholly-commerical Gazprom would be playing hardball with Naftogaz, it is also true that Putin would order it to stop if he got something from the Ukrainian government in return. Like, I dunno, the transformation of the Ukrainian state into the "Ukrainian Federation" and an effective guarantee that the country would remain a Russian satellite forever.

The nice thing for Mr. Putin, however, is that there really is a commercial dispute and Ukraine really is a terrible customer, which gives him cover to let as many Ukrainians as he wants freeze in the dark with no fear of consequences. The troubles with the recent deal to supply Ukraine at $10.48 per MMBTU in return for $3.1 billion in back payments should be seen in that light.

NOTE: Typo in title fixed. I would have used strikethroughs, but they do not seem to work in the title field.
 Empire Energy Russia Noel Maurer 2014-09-28T10:28:44-04:00 Long live united Britain http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2014/09/large-states-are-good.html So far, we feel pretty confident in our long-standing prediction that the Kingdom will remain United. Hooray! Now, can we get some more unifications up around here? I mean, seriously. All this country-splitting is getting a bit boring. Bring back...
 So far, we feel pretty confident in our long-standing prediction that the Kingdom will remain United. Hooray!

Now, can we get some more unifications up around here? I mean, seriously. All this country-splitting is getting a bit boring. Bring back Czecho-Slovakia! Unite the West Indies! Heck, unite the West Indies as part of Canada!

If we must get rid of the United Kingdom, why not have it join Canada? I would get behind that.

And why not have Iceland join the United States?
 British Isles Canada USA West Indies Noel Maurer 2014-09-18T21:33:35-04:00 Still going to bet on No http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2014/09/still-going-to-bet-on-no.html The polls are still not pointing in the direction of Yes. And Sam Wang agrees! I think. Actually, I am not sure what Sam Wang thinks; he is a little cryptic when it comes to Scotland.
 The polls are still not pointing in the direction of Yes. And Sam Wang agrees! I think. Actually, I am not sure what Sam Wang thinks; he is a little cryptic when it comes to Scotland.
 British Isles Politics Noel Maurer 2014-09-17T14:42:33-04:00 Slovakia and Scotland http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2014/09/slovakia-and-scotland.html Over at Charlie's place, a fellow named Cdodgson brought up the split between the Czech Republic and Slovakia as an example of a "peaceful secession from more or less democratic states which the people involved don't regret and don't want...
 Over at Charlie's place, a fellow named Cdodgson brought up the split between the Czech Republic and Slovakia as an example of a  "peaceful secession from more or less democratic states which the people involved don't regret and don't want to reverse." The context, of course, was Scotland.

The basic description is true. The Velvet Divorce was peaceful and the countries were more-or-less democratic. But the Czechoslovak breakup came in the context of the upcoming Scottish vote. And the Velvet Divorce holds few lessons for Scotland.

The history of the Velvet Divorce does however hold lessons for the Velvet Divorce: namely that it was a sleazy breakup of a perfectly functioning country that benefitted no one save the two politicians who arranged it and forced it through: Vaclav Klaus and Vladimir Mečiar. Neither of them did their country any good, before or after the split.

Did the January 1, 1993, division of Czechoslovakia reflect popular opinion? Of course, the answer has no bearing on the benefit of small states or the morality of breaking up democratic polities, but it is interesting ... because it didn't! In 1991, polls showed only 9% of Czechs and 15% of Slovaks favored a split. (Page 252.) By December 1992, support had risen ... to only 36% of Czechs and 37% of Slovaks.

Moreover, Czechoslovakia already showed a rather impressive level of decentralization: in 1992, the federal government controlled only 22% of public spending. (See Table 6.1.) An additional 0.5% of spending went through the federal government to the two states via federal grants. (Table 6.5.) It is true that fiscal grants from the federal government had dried up as an almost accidental response to de-communization. That might have annoyed some Slovaks ... only the polls didn't show it.

The deal was hashed out between Klaus and Mečiar with no popular input. Neither politico was a particularly admirable person. Both leaders refused to hold a referendum because they believed that they would lose.

A continuing federation would have eventually led to more fiscal transfers. It also would have ended Mečiar's ambitions. So Klaus threw out the poorer chunk of the country and Mečiar escaped the limits of the federal system. Win-win for them.

Did the split leave anyone else better off politically or economically? On the Slovak side, the answer is pretty clearly "no," although the country managed to survive the Mečiar years. It came close to some ugly outcomes, though. (See Hungary for a bad but-still-not-worst-case example of the bullet that Slovakia dodged.)

Lose-lose for everyone else. Trade collapsed despite a customs union, and both countries went through a painful adjustment. (Page 60.) It worked out OK in the end, but at grave risk to democracy and the gratuitous sundering of a political community. The Czechs and the Slovaks certainly seem to feel that it was pointless: two decades later, only 41% of Czechs and 29% of Slovaks think the Velvet Divorce was the right thing to do. Given status-quo bias, those numbers are astoundingly low.

There is a value in democratic political communities. They bind people through something more than impersonal market exchanges. It is hard to see why they should be broken up unless they are turning undemocratic (which would include systematized ethnic discrimination) or have such histories of intercommunal hatred that they cannot be made to work without violence.

It may be the case that some members of a democratic community have so soured on the others that they wish to share none of the responsibilities of being in a community. But that is parochial and cramped.

To return to Scotland: the breakup of Czechoslovakia was nothing like the proposed breakup of the United Kingdom. It had no popular support (unlike Scottish independence), led to great economic dislocation for both new countries (unlike Scottish independence, which will likely have no impact on England), occurred in a situation of low fiscal transfers (unlike Scottish independence), led to a near-breakdown of democracy in one of the countries (unlike Scottish independence), and did not occur after several decades of divergent policy preferences (unlike Scottish independence).

Comparisons between Scotland and Slovakia are best avoided, I think, unless the discussion is solely focused on short-term economic effects.
 British Isles Europe Politics Noel Maurer 2014-09-17T14:36:12-04:00


text:
Click here to print the obituary below
Elizabeth M. "Betty" Roman
Elizabeth M. "Betty" Roman, 79, of South Windsor ascended to heaven to be with our Lord on Saturday, Feb. 23, 2013.
Born May 15, 1933, at Hartford Hospital, Betty grew up in East Windsor. After high school she moved to New York City, where she worked at the NBC Radio Network as an assistant supervisor. She moved back to Connecticut in the 1970s, where she was very active in politics including the East Windsor Police Commission. Then she moved to Dallas, Texas, where she worked for the Jimmy Dean Corp. Moving back to Connecticut to take care of her mother and other family members, she worked for the State of Connecticut, administrative offices of the Soldiers, Sailors, and Marine Fund, which she enjoyed very much. In her retirement she enjoyed spending time with her family, her friends, her two dogs, Trooper and Brandy, and making jewelry.
Betty was predeceased by her father, Anthony Roman; her mother, Helen Wanda; and her brother, Paul Roman. She leaves behind three cousins, Robert Wanda, Michael Dunning, and Leo Wanda.
A funeral Mass will be at St. Catherine Church, Broad Brook, July 6, 2013 at 10 a.m., with burial following in St. Catherine Cemetery.
Samsel & Carmon Funeral Home, South Windsor has been entrusted with arrangements.
For online condolences, visit
Funeral Home
Samsel & Carmon Funeral Home
419 Buckland Road
South Windsor, CT 06074-3709
(860) 644-2940
Published in Journal Inquirer from June 27 to July 1, 2013

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Health Information - Med Help
My MedHelp
Abnormal Stress Test
Information, Symptoms, Treatments and Resources
Posts on Abnormal Stress Test
Abnormal Stress Test referred to GI Specialist - Heart Disease Expert Forum
- Mar 03, 2014
I am a 36 year old female with a recent abnormal stress test. I have a history of idiopat...
had abnormal stress test running on treadmill - Heart Disease Community
- Feb 18, 2013
do i actually now need the nuke stress tests as cardio md suggests
Has anyone had an abnormal treadmill stress test but normal nuclear stress test? - Exercise & Fitness Community
- Nov 24, 2010
Has anyone had a normal nuclear stress test but abnormal treadmill stress test?
Abnormal Stress Test - Heart Disease Community
- Jun 20, 2012
Never had any symptoms of heart problems. Just had a Thallium Stress Test as a precautiona...
Abnormal Thallium Stress Test - Heart Disease Expert Forum
- May 20, 2002
I was sent for a Thallium Stress Test to rule out heart problems related to unexplained che...
abnormal stress test - Heart Disease Community
- May 17, 2008
I have had an abnormal stress test what is next for me Thank you
Abnormal stress test - Heart Disease Community
- Mar 06, 2008
Hello, I am a 33 year old african american and has diabetes/hypertension/chlolesterol. I h...
Abnormal stress test - Heart Rhythm Community
- Nov 26, 2008
Hi hope someone can help me.Had lung function tests on monday that came back fine, i also d...
Abnormal Nuclear Stress Test - Heart Disease Expert Forum
- Sep 22, 2008
I have been having PVCs for the past 10-15 days and I went to see my primary care doctor ...
Abnormal Nuclear Stress Test - Heart Disease Community
- Sep 18, 2008
I have been having PVCs for the past 10-15 days and I went to see my primary care doctor ...
View more Posts on Abnormal Stress Test
Share this:
Answers to Your Health Questions
MedHelp Health Answers
Type your medical question here
About Us
Terms of Use
What's New
En español
Report Abuse
Contact Us
Explore Our Android Apps:
My Cycles
I'm Expecting
My Diet Diary
Sugar Sense
Pic Healthy
View All Mobile Apps
The Content on this Site is presented in a summary fashion, and is intended to be used for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be and should not be interpreted as medical advice or a diagnosis of any health or fitness problem, condition or disease; or a recommendation for a specific test, doctor, care provider, procedure, treatment plan, product, or course of action. Med Help International, Inc. is not a medical or healthcare provider and your use of this Site does not create a doctor / patient relationship. We disclaim all responsibility for the professional qualifications and licensing of, and services provided by, any physician or other health providers posting on or otherwise referred to on this Site and/or any Third Party Site. Never disregard the medical advice of your physician or health professional, or delay in seeking such advice, because of something you read on this Site. We offer this Site AS IS and without any warranties. By using this Site you agree to the following
Terms and Conditions
. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your physician or 911 immediately.
This site complies with the
HONcode standard for trustworthy health
verify here
Copyright © 1994-2013
Med Help
. All rights reserved.


text:
Browse these popular wedding categories:
Sort by: Show per page
- 52 items
Sort by: Show per page
- 52 items
Related Products
Personalized Metallic Foil Mini Mason Jars
Add a dash of dazzle to your bridal shower with these pretty personalized metallic foil mini mason jars. Each miniature ...
Personalized Glass Favor Jars
Whether you fill with sweet treats or mini mementos, these personalized glass favor jars are always full of charm. Simply ...
Personalized Pattern Laundry Bag
These personalized pattern laundry bags are stylish and completely customized. ...
Personalized Chalkboard Candy Jars
Personalized chalkboard candy jars are perfectly mini, re usable, and come with a screw on metal lid. Simply personalize the ...


text:
Hotel Alfa
No availability found through our partners. Please contact the business directly or check some of our recommended alternatives.
How has this hotel rated in the past?
Travelers also recommend:
TripAdvisor Reviews Hotel Alfa Florence
Travel Blogs from Florence
Leaning towers and Tuscan goodness !
... at Flinders University for Medical School !!!!!
That afternoon I went for a walk with Rachel and Jess to eat some traditional gelato and have a look at the Michaelangelo's David in the main square of the city.
Although I didn't exactly get up to much in Florence, I really enjoyed the company from our new friends Storm and Jess, and seeing Mia again ! ...
Florence by Night!
... the night went on from there!!Singing, dancing, wine, , more wine, champagne... the bird dance, YMCA,...... needless to say we had a fantastic night... to finish it off , our bus was the last to leave... ok so driving for about 10 min. then someone realizes we've forgotten one couple!!! the big tour bus does a u turn.. ok so the road is so narrow but he pulls it off... we meet the opera singer in his car as he was driving the forgotten couple down the mountain to meet us.... ...
Firenze/Florence: first impressions
... entire end of it is filled by only half the gigantic brick dome!The apartment is a light-filled charmer with a loft bed above the living area with a warm blue feature wall behind the bed, and below a pull-out couch-bed with a faded fresco-blue feature wall, comfy armchair, large round white table, cute decor, light terrazzo flooring, all brightly lit by 2 windows facing out over a minute balcony with ...
Florence — Day 2
... at this point that I will *not* be hiring a car in Italy) we arrive at a tiny wine producer called Solatione, a brother-and-sister team who produce Chianti Classico at a six-hectare vineyard started by their father in 1970. Francesca shows us around their tiny production facility, and their aging room — just three very large oak barrels for the Chianti, which they use for up to 30 years or so. They also have some smaller French barriques which they use to produce a ...
Beautiful Florence
... what I had seen in pictures of Florence. Thankfully the GPS and Sheila got us there, as it was a bit tricky to find. We were greeted by Eduardo, the owner, who runs the place with his wife Celia and their 2 year old daughter, Jennifer. Gorgeous little place and very cheap. We were shown to our room, upstairs with a huge terrace/ bacon overlooking the garden covered in wisteria. Beautiful! Lots of bees, though- epipen handy.


text:
FUN. Set for Radio City Music Hall Tonight
Radio City Music Hall welcomes FUN. to the Great Stage tonight, February 2, 2013 at 8PM. The group-Nate Ruess on vocals, Jack Antonoff on guitar and Andrew Dost on a host of other instruments, are currently on tour in support of their album Some Nights, which features the number-one single, "We Are Young."
Tickets are $41.00 (including a $5 per ticket facility charge and $1 charitable donation).
Tickets to all concert events at Radio City Music Hall are available beginning on the first day of sale through Ticketmaster Charge By Phone and all Ticketmaster Outlets, and beginning on the second day of sale at the Garden, Music Hall and Beacon Box Office. All tickets purchased for Madison Square Garden and Radio City Music Hall events contain a Facility Charge. TicketMaster purchases are also subject to their service charge. The telephone number for Madison Square Garden Event and Ticket Information is (212) 465-MSG1. The telephone number for the Radio City Music Hall Disabled Services department is (212) 465-6115. The TicketMaster information and Ticketmaster phone charge is 1-866-858-0008. Tickets are also available online at www.radiocity.com and www.BoweryPresents.com.
For the latest announcements, socialize with us on Twitter with the hashtag #RadioCityFUN (www.twitter.com/RadioCity) and www.facebook.com/RadioCityMusicHall OR https://twitter.com/bowerypresents and www.facebook.com/thebowerypresents.
About Author
- Producer Says No 'Concrete Conclusion' for THE WALKING DEAD Series Finale
- HOW TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER Stars Reveal Their Murderer Theories
- Anna Kendrick and Jeremy Jordan-Led THE LAST FIVE YEARS Movie to Hit Theaters, VOD on Feb 13
- Photo Flash: Key Art for GIRLS Season 4 Released
- 'BREAKING BAD (Original Score From The Television Series) Volume 2' Double LP Out Today
- President Obama Praises Icons Meryl Streep, Alvin Ailey and More at Medal of Freedom Ceremony
- NBCUniversal & Millennial Trains Project Announce New Partnership
- Official: Rachel McAdams, Taylor Kitsch & Kelly Reilly Join Cast of HBO's TRUE DETECTIVE
- Showtime to Air HOMELAND, THE AFFAIR Marathons this Weekend
- David Dobkin to Direct AMC's BADLANDS Pilot


text:
iPhone - iPod
Walkthrough Level 11 All Solutions for Emoji PopHome / iPhone - iPod /
This page contains Emoji Pop Video Walkthroughs for iPhone - iPod called "Walkthrough Level 11 All Solutions" and has been posted or updated on Jun 28, 2013 by Puzzlegamesolver. Let us know what you think of this Video by thumbs voting.
- Developer: Gamoji Limited
- Publisher: Gamoji Limited
- Genre: Miscellaneous Trivia / Game Show
- Release Date: May 2, 2013
- ESRB: Not Set
Video Walkthroughs
Walkthrough Level 11 All Solutions
Watch this step-by-step Video Walkthrough for Emoji Pop (iPhone - iPod), which will help and guide you through each and every level part of this game and also assist you to find all secrets and solutions to complete this game.
More Video Walkthroughs
Back to all Cheats
Stuck on this game? Set a specific, clearly defined question and let others answer your question or view answers to previously asked questions. If you think you are an Emoji Pop expert then please try to help others with their questions.
Latest Questions
Skull water drop Skull
From: Bubbleeyed
Second World War
From: Lulu
Help please emoji pop
From: Missesmagee
Help stuck on this puzzle
From: Mom
Wave and chicken
From: Simo
3 words for emojji
From: km
Three flags vs three flags
From: bex
2 letter word plz help
From: Something
What is the answer to this two words?
From: sparky12
I need help with emoji pop answer
From: apple
What is this wordAll QuestionsAsk a Question
From: anniewannie
Videos You May Like...
Global Assault - Gameplay Video
- Nov 16, 2014, Views: 0
Xcalibur Fantasy Action RPG - Gameplay Video
- Nov 16, 2014, Views: 1
Captain Strike - Gameplay Video
- Nov 16, 2014, Views: 0
View All Latest Videos
Ironkill - Gameplay Review Trailer
- Nov 16, 2014, Views: 2
Game Related Options
Latest iPhone - iPod Videos
- All Guns Blazing - Official Launch Trailer, (iPhone-iPod)
- DEAD TARGET: Zombie - Gameplay Review Trailer, (iPhone-iPod)
- Hoppy Frog - Gameplay Review Trailer, (iPhone-iPod)
- Stick Hero (2014) - Gameplay Video, (iPhone-iPod)
- Framed - Official Launch Trailer, (iPhone-iPod)
- Running Shadow - Fantasy Runner - To Be An Assassin! - Gameplay Video, (iPhone-iPod)
- Cooking Fever - Gameplay Video, (iPhone-iPod)
- MageCraft: The War - Gameplay Review Trailer, (iPhone-iPod)
New Released Games
Popular Videos
- Kim Kardashian: Hollywood - Gameplay, (iPhone-iPod)
- Episode: Choose Your Story - Gameplay, (iPhone-iPod)
- How To Train Your Dragon 2 - Ready To Fly Trailer, (Wii)
- The Settlers - Kingdoms Of Anteria - Announcement Trailer, (PC)
- Entwined - Quick Look Trailer, (PS3)
- Blue Estate - Official Launch Trailer, (PS4)
- Goat Commando 3D Simulator - Gameplay, (iPhone-iPod)
- Munin - Official Launch Trailer, (iPad)


text:
With fans and fellow co-stars still reeling over Leah Messer quitting Teen Mom 2 and wondering what led to her decision, the future of the show is equally in doubt.
Will the MTV hit continue on without the troubled mother of three?
According to one alleged insider, don't stick a fork in it just yet.
"The other three girls have all signed on and are ready to film a sixth season," a source says of Jenelle Evans, Kailyn Lowry and Chelsea Houska.
"They'll be shooting as usual."
While Messer and the aforementioned trio are all friends – unlike Farrah Abraham, who was ousted by her Teen Mom co-stars – they were as surprised as we were.
"She hasn't told anyone what's really going on," the source says.
No one knows exactly why she's out, but there are some theories:
- Leah is in the throes of drug addiction and depression;
- Her marriage to Jeremy Calvert is crumbling and she doesn't want to have her separation and divorce play out on MTV for the second time;
- Messer left because she's terrified her not-so-wholesome reality image will lead her to lose custody of her 4-year-old twins, Ali and Aleeah.
She has been engaged in a bitter custody battle with ex-husband Corey Simms, so it's likely one or both of these factors played at least some role.
"Leah's final court date is coming up, and her behavior on the show made her look really bad to the judge," a source said, referring to last season.
If you watch Teen Mom 2 online, you remember her nodding off during one of her daughter's doctors appointments, with friends fearing she's hooked on pills.
It's not clear how bad her drug problem actually is, but something is clearly amiss, with Corey gunning for custody and Leah and Jeremy on the rocks.
Here's hoping she finds health and happiness in life.
There is no air date set for either Teen Mom or Teen Mom 2, both now down to three moms and the former of which hasn't aired in two and a half years.
Stay tuned on that front …
Read the original post:
Teen Mom 2 Season 6: Still a Go Without Leah Messer?


text:
B&Bs in Uzice, Serbia
Choose from our range of B&B's in Uzice. View photos of B&B's in Uzice and read bed and breakfast reviews. To find a B&B in Uzice in the right location for you, view all of the Uzice B&B's on the map and book online.
Zlatiborska Noc HotelBela Zemlja bb
Zlatiborska Noc Hotel has 35 rooms equipped with bathroom (shower, mini-bar, terrace (table and chairs), fan, Satellite TV, phone, safe and free internet. The restaurant is done in accordance with the authentic style of the interior andMore Details about Zlatiborska Noc Hotel
- From:
- price per room per night
Zlatibor HotelDimitrija Tucovica 149, Dimitrija Tucovica 149
Hotel Zlatibor situated in the center of the town, on Trg Partizana (Partisans Square), has 280 beds on disposal. There is an aperitif bar, restaurant, cafe- pastry shop, grill and spacious summer terrace. The centre of tourist economy for the UziceMore Details about Zlatibor Hotel
- From:
- price per room per night


text:
Here's one decoration that you won't mind leaving up year-round: RTI's RK10. The company just announced that the in-wall controller is now shipping.
Designed for living and working spaces, this product features a 10.2-inch TFT widescreen LCD touchscreen and Intel's Atom processor. The flagship product promises control, as well as web browsing, camera monitoring, and more. It packs all of the power of a PC inside an intuitive touchscreen controller.
Using RTI's own Integration Designer software, the RK10 can be fully customized with buttons, text, and other graphics. Other features include built-in wired and wireless (802.11 b/g) web access, two-way communication with RTI XP series control processors, access to PC music, and much more.
The RK10 is selling now via authorized RTI dealers and installers. Available in black or white, with a low-profile faceplate, the RK10 carries an MSRP of $3,499.Follow Electronic House on Facebook and Twitter.
The new smart home system allows you to monitor and control your yard's watering schedule.
Lutron lighting control and Crestron home automation bring light, entertainment and security to luxury home.
A look at the current and upcoming Blu-ray discs t that will support the new Dolby Atmos audio format.


text:
What's Your Favorite Halloween Treat?
Have you noticed an increase in the availability of healthier food options while dining out or grocery shopping?
Who should be responsible for creating a standardized food nutrition label?
What's the one food you cannot turn down?
What's the best food to start the day?
What's the best midday snack?
View All Polls
Yes – It keeps a nutrient-dense drink in front of kids, without the "low calorie" stigma.
Yes – It will help curb obesity in the U.S.
No – If they add artificial sweeteners, it should say so on the front of the package.
No – They shouldn't add anything to milk.
I'm undecided – I see the pros and cons to both sides.


text:
1966 Studebaker Commander 2 door sedan for sale in our Orlando Showroom. This pro-touring Commander is a very unique and well built piece. Let??s... More
1955 Studebaker Commander sedan finished in Saginaw Green and Congo Ivory. Oregon car that was brought to New England by a longtime Studebaker enthusiast and... More
1955 Studebaker Commander for sale in our Indianapolis Showroom. This 55 Studebaker is powered by a numbers matching 259 cubic inch V8 backed by... More
Up for sale in our Tampa showroom is this purple people eating 1951 Studebaker Commander Starlight Coupe. The Starlight coupe for sale was a... More


text:
DEA Targets 23 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries In Washington State
On Thursday the DEA sent letters to 23 medical marijuana businesses in Western Washington, warning they could be prosecuted and the properties seized if they are operating within a school zone.
"Please take the necessary steps to discontinue the sale and/or distribution of marijuana…within 30 days," read the letter, signed by Matthew G. Barnes, special agent in charge for the Seattle field office.
"I am confident that once notified of the ramifications and penalties associated with renting a property for marijuana distribution purposes, property owners will take appropriate steps to rectify the situation on their own. The DEA will not turn a blind eye to criminal organizations that attempt to use state or local law as a shield for their illicit drug trafficking activities," Barnes said in a statement.
The letters follow the same pattern of letters to hundreds of dispensaries in Colorado and all over the west coast.
"We need to enforce one message for our students: drugs have no place in or near our schools," the U.S. Attorney for Western Washington, Jenny Durkan, said in a statement.
Why aren't officials worried about the message that hiding medical marijuana sends to kids? It tells them that cannabis is bad, so when they need medical help, they will turn to dangerous and addictive prescription drugs.
To be fair, dispensaries are not legal under Washington state law, but that still does not make it a matter for the DEA. They are using federal law to butt into state business.
An attempt was made to legalize and regulate them and a bill passed the state Legislature last year, but it was vetoed by Gov. Chris Gregorie. The Governor's veto left intact a law that allows 15 patients to band together to form a 45-plant "collective garden." Some medical marijuana storefronts have used a broad interpretation of that provision to form networks of collective gardens, with patients signing into an open slot in a garden.
Source: http://blogs.seattletimes.com
Marijuana Dispensaries See Hope in California Supreme Court Move
The Stupidity of L.A.s Medical Marijuana Dispensary Ban
In this video The Young Turks discuss the recent medical cannabis dispensary ban in the city of Los Angeles and how…well, stupid it is. They also tie the city council's decision into the larger drug war as a whole, and how depressing it is to see what seems like regression on an issue we thought we had won.
But patients and advocates will continue to fight. In fact, on Friday a medical marijuana trade group and 11 patients sued the city of Los Angeles, looking to block enforcement of an ordinance that would shut down most of the city's storefront pot dispensaries in three weeks.
The lawsuit, which says users are protected by California's 1996 legalization of medical marijuana and the U.S. Constitution, seeks an immediate injunction to keep Los Angeles officials from closing down dispensaries beginning on Sept. 6.
Meanwhile, advocates are canvassing the city gathering signatures to get a repeal of the ban on the ballot. A lot of energy that should be directed at helping patients now has to be spent defending the very right of people to have a choice in what medicine they take.
Los Angeles Dispensary Owners Fight Ban
Los Angeles Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Face Sept. 6th Deadline to Close
By some accounts there are over 1,000 medical marijuana dispensaries in the city of Los Angeles, and they have all been sent letters telling them they have until September 6th to close their doors or face legal action.
Instead of going through the "trouble" of regulating dispensaries in L.A., the city council has decided to take the easiest and most economically destructive path of approving a full ban. For example, if each dispensary in Los Angeles has an average of 3 employees, that's about 3,000 jobs the city council feels are just not needed.
The council's vote allows primary caregivers and patients to grow and transport marijuana. Under the new ordinance, two or three patients are allowed to collectively grow and share marijuana in homes or apartments, but not storefronts. Those who have medical marijuana cards will still be able to grow and smoke marijuana, but they won't be able to go into a dispensary and buy it.
Meaning those who are not able to grow or don't have someone who can grow for them must either do without or resort to the black market for their medication.
So the council doesn't do their job, destroys thousands of real jobs and denies health care to tens of thousands of people. Is this what the citizens of Los Angeles voted for? How hard can it possibly be to set up some regulations governing dispensaries?
In fact, isn't that one of the functions of city government, to regulate local businesses? What recourse do voters have when their government stops doing its job, other than to vote everyone out and try different people?
It is the height of lunacy to destroy jobs in a struggling economy. Every action by the council should be directed toward things like job growth and better quality healthcare.
Source: http://abclocal.go.com
AZ Governors Waiver Allows State Attorney General to go After Medical Marijuana
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has signed a waiver that allows Attorney General Tom Horne to try to close down the marijuana dispensaries that her state health department is in the process of licensing.
AG Horne recently released a formal legal opinion which stated that the voter-approved medical marijuana in AZ violated federal law. Why would he bother stating this obvious fact formally unless he was planning on doing something about it?
For her part, the Governor said Thursday that she does not intend to block Health Director Will Humble from continuing the process of issuing state permits. And Humble, who conducted a lottery Tuesday to see who gets to serve each of the 126 health districts in the state, said the first of those shops could be open by the end of this month.
"I gave him a waiver and put kind of a wall between Mr. Horne and myself so that he could represent this position and he could still represent me with other attorneys on the other side,' Brewer said.
AG Horne said this arrangement will allow one of his deputies to continue to provide legal advice to Humble even as he personally pursues a court order declaring the dispensaries preempted by federal law.
As many may remember, Governor Brewer initially tried to halt the medical marijuana program. "I took it to court and I was ruled against, (with a judge) saying that I had to implement the law," Brewer recalled Thursday ."So we moved forward under the direction of the court."
But the governor said Horne and Montgomery remain free to try to shut down the dispensaries anyway.
"If they believe they have a reason to think they can get that overturned, they have that right and privilege to do that," Brewer said. "But in the meantime we have and will continue to move forward until we hear differently."
In other words, the battle over medical marijuana in AZ is far from over.
Source: http://www.cvbugle.com
Blog Categories
- Celebrities (258)
- Concentrates (230)
- Contests (14)
- Culture (979)
- Dispensaries (437)
- Events (48)
- Fun (2,374)
- Glass (285)
- Legalization (392)
- Medical Marijuana (1,210)
- News (1,191)
- Nugs (1,967)
- Odd (93)
- Politics (93)
- Product reviews (6)
- Recipes (116)
- Tokers (580)
Popular Articles
Marijuana Will Ruin Your Life181,626 Views Category: Odd
Weed fun images III143,258 Views Category: Fun
Do College Girls Smoke Marijuana?133,395 Views Category: Culture
Rosie Huntington Whiteley Smoking some weed!90,833 Views Category: Culture
Weed photo fun90,330 Views Category: Fun
Celeb hotties caught smoking weed.89,173 Views Category: Culture
The 5 Biggest Marijuana Myths Debunked72,013 Views Category: Culture
Why Weed Is Better Than Sex69,362 Views Category: Odd
Weed fun images VII62,013 Views Category: Fun
Fun weed images III55,000 Views Category: Fun


text:
Sunday at Dolores Park!
This cap or hat is made with Kollage Cornucopia Corn Yarn. It is made in single crochet in the "Tapestry Crochet" Style. Tapestry Crochet is somewhat alike Color Stranding Knitting.
My livingroom Stash, will you share yours with us on a Video? It can be fun!
This is one of the Crochet WIP that I have. It is in Tapestry Crochet. I do have some nifty yarn that I want to knit other hats with, and I will be doing that in the next weeks or so.
If you want to get the feel of what making a sweater would be like. This is the pattern for you. It is easily modify and if you go with bigger needles you can have a bigger size.
Hope you enjoy this my latest video!
WIshing you a Happy New Year 2008! I am also sharing a video and some of my WIP and showing some of my gifts.
Happy 2008 Everyone!
Happy Holidays and or Merry Christmas!
Some of my work in progress for the Dec 07 Season
Ho Ho Ho!Thanks for stopping by!
My hat was inspired by the Gothic Quarters of Barcelona. A knit version will not be hard using the Colorstranding Techniques. This is the Lateral view of the Hat. Thanks for stopping by!