Author: mopress

  • Dallas Fed Warns of Commercial Real Estate Losses

    Excerpt from Dallas Fed “Economic Letter.”

    In short, tougher times appear to lie ahead. Worsening macroeconomic conditions, particularly in the retail and other service sectors, are hurting CRE [Commercial Real Estate] fundamentals. Meanwhile the intensification of the credit crunch is dampening market activity. And if commercial property’s situation does grow worse, banks are likely to face further losses. One factor that might limit these risks is that the commercial real estate sector wasn’t as grossly overbuilt heading into the current economic slowdown as it had been in the early 1990s.

    See full report by Dallas Fed economist Roland Meeks.

  • Against Obamanomics: Warnings from British Liberal Democrats

    It started out as a desk-cleaning exercise on Christmas Day. We opened a catalog of Henry George materials.

    Half a day later (from a still messy desk) we were sending an email to Neale Upstone at the Cambridge (UK) City Council, advising him of our newfound interest in Henry George.

    Councillor Upstone replied with links to a movement. A new coalition based upon Georgist principles of Land Value economics has just released news (as of midnight GMT) that a dozen “think-tanks, charities and political pressure groups” will be advocating a Georgist resolution to the latest economic meltdown.

    “History shows that economic bailouts will not provide a long-term solution,” says Robin Smith of the Systemic Fiscal Reform Group think-tank, “because Land, which is at the heart of the matter, has been obscured from political, media and academic scrutiny.”

    Following the Land Value analysis of 19th-Century American populist economist Henry George, the new coalition wants “to shift tax off enterprise and labour onto a form of annual Land Value Taxation,” says the chairman of the coalition, John Lipetz.

    The new Coalition for Economic Justice (CEJ) will try to get a national debate going in the UK. But the issues they are raising sound relevant to anyone seeking critical tools of analysis for the early contours of Obamanomics.

    Councillor Upstone puts the case plainly. Against the emerging outlines of a Keynsian Green New Deal (GND) he argues in favor of a Georgist Systemic Fiscal Reform (SFR).

    The Georgist approach is appealing as a quick study, because it connects with our common-sense insight that real-estate speculation is the giant culprit of our global economic meltdown. What the SFR movement adds to this insight is the Georgist claim that land speculation is the foundational cause of many bad effects besides the cycles of land value crashes.

    Henry George learned his economics by watching San Francisco. He seems to be calling out from beyond the grave: California did it again!

    So if you like the idea of change and want to think a little harder about what it could look like, here’s the press release from the Georgist SFR movement:


    EMBARGO 00:01 27th December 2008

    In an unprecedented move to advocate an original solution to the current economic crisis, twelve think-tanks, charities and political pressure groups have joined forces. The new cross-party group, called the Coalition for Economic Justice (CEJ), has argued for the reduction of existing taxes to be replaced by an annual Land Value Tax in order to prevent future crises and alleviate the current one.

    The Coalition issued in a statement: “The current economic crisis highlights, yet again, the inadequacies of the current economic system which is unstable and deeply flawed. Events are clearly demonstrating that the speculative rise in land prices is a common feature of the repeated economic booms and busts. In order to address this problem we call for a new approach that delivers both economic justice and prosperity for all. This solution must be based upon the annual collection of land value for public purposes”.
    Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance commented: “I look forward to learning more about the campaign as it develops in the New Year. I very much hope that the coalition manages to generate a national debate on taxation, particularly now we are in recession.”

    The Chair of the CEJ, John Lipetz explains that “in response to the financial crisis, a group of charities, think-tanks, political factions and pressure groups from right across the political spectrum have for the first time sat down together to agree the best way to cure the current crisis, and prevent future ones. This is to shift tax off enterprise and labour onto a form of annual Land Value Taxation. We invite others sharing our concern to join us.”

    Robin Smith of the think-tank Systemic Fiscal Reform Group says “It is clear that enterprise is once again taking the hit, particularly hard working small businesses, from this latest debt-fuelled land boom. History shows that economic bailouts will not provide a long-term solution because Land, which is at the heart of the matter, has been obscured from political, media and academic scrutiny. The founders of the CEJ are calling for new thinking around economic reform and it represents a real movement towards progress and prosperity for all.”

    Heather Wetzel of the Professional Land Reform Group adds: “If we are to establish economic stability, encourage sustainable growth and end poverty it is necessary to look for new solutions. An annual Land Value Tax on all land will prevent future land price speculation, enable modest interest rates on business investment and provide income for both essential infrastructure investment and for the reduction of taxes on individuals and trade.”

    Organisations involved in the CEJ are:

    Labour Land Campaign (LLC)
    Liberal Democrat Action for Land Taxation and Economic Reform (ALTER)
    Social Liberalist Party (SLP)
    Systemic Fiscal Reform Group (SFRG)
    School of Economic Science (SES)
    Land is Free (LF)
    Henry George Foundation (HGF)
    Land Value Taxation Campaign (LVTC)
    Professional Land Reform Group (PLRG)
    Christian Council for Monetary Justice (CCMJ)
    Global Justice Movement (GJM)
    The 1909 Group

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

    END

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

    INFO:

    Information about Land Value Tax
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

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

    CONTACT:

    Chairman – John Lipetz
    robinsmith3.googlepages.com/coalitionforeconomicjustice

    Labour Land Campaign (LLP) – Dave Wetzel
    www.labourland.org/

    Liberal Democrat Action for Land Taxation and Economic Reform (ALTER) – Tony Vickers & Chris Glover
    libdemsalter.org.uk/

    Social Liberalist Party (SLP) – Anton Howes
    www.voteliberalist.org

    Systemic Fiscal Reform Group (SFRG) – Robin Smith
    www.systemicfiscalreform.org

    School of Economic Science (SES) – Peter Bowman
    www.schooleconomicscience.org

    Henry George Foundation (HGF) – David Triggs
    www.henrygeorgefoundation.org/home/

    Land Value Taxation Campaign (LVTC) – Henry Law
    www.landvaluetax.org

    Professional Land Reform Group (PLRG) – Heather Wetzel

    Land is Free (LF) – Tommas Graves
    www.landisfree.co.uk

    Christian Council for Monetary Justice (CCMJ) – Peter Challen
    www.ccmj.org

    Global Justice Movement (GJM) – Peter Challen
    www.binaryeconomics.net

    The 1909 Group – Jock Coats
    www.1909.org.uk


    Excerpt from article on local taxation by Dr Roy Douglas from the Land is Free website:

    Such a tax, when designed for the special needs of local government, is known as Site Value Rating, or SVR. To apply SVR, the value of all sites in the local authority area would first be assessed. Professional va
    luer
    s assure us that this would be a simple and cheap operation. A tax, or rate, would then be levied on the basis of that valuation, just as the old rating system used to levy a tax, or rate, on the basis of the total value of a property (i.e., site plus “improvements”). As site values vary over time, periodic (perhaps annual) reassessment would be necessary.

    The principle behind SVR is that each occupier will pay for the benefit he receives from what he has not created, but will not be penalised for what he has done to make the property he owns more valuable. One of the arguments in favour of Local Income Tax (which, as we have seen. is really flawed) is that it will fall most heavily on the people most able to bear it. As wealthy people usually live on valuable sites, while poor people live on less valuable sites, SVR will do exactly that.

    But will there be hard cases, such as elderly people on small incomes, whose site values are high? Yes, indeed, SVR, like any other kind of taxation, may involve hard cases, unless Parliament makes careful provision to avoid those hardcases. But the possibility of such hard cases arising provides a challenge to the legislators to avoid them. It does not provide an excuse for failing to deal with the general problem.


    From the left side of the Atlantic, check out the work of Renegade Economist Fred Harrison, a Yank of the Georgist persuasion.

  • Closing Hutto Prison for Children Requires Three Votes

    TOMORROW, Tuesday morning, December 23, when most folks will be focused on the holidays, the Williamson County Commissioners Court will vote to extend their contracts for Hutto with ICE and CCA. Is there anything YOU or your organization can do write, call, fax and/or e-mail to stop such a decision that will only prolong the imprisonment and abuse of these innocent children?

    Is there any kind of mobilization at the Williamson Country Commissioners Court tomorrow that you could help with today? Below is a statement regarding the extension of Hutto…along with contact information. From Washington, D.C. to Washington State…please consider letting your voices heard. — Jay J. Johnson Castro, Sr.

    By Mary Ellen Kersch

    WCCC Judge Gattis quoted in AAS re. TD Hutto vote: “Unless something jumps up and bites me, I will vote to renew”

    Bite him. Before Tuesday’s vote!

    Contact WCCC members and tell them to vote NO Hutto Renewal(See contact info below)

    Putting non-criminal families, including little children, in prison for infractions comparable to running a stop sign is immoral and un-American.

    Imprisoning people charged with no crime, while they await decision re. applications for citizenship and asylum, is NOT effective immigration policy, does NOT secure our borders, and has NOTHING to do with patriotism. It is a corrupt means to enrich an already wealthy corporation by exploiting the weakest among us!

    As partners in the contract for the most expensive method to effectively assure that non-criminal immigrants appear at their hearings, the Williamson County Commissioners Court (WCCC) exhibits a disregard for fiscal responsibility with taxpayer dollars during a national economic crisis.

    This prison is exempt from any governmental regulation and has no government oversight—and a continuing record of abuses. With the lapse of the only outside (court-ordered) oversight of this facility in August of 2009 those risks are greatly elevated in renewal. (Article in March 2008 NewYorker provides a good chronicle)

    Partnering with Corrections Corporation of American, with its less-than-admirable record of management, is a bad business practice, and exposes Williamson County taxpayers to financial risks from poor management, bad employees, and external lawsuits—all of which are beyond their capacity to control. (See attached “Letter to WCCC re CCA Business Practices.)

    Williamson County’s reputation has been damaged as a result of a number of specific offenses relating to the operation of the facility, as well as its very existence. Contract renewal would affirm WCCC’s approval of the disgraces of T Don Hutto and further damage our image locally, nationally, and internationally

    Evidence presented at the September public forum (which WCCC boycotted) stated that T Don Hutto’s operation is probably a deterrent to future, clean, economic development in the area; renewal would send a very bad signal for the future of such growth; it is actually anti-economic development!

    This proposal fails the simple “risk vs. benefits” of any business undertaking. The less than $16,000 monthly maximum that Williamson County collects under this contract cannot be reasonably argued to compensate for the negatives that exist.

    WCCC has had a very rough record re. contracts to date; re-entering this partnership does nothing to convince citizens that WCCC has been learned anything from those previous costly contract mistakes.

    Please Contact:
    Judge Dan Gattis: ctyjudge@wilco.org(512) 943-1550
    Commissioner Lisa Birkman: lbirkman@wilco.org ( 512) 733-5380
    Commissioner Cynthia Long: clong@wilco.org(512) 260-4280)
    Commissioner Valerie Covey: vcovey@wilco.org (512) 943-3370
    Commissioner Ron Morrison: rmorrison@wilco.org (512) 846-1190

    Phone, email, by end of business Monday and tell them NO to Hutto! And broadcast this plea on behalf of good government and the babies in jail.

  • Harbury: They Tortured My Husband for Two-and-a-Half Years

    Writer/Attorney Jennifer Harbury Comments on the CIA

    By Nick Braune

    This week I interviewed Jennifer Harbury, an attorney in Weslaco who has
    published three books. Her most famous, Searching for Everardo, details
    her long, difficult, effort to locate her husband who had participated in political
    and military struggles for freedom in Central America. Now a nationally known
    figure in the fight against torture, Harbury has another book out: Truth,
    Torture and the American Way
    , published by Beacon Press.

    Braune: I know that your husband was a prisoner of
    war in Guatemala and was suddenly “disappeared” and was later found to have
    been tortured in complete disregard of the Geneva Agreements. And your
    subsequent investigation revealed how the CIA had funneled tons of money to
    the unprincipled Guatemalan military responsible for the disappearance and
    torture of not only your husband, but many people. Given your expertise
    in this area, I’m eager to ask a question:

    The new “Integrated Global Knowledge” (IGKNU) center at U.T. Pan American,
    which is trying to recruit Hispanic students to join agencies like the CIA,
    recently cosponsored an “Ethics and Intelligence Conference” to legitimize
    itself among the academics. I joined students from MEChA three weeks
    ago publicly protesting IGKNU. What would you tell Pan Am students
    who might think it is “patriotic” to join the CIA?

    Harbury: I would commend the students for their wish to
    be of service, but would tell them they are knocking on the wrong door. Here
    is the reason: In fact, my husband was severely tortured for three years (1992-1994)
    in a secret cell in Guatemala by military intelligence specialists who were
    also working as paid CIA informants. The CIA knew where he was and what was
    happening to him within a week of his capture, and they continued to receive
    information about his plight during the three years he remained alive. In return
    they continued to send money and ask for more information, even though they
    knew this would result in further torture.

    Jennifer Harbury
    americanswhotellthetruth.org

    Yet when members of Congress repeatedly demanded information in order to
    assist me, the CIA falsely responded that there was no information. In the
    end he was either thrown from a helicopter or dismembered. Three hundred other
    secret prisoners were also killed during this period. We could have saved them,
    but the CIA blocked our rescue efforts.

    We received the CIA’s files on the case after my husband’s murder. They revealed
    many of the torture techniques that the CIA is using today in Iraq and Afghanistan,
    such as water-boarding and stress and duress positions. These techniques are
    of course completely illegal, and do indeed violate the Geneva Conventions.
    Worse yet, they dishonor and endanger our great troops. When the CIA declares
    that its agents may lawfully water-board a detainee, then of course the same
    “lawful techniques” will be used on our own soldiers when they fall prisoner.
    How patriotic is this?

    Braune: The Bush administration made it seem that the Geneva
    Conventions are irrelevant. In your speaking engagements, what
    do you tell audiences about the Geneva Agreements?

    Harbury: The Geneva Convention on the rights of prisoners
    of war does indeed limit itself to members of a formal army who wear uniforms,
    etc. Some of the current detainees may not be eligible for those protections.
    However, the Bush administration failed to mention the Geneva Convention on
    the rights of civilians, which includes everyone who is not a soldier in a
    formal army. It expressly includes saboteurs and persons who carry out deadly
    acts against an occupying power. Obviously this would cover most of the people
    fighting against us in Iraq today. Can they be arrested and imprisoned? Of
    course, so long as they are given a fair trial. Can they be tortured? Of course
    not. Is this a naïve situation? No. It is exactly the same as the legal
    framework we have used here in the U.S. for two hundred years, and which worked
    properly in the case of American terrorists like Timothy McVeigh.

    Braune: I know it is hard to guess how the new administration
    will turn out, but do you think a Democratic administration will improve things
    as far as human rights and opposition to torture goes?

    Harbury: The CIA has been using unlawful methods like torture
    since its founding half a century ago. When human rights oriented Presidents
    or Members of Congress have disagreed with them, they have simply kept the
    matters secret from them. In short, we have a rogue agency. This does not work
    with our system of checks and balances here in the United States.

    Braune: Thank you, counselor, for your time today and your
    years of work against torture.

    Calendar note: Harbury has been invited to speak at the Valley-wide
    Peace and Justice Gathering on February 7th.

  • A Texas Growth Economy: From Shopping and Eating Out to Global Transport

    By Greg Moses

    As folks debate ways to pump the economy, November employment statistics remind us that

    83 percent of nonfarm workers in Texas earn paychecks in the private sector.

    Of the 10.7 million workers (nonfarm, not seasonally adjusted), 8.9 million are private

    sector compared to 1.8 million government workers.

    While it may be possible for government to pick up masses of workers to labor on roads,

    bridges, and parks, or in emergency rooms, health clinics, and schools, there seems to be

    obvious truth in the worry that this plan of action would raise taxes.

    Still we should note that of the 32,700 net new jobs (actual, not seasonally adjusted)

    added to Texas payrolls in November of 2008, at least 12,000 (or 37 percent) were added by

    government, overwhelmingly at the local level.

    Since there is no income tax in Texas, these jobs were funded by sales taxes and property

    taxes. And while it does seem obvious that every new government job is to be counted as an

    absolute increase in public tax burden, we’d like to remember some old sayings about ounces

    of prevention.

    After all, what sort of private sector employer is going to stick around very long in a

    territory where taxpayers have pulled down their liabilities to zero by de-funding every

    conceivable public service. Even the famous Laffer curve assumes that taxation has some

    optimal rate.

    From the point of view of civil rights development, it would be a cruel and unusual

    economy that sets no public standards whatsoever to live by.

    Nevertheless, let’s remember that 83 percent of the existing workforce in Texas does not

    go to work for a government paycheck.

    Now we’re going to leave aside the question of how many private workers depend upon a

    government contract. So our KBR readers should not go around thinking that we ignore all

    the public butter that gets spread on private bread.

    But let’s go where the majority of workers live and try to prosper — in the private

    sector.

    It’s interesting in Texas that there are about as many workers in the “Goods Producing”

    sector of the economy as there are in “Government” — about 1.8 million. But whereas the

    government sector grew in November, the goods producing sector shrank (by about 6,000

    jobs).

    Not all parts of the goods producing sector lost jobs. In mining and oil and gas, about

    a 1,000 new jobs were added.

    Texas construction lost only a couple of hundred jobs, but the story would have been

    worse if not for “Utility System Construction” which added 1,000 jobs. How much of that

    private employment on utility systems depended upon public financing we’ll leave open to

    further questioning.

    Manufacturing, as you might guess, is still losing jobs in Texas. About 2,000 jobs were

    lost in this sector during November, with losses in the wood, computer, and electronics

    areas. We now have 924,800 manufacturing jobs left here.

    It’s interesting to see that some sectors of manufacturing actually grew: “Fabricated

    Metal Product Manufacturing” picked up 300 jobs; “Machinery Manufacturing” picked up 200

    jobs; “Agriculture, Construction, and Mining Machinery Manufacturing” picked up 500 jobs;

    “Transportation Equipment Manufacturing” picked up 500 jobs; and “Aerospace Product and

    Parts Manufacturing” picked up 400 jobs.

    No doubt there is some “public sector” contracting in these sophisticated heavy metal

    operations in Texas, although I’m guessing we could wish for a healthier mix of “peace” to

    “war” priorities.

    When it comes to non-durable goods, Texas employed some 308,200 workers in November,

    which is 700 fewer workers than October. It was a bad month for food (-400), plastics (-

    200), and paper (-200). But a better month for animal slaughtering (+100) and products made

    from petroleum and coal (+700) and chemicals (+200).

    In the private sector, “Service” is the mammoth sector of the Texas economy. That’s

    where 7.1 million workers were employed in November, an increase of 26,700 workers over

    October. About 20,000 of those new jobs were split between clotting stores and department

    stores. Another 5,000 jobs were added by “Other General Merchandise Stores.”

    Information services fell by another 400 jobs, which is why you see more people like me

    doing this grunt work for free (actually, the newspaper people are holding the line; nothing

    lost, nothing gained).

    In the “Finance and Insurance” sector, jobs are down slightly overall (-200), but there

    is a growth niche in “Credit Intermediation,” which added 1,100 jobs.

    In the professional services sector, lawyers, accountants, architects, and computer

    experts are all finding fewer cubicles available.

    Education and health care, on the other hand, are growing modestly; while “Leisure and

    Hospitality” continue their slow decline.

    In Texas, we are pleased to report, “Food Services and Drinking Places” are still “help

    wanted” areas, with 2,500 new jobs added in November, 2008.

    So if you want to help grow jobs in the Texas economy, especially if you’re a government

    worker, go out and buy some new clothes, steer a shopping cart through your neighborhood

    department store, and take the family out for dinner and drinks. And don’t forget to tip as

    if it was your own salary you were figuring up.

    Beyond these sorts of stopgap subsidies that we can share with each other, there do seem

    to be some healthy fundamentals in the current economic profile in Texas, considering that

    heavy machinery is growing jobs along with education and health services.

    And when you think about all the experience that Texans accrue getting from one end of

    the state to the other, why shouldn’t Texas step up to global leadership in the design,

    management, and manufacture of transportation systems and services? Couldn’t we teach

    ourselves to travel in ways that would prepare us to teach the world?

    Oh, and remember not to shoplift. However, if you can look like you might be shoplifting could it create more jobs for security guards? Check out Grits for Breakfast on the shoplifting rate.