The Concrete Rainforest

Solidarity with all those who have had foolish Olympic Villages built in thier city for the benefit of rich people

2010-12-23T09:47:00.000-08:00

This link from a Brazilian Blog I found is quite interesting, especially for us in the city of Vancouver. It provides a brief outline of the current Olympic Village being built for the 2016 Olympics in Rio De Genaro with remarkable similarities to Vancouver's recently constructed Olympic Village.

http://geostadia.blogspot.com/2010/12/2016-olympic-village-apartments-to-cost.html

It is frightening to me that the tactics of capital are so transparent and frankly uncreative. The cost for constructing these units has been calculated at about $400,000 Brazilian real ($680,000 Canadian dollars). So even the math bears remarkable similarities to our own Olympic Village. At the very least, those of us in Vancouver should be happy to know that we are not the only one who are subsidizing houses for the rich while people sit miserable and homeless only a few blocks away.

With that said, actions like these cry out for analysis and organization on our part. First of all, these events dismantle the current neo-liberal myth that the state does not/should not intervene in the economy. This is a lie, and a bald faced one at that. While in the past the state at times provided an outlet for broader society to represent its interests, and at times intervened in the economy to promote benefits to regular people, it currently does little more that promote the conditions necessary for capital flow. In their own words, the state sees its primary purpose as "promoting a good business climate"

In the case of the Vancouver, and now the Rio Olympic village, we see a clear example of the state working to facilitate the reinvestment of surplus capital and generate speculative profit for real estate developers. Further more mega events like the Olympics are used to move this speculation around, providing further outlets for surplus capital over time. A mobile Olympics provides reason for a building boom somewhere every 2 years as the number of empty Olympic villages/venues around the world continues to grow.

So what do we do about it...first of all lets give up our fear of assuming state power, if it was used to benefit people in the past it should be used to do so again. We need to re-assert our claims to this project, will it work perfectly...no...but if we don't contest this battle we will be stuck with tax funded real-estate speculation dressed up like social housing. (that's what we have now, by the way, thanks to Gregor and crew)

I guess I have a bit of hope surrounding this issue, in Vancouver at least, the construction and management of the Olympic Village in Vancouver has been such a high profile boondoggle that it has seem to create a crack in the viability of this model. The failure of this project has at least made clear what it was in the first place, a massive influx of public tax dollars designed only to benefit real estate developers. At the very least it serves as a rallying cry for those who demand that space and the city we live in be constructed socially, designed to meet human needs, and not those of private profit.

My not so triumphant return to the blogosphere.

2010-07-08T14:41:00.000-07:00

So after much cajoling I am finally sitting down and writing another blog entry.(Even more exciting I have another in the works!) Its interesting to think how things have changed since last June, both in my outlook, as well as the world at large. Alas the last six months have been filled with many interpersonal distractions which is all well and good, but leaves little room for political musings.

I have recently been having a number of discussions with friends about the cycle of disillusionment. For me the cycle is as follows. I read some really exciting analysis about how capitalism functions for the detriment of us all, and it becomes abundantly clear that something must be done. I start to become more politically active (attend rallies, look for organizations to join). Unfortunately, the foolishness of the people involved, their small numbers, and absurd factionalism cause me to question both my own thought and the entire exercise.

In short, how can something so abundantly clear to myself; Capitalism is a deeply flawed system which must be systemically altered in order to achieve a world that adequately meets human need, achieve less political traction that where people should ride bicycles, or walk their dogs, and all manor of even less important issues.

Yes I know there are answers to these questions....but fundamentally I think this is a key question that we need to come to grasp with. David Harvey's most recent book (couldn't do it, had to mention him again) is entitled the "Enigma of Capital" and I think the title is very apt. If capitalism is so clearly bad for the majority of people, so clearly creates a world where wealth is centralized in the hands of the few while the natural world and majority of the human population exists in a states of misery. Why does it exist, and more importantly why is it an increasingly stronger force in our daily lives.

For me this disillusionment stems from a number of places, beyond the strength of capitalism and seeming hopelessness of the leftist cause, but ultimately I think it stems from a lack of certainty in thought. At some level I refuse to commit to what I believe is true and risk what I have now to pursue it.

As such, the idea of false consciousness has always been problematic to me. While on some level it must exist. (As good friend of mine put it so clearly....the trials and tribulations of Angelina Jolie are less important than those of Somalia but one would never know from asking the majority of people). But any theory that relies on the belief that the majority of people are being fooled and can not see the world as it is, is a problem.

If I am correct I should be able to explain my ideas in simple enough terms, and in terms that resonate with people clearly. Reading multiple tomes, and conducting hours of study should not be required to understand that capitalism is a flawed system that must be abolished if we want to achieve realchange on a global level.

With the current popularity of conspiracy theories, this idea becomes even more problematic as where to we draw the line between well reasoned arguments that systematically challenge capitalism, and frantic yelling about who really brought down the world trade center (hint it was Al-Qaeda) Either way, well reasoned radical ideas are all to easily lumped in with this foolishness, which only further discredits legitimate challenges to dominant capitalist discourse. The current state of the world is not a conspiracy of the few, but the product of a social constructed system, flawed at its core, and subject to change by the people who constantly recreate it on a daily basis - us.

It is this we must make people understand....

The Banking Sector : Rents, Returns, and Resistance

2010-06-07T10:14:00.001-07:00

Here is an interesting article from The Economist concerning the banking sector. In short, this article is attempting to explain why the profits in the banking sector have been rising over the last 40 years to their current astronomical heights. It does so via the economic concept of rent.

In neo-classical economics "a rent" is a term used to explain excess profits. Excess profits being profits that can not be explained by the laws of competition and supply and demand. In this case, banks and the finance sector, due to their exclusive access to capital, are able to charge "a rent" to other economic actors and as such have been able to generate large profits

This is really no different to your landlord who, due to their (relatively) exclusive access to land, is able to charge you to live on it. While the article linked above is rife with neo-classical assumptions and offers little more than platitudes as a way of dealing with this problem it provides some wonderfully concrete examples of how the structure of the economy works to rob working people at the expensive of the already rich/powerful.

In the hyper-complex economy that we live in ownership and access to capital are no longer as simple as they once were. Corporations are not owned by a single individual but by a large number of investors, with managers responsible to a board of directors which seeks to maximize the share price/dividends. Facts like these are often used as a critique of Marxist economic interpretations, as ownership of the means of production is no longer the driving force behind capitalist exploitation. The question is asked how can we live in a class based society, if corporations are owned "collectively" in many cases financed by the pension funds/savings of regular working class people.

While, these new cooperate ownership models certainly need to be examined, and there has, perhaps, been a shift in the main locus of exploitation, from ownership of the means of production, to control of the means of production. What relevance do questions like these really have. The expansion of the banking sector, and the further encouragement of people to invest their money in stocks/mutual funds are a tool to free up capital markets and extract wealth from the savings of regular people. Saving our money with in the banking system only provides those with the ability to do so, greater access to the wealth we have created (through our labour).

When I place my money in the bank or purchase mutual funds with the promise of secure savings and future returns, really all I am doing is providing corporations with the capital they need to finance expansion and further profit generation. Additionally, a huge cut is being taken by the finance sector itself to line bankers pockets and purchase outrageous Manhattan real-estate. This makes the returns I expect to receive and security of my money little more than a farce, as many people have witness and are witnessing over the last number of years.

Even more remarkably, to properly function in society, I am all but forced to participate in this game. The speed and complexity of the economy means that if left alone any savings I do generate will be reduced by inflation. I must therefore invest my money, take bets on the economy along with everyone else, because if I don't I will certainly loose it. In this way, we are all trapped, both structurally and ideologically, to participate in a system that ultimately exploits us.

With this said, I think a clear understanding of this process can help us develop some modes of resistance to this all encompassing near monolithic force in our lives (money/the finance sector). Forgive me if some of these sound ridiculous (positing solutions/resistance by its very nature is ridiculous) but here are a few ideas that this line of thought has generated in my head for ways to stop/mitigate these processes and reduce the control of the banking/finance industry over our lives;

Organized runs on the banks, exert control over our own resources. I imagine it would take a relatively small amount of people to withdraw all their money in the same day to cause a ruckus

A revitalized radical and real credit union movement. (In short lend money to each other, rather than rely on the banking sector)

Alas I wish I had more, (world workers revolution?) but the ability to posit change or even point in the direction of change remains difficult in the world such as it is. What ever we do we need to create a world where the wealth we create is not run for and by banks and the finance sector but where the needs of people are placed at the centre of our economic system.

Living Breathing Commodities

2010-05-21T12:37:00.000-07:00

As most of you are probably aware, a number of scientists in partnership with the pharmaceutical company Novartis, and the great philanthropists and contributors to human well being known as Exxon Mobil, have created the worlds very first, self-replicating, artificial life form.

Using artificial DNA and a "blank" living cell they created a bacteria that has no living ancestor. While the importance of these discoveries is always hard to gage at the time of their inception, it has already been described as a technological breakthrough akin to splitting the atom. Here is an article from the economist that explains the discovery in some detail.

Ignoring the quite profound metaphysical implications a discovery of this nature possess (metaphysics is boring), the potential impact to society this technology represents is immense.

Additionally, as the advancement of bio-technology involves the creation of physical things, rather than the circulation of ideas/information, I believe that bio-technology has a greater potential to truly change the means of production and their accompanying social relations, than the Internet or other forms of information technology currently so much in vogue. If the hype is true, and it very well may not be, the creative/destructive potential of truly synthetic biology is staggering.

Ridiculously, the biggest fear I have regarding this discovery is its potential capacity for surplus absorption. Biological technology is capitalism's current best bet against a falling profit rate. With the potential for new markets, products, and profit generating enterprises represented by bio-technology enormous.

The patent application for the bacteria is already underway, and it seems obvious given who is funding the research, that the goal is not overall human well being but private profit and market creation. My absurd prediction is that in 15 years, we will discuss the deflating of the Bio-Tech bubble much the same way we currently discuss the Dot-com bubble or the Housing bubble.

In short, while amazing, a discovery of this nature provides further evidence of our need to organize, and work to wards a society where new technology is used to meet human need and not just further capitalist accumulation.

More Talk about the Debt Crisis in Greece

2010-05-02T09:50:00.000-07:00

Here is a blog post concerning the ongoing debt crisis in Greece, that everyone should read.

http://geostadia.blogspot.com/2010/03/greek-tragedy-of-olympic-proportions.html

In the current book that I am reading, Fredric Jameson argues that a key element of the current economic system (post-modernity/ late capitalism) is the primacy of the spacial over the temporal. The speed of communication, and the immense liquidity of the banking sector combine to erase time as a factor of analysis. In this sense history becomes meaningless with the only thing of any importance the further advancement of technological progress and capitalist growth. This is both a function of the current means of production ( re: economic structure) and an ideological construct designed to reproduce the social relations that currently allow capitalism to exist.

"Capitalism itself lives in a perpetual present; the human past seems to be a senseless accumulation of unsuccessful human efforts and intentions; yet the future of technology inspires blind and unshakable faith."(Jameson, 2009)

By eliminating our sense of history, we loose the ability to analyze problems in the world. We have nothing to compare them to, and no ability to connect the causes of the worlds problems with their effects.

The current situation in Greece provides a remarkable example of the ideological power of this concept at work. Six years ago, the Greek government was spending hand over fist to build Olympic venues that now sit empty. That same government is now being forced to cut social programs and decimate its public service to pay interest payments and keep the wheels of the global capital markets turning. Yet this analysis is nowhere to be found in even relatively intelligent media, instead the focus is on now,

How much profit was generate building those Olympic venues, and how much is currently being generated on interest payments and the short selling of Greek government debt. The same companies that encouraged the spectacular waste, and easily flow of money required to stage the Olympics, are now once again profiting from the increased interest rates thrust upon the Greek government. All of this represents a flow of resources away from public and towards private interests.

The borrowing for the 2004 Olympics in Athens represents about 10% of the total national debt in Greece. This represents billions of dollars of annual debt servicing payments (actually somewhere between 2-7 billion dollars per year depending on the term). Money the Greek people must now pay back, and that could be used to do productive/helpful things for society.

We tend to think of government debt the same way we think of personal debt. This is a mistake. Government debt is not a question of living beyond our means but rather the ultimate form of fictitious capital and speculation. It is quite literally money created out of nothing, its only "value" based only on the prospects it creates for future growth. Problems of government debt are problems of the structure of the world economy, global trade imbalances, and falling profit rates, not a problem of governments spending to much.

As the crisis in Greece spreads around the world, and the losses of the rich are increasingly visited on regular people. We must work to develop a sense of history and analytical prowess to see event as the are. It is not working people who must pay for the excesses and poor decisions of the wealthy and influential, although this is what is happening. Rather those in power who made the decisions should suffer the consequences of their actions.

Poverty is a fundamental aspect of the market economy

2010-04-29T15:50:00.000-07:00

Poverty is a fundamental aspect of the market economy. This assertion is frightening if true, and seems to be at the core of all radical critiques of capitalism. Are the problems of poverty systemic, a feature of the economic system in which we live, or, are they the result of bad decisions, easily corrected without real systemic change.

In order for markets to operate, prices must be set. The common understanding of how prices are set is via the law of supply and demand. The assumptions outlined in this system appear simple to us, in that we experience them every day. We even utilize them ourselves in a rudimentary way when we sell things at a garage sale, or post concert tickets on Craigslist. The need for an item as well as its relative scarcity work together to generate a price that seems fair to all parties involved.

Scarcity plays a large part in this. The relative levels of scarcity on a given day and in a given market are one of the factors that allow items to be sold above their cost of production. This is one of the ways profit is generated, as the relative advantage of a given capitalist can be used to sell objects at a price higher than its value. In short nobody buys sand at a beach.

In this way, a segment of the population must go without in order for the market mechanism to operate. Scarcity, and its human consequence poverty, are a requirement of functioning capitalist markets. How can wages be set if there is not a group of people looking for work. Who would pay for food if everyone had enough to eat.

In this sense, scarcity is manufactured to allow markets to operate. It does not exist in an absolute sense. If we can look beyond the economic system in which we live, poverty is not a question of scarcity, but rather a problem of the distribution of abundant resources.

The answers to these questions seem simple enough, yet solutions prove remarkably difficult. The slogan of the World Social Forum "Another World is Possible" comes to mind, however the world around us works to make imagining this world as difficult as possible.

The Best things in Life are Free - By Andrew Harvey

2010-04-16T18:17:00.000-07:00

There may be no truer statement.

Take our relationships with others, which outside of a few notable exceptions such as prostitution, have no monetary cost. The most rewarding things in this world come when we escape the nearly omnipresent grip of money. Take, for example, volunteering. When you freely give your own time, and have complete control of where you devote your efforts, the rewards far exceed anything money could offer you. The benefits of free giving between people is where the salvation of our world lies.

Every time you stop to hold the door for a stranger (or your best friend), pick up a piece of garbage, donate used clothing, time, or yes, even money, you are disproving all of the nay-sayers that say socialism cannot work. The biggest step in people acceptance that we can live in a world without money is convincing them that there is a possible alternative. Instead what we should do is to look at the many ways in which this world has existed without money since the least hairy of the apes stared walking together.

Of course there has been money, barter, or trade since we have started gathering in groups, but was this for the better? What about all the ways in which we never needed money? Family, community, and friends have always existed, usually managing to stay away from the divisive nature of money, and always for their detriment when they have failed to do so.

Sure we have had money for a long time, but who were the ones who decided we needed that? It was those who were in power. The ones who needed to create a monetary system in which they could measure and place an arbitrary value on everything. By measuring and assigning values to the things which we use, it removes the inherently communal nature of the world around us, by classifying items as “property”.

What I am getting at is that we are all in this together. This is another truism, which I have yet to hear a rational argument against. When it comes down to it, everyone, and everything in this world, are linked. Most places in this world have created a intricate series of classifications to divide us as people: governments, monetary systems, gender, class, religion and race (to name a few). When it comes down to it, these are all meaningless. They are imaginary social constructs that only have power because we continue to legitimize them by using them, and rigidly enforcing them in our social order. Our society (globally, and especially western-ly) continues to give these systems of exploitation and division power by ensuring that they persist.

Why? Money.

Money equals power in capitalism, and so long as 10% of the world controls 85% of it’s wealth, this will not change. The richest in our society have it in their (perceived) interests to maintain the status quo. Capitalism requires a perceived scarcity of resources to fuel the competition and inequality which it produces. When we are divided as people, in all the ways we are, we can perceive this inequality, and then seek to out-compete the “other”. This competition leads to an animal ferocity towards each other, and this world. We have been tricked by each other, and the media, into believing that our “needs” are not met. In western society we have more wealth than the other 70% of the world could ever imagine, but still feel the need to consume at ever-increasing rates. We work ourselves to the point of stress-induced illnesses, while keeping our neghibour, and fellow people across the world conditions we would never allow our $800 dog to live in. The perception of “need” in our society can include new game consoles every other year and new iPods every single year, while next door, across-town, or on the other side of the world “need” includes clean drinking water, and food that would cost what we tip our barista each morning.

This local, and global inequality is what leads to crime, national tensions, and the ravaging of the world, and the vast majority of it’s population for the benefit of the tiny minority.

Now that I have convinced you we should immediately abandon money, and embrace the glorious boosum of socialism, here is what we can do:

Stop letting money come into our lives in whatever ways possible, stop paying prostitutes for company for one.
Give yourself. In whatever ways you can think of. Volunteer your time, make sure you are there for friends and strangers when they need you.
When you must use money, ensure that it goes somewhere where it will be more equitably distributed, i.e. fair trade. This also means DON’T GIVE MONEY TO BIG CORPORATIONS. Corporations are massive organizations of exploitation which use their size, and leverage to “outcompete”, and undercut smaller, more local, fairer companies which spread the money around more.
Join a co-op. Any co-op you can. If one does not exist where you live, start one. Start on a small scale. I am not talking about the business designation the government has created necessarily, I mean starting with two families buying bulk rice together to save money. Any step we take together is a step in the right direction.
BE NICE TO EACH OTHER. Stop acting like it is us versus “them”, whoever “them” might be. Smile at people, hold a door for someone, unplug your earbuds, and start a conversation on the bus with a stranger. You will find we all have a lot more in common than you think.

There are many other ways to do what I am talking about, but this is a good start.

I love you all people. Lets start fixing this world together.

More thoughts about Money

2010-04-16T09:39:00.000-07:00

While the statement "Money is the root of all evil" has some truth. The current form that money takes under capitalism is very different from that which existed in pre-capitalist times. When people say we have always had money and always will, they are misinformed. Feudal society may of had money, but it was a minor factor in the overall economic system. Most economic relationships in feudal society where mediated by kinship bonds, religion, and other factors, rather than by the almighty dollar. Money was used by very few wealthy people and the vast majority of people would have little contact with it, day in and day out.

However, under our current economic system (capitalism) money, has become a means in and off itself. It is currently impossible to function successfully without money. The role that money plays as the "universal commodity" is a major factor in the daily exploration, human misery, and inequality we witness all around us.

What is the purpose of money under capitalism? One would imagine it is to purchase the goods/services you need to survive. You work a job, get paid, and then use the money to rent a house, buy groceries and live your life

While this may be true for the majority of us. If you are a business owner or investment banker (re: capitalist) this is not the case. People in these positions no longer need money to purchase things, but instead use things (commodities) to get money. As the universal store of value, money is better than things. Even with Hummers, Rocket Cars and Solid Gold Houses there is a natural limit on the amount of stuff that can be owned/used. However there is no limit to the amount of money one can have.

Additionally, money can be put to use to generate more wealth. Through the purchasing products for sale, investment in production, lending at interest, and the multitude of other methods which exist under capitalism to generate wealth, money is the ultimate factor in generating more money. In fact money must be used in this way, as, left to its own devices, it will loose value over time.

This never ending cycle is what drives the capitalist system. It creates the need for ever expanding compound growth. Additionally, it sets people against each other by creating an endless competition to generate the most money from the least amount of starting money.

This relationship leads directly to the explotation of working people. If the goal is to have more money at the end of the day then you did at the begining there are only a few ways to do this. The most classic method is to employe people to turn raw materials into more finished goods that you can sell at a profit. Even with all the technological wonders around us human labour remains the only way to add value to a given process. At some point people must work to turn raw materials, concepts, and technological processes into an object that can be sold for a price. By exploiting the ability of people to create things, selling them at a price higher than the cost to create them, capitalists extract value from working people. The cheaper this can be done, and the less you can pay people to do it, the more profit is to be gained, and the more efficient your process of transferring money, into commodities, and back into more money will be.

Money in its current form is both a biproduct of the current economic system and an essential element of its success, while doing all we can to minimize our reliance may be a useful symbolic gesture. They key remains to dismantle the system that relies on it and replace it with something that does not have the exploitation of working people at its base.

Greece, Ideology, and Social Power

2010-03-26T09:40:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting article from the Economist concerning Greece.

I have been following this situation fairly closely, and although you wouldn't know it from watching the news/or reading the local paper, this situation is one of the key economic problems facing the world today. I believe this situation provides a window into the future and depending on how this situation is dealt with the problems in Greece have the potential to spread rapidly, with (additional) disastrous consequences for poor/working class people around the globe.

The problems in Greece are two fold. Due to its high level of public debt, deficit spending, and a relatively weak economy, Greece is having trouble raising money on world capital markets. The fear is that Greece will be unable to service its debt in the future, leading to a default, and lost profits to all those capitalists/governments who lent Greece money in the first place. In short, Greece is not a good long term investment, and is increasingly unable to finance government operations.

This has lead the Greek government, under pressure from those same world markets as well as the EU, to introduce increasingly draconian measures to curb public spending, and reduce its need to borrow additional money. The list of these measures is quite extensive but it includes among other things huge cuts to the public service (including massive layoffs and in some case up to 25% wage reductions), increasing the retirement age, and significant tax increases. This has lead to both internal duress and mass protests on the part of the Greek people, in addition to endless debate among the EU about how best to deal with this situation, and wether or not to provide some sort of financial relief to the Greek government.

What makes the situation in Greece particularly interesting to me is that it provides an acute example of two of the big problems facing the world today. As well as a remarkably clear example of Capitalist ideology at work. The two problems that the situation in Greece demonstrates are;

1. The erosion of state power, and its ever weakening position visa vie world Capital Markets/Capitalist Power

2. Economic Fatalism, or, ignorance of the economy as a political and social process.

Upon first glance, it seems easy to criticize Greece. Even without employing ethnic stereotypes, and believe me this discourse does play a significant role in the media's coverage of these events, it would seem that comparatively Greece has a relatively developed welfare state and a large public sector, without the economy to back it up. In a sense Greece is living beyond its means. In this discourse these austerity measures are simply a correction. A time for the Greek government to come to its senses and start acting like the rest of us.

However, this "critique" is fundamentally ideologically. It only serves to engage regular people in a fight with each other over table scraps while the rich make 3.6 billion dollars a year to steal from people and drink martinis on Wall Street. Rather than focus on the true nature of the problem, global income disparity of epic proportions, we blame the lazy Greeks for their decadent lifestyle.

And here is the one of the true problems that the Greek situation exemplifies. The various financiers and stock traders of the world have been able to force Greece into enacting policies directly against the interests of their citizens. Greece has been placed in a situation where the interests of private profit and finance capital trump the interests of regular people. The state, maybe just the Greek state but maybe all states, no longer has the ability to govern. Government is now performed by the financial market.

Secondly, if the above quoted article is correct, 2/3rd's of the Greek population support the governments austerity measures. They have bought the line and believe that, as the market dictates, they must pull up their boot straps and soldier on to rebuild their economy, loose the benefits they fought and died for, in the hope that, one day they can once again have the lifestyles the so recently possessed.

The austerity measures being enacted are not the dictates of the market, but rather the direct workings of human beings. The economy is a social process run by, and one would imagine for, people. There is no invisible hand whisking money around by some mystical force but rather the conscious decisions of individuals.

In this case, the people in question are not working for the public good, but rather in the interests of private profit. Explicit in the idea of the economy functioning as a social process is the idea that we can change it. As its only actors, humanity must work to create an economy where the interests of human beings are placed above those of interests rates, and balance sheets.

We have allowed the world to become what it is, and we are the only people who can, working together, change it for the better.

Fredric Jameson in Vancouver, or, Why we can't have World Politics

2010-03-12T09:13:00.000-08:00

On Thursday night I was able to attend a lecture by renown literary and cultural theorist Fredric Jameson This was more exciting due to the fact I am in the process of reading his latest book; Valences of the Dialectic. I found the talk very enjoyable; it was clear, concise, and provided a good introduction of Jameson's views on postmodernism (or post-modernity as he would prefer).

To Jameson, post-modernity is a product of the current stage of capitalist development. Post-modern society is a symptom of changes in the mode of production, particularly, the move from industrial/production capitalism to finance capitalism. Also, and I believe very important to an understanding of Jameson's argument, is while these ideas are products of late-capitalism this does not provide us an excuse to dismiss them outright. Rather we need to engage with them dialectically.

Throughout the talk, Jameson gave numerous examples of how post-modernity is represented, in art, politics, and economics, as well as a brief outline of some the key features of post-modernity. One particular idea that he focused on was that of the "singularity." Particularly as it is represented in financial derivatives.

A financial derivative is a combination of financial instruments designed primarily to mitigate risk. (An instrument of instruments!) In this sense derivatives are a singularity. They represent a coming together of financial instruments, at one time, and for one specific purpose. Consequently, they remain next to impossible to regulate as each one is a unique set of relationships designed for a specific purpose. Another example of singularities referenced by Jameson were art installations, which have a similar uniqueness in regards to their position, within time, space, & human understanding.

While the term singularity may be an apt description of Financial derivatives and the kind of relationships currently produced under finance capitalism. It is ultimately unsatisfactory politically. Towards the end of the talk, Jameson discussed the current difficulty we have conceptualising contemporary society in any meaningful way. His evidence of this fact was that we do not properly have a world politics. In a world of globalization, complex one-time only financial instruments, and the immense power of finance capitalism our current conceptual frameworks do not allow us to organize in any meaningful way. In short, we are stuck with the political tools of modernism while trying to effect change in a thoroughly post-modern world.

How then does an awareness of these "singularities" help us in this regard. I would argue that it doesn't. It may provide us with a description of what is going on, but does nothing to assist us in conceptualizing and understanding financial capitalism. I am curious as to whether Jameson believes this task is possible, or even desirable, with his clear distrust of concepts, grand-narratives, and his denial of both universals and particulars.

Hopefully, reading his most recent book will shed some additional light on these matters. However, if Jameson is right, this leaves us with two options. Either contemporary capitalism has become so complicated that we will never be able to conceptualize it in a way that can provoke meaningful change, or, we haven't done it yet and are too busy chasing our tails to proceed on this task in any meaningful way.

Sooooooo....in conclusion, don't chase your tail as you may get bit.

Federal Budget Time

2010-03-08T14:54:00.000-08:00

I had planned on doing a rant about the recently proposed federal budget, but as my good friend Andrew has already done it here. I've decided to be more positive.

While, this years federal budget is predictably dour, each year the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives presents an alternative budget which is of late has been a much better read. I like the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, although far from challenging capitalist discourse, they are one of the few mainstream organizations in Canada that offer concrete tangible policy alternatives to the standard neo-liberal line spouted by seemingly everyone. (A surprising fact given their name).

Here are a couple factoids, concerning this years federal budget strait from the CCPA. Remember these the next time Steven Harper says that there is no money to pay for essential social programs:

Canada is one of the top 15 military spending nations in the world, and our current spending is higher than Cold War levels

The current budget includes at least $5 billion in corporate tax cuts, even while Canada has some of the lowest corporate tax rates in the OECD.

If you want to read more here is the link to the CCPA's annual "alternative budget. " After reading something like this its amazing to see the lengths that the government goes to not do useful/helpful things and instead focus on reducing the size of government, cutting corporate taxes, and facilitating private profit to maintain its bone headed, ideological, and patently false agenda.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/reports/docs/AFB%202010%20Budget%20in%20Brief.pdf

Also, in a hopelessly bureaucratic vein, I am appalled at the budget documentation provided by the federal government. At the very least they should provide a year over year comparison, as well as a detailed list of expenditures by department/object. This information exists and should be provided to the public. I will hope that it is on its way as I have far to much sympathy for the work involved in preparing this kind of documentation.

Why is Capitalism So Hard to see?

2010-03-05T11:46:00.000-08:00

The current state of global capitalism is remarkably strong. To loosely reference Slavoj Zizek, perhaps the best example of this can be seen in the retreat of the term itself from common usage. Capitalism is no longer seen as an economic system, one among many possible methods of organizing society, it is instead taken as a complete given. It is the white of the page rather than the text itself.

The Olympics provided a wonderful example of this op ache nature of capitalist relations. Even as they have been a time of civic celebration at no time has the City of Vancouver been less "public" and more private/capitalist than it was during the Olympics.

VANOC and the IOC managed to exerted near complete control of the public space. Through an immense police presence and strong armed legal tactics they managed to turn Vancouver into one large advertisement for Olympic sponsors . Even the air space has been privatized, as VANOC has managed to fine people for projecting unwanted advertising through air that they "own." Additionally, how much was the security presence necessary to protect us from terrorist threats, or was it designed to keep "undesirable" people out of what was once public space.

However, during the event itself it was remarkably easy to forget these facts. Glossed over by so much nationalist fervor and good time spirit the last thought on any ones mind was the capitalist accumulation and the reinforcement of capital social relations taking place all around them.

We have a long way to go if we hope to enact positive social change in this world. However, step one remains recognizing the world for what it is, and the capitalism system for just that a system; created by people, temporal, and subject to change. The world we live in was created by human beings and can only by changed by human beings. Every day our daily ritual works to reinforce capitalist social relations and until a larger group of people realise this we have no hope of changing it.

One Year of The Concrete Rainforest!

2010-03-05T11:17:00.000-08:00

Hey everyone, in celebration of the one year anniversary of this blog. I have decided to republish the first post. It consistent of my rant about a miserable little article by Vancouver City Councilor Geoff Meggs about his perceived impotence in the face of social housing changes.

I hope you enjoy my vitriol and I'd like to thank Mr. Meggs for his continued insipid fo-leftism which has managed to inspire in me enough anger to start this blog which I have been enjoying more and more as the weeks go by.

So here it is a blast from the past.

Hey all my first blog post and that article that inspired me, here is an interesting article from Vancouver City Councilor Geoff Meggs about the upcoming demolition of some of the last affordable housing in Vancouver (89 units at 4500 Fraser)

http://www.geoffmeggs.ca/2009/02/26/frustration-despair-about-affordable-housing/

I am currently shedding a single tear for poor old Geoff and crew who just couldn't do anything to help the people living in these homes and I sincerely hope their upcoming round-table discussion on affordable housing goes great!

Their feigned impotence and glad handing of Vancouver City Council on this matter is vomit inducing. Saying they say they don’t have legal authority to deny the permit when they set the bounds of that legal authority is ridiculous. Similar permits are denied because people don’t have the right number of fancy rocks near their stream beds and salmon wading pools.

The City of Vancouver’s authority in these matters is quite explicitly spelled out in the Vancouver Charter/Local Government Act, so they need not worry about legal authority. Additionally they certainly could of delayed the demolition as Geoff himself pointed out, but alas the “developer would loose to much money”. Which I will leave to speak for itself. Anyway, thanks for listening to my rant, I’ve been reading ever more news about Civic Politics in Vancouver and getting increasingly angry so hopefully there will be more.

Thanks again for reading, and heres hoping for a few more years!

Garbage Changes

2010-03-01T13:52:00.000-08:00

Big changes are on the way to how the City of Vancouver deals with its Garbage. In short, if this report gets passed, starting in 2011 garbage collection will only be once every two weeks. Food waste and yard trimmings will be picked up once a week and composted in Richmond. This is part of a larger regional plan to get foodwaste out of the landfill.

As always this will only effect the single family resitential homes. Apartments and the Industrial/Commercial sector remain subject to the ravages of the market at least for now.

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20100304/documents/csbu2.pdf

Alas, I won't say too much about this as various pieces of paper I signed loosly prevent me from doing so, however, I must say personally I think its a good idea. Although it would be smarter to focus on the commercial/industrial sector as they are the bigger offenders. Hrmmmm........

We've Only Just Begun (Or no more Lacan)

2010-02-19T15:44:00.000-08:00

Oh the joys of Friday afternoon blogging. I was once again hoping to prepare another political tirade, but it is amazing how fast simple things can pull me into a world of self-distraction, delusion, and worry.

This has prevented me from pulling together enough rational thoughts/analysis on a given topic to prep a good blog entry. The shield of rationality and intellect remain thin ever eager to be replaced by the banal repetition of the passions.

With this said, I'll leave you all with this great quote from the movie Synecdoche. While this quote may seem depressing, I find it quite inspiring. We are all in this(life) together, even if we remain forever trapped in our own heads.

"Everything is more complicated than you think. You only see a tenth of what is true. There are a million little strings attached to every choice you make; you can destroy your life every time you choose. But maybe you won't know for twenty years. And you may never ever trace it to its source. And you only get one chance to play it out. Just try and figure out your own divorce. And they say there is no fate, but there is: it's what you create. And even though the world goes on for eons and eons, you are only here for a fraction of a fraction of a second. Most of your time is spent being dead or not yet born. But while alive, you wait in vain, wasting years, for a phone call or a letter or a look from someone or something to make it all right. And it never comes or it seems to but it doesn't really. And so you spend your time in vague regret or vaguer hope that something good will come along. Something to make you feel connected, something to make you feel whole, something to make you feel loved. And the truth is I feel so angry, and the truth is I feel so fucking sad, and the truth is I've felt so fucking hurt for so fucking long and for just as long I've been pretending I'm OK, just to get along, just for, I don't know why, maybe because no one wants to hear about my misery, because they have their own."

Back to analysis and/or humour next week ! Feeling better already

What would Quachi do?

2010-02-13T14:18:00.000-08:00

On Friday I attended the Anti-Olympic rally at BC place. Although I got their late and missed a good portion of it I enjoyed myself and thought it was a worth while. It is good to know that not everyone in the city is excited about the Olympics. Even if it is a minority position.

Now that the protests have turned violent I am torn, part of me feels that a violent system must be met with violence, and that property destruction is not a big deal . However, I also feel this delegitimates the other protests. In a city filled with "Olympic Fever", reckless violence only further marginalizes an already marginal position. In short, where does informed political action end and smashing stuff because you mad at your parents begin.

There are definite problems with the way the protests have been organized and a complete lack of any firm message/goals. Hopefully this will improve as the weeks go on, but I remain skeptical.

As for the Olympics themselves, it is truly remarkable to see their effect on the City. Everything is light up, busy, and I can't leave the house without providing directions to some happy Russian tourist. I understand the excitement that the Olympics brings and the fun in getting swept up in an event of this magnitude. I like sports and parties and will likely watch a number of Hockey games(on TV of course), attend the free concerts, and enjoy a city full of happy people.

I compare the experience to eating at McDonald's. One can disagree with McDonald's believing they have horrible labour practices, corporate policies, and promote unhealthy food/lifestyles, but the food still tastes good, at least until the digestion process takes over.

This is a big part of the problem. In the same way, that McDonald's uses human evolutionary cues (fat & sugar taste good) in order to sell unhealthy food at a profit, the Olympics takes great human qualities (athletic prowess, desire for community, social interaction etc) and turns them into tools for capitalist accumulation and corporate greed.

I'd like to leave on the following thought; spending 6 billion dollars on a party in a world filled with social need is unconscionable. The economic benefits that the games provides serve the needs of the rich at the direct expense of regular working class people. When the provincial budget is passed next month, how many people will loose their jobs and how many important programs will be further decimated, primarily to service debt incurred on behalf of the Olympics. And this is just a tiny, easy to idenitify, fraction of the negative impacts the Olympics will have on this city and the (nonrich) people in it.

Unfortunately digesting those chicken mcnuggets is never as good as that first bite.

"Print This" - Back in "Print"

2010-02-08T11:21:00.000-08:00

In order to celebrate its 5 year anniversary my good friend, and fellow blogger, Andrew Harvey will be posting a limited run of the comic "Print This" on his blog. For some background here is Andrew's description of the comics origin story:

"In the summer of 2004, I stated “The comics are so bad in the Xaverian Weekly, I could draw a picture of a guy pointing at a sausage, and get it published.

Sure enough, I was half right. I never had to draw the comic, as I commissioned young up-and-comer/illustrator Luke Hillan to draw the comics for me. We did get Print This published several months after I had the idea. The brilliance of my own comic writing abilities, tied with the sheer artistic ability of Luke Hillan was a perfect storm of art, from which, Print This came. "

If that excites you be sure to check out Andrew's blog in the coming days for ongoing reprints of the long lost comic, "Print This."

http://www.voteandrewharvey.com/

hope you enjoy

The almost-lost cause of honesty

2010-02-03T13:37:00.000-08:00

I love The Economist, if only for thier intelectual honesty. Only in The Economist can one read lines like the one below....

"One reason why liberals (economic) have been so muted since Brazil became a democracy again is that voting in elections is compulsory. This means that a large number of poor voters, who pay little tax but benefit from government welfare spending, help to push the parties in the direction of a bigger state. If the same system were to be applied to America, the Democrats might well enjoy a permanent majority."

The subtitle to this article is "The almost-lost cause of freedom". Because in my world freedom means wishing poor people would go away so that we can better promote buisness interests and economic liberalism.

Right to the City

2010-02-01T17:15:00.000-08:00

As the three or four "dedicated" followers of this blog will know, I have recently been reading David Harvey's book Limits to Capital. This book is a remarkable exposition of capitalist economics and frighteningly relevant nearly 28 years after it was written.

So far the greatest personal benefit I have received from reading this book are a greater understanding of two extremely confusing issues that are particularly relevant given the time/place in which I live. (Vancouver - 2010)

These are;

1. Rising real estate prices in Vancouver
2. The nature and cause of the "Financial Crisis"

The price of real estate in Vancouver, both rental stock and for purchase, is absurd. A point frustrating demonstrated by this article talking about the glorious new 270 square feet condo's. Estimated monthly rent $750 dollars.

To put it another way, the average assessed value for a single family detached home in Metro Vancouver is approximately $600,000. Based on CMHC standard metrics of affordability, servicing a mortgage of this size would require an annual income of approximately $104,400 dollars a year. With median family income in Vancouver hovering around $60,000, it seems clear, no matter how you slice it there is a real estate affordability crisis in Vancouver.

This problem is not unique to Vancouver and has been replicated across the globe in most major cities, with real estate, and particularly urban real estate becoming increasingly unaffordable to the vast majority of people.

The question of course is why is this happening?

The short answer to this question is that the price of real estate in Vancouver is unrealistically high, due to the investment of surplus capital into real estate through the full incorporation of the use value of land into the financial system as a form of fictitious capital.

The next question is of course, what does this mean?

Capitalism, operates on the principle of growth. Throughout the history of capitalism economic growth has averaged around 3% a year (war/recessions aside). The importance of maintaining economic growth can be clearly seen in the global reaction to the current economic crisis/recession. Low or zero growth in the economy is clearly a problem for capitalism. However, this eternal, everexpanding growth creates a problem. As the economy becomes ever larger it is increasingly difficult to find profitable outlays or methods to achieve continued; growth, profit, and surplus generation.

When capitalism was a relatively new phenomenon, this problem was easily remedied by expansion into new markets. Growth and returns on investment could easily be achieved through expansion into new untapped markets where capitalism did not previously exist. However, with the almost complete permeation of capitalist production processes over the entire globe this solution is no longer readily available.

While new markets, are created all the time though; need generation, privatization of previously publicly held goods, and expansion of internal markets this does not have the same effect that the collonization of North America, or recent expansion of capitalism into China has had. In this sense, capital must at all times find new forms of investments that promise a reliable return, and continued economic growth.

This is where real-estate comes back into the picture. Real estate provides a solution (temporary) to this problem, especially when it is incorporated into the financial system through expanded credit.

Easy access to credit allows new houses to to be built, interest payments to flow to banks, and when combined with other factors, the expansion of demand for real-estate. With this expanded demand, constructing houses continues to be a profitable venture, even if the price is unfordable to the average person under "normal" credit relationships.

The second aspect of this, is the treatment of real-estate as a purely financial asset. People invest in real-estate as an investment to achieve a return. This furthers demand for new houses, as rich people, banks (through mortgages), and even the City of Vancouver will purchase multiple houses as a seemingly safe and lucrative investment.

The problem with this, is the self-perpetuating ponzzi like character of real-estate markets. As more people invest in real-estate, prices go up, this leads to more people investing, and ever increasing prices until the whole thing comes crashing down. Through this process, real-estate prices move away from their actual value. With prices no longer reflecting their overall usefulness to society, and instead representing what is needed for the continued generation of economic growth/profits. A large part of the current financial crisis is a correction taking place in previously inflated real-estate markets.

This has disastrous social consequences. Ever rising prices, push poor people out of the urban environment, and the city becomes a domain for the rich. Public space is increasingly cannibalized, sacrificed to condo developers eager to make a return on real-estate development.

This problem is a remarkably transparent, especially in Vancouver, I hope to expand on this later, but last night I spent some time in Gastown. The new Woodwards building has recently been completed and it is truly a remarkable development. However, despite this and "social" housing contained in the development, the long and short of it is that around 60 million dollars of profit was made from the direct, and violent, dispossession of homes from the previous residents (squatters), the poorest of the poor.

So in conclusion, real-estate prices in Vancouver are increasingly detached from their real societal value, with a ponzzi like investment market, and expanded credit facilitating expanded demand and increasingly higher prices, with horrible social results.

Inevitably there will be a correction. Personally, I think this correction is a fair way off for Vancouver, the desirability/livability of our region, the recent enormous improvements in fixed capital being invested by the provincial government (Canada Line, Gateway Project, Sea to Sky Upgrades), and yes the Olympics (although that is primarily related to the previous point) would seen to place Vancouver as an ideal place for continued surplus investment. However, significant changes to the world economic climate could change this quite quickly.

Thanks for reading this. Writing it was remarkably difficult and there are so many issues that I would need to expand further in order to truly do this issue justice. Hopefully I can expand on it in the future. Here are a few of the ideas I should have discussed.

1. How the credit system operates, and the role it plays in capital circulation
2. Real-estate as a form of fictitious capital
3. The Ideology of home ownership and the pressure it creates on individuals
4. Expanded social consequences of rising real-estate prices.

If you want to know more, read this article which I borrowed heavily from and is better than mine.

http://www.reclaiming-spaces.org/crisis/archives/245

Copies of my comedy rejection letters

2010-01-29T15:21:00.000-08:00

Hello all,

I thought it would be fun to post the rejection letters for my recent fiction submissions on my blog. I really enjoyed getting these comments, so hopefully no one is offended. However I also found humour in the the overly serious dissection of Wizardo and Doctor Magnificant not being thematically appropriate. I have blanked out peoples names so as not to reveal private information

Hope you enjoy....

Hey Luke,

Thanks for sending this. It generated some positive editorial response, but not quite enough for acceptance, so we're going to pass.

Here are the relevant comments...

Tyler Sm*th:<<>>

M*ll*e W*lson O'R**lly:<<>>

M*ke Richards**n-Bry*n:<<>

Punctuation: "…by years end…" needs a possessive apostrophe.
Punctuation: "…subject to managers approval…" needs a possessive apostrophe.
Punctuation generally needs improvement, especially use of commas.

Consistency: first it's "Personnel Defence Laser", then it's "Personnel Defense Laser".Also, "Personal Defence Laser" would make more sense than "Personnel Defence Laser".

Unless it's some peculiar usage, "neither world" should be "netherworld".

Thematically, it's a little fuzzy. He's clearly going for a G.I. Joe vibe, but both Wizardo with his dimensional vortex and a character with a name like Doctor Magnificent seem more suitable for a superheroic setting. Never quite captures the disconnect between the exciting and exotic world of super soldiering and the banality of bureaucracy. I would expect much of the humour in a piece like this to come from the villains, the outlandishness of the villains' evil schemes, and the extravagant deaths of both heroes and villains, but none of those areas is explored. It's a no for me. >>

Hopefully these comments may be of some use if you think of sending this piece elsewhere. If nothing else they will tell you how we think and respond to material. Better luck next time.

Best,
K*rt L*chs
Editor - TheBigJewel.com

Also stay tuned from some David Harvey inspired ramblings about rent/real-esate in Vancouver! (Half -done)

Seven Small Changes Required to make the World a Better Place

2010-01-11T22:36:00.000-08:00

The David Harvey love fest continues...this link is very exciting if a tad long. I really like the concept of a "co-revolution" and the comparison of the shift from capitalism to "something else" to that of feudalism to capitalism.

http://davidharvey.org/2009/12/organizing-for-the-anti-capitalist-transition/

In short, creating a society designed to meet human need would invole significant changes to all of the following items:

a) technological and organizational forms of production, exchange, and consumption
b) relations to nature
c) social relations between people
d) mental conceptions of the world
e) labor processes and production of specific goods, geographies, services or affects
f ) institutional, legal and governmental arrangements
g) the conduct of daily life that underpins social reproduction.

If one thinks of the transition from feudalism to capitalism, or even the changes that have taken place in the last thirty years one can easily see that all of the above items have changed significantly.

They key remains to change these in a way that promotes meeting real human need and not in a way that only serves to maintain a dynamic status quo. More on this later....

Awesome Harvey Quote

2010-01-10T14:14:00.000-08:00

here is a great quote from David Harvey's "Limits to Capital".

"...the theory of crisis formation under capitalism is a mixture of acute incite, muddled exposition and intuitive judgment, all spiced with a dash of that millennial vision to which Marx was prone. But the account, though incomplete, is of compelling power, at least in terms of the social consequences of the devaluation of capital that it depicts. We can begin to see how, why ,and according to what rules capitalists fall out with each other at times of crisis. How each faction seeks political power as a means to shove off the damage on to others. And we can begin to see the very human tragedy of the working class consequent upon the devaluation of variable capital.

The inner logic that governs the laws of motion of capitalism is cold, ruthless and inexorable, responsive only to the law of value. Yet value is a social relation, a product of a particular historical process. Human beings were organizers, creators and participants in that history. We have, Marx asserts, built a vast social enterprise which dominates us, delimits our freedoms and ultimately visits upon us the worst forms of degradation."

Two Cents on Prorogation

2010-01-07T09:37:00.000-08:00

The debate about the prorogation of the Canadian Parliament, the second in a year and a half, represents a new low in Canadian political discourse.

While, state relations are beholden to corporate interests, and the state operates as much as a facilitator of capitalist accumulation as it does a representative of any real democratic interest the state and functional liberal democratic institutions remain important. With appropriate pressure the modern state can create material improvements in people's lives and the programs it maintains (health care, welfare, unemployment insurance) are important and need to be maintained and protected.

However, the recent move by Steven Harper regarding prorogation and the backlash/discourse surrounding it shows how far the discourse concerning liberal democracy in Canada has fallen. It has become a near radical position to assert that the Government of Canada should function according to the rules it sets for itself. The fact that we must protest and demand of Steven Harper the minute level of accountability afforded by a 19Th century elite focused institution is absurd.

While I do not support the prorogation of Parliament, and the avoidance of any measure of responsibility by Steven Harper and the Government of Canada, the proper functioning of Parliament is as much an absence of politics as it is a democratic expression of people.

While banal, the benefit of the debate over prorogation is that through its very absurdity (thank you prorogation for being such a foolish and esoteric word) it exposes the inadequacy of liberal democratic institutions more generally.

So as you protest against Steven Harper and the prorogation of Parliament keep in mind what you are supporting:

the continuation of ineffective committees. Committees that legitimate torture through its very discussion, and continue to deflect against the daily violence in Afghanistan.
A "question period" that is largely ignored and does nothing to hold the government to account and much to inflate the egos of politicians
A weekly meeting of 73 "businessmen", 51 lawyers, 46 "managers", 34 "consultants" and a host of other occupations meant to represent Canadian society at large
A list of Conservative Legislation that aims to among other things substantially increase prison sentences, remove Canada Posts exclusive privilege on foreign mail (that's for you Aaron), institute free trade agreements with Jordon, Columbia, Peru, and a number of other nasty things I'm to lazy to research at this time.

Now join that facebook group!

A little dense

2009-12-23T09:45:00.000-08:00

Here is a neat website if you have some time to kill. Its fun to play with the buildings and I like their attempt to quantify the benefits of density in tangible terms.

http://www.shapevancouver.com/

With that said one of my goals is to get better at decompacting these type of things. Obviously, this "survey" is designed as a way to get people to think about more density in the City, which is not in and of itself a bad thing. However, as the main sponsors are Concord Pacific there is obviously some profit motive at work here as well. Density serves their interests as more density means more condos sold and higher profit margins.

This has got me thinking about my earlier post about the concept of space and how the ways in which we live, the architecture we use, and the planning policies in place reflect changes in the means of production.

We are currently going through a major economic shift, and its interesting to see the local effects of this change.

For whatever reason there is a major push throughout the developed world for more public transit, urban density, and other "sustainable" ways of living. A naive view would say that these changes were demanded by regular people and then implemented by governments on their behalf. An opposite view would say we are being brutally manipulated by power forces outside of our control, in order to have a functional economy in a world without oil etc...The truth lies somewhere else as the relationships between these concepts is complicated. In any sense, these changes are perfectly able to function within capitalism and do not represent an alternative in any real sense even though they are often presented as such.

The key is to make these changes work for everyday people rather than just those in positions of power. What kind of city and what type of social relations are required in order to get rid of capitalism?

With that said lets get me one of those air parcels

Terminator 4 - Fan Fiction (Episode 1)

2009-12-17T10:29:00.000-08:00

John Conner, looked down from the back of his helicopter into the sea below. The waves raged around him, a veritable perfect storm. The wind and seas were so fierce John worried that the pilot might loose control and plunge dangerously into the deep dark ocean.

"Your not going down there are you? You'll never make it to that submarine in this storm," screamed the pilot over the sound of the struggling engine of the now 35 year old helicopter. John spat back in his usual vicious tone. Did no one understand the fate of all mankind rested in his callused hands.

With a determined breath, John jumped into the ocean. He could feel the water surging around him. It dampened his every pore. Soaked him to the bone. John could barely swim, but swim he did. John continued down deep into the murky depths of black foreboding waves, he needed to reach that submarine.

At that very moment, John saw a large dark shape out of the corner of his eye. He feverishly hoped it was his destination. The submarine could not be to far now. John's water logged clothes begged him to give up, to forever commit to the dark mistress of the deep. Despite these feelings John resisted continuing ever forward on his quest.

Upon getting closer, John was disappointed when the ominous shape before him turned out to be a whale. In spite of this, John kept swimming, downwards towards the resistance leadership. As he swam the whale matched his every stroke. The whale got closer and closer, and soon its intentions became clear. Opening its enormous mouth, the whale swallowed John without so much as a thought.

Some time later, John awoke in the stomach of the whale. To his surprise it was quite roomy and he was not alone. In addition to the numerous fish, shipwrecks, and twitching Terminator carcasses, an old man sat in the center of the whales stomach. He was gently roasting a small herring over a tiny fire.

"Greeting wayward traveler. It looks as if you too are stuck in this whales mouth. I myself have been in here for sometime. 25 years by my count. Has much changed since I last saw the sun and stars dance above my head."

John explained to the man, the fate of the world. Of Skynet and the Terminators and how fate had ordained him as the lone protector of mankind. John pleaded with the old man for help. He had to get out of this whales stomach, and quickly. The old man found John's story hard to believe but reluctantly agreed to help.

Just then, John remembered a movie he had seen in what seemed like the distant past. A past without Skynet, without Terminators, and without the horrors he now witnessed daily.

Putting John's plan into action the two men worked diligently. They dutifully piled the wood of various discarded shipwrecks into a makeshift fire. The smoke irritated the whale, and its stomach began convulsing. The smoke had the additional effect of completely drying John's clothes and hair. As the smoked filled the whales stomach, John and the old man smiled at each other. The plan was working it looked as if they would be freed from the stomach of the beast. Spat out of whales stomach like so much fateful vomit.

As the smoke continued to billow the whale let out a tremendous.

AAACHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

And with that John zoomed out of the whales stomach. A bubble of air surrounded him preventing the water from reaching his clothes and hair. Miraculously, the whales smoke induced digestive problems piloted John directly into the waiting hatch of the resistances' command military submarine. Confused but excited, John had reached his destination. Looking around for his comrade in fire and unwanted digestion, John could not see the old man. Out of the submarines' hatch window John caught a glimpse of the now deceased old man sinking slowly into the depths.

Briefly thanking his lost comrade, John continued on with his quest. With the fate of mankind resting in his hands there was no time to waste grieving. With a final thought, he stormed into the command center of the submarine. Finally he posed the information he needed to defeat Skynet once and for all. Fate was ready for him, and John was ready for fate

.....

My (hopefuly) first McSweeney's Submission

2009-11-12T17:55:00.001-08:00

Teammates and fellow Super Soldiers

I regret to inform you that upon reviewing Q1 and Q2 financial statements the Super Soldier - Team X project is expected to be over budget by years end. In the interests of financial accountability and the continued success of this program the following efficiencies are to be be implemented immediately:

use of the Super Sub/Invisible Plane for personal/take home use is suspended until further notice
Personnel Defence Lasers can only be set above 40 megawatts with the signed justification from your supervisor ( See Josie to pick up your new and improved - Personnel Defence Laser Use Form 101A)
In the event that an appropriate catastrophic event(A.C.E) occurs outside of regular working hours call-outs are limited to Standby Team A only, with this said underwater catastrophes remain the sole jurisdiction of Seatastic the Wonder Dog.
mileage dispersments are limited to conventional modes of transportation only, trips to Moon Base X via the teleportation ray will no longer be eligible for the 52C/mile rebate, rebates via conventional modes of transportation remain subject to managers approval.

In addition to this the Team X will no longer respond to the following events:

Earthquakes of magnitude 7.8 and less
Flooding in any area with a population density less than 1200 people per square mile
Any event/catastrophe occurring in the Southern Hemisphere

As we all know, budget season is fast approaching so I would appreciate any innovative cost cutting ideas you may have for next year. I know things have been a bit crazy around here ever since Wizardo opened up that dimensional vortex to the neither world, but I'm sure that if we all work together we should have a successful and efficient second half of the year

Thank you,

Doctor Magnificent

Vice President - Interdimensional Catastrophes & Cost Control

Super Soldier - Team X

Space for Space

2009-10-28T22:12:00.000-07:00

Lately, I have been thinking about the idea of space and how it is conceptualized. This is partially due to all the David Harvey I have been reading, but also because it intersects with my work life a fair bit.

At work, we have been working on an interesting project that attempts to measure and quantify the amount of money needed to maintain/repair the infrastructure in West Vancouver.

We have covered a lot of interesting stuff. However, one point has stuck out for me. Due to the size of lots in West Vancouver and land use decisions made during its development, there is more infrastructure per person, (water main, sewer main, more ditches/culverts) and the infrastructure is more complicated (more pump stations needed, drainage infrastructure) This requires a larger investment per person to maintain/repair, that in a "typical" city.

Surprisingly building 10,000 square foot homes on the side of a mountain creates some engineering challenges.

This idea seems fairly obvious, but is not easily apparent to most people. The fact that the form we live in and the "space" we utilize has an impact on the world and requires resources to maintain should not require explaining.

An environmentalist would call these things "externalities". However, in this case we are not even dealing with intangibles like pollution, or CO2 emissions, we are dealing with a tangible piece of infrastructure that can be easilty explained and quantified.

Anyway, to get to my point. I think the concept of Space provides an interesting example of where markets breakdown. Most right-wing economists would say that markets are infinite. That there is an unending supply of new products/needs that can be addressed by Capitalism. This is why there is no crisis of overproduction and no overall collapse of the system .

This argument makes sense to me, new products can always be developed, new markets exploited, or new interactions/processes comodified. New ways of doing things will always be created and as long as capitalism exists methoids of extracting surplus from them will also be created.

However, this idea does not apply to conventional space. Space is in finite supply, and a minimum (450ft square feet condo anyone!) is required to maintain/live a fulfilling and productive life. This is why the comodification of space is so horrendous and the ongoing destruction of public space such a bad thing.

In conclusion, treating the space in which we live like an ipod is a bad idea :)

A Credit Utility

2009-06-25T19:15:00.001-07:00

Introduction:

Here is a long blog that I have been working on for a while. It is remarkably poorly researched and mostly involves my random thoughts about a new way to organize the distribution of credit within society...I have looked for books/articles on this subject. But other than one book(from 1982 and out of print) and a article/public access interview with Leo Panich I have had little luck. I hope to read that book one day but until then enjoy these ramblings.

How Banks Work Now! (Sorta)

Thanks to Planet Money, I now have a basic understanding of how banks work, or at least how they work in their simplest form. Basically, they operate of the principle of leverage. Banks take money in from customers, pay them interest on their money, and in turn lend it out to others at a higher interest rate. Profit is made in the difference between these two interest rates.

In the words of Liz Lemon - its that thing that rich people do to turn money into more money.

At its most base form this is how banks work. Obviously it is much more complicated than this, with extremely complicated financial models to allocate risk, determine proper interest rates, as well as a number of other financial products that attempt to mitigate this risk, or maximize the total leverage/profit made by the banks.

An alternative approach.

A "credit utility" would treat credit as a public good. The utility would distribute credit in the same way that a Water Utility distributes water. In the same way, that water is deemed as too fundamental to be placed in private hands (at least some in some places), so to would the distribution of credit be treated as to important to be done for profit/private gain.

A "Credit Utility" would allocate credit, on a cost of service model. Costs to run the utility would be recovered through interest on the money lent. Models could easily be developed that apportioned the interest rates in different ways to create incentives for certain behaviors. (Paying loans back quickly, encourage smaller loads, means tested interest rates, etc). This looks great to me, no crazy financial instruments, no profiteering, just banks providing a service(credit) that is necessary in a capitalist system.

However, there are two large problems that need to be addressed for this to really work:

- How are decisions about lending reached (who gets the money)?
- How much money is lent in a given time frame?

Currently these questions are answered by market forces. With the argument being that profit motive, determines how best to allocate credit. This clearly has not worked.
The current crisis represent a fundamental failure of the market to allocate wealth properly. If a trillion dollars can get lent to people to purchase fictional pieces of paper that are in reality worth nothing, I would argue that the system is not particularly efficient. Arguing for the efficiency of markets that can erase ten years of wealth creation in a single day is ludicrous.

Establishing a "Credit Utility" would enable public control of the banking sector. Credit/Wealth could be distributed in a way that was for the benefit of people rather than for profit and "market forces". These decisions would be made in the political arena rather than behind closed doors, and in the public interest, rather than for the maximization or profit.

The mechanics of these decisions would be difficult to set up. However, would they be any more difficult than the thousands (millions?) of accountants, banking executives, wall street types currently required to run the current system. Would this be more efficient than the market allocating credit. I would argue that the bar on efficiency by the market has been set pretty low...so probably. If efficiency was lost the gains made by having public control of credit would far out way the costs of lost efficiency.

Hopefully, you will notice that I have been using the term public control and not government control. Simply transferring the allocation of credit in society from banks to government as it currently stands, while likely an improvement, would not mean true public control of credit. True public control, would require a fundamental re-ordering of society. :)

Conclusions

This idea is exciting to me because it is tangible, and no so far out from the current operations of society to seem unrealistic but at the same time leads to discussion about the fundamental problems with the banking sector, profit motive and private control of credit. If credit is necessary for the functioning of society as it is, it should be under public control.

Anyway, I plan to keep thinking about this idea...I like to think it provides a good spring board to other more exciting questions, most notably, if the efficiency point is moot (which I believe it is) Why should credit be distributed for profit/private good rather than in the public interest?

Neat Article on Housing Policy Choices

2009-06-22T10:54:00.001-07:00

Here is a really neat analysis of housing/development in policy in B.C.

Create Housing Policies...

In particular, I enjoyed the discussion about how developer contributions act as a subsidy to rich established homeowners at the expense of first time buyers and renters.

(For those of you who don’t know what developer contribution (DCCs) are. A DCC is donation extracted by a municipality as a condition of new development; these funds are usually used for infrastructure upgrades, sustainability initiatives, or parks and other amenities.)

This seems like a good idea to me, however as the article explains it has the potential to work at cross purposes.

In short; if developers pay for amenities and other services property taxes remain low as these services do not need to be funded from general revenue. Low property taxes are of greatest benefit to established homeowners and people with larger more expensive homes. Additionally, these costs while paid for initially by the developer are ultimately reflected in the base price of new homes. This pushes up property values, a further benefit to established property owners and ironically the developer – who makes more profit the more expensive the home is.

This is a great example of trickle up economics at work.

Ultimately, despite the good intentions of policies like developer contributions the most powerful interests will benefit the most. In this situation, a policy intended to force developers to fund municipal services/amenities serves to subsidise rich homeowners and push up property values (And developer profits).

Coleman Stove

2009-04-21T16:08:00.000-07:00

While mostly a love fest of our current Housing Minister and Langleyite Rich Coleman the subtext to this article is interesting. This is especially true given the near daily announcements of new social housing units being purchased by the province and the City of Vancouver.

To me the article is implying that the model for social housing used by the province is shifting away from the standard model of mixed low income/social housing spread throughout the City, and towards larger housing projects specifically geared towards "hard to house" individuals.

This seems worrisome to me. The concentration of social housing in this way is ghettoization. It forces all the “undesirables” to live in certain areas while protecting everyone else (and property values) from unpleasantness

This seems the opposite of the solution to me. Neighborhoods should represent the makeup of society more broadly with social housing spread evenly throughout the City. Social Housing should not be dictated by market forces or specifically designed to protect property values and the sensitivities of rich people.

Fartisan Politics

2009-03-12T17:37:00.000-07:00

Two of my favorite things combine for humorous results, also it only took a week for my attempt at a serious blog to descend into childish jokes.

Fart Interrupts City Council Meeting

I am working on a serious post as well, its below this one as I started on it first

Beggar thy Neighborhood

2009-03-12T15:34:00.000-07:00

Recent events in the City of Surrey have got me thinking about a my recent trip to the U.S. While there a friend and I got into an exciting chat with an elderly gentleman. We discussed politic's generally, including the views of novelist Jack London and "Obomamania". I belive the word socialism even came up a few times, which is always a little frightning while in the United States.

One of this mans more interesting incites was that one of the best methods to get a true read on government policy is to follow the tax law. This is something I have heard before and makes a great deal of sense to me. Practically speaking taxation is one of the most powerful policy instruments government has. More importantly it is one of the few that they seem more than willing to use in recent times.

Which leads me to the City of Surrey and Mayor Watts' recent annoucment about the creation of "Economic Development Zones" With the creation of these special zones, Surrey will be offering special conditions to developers including tax exemptions and reductions in amenity requirements to develop in specific areas.

This is obviously bad. The extraction of amenities from developers is one of the more positive things that municipal government does. While far from adequate these contributions ensure that developers at least pay some of the costs for ensuring a livable city (parks, community centers, new infrastructure etc..)

Nothing really new or exciting here just politics on the part of Ms. Watts/aid to developers that don't need it. However its interesting to look at this in a larger context. Does having a number of smaller municipalities as opposed to one larger body, as in Toronto/Montreal, lead to a "race to the bottom" in terms of competition for development.

With the power of the development industry/profit motive its hard enough imagine any positive results from development with out institutional incentives on the part of local governments also contributing to the problem.

City Housing Advocate - Advocates for Houseing

2009-03-09T16:24:00.000-07:00

Here is something funny to read, from NPA bloggers City Caucus

City Staff Promote Political Rally

This is an opinion I don't understand. Why is there a backlash against people who work in govenerment having opionions related to thier job.

I would expect the Economic Development - Manager for COV to advocate for lower buisness taxes, just as I would expect the Housing advocate at the City of Vancouver, to advocate for more money for social houseing. But for some reason this is wrong and "political".

Frightingly enough the bureacracy is one of the more representative institutions that we have, this is how it is suposed to work, but no somehow working for the government means that one must be apolitical and have no opionions related to the work they do all day as if this were some how possible.

So silly but forgettibly partizan things often are, City Caucus is a fun blog to read however if only for the anger it generates and humerous/alarmist photos.

cheers

Affordable Housing in Vancouver

2009-03-05T10:34:00.000-08:00

Hey all my first blog post and that article that inspired me, here is an interesting article from Vancouver City Councilor Geoff Meggs about the upcoming demolition of some of the last affordable housing in Vancouver (89 units at 4500 Fraser)

http://www.geoffmeggs.ca/2009/02/26/frustration-despair-about-affordable-housing/

I am currently shedding a single tear for poor old Geoff and crew who just couldn't do anything to help the people living in these homes and I sincerely hope their upcoming round-table discussion on affordable housing goes great!

Their feigned impotence and glad handing of Vancouver City Council on this matter is vomit inducing. Saying they say they don’t have legal authority to deny the permit when they set the bounds of that legal authority is ridiculous. Similar permits are denied because people don’t have the right number of fancy rocks near their stream beds and salmon wading pools. The City of Vancouver’s authority in these matters is quite explicitly spelled out in the Vancouver Charter/Local Government Act, so they need not worry about legal authority.

Additionally they certainly could of delayed the demolition as Geoff himself pointed out, but alas the “developer would loose to much money”. Which I will leave to speak for itself.

Anyway, thanks for listening to my rant, I’ve been reading ever more news about Civic Politics in Vancouver and getting increasingly angry so hopefully there will be more.