2009: The Status Quo versus The Long Emergency
Again, stop whatever elese you were doing, like reading things I wrote about 2009, and read Jim Kunstler’s forecasts about 2009. The author of The Long Emergency is experiencing the unenviable task of seeing dire structural change ahead, change that won’t be mollified by new gadgets, and being right about its consequences.
Some highlights:
He’s not a fan of techno-solutions. (not unlike yours truly)
The various tech industries are full of MIT-certified, high-achiever Status Quo techno-triumphalists who are convinced that electric cars or diesel-flavored algae excreta will save suburbia, the three thousand mile Caesar salad, and the theme park vacation. The environmental movement, especially at the elite levels found in places like Aspen, is full of Harvard graduates who believe that all the drive-in espresso stations in America can be run on a combination of solar and wind power. I quarrel with these people incessantly. It seems especially tragic to me that some of the brightest people I meet are bent on mounting the tragic campaign to sustain the unsustainable in one way or another.
He sees Dow 4000:
A consensus in the blogoshpere says that the stock markets will rebound strongly during the first Obama months. This is possible just on the basis of pure “animal spirits,” but the Obama Bounce will occur against a background of continued dismal business and financial news. It will appear to defy that news. By May of 2009, the stock markets will resume crashing with the ultimate destination of a Dow 4000 before the end of the year.
He believes that you’ll actually need positive cash flow to make a business run (old-fashioned, but radical!):
We’ll turn around early in 2009 and discover that we are a much poorer nation than we thought because from now on credit will be extremely hard to get for anyone for anything. The businesses that survive will have to keep going on the basis of accounts receivable…Giant enterprises requiring giant loans to get from quarter to quarter will tend to not make it. Borrowing from the future will become a practical impossibility as past bad debts from previous borrowings continue to unwind, cease performing, and get written off.
Real change. Not new technologies for old philosophies. Nobody will save the day. We’ll need to make workable solutions for many different types of people.
And still - people will need things. Goods and services will be required, perhaps just different types.
Business development will need to be on its toes! Are you ready?
Diplomacy 2.0 - using Facebook and Twitter to tell America’s story
Steve Clemons runs The Washington Note, one of the truly essential blogs for anyone who has an interest in America’s foreign policy.
Clemons thinks like a natural futurist, always considering strategic trends in a holistic, intellectually honest manner. But he’s also is interested in new technologies like Facebook and Twitter that will connect people around the world in a way that impacts America’s diplomacy. Cutting edge stuff. Check out this speech on social media from the New America Foundation:
Bailouts make us ask: what is the future of the corporation?
Next up on the bailout list: car companies, cities, healthcare, schools. I guess nobody’s business model is 
working very well, and now everybody needs money from the U.S. federal government, which of course is half a trillion in the red this year. Companies losing billions want loans from a government that’s losing billions.
I think that a lot of things are going to need a redesign in the next few years, to put it mildly.
Regardless, yesterday’s stars were the automotive CEOs who flew into to Washington DC to plead for the U.S. government to provide aid to its most important companies.
But wait, are they American companies? Chris Kelly at the Huffington Post provides an excellent bit of polemic, reminding us that Chrysler is actually owned by a $60 billion hedge fund called Cerberus Capital which owns, in addition to Chrysler:
A Japanese bank called Aozora
A Japanese real estate company called Showa Jisho
A Japanese golf course company called Kokusai Kogyo
An Israeli bank called Bank Leumi
A German bank called Handel und Kredit Bankhaus
A reinsurance company called Scottish Re, with headquarters in Bermuda
A British TV rental chain called Boxclever…etc.
This is a great point - we’ve spent decades making global capital so fungible, so fluid that it readily cros
s borders, ignores nationality, changes hands without making news. So can a corporation possibly be a national entity for which a certain government (and its taxpayers!) might claim responsibility?
If Chrysler isn’t a potent enough example, how about Citibank, which is getting “trouble asset relief” from the U.S. Treasury but is now is owned to an even greater extent by Saudi princes?
This begs HUGE questions. What is a corporation? To whom does it belong? What is the relationship between a corporation and the nation-states of the world?
If you’re in business today, and plan on staying in business through 2009 and beyond, these aren’t just philosophical discussions. This is your future. Give it some thought.
The first global crisis?
It’s great to hear from Thomas P.M. Barnett, author of the Pentagon’s New Map, and one of the top thinkers on foresight in the world. This recent article posits that the current global credit crisis may be the first time we get to truly see the interconnected nature of globalization in action.
As always, the question will be: What new rules and rule-setting venues emerge? Because eventually they must. The Asian Flu didn’t do it, nor have any of the other more regional shocks since, but eventually you need some entities to emerge to monitor and manage these cross-border financial flows. This gap has been clear for many years, but as long as informal collusion among the largest economies has worked–just well enough–no one’s been willing to surrender the power. Maybe this perturbation, then, is really the one.
I agree. The terrorist attacks and wars have really been managed through nation-states, so the fundamental calculus of governance has not really changed. It’s not like the Chinese, French and Canadian militaries started Facebook pages to share data on al Qaeda - we mostly went back to our old system of armies and allies. (And perhaps this is why the results are so mediocre.)
This crisis is different. We’re all in this together, but there’s no government to look over these international transactions. And maybe we don’t want one. Or can’t have one. But maybe it would be useful. It’s complex. In any event, new institutions will be required, hopefully ones more adapted to current realities than old ideologies.
Be social