Everyday in my local papers, I read stories with headlines like “Subway Ridership Dropped Again in New York as Passengers Flee to Uber.” AMNY, in its daily Tweet compilation section, generally devotes at least half of its selections to posts bashing the subway and bus system. In the midst of the hangover that was last week’s Uber IPO (in which it immediately lost 8% of its value), it would be appropriate to contemplate the intersection of Uber (and its ugly stepsister Lyft) and the government.
In the shadow of the Great Depression and WWII, under the Administrations of the multimillionaire Franklin Roosevelt and the no-nonsense Republican Dwight Eisenhower, the federal government invested the equivalent of football fields full of cash on infrastructure projects like the Interstate Highway System (which cost half a trillion in today’s dollars). States and cities likewise undertook great transportation schemes. Between the 1920s and 1960s, Robert Moses funded 413 mi. of parkways and 13 bridges for NYC through, among other things, local tolls.
This spirit of investing in the mobility of American citizens and goods gradually died off with the rise of neoliberalism in the 1970s and 1980s; federal spending for transportation infrastructure spending has been in decline since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. The sea change was most spectacularly evidenced on Oct 22 1981, when President Reagan fired and blacklisted 11,345 striking federal air traffic controllers. Cue to the present… The American Society of Civil Engineers has given America’s infrastructure a dismal grade of D+ since 2013. Trump on the 2016 campaign trail said that, “Our airports are like from a third world country.”
Governmental abdication in regards to public transportation has created a vacuum that the private sector is now trying to fill. This is problematic for many reasons. Bereft of the full-time employee status and union membership of public transit employees, Uber and Lyft drivers, as “independent contractors”, are treated like sharecroppers, with no minimum wage or pension/healthcare plans. Infrastructure underfunding leads to lost opportunities for construction companies and their suppliers, which costs the economy money and jobs. Uber and Lyft, by contrast, contribute nothing to the roads, tunnels and bridges that they use, other than tolls and the income that they don’t shield via elaborate tax evasion schemes… That and a nearly threefold increase in congestion, which hurts shipping and personal drivers’ commutes. Safety laws are frequently broken by Uber and its drivers, who undergo nothing more than a basic background screening, and receive no substantive training, prior to being hired. The secluded, close-quarters nature of the rideshare template has led to many incidences of sexual assault and harassment for drivers and riders alike (by contrast, bus and yellow-cab drivers are generally shielded from their clients by bulletproof glass).
The privatization of transit also creates a commuter caste system, in which affluent citizens can spend $20 on a quick Uber ride to work, while poorer people must rely on perpetually-delayed trains, anxiously waiting on train platforms that are often literally falling apart due to neglect. This problem extends far beyond rideshare apps. For years, Elon Musk has been unsuccessfully trying to sell various municipalities on the concept of the experimental hyperloop, a pricier, less efficient version of a subway. Hyperloop trains of the future will supposedly be able to travel at 700 mph… but they can only carry 28 people at a time! So Musk wants cities to potentially invest billions to construct underground tunnel networks that only a couple hundred people a day max would be able to use, let alone afford, considering the pricy ticket fees that would probably be necessary in order to generate electricity for the hyperloop’s futuristic maglev-vacuum operating system. Bullet trains also operate on a maglev system, but the cost gets spread out to over a thousand customers per trip, instead of just 28. Emulating Musk, fellow billionaire Jeff Bezos just unveiled his space exploration company Blue Origin’s lunar lander prototype. The fact that NASA is, due to chronic underfunding, being outpaced by Blue Origin and Elon Musk’s SpaceX, is not only a national disgrace, but a matter of concern for the welfare of humanity as a whole. If space travel becomes monopolized by a handful of billionaires, it could eventually lead to the scenario envisioned by sci-fi dystopias like Elysium, wherein only the rich will be allowed to escape our dying planet, while the poor masses are left behind.
In regards to public transportation (and many other fields), the US is quickly falling behind China. The Middle Kingdom has over 19,000 mi. of high-speed rail (much of it built just this past decade); the US has just 2% of that total and much of it is contained to an old NYC-DC Acela line that is woefully obsolete. Eight new airports get built in China every year, meaning that China’s total stockpile of airports will double by 2035. The last American international airport was built last century and many existing airports, like the infamous LaGuardia, are falling apart due to underfunding. The nation famous for its cyclists also boasts the world’s largest elevated bike lane; by contrast, bike lanes are a very controversial issue in American cities, where its staunch-individualist detractors decry them as Communist plots.
This growing disparity is being fuelled by the two nation’s different appropriations models. China realizes the importance of central planning in regards to major infrastructure projects. Investing in high-speed rail might not be “profitable” if measured solely by ticket revenue, but it pays for itself in the long-term by spurring urban development, construction contracts and employment, and increased tax revenues from workers now able to access better jobs and commerce. Not to mention that traffic accidents, often the result of crumbling and obsolete road infrastructure, is the #8 cause of fatalities worldwide, including 32,000 a year in the US. The American mindset is more myopic, focused only on short-term viability for investors. This was encapsulated by Trump’s infrastructure plan, which focused on subsidies for corporations and localities… the same model that has been failing America’s infrastructure for decades.
It’s clear that the Uber-ization of public transportation is an inadequate and unsustainable solution. The corporate model is solely predicated on short-term growth and the exploitation of its workforce. In order to keep up with fellow superpower China, the US must take a centralized approach to maintaining and upgrading its faltering subways, trains, airports, bridges, roads and waterways. Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration employed about 9M Americans in the construction of some of the world’s most successful infrastructure projects, such as 29,000 new bridges, at the height of the US’ greatest financial crisis. People like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are looking to emulate this past success by enacting a Green New Deal, which would employ millions of Americans in constructing sustainable infrastructure. Likewise, it would be a boon for construction firms, industrial goods suppliers like Caterpillar, shipping-oriented companies like Amazon and urban-based businesses as a whole. America must invest itself, in its people, in its future.
The Bust: WeWork’s diminishing stature of the perfect “start-up”
Until recently, the globally acclaimed startup, WeWork was transforming the future of office spaces and staff hiring processes. Truly, it was transformational in the sense that the startup was providing a vital service point to many multinationals around the world. However, Mark Dixon, the cofounder of IWG, another workspace solutions company, was not getting the trick. Here was IWG, a decently profitable startup with consistent annual growth, still unable to compete with the superstar of the industry. Soon after SoftBank poured cash into the company, WeWork was valued for more than $40 bn. Then, it was making headlines for overwhelm; now, WeWork is in a state of awe. As market reports suggest, WeWork even lacks the cash to fire its existing employees.
As Adam Neumann, the chastened cofounder of the dwindling company once proclaimed, co-working was the future and that employees would prove to become more productive and efficient. In his own words, different cultures and organizational goals would inspire the entire floor. Much as the concept is about renting an office space, Mr. Neumann deliberately did not elaborate on the nuisances of dealing with office neighbors, as seen from a tenant’s perspective. The idea would have charmed many organizations; it was a great opportunity to redeem operating costs or dealing with unwarranted office culture problems. Or, as many renting executives thought, WeWork would define the ground rules, aptly in accordance with global standards. For many, it was also an experiment for the future. Also, nobody could take away the fact of losing varied insights from “not” participating in what at first seemed like a once in a time revolution.
SoftBank, a Japanese conglomerate investing fund is writing the most important plot in the story. Strangely, both the rise and fall of WeWork has been catalyzed by SoftBank. However, the fact that WeWork was blessed by an investing fund is not strange, or surprising. Amongst sovereign funders, there is competition to stay one foot ahead of another. The Europeans have long stressed on how very few startups from their region go onto becoming a global giant. SoftBank’s associations elsewhere is a testimony to its deliberate strategy of staying ahead in the future. Notwithstanding the fact that the Japanese investors would have loved the idea of co-working space more than others. In early 2017, WeWork’s market value, shot over $40 bn, even though the company was registering profits below what Mr. Dixon’s firm were accounting to. There was a strange gossip in the market around why other investors were not jumping to what the SoftBank deemed as highly profitable. For many like Mr. Dixon and other investors, answers were soon to be found. If it could only be timely, Japanese angels would have anticipated why Mr. Neumann would sell his rights of the name, “We” in WeWork. It was a five million dollar (plus) exit for the charismatic man, whose venture was taken over by those who thought of multiplying their fortunes. SoftBank will be sorry for its decision to trust the hierarchy in Mr. Neumann’s leadership. Nevertheless, post takeover, Mr. Dixon will not be contemplating any further on why it has decided to appoint two CEO’s. Nor will there be any sort of contemplation on why the new appointees have secured their severance package before paying out dues.
As it stands, IWG is not doing a bad business in comparison to WeWork’s downfall. The American start-up was destined for success from its early years. Co-working will still be a grand idea in our times but filthy abundance in a short period of time has brought a winning project to a standstill. There will be other co-working competitors for IWG, but it will learn from the mistakes of a competitor who was bigger than the entire industry. If anything, Mr. Dixon will be smelling opportunities ahead.
Alibaba on Platform Economy
Alibaba on national mobilization of
entrepreneurialism on platform economy: today, Alibaba sold $38 Billion within 24
hours: Around the world, currently, there are 100 nations with less than $38
Billion dollars in annual GDP. Imagine if this single company performed at the
same rate for next 365 days, it would equal to annual GDP of Japan, Germany,
India, France, UK and Canada all combined. Bravo Alibaba, well done, the world in shock
is now fondling in own toolboxes.
Are Nations Awake: Are there enough reasons to explore how national mobilization of entrepreneurialism on platform economies and how it will uplift local grassroots prosperity? Are there enough trade-groups, Chambers of Commerce, Trade Associations with enough skills to play in these AI centric digitally advanced and globally friendly market-places? Outside a miniscule number most seriously out-dated trade-groups are in rapid transformation so they too would become shiny butterflies for the new global-age.
Old days of old ways are now new days of
Salvaging of exportability lost during last decade: Nation by nation, the grassroots medium-size economy was basically, ignored, abandoned and rejected, killing exportable goods and services. So long the trade groups around the 200 nations stuck in their old fashioned comfort zones spanning a century, outside handful organizations most nations are in deep trouble. Observe how nations with riots have the most disorganized, disconnected trade-groups, not due the lack of funding but due to lack of poor leadership with little or no global age skills.
Uplifting working-citizenry after a lost
decade on skills: So long the national leadership assumes that MBA degrees are
the saviors of their next economy and so long the corporations feels comfortable
that all their management is being well trained on YouTube, no additional proof
of this fallacy is necessary other than decimated economies and chaos on the
Understanding The Third Economy: During the first economy; rules of engagement and rules of balancing the books were established, the second economy; where fancy jargon was invented to cook the books to balance with political agenda and now the upcoming third economy where real numbers will balance the real books with real columns all managed by artificial intelligence and block-chain delivering honest picture instantly to all and all the times.
Alibaba proves the direct benefits of a Third Economy; such prosperity can only assured by respecting the balancing of pennies and cents with mobilizing millions of abandoned small and medium enterprises and using free technologies as starting base. Such deployments are only possible when leadership is skillfully equipped to understand global-age and able to serve the special transformation demands, by firing the first person for incompetence for saying they have no new funding to change and firing the next person for disorganization for saying they are too busy and have no time to change.
Public sector around the world had almost all
these resources available to deploy since last decade. Nation by nation, outside
the top business sectors rest of the small medium enterprise players
systematically abandoned and crushed were replaced by too big to fail nonsensical
hype. Now national races in the age of digital platform economy will demand
clarification on their internal conflicts of “digital-divide and mental-divide” and explain dysfunctional imbalanced spending on trade expansion
without “national mobilization of entrepreneurialism” …it is also a fact that
majority nations need massive in-depth-training at all top leadership levels to
understand the new language of the new days.
It’s time to choose; either build world-class export promotion agencies, vertical trade groups to foster trade by global-age showcasing on platform economies and bring home some grassroots prosperity or allow restless citizenry and rise of populism. It time to balance, that where public sectors mostly all over the world failed on such progressive affairs, technology has now blossomed as salvage operation with dramatic tools and deployment options. Is your national leadership ready now? Not to sidetrack, this is not an exclusive IT issues; this is global age expansion and entrepreneurial mobilization issues. Deeper studies and debates are essential.
The world is changing fast is no longer just a cliché, now growing into a warning
National Transformation: Futurism of ‘creating local grassroots economy’ demands two distinct national mobilizations. Firstly, creating skilled citizenry capable to swing with global-age demands and secondly, creating massive digitization of midsize economy to enable global-speed-performance to match trading with 100-200 nations. Mostly not new funding dependent but execution starved. Nations with such mastery will thrive and lead; generational transformation at magical speed with full deployments of platform economy is a prerequisite. Sounds rocket science, it is, but very doable and easy.
Rules of National Mobilization of Entrepreneurialism: To deploy such blueprints, launch a nationwide business-uplifting lifelong learning agenda for the entire export promotion bodies, Chambers, trade associations and also the entire small-medium-exporters base. Review this process meticulously every 100 days. Under right situation, the export promotion of the nation can easily quadruple within a year. It is necessary to keep asking what is blocking this and who is stopping this?
How do you mobilize public and private sector leadership after a lost decade on global-age expansion? With some 100 elections in 2019 alone and million promises on podiums the realities are hidden in creating real grassroots prosperity, now pending Presidential Elections of 2020 USA the mother of all elections will provide massive debates amongst calls of Impeachments, while December 12th Election of UK amongst calls of Brexit and European Union with loud and restless citizenry, a new world is unfolding. The public is informed, and slowly realizing what’s working and what’s not… deep silence at the public sector is not good, a growing sign of lack of skills. Urgent debates needed as 2020 starts with some dramatic shifts of markets, ideas and visions. We are now in the age of national mobilization of entrepreneurialism and platform economies.
China’s Descending Rise
China is in a sustained economic slowdown. This is causing malignant unease among the political and economic leadership of the communist party in Beijing that governs China. Investing in China will be different, because:
“The country’s first sustained economic slowdown in a generation. China’s economic conditions have steadily worsened since the 2008 financial crisis. The country’s growth rate has fallen by half and is likely to plunge further in the years ahead, as debt, foreign protectionism, resource depletion, and rapid aging take their toll.”
Chinese social structures are under duress over their aging society. Formerly in the 1990s-early 2000s: “China had the greatest demographic dividend in history, with eight working-age adults for every citizen aged 65 or older.”
Once societies age, marital numbers decrease, and overall productivity plunges. China’s explosion of older citizens versus working-age will bring unique circumstances for global consumers. Factual evidence of slower productivity is evident throughout China, and will have to be considered for any financial or economic decision for decades ahead. The Chinese economic miracle bursting is largely due to aging demographics.
No one in western or eastern economic analysis circles or think tanks realistically saw this coming former President’s Deng Xiaoping opening of China. This was termed, “Socialism with Chinese characteristics (and/or) ‘socialist market economy,’” still ongoing. This slowdown will have deep ramifications for the global investment community, liberal order in place for over seventy-five years, and Chinese financial wealth that now spans the globe.
When countries age, and use reproductive rights to control populations, they become more assertive abroad, and repressive to its citizenry; this describes China’s social, political and economic philosophies that govern over a billion people. Since its one-child policy was enacted, Chinese economic productivity will plummet, “because it will lose 200 million workers and young consumers and gain 300 million seniors in the course of three decades.”
Suppressive economies have difficulty innovating, producing enough goods domestically, and integrating into world economic mechanisms that intends to distribute wealth globally. But this isn’t the first time these warnings have been made publicly.
Former Premier, Wen Jiabao gave a prescient declaration in March 2007 during the long march of economic progress when Mr. Jiabao had misgivings about China’s growth model by stating, “(Chinese growth had become) ‘unsteady, unbalanced, uncoordinated and unsustainable.” Recent numbers indicated China’s official GDP “has dropped from 15 percent to six percent – the slowest rate in 30 years.”
Expansionary Chinese growth hasn’t experience this level of downturn since the end of the Mao into post-Mao era. What this does for the Belt and Road Initiative that is paving the way for investments into Central Asia up to the Arctic Circle is uncertain? Deep investment difficulties could witness China stopping the flow of billions of infrastructure projects into countries and continents such as Africa desperate for growth.
Public figures from the Chinese government generally have the economy growing at six percent, but many analysts and economists peg the number(s) at “roughly half the official figure.” China’s GDP has consisted of bad debt that typical financial institutions and western governments will transfer from the state to public sector and ultimately costs passed onto consumers. For China’s wealth to increase when so much domestic wealth is spent on infrastructure projects to increase GDP these official numbers need context.
China has bridges, and cities full of empty office and apartment buildings, unused malls, and idle airports that do not increase economic productivity, and if that isn’t the case then infrastructure increasing economic measurements will decrease. Unproductive growth factors officially known are: “20 percent of homes are vacant, and ‘excess capacity’ in major industries tops 30 percent.” According to official Chinese estimates the government misallocated $6 trillion on “ineffective investment between 2009-14.” Debt now exceeds 300 percent of GDP.
What’s discovered is the amount of China’s GDP growth “has resulted from government’s pumping capital into the economy.” Private investments have trouble overtaking government stimulus spending, and Foreign Affairs ascertains “China’s economy may not be growing at all.”
Chinese economic growth – post-Mao – saw the country’s self-sufficiency in agriculture, energy, and water almost complete by the mid-2000s. Through economic malfeasance, population control, and resource decimation, “water has become scarce, and the country is importing more food and energy than any other nation.” Environmental degradation is destroying the basic necessities for every day survival.
This is where the world community and financial resources of east and west can meet needs, and grow interconnected, global economies. Energy is one of the biggest areas that China will engulf global energy supplies
The U.S. Energy Information Administration believes China will continue being the largest natural gas user in non-OECD Asia, and by 2050:
“Expects that China will consumer nearly three times as much natural gas as it did in 2018. China’s projected increase in natural gas consumption is greater than the combined growth of natural gas consumption in all other non-OECD Asian countries.”
Opportunities for liquid natural gas (LNG) facilities to be built globally, and in China to spur domestic and international economic activity are unlimited. As China goes, so goes Asia, and the world is now in the “Asian Century.” Investors, geopolitical strategists, and anyone concerned with global security should never believe it is wise to let China continue to falter economically and societally. Setting up investment mechanisms and diplomatic vehicles that benefit China, and the world community is a prudent choice.
When military choices defeat sound fiscal and monetary polices, the past 150 years have brought “nearly a dozen great powers experienced rapid economic growth followed by long slowdowns.” Normal, civilized behavior was pushed aside. What’s needed for Chinese economic growth is the free flow of information, managed wealth, consumer goods, and research/innovation.
Decades ahead, and current economic realities point to China being a great power that is under pressure, but still needs capital. A weak, unsecure China who isn’t satisfied with its place in the Asian hemisphere or global economic system isn’t good for continued prosperity. It would be smarter to engage and invest within China in the areas of energy, water, agriculture, and electricity where opportunities still abound.
Lesson to be Learn from Monsanto’s Involvement in the Vietnamese War: The Agent Orange
Monsanto is an American multinational company founded in 1901 by John Francis Queeny, a thirty-year pharmaceutical veteran married to Olga...
Gulf soccer suggests that “The Times They Are a-Changin”
Gulf soccer may be giving Bob Dylan’s 1964 hit, ‘The Times They Are a-Changin,’ a new lease on life. Qatar...
Sergey Lavrov: Violations of journalistic rights and discrimination against media are increasingly evident
Restrictions imposed by legislative and executive authorities may negatively impact the work done by journalists in Russia. The OSCE Representative...
Beyond the dire needs of Iraq’s demonstration: National renaissance and a new challenge to Iran
For many, Iraqis have long been gone into hibernation to hold the politicians accountable for corruption in OPEC’s second-largest oil...
The Black Sea of Economic Cooperation
Since the Ukraine crisis of 2014 the security situation in the Black Sea region has significantly deteriorated. The annexation of...
Lithuania strongly condemns France for drift to think of itself
Since the restoration of independence, new politicians have come to power in Lithuania. For the most part they are active...
Macron is wrong, NATO is not brain-dead
Right before the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall this weekend, French President Macron decided to make...
Terrorism2 days ago
Turkey begins the return of ISIS fighters to Europe
International Law3 days ago
Validity of Reservations of Bangladesh against Article 2 of CEDAW
Energy News3 days ago
IRENA Facilitates Investment and Renewable Projects on Ground in Africa
Europe2 days ago
Eastern Partnership Countries: Buffer Zone or Platform for Dialogue?
East Asia3 days ago
Implications of French President’s Visit to China on the International Arena
Energy3 days ago
Is OPEC stuck in a cycle of endless cuts?
Economy2 days ago
Alibaba on Platform Economy
East Asia2 days ago
It’s when not if China’s Middle Eastern tightrope snaps