An overview of the book, Zero Sum Future:

In the 20 years before the financial crisis, Davos was almost a festival of globalization -- as political leaders from all over the world bought into the same ideas about the mutual benefits of trade and investment and wooed the same investment bankers and multinational executives. At Davos, this year, the mood is more questioning -- with numerous sessions on rethinking capitalism and on the crisis in the eurozone. The European Union is an organization built around a win-win economic logic. Europe's founding fathers believed that the nations of Europe could put centuries of conflict behind them by concentrating on mutually beneficial economic cooperation. By building a common market and tearing down barriers to trade and investment, they would all become richer -- and, eventually, would get used to working together. Good economics would make good politics. The nations of Europe would grow together.

For decades, this logic worked beautifully. But, faced with a grave economic crisis, this positive win-win logic has gone into reverse. Rather than building each other up, European nations fear that they are dragging each other down.

Nor can it be assumed that a stronger, richer China is good news for America -- as successive U.S. presidents argued all the way back to 1978. On the contrary, both as individuals and as a nation, Americans are getting the queasy feeling that a richer, more powerful China might just mean a relatively poorer, relatively weaker America. In other words, the rise of China is not a win-win for both nations. It is a zero-sum game. 

Ever since Bill Clinton pushed NAFTA and various other free trade agreements through, we've been taught that globalization -- ultimately -- makes for a more prosperous America (and world).

The evidence suggests that while this might be so, "ultimately" can take a very long time. And during that time, a lot of good people experience a (competitive) world of hurt and suffering.

So we look at ways to alleviate or minimize that suffering.

I fear, however,  that the very idea of globalization has become so engrained that the obvious bad aspects of it, such as protracted unemployment, underemployment and the inability of millions to afford quality healthcare, retirement and/or college tuition may lead do-gooders, such as the #OWS folks, into demanding -- and getting -- sanctioned, long-term taxpayer funded relief.

Things like forgiven student loans, guaranteed healthcare under all circumstances, long-term unemployment checks and/or jobs that are artificially created via government tax credits or fiat.

But, wait. These are all good things, right? Affordable tuition. Guaranteed work for those able to work. Help for the poor.

In theory, probably yes. Just like globalization.

But what if, just consider this, those treat only the symptoms? What if this accepted Paul Krugman-style view of economics, where we embrace global markets but create a solid, strong safety net for those unable to compete, is false?

Which is very possible.

Taking care of those on the lowest rungs of the ladder is valid, probably moral. But I fear that as we focus on achieving just that, we blinid ourselves to potentially larger issues regarding globalization that continue throw more and more onto those lower rungs.

I have written here many times that this is not the Chinese century. It is a landlocked nation with a billion poor people and fierce enemies on all side. 

American exceptionalism will continue through the 21st century. Except...I expect it to incorporate the people, values, culture and resources of the North American continent.

Today, New Geography offers more evidence to support my view:

Due to vast new finds and improved technology to exploit them, the U.S. is now the world’s largest producer of natural gas and could emerge as the leading oil producer by 2017. Reserves of natural gas — a clean-burning fuel — are estimated at 100 years supply and could generate more than 1.5 million new jobs over the next two decades.

The U.S. agricultural sector is also booming, with exports reaching a record $135.5 billion in 2011. With global demand increasing, sustained growth will continue across America’s fertile agricultural regions.

Rising foreign investment reflects the new American competitiveness. Since 2008 foreign direct investment to Germany, France, Japan and Korea has stagnated; in 2009 overall investment in the E.U. dropped 36%.

In contrast, in 2010 foreign investment in the U.S. rose 49%, mostly coming from Canada, Europe, and Japan. Industrial investment rose $30 billion just between 2009 and 2010, while investment in the energy sector more than tripled to $20 billion.

In the information sector, American domination continues to mount, contrary to predictions of decline over the past two decades. Outside the U.S., there are no significant equivalents of Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook. Hollywood, for its part, rules the entertainment world, producing 40% of world’s audiovisual exports, a dominion that troubles China’s President Hu Jintao, who recently complained  that the “cultural fields” represent “the focal area” for Western “infiltration”.

The U.S. maintains the   youngest and most vibrant demographic profile of any advanced country. Between 1980 and 2010, the U.S population expanded by 75 million to over 300 million. In contrast many European countries, including Germany, have suffered stagnant growth, while in Russia and Japan populations have already started declining.

Apple Insider reports on the "intentions" of Americans to buy Apple products. Next year.

An Alphawise survey of American purchasing intentions indicates that US iPhone and iPad demand are stronger than expected; sales will continue to outperform expectations into 2012 and should enable Apple to beat estimates next year. 

The survey results, reported by Morgan Stanley analyst Katy Huberty, noted that "survey results and recent comments by AT&T indicate Apple iPhone shipments could reach 31-36 million in the calendar Q4 2011 compared to our model of 30 million."

Apple's share gains, combined with broader smartphone penetration data points to strong, long term iPhone growth, the report stated, indicating that 30 percent of handset owners plan to buy an iPhone, nearly double the 16 percent who are existing owners.

Huberty also noted that the tablet market will "continue to enjoy strong growth," with purchasing intentions (27 percent) triple that of the installed base (8 percent of respondents). 

The firm models sales of 52 million iPads and 134 million iPhones in 2012, while it notes that latest survey indicates demand for 82 million iPads and 190 million iPhones next year, an increase of 42 to 56 percent above its internal estimates. 

The report notes that the introduction of a cheaper iPad would significantly increase demand, particularly from new adopters. At a price point of $399, Apple could gain 22 million additional buyers. 

Amazing numbers. God willing, we'll all be around to see how closely these intentions match reality. Nonetheless, considering America's ongoing recession, consumer pull-back, and the criminally high cost of (required) voice, data and texting plans, this survey suggests that iPhone in particular, and smartphones in general, are quickly becoming extremely important. 

I'm just as interested in learning what expenses consumers abandon as they transition from low-cost feature phones to more costly smartphones.

Long-time readers know I bitch when others obviously swipe my stuff without credit. (By the way: Fuck you, Ina Fried, I had a post up about Flash in tablet commercials two weeks ago).

Where was I?

Oh, right. Yes, theft bothers me. But you know what makes it worth it?

Well, it's always theft, so nothing, but still, one thing that mitigates the sting is how *I'm so f-ing right and ahead of the "journalists" who, near as I can tell, are even lazier then they are less smart. 

And not just about smartphones. Readers will note that I have written many times here why the *21st century* is the American Century. My posts on this topic are several and typically met with scorn.

"Ha! America is in decline! China is rising!" That sort of thing.

Wonder if they've read this report, or if they are capable of making any strategic thoughts not based solely on the here and now?

If China’s growth decelerates that fast, that far, the biggest question in world politics won’t be how the rest of us will accommodate China’s rise.  The question will shift to whether China can last.

The report, well covered in the Wall Street Journal, is a sober read.  Overall, world growth is expected to decline, with both China and India leading the decline.  The advanced countries are expected to recover from the current slump, but growth will remain anemic for years to come.  In other parts of the developing world, growth could slow to a crawl, presumably reflecting poor demand for basic commodities in a slow growth world.

Forecasts almost never come true, and economic forecasts at this point are much less reliable than weather reports.  But the main story here is that some of the best trained, and best connected economic minds in the business are changing their tune about China and India.  The inexorable rise of the supergiants has been the dominant meme in the fashionable chit-chat about global economic and geopolitical trends for some time.  The Conference Board report gives respectability and visibility to a more textured and, in Via Meadia’s view, more realistic view of what lies ahead.

The Conference Board could still be understating the problem.  If growth deceleration results in serious instability, blows out the financial system (a distinct possibility), or simply ties the hands of China’s policy makers so that they can’t respond in a timely fashion to changing circumstances, deceleration could turn into something much more dramatic very fast.

A list of the 20 most economically vibrant university towns in the US:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2011/09/americas-20-most-economically-vibrant-college-towns/155/#slide1

College towns are no longer just sleepy hamlets where learning, sports, conversation, and partying prevail. The rise of the idea-driven, human capital powered knowledge economy has transformed many of them into economic powerhouses. Stanford University in Palo Alto and MIT in Cambridge, Mass. helped power the high-tech startup revolution. And it’s no coincidence that high tech clusters have sprouted around Austin, Texas and North Carolina’s Research Triangle.

And college towns have proven remarkably resilient over the course of the economic crisis. With their economies bolstered by universities, high levels of state funding, and jobs markets with high concentrations of “meds and eds,” the unemployment rates in college towns from Boulder to Austin, Ann Arbor to Madison have remained far below the national average.

Maybe that global Big Mac index will need to be replaced with an App Store index. From the temporally named PC Magazine:

The iconic golden arches come stamped with the phrase "billions and billions served." The signs used to include a number, which Lai says McDonalds stopped updated in 1994 when it reached 100 billion burgers. It took McDonald's 26 years to serve the same number of burgers as the number of apps that have been downloaded from the App Store, and it took the fast food restaurant an additional 20 years to hit 100 billion burgers.

"That means Apple hit the 15 billion mark about nine times faster than McDonald's," Lai said. "And based on projections, Apple could hit 100 billion within five and a half years, or about nine times faster than McDonald's."

Lai also noted that "based on projections of its accelerating growth, Google could hit 100 billion downloads even sooner than Apple."

Epic political/economic takedown.

But be mindful, my fellow Americans. Those "super rich" discussed in the video gave just as much, probably much more, to Obama's campaign. This is not a partisan issue. Be even more mindful: your definition of "middle class" and of what helps the middle class is probably shockingly outdated in a real-time, hyperlocal, globally connected world. 

A hearty kick between the legs to America's homeowner class, which, given our culture and tax structure and our state-of-the-art financial instruments accessible by everyone, yet trickled up to a select few, is, well, pretty much all of us.

From the US Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Nobody's fucking working!

Oh, wait. Sorry. That was last week's BLS news. The bit about home ownership here:

The primary argument made in favor of homeownership is that it is the best way for many people to save money: in purchasing a home, people force themselves into making mortgage payments, thereby increasing their share of ownership in the property relative to the bank's share.

However, financial developments over time have decreased the strength of this argument. For example, there are interest-only mortgage contracts, which make it possible for households to pay nothing but interest for a number of years. Even when people have built equity, many of them are able to tap it to pay bills. In addition, housing wealth affects people's marginal propensity to consume: for every dollar of appreciation in house prices, homeowners spend somewhere between 3 cents and 10 cents more than before. 

Homes are often thought of as relatively safe investments that tend to perform very well in the long run, but that this is a myth. From 1975 to 2009, the real rate of return of the national house price index was 1.3 percent; if one assumes a 2.5-percent annual depreciation rate, a 1.5-percent property tax rate, a 7-percent mortgage interest rate, and a 25-percent marginal income tax rate, the real rate of return on a typical home actually drops below zero (to -0.575 percent).

Homeownership can decrease mobility and that mobility is a condition for an efficient labor market. People tend to be especially averse to selling their homes and moving when doing so would incur a loss. In conclusion, the authors state that "homeownership is not for everyone" and that "the case for trying to achieve a nation of homeowners needs to be rethought."