Western Leaders 20260814

Standing on the Precipice: Western Leaders Continue to Fiddle

Will The West Stay Awake and Become Alert?

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 14th of August via The Angry Demagogue.

In February 2022 the Russian member of the Axis invaded Ukraine. In October 2023, less than two years later, the Iranian proxy Hamas invaded Israel and their proxy Hezbollah joined the fight the next day. North Korea and China the other members of the axis did not, probably, coordinate either attack, but nor did they discourage it or help to end it. In the period of less than two years, the free countries of the world were given a wake-up call to what historians may end up writing was the start of a new world war.

Sweden and Finland were spooked enough to take a bold move and join NATO and the existing European members of NATO seem to realize that they need to start worrying about their own defense – at least against Russia, if not the rest of the Axis. In Ukraine, they put together a bold defense and created a drone force that is, if not winning, at least is not losing the war of attrition that the conflict has “settled” into. Ukraine may have convinced itself that it can win this war on the battlefield and Russia is counting on its Axis allies to help it overcome their own military incompetence. North Korean troops are dying in Ukraine and there are rumors that 50,000 more North Korean troops are on the way. Iran and China are supplying weapons. The Axis is not only keeping the war going for Russia, it is arguably, along with its nuclear weapons, a path to victory.

Standing on the Precipice: Western Leaders Continue to Fiddle

Europe and parts of the United States did not take the hint that in October 2023 that the Putin’s Russia is not the only country threatening their security. The Iranian piece of the Axis also aims to dismantle Western freedoms and religion via direct military threats, terrorism and unchecked immigration.

Has the Middle East changed after the Ukraine invasion and more specifically, October 7? Asking different people will get you different answers. For Israeli PM Netanyahu it has been a strategic victory for Israel as both Hezbollah and Hamas are on their heals and Iran’s nuclear and missile forces have been severely damaged. For Israel’s opposition, the last three years have brought no positive change for Israel in the Middle East since Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic of Iran still exist.

For Iranian Islamists it has changed by showing that they can stand up to their own people and to the United States so that any attempt to topple them will end in failure. For the Islamic Republic, a non-total-defeat shows the world that they can continue their quest for regional and global control despite the hiccups caused by Israel and the United States. The same holds for Hamas and Hezbollah who believe that Israel has been isolated in the world and that the UN, the Hague and the EU – along with America’s DSA – will make being Jewish and Israeli so illegitimate that they will soon be able to chose their apartments in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

According to Erdogan’s Turkey, the Middle East is their playground as they have managed to maintain positive relations with both Hamas and the United States. They have troops in Qatar, a new alignment with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and have so many forces in northern and sub-Saharan Africa that an expanded Ottoman Empire lies in the not too distant future. Greece will be overcome and where Iran failed to destroy Israel, they will succeed.

President Trump believes, or states, that the United States has scored a decisive victory over Iran, is bringing peace to Lebanon and Gaza via Israeli concessions and the disarmament of Hamas and Hezbollah and the future in the middle east goes through Washington. The President also states that the Abraham Accords will be expanded and that Israel, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia are all strong and reliable allies of the United States and that all these countries are moving towards a more peaceful and economically vibrant Middle East.

Back in the 1960’s and 1970’s when there were two regional Moslem states that were friendly to Israel, Turkey and Iran. During that cold war period, the only Gulf state that counted was Saudi Arabia. Syria and Egypt were Israel’s existential enemies and the Hashemites of Jordan were more concerned with survival than fighting (at least after 1967). Lebanon was a non-threat to Israel (as a matter of fact Israel supplied arms to the Shiite villagers in the south during the civil war of the late 1970’s at the request of the Shah of Iran).

Currently Iran is Israel’s main enemy, although Turkey is pushing to move ahead of them as the main existential threat to Israel. Israel faces a “Sunni Vise” that includes Turkey and Syria in the north and Egypt in the South. We can add to that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan although that alliance (which now includes Turkey) seems to be more a showpiece than a defense treaty. Or, in the words of Hussein Aboubakr Mansour, “In the Middle East, the vocabulary of collective defense is often detached from the activity of defending. The announcement is the whole of the content”.

Regarding the United States presence in the Middle East, only the details have changed. The Cold War is over but the U.S still has the challenge of controlling oil flow out of the region as its new main enemy, China, depends on it. As for the United States and Israel, that relationship has moved from dependent to almost partner on defense and technology but Israel is still the same steady, reliable, democratic presence it has been for the past few decades. The U.S is certainly closer to the other Gulf states, notably Qatar, but their money has simply replaced (or actually supplemented) Saudi money, although they are much more cynical and effective with it.

The Arab world has barely changed even though the UAE and others have jointed the Abaraham Accords and have a relatively strong relationship with Israel. However, the real issue in the middle east has never been Israel-Palestine but has been and still is the intra-Arab and intra-Moslem rivalry and mistrust. Even when ostensibly on the same side, like the Saudis and UAE are in Yemen, there are separate armies fighting and last month the Saudis bombed the UAE forces – even though both were fighting the Houthis.

Egypt and Turkey, the two largest Sunni states in the region by population and military force are at opposite ends of the Moslem Brotherhood fight. Egypt is more suspicious of Turkey’s support for the Brotherhood, arch enemies of the Al-Sisi government, than they are of Israel’s moves in Gaza. Syria too, while pretending to act as a unified country is at war with the Kurd citizens in the north, Druze in the south and Alawites in the northwest. Their inclusion of ISIS and al-Qaeda fighters in their army – even foreign fighters – means that even within the Sunni majority, there is distrust and fighting.

And Libya is a proxy war if there ever was one with Turkey, Egypt, Iran and Russia involved.

So where do we stand in Europe and the Middle East today?

On the one hand, everyone is correct – Israel is in a better spot strategically, yet has not finished the job. The United States has, with Israel, set back Iran’s plans for regional domination but that gain is one “agreement” away from being overturned. Turkey is extending its influence but does not have the wherewithal to create a new Ottoman Empire as not only Israel stands in the way but so too does Egypt and the rest of the Sunni-Arab world as they do not have fond memories of Ottoman control of Arab lands. The Arab countries, large and small, are fighting the same tribal wars they have fought for the past decades and even centuries. Israel has strong internal unity and morale while its leaders re-arrange their parliamentary chairs.

In Europe, Ukraine has stopped an army three times its size while Russia, against most predictions is able to absorb massive casualties and economic sanctions due to the help of its allies .

Before the invasions of Ukraine and Israel by members of the Axis in 2022 and 2023 the geopolitical situation consisted of four revisionist powers united only in their opposition to the international status quo and the free countries united in their wish to maintain the status quo and to concentrate on comfort to the neglect of all else -including freedom. The Western European powers had no real military power to speak of (with the possible exception of France) as even the UK’s glorious navy was reduced to the minimum number of ships necessary to still call it an ocean going Navy. Ukraine ignored Russian threats and Israel was convinced it could outsmart, deter and bribe its sworn enemies to give up all for a life of comfort.

In the United States, the military was organized as a Walmart or Target warehouse with “just in time inventory”, no long term armaments contracts and with nothing much done to create what won WWII and the Cold War – a strong economic and industrial base. Looking for cheap labor and products and piling debt upon debt, the America;s industrial and fiscal situations mirrored its military un-readiness into a game of catch up – which it is doing neither fiscally nor militarily. Although the current administration is pushing to increase its manufacturing might, the fact that the American shipbuilding industry is able to produce only 3 military ships a year means, one, two or three administrations won’t be enough to complete the task. It requires a seriousness of purpose lacking in a Democratic party fearful of the DSA and a Republican party not serious enough to create a national consensus that will require some sacrifice from citizens.

Although there is a lot of talk, the current leadership in all free countries are the same leaders that led us down this path where they are not ready to meet and defeat middling powers let alone powerful ones.

Just four years ago the late Henry Kissinger published a book called “Leadership” which focused on six leaders he thought were consequential to their countries and the world. You might disagree with his choice but one thing running through each of these leaders (Germany’s Adenauer, France’s de Gaulle, Sadat of Egypt, UK’s Thatcher, Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew and Richard Nixon) is that they were patriots and they were willing to take risks to push their countries forward. We don’t seem to see Western leaders who are dedicated first and foremost to their country and its citizens and who recognize the ongoing (the never ending!) threat from tyrants.

Putin, Xi, Khamenei (or whomever is in charge) and Kim are tyrants who don’t need to concern themselves with their citizens and that is the one thing our uncreative and cowardly leaders do not seem to understand. The obsession of today’s western leaders with negotiations and deals and false human rights claims just feeds the tyrannical rule of its enemies and pushes their defeat further and further away. Eisenhauer famously refused to shake hands with the Nazi general who surrendered to him in spite of military custom because he realized that this was not a war of one country against another but a war by his country and their allies against evil.

This is not a call for war against all evil or perpetual conflict of power against power but rather a recognition that if one is not ready to face what tyrants want – your destruction – eventually they will defeat you. America was not prepared to fight WWII but it had an industrial and managerial base that could be transformed into a wartime asset no one has ever had. It also had the luxury of two oceans protecting their manufacturing plants from enemy attack. Finally, it had, admittedly only after Pearl Harbor, the understanding that the moral imperative was defeating the evil that was Nazism as well as Japanese militaristic barbarism and not in coming to some rapprochement with it.

The geopolitical situation has not changed even if there are small tactical advantages that one side has over the other in localized theatres. We are still in the same position where the Axis of revisionist states is using all its force and all the weaknesses of the western world to its advantage and a western world that is continuing to ignore that reality. The internal and external threats in free countries are now at crisis levels.

When it comes down to it, as much as we like to blame our leaders (and we certainly do), it is up to the citizens to demand and to choose brave, creative leaders who are not locked into what has brought us to the precipice of defeat. The leadership since the end of the Cold War has been lacking any sense of urgency no matter what happens. The disaster that was Afghanistan should have been a wake up call – instead it was ignored. The invasion of Ukraine should have put free countries on a war footing for the manufacture and supply of military hardware but instead of was treated as if no other wars would be fought until this one was over. October 7 and the subsequent fighting in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Syria, the entire Persian Gulf should have told the west that terrorism and the immigration of real and potential terrorists into its borders will destroy what it loves best.

So far, the Axis leaders have not waited for the west to wake up, re-arm, control its borders and stop shooting itself in the foot and there is no reason to think it will wait before its next adventure.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

Follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

Share:
postN32

Profits: Business Ethics in an Age of Subjective Expediency

Profits: Business Ethics in an Age of Subjective Expediency

This article was originally written in the summer of 2006, Jeremy Blatch suggests current business governance remains shadowed by the same concerns.

Most of us in business today, be we entrepreneurs, professionals or key employees, recognize that our customers, clients and staff require us to act in their best interests and that our actions should reflect this.

A code of practice or some kind of ethical standard or guideline will be needed to ensure some degree of accountability and consistency. In this we encounter the first hurdle, as the degree to which corporate and governmental governance is superimposed by regulatory bodies on business, varies between industries, businesses, professional sectors and political divides.

The effectiveness to which this is policed in reality depends on the will of those in supervision, and the willingness of those in business to conform to requirements. Many areas are of course not covered by statutory regulation and getting on with the daily running of a business requires constant decisions which often involve a degree of ethical consideration. In reality any ethical stance is at best subjective and open to subversion and expediency in the quest for profitability, which after all is the main reason for being in business in the first place.

Service providers that fail to make a profit irrespective of the quality of service that they offer will inevitably cease to be able to provide that service. But at what cost do we surrender integrity for the expediency of justifying a decision on the grounds of corporate strategy or profitability. And at what point does adopting a rigid ethical stance become a statement of moral judgment? Moralizing about the world and the problems faced by modern society has never been wise. Morality is also a subjective term, often influenced by personal experience and strongly held beliefs, but not necessarily shared.

When some of the world’s most successful entrepreneurs met recently in Monaco at the invitation of the BBC World Service and the international accountants, Ernst Young, to debate how to ‘feed the starving and save the planet’, there was broad agreement that amongst most people there is a distrust of corporate motives and skepticism of Corporate Social Responsibility, currently a trendy buzz word amongst the business elite.

Is not the sole responsibility of companies to make money, but at what costs? Does it really matter how they make money, after all is a woman with a starving child going to refuse a plate of food because it has been purchased with money from the sale of narcotics? If we have a view against investing in armaments, are we prepared therefore to open our borders to anyone who wishes to attack us for any reason, or do we wish for a society in which the strongest take all and those with weapons will be strongest?

Someone receiving a pension has strong views on the tobacco or gambling or arms production or certain drugs, and whilst they are quite happy to receive the pension income and rejoice at the level of payment, are they also prepared to self-select how the investment is managed? Business is fraught with hypocrisy in this area.

Google have weakened their ethical case by caving in to the demands of China for expediency. Brands like Nike and Gap are having their reputations challenged by allegations of sweat shop labor despite spending millions on marketing a different image. Yet people still keep buying their trendy brands. Walmart the most successful US retailer attracts more shoppers than any other store despite allegations of a poor record of employee relations. Does anyone care? Shoppers go where they can find the best quality at the keenest price.

One can make a difference in society without trying to gain the ethical high ground or slipping into moral judgment by simply giving away something you don’t need, to those who most need it. We have witnessed this last week two instances of philanthropist ‘walking the walk’ not just ‘talking the talk’ with Warren Buffet, one of the most successful investors of this century, donating much of his personal wealth to the Bill and Melina Gates Family Foundation. This injection of cash now gives the Gates Foundation around USD 30 billion, more than three times the total amount of charitable donations in the U.K, putting them with Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford and John D Rockefeller, as the hitherto best known philanthropists of modern times.

A few days after the very public announcement of Warren Buffet’s donation, a U.K hedge fund has emerged as one of the U.K’s most generous philanthropists with a donation of around GBP 50m to charity assisting children in poverty. The Investors Forum, registered in Gibraltar, was created to give a highly professional service to investors covering the wider investment process. It comprises of an association of firms and banks committed to acting professionally, whilst giving something back to those most in need.

A unique investment concept called the “Solidarity Fund” will hopefully be launched from Gibraltar, which will give both corporate and individual investors the opportunity to make money whilst directly helping those in need. In today’s business world making a profit is essential for survival, but how we make it and what we do with it will determine what sort of people we are, and ultimately what legacy we will leave behind.

Jeremy Blatch is the Founder and Consultant of Ein Harod Family Office. You can find more of his articles at www.ehh.gi

postN9

India’s Speculative Real Estate Bubble and Values: Part One

India’s Speculative Real Estate Bubble and Values: Part One

India’s Real Estate Sector is a Well Known Affair to its own Citizens and to Global Asset Management Companies

India’s major cities like Mumbai, the financial capital of India, Gurgaon, Delhi, Bengaluru and Hyderabad, the tech hub of the nation, serve as major attractions for local players and international corporate giants who want to participate in the real estate sector. While transparency still remains a challenge that needs to be addressed in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities of India, underlying demand continues to expand throughout the nation. The Real Estate Regulatory Authority, passed a bill known as the RERA Act, by the serving government in March of 2016, to create transparency and fairness between buyers and sellers in the residential real estate market, however these measures do not always help circumstances as hoped.

Well known companies like Blackstone which is based in New York, and Brookfield Asset Management of Toronto have vast operations in the commercial real estate sector of India. Their estimated investments are significant. Amounts spent are believed respectively to be nearly 50 billion USD by Blackstone, and the Brookfield figure is likely around 22 billion USD. The companies concentrate money for real estate, and infrastructure like telecommunications, roads and other spheres crucial to create value.

The reason why private equity giants allocate massive investments into India commercial real estate is due to the remarkable advantages of the locations available for property, and the capability to turn a profit. The land purchased and developed is usually situated close to burgeoning information technology companies. It is easily understood these IT companies have expansive needs to function properly which include plenty of area for employees to work. This is relevant in the north of India where Brookfield has invested in places like Mumbai and Gurgaon. Apart from the commercial demand for property, the employees who work in these type of companies also drive residential apartment sales in these cities.

The real estate market in Gurgaon has seen remarkable growth in the recent years where prices have experienced double digit appreciation. Readers need to understand that Gurgaon, is a city near India’s capital of New Delhi in northern

India. It’s known as a financial and technology hub. The rise of e-commerce players like Amazon and the Walmart owned Flipkart are important. Walmart spent around 16 USD billion to buy about 77% of Flipkart in 2018 and their vast operations also have sparked demand for huge amounts of property, including warehouses. This activity has certainly attracted the attention and desire of global players to invest in commercial real estate operations.

The residential real estate market has grown fast, and continues to achieve huge growth even after the coronavirus pandemic. An extremely rapid pace is fueled because low interest rates have appealed to new home buyers to initiate purchases of apartments and condominiums in metropolitan cities like Chennai, Mumbai, Hyderabad, and Bengaluru. Many affluent families in India from these major cities continue to own and rent residential homes in the areas, taking advantage of demand. According to a survey conducted by the global property consultancy firm Savills, now 70% of families in the metropolitan cities mentioned previously from the north and south of India have answered positively when asked if they would like to buy a second home in the next couple of years.

Residential real estate sales have been rising after the pandemic, especially for double bedroom apartments averaging 1200 square feet of housing, usually within a category that is priced in a range above 5,000,000 Rupees (around 60,000 USD). India’s benchmark mortgage rate is in the 8.7% to 9.7% range as of this writing, this is higher than it was one year ago. But Indian home buyers haven’t yet stepped back from buying, this because interest rates in India have not increased too much in percentage terms. The average time to pay a loan for residential mortgages ranges from 10 to 20 years in India. This allowable time frame makes it affordable for employees to pay via Monthly EMI, Equated Monthly Installments. The mortgages come with a floating rate meaning the buyers can reset their rates when the local interest rate falls. Yes, floating rates certainly do contain dangers if interest rates climb too high.

A Speculative Roulette Game: The Least Known and Unequal Affair

But there is another reality and a very different story in certain areas of India where data misses critical elements of the real estate business. Speculative participation in property is done by the most affluent who are the dominant buyers and sellers; speculative buying and selling is too expensive for most citizens. Real estate has frequently been used as a tool to hide wealth and avoid taxes by many within certain segments of India. The real estate speculative bubble creates vast distortions in the costs of rents, and affects employment opportunities for the masses. Government offices may sometimes turn a blind eye to these circumstances, because as long as cities and regions can collect money from the speculative frenzy there is little reason to turn off the revenue streams.

Frequently there is someone who is capable of bidding higher for lands in most of the Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities discussed, compared to those who actually need the property to live there and function properly. It is important to mention Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities and what is taking place in these areas, because these locations frequently lack substantial income generation opportunities for people and don’t have massive infrastructure or enough office space to employ people where wages have stagnated for many years. Take for example the Tamil Nadu, a state in southern India where I live, the average price of a double bedroom 1200 sq’ft residential apartment in the capital city of Chennai is around 6,000,000 Rupees (around $73,000 USD).

Readers need to note that the Indian ‘middle class’ prefers to have 2 bedroom 1200 sq’ft residential houses and apartments on average, thus builders construct houses and units based on land availability. Market prices for the property equals the costs of building materials and labor along with the speculative factors worked into the total value.

A look at the town of Madurai where the same apartment is available at a comparable price tag like Chennai is important to critique. Because wages in Madurai are a quarter, and sometimes less than half of what one could earn in Chennai, the disparities in the income distribution and the property prices in India become evident and need to be recognized.

In some rural towns where wages have not grown more than 5% per year,

India has seen real estate prices doubling every 4 years. For example, the rural town called Ponnamaravathy near to Madurai, which is my hometown, speculation in the real estate sector has seen frenzied pricing in an unprecedented manner for land and newly built houses. There is a great divergence between real per capita income versus the escalating real estate prices and rents in the interiors of India in towns such as Ponnamaravathy.

According to real estate analysts, most land parcels and their inventory of projects within metropolitan cities that are under construction has been bought by speculators. When units in new projects are sold to speculators, these generally change hands multiple times during the construction period, which generally lasts three to four years. Such heavy ‘churning’ means fast price increases. Also, the builders who market their own projects as investments raise list prices frequently to keep existing investors happy with notional gains, so they can point to the ‘attractiveness’ of potential speculation.

While it may not matter to some citizens in the larger cities, the problem of speculative influences do matter in the small towns where community wages have not grown properly. Inflation and speculative investments in these towns do not create sufficient job growth either. Surplus cash profits earned by many businesses, and foreign remittances, which were close to 108 billion USD in 2022, goes back into real estate speculation causing higher rents and forcing lower income households to struggle.

Rural Wages Haven’t Grown but Prices are Increasing for Homes

According to economists data, Average Nominal Wages in rural India is approximately 15,000 Rupees per month for men and 8,000 Rupees per month for women.There is an ample real estate supply in the rural market, but speculative demand has created steep pricing, typically initiated by large ‘investors’ willing to pay top money for any asset irrespective of its location, affordability or current market price based on the assumption values will continue to increase.

The difference between rural wages and costs for homes creates heavy disparities and inequalities for households living within the lower thresholds of society. For example, a double bedroom 1200 sq’ft residential apartment in Ponnamaravathy can be selling at a whopping 7,000,000 Rupees (approximately 85,365 USD). This is 20% more than what we have seen before on average in Chennai, and Madurai, a Tier 2 city, in Tamil Nadu state. The wages in the rural town of Ponnamaravathy are just 10% compared to what one could earn in Chennai annually, making the purchase of a residence priced at these higher values difficult for most residents and making many people renters for life.