The joint venture was unraveled because Turnberry said it was unable to get a construction loan to build the residential tower.Stan Creech of Stan Creech Properties Inc. was hired by Walton Street to market the land, which is west of Post Oak Boulevard, between Hidalgo and W. Alabama. The site is next to the three-acre Water Wall park that’s being acquired by the City of Houston.
Niall Ferguson
Historian; Author; Professor, Harvard University
Uploaded on 01/04/2008
Description: An empire in denial.
What are the forces that have shaped the United States most?
Ferguson: Well the United States is a fantastic idea with extraordinary resource ___________. It’s a wonderful combination of the right institutions, the right culture, the right place, the right time. And it’s really not surprising that the United States has been so astonishingly successful as an economy, as a society, and as an empire. We know it’s not surprising because it was predicated before 1776 by many commentators, including disinterested commentators like Adam Smith who understood just what the potential was of this place. But we may be living through the end of something. Not necessarily the end of the United States. On the contrary. I think the United States has a huge future ahead of it. But perhaps the end of the American empire. In a book called “Colossus”, I provocatively gave the subtitle “The Rise and Fall of the American Empire”, I made the argument that the United States is a very odd thing. It’s an empire in denial. It behaves like an empire. It does all the classic things that empires do like invading Afghanistan and Mesopotamia, and it wields tremendous military power. It exports its culture to foreign peoples. It does the full range of imperial things except for one. It doesn’t celebrate its own existence. It denies it. It insists that it’s not engaged in an empire. And the only people who say that it is are actually a relatively small marginal group of people on the left. So the question I asked was: (A) Was the American empire a bad thing? And my conclusion was no. On balance it was better than all the available alternatives. It was certainly better than the other empires on offer in the mid 20th century. But the second question was well how long can it last in its present form? And my suggestion was not very long, because as a force for wielding power abroad, it’s constrained by three deficits. The three deficits are as follows.
The first is a financial deficit. This is an empire that relies increasingly on foreign capital to keep its economy going.
It is a manpower deficit. It cannot deploy at any time more than a quarter of a million troops overseas which is a laughably small number considering how many able bodied American men there are.
And it has an attention deficit. And indeed it’s the first empire to have attention deficit disorder because almost every imperial undertaking has to be over successfully within four years or it gets abandoned. And that’s not a function of some kind of cultural attention span problem. It’s a function of the American electoral system. Results have to be delivered very quickly. And no empire can deliver the transformation of Mesopotamia in a four year timeframe. I mean nobody could have done that. It would take you at least 40 years to turn Iraq into something resembling a stable society, and nobody at any point to my knowledge has anticipated a 40 year timeframe.
So we have a paradox. The American empire is economically stronger than any empire ever. In terms of its military lead over the competition, it’s out of sight. It was never a time when Britain was so far ahead of its competition. But despite these enormous advantages it’s very dysfunctional as an empire. It really can’t direct sufficient financial resources through its imperial undertakings. It never has enough men where they’re needed. And above all else its electorate loses interest in hot, poorer countries almost as soon as they’ve been occupied. And these are the reasons why I think that the American empire may be on the way down.
There’s a fourth deficit which I hadn’t fully appreciated when I wrote the book, but I’m happy to add it now; and that is the legitimacy deficit. Empires need above all else collaborators. You can’t run an empire on force alone. You need local indigenous support for it to be viable. And one of the most interesting failures of this most recent American administration has been its failure to preserve the legitimacy of American power which has collapsed to the extent the United States is more unpopular around the world than it has ever been, certainly since records began. And that makes it even harder to be a successful empire. If everybody hates you, it’s not going to last.
Recorded on: Oct 15 2007
But a junior associate reformatting the work was unaware that the original Excel document included hidden rows containing contracts that were marked with a "n" to signify they should not be part of the deal.
The document was posted on the Web site but the hidden cells had became visible when the employee globally re-sized the rows in the spreadsheet - without the original "n" designations.
Mr. Gaidar doesn’t seem to suggest that the collapse of his country happened because a large portion of the population moved from the countryside into the cities and stopped growing their own grain. Instead he seems to place the bulk of the blame for collapse on economics- on the inability of the Soviets to feed themselves not because there weren't enough people growing grain in that country but because of their inability to buy enough grain from other people to feed themselves because of decreasing oil and natural gas revenues. The idea that the Soviet collapse was due in part to the fact that the Soviet Union gave up on its capacity for food self sufficiency (food sovereignty) in an effort to pursue industrialization seems absent from his theory.What are the implications for China?
... plenty of lawyers go into politics, ... As a result politics tends to be framed by lawyer thinking, not engineer thinking. Politicians do not deal in facts. They deal in perception.
4. Majority scientists are contemptuous of those in the minority who don’t believe in the dangers of climate change. I often find myself contemptuous of efforts to misrepresent science to a lay audience. The target audience of denialism is the lay audience, not scientists. It's made up to look like science, but it's PR. We have documented Lindzen’s tortured and twisted representation of the science to non-scientists here and here. If Lindzen had a credible argument to support his gut feeling (and apparently Dyson’s), I can promise that I for one would take it seriously. I’ve got kids at home whose future I worry about. If Lindzen were right, no one would be happier about that than me. But I do get contemptuous of bullshit.
On January 8, 2008, Forbes Investor Advisory Institute hosted a Financial Round Table discussion among several leading investment authorities. From the Roundtable, hosted by Wally Forbes, here's an excerpt from Douglas Cohen, Managing Director, Morgan Stanley:
