Environmental Economics: Genetic Engineering (Part 1)

It is now June 2012, marking the one year anniversary of my blog. First, thank you to all my readers and commenter’s – and also the good folks who link me from different sites.

To mark this anniversary, I’m going to attempt to give a thorough view on how environmental and economical policies are conflicting, and how new policies should be created for the most productive result. This will be long, but I believe it should provide a solid insight into what most people believe are completely different issues, are actually very much intertwined. As a result of the length of this topic, I am breaking it into 5 different posts. This will be the first. The sixth and final post will tie all the policies together and attempt to explain their economic impact.

It’s actually amazing how many environmental issues are real problems on the planet, yet their severity and significance is misrepresented through popular media mediums. Obviously everyone has heard of climate change and nuclear issues, or even animal extinction. Yet, there are far more intense problems that the world will have to solve that will heavily affect economic activity around the world. Genetic Engineering, Energy Production, Water Management, Conservation, Land Degradation, and just simple waste will all be issues with a growing population. This first post will deal exclusively with genetic engineering.

The reasoning behind genetic engineering is pretty simple. Due to an increase in the world’s population, an increase of the world’s food supply will have to occur. To obtain this, plants and animals are genetically changed to maximize production. The Green Revolution is the prime example of this.  Currently, GE products can be found everywhere. GE plants and animals have the ability to produce different elements needed for drugs far cheaper than organic production. For example, antithrombin is produced in genetically engineered goats (called pharming) while bacteria specifically made to create insulin has been around since 1982. Yes, this comes straight from Wikipedia, yet I wanted to give some context. The process is rather simple. Identify the gene you wish to add to a host, isolate the gene, construct a new gene (add any elements to make the gene stronger, work properly), and target the selected part of the host you wish to change. Then watch the transformation of the host, and confirm regeneration with selectable markers within the transformed cells. As I am not a scientist, this process could probably be explained better – so any corrections are welcome.

The main selling point for genetically produced materials is cost, as it seems to be cheaper to create substances that are more likely to accomplish one’s goal. However, a large amount of risks seem to have been forgotten. For example, Dr. Pusztai’s research reports that GE potatoes are poisonous to mammals. Basically, DNA found in the snowdrop plant and the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMv) are used in GE potatoes and when tested against organic (regular) potatoes, rats fed the GE potatoes had a severe viral infection caused by the CaMv. The same CaMv gene is spliced into almost all GE foods and crops.

This is not the only example of problems. Monsanto is probably the largest GE producer on the planet, and one of their products is rBGH which was approved by the FDA in 1994. This product forces cows to improve milk production by using 400-500% higher levels of Insulin-Like Growth Factor (IGF-1) in cows. It was warned by the US Congressional Watchdog agency, the GAO to not approve IGF-1 as it could cause a public health problem (specifically breast, prostate and colon cancer). The EU and Canada both banned rBGH, but continues to be injected into 10% of all US Dairy Cows.

These are both specific problems, but GE products have macro problems as well. Genetic Pollution is when GE plants and animals interact with their environment and spread the genes. Think of it like this, when an insect pollinates a genetically altered plant, and then pollinates an organic plant – they pollute the organic plant with GE material. The EU doesn’t believe that genetic pollution can be controlled and are currently looking into the issue. In agreement with evolutionary theories, once released from the lab GE products can reproduce, migrate and mutate and the outcome is unpredictable.

Besides this, other macro problems are the potential creation of superweeds and superpests, or pests and weeds that are resistant to herbicides and pesticides. This means stronger pesticides will be used to control which most likely will be more toxic, and these toxic chemicals will find their way into the human food supply. One GE soil microorganism entitled Klebsiella planticola destroys key soil nutrients needed for proper growth of food, while lab tests has suggests that the common boll worm will evolve into a super pest immune to Bt sprays and other environmentally friendly biopesticides.

Don’t get me wrong, genetically engineering plants for greater chances of growth and stronger crops is a good idea. However, doing it ethically and with careful consideration is a must. If the genome is stable, genetic modification is not harmful. Additionally, genetic modification does not have to be about pesticide resistance. In many cases, large corporations such as Monsanto create the very pesticides they claim their plants are protected against.  Remember, Monsanto and other GE providers are corporations – pro profit. For example, Monsanto could lose billions of dollars from a court ruling in Brazil.  Basically a consortium of farmers argued the GM soya given to the farmers by Monsanto is “highly contaminating” (Batista da Silveira) in terms of attempting to differentiate between organic and GM soya. To explain the situation further, the reason for purchasing the Monsanto products is the farmers can spray roundup (herbicide glyphosate) for weed control without affecting their crop which are created by Monsanto to be roundup resistant. Monsanto collects royalties from the farmers for these seeds, and now may be forced to return these same royalties.

Relating this back to economics is simple; it’s our food supply. Prince Charles summed it up best when stating: “what we should be talking about is food security not food production”. He’s partly correct. Ensuring our food supply is not contaminated for generations due to corporations attempting to monopolize food production is a tough battle. However, maximizing food production efficiency will always be a topic of discussion. Maximizing efficiency is always on the mind of our capitalistic society. Sure, for the short term genetic engineered crops perform marvelously. However, when long term use of the product can cause different diseases and become the origin of more problems than society could ever anticipate, this is when GE production of food should be re-analyzed. The cost of health and environmental problems that GE products are linked to are too great to be ignored.

One of the best ideas I have read to solve the commercialization of DNA coding is creating an open source library for different plants. This would eliminate the monopoly that corporations have on GE production and allow far more minds to place their input into the creation of stronger more durable plants. Ideally, this is a great idea, practically it would almost never work due to the powerful GE lobbyist groups who would do anything to prevent this open source library from occurring. Patenting products is a key part of GE corporation's business model, and adding more freedom and transparency to their products would be very difficult to legislate into law. 

Regulation of GE products has been increased drastically over the last few years, which is good. The EU leads the way, while other countries are developing stronger policies. The age old saying of "we are what we eat" can be applied to this situation, and rightly so. GE production should not be abolished, yet the community should be far wearier of the potential outcome of their actions. 

*A good list of GE companies can be found here: http://www.biofortified.org/resources/genetic-engineering-companies/

Read More

Analysis of Bill C-38: Centralization of Power

With the uproar that Canada’s Bill C-38 has caused, I decided to quickly post what was actually so worrisome about this bill. The uproar I am referencing is the 24 hours of consecutive voting on 800 amendments the opposition has proposed to Bill C-38. If you read the National Post, there really is no substance to the article just quotes from rambling politicians. However, it is worthwhile to take a second look at the Budget Bill as the bill did inspire 13 000 Canadian websites to black out as a form of protest.

When I attended the 2012 Budget in March, I walked away unimpressed. The only thing that stood out for me was the removal of the penny, and even that was quite insignificant in terms of cost savings. I did like the fact that the government was moving towards paperless offices, and enjoyed the irony that the budget was printed in an expensive book as pointed out by the opposition. However, as I continued to read, some items really stood out.

First, Division 23 of Part 4 repeals the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. This act was designed to ensure that contractors bidding on government contractors would pay their employees fair wages and overtime. To be honest, although I don’t support repealing the act, I do see some sense in it. Private industry has to usually work longer hours without pay especially in the corporate world. Repealing this Act would simply make public and private contractors on equal grounds. At the same time, I do support paying overtime and fair wages to everyone – so I do not see why repealing this bill is necessary. It could cheapen bidding on government services and lower costs, at the expense of the Canadian worker. Either way, I’m lukewarm on this topic.

The environment is clearly being attacked by Bill C-38. The Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act is repealed, the Nation Energy Board is amended, the Fisheries Act is watered down, while the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is being replaced with a new Act. Specifically, (if Bill C-38 was passed) the Fisheries Act would not apply to all fish, meaning all fish and waters where they live might not be protected. It can, and I strongly emphasize the word can, exclude many fish and their habitats. Also, the responsibility to protect the fish and their environment can be given to provinces or other entities. This is worrisome for the fact that other entities may not have the interest in preservation of environment.

Continuing on, the bill repeals maximum time limits on permits that could affect different species at risk. To exemplify, if a mine is created near a species that is extinct, there is no legal obligation for the corporation to seek an environment assessment 3 years later to see how that species has been affected by the mining activity. Continuing on this theme, the National Energy Board does not have to consider how energy projects will affect species at risk when issuing permits. To provide an example, if an oil pipeline could disrupt a significant migration route for a species at risk, this will be immaterial to the board when considering the issuance of a permit. Adding to this, if the National Energy Board rejects an application for a permit – the Conservative Cabinet now has the power (through C-38) to overrule. This is comparable to the government having judiciary power, when it is clearly know that in a democracy legislative and judiciary power should remain completely separate to avoid corruption from too much power.

Adding to this is the fact that when the National Energy Board reviews a project, environmental considerations will not be represented by an Environmental Assessment Agency. Instead, the National Energy Board will now consider the environmental impacts. Again, centralization of power.

The scary part is the replacement of the Environmental Assessment Act. Right now, the Act replacing this Act is unknown. What is known is the assessments will be less rigorous and only occur on designated projects. Designated projects are not defined – therefore it is a possibility that very little projects will require an assessment by the government.  Minister Flaherty announced at the budget that this new Act will simply lower the amount of time an assessment will take, which sounds positive. Although true, this is accomplished by replacing the regular assessment process with a speedier and less conclusive assessment. The environmental effects are now defined to impacts to fish, migratory birds, and marine plants. According to the Conservatives, the environment consists only of fish, birds and marine wildlife. This is a head scratcher.

A misconception of the Bill is that it allows American law enforcement the same power on Canadian soil. This is untrue. It simply increases cooperation between American and Canadian law enforcement agencies, but American officials still are placed under Canadian scrutiny/supervision when on Canadian soil.

The main problem I find with the bill is the centralization of power to the Cabinet and ministers. The amount of power the Minister of the Environment Peter Kent receives if Bill C-38 is passed is ridiculous. Considering he is in the running for the worst Minister of the Environment in Canadian history, and  his qualifications for the position do not exist, this man should not have this much power in a field that he knows nothing about. Peter Kent is a journalist, and worked as an anchorman and foreign correspondent. 

Bill C-38 also removes civilian oversight of CSIS and removes many of the Auditor General’s powers. I have no problem with repealing Kyoto, the Protocol did nothing and Canada doesn’t follow it anyway. Adding to this, I believe in increasing the age of retirement and decreasing public servant and governmental costs through decreasing social programs. However, decreasing social programs should be done intelligently by basing it on thorough analysis – not a speedy vote. I have already blogged about social programs becoming a social problem.

Basically, this is a massive bill rewriting, repealing or replacing roughly 70 laws and Acts that is being rushed through Parliament. It involves heavy centralization of power to the federal government, specifically the Cabinet, and blatantly reduces environmental protection. This bill should not be passed based on those tenets alone. 

Read More

The Gift of Honesty

As an accountant, I can see the act of gift giving through a raw technical point of view.  Credit cash, debit inventory as the gift giver engages in a physical transaction to acquire a new gift. Credit Inventory once the gift is given, but what account is debited to balance the transaction? The answer is relatively simple – happiness. Giving to someone and watching their face light up in surprise is an amazing sight to see. 

However, that is a typical and common point of view. Giving can also be done through other means, and may not be well received. The other means I am referencing is honesty. Our society has become complacent and passive; often one will choose the easier complimentary route of embracing one’s decisions and viewpoints with an agreeable answer while thinking the opposite.

Think of it like this. If a friend of yours decided to buy a car that they could not afford, but desperately wanted in order to attract a member of the opposite sex – what would your response be? Your friend obviously wants confirmation for this decision, and it is much easier to agree with their plan on payments for the car and maintenance. Or, you could choose another route, offering one line of disagreement that is quick and probably will simply turn your friend off from your opinion.

Or, the last option – giving a frank and honest answer on why your friend should not buy that car. Spending the time to explain thoughtfully your arguments and working through the issue. In terms of the example, discussing with your friend why using a material item to elevate status to attract based on false premise of wealth is simply not a strong way to attract a significant other. Not only that, the decision to buy an expensive car which your friend cannot afford will cause very real changes financially in their life.

Although this is the longer route, a real friend will give you honest well thought out advice when it’s needed. This is indeed a gift that is sorely missed in our society today, the ability to disagree with the direction of another person on reasonable grounds – and outwardly showing your legitimate concerns. The only reason a friend will outline their concerns is because they care. If your friend did not care about the outcome of your decisions, there would be no concern and hence a friend would simply agree with your decisions, regardless of the expected outcome.

Yes, sometimes you will encounter an adverse opinion to your decisions. Yet, hostility to another argument is no way to counter honest thoughtful statements that might be true. Instead, use the concerns to make a better decision.

Listening to a person and giving an honest opinion is a gift that is incredibly undervalued. In business these people are called consultants, and charge quite a bit for their services. In life, these are called best friends who charge nothing. The people in your life who give you the gift of honesty through sincere listening are the people who should be cherished and appreciated. 

Read More

Quebec Protestors May Have a Point

I guess it’s been a while since I hit the keyboard. Not physically, that would be a terrible thing to do. I mean what did the keyboard do to deserve being hit? Actually my keyboard has been waiting for me to come back to type out my opinions, actually screaming; my keyboard is wondering what in the name of Zeus and the Olympian gods is going on in Quebec.

 There were actually confirmed protests in Paris, Taipei, London (UK), Berlin, Brussels and Copenhagen regarding the decision to increase tuition from the base amount of $2168 by $325 each year for 5 years.  The reason behind the international protest is Quebec attracts many international students, who are upset over the matter.  International students have actually become far more popular in Canadian Universities, as they charge them far higher tuition to attend.

The best part about this debate is the attack on the students.  Sun News posted a graphic of tuition rates across the country that was not only heavily biased and completely out of context, but it was heavily shared on social media to attack the protestors. Basically the graphic showed average tuition rates across the country, which Quebec obviously has the lowest. What they failed to show was everything else, or answer the question: Why does Quebec have the lowest tuition?

Quebec has a culture of social services which derives from a less capitalistic view of lifestyle. Citizens pay more taxes for (theoretically) better/more service.  Just compare Ontario tax rates to Quebec. The first bracket (39 020) pays 5.05% compared to 16% in Quebec,  the second bracket 9.15% compared to 20% in Quebec, and the last bracket 11.16% in Ontario compared to 24% in Quebec.  That’s quite a large difference. The extra money is supposed to go to social services such as education to make it more affordable for the general masses.  In terms of the students, tax rates should not have much of an effect, as tuition is 100% deductible. However, they will eventually pay for the tuition of the future – so they have a right to protest their future increased taxation which is supposed to limit their current tuition. Basically, improve a student’s cash flow now, in return for a higher payment in the future. Future value of money is always less then Present Value for the finance students.

Also, one should look at the fundamental reason for public education. The reason for subsidization, bursaries, and grants of the education system is to increase access, as education is primarily an investment in the future of our society. Limiting education limits the potential of society, creates a larger gap between the rich and poor, and polarizes difference sects of society.  This is the reason why Germany, after World War II, made post secondary education almost completely free – a revolutionary concept that arguably gave their society a vast advantage.

Now, we can afford to have the students keep paying these rates. What’s the reason for the increase? Unions.  Administration accounts for a majority portion of a Quebec University’s budget and as they have unionized and have the power to shut down entire schools, they have been granted their gross overpayments. Bureaucracy has taken over which means less efficiencies. Again, public unions and their powerful lawyers demand too much from taxpayers that simply cannot afford their ironclad pensions and payroll.

So what’s the conclusion? Support the increase of tuition. Why? That $325 per year really isn’t that much, and it supposedly isn’t going to the administration. More so to improve the quality of the Universities of Quebec, which are lagging far behind others internationally (besides McGill).  However, the reformation of education should be a fundamental debate in politician’s minds, yet it’s one often forgotten. We should look at the German model, and realize our flaws. Their dual educational system has a high focus on apprenticeships produces a more technically advanced society.  The humanity courses such as degrees in history, political science, recreational and leisure studies, film studies or a major in Italian Cultural studies should not be encouraged. Education for the sake of education is not a strong or good policy. Education for the sake of improving one’s skills, understanding and candidacy for a better job that can improve a society in a functional way is a far better basic view of why schools exist.

Again, I am not saying studying history or film is wrong; I am a bit of a history buff myself. However, we must differentiate between the abstract degrees, and the degrees that will support new business and economic development.

Support the increase in tuition as a temporary measure, but focus on the reformation of education from its core beliefs to its unionized restrictions.  

Read More

A Persian Problem

Iran has been in the news a lot over the past few years. Named by George Bush as one of the branches of the Axis of Evil, it's nuclear ambitions and anti-Semitic sentiments have risen to infamy. Back tracking for a second, doesn't Axis of Evil sound cool? When George Bush first came out with it I envisioned Kim Jon Il, Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sitting at a table shaped like a swastika all arguing who should press a big red button that triggers Armageddon.


However, the major question is looking at the historical relevance of Iran and why exactly the United States is so interested in the country. For example, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, is far more unstable than Iran, yet Iran is the country that the United States has been echoing war sentiments about.


Iran stems from where the old Persian empire existed with about a $6000 GDP per capita and interestingly a founding member of the United Nations and OPEC. Unknown to most, the President is not the highest level of power in the country - the Supreme Leader is. With 31 provinces, almost 90% of the country identifies themselves as Shia Muslims. In WW2, Britain and Russia invaded Iran to use their railroad which stemmed the beginning of Western interference in Iranian politics. Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected Prime Minister and nationalized the oil industry which did not please the British. In response Winston Churchill brought the US onboard to create a coup d'état through Operation Ajax. Remember that, the United States overthrew a democratically elected leader. America assisted the Shah in creating a more modern infrastructure while at the same time destroying political resistance, crushing free speech, and increased autocratic rule. All under the United States watch. Then, in 1979, the Islamic Republic was born through the Iranian Revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who had been exiled by the Shah. Saddam in Iraq decided this would be the perfect time to attack Iraq which ended in a truce 8 years later. Iran then elected Rafsanjani who ran a pro business economic doctrine, then succeeded by the new face of Iran who is the constant figure of Western ridicule, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr Ahmadinejad has faced constant attacks over election rigging and has been protested against multiple times, the Green movement exemplifying this.  


Looking at the quick history of Iran, it's easy to see why Iran is weary of America, and why it is ridiculous that Iran and Iraq conspired to bring down America. Hussein used chemical warfare in the Iran-Iraq conflict, an action that will not be forgotten quickly in Persia.


Now we come to the present. Simplistically, the United States and the Western world does not want the Islamic Republic to possess nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons gives Iran leverage in global politics, something that the Western world does not want considering their oil exports give Iran enough influence. Currently, the West has responded with economic sanctions. If you watch Fox News or CNN, you would think these have had no effect whatsoever. However, they have. Black market currency trading has arisen in Tehran as the Rial (Iranian Currency aka the IRR) has declined by over 40% in value in global markets. Goods such as the iPhone cost 30% more than they have, while the bank was forced to pump $200 million into the Iranian market to fight rapid inflation and also gave a 21% interest rate on rial bank deposits. Barack Obama signed a law that banned many financial institutions from working with Iran - a damning document as many Iranian officials stated that Iran's economy is on the verge of collapse. Iranian secret police are trying to control the race for dollars and gold, and even text messaging with the world "dollar" will be censored.


Israel is the most vocal proponent of attacking Iran, as an Israel General stated that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons will set of an Arabian arms race. Saudi Arabia is more of a closet opponent of Iran, but it has been rumoured that they have asked the United States to prevent the development of a nuclear Iran.


Iran has responded by threatening to close off oil exports, and block off the strait of Hormuz. Ending oil exports could be very serious of the European Union as Italy, Spain and Greece are major importers of Iranian crude. Countries such as China have already found ways around the American dollar embargo by buying oil for gold, which is assisting in raising the gold price currently - while the Yen and Real transactions are increasing. In terms of the strait of Hormuz, the strait sees 20% of the world's oil traded, making the point essential for the global economy. The United States has brought in their navy to ensure it stays open, while the Iranian Military held exercises close to the strait and made a few provocative statements regarding bombing American targets.


Israel is obviously the largest advocate for military action against Iran, as Iran's President has openly attacked the Jewish state vocally while even holding a conference with the underlying thesis being that the holocaust was a hoax. Iran is also a financial supporter of Hamas, a militaristic Palestinian political group who has often attacked Israel. To be fair, Israel often retaliated.


Perhaps the last paragraph can provide reasoning for a solution to the Iran problem. First, physical retaliation never works. Israel and Palestine it has never solved problems, and it most likely will not work now. Economic sanctions are heavily disrupting Iranian life and although not as sexy as big American Navy Seals jumping from helicopters blowing Revolutionary guards apart, sanctions do keep this affair from becoming a deathly conflict. Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad is rapidly losing support at home and a new government most likely will be brought upon by Iranians themselves. Instead of once again interfering in Iran, the Western world should try to ensure Iranians have the tools to bring change about themselves. Military occupation will only bring resentment against Western governments, and rally Iranians around their leaders. Peaceful resolution of the argument through diplomacy is what is needed.


A country needs money to build a nuclear bomb. Starve Iran of cash, as a military attack would surely be rash.  

Read More

This is the Motor City

Motown, Hockeytown, Rock City and now Broke Town.

Yeah, we're talking about Detroit.

The city has seen far better times. The once great auto manufacturer has seemingly fallen into a economic disparity according to the eyes of the world. However, despite an unsolved murder rate of 70%, a thriving illegal drug industry, and having the most expensive auto insurance in America for having a high crime rate, Detroit is showing signs of recovery.

Detroit is one of the few cities in the US to have all the big four accounting firms present, as well as corporate offices for Ally Financial, Bank of America , JP Morgan, Robert Half and Raymond James. In 2011, Quicken Loans moved their headquarters to downtown Detroit after a very profitable 2009. This moved 4000 employees downtown. Blue Cross consolidated 6000 employees to downtown Detroit in 2011 as well. Besides finance, Detroit became the fastest region in the US for high tech jobs (2010). Incubators for high tech such as the Michigan Security Network nurture research in cybersecurity, biodefense, and border security.

Manufacturing is still a large part of Detroit, with GM, Ford and Chrysler all retaining corporate offices along with any major automaker. General Electric has built a 100m center employing 1200 people averaging 100k a year. Adding to this is a large refinery operated by Marathon, which refines oil sands from Canada. Speaking of Canada, the Windsor-Detroit border crossing provides $13 billion in economic activity (roughly).

The list goes on, I am just summarizing Wikipedia. I knew most of this, but some of it surprised me as it should others. However, everyone heard of the large bailouts for automakers in 2010 . The population of Detroit fell 25% from 2000 - 2010. The 2009 Detroit unemployment rate was 30% compared t America's 9.1% unemployment. (some said the real unemployment rate was 50%). Adding to this is the gangs and ghettos that cause the police to even fret. Myself being a Caucasian individual could possibly wind up on that list of unsolved murders if I dared to venture out past the cultural divide on the 8 mile. It could be said that 2008/2009 were two of the worst years Detroit has seen as the financial world crumbled around them weakening automakers even further.

However, there are signs of hope. The tech industry in Detroit is slowly showing life. Expertise in Cloud Computing, Mobile Software apps, and Energy Management  are in demand as automakers switch to higher tech cars. Technology is especially needed with the US Government granting a billion dollars for further research and development into lithium powered motors. In 2010, tech employment has risen 10%. The main draw is not the salary, which is still below the US National Average, but the low cost of living which could be an estimated 90% below that of living in the Silicon Valley.  The unemployment rate is still higher than the national average, but sits at around 13%, far better than that of 2 years ago. Many of these new jobs are in the Tech industry as hydrogen fuel cells and green automobile energies are being researched.

In terms of political economic assistance and development, Detroit is showing some progress. Some parts of Detroit are designated as Michigan Renaissance Zones - which are almost tax free areas for any business or resident in the area. Tax abatements, public loans and grants, and community development block grants are all programs Detroit has offered. Job training continues under a famous program entitled HOPE, while the Michigan Economic Development Corp. has created a job training program meant to meet market needs.

Lastly, Detroit has seen employers people to live there including Detroit Medical Center, Henry Ford Hospital, Quicken, Compuware, Wayne State and others.  The Blue Cross is offering a 5 year Live Downtown program, which home buyers can receive a $20 000 forgivable loan and renters a $2500 allowance. Current residents could be given up to $5000 for exterior improvements.

I'm not saying Detroit is a paradise, far from that. Stories such as this still exist and are a reality for many. All I am saying is Detroit does finally seem to be sowing seeds of opportunity, something that hasn't been seen for a while. It has bottomed out, and with proper economic and political policy, will continue a slow ascension back to paradise. Ok, not paradise, but maybe meeting the national unemployment rate is a good goal.  

In terms of investment, I can suggest the following. First, if you want to begin a startup tech business and cannot afford the high costs of the Silicon Valley, try Detroit. If you wish to live for free in a more dangerous area as a young college graduate, try Detroit.  If you wish to work for some of the cutting edge auto technology that is playing a part in green technology, try Detroit. Lastly, if you want to see the Toronto Maple Leafs utterly destroy the Detroit Red Wings in 2012, try Detroit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKL254Y_jtc

Read More