Financial News

[Balta1701]

Eh, the corruption is already there, that's not going to be the new aspect.

But now we have plenty of reason to keep 100,000 people dying there for the next decade. And paying $100 billion a year for the privilege.

[mr_genius]

But now we have plenty of reason to keep 100,000 people dying there for the next decade. And paying $100 billion a year for the privilege.

 

well, you know what you need to do. DESTROY THE MINERAL DEPOSITS.

[Balta1701]

well, you know what you need to do. DESTROY THE MINERAL DEPOSITS.

Don't worry, that'll happen anyway.

[kapkomet]

Don't worry, that'll happen anyway.

 

 

NO BLOOD FOR GOLD. Oh wait, doesn't sound quite the same. Keep up the charades.

[Balta1701]

NO BLOOD FOR GOLD. Oh wait, doesn't sound quite the same. Keep up the charades.

LOL, ok, so you want U.S. soliders to die for mineral rights.

[StrangeSox]

I have a feeling that this won't end well for the poor people of Afghanistan. Not that the current or previous paths were any good...

[bmags]

Man, I bet Karzai has huge bonerz right now.

[NorthSideSox72]

I have a feeling that this won't end well for the poor people of Afghanistan. Not that the current or previous paths were any good...

You know, believe it or not, I think this offers a better path than what they have now. As it stands, the corruption is already there, and all the s***ty cultural dynamics between the tribes... except their cash cow is opium. You are really just replacing some of that, long term, with minerals. Minerals will be extracted by mining companies. Yes, they will exploit people. But there will also be large sums of money, and jobs, in the country, in a generally legal enterprise.

 

This is an improvement.

 

[bmags]

On face value I'd like to believe that, but I just imagine it will end up more congo or sierra leone than Ukraine or elsewhere.

[bmags]

Cool email from TPM about how this isn't that surprising:

 

Based on my experience, the discovery of vast natural resources in Afghanistan seems perfectly normal. I lived in Mongolia from '94 to '99 - the period when that country was emerging from 70+ years of Soviet control and discovering itself and the world. While the Soviets controlled Mongolia, they did "extensive" geological surveys and declared that there was nothing exciting - a little coal, a little gold, a little uranium, a fair amount of copper, but nothing world class. It was not until the country opened up and Canadian and American geologists intently surveyed the almost unpeopled stretches of back country that numerous world class finds in copper, gold, uranium were announced as well as lesser finds in oil and silver and iron, etc.

 

I don't want to sound trite, but in my view the difference between Soviet and Western geological surveys came down to motivation. Sure there may have been some differences in technology that was available, but basically it was motivation: the Soviets geologists didn't have a profit motive and the western geologists did. While I was living in Mongolia I had a chance to speak with a couple Mongolians who had gone along on Soviet geological surveys. They described them as memorable parties, where truly significant amounts of vodka were consumed and only the most cursory of surveys were undertaken. I compare this with my conversations with Canadian geologists, who came back to the capital city, Ulaanbaatar, shaking their heads at what the Soviets missed.

 

With this perspective, and given the remote and hostile nature of the Afghan back country, it is easy to understand how truly major mineral deposits would be turned up by a geologic survey that was profit-motivated.

[StrangeSox]

You know, believe it or not, I think this offers a better path than what they have now. As it stands, the corruption is already there, and all the s***ty cultural dynamics between the tribes... except their cash cow is opium. You are really just replacing some of that, long term, with minerals. Minerals will be extracted by mining companies. Yes, they will exploit people. But there will also be large sums of money, and jobs, in the country, in a generally legal enterprise.

 

This is an improvement.

 

As bmags pointed out, I think we have far more instances of natural resources being exploited at the expense of the local populace rather than to the benefit. That, and mining is pretty terrible environmentally and I can't imagine the Afghans enacting strict environmental or workplace safety regulations.

[NorthSideSox72]

As bmags pointed out, I think we have far more instances of natural resources being exploited at the expense of the local populace rather than to the benefit. That, and mining is pretty terrible environmentally and I can't imagine the Afghans enacting strict environmental or workplace safety regulations.

I think you guys are missing my point. Of course there will be exploitation. My point is, there will be that for poppy OR minerals, but minerals will put more legally obtained money in more people's hands, and provide more jobs that are not as slavery-like, that you get in the poppy industry there. Its not some great thing - but its an improvement.

 

[StrangeSox]

I'll spare citing a bunch of colonial industrial accidents* and how terrible they've made certain areas and just say that I disagree. I think there are very real negative potentials for this for the general Afghan population, including dangerous working conditions, near-slave-labor, and completely destroyed environmental areas (including water sources).

 

*I don't mean colonial-era, but the practice of corps going in similar to a colonial power and exploiting the local population and resources to their own detriment. Can you cite any situations where average citizens in under-developed countries benefited from resource development? As far as I can tell, it always results in corrupt governments staying corrupt and the wealthy ruling class staying the wealthy ruling class while causing massive environmental damage.

Edited June 14, 2010 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

I'll spare citing a bunch of colonial industrial accidents* and how terrible they've made certain areas and just say that I disagree. I think there are very real negative potentials for this for the general Afghan population, including dangerous working conditions, near-slave-labor, and completely destroyed environmental areas (including water sources).

 

*I don't mean colonial-era, but the practice of corps going in similar to a colonial power and exploiting the local population and resources to their own detriment. Can you cite any situations where average citizens in under-developed countries benefited from resource development? As far as I can tell, it always results in corrupt governments staying corrupt and the wealthy ruling class staying the wealthy ruling class while causing massive environmental damage.

OK, I'll try this one more time, then I give up.

 

I am NOT saying it won't have negative consequences. I am NOT saying they won't be big. I am saying you cannot look at it in a vacuum - you have to compare it to the current situation. Without this, you have a country whose only significant export industry is an illicit drug, versus that illicit drug AND valuable metals for commercial use. That is the only comparison worth looking at here.

 

[StrangeSox]

Right, and I don't believe that exporting valuable metals is going to improve the life of the average Afghan. I believe it will make it worse, and I point to centuries of foreign exploitation and internal corruption of poorer countries as evidence.

[NorthSideSox72]

Right, and I don't believe that exporting valuable metals is going to improve the life of the average Afghan. I believe it will make it worse, and I point to centuries of foreign exploitation and internal corruption of poorer countries as evidence.

I give up.

 

[bmags]

I guess South Africa? They've had more than diamond mines though. Yeah I unno. Ukraine was becoming a really up and coming industrial power before USSR too. SO I unno.

 

I understand what you are saying NSS, it's better this that exploits the population rather than the illegal poppy seed trade. And, as Americans, we will probably benefit as consumers from their find, I just hope that this doesn't mean our soldiers will be staying there even longer just to die until we finally confront the fact that, hey, this war really isn't doing much either.

[StrangeSox]

I give up.

I get what you're saying; I just have a more pessimistic view.

[bmags]

Yglesias' take

 

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/06/...livian-economy/

Edited June 14, 2010 by bmags

[lostfan]

On the surface at least it looks like good news for the Afghanis because they've had nothing but terrible luck since 1979 (actually before that) and right now that country contributes nothing positive to the world, nothing at all.

[bmags]

the kite runner!

[bigruss]

So while reserving some cash and taking in the comments from before and from friends I got it down to a few options in how I want to start my investing. Once I get to $2000 cash that I can invest, Im either going to buy common stock using optionshouse.com or I will buy mutual funds. Anybody have good sources for mutual funds? In terms of good advice, good places to buy them from, etc?

 

Ive heard that since I have so little to invest that a mutual fund would be most beneficial. Agree? Disagree?

 

EIther way, I make so little in interest from my current bank and with CDs offering a max of 1.5% for a year, I feel that I really should invest this money sooner than later.

[lostfan]

Go with mutual funds, stocks are dangerous for everyday people to be playing with for anything more than a hobby.

[NorthSideSox72]

Go with mutual funds, stocks are dangerous for everyday people to be playing with for anything more than a hobby.

I'll agree but modify slightly - mutual funds or ETF's. ETF's are nice because they give you the diversification of mutual funds, but without the load. Single stock picking is asking for trouble.

 

And as for where to get mutual funds... any brokerage you go to, including optionshouse.com, will allow you to trade both ETF's and mutual funds. You don't need to go to a special place for them.

 

Do some research - there is all kinds of useful data available for free out there. You can even see zone charts for mutual funds and ETF's that show the dynamic of risk vs reward, showing a heat map of where in that graph each fund sits. So decide BEFORE you pick something - where are you in the graph? Higher or lower on the risk axis (longer or shorter return period), higher or lower reward.

 

[Cknolls]

Buy when the SPX trades under 500... Mr. Pessimism I know.... Do not chase yield.....Stay in cash for now....