Larry Ellison, a man of taste and intelligence (see his awesome Japanese house), is alleged to have said: "I used to think, now I just read The Economist". Well I'm sure he didn't say it because of the quality of the writing there. Or because it's always right. Or because their accurate predictions. The Economist is full of crap. But it is the voice of the Establishment. Damn, the Rothschilds own the paper. It doesn't get more ruling class than that.
So what Ellison meant was: "I used to think a lot about how to make good with the Establishment, never knowing what they really wanted. Now I just read the official Establishment paper, The Economist, and follow their orders. See my billions?"
I also used to read The Economist and get outraged at the falsities and general BS I found there. Then I grew up and understood that the Economist isn't descriptive but prescriptive, and also noticed that what they suppor has a tendency to happen. The ruling class that The Economist represents is basically the bankstas/investment types who are constantly searching for yield, manipulating anything on their way. So when The Economist suddenly starts to talk about some country, be alert as the odds are the country will be open for business very soon.
See this news on Mongolia mining boom. The fact that the huge desert of the Gobi has huge deposits of all kind of minerals has been known for some time, and China has been developing their side of the Gobi for years. It seems that the Mongolian side is also getting some traction, with huge mines getting on track with Western investment. The article puts it as if Mongolia will became a sort of Brunei where the tiny population lives a life of luxury because of some mineral deposits in some desert that happens to lie inside their borders. So Mongolia's 3 million people will probably flock to the only city, Ulan Baatar and live off government handouts. Meanwhile some busybody enviromentalist will complain that the mines are bad because the desert ecology will be hurt. Funny how a barren landscape with no life or water can be harmed.
So it seems there's some money to be made in Mongolia, but its only half year, as the Siberian-ish weather up north paralyzes most activity during the winter. We need something more year-round. Here comes Burma.
Now, the recent events at Burma have me utterly confused. Burma since the 60s had a military dictatorship which increasingly having trouble to control the pro-democracy student movement, AKA the W force. Well while the Reagan administration was busy dismantling all friendly Asian dictators, the Burmese had the nerve to disregard an election won by the left, crack down on all those pesky students, and close the country to all foreign meddling. Of course we showered them with sanctions. They didn't care: they sold the country to the Chinese, who for 20 years had been colonizing the place, making good money out of funneling timber and jade back to China. Mandalay, the commercial capital, became overnight a Chinese colony. I thought that was it: China was securing its own area of influence.
But then The Economist started to talk about Burma more often than usual. And next thing you know, Hillary Clinton visits the country. The junta's awesome council, State and Peace Development Council, dismantles itself. Aung San Suu Kyi, that annoying hag, is released, and thousands of political
agitators prisoners are made free too.
What happened? How did Chinese lose its bitch? I don't know. But now Burma is The Economist's bitch. Even Jim Rogers is gloating at the prospects of a mostly medieval country suddenly open to foreign investment. And in the next 10 years the whole place will be overflowing with money.
Investors, by nature, want yield, yield requires growth, and there's little growth to be found in this economy. In fact I believe that growth isn't possible anymore. And that sucks when you have a lot of money in your hands and nowhere to put it to work. But the Establishment just found two pieces of land to grow. I guess you could do worse than go and take a look.