Category Archives: Finance

A repetition of events

This is speculative, this is my view on the matter and it might be very very wrong, yet I see events take place and I have seen it all before, this is not a first. It has happened and it will happen again yet to be true I never expected Apple to be part of that equation. No matter how we consider the stage, no matter how we thing it will be alright. As I personally see it, it will not.

My insight started well over 30 years ago with a Dutch Company called ‘Infotheek’, an IT company when IT was a mere myth, it was rising and in that air it started to believe its own marketing. I saw some service person air anecdote after anecdote but never really managing anything, merely pushing the expectations of its boss unto the staff member on his watch and anyone not meeting presented and assumed expectations, that person was done away. They started buying companies and keeping the few stars that a company had and the rest, you guessed it, over time they were done away. It was slow enough not to raise flags, but the centre core was that they were purchasing revenue. I saw a pretty amazing sales star walking away from that. Even if I never realised it at the time, his name was Oscar, he had a sales routine and a calculator and he was doing tricks with the calculator and he was good, he really was. I never understood him, all I saw was some slick suited person with expensive sunglasses, but I was in services and happy to be there giving technical support. It was the golden age of Tulip Computers and I was aiding those users. Yet I saw Infotheek buying company after company, I saw people go faster and faster and it was my first view on ‘buying revenue’ but there were more later, when it became more common ground. These thoughts went through my mind as I took notice of ‘Apple buys a company every three to four weeks’ (source: BBC). The stage is similar, the problem is what path are they taking? Are they buying revenue “Apple recently delivered its largest quarter by revenue of all time, bringing in $111.4bn (£78.7bn) in the first-quarter of its fiscal year 2021”? Or perhaps it is a stage here they are accumulating cost to lower tax brackets? Are they merely looking for a cheap way to get the real jewels in a company, get the revenue and do away the rest? In this we need to consider the number one part, they are not doing anything illegal, yet the stage remains that the bought companies have a population of X, when within 2 years the population goes to X-45%, and when you see that this involves 100 companies, how many people will become unemployed? Even if we see “Most often, Apple buys smaller technology firms and then incorporates their innovations into its own products” we see a half truth, it is not the whole story. Yes, we accept that sometimes it is straight revenue like “Apple’s largest acquisition in the last decade was its $3bn purchase of Beats Electronics, the headphone maker founded by rapper and producer Dr Dre” and there is nothing wrong with that, but there is a larger risk that some people lose the foresight (or is that hindsight) that the Apple egg becomes like an actual egg, a hard outer exterior, but behind that it is space, empty space, not all of it is the joke (sorry read yoke) of the matter. A larger stage and in this case not some presented larger Dutch IT firm, but an actual behemoth that I set somewhere between $1,000,000,000 and $1,500,000,000 when that comes crashing down what will the impact be? And any firm that I in the stage of buying revenue is always heading for disaster and when it becomes someone buying another firm almost every month for 6 years that crash is close to a given.

You see, on paper it all looks nice, but incorporating new companies, re-schooling staff, educating staff on a new set of ideologies is a much larger task and the stage is alway in motion, the stage of confirming and checking whether the new people are on track of becoming images of the old people is a setting that takes time and when you buy a company every month the pyramid becomes unstable a lot faster than anyone realises and when that happens, good luck with finding support and services to your Apple product. In this there is one given, the sales people tend to forget about the services required and when they learn that their sales pipeline is stuffed because they forgot to give trust the larger stage of corporate valour it all goes pear shape rather fast.

In this I am speculating on the past, perhaps Apple will be fine. Perhaps I am all wrong and my experience does not count. So basically I could be wrong, however GeekWire gives us ‘Chromebooks outsold Macs worldwide in 2020, cutting into Windows market share’ (at https://www.geekwire.com/2021/chromebooks-outsold-macs-worldwide-2020-cutting-windows-market-share/) a week ago. This does not mean that I am suddenly right. A 6 year tactic is not the stage that is seen in one article over one year that is optionally the weirdest year of the century. 

One does not imply the other but we need to take notice of both, especially in a stage where the 5G future is more and more likely to be a cloud based one and we cannot deny that the Chromebook is a pure cloud based solution. It is up to us all but when we consider that we need to realise that we too are wage slaves and service slaves and whatever hinders or threatens us will threaten all, a small truth that goes back to the age of Gaius Julius Caesar and for those who remember his name from the history books as a politician and a ruler, he was a general first, so he knows a few things, come to think of it, he set in motion some of the tactics that are till used 2 millennia later, all set before he became Dictator Perpetuo, think of that before we dismiss all of the facts and in this there are more facts, some are hidden in the story, it will be your puzzle of the day. In this I give you one small clue ‘Is Iteration in similarity the same as iteration and does that warrant consideration of the title iteration?

Have a great day!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT

How to miss out on $20,000,000,000

Yup, another notch, another confirmation and in all this, I smirk. The shown stupidity by several players whilst they try to be clever and show the people through ‘filtered content’ that they are on the ball was staggering. Now Reuters gives us (at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-emirates-defense-saudi/saudi-arabia-to-invest-more-than-20-billion-in-its-military-industry-over-next-decade-idUSKBN2AK08K) ‘Saudi Arabia to invest more than $20 billion in its military industry over next decade’, the US and the EU have played their cards and are out of the race, implying that the bulk of all this will go to China, and optionally Russia will get a few slices of that cake. Some called me a fool, some said I was dreaming (well, I was to some degree), but with the Chinese economy getting a nice large slice of the $20,000,000,000 the stage is starting to change. The UK is missing out because they gave the stage to stupid people (CAAT). The US did a similar thing, the EU climbed on their high horse called morality blaming the KSA for all kinds of things, yet they refused to give the people the real deal which involved Iran. Now China has a larger stage and they did it to themselves.

The Governor of the General Authority for Military Industries (GAMI) Ahmed bin Abdulaziz Al-Ohali will have to select a new stage, one that does not include the EU or the US. China who was basically not in the market with their QBZ-95, they now have a realistic chance because both Belgium (FN-Herstal) and Germany (Heckler and Koch) can not contribute. In addition China has a few other options, add to that a larger stage where they can offer airplanes and vehicles the stage is set, the west lost out on twenty billion, all due to stupidity, and they did not have that much to tinker to begin with and it only goes downhill from there.

If China sets the manufacturing stage to Saudi Arabia the stage changes even further as they will have a leg up in several Middle Eastern nations. So, if the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) gets a nice hamper this Christmas with a note stating ‘千恩萬謝’, you know that their goose is cooked. 

So what’s next? Well, as the KSA is making increasing purchases into their defence apparatus, the stage changes, it is a cost we all see, but in the past the EU and the US made hay out of the benefits they got, that part is seemingly going to China (optionally Russia too). 

A stage that I saw almost 2 years ago, is it not funny how the politicians in the US and EU did not see that coming? If they did, why was their no mention in the news? Yet it is clear that their economies are so good, they can afford to sneer at 1 to two dozen billions. Ohh, I forgot they are broke! And this is not about the CAAT, I get it, there is ideology in ‘to end all government political and financial support for arms exports’, this is nice but it only works if all players adhere to this and a nation has every right to defend itself, as such Saudi Arabia needs to do what is best for Saudi Arabia. If that requires them to start talks with China, then so mote it be. 

Realism is fickle, it is shaped by the people wielding it, even if their realism is tainted by ideology and delusion. As such that fickle statue is now going to other places and the nations with trillions of debt will need to find another solution, but perhaps selling stickers to the members of CAAT will make up for something. 

I myself would have preferred to offer the Typhoon to Saudi Arabia, but in this
I hope to sell them the Chengdu J-20, yes I might be asleep, but do we not all want a 3.75% commission out of a $2,000,000,000 deal? In all this the stage was clear for close to 2 years, I wonder what the people had to win by losing out on billions, I honestly have no clue, do you?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

From drain to sewer

To be honest, I am not surprised. In this day and age of overruling greed and the lack of care I see a change and this change will set woe to Australia and its local brands. It all started with overly stupid shareholders and stake holders, who engaged greed driven politicians on prolonging the lifestyle that some would and should never have been allowed to continue. I am of course talking on those relying on journalism. This is not about the journalists, although they are not entirely without blame. The news was happy to side with a player who has less than 5% of the market. So they were happy to go towards a player who has a mere 1/20 slice of the advertisement cake, this was never about fair, or about realism. 

In the first when we see “Under the proposed bill digital platforms would be required to pay media companies for content” EVERYONE is ignoring the part where the media can decide not to be on the digital format, they can decide not to post their messages on Google Search or place them on Facebook. So why is it an option. It is like advertising on the Yellow Pages and demanding the Yellow Pages for payment for the privilege of showing these articles. The ACCC and a few other players were happy to ignore that part, in addition we see them ignoring the fact that some of these papers have articles that ALWAYS push the link to a payment portal. There is more, these greed driven silly people relied on Microsoft and their Bing flaw to take the forefront into staging the response of “both would have to better compensate news publications for displaying their content, as well as give outlets more information about their search and newsfeed algorithms”, in this, the stage of ‘better compensate news publications’ as well as ‘give outlets more information about their search and newsfeed algorithms’, in this Microsoft who only has at best 5% is eager to increase its market share, yet there is a reason that they only have 5% and the news is only getting worse. As Australia moves away from Google search, they are cutting their fingers in a few more places as well. As silly people are all about their personal gains and personal wealth, the idiots owning the media that they are demanding payment for are all in a stage that they never understood in the first place. The Conversation gives us ‘The old news business model is broken: making Google and Facebook pay won’t save journalism’ (at https://theconversation.com/the-old-news-business-model-is-broken-making-google-and-facebook-pay-wont-save-journalism-150357). There we see “The code is meant to help alleviate the revenue crisis facing news publishers. Over the past two decades they have made deep cuts to newsrooms. Scores of local print papers have become “digital only” or been shut down completely”, as such, we seem to overlook that the elderly owning news media (example the Murdoch wannabe’s) never understood the digital part. We optionally see this in “To understand why the commercial news model is so broken, we first need to recognise what the primary business of commercial news media has been: attracting an audience that can be sold to advertisers”, Google already has the audience and Microsoft wants them too, so silly people (optionally including the politicians) are setting a slippery slope and Australia is about to lose whatever global foothold they have. In this the silly people are clueless on the damage that will hit. 

This is seen in two parts, the first is “2021 Cloud Report from Cockroach Labs ranked Google Cloud Platform as the best-performing of the three major public cloud platforms, offering an impressive threefold advantage in throughput capability”, so not only is Microsoft out of options, they are severely outclassed by Google (and optionally IBM as well), a stage that is influencing a global stage that we see (at https://www2.deloitte.com/au/en/pages/consumer-industrial-products/articles/global-powers-of-retailing.html#), so consider the players that have some global visibility. Players like Wesfarmers, Woolworths and JB HiFi. All players that were until 2020 in the top 250, now consider that they are removed from that field. This is because Microsoft does not count on the global field, not with a mere 5%, 7% on the global stage, we get it that Microsoft wants it desperately, but the silly people never realised that the media is now influencing a stage where others will no longer count as well. It is the purest form of ‘Think local, act global’ it would sound nice, but it merely makes Australian brands no longer a global player, a stage that will make New Zealand the number one consumer target for Australian brands and wherever they are second place, they become obsolete. The ACCC should be proud of not comprehending the larger stage. And in all this as the Conversation informs us of “before 2000 print media attracted nearly 60% of Australian advertiser dollars, according to an analysis for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s Digital Platforms Inquiry. By 2017 it was just 12%”, we see the initial folly, it almost reads like the setting of Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin where we see ‘There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader’, but the media was never a leader in the digital media (or media for that matter), they were merely facilitators to shareholders and stake holders, as such ‘their’ people are already the population of planet Google and Microsoft wants to annex that population in any way they can. So whilst the ACCC is setting a Microsoft stage, the media is still clueless on what is required. As we see “the core of the problem is that funding such journalism through advertising is no longer viable. Other solutions are needed – locally and nationally – to ensure its survival”, it is the larger setting they all relied on advertisers, advertiser whores for a better reference, yet in all this the newspapers are all drowning most pages in advertisements, it is partial evidence of remaining clueless. The owners needed to act over a decade ago, that is seen in the decrease from 60% to 12%, a decade of decrease and nothing was done and now that they are desperate Microsoft steps in, they will save the day, or so they say but will they? They only have a 7% global penetration, they did this to themselves by forgetting that the consumer had become in charge to some degree, it is what Google wanted all along, they merely became the facilitator of whatever the consumer required and requested, the media does not understand as they think that they are the centre of the universe, but in a global setting with thousands of voices they are merely a discord in a choir at best. 

So as the small players listening to the media are throwing away whatever options they have to the media, the media is locally acting to fill its pockets, although they will not see it that way and Microsoft is in a stage where they gain 25,000,000 bing users. And in that stage where 5G passes Microsoft by, the Australians will see a decade of hardship with no future options at all. Well some players will proclaim in their presentations that this is not the case, but when their presentations run dry and when we get to 2023 and players like Wesfarmers, Woolworths and JB HiFi will no longer be on a top 500 list, at that point some people will wonder why they listened to the silly people. I can only hope that my IP is sold before that because the hardship Australia faces with no global audience is not one I hope to rely on, and when you realise just how dangerous this setting is, you will not want that either.

In this when you realise that the media pushed you to a room in the sewer with that view, will you finally realise that the media, their shareholders, stakeholders and advertisers have sold you a bag of goods whilst calling it ‘life on quality street’? Who will you hold accountable the moment you realise that?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Two fold

I was in a situation, the river has come to a branch and if I take one path, I cannot take the other (today), I preferred to do the other story, but the dice are still rolling and they will continue on rolling for a day or two, so as I waited yesterday, I am now taking the other branch. The other branch takes me to an article by Bryan Clark and Dan Patt. Defense One gives us an article called ‘The Pentagon Needs Budget Agility to Compete with China’, the article (at https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/02/pentagon-needs-budget-agility-compete-china/172037/) is quite good. I have some reservations on a few matters, but that does not make their point of view false or incorrect. There is an issue with “Spending plans are built two years in advance to account for internal haggling and Congressional deliberation; and if appropriation delays require continuing resolutions, the gap between planning and execution grows even longer. Further entrenching funding choices, budgets are distributed into discrete program elements across multiple appropriation categories from operations and maintenance to procurement”, an example here is ‘if appropriation delays require continuing resolutions’ is not an incorrect statement, but there is a problem when the continuing resolution drives up the cost, not if the continuing resolution is to halt overspending (example USS Zumwalt), the other side is any project where software takes an unprecedented side of the cost (again the USS Zumwalt) and that is before you realise just how ugly that dinghy is. And that is before the larger picture becomes distorted. Should Prince Mohammad bin Salman approve my proposal to change one planned squadron to the upgraded Chengdu J-20, 1-2 billion dollars meant to go to the US treasury will not go there due to blocked arms sales, there is every indication that China will want to move in before Russia has the option. This is merely step one, the blocked deals in the US and the UK represent 4-7 billion in total (so far not all deals are blocked). Yet when we consider ‘The Pentagon Needs Budget Agility’, the Pentagon will see a new stage where agility goes to the basement. And in the end, they did it to themselves, all these one sided idiots blaming the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, all whilst the actions of Houthi and Iranian Houthis (read: Iran) are ignored is nothing short of really stupid and this year there will be a large price to pay, A stage where they all make claims that it does not really matter, yet the fact that up to $4,000,000,000 is lost to the US is nothing to snivel at. So when we are given “Almost all of DoD’s capabilities, even some innovative ideas like precision-guided weapons, are iteratively developed. These efforts suffer under today’s predictive and inflexible budget process” they seem to forget that the one option for the ‘inflexible budget process’ was a customer base that goes beyond the US. The lack of that will have repercussions, yet if I get my commissions, I will actually not care that much. Its a dog eat dog world and I am seeing the options of a nice juicy steak, so whilst silly Democrats hide behind ‘Anti-war Democrats applaud Biden for freeze on U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia’, I feel vindicated, because my share on selling a copy of Mario Kart is nothing compared to me selling Saudi Arabia a set of 6 Chengdu J-20’s and the loss to America is one that they did to themselves. Now if I can only muster the contacts to sell the other parts my life would soon become a lot less complex. 

It is nice to have a high moral ground, but on a bridge is it a lot harder to get all the fruit that are on the trees near the ground. Did they not understand that part?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics

Am I the hypocrite?

It is a fair question and it has been asked before. You see, I hate hypocrisy to the largest extent. And thanks to the Australian Arms Control Coalition (AACC) there is now a larger chance that I will be able to sell the Chinese Chengdu J-20 to Saudi Arabia. The planes are around $100 million each and I will try to start with 6 planes, with a service setting and training that will add up to almost a billion, as such 3.75% of $1,000,000,000 is still 37,500,000, with the option of two more sales tracks it adds up to serious money. To be honest, I would have preferred to sell the BAE Typhoon, yet the idiots t the CAAT made an end to that and as I want my commission, I will sell Chinese goods if I so please, so not only did the CAAT and the AACC not achieve anything, they dislodged their governments for a billion in taxable goods, as such things will go from bd to worse rather quickly. And as the ACCC is so about “Instead of exporting arms and military equipment to Saudi Arabia and the UAE for use in Yemen, Australia, the US, and other nations should be pressing these governments to end their unlawful attacks in Yemen and hold those responsible to account” (at https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/02/04/australia-freeze-arms-sales-saudi-arabia-uae), we see the stupidity of Elaine Pearson, Australia director at Human Rights Watch in action. You see they have absolutely nothing to stop the Iranian/Houthi side of things, and they started this mess. So the entire she said/she said mess that both the CAAT and the AACC are revolving around, the stage where we see is thwarted and made useless because they are focussing on one side and no one has the balls (especially Elaine Pearson) to do something about the Iranian side of things and it will get hampered more as the EU does not want any anti-Iranian intervention, they are still in that delusional stage where they think that they can offer some kind of nuclear pact that no one will heed, especially the Iranians. 

And in a one sided setting, I still whole heartedly agree that Saudi Arabia has a right to defend itself, in this the attacks by Houthi forces on Saudi civilian targets should enable Saudi forces to strike back, and if you do not know about the attacks on Saudi targets, it will be because the bulk of the western media remained silent on it, probably a stakeholder issue.

And as I have to eat at some point, I see no issue selling the Saudi Airforce the Chinese Chengdu J-20. In the first we are not at war with China, in the second it will be delivered to an established government, I feel that I am in the clear. 

So when I see “especially those who have committed grave violations against children”, I wonder just how Archie Law can continue with a brain that much lacking in insight, breathing should be the challenge he is facing. Houthi forces in Yemen have been systematically depriving food from Yemeni children. This has been known for well over 6 months, headlines like ‘Houthi militias attack humanitarian organisations, block aid to Yemenis’ are not new or unique. A one sided stage against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, it is time that those shortsighted voices are given a new level of opposition, as such I see no reason not to aid Saudi Arabia in acquiring the weapons they need to keep their nation safe. I reckon China will not object, especially if the end result is that they churn close to 9 billion from the EU, UK and US. I hope to get up to $2,000,000,000 in sales which will get me a nice retirement funds, but I am happy with just the one shipment (two is always better) and it gives me a larger stage to show just how shortsighted these people are. 

I know, I am slightly too angry, but that happens, we all have our short stages,, and mine is the hypocrisy of others. Just like that they are all about the actions against certain Chinese groups, yet the setting that Apple is accused of using slave labour is quickly silenced, I reckon that Apple and Nike are as advertisers too big for the newspapers to really take a look, it is my assumption that these two do not advertise on ABC, or am I wrong?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

Intelligence, Business Intelligence

The stage we see is the stage that is presented by all kinds of media. This time (apparently) it is not about slapping the media (alas). The stage is rather large and has a few corners that we consider and there is a lot to be considered off. 

The first part of the thought had been out within me for a while, I made more than one mention in the past, but not in relationship to Gamestop, I did made them in consideration to Nintendo. There is an active game that implies a relationship between hedge fund managers, a share of analysts and short selling. We accept the words by Larry Beinhart who gives us “it does not mean we are entering a new age where the power of Wall Street will be truly challenged”, yet the short selling remains an issue. The larger stage was (in a previous stage) where Nintendo would not make the ‘expected’ revenue, yet they were smashing it again and again, quarter after quarter, the short selling stage was set and it happened over the back of Nintendo, now we see that they are till breaking records. So when we see “A few of the little guys – with lots of time on their hands and access to online trading tools – told lots of little guys that if they all bet on GameStop by buying shares, the price would go up. That would force the short-sellers – who thought they had fixed the race – to also buy in order to cover their bets before the prices went even higher. This indeed pushed the prices higher. That was exciting and profitable and more people heard about it and jumped in”, yet this stage where some step in and block the short selling game, which in some views is not some form of gambling, but a setting to ‘rig’ the playing field is now under fire through social media, and the hatred that the amateur has towards hedge funds will not stop any day soon. As such the article (at https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/1/31/the-gamestop-affair-was-not-about-class-resentment-or-revenge) does not open a door but to some extent a gaping wound, and there is every chance that it will get worse.

Here too is the stage where I am part of the problem, a lot of us are, because we see short selling not as an art, but an emotional blemish on those who do perform we put emotion in the stage in stead of taking it out. I know that I am not exempt from that stage, yet I am aware that I am in this stage, for me Nintendo was the trigger, the attack on those who do perform and there is the problem. We are what we feel and I feel Nintendo did an amazing job (making Microsoft their bitch for one), and it is that sentiment that is basically part of the problem. The stage is not merely the hedge fund, it is the analyst who uses THEIR algorithm to set the stage and it is a two step stage that me, myself and I as well as plenty of others do not trust. You see, I never trusted the Nintendo dip of March 16th 2020, they were breaking records, they smashed past Microsoft and their online stores were raking in the cash, one could ague that rakes were designed, just to gather the Nintendo money, they were doing that well and now, nearly 9 months later they nearly doubled their value and well over 300% from 2017 when the Nintendo Switch was launched, and they have currently sold almost 50% more systems than the lifetime sales of the Xbox One, which had 5 additional years. In this I see pride, and a little of vindication on the lack of intelligence (read: stupidity) by Microsoft, and weirdly enough there aren’t that many short selling games involving Microsoft, as such the ‘game’ involving Gamestop shows a different game. A game that is speculatively set up against the smaller players that do not have the global support that a player like Microsoft seemingly has, but that could be my emotion speaking and I am upfront about it, because I am trying to properly inform you (well at least to some degree). 

And it is here where we look at the article by the Economist (at https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2015/11/10/a-companys-battle-to-show-it-was-a-victim-of-abusive-short-selling) 5 years ago. There we might notice the headline ‘A company’s battle to show it was a victim of abusive short-selling’, yet who noticed “the shorter can buy new shares more cheaply to settle with the lender, and pocket the difference, less a small amount of interest. Those who make their living this way do markets a big service, by seeking out and drawing attention to mispriced shares”, so whilst we consider ‘drawing attention to mispriced shares’, is anyone taking a larger look at the analyst and their arbitrary designed profile syntaxes? Is the stage ‘who is likely to loose value’ or is it ‘who is more susceptible to a short sell attack?’ And who has the goods that could prove either? We see that the short sell attack is thwarted on Gamestop, but gamers are a dedicated emotional bunch under the best of conditions, other players might not be that lucky. So who is looking at the Business Intelligence analyst?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Science

When is a contract not one?

Yes, I have been bitching over the last few days in regard to the sales contract that the EU was crying about, and we all understand that at times things are a bit more complex than we think it is. We all get that (me too), yet what happens when we start comparing notes?

So the larger stage started yesterday with ‘The lever for the nipple for the trigger’, the story gave us a larger situation, a situation most of the media was shallow about, so as we went from the Reuters story (at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccines-needles/analysis-russian-roulette-in-europe-as-needle-shortages-hamper-covid-19-shots-idUSKBN29Y10C) we ended up at the BBC where we see ‘EU-AstraZeneca disputed vaccine contract made public’. That story (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55852698), well actually it does not, it makes matters worse. It starts with “Transparency and accountability are important to help build the trust of European citizens and to make sure that they can rely on the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines purchased at the EU level”, just after we were given “pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca has agreed to publish the redacted contract”, yes in the EU transparency and redaction go hand in hand, in some places it is known as filtered content (see the media).

So when we have a look at the file above, we see “Through the contract, all Member States are able to purchase 300 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, with an option for a further 100 million doses”, I do not see this as a contract, it is an excuse and a poor one at that. In this, consider what you see here and then consider the Reuters quote that I used yesterday “So when we see ““accordance with locally approved labelling,” Pfizer said after the EU drugs regulator’s decision to shift to a six-dose label”, yet the question in my mind was “who, what, when, where, how and why was the setting of the change to a 6 dose label?”” I see this as the EU orders doses, after which an EU regulator allows the SAME VIAL to be used for 6 doses and then there is suddenly a syringe shortage, is anyone in the stage where the EU people are getting shafted by some EU regulators who seem to require their heads to be screwed on right?

Yet the EU get charged for the vial, regardless whether this gives the health care worker, 5 or 6 shots. An optional 16% wasted right off the bat. For a transparent organisation they are way too incompetent, in addition, I wonder if we see who pays for the new syringes, I am certain it will not be AstraZeneca, or darn, the article gives us that too. It gives us “BioNTech says it has procured 50 million needles that it can sell at cost to countries around the world, and is seeking to buy more”, so whilst a lot will be staring at the ‘at cost’, we seemingly forget that it was an extra expense, one that was not needed if the idiot EU regulator, would not have allowed for the label change from 5 doses to 6 doses on that same vial, my soft request is that this EU regulator is to get a dishonourable discharge dated to the day he allowed for that stupidity. At cost or not, BioNTech is making a killing on needles at present, because we might think it is at cost, it will come with a great tax option for them, and it is not that the EU do not need taxpayers, do they?

So whilst some are facing the call of coordination, we are (read: need to be) considering the impact of “In Germany, vaccine distribution is handled by the central government but its 16 federal states are responsible for obtaining the needles and syringes needed to inject them – with mixed results”, and that is merely one nation, set this to factor 26 and you see part of the mess the EU faces and in all this, how far will 50,000,000 needles get them and the rest, is that at cost as well or is that the surprise of the week? Are you still wondering why that EU regulator needs to be fired without benefits? I think the people in the EU have had enough of the gravy train, as this is going to cost lives, the people will catch on and demand the rolling of heads in the EU commissions, are you with me on this one?

Should you doubt me  consider the final quote “Saxony, on the Czech border, is also having to shop around as scarce supply forces up prices, said Lars Werthmann, regional head of vaccine logistics at the German Red Cross”, consider the earlier statement ‘at cost’ and now we see ‘scarce supply forces up prices’, so are the 50 million syringes used already? The EU is a fill your pockets organisation and that is also why I wanted the UK to leave the EU, the EU will not police itself or allow any policing of the gravy train and that is why I am happy that the UK left, the EU will learn that the cost of non-policing will come at a cost, I merely wonder if they can afford it, I think no, but in that I could be wrong.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

The lever for the nipple for the trigger

It is a setting that made me giggle, I had not heard this for decades, I reckon the last time I heard it was in the 70’s, the full phrase was “the lever for the nipple for the trigger that sets the button is out of stock”, a stage that we see in a complex environment where all the eyes are fixated on the engine, and everyone forgot about the control panel that activates the engine. That was the sentiment when I was confronted with ‘“Russian roulette” in Europe as needle shortages hamper COVID-19 shots’. The article (at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccines-needles/analysis-russian-roulette-in-europe-as-needle-shortages-hamper-covid-19-shots-idUSKBN29Y10C) gives us “Laurent Fignon, a geriatric doctor in the south of France, is having to improvise as he gives shots of the COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech to care home residents and health staff because supplies of the right needles and syringes are short”, a stage where everyone sees the need of the vaccine and there is seemingly a national stage (all over Europe) a stage Reuters warned us about a week earlier with ‘EU scrambles for syringes to avoid wasting Pfizer vaccines and extra cost’ yet a lot of people have not caught on, as people scrambled to get their share of 3,000,000,000 vials. Exactly by whom and where do we see the order of a similar amount of syringes?
So when we see ““accordance with locally approved labelling,” Pfizer said after the EU drugs regulator’s decision to shift to a six-dose label”, yet the question in my mind was “who, what, when, where, how and why was the setting of the change to a 6 dose label?” An important setting as we are faced with an seemingly speculated option that the people got shafted for 16% of all vaccines, especially when we consider the quote “It was initially sold in the EU in vials meant to deliver five doses, but a global shortage of shots and a viability assessment on dosage convinced the EU drugs regulator to approve on Jan. 8 the extraction of six doses from the same vials”, so which yahoo was the ‘EU drugs regulator’ approving this part? That person might have valid reasoning, but when I look back at the times when a 60 people life-raft held 61 people, that one person to stay alive basically condemned the other 60 to death, but the people tend to overlook that part too easily. And as we get to “The decision increased availability, prompting Pfizer to raise its output targets for this year to 2 billion vaccines from 1.3 billion initially envisaged”, so who is looking into the 16% shift to account towards the 60% shortage of doses, or is the 16% step a way to hide the fact that matters were much worse? I am merely asking, because either way shows that I have been right since mid 2020, and is it not interesting that it took the media this long to catch on (which is not their fault in this case, mind you)? 

So when we see everyone shout for vaccines and we are confronted with “Similar shortages are cropping up elsewhere in Europe, complicating a stuttering start to vaccination efforts”, we need to take a look at their syringe orders as well. So when we see “Pfizer now forecasts it will produce 2 billion doses this year, but this assumes it will be possible to extract the full six from each vial. It charges by the dose, meaning the cost of a vial has gone up 20%” we now get to the question “was the vial created to set 6 doses? As such was it bigger, if not, and we give the people merely 96% of the dose, does it still work properly? More important, when you realise that getting 100% out of a vial is almost impossible, just like the 61st passenger on a lifeboat, how many will be endangered by this? Should the danger be 0% (which is always possible) then why are several EU members making such a ruckus on this? Is it to hide the possibility that they forgot to order the syringes?

And as Reuters gives us “The European Commission is pressing Pfizer and German partner BioNTech to deliver more of the low-dead-space needles to extract the extra dose” we get to the heart of the matter. A mere approach to flim-flam the numbers and how many needles were ordered and more important when were they ordered? Yet in all this, looking at numerous sources, we see a lack of explanation where we get ‘meaning the cost of a vial has gone up 20%’, is that merely the needle? I don’t think so, the numbers are debatable and no one is looking, nw I will be the first to admit that this is not my field of expertise, and optionally it was a Reuters interpretation of the facts (which is optionally not wrong), and it could have been handed to Reuters in this way, but the lack of questions on all this is staggering. 

You see, the first in a whole range of questions is seen with “For buyers of the vaccine, however, there was a drawback because EU states face the prospect of paying the price of six doses for each vial, regardless of their ability to extract a sixth shot”, from my point of view I would grasp back to the original sales contract in three cases already the stage was set to emotion, all whilst we are facing the raw sales deal and EU politicians seem to rely on emotion rather than the contract that was drawn up, I wonder why.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics, Science

The deal compared to morality

There we have it, several sources voiced it yesterday. I wanted to answer then, but I wanted to look at it a little more. There is no reason to stop it, there is no reason to avoid it, it is a false setting of morality, nothing more. 

As President Biden has stated that they will ‘Biden administration pauses weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, UAE’, now in itself that they can do that, but it is the by-line that caught my eye “arms sales aims to ensure they advance US ‘strategic objectives’”, I am on the fence there, I accept that the American have an agenda, they always do. Yet what about the agenda to allow the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to defend itself? In addition, is there an acceptable stage where ‘strategic objections’ will overrule basic needs? The US has a 25 trillion dollar debt, to alienate  basic source of income seems extremely counterproductive. I am very willing to step in and set a stage where the KSA will consider the hardware, consultancy and support from the UK and the BAE. I will happily take the 3.75% commission, even if it is initially only over $1,000,000,000. That still means I end up with a taxable $37,500,000, I’m not greedy, merely facilitating. And that amount is a decent amount to set retirement to. Now, is this merely greed driven?

No, I believe that any sovereign state has a basic right to defend itself, and even as we to some degree understand that the anti-war people who are in London Ontario and CAAT in the UK trying to stop the arms deals, I believe that they are misguided, they are, so that they are stating that this is fuelling the Yemeni war, In comparison we should see them as allied pacifists opponents of WW2, stopping the allies from continuing war in Europe, whilst Europe is being attacked by Germans and no one does anything there. In this setting Germany is played by Iran, Iran is continuing to fuel Houthi forces with weapons, weapons that are aimed at Saudi civilian targets and that is a big no-no in my book.

The second part is that I prefer to capture the revenue in western ways, because there pacifists seem to be ignorant of the setting that China or Russia will deal with Saudi Arabia, with the future investment that they have set both nations want to have a slice of that pie and even more, they like it just fine if the west (UK or USA) will not get that revenue. That is the setting we seem to face, billions of revenue will go towards the west, Russia or China and the media is seemingly unable to properly inform us, more important I have spoken in the past on the setting that western media remained SILENT on several attacks by Houthi’s on Saudi civilian targets, more important they have downplayed the acts by Iran, even though it is blatantly obvious that Yemen has no infrastructure, no trained users and no way to properly guide drones. Yemen lacks that ability and some sources have clearly stated that. I see the essential need to stop Iran by making sure that the KSA is able to stop Iran, the stage that we are informed on is the need for ‘strategic objectives’, perhaps destabilisation is what the USA needs in the Middle East, and is that not worse than prolonging one war that the KSA never started, but was asked to assist in by the legitimate government of Yemen? 

So when Arab News gives us ‘Are Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthis firing warning shots across Biden administration’s bows?’, yet the Sydney Morning Herald gives us ‘Economic profiteering is fuelling the war in Yemen: UN panel’ which was yesterday, with two mentions of Iran, one being ““an increasing body of evidence suggesting that individuals and entities” in Iran supply “significant volumes of weapons and components to the Houthis””, a stage that has existed for well over 5 years, so after that time we see ‘an increasing body of evidence suggesting’, how deranged is that level of filtering? All whilst we are told “the Central Bank broke its foreign exchange rules, manipulated the foreign exchange market and “laundered a substantial part of the Saudi deposit in a sophisticated money-laundering scheme” that saw traders receive a $US423-million windfall”, so traders walked out with part of the $2,000,000,000 deposited by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to “intended to fund credit to buy commodities – such as rice, sugar, milk and flour – to strengthen food security and stabilise domestic prices”, all whilst the Central Bank of Yemen had its own path to set the needs of that money, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the painted bad person? (At https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/economic-profiteering-is-fueling-the-war-in-yemen-un-panel-20210127-p56xar.html)

So in all this, me taking a stance for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or perhaps better stated a stance AGAINST Iran is greed driven? We need a stable strong nation in the Middle East and we have 8-12 years of data that Iran will never be that player, all in a stage where the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has a plan to evolve towards a non oil driven economy, how is this a bd thing? How is the simple fact that Saudi Arabia is trying to make Neom City, a place 20 times the size of New York, a feat never ever done before by any nation and all I see is trivialisation and downplaying by other media, how is that an act by any evolved nation? That plan gave me the idea to create the 5G IP I have and as such Neom City is a start of innovation, and in that stage if Huawei completes that level of innovation all whilst at present 5G in Saudi Arabia is 725% faster than the 5G in the USA, the difference is that much and when Huawei sets that stage in Neom City, we lose, in that stage I would rather see Saudi Arabia as our friend than our enemy.

The world stage is changing and the greed driven iterative idiots in the US and the EU are setting a stage where we are left with no options, at that point where will you run, because if it is up to China, we are left with nothing, so is it that much a stretch to set a stage where preferably the BAE sets a larger stage with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a larger player? Consider that the stage changes, where do you want to be, in the arms of filtered news creators who hide the facts, or drive innovation? Because I can tell you where Saudi Arabia and China want to end up, they want to be on the far end of innovation, when the Chinese apps come at the uberspeed that Huawei can deliver, we lose and we lose a lot. It is a simple equation, and the western media telling you that it is more complex will add all kinds of actors that given to them by their stake holders, and guess who they are?

We are running out of time, the entire Corona setting did that to us, it forces us to make a choice much earlier than most wanted to and the US and their friends at Ericsson and Nokia are out of time and options. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics, Science

Panem et circenses

Yes, this setting is as old as the hills, the Italian hills mind you. We get this view from Decimus Junius Juvenalis who had a view on life and society 1800-1900 years ago that seems to reflect on the now. His view reflected on superficial appeasement, a stage we have been in for around 20-30 years. We (a collection of nations) became nanny states, but the politicians have no way to deal with the impact of the cost of living in that way. So whilst we might notice that politicians are here to generate public approval, not by excellence in public service or public policy, but by diversion, distraction or by satisfying the most immediate or base requirements of a populace, even as most comprehend that Donald Trump is merely the latest version of bad management, he is not alone, this is happening all over Europe as well, and to some extent the media is playing along as long as their owners get a slice of that pie, or is that pizza?

No matter how we tell ourselves it is, we created this stage by letting a few loose cannons set expenditure without accountability. So when I see ‘The only answer: squeeze the super-rich’, I wonder if he has any clue on how deranged that path of thinking truly is. In this, I have to take caution. I might not agree with Simon Jenkins, yet he is entitled to his view. I feel that it is unacceptable to merely bash the man with a dictionary. So as we see the full title ‘Covid has made inequality even worse. The only answer: squeeze the super-rich’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/news/commentisfree/2021/jan/26/covid-inequality-worse-squeeze-super-rich), it is the by-line that matters. Here we see “It’s not right that the world’s 10 richest people have amassed £400bn since the start of the pandemic while billions struggle”, in this he might not be wrong, but does he have a case? Consider that COVID was not any person’s fault, it merely was, we had the Spanish flu 100 years ago, we have COVID now and these 10 people are not to blame, whilst the politicians made the people lazy and content with bread and games (McDonalds & Netflix), some went out and did something, they had made solutions that applied to isolation and they got to cash in. My IP would have been great, yet it was never designed for that, I looked at the plans for Neom City (Saudi Arabia) and came up with the solution, all whilst I also designed an additional system to optionally limit cyber crimes, and if it is not sold soon, I will make it Public Domain and let the hungry feast on that free IP and ruffle a few feathers along the way. 

So when I saw ‘squeeze the super-rich’, all whilst politicians are largely to blame as they refused to overhaul tax laws for 20-30 years, and even make more essential adjustments to tax write offs in the last 10 years, you see where I found the snare of the loom of discord in the writing of Decimus Junius Juvenalis. So when I see “it is hard to quarrel with the report’s conclusion that current economic policies have enabled “a super-rich elite to amass wealth in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression, while billions of people are struggling to make ends meet””, all whilst the Great Depression is the stage we face, can anyone help me remember who set the stage of the the 47-storey Waldorf-Astoria Hotel that opened in 1931 at a cost of $42 million ($600 million today)? The rich had a really good life then and some truck out, greed driven and losing their fortune as the depression hit America, 70 years ago, so how was that solved? Well, we got rid of plenty of people by setting the stage towards WW2, we look at people like J. Paul Getty and Barbara Hutton, but we fail to notice the mess that politicians allowed to happen in the first place, so how will it end now? We might blame that list of 10, but what happens when I get lucky (you gotta get lucky sometimes), will it be my fault, or was my crime to innovate what people forgot about and I got to cash in? Most of us, we all catered to some politicians by accepting the Hamburger and watch Netflix (or Disney Plus), I wonder if anyone on the lit of 10 had any time to watch Netflix, to get the hamburger (the second most likely yes). There is a saying that I saw a few years back: “behind every successful man or woman is a deactivated Facebook account”. There is a ring of truth there and it sets the stage of emotional flames on social media, so whilst we drown in those messages and responses, we forgot to look at the ball and watch someone else take it to success. It is the impact of bread and circuses and even as there is some acceptance on the view of Simon Jenkins, he is seemingly ignoring the bread and circuses stage that has been going on for 20 years, even if one of the ten is paying for the circus, there is a stage where we see that politicians failed its population close to completely, as I see it, it is time to ask the hard questions, but that is a stage that politicians dread, so they will appeal to the media to set all kinds of talks that are about emotion and less about fact, or sales deals for vaccines where the EU relies on the word ‘hope’ and not on the clear contract that needed to be there (see yesterday’s article for details). 

The stage of Panem et circenses will come to a halt soon enough, because the governments of a whole list of nations are out of money, they all owe the banks and the list of 10, who can now set a very different agenda, you are either a consumer, and enabler or useless. If you fall into category 3 hard times are ahead, hard times unlike you ever faced because governments will no longer be able to assist you. It is the price of a nanny state, it’s good going until the invoice is due, at which point the people behind that push are gone, gone like snowflakes in a heatwave. So whilst Jenkins gives us “it is for governments to track down and police those who, far from not paying enough tax, pay little or none at all. They grow rich by keeping their wealth offshore and refusing to contribute to treasuries from which they and their families draw a lifetime of benefit. The billions of dollars in the world’s protected tax havens”, I merely wonder if he comprehends the setting that these tax havens and tax options exist because politicians refused to take care of business in the last 20 years, the stage that they all avoid is that these super rich people did not break any laws, their accountants saw options, their accountants used options that governments allowed to happen. All whilst they now flame Google on news, in a stage that this is to aid a few Murdoch type of people, all whilst the tax overhaul would have helped all, you did realise this, did you not? And when Google does go, as I stated days ago, small business will suffer to a much larger degree than they ever thought possible, and why? All because papers are no longer dependent on news, they are dependent on their advertisers, a stage of what I personally see as filtered content (instead of news) has a much larger impact, the people are seeing this too and they resort to apps by Al Jazeera, BBC, the Guardian et al. And the people are also realising that the politicians are part of the problem, not part of the solution, but so far there is no real solution, yet in my view, the first part of a solution is seeing that you have a problem and as I personally see it those relying on Panem et circenses are a massive problem. In the year that we had COVID, I designed the foundation of 5G IP, the setting for almost a dozen video games, 2 movies and a TV series. Now, I need to find a way to sell it in a trustworthy way (or make it public domain), because that stage too is still thwart with dangers, enablers look in two ways, those they enable so that they are enabled and those they serve enabling them to the position that they are in now and in all this, the laws and politicians have set a stage that is unequal, but not in the way Simon Jenkins sees it it is inequality to further those in key positions. These so called friends of the media and politicians who offer you a golden deal, yet they will never deliver, they merely apologise for setting the wrong stage due to miscommunication from your side and then walk off with your idea. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science