Category Archives: Finance

February 5, 2021 · 02:25

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?

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 1, 2021 · 03:46

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

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

January 30, 2021 · 21:26

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).

Vaccines__contract_between_European_Commission_and_AstraZeneca_now_publishedDownload

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

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

January 30, 2021 · 00:17

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

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

January 29, 2021 · 00:07

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

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 26, 2021 · 22:26

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

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 26, 2021 · 04:09

Angry stupid people?

Yup that is the debate, can stupid people validate their anger? Optionally can angry people validated b e stupid as well? We know plenty of angry people, we know our share of stupid people too, but the combination is always out there for debate, was the stupid person debatably angry, was the angry person be optionally stupid? Yup, I could go on all day, so when I saw ‘Brussels angry with AstraZeneca: ‘had plenty of time for production’’ at Dutch news site NOS (at https://nos.nl/artikel/2365932-brussel-kwaad-op-astrazeneca-ruim-de-tijd-gehad-voor-productie.html), I thought I had hit the jackpot, I can vent all over that person. And it starts at the very beginning where we see: “The European Commission and EU countries are meeting this afternoon with pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca to discuss the slower delivery of vaccines. Brussels hoped for 80 million doses in the first quarter of this year, but that seems to be only 31 million”, and we need to take careful notice of ‘Brussels hoped for 80 million doses’, where in the entire setup of business needs is ‘hope’ valid? It’s called a sales contract, and there the stipulations are made, that has been the case for decades, which jester got elected to that Brussels seat? As such, when I saw “We understand that there could be problems in the production phase, but we have invested large amounts of money to ensure that much of the vaccine would be produced before it was even approved. Then we expect production to actually take place”, here we need to take notice of ‘to ensure that much of the vaccine would be produced before it was even approved’, oh man, this is fantastic, this is the funniest jester since the one murdered in Venice (1497), I just cannot stop laughing. And they aren’t done with making jokes at the European Commission, we then get “The European Commission ordered 300 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine and most of the doses of this vaccine should be in within the next six months”, which is fair enough, so please produce and publish the sales contract, it should stipulate the delivery time, and the amounts delivered, or at least a final date of delivery of all the ordered doses, where is that? As such, when we are given “It is not known exactly how much Brussels has paid AstraZeneca in advance, but it is likely to be hundreds of millions of euros. That money was intended to produce the vaccine in advance, so that large quantities would be ready by the time approval would follow. AstraZeneca received that money, but the question now is whether it actually produced”, can anyone explain to me who the thickheaded dickhead was that is relying on ‘intended to produce the vaccine in advance’, and where in the sales contract it is given? Creating a vaccine in advance (before approval) is dangerous, it also means that sanitising any system that was involved would take days if not weeks, so who was that stupid and if you are THAT stupid, are you allowed to be angry?

And I made reference to the timeline in OCTOBER 2020 in my article ‘As jobs become available’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/10/31/as-jobs-become-available/) I gave a clear setting (I looked it up) that the setting of “on top of that Sanofi is one source stating that they can make 2.5 million doses a day. This gets us to the 2 billion shots, taking 800 days to make and that is if everything goes right the first time. So there will be a waiting list that is well over 2 years and that is WHEN a vaccine is a reality”, so please reveal to us the name of this Jester of the European Commission, he is highly entertaining, optionally that person is in the wrong line of work, unless he produces the contracts that give us the time lines that they mention, and if it is EC contracts, we are all allowed to know, are we not? So when we decide to kick AstraZeneca, lets make sure that we are given the low-down on what was set on paper regarding deliveries. Because a simple abacus gave us the setting that the EC in Brussels had no validity, especially  when we consider the places where this stuff could be made and what was agreed on. That part is openly missing pretty much everywhere, so why are these EC members paid a horrendous amount just to be this stupid? I wonder, don’t you?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , ,

January 25, 2021 · 23:18

Perspective

We all need it, you, me and all around us, it is essential to set a stage where we are able to set dimensionality of what we know, what we think we know and how it relates to everything around us. There are to benefits, the first is the ‘blinker’ effect. In the old days (and ever today) horses were given blinkers as to not get alarmed by what was happening around them, we too need blinkers. If we take in everything around us we might get anxiety. Now, we do not need actual blinkers, we day dream, we focus, we set the view to what we (at times) need to see. Some focus too much and get this tunnel view where the larger image would have been useful, but that is not always the case, it is at times arbitrary.

How about an example. There is talk of Google search leaving Australia, so here we see ‘A Google exit could open door for publisher deals with smaller players: ACCC’, a quote by Competition tsar Rod Sims, my somewhat less diplomatic view is “Is this Sims out of his fucking mind?”, you see the media has almost no credibility left, if you need an example of that, consider the news (by Dutch NOS) on December 25th (at https://nos.nl/artikel/2362024-leids-onderzoek-veel-gebruikte-sneltest-minder-betrouwbaar-dan-gedacht.html), I wrote about it in ‘The lull of writing’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/28/the-lull-of-writing/), in that time, which media format gave us any information? In light of todays news (at https://www.smh.com.au/world/oceania/what-we-know-about-the-new-zealand-northland-case-20210125-p56wre.html) a month after the Dutch situation we are given all kinds of filtered information, including a new South African version, with the added “but there’s no evidence to suggest an increase in disease severity or fatality rates”, and there we have it, no mention of ‘False Negatives’ at all, something that was out for a month from reliable sources mind you. In addition, we see the NewScientist giving us ‘Covid-19 news: UK variant may be 30 per cent more deadly’ (at https://www.newscientist.com/article/2237475-covid-19-news-uk-variant-may-be-30-per-cent-more-deadly) and here I accept that one source does not validate the second part, yet Sky News gives us that it ‘may be’ more deadly, which indicates that there is no proof, and other sources do not gives us anything, not even any form of opposition of the two elements, which could be valid, but the news is no longer about informing us, but giving us filtered information (which is their shareholders, stake holders and advertisers version of censorship), as such are we confronted by censorship or scenesoreship? I let you decide, yet the stage that the media gives us in opposition to Google, all whilst they have little to no credibility at present (well most of them anyway) leaves us out in the open wondering why we pay for that level of news anyway, are the shareholders and advertisers not paying them? So whilst Bloomberg gives us ‘Australia Says ‘Inevitable’ Google Will Have to Pay for News’ (at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-24/australia-says-inevitable-google-others-have-to-pay-for-news) people like Australia’s Treasurer Josh Frydenberg better realise that they are now walking with a target on their backs, you see, they might hide behind “it’s “inevitable” that Google and other tech behemoths will have to eventually pay for using media content”, all whilst that pussy refused (read: was unable) to overhaul tax laws, tax laws that impact all (including Apple, Netflix and Amazon), and in that setting, we will hold HIM accountable for filtered content, all whilst these news players give us links on Twitter, Facebook and Google Search that leads to advertisements to pay for reading their news, these advertisements are in the news sections, so where do we get OUR money back? So whilst we see “Frydenberg said Australia could either be a “world leader” in pushing for the code or wait to follow others in passing similar legislation”, or Australia becomes option 3, namely irrelevant. A nation with 25 million people is not that relevant, especially when it is as isolated as Australia is. And in that light, when Google moves out, what will Australia do when it realises that there are cogs to digital advertisement and commerce falls down and down, rely on the yellow pages, or a yellow solution (Chinese e-advertisement options). The news dug its own hole, it catered to Murdoch frenzy who pushed towards glossy pages, which is nice in the UK where there are 25 different newspapers on every corner, that is not the setting in Australia, so when the Australian Epoch Times overtakes any of the Australian papers, I will be howling with laughter, these people dug their own graves, relying on entertainment TV (channel 7, channel 9) to give us the filtered information (read: Australian news) all whilst the people were never considered in the first place. 

Now, there will be peope out there that my perspective is wrong, and I am fine with that, so the best thing to do is to investigate, the news that BBC, Reuters and Al Jazeera gives all, whilst we take a look at local newspapers and see what information is missing, as well as from their online versions. I saw the start well before 2012, but in November 2012 the news agents filtered out what gamers needed to know, there we see the larger issue. Trivialising a setting with ‘there is a memo’ whilst the terms of service are a legal setting between consumer and industrial, the memo was not, any meeting could destroy the memo, it could not diminish any agreed terms of service and 30 million gamers were about to get hit, the filtered information bringers left that out, and they have been leaving things out for a decade, the ‘False Negative’ issue as reported  by Frits Rosendaal from the Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum (LUMC) gave us this a month ago, and it impacts a lot more people than 30 million people, so where was this news? If you do not read Dutch you might not know this and you all needed to know this, which is opposing the view of Shareholders, stake holders and advertisers. So why do we pay for filtered information?

It is a stage of perspective, I will let you decide whether a false negative in a corona viral issue could affect you, your mum or nana. Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 24, 2021 · 22:29

Setting a standard

As I am rewatching the Stand (1996), I am also interested watching the new version when it is released. A stage where we wonder if the Stand is fiction or a stage where it becomes future history, and if that is debatable,  should the Stand now be seen as a documentary? You think I am joking, but merely partially so. You see, the news gives us ‘Ten Republicans voted to impeach Donald Trump. The backlash has been swift’ (at https://www.sbs.com.au/news/ten-republicans-voted-to-impeach-donald-trump-the-backlash-has-been-swift). A stage tht SBS gives and a lot do not, why is that? So as we see “In Michigan, a challenger to Mr Meijer received a boost when Steve Bannon promoted him on his podcast”, we should wonder if Steve Bannon, who was (quote NY Times) “charged on Thursday with defrauding donors to a private fund-raising effort called We Build the Wall, which was intended to bolster the president’s signature initiative along the Mexican border”, should we give any consideration to a person who was pardoned before it went to court? And this is a man who was directly connected to Cambridge Analytica. A person like that is (as I personally see it) tainted, and as such I wonder if we can trust a person who is challenging Peter Meijer in Michigan. I personally see it that anyone pushed forward by Steve Bannon will come at a cost, can we afford to accept that? It is equally an issue that there were only 10 republicans on the impeachment side, I reckon that they are ten people who still have some level of morals and the US has seen enough moral-less behaviour.

The setting is a lot bigger than you think, as we see the far right scrapping for attention, we also see the danger of Trumpism, especially in a stage where its industrial complexes are surpassed by China. We hear all the accusations of IP theft, yet so far the US, Sweden (Ericsson) and Finland (Nokia) are barely catching up with China, they are still decently behind Huawei, and if that IP was stolen, they would at the very least be on par and Europe is catching on. The US is about to become irrelevant. Irrelevant due to a $25 trillion debt, irrelevant due to a lack of innovation and irrelevant due to Trumpism, the US needs to set a standard, the Republicans need to set a standard and they have to do it fast, or they will not be seen in office until past 2035, optionally past 2039. With the Democratic nanny state in charge, and no exit strategy in place, the Corona issues will merely set a much faster downfall than ever seen before. Even now we are treated to ‘New Zealand reports first case in the community in months’, the cause was a woman who had been in self isolation for 2 weeks. And it gets to be worse, what I warned for recently is now a given “The Ministry of Health said the woman had tested negative twice before leaving an isolation facility in Auckland on 13 January”, we see one patient and two false negatives, yet the media is drowning the events. Then we see ‘despite Pfizer shortages overseas’, a setting I expected as the amounts required were nowhere near possible and in all this the stage of properly informing the public is out of the question, we see small bites of events and I see a lot as I check 8-14 news sources, but a lot of it will not be seen everywhere, merely in some places, and why is that? Sop whilst the US is trying to figure things out, the world has its own demons to fight and in all this the media is seen as less and less reliable. 

We need to set a standard, we need to stop facilitating and we need to hold people to account, that includes politicians that facilitate for greed and industrial needs, and as the media (in this case the Guardian give us “World Health Organization estimates air pollution kills more than 7 million people each year”, we still see the absence of the actual issue, even as they source against ‘1% of people cause half of global aviation emissions’, a stage that is debatable at best, the Guardian is actively ignoring the fact that the European Environment Agency told us all that 1% of ALL plants are responsible for 50% of the Air pollution damages, they did not come out against with evidence, no with the Commercial world having 24,000 planes flying, we get “Frequent-flying “‘super emitters” who represent just 1% of the world’s population caused half of aviation’s carbon emissions in 2018, according to a study”, so 80,000,000 people caused that, all whilst the 1% of plants are more manageable, so why keep us in the dark? Hiding behind the word ‘study’ is equally BS. And the setting will get worse as the nanny state pussies will cater to the media again and again, because, as I personally see it, they cater to the share holders, the stake holders and the advertisers and they are the industrials that are greed, revenue driven, contribution driven and profit driven, and if you think that Trumpism is a problem, the sliding of standards is pushing Trumpism to the surface, because the greed driven profit from that side too, and that is debatable, I know that, I get it and I understand it. Consider the quote from a comedy ‘Operation Petticoat’ (1959) where we are treated to the quote “In confusion there is profit!”, we are living the confusion, you better believe that someone is banking on the profit, and until we regain a setting of standards this will continue.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 22, 2021 · 15:32

When is news not news?

Yup, the news is overwhelmingly misdirecting. Now, I have no issue with stupid people, these politicians are to the larger extend greed driven and not the greatest source of reliable information. This has always been the case, you see politicians are all about constituents, yet an industrial constituent beats ten unemployed constituent, that is because the unemployed version does not prolong his or her career, the industrial could be a donor and set the politician up for life, that has always been the largest setting, it was for the longest time most visible in the US, but now it seems, Australia is about to follow suit. This is seen in a few ways, but let’s take a look at the first.

ABC gives us (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-22/google-stop-search-engine-australia-news-media-code/13079912) “Prime Minister Scott Morrison has pushed back against a threat by Google to stop making its search engine available in Australia if it is forced to pay news outlets for showing links to their websites and stories under a new media code”, you think that this is a simple thing, but the less intelligent person (currently prime minister), is not looking through his glasses, they are merely spectacles. In all this, it is about paying for news, yet the silly people (read: politicians) are being played a fool. This is seen when we Google ‘Google Australia’ looking for this news.

We are given the link, which gives us a subscription image and this paper is not the only one doing that, they are using news items for advertisement, so why exactly does goole have to pay for THAT privilege?

You might be Prime Minister Scott, but you do not have a fucking clue what you are tainting with adjusted media laws, perhaps you need to cater less to Murdoch wannabe’s and consider the larger frame (which you do not fathom). And in all this, your team (as well as the Labor team) to overhaul tax laws in a just way, your greed driven friends did not allow for that, did they? So you created a digital ship that is not is not waterproof, not sea worthy and optionally is unaware of the setting called liquid. So when the impact of no Google hits Australian businesses they will all scream and then you are shown to be the loser you really are.

And this is not new, I mentioned this before and over that time no true investigation was done. And when we consider “The two companies are fighting against legislation currently before the parliament which would force the digital platforms to enter into negotiations with news media companies for payment for content”, I wonder why, consider that the news media has the option not to be digital, not to be online, not to show content, but that is just too much for them and Scott Morrison knows this, so like a Dick (Turpin) he goes from digital firm to digital firm like a highway robber, all whilst the setting of the news outlets are debatable at best and they have been for several years (ABC and SBS excluded), and as such why should Google pay? These links are offered, so tell the news media to stop offering these links, I reckon that when the Courier Mail and the Australian can no longer advertise in that way, they too will cry like little girls. 

Did I oversimplify the issue here?

So when we consider “forced to pay news outlets for showing links to their websites and stories under a new media code”, Google can just block all the Australian news sources and offer BBC, Al Jazeera, Fox News, Guardian UK and CNN links. Let not forget that the bulk of Australian news is shoddy at best and most of them all copy and paste from an American source (Reuters), when you make a tally, we see a setting (as I personally see it) where the news in Australia is not news, it is filtered content to appease shareholders, stake holders and advertisers in Australia, as such, when they lose their Google links the game will get rather interesting soon enough, but that is merely my $0.02 on the matter.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , ,