Category Archives: Finance

June 21, 2014 · 20:48

Legally and Criminally Insane?

There is an issue that had been on my mind for a long time. First of all, I do not have a car. I had a motorcycle for a while, but not at present. I never cared for cars that much. When you live in the big city, a car tends to be an expensive asset and it rarely gives you additional time. I learned that if one manages their time correctly you get heaps done without a car. It does not always work that way, I can admit that and for almost half a century, I have only desperately needed a car around 10 times. So, for me, a car is really not that needed.

You might wonder where this is going!

I just read an article, basically the second driver in a series of thoughts (at http://news.sky.com/story/1286644/brakes-slammed-on-over-zealous-spy-cars). The first one is a number of articles all pointing back to speed cameras (at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/10613388/Motorway-speed-cameras-to-be-rolled-out-to-stop-those-driving-faster-than-70mph.html) and a third topic in this matter can be found at http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/trending-news/parking-fines-by-councils-reach-nearly-255-million-in-2013-with-tables-of-the-top-finers-by-local-authority/.

So, why these issues? We have traffic laws (UK, Australia and heaps of other nations). They are not like the three rules I got explained for driving a car in Egypt (in 1982), where it seemed that:

1. If you did not honk your horn, you are at fault.
2. The heaviest car has right of way.
3. A non-Egyptian is always at fault.

They seem simple and pretty much fit the bill.

In most Commonwealth countries we have set rules on speeding and parking. So, I do not get the problem when people start bitching over speeding tickets. Was there a speed limit? There always is and there is always a reason why it did not apply to that person. I reckon 1 out of 250 will have the actual honest defence that they missed the speed limit sign, which gives us 249 people who should keep quiet and just pay up, or should they?

Now, I will admit that I am slightly on the fence towards the topic with the title “Brakes Slammed On ‘Over-Zealous Spy Cars’“. Is that really a wrong approach?

Even though the heart of the matter quoted “These measures will deliver a fairer deal for motorists, ensuring that parking enforcement is proportionate, that school children are protected and buses can move freely, and that key routes are kept clear“, which is fair enough. My issue is that these people parked illegally, so why is that an issue?

The quote “CCTV spy cars can be seen lurking on every street raking in cash for greedy councils and breaking the rules that clearly state that fines should not be used to generate profit for town halls” remains funny as most town halls will never ever make profit, even if we fine roughly 87.2254% of the London motorists, London would still come up short by a sizeable amount.

It is in the area of the parking fines article we see this quote “The capital is extremely congested so we’d expect to see a higher number of restrictions in place and penalties being issued. However, there is a fine line between fair and opportunistic that councils shouldn’t be tempted to cross.” Here I wonder how to react. You see, if the council revokes a driver’s licence after 3-4 fines for no less than one year, it seems to me that the congestion problem will solve itself overnight. I agree that these transgressions are not in the league of Manslaughter or Grievous bodily harm, but laws are laws and are traffic laws any less? (Well, less than murder, yes!) There will always be excuses and some will remain valid.
‘L or P plates correctly displayed at start of journey‘, which in all honesty could happen. There is ‘on medical grounds‘, where the driver was helping a victim into a hospital. There will always be a grey area that we in all honesty must deal with. These are the parking fines and there are a few more valid reasons, but some are just out there. I felt a lot less lenient when it comes to speeding. You see, there is always that joker who thinks he is in control and when speeding goes wrong, he refuses to die for the sake of it, but will have killed someone else. When we read that: “X (name removed) was jailed for eight months for causing death by careless driving“, I wonder why that person is not spending life in jail for murder. the quote “Believing they were walking ‘deliberately slowly’, she engaged the clutch and revved the engine of her Honda Civic to scare them off the road while her car was still moving at around the 30mph speed limit” gives additional feelings of anger. These pedestrians were at a pedestrian crossing? 8 months jail and a two year ban is all she had to do, which in my book seems just wrong.

It is the quote “We are opposed to speed cameras in general. The evidence of their success in promoting safety is not good and in reality what is happening now is that the police are using speed cameras to fund their other activities through speed awareness courses.” by Roger Lawson, a spokesman for the Alliance of British Drivers (ABD) that gives additional concern. Perhaps these measures do not go far enough?

It is currently stated that if you are caught speeding then you will be handed an absolute minimum punishment of three penalty points and a fine of £100. How about making that four penalty points and a fine of £200? Also during special times, like Easter, Christmas and so on, the demerits double, making the driver extra careful. Next we see that ‘if you accrue 12 points on your licence within a three-year period‘, should then in honesty become ‘if you accrue 24 points on your licence within a two-year period‘ the driving ban should be no less than 24 months, no matter how essential your driving license is. If someone states that this is too draconian, then I personally agree as well, but many acts do not change the mind of the driver now, so why not give them something to fear. It seems that public transportation frightens them a lot.

What do we get from this?

That is indeed the question. It seems that a total disregard for parking and speeding rules is getting out of hand, and whilst it seems unfair to some, this is also a possible way to stop congestion. It also stops a little pollution, so we do get a double whammy on this front.

This all gets me to Law and Morality by John Gardner (at http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lawf0081/pdfs/lawmoralityedited.pdf). It should seem clear that my approach is ‘aim to serve the common good (Finnis 1980: 276)‘ and ‘aim to justify coercion (Dworkin 1986: 93)‘. There is no denial that this is about coercing the driver to abide by the rules. We should at that point also consider how unjust the laws of traffic are (if that is the raised issue). But is it?

How often could you not park because someone had taken the spot that was rightfully yours? How often have you or someone you directly known to be in almost direct danger because of someone speeding? When a population above a certain level states yes to both (as it currently seemed to be the case), should these laws not change to something more draconian?

Is it not so, that in my imaginary change, we are changing the premise that we all have a right to drive a car, into the premise that driving a car is becoming a privilege for those abiding by the set rules? Is this not deprivation of freedom? We are to some extent already imposing those rules to pilots, considering the lack of accidents there, should we not take the same approach with car drivers? Should we not pass a certain parameter to be considered a driver? We demand skills to many environments that are a lot less hazardous, so why not car drivers? You see, as I see it, the car industry had forever been an open field as it was so lucrative to sell to so many people. Now, with the saturation we see, cars are almost too available and gas prices go through the roof. What if it becomes a privilege? What if the car driving population goes down by 20%? Cars might not become cheaper, but gas certainly will as there is a 20% less need. Public transportation will suddenly get a massive boost and the chance that all this reflects on higher safety standards and less need for emergency aid is also a good thing. We will always need emergency services, but consider that they will have on the emergency services. Here is where I got surprised. When we consider the numbers (at http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB13040/acci-emer-focu-on-2013-rep-V2.pdf), we see that in the UK the response for ‘Road traffic accidents accounted for 1.4 per cent of type 1 department attendances in 2012/13‘. That was a number I did not expect to see, so am I looking in the wrong direction? When we look at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/255125/road-accidents-and-safety-quarterly-estimates-q2-2013.pdf, we see a rolling statistic of 1785 killed and 23,530 regarded as killed or seriously injured, which makes the Accident and Emergency (A&E) data in England a slight question. Especially as we regard page 17 of that PDF and the spread of the traffic cases on page 22. Well, No! The numbers make perfect sense; it just shows that the 23,000 are well spread over the timeline; it is just that these 23,000 are in the end only 1.4%. Yes, in case you wonder, I did notice they are not all from the same frame, but we see only a few percent change over these time frames, so that overall the picture is still usable for the most, just that the relief for Accident & Emergency would be minimal (alas). I had hoped that the traffic changes would lessen their work a lot more.

So, am I just trying to add morality to a traffic case? Gardner explains that at times morality needs law, just as law is in need of morality at times. So we are still with the question, is adding draconian measures to traffic laws morally considerable, or will the act result in a lack of morality for the law? That issue is brought to light when Gardner gets to item 4. “Does law have an inner morality?” There we have a nice consideration. Is morality not a setting of norms, hence in reflection is it not a form of discrimination? I am doing that by discriminating against the transgressors, but am I doing this in an unbalanced way? If we accept that morality is seen as a system of values and principles of conduct, and the bulk of people break speed limits, is the morality of speeding not one that should change? If almost all break the speed limit, is the law not unjust to being with and as such is this law, draconian or not a transgression of accepted morality and therefor a law that should not exist?

The facts now fit the statement that Roger Lawson gave us, is this about funding, or about safety? That is not easily answered and without knowing the true and complete course of the 1785 killed. How many got killed through speeding? If we accept that the UK has roughly 34.8 million cars in use, should 0.00525% decide the consequence of the rest? When we look at the deaths, that is what we see; we get 0.0676% if we include the wounded. So, when looking at this, no matter how we twist or turn the data, well over 99% suffers because of a few. There is no question that none of this changes for the victims of these events, but it shines a harsh light on certain aspects of traffic safety and the approach it has. Should the laws change however? There is growing evidence at this point that my Draconian approach is just not the way to go, it shows an increasing tendency to be unjust. We can all agree that unjust laws should not be followed. But in the second degree, are the current laws too harsh?

Here we have several other factors to consider. If congestion is the cause of many evil, then my draconian approach survives the test as it solves part of the problem, yet will it solve the situation? There is no real way to tell. We should however question whether we want to take away the car as a basic freedom, because that is what a car embodies and revoking freedoms is as we can all agree highly immoral.

It seems like we took an opposition approach and through this we learned that people like Eric Pickles and Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin have a clear case. The same could be said for Roger Lawson, which takes us to the question whether the UK should consider losing the speed limits all together. Would you believe that someone made that case? Norfolk Police Crime Commissioner Stephen Bett did this and makes a good argument for it, which gives wonder on what to do next? He stated “If we are going to do anything about speed and villages we ought to take down all the signs and say all villages are 30mph [48km/h] and you drive on roads like they do in Germany and Italy, as road conditions say”. So if this works in Germany and Italy, why should the UK not go that same way? It cannot just be the weather as the weather in Germany can be even more treacherous as it is in the UK. Is it not also the case that the simpler any traffic issue is, the less confusion we are likely to face? The Egyptian example at the beginning is an extreme one, but does show the effectiveness of simplicity (except for rule three which can be scrapped in Common Law on grounds of discrimination).

Perhaps some changes the UK could get by learning from its neighbours, who knows, perhaps after this the French, Dutch and others will follow the Italians and we might get a reasonable equal traffic system (one can only hope). The end of the article comes down on Stephen Bett stating “UK motoring organisations have dismissed Bett’s comments, with the Guild of Experienced Motorists describing them as ‘just nonsense’“. But is that so? The numbers seem to be in his favour, the evidence of simplicity as generic evidence has been proven again and again, so is it all nonsense or is Stephen Bett onto something? Even though he stepped aside as PCC while an investigation is carried out into his expenses (since yesterday), the points he made should be seriously investigated, especially if proof can be given that simplicity drives down the number of accidents and transgressions, which is a win/win for all people.

So as I see it, the act to add Draconian laws seems almost criminally insane, which is actually what is happening in Spain, but we will get to that in due time when we see the results of Spain implementing such harsh rules.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics, Science

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

June 21, 2014 · 11:58

The price of a passport!

We all have our moments; we all have that moment when we need to prove that we are the person we are claiming to be. Many of us have been through it more than once. When we turn 18 and we go traveling, when we need to apply for loans, mortgages and other financially linked issues. We must prove that we are who we say we are. It is at that time that we need to have a passport and even though, except for travel over national lines it is not essential, it will always be regarded as the most correct proof of identity.

It is the dream of an identity thief, the dream of a refugee trying to get to any level of a safe life. A passport will have that magical shield value. Whether you live in one of the Commonwealth nations, or in many of the western European nations, we seem to forget just how powerful a passport truly is. Those who got theirs seem to forget the hassle it is to get one for the first time. So when the article (at http://news.sky.com/story/1286601/passport-office-profiting-from-publics-pain) appeared, I was not that surprised, even though the term ‘profiting‘ seemed out of context.

Most passports are valid for 10 years and the freedom of a passport is often beyond most imaginations. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_passport#mediaviewer/File:Visa_requirements_for_British_citizens.png we see the freedom a British National has. It allows a person to pretty much go anywhere within the Blue and Green regions at the drop of a hat. We all take this level of freedom for granted at times. The Dutch passport can get you in all these places as well as in a limited way into additional Middle-Eastern places (1 or 2). So when we look at a passport, we often do not realise the power it holds. I myself got confronted with the notion in Crete, when I was having a coffee with a Russian Lady on vacation. She explained the hoops she had to go through to get to Crete. Her passport did not give her the tropical destinations at the drop of a hat and to go shopping in Saks on fifth was a joke she could not seriously entertain ever.

Now let’s take another look at that little trinket! Whether you have a thin one, or one with 12 additional pages, you will set yourself back for a decent amount of coin. You think that it is expensive, taken the time-frame, a passport is less than 8 euro’s a year and it is an essential document in your life. There is of course another side to this. As everyone wants that piece of paper, you want to keep a good check on it, and the application for it is a time consuming process. So much so that those behind it need to make sure that this document keeps its value. It was at this point I started to wonder about a few issues.

The article had a few quotes that give pause for us to think issues through.

“The figures showed there were 552,192 applications in January this year compared with 482,356 12 months earlier” is the first quote, “There are still 490,000 applications being dealt with and staff have had to work the equivalent of nearly £1m in overtime in one month” is the second one, “It is baffling why immediate action was not taken to alleviate the impending disaster that has now engulfed HMPO.” is the third one and “The Passport Office is ‘profiting from the public hardship’ by making a surplus of almost £13 on each application, the head of a government watchdog has said” is the fourth one, but the first one to be mentioned. This is all coming from Keith Vaz, Labour MP and funny enough, a person who started life as a Yemeni citizen.

It is nice to see such criticism, but how fair is it? Consider the UK has close to 64 million people. I have no clear number on how many are ACTUAL citizens, but for the fun of it, let us assume 100% (which is ridiculous I know), this means that if all is equally set, the HMPO would need to produce 6.4 million passports a year, which is a little over 533 thousand a month. So how are the numbers as quoted by Keith Vaz MP a surprise to anyone?

I reckon the HMPO should know that these numbers would need to be met to some degree. Here is the kicker! They are not surprised and I feel certain they are trying to deal with it. The problem is that hackers are getting better and that more and more systems are compromised, so before we go into that part, we should recognise that over the last 10 years the work of the HMPO has grown in complexity and they are relying on the part these systems that cannot get compromised by these hackers, mainly the printed documents and original papers (as are likely seen in those massive binders). The Honorable Mr Vaz seems to be ignoring those parts.

As for the 13 pounds, is this even a valid number? If we consider the amount of actions required, checks to be made and then the actual passport to be created, checked and handed to the right individual, a passport is a real deal at twice the price. The fact that 1 million in overtime is quoted; the 13 pounds profit would be non-existent by the time the actual costs are added up. The one part he does have a point the HMPO should have been a lot larger, but getting qualified staff there is not an easy task. Let us not forget that even though extremely important, this job does not have the Jetstar double zero seven appeal that a branch like GCHQ or Special Branch offers. The initial view many might have that this is the dream job for a CPA fantasizing about libraries, which is not the largest target area in any nation, but this work needs to be done!

So as the is dealing with this passport issue, we need to take into account that this problem can only be solved with reliable systems (which is becoming increasingly difficult), millions of people are victims of identity fraud, which makes checking of some details increasingly harder and as paper trails are slowly diminishing, the HMPO will have to add more effort in making sure that the created passport is for the right person and whether the requested person was the actual person. IK know it seems weird, but the moment someone has YOUR passport you will learn the hard way on those consequences.

Now it is time to revisit my remark on Mr Vaz’s original nationality. This was not some cheap shot and even though it is at times fun to have a go at labour even just for the hell of it, I do have respect for Mr Vaz on entering public life and his decision to support the British system. He has my sympathies and respect in that regard. No, it is about what a person from Yemen was able to reach. In that regard Mr Vaz needs to be reminded on where his Yemeni passport got him (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Yemeni_citizens). As you can see his VISA free options were not that impressive. As a Yemeni citizen, he can see less than 10% of the world his British passport (or EEC equivalent) allows him to see without a VISA. This directly links back to the power a passport (his British one) grants him. So, the UK is dealing with a backlog and this backlog must be dealt with carefully if the HMPO wants to keep the value of the British passport high.

If not, the consequences of devaluation will hit anyone with a British passport, which could impact hundreds of innovators, who now travel the world seeking new ideas.

Still Mr Vaz did make valid points by shedding light on this; the problem is on how to solve it. Theresa May is announcing additional measures (at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/additional-measures-to-meet-high-passport-demand). These measures seem good, but are they? They are an essential patch, but the numbers as they are shown to us, give way to the thought that a better and more permanent solution must be found. As for additional jobs, here is a possible option for matured interns to take a centre seat. I grant that oversight is needed, but the UK is filled with retiree’s and ex-servicemen who are very trustworthy, all just hoping to get a decent job. If initially 100 could be added to get some of the grunt work out of the way, would that not speed things up? So the lowest staff member of the HMPO would now become a small manager, each receiving the files from up to a dozen new interns. Yes, issues will rise, yes some will not be complete, but they now will get a surplus of gathered facts. Instead of going through 1-2, they will go through 11-20 of them. In the beginning, 80% will get send back to the intern, but as the initial week progresses, the processed files will get to 70%-80%, giving the one HMPO officer close to 10 times the processed files. A staggered approach to this will raise the numbers of passports dealt with and the mountain of outstanding passports will soon diminish to some degree.

In many ways, several nations will have to change their way of thinking, in this situation we add to the working pool, we see an outstanding issue resolved to some degree. This is just one solution that would not cost the government millions, which is always a good side.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

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

June 19, 2014 · 21:22

Concerning the Commonwealth!

There is no easy news. The Commonwealth is having several issues that are not easily solved. There is always blame, but who to blame and more important, will it get us anywhere to begin with? I also believe that the Commonwealth has its share of solutions, but in that regard we will have to make some drastic changes. Some will be good, many will not be good and a lot of them will have to be different.

It is the last one that is likely the strongest salvation we might hope for, but we can no longer think the way we are, as we currently end up planning to go nowhere.

First of all, one member will need to step up to the plate and the others must protect this part. They started being regarded as a simple land, this land became a colony and later part of what would be known as the British Empire. It became independent and it is now a Commonwealth nation. Now, India must step up to the plate and become a Commonwealth leader. We (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and United Kingdom) must stand firmly and strongly next to India.

India has basically become the world leader in generic pharmacy and many are so eager to take up the Trans Pacific Partnership that we ignore the part that this US and Japanese conclave is not just about ‘trade‘ or ‘fairness‘, the indications are that it will give even more power to the US companies. A level of power they should not have to this degree.

They were complacent; they were lazy and became the facilitator for flaccid economists (yes, that was a Viagra joke).

If we accept a Canadian source, we see the following: “One proposed TPP provision would require governments to grant new 20-year patents for modifications of existing medicines, such as a new forms, uses or methods, even without improvement of therapeutic efficacy for patients. Another provision would make it more expensive and cumbersome to challenge undeserved or invalid patents; and yet another would add additional years to a patent term to compensate for administrative processes. Taken together, these and other provisions will add up to more years of high-priced medicines at the expense of people needing treatment, who then must wait longer for access to affordable generics. Meanwhile, provisions in the proposed investment chapter would give pharmaceutical companies the right to sue governments for instituting any regulation that reduces their expected profits, using private tribunals that circumvent a country’s judicial process.” (at http://www.msf.ca/en/article/negotiators-must-fix-most-harmful-trade-pact-ever-access-medicines).

This is not what we signed up for in any way shape or form (nor should we ever). It had been stated in several sources that Australia was one of the least objecting partners. The fact that this would be done and through this ensure the consequence that a large part of the Commonwealth will then have another decade of expensive medication to look forward to is just too absurd. when we read the additional quote “U.S. pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly is using similar provisions in NAFTA to demand $100 million from the Canadian government for invalidating one of its patents, claiming, among other things, that the company’s expected profits were “expropriated” when the patent was overturned“, we see a pattern where the use of such a partnership is not a partnership at all, it feels more that America is applying republican dictatorship, through arranged courts in order to thwart almost two decades of laziness and stupidity. Them overspending their treasury by well over 17 trillion is not helping them either and is at the centre of the current push we see.

India is proving slowly to be the leading authority on generic medication, even now in the last two years we see players like Kroger, Axium, Pfizer and Wyeth in multi-billion dollar mergers. They are setting up shop to have their own corners, which will grant them stability and income for the next decade. Guess what! We cannot afford that. The UK NHS is in shambles, healthcare all over Europe is unaffordable and the other Commonwealth nations see the cost of medication go up and up and up. These costs forced upon governments are the new way to get the maximum revenue, whilst in the end not being taxed on it (or for the ultimate minimum). India as a Commonwealth leader in generic medication can step up to the plate. We will not go to India, no, it seems that under these conditions India comes to the UK, Australia and Canada to build their places for generic medication to be produced. India would become a leader here. I wonder if President Pranab Mukherjee had ever envisioned that, to visit the other nations, including the UK as a leader, paving the way for a solution to the other heads of states of the Commonwealth.

If you think that this is ludicrous, then think again. In the Independent we see at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-accused-of-losing-grip-on-nhs-as-58-failing-trusts-now-have-241m-debt-9544181.html the following headline “Government accused of ‘losing grip on NHS’ as 58 failing trusts now have £241m debt“. Australia is feeling the pinch of healthcare hard and Canadian healthcare will soon be a sizeable chunk of a 2.2 trillion dollar debt. This must change!

We need to pull our resources. We need to think of other ways. Medication from India is only a first step. How about the option for healthcare graduates to work off their debts in a few years overseas in the UK or Canada? They’ll have a place to live, some income and over a period of 5-10 years (depending on the degree) their debt is settled. These are but a few of the options we can resort to. The old ways are not working and the few that do are drowned into costs of a faltering IT system. We need to group ourselves together and build a new system on different scopes. The old way has not worked and the more we delay the deeper the debt becomes and the less solvable the problem becomes.

This is no longer Labour versus Conservatives; this is now finding a way to avoid deaths through inaction. I agree that simply starting something new is not the way to go, the Labour IT systems of the NHS have proven that ten billion pound invoice, and yet doing nothing is another non-option. The heads of the Commonwealth must come together and find surpluses on one side to stop drainage in other sides. We are one commonwealth and we must save us! From there we will have the stability to come to the European aide, especially with affordable medication.

This side was ignored by the USA as the cash was flowing so nicely. Guess what, we are all broke and we need to find WORKABLE alternatives. The ones we claim to have at present do not work!

Let me also take a step back. This is not an anti-American thing, they are welcome to be part of this (even as a non-Commonwealth nation) and the issue is that they have been blocking affordable solutions through the FDA for a long time. What was good for Canadian was apparently not good enough for Americans and cheaper medication. The information from RxRights.org stated: “Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (PROTECT IP Act). This new act moves far beyond COICA’s blacklist of pharmacy websites. It would categorize all non-U.S. based online pharmacies as a risk to public health. It would require that Internet service providers and search engines block these sites that credit card companies stop their payments. Even worse, under this new law, Canadian and international pharmacies would be prohibited from defending themselves against those who shut them down“. This situation is even more ridiculous as this is instigated by a president claiming to bring ‘affordable‘ healthcare. If that were true, then why not let people find the cheapest option? Is a Canadian less than an American? No, it is all about a Democratic party with minus 17 trillion and they are firmly in the pockets of big pharmacy! That is the part and the Commonwealth cannot afford this shallow minded greed based approach. We must entertain the best option for the Commonwealth. As General Motors left Australia for cheaper options in China, so we must find our cheaper options in India and the TPP will not help us here. Signing it would be a massive mistake. By the way, all them Americans spamming my email for cheap Viagra was legal? Interesting double standard the FDA has.

We can see more in regards to Indian patents (at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/stoi/all-that-matters/Changes-to-Indias-patent-law-will-impact-prices-of-life-saving-drugs/articleshow/32519848.cms), of course, as it is the Indian Times, it would be all in favour of India, but are the facts incorrect? That part is in debate on several issues. One question that has not been answered over a term of at least two years is “Access to Medicines – Will the Trans-Pacific Partnership FTA allow governments to produce and/or obtain affordable, generic medications for sick people?”

That is not just the question which is not answered; it is one if the questions that seem to be actively avoided whilst the TPP is continued behind closed doors. The response from Doctors without borders is “Governments have a responsibility to ensure that public health interests are not trampled by commercial interests, and must resist pressures to erode hard-fought legal safeguards for public health that represent a lifeline for people in developing countries.”

This is at the heart of the issues for the Commonwealth, because if these steps stop affordable medication, then there will be no healthcare at all, the Commonwealth nations will be broke as they are decimated through age and sickness, after that what will be left of Western Europe?

It is only a first step; if we look at the NHS, then staffing and expertise are also a worry, which is by the way a worry in many Commonwealth Nations. Most of these nations have well over 5% unemployed; can some not be re-schooled in the healthcare sector? In the UK many IT trained staff are without a job, can they not help rebuild the NHS IT systems? Too many issues that are overlapping and someone threw away 10 billion. It is time to rewrite the tactical guide and start building a solution that will work. Sitting at home will not help anyone, not even one’s self.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Politics, Science

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

June 17, 2014 · 10:30

The real issue here!

Last night, just as I was about to break my own record in snoring, a message appeared on my screen. As I tend to be more curious then is good for me, I took a look. It was the article at http://advanced-television.com/2014/06/16/australian-media-chief-lambasts-google-over-movie-piracy/.

So this morning, as the dream of being with a ginger haired girl with a passion for playing Diablo 3 fades away, I decided to have a go at this article (we must keep a priority for interesting dreams first).

The title itself is interesting ‘Australian media chief lambasts Google over movie piracy‘, being honest here, using the word ‘criticising‘ instead of ‘lambasts‘ would have made the article every bit as ‘strong’ but would have implied less posturing, because that is what seems to be happening here.

The quote “Our Attorney-General George Brandis is attempting to reform our copyright law. Meanwhile Google, one of the multi-national companies attempting to avoid paying tax here, is lobbying in Canberra to stop this, by putting forward the following six fundamentally misconceived arguments” is also interesting, for reasons I will return to later.

The six points are given and the points made are to some regards highly hilarious. In point one we see: ‘piracy legislation would have little effect‘ and ‘they would no more illegally download than go into a department store and steal a book or a DVD‘. Is it really? Then why is Game of thrones the most pirated series in internet history? People can buy the series on DVD and Blu-Ray. Google’s point seems to be made by the comment ‘It may be the most pirated show, but it can break sales records too!‘ which was in a Yahoo article. Forbes gives us another part of this equation (at http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/04/15/game-of-thrones-sets-piracy-world-record-but-does-hbo-care/). The episode in question was downloaded 1.5 million times (a number that will be important soon). What we can say for certain is that according to figures almost 200,000 copies of series three were sold in week one, breaking records for well over a decade in place. So, almost 20% end up buying the discs (implying 80% will not).

I think that the Google argument has been seriously debunked at this point.

The second point is about legislation being for big business. Not only is this incorrect as the response showed, more important, legislation would oppose big business as will be shown soon enough and it would also hurt Google. This is closely followed with statement three where we see a reference to impeding ‘new’ business models. Actually it is impeding a very old model, but I will get to that. The response using the quote from Steve Jobs ’from the earliest days at Apple, I realised that we thrived when we created intellectual property. If people copied or stole our software we’d be out of business‘ is indeed true, yet, the one part no one answers (only implies) is in regards to the application of the Intellectual Property.

The fourth issue is a strong one and as I see it both are dancing around the issue here. It is not as Google suggested ‘an availability and pricing problem’, but the reference towards the music industry is also not correct as I see it. For a long time it had been about ‘availability and pricing‘ as Google correctly stated, but more important it had been for a long time around overheads. The gaming industry in Australia is proof of that. In Australia we pay on average 60%-100% more than in the US and in return we also get a lot less for it. How often do we see games that truly offer exclusive options that are NOT available in the US? That list is a very long one for most of the NON-US nations and it used to be the same for music in non-US nations. So it was often not about pricing, but about a lack of global fairness in pricing.

Issue 5 is made by both sides; it is so moreover for the reasons we will see soon enough. It is not because of the hypocritical ‘US view’ that opposes certain issues and views we see too often and not because of, and I quote ‘advertising models that almost totally promote pornography, gambling and scams‘. It is however because these markets represent billions in dollars of revenue, and many of these places will pay their taxes as (and if) applicable. One does not bite the hand that feeds the IRS ever!

The last one is the bomb as they say it. The mention of ‘Google says the proposed three strikes policy is too Draconian‘. Is that really so? We should all take a look at the Google approach of people getting banned on AdSense. I can tell you now, there was no strike two (or three for that matter), the quote I read “I’m really disappointed on Google support on this matter, there are no email addresses or real people to talk to” shows an approach even more Draconian then their view of Draconian as one might say. There could be valid reasons on some banning, but the issues I saw were not in that direction and in this instance Google is preaching a ‘pot calling the kettle black approach’.

So six issues of fun and frolic, but where is this going to?

In my view both are dancing around the options. It is my view that Attorney-General George Brandis had put his hand in a Hornet’s nest to say the least and now he is dancing with other people in some version of musical chairs. The powers behind all this do not want the change that some legally want. It is my view that Graham Burke, Co-Chairman and Co-CEO of Australian media group Village Roadshow does know what is actually going on, but he is not willing to say it out loud, even though he is representing those artists and people behind the entertainment industry. I had raised similar issues before. I did so on January 3rd 2014 in my article ‘FACT on piracy?‘ In my view going after certain groups was just plain stupid, for obvious reasons, yet there is another side to all this. You see, the Attorney-General realised that the consequences if pursued would be dire indeed. Even though Mr Burke does not want to hear this argument (for obvious reasons), but the people in charge do not care that The Castle, Red Dog and Muriel’s Wedding were downloaded 50,000 or even 100,000 times. Even if 10% would buy it (that is a strong if here), it amounts to $50K or even at the most $250K, which would be a decent part for the artists as they are entitled to part of this. You see, the Hornet’s nest is the consequence for companies like Telstra, Vodafone, iiNet and Optus. It is that part no one wants to touch. Australia has roughly a little over 80% online. If we use the numbers of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, then we are looking at a little over 12 million connections. Should we accept the statements at http://www.news.com.au/technology/third-of-australians-admits-they-download-movies-illegally/story-e6frfro0-1225786870239, which now seem to imply that 4 million people download movies illegally. If this is stopped then these 4 million people would decrease their broadband plan, by $40 and up to $80 a month. This is the real number! These Telco’s would now collectively miss out on $160,000,000 to $320,000,000 EVERY MONTH! If managers at some of these telco’s are rated on their value, how long until they are out on the street when they end up having to tell their stakeholders the following: “the good news: movie piracy is no more, the bad news: you miss out on a quarter of a billion in revenue every month from now on!”
It should be quite the show and I will sell tickets and popcorn when it happens.

This is at the centre of it all. From my point of view Mr Burke knows it, Mr Brandis knows it and Google, who has every profit with large broadband usage, knows it too. I think it is time for this sanctimonious posturing to stop. The internet is bandwidth and the more we need, the more we get charged. It is the cost of doing business and morality falters where profit takes a centre seat. Google has a vested interest in all this. If we look at http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/12/googles-youtube-ad-revenues-may-hit-5-6-billion-in-2013/, we see that Google is set at the centre of a large web of connections. If Google’s value is partially dependent on bandwidth usage (as it has been implied often enough), then laws that could cut down massively on usage are definitely not in Google’s best interest. Australia, is less likely any more than a blip on the global radar (which makes the current efforts shown by Google interesting as well). Yet, if Australian laws are successful, it could start a change in other common law nations and that would scare Google a lot.

So, we see the players, but in my view, the real issues are for now hidden from view by all players, because the loss for the collected companies in Australia is too large to contemplate and they do tell certain people what is not acceptable, those getting told tend to listen to the few that can destroy their future.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

June 15, 2014 · 10:50

Rising rates from just economy?

It is not always that one wakes up badly to ‘good’ news, but there you have it! When looking at http://news.sky.com/story/1281763/interest-rate-rise-signals-end-of-crisis, we see the changes that are now at odds when we consider the end of a crisis.

The question becomes, why am I not all in glorious ‘hurray!’ on this one? The economy is getting better, the time line which I proclaimed since early 2013 has indeed been correct. All these people following some economic analyst on half-baked data have been proven wrong, so why am I not happy?

That is because this has all to do with what we call in Australia ‘Fair Dinkum‘. I have always believed in this and matters are not in any dinkum stage and they are a lot less fair.

The quote “With the economy recovering faster than anticipated, analysts predict the interest rate hike could even come as early as this year” is at the heart of this. You see, the economy has become strangely unbalanced. As powers had been given to big business, leaving many nations with certain levels of legalised slavery, we see that their businesses are indeed getting better, there is more commerce and as such, things should be getting on par for all. There is the crux, ‘on par for all’. That is the part that is no longer in the stated cost of business. For those working people, who has not heard the following “this is for <insert name of large company>, we have to finish this off today“, “if we lose this client, we have to let go more staff members” or “we can’t afford to keep slackers around“. On average well over 80% of the workers will have heard these phrases in their work environment. The BBC published this in 2005 (at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4149835.stm). The quote “Britons work so much unpaid overtime they are, on average, providing their employers with free work for the equivalent of nearly eight weeks of the year“. That was in 2005. I feel certain that this number is a lot higher now. So, it comes to companies getting almost 20% of free workforce and they are not in any hurry to change these numbers, which makes for two dangerous issues. One is that as this had not been dealt with the effect of legalised slavery grows and grows, which in term stops these people from adding people to the workforce, which means that the unemployment rate is not dealt with, so the end of a crises is not yet in sight and rate rises give a signal that almost 10% of the UK population are about to get worse off. When we look at two quotes from the same BBC article “People don’t tend to feel resentful because the whole bonus and compensation system is geared up to rewarding people for their performance” and “The whole thing’s just money driven. If people don’t feel their bonus is reward enough they’ll just leave and go somewhere else“, these two quotes ignore several markers. One is that bonuses are often for management only and the people working overtime are not paid for it. The second marker is that the term ‘go somewhere else’ is often not even an option, which makes for these two observations to be inaccurate and also guiding marks to how office slavery tends to get legalised. These parts are only emphasised by the small fact the BBC mentioned “Londoners do the most – putting in 7hrs 54mins extra per week“, that adds up to one day a week of unpaid work ‘free labour for the manager‘, do you have any idea how many billions this adds up to?

So when we see the end of the crises motion, we should regard this as an additional signal that exploitation is quite possibly reaching an almost uncanny height!

Let me be blunt to ‘some’ extent, I am not against working an extra hour every now and then. This just shows dedication to your work, but an average of 8 hours a week is not dedication, but clear exploitation. It is interesting that no one is currently actively researching those bosses is it not?

So how did I get to this when we consider the quote in the Sky News article “the British economy is growing, that jobs are being created, and homes are being built, and that’s part of our economic plan“?

First we have the following BBC article (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27791749) stating the following “The number of people out of work fell by 161,000 to 2.16 million, bringing the unemployment rate down to 6.6%“, which is great news. The second quote to consider is “But the quarterly rate of earnings growth, including bonuses, slowed to 0.7% from 1.9% the previous month“. So, are these connected? Consider the following “The number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance in May fell by 27,400 to 1.09 million, the ONS said“. So the jobs created are not on par. Yes, there are less seeking a job seekers allowance, but that is not the only source. It seems that jobs are shifting, but how many people ended up with multiple jobs just to get the bills paid?

In my view the last quote gives us the angle “Weak pay growth and the ‘cost of living crisis’ remains the Achilles heel of the economic recovery, said Chris Williamson, chief economist at Markit.” This is where the elements meet. Yes, the UK is getting stronger, but what side is getting stronger? If we consider those happy to even have a job and working one day a week for no pay, then the bosses are mighty happy, yet when we consider the payments required getting by, we see a dangerous side that is now rearing its ugly head. I think it is important EVERYWHERE in the Commonwealth that we do not end up with some kind of Wal-Mart example, where the working people ending up on food stamps and government support because their income still keeps them below the poverty line. Whatever the republic on the other side of the Pacific river (for people in the UK it is that nation on the other side of the Atlantic river) wants to do, but we as children of the British Empire (I like the old titles at times) have a sworn duty to ourselves and to our sovereign Queen to make lives better for all of us as well as for our country. We do not deny our bosses their profits, but they are required to give us the fair share of our labour, unpaid overtime to the extent it is pushed onto many of us is massively unacceptable.

It is perhaps the one blemish that is still undealt with if we consider the following (at https://www.gov.uk/overtime-your-rights/overview), where it states “Employers don’t have to pay workers for overtime. However, employees’ average pay for the total hours worked mustn’t fall below the National Minimum Wage” I think it is up to the Prime Minister (David Cameron) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (George Osborne) to change that part into “Employers don’t have to pay workers for overtime. However, employees’ total overtime hours worked must never exceed 10% of the paid hours worked a week”. I just saved the people in London half a day of non-paid working hours, which might get more people into jobs as well.

I will of course as per today humbly accept my knighthood (should it be offered).

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

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

June 8, 2014 · 10:13

17 or 70 trillion?

Even though we see so many ‘stories’ on how well the US is doing, we must ask ourselves on what value these numbers are trying to convince us of.

The thoughts I am about to phrase started a little after the following had been released (at http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/06/06/standard-poors-is-concerned-about-the-u-s-debt-burden/). “Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services put out research Friday confirming the AA+ rating of the U.S.“, so the US has dropped a notch on the credibility scale. This in itself should not be a reason for direct concern. The one part that does worry is that S&P was the only one doing this. The other part we should notice is the quote “The federal debt was $16.1 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2012, according to the Government Accountability office.” why are we not seeing a 2013 number, which according to some is over 17 trillion? How interesting is it to see the numbers game whilst the numbers quoted are not up to date?

The next part is the article from Bloomberg on April 29th 2014. Here we see the following “The drop in net marketable debt will be $78 billion in the April-June period, $38 billion more than the pay down projected three months ago, with an end-of-June cash balance of $130 billion, the Treasury said today in Washington. The improvement will be short lived — net borrowing of $169 billion is projected next quarter, with $130 billion in cash Sept. 30th“. Can anyone see the issue I have with this? The debt of well over 17,000 billion is getting met with a quarterly pay down of less than 0.4588%. How is this progress and even though we see that the US still has a high credit score, is the likelihood of a continued credit score even realistic?

That part can be seen in the Market watch quote “We believe that renewed debate over the debt ceiling could resume after the midterm elections in November 2014 under certain scenarios. While we expect the discussions about the debt ceiling to be ultimately resolved as they have been, we still see risks that these debates entail.” So, not only is there no solution to the current debt levels, the chance of any serious solutions occurring within this current administration is close to zero, which means that the next administration will inherit a debt closer to 20 trillion. I do find the headline about ‘US debt level concerns‘ hilarious. Many with me had raised these dangers for well over 2 years and now as the game is up, some are ‘raising’ concerns, whilst those in charge and those on the watchdogs of economy had long known that any level of lowering the debt had been a mere myth for over 2 years.

There are of course other views. One is from Chad Stone who wrote in US News (at http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/05/16/too-much-deficit-and-debt-reduction-too-soon-will-wreck-the-recovery) “now about $17.5 trillion, found on the ‘debt clocks’ that are so popular with debt hysterics. Gross debt (and its close cousin, ‘debt subject to limit’) is debt held by the public plus debt internal to the government“. This is fair enough, yet there is no information, not even any indication when this debt will start to lower. There is another side to consider. When we look at the IRS data book (at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/13databk.pdf), consider that the IRS collected a net value of taxation of 2.4 trillion dollars. A slightly more accurate number is 2,490 billion.

When we consider all the numbers thrown at us, like the ‘% of the GDP’ and so on, even if we accept that the 17 trillion dollars debt is held on multiple level, compared to what the IRS collects, we see a number that reflects the tax collected, compared to the total debt. The US gets through taxation a mere 14% of where the debt is at. How is any of that realistic? So, the total collected taxation, before any other cost is taken into account (like paying government staff and utilities), it only amounts to 14%, after all that is done 0.1% is left if the US government gets a fitting budget (something that has not been achieved since president Clinton was in office).

My issue is not just with the US debt levels, it is also about the ‘blasé’ approach economists are throwing at the people stating that things are not that bad and that it will all work out. That part is a figment of THEIR imagination, because for things to resolve, actions must be taken and none are getting taken at present (or in the near future for that matter). My biggest issue with the Article of Chad Stone is seen at the end. His quote “Lowering the debt ratio comes at a cost, not only risking the recovery if it’s done too fast but also in burdening businesses and households with larger spending cuts, higher taxes or both to stabilize the debt ratio“. There is truth in that statement, yet the issue that the money should have NEVER been spent is an issue that is ignored. The culprits of this dangerous endeavour are not named, not held accountable and many of them walked away with millions in bonuses.

We are however nowhere near the end of this debacle. The articles give another view on the matter. An article was published in 2013 stating an entirely different matter of debt. The REAL total debt is set at 70 trillion (at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/15/california-economist-says-real-us-debt-70-trillion-not-16-trillion-government/). The quote that matters is “Hamilton believes the government is miscalculating what it owes by leaving out certain unfunded liabilities that include government loan guarantees, deposit insurance, and actions taken by the Federal Reserve as well as the cost of other government trust funds. Factoring in those figures brings the total amount the government owes to a staggering $70 trillion”

Now we are off to an entirely different race, this only gets worse if we take the Bloomberg article into account from March 2014, which headlines as ‘Debt Exceeds $100 Trillion as Governments Binge‘ (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-10/debt-exceeds-100-trillion-as-governments-binge.html). Make sure you realise that this last article is about global debt and not about US debt.

This was already on my scope for another reason, but I will return to that shortly. I need to return to the Fox News article where it stated the view of Professor Hamilton, an economics professor from San Diego. The reason for this is because I try to stay fair and balanced (statement plagiarised from Fox News) and as such, as I found additional views from the professor, it is only fair that I mention that too. This all is linked to a paper he published in 2013 (at http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~jhamilton/Cato_paper.pdf), it is the starting quote “This paper examines the growth of federal liabilities that are not included in the officially reported numbers” which should grab your attention. Yes, we are talking about ‘off’ the book liabilities, which should make us all wonder whether ANY government should be allowed to be part of liabilities that are not on the books to begin with. If our job is to stem the tide of irresponsible spending, then keeping things ‘off the books‘ as the ‘kids’ seem to state, should not be allowed under any condition. If we look at the quote that was found in the Econ browser by professor Hamilton, we see “Similar calculations from the trustees reports for Medicare report Medicare’s net unfunded liabilities for current program participants to be $27.6 trillion. For more details see Table 4 and the accompanying discussion in my paper.” The floor should open to an entirely different debate and soon. I think it is high time that these events are properly mapped out and as such ALL governments need to adhere to a different level of ‘accounting’. Their books can no longer remain silent in regards to unfunded liabilities. Is it any wonder books are not in order in a massive amount of nations?

This now grabs back to other observations I made and more important the small revelation my data implied. On March 22nd 2013 I wrote the blog article ‘60% confiscated and counting in Cyprus!‘, here I quoted “If this is what frightens the US, then consider the consequences of a system like LIBOR being manipulated through the total value of trade. If that would have been off by 11.2%. Out of $1000T (UK and US combined) then that difference would be $112T“, I implied to some extent that not only were the percentages messed with, I had some reason to believe that someone had messed with the total trade value that LIBOR represents. Perhaps my mistake (to some extent) was thinking that it was ‘just’ manipulation. In my defence, I came up with these findings before Professor Hamilton had finished his paper, so as a non-economist I was slightly in the dark to begin with. Consider that some politicians could be overspending, whilst using the options of unfunded liabilities within LIBOR to excuse themselves for accountability? What will other governments say, when such events are brought to light (if that would be happening). More important, if my number was closer to the truth then many considered, the global economy is playing high stakes poker with debts twice the size then most realise and our cost of living is based partially upon the irresponsible spending of both Washington and Wall-Street. How are the people ever to get a fair shake at a happy life, when a group of no more than 3000 people have been spending the dreams and futures of well over 1 billion people? Most do not realise that this goes way past the borders of the US, if there is indeed an established group editing the total value of trade considering the manipulation of the LIBOR percentage, the established setting of unfunded liabilities, as well as the breaking up on loans as they might occur. For this example, I would like to point you towards www.lsta.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2480, here we see a paper from Credit Suisse made by Julia Kingston in August 2006. The next part is just pure supposition on my side. Look at slide 35, here we see a term loan set in three parts. What happened when something falls over in 2 or 4 months? How many parts when Wall Street made its 8 trillion bungle was not written off? Is my consideration that the TOTAL LIBOR trade value has a massive amount of ‘entries’ that had remained hoping it would turn for the better? We have seen a multitude of financial advisors playing just such a card on many levels in the 2008-2011 periods. My question now becomes, was my implied 11.2% just the tip of the iceberg?

I am not claiming, nor do I pretend to have the actual answer here, My issue, as it was in the past is that ‘proclaimed’ Journalists sitting in the top newspapers have not taken a hard look at some elements. It is nice for them that Reuters does much of their work for them and many aspire, but will never come close to people like Paul Mason, Robert Peston or Deborah Hargreaves. Yet, how deep did they dig into LIBOR? Also linked (especially with the Guardian) was the claims that Jullian Assange made in regards to banking, they were never followed up (or so it seems), not even by the Guardian as far as I could tell. Consider the article the Guardian had on February 10th 2011 (at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/feb/10/julian-assange-wikileaks-book-claims). The quote “Asked about the ostensibly sensational bank leaks Assange keeps suggesting he is ready to release, Domscheit-Berg said the only banking documents he knew WikiLeaks had were ‘totally unspectacular’ is at the heart of this”. When it was ‘just’ about the US military there was some upheaval (especially by the US), yet when banking issues were raise (slightly mentioned in the Forbes interview in November 2010 at http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/wikileaks-julian-assange-wants-to-spill-your-corporate-secrets/). The interview gives us the following “Will we? Yes. We have one related to a bank coming up, that’s a mega leak. It’s not as big a scale as the Iraq material, but it’s either tens or hundreds of thousands of documents depending on how you define it. Is it a U.S. bank? Yes, it’s a U.S. bank. One that still exists? Yes, a big U.S. bank.”

After this the hunt for Jullian Assange really takes on additional energy. I have no idea what he found, or if it is even related, the issue is that there is a recorded atmosphere of unaccountability within the banks (on a global scale) which must stop, if not, not only will governments be allowed to continue in irresponsible ways, but the additional ‘myth‘ that banks and governments apply checks and balances need to be thrown out of the nearest window. A last quote from the Forbes interview is every bit as important “We’re still investigating. All I can say is: it’s clear there were unethical practices, but it’s too early to suggest there’s criminality. We have to be careful about applying criminal labels to people until we’re very sure.”

This is the part I had written about for some time, it was not just that the issue with Goldman Sachs imploded the financial industry; it was the issue that they, in black letter law, basically had not broken any laws. The people lost well over 8 trillion and no crime was committed even though their money was basically gambled away. It is that part, especially in the LIBOR sight, as well as the issue raised by Professor Hamilton in regards to unfunded liabilities. No laws are broken, but we are all kept in the dark in regards to the debts inflicted upon us, which in itself is a massive wrong.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

June 7, 2014 · 09:59

A Spruiker’s deal

I got caught out a few days ago. There was something about the spruikers deal and me with my European education thought it was some kind of a Dutch deal. Now I am learning it is nothing of the sort and the entire spruikers issue is a real and a very dangerous one.

It seems there are two methods (at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-24/wa-lead-charge-on-property-spruikers/5280420), one is the rent-to-buy the other is the Vendor finance with a delayed settlement. To be honest, I do not see the initial deal with the objection to this. Consider that I end up being renter to buy, with basically the rent becoming the mortgage. What is wrong about that?

That part is seen when we look at the following two quotes: “Some of them are doing very legal things and they’re giving advice and they’re qualified to do so, but then there are those who promise things to those who look for hope, who have perhaps not been able to afford their own home in the past or not been able to enter the market of investment” and “They’re the type of people we target as collectively, ministers for consumer affairs, to make sure that the advice that’s being given is both legal and ethical“. So basically, the entire spruikers deal is about hunting down the unethical exploiters and the damage that they cause.

When looking into these losses, I learned that this is not a new issue. The Spruikers deal and negative gearing has been around for some time and the news has been mentioning issues of exploitation going back to far beyond 2011. This is not a new deal, so why does this remain an issue?

In my mind, the world (Australia too) is filled with idiots who think that there is a quick deal, that makes you rich. The old saying ‘if you buy a diamond for a dime, you end up owning a diamond not worth a dime‘ is the most fitting expression that applies here. Some sales people rely on greed the others on desperation. The big thing is that some are actually on the up and up and as such, this is why the entire spruikers deal stays around for so long.

I see that at times desperation is at the centre of it all. The Age had an interesting quote on April 18th 2013 “ASIC reviewed 100 investor files relating to the establishment of an SMSF. The files were not selected randomly. Most of the DIY funds had a fund balance of less than $150,000. Industry professionals often cite $300,000 as being the minimum needed to make the costs of running a DIY fund worthwhile“. Here is a truth we can work with. A group of people with an insufficient super to make it through retirement is getting targeted to invest in what should be seen as way too risky, especially when the investment would likely deplete your investment to ZERO. This is at the centre of it and this should give a clear signal to the UK that what has been happening in Australia could easily happen in the UK (and is already happening to some extent). Consider the housing boom that the UK is now having (because of regulatory investment options), how long until less scrupulous real estate agents start playing that card? Our collective retirement options are not that great; keeping the retirement options safe for these people should be on the minds of watchdogs in both the UK and Australia.

Yet, I am still smitten with the rent-to-buy option in both the UK and Australia. For the governments to invest in those places allowing people the rent-to-buy option will have two distinct bonuses. One, people will take increasingly care of these places, giving a better long term value to areas that are now often ‘written off’. In addition, the entire community will get an increased economic boost as rent is no longer a down the drain issue, but the start of a future. I see this as a possibility in some places where at present a non-future is regarded to be the norm.

Should the government get involved?

This is a valid question and even though there is validity in both answer options, my answer to this is ‘Yes!‘. In my view, in Australia (and to some extent in the UK as well), the government has remained massively absent when it comes to the creation of affordable housing. The issue of less than 1% rental availability in Sydney alone for well over a decade is clear evidence of that. NSW housing is dealing with a backlog of well over a decade. This is evidence of a faltering system. A government rent-to-buy option could make a change, but it is important to act firmly with some caution, to avoid some quick scheme that will backfire on both the tenant owner and the government in equal measure.

Yes, I think we can all agree that these options are not meant for villages like London and Sydney, but there are plenty of places where it could make a real difference, lowering rental tensions all over the nation(s). Another view of the dangers of spruikers can be seen in the Sydney Morning Herald, an article that was published in August 2013 (at http://www.smh.com.au/business/property-spruikers-scent-big-opportunity-in-super-20130830-2swcq.html).

It clearly shows the issues about all the good and none of the risks being disclosed and it also mentions the real life dangers (read risks) that these investors face making it all a high risk endeavour. In that article another link (as statement) is added “Large funds trying to bridge gap with flexible investment options“. So are spruikers the undefined link between funds (trying again to get high risk yields by dumping the consequence on unsuspecting consumers) and flexible and quick dumped options, leaving the trustee (you, the investor) with a bag of smelly poo no one wants? That is the question that should be raised as well.

This is at the centre of the Spruikers deal and as long as some people are desperate to assure themselves of a decent retirement, spruikers will remain a danger. It is at the end of the Sydney Morning Herald article where we see the jewel we need to keep in our hearts. It was stated by Pauline Vamos, chief executive of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia. She says “anybody giving advice – even if they say they are only providing ‘information‘ – about any investment into an SMSF should be licensed. That would start to ‘turn the tide‘ against property spruikers, she says. ‘It would help fill consumer protection gaps.’”

In my view she is entirely correct. Yet, at this point, the government should intervene to another extent. Whether it is in the way South Australia did a few years ago by handing $1 (or at least a really low amount) leases of land to new builders, or to get the rent-to-buy going in other directions, rental properties are not here and there is no light at the end of the tunnel for a long time to come. Only when those issues are dealt with, new progress can be made and these spruikers are likely to seek other shores for a quick profit.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

May 18, 2014 · 12:07

Are we getting played?

I have been away for a little while, which happens! We all have priorities a times and for the most of us (including me), when we are not directly involved in an issue, we tend to ignore them. This applies for me too. Yet, the news as I saw it last night was a little more then just uncomfortable. Last April (the 15th), I wrote the blog article ‘Facts, Fiction or Fantasy‘. I got two responses on how ludicrous the ideas were and as they were just filled with profanities, I decided to trash the messages (it is my prerogative to do so). In the article, I mentioned on how Greece had started to sell bonds again. Their credit rating seemed to have gone up just ever so slightly. Now I read that over the last two days that bank shares have fallen 5.66% and 5.79% respectively. The first complaint that I am likely to hear is how these two are not the same and one does not mean that the other is true, which is correct, but consider the following. A bond is nothing more an ‘I owe you’ between the seller (the Greek government) and the buyer (the investor). The investor relies on information like credit ratings (from places like S&P and Moody for example) to make an assessment on how realistic the investment is. The fact that almost a month later the quote ‘Greek lenders are likely to face large losses over the next two years’ is seen, gives rise to the question whether any upgrade to the credit rating was valid.

Basically, the values of bank shares have diminished by 11% in just two days. How are we getting played? Consider that the banks are dependent on governments, consumers and others to survive. The fact that they went down 11% in two days in a month after the government sold another 5 billion in bonds is not unrelated. The fact that we got informed by the IMF (a ‘prediction’ which is bogus in my view), on how economies were getting better (they stated: “17 out of 18 economies would be positive economies in 2014”), was already not realistic, now we see the Greek bank shares drop and next, in regards to current credit ratings, Ireland now ‘suddenly’ gets a small upgrade.

The question becomes whether rating offices (like S&P and Moody) engaged in what I personally regard as a ‘criminal endeavor to perpetrate a fraud’ against the people of these nations? More important, are they servicing the American banking moguls in that respect? Let me elaborate on this thought. No matter how the American economy is seen, the USA treasury coffers are far beyond minus 17,000 billion (= 17 trillion). The interest on that must come from somewhere and the USA is not likely to be able to afford any level of paybacks for a long time to come, especially considering that this administration has been unable to achieve any kind of balanced budget from the moment they came into office. This is nothing compared to the total USA debt which is somewhere between 50 and 70 trillion (I have no reliable source on what that actual amount currently is). The idea that the EEC might fall apart must be a Titanic sized Wall Street nightmare at present. UKIP is growing (for now) and the French Front Nationale is definitely on course to become the leading French party. Both parties, as well as the Dutch PVV are all in favor of segregating away from the Euro mess and if that happens, the American goose is truly cooked. If they (the financial institutions) are playing a game where too many nations have added even more debt, then the chance of moving away from the EEC is less likely as it would become too unrealistic in regards to the costs that would be incurred on the French and British coin when the total EEC debts are spread around, which might be the game that is currently being played.

It is likely that my thoughts are completely wrong and so out of whack that they only belong with the conspiracy theory magazines. Yet, when we see the debts these places are in, then upgrading any level of credit is just utterly insane to begin with, so I might have something here.

It is not just the issue on ‘how’ or even ‘if’ there is any form of economic growth, the issue is that the outstanding debts are a local responsibility and in stead of push it forward to the next government in place, these governments (all EEC nations) have a sworn duty to stop handing debts onto the next generation. They have a solemn duty to lower the debt. It is not their responsibility to enable multimillion-dollar bonuses to financial groups. They must lower debts. We as people are not here to cater to a group of what I regard to be as flaccid US economists, we all need stronger economies and increasing debts are no way to get to these stronger economies.

Here in Australia we see the objections on the harsh measures that are now being taken by treasurer Joe Hockey. I agree with him to a larger extent. I have zero sympathy for the honorable Bill Shorten (The initials BS are interestingly fitting), on how campaign promises were ‘broken’. He should remember that it was HIS side that had overspend by hundreds of billions. Money their side did not have, so after dumping a car mess and debt mess on the Liberals, they are now crying in opposition. The added mentions by Chris Bowen are equally a joke as this is a Labor mess that the ALP members are now trying to resolve. None of them seem to mention that it was THEIR party in government that had spend the money they never had. Perhaps Labor should consider answering questions on how these issues, which were known long before the election started, should have been resolved before the election started. They will not have any answers there. They overspend and WE (the taxpayers) are now burdened with fixing these issues! In that regard Australia seems to be taking a leaf out of the book or Chancellor Merkel, who through massive austerity directives got the German economy in a much better shape. I feel relieved (even thought it hurts me too), that the ALP is now fighting to get the Australian economy stronger and the coffers of the treasury out of debt. Personally I still believe that when (not if) the US Dollar collapses after the first loan defaults, any nation in massive debt will learn the hard way, the price it faces when the debt is due. Those without debt will get to call the shots for the future and personally I will be happy when we will be sitting at the global governing table where we can choose what will be best for us. Those at the table without a coin should remain silent at the table, those holding the loan slips will get to decide the future for all others, a lesson that is likely to be humiliating and no fun for the citizens of the involved nations in debt.

In the end no matter how good an economy is, the upcoming profit will go to whomever they are indebted to for a long time to come.

It is not a nice solution and in these times it will never be a nice solution, but it must be solved and whilst we might see the insulating joke scandal that had cost money and lives are another side how the Australian Labor party had failed the Australian population. This is not just me bashing the Australian Labor party (no matter how entertaining that exercise is), Bowen is an economist and as such he should in my eyes know better then to proceed on the outspoken track he seems to be. The question in this regard is who Labor was listening to whilst Labor was governing with the fighting twins at the head of that table (Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard). I feel certain that during that term someone was advising the treasurers Wayne Swan and Chris Bowen (which would be a perfectly valid act), who were the advisors in those years? We can all agree that even though overspending by hundreds of billions is a really bad idea, claiming it was only the treasurers act is just folly! Someone had an advisory plan and the Australian people has a right to know who that was, especially as it is Chris Bowen (former treasurer), now claiming that current affairs are so out of touch with reality that he is rallying the people against the ALP at present. I do think that some cutbacks are too harsh, yet, as I see it, Labor has no right to speak out, as these matters would not be the issue if they had not overspend all these billions.

This is at the heart of the matter; it is about the advisors behind the screens.  We need to see and hear those names! When we seen the list of advisors in that regard (on a global scale), we might be able to start painting a picture. There is even a chance that this picture is a lot more incestuous then a global view of Market Research, but we will decide on that when the picture is drawn.

We can all agree that governing parties are in need of advice and as such, they draw a plan, which is/was executed. So where did the debt come from and who did not close the wallet in time? If that was just the treasurer, then Chris Bowen has in my view no right at all to be this upset as he was the previous treasurer. That part is exactly part of the pain that is playing in Greece and perhaps soon in Ireland too. Where are the people behind the screens? If Sky News is to be believed then the prospect that ‘Greek lenders are likely to face large losses over the next two years‘ shows that upgrading the credit rating of Greece and the subsequent selling of billions in bonds was more then just a really bad idea. It boils down to another example of bad news management. I wonder whether investors would have a claim if they lost money on the purchased bonds only one month ago. Should my case be proven, it should also be clear that we should see the names of those ‘advising‘ on increased credit scores. I do not mean the names of the companies, but the names of the individuals who signed off on that news. Just like the names of the EEC economists that claimed that 17 out of 18 economies would grow in 2014 (mentioned in my blog on May 8th called ‘Public Naming‘).

It is time to shine a light on those who are the cause of many governments overspending their budgets by a lot and on those ‘analysts’ who seem to decide on how much an economy ‘should’ grow, especially as they drop the value of Twitter, who grew revenue by 119% (an amazing feat), which amounts to almost a quarter of a billion dollars. In my view, we the people are getting played by a select group of ‘economists’, who seem to be making more per person per month post taxation then most of us make in a year pre taxation. If you think I am kidding, then consider that the $5 billion in Greek bonds from last April represented a bonus value of $50 million; do you still think I am kidding? When Ireland ‘suddenly’ starts selling bonds, remember that someone will end up with up to 1% of that amount in commissions.

We are all getting played to some extent and it is high time that this stops before we end up paying the bills of other people’s overspending spree! Getting out of our national debt should be our only concern until this is achieved. A goal that should be shared by all the EEC nations as well.

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

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

May 10, 2014 · 11:41

Drop the waste!

In a week where we see more issues with the Ukraine, issues on Nigeria (which are disturbing indeed) and what I personally call a waste of TV time, which is the Oscar P. trial live on TV. That trial has all the makings. Established Olympic champion, beautiful, now dead woman and so on. The court papers interest me as a law graduate, where I did pass my Criminal aw, but overall, I do not care, simply because I am not working on it. I will be very interested to read the Judges verdict, but that would be all for now.

The part that did interest me was of a slightly more sustained side; the article on ‘future foods’ gave us a few tit bits that are, pardon the pun, delicious!

Stated was that “when the population grows to 9.1 billion by 2050, food production would have to grow by 70%“. As our population has gone past 6 billion now, the interesting consequence from this statement is that food is already growing in short supply. One statement made was that people in the western world seem to chuck 50% unused or unfinished. This is HUGE! I know that I chucked two things myself last week. Two packages that I had forgotten about, and when I saw the ‘May 2012’ last night, I thought it would be OK (read essential) to chuck them and not try to inflict food poisoning on myself.

50% of wasted food is a huge amount and I am for the most still trying to wrap my brain about that part. Another side to this is that engineers are looking into solutions where we can eat the packaging. The man made references to the apple (not the Steve Jobs products). This approach makes perfect sense to me. Go to any place where they have a green section and we see the apple, the tomato and other articles, where we can basically rinse of the skin with a little water and start eating these ‘goodies’. Here is a novel idea (actually not that novel). What if we pick up a prepared paprika pasta salad, filled with salad components and we can eat on the move or sit down, spoon out the salad, eat the package and our lunch is done. It will drastically reduce the solid municipal waste on many levels. But that does not get us that 50% wasted food we need to deal with, will it?

Consider that retail is all about profit. Would we pay the same $1.35 (99p) for that package of chips when we get 30% less? This is at the heart of it all. This is what those big malls rely on in the US; get much more for the $1 package. I get that and most families will never not eat the very last chip in the package, so we have an issue with the ability to get rid of 50% of food that is not eaten.

In my mind this is a first sign, that greed driven economics are driving us to starvation. And my evidence for this is?

This is of course the issue with any thought. If we need to grow production by 70% in one generation and we see the shortages on space to grow crops, we should expect that our goose be cooked to some extent. Add to this the fact that whatever path we take we will have to pay more, and that is only a reality if our income go up by a decent amount. Yet, it is not about the money. The Swipe article (on Sky TV) also showed us a 3d printer, were food is getting printed on crackers, then this is not an immediate concern if you have seen the narrative of Stephen Fry talking about a 3d chocolate printer. Now consider that this is a protein paste that is processed from insects. How hungry are you now? Is this the future? Well I saw that in the Lion King, and I say Hakuna Matata to you too, I need a steak!

Am I short sighted in that regard? Well, quite possibly, but the food shortage that some face even today, whilst many in the (at the moment) not so hungry western worlds are chucking 50% is cause and reason for concern for all.

I think that food is at the centre, and perhaps even at the core of waste we need to deal with, but that core is for now greed based. I agree that the consumer side is not greed based, but getting more for that same dollar is at the heart of our food needs as we are trying to make ends meet in these harsh times. We buy from places that are all profit driven, which is the first part of that problem and I see no solution at present for that obstacle.

Greed remains our number one foe!

That side is shown in even more clarity when we consider Twitter (the Tweet and Send company). So, not too long ago, the results of Twitter were shown and the stocks dropped! Why? Twitter did its business and is still doing its business. It even nearly doubled its advertisements income in just over a year. I see that this should be reason for a massive party on all levels. Getting well over 90% growth from a division that was making some nice coin is just good and those people should be given a large bottle of bubbly (and there will be no waste when that bottle is drunk, believe me). Yet, analysts claim that Twitter is not growing its base of new members enough, which caused the decline.

So are these analysts just morons, enemies of the people or is it THEIR greed that is the real danger? It seems to me that Twitter is not a saturated market at present, but what is saturation? In my view Twitter is a much more usable business tool then Facebook ever will be! I see a real daily need for Twitter (I never saw a daily need for Facebook). This is at the core and these two issues do link. Our food needs are not set by us either; they are dictated to us by our internal fears and by economists driving these fears for THEIR needs.

Consider my Australian example. “Which single person has rejected a full loaf of ‘nameless’ at $3.99 for a 2/3rd loaf of Lawsons (Stonemill) at $4.35?” This is the serious question. Apart from the fact that I personally think that Lawsons bread tastes better, it was about the 1/3rd less. At the third day the bread is at the edge of what I call ‘just for toasting’ and as I have 2 slices left it is not an issue for me. I stated ‘single’, as families have these smaller elements (kids), which tend to be hungry all the time. To buy what you need is at the core, and even though it would be nice that this is a little cheaper, getting what you need, not what you can get, remains at the very centre of the feeding frenzied danger we are all facing within the next two decades.

When people decide to completely disagree on these matters (which remains a fair call), then consider he past we had. In the mid 70’s we saw a movie called ‘Soylent Green’. This movie gave us a scary view of a future, which was denounced by many as a possible future. Spokespeople from every walk of life (economy and politics) did not see this as any reality ever. The shot with the crowded streets in New York (a similar view is already reality in India), the fact that real jam was extremely expensive, an option we are still racing towards when you consider that in some places you pay $8 for a small slice of Salmon, which is almost 120% more then what I paid for in 2010. So the movie ends up giving us the small fact that the seaweed extract ‘Soylent Green’ turns out to be made out of processed dead people. Well, we are not there yet, but considering that processed insects are a possible new protein source, is that future really so farfetched?

We need to start getting clever about the needs we actually have, not about what we can get for the $20 we get to live on. We have come at the mercy of analyst, they seem to condemn places that achieve 90% revenue growth, but they will set us in a place where our lives revolve on the $0.02 share increase at whatever cost it takes. People and Politicians are setting a stage and state where we are listening to the wrong voices.

I am not stating that I have the right voice, but I do know that these economic analysts are definitely the wrong voice to listen to.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Science

Tagged as , , , , , ,

May 9, 2014 · 17:20

Public naming

The title seems clear, but hat is linked to all this is not that clear. It all started this morning when we all (those who watched) got confronted with another round of bad news events and all linked to banks. Barclays is scrapping another 20,000 jobs between now and the end of 2016, which might be not that great. However, today we heard that the actual number for 2014 will 14000. That is an entirely different kettle of fish. In addition, the issues with co-op are going on and on which means that the drastic changes there could mean that we see an additional but different change, which will impact many. Although no one is likely to shed a tear when all but one member of the board of directors join the non working class. Lets get back to Barclays though. Here we were told that another change is happening too.  Sky News kindly informed us that Barclays might split up in a bad bank and Barclays, moving over 100 billion in assets into that bad bank deal option. So, when a company goes south, they shed the skin, just like a snake and they dump what is undesirable. Is it good business?

This is a thought that, as a non-economist, is harder to answer for me. Is this about top-level bonuses as well as the dividend for the shareholders? If their dividend is not good enough, make a drastic change. That in itself is not bad business, however, the fact that the top people get a deal after the bad bank deal and they still end up with a huge bonus whilst well over 10000 lose their job is not something anyone should consider as an acceptable act, not to mention the issue of where the bad bank invoice ends up getting paid. So again it is a factor of non accountability, the bad choices will not affect these high end bonus getting executives, it seems all nice to those people.

All this was seems to be just a prelude for the small text the people would see, if they read the text-bar under the interviews. The text “the euro commission expects 17 out of 18 euro zone economies to grow“. Really? I had already predicted that the economy would slowly get better, but not until 2015. Yes, the economies might make a little over 0%, yet the damage that still is (like unemployment), would not see any improvement until 2015 at the earliest and the people will not see any real improvements until late 2015, perhaps even 2016. This would of course depend on the nation where it was happening. The only bright light in that segment was the interview with Roger Bootle. He seems to have a handle on the events and as such, his new book ‘the problem with Europe‘ should be an interesting read.

Where is my issue? Well, that is as always a fair question. You see, Euro zone or not, there are levels of interaction here, so as some nations will start seeing improvements to their economy, others would not see those improvements to any extent this year, which is just the way things tend to be. This entire enterprise of 17 out of 18 economies going positive implies that this implies to be management on several scales, as well as the fact that there seems to be a level of ‘bad’ reporting. I will add to this stating that we all should demand the public naming of those commissioners who signed off on such a brash statement when this prediction does not pan out. If these people are so stating that 17 of 18 economies will grow, then we all should know the names of the people stating that as well as get insight into the raw data and the sources. Those involved, when the prediction fails should all get FIRED!

Reasoning? Well, we know where Greece is at, and as such, their economy will be only barely be getting by as austerity measures will keep on having a hold on them for some time. In addition, as many in Europe are in a bad shape, tourism will remain down for some time, which means that this will also remain a non-factor for Greece. Next to that Spain is dealing with a 25% unemployment rate. That would drag down ANY economy. The issues in Italy are still not that good and France is only slowly getting up, but they have unresolved issues. That is just three of the players, which already brings us down to 15 out of 18. The UK and Germany are above the nil line, but as we see the bank issues evolve, that nil line might remain a close call for now. If you think that one bank is not that big a deal, then consider the effect that 15000 seeking a job is going to have and it is not just one bank (or two for that matter). There is a work culling going on all over Europe. When we inspect the newspapers, we see that many are slinking down and many of them are not getting able to get a new job immediately.

Oddly enough, this all reminded me of the title of a science fiction story called ‘How much for just the planet?’. This is at the heart of what we face. It seems that the economies are taking out the people as a factor. In my view, the almighty need for every player to see the economy in a sterile place is like legalising slave labour. How can any economy exist in a vacuum without people? Never mind the 20,000 at Barclays! Spain where we see one in four people without a job and Greece as a nation still scrapping jobs and having hundreds of billions in debts.

Barclays is not the first one to play the bad bank approach, but these elements, these devaluated parts as we saw in 2013 with SNS/Reaal, these all have an impact and writing off these parts without impact is not just bad, it should be wholly criminal. Consider you as a reader own personal situation. Just dump your pet (preferably dog) in the street and walk away, leave your child as it did not read as fast as all the other kids at day-care and never return, or walk away from your mortgage as the house had devaluated for over 15% and the bank wants a huge payment down on the lost value. Do you think you can do any of these matters and not get held to account? So, why are the banks not held to account, moreover, those high bosses walking away in the past usually did so with a 7 figure bonus in their pocket.

So why are we not demanding the same for the euro commissioners, the bank directors as well as, to some extent, the shareholders? They made a ‘bet’, they relied on dividend, but alas, there will be no dividend this year. Adding a bad bank solution, so that they can still get some coin is just not acceptable. If there is a bad bank and it has the write-offs of Barclays, then we should see a diminished value of the bank value and as such, the shareholders, will alas lose out on this quarter (and perhaps additional quarters) dividend.

Why?

Because, as the bank drops it’s ‘assets’, the government (and as such us the poor taxpayers), should not be confronted with the fuck up of others (please pardon my French here). Here I see where what I partially proclaimed in the past, and what the book of Roger Bootle seems to instil is that the UK stepping out of the EEC might not be a bad thing. He does state that it will be a risky thing, but is that not what economies are about? A risk paying out brings wealth and the other does not. I have spoken out against the plans of UKIP in the past, but when we consider these brash statements by the Euro commission, perhaps this path should be explored in all seriousness. Those players are all about keeping THEIR Status Quo, but at what expense? That is at the centre of the issues no one seems to be able to explain. I wonder what happens when we tally the collection of these bad bank acts (all over the EEC) and we take a line of the values and in the end, who had to pay for it all, then take another look at the costs for all those without a job and see then how well these EEC economies are doing. My guess is that 7 (not 17) out of 18 positive economies would still be a really good result.

In this article I made an earlier mention of ‘legalised slave labour‘, I think it is fair that I explain that part. We cannot just make a rambling accusation like that and let it slide.  If you are in the EEC and you have a job, then consider the work as you have been doing it for the last 5-8 years. How many of you are now structurally working overtime and not getting paid for it? I am not talking about the odd job where we put in an extra hour. No I am talking about on average working around 45 hours a week whilst only getting paid for 40. The boss is not giving you part of Friday or Monday to make it square with you. No, you hear the remarks on how the job must be saved and if the job is not complete another firm will get it, often enough those bosses end up having long lunch meetings to offset the hours they make. In this economic environment, pretty much everyone is accepting those odds, as they are afraid to lose their jobs. It is simple and plain slave labour. It is also likely that these people have been on frozen incomes for some time. So when we look at indexes like the DOW and see it rising whilst the unemployment rates remain too high, you better believe that legalised slave labour is a real factor. It goes far beyond the banks, when you look at the news all over the UK, the number of messages where a few hundred jobs were shed by almost a dozen companies in 2014 alone is staggering. This is not me judging whether these lost jobs are valid (it is their choice to do so), but the impact on the UK economy is far above negligible, which keeps the UK economy fragile for now.

Those claiming that the workforce got a whole lot more efficient should re-examine themselves. I wonder if those weeks when they are investigated are ‘suddenly’ less efficient later on. Whether these ‘enterprisers’ rely on part time people for half a day, so that those people will not get a coffee break or lunch break, or that the full workday people end up working a little late regularly is of no consequence to the bosses. As the humanity factors have left the workplace, the statement that the economy is growing just more then an incorrect statement, it is flat out wrong!

Any economy depends on people as consumers, as service providers and as result creators. As we look at the implementation of “how much for just the economy?” we now see an incomplete and inaccurate picture.

By the way, if Barclays has used bad banks to write off the value of these assets to NIL, can I please get one of those divisions? Even at 0.1%, the division should be able to make well over 10,000,000 pounds, which is more then I have ever made in half a century. Growing big in small strides is not beyond me and it would allow me to settle comfortably.

Opportunity is where you find it, which is also part of any economy!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,