Category Archives: Finance

April 10, 2014 · 12:57

One debt too far?

I feel interestingly happy today. It is almost like I got the big role in the new Alice in Wonderland play. As i am a guy, some will think it is the role of the Mad Hatter or even the March Hare (there is supporting evidence that I am mad as a hatter and nuts as a Hare), but no! Those are not the leading roles. The leading role (apart from Alice) is the Cheshire cat, who was guiding Alice down the path.

The reason for these, are the events as I saw them this morning in the news. These events all took me back to my article on the 19th of June 2012 called ‘The accountability act – 2015‘. My quote ‘This is about stopping those walking out with non-existing virtual profits, turned into real money, and leaving others behind to clean the mess‘, is at the centre of that all.

This is all linked to a number of things, which by the way will have bearing on the Ukraine as well. The first is the article that we saw on Sky News (at http://news.sky.com/story/1239678/imf-warns-investors-over-rock-bottom-rates).

We see two quotes. The first gives us the warning “Investors are becoming dangerously reliant on rock-bottom interest rates, with many becoming so indebted they will face serious problems when borrowing costs rise, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned“. The problem is that these investors include several governments. When we see in that same article “the amount of cash spent on leveraged loans – the high-debt instruments with financial problems – now exceeds the level in 2007 before the crisis“, we are starting to see a clear pattern. In my view this pattern is that those who were in charge are doing it again. Those who wielded certain options are now doing it behind the screens. They are servicing a ‘population’ of what I consider to be not too bright members of a government executive branch and as such the fallout will be well beyond what we considered possible before.

The last quote “The IMF said it was also concerned about the levels of debt in the emerging markets” is the one I leave in the middle for now, I will however get back to this one later in this article.

The second article comes from the IMF themselves (at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2014/POL040914B.htm) “Across advanced economies, the pace of fiscal consolidation is set to slow in 2014 as focus shifts to how to best design fiscal policies supportive of both further consolidation and a still uneven recovery“.

This reads as ‘In the US, EEC and Japan, the pace of reducing government deficits and debt accumulation will slow as governments are staring at designs of new fiscal plans for consolidation in the near future’. There could be other explanations, but consider that these three players have been utterly unable to close their wallets. They keep on overspending many billions (in the case of the US and Japan up to a trillion) of money they do not have. Over the last several months we have witnessed bad news management on many PRESS levels, whilst not actually looking truthfully at certain events. I will not insult the reader’s intelligence by quoting the LA Times in this case, but the headline that ‘the Global Economy is strengthening‘ reads like nothing less than a joke. The article read like a promotion page, with no real value, other than the percentages they were ‘boasting’ about. For the record, the US leading the way with less than three percent whilst Chinese growth is set at well above 7% might be correct, yet in the second part the US was leading as one of the developed nations, implying that China was not a developed nation, go figure!

The issue (as not shown by the LA Times) is that there are delays with the US for the IMF. In a quote from Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey, the following was phrased by ‘the Australian‘ “Senator Ted Cruz said that the package would unfairly raise US contributions while undermining its influence” (paraphrased).

This reads wrong in several ways. Is the IMF not supposed to be impartial in all this? The mission statement of the IMF (at http://www.imf.org) states “The IMF’s main goal is to ensure the stability of the international monetary and financial system. It helps resolve crises, and works with its member countries to promote growth and alleviate poverty“, it might just be me, but does that not require an impartial approach? If the US has too much influence here, how can stability be achieved, or is this the world according to ‘the US congress’? (I will steer away from blaming the White House here, as the IMF is supposed to be a long term planner and the White House is a short term location, in sets of 4 years).

It is however interesting how little there is to find on US Congress and the IMF, even by the larger newspapers. I was able to find http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/07/us-imf-reform-britain-idUSBREA361BX20140407. This article was published two days ago and it is interesting to see how many newspapers veered away from this Reuters article. Reuters had this quote “The failure of the U.S. Congress to ratify the agreed IMF reforms is bad for the institution and bad for the international community“. The additional part “A bid to get Congress to approve reforms of the IMF was dropped last month amid concerns that it could hold up a bill providing aid to Ukraine” as well as “The White House has been urging Congress for a year to approve a shift of $63 billion from an IMF crisis fund to its general accounts, as agreed by the U.S. government in 2010” are cause for concern. These payments were due for the IMF long before the Ukrainian crisis was on the map. So is this about not having any influence, or is this an early signal that the US has completely run out of money?
Yet a Chinese site (at http://english.cntv.cn/2014/04/08/VIDE1396947727947648.shtml) shows us that in their view with “The Spring gathering of the International Monetary Fund is approaching. China, Russia and other major developing nations are angry about a delay in reforms that give them more voting rights at the IMF. Now the countries are pushing forward with the reforms without waiting for the United States“, so now we get another view on the matter, Was Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey playing nice with the Chinese, or is there more? I personally do not think that he was ‘just’ playing nice. I have predicted before that the time with the US as a superpower would end. I have stated this for almost a year now. No matter where the interest of Texan Republican Senator Ted Cruz are and I have no doubt that his interest is Texas first, America second and his family third. Before you the reader thinks or even accepts the allegations by some that he is some newly formed version of the infamous McCarthy, then think again! When I did the math in a previous article called ‘Biased Journalism on USA shutdown?‘ which I wrote on October 1st 2013. Here we saw that Texas is one of only three states that could shoulder the national debt if it was evenly spread. So, to keep Texas strong, Ted Cruz has a fair point in regards to the IMF influence, but that is not what the IMF is about and it is Washington DC that went along with that, which means his hands are slightly tied.

The IMF article has set out that people are playing profit or government bail-out again (they did not state that, but the article implies it to some extent). The governments are not speaking out against these acts and as such we could face another massive economic setback in early 2015. In a minimal defence for Republican Ted Cruz it must be said that the IMF and the EEC are on a dangerous course. The Guardian is filled with messages on how the crises seems to be over and on how Greece is turning a corner towards better times. This is done at a time when it still needs another 8 billion; unemployment rates are at an all-time high and with European incomes remain dwindling down, Greek tourism is likely to remain far below levels for another 2-3 years.

It is the Catholic charity Caritas (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/27/europe-economic-crisis-worse-caritas-report) stating “disturbing levels of poverty and deprivation being noted among children and youth“. This is at the centre of the issues that are enveloping Spain, Italy and Greece. In addition a 114-page inquiry into the human cost of the crisis also mentions Cyprus, Ireland, Portugal and Romania. This might not be at the centre of the mission statements that the IMF goes by, yet these industrial nations rely on workers, the fact that these nations are in such a state is a clear signal that several governments are not up to speed to give the needed aid to those people. This is not in regard to the intent a government has, but the IMF signals seem to be lacking certain reporting flags at present. the Catholic report is a first clear signal that those ‘happy happy joy joy‘ reports that economies are getting better are basically skating around the issue that is holding many down and for some considering the statement that ‘these two issues are not connected‘, should consider standing in a corner staring at the wall and feeling ashamed for even considering the thought to begin with.

Now, I promised to get back to the Ukraine as I stated in the beginning. When we consider last year’s BBC article (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-13366011), we saw that between 2009 and 2012, Germany was the ONLY nation who had its budget set correctly. The rest was short between 1% and 10% of their budgets. It is nice that these nations speak on percentages, because those shortages go into the hundreds of billions for some nations. The twelve nations represent over 53% of the entire EEC giving a summed deficit of 13.2 percent. This in itself is not a fair assessment, so let’s turn this around into a number. This number comes down to minus 546 billion, which is just the deficit for 2013. So, the governments are not keeping their balance in any way, in addition, we now see that investors are slowly playing their ‘games’ again. There was a rush on Greek bonds, because the evidence is coming that these people will get their money no matter what. So, why do we have any form of bail-outs? It is clear that overspending is not punished, so the entire Austerity posturing seems like an empty threat. I am all for helping out those in need, but it seems more and more clear that those ‘in need’ are not doing their part in cutting down on spending in any way, shape or form. So when (not if) the train goes off track, those smaller nations will be left to their own devices, ready to get exploited by all bigger companies to get their dividend. With the larger players India and China, it seems that US companies and bigger players want cheap nations for whatever market they want to get to. In such sights is it even a wonder how areas of the Ukraine are now in fear of what comes next?

That part is shown in several ways. Even though there is now such a boasted evidence of corruption in the Ukraine as the involvement of the ‘former’ president Yanukovich. Yet, if we accept and use the paper by Anna Yemelianova and is called ‘A Diagnosis of Corruption in Ukraine‘ (at http://www.againstcorruption.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/WP-14-Diagnosis-of-Corruption-in-Ukraine-new.pdf), which I mentioned on March 18th, then there is no way that corruption is limited to one side of politics. Corruption in the Ukraine is too wide spread and any player above a certain level has to be tainted to some level.

It is still puzzling why the EEC and the US are so set on the Ukraine. Why set yourself up for these levels of costs? Why get in bed with the Ukraine, whilst the bulk of the EEC has overspent by well over 500 billion. Is it any wonder that some Ukrainians are frightfully running back into the Russian arms? If we believe the Russia Today, with their headline ‘US wants to destroy Ukrainian ‘bridge’ between EU and Russia – German intellectuals support Putin‘ (at http://rt.com/news/germans-support-putin-ukraine-265/), then we see the view of a struggling USA, who reports a nice number, but when payments are due, America will only be able to do so by taking another debt ceiling hike, which places them well over the edge of bankruptcy. I have some issues with the article for other reasons. Yes, the EEC wants to keep a good relationship with Russia, if only for the reason that most of Europe relies on cheap Russian Gas, which, when absent will push the bulk of the European middle class squarely into the poverty bracket. I am just wondering whether retired German Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jochen Scholz was hoping to get a free training course in flying the Sukhoi T-50 stealth fighter, making him the first NATO officer to ever be allowed in ‘new’ state of the art Russian equipment (this is an insinuated assumption on my side). The article has a few more issues that are slightly too vague, but the sentiment is not incorrect. The American Anti-Kremlin approach in an age of non-accountability in the era of finance is an issue for too many people. So here is me, the Cheshire cat, all smiling and smirking on events currently playing out.

If the accountability act was indeed a reality on all Common Law nations, certain games would not be played and as such nations (the US, all EEC nations as well as Japan) would be in actually movement out of a ‘debt abyss’ and not at the whimsy of high stakes investor poker games where when it works they get a large bank account, if it fails they will get bailed out by the governments in some unnamed way, which does not seem to get a massive amount of press visibility.

So here we have it, what I evangelised from the very beginning or my blog. The world can be a better place, especially if people are held accountable for their actions. That part gets even more visibility when we notice a lack of press visibility ion some regards. When we see the Standard, a UK newspaper (at http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/press-freedom-debate-royal-charters-are-medieval-piece-of-nonsense-8898388.html) where it is all about the issue as “Media heavyweights have branded the government’s proposed royal charter for press regulation a ‘medieval piece of nonsense’“, yet only a little over a week earlier when the Telegraph reported (at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10720237/Malaysia-Airlines-crash-Suicide-mission-theory-of-MH370-investigators.html), how the MH-370 was a ‘suicide mission’. A piece that was so bad that it’s journalistic value was less than the photo that the Sun used to publish on page 3. This happened before the plane was found, without a black box, lacking in facts, but with a photo of a cabin crew member on page one of the newspaper. At the same time, the issue of the US Congress in regards to the IMF reforms, as stated by Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey has not made any non-Australian papers. So, again, as I have always stated, there should be freedom of the press, but there should also be accountability, which is exactly what Lord Justice Leveson had advocated. Perhaps some regulation would not be too far out of context as we see a lack of informative journalism and a still unhindered tsunami of paparazzi based articles.

If we are truly one debt too far, is it not time for accountability to step in?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

April 7, 2014 · 20:06

Should governments provide?

This is the question I had after watching the Dutch newscast at the NOS. The issue is that the Dutch are lagging more and more behind the Germans (except for soccer). Now part of that statement is a joke as Germany is 850% the size of the Netherlands. In addition, Germany has large deposits of ores. They are regarded as one of the world’s foremost producers of iron, steel, coal, cement, chemicals, machinery, vehicles, machine tools, electronics, food and beverages, shipbuilding and textiles. So why is this comparison even an issue?

Ineke Dezentjé Hamming, president of the FME (an organisation for the Dutch technological industry) stated “Wij verliezen onze positie als exportland als we niet snel vernieuwen en mee-ontwikkelen met de Duitsers” (translated as) “We are losing our position as an export nation if we do not renew and develop our technologies with the Germans“. In addition there is the statement that Germany is now in its fourth cycle of industries, where factories and ICT are completely integrated (at http://nos.nl/artikel/632638-nl-raakt-achter-op-duitsland.html).

An example could be the New VDL Nedcar factory, which allows for 24 hours a day production. The NOS newscast implies in my view (they did not state) that the approach of the FME is that the government should be handing over the funds to allow for this. In opposition of my own words, I must state that her statement in the Hannover Messe does not imply that at all (at http://www.hannovermesse.de/en/exhibition/partner-country/ineke-dezentje-hammink-blue.xhtml). Yet, the changes in infrastructure will require massive funds and there is plenty of clarity that the industry corners do not seem to have it.

I am still in awe that the Dutch want to get on equal footing with the Germans on an industrial ground. It almost reads like David stating towards Goliath ‘where are the other eleven?‘ which make me wonder, why is this even an issue?

Yes, as the article stated, the Dutch have for too long relied on services, which was not the best choice, yet, what are the options? The Dutch have no mining options, they have an excellence in ship building, yet that market is not doing too well. Let us not forget that the Dutch did have an excellence in services too. They had the East India Company, which should be regarded as the first and largest multinational ever, starting in 1602 lasting almost 200 years, which is a much better track record then IBM can proud itself on.

But in this day and age, after a multiple joke echelon of services based organisations (from the late 90’s), relying on selling concepts, the age of services is dwindling down. Even now, when we see the Business Industry relying on services and selling them, we see a decline as many customers selected (sometimes forced) to find internal solutions. Many corporations had to wise up fast. This is at the heart of the issue I have with the thoughts of Ineke Dezentjé Hamming-Bluemink. She is correct in the thoughts she phrases, yet again, when compared to the Germans, the Dutch had let these options slide for too long. An integrated ICT means that ICT skills are essential to these companies. If not, then those services will explode in costing’s as the ICT will suddenly rise in value, in an unbalanced way, which created a news hype bubble and there is no way that this is a good thing. This is where the shoes become too tight for the dance of industry. To get this all in motion, training and adaptation should have started two years ago. If the entire track is started now, we will see a wildfire of services and needs, which will drown common sense and pragmatism, which in turn will only hurt industries further.

So, why am I writing this?

The issue is that Ineke Dezentjé Hamming-Bluemink brings up an issue that is at the centre for not just the Netherlands, but the situation also applies to the United Kingdom and Australia. This industry 4.0 as they call it might be needed, but that need goes far beyond just high tech industry. The NHS is just one of many service based organisations where the need for strong and correct integration is required (which seems to be a mess). The ICT integration has been a requirement since the late 90’s. Yet, greed got in the way and as these firms all hunkered down on selling concepts and ‘solutions’, the ICT developers got lazy and many decided to forsake on created products and they all walked down to the path of some 80% readied toolbox with additional training and consultancy.

It was extremely counterproductive.

The Dutch have seen in the last three years how ‘Deutche Grundligkeit’ has taken foothold and it gives way to additional growth in Germany. So, the Dutch want to get on this 4.0 horse as some might see it, but why and for whom? The Netherlands does have an industry, however when we get past the breweries and Nutricia, what is left? Unilever, Akzo-Nobel and perhaps Philips? So, in this smaller list, why is industry 4.0 such a story?

That is the puzzling part, which gets me to the (by me) implied need for government ‘subsidies’. This I see as another approach to overspending, by those who should be keeping their wallets closed (the unfortunate consequence of being in debt for almost 500 billion dollars).

Is industry 4.0 anymore then the latest hype?

This is a question that is a lot harder to answer. Yes, it is hype, but the issue with ‘hype’ that this word also implies that its need tends to be overstated to some degree. This is where I tend to side with the need for it. If all parties need to cut costs, then Industry 4.0 is a definite need, but getting there will require spending and is this truly an option for some?

Here we need to see the words of Journalist Frank Gersdorf from the ‘Financieele Dagblad’ (Financial Paper) “De toekomstvisie wordt in Duitsland met zoveel geweld gepusht, zoals met een overheidstoelage van € 200 mln en promotiefilmpjes, dat je bijna gelooft dat dit echt de toekomst is en dat wij in Nederland de boot missen“, translated it states “The futuristic vision is getting pushed in Germany with such ferocity, like with the subsidy of € 200 million and promotion films, that it is implied that this is the real future and that the Dutch are missing the opportunity” (at http://duitslandnieuws.nl/archief/2014/02/frank-gersdorf-industrie-4-0-misschien-een-hype-maar-heeft-wel-toekomst/)

These words give strength to my implied acts from Ineke Dezentjé Hamming-Bluemink seeing them as an attempt to shake the governmental money tree to see what might drop down. it makes perfect sense that she was doing this as it is her job to get what she can to work for and fight for her interest group. This is all fair enough and we cannot fault her for that. I just wonder if the Dutch and several other groups are even ready for this. Germany has always believed in unity (their version of it) and as such, they had set out a path, which has been in motion since 2004 (at http://www.din.de/sixcms_upload/media/2896/DNS_english%5B1%5D.pdf).

This shows that Germany has been on the industrial choices for a decade; the Dutch cannot just step in and ‘proclaim’ that we should get there too just overnight. This I can proclaim as I was there in the late 70’s and 80’s as the Rotterdam harbours were in a transitional need for upgrading. Take 3 large harbour barons and you got 7 opinions, 14 options and no solution. I reckon that Anthony Veder was the last of the true famous harbour barons. As I witnessed the sales fight between IBM, Hewlett Packard (mainframes) and Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), things were never standard in any way. For the record, my voice was always with DEC with VAX/VMS, which showed true paths of open standardisation. There is only so many times you can stomach the ‘answer‘ “we are IBM” as it was an actual answer to a question. This is however not about IBM, this is about the needs for industry 4.0 and as such a new form of true standard ‘plug and produce’ solutions. There is no commitment to a path, too many players want the door to remain open so that they might get a shot at this and at the same instance, nothing gets done and no one will decide. So it is not just about the advantage Germany is building, it is about the increased distance it is creating by actually going for any solution.

The Germans do have a massive advantage. When the need was there almost 5 years ago, Germany did tighten the belt, the rest (Netherlands, UK, France and Italy) played their ‘fair weather’ games and as such they are now in additional hardships, which is likely disabling that money tree to be shaken. At least, until there is a clear shown path for an ROI for the Dutch taxpayer. This is however not just about the Dutch; the Commonwealth is in a similar situation. In the magazine Industrial Technology of January 2014 (at http://www.gambica.org.uk/app/images/documents/articles/Industrial_Technology_Jan2014.pdf) where we see the following quote at the end: “Industry 4.0 could be the reason why the UK is ultimately successful in redefining itself as a manufacturing economy“. This I can agree with, just as I did not disagree with the statements given by Ineke Dezentjé Hamming-Bluemink. The issue of funds will remain, no matter how needed it might be and if this is good for business, why should the government fund it? Consider the statement “we could be profitable if the tax office foots the bill“. That is what this current Industry 4.0 situation amounts to. This does not mean that it should not happen, but what is the Return On Investment? If it takes longer than that, is it a good deal to put money in something whilst the main objective for the Netherlands and the UK should be to lower their debts.

The issue is already getting the consultants to crawl out of the woodwork (like Roland Berger), where we can read (at http://www.rolandberger.com/press_releases/Industry_4_0_opportunities_for_European_industry.html)

“The Roland Berger experts explain what companies and politics should do to support the development of Industry 4.0 and leverage this opportunity for Europe“. It seems to me that this is another one sided step to get the cards shoved into the hands of politics to spend, spend, spend. They also illuminated a second side to this all. The second quote gives us the cake with toppings “This is where politics needs to support the process by initiating research and development programs at the European level“. Why? Why can this not be instigated by IBM, Oracle or by Hewlett Packard? If it makes business sense, then these three will hop on that horse right quick. Why must tax Euros be used one way or another? They made billions, which means that sponsoring should not really be a prerequisite.

In my view, I find that new technologies are usually a step forward, yet when we consider on how people jump on and off funding horses with the greatest of easy within their political terms, should we allow certain corporate evolutions at the expense of the government coffers?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Politics, Science

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

April 3, 2014 · 12:14

Trade Pact Dangers

Yesterday I saw the first inkling that there is a problem with the EEC. When we recall the events in any place for a long time, where we see a stronger right take control, it always falls over because fortunately for us, those at the head of a far right table tend to be ‘loons’, which usually works out well for the people. In France we saw Jean-Marie Le Penn, who never got a large enough foothold, so people relaxed. Yesterday, if you watched the European debate, you would have seen a very strong and victorious Nigel Farage, he made perfect sense. In that same light, the local elections saw a massive French pull towards Front Nationale. Marine Le Penn is gaining control of 11 towns, which is a strong indication of the waves that will follow in a direction towards the Presidency and the Future of France. If the future feared by big wig exploiters comes to term, we will see a massive changing wave. It is one of the reasons why President Obama looks eager, some might say even desperate to get the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) finalised.

It is clear that Big Business is changing. It is more and more about where the partnership resides. Australia is currently finding this out the hard way. The TPP was always an issue to some extent, but now that not just the Car Industry, but the Petrochemical industry is leaving Australia for cheaper Asian shores, we see that Australia is deduced to nothing more than a consumer state. Mitsubishi, who had already left, is closely followed by Holden, Ford and Toyota, who are now executing their exit strategy. In the last few days we also saw the messages on how Philip Morris, BP and Boeing are moving away (at http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=963890&vId=439434).

The quote “BP said the emergence of large low-cost oil refineries in Asia was the reason for its decision to close its Brisbane operations“, is only the first of many of those sentences. American companies are moving away, needing more leverage, especially as America is increasing its hunt for those hiding behind tax shelters (Ireland apparently has a lovely percentage option this time of the year). When it is all added up together, the prospective job losses will likely rise above an additional 50,000 within the next 3 years. This is a massive blow to the economy. This is all part of a larger wave. What is happening here is not due to what the Clown spokesperson of Labor has claimed it to be (he is sometimes addressed as Bill Shorten), this is also not due to the Liberal party as Bill Shorten (wow, I managed to avoid the word Clown there) claims it to be. “Tony Abbott’s only been in power for five months, and we’ve seen 5,000 manufacturing jobs announced as gone, that is a thousand jobs a month in manufacturing lost under the Abbott Government” (at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-19/bill-shorten-cherrypicking-manufacturing-job-loss-figures/5260996). These plans have been underway for a lot longer than that. Some of these issues were at the heart of the TPP, which places much of this in the time that Labor was in office. In addition, as the AC rightly states “ABS data clearly shows the number of people employed in manufacturing has been declining for decades“, which puts the ball very clearly in both courts.

We are all looking at these matters the wrong way, especially the non-youthful ones. What we are forgetting is that ‘fair‘ has not been part of any business approach for a long time. The TPP was not about ‘opening‘ borders for trade; it was about allowing business to find the best route to profit. It was never about saving the 3%-5% on margins as borders opened (as some state it); it was about the options to save 30%-50% on labour costs. the TPP goes further than that, when we consider the patents and services options as they are trying to get that through, but this article is not about that part for now (I illuminated that part in past blog articles).

We can see these Australian examples as a foundation of what is going on in Europe. Nigel Farage called the EEC “A political Union with an expansionist foreign policy“. That part has been seen in the Ukraine and it is now backfiring as Crimea rejoined Russia. The second danger is the one that Nick Clegg stated in a way he did not expect to do “that we can have all the good things in Europe, whist not being in Europe. It is a dangerous con“, he was kind enough there to make a case for Nigel Farage, because that is what is happening, whilst the UK is in the EEC. The expansionist part, driven by some players is all about tapping sources for low cost labour, what happens when investors ‘suddenly’ open plants in Lithuania, as people costs are 70%-80% less? This is exactly what is happening in Australia, and in Europe, they do not need to wait for a trade pact, the EEC is one, opening those doors for anyone joining them.

I have always been for trade agreements, but those who were there leaving others a decent margin of fairness. As we saw HMV, Virgin and other stores shutting down as the internet took over, we now see other markets where manufacturing moves away, which leaves the UK with a consumer market, but one that is not funded through jobs, which means that the downward spiral will hit them hard and fast. In Australia we see messages of 60,000-90,000 jobs lost. Several are basically shouting for panic reactions, but a massive amount of jobs are falling away, which means that the spending group is also leaving the Australian borders. This is exactly the fear that Nigel Farage is informing the people on, whilst the other parties are all about preserving the EEC link no matter what. It is the ‘no matter what‘ that is the issue. I am all for trade, the EEC and to some extent the TPP. Yet, this is no longer a good idea as these two concepts are paving the way for a ‘cheapest option possible‘, which is the real danger. It is also high time that American Business is getting taught that lessons right quick. I have nothing against Boeing walking away, but consider the consequence that will come as we saw Russian Aeronautical ‘giant’ Sukhoi getting the deals from China. What would happen when Sukhoi gets the option to enter the EEC and the Commonwealth market? That should give a right scare to the American market. As America is unable to stem in the levels of greed and exploitation, why not cut them? Consider that the Sukhoi S-100 is more than sufficient to reach the European destinations, should we really bother with a flawed Boeing 787 Dreamliner?

It is time for people to throw out the strategy guide that they have made their decisions with for the better part of their life. The greed driven are playing us all based on that guide. It is time for us to write a new one. I remain hesitant whether leaving the EEC is a good idea. However, Nigel Farage was able to shift me and I dare say many others from definite ‘no’, to a hesitant ‘maybe’. I’ll admit, that knowing the TPP to some degree (the Wikileaks edition) and seeing the Australian fall-out did influence it all, but there is the foundation of the fear we all face. When Ford or a company like that starts moving from the UK to Poland or even Latvia or Lithuania, the UK will only have themselves to blame. It will not be the fault of the Conservatives, Labour or even UKIP. It was the cost of doing business and workers are so much cheaper in other places, with no retirement issues to consider (small reference to the Visteon workers deal).

I remain hopeful that the European and Commonwealth nations will unite, whether within the EEC or not. As we get our trades up in a fair, square and profitable way, we will flourish, which is a lesson that has been forgotten in the US of A where greed rules eternal. In an age where the average unemployment rate is well over 11% (EEC average), we have options, we have willing people and we can get a profitable balance for all.

This is why Le Penn and Farage are gaining loads of grounds and the changes in the EEC are now slowly becoming a mere matter of time, a change that many did not realistically anticipate 12 months ago.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

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

March 27, 2014 · 20:31

Setting the stage

The Ukrainian escalation is slowly seeing some events, but not in a good way. We have seen several speeches as well as actions against certain heavy weight big wigs in-crowd at the Kremlin. Will these actions hold weight? Time will tell. I went over several facts in the blog article ‘Strongarm, Intimidate, Terrorise‘ which I published on March 18th. I also made a coalition mention in my blog article ‘Foreign and Domestic‘ on September 12th 2013, where I stated at the very end “that view might partially depend on the steps the growing New World Order coalition of Russia, China and India will take“. In the last two days we saw the following events.

1. India, Russia to sign deal for anti-tank ammunition (source: The Indian Express, et al) for $2.4B.
2. Crimea Crisis Pushes Russian Energy to China from Europe (source: Bloomberg) for $350B.
3. Private Chinese firm to buy 100 regional Sukhoi jets (source: Reuters, et al) for $3.5B.
4. ONGC, Russia’s Rosneft may join forces on oil flows (source: Reuters).

This is just in the last two days. So, yes, we might think that we are putting economic pressure on Putin, but are we?
The last mention is that if we persist, there is every chance that the cheaper gas meant for Europe could be redirected to the Indian consumer. That is exactly the fear I voiced in the story involving the Crimea (Strongarm, Intimidate, Terrorise). The Reuters article also states “Rosneft said it had also agreed with ONGC they may join forces in Rosneft’s yet-to-be built liquefied natural gas plant in the far east of Russia to the benefit of Indian consumers”, which implies that Russia will get additional Dineros (aka loads of money) to build that plant, or at least parts of it.
Europe basically has agreed to a spitting contest which could cost them. There are still moral sides to consider, both sides states that they are correct and Crimean’s who saw a loss of income for thousands of households and desperately tried to save them to remain with Russia. The Ukrainian top really did not think that part through (as I see it). Did they think that forcing Russia to Novorossiysk, leaving the Crimea without one of their biggest consumers would not have an impact? I still have questions on the legality of the ‘transfer’ from Ukraine to Russia of the Crimea region, but I do not have a proper view on the legitimacy of the referendum as such (from a pure legal point). The fact that this is what the Crimea people themselves want (for a massive part) is largely ignored by the press. I will state that the NOS at least tried to talk to a few of these people and many wanted to return to their Russian past (they were also very assertive in not letting others talk on their Ukrainian view).
So what will happen next? Let’s face it, 4 deals do not make for a Chinese, Indian and Russian summer party, but these are massive deals and this shows that the coalition growth I expected is now showing more rapid growth, likely because of the Ukrainian events. For me, I am a business man and as such, I have downloaded the Sukhoi S-100 PDF’s and see if I can start a trainings company to train the Chinese crews on using the flight and navigation instruments of the Sukhoi S-100 (just me trying to get creative). 100 planes mean at least 400 crews, which is 800 pilots and 400 engineers, so 1200 prospective trainees to train. At $750 a day, I could be employed for at least 3 years. So that might be an option as life in Sydney is pretty expensive. People might snipe at this thought, but consider the ego contest we see growing in west versus east. There is every indication that energy prices are likely to rise by unacceptable amounts soon enough. We see that governments are more and more selling off their healthcare and other services to meet budgets, which means more costs for the consumer soon enough. A step by the way for which a government cannot get faulted, but we the consumer still get to pay the bill.
As unemployment rates are still growing to the extent it does, we will have to look at alternatives. If we are willing to work hard, then it is not the worst idea to consider Russian companies like Sukhoi and Chinese companies like Huawei. The next wave is for those who are willing to put in the hours and as several businesses want to grow into several domestic markets, which they will one way or the other.
So getting out there and set the wave so you can be there at the beginning and get to the higher level of the pyramid when it grows above the others is never a bad idea.
Should you get questioned on basis of morality of choice then consider the powerbrokers of Wall Street who got millions after the 2008 crash, The events around Silvio Berlusconi (not the intimate ones), Karolos Papoulias, President of Greece who was in office when the Goldman Sachs creative accounting event was discovered. It is not the question whether he knew what was going on, as president the Euro will stop at his desk in the end. The Finance ministers over that period were Georgios Alogoskoufis, Yannis Papathanasiou and Giorgos Papakonstantinou. Giorgos Papakonstantinou was the person revealing what had happened before he took the office and negotiated the initial 110 billion Euro loan, which makes his acts the one of high moral fibre. The list goes on and on and on. So, consider that many high elected holier than thou politicians have often taken the coin road as this was not illegal or criminal, it is just the cost of doing business. When it comes to businesses there are even more questions. When we see the bad deal the people at Boeing got, as reported by several media outlets in January 2014 as well as the technical issues we see popping up with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. We have been looking at American companies for too long, perhaps it is time to look at areas where the runner up is hungry to become the biggest one, as they could be the source of your next good meal. So several elements are slowly setting the economic stage for 2014 and 2015.
If your livelihood is in jeopardy, where will you look next?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Military, Politics

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

March 21, 2014 · 07:27

Growing the deficit?

I stumbled upon a small piece in the Guardian by Dean Baker (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/08/us-deficit-obama-grow) this morning. He wrote it in 2013, yet in light of several events this story still holds some visible issues, even though I completely disagree with it. It was however a nice piece to read. Dean Baker is the co-director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research, which means that he has degrees in economy and I do not. So, why do I disagree?

This view comes through the following quotes. “First, the United States has large deficits because the collapse of the housing bubble sank the economy“. That in itself does not sound incorrect, yet when we look at the definition of ‘deficit’, we should accept this simple one: “The amount by which expenses exceed income or costs outstrip revenues“. So how is this housing bubble a US deficit problem? Houses are built through real-estate people, developers and such. So, there is a little truth in there. As these people made a huge loss, they would not be paying any taxation, which means the US is not getting money through taxation, which means that they get less money for their budget. So, in that regard we are all fine. The linked 2008 economic downfall was due to several idiots (or geniuses depending on your viewpoint) in Wall Street and Financial districts who were playing with all kinds of mortgage based hedge funds and in that way ‘lost’ about 8 trillion dollars, which comes down to devaluating 32 million houses from newly built to the instant value of $0. This comes down to the housing value of 27% of the US households became null and void with the instant snap of the fingers.

So, yes, we can agree that this impacts the deficit as taxation goes down, however should we consider that part of these events is because the US treasury failed completely? Consider that there was a recognised housing bubble at the time that Henry Paulson (who was at that time the big boss of the US treasury). The deficit grew to such an extent because the elements were not properly monitored. So in this view the quote “First, the United States has large deficits because the collapse of the housing bubble sank the economy” should be “The United States diminished its income as the US Treasury did not act preventive, proactive and in a timely fashion in regards to the housing bubble“.

The second quote we see by Dean Baker is “Second, if we had smaller deficits the main result would be slower growth and higher unemployment“. Well, that is one bubble we can pinch through. If taxable amounts increase deficit goes down, if expenditure goes down, then so does the deficit. Neither forces us into the view that this will result in higher unemployment rates, neither prove that there will be a slower growth.

This all depends on the application of the tools available. Yes, taxing extensively is a massive downturn, but is that the approach that should be taken? Am I against taxing the ultra-rich? That depends on the way taken. I do not think it is fair to just tax the rich, yet removing some of the tax shelters would be a very acceptable approach. Consider the following quote by the NY Times (at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html)

“In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent“. This is less than people making $36,251 – $87,850, they pay 25%. So, there is a massive imbalance here, which leads to the approach that a smaller deficit could be gotten by properly addressing a flawed tax system.

This is where we get to the news of January, (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/04/bill-de-blasio-new-york-mayor-inaugurated), where a quote is given that reads like an incorrect act. “But the most controversial element is to extract an extra $530m (£323m) in taxes from those earning more than $500,000 a year to pay for universal pre-kindergarten education and after-school programmes“, so New York wants to get a little more cash. I have mixed feelings, yet I do understand this move when the top 1% of the people in New York makes up for 39% of all income. Those objecting to this better understand that the tax increase amounts to an annual rise of $973 for those making a million a year, which is less than the price of a coffee a day. My issue is the fact that tax deductions allow for millionaires and billionaires to pay 4% less than those on an average income, which adds up to massive amounts of dollars. Dealing with these factors will not slow growth, it will not lead to a higher employment rate, it will however allow for a smaller deficit as the US grows its collected income from tax donations.

The third quote by Dean Baker was “Third, large projected long-term deficits are the result of a broken health care system, not reckless government ‘entitlement’ programs“. In my view it is both. I have a hard time speaking out against certain entitlements. Not because they exist, or should exist. The reason is that the 2008 crash left a massive population in an unfair position. A large group of people lost their house and homestead and these people had to be protected in some extended form. The fact that those who caused it walked away with amounts in that year would be beyond what the victims would earn in an entire lifetime is just obscene. Consider that in 2008, the year of the crash, Merrill Lynch handed out over 3 billion in bonuses (at http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/28/wall-street-bonuses-business-wall-street_0128_bonuses.html) and it happened just before they merged with the Bank of America. When we look at this all, we see entitlements, who largely impacted the US government due to what should be seen as high stakes poker games played by the commercial sector, which was loosely ignored by the US treasury. When we see the broken health care system, it seems that there is an issue there. We see the massive amounts of issues on all kinds of newscasts where we see that Obamacare will cost the people. Their premiums will double and in some cases triple. Now, on the side of the people there is outrage. I get that, but look at it from the other side. Does this mean that for decades, the people got medical care, whilst not getting properly charged for it? It is nice and easy to lash out at President Obama on this, but is this his fault? The actual costs, the investigations and as such the in-activities would play into the hand of President Obama. I might just casually ask whether the US treasury should have looked at this. Was this an area that had been ignored for way too long?

So in the end, Dean Baker makes one point that holds ground to some extent.

So why was I looking into this article 405 days (actually 4926 hours and 17 minutes) later? This is all due to an article that the NY Times published (at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/business/us-current-account-deficit-is-smallest-in-14-years.html). Let’s not get fooled here. This article is about trade deficit, not the US deficit or the US debt. The quote “Big gains in exports and overseas investment income narrowed the United States’ current-account deficit in the fourth quarter to the lowest level in 14 years“. So for one quarter they were only short a little north of 80 billion. It reads like when you have debt, flaunt it!

The valid question that you the reader might have is how the articles and the issues are linked. Well, they are not, but the issues of data behind them are. We are offered information by those who should give us clarity and information, yet, we have been ‘bamboozled’ for some time with an overly deep view in information, so the overview is gone for nearly all readers. When you want something to pass unseen, you just make sure that you give the people everything. It is something some researchers do. When the initial results lead to that one question, you just give them all 1247 result tables; there is a high chance that the certain question ends up not getting asked.

The last point to leave you with is the small issue that is playing thanks to some Ukrainian disagreements. How will these numbers impact when the acts of the EEC and the US will result in Russia closing the gas tap to Western Europe. As the Dutch NOS reported earlier this week, the Rotterdam Harbours are ready to switch and get their energy through the provision of liquid gas from the USA, the trade deficit will get smaller even still, yet the 20% hike the consumers in Europe face is something the people will only read about after the fact.

The US has a long way to go, with a national debt of well over 17,500 billion and a total debt of around 61,350 billion, being short by 80 billion seems like a pinch not worth mentioning, yet consider that the US is forecasting an total income of 3 trillion (before expenses), in 2013 the deficit ended up being $680 billion, which makes it unlikely that 2014 is a turning point for now, which means that the total deficit will grow for at least one more year. Then and only if severe cuts are found, it will still take up 70 years for the national debt to be gone, there is no way to predict how long the total debt of 61 trillion will take. So when you read all the upbeat articles on how there are three issues with the deficit remember, it will take 3 Generations (3G) to get rid of the national debt, the USA, now a 3G nation, how happy can anyone in the free world be for the foreseeable future?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

March 18, 2014 · 06:14

Strongarm, Intimidate, Terrorise

As we see the news of sanctions hitting our eyes via the news on TV, the Newspapers and the internet, some will conclude that the third cold war is now officially starting. Yet, some might have the question within their minds ‘who has the moral high ground?’, or better yet, what brought these escalations about?

Now, I have missed the cold war, whether you stare through a sniper scope overlooking Lakhta air base in a video game, or those who needed to take another look at the Arkhangelsk naval base because they serviced the Typhoons (in 1983 a genuine bringer of nightmares to NATO). The Cold War was a war, but one with its own rules, regulations, needs and wants.

But is this the same as the first or the second cold war? The first cold war was in itself about a disagreements in Ideology, there was however another side to it all. This was basically a pissing contest between the Kremlin and the White House on who was trained better, tools were the best and who got away with the most. The 70’s as it was depicted by John Le Carre with ‘the Circus’ and the after the fact knowledge that several members at the top of MI-6 had a better knowledge of Russian then those living in Moscow. Even with that set back, I always felt that the NATO side was victorious! I missed most of it and did not get hit with events until 1982-1984.

This new cold war we are about to face is something different. This is a lot less about ideology and a lot more about the greed of a chosen few. Let us take a look at the Ukraine and the Crimea region. Most will not remember the original Crimean War, even though one of the most famous names in history had her origin there. It was Florence Nightingale; slightly less famous was Mary Seacole who also earned her a place in the history books. In those days the direct reason for the war that was there was all about religion, specifically on access of the holy places in what is now called Israel (an area that was in those days part of the Ottoman Empire). It is the one time that the Russian Navy got it hide tanned (not the best moment in Russian Naval History), even though it held out for a year, dealing with England, France and the Ottoman Empire was a cake that turned out to be slightly too large for them.

I think it is important to ‘trivialise’ that part. It should also be noted that Russia started this fight with the Ottoman Empire because Russia held that it had a right to protect the Orthodox Christians. These events are important, as those contained the darkest days for the Russian Navy.

Now when we go to today we have other issues to content with. Crimea has always been a cultural hot potato. It will take too long to explain the issues (and I am not an expert in that regard), there are several ties that were severed when Khrushchev placed it all within the border of the Ukraine; he never considered the idea that Ukraine would be anything but part of the ‘Russian brotherhood’.

It is the changes in the Ukraine that are at the centre of the Crimean escalation. As I see the Russian side, it seems to me that this would happen no matter what. The entire issue with the Black Sea navy has never been regarded positively by the Ukraine. The issues there have been going on for almost 7 years now, even though Ukraine has valid reasons for ‘demanding’ certain changes, it is a little far-fetched for Russia to accept the security of its Navy (the Black Sea Fleet) thought the Ukrainian security services. If America has any objections in that regard, then consider the issues several people had in the past with the ‘idiots’ patrolling and guarding at the US part of Soesterberg Air base, I had more than one issue with a few US guards, even though I was on the other side of the fence wearing a Dutch uniform.

So, we can agree that like the Americans, the Russians will not trust the guarding and protection of their defence forces by ‘outsiders’. This is one of the issues, which are at the very heart of this. The second one is one I discussed in an earlier blog named ‘Hot air for the Ukraine‘ on March 1st. The EEC is too much about adding new members and not about maintaining and setting a stable financial and economic platform. That part has been proven by many, but the issue goes wider (at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2014/car030514a.htm). The IMF is still finalising the fact finding mission and the amount needed for the Ukraine substantial. Another issue in this regard can be found at Reuters where we see the following quote “If the West wants Ukraine to align with them rather than Russia they will have to offer a carrot and the carrot could be better terms on the debt” (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/17/us-ukraine-crisis-debt-idUSBREA2G0E020140317)

And why does the west want this, Economic prosperity? Ukraine has a massive amount of debt! The only consequence many will initially see is that Ukrainians will suddenly relocate by droves of thousands to get that better future in the west (which is fair enough). That pressure gets added to the issues already dragging many down in Western Europe which are still unstable at present, so adding nations with bad budgets whilst the rest remains in a bad shape is just bad politics and bad judgement. Another view from the IMF can be seen in the Reuters article (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/25/us-ukraine-crisis-imf-idUSBREA1O1DT20140225)

“The IMF has consistently said that Ukraine’s economic policies would create unsustainable large external and fiscal imbalances. It has called on Kiev to cut its large fiscal deficit, phase out energy subsidies, strengthen the banking sector, and allow the exchange rate to fall. A freely floating hryvnia currency and higher domestic gas prices are unpopular steps previously rejected by the Kiev”

So they want money, but are unwilling to do what needs to be done? How is this in any way a good deal in any shape or form? I will grant that energy prices will always be unpopular, but this is all about a change where the government does not want change to begin with.

Now we get to the good stuff, namely intimidate and terrorise. These are basically synonyms for strongarming, and now it is the west doing this. Sky News reported that more sanctions are in place (at http://news.sky.com/story/1227143/ukraine-sanctions-target-putin-aides)

So basically, individuals are now targeted for alleged involvement of government actions. Is this even legal? It is interesting that these events are calling for sanctions. Consider that in the US one in seven lives below the poverty line. Now also consider the events as we saw the hard working people at Wal-Mart getting hit financially, needing food stamps and needing government support, whilst the owners are multi billionaires. Unless the Honorable African American in charge in the White House (aka President Barack Obama) is a coward, I hereby officially demand and he should officially call for similar sanctions which are to be placed against the members of the Walton family! I understand that sanctions are a tactical choice, yet to ignore your home base, whilst going after a few individuals (whose guilt is still officially in question) is nothing less than a joke. The fact that the advisors are hit with sanctions, yet, the person in charge (President Putin) is not getting any sanctions makes the joke even more pathetic.

Another issue we should not ignore is that the bulk of the people in Crimea WANT to be part of Russia. Now, that would never be my personal choice and I believe it is the choice of many non-Crimean not to go that path, but the idea that their choice is not the choice of the USA and the EEC and therefor rejected is a laughing matter, where is THEIR freedom of choice? In opposition, I do have an issue with the legality of that part too. I do acknowledge that Crimea is part of the Ukraine, yet the Ukraine is ‘only’ 72 years old. The issues we now see in Belgium as that nations is likely to split into two parts, whilst that nations is a lot older then the Ukraine is not causing this level of concern (mainly because it hasn’t happened yet). In my view, it seems a lot more legal if Crimea became independent. Consider the immediate consequence of that act. If the referendum is regarded as illegal, what will happen and what will the reaction be as referendums are called over the next 3 years as parties decide to secede from the EEC/Euro, as these requests are called for by Nigel Farage (UKIP/UK), Geert Wilders (PVV/NL) and Marine Le Penn (FN/FR). Will we suddenly see calls for illegality by the USA and the IMF? Consider that, because these steps are likely to push the EEC and therefor the USA over the edge of bankruptcy.

As a ‘supporter’ of the cold wars, tactically the entire escalation works nicely for NATO. If Ukraine does enter the EEC, then it comes with a nice ‘free’ naval base in a perfectly placed tactical position, with direct striking capabilities on several Russian fronts (still surprised that Russia is so against it?).

My issue remains that the power players in this game are all motivated by greed. You do not give out 35 billion unless you get 70-135 billion in return. The Ukraine does not have such economic prospects in any near future. Consider in addition that once this happens, the cheap gas deal that the Ukraine currently has will then is also be null and void, which means that the people in the Ukraine will have to content with an energy price hike of at least 20%. Look at your own heating bills (especially in the UK). How does it feel to pay 20% more?

The last side to the Ukraine is one that will hit all Europeans (and Americans). Please do not take my word for that, the paper was written by Anna Yemelianova and is called ‘A Diagnosis of Corruption in Ukraine‘ (at http://www.againstcorruption.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/WP-14-Diagnosis-of-Corruption-in-Ukraine-new.pdf). You see, the big business boffins currently whispering into the ears of government officials in the west tend to ignore issues that do not cause THEM any grief, but those who pay their taxes and small businesses alike will get to deal with this to some degree in one way or another. From the very beginning of that paper where we see “Ukraine is a country is with wide scale and systemic corruption which makes a crucial influence on the economic, political, social and other spheres of public life“, it will be clear that whatever you pump into their economy, a percentage will end up with a man like Semion Yudkovich Mogilevich, a man who should be regarded as one of the most powerful men (some state the most powerful man) in the history of the Russian Mafia. Consider the end of the report where it states “21% of respondents in Ukraine reported paying a bribe in the past 12 months according to Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2009“.

This gives a clear indication, I might even state, this is in my personal view clear evidence that the numbers reported towards the IMF in regards to the economic support is underestimated by at least 30%. I will be bold enough to take my view one step further. When the Russian powerbase walks away, the floodgates that minimised some of this form of damage will be gone completely. It is a side that so many ignore, yet, when people in the News in the UK and the Netherlands read about these ‘Romanian gangs’, take heed for what happens when the Ukraine is added to the mix. These events are easily ignored by the power players as they remain out of reach, but the rest of the people in those area’s (99.98443213% roughly) will become a target one way or another.

Am I against the Ukraine joining the EEC? No, as I stated, it is about the freedom of choice. I do however have several reservations on why certain elements want to Ukraine to become part of the EEC no matter the cost. They have certain intentions and the press seems to be taking extreme care not to go anywhere near that part of the equation.

So who is strongarming, who is intimidating and who is terrorising? Three answers that call for a name, an entity or an organisation. So who exactly are the players and why are we seeing way too little on certain sides in the press?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

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

March 14, 2014 · 13:14

Yesterday’s news, today’s politics

This is the initial view I had when the NOS reported on a debate in the chambers on a case that had occurred 14 years ago (at http://nos.nl/artikel/622822-teevendebat-loopt-met-sisser-af.html). In the first 7 seconds I was hit by two questions that my mind raised

  1. Does this have any current bearings?
  2. Why, is the person who was involved not part of the proceedings?

Let’s take a look at what happened.

In 2000 Fred Teeven, who was the District Attorney at that time made a deal with Drug criminal Cees H. a deal which ended the criminal with a nice pay check, no taxation and no prison. The tax office knew nothing of the deal and this case was given a prompt wave of visibility.

This is pretty much it. There were additional loops of misinformation on how this was all about 5-6 million, which was countered that the total amount was 2 million (750,000 of this amount was kept by the Dutch government as a settlement fee).

This all got started by the current Dutch opposition. This entire case shows the same level of nonsense that Australia is currently getting from the Labor party. All wind and no real case (Australian Labor left huge bills, no resolutions and no prospects), not unlike the Dutch opposition they are crying like little girls because they are not at the governing table. They squandered by in-fighting and now they are all on the sidelines.

Why am I having this debatable point of view?

This is always a good question. This all started for whatever reason with a case that is 14 years old. Seems like an initial way to be a whiny little politician, whoever started this). Yet, that is not the whole truth either. When we consider the source (at http://nieuwsuur.nl/onderwerp/622023-geheime-witwasdeal-teeven-en-crimineel.html) other facts come to light. Here we see “Als je naar de richtlijn kijkt waarin duidelijk staat dat er afstemming moet plaatsvinden met de Belastingdienst” this was stated by the Dutch Professor Zwemmer from the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam (translated: “If you look at the guidelines, it is clearly stated that an adjusted view is set together with the taxation services”, which might contradict the statement, yet, a guideline is not set in stone. what does the law state?

The case was when Article 20b of Dutch Criminal Law allowed for it. That legal option of making deals with criminals was scrapped in 2001, but the article was in active in 2000.

There is another side to this. When we consider the following paragraph from Nieuwsuur, we see the following: “Advocaat Jan-Hein Kuijpers bevestigt vanavond in Nieuwsuur dat de deal volgens alle afspraken is uitgevoerd. Omdat Kuijpers zelf niet van witwassen beschuldigd wilde worden, moest het geld via een justitie-rekening verlopen. Kuijpers: ‘Ik had voorgesteld en ook wel bedongen dat het geld uit het buitenland eerst naar justitie zou gaan en dan naar die vriend van mijn cliënt, waardoor het spierwit was. Sowieso, of het nou wel of geen drugsgeld was of zwart geld of grijs geld of wat dan ook.’ Uiteindelijk is er een bedrag van tussen de vijf en zes miljoen gulden daadwerkelijk via deze constructie overgemaakt, bevestigt Kuijpers“.

(Translated) “Lawyer Jan-Hein Kuipers confirmed in Nieuwsuur that the deal had been processed according to the accepted arrangement. As Kuipers wanted to avoid accusations of laundering, the money would be processed through an account of the Justice department. Kuipers: ‘I had proposed and stipulated that the funds from abroad would first go to the Justice department, after that to my client’s friend, making the funds snowy white. Whether it was drugs money or not, whether it was black money or grey or whatever’. In the end an amount between 5 and 6 million was transferred via this construction, confirms Kuipers“.

This all leaves me with a few questions. What on earth is a Lawyer doing spilling the beans to this extent on a talk show? As well as the fact that we have two sides to the amount, was it two million, or 5 to 6 million? If we accept what Nieuwsuur mentioned: “Vervolgens zal het OM het geld via een rekening van het Openbaar Ministerie ‘terstond aan H.’ overmaken. En dat alles onder de expliciete voorwaarde van ‘volstrekte geheimhouding’ waarbij ook ‘de nationale en/of internationale Belastingdiensten en/of Fiscale autoriteiten’ niets van de deal mogen weten”

(Translated) “After that the Public Ministry will transfer the money via an account of the Public Ministry ‘swiftly to H.’ all this under explicit conditions of ‘complete secrecy’, whilst keeping the national and international tax offices unaware of the deal”

So, again, why is this Lawyer Kuipers singing like a canary on a talk show? Even more questionable is how international tax offices are kept in the dark, whilst they knew that the money came from non-Dutch accounts. It seems weird that international tax evasion could be part of this deal in 2000.

We can waste time on whether these events were all known or not and whether this was all legally arranged or not. It is a 14 year old case and the facts could have been checked before the House of Representatives booked overtime which might cost the taxpayers even more. I am not debating whether it was right or wrong to proceed, but in the view I have, this was another goose chase by the opposition to bring embarrassment to Minister Opstelten (who is the current minister of justice and Security) as well as secretary Teeven of Justice and Security, who was the District Attorney in those days and would not have been politically responsible anyway (which answered the second question I initially had).

I remain on the fence, even though I still see this (to some extent) as an exercise from the prissy opposition, the questions remain valid. Yet, what was the point to take a case, which could have been easily defended in the House of Representatives to begin with. What was the end game and why is there a discrepancy between 2 and 5-6 million?

That last part is still an issue of some debate. There are additional questions that rise when we consider the Dutch article (at http://www.vn.nl/Archief/Justitie/Artikel-Justitie/Teeven-sloot-al-in-1998-deal-met-Cees-H..htm), which gives a lot more validity for the opposition to call for a debate in the Dutch version of the House of Representatives, yet the fact that this is coming to light 14 years later is also quite weird. That side is shown to some extent when we look at the last lines of the article “Dat alles is weliswaar geen sluitend bewijs dat Cees H. nog steeds in criminele zaken zit, maar bij justitie kijken ze in ieder geval met argusogen naar de handel van de beroepscrimineel. En dat plaatst de ‘gift’ van Fred Teeven uit 2000 toch in een vreemd daglicht“.
(Translated) “Al this does not lead to evidence that Cees H. is still criminally active, but the Justice department is looking with an eagles eye towards the wheeling and dealing of this professional criminal, which places the ‘gift’ from Fred Teeven in 2000 in a strange daylight”

When we look back at this, then we see a seldom seen application on the cost of doing business. The talkative lawyer (who seemed to forget the meaning of complete secrecy), the muddy view on the exact amounts of money involved (the difference between 60,000 and 20,000 bills of 100) and in rear sight the time passed before certain people started to ask questions. Consider that all but the heaviest category of crime can still be prosecuted (5th category), other crimes would have passed the prosecutable expiry date, in that light, why bring this case forward?

For political points against a District Attorney who, according to the issues, had acted within his scope of abilities? Nieuwsuur does report an issue in the way the deal was pushed through after the fact (2 months after the fact) and the signature came from Ben Swagerman, who is in the Dutch version of the House of Lords and he is the head of corporate security of the Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM). I do agree, that certain questions should be asked, yet, they should have been asked at least 6 years ago, not now. At this point there are several points that imply that this was about something else, not just about this case. So will the Dutch audience get treated to a second round of ‘sudden revelations‘ in a later episode of the program Nieuwsuur?
Time will tell, but when they do, I will take another look at this case.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

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

March 12, 2014 · 17:18

Who runs America?

This is a question that has been in the back of my mind for some time. When we consider the economic events from 2008 onwards and how slow (almost 2 administrations) it has taken for any economic legislation to take shape for the (at present) ineffective halting of moving tax dollars off shore. Even now, several economic boffins are slowly and casually mentioning that current measures are not going far enough.

The entire issue took a new foothold as we see the Ukrainian events unfold. We see how some politicians are acting so….outspokenly against certain acts. Now, I am not speaking out against these people, I believe in the freedom of speech and as such, we need to hear all sides. The issue was shown the most visible in the UK when some stated on how economic sanctions against Russia would be taken, like getting gas from a different source.

It was at that point when I saw just how hollow their boasts were. In my view those politicians would soon be dragged to a separate room where several high powered industrials would add these politicians to the Christian choir of ‘Mare Castratum’, see this as a slightly more efficient form of gagging a politician.

Why this view?

Consider that politicians would make that rash decision and also consider the fact that in the UK (amongst most EEC nations), the energy prices are way above normal. So in a place where like the US, 1 in 7 lives below the poverty line, where these people can hardly pay their bills, get confronted with a 10%-15% raise on energy bills. What do you expect to happen?

I expect something similar to happen in the US, as I see it there are two elements in play here. The first is the claim (at http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=957624)

The two quotes are “The Senate on Tuesday expressed its support for Ukraine by passing strongly worded resolutions, using tough language against Russia and urging it be suspended from the Group of 8 world powers.” and “The House of Representatives also passed a resolution to condemn what House Speaker John Boehner called ‘Russia’s hostile acts of aggression’”

I understand the second quote and I reckon that House Speaker John Boehner was quite correct to pass such a resolution. It is the first one that is an issue, I understand that governments want to stand in support of the Ukraine, there is no way that any objection to that is valid, consider however what the G8 stands for. If we accept the following ‘G8 nations comprise 50.1% of 2012 global nominal GDP‘, then without Russia, will the G8 be a valid office of existence and what to do to keep its validity? Replace it with China?

That part would make sense as in many ways, the Chinese economy would be much more interesting to America then Russia is for the mere fact that China imports almost 3 times more than Russia does (based on 2012 numbers). Yet, if this happens, then what will be the long term consequences? Consider that the Ukraine is in an even less prosperous situation then most EEC countries. Now consider the information (at http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2014/03/05/in-ukraine-crisis-russias-natural-gas-tactics-could-backfire/), basically the Ukraine was getting gas at a 36% discount. If that fell away, then what will the Ukraine do? The quote seen here “The UK National Balancing Point (NBP) futures for natural gas jumped nearly 10% to $10.28 per MMBtu, according to Bloomberg. Prices have since moderated as the political situation appears to be calming down” gives validity to my claims of the energy prices; if futures would take that must a blast, then I reckon the people could face a charge at nearly twice that percentage. There was a side in all this that I had not reckoned on. When we see the quote “The U.S. wants to become a large LNG exporter later this decade and a portion of that would be bound for Europe” we see two dangers. The first is that this is not just government, but this is definitely a ‘Big Business’ push. Yet, consider the amount of customers could be the issue as the amount needed would far outstrip what could be delivered. That part is implied in the Dutch article (at https://decorrespondent.nl/299/eerst-het-gas-dan-de-moraal/32952491-c7e501ab) called ‘Eerst het gas, dan de moraal‘, which could be loosely translated and paraphrased as: “Business before morality“, which is basically at the heart of all these events. The article states that the Russian pipeline is supplying well over 26 million households, which is well over twice the size of California (in households). There should be no illusions that Gazprom has its powerful claws firmly in the EEC.

Let’s make sure that I am not stating that the politicians are acting purely or mostly out of economic reasons. I am to a lesser extent implying that it is possible that the Natural Gas lobbyists in Washington have been speaking with politicians over a lunch or two (which is how things are done in the US and UK). That latter part was discussed in the Guardian in October 2013, as UK Labour leader Ed Miliband mentioned that these lobby groups are not getting the proper levels of scrutiny (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/07/energy-firm-lobbyists-scrutiny-ed-miliband). So it is IMHO Big Business that is the second danger element in these cases. If the politicians represent the people, yet big business has the funds, ability and know-how to override the views of the people, then what use are the people at the end of all this?

This all goes a few steps further than just the energy groups. I started all this with a mention of economic sanctions. So how does this connect? Well, it does not directly connect, yet the elements all have their political influence. Consider the needs of Apple in Russia (at http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/03/07/russias-megafon-deal-with-apple-inc-guarantees-sales-of-750k-iphones-over-3-years). This was less than a week ago. So we consider the value of a little over 20,000 iPhones a month for the next three years and we should expect that this sparks the sale of iPad and iPod and other Apple articles. Do you think that the members in charge of Apple are hindered by morality? They have parked billions in taxable dollars away from the collecting hands of the IRS (and other taxing governments). The commission these people get from their deals in Russia will not stop them in any way. Whether there will be some ‘illusive’ distributor in India, Japan or China will not matter, the show (read sale) will go on. The same could be said for Dell. You think that they stop selling to Russia and leave their market share to ASUS? I think not! These are just two examples of the dozens of massively large companies doing business with Russian one form or another, not just from the USA, but also from Europe. In that same regard, there is not export without import, so as we see the boasts of economic sanctions to Russia by politicians, remember that when we see that when Russians show off their latest Apple gadgets on TV, the question ‘who runs America?‘ should remain firmly on your mind. In the end you should also remember that the entire situation is a lot more complex then I make it out to be.

As we focus on ‘Business before Morality‘ then remember the bills most of you have in your drawer still awaiting payment. We are nearly all of us overdue to the smallest or a larger extent and as some are more fortunate not to be one of the seven people living below poverty, consider that most of us are in the same place where 45% of us are, most of these people are all a little below getting by, which comes down to one step from a total nightmare life.

I am not stating it is a good place or an acceptable place; it is merely a realistic place. It is in this realistic place the question gets the volume it needs to have: ‘Who runs America?‘

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

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

March 4, 2014 · 13:09

What goes up…..

The next blog has been bumped to the next blog, mainly because Sky News was kind enough to show the snivelling cry story (me now playing the world’s smallest violin), by the ACTU secretary Dave Oliver, yes, the text in the background ‘join for a better future‘ reads nice, but the story he is giving is intentional misdirection. Holden and Toyota did not leave overnight (which was discussed in my blog on February 12th called ‘The last Australian car‘), this was planned for a long time, as such, what he now calls ‘the opposition’ was at the centre of this entire mess.

When we hear statements like ‘everything is on the table‘ then that person is already deceiving us all. So let’s take a look at some of the things stated at http://www.skynews.com.au/businessnews/article.aspx?id=955273.

“Qantas has asked the government to change the Qantas Sale Act to allow more foreign investment arguing the strings attached hampered its ability to compete on a level playing field with its rivals“, which makes me wonder how this remains an Australian icon to begin with.

“Some aviation analysts argue the best option for Qantas would be to split the company into three separate companies: domestic, international and ancillary services such as the Frequent Flyer program and freight“, which reads a lot like the ‘bad bank’ solutions we have seen all over the global financial sector, which in the end leaves the taxpayers with an unfair bill.

The Australian gave us (at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/pm-failing-australian-workers-on-qantas-actu/story-e6frg95x-1226844413018) the following statements.

the headline is already a first “PM failing Australian workers on Qantas: ACTU“, this is followed by “How did it get to the stage where our Prime Minister won’t even stick up for Australian jobs?” and “Australian unions will meet with Qantas CEO Alan Joyce this week to seek a commitment to minimise job losses, following the airline’s announcement last week it would slash 5000 jobs“.

So, let’s take a look at this all. From the first moment, with all due respect, This Dave Oliver comes across as a man born not too bright and he stopped evolving after birth. Why is this my personal view? You see, one should always keep an eye out for the reasoning. Without that, we have nothing but noise.

First the income side as it was reported by the Herald Sun last September 7th (at http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/qantas-freezes-pay-of-chief-executive-alan-joyce-but-offers-him-1m-in-bonuses-and-shares/story-fni0dcne-1226713613053), where we see the following: “Mr Joyce’s base salary for the year to June remained unchanged at $2.109 million. But a cash bonus of $775,200 and $387,000 worth of deferred share payments bumped the total remuneration package up to $3.3 million for the year. Mr Joyce gave up his bonus the previous year when Qantas reported its first annual loss since privatisation. The airline, which last week reported a wafer-thin full-year net profit of $6 million, said a general freeze on executive management pay would apply over the coming year“.

So basically, an airline, this large, reports (according to the Herald Sun), a full year Net profit, twice the amount the CEO made in a year. So, the income of the CEO was 50% of the NET profit. This was in the era of labor and this is not inviting any clear statements of outrage or disgust? Let us not forget that the tier of high executives would have been less, but still substantial, which in my view becomes that the Net profit of Qantas was in 2013 a lot less than the income of the board of directors alone. which makes us wonder on how 7 high executives are save whilst 5000 jobs are forsaken to other areas. The positive news was 11 days before the Liberals came into office, and within three months, Qantas analysts ‘suddenly’ misplaced (or lost) a quarter of a billion dollars, how convenient. So Mr Dave Oliver, why do you not stop crying and take a long gander towards this obnoxious fact?

It is not the job of the government to provide for free slave labor (through financial incentives to big business for keeping jobs), mainly because this is Australia!

This all takes another tumble when we see the news (at http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/qantas-to-cut-1000-jobs-as-ceo-alan-joyce-takes-pay-cut/story-e6frfq80-1226775800430), where we see the following “Mr Joyce’s $3.3 million pay will be cut by at least 38 per cent this financial year because of the airline’s poor performance – which would leave him with a $2 million pay packet” this was on December 5th 2013, in less than three months they went from plus 6 million to: “Qantas said it expected to report an underlying before tax loss of $250-300 million for the first half of the 2013-14 financial year“, which gives us two points at this precise moment. The first is that in my view, the September report was feigned positivity as we were set up for the bad news blows. When you go from +6 million to minus three hundred million you better believe that we the readers and we the workers are getting played. So at this point Mr ACTU, would you like to please change your view from Australian Icon to Australian joke? When a company makes this fast a tumble, there is clear mis-management, mis-representation and mis-organisation, whilst the labor government was run by Miss-NotAllThatInformed (in those day referred to as ‘prime minister’). So whilst Dave Oliver is presenting under the veil of violins speaks out for all those poor poor workers, he should better realise and change his tune to make it sure that this was bungled by labor, for big business and 5000 workers are about to pay a hefty price for such levels of negligence.

So what about Tony Abbott?

Should a government give out a debt guarantee, whilst there is a decent amount of clear evidence that this money could be lost overnight? It is not for the Australian tax payers to lose this amount of money whilst the Qantas top will walk away with millions and with new foreign investors there is still a likely chance that many jobs will go overseas (why else would they invest in the first place). It is also the case that in that same news message (from December 5th) that former Qantas Group Chief Economist Tony Webber left the message that it was too late to help the ailing airline. Is he correct? I am not sure, but I feel certain that he would know a lot more of the Qantas finances then either the ACTU, the ATO or the other interested parties in forcing the hand of government to sign a debt guarantee. The fact that Tony Webber is now managing director of Webber Quantitative Consulting and Associate Professor at the University of Sydney Business School, gives more weight to the value of his statements then the feigned spoken outrage from some of the other players (even if he is not a UTS professor) ;-).

This situation as we ‘suddenly’ see the Qantas debacle was not grown overnight. This has been a failing business dimension for well over a year, because $300,000,000 is not lost overnight, it had to have been known for some time.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

March 1, 2014 · 18:05

Hot air for the Ukraine

That was the first thought I had when I saw the news from several angles, when we consider the responses from Chuck Hagel, John Kerry, Viktor Yanukovych and a few others. The Americans were (as expected) all about keeping an eye on what Russia does. My first question could be ‘then what?‘.

This would be a fair question as we have seen what happens when ‘the line gets crossed‘ as President Obama mentioned. Basically nothing happened in the end. There will be rattling of sabres and after that people create some diplomatic summit in a luxury place and in the end nothing really changes. If you doubt that, then ask the Syrians. In the end President Assad needed time and time he got and plenty of it. In that regard consider last week’s NY Times (at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/world/middleeast/un-orders-both-sides-in-syria-to-allow-humanitarian-aid.html), so after several weeks the peace talks ended in failure. Be honest, was there ever a decent chance of a good outcome? This was all about delaying for President Assad, and as such he seems to have won. So, what will happen to the Ukraine?

The Ukraine is not like that, I know, but in the end, does that matter? The US is too weak, it has no reserves left, in addition, there is a growing pile of evidence that big business, not the politicians or the legislative branch are in charge of what happens in America. Feel free to doubt me, but consider the largest employer Wal-Mart. Consider that the owners are multi billionaires and that their staff members need food stamps and financial support just to survive. Did you hear me? This is not about the unemployed, but the workers who still need that level of support and the taxpayer gets those bills, not the employer. This is in my mind a level of clear evidence that the politicians as well as the legislative branch of the US government have failed its citizens. So, they are going to mess with Russia, just as the military has announced massive cuts and downsize plans? Who is kidding who here?

Now on the honourable representative players in this game called John Kerry and Chuck Hagel. I am not attacking them. They are representing their government, but are they speaking their mind and heart? They likely are and they are not happy about any of the issues currently rising, but they are unlikely able to make a true impact at present. You cannot spend money from a budget that is no longer there. Basically, as this administration was idle for over three years to tackle big business, to tackle spending habits and to hunt down tax evaders, the economic trinity at large, the US is pretty much bankrupt, which means they cannot pay for the fuel to make the war engine go forward. It will run out of fuel before it can truly engage a theatre of upcoming war. It is not a good thing, but it is what it is, so at this time it pretty much sucks to be the US Secretary of Defence!

But this is not just about America, many might ‘like’ this US bashing, but that is not what this is. Consider the words of Peter Stano “Peter Stano, Spokesperson for European Neighbourhood Policy Commissioner Stefan Fule, stated the European Commission (EC)’s ‘door remains open’ for Ukraine. The EC’s policy is very open, transparent and predictable, he said. The EC’s offer is tabled, he continued further. The EC offers highly important EU neighbours the opportunity to come closer to the EU with political association and economic integration, he explained“

Consider the NY Times from January 2nd 2014 (at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/business/international/the-euro-adds-latvia-but-further-growth-is-uncertain.html) “Those include achieving a deficit of 3 percent of gross domestic product and keeping debt to 60 percent of the annual gross domestic product.” This is about its newest member Latvia. You can read two parts here; one is to lower the deficit to 3%, which might be a good achievement. Yet at http://www.kase.gov.lv/uploaded_files/2010/SSD/news_release_2014-A-0109_011.pdf we see the mention “R&I believes that real GDP will continue to grow around 4% on the back of a recovery in the European economy.“

Really, who is buttering who’s bread and where (more important, who owns the butter to begin with). This is a massive amount of iterated bad news management I am appalled that the PRESS is not more active in finding out the ‘real’ truth here. Consider a 2013 report from the EC (at http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2013/pdf/ee3_en.pdf) and consider that the numbers on page 47 is up to 2011. So, the 2012 numbers are not even there for a 2013 report. This is all about marketing, all about as they state “Overall, a broad-based look at underlying factors suggests that sufficiently strong conditions are in place for Latvia to be able to maintain a robust and sustainable convergence path in the medium term“, which makes this 55 page paper a sales pitch.

How is this connected?

That is the question isn’t it! It is not about Latvia, or the Ukraine. This is about the EEC and their approach to ‘some kind of a future‘. This is all good, but these events are about setting economic prosperity for a few EEC bigwigs. As they add members, as deficits are still not met in several nations and debts keep on rising, the taxpayers will soon face a harsh reality and it is a bigger one than they bargained for. On my side, there is also a view. Am I comparing apples to pears?
Yes, to some extent I am. The issue is that the EEC is not a vendor of apples or pears, they are dealing in fruit and we all get thrown into the same trog. Russia seems adamant that the Ukraine does not enter the same trog. It prefers its own trog to the EEC one, which might looks nicer but has the same stale grub in the end.

So when we see the sabre rattling from both sides, make sure that you all realise that this is not about the Ukrainians, their choices their future. It is for the Ukrainians, but the other parties are engaging for one reason, their economies! It is about the economic futures of others. Will this all bring prosperity to the Ukraine and its people? Not until the EEC and America end up with a much better economy, which require these governments (all of them) to get their budgets in order. Until then they are showing themselves as some sort of hedge fund dealers. You might remember how that ended up in 2004 and 2008. Now, it is no longer about de-valuated pieces of paper, now it will all be about people and whoever will be the ‘last’ nation left standing. We need to get out of that rat race and real quickly too!

That part becomes more and more visible when we see the latest from Sky News “Russia is ready to help Ukraine as it seeks to stave off economic collapse, US Secretary of State John Kerry says after talking with his Russian counterpart” (at http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=954470). In addition “Ukraine owes $US13 billion in state debt payments this year – a massive sum in a country where state reserves have shrunk to less than $US18 billion” gives some level of evidence to my views. Another government had been spending money they never had to begin with. When smaller economies fall over, how long until the larger ones take a tumble (especially as they add on new in deficit grown members), because if these issues do not change that will be the clear terminal result, no matter what sales pitch a hedge fund call centre operator calls you with.

In that regard there is an interesting paper at http://www.project-bridge.eu/datoteke/Actions2012/BRIDGE-ANALYSIS%20OF%20THE%20EU-UKRAINE%20RELATIONS.pdf. Denys Kuzmin and Iryna Maksymenko wrote an interesting piece in 2012. Not sure how much I can agree with (as I was never an economic), but it reads like this is all about a possible future for the Ukraine, not about keeping the EEC alive. That side is getting less and less likely, as we see the growing influence from Nigel Farage, Marie Le-Penn, Bernd Lucke and Geert Wilders in their respective governments. Whatever will happen after that will have long term consequences for all the EEC players, even though many ignore these dangers, the dangers will not go away any day soon because that is the consequence of a weak economy, the people choose and currently they are very afraid for their personal futures. So is Ukraine better off with Russia or with the EEC? I actually have no idea, but consider that Russian Commerce is currently buying up commerce all over Europe like for example the Dutch Jeweller ‘Siebel’. The chips are not just changing hands, they are now moving out of local owner’s hands into the hands of foreign corporations. I am not talking about the big boys, they have been in some international hands for a long time, we are now talking about smaller shops where all the moms and pops go.  Consider that these places are no longer held by some oil sheik (like large portions of London), or certain American multi-national groups. Now Russian companies are moving in (through legal methods) and taking control. Who would have guessed this event 10 years ago? Perhaps it is time to ignore these high boasting Wall Street analysts, it is time for actual data, not have baked forecasts to take control of budget goals and government expenditures.

For those wondering about the hot air reference in the title, this is a reference to the windy city of Chicago. The windy city was not about the fresh Canadian air, but about their politicians (filled with hot air). The escalating issue as they are shown in the Ukraine is now in my view all about politicians and spokespeople. For the last 8 years politicians sat on their hands and spokespeople did whatever they could to divert the eyes of politicians, politicians for governments, spokespeople for economic interested parties. If you doubt my words then look at Darfur, Bagdad, Nigeria and Syria, all colossal failures. The politicians failed, grabbing for some ‘sanction solution’ that has never actually worked. Now their credibility of strength is gone. Big Business has been pushing for the lowest and cheapest option for so long; it has made the rich richer, the poor with less, whilst the rich avoid taxation by the billions and after half a decade they are still not dealt with, whilst many taxation coffers are less than empty. Consider the words of Mariana Chilton, an associate professor at Drexel University’s School of Public Health: “If they wanted to address poverty and hunger in this country, then they would pay a living wage, and they would make sure that their workers had good benefits and good family leave for when families have children, etcetera” (at http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/business-solution-war-on-poverty-lyndon-johnson)

These two groups talk to all but they do not really communicate. In the end, when it all falls over they only have themselves to blame and end up blaming everyone except themselves, whilst at the same time they will leave the taxpayer with the cost of it all.

In the end, Russia can do to Ukraine (read Crimea region) whatever it likes, because the west currently has no real actionable options left.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

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