Category Archives: Politics

Searching for a reason

We all do that at times, we all search for a reason. Whether it is for a solution, to blame or to incite. These are the most likely reasons, but they are not the only ones. The thought came to mind when the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58961836) gave me ‘Amazon’s Jeff Bezos ‘may have lied to Congress’’ a stage where ‘may’ is operative. So there is not even any level of assurance that he ‘had most likely’ lied, that on the premise it was highly likely that he was not truthful, or any other stage of ‘creating doubt towards sincerity’. We are also given the claims that “Amazon copied products and rigged its search results in India to boost sales of its own brands”, as well as “sought to correct the record on the inaccurate media articles in question” and in finality we get “they were considering referring the firm “for criminal investigation””, so in the third, what ‘criminal investigation’? For allegedly rigging results in India? For inaccurate media articles? It is an open field and in all this, we need to consider that US congress is merely trying to get fines from rich companies any way they can get, it is what incompetent people tend to do, play the blame game. 

Yet to understand it we need to take a look at the Reuters article (at https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/amazon-india-rigging) where we get ‘Amazon copied products and rigged search results to promote its own brands, documents show’. Here we are given “The internal documents also show that Amazon employees studied proprietary data about other brands on Amazon.in, including detailed information about customer returns” this is indeed a solid accusation. In addition we get “It is difficult to develop this expertise across products and hence, to ensure that we are able to fully match quality with our reference product, we decided to only partner with the manufacturers of our reference product”, it is quite the accusation, yet this happened in 2016. So in the first, why is this not in Indian courts? In the second, why do we see a bland US Congress setting when it is not an activity on American soil? It was Amazon.in, it was in India and referred to Indian products. In addition we get the small part at the very end of “In sworn testimony before the U.S. Congress in 2020, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos explained that the e-commerce giant prohibits its employees from using the data on individual sellers to help its private-label business. And, in 2019, another Amazon executive testified that the company does not use such data to create its own private-label products or alter its search results to favour them” I see it as two parts, in 2019 there is a stage of “Amazon executive testified that the company does not use such data to create its own private-label products or alter its search results to favour them” which would support the stage of wrongful action mentioned earlier, and in 2020 we get “prohibits its employees from using the data on individual sellers to help its private-label business”, as such a stage optionally exists that a flaw was found and dealt with. Optionally there remains a stage that in 2016 “Amazon employees working on the company’s own products, known as private brands or private labels, planned to partner with the manufacturers of the products targeted for copying”, so a stage remains that Indian employees became creative to create their own private fortune in debatable ways, a stage that was close over time and there Reuters has a larger issue. The documents, what EXACTLY do they prove? I am not against Reuters here, they have proven themselves a few times over, so I am asking exactly what internal documents were in play? If they were emails and there the language and the path is also important. Reuters might be on the money, but they start with “A trove of internal Amazon documents reveals how the e-commerce giant ran a systematic campaign of creating knockoff goods” and there we see the assumption it is linking ‘internal Amazon documents’ towards ‘the e-commerce giant’, yet these employees, how high up the ladder were they, were they all Indian? In that case can a quality case based on quantifiable data be made against the e-commerce giant, or is this the event involving a few rotten apples (sorry, rotten pieces of fruit). So when we see the questions that rise from the Reuters article, the US Congress made leaps without investigating the evidence before referring it for Criminal investigation. You see, there needs to be a viable case before referring it, so there needs to be decent questionable evidence and so far, no one has seen it and I reckon it might not be there in the way the BBC article gives us the goods. I think there is a lot more and in all this, when we see “sought to correct the record on the inaccurate media articles in question”, we could have seen evidence and more importantly the media can show the evidence that it was wrongful data handed to them, but we do not see that either (at present), the media is very protective of one another at the alleged expense of anyone else. 

Can Amazon have done something wrong? Yes, absolutely, the firm is too big, things fall through the cracks. Yet the chance of Jeff with the Telly Savalas hairdo Bezos, or Nate Sutton, Amazon’s associate general counsel to openly lie to Judiciary Committee is too ludicrous to consider. That is the stage and when I see “We strongly encourage you to make use of this opportunity to correct the record… as we consider whether a referral of this matter to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation is appropriate,” I feel that this is an attempt to get another fine out of Amazon. Yes, I agree that the letter is merely good form, but I reckon that the players would have done a decent level of homework before that letter went out, and with another shutdown 9 weeks away, America needs all the cash they can lay their fingers on, I am merely wondering if their path is all on the up and up. But that is merely me, questioning whatever I see. I merely wonder if anyone else noticed the questions that the article brings up, it might be my not so trusting nature.

If Amazon did something wrong, OK. It happens and a fine will be the result, but this happened in India, so why is there no reference to a request from India, a request from Indian vendors and a more thorough investigation into the evidence. All that seems to be missing, weird, is it not?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Politics

Direction and Course

We are all driven by doubts. We are all driven by needs and we are all enticed by desires. There is no exception, none at all. Not if you are a cleric, Christian or Muslim. Not if you are a farmer or a politician (although too often I think that the first party is more intelligent than the second one). We are all driven by surges, by vectors and by elements outside ourselves. They are the particles that fuel the internal engine in us and the mindset that accompanies it. I remain on the fence regarding the building scandal in Rotterdam, the political power-drive for a place called Vestia. The simplest side is a mere tally, 524 homes are removed to be replaced by 137 locations to inhabit, with an added 101 apartments for higher incomes and 143 apartments for sale, the tally does not add up. A new station is created with -143 locations. This was about money, plain and simple. So whilst Vestia hides behind “We achieve this by taking an effective and innovative approach to rentals, sales, liveability, maintenance, investments and operating costs. We are committed to providing good service to our customers: the people who rent and buy our homes”, so whilst we see one, we also see that they enabled the removal of 387 social housing locations, it was the simplest math problem. Someone got rich here. Yet in the setting of greed, there is so much out there, Rotterdam is not even the smallest blip on any, not even a Dutch radar. 

There is more out there, the stage of the media is getting out of control, stake holders, the setting of lobbyists that are gracing the foundation of media is getting larger, os getting stronger and the media itself does not care, it is like watching a crack whore reach for the goods. Their grasp towards digital dollars without contemplating the larger stage is ludicrous. As an example look at the home page of the Independent (independent.co.uk), the Los Angeles Times (latimes.com), The Washington Post (washingtonpost.com), and Dagens Nyheter (www.dn.se). Notice the advertisements? Let’s be clear, the papers are allowed to do that, yet consider who can afford that. Consider the cost of a front page advertisement in the paper versus the front page of a website. Consider the stage of who gets the visibility and how they got there. Now there is an opposing side to this some are merely advertising, there is no ‘stake holder’, there is no political need, but that stage is fluidic and siding with the stake holders. Consider the past, how many advertisements for some Microsoft device passed you by? How many claims of mobile data for less, how many ads are localised? Consider seeing the LA Times, seeing “Coliving Homes in Sydney. Coliving homes for rent in Sydney from A$1,300/month, inclusive of weekly housekeeping”, now there is nothing wrong with the ad. And it is powered by Google Ads and there is nothing wrong with that. Yet consider that an apartment costing A$1300 a week has an ad on the front page of the LA Times. The setting is so much larger than even I can understand. This is global and this is not some anti-Google setting, I am making the claim that there is a layer between the media and advertisers. Electronic lobbyists, I call them Stake Holders, and they are raking in millions. The view is not easy, and I am not making a claim that I have it, it is so convoluted on the global scale that no one really has an idea, it would require the Google source data and a very powerful computer to suss it out to the smallest degree. I saw glimmers as Microsoft was advertising its Surface pro, but that could just as easily be seen as a glimmer of delusion. The problem is not me, it is not anyone who might not be able to see it, it will be the media, they are part of it. They are setting a new course, they are setting a course towards their digital dollars at the expense of the people, what I often refer to the ‘click bitches’ they create though emotional articles. A newspaper will give you ‘Pandora papers: biggest ever leak of offshore data exposes financial secrets of rich and powerful’, whilst they also give you “the move was not illegal, and there is no evidence the Blairs proactively sought to avoid property taxes” Consider that journalists waste time on non-illegal actions whilst we see some papers give us ‘Houthi blockade restricts aid’, is that not interesting? The UN was all about attacking Saudi Arabia recently whilst keeping (according to media) Houthi and Iranian elements out of that think-tank presentation. So why are we not given the full view whilst some are wasting our time on “the move was not illegal”. I believe that political lobbyists and digital lobbyists are uniting to some extent, optionally the political lobbyists are also on the digital platform calling themselves ‘stake holders’. This is speculation, this is not proven (yet) and there could be all kinds of ‘evidence’ proving me wrong. I do not know yet, but the views I have seen over the last 15 months proving me to be correct more and more. And now, I am taking the light to my work and looking deeper into it all, because anyone not criticising and digging into his own data will fail from the start, and I do not like failure. But that is just me, to seek a direction and course requires energy and it needs a drive, but what that drive is remains open to debate, even for me.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics

New lodgings in New York

OK, I will admit that is not entirely the case, but the question becomes. How much would a 4 bedroom condo at 405 East 42nd Street, New York, NY, 10017, USA cost? It is a building with 39 floors. The top 2 floors would have 2-3 apartments, the rest 6-8. I reckon we can around 250 apartments out of it. We large meeting room could be a restaurant and the lowest floors would have space for shops and so on. Not bad eh?

You see, the Guardian gives us ‘Saudi Arabia accused of forcing Yemenis in the kingdom out of their jobs’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/14/saudi-arabia-accused-of-forcing-yemenis-in-the-kingdom-out-of-their-jobs), and we do see ‘accused’ meaning it can go anywhere. Yet when we see “Calling on all sides, including the Houthis, to remove the impediments to distributing aid, Deen also pointed out that only 55% of the pledges made at the Yemen humanitarian summit had been fulfilled”, yes it sounds so nice and consider that with 55% of the pledges the population of Yemen would only be half as hungry now. The involvement of Iran in Yemen is completely overlooked (read: ignored) and the think-tank that was invited seems to do exactly what it was arranged to do, to slap Saudi Arabia around. And when we consider that the Sana’a Centre think-tank was invited to give an update on “the six-year civil war in Yemen”, can we consider that Maysaa Shuja al-Deen is optionally incompetent? The six year war should include a direct tally of Houthi actions against the Yemeni people (the article dos not give that to us), the military aid that Iran is giving the Houthi’s, which also seems to be missing. And when I see “She appealed to the Gulf states to keep their doors open to Yemen, adding that the security council should put pressure on the Saudis immediately to stop expanding and tightening the grip on Yemeni workers in the Saudi labour market” my initial emotional response would be “Who the fuck does she think she is”, whilst the non-emotional side wonders if she ever considered that there is a security risk with Any Yemeni working in Saudi Arabia, because those people have family in Yemen and the Houthi’s have too much control in Yemen. So when I say ‘these fucks in the security council’ I do know what I am talking about because I once worked for them (a very long time ago). It is all about image and protocol. So whilst once source only 13 hours ago gave us ‘Houthis claim seizing district in central Yemen’ and of course it is the one with loads of oil. 

As far as I can tell (the article is not a great resource) it seems that the Sana’a Centre think-tank is not about informing people, it is about scoring brownie points and filling a political agenda. Whose agenda remains to be seen, as Saudi Arabia has a few people in that building that seemingly have anti Saudi emotions. So shall we have a vote to turn 405 East 42nd Street into an apartment building? I will leave that up to you to contemplate this Sunday. I have to go and kill a few people (PS5 joke). 

Have a great day.

p.s. WordPress still cannot fix what they break, so I am sorry that I could not add the colours at present

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics

The rule of guns

This is not new, this is not even novel. It is the continuation of something that has been going on for decades, I saw it with my own eyes in 1982, others saw it too. Some objected, others did not. And when Beirut had its fireworks party on August 5th 2020, so many voices were eager to give rise to a setting that could never be, and all rejoiced when the media forwarded those messages. They must have thought it was in the bag. But I knew a think or two and I gave the readers ‘Boom goes the dynamite’ that very same day (about 6 hours later, might have been 12). And I gave the readers “It is speculation, but consider the blast, according to some the blast was noticed well over 100Km away. I do have a point of reference, the Fireworks blast in the Netherlands (Enschede) had a similar effect, but nowhere near the size, the video’s I saw told a different story, one car on the highway with a distance of around 2000 meters away got its windows blown out and the rear view mirrors got blown off the car, and that is one of a few video’s that show me that this was no ordinary blast”, so there was a lager stage and the people who were behind it went under the rocks like cockroaches. I calculated that it took a massive amount of 40’ containers and the cargo, 125 40’ containers worth cannot go up like the way it did, not in one go. And I rote more than one article about that. So when we now see in the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/14/gunfire-beirut-protest-judge-leading-port-blast-inquiry), the setting of ‘Five dead as shooting breaks out at Beirut protests over port blast inquiry’, we now see “demanding end to judge’s investigation of huge blast last year”, all whilst we see Hezbollah types being brave behind their balaclava’s. So whilst we get the terrorist spokespeople Nabih Berri and Hassan Nasrallah make noise, we see the attacks on judge Tarek Bitar continue. I see no surprises, once a terrorist, always a terrorist. And when we see “However, demands that all aspects of the explosion be investigated seem almost impossible to deliver, with ministers summoned for investigation refusing to turn up”, something that I saw and I feel certain plenty of others saw that too, we wonder when Hezbollah will be held to account. So whilst these political chihuahua’s refuse to appear we see the stage changing, a stage where a lot of people are demanding that ALL HELP towards Lebanon will stop until someone correctly muzzles Hezbollah. And I see a reason to divert those aid funds to Israel (if needed). A larger stage erupts as the smaller (2020/8/5) subsides. This is not about local rights, this is about Hezbollah is showing itself as the bully it always was, it was that in 1982, it still is that now. In this I am not making judgement on judge Tarek Bitar, I know too little about him, but the stage that Hezbollah wants it stopped and they are happy to show themselves (often with balaclava’s) exercise that right wielding an RPG-7, or other hardware of the ‘firearms’ variety shows them to be the aggressor, to be the bad apples and now as the energy crises is pushing into winter, the stage of anger changes even more. Now there is a larger explosion and it could go on into its neighbouring places and one of them is Israel the other one is Syria and neither accepts the Hezbollah approach. I nice stage to set and the people of Lebanon do not get a choice in the matter, they let things slide with Hezbollah for too long and this will implode in all kinds of wrong settings. Even now we see all minds of media including Iran in this mess. I cannot follow that as I remain a follower of evidence, but it does make sense. And even in light of the humanitarian side of ‘Hezbollah-run oil shipments from Iran’, enough players were willing to let that slide, but it would not take long until Hezbollah thought it was in control (because to some degree they are) and now the world has had enough, some will stop funds, more will stop goods and Hezbollah will learn what war against hungry and cold fellow citizens look like, they will not give Hezbollah any consideration in all this and neither should we. There comes a time when enough is enough and too many have hit that point now, so as Hezbollah and Amar will seek ‘compensation’ (optionally for their lost explosives), the larger station is no what they want, it is what they were part of and that is what fears them. The Times of Israel gives us “Local commentators said Washington, worried about chaos in Lebanon amid raging, multiple crises, may have decided to look the other way”, but that is not the real deal. The slightly more real deal is “humanitarian assistance in Lebanon to more than $372 million in Fiscal Year 2021” and it has become time to stop that. Let the cancer die, let those people die. This in not inhumane, it is an essential part of stopping terrorism by Hezbollah. If there are no people to care, there are no recruits, there is no Hezbollah and the times and the economic pressure are growing in this direction. It would have been less of an issue if someone muzzled them, but no one did so we have a new stage to look forward to. In the first the UN trying to smooth things over, the other all the heart bleeding people who ache for the people of Lebanon, yet none of them are willing to hold Hezbollah to account, why is that?

To keep instability around? It is too late for that, Wall Street solved that problem for you all. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Military, Politics

We are the tools

Yes, we are, you, me, we all are and the evidence is all out there. So let’s start with the global comic relieve that we call the ICIJ (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists). We all see the headlines, global headlines and 600 secretaries (they call themselves journalists) are out there giving us what we think are the goods. To phrase an example we take a look at the Sydney Morning Herald (at https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/australia-has-become-a-go-to-destination-for-dirty-money-leaks-reveal-nation-s-tax-weaknesses-20211007-p58y2i.html) it is a mere example what is going on out there. A collection of people no one head about, no one cared about. A collection of tits and dicks all striking their own ego, their own needs and the audience is gobbling it up. So when we are given phrases like “ALP senator Deborah O’Neill has launched an inquiry into Australia’s AML-CTF regime and is seeking industry feedback on the costs and benefits of broadening our laws to include accountants and lawyers to bring Australian laws into line with international standards to prevent financial crime” Yet here is the problem. It is ‘prevent financial crime’, in this that we also see from other sources “the line between tax avoidance and tax evasion has become so blurred we need to act against both” and there is the real problem, a stage I told people for well over a decade. Tax laws need overhaul on a global stage. And the setting too often is that there were no laws broken, these people might act against the spirit of the law, but they NEVER broke the law. And that is the stage, 600 typing tutors cannot give us the goods, because as I speculate, the real goods were never there. Yet someone in the ICIJ decided not to investigate the origins. Interesting not? So whilst we focus on “Avoidance meant arranging your affairs so tax wasn’t due”, whilst we consider that politicians have given the wealthy and rich a little too much leeway these politicians are now hiding under rocks and they do not want the limelight. And whilst some are considering “It isn’t illegal for the celebrity or a politician to move their money (so long as it is theirs to begin with). Assets within the trust are subject to local tax laws (sometimes zero tax) and local secrecy laws (sometimes complete secrecy)”, they will get the idea that places like Monaco, Cayman Islands and Dubai have appeal to many people with a piggy bank that holds an 8-figure number or more. So when we see all these papers give us “the documents were linked to more than 330 politicians and public officials, including 35 current and former national leaders, in more than 91 countries and territories”, as well as mentions of billionaires and no one gave us a clear top-line setting, I saw one, just one in a stage with dozens of papers and on less than 50% of the politicians involved. Yet none in the US, none in Canada, none in Australia or New Zealand, it is optionally possible, but 50% of that rundown was missing. And 600 secretaries had no time to look into it? As papers keep on handing us “a two-year effort to sift through 11.9 million confidential files leaked to it, aided in that effort by more than 600 journalists from 150 media outlets.” No one had the idea to give us a tally, a top-line? So far how many give us a list of ACTUAL criminal events? Tax Avoidance is not illegal, owning and residing in a zero tax nation is not illegal, so what is this about?

Now consider another station I made mention on. Consider the names Jacob A. Frenkel, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Guillermo Ortiz, Jean-Claude Trichet, Geoffrey Bell, Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., Arminio Fraga, Kenneth Rogoff, Janet Yellen, Zhou Xiaochuan, Domingo Cavallo, Mario Draghi, Yi Gang, Carmen Reinhart, Maria Ramos, Klaas Knot, Philipp Hildebrand and Kenneth Rogoff. All part of the G30 bankers list, no mention at all? These people move trillions, there is no way that there is no mention of them in any way, but the press seemingly avoided that small part, or the source data was stricken of them, making this an exercise of some sorts and no one caught on? How come?

And this is not in you, that is on the members of the media (including those who think that they are journalists, or got the degree and faked their way through life). 

A simple setting of bankrupt nations painting the wealthy as the criminals, all whilst the politicians were a lot more to blame in all of this, 2 decades of ignored overhauls and no one catches on? 

The sanctimonious BS that the media is feeding us sickens me, it really does.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Was I wrong?

That is something I have been accused of plenty of times. Mostly they were wrong (as anyone might who thinks that they are right), in this case it was my take on the debt ceiling. I wrote it in ‘Two items’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/10/07/two-items/). Consider the fact that the debt is at present $28 trillion and there is no real debt ceiling raising, there is merely a stand off of 10 weeks. So the people in the USA will go through this again during Christmas, and if we are picky about this. At present the interest in the debt is well over $280,000,000,000 a year, that is if anyone was stupid enough to give the USA a 1% credit arrangement, even houses get more, so at 2% it is $560 billion. Consider that and consider that this extension costs a little more than $107,500,000,000 for 10 weeks. How much tax was collected? A setting that goes nowhere EVER. As I personally see it the total annual tax receipts. One source gives us “In 2020, the total revenue of the U.S. government sum up to about 3.42 trillion U.S. dollars and consist of individual and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes. Individual income taxes totalled up to 1.6 trillion U.S. dollars in 2020, whereas corporate income taxes totalled to 212 billion U.S. dollars.” As such we see two elements, corporate tax would not. Cover the debt, not even 50%. Yes the total tax collected covers that interest, but it will take 15% of all collected taxes to make that work, as such if we take the simple road (I need to because I have no economics degree) it amounts to 43% of the collected taxes to pay for the interest plus enough to pay the debt off in 30 years. As such a debt accumulated in 25 years will take 30 years as well as push a large part of the US nation into pure poverty. No infrastructures maintained, no education, a massive cut on defence spending (not the worst idea), yet in this logistics takes a hit, so consider standing in long lines in ANY setting that requires you to get any help at all and healthcare is damaged beyond repair. That is the station that the Americans face and as this happens, Japan goes over the edge and the EU will be in all kinds of states. You see, Russia and China do not have the engage in war, they can merely stand on the sidelines watching it all implode. This is not a new setting, this was clear in 2012/2013 as we were watching the middle east expenses explode. Politicians who were all in a stage of ‘We will overcome this’, so where are these politicians now? Sitting pretty on a large bag of money, thats where! In all this, I do not want you to take my word on this. Do the math, check the numbers and see where it is coming from. 

Now consider what I gave you earlier and consider that sources stated that the 2020 Budget for the US was $4.79 trillion. A budget that comes $1,370,000,000,000 short of what was available. Are you getting a clue that the 10 weeks is a laughable excuse? Yes, the republicans have a good case, but they are not innocent either in all this, both sides got you in this mess and now the Credit Card with the connected address of 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW is getting cancelled on a near global scale. We see how Wall Street is presenting itself to be happy, but it is short lived and those people are filling their pockets and they will go wherever they (and their family) can have a sweet lifestyle for 40 years. I reckon when it all implodes it will take that long to get up again and whatever gets up will not be very human, or humane any more. 

These are numbers that are out there, so do you still think I am wrong? It’s fine, you should never just agree with anyone, especially a person you do not know. You should check yourself, because when the social system in the US (and several other nations) collapse, the upside for those governments will be that suicide numbers will go through the roof. 

Why upside?
Housing prices collapse, homeless numbers go down, unemployment numbers go down. If an unemployed person commits suicide, the cost falls away, if an employed person does it a job becomes optionally available. The numbers are at this time THAT COLD. You think it makes me happen, but it does not. I admit, on the Covid side I made fun of the non-inoculated people, but a social collapse suicide wave is nothing one has ever seen before. Consider that 2018 had the highest male suicide rates since 1950 and then triple it, (an estimated number created with a wet finger). The US will be looking at 67 per 100,000. That amounts to 217,750 suicides and it will not be one year, it will be a setting of a percentage annually of the 217,750 for 3-5 years. It will surpass the 733,575 covid-19 deaths in the US. That is the setting and beware, this is speculated on my side. I cannot prove this and I have no data supporting any of this, a mere impact of expected events when a social security system collapses. It is set to about 70 million people in the US getting assistance in one form or another from the Social Security Administration (SSA), now consider it falling away completely. Rents cannot be met, hunger all over the place and no healthcare. A situation that comes from a badly managed debt by both the Democrats and the Republicans. So, feel free to ignore this, but I do hope you will check the numbers, they are all out there and they are all over the place. So when you see the impact that 70,000,000 people face, my number set to 217,750 might turn out to be extremely conservative. If it gets to be seriously higher I honestly hope I will not live to see that day, it would be depressing beyond measure and if you think that this is bad, I expect Japan to equal those numbers and optionally surpass them. They merely have a population of 126 million, a mere 38% compared to America, so when I see them surpass that number, we can see that the larger stage will be a nasty one. A stage where China and Russia can claim the lands by clearing the corpses, not one weapon used, not one bullet fired. That is the deep dark future we are all heading too. So whether I end up saying ‘я не говорю по-русски’, ‘我不懂中文’, or optionally ‘मैं हिंदी कहां से सीख सकता हूं’ We are all heading towards an abyss, one that was created by people who were smitten with ego’s stating ‘We are too big too fail’. History taught us that nothing is too big too fail. We saw the examples in Julius Caesar (44BC), Napoleon Bonaparte (1821), Adolf Hitler (1945) in this their opponents had a nice party (the one in 44BC was awesome), will I be wrong again? That is a decent setting, you see the people getting wealthy on the debt the US has wants the debt ceiling to be raised again and again. And as I personally see it, there is no real solution, there is no debt management, there is no halting overspending in too many places and as such these nations will grab whatever they can and however they can. IP values will be end up being based on on national products, and corporations will need to align with a nation. You see there is a larger danger for Big Tech and the US (EU too) doesn’t like true global companies. As such we see court play after court play, yet in the end players like Apple, Facebook, Google, IBM, Microsoft and others will optionally face a new setting a domestic office and non-domestic offices that will have to report to the domestic office. A setting that happens to some degree, but now there will be a tax focus. In this both the US and the EU have no choice, their credit cards are stretched too thin. However, I doubt that they will become sensible and plan for an end to debts, Wall Street for one will not like that and the IMF will have its own reasons to object. Debt is big business and the people you never elected in any nation are getting decently wealthy in the process. I am not talking about people like Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin or Bill Gates. I am talking about Mario Draghi and his friends, the banks who are collecting the interest. You forgot about them did you? The so called ‘secretive club of bankers’, did you think they were having a drink and talking about the good old days? Did you think that they were letting $560,000,000,000 to chance? A club with 33 member, and if they only get 10%, that implies that these 33 people are optionally at present getting $17,000,000,000 each EVERY YEAR. You still think that the debt is making your life better? 

Do not take my word on any of this, find the numbers, find the links and see what else is there, there is enough out there and as far as I can tell the larger issue was never seen in the IDIJ, or showed up in the Pandora papers, did they? Why was that? Try finding any of these 33 people in the Pandora papers, what are the chances that you will find none?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics

Choices that some make

We all have this. We make choices and that is not against anyone (or anything for that matter). So I was a bit on the fence when I saw ‘Frances Haugen takes on Facebook: the making of a modern US hero’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/10/frances-haugen-takes-on-facebook-the-making-of-a-modern-us-hero). First off, let’s start by saying I have nothing against Frances Haugen or her point of view. I do find the setting ‘the making of a modern US hero’ debatable. I feel certain that it was not her setting to become a hero or to see heroism. It is the paint stage that the massively less than credible media is taking. If big tech was not under attack the media would most likely have been more moderate in their colours of painting brushes. 

We get told “The 37-year-old logged out of Facebook’s company network for the last time in May and last week was being publicly lauded a “21st-century American hero” on Washington’s Capitol Hill” yet where was the media these last three years? Collecting Facebook advertising money I reckon. So when we are given “I believe Facebook’s products harm children, stoke division and weaken our democracy” I do not disagree, I have no data to disagree, but the media had that, they have had a clear picture for years, but for the media flaming creates emotion, it create click bitches and it generates digital advertisement income. But Facebook was an eager tool for a long time and you do not bite the hand that feeds you and the media has shown itself very protective of ANY hand that feeds them. If there is one part I disagree with (to some extent) then it is “She repeatedly referred to the company choosing growth and profit over safety and warned that Facebook and Instagram’s algorithms – which tailor the content that a user sees – were causing harm”, it is the “which tailor the content that a user sees – were causing harm” part I cannot completely agree with. I do believe that Frances Haugen is sincere in her approach, but ‘causing harm’ requires evidence, evidence that is a lot harder to obtain. Perhaps that was given, and I did not look at all the documents, but there is a stage, optionally two. The first is “choosing growth and profit over safety”, that seems clear, the entire emotional flames might be part of that, yet there is a stage of “choosing growth and profit over increased safety”, it seems like a small step, yet the stage is proving that it was all against “profit over decreased safety” that matters. We create safety, or we stop increased safety, none of that is on Facebook, only if a clear view of “profit over decreased safety” is shown Facebook will have a larger problem. You see, no matter how we point the fingers on ‘flaming’ in the end it is the view of the less than articulate person lacking a decent education and the US is so protective of its First Amendment, that nothing goes anywhere. The Media has been using that stick to slap donkeys, horses, dogs and people for decades. In this I have some issues with Democrat Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), when we are given   “Facebook is like big tobacco, enticing young kids with that first cigarette,” said Senator Markey at the hearing. “Congress will be taking action. We will not allow your company to harm our children and our families and our democracy, any longer.” I cannot completely disagree, yet in the 70’s and 80’s there was clear evidence on Big Tobacco, but the US government and corporations had no issues taxing and grabbing marketing dollars wherever they could. (Example at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vg_QVAEJtg) If Facebook is just as bad, you should have had years of evidence and I believe you had it but these political big wigs were unwilling to act. A model based on selling advertisements that brought in billions, what was there not to love and for the most the media loved it too. So I am not arguing with the views that Frances Haugen is bringing, it is the views of those heralding her now. And too many of them should be seriously afraid. When hackers and others start looking into data and the timeline of decisions a few people in the Senate, Congress and a few other players will sweat drops of death. 

And my view? Well CNBC did that work with ‘Facebook spent more on lobbying than any other Big Tech company in 2020’ (at https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/facebook-spent-more-on-lobbying-than-any-other-big-tech-company-in-2020.html) at the beginning of the year. So when someone grabs an abacus and digs on where the $19 million plus went, some politicians might not like the answers the people are given, and that is the part that is out in the open, the setting of Stakeholders and media for Facebook might optionally double or triple that amount. It is the highest of all the FAANG group and almost twice as much as Microsoft, so what do you think will happen next? 

It took 20 years for big tobacco to get into real trouble, as such if there is a parallel there is every chance that something is done by 2040, as such Facebook has plenty of time. But in all this, there is a part missing, which is not on anyone (and not on CNBC either). The stage where the people get to know the names the lobbyists and how these politicians voted on Facebook and other first amendment issues. That is the part no one gets to see and I very much doubt that this will change any day soon.

And my point of view is seen with Christopher Wylie when we get “Wylie said he had relived his own experience as a whistleblower by watching Haugen. But he also found the flashbacks frustrating – because nothing has changed.” The Cambridge Analytica is out there and even as the New York Times gives us 2 days ago “We’re Smarter About Facebook Now”, I personally am considering that they are full of it. They needed to be smarter about it close to 2 years ago, so weren’t they? Isn’t that equally a decent question to ask? So as Wylie gives us “The fact that we are still having a conversation about what is happening, not what are we going to do about it, I find slightly exasperating,” shows us clearly the inaction of politics, of policies and the lack of actions by the law, global law no less. Fir we look at the US, but the laws and the actions by the EU and the Commonwealth is equally lacking, so why is that? It is due to the choices some make and the consequences we all have to face and in a stage where every coffer is empty and every nation has a credit card that has a maximised debt, acting against a company bringing in millions in taxable dollars is often not considered.

We all make choices, that is not a sin, but after the Catholics, a second deal where the choosing parties are giving sanctum to those endangering kids is debatable on several levels, that being said, those opposing Facebook will need to prove it and that is not an easy matter to do, because as I state, it is not about “choosing growth and profit over safety”, it will be about “profit versus decreased safety” and that is a very different data stage and the evidence will not be easy to obtain, mainly because the users are often the problem too. Facebook gives us “Facebook’s policy is to delete accounts if there is proof that the account holder is under 13 – they won’t be able to take action if they can’t be sure of the child’s age.” And they try to adhere to that, yet there have been plenty of indications that some were younger, but the stage of “if there is proof that the account holder is under 13”, as such the account stays in place. And when we see several sources give us (unverified for honesty) “A friend has a 9-year-old son and they have allowed him to create his own Facebook account” how can Facebook be blamed and that setting will taint the evidence as well, as such it will take a long time for actual action to start, it is not a setting that Frances Haugen might have seen coming, but in a land of laws, evidence is key (unless political issues take precedence). 

There is a lot more on the Facebook front and it will take months for it all to surface and when it does there is more than likely several months of contemplation and inaction, all because those who could act would not. Who is to blame there? I will let you work that one out.

Have a great day!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

Two items

Yes, there are two items that are on the mind of may people. One is directly on the mind of many and as I stated in ‘Utter insanity’ on October 4th a lot of impact will be seen and the poor will get the brunt of that impact. As I see it, there is a lot that will be going wrong and even as the US Democrats are hiding behind the media slogans like ‘Biden: Republicans playing ‘Russian roulette’ with US economy over debt ceiling’, we better catch on quick. This issue is not now, it has been going on for over a decade, too much spending, no exit strategy and upping the debt every time and this has been going on since the Presidents George W Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and President Joe Biden were in office. From 2001 the debt want from $6 trillion until now as it is $28 trillion. I will agree that President Biden got a really bad hand and he inherited the debt, but so did Obama and Trump. George W Bush had Afghanistan and Iraq in consequence to what happened in New York which was not on him, but ALL these presidents had the option to overhaul the Tax system and NONE of them did so, this pox is on BOTH the Republican and the Democrat houses. A budget that was there to enable big business and media but none acted over well over 20 years, so this is on more. In this Bill Clinton was the one who left the budget was in surplus so his inaction has a decent acceptable excuse. And now the Republicans say enough is enough, I cannot fault them for that. As I showed the Defence department wasted $30-$45 billion on TWO PROJECTS, two projects that does not meet the bare minimum but we go on paying those wasting the funds. Why is that? And the lack of adjusting Tax laws, not to tax the rich, but the setting of justly tax ALL. An optional setting that as offered to them in 1998, but they were eager to state that it was too hard. Now consider the Google Ads system that properly (and decently) charges the advertiser and not greedy grab the advertiser like the advertisement  agencies did for decades. So it was not that hard, was it?

And as we now see the need to ‘overhaul’ the Senate rules to end the amendment of the ‘filibuster’, a stage that has been there for a long time is now regarded by the Democrats as too hard to handle. I am not the voice for against that decision, yet consider that THEY TOO would not overhaul the tax system when it was in their administration, so is it fair? And in all this Wall Street is giving whatever ‘free’ advice the media is willing to listen to, they are so scared now. 

What was issue two?
It cones from a different corner. When the BBC gave us ‘Princess Haya: Dubai ruler had ex-wife’s phone hacked – UK court’ 8 hours ago (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-58814978) I saw “The High Court has found that the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum, interfered with British justice by ordering the hacking of the phone of his ex-wife, Princess Haya of Jordan. The phones of her solicitors, Baroness Fiona Shackleton QC and Nick Manners, were also targeted during their divorce custody case, according to the court”, it took a few second (approximately 7.1) and my mind raced. You see the media is a nice source to use given information against them. You see, The Verge gave us on July 23rd (at https://www.theverge.com/22589942/nso-group-pegasus-project-amnesty-investigation-journalists-activists-targeted) ‘NSO’s Pegasus spyware: here’s what we know. In that article we get “NSO Group’s CEO and co-founder Shalev Hulio broadly denied the allegations, claiming that the list of numbers had nothing to do with Pegasus or NSO. He argued that a list of phone numbers targeted by Pegasus (which NSO says it doesn’t keep, as it has “no insight” into what investigations are being carried out by its clients) would be much shorter”, It is the setting of “has “no insight” into what investigations are being carried out by its clients” against the setting that the BBC gives us which is “referred to the hacking as “serial breaches of (UK) domestic criminal law”, “in violation of fundamental common law and ECHR rights”, “interference with the process of this court and the mother’s access to justice” and “abuse of power” by a head of government”, we can agree with the point of view, but where is the evidence? The NSO stated that it does not keep any, so what is the source and the foundation of the evidence? The link the BBC gives us the judgment (at https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/al-maktoum-judgments/) yet there I see in the reference for the Hacking fact finding part:

i. The mobile phones of the mother, two of her solicitors (Baroness Shackleton and Nicholas Manners), her Personal Assistant and two members of her security staff have been the subject of unlawful surveillance during the course of the present proceedings and at a time of significant events in those proceedings.

ii. The surveillance has been carried out by using software licensed to the Emirate of Dubai or the UAE by the NSO Group.

iit. The surveillance has been carried out by servants or agents of the father, the Emirate of Dubai or the UAE.

iv. The software used for this surveillance included the capacity to track the target’s location, the reading of SMS and email messages and other messaging apps, listening to telephone calls and accessing the target’s contact lists, passwords, calendars and photographs. It would also allow recording of live activity and taking of screenshots and pictures.

Yet in all this, how was this evidence obtained? The findings rely on the setting stated by Baroness Hale, which is fair enough and she stated “In this country we do not require documentary proof. We rely heavily on oral evidence, especially from those who were present when the alleged events took place. Day after day, up and down the country, on issues large and small, judges are making up their minds whom to believe. They are guided by many things, including the inherent probabilities, any contemporaneous documentation or records, any circumstantial evidence tending to support one account rather than the other, and their overall impression of the characters and motivations of the witnesses.” Here I have a problem. Not the setting that Baroness Hale states, it applies for many cases and I would support this, yet in this technology the problem is that even those deep into this technology do not completely understand what they face. When we look at sources all over, we see a former intelligence officer from Germany who cannot state that Huawei is a danger, because their technology people do not comprehend it. We see source after source flaming the NSO group issues but they are flaming and even those sources are debated as it refers to sources from 2016, long before the Pegasus group had the software it deploys now. If we accept the words by Baroness Hale “We rely heavily on oral evidence, especially from those who were present when the alleged events took place” yet what happens when that witness the average normal person, how can that person give credibility to neural surgery? It is the same, a stage where the media relied on flaming and keeping people off balance, how can a person who does not comprehend technology be given the credibility that this court has? And should the court disregard the influence the media has, they merely need to see connected contributory manslaughter Martin Bashir was a part of, as I personally see it, his actions resulted in the path that led to the death of Lady Diana Spencer. 

In this I support “the court’s findings were based on evidence that was not disclosed to him, and that they were “made in a manner which was unfair””, I will take it one step further, if the submitted evidence is held to the cold light of day, its value will be debatable on a few levels. So when we consider “Dr William Marczak, who is based in California and is a senior research fellow at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab, which researches digital surveillance. He told the court he had no doubt the phones were hacked using NSO’s Pegasus software. He also concluded “with high confidence” that the phones were hacked by a single operator in a nation state. He concluded with medium confidence that it was most unlikely to be any state other than the UAE.” In this we saw the CIA with their “with high confidence” and I wonder hat it is based on. I am not attacking Dr William Marczak, there is no reason to, but when you consider “with medium confidence that it was most unlikely to be any state other than the UAE”, so he is not completely certain, he is decently certain that someone did it, but there is no evidence (aka he cannot swear) that it was the UAE, feel free to read the settings and the statements, it could have been anyone, if the evidence holds up to scrutiny and that pert is also a part I am not certain of. You see when we see “A senior member of NSO’s management team called Mrs Blair from Israel on 5 August 2020 to inform her that “it had come to their attention that their software may have been misused to monitor the mobile phones of Baroness Shackleton and HRH Princess Haya” and we hold it up to the interview in The Verge on July 23rd with Shalev Hulio we see conflicts, conflicts of optional evidence by the same source, why is that?

These are the two Items that were bugging me to some extent and as my mind is racing towards another TV series stage (it will be the third my mind designs) I wonder what the eager bored mind is able to contemplate. So as we wonder what drove the judgement (no negativity implied), I see too many strings going from one place to another and they might be just in my mind (the place between ones ears) but too much evidence does not make sense, in both stages offered and the media took centre stage to both, and the media is the weakest link of credibility, that has been personally proven a few times over.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

The worst is almost here

There is a truth in the expression “The worst is yet to come”, that is a truth that has been around longer than I have been alive. The setting that things can be worse than they are now is a reflection of positivity. Things are not at it worst, but what happens when that part is around the corner? It is a very real danger we now face and even as 600 journalists are digging into the Pandora papers, trying to create click bitches, all whilst we get (source: BBC) “There is no suggestion that either the Qatari family or the sellers of the two properties acted illegally”, what a waste of space have these people become? All whilst there is still the stage of setting up the billionaires for a ‘tax the rich’ scenario. The tax laws were never overhauled (for over 20 years), we get pollution stories and how rich people should not use their private jets, but the report of the European Environmental Agency setting a clear stage that 147 facilities are reason for 50% of ALL POLLUTION, how much longer will you get played?

And I need to keep with the true reason, the reason why I state the worst is almost here. For those who were addicted to Game of Thrones there is a saying that applies ‘Winter is Coming!’ And there lies the real rub. This we get from several sources.

First the Dutch NOS, who gives us (at https://nos.nl/l/2400511) ‘Another strong increase in gas price, already eight times as expensive as a year ago’, plenty of Dutch houses and apartments rely on Gas for cooking and heating and consider that the price for that has gone up 800% in ONE YEAR. And they are not alone. 

Sky News offers (at https://news.sky.com/story/surging-wholesale-energy-prices-add-to-inflation-pressures-as-firms-call-for-emergency-help-12426926) “The British day-ahead contract for natural gas hit 277p per therm, 32% higher than Monday and surpassing the 275p per therm level seen during the “Beast from the East” weather system in 2018”, with a larger setting. Consider your heating in December-March when it is 30% more expensive. A stage I foresaw in ‘A fence is for fencing’, an article I wrote on January 17th 2021 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/01/17/a-fence-is-for-fencing/) and at the time there were some statements of utter negativity when I gave the readers “the UK (aka United Kingdom) has a problem, it is coming up short to a much larger degree with energy and that will go on 3-5 years at the very least.” Personally, I had hoped there would be more time, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. And when we add another article by the Dutch NOS giving us (at https://nos.nl/l/2400494) ‘EU summit on high energy prices, such as in Italy: ‘I hold my breath’’ where we learn that households can no longer afford the energy bills. The NOS makes mention of Slovenia and Italy, so how about the other nations? We the the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, but what about Poland, Estonia, Czech Republic, and Finland? Sweden has Vattenfal, yet as the Swedes need more, the UK will end up with less and I wonder how that will impact Norway. The bulk of the media is not on board is it? But at least we get the Pandora papers with no top-line reference and articles that give us “there is no suggestion that either the Qatari family or the sellers of the two properties acted illegally”, yes we really needed that, especially after ignored articles on the EEA and lame pushes for billionaire jets. Yes, it all makes sense to some people (stakeholders) yet does it make sense to you? So whilst Italy pays 30% more for electricity and 14% more for gas, I wonder how much reporting will happen in the next month whilst we get pandora article after Pandora article. If there were reporting of ACTUAL criminal activities it would be different, but a mention of ‘could’ is a waste of energy and this is not 1 journalist, in this case we see mention of 600 journalists, so you tell me, how useless have ego driven journalists become? 

And that whilst the worst is almost here, there is a winter coming and this winter people will sing around the Christmas tree on how they are freezing. And when too many people decide to burn their Christmas tree in the living room just to stop shivering to enjoy their new version of a Christmas meal there is every chance that some houses will catch fire, so how many need to catch fire for the London Fire brigade to give up? You think I am kidding? Then do the math and see how many people in Europe will get by, merely get by because that list is dwindling down fast. A stage I personally never saw coming and a stage the media is not loudly reporting on. Yes, I am giving you some links, but the people in Europe should get several articles EVERY DAY in pretty much EVERY EU nation, is that happening?

You tell me!

A stage that is sliding by whilst the media is doing their click bitch act. Fell free to disagree, that is fair enough and your right, but consider on what you do not get to see when the larger papers should ALL have been on this page and they are not, why is that? 

To add spice to the equation, the ONE sale of arms to Saudi Arabia would have settled the energy requirements for all people in the UK for well over two years. So when the cold is getting to you feel free to thank all those Tea Nannies of the CAAT. In the cold high moral issues are so much better to swallow, high moral settings that are not wrong, but as others take over it was a mere laughing matter in the eyes of the new delivery parties to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

All settings that are open to interpretations and you might not agree. I get that and that is fine, but what option remains? In the mean time, as my mind was racing over all things bright beautiful and in the past, it also gave me a new idea for TV, a setting that starts with the protagonist/antagonist to set the stage to circumvent the US Secret service to complete an assassination, but to what end? When you consider a few items you might figure it out, but that would be mean of me, I have written over 2000 articles, yet there is a larger setting, what happens when any assassination is merely a small cog in a decently complex timepiece? What is the station when it is about specific cogs? Precision is a stage we often overlook and when we consider what the connections were between two parties, we tend to look at the big wigs which makes sense, but what happens when the cog is Marty Walsh? What happens when we take the United States Secretary of Labor out of the equation? Do not worry, he is a mere example. Can’t give away the story at this point, but the premise still stands. We are all about the big people and the media is about heralding (according to their stakeholders), so what happens when the play is larger and the people thinking that they decide the play are played the fool card?

But even as the people understand the card, what side was the one that mattered? It is more than Faith versus Judgement. It is a stage of understanding based on what we were given, what we trusted. A stage that the media themselves changed, and at times I wonder when they decide to catch on regarding what they are doing.

And at this point, I took another look at the front page of the BBC,  we see a whole row of Pandora papers articles, like the Blairs saving £312,000 stamp duty, yet there is no stage that they did anything wrong or illegal, and that list goes on, yet the energy bills are not making the front page, why? Not important enough? Sky News gives us “The cap, which affects around 15 million families on standard variable deals with their suppliers, has already just gone up by 12% adding a typical £139 to dual fuel bills”, at this point I ask You tell me, what was more important, one person avoiding a bill totally legal the other setting a dangerous premise to 15,000,000 families. Take your time, I am not going anywhere and in Australia summer is starting, so days of 30-42 degrees will be our Christmas feast to endure. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

A waste of space

Yes, some people are that, I believe that the tool ICIJ director Gerard Ryle is such a person (he will clim it is me). Yet how did I get there? That is important too. Those who read the previous articles will remember that I stated that a top-line display would give us the parts we initially needed. But no, after all this time, with 600 journalists at his back, Ryle never walked the walk. However I see ABC, the Guardian, BBC and others all do the motion of jabs, to create flames, to create click bitches. In a dying light they want to grab any digital dollar they can. Even the useless leader of the Democratic Party (President Joe Biden) via his administration gives us today “The Biden administration said it would “crack down on the unfair schemes that give big corporations a leg up” in the wake of the Pandora disclosures.” It is a pointless exercise in a waste of time, it is merely the prequel to something much worse.

You see the top-line would give us a better look at the “130 billionaires from 45 countries, including 46 Russian oligarchs. Bollywood actors, soccer stars, corrupt sports officials, a king’s lover, feuding princesses, movie directors and stars, supermodels, acclaimed designers and world-famous singers, 330 politicians and high-level public officials in more than 90 countries and territories, including 35 current and former country leaders” and this is linked to the even less useful quote “By some estimates 10 per cent of the world’s total economic output is parked in offshore financial centres, costing governments billions of dollars in lost revenue” 

Why is this?
The top-line would give us where the impact is. The 130 billionaires? You see there are 165 in Dubai and they are in the 0% bracket. I stated the dangers two days ago. Then from all these numbers, how many are in which nation, ho many are governmental versus non-governmental. When we see those numbers, we will likely see a created a storm in a teacup. 

And this is linked to the first setting proving that Gerard Ryle is a useless and optionally corrupt tool. “The source of the documents hasn’t been revealed to media partners but made it clear to the ICIJ he wanted the public to see where dirty money is really flowing. Ryle says the source had two conditions for leaking the documents. “First of all the source wanted anonymity. I presume for safety reasons,” he says.” Presume my ass! When we investigate the sources we see that some have well above decent protection, in my view there are only two players involved here, the CIA and the NSA. Both Russian and Chinese investigations would stopping their local laundry, as such there would be nothing on oligarchs outside of Russia. 

I believe this all to be a well managed (speculative) ruse. When it all comes out, we will get a flame of ‘tax the rich’ and that is what that useless democratic leader needs, his land is BANKRUPT and when the default hits grabbing (not taxing) whatever the American billionaires have is on the short list, reparations come later and if it all goes to shit the politicians will run for cover in any nation that will put up with them (Australia and UK). 

And when you truly read the articles you will see statements like “the documents reportedly tied prime minister Andrej Babis to a $22 million estate near Cannes, France. Speaking in a television debate, Babis, who was a billionaire before he entered politics, denied any wrongdoing.” 600 journalists and not one has added evidence of wrongdoing, merely a billionaire doing what he is allowed to do, buy a house in the south of France and France is not even a 0% tax land, so where are the incriminating papers? 

All the flames I see are about people no one cares about (the King of Jordan), yes Jordanians care about him and that is OK, people in the UK less so. And the truckloads of articles are just that small jabs to keep the readers angry, but no one is taking too much notice of “ICIJ director Gerard Ryle says the Pandora Papers reveal that some international leaders who could tackle offshore tax avoidance have themselves secretly moved money and assets beyond the reach of tax and law enforcement authorities as their citizens struggle” as such I reply “Gerard you fuck, why did the press not do enough over 30 years to make politicians tackle tax laws?” And in HIS statement we see ‘could’ and ‘secret’, but if a person buys a house in Monaco or Dubai they can have money there, it would be legal and it would be tax exempt. You (as I personally see it intentionally) overlooked that part, there is also the Caymans and a few other places, but it does not match the need of the governmental hacker who got into 14 systems, 5 of them had good security, and you could have seen that from day one, but you need click bitches, you need digital revenue and you need to make sure you are not obsolete. So where is that part of the equation?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics