Category Archives: Politics

November 1, 2015 · 22:13

Nubentes capitalismi

Here we see more of the Greek way, as per yesterday we see that the Greek banks need more money, billions more. So this is where I looked for the Latin word of deficit and it is ‘Repudii’ (Latin humour). The Greeks might say “Αποθήκευση έλλειμμα σε ένα θησαυροφυλάκιο της τράπεζας“, but the sad story is not the deficit or the shortage, the sad story is that many Governments, not just the Greeks relied on credit cards whilst they made sure that those spending the money would not have to pay for it, they got a large bonus for spending money they never had and the people have been suffering for far too long. This situation is not just seen in Greece, for the most nearly all EEC nations have spent way too much, a terminal amount of money I might add. If the budgets are a setting for a nation’s health than 30% of them should be pronounced dead and an additional 50% is on the edge of dying. That is the grim situation. In all this we see more and more news on how things are getting better. Better for who? The people around me have not had any rise in living for close to a decade. In addition the cost of living has exceeded the income rise for about that same time, so in all this, when have people been better off since 2004?

In all this Greece might have been hit visibly harder but life in the UK or in France or Italy is no picnic either. In all this the banks seem to go about their usual ways. In addition, as we saw the news regarding bank liquidity and other reserves. The things that are referred to as Basel III and now also Basel 4, why did they not shift the timeline? Why has ‘mandatory’ implementation been delayed until 2019? Why was Greece, as it faced the things it faced and as it needed funds all over the place, not pushed into a mandatory implementation of Basel III? Part of the deal should have been stress testing and demanding defences for banks directly. It seems that it had not been done!

This takes me to an article by Morris Goldstein from May 2012 (at http://www.voxeu.org/article/eu-s-implementation-basel-iii-deeply-flawed-compromise). In here three points come to order.

The first: “Whether member countries should be permitted to enact minimum capital ratios considerably tougher (higher) than those specified under Basel III without approval of the EU“, which is an interesting need, because this would have applied to Greece from the very beginning, and I am talking the issues as they emerged in 2013.

The second: “Whether the restrictions on what can be counted as high-quality capital under Basel III should be scrupulously adhered to in EU legislation“, the fact that EU legislation is not up to par here is even more of an issue, you set rules and standards and then not legislate it? How will banks EVER fall in line when it is not legislated? We have evidence going back to 2004 where bankers lost trillions and still got millions in bonuses. You mean that after a decade, the national legislation arms within the EEC are still no more than mere ‘pussies’ looking for that banking fellow named Dick?

The third: “Whether the Basel III deadlines for introducing an unweighted leverage requirement for bank capital and two new quantitative liquidity standards (the liquidity coverage ratio and the net stable funding ratio) should be mirrored in EU legislation“, which sounds all good and fine, but Basel 3 was already in the works in 2002, why has it taken such a massive amount of time to get close to nothing done? Why were the Greek banks not set to a higher setting because of them requiring so many billions in funds?

It seems that no one has any clear answers here.

Now we get to the good stuff. In the article Morris states the following: “The 15 May accord also permits EU banks to count as equity capital several financial instruments with dubious loss-absorbency, including the so-called “silent participations” of German banks and the minority stakes of French banks in insurance companies. Such a step weakens the Basel III guidelines on the quality of bank capital. In one of the few concessions to the Osborne View, the agreement adheres to the Basel III time schedules for the leverage ratio and the two liquidity standards“, which was to be discussed somewhere after May 2012.

So now we take another leap towards a Danish bank paper, a mere publication (at https://www.danskebank.com/da-dk/ir/Documents/2012/Q1/SpeechQ12012-Confcall.pdf), So in all this, we see the following text: “And you could not just use the what has been known as the Danish compromise, where you have 370% risk weighting for the capital, to kind of end up somewhere in between the two extremes?” to which the response by Henrik Ramlau-Hansen – Danske Bank – CFO was “That could also be a solution, yeah“. Let’s sit on this for a second, a form of weighting where we get to set the weight to ‘370% risk weighting’, so how is this a good idea? I have used weighting in the past, so it is not a big deal on one hand. However, when we look back towards 2004 and 2008, where setting abnormal risks, why give such a level of leeway to a branch that cannot be trusted?

The last part in this comes from shaky grounds, I will tell you this right now and I never hid the fact that I am not an economist. Consider the PDF from the Crédit Agricole Group from November 2013 (at http://mediacommun.ca-cib.com/sitegenic/medias/DOC/94509/2013-11-07-cp-casa-resultats-3eme-trimestre-en.pdf). So they report “Net income Group share in Q3-13: €1,433 million“, now take into account their solvency part:

The targets for fully loaded Basel 3 Common Equity Tier 1 ratios (CET1) are shown below:
1st JAN 2014 31st DEC 2014 31st DEC 2015
Crédit Agricole S.A. 7.8% to 8.0% 8.8% to 9.0% >9.5%
Crédit Agricole Gp 11.0% 12.0% 13.0%
Disclaimer: The above ratios are based on a number of assumptions

 

Now consider the text “These figures take into account the weighting of the capital and reserves of Crédit Agricole Assurances according to the Danish compromise (at 370%) or 34 billion euros in risk weighted assets as well as the extension of the specific guarantees (Switch) between the Regional Banks and Crédit Agricole S.A. for 34 billion euros in risk weighted assets“, so a company with a little over a billion in revenue, ending up with around 830 million in net income group share. So that place is running a weighted risk of 34 billion, which implies that the risk of 34 billion is covered by an income that covers 2.44%, how is that even close to realistic? Why has a massive change in dealing with the weighted risk not been done? Why are people still under threat of exploitation by banks as they live of the fringe of a Danish Compromise?

I am just asking!

This now reflects back to the Greek banks, have they been playing that same game, where did all those billions go to? As an underwriting for more riskier and more profitable incomes? It seems to me that there are issues with the banks all over Europe and their own local governments are clueless as to what the banks are doing. If you consider me wrong than ask any politician right now an answer in regards to Basel III, Basel 4 and their own banks. They are very unlikely to give you a clear answer. This approach is not just for the UK, several other countries should be asking questions and holding the answers to account. So as these politicians have no answers, how come they are elected and how come they are unable to budget anything. Are they budgeting in the same way the Danish compromise is applied to banks? A government spending anywhere between 37%-370% in a weighted budget for the expected gains of taxation tomorrow?

That sounds as hollow as Mr Wimpy going into a food court stating: “I will happily pay tomorrow for a hamburger today!” I wonder how many places he will be able to get food from. Interesting that we do not hold our politicians to this account, which is exactly why the massive cuts from the Conservatives (UK) are so essential, they are in the fight of their lives not to become the mere puppets of the banks. You see, I think it is not that unrealistic that even within my lifetime our income slips will have a taxation part and a deficit settlement part. The day that happens, remember my words! Austerity was the only option, and only when we neuter both the banks and politicians. I think that the change of making an administration accountable for their spending will be essential for us to have any future. For a decade politicians have been writing checks no one could pay and that choice should no longer be an option from 2015 onwards.

Which gets us back to Greece. The two final quotes are: “In August, Eurozone finance ministers released €26bn of the €86bn in bailout funds that went to recapitalising Greece’s stricken banking sector and make a debt payment to the ECB” and “Depositors pulled billions out of the country fearing that Greece would be forced to leave the euro. Limits on withdrawals and transfers imposed in June to prevent Greek banks from collapsing remain in place, although they have been loosened” (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/31/greece-banks-14bn-survive-economic-downturn), so as that risk was known, how come limits on transfers were loosened? So we see the need for another €14bn for the reason that people took their cash outside of Greece, something that was a certainty. Why allow for the loosening of rules on transfers? In that the first paragraph is also an issue. The text: ‘Greece’s four main banks need to find another €14bn (£10bn) of reserves to ensure they could withstand an economic downturn‘, should basically read: ‘Greece’s four main banks need to find another €14bn (£10bn) of reserves to ensure they will withstand the next upcoming economic downturn‘. Because in case of Greece the next downturn is a given and it is not that far away.

This again links to another part. The Greek Reporter gives us: ‘Head of Greek Capital Market Regulator Resigns’ (at http://greece.greekreporter.com/2015/10/31/head-of-greek-capital-market-regulator-resigns/), so basically, after the completion of the bank recapitalization he shoves himself out of the back door. Can anyone explain that to me? Because if he did a good job he should not get fired, if he did poorly, or even if he has messed up he should end up in holiday retreat Korydallos. Of course, as far as I can tell, he never committed any crime, so Hotel Korydallos is not for him, but it does re-iterate on how the banks should have been cut to size in freedom before those billions were pushed into Greece and in light of loosened restrictions a few more questions and demands should be set. Now, ‘shoving himself’ out of the back door is of course completely incorrect as the man resigned, but why did he resign? Is he not committed to saving Greece, or has he figured out something I saw almost 2 years ago when I spoke about the idiocracy of enabling the Greek system to the extent the ECB had done?

So why as I finalise this blog, the valid question becomes ‘Why is the Blogger Lawlordtobe having a go at Konstantinos Botopoulos?’

This is one that requires an answer and an explanation. You see, on May 20th 2015 (at http://www.waterstechnology.com/buy-side-technology/news/2409402/esma-board-member-capital-market-union-shouldnt-reinvent-the-wheel) we see the title “ESMA Board Member: Capital Market Union Shouldn’t ‘Reinvent the Wheel’“, which is fair enough, but the text: “The idea behind the CMU is not to reinvent the wheel by creating new rules but to achieve free flow of capital by using the existing tools and finding intelligent ways to tie everything together“, leaves me with the clear impression that the application of ‘to achieve free flow of capital’ could be seen as the loosening of restrictions which allowed for many billions (read: dozens) to be transferred out of Greece and as such the ECB (or the IMF) ends up pushing a few dozen billion more into Greece. In that same part ‘finding intelligent ways to tie everything together’, could be seen as diversifying the wealth of the Greek rich and famous towards the shores of Bermuda or Riyadh, places with not a taxman in sight. Is my interpretation correct? I am willing to consider that I am wrong and I am making no accusation, it is mere speculation on my side.

Yet in all this the timeline should be the cause of many questions, questions the press at large does not seem to be making. The rest of the article is on centralising reports and it seems to me that the article is missing a few steps. Even as the implied dangers of Brexit are voiced, Frexit is ignored. Now we must allow that people were not taking Frexit seriously, but the tide is still turning and the one danger in that part (Marine Le Pen) is gaining approval ratings on the right side of the Isle. Reuters stated: “Le Pen, who is set to win control of France’s northernmost area in December elections, saw her rating rise 5 percentage points to 52 percent among right-wing voters who were asked who they wanted to become more influential in political life“, which now puts her right behind former prime minister Alain Juppe, whilst both are leaving Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy far behind them in the dust. The battle is far from over, but again the reality of a Frexit is moving one more step forwards towards reality and in all that Greece was the starting spark to that upcoming dangerous escalation, only because hard choices were not made in late 2013, because the bankers and the greed driven required the Status Quo to remain as is, which is why we are seeing escalations that could impact the savings of millions to come soon enough.

Now, I will admit that there is no given that Marine Le Pen would win, yet as we have seen a massive amount of speculation and innuendo left right and centre, the mere danger of Frexit is ignored for the larger extent. Why? Is Frexit not an additional danger that is also propelling Brexit? And the Greek issue is what drove both to begin with, so there are direct links and in all that these intertwining events have been largely ignored for too long.

You should not take my word for any of this, it is my view on the matters, it is however important that you read up and that you ask the right people the right questions, the absent part in that is slightly too scary, especially when the Greek bank towers come tumbling down.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

October 31, 2015 · 22:56

United we classify others

Two articles hit me a few days ago. One of them was an article describing a survey by the Reputation Institute. The news article titled ‘Tel Aviv ranked among least reputable cities‘. The article was found at http://www.timesofisrael.com/tel-aviv-ranked-among-least-reputable-cities/. This was an issue for me, because I have been to Tel Aviv. Why would it not be reputable, or at least one of the more reputable cities. In all that I wonder, because the top 600 cities (by population) are larger than Tel Aviv with its 425,000 people. So coming in at 92 whilst 600 are larger is still a good achievement. What puzzles me in all this is the part ‘least reputable cities‘. What makes a city reputable? I did not see the research or the questionnaire, but when we see “the Reputation Institute, asked 19,000 residents of France, Germany, Italy, the UK, Japan, the US, Canada and Russia to rank the world’s top 101 cities based on their levels of trust, esteem, admiration and respect“.

Trust, “In a social context, trust has several connotations“, which is nice yet did the interviewees realise that? The paper (at http://misrc.umn.edu/workingpapers/fullpapers/1996/9604_040100.pdf) gives a nice view on how trust is not an easy thing to tackle. at Page 43 we read “one can develop a good relationship with another person by gradually increasing Trusting behaviour, while at the same time decreasing any minor control measures directed at the other person. Decreasing controls includes less ‘checking up’ on the other person. It also includes moving from a formal relationship to a more personal, informal relationship”

Which is nice when we consider that Russia, land of GRU and FSB gives way to ‘decreasing any minor control measures directed at the other person’, so do the interviewees from Russia consider trust the way a person from Sweden, the Netherlands or even Uruguay does? I can go on for the other nations, but in all, many have a feeling towards Israel, their view is biased from day one. Plenty with an anti-Israeli view, some with an anti-Jewish view, the probability of a mean will not apply here.

Then we get ‘esteem’, are they looking upon Tel Aviv in a particular way? Are they confusing esteem with ‘self-esteem’? All questions that go through my mind. We could state that Bagdad in last position is validly there, but over what level of reasoning? Because it is in a warzone?

Yet, do my thoughts invalidate the results? The paper as shown does give a solid foundation, the methodology sounds sound. In that I state ‘sounding sound’ is not entirely on the ball. You see, the heart of the respondent, how does that come in? The study overview states “G8 general public (only people who were ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ familiar)” Yet what makes you somewhat or very familiar? How many Non-Jewish people who have been to Tel Aviv answered this? How many know this place. I was there, and I felt safer there than in Budapest (and Budapest is a decent and safe city). Tel Aviv scored less than Johannesburg, Hanoi, even Cape Town, known for its high crime ended up with a score better than Tel Aviv.

So what gives value to this report? This is not the setting of my view, it is a question. The question exists in my mind because if we give reputation and value to a place we must know and agree to the standards given here. That is the question that should be on your mind too. Now, you might not care about Tel Aviv for many reasons. The bulk of us will never visit the city, visit the country or end up anywhere near it. So how do we give value to a place, even when we are somewhat familiar? Yet there is more than just the result as given in the Times of Israel. Slide 22 when you get the 2015 reputation report (at http://www.reputationinstitute.com/), shows a very interesting part. Familiarity versus Reputation. So how about the places with low familiarity? How come their reputation is so high? Is it the media, because there again we see that Tel Aviv gets in the news when there are rocket attacks and terrorist issues towards Israel, so how can we consider reliability in this report? Beware my words, I am not stating that the methodology is in question, I am wondering how the validity of vision from the interviewee is correct. In a similar way, we can understand that Baghdad is graded poorly, but why is Tehran graded so bad, it is because of our impression of Iran? In that same context we might understand why Sydney, Stockholm and Melbourne are graded so high, yet in all this, what makes Zurich more reputable than Amsterdam or Oslo, perhaps because FIFA is placed there? With the FIFA news Zurich got a lot of visibility, but is that visibility correctly graded in the mind of the beholder? The issue here is the colouring by the media, that influence cannot be countered, which is why I think that Tel Aviv got placed so badly (in this 101 list). Behind all this is a bigger issue. It is the one reason why I object to some of these studies.

In my personal view this list caters to presentations and to some who need to see a national interest, it also places my own view in debate (as it should), not because my view is too shallow, but as we go through the iterations of reasoning behind this as we see in slide 24. The Advanced Economy gives view to the question ‘why is an advanced economy part of reputation or familiarity?‘ This connect on more than one level, which got me to ‘The Economics of Developing Countries‘, what makes for an Advanced Economy? In that view Peru, Chile and Uruguay are not amongst them, so with close to 1/3 of the measurement absent, in that case, how come Montevideo scored so high in that list? If it is the state of peace, we see something a lot more linking, Tel Aviv, Karachi and Abu Dhabi together, a pattern seems to emerge. In that view we must wonder as Tel Aviv is not in war, but under near constant attack. Now when we add Rio to all this, we see another pattern emerge, those not relying on ‘stability of peace’ we see the need for positive reinforced publications, Rio is certainly getting that. In all this we do not question the reputation institute or their methodology, it is all about the people giving their vote. It is that view which gives voice to my worry. Slide 24 is descriptive in all this. ‘Appealing environment’ is one, which give the view to ‘non war torn places’, Effective government is the second one. Yet, why is ‘effective’ government part of all this? You see, in my view, the most effective government is a corrupt one, a humane based government (like Norway and Sweden) tends to be expensive and not that effective. Perhaps effective government and humane government are terms that are interchangeable? I am just asking. In all this we see the four earlier words at the core of this. ‘Trust’, ‘Admire’, ‘Esteem’ and ‘Feeling’, so how does this all link?

Slide 25 gives us ‘Social, Economic & Environmental Policies’ in regard to ‘Effective Government’, are they for real? Environmental policies can be made more effective, but they do not, I say again absolutely not make for an effective government. In addition when an Advanced Economy relies on ‘Financially Stable & Future Growth’ we can state that Wall Street took care of that not happening in the last decade and in addition not for many more years to come, so when we acknowledge that the elements of attributes are an issue, does that not add question marks to the stated foundation of this report? In all this the summary from page 28 onwards makes sense. I do not disagree, I do not oppose it, but in all this, it is a view brought to us on the premise of a flawed view, the influenced view of the interviewee, that part is missing, which gives the question mark within me. This gets me to slide 34, a good reputation might influx tourism, yet in all this, the tainting influence of media becomes a colouring issue, discriminatory and revoking as we ignore or forget that perception is tainting and the press factor seems to be uncorrected for. So how is that not an issue in all this, or at least a non-correcting influence? This all gets me to the final part “living or working in the city, or deciding to invest in the city” might be deciding factors for anyone when the reputation is an issue, but on what foundation? Still overall the report remains an interesting piece of work, the supportive behaviour slide gives fuel to that.

My views do come to fruition in slide 40 where we see the two quotes “Communication is required to capitalize on good reality and overcome poor perceptions” and “Change is required to alter ‘reality’ and minimize reputational risk“. In my mind, this states that opportunity and risk are influential factors that can be pressed on by the media, the media sets perception and alters reality in a hundred ways, so does this paper show true reputation, or does this show how the media is too large a factor to ignore and in all this a place like Tel Aviv got introduced to the less reputable score than they should have gotten? The question is how we see a true score on reputation and perhaps that list is not completely incorrect, but in my personal view, the idea that Bangkok is more reputable than Tel Aviv remains an issue, one of perception and I have actually been to both places.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

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

October 26, 2015 · 23:25

The Next Nail

This is not the first nail, this is not the second nail; this is merely the next nail that is set upon the top of a coffin. We can argue that this was the last nail that was produced in Scunthorpe as Tata Steel sheds one in six jobs in the UK. This is only the beginning of an onset that many, including me had predicted this in some form. Yes, it is only in some form, because there were too many parameters that could fit the situation and as the levels change the combination resulted in different elements to shut down. Yet, this is not about steel, not about those steelworkers, or about Tata Steel. It is merely a facet in all this. Consider the two articles. The first ‘The Eurozone needs a strong French economy‘ from October 8th (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/08/the-eurozone-needs-a-strong-french-economy), the second ‘Italy budget: Renzi risks Brussels battle‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/15/italy-budget-renzi-risks-brussels-battle) and the third ‘ECB meeting to be closely watched for stimulus talk‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/18/ecb-meeting-to-be-closely-watched-for-stimulus-talk-qe) from October 18th. The articles are not related, but they show the continued path people should have been warned against. People should have been warned because those in charge are spending the little leeway they had to leave a mess for many others to clean up. Let’s take a look at my reasoning, because if that is at fault, than so are the conclusions.

You see, new rounds of stimulus are set to ward of deflation as it is hinted at in the third article. So basically, Europe will print more money this money is spend on all kinds of things, this in time when the treasury coffers of nearly EVERY European nation cannot afford it. Let’s take a little step back in time. Let’s take a look at Germany 1920’s, at this time inflation was growing at an alarming rate, but the government simply printed more and more banknotes to pay the bills. So, bills were printed to fight inflation perhaps? I actually remember holding one of those banknotes, for 15 seconds I felt rich, then I realised no one would touch that money, which is pretty much the feeling the people in those days had. The actions behind this were the Treaty of Versailles and the 1921 London Schedule of Payments. We can ‘paraphrase’ that into ‘debts’. So as we now see that governments have debts and that more and more money is printed, is the difference not merely cosmetic at best?

The next part is shown in the second article. The subtitle gives us the power part. ‘Italian prime minister unveils business-friendly tax cuts and rise in spending despite EU warning plans may breach austerity rules‘, another government that has decided to change the rules as it befits them. Prime Minister Matteo Renzi is showing Italy and others a budget that they cannot afford. The line “Renzi said €5bn (£3.7bn) of tax cuts would include the abolition of a wealth tax on the main residence of all Italians, worth around €200 a year to most homeowners” gives us the first worry. Even though at 73% home ownership seems high, but is that the same in places like Venice, Milano, Rome and the larger cities? Or will that show that the 25% not owned by the tenant is still owned by someone, which would be giving massive benefits to the ‘Amici di Silvio Berlusconi‘ perhaps?

The next quote is “This year not only are the taxes not going up but they are coming down”, which sounds great to the people of Italy and they are welcome to it, yet the reality is not that great. In 2010 the debt was 2.4 trillion, or well over 110% of GDP. In 2013 it had risen to 130% of GDP, and even though the debt seemed to go down, these short sighted actions would show soon enough that Italian debt will increase, what happens then? Consider that the debt has grown to the effect that the due interest is almost 2,500€ per second. Yes, per second! So, in which universe is stopping reducing the debt a good idea? According to some sources, the wealthy of Italy has moved almost 200 billion away from the Italian shores. So that part will not get taxed any day soon. Another quote that matters is “Alessandro Zattoni, an economics professor at the LUISS business school in Rome, said the EU commission is concerned that the deterioration in world trade following the slowdown in China could hurt the Italian economy, hitting tax revenues and further widening the budget deficit“, I cannot deny that this is a factor, yet what other shores could Italy approach? It seems that the UK, the bulk of the EEC and a few others are considering China to be the economic oil of salvation. Yet, how realistic is that? My issue comes from the last part. “The Eurozone’s return to negative inflation is driven by cheaper energy costs, which fell 8.9% year-on-year following the tumble in oil prices“, well is ‘negative inflation’ not deflation? Seems a little ‘wankish’ to hide behind a double negative, doesn’t it? And how about the other part, ‘driven by cheaper energy cost’, in my view, cheaper energy means that  the people keep a little more in their pockets, it could be used for lowering their debt or even buying consumer items. Perhaps that money is needed to pay for the 1.4% increase for food. So many options, yet if governments are depending on the revenue from their energy systems, what other mistakes are they making? Profit from energy to corporations? Could be, but how much revenue would that be?

So as we see this news, when we hear that the ‘Risk of global financial crash has increased, warns IMF‘, which gives us the first paragraph “The risk of a global financial crash has increased because a slowdown in China and decline in world trade are undermining the stability of highly indebted emerging economies, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF)“, which is what I proclaimed for a long time. I never proclaimed that China’s economy would slowdown. This is because I had no decent numbers to compare this against, yet the need for manufacturing was a known and in that Europe has been in decline for some time. In addition, CNN reported ‘More cracks are showing up in America’s economy‘, with the quote “The Fed worries about negative inflation, which is associated with weak economic conditions and a symptom that prices and perhaps wages could be falling“, which is the second entity that seems to be ‘debutanting’ towards governments by avoiding the ‘deflation’ word. Which gets us to the quote “The September jobs report on October 2 was nothing short of disappointing. The U.S. added only 142,000 jobs in September. It stood in sharp contrast to the previous 12 months when the U.S. economy added an average of 256,000 jobs per month. Wages haven’t grown either. Job gains in July and August were also revised down“. This is the start of the issues that will also hit Europe. We will not notice this immediately as the US has to deal with Thanksgiving, Halloween and Christmas. This gives us a slightly better ‘time’ according to the economists, yet as Italy makes their changing and as the people in Europe will get more stimulus, the overall balance becomes less and less. This gets us to the final quote by CNN “As the global economy worsens, it appears the U.S. economy might not have the strength to prop up its peers. Instead, it might be getting dragged down by them“, which seems to be a mere exercise in simplicity when we look at cause and effect of the situation.

So how does France fit into all of this? Well, with Germany down and Italy taking a dive only the UK and France remain to keep the mess afloat, the two nations that are now in the process of dealing with an exit from all of this forced through its population. There is no guarantee it will be solved, there is absolutely no guarantee that either will remain within the Euro even within the EEC is a stretch at this time. All because proper financial legislation and better budgeting was something none of these governments seemed to have taken on, now there are little to no options left.

The quote “Whenever someone proposes turning the Eurozone into a transfer union, as France’s economy minister, Emmanuel Macron, recently did, the presumption is that Germany will carry everyone else on its shoulders. But why should only Germany have that responsibility? France’s economy is roughly three-quarters the size of Germany’s” is adamant here. France has the export article the entire world needs, and loves (fermented grape juice). Beyond that the bigger items (Cheese) has its own survivability, yet is that enough? Well, that is the question, more important none of these articles make the top 5 of export for France.

  • Machines, engines, pumps: US$66.3 billion (11.7% of total exports)
  • Aircraft, spacecraft: $57.7 billion (10.2%)
  • Vehicles: $47.6 billion (8.4%)
  • Electronic equipment: $44 billion (7.8%)
  • Pharmaceuticals: $35.2 billion (6.2%)

So Even as we get the following part “Progressive economists love the French government for spending a staggering 57% of GDP, compared with government expenditure of 44% of GDP for Germany“, yet there is also a problem, as far as I was able to find (apart from the presentation at the end of this blog), France, like several nations are setting their budgets against GDP, yet when the GDP goes down, spending does not go down, the debt just increases. It is one of several factors that show the inability to properly hold any level of budgeting ability. So as we look at the top 5 mentioned earlier, they represent 44.2% at 250 billion, giving us 566 billion, when we consider that France had a GDP of $2.8 trillion, we end up seeing that Export makes up slightly more than 20% of GDP, which is too low. What does speak for France is the fact that their economy seems to be decently diversified. So the negative impact of one industry is not as intense as some other countries face. Still with 5.7 trillion in debt, the French have quite the uphill battle to face, I honestly cannot say whether within the EEC or not, within the Euro or not is the best solution, but as European rules get ignored more and more, as governments are setting ‘new’ targets, we see that within either the Euro or the EEC is not ever going to be a solution. As several countries are trying to get cosy with China and as we now see statements that ‘7% growth is not set in stone’, we must all realise that every nation in the world is matching bad news management with the need to be seen as in ‘deflating’, so negative inflating it is. Who are they kidding?

This all comes to blow with the final Guardian article (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/24/india-rather-than-china-target-of-britains-charm-offensive) titled ‘Perhaps India, rather than China, should be the target of Britain’s charm offensive‘, which is a fair statement by Ian Jack, yet I have been advocating for a stronger Commonwealth link for a long time. Will it be the better deal? That is a separate question, yet in all this, stronger Commonwealth ties also means and implies that overall a stronger Commonwealth would be the result. A thought that should benefit many people within the Commonwealth.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

October 23, 2015 · 20:42

The moment UKIP was waiting for

There is no given what will happen next. For one, I feel that a solution can still be found for the Conservatives as they are looking at the pressures currently on the desk of George Osborne. The subtitle gives us the issue at hand. ‘Fresh pressure on George Osborne to halt controversial measure that will leave 3.2 million families worse off by average of £1,300 a year‘, there are two elements. As the leftish media is shouting how the rich are making the people worse of, we must consider that truth to be utterly bogus. Who in his right mind would think that the Conservatives would play fast and loose with seventy one seats for a mere £320 million a month is out of his/her head. Yes it hits 3.2 million people, but why? You see, the total bill of £3.8 billion is the issue.

You see the quote “The tax credits system is hopelessly complex and needs reform but we should be backing those who get up and go to work for low wages instead of living on welfare. The national living wage and changes to income tax thresholds will not offset enough of their loss and they will struggle to earn more money. They need our support and should be rewarded by a welfare system that is fair and helps them move forward in life“. The non-emotional part is that these are working families and they cannot make ends meet. This is the British version of Wal-Mart! Too many tax breaks have gone to corporations, where the savings of billions went straight into the pockets of less than a hundred board members. As the gravy train ends, they now move to fatter shores leaving the rest to fend for themselves. This was ALWAYS going to happen, and we must acknowledge that both sides of the isle have enabled this option. Both sides (mainly labour) have spent massive amounts in an irresponsible way and the UK credit card is now maxed, meaning that tax cuts are pretty much a thing of the past. You see, both the opposition as well as the current administration are trying to appease their congregation, but it is no longer allowed to cost anything. This is one of the reasons that George Osborne was not giving in to tax breaks last year, and he was right not to do so. This does not solve the problem and it is going to be a puzzle whether a solution can be found. The bad news is that if the Conservatives stand on principle, they will massively cut their own plan and in addition their chances on any re-election go straight out of the window. So what to do?

That part is not the focal point, what is the issue is the statement “71 Tory MPs in marginal seats could be vulnerable“, you see, if you go back to the bible of elections (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/may/07/live-uk-election-results-in-full), you can see that the marginal seats only for the smaller extent go towards Labour. The options for UKIP are not that great, but the issue are now a decent amount of seats that were for the Liberal Democrats, these seats will go somewhere and my money is that many of them could now move towards UKIP too, now we have ourselves an old fashioned horse race. Because this is the momentum Nigel Farage has been hoping for. Should we be worried? Well, that depends on any solutions the Conservatives can offer. The quote at the end “While some Tories are expected to voice serious concerns about the policy on Tuesday, few if any are expected to rebel on what is a Labour motion. Instead Osborne is likely to come under sustained pressure behind the scenes to act in his autumn statement next month” (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/17/tory-mps-at-risk-tax-credits), gives the reality. At present, whatever happens at whatever election follows at some point, the governing body better realise that stretching credit cards is no longer an option.

This is only one view, even within the party there is a growing concern of the loss of tax breaks, especially as it hits the lowest incomes. I myself understand this. I agree that something must be done and overall the lowest incomes should be protected to some extent, yet the tax breaks were never much of a solution. It was a stopgap at best. I came up with a solution, which was in three parts. I got the idea using a simple abacus (MS Excel). I designed the solution on March 16th this year in my article ‘In fear of the future‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/03/16/in-fear-of-the-future/), so far I have not found any credible opposition from the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats (whatever survived the last election), or even UKIP for that matter. I see all these claims left, right and centre, whilst they are all full of the ideology of their own voices. Even Mark Carney has seemingly been unable to oppose my logic in this matter. You see, the solution is so very simple. I raise the basic level with 1% and the higher rate with 2%. In all this the lowest group would not get hit and the basic group would pay annually a maximum extra of £318 (only if they earn the maximum basic income). The higher rate gets to deal with an additional 2%, so they get the full £318 and in addition 2% of the higher rate, which could end up being a maximum of £836 (if you are on an income between £42,386 and £150,000). These two groups represent 96.2% of all taxpayers and the added income to the coffers would be a nominal addition of £2.9 billion. I found a solution in a mere 5 minutes whilst politicians and marketeers still cannot figure out. And the wealthiest group? Well they also pay the 1% and 2% extra, this group of 300,000 is paying already all kinds of extras. In addition I would be willing to remove a tax break or two from them and in all this, the pensioners and lowest incomes were left alone, was that so hard?

The manoeuvring we see by McDonnell and Corbyn as we read “Does anybody dispute the arithmetic which demonstrates that a 2% GDP deficit will eventually result in a perfectly manageable public debt ratio of 40% GDP, just so long as nominal national income can be persuaded to grow at around 5% annually, as it generally did before Mr Osborne was in charge?” is part of the issue no one wants to address. You see, the debt is hanging around the neck of the UK. Even at 1%, the debt amounts to an £18 billion invoice. The coffers are getting annually drained and without a clear strategy there will be no social justice and there will be no NHS. Is it that hard for people to grasp that the life we all had before 2003 is gone and as far as I can tell, it is gone forever. EVERY presentation we have seen by every party has not amounted to any increase in the quality of life. Managing bad news is at the core, a game that the conservatives have not been playing. So as we read at http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ “Fixing the roof while the sun is shining – Osborne’s new spending rule” you better that believe foul weather is coming to the Commonwealth. The Euro is in upheaval and that is not going to end soon. Most people are currently forgetting about the Greek situation. The harsh austerity adoptions are being made, but the streets of Greece are not in a good way. The dangers of the Greeks cutting their fingers by alienating the tourists (especially the German ones) is still a risk that cold set Greece back an additional 10-20 years. The fact that places like the Acropolis are hiking the entry prices by 400% is not a good sign either. We could debate whether the Greeks had an alternative. Yet scaring away tourists that are spending hundreds of euros by making museums no longer an affordable choice will in addition to diminished numbers scare away the American and the rich Asian tourists. In addition, the Financial Times is stating an economic recovery for Germany, but I am not convinced. http://www.dw.com/ stated that Germany has trimmed the full year growth outlook, which is a given, yet the part no one is thinking of at present is that the view for 2016 is not that strong, investors are worried and in all this Brexit and Frexit remain a reality. All this impacts the UK economy as well and as such ‘fixing’ the roof now is essential. In all this there is a second danger to the conservatives. You see, there is still a chunk of these 71 marginal seats that could have gone to Labour, yet, with the infighting, the non-clarity of views and the bad statements (as well as those lacking on common sense), even though it sounds good, most people can see through them. This is exactly what costed Ed Miliband his seat and those people will at all times select UKIP before the conservatives, which is not good for my party, but that does mean that people will be making plans for Nigel.

 

71 seats and any of them feeling a push towards Brexit, which will be a worry for David Cameron on more than one front. Am I right, am I wrong?

It is not about me being right or wrong, it is about the shifting political landscape, one that has been pushed by a massive debt that is not being dealt with. A massive debt that gives power to large corporations, which get the options of leaving wages low and pushing a non-liveable life towards the people currently in financial pain. In all this, the 30,000 refugees will have a minimal impact on a health system that is already beyond breaking. These little parts all add up to more and more hardship. The Conservatives are trying to find a working solution that will not break the bank, yet that path is less and less feasible, which all works for Nigel Farage. In that light, UKIP should also see the dangers that loom. Now we all know that when it comes to respectability, we tend to consider the crack dealer to have a better value than most journalists. Their approach has been questionable to say the least. Yet, when the Independent (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/44-of-ukip-voters-could-imagine-backing-a-military-coup-poll-shows-a6698056.html) starts getting its fingers on data that makes the following quote a reality: “As many as 44 per cent of Ukip voters could imagine supporting a military coup in Britain“, UKIP better starts realising that these extreme expressions that they are only digging their own holes. Or as Raphael Behr form the Guardian states: “Nigel Farage is the gift that keeps on giving“. I would never oppose honest outspoken opinions, yet when we see links to ‘coups’ in the land of Windsor, you better rethink your strategy. In all this his attempt to give rise to emotional stated people will only hurt him more (the Lord Brittan case). So, yes, he is the nonstop giving gift. Yet, he is not down and out, because the European situation is far from settled. He basically has an ally in Marine Le Pen, a situation that remains watching, and remains a growing power in France, especially is the less economically strong north of France. That part people forget. France has impact here because the French have had it and like Farage, Marine Le Pen is all for dumping the Euro, and if need be the EEC too. Which implies that if Frexit becomes a reality Brexit better be ready for implementation. David Cameron will not have the option to vie for time. At that point it all falls apart. No matter who comes first (Brexit or Frexit) that pain will be felt all over Europe and when one goes, the other one better follows.

So is this the moment UKIP was waiting for? I reckon it is to some degree (if Nigel is able to not drop the ball), but the field is wide open and several options remain. If the Conservatives want to continue, they will have to find a way to deal with the £3.8 billion question that is the centre of the field. In similar light a look needs to be taken regarding the budget. George Osborne is quite right to set into law the responsibility of a government to keep the books balanced. The minus trillion plus will take decades to manage and there is no given that it will be gone any day soon, with deficits growing another path is needed. One that I have been in favour of (for all governments) for a long time. So soon we will see the truth. Is Jeremy truly about a new kind of politics, or is he just another Labour speaker with a clever slogan?

We will get insight into that truth soon enough.

You see, as I stated, the field remains open, but as we see al he bickering and speeches, which of them is actually worried about the diminishing situation for merry old England? Who spoke out? That part is the issue, as the Liberal Democrats have Farron, who seems to be stuck next to the Blackburn Rovers. You could say that one is a founding member of soccer, the other cries about the ‘theft’ of school meals. Perhaps Mr Farron could consider where the money needs to come from, we all know that the treasury coffers are empty and Farron has yet to show a responsible bone in his body regarding the need of proper budgeting. Tim Farron seems to be all about “The flagship Lib Dem policy is supposed to save families more than £400 a year per child and provide a healthy lunch to every five-, six- and seven-year-old“, which is a good cause, I truly agree that it is, but who pays the baker and the butcher? Not one party has a clear answer here, not even the Conservatives, which it is exactly why it could end up getting scrapped. In that same light Jeremy Corbyn is all about getting elected, which means he has to spend money and promise all kinds of deals down the track. Basically it will be about spending money he does not have, not now, and after the elections it will not be in the treasury coffers. His view regarding ‘ending austerity’ is principally Mr Corbyn’s objective. This sounds nice as a slogan, but where will he get the money to govern, in that regard they have always made the same basic mistake. Spend now and let the next one clean up that mess. An option the UK can no longer afford. The three of them have set a dangerous precedent. In all this UKIP could get a massive slice of the cake, if they do not drop the ball or screw with the gains they got. Any momentum lost will be a massive drain towards the elections. This could end up being the moment UKIP was waiting for, the question remains, who will they trust? Only the right team will make it and infighting will drop their political victory chances to 0% overnight, a danger that remains realistic, which is what the conservatives and Labour are both hoping for, because them 71 marginal Tory seats are indeed the currency desired, yet the marginal Labour seats are not mentioned here, which to the best of my calculations are an additional 12 that UKIP could grab there, it will include the more tropical sights of Caerphilly after Charges against the three Caerphilly council bosses were ‘dropped’. The population there could find themselves at odds and if they turn from labour, UKIP becomes the new option. In that case brilliant work by senior labour people might not be enough to save Caerphilly for Labour, yet they could stem the tide for a few additional places. You see, Delyn might get hit too. Not because of David Hanson, he did a good job, but his choice for Yvette Cooper could now raise the question: ‘what else will he get wrong?’ Not a fair situation, but a consequence of choice. Unless Jeremy Corbyn makes a massive blunder, that choice could cost him and with every labour goof that comes from now until election time will affect his chances. Here Nigel Williams will remain a contender. His correct view “We didn’t quite get there but the vote for UKIP in Delyn increased by over 800%” is the issue. If Williams remains the level headed than Williams remains just that a dangerous contender. David Hanson will face an actual fight next election, which means that Nigel Farage needs to get his A-Game out. Labour and my Conservatives will push for infighting as much as possible (all things are fair in politics and desire), but that view could backfire too (not the desire view though). The numbers have shifted and the UK has moved in the direction Nigel Farage desired it to be. He just didn’t plan for this shift to happen, which gives us a small window of opportunity against UKIP.

I wonder who’ll take it.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

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

October 17, 2015 · 22:36

Relying on the margins

This is an issue that has been on my mind for some time, you see, I am not the smallest person (not just in length). I never looked like I have been hungry for a decade. I try to eat healthy, I have my regular salads and I walk a lot. I walk every day on principle, to the extent that I never bothered with a car (apart from the parking fees all over the city). So, as I go into the city to buy clothes, I am always confronted that 2XL does not cut it. Now, this is all good and proper, so I am slightly larger than the norm. But is that the case? Several sources including The Medical Journal of Australia has stated that obesity in Australia is set at 67%. Third place after New Zealand set at 68.4% (a world’s first where Australians are delighted that Kiwis have beaten them at something) and The Americans at 74.1%. We are trailed by the Barmy Army (aka the Britons) by 63.8%.

So we can state that on one side we have an issue, on the other side, it would make perfect sense that the fashion industry would cater to a need. So, explain to me why those places calling themselves fashion stores would avoid anything beyond 2XL? In some cases I get the ‘excuse’ “Oh, we ran out of stock“, or: “Let me check in the back” (whilst we all know they knew they never had any). Some just state ‘2XL is the biggest we have’. The Levi’s store has one model in 3XL (actually, more like 2XL+), yet as I went through Pitt Street, Myers, David Jones, the QVB building and the World Square Shopping Centre. When looking for decent brand clothing, only Sportscraft and Rodd and Gunn were able to satisfy my need (3XL was in some cases the biggest they had). So, why would anyone in their right mind ignore a customer base of over 50%? (I am ignoring the 3-4 shops that specifically cater to larger sizes).

Can anyone explain it to me, because it makes no business sense at all! Ibisworld states that 122,266, comprise 12,785 clothing businesses. This is of course over Australia, not just Sydney. So how many are catering to the larger sized population? The question has international impact for two reasons. First there is the economic impact. When we see ‘Popular Fashion Retailer Files for Bankruptcy. We didn’t see this coming!‘ we have to ask how stupid the quoting party is. The company has around 9000 staff in 19 countries and is known for its hyper-sexual advertising, which is all fine (to some extent), yet when we look at http://store.americanapparel.net/ and we seek and realise that you will not find anything over 2xl (in some cases no larger than XL), than this implies that American Apparel, as well as the bulk of the fashion store is ‘intentionally’ barring 74% of its possible clientele. Why should such stupidity be ‘rewarded’ with a Chapter 11? It is not like the people in charge considered the first 10 chapters, did they?

This now relates back to an article in the Guardian titled ‘Model who criticised agency: I spoke out about body shape to protect girls‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/oct/16/model-criticise-agency-spoke-out-body-shape-protect-girls), here we see the quote: “The model who used an open letter to criticise her former agency for allegedly sacking her because she was “too big” has said she spoke out so that youngsters were aware of the pressures in the industry to maintain unrealistic body shapes“, the subsequent quote “Caroline Nokes, who heads the all-party parliamentary group on body image, will lead the inquiry into whether the fashion industry is promoting unhealthy standards of beauty. It begins in November” is also cause for concern, but not for the reason you might think. I think that Caroline Nokes, Conservative for Romsey and Southampton North in Hampshire needs to take a seriously different look. You see, the ‘unhealthy standards of beauty‘ norm is a joke (in my humble opinion), what does it solve? By the time this all takes a gander towards anything serious we will be at least two administrations later. If there is truly a want and a need to make a change, than turn the transformation into a hammer people will not ignore.

Add to the restrictions of Bankruptcy, make the end date of an entry into the insolvency register 60 months, not 12. In addition, we add ‘unethical behaviour’ as a directive, so that debts caused through ‘unethical behaviour’ cannot be written off. Of course making a case for deciding to cater to 26% is unethical, which is a different issue and is still part of it all. Yet, consider that the need to cater changes, how can the fashion industry continue in its present firm when the catering part changes?

There is also an opposition from me towards this, you see, over-legislation is an equal evil. We believe in freedom of choice and as long as those persons accept the consequences and remain liable for the costs of what they did, they can do whatever they can. If someone wants to open a coffee shop just to cater to women, than they can. Oh no! They cannot, it is called discrimination. So how does this all fit? Well actually it does not! Shops can basically cater to the non-obese. They just ran out of stock, or they made ‘choices’ in their catalogue. Yet, in all this Caroline Nokes has a separate problem, until the view of what is ‘required’ utterly changes, she would end up talking up a storm to a collection of mugs without ears. Each holding a cup full of opinions and none replying to the actual situation. In all this a change is essential, but how to best go about it? As I see it, we can all have a business, we all make choices on what is the best course of business. Yet, when we go wrong, when our way was flawed, why should anyone else but us pay for our own mistake? Non-accountability has been at the axis of the law and legislation, especially corporate ones for too long. So we change that bit. If a business wants to exclude 74%, than that could be valid, it could be equally valid that some areas can never be supported, I understand that completely. Yet in all this, when we can state that it is more likely than not that a business could remain active if it had catered better to its possible customer base, than it should be regarded as an unethical business practice, as such the caterer should pay the price of unethicality. In all this a problem remains, how is catering to a specific group unethical?

If it is not, than can this person be labelled as unethical when the plan goes wrong? This remains an issue, as such there is little option for Caroline Nokes in this direction. In the end, segmentation is likely to safe businesses more often than not. So as such, what can we do to change this? There are as I stated two avenues. The first one is to stop enabling bad business sense. Of course you can engage in it, but if it falls on your face, the cost of that bad track will also fall in your lap and your lap only.

In the second (I still shiver for considering this) is to make a change to authorities like the financial services compensation scheme. That is a bit dodgier to address. As I see it, it is also not really a realistic path. In the end, is this just about me being unable to get a nice 3XL polo shirt?

The Guardian quote “Nokes said the industry is in a vicious circle, where agencies brought in young women to satisfy the designers, and designers made clothes “to fit the frame of a teenage boy” because those were the kinds of models that were available to them. “These are not clothes for women with busts and hips,” she added” only gets is a little bit into that direction, Another Guardian article, from August 27th (at http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2015/aug/27/where-are-all-the-plus-size-male-models), shows the addition we need. Now, we must agree that any business has rights to do as it pleases (as long as no laws are broken). So when we see “I asked three major agencies in the UK, all of whom have plus-size female models on their books, and they all said they have no plans to sign plus-size male models“. There does not seem to be any wrongdoing here. You see, they cater to the need of their clients, so the brands have no need for people in the plus-size range. Yet, should we not wonder why these brands are not catering to the missed population of over 300 million in the western world alone? Perhaps the better question becomes in this day and age of commerce, profit and revenue, why is nobody going there? (Apart from the 2-3 that are).

The additional quote “One of the biggest plus-size retailers in the UK, Bigdudeclothing.co.uk, started three years ago. It recently received funding from William Currie Group which invested in Asos and has seen 100% growth in each year it’s been in business. Its clothes go up to 10XL but it struggles to find models who best represent the brand“. So it seems that some are looking at the table that seems to be just set for them, completely with a 7 course meal. I stumbled upon a part that could grow their business even more. Yet is all this, is the truth truly exposed? You see, when we go to a store, we see that sizes M up to 2XL are all priced the same, yet should we not recognise that a ‘2XL’ requires 40% more material than a size ‘S’, should we not recognise that the costs would be a factor and prices and budgets are a factor. I am not certain that the argument is completely valid, but the facts are important here, as should the deeper search in this matter be.

So is Caroline Nokes correct that the inquiry on ‘the fashion industry is promoting unhealthy standards of beauty‘? I find for a partial no, because there is a factor that is actually worse and going for the least incriminating fact is just wrong! There might be a case that the industry is pushing for unhealthy work environment and unhealthy living requirements, which is another slice of cake altogether. Here we make the final step. I am referring to a 2010 paper called ‘Employment arrangements, work conditions and health inequalities‘ by Johannes Siegrist, Joan Benach, Abigail McKnight and Peter Goldblatt in collaboration with Carles Muntaner. (at https://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/projects/employment-and-work-task-group-report/employment-and-work-task-group-full-report.pdf), so what happened to that paper, more important, why is it not getting a lot more exposure? The quote “First, specific employment and working conditions are associated with elevated risks of reduced physical and mental health, elevated sickness absence and disability pension risk. These conditions are found in the English workforce. Importantly, these associations are not confined to traditional occupational hazards and related occupational diseases and injuries, but include increased health risks attributable to insecure employment and an adverse psychosocial work environment” (page 41), I say that modelling is gets to move high up that list here.

So we have a need that is partially addressed, we have a group that is under protected and over exploited, in addition we see an ego based business continuing in its track. There is no real injustice from a legal point of view, but there is a growing inequality. We can think whatever we want regarding Charli Howard, yet there is a line under all this that is ignored. We (me inclusive) seem to mix emotion and cold facts. Toby Wiseman, editor of Men’s Health magazine phrases it perhaps best: “When discussing anorexia in fashion, the health argument sensibly prevails; when obesity comes into play, emotive arguments tend to take over”, this is part of the problem Caroline Nokes faces. This is not about my need for a 3XL polo and a nice pair of pants, there is an ego driven society that is starting to be more and more disabling towards the market they are not interested in.

Again, is this about me and my 3XL shirt? Perhaps it is just me and opening a ‘bigdude’ shop in Sydney is the beginning of my fortune. Apart from having a decent business sense, I have absolutely zero fashion sense (my work and university brothers can attest to that). In the end, it is the observation of a shortage and the fact that no one is acting on it. From the previous part we can see that apart from a bad sense of business, these fashion stores are catering to ego, which is not a crime, or wrong and as such, they should not be legislated against, no wrong is done.

This gets us to the last part in all this. Again, the outrage given is all emotional, when Katie Hopkins decided in her act of ‘fatshaming’, she did one thing the other ‘fatshamers’ never did. She gained 4 stones (28 Kg), only to prove she could lose it again. Of all places, this comes from the daily mail (I am now ignoring the foul taste in my mouth for mentioning them). The quote “Meanwhile, weight loss expert Steve Miller, who fronts TV show Fat Families, said Katie’s latest project shows a ‘shallow’ approach to weight loss and does not take into account the emotional mindset of those who struggle to lose weight“. I am not sure if I can agree with Steve Miller. At least Katie Hopkins is going that distance. Now, I will also consider that certain elements are ignored, but I will get to that. One quote that touches on this is “To try to define all those who are overweight as somehow lazy or lacking in will power does a huge disservice to the experts who have made tackling obesity their focus” (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2740537/People-say-Youre-lucky-youre-skinny-Katie-Hopkins-piles-four-stone-overweight-people-fat-fault.html). Yet, there is something in the approach that Katie Hopkins takes. If she pulls it off, it means that sometimes we all need a harsh kick to our sizeable arses. I do believe her view is slightly too simplistic, yet in all this, there is also the issue with Steve Miller, some will see his view as exploitative. A long term ‘sandwich’ so to speak. I cannot vouch for his success of lack there off, but the less than 1% of the successes show a certain type. This does not make for his failure, but in equal measure it would not stop the success of Katie Hopkins. Perhaps they are two different sides of the same coin.

What started on a mere margin of fashion is now something larger, a mere supersized trip on a massive group of people (pun intended) where we see the shifting sands of enabling, the absence of enabling and the dangers if legislation gets too involved. The models might be on the other side of that equation. Yet when we try to visualise this (with http://www.bmivisualizer.com/), when we look at the BMI tool, set it to female and add the details of Charli Howard (173/50), we get a dangerous underweight. Now we get into the field that ‘Employment arrangements, work conditions and health inequalities‘ brings. People in this field are increasingly in danger of: Inhibited growth and development, fragile bones, a weakened immune system, anaemia and fertility issues. So, tell me, which model contract has been mentioning these dangers to the teenage working population? In addition, when we get her to the earliest healthy point, we see that 5Kg was all it takes, the other opposite of the scale tends to be well over 15Kg too much. The scales are more than unbalanced. Yet in all this, the official words of Caroline Nokes are not here. They were: “Legislation should be a last resort, but I’m conscious the fashion industry isn’t responding to calls for change, we would prefer a code of conduct, if we could feel confident it would be adhered to”, it is exactly the issues that I raised. On her site (http://carolinenokes.com/), additional information is found, the French position where models with an BMI under 18 are not allowed to work, the solution seems to work (check it with the BMI tool), even though the measure can be just under the bar, it is at all times minimal. If our lives are measured on health, perhaps starting with the limitation that only healthy models can participate, a change can begin that others will see a shift towards the leaner side of life. Whether the approach of Katie Hopkins holds any water remains to be seen. If we believe her words, than she is now the new Jesus. Well, that works nicely for me, because Father Clayton and Bishop Terry know that I work for ‘the’ other side, so as I serve Morax, I would enjoy nailing her to the nearest cross I can find (any of the wooden support beams of St. Pauls will do). Our heavenly father will forgive me, because that is what he does. How did religion get into this? Simple, you and me we must live through faith, in most cases merely the faith in ourselves (as my exams are showing me harshly) is the number one act that makes for change, in addition, we need to have a sense of humour, if you doubt that, than ask the guards at the Vatican whom I told I was ordered by the Bishop of Rome to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel White. As a true follower of the Cheshire cat, it seemed, in contrast to the queen of hearts that something needed to be painted, I decided a ceiling to be white. Let’s face it, after 510 years the IP of Michelangelo has lapsed, time for something new!

If you wonder now, why this step? Consider that the figure of absolutely not skinny was all the rage in 1500, so as we now find that part to be too offensive, let’s do away with all positive images that the Rubenesque age gave us. I will let you figure out the final puzzle that I left intertwined within the religious references.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics, Science

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

October 16, 2015 · 00:34

War and Pieces

This world seems to become less and less of a good place. I feel that I could be able to stick my head in the sand were it not from my law assignment, which is making decently progress. I feel that focussing on this as much as I can drains me, but the fact that things are lining up feels like a rush. The feeling that definite defeat is leaving me as the feeling of stalemate and even the tiniest partial feeling of a small victory is just too good a feeling. After this 2 more weeks and a final exam. That feeling is one we do not experience too often. We tend to be slightly ahead of the curve, go with the flow (and the masses) and in some cases be a little ahead of the pack. So in that regard making it from lets academically state ‘a state of depression’ into ‘the sunny feeling of victory’ might be my only reference to what drug users chase. I got there all by myself.

Yet, this is not about me. Not completely. You see, in the back of my mind is something that John Oliver stated regarding Toyota and how it is the car of choice for ISIS. Global Research (at http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mystery-of-isis-toyota-army-solved/5480921) claims: “So far the UK has sent around £8m of “non-lethal” aid, according to official papers seen by The Independent, comprising five 4×4 vehicles with ballistic protection; 20 sets of body armour; four trucks (three 25 tonne, one 20 tonne); six 4×4 SUVs; five non-armoured pick-ups; one recovery vehicle; four fork-lifts; three advanced “resilience kits” for region hubs, designed to rescue people in emergencies; 130 solar powered batteries; around 400 radios; water purification and rubbish collection kits; laptops; VSATs (small satellite systems for data communications) and printers“, in addition we see “It’s fair to say that whatever pipeline the US State Department and the British government used to supply terrorists in Syria with these trucks was likely used to send additional vehicles before and after these reports were made public“. This is an implied action, not a real action. In this two parts get to me.

  1. Why are the origin of these trucks so hard to find? The sketchiness of the information implies that certain parties have less satellite oversight than they would like to.
  2. If the implications are true, why were these cars not seeded?

In the first there are of course all kinds of issues. SIGINT will never reveal what they actually have and those assigning SIGINT duties will remain silent too, yet in all this another cog is operating. This is seen when we consider the CNN title ‘U.S. Treasury inquires about ISIS use of Toyota vehicles‘, can anyone explain to me how the US treasury got involved in matters regarding a Japanese brand? That the State Department and the alphabet groups are all over it makes perfect sense, the US treasury does not, not even the Secret Service (who is stretched thin these days), would explain that push, because the people involved are unlikely to be on their front page. You see, this gives a clear feeling that someone in the US Treasury got a phone call (or they want to focus away from governmental bankruptcy papers).

Did no one wonder about the starting paragraph: “The U.S. Treasury is seeking information from Toyota about how ISIS has gotten hold of the automaker’s trucks, which have been shown in the terror group’s propaganda videos“? The second paragraph is even more puzzling: “Toyota said it is part of a broader U.S. Treasury inquiry looking more closely at how international supply chains and capital flow into the Middle East“. This means either they followed the money towards the end of the line, which means that there is a direct American link (which is another issue), or someone is demanding answers. John Oliver gave a funny nudge towards GM (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BRTEXomD6s), yet consider the GM earnings release: “Jul 23, 2015 – Net revenue in the second quarter of 2015 was $38.2 billion, compared to $39.6 billion in the second quarter of 2014“, so are we awake now?

In addition the second issue on seeding. Did no one consider seeding those exported cars with passive id chips? Those puppies can be placed nearly everywhere. You see, you can do more than just keep a DVD in the store, you can also tag a part of the car you never see, after which you can keep track of those puppies. It is a low tech level of low jacking. Try to find a one by one inch sticker on a metal frame. Good luck I say!

So as I am winning the war with myself, there is now an implied war being lost by allied forces. We can state that intentionally or not supplying ISIS is not a win. Even if that was not the case, even if the rebels had been provided with equipment, the fact that it goes to ISIS in mint condition is another worry, it implies that rebels have no clue (and no James Dean acting skills either), whilst in addition the lines of the rebels are getting more and more blurry. This now reflects on ‘U.S. Weaponry Is Turning Syria into Proxy War with Russia‘ (at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/world/middleeast/syria-russia-airstrikes.html). The quote “With the enhanced insurgent firepower and with Russia steadily raising the number of airstrikes against the government’s opponents, the Syrian conflict is edging closer to an all-out proxy war between the United States and Russia” is also alarming. Not the US/Russia escalation, but the danger in light of earlier revelations that there is the danger that ISIS gets a hand on some of this stuff and hits Israel. Consider the speculative event that an Iron Dome within the Birya, Safed and Rosh Pina Airport triangle gets hit by a confiscated US TOW? That puppy needs to get within 2.5 miles, but still, if it gets done the moral push, the danger of all-out war and the escalation that ISIS gets to take control Gaza are all options that are not completely impossible, even as the current leadership of Hamas is downplaying ISIS in their region. Hamas has been playing a dangerously stupid game in Gaza and their power is not as good as they claim it to be. The fact that more and more extreme claims are met with lack of determined discipline in their own following gives rise to that claim. In equal measure, there is still a danger that some of the Russian materials will also make it to ISIS hands, which just amplifies the dangers over there. Like Hamas, Hezbollah talks up a storm, yet in all this the ‘thousands’ of missiles they claim to have would have been fired already if they were at least 3% dependable, the Russian hardware could change that. Is it enough? That is hard to say as there are several tiers of data missing. Hezbollah has been playing certain facts closer to the chest, which does not mean that they have what they need, but in all this, several sides have claimed that the Iranian – Hezbollah supply line of missiles is a fact. That part was conveniently kept out of those ‘reliable’ papers for a long time as they commented on a nuclear Iran. It is one side Israel protested against for a very long time. So as an organised war falls to pieces, we see that there is a fractural war going on, each with their own agenda and many pieces having a hatred of Israel. We can consider that part when we look at the quote “the failed $500 million Pentagon program that was cancelled last week after it trained only a handful of fighters. That was unsuccessful largely because few recruits would agree to its goal of fighting only the militant Islamic State and not Mr. Assad“, which was also in the NY Times. The quote should in my mind have ended with “and not Mr. Assad or Israel“, two words that make all the difference. Two words kept out of papers, quotes and off the record, but in the minds and hearts that some of these people who received the training. Many of them with family ties to Hezbollah, even though not directly.

As I see it, we are watching pieces of a kinetic puzzle. They are moving and the watchers that should be watching every piece are lacking resources on both the hardware and software side, which means that events pass by unnoticed, giving the involved parties less warning and more losses, not just now, but down the track too. When this escalates beyond control the providers of current hardware will only have themselves to blame in the end, but as those involved parties will never end up being in the firing line, they might not care. That could start a phase where ‘it was not my responsibility‘ and ‘I did not care‘ end up being one and the same, which could end up being the most dangerous of escalations.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

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

October 12, 2015 · 18:51

Identitatis simplifico

You know, I have rented places all over the world. The US, the UK, Netherlands and Sweden. So when the BBC article ‘Landlord rent checks could cause ‘everyday racism’, Labour warns’ (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34498836) passed my screen, I was a little confused. That confusion did not go away with the quote “But shadow home secretary Andy Burnham told the Independent on Sunday it could cause problems for “anyone with a foreign-sounding name”“, he has been on my radar before (‘Dr Temp MD‘ at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/06/03/dr-temp-md/), where Brandy Human (read: anagram) seemed to imply that the mysteries of the spread sheet had not been revealed to him by this universe, but I digress. How can a foreign sounding name be an issue? You see, I have at all times been required to show proper identification, in my situation a valid passport. So why would there be an issue? The quote “Mr Burnham, describing the bill as “disproportionate, divisive, deceitful”, said: “The aim of the Immigration Bill is to make Britain a ‘hostile environment’ for illegal migrants”“, which does not even sound nice. I remember the issue that being somewhere illegally was, you know illegal. Hence the ‘stigma’ that there is. And in addition, why should illegality be protected or encouraged? Let’s state that this is indeed the case. Mr Damn Ah-by-Nun who came towards the UK illegally, goes towards the first legal centre he can find, or church for that matter and states: “I got here illegal, I am applying for refugee status“, now we have ourselves an old fashioned horse race. The proper people get informed, and Mr Ah-by-Nun goes into the refugee system and that person gets processed. You see, perhaps over simplified, but at no point was a rental place required. When we look that the UNHCR site we see “Everybody has a right to seek asylum in another country. People who don’t qualify for protection as refugees will not receive refugee status and may be deported” this is often the problem. We might state that they know that they are not allowed, but the fear that these people have also makes them not investigate as ignorance is key for many of these people, do they qualify for refugee status?

The UK defines the eligibility of a refugee as: “This persecution must be because of one of the following:

race
religion
nationality
political opinion

membership of a particular social group that puts you at risk because of the social, cultural, religious or political situation in your country, eg your gender, gender identity, sexual orientation”

Basically Syria is in a war, it sounds extremely inhumane, but that does not qualify. We can argue that as the war is based on political opinion, the verdict of eligibility should be yes. It is a thin wire to consider; yet as UK political views are against Assad, their plight has a much better chance. So they can go through the refugee system. At any point, they would have either a place to stay, an option to stay or proper paperwork, so the issue of Andy Burnham does not hold ground.

The response is also clear. We see the quote: “A Home Office spokesman said: “The government has made clear that the Right to Rent scheme is about reducing illegal migrants’ access to services – it has never been targeted at people with a lawful right to be in the UK”“, which makes sense, because people with a right to be in the UK will have the proper papers (like a VISA). The Guardian also took a look about 6 weeks ago with ‘The UK’s new immigration bill creates perfect conditions for slavery to thrive’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/aug/28/slavery-uk-immigration-act-2014-hostile-environment-undocumented-migrants-focus-on-labour-exploitation-flex). They are making a much better case. This would indeed be a danger, or would it? You see, true refugees can as far as I can tell still get into the refugee system when they register themselves. This means that once in the system, they either get their papers, or they get ‘replaced’.

One of the quotes I had an issue with was: “The prime minister says he wants to use the immigration bill to tackle the undocumented migrants who undercut the wages of British workers. Yet the cruel irony is that, far from preventing illegal working, the ‘hostile environment’ is creating conditions in which slavery can flourish“. This is a fair call and stating anything to the contrary or making some smart remark will not go far here. We can postulate that the Immigration Bill is making a first step in making it harder to stash away these slave labourers, but it is by no means their only option (for the slavers I mean) so there is a long way to go and with rental pressures it could make a difference. Is that true in the end remains to be seen.

It is the final quote that makes the difference as Caroline Robinson states: “A recent parliamentary answer showed that from January to June this year, just 28 out of 987 employers who were issued a ‘civil penalty notice’ for employing people without permission to work in the UK paid the full amount. This creates a win-win situation for unscrupulous employers, who can maximise profits by exploiting undocumented workers and then report them for deportation if they dare to demand decent labour conditions“. That path becomes a bit of an issue when these labourers have no place to stay, pushing the pressure in another direction. It will not be enough by itself, but it could be the start of closing the options for these unscrupulous employers.

Yet, it was not Andy Burnham that came with that part, Caroline Robinson brought valid points 6 weeks before Andy Burnham failed to make one. It seems to me that he missed the boat and the train all in one topic.

The independent shows the quote: “As Labour’s motion on Tuesday will make clear, we are prepared to support the Government where it has proportionate proposals to tackle illegal immigration, strengthen our borders and stop the exploitation of migrants by unscrupulous employers and landlords. But what we will never be prepared to do is let the Government pander to prejudice and legislate in haste to entrench the kind of casual discrimination which the Prime Minister claims to oppose“, the quote remains the issue, it is all about emotion and not about facts. the part ‘to entrench the kind of casual discrimination’ has no connection when a rent applicant has a proper VISA/legal papers. How can this be discrimination?

Now there will be many that shout outraged and a list comes, but it will be an emotional list. If there is one issue that is valid is that by itself the immigration bill will not work, more work is needed. Yet, what are the facts? The overview as published (at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/462004/Immigration_Bill_Factsheet_01_-_overarching.pdf), shows one part that matters. “The Bill complements the immediate action we are taking to resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees and further secure border control in Calais“. As stated before, this bill does not stop refugees; it is a first step in taking care of the people with unsubstantiated asylum claims, whilst opening these options for the valid Syrian refugees. In the end, with the housing pressure as is, 20,000 refugees will place a serious pressure on housing. It is about the services becoming available to those who should be getting them.

Can we state that there will be pressures and that some will get hurt in the process? That cannot be denied, yet the overall issue is the illegal part, contrary to or forbidden by law is more than a term. It is set situation that the UK, the commonwealth nations and many other nations are nations of laws. These laws have been trampled on for a long time and this change is likely only a first step in thwarting illegal immigration and the pressure that this brings to the support system in the UK (as well as in many other nations). In the Netherlands there is a paper going round stating that illegal immigrants costs the Dutch treasury 7 billion Euro per annum. I will not go into this part, as there are some concerns as to how valid these numbers are, yet from more reliable sources we see that there is a massive shortcoming in medical care.

Again, we seem to be thwarting the issue at hand. These are not refugees, or asylum seekers; these are either rejected asylum seekers or people who entered the nation illegally. Is it too inhumane to consider the question why we cater to this group? I have never stood against giving medical aid to the needy, the refugees, or even humanitarian medical aid in other nations. With all these options in play, why do we cater to criminals? It is slightly politically incorrect, but the foundation in all this is that many nations have overstretched their credit card by a lot, things have to change. In that I am willing to consider that some options should not be stopped. I would limit the influx of refugees, but in this day and age, as the Syrian situation becomes less and less humane, can we afford to say no here? These are at least valid refugees, but at some point, one part has to give way. The immigration bill is a first step. I feel certain that if the financial situation was not the way it was this might not be playing, but that is not the hand Europe overall has been dealt.

In all this I see that many sources go into the emotional state. In here I would like to try and raise the issue of Mohammed Zulfiqar, who smuggled himself into the UK on a false passport, got a woman pregnant as fast as possible (5 times) and now even though through criminal means, he now uses Article 8, ‘the right to family life’, of the European Convention on Human Rights legislation to demand the Home Office allow him to stay in Britain. My issue is that only places like the Express and the Daily Mail seems to have taken a shine to this, as such, the source becomes unreliable pretty fast. The final quote in the express is “Last year 200 offenders, including rapists and muggers, ≠successfully challenged removal from Britain by citing Article 8“.

In my article ‘Cleaning House!‘ on July 1st 2014 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/07/01/cleaning-house/), I stated a change to the act. I opted for 2 changes. The first one: ‘3. In case of conviction of a serious crime, that nation can decide to ignore rule 1, providing a connection to a long term partner and the existence of biological off spring, born in that nation, not criminally conceived has been established.’ would take care of rapers, yet in this case Mohammed Zulfiqar could still remain. However the second change:

‘ARTICLE 12 Right to marry,

  1. Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right
  1. The right to marry is temporary postponed if one or both persons have been deprived of his/her liberty by arrest or detention, until 6 months after release and was not been deported because of these events
  1. Paragraph 2 will not be valid, if a court has ordered the release of the involved parties due to non-lawful detention’

In here a fourth point would need to be added:

  1. The right to marry is only valid when both parties are legal residents of that nation.

 
Now we have a solution! Actually it is only one of two places. It does not need to be added in article 12, the simple provision that UK registration for marriage must be done with official papers should be more than enough.

Gee, took me 5 minutes to get this ball settled, why have the lawmakers not been more astute in solving this? With these amendments there is a proper humanitarian law, you see, humanitarian law gives too much protection too criminals and not enough consideration to the victims. How is that humanitarian in any way shape or form?

In all this more is needed, but until The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg realises that catering to criminal elements is a first likely cause for nations to start rejecting Humanitarian law, their Ivory tower will only continue to falter and crash. There have been several levels of criticism towards the ECHR in the past and that would never go away. Any nation that deals with the ECRH tends to see the ECRH cases as an invasion to their national laws. In my view, another side should be regarded. The ECHR building’s use of glass implies the openness of the court to European citizens. Yet in my view, this ‘transparency’ gives options for criminals to plot their path, whilst the solidity of glass becomes a fence holding captive the victims of those criminal transgressions. We could consider Mohammed Zulfiqar to be the lower grade transgressor, depending on the rights of the ‘wife’/’spawner’ of his UK residency ticket. The story from 2011 involving Akindoyin Akinshipe, then 24 year old who got to stay as his rape resulted in childbirth, so what about that 13 year old girl? How did the ECHR protect her?

How do the two issues relate? The ECHR is all about setting the rights of a humane foundation; I do not disagree or disapprove of that notion, yet the foundation is not correctly set. The transgressions from illegal and criminal act do not invalidate certain steps. The ECHR falls short here. Even though we accept article 12: ‘Right to marry’, ‘Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right’. We see the failing that the ‘Marriages and civil partnerships in the UK’ (at https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/giving-notice-at-your-local-register-office) does not mention or give proper direction that Marriages and Civil partnerships in the UK the need that both partners must be valid residents of the UK at time of registration, failure to do so would result in nullification of marriage and residency rights. The added issue ‘You can only give notice at a register office if you have lived in the registration district for at least the past 7 days‘ is something that needs addressing for the simple reason is that the added ‘and can prove your legal residency in the UK through proper identification and residency permits‘. All that could have prevented several issues (and avoid a few Strasbourg cases too I reckon).

Identitatis simplifico (meaning simplify identity) is about the rights to be in a place, which seems to leave the illegal immigrant out in the cold. Yet in all this, my choice is simple. If the choice is to leave either the refugee or the illegal immigrant out in the cold, than I am all for giving that extra mile to the refugee, who has seen their ordeal and have miles to go before they get to sleep, that is humanitarian in its foundation. The first step in dealing with the criminal element is to no longer cater to them. That part seems to elude Andy Burnham by a lot, but I could be wrong!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , ,

October 4, 2015 · 12:00

CISA and Privacy are not opposites

There is a view that many hold, this view is not educated. A view which was given to us from the moment we spawned as a living person. Some got this knowledge as they went to their church or temple. They were told about good and evil. When we started to go to school we got to learn about order and chaos. This last one matters, you see, the opposite that order and chaos represent has been used in books, in videogames, in TV shows and in movies. In the Avengers movie ‘Age of Ultron’, near the end of the film we hear a quote from Vision, played by Paul Bettany that matters: “Humans are odd. They think order and chaos are somehow opposites“.

You might not realise it but the gem that we have here is in the foundations of many issues that have been plaguing us in several ways. Let’s take a look at this in two parts. The first is a Guardian article (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/01/blackphone-release-data-protection-privacy-surveillance) called ‘Blackphone: privacy-obsessed smartphone aims to broaden its appeal‘. The very first paragraph is a quote that shows issues on more than one side “Privacy company Silent Circle has released a second version of its signature handheld, a smartphone designed to quell the data scraping and web tracking that’s become such an integral part of the digital economy in the last few years (and whose results might well end up with the NSA, if the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act passes)“, now I have no issue with the data scraping part and for the most the term ‘whose results might well end up with the NSA’ is less of an issue, but the overall taste is about privacy, I have no issue with this. The next quote is an interesting one, which will matter soon enough “In the beginning, Janke said, the Blackphone project was just a way for people working for his security firm SOC, since sold, to call home without having their communications intercepted“.

You see, there is no issue with the message shown here, but what is linked to all this is the message that is not shown here. You see, this device should now be regarded as the most excellent tool for hedge funds managers, organised crimes and all other kinds of non-mentioned criminals, who will now get to do with ease and freedom the things they had to steeplechase around the block for. This device will allow financial advisors to take certain steps that they were too scared to do, all out of fear of getting caught. This device will be opening doors.

There is no issue with the approach Janke had, he was submerged (read: drowning) in a world where any slip up could mean the death of him, his comrades and perhaps even his family. So his need for security was a given. There is a need for such a device. I have written about the need for this device as early as 2009, so the fact that someone picks this up is not a surprise, so why are we looking at this?

You see, it is the mention of CISA that is part of all this. CISA or better stated the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act is sponsored by Republican Senator Richard Burr (North-Carolina). Why would anyone oppose ‘the bill makes it easier for companies to share cyber threat information with the government‘? Let’s be clear this is about dealing with Cyber Threats!

So what is a Cyber Threat? A Cyber threat is defined as ‘a malicious attempt to damage or disrupt a computer network or system‘, so we have the fact that this is about malicious attempts! So why would there be an issue? Well, there is because people and as it seems to be especially criminals, terrorists and Organised Crime seem to be allowed a lot more privacy than their victims, so in all this I see little issues pop up all over the place. This sounds all emotional, but what does the official text state? Well, the complete text is at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/754, so let’s take a look at some parts.

“Permits state, tribal, or local agencies to use shared indicators (with the consent of the entity sharing the indicators) to prevent, investigate, or prosecute offenses relating to: (1) an imminent threat of death, serious bodily harm, or serious economic harm, including a terrorist act or a use of a weapon of mass destruction; or (2) crimes involving serious violent felonies, fraud and identity theft, espionage and censorship, or trade secrets“, How can we be opposed to this? Is this not the foundation of growing fair play?

Well, that is partially the question. You see, the issue is in part the language. Consider this paraphrase which remains correct in light of the previous statement: “Permits local agencies to use shared indicators (with the consent of the entity sharing the indicators) to prosecute offenses relating to serious economic harm“. Which is now the floodlight of all this.

Now we get to the second part in all this, which is offenses relating to serious economic harm. Serious economic harm tends to be seen as pure economic loss, but it is not limited to that. For this we can look at the element ‘Loss of production suffered by an enterprise whose electricity supply is interrupted by a contractor excavating a public utility‘, which we see in Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd. In here the legislatively famous Lord Denning raised the issue of ‘Duty to mitigate loss’. Yet today, in the world of data and digital media, how can we measure that element? Let me show this through an exaggerated fictive example.

Microsoft raises the issue that as they required an investigation into acts that are causing serious economic harm to Microsoft. Unique software has been released that directly negatively impacts they trademarked business. The CISA could now be in effect to investigate data and data sources, but who minds that store? Who has that knowledge? Now consider that the person investigated would be Markus Persson, because his program ‘Minecraft’ is now stopping all people who are part of the Microsoft Gaming brand to continue.

So who will make that call? You might think that this is a ludicrous example, but is that so? Microsoft ended up paying more than 2 billion for it, so someone implying ‘Serious Economic Harm’ is not that far-fetched. This now becomes an issue for a timeline. What timeline is in effect here? With an imminent threat of death this is a simple matter, with serious economic harm that matter is far from simple, moreover will the claim be valid? I used the ludicrous Minecraft and Microsoft Games brand. Yet what happens when this is a lot more ‘grey’, what happens when this is Raytheon versus the Belgium based TTN Verhaert? A Technology Transfer Network (TTN) that has innovated the latest classified satellite navigation systems. Is it still a clear call as to what constitutes serious economic harm?

This act opens up a can of intellectual property, the one can everyone wants to swim in and the elected official channels do not even have a fraction of the minimum required insight to make such a call.

Section 9 gives us “Directs the DNI to report to Congress regarding cybersecurity threats, including cyber-attacks, theft, and data breaches. Requires such report to include: (1) an assessment of current U.S. intelligence sharing and cooperation relationships with other countries regarding cybersecurity threats to the U.S. national security interests, economy, and intellectual property; (2) a list of countries and non-state actors that are primary threats; (3) a description of the U.S. government’s response and prevention capabilities; and (4) an assessment of additional technologies that would enhance U.S. capabilities, including private sector technologies that could be rapidly fielded to assist the intelligence community”

When we consider both A and B, we should look at ‘U.S. SEC drops Onyx insider trading lawsuit against Dubai men’ (at http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-sec-drops-onyx-insider-230111643.html) from September 15th. The quote here is “Smith said the Newman decision was ‘helpful,’ but that the SEC ‘never had a tipper’ or evidence that his clients received inside information”, one would think that this is where CISA could now step in. Alas, apart from the side that is implied by the CISA text: ‘assessment of additional technologies that would enhance U.S. capabilities, including private sector technologies that could be rapidly fielded to assist the intelligence community’, which according to Blackphone is not an option, we now see that this opens a door to ‘patsy management’ on how two unsecured parties, could be set-up through the use of Blackphone through encrypted conversations and when the two unsecured parties talk, they could be setting each other up thanks to the other two parties that were using a Blackphone. Blackphone here has no blame whatsoever, they would be offering the one part criminals desperately want, a secured phone. This now sets a dangerous precedence, not a legal one, because Blackphone is behaving itself as it should, the provider of secure communications, it is what people do with it that matters that part cannot be guaranteed by the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act. In addition, S. 754 has one additional flaw. That flaw is seen in the definitions, where we see that the earlier mentioned definition ‘serious economic harm’ is not specified in the definitions at all, so what definition applies?

Beyond that, we see the definition of a cybersecurity threat. In here it is important to take a look at part A and part B.

part a gives us: “IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term “cybersecurity threat” means an action, not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, on or through an information system that may result in an unauthorized effort to adversely impact the security, availability, confidentiality, or integrity of an information system or information that is stored on, processed by, or transiting an information system” and part B gives us “EXCLUSION.—The term “cybersecurity threat” does not include any action that solely involves a violation of a consumer term of service or a consumer licensing agreement“, which sounds nice, yet how does it help stem cybersecurity threats?

You see, when you consider the letter send by UCLA to Chairman Dianne Feinstein in June last year, we see: “CISA’s inadequate use limitations risk turning the bill into a backdoor for warrantless use of information the government receives for investigations and prosecutions of crimes unrelated to cybersecurity“, which could be regarded as the biggest failure, but it is not, it is the part we see in “CISA requires that cyber threat indicators shared from the private sector with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) be immediately disseminated to the Department of Defense, which includes the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command. This new flow of private communications information to NSA is deeply troubling given the past year’s revelations of overbroad NSA surveillance“. It is the ‘be immediately disseminated to the Department of Defense’ that comes into play now. When we consider ‘Overbroad Liability Protection‘, which can now hide by giving that function to an intern so that “good faith” reliance remains is a potential risk that could be pushed by big business to hide behind the ‘dope’ who acts in ‘good faith’.

Is that truly the blackness we face? Well, that is hard to say, the fact that this act relies on ambiguity and is lacking certain rules of restraint, or at least certain safeguards so that data cannot leave the intelligence office is reasons enough to have a few more discussions on this topic. What is interesting is that CISA would create a fear, which Black phone addresses, yet in similar method other players will now receive an option allowing them to play large dangerous games whilst not becoming accountable, that new Blackphone could address several issues the shady commercial interest guy is very happy to exploit.

The question becomes, how does any of this make us any safer?

So now we get back to the Age of Ultron line. As we see that crime is becoming an orderly event, the fact that we tend to hide in chaos the issues that should be open for all is part of the dilemma we now face. Again we are confronted with laws that remain inadequate to deal with the issues that needed to be dealt with. CISA takes in my view a chaotic approach to keep a level of order that was delusional from the very start, from missing definitions to application of methodology. It is a cog not linked to any machine, proclaiming soon to be of use to all machines and in the end, as I see it will only hinder progress on many levels, mainly because it tries to circumvent the accountability of some. And this is not just an American issue. In that regard laws and the protection of the victims have been an issue for a longer time. We only need to look to the Tesco grocery store on the corner to comprehend that part of the equation.

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under IT, Law, Military, Politics, Science

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

October 2, 2015 · 22:33

How to blame an inanimate object.

Something happened in Oregon. For many it will be horrific, to some it has no impact, to others it has an emotional impact. The news at CNN (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrYkblNgs_U) is all about the breaking news. For Umpqua Community College it will be a dark page in their history. The news is giving all levels of speculation, they are not doing it in an irresponsible way, because they are factors to be considered, but the news diverts on several occasions towards ‘other speculated’ events and dangers. It stopped being news after 20 seconds. It was all about (as I see it) on prolonging the event. Moving from breaking news snippet to breaking news snippet. We can argue on the value here, but there is no issue with that approach, it is a choice. In the case of John F. Kennedy Jr, when on July 16, 1999 his plane crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts the issue was different. For 45 minutes we saw a sailor on the back of a deck. Nearly every newscast (CNN, Fox, CNBC et al) were all zooming in on that same sailor whilst I was at Dulles Airport waiting for my flight. Now that constitutes the pinnacle of bad newscasts, this is not, but there is an issue. You see, as emotions rise in that instance, we all were confronted with 10 dead, 20 wounded and the initial shooter has been apprehended. Something I could have stated in under a minute. Yet, it is not about this newscast, what happened afterwards becomes the issue. An interesting side is shown at EpicTimes.com by Jon Justice (at http://www.epictimes.com/jonjustice/2015/10/ucc-mass-shooting-blaming-the-gun-has-begun/).

This is not the first event and it will not be the last event either. The quote ‘Jon was frustrated to see so many people on social networks blame the NRA and call for more gun control‘ starts it of nicely. You see, guns do not kill people. People kill people. In addition we see the quote: “We need to get over this idea that you can put up a “Gun Free Zone” sign and it will stop the violence”, which is more than just bringing it to a point.

His podcast (also in the webpage) is emotional and seems to strike out to people trying to score political points towards gun at the expense of 13 cadavers. Yes, this sounds extremely crude, which it is. People ignore again and again that the gun culture is not the killing factor, the killing comes from criminals and monsters who seem to score names by going after children. Changes are needed and gun control has never and will never be the solution. You see, when guns fall away, we get blunt objects, knives and other devices that can end lives. Jon Justice starts to blame social media and 20 hours news a day. Jon Justice brings up a very interesting side. Social media and the option of notoriety is a growing concern, in all this guns are not even close to the largest dangers. Should we globally ban Facebook? In 2013 32,719 people died in a car accident. So, why is there no car control, you see nearly all the involved players had a driver’s license? Why are people not banned from cars FOR LIFE? In addition Jon brings up the discipline required for guns. Weirdly enough is that those who legally obtained a gun, some of these what people tend to call Gun Nuts, they tend to revere their gun. They take as many precautions towards gun safety and their weapon as a mother would towards their child. His speech takes a turn that people should observe. His consideration regarding 14 kills in Chicago, which has one of the strongest control laws. How many people spoke out in that regard? Those people taking a chance on political points thanks to the deceased from Umpqua Community College is appalling. Jon Justice clearly has a point.

Yet I started with the amendments. There was reasoning here. You see, the US constitution starts with the three amendments that safeguard liberties. To appease the anti-federalists personal freedoms were guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, whilst in addition limiting the government’s power. Yet, people forget that changing one is lowering the defence of all. I will go one step further, if the people lose the rights to bear arms, we should also change the first amendment where we state that the freedom of speech exists, yet after the editing the people can hold anyone liable for that what they print or speak. This should be great for Hollywood and their residents. Many people will rejoice that glamour press could be held accountable for their innuendo. They are connect because the first three rights were about the people. The first is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

You see, people seem to attack the second amendment, which was one of three set towards the safeguards of liberty.

The American second Amendment states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed“. This links to the Heritage guide to the Constitution (at http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/amendments/1/essays/140/freedom-of-speech-and-of-the-press). The interesting quote is “The debates in the First Congress, which proposed the Bill of Rights, are brief and unilluminating. Early state constitutions generally included similar provisions, but there is no record of detailed debate about what those state provisions meant“, is that not interesting? Is the meaning and the debate regarding not one of the highest importance? The 1st Continental Congress in 1774 showed the following: “The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs” In this light, why do we not hold the press accountable? ‘The advancement of morality‘, is that not part that must be addressed? When we consider the Hacking scandal in the UK that involved the Murdoch Business, on June 3rd 2015 (at http://www.theage.com.au/comment/hacking-scandal-has-not-changed-murdoch-20150601-ghekss.html), we see the following two quotes: “New evidence … has led the Metropolitan Police to believe that this was unlikely to have been correct … the newspaper is unlikely to have been responsible for the deletion of a set of voicemails from the phone that caused her parents to have false hopes that she was alive“, which was regarding the deleted messages from Milly Dowler, which gave the parents the false hope that she was still alive. The next one was “I was taken aback when Davies told me, in a roomful of students and media buffs, that the premise of my question was wrong (and by implication, therefore, his story wasn’t). The Metropolitan Police, he said, had provided Lord Justice Leveson with a detailed report shortly after The Guardian’s correction was published. It showed there was a great deal of uncertainty about who had deleted what, and when. Naturally, Davies added, no one had reported this“, yet this remains linked to the issue that the press had been ignoring personal freedoms and blatantly hack the device of a person without consent. Yet in the end, the press did a double take on false ‘humility’ by promising to do better, an approach that was never met and blatant false allegations returned to be the norm less than 4 weeks after the end of the Leveson report considerations. So in all this, if people want control of something that is not to blame, in equal measure to ‘nurture’ a communion that seems to live on the needed premise of ‘Flight MH370 was crashed into the Indian Ocean in an apparent suicide mission‘, a statement that had no bearing as no evidence existed not at that point and no evidence existed a long time after that, even today 18 months later there still is no evidence of any kind that this was a suicide mission.

Marlin1881Now the second amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed“, this is the kicker! The fact that it is not infringed is nothing more than the ability to bear arms. Considered the image to the left.

 

Do you think that this is the weapon made by or owned by anyone who is about killing people? This is a work of art, plain and simple. The issue in Umpqua Community College is not plain and simple. The news gives us that the shooter was targeting Christians.

 

 

So is this person Chris Harper Mercer a mental health case or an anti-Christian extremist. You see, the speech from President Obama seems wrong on two counts. He stated ‘we do not have sufficient common sense gun safety laws‘, how wrong was he? You see, in the first case we can claim his speech should have been ‘Obamacare failed this young man, this young man who did not get the proper care and as a result people at Umpqua Community College paid for this failing with their life‘. In the other case the speech should have been ‘America is under attack, an extremist, under the guise of religious terminal segregation decided to attack Americans and the American way of life by killing future moulders of this great nation where freedom reigns‘. No, another speech was made and the gun, ‘the inanimate object’ got blamed.

The third one has no bearing on these events, yet this one is the last one that safeguards liberties in the US. The text: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law“, which basically gives a new view to the British expression ‘my home is my castle‘ in the US. The first is over protected, the second is shunned and prosecuted, and the third gets ignored. All facts that brought forth what was once the greatest nation on earth as well as the champion of freedom. That last part America seems to think it still is, yet when we consider the victims of Umpqua Community College. Was freedom of speech guaranteed so that one person could kill many (an act that was done not through voicing a thought or opinion) or has the right to free speech been taken away from the victims, who had a Christian and legal right to speak out regarding what they thought would be right in their lives and in their community? We will never know, because the dead do not talk.

How can we get past this?

First of all, the following part comes from the Seattle Times, which has an interesting side (at http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/roseburg-attack-latest-in-growing-list-of-horrific-killings/), it states: “Oregon is one of seven states, either from state legislation or court rulings, with provisions allowing the carrying of concealed weapons on public post-secondary campuses, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The other states are Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Utah and Wisconsin.” So, there is a small side which does score points for President Obama, ‘common sense gun safety laws‘ is the issue in my view. You see, as I see it (oversimplifying issues as per usual), concealed weapons should not be allowed to anyone that is not part of the police, the military, governmental officials (members of the alphabet group) and cleared private security. It would not have made any difference today. But this fact should still be stated.

There is every option to stop the military from dropping the people who stood by them and let those getting close to retirement to become part of an education location security team, a group of people that is armed and is there to keep the students safe. They remain semi-military staff and are as such accountable for events, but I feel certain that whatever person, for whatever reason thinks that he will become famous, that person is a lot more likely to be the diminished towards a mere by-line ‘today an individual entered a campus armed with concealed weapons. Military protection was on site and none of the students became victim of this attack. The carcass of the transgressor will be disposed of shortly; his identity no longer matters‘. How long until these people regard a school not to be a target? How long until we acknowledge that anyone with a mental condition should not be allowed a firearm license? Will that stop the transgressor? No, that is extremely unlikely, but the presence of trained personnel on educational grounds will make it extremely certain that the loss of innocent victims will remain as low as possible. Consider the Columbine Massacre. April 20, 1999 from 11:19 a.m. until 12:08 p.m. An event where for almost an hour two people had access to a ‘shooting gallery’ causing the death of 12 people and wounding 21. Now consider another event. On 15 April 1912 a British Dinghy was lost at sea. It was called the Titanic (you may have heard of it). In 1914 the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) became in effect, a convention that is still in effect today. So, if sailors can get something this lasting done, how come that proper security in US schools is still not achieved 186 months after Columbine? The combined wars of the American Revolutionary War and the Northwest Indian War took less time to settle. The two costed the lives of 8044 in battle, since 1980 it is rumoured that only 297 people were killed, so perhaps if we get a few more casualties (like 8044 minus 297) things will actually change, as long as those pushing for change realise that blaming guns and trying to force gun control will never ever be a solution. The Titanic lost 1500 lives a number that outside a war would never have been fathomable in those days, so perhaps more deaths will push the American administration into action. I am however reluctant to consider that they show any wisdom in that regard. Guns and politicians react like a bull and a bright coloured blanket, with no option for any amount of fence. What people might forget is that the US military is cutting 40,000 troops (not of their own accord I imagine). Many of those now need to find jobs, which means that new pressures are about to hit the US job market, did no one consider the fact that many of these are exquisitely trained in keeping people safe? Is it such a jump to enlist these people within the Justice department as educational security (to avoid issues with the 1978 Posse Comitatus Act)?

In the end there is a case to be made that 40,000 departures are arranged because the US is so broke that it has exhausted all options and hiring these people in other capacities is no longer an option. Which is the consideration one gets at minus 18 trillion, so how has this administration as well as the previous Republican one done anything to keep places of education truly safe?

I’ll let you ponder these facts, but when you do, consider the words of Bill O’Reilly (at http://video.foxnews.com/v/4524976308001/the-mass-murder-in-oregon-/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips), the fact that again there is a link to social media and the fact that the ‘claim’ was placed before the event took place. In my personal view an anti-Christian extremist would not have given ‘warning’, making this a ‘some form of mental health case’. There are unknowns and there are speculations. The statement that people were killed based on religion was made by someone who was in the classroom where it happened seems to be acceptable enough as quality reporters have gone with that fact.

So where is any solution to be found? Gun control will not lead to any solution (in the US) and amending the laws and regulations are equally pointless against transgressors like this.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

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

September 27, 2015 · 22:22

The danger the UN brings

Yes, the UN has been active, the news in several places including the Netherlands shows a sight that many might not grasp. As one of the sources US News reports ‘UN summit approves 15-year blueprint to eradicate extreme poverty and combat climate change‘, of course many are now cheering on how lives will become better. Will they?

193 countries agreed on this. Like the millennium plans. Not all targets were met, but as some state (like Dutch NOS News), there is progress. The news stated on how poverty got halved. Here I wonder on what grounds that evidence is brought, where the data is. I am not stating it is incorrect, I am stating that poverty shifted and several nations are playing possum on those numbers. Has anyone considered the US numbers on how many people are living below the poverty line? How many need double jobs just to make ends meet? How is that not poverty in its own right? Now they are stating on how businesses need to get involved, moving from charitable to profitable (quote Dutch Prime Minister Rutten).

Here is the danger! You see we have ample evidence on many levels that the bulk of business will not make these jumps unless there is a benefit to them. Like tax breaks, like non-accountability. So as these new plans needs funding, funding many nations no longer have, how much additional taxation will get lost and how will that impact the lives of you and me all?

Is that not a valid question? The Dutch king might be very committed, yet funds are not there. Critics are already in disagreement. The overall lack of environmental improvements have been overly visible for a long time, getting it in an UN speech is unlikely to make change here. Which is just my personal view.

The quote from the prime minister is also very tainting. “These problems are too large for a government to tackle, we need corporations to step in“. This is perhaps the first clear statement from a leading EEC member that governments can no longer hack it. This is what I have stated for a long time. The law stayed its hand and as such the treasuries remain non protected and non-accountability with improper wasting of resources have given weight to a now faltering group of governments. Yet, corporations have to rise to the occasion, to which I ask: ‘At what price?‘

Feel of course free to disagree, yet in 8 years, see how goals are not being met, not even close and then listen to the carefully phrased excuses people will give regarding not making the targets. The US News article has one quote that needs to be regarded: “Supporters say there is no choice but to go big in a world of expanding population, growing inequality, dwindling resources and the existential threat from global warming“. It is the ‘dwindling resources’ that is at the heart of many issues. We allow the exploitative and imbalanced Wal-Mart to continue, yet we all realise that resources are an issue. In all this that same Wal-Mart will be asked to give support so that they can get a free pass. Does this make the entire UN operation a new chapter in its recognition as a paper tiger?

You only need to look at the Syrian issue to see how the UN is largely ignored. Now we get another ‘issue’, not with the speaker, she is as I see it in all this part of the UN PowerPoint. The quote ““Promise peace to all children in Pakistan, in India, in Syria and in every corner of the world,” Malala implored the leaders“, it sounds nice, it makes for good TV, but there is no realism here. Syria has its issues where the life of a child is conceptual at best. The Indian government has close to no options at all to deal with its child labour issues, the same situation exists in Pakistan. Both nations where the realistic view is to either work or starve. The combined child labour population of Pakistan and Indian exceeds the total population of either Australia or Sri Lanka. That is how unrealistic the issues are. Again, I have nothing against Malala, she overcame more hardship than most of us will encounter in a lifetime, but those in the UN should know better and adding her to this presentation is good for Malala and I wish her every positivity as well as the fact that we should not be silent on these issues, but the delegates of the UN should know a lot better, this issue is one that will not be met.

Another shifted view comes from Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi who said that “the international community has to deal with global challenges that hinder development“. The quote “Egypt has been fighting an insurgency by Sinai militants allied to the Islamic State group. At the same time, security forces have cracked down on Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists“, as well as “El-Sissi also expressed concern that “the tools” to achieve the goals are insufficient, and stressed that richer nations have a responsibility to help poorer ones“. This sounds not even close to nice. The direct option was to engage in a dialogue with Israel on how to deal with the Sinai, Israel is very willing to assist and find solutions here, as the pressure is also on Israel due to Sinai Extremists. No, President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi wants the rich countries to step in. Likely also making sure that some hands are tied in all this. The last one is a speculation, yet in addition the entire MFO situation are set after certain accords, so how will these accords be impacted? The September 17th 1978 Camp David Accords will likely see a different light over that evolving future. Is this truly a ploy to deal with the Sinai Extremists, or a played option to sway a vote to allow more Egyptian troops and military into Sinai, with all kinds of new pressures? I just set into the light three small issues that give worry to the entire 15 year blueprint. Yes, there is benefit and essential growth to eradicating extreme poverty, yet in all this it can ONLY be achieved by overhauling laws on a global level. Changes that players like Wal-Mart will never allow for, moreover, they have a sizeable lobby at their side to make sure that the fortunes of the Walton family remains guaranteed. Wal-Mart spend will over 7 million in 2013 to its lobby to make sure certain pawns were either moved, or not moved according to their needs. As the members of that family grows in fortune a billion a year, 7 million is nothing, even then times that would be a steal at twice the price, the cost of doing business and the laws of the land, the laws of most nations fall short in this regard.

Interesting that this side saw no exposure at all.

In this, the monarchist nations remain the strongest supporters, they are mostly about the nations and the global good, republics are all about the elected principle and the lobbies in the back, corporations rule there! Is it any surprise that Sweden and the Netherlands are so socially inclined? That is the impact of a monarchy reflecting on all the people and the moral and social good of the world. In similar light, how should we see the quote by India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Canadian Global News, where we read: “Modi confirmed plans for a fivefold boost in renewable energy but added two years to the time frame, saying it will take seven years instead of five”, is it because of American politics and what we have seen in the past that this could be seen as a shift until after the next election and that issue will be dealt with after the elections? Will we see an offer by Narendra Modi offering the open gap NTT DoCoMo left to the next mobile player under conditions of renewable energy installations? Will that suddenly count towards the total? In all this, those installations count as a cost, which means that those players will not be saucing the treasury coffers. That is the foundation of problems several other nations must remain aware off and unless the laws are adjusted this all shows like another paper tiger, offered in consideration from a group of people who get paid very nicely on an annual base, so the next 15 years some of these players would be decently well fed. Is that my sarcasm that you read now?

I must admit that sarcasm swims within me as I have seen the faltering side of several branches in law and politics not adjusting the view required to guarantee their nation towards growth, a view that is not an option at present. In all this not enough people are looking onto the sides that long term adjustments are required to make so that any option is realistic, yet with Wal-Mart equals on other shores their game is not dissimilar to the game the Walton’s are playing in a legally correct way, in all this the law has faltered in several nations, with no view of improvements any day soon.

So the dangers the UN bring will impact economies, unless the law adjusts firm and fast that plan is not likely to be made. If you doubt my words then consider the ‘plans’ that were made in 2000, they were not met, in some cases they were met only 50%, it is called an improvement, but from that we must accept that either the plans were never realistic, which beckons the question, why accept a non-realistic plan, in the second there is the validity that progress was booked, yet at what price and in this time and in this economic age what is the realistic chance that such funds remain to be available?

As for my doubts, that part can be seen in the very end of the article (at http://globalnews.ca/news/2242584/un-summit-approves-15-year-plan-to-erase-extreme-poverty-fight-climate-change/) called ‘UN summit approves 15-year plan to erase extreme poverty, fight climate change‘, the quote is “As for finding the trillions needed to implement the goals, Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates said Thursday “we’d be doing very well to have anywhere near that amount of money available by 2030”“. We know Bill Gates to be one of the leading philanthropists. He has not tried to hold on to the massive wealth Microsoft brought him and he has spent a lot, yet he knows how much money this requires, something I expect the politicians involved have no realistic clue about. If Bill Gates shows signs of worry regarding the need of these trillions, how come the governments involved are not extremely outspoken regarding the massive debts they have and that no one has these level of funds. In part only corporations do and my worry is that the price of agreeing to all this will cost us a lot down the road. In addition, it is also interesting to note on how papers have the same stories, the same quotes and the same title, so is the journalistic branch now limited to do the copy and paste action? In that I set Reuters apart. The one issue they show and the other papers did not (as far as I can tell), is the article (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/26/us-un-assembly-china-idUSKCN0RQ0HW20150926), so as we accept the second quote to be “Chinese President Xi Jinping announced on Saturday that Beijing will establish an assistance fund with an initial pledge of $2 billion to help developing countries implement a sweeping global sustainable development agenda over the next 15 years“. Now if we accept the first quote to be from Bill Gates (the one stated earlier), now compare the statement just given by Chinese President Xi Jinping, controlling the second largest economy on the planet (if we accept the US numbers to be true), than 2 billion (the article states another 12 billion by China too), in light of the statement by Bill Gates “As for finding the trillions needed to implement the goals“, gives the vision that the second largest economy is contributing less than 0.7% of the required amount. So is anyone still considering the realistic view offered by the UN, a 15 year goal that is not realistic is in my view nothing more than a concept in presentations, if you are there and if the coffee was nice, the day might not be lost, but in all certainty, it is unlikely to be a true gain to anyone attending other than Malala, who as a UN envoy achieved what she had to achieve, to shed light on a situation that needs addressing, how that is done is actually on the plate of Gordon Brown who is the political side of the United Nations Special Envoy for Global Education.

In the most worrying closure, I have stated it before, would the culling of our population help? If so how can the UN exist, or even remain to continue when the required solution is to dim the lights for billions of people, a population decline in excess of 90%. This is not humane and equally unrealistic. I want to see realism in the shape and size that we the people are properly informed on what is needed, where the law will properly adjust to hold corporations accountable for steps taken and for profits made. A reality I am unlikely to see happen in my life, so what will be left to the generation that follows me?

I honestly do not know, yet in the light of what I just showed you the reader, did you consider any of the issues that I noticed and that none of the articles discussed and more important, why were these issues not raised by the involved journalists?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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