Category Archives: Politics

March 19, 2014 · 23:00

Any sport implies corruption!

Yes, I agree that this statement is over the top, but at present, I have had it with sports. Whenever we hear about any sport, we are likely to hear doping, corruption or treason. When was the last time you watched your favourite sport and one of these three elements were not in play? Even if this is the case, when you Google your sport with the keywords ‘crime’, ‘corruption’ or ‘investigation’ you will see a list of events that is tainting your favourite sport.

I am originally Dutch, which means that cycling, skating and Soccer make the list for most Dutch people. I (being a statistical outlier in all this) do not really care about those three. If I am at such an event I will enjoy watching it, but I usually do not really bother watching it on TV, unless it is a special event (like a semi-final or final for a world cup or something like that).

So, when I saw on TV that Qatar had won the World Cup host for 2022, I was just happy for Qatar. I was happy, because a thoroughly European sport would go to the Middle East, hopefully inspiring more people and more nations to take up the sport, which is always a good thing. I also considered that the location would show the ‘smaller’ nations had an opportunity to host the ‘big’ boys in soccer and show them that they too can wield the torch of hosting pride. I had no negative thoughts at all. Although I realised that this was a very warm place, it would be nice for other teams like Qatar, Cameroon and Mexico get to play with home field weather advantage, which was pretty much it for me.

So when I got the news this morning that another corruption scandal had hit FIFA, I pretty much lost it on the spot. I remember the Final games of the 1978 world cup. It was NOT the final that was fixed; it was the match before that. What I still consider today as a match-fixed battle between Argentina and Peru, where the hosts needed to win by four goals to reach the final when they slaughtered Peru with a score of 6-0. I saw how Argentina passed on the left, passed on the right and the Peruvian team played frozen, like zombies in a Haitian Dance festival. In my personal view Argentina made it to the finals on false grounds. Yes, the finals were in my view honestly won, but they did not get there honestly and as such the Dutch were robbed of their final victory.

So when I see sports and corruption I tend to go slightly mad. The allegations against Qatar can best be found at http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/oct/03/world-cup-2022-fifa-qatar.

In my view the hosting game needs to get changed. I am so sick of these corruption events. In my view the following needs to happen. When a person is found guilty of corruption, those nations, in this case Brazil, Paraguay and Cameroon are barred from getting officials into FIFA and the IOC (International Olympic Committee) for a term no less than 16 years, furthermore, they cannot become a host nation for that same amount of time. For the first upcoming World Cup, those three nations are then prevented from entering. There is of course a small chance that their families will slightly suffer when Soccer fans go a little nuts at that point, but who gives a fuck? (Pretty please pardon my ‘French’ here.)

I have seen too much corruption and treason and it had too often got settled with a ‘reprimand’. These two transgressions are now often seen as legalised gambling. You have no risk, you get money and perhaps a fee and a slap on the wrists if you get caught. It would be nice to see these people run for their lives. I foresee that sport corruption could take a steep dive towards a 0% sport crime rate, which is good for sports overall.

To be quite honest, until the article in the Guardian, I was willing to ignore the stories. In my personal view, the Telegraph tends to be a less then academic levelled source of information (they usually lay it on a little too thick). I even contemplated the option that all this were false allegations through media giants as the timing and temperatures might result in a shift in dates to play, which could result in a loss of advertisement coinage no less than 1 Billion Euro on a global scale, not to mention the merchandising that might make a sizzler, all that because the Qatarian time zone could shift the games to less civil times for many of the European TV viewers.

Yet the Guardian shows another story. The one passage I do have a slight problem with is “Mohamed bin Hammam, from Qatar, at the time the challenger to Blatter’s presidency, was found by the court of arbitration for sport last year to ‘more likely than not’ have brought cash to two meetings in May 2011 which was then handed to FIFA delegates”

The more likely than not is a bit of an issue for me. It is more likely than not that I do not have the purest of thoughts when I see Olivia Wilde (or Laura Vandervoort, Leslie Bibb, Natasha McElhone or Olivia Munn for that matter). That is a sentence that holds ground (not grammatically). In regards to funds it does not really hold any ground (unless there is a better quality of tangible evidence).

I desire a woman? (Yes and it is not illegal!), I desire money? (To some extent, a definite yes if it gives me access to desire group number one and again it is not illegal), Will I be corrupt for it? Very less likely, however I might be willing to falsify my medical records if it gets me access to my initial group one. The last would actually be illegal and it is covered in Criminal Law, so I am definitely not willing to pursue that avenue.

Why the previous rant? It is about evidence and ‘more likely than not‘, just does not cut it in my book when it comes to these levels of corruption. Even though it is a Civil Court requirement and has been in UK courts since Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372, which was stated by Lord Denning, former Lord Justice of Appeal and former member of the House of Lords and Master of the Rolls as “more probable than not“, yet when we regard the world as it is today, more probable then not is in my personal view no longer a valid reasoning when it comes to larger amounts of money. It is too easy to frame a person; in the electronic age it is too likely to be falsely processed and when you consider the Bitcoin issue of February 2014, was it stolen or actually lost? More likely than not is very probable to imply involved parties in acts of fraud and theft and less likely that a data files were corrupted and through this misplaced into nothingness.

So there we have it! Is there guilt? I am not sure whether this can be easily proven. If certain people are missing out on a billion in revenue and securing it would require blaming three people of taking a few million, is framing three people so far-fetched? I personally think that this is not the case, or stated under the legal premise ‘it is more likely than not that three people were falsely set in an illegal light so that several unnamed persons could walk away with many hundreds of millions of Euros‘. This is a lot easier to sell in many civil courts.

So which scenario is correct?

I honestly do not know, but it still bothers me that no matter what the truth ends up being, and in hindsight when we look at FIFA, the IOC as well as groups that offer global events had to be revamped in several ways for well over two decades. Consider the ‘old boys’ brigade as it was in the UK between WW1 and WW2. In today’s global setting of fast paced events, where this approach just does not cut it.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Gaming, Law, Politics

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

March 18, 2014 · 06:14

Strongarm, Intimidate, Terrorise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

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

March 14, 2014 · 13:14

Yesterday’s news, today’s politics

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

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

Let’s take a look at what happened.

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

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

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

Why am I having this debatable point of view?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

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

March 12, 2014 · 17:18

Who runs America?

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

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

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

Why this view?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

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

March 9, 2014 · 17:39

Is gender equality too futuristic?

This is not an article for many. Some will be livid, some will be outraged and many will be angry. Yet, will my view be wrong? This is at the centre of what some call the future of women in high positions.

If I compare it to Law School, then we have our share of women, most of them highly intelligent, many of them no less to Law savants. The last one might be regarded as a cheated achievement, as they usually come from parents with law education or even law practices. They do have a benefit, but to make it in Law, you cannot get by on daddy’s (or mommy’s) tailcoats. You are either truly good, or you won’t pass past your first case. For me in most cases, it almost feels like cheating, as I would be a 1st generation law graduate. I had to do it alone, no daddy to help me (thank god that the alcoholic is dead). So, there is no anger or envy towards these male of female co-students. As we see how these women are now growing the ranks of the senior, partner positions and the silks of the bench, we see how women are not just up and coming, they are growing the waves of the future benches of the courts. This is not a negative issue for me. As the women had grown in the legal profession from the 80’s onwards, they are now becoming the future of the high courts. In that regard I recall my first year mentor. She was not just bright, she was part of a team that wiped the floor (OK, the proper term is victorious) against the Oxford Law team. even though India won, the fact that both groups outdid Oxford should give you a clear view on how good you need to be. If we see the perception of many students, the regarded rankings like Oxford, Harvard and Yale (as we see Ivy League schools), then the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) did a mighty fine job.

How is all this connected?

I am getting to this. It is first important you see the views I have and the way I got to my view.

So what started all this? Well, yesterday the following tweet passed my screen:
“UK Prime Minister @Number10gov Mar 8
Tomorrow is International #WomensDay – see how UK govt is supporting & celebrating this year’s #InspiringChange theme http://ow.ly/ulkZ4“

It came right after a tweet By Neelie Kroes (@NeelieKroesEU)

Her headline on Twitter is “I am Vice President of the @EU_Commission leading @DigitalAgendaEU and #ConnectedContinent plans. I am fighting like hell for a EU you can believe in. Global (based in Brussels) – bit.ly/KroesNeelie“

I remember her as a politician (when I was living in the Netherlands). I never saw eye to eye with her views, but I do no hold that against her. What is important is that she is extremely intelligent. I reckon that if Albert Einstein would have been around when she turned 21, his words would have been “Whoa girl, you’ve got skills!” Let’s, be certain about the fact that he would refer to her political skills, not her skills in physics. Basically, she is one clever lady is the view of many.

My issue is all about the International Woman’s day as some ‘portray’ their support of it! I am not against it in any way, but let us take a look at the other side of this.

This we see at http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/adfa-skype-scandal-cadets-sentenced-avoid-jail-20131023-2w0hz.html, where we see the quote “The woman told the court last week that she had been bullied and ostracised across the ADF after details of the Skype affair became public. She said she was offered little support, and was referred to as “that Skype slut” by her peers. The victim said the incident destroyed her life and forced her to leave her dream job in the military.“

The two men got a 12 month good behaviour order. The interesting part is that the media seemingly buried it after August 19th 2013. Interesting how little exposure these issues get. I found two more items as they were places after the August date, yet this one (at http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2013-11-09/adfa-cadet-daniel-mcdonald-sacked-over-skype-sex-scandal/1217280) seems to add one more item. The quote “Today, Defence released a statement saying McDonald had been told it intended to sack him in mid-September and after giving him an opportunity to respond, his services were terminated as of last night“

So how should that be read? He was offered to walk or get booted?

This is not an isolated case for the military on a global scale. The header ‘Conflicting accounts open U.S. Army general’s sex crimes trial‘ (at http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/uk-usa-courtmartial-sinclair-idUKBREA260OK20140307) gives a clear view that we are not anywhere near ready for an International Woman’s day. As we see these transgressions go on and on. In addition, as we see the media staying as blasé and diminishing the exposure of such events, then you tell me how fair it all is. When we see a celebrity drink too much, EVERYONE shows it off to the maximum of the gettable coinage possible, which includes the Washington Post, the Guardian, USA Today, the Huffington Post, Reuters and such large ones. When we see the General being accused of these acts, the amount of newspapers that make it to Google page 1-3 is pretty laughable (even though the big ones mentioned earlier are also there). Why the military? Well, it is pretty much the last bastion of testosterone. When women get an accepted place without the psychic and physical assault dangers, then we are truly entering a new area. If you want to disagree with my view here, which would be fine, then compare the hits you get when you compare the allegations between Brigadier General Jeffrey Sinclair (US Army) and PR guru Max Clifford (UK publicist), so even though the UK is only 20% of the US, Mr Clifford gets 500% more hits on Google. As this goes into the millions I decided not to look at all of them, but is there any value to the conclusion that a PR guy is bigger coverage, or that the media does not ‘regard’ the alleged transgressions as such important news. The General did plead guilty to having an extramarital affair with the captain.

So why do I have this issue? As mentioned before I illustrated the evolution of Law staffing. A Dutch research showed only a few days ago, that the incomes are changing. Within the younger population, income between the younger populations of gender has changed. The women are now ending up with a better pay package. This is in my view clear evidence that not only is there more equality; the game is changing in a better respect for all. If both sides of the gender path will get the same chance to get the high coin, then we are entering a competitive field where the victor takes the spoils, no matter what gender the victor is, it ups the game and all will become better competitors because of it.

Yet, if we see the article CNN placed last year (at http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/15/opinion/chemaly-tech-leaves-out-women/) we see a clearer view on why I think that there should be an International Woman’s day, but at present there is no reason to party on that event. I must state that I do not completely agree with Soraya Chemaly on her article ‘In tech world, women ignored‘. The reason for this is because as I got my training and degree in IT, the amount of women I saw was a massive minority. When I got into the data game in the 90’s, the women represented a presence of a mere 5% would have been overstating their presence. If getting to the top takes 12-15 years, then it will be at least another decade until we see a visible level of female presence in the tech world. There is however another side to this. When we consider tech PR companies like ‘Panache PR‘, we would see that the founder Cathy Campos is regarded as a global authority in the gaming industry. I met her in the days of Robert Maxwell, as she was the visible side of the marketing of Mirrorsoft (1989) and her drive to market the visibility of games by the visionary Peter Molyneux were ground breaking. She is not just accepted by all, I reckon the newbies in this field will consider an internship with someone like Cathy as the start of a possible golden future.

One of the statements I do not agree with is “The tech industry has a well-documented pipeline problem, one largely the result of gender stereotypes that reach into the educational system” Really? When I was into gaming, meeting any woman who was into games was regarded as a joke, both genders thought of games and gaming as uncool, nerdy and not worth the effort. That view only seriously started to change around the time the Xbox 360 was announced to become the hot potato of the future. So, basically, in that tech field women are less than one console generation old. When we look back to the early years we see the names like Roberta Williams (Kings Quest and a few others), Jane Jensen who worked with Roberta Williams on KQ6. Dona Bailey, who is an Atari Legend as she was one of the founders of Centipede, which is still regarded as one of the better arcade games of all times. Lastly there is Graner Ray who worked on Ultima VII (my favourite RPG series). She entered this field late in the Ultima series, but giving it artistically a unique view. So, when we consider these 4 women to be at the foundations of gaming, is it a wonder that the female population in this tech field is still small? Nowadays, we see a much stronger female representation in the gaming field, and many of them are outstanding in their own rights.

This is why I do not completely agree (not opposing either) the view we see at http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/7/5408194/how-smarter-schools-can-help-break-the-game-development-boys-club. I personally have never cared about who wrote the game, only that it was a good game. Consider that Kings Quest was one of the first PC games I loved. It was made by a woman and that never mattered.

So is it about the game or the developer? This is why I opposed the quote from Soraya Chemaly “Controlling women’s access makes men keepers of speech, keeps sexist status quo“. No! The gamer wants a good game, value for money, so anyone can get into this field with a good product. I reckon that especially in places like India, women could grow into this field as they offer originality in gaming through iTunes (iPad) or Google play (android). I reckon that 6 successful new female developers are all it takes to prove my hypotheses in this case. As additional female developers enter the field from MIT game lab and UTS (and other universities of course) we will see a clear shift. I do have a few questions to my own train of thought, which was caused by the quote I read (at http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/7/5408194/how-smarter-schools-can-help-break-the-game-development-boys-club) “Indie developer Mike Bithell tells us the lack of women in development ‘monumentally embarrassing’ for the games industry“. It raises my concerns on how wrong I might be, but is that because of the games developed, or by the games that get funding? You see, I focused on the gaming side, because that side I know from various sides. As I see women in Law proceed to the high places, I feel that my views remain correct. The ones who now will get the high posts are the ones I study with at University and they are truly good at what they do. That view is to some extend reaffirmed by the NY times (at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/opinion/great-expectations-for-female-lawyers.html). The quote “Of course, the attrition rate is high for men, too — but not nearly as high; in American law firms, the overwhelming majority of partners are men” shows that even though the men are in a massive majority, these are the partners that came from law school 12 years earlier. It took a while for new generations to get into these seats and as such the women we study with are likely to be the majority of high law ranks as they continue their law careers over the next 10-15 years.

When we get back to gaming we could see a correlation with the evolution of high placed women in gaming. If we accept the quote in the previous link affirms my position “Women make up only 11 percent of the total of those pursuing a career in the games industry as of 2005“. So, women do not select this track, which means that it will take some take until the top of gaming has an equal female representation. Yet, is there unfairness in this? When we see a current coverage of only 11%? So as time progresses we see 1 in 20 making it to the top, not because there is inequality, but because only 5%, which is half of the coverage proves to be that good and the math is on my side as I see it. That same math which predicts that over the next 10 years the women in high law positions will likely double, that same curve will apply to the gaming industry as women pursue in several fields they will take the lead as times passes. The issue that many ignore is that this evolution has been just a little over 2 generations and as we see the gender changes in fields, the growth of women in the area of visionary and evolutionary powers, moved to equality to encompass middle managers, which now leads to upper management, this is not a bad record.

As for International Woman’s Day, I am not against it, or against the visibility. The issue is that the field remains unequal, especially when the media is handing us a ‘stacked’ deck. How eager they are to steer away from certain trials, whilst in most of these cases they just spout the same ‘average leveled‘ information. The stacked deck is not in the direction that the BBC shows (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-18187449). As I stated my view, that over time the percentages have shifted and they are shifting even more, but consider the issues as we saw it in regards to Jimmy Saville, not just what he did, but as alleged how those around him are stated to have reacted and how the matter was dealt with for several decades, that part seems to be ignored to a larger extent. Even now as we see the events unfold, we see the Saville jokes, we see the investigation, but the ‘support system‘ around Saville, as he got away with the amount of events does not get the media scrutiny it is supposed to be getting. So, this is not just about the women in general, but the ‘old boy’ groups as they remained around for too long a time. This is the case that many articles made, but I personally see this as the ‘wrong side’. I would much rather see how we see that now in Law, and how women in new fields, like Technology, Gaming and other new areas can more easily inhabit these areas and they could be ruled by the best in the field, no matter what gender. That is the side that does not get enough visibility. It should and the media should use moments like International Woman’s Day to show what is possible, because if it is about inspiration, it should be about where opportunity lies, not just where some ‘stated’ view on the places where the uphill battle remains. This does not mean that I am now opposing my own words, but that it takes time to get women in these top positions, which they achieved within 2 generations (banking examples: CEO Westpac and Christine Lagarde, IMF). When we look at a new field like gaming, which is only now entering its second generation, women are on an equal field, as there is little to no historical entry to content with.

In the end a true visionary will always be successful and get funding, simply because being the first implies that this person is the best and new fields are always ruled by the visionary (closely followed by the evolutionary visionary). Consider this last point; would it have made any difference to the success of Facebook whether it was Mark or Marcia Zuckerberg who invented it?
I feel certain that this would not have made any difference to the global change it brought.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Military, Politics

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

March 4, 2014 · 15:13

Israel stands alone

I wish I had better news, but the situation as it deteriorates in the Middle East, might in the next immediate period give more pressure and dangers to the state of Israel then anyone realises. Is it more than Israel thinks it is? That is a little harder to see, but I feel certain that their bad case scenario had included options even worse than I would be able to foresee.

This is not just on the issues raised by the USA, or EU as published (at http://news.sky.com/story/1217922/us-and-eu-urged-to-halt-weapon-sales-to-israel), it is also the issues which will hit Israel as we see a deteriorating war theatre in Syria. When we see “Amnesty International criticises what it calls Israel’s ‘callous disregard for human life’ in its handling of Palestinian protests against occupation“. Is that the actual truth? Over 4000 attacks from Palestine missiles and mortars in the last 5 years against Israeli civilian targets, making almost 70 attacks a month for 5 years, so basically a little over two attacks a day, every day for 5 years (even more in the 5 years before that). These were almost all fired at civilian targets, which makes the Amnesty International report a coloured one. I am not just writing this from the back of the room. I have been there, I have seen the consequences and people that I know of have been in direct danger because of the acts of Hamas, Hezbollah and the groups acting in the Sinai. So, this is not just a far away from my bed situation (Dutch expression). When even today in 2014 see that the Palestine’s are stating “The Palestinian Authority adamantly rejects Israel’s right to exist” on a daily basis and the fact that this is still shown and proven at every turn. Is it a surprise that the tensions are not and will not be broken any day soon?

The second issue comes from State Secretary John Kerry, as mentioned by Sky News (at http://news.sky.com/story/1205342/israel-boycott-warning-dismissed-by-netanyahu),where we see the quote  “US Secretary of State John Kerry had suggested that a failure of peace talks with the Palestinians would accelerate calls for a ‘de-legitimisation campaign’ against the Jewish state”

Is that so? The issue, as it has been known for decades is all about Israel’s right to exist. NOT ONE government has been able to swing this in favour of Israel EVER! So Mr Kerry, are you sure you want to be the one that is known as the person who acquired the label ‘the failed superpower USA‘ as we see not just the issues in Israel, but also the failings of campaigns involving Afghanistan, Syria and now the Ukraine? I am not stating that the last two should have been about military intervention, but diplomacy did not work. As the Syrian issues keep on escalating, the dangers that escalations move south of the Syrian border is not out of the question, when that happens the dangers for Israel will quickly increase. Even though many parties do not want the Syrian government to completely fall and left in the hands of several smaller extreme hands, the dangers, even if Syria moves on without President Assad will mean that pressures towards Lebanon will mean that the extremists now attacking Israel on a regular basis will end up with a lot more resources then they have at present. As we look at the mentioning of economic sanctions, the handling of it as we see in the newspapers about economic sanctions have for the most never ever worked.

Cuba is still there, even though it has been under massive economic pressure since 1962, the economic pressures against North Korea since 1950 also failed. They are still there; these two have nowhere near the resources of Russia, so how will the sanctions against Russia ever work? In addition, Russians are acquiring businesses all over Europe; the acquisition of Siebel in the Netherlands is one of the most visible ones lately. How will sanctions work in these cases?

This is all linked to Israel, let me get to that.

As we see the power of government (the US in particular) fall back because it has no power to stop businesses in many ways, we will see that governments are slowly losing power on a global scale (so not just the US). To some degree it will all be about the business and the local religion they depend upon, this evidence is seen as we see watch where big business remains and how it can deliver its projected forecast. This has been fact since the early 90’s. Now, as Europe needs and desires to do business all over the Middle-East, they will unite their view according to the need of their business. This does not make Muslims or Christians anti-Semites, yet the acts of individuals have been, especially when lacking moral and cultural insight, anti-Semite in nature. As long as the business makes that they need to achieve, they can get away with most acts of pro-profits. This places Israel, with a unique national religion in a dangerous place. When we see the article at http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jews-reluctantly-abandon-swedish-city-amid-growing-anti-semitism-1.301276, in addition the news at http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4456356,00.html shows another side of one of the most liberal nations in the world. This is not a statement against Sweden, but the fact that this level of hatred goes on, even today, in several nations gives rise to the acts of Israel. Until the ‘right to exist’ is met by all its neighbours, and the Middle-East at large, this will go on and on. If anyone wants to make a statement on how it was ‘theirs’ in the past, then remember that the tribes of Israel were not just in Israel, they held parts of Palestine as well as a sizeable chunk of Syria as well. As this place became ‘slave shopping central‘ for both the Egyptians and the Romans, that area went from all to naught within 5 generations. So what is a solution? Well, as for the issues at hand, we could request two payments one from Egypt for 25 trillion and one from Italy for almost 50 trillion, not to mention the damage the Jewish population suffered from fanatical German acts. I am certain that Israel will make a deal to some extent. So if we go back long enough the issue could be settled, but the involved parties have nowhere near the funds to make restitution. In the end, is there a solution? It seems that there is, but not a peaceful one, not until the involved parties are willing to sit down and actually talk. In that regard, the US intervention has little or no power to hold any of it up. It is, especially at present, willing to sit at any table for economic reasons (not that this is a bad thing), but Israel knows that whatever deal will be gotten, it will not end good for Israel, the US knows this, it has always known this and at present, in their economic state of destitution they cannot afford to care about it. This is partially why the entire Iran situation will not be accepted by Israel, nor should it be by many nations. Be aware, I am not speaking out against Iran in this matter, but the issues as former president Ahmadinejad escalated them can easily happen again. Iran is the third largest nation in terms of oil reserves and this is why many parties are so adamant to make a deal with Iran (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/31/us-china-iran-zhenrong-idUSBRE9BU03020131231), as China is making new deals for oil, Iran will get an additional incentive of well over 80 billion, which the US is now missing out on. In an age of cash is king, the US is demoted from king to a mere tiny Earl and this is more than upsetting to these high and mighty US oil barons. Their business is wavering. So, as they will push for more and more business, the dangers Israel faces are also increasing. This is not about Hassan Rouhani, who so far is showing and proving to be an international diplomat. Israel fears what comes next in 2021. There is no indication that Hassan Rouhani is anything but a moderate, however the next one might not be like that and anyone who follows and is one step closer to a new Ahmedinejad will give the state of Israel a direct nuclear threat to deal with. They cannot allow for such a dangerous situation. It is all good and nice the things that John Kerry (as State Secretary) claims now, but when things go wrong, he will sit from a distance negotiating for talks whilst Tel Aviv partially glows in the dark. At that point those poor poor Iranians will be willing to talk (after the fact). When, at that point Israel stops existing, the Mediterranean is no longer a viable place and the fallout dangers to the eco systems of Greece, Italy and Spain will be regarded, by the US administration, as unfortunate. When a nation has no options, every step is one too many. Is my assumption a fair one? Consider the acts of former Iranian president Ahmadinejad; consider the acts of Hamas, Hezbollah as well as the Al-Qaeda groups currently in the Sinai. Mohamed Morsi was only just in office when Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood started staging anti-Israel rallies in Cairo.

I feel certain that John Kerry has been aware of all these dangers, as have the members of the state departments all over the world. So, if any solution is ever to exist, then getting the ‘right to exist’ for Israel, will be a mandatory first step.

So when I stated that Israel stands alone, I was not kidding. For those who are eager to deal with the oil states, will have to deal with many who are opposed to the existence of the State of Israel (avoiding stating the term anti-Semitism here). In this era of government bankruptcies, the Cash is King approach is painfully visible and there is no clear solution in sight any day soon.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics

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

March 4, 2014 · 13:09

What goes up…..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what about Tony Abbott?

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

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

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

March 1, 2014 · 18:05

Hot air for the Ukraine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is this connected?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

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

February 26, 2014 · 12:42

Fearing gays

I had to pause for a moment to see what the impact was on a law so unjust and in its foundation so evil that the impact will not be clearly seen for some time. What happened?

President Yoweri Museveni has signed into law making it illegal to be homosexual. The Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 (Anti-Homosexuality-Act-2014) is now a fact in Uganda. When a person has been successfully prosecuted for the first time the consequence would be incarceration in prison for up to 14 years, after that a person could be jailed for life.

This is not all, this morning it got to be a lot worse. A tabloid named ‘Red Pepper’ released the names of what they call the top 200 Homo’s. There is little validity to their act. One might say that this is the act of a closet case individual, what kind of closet case he is, remains the question at present.

The issue gets to be worse and worse by the hour. As Gays are hunted and prosecuted all over Uganda, whilst at the mean time people claim that this makes their children safer, we see a strange escalation. It is catching me unaware because other than the hypocrite stand many Americans have, the prosecution we see now in Uganda is not unlike the prosecutions we have seen in Russia. The quote “fail to be attracted to all these beautiful women and be attracted to a man” is also something that must be considered. So what about Lesbians? They do love their women, are they safe? Nope! The act states “An Act to prohibit any form of sexual relations between persons of the same sex“, which means that they are in the same dangerous boat at present. The issue as Yahoo News stated it in the quote “Homophobia is widespread in Uganda, where American-style evangelical Christianity is on the rise.” This gives us pause to think does it not? American style Christianity! This takes another turn when we look at the following facts.

This view can also be seen at http://digitaljournal.com/news/religion/us-evangelicals-helped-write-draconian-uganda-anti-gay-bill/article/364543 where we see the quote “This is a piece of legislation that is needed in this country to protect the traditional family here in Africa, Bahati said”

If that is true, then who is this Bahati? That part is found in the second quote. “Bahati is a member of ‘The Family’ also known as ‘The Fellowship’, a secretive and powerful U.S.-based evangelical sect that has been sending money and missionaries to African nations, including Uganda, to promote anti-gay public sentiment and legislation.”

So, if America is all about the freedom of speech and the truth, then who is behind this? As we find this info, we need to take another look at this ‘family’. NPR gives us some information (at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120746516). So even if the book exposes a group of sanctimonious Republicans at the centre of this, there is a side we should expose. Because if the funds are used for discrimination and prosecution, there should be legal consequences, even if this is happening outside of the US. It was MSNBC who gave us that scoop yesterday (at http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/religious-freedom-or-discrimination). It is interesting to see these events unfold, especially as we see a lack of visibility on the background by many of the larger newspapers. As the ‘Red Pepper’ is so bent on treating the Gays as a danger, publishing a top 200 list, then perhaps all other tabloids have a sworn duty to name, shame and illuminate the people behind this push for discrimination. when people on a global scale see the names like Senator Sam Brownback (R., Kansas) as well as Representative Joe Pitts (R., Pennsylvania) and the many others, on how they are funding prosecution of people, whilst in the NY Times we see this quote in regards to Senator Brownback “In the Senate from 1996 to 2011, he vigorously opposed abortion, promoted low taxes and less government, and worked against the genocide in Sudan, which won him praise from some liberals“, so basically he’ll oppose genocide when it is not against the gay population.

So as we see these facts emerge, we must also look at the additional factors. The Netherlands stopped aid to Uganda, as did Norway and Denmark. It is now up to the US and Canada, as well as all other nations giving aid to Uganda to stop doing that as well. I wonder how steady this law remains when Uganda loses out on billions in aid programs. No matter how wealthy this so called Family is, it cannot support a multibillion drain on their own resources. There is also another side. As other tabloids give visibility to the members of the family, they should also consider giving visibility and naming those involved with the creation of ‘red pepper’. If these people are so active to facilitate a hunt on homosexuals, which has already resulted in fatalities, the people have a right to know, who the facilitators are. We have a right to know who is behind it all; we all should be allowed to see their names. “What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander“, so what does the discrimination support pyramid look like?

In all this I kept on thinking of the term “Separation of church and state“, if anything, these events as portrayed clearly show that America, for an above minor extent is following the foundation of the “Support for power of the church through the assistance of the state“. This is some boast, but in a two party system like we see in the United states, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and Spain, the power that those not in power (the shadow government), still wields a massive amount of power to do the things that some churches, as they are governed by tiny minded people want to achieve.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

February 19, 2014 · 20:45

The bad and the worse

I have had several views in many directions, but two issues are rising that require us to take a critical look at us. Some will agree, some will disagree and many will not know where they stand in these two issues. The first is again about labour, both work and politics.

Of course, it does not help when Bill shorten starts to ‘rant’ on the issues that hit many. The first issue is Alcoa. It is an Aluminum smelter. The first quote is “Aluminium manufacturer Alcoa has contradicted federal government claims that the carbon tax led to the decision to shut the company’s Point Henry smelter and two rolling mills in Geelong and western Sydney” (at http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/alcoa-contradicts-joe-hockey-on-reasons-for-smelter-shutdown-20140218-32yir.html)

In addition we see the quote from Bill Shorten where is said “It’s clear that a global oversupply of aluminium, dramatically falling aluminum prices and a high Australian dollar made the continuation of these operations impossible” he said.

Shall we take a small step back to the 12th of February 2013 where we see the following quote (at http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/2/12/resources-and-energy/alcoa-vic-pass-carbon-tax-liability-federal-govt)

“The plan addresses a long-standing issue whereby decades-old agreements between Alcoa and the state government included guarantees of cheap power that left Victoria holding the responsibility for the carbon tax due to an inability to pass on those costs to the aluminum giant.” as well as “Under the deals, the state will pay an increased power price and pass most of that through to Alcoa.”

So, taxation is up, power costs are up and prices are down. Mr Shorten needs to take a hard look at his own party and the shortages of his own Labor government where we see that these issues were known for over a year. The fact that Labor decides to park the issue until after the election means he now needs to remain quiet. Yes, it will be an issue, but for him to nag like a little girl is what happens when his predecessors decided to ignore the issue. The liberals warned about the dangers of the carbon tax, the people were hit massively hard by the carbon tax and now hell is to pay and in my view, the Labor party better foot that bill real quick. This is however not the first instance. In Feb 2012 a similar newscast was made by the Australian. The quote “ALCOA says a carbon tax will make life harder for the company as it reviews the future of its Victorian smelter and the jobs of up to 600 workers.” (at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/national-affairs/tony-abbott-seeks-to-blame-threat-to-alcoa-smelter-jobs-on-carbon-tax/story-fn99tjf2-1226265695323), So Labor was aware for almost 2 years in their reign that the Carbon tax would have a definite influence.

The last line of that article by the Business spectator states “If we got all that right, it is no skin off Alcoa’s nose, is it? But it does take a significant burden off the Victorian taxpayer.” Well, see the result! It was apparently more than just skin of the nose of Alcoa and as such it becomes a different kind of burden on the taxpayers.

The final quote from the Business Spectator article was the one the article started with “Aluminium giant Alcoa and the Victorian state government have designed a complicated set of deals intended to place the liability for rising power costs onto the federal government, according to The Australian Financial Review.” So an American Company is deciding that the rising risk of higher power costs should be carried by our government? Alcoa reported (at http://www.alcoa.com/australia/en/news/releases/2014_01_09_4Q_Earnings.asp) on January 2014 the following:

Revenue of $23.0 billion whilst reporting a Net loss of $2.3 billion, or $2.14 per share

Let us not forget that this was a better result than 2012, so Labor KNEW that there were several issues here. When you ‘service’ an American corporation who loses well over 2 billion whilst reporting revenue at 23 billion, there are issues plain and simple. I can agree with some that there claim made by Joe Hockey is not completely accurate (in regards to the carbon tax being the reason), but there is no doubt that at a 2.3 billion dollar loss, the carbon tax might have been the proverbial straw that broke the American Smelter Camel’s back!

We should however not just blame Bill Shorten (even if some feel that this is a more comfortable choice). The Honourable Kim Carr (seen in newscasts bearing a slightly less waxed chin then Bill Shorten) has been in both the foreground and background in more than one occasion. So it is only fair we take his actions in account as well. If we consider my blog article ‘The last Australian car‘ from February 12th we see a few more angles that gives worries to the Labor side of it all, especially in light of the quote “writer Judith Sloan brings a case that Australia has subsidised almost $1900 per vehicle produced.” I mentioned. Is it a good deal when we see these costs and support numbers go out? If we take $2,000 subsidy per car and if we consider that Toyota made 100,000 cars last year, we see the costing of $200 million a year in subsidies, which is a lot more than what the workers would cost every year. So, no matter how good it looks, $200 million is way too large a bill to just handover to a car giant. Is there an alternative? Perhaps the Dutch alternative where VDL Nedcar, who was initially in the news in 2012 with the headline “Mitsubishi Motors to sell NedCar plant for 1 euro to VDL” was the beginning of a new plant, completely refitted for 24 hours a day automated manufacturing. They are now starting to build the new MINI Hatch as per this summer. Is there an opportunity for Australia? Yes!
With an upcoming customer base of 22 million (deserted by Ford, Holden and Toyota), VDL Nedcar might see Australia as the opportunity of a lifetime.

It is however not just the car industry. Sky News is just now showing another iteration of job losses in Victoria (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/19/victoria-promised-federal-funds-as-alcoa-shutdown-adds-to-job-losses), so as Sky News and the Guardian shows us, what I would see as the hollow words of Bill shorten were he states “Spend the money this year, then you can save hundreds of jobs, you can keep excellent world-class naval construction skills in this country.”

Yes, Labor is all about SPENDING money! Let us not forget that the treasurer has been presenting the massive bill that Labor left Australia. The National debt went from 58 billion in 2007 to 257 billion in 2013, all under Labor. So perhaps the irritating quote by Labor leader Bill Shorten on “Tony Abbott and photo opportunities” should change. He should ask how his own party had been spending money they never had in the first place. When we see the $200 million in slave labour bonus (oops, I meant subsidy) for Toyota we have to wonder how long until we are all at the mercy of whoever owns these debt markers (most likely the banks). Labor does not get to nag on the cost of living whilst overspending a little over $11,000 per Australian resident. So when we hear another whinge by Bill Shorten on the deficit, consider that his party had been spending it, making it all a lot harder for many Australians in the upcoming time-span 2014-2016.

The issue of the car makers as well as Alcoa were already known issues in the Labor era and shouting now, whilst not securing these markets (which was in all honesty not a realistic option) is just plain wrong.

In addition there is one strong factor, which has been a known weakness was not dealt with in the Labor era either. It is the energy shortage, which is at the heart of several factors (especially Alcoa). If we accept the ABC transcript (at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1796094.htm), then it is only fair that we point part of this blame at the Liberals as well. The issue was known since 2006 (even though Labor got to power in 2007). From several texts, I myself come to the conclusion that something had to be started in 2005, which was not done. Labor ignored it for 2 whole terms making the issue just a lot harder and now the Liberals MUST address this issue. If you are wondering how correct or how wrong I am than just take a look at your Australian energy bill. My bills have grown, whilst remaining a stable user, by over 100% in less than 6 years. This makes it a hike of over 16% a year. In addition, the carbon tax really pushed up the prices. Focusing on cheaper energy would have made a real difference for all parties concerned. In addition, this is not a local issue, it is not a national issue, but it is almost a global issue. The same issue can be seen in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (very clearly), as well as America. So, it is nice to keep making cars and Aluminum, but if it is not financially viable, the tax payer ends up footing the bill no matter which road we take. So, the dollar, our work conditions and other factors will always remain an issue, but if energy prices are not solved, the one part that will drain any options we might have had. Consider the Business Spectator quote “Point Henry alone represents almost 7 per cent of Victoria’s annual electricity consumption“, so one plant needs THAT much? How could this issue have been ignored for almost 3 administrations? I see that there is a manufacturing issue in Australia, but if the energy prices are not dealt with, we will see a national shift from bad to worse.

Perhaps this will be the moment of innovation; perhaps we should focus on other areas. It only takes one innovator to come with that golden idea that brings income (not costs) to our states. I just hope that politicians on both sides of the aisle will listen to that person.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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