Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be | Journey to the Justice Brennan award

June 14, 2014 · 10:45

UBI is not going soft!

Another year and another E3 ends for the gaming industry and their devoted disciples, the gamers! Do not think this group to be soft, to be forgiving or to be misguided. They are running beyond 1 billion believers and they all believe in the power of joy from the game. It is a dedicated group. They have existed for over three decades and their numbers still grow.

They are not dressed in clerical outfits worshipping the house of Pong (it’s an Atari thing). They want their games hard, direct and lasting. I truly believed that this group had been deserted by UBI-Soft. I remain true to the feeling that UBI-Soft had gone soft on gaming. There was that Assassins Creed wannabe game regarding pirates (rated much too high), there were a few flops (which any maker will have) and Watchdogs, which was going to be a PS4 launch night game was delayed by a lot. Then we got Watchdogs, which was good, but had been overhyped too much by too many (not all due to UBI-Soft). So, here we have a maker, making a billion plus, losing the game, or so I thought.

I must admit that UBI-Soft is showing true gaming promise, even if some of the cut scenes are massively overdone (but the younger players love them).

There is Far-Cry 4, a game that until recently I would never consider touching. This game must be mentioned for two reasons. I bought the first one on the 360, and I still regard that as the WORST purchase ever! I did not play the second one, yet at some point I did play the third one and it was excellent. The game showed the openness of Midwinter (an old Microprose game), had the interest of many options, choices and sides and left me with a very good aftertaste in my mouth. UBI-Soft turned a fiasco into a winner. As I bash Yves Guillemot around at times, I must be honest enough to admit victory where he (or his minions) makes them.

I think that E3 2014 shows that not only is UBI-Soft back in the game; they are on route of reclaiming the number one development spot (which I considered that they had lost). There is more of course. I loved the Splinter Cell games, but they messed up Blacklist by not setting up the interface for replaying any better (it was the only flaw in my mind).

As for the new games, I was never much for racing, but the Crew has me yearning for the controller to play an ‘open’ racing game! There is a lot we might still wonder, but the presentation shows something that Sony with Drive Club did not deliver from demo day one and now is unlikely to equal. Now THAT is how you set up a game Monseigneur Guillemot!

Getting back to killing people! Whether the streets of Paris are the place to wander in anonymity is matter for another discussion, yet the idea that it will be an open environment game is without a doubt a massive step forward, especially in the light of the size a village like Paris represents. I was not impressed with Black Flag, but bought it regardless (lack of PS4 choices at launch night). It turned out I was right (read the other articles ‘A body blow to gaming‘ on March 6th and ‘Fifth in a trilogy!‘ on December 4th). Yet, the demo I saw in regards to AC Unity has me interested. It could be a massive turn for the better; I will however write fire and brimstone if they revert to the same ruddy glitches I have seen for 4 iterations.

Next, there will be more Tom Clancy in both the new Rainbow Six (not my cup of tea) and ‘the Division’ which seems to be very much my cup of tea.

Yes, as I see it, UBI-Soft is waking up to smell the need of the gamers and they are implying in their presentations that they are meeting the challenge. Time will tell, but I am a lot more positive about the course Yves Guillemot is taking UBI-Soft. I reckon that Next Gen gaming is finally getting a secure spot in the future.

When it comes down to Next Gen, I am not done yet. I have spoken out against Microsoft (or Micro$oft) in past items more than once. The image they left in 2013 drove me powerfully away from Xbox One and straight into the arms of Sony, which I considered to be the true consoles for a long time (PlayStation One, Two, Three and Four). Their approach of an ‘entertainment’ system in 2013 left me without a doubt that even though they seemed clued in with the Xbox 360, the top of Microsoft forgot what gaming was all about and came up with a half-baked device. I still think that the Xbox one is flawed on several levels, but their presentation on upcoming games does show that they are trying to figure it out. Their show was indeed really good (against Sony’s presentation which had slipped slightly) and the funny remark by Peter Molyneux in regards to Fable Legends that ‘it needs more dog‘ (via Twitter).

There is one more issue that I want to raise at present. It is all about the delays. Part of this is because of places like Gamespot, part of this is because of the Marketing divisions of places like UBI-Soft (and many others) and most of it is because of a truckload of gamers. Yes, I agree I want to play all the games today or even tomorrow, but a good game requires waiting at time. A good game will be done when it is done. So when we see a list of games like Batman: Arkham Knight, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, The Order: 1886, Quantum Break, Dying Light and The Division that will not make it to the console in 2014, gamers need to stop crying like little bitches! We (me and millions of gamers) want to play a 90% plus game that is legend, not a game that became mediocre like Thief, because someone at marketing pushed for a quicker deadline. The difference between Arkham City (90%) and Viking: Battle for Asgard (50%) is both timing and vision. We cannot do anything about a lack of vision (something the delayed games are not in short supply of) and timing is what we should give them, even though the valid issue remains ‘why show anything at E3-2013’, which is a discussion for another day; let me assure you of that. If we get back to UBI-Soft, then we must admit that Watchdog, with a 500 page hint guide shows that this game is loaded with stuff. It ended up being an 80% game, on release date this would have been a mere 45% rated joke.

We should never be dependent on ratings, that evidence is seen when we look at Gamespot with AC4 Black flag at 90%, which was too high and Thief at 60% was unfairly low (in my opinion). Yet, they are indicators of what we might want to spend money on. Games will always be overhyped by all (including me), it is influenced by what we played (Thief 1+2) and what we expect to see (the Thief demo at E3 2013). So will the next Rise of the Tomb Raider learn from the mistakes (as I see them) that they made with the 2013 release?

Time and patience will tell!

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, Media

Tagged as Arkham City, Assassins Creed, Assassins Creed Unity, Batman: Arkham Knight, Blacklist, Dying Light, Fable Legends, Far-Cry 4, Gamespot, Microprose, Midwinter, Peter Molyneux, PlayStation One, Quantum Break, racing game, The Crew, The Division, The game, The Order: 1886, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, Thief, Three, Tom Clancy, Tomb Raider, Two, Ubi-soft, Viking: Battle for Asgard, Yves Guillemot

June 12, 2014 · 11:44

Golden age of Journalism?

There is a speech on Sky News. In this video, we see John Ryley stating that the Golden Age is now. He talks about the pessimists, but is he correct? Well, in all honesty, he is not wrong. Yet, the dangers are not really shown in his speech. The statement for some journalists that ‘the golden age is now’ is indeed a statement that is laced with truth. As in the past journalists going into the news were hoping and praying for their ‘live’ moment, that golden age is indeed now, they can ALL be live in a matter of seconds. It is the quote he makes in the video (at http://news.sky.com/story/1280339/sky-news-head-golden-era-for-journalism ) it is at 1:43 where he mentions that all news is available on-demand, live all the time is also laced with a danger he does not mention ‘the key to exploiting these multiple opportunities‘ is the quote we see next. Here is the danger we need to understand. Yes, we have more news and as John Ryley states, there is a growing abundance of analytics, facts, snippets and other streamed information being added to our field of vision, yet what about the quality? In the past journalists grew into a job, now we see all graduates rush to get the headlines that get them the job to go forward. In this changing view, levels of quality are no longer pursued (just perused at best).

We have to accept that we do not get the best numbers at times. When something happens, we are often given a few facts linked to the events, yet, when we start adding analytics that are meant to be part of the same news cycle, how reliable are these numbers? I am not talking about business news here. In those cases the journalists have decades of numbers at their back and call. No, I am talking about dumping false data at the mere press of a finger. In that regard, I think Australia outdid itself when a girl in May 2009 gave false testimony on TV and gained the reputation of the ‘Chk Chk Boom’ girl. It is not the most extreme example, but it illustrates the dangers. There is no blame to the journalist, yet the impact was there, even though people laughed it off to some extent. Now consider that what is laughingly regarded by some as journalism. It was the Daily Telegraph quoting “Flight MH370 ‘suicide mission’” on page one, PAGE ONE no less! Now, almost three months later, there is still no sight of the plane and no actual evidence that there was a suicide mission. These two parts give the indication. No matter how much journalists are entering the Golden age of direct media opportunities, the growing need for ethics and quality checks in an age of immediate publication is growing at an almost exponential rate.

This all gets another flavour when we consider certain parts of the Leveson report. “A free press, free of the censorship and restrictions imposed by the powerful, … serves the public interest by its investigative and communicative role. Both roles are necessary.” (at volume,page1:64). Yes, I am all for freedom of the press, but not for freedom of non-accountability. In case of the ‘Chk Chk Boom’ girl, the press was not guilty, they were talking to a ‘witness’ and that got reported, in case of the Daily Mail, serious questions about the journalist could be made (as well as its chief editor). Here we see the danger, we cannot avoid issue one in a time pressed event, yet when the journalist shapes the story, by intentionally adding non verified data, we get issue number two and here we see, what in my mind adds up to intentional inflicted harm (to the family of victims) for the greater ‘need’ of some headline, which then results in tiers of damage control and carefully ‘phrased’ denials. None of those events could or would be regarded as journalism. John Ryley does not dig into that danger (as far as I know).

The last danger is the one John Ryley was not going to talk about (assumption on my side) and as I see it, he should not have to. Yet, the dangers that his Golden age of Journalism brings is the added hype of trial by social media. When given form, events will more and more shout out for witch-hunts via social media. This is not started or at times intentionally instigated by the journalists, which must be stated quite clearly, yet the dangers we all face as someone emotionally responds to any news event is always there. Yet the dangers that any news that spreads online will be accompanied by the dangers of social media “hang ’em high judges” should not be underestimated, giving the increased need for quality checks and verification in an age when doing just that out-dates the news instantly. There is no real good solution here and it must be said that a journalist cannot be blamed for any social media prosecution hype, yet, when proven that the news that sparked the witch-hunt was irresponsible, (like the MH370 story by the Daily Telegraph), should the journalist bringing the story be held accountable for the consequences? In that case I say ‘Yes!’. So, even though if we are to believe that journalism is entering a Golden Age, we must also look at the consequences of their acts and hold journalists accountable for some of their actions as such.

A view, I have had for a long time, but was raised by Sir Christopher Meyer on the 19th of February 2009 (long before I started my accountability act crusade).it can be found on the Leveson report (4:1539) “I am afraid that we also require some reassurance about the credentials of those carrying out the inquiry. In addition to the inaccuracies … the report does not appear to have been written by anyone with much understanding of self-regulation or the relationship between the PCC and the law. More fundamentally, we have to ask ourselves whether this enterprise is being undertaken in good faith…” (from pp1-5, Stephen Abell, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Exhibit-SA-T1125.pdf).

I will add one more part to this all. I wrote a blog on March 19th called ‘Any sport implies corruption!‘. Yesterday’s news (at http://news.sky.com/story/1280406/qatar-corruption-claims-coca-cola-concerned), directly links to this. My issue is that the quote “Mr Quincey’s comments are significant because Coca-Cola is one of Fifa’s leading sponsors along with Adidas, Budweiser, Sony and Visa and, as such, a major provider of revenues to the organisation, contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to Fifa’s coffers.” is not entirely complete as I see it. Moreover, there are still serious issues with the claims of corruption to begin with.

The end of that quote “contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to Fifa’s coffers” should in my view be changed into ‘contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to Fifa’s coffers for as long as it favours the business views and other financial obligations these large companies have set in motion.‘

My reasoning here is that Qatar was selected, and it was not long until the intense heat that the players faced would become a visible issue. The best source of quality information in this case is the Washington Post (at http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/dcunited/fifa-prosecutor-probe-already-had-qatar-evidence/2014/06/11/ffcef57a-f199-11e3-b140-bd7309109588_story.html).

I actually do not know whether the Qatar bribery issues are real. It seems that FIFA prosecutor Michael Garcia is on top of this, yet the Sky News quote ‘Yet this inflamed the situation and led to calls on Tuesday from a succession of European football chiefs for Mr Blatter to step down‘, is adding to the fire and I wonder what actually is in play. We know that the Qatar World cup would, due to a date shift have consequences. This can be best seen in the BBC article (at http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/24401699), The quote “However, that could lead to a potential clash with other big sporting events, notably the Winter Olympics and American football’s Super Bowl, as well as domestic football leagues and the Champions League“, which makes me wonder whether these ‘secret’ documents are about the sport, or about the advertisers. When we consider the list of ‘sponsors’ that Sky News mentioned, namely Coca-Cola, Adidas, Budweiser, Sony and Visa we see a different picture, is it about corruption or about the fear that these big corporations are confronted with up to 40% of diminished advertisement power? I do believe that Qatar will do whatever it can to not overlap the winter Olympics, yet the fact that there will be an overlap with US sports and likely the European soccer season is almost unavoidable. If we are fair then we accept this, especially as this is such a rare event. The rest should be ignored, for the simple reason that this is about the sport, not about the ‘comfort‘ of those sponsors who basically tend to be at EVERY event.

So here we see the direct consequence of what John Ryley calls the golden Age of Journalism. When we look at these headlines “Qatar DID buy the World Cup, email reveals” (The Daily Mail), we have to wonder how much danger people will be placed in when social media turns an irresponsible article into a witch-hunt. If the golden age of Journalism is now, then so is its accountability, which is at the heart of the published Leveson report. Consider the Leveson header ‘The importance of a free press: free communication‘, is that the case here? I wonder how much pressure certain articles are receiving from advertisers/sponsors. The concluded report will give us reason to lash out, so until that happens (in roughly a month) we will have to wait when I write my follow up.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as Adidas, BBC, Budweiser, Coca Cola, Daily Telegraph, FIFA, John Ryley, Leveson, MH370, Michael Garcia, Qatar, Qatar World Cup 2022, Quincey, Sir Christopher Meyer, Sky News, Social Media, Sony, Stephen Abell, UK, VISA, Washington Post

June 9, 2014 · 10:10

Criminally stupid!

Another day and another Sky News article grabbed my attention. Today it is “Metal Studs Treat The Homeless ‘Like Animals’” (at http://news.sky.com/story/1277765/metal-studs-treat-the-homeless-like-animals).

In London, the reaction to a homeless person sleeping in their entry hall was met with an almost medieval solution. They decided to place spikes on the floor at an interval so that a person would not go to sleep in that location. Most people reacted in outrage on the solution. The article goes on a little more and added the following statement “Homelessness charities say this is not a one-off, metal studs have been appearing across the country for the last decade as the number of people sleeping rough rises.”

So the people are actively ‘acting’ out against these homeless people. The part that puzzles me is the legal side of the matter. In the UK they have R v Miller [1982] UKHL 6, a criminal law case demonstrating how actus reus can be interpreted to be not only an act, but a failure to act. The judgment here “I see no rational ground for excluding from conduct capable of giving rise to criminal liability, conduct which consists of failing to take measures that lie within one’s power to counteract a danger that one has oneself created, if at the time of such conduct one’s state of mind is such as constitutes a necessary ingredient of the offence.”

I found it pleasing to use the vagrant case, because the person who did this is less a person than the people he/she is trying to chase away. In this case it is not just the homeless person, but ANY person tripping, falling and getting hurt because of those spikes. The culprit who placed the spikes will be directly responsible for inflicting grievous bodily harm, which under section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 could get the spike culprit a sentence up to life imprisonment. It was interesting that the news cast did not bear this out, or any criminal transgression for that matter. The Guardian has almost the same story and is pleading for the Southwark council to act against this.

Let’s look at this situation one more time from a legal perspective (me now grumpily looking up my UK Offences against the Person Act 1861 section 18 in PDF form). Even if it is the homeless person and not an innocent bystander, we could prove harm with the first instance (one drop of blood is enough) and as the victim is likely either a homeless person or even a junkie, we get a factor indicating greater harm as per “Victim is particularly vulnerable because of personal circumstances” in addition we have culpability through “Offence motivated by, or demonstrating, hostility to the victim based on the victim’s disability (or presumed disability)“, which we might achieve considering the social status of the person, which also proves discrimination. The spikes and the effort required shows premeditation and the two additional aggravated factors are “Deliberately causes more harm than is necessary for commission of offence” and “Deliberate targeting of vulnerable victim“.

My question becomes, why are the parties (or so they seem to) not talking to the CPS (Crown Prosecution Services) in regards to this act? There is a host of additional parts in these events and they all point to acts of maliciousness.

Even here in Australia the NSW Crimes Act 1900 would have a powerful case against the placer of these spikes. It becomes thus a question on whether it is just for the council, or are nations in the Commonwealth facing a new level of intolerability and as such, the wave of these events are not even properly looked at. The fact that the press is not speaking out in regards to the crimes that these spikes represent is also a matter of question, as is the lack of visibility from the CPS in this matter, especially if we consider the quote “they appeared a few weeks ago after someone had been sleeping rough there“, which implies that several authorities should have alerted the police and they should have alerted the CPS to these events.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as CPS, grievous bodily harm, homeless person, metal studs, NSW Crimes Act 1900, Offences against the Person Act 1861, R v Miller [1982], Sky News, Southwark, Spikes, the Guardian

June 8, 2014 · 10:13

17 or 70 trillion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as BBC, bloomberg, Credit Suisse, Deborah Hargreaves, Econ Browser, Forbes, Foxnews, government, Government Accountability office, IRS, James Hamilton, Julia Kingston, Jullian Assange, LIBOR, market watch, Paul Mason, Professor Hamilton, Robert Peston, San Diego, the Guardian, UCSD, unfunded liabilities, US News

June 7, 2014 · 09:59

A Spruiker’s deal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should the government get involved?

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

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

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

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

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

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as ABC News, ASIC, Australia, NSW, Pauline Vamos, SMSF, South Australia, Spruikers, Sydney Morning Herald, UK

May 18, 2014 · 12:07

Are we getting played?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

Tagged as ALP, Australia, Bill shorten, Chancellor Merkel, Chris Bowen, credit rating, credit ratings, EEC, Germany, Greece, Greek bonds, Greek government, Ireland, Joe Hockey, Julia gillard, Kevin rudd, Labor, Twitter, Wall Street, Wayne Swan

May 10, 2014 · 11:41

Drop the waste!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greed remains our number one foe!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Science

Tagged as Analysts, food production, Lawsons, municipal waste, Sky TV, Swipe, Twitter

May 9, 2014 · 17:20

Public naming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as bad banks, Barclays, economies, economy, Euro commission, George Bootle, slave labour, SNS Reaal, UK, UKIP

May 3, 2014 · 14:18

Lessons not learned

As I look back at the end of a lifetime and I wonder whether I am just nuts (which is always a fair assumption), or that others are just unwilling to see the implied fact that we have stopped evolving. Many lives are basically based upon bread and games, a term that goes back to the Roman Empire and seems to be at the very core of what is happening at present in many areas when we compare ourselves to people in the Ukraine. The ‘free’ west seems to be focused on sustenance (a basic need for surviving) and TV. The TV is even showing some gladiatorial show, where people do some kinetic steeplechase for the glory of fame and fortune. I have nothing against the game. I have seen it; it was fun to watch up to a point; and when we switch to some cable channel we are likely to see a TV series that we saw before, a series that is rerun again and again, whilst not showing the latest seasons, but leaving us 2 or more seasons short (depending on the station and the series). We get to see those episodes, whilst the rerun is not giving us the last 3 seasons of NCIS, the last 4 seasons of the Big Bang Theory and so on (it is a very long list).

The top of this consumer pyramid scheme (politicians, board of directors and so on) goes on planning for additional wealth, whilst the rest is getting outdated TV and they are just trying to make due.

That view is getting stronger and stronger as we are confronted with the escalations in the Ukraine. There are two sides that propagated these thoughts. The first was something President Obama stated when he addressed the press. The quote “this week to implement the IMF plan to stabalise the Ukrainian economy“. That part got to me. The US is getting all huffy and puffy about more and more sanctions and actions to get the Ukrainian ball rolling, so that the IMF can spend billions upon billions in some way. WHY?

Chancellor Merkel, like many European spokespeople are trying a softer approach. This is not about which method is better, but about the fact that this is more about the IMF and that what we might laughingly regard as the Ukrainian economy then about anything else. Does anyone remember a place called Syria, where even today people die by the dozen in a civil massacre between the forces of President Assad and their opponents? The ‘crossed‘ red line, even after the second chemical attack is not getting too much visibility is it? Did the powers that want to control forget about those events?

Even more important, the fact that the separatists took out 2 helicopters with missiles (not clear which exactly), is not a reason for stronger concern? I am not accusing Russia at present, but where did these separatists get the weapons to shoot down two helicopters? As I see it, pushing billions into an area that has no stability is just a really bad idea. It seems to me that these issues are not really focussed on. In addition, the NOS news showed us small video bytes of news moments where we see members of US Congress, where they seem to advocate stronger measures and stronger responses. More sanctions, against whom? It seems that the people outside of that circus are ignoring an economical and political play which could hinder their own futures for at least another decade. The fact that Europe will go for another round of dealings for cheap Russian gas seems to elude many people. The US might really like the idea that Russia Gas is turned off, it will give the US the economic option of selling gas to Europe, which will hike the power costs of Europeans by a likely 15%-20%, did the people on both sides of the Atlantic River realise that these events could have long lasting consequences.

Getting back to the Ukrainian issue, I have stated before that the Crimean people were the pushing power to the annexation of Crimea back to Russia. In my mind the Ukrainian government only had itself to blame there. This view is not one I have when we look at the issues in Eastern Ukraine. I cannot deny that Russia is playing a game here, but what game are they playing? Whoever is playing out these events in Eastern Ukraine is doing so on a few levels. First, these are not just all Russians or Pro-Russian separatists. There is equipment, there are droves of people in their support and the events in Kharkov (where a mayor got shot and we see a change of those in charge) also imply that there are levels of orchestration in play, but those behind the screens are not shown.

So why is it so important to get the IMF in there at this point? I am not stating that the Ukraine should not get support, but the EEC and the IMF are so busy getting in there as quick as they could, that we should consider the history on Greece and Cyprus as well. The IMF came in after the fact (which is fair enough). It seems to me that the Ukraine is about something more then ‘just’ the Ukraine and as such questions should be asked. This will all take several other cycles of information crunching when we see that Serbia is also voicing on their upcoming EEC membership. How is Serbia’s economy and how are their balance books?

Is this all about the economy or are the political power controllers in the US not telling us all (the use of political controllers was intentional for those who missed out on a few events). I have stated in the past that from my viewpoint, the US is past its point of bankruptcy (but what do I know), the link here is that the analysts and power brokers downplayed UKIP in the UK and Front Nationale in France. This economic nightmare that Wall Street said could not happen is currently no longer that unthinkable, which makes me wonder why those analysts are on a high 6 figure income. The Farage party is still a strong contender at present and Front Nationale has already made a first sweep in France and the party under President Hollande is now seriously worried. When these two do achieve the drastic change they want, the bang that will sweep the European economy will have a massive impact on the US as well. Perhaps they want to add Ukraine and a few others as soon as possible to soften the blow and to keep alive what will then soon thereafter be known as a puppet currency, which requires the IMF to step in, in as many places it can, so that whatever crash the economy makes then, it will be supervised by one voice that is not the US, the IMF (with the US having the most powerful voice within it).

So in my view, these events are not directly linked, but they have bearing on each other. Is this why Eastern Ukraine is so adamant about no longer being part of the Ukraine? That last part is pure speculation on my side as I have not read any quality reading on why the Easters Ukraine is so militant at present, but it is not just about someone else running Kiev parliament. The reasons are far too militantly played for that. This does not mean that Russia is innocent here, but considering just how much intelligence is gathered on several levels for so many years and on how ‘silent’ the CIA and other players are in that regard. We see the news and we see all those references to keyhole satellites and even as we all knew that Syria was such a powder keg, no one saw anything in Syria. Now we see these escalations in regards to Eastern Ukraine and again, no one seems to see anything here either. So what are those keyhole satellites doing and why are they staying silent. Did no one consider asking that 143 billion dollar funding question?

So why do I care so much about this?

If the Commonwealth is to remain a top economic player, then we must see, acknowledge and consider the options we have and as the UK was never part of the Euro, their currency is safe, but their economic position less so. The UK cannot keep on paying these outrageous amounts, whilst for the most; the EEC members do not keep their budgets in order (they overspend close to 600 billion too much in 2013 alone, this is including the UK). When the Euro tumbles and the Dollar gets the pounding of a lifetime, we must consider what is right, correct and the best for us. Within the Commonwealth those options might be limited to some extent. I always believed that if we as Commonwealth nations (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and the United Kingdom) as the top economic nations of the Commonwealth pull together, we can weather all these economic storms and help ourselves to a larger and faster recovery to something better then it is at present. Should Nigel Farage pull of the referendum the way he wants it to end, these levels of cooperation would become vital to the UK. I speculated in the past that the crumbling of the US as a super power would instigate a new coalition of perhaps Russia, China and India (purely speculative on my side), then the Commonwealth link would become even more important. These events go further then just some super power game. The US remains so eager to push the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership), in there the changes they were considering to Patent Law and Intellectual Properties in general are a concern to many. The face that Australia seems to have blindly accepted it, whilst New Zealand asked the questions and had the reservations both should have had to begin with are also a fact. America fears the abilities that India now has in Generic medication. India sits on a goldmine in an age of faltering health care and the overwhelming need for lower cost solutions in an ageing population. The US pharmacy was dormant for too long, new solutions are delayed again and again. Not unlike the IT where American superiority was boasted and whilst the American Industry embraced iterative evolution, was equalled and now to some extent even surpassed by Asian engineers, the Pharmacy field is in a similar, but not the same predicament. So whilst they focussed on the erectile need of Wall Street, India grew its generic enabling markets. Now America has a problem and the 14 year patent edge will no longer suffice and in the time several players went for the greed driven iterative plan, now slowly are finding themselves on the outside looking in.

This is exactly why the US is in such a state to drive these issues. I reckon that they never expected to be so linked to the Euro and their consequences. I personally feel that not keeping their financial house in order was at the centre of these reasons and like Crimea, it returning to the Russian fold is the worry of the US as the Euro could ‘collapse’ when nations decide to reject the Euro and return to their original local coin. The UK kept the Pound, but when France moves back to the French Franc, the currency that is no longer supported by two major economies will entice others to follow suit. The Dutch PVV has had several investigations to dump the Euro and return to the Dutch Guilder, when that happens party of Geert Wilders (even though the Dutch economy is small in comparison to the large four), the German corner could end up panicking and could move out to preserve itself, is that all such a long leap of faith?

This all will hurt the US in many ways. Now, it no longer aligns it’s maximum borrowing power to one currency, but to well over half a dozen, which should collapse their spending spree for at least two decades, more if the US defaults on even one loan. Consider in the second degree what happens when S&P will have to return to the comparison approach it employed before the Euro was adapted by many European nations, the impact could be massive.

So as the bulk of the people are asleep, relying on bread and games, the powers that would like to remain in control are playing high stakes poker as it is others peoples money and they will not pay the bill when the deal goes sour. We all must do what is best for us. The UK, the Netherlands, the Ukraine and the US. They all have to make their own decisions, whether they are valid for others or not. That is what many forgot as they all were trying to play a game on a global scale, with them all having themselves in focus. Crimea did what they consider to be best for Crimea. Most people forgot about that part, even Kiev forgot about that side of the equation, which makes the entire escalation part even sadder. So, should you consider my view to be invalid (which might be fair enough), consider the amount of actions, many debatable on both sides of the Ukrainian aspect. Consider the amount of NON-actions that were taken during 3 years of Syrian slaughter (on both sides). In my view, just focussing on one part of getting chemicals out of Syria (which is essential), whilst a second chemical attack took place (which had almost no coverage) looks like a joke to me.

Even now today (less then an hour ago), we see Ukrainians acting out against Ukrainian tanks, does that remind you of other similar events?

What lessons are we not learning?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics

Tagged as Australia, Canada, Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, EEC, Geert Wilders, IMF, India, Kharkov, Merkel, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigel Farage, Patent Law, Patents, Pharmaceutical, President Assad, President Hollande, President Obama, PVV, Russia, Syria, TPP, UK, Ukraine, Ukrainian economy, United States, US, Wall Street

April 19, 2014 · 10:11

Limitations of the law?

It is an interesting, yet disgusting twist on the laws that involve freedom of speech. In Europe, the commonwealth as well as America, most of the nations in these groups have always championed freedom of speech. Yet, should there be a limit to that? Some argue that this should not be the case. The Netherlands has seen a first limit as it should exist in my mind. Those who have studied the law might be familiar with the Grudge Informer. It was one of my first law essay topics. Should unjust laws be accepted? This was at the heart of the matter, but what does this have to do with the freedom of speech?

In the Netherlands a case had proceeded through the courts involving what some call the freedom of speech, but what should be regarded as the dangers that is represented to children. The case went from court to the highest court, the Dutch equivalent of the UK Court of Appeal (US Supreme court). In there it was decided yesterday that the organisation ‘martijn’ is to be dissolved. (NOS News, April 18th 2014).

So what is the issue? Even though the case went on in regards to ‘freedom of speech’ and even though Mr Jon Schilder, Professor of Dutch constitutional law (Hoogleraar staatsrecht) is speaking academically that this is a dangerous development, the issue is that the organisation was about the protection of paedophiles. I did not go and utterly refuse to visit the site; I will not mention the location here either. The parents who took on this task after their child of three had been sexually abused have won the case after 4 years. They were appalled that the organisation had a website which, as it was stated that glorified paedophilia as well as handed insights into avoidance of prosecution as well as instruction on how to minimise a person’s forensic footprint.

I cannot fathom the issues that play in regards to the freedom of speech as it casually endangers children. This goes far beyond the issues of accountability that I have always championed. The fact that a national constitution has such a draconian level of freedom that anything goes is beyond my comprehension. (at http://nos.nl/artikel/637394-advocaat-van-martijn-teleurgesteld.html) The words from Lawyer Bart Swier are even more unsettling “Mijn bezwaar is dat er slechts sprake is van een denkbeeldig theoretisch risico, en niet van enig concreet gevaar. Dat zou eigenlijk de maatstaf moeten zijn voor een dergelijke vergaande inbreuk op de vrijheid van meningsuiting” translated: “My objection is that there is only an imaginative theorhetical risk and there is no concrete danger. This should be the measure for such an intense breach on the freedom of speech“.

I understand that Mr Swier is representing his customer, but can anyone even consider any level of ‘rights‘ when the foundation of such rights are a direct danger to the health and welfare of children?

When we look at the article at http://nos.nl/op3/artikel/637506-pedofielenvereniging-nu-echt-verboden-wie-vindt-wat.html, where we see the following: “Een groep van 49 wetenschappers, acteurs, schrijvers en andere bekende gezichten deed twee dagen geleden in de Volkskrant een oproep om Martijn niet te verbieden” translated: “A group of 49 scientists, actors, writers and other well known faces made a plea in the Volkskrant (a Dutch Newspaper) to not make the organisation illegal“.

Even if I could agree to the Freedom of Speech to the extent that the Dutch would like it to be, this organisation is for people with a sexual preference for children. In my mind it is the most horrific crime possible. It goes beyond anti-Semitism or Genocide. This is about the mental and physical destruction of a young life, which has no defence and will continue through life physically damaged, mentally broken and often far worse than both. It is utterly unacceptable in my mind. Although I have a good grip on the need for a freedom of speech, any act, consideration or even contemplation that can be regarded as a danger to children should not just be disallowed, those involved should be prosecuted beyond what we consider ‘correct’. Be mindful that I phrased ‘can be regarded as‘. Any danger to any child is not to be allowed EVER! If this world is to continue in any way, then this can only humanely happen if the safety of any child is set above all others.

Any law that endangers a child should be seen as unjust and therefore should not be abided to, which was at the centre of the Grudge informers. In a similar light, we should consider the US with their Jessica’s law, a law that had been championed by Bill O’Reilly to be passed into law. The official version is ‘The Jessica Lunsford Act’, (H.R. 1505 of the 109th Congress). It was never voted on and the law did not pass. There was some opposition and controversy, yet at the heart this act was to protect children under 12, by setting a massive verdict on any adult who sexually engaged with a child under 12. In my view Mr O’Reilly had the right sentiment and the 109th US Congress who had led this slide should reconsider their point of view as they failed to better protect children. I will admit that there are likely legal issues that are true issues to resolve, yet the foundation is that this was about protecting children. Like the Dutch verdict which showed a rarely seen danger in regards to the freedom of speech. It is more fitting that this concerns both Civil Law and Common Law. How can the law be so ‘tolerant’ towards the dangers to a child?

A legal failing to a group so unable to defend itself is a failing to the Justice system as a whole; there is my link to the Grudge Informer. The question becomes whether the law has failed, or is failing the protection of children. It is a hard verdict, but from these two points, that failing is a yes, however, there are two sides to this. On one side, I feel uncertain to additionally act against a Paedophile with new laws, as this would complicate the entire prosecution under the Mental Health Act, as this is dealt with through the DSM-V (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). And my reasoning is that I would not like to introduce some weird loophole giving them additional legal escape routes. Yet, this should not stop the legal groups to add additional protection to the child as well. If we consider the Dutch case, then the existence of the organisation, gives a clear view that there is premeditation, which in itself should allow for additional protection of the child. Even though the organisation is now illegal (as per yesterday’s verdict), these people will find other ways and it is almost a certainty that they will ‘connect’ online. This should give the law makers a direction where the ‘hunt’ should start. Although hunt is an incorrect legal word (the sentiment is however very correct), the need for a shield that protect children on a global level is an essential one and should be regarded as a first priority for lawmakers everywhere. Consider in that part the article (at http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42108748/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/massive-online-pedophile-ring-busted-cops/), there was no date given in that article, but the fact that this involved 70,000 members is something that should scare lawmakers and parents alike.

We as adults all have a sacred duty to keep all children; no matter who’s they are safe from the dangers of such predators. In my personal humble opinion, in regards to the Dutch sentiment on the freedom of speech in this particular case, I hereby state: ‘freedom of speech be damned!‘

The protection of a child should always be first!

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics

Tagged as 109th US Congress, Bart Swier, Bill O'Reilly, freedom of speech, Hoge raad, Jessica's law, Jon Schilder, martijn, Netherlands, NOS, paedophiles, The Jessica Lunsford Act

Lawrence van Rijn – Law Lord to be

UBI is not going soft!

Criminally stupid!

17 or 70 trillion?

A Spruiker’s deal

Are we getting played?

Drop the waste!

Lessons not learned

Limitations of the law?

Recent Posts

Archives