Tag Archives: BBC

September 12, 2013 · 03:13

Foreign and Domestic

America is under attack. The question becomes whether this is a new one, or one that has been ongoing. There are several thoughts and they all, too some extent link together.

FOREIGN
The foreign groups ‘attacking’ America include both China and Russia. They are both using to some extent their own puppets. Let us call them Syria and Iran for now. Russia’s pulling the strings of Iran. No matter how the strings are pulled, no matter how acts are ‘begotten’, the issue is that Iran has been given the one carrot it cannot ignore. It is the support to get a nuclear power plant placed within Iran. Russia gets a string of benefits; this includes making America look bad, making their claims fall short, which according to the speakers in the Kremlin will look pretty good on the front page of Izvestiya (Известия). China is now giving support to Syria as Syria in a last moment of desperation plays the ‘oversight on my Chemical Romance stockpile’ card. The question becomes, whether it is just last minute, or certain cards were offered during the G20 to be played, because any of this, must seemingly be cast on making the US President to not look bad (the view projected after the fact will be an entirely different issue).

To support certain new options goes decently further than just the ad-hoc statement by United States Secretary of State John Kerry. These issues have been playing for some time and most issues started to accelerate as we all saw in the news. Many of the top tier papers reported these events. So how come that these events are still seen as a foreign attack?

That would be a fair question!

China and Russia had been blocking many of the events needed to make any stance against the indecent slaughter of the people of Syria (on both sides). I could cleverly state that Russia and China removed the ‘s’ and used laughter to block the US and other nations to get anything done there. The fact that the Bushehr plant is announced to get a new baby brother as reported by Polina Garaev “Putin will present Rohani with new deal worth $800 million for new batch of S-300, construction of new nuclear reactor at Bushehr” gives additional weight on the Iranian ‘support voice’ in regards to the Syrian question. Whether this will become the Alice Cooper nightmare remains to be seen, it is however clear that the S-300 additions do mean that they fear the response by Israel towards this new billion dollar baby. Trust me when I say that there will be well beyond $200 million in additional fees for consultancy, education and other requirements. The one part I do like about this all is that Iran seems to not trust their own propaganda on the ‘advanced’ Mershad from 2010 and prefers to rely on solid Russian technology as it was developed in 1978 (sometimes life throws you a nice juicy steak to blog about). Still, if Israel cannot get there via the air, I think I have found a way to super charge the fuel rods to melt them down all by themselves (pretty much stopping both reactors from ever working again). It should take only three elements and I got the idea from a snow globe, go figure!

All four players in this parade are anti-American; their union is not because they like one another, but because of their individual needs united in non-American likes. That does not make for an attack. That does not mean they are attacking America. That part had been shown in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800, which is only one of many newscasts on that topic. In addition there is http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/middleeast/new-us-envoy-to-un-strongly-condemns-russia.html. This could be seen as a first level of evidence that the United Nation Security Council (UNSC) was nothing more than a political tool to stop any kind of condemnation and the lowest forms of support for the victims of the chemical attack.

Are there doubts?

Yes, even though some claims came that there was ‘evidence’, I am still having certain doubts in regards to the actual attacker. When a State secretary goes on a world tour visiting heads of state showing ‘secret’ evidence, parts are not right. It is shown to a group that is too large. Instead of giving it all to the media letting EVERYONE publish it would have been a much better policy, it could have had the result that the UK would have been in favour of actions. The delays, the Intel that WOULD have been there from those big boxes high in the sky, (commonly known as satellites), could have shown much of the evidence. Yet, personally, I am not completely convinced that they were attacks ordered by Assad (directly or indirectly), which I admit is a personal view and based on gut feeling more then anything else. Is it possible that some misguided Assad supporter did this? Yes, that is a definite possibility. I dealt with these thoughts in a previous blog called ‘tactical choices of inactivity‘. I have always believed that Al-Qaeda is only about Al-Qaeda and their goals. It was never about Syria for them (I personally believe this). The theatre of war in play gives them ample opportunity to get to USA and Israel. There is a chance that the number of military opposition leaders, who knew about chemical caches seems larger than most considered, which means that others knew too. This entire new play is as I see it is not about the fear from Syria AND Russia that unwanted elements might want to get things going out of hand. It is likely that this is already the case and a USA offensive would stop any chance of that part getting a certain level of control. It could be that this danger is in play, meaning that both Russia and Syria want to get out of the way fast, allowing the new diplomatic play to proceed, whist the US gets left holding the bag.

No matter how this plays out in any diplomatic way. We will see soon enough that Syrian victims will get overly victimised soon enough with added by-lines on how America never intervened.

DOMESTIC
In my view, I see that the domestic enemy of America seems to fit into three distinct categories. First of all, this is not about lone wolf terrorists, or any terrorist groups, they fall in the foreign enemy group. No, the Americans do not get to be that lucky as such.

The first enemy group are those libertarians hiding behind ‘freedom of information‘. This group is for the most the direct one we see, receiving all kinds of media support and protection. They do not need to fear the House of Lords and some Leveson report, but they do ‘fear’ what the NSA had been doing. The electronic Frontier foundation did instigate a case which they won. Sky News covered this at http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=905204. My issue is the quote “as part of the agency’s effort to track potential terror plots”

In my mind, when (not if) the next attack on America succeeds, then the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) should MANDATORY in the light of ‘freedom of information’ reveal the names of all their supporters in this case to the family members of the victims the next attack has. There will be no carefully phrased denials; there will be no talk about ‘we so sorry’. I want to see those names clearly shown on-line. In addition, the EFF board members John Perry Barlow, Brian Behlendorf, John Buckman et al will have to visit all the funerals of those victims and look the survivors and family members of the deceased straight in the eyes. I wonder how ‘ideological’ they will feel at that time. Interesting that they (as far as I could tell) have not been too active in protecting people from places like Microsoft and others when we see articles like http://rt.com/usa/yahoo-microsoft-campaign-political-862/

That is another matter, which is ALL about personal gain (by those corporations) and not about keeping the American people safe. Another article is http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/13/gamers-fear-microsofts-xbox-one-could-be-future-of-prism-after-nsa-revelations, I do not agree with that article. That is not about some PRISM project, it is about Microsoft making sure that Microsoft gets more and others less. That is about greed and spawning INACTIVITY to the future new developers (unless it is in the hands of Microsoft). With gaming as a hundred billion dollar market, and as the gamers market surpassed the porn industry as a revenue group, did you expect these events not to happen?

I personally see the EFF as a sanctimonious group at best, of course others have their own view which are quite opposite of mine and as such they are very welcome to have that view, because I do believe in freedom of speech. I do have an issue with it when you endanger the safety of a nation.

The second group are the economic leprechauns (‘leper cons’ might be a better term). These are not the good and fiddledy diddledy types walking around with a cauldron of 100 gold coins. These are greed driven monsters in need of more and more at the expense of everything and everyone. They will enable their voice to whatever keeps them playing the game. The attack on Syria would have meant that their profits go down, so they would do whatever they could to stop it by forcing a diplomatic solution view. It seems such a humane view, yet, they will avoid taxation by moving funds offshore, they avoid taxation by becoming a virtual entity and they will prolong their game by removing your rights and your future. I personally believe that in many cases banks are on that side too. Did you forget on how in the lowest moments over 3.5% of mortgages are added to the foreclosure listings? Why are THEY a domestic enemy of America? Are sound business strategies suddenly outlawed? No, they are not, yet there have been too much personal and corporate gain preferences in the past and war is usually bad for business, unless you sell ammunition. In that regard my words might seem to be empty in the view of certain people, yet consider that America is an ideal by the people and for the people. How come that those views are so often drowned out by corporate greed, to give view to what is good for corporations and their stakeholders?

The third group is the most dangerous of all, it is a wild-card called ‘the self-centred person’. They are traitors, manipulators, journalists and/or politicians. The reader could even see me as one of these types of people. This group is dangerous as they could also be members of the first or second group. Yet, whilst wearing one of the other two cloaks they are only in it for the good of self. Edward Snowden falls in this group. Too much ‘evidence’ showed that he was all in it for himself. This was never about freedom of information or the security of America, it was about his life style, his future, his fortune and he was so willing to sell America down the drain in the process. The evidence? If that was truly about some level of honour, he would never have gone to Hong Kong or Russia. Several countries do not have an extradition treatment with USA, the fact that he ran to nations who are direct opposed to the American way of life should be seen in that light. Bradley Manning basically does not fit this group very well. There is a valid concern that he was misguided in his choices, when the choice was there he just gave it all away to Wiki-Leaks. In the smallest of defence of Manning, it seems that he at least was never out for personal gain; his ideology was, as I see it utterly misguided, which makes him the odd duck out. The recipients were however very willing to push his buttons for what they believed was a ‘righteous cause’, manipulative steps to say the least.

The problem with my own view (I will admit to that), is that my view has evolved from information given to me from journalistic and other sources, whilst I know that many in this ‘game’ have their own agenda to maintain. That means that it is about a target they have. The time of truly neutral journalism has been over for some time and I fear it will never return, which makes for an interesting view of the first amendment. The freedom of speech would become the freedom of representation of those we service, because the board of directors in a media group are often linked to other endeavours, making their freedom of speech a lesser item.

America is in my humble opinion under attack, and Syria is just the new stage where the American chess pieces are about to be moved, whilst some of them will be removed. I wonder where we all stand on the 1st of January 2014. That date will be soon upon us and that view might partially depend on the steps the growing New World Order coalition of Russia, China and India will take.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics, Science

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

August 30, 2013 · 14:23

Tactical choices of inactivity

I reckon that many are awaiting the events as they are unfolding currently in Syria. Will we be investing in Boeing Defence stock, should these missiles be used? (At $1.2M a pop that would mean a nice increase of revenue for Boeing). Will we change our investments in oil and gas as the Syrian situation continues?

These are the questions that matter. The hundreds of deaths because of a chemical attack do not seem to matter.

Are you wondering why I have that opinion?

Then read the BBC quote in regards to these attacks. “The United Nations Security Council said it was necessary to clarify what happened in the alleged attack, but stopped short of demanding an investigation by a UN team currently in Damascus, following an emergency meeting on Wednesday evening.” This was published on August 21st.  So there was a chemical attack and the UNSC did NOT demand the immediate investigation in regards to chemical attack deaths. The worse matter was that the bulk of the casualties were all civilians.

But where is the case of what matters?

If we look at the UNSC charter we see the following “The UN Charter established six main organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council. It gives primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the Security Council, which may meet whenever peace is threatened.”

So clinically we see that they are not an issue. Peace was not an issue in Syria at all. It stopped existing well over two years earlier. The UNSC is set in a charter. They are called the “Provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council” (at http://www.un.org/en/sc/inc/pages/pdf/rules.pdf). They actually do not help that much, only to illustrate certain steps. Yet, this is about the procedures of the UNSC, this will not help at all. So where is their decision making tree? For that we need to take a look at the charter of the United Nations. I took a specific look at Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression.

The premeditated crux is set in Article 45 which states: “In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.”

So we need to look at Article 43, which actually does not help us that much. That part is about making available troops “in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security“. I think we can agree that that part is at least two years late, and nothing here gives us a pass to start anything AFTER chemical attacks.

 

Yet we see in that same chapter that Article 51 (partially shown) states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations” This is all very nice, but Syria is not a member state, which makes this all a little moot. In addition, this is a civil (local) war, so other member states are not in question.

So let’s take a look at ‘Customary International Humanitarian Law Volume I: Rules‘ (at http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/customary-international-humanitarian-law-i-icrc-eng.pdf).

Rule 11 states “Rule 11. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.” Ah! Now we are getting somewhere. Even the rules of war have some level of distinction, yet for the most; this is all based on the previous Article 51, as is quoted “The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is set forth in Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I.” Darn! I am caught in some sort of looped program. It reminds me of my very first program I wrote on the Commodore VIC-20 in 1983.

10 PRINT “You are crazy!”
20 GOTO 10
RUN

Ah! The simple old days, how I miss them at times.

The same book lists an interesting part on page 38. “several States invoked the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks in their assessment of whether an attack with nuclear weapons would violate international humanitarian law.9 When the ICRC appealed to the parties to the conflict in the Middle East in October 1973, i.e., before the adoption of Additional Protocol I, to respect the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, the States concerned (Egypt, Iraq, Israel and Syria) replied favourably.10”

9 See. e.g., the pleadings of Australia (ibid., § 65), India (ibid., § 77), Mexico (ibid., § 85), New Zealand (ibid., § 86) and United States (ibid., § 99).
10 See ICRC, The International Committee’s Action in the Middle East (ibid., § 139).

Yes, I agree that a chemical attack is not a nuclear attack, yet when I was taught the elements of NBC (in army days long ago), we tended to count the Nuclear and the Chemical similar to some extent. The Biological element is one that might be considered to be one worse than that as it can continue its damage and even transcend borders.

So we can now add a look at additional protocol I, especially as Syria was one of the parties who replied favourably. As such, we could see Syria as a party that accepted these rules (to some extent).

You see, these parts underline the part as set in Rule 13 (from the IHL), which states “Rule 13. Attacks by bombardment by any method or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects are prohibited.”

This my dear readers includes ANY level of chemical attack, as that form of attack that is utterly indiscriminate as well as encompassing the area as one military objective.

Taking into account these elements, why did at that point did the UNSC, as stated by the BBC in the first mentioned article “but stopped short of demanding“. The stopped short in these elements were utterly unwarranted, in my humble opinion.

Now we all watch a political runaway train disaster where politicians stop short of acting in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and France await ‘evidence’ which they can deal on. The one cowboy state (the United States) would be at present the only hope the Syrian population has for now. Are these nations correct in holding of? Well, they do have a case there. However, the evidence as UN investigators were delayed, the possible evidence on how the chemical spread started. If we take the elements we have, then we need to consider the firing mechanism. That part had been made near impossible with 5 days of bombings. Yet, in all honesty, did Assad do this? The question is important for two reasons.

1. If he did not do this, was it an intentional act?
2. What other intelligence has Assad silenced?

The two are related, because the earlier fear the US had is now truly coming to fruition. If these missiles were inadvertently fired by the opposition forces, the theory I have is that as they lack military expertise, they might have known and partially learned how to fire a SCUD, but did they know about the payload? Let us not forget that many fighters are anything but military trained. Even those who had training, it is possible that they had too limited knowledge on how to work and identify these types of equipment.

The danger is that they might have found chemical payloads, so here is the danger. Al-Qaeda is currently helping the opposition forces. We now have a trained AQ with support from people lacking knowledge, and they gave AQ access to a chemical storage area. Here is where it becomes dicey! Assad knows the assets lost, he is playing high stakes poker by keeping these locations a secret. For him it is a win-win. If the opposition figures it out they have a time-bomb they cannot use. AQ will use it no matter what and preferably on Israel. Whichever of those steps happened (when they do), the world would have no option but to remove his enemy for him.

Proving that Assad did the actual firing is almost non-provable. The evidence is scattered and at best we can see that NBC components were used, but by whom is less of an option which will leave doubt.

Time is on the side of Assad and elements stopping activities to attack, whether justified or not will only strengthen Assad’s position. I can side with the politicians when they claim that they do not want another Iraq, yet when we look at the initial quote from the BBC “but stopped short of demanding an investigation by a UN team” we must more actively wonder what it would take for them to get anything done. It should be seen as tactical inactivity of the very worst kind!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Military, Politics

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

July 3, 2013 · 17:18

The Age of ‘no retirement left’ is coming

Another day and another play for one of the last foundations of wealth. As the Dutch NOS news reported, the Dutch pension funds are willing to invest in its own country. The Netherlands is currently an investment location that is receiving a very small part of that fat fund. Yet, pension funds want a level of government guarantee for these risky investments at present. That guarantee will save them for a certain amount of losses should they occur. As such the government has a level of objections. As the news reported, this plan has been a year in the making. Basically the pensions will be doing all the tasks banks are supposed to do. There is a level of risk that the pensions are not willing to carry at present. And why should they?

The reporter Jeroen van Dommelen stated “the government does not have the funds to invest, it is poor“. This is part of all the mayhem and issues on play. When the government could have stepped on the plate, they refused to do so. They pushed the bills forward. They relied on certain numbers of bettering the economy. A game played since 2006. And every time the Dutch CBS, which has government stakes and are prone to certain levels of censoring presented them. Those numbers have been downgraded quarter after quarter and as such no issues were resolved. Now this government is pretty much at the edge of viable as they received invoices from past administrations, and now, the one cauldron of cash that remains, and needs to be kept safe is being tapped on. This is not a cauldron where money renews (you know that realistic 100 coin leprechaun model), no it is like a simple soup cauldron, what is taken out, is lost forever. Starting a grab from that last cauldron that keeps an entire generation fed is not acceptable. It is too dangerous. When there were options, we were not allowed to touch it. Now that there are no options they want to touch it against our wishes and diminish it?

This is why pensions what the government to accept levels of losses, and why the buck is not passed forward, but to another person. Why should these funds be used to renovate rental properties? The rental agencies have been making a killing, or at least bosses in these places were. As examples we have the Amsterdam Rochdale scandal (Source, Dutch Parool http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/1284/Affaire-Rochdale/index.dhtml). The Rotterdam corporation PWS, where fraud was a massive tool to offset the rental market (source: http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2680/Economie/article/detail/766332/2006/02/10/Baas-PWS-ontslagen-om-fraude.dhtml). The examples do not even end there. The issues of preferential treatment and other calamities have given these issues a bad taste. In this environment there are grounds for calling the risk of these investments too high, in addition, these expensive dwellings should be providing for its own invested renovations. None of that seemed to have been happening. If we would investigate the issues as the Dutch SHC is investigated in 2011, where fraud was a factor, then we see that these events led to fusions which ended several steps, including in my humble opinion the prosecution of several people. The fusion left Miss Hedy van de Berk in charge after 25 years of service to clean up a mess her predecessors left. She had to lean on ‘lessons learned’ and interesting that Councillor for the City of Rotterdam Hamit Karakus (US equivalent of Alderman), who was present at that meeting seems not to have been that vocal on certain issues. This is not an accusation towards either, yet the foundation of pushing forward seems to be a clear given, and as such investments with retirement funds should be classified as a definite risk. As such we should wonder why these funds have to chip in in the first place. When we look at the responses from Henk Knoop (VVD) as MP of economic affairs, we see that he makes a clear good case where politicians want to make it more interesting to invest in Dutch events. I personally have the view that risk factors currently remain too high and until certain guarantees are added until there is clear evidence that sound investments are proven to be sound investments, the current level of risk should be considered too high.

The fact remains that they want certain levels of guarantees from Finance minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem. His view is that returns are founding certain levels of risk. This is a fair and realistic view. The issue that many have in this regard is that the risks are unrealistically given. That view has weight if we accept the faltering views SNS Reaal brought forward as it needed to be nationalised. Those are levels of lost investments, especially in commercial enterprises that are too unacceptable. Until those issues are resolved and dealt with, it seems that retirement funds have no business in a field with so much risk.

In addition the message by Jeroen van Dommelen at the end stating “resolving these issues would give way that on the day of princes there will also be good news” is way too thin to base the risk of retirement funds on. For the non-Dutch, the day of princes is on the third Tuesday in September when the Dutch government through a royal speech announces the new annual budget.

These dangers are not just visible in the Netherlands, yet in a place where they have been one of the most secure in Europe, the fall-back might be larger than anywhere else. In the UK, there is the case that Simon Cox of BBC4 reported on in regards to the pension liberation scheme last March. (Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21844955)

The options for those before retirement could access some of this cash. The issue is not just whether people select this, it is about the dangers that the acts comprises. What people do not realise is that a person’s retirement is mostly built in the last 5 years of ones funds. At that time, the interest is so rewarding that those years are the days when a retirement almost doubles making it a good thing (read enough to survive on). To lower these amounts, means that people either work a few additional years, or fall short by a chunk of what they would need. So it is a danger one should not consider. My thoughts are not as full on extreme as those of Shaun Richards of “Mindful Money”. He is more into the question whether an economic war between the saving retirees and the youthful left with nothing (something according to those lines). I do not think it is that far, yet, the greedy and their prying eyes on those untapped resources are out there, so there are dangers. His story makes for a good read, so check it out at http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/wp/shaun-richards/is-there-a-danger-of-an-economic-war-between-pensioners-and-the-young-in-the-uk/

If there is one note of criticism from my side on this article then it is the focal view as he looked at the groups, yet outliers from those groups and whether they moved from one group to another is slightly ignored, so a possible factor of skewing from those evading the credit crunch and those who got pushed out into destitution all together seemed to have been ignored, that group might have remained too small (however, still unillustrated).

His views should not be discarded. It seems to me that his views are partially adopted by Peter Hain of the Guardian (alternative is that they came to similar conclusions). Peter was quite adamant on the loss of cohesion as he describes it. Where I disagree is the Nick Clegg view where the better off retirees should ‘abolish’ their tax benefits. Is that fair? Those who remained cautious are now better off, whilst those who ‘partied on’ need additional support. I see no reason for those who did give out those extra few bobs to benefit now should give that up again. The social structure is all good and fine, yet those who did not keep their responsible part are now, as should be suffering a little more. A model was long term agreed upon, as today’s irresponsible spending’s should not be charged to those who got charged and worked all their lives. This is where ‘the Clegg principle’ falls short in my view. Peter’s words strike goal at the end where he writes “Cutting or means-testing pensioners allowances risks turning young against old and rich against poor while making negligible savings for the Treasury“. That is a risk we should not allow. Not because of the unfairness of this, but for the risk that the young will allow the exploiting of funds that should not be touched. In the end it is not just a negligible saving for the treasury, there is every indication that this will propel certain additional costs forward. Especially considering that these costs could have been avoided all together.

These issues also raise a few questions when we look at the Swedish system. A system protected by government and is totally untouchable by people until they retire. This quote came from the Swedish national bank this year. The question on the safety of retirements as such what return on investment has been achieved. the statement was “The major Swedish banks’ liabilities in US dollar amounted to just over SEK 1,600 billion at the end of 2012. Approximately 20 per cent of these liabilities consist of deposits, above all from large non-financial and non-bank financial companies.” So at 1.6 trillion Kronor, the outsourced risk that adds up to almost to SEK 226,000 for every Swedish citizen, all those funds in one investment? That looks like a very dangerous investment indeed, as that makes it the bulk of all the retirement investments all in one fund. When I look at my Swedish retirement savings then I have seen it go up by less than 5% annually (because I have annual costs, but I no longer live in Sweden and therefor no longer add to it). So what dangers are there for retirement investments all over Europe? France is in a peril no less dangerous, especially as President Hollande is asking the retirees to fill the French Coffers. Perhaps he will add a “s’il vous plait” (‘please’ in French) to that request at the end, but the message is rather clear. (Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/france-pension-reforms-hollande_n_2810024.html)

There is a European issue with retirement incomes, and it seems that the push it forward routine, as I started with in the beginning of this blog has been a blanket policy for many nations. Should they blame former president Nicolas Sarkozy? He tried to up the age of retirement by 2 years. I do not think it is fair (mainly because dangers were not reported in time). Not unlike the Dutch system as I mentioned in previous blogs. The push-it-forward routine has been employed for too long in several nations.

These retirees all worked hard until they retired. The fact that the younger generation holds those to account and not those who refused to act is unfair. We should add the question on issues that banks had like rogue trader Jérôme Kerviel. A person who decreased French bank values by almost 5 billion Euros. Even though he was convicted and he was supposed to pay this back. How much was actually paid back? Was all this money returned? It is so tearful to somehow this poor poor man has lost it all. Did he? He never owned 5 billion, so it was not his to lose. So if we see all these international trading shortfalls in France, UK, Netherlands, Italy and a few other nations (I reported on those issues in previous blogs). Those sums are more than the combined retirement funds that are about to get endangered. I think these governments should get those coins back before they go after the somewhat defenceless retirement funds.

Still today governments are setting out costs that they cannot foot the bill for. To now address retirement funds is an unacceptable step. Consider the initial Dutch version were in their own admission plans had been in the making for one year. Look at cutbacks that have not yet been met. These events show clearly that these events should have been stopped yesterday, whilst allowing them tomorrow has every realistic view that they could leave the entire upcoming retiring generation destitute.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

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

May 1, 2013 · 21:14

Another banking issue

People might have read a previous blog where I discussed the issues involving LIBOR and a resolution donation of over half a billion dollars of fines by the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Today’s article by Jill Treanor of the guardian at “http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/may/01/vince-cable-rbs-prosecutions” gives notice of issues at play. Moreover, these issues have been at play for some time now and there is clear need for answers on several levels. The article mentions the issues as quoted: ‘Scotland’s Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have been reviewing whether a case can be brought against any former directors since January 2012‘.
So, it seems that this investigation has been going on for 15 months. A letter was written to Lord Wallace in this matter. My question would be the why it is taking his Lordship the Advocate General of Scotland this long?

There is no doubt in my mind that it is a complex issue, yet overall, when it comes to banking issues, too often the public perceives this as the ‘out of sight, out of mind ploy’. The fact that this is the second bank involved in the LIBOR scandal and the fact that the fines are currently sailing close to 1 billion pounds in the UK alone, visibility should not wane for years to come.

This is not (just) about LIBOR. This entire issue is about the investigation into the directors who were in office at the time of the 2008 bailout. So, this is about a case 5 years old and this case seems to have only started in 2012 and now 15 months later there is still no final answer. This is interesting as the UK has the Limitation Act 1980. This statute has different limitations for different crimes, yet many of them is set at 6 years. This means that if defence can twist it that these crimes would fall under one of those statutes then prosecution has a lot less than 1 year left to take a stance and get started. The fact that these issues are still not for prosecution with the CPS are an additional matter of question.

If we look at the Limitation act and we consider this to be a tort, then Part 1, section 2 states: “2. An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. (Time limit for actions founded on tort)“.

The same time limit applies to actions founded on simple contract. The interesting question becomes where these issues are founded on. Is mismanagement a wrongful act, and there for a Tort? Are these wrongful actions and forms of mismanagement breach of contract?

Yet, we should not despair. There is a wise addition in this act that is stated in section 32 of that same act, which deals with ‘Fraud, concealment and mistake‘. Hip, hip, hurrah!
There it states “the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.”

So we might have a little more time left. Yet, we should not…. how is that expression again? ‘Dilly dally’. Yes, that was it. My grandmother told me that more than once. So we should not dilly dally to find the answers whether we have a case against those directors, lest we forgot that time ran out.

So you see, I am not convicting them, but I do want to see a case brought to trial where they can either be convicted, or where they can submit evidence that would exonerate them. Either will be the case, yet no case means there will not be any answers forthcoming. This would be interestingly unfair as that bank gave the taxpayer an additional cost of 45 BILLION pounds to the taxpayer. If you are from the UK and reading this then you should ask yourself. Did you make your GBP 666 donation to the save the Royal Bank of Scotland funds? Will you? If not then we should figure out what happened and get this to trial. Considering that the UK has a 1 trillion dollar deficit, then the added debt is costing its citizens GBP 225 million each year in interests. That is almost 3.5 pounds per citizen each year just to keep that part of the debt on par.

So yes, it is interesting to read the article by Jill Treanor. It is also interesting that she was not the only one to mention it; similar articles could be read in the independent, the Telegraph and on the website of the BBC. It seems to me that this is not some political ploy as both MP Vince Cable (Twickenham) and Lord Wallace (Shetland) both seem to be Liberal Democrats, unless Mr Cable prefers Shetland over Twickenham.

The Guardian refers to the report of April on Banking Standards. The report was described to be enthusiastically damning. In another fine piece of writing by Jill Treanor at: “http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/04/bankers-brought-down-hbos” is one sentence that I found ….hmmm, ‘hilarious’ just does not describe that sinking feeling in me. The sentence was “Under pressure from parliament Goodwin’s pension was halved to £340,000“. Are you guys for flipping real? My total pension will never even come close to that amount as a total sum. If there was ever a case of evidence that incompetence pays, then that would be the evidence at hand.

This gives way to a quote in a book by Robert L. Bradley it states: “The businessman who refuses to acknowledge, despite clear evidence, that his facilities are out-dated, his product uncompetitive and his cash flow inadequate, is dishonest just as the one who makes fraudulent claims to the customers is dishonest. Both are trying, at the deepest level, to fake reality.” (Bradley,‘Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy’,2009,p.66).

I think with this quote he hits the nail on the head for a truckload of cases. He also shows a graphical  bar of difference between incompetence and prosecutable fraud, whilst showing unethical behaviour and Philosophic fraud somewhere on the trajectory. This book is actually quite the little gem where they look at more than just ENRON and a few other devious little greed seekers. It even takes time to discuss the UK and ‘the Coal panic’ of 1865. So keep this book in mind please, it is a diamond in its own right.

So even though we get into the ‘Cloak and Kegger’ mindset that it is not a crime to be incompetent, then there is still the need to assure ourselves of a situation where those people do not run places like banks and corporate enterprises. Financial Services Authority (FSA) was supposed to have handled issues and cases, yet the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards seems to show a lack of actions on several levels. That committee on their web page reflected “The regulators also have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to their role earlier in the HBOS debacle. From 2004 up until the latter part of 2007, the FSA was ‘not so much the dog that did not bark as the dog barking up the wrong tree’”

From my view I wonder whether the regulator realised they were indeed the fore mentioned dog, whether they realised what a tree was and whether it ended up eating a bone instead.

The commission report which can be read at: “http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201213/jtselect/jtpcbs/144/144.pdf” leaves us with another question that requires serious visible pondering by the press on several levels too. If we consider the issues of HBOS (20 billion) and RBS (45 billion) and the consequent fines that followed over the timeline until now then there are serious questions on those getting an income from the Financial Services Authority (FSA). Here comes the kicker! “and was funded entirely by fees charged to the financial services industry.” So basically we have a group that was not biting the hand that feeds them. How was this ever a good idea?

As per April 1st (no joke) its responsibilities have been split between two new agencies, the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority at the Bank of England.

If we see what has happened here on several levels, it seems to me that self-regulation has failed on a massive scale. Both the Banking and Press industry seems to have scuttled justice, fairness and ethics on many levels and at many places. The question is not how they can restore their integrity; the question should be ‘Why are they presently allowed a place on the negotiation table in the first place?’

This brings me back to the bars as displayed by Robert L. Bradley. In my mind the distance between incompetence and prosecutable Fraud needs to be a lot smaller then I am currently comfortable with and the buffer called Unethical behaviour is a buffer zone that should be nothing more than a mere hairline. From those parts I wonder why massive visible and noisy steps have not yet taken place to remove options of self-regulation in several places at present.

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

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

May 1, 2013 · 18:01

The brutal end of an old man

We all have moments we are not proud of, we all have moments when something hits us and we do not realise it that it came, even though we were not involved or responsible. This happened to me this morning when I got my daily dose of Sky News at 05:00. Mr Mohammed Saleem Chaudry was stabbed to death less than 4 metres from his home in Birmingham. I remember Birmingham; it is a nice looking city. When I was there (I only saw it once) the city looked decently clean with plenty of pedestrian areas. One could say that it is a nice looking town. I visited the Walkabout and I had a gator tail steak. The last is hilarious, because I NEVER ate that in Australia. For football (soccer) fans there is the warning that this city is loaded with Ashton Villa fans, but what city is perfect nowadays. 😉

So, I have seen the place, and even though we see issues in every place we are, I feel happy that I am sensitive enough that the murder of this old man gets to me. He is described as an old man, walking with a cane on his way home from the Mosque. Is this an anti-Muslim attack? Was it just a drunk or doped up idiot not knowing what he was doing? All this is sheer speculation and I think it should be left up to investigators to find out what had happened and I hope they will find out with or without the assistance of crime stoppers (whose information had been added to the Sky News newscast).

Yet, there is a sense of fear that this is just the beginning. Is this all linked to the Six extremists who decided to attack the EDL? They failed because the rally ended early. Their admittance comes at almost the same time that the attack was. Is this what was linked? The timeline does not support this completely as there is a lap of 5 hours. Mr Chaundry was knifed 5 hours earlier, yet some idiot thinking that knifing an innocent old man walking with a cane is a solution?

It seems to me that there seems to be an interesting twist to this story at present.

When looking at the information the internet can give (so that I am as correct as possible) I initially found a BBC link that seemed to have been on the same route. The odd part was that the reference is pointing to February 2013.

This is the information the link gave: “Terrorism trial focus on Birmingham – BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-21458869
Feb 21, 2013 – Irfan Naseer, Irfan Khalid and Ashik Ali, all from Birmingham, face life … November 2008: Rashid Rauf from Birmingham died in Pakistan in a US drone attack but his body was … “They have no experience of talking to Muslims at their level. … A 75-year-old man is stabbed to death near a primary school in …”

When looking at the link (as these summaries usually are automatically parsed), I found the page and there is NO mention at all of the 75-Year old. Now, I am very willing to consider that it was just another link to a current article, which makes perfect sense. Yet, this is not the case. There was no link. It is almost like the BBC either edited the story and forgot about the links already on the internet, or it is a second level of information.

There is supporting evidence of this.

UK NBC had this link to show:

“75-year-old man stabbed to death – News
news.uk.msn.com/uk/75-year-old-man-stabbed-to-death
23 hours ago – A 75-year-old man attacked as he returned from evening prayers had … in an attack just yards from his home in Small Heath, Birmingham, on Monday night. ….. dallying…..it was a hate crime…simply because he was a Muslim.”

The search engine provided the information above, yet the link takes you to the article with the headline “Murder victim stabbed three times”

It seems there are several levels of editing going on, which in reality might be fine enough. Articles get updated and edited all the time. There will always be an over-zealous writer who needs a little editing by his/her editor.
Consider the text “it was a hate crime…simply because he was a Muslim.” could even have been a valid response in anger. If it was my partner or father, I might have responded in similar ways. Could we blame the family for such feelings? Yet, I do not know whether it was or was not said.

Yet, this al shows another side of the press. This in my view is another notch on the barrel of press reform a-la Leveson. Why is information missing? The NBC article is only 234 words. As web space is next to free, the article could have been a lot more informative. If there was nothing more, then WHY is there such misinformation in the search engine? The press is not allowed mentions of ignorance on their side in this matter, considering the massive amounts of text they put on the internet. The fact that these events seem to have happened with BOTH the BBC and NBC gives food for thought that there is some level of managed information.
I cannot oppose the thought that some information might be suppressed for the need to keep the peace and not make issues escalate, why make things harder for the police? Yet, the press has shown too often that it is all about THEIR needs, the rest be damned. That much, the bulk of all people can agree on in the light of the Leveson report.

A 75-year-old man is stabbed to death near a primary school in Birmingham.

It is a sad event and no matter how sad the event, trying to manage information is often a bad idea.
I must add ‘IF THAT WAS THE CASE!’ The simple truth is that I cannot prove one side from the other, yet the evidence as the search engines bring them to me gives indication that information was edited, yet where and on what level is less certain. There was the report by the police as mentioned in more than one source that there was nothing to suspect that the attack was racially motivated. I doubt whether it could be disregarded at face value, but I am willing to take the police view at this point as they were on the scene and I was not.

Over the next few days we will likely hear more. Will the truth come out? This is less likely, but not because of the efforts of the Midlands Police. The reality is that when a man is walked upon and gets stabbed in the open road, there will likely be a lack of forensic evidence. I do not envy the work Detective superintendent Mark Payne has ahead of him, but no matter what. Should he find those behind this brutal and cowardly attack then the sweet taste of victory will definitely and well deserved be his.

A man, coming back from his place of worship is on his way home only to be stabbed to death pretty much in front of his home. It happened on the other side of the world, yet it saddened me more than usual.
What has this world come to?

 

1 Comment

Filed under Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

April 1, 2013 · 00:46

60% confiscated and counting in Cyprus!

We knew that the played situation of the Cyprus deal seemed to have a few more angles than foreseen. We saw the two-step dance routine by Jeroen Dijsselbloem and Christine Lagarde. We saw the final second meeting and agreements after hours of delay until the negotiations were set with its back against the wall. We saw the hard felt news on those Cypriots. Some of them were defiant; some of them were blaming different parties. The last part is all good and fine. But the news as stated on BBC and other stations now mention that those owning over 100,000 Euro, are likely to lose up to 60%.

A number of enormous strangling events have been placed in effect; ready to make sure that the money does not get out of Cyprus.

So what is wrong with this picture of the bail-out? Part of me does not disagree that a hefty price is to be paid. There is a very good run down to be seen on the BBC site at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16290598

It gives a short and to the point timeline. So you all should check this out.

You see, the press might not be asleep at the wheel, yet, even after all these high pea-cock statements about the freedom of the press and the need for self-control and no charter and all these other statements of ‘fact’ as to what they should be allowed to do, seem to remain EXTREMELY quiet in regards to the underlying facts of Cyprus at present. We know they ran into trouble when they took massive losses on the Greek government bonds. So, the Cypriot situation had been known about for a long time.

This brings us all to an interesting question. With the Greeks all getting over 150 billion Euros in bail-outs and THEIR bank customers not being cut, how come the Cypriots are getting sliced to this degree? More important, how come these sides of information in regards to press freedom did not make it to the newspapers to the extent it should have been shown?

So, the bailing out bank in Cyprus, if given 2% out of that Greek tragedy could have prevented the need for many savers to be chopped. Let us not forget that the Greek bailout in total has topped 320 BILLION Euro and it is Cyprus who had bought some those Greek bonds (amongst others) that got them into this mess to some extent.

This had nothing to do with Chancellor Merkel or Germany itself (who many seem to blame). This situation seems to show an almost basic lack of arithmetic skills with many parties. How interesting that this did not come up in the Dijsselbloem-Lagarde show of statements and posturing. This is NOT to blame them; I am just asking a few questions.

More important, the fact that this had been going on since 2010, means that either a few people are dropping not one ball, but several left, right and centre. Or the game played is about a whole lot more than just a bail-out. There is the additional issue, which is that bankers are allowed to too much of wielding, weaving and transferring issues that should have been out in the open for others to be judged of before this all was allowed. There is NO way in my mind that this could not have been prevented if proper steps had been taken by several parties. Consider that even in the final days that Cyprus was flaunting options to gas reserves to several parties including the Russians. Could this not have been done sooner? Several businesses in Europe and US could have stepped in in this attempt to raise businesses. If we can believe the voice President Obama about moving forward the US economy, than the fact that they have not been loudly all over this option seems odd, irregular and in my mind definitely questionable. So are these gas reserves for real or was this a quick Cypriot horse to open the IMF bank vaults? (The Trojan horse was already used in Troy).

In the first degree:
The Cyprus government had a first responsibility to take firm control. When the banks are over 85% of your GDP, a government does not get to look out of a window, blow their nose, then state ‘Did we miss something?‘ This level of utter incompetence (for a lack of a better word) is beyond belief. To me this reeks strongly of two partners (politicians and bankers) enabling each other, and then settling others with the bill. The issue for me is that there has been a total lack of transparency. That evidence becomes a lot stronger if we consider that their bad fortune is linked to borrowing to Greece. So when were those government bond deals done, and why were they not dealt with when they were giving hundreds of billions in Euro’s to clean up the Greek issue?

In the second:
All this reads like banks are moving huge chunks of money from place to place (or from loan to loan), with likely 1-2 executives getting a decent (read 7 figure number) commission out of that. Could this thought be true? (I was making a commercial assumption there). So why are these transactions not a lot more open and visible? This question should be taken a lot more seriously when you consider the 2004 and 2008 bank burns. Beyond that we are now likely to see a bail-out strategy between 2010 and 2013 that is more than just flawed. This entire implementation of bad banks will haunt us all down the track.

And should you consider that the money moves are not happening (which might be fair enough), then consider that people do NOT stick their necks out to THAT degree without a decent pay check behind that. These people would have known that there was a decent danger of bankrupting a nation. So whatever the deal was, it would have needed to be mucho sweet for whoever was adding his signature at the bottom.

Now let us look back at those points. The press has been too blatantly absent from all this. Yes, groups like BBC and Guardian have been active, but these are just two of a very small group that is actually digging deep. Most parties seemed to have repeated very little more than the Reuters newsflash, with all these hundreds of investigative journalists that seem to be all over the place does that not seem a little strange? Add to this the famous Cyprus bailout press meeting. How Mr Dijsselbloem was carefully phrasing abstracts like structures and solutions. Yet, until the Guardian asked their question, the ‘solution’ bad-bank seemed to be pussy footed around. Even after that, that phrase was carefully circumvented as much as possible by all parties.

This is why this last blog reads a lot more emotional than the other ones. From my point of view it is a simple approach. We are being managed. The situation is managed to a certain degree, the events are managed to a certain degree and the Cyprus Crises is shown in details, but people tended to focus for the most on the emotional parts. The people, their savings and the daily impact the banks had on their lives. A real proper timeline that gives us an account on how it drove itself over the edge is often sketchy. I find it all too sketchy.

Last is a smaller element which was reported in News.com.au on the evening of March 30th “Lawmaker Mavrides, meanwhile, confirmed that a committee appointed by President Nicos Anastasiades would investigate a list published by Greek media of Cypriot politicians who allegedly had loans forgiven”. This is a smaller part, yet, that means that there is more than just one link where politicians are making personal deals with bankers is not really that far-fetched. We should wait until the facts are investigated and reported, however, that investigation might take a lot longer with all the issues around. It does however give more credence to my earlier statement regarding the interaction between bankers and politicians.

Should you doubt me? That is fair enough!

Consider another avenue. On 30th November 2010 Jullian Assange revealed that the next target of his whistle-blowing website will be a major U.S. bank. The same date a red notice was issued by Interpol. It was around that time that the hunt for Assange intensified by a lot. Perhaps the one bank was just the beginning? If we look back at the issues we know now, then there is a chance that someone made mention of the LIBOR percentage tweaking issue.
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 would love to get 1% finder fee of that! It would make me the FIRST Trillionaire in history (not bad for a person only dreaming to be a Law Lord some day).

This is however not about greed (I would be happy to settle on 1% of 1% of that amount), it is about the amounts that are in play here. We knew about the LIBOR percentage manipulation games played and those fines are still being sent out to the involved banks during this year. Yet the total amount does not seem to be under investigation. At least, not by a range of those loud shouting reporters we heard so much about in the last 6 months (who keep on shouting on how unfair Lord Justice Leveson was). When you look at the total value then you will read about statements of complications, non-clarity and other statements that give way to non-revealing reports. Interesting that something THIS important seems to be lacking transparency.

All this connects straight back to the IMF and Eurozone issues in play. For the chosen few it is extremely important that the slow waltz controlled by Mr Dijsselbloem and Mrs. Lagarde continues as is. Because this is NOT about what George Soros says in Inside Job (2010) “We have to dance until the music stops“. This same analogy was used in the movie Margin Call (2011). It is however the issue that in our reality the dance itself is the nightmare that keeps many financial institutions up at night. The moment that proof of large scale manipulations becomes visible (and proven) to the many, that is the moment Wall Street ends, the US goes bankrupt and our way of life stops quite literally. At that point it all stops. Then what?

So why not regulate these banks in tougher Draconian ways? These situations go beyond normal. Well, consider that there is not just the chance to lose a lot; there is the potential for these banks to win big. The problem becomes that the speculating approach banks have taken could be seen as one casino with too many independent well trained quality gamblers. To continue to remain in existence the banking system needs two factors.

First they need the one point advantage like in Blackjack (or the zero in Roulette); the second advantage is that they need more cash. This is the entire danger! The bank is no longer THAT rich and they are up against high stake gamblers who know the game through and through. So now their only playable assets left are the bonds no one wants and what is left of your pensions. So how long do you think you have any money left?

Last thoughts, how come the markets keep on going up? Financial markets are in the dump, Cyprus is in an utter depression, whilst the UK, the Netherlands, France, Spain and Italy remain in a state of recession. All these issues give me a clear impression that we are being managed in more ways than one.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

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

February 10, 2013 · 01:14

The Italian menace?

The Italian menace?

Just when you thought it was safe to think of any kind of future again, the abyss opens up right in front of you and your savings are again in danger.

The first topic of discussion as presented by the Dutch NOS was of course the European budgets. To a budget of 960 billion, the Dutch contribute 6 billion and they got a one billion dollar discount. Yes, this seems to be the Marks and Spencers approach to budgeting. Now, they seem to be happy, and I am not sure how to feel. It does however give a clear picture that the Dutch, always visible as a high player, are anything but that big. When you are profiles as a larger player and their contribution is less than a tenth of 1 per cent, that it means that they are not that big a player at all (or so it seems).
So, the Dutch politicians are going home with a satisfied feeling until the end of the decade. So how is this impacting? It is what followed that could become the real worry. It is a newscast of the return of Mr Berlusconi. Yes! He is returning to Italian politics with elections less than 3 weeks away. Does he have a chance? Not sure and not really my worry to be honest.

What is interesting is how he pulls people in with his dreams of giving back the real estate taxation of 2012. So, if that is done then Italy would be withdrawing from their promise to get their budget and deficit under control. If that happens, then what is next for Europe?
The bigger issue is that this might be a clear indication that Goldman Sachs is back and actively trying to meet their share in the Game of Greed.
They seem to be a clear controlling and influential party with most European governments. Forbes already reported this as a ‘danger’. They did mention the Monte dei Paschi banking scandal as part of their news cast as well. They also remained soft in their ideas of nations no longer being governable. I am less subtle. From my viewpoint I am willing to contemplate the opinion that the European governments are about to become the bank’s bitches with Goldman Sachs leading them the way to population enslavement. I agree, the thought is a little strong!

You see, there is method to my madness, or my madness is methodical (either way works). So, let us take a look at how I got to that conclusion.

In the Dutch newscast on this, as well as in Forbes and as well as mentioned in other sources “Berlusconi, who said he won’t seek the executive position but rather prefers to become Finance Minister, has seduced the masses saying he will repeal a property tax imposed by Monti, returning about €4 billion ($5.4 billion) to the people by refunding taxpayers’ 2012 payments” so with all the shortages, they add to the non-debt resolving side. We can debate whether it is the right or the wrong thing to do. In my view it is an Italian choice and it is their right to choose. Whether right or wrong, it is however interesting that Berlusconi seeks the Finance Ministers position. With him being a connection to Goldman Sachs as a (former) international advisor? It also means that the Italian deficit will be upped by another 5.4 billion dollars. This implies that Italy is less interested in getting their deficit down.

My issue is that according to the numbers Goldman Sachs is one of the banks retaining their gains these last years. I have nothing against that as I do have a capitalistic side. There is however a realistic side to profit, and many greed driven organisations seem to remain very unrealistic. With the ties he had/has, and the rules of the game so unaltered. I worry about what will happen to the Italian debt during the next government term.

Here is the link between this all. This was discussed by the Independent. “What price the new democracy? Goldman Sachs conquers Europe”. In there they made the following statement: “Instead what you have in Europe is a shared world-view among the policy elite and the bankers, a shared set of goals and mutual reinforcement of illusions.” (Nov 18th 2011). I could not have said it any better.

Now we get to the juicy part. Should Berlusconi get elected, and then we will suddenly read on how certain realignments of bad banks will be needed? There will be a change, and of course Goldman Sachs will get their share. It is all nice and legal. No matter how they react, whether Europe breaks apart, whether the costs will once again be set into other places. We are looking at an additional total debt increase of half a trillion dollars (across the EEC) and Goldman Sachs will get their share. So why are the European legislations not dealing with this clearly visible weak flaw?

Now, here is where I get to go on thin ice. The conspiracy theorist in me might think that this is what the power players from the US had in mind from the beginning. From their point of view governments are obsolete! Especially when these governments are getting in the way of highly desired profits, commissions and personal wealth goals.

Politicians seem to get pushed into an ego trip (in some cases they are simply with their backs against a wall). They do not cover their budgets and get the back of these strong players to get visibility and media to do the things that should be investigated and questioned on many levels. The Dutch SNS was a clear example. However other banks and acting parties should not be forgotten. The ABN/Amro Bank was one of these banks that required nationalisation. They are linked in all this with connections to the Royal Bank of Scotland (who was having a nice go at acquiring ABN/AMRO). And again here comes Goldman Sachs around the corner, having a nice juicy finger in all of these matters. They were in an investigation regarding Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) traders. They were not guilty, as some people forgot to disclose certain matters. However, the LA Times reported this on October 12th 2010: “Hedge fund operator John Paulson a key player in SEC case against Goldman Sachs. His firm made $15 billion in 2007 by betting that Americans would default on their home loans in droves.” From my point of view, that is not all they betted against.

Why am I so against Goldman Sachs? The issue is not Goldman Sachs; they are not breaking any law. It is the politicians that walk away with golden futures, creating bad banks and leaving the population to work of the debt through taxation, a population left with forever less and less. Soon this can no longer remain affordable and Italy seems likely the next one moving into this direction. This is where banks and large corporations become in charge and we get to work past retirement ages to fill the need of their greed. This is a need that is eternal and will never be satisfied. If you doubt me, then look at the list of nations that was able to keep their budget. It seems that only Belgium made their budget, and that might only have been because they were without a parliament racking up cost for the most of 2011. They even celebrated their new parliament after a record 541 days without a parliament on December 11th 2011. So that would definitely helped in keeping the cost down.

So back to the headline I started with “The Italian menace?”
Is it Silvio Berlusconi the menace? Possibly! If he continues on a path that does not stop the rising debts.
Is Italy the menace? Possibly! If they do not get a handle on their debts. In this case I mean a solution where they pay for their massive overspending from more than the last decade, mostly under Silvio Berlusconi.
Will the Italian menace end the EEC? Likely! If debts keep on rising, and as insurmountable debts are taken as write off’s against retirement funds and national treasuries. It is not impossible that Italy becomes the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Should you consider that this could never happen, then think again. The same was said about the SNS bank and that puppy is now a nationalised one (but it seems that for now it is not house broken).

This has happened again and again. This is not just about the banks. Politicians are also to blame. For that I would like to mention papers like “Investing in Greece: an Olympic opportunity”. It came from Costas Bakouris in 2001. The thoughts were all fair enough. However, how much came to happen? How much money did come in?

Most facts point towards the information that the Olympics cost double from what was budgeted and out of the amount approaching 10 billion a lot less then budgeted came in.
There was the article called “Business and investment prospects strong after Olympic Games triumph” Which was released after the games of 2004. In December 2004, through the newspaper USA Today. It was published in December 2004. The interesting part of the second story is that there was no name attached to it. So what was THAT source?

Even though the Olympics are a unique event, the financial consequences are real and high. Yet, there were no visible budget cuts and massive cuts were required. But wait, here is super hero/villain Goldman Sachs to help with the presentation of it all.

The Olympics were the most visible, but not the only one. This is what Felix Salmon wrote for Reuters on February 9th 2010 (exactly 2 years ago). “It’s a bit depressing that EU member states are behaving in this silly way, refusing to come clean on their real finances. But so long as they’re providing the demand for clever capital-markets operations like these, you can be sure that the investment bankers at Goldman and many other investment banks will be lining up to show them ways of hiding reality from Eurostat in Luxembourg.”

In that time, banks wrote cheques for investment events no one could cover. This is clearly shown in the case of the Dutch SNS. And the fun does not stop here. The article “ABN Amro hiring spree targets Asian private wealth” 29 January, 2013 Written by Elliott Holley shows that they are hiring again, with at least 1 person from Goldman Sachs. It is interesting how this small circle gets to go everywhere.

Goldman Sachs does not seem to have broken any laws. Politicians all over Europe seem to have changed very little, and they seem to all extremely willing to get into bed with Goldman Sachs, their ‘golden’ solution. National politics does not seem to regulate banks to the degree that is needed and some governments do not seem to properly regulate themselves either.

When we look at the 2011 EEC numbers we see the following: the largest government deficits in percentage of GDP were recorded in Ireland (-13.1%), Greece (-9.1%), Spain (-8.5%), the United Kingdom (-8.3%). Whilst the Government debt kept on going up and was set at 10 421 987 million Euro, which boils down to 82.5 (% of GDP). (Source: Eurostat News release 62/2012 – 23 April 2012)
They also show that Even though the GDP was set to become negatively in 2012, it had been forecast slightly positive in 2013. There is no proof of that, and whatever taxation was acquired in 2012, Berlusconi wants to hand that back to the people. Consider these numbers. Now add three facts to this equation.

1. The LIBOR scandal (see previous blog) shows how within the UK the percentages had been tweaked. This means that the percentages were incorrect. Now consider that the LIBOR is based on 4 times the planets GDP (adding up to 300 trillion $ as mentioned in several articles).

2. The GDP is the market value of all the final goods and services produced within in a country in a given time period. We have seen how people are without work. Economies are shrinking and services are lost to families all over the EEC. So how does that number keep on going up?

3. The European Economic Forecast, Economic and Financial Affairs (Spring 2012) document shows a picture again way too optimistic. In several nations it seemed to predict that 2013 was a year when things would be turning up. There is NO sign that this is happening. The belts are tightening in nearly all European nations. In addition, when we consider the SNS Property moving into Bad banks, we see that the current need for business property is diminishing due to lack of revenues. From my point of view it implies that the mentioned government debt at 82.5% of GDP (2011) could be as high as 90% of GDP. If that is true, then the overall percentages will hit all harder as the interest rates for government debts should be higher, and their credit ratings might be lower as a consequence.

Now consider that should the debt grow and their rating goes one level down, then that nation might have to pay a percentage on their debt. With governments owning hundreds of billions, an example means that a debt of $300B, if the interest is only 1% that would come down to an annual payment of 3,000 million, just to keep it stable. That means every person pays between 50 and 300 dollars to pay the interest. EVERY PERSON! Now consider that this is not a real problem for most people, however Consider that in Spain 24% has no job, that means that this amount will be paid by 75% of the population with income, so they pay more now. Then consider that the debt needs to go away.

We cannot trust banks as LIBOR shows. The EEC papers show them to think of them in a better state then they are, and the presented numbers are debatable. And as shown from several sources Goldman Sachs is connected to nearly every stage, somehow in some non-criminal way.

So two years later (after the claim by Felix Salmon), where are we now and what bad news is yet to come?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,