Tag Archives: BBC

June 21, 2014 · 20:48

Legally and Criminally Insane?

There is an issue that had been on my mind for a long time. First of all, I do not have a car. I had a motorcycle for a while, but not at present. I never cared for cars that much. When you live in the big city, a car tends to be an expensive asset and it rarely gives you additional time. I learned that if one manages their time correctly you get heaps done without a car. It does not always work that way, I can admit that and for almost half a century, I have only desperately needed a car around 10 times. So, for me, a car is really not that needed.

You might wonder where this is going!

I just read an article, basically the second driver in a series of thoughts (at http://news.sky.com/story/1286644/brakes-slammed-on-over-zealous-spy-cars). The first one is a number of articles all pointing back to speed cameras (at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/10613388/Motorway-speed-cameras-to-be-rolled-out-to-stop-those-driving-faster-than-70mph.html) and a third topic in this matter can be found at http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/trending-news/parking-fines-by-councils-reach-nearly-255-million-in-2013-with-tables-of-the-top-finers-by-local-authority/.

So, why these issues? We have traffic laws (UK, Australia and heaps of other nations). They are not like the three rules I got explained for driving a car in Egypt (in 1982), where it seemed that:

1. If you did not honk your horn, you are at fault.
2. The heaviest car has right of way.
3. A non-Egyptian is always at fault.

They seem simple and pretty much fit the bill.

In most Commonwealth countries we have set rules on speeding and parking. So, I do not get the problem when people start bitching over speeding tickets. Was there a speed limit? There always is and there is always a reason why it did not apply to that person. I reckon 1 out of 250 will have the actual honest defence that they missed the speed limit sign, which gives us 249 people who should keep quiet and just pay up, or should they?

Now, I will admit that I am slightly on the fence towards the topic with the title “Brakes Slammed On ‘Over-Zealous Spy Cars’“. Is that really a wrong approach?

Even though the heart of the matter quoted “These measures will deliver a fairer deal for motorists, ensuring that parking enforcement is proportionate, that school children are protected and buses can move freely, and that key routes are kept clear“, which is fair enough. My issue is that these people parked illegally, so why is that an issue?

The quote “CCTV spy cars can be seen lurking on every street raking in cash for greedy councils and breaking the rules that clearly state that fines should not be used to generate profit for town halls” remains funny as most town halls will never ever make profit, even if we fine roughly 87.2254% of the London motorists, London would still come up short by a sizeable amount.

It is in the area of the parking fines article we see this quote “The capital is extremely congested so we’d expect to see a higher number of restrictions in place and penalties being issued. However, there is a fine line between fair and opportunistic that councils shouldn’t be tempted to cross.” Here I wonder how to react. You see, if the council revokes a driver’s licence after 3-4 fines for no less than one year, it seems to me that the congestion problem will solve itself overnight. I agree that these transgressions are not in the league of Manslaughter or Grievous bodily harm, but laws are laws and are traffic laws any less? (Well, less than murder, yes!) There will always be excuses and some will remain valid.
‘L or P plates correctly displayed at start of journey‘, which in all honesty could happen. There is ‘on medical grounds‘, where the driver was helping a victim into a hospital. There will always be a grey area that we in all honesty must deal with. These are the parking fines and there are a few more valid reasons, but some are just out there. I felt a lot less lenient when it comes to speeding. You see, there is always that joker who thinks he is in control and when speeding goes wrong, he refuses to die for the sake of it, but will have killed someone else. When we read that: “X (name removed) was jailed for eight months for causing death by careless driving“, I wonder why that person is not spending life in jail for murder. the quote “Believing they were walking ‘deliberately slowly’, she engaged the clutch and revved the engine of her Honda Civic to scare them off the road while her car was still moving at around the 30mph speed limit” gives additional feelings of anger. These pedestrians were at a pedestrian crossing? 8 months jail and a two year ban is all she had to do, which in my book seems just wrong.

It is the quote “We are opposed to speed cameras in general. The evidence of their success in promoting safety is not good and in reality what is happening now is that the police are using speed cameras to fund their other activities through speed awareness courses.” by Roger Lawson, a spokesman for the Alliance of British Drivers (ABD) that gives additional concern. Perhaps these measures do not go far enough?

It is currently stated that if you are caught speeding then you will be handed an absolute minimum punishment of three penalty points and a fine of £100. How about making that four penalty points and a fine of £200? Also during special times, like Easter, Christmas and so on, the demerits double, making the driver extra careful. Next we see that ‘if you accrue 12 points on your licence within a three-year period‘, should then in honesty become ‘if you accrue 24 points on your licence within a two-year period‘ the driving ban should be no less than 24 months, no matter how essential your driving license is. If someone states that this is too draconian, then I personally agree as well, but many acts do not change the mind of the driver now, so why not give them something to fear. It seems that public transportation frightens them a lot.

What do we get from this?

That is indeed the question. It seems that a total disregard for parking and speeding rules is getting out of hand, and whilst it seems unfair to some, this is also a possible way to stop congestion. It also stops a little pollution, so we do get a double whammy on this front.

This all gets me to Law and Morality by John Gardner (at http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lawf0081/pdfs/lawmoralityedited.pdf). It should seem clear that my approach is ‘aim to serve the common good (Finnis 1980: 276)‘ and ‘aim to justify coercion (Dworkin 1986: 93)‘. There is no denial that this is about coercing the driver to abide by the rules. We should at that point also consider how unjust the laws of traffic are (if that is the raised issue). But is it?

How often could you not park because someone had taken the spot that was rightfully yours? How often have you or someone you directly known to be in almost direct danger because of someone speeding? When a population above a certain level states yes to both (as it currently seemed to be the case), should these laws not change to something more draconian?

Is it not so, that in my imaginary change, we are changing the premise that we all have a right to drive a car, into the premise that driving a car is becoming a privilege for those abiding by the set rules? Is this not deprivation of freedom? We are to some extent already imposing those rules to pilots, considering the lack of accidents there, should we not take the same approach with car drivers? Should we not pass a certain parameter to be considered a driver? We demand skills to many environments that are a lot less hazardous, so why not car drivers? You see, as I see it, the car industry had forever been an open field as it was so lucrative to sell to so many people. Now, with the saturation we see, cars are almost too available and gas prices go through the roof. What if it becomes a privilege? What if the car driving population goes down by 20%? Cars might not become cheaper, but gas certainly will as there is a 20% less need. Public transportation will suddenly get a massive boost and the chance that all this reflects on higher safety standards and less need for emergency aid is also a good thing. We will always need emergency services, but consider that they will have on the emergency services. Here is where I got surprised. When we consider the numbers (at http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB13040/acci-emer-focu-on-2013-rep-V2.pdf), we see that in the UK the response for ‘Road traffic accidents accounted for 1.4 per cent of type 1 department attendances in 2012/13‘. That was a number I did not expect to see, so am I looking in the wrong direction? When we look at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/255125/road-accidents-and-safety-quarterly-estimates-q2-2013.pdf, we see a rolling statistic of 1785 killed and 23,530 regarded as killed or seriously injured, which makes the Accident and Emergency (A&E) data in England a slight question. Especially as we regard page 17 of that PDF and the spread of the traffic cases on page 22. Well, No! The numbers make perfect sense; it just shows that the 23,000 are well spread over the timeline; it is just that these 23,000 are in the end only 1.4%. Yes, in case you wonder, I did notice they are not all from the same frame, but we see only a few percent change over these time frames, so that overall the picture is still usable for the most, just that the relief for Accident & Emergency would be minimal (alas). I had hoped that the traffic changes would lessen their work a lot more.

So, am I just trying to add morality to a traffic case? Gardner explains that at times morality needs law, just as law is in need of morality at times. So we are still with the question, is adding draconian measures to traffic laws morally considerable, or will the act result in a lack of morality for the law? That issue is brought to light when Gardner gets to item 4. “Does law have an inner morality?” There we have a nice consideration. Is morality not a setting of norms, hence in reflection is it not a form of discrimination? I am doing that by discriminating against the transgressors, but am I doing this in an unbalanced way? If we accept that morality is seen as a system of values and principles of conduct, and the bulk of people break speed limits, is the morality of speeding not one that should change? If almost all break the speed limit, is the law not unjust to being with and as such is this law, draconian or not a transgression of accepted morality and therefor a law that should not exist?

The facts now fit the statement that Roger Lawson gave us, is this about funding, or about safety? That is not easily answered and without knowing the true and complete course of the 1785 killed. How many got killed through speeding? If we accept that the UK has roughly 34.8 million cars in use, should 0.00525% decide the consequence of the rest? When we look at the deaths, that is what we see; we get 0.0676% if we include the wounded. So, when looking at this, no matter how we twist or turn the data, well over 99% suffers because of a few. There is no question that none of this changes for the victims of these events, but it shines a harsh light on certain aspects of traffic safety and the approach it has. Should the laws change however? There is growing evidence at this point that my Draconian approach is just not the way to go, it shows an increasing tendency to be unjust. We can all agree that unjust laws should not be followed. But in the second degree, are the current laws too harsh?

Here we have several other factors to consider. If congestion is the cause of many evil, then my draconian approach survives the test as it solves part of the problem, yet will it solve the situation? There is no real way to tell. We should however question whether we want to take away the car as a basic freedom, because that is what a car embodies and revoking freedoms is as we can all agree highly immoral.

It seems like we took an opposition approach and through this we learned that people like Eric Pickles and Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin have a clear case. The same could be said for Roger Lawson, which takes us to the question whether the UK should consider losing the speed limits all together. Would you believe that someone made that case? Norfolk Police Crime Commissioner Stephen Bett did this and makes a good argument for it, which gives wonder on what to do next? He stated “If we are going to do anything about speed and villages we ought to take down all the signs and say all villages are 30mph [48km/h] and you drive on roads like they do in Germany and Italy, as road conditions say”. So if this works in Germany and Italy, why should the UK not go that same way? It cannot just be the weather as the weather in Germany can be even more treacherous as it is in the UK. Is it not also the case that the simpler any traffic issue is, the less confusion we are likely to face? The Egyptian example at the beginning is an extreme one, but does show the effectiveness of simplicity (except for rule three which can be scrapped in Common Law on grounds of discrimination).

Perhaps some changes the UK could get by learning from its neighbours, who knows, perhaps after this the French, Dutch and others will follow the Italians and we might get a reasonable equal traffic system (one can only hope). The end of the article comes down on Stephen Bett stating “UK motoring organisations have dismissed Bett’s comments, with the Guild of Experienced Motorists describing them as ‘just nonsense’“. But is that so? The numbers seem to be in his favour, the evidence of simplicity as generic evidence has been proven again and again, so is it all nonsense or is Stephen Bett onto something? Even though he stepped aside as PCC while an investigation is carried out into his expenses (since yesterday), the points he made should be seriously investigated, especially if proof can be given that simplicity drives down the number of accidents and transgressions, which is a win/win for all people.

So as I see it, the act to add Draconian laws seems almost criminally insane, which is actually what is happening in Spain, but we will get to that in due time when we see the results of Spain implementing such harsh rules.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as Aus, BBC, CCTV, Draconian law, Drivers license, Dutch, Egypt, Eric Pickles, France, Germany, GOV.UK, HSCIC, Italy, John Gardner, Law and Morality, Mindfulmoney, Norfolk, Norfolk Police Crime Commissioner Stephen Bett, Patrick McLoughlin, PCC Stephen Bett, road accidents, Roger Lawson, Sky News, Spain, speed limit sign, Speeding, Spy Cars, Stephen Bett, Telegraph, Traffic Law, Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin, UK

June 15, 2014 · 10:50

Rising rates from just economy?

It is not always that one wakes up badly to ‘good’ news, but there you have it! When looking at http://news.sky.com/story/1281763/interest-rate-rise-signals-end-of-crisis, we see the changes that are now at odds when we consider the end of a crisis.

The question becomes, why am I not all in glorious ‘hurray!’ on this one? The economy is getting better, the time line which I proclaimed since early 2013 has indeed been correct. All these people following some economic analyst on half-baked data have been proven wrong, so why am I not happy?

That is because this has all to do with what we call in Australia ‘Fair Dinkum‘. I have always believed in this and matters are not in any dinkum stage and they are a lot less fair.

The quote “With the economy recovering faster than anticipated, analysts predict the interest rate hike could even come as early as this year” is at the heart of this. You see, the economy has become strangely unbalanced. As powers had been given to big business, leaving many nations with certain levels of legalised slavery, we see that their businesses are indeed getting better, there is more commerce and as such, things should be getting on par for all. There is the crux, ‘on par for all’. That is the part that is no longer in the stated cost of business. For those working people, who has not heard the following “this is for <insert name of large company>, we have to finish this off today“, “if we lose this client, we have to let go more staff members” or “we can’t afford to keep slackers around“. On average well over 80% of the workers will have heard these phrases in their work environment. The BBC published this in 2005 (at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4149835.stm). The quote “Britons work so much unpaid overtime they are, on average, providing their employers with free work for the equivalent of nearly eight weeks of the year“. That was in 2005. I feel certain that this number is a lot higher now. So, it comes to companies getting almost 20% of free workforce and they are not in any hurry to change these numbers, which makes for two dangerous issues. One is that as this had not been dealt with the effect of legalised slavery grows and grows, which in term stops these people from adding people to the workforce, which means that the unemployment rate is not dealt with, so the end of a crises is not yet in sight and rate rises give a signal that almost 10% of the UK population are about to get worse off. When we look at two quotes from the same BBC article “People don’t tend to feel resentful because the whole bonus and compensation system is geared up to rewarding people for their performance” and “The whole thing’s just money driven. If people don’t feel their bonus is reward enough they’ll just leave and go somewhere else“, these two quotes ignore several markers. One is that bonuses are often for management only and the people working overtime are not paid for it. The second marker is that the term ‘go somewhere else’ is often not even an option, which makes for these two observations to be inaccurate and also guiding marks to how office slavery tends to get legalised. These parts are only emphasised by the small fact the BBC mentioned “Londoners do the most – putting in 7hrs 54mins extra per week“, that adds up to one day a week of unpaid work ‘free labour for the manager‘, do you have any idea how many billions this adds up to?

So when we see the end of the crises motion, we should regard this as an additional signal that exploitation is quite possibly reaching an almost uncanny height!

Let me be blunt to ‘some’ extent, I am not against working an extra hour every now and then. This just shows dedication to your work, but an average of 8 hours a week is not dedication, but clear exploitation. It is interesting that no one is currently actively researching those bosses is it not?

So how did I get to this when we consider the quote in the Sky News article “the British economy is growing, that jobs are being created, and homes are being built, and that’s part of our economic plan“?

First we have the following BBC article (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27791749) stating the following “The number of people out of work fell by 161,000 to 2.16 million, bringing the unemployment rate down to 6.6%“, which is great news. The second quote to consider is “But the quarterly rate of earnings growth, including bonuses, slowed to 0.7% from 1.9% the previous month“. So, are these connected? Consider the following “The number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance in May fell by 27,400 to 1.09 million, the ONS said“. So the jobs created are not on par. Yes, there are less seeking a job seekers allowance, but that is not the only source. It seems that jobs are shifting, but how many people ended up with multiple jobs just to get the bills paid?

In my view the last quote gives us the angle “Weak pay growth and the ‘cost of living crisis’ remains the Achilles heel of the economic recovery, said Chris Williamson, chief economist at Markit.” This is where the elements meet. Yes, the UK is getting stronger, but what side is getting stronger? If we consider those happy to even have a job and working one day a week for no pay, then the bosses are mighty happy, yet when we consider the payments required getting by, we see a dangerous side that is now rearing its ugly head. I think it is important EVERYWHERE in the Commonwealth that we do not end up with some kind of Wal-Mart example, where the working people ending up on food stamps and government support because their income still keeps them below the poverty line. Whatever the republic on the other side of the Pacific river (for people in the UK it is that nation on the other side of the Atlantic river) wants to do, but we as children of the British Empire (I like the old titles at times) have a sworn duty to ourselves and to our sovereign Queen to make lives better for all of us as well as for our country. We do not deny our bosses their profits, but they are required to give us the fair share of our labour, unpaid overtime to the extent it is pushed onto many of us is massively unacceptable.

It is perhaps the one blemish that is still undealt with if we consider the following (at https://www.gov.uk/overtime-your-rights/overview), where it states “Employers don’t have to pay workers for overtime. However, employees’ average pay for the total hours worked mustn’t fall below the National Minimum Wage” I think it is up to the Prime Minister (David Cameron) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (George Osborne) to change that part into “Employers don’t have to pay workers for overtime. However, employees’ total overtime hours worked must never exceed 10% of the paid hours worked a week”. I just saved the people in London half a day of non-paid working hours, which might get more people into jobs as well.

I will of course as per today humbly accept my knighthood (should it be offered).

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

Tagged as BBC, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Chris Williamson, David Cameron, George Osborne, Markit, ONS, Sky News, unemployment rate, unpaid overtime, Wal-Mart, www.gov.uk

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 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

April 2, 2014 · 05:14

The reality of decimation

This is not an academic piece, I would personally state that to some extent this is not even a sane piece, but is it an incorrect piece? That is indeed the question we must ask ourselves. Consider the events as they have plagued us for a little over 20 years.

This piece partially started with the UN report on the environment, but some of the elements have been on my mind for some time now. This is not about the War in Iraq or Afghanistan; this is about something a lot more basic.

Let us start with the UN report on Climate Change 2014 (at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/climate-change-threat-food-security-humankind)

It is also good to take a look at the policy maker’s summary titled Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (at http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf )

We should consider the quotes that the Guardian article gives us.

First there is “The summary mentioned the word ‘risk’ more than 230 times, compared to just over 40 mentions seven years ago, according to a count by the Red Cross“.

My first counter is that this is not an event that has grown for only 7 years, these events and risks have been in place for well over two decades, the people in governmental power and the power players of big business are no longer aligned. Money only gets you ‘alignment’ to a certain degree. If you doubt this, then consider the power Big Tobacco had from the 70’s until the early 90’s. In the Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business (at http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1606&context=njilb) we see the quote “tobacco companies argued that plaintiffs assumed the risks of smoking. They also capitalized on the fact that they could afford the best lawyers to defend against generally under-funded plaintiffs“.

This is only the first quote where government has been holding its hands over the heads of big business for far too long. It is nothing short of treason against your own population (a slight exaggeration, I admit). It is not just their best lawyers against the plaintiffs, there has been a host of events where political powers had been ‘softly motivated’ to take a stance for the economic growth of a nation, whilst selling its people straight down the drain.

The second quote to consider from the Guardian is “Other food sources are also under threat. Fish catches in some areas of the tropics are projected to fall by between 40% and 60%, according to the report” (the part I saw did not specify the size of the area, or the exact locations).

Consider the amount of nations depending on their livelihood on fishing for themselves and their families, not to mention for whatever income from selling it to others in villages and cities. The claim ‘some areas’ is a loosely placed term I reckon. Consider the massive requirements for Japan alone. There is no evidence what so ever that this will lighten up any day soon. The events of fish shortage will grow above the mere population. A change to that effect will have a massive yield on the oceanic biosphere and as such mass extinction events on our fauna are almost a given certainty. So as we see the events there, we will see that the impact will soon thereafter hit waterbirds which will affect another chain of feeders. The third quote is “Almost everywhere you see the warming effects have a negative effect on wheat and there is a similar story for corn as well“.

Even though, to some part there is a claim that longer warm timeframe might yield some positive benefits, the overall consequence is that the events will be negative. Hunger will soon be an issue that stretches far beyond the third world nations, did anyone consider this?

The report is massive, so digging into this will take some time (after I get it downloaded, which is never easy from the UN document server), in the meantime, follow the next link to take a look at a document now released from the US State Department (at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/219038.pdf)

Now let us go into the deep end. We have seen how being nice, how ‘finding’ a compromise will not get us anywhere. If you doubt this, then consider the fact that several nations are now, after giving us some ‘good news management’ additional grief will soon be gotten by the Dutch (at https://www.nvm.nl/nl-nl/actual/maart_2014/asscher_in_zomer_kijken_naar_lastenverlaging.aspx). They will be looking at lowering the costs for the Dutch population. Consider that the Dutch debt is currently in excess of 25,000 euro’s per citizen. Again, politicians will be trying to spend money they do not have. Even more hilarious, is the fact that they will not have that money for at least half a decade. If we consider this in regards to the UN FCCC report, where we see that climate is not just hitting us, many nations will have to pour billion upon billions into places to prevent flooding’s and other climate calamities. In this light, we will not have any lightening of economic pressures before 2018. The Dutch are not alone in this. The UK, France, Spain, Italy and to some effect even Germany will have to spend large amounts of money. If there is truth to the downward spiral of the climate, what will happen to France when their wine economy takes a 20%-30% tumble? (This is not a found number, that percentage is a mere estimation from other numbers in the UN FCCC report). Such a tumble will devastate the France GDP, which means that their debt will almost literally drown them.

So what is a solution?

Well, to safe our planet we might have to become drastic. The fact that politicians will not act and at the first sign of good news (managed or not), they will try to keep the status quo so that they look good (and leave it to the next person in office). This has been going on for some time and it has been happening in nearly every nation. So, we could rig the game and get rid of 4.7 billion people. It is not a happy act and if it happens I will unlikely to remain (or be allowed) in the ‘surviving’ group.

You see, healthcare, retirement shortages and lesser productivity (in the eyes of big business), would mean that we are to be removed from life. There is additional evidence for that. When we consider the words of the BBC (at http://www.bbc.com/news/health-26818377), where it is quoted “Risk of death by any cause over the course of the study was reduced by 42% for seven or more (up to around 10 portions a day)“.

Are they for real? When I was growing up, I had three meals a day. My lunch could include a sandwich with sliced cucumber and tomato and there were greens at dinner. That makes for two helpings. My grandfather lived to a ripe old age on those meals. So, who is paying these people to state 7-10 portions a day? Let us not forget that the UN FCCC report will have something to say about that. The IPCC report stated (at https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html) “Productivity of some important crops is projected to decrease and livestock productivity to decline“. This is not a global thing, but overall the population is still rising and food would be getting scarcer.

So, that option of decimation, which would be unfortunately for me, is starting to make sense. So how will we go about it? Will certain groups get targeted? When we see the HealthCare and retirement options as they dwindle then getting rid of anyone over 45 makes statistical sense (not morally). Alas, we are not that fortunate. If we consider the population numbers, as shown by the UN, Dept. of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2011), we would also have to shed a little over 75% of the population that is between 15 and 44. How to go about that? If we take the people over 30, our population will face the reality that we saw in the movie ‘Logan’s Run‘. We could of course use the classic ‘Soylent Green‘ as an example, which also solves the food issue for all non-displaced citizens. Perhaps the list will be diminished in the way it was sung by Gilbert and Sullivan in ‘the Mikado‘ through the song ‘As some day it may happen’, “none of them would be missed”, I do however request and require that Nigel Farage will not be allowed to make that list (#JustSaying).

So, if you are currently extremely nervous about what will happen next then do worry, I definitely do! No matter how we will be dealt with (through hunger, war or just permanent removal). The consequence will be a global one. If we can rely on statistics is that within 40 years, if untouched through war, two civilisations remain, the Indian and the Chinese one. It is a simple consequence of the numbers as these two represent 36% of the planet, which means that no matter how much we get ‘culled’, either natural or unnatural, they would then be the only two remaining governments with the size that would places them in power.

All this reads like a joke, but it is far from it. As we have seen governments go into the acts of managed good news, whilst slowly giving us the bad news little by little (as the economic meltdown has shown), we will soon see similar acts by ‘spokespeople’ on how soon crops are grown with almost no water, how we see the use of Genetically Modified crops. The Economists had an article, which is not that relevant, but the quote in there “genetically modified (GM) crops pose health risks” is. The truth is that this is not true as I see it. Actually, we just do not know what the true dangers are. I feel that there is a risk, but there is no actual evidence (at present) that there is a danger. There is in my view indeed a risk, but no long term evidence exists. We are then in the same place as people were with Big Tobacco in the 70’s onwards. Big Tobacco had too much ‘protection’ and as such governments remained idle for far too long. Genetically Modified foods are likely to go into a similar field, but this time governments cannot stand idly by. The cost will be too great when it goes wrong. So am I against GM foods? I feel uncertain, until the long term dangers are known we should not proceed, yet if the shortages in food, space and water are truly coming, what can we do then? Consider that the global population grows by the size of the population of Germany every year, which is the 16th largest nation. Also consider that children 0-6 have the highest need for good food and clean water to survive, now see these items diminish as there is less, there are more mouths to feed and the climate change is soon making it harder on all of us.

The next two generations will likely be the hardest ones in the history of our planet. Never before was mankind hit by so many elements all at once. They will inherit a polluted planet, they will inherit debts unlike anything we ever faced and if the Status Quo does not change really fast, they will walk this world in an environment that could be near extinction on land, in the sea and in the air.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Science

Tagged as BBC, Big Tobacco, China, climate change, FCCC, Gilbert and Sullivan, India, Japan, Logan's Run, Nigel Farage, NVM, population, Soylent Green, the Guardian, the Mikado, UN report on Climate Change 2014, UNFCCC, US State Department

March 9, 2014 · 17:39

Is gender equality too futuristic?

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

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

How is all this connected?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Albert Einstein, BBC, Canberra Times, Cathy Campos, CNN, Dona Bailey, General Jeffrey Sinclair, Graner Ray, International Woman’s Day, Jane Jensen, Jimmy Saville, Law school, Mark Zuckerberg, Max Clifford, Mirrorsoft, Neelie Kroes, NY Times, Panache PR, Peter Molyneux, polygon, Radio Australia, reuters, Robert Maxwell, Roberta Williams, Soraya Chemaly, the Guardian, the Huffington Post, the Washington Post, Twitter, UK Prime Minister, USA today, UTS

January 28, 2014 · 20:42

For free or for naught?

It is less than a day after I wrote the previous blog ‘The danger ahead’, now I read in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27/nsa-gchq-smartphone-app-angry-birds-personal-data) that the quote I made in yesterday’s blog “Speed and disregard of proper development has allowed for open access to many computers and devices, which allows for almost complete collection and stored and such storage can only be done by just a few. This open level of availability allows the NSA and GCHQ (amongst others) to collect open source intelligence, hoping to gain the upper hand in the war on terror.“, which is close to what the Guardian reported, as well as what is currently shown on Sky News!

At this point, I am looking at a few issues and the more I look at the data that the press is stating, the more I see that Edward Snowden is more than just a traitor. He claims being a victim in a German TV interview (at http://www.dw.de/wanted-dead-by-us-officials-snowden-tells-german-tv/a-17388431), where he speaks the fear that he is being targeted for long term sleep therapy (aka ‘terminal sleep’).

The ‘problem’ is that the issue is not just Snowden. The more I look into the breaches, the more I look into a possible functional approach on the way the NSA server parks (plural) are set up, the more I am convinced that not only was Edward Snowden not alone in this all, I feel some level of certainty that this person might still be in the NSA, endangering both NSA and GCHQ as well as other allied monitoring agencies.

The humongous amount of ‘revelations’ that are claimed in the name of Snowden do two things. First of all it turns Benedict Arnold in a stumbling saint (I just had to wash my mouth with soap for making such a claim). Linked to this is the fact that the many dozens of operations as his ‘revelations’ seem to touch on would have been on at least a dozen of servers (as projects are spread around). The fact that NSA uses an upgraded edition of SE-LINUX means that a system with logs and mandatory access control cannot get transferred to such a degree. The fact that IT and security monitors it all, as well that he was civilian contractor means that his name should have popped up a dozen times. Even if he used other accounts, the logs should have triggered alerts all over the field when they were scanned through solutions not unlike a program like Palantir Government.

The claims I am making are growing in reliability with every ‘revelation’ that is being made. There is however another side that is now the consequence of all these whingers and whiners about ‘their privacy‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27/tech-giants-white-house-deal-surveillance-customer-data). We now enter a field where it is important to realise that the new situation could be regarded as a danger.

It is linked to a previous newscast where President Obama was considering moving telephony data out of government hands (at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/23/government-privacy-board-members-say-shifting-nsa-data-to-third-parties-is-a-bad-idea/)

As stated before, this is a really bad idea. Consider that criminals, if enough money is in play, can use places like HSBC to launder their money (I am not talking about forgetting your wallet whilst washing your jeans), but the idea that commercial enterprises can get away with these events for just a 5 week fee (at http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/07/16/hsbc-helped-terrorists-iran-mexican-drug-cartels-launder-money-senate-report-says/, as well as http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/uk-standardbank-fine-idUKBREA0M0LF20140123) is a lot more dangerous than many realise. Handing data storage out of government hands is just too dangerous. I am steering away from the issue whether the monitoring program should go on or stop. The intelligence community needs to do what it needs to do. Leaving that data with third parties is just not an option. The worst case scenario would see the US government paying out billions if any data leading to a registered IP ends up in ‘other’ hands. Once that evidence is ever given, the US would lose whatever credibility they ever thought they had.

At this point the title can be used as a joke. What is the difference between for free and for naught? Someone got rich for free, the US got rich for naught! That would end up being the reality of a project that was meant to map levels of global terrorism. This joke only gets stronger when we see another ‘view of shock’, but now from Google CLO David Drummond (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-25911266). It is hard to state against his view, or the premise of the company. These carefully pronounced statements from legal eagles are to be expected from many firms for some time to come. There is however a commercial positive view (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25914731). Here we see how entrepreneurs in makeup and clothing are showing options to avoid detection. In more than one instance it is stated to be metal based, so standing next to airport detectors should be fun soon enough. I wonder how much more would get checked when the boxers or briefs are also metal based.

So whether we get entertainment for free or fashion for naught will be discussed by many soon enough, the main fact remains. If we want to remain safe, then data needs to be collected. It is not for free, or for naught. It is for the simple reason that the world is filled with bad people; some will go any distance to hurt as many as they can. Our governments have a duty to keep us safe, it is only fair that they are given the tools, the methods and the opportunity to do so.

This does get us to the final part (or final side) to these events. This morning, the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/28/microsoft-rules-out-back-door-access-to-mps-electronic-communications) reported on backdoor access allegations. The quote “Both Ludlam and South Australian independent senator Nick Xenophon have been concerned about the security of Australian parliamentary communications since the Prism surveillance program was first revealed by National Security Agency contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden.” gives the information that was the part of all this. So again we see more resources squandered in regards to Snowden. Do not get me wrong, the question by both Ludlam and Xenophon is fair enough and as such it should be looked at. Whoever wants access to certain information, which might always be the case, could consider Intruding a system, which, unless you are a real expert is getting harder and harder, as it should be.

Yet, capturing and copying frames sent over a router system makes a lot more sense. You just capture it all and decrypt it later. Now, most people will not have the ability to do this, but consider the amount of elements to get this all from user1 to user2 via server X. If you think that this is highly encrypted hard to achieve effort, then think again. The more common the method used, the easier it is to read into it. So, there is a level of entertainment as we see leagues of technicians concentrate on the door of the bank vault, whilst in reality one of the walls is missing. To give you another example, we take a look at a paper by Daehyun Strobel, Benedikt Driessen, Timo Kasper et al (at https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/598.pdf). As we look at the quote “Despite the fact that nowadays strong and well-analyzed cryptographic primitives are available for a large variety of applications, very weak cryptographic algorithms are still widely deployed in real products all over the world.” This relates to the IT issue as, we might have secure servers and powerful password rules, but files are send from one computer to another via the ‘internet’, which goes via a router system (no matter how you twist or turn it). So, as someone gets to any router on the track and wireshark’s the traffic, the stream can be rebuilt. From there the hacker still faces a few obstacles, but you better believe that above a certain skill level, this data can be retrieved. So what exactly are we all crying about?

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics

Tagged as BBC, Benedict Arnold, Benedikt Driessen, Daehyun Strobel, David Drummond, Edward Snowden, Edwrd Snowden, Forbes, GCHQ, google, Guardian, HSBC, Ludlam, Nick Xenophon, NSA, Palantir, Palantir Government, President Obama, Routers, SE-Linux, Snowden, TCP/IP, Timo Kasper, Wireshark

January 27, 2014 · 04:45

The danger ahead

It was the BBC that gave me an insight I had not been aware of. It is easy to miss an item, even though I have been involved in IT on many levels for over 3 decades. It is just not possible to keep it all in focus all the time.

It is kind of fun to consider the words of my late grandmother. It was the only issue we could never see eye to eye on. She had an expression ‘Johnny of all, master of none‘. It was not a positive expression! I always went the other way in that regard. Whilst most went to some ‘temporary’ master as they mastered a certain niche skill. I went into the width of IT. I got exposure to such a wide field that my knowledge covered the entire foundation of IT (yes, in the time of the mainframe). After that I started to grow the base of this knowledge trying to evenly grown my knowledge of all IT fields (to some degree). My knowledge grew from programming, to consulting, to training and so on.

So where is this going?

I wrote at an earlier date about IT and the iteration approach to IT (at ‘Year of the last Euro?‘). The entire field goes a lot further. In an age of the similar devices, last week as I was prohibited from moving for 4 hours, I decided to let my mind wander and I came up with an entirely new Notebook. I categorise it as a fat notebook and I call it the ‘True Mobile System’. In an age where Sony, Asus, IBM et all seem to come up with a different names for the same flavour, my mind designed a new approach to a mobile business system.

Was it clever? Not sure! The issue is that many could have come up with it and either they are limited to what their boss dictates or they are just not thinking in a user based forward motion. Here lies the crux of many issues we have seen lately. Their way of thinking is not user based. It is often revenue based, there is a HUGE difference!

If you have read my previous blogs (especially ‘Fifth in a trilogy!‘) then you might notice a trend. In my mind most corporate IT is now all about what is in charge, not who! So as marketing decides on deadlines and evolutions, many learn the hard way that marketing is basically the extension of the CFO (and/or the stakeholders) and as such it is all about the money. If development is the science, then marketing should be seen as the ‘tainted’ picture. The problem is that too many CEO’s and others are all about this tainted picture (and as such the perception of what comes next), the science/engineering side gets too often ignored, or just briefly listened to and after that they get shut down and pushed forward to meet the deadline.

In that regard I still see the game ‘Assassins Creed 4’ (yes that pirate game), which could have been truly great and ended up being less than that (at least in my personal view)! The same can be said for business based ideas. If we consider this message (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25859360), where Google Chrome might be considered an eavesdropping risk, then what is safe to users?

The quote “The malicious site you visited can continue listening in on you long after you have left it said Mr Ater. As long as Chrome is still running nothing said next to your computer is private.” gives ample reason for worry. The danger from our side is that this could be a topic for conspiracy theory. Was this really ‘accidental’? I am not saying it was not or was not. It is however interesting how we as computer users have been exposed to a massive amount of security flaws in the last year alone.

In my mind, is this due to shoddy programming, or is their local marketing so set on certain deadlines and as such proper testing is no longer done? I personally think it is a combination of the latter two. As additional ‘evidence’ in my train of thought, my recent Yahoo experience comes to mind.

I have been a faithful Yahoo user since the early 90’s, for me it always sufficed. The e-mail was robust, it gave me the space I needed and as such I never regretted it. Yet, since the ‘remake’ of Yahoo it changed by a lot. The amount of failures I viewed are on a new low level of customer experience and as such, at present I am seriously considering leaving Yahoo mail and move to Google permanently.

The feedback does not have any options for filing bugs or complaints. It is all about ‘submit an idea‘ and ‘send public feedback‘. To me this all seems like the marketing image left by someone who should be lobotomised and left somewhere far away from any IT endeavour (preferably forever). Yahoo mail now exposes us to additional dangers as we no longer see a status bar in certain places. So, we no longer see ‘the’ link, which I consider a bad thing. The new system also ‘assumes’ spam, so I now have to scan my spam even more often. I can no longer sort by sender, which means that organising my inbox take a massive amount of time longer. The list goes on and on. Is it marketing at the expense of functionality? To be honest, I would need a little more evidence before I can state that as a fact to some level, but the deadline push has been visible with too many corporations and for far too long.

These issues go a lot further when you consider the article called ‘Android’s biggest security flaws‘ at ZDNet (at http://www.zdnet.com/androids-biggest-security-flaws-1339338283/). As they mention the dangers of inexperienced and malicious developers, they actually forgot about the third group, the ‘callous developer’. These firms (not the individual programmer), who are all driven to meet certain deadlines and as such might not properly test or secure their application.

It is important to note that I do not see the inexperienced developer as a real threat. Yes, they offer the same level of danger, but they are not out to harm you. You, the user, who wants applications for free (as many do) should not blame that new person for trying to get a foothold. If that developer is to be held for one thing, then in my mind it would be that too many of these freebies should bare the mark ‘Beta’ or ‘Trial’, to add an extra warning level for user downloading their new endeavour.

The big issue becomes: ‘What to do about Android?’

As the influence of android increases and interacts with all manner of devices in other ways (like with a person’s Sony-id account, so that a gamer keeps online with friends and achievements when they are not at home), gives way that security flaws become more and more harmful. More important, as we become more and more oblivious of the interaction, we might be spreading all our personal details all over the internet and that danger could grow exponentially with every additional application.

These events also shine an interesting light on an article that was in the Guardian last Friday (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/24/justify-gchq-mass-surveillance-european-court-human-rights). When we consider the issues I listed on application security, we should take a second look at the quote in the article “Nick Pickles of Big Brother Watch said: ‘This legal challenge is an essential part of getting to the bottom of why the public and parliament have not been properly informed about the scale of surveillance and why our privacy has been subverted on an industrial scale.’”

Perhaps the quote could also be read as “Speed and disregard of proper development has allowed for open access to many computers and devices, which allows for almost complete collection and stored and such storage can only be done by just a few. This open level of availability allows the NSA and GCHQ (amongst others) to collect open source intelligence, hoping to gain the upper hand in the war on terror.”

I am not stating this is the case, but it could be seen as such. In that regard I call for the issue I mentioned in a previous blog called ‘Internet Privacy?‘ on December 27th, where we see the dangers of some applications (at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/dec/27/snapchat-may-be-exposed-hackers). If we consider the dangers consumes are exposed to for whatever reason, it seems odd that Big Brother watch is not more outspoken on the industrial subversion of privacy by software designers.

So here we get back to the beginning of this blog where I wrote “I designed a new way for a mobile business system.” As Microsoft has moved into a field of computers utilising an approach in the air of “With our computers you do not need to use the brain you never had in the first place“. An automated system that assumes all the time to cover 95% of its users, loaded with gaps and security flaws.

People need to get licensed to get a gun, drive a car, a boat or a plane. Yet, the dangers that computers expose us to are currently not dealt with in any serious way. I reckon that in the next two years identity theft and identity fraud will be regularly in the back of our minds, as it grows into the very visible danger it already is. If we look at some of the numbers then I could speculate that 90% of the people will directly know one victim of identity fraud or identity theft. Lexis Nexis, in their paper ‘2013 LexisNexis® True Cost of Fraud Study‘ state numbers that should scare us all. In 2013, 58% of the merchants were confronted with credit card fraud and 36% of the 2013 population was confronted with lost or stolen merchandise. These numbers by themselves are not that useful as such (at http://www.lexisnexis.com/risk/downloads/assets/true-cost-fraud-2013.pdf). Yet consider that 12.6 million U.S. adult victims of identity fraud had to deal on average with $1,653 of damage per fraud victim. The total amount becomes a staggering one and this is just the US! As technology is not properly attuned to a better level of security, but to set to please a growing marketable population these dangers will only increase. This is the true danger ahead, not what the government can see. In that regard Foreign Secretary William Hague is quite correct when he states “law-biding members of the public have nothing to fear“.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Politics, Science

Tagged as Android, Asus, BBC, Big Brother Watch, GCHQ, google, Google Chrome, IBM, IT, LexisNexis, Marketing, Microsoft, Mr Ater, Nick Pickles, NSA, security flaws, Sony, the Guardian, William Hague, Yahoo, Yahoo mail, ZDNet

January 17, 2014 · 04:20

Year of the last Euro?

Wednesday’s news on ‘George Osborne lays down ultimatum‘ seems to have remained a little quiet. So, was it all hot air, or are there silent runners under the waterline? The situation reminds me of a poster I once saw. It was a photograph of water, with the by-line ‘Submarine racing, a spectator sport!‘ I thought it was quite funny. Whilst scanning for the latest on this event, I find several people mentioning it, but no real update for a day. The Guardian article was quite informative (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/15/george-osborne-reform-eu-quits-tory-dismantling ). However, I regard the BBC version of it a little better (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25740462)

The BBC article does however have two items I do find interesting, but they are slightly debatable.

The first one is “I believe it is in no-one’s interests for Britain to come to face a choice between joining the euro or leaving the European Union.” Why is it one or the other? In my view, the only part keeping the EU from collapsing is because the United Kingdom DID NOT embrace the Euro coin. I will get back to this a little later.

The second part is “The 28-member group also had to do more to ensure economic competitiveness with rivals like India and China, he added.”

I feel that the UK could become a lot stronger if the Commonwealth brethren embrace each other as family and as mutual protectors. This means that the UK should become the centre force in group that includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India.

In my view, the issue is that Chancellor Osborne is too adamant to sing-a-long with the American tune. I view this like a game of musical chairs. An iteration game of leave one out! The problem is that this game includes one chair that is only meant for the rear end of America, so it will always have a chair to sit on. They should not even be included in this game, but there you have it, for some reason they are part of the EU game.

So let us get back to the first part as promised. The EU (or EEC if you prefer), has 28 nations. In the GDP rankings the UK is at number three. The issue is that the top 7 has Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Sweden (these 7 are 79% of the entire EU GDP). Only Germany is in a good position, The Netherlands is on the thinnest ice imaginable, whilst Sweden in its economic state seems to remain skating on the ice it has (for now). The rest has gone through the ice and are in a bad place. So, why should the UK risk it all and add themselves to a currency that is drowning itself because the local politicians refused to stop spending when they could, they kept on spending when they should have stopped and now they are in that bad place. Many should be thankful that the UK and Sweden are not part of the Eurozone at present.

In addition, Greece, according to Finance Minister Yannis Stournaras does not need any more austerity (Nov, 2013). Spain stated “The budget is based on a forecast that the Spanish economy will grow 0.7 percent next year, up from the government’s previous forecast of 0.5 percent.” (at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/business/international/spanish-budget-avoids-austerity-measures.html). Yet Bloomberg noted on September 5th “Spain’s bid to meet its budget-deficit target for the first time in five years is running into trouble, fuelling concerns that increased financial stability is masking deeper economic problems.” So, what is actually happening here? Are we witnessing new waves of creative accounting?

In light of all the bad news, it must also be noted that France is at least still fighting to keep the austerity in place, even though President Hollande is slowly becoming the least popular president in French history. I applaud him for standing firm and I do hope he will not share the fate of Louis XVI (a one-time treatment at ‘La Guillotine’). Italy is for now also on the Austerity track, but internal developments are not good and there are signs that Italy cannot continue the course it currently is going. So out of the 6 (not including UK) one is doing decently well, two are on the edge and the rest is for now in a bad place. This is not the time to switch currency, especially as the UK is slowly recovering, to add their heads to a block whilst the Axeman is spending the night away. It is more than just bad politics to do so.

So, we see percentages all over the place, but in the end, what does it mean? Well, let’s take a look at the numbers (as far as I found them, and a stern warning, the numbers are unverified and not from the best sources). In my defence, the numbers do not seem to be clearly presented anywhere.

Sweden, the smallest and not in the worst state is a little over 1 trillion debt at over 180% of GDP, Spain at 2.3 trillion, which is over 150% of GDP, Italy at 2.4 trillion, but interestingly seems to be at almost 100% of GDP, the Netherlands at 2.6 trillion, however the numbers I found place them at almost 350% of GDP, France is at a whopping 5.1 trillion and like Sweden around 180% of GDP, lastly Germany owns over 5.5 trillion at a ‘mere’ 140% of GDP.

Whatever some of these so called economists are trying to tell you (they are hoping you do not revolt against additional borrowing), the current nightmare is far beyond the issues you can imagine. the populations of Sweden is almost 10 million, the Netherlands is at almost 17 million, Spain 47 million, Italy 60 million, France 66 million and Germany at well over 80 million. You see, in the end, the taxpayer gets to deal with these trillions. So, a large nation might seem safe, but consider France, where austerity seems unbearable and with that sizeable population, the debt comes to over 74,000 euro per person. The average income for a Frenchmen is almost 32,000 euro a year (before taxation), which makes the debt more than 2 annual incomes from every implied French resident. So, when people get angry, they need to get angry at previous government administrations that had spent to such a degree that the current debt is unbearable! (Something I have mentioned in several previous blogs.)

This is also the danger of UKIP! I am against the UK moving out of the EU for several reasons, yet the changes could be forcing the current British government to consider the one step that UKIP desires most, what a mess that will make!

Part of the issue I am struggling with is actually in another article in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/15/europe-welfare-spending-george-osborne). I do not agree with parts of it, but the article is well written and the writer Alex Andreou does set out his position very well. So, please do read it for yourself. My issues is with “The fact that as a continent we have embraced values of social security and solidarity, a high standard of education and health for all, and dignity in old age, should be celebrated.” I am all for that and I am in favour of that too, yet governments all over Europe (including the UK) have overspend by such a massive amount that cutbacks in these times are extremely painful. I get it, but previous administrations lived under some umbrella with the picture of a sun, which they took as an eternal summer! Instead of caution, they ignored basic rules and just went all out on a spending spree. Now that all the money is gone, the coffers are instead filled with ‘I OWE U’ notes. When every nation spends more than they are receiving, no one will have any money left, yet governments started to borrow to one another. So, those in debt were borrowing massive amounts to one another, even though no one had any money, is no one catching on? This is my issue! I am all for social security, but if we do not have the money, how can we get it done? In addition, Latvia, the newest member of the Euro states (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25567096 ) “The former Soviet republic on the Baltic Sea recently emerged from the financial crisis to become the EU’s fastest-growing economy.” Is that so, in that regard we can read the following at http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/finances/?doc=83279 “The state budget is projected to have a deficit in 2014, 2015 and 2016, according to the medium-term budget framework that Saeima approved in the final reading yesterday, informs LETA.” so the newest member already goes into deficit from day 1? This is quoted in the following way in the article “The medium-term budget framework is based on the following GDP growth forecasts: 3.7% in 2014, 4% in 2015, 4.1% in 2016, 4.1% in 2017 and 3.9% in 2018.” so already above the limits as stated by Brussels. Compared to the top 7, the amounts they refer to seem peanuts in comparison (al 35 billion of them), the issue is moving forward and gaining economic strength, not add to the massive debt. As I see it, the Latvians have plenty to worry about and in my view; the UK and Sweden would remain well warned and not join the Euro.

Time to get back to issue 2!

I stated earlier “the UK could become a lot stronger if the Commonwealth brethren embrace each other“. As the issues evolve, the Commonwealth should revert to a new British Empire, but only in an economic way (undoing the work of Ghandi looks wrong on way too many levels). One of the big dangers is the Trans Pacific Partnership. Australia and New Zealand are in my view to eager to add their names to an approach that is all about keeping America in ‘power’! Why do I have this view?

There are several articles, but at http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/1/14/technology/tpp-trades-us-clout-expense-innovation we see some of the issues that will bug many in the Commonwealth.

The quote that starts to scratch the surface is “in 2009, total patent applications made through the patent co-operation treaty process from applicants in these nations also exceeded those from North American applicants for the first time.”

This is the fear America has, which is why they are so eager to get all the autographs. You see, as I see it, Americans became (or were in the eyes of some) complacent, lazy and greedy (the American industry, not the people). For example, as I see it, the IT industry took a page from the arms industry and stopped true innovation and replaced it with iteration. A disastrous step as you will soon see. The powers at IBM and Hewlett Packard, as I see it, decided to listen to military giants like Raytheon and Northrop Grumman. So, America went from the innovation based, which brought the leaps from the 386 through to the Pentium II, and we ended with iterations like I3, I5 and I7. Newly coated computers, which now move forward in stepwise motion. The issue is that Asia had a huge delay keeping up and this all changed as their comprehension improved, in addition, it is for technology insiders relatively easy to learn the path of an iterative technology. This is the first step of fear as America is now facing it. Asia has its own group of innovators and in my personal view the passing of Steve Jobs took away one clear path of innovation. When Apple moves in that same iterative path, the last true American innovator will be lost! Now Asia has a massive advantage and as such America needs to clamp down on whatever they can, with the massive debt and no clear future path their world will all be about Intellectual Property! The article touches on it with the following quote “But what if the real motive of one or more parties was to isolate, control, enrich, deprive, penalise and stifle? In effect, to put a toll on the drawbridge.”

This is at the centre, but not at the core of all this. That is why we see the mention that India is seen as a competitor, because for America, they truly are the new competitor. That deadly error was made by the American administration in 2011. Forbes tells us about it in http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrychesbrough/2011/04/25/pharmaceutical-innovation-hits-the-wall-how-open-innovation-can-help/. They published it in April 2011. That story shows only part of it. The quote “The patents granted to these drugs last for 20 years from the date of filing, and since most drugs take 7-10 years to get to market, the pharma companies have known that this moment was coming for the last 10-13 years. It is the logical outcome of a deeper problem, which is that pharma R&D spending has been less and less productive for many years.” gives us two parts. One is that there are clear indicators that the pharmaceutical industry has been working on borrowed time. The second is that the ROI has been dwindling down and that these corporations will face the horror of generic medication as several patents hit the end date in 2015. That means in just over a year, the largest maker of generic medication (India, in case you were wondering) will get to have a go at several extremely lucrative prescriptions. Perhaps you remember news messages on how the FDA was so against Canadian medications. I personally considered that entire issue to be a joke, but the underlying horror for America was already there. I mentioned in other blog articles on the issues I have had with the Dow Jones index (‘Start making sense’, 11^th march 2013). Now consider that the three large pharmaceuticals Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Pfizer represent 10% (3 out of 30) of this index, so America is plenty nervous here. Now take into account that these three will have several expiring patents by December 2015 and that means that within months India could have a quality generic alternative, which is likely to be more than 70% cheaper. Now, be aware that a generic medicine is often less effective than the original. Still, the price difference is huge. It is not just the US; the UK has its own share of pharmaceutical makers, so the knife does cut in two ways in this case. Still, when we need to cut back again and again, India could be a good thing for the Commonwealth at large. So, even though some see the TPP as an option, there is implied evidence that the TPP could strongly block innovation.

How does this link to the Euro? No matter how we twist or turn it, the hard times America will face as it has been facing them for the last few years will intensify as innovation remains absent. That will hit Europe in several ways. The Netherlands already saw that as Merck shut down activities like Aspen Pharmacare. The intertwining of corporations on that level are all over Europe, and as such as American Pharmacies are hit, their European links will suffer a lot more because of it. So, yes, India is a competitor there, but the UK together with Canada and Australia could look for a cooperative solution with India and not see them as the competitor (as America currently does).

So is this all linked to the end of the Euro? Yes! It does however depend on the actions of the UK. If is stops membership, the run on the markets and the panic Germany faces could be catastrophic for the Euro, especially as Germany cannot rely on the pillars named France, Spain and Italy. The other nations are either too weak or too small.

Could George Osborne be wrong?

That depends on your point of view and your allegiance. The latter is implied as I noted the reference to the musical chairs with the one reserved seat. News messages like “the call to end austerity by ‘insiders’ from Brussels”. Yet, in the other light governments must reduce their spending and they need to get clever about it fast. The UK non-working military recruitment solution at 1.3 billion is just one clear example. Pretty much every EU country has its own skeletons. I see that the UK could be stronger as the Commonwealth nations take a route of preference to strengthen their economies, it is clear that such a path in Europe would remain stagnate until late 2015. That does not make George Osborne right, it only means that a European route might work, however it will be a long term path and switching to the Euro (at present) does not seem to be a stable solution for the UK to implement.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as Alex Andreou, America, Aspen Pharmacare, baltic-course, BBC, Canada, Commonwealth, France, George Osborne, Germany, Geroge Osborne, Guardian, Hewlett Packard, IBM, India, Italy, Latvia, LETA, Merck, New Zealand, Northrop-Grumman, NY Times, Pfizer, President Hollande, Raytheon, Saeima, Spain, Steve Jobs, Sweden, The Guardian article, the Netherlands, Trans Pacific Partnership, UK, UKIP, Yannis Stournaras

January 14, 2014 · 15:40

Frack off?

Fracking, it has been a large issue in the Netherlands, now it is starting to get grounds on several levels in the UK. Some of the shown issues can be found at http://news.sky.com/story/1194087/fracking-cameron-offers-councils-drill-money. The first paragraph gives us two of several issues connected to this, as is stated “David Cameron has announced £1.7m for councils which agree to drill for shale gas sparking angry protests from campaigners who say it amounts to little more than bribery.”

The issue is whether the environmental issues are dealt with. The incentive is a powerful one, and the complication is that this is now business against the future, not the consequences set against the present.

Why am I stating this?

One part of that evidence is coming from the Netherlands. The NOS stated “De gaswinning in Groningen leidde dit jaar tot een recordaantal aardbevingen.Gemiddeld twee keer per week: in totaal 127 keer. ” [Translated: the gathering of shale gas through fracking has led to a record amount of earthquakes. At present they are hit with two earthquakes a week, a total of 127 quakes]. The fracking as it is happening under direction of the Dutch NAM is having serious consequences. The quakes have been as high as a 3.7 on the Richter scale. The political field is still all open on finding some way to make this all continue in the Netherlands, which amounts to a strong devaluation of a unique architectural form in the Netherlands. In addition, on November 1st 2013 the following was also quoted by the NOS. “de Nederlandse aardoliemaatschappij NAM zo’n 900 miljoen euro voor compensatie moeten uittrekken.” [Translated: the NAM would have to pay 900 million euro in compensations, dealing with these damages].

[Addition] One reader had issues with the translation as mentioned earlier. In the literal sense, the commenter was correct, yet the information the commenter had not been aware of was (at http://www.nam.nl/nl/technology-and-innovation/optimization-natural-gas/fracking.html). There is however another issue I add to this (25th January 2014). The quote “De techniek wordt al sinds de jaren ’50 regelmatig en succesvol toegepast in Nederland.” [Translated: The technique has been used regularly and succesfully since the 50’s.] The latter part is important for two reasons. First is that fracking had been used a lot longer and in addition, when I grew up there were no earthquakes in the Netherlands (at least none that I was aware of). So what other factors are part of the escalations in the Netherlands? Just more drilling?

Has David Cameron (and his advisers) taken these costs into account? Let’s not forget that Groningen is one of the lesser populated counties in the Netherlands. We are talking about a county with just over 510,000 people, compared to the national population of almost 17 million. Consider these numbers when fracking will commence all over Britain, especially in the southern parts the UK.

Now, the UK does not have the soft ground that is found in the Netherlands, yet the dangers will not be any less. When we look at the quote that Sky News gave us in the earlier mentioned article “The Government estimates the industry could attract £3.7bn a year in investment and support 74,000 jobs.” ‘Could’ is not a given, neither is the damage that the Netherlands are currently facing. I do however wonder about the short sighted look on 3.7 billion, when the UK is dealing with a 1 trillion debt. Now, as I mention this, you will think that this is all a good thing to have something that lowers the total debt and I would agree. However, consider the next quote, also from Sky News “A Local Government Association spokesman said: ‘Given the significant tax breaks being proposed to drive forward the development of shale gas and the impact drilling will have on local communities, these areas should not be short-changed by fracking schemes.’”

So, these companies get even more tax breaks? Remember the old days? A company was visionary and had a good idea. There was no tax break and the tax paying people did not have to pay for their short-sightedness, once it reared its ugly head. Now, the topic of ‘tax break’ seems to be the introduction to any investment conversation. It is better than gambling as it is legally permitted. If it goes wrong they have no worry as no taxes are due, if they win they avoid massive taxation, a slightly rigged game, so to speak.

There are additional issues. Some of the environmentalists talk about the contamination of ground water as well as depletion of fresh water. It is hard to comment on those two claims as I am no expert on it. In one part, groundwater contamination could be avoided if it is properly investigated, yet the 1.7 million pound handout as mentioned in the very beginning could be cause to less vigorous investigation. If so, when the cost of living goes up for those drinking bottled water from 70 pence to lets say 125 pence per 1,5 liter, the issue will then become a colossal one, at which time it will be too late to do anything about it.

In the end, we must acknowledge that these risks have not been proven and as such the calamities the Netherlands are currently facing in Groningen should be investigated in regards to the risks that could exist for the UK. The latest statement by David Cameron “David Cameron said the Government was ‘going all out for shale’” does not qualify as evidence in either direction, but the economic state as it is faced by both Cameron and Osborne implies that they do not seem to be moving in a cautious direction.

The next quote to look at is “Mr Cameron’s announcement comes as the French energy giant Total has announced it will invest millions with a 40% interest in two shale gas exploration licences in the UK.” It is interesting how much France would like to get into this field in the UK, yet they suspended three gas exploration permits in France (exploration is just looking, not active drilling on a production level). There is something to be said for the expression not soiling one’s own bed. Other reports states that fracking would be at the centre of all kinds of water pollution issues. I reckon that being on an island, hazarding once water supply is just not advisable.

If we look at the BBC news (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25705550) we see the final quote. “Councils that back fracking will get to keep more money in tax revenue“. Sky News mentioned the same thing, yet when we look at the tax breaks offered and the possible damages that someone has to pay for, in the end, how much of all that diminished cash will end up in the coffers of the British Empire?

There are loads of considerations and I have strong feelings that only the spread sheet boys have looked at this picture. I wonder how much positivity remains once the fixers, engineers and water boys have taken a deep look at the consequences of this entire endeavour.

Fracking is bad and sees to have dangerous very long term consequences. There is no doubt that there are a few places in the UK where this could be done without harmful consequence. Yet, the French view (pre French super debt date) has been cautious as they have a lot to lose. That cautious approach should have been taken for the Netherlands and the UK should follow along that same path. The realist in me also knows that under these heavy economic pressured the environment will most likely lose, it remains doubtful whether the population will ever get to see a clear and complete picture in regards to the cost of doing business in this regard and fracking could become the most expensive form of business we ever knew.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as BBC, David Cameron, earthquakes, Fracking, George Osborne, Groningen, NAM, Netherlands, Shale gas, Sky News

Tag Archives: BBC

Recent Posts

Archives