Tag Archives: Ben Bernanke

A promised correction delivered

Yes, I have made statements, conclusions I truly believed to be the case. Not because I am smarter (I am actually that), but the fact that everyone started to shout on innuendo and unproven statements by boastful people. I was determined to call their bluff. That is how I am, yet I am also the person that once evidence is given, that I will adjust the views and the position that I have taken before.

So as the Guardian treats us to: ‘Khashoggi’s son leaves Saudi Arabia as prosecutor says killing was planned‘, so as we are now given “Saudi prosecutor’s statement contradicts previous claims that journalist was killed accidentally“, I do remain in the setting that those high and mighty bitches of industry (like JP Morgan Chase and a few others), who were all in some uppity state, are now shown to have walked away prematurely, I reckon that they did many things premature in the bedroom, but to see those same people doing it in the hard cutthroat industry where they are supposed to be the sharks of the 7 giant oceanic corporations was new to many. The Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/25/jamal-khashoggi-killing-premeditated-says-saudi-prosecutor) gives us a lot of goods that are important to take in.

You see, I believe that I was never wrong, I merely wanted to see actual evidence, which is a different setting, the bitches of industry merely relied on innuendo. So when we see: “the Saudi public prosecutor’s office for the first time suggested the writer’s killing was premeditated“, a setting where we see ‘suggested‘ as the operative word, but from a legal source that gives the mere word ‘suggested’ at a much higher weight then the journalistic unnamed source could ever be. In addition to the previous we also see: “Prosecutors were interrogating suspects on the basis of information provided by a joint Saudi-Turkish taskforce, a statement from the official Saudi Press Agency said on Thursday“, which also makes me step back on the entire Turkey-Iran parts, there was actual evidence, it was merely presented by the media in a way that I would never have accepted until I watched it with my own eyes. So even as we are presented with: “Riyadh has taken great pains to distance the powerful crown prince from any responsibility for Khashoggi’s murder after it emerged several members of his personal guard and other trusted officials were involved“, we also see that the Crown Prince was true to his word. He stated: “justice will prevail in the Khashoggi case” and that is what seems to be happening. What I had reported on earlier seems to be confirmed now on a few levels. With: “The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Gina Haspel, the CIA director, had requested and been played the tapes during a brief visit to Ankara this week – the first indication Turkey has shared the sensitive evidence with foreign parties“. It is the ‘the first indication Turkey has shared the sensitive evidence‘, it is part of the whole and must be acknowledged, especially by me, if I want to live with myself. You see, I was partially protective of the ‘players’ from team KSA, merely because the journalistic sources have lost too much credibility in the last few years alone. That was the largest setting of my choices and none of the evidence was acceptable by me, especially in the entire Turkey-Iran setting that most media is still not acknowledging at present.

So there it is, I am not sorry on the path I took earlier, I gave my reasoning here and I feel that I remained correct, yet I also disputed evidence on facts and as the disputed evidence is now shown to be actual, I feel that I had a responsibility to bear (or was it to bare) that out.

I also remain in the belief that I had from the very beginning, We need to rely on papers like the Guardian, the Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, the BBC and a few others to give us the good stuff. There are those papers that rely on emotion to overbear us in any direction that they can push us, which was also the reason of opposing larger players of the press in all this.

You see, we seem to focus on all kinds of matters, except for the location and the entire events that surrounded Mohammed Al-Otaibi, we have not seen a lot there, did we? It goes a little further than that. One source (the Middle East monitor) gives us: “Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said yesterday that Saudi Arabia has dismissed its Consul General to Istanbul Mohammed Al-Otaibi following a phone call he had with King Salman Bin Abdulaziz a few days after Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed inside his country’s consulate in Istanbul. “The Consul is not efficient and I have told King Salman of this. A day later, the Consul General was relieved of his duties and returned to his country,” the Turkish president told the parliament in Ankara“, now we get the ‘good’ stuff. The parts that are important are easily seen. The article is two days old, yet the parts in this are ‘a few days after Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed inside his country’s consulate in Istanbul‘. You see, if that was true, then the entire matter of the audio tapes take on a very different stage and value. If the evidence was there and it gives evidence of transgressions, then President Erdogan was giving Saudi Arabia heads up on certain events, in addition, when we contemplate the audio evidence that is part of all that, the statement that we see with ‘The Consul is not efficient and I have told King Salman of this‘, if these parts are correct, than we see that the Turkish government is optionally directly involved with the cover-up itself! I am also considering that one source is not good enough, yet the connections seen, gives a much larger light to the setting.

In the end, I need to keep the faith I have, I need to remain in the light of not what I think happened (many are doing that), it needs to be ‘what happened that can be proven’, too few players have been doing that. It was also important to raise the Mohammed Al-Otaibi issue as some papers stated that ‘he fled the country’, yet here we see the stage: ‘the Consul General was relieved of his duties and returned to his country‘, or as I initially stated it, he had been recalled; I seem to have been correct on that part too. The question remains important if we are to believe USA Today. There we saw almost a week ago: “Those fired included: one of the prince’s closest advisers Saud al-Qahtani; deputy intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Ahmed al-Assiri; Maj. Gen. Mohammed bin Saleh al-Rumaih, assistant head of the General Intelligence Directorate; Maj. Gen. Abdullah bin Khalifa al-Shaya, head of General Intelligence for Human Resources; and Gen. Rashad bin Hamed al-Mohammad, director of the General Directorate of Security and Protection“, no mention of consul general Mohammed Al-Otaibi, perhaps he is one of the 18 arrested, yet we do not have any names from that group, so for now there is no way to know.

In Other News

The Financial Post reported that ‘Google corporate parent’s third quarter disappoints jittery investors‘, which is always nice to see (even if no one really cares). Yet the stage that we saw two days ago in ‘The ethical threshold‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/10/24/the-ethical-threshold/) where I made mention of “when we consider that “Diane Green, the chief executive of Google Cloud, also pulled out on Monday, according to the company” and gave that ‘Davos in the Desert’ a miss”, which in light of the shown evidence by some could have been the emotional short sighted part to do. Now, we know that Google will need loads of effort to mend the fences, yet souring the seating between themselves and the investors might not have been the best way to go about that. So as I made mention earlier of “those high and mighty bitches of industry (like JP Morgan Chase and a few others)“, especially when we regard that business solutions like Sharpcloud, a solution that relies on Azure AD, now will seemingly get a few additional options in their park, especially as Microsoft apparently opened a few doors. In light of what is going on and what is about to happen, certain dash boarding and investigative tools will have their work cut out for them. If they can please the initial players (like Salini Impregilo), the opportunities will become much larger and will entice a much needed audience to a much larger degree. So in this, Google did not merely disappoint the investors, there is now some indication that they handed market share to their opponents, all because of overreaction? Well that is for them to figure out, I remain a faithful believer of the Robocop phrase ‘Good business is where you find it‘ and any player that is staging the investment setting of a trillion dollars on a 12 year scale is someone you need to look at in different ways, if you do not, which would be your own choice, you end up merely cutting yourself. Everyone so up in arms over a journalist whilst Wall Street, Apple and a few others are quite literally walking away with murder on a much larger scale. You can blame the governmental and legal machines of all the folly that they represent, but as a corporation you still need to get from A to B and that is where it is my personal belief that some people overreacted (to a certain degree).

Yet the entire Google issue is also a stab in another direction. You see, when we are treated to “But Alphabet’s revenue fell shy of analyst projections. The company’s revenue, after ad commissions, totalled US$27.16 billion, more than US$150 million below analysts’ predictions“, the stage here is not merely that the analyst could have gotten it wrong, the loss in all this is roughly 0.552282%, under what amount is the optional miscalculation of something less than a percent the stage of such a reaction? If you need three tubes of Valium just to get back to hysterics whilst the optional loss is merely 0.55% less of an absurd amount of profit, we need to reengage into the folly of maximised profit, in a stage where they grasped at emotional levels of a moral high ground that they should not even be allowed to have in the first place and if my expectation comes through and some Microsoft Azure players do get to give pilots to certain players set to a growing awareness in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Google will lose a hell of a lot more than a mere 0.552282% shortfall, they might actually lose market share, how much value will that be representative of?

the deeper you dig, the more we see that the statement in several newspapers made by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman giving us: “The Middle East can be the “new Europe”” might be more correct than some realise at present, especially when 5G starts its roll-out in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In case you were not aware of the latter part, the Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, SB Energy and Tadano. They are all licensed for KSA endeavours now. So how much business are some players about to lose? So even as some questioned the statement: “Majid Al Qassabi, Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Trade and Investment, said the kingdom can be a launchpad for Japanese businesses seeking investment opportunities in the Middle Eastern and African markets“, we have a first indication that it is equally opening a double dipping opportunity for the mentioned bank with ties to both Egypt and the UAE. This is not some get quick rich stage, but the long term play will be extremely profitable for all three involved. All this as we see in opposition that investments in Europe are on the decline. Sources like Politico Europe and S&P global where some fields are losing as much as 19%. A dire stage in light of the 3 trillion euro float of its currency is nothing short of an optional nightmare stage for Europe. The escalating budget crises of Italy is merely one of several factors that will soon force Europe to make much larger changes, the slumping European economy is a close second. There are two other elements that I highlighted a few days ago, but we will see more on that soon enough. It was nice to see one source giving us a clear stage whilst pointing at history. the mere “After all in 2008, on the eve of the world’s worst economic and financial market crisis, Ben Bernanke dismissed the sub-prime crisis as a non-event. Meanwhile Jean Claude Trichet, Mr. Draghi’s predecessor at the helm of the ECB, went one step further by ill-advisedly raising interest rates in the months immediately preceding the September 2008 Lehman bankruptcy” should be one clear indication that there are plenty of optional dark clouds on the European horizon. Let’s not forget that people like Ben Bernanke and Jean Claude Trichet were never held accountable or prosecuted for any of those ignored events, were they?

Have a great day!

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

The G30 court

There is an issue, an issue that we are all missing, more for the reason that after January 17th the media is steering clear of this with all the might and options they had. I reckon that they will spin this in a setting that it is ‘uninteresting‘, but when was it ever uninteresting to look at a group of 30 that has the alleged advantage of getting their fingers into a pool that has 0% risk worth billions?

The more important part is that there was one mention, or at least only one that was found, on July 7th 2017 and November 3rd 2017, both come from Reuters, the media has become that much of a bean flicking, pole pulling grape flocked bunch of pussies as I personally see it. Yet, the fact is that even as the impact is speculated, the setting given is that a group of 30 had an optional exclusive insight in the 3 trillion dollar ECB spending. Consider that each of these 30 got a 1% portfolio, where 75% of it was set at 0% whilst the remaining 25% might have op to 3% risk, in this setting the underwritten $31 billion for each member would set a speculated sanctified security of a multiple factors of $31 billion each. An elite group of 30 all having the top of the financial services cream at zero risk with the optional massive returns none of us ever had insight to. Now I can see that a mere 0.01% of that 1% would set me up for life, and that is merely the one source, the ‘in-crowd’, now would that be the incestuous insider towards untapped ‘considerations of investment‘ and they would all be bringing their own portfolios and economic insight on how to maximise that? Adding the man (read: Mario Draghi) spending Europe’s $3.1 trillion would happily be allowed into their midst, it is merely the setting that this rigs the game towards 30 participants whilst giving a weighted disadvantage to all other bankers is still an issue not covered by anyone.

So as we saw last November ‘ECB says not its call to publish content of Draghi’s meetings with financiers‘ (at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecb-banks-ethics/ecb-says-not-its-call-to-publish-content-of-draghis-meetings-with-financiers-idUSKBN1D327U) whilst we also see “At issue is Draghi’s membership of the so-called Group of 30, where policymakers meet bankers, fund managers and academics behind closed doors to discuss economic issues. He sits alongside former and current central bankers, such as Bank of England Governor Mark Carney and the Bank of Japan’s Haruhiko Kuroda, as well as Nobel laureate Paul Krugman

Yet even as we see “Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly had asked whether the ECB would “consider proactively informing the public of the content of these meetings” in response to “a complaint by activist group Corporate Europe Observatory, which said in January it was concerned about proximity at the G30 of ECB officials and bankers they are meant to supervise“, I cannot help but wonder what both Emily O’Reilly and Corporate Europe Observatory left unmentioned. It was also mentioned by the Dutch Volkskrant where the Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) member Olivier Hoedeman added comment.

I tried to find more, so even as we have found Mario Draghi, Mark Carney, Haruhiko Kuroda and Paul Krugman as confirmed names (from the media), I initially believed that Groupe Credit Agricole (most likely Dominique Lefebvre) would be a member, I am also speculating that Peter Smith (as director of N M Rothschild & Sons) might have been a member of that group. There are a few other players, but it becomes increasingly less certain even from a speculated point of view. What does matter is that this is not merely some ‘secretive’ babble group. Even as we see last July “In a letter to Draghi that was published on Friday, European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly said the meetings of the Group of Thirty, where central bankers, economists and financiers talk behind closed doors, are “not transparent” and questioned the ECB president’s membership of the club” as well as “Draghi has until September to reply to the letter in writing“, in that, the media and so called journalism stayed clear of this for the largest extent and the ECB did respond in October 2017 in the attached part. In my view, it all sounds nice but a select group of 30 with a pool of a number in excess of 6 trillion, where 30 people get first dibs on a risk bonus that goes beyond the comprehension of many and the media buries it on page 62 is a much larger issue, especially when the response on page 9 gives us “Moreover, Article 130 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union safeguards the independence of the ECB and of the members of its decision-making bodies” whilst we all know that a mere fraction of $6 trillion has been a case for shifted morals and readjusted (read: weighted morals) in many regards, there are countless hours on C-SPAN that saw those liquid morals and settings in regards to the 2008 events, so the idea of ’30’ members ending up with golden parachute the size of Australia is not that much of a leap, speculated or not. So when we look back to the 2008 events and we see in January 2017, nine years later “The credit rating agency Moody’s has agreed to pay nearly $864m to settle with US federal and state authorities over its ratings of risky mortgage securities in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, the department of justice said on Friday“, whilst the damage from the 2008 crash was set to top $22 trillion, we should ask the US Justice department on where the remaining 21.991 trillion is and who was supposed to pay for that. So in all this the fact that the media is steering clear from the G30 and asking, or actually not asking anything past the Reuters articles seen should give alarm bells on many sides, not merely the media.

The EU Parliament magazine (at https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/mario-draghi-under-fire-g30-membership), also gives us “CEO’s monetary and financial policy researcher Kenneth Haar said, “The Ombudsman’s decision is timely and very positive. Draghi’s involvement with the G30 was ill-advised from the start. Since 2016, when the ECB’s mandate for banking supervision was extended, the close ties between the president and the bankers’ group has become absolutely unacceptable“, or is that gave, because it is past tense and so far the media has remained silent since January 17. It seems to me (extremely speculative) that these 30 members are either connected or involved with the shareholders, stakeholders or advertisers in the media, because the media seems to be at all times protective of these three groups, whilst merely informing on those three groups in a filtered way, or to the smallest degree unless it was already out there in the field. The fact that this group has such a global hold is an issue and I might have been a lot less speculated on this, but the lack of transparency as well as the fact that we see “Tyga Gives Kim Kardashian A Hilarious Spelling Lesson On Social Media” and other Kim Kardashian on a daily basis, whilst the media remains silent on the speculated distributors of no risk trillions is a weird setting, especially when those sources have their fingers in thousands of billions. So when we see the BBC with: ‘Is it time we all unfollowed Kim Kardashian?‘, we might wonder whether it is yea or nea, yet there is a speculated 99.9999% likelihood that the G30 members will not make the cut towards monitored inclusion on following, I am certain that the first one that acts on that is has a boss who is likely (again speculated) to get a quick phone call from a shareholder, stakeholder or large advertiser to wonder if they have any grasp on their staff members and whether they want to manage or become managed.

Do you think that this is a stretch?

From my personal point of view I would give to you Sony (2012) issues, in regards to the change to the Terms of Service. The media ignored it, even as it would impact a group of 30 million consumers. Most of those players merely just trivialised it via ‘there is a memo‘ on it. The rest did even less; some even ignored it all together. With Microsoft (2017/2018) we see even more (at https://www.computerworld.com/article/3257225/microsoft-windows/intel-releases-more-meltdownspectre-firmware-fixes-microsoft-feints-an-sp3-patch.html)

You’d have to be incredibly trusting — of both Microsoft and Intel — to manually install any Surface firmware patch at this point. Particularly when you realize that not one single Meltdown or Spectre-related exploit is in the wild. Not one“, the amount of visibility (apart from marketed Microsoft Central views) is close to null, a system with no more than 17 million users is marketed and advertised to the gills, so the media seems to steer clear, merely two examples in a field that is loaded with examples.

Back to the group

So as I gave the speculated view earlier on the ‘whom’, we can see the full list (at http://group30.org/members), these members are according to the website:

  • Jacob A. Frenkel, Chairman, JPMorgan Chase International
  • Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Deputy Prime Minister, Singapore
  • Guillermo Ortiz, Chairman, BTG Pactual Latin America ex-Brazil
  • Paul A. Volcker, Former Chairman, Federal Reserve System
  • Jean-Claude Trichet, Former President, European Central Bank
  • Leszek Balcerowicz, Former Governor, National Bank of Poland
  • Ben Bernanke, Former Chairman, Federal Reserve System
  • Mark Carney, Governor, Bank of England
  • Agustín Carstens, Former Governor, Banco de México
  • Jaime Caruana, Former Governor, Banco de Espana
  • Domingo Cavallo, Former Minister of Economy, Argentina
  • Mario Draghi, President, European Central Bank
  • William C. Dudley, President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
  • Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., President and CEO, TIAA
  • Arminio Fraga, Founding Partner, Gavea Investimentos
  • Timothy Geithner, President, Warburg Pincus
  • Gerd Häusler, Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Bayerische Landesbank
  • Philipp Hildebrand, Vice Chairman, BlackRock
  • Gail Kelly, Global Board of Advisors, US Council on Foreign Relations
  • Mervyn King, Member, House of Lords
  • Paul Krugman, Distinguished Professor, Graduate Center, CUNY
  • Christian Noyer, Honorary Governor, Banque de France
  • Raghuram G. Rajan, Distinguished Service Professor of Finance
  • Maria Ramos, Chief Executive Officer, Barclays Africa Group
  • Kenneth Rogoff, Professor of Economics, Harvard University
  • Masaaki Shirakawa, Former Governor, Bank of Japan
  • Lawrence Summers, Charles W. Eliot University Professor at Harvard University
  • Tidjane Thiam, CEO, Credit Suisse
  • Adair Turner, Former Chairman, Financial Services Authority
  • Kevin Warsh, Lecturer, Stanford University Graduate School of Business
  • Axel A. Weber, Former President, Deutsche Bundesbank
  • Ernesto Zedillo, Former President of Mexico
  • Zhou Xiaochuan, Governor, People’s Bank of China

They also have senior members, which is interesting as they are younger than at least one of the current members, as well as the fact that most of the members in the current, senior and emeritus group have multiple titles.

  • Stanley Fischer, Former Governor of the Bank of Israel
  • Haruhiko Kuroda, Governor, Bank of Japan
  • Janet Yellen, Former Chair, Federal Reserve System

And the Emeritus members:

  • Abdlatif Al-Hamad, Former Minister of Finance and Planning, Kuwait
  • Geoffrey L. Bell, President, Geoffrey Bell and Associates
  • Gerald Corrigan, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
  • Guillermo de la Dehesa, Chairman, Aviva Grupo Corporativo
  • Jacques de Larosière, Former Director, IMF
  • Richard A. Debs, Former President, Morgan Stanley International
  • Martin Feldstein, Professor of Economics, Harvard University
  • Gerhard Fels, Former Member, UN Committee for Development Planning
  • Toyoo Gyohten, Former Chairman, Bank of Tokyo
  • John Heimann, Senior Advisor, Financial Stability Institute
  • Sylvia Ostry, Former Ambassador for Trade Negotiations, Canada
  • William R. Rhodes, President and CEO, William R. Rhodes Global Advisors
  • Ernest Stern, Former Managing Director; The World Bank
  • David Walker, Former Chairman, Barclays
  • Marina v N. Whitman, Professor; University of Michigan
  • Yutaka Yamaguchi, Former Deputy Governor, Bank of Japan

So this group of 30 is slightly larger and in the group each of these members would have the power and economic impact to tell any member of the Fortune500 what to do, or better stated and more important ‘what not to do!‘ It is in that instance that we see the first impact. A game that now looks as I personally see it rigged in several ways; so even as I was allegedly wrong about Dominique Lefebvre or a direct peer, we see Christian Noyer. So in my view, in a 2015 French article on the issue of “Who will succeed Christian Noyer as head of the Banque de France?“, we see “Mario Draghi, the president of the ECB, seems to have had the idea to see his right arm go. Benoît Coeuré would be an important ally for the Italian in the Council of the Governor“, yet in the light of the G30, it seems to me that such a discussion would have been set into a pre-emptive conclusion of who would needed to have been made king in that castle. When we see that in light of a previous article, namely ‘The Global Economic Switch‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/03/06/the-global-economic-switch/), were well over 500 billion is to be invested and grown, in addition to the fact that the SAMA has oversight to well over 2 trillion dollars, how come that they do not have a seat at the table? In the same way that the Rothschild’s are not there, but they might be ‘represented‘ through Bernanke or Frenkel, whilst it is not impossible that Mario Draghi might be giving them the low-down to some degree, yet the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with that much money on the ladle of expansion, that they are not part of it. In a world where that group is about (according to their own website) “The Group of Thirty, established in 1978, is a private, non-profit, international body composed of very senior representatives of the private and public sectors and academia. It aims to deepen understanding of international economic and financial issues, and to explore the international repercussions of decisions taken in the public and private sectors“, where the foundation of Saudi Arabia has been the power of OPEC and the power to instil the push to be a global player in many fields, in that sight in represented value that the repercussions of decisions are set at, to see the Bank of Israel yet not some link to SAMA (Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority) makes equally less sense in the line of thinking that the ‘about‘ section gives us, which makes me wonder what these members are about. they might be all about that, yet what else they are about, or what else they have a useful value in gives rise to my train of thought on where this train with less than 55 occupants is heading off to, and more so, in light of the power that these ‘30’ members have, the fact that the G30 is not the cover talk of many newspapers, especially the Financial Times is beyond me, because anyone coming to you with ‘No News’ or outdated news, or even worse that there is no real issue in play is clearly told what not to write.

It seems to me that not only is there more in play, the personal speculated view that I have in light of learning more and more about the G30 merely confirms my suspicions, as well as the insight that I am getting (a speculated one) where the media is steering clear from all this is a much larger issue. To what and in which direction is one I am not willing to go into, because I know that the ice is wafer thin at this point and skating on water is a realistic ‘no no’, yet the feeling that these members are getting a first view and optionally the option to dip their cups on plenty into a grape juice barrel of risk-less profit is one that I feel is very much in play. This G30 group is networking on an entirely new level, one that I have never seen before. This is not some kingmaker into presidency; this is a long term group where the optional billions will keep on flowing for decades to come. And this all in a setting of non-transparency, because this goes way beyond the 3 publications in 2016 and of course all those papers published before that. In the 2016 publication ‘Shadow Banking and Capital Markets: risks and opportunities‘, (at http://group30.org/images/uploads/publications/ShadowBankingCapitalMarkets_G30.pdf), we see in the conclusion on page 49: “Moreover, growing leverage across the global Economy can create important risks to macroeconomic stability even if the financial system itself is more resilient. And two developments are particularly concerning: the growth of emerging market foreign currency debt and the rapid growth of Chinese leverage accompanied by a proliferation of shadow banking activities are ominously reminiscent of precrisis developments in the advanced economies“, which is in view of the experts would be nothing new, yet resources available and the 36 exhibits and the recommendations would have been available to the G30 group much earlier than anyone else. In that light, we need to wonder not merely on the setting, in Exhibit 36 we see mortgage losses and the fact that there is the US, Canada and Europe, so in that light the fact that the fourth one is the Netherlands, is that not odd? In light of several settings, France, Germany, Italy and the UK, any of these four would have made perfect sense, so why the Netherlands? Exhibit 33 might have been a reason for this, yet in equal measure the absence of Scandinavia and Italy in this setting now adds to the questions. I think it is not merely choice and presentation, the absence of those players give rise to questions, perhaps even speculated questions and as there are none to be given, it makes me wonder what else is missing, what other data was filtered because in the light of data and presentation there is one golden rule I have always kept in the back of my mind.

The Analyst shows you which investment needs to be made, the presentation makes you look forward to the invoice.

So what invoice is the G30 group making you look forward to and where did it need to go? Two questions with optionally very different results, and in that setting, whilst you know the impact the European economy has had over the last 15 years, whilst we also know that Mario Draghi has been spending $3 trillion, in that setting the G30 does not make the news?

Who is getting fooled by all this and who is getting fooled by making sure that you do not get to notice this?

It is a much larger playing field that is from whatever point of view you have a field of inclusion, or a field of exclusion, yet in all this there are questions that are not asked at all, questions that even I am not asking because I decided to go into technology, engineering and law whilst giving a pass on the Economic subjects. Yet the Financial Media is not asking them either and that is an issue, especially in light of that ‘secretive‘ group set to a stage of networking inclusion, or is it networking through filtered exclusion?

I’ll let you decide on that.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

What is an economy?

Yesterday we saw all kinds of movement in the markets. The start of this was a violent sell off in almost direct answer to a message be Ben Bernanke (Source:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/20/stock-markets-violent-sell-off ). It is a name that ‘shines’ to some extent when we watch the movie ‘Inside Job’. Mr Bernanke has been involved with the Federal Reserve for over a decade and has been the chairman of the Federal Reserve since 2006. Bernanke’s message that started a whole lot was to end QE (Quantitative Easing). Is it wrong? That is the debate that many want to start, yet we are currently in a phase where this approach to bond buying must stop, the question is not just why, it is also current to ask why not sooner, or why would this have such a strong effect on global markets to this effect.

Does this event show that the US is actually getting stronger, or is the rest of Europe’s so much weaker? My initial voice goes to the second part and I will explain why. If we consider the outstanding debts then we must agree that the US remains now and for some time to come on the utter brink of bankruptcy. The total US debts are well over 120 trillion (almost 17 trillion national debt), which is so much outside of the reach of repaying for a long time to come. There is the valid question why the US should support Europe to the extent it is doing at present. Europe is so not getting a handle on their spending and many nations are showing more and more delay to getting it all under control. This is not just fuelling UKIP and the reason that the UK population is more and more intent on leaving the European Community, parties within the US are validly asking, why are we paying for all this? As the US pays the IMF and they keep on pouring money into bottomless pits like Greece, more and more are asking questions as to why this should continue.

It gets even better. If we add the sums of payments by the different parties into getting the economy going (jump starting was the label they used) , we end up with an amount well over the sum of all outstanding mortgages in US and Europe. So if we consider that amount, then consider the option of paying of the mortgage of EVERY household making less than $70K. That amount would be less than the amounts paid to get the economy started. In effect, no mortgage means that people would be spending money everywhere and the US (and also the European Community) would have an economy that is up and running.

So as Ben Bernanke stops QE and as the US is buying back the outstanding bonds the markets will not suffer, but they will reflect the poor position everyone is in.

If we see the past of Rothschild we see: “Amschel Rothschild’s (1773–1855) definition of economy saw this as financing national projects such as wars, goods and infrastructure”. Economy would be defined as a national economy as a classification for the economic activities of the citizens of a state. So our view of economy (you and me in general) sees this in relation to the citizens. As such, the US economy is seen as extremely poor as one out of six lost their house; one in ten had no job. This has now improved to one in 12 (which is really not that good yet), yet the overall considering healthcare (or lack thereof) and other topics mean that the economy is not yet in a state of health. It is only barely starting to be on a road to recovery. The Federal Reserve is considering that dropping QE would enable a stronger wave of recovery. Is that wrong? When we read about the economy in many places, and how much better the economy is doing, we feel we are being lied to, yet, is that true?

that point of view only hangs on what the definition of economy is. In a global market where we look on how corporations are doing in their markets we see a definition devoid of citizens as they only consider the consumers. I think that their definition is wrong, yet it is not incorrect. Many of us seem to look with at the same picture with wrong (different) standards and values.

If the market drops (as it did yesterday) because these sellable items are no longer there, then this is another matter. If a shop loses one item and it drops to such an extent, then we see evidence that are (or have been) living for the most of the ROI of one successful item. Today’s message on the Guardian (source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2013/jun/21/global-markets-stablise-crisis-euro) only gives strength to my views. It shows on how Greece needs another 3 Billion, how can this continue?

The article shows the following quotes that are important for the next part: “EU leaders in Luxembourg are holding a day (and probably night) of talks to create rules that force losses onto large savers when banks fail.

So like Cyprus, those who saved money for their retirement will see it dwindle? Because in Cyprus those over 100K Euro lost a bundle. After working up to 45 years, their retirement all based on joy of working hard is getting cut because no one has either the guts or the insight to actually deal with the banks and the governments behind these events?

Sweden’s Finance minister Anders Borg emphasised on the dangers of those moves. Also stated in the article by the Guardian was “A draft bill has suggests bank shareholders should suffer first, followed by bondholders and then savers. A new fund could also be set up to oversee new tighter rules.

Now, I get the shareholders suffering side of this. When you invest in shares, you invest in risk. Yet the one part that needs an overhaul, the banks and their board of directors are still not properly dealt with. So whatever draft will be created on dealing with banks and their path of recovery is still not laid out in full. However, with the promotion of bad bank separation only gives pressure on taxation and tax payers. Who wants to live in such an environment, where what I see as unacceptable levels of risk-taking remaining undealt with. To me it seems that it is more humane to legalise drunk driving as that will only kill of a few people, the fact that banks and risk-taking financial institutions can dump these levels of risk on a population group many times the size over is just absurd.

We see all these ideas and patch jobs, yet the instigators of the harm we witnessed since 2004 keep on getting a pass by ‘the deans of industry’ to walk, talk and deal wherever they want. Especially after Cyprus, where we now see the legal proposals to force losses somewhere, seem to be less vocal on jailing the board of directors of banks when these levels of loss become visible. They apparently did not break any laws. If being drunk in traffic is no defence in court, how can irresponsible short-sightedness in financial institutions be legal? This level of high stakes poker where losses are not punished and winnings go to the individual must stop. In that same regard where the European Community (EC) is adding nation after nation, and when these places start to overspend as banks and politicians that the EC stamp is a free for all for name and fame making is short term and the outstanding debts are all dumped on the tax payers in the end. Perhaps it is no longer about saving failed banks. Perhaps any failing bank should be nationalised. The members of the board are investigated for negligence, whilst their belongings are sold at auction and they are scrapped from the banking and financial industry where they may never work again on any level of authority.
Yes, I agree this is equally an overreaction.

Yet, currently nothing seems to be effectively done. Greece remains a slice of evidence in that regard. It is nice for the Greek population to blame others (especially Germany), yet these levels of non-control into the Greek debts come from Greece. It is their own previous government being so utterly irresponsible, not to mention some of the financial institutions who were residing there. From Bloomberg this quote came: “Let’s begin with the observation that irresponsible borrowers can’t exist without irresponsible lenders“. There is logic in that statement. Can we however also mention that Goldman Sachs had given the assistance to hide the levels of Deficit in Greece? So there were more elements in play. Perhaps, when the Greek banks do go into a toxic bank solution, they should consider adding their entire Greek mortgage portfolio and add that to the bad bank. If you truly want to start an economy, taking away their fear of homelessness will go a long way. Especially when the monthly mortgage could then be spend on items that truly jump start an economy.

When nations and conglomerates are talking about the economy, then you should ask them ‘what is YOUR definition of an economy’. It is the same issue as companies hiding behind revenue. Revenue sounds nice, but the reality is profit and contribution. It is what is left after the costs are removed. You will see that many places are not in a good position and they are not getting better any day soon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics