Tag Archives: big business

June 21, 2015 · 10:57

Pointing where?

An interesting article is hitting the Guardian, the title ‘Child poverty rise across Britain ‘halts progress made since 1990s’‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/20/child-poverty-rise-uk-halts-progress-charities-claim) is hitting out at choices made, and let us be frank here, we have to point at certain actions and certain choices, but are we pointing at the right one?

In this both Labour and Conservatives are at fault. My own party of choice has made choices (bad ones) in the past, yet is the bedroom tax and are the benefit cuts truly the reason? They might (they do) have an impact, but are they the factors that are central in all this?

The quote “Child poverty is on course for the biggest rise in a generation, reversing years of progress that began in the late 1990s, leading charities and independent experts claimed on Saturday” is important. you see, at minus one and a half trillion cuts need to be made, in all this we need to see that unless the Commonwealth take responsibility in getting a budget, we are all doomed, the children aren’t even the first one to feel this. Both sides of the political isle have squandered their duties to a larger extent. Now, even though the conservatives are working on fixing this, we cannot ignore that certain damage was done under leadership of The Right Honourable Sir John Major. You see, the budget is set on two parts. What is spend and what is received.

It is the ‘what is received’ that is now a global issue. As individual governments were so eager to see industries grow, they decided to give tax breaks as an incentive. It did work, but guess what, it lowered the maximum received coins, which at that point was not a biggie. Now, we have created a different behemoth, as globalisation started stronger in 2002 onwards, no one (me blaming BOTH sides here) was looking at the cookie jar and wondering how continuation of feeding the future would be ensured (or is that insured?). No, many politician went by ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it‘, which gave us a different scenario after 2004. When the banking crises hit, it hit every shore on a global scale. So large corporations decided to maximise their ‘interests’, which I see was divided between shareholders and personal commissions, many combined, merged and used every tax break possible to avoid taxation. Now consider in an age of industry that the largest player (the industry) does not get to be held accountable for the needs of governing. They want their politicians in their pockets, their bonus in the other pocket and protection without invoice. They pulled it off because the parties on both sides did not correctly adjust legislation the way it had to be. Now, 11 years later, much of this legislation is still missing. The corporations see the sustenance of government not their responsibility, it is for the people, let them pay! They might not say it, but they will think it loudly!

So we have created a sea of chaos, and as the larger players avoid taxation, the people will end up with less. Now we get the quote “Ministers were remaining tight-lipped about the release on Thursday of the Ministers were remaining tight-lipped about the release on Thursday of the Households below Average Income statistics. Any increase in the number of children in poverty since 2013 would be an embarrassment. Child poverty fell from 3.4 million in 1998-99 to 2.3 million in 2010-11 – a reduction unparalleled in other wealthy nations over the same period – after the last Labour government promised to eradicate it by 2020. Any increase in the number of children in poverty since 2013 would be an embarrassment. Child poverty fell from 3.4 million in 1998-99 to 2.3 million in 2010-11 – a reduction unparalleled in other wealthy nations over the same period – after the last Labour government promised to eradicate it by 2020“, here is the second reason why Ed Miliband had no chance of winning, moreover, it shows a little more than that. The entire promise of child poverty eradication was never realistic to begin with. You see, by 2007 that given goal was no longer possible under both the economic meltdown as well as the tax evasion numbers, so did either Tony Blair or Gordon Brown inform the people that child poverty was there to stay? I have a hunch that this was not done. You see, ‘Households below Average Income statistics‘ is depending on income and cost of living. Income is still down due to past events, yet cost of living is going up and is going up slightly faster than wage corrections can provide for at present. So as we see these dwindling statistics, there should not be the wondering of how it is happening, we need to look at the way to deal with it. Lowering taxation is not a solution, it must be replaced by other means of taxation, which means that corporations need to pay their fair share, a part still not addressed. By the way, that part is also not addressed in Australia, as we see in the Australian Financial Review, the quote “The Business Council of Australia, comprised of the chief executives of big companies, cautioned the government that “global tax issues require global solutions”“, that the Business council of Australia is working for Global Companies, not for the Australian government. You only need to look at their board to see that they have the Managing Director of Rio Tinto Australia, the Chief Executive Officer & Managing Director of Qantas, the Chief Executive Officer & Managing Director of the Westpac Group, the Managing Director of Origin Energy Limited and a few more, all people very intent on paying as little taxation as possible, for the need of their shareholders and their personal bonuses. Guess, what, the Australian Financial Review does not really state that part, does it? No, they state “The Law Council of Australia has told the government not to enact the laws as they are currently drafted“, which might be a valid part, but valid to what extent? You see, last year I already stated part of the solution, make all purchases taxable at the location of the consumer buying it, or better the point of delivery. You see, the person buying the iTunes track, that video game, those bracelets or that suitcase is buying an item online, instead of in the shop. There might be valid reasons for why it was done, but it affects that nations GDP, so, as such, GST and other taxable parts should be paid there, not in Ireland or another low taxing nation. So, we do not begrudge the sale to be online, but on the same foot, just as a storekeeper pays its fair share of local taxation (read GST and such) the online store should do the same, it is just fair trade).

In all these years, those super clever members of the Law Council of Australia did not come up with this solution? If they did, why did the government not enact it? This directly reflects back to the UK. As taxation is now so unbalanced, the government is forced to scrap things.

No one is happy, everyone complains, but are they complaining in the right direction?

So as we see this article on child poverty, we also see the new Labour run “Yvette Cooper, who has put the fight against child poverty at the heart of her Labour leadership campaign, said the government’s record was a “damning indictment” of its approach and meant many children were being denied the start in life they deserved. “Their policies have delivered the biggest increase in child poverty in a generation and they have abandoned any pretence of even moving towards the target they promised to meet [to all but eradicate it by 2020].”“, no Yvette, this is not about ‘their’ policies, it is about your lack of realism, you should unite with the Tories to find the taxation that halts corporate greed and hold them to account for the protection they receive, the responsibilities that they should face, when that is correctly done, and as the coffers fill up again (move towards less or no debt), that you will see as a result that child poverty goes down again, yet as you ‘advocate’ your ego, realise that eradicating child poverty by 2020 was never realistic, getting it down by a lot is. By the way, whatever promise Yvette Cooper, or any other runner for the Labour Boss chair makes, make sure you realise that the pounding hammer of ‘interest payments’ is stopping many restorations in social projects, cutting and diminishing the debt is a first need, so as you contemplate that the next government should be labour, then also realise that they will spend it all again, they will do a ‘Gordon Brown’ on the treasury coffers! Now you, the reader, consider what is happening in Greece, when that hits the UK shores, it will be a massively larger and poverty will not be the nightmare. It will be that 23:00 news where they found a baby that starved to death, only because certain politicians had to feed their ego instead of realistic common sense. So where are we pointing? I want to point at a solution, which means properly fixing legislation, properly adjusting sentencing and fines. When you consider that some at the banks are still laughing at the 1.5 billion fine for Libor, than wonder how much they made. When the fine is 15 billion, they will wake up and stop feeding greed!

Oh, and before you think I have it simple, these cutbacks are hurting me a lot too, yet I realise that our future will depend on us not being in debt to the levels we are in now.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

January 28, 2015 · 23:42

Chapter 13

I have been aware of the story for almost a day now. To be honest, it took a little while to let things sink in. Also, my approach here is completely different from my other stories. This all is not a clear cut thing and I might be barking up all the wrong trees. The story ‘Argentinian government moves to dissolve domestic intelligence agency‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/27/argentina-government-domestic-intelligence-agency-alberto-nisman) should be a wake-up call to many people. What you are about to read is not based on evidence, evidence that we see as quality facts that can be used to speculate on what actually happened. I am stating that none of the evidence is of any calibre at all, I am however using the events that I am aware of and as such, I see a different escalation, one that could be utterly wrong. I leave it up to the reader, I am just warning the reader at this point, to scrutinise my thoughts, as I do and do not accept the speculation on face value alone.

You see, for the most a population has little to no clue what their levels of protection are, until they are removed. Consider that we in Australia need to remain safe whilst someone decided that Australia will be a lot safer if the ASIO is disbanded. I can tell you now that this would be the worst idea in a long line of really bad ideas. If we go by the oldest book on this (the art of war), then at some point, the reader gets to chapter 13, which is all about espionage.

Today, we have a host of issues with spooks, but the one we ignore is that they are here to prevent issues. Yet now consider that these are used against us. However, be aware that spies can be used in any matter of ways, in addition, these groups do not just represent governments, at times large corporations employ them for similar reasons.

So as we look at the initial text, I will add the conversion to modern and technological approach

From the view of the Art of war, we get the following:

  • We employ the use of spies, of whom there are five classes:
    • Local spies;
    • inward spies;
    • converted spies;
    • doomed spies;
    • Surviving spies.

There is a book; it is called ‘Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy: The Secret World of Corporate Espionage’ by Eamon Javers. It is not a bad read, more important, this current world has an evolved use of former intelligence officers (from many countries), some come from the redacted world of cutbacks in the US and some who privatised themselves. They use their spy craft to aid corporations in distinguishing weaker targets, preparing for cases and litigation in several legal areas and to aid in final trading decisions, as well as change the premise of trade agreements (or to destabilise them by interfering with costs and profit margins. For these options, they might choose to employ Local Spies and/or Inward spies.

In modern days, we will actually see the converted spy in several ways, whether this person is an informer through IT, a trader, or merchant. In the household form, see this person as one of your distributors, however, as he is getting his bonus from another source, he will tip the revenue scales in a minor way, you that you almost got the job, but almost getting the job is not the same as getting the job and you lose out on revenue. I can go on and give you examples of the last two types, but you get the picture!

So why is this event an issue at present?

Consider that Argentina, as it is in such a dire situation, that it needs to get its economy in a much better place. Now we look at the first quote “Argentina’s president announced a major shakeup of her country’s intelligence network on Monday in her most combative step yet to address the fallout from the death of prosecutor Alberto Nisman“. This sounds all fair and good, but is dissolving the intelligence agency a step that should be considered? Let’s not forget that Argentina has two enemies, the first one is big business. Big Business will always be an enemy of ANY government that prefers to give a fair deal to the people of its nations; the second is X, which is not the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth. Yes, there has been and there will remain a clear difference of opinion there, but that is a disagreement, not a statement for hostile acts.

When we look at what drove all this (at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/20/world/americas/alberto-nisman-found-dead-argentina-amia.html), we see the title, which gives us a first clue ‘Puzzling Death of a Prosecutor Grips Argentina‘. “From the moment 10 years ago when he was assigned to investigate the 1994 suicide bombing of a Jewish centre here that left 85 people dead, Mr Nisman, an even-keeled lawyer, became entangled in a labyrinthine plot that he traced to Iran and its militant Lebanese ally, Hezbollah“, in addition we get “explosive accusations that top Argentine officials, including President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, had conspired with Iran to cover up responsibility for the bombing as part of a deal that would supply Iranian oil to Argentina“. You see, Argentina has a few issues all over the place, in addition, there is no denying that the people have never forgotten what happened in 1994, yet, and my deepest apologies to those who had lost loved ones, friends and people they knew, this event is not the highest priority for Argentina in their current dilemma, so why is there suddenly a revelation?

I am not entirely sure that any of these facts are true (pure speculation), when looking at the timeline, the events are off. Is it not convenient that Alberto Nisman ends up dead just after he accuses certain people from a case that is two decades old? Did he actually find evidence? Perhaps something was given, or left for him to find. Consider the implied involvement of Iran and its oil delivery, why would that now get distorted, just when oil is massively on the way down in price. So as we read: “He accused Hezbollah of having carried out the bombing and senior Iranian officials of having planned and financed it“, based on what evidence? This is not a case that has had nonstop attention; it was a specific case, a 20 year old one. How hard would it have been to insert scraps leaving to fictive evidence? In addition, Hezbollah has eagerly taken credit for their actions in the past, so why deny it now? I am not stating that they are innocent, but the fact that Hezbollah has a fading course of visibility, this claim would give them the ‘image’ they wanted to have.

The next part hits back to all the parts mentioned before. The person implied in this, now suddenly disbands one intelligence branch and creates a new one. Is this just a shifting label, or are the people getting replaced. I reckon in Argentine’s current predicament, to remove their intelligence branch for someone else is tactically bad (guess where all these officers would go to) and if it is just a sanitation of bad apples, the branch would not needed to be disband in one instance and created in a reformatted version the next.

All these elements are not adding up. Now, let us be fair, why would it make sense to me? I am not in Argentina, I have no clue what the reasoning is and why certain political steps are taken. So, consider this quote from the guardian “Cristina Fernández de Kirchner said she would support a bill to dissolve the existing structure – which employs more than 2,000 people – and replace it with a new federal intelligence agency“. When we add the following part “It follows a protracted struggle with the intelligence agency that has come to light after the suspicious death of Nisman, which the president blames on rogue spies who are trying to undermine her“, as well as ““We must start to work on a project to reform the Argentine intelligence system, in order to clear up a system that has not served national interests,” Fernández said“, so as we see the known facts, the president, who will be leaving  office after two terms is now, 9 months until elections, shoveling over a massive anthill called the ‘Intelligence branch’? So, as we see the accusation of ‘rogue spies’, instead of cleaning house, they are resetting the entire branch? That does not seem like the best idea. Regardless whether there are rogue elements, it is likely that other connections remain hidden as it all goes into another form, which means that it could easily start again. The question on how Alberto Nisman died is still not settled with clarity, so if it was murder, than shuffling the intelligence branch seems an even less good idea.

I can also state with some certainty that doing all this, whilst Argentina is still in treacherous economic waters, having a reliable intelligence branch is pretty essential. Yet, this gives us the part, is it reliable? Latin American nations have been accused more often implied accused seen as a harsh, possibly corrupt group of power brokers. If that is the case, cleaning the intelligence foundations make a lot more sense than ‘just’ relabeling it. If we accept the last quote “her tussle with the spy agency has so far led to increased surveillance powers for the army“, we must consider more than one path. Was this step deliberate, or was it orchestrated? You would think that both answers are the same, but they are not. In the first case we see the consequence of shifting powers, which grows the military oversight, in the other situation it was always about setting military oversight and this was being orchestrated by reshaping the intelligence branch into a Federal Intelligence Agency. The question then becomes, if this is a step towards the ‘FIA’, why was it done in this way? Consider the espionage part in the beginning. Venezuela is in a very bad state and until the hedge funds issues are completely resolved, having an active intelligence branch at your disposal seems pretty essential as well. Let’s not forget the reference to the book in the beginning, under these conditions, there could be profit for both Uruguay and Paraguay, Chili is also a player in this case. As the intelligence branch falters, it also means that economic and corporate advantages could be gained at the expense of Argentinian margins, that whilst the hedge funds vulture issue remains unresolved. All this leads to the question what has actually been happening, it seems decently clear (in my personal view) that the reference to the Jewish centre was not a cause for accusation, but likely a diversion. So, why were certain allegations made, more important, why is the accused president not receiving a lot more opposition and vocal complaints?

We won’t know what is actually in lay, perhaps for some time, but when this article gets more space, at that point, I will follow up on this story, hopefully all loaded with verified facts.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Military, Politics

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

January 2, 2015 · 10:54

Misrepresentation

That was the first word in my mind when I looked into the Guardian seeing the following headline ‘NHS cancels 3,000 operations in two December weeks‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/28/nhs-cancels-3000-operations-in-two-december-weeks), it is not the only NHS story in the Guardian and to be fair, there has been an awful lot of bashing of the NHS, not entirely in an unfair way, but it has been in a very misrepresented way.

I have written about the NHS a few times, with the main reason that whatever hits the UK, will hit Canada, Australia and perhaps even New Zealand, later if not sooner. The small inserted text “The figures, highlighted by Labour” is entirely an issue too. Perhaps the Guardian might also want to illuminate that part of all this is DUE TO the actions of Labour, not just illustrated now by Labour. It all starred in the age of Blair, perhaps not the most unknown Prime Minister of the UK (1997-2007), followed up by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown who continued the mess from 2007 to 2010.

So why blame them?

Even though the project started in 2002, during these three administration cycles, that project was blown in access of well beyond 10 billion with nothing to show for it. 10% of that fund could have prevented well over 80% of all current NHS issues. So, I will state that Labour might not have started this mess; they definitely were in the midst as it got bungled again and again. When we consider the September 2013 article (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/nhs-records-system-10bn), where we read “CSC’s contracts could not be cancelled because a legal challenge by the company may well have succeeded, the report claimed“, we can see that this issue was bungled in several departments, the IT branch not being the smallest one.

Yes, we know, we see and we all feel that any NHS system costs us, but this fiasco is beyond the entire budget of the Ministry of Transport for 2015, so we can say that there are issues. Whatever we will hear in defense regarding how things must move forward, the current administration is still cleaning up the mess of Labour, best way they can (with emptied coffers), so the sanctimonious highlighting by Labour (not unlike the current acts of Labour in Australia), should be looked at with some contempt. When the previous landlord sells the garage, he does not get to remark on how less ‘clean’ the car is, when he had removed the shelter in the first place.

When we see the quote ““To reduce pressures on hospitals and to keep a flow of patients coming in and leaving hospital, we need to manage the number of available beds more efficiently. To achieve this, we need to reduce unnecessary admissions and visits to A&E and improve community care.”“, we should add to that that the system was meant to be better by having an actual system. When we consider a previous made quote “Dr Mark Porter, chairman of the BMA, says £20bn savings drive to blame, as doctors and nurses are made redundant“, we must now remember that wasting in access of £10bn for a non-working IT system has everything to do with that part. But that is only one factor.

For the next part I need to refer to a decent article in the Independent (at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-myth-excessive-government-borrowing-got-us-into-this-mess-8601390.html). There we see the following: “In fact, government borrowing did not get us into this mess. As we shall see, the last government did not borrow excessively, whilst the recession was a consequence of overleveraged banks and the collapse of the US housing market. The banks overextended themselves in poorly regulated financial markets, indulging in high-risk lending in the belief that a housing bubble would never burst“, this is absolutely true, yet not entirely correct. consider in 2008, Gordon Brown was handed a lemon for sure, yet, the strong measures that should have been taken, like cutting back hard, especially in late 2009 onwards, were also absent. The article has a few other ‘represented’ events that are true, yet incomplete, you see, no one will deny that the banks were all at fault for the bulk of the mess, yet harsh acts afterwards were mostly none existent, moreover, many of these big wigs went home with a golden handshake a fat donation to their bank account and enough to buy a ‘St James Hamper’ for all the members of their family (Catalogue Code: 2099429 at http://www.fortnumandmason.com).

So when we see the current Labour highlights, we need to take a few more details into consideration and can we agree that those issues were absent in this article?

So when we see the very premature promise of “He pledged Labour would invest an extra £2.5bn in the NHS each year, resulting in 20,000 more nurses and 8,000 GPs“, we need to consider that the bungles under labour had costed many of them their jobs in the first place. The NHS still needs a much better IT system then it has for now and until this is completed these issues will remain, trusting labour to get the job done is really not a good idea. We could misrepresent that we currently have well over 10 billion pieces of evidence to make that case. I will let you mull over any contemplation in that direction of financial deficit.

By the way, when considering that part, we must also consider Wednesday’s article (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/31/sexual-violence-soars-uk-hospitals), there we see security issues of several levels in the Guardian, now reread the issue from December 28th, at that point, these issues would have been clearly know. There is no mention of security or upgraded HR needs; just nurses and GP’s, so how out of touch is a three day old statement that did not consider known details at that very moment?

I see this as an out of touch Labour government that is highlighting and promising, yet the highlight is incorrect, the promise in inaccurate, perhaps even insincere and all of this in completely unrealistic (personal note: it sucks to be Labour at present). This is the view from Labour, whilst only looking at the issues that are touching the NHS, one of the most important issues that will remain around in the coming decade. I hope that the siblings of the UK (Read: Australia, Canada and New Zealand) take these thoughts into consideration, because if we ‘the Commonwealth’ in the upcoming age of IP want to survive, we need to up the game in several areas buy a lot! In this regard IP is not just a piece of software; our Intellectual Property is not just software (even though it is largely regarded as such). If we consider that the mind is the software of the brain, we need to rethink the premise that Big Business has forced us to make in the age where ‘they’ had set the target, the premise and the consequence. If we take the basic approach where ‘the Turing test is a test of a machine’s ability to conclusively show intelligent behaviour that is indistinguishable from a human being’, can we make a similar statement that ‘a system’s adherency to set and cater to a rule of definitions, which in turn allows servicing the need of a community’?

 

So what if we invert the current situation as we might see in the paper by Alan Turing ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence‘ around 1950. Our systems have been exceeding the ability of those computers for a long time, yet as technologists have been greed driven into a iterative release of hardware (and software), we ignored use of innovation in UNIX (or LINUX or SE-LINUX), to truly drive productivity as large players like Microsoft, to cater to profits forced business to take a step back, to be the sheep carrying the pay checks for these large corporations. So as we stare at the words of Alan Turing and as we look at the words of cognitive scientist Stevan Robert Harnad, where we wonder whether a machine can act indistinguishably, we all forgot (an implied assumption by me) about the part, ‘can a system truly cater and flexibly work under a premise of security as it caters to the need of health officials’, so that they can focus on treating and curing. A system bogged down by consultants and speculators on how it ‘must’ be, whilst ignoring the small academic innovators on how it actually could be.

Whilst dishing billions to a company with a legal challenge, we all should have looked at the future of IT as these minds were shaped at universities. The technologies required were never with the people in office now, they learned the previous iteration of technologies, the actual innovators are at university now and catering into that direction at 1% of the cost is more likely a solution then the one not delivered at present. Consider for a moment the PDF (at http://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/rec-man-pol.pdf). Now, there is nothing wrong with the entire approach to the document, yet at 5.9.12 we suddenly see “Be aware when redacting Microsoft Word documents electronically by using the black highlight text tool as this process is reversible. A Microsoft Word file converted into PDF can be easily read merely by copying if from PDF back into Word” suddenly we see that Microsoft is just part of all this, a ‘simple’ formatting is now a Microsoft based guideline. Why?

At 5.18.1 we see: “A secure drive (S:drive) has been created to hold such data and staff should contact openservice@atos.net to request a secure folder“, so this goes via a French multinational IT services corporation headquartered in Bezons, France, making 10 billion in 2013? How much of that revenue is coming from the NHS, and why is this cost not going through a British company (seems like an awfully simple question to pose). By the way, one other thing to notice is that the Glossary after page 27 shows the term ‘metadata’, yet the document itself leaves the term metadata unused, which refers to Protective marking, only discussed in Appendix D, where it is mentioned to the minimised extent. Although this document should not be seen as any representation of NHS IT (the document is actually a very decent piece of work), it should leave us with several questions, we might not get an answer to, if not for the now, then definitely towards the goal the NHS must steer to if it wants to survive beyond 2015, just adding funds will not do, and the funds Labour offers are those they have no access to until after an election, which will then be the funds that are non-existent as the present shows.

So where should we look when we are confronted with these misrepresentations (as I see them)?

I am not telling, just asking!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

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

June 30, 2014 · 13:43

Exit strategies anyone?

Today is an interesting day. The article in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/28/european-union-exit-will-harm-britain-says-cbi) is well worth reading and in addition, I must state that I am not sure whether I have made up my mind what would be the best course of action. I have been on both sides of this and I am currently on the fence. First of all, the UK must do what is best for the UK and beyond that the UK should do what is best for the Commonwealth. I personally think that this is the status as it should be at the moment. The question becomes whether Europe is the best for the UK. I am not talking about the Juncker issue (even though that seems to be part of any decision), but where should we be? The headline states “EU exit will harm UK, says leading British industry group“, yes THEY will talk in their own interest, they always do. The Eurostat numbers are unconvincing (at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-22012014-AP/EN/2-22012014-AP-EN.PDF), today’s reserved savings are tomorrows signal to abundantly overspend funds, that much has been seen again and again ever since 2009, when the taps should have been closed. This is also at the heart of the matter for what is best for the UK. And in all honesty, the UK has overspent their quota a fair bit too. Now we have a new issue. Up to 2013 we got to see a picture from some of the more decently reliable sources, yet, now later in 2014, there is almost nothing on the projected and actual numbers for 2013. There lies the hidden issue, it is not that there is little, there is too little information now, so who to believe. When governments are not boasting, they are definitely hiding some issues under the carpet and those issues will impact the UK too. I will not bore you with the numbers UKIP gives us (at http://www.ukipmeps.org/uploads/file/Cost_of_the_EU_25_5_11.pdf), they are talking their own brand of flavour, as would Prime Minister David Cameron, but where is the truth?

My benefit here is that I speak half a dozen languages, which gives me additional sources. The ‘Nederlands Dagblad‘ gives us (at http://www.nd.nl/artikelen/2014/februari/28/lagere-overheden-verwachten-te-hoog-tekort) the following: “Gemeenten, provincies en waterschappen verwachten dat hun begrotingstekort dit jaar uitkomt op 3,7 miljard euro. Dat is zeshonderd miljoen euro meer dan volgens de afgesproken norm mag” [translated] “Municipalities, counties and Water boards (a flood control and water resources management group) expect that their budget shortage will total at 3.7 billion, which is 600 million more than agreed upon“.

So the Dutch are already coming up short at present. This does not mean that this will be the end result! At http://www.bnr.nl/nieuws/beurs/487506-1302/liveblog-economie-krimpt-begrotingstekort-naar-33-procent-in-2013, we see the mention that the Dutch will have a budget shortage of 3.3% in 2013 and 3.4% in 2014. How much of this is correct, and when were some projections made?

We see the Dutch news on how the American economy is down 2.9% and that Bank managers are now getting a sizeable raises, yet the overall shortages of the Dutch is not really discussed on sites with above average reliability (like the NOS). The only one in a ‘happy happy joy joy’ position is Germany who now seems to have a budget surplus. Again, the harsh cuttings Germany did from 2010 onwards paid off, but they seem to be the only one. France deficit was set at 4.1% for 2014, so as we see the list grow, is it truly a good idea to stay in the Euro group? Industrials might think this, but they will not be confronted with the financial measures that will hit the UK and its taxpaying citizens. I was at first in the same boat where I thought that going out of the Euro was a bad idea, but as we see the growing concern of nearly all EEC countries going over the deficit limit, can the UK afford to stay in there? Moreover, will staying in until 2017 turn out to be a dangerous issue?

This is part of the issues, which I have stated before. When, not if the American economy goes over the edge, those in deep debt will get a new approach to humility. That part is still a dangerous situation for the UK as well (with a balance of almost minus 1.5 trillion). So, the dangers of additional debts from Europe would cripple the UK as well. This is as I see it part of the reason why the UKIP got such a huge success. The bulk of the politicians and all the other parties have been dancing around the economic situation. Most people have noticed it and 26 months of ‘feigned’ economic recovery is nice for the industrials, yet the people have not seen ANY improvements in their lives, which is the centrepiece of all the stress out there. This is part of the situation all are avoiding.

If we consider the Independent (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-nigel-farage-and-ukip-are-deceiving-british-public-and-holding-back-the-unemployed-with-immigration-rhetoric-9472289.html) we see another side. I would be willing to agree with this, yet the voice of Ed Miliband is not giving decent clarity and David Cameron is voicing the need of big business (to a larger extent), they all are talking in their own fast lane and the people end up being not in any good place.

Even now, less than an hour ago, Ed Miliband is quoted by Reuters as ‘looking to shed the anti-business label‘, which gives a lot less security to the people. In this confusion Nigel Farage is cleaning house as he is stating what people seem to want to hear. The correct critique remains how truthful are his statements?

This is what is driving the people in regards to an exit strategy. As the news is playing a game of what I personally regard as ‘managing bad news’ in several nations, the people are catching up and losing faith in governments in general. This is partially driving the demand for a European exit. The people are losing faith in the ‘facts’ as presented, because good news gets overinflated, bad news is managed and the press seems to help out governments and big business in not giving proper tallies, as too many are depending on advertisement funds (often from Big Business). We all seem to watch a weighted scale. Under those conditions, many prefer to go it alone and see that part return. Let’s not forget that before the Euro, the UK was in a pretty good position. The entire mass flocking to UKIP are remembering those days and they are hoping that they will return to these days and UKIP is talking right into that alley of expectations.

In regards to the article with the quote involving Tony Blair “The answer to the white, working-class unemployed youth in alienated communities in Britain is not to tell them their problems would be solved if there were fewer Polish people working in the UK, he said“. I tend to agree, but the truth is that these Polish workers seem to be getting some jobs and this is causing more stress with those desperately seeking work. I am not voicing any anti-Polish thoughts, the question becomes how did they get those jobs and more important, if this is how some businesses are getting cheap labour, why is this not dealt with in regards to unfair working conditions. The Telegraph (never a great source for quality info) is publishing articles on how 10% of a company is Polish. This is getting to the people, who do not look at the whole picture. The Independent is bringing us a much better story quality wise (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/migrants-in-britain-a-decade-on-the-poles-who-brought-prosperity-9278710.html). The article by Emily Dugan shows the story of a Polish entrepreneur, who because a success through hard work, employing dozens of people. This Radomir Szwed shows another side, one that does not get illuminated that often. It is a story all should read, only to show that immigration is not a source of job losses, but one that brings jobs too, yet the Telegraph is not that likely to bring such a story.

All this brings us to a less appealing story in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/18/nigel-farage-far-right-european-parliament). As the power of Nigel Farage grows in regards to his European side whilst joining with former members of French ‘Front Nationale’ and a more extreme viewed Swedish party, the issues will continue. Even though there is debate on Nigel Farage, he sees himself as the person to voice the needs of Britain, a voice Prime Minister Cameron lost when his opposition to Juncker was defeated 26-2. If Nigel Farage delivers any victory for the British people in any way, the powers in the UK will change leaving the Tories very little options in regards to the EEC. Will David Cameron be forced to call an early vote to exit Europe? Perhaps Nigel Farage will have that option as he currently has the strongest options in Europe. However, not all is well in that regards either, now the votes are done, we see a splintering in what was a solid danger. Some are re-establishing themselves and some are defecting to the new Le Pen group. So, not all is quiet on the eastern front with the EEC.

These matters will bring question to any exit strategy we see on the European front. No matter what happens, until the people get some clear information on how the debts are, where they are and how deficits are going as well as their own options, there will be no relief. The party that brings the best story and adds true relief on the hardship the people in the UK currently have will get a massive spike in votes.

I am not sure any exit strategy will bring that, yet, when we consider the response by Richard Branson (at http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/why-an-exit-from-eu-would-be-bad-for-british-business), my response is that this is not a given either. If we see what some Commonwealth partners are agreeing to within the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership), then we are seeing how politicians seem to be lining American Big Business pockets, whilst not overly protecting the their own local interests. This will in the end hit back to the UK as well. Consider that these Trade Agreements are not at all discussed out in the open (which makes sense until some point is reached). It seems to me that the UK needs to talk to Australia, Canada and New Zealand at that point. Because not only will the TPP impact the UK, whomever signs the TPP could be in for a long rough spell whilst US and Japan will hunt down a new currency, which is no longer the dollar, but a currency named IPR (Intellectual Property rights). IPR will be the new gold over the next 10 years. Those who have enough of them survive.

This is the unspoken side of the exit strategy. As the EU is chained to the US in several ways, the UK must secure its future in any way it can, yes we must all get rid of our debts, but in equal measure the UK will rely on its entrepreneurs, which includes people like Radomir Szwed, that is the side UKIP is not really talking about and their immigration changes would have negatively impacted the UK.

I remain on the fence on whether the UK should or should not leave, but complete clarity is a must which is a side the press, in all their whining after the Leveson trials have remained awfully unclear about.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

March 1, 2014 · 18:05

Hot air for the Ukraine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is this connected?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

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