Tag Archives: Democrats

The Jet joke

The old joke goes “How do you know the plane is full of politicians? When the engines shut down and the whining goes on”, I believe it should be followed by a da-dum-dum. Yet the stage is set and it has been going on for a while now. The BBC article ‘Amy Coney Barrett: Democrats attack ‘shameful’ Supreme Court hearing’ got the better of me and the whining (in an age where we we have actual problems) got on my nerves. OK, I will admit that I am mostly Republican in mind, the issue of this president is one that I am not happy about. From my personal point of view, this president is no Republican, I consider him a greed driven loon, yet he was elected and as I wrote earlier, the constitution allows him to nominate a Supreme Court Judge, and the senate gets to confirm the nomination, this is what the American constitution gives us, yet the BBC gives us “But one Democratic senator on the committee described the process as “shameful””, so which Senator was that BBC? Do the people not have a right to know? In addition, what legal premise is this senator working from? In addition, the BBC gives us “The Republicans – who currently hold a slim majority in the US Senate, the body that confirms Supreme Court judges – are trying to complete the process before Mr Trump takes on Democratic rival Joe Biden in the election”, which is correct, but what are the names in the panel? The BBC also gives us “this process has been nothing but shameful. Worse, it will almost certainly lead to disastrous consequences for Americans”, as such I wonder what evidence can Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy give us? So far he is giving us nothing but air, not even hot air. At what moment in time, has any supreme court judge been anything but legal? Yes, we get it, they all want to have liberal judges and no one denies that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a force to be reckoned with and she was a liberal judge. Yet the law was clear, the elected president gets to nominate a Supreme Court Judge during his tour as president of the United States, electing a Supreme Court Judge is one of the few long term policies he can set, and as such President Trump is allowed to do what is happening today, but the media is nothing if not ‘appeasing’, they will print the ramblings of Democrats, because the larger belief is that this president is most likely a one term president and the media needs brownie points. 

So when we see “Democrats demonstrated that they want Amy Coney Barrett’s hearings to be about the Republican rush to seat a new justice before the elections and the possibility that she could be a deciding vote to strike down the increasingly popular healthcare reforms passed under Democratic President Barack Obama”, so where does it state in the constitutions that this is about  “the Republican rush to seat a new justice before the elections”, all whilst all parties (except the Republicans) ignore the constitution that states “When a vacancy occurs, the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints a new justice”, that is the law and the law was abided to, it might not please the Democrats, but the is what it is, so now they all whine like little bitches (I meant like jet engines). Yet in all this we see no clarity on the panel, do we?

As such, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court , who exactly are these members?  Well there is a majority group which consists of Lindsey Graham (SC), Chairman,  Chuck Grassley (IA), John Cornyn (TX), Mike Lee (UT), Ted Cruz (TX), Ben Sasse (NE), Josh Hawley (MO), Thom Tillis (NC), Joni Ernst (IA), Mike Crapo (ID), John Kennedy (LA), Marsha Blackburn (TN). These 12 members are the majority, the 10 minority members are Dianne Feinstein (CA), Patrick Leahy (VM), Dick Durbin (IL), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Chris Coons (DE), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Mazie Hirono (HI), Cory Booker (NJ), Kamala Harris (CA). 22 members ‘interrogating’ the next Supreme Court Justice, but the confirmation is set when all senators vote and the Republicans have a majority, a very slim one, as such the Democrats have one option, to ask the right questions, as they pound on those, they can merely hope to sway 3 senators away from the ‘Yay’ vote when the confirmation vote starts and they need a majority to make it pass, if ALL democrats agree this will not happen. The is as good as it gets for the Democrats. Will this happen? I do not know, the previous confirmation was Justice Kavanaugh and took 48 hours as well as more than 1200 questions. Will we see a repetition of this? We are about to find out. 

I wonder how much media will actually be focusing on the questions the democrats asked, and why they were asked. A similar setting does apply to the Republicans, yet the setting of “Democrats are avoiding the divisive topic of abortion, which motivates political adversaries as much as it rallies allies, for what they feel is more favourable political ground”, as such we see the chance of finding a justice with a focus on law is low compared to the Democrat need to find a person that is politically convenient. I merely wonder why they want judges to begin with.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

It is up to someone

Yup, there is always a person to point at, a person to blame, a person to delegate to and a person to expect from. We tend to be all alike in the common things, the things that need doing and it tends to motivate us. This all started a few hours ago whilst I was waking up (without coffee mind you), and I saw all kinds of news the involved $70,000. All kinds of celebrities and politicians were commenting on it. It took me a few seconds to find out the this was about the tax returns of president Trump. He had set a tax deduction of $70,000 towards that mangy coiffure of his.

I pondered as people were laughing at him and people were making claims of fraud and prosecution. Yet in all this not one voice raised the issue on the IRA, his accountant and the others involved signing off on that. Is that no interesting? Consider that a person spends $5800 a month on a haircut, it is even less likely than someone who is impotent requiring $4000 in condoms each month. In light of the setting that President Trump had set the stage with large losses I wonder who was checking his books and why the IRA approved it all. 

In all this I found that the Independent, via The Times, (at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-tax-report-apprentice-hair-expenses-b659155.html) did spend some time on this. They went further by stating “The Times report also found that Trump has been feuding with the Internal Revenue Service for the last decade over a nearly $73 million tax refund he previously claimed. If the IRS were to prevail in its audit, which has seemingly stalled in recent years, Trump could be responsible for paying over $100 million to the government”, consider that he states that criminals cannot vote, can the Americans demand that a politician cannot be elected with outstanding tax bills? 

It is not merely what President Trump believes is due, or what the IRS believes is outstanding, this one case alone proves what I have been claiming for over 2 years, until tax laws are overhauled the mess in America (and the EU) will continue. I would go further that anyone opposing tax bills must do so visibly for all to see. I wonder how much opposition we see at that point. 

A stage that fuels the setting of “It reported that the former reality television star reported making a combined $427.4 million from 2004 to 2018 by selling his name and image through various endorsements and licensing deals” with an additional “The Times reported that Trump appeared to be responsible for $421 million in loans coming due in the next four years”, it gives rise to a few issues where the IRS is falling short. 

So whilst we consider the opening setting “In a bombshell, 10,000-word report following an extensive investigation, The New York Times published claims that Mr Trump, who prides himself on his business acumen, pays a minuscule amount of tax”, it seems to me that no one has been talking to his accountant and the IRS, I know that his accountant will not talk, yet the setting is not on what happened, but on the small issue whether tax laws were breached. That is the centre stage and whilst every one is in a stage of the blame game whilst attending musical chairs, the question not answered, we merely focus on “paid no federal income tax in 10 of the past 15 years and only $750 in the year he was elected”, everyone is overlooking the fact whether he broke the law. That is the stage we need to see, we see that good accountants are expensive and they are so for a reason. For those with a sense of humour, consider that Star Trek gave us the Ferengi rules of acquisition over 20 years ago, there we see in Laws 255 “A wife is a luxury… a smart accountant a necessity”, as such TV stations were more clued in towards tax needs 33 years ago. Yes, it is that disgraceful, the setting of taxation and proper taxation was an item 33 years ago and over that time NOTHING was done. This is not a Republican flaw, because over 33 years several democratic presidents were in charge; but it was never a good time, was it? I have given light to flawed tax settings for well over 5 years, not just in the US, it is a flaw all over the EU as well, the Apple issue is proof of that. Yes, we can all blame and curse at President Trump (your right to do so), but consider that the IRS is central in this mess, so who is taking the limelight in that direction?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Choices

We all see them, we all have them and we often have a feeling of polarisation when we are hit by them. It all starts with a tweet by George Takei. I greatly admire the guy, not in the least as Lt. Sulu on the Enterprise. The man is intelligent, direct and has (as I personally see it) ownership of the statement ‘Oh my!’ George has an impressive history as an actor and as a humanitarian. He is also an activist and all that does not break down in any way of the person he is. I have no problem s towards him as a person or as a republican, he is the kind of person that actually makes America great and we have to accept that. I have no issues with him and I have no issues with his stance against President Trump, even as I agree with him on this matter, no matter how republican I am, we need to be held to account for what we say and what we do and I believe the fits with the republican point of view.

So when I saw the tweet, I was a little miffed. You see, in the directness of the setting Senator Gardner is actually correct. When we look at the constitution we see “When a vacancy occurs, the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints a new justice”, it is however a little more complex. The president can choose whomever he wants, yet it must be settled through a majority in the US Senate. As such 51 senators need to confirm the appointment and that is where it gets to be complex. 

Candidates are nominated by the President of the United States and must face a series of hearings in which both the nominee and other witnesses make statements and answer questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which can vote to send the nomination to the full United States Senate. Confirmation by the Senate allows the President to formally appoint the candidate to the court. The Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a Justice, thus the President may nominate any individual to serve on the Court”, yet feel free to read up (at https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Nominations.htm). 

It is the series of hearings the are the big issue in most cases, yet here to President Trump has an advantage, or does he? To see this, we need to voice the opinion of an individual. This was done with “RIP to the more than 30 million innocent babies that have been murdered during the decades that Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended pro-abortion laws”, the issue is not one I agree with, but that visibility will aid us. Some republicans and especially the pro-life people will want a different type of judge, they will have a polarising look at the entire situation, yet when we examine congress we get a grasp of PEW research (at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/18/three-in-ten-or-more-democrats-and-republicans-dont-agree-with-their-party-on-abortion/).

No matter how we want to see the data, we need to see the top-line net numbers. In this only 64% of the Republicans agree with this stance. Moreover, the 7% of the democrats agreeing with the Republicans will not be enough to carry the call of a majority, the hearing will be on many issues, but as you can see depending on the hearing, there will be any number of issues that the senate will be dissenting on and the hearings will be a task on a few items and even as there is a Republican senate, it might not be enough for a few reasons. 

As a law graduate I have to believe in the process and the US has a larger process, as I see it the constitution sets a large protective fence around the nation of law setting and that is good, so as such the selection of any Supreme Court judge is a big thing, it will be a big thing for either side of the isle and it is the right for the Republicans to select one (for now) and if the US senate confirms the choice, it will be a one deal.

When we see “When a vacancy occurs, the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints a new justice”, why does anyone assume that the presently elected president would not try to select a Supreme? It is one of the greatest things any president gets to do. So for the Democrats it kind of sicks that the timing is off, but that does not matter, there is a vacancy, and this president gets to nominate the next one.

And before we give rise to the ones making noise on the fairness of it. Consider the this president got elected by the 55% the voted, if Demo(c)rats are so about the issue, remember, 45% could not be bothered getting out of bed to vote. That sucks doesn’t it?

So as we are confronted with the choices of people, we need to accept the we might not agree with all, but we accept the they have a right to chose. I might not agree with George Takei all the time, but his choices tend to be intelligent, as such I will take notice. So whilst we see all kinds of flames are started on Twitter and Facebook, we have to consider to reset a lot of them (99%) from the get go and learn what is involved with certain choices and nominations. Who of you knew of the hearings? Who knew that a nomination requires a majority approval? Who knew that the last one elected (also by President Trump) got there after a grilling that took 48 hours and well over 1250 questions. As such there is a stage we need to consider, if the last two were not bad choices (Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh), why is there so much opposition? We all accept that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an amazing judge and filling those shoes will be a hard task, but the rules of the game (the constitution) are clear, There is a vacancy and a nomination can be put forward, the vacancy happened in the age of President Trump and unless there is actual evidence that the previous two were wrong choices, we get to blame the US senate, I merely wonder who dug through those 1250 questions and came optionally to the conclusion of wrongful election?  

I made a choice, George Takei made a choice, Senator Gardner made a choice, the US Senate made its choice and President Trump made a choice. I am not wise enough to proclaim who was wrong, optionally none were. Could you be wrong?

This is the beauty of subjectivity, it is our right, it is the right of most people living in a free democratic world.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

One sided coin

When is a one-sided coin like a watchdog? That is the underlying question, and the answer is seen in this article ‘When they are shallow’. We all have needs, we all have centred targets, but what happens when that setting makes you miss the larger picture? Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against watchdogs, I have nothing against the media, or politicians, but when they give a one sided brief just to please themselves, how shallow will they be? It is not the first time, but in this case it starts with ‘US watchdog report cites civilian casualties in Saudi arms deal’, now this might be correct, might being the operative word and not towards optionally pointing fingers and not towards the setting. We see “The Saudi-UAE air raids hit farms, schools, water supplies, and energy sources, triggering what the United Nations has described as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis” now, I am not making a statement that they did not do that, but in all that, was it truly some civilian hit target or were there Houthi and/or Hezbollah fighters there? So whilst some focus on ‘precision-guided-munition components’, no one is looking what they were clearly firing on, because that too is an unknown. So whilst some focus on one side of “Tens of thousands of Yemenis, many of them civilians, have been killed by the Saudi-UAE air strikes – often with American-made weapons, targeting information and aerial refuelling support”, in a stage where should consider on ‘how many were civilians (and how many were not)’ in the sentence “Tens of thousands of Yemenis, many of them civilians”, yes we can hide behind ‘many of them’, but precision is essential, even if the weapons are not. In addition Representative Eliot Engel, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee gives us ““This obvious pre-spin of the findings reeks of an attempt to distract and mislead,” Engel said, adding that he feared the classified annex to the report would be “used to bury important or possibly incriminating information””, and I am not debating that, yet in all this, the stage where Eliot Engel is optionally helping our the Iranians, that is still up for debate, is it not? So when we check NPR and we see the question “Congress had concerns about $8 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and those concerns included how the arms might be used in the war in Yemen” and the only thing that Eliot Engel gives us is “Yeah”? By the way the interview (at https://www.npr.org/2020/08/11/901431799/engel-discusses-ig-report-on-u-s-selling-8-billion-worth-of-arms-in-middle-east) gives us nothing on ‘Iran’, ‘Houthi’ and ‘Hezbollah’, three tags that are essential in the Yemeni war, as well as the current Saudi Arabian state of affairs, so why are they missing? So whilst Engel gives us “Meaning that all the excuses that they give us, all the reasons they give us for doing what they have to do are phony and are made up. It’s just that they don’t – they want to have freedom to operate, not have the public know anything, certainly not have Congress know anything. And this is the way they’ve operated from day one. And it’s not really, you know – on the Foreign Affairs Committee, this is our jurisdiction. We’re supposed to be investigating these things, and they look at us as somehow intruding on their private purview”, a view that is his and might be valid, but the Yemeni war is larger and the three elements (Houthi, Hezbollah and Iran) are left out of it giving us an unbalanced and one sided story. Now, there is a side that accept, the US can decide on how it does business and who it does business with, and consider the hilarity we see when that $8,000,000,000 dollars goes to the Chinese or Russian treasury coffers? The US has been alienating its middle eastern partners to such an extent (all whilst ignoring to a larger degree the activities by Iran), we need to see the way that ball rolls down the hill and away from the congressional weapons sales teams. So whilst some might applaud the activity of watchdogs, the absence of the whole picture is actually rather disturbing. Not merely to the stage, but the fallout is other large. This does not reflect on Eliot Engel, but his congressional party is seemingly ignoring a much larger stage and this stage includes both Hezbollah and Iran, so why is Eliot Engel and his band of naughty congressionals ignoring that? Consider that the people for a week have been aware of ‘Saudi Arabia’s project clears 177,637 Houthi mines in Yemen’, now, we accept that some would have originated in Yemen, but not all and when we see these elements in the equation (and that is merely the beginning of that mess), we need to wonder why the US watchdog is so one sided. An investigation into the forces active in Yemen, as well as the weapons used and one side is left off the table completely. So how does your humanitarian side react to that? Oh and for desert I offer ’84.000 children in Yemen are dead, who is holding the Houthi and their methods to account?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

What inspiration was there?

There are several things going on. We have Brexit, Frexit, issues with government, bankruptcy of America and there are the tensions. Racial in America, religious in Europe and even in Canada, a nation where the scariest thing is switching off the lights now has a level of tension that Canadians have not seen in many decades. Yet, this is not a light article, this story will turn darker than black soon enough.

Yet, all is not lost, you see, one man’s disaster is another man’s fortune. An issue I actually just stumbled upon. The article that started it is not the one I’ll start with. Let’s start with: ‘Exodus of 10,000 millionaires amid rising Muslim tensions‘ (at http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/france-sees-millionaire-exodus-religious-tensions-rise-1552423), which is all about France. This article actually gives us a little more than some bargained for. The quote “The report was compiled by New World Wealth, an agency that gives information on the global wealth sector. The report was based on data collected from investor visa programme statistics of each country“, you see, that in itself sounds nice, but the super wealthy will have houses on Nassau, Manhattan, possibly London and South America or Australia. You see, these people can travel all over the place, their passports usually do not require visa’s as they go about their spending spree, meaning that they re-locate every 3-4 months, never entering anyone’s field of vision and the authorities will not care as they come to spend. It is the second part that does have an impact “annual interviews with around 800 global high net worth individuals and with intermediaries like migration experts, second citizenship platforms, wealth managers and property agents; data from property registers and property sales statistics in each country; and by tracking millionaire movements in the media“. I personally think that this goes a little further than that. Consider the following news: “Millionaires are leaving Chicago more than any other city in the United States on a net basis, according to a new report“, which is the news we got from the Chicago Tribune. That news is a little more over a week old, but the overall image is forming. The US cannot correct its infrastructure, the people are no longer safe in their homes and racial tension does the rest. These people will have options (as reported) in Seattle and San Francisco. I reckon when places like Minneapolis clean up its crime part, places like that, as well as Lancaster Pennsylvania will get additional attention, these are places with traditional grounding, meaning that older traditional values still bring strength to the table for now. For now is a massive element, but that changes as more and more imbalance sets in. All this because there was not clear correction after the Global Financial Crises in 2008. An issue fuelling Brexit, which only gives the US more to worry about when their currency takes a dive. So will the image of American mansions move to the image of mansions in South Africa, where a wealthy person has a high fence and armed security guard patrols?

Perhaps, but have no fear Vivos is on the case. You see at http://terravivos.com/ where you can tour the largest underground shelter. Is this mere scaremongering? I am not certain, let’s face it, when the dollar does collapse, it will be a dangerous day to be wealthy in America, this is the escalation that was always a risk and has grown into a real clear and present danger. These racial tensions are now getting labelled ‘the Trump effect’, yet is that actually valid? I am not certain, as poverty becomes a stronger issue, the issues between the Democrats and the Republicans will explode, yet overall that makes neither side evil or wrong. Yet, the followers on those two sides make that a realistic cause and effect escalation. As mentioned earlier, we see the rich moving away, but where to?

Other states were mentioned in articles, some will go abroad, yet no matter which of the two happen and state finances will take an additional dive. No matter how their taxation goes, these people spend a decent amount of money on a weekly basis, which now means that millions per week in retail is lost. It seems like a little thing, which it is on a spreadsheet, but in all that the middle class will get hit slightly harder and they have no means to just pick up and leave. They get to live through another downgrade of infrastructure and soon thereafter their funds start diminishing as the overall retirement focus gets lost to factors that do not matter.

So Vivos has a solution. Well, it uses (bought) some of the cold war executive storage facilities and have turned them into solid 5-star survival bunker. A little bit like the Fallout games. There is only one small difference. When these shelters are used, there is little chance that this will be because of nuclear needs. There will be no radiation shielding you from extremist ramifications. The intro movie on their site shows the very first Achilles heel (and that is not the only one). You see, the intro shows the entrance and the long way down to the entrance door. This means that the alternative is not getting in, it is just to dump one cement truck load of concrete down that hole. The cement once dried will make it impossible to open those steel doors (after you weld a bar in front of the entry door), you walk away and within 2 years 80 billionaires will be without food, water and an entrance. So after 15 months a few trillions will have been freed up. This is relatively easy as you only need to find one engineer who worked on it to find out where it was. A system this big will have been talked about, engineers talking to their little boys and girls on how daddy made a safe place for the President, so the location will no longer be a secret!

Yes, they can take loads of precautions, but in the end, it cannot be done from within the entrance and soon after everything that is not on the inside will move from asset to liability. How long do you think these people inside the bunkers have when that point arrives?

The issue remains, what we saw as fun fiction in the 2013 movie Elysium is a lot less far-fetched than one might believe. Even as we know that several sides are pure fiction, the idea of a space station for the super wealthy is technically possible. We have the technology to get it made, they have the cash to build it for real. Real Estate at a billion dollars plus, where the only issue is the oxygen, but that is a mere shuttle away. Yet to get the required number of billionaires out there to agree to this, is perhaps not yet possible. So what is left, a giant cruise ship? A place that never goes to any harbour? Here we have the increasing need of fuel and energy, which a space station would not have as solar panels would be active 24:7. So is a bunker as portrayed in the game series Fallout a reality? That is indeed the question, as stated, it might sound nice in case of pandemics and disasters, but the population is not a disaster (actually it is), those people can solve things, being in a fort is one thing, but when the outside walls are riddled with hostiles, it will only take one clever hostile to drill a hole and fill it with water or concrete. Vivos already has the pricing up for Indiana. $35K at a one-time price. Yet, what happens when the year is up? How to get food and how to get the other resources? Indiana has 80 places, Europa one in addition of 500. So what happens when they become an actual reality? Yet in all this, there is another side where Vivos might be regarded as a failure. The quote “built to provide a minimum of one year of autonomous underground survival before needing to return to the surface after the worst is over” gives them one year, but these social tensions will not be solved within a year. So what will happen when Europa one hits zero resources? They also offer bunkers for on your own property. A place like in those 50’s shelters on your own turf. Yet in all this Vivos is actually sitting on an additional product, you see, when we consider the shortage of housing, the need for something portable and something lasting. Apply this to something slightly more mundane like a 20 feet container and you have the beginning of a solution to get housing to refugee centres. I personally believe that the IKEA Solar-Powered Flat Pack Shelters for Easily Deployable Emergency Housing (at http://inhabitat.com/ikeas-solar-powered-flat-pack-refugee-shelters-offer-easily-deployable-emergency-housing/ikea-refugee-shelter2/) is easily set and shipped, yet they need construction. That is where issues could exist. Yet, if containers become part of the additional framework. Giving structural support on the sides making these houses even sturdier, than this is a solution that should be investigated. You see, the other solution is way too dark and it is one that many seem to be negative towards.

This goes beyond the mere need for refugees. When we consider the 7.3 earthquake that just hit the Kumamoto region implies the need for housing as a 7.3 quake tends to leave loads of people homeless as houses collapse. The Vivos solution is actually a lot sturdier in earthquake terrain as the aftershocks tend to lay waste to the IKEA solution, which makes perfect sense, IKEA brought an emergency solution, not a solution that survives emergency devastation.

In all this another side is illuminated. This is seen when we consider the news of January 26th 2016, when we got the news “The rarest of the black rhino subspecies, the West African Black Rhinoceros, is now recognized by the ICUN as extinct“, mainly due to poaching. So it is time to go into that darker than black place.

Do we deserve to survive?

Do we, rich or poor, healthy or not deserve to survive, this is the question that is on the minds of a fair amount of people. As more and more species become extinct, we need to consider the one part most people are unwilling to do. What happens when we make our own kind close to extinct? What is we get rid of 93%? Leaving us with a mere 500 million people over the entire planet? This gives the planet time to heal. The extinct species might not come back, but consider that it took 120 years to get from 1-2 billion, after that the growth got greater fast, growing a billion in mere decades instead of centuries. We need to get back to those times. There are additional benefits. There will be no job shortage, houses will be cheap as dirt. A life where there is no need for massive oil reserves, no need for Wal-Mart or other mass markets. A mere market for what we actually need. A massive reset of the planet. The question becomes, when we dwindle the population as the super-rich are in a bunker? Would that be an act of Genocide?

Genocide is defined as ‘the intentional action to systematically eliminate a cultural, ethnic, linguistic, national, racial or religious group‘, the UN adopted on December 9th 1948 the General Assembly Resolution 260 through the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). This act is the crowning achievement by Raphael Lemkin, a lawyer of Polonized-Jewish descent.

Interesting is the definitions we see in articles 2 and 3 (at http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html). Here we see ‘acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such‘:

  • Killing members of the group;
  • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

This is the ‘interesting’ side in all this, the poor or the ‘abundantly present’ are not set definitions. So the question becomes, are we as ‘users’ of the planet not equally responsible for the continuation of the planet? What happens to that law when you have no set group, what happens when the goal is just to cull the population, what makes it genocide? If it is not that, how many ‘greens’ are willing to sit their life for murder when their hearts tell them that this act they undertook, saved the surviving animal species of this planet and the long list of extinctions end overnight?

By the way, if you think that my ideas are extreme, than realise that I was not the first to voice them. Dr. Eric R. Pianka voiced them in 2006. He got reported by William A. Dembski who informed the Department of Homeland Security that Pianka’s speech may have been intended to foment bioterrorism. Leave it to a person with degrees in Mathematics and Theology and mislabel a mathematical uncertainty as ‘bioterrorism’. In the end, Dembski is right, if we are to save the planet, bioterrorism might be all that is left as a methodology to achieve it. Chemical and nuclear leave too deep a mark on the planet and the life forms around us. Bio toxins have the danger of leaving a mark, yet when they are only affecting people, it becomes ‘less of an issue‘, especially when we leave 500 million alive, most of them farmers by the way. Soon thereafter the Tiger and Orang-utan will get their homes back. What Rhino’s remain can grow their numbers and the fish will reconquer the oceans. Whether it becomes a disease like Ebola as presented by Dr. Pianka or like in the TV Series Helix where 99% of the people are made infertile, we have however surpassed the time to sit back and relax, so it is not impossible that I see the actions required to achieve all this before I pass away.

If you do not believe me than ask the West African Black Rhinoceros, oh no, you can’t we made that one extinct already. So how much else is needed before we realise that out time has a diminished timeline? I once came to the calculations that we have little more than 7 generations left. 7 generations until we have destroyed our planet to the degree that it will no longer support viable eco system. The fact that Pianka made his presentation in 2006, gives weight that we are further down the rabbit hole than we predicted and that my calculation was optimistic. The interconnection of species has been ignored by those in mere pursuit of greed, the overall need for wealth that has taken a lush planet and decimated it in less than 200 years. What will we do yet? The Vivo presentation could be the idea of an entrepreneur marketing to conspiracy theorists with deep pockets, or are they banking on the need for extreme actions?

No matter what happens next, just consider that should the European Medicines Agency decide to tweak their ‘Test procedures and acceptance criteria for biological products‘ (at http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002824.pdf), whatever Vivo had open for sale could be sold at 6000% a mere 10 seconds later. By the way, one final thought in the process of infertility as produced by Ronald D. Moore (TV Series Helix), in light of that document on acceptance criteria. What would be regarded as a purity, an impurity or a contaminant?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics, Science

The wrong presentation

The BBC treated its readers half an hour ago to a segment where the title tells all and says nothing (at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33646704), the title ‘Obama urges UK to stay in the European Union‘, we then get a few quotes that matter, even if they give clear voice to another direction. First there is “UK’s EU membership “gives us much greater confidence about the strength of the transatlantic union”“, then we get “the EU “made the world safer and more prosperous”” and it is followed by “the failure to pass “common sense gun safety laws” in the US was his biggest frustration“, which is nice to hear but to some extent pointless.

I wonder how he gets all these thoughts. Perhaps as I speculated in ‘Diary for a wimpy President‘ which I wrote in January 2014 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/01/18/diary-for-a-wimpy-president/), there I wrote “Did anyone consider how nervous certain people in Wall Street were; if their mobile information was known? What if certain links were proven? The accountability of certain people would mean that they could actually end up in jail. Yes, the Wimpy kid in the Oval Office is making certain that certain connections will never end up there (always blame the man at the very top)“, which is a reference not just to the president, but to his advisors, those who are behind the curtain giving voice to what keeps the high and mighty, high and mighty.

So let’s take a look at the quote “UK’s EU membership gives us much greater confidence about the strength of the transatlantic union“. I would oppose that thought, you see, the US requires the EU to remain in disarray, on the edge, because a better EU means a worse US and it should have tipped over the edge two years ago, this continuation can only remain as Germany and the UK are dragged down, if it was truly just about confidence, the US would have stepped forward regarding Greece 6 months ago, but they waited it out, only as Greece was about to get expelled did the President speak up, because a collapsing Euro means a collapsed dollar. I am not contradicting myself here, there is a difference between a collapsing Euro and a weak EU, it is a tightrope game which is partially enabled by the power players of what we would regard the ‘Wall Street gang’, because if the Euro goes, so does their combined 7 trillion dollar life. Now as we consider Greece again when we see the Quote in the Guardian Live “IOBE now fears that the economy will shrink by between 2% and 2.5% in 2015, due to the damage caused to exports, tourism, business investment and consumer spending“, now compare that to the issue I raised in ‘If at first you don’t succeed!‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/06/13/if-at-first-you-dont-succeed/), so just in one month, we went from the revelation “the forecast of Greece is 0.5% in 2015 and 2.9% in 2016, I wonder how they got to it all and if such misrepresentation should not be a cause for liability?” to what we have now. Can anyone explain how a forecast has been off by 3%, the danger to tourism was already known, so as we have to go through iteration of managed bad news, we see that there is too much ‘miscommunication’. So reader, realise this part, even with the bulk of the fact known, the forecast was wrong not by 0.3% (which could happen in really bad predicted turmoil), the forecast is off by 3%, which is a massive failing. So, as we get pushed around and as Greece goes from minus 400 billion to minus 550 billion, how could any of the so far surviving members of the EU consider remaining in something that is dragging them all down?

The UK has a few massive problems and the EU is stopping the UK from dealing with them, all this is fine for the US as it needs to stop themselves from drowning, the issues in Japan are just accelerators to all of this. And the words chosen are they not interesting too? Instead of the European Economic Union, he refers to ‘the strength of the transatlantic union‘, is that perhaps an underlying NATO reference?

Now we get to the second part “the EU “made the world safer and more prosperous”“, which is a non-truth, the fact that the EU is now well over 7 trillion in debt counters the statement of safe and prosperous, the fact that only a few got out with loads of cash implies to me that the President is catering to those few, not the 25% unemployed in Spain or in Greece, neither does he take notice trough that statement to the massively rise of people below the poverty line, but perhaps for economic tainted America they do not count, hence they are ignored.

So now we get to the last statement where the president seems to get into emotional mode and refers to “common sense gun safety laws“, yes, that sounds nice, but again, guns do not kill people, people kill people. To illustrate, the latest event gives us three quotes “Dylann Roof, the man accused of a shooting spree that left nine people dead at a historic black church in Charleston on Wednesday night, should not have been able to get a gun“, “Roof was arrested and later charged with felony possession of Suboxone” and “According to his uncle, Roof received a .45-caliber pistol from his father in April for his birthday“, so common sense went out the window, because ‘moronic daddy’ bought his junkie son a gun!

In all this there is one possible upside, with the US president making blundering whoppers like that (decently possibly due to the advisors he has), there is every chance that the coming election will give the next presidency to the Republicans, in all this, they might win by default, because what will shine is that the President waisted so much time on common gun laws that he ignored (read: did not correctly change the power of) the number one killer, which is a 18 trillion dollar debt, a budget that is non-existent and absolutely no control on the government spending.

A mere travesty of the situation when we look at the given reasons to keep the UK in the EU. In the end the people will choose what is best for them and as such merry old England will raise its voice giving direction to parliament, as it should be, that is why the power players are so afraid of monarchies, because the monarchy considers all citizens, not just those with an economic value. In all that, I wonder how he will consider France, because the UK is not the only one who has had enough of all this.

So as I see it, a pleading President came with the wrong presentation, he should take a look at his advisors and the agenda’s that they have, because as I see it, at present his last 18 months seem to be about what cannot be done and who comes next, his current track could invite the event that he gets a beautiful bouquet of flowers as he exits the White House with a thank you note from the GOP, which could be a first in US politics.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

First Blood

It’s nice to see the Guardian this morning, first there is the news on Alan Rushbridger who stops being a teenager and starts heading the Scott Trust the power that be, behind the Guardian and several other media companies. Why Teenager? Well, as I see it, when you follow your passion you tend to avoid having to grow up (a sort of Peter Pan syndrome) and this man has lived his dream as I see it. I have written against the Guardian more than once, but it is clear Alan knows what he was doing and he was doing it quite well. Lastly, the bastard looks 15 years younger than his actual age (geriatric envy).

Anyway, now that is out of the way, let’s focus on some first blood. Some will have missed it, but with this jab, President Obama has started his feeble attempt in getting the Democratic Party re-elected in 2016. He needs to get an early start, because if the House Elections are anywhere near an indication, the democrats will lose by a landslide as I see it at present. The Republicans now have 246 seats against the democrats 188, which means that minority speaker Pelosi needs to seriously woe the republicans to get anything sorted, this also implies that President Obama needs to get used to the word ‘No’ a lot more then that he is comfortable with.

So, as we look at the continuation of a white horse, we look at the latest article called ‘White House under pressure as calls for CIA accountability grows stronger‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/10/white-house-cia-torture-report). Now there is nothing really against the article itself, it is just a reflection for that what seems to be. But the following parts jumped out at me.

The White House is under growing pressure to hold individuals accountable for covering up the torture of terrorist suspects, with calls coming from a senator for a purge of top CIA officials and a furious row over whether the agency kept both Congress and the previous administration sufficiently informed of the program“, which senators? To give some of these people the label ‘pussy’ seems harsh but in effect that is the truth. These people are all about ‘not getting hands tainted’, ‘I still need to sleep at night’ and ‘as long as I am kept in the dark’. The real terror world outside the US is a nightmare realm, if you can stomach it, the consequences and the acts you have to live with you do not and never will belong on the hill and you belong as a part of the Langley brotherhood, likely trained or to be trained in Quantico or Lejeune. Going up against terrorists is a dirty business and it will damage your soul, whether you believe it or not. Now, I spoke out against the acts yesterday and to the major extent I believe that it was a flawed approach from the beginning. But the reality is that bringing a terrorist into the yard for a meeting with Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, having tea and a biscuit will not lead to information or determent. You must become the beast they fear. If there is one clear directive that we learned from the KGB (now the FSB) and how they dealt with the Russian Mafia, it is that a soft glove leads nowhere.

So which senator made that call? Well, the information is that it came from Senator Mark Udall from the state of Colorado, which seems to be predominantly Republican. By the way, how loud were some of these people before 2010?

The next statement: “When countries are threatened, oftentimes they act rationally in ways that in retrospect were wrong”, is one I can go along with, it is true that this happens, yet the one thing we still ignore is that the terrorist attack we saw had been so unprecedented, that any ‘rational’ response could be thrown out of the window. This compared to the Chechnyan act of parking trucks loaded with explosives next to apartment buildings and blow them (Moscow 1999), try that approach in San Francisco and watch millions go insane with rage. It is a mere and simple cause & effect. If you go into a war against such opponents you need to keep your cool and show that you are willing to do that what they could not fathom. In other words you need your own kind of monster available.

This does not change my premise that the intelligence gained from prolonged torture tends to be ineffective and mostly useless. Whatever answer in regards to state ‘we got Bin Laden this way‘ is on thin ice, regarding how many people it took to get any information on one person.

many insiders perceive as an attempt to isolate the intelligence community from Washington’s political leaders was also supported by former CIA director Michael Hayden“, which is exactly what I would consider to be a fact and the administration had some knowledge of what happened (like water boarding), yet they would never know, or want to know the details, they wanted to see results. Which calls the following to be called into question: “White House rejects claims agency misled President Bush“, which might be academically true, but ““That’s a point of some contention,” he said, when asked whether the CIA had lied to the White House. “There are some people who have said that that’s not true.”” here we see the crux, what EXACTLY was not true? You see, we get a number of ambiguous references, but did the CIA lie, or did they not reveal all facts? There is a large difference here, and as such part of this what we read becomes a deception on how ‘guilty’ the previous administration could have been. It is first blood, the Democrats seem to be pushing for a moral guilt call, in reflection on President Obama ‘stopping’ the torture procedures, yet, if we believe the Huffington Post (at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/obama-black-sites-rendition-torture_n_1812578.html), we see that like the technical support of their phone lines, it had been outsourced. The headline that gave us ‘Obama Administration Outsources Torture: Can U.S. Ever End Human Rights Abuses?‘ also tells us: “Despite the closure of these facilities, the administration’s use of extraordinary rendition has outsourced human rights abuse to other countries. Will we ever get rid of torture?” It gives a whole new meaning to the claim ‘it was not us!’

Black water anyone, or do we call it coffee?

What is in a name, in an act and in any non-written, non-verbal agreement is being looked at, which means it is a discussion of innuendo, whilst the politicians hide behind ‘if it is not written down, it does not exist’, knowing that they play this game, selling whatever service they condoned for their own selfish need of re-election. That is how this reads between the lines. So when we read “Director [John] Brennan and the CIA are continuing to wilfully provide inaccurate information and misrepresent the efficacy of torture. In other words, the CIA is lying,”, we should ask certain questions of Senator Udall as well, The senator, who was before that in the House of Representatives, representing the community of Boulder (where Mork from Ork used to live), representing the Judiciary and Agriculture Livestock & Natural Resources Committees, can we all agree that litigating for cattle is not really the same as discussing the finesses of intelligence?

The final part is seen with “Yet Obama’s spokesman went out of his way to defend Brennan on Wednesday, denying that he had lied about any aspect of the torture inquiry“, yes, the President would not like to get his hands tainted on fingering guilt towards Director John Brennan, yet overall this entire article reads like the Democratic administration has started regaining votes and visibility through false morality by having a Minority Democratic Senator stand up and voice thoughts that are morally right, but for the morally wrong reasons. It is almost like the initial invasion on Iraq, when you do the right thing for the wrong reasons you corrupt whatever banner you wish to hold high. In a faltered economy, virtually boosted, the losing party of the next election will feel the consequences of this depreciated position. The democrats are desperate to make sure it is not them.

There is one more quote that calls it all into question. Consider ““The lines of accountability that needed to be set up weren’t always in place and that some of these techniques that were described were not only wrong were counterproductive.”“, it is so nice that President Obama is trying to fit this into the hands of the Intelligence community, like ‘vice holds’ and ‘muzzles’, would it not be nice if he had taken that approach towards the financial industry at least three years ago? If he had done that, America might not be in the desperate economic state it is now; moreover Russia might take America serious when they discuss the Ukraine. This article is all fine, but it read like the democrats will be using this for something entirely different, I hope the people can read between the lines here, because holding certain people to account after the fact, whilst the condoning politicians remain unaccounted for is more than just a little shady.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

Questions at this time

I have been fighting with myself in regards to certain issues that have been rising in this day and age. When we look at the definition of treason we see this statement “In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one’s sovereign or nation.

The question is not just in regards to a nation as is the case with Edward Snowden, but what about the acts against the people? If we accept the following statement as an acceptable fact “Republicanism is the ideology of governing a society or state as a republic, where the head of state is a representative of the people who hold popular sovereignty rather than the people being subjects of the head of state.

So, if that is true, then should we consider the acts or even the absence of acts that stops dangers to the people as an act of treason? I have written about some of these parts for some time now, as per 5 days ago the guardian is now a little more vocal about it (at http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/dec/18/rich-countries-money-laundering-tax-evasion-oecd)

It seems that governments are FINALLY getting on the horse of action (as seen at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/us-usa-tax-fatca-idUSBRE9BI13J20131220). Yet it seems that larger tax holes are still in existence in Ireland (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/us-ireland-tax-idUSBRE99E0PD20131015)

So should tax evasion be seen as a form of treason? I am not talking about the people left right and centre trying to find every possible tax hole. I am talking about the large corporations and their boards of directors (at http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/7/15/social-media/looking-beyond-apples-tax-evasion-tactics). If we accept the quote “Taxed at 0.004 per cent“, then how un-national (or in this case un-American) should these people be regarded? And it goes far beyond that part. This is shown in http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-23/yahoo-dell-swell-netherlands-13-trillion-tax-haven.html as we see a glimpse of the size of evasion. It is nice to see that the Netherlands are getting of the tax evasion horse, but consider this article from the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/oct/19/tax-avoidance-in-netherlands-becomes-focus-of-campaigners) shows that this horse had a very comfortable 3 years. Simon Goodley and Dan Milmo from The Guardian reported all this in October 2011, if we consider that then the words of President Obama sound even more hollow when we read “President Barack Obama presented a series of proposals in 2009 to curb offshore tax benefits“. Hollow? Yes, because only now at the end of his second reign is he making an effort, making it clear that keeping rich friends near you is all about re-election. So, when the hard times hit in the next term he can point the finger at the Republicans. The idea that we hold large corporation’s tax accountable does not seem such an option for either administration (Democrats and Republicans alike).

So, after all these years, as the US is getting in a financial state more and more desperate actions are finally taken, which in my view is well over half a decade too late. The issue remains, as people are hit harder and harder for taxation, not just in the US, big business seems to escape their share of taxation, giving them a massive advantage. In addition, in what I would call the ‘incestual’ relationship between a board of directors and their ‘ability’ to avoid taxation on a borderline of actual fraud (example HSBC to name but one). The game does change when we read that governments themselves start to offer assistance in this field (at http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jim-love-canadian-mint-chairman-helped-run-offshore-tax-avoidance-scheme-for-clients-1.2441347)

So, as we go towards Christmas and those high and mighty people do their ‘charity’ thing, then also consider that it is not impossible that they have been paying less taxation (like in +18% less), how very adult adults!

So if you want to cheer for anyone, cheer for that 60+ person, who after getting cut on life, living standards and retirement funds, this person is still doing over 20 hours a week in a community centre getting it all done for the people in their neighbourhood, because that is true charity and one more noble then I could actually muster at present.

If we get back to Republicanism, if it was all about ‘representing the people’ and consider that the fat cats are the chosen few (like 100,000 in a nation of 325,000,000), are these acts of non-accounting a form of treason too? Especially as tax evasion leaves a nation in a state of destitution? America seems to be clear evidence of that as its total debt will be roughly $60,680,485,000,000 on Christmas evening. Still think delaying acts against tax evasion was ever a good idea?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

A new third World continent

At the final moments we see the news that in the 11th hour an agreement had been reached. Should we be happy? For now many will be happy, for now the Financial industry is relaxing and happy that their rent is safe, but the stress will return soon as the next ceiling will be reached in another 18 weeks.

So what is wrong with the USA today?

It sounds all fun and games to blame either the Democrats or the Republicans, yet overall, both have some level of guilt. Yes, at present the Democrats are wearing the hoodie of blame and shame, but the Republicans are not without issues either.

Consider that the government has maxed out the USA credit card. They have until now REFUSED in any way to take responsibility for the utter irresponsible spending. No, taxing more will not solve anything. That story is old, stale and redundant. If America would like to be taken seriously ever again it would have to cut no less than $350 billion in 2014. So, NOT more taxation, but LESSEN spending. That means if all was equal that every American will get $1000 less in support, which means that it would not impact the top 3% of the nation, but the others will have to pay. This is not me supporting the rich, this is me placing ALL politicians in a limelight where every spend dollar will be shown in the spotlight.

The Democrat story will be that they have a solution, and if these people pay just a few dollars more than….. It is nothing less than utter Bullshit! (Pardon my French!) With a debt of 17,000 billion dollar, a budget drop of 350 billion would mean that the interest of the outstanding debt could not be paid for.

On the other side, the Republican side will have to stop this ludicrous boast of less taxation. That is not, cannot and will not be a solution (for at least a decade). The debt must go!

But there might be a solution with the UN. When America has  been diminished to a third world nation, then perhaps the UNDP will offer support to the USA. I know, the irony of it all, go figure!

I have remained in favour of the US remaining strong from day 1; however, the Democrats refused to step up to the plate to do what needed to be done. The Republicans had stepped up to the plate, but in hindsight, the result was almost nil and they have not endeared themselves to anyone.

The voiced speeches by the Democrats as they are shown on TV stations all over the world today seem to be in bad taste too. I will make an exception for Democrat Harry Reid from Nevada. He had been in the middle in of what might be called a ‘small hell’. If the Navy Seals are used to be between a rock and a hard place, then this man outclassed them to several degrees these last two weeks, as a Republican minded person I will admit to that. I will go further to say that should Harry Reid go for the oval office, then he stands a chance to convert a decent group of Republicans too. Values like respect and moral coming from Nevada? What a tangled web we see!

For many non-Americans it is not about the pure Democrat versus Republican fight, it has always been about the massive debt and the risk they push upon many other nations. It is even a case that the voice of many non-Americans should be heard. When a nation like America has so many corporations that operate their business outside of the USA and as such put hundreds of thousands of workers on the spot as their futures are linked to the status of the USA, then they must realise that accountability remains an international factor.

On Sky News there is a hilarious movie, shot in old fashioned silent movie style explaining the debt ceiling. It is fun to watch and it tells the story nicely (at http://news.sky.com/story/1155554/shutdown-senators-pass-bill-to-avert-default), I do however disagree with one part of it. At 1:53 Ed Conway states one part I do not agree with. “If America was to default, it is not because it cannot pay its bills. It is because their political system would not allow it“.

That is the part that has been my major issue!

It is what I disagree with. If we consider the T-Bill rate of 2.66 (as it was this morning), to get the 16,700 billion in debt, to pay it back, if it was all in T-bills, then the US had to pay an additional 444 billion dollars in ‘fees’. This seems very very little. However, this was not done in one day; it was over many many years. The problem is that as risk grows, the people will be offered a higher return, because if the debt cannot be paid, those bills will become null and void overnight. In the end, that money must be paid and overall, even though for now it is paid, the outstanding debt as it grows and grows, will mean that the chance of EVER paying it all back will become less and less. Consider that the following amounts are due: 2022: $1276B, 2021: $1228B, 2020: $1652B, 2019: $1885B, 2018: $1017B. So from 2018 onwards, the returns will have to be paid to those T-Bill owners. The amount will be in access of 1 Trillion dollars a year. Can anyone explain to me how that payment can be met 5 years in a row whilst the on average the collected annual taxation in 2013 will be an estimated $1.9 Trillion dollars? This means that from 2018 onwards 53% of all collected taxation will go to people owning T-bills. How unrealistic a goal is this?

This is part of the reality politicians ignore (as they will not be in office when it happens) and the people who gets settled with the bills will not have anything left.

Consider in addition that the Tax evasion bill has not been pushed into effect (which means the rich will continue to have additional tax shelters this year) and the Dodd-Frank Act is STILL not active, giving the financial sector too many non-accountable freedoms (which will make sense late on). If you want to know more about the Dodd-Frank Act, take a look at the next link, it has an interesting cheat sheet on the latter one. (at http://www.mofo.com/files/uploads/images/summarydoddfrankact.pdf). Morrison & Foerster is a global law firm. It might have been for internal use, so send them a thank you note if you download it. It is the easiest read in regards to this topic I have ever seen. They also have Patent and Trademark litigation, so I should send them my resume when I get my MIP after my next semester. Cool!

If you wonder about that reasoning after my strong voiced disgruntlement, then remember that the US is a great country. In my mind it was sold down the drain by politicians and exploiters. If we muzzle the first and neuter the second, the US could be a great nation quite quickly again, which would be good for Europe too. A win-win solution I say!

So why aren’t more people nervous about the entire deficit and debt ceiling? That is the part that does not make sense to me. Rolling over debts is a dangerous habit. The definition is clear enough, the dangers on adverse percentages is even more risky as politicians played 11th hour resolution makers. The second part is one that many more are ignoring. This is all based upon 100% of the due payments rolling over. What happens when another nation has a slightly stronger return? What happens when only 80% is sold? Is that such a hard concept? So at that point, where will the required $200B-$275B come from, additional raise of the debt ceiling? I have no actual facts to work from, so I do not know what the level of risk is, but consider that between 2018-2022 no less than $1T in investments are needed, and that the larger wallet friends (like the UK, FR, DE, IT and AUS) many of them at the maximum tapped out amount. How long until THEY (read governments) start the ‘swap’ game? Is that not how we lost most of what we had because we could not control the banks, now we let them advice on the same game, but now with full government budgets? So, we will not be looking at just a few trillion, when that game goes bust (and such a game always goes bust), the population will be stuck with a bill between $70T and $90T. How will we survive that?

Let us not forget that all those actions are taken in closed rooms with only a few insiders fully in the loop. If the next election causes reasoning for full disclosure on such events and only a referendum will allow for this, then the game will not just change fast, it will leave the USA on the outside looking in. A fact is that this risk grows almost exponentially each year the deficit is not dealt with. If Germany has been under pressure for the EU issues from Bernd Lucke and the UK from Nigel Farage from UKIP then we should expect additional players who will be fueling these fears. The upcoming price fight might not yet be the main event, but the debt ceiling issue that comes after the one on February 9th will be a main event and it will likely involve more players then just the US, several of them are unlikely to be one of the 18 Bernanke disciples.

So here we are, and only hours after Jill Treanor wrote her article ‘Financial Conduct Authority launches currency markets investigation‘ on the Guardian at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/16/financial-conduct-authority-currency-markets-investigation-benchmarks.

This is a must to read!

Guardian’s Youthful Young City Editor, all complete with her own copy of SAS Miner plugged into her brain started today with “Suspicions that the vast global currency markets may have been rigged by major banks and traders has sparked the City regulator to launch a formal investigation into the £3tn a day market.

This goes way further than just the LIBOR scandal. Earlier this year I had some doubts on all of this. My doubts were not on the interest part; my thoughts were that the main amount involved, which the percentages were based upon had also been tampered with in some way as well. I still expect my $1T bonus when that gets to be proven!

So what if the benchmark is not JUST the foundation, but part of more. You see, if we consider that governments have been involved in T-Bill Swaps, then the tradeable amount involved is not correct. More precisely, if the volume of T-Bill swaps is to the amount deficits go, then in which direction are the percentages rigged? It might accidentally involve the ‘accidental’ mentioned group of larger wallet friends. Now consider that Germany at present is the only one with an economy more on the stable and positive side then all the other players. So, would there be additional benefits for them in the long run? I actually do not know this (self-confessed lack of economic education), but the fact is that these issues go far beyond the banks themselves. Perhaps that is why the Dodd-Frank Act was never activated? It is just a thought.

So my advice for today, instead of long term investing your $5, this morning, have a pastry with your coffee, because at times there is nothing better than short term gratification and pastries will usually do the trick.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

The numbers we ignore?

Today is another day that the US government is in shutdown mode. This is not Episode 8 from season 5 of the West Wing by Aaron Sorkin (brilliant man). This is reality!

There is polarisation on many levels and even though we want to blame one side as we stand on the other side, there is a deadly reality playing out in the corridors of power. The Democrats refuse to cut their spending; the Republicans will not play soft or compromising. Today we see the Guardian with “Obama meets bank chiefs as economists warn of ‘deep and dark recession’” at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/02/obama-bank-chiefs-economist-deep-recession. As we look at a few facts quoted “President Obama met bank executives including Goldman Sachs chief Lloyd Blankfein“. The firm that helped many lose their house. I admit that this is unfair towards Mr Lloyd Blankfein, but the sentiment behind it stays in valid form (I will get to that later on).

A looming battle over the nation’s $16.7tn debt ceiling. Treasury secretary Jack Lew has warned that the US could default on its debts if the limit is not raised soon.

The second part is why the republicans are not budging. The Democrats are raising and spending and leaving it all to the next one in office. There is enough evidence to state that it is likely that the Republicans will return to the White house. In that regard, they have ZERO interest in cleaning up the Democrat mess, which will take several administrations. The fact, that the Democrats are not willing to cut their spending, whilst they spend a lot more than their budget allows. It is almost hilarious how things are spun. They claim it is all about affordable healthcare, whilst this option is increasing the debt by $100 billion a year. Now, it there was money coming in on the other side, there might be some level of case, but that is not happening. This current administration has added over 5 trillion dollars in debt during his first term. That is an overspending by 3.4 billion dollars a day. With Obama care this will be even more. Now, this administration inherited a sour deal. The economy had collapsed; there were issues with some financial crash in Wall Street and so on. Yet, the debt he has added to in one term is a lot more than Bush added in two terms. (So both sides have some of the blame). The republicans are not blameless, but they will not accept the continued addition of debt which is currently getting pushed. The US national debt is now well over 100% of its GDP. This is the part many seem to ignore. So if all taxation (which is only 26.9% of the GDP) is used to pay for the loan, then it will take 4 years to get rid of their debt. That works ONLY if the US government pays no wages, fixes nothing, builds nothing, buys nothing and heals no one. So for 4 years Americans must make due with nothing at all. This is not a realistic approach, I admit that! So you can only use to pay what you have left, however the government has been spending 120%-145% of the money they received and with Obama Care spending will increase. America is currently, in my humble opinion bankrupt!

Do you doubt this? This would be a fair enough position to take, consider any company being allowed to spend 120% of their annual revenue. How long until any bank will close the tap? In addition, there should be overall outrage that a company would work 100% of the time just to pay the bank. There is 0% job security in that regard, for if the annual +5%-+15% cannot be made, they will cut the costs that are not desired. In that scenario there will be no healthcare of any kind, because the sick do not contribute to the future of profit. That dangerous situation currently exists!

The article by the Guardian has more “But he warned that would be nothing compared to the Pandora’s box that would be opened if no deal on the debt ceiling was done before 17 October deadline. Congress must agree to raise the US’s $16.7tn debt ceiling by that date or risk being unable to meet its obligations.

That is the crux! The total debt will increase and the republicans will not stand for that. My earlier comparison to get rid of the debt in 4 years is not realistic, I said that. Only if spending is lower than American income can the debt be lowered. It will take more than 3 generations to get that done. Some disagreed with that number. This is fair enough. Yet, let us make a small calculation.

$17T is $17,000B. The interest due would be $340B (it is actually higher at http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm, but it is about the example).

If we believe the census (as shown in my Blog ‘Biased Journalism on USA shutdown?‘) then the interest due is 13% of ALL collected taxation. How can ANYTHING get done after the interest is paid? And that is only interest, no decrease of the actual loan. So consider that all amenities, support and expenditure of the US must decrease by at least 16% to get this done. How can that ever be a realistic situation? This is why the Republicans are not budging. The more important issue is that the Democrats knew this. They knew that the train would stop and they ignored this. Not unlike in the Netherlands where everyone stated that the SNS Bank was too big to fail, the Dutch government nationalised the bank. Why the Dutch as an example? Well, they are in some similar predicament. They are not able to lower spending. They need to cut an additional 6 billion whilst their GDP was 700 billion last year. If they cannot cut 1%, how will the US ever deal with their debt? There have been words on corporate taxation left right and centre, yet what they are not mentioning is the issue that the UK has seen this year. Big business, like Google has been pushing their own booked revenue to other places. This quote from Bloomberg “Google’s chairman says he is ‘proud’ of the way his company avoids paying taxes ”It’s called capitalism,” Eric Schmidt told Bloomberg in a…” So, whatever money the US treasury has coming in, it is not from the big boys of business. They have the right accountants and tax lawyers. So here we get back to Goldman Sachs chief Lloyd Blankfein.

When we see the acts of Google and how Goldman Sachs was involved in the Greek issues, people would wonder whether they (Goldman Sachs and the US government) are not working together in the same way. If so, then there are more questions on the entire setting of the article the Guardian published (from the link at the beginning). There is no way that someone like Mr Blankfein is not aware what the big boys of industry in America are doing. When we read in places like Forbes that Google is not alone in these acts, but that companies like Apple are doing the same thing, then raising a debt ceiling whilst the captains of industry are not paying anywhere near the tax they ‘should’ then we must ask other questions. All this becomes even more hilarious when we consider the information from the Financial Standard on July 15th (at http://www.financialstandard.com.au/news/view/33335431) where it is stated that “US delays tax avoidance law by 6 months“. So the big boys in that initial Guardian Article are all about gloom and doom, whilst the US treasury seems to be missing out on taxation by not acting on Tax evasion (which is actually not a crime at present). So they want to borrow more, but will not put in place legislation that would lessen the dangers of paying the due interest. That last part is shown in Forbes article last month by Steve Denning. (At http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/09/12/alan-blinder-six-reasons-why-another-financial-crisis-is-still-inevitable/)

  1. Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 hasn’t been implemented.
  2. The $5 trillion banking assets in derivatives are still off-balance sheet and unregulated
  3. The rating agencies are “still hired and paid by the very companies whose securities they rate.”
  4. The Volcker Rule forbidding proprietary trading by banks has not been implementedAnd I add;
  5. US tax avoidance laws not implemented.

From these parts we could come to the conclusion that the Obama administration has failed the American people almost completely, whilst unable to get spending under control.

American politics is a lot more complex, so there are other factors, but it seems to me that Steve Denning is showing us several dangers that are currently not stopped. So when, not if, they happen, the people as they walk away with nothing left, can wonder how that expensive affordable healthcare is helping whilst they have no house, no job and no food.

It is a sad day for many people, because in the end, not only America seems to be unable to control their budgets, they are only, for now the most visible one.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics