Tag Archives: GDP

As an election looms

Finally, we get some words on the Labour manifesto, the Guardian has been on top of it and whilst they are presenting a good part, I have a few issues as they went a little light on labour as I personally see it. Again, it is a personal side and as a conservative you should take into consideration that the flaw is on my side, and I would accept it, but let me give you the goods.

The entire review is at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/labour-manifesto-analysis-key-points-pledges, so you have the option to completely disagree and seek your own version of their vision. The first part “a short note on a new £250bn “national transformation fund” implies that these costs will be funded through capital borrowing” shows their intent on rail, which is a quarter of a trillion through borrowing. So off the bat we are considering electing someone who wants to add a quarter of a trillion to a debt that went off the handles due to the Labour party in two previous administrations. How is that ever a good idea? a chunk of all the other parts is supposedly coming by adding a new tax group of 50% for those earning above £123K. A marginal addition for the ‘fat cat’ group. So those making more than that will be charged for the amount above and I have a hard time accepting and believing that this will get them the ‘speculated‘ £6.4 billion. It reads more like wishful thinking in an age where rationalism will not ever get you that amount. Consider, as mentioned before, something that any excel user can check with the numbers the UK tax office (HMRC) offers, the super wealthy, those making well over a million is limited to less than 5000 people. So how is this billion pound extra achieved? Let’s not forget they only get the 5% extra over the amount over £123K, as such the income will not get close, yet after the election they will come with excuses, whilst we already knew that this was never realistic. In addition, how many are close to the threshold? In this those making £123K – £199K, they might feel safer setting apart certain investment reserves into retirement, if they get that done, the £6.4B will drop fast by a lot. In addition, the Guardian gives us: “But recent evidence from the imposition of a 50p rate in 2010 shows that the measure could spark mass avoidance by the individuals affected and raise no extra funds for the exchequer“, so there is that part too! Remember Jeremy Corbyn and his nurses? The 10,000 nurses pledge? When we consider the already announced part “Health and social care reform at a cost of £7.7bn, as part of a package that includes a guarantee of A&E treatment within four hours and the end of the NHS pay cap“, and the “Free lunches for pupils as part of £6.3bn school package“, that’s another 14 billion, where is that coming from? Remember the tax increase part? When we tally, we see that the NHS part is already leaving the tax increase at minus a billion, all the other multi billion pound parts are not even close to being addressed. This is simple tally stuff that many in their final year in primary school can achieve from their calculus lessons and Jeremy Corbyn and his ‘raunchettes’ cannot deliver, a mere exercise in lewd offensive spending. Choices without proper merit and ignoring the consequences of the deep debt they got the UK in in the first place. I am all for some level of social levy, yet any social act requires to consider the impact, something that UK Labour is clearly not doing. It is even more upsetting that simple calculus gets us to a place where this would never have been a reality to begin with. Are you seriously considering voting for such a failed attempt?

When we consider the added Cyber security, and the promise to the security agencies, we see items that are promised without any claim to the cost. Now we might accept that part, yet their own £11.2 NHS IT fiasco should clearly show that they haven’t got a clue on how to tackle it because the limitations they imposed through failed IT is part of the reason that NHS IT is not up to date in the most meagre of ways which is also exactly part of the reason that the NHS hacks were successful in the first place. In addition the entire pension part is flawed, that is a given not because of what it states, but when you compare it against the Australian need to already up the retirement point to 67, with a population of 20 million, that is a retirement change already needed now, the fact that the age wave will hit with almost 4 times the intensity in the UK and the retirement age will not significantly up for another 6 years is delusional and as I see it set so that the current Labour electorate can ignore the issue until the next election, at that point it will be way too late and they will offer some diluted solutions using capital borrowing adding another . I see it as we now need an estimated £75bn a year, it is anticipated a near doubling before 2025. You see, some of the statistics have been placing comparison of life expectancy and percentage of retirement, yet as I see it, the quality of life for those born in the 30’s and those born in the 60’s is vastly different. the difference of those two groups is that maximum life is more likely to be in excess of 20 years, so those born in the 60’s and onward have a much higher chance of requiring a pension for close to 20 years longer, on a population of millions, that would equate to an additional pile of billions that would be required. In this the setbacks that the financial meltdowns gave all the people and government institutions, it shows that the shortage will increase and the pension deficit will increase annually by a lot over the next 5 years alone, so not seeing any repair actions is just weird. So as labour proclaims to be ‘social‘ their social unawareness and unpreparedness is just a little too upsetting. Now, the Tories are not innocent either. There is a given shortage and getting rid of the debt is a first step in solving it, so as we see that Labour is now willing to add close to half a trillion to the total shortage and that is just the added shortage of what they want to do to look cool. The added deficit will go straight through the roof adding overall a lot more debt than anyone is willing to consider.

And it is Labour of all others who have no welfare support. they promise a future policy paper, but the overall issue is not that paper (it will be though), it is “There are no spare funds in Labour’s calculations for extra welfare spending. To counteract the effects of planned cuts, under Labour’s current plans it would need to increase borrowing“, so that implies even more borrowing, whilst they amount needed is already through the roof. I did voice a change, I offered a view where there might be some additional ‘fat cat’ costs, even though that is not what I call it, it was a need to increase the second tax tier by 2% and the third one by 1%, whilst increasing the 0% tax group. so basically the lowest people get £100 a month more and the highest (45% tier) loses about £150 a month (as they also have the higher 0% part, they lose a little in the end), around £100 for tier 2 and £50 on the tier 3 part which I saw as a very social thing to do. And all that without burdening towards extra debt. I am not stating that the lowest group did not deserve more, I was working from a 0 balance difference for taxation, so that the coffer would not be denied more coins to address the massive debts it has now. It was a simple exercise in Excel and perhaps my method is flawed, my intention was pure, that is a lot more than I can state for the McDonnell-Corbyn group who will happily max out the UK credit card and leave others to solve the matter after they leave office, just like the two previous labour governments did.

Yet in all this it is not just the Labour party that needs a look, the Lib Dems are also due a little concern. In that I actually like the entire ‘rent to buy‘ pledge. I cannot say if it would work because the ground materials are not a given at present. What homes would be offered? Consider what the foundation is. New houses, would b great, but when we see where, there will be an optional issue. It is of course a way to get the younger generation out of London and perhaps towards other places where a younger population would be a good thing. However, would they embrace life in Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Lincolnshire or Kent? What happens when that is not an option, what if the social houses in London does not get resolved? Those elements make the Lib Dems an issue that might not come to pass, yet for every person accepting a place outside of the greater London area, the pressure will go down a little, enough little’s will make for a moment of relief, yet will it work, time will tell. In all this I personally found the second ‘referendum’ offensive. So, because people did not like the outcome, because some didn’t bother voting, the people in the UK get to vote again? I wonder how the Lib Dems will be seen when the EU gets the bill of what Wall Street does, when the UK gets the pounding because the US could not get their house in order, I wonder how those second referendum people will be seen. Even as the US is ‘suddenly’ doing great again, whilst their debt is increasing by trillions of dollars a year, as well as their inability of dealing with their deficit, how will that push others? The US now with almost 20 trillion in national debt, they stated the 1st half of 2016 a collected taxation of 1.48 trillion. now, if we do something not entirely valid, but what if we double it? (the second half is never as much as the first half, yet for argument sake), this now implies that the US would collect a maximum of $3 trillion for 2016, that whilst at present, federal spending is at almost $4 trillion and the deficit is now approaching $600 billion for this year. The deficit, no matter what they report is not getting properly addressed and has not been or over a decade. What do you think will happen when that well ends? Do you think that export to the US will continue? At that point, who would be the trade partner that remains? I do not proclaim to have then answer, yet when we see that at present US total Interest paid is set at $2.5 trillion, where do you think that goes? Who is paid interest on debts that seem to be mainly virtual? Do not think it is a simple picture, because this part is as complex as anything could ever get. Machiavelli could not design something this complex. Yet at the end of the day, the taxpayer is left with the invoice. As such lowering debt is the only safety net that would allow the people in general to have any life. I have always stated and truly believed that once it collapses, it will hit whomever is in debt. I still believe that Japan is the first domino to fall, yet that also means that the US dollar gets a hit that will be a terminal one and Wall Street will falter almost immediately after that, after which the Euro will go straight out of the window, its value less than the German Deutschmark in 1923. Japan has a debt that is close to 240% of GDP, a group of nations that includes the US, Japan, the UK and several other European nations have a budget deficit that is surpassing $9 trillion, how is that allowed to continue? This is not me, this comes from Martin Weiss, PhD. Although his PhD is in cultural anthropology from Columbia University, not in economics. Yet we can agree that at least he has a few degrees which includes degrees from Columbia and NYU, so he is not the most uneducated tool we know, unlike some in politics nowadays. The problem is not the total deficit or the total debt. It is the fact that some players like the Rothschild’s, Wall Street and even the IMF are wanting this game to continue. A push it forward game that benefits the political and financial engine operators and 0.1% of the population. Would it be fair to call this a legalised form of slavery? Is the one option allowed to have the same as a freedom of choice? That is what is more and more at stake. When the people in the UK were allowed this freedom, they chose Brexit, now we see all these players trying to undo that one part, because it is the fear of the players with too much to lose. We get more and more weighted information from the press and that engine is less and less reliable. So what remains? Well, the people in the UK are about to make their selection, whilst we see certain manifesto’s that are debatable to say the least. Some parts are just not realistic at all, yet the people must elect someone. I will not tell you who to vote for, I am merely wondering if the people will ever be properly informed.

This is mainly because there is an election looming and those not governing will make whatever promise they can just to get into office. So what will happen after that? Remember Emmanuel Macron? Making all those statements on how Europe must reform, or else there would be a referendum? Well, merely an hour ago we see: “Both pro-Europe leaders were keen to show solidarity concerning the Eurozone and have broken with previous statements by discussing potential changes to EU treaties. The move is seen by both nations as a way of healing ongoing EU upheaval, combating the rise of the far right and showing a united front in the wake of Brexit negotiations” healing whom? the ECB spending spree recipients? When we see “Visiting Berlin on Monday, Macron ‘did not push for major, ambitious reforms (of the EU) because he knows the chancellor cannot deliver until the elections in September’“, I merely see the fact that the French people have been lied to again, and those people voting have elected a new Wall Street tool (as I personally see it), and the fact that he was a former investment banker was pretty much a clear giveaway. I expect to see some kind of ‘compromise’ that gets no one anywhere any time soon around the end of August or early September, implying that the European gravy train will move along with full speed ahead for another 4-5 years. When you realise this, do you still think my Brexit support was weird? If someone had effectively muzzled Mario Draghi, that might have been a first piece of evidence that reform of the Eurozone would have been a far fetched optional reality, yet so far, that has not and is unlikely to happen.


Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics

The shrinking EEC

It has been in the papers and the paperwork for some time now. It is getting close to a certainty that the EEC is now in jeopardy of losing the UK as an EEC member.

And my reasoning is?

Well there is more than one reason, but the number one spot at present would be Ukip. As the EEC courts are adding legalisations into the mix of the UK stemming the influx of illegal wannabe residents, they are only fuelling the Ukip engine that will denounce membership to the EEC, it should be clear that this is getting to be an increasing view of consequence. I wonder how large the panic will be when the EEC GDP gets downgraded by 15%, which must be the stuff of legendary nightmares for Wall Street and several other zip codes that are managed by an abundance of financial institutions. Where their ‘survival’ depends on posting a +0.015%, -14.5% is ample reasoning for speculators of all shapes and sizes to leave the building via the exit in their windows (opposed to taking the stairs or elevator). Well, that at least might open up affordable housing for some, so there will be winners there too. That downgrade would potentially buckle two currencies and around half a dozen nations in one step.

So as we see these ‘humanitarians’ fight for the rights of those misusing their rights at the earliest convenience, be aware that once your savings are gone, feel free to thank those human rights courts as well. Now, let me be frank, I am all for human rights, I think that Human rights are essential, but what we now consider to be a Human Rights ‘issue’ should be regarded as debatable too. It is almost like faced with a group that will settle for any small ‘victory’ whilst ignoring the massive issues that should be on their actual radar. One could even speculate that these people and those judges will do ANYTHING to avoid making the changes that actually matter in a Human Rights environment.

The first issue linked in all this is the article we see titled ‘Migrant overstayer figures swell to more than 300,000, watchdog reveals‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/17/migrant-overstayer-figures-swell-watchdog-reveals). We see the quotes “John Vine, the chief inspector of borders and immigration, revealed the existence of a further 223,600 records of foreign nationals who have overstayed their visas, all dated before December 2008, in a report published on Wednesday”, as well as “fewer than 1% had left the country as a result of their intervention“, so we have a quarter of a million people, using a system where possible, where the system is not equipped to deal with such additional numbers. We can go all huffy and puffy on the quote “even killers had been given British passports because of lax Home Office character checks“, where were these crimes committed? And if the home office checks are lax, should we blame immigration, the system or the pressure of papers? I am asking as I am not certain where and if there is blame to dish out at that point. What is clear is that this system is broken and people have had enough. We do however need to take into mind the last quote there which is ““New powers in the Immigration Act are restricting access to work, housing, benefits, healthcare, bank accounts and driving licences of illegal migrants, making it far tougher for those with no right to be in the country to stay here.”“, which of course will further drive up crime and disease issues. I know I am just stating the obvious, but at large I have seen people ignore the obvious for a decent long time, so there!

The second article ‘Non-EU family members do not need visa to enter UK, says European court‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/18/non-eu-family-members-visa-uk-european-court) is what is driving issues on several parts. If they do not require a visa, that means that they can enter whenever, which also means that they get limited access to services already stretched to the point of collapse as it is now. Ukip gets a lot of support when they translate the Dutch writings of R.H.J.M. Staring called ‘Reizen onder regie: het migratieproces van illegale Turken in Nederland‘, the migration of illegal Turks into the Netherlands. If we believe Geert Wilders from the Dutch party PVV, we see a cost in the Netherlands close to 13 billion for 2010 (when the article was written) against a total 200 billion for the 4 decades as mentioned. there is no real defining number, giving us no real inside whether these numbers are true or not, yet the fact that the Dutch government has abstained to truly investigate this, gives rise to the fact that the costs are a lot higher, and the consequence of those numbers becoming a factual dimension is what scares the current government, the numbers might be high enough for people to seriously regard the PVV as a party, as such that same fear would hit the UK as those shown costs would give further rise to the increasing growth of Ukip, one thing all three parties are truly scared of. So as we see the national population spread to a solution that lowers their costs, gives better care and reduce the abuse of a social system, the illegal immigrant is soon to become the new pariah in nearly any nation. As such, this European court finding is not just a nuisance, it is the tinderbox to a powder keg too many ignored for too long.

So as we see judgement on one case that might have been ignored, as an issue, where we see the quote “Colombian wife of Sean McCarthy, a dual British and Irish national living in Spain, did not need a UK visa or family permit to visit Britain“, we are confronted with the realistic fear of non-manageable influx. So the fear of what legal and valid immigrants like: 730,000 from India, 465,000 from Pakistan, 640,000 Polish, 180,000 Nigerians and 100,000 Romanians will bring the UK, if one in ten brings over a relative, the UK will be confronted with an additional quarter of a million, whilst this is only 5 from the top 20, that number could end up being a lot higher, well past the Home Offices ability to clean up a system, which might have been regarded as out-dated less than a decade ago, and the UK is not the only nation where this issue plays.

So overall this verdict could be the coffin nail, financial institutions has tried to avoid, hoping that they could leverage a ‘survivable’ solution for themselves, when this goes pear shaped, the courts will have an entirely different scope of horrors to contemplate. If we consider the consequences of the events in Martin Place in Sydney, where we see the unacceptable abuse of Muslims whilst in prayer (at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29781967), we see a change to actual Human Rights that are not looked at to the extent they should be. It is a worry. When one crazy individual with a gun can get this started in Australia, what happens when the social system in the UK gets pushed beyond breaking? We have seen plenty of shouted claims against these 5 groups in the past, when the illegal immigration goes beyond a certain point, how safe will the legal and valid immigrants be? That is the worry some part that is overlooked at present. It is a part that Ukip cannot (and might not) ignore, but the fallout and the timeline of that fallout will push a lot of people and families in danger. As the European courts considered and possible did the legally right thing, they might end up not having done the correct thing.

In the end the EEC is an economic thing, the European Union is at its foundation a set of economic rules, the imposing of changed laws for nations, whilst it core is adhering to an economy is faulty at best (even more faulty when that economy collapses to the extent it has). By removing areas of self-governing the EEC is setting a different precedence, one must then wonder whether the identity of any nationality will allowed for the EEC to continue, once that is answered in the negative, those members might not want an EEC future, a danger that is not just contained within the United Kingdom, there is a growing wave of concern that France is getting to that consideration point a lot faster than most economies can correct for, France might not wait until 2017, the main reason is not just Marine Le Penn, it is French pride, which is not in light with the foundation of the EEC and we can add the lack of catering to French Pride by President Hollande, it only gives additional worry to all involved. We can admit that the economic slump was not due to Hollande, but not resolving it will be blamed on him. This beckons additional fears for the economy, once that critical point is surpassed all bets will be off and those with invested life savings might not have any savings left soon thereafter. So buy that house, that vineyard and that business, because owning what you have without debts will soon be a better position than having the status quo with your investments junked, the one fear Wall Street pushed forward too often with less and less options of keeping that value intact.

When people are in fear of losing the simple parts of life, parts that were always there, when that continuation is endangered, they will act in unexpected directions; Nigel Farage and Marine Le Penn are pretty much counting on that and so far they have yet to be proven wrong.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Billion Euro Fine

It seems that the Dutch government has painted itself in a corner. The parties involved are now back into all levels of talks to find a situation where a majority can be found that can live with the situation. This means that there is every chance that the 6 Billion Euro in cut backs will not be met. This means that an additional Billion Euro in fines will go to the Dutch treasury. So, is this a continuing level of evidence that the Dutch administration had been handing out funds it could not pay for in the end?

There is no excuse that can validly be used.

In the first degree, there is no excuse to use the economy or the recession. There are in my mind clear levels of visibility that there had been levels of ‘bad news management’. I had voiced my concerns on several occasions that the economy was nowhere near what was ‘predicted’ by the CBS. I was proven correct on more than one occasion and that whilst I have no advanced mathematics degree. It makes one wonder how those high priced calculators get to their numbers, doesn’t it?

When Germany started to tighten its belt from 2009 onwards, too many were on that horse of optimism where many stated that such rigorous cut backs were not needed. Now, four years later the cutbacks required are a lot more then would have been and that bill cannot be paid. On all sides minorities cry out that the cut backs on one side and/or tax increases on the other side are not proportional and that these actions will not benefit the economy.

I expect one more jolt of bad news and certain parties will stand up opening the retirement funds for the benefit of now. Which means that the economy will now need to rely on a jolt of ‘annexed funds’! Why am I stating this? I see these funds as the ownership of those now working. Whether you start or whether you are at the end of your working life. The funds of you and me are used to steer away from the actual issue of a parliament not able to control its spending. There are additional issues linked to this.

A Dutch blogsite called http://huizenmarkt.blog.nl from Juul Dijkhuis stated “De huizenprijzen zijn inderdaad kunstmatig hoog gehouden, maar mede hierdoor zijn de economische zorgen in Nederland ook kleiner dan bij de ons omringende landen. De gevolgen van een flinke daling kunnen namelijk groot zijn.

[translated]: The house prices are indeed kept high through artificial means, because of this the economic worries are not as high as those for the surrounding nations. The consequences of a sizeable reduction in value could be severe

This is just the first one I found and this statement does not stand alone in this matter. This article came from 2011, after the crash and in the timespan when bad news management (as I see it) was already in place. So consider the issue that the Dutch are not dealing with one issue on economy, but on additional issues in that same year we see SNS Reaal Property Finance, which is no longer here, was already dealing with minus a quarter of a billion for 2011. The Dutch site Calcasa (www.calcasa.nl), which is an independent technology firm, specialised in property value assessment reported in 2012 that in 2011 Dutch property value went down by 17 billion. As stated residential (-1.3%), offices (-1.9%), shops (-5.9%) en corporate spaces (-3.5%)
(At: http://www.calcasa.nl/nl/over-calcasa/nieuws/detail/kwartaalbericht-waarde-nederlands-vastgoed-met-17-miljard-afgenomen-in-2011/105).

So was this just another form of ‘bad news’ management? There is a lack of clarity here, yet consider that already in 2011 we see that different separate branches are trying to keep the good view, and from all indications the government did not intervene, did not (so it seems) openly correct the events. As stated, events that would have impacted the Dutch population in more than one way.

In support we see issues that are linked, but from another side altogether. If we look back to 2011 and if we look at the minister of Education, culture and Science, the honourable Mariëtte Bussemaker We see the following:

In de brief aan de Tweede Kamer «Meer dan kwaliteit: een nieuwe visie op cultuurbeleid» van 10 juni 2011 (Kamerstuk 32 820, nr. 1) wordt aangekondigd dat het kabinet wil onderzoeken of het mogelijk en wenselijk is het eigendom van de gebouwen van de rijksmusea aan deze instellingen over te dragen.

[Paraphrased] House document 32 820 nr 1, Parliament will investigate whether it is possible and desirable to transfer ownership of states museums could be transferred to the institutions that occupy them” This is fair enough, yet in that same document the next part gives us part of the light.

DTZ Zadelhoff heeft voor het vastgoed van de vier door Deloitte onderzochte Rijksmusea de taxatiewaarde onafhankelijk vastgesteld (waarde in het vrije economisch verkeer). Daaruit blijkt dat er een aanzienlijk verschil bestaat tussen de (hogere) boekwaarde van de vier musea op de balans van de Rgd enerzijds en de (lagere) marktwaarde van het vastgoed anderzijds (circa 25%). Dit verschil, dat voor een belangrijk deel kan worden verklaard door bewuste keuzes in het verleden voor maatschappelijke investeringen in een stabiele museale omgeving, kan zich openbaren wanneer er besloten wordt tot overdracht van het eigendom aan de Rijksmusea.

[Paraphrased] Zadelhoff has ascertained an independent value of four the investigated state museums by Deloitte. From there we found that there is a difference approaching 25% between the free economic value and the value in the books. The booked value is a lot higher than the actual market value. The difference, which can be explained through choices in the past of social inclined investments, could become visible when these properties are transferred.

So when we look at the links, then we see a government that is already visibly aware that there is, what I deem to be a surreal over valuation of properties. It could be that the values are actually a lot lower than what the books incline them to be. How far does this stretch? Because, if that is true and it had been known, then certain measure would have had to be taken long before July 2012. If actions were not made, then we see that the economy, linked to the value of a nation gives us a different percentage. So which additional levels of management are in play? (I actually do not know). But it seems to me that the more issues are linked, the more the evidence indicates that non-acts are beyond acceptable. Those parties now bickering over scraps to avoid hunger are either ignoring or not mentioning that the scraps will not make up for a meal to begin with. So instead of finding solutions, we witness debates (read bickering), where the result of the conversation will not be solution no matter how much a party gives in, which means that the only treasure left are the retirement funds, or more aptly put, the family silver!

That will result in the situation where all are left with less, whilst the political parties seem to remain in cycles of ‘bad news management’. When we look at the annual reports of some of these museums we see the text “De stichting beoordeelt op iedere balansdatum of er aanwijzingen zijn dat een De stichting beoordeelt op iedere balansdatum of er aanwijzingen zijn dat een vast actief aan een bijzondere waardevermindering onderhevig kan zijn.

[Paraphrased] the foundation decides on every balance date, whether indications exist that a fixed-asset is linked to a value decrease” so was it? From the parliamentary paper we saw mention that at least 4 have this issue. Was this indicated, or are we now dealing with a time zone issue where the moments of report and ‘enlightenment’ of value reduction seem to miss one another?”

Again, I actually do not know, yet we do not see too much information in this regard. So the active question of linked values are an issue not to ignore, especially if the value had gone too far down, the consequence is that cutting back 6 billion, an amount they are not able to manage now, would not have been enough. This is important to know, because there are two elements not illustrated. The Dutch government place its economy in the European rankings in the top 5 (I reckon it is within the top 10) (at http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/nieuws/2013/03/26/nederland-in-top-5-slimste-economieen-van-europa.html), in addition, the Dutch Newspaper ‘Trouw’ stated last February (at http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4504/Economie/article/detail/3399005/2013/02/23/Triple-A-natie-Nederland-vergeleken-met-Groot-Brittannie-het-land-zonder-AAA.dhtml) that the Dutch economy is in a decent place, yet it also illustrates that the debt would rise until 2018, whilst at that point the UK debt would already be lowering. So why is this important?

Well, if this is about a percentage of the GDP, then the Dutch treasures, which includes its Gross investment and ‘net additions to capital assets’ plus ‘investments in inventories’. So, what happens then the net additions to Capital assets becomes an increasing negative number? Net fixed capital formation is linked to depreciation (and loss of value). It seems to me that if the net value of its treasures become increasingly large, then the mentioned 25% lowering would be disastrous. Especially when we see that investments toward these areas do nothing to increase net value that is linked to the GDP. The view is heavily coloured as the initial paper was only on 4 buildings, yet if we see and accept the levels of bad news management that has been in play, what else is intervening with the correct value of the GDP?

So as this (for now) is about the realistic upcoming 1.2 billion Euro additional fine the Dutch will face if they cannot keep their budget (at http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4500/Politiek/article/detail/3516791/2013/09/26/Moet-Nederland-straks-echt-1-2-miljard-in-Brussel-afrekenen.dhtml), what other information is currently missing?

What if the Dutch need to face a revaluation of their GDP and of the elements of information that are now being ‘managed’, what will the consequence be of such a new valuation? Will the Dutch cutbacks be as severe, or worse in 2014?

What ‘managed’ information will people learn about after the retirement funds are drained?

The views I gave are important beyond the Dutch borders as well. It is a ‘sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander’ approach. From my point of view Dutch parliament is not evil, or corrupt, or criminal (there is a massive spot called grey area though). So, when these issues are detected with the Dutch, then it is important to know that others might be doing exactly the same, to some degree. The UK opposition system makes this situation unlikely but not impossible. The underlying similar dangers would then be coming from both France AND Italy (both in the economic top 5 and higher than the Netherlands). We all know that the waters of the Euro are murky. These matters might illustrate that they are also a lot less safe than we imagined them and if we accept that whatever happens in each of these nations hits all of them as it impacts the Euro, we could see this as a sign that the European economic troubles are far from over. When we have to take into account issues that were non-issues before, once this all comes out, how much damage will the Euro suffer?


Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics