Tag Archives: Germany

June 21, 2014 · 20:48

Legally and Criminally Insane?

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

You might wonder where this is going!

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

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

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

They seem simple and pretty much fit the bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do we get from this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics, Science

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

May 18, 2014 · 12:07

Are we getting played?

I have been away for a little while, which happens! We all have priorities a times and for the most of us (including me), when we are not directly involved in an issue, we tend to ignore them. This applies for me too. Yet, the news as I saw it last night was a little more then just uncomfortable. Last April (the 15th), I wrote the blog article ‘Facts, Fiction or Fantasy‘. I got two responses on how ludicrous the ideas were and as they were just filled with profanities, I decided to trash the messages (it is my prerogative to do so). In the article, I mentioned on how Greece had started to sell bonds again. Their credit rating seemed to have gone up just ever so slightly. Now I read that over the last two days that bank shares have fallen 5.66% and 5.79% respectively. The first complaint that I am likely to hear is how these two are not the same and one does not mean that the other is true, which is correct, but consider the following. A bond is nothing more an ‘I owe you’ between the seller (the Greek government) and the buyer (the investor). The investor relies on information like credit ratings (from places like S&P and Moody for example) to make an assessment on how realistic the investment is. The fact that almost a month later the quote ‘Greek lenders are likely to face large losses over the next two years’ is seen, gives rise to the question whether any upgrade to the credit rating was valid.

Basically, the values of bank shares have diminished by 11% in just two days. How are we getting played? Consider that the banks are dependent on governments, consumers and others to survive. The fact that they went down 11% in two days in a month after the government sold another 5 billion in bonds is not unrelated. The fact that we got informed by the IMF (a ‘prediction’ which is bogus in my view), on how economies were getting better (they stated: “17 out of 18 economies would be positive economies in 2014”), was already not realistic, now we see the Greek bank shares drop and next, in regards to current credit ratings, Ireland now ‘suddenly’ gets a small upgrade.

The question becomes whether rating offices (like S&P and Moody) engaged in what I personally regard as a ‘criminal endeavor to perpetrate a fraud’ against the people of these nations? More important, are they servicing the American banking moguls in that respect? Let me elaborate on this thought. No matter how the American economy is seen, the USA treasury coffers are far beyond minus 17,000 billion (= 17 trillion). The interest on that must come from somewhere and the USA is not likely to be able to afford any level of paybacks for a long time to come, especially considering that this administration has been unable to achieve any kind of balanced budget from the moment they came into office. This is nothing compared to the total USA debt which is somewhere between 50 and 70 trillion (I have no reliable source on what that actual amount currently is). The idea that the EEC might fall apart must be a Titanic sized Wall Street nightmare at present. UKIP is growing (for now) and the French Front Nationale is definitely on course to become the leading French party. Both parties, as well as the Dutch PVV are all in favor of segregating away from the Euro mess and if that happens, the American goose is truly cooked. If they (the financial institutions) are playing a game where too many nations have added even more debt, then the chance of moving away from the EEC is less likely as it would become too unrealistic in regards to the costs that would be incurred on the French and British coin when the total EEC debts are spread around, which might be the game that is currently being played.

It is likely that my thoughts are completely wrong and so out of whack that they only belong with the conspiracy theory magazines. Yet, when we see the debts these places are in, then upgrading any level of credit is just utterly insane to begin with, so I might have something here.

It is not just the issue on ‘how’ or even ‘if’ there is any form of economic growth, the issue is that the outstanding debts are a local responsibility and in stead of push it forward to the next government in place, these governments (all EEC nations) have a sworn duty to stop handing debts onto the next generation. They have a solemn duty to lower the debt. It is not their responsibility to enable multimillion-dollar bonuses to financial groups. They must lower debts. We as people are not here to cater to a group of what I regard to be as flaccid US economists, we all need stronger economies and increasing debts are no way to get to these stronger economies.

Here in Australia we see the objections on the harsh measures that are now being taken by treasurer Joe Hockey. I agree with him to a larger extent. I have zero sympathy for the honorable Bill Shorten (The initials BS are interestingly fitting), on how campaign promises were ‘broken’. He should remember that it was HIS side that had overspend by hundreds of billions. Money their side did not have, so after dumping a car mess and debt mess on the Liberals, they are now crying in opposition. The added mentions by Chris Bowen are equally a joke as this is a Labor mess that the ALP members are now trying to resolve. None of them seem to mention that it was THEIR party in government that had spend the money they never had. Perhaps Labor should consider answering questions on how these issues, which were known long before the election started, should have been resolved before the election started. They will not have any answers there. They overspend and WE (the taxpayers) are now burdened with fixing these issues! In that regard Australia seems to be taking a leaf out of the book or Chancellor Merkel, who through massive austerity directives got the German economy in a much better shape. I feel relieved (even thought it hurts me too), that the ALP is now fighting to get the Australian economy stronger and the coffers of the treasury out of debt. Personally I still believe that when (not if) the US Dollar collapses after the first loan defaults, any nation in massive debt will learn the hard way, the price it faces when the debt is due. Those without debt will get to call the shots for the future and personally I will be happy when we will be sitting at the global governing table where we can choose what will be best for us. Those at the table without a coin should remain silent at the table, those holding the loan slips will get to decide the future for all others, a lesson that is likely to be humiliating and no fun for the citizens of the involved nations in debt.

In the end no matter how good an economy is, the upcoming profit will go to whomever they are indebted to for a long time to come.

It is not a nice solution and in these times it will never be a nice solution, but it must be solved and whilst we might see the insulating joke scandal that had cost money and lives are another side how the Australian Labor party had failed the Australian population. This is not just me bashing the Australian Labor party (no matter how entertaining that exercise is), Bowen is an economist and as such he should in my eyes know better then to proceed on the outspoken track he seems to be. The question in this regard is who Labor was listening to whilst Labor was governing with the fighting twins at the head of that table (Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard). I feel certain that during that term someone was advising the treasurers Wayne Swan and Chris Bowen (which would be a perfectly valid act), who were the advisors in those years? We can all agree that even though overspending by hundreds of billions is a really bad idea, claiming it was only the treasurers act is just folly! Someone had an advisory plan and the Australian people has a right to know who that was, especially as it is Chris Bowen (former treasurer), now claiming that current affairs are so out of touch with reality that he is rallying the people against the ALP at present. I do think that some cutbacks are too harsh, yet, as I see it, Labor has no right to speak out, as these matters would not be the issue if they had not overspend all these billions.

This is at the heart of the matter; it is about the advisors behind the screens. We need to see and hear those names! When we seen the list of advisors in that regard (on a global scale), we might be able to start painting a picture. There is even a chance that this picture is a lot more incestuous then a global view of Market Research, but we will decide on that when the picture is drawn.

We can all agree that governing parties are in need of advice and as such, they draw a plan, which is/was executed. So where did the debt come from and who did not close the wallet in time? If that was just the treasurer, then Chris Bowen has in my view no right at all to be this upset as he was the previous treasurer. That part is exactly part of the pain that is playing in Greece and perhaps soon in Ireland too. Where are the people behind the screens? If Sky News is to be believed then the prospect that ‘Greek lenders are likely to face large losses over the next two years‘ shows that upgrading the credit rating of Greece and the subsequent selling of billions in bonds was more then just a really bad idea. It boils down to another example of bad news management. I wonder whether investors would have a claim if they lost money on the purchased bonds only one month ago. Should my case be proven, it should also be clear that we should see the names of those ‘advising‘ on increased credit scores. I do not mean the names of the companies, but the names of the individuals who signed off on that news. Just like the names of the EEC economists that claimed that 17 out of 18 economies would grow in 2014 (mentioned in my blog on May 8th called ‘Public Naming‘).

It is time to shine a light on those who are the cause of many governments overspending their budgets by a lot and on those ‘analysts’ who seem to decide on how much an economy ‘should’ grow, especially as they drop the value of Twitter, who grew revenue by 119% (an amazing feat), which amounts to almost a quarter of a billion dollars. In my view, we the people are getting played by a select group of ‘economists’, who seem to be making more per person per month post taxation then most of us make in a year pre taxation. If you think I am kidding, then consider that the $5 billion in Greek bonds from last April represented a bonus value of $50 million; do you still think I am kidding? When Ireland ‘suddenly’ starts selling bonds, remember that someone will end up with up to 1% of that amount in commissions.

We are all getting played to some extent and it is high time that this stops before we end up paying the bills of other people’s overspending spree! Getting out of our national debt should be our only concern until this is achieved. A goal that should be shared by all the EEC nations as well.

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

Tagged as ALP, Australia, Bill shorten, Chancellor Merkel, Chris Bowen, credit rating, credit ratings, EEC, Germany, Greece, Greek bonds, Greek government, Ireland, Joe Hockey, Julia gillard, Kevin rudd, Labor, Twitter, Wall Street, Wayne Swan

April 7, 2014 · 20:06

Should governments provide?

This is the question I had after watching the Dutch newscast at the NOS. The issue is that the Dutch are lagging more and more behind the Germans (except for soccer). Now part of that statement is a joke as Germany is 850% the size of the Netherlands. In addition, Germany has large deposits of ores. They are regarded as one of the world’s foremost producers of iron, steel, coal, cement, chemicals, machinery, vehicles, machine tools, electronics, food and beverages, shipbuilding and textiles. So why is this comparison even an issue?

Ineke Dezentjé Hamming, president of the FME (an organisation for the Dutch technological industry) stated “Wij verliezen onze positie als exportland als we niet snel vernieuwen en mee-ontwikkelen met de Duitsers” (translated as) “We are losing our position as an export nation if we do not renew and develop our technologies with the Germans“. In addition there is the statement that Germany is now in its fourth cycle of industries, where factories and ICT are completely integrated (at http://nos.nl/artikel/632638-nl-raakt-achter-op-duitsland.html).

An example could be the New VDL Nedcar factory, which allows for 24 hours a day production. The NOS newscast implies in my view (they did not state) that the approach of the FME is that the government should be handing over the funds to allow for this. In opposition of my own words, I must state that her statement in the Hannover Messe does not imply that at all (at http://www.hannovermesse.de/en/exhibition/partner-country/ineke-dezentje-hammink-blue.xhtml). Yet, the changes in infrastructure will require massive funds and there is plenty of clarity that the industry corners do not seem to have it.

I am still in awe that the Dutch want to get on equal footing with the Germans on an industrial ground. It almost reads like David stating towards Goliath ‘where are the other eleven?‘ which make me wonder, why is this even an issue?

Yes, as the article stated, the Dutch have for too long relied on services, which was not the best choice, yet, what are the options? The Dutch have no mining options, they have an excellence in ship building, yet that market is not doing too well. Let us not forget that the Dutch did have an excellence in services too. They had the East India Company, which should be regarded as the first and largest multinational ever, starting in 1602 lasting almost 200 years, which is a much better track record then IBM can proud itself on.

But in this day and age, after a multiple joke echelon of services based organisations (from the late 90’s), relying on selling concepts, the age of services is dwindling down. Even now, when we see the Business Industry relying on services and selling them, we see a decline as many customers selected (sometimes forced) to find internal solutions. Many corporations had to wise up fast. This is at the heart of the issue I have with the thoughts of Ineke Dezentjé Hamming-Bluemink. She is correct in the thoughts she phrases, yet again, when compared to the Germans, the Dutch had let these options slide for too long. An integrated ICT means that ICT skills are essential to these companies. If not, then those services will explode in costing’s as the ICT will suddenly rise in value, in an unbalanced way, which created a news hype bubble and there is no way that this is a good thing. This is where the shoes become too tight for the dance of industry. To get this all in motion, training and adaptation should have started two years ago. If the entire track is started now, we will see a wildfire of services and needs, which will drown common sense and pragmatism, which in turn will only hurt industries further.

So, why am I writing this?

The issue is that Ineke Dezentjé Hamming-Bluemink brings up an issue that is at the centre for not just the Netherlands, but the situation also applies to the United Kingdom and Australia. This industry 4.0 as they call it might be needed, but that need goes far beyond just high tech industry. The NHS is just one of many service based organisations where the need for strong and correct integration is required (which seems to be a mess). The ICT integration has been a requirement since the late 90’s. Yet, greed got in the way and as these firms all hunkered down on selling concepts and ‘solutions’, the ICT developers got lazy and many decided to forsake on created products and they all walked down to the path of some 80% readied toolbox with additional training and consultancy.

It was extremely counterproductive.

The Dutch have seen in the last three years how ‘Deutche Grundligkeit’ has taken foothold and it gives way to additional growth in Germany. So, the Dutch want to get on this 4.0 horse as some might see it, but why and for whom? The Netherlands does have an industry, however when we get past the breweries and Nutricia, what is left? Unilever, Akzo-Nobel and perhaps Philips? So, in this smaller list, why is industry 4.0 such a story?

That is the puzzling part, which gets me to the (by me) implied need for government ‘subsidies’. This I see as another approach to overspending, by those who should be keeping their wallets closed (the unfortunate consequence of being in debt for almost 500 billion dollars).

Is industry 4.0 anymore then the latest hype?

This is a question that is a lot harder to answer. Yes, it is hype, but the issue with ‘hype’ that this word also implies that its need tends to be overstated to some degree. This is where I tend to side with the need for it. If all parties need to cut costs, then Industry 4.0 is a definite need, but getting there will require spending and is this truly an option for some?

Here we need to see the words of Journalist Frank Gersdorf from the ‘Financieele Dagblad’ (Financial Paper) “De toekomstvisie wordt in Duitsland met zoveel geweld gepusht, zoals met een overheidstoelage van € 200 mln en promotiefilmpjes, dat je bijna gelooft dat dit echt de toekomst is en dat wij in Nederland de boot missen“, translated it states “The futuristic vision is getting pushed in Germany with such ferocity, like with the subsidy of € 200 million and promotion films, that it is implied that this is the real future and that the Dutch are missing the opportunity” (at http://duitslandnieuws.nl/archief/2014/02/frank-gersdorf-industrie-4-0-misschien-een-hype-maar-heeft-wel-toekomst/)

These words give strength to my implied acts from Ineke Dezentjé Hamming-Bluemink seeing them as an attempt to shake the governmental money tree to see what might drop down. it makes perfect sense that she was doing this as it is her job to get what she can to work for and fight for her interest group. This is all fair enough and we cannot fault her for that. I just wonder if the Dutch and several other groups are even ready for this. Germany has always believed in unity (their version of it) and as such, they had set out a path, which has been in motion since 2004 (at http://www.din.de/sixcms_upload/media/2896/DNS_english%5B1%5D.pdf).

This shows that Germany has been on the industrial choices for a decade; the Dutch cannot just step in and ‘proclaim’ that we should get there too just overnight. This I can proclaim as I was there in the late 70’s and 80’s as the Rotterdam harbours were in a transitional need for upgrading. Take 3 large harbour barons and you got 7 opinions, 14 options and no solution. I reckon that Anthony Veder was the last of the true famous harbour barons. As I witnessed the sales fight between IBM, Hewlett Packard (mainframes) and Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), things were never standard in any way. For the record, my voice was always with DEC with VAX/VMS, which showed true paths of open standardisation. There is only so many times you can stomach the ‘answer‘ “we are IBM” as it was an actual answer to a question. This is however not about IBM, this is about the needs for industry 4.0 and as such a new form of true standard ‘plug and produce’ solutions. There is no commitment to a path, too many players want the door to remain open so that they might get a shot at this and at the same instance, nothing gets done and no one will decide. So it is not just about the advantage Germany is building, it is about the increased distance it is creating by actually going for any solution.

The Germans do have a massive advantage. When the need was there almost 5 years ago, Germany did tighten the belt, the rest (Netherlands, UK, France and Italy) played their ‘fair weather’ games and as such they are now in additional hardships, which is likely disabling that money tree to be shaken. At least, until there is a clear shown path for an ROI for the Dutch taxpayer. This is however not just about the Dutch; the Commonwealth is in a similar situation. In the magazine Industrial Technology of January 2014 (at http://www.gambica.org.uk/app/images/documents/articles/Industrial_Technology_Jan2014.pdf) where we see the following quote at the end: “Industry 4.0 could be the reason why the UK is ultimately successful in redefining itself as a manufacturing economy“. This I can agree with, just as I did not disagree with the statements given by Ineke Dezentjé Hamming-Bluemink. The issue of funds will remain, no matter how needed it might be and if this is good for business, why should the government fund it? Consider the statement “we could be profitable if the tax office foots the bill“. That is what this current Industry 4.0 situation amounts to. This does not mean that it should not happen, but what is the Return On Investment? If it takes longer than that, is it a good deal to put money in something whilst the main objective for the Netherlands and the UK should be to lower their debts.

The issue is already getting the consultants to crawl out of the woodwork (like Roland Berger), where we can read (at http://www.rolandberger.com/press_releases/Industry_4_0_opportunities_for_European_industry.html)

“The Roland Berger experts explain what companies and politics should do to support the development of Industry 4.0 and leverage this opportunity for Europe“. It seems to me that this is another one sided step to get the cards shoved into the hands of politics to spend, spend, spend. They also illuminated a second side to this all. The second quote gives us the cake with toppings “This is where politics needs to support the process by initiating research and development programs at the European level“. Why? Why can this not be instigated by IBM, Oracle or by Hewlett Packard? If it makes business sense, then these three will hop on that horse right quick. Why must tax Euros be used one way or another? They made billions, which means that sponsoring should not really be a prerequisite.

In my view, I find that new technologies are usually a step forward, yet when we consider on how people jump on and off funding horses with the greatest of easy within their political terms, should we allow certain corporate evolutions at the expense of the government coffers?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Politics, Science

Tagged as DEC, FME, Frank Gersdorf, Germany, Hewlett Packard, HP, IBM, ICT, Ineke Dezentjé Hamming, Ineke Dezentjé Hamming-Bluemink, Netherlands, NHS, Nutricia

January 17, 2014 · 04:20

Year of the last Euro?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time to get back to issue 2!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could George Osborne be wrong?

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Military, Politics

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

December 11, 2013 · 18:26

The Holden circus!

Today there is an abundance of false emotions, stomping of tables and floors by theatrical agents. Yes, today the upcoming closure of Holden got announced. They are not the only one. Ford had already decided to stop in 2016 and Mitsubishi closed in 2008. Now, Holden will stop by the end of 2017. On an Island of 21.000.000, the three large makers get out. Is it a wonder? The economy is down by a lot! Buying cars is not on the mind of many. I get that there is enough space for one to exist, but do we really all need a new car?

This is not just about the economy; this is about need and offer. How viable is it to make cars? The initial idea that we need a car almost every year should have been abandoned year ago. The fact that we were hit by 0% finance deals should have been an indication. This is not just a view that is new. This has been going on for at least 2 administrations. It is so nice to see the amount of emotional lashing we are currently see on Sky News. It goes further. One mentioned that part of this had been known since 2007.

The one part I found most amusing was the speech by Paul Bastian. He is the National Secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU). Sky News reported “Paul Bastian blamed the government’s refusal to offer more assistance to Holden and called on the government to ‘come clean on its vision for manufacturing.’”

This is in part the fault if the TPP. The TPP would allow for the American brand to be again an American brand, now through imports without severe import taxation, which is exactly what the TPP was meant to do. To be honest, this is the part I do not object to. In the end, if an American brand works from America, then that is how it is. If this is the way that American corporations need to operate, then that is just how it is. My issue with the TPP is and remains the unjust hijacking of innovation. This is not it. This is a business decision. I do not like it. Many Australians do not like it, but that is just how it is.

Getting back to Mr Bastian, I get that he is emotional, I get that he wants it to remain here and that the government should have ‘done more’. Are we to give Big Business a free ride? No! If one thing is a fact then perhaps that this is a signal for these Australians to sit down and create a new Australian brand. Get a national car, get the ideas together and create a new brand that could become the proud spearhead of an industry. Let us not forget that Holden (and Mitsubishi and Ford) have decided to walk away from 21 million potential customers. Germany had 10% of that when someone sat down, created the boxer engine and then made ‘Volkswagen’ a reality (by the way, the boxer engine would be the proud trademark of Porsche for decades). This literally translated into ‘car of the people’. With that they followed Citroen, who started 2 decades before that. These two would impact the automotive industry within 2 decades. So why look at General Motors holding your hand up like Oliver Twist asking for more?

Short and sweet? “Fuck ’em!”

There is nothing stopping us from creating a generic engine with the Kiwi’s and create a car that has a decent level of appeal to almost 25 million people. (Aussies and Kiwi’s).

In addition, there should be great laughter rolling from the interview that Sky News showed in regards to the reasoning. Questions like ‘If Mr Hockey had…‘ is just preposterous initially. Yes, there might have been issues, but when you hear about a 1 billion commitment towards that big business, we need to start asking questions.

The short and sweet of it is that America is BANKRUPT! With 17 Trillion in debt they are talking about 80 billion in less spending. When you are down 17,000 billion, 80 billion is less than 0.5%. So finally America starts cleaning up its act by calling back business and making then tax accountable. Is that such a far stretch? I think not and I do not blame them for that step in any way. So is it such a stretch for an Australian to create a new local brand that will support OUR industry, OUR people and OUR economy? This is what innovation is all about. Yes, our car, if released in 2016 might lack all the comforts, but so did the French 2CV. That became the future of a billion euro company. Nothing stops us from redoing this. In the end, the economy forced big business back to their local ground. Yes, they might lose 25 million customers, but we could create a new economy, a new future and new innovation. I say we look forward!

All what we see now on TV is name and blame by people making a lot of money, whilst the facts had been around for a few years. Ask how those high paid analysts did not see this happening! I am not stating that politics are free of blame, but in the end, this is the choice of an American car giant (General Motors), a step that others, including Japan (Mitsubishi) had already made.

So when some make some theatrical show of 500 million getting pulled out, we need to ask ‘why on earth do they need 500 million?‘ How about we create a new brand? Will Toyota pull out? Perhaps not! If Toyota is all that remains, we have reason to JUST support Toyota.

Now, in all this, let me be clear that I am not an automotive expert, but to hear all these people claiming that ‘big business’ is waiting on more support by government is just ludicrous. Yes, perhaps it is a tragic day, but in the end, Mike Devereux has to represent General Motors. The opposition is all about slinging mud, but this had been going on for a long time, whilst THEY were in charge. So this, as it is decided in just a few months that the Liberals were in charge, they move away.

What a croc!

This had been planned for some time. Detroit, being a bankrupt city is on the verge of being removed from the map. The opposition knew that more was going on. To see

When ABC had this (at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-05/holden-to-pull-out-of-australia-from-2016-17/5138942) the following quote was given “Holden says discussions with the Government on its future are continuing, and it says it does not respond to speculation.” this means that there was more and more was in play, and to see the blame by the opposition is just a joke. If we in addition consider the Herald Sun showing us thin almost a week ago (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/govt-opposition-deny-holden-pull-out-plan/story-fni0xqi4-1226776625199), we see that there are several sour apples in the barrel and there are some indications that it could be perceived that labour knew about much of this, but perhaps the game was played for future tax break endeavours.

In the end, I think that these acts are all about America needing now to desperately protect American futures (which I totally get), which is WHY the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) was so important to them; especially in light of export terms (not just the issues that the WTO discussed over the last month). We should also regard that this is only the beginning. Consider that Japan has equal financial pressures. What happens when Takeda Pharmaceuticals Australia Pty Ltd does the same? Will we get another emotional outbreak by Kim Carr? Will we get more number fidgeting (that is how I see it)? They all forget that such a step needs several months of considerations. This means that the start of this had already at a time when it was the Australian Labour government who was in charge and this should have been dealt with THEN!

Instead, Labour show them as playing the child tantrum, they should unite with the Liberals and open the doors for a new brand. Consider the consequences when General Motors needs to consider losing 25 million customers, almost 8% of the American population. Be clever, be innovative!

We, both Australians (and Brits too) have proven to be innovative. Now, the Americans have given us reason to be so quickly and clearly. Let us show them that we can get it done, preferably without needing 500 million more after a business had been established.

I am throwing down the gauntlet. Who is the innovative engineer ready to commit to his possible future Fortune 500 position?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as ABC, America, AMWU, Australia, Ford, France, General Motors, Germany, Herald Sun, Holden, Japan, Joe Hockey, Kim Carr, Mitsubishi, Paul Bastian, Takeda, Takeda Pharmaceuticals Australia Pty Ltd, TPP, Trans Pacific Partnership, Volkswagen

October 21, 2013 · 01:33

The reality that wasn’t one

Until we all realise that the edge of the abyss is on the Americans, we all need to realise that what will topple the Americans, will have a massive effect on us all. Partly because we are linked, partially because the events that are in effect there are also in effect in the Commonwealth and both are not willing to change their ways.

The issues all start with an article in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/19/barack-obama-address-shutdown-debt-ceiling).

The first quote is: “There’s been a lot of discussion lately of the politics of this shutdown. But the truth is, there were no winners in this.“

Actually, there are. The banks! They are making a bundle and as things go, the US will be (pardon my French) the Bank’s Bitch for a long time to come. $17,000 Billion has that effect on them. The article by the LA Times, which I personally call laughable, can be found at http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77819148/

The four points should be looked at.

1. The U.S. debt burden is starting to decline. That’s right – it’s going down, not up.

Really? $17,000 Billion remains that. The economy is not even close to being on par, and as long as the government is spending over a trillion a year more than they earn, the debt is not going anywhere. If we go from the T-Bill path, then the payable cost of T-bills (basically the discount value), for the entire amount would be $453 billion. This is of course not realistic; the number that is closer is based upon the annual deficit increase. These numbers were discussed in my blog ‘A new third World continent‘. So, when they do start to mature, an annual amount no less than $1,000 billion a year for no less ten 5 years would be needed. So, that debt burden is going nowhere, it will be there waiting for the people and it will come with additional bills.

2. China holds only a relatively small fraction of U.S. debt.

That is actually true, yet roughly 14% of $17,000 billion is still a massive amount, it just seems little. By the way, if they suddenly cash in, the chances of the US being able to pay it becomes smaller and smaller by the day. The debt ceiling is there and it would be instantly crossed.

3. The U.S. has had a national debt for almost its entire history.

Again that is also true for the most, yet in 2000 it was only 5 trillion (roughly), so in 13 years it grew by 12 trillion dollars, it grew from 5 to 9 trillion up to 2007 and the rest grew in the last 6 years.

4. Debt crises have marked American politics from the beginning.

Well, that is not entirely incorrect. The article starts with General George Washington. The guy who ran the American defence forces before Patton, roughly about 140 years before Patton. The debt remained under 1 trillion until the 80’s, so basically the US went through Independence Day 1 (1776, not the one with the aliens), WW1, WW2, the Cold War and the Vietnam war. All these elements involving massive amounts of politics, (except the Cold war, which was a contemporary event where Ivan Aleksandrovich Serov and Allen Dulles had a bit of fun, as well as their successors (boys will be boys).

The moral here is not about the marking of American politics, it is about Politics not doing what they were supposed to be doing. From my point of view, the right questions were not asked, hence the actions proceeded were of a game where open and clear communications were not in play (or this deficit would be a lot smaller).
There is plenty of blame to go around! Initial there was former President Clinton, even though the coffers actually had real cash in his era, the Silicon Valley crash started to leave its mark. It drove Gray Davis (former Governor of California) out of office and it was the beginning of a massive shift. After that the USA had former President Bush. He did a good job, but then 9/11 struck. The consequences had a major influence, it also changed the premise of many, instead of a true revamping of intelligence, 4 agencies were suddenly spending like there was no tomorrow. The military costs went up, which would really hurt the treasury coffers and lastly the financial crash of 2008 was one that had a long term consequence, especially as a building named America got prepped in the years 2003-2005, by the time the 2008 financial fire hit the house, there were no fire hydrants and there was no one able to actually fight that fire. The rest is the now and many are still reeling from those hits.

This takes us back to the article in the Guardian, where President Obama is quoted saying “First, we should sit down and pursue a balanced approach to a responsible budget, one that grows our economy faster and shrinks our long-term deficits further.“

That is a simple answer, stop spending too much. I understand that spending $5 to make $50 is perfectly sensible, but America has become a nation of entitlements and costs, not profits. When you as a nation allow for tax evasion and keep on postponing putting a stop to these acrobatics (the Tax evasion rule is not expected to become active until 2014). So the US is in an extremely fragile situation. It is basically what you hear of Fox News (people like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and John Stossel), is that view wrong? Well the Nanny state is an overprotective government. I am all for protection. We should protect the weak, the sick and so on. But when you are broke, you cannot pay the beggar with coins you do not have, you cannot feed the hungry with food you cannot pay for. When your money runs out, it runs out. So until the government gets their horses back on track, entitlements will (not should) suffer. Perhaps doing something about Corporations and their tax evasion? For Example, Google paid the UK $12M in taxation, whilst their UK revenue was $3,000M. That is less than 1/2% in taxation. They avoided $2B in taxation in the US, according to the Bloomberg article (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html)

So how much taxation is NOT going into the US coffers? That list of corporations using tax havens is long and they are all prosperous. So, when entitlements fall away, look at those places on why support is gone.

The only part remaining is an article that came to view as I was reading up on a few parts. It is at http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/25/economics-professor-smacks-down-bill-oreilly-he-has-no-idea-what-a-nanny-state-is/

And the story is about Professor Richard Wolff having a go at Bill O’Reilly. It was on ‘Democracy Now‘ so the idea that this is about a democrat having a go at a Republican should be clear.

The first part was in regards to “a clip of O’Reilly talking about the latest round of European bailouts, which O’Reilly said is happening ‘because they’re all nanny states’ that do not have enough workers to support ‘entitlements’.“

So what are the numbers? According to the site, http://apografi.yap.gov.gr/ where the Greek state currently employs 614,053 people, 15,000 jobs got axed in the first half of 2013. The Greek population is around 11 million; this gives us that just over 5.5% of the ENTIRE Greek population works for the state. There are reports that this used to be over 20% (in 2011), so how is that not a nanny state? According to the Oxford press it is stated as “a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice.” when 1 in 5 works for the government, overprotective seems to be the case. The only part I do not agree with, in this case, with Mr O’Reilly is that Greece seems more and more the consequence of short sightedness and utter stupidity. In reflection, when a government asks Goldman Sachs to hide the size of their debt, I personally want to sail towards words like stupidity and irresponsibility.

Professor Wolff sees Germany and Sweden as Nanny States. That is not incorrect, however the next part “they’re the winners of the current situation. The unemployment rate in Germany is now below 5 percent.” is misrepresentation. First of all, when changes were needed (around 2009) Germany tightened the belt by A LOT! This is why it seems that they got off lighter, because they decided against borrowing (a lesson that the USA still has not learned). The second part is that Sweden has a different system. Yes, they do have a protective nanny state, but taxation is also higher. It is 57% at the highest tier; whereas the rich and playful in the US seem to pay only 29%. In addition, most Swedes are ‘proud’ (slightly overstated, I admit) to pay taxation. The more they pay, the higher their status. (Inwards they’ll sulk like nothing you’ll ever see).

So, Professor Wolff is missing his shares of facts too. In addition, Sweden had to deal with its own issues in 2003 as Ericsson dismissed thousands of people. They went from 85,200 staff members in 2001, to 51,600 in 2003. That is over 33000 in just 2 years. Try finding a job in IT in 2003. So as Sweden got itself back on its feet, they had moved themselves into a position to remain cautious. There is a good PDF file to read, it is called ‘Growth and renewal in the Swedish economy‘ It is by McKinsey and Company and worth reading. I wanted to add the link, but like Google’s ability to avoid taxation; they are getting better and better in avoiding clean links (just huge links full of Google statistics garbage). Although Sweden got through it all not too harmed, their current projections are not too good. Their deficit is likely to rise to 3% this year. One of the more noticeable incomes Sweden had was from Vattenfal and their nuclear power plant, the issues in the UK showed that Vattenfal has issues, some of their sites (outside of Sweden) were not panning out the way they were. www.vattenfall.com/en/file/Q2-report-2013_35251329.pdf has some interesting materials. So as they reported an operating profit of MINUS 25 billion (in Swedish kronor), they are still there, but that is an amount that hurts, and of course as they depreciated that much, it will affect the Swedish deficit. Let us not forget, they only have a population of 9.5 million and unlike Greece they are doing decently well. As for health care? The numbers from the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) show us two interesting facts, percentage of government revenue spend on health gives us USA 18.5% (highest), whilst Sweden spend 13.6% (lowest), then look at the percentage of health costs paid by government which gives us USA with 45.1% (lowest) and Sweden with 81.4% (2nd highest). So, either the Swedes get a much better bang for their buck, or in comparison the American system is extremely flawed. There are ways to find out which, but compared to the UK, which is almost identical to Sweden in covered health costs, yet the slightly higher spending by the UK government leaves me with the thought that an overhaul of US healthcare was essential, but until I see the actual numbers on the new system, I will remain doubtful whether Obamacare would ever be a solution (but I refuse to judge until better numbers are known).

So in the end, the information by Professor Wolff reads less correct when you take another look at certain facts.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as Allen Dulles, Bill O'Reilly and John Stossel, bloomberg, CIA, George Washington, Germany, Glenn Beck, Gray Davis, Greece, Guardian, Ivan Aleksandrovich Serov, KGB, LA Times, McKinsey and Company, Obama, Obamacare, OECD, Patton, President Bush, President Clinton, Professor Wolff, Richard Wolff, Sverige, Sweden, Vattenfal

June 29, 2013 · 20:10

About that house you wanted!

It seems the Dutch are ready to take on the advice the Wijfels commission is giving. Even though not direct, it will end up that you have to pay 20% cash up front for any house or apartment you desire. And indeed, there was the subtle ‘line’ that if you do not have that kind of cash, you should address your pension funds. Interesting on how they are willing to open up pension funds to fund that.

Am I against it? There are two sides to this. On the one hand investing into your own future is perfectly sane. If only there was some level of certainty. You see, the fact that banks leave its taxpayers with their risky investments is one thing, the issue on your house is another.

How does this differ? Actually, it should not. A good house is a good house. However, consider some of the housing. How these houses are currently so much over any normal affordable income. It is nice to see a newscast in comparison with Germany; however, when we look at the quality and square meter price, then these prices are far from average. Of course, when seeking apartments in places like Munich, then yes, the prices might seem comparable. Yet, where we see average Munich prices, that is pretty an average price for living anywhere in the Netherlands. I agree that it is not fair that those factors are accountable to the banks, yet, they were at the centre of events when the prices were artificially pushed upwards.

As they sold mortgages no one cared too much about prices as the interest was tax deductable. When that 7%-9% is no longer part of tax deductibility, then we have a situation where the consumer now pays for it all. Add to that coming up with 20% (in due time) and someone slyly mentions the need to access ones retirement funds, we see another political play to get pensions into the banking equation. There is supporting evidence from all kind of sources. An interesting read was how on average house prices went down in US/UK and other places by well over 20%, whilst in the Netherlands the prices lowered less than 8%. It is unfair to just name one factor, as several economic factors had been in place in other nations too. The US crash never hit the European sides that hard, Europe might still fighting the backwash from those days, but on average Europe never had too much of the hardship the US faced. Another reason is the fact that the Netherlands is pretty much ‘full’. Whilst many nations have plenty of housing space outside of the great cities, the Netherlands has become a connection of large cities, with next to nothing to separate them.

Still this play as such to push people towards their retirement finds is slightly less than acceptable. There is however the other side that must be highlighted too. According to Ernst & Young, between 1996 and 2012, the outstanding mortgage has gone from 138 to 650 billion Euros, That means that outstanding mortgages currently have risen half a trillion Euro’s in just 15 years. Some might think that this is not a lot, yet, consider that that the Dutch population is under 17 million, which seems like the banks remain dealing with 100% of unpaid mortgages. If these numbers are correct, then it bears reason that these numbers should be looked at. Is that actually true? You see, feeling it is wrong, and knowing it is wrong (even with supporting evidence) seems nice from the writers point of view, however what about the reader?

There we get the issue that gives us the crux. When comparing apartments in the Netherlands and comparing them To Sweden and Germany, I noticed something. I lived in two of these locations, so I know what to look for. I compared the Dutch http://www.huizenzoeker.nl, Swedish http://www.bovision.se and German http://en.immostreet.com/germany. When comparing an apartment in Rotterdam and Kista (outskirts of Stockholm) we see a comparable raise of prices, yet overall we get a lot more apartment in Stockholm then in Rotterdam, for comparable prices (30%-40% more living space). This comparison takes an astute dive when we look at Germany, especially Bavaria; where all over the place we can buy 5 bedroom villa’s for a lot less than a two bedroom crinkly monkey apartment in Rotterdam. As such we get a first inkling; if we need 40K to buy a 5-bedroom villa is one thing, needing the same for a 2-bedroom apartment becomes a whole other matter. Interesting how this was not mentioned.

So why so much issues about the mortgage changes? We see a political engine too eagerly bowing to the needs of banks, bowing to a group that has visibly forsaken a population, a group that have left many billions in debts and we still bow to their ‘needs’? Now with the additional need to open up retirement finances that had remained relatively safe until now.

Yet, with the massive outstanding mortgages, what is left?
In addition, knowing that level of outstanding debts, are their demands out of proportions? That question becomes a whole lot more interesting when we consider the following from Bloomberg (source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-23/dutch-mortgage-bond-market-threatened-by-capital-rules-dsa-says.html).

This part throws a whole new hole in these issues. Banks are pushed to outside influences, and even though the government pretend to be fighting the good fight to protect this market, it is interesting that this part was not that visible on the news. It might be that the Wijfels report shows this, but I have not read it, so I cannot tell.

My issue is now with this part of the Bloomberg article “Dutch banks are the second-largest issuers of RMBS in Europe, relying on sales of the securities to help fill a 452 billion-euro funding gap between deposits and loans, Dutch central bank data show.” Excuse me?

Looking at some quick 2011 population numbers:
Germany 81.8 million , France 65.43 million, United Kingdom 62.74 million, Netherlands 16.69 million.

EXCUSE ME?

How (or better why) exactly are the Dutch banks the second largest in Residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS)? Even if 100% of the Dutch population is now under mortgage (which is statistically impossible), those numbers are showing an enormous gap. What are we not told? Even if we consider the 25% difference in mortgage funding there are a few questions that should be asked out there. What have the banks been up to, and exactly what questions are not being asked, or better, what part are people and perhaps even politicians not getting information on? Half a trillion Euro funding gap reads like that there is a deficit of half a trillion Euro. That could never be covered by 6 billion in cut backs. Before you think that this has nothing to do with governments then think again, if that shortage is not addressed then that money will have to come from somewhere else. What are the odds that this needs to come from taxation in one way or another next? More important is the news that people saw over the last year. What buffers do banks have, and if so, how come the Bloomberg (a respectable bringer of news) information was not part of the newscast?

Is this an orchestrate play? It seems to me that a clear yes is in play, however, there are sides to this that do not make sense and they are outside of government controlled sources, sources that currently seemed to remain largely unmentioned. To me it seems that both banks and politicians might need to publicly answer some questions in regards to some of these issues and it would be nice that this is done before banks are given any more leeway or options to shift certain finance issues around.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as .DE, .SE, Banks, bloomberg, Bovision, centrale Bank Nederland, Dutch Central Bank, Ernst & Young, Germany, Huizenzoeker, Hypotheek, immostreet, Mortgage, Nederland, NL, NOS, retirement funds, Sweden, taxation, Wijfels, wijfels commission

June 28, 2013 · 13:02

Exploitation fears for tax-payers

The Dutch NOS reported another go with banks in the view of business. Bernhard Wientjes has been voicing the opinion that some of the banks (ABN/AMRO and SNS Reaal) should be sold. It was brought in the air of ‘when you have no more money you start selling the silver cutlery’ would be the next step. As the Dutch government needs to cut 6 billion, the cutting spree could be a lot less. Well, in this matter I personally stand with Finance minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem who is not that eager to do that. There is logic for not doing this, as this relief would be for one year only and after that the cuttings would still need to be found next year. I am worried that certain business men are now in a state to strong hand certain political decisions. I leave it up to the reader whether those decisions are purely for the need of greed.

If business is linked to greed (often called ‘enterprising solutions’) then that would clearly fit in the views of Bernhard Wientjes. As chairman of the VNO-NCW it would be an enterprising solution that is right up his alley. The VNO-NCW is a fusion of the VNO (League of Dutch Commercial Enterprises) and the NCW (Dutch Christian Business Society). Their mission is to support and further the needs of Dutch corporations both on a National and international level. In this he is doing exactly what he is expected to do.

Yet, in this light, at a point where two banks would be sold far below value and at the expense of the tax-payers, one should clearly ask and look at the possible windfall for Bernhard Wientjes and his friends should this work out in that way.

There is a clear valid question whether the Dutch Silver cutlery is currently in a safe position. The reality of 6 billion of cutbacks will start to show a strangling result, yet, this was the danger all along when previous political alliances (2006-2010) were clearly pushing the outstanding invoice forward. Now that there are no more options, the consequences are likely to be dire, and as such in his position Bernhard Wientjes is clearly trying to look forward for Dutch corporations. I see this specific step as a dangerous one and until Dutch banks are clearly on a minimum set standard nothing should change. In addition, I am all in favour at present to keep these institutions nationalised to prevent their boards to just seek additional high risk gains at anyone’s expense to meet personal commission goals, whilst ignoring local needs (mortgages and such).

Even seeing these banks as possible training steps for younger jobseekers on the dole, to give them short term jobs whilst staying on the dole, would give them additional food for job experience. The answers that some view that this is not how it is supposed to be, I would counter, with ‘what solutions do you have?’. We need to change the way we think and operate. Instead of trying to balance which pocket the money is coming from, we should accept that the money is coming from the suit the government wears and see how far we can walk with this suit. Instead of staying on principle of keeping tabs what pocket it comes from, use the principle of it comes from us anyway and focus on instilling knowledge and experience. That will strengthen the young to get a good shot in getting something better with a decent chance. If you have any doubt, then consider that the Netherlands is only one of 3 countries where youth unemployment rates are below 10%. Many of the Southern European countries are way over 40%. If the future of youth employment is about experience, then make sure that the youth are getting a running start now is going to be important down the line. If their future could be a decent job in Germany, then giving them an edge as they compete with desperate youthful jobseekers from Spain, Italy or Greece is essential. Do not think that those kids are any less. Those who graduated from Universidad Complutense de Madrid are more than top Notch. 7 of their graduates ended up with a Nobel price and graduates from there ended up with 2 dozen of other internationally acclaimed awards. So, if we are looking at future events, getting the youth ready NOW will be an essential step.

Yet, this week has even more issues involving banks. A report that is due to be released tomorrow on advised banking changes. The ‘advice’ is to change the mortgage market. In the Netherlands it is currently possible to get a 105% mortgage so that the house and the notary costs and change of owner registration can all be covered. The commission chaired by Herman Wijfels is now advocating that the mortgage cannot be any higher than 80%. This is to prevent that the debt of selling a house at loss would end up hitting the banks. It seems that the banks are all over their need for ‘securing’ for the little man (read the average consumer). Taking into account that the average house in the Netherlands is around $350,000 the question, especially in this era of lack of funds is where on earth will a person get $70,000 in savings when the Dutch taxation system makes it almost impossible to get that kind of money saved up. They also mentioned that this should not be done until the housing market is stronger and prices are on the rise. Like that will help people to get the money. It is interesting that there is no mention of the much more reliable and fair Swedish system. Perhaps the report due out tomorrow will mention it, but I have not been privy to the full report. In the Swedish system a house often has a two tiered mortgage. You have the bottom part which envisions the gross off it (let’s say 80% for argument sake) at a low base percentage. The rest goes into the top part. Now that part (in my case) was almost 2.5% interest higher, but the mortgage was 105% covered. So instead of the unaffordable savings needs, we have a slightly higher mortgage. So, even if we have to accept a slightly cheaper house, we at least can get a house and not be looking at houses, never being able to afford any of it. The question becomes on what it was about. The fact that a report leaks is no news, but that the report leaks just around the same time Bernhard Wientjes is making a play to sell banks is a rather convenient coincidence.

These events are important to consider. This is because the same issues are playing in the UK. Consider that Lloyds is in need of an extension as they are selling 631 branches. This and the issues around the Royal Bank of Scotland do have links, as the UK government needs to cut cost by a lot more than 6 billion (having a Trillion in deficit makes that an awkward necessity). So will we see the same play as some are now seeing if they can sell banking interests at no more than tuppence on the pound? There is absolutely no known plans at present (in case you got scared or overly enthusiastic), but the issues remain, and the solution as such would be there in equal measure. To allow the young unemployed to become part of the bank on internships and training places, so that we can offer a solution where those seeking jobs will have actual work experience in their CV. These measures might seem small, yet the confidence boost that the younger jobseekers gain, could be the winning factor. In addition, extra hands, helping to boost the value of these banks would mean that when sold, they will go for a much better and more realistic value then they are currently set at. All this in a combined effort to strengthen commonwealth economy and their assets, for the simple reason that the European Economic outlook remains grim at best and relying on overly confident reports of economic prospects, that get downgraded quarter after quarter is not doing anyone any good.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as ABN, AMRO, Bernhard Wientjes, business, Dutch, economy, Germany, government, Herman Wijfels, Hypotheek, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Lloyds, Mortgage, Netherlands, NL, NOS, politics, RBS, Royal Bank of Scotland, SNS Reaal, Spain, Sweden, Swedish, UK, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, VNO-NCW

June 27, 2013 · 20:53

Opportunities to lower spending

The Dutch have a new observation drone. It is called the Scan Eagle (by Boeing). Unlike the Raven, this little pretty pretty can fly at 1000 meters for 17 hours and is able to observe and find those who they need to find. Even though some are now overly screaming privacy, it is not about those people. This Super Drone as Gerard Schouw from D66 (Dutch Democratic Party) called it. It needs legislation. Who will it observe? For which purposes will it be used? Where is the data stored? There are no answers at this point. To some extent this part surprised me. The Belgium police had been working with camera mounted helicopters for a while (DSAS). They have been doing this for almost 10 years. The Dutch were not? These questions have never been raised before? Nope, Mr Schouw seems to be correct (not that his statement was ever in doubt). Even though as was observed by others that section 3 of the Dutch Police act gives them leeway to use this solution, with these current levels of assumed invasion of privacy, legal questions would and should be asked. (Thanks to blog by Rejo Zenger at www.rejo.zenger.nl)

Yet, is this just about this observation drone, or just about privacy laws? We see a massive growth in the deployment of drones, some with weapon capacity. What are the real issues? The Dutch like many other nations have CCTV, they have helicopters that could observe and with the eye on admissible evidence in case of prosecutions, the idea that the issues of digital image capturing has not been a legal issue before is slightly puzzling to me at present.

No matter how we see these drones. They are not toys and these devices have a clear need. It does not initially matter whether we are dealing with an armed version, or a mere observation version of the drone. The idea that nations have an effective air force without the need to endanger troops is more than just appealing. In addition, in an age where we MUST lower costs, where a predator costs under 5 million and the average fighter jet is almost 1000% the cost of a predator, can we even consider NOT implementing such options? An option that will keep pilots safe, and in addition offer a solution where extensive costs of training fall largely away. How can this solution be a bad thing to consider? Questions will remain, no doubt and we will always need pilots and actual planes, even if it is to get goods and support systems into place. This little pretty pretty can easily be launched from a small launcher and does not need the infrastructure the Global Hawk needs, making it very versatile and could be a great additional asset to non-military support needs.

My first thought was to take these Scan Eagles, add Israeli FLIR technology and the result could be a first actual effective line of defence that South Africa needs to hunt down Ivory poachers. Especially considering the current dangers to the elephant population and their almost assured future of extinction.

The issue of privacy laws remain as Dutch politician Gerard Schouw observed. That need should actually be considered on a European scale. If these drones are making headway, then exploring the laws and rules of observer drones and the current privacy laws then we see the need to address it from both Civil and Common law views. If we can believe last month’s news, then these issues are very much in play in Germany too. Even though they are now dealing with the issue of US drone strikes as these drones seem to have been operated from Germany, issues on privacy laws as observation drones are operated in other countries will be food for legislation in more than just equal measure, especially as several European defence forces are now in talks/finalising stages for acquiring drone technologies.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as aviation, Boeing, D66, Drone strikes, Drones, dutch police, FLIR, Gerard Schouw, Germany, invasion of privacy, Israel, Kruger park, Rejo Zenger, ScanEagle, UAV

June 22, 2013 · 16:57

What is an economy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as Anders Borg, Ben Bernanke, bloomberg, Cyprus, Federal reserve, Germany, Goldman Sachs, Greece, Guardian, IMF, Rothschild, UK, UKIP, US

Tag Archives: Germany

Recent Posts

Archives