Tag Archives: Jared Kushner

December 11, 2025 · 01:11

The lighting of a stage

That is what I am wondering about. You see, first we hear that Netflix is acquiring Warner Brothers and a few connected things too. A day later we hear “US president Donald Trump says the Netflix deal ‘could be a problem’” Next thing we hear that the son in law (Jared Kushner) is spearheading this hostile takeover. Of course all the conspiracy boys are in town blowing this up to an amazing extent. I think that there might be a setting where the boundaries of ethical borders could possibly have been trespassed on, but as I don’t know the clear picture, I will refrain from voicing them. There is of course the setting we can ‘debate’ on.

As the Business Insider has a more oiled version of what has happened. The story (at https://www.businessinsider.com/paramount-wbd-saudi-arabia-qatar-abu-dhabi-elllison-hostile-billions-2025-12) which comes with the headline ‘Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi want to put billions into Paramount/WBD. Why?’ It is after all a fair question and I am a little thrown by the setting that this is Qatar AND Saudi Arabia AND the UAE are working together on this. I can figure out the why, but about that later. You see, Business Insider has an additional gem to throw our way. It is “Those three nations won’t have any say over a combined Paramount-WBD, the Ellisons say. So what will they get?” And we are given “The governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi want to invest billions of dollars into a would-be mega media conglomerate made up of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery.” And there is a part missing, the gaming IP’s that is floating around there. But the end of the article gives us “If Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi are looking to put anything close to $24 billion into an enormously powerful media conglomerate — one with huge reach in both the US and ambitions for the rest of the world — will they be satisfied with purely financial returns? Or do they expect something else for their money?” I get that part, you see I had been working on IP doing that very same thing. There are 1.9 billion Muslims in the world and there is only so much the current studios can cater for and with this they have a firm hand towards places like Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia which together with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE sets the handle to over 50% of the entire Muslim population. And as there is clear evidence to see real growth in both Saudi Arabia and the UAE for tourism and as that growth continues more is needed and with Paramount and Warner Bros. They have just that. I was fishing another angle, but that too was driven towards these 1.9 billion customers. Too bad Amazon never accepted this issue and the Saudi government (Sydney Consulate) did not accept it either, as such I was out of luck and Google had dropped their Stadia. So I was out of luck in that too. Still I considered other avenues as well. I got one Script done and offered it to Dubai Media, but they weren’t accepting any scripts at present (or my script was really bad, which is equally an option)

But I saw these stages all over the Middle East happening and in that setting there is a growing chance. America with its valve setting is not a real option. Every script can only when the 15 middleman get a share of all that and I will much rather give it away to Canada and never get a penny. But the script was meant for a Muslim audience, so not much use in Canada. The other three optionally, but they are still being written. A have written megabytes of script, but it hasn’t been ironed out yet. I am relatively new to Final Draft.

So am I correct? I believe so, Saudi Arabia and the UAE (I have no idea about Qatar) will need professionals that are decently up to speed and buying Paramount and Warner Bros. will do that. So, when all these professionals are directed towards new grounds with Saudi/Emirati directors and cast they can get a lot more done fast and I reckon they already have a set amount of scripts and screenings ready to get started the moment 2026 knocks on the front door.

And with the media up and running the Saudi and Emirati media for all their venues is pretty much a given. Not just that, but the African nations are predominantly Muslim, so they can also capture the hearts of them too. Now add Egypt and Turkey and this media engine gets real global potential. Yes, the entire venue makes sense to me, but for me it was clear as I initially investigated that setting for my own IP, so I looked at the equation and I saw clarity, the fact that the price got upped makes perfect sense to me and in that setting Netflix merely loses. The west better start realising that on this planet Muslims are 1:4, 25% and that is a clear destination for the media centers of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, so whilst we are so involved with individuality, they merely approached every Muslim asking “Would you like this” and all muslims will very likely make an affirmative sound. We all look at the stage and wonder what was going on and others look at what lighting it needs and they cater to that hand, Now I need to wonder if my script is really bad or do I talk to another media channel. Well, that is my worry and it is for today as it is 01:00 now. Have a great day.

The fluidic hypocrisy of politicians

That is almost a given, yet there are times that we are setting the bar to below zero. As such we should have a larger look at politician as they heed and hurt gamers, whilst in other cases do it the opposite way and still hurt gamers. As an example I hand to you the Financial Review (at https://www.afr.com/technology/ea-s-australian-chief-finds-his-salary-in-the-political-firing-line-20251015-p5n2nj) where we are given ‘EA’s Australian chief finds his salary in the political firing line’ and we are given “Senior American lawmakers say the Australian chief executive of video gaming giant Electronic Arts has failed to make a case for an $83 billion sale of the business to Saudi Arabian interests and suggested he has been motivated by the promise of a significant windfall if the deal proceeds.” So, in the first. Why does he have to make a case? That might be the case, but it is a gaming concern and we have seen how gamers and gaming were called all kinds of foul (or was that fowl) and gamers were the start of nearly all things evil (I never agreed to that, but fine). As such we are given “Democratic Party senators Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal wrote to Trump administration officials and to EA, the developer of video game titles including The Sims, Battlefield and Madden NFL, with “profound concerns” about the deal led by Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund.” And I have to ask, did they open their mouths when Microsoft went to town on gamers and gaming systems? A simple question, or are American companies beyond reproach? But the story gets a little more complex and we are seeing this with “The Gulf kingdom’s Public Investment Fund has proposed to purchase the company alongside Silver Lake and Affinity Partners, an asset manager operated by Jared Kushner, US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law.” As such Saudi Arabia is merely part owner (I did not know that), as such as we are given ““While the benefits of the acquisition are clear for you, the financial return for the three investors is less certain,” Warren and Blumenthal wrote in a letter to EA chief executive Andrew Wilson, who began working for the software giant in its now closed Gold Coast office in 2000.” I wonder how this is seen when we take that sentence apart. We have “While the benefits of the acquisition are clear for you” is the first part and he is the CEO, is he not? “the financial return for the three investors is less certain” is the second setting and here I say. Why do you care? Were you two shaking your tail feathers when WiseTech spend billions on “US-based supply chain software company E2open”? I see this all as some form of islamophobia. It seems that Saudi Arabia is good enough if it fills your pocket, but if they make wise investments, something is off according to you? And with gaming, we know you never held any of it in high regards, as such I have to wonder what the game is here. In addition we were given that you apparently had “profound concerns”, as such, what were these concerns? It seems that the media isn’t giving them and they seemingly aren’t asking them either. Will Andrew Wilson have ulterior motives? I do not know, but it is likely that he has his bank account as ulterior motive and in a greed driven atmosphere that makes perfect sense, so whilst the article gives us “EA gave Wilson responsibility for reviving its FIFA franchise, and he helped create a tool that incentivised players to make in-game purchases that ultimately became a bigger revenue stream than the game itself.” As such the game made a comeback and HE DID IT and as I see it he should be allowed to cash in. And as it stands The Saudi Arabian government and the two others see it that way.

The greed game tends to work in any direction, not only in the direction into America, but out of America as well. But perhaps the media will give us the entire setting of “profound concerns” at some stage, because that missing piece is seemingly central in this.

And don’t get me wrong, the man was paid $280,000,000 in 12 months, as such he made more money in 1 year that I’ll make in several life times. That setting is giving him leeway, because if he didn’t live up to that income, the buy would have never proceeded and in all this we see two democrats? So, what do they bring to the gaming table? Just a small question to cleanse the pallet.

So does Saudi Arabia have ulterior motives? Likely, because they are now part owner of a $55,000,000,000 software house and as I see it (I wrote about this before) they have a massive push to bring their own streaming solution to 1.7 billion consumers and that is merely the Islamic part. As I see it, they have the option to reach a lot more and with FIFA (or whatever EA renamed it into) a lot more coming in all kinds of ways and I predicted a growth from $6 billion annual to $15-$20 billion annual in first instance, but that before they bought EA, now there is not predicting how far this goes. But as I see this, I also smirk (an essential evil) as Microsoft is losing more and more ground in more places. The draw back from the game the played and gaming is nice, but when you lose, you tend to lose big. The expression “Go big or go home” comes to mind. It comes from the setting that encourages putting in maximum effort and committing fully to a task or goal, or to not attempt it at all. And they have been playing sloppy with too many settings for too long. I remember in 1998 that they had this setting wondering “why go for 100%, when 80% is fine” I never agreed with that part and too many agreed with it, because that is the sales setting, getting them over the ‘threshold’ and now we see that others are giving it their 100% and they are setting the new markers, they are the upcoming rulers of more and that might be frightening the American ‘dealmakers’ as they forgot (willingly or not) on how to give 100% to the task. A setting that comes with divided attention.

Have a great day and enjoy the day before the politicians ruin that too.

When we say ‘Ney’ to an event

We have all kinds of events going on, some we attend, some we show interest in, some are nice to be at. We have all kinds of events that require our attention. For example if there are 7 events to watch and you can only attend 4, how will you go about it? I for one distinguish it into a whole range of requirements, the first being ‘Have to attend‘, that is number one and in that cadaster 2 of the 7 will be found, then we get the ‘Nice to be at‘ and ‘Show interests in‘, they are of equal footing (in my case), now we have three more and we can settle our differences in to any of the three, it is more of a jumble, for those two out of three we get to watch the travel arrangements, the visitor spectacle and there we are off to the races.

That is how it goes into the normal realm of opportunity, so as I look at ‘Davos in the Desert‘ it would be one in the ‘Have to attend’ group. The heads of states are there, my Trademarks office could optionally score one large fish, the tranquility of having one corporate trademarks revenue is just too lard to pass up on. And that is before we consider the opportunity that trademarks in the Middle East and predominantly Saudi Arabia with companies like SAMA, SAMI, Aramco could have over a much larger setting, apart from the IP that I am holding on to. For Bloomberg this is what I call a ‘must attend’ kind of a show, so as we are given: “Axios reported earlier on Wednesday that Bloomberg reporters were scheduled to moderate nine of the panels in a draft of the program. Ty Trippet, a Bloomberg spokesman, told Axios that “Bloomberg is not sponsoring the event or participating in the program. We will be covering news from the conference, as we did last year.”” gives a stemming sound, a ‘we are there but we are not‘ kind of hustling in the woodwork. For a show like “Davos in the Desert“, seeing Bloomberg to remain absent is almost like a denial of the importance of “Davos in the Desert“. I see it in a larger frame, Bloomberg is doing the bidding of its corner office, Bloomberg called back like the little dog it is, the wonder of this chihuahua would be the Wall Street pound, they want the world to know that they are upset that Aramco went to the Japanese. A given 3.54% of every ticket sold that would be the income of most hedge funds managers who saw Aramco as a nice on the side grown food, now going towards the Nikkei, there is a larger game afoot and Bloomberg gets to be the messenger. I wonder how many US newspapers will hold some kind of a Khashoggi reverent during the October 28–31 window, I wonder how many newspapers will call upon the dead reporter, all whilst the events in Turkey will not call for any events, will they. Yes, the death of one journalist against the bombing of an entire group of people is so much more justified. Yet there is a large group of US people in attendance, we see Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and White House senior adviser Jared Kushner. Former Treasury undersecretary David Malpass, now the president of the World Bank, is also on the list, as is former White House communications chief Anthony Scaramucci. Then there are the top financiers Michael Corbat, CEO of Citigroup, Tidjane Thiam, CEO of Credit Suisse, and Noel Quinn, CEO of HSBC. Fund managers include Ray Dalio of Bridgewater, Robert Smith of Vista, Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone, Larry Fink of BlackRock, Daniel Loeb of Third Point, and Barry Sternlicht of Starwood. Even Masayoshi Son of Softbank is there and so is Will.i.am. The British entertainer and part of the Black Eyed Peas, beyond that he is a rapper, DJ, songwriter, record producer as well as a philantropist. He gets to be there, yet Bloomberg is calling ‘no show’?

I have no goal or esparations perse, but I would go there because one customer from that isle means that I would not have to go scrapping for customers for at least 8-12 years for 50% of the time. The rewards are that impressive, also the foundation of IP laws would be sought after in such a place, and being one of less than 20 attendance given IP lawyers, it would be interesting, even if a dozen of them end up with my business card, it will gradually mean that business comes my way, now for me it is not a given but for someone like Bloomberg it very much means that the larger corporations will be setting meetings with someone like Bloomberg, but now, we see “the State Department recently booked 45 rooms at Riyadh’s Burj Rafal Hotel in support of the two “VVIP visitors” taking part in the kingdom’s third annual Future Investment Initiative, as the event is officially known“, as well as “including representatives from Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and BlackRock, according to a guest list” and some of these parties will get to grow to a rather large setting especially now that Bloomberg is not appearing.

And when you look at the event: PDF DavosintheDeseert2019

You’ll see that anyone with commercial aspirations would want to attend, which beckons the question why would Bloomberg not attend? More worrying is the setting of making this blaze about a week ahead of schedule. From the very beginning when H.E. Yasir O. Al-Rumayyan, Advisor to the General Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers, Governor of the Public Investment Fund, KSA opens the event, until the final event where H.E. Bassem Awadallah, CEO, Tomoh Advisory, UAE moderates the final event, namely the G20, a setting I would presume that Bloomberg has vested interest in, but they give way to absentee. 70 events over 3 days, with all kinds of interim discussion options, yet the absentee of Bloomberg make perfect sense, does it not?

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as Advisor to the General Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers, and Noel Quinn, Anthony Scaramucci, Aramco, Barry Sternlicht, bloomberg, Burj Rafal Hotel, CEO of Citigroup, CEO of Credit Suisse, CEO of HSBC, Citigroup, Daniel Loeb, David Malpass, Even Masayoshi, G20, Goldman Sachs, H.E. Bassem Awadallah, H.E. Yasir O. Al-Rumayyan, Jared Kushner, JPMorgan Chase, Larry Fink, Michael Corbat, Ray Dalio, Robert Smith, SAMA, SAMI, Stephen Schwarzman, Steven Mnuchin, Tidjane Thiam, Tomoh Advisory, UAE, Wall Street, Will.i.am

May 28, 2019 · 10:35

Danger on the Australian shores

There is a danger lurking, it took over Japan, the US and Europe, now we see Greg Jericho (aka gorgonomics) vocally giving us: ‘The government needs to get into more debt, our grim economy depends on it‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2019/may/28/the-government-needs-to-get-into-more-debt-our-grim-economy-depends-on-it) and my first reaction is: “You have got to be out of your bloody mind“. In the first politicians should never be trusted with the option of deeper debt, the US and Europe are clear evidence of that. The second is that giving that much power to the banks is just unacceptable. We see transgression after transgression and they walk away with mere fines. Reuters gave us less than two months ago: “The largest ever money laundering scandal in Europe is rippling through the region’s banks“, these people think that they can get away with murder, and whilst we hear politicians proclaim that they will use the full power of the law, we have yet to see any banker do any serious prison sentence since 2004.

Latvia’s ABLV, the Estonian branch of Danske Bank, Sweden’s Swedbank and it is all about €200,000,000,000 between 2007 and 2015. So far the chief executive of Swedbank was let go, and how much money did they make? These issues are connected. Deutsche bank and the Dutch ING, which was ‘forced’ to pay a $915 million last year for example, yet when their takings are part of billions upon billions, these players go home with a pretty penny. So far the Australian banks are decently clean large debts will optionally change that, anyone telling you different is lying through their teeth. When we realise that EU banks payed over $16 billion in fines between 2012 and 2018 because of lax money-laundering checks, we think that there is a solution, yet how does $16,000,000,000 compare to €200,000,000,000? Someone is going home rich and whilst the banks pay of the fine making it a mere cost, the cost of doing business goes up and so do the fees.

the Singapore Independent (at http://theindependent.sg/nigerian-based-in-singapore-jailed-for-role-in-citibank-money-laundering-scheme/) gave us last week “Paul Gabriel Amos was sentenced to three years’ jail after he pleaded guilty to two counts of dishonestly receiving stolen property amounting to more than S$1 million and one count of money laundering” ad this is still about a 2008 case, it took over a decade to get this far, and when we see “Amos agreed to help in exchange for a cut of the criminal proceeds“, that is how it works and this is in places where banking is a lot more sophisticated than anything Australia has. You might hear accusations that these cases are not connected, but they are. They are connected to greed and ‘opportunity’. My issue is that the Australian government has no business taking out large loans of any kind until they fix the tax system, no matter how long that takes. It gets to be even worse is we take the Business Insider (at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/maxine-waters-deutsche-bank-subpoena-trump-kushner-2019-5), the fact that we see: “The chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee told INSIDER on Tuesday that a New York Times article detailing how Deutsche Bank buried reports of potentially illegal financial activity linked to President Donald Trump and Jared Kushner “reinforces the need” for the panel “to obtain the documents we have subpoenaed from the bank.”“, when we consider that the banks facilitated for someone who is not President of the United States and we consider on how willing any bank is on the criminal path as the worst thing they face are fines at a mere percentage of the takings, when they call that the cost of doing business, how long until Australia is thoroughly tainted in a similar way?

the fact that ABC gave us 4 weeks ago (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-01/google-facebook-make-billions-in-australian-sales-pay-little-tax/11060474) ‘Google, Facebook make billions in Australian sales but pay less than $40m in tax‘, do you not think that overhauling the tax system so that these players pay a fair share is a much better solution? Do you think that paying 0.000002% or less is acceptable? Besides that, the least said about the former car industry and their option for legalised slave labour the better.

Should we not prosecute every treasurer over the last 10 years, and after that see what we can do? I am not some anti-capitalist, I understand that capitalism is a driver and a powerful one, yet even at 1% (giving us at least $200,000,000) would solve a fair amount of issues, would it not? So whilst politicians are wasting our time with “Both companies are facing various probes by regulators in Australia and overseas over issues relating tax“, the entire tax mess should have been addressed well over a decade ago, as such can we get the incomes off al treasurers between 2009 and 2019 back please? This treasurer, if he does not adjust tax laws would be allowed to keep $1 for his attendance.

When we make this law the issues change and yes, we will get all kinds of threats, but they can equally fuck off and bleed someplace else dry. I am certain that a market share of 20 million will draw in other potential investors, because 20 million consumers will want all kinds of stuff.

And whilst people like Greg Jericho are talking about the sweet spot, they all overlook the issue that debt will have to be paid back, that whilst we see that Japan, the US and Europe have no exit strategy to end debt, at present that debt will be there for generations, making them the bitches of banks and fortune 500 companies, plain and simple. When the debt matures the quality of life in these places hit another snag, we did not and will not sign up for that.

I would love to see infrastructure fixed and improved upon, but whilst these idiots are unable to fix the tax system they have no business pushing the tax payers into deep debt.

And whilst there is no doubt that Greg is working from logic, he truly is; the issue is not: “Imagine being able to get a loan to upgrade machinery and equipment for your business at 1.5% – lower than inflation! – and you didn’t take advantage because you have a theory about how debt is bad“, he seemingly forgets that politicians are inherently stupid (they are optionally dumb and greedy in a nice compact package), these politicians ignore and push forward what they had to resolve, the amount of evidence on a global scale is overwhelming. And in the end, we the taxpayers get to pay that hardship, all that whilst tax laws were not dealt with a decade ago, how is that fair to anyone?