Tag Archives: KGB

The man in the middle

There are a few issues going on, a few that should be looked at, yet because they are so in motion, looking at them now remains to be way too much speculation. What is interesting to look at is ‘How the GRU spy agency targets the west, from cyberspace to Salisbury‘. The article (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/06/the-gru-the-russian-intelligence-agency-behind-the-headlines) and it makes me wonder more about Andrew Roth than anything else. The GRU, or as they are called Glavnoye razvedyvatel’noye upravleniye is known as the military version of what was the KGB and is now the FSB. The big cheese there is Igor Korobov. Now for something new, did you know that he is allergic to nuts? Well, it is true; he just cannot stand crazy people, and before he became Big Boss of Russia’s military spook central he was an officer of the Russian Air force. You might not realise it but it is an important fact, it gives shape to the man. The same as we see how higher officers of the Australian Navy and British Air force are shaped, so are the Russians in their setting and ego. Now, I cannot vouch for anything regarding Montenegro, I never looked into that (and not planning to at present). So when I see “A British security source told the Guardian on Monday that the nerve agent attack on the former double agent Sergei Skripal was also ordered by the intelligence agency“, I merely see the media being played. The issue for me is simple; most issues on the Skripal event given to us via the media were largely wind and speculation. The actual poison was NEVER found, there was no evidence on where it came from or how it got there. There was ample evidence that the Russians invented that stuff and there was also evidence that the formulas were out in the open. This does not mean that the Russians were innocent, but the clarity of the event and the utter lack of anything remotely pointing towards evidence is important. We hears several sources, all making those claims that it needed to be state driven were debunked from the word go, so whatever Vil Mirzayanov stated was up for scrutiny, especially as there were too many references to his book (plug your papers when you can is perfectly valid). I discussed this in March in the article ‘The Red Flags‘, where I stated: ‘the clear evidence could be largely dismissed in most courts with merely the use of the documents of the SAB, the OPCW and the testimony of Vil Mirzayanov who seemed to be interested in upping the sold copies of his 2008 publication‘, so not what I thought was right, but what the documents of the OPCW clearly put forward making the setting on the state driven assumption questionable. I also mentioned (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/03/27/the-red-flags/) the setting “the US and the UK have not given any clear evidence, whilst several sources have clearly shown that Novichoks were out there. If any of the sources, that I mentioned on Novichoks (like Leonard Rink), are shown to be true than there is a larger issue in play. The issue is that some governments are in denial over the evidence and facts and that is a bad thing“, again, I was not stating that Russia was innocent, merely that the overwhelming evidence that the availability went beyond state driven access was ignored by all parties. I also mentioned (which was speculation) that there are easier ways to create panic as well as getting rid of certain members of the Skripal family, most involve the application of leaded devices, which are readily available in the UK. The entire setting was flawed and dirty. That is the part that got to me first. Most people work from their background. An Air force man, no matter whether it comes dressed with a lion (UK), or a hammer and sickle (USSR) they want clean results, a clean setting, it tends to be in their nature. So the entire Commando (Spatsnez) paragraph is nice, however they merely jump at the needs of their commander (who is one of them fly boys). In addition, the hit went wrong and those people really cannot accept failure. Try walking up to the SAS and telling them to do an operation that needs to fail, they’ll tell you to fuck off (or merely do that bird gesture), the fact that was given, that it was all about an unstable volatile chemical mix, makes the setting even worse. Then Andrew goes out on a limb with “Open source researchers have claimed that a GRU officer supervised the transport of anti-aircraft weapons to eastern Ukraine when the Malaysian jetliner flight MH17 was shot down there, killing 298 people“, which is really an act of stupidity (as I personally see it, that is). There are a few clear pieces of consideration (I shy away from the word evidence at this point). News (dot com dot AU) gave us long before this ‘Never-before-seen footage reveals Russian-backed rebels arriving at the wreckage of MH17‘ (at https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/neverbeforeseen-footage-reveals-russianbacked-rebels-arriving-at-the-wreckage-of-mh17/news-story/c5f6bc5e9629a22d17fe2680bfbd61a5), now I will admit, not the most reliable source of intel under most given days, but the wider accepted part: “THEY arrive at the smoking wreckage, thinking they’ve shot down an enemy jet. But the truth quickly becomes clear“. Two small points here; the first is that people on that level (Spatznez, SAS, Navy Seals, Commando’s) do not miss and they do not allow themselves to be filmed. These people shoot 10,000 rounds in targets so that when they have that one clip with 30 bullets, whatever they aim for will not be missed. It is the difference between the amateur and the professional and those teams are not amateurs. In addition, I have had a few issues with the MH17 situation from the get go, although in this case I will accept that many media were setting on speculations and rumours and creating emotions, whilst the actual investigative papers, as well as the classified attachments are not available to me or the media (for all the right reasons).

Then we see one addition, an interesting one. The quote: “Peter Zwack, a retired US army brigadier general, wrote about a series of meetings before the Sochi Olympics with the head of the GRU, Igor Sergun, who died unexpectedly of a heart attack in January 2016. “I found him soft-spoken, unassuming, complex, erudite and nuanced,” he said of their meetings, which largely focused on counter-terrorism efforts” is interesting (because it works in my favour), also in the given setting that they were commanders and equals in all this. The ‘unassuming, complex, erudite and nuanced‘ is what we expect from every top officer in any given army, and that setting that we expect as well as tend to see is not in line with the entire Skripal case. An article filled with anecdotes and one reference to the extradition of two Russians, the article raises a lot more questions and offers little to no answers.

Yet in all this, the views given here is the view that some officers have of their nightmare opponent, not an actual one. I doubt if there is anyone willing in the main armies (Russia, US, UK and Nato partners) to actually push for a setting of using a chemical attack on a target whilst knowingly endanger the population around that target. I have always seen that in the maximum field, the SAS, Commando’s, Navy Seals and Spatznez are precision tools. You do not use expensively trained people like that in an open setting or use them as a blunt instrument when there are alternatives around you. I admit that is merely my vision on it, yet consider that even in an army there is cost accountability. This applies to overt and covert operations and whilst there are less options in covert operations, setting the stage as we saw in Salisbury could have been done in a dozen different ways, all of them successful. It does not rule out the Russians as the optional culprit, yet the evidence as it was visible to all to check, gives enough rise to the question: ‘who else?‘, the fact that all parties walked away from that question makes the entire setting one of many question marks.

In the end, when we get back to “The British government is poised to submit an extradition request to Moscow for two Russians suspected of carrying out the Salisbury attack that left one person dead and three injured, including Skripal and his daughter“, whilst there was never any indication or any setting that the method of distribution was found (stated to be an unknown several times), whilst there was no CCTV or other options available to identify anyone in both attacks, we see: ‘two Russians suspected‘, questions should be asked. I am willing to state that the intelligence played this close to the chest and that there was indeed evidence never disclosed, we get that, yet the media setting going so far back basically stated the opposite. In addition, the attack was done on 4th March 2018, so now 5 months later there is evidence? How circumstantial is that evidence? I would love to be there when the lawyer presenting the extradition requests gives the goods on the evidence and where it came from. So not only is this a useless waste of time and energy, it seems to be one that is doomed to fail long before the papers were even served. This does not mean that they should not be served, I am merely going from the setting that not only will it be a setting that represents the existence of ‘beyond all reasonable doubt‘, I am certain that it likely fails ‘in the balance of probability where it is more likely than not‘, two settings that are planets apart. So failing both would be an interesting sight to behold.

All that information on the GRU, the Spatznez with all the lines to optional settings and possible attacks, yet in all this, where is the link to the two people requested to have a free life time vacation in the UK? Even as the Guardian stated in another article ‘Extradition request for Russian suspects has zero chance of success‘, which is very likely true. The entire Skripal mess seems to be a chain of failures and bungles on several levels. Now, in all fairness there was never much of a chance to get anything remotely useable in the first place, the setting was so far away from CCTV that the town of Salisbury offers plenty of actual privacy on several levels. Oh, and before I forget it. I mentioned it in ‘Does it taste like Chicken?‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/07/05/does-it-taste-like-chicken/), is it not interesting that the KalVista Laboratories and Porton Biopharma, both advanced labs close to both Novichoks events, both labs that seem to have the required setting to make Novichoks. Yet the fact that neither got any of the limelight, not even by an inquisitive journo loaded with assumption and a ‘the people have a right to know‘ almanac (old and new testimony). They were all remained focused on Russia being the one and only culprit.

Again, the Russians are not saints (they suck at Cricket though); none of this reeks of a covert state action, it has the vapour of organised crime and in that setting if any of those people having access to either of these two places, there should have been a loud alarm on every street corner between those places and London.

It is merely my view, feel free to disagree. I feel like the entire setting was not one of parliament, or police, or justice. There is a man in the middle deciding on what is out there, there is a game strategist, an orchestrator in the field. I cannot state there is evidence, but there are several indicators in play, some are adhered to some are altered, that is how it all reads. I am not talking about the intelligence services, because that is merely a setting where we see embargoes and restrictions, it shows like an outside source telling others what to disregard. The Mirror for example used (whether valid or not) “ONLINE EMBARGO – The Times. Sergei and Yulia Skripal. No online before 12pm. Attempted murder of a Russian former double-agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal”, the mere fact that larger pieces of evidence from the OPCW were initially completely ignored by most press outlets.

I know I am good, but I am not that good and several media covers have decent quality experts available, none of them had the OPCW on their brain in this? The docs I linked to, that defused several angles were all ignored? That is, what I personally believe to be a stage setting. And there is a lot more that I initially mentioned before anyone else. So in all this, the article from Andrew Roth leaves us with plenty of questions, the most important one is why such useless actions are taken in the first place and more importantly (as I personally see it), why the stares on one less likely candidate?

When the media is told where to look and telling us where to look, in light of all the visible evidence, is that not an even more worrying side in all this?

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics, Science

First Blood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black water anyone, or do we call it coffee?

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

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

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

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

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