Tag Archives: LA Times

April 10, 2014 · 12:57

One debt too far?

I feel interestingly happy today. It is almost like I got the big role in the new Alice in Wonderland play. As i am a guy, some will think it is the role of the Mad Hatter or even the March Hare (there is supporting evidence that I am mad as a hatter and nuts as a Hare), but no! Those are not the leading roles. The leading role (apart from Alice) is the Cheshire cat, who was guiding Alice down the path.

The reason for these, are the events as I saw them this morning in the news. These events all took me back to my article on the 19th of June 2012 called ‘The accountability act – 2015‘. My quote ‘This is about stopping those walking out with non-existing virtual profits, turned into real money, and leaving others behind to clean the mess‘, is at the centre of that all.

This is all linked to a number of things, which by the way will have bearing on the Ukraine as well. The first is the article that we saw on Sky News (at http://news.sky.com/story/1239678/imf-warns-investors-over-rock-bottom-rates).

We see two quotes. The first gives us the warning “Investors are becoming dangerously reliant on rock-bottom interest rates, with many becoming so indebted they will face serious problems when borrowing costs rise, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned“. The problem is that these investors include several governments. When we see in that same article “the amount of cash spent on leveraged loans – the high-debt instruments with financial problems – now exceeds the level in 2007 before the crisis“, we are starting to see a clear pattern. In my view this pattern is that those who were in charge are doing it again. Those who wielded certain options are now doing it behind the screens. They are servicing a ‘population’ of what I consider to be not too bright members of a government executive branch and as such the fallout will be well beyond what we considered possible before.

The last quote “The IMF said it was also concerned about the levels of debt in the emerging markets” is the one I leave in the middle for now, I will however get back to this one later in this article.

The second article comes from the IMF themselves (at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2014/POL040914B.htm) “Across advanced economies, the pace of fiscal consolidation is set to slow in 2014 as focus shifts to how to best design fiscal policies supportive of both further consolidation and a still uneven recovery“.

This reads as ‘In the US, EEC and Japan, the pace of reducing government deficits and debt accumulation will slow as governments are staring at designs of new fiscal plans for consolidation in the near future’. There could be other explanations, but consider that these three players have been utterly unable to close their wallets. They keep on overspending many billions (in the case of the US and Japan up to a trillion) of money they do not have. Over the last several months we have witnessed bad news management on many PRESS levels, whilst not actually looking truthfully at certain events. I will not insult the reader’s intelligence by quoting the LA Times in this case, but the headline that ‘the Global Economy is strengthening‘ reads like nothing less than a joke. The article read like a promotion page, with no real value, other than the percentages they were ‘boasting’ about. For the record, the US leading the way with less than three percent whilst Chinese growth is set at well above 7% might be correct, yet in the second part the US was leading as one of the developed nations, implying that China was not a developed nation, go figure!

The issue (as not shown by the LA Times) is that there are delays with the US for the IMF. In a quote from Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey, the following was phrased by ‘the Australian‘ “Senator Ted Cruz said that the package would unfairly raise US contributions while undermining its influence” (paraphrased).

This reads wrong in several ways. Is the IMF not supposed to be impartial in all this? The mission statement of the IMF (at http://www.imf.org) states “The IMF’s main goal is to ensure the stability of the international monetary and financial system. It helps resolve crises, and works with its member countries to promote growth and alleviate poverty“, it might just be me, but does that not require an impartial approach? If the US has too much influence here, how can stability be achieved, or is this the world according to ‘the US congress’? (I will steer away from blaming the White House here, as the IMF is supposed to be a long term planner and the White House is a short term location, in sets of 4 years).

It is however interesting how little there is to find on US Congress and the IMF, even by the larger newspapers. I was able to find http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/07/us-imf-reform-britain-idUSBREA361BX20140407. This article was published two days ago and it is interesting to see how many newspapers veered away from this Reuters article. Reuters had this quote “The failure of the U.S. Congress to ratify the agreed IMF reforms is bad for the institution and bad for the international community“. The additional part “A bid to get Congress to approve reforms of the IMF was dropped last month amid concerns that it could hold up a bill providing aid to Ukraine” as well as “The White House has been urging Congress for a year to approve a shift of $63 billion from an IMF crisis fund to its general accounts, as agreed by the U.S. government in 2010” are cause for concern. These payments were due for the IMF long before the Ukrainian crisis was on the map. So is this about not having any influence, or is this an early signal that the US has completely run out of money?
Yet a Chinese site (at http://english.cntv.cn/2014/04/08/VIDE1396947727947648.shtml) shows us that in their view with “The Spring gathering of the International Monetary Fund is approaching. China, Russia and other major developing nations are angry about a delay in reforms that give them more voting rights at the IMF. Now the countries are pushing forward with the reforms without waiting for the United States“, so now we get another view on the matter, Was Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey playing nice with the Chinese, or is there more? I personally do not think that he was ‘just’ playing nice. I have predicted before that the time with the US as a superpower would end. I have stated this for almost a year now. No matter where the interest of Texan Republican Senator Ted Cruz are and I have no doubt that his interest is Texas first, America second and his family third. Before you the reader thinks or even accepts the allegations by some that he is some newly formed version of the infamous McCarthy, then think again! When I did the math in a previous article called ‘Biased Journalism on USA shutdown?‘ which I wrote on October 1st 2013. Here we saw that Texas is one of only three states that could shoulder the national debt if it was evenly spread. So, to keep Texas strong, Ted Cruz has a fair point in regards to the IMF influence, but that is not what the IMF is about and it is Washington DC that went along with that, which means his hands are slightly tied.

The IMF article has set out that people are playing profit or government bail-out again (they did not state that, but the article implies it to some extent). The governments are not speaking out against these acts and as such we could face another massive economic setback in early 2015. In a minimal defence for Republican Ted Cruz it must be said that the IMF and the EEC are on a dangerous course. The Guardian is filled with messages on how the crises seems to be over and on how Greece is turning a corner towards better times. This is done at a time when it still needs another 8 billion; unemployment rates are at an all-time high and with European incomes remain dwindling down, Greek tourism is likely to remain far below levels for another 2-3 years.

It is the Catholic charity Caritas (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/27/europe-economic-crisis-worse-caritas-report) stating “disturbing levels of poverty and deprivation being noted among children and youth“. This is at the centre of the issues that are enveloping Spain, Italy and Greece. In addition a 114-page inquiry into the human cost of the crisis also mentions Cyprus, Ireland, Portugal and Romania. This might not be at the centre of the mission statements that the IMF goes by, yet these industrial nations rely on workers, the fact that these nations are in such a state is a clear signal that several governments are not up to speed to give the needed aid to those people. This is not in regard to the intent a government has, but the IMF signals seem to be lacking certain reporting flags at present. the Catholic report is a first clear signal that those ‘happy happy joy joy‘ reports that economies are getting better are basically skating around the issue that is holding many down and for some considering the statement that ‘these two issues are not connected‘, should consider standing in a corner staring at the wall and feeling ashamed for even considering the thought to begin with.

Now, I promised to get back to the Ukraine as I stated in the beginning. When we consider last year’s BBC article (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-13366011), we saw that between 2009 and 2012, Germany was the ONLY nation who had its budget set correctly. The rest was short between 1% and 10% of their budgets. It is nice that these nations speak on percentages, because those shortages go into the hundreds of billions for some nations. The twelve nations represent over 53% of the entire EEC giving a summed deficit of 13.2 percent. This in itself is not a fair assessment, so let’s turn this around into a number. This number comes down to minus 546 billion, which is just the deficit for 2013. So, the governments are not keeping their balance in any way, in addition, we now see that investors are slowly playing their ‘games’ again. There was a rush on Greek bonds, because the evidence is coming that these people will get their money no matter what. So, why do we have any form of bail-outs? It is clear that overspending is not punished, so the entire Austerity posturing seems like an empty threat. I am all for helping out those in need, but it seems more and more clear that those ‘in need’ are not doing their part in cutting down on spending in any way, shape or form. So when (not if) the train goes off track, those smaller nations will be left to their own devices, ready to get exploited by all bigger companies to get their dividend. With the larger players India and China, it seems that US companies and bigger players want cheap nations for whatever market they want to get to. In such sights is it even a wonder how areas of the Ukraine are now in fear of what comes next?

That part is shown in several ways. Even though there is now such a boasted evidence of corruption in the Ukraine as the involvement of the ‘former’ president Yanukovich. Yet, if we accept and use the paper by Anna Yemelianova and is called ‘A Diagnosis of Corruption in Ukraine‘ (at http://www.againstcorruption.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/WP-14-Diagnosis-of-Corruption-in-Ukraine-new.pdf), which I mentioned on March 18th, then there is no way that corruption is limited to one side of politics. Corruption in the Ukraine is too wide spread and any player above a certain level has to be tainted to some level.

It is still puzzling why the EEC and the US are so set on the Ukraine. Why set yourself up for these levels of costs? Why get in bed with the Ukraine, whilst the bulk of the EEC has overspent by well over 500 billion. Is it any wonder that some Ukrainians are frightfully running back into the Russian arms? If we believe the Russia Today, with their headline ‘US wants to destroy Ukrainian ‘bridge’ between EU and Russia – German intellectuals support Putin‘ (at http://rt.com/news/germans-support-putin-ukraine-265/), then we see the view of a struggling USA, who reports a nice number, but when payments are due, America will only be able to do so by taking another debt ceiling hike, which places them well over the edge of bankruptcy. I have some issues with the article for other reasons. Yes, the EEC wants to keep a good relationship with Russia, if only for the reason that most of Europe relies on cheap Russian Gas, which, when absent will push the bulk of the European middle class squarely into the poverty bracket. I am just wondering whether retired German Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jochen Scholz was hoping to get a free training course in flying the Sukhoi T-50 stealth fighter, making him the first NATO officer to ever be allowed in ‘new’ state of the art Russian equipment (this is an insinuated assumption on my side). The article has a few more issues that are slightly too vague, but the sentiment is not incorrect. The American Anti-Kremlin approach in an age of non-accountability in the era of finance is an issue for too many people. So here is me, the Cheshire cat, all smiling and smirking on events currently playing out.

If the accountability act was indeed a reality on all Common Law nations, certain games would not be played and as such nations (the US, all EEC nations as well as Japan) would be in actually movement out of a ‘debt abyss’ and not at the whimsy of high stakes investor poker games where when it works they get a large bank account, if it fails they will get bailed out by the governments in some unnamed way, which does not seem to get a massive amount of press visibility.

So here we have it, what I evangelised from the very beginning or my blog. The world can be a better place, especially if people are held accountable for their actions. That part gets even more visibility when we notice a lack of press visibility ion some regards. When we see the Standard, a UK newspaper (at http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/press-freedom-debate-royal-charters-are-medieval-piece-of-nonsense-8898388.html) where it is all about the issue as “Media heavyweights have branded the government’s proposed royal charter for press regulation a ‘medieval piece of nonsense’“, yet only a little over a week earlier when the Telegraph reported (at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10720237/Malaysia-Airlines-crash-Suicide-mission-theory-of-MH370-investigators.html), how the MH-370 was a ‘suicide mission’. A piece that was so bad that it’s journalistic value was less than the photo that the Sun used to publish on page 3. This happened before the plane was found, without a black box, lacking in facts, but with a photo of a cabin crew member on page one of the newspaper. At the same time, the issue of the US Congress in regards to the IMF reforms, as stated by Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey has not made any non-Australian papers. So, again, as I have always stated, there should be freedom of the press, but there should also be accountability, which is exactly what Lord Justice Leveson had advocated. Perhaps some regulation would not be too far out of context as we see a lack of informative journalism and a still unhindered tsunami of paparazzi based articles.

If we are truly one debt too far, is it not time for accountability to step in?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 6, 2014 · 22:24

The Governors act

In amongst the 82.4 things (roughly) I have to do on a daily basis, the fleeting moments I have to myself are fleeting indeed. Whether I keep myself busy, keep myself occupied or keep myself distracted does not matter. My mind does not stop working. It was during these activities that an article on Steven Seagal crossed my eyesight. The article was part of the ‘problem’. It was a minimal associated press message on how the Actor Steven Seagal is considering to be running for the position of Governor of Arizona (at http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/jan/05/steven-seagal-arizona-governor).

A mere 140 word article, surrounded by 8,000 characters of ‘notifications’! Is that all that the Guardian was capable of? The Independent made a much better job of it adding a few things (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/marked-for-governor-steven-seagal-hints-at-arizona-election-bid-9039937.html), my response to that is well done Tim Walker!

So what is the beef I have? Well, many of us, and to some degree me too when I was a lot younger did not take the idea of an actor going into politics very seriously. But is that not at the heart of our own folly? Let’s face it, especially in America; the elected official is a spokesperson for the people who elected him/her.

Even nowadays, many actors become so after getting a University Master’s degree that that tend to include Communication and Media.

Ronald Reagan as the former 40th President of the United Stated will likely remain the most famous of them all. Yet, the other names are not without distinction. Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California and one of the more interesting names would be Jesse “The Body” Ventura, who was a professional wrestler, actor and became Governor of Minnesota. The rumour that the bears were so afraid of this governor that they left for the Dakota’s is still unconfirmed. 😉

Finally there is John Lodge who after a decent actor (playing with stars like Shirley Temple and Marlene Dietrich), who would serve in WW2 in the US Navy and become Governor of Connecticut.

There are also several actors who decided on other governmental roles like Alan Autry, Clint Eastwood and Jack Kelly. They became Mayors and several actors went to the House of Representatives.

So many took up arms, did their bit and after making loads of money (in acting) decided to do something for their nation. Is there any worthier cause then to represent the people around you?

So, when that flimsy report of 140 words came on a Guardian page, I thought it was time to take another look at a few things.

First of all, some of the negative responses we see thrown at Steven Seagal are not without ‘reason’. The man has not played the upscale roles Al Pacino played. Is that his fault? When movies go well we all want a piece of the glory, when they are mediocre or bad it is always the fault of the actor, it seems unfair as the movie comes from a ‘vision’ of some director, limited by the funds of the producer. I know that there is more to all this. What is known is the fact that he was the centre part in half a dozen blockbusters that made loads of money. The interesting part is that although these movies were not successful, Seagal made several movies aimed to instil environmental consciousness into the viewers of the big screen.

With numerous acts of activism in protection of environment and animals, it seemed to me that this person deserved more than a mere 140 words. In addition, with what we have seen in the last 20 years, how the quality of all goes up as the spokesperson achieves better goals for them, is it so strange that Actors see this as an option when they leave the tinsel town stage? Let us not forget that the roles these wealthy stars occupy in choices from deputy sheriff to governor go from $48,000 to $125,000 a year (average incomes). For these actors, in many cases it is less than peanuts as they have millions stashed away from their previous careers. Before you think it is easy money, consider that a mid-level banker lacking accountability makes somewhere 200% and 24,000% of the average income of a US governor, depending on which bank that banker ends up with.

The biggest issue I have is that all these papers (LA Times, Washington Post, Guardian and so on) they all just used the Associated press part, with a mere 140 words to mention the name of a possible new governor, all of them ending with the line ‘he wants to increase border security‘.

It was only at www.bizpacreview.com where the following was quoted: “During the interview with ABC15, Seagal said he’s had discussions with Arpaio about a potential run, but does have other priorities to consider. When asked what the country’s number one problem was, Seagal’s response was ‘open borders.’ I think that our biggest problem is open borders,” he said. “I think that across these borders, any kind of terrorism can come, and does come. I think this is a tremendous oversight by the current administration.”

Actually, he only has a partial point in my humble opinion. This issue has played for a long time and the non-actions have been visible all the way back to former President Bush. With its 1950 miles it is the most open incursion area for the United States. The rumour on Al Qaeda getting ‘assistance for a fee’ from Mexican drug cartels has been just that, a rumour.

Linked to this is a statement from Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler, who said on C-SPAN’s ‘Washington Journal’ April 17, 2013: “We know al Qaeda has camps over with the drug cartels on the other side of the Mexican border. We know that people are now being trained to come in and act like Hispanic when they’re radical Islamists. We know these things are happening and… it’s just insane not to protect ourselves.”

Here is the kicker, actual evidence has not yet be shown, which is also no evidence that it is not true. The issue for the possible future Governor of Arizona is that his/her 370 mile stretch is almost 20% of that entire borderline. Even if that border was strengthened by a wall, it would not stop the other 80% of the border getting any safer. My issue is that Steven talks a good talk, but the US budgets, the way it is in now clearly indicates that there will never ever be enough money to get these borders secure enough. Whatever the solution it is he wants to implement, it will cost, and it will cost a lot. Until economic prosperity gets back into Arizona, his hands will be tied. Let’s not forget that on the number one spot employer in Arizona is Wal-Mart (the same one where they have mastered the art to pay below the poverty line).

So, whoever ends up in the governor’s chair, his or her goose is slightly cooked. There is of course a creative alternative. He/She could bestow most of Pima County (the southern part or Arizona) to the Navajo, with the only duty that they keep their southern border secure. It is not the worst idea to see these terrorists return to the eternal hunting grounds as a slightly more scalped edition? Is it?

So in the end, should this job go to an actor? Whatever he is labelled as, he has proven to be a fighter, a humanitarian and a philanthropist. Here is where the fight gets interesting. He will go up against Jan Brewer. As a Republican she had increased tax earlier stating that she was forced to ask for the increase due to the state’s $4 billion state budget deficit. In addition, she had been rated as one of the worst governors in America. As such Seagal has more than just a fighting chance. If he can do something about the income of the 30,000 at Wal-Mart in his future state, he could be getting a landslide victory.

This gets us to the actual people in power, meaning those behind a governor advising him/her. Here is where it gets interesting. Those people need funding and sponsors, which makes it interesting for big business to get the right person in power. This means that whatever Steven will try to improve, the places like Wal-Mart will have every intention to get the person elected who serve their purpose. You can read more about that part at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-norman/walmart-lobbyists_b_3632526.html. One of the quotes that come out strong is “the contributions of the Wal-Mart Stores political action committee to federal candidates and other political committees has grown rapidly during the past decade.”

So, when we consider the power Wal-Mart has, we should also wonder who they prefer, Jan Brewer or Steven Seagal. Because behind the power of Wal-Mart hides a fistful of billions, which makes for one mighty punch.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 1, 2014 · 19:50

the upcoming currency

We have seen many events this last year. For the most, in many nations it had all been about hardship, bills, Economic downfall and more hardship. Even though the UK said the hard times are over, it is clear that many see and feel that the hard times are far from over and even though the economy is slowly returning, that moment of less personal pressure is nowhere near at the moment. The same could be said for the US. They are worse off (source at http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/17/news/economy/poverty-income/ ). This means that in the US, one in 7 is now in poverty. I thought that this was a unique number, but it seems that 1983 and 1993 had similar numbers; I actually had not known that. What makes this worse is that in 1993 the US debt was just over 4 trillion and in 1983 it was a third of that ($1.3T). So when someone tells you that it was like this in the past and it will all be better, then he/she will be lying to you.

Why does it matter?

The issue I have is that the LA Times reported this (at http://www.latimes.com/business/money/#axzz2p7uudgwk) ‘Dow finishes year up 26.5% in record year for stocks‘

Now, many of you (me included) have made the same mistake, a good Dow does not make for a good economy. If so, then one in seven would not be in poverty and the US would not be down well over 17 trillion dollars. This statement is one that I cannot stand behind, because the evidence is strongly overwhelming. Consider what many might have seen on the news (Sky News, Fox News, CNN, BBC World). It seems that staff at Wal-Mart is not doing too good. (at http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/20/news/la-ol-walmart-thanksgiving-living-wage-poverty-20131120). So we read that “its Canton, Ohio, store decided to organize a Thanksgiving food drive for fellow workers.” It was also nice that a celebrity like Ashton Kutcher is outraged over this. So, we see that Dow is up, because Wal-Mart is paying below the poverty line. How is this any representation of a fair America?

Under these conditions, the only fair thing Americans can do is to avoid Wal-Mart and shop at their local shops. It is quite simple, when Wal-Mart loses a massive size of their $17 billion revenue, when this money goes to local shops, they will be hiring staff. It might be a win/win situation for those currently on poverty. The MSNBC article (at http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/leaked-document-shows-what-walmart-really-pay) shows a grim situation. Is it enough to see it as exploitation at best or slave labour in a slightly more realistic setting?

There is however more. It seems that McDonald’s is on that same horse. (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/10/us-fast-food-protests-wages). Whether this is just a US problem remains to be seen. There are all kinds of jokes one could make on slave labor and an African American president, but you get the idea. There is no way that this does not hit him in any way as this happened on his watch! The question becomes how awake has he been whilst this was happening? When at least 6% of the Dow is created due to slave labour, it seems to me that questions should be asked on all matter of levels (which they are not). It is in that light that I find the Dow results very distasteful and wholly unacceptable.

When places like Coca-Cola pay 9% above the market rate and they are doing fine, why can’t others follow that same example? I must admit that 9% is indeed really good, but it is possible that Coca-Cola has evidence that this yields better and more loyal results. ‘Good for Coke!‘ I say (that slogan is likely to do very well in New York, L.A. and Amsterdam).

So, how is it all related to an upcoming currency? Well, is it that hard to believe that Wall Street will soon introduce the Dow Dollar? I am not talking about the Dow Jones FXCM Dollar Index, no I am talking about an actual physical currency. When (not if) America faces a total collapse, as any bankrupt nation is likely to face, then what will happen to the coinage on a global scale? Do not for one second think that Wall Street is waiting for that to happen, it might be that they have backup plans in place at this very moment. There will be a debate whether that coinage currently has an actual name. If you think that this is not happening, then think again. Do you think that a group of power players controlling Wall Street, who decide the fate of Trillions (of which hundreds of millions are theirs) do not have an alternative in place?

The sad part is that these Trillions are likely gained through tax shelters and tax havens. This is for now all perfectly legal, but when one in seven is in poverty, it shows a massive imbalance between the have’s and the have not’s. In addition, consider that the 442 billionaires the US have, several members are there because of their share of Wal-Mart. In opposition we see the owners of Coca Cola and Mars (the candy) and they made the list whilst paying their staff really well, so apparently slave labour versus a good product shows that a good product gets you there too!

Back to the coinage!

So this new dollar, which by the way is unlikely to be some ‘Bit-coin’!

I have had my issues with this on several levels as I wrote in the Wall Street Journal last July, where I wrote “until we can see some level of genuine foundation the fear remains that bitcoin has a danger to become the new detergent to launder all kinds of currencies. If that does happen, when the bitcoin is regarded by governments as devalued at 94%, what would be left?”

That part is supported by an article last month (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/18/bitcoin-senate-hearings-regulation), the Guardian also published this in addition at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/10/apple-blocks-bitcoin-payments-on-secure-messaging-app-gliph. So, there is an issue with a virtual currency! In all fairness, when a ‘bank’ changes value of a coin, where $400 in Bit-coin rises to $250,000 to those same coins within a few years, something is definitely wrong. Money doesn’t grow and yes we need money to make money, but it will never grow to this extent. This looks like all the makings of a new marketed pyramid scheme and after these fortunate ones are done, we will see a massive collapse, because it is all virtual currency. Then what? Who will then be held accountable? Currency not supported by any valued mint (like Gold as currency used to be set against) is likely to yield a catastrophic result to the owners.

This brings us back to that Dow Dollar. At present, the US bankruptcy remains a reality and when that happens, where will currency go? Let us not forget that the US debt ceiling becomes a reality again in February 2014. Nothing was ever resolved and the US is still no closer to getting its own house in order. The moment this escalates and fear of the future becomes a reality, stocks will go down quicker than the German Deutschmark in 1923. Can it all be prevented?

First of all, when an economy is getting better, being tax accountable is a first, the fact that through economic and international lawyering this is no longer a case remains to be fixed. There have been too many delays on that path. In my (debatable) solution all members of the Dow 30 will make an annual 1% contribution to the US treasury. If you as a member get this prestige, you get to pay for it! It is a founding principle that actually came from the United States. On the other side, the government with that accepts responsibility to become more than just budget neutral. Overspending should end and the US must not be allowed to spend above the amount of taxation collected. So no 100.01%, when this budget is reached, IT SHUTS DOWN COMPLETELY!

This means also means that politicians would officially be held accountable for their budgets and will serve time in prison when they fail (that should make an immediate rise to able personnel instead of these ‘friend of the senator’ positions). Lastly, that 1% contribution goes towards paying off the deficit. These funds are not allowed in any way to be used towards some payment or budgeting scheme.

You see, when people behind Wal-Mart and McDonalds make so much money that they get to be on the billionaires list, whilst their staff members are in poverty; we need to shake their houses in order. Sending invoices are a first step on that path. If they do not comply, they go to jail and their companies become nationalised. I know, it is extreme, but consider the validity of justice when a billionaire actually goes to jail (something that seems to only happen in Russia), it might make them clean up their act and it also gives rise a first anti-greed wave. This is something that had been long overdue.

So will this so called ‘Dow Dollar’ become reality? Yes! It will happen 0.021 seconds (roughly) after imminent bankruptcy is declared by the US treasurer (which is likely to be done from a plane or an airport location).

Have a nice 2014 and keep an eye on your savings!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,