Tag Archives: Laurie McIlwee

November 9, 2016 · 12:48

Matt Damon’s Quote

You could wonder what Matt Damon has been up to, there will always be reason to do this, not because he is an exceptional actor, even a celebrity on Mars. No, the reason here is his connection to documentaries. He was the narrator on ‘Inside Job‘, which got a well-deserved Oscar in 2011. I personally feel that this is the best documentary on the financial crises ever created. So let’s get started. Today, we see a number of news items reach the twilight of dawn.

The first one (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/08/panama-papers-22-people-face-tax-evasion-investigations-in-uk), gives us ‘Panama Papers: 22 people face tax evasion investigations in UK‘, with the added text “Philip Hammond also said a further 43 wealthy individuals were under review while their links to the offshore files were investigated further. He made the comments in a written answer to the House of Commons explaining what had happened since the offshore tax files emerged“. Now we might go all huffy and puffy on these tax evaders, yet when you consider the news from August (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-31/ex-tesco-finance-chief-mcilwee-probe-closed-by-u-k-regulator), where we see “The U.K. accounting regulator closed an investigation into Tesco Plc’s former Chief Financial Officer, Laurie McIlwee, saying there wasn’t a “realistic prospect” that misconduct would be found in the case“, with the added “The Financial Reporting Council closed its case into McIlwee Wednesday, according to a statement from the regulator. It is still investigating the grocer’s auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and other individuals involved in Tesco’s accounts“.

This has been going on since 2014, they have not been able to find anything after two years and now you are going after ‘simple’ tax evaders?

My initial message (with all due respect) to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is “Mr Philip Hammond, are you out of your bloody mind?” You are still trying to get anything real on PwC, or were you ordered to let it die down?

When a company suddenly loses billions in value (also due to their own stupidity) and you cannot find anyone to prosecute and go to jail for overstating profits by £263 million ($345 million), whilst we also know that for that year PwC gave Tesco a 10 million pound invoice for auditing (annual) with an additional 3 million pounds for consultancy that year (Source: the Guardian). You cannot find anything and now you are going after people, where you cannot state whether they broke the law and you will rely on illegally obtained papers. How stupid is this?

How about you making the following change as per immediate!

a. Until the Tesco case has been satisfied, PwC and its senior employees cannot undersign any accountancy venue, or corporate balance for any UK corporation for 2016, 2017 and 2018 until the matter is solved.
b. In case wrongdoing by PwC employees is proven beyond reasonable doubt, PwC will not be allowed to operate within the UK.

How about them apples?

So far we have seen massive leeway by the press and the SFO has not achieved anything at all regarding Tesco. So it is time to adjust regulations and legal premises, until that point comes PwC will have to operate on non-British companies. Now, we can all understand that when we see the quote “McIlwee resigned as Tesco’s CFO in April 2014, prior to the discovery of the accounting errors, amid reports of disagreements with then-Chief Executive Officer Philip Clarke” seems to imply that McIlwee was not privy to, and not guilty of any wrongdoings, yet the fact that the SFO got nowhere in two years means that there is something massively wrong. When we know that so many millions were overstated, we seem to have a decently clear case of fraud, yet no one goes to jail. In addition, we also know that PwC was in on it (at least to some degree) and in addition, the subsequent Deloitte investigation showed more than initially was found means that there is no scenario where PwC can be absent from guilt in the first or second degree.

The SFO gave that Carl Rogberg, Christopher Bush and John Scouler were charged (source: BBC), they pleaded not guilty and at present the court dates are set for September 2017. It is my opinion that until all that is settled, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no business whatsoever to dig into cases based on illegally obtained papers, whilst his branch as well as the SFO has no flipping ability at present to close a 2 year old case for at least another year (if ever). And as reported by the Times in September (at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tesco-auditor-slips-back-into-retailers-aisles-0gm9xt8md) that “Tesco has appointed PwC as an independent adviser, despite replacing it as auditor with Deloitte“, which gives my emotional and slightly inappropriate response “Are you fucking kidding me?”

So, whilst the PwC issues were kept very low key by nearly all the press, whilst there is no condemnation on a daily basis by the press and even less success by the SFO, we should agree that PwC has no business being in the UK to begin with, especially as “Last week the FRC cleared Laurie McIlwee, Tesco’s former chief financial officer, of wrongdoing over the scandal, but added that its investigation into PwC and other unnamed individuals continued“, we could go by once bitten twice shy, or we could go by the fact that as the SFO is either unable or unwilling to prosecute PwC, why would we even consider their presence? In case some are considering a specific rebuttal, to them I would respond with the April article (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/14/brexit-could-lead-to-loss-of-100000-financial-services-jobs-report-warns), where they stated ‘PwC report estimates 70,000-100,000 fewer jobs in 2020 compared with estimated number if Britain stays in EU‘, so let’s start with theirs and let smaller accountancy firms continue and allow for growth. In addition, when we accept the news by the BBC in Feb 2015 (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31147276), where we see “We believe that PricewaterhouseCoopers’s activities represent nothing short of the promotion of tax avoidance on an industrial scale,” said Margaret Hodge, chairwoman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC)“, so in that light, we could just send PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) packing, giving light that the facilitator of tax evasion have been dismissed from the country and as such the UK will see a decline in Tax evasion, no need for illegally held papers, no long and expensive investigation and the thorn in the UK economies side is equally removed. It will not mean that tax evasion is a thing of the past, but if PwC is send packing now, the other three might do a 180 degree on that clientele, which would at that point make the tax evasion issue moot, or at least deprive it from many options, which would amount to the same in the end.

So, you like apples?

If I am accused from persecuting PwC, then I would plead that I am not entirely innocent in that regard. I would bring the defence that the SFO has not gotten anywhere in 2 years and they are supposed to have the ability to find those culprits. Yet, as John Crace pointed out in the Guardian on April 5^th that “Only last year, the public accounts committee reported that the accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) was promoting tax avoidance on an industrial scale. To make things worse, it was first in the frame to benefit from administering the windup of Tata’s steel operations in the UK. So where was David Cameron? At PwC’s offices in Birmingham. Some might call it a brave choice“, in that light, there is an additional reason to give PwC their walking papers.

In all this the exchequer has one final issue to deal with, you see, accountant at large, including (read: especially) those at PwC are really clever with what they do, meaning that there could be no broken laws to begin with, making the actions from certain parties from 2014 until 2018 even more questionable, with a strong need to truly scrutinise the rules that accountancy firms applied and how they were applied. As I see it, there is nothing worse than to paint a lovely target on a person only to learn that the laws fell short and none were ever broken. If you question that, then consider the following two options.

The SFO has, as it embraced corruption onto a new level decided not to dig into PwC on the levels needed to secure evidence for the prosecution regarding Tesco.
The SFO has found that even as it is clear that PwC assisted in these levels of Fraud and Misreporting, yet when the books and memos were investigated for these transgressions, there was more than a reasonable doubt that PwC was not fully aware, in addition, there are no papers filed by PwC to implicate them in any way in fraud or misrepresentation. As well as the established fact that no laws were broken at present.

When you look at the two options, which one is more likely than not the situation regarding PwC?

In my book, the fact that a person is not guilty, does not mean that they are innocent. I remain of mind that shutting PwC down in the UK is not the worst idea at present, yet is that point of view valid when we consider premise 2, which is actually the most likely scenario? When we consider that the spirit of the law has been violated by PricewaterhouseCoopers, at that point we still have the issue that no literal laws were broken. Here we could set forth that the government (read: parliament) created the foundations and the setting where industrialised tax evasion and fraud became legalised options. Even as we saw that there was a clear case for fraud, the law has been altered to the degree that the facilitators cannot be held accountable, as such, an issue was created and until that is resolved, and PwC cannot be prosecuted (which is wrong in many ways from the point of a simple taxpaying labourer).

So, we now have the issue of the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law, which should be seen as grammatical opposites, not just in grammar, it is that they are also opposites of the soul (read: soul of the law). When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the “letter”) of the law, but not necessarily the intent of those who wrote the law. Which is what black letter lawyers (and accountants) tend to do, because a nation of laws is about a nation with rules of playing the game. In our case, in Common Law, until a case is set as a precedent in law, there will be no adjustment and this can go on ‘ad infinitum’ and Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language (at times a mere comma does the trick too).

Yet, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording, which could get them automatically prosecuted if the District Attorney woke up on a Monday morning with a really foul mood.

So, whilst we might agree with Margaret Hodge, stating “We believe that PricewaterhouseCoopers’s activities represent nothing short of the promotion of tax avoidance on an industrial scale“, the fact that they are not breaking the law, implies that no corrections to the law have been made to correct for this. As such, you only have yourself to blame and admittance of this failure to the public at large is an essential second step. As I see it, making a lot of noise going after people who might have done something like this, whilst papers are absent and whilst all parties know that this is because of illegally obtained papers from the law firm Mossack Fonseca is even less intelligent, as the people behind this have leaked these papers for their own personal interest and ‘late taxation’ was not their goal, so to adhere to the promotion of such crimes is not the best way to get results.

Now that we see claims rising towards Tesco for misrepresentation from their investors for the amount of £100 million, which comes on top of the diminished value, so I feel that no matter what, there should be a negative impact on PwC one way or another, yet within the confines of the law of course. This takes us to ‘The letter versus the spirit of the law: A lay perspective on culpability‘ by Stephen M. Garcia, Patricia Chen and Matthew T. Gordon (paper here). The part that gives us the cakes are found in study 5 on page 486. “Study 5 sought to examine another instance in which the letter of the law is not broken but the spirit of the law may have been violated“, which is where I for the most stand with PwC in the Tesco matter as stated “We also wanted to control for various counter-explanations that underlie culpability such as violations of social and moral norms“, with references to Bicchieri & Chavez, 2010 as well as Mazar, Amir, & Ariely, 2008. Yet in the first there is Tonry, 2010, where he argues that “the foundations for disparity causing policy choices lie in the cultural and social forces that combined historically to shape U.S. society“, which is interesting as this implies that the policymaker and not PwC is the actual culprit and my rage was misguided. Yet, is that actually true? The spirit of the law is not equipped, or better stated should not be equipped to manage the input of self-interest, because the spirit of the will assume the setting for all people and as such will force the text and derail the letter of the law (as I see it). Tonry goes on into the racial destabilising side, yet in my view the racial part is not the real instance, I believe that the division is that we see two groups One is the (white) social enabled group who is set to the game with preparation (read: legal advice) to break the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law as long as self-interests are served. This setting will at that same time destabilise the (black) group, a group that is suffocating on the lack and lapse of social options and opportunities, where without proper and affordable advice the letter and the spirit of the law will be adhered to, yet at a massive cost through loss of opportunity. This now makes PwC a facilitator for the wealthy to avoid breaking the letter of the law and to optionally, when unavoidable adhere to the spirit of the law. From one point, can the facilitator be held to account? I believe so, yet the area is slightly too grey for my comfort. It is the policymaker that requires to shift the grey area, so that breaking the law is a more clear setting and as such the SFO could actually create a situation where conviction (let alone prosecution) becomes a reality.

I still believe that PwC has done great wrongs, yet as far as we can establish, not in the letter of the law. I find them guilty of knowingly set the stage for managed ‘breaking’ of the law. The spirit is as much a factor as the letter, either should be seen as breaking the law. Yet there is diminishment as the policymaker is seemingly also guilty, yet the reasoning for that flaw can never be easily determined, so we can tell it was wrong, yet to what degree is not a given, but an essential issue to address. When we look at the policymakers, we need to ascertain the application that the paper discusses. “This framework broaches a new language to understand complex situations such as those that are not technically illegal but seem wrong“, we can see that this applies to multiple incidents. In those cases it needs to be clear that these levels of protection do not make the cake edible. It makes for a sour venue where those with legal advice can abort too many payments whilst the underprivileged groups end up without support, protection and options. I am speculating here that this is the (read: speculated intentional) creation of the haves and have not, which is a policy drip down effect when you implement a prismatic system, which policymakers from business and sociological fields seemed to have resorted to as they (tried to) implement laws, on the premise of a non-legal mind. Which is what is pushing the issues. The political field needed the business view of opportunity and the resulting laws are toothless against larger corporations who end up getting a free pass here with PwC as the facilitating office.

In the end I am more correct than even I thought I was, yet this should not digress from handing out the penalties that are needed to give a clear signal that the party is over. We have learned the hard way from 2004 onwards that unless we make a massive shift, this will continue a few more decades, as such stronger language and harsher penalties are required, because continuing on this path is far too rewarding for all the players that can afford to play this game, which gave me the idea to give PwC their marching orders out of the UK. I don’t believe it is too harsh, especially as they made 35 billion last year alone. So the question to you becomes, do you have any idea how much taxation they paid? I have no idea how much exactly, but we do know that PwC was elemental in avoiding Lehman Brothers to pay an addition £1.2 billion in taxation, due to inconsistencies, we see the quote by Mr Justice Hildyard: “It is of real importance, both in terms of good governance and a fair market, that HMRC should make every effort to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again“, (at http://www.theweek.co.uk/lehman-brothers/77510/lehman-brothers-creditors-to-avoid-12bn-tax-bill) giving rise that larger changes are needed to bring back fairness to all tax paying people, who have not seen a whole lot of fairness in that regard these last 12 years.

Judges will soon have to science the shit out of these tax laws, making them actually fair to all, not just large corporations, who seem to be judged on ‘the Principle of least accountability’.

Price Waterfall Blooper

I am sad to say, I am sorry to report
we have not seen any fraud of this sort
not a win or a gain, but just sadness and pain
are the man plainly vain, they do not travel by train
it will not go to court, yet the profits fall short

as my profits progress to the basement below
as executives go, with no exit fee show
we will wonder awhile, what results they proclaim
as we now still decide, should we name, should we shame
where is the pee double you sea and its dough

So, yes, is this the beginning of arts, the limericks and the consequences of non-accountability?

You see, there is no doubt in my mind that the initial investigation is only the beginning for both Tesco and PwC. Whatever we may think, we can be certain that if Dave Lewis had NOT rung the bell, the mess would be a lot larger then it is at present. I think we should also ring the bell of honour for the whistle blower, because without it Christmas would have been the grimmest of experiences in the UK.

Let’s take a look to the last two days, when Deloitte got its report out (to some extent) as reported (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/23/tesco-profits-black-hole-bigger), we see a few things that do not add up.

“He dismissed the idea that fraud may have been involved in the accounting blunder: “Nobody gained financially as a consequence of the overstatement of performance.”“, is that so? You see, there are a few issues that we have; I will step over one of them because I prefer to tackle that part a little further down.
Laurie McIlwee (former CFO) as well as Mike Iddon require closer scrutiny. Mike was a group finance director, planning, treasury and tax. When we see tax, we see a person who will dig, trying to find any cent that is deductible, as a good FD should be, and in 13 years at Tesco, he had not seen anything? Seems rather clumsy doesn’t it? The fact that the accounting hole is a little bigger (15 million is not much when you say it fast), also came with the knowledge from Deloitte that the hole was there for a longer while, so basically, the inflated 265 million, means an inflated payment of taxation, how is that ever a good idea?
So consider Tesco, the size and scope of it. They lose a CFO and a FD, and all along NO ONE at Tesco, I state again, NO ONE seemed to offer to pick up the baton for those months? Even if it was at no extra pay and only for 3-4 months, 99% of the financial industry would be chomping at the bit to pick up the baton, so that they can add this to their resume, it gets even better. It is a win won for whomever picks it up, because if that person does well, then the value of that person goes up by a lot and his/her future, whether within or not with Tesco would be a few steps on the large corporate ladder, even with nothing to gain it ends up being a win/win.

Let’s just face it, I am nowhere near next in line to take command of the 591 Signals Unit at Digby, but if I get the chance because the current commander was on the list to become Air vice-marshal, I would get there running, even if I was still in my pyjamas and was holding only a toothbrush. No matter how well my performance would be, if I made it I would be eligible for a nice challenge at GCHQ, a seriously cool way to skip half a dozen steps on that ladder, now consider that NO ONE had these levels of ambition at Tesco? I truly believe that beside the whistle blower a few more had a clear picture that taking that seat from within would turn out to be nothing less than poisoning their career.

“He dismissed the idea that fraud may have been involved in the accounting blunder: “Nobody gained financially as a consequence of the overstatement of performance.”“, now we get to the issue that I have had since day 1.
Consider that PwC had (a reported by the Guardian in an earlier blog) last year; PwC was paid £10.4m by Tesco for its auditing services and a further £3.6m for other consultancy work (a newer version at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/guardian-view-tesco-auditing-debacle-pwc-systemic-shambles). This article now shows the following quote: “At the very least, this is a very cosy and lucrative relationship“, which slightly debunks the statement of Dave Lewis via Deloitte regarding ‘Nobody gained financially’; it depends on ‘how’ we regard ‘gain’, when the alternative is losing revenue, remaining at status quo is clearly a gain.
So as we see these two numbers, let’s do a little math, let’s say an auditor makes £65,000 a year (a little less usually), so we now see that the annual fee gives us 153 auditors for a year and an additional 46 auditors for the consultancy for a year, that gives us 199 people going over the books, checking it all. No one saw anything? Now, the reality is not exactly like this, but considering that PwC is one of the big 4, we now have a clear case for some serious questions for 25% of all the large audited companies in the UK, how much taxation was not collected, how many large bonuses and incomes were honoured in such a symbiotic incestuous relationship? No wonder George Osborne has such a hard time, the deck seems to be seriously stacked against him.
There is one more thought that comes to mind, but this one is, as I will happily admit, based on shallow grounds. This was all found by Deloitte in a little over a month, mainly because they knew WHERE to look. But, it is entirely plausible that the whistle-blower just knew about that one thing, what else is there and what has not been found yet?

This is important for two reasons. The first is that it then debunks the statement from Lewis, likely via Deloitte who said ‘He dismissed the idea that fraud may have been involved’, I am not convinced! It took Deloitte to find the obvious over the period of a month. We can consider that the fact brought by a whistle-blower gives weight to intently hiding, if not than this person would have stepped forward internally and the old crowd would have solved it, that did not happen. It is not unlikely that those involved hoped for a quick brush under the carpet, this circus was unlikely anything they ever desired. What was signed off on, by the equivalent of 199 auditors remains a serious issue.

This part we can see in the Guardian quote “The making up of the profits figures was not in a report signed off by PwC. That happened in August – three months after PwC had given the supermarket chain’s figures a clean bill of health. Even then, it noted that there was something potentially funny with the numbers, and expressly warned about “the risk of manipulation” – but allowed them to pass anyway“, so something potentially funny does not warrant digging? Let’s not forget they had the equivalent of 199 people for the year, so plenty of digging resources. If we add the following “It is one of the primary ways in which investors, business partners and regulators can tell the true state of the company they are dealing with“, so not only is there a link to possible fraud, the implied length of this gives reason to suspect intentional misdirection towards investors, which makes the news releases all over the papers on class actions against Tesco a plausible worry for some time to come.

It becomes a much finer point of debate when we consider the following abstract ‘Misreporting in our model covers all actions, whether legal or illegal, that enable managers of firms with low value to make statements that mimic those made by firms with high value. We show that even managers who cannot sell their shares in the short-term might misreport in order to improve the terms under which their company would be able to raise capital for new projects or acquisitions‘ (at http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/bebchuk/pdfs/2003.Bebchuk-Bargill.Misreporting.pdf). It comes from a paper by Oren Bar-Gill and Lucian Bebchuk, published at Harvard in 2003.

Now we add what they wrote on page 21 “3.4 Creating Opportunities to Misreport, at T=1 managers decide how much to invest in creating opportunities to misreport earnings. The equilibrium level of this investment decision is characterized in the following proposition“. after that it becomes increasingly mathematical, but behold, the initial text ‘whether legal or illegal’, so if the old Tesco gang focussed on ‘legal’, was that the reason they needed to pay an additional 3 million in consultancy (a clear and admitted assumption on my side), yet is that really too weird a thought? Let’s face it PwC signed off on books containing an additional quarter of a billion, which took some time to create.

I know that incestuous is all about keeping it in the family, but the fact that this could possible all be legal is just a little too hard to swallow.

Could it be that both Corporate Law and Taxation Law within the Commonwealth are in dire need of an overhaul? Some might say that it could be an idea to do this before Christmas, to them I say “Bah! Humbug!“, Monday the 5^th of January 2015 will be soon enough. It will give Lord Blackwell, Lord Goodhart, Baroness Goudie and Lord Haskel something to look forward to as some might be enjoying a large roast with potatoes, Yorkshire pudding and thick gravy. The Rt Hon Lord Millett has done more than his share in his long career and his Lordship, as right honourably retired can enjoy a second helping of Christmas plum pudding with custard (unless his lordship prefers the challenge of making corporations a little more accountable then the currently seem to be). I would, as blogger Lawlordtobe be happy to lend a helping hand, but I never studied economy or taxation laws, so I would only get in the way, yet I remain available for assistance if need be. I do reckon that the members of the House of Lords who are members of the Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills should consider their calendars, especially if the investigation turns out that the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) will be unable to press any criminal charges, to me and likely to all it should be clear that such levels of orchestration must be addressed!

Independent Crete

Another day, another issue of the Guardian! In it we find the article where we see how certain people lash out, in fear of the future (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/08/greece-begins-eu-presidency-austerity-intolerable). Not to be too smug about it, but even the X-Files movie told us that we could not fight the future.

I keep a slightly more open mind at that point, as most of these actions are based upon what was done in the past. So when we read the quote “Following four years at the sharpest end of Europe’s debt and currency crisis and €250bn in bailout funds, the Greek government declared enough was enough.” we should add that the Greek can have that opinion, yet at that point someone will make the statement “Can we have it back please?”

At this point, the Greek government will come up short by a lot!

The second quote is the ‘interesting’ one “a senior policymaker in Brussels said: ‘The worst of the crisis is over. So the pressure to take tough measures is off. We’ve had enough of discipline, enough of sanctions, we’re sufficiently unpopular already. The worst is over, so let’s stop now.’”

Let us take a slight look at that statement. Is that policymaker one of those same ‘not too bright’ individuals who stated in the 2005-2010 era that it would be OK with the debt? How did that work out? In my mind, the utter idiocy of several decisions are now in a state where no one wants to admit to anything as leaders and especially middle management is getting cut all over the place.

Before we start ignoring the obvious, take a look at the following (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/09/morrisons-issues-profit-warning-sales-down). This is not just in the UK, this is happening all over the EEC. People have run out of money. Whatever they have they spend on getting debts down and making sure bills are getting paid. The worst is NOT over. There is enough evidence on several fronts, in several nations that this will last for at least another 18 months. After that it might (I stated might) improve if the economy gets better (more than 1% improvement would be needed) as per the next 6 months. If not, then the slump we see now will continue at least three months for every month after this point that the economy does not improve strongly, which means that in 4 months’ time, no improvement will mean an additional year of a slumped economy.

That same senior policymaker must feel that his/her job is decently threatened. As you read the last Guardian article, you might realise that these numbers seem to be slightly off. If this is all about the report to the stakeholders, then what are they not ‘telling’ the people?

I get the fact that to look good they need to get creative (without lying) with the presentation towards their stakeholders.

That part is reflected in the quote “The finance director, Laurie McIlwee, who is under pressure from shareholders over his handling of profit forecasts, said: ‘In hindsight we were a little too optimistic at the beginning of December there has been further weakness across the whole of the grocery market which we didn’t anticipate.’”

How dim is that? In the UK not unlike the US, one in seven is currently below the poverty line. If we add the UK energy prices, there is enough indication that the UK population in 2014 is hitting its hardest time for almost 15 years. So either Miss McIlwee was not looking in the correct area, or she was gladly ignoring the issue on more than one level. There is not hindsight here. This is a harsh reality, which has been known and will remain for at least another year. So what ludicrous data is this senior policymaker exactly in possession of?

This goes a lot further then the UK. The Netherlands is in a similar dip, Sweden is presently not in a good shape and the least we state about France, Ireland and Italy the better. When it comes to Spain, we are likely to see much more hardship. The unemployment drop in Spain seems interesting, but when we consider that December, with the holidays, usually has many temp workers in action, the misrepresentation of ‘better times’ is utterly unacceptable until the data proves that the drop of these numbers continue as we enter February and March, only then will there be evidence of less depression. I intentionally avoid the word ‘optimism’ here as youth unemployment remains well over 50% in Spain, the highest in Spanish history. When I read a quote like “And now, buy Spanish bonds and stocks, because ‘the recovery’ is here“, I feel a dangerous game coming on. To be frank, I fear that Spain and Greece are in such bad shapes they both will have a hand in dragging down Europe. That point comes from the issue that France and Italy have no option to intervene. The Netherlands and Belgium are in severely weakened positions, which leave the UK and Germany.

Because of earlier, self-imposed austerity Germany was able to keep a strong back (and they had several industrial advantages), yet the UK is not out of the woods, so when I read ‘the worst is over‘ that might have a foundation of correctness (not a truthful one), the issues we face over the next year will make it essential that Austerity continues in several nations. In addition, when you seek for Austerity we see all these US articles on how this is not an option. On which grounds is this not a solution? Let us not forget that it was the US and its bankers that dropped a 10+ trillion dollar junk hike on all of our heads. When exactly did those bankers go to jail? (The hidden answer is never)

So getting back to Greece! The news on September 23rd 2004 by the New York Times states “Greece confessed to having repeatedly misrepresented significant economic data before it joined the European currency union.”

In addition the quote “The problem would not be so serious if it had happened only one year” shows that this had been going on for a long time. Consider that this is about billions. Did the Greek not consider the invoice that would follow? So many billions in a nation with a population of only 10 million. The NY Times article implies that the debt hike was well over 30 billion, with the rest of the ‘mis presented’ data like the Goldman Sachs issues gives way to a massive debt that goes beyond 25,000 dollars for every Greek. In addition, it continued to spend will over its means for well over a decade. That is well over a year of income for every Greek, and that only works if that nation has ZERO costs to operate. It is not a realistic picture. This all points towards one and the same conclusion, the Greek population will be under massive pressures for at least another 5 years. After that the pressure will lower, but the Greeks could face another decade of poverty. The reason for this is that as prices all over Europe will go up, the income they have will not suffice and soon thereafter, even those with a job will learn that what they have will diminish further, which is a bleak outlook.

So when we realise all this, why are they still blaming the Germans and Merkel? It was their own government that got them in this situation. In addition, when we read the response by George Soros “Angela Merkel’s policies are giving rise to extremist movements in the rest of Europe.” New issues rise here. Yes, I am NOT a billionaire, but I have issues with the claims of George Soros. I have had several over the years and so far I have little faith that he serves any issue other than what he sees as ‘a priority’. His quote does ring correct but they are not true in my view. It is poverty, frustration and jealousy that give rise to extremism. Germany after the pressure of the Versailles treatment gave rise to the Nazi’s. So in that regard George Soros is correct. The fact that this debt was not from the people themselves is also correct in the case of pre WW2 Germany and Today’s Greece. The ‘not true’ part is that in the time of Nazi Germany the people got pushed into extremism by its own government, today’s extremism is due to inaction by their own governments. There is the real difference. It would be interesting to see the picture where we see mapped where all these governments get all their money from. Who lends to the government? There is the foundation of government inaction. In case of Greece, several parties would have had to intervene a decade ago. This never happened. That inaction is dragging down all of Europe.

The issue that is correct, true and dangerous is the European election. People have had enough and in several nations there could be a European segregation. This means that what comes will worsen it for all parties involved. The far Right like the Dutch PVV, the British UKIP and the French National Front could imply the end of the Euro as it currently is. This threat and the danger that connects it is real. So whatever a senior policymaker claims in regards to the worst is over. That is not even close to true, it is not even likely in the best outcome, which is already extremely unlikely. So what to do?

Here the title comes into play. I have always had a soft spot for Crete. I love that island! In my long life I have had less than half a dozen actual vacations. Crete is the only place I had moments of actual rest and tranquility. If the Greek way of life is to survive, then the best option in my personal view is for Crete to become independent, preferably before Greece drags them down into nothingness.

Tag Archives: Laurie McIlwee

Matt Damon’s Quote

Price Waterfall Blooper

Independent Crete

Recent Posts

Archives