Tag Archives: Montevideo

Optional name calling

That is what has been going through my head, you see, as the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgj61j6l08o) gives us ‘US hits dozens of countries with new wave of tariffs’ where we as nations are starting to call names, and in that setting of name calling, we get a new stage. America has lost whatever allies he thought he might still have. Now, as I see it, America stands alone for the foreseeable future. So as we are given “The US has imposed new tariffs on 60 trading partners in the latest escalation in the trade war reignited by US President Donald Trump when he returned to office last year. Those targeted, including the UK, China and the European Union, will face a tariff of 10% to 12.5% on all goods, accounting for almost all American imports.” As such the kid in me (the one calling other names) wants to find a solution for this and leaving the United States out of this seems prudent. Can we sell to other commonwealth nations? So can we give the United States a bonus tariff twice as much? So any product coming into our nation will get 30% tariff, and we given other nations exporting to us 0% tariff (if applicable) in that same trend places like Canada and the EU importing Australian goods get 0% tariff, same for their stuff getting here. I reckon that America will fave a implosion of non-commerce soon enough. There is nothing wrong with the idea of suspending all goods from Kraft and preferring Italian goods over Kraft. Same for Heinz and whatever else comes from the United States. I bet that there are leagues of Canadian and EU goods that could replace other goods that are (for now) coming from America. I reckon that it merely takes 90-120 days for the United States to ring every alarm bell they can find, because this will also implode Wall Street, when brands like Cisco Systems Inc finds themself part of the tariff settings and when its EU competitor gets the bulk of the jobs that were for Cisco, what do you think will happen when ASUS gets these jobs? Because that is a larger playing field. When goods from the United States are rejected, the goal will be to push long term brands out and when they go anything could happen. Will it be easy? Nope, but could it be done? That is the setting that the American Administration is seemingly overlooking. And not going into a ‘lets talk about this’, but a direct rejection of these options. In the same trend that several European nations are now rejecting Microsoft, what happens when that rejection becomes global? Other brands could now see the rejection lights come into view for themselves, because there is every chance that places in the EU and the Commonwealth see opportunity rise, because they were held back by the competitiveness from the United States, when that falls away nearly anything becomes possible. I reckon that Dell will love that idea (and Ireland just as much so). 

So whilst we are given ““Today’s action will begin to correct what is both a human rights abuse and distortive trade practice to improve the welfare of workers everywhere,” US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said. The new duties apply to the top 60 US trade partners covering 99.4% of US imports, the Office of the US Trade Representative said.” So whilst that amounts to 99.4% of the US imports, how much of the US Export is set towards these same 60 nations? So whilst we see ‘validation’ through “Asked about the forced labour justification, she said: “I think they were looking for a legal reason to put the tariffs in and that they can maintain them because their goals and Greer has been very clear about this, as has Trump, is about the trade deficit and it is about US manufacturing, it is not about forced labour.”” You see, we are also given “Australia’s total annual imports from the US reach approximately US$60.9 billion” so how much of that could be gotten from the other Commonwealth nations, the EU and China? And set up a system where these 60 nations are given those same settings. As such as these nations could instead of exporting to the United States export the same materials to other nations when they reject all the US exports to their nations. I am not saying it is simple, or even feasible, but the United States exported a record $3.43 trillion worth of total goods and services in 2025. So when we dampen that by at least 50%, I reckon that the old days with people jumping to their death on Wall Street might return. And after that, the United States gets to see what that also brings, because when $1-$2 trillion dollars is likely to keep many people in the United States employed, when that falls away they have another nightmare scenario to content with and they already have a few of these running all over the lawns in Washington DC and optional at Wall Street too. 

As I see it, we need to become a lot more proactive in stopping that insane asylum called White House. And as I saw a term called “Pimp of the United States”, I wonder who they meant, because I merely saw the term, not sure where it was coming from. But in this light it might get another settings too.

So whilst we are reshuffling trade agreements, I reckon that China will see opportunity to hand the United States much less good news, optionally the EU nations and the Commonwealth nations too. So consider this simple setting, Pakistan exports a wide range of goods totaling over $36 billion annually, led heavily by textiles, house linens, and rice. Major buyers include the United States, China, Germany, and the United Kingdom. So what happens when the United States is removed and they get Canada and Australia and a few EU nations to replace the United States? Pakistan is hit with 10% tariff, what happens when they can replace United States with these alternative destinations? How many will need to consider this to see what happens to the United States when places like Walmart end up having empty shelves? Just saying, that game can be played by more countries and what happens when Saudi Arabia and the UAE (both 12.5 percent nations) get the same options? How many more nations need to consider this before Jamieson Greer as the Trade representative can inform President Trump that he has a new nightmare coming his way? And I reckon that these 60 nations will add some numbers, I looked at three nations and I got $36B + $26B + $31B giving us $93B. I reckon that we cannot get 100%, but even if we get a mere 70%, it will add to the incoming nightmare into Washington DC pretty quick and it is the setting we cannot see, because if the Commonwealth, EU and China can create a setting to get our needs met, there is a larger setting that the United States will end up getting isolated in the process and that is a bad place to be, especially with their negative settings in their economy at present. 

I reckon that doing this is a lot more productive than some people resorting to name calling, but that is merely my point of view. Oh, and what happens when people are introduced to Canadian, EU and UAE/KSA movies and TV series? Did anyone see the premise of that, because I have been irritated to no end of American streamers denying other parts of the world these series, because there is a benefit of withholding these series. So whilst Disney is hedging on the setting that these people will resort to Disney plus. But what happens when the opposite is achieved? What cost will they face then? I get that streamers want an advantage and they should use that, like perhaps a year, but what happens when people have had enough? If I feel this now, I am 100% certain that at least 2-3 dozen people feel that same way. And It should not be a forced buy from Amazon either. It feels like a repetition of movies in the 90’s. I am not sure it is a valid comparison, but that is what it feels to me and as I see it, there is plenty to consider from outside of Hollywood. But are these makers considered? Just writing my thoughts out loud (without resorting to capitals), so you all have a great day and consider what I wrote here, I reckon that several of them might see the light and as my mother was originally born in Argentina and lived in Uruguay (Montevideo), there might be some cultural needs too. I wonder who else has a connection to some of these 60 nations. Because culture is a strong handle to have in all of this. Which makes me wonder, when was the last time I had Dulce de Membrillo? Together with a lovely Dutch Cheese (Edam) is quite the treat and I haven’t had that in decades, perhaps even half a century. So what else can we get in the near future in a supermarket near us?

Write to you all later.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Say where?

Yup, where is the issue and it is very specific. According to Latin America reports (at https://latinamericareports.com/germany-rejects-uruguays-latest-passports/11771/) the ‘new’ passports from Uruguay will be rejected by Germany. The story gives us that both France and Germany are rejecting the new passports, but according to Uruguay the concerns are a lot stronger with Germany. The issue is that “is a result of the fact Uruguayan passports issued after this date do not indicate their holders’ birthplace. Passports issued after this date also have the field of “Nationality” replaced by “Nationality/Citizenship,” assigning the code “URY” to both natural and legal citizens of the country. However, it is the lack of “birthplace” field which has sparked concern amongst the German and French governments.” My issue is ‘only those two’? I reckon that such a setting should spark a lot more issues and we can assume that this (in part) is that “San Javier was founded by Russian immigrants in the early 1900s. For locals, Russia is still their Mother Land.” I reckon that this is the opening that organisations like the FSB are hoping for. As such when will Europe and optionally America will get a stronger inbound setting of Uruguayans and a speculative well over 60% might have a Russian heritage. It seems that a lot more nations should be complaining about this. As I personally see it, but is not a simple setting and to do such a ‘large’ change should have an almost global outcry. There is a debatable argument coming from the 825,273 penguins on McDonald Island (Australia) but that might merely be speculative semantics, as it is less then 5.21% of the Australian population. 

The larger issue is why the bulk of the western media is (optionally) losing this story as trivial. The reason for my thoughts is the case study (published in Vancouver, Canada) setting the framework

In 2021, a 52-year-old executive from San Diego sought to escape financial ruin and a collapsing reputation after his company went bankrupt amid a hostile media storm. Instead of disappearing illegally, he partnered with Amicus, filed for residency in Uruguay under its investor visa program, and legally changed his name through the court system after naturalization. Within 18 months, he held a new passport, a new name, and a tax ID number—entirely above board. He now lives quietly in Punta del Este and consults remotely for European tech firms.

A legally transference of personality and with the new passport he can go back into wherever that person wasn’t welcome, the place of birth no longer attached to this allows that person to reappear where that person wants. When we see this how often will this set a new premise of white collar crime who ‘faded’ into the limelight of Uruguay and in a year that person could get a new penthouse place a mere boat rode over the Rio de la plata to Argentina and living it up in Buenos Aires. And that is the simple drop of people wanting to vanish. It is the Lone wolf setting that should worry America (Europe too) and the fact that it doesn’t break media waters seems a little unusual. 

Make if this what you want, but consider the loops you have to jump through to get a passport and now consider the setting where it suddenly becomes really easy. 

Then there is the thought on why they made this change. There is no clear explanation for this, but to change a passport after it took years, if not decades to get accepted. Why change this?

That is the simple thought I am having. 

Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Operation fat woman

Yes, that is one way of saying it, the other one is ‘Операция “Толстая женщина”’ That is what the BBC shows us (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-64610954). There we are given ‘Pregnant Russian women flying to Argentina for citizenship, officials say’. Yes, that sounds ice, but what about the men? When will they come? Is this some FSB (or GRU) sleeper solution? Don’t think that these questions are weird. Consider how many people (in Russia) can just get on a plane and travel to South America? And what happens when these ‘fathers’ start a new Russian Mafia cel? Argentina will have a completely new stage of problems. I wanted to inform you yesterday, but the article in Wired had my blood boiling and straight thinking was not possible at that moment. So here I am catching up. The article also gives us “More than 5,000 pregnant Russian women have entered Argentina in recent months, including 33 on a single flight on Thursday, officials say” as such Argentina already has a problem. 5,000 pregnant women implies up to 5,000 man will join them soon enough. They are just awaiting the citizenship jump and away they go. As such Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay will get its own sort of problems and this will escalate quickly. And we see the issue with “Having an Argentine child also speeds up the citizenship process for parents. As it stands, Russians can travel visa-free to only 87 countries” these Russians will get access to 84 additional countries and that is merely the beginning of the mess that will land on Buenos Aires. The other countries will either remove the Argentinian passport from their ‘safe’ list or open up a whole mountain or troubles down the road. 

I get that plenty of women are trying to get away from it all, but the bulk of the women cannot afford to travel to South America, which beckons the question what else is happening. I cannot say for certain, but I reckon that the Commonwealth and the US will now have to take more drastic steps to keep their borders safe. I merely wonder what other countries are facing this, I refuse to believe that this is an Argentina only problem, this is a setting that could hit over a dozen places, as such what will come next? Something will come, and it is not just the baby, it is more. At present I just do not know what will be next.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Intentionally not that bright?

On average, why do you not give your $2 (or £1) to the junk sitting at the entrance to the underground? Why are you hesitant to give the same to the drunk half passed out on the street? This is not a question of morale, or on the idea that you might have a ‘Samaritan’ bone in your body. This is purely human nature, we all do ‘good’ things at times, we give to the red cross, the Salvo’s, yet when we know that the money will go into health endangering acts, like money so the junk can buy more drugs, how do we feel then?

I tend to not give any!

I do my share, the daffodil, the heart foundation, starlight, legacy; the list goes on for a while. I do not give a boatload, but I definitely spend dollars on good causes. These causes make sense and I feel that there is a moral obligation to do things for those less fortunate than me. Yet, knowing a junk will buy more drugs stops me from giving, and yes there are no exceptions. I do not think my way of thinking is out there, many follow my lead. So why do I read ‘Poor nations ‘pushed into new debt crisis’‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/10/poor-nations-debt-crisis-developing-countries), how moronic (read: overly simplified silly) is the act of giving loans to a group that cannot control a budget? When we see “Jubilee Debt Campaign says as many as two-thirds of 43 developing countries it analysed are at risk over next decade” as well as “Coinciding with the World Bank’s annual meeting in Washington, the anti-poverty campaigners accuse the international lender and other public bodies of “leading the lending boom” to poor countries without checking how repaying debts will divert resources from cutting poverty“. I would change that in how can we make international lender accountable for their own bad choices?

Not unlike Wonga ruling (at http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/oct/03/payday-lenders-repay-loans-wonga), these nations should get those loans expunged and the international lenders will just lose their money. They will of course disagree, but the entire loan issue is getting massively out of hand and those enabling them get paid no matter what. This needs to stop.

Sarah-Jayne Clifton, director of the Jubilee Debt Campaign, makes a good case, yet overall she is not willing to far enough on one side and is treading where she should not on the other side. Let me explain this. At the end, the quote is “As such, the campaigners are urging the UK government to push for policies that support developing countries in increasing their tax revenues by clamping down on tax avoidance and evasion“.

No, no, no, no, no! That is not a good idea!

Pushing for policies tends to be a slippery slope (even though the approach is not that bad), in addition, the issue with developing countries and their tax push is only one side, which is the wrong side. These developing countries need to take a hard look on what they are spending these loans on and WHO they are enabling in the first place.

Let’s take a look at a few quotes from the past years and see how they fit in: “Ana Olivera took office on Friday promising to streamline the overweight administration of Uruguay’s capital“. Seems like a good approach. It must sting the Americans to no end that the elected official is a communist. OK, Ana Olivera is only mayor of Montevideo, but that village contains well over 50% of the population of that entire nation, which gives the mayor loads of political power. Uruguay is sometimes called the Netherlands of Latin America, because of its social approach, yet Uruguay is almost 5 times the size of the Netherlands and a mere ferry ride away from Buenos Aires (in case you want to have some cosmopolitan fun). There is method to my madness and here it comes. When we see the news in the International Business Times (at http://www.ibtimes.com/uruguays-economy-will-struggle-unemployment-inflation-it-will-grow-4-percent-2014-1540214), an article from last January where we see that some nations can get a decent grip on their debts, although inflation remains a worry for now. Bloomberg had some additional issues (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-19/uruguay-s-growth-pushing-inflation-above-target-bergara-says.html), “Uruguay, a nation of 3.3 million people wedged between South America’s two largest economies, has since become less dependent on trade with Argentina“, it gives rise to worry about inflation, yet it seems that they are staying on top of it for now.

This links back to the other ‘poor’ nations. These players seem to be given an unofficial charter of bad financial management. If it were just one or two issues, no! When we see the report that two thirds is in the high risk zone of getting a new debt crises, even though most of them got their debts written off, we can clearly see the proverbial pattern of junkies. This of course makes for the analogy that it turns the international lender as a debt dealer at best and as a debt pusher at worst. So, here we see my part of disagreeing with Sarah-Jayne Clifton. We need to put into place clear policies on how loans are to be allowed in the first place. How these nations are currently held to account (and accountable)! If we see a structural failing, then we have a duty to deal with that weakness and deal with the implied ‘pain’ from such irresponsible actions. Yet, governments and ‘overseers’ of these lending institutions seem not to be willing to do just that, we can assume we know the reason, but that is just listening to gossip ;-).

However, as I go for the expression of being artistic, there is this story about being black and that story is played by a pot and a kettle. How can we push for responsible, budgeted governing when the big players involved seem to be unable to do just that (USA, United Kingdom and Australia, but to name a few). Is it truly conspiracy theory inclined to claim that governments are over enabling banks and financial institutions? I am very willing to accept that I am wrong here, but the numbers all speak into my favour (towards my train of thought), so what is the link?

Consider the impact of Neoliberalism. Consider how the term changed usage and to a certain effect the value and application from the 1930’s, the 1980’s and it seems that the concept is changing again. In the 30’s it came from a desire to avoid repetitive economic failures that were visible up to the early 1930s, this resulted in the gesture of blame towards economic policy of ‘classical’ liberalism. Then later on it had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to the radical and privately held transactions between parties, set in a ‘free’ (read: unaccountable) environment, free from intrusive government restrictions, tariffs, and subsidised capitalist set of ideas. Is it not interesting how this version as we see it now, is all about what it was with added non taxability and non-accountability? It is a new form of Neoliberalism with a twist that is all about enabling the wealth driven and the wealth begotten, yet in that view neo liberalism is not just a ‘new’ kind of liberalism, it is not just based on ‘old’ values of civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and free trade. It is enabling non-accountability, non-taxation and even non-prosecutable to a certain extent. So the freedom they have been given are evolving into a total form of freedom where they obscure, device and decide, whilst the people get saddled with the bill of their appointed exploitation.

How is that liberal in any way, shape or form?

There is none more part we can look at. It comes from the paper ‘Neoliberalism and the Global Financial Crisis’ by Sharon Beder (at http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/GFC.html).

The paper has a very fitting part where the topic headline reads ‘Financial Market Coercion‘ and we see “Whilst the IMF and the World Bank enforced the Washington Consensus on poorer countries in desperate need of capital, other more affluent countries were forced into adopting the same formula by the world’s financial markets. Their vulnerability to these markets was facilitated by financial deregulation“. This is what we see in action. Additional we see: “Financial deregulation was demanded by business interests, particularly large financial firms and transnational corporations that wanted to be free to move their money around. The economic argument for financial deregulation, supplied by free market think tanks and economic advisors, was that the free and unregulated movement of capital is more efficient, because capital can move to where it gets the best returns (Helleiner 1996, 194, Bell 1997, 103-4).

Yet in that part, it does not state the one issue that is massively in play for governments on a global level. This is read in the part “free and unregulated movement of capital is more efficient, because capital can move to where it gets the best returns“, but what is does not state, which it should “free and unregulated movement of capital is more efficient, because capital can move to where it gets the best returns, absolvent of taxation and financial duties“. Now we get back to these ‘poor’ nations. Yes, they are getting pushed into new debt crises, as the facilitating business branches are all about getting money out and not paying for taxation which was enabled by neoliberalism (their altered version of) as I see it.

Is it not an interesting part that we now see the scary view that a Uruguayan communist shows more social responsibility then the ‘free west’ has shown in the last decade?

As I stated it before, when you make banks and big business the facilitator for the future, you will see that their only future you end up with is their own selfish needs. This is why the push for policies by Sarah-Jayne Clifton worried me; she might end up giving the keys to that group of people that should never have access to the keys in the first place, not if a nation wants to do anything for its people. Is there a better solution? It seems that either we go the Uruguayan way and deal with inflation dangers, yet the other way is equally drenched in risks and dangers. The first order is to set up the right policies that keep large corporations tax accountable. They might ‘threaten’ to walk away and to go to Paris or something like that, yet a nation has a multi-million consumers market. If a firm cannot do business, in the end, they stop from being a business and someone else steps in. We need to stop the greed that these investors represent. I am however at a loss to give a clear answer of what will actually work. There are too many variables and not enough people ready to stand up for that what must be decided upon, so we stay in an impasse, a status quo that had stopped being just that years ago, we just do not see clearly how much we lose every day, so we continue the status quo as is.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics