Tag Archives: President Obama

September 17, 2016 · 16:11

The Taxing Delicious

Taxing delicious is a new sweet tasting Apple, even sweeter than the golden Delicious, and it is to be regarded as healthy for body, mind and government. Yes, in this case it is not a new Irish Cider (which would be a nice idea too), this is about a company getting a bill. You see, the funny part of it was that if there had been no EU, Apple would have been 13 billion wealthier. How doesn’t that beat the odds?

These are some of the thoughts rising within me again as I read ‘Apple tax ruling must be overturned, says US business group‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/16/apple-tax-ruling-must-be-overturned-says-us-business-group).

As I see it, if it is such an issue, why not do an appeal? You see, this entire issue is as convoluted as it is ever likely to get. When I see ‘Ireland Doesn’t Want Apple’s Back Taxes, but the Irish Aren’t So Sure‘ in the New York Times (at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/business/international/ireland-doesnt-want-apples-back-taxes-but-the-irish-arent-so-sure.html), my initial response to Enda Kenny would be “Are you out of your bloody mind?” Now, let’s be partially fair. There is a method to the governments madness, yet even as giving in to big business might seem appealing, but the US is changing its taxation parameters (as well as tax accountability) and after the elections there is no way to tell how the US governments hats will be pointing, so getting what you can now is not the worst idea. In addition, when Apple et al will make the jump away and to other places, they will leave you with buildings that remain empty and will not have been paid off, so you will have a billion in real estate, whilst not having any return on investment, just empty buildings wasting away. That situation is not as unimaginative or as surreal as you might think. The idea that a government is appealing against a tax bill on behalf of a Forbes 500 company is entertaining, upsetting and obscene all at the same time, but that is sometimes how the cookie crumbles.

What is interesting in all this is how the EU courts will act, you see, if they give in now, it should be regarded as the utter uselessness of that court to begin with. It gives weight that not being part of that very expensive club is indeed the way to go, which will now give weight that Brexit was not a bad move and it will in addition fuel Frexit too. All that over a mere 13 billion invoice. Less than 5% of the costs of Greece, which fuelled Brexit to begin with. This is at the heart of the matter of what the Americans just cannot comprehend. They just received the massive blowback on the lesson that you cannot win every fight and that Economic Status Quo is an illusion that will collapse upon those believing in it.

So as we see the idiotic roundtable threaten those European leaders “In an open letter to the leaders of the 28 European Union countries, the Business Roundtable group defended Apple over its tax dispute with the European commission” and “US businesses have warned European leaders they risk a “grievous self-inflicted wound” unless they overturn Brussels’ demand that Apple pay the Irish government €13bn (£11.4bn)“, I just wonder if they even considered the stupidity of their actions. On the other hand, should those leaders cave, how stupid are the European elected officials to begin with? So as we wonder whether Randall L. Stephenson has looked into the long term issues of his act, when we see that these actions drive Frexit and possibly even Italy’s act on a referendum (although the major influences would be Brexit and Frexit), will Randall respond with a ‘this is much more complex and should not have been pushed by our, what we regard to be a righteous act‘, or will we see a spokesperson state ‘Our Chairman is currently unavailable and is taking his personal time teaching the Youth how to do a proper sheepshank‘? I will let you decide, but consider that tax accountability has been an issue for over a decade and now we finally see an actual result against a large corporation we see people backing down? Perhaps they thought it would never get that far? Just like Brexit was never going to be a reality!

Yet the Irish Times did not remain quiet and less than 24 hours ago reported (at http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/apple-fined-in-japan-for-under-reporting-earnings-sent-to-ireland-1.2793469), ‘Apple fined in Japan for under-reporting earnings sent to Ireland‘. So when we read “The Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau determined that the unit, which sends part of its profits earned from fees paid by subscribers in Japan to another Apple unit in Ireland to pay for software licensing, had not been paying a withholding tax on those earnings in Japan, according to broadcaster NHK“, I just wonder who the Tax Auditor was here.

Now I am not out to make Apple the bad guy, even though they screwed me over twice! What is important is that through all the presentations and all the boasting and ego based actions, there are now 4 groups in play all trying to get Brussels to back down on a legal verdict. We need to wait the appeal on this, yet should this remain and if the US makes noise we will have clear evidence that the EU is no longer something with validity, even stronger, these events are clear signals that the TTIP is an even worse idea than initially thought of in opposition. The one sidedness aside, the fact that American business has basically become the corporate ‘bully’, we need to reassess the situation and remain clear on where our priorities are. I personally remain with the belief as I always have that the Commonwealth nations need to stick together. In these times we now see the Democratic Party under leadership of President Obama do the following “The Obama administration on Thursday took action to limit the use of foreign tax credits by American multinational companies to reduce their U.S. tax bills, a move that followed an EU order that Apple pay back taxes to Ireland“, which I think is not a bad idea. You see, Apple et al might claim how they are so investing everywhere, but that is only done (as I personally see it) to avoid paying tax in America. It is one of the massive reasons why America is so deep in debt (apart from their impossibility to manage a budget) and something has to give. If those tax dollars are used to lower that debt then I would state: “Barack, you legend you, well done!“, because an America with low debt (read: no debt), would be again the superpower it once was and currently pretends to be.

In the end, nations that have a minimal debt, these nations get to decide for themselves, not having their actions overruled by financial institutions or Large Corporation, or by Randall L. Stephenson for that matter. Yes, we can see that those moves will have impact all over Europe and not in a nice way, but that is part of the game. You cannot have it both ways that was never a reality to begin with. Now they only need to fix the holes that Mario Draghi has in his hands and we are possibly perhaps on route to get something sorted.

Yet there is one part we need to get back to and that is the verdict. You see, what is in play here is the statement “an agreement allowing Apple to pay a maximum tax rate of just 1%. In 2014, the tech firm paid tax at 0.005%. The usual rate of corporation tax in Ireland is 12.5%“, this implies that Apple didn’t just get preferential treatment, all the other players were discriminated against. When we see the parts we had already known for a long time, the fact that “Ireland’s tax arrangements with Apple between 1991 and 2015 had allowed the US company to attribute sales to a “head office” that only existed on paper and could not have generated such profits“, which was a given and the result we saw on a global scale “Apple avoided tax on almost all the profit generated from its multibillion-euro sales of iPhones and other products across the EU’s single market. It booked the profits in Ireland rather than the country in which the product was sold“, gives way that a single market is perhaps not the best solution for all but one nation and in addition to this we must realise that the solution I mentioned 5 years ago to set the tax laws that taxation should be set into the nation of the buying consumers physical location could have avoided this and many other issues. A simple taxation change that made all the difference, yet it seems that no one in legislation in those nations as well as those political players ever considered changing that simple law that could have made all the difference.

You see, as the Guardian by-line offers, this case could have another escalation soon enough “Charlie Harrington, 53, a paramedic in Cork, expressed frustration that the Irish government penalized small taxpayers but seemed ready to protect Apple“, which is exactly how millions feel in both France and Italy. If this tax case caves and Apple ends up not being due this invoice, the jump to anti-EU sentiments will go up massively and very fast so. At that point President Obama will only have himself to thank for the mess he started to create when he went 180 degrees on the corporate tax issues discussed in the ‘The Hague Summit of 2013’. That was the first step that could have avoided a few things, this case being one of them.

Cause and Effect

The question becomes ‘What will happen now?’ This is something not easily answered. At present Apple has a few other issues knocking at its door and the iPhone 7 is one of them. The population at large is less money blessed, so paying $1295 for a new phone that according to Forbes is “Purchasing the iPhone 7 this morning from my local Apple Store I found a device that is remarkably similar to last year’s iPhone 6S and the iPhone 6 from 2014. The external design cues remain, the chips inside are faster, and iOS 10 is more polished but is fundamentally the same operating system. Nothing ‘feels’ news even though the package is professional and projects a revolution that is hard to find“, this is at the heart of the matter. Trying to create waves by limiting the system, whilst overall the system is still the same is an issue and at nearly $1300 a very expensive one. That whilst Android competitors are coming into the field with comparable devices, including a headphone jack at 50%-60% of the price of the iPhone 7 and the world is starting to consider the non-IOS alternative. What Apple should fear is not just the market they are losing, the dangers that people could, in regard to the tax pressures they have and the pressure that Apple seems to be able to avoid, is one that could make them feel frustrated and vindictive. The idea that a person could think ‘If the need not pay taxation, they do not need my business either is not that far a stretch‘. People are starting to see the ethical imbalance that large corporations have impressed upon nations and in Europe where the quality of life is not that great at present, seeking the much cheaper alternative that Huawei and LG are offering is one worth considering. That could bring considerable consequences for Apple soon enough. Now I am not stating that the iPhone 7 will be a flop, but for Apple in this stage, should they lose even as little as a 2% market share, the consequence for apple will be intense to state the least. In addition, the fact that the iPad has remained a success for so long could equally be the next problem child for Apple. In that regard releasing the iPad Pro was a really good idea, yet the tablet contenders are starting to realise what it takes to be a contender and if that knowledge is applied properly, there too non-IOS devices (read: android) could start to make a killing and as such undermine that market Apple has at present. The origin is not the device makers, but Google. As Google has been pushing ‘the year of mobile’ for two years, the shift of usage is also growing. There is a growing visibility that at times the mobile screen does not cut it and it gives more and more opportunity to both Phablet and Tablet. These are all examples showing quite clearly that there is no status quo to rely on and the temporary nature of devices shows that Apple needs to really push forward in an innovative way, preferably before the makers of tablets realise that an affordable 128 GB version of an Android tablet is every bit as appealing as the iPad Pro, especially when the Android version could be a lot less than the IOS edition. With Android having its own set of quality games, Apple has more to lose than they are willing to admit to and time is slowly running out for their streak of ignorance to continue. However, it is important to note that Apple has been pretty super innovative with the iPad pro, so there is still a gap to overcome for the competitors. In that regard it is equally interesting that the Android device market have ignored that side of the consumer’s need (read: desire). In all this, it was about taxation and not on markets. Yet one is linked to the other, mainly because if there is no market there is in equal measure no taxable revenue, which gets us to the final part. You see, I have written about these issues before in one form or another and now we see that the Wall Street Journal is finally waking up to this (at http://www.wsj.com/articles/lew-is-right-on-eu-tax-grab-but-lacks-credibility-1473962171), when we read “The Obama administration has had 92 months to tackle corporate tax reform. Now that Europe is making a grab for taxes on profits held by U.S. companies overseas, President Obama is ready to use his last few months in office to address tax issues that were ignored or made worse under his watch“, my response is that neither was done, as stated in earlier blogs in April 2016, when I wrote ‘Ignoranus Totalicus‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2016/04/24/ignoranus-totalicus), he refused to act (as voiced by “Senior officials in Washington have made it known“), so the non-actions are now back firing as event are now escalated. Another iteration of status quo.

What now?

This now all related to the issue at hand. IT corporations decided to maximise their profit by a consumer iterative annual approach of products. The IT market in the US nearly collapsed as it allowed for what was once regarded as a Taiwan Clone (a cheap alternative) to a quality A-brand to catch up. This is the problem with iterative thinking, when you are not in a niche market like Northrop Grumman (who at one stage actually there software patches ‘Iteration version’ I believe), you allow the market to catch up with you. ASUS caught up so and soon thereafter surpassed the original market owners. This lesson was not learned and the Telecom market decided that the profit was good in this way. So, please feel free to correct me. What happened to Ericsson and Nokia? Apple came and overwhelmed everyone and instead of truly remaining innovative, they started to largely iterate their device and called it innovation, now that LG, Samsung and Huawei have caught on and pretty much caught up, they are now offering equal, if not better options at lower prices. So how long will it take Apple to learn that status quo is merely an illusion? I reckon will see that revelation close after Christmas, after the annual sales are gone (and they will be improbable but not impossible a bit disappointing this year).

I reckon we will know in about 15-19 weeks!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as Apple, Asus, Brexit, Business Roundtable, Charlie Harrington, Enda Kenny, Ericsson, Eu, Forbes, Frexit, google, Huawei, Irish times, LG, Mario Draghi, NHK, Nokia, NY Times, President Obama, Randall L. Stephenson, Samsung, tax evasion, taxation, the Guardian, Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau, TTIP, Wall Street Journal

August 27, 2016 · 15:47

The Validity of Targeted Killing

This is not some euphemism like the trials and tribulations of Ezio Auditore da Firenze. This is not a game, nor is it some romantic twist. It is the harsh reality of a government that didn’t get it to begin with and now as the body count ads up, it has painted itself into a corner and until it wakes up and gets active, its citizens will be placed into immediate harm. The undeniable consequence of a flaccid government set to inaction. The nice part is, is that governments at large are all on the same boat. The US, nominated as the most stupid one, followed by the European Community at large, the Commonwealth and a few more nations. It seems that in this specific case China is the only clever participant (in this specific case).

To give you the connections at hand, we need to realise what exactly is Targeted Killing. In this case it is the ‘Assassination by a state organisation outside of the judicial procedure or a battlefield’. Yet in this, the existing definition is not complete or correct. In this day and age, assassination is done in a multitude of ways, not always corporeal being lethal, but in some cases that might actually have been an act of mercy if it ended that way. So what is this about?

You might think that it started with ‘WhatsApp privacy backlash: Facebook angers users by harvesting their data‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/25/whatsapp-backlash-facebook-data-privacy-users), but you would be wrong. This is not the start, but it might be the end of the beginning. You see, the one part that people forgot is that data once captured will be an entity onto itself, it will take on a life of its own, your shadow self, but a part you no longer have control of. You see, you still control your shadow, you step away from the light and it moves your shadow, when all the light is gone, your shadow is dead, because it only lives through your indirect interaction with light. The link we have initially is: ‘WhatsApp to give users’ phone numbers to Facebook for targeted ads‘, which the Guardian published 2 days ago. You see, the subtitle “Messaging service will begin sharing private information with Facebook and is preparing to allow businesses to message users” gives us the consequence. Our data is no longer our own, we gave that right up and as such, data is now starting to get shared with people we did not consider it could be shared with. So even if we see that this reflects on ‘phone numbers’ this first step is more than that as we see ‘sharing private information‘, when you consider the quote “They will have 30 days to decide whether to opt out of their information being used for ad targeting on Facebook, but will not be able to opt out of their data being sharing with the social network“, you might get a first idea of how bad things could possibly become. The quote “Whether it’s hearing from your bank about a potentially fraudulent transaction, or getting notified by an airline about a delayed flight, many of us get this information elsewhere, including in text messages and phone calls“, this quote seems nice, but that is not the information some are looking for. Consider how often you called a health professional. Now consider that the insurance agencies start digging into all the calls they can get their hands on. They can data-mine it by linking that to all the health professionals that work through them. Let’s put that into a state of reference you will understand.

Any person is likely to be connected to health professionals and pharmacies. Like your GP (physician), a Chemist and perhaps a Medical Clinic. Now consider that if you have called any of these places in total 4 times or more this year, your insurance could go up by 10%, and an additional 2% for any additional call in that time period. This will be worth Millions to that insurance agency, because they will get the data that involves 10% or more of their customer base. Now, this last part is a little speculative. The reason is that clear information is not out there. Some state that WhatsApp has 8% coverage in the US, whilst another source states 34%. There is no clear number we can trust because those behind WhatsApp are also aware that high numbers will cause concern, so we get bombarded with specific information, not giving us an exact picture. Yet for the US, we see that the number of users is between 26 and 79 million, which is too large a fluctuation, yet in other places like South Africa, where the usage is 68% and 72% in Brazil. Now we have another matter, because insurance agents, in these areas can form a health hazard image with much greater precision, it maximises their profits and changes a health entity into a ‘milking solution’ of healthy people, the others can sit on expensive bills and die of their own good accord.

That is what the article does not bring forth and that is what is only just below the surface. It is all happening because of two sides. On the one side, political players left too many backdoors open, meaning that in reality these players will never be prosecuted in any way. On the other side, a clear information pass to all people alarming them of the dangers that data collection brings was not in the cards either. Here, the governments get a little bit of leeway as no one truly saw the impact that social media would have, Facebook changed it in many unimaginable ways.

With WhatsApp now surpassing the 1 billion user market we now have a player that has global coverage, making that data worth a lot to some players, the insurance world is only one of them. Consider the interaction of Mobiles and the internet and what other information is being collected. That is now becoming clear and as certain cases saw in the past, data might be deleted, but will never be wiped, so as such we now have a massive issue and this is only the beginning. You see, even as the people at WhatsApp are trying to put your fear to sleep. The quote “WhatsApp said: “We won’t post or share your WhatsApp number with others, including on Facebook, and we still won’t sell, share, or give your phone number to advertisers.”” should not diminish that fear. You see, “we still won’t sell, share, or give your phone number” is not the art that matters. What does matter is what unique identifier will be shared and no matter what the foundation of that number is, once it is decomposed to its core and can be made uniquely identifiable, it will start the next push towards the epitaph of privacy.

So how does this relate to targeted killing?

You see the plain fact is, is that we no longer have a correct view on how politicians view ‘the long term’. You see, ‘for the good of all’ is now a hollow statement, especially when we consider the latest president of the US and more important, the impact that whomever comes next has. We can see that in the following links ‘Corporate tax reform is vital to boosting America’s growth‘ (Financial Times), where we see “In the intervening years, nearly every developed country has reformed its tax codes to make them more competitive than that of America. Meanwhile, the US has allowed its tax code to atrophy“, which is one way to tell the story. What is the crux is that for too long tax breaks were given to large corporations. Tax breaks that allowed them to operate for nearly free, making the revenue they obtained, to be ‘the profit they got’. In addition we see ‘Treasury Department Criticizes EU on Corporate Tax Probes‘ (at http://www.wsj.com/articles/treasury-department-criticizes-eu-on-corporate-tax-probes-1472059767), here we see “U.S. officials also see a potential risk to the federal budget. Under current law, U.S. companies owe U.S. taxes on the profits they earn around the world and get tax credits for payments to foreign governments. To the extent they pay more in Europe, they could pay less to the U.S. when they repatriate the money or when Congress imposes a mandatory tax on their stockpiled foreign profits“. Here we could go into ‘Yay, America, good for you mode‘, but the truth is that part of 325 American Consumers (many of them being non-consumer) is nothing compared to the billions of consumers companies like Apple are getting their profits from. The linked White paper (added at the end) states “Beginning in June 2014, the Commission announced that certain transfer pricing rulings given by Member States to particular taxpayers may have violated the EU’s restriction on State aid. These investigations, if continued, have considerable implications for the United States—for the U.S. government directly and for U.S. companies—in the form of potential lost tax revenue and increased barriers to cross-border investment. Critically, these investigations also undermine the multilateral progress made towards reducing tax avoidance“, a paper that comes from the US Treasury. Perhaps people there like Jacob J. Lew and Sarah Bloom Raskin should have realised the long term consequences that they thrust towards others and are now thrust back onto them. If the treasury would not have been so stupid to send a member of the USC (United States of Cowards), namely President Obama to make a presentation in The Hague in 2013, where we see a refusal to back international taxation laws to allow for tougher calls on digital companies. The official quote was “senior officials in Washington have made it known they will not stand for rule changes that narrowly target the activities of some of the nation’s fastest growing multinationals“. I dealt with this in my articles ‘Delusional‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2016/04/07/delusional/) and ‘Ignoranus Totalicus‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2016/04/24/ignoranus-totalicus/), which I wrote on April 7^th and 24^th of this year. So perhaps hoping for as they state it an “unforeseeable departure from the status quo” was not the best idea to have, especially as maintaining the Status Quo screwed up Greece for economic life and it got them Brexit! Two elements that will push taxation changes in the European Union even further.

So how stupid were they?

Well, from one side we could state ‘extremely so’, yet that would ignore the part that is ignored by many. The truth is that players like Apple, Google and Facebook now have powers that exceed many governments and they have the benefit of not being in debt. So it amounts to Facebook giving a presentation to these so called ‘Senior Officials’ in Washington with on the last slide they see ‘Monkey see, Monkey do!’, and the presentation, minus the final slide gets send around by so called senior officials. Our lives now firmly in the hands of non-elected officials.

That is the crux, because it can only stop with massive changes to the taxation system, with the dangers that it will break the back of national economies. It is that regard that made Brexit a necessary evil and when official discussions start in 2017 as Article 50 comes into play, the line of taxation will change even more. All because those who needed to advocate change were unwilling to clearly speak out and now hell comes for its pound of flesh.

Now we can complete the targeted killing part that was unclear. You see the definition should be: ‘The Assassination by a ruling organisation outside of the Judicial procedure or a battlefield‘, which now puts Facebook in play. You see, when Brad J. Bushman Ph.D. wrote ‘It’s Time to Kill the Death Penalty‘ (at https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201401/it-s-time-kill-the-death-penalty), he forgot a few parts. Now, this is a good article and seeing the sides he discusses in the frame it was written is well worth reading. Yet, when he states “The Death Penalty Models the behaviour it seeks to Prevent” is about the act of corporeally killing a person. Then we get ‘You Might Kill the Wrong Person‘ which is a valid argument any day of the week. Now consider those who would kill you in different ways. When Facebook bans you for life, it stops you from interacting and as such you become a social pariah, an outcast and you are withdrawn from social circles, yet their model is not about your limit to interaction. When they sell on your data you run the risk to get barred from certain rights. Rights to medical support as insurance agents find you a risk and make the monthly fee no longer affordable. It will potentially change your data as you are a risk to finances and limit or stop creditability for a house. Algorithms will stop you to move forward. You will be dead in the soul as the rightful interactions for your way of life are removed from you, mostly all from predictive modelling, an expected future, not a given fact. You become guilty until proven incorrectly processed. It is still targeted killing, but one of a different kind. And in all this Facebook would never be made accountable for any of this. That is the part that all seem to ignore. Those who do prosecute it will try to get a large fine out of it, yet the people wronged will still be regarded as ‘executed’.

Now in light of all this and all of you would have seen, consider the statement that the ACLU gave “The capital punishment system is discriminatory and arbitrary and inherently violates the Constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment. The ACLU opposes the death penalty in all circumstances, and looks forward to the day when the United States joins the majority of nations in abolishing it“, being excluded from healthcare as insurers make certain paths unaffordable is certainly discriminatory, especially as the true vetting of the data that is used against the people cannot be verified and is forced upon a ‘victim’. In addition, the isolation that results from these actions can be regarded as torture.

So how was there not a stronger level of protection? That part is harder to argue as it was your personal freedom to join up to these services and once the data is given, when the service changes its foundational work, we have no say over the removal of already collected data. So when we consider the quote “The service will not be merged with Facebook’s other chat-based service Messenger or photo-sharing service Instagram. But all services under Facebook will gain access to WhatsApp users’ phone numbers and other account information, and it can be used to suggest contacts be added as friends“, so now we see the dangers that professional contacts become social contacts (read: ‘friends’). I have seen that this could end up being a great way to kill your own career and in this day and age, those without a job tend to lose a lot more than just a job. An efficient and bloodless way to expedite targeted killing whilst not leaving any blood on the floor or a corpse. They are true fears beyond the death sentence in this day and age, a fear which cannot be altered as taxation dollar to support these people are not coming in any day soon. It is a potential nightmare to many registered users. If only the right laws had been enacted to prevent this from happening. So even as there might not be any validity in targeted killing, we are now in a place where it can happen, and it is not considered as such, as there is no corpse to process and in the corporate spreadsheets validity is not an actionable point, it merely is not illegal, making it valid and legal for all pushing towards an economy of data sales.

Have a great evening and do not forget to update your status to ‘it’s complicated‘, because it truly is about to become that for plenty of registered social media users.

White-Paper-State-Aid

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as ACLU, Apple, Article 50, Brad J. Bushman Ph.D, Brexit, China, Commonwealth, European Community, Ezio Auditore da Firenze, Facebook, Jacob J. Lew, President Obama, Sarah Bloom Raskin, US, US Treasury, WhatsApp

May 16, 2016 · 20:38

No Man’s Brexit

Yes, I am not kidding, the day after the release of No Man’s Sky, we will see the UK referendum regarding the UK leaving the EU. The two correlate in a simple way. The game has 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 planets. That same number seems to be the number of opinions that the 743 million Europeans seem to have regarding Brexit, so we need to take heed what to believe.

Personally, I feel that Brexit might be the way to go, yet as stated previously, Mark Carney, aka Governor of the British Bank, aka Marky Mark of the British Coin seems to be swaying me towards ‘Bremain’. Let me explain this. For the most, the reasoning is given here (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2016/may/15/mark-carney-defends-brexit-intervention-eu-bank-england-video). The important quote is “identify the issues, come straight with the British people about them and then take steps to mitigate them“. That is one thing this governor seems to have been doing from the beginning, to state it bluntly, that is what he gets paid for (nothing Personal Mr Governor)!

In opposition a case could possibly be made regarding ‘transparency’, but let’s not try to cut the bacon with a piece of string.

The issue in this case is a quote in the Guardian on that same page as the video, which was “Earlier in the programme, energy minister Andrea Leadsom accused Carney of ‘dangerous intervention’“. Let’s take a step back. The Minister of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the person, who according to the Independent (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/energy-minister-andrea-leadsom-asked-whether-climate-change-was-real-when-she-started-the-job-a6710971.html) had to ask ‘whether climate change was real when she started the job‘ (which was on May 11^th 2015), that person is questioning Governor Carney on being straight with the British people? That’s a barrel of laughs on the worst of Monday mornings imaginable. Oh, I stand corrected, the 11^th of May 2015 was a Monday!

So from this quote, I am willing to state that Andrea, a politician was unaware or just didn’t watch An Inconvenient Truth, a 2006 documentary film about former United States Vice President Al Gore’s campaign to educate citizens about global warming. I think that she failed on multiple levels, especially as she studied political sciences. This gets to be even more interesting when we see the quote “in the past she has written to the Prime Minister calling for cuts to wind farm subsidies, and has criticised the pre-coalition Labour government for signing up to an EU target that called for 15 per cent of the UK’s energy to come from renewable sources by 2015“,

That is the person accusing Governor Carney on ‘dangerous intervention’ activities!

Now, there is not enough information for me whether cuts to wind farm subsidies was right or wrong. Let’s not forget that the UK is over a trillion in debt and certain cuts need to be made. The other part is in this case (without more evidence) equally debatable. That does not change the fact that regardless of her past economic positions whether she is anywhere near qualified to comment on the actions of the Governor of the Bank of England.

In my not to humble opinion, I would state no! You see Mark Carney was quoted as: “Carney defended his impartiality, saying it was important that people do not ignore economic risks“, I reckon that leaving the EU could have a few consequences tax wise and the issues regarding her Guernsey-based brother-in-law, Peter de Putron. This is in light of the title ‘Top Tory has family link with offshore banker who gave party £800,000‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/08/andrea-leadsom-family-links-offshore-bank-donations-tories). You see, I am an Australian Liberal, meaning that I regard myself a British Conservative and let me tell you, I would contribute to my part, yet if I am really lucky, I could perhaps donate 0.05% of that amount at best. When I work day and night I expect to receive some form of income, not pay an additional 800K (an amount I will likely never have, not even with my University degrees). The fact that a Brother in Law banker hands that kind of donations out might not be too controversial when it is for charity, when it is to a political party one must question the reasoning (read: personal tactical benefits) here.

So there are all kinds of questions that come to mind regarding Andrea Leadsom and it is my personal believe that (Brexit or not), her questioning Governor Carney leaves a lot to be desired. This 2014 article reveals another part that is important to consider: “A US non-profit news organisation, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, has obtained records of more than 20,000 names. The Guardian has exclusively analysed the ICIJ’s data, and begins to reveal those who have had dealings with a discreet Jersey branch of Kleinwort Benson, a well-known London firm which specialises in ‘wealth management’“. When you consider that news and the ‘feigned’ emotions we saw regarding Mossack Fonseca, that part comes again into question. You see, the issue has been legislation, tax legislation, legislation of wealth management and this implies that some of the available data goes back to well before 2010. This clearly implies that Labor was very much in the know on these matters. It also clearly implies that both sides of the isle should have pushed tax reforms a lot sooner than is currently shown. I agree that people might see this as unreasonable, but let’s be clear, these loopholes are there, Andrea Leadsom broke no laws. We see another version of amoral versus immoral. In my view, in regards to her acts I could see her statement as immoral, mainly because the changes could end up giving her more loopholes to push non-taxable parts of herself across the British realm.

Am I wrong?

That is still the issue, because Brexit will cause a massive amount of concerns and in that regard to keep the UK interesting more tax breaks might be the consequence of the EU separation (speculative statement). I might be proven correct but it is too early day to tell what the actual taxation impact will be, that part will remain an unknown, especially as people realise that only 5 billion of the 220 billion to Greece entered the State coffers, the rest went to the banks, paying small parts of loans and massive parts of outstanding interest bills. That is the driving realisation that more and more people are going towards the Brexit road. Most believe that the recession we hear about will be short lived and the upbeat will grow stronger and stronger as the loans diminish. I agree to some degree, but I equally foresee that Mark Carney is correct, the recession that is likely to follow will change the timeline, perhaps by a lot. That is the part that is absent of an answer, absent of a final solution, most of us believe that not being part of paying for other UK only recessions is the quickest way to a surplus finance coffer.

This is how I feel to some degree, but the warnings that Mark Carney gives us are not to be ignored. Plainly stated, at present the difference between a coffer and a coffin is currently way too small for my comfort.

This is why I remain on the fence. I am not completely convinced either way, but Mark Carney was clear and concise in the House of Lords and that was the massive sway to get me from certainly Brexit to almost cautiously Bremain. Yet the biggest issues are not within the UK, Greece, the IMF and other parties are trying to keep the present engine running, in addition the US economy with minus 19 trillion is equally a concern as the debt grew with 1 trillion in a year, basically it gained the total UK debt in less than 20 months, as they are closely linked with the Euro, one will tumble the other, in that regard Brexit is still the way to go in my book. It does not diminish the risks that Mark Carney warned us for, it makes just makes them more acceptable in my book. Nowhere do I mention that Governor Carney was guilty of ‘dangerous intervention’, he is merely informing us. I think that pro Brexit Andrea Leadsom did something stupid, she might be pro Brexit like I was in the beginning, but her less than intelligent remark only pushes people away from Brexit as her statement can be dissected by people less intelligent than me in mere seconds.

So, I still remain on the fence because the reasons for Brexit are there, but less strong than they were, merely because the risk we run by Brexit. In my mind the question becomes, if there is no Brexit, can we truly make the rest of Europe more accountable for their budgets? That part is still the number one reason for me to consider Brexit. I am not pointing the finger at Greece here, but at the total debt Europe has, which is almost equaling the American debt. The question is, how much of this debt is instilled by Wall Street to keep the seesaw of economics in balance? To keep the machine running to satisfy the 35,000 greed driven executives on Wall Street? We seem to focus on the top 1% in America, which makes for the 3 million people living really really nice, but that is nothing compared to the top 1% of that top 1%, their wealth is beyond measure, consider that only 1% of that top list (the 1% of the 1%) are the 350 people that made the small solutions like Facebook, Oracle, Apple and Microsoft.

I will give you one guess to guess where the other 34,650 got their money from.

This is why I still remain a little towards Brexit, because governments on a global scale ignored the need for proper legislation. At present the US might promise a lot, but in the end he has become nothing more than a quack quack president and as such he will not get anything done. Isn’t it nice that he wants to act in the 11^th hour whilst his own party will be very unlikely to support him? You see they are also up for re-election and they have options for another term, President Obama does not. Now consider the ‘evidence’ I gave at the beginning, basically this issue was ignored for 7 years. If you are considering that I am not being up front and honest with you, consider the fact that President Obama did not once mention the US tax havens that are in the US, to be more precise, the Rothschild Trusts all over America, their total treasures are stated to be in excess of 100 trillion, but no one can tell for sure, their fortune is too vast and always in motion. This is only one voice, mine, apparently there are 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 other views on this.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as An Inconvenient Truth, Andrea Leadsom, Apple, Bremain, Brexit, Facebook, Governor of the British Bank, Greece, Mark Carney, Microsoft, Minister of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Mossack Fonseca, Oracle, Peter de Putron, President Obama, Rothschild Trusts, the Guardian, the IMF, The Independent, UK, United States Vice President Al Gore, US tax havens, Wall Street

April 5, 2016 · 20:34

In anticipation of

Yesterday’s news is glowing like only Plutonium can, it touches, it infects and it spreads. The Panama papers are a hot item, radioactive hot. The only place I skip on judging is Iceland. It was the only European nation that achieved a near utopian standard of living, so the impact from the collapse in 2008 will still enrage its population for a very long time to come. If you doubt this than take a look at Oscar winning movie ‘Inside Job’, the one movie that is the biggest eye opener on economies in the history of documentaries. On the other side we get the biggest joke in UK politics, namely Jeremy Corbyn. His quotes on ‘how only Labour will protect Britain’s families’. Perhaps Mr Corbyn will take a look at his party’s history. How Labour in the age of 1997-2010 achieved absolutely NOTHING in changing the wheel of tax havens. So when Jeremy is voicing his thoughts, he should take a long hard look in the mirror. Any defence or deflection is pointless and absent of values. Both sides have not done their job in stopping tax shelters.

Most important is that no laws seem to have been broken. Yes, we now see that there are a few issues, yet when we see the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/mossack-fonsecas-response-to-the-panama-papers), we see: “Finally, the instances you cite in your reporting represent a fraction – less than 1% – of the approximately 300,000 companies that Mossack Fonseca has incorporated in its over 40 years in operation“, that is the actual case in all this. A system that is allegedly 99% correct and above levels, is now under scrutiny, through no less than criminal acts. Now the weirdest case in statistical history. We are looking at 300,000 cases. In the dataset that is well over 2.5 terabyte we see a fact evolving that is now soon becoming an interesting side.

Here begins a level of speculation that you must comprehend, there is little evidence, only suspicions. I hereby warn the reader to not take what follows as given!

One source (fusion) is giving us: “So far, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) has only been able to identify 211 people with U.S. addresses who own companies in the data (not all of whom we’ve been able to investigate yet). We don’t know if those 211 people are necessarily U.S. citizens”

Metro gave us this quote: “But weirdly, considering it’s the world’s largest economy, there was nobody from the USA. Is that because America is a beacon of transparent business dealings?“, the second quote is “Stefan Plöchinger, digital editor of German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung which obtained the leaks, shot out this teaser earlier today, saying: ‘Wait. Just look at what’s coming…’” (at http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/04/why-are-there-no-us-people-in-the-panama-papers-5794114).

One side states that more is coming, yet even under these properties even the term ‘there is more to come‘ becomes a highly suspicious consideration.

Now we get to the speculative side. You see, yesterday I made mention on the Libor scandal, yet I did not mention the part I speculated on initially (on April 1^st 2013), in an article titled ‘60% confiscated and counting in Cyprus!‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/04/01/60-confiscated-and-counting-in-cyprus/), at that time I wrote: “On 30^th November 2010 Jullian Assange revealed that the next target of his whistle-blowing website will be a major U.S. bank. The same date a red notice was issued by Interpol. It was around that time that the hunt for Assange intensified by a lot. Perhaps the one bank was just the beginning? If we look back at the issues we know now, then there is a chance that someone made mention of the LIBOR percentage tweaking issue. If this is what frightens the US, then consider the consequences of a system like LIBOR being manipulated through the total value of trade. If that would have been off by 11.2%. Out of $1000T (UK and USA combined) then that difference would be $112T.

I would love to get 1% finder fee of that! It would make me the FIRST Trillionaire in history (not bad for a person only dreaming to be a Law Lord someday)”

It was my speculation that Libor was not limited to the UK. It was my speculation that the US, as it was in such deep debt, that it started to manipulate the total value of trade, creating an 11.2 trillion dollar buffer. Here the danger for them was that the UK could illuminate that and that would have made the US option impossible and it would go bankrupt overnight (I still want that finder’s fee!). It was a speculation, yet founded on some data I saw, the data implies (cannot confirm or prove this), that packages were reset so that they would not falter, even though collapsed mortgages were added to them. See it as a leave one extra in. A repackaged deal where 70% had not yet collapsed sold at bargain price.

So how does this connect to the Panama papers?

Ask yourself a simple question, a firm like Mossack Fonesca would have extensive protection, firewalls and other shapes of protection. When you represent 300,000 firms worth trillions, only an idiot would rely on a laptop running on Windows 98 (a mere exaggeration). These people are not idiots, they are a lot brighter than I ever could be. This now raises the question how that much data got out. This raises the question, is this truly just about tax havens, or is this about a clear message from the US. The message is ‘Do not leave the EU, or else!‘ a message aimed at the UK and at France. Germany is willing to give aid, because for the most Germany does not want anyone to leave the EU. I personally see this step as a desperate act form large players who would not accept any responsibility from acts of immense stupidity. A path that evolved clearly due to inaction regarding Greece.

The fact that US people are not (yet) mentioned is because the US needs its wealthy with extreme desperate shortages. A nation (the USA), who is at present perhaps so close to bankruptcy that it will take desperate acts. So is the USA behind the hack on Mossack Fonesca? There will never be any clear evidence on that. There is no way to prove this one way or another, this is all clear speculation from my side.

Yet, is this so far-fetched? I personally do not think so, especially when we consider the timing. So as the UK tax havens might undergo slimming down, we could suddenly see another batch of US deregulations set for the creation of taxation, wealth building and retrenching. So will this happen? Is my speculation way too wild? I am not certain, you see, even I question myself. I would have had a lot less faith in all this if we would have seen the ‘revelation’ of Americans. That absence is what fuels certain paths of speculation. When we consider the amount of bonuses that many bankers in the US legally got away with gives weight to all this, in a group of 300K people and this group 0.01% currently American is too low and too unbelievable at present. There is of course all the chance that those names have been held back, time will tell!

So beyond the speculation we see the facts, because the facts matter. And the press is massively ignoring the impact that Brexit has, not just on the EU and their Euro, but it is the value of the US Dollar that is equally hit when that currency gets hit with the impact the Euro would expected to receive. President Obama’s nightmare has officially begun, because the impact is likely to impact the US dollar before he stops being an elected official. So tactically there is not the question of Mossack Fonseca and the tax shelters/havens. A tactical question that Bloomberg answered on January 27^th 2016 (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/the-world-s-favorite-new-tax-haven-is-the-united-states) where we see ‘Moving money out of the usual offshore secrecy havens and into the U.S. is a brisk new business‘, it is followed with the quote “It is now moving the fortunes of wealthy foreign clients out of offshore havens such as Bermuda, subject to the new international disclosure requirements, and into Rothschild-run trusts in Nevada, which are exempt“, so ask yourself the following question: ‘Are the Panama papers with the details from Mossack Fonseca a mere hack, or is this a coup d’état by big players like Rothschild moving money into the US, forcing the wealth and the powerful in Europe to face the danger that Brexit will soon impact their money and that must not be allowed’.

This last tactic is again speculation, but it is a tactical one, and it is supported by some facts. In that regard this tactic is old, hundreds of years old, because it was Niccolo Machiavelli who stated: “Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception”

I wonder what ‘revelations’ the Panama papers will bring, more important the parts the press will trivialise into the trashcan?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Brexit, Cyprus, ICIJ, International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, Jeremy Corbyn, Julian Assange, Labour, LIBOR, Mossack Fonseca, Niccolo Machiavelli, Panama papers, President Obama, Rothschild, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Stefan Plöchinger, the Guardian, UK, US

March 19, 2016 · 23:57

Return of the Crusades?

You might laugh about all this, but I am not convinced. When I look back in time trying to seek that past I see a part that is different. I remember the stories as they come through the history of Richard I and especially his part in the Crusades, not as a Disney figure. There was the story of the Crusader in Jeans and a few more; stories that involve An-Nasir Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub, a person many in the west will know as Saladin.

You see, the generation that followed will know him as a name in assassins Creed, or a man of Charisma in Kingdom of Heaven (masterfully played by Ghassan Massoud). We see the names of people as they are paraded in front of our eyes, but the reality is that they represent lessons we forgot and we are about to relive them in other ways, the more the world changes, the more it stays the same. Or in the quote of one of my personal favourite video games: ‘War never changes!‘

This started in part through a few article that I saw this evening. The first one is from Cal Thomas, he gives us (at http://qctimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/thomas-iran-s-missiles-and-the-nuclear-deal/article_50482e79-7496-5b29-b92c-ce7616f9f8c6.html) the following: “More sober thinkers, fearing Tehran would never comply with the agreement, envisioned Iran gaining access to $100 billion in frozen assets and using it to underwrite terrorism” as well as “Last week, as part of a military exercise, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard launched several medium- and short-range missiles capable of reaching Israel“, here he also quotes the Washington Post stating that these missiles can now reach Israel. The quote “exceed limits that the U.N. Security Council has imposed in connection to resolutions banning Iran from developing missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads“. In my view any denial from Iran is empty for a few simple re-engineering reasons, a mere formality that could be achieved in as little as 2 days (when the elements are available). The quoted opposition from the Democratic Party being “an Obama administration spokesman claimed to be unaware of any missile launch“. Here is where the problem sits from my point of view. The American President was so eager to score any kind of points, he opened a door that should have been left alone. Not for those in charge of Iran now, but any extreme individual that follows. Perhaps the president remembers Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or perhaps he is slightly too busy as he is trying to remember the waitresses working on 660 N Wells St, Chicago? I do not know, I am merely asking.

You see, many saw Iran as an option, but too many people in dire economic need were too willing to give away the farm in the process. These same group of people who are now in denial! For those in doubt who to believe, see the Washington Post (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iran-vows-to-keep-firing-ballistic-missiles/2016/03/10/77a3edac-e708-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html). Whilst politically flaccid US is talking to flaccid counterpart the U.N. Security Council on what is another landmark screw up by those greedy for economic benefits.

The evidence?

This is a valid question! This blog cannot be a rant, not be some conjecture. Consider the quote “The resolution’s language allows Iran to argue its ballistic missiles are not “designed” to carry nuclear warheads“, so we see another case where ‘resolution language’ basically means, the failed attempt for proper governing, to be placed within ambiguous legislative agreements. Like the EU for example. The fact that Greece could not be removed, because there was no way out. Now we get voluntarily removal from nations themselves (UK likely in June), which is what I mean with flaccid legislation!

So when we see the Washington Post with the quotes “According to Hajizadeh, some of the missiles carried 24 warheads and one ton of TNT” and “the Revolutionary Guards fired two ballistic missiles, including one with graffiti saying “Israel should be wiped off the earth” written in Hebrew on it“, Consider 24 warheads and 1000Kg of TNT. This is the danger I warned for! I did so on July 8^th 2015 in my article ‘In the lull of news‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/07/08/in-the-lull-of-news/). Now we have missiles with threats and whilst the Iranians contemplate to replace 1,000 Kg of TNT, with 724 Kg of Erythritol Tetranitrate and add 270Kg of Strontium 90 pellets, we get a new application of a shotgun, more important, a missile with claymore capabilities. You might think that this causes little harm. Think again, this would for all intent and purpose be a dirty bomb. Whilst these flaccid politicians debate ‘nuclear warheads‘ two Iranian missiles could irradiate Israel from Rishon LeTsiyon to Ramat Hasharon. Basically Tel Aviv and everything around it would be irradiated through metal pellets for decades and after 3-4 decades Iran claims that part in the name of Allah. That was the nightmare all along and a bankrupt America seems to be at present, to be in denial of too many events from Europe to Eastern China. I wonder who is actually minding the store over there.

Now you might also wonder how this material is obtained. You see strontium 90 is not a natural product. In this case Strontium 90 is just an example, even though it does not require military grade uranium, you see, it can be gotten from spend uranium fuel cells. Now consider that the USNRC gives us “There is no commercial reprocessing of nuclear power fuel in the United States at present; almost all existing commercial high-level waste is un-reprocessed spent fuel“, which is not the only nation that has it. So how guarded are these spent fuel cells? More important, who is checking the inventory and how easily can a few hundred Kg go missing? Now ask the additional question on how much fission (non-military grade) did Iran create from 2013 onwards (see the picture at http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-installs-more-advanced-centrifuges-for-uranium-enrichment-amid-nuclear-standoff-diplomats-say/), where we see a 2008 picture stating ‘Natanz uranium enrichment facilities‘, so how much spend fuel is there and how much Strontium-90 could Iran have now?

It seems to me that these facts should have been known for a very long time. Do you still think that the debate on what constitutes a ‘nuclear warhead‘ is valid?

So, there is plenty of evidence, does it fit together?

That is the second question and an equally valid one. You see, there is only a 42% chance that a missile with 24 warheads will be intercepted 100%, more important, the delivery system will be over Israel, the pallets will still fall, but will not create a curtain. I reckon that 2 missiles fired will have around 29%-34% to be 100% intercepted. So no matter how this goes, we will have a massive amount of damage in Israel. Will we idly stand by to see Israel fall away, to see the Christian icons of history fall away? I think not. In that regard we would steer directly for a new age of Crusades, war never changes!

Now in all clarity and honesty. There is absolutely NO given information that this comes to pass. Yet, can we take that chance? Should US policy have been allowed to put Israel in such danger? So when we hear the words from President Obama on how hard we EU needs to stick together, consider how much credibility he has. Consider the legislation he never passed, corporate greed he never stopped, how Iran is moving to be nuclear capable, how his administration endangered the state of Israel, how he has done little to nothing regarding Syria and how our holy sites will be in direct danger. All massive failures!

The worst part in all this is that the next administration has little chance of cleaning up the mess this administration leaves behind, because when the Euro goes, so does the Dollar!

Should you think that Iran has no intentions here, consider their own words on the missile ‘Israel should be wiped off the earth‘, and was my initial consideration that the next elected president of Iran possibly to be a radical like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that far-fetched? You think that a commanding officer (read General) would have allowed any text on his missile without his agreement?

You cannot be that naive!

There is one light in all this, you see Iran has an opponent. As they have been clashing arms with the forces of King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, they cannot make much headway on Israel. Yet in all this, as a war with Iran becomes a reality at that point, it seems to me that Russia will step back. No matter how Iran thinks it has Russia as a friend, it will not allow itself to be tainted by the fallout Iran would create. What will happen is that we all will be confronted with around a million angry Israelites, a nation that, at that point will no longer regard the US as a friend or ally. Whatever plays after that is too chaotic to make any clear projection on, I only know that it will get very ugly.

What is a given is that those who did fumble the ball will be confronted with nations angry and eager (through fear) to cast war on Iran on that point. No matter how much restraint requests we hear from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, he will be faced with a very angry world, because those who needed to step in decided to wage a ‘war of words’ with people who are basically deaf and will only seek the sound of actual war.

I wonder how this president sees his legacy and when things go south, which excuse he will offer. This is for the mere reason that any following successful missile launch will be the clearest signal to be seen as evidence that the USA is no longer a superpower and it can no longer actually act. I wonder how the world will act at that point, because someone would have to spearhead a direct assault on Iran, any direct attack on Israel from Iran makes that a given. If not, does this mean that Israel truly stands alone again?

It would be the most shameful and darkest day in history of the western world the moment the answer to that question becomes ‘Yes!’

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as An-Nasir Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub, Cal Thomas, Democratic Party, Erythritol Tetranitrate, Ghassan Massoud, Hajizadeh, Iran, Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Israel, King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Natanz, President Obama, Ramat Hasharon. Tel Aviv, Richard I, Rishon LeTsiyon, Russia, Saladin, Strontium, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, U.N. Security Council, USNRC, Washington Post

March 19, 2016 · 12:08

European Exodus Community

There is a reality that people seem to miss. There is a reality that the people at large have been ignoring for far too long. Big business had been until early this year trivialising the entire Brexit issue. Some started the catchphrase ‘Bremain’, but that went out of fashion fast. At some point, in October 2015 something expected happened. An American opened his mount (in this case Trade representative Michael Froman), which gave the Britons “If you leave EU you face barriers to trading with America“, Is that really so? In my view, if the Democratic Party does not get its A-game in place, many will not want to be in trade with a nation that cannot pay its bill anyway. You see, if Brexit becomes a reality, the Euro will take a sizeable dive, which will also hurt the US Dollar. More important, as the US has not been able to keep any kind of control on their budgeting, the US issue would take additional tumbles. Consider that the US exports $57 billion to the UK, should one direction fall away, than so does the other direction, you see pharmaceuticals can come from India, Vehicles can come from Japan and Medical Technical equipment can come from places like the Netherlands (to some extent). We are looking at an easy 12 billion going somewhere else. So that part is not a given, yes, UK export might have a few hitches, yet when other players are found for at least 20 billion in goods, new arrangements will be an option (very fast), not so much for the US of A.

Yet, I get it. The USA is afraid, very afraid because of what the Euro changes will bring and their fear is escalating. This we get from Euractiv (at https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/majority-of-french-back-holding-frexit-referendum/), who is now proclaiming that “53% of French surveyed would like to hold a referendum on their country’s continued EU membership“, an issue I saw coming a long time ago. i was the first one keeping my eye on this, and even as Hollande and Sarkozy are trying to make other ‘arrangements’ they now realise that non-compliance with the French voters will mean that the bulk will demand Marine Le Pen be elected, another prediction I saw coming. More important, should Brexit be averted, than Frexit still remains a real risk. It implies that American will almost be forced to send their own Al Jolson European Tour 2016-2017, yet unlike Al Jolson, this tour will not be a sell-out success, it will be seen as a painful reminder of America not cleaning ‘house’ in the 2004-2009 era. An era that brought many nations to the edge of despair. Now we see the Obama administration trying the option of Al Jolson singing ‘can I have a little more please‘, an idea many Europeans will regard as offensive. The changes will give additional worry. From one perspective, if the dollar collapses, export from America should go through the roof, but the overly mismanaged economy gives a clear clarion call that the funds to cate to this need would end up being insufficient. The latter part is my own speculation, I have no hard numbers supporting that part. From all the export, one in eight is about machinery. This seems to be a solid one, especially from the excellence in the past, yet in all this we in equal measure ignore that the US is not the only place to get this stuff, so if a part will move to an Asian provider, American wealth numbers will take a sharp dive, all that because Michael Froman seemed to have forgotten that they are not the only player in town.

Yet I digress!

There is now the realistic concern that a European Exodus could hit the community, a real danger, which also means that certain borders will come into a different play. This will impact the USA as well as Europe. Yet instead of a clear summary, the press seems to be throwing too much in the air with emotional plays from both sides of that isle which I consider to be not so productive. We see not so helpful articles by Jane McConnell on ‘why Brexit would be apocalyptic for the games industry‘ with quotes like “British gaming receives a wealth of talent and funding as a result of being in the EU“, which is a joke to say the least. When we see PC Gamer giving us info regarding Ubisoft Montreal “but it was built primarily on the strength of Quebec’s generous subsidies and tax breaks, and with a newly-elected government facing serious debt problems, those breaks are being cut back. That has CEO Yannis Mallat taking another look at the studio’s long-term future“, so that billion Euro firm in France is ‘surviving’ due to tax breaks. (at http://www.pcgamer.com/ubisoft-ceo-ponders-reductions-to-quebec-tax-breaks/). Now, remember that this article is 2 years old. So basically in the time that Ubisoft created mere mediocrity in gaming. In all that time only the recently released ‘the Division‘ seems to be up to critical scrap. So how about not catering to tax breaks? The final argument “and thanks to the EU working time directive, we are guaranteed 20 days a year of paid annual leave, offering us all us all at least one day we can happily set aside for binge playing. That’s worth remembering“, how interesting that she relies on that part, not on the part of government accountability which is actually driving people away. In addition, remember Markus Persson, simple small software firm in Sweden? It made over 2 billion in the end (from Minecraft). So, let’s not cater to mediocrity! The same issue can be stated for Hello Games. It is about the reset the bar for gaming quality, both small firms, just the two visible in a group of dozens. These tax breaks are there for the small players, but they have been overwhelmingly used by large players to not dig into the ‘quality setting’ frontiers they should have been in.

I feel personally decently certain that Brexit is becoming a reality. If the press would focus on truth and fact, not on emotion to sway the people, there would be a certainty that Brexit will be. It will drive Frexit too. The EEC will become a near death-trap for the last one in, which means that Italy will not be in a happy place between 2017 and 2018. I expect it will drive the membership numbers of Lega Nord with Matteo Salvini, I cannot tell how strong, because I know too little of the other Italian players. Yet in all this, certain other players are rearing its ugly head. You see, when we go back to November 2015 we see a paper by Natixis (at http://cib.natixis.com/flushdoc.aspx?id=88106), there we see “In the worst case scenario, the United Kingdom leaves the EU and does not join the European Free Trade Association; there would then be custom tariffs between the United Kingdom and the EU, but given the size of the trade flows, the impact on the economies would be limited. The United Kingdom has a very small industry and its exports of services, which are very specialised, would probably not be too severely affected“, this is the view I also ‘synched’ to. Basically, the bad sides of the EU towards the UK are massively larger than the good sides. The Natixis paper by Patrick Artus might not be complete, but it gives the goods that matter, from that point of view.

You see, the short-sighted users of a spreadsheet forgot the drive that Brexit could have, the view I predicted already in 2014. In addition, the growth and danger that right parties all over Europe became, fuelling one another is a side I did not see coming either. In addition to that view, we saw in November that Wolf Richter, Wolf Street in Business insider had “A Brexit would be ‘a non-event’“. I wonder where that came from. Oh no, I need not wonder because they mention Natixis and quote the relevant parts.

So what changed?

Well, the part I foresaw and everyone ignored is that Frexit is slowly becoming a reality. Now we have ourselves a lot more than a mere horserace, because this is what Natixis can’t use. It is in massive parts a French conglomerate, not a global one. In that regard Frexit will impact on Natixis as a whole. In this I mean that Natixis will see its profit margins decrease by a fair bit (we are talking a game of billions here), whilst in equal part limit certain economic movements and options. That makes it a different event. And the less we say about the impact on the US the better. Ah, here I am wrong!

You see, Lieutenant general Frederick Benjamin Hodges gives us the following last Tuesday (at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-usa-idUSKCN0WH0QJ), we get ‘Brexit would weaken NATO versus Russia‘, which is not entirely correct, is it Freddie? It is not a lie either! The mess seems complicated but it is not. We can agree that the General is under orders here. I reckon massively from his Commander in Chief who dropped the ball several times and is sending the General out into an economic field that is not ‘his’ theatre of war. Here is the part that is unwritten (not by me), whilst everyone was looking at Lehman Brothers and other Wall Street players, they all forgot about Natixis, who has a wealth portfolio that delivers an annual return that outranks more than just a few EU nations. When that limits and dwindles many players will panic, because the survival of some is now depending on continuity. Something that behind the screens of Brexit and Frexit comes to terms. With Brexit there was enough time to make adjustments, with Frexit that time will not be there, apart from the fact that it will force Germany to take a different course (one that is expected, but cannot be predicted). In all this that is only one element. The General is right that NATO will weaken, what is not given is that it will change the expenditure that some nations are making, which will directly hit Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which will now be a sizeable dent in the American economy too. Apart from a collapsing Euro, America will get hit by a double whammy, that part is not given (it is ignored by too many), not shown and not elaborated on. It is how expenditure changes. NATO existed since long before the Euro was a reality, but as those evolutions were taken, by lowering defence spending on a national level in Europe, we see that this ignored cluster will have serious consequences, very much so for the American military hardware industry.

Can I be wrong?

That is what matter, for me as much as for you the reader. We will be depending on two elements, Is Brexit a reality in the first and will it force Frexit in the second. The first is less up in the air, but not a given, in the second, when Brexit happens, Frexit will be a certainty. Even if Brexit does not happen now, the French are worried and they do not want to be the last in the row of decision makers as Italy currently is, the fact that 53% want this referendum is worrying to many players (except for Marine Le Pen). Both Francois Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy cannot ignore the cries of the French, if they do, they will feel the discomfort that Marie Antoinette had on October 16^th 1793 (well, one can fantasize, can one not?), because France is for the French (as they see it), not for the Americans. They will come down hard on their government, which is playing perfectly into the hands of Marine Le Pen. No matter what happens, with or without Brexit. Germany cannot sustain the environment without the other three players, which places the UK now in a tactical predicament. Relying on France to keep cool, this is what drives Brexit to additional momentum.

So all this will drive the European Exodus Community, to some extent people, because national business needs the motivated people to get businesses working and moving forward, but for the most it will be about small businesses in a national setting. Those who adapt fast will grow. Larger corporations will feel the disastrous drag of not changing gears, of not adapting to the new environment, mainly because those head offices (many in America and Asia) will not comprehend the old systems that drove them and the changes required to make them. Those depending on decision makers will find that delays will cost increasingly until (often enough) the decision has been made too late. Rowing against the current will be a new slogan that larger players will have to deal with, driving their talents to smaller places where speed is available. This exodus environment will hit in many places, in many layers on several fronts. A front where only the adjusted will make headway. I wonder whether 2018 will be the year of culling the corporate herd. It is too soon to tell, but it will for the most depend on the brethren Brexit and Frexit both leaving this rocky boat called EEC!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as America, Barack Obama, Boeing, Bremain, Brexit, Euractiv, European Free Trade Association, François Hollande, France, Frexit, Hello Games, Italy, Jane McConnell, Lega Nord, Lehman brothers, Lieutenant general Frederick Benjamin Hodges, Lieutenant general Hodges, Lockheed Martin, Marie Antoinette, Marine Le Pen, Markus Persson, Matteo Salvini, Michael Froman, Minecraft, Natixis, Nicolas Sarkozy, Northrop-Grumman, Patrick Artus, PC Gamer, President Obama, Raytheon, reuters, Sweden, The Division, Ubisoft Montreal, United Kingdom, USA, Wolf Richter, Yannis Mallat

March 14, 2016 · 20:17

Corporate Cowardice

The Guardian had a very nice article online, in addition to that article there was a video. The article titled ‘The macabre truth of gun control in the US is that toddlers kill more people than terrorists do‘ was the eye catcher, an article by Lindy West (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/13/the-macabre-truth-of-gun-control-in-the-us-is-that-toddlers-kill-more-people-than-terrorists-do). For the most it was a straight forward article. What was the issue was seen in the video by Rupert Neate who went to Las Vegas to take a look at the fair (I am slightly jealous now). An interesting quote here was from Neil Hogue from Hogue Inc. who stated “fear drives sales in the firearms industry“, well-spoken Mr Hogue I say! This is a truth. I ‘love’ firearms because of the engineering. Consider a pellet (read: bullet) that can be delivered to a spot within half an inch over a distance of 800 metres. That ability, the skill needed from focus, the maintenance of your rifle and the balance of all these elements to deliver an outside hit in exactly that place with changing weather conditions is the skill I love. I believe it to be a gift. This does not make me nuts! If NATO needed me to shoot people, I would. If the challenge is to shoot a piece of carton I would and providing it is for food (not for sport) I would shoot Bambi in a heartbeat (for the Bambi burger mind you). I will not end the life of anything for mere sport, which I regard to be actually quite sick. Then at 2:27 in that video we get Smith & Wesson, Mr. Jan Mladek. I think that Mladek dealt wrongly with the issue from square one. I do not know whether he was the one who caused the change, yet there is clarity in the video that the organisers dealt poorly with the issue, although the approach they took, regarding the optional possibility of chaos was not incorrect, the entire matter had been badly dealt with. From the view given, it was Smith & Wesson who could be regarded as the party hiding via corporate cowardice. Within me I wonder how Heckler & Koch would have dealt with it. I saw a much better answer, a decently serious answer from Joe Gaicevic from Troy Industries. He states “blaming a spoon on making somebody fat”. Here is another person hitting the nail on the head. You see, guns do not kill people, people kill people. Do you think that any politician in a declining economy wants gun control? A valid branch bringing in billions in tax dollars every year. Politically speaking, it was ‘the Daily Signal‘ who gives us ‘NRA Head Wayne LaPierre Says Obama’s Knowledge on Guns ‘Wouldn’t Fill a Thimble’‘ (at http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/04/nra-head-wayne-lapierre-says-obamas-knowledge-on-guns-wouldnt-fill-a-thimble/), which is as direct as it gets. Wayne LaPierre stated “We know a liar when we see one. We also know a political coward when we see one”, yet in all this he also misses a more important point. It is corporate cowardice. You see, many in the arms industry want income but have no regard of any kind for critical questions, you see, in my book, if you cannot deal with those you have no business being in that business. Which is the part the interview with Rupert Neate uncovered. When we see that the smaller players (Neil Hogue and Joe Gaicevic) give perfectly rational response, we need to ask additional questions regarding Jan Mladek from Smith & Wesson. The fact that he is mentioned as ‘marketing’ makes me wonder whether Mr Mladek is in the right vocation, perhaps selling Philips Hairstylers is more his tune (and will lead towards much less confronting questions).

So where am I in this?

Yes, we can agree that Smith & Wesson will take a hit when one of their products is used in a shooting. In this case the Smith & Wesson M&P15. It was not the only weapon used, so other weapons were used too, like the DPMS Panther Arms A15. In equal measure we must acknowledge the following facts “they made a modification that defeated the ban on detachable magazines” as well as a failed attempt to make the firearm fully automatic. So we have here a valid firearm that was altered making it no longer a permissible firearm. So the weapon was a no longer standard sporting rifle (not my choice of sporting rifle). Smith & Wesson bungled here as the facts would have given them a positive view on the ways that their weapon was not meant for such use. When considering the words of Joe Gaicevic I would state: “if you want to complain about being fat because it was easier to eat the ice-cream with a serving spoon and not with a table spoon, you only have yourself to thank for transgressing beyond fat!”

In equal measure, we can look at the first instance that linked this article. It was regarding Jamie Gilt and how her 4 year old shot her in the back. The quote that I regarded as funny was “People are trying to make it into something it’s not, we are not criminals, we are the victims here” (source: Daily Mail). In my view, no, she is the criminal. Not only did she leave a loaded weapon within reach of her 4 year old. She neglected basic gun safety. You see, her 4 year old would not have been strong enough to cock the slider, meaning no bullet in the chamber, in the second, it would have been an option for her kid to play with it, look into the hole and accidentally pulling the trigger. She might look sexy as hell holding a 9mm and having a .223 rifle at her side. The text “the more I learn about my government, the more I love my guns!” completes the view. She would have scored more points advocating gun safety rules. Those 10 pesky points that keep other people from getting killed with the additional by-line ‘Oops!’, America is a gun nation, let’s just accept that and instead of rushing to blame every spoon in the land for obesity, how about holding the transgressors accountable for their actions? As a second point of scolding towards Wayne LaPierre I would raise the quote “His knowledge on that issue wouldn’t fill a thimble“, Wayne, please do not insult the thimble, you need a much smaller scale of measurement in this instance.

What does matter is the quote “LaPierre challenged Obama a week later to debate him on firearms with “no pre-screened questions and no gas bag answers”“, this is the issue. It is easy scoring political points shedding tears for dead people, yet the real issue is the one we see with: “another gun law isn’t going to prevent crimes committed with firearms” which is the truth and at the heart of the matter. His correct answer is “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun“, which is why they have police officers. Now, there is no denying that in the US police officers have made mistakes, some whoppers I might add. Yet the people should also realise that legislation has done (pardon my French) ‘fuck all’ to the safety and security of police officers at a pay of roughly $66K a year. This might sound nice, but in the larger cities $66K gets you a far below average apartment, even when moving towards the edge of the city you would be hard pressed to find decent accommodation. So explain to me how these people are regarded to take beyond reasonable risks? The problem here is that for well over two years it has been known that the data collection regarding fatal shootings is massively flawed, so there are levels of uncertainty here too.

The police shows that there is an overall stigma on a national level when we look at fatal shootings. The San Bernardino event is an extreme, just like Columbine is. In both events this was due to illegally acquired weapons. So weapon laws would not have made an impact. People kill people, guns do not! The fact that the US has no less than 1.13 weapons for every American citizen, so we can rule out any effective gun control law from the very beginning, any re-purchase plan will make the US bankrupt overnight. By adjusting gun laws and making the owners of illegal firearms guilty of a capital crime would be a first step, but this democratic government is decently too cowardly to get such a plan in motion and at the end of the reign of Obama, in that view I personally reckon that the republicans will not show themselves to be a whole lot better. So the issue remains up in the sky.

There is however another side, the one that the government is in denial about. The fact that the Washington Post stated on October 5th 2015 that they were at that time looking at 2013 data. This means that the data, depending on when delivered is still 2 years late for any decent adjustment. This implies strongly that the ATF has issues it cannot deal with, which is nothing to say on the need of keeping a check on proper enforcement of gun rules. Weirdly enough, in all this, the bulk of gun owners have a clear established protocol in the proper handling of firearms. Rules that have been handed down from father to son and at times also from grandfather to grandson, a tradition still in play for several generations. I see this as a massive reason why people at large are so opposed to gun control laws to the extent President Obama is trying to push, which by the way, considering the amount of guns currently in circulation would not have any impact at all.

And this is not the only ’empty’ gesture he is making, he is about to make things worse by going to London in April to appeal to British voters to stay in the EU, that whilst he is unable to contain Wall Street greed and hold them accountable for plenty of these messes, as well as keeping a budget (like the bulk of the European nations). So good luck to that idea! The biggest over spender is trying to reason with voters regarding the economy and budgets. I reckon it will be entertaining to say the least, as every ill-conceived statement will drive people towards UKIP, Nigel will be so happy on Labour Day, it is likely to be a comedy of an entirely new level!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as ATF, Daily Mail, Daily Mail UK, Democratic Party, DPMS Panther Arms A15, Heckler & Koch, Hogue Inc, Jamie Gilt, Jan Mladek, Joe Gaicevic, Lindy West, Neil Hogue, Nigel Farage, NRA, President Obama, Rupert Neate, San Bernardino Massacre, Smith & Wesson, Smith & Wesson M&P15, the Columbine Massacre, the Daily Signal, the Guardian, Troy Industries, UKIP, Washington Post, Wayne LaPierre

February 6, 2016 · 12:36

Penis Aqua Rosa Congressista

The Dutch used to have interesting names for classifying people. There was ‘Penis jujubes’ (originally: Droplul), which amounts to Liquorice Penis, which captions the non-Dutch titles dick, asshole and idiot. The other one was ‘Penis Aqua Rosa’ (originally: Lulletje Rozewater), which gets us Rosewater Dick, which is an expression for a man that has no backbone, a man that is weak and submissive. The latter one seems to apply to the US Congress in a few ways.

You see, the article ‘Drug company boss Martin Shkreli refuses to testify to Congress‘ gives us part of it all (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/04/martin-shkreli-refuses-to-testify-congress-drug-daraprim), an issue that might be seen in the wrong light, if you only go by the one side of the story. You see, this is situation that Congress and their US laws created for themselves. Even if we get the ’emotional’ statement: “One member begged him to examine his conscience“, we all seem to ignore, that this is something Congress achieved all by themselves. You see the quote “Earlier, Shkreli and Turing’s chief commercial officer, Nancy Retzlaff, were criticized for hiking the price of Daraprim despite the fact it is the only government-approved treatment for the rare infection toxoplasmosis, which can be fatal for some Aids and cancer patients and endangers babies in-utero” is at the core of this.

Instead of setting up the law that fairness was at the centre of it all, politicians set the speculation that every pharmaceutical company and their fields would be ‘distributed’, that there was no overlap (for the larger extent), as such pharmaceutical had a clear field for maximised profits. How long did you think it was going to take before someone weaselled themselves into that crowd, with the simple goal of maximising his Return-on-Investment? The United States of America has always been about capitalism and living the dream. Martin Shkreli is doing just that, now we get what some might call ‘sissy noises‘ from the Halls of Congress!

Let’s be Frank (or Punch and Judy; whatever works for you), what Martin Shkreli does is utterly unacceptable, yet, it is Congress that did not legislatively clip the wings of unbridled greed. They sat around as President Bill Clinton called for the end of the Glass–Steagall Legislation. As the majority remained silent additional doors to greed got opened. In all this, the lack of visionaries in Congress, even after 2008 lacked action when it came to protecting the citizens of the United States of America. So when I see the response from a member of congress “member begged him to examine his conscience“, I will kindly tell that congressperson to cry me a river and I’ll do so whilst playing worlds tiniest violin.

Congress is in an emotional state, suddenly crying for those who cannot afford it, yet what clear provisions in legislation has it given to the coffers of the United States? You see when we consider November 23rd (at http://www.forbes.com/sites/antoinegara/2015/11/23/pfizer-and-allergan-merger-ranks-as-biggest-ever-pharmaceutical-deal) and we see “On Monday, Pfizer PFE +0.10% and Allergan unveiled an all-stock merger that will allow the combined company, Pfizer PLC, to move its headquarters to Ireland and focus on corporate cost cuts“, which is set at $160 billion, you better believe that this impacts the taxability of that corporation by a lot. As far as I can tell from the surface, the total of pharmaceutical mergers LAST YEAR ALONE is well over 600 billion, so half a trillion dollars, all now going via Ireland. How much noise is congress making there? Or do these ‘respectful’ members of congress have a few too many friends in ‘those’ circles? Better to loudly focus on the one man out as Pfizer, Allergan and a few others. Can we all agree that the difference of 600 billion, being taxed at 25%, or being taxed at 17% is worth moving house over? You see, I love Sydney, but when someone tells me that moving will get me $48 billion, I will start singing ‘My heart is in Ireland‘ and I will enthusiastically pack my bags. You see, I can always get a second apartment in Buenos Aires and life of my self-made cash cow, getting me $50K a day and still allow me to double my fortune before I retire, making me live of $200K a day until I die. That is the track that Congress left open. This can be seen (at http://www.forbes.com/sites/antoinegara/2015/11/23/pfizer-and-allergan-merger-ranks-as-biggest-ever-pharmaceutical-deal), the quote there “move its headquarters to Ireland and focus on corporate cost cuts“, can be seen as ‘tax cuts’ and now guess what a chunk of those cost cuttings will go? You probably guessed it, the gents (ladies too) of the board of directors of Pfizer.

So, when I state to the person in Congress ‘go cry me a river’, I am being pretty serious. For the mere reason after all those hard words that the media published on how this was going to get stopped, on how some African American in a non-circular room (according to whitehouse.gov) decided to call for ‘Closing Corporate Tax Loopholes’ in July 26th 2014. I am guessing that this was unsuccessful as Pfizer basically walked out with well over half a trillion. The move started in November 2015 and the press has been absent of any failure to stop Pfizer from moving away from the American non-tax havens, towards the shores of paddy’s Irish Whiskey and the real tax havens.

Let’s be clear, that this does not excuse Martin Shkreli from the acts he is doing, or would it stop me from legislatively going after Martin Shkreli if I could. The mere reality is that it will be close to impossible to do because the US Congress had enabled much of what Martin Shkreli did, which is not what they intended to do, yet it is what is the non-emotional result, so in that matter ‘examine his conscience‘ applies to a much larger extent to Congress and its need to clean up the mess that allows corporate American to get around taxation. A mess congress might not be willing to fix for the simple speculation that when not re-elected those members of Congress need to rely on large corporations for their next pay check.

I am not the only one on this horse, as far as I can tell ‘the New Yorker’ and a few others are starting to realise that no matter how objectionable the acts of Martin Shkreli are, there is now a focal point change. This focal point is about how Congress itself is part of the problem, not part of anyone’s solution (at http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/everyone-hates-martin-shkreli-everyone-is-missing-the-point), how there is an unlabelled coffer with funds to buy items of survival for people who cannot afford it. The New Yorker states it as “mysterious corporate bargaining, and occasional charitable acts“, this includes (as I personally see it) Pfizer and their transplanted plus 600 billion, moving to Ireland.

So even when we consider the acts of Martin Shkreli to be vile and evil, how is the inaction of Congress not worse? How is it that we cannot condone the acts of a failed administration, whilst the acts of a person who was in it for the money from day one to be such a surprise?

A man that graduated from Bernard M. Baruch College of the City University of New York, who became a hedge funds manager, ‘evolved’ as an entrepreneur and who is living the American dream.

How are any of the unfolding elements a surprise to anyone?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Allergan, Bernard M. Baruch College, Daraprim, Forbes, Glass–Steagall Legislation, Ireland, Martin Shkreli, Nancy Retzlaff, Pfizer, President Bill Clinton, President Obama, the Guardian, US Congress

January 10, 2016 · 20:49

One in six before this court

The Guardian had an interesting piece yesterday. The article (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/09/netxflix-murder-whoddunit-petition) with the title ‘Making a Murderer spurs 275,000 viewers to demand pardon for central character‘ is centre in all this. The first thing that came to my mind was the question: ‘Are people stupid, or is Netflix just brilliant?‘ takes a centre stage. You see, we seem to hang onto this notion given by movies and books that wrongful convictions happen all the time. Yet, where is the reality? First of all, the reality is getting buried by pretty much all parties. The best I could initially find was a 2013 statistical highlight. 172,024 matters were received involving 113,893 defendants. The document does have a lot more (at http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2014/09/22/13statrpt.pdf) and I hoped to find a more recent one, but these 121 pages should be enough to get you started. You see, the issue becomes when we try to get a deeper view of the issue, one that might not be in the interest of the U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for United States Attorneys, but when we see on page 8 that 2013 had 61,529 cases files, and we see the claim on page 9 “The rate of conviction remained over 92 percent, as it has since Fiscal Year 2010“, which gets us 56,607 cases.

This document is important for a few reasons, you see, Netflix has created a monster in a few ways. First of all, this is not a legal piece of work, it is an emotional one. An emotional presentation. One would think like many other reality shows bombarding emotions. This would be the first mistake for anyone making that jump. It is a documentary, a presentation made in the best light any camera could do. The view of cars in decay might have meaning, but the mere view is that is, is a view of written off ‘rust’. It all starts with the fact that a person was freed after 18 years when DNA proves him to be innocent. We immediately feel for this person, a sex crime one of the most heinous crimes we would all love to clobber a man like that to death, like a fur dealer kills a baby seal, with a nail board. But then, we are confronted with innocence. This man never did that, so how did he get convicted? These are the thoughts many will have in the first 6 minutes of the pilot. Most will be hooked, I myself saw this and was captured. We get even more turmoil when we consider ‘The wrongful Convictions Blog‘, which has Contributing Editors like Justin Brooks, Professor, California Western School of Law, who is in addition to that Director of the California Innocence Project. I feel certain that Netflix (read: the makers of this documentary) did their homework on this project, so why is there an issue?

The series is brilliant because this could be the first time that this series is sparking the need for a true total overhaul of the American Justice system. As I see it, it is a first that we see ‘more than 275,000 viewers have signed a petition asking President Obama to overturn Avery’s conviction‘ on a scale to this side. Yes, Netflix created a monster, but is it a bad one? When we see numbers like 5,000 – 10,000 wrong convictions, when we realise that 5-10K out of 56,607 represents 8.8%-17.6%, now we get one in six to one in eleven gets wrongfully convicted.

Footnote: This is based on two sets of numbers, there is no clear picture on how many wrongful convictions there are in 2013, giving a debatable number (just making sure that you understand that my numbers remain debatable).

Now the issue shift, it shifts strongly in a direction we cannot predict, because until the numbers were clear we were all (me including) how often does this really happen, so when we see a jail movie where someone states that he was framed, he was innocent, the numbers tell us that one in eleven (lowest denominator) actually could be. When it is a parking fine it is one thing, when it is 30+ days it affects a life possibly forever, the American people now have an issue.

Now we get to the other part. The quote “In a statement, the White House said action in this case would need to be taken at state level – in this instance, Wisconsin. A petition directed at Wisconsin’s governor, Scott Walker, on Change.org has 6,300 supporters, but the governor has said that he will grant no pardons“, we see that the White House parked this on the state level this needs to be on, and the response by governor Scott Walker will not help the White House any, but that is the law, the man got convicted. Yet in that our emotions also play up, because when a person is convicted wrongly once, that state better make damn sure that all the evidence is truly Hunky Dory, because two wrongful convictions of this nature can break a government (and their bank account). Yet in all this we see presentations, presentations from all parties. When we see the claim “Two years after DNA evidence was used to clear Avery of sexual assault in 2003, and as he was starting a claim for $36m in damages, he was accused of the murder of Halbach, who had visited his property to take pictures of a vehicle for Auto Trader“, so is one truly linked to the other? You see, my thoughts take me in a partial other direction. Would any woman go near a man convicted of a sex crime? Even if that man was found to be innocent? Doubt will always be in play there. Now consider the location and the date, October 31^st, aka Halloween. Over that day and the day that follows, we see 12 to 4 degrees Celcius, There is sweat, DNA. There is a premise of planted evidence, what is more interesting, why is there sweat from Avery under the bonnet on a day when it is 12 degrees? Summer, we all get, but late October? Was her camera that heavy? Yet in all that defence, we must also voice the quote “Prosecutor Ken Kratz last week accused the programme’s makers – Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos – of withholding important evidence that led a jury to convict Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey“, which is at the heart of the matter. Netflix gives us a presentation and calls it ‘documentary’, which does not make the accused innocent, yet as evidence is allegedly withheld from the documentary, what do we have now? A mockumentary with a taste of legality? #JustAsking

I cannot tell, because I see one side.

So as we all see that outrage is what Netflix wanted to create, we see a job decently done, but is that all it is? Because I reckon until before this series, the one in six part was never that visible. The issue of innocently found guilty is not a new term, but it was a term that was never so widely known in the US. Making a murderer changes all that in a big way, once larger places get on the bandwagon for advertisement reasons, we will see a few more million getting emotional on the one in six group, as they should. Edward Helmore does give us the vital clue in this article “this is not a trial, but the truncated representation of one by journalists” and as I see it they always have their own agenda, does the viewer realise this?

Yet it isn’t just the image or the presentation, one part of the power that Making a murderer holds is the fact that Laura Ricciardi (one of the two makers) holds a JD from New York Law School and an MFA in film from Columbia University School of the Arts, which gives for the extra bang for the buck, but it does not take away that this remains a presentation, call it a new open presentation by ‘the’ defence; which is happening AFTER the conviction took place.

So will this start a legal change for America? The one thing that does in addition stands out is that the US is too bankrupt to be anywhere near considering a 35 million payout for one in six. That will impact the US in ways it cannot survive, so as Netflix brought a monster to life, we could see a massive change in prosecution and legislation, which if it happens would propel Making a murderer into the historic annals of TV presentations.

We should also take a look at the opposition, one who got his visibility through FoxNews (at http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/01/08/did-making-murderer-get-story-wrong). Here we see “Head of Investigation Discovery Henry Schlieff believes important elements of convicted murderer Steven Avery’s story were left out of the 10-hour Netflix documentary “Making a Murderer,” leading many viewers to draw the wrong conclusion about the crime everyone in America seems to be talking about“, which in my view is not unexpected. Henry Schlieff passed up on the high ratings show, as did HBO. Here lies the issue, part of the response ““We just didn’t feel it right for us in terms of the length,” Schlieff told FOX411. “I think something like this will work really well for Netflix”“. So when was the last time a network passed up on the chance for massive advertisement space opportunities? You can count those occurrences on one hand and you would not need any fingers.

HBO, Henry Schlieff and a few others missed out on a winner, more important, even though there are clear issues with the series, it does something that has not been achieved before; it gives a national and even international light to the massive number of wrongful convictions. Even when taking the lowest number of 5,000, which would not be low, we get close to one in eleven, we might state that one in nine could be closer to the speculated truth, so how many wrongful convictions will it take to overthrow the US justice system as is, as some regard it as a failed system? That conversation is now happening in many US living rooms. The Justice Department might think in way too many households, which will become a much stronger issue down the line, especially when the governor comes up for re-election, even the next presidential election will feel the impact, in an election where every point counts, 10 points come with a bigger bang than what a fair amount of states can offer, so this will become a growing issue sooner rather than later.

In the end, the paths that the series skates on is the implied issue of planted evidence, which is an option but not a given. The pending issue of 34 million gives weight to this, yet in all this most of our minds are stating that this was a rare occurrence. Which many groups are now debating, when a one in six number gets approached the consequence of large claims and the fact that most state coffers could not survive more than a dozen of those. The numbers if even taken at 50% correct give us no less than 4,000 possible cases, which in an equally distributed world implies 75 per state. If even half of that makes it to court, the bulk of the states would go into receivership overnight, the ultimate nightmare scenario.

An issue Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos might hope to steer to as an ulterior motive, but in equal measure we must look at the direct impact. One, was Steven Avery guilty? In light of the previous false incarceration the main question on the mind of most Americans watching that show and if any clear evidence is ever brought to light that there was reasonable doubt, we will see an escalation unlike any we have seen before in American politics and American jurisprudence, because the 275,000 petition at present will be the mere tip of the iceberg, at that point the anger the people will hold can, could and possibly will topple whatever administration is in control at that point.

Which could have been the intent all along! In my personal view, I think that there has been intent all along. It might not have started out in that way, but after the Michael Iver Peterson Case, after the documentary the Staircase and in succession the events of 2010, I think at this point, both Ricciardi and Demos must have realised that their pet project had the opportunity to turn into a legislative and political Behemoth, and they were the only ones with the footage and the cooperation from the involved parties, they basically had the winning ticket to a lottery no one comprehended its existence.

I believe that part of that is shown in the recent interview that the couple had on Vulture dot com (at http://www.vulture.com/2015/12/making-a-murderer-directors-on-steven-avery-case.html). The quote at the very end: “Demos: One of the experiences we hope will come across is what it’s like to be accused in this country, what it’s like to go through this system. The hope is that with firsthand experience, people will think differently about the criminal justice system: what is working and what is not working, and the role each one of us plays in that“.

I think that the Stephen Avery case is the one straw that can now break the camel’s back. If this plays out correctly (for Ricciardi and Demos), if enough doubt can be created we will see a movement towards justice change unlike anything the US government has ever seen before, because two strikes against one person would be met with opposition never seen before, this is at the centre of many places like ‘The wrongful Convictions Blog‘, they will give rise to the issue of ‘the Justice system and what isn’t working‘.

Make no mistake, in the end Avery does not need to be innocent, in the Netflix presentation they would only need to show enough doubt to get a political ball, the size of a wrecking ball rolling in many unpredictable ways.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Brendan Dassey, California Innocence Project, California Western School of Law, Columbia University School of the Arts, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Governor of Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker, Henry Schlieff, Justin Brooks, Ken Kratz, Laura Ricciardi, Making a Murderer, Michael Iver Peterson, Moira Demos, Netflix, New York Law School, President Obama, Scott Walker, Steven Avery, Teresa Halbach, the Guardian, The wrongful Convictions Blog, U.S. Department of Justice, Vulture, vulture.com, White House, www.justice.gov

October 2, 2015 · 22:33

How to blame an inanimate object.

Something happened in Oregon. For many it will be horrific, to some it has no impact, to others it has an emotional impact. The news at CNN (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrYkblNgs_U) is all about the breaking news. For Umpqua Community College it will be a dark page in their history. The news is giving all levels of speculation, they are not doing it in an irresponsible way, because they are factors to be considered, but the news diverts on several occasions towards ‘other speculated’ events and dangers. It stopped being news after 20 seconds. It was all about (as I see it) on prolonging the event. Moving from breaking news snippet to breaking news snippet. We can argue on the value here, but there is no issue with that approach, it is a choice. In the case of John F. Kennedy Jr, when on July 16, 1999 his plane crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts the issue was different. For 45 minutes we saw a sailor on the back of a deck. Nearly every newscast (CNN, Fox, CNBC et al) were all zooming in on that same sailor whilst I was at Dulles Airport waiting for my flight. Now that constitutes the pinnacle of bad newscasts, this is not, but there is an issue. You see, as emotions rise in that instance, we all were confronted with 10 dead, 20 wounded and the initial shooter has been apprehended. Something I could have stated in under a minute. Yet, it is not about this newscast, what happened afterwards becomes the issue. An interesting side is shown at EpicTimes.com by Jon Justice (at http://www.epictimes.com/jonjustice/2015/10/ucc-mass-shooting-blaming-the-gun-has-begun/).

This is not the first event and it will not be the last event either. The quote ‘Jon was frustrated to see so many people on social networks blame the NRA and call for more gun control‘ starts it of nicely. You see, guns do not kill people. People kill people. In addition we see the quote: “We need to get over this idea that you can put up a “Gun Free Zone” sign and it will stop the violence”, which is more than just bringing it to a point.

His podcast (also in the webpage) is emotional and seems to strike out to people trying to score political points towards gun at the expense of 13 cadavers. Yes, this sounds extremely crude, which it is. People ignore again and again that the gun culture is not the killing factor, the killing comes from criminals and monsters who seem to score names by going after children. Changes are needed and gun control has never and will never be the solution. You see, when guns fall away, we get blunt objects, knives and other devices that can end lives. Jon Justice starts to blame social media and 20 hours news a day. Jon Justice brings up a very interesting side. Social media and the option of notoriety is a growing concern, in all this guns are not even close to the largest dangers. Should we globally ban Facebook? In 2013 32,719 people died in a car accident. So, why is there no car control, you see nearly all the involved players had a driver’s license? Why are people not banned from cars FOR LIFE? In addition Jon brings up the discipline required for guns. Weirdly enough is that those who legally obtained a gun, some of these what people tend to call Gun Nuts, they tend to revere their gun. They take as many precautions towards gun safety and their weapon as a mother would towards their child. His speech takes a turn that people should observe. His consideration regarding 14 kills in Chicago, which has one of the strongest control laws. How many people spoke out in that regard? Those people taking a chance on political points thanks to the deceased from Umpqua Community College is appalling. Jon Justice clearly has a point.

Yet I started with the amendments. There was reasoning here. You see, the US constitution starts with the three amendments that safeguard liberties. To appease the anti-federalists personal freedoms were guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, whilst in addition limiting the government’s power. Yet, people forget that changing one is lowering the defence of all. I will go one step further, if the people lose the rights to bear arms, we should also change the first amendment where we state that the freedom of speech exists, yet after the editing the people can hold anyone liable for that what they print or speak. This should be great for Hollywood and their residents. Many people will rejoice that glamour press could be held accountable for their innuendo. They are connect because the first three rights were about the people. The first is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

You see, people seem to attack the second amendment, which was one of three set towards the safeguards of liberty.

The American second Amendment states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed“. This links to the Heritage guide to the Constitution (at http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/amendments/1/essays/140/freedom-of-speech-and-of-the-press). The interesting quote is “The debates in the First Congress, which proposed the Bill of Rights, are brief and unilluminating. Early state constitutions generally included similar provisions, but there is no record of detailed debate about what those state provisions meant“, is that not interesting? Is the meaning and the debate regarding not one of the highest importance? The 1st Continental Congress in 1774 showed the following: “The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs” In this light, why do we not hold the press accountable? ‘The advancement of morality‘, is that not part that must be addressed? When we consider the Hacking scandal in the UK that involved the Murdoch Business, on June 3rd 2015 (at http://www.theage.com.au/comment/hacking-scandal-has-not-changed-murdoch-20150601-ghekss.html), we see the following two quotes: “New evidence … has led the Metropolitan Police to believe that this was unlikely to have been correct … the newspaper is unlikely to have been responsible for the deletion of a set of voicemails from the phone that caused her parents to have false hopes that she was alive“, which was regarding the deleted messages from Milly Dowler, which gave the parents the false hope that she was still alive. The next one was “I was taken aback when Davies told me, in a roomful of students and media buffs, that the premise of my question was wrong (and by implication, therefore, his story wasn’t). The Metropolitan Police, he said, had provided Lord Justice Leveson with a detailed report shortly after The Guardian’s correction was published. It showed there was a great deal of uncertainty about who had deleted what, and when. Naturally, Davies added, no one had reported this“, yet this remains linked to the issue that the press had been ignoring personal freedoms and blatantly hack the device of a person without consent. Yet in the end, the press did a double take on false ‘humility’ by promising to do better, an approach that was never met and blatant false allegations returned to be the norm less than 4 weeks after the end of the Leveson report considerations. So in all this, if people want control of something that is not to blame, in equal measure to ‘nurture’ a communion that seems to live on the needed premise of ‘Flight MH370 was crashed into the Indian Ocean in an apparent suicide mission‘, a statement that had no bearing as no evidence existed not at that point and no evidence existed a long time after that, even today 18 months later there still is no evidence of any kind that this was a suicide mission.

Now the second amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed“, this is the kicker! The fact that it is not infringed is nothing more than the ability to bear arms. Considered the image to the left.

Do you think that this is the weapon made by or owned by anyone who is about killing people? This is a work of art, plain and simple. The issue in Umpqua Community College is not plain and simple. The news gives us that the shooter was targeting Christians.

So is this person Chris Harper Mercer a mental health case or an anti-Christian extremist. You see, the speech from President Obama seems wrong on two counts. He stated ‘we do not have sufficient common sense gun safety laws‘, how wrong was he? You see, in the first case we can claim his speech should have been ‘Obamacare failed this young man, this young man who did not get the proper care and as a result people at Umpqua Community College paid for this failing with their life‘. In the other case the speech should have been ‘America is under attack, an extremist, under the guise of religious terminal segregation decided to attack Americans and the American way of life by killing future moulders of this great nation where freedom reigns‘. No, another speech was made and the gun, ‘the inanimate object’ got blamed.

The third one has no bearing on these events, yet this one is the last one that safeguards liberties in the US. The text: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law“, which basically gives a new view to the British expression ‘my home is my castle‘ in the US. The first is over protected, the second is shunned and prosecuted, and the third gets ignored. All facts that brought forth what was once the greatest nation on earth as well as the champion of freedom. That last part America seems to think it still is, yet when we consider the victims of Umpqua Community College. Was freedom of speech guaranteed so that one person could kill many (an act that was done not through voicing a thought or opinion) or has the right to free speech been taken away from the victims, who had a Christian and legal right to speak out regarding what they thought would be right in their lives and in their community? We will never know, because the dead do not talk.

How can we get past this?

First of all, the following part comes from the Seattle Times, which has an interesting side (at http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/roseburg-attack-latest-in-growing-list-of-horrific-killings/), it states: “Oregon is one of seven states, either from state legislation or court rulings, with provisions allowing the carrying of concealed weapons on public post-secondary campuses, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The other states are Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Utah and Wisconsin.” So, there is a small side which does score points for President Obama, ‘common sense gun safety laws‘ is the issue in my view. You see, as I see it (oversimplifying issues as per usual), concealed weapons should not be allowed to anyone that is not part of the police, the military, governmental officials (members of the alphabet group) and cleared private security. It would not have made any difference today. But this fact should still be stated.

There is every option to stop the military from dropping the people who stood by them and let those getting close to retirement to become part of an education location security team, a group of people that is armed and is there to keep the students safe. They remain semi-military staff and are as such accountable for events, but I feel certain that whatever person, for whatever reason thinks that he will become famous, that person is a lot more likely to be the diminished towards a mere by-line ‘today an individual entered a campus armed with concealed weapons. Military protection was on site and none of the students became victim of this attack. The carcass of the transgressor will be disposed of shortly; his identity no longer matters‘. How long until these people regard a school not to be a target? How long until we acknowledge that anyone with a mental condition should not be allowed a firearm license? Will that stop the transgressor? No, that is extremely unlikely, but the presence of trained personnel on educational grounds will make it extremely certain that the loss of innocent victims will remain as low as possible. Consider the Columbine Massacre. April 20, 1999 from 11:19 a.m. until 12:08 p.m. An event where for almost an hour two people had access to a ‘shooting gallery’ causing the death of 12 people and wounding 21. Now consider another event. On 15 April 1912 a British Dinghy was lost at sea. It was called the Titanic (you may have heard of it). In 1914 the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) became in effect, a convention that is still in effect today. So, if sailors can get something this lasting done, how come that proper security in US schools is still not achieved 186 months after Columbine? The combined wars of the American Revolutionary War and the Northwest Indian War took less time to settle. The two costed the lives of 8044 in battle, since 1980 it is rumoured that only 297 people were killed, so perhaps if we get a few more casualties (like 8044 minus 297) things will actually change, as long as those pushing for change realise that blaming guns and trying to force gun control will never ever be a solution. The Titanic lost 1500 lives a number that outside a war would never have been fathomable in those days, so perhaps more deaths will push the American administration into action. I am however reluctant to consider that they show any wisdom in that regard. Guns and politicians react like a bull and a bright coloured blanket, with no option for any amount of fence. What people might forget is that the US military is cutting 40,000 troops (not of their own accord I imagine). Many of those now need to find jobs, which means that new pressures are about to hit the US job market, did no one consider the fact that many of these are exquisitely trained in keeping people safe? Is it such a jump to enlist these people within the Justice department as educational security (to avoid issues with the 1978 Posse Comitatus Act)?

In the end there is a case to be made that 40,000 departures are arranged because the US is so broke that it has exhausted all options and hiring these people in other capacities is no longer an option. Which is the consideration one gets at minus 18 trillion, so how has this administration as well as the previous Republican one done anything to keep places of education truly safe?

I’ll let you ponder these facts, but when you do, consider the words of Bill O’Reilly (at http://video.foxnews.com/v/4524976308001/the-mass-murder-in-oregon-/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips), the fact that again there is a link to social media and the fact that the ‘claim’ was placed before the event took place. In my personal view an anti-Christian extremist would not have given ‘warning’, making this a ‘some form of mental health case’. There are unknowns and there are speculations. The statement that people were killed based on religion was made by someone who was in the classroom where it happened seems to be acceptable enough as quality reporters have gone with that fact.

So where is any solution to be found? Gun control will not lead to any solution (in the US) and amending the laws and regulations are equally pointless against transgressors like this.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as 1978 Posse Comitatus Act, 1st Continental Congress in 1774, American Revolutionary War, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Harper Mercer, CNBC, CNN, Dulles Airport, Educational Security, EpicTimes.com, First Amendment, Fox, John F. Kennedy Jr, Jon Justice, Justice Department, Leveson, Lord Justice Leveson, Milly Dowler, Northwest Indian War, President Obama, Seattle Times, second Amendment, the Columbine Massacre, the Guardian, Third Amendment, Titanic, Umpqua Community College, www.heritage.org

Tag Archives: President Obama

Recent Posts

Archives