Tag Archives: Sam Gyimah

War lines and Battle lines

We all know them, we all personally have them. Some are founded on the realism of professional life, In thee we see the person who works well with others, there is one that is off. You see, that person also wants the senior position you have been working towards and there are two paths trodden at the same time. Your opponent is working as hard as possible to be better and in that same stretch equally is working to make sure that you look worse. The acts are trivial, a little block here, a little delay there and it seems all friendly, it seems corporate, yet you know better, you know that this person is after your future goal. It is corporate politics. You both work towards pleasing the larger shark, you both work to get the amenities to gain favour and play whomever you can to end up being first. It is the corporate environment and we have accepted that for close to a quarter of a century, if not for longer.

It is seen everywhere and this same setting is now in a stage for the conservatives and Brexit as well. Here we see a growing list, a list that currently includes Suella Braverman, Shailesh Vara, Esther McVey, Dominic Raab, Jo Johnson (Boris Johnson cleverer brother), Guto Bebb and now Sam Gyimah. We could go on and point out on how the connections are with places like Goldman Sachs, but that is merely stupidity to the max, Brexit is much larger than that.

And the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/30/sam-gyimah-resigns-over-theresa-mays-brexit-deal) gives us oppositional goods we should not ignore. When we see the quote: “In these protracted negotiations, our interests will be repeatedly and permanently hammered by the EU27 for many years to come. Britain will end up worse off, transformed from rule makers into rule takers“. We see a partial and an absolute truth, we could argue that they are both partial, yet that is actually influenced by the economic powers like Goldman Sachs.

Britain will end up worse off‘, I never denied this. The issue is not the temporary ‘worse off’ part, because it is merely a temporary stage, the actual issue is the unaccountable acts by the ECB and people like Mario Draghi. Three trillion all pumped into a stage that was never going to work. That evidence has been clearly seen, yet the overspending goes on and on and on. Being a member of a group where simple book keeping and budgeting is lost again and again due to a two party political game (national party members versus EU party members) is costing the nations dearly and for the most they are all playing possum, it’s not a good thing believe me. The additional issue that all places (like Bloomberg) where we see: ‘Draghi Says ECB Still Expects Net Bond Buying to End in December‘, yet the operative word here is ‘Expects‘.

It is the larger problem in this. Even as the last month has set in we are not given that December is the end date, gives rise to the setting that they want to continue this bad plan. That and a few other parts give rise to walking away. I would personally add that unless nations get the right to targeted killing the heads of the ECB, both present and past (Mario Draghi is about to leave), we should not give any confirmation of talks in any direction. The taxpayers have been given the bills of the high, rich and mighty for too long. When this game collapses (and it will) Europe faces a civil war level of unrest and so they should. They key points in Bloomberg: “The end of new bond buying won’t mean the end of stimulus, Draghi said, in light of the reinvestment of maturing assets, guidance on interest rates and the 2.6 trillion euros ($3 trillion) of securities purchased by the ECB so far. Chief economist Peter Praet made the same point earlier on Monday” gives support to my view (as well as some consideration that we might have to resort to targeted killing at some point).

our interests will be repeatedly and permanently hammered by the EU27 for many years to come‘ the second part is the consequence of banks losing power and momentum, because 68 million consumers walking away will hit EVERY book there is and the banks and power players will become vindictive little children as their need and desire for Sex, Drugs and Rock & Roll can no longer be met. Salespeople in a growing economy walk around like the (Pea)cocks that they are, in a recession and shrinking economy the become blaming little bitches, just like every other corporation. I have seen it too often. Making deals they cannot hold and when the facts are laid out they go into the blame game throwing it on the others ability not to be able to communicate. Cash is king, bonus is sacred and the rest can get fucked. That is the world we created and the UK will get hit by it, yet there is also another part. You see, the quiet number two elements in that venue will see it as an opportunity to rise and people like Sam Gyimah know this, he was at Goldman Sachs long enough. For almost five years the UK and Scotland did not consider the power place they had to assist India to become much larger European players and as such get some of that cream. But some were too busy facilitating to Pfizer and not considering the position nearly every NHS in Europe has and the ability for India to become part of the solution here. I saw this opportunity as early as 2013, but the others were too busy looking into the mirror, considering which DJI logo would look better in their photo frame of a long term sustainable life of wealth. During those 5 years Wall Street has all been about setting the stage to build fortresses to protect IP to their wealth. It is the stage of Jonas Salk versus Pharmasset & Gilead Sciences. Jonas Silk walked away from a $34 trillion payout and saved the American people, as well as many millions all over the world. His action caused the eradication of polio, the other two have the solution to Hepetitis C and is set in value to well over $11 trillion, and these patents are still highly protected for another two decades. America only fights protectionism when it suits them, interesting, not?

There is a third part, a part we all (including me) seemingly ignored. The distinguishing of ‘rule makers to rule takers‘ is a path we need to consider, even as the EU gravy train is in full motion, we see that rule makers are only there in the stage of presentation, to keep asleep the masses. If that was not the case there would not have been an Italian Budget issue, but there is ad even as we see: “Rome could ultimately face a fine of up to 0.5 percent of economic output — or some €9 billion“, should we see it for what it is, a joke? The Italians will add the fine to the debt; they will do whatever they please and in that, Europeans are in a Europe where the rich and the ignoranusses do whatever they please. How is being part of that anything but a joke?

  • The unaccountable actions of the ECB
  • The unmanaged ability to keep budget within the EU
  • The lack of transparency in EU politicians (travel expenses anyone?)
  • The lack of long term thinking
  • The lack to innovate parts that need overhaul

The UK has failings there too, yet by themselves they can make amends over time, in this European Union there is no chance of that happening. So, as the UK pushes Brexit, there will be impact, there will be cost (it was never denied), yet as the UK improves its own standing, whilst the EU keeps on going spending trillion after trillion on ‘stimulus after stimulus‘, it is at that point where the flaccid economies (France and Italy) will impact the others and the ‘rise’ and bettered economies all over Europe to the smallest extend, will not undo the overspending to the much larger extend, we will see presented bettering, followed by managed bad news in that same fiscal year. The entire issue with Mario Draghi and the G30 bankers group is merely one visible example of many. If you think that there is no impact, guess again. How long until we learn what happened in the G20, only after it passed the consent of the G30? The Europeans are about to be diminished to empowered consumers versus disregarded collateral. Some went as far as the early 80’s to make statements in that direction, yet the 90’s was too enabling, only now, only as we see that the entire large corporation setting can no longer be maintained, now we see a much larger change and for all those players it is important to sink Brexit. A true independent monarchy is a danger, because whatever step forward the monarchy makes, the other path will have to take two steps back, and you tell me, when was the last time that banks were willing to do that? For that to succeed all European nations will have to be ‘reduced’ to rule takers, and who elected them exactly?

And right there, we see the final part that opposes the quote of Sam Gyimah. With: “It has become increasingly clear to me that the proposed deal is not in the British national interest, and that to vote for this deal is to set ourselves up for failure. We will be losing, not taking control of our national destiny“, you see, in this EU, the British National Interest is merely a presented one, a PowerPoint page in a stage where the EU parliamentarians and ECB dictate the stage without transparency. That part is seen in two headlines in the last month alone. The first is Bloomberg, giving us: ‘Draghi Defies EU Criticism in Attending Group of 30 Meeting‘, the second one is the Financial Times giving us: ‘EU bank stress tests should be redesigned, says watchdog head‘. The second one (at https://www.ft.com/content/868f2dfc-e842-11e8-8a85-04b8afea6ea3), also gives us: “The comments by Andrea Enria, who is set to become the eurozone’s top banking regulator, were made two weeks after the latest stress test results, which saw British lenders among the worst performers while Italian banks largely sailed through“. As we were treated to the Italian issues over the last month, with Reuters taking the Cheesecake with “Italy’s third-largest bank Banco BPM will discuss an up to 8.6 billion euro bad loan sale at a board meeting on Thursday, picking one or two bidders to continue talks with, three sources familiar with the matter said“, I would really like it if someone would have that conversation of applied logic with Andrea Enria in the near future, especially in light of certain facts openly available. When performance is weighted on the absence of bad loans, I reckon that we get numbers that make no sense at all, optionally making the European economy 0.2% better than it actually is. It could push Italy, France and optionally Spain form a positive to a negative economy, when two of the large four are negative, how much trouble is the EU actually in?

I have never trusted any group that demanded continued membership at any cost. If the EU was so great, people would not want to walk away and now we have two members one who is trying to leave and the second one (Italy) is seriously considering walking away. In all this the third player (France) is in a stage where a positive economy is not likely to come soon. Strike after strike is making that an almost dead certainty. I wonder what the numbers would have been if we had removed Greece (not withdrawing support from them though), as they had less adherence and more options to seek solutions, things might actually be less dire for the EU. The fact that once in never out is the standard gave (in my personal opinion) rise to politicians doing whatever they pleased no matter who got hit in the process.

There is one upside, those who have been placing battle lines are now out in the open, so we see a stage where we start identifying the opponents, the question becomes will there be actions, long winded speeches, or denial? Each has a separate disadvantage and none seemingly have advantages, that is also the impact of a ‘once in never out state called European Union’, for all the benefits are merely given in a memo, with bullet points and is redundant the moment that the next memo is released.

Did anyone realise that?

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Gimme some Sugar

In the week where we saw the disgraceful act by Sam Gyimah, a British Conservative, who made sure that the wrongs against gays in the past remain, he filibustered the meeting, so that the Gay population will be stigmatised a little longer. Hiding behind “We have developed a way to do this without giving any perception that the pardon covers perpetrators of sex with a minor or non-consensual sex“, whilst it has been known quite clearly that there is no pardon for acts that are still criminal. We could ask if he has had non-consensual sex lately, because that might give cause for confusion. As I see it, this seems to be nothing more than the shameful act by a homophobic government representative. Yet that is actually not the worst what is happening. You see, George Osborne has had a few decent ideas and one of them was the Sugar Tax. The information that we get to some extent (at https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/oct/21/soft-drinks-industry-lobbies-government-dilute-scrap-sugar-tax), shows the information that “Research has found that drinking more than two sugary or artificially sweetened soft drinks per day greatly increases the risk of diabetes“, which would be worrying enough for most parents on the best of days. In this age of obesity, something needed to be done and the Sugar Tax would be one way of doing it. Is it the best path?

That is a fair enough question, and it could have been debated if the large corporations had actually done something, but they did not. They were in it to maximise profits. One could argue that the soft drinks companies are the new cigarette companies. The information that we get from all kinds of debatable sources is because the media at large refuses to properly inform the people. It is the old story of what I regard to be ‘whoring for advertisement‘ that is part of all that. The initial news (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/16/george-osbornes-sugar-tax-economic-fears-budget), gave us the goods that when we see the Sugar Tax as “eventful by any standards”, you better realise that there will be plenty of opposition.

But that is not the biggest issue in this. The article that drew my attention gives us the following parts. “Health campaigners in favour of the proposed soft drinks industry levy said they are concerned that neither Theresa May nor Philip Hammond has personally spoken out in support of the tax since coming to office“, the fact that this gets delegated to junior ministers gives rise to the fear that things will get bungled and that implementation will be delayed or just blatantly rejected. This article also has a few issues. One of them is “At a drinks party at the Tory conference sponsored by the industry, a spokesman for the British Soft Drinks Association pleaded with Greg Clark, the business secretary, and MPs on the Conservative Reform Group to drop support for the levy, saying it would harm small businesses and cause job losses at a difficult time for the economy“. The first clear issue is who exactly was this spokesperson?

So, I decided to take another look and my first impression is that this BSDA reads like a joke (I have an evolved sense of humour, often intensely inappropriate). It starts with Health ‘Helping our consumers reduce their calorie and sugar intake‘. It comes with the picture of a woman you want to fuck six ways from Sunday on a daily basis. So we see nameless products with labels like Product Innovation Sugar Reduction and Smaller pack sizes. At this point you wonder what you are in for, in the ‘UK Economy section’ we see how £11 billion was added to the economy. This sounds so nice, but where was it added to the economy? Being THEIR revenue? That is aid to them, but is it truly aid to the UK economy? This site just reeks like corporate marketing in what they call a ‘non-profit coat’ and it is high time some changes are made.

From my point starting by adding to the sugar tax would be a great idea.

You see, the executive council of the British Soft Drinks Association (BSDA) includes Pepsi, Lucozade, Coca Cola, Red Bull, Tropicana and a few others. Many of them not paying heaps of taxation in the UK, Coca Cola avoided £102 million in the UK in 2012 (I have no clear numbers from the years following that) and was mentioned recently as one of the 50 stashing a total of 1.3 trillion off shore. It is time to stop enabling these large corporations, because this is one of the main reasons the NHS can no longer continue the way it did. If there was no large scale tax evasion, the sugar tax would never have come into existence.  In addition, stories on what Diet Coke apparently seems to do to the human body and the relentless support from the media through not illuminating it, because of the advertisement they represent. So for the most, many people, perhaps even better stated most people are unaware of certain cause and effect issues seen due to the usage of what we now laughingly refer to as the ‘diet fuzzy drinks’.

So now we get back to the lady on page one. You see, if the members of the BSDA are not doing their part other than hiding behind statistics, changes will be required. So if we need more physical exercise the BDSA can send their fitness/yoga outfitted lady to my address where I can lose 15,000 calories a day through consensual sex (when doing it 3 times a day that is).

Is this thought too inappropriate?

I think the BSDA is a hatchet job in this age of marketing to serve the interest of large corporations and their needs. Their needs being profit and only profit. The issues of the BSDA is just like the acts of Sam Gyimah. They are legal and part of the political life that needs to be frowned upon. The fact that the BSDA a non-profit organisation is bombarding advertisements with added twitter stories from a ‘Tunbridge Wells newsagent‘ whose business will be ruined by sugar tax. If that is truly so, perhaps they should try to sell newspapers. The fact that their business survives on sugary drinks is a bit of an issue, as they tend to be over 150% more expensive then the nearest supermarket. Just a thought!

These levels of marketing require a lot more scrutiny and no one is stepping to the plate to do so. A harsh reality of big business in charge. Yet, there is more, the BSDA reports on one of their pages “‘We are pleased that the latest NDNS data shows a decline of over 8% in teenagers’ sugar intake from soft drinks between 2012 – 2014“, which is a statement that might be true, but where is the data? The second statement is one I have a definite issue with. The quote “Soft drinks companies have taken significant action to help their consumers reduce their sugar intake since the NDNS data was collected over 2 years ago. Independent analysis confirms that sugar intake from soft drinks has been reduced by over 16% in the last four years“, I believe this to be incorrect. You see Coca Cola is as ‘sweet’ as it ever was, so were most other drinks. So here we see the switch from ‘sugar’ to these ‘diet’ drinks and the dangers there have been avoiding visible presentation and scrutiny from the media at large, because they are nowadays too much about circulation and advertisement. Then the page goes one step further and states “we understand there is more to do and only last year we set ourselves a 20% calorie reduction target by 2020“, now it is suddenly about calories? calories are mostly from sugar, meaning that this is about alternative ‘additives’, they might not show up on the calorie list, but there is enough worry to consider that it will show a long term effect on the human body. No one can know for sure, which is a truth in itself, but the fact that there are long term considerations and the fact that the almighty US FDA is suddenly way too quiet and we see certain aspects, we now also see that the FDA is now no more than a valve of corporate discrimination as to what is considered safe, set by who is bringing it to market. Is that not an interesting development? The fact that we see in this place that “A 2010 Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine review of the literature on artificial sweeteners concludes that, “research studies suggest that artificial sweeteners may contribute to weight gain”” (at https://usrtk.org/sweeteners/diet-soda-fraud/), whilst the media is too quiet is equally disturbing. The fact that the BSDA is all about promoting the biggest ‘dealers’ in sugary substances (with the clear exception of the British Sugar at http://www.britishsugar.co.uk/), seems to be pushed slowly into the background of the issue. The issue was the sugar tax!

So what economy is brought into danger? When we see Coca-Cola Coke 1.75L £1.71 and Any 2 for £2.00 (Source: Tesco), either the margins are astronomical, or Coca Cola is giving away their profits, what do you think is more likely to be the truth? So when we include taxation and Cola becomes 2 for £2.20-£2.40. Considering they are giving the second bottle for only £0.29, are they really in danger? Are any of those soft drink manufacturers in actual danger? No they are not, because in the end, there is a group that will stop getting the second bottle, yet in my pragmatic view, it is more likely that families will now only get this article twice a month instead of weekly. Which would reduce the sugar intake by a massive amount. Also, in light of the BSDA statement that teenagers were reducing intake by 8%, now consider that we see that Coca-Cola Coke 1.75L contains 29.0% sugar. How likely is that the 8% is just a weighted average and that the numbers are not that positive? I am using Coca Cola as an example, yet when we see that regular Pepsi contains 31.0% sugar, it seems clear that I have a case here. Now Pepsi might come with the response that their revenue comes from the Pepsi Max drinks, yet here we see ‘Low Calorie Cola Flavoured Soft Drink with Sweeteners‘ and ‘Contains a Sourced of Phenylalanine‘, with twice the sentence: ‘contains no sugar’. Yet the mention made me search and WebMD has this (at http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/phenylalanine-uses-and-risks). The warning is “Doses higher than 5,000 milligrams a day can cause nerve damage“, which sees like a really dangerous issue (and a massive dose is needed), yet there is no mention at all how much is in Pepsi Max, only that it has 0% sugar (on the website). In addition, the risk mention is “And use caution in taking phenylalanine if you have: High blood pressure, Trouble sleeping, Anxiety or other psychiatric problems, Also, it is unknown whether this supplement is safe in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

That is a lot of risk groups, knowing that high blood pressure is a risk group here and also considering that “Approximately 16 million people in the UK have high blood pressure” (source: NHS UK) gives us that 24% of the population is a risk factor, so in my view, at that at this Conservative Tea Party (where tea is unlikely to be served), it seems to be sound advice that representing Pepsi, Mr Mark Elwell – PepsiCo International, remains quiet as a mouse. It seems to me that his conscience is better served with the Sugar tax in place, but that is just me speculating.

So here we see that those fueling the NHS customer base, are mostly all about not having to pay any bills in this matter. I think that the people forgot the 2004 movie Super-Size Me. Even as this was mostly about McDonalds, the fact that we are supersizing ourselves with that second bottle at a mere £0.29, we are doing the harm to ourselves. It is more than just taxation by rescuing us from ourselves. The Soft Drinks industry has the ability to throw millions in advertisement on a playful and sporty youth, yet they are not representative of this healthy life style, not to the degree it should be and that is the real danger. The fact that the BSDA spin machine is running at full power and that the image at present is that Prime Minister Theresa May is not taking this as serious as she should (by setting this agenda on the collar of a senior Conservative) is equally disturbing. You see, if the sugar tax is watered down or stricken off, she has absolutely no rights to deny the NHS the funds they need and she will have to order the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, The Right Honourable Philip Hammond to find those needed funds. In my view, good luck to that tall order, because there are almost no margins left to play with, the Sugar Tax was the first real step in creating some level of margins (to the smallest extent).

We have to admit that the BSDA has a right to do the things they are doing, they aren’t breaking any laws, yet the linked issues are there and the press overall for one isn’t doing its job to the extent they should be. When we see the end of the initial Guardian article, we see “The charity Action on Sugar has said the tax will have an impact on intake because people respond to price, but the government has said it wants the cost of the tax to be borne by the industry and not consumers“, there is truth in that and there is misleading parts in that. That is, when we widen the statement ‘the tax to be borne by the industry‘. You see, tax law overhaul is the only way to do this, the sugar tax will have an impact to the margin of profit making the industry increase the prices. That seems just mere logical. However, if we can make people reduce the purchase of these drinks, that too would be a positive effect. Any chance in lowering the intake of sugar and artificial sweeteners would be a massive win for the population of Britain. The fact that the government saw raising prices as a solution for the tobacco industry and not for the soft drinks industry is also worrying. You see, there is a direct health risk, so making these lemonades unaffordable would make sense, the fact that this isn’t treated as the dangers they represent, just like the denial we saw in the 80’s on tobacco is cause for distress and reason for debate. The only interesting ‘coincidence‘ is the quote in the Guardian, which is “The link between sugary drinks and obesity has been well documented with evidence suggesting they account for 29% of 11- to 18-year-olds’ daily sugar intake” and this is exactly the amounts of sugar that Coca Cola has in its bottles. Life is full of little coincidences, isn’t it?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics