Tag Archives: the Guardian

March 1, 2016 · 07:49

Where we fail again

There is an issue, the issue is in Greece. This issue is not because of the Greeks, it is not because of anything they did. They are just unfortunate to be the second nation on the route of refugees. Here we see failings on multiple levels, none of them are Greek! You see, this is all due to a youngling named Sebastian Kurz (the Austrian Foreign minister). Extremely bluntly stated, as I see it, this man looks like a teenage boy hoping to get his first gob job! From the Deutche Welle (at http://www.dw.com/en/austria-not-waiting-for-a-european-solution/a-19071556), we get “if Greece refused to protect the EU’s external borders and continued to let refugees travel to Europe, and the EU still had no common solution for the problem, Austria had no choice but to deal with the situation on a national level“. In this regard, my still fuming mind goes: “Well Sebastian, once you stop thinking like a teenager and actually start focussing on the elements, you would see that is Turkey and not Greece that has been the problem. That nation, that had no issue shooting down a Jet after an alleged transgression over Turkish airspace for a mere 10 seconds, that nation seems to give clear passage to refugees any way they can, they even get their hands on boats so that they can make it across to Greece, at which point Greece can either let these people drown or let them ashore.” Did you consider that even once?

Where was Austria and a group of other nations to support Greece in dealing with these refugees? Did you consider that Bassie boy? No, as I can see it, you did not. You just held a one day conference with all the trimmings, so that you could show Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia how important you pretend to be, so is that important or impohtent? Greece has a lot to deal with. One article (all from the Guardian) states ‘Up to 70,000 migrants ‘may soon be stranded in Greece’‘, which will trigger the Greek Army, but they are equally impaired to the task. The second one gives us ‘Double crisis deepens despair in Greece’s ‘warehouse of souls’‘ and the third one gives ‘We can’t allow refugee crisis to plunge Greece into chaos, says Merkel‘. All true, all factual and all incomplete!

Only now do we see in the SF Gate (at http://www.sfgate.com/world/article/Turkey-pledges-to-slow-enormous-tide-of-refugees-6859342.php) ‘Turkey pledges to slow enormous tide of refugees‘, where we see “Turkey all but turned a blind eye last year as more than 850,000 people, most of them Syrians, slipped into Greece from Turkey on smugglers’ boats. Now it’s promised the European Union that will change“, can anyone explain why we tolerate the political joke Turkey has become? The nation that had no issues with a Russian Jet is unable to stop Turkish smugglers. Perhaps the Turkish navy is still relying on equipment from WW1? I am just asking!

Yet, Sebastian Kurz has made no allowance for this at all. He is perhaps hoping on an anti-Greek sympathy vote? From all we see, is the fact that not Greek, but Turkey seems to be a massive problem in all this and now the smugglers got their gains, everyone points at Greece. It is unfair, incorrect and lacking justice on many levels. And in this age of humanitarian need, why do we read “In return for trying to stem the flux, Turkey is to receive a $3.3 billion fund to help it deal with the refugee crisis, a much-awaited easing of EU visa restrictions for Turkish citizens and sped-up EU membership talks“, so apart from not doing their jobs, we see that too many events fall on someone else’s job list at the premise that Turkey is getting something out of this for themselves. How is that anything else then a continuation of selfish needs against the backdrop of the EEC? First we could not deal with Greece (the part that was their responsibility), in all this we have the unacceptable acts by Turkey and now we add to that the immature acts by the Austrian Foreign Affairs Minister hiding it away as a mere conference. Now on the other side, there is no doubt that the pressure is on Austria, but blaming Greece for something that has been out of their control is, as I see it is a total sham.

Greece needs to do more, yet that is not possible and equally unacceptable with massive funds from the EEC and IMF. Turkey might have been strategically a better solution, but it has shown from 2001 onwards that it could not be trusted, and an ally that will only stand by others for a price is not an ally, it is a courtesan at best and a mere mercenary at the worst. There is another benefit, with this change, with these registration systems, it could lead to economic options for Greece. These registrations need to happen, which means jobs for the Greek people and data for the other EEC nations. An idea that came to me months ago, it seems such a simple solution that solves a few issues, yet politicians seem to be immune to solutions, they much rather have one day conferences and leave an ally out of it all, whilst ignoring the acts that could have helped the EEC as a whole. Minister of National Defence Panos Kammenos would have a central role in this. Together with Germany they could instigate a new identity card that holds biometric data, a card that could start the changing path of refugees into a slow path to a future, wherever it could be in Europe. The more confirmed identities there are, the better the options become and the pressure over other nations would start to diminish as solutions are created, one step at a time. A mere solution I saw last year, all we now see in the papers is how close to nothing has been achieved. This all escalated a mere moment ago when we got ‘Teargas fired as refugees try to breach Greek-Macedonian border‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/29/teargas-fired-as-refugees-try-to-breach-greece-macedonia-border), the danger is that a mass of people pushed into a corner will do what it needs to survive, and this is close to getting out of hand. In all this Greece now needs to step up to the plate, which they might be willing to do, but if the EEC does not do anything in massive support, the actions will not be realistic. A situation that now develops was clear that it would become unmanageable almost a year ago. How interesting that those relying on ego and presentation will remain in denial until the first casualty comes, right Mr Kurz?

In all this, I do acknowledge that Austria has a problem, it has had one for a while, but the simple story is that those refugees never saw Greece as a Destination, they are aiming for Germany, France and the United Kingdom. That too has been known for a very long time. Which gets me to one part that does fall onto Greece, that is seen in the quote: “Volunteers described scenes of mayhem at passenger terminals in Piraeus and the arrival hall of the former Ellinikon airport in Athens, where up to 4,000 have been housed. “We should have resorted to using the armed forces long ago,” said one. “[But] being [a] left wing [administration], there was hesitation. There were humanitarian values we wanted to uphold.”“. You see, I agree, the army should have been deployed, yet everyone forgets that an army can be deployed for humanitarian purposes. You (in an oversimplified way) replace his rifle for a clipboard and you give him a pink or light green armband (or a white one with a red cross and a red crescent), so that the refugees can see the difference. So that they see that help is no longer a dream but an option.

I apologise for oversimplifying the matter for Austria and its small one day conference, where it remains debatable if anything useful evolved from that expensive event.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

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

February 26, 2016 · 21:52

Within the Entitlement of Relevance

Very early this morning an article made it into the Guardian. The title ‘David Cameron boasts of ‘brilliant’ UK arms exports to Saudi Arabia‘, (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/25/david-cameron-brilliant-uk-arms-exports-saudi-arabia-bae), which is fair enough. The UK is one of those nations that actually has an arms export option. It is nowhere near the size of the US, but that is not the point here.

When we read: “on the day the European parliament voted for an arms embargo on the country over its bombardment of Yemen“, we should be asking: ‘and why do we care about that?‘, yet this is not the case. We see both “At almost the same time, the European parliament voted in favour of an EU-wide ban on arms being sold to Saudi Arabia in protest at its heavy aerial bombing of Yemen, which has been condemned by the UN” as well as “The vote does not force EU member states to comply but it increases pressure on national governments to re-examine their relationships with Riyadh“. Which is a joke of sizeable proportions (reasoning will follow). Finally we see: “The Labour party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has been extremely critical of Cameron’s relationship with Saudi Arabia because of its human rights record, prompting an angry response from Riyadh“, which could be seen as a humorous climax in labour less form.

We need to deal with the quotes so that it all makes sense to you, but there is one more element in that story. That we see from: “Oliver Sprague, Amnesty International UK’s arms controls director, said: “The ‘brilliant things’ that David Cameron says BAE sells include massive amounts of weaponry for the Saudi Arabia military, despite Saudi Arabia’s dreadful record in Yemen“. I needed to add this to all this, because there is the start.

You see, I am on the fence here. I will happily support Amnesty International, because for the most it is a force of good. When I see the title ‘UK’s arms controls director‘ I wonder if AI lost the plot a little. Let’s be clear here. It makes sense that AI has people on the payroll who understand weapons, understands mines, chemical ordnance. That makes perfect sense. AI is in need of knowledge on many levels and plenty of their work is in places where people tend to passionately not like each other (as in: with clubs, machetes and automatic weapons). Yet, when AI is wasting time on a valid business deal, we should ask a few additional questions. Now, we should quickly mention another side. At https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/amnesty-expert-barred-london-arms-fair, we see ‘Amnesty expert barred from London arms fair‘ as well as his quote “They’ve kept me out, but the question is: what has DSEi got to hide?” Let me answer that instead of the DSEi. You see, I could with my own expertise attend that event, and like him, I will equally hear “alas sir, you didn’t meet the criteria for registration“, even though there should be a few around in that field who know my skill levels in that regard. It is not skill or expertise, you see, it is about CLEARANCE LEVELS. These events are frequented by a massive who’s who of unregistered events, with a decent amount of government employees who need to talk shop, having non-cleared people on that fair tends to be a little unsettling for several reasons. In part because this world has its own rules, you obey those rules or you stop functioning in that world. There is every chance that I could accidently make the mistake whilst Oliver Sprague would intentionally do these things. Most of these people shy away from cameras (apart from those special social functions), they are there to talk shop!

You see, I have every respect for Amnesty International, they have done many good things in the past and will continue this in the future. For example stop torture makes perfect sense. There is also a questionable part from AI, it is nice to talk about the Human Rights Act, yet in the decades they have never succeeded in championing the need to add Spousal Abuse to article 3 of that HRA. Is spousal abuse not torture in its own rights? In that regard AI likes to be very visible, but in some way the big fights are never really fought (or better stated have not been fought for a long time). They have shown success stories every year, but landmark achievements have been absent for some time. Let’s get back to the initial story, but do not forget this part as it has bearing.

You see, the next part is slightly more entertaining. That tends to be the case whenever the honourable Jeremy Corbyn gets involved. Apart from the fashion comments we have seen in the last two days. The actual issue is his choice to get to the CND-rally, which is not a bad thing, but in light of timing, he decides to walk away from the national Labour campaign day, where he would be persuading voters to back Britain’s membership of the EU. This leaves to mind, is this a first inkling that even labour expects Brexit to become a reality? Whether that is true or not, this event has a direct bearing on the British population within this year, the CND rally has been going on for decades, so there would be another one next year. There is no other story beyond that. When you lead the labour party, it must be about the party, not about temporary ideology, because the CND is temporary at best and all ideological. I state that because there is no doubt that the UK would never instigate it, it would however respond if need be. Jeremy knows this (or he should not run the labour party). In all this I accept and understand that this is an option to rub elbows with people like SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon, Plaid Cymru’s Leanne Wood and Caroline Lucas of the Green Party. Yes, those meetings make perfect sense, yet that means that none of them are really there for a CND rally. That is not an accusation, it is not wrong, but it leads to questions; questions that can slow down any election for a massive amount.

Two events all with issues of relevance, relevance from within those people from their point of view.

Now we take another gander, a gander towards the path of Saudi Arabia. Most people refuse to understand (read: accept) two elements. The first is that Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation, a nation founded in 1932 by the House of Saud. The most important part here is that this is a Muslim nation, it is a nation of laws, in their case it was the Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia in 1924 when King Abdul-Aziz made Shura a foundation of his government in order to fulfil the divine order by applying Shariah (Islamic Jurisprudence) and Shura as parts of it. So, we have a clear given, a monarchy that lives by Muslim rule of law, Shariah law. We might not comprehend, understand it or even accept it. But in the Nation of Saudi Arabia it has forever been law. I still do not understand how people go about trying to enforce their rules upon others. You see, when I hear these ‘moralists’ speak on how Sharia Law is so ‘barbaric’, they in equal measure forget that their own governments abandoned them as markets collapsed twice since 2004, no decent part of the involved parties went to prison and absolutely no laws were properly instigated and enforced against greed and in that regard, the least said about flawed corporate tax laws the better. In light of all this consider another fact that applies to the Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia, the previous assembly had 70% of its members with a PhD, 49% got their degree in the US and 20% from a University in Europe. So this is a group highly educated. Initially, going back to the beginning, the council was entrusted with drafting the basic laws for the administration of the country. Which is interesting as the US started in a similar way, a nation of laws under god (their Christian version). When we see the Shura council, we see in Article one “and following His Messenger Peace Be Upon Him (PBUH) in consulting his Companions, and urging the (Muslim) Nation to engage in consultation. The Shura council shall be established to exercise the tasks entrusted to it, according to this Law and the Basic Law of Governance while adhering to Quran and the Path (Sunnah) of his Messenger (PBUH), maintaining brotherly ties and cooperating unto righteousness and piety“, so as others judge the actions of Saudi Arabia, ask yourself, in the last 5 years alone, how many instances from large corporations and government have we seen, where ‘maintaining brotherly ties and cooperating unto righteousness and piety‘ were never part of any consideration? You only have to look at your pension plan, healthcare or deficits to see that ‘brotherly‘ is nowhere to be found.

This too is relevant to the entirety of the situation when we return to the honourable Jeremy Corbyn. Several sources stated “Jeremy Corbyn has called on David Cameron to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia after a United Nations report found the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen had “conducted airstrikes targeting civilians”“, based on what evidence would be my first question (not stating the validity of the UN), apart from that, Corbyn has a direct responsibility, you see, the UK had coffers that need to be filled, the UK has product that can be sold. We have seen how UK Labour was willing to spend money they never had, leaving the UK in massive debt. The last thing he should do is call for a suspension. Let me explain that part.

  1. This arms deal is not with some organisation like Hezbollah, it is a legitimate sovereign government of an established nation. The UK has every right to sell products to this nation.
  2. Whenever the west gets directly involved in any Middle Eastern event, it becomes a massive mess, in all this after half a decade, the west has done next to nothing regarding Syria, Europe has to deal with massive waves of refugees and there is no end in sight. Amnesty International knows this. They also know that Sharia Law is another matter, it is not for them to judge; it is for them to accept that the sovereign nation of Saudi Arabia has every right to keep their own set of laws.
  3. Hezbollah and other players in Yemen are not part of an established government, they overthrew governments and the mess that followed has been ongoing ever since. In that light, there are too many question marks in too many places.

I believe that any Middle Eastern issue should be resolved by the Middle Eastern nations themselves. With escalation on the south border and firing of missiles into Saudi Arabia, they have every rights to protect themselves in any way they need to. That is also part of the equation. In that regard Islam 101 gives us two parts “Fight against those who fight against you in the way of Allah, but do not transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors” as well as “Kill them whenever you confront them and drive them out from where they drove you out. (For though killing is sinful) wrongful persecution is even worse than killing. Do not fight against them near the Holy Mosque unless they fight against you; but if they fight against you kill them, for that is the reward of such unbelievers“. The next part is also from the Quran, but I am not sure whether this is Sharia: “The Quran sanctions violence to counter violence. If one studies history of Arab tribes before Islam and fierce fighting they indulged in one would be convinced that the philosophy of passive resistance would not have worked in that environment“. This is the kicker, we see that passive resistance was not a solution, because of the mess that Arab spring left the Middle East. In that Saudi Arabia has a right to counter its attacks, which means that we do not get to say too much on how a sovereign state defends itself. In addition, with the amount of ‘additional’ groups in Yemen, can we be certain who is who there?

But do not fear, Smith is here!

You see, I am very willing to join BAE and become ‘the’ sales person there (I know a person who would join me, so a team of 2 could be achieved), I will take a decent sales income and of course the 3.75% bonus on surplus sales and 3.25% bonus on sales targets reached. I reckon that I can sell the Eurofighter Typhoon military planes, with consultancy, training and guidance. In addition, I will be happy to provide for ammunition and ordnance. As stated, we Commonwealth nations need to stick together and I am happy to aid in the support and consultancy of those jets.

This now gets us to the final part ‘an arms embargo on the country over its bombardment of Yemen‘. What data is there? What evidence is there? We know for a fact that Hezbollah is there, that the Iranians are all over this, which is interesting as they are supporting the party overthrowing the legitimate government. So is there more? Is this perhaps an organised annexing of Yemen for Iran? The elements that gives value to that are indeed in play, whether this is a factual interpretation is not clear, too much data is not available to me, as well as too much time has passed from the start of all this.

And the final part in all this is “The vote does not force EU member states to comply“, which makes the EU a lame duck organisation. All that time and all these events for something that holds no real value. Now let’s take the headcount for a second. Oliver Sprague, a civilian with no political power, a person who leads by instigating those who have power and only in events where it is beneficial to those people could something possibly happen (not in this case though). Jeremy Corbyn, a political headpiece, but not one that is currently in office, he is merely in opposition and as such he is about visibility and branding himself (politically plugging is also a term that applies in this case). These two non-deciders are opposing a nation that needs commerce that needs to export as many of their products as possible.

In the defence of the two non-deciders I must add, from our values, we might have issues and it is nice that the UN is also about values, yet in all this, apart from condemnation there has been very little against terrorist elements. Of all the condemnations we have seen since Syria has a little issue in 2011, how much actions have been taken and for how many millions of Syrians has it been too late? Too many speakers for inactions, too little actions on economy and actual actions on the HRA (like the little addendum to article three I mentioned earlier).

So within the title of relevance seems to apply to too many people, it includes me as well, for the mere reason that my blog has no effect on the actions of the UK Foreign Office. It is just my view on the matter, like it was the view of Oliver Sprague, Jeremy Corbyn and the EU parliament. We are all simply non-deciders. The deciders are the currently elected UK government headed by David Cameron as well as the Monarchy of Saudi Arabia, under King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. They both get to look at the ‘toothless’ response from the EU parliament, who might be entering their final sitting soon enough.

Our voices might sound nice, our words might read nice, but neither bring food to the table, which is the concern of the Conservative Party, one that they are actually addressing.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Military, Politics

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

February 22, 2016 · 19:44

Within the realm of privacy

We all have an inherent need for privacy, we want things to be at our leisure of contemplated sharing. Yet, what is privacy? On one side we want privacy, but the next moment ladies will share whether their carpet is a landing strip or a martini glass, I for one do not care. If they want to share certain parts that’s fine with me. I am not too much about sharing. On the other side, apart from a few MP3 files, there is nothing interesting on my mobile. I reckon that my mobile is one of the dullest ones around.

So when I initially heard about the FBI wanting to access the iPhone of Syed Farook, I shrugged my shoulders and went ‘whatever!’ meaning that I was not opposed and I did not care. It was the techdirt site that has an interesting fact from the court case.

“Footnote 7, on page 18 details four possible ways that Apple and the FBI had previously discussed accessing the content on the device without having to undermine the basic security system of the iPhone, and one of them only failed because Farook’s employers reset the password after the attacks, in an attempt to get into the device“, so the boss went into ‘auto-moronic’ mode and did not check? He acted without knowing? So when we see “The ‘owner’ of course, being the San Bernardino Health Department, who employed Farook and gave him the phone. Basically, what this is saying is that if the password hadn’t been reset, it would have been possible to try to connect the phone to a ‘trusted’ network, and force an automatic backup to iCloud — which (as has been previously noted) was available to the FBI. But by ‘changing’ the password, apparently that option went away“, should we consider that his boss was stupid, or that his boss was scared he had done something wrong and this was his/her way of covering the mess up? (at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160219/17463033656/footnote-reveals-that-san-bernardino-health-dept-reset-syed-farooks-password-which-is-why-were-now-this-mess.shtml).

For the record, that was clear speculation on my side!

What happened was that Apple, the firm that initially ‘screwed over’ its customer base with error 53. A few days ago, the Guardian reported ‘Apple ordered to decrypt iPhone of San Bernardino shooter for FBI‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/17/apple-ordered-to-hack-iphone-of-san-bernardino-shooter-for-fbi). In there we see the important quote: “In 2014, Apple began making iPhones with additional encryption software that they said they could not unlock, even if faced with a court order. Apple said this was done in the name of consumer privacy and cybersecurity, but the company has been locked in a public feud with the FBI since“. I understand that there is a need for privacy. My issue is why THIS level of privacy is needed. One could speculate that this is to keep the financial adviser’s customer base happy. I reckon that those people look for other means the moment their actions could be monitored, or investigated afterwards. Again, speculation from my side.

You see, I do not comprehend why law abiding citizens are so in fear, of what the government finds out. Most people can’t stop selfie themselves, their fashion and body parts to social media on a global scale. They tend to Facebook all details, especially when they are far away from home to ‘all’ their friends, so that the department of discreet entry and removal operations can empty their homestead in the meantime. With so much sharing, what privacy do you think you still have?

So back to the Granny Smith of automation, the next article (again the Guardian) gives us ‘FBI escalates war with Apple: ‘marketing’ bigger concern than terror‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/19/fbi-apple-san-bernardino-shooter-court-order-iphone), here we see the subtitle ‘Court filing from Department of Justice says Apple is more concerned with ‘its marketing strategy’ than helping FBI unlock San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone‘, which is fair enough when we consider that a failed marketing equals an alleged death in those houses. The quote “Cook called for public debate and has been backed in his fight by some of tech’s biggest names, including Google’s chief executive Sundar Pichai, WhatsApp and whistle-blower Edward Snowden“. I think that this is less about Americans and more about the 7 billion non-Americans that have this false fear of the CIA and the NSA. Yet in all this, the only true group to fear this is the 0.0001% of the population, I do not even register and in that regard most do not even register. Like the previous mass surveillance marketing ploy, simple fear mongering.

Now, let it be said that I have nothing against a person’s privacy and there is nothing wrong with wanting privacy, yet when we consider the 1.5 billion on Facebook, the 100 million on Instagram, the 307 million on Twitter and over 100 million users on Pinterest, we have well over 80% of the iPhone users on social media all sharing from mere events attended up to the grooming of the most private of parts, Which makes the shout for privacy a little too hilarious.

So how does this fit legally?

Well first there is the part that the DoJ is now relying on. It is the All Writs Act of 1789, which states “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law“, which sounds rather nice,

Yet the fact that the DoJ needs to rely on an act that has, according to several press sources, only been used thrice is a little too novel.

When we consider that the ‘self-destruct’ was enable by Farook’s boss (making the device useless to thieves), only leaves the DoJ without options. What is interesting is when the last cloud backup has happened, had it happened at all? Too many question that are all in the realm of speculation and none of it gives way to legislation. The question becomes should it be? I am not opposing the FBI, CIA or NSA. Yet these alphabet groups do know that they are fishing in murky waters. You cannot expect a corporation to set a product meant for 1,000 million to have options for the internally build exemption of 5,000-7,000 users. The math just does not add up!

I was talking about the legality, so let’s continue there.

In McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd,’ and the appeal, British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Cowell (Representing the Estate of McCabe (deceased)), exposed some of the difficulties that plaintiffs who sue large corporations may face in litigation involving access to documentation. The Victorian Court of Appeal reversed the first instance decision which had struck out the defence of a tobacco company (‘BAT’). The basis for the first instance decision was that BAT had systematically destroyed documents that might have been relevant to the plaintiff’s case. It important to state WHO destroyed documents. You see, in case of Farook it was the boss who ‘destroyed’ the options for information retrieval. The important issue is that INTENT becomes near impossible to prove. In addition that case gives us: “The High Court declined the opportunity to clarify the law in this important area by refusing leave to appeal. The effect of this case, absent statutory reform, is that corporations may destroy potential evidence provided that their actions do not constitute an attempt to pervert the course of justice or a contempt of court. These are notoriously difficult to establish” (source: Playing for keeps? Tobacco litigation, document retention, corporate culture and legal ethics by Matthew Harvey and Suzanne Lemire. The reason for going towards this case is that the entire approach to mobile architecture and auto-backup could instigate updates where the mirror is encrypted extern from Apple. Which means that any phone would have an XML set-up and data object, but the object would be irretrievable. The ‘responsibility’ for proper password maintenance would be kept with the ‘client’ or end user. Taking Apple out of the equation leaving the DoJ with the apple pie made from the famous Granny Smith (AKA Janet Abigail Doe).

This takes the entire cyber conversation towards Spoliated Evidence, where we see “a party is faced with the fact that certain key evidence has been destroyed, altered, or simply lost“, destroyed implies intent, but proving that is next to impossible (which got us the tobacco case. Altered is basically what the DoJ faces as the boss decided to reset the password, again malicious intent becomes next to impossible to prove, whilst lost is not in play in this case but could clearly complicate the issue if that was the case, as the DoJ would have no implied evidence at all.

This entire endeavour goes even further south when we consider Federal Insurance Co. v. Allister, 622 So. 2d 1348, 1351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), where the Fourth District decided to set forth five factors to consider before imposing sanctions for spoliation of evidence. They were:

  • whether there is prejudice;
  • whether the prejudice can be cured;
  • the practical importance of the evidence;
  • the good faith or bad faith surrounding the loss of evidence;
  • Possible abuse if the evidence is not excluded.

As bad faith is now linked to the degree of wilfulness, we get back to intent. If mere ‘negligent loss’ does not cut the cake and the cake cannot be devoured without the essential evidence, the entire issue goes nowhere really fast. Basically, it boils down to the boss of Farook having one set of glasses on with the limiting mindset of cost if his mobile was ‘abused in usage’, leaving Apple in the clear shrugging their shoulders going ‘not my problem now’, whilst in all this we are left with no evidence linking to intent or malice. That small scope that was available will in all expectations to be diminished further. It basically solves all of Apple’s problems.

In the need for privacy we have gone from exceptionally rare to just hilariously ridiculous. The Guardian article (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/20/apple-fbi-iphone-explainer-san-bernardino) shows in equal measure another side. Which comes from Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat from Oregon. Here we read “Some are calling for the United States to weaken Americans’ cybersecurity by undermining strong encryption with backdoors for the government,” he wrote on Medium on Friday afternoon. “But security experts have shown again and again that weakening encryption will make it easier for foreign hackers, criminals and spies to break into Americans’ bank accounts, health records and phones, without preventing terrorists from ‘going dark’“, as such correctly implying that the medication will end up being a lot worse than the disease they face. In addition to that, should Farook have relied on another path, for example receive orders and message a ‘guild’ within a Facebook RPG game, the wasted time on the iPhone becomes nothing more than an iconic episode of the Comedy Capers. With these games receiving billions of messages a day, parsing though 1 of a dozen games would take years. The fact that none of this required any encrypted android or IOS system, just a mere desktop like millions of students use makes for the case against the Alphabet teams. When looking at Extremetech, we see a quote that is important in all this, the quote: “how terrorist organization uses social media to spread its message and radicalize curious readers. GWU’s research found that while ISIS uses a wide range of services, including Facebook, Google Plus, Kik, WhatsApp, and Tumblr, Twitter is the social media site of choice. Twitter already patrols and bans the accounts of ISIS supporters“, it casually forgets the 3-4 dozen accounts that do not raise any flags, the accounts that ACTUALLY bring details of the attacks to the transgressors.

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics

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

February 20, 2016 · 12:25

Omphalos and its syndrome

This syndrome comes from the references of Delphi and the ‘navel of the world’, which is what Delphi was regarded as. Nowadays, we see Omphalos syndrome as the misguided belief that a place of geopolitical power and currency is the most important place in the world.

I believe that to be no longer correct, I believe that it has been ‘converted’ into something slightly more generic. I believe that it should be seen as ‘the misguided believe that its choice of management and achievement of profit are the most important in the world’. Let’s take a look at a few examples.

 

A is for Apple

‘Apple apologises over Error 53 and issues fix for bricked iPhones’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/19/error-53-apple-issues-fix-bricked-iphones) shows the first example. The entire error53 mess is a direct example. It goes on to the core that we now see “Apple has released a fix for users affected by “Error 53”, a software issue that rendered useless iPhones that had had their home buttons replaced by third parties“, The initial response “At the time Apple said that Error 53 was a security feature to protect customers” reads like a joke. The mere alternative that was open was that any non-Apple certified method meant the wiping of data would have been enough. It took me 5 minutes to come up with that solution. A mere auto wipe of all data. No we have to read quotes like “Apple has apologised for Error 53 and said customers who paid for an out-of-warranty replacement for their phone should contact AppleCare about reimbursement” as well as “Solving Error 53 does not re-enable Touch ID, as a third-party replacement of the home button could potentially allow unauthorised access to a locked phone by modifying the fingerprint sensor“. It would have been the simplest of solutions to go through the re-enabling system again. All these simple solutions, all because apple wanted to enforce the repairs of their phones to what they consider to be THEIR allowed service repair shops. An application of greed, to maximise profits, not the openness of what was once the Apple OS X through a Unix open source system, but the mere stranglehold of a greed driven corporation. It was brought to light by several articles in the Guardian and an initial customer service based solution comes “after widespread publicity and the Californian tech giant being served with a class action lawsuit over in the US and attention from a competition watchdog in Australia“, I wonder how many IOS people will start considering Android now.

 

E is for Eisai

This event is taking us back a fair bit, around 2000 Eisai came with its Alzheimer’s drug Aricept (donepezil). The fact that profits grow by 100% might not be the biggest thing on the planet. Yes when the LA Times (at http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/22/health/la-he-aricept-fda-20120323) reported “FDA officials should not have allowed it, the authors said, because the clinical studies Eisai offered in support of its application did not meet standards the agency itself had laid out“, in addition we see “it failed to yield the improvements that the FDA had set as a condition of approval“, in all this a clear investigation did not take place. It is still allowed, mainly because it is FDA approved. We see in other sources the claims like “Further, the higher dose was not superior on either of the pre-specified secondary outcome measures, which, as the FDA medical reviewer pointed out, argues that the cognitive difference was not meaningful“, which we get from the FDA Center for Drug Evauation and Research. Application number 022568: medical review. Aricept 23 mg tablets. (at www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2010/022568Orig1s000MedR.pdf), when we consider the source http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/10October/Pages/Cheap-Alzheimers-drug-may-help-keep-people-out-of-care-homes.aspx, where we get the quote “a year’s worth of donepezil costs around £21 a year, compared with a year’s worth of care home costs – estimated to be between £30,732 and £34,424 a year. If the results of the study were replicated at a population level, this could save the NHS a considerable sum of money“.

This is where we see another version of Omphalos syndrome, “the misguided believe that my version of cost cutting is the best in the world“, at this point, we should investigate the players and consider whether a case for criminal endangerment exists. The fact that sources have shown ‘evidence’ as per 2007 gives rise to a failed system, not just the NHS, but the leeway for pharmaceuticals as, from the given reports failed to yield the improvements that the FDA had set as a condition of approval, making the question why on earth was it approved at all and why are certain diseases used for marketing a cash cow, more important why is the NHS not loudly and outspoken dealing with this? Especially as www.NHS.UK is involved in promoting articles in favour of Aricept (donepezil).

 

I is for Insight Enterprises

This is a side that rests with Omphalos, yet in all this it is in equal measure a situation we must accept. Insight Enterprises did nothing wrong, it made a choice, it’s governing body stated ‘this is the best path, this is the golden solution’, we must accept that any governing body, being it corporate or governmental will be ‘smitten’ with Omphalos Syndrome. So as Microsoft changed the partner program in 2014, Insight Enterprises saw the filling of its corporate coffers trickle down to zero. (at http://www.crn.com/news/channel-programs/300079674/insight-enterprises-absorbs-another-hit-after-microsoft-partner-program-changes.htm). We can debate the mess Insight Enterprises received, the near simple answer is that Microsoft had to change programs, any large corporations will do that. Any program they offer and device tends to be ‘fluidic’ over time. Yet when we see the quote “The changes also affected Microsoft’s Licensing Solution Providers, like Tempe, Ariz.-based Insight, which are the only partners Microsoft allows to sell licensing agreements to large corporations“, which is now showing another side. Does this make Microsoft narcissistically selfish or just plain sociopathic? You see all narcissists are selfish, but not all selfish corporations are narcissistically in nature (which is proven as greed we put the greedy in front of a mirrors), yet in all this, is this a sociopathic side in Microsoft? Well, that is a debate for another day as the entire Omphalos topic would soon get too murky.

 

O is for Omphalos

As shown in the last example, we tend to see Omphalos in a bad light. Which is not all correct either. On the other side we can take Bill Gates and his Omphalosian approach to IT. This got us DOS and later Windows. On the far side of the scale of limiting, there is the view of the truly visionary, but that view needs a start. Here the Omphalos syndrome works in another way. As I see it, we can accuse Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison on that list. Yet, we only did that AFTER they became successful, the not so successful are usually never heard of again.

In this world today, the foundation of ‘the most important place in the world’ is less and less applicable, it becomes a world of solutions, an amalgamation of aggregated values (the European Economic Community being a nice example). Yet the foundation of how to go about it was done in a very Omphalosian way. Especially when we consider the past blogs on how only self-proclaimed departures were the option. Which is exactly where Brexit is now. As Brexit gains momentum we see that the Omphalosian solution was the most dangerous here, it took one of the smallest nations (Greece) to push their non-accountability for the entire EEC to be in turmoil, with now a decent chance of collapsing the EEC as well as the Euro as a coin. Even as the United Kingdom is not on the Euro, France is and a Brexit will soon push for an additional Frexit. In that regard, the Financial Times quoted Florian Philippot who stated “the idea of challenging greater EU integration had become “taboo” in Europe. “The more we talk about it, the more people will vote against it,” he said” (at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/58f9cc98-ce51-11e5-92a1-c5e23ef99c77.html#axzz40fDAW3BL). This is yet another side of Omphalos, actually two sides. The foundation of Omphalos is based on one view, if that view does not evolve or alters as time goes by, that view becomes less and less actual. The view becomes an act of obstruction at best and debilitating at worst.

In the second part, we have forever seen the Omphalos syndrome in its power core on the scope of government (read: Communistic), in that view we forgot that it is corporations with their view on the ‘only’ solution that is now impacting the lives of people in several (read: many) nations. In that same view we see that the old approach to currency is no longer the same. Most values are too dependent on independent views of static organisations and their push for changed industrialisations. How come that the value of a coin is now directly impacted by places like Dow Jones index, Nasdaq, Standards and Poor, the IMF, the ECB and so on? Governments allowed themselves to be directly be valued from what is perceived to be an ‘independent’ side. This is the other part that drives Brexit and other plans to no longer be part of anything. There is a near global consensus that these sources can no longer be trusted. That their view is to some extent ‘Greed Incarnate’.

As I see it, there is no true independence anymore. When we read that Eagle Capital Management Invests $293000 and that J. W. Burns & Company Has $533000 invested in in SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (DIA). When the index itself is invested on, the expectations of improved value must be met, where does that leave us?

 

U is for You!

Even when we see the old and the new versions of the Omphalos syndrome, we need to realise that what once seen as short-sighted and limited is now not so limiting. It remains (as I personally see it) as short-sighted as it ever was (only in the rarest of occasions is it visionary), but now, the impact is no longer limited to one government, now its short-sighted impact is nearly global. It hits parties in many nations and it does not stop there. You see in a governmental approach it is ‘set’ to be what is best for its citizens and in case of the EEC it is what a group of nations see. Now consider the application from corporations that impacts governments on a global scale, offices of standards that impact the dangers to lives on a global scale as it does not enforce its own given values. How can we be aligned to a limiting view that could cost us our lives and our choice of living?

So as you consider ‘the misguided believe that its choice of management and achievement of profit are the most important in the world’ also strongly consider what it will cost you, not now, but down the track.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

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

February 17, 2016 · 20:56

Behind the smiling numbers

An interesting story got to see the internet light by Nicholas Watt (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/16/income-tax-must-rise-3p-to-stop-nhs-staggering-from-year-to-year). The title ‘Income tax must rise 3p to stop NHS ‘staggering from year to year’‘, which implies initially that the NHS needs £1.95m, which might be OK. Yet the truth is far from that, the text gives us that Lord Kerslake stated “Income tax will have to increase by at least 3p in the pound…. “, which is another story entirely (and first evidence that members of the House of Lords are gifted with a decent sense of humour).

His lordship is quite correct when he states: “big questions needed to be asked to ensure that spending kept up with medical advances, an ageing population and the need to invest in hospitals“, yet these are mere facts that should have been asked almost a decade ago, there was a clear and near immediate danger to the health of the NHS. The logic we see after that becomes an issue (read: worry, concern, and both are debatable) “Health spending needs to rise at least in line with GDP. Arguably, we may need to go faster if we want to match European funding. You might argue there is a discount there because we have a more efficient system. But it’s got to be at least GDP-linked otherwise I don’t think we’ll get there“. So let’s take a look. First the Dutch version (at http://www.rijksbegroting.nl/2015/voorbereiding/begroting,kst199401_25.html) gives us two issues should we be willing to ignore language barrier. The BZK gets €71.3b, which is divided in €7.5b called budget financed expenditure and €63.8b from premium financed expenditures. So for argument sake, let’s take the total and divide that on a population of 17 million, this now implies that there is almost €4200 per person (remember that this is a terribly rough estimate).

Now for Belgium we get the VBO with €23.85b. Now we all know that Belgium is a much smaller nation (not that much smaller than the Netherlands in size) and with 11.5 million calling the Belgium nation their homestead we now see that they end up with €2075 per person (Rounded upwards). Perhaps his Lordship could give a slightly more detailed explanation for the remark “Health spending needs to rise at least in line with GDP. Arguably, we may need to go faster if we want to match European funding“. Considering that the Netherlands and Belgium are next to one another and their budgets per person are apart by a mere 49.404%.

This gets me to the core of the proclaimed matter, can anyone explain why we are linking healthcare to GDP? Perhaps, and this is merely a lose speculation, some people in the House of Lords had the time to read a paper by Santiago Lago Peñas (added at the end) called ‘On the relationship between GDP and Health Care expenditure; A new perspective‘, now that might be a good thing, there is nothing wrong with Spain taking the lead in matters (especially if it is a good idea). Santiago Lago Peñas as well as David Cantarero Prieto and Carla Blázquez Fernández have written an interesting paper.

First let’s take a look at part of the abstract, which states “Econometric results show that the long-run multiplier is close to unity, that health expenditure is more sensitive to per capita income cyclical movements than to trend movements, and that those countries with a higher share of private health expenditure fit faster and following a different pattern“. Now, I am not going to take a deep dive into this one (it is after all an abstract), but it gave me a few ideas on where to dig.

Next are a few quotes: “Attention is paid to several usually neglected dimensions of this link. With this aim, four different specifications are presented, with the logarithm of per capital total health care expenditure as the dependent variable in all cases” this doesn’t seem to be more than just a quote, but it will have impact down the track.

It is part 2 called previous evidence that is a first issue. When we accept the initial statement “the debate on this link has moved on whether the income elasticity of health expenditure is greater or less than 1 (Bac and Le Pen, 2002). An income elasticity less than 1 classified health expenditure and income inelastic, therefore, as a “necessary” good. On the other hand, if the elasticity is higher than 1, health will be classified as a “luxury” good“, which will do for now. You see, my issue is when we see the part that follows:

  • The seminal paper by Newhouse (1977)
  • An earlier study by Kleiman (1974) for a different set of countries
  • Leu (1986) using cross-sectional data for 19 OECD countries in 1974
  • Parkin et al. (1987) using similar methods and data from 1980
  • Brown (1987) using a sample of 20 OECD countries

Here we have the first issue. You see, this is not regarding the methodology, it is about the data, methods of data collection, usage of weights (if done), these numbers regarded in contrast towards those temporary populations in reflection to the whole. Health expenditure is one part, but based against which healthy part. Now consider the initial reflection I had on the Netherlands and Belgium. They have very different norms in respect to mental health care. Now consider the statements ‘19 OECD countries in 1974‘ and ‘20 OECD countries in 1987‘ I will again make a clear speculative declaration that the mental health norms are not equal, especially when considering economic differences, which gives my first thought, how useful is the paper on a whole (I am not attacking it) and how applicable this would be (read: could be) in reflection towards the whole.

You only need to scan for ‘psychology, psychiatry and mental health’ to see that the paper does not take this into consideration. As we know that the EEC nations have had their own approach to mental health in the past, is not a statement that they did anything wrong, but if this is the first element that does not align, what else will not align (there are a few). One that shines directly behind the ‘previous evidence‘. You see in my head the question comes to mind when I see “The econometric analysis relies on annual data for 31 OECD countries from 1970 to 2009 gathered from the OECD Health Data Set 2011“, so is this aggregated data or raw data. if it is aggregated data the foundation might not align giving an unbalanced and invalid view (in my personal opinion), if it is raw data, what ground line data (the full population) is added so that the individual record compares towards the national whole, if that is missing how can any calculation be truly reflective of what was, especially taking into account the data is reflective over different time zones with very different social pressures. In that case I wonder if I can get a similar result by calculating Z-scores and run a Crosstabs in IBM Statistics #JustSaying!

Now we get back to the article which comes with the image of a smiling Lord Kerslake. Does this paper validate or invalidate the idea? No it does not, but it leads to questions, serious ones.

The quote “John Appleby, the chief economist at the King’s Fund, has estimated that NHS spending is due to fall from 7.3% of GDP to 6.6% in 2020-21. If health spending were to keep pace with economic growth, Appleby estimates an extra £16bn would have to be found every year by 2020-21 to take the NHS budget to £158bn. This works out at 3p on all rates of income tax, according to the IFS” is next!

The term ‘NHS spending is due to fall‘ reads like an event Baron Munchausen could have come up with (the character from Raspe’s book in 1785, not the syndrome). Of course the prediction is 5 years away, which makes it speculative. Now we know that John Appleby is more than the Chief economist for The King’s fund. He is also a Visiting Professor at the Department of Economics at City University and he has a whole range of publications to his name, so why am I opposed?

Well, part of this starts with his own article ‘Social care: a future we don’t yet know‘ (at http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2015/11/social-care-future), the two quotes that get the foreground are “In our submission to the Spending Review we called for social care to be protected from further cuts and for the money previously agreed for the postponed Care Act funding reforms to be retained and invested in social care. But non-protected departments have been asked by HM Treasury to model cuts of 25 and 40 per cent – so further cuts seem inevitable“, as well as “What would happen if the spending cuts applied to social care over the past five years continue over the next five? Spending on social care for people of all ages as a share of GDP has already begun to fall. It was roughly 1.2 per cent in 2009 but if cuts continue at the same rate it will have halved by the end of this parliament to barely more than a half of one per cent of GDP“. Now there is nothing wrong with any of the texts, John Appleby is not where he is because he is silly, he is very (read: extremely) clued in. I am stating that the environment has changed, it has changed drastically from 2011 onwards and in addition; the changes the UK faces over the next three years will take some of these prediction to town in not so nice a manner.

You will now ask why, which is the question you should ask!

We get part of this from the London School of Economics and Political science (at http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/special/cepsp26.pdf), the initial answer is given on page 13. Where we see “To summarise, treatments for the “common mental disorders” of depression and anxiety can be self-financing within the NHS. By spending more, we save even more. This is different from much of NHS expenditure. At the same time we relieve one of the main sources of suffering in our community“, in addition page 15 gives us “According to the 2007 survey, which covered a random sample of households, only 24% of people with depression and anxiety disorders were in any form of treatment“. This now gives us the first part in all this. The overall costs are not in league of the budgets because there is a missing foundations of equality on what falls ‘within’ the NHS. There is no option for the NHS other than to evolve into something ‘more’ complete. The UK is about to get 20,000 refugees from war torn Syria (over several years), the initial approved £1b seems to be nothing more than a drop of water on a hot plate, the ‘why’ will be clear shortly.

The UK has seen a massive rise in mental health issues in the last year alone. Depression and anxiety mainly due to economic events (cost of living) is now a serious concern, especially as the pressures of the economy are likely to continue a few more years. Consider my article two days ago (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2016/02/15/is-there-a-doctor-on-this-budget/) called ‘Is there a doctor on this budget?‘ where we saw the link to ‘Health Care for Undocumented Migrants: European Approaches‘. The graph shown on page 3 is the charm. If we consider the cube, we see that on the X-axis we see subcategories of undocumented migrants, yet the same expenditure would apply to refugees (or the population for that matter). Now consider the Y-axis which is about the type of services and the Z-axis are the funding arrangements. Now this can be treated like a glass with liquid. If we increase the base (X or Y) the funding arrangements go down, it is the simplest of physics, a bigger glass requires more fluid to fill, so we have a population with more health care needs, mental health care in this case and the types of services is not just against depression or anxiety, it will require the coverage of war trauma and shell shock. This will impact refugees of all ages. So the glass gets bigger and bigger and more and more funding will be required to keep funding arrangements on an equal level, this is merely the application of logic.

This is why I opposed John Appleby’s approach, it shows little application of a changing population, merely a greying one (which is a form of change), but it does not hold water against the massive change the UK has faced since 2013 and will face until 2019. This is why I am not in agreement with the statements of John Appleby. Now we get back to Lord Kerslake. You see, the paper I mentioned is an example. It might not even be the foundation of Lord Kerslake’s approach. Yet a multitude of papers clearly show that there seems to be no real no equality in the setting of healthcare (read: cost of health care). It seems to be wearing a different hat in nearly every European nation, it would already be a great leap forward if they all had the same colour, which does not seem to be the case either.

Now we get the quote that wakes us all up “Appleby estimates that NHS spending would have to increase by 30% or £43bn a year to take NHS total spending to the EU-15 average by 2020-21. The IFS estimates that this would involve an 8p increase on all rates of income tax“, which is one side of the option. How about the other side? When we see that AstraZeneca has been able to avoid corporation tax on a massive scale, which dwarves when we compare it to the mergers Pfizer and Allergan have achieved. Is it perhaps possible that his lordship looks at another solution like closing that tax abyss? Might I suggest an idea where any corporation involved in tax avoidance gets its medication ‘grey’ listed? Which means that any drug that could be begotten in a generic form from a place like India will be selected as a first solution? It could even result in India starting businesses in the UK (with the economic benefits that those places will give). It would also send a clear signal that if corporations would like to avoid taxation, which in legal correct way is just fine, but at that point other distributors of pharmaceuticals will be found. I reckon that between that announcement and the offer of reduced medications (read: less costs for the NHS) from pharmaceutical firms would be forthcoming within 24 hours of making the announcement.

Yet, this was not about the costing, it was about the increase and setting against the GDP. The fact that health spending and economic spending are on par reads more like an option for deferred payments to big pharma and medical supplier than anything else. In case of doctors it would mean that their incomes would go through the roof (which might be a deserved reality), but it is one that the coffers under the care of George Osborne cannot afford.

There is wisdom in his lordship stating that “a royal commission should be established to build a national consensus on NHS funding“, which sounds a lot more ‘reliable’ (read: acceptable) than the Labour party giving way by letting a banker (Sir Derek Wanless) set the NHS spending levels. It is of course desirable to go with the people and keep the directly funded NHS free at the point of use, yet that comes with a price tag that is no longer realistic in this day and age of deficit, in addition harder times are coming for a while longer, making the price tag we already have a non-linear shifting one. Yet I feel adamant to speak that mental health must be fully accepted as part of the NHS (for all people, anywhere in the UK), which slides the scales of budget by a lot. A reality many papers (as I expect it to be) did not take into account. Raising income taxation as implied could equally be an issue as that could potentially drive depression and suicide statistics overnight (the latter would lower rents but that seems just too harsh a solution).

What is a given is that Lord Kerslake is the catalyst that is making us ask several serious questions.

I am however not entirely convinced that his lordship took the best path in getting these issues out into the open.

On the relationship between GDP and Health Care expenditure; A new perspective

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

February 16, 2016 · 19:31

Fear mongers cannot learn, will the reader?

The technology section of the Guardian had an interesting article (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/13/artificial-intelligence-ai-unemployment-jobs-moshe-vardi), ‘Would you bet against sex robots? AI ‘could leave half of world unemployed’‘, is that so? So, is the title a reference that 50% is in prostitution, or is there more?

The article starts straight of the bat without delay it gives the quote: “Machines could put more than half the world’s population out of a job in the next 30 years, according to a computer scientist who said on Saturday that artificial intelligence’s threat to the economy should not be understated“.

I remember a similar discussion now 35 years ago. It was 1981, I was working on the defence mainframe and I got the inside scoop how computers would replace people, how those machines would put hardworking people out of a job and a future. In the first 5 years that followed I saw the opposite, yes some work became easier, but that also meant that more work could be done. The decade that followed gave us an entire new region of technology. A region that would open doors that had never been there in the first place.

This technology is not any different, it will open up different doors.

Now, the people in ‘fear’ of it all are not the most half-baked individuals. They include Physicist Stephen Hawking and the tech billionaires Bill Gates and Elon Musk, in addition there is professor Vardi from Rice University, his statement “AI could drive global unemployment to 50%, wiping out middle-class jobs and exacerbating inequality“, I massively disagree here. The words of Elon Musk calling it “our biggest existential threat” and in addition professor Vardi stated “humanity will face an existential challenge“, those two comments are closer to the reality. Yet here too I believe changes will dominate. Consider a few years back, back to the time when I was younger then young (like 900BC roughly), in an age of Greek wars and utter ‘nationalism’ the Olympic truce was created. “Ekecheiria”, was established in Ancient Greece in the 9th century BC through the signing of a treaty by three kings: Iphitos of Elis, Cleosthenes of Pisa and Lycurgus of Sparta. (Source: olympic.org) There was a lull but in 1896 it started again. An event, which origin was to create an option to not be in a war and to compete. Of all the existential angst we have, robots should not be on the list any time soon.

My reasoning?

As we saw the start of recruitment for Mars, a serious recruitment to start colonising mars, we must admit that there are issues on mars, several could be diminished with the use of intelligent robots. Or perhaps the idea that NASA is looking on how to get resources from asteroids, so how about that Android solution? The BBC gives us the speculation on ocean living (at http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131101-living-on-the-ocean), again an element where we do not thrive, but a robot could pave the way. In my own view, with the massive energy issues, how long until someone has the idea to place paddled wheels above a hydrothermal vent in the ocean to capture it as an energy source? Not the kind of work a person can do, a machine could, and an AI driven one could excel there. Just three places where we could end up with more and not less. Yet Vardi does give an interesting side, if robots replace people to some extent, that value of physicality might be lost. Now ask the bricklayer if he could do something else, would he? There is indeed the danger that physical labour becomes less and less appealing, yet that does not mean it will be gone. It would take at least half a century for things to be completed, whilst in that mean time new evolutions start, new challenges start.

More important, much more important is the one fact people tend to avoid out of fear. But you the reader, if you are over 45, consider that in the near future you will be dead! So will 3 out of 7 of your friends. Yes, the population is growing, yet the age groups are shifting, this implies that robots could be a solution for some of the work areas that do not require academic thinking. All these opportunities, not threats!

So as we see a new iteration of fear, is this version more valid than then the previous one? With that I mean the implementation of the PC. Perhaps having another set of less fear mongering eyes would help. The second part people forget is that fear mongering is also a drain on productivity here. Even as we speak Japan has a lead in this market, as does America. So how about we start getting ahead of the rest, so that is wrong with the commonwealth picking up a robotic skill or two, because one truth remains, once the other player get too much of a lead, the consequence will be that the followers are not considered for the creational jobs here and that is where the real mulah is, the IT explosion taught us that and that field grew a multitude of billionaires, the next technological iteration will do no less.

I am not alone in my way of thinking, the writer Nicholas Carr gives us: “human creativity and intuition in the face of complex problems is essentially irreplaceable, and an advantage over computers and their overly accurate reputation“, which is where the new future will head. Not to create robots, but the creativity to make then excel in extreme places where we could not comprehend until out boundaries are clearly mapped. So how is this news such an eyeopener? Well, when we get back to the beginning we saw “artificial intelligence’s threat to the economy“, as stated, much like the Personal Computer, it will not be a threat, but a solution, an opening into a new arm of the technology sector, even more important, this is not just a IT only field. It will require quality engineers and depending on the application of the scene. This means that we get new challenges, different ones mind you, but not lesser ones?

In that regard, depending on the implementation, it will require analysts, engineers, programmers and a few others on the list of adepts.

all these options and we did not even need to get close to the technological design of the new age cybernetic machines for the purpose of erotic exploration (level 1 at http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/04/sexbots-realdoll-sex-toys), which is nowhere near an AI experience, time will tell how real that field becomes. Consider the age of STD’s we see nowadays. Mycoplasma Genitalium might be the new ‘trend’, as it can be cured with a mere one week setting of anti-biotics. So how long until it evolves into something that does not cure? Yet we do not even have to go that far, consider all the areas where man (or woman) cannot function, the risk too high and the rewards become too low. Here comes the clockwork system (aka the AI robot) and we are back on track.

So I see the robot as a positive wave. For careers, for jobs, for business evolution and for evolving technology. We only need to see the light of creation and we will end up with a lot more options than we bargained for.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Politics

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

February 15, 2016 · 21:33

Is there a doctor on this budget?

The title ‘Is this doctor (and Ukip candidate) right that EU migrants will destroy the NHS?‘ seems inflammatory to say the least, but the reality is actually a lot less appealing. Even when we see today’s article: ‘NHS vows to transform mental health services with extra £1bn a year‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/15/nhs-vows-to-transform-mental-health-services-with-extra-1bn-a-year), the quote “People facing mental health crises will be able to get community care 24 hours a day, seven days a week as part of the biggest transformation of NHS mental health services in England for a generation, to be unveiled on Monday“, that quote now reflects back to the initial NHL article. There we see that Professor Angus Dalgleish is giving us another view: “He says the NHS is on its knees and “could collapse completely” because of immigrants from the EU that we are legally obliged to treat“, so even as the Guardian is hiding behind the identity ‘Pass notes‘, there are issues. The first is the unintelligent trivialisation by ‘Pass notes‘. The quote “Eighteen British hospitals made £42m from people coming here for treatment on 2010” is just too ridiculous to be considered valid. I am not stating that it is a lie, but consider that the NHS budget is set to be around £115b for 2015/2016, that £42m amounts to roughly 0.000365%, so how insignificant is that trivialisation? Especially when we consider that many papers (including the Guardian) reported the NHS to be £1.6b in deficit, so there is an issue already.

Now we get the next step.

From several sources we see that refugees are coming. That is not an accusation, or negativism, it is merely factual that over the next 5 years 20.000 refugees will arrive. Now consider that these people come from actual devastated locations, on a horrendous trip that has lasted years (including their stay in refugee centres) to get to the UK, if only 75% needs mental health care, the UK should be thanking their lucky stars. So that £1bn will not last too long, especially considering the current population is in dire need of mental health in one form or another. So as ‘Pass notes‘ complains the quote “But I expect doctors to be liberal! By which I mean intelligent! By which I mean liberal! We expect much. And sometimes we are disappointed“, which is just the Guardian showing that its own values are not set on intelligence. The NHS itself states: “However, if you are now living in an EEA member state and pay into a state healthcare scheme then you are entitled to apply to that member state for an EHIC. Under EC law, this entitles you free of charge to ‘all medically necessary treatment’ here, which provides a greater coverage than that mentioned above since it includes routine treatment for chronic conditions such as diabetes“, which gives way to the claim that Professor Dalgleish is making. In addition the National Health Service Act 2006, section 83 states that “all reasonable requirements to provide or secure necessary primary medical services for all patients, irrespective of their immigration status, within their areas” must be met, this is a legal duty for the primary care trust as reported by the Primary Care Commission (at https://www.pcc-cic.org.uk/sites/default/files/articles/attachments/pcc_briefing_-_illegal_immigrantsv6.pdf), which now implies that Professor Dalgleish has indeed reported an issue that the Guardian casually trivialises. Yet, we must also ask, what if the Guardian is correct? Well, section 83 of the National Health Service Act 2006, literally states at s83(1) “Each Primary Care Trust must, to the extent that it considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements, exercise its powers so as to provide primary medical services within its area, or secure their provision within its area“, which bakes the cake on one side. The issue is however not done, it is about to get a lot ‘worse’, because s83(2)(b) gives us: “A Primary Care Trust may (in addition to any other power conferred on it) make such arrangements for their provision (whether within or outside its area) as it considers appropriate, and may in particular make contractual arrangements with any person“, which now gets us two elements:

  • Make contractual arrangements with any person, which also implies that it could be a contract set at £0.00.
  • Arrangements for their provision (whether within or outside its area), which now implies that the Primary medical services can transfer a refugee or illegal immigrant to psychological care and/or specialised mental health clinics.

So ‘Pass notes‘ is not reflecting on the dangers that Professor Dalgleish was trying to illuminate. More important, these issues have been known for some time. Issues on these elements have been illuminated in plenty of publications going back to 2012. There is even more information at http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2012/Dec/1650_Gray_hlt_care_undocumented_migrants_intl_brief.pdf, yet overall they tend to give the same reflection, especially when you look at page 3, where the cubic impression titled ‘Exhibit 1. Three Dimensions of Health Care Coverage Policy for Undocumented Migrants‘, gives rise to the massive growth of costs that could be associated with migrant health care (not to mention due to incoming refugees).

So how much valid weight can be given to the statements of Professor Dalgleish? I personally believe that the weight of his statements should be weight on a debatable high level (evidence to follow at the near end). The issue is not just regarding the costing the immigrants and refugees bring, the fact that the Euro systems is wreaking havoc all over the world is an equal concern. I cannot state for certain what will be the best path, what is a given is that trivialisation was never an option.

When we add ‘Jeremy Hunt on the NHS: ‘I think this decade needs to see the quality revolution’‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/15/jeremy-hunt-on-the-nhs-i-think-this-decade-needs-to-see-the-quality-revolution) to the fold, the plot thickens. You see, quality revolution sounds fair and essential, it is in fact at resent likely the least important part. There is a massive shortage of medical professionals, there is a lack of funds and that lack can be sized into the billions. This implies that quality, though nice is nothing compared towards the lack of resources. Which gets us to the Junior Doctor contracts. You see the quote “none of the 152 foundation trust hospitals in England will be obliged to force their junior doctors to accept the deal and can instead offer them better terms“, which gets us back to that massive deficit and more important, what additional pressures will be added onto it?

That is a part which has been known for a while, I voiced it at least 2 years ago and the current investigation that the BBC gave visibility to in January 2016 (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35361908) is still centre in all the issues that will come. You see, without a proper IT system, the NHS will have less and less options to streamline any solution, with that I mean larger operational matters for streamlining. Even as Tavish Scott (Lib Dem Scotland) asked on who got figuratively axed, we got the answer: “The chair of the board is no longer there, the chief executive is no longer there and the chief finance officer“, a very unsatisfactory answer. When we consider “he was not informed of a ‘fundamental flaw’ in the system being delivered for 22 months, adding “other, more junior staff were aware of omissions” in the contract, “but they didn’t tell me”“, we see a systematic shortening of another matter. The fact that junior staff were aware, implies that the documentation was an issue from day 1, in addition, no clear QA protocol was in place. No drilldown teams, from Junior to board member line was in play and overall the system was beyond merely defective. Consider the simple quote: “Mr Turner, who signed the 1,000-page contract for the IT system in March 2012, said he felt “very let down” by a senior colleague, saying they “didn’t advise me at all”“, can anyone explain to me, how such a document does not come with an excerpt chapter by chapter (by members of the NHS) underwriting per chapter how the contract impacts the NHS, the system and their services? A mere SWOT analyses (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) would have made all the difference before signing. A waste of £40-£50 million is more than just a few doctors, the lack of such a solution will give additional worry to the claims Professor Dalgleish made. In light of refugees, illegal immigrants and costings, the lack of oversight will soon pressure resources down further.

This all gives a clear view that a doctor is required to take the pulse of the budget. It is billions in deficit and the drain will only increase. The fact that most parties have not given clear light to several sides is only a first reason why Ukip is gaining momentum. That view goes a little further when we consider “Committee convener Paul Martin said there must have been issues with management if staff did not feel able to come forward“, Scottish Labour has more than just a point, the issue becomes why junior members were not asked directly. Someone had to make an inventory, which means that the step was skipped, or intentionally overlooked. That now gives way to the fact that axing three members is not nearly enough. There is, what could be regarded as an institutional failure within the NHS. Considering that the NHS 24 is only one of several systems that are not on par, or even worse, then never got properly managed is proof further still that the NHS cannot handle too many pressure points at present.

What was wrong from Professor Dalgleish is that ‘EU migrants’ are only one of several straws, each currently heavy enough to separately break the camel’s back (read: NHS), which might be a case that the professor was trying to make, but ‘Pass notes‘ was too busy writing lame non-jokes, whilst the editor of the Guardian remained absent in this matter, which is why its readers are left in the dark (and in the near future untreated too). It was interesting to see that Rochdale Online did give more information through the statement by Louise Bours, UKIP health spokesman and North West MEP.

Here you must ask yourself the question: “Is this all just a storm in a teacup?” Especially as the larger papers ignored the ‘Dalgleish matter’. I myself expect that the statement from Dalgleish is out of context and incomplete. This failing as other elements that are driving the NHS over the cliffs were ignored could have been an option to illuminate why Ukip might not be the answer, yet as we see these levels of trivialisation, people are wondering the why; mainly because no clear explanation is coming forward they start to listen to Ukip more and more. Which is EXACTLY why I wrote the initial view with supporting documentation of a more academic level. So it is not a storm in a teacup, as we can clearly see that the NHS could be seen as close to ‘terminal’, but the factors here are a lot more than just the EU-migrants, what is a given is that unless certain things change, the EU-migrants could be breaking the NHS back, but that is equally a given for a few more factors that are currently in play.

Should any of these elements drive you crazy, then you will be equally out of luck as the BBC reported that finding a mental health spot has become pretty impossible, in that element alone, the £1b might be a great help, but there is a decent chance it will not be enough, because it is not just the beds that are unavailable, services are an equal worry, services that require staff and the refugee pressure will only add to that shortage (which is not the fault of these refugees mind you).

 

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

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

February 13, 2016 · 14:51

Looking for an Exit sign

You are on board the EEC. There are four emergency exits, Brexit on the left, Frexit on the right, each marked with a red EXIT sign overhead. All doors except the overwing doors at 3 left and 3 right are equipped with emergency funds. These funds will keep you debt dependant for decades. Yes, it sounds like the speech a flight attendant might give you as you travel from the gates of the fake economic upbeat information towards the airport of Conturbare Gentem.

There is the impulse to state ‘the real issue is’, but that is not the case here. As we see ‘Brexit ‘will be the first step of the definitive decline of the EU,’ says former Prime Minister of Italy’ (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-will-be-the-first-step-of-the-definitive-decline-of-the-eu-says-former-prime-minister-of-a6861326.html). You see, I have been trying to warn my readers for well over 2 years on this danger. In a few cases it was laughed off loudly, but those ‘economic wannabe’ agents are not laughing now. When I was feeling a little evil. I asked them (as they honed me in public), to explain last week’s events, how it will lead to new prosperity. They basically told me to ‘f*ck off’. They are no longer laughing. I proclaimed these events, whilst also clearly stating that I am not an economist (a fact I did not deny). This situation was for the most a simple exercise of math, basic high school math actually, interesting how an economist missed that part.

The subtitle here is also interesting ‘Enrico Letta warns London ‘would lose a lot of influence’ on world stage‘, actually, it will not. As the UK turns their economy into a stronger engine, as we see this impact, we see that both Germany and the UK will get ahead faster and faster. Italy because of their election timing could end up with the worst deal (which sucks for Italians). You see, all that rattling we hear is empty and hollow. The financial markets might threaten to leave, but they will not, should they do so, than they end up in an even worse situation. Yes, they have options, but when the system crashes, their only option for now is Germany. If they select Paris, their issues will fossilise into a brittle solution, one that impacts their markets for decades.

In Germany they will be too isolated. In all honesty, their only decent alternative is Amsterdam, yet that comes with other perils. The Dutch DNB has stronger rules in place, so in that regard Paris seems a better choice, but overall that move isolates them from a few places down the road. London will remain the better option. And it is not even close to any decision. When we see the AFP article (at https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/30812452/cameron-confident-of-reaching-eu-deal-to-avoid-brexit/), we also see second rate top people go all out with quotes like “pragmatism and courage… and their ability to compromise” or “my wish is that the United Kingdom is and remains an active member of a successful European Union“, which are unique examples of misdirected communication. The “a deal could be reached allowing Britain to remain in the European Union and avoid a so-called Brexit” sounds so nice, but in the end, there is still a referendum and because too many European players were sitting on their thumbs creating ‘ease and inaction’, maximising their gravy train. The people have caught on and they are not playing nice anymore. Just 9 days ago in my article ‘Intimidating the Euro‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2016/02/04/intimidating-the-euro/), I mentioned the BBC article (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35122710), which was claiming that “Now the experts are predicting once again that the economy will return to growth in 2016, unless something else gets in the way“, so how ‘lame’ are these experts? Only a weak later we see in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/12/eurozone-recovery-falters-greece-recession), giving us “Greece fell back into recession“, oh really Captain Urban Funding? So cheap oil and the ECB stimulus was kind of pointless, was it not? So when we get these aggregated levels of bad news, explain to me how a united economic Europe is anything other than a really bad idea? One the UK should seriously consider getting out of and that will drive the immediate departure of France and Germany. The scenario I predicted all along. And for 2 years experts, the media and political players remained in denial.

Now we see added ‘news’ on how Brexit works for Putin, which clearly reads like an American, ‘communist fear’ as pressure for keeping the UK right where it is now. That does make sense, because the collapse would have an impact on US economy. The Dow Jones Index would be hit a lot harder than it was in 2004 or 2008. In my view, the EEC has no future because it will not correctly deal with the legislation to prevent the non-accountable acts of some, which was the direct reason of this mess in the first place. Greece was never held to account the way it should have. The news on ‘new’ Grexit fears as we see that there is no solution where we see that the Greek government and European creditors have come up with a credible plan to make the country’s debt sustainable. Yet the established situation that Greece cannot be evicted gives rise to additional worries, which fuels both Brexit and Frexit. The Financial Times (at http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/08/brussels-briefing-back-to-turkey/), gives more on Frexit. Yes, all parties agree that this will only happen after a referendum, yet what is not given directly is that this would be the first act by Marine Le Pen if she gets elected. Both the Hollande and Sarkozy fronts are scared there, because Marine might only get elected with a clear majority, when that happens, neither party will have any options to stop Frexit from becoming a reality. Which gets us back to that ‘Greek news’. I believe that the parties have all come to an arrangement with the fears that Brexit brought. Because the EEC exit cannot be made enforced under current EEC legislation (discussed in previous blog articles), the article, in my personal view implies that Greece will volunteer to opt out of the Euro on the concession of debt relief, with total debt forgiveness being a possibility (my speculation). What will remain unspoken is that those parties who would, if successful to keep the EEC alive, will only do so when the price is right. That implies taxation not relief on several fronts (for non-Greece nations), realistically it will be a tax that will last generations. Did the people of Europe sign up for that? A Europe that is even less accountable to a chosen few (who forgave debt)? That path basically spells out that these ‘providers’ will get their money’s worth in the form of grants and non-taxability, but at the expense of all the other European citizens. So how is Brexit anything else but a really good idea? In addition, the Financial Times reports, or better Christian Oliver alerts us to the fact that Greece took a fall for Schengen (at http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/12/greece-takes-a-fall-for-schengen/). The quote “Athens has received a list of 50 measures that it should undertake to improve its handling of the tide of refugees“, which sounds great, but it is extremely short sighted. The quote “The EU insists that Greece needs to take the 50 steps, citing “serious deficiencies” in the management of the country’s external borders” is even more hilarious. You see, that risk has forever been there, there used to be some level of control, but now we have a bankrupt nation, its requirement to cut staff by almost 66% and the need to build a collapsed infrastructure. There are mere matters of fact. Greece has thousands of miles of borders that are a nightmare to watch. With the inability to get the Syrian matters under control people are running like crazy, they either run through Turkey or the swim from island to island (either way they have a 50% chance to make it). So, how are these requirements anything but a joke, anything but a hollow requirement from the Greek government? The mere logic (and any cheap world map) shows us that those refugees had to get around Cyprus and get either via Turkey, or take the waterway directly, which is well over an 800 Km trip, taking them past Turkey most of the way. So when we consider speeds, on smaller loaded ships, it would be a 3-5 day trip past the Turkish navy, so why is the Schengen council not having this discussion with associate EEC member Turkey? You see, we can blame Greece for many things (actually, just their politicians), but the refugee wave is something Greece got overwhelmed with, even with a functioning economy it would have overwhelmed Greece. More important, how are the refugees getting to the Greek islands? This can only be done with Turkey either ignoring refugee transgressions on their territory (which is weird as they shot down a Russian jet after it allegedly invaded their airspace for 14 seconds), yet refugees that have travel past Turkish waters for days are casually ignored.

It seems to me that we are watching a new game, one that is burdening Greece on many sides, only to allow Greece to cast themselves out of the EEC/Euro for a price. A price the other taxpayers must pay for and they still hope that Brexit will be averted? Good luck with that notion!

So as the Brits and the French are looking at the exit signs to get off the plane, they are still confronted that the pilot of that plane has been massively irresponsible. Its maintenance crew has maintained the plane on the foundation of their ego and as such certain best practices, practices that a real engineer would have taken were ignored. This has led to today’s predicaments. The Brits are of mind that even in flight, getting off is more likely to lead to a survivable situation that silently staying on the plane will. When the Brits get off, the planes integrity will be permanently compromised, which leads to the events I predicted.

So now the media is giving us more and more articles on the crew giving us horror stories on what happens when someone opens that door. Yet, some of them are exaggerated. In the end the opening of the door could just force the plane down to the nearest airport where the passengers who no longer trusts the pilot could disembark. We do not deny the risks, but the current pilot is taking the plane to places the fuel reserves cannot reach.

Yet in addition to what I already claimed, the British City A.M. (at http://www.cityam.com/234438/ignore-eu-scaremongers-why-britain-would-thrive-post-brexit) gives us ‘Ignore EU scaremongers: Why Britain would thrive post-Brexit‘, which is partially the view I have. Ruth Lea, economic adviser to the Arbuthnot Banking Group gives us “a timely reminder that we are a crucial market for EU exporters – £89bn of the total £125bn goods deficit for 2015 was with the EU, £31.6bn with Germany alone. For every £3-worth of exports to the EU, Britain imported £5-worth from the EU. It is quite simply inconceivable that any German car exporter or French wine exporter would wish to see any impediments to their trade with Britain“, which I see to be a partial truth. You see, that is what it is and in the future it is what it was, but for a time, we will see European resentment and anger. Several European nations will take part of the £3-worth of exports and they will find another place in Europe to get between £1 and £2 of that export and find another source. That element is equally ignored. It will be up to that current UK government to make quick and lasting agreements that would diminish the losses, but it will again be in the hands of the UK, not squandered by EEC inaction. Should you think that my view is exaggerated, then consider recent news! How the economy grew 0.3% yet billions were pushed into it for the ‘reasoning’ of stimulus. Now consider that stimulus refers to attempts to use monetary or fiscal policy to stimulate the economy. Stimulus can also refer to monetary policies like lowering interest rates and quantitative easing. So, how was the economy stimulated? If we consider the Wall Street Journal (at http://www.wsj.com/articles/ecb-announces-stimulus-plan-1421931011), we see ‘European Central Bank to Purchase €60 Billion Each Month Starting in March‘ that amounts to over 400 billion for 2015 (6 months, Mar-Sep). The quote “the ECB will buy a total of €60 billion a month in assets including government bonds, debt securities issued by European institutions and private-sector bonds“, so how did this benefit the UK or people in general? Now to get back to stimulus, where we saw the inclusion of quantitative easing. Let’s take a look there too: “A central bank implements quantitative easing by buying financial assets from commercial banks and other financial institutions, thus raising the prices of those financial assets and lowering their yield, while simultaneously increasing the money supply“. with ‘references’ in play, in my view, the Stimulus by ECB President Mario Draghi is nothing more than a catch and refund net for bad investments, buying back a paper tiger that was not worth the paper it was printed on, allowing governments to spend again. How does that benefit the people?

These elements are all in play, because as people realise that this economy is so that the large corporations go on not being tax accountable, governments spend money on so many things that benefit everyone except the people in general. Consider how many actual problems 400 billion could solve, not some joke called ‘the EEC economy’ but broken things we could actually fix!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

February 9, 2016 · 22:15

Prazosin for Bankers and Politicians

We all have views, we all have opinions and we all have insights. That is our right and I would never deny those rights to anyone. Yet, in any light, should we stop asking questions? Should we decide on one voice being more trustworthy than another one? Should a mere reference or the right PDF be value to that? That is a question every reader should have. You cannot just select one option and ignore the second one without evidence. Some we trust on their word, some sources we trust, and in other cases we trust our own gut feeling. Whatever choice you take here, you must always hold onto scrutiny that what you become aware of. Some you can decide on because of logic, some due to education and experience and some are based on the trust that others give it.

That is the first token, as I see it in any given situation.

When we get back to my previous blog (We do not Care Bears), I mentioned elements in the upcoming Brexit reference. In there a prominent Police Minister of State, namely Rafal Trzaskowski mentioned on the cost for Britain, with the additional mention that you can’t always get what you want. Now we see another specimen of the in this case partially Polish persuasion, namely Jacek Rostowski who gives us “The leave campaign must remember the advantages that Britain has negotiated over 40 years of EU membership that will be lost – as will the UK’s main route to global market access“, is that truly the case? Do you not think that many nations will find a backdoor in any arrangement if this means that they can export to a target audience of 65 million? In addition, the statement “It is hard to see how a market of 65 million could negotiate the terms achieved by that of 500 million“, which is a truth and a fact. What is not given is that the UK is 13% of that entire population. It is one of several nations that has had enough of irresponsible spending and non-accountability.

It is the title we see again in the very and “it is for the British people to decide, but the leave camp is selling a Pollyanna vision of Britain outside Europe that will never exist“, which sounds nice and clever, yet in all this, when a population of 65 million needs goods trade will occur. It did so before the Euro, it will exist after the Euro collapses. It is the rock star (the person I have written about and against) Yanis Varoufakis that gives us ‘The EU no longer serves the people – democracy demands a new beginning‘, which is not incorrect, but it was the Greek utter unacceptable acts (by some of the previous Greek administrations) that is bringing this about. Now we see that Greece is selling itself of to any industrial with enough cash like a cheap debutante. My issue there is that as premium opportunities are ‘given away’, Greece itself will end up having less and less options to grow a national economy. I feel certain that Yanis Varoufakis knows this. Yet, in the article (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/eu-no-longer-serves-people-europe-diem25), he brings the goods that do matter “Brexit campaigners are promising voters that they can have their sovereignty and access to Europe’s single market. But this is a false promise. A truly single market, a genuinely level playing field, requires a single legal framework, identical industry, labour and environmental protection standards, and courts that will enforce them with the same determination throughout the single jurisdiction“, Yanis is not wrong, but I believe him to be incorrect. You see, he is not lying or deceiving you, the issue here is the exact statement that matters. Part one is “Brexit campaigners are promising voters that they can have their sovereignty and access to Europe’s market“, you see, Europe is not a single market, it only seems to be that way.

Take a look at this: “§24 EEG: falscher Alarm oder K.O. für Windbranche?” (Translate: §24 EEG: false alarm or KO for wind industry?), you see, there are still fractured markets, they are managed through a never-ending stream of European legislation. Consider the part “suggests that from 2016 effective six-hour rule the Renewable Energies Act (EEG) will halve revenue of new wind farms within 25 years“. Can anyone explain the utter unfathomability of this quote? (I am not saying it is a false quote; at http://www.erneuerbareenergien.de/24-eeg-falscher-alarm-oder-ko-fuer-windbranche/150/434/88817/), in my simple world, this cannot be. Consider the second quote “an oversupply of production electricity prices on the power exchange EPEX to 6 hours or more negative in a time-contiguous block are. Defacto means of temporarily stopping the market premium payment proceeds failure. That the threat potential of §24 is generally real, shows a view in the short history of the current prices in 2014, the at least six hours continuous phases added with continuously negative market electricity prices on a time volume of 37 hours, which then affected by the six-hour rule would have been. In the first half 2015 already 43 hours fell under the criteria of §24“, this implies that there are moments of oversupply. Now, that might be the actual truth, yet, this seems to imply that the entire renewable energy is linked and only allowed as addition to the fuelling of profit, when that goes renewable energy is not to be used, or to be charged negatively. (I know that my view of that quote is not entirely correct).

I am trying to state that if we truly believe in renewable energy, the moment there is an oversupply, non-renewable sources should be toned down, lowering the price of energy to the people. The article (in German) implies to me that this is another market that is driven to exploitation and profit. And what about the ‘over’ production? What if all that power fuels streetlights, hospitals, places that could benefit by not being charged for energy. If that is 6 hours as implied, we see the linked implication that 25% in cost reduction could be achieved.

In short, the single market of Yanis never existed, EEC legislation is in my view creating a fractal of legislative clustering, all with their own rules for maximised exploitation. The second part is “courts that will enforce them with the same determination throughout the single jurisdiction“, which is nice, but when the law falters on the levels is had, like, you know, jailing those politicians that spend the money Greece never had, would Greece be in such a mess? Well yes, because those laws actually do not exist. We see an influx on humanitarian laws, or perhaps better stated, a code guide to emphasize a surrealistic version of political correctness, yet how much protection did journalist Kostas Vaxevanis get? Was anything done with the published lists? Seems weird doesn’t it, that concept of single jurisdiction, does it not? Even within most national borders the idea of single jurisdiction is a bit of a stretch. Especially when we see the intermixing of issues of commercial and criminal law. We see banks not getting convicted for their actions, yet under intentional torts they could get a hefty invoice. When we get to Quasi tort, we see the case Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd [1994] UKPC 3, where we get that the bank argued that the gold stocks had never been isolated, making all the gold customers unsecured creditors and that its security interest took priority. It is an argument that can be made, yet in all this consider the parallel where the Greek government ‘sold’ its bonds to the Greek retirement funds. Perhaps some people remember the news that the Financial Times had in Feb 2013 (at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/91aae2a6-75f4-11e2-8eb6-00144feabdc0.html), which gets us: “Smaller Greek state pension funds, which are only able to invest in Greek government bonds that are held by the central bank as custodian, together had losses close to €10bn over the same period“, so does that not amount to hiding debts and giving worthless IOU notes to those retirement funds? Was this ever criminally investigated? Moreover, if it is not a crime, why wasn’t there a law enabled stopping this? Even a local Greek law might have helped a lot, but we have seen in many places that certain players will get away with murder, just look at Tesco and see which players are still not under public scrutiny to see that reality.

So, I have issues with this piece by Yanis Varoufakis, yet you should read it, because it is a good piece. Yet, in all that, he never mentions to hold the people and the laws to account as they fell short in the last decade, which I believe is crucial to any progress, any true progress of a shoddy economy. Because with corporate greed firmly in place, with a bubble where power seekers can fill their pockets, we will never get any solution. The realistic fact that over 1 in 3 Greeks are now in poverty should have been a large wakeup, but it seems not to be the case. As some players want their extra cream, fat and lollies, Greece gets to end with less than nothing, something that could have been prevented in 2014, but alas, the law was inadequate.

It would not have been easier, but at least Greece might have a few options, now they have none of those and even less possessions as the valuables have been sold off, a part I was never in favour of! So, let’s get back to the Jacek Rotowsky story (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/08/brexit-pollyanna-vision-europe-leave-campaign-eu-uk), where we see “This reminds me of the Brussels phrase: “If you’re not at the table you’re on the menu.””, well, as I see it Poland will be, the UK is deciding that this restaurant is no longer for the UK. In that same environment we get the following Gordon Ramsay memes (I have no idea if he ever stated them as I do not watch his show).

  1. You burned the food so black, it stole my bike.

No Gordon! You placed the debt money next to the oven and its equity turned to ash.

  1. This mushroom is so raw, it says the princess is in another castle.

No Gordon! You cannot refer to the economy as an unpleasant situation and state that the other person is at fault.

So as we see how Jacek Rotowsky is about who is at the table and who is on the table, we are in actuality seeing that the UK finds this restaurant to be massively overpriced, whilst serving stale food. And they are not the only guests in attendance, you see, there are 2 dozen more people there. With the first shift (Brexit), France will immediately moving to a Bistro (Frexit), which leaves Germany and Italy in a lurch. Considering that these 4 have 70% of all the debt. Yet they still believe that moving out and taking their invoice with them will pay off for them in the medium long run mainly, because the other nations are just as bad in keeping their budgets and Greece is showing how the others are paying for their choices and errors. The only one in a bad place is Germany, because when the UK goes, so does France, unless it can make an ironclad deal with Germany, giving Italy chances to catch up, but if France goes, so does Germany and then the mess will be complete. The UK is not the first one to truly get a better deal, that is Germany, but overall both will be much stronger within 5 years. France will muddle on and the power blow that the US gets when the Euro goes is the nightmare scenario for whomever ends up in the oval office, only because greed could not be contained.

So as bankers and politicians grab the most powerful Prazosin solution they can charge their health care fund for, we see that this only dims the feeling the nightmare has, not the reality what a collapsed economy holds. That reality will be with the people, they get to learn this lesson because too many players were happy to quote unreal expectations of an improved economy, after which they would hide behind waves of managed bad news and not seek out the dangers that might have been a long term bet could now bring us the approaching reality that we see today and that could pan out to be the new life in Europe from 2017 onwards.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics, Science

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

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