Tag Archives: the Guardian

February 19, 2014 · 20:45

The bad and the worse

I have had several views in many directions, but two issues are rising that require us to take a critical look at us. Some will agree, some will disagree and many will not know where they stand in these two issues. The first is again about labour, both work and politics.

Of course, it does not help when Bill shorten starts to ‘rant’ on the issues that hit many. The first issue is Alcoa. It is an Aluminum smelter. The first quote is “Aluminium manufacturer Alcoa has contradicted federal government claims that the carbon tax led to the decision to shut the company’s Point Henry smelter and two rolling mills in Geelong and western Sydney” (at http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/alcoa-contradicts-joe-hockey-on-reasons-for-smelter-shutdown-20140218-32yir.html)

In addition we see the quote from Bill Shorten where is said “It’s clear that a global oversupply of aluminium, dramatically falling aluminum prices and a high Australian dollar made the continuation of these operations impossible” he said.

Shall we take a small step back to the 12th of February 2013 where we see the following quote (at http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/2/12/resources-and-energy/alcoa-vic-pass-carbon-tax-liability-federal-govt)

“The plan addresses a long-standing issue whereby decades-old agreements between Alcoa and the state government included guarantees of cheap power that left Victoria holding the responsibility for the carbon tax due to an inability to pass on those costs to the aluminum giant.” as well as “Under the deals, the state will pay an increased power price and pass most of that through to Alcoa.”

So, taxation is up, power costs are up and prices are down. Mr Shorten needs to take a hard look at his own party and the shortages of his own Labor government where we see that these issues were known for over a year. The fact that Labor decides to park the issue until after the election means he now needs to remain quiet. Yes, it will be an issue, but for him to nag like a little girl is what happens when his predecessors decided to ignore the issue. The liberals warned about the dangers of the carbon tax, the people were hit massively hard by the carbon tax and now hell is to pay and in my view, the Labor party better foot that bill real quick. This is however not the first instance. In Feb 2012 a similar newscast was made by the Australian. The quote “ALCOA says a carbon tax will make life harder for the company as it reviews the future of its Victorian smelter and the jobs of up to 600 workers.” (at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/national-affairs/tony-abbott-seeks-to-blame-threat-to-alcoa-smelter-jobs-on-carbon-tax/story-fn99tjf2-1226265695323), So Labor was aware for almost 2 years in their reign that the Carbon tax would have a definite influence.

The last line of that article by the Business spectator states “If we got all that right, it is no skin off Alcoa’s nose, is it? But it does take a significant burden off the Victorian taxpayer.” Well, see the result! It was apparently more than just skin of the nose of Alcoa and as such it becomes a different kind of burden on the taxpayers.

The final quote from the Business Spectator article was the one the article started with “Aluminium giant Alcoa and the Victorian state government have designed a complicated set of deals intended to place the liability for rising power costs onto the federal government, according to The Australian Financial Review.” So an American Company is deciding that the rising risk of higher power costs should be carried by our government? Alcoa reported (at http://www.alcoa.com/australia/en/news/releases/2014_01_09_4Q_Earnings.asp) on January 2014 the following:

Revenue of $23.0 billion whilst reporting a Net loss of $2.3 billion, or $2.14 per share

Let us not forget that this was a better result than 2012, so Labor KNEW that there were several issues here. When you ‘service’ an American corporation who loses well over 2 billion whilst reporting revenue at 23 billion, there are issues plain and simple. I can agree with some that there claim made by Joe Hockey is not completely accurate (in regards to the carbon tax being the reason), but there is no doubt that at a 2.3 billion dollar loss, the carbon tax might have been the proverbial straw that broke the American Smelter Camel’s back!

We should however not just blame Bill Shorten (even if some feel that this is a more comfortable choice). The Honourable Kim Carr (seen in newscasts bearing a slightly less waxed chin then Bill Shorten) has been in both the foreground and background in more than one occasion. So it is only fair we take his actions in account as well. If we consider my blog article ‘The last Australian car‘ from February 12th we see a few more angles that gives worries to the Labor side of it all, especially in light of the quote “writer Judith Sloan brings a case that Australia has subsidised almost $1900 per vehicle produced.” I mentioned. Is it a good deal when we see these costs and support numbers go out? If we take $2,000 subsidy per car and if we consider that Toyota made 100,000 cars last year, we see the costing of $200 million a year in subsidies, which is a lot more than what the workers would cost every year. So, no matter how good it looks, $200 million is way too large a bill to just handover to a car giant. Is there an alternative? Perhaps the Dutch alternative where VDL Nedcar, who was initially in the news in 2012 with the headline “Mitsubishi Motors to sell NedCar plant for 1 euro to VDL” was the beginning of a new plant, completely refitted for 24 hours a day automated manufacturing. They are now starting to build the new MINI Hatch as per this summer. Is there an opportunity for Australia? Yes!
With an upcoming customer base of 22 million (deserted by Ford, Holden and Toyota), VDL Nedcar might see Australia as the opportunity of a lifetime.

It is however not just the car industry. Sky News is just now showing another iteration of job losses in Victoria (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/19/victoria-promised-federal-funds-as-alcoa-shutdown-adds-to-job-losses), so as Sky News and the Guardian shows us, what I would see as the hollow words of Bill shorten were he states “Spend the money this year, then you can save hundreds of jobs, you can keep excellent world-class naval construction skills in this country.”

Yes, Labor is all about SPENDING money! Let us not forget that the treasurer has been presenting the massive bill that Labor left Australia. The National debt went from 58 billion in 2007 to 257 billion in 2013, all under Labor. So perhaps the irritating quote by Labor leader Bill Shorten on “Tony Abbott and photo opportunities” should change. He should ask how his own party had been spending money they never had in the first place. When we see the $200 million in slave labour bonus (oops, I meant subsidy) for Toyota we have to wonder how long until we are all at the mercy of whoever owns these debt markers (most likely the banks). Labor does not get to nag on the cost of living whilst overspending a little over $11,000 per Australian resident. So when we hear another whinge by Bill Shorten on the deficit, consider that his party had been spending it, making it all a lot harder for many Australians in the upcoming time-span 2014-2016.

The issue of the car makers as well as Alcoa were already known issues in the Labor era and shouting now, whilst not securing these markets (which was in all honesty not a realistic option) is just plain wrong.

In addition there is one strong factor, which has been a known weakness was not dealt with in the Labor era either. It is the energy shortage, which is at the heart of several factors (especially Alcoa). If we accept the ABC transcript (at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1796094.htm), then it is only fair that we point part of this blame at the Liberals as well. The issue was known since 2006 (even though Labor got to power in 2007). From several texts, I myself come to the conclusion that something had to be started in 2005, which was not done. Labor ignored it for 2 whole terms making the issue just a lot harder and now the Liberals MUST address this issue. If you are wondering how correct or how wrong I am than just take a look at your Australian energy bill. My bills have grown, whilst remaining a stable user, by over 100% in less than 6 years. This makes it a hike of over 16% a year. In addition, the carbon tax really pushed up the prices. Focusing on cheaper energy would have made a real difference for all parties concerned. In addition, this is not a local issue, it is not a national issue, but it is almost a global issue. The same issue can be seen in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (very clearly), as well as America. So, it is nice to keep making cars and Aluminum, but if it is not financially viable, the tax payer ends up footing the bill no matter which road we take. So, the dollar, our work conditions and other factors will always remain an issue, but if energy prices are not solved, the one part that will drain any options we might have had. Consider the Business Spectator quote “Point Henry alone represents almost 7 per cent of Victoria’s annual electricity consumption“, so one plant needs THAT much? How could this issue have been ignored for almost 3 administrations? I see that there is a manufacturing issue in Australia, but if the energy prices are not dealt with, we will see a national shift from bad to worse.

Perhaps this will be the moment of innovation; perhaps we should focus on other areas. It only takes one innovator to come with that golden idea that brings income (not costs) to our states. I just hope that politicians on both sides of the aisle will listen to that person.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as ABC, ALCOA, Bill shorten, Business Spectator, Joe Hockey, Kim Carr, Labor, Liberal, Point Henry, SMH, Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, the Guardian, The last Australian car, Tony Abbott, Toyota, VDL Nedcar

February 12, 2014 · 19:13

The last Australian car

Australian news has been all over the place. The one thing that is so expected is now on the fritz. Car makers are moving away from Australia. The events have not been out of the air, but what has been a revelation, is the amount of ‘subsidies’ the government had thrown into that direction to begin with. What can we (me, myself and my sources) tell you? First, the four big car makers in Australia were Ford, Holden, Mitsubishi and Toyota.

1. Ford
Last year, Ford announced plans to shut its two Australian plants in October 2016, blaming strong currency as well as high production costs that are hitting the manufacturer. These are all decent reasons, but I personally do not think that this was the whole picture. In addition Ford is cutting 300 jobs this June, which has some worried that Ford will leave before the 2016 announced point of departure.

2. Holden
Holden will be leaving Australia in 2017. Holden’s 2017 exit from its automotive assembly operations in Elizabeth put 13,000 jobs at risk in South Australia. (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/21/holden-exit-2017-sa-needs-330m).

3. Mitsubishi
Mitsubishi shuttered its assembly plant in 2008.

4. Toyota
The world’s largest car maker announced it would stop building cars in Australia by the end of 2017 and would operate in this country only as a sales and distribution company. One additional factor needs to be told, which will have bearing down the road. Namely “Toyota is Australia’s biggest vehicle exporter with around 70,000 of the 100,000-plus cars it builds here being sold in foreign markets” (at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/toyota-to-make-major-announcement/story-fn3dxiwe-1226822810074).

So, by 2017 all carmakers will have bailed out of Australia. Why is this all a big deal?
Many will go directly for the job losses. ABC stated “The Australian Council of Trade Unions has warned the decision could cost as many as 50,000 jobs and wipe $21 billion from the economy as the impact rolls through the associated components sector” (at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-10/toyota-to-pull-out-of-australia-sources/5250114).

Is that all the truth? No! Listening to Labour leader Bill shorten is to hear a lot of misinformation and tweaked wordings. Labour had messed up a lot of issues. In my personal view, I personally think that Bill Shorten is not telling the whole truth because his lips are moving! Let’s not forget that the Liberals are not blameless either, the entire situation has covered both sides of the political aisle. Part of the disgrace can be read in the Business insider (at http://www.businessinsider.com.au/australias-car-industry-out-of-gas-after-billions-in-subsidies-that-were-always-going-to-lead-to-a-dead-end-2013-12) the quote “The car industry is estimated to have received a total of $12 billion in direct subsidies and protections over the past 20 years, including $1.8 billion to Holden in the 11 years to 2012.” is at the heart of this. So basically, 4 car makers have enjoyed an annual $600 million in subsidies a year. This is so off the wall it is not even funny! So our taxation goes to an industry who advertises a dozen times a day that they are so great? How can we take either the car industry, or the government in this regard serious? Let us not forget that Labour was part of this all as well. This also links back to the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership). An interesting link we find is a Japanese site that had the following to say (at http://www.jama-english.jp/publications/tpp_pr_mar2013.pdf) “Japan’s auto market is completely open to other countries’ products. No restrictive customs or other regulations apply to imported vehicles.”

What about the exported vehicle side of all this? If we see it in that light, we see that the TPP is opening up borders as it should, so, that from now on Japan (Toyota and Mitsubishi) as well as USA (Ford and Holden) have a dire reason to return to their home flock. The TPP is giving options to get these brands all home build. Whatever assurances we see now on support and spare parts will soon be removed too (like in the month as they leave). Yes, there will be a few ‘exclusive’ distributors, but as the TPP comes to full power, the entire online experience will not just hold books, movies and video games. they will likely include car parts soon enough. If you doubt this all (which would be fair), then consider the following article (at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/lies-damn-lies-and-car-subsidy-statistics/story-fnbkvnk7-1226824091831#), where writer Judith Sloan brings a case that Australia has subsidised almost $1900 per vehicle produced. If we take that and we add the initial quote I mentioned “Toyota is Australia’s biggest vehicle exporter with around 70,000 of the 100,000-plus cars it builds here being sold in foreign markets” leaves me with the question whether we have been sponsoring that part too.

Is this just the story? No! I think that there is more at play. Even though several sources are not making any mention of it, Ford and General Motors (Holden) are American companies and i think it is not just about removing plants, I personally think that members of the US government have had talks with all the big boys of industry. The American situation cannot continue. If America is to survive (which is slowly becoming less and less likely), they need taxable incomes. To get this done they will have to get the industry back. This will soon become an era of in-sourcing. This is not a new or a novel thought. It had been on the mind of many in 2012 and several articles had been written in 2013 that in-sourcing would grow big in USA. One of the people outspoken in that area had been Charles Fishman. Even though no one took him that seriously, the man appeared to have been right on the money. I personally think that it was the dumb spending sprees by both Japanese and American governments that forced the in-sourcing hand. This is also part of the pressure we saw in December as President Barack Obama spoke out for a quick closure of the TPP (it still think that the pharmaceutical patents are the largest part, but that I will cover at a later date).

Is it all a bad idea? No!

It is for us, but can you blame these two nations for thinking of themselves? It will however be important for us to find another solution. I already mentioned this on December 11th when I wrote about ‘The Holden circus’. If Toyota is leaving Australia too, then my thoughts on this are not just validated to some extent, they become a lot more important to follow up on. A nation of 23 million needs its own car industry. I do believe that it should not be subsidised, the designers just need to become really clever and we the people of Australia will need to support our own industry. If the Japanese and the Americans are all about nationalism (as we have seen on many occasion), then why not the Australians? If Japan and America walk away from a 23 million customer base, why should we keep any level of loyalty towards them?

We must all realise that we need to adjust our focus, we must change our way of working and thinking. We need to walk away from subsidies and sponsoring. We must move to an age where we design in a more clever way, we must bring to market in a brighter way and we must adhere to a different customer collective. The 4 brand approach to 12 models a year is just not sustainable. If these makers claim so, ten let them refund the subsidies!

When the last car is built in Australia, the eager beaver that launches their brand in Australia will start with the audience of a lifetime!

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as ABC, Australia, Barack Obama, Bill shorten, Charles Fishman, Ford, Holden, Jama, Judith Sloan, Labour, Liberals, Mistsubishi, the Australian, The Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Guardian, The Holden circus, Toyota, TPP

February 11, 2014 · 10:39

Watership Drown for Mr Smith

There is no denying it. If you are in the UK, you are likely drenched, flooded or drowning. It is the worst hardship that any person could ever face. Even though such a situation unheard of in Australia, I grew up in the Netherlands and as such, rainy conditions are not unknown to the Dutch, the flooding they are facing however has not been seen to THAT degree ever. Yes, if you were living by the Maas, there some have had their skirmishes with floods; also the Australians have had their own versions of ‘enlarged’ swimming pools. The flood that has hit Somerset is however one of the few moments where ‘biblical’ is the only word that covers the hardship these people face.

It goes beyond Somerset, as per tonight, anyone who is living around the Themes is likely to be in dire need for higher ground. I agree with certain people when they state that this is not the time for the blame game. (at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/10/uk-floods-cameron-ministers-flooding). I myself do not have any intentions to blame Lord Smith of Finsbury at present. I saw how people seem to blame him for this, but why?

Dredging? The news that hit the Daily Mail less than 12 hours ago (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2555667/Environment-Agency-bosses-spent-2-4million-PR-refused-1-7million-dredging-key-Somerset-rivers-stopped-flooding.html), which shows us how their story is not a useful example.

No matter how correct their numbers are. You see, numbers do not lie; the writer who uses these numbers like in the quote “but refused £1.7million dredging of key Somerset rivers that could have stopped flooding” is at the very centre of the entire deception.

No amount of dredging would have saved Somerset, whatever experts will tell you in cautious words, the issue is not just the rain, but the amount of days that the rain continued. The soil is saturated for many hundreds of square miles. You see, rivers do help getting water away, but the soil soaks up most of the water. Consider a simple experiment. You take two buckets, one filled with dry dirt, one empty. You add 2 gallons of water to both, put a lid with a few small holes on both and after 15 minutes you empty the bucket again through the holes into the 2 gallon measure. You will see that the bucket without soil returns 99.322% (roughly), the other one will yield less than 60%. This is what Somerset and others face. Water that has nowhere to go, it remains afloat upon the land. I watched as an old lady on sky news proclaimed that she had never seen anything like this in her 43 years living in that area. That should be a first indication that England is not facing anything they have faced before. Weeks of rain and more rain to come for at least 2 weeks (as presently indicated), dredging would not have had the smallest of influence, there is too much water to deal with.

Additional consideration was the image they placed (at http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/10/article-2555667-1B5A5F2E00000578-651_634x446.jpg), take the small blue lines as the rivers and consider the red areas as flooded. Now consider that all the red area water is at least 3 inches, which would make it billions of gallons. How are rivers to deal with that? Dredging would not have made a difference at all. Now, important is that I am not against dredging, but in this case it would not have been the solution people claim it to be.

In support we can see the following at the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/10/uk-floods-cameron-ministers-flooding), where the following was stated by former environment minister Richard Benyon “A lot of people are becoming very fed up with the way in which this debate is being reduced to a binary choice about whether rivers should be dredged or not. I have to point out floods are caused by rain not silt“, the additional fact that we can find in that story is that the Brits haven’t seen these amounts of rain since 1760. Consider that most of the affected areas had been uninhabited in those days strengthens that this event to this degree is a first.

The second misuse of ‘facts’ by the Daily Mail is “The Environment Agency spent £2.4million on PR activities“. The Environment Agency is not there just for floods. On their website they state “regulation of major industry, flood and coastal risk management, water quality and resources, waste regulation, climate change, fisheries, contaminated land, conservation and ecology, navigation“, so basically it is a big bucket of events that is covered. Keeping track of pollution is a big one as many (not at present) can agree to.

Looking through the articles, there is an interesting one by Colin Thorne from Nottingham University (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/10/britain-floods-chief-scientist-sewage-coastal-defences). It shows that not only is the UK facing hardship, it will soon be facing a really hard choice on how to deal with these events. Sir David King had mentioned the need for radical change a decade ago. The quote “Sustainable flood management actually involves a lot less flood management and a lot more managed flooding” might give an indication on how drastically the changes need to be. If we use the Netherlands as an example, the UK will soon face the discussion on spending. This is because in the Netherlands managing too much water has been a massive part of its national budget for over half a century. Take a look at the map of the Netherlands, and consider that the lowest dry spot in the Netherlands is 7 meters BELOW sea level! Let’s not forget that the Netherlands did not get to this point easily or free of hurt. The fight against the sea began in all earnest after the storm of Sunday February 1st 1953, which killed almost 1800 people. This storm changed the face of the Netherlands in more than one way. Such a project is not feasible in the UK, but we will see some projects start, which will start debates on many levels. As people realise that the future in Somerset could start to revolve around managed flooding, we will see new levels of anger. It is only natural that this happens. We are not talking about flooding residential areas, but consider that areas, surrounded by dikes doubling as roads will create places where all the water can go to, who owns these lands? More important, what happens when it is not enough? They are all valid questions and the least favourite part of this will decide on some of the choices, because all of it will cost money and it will take loads of money to get something done decently. In addition, the land lost will impact on land prices and land value. So when Sir David King spoke about hard choices he was not kidding and I wonder if people realise just how hard these changes could be.

The final thought I leave you with is this. ‘This had not happened to this degree for a little over 250 years!‘ How unsafe do the people feel there and how far will the government go to take a stand against what has happened? Lord Smith of Finsbury stated a good point when he mentioned the 5000 houses that did get hit and the 1.1 million houses that remained safe. It is a good point and we need to focus on that part before the parties in the UK start pushing out ‘wild’ programs on visibility against floods.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as Colin Thorne, Daily Mail, Lord Smith, Lord Smith of Finsbury, Netherlands, Nottingham University, Richard Benyon, Somerset, The Environment Agency, the Guardian, watersnood ramp

January 27, 2014 · 04:45

The danger ahead

It was the BBC that gave me an insight I had not been aware of. It is easy to miss an item, even though I have been involved in IT on many levels for over 3 decades. It is just not possible to keep it all in focus all the time.

It is kind of fun to consider the words of my late grandmother. It was the only issue we could never see eye to eye on. She had an expression ‘Johnny of all, master of none‘. It was not a positive expression! I always went the other way in that regard. Whilst most went to some ‘temporary’ master as they mastered a certain niche skill. I went into the width of IT. I got exposure to such a wide field that my knowledge covered the entire foundation of IT (yes, in the time of the mainframe). After that I started to grow the base of this knowledge trying to evenly grown my knowledge of all IT fields (to some degree). My knowledge grew from programming, to consulting, to training and so on.

So where is this going?

I wrote at an earlier date about IT and the iteration approach to IT (at ‘Year of the last Euro?‘). The entire field goes a lot further. In an age of the similar devices, last week as I was prohibited from moving for 4 hours, I decided to let my mind wander and I came up with an entirely new Notebook. I categorise it as a fat notebook and I call it the ‘True Mobile System’. In an age where Sony, Asus, IBM et all seem to come up with a different names for the same flavour, my mind designed a new approach to a mobile business system.

Was it clever? Not sure! The issue is that many could have come up with it and either they are limited to what their boss dictates or they are just not thinking in a user based forward motion. Here lies the crux of many issues we have seen lately. Their way of thinking is not user based. It is often revenue based, there is a HUGE difference!

If you have read my previous blogs (especially ‘Fifth in a trilogy!‘) then you might notice a trend. In my mind most corporate IT is now all about what is in charge, not who! So as marketing decides on deadlines and evolutions, many learn the hard way that marketing is basically the extension of the CFO (and/or the stakeholders) and as such it is all about the money. If development is the science, then marketing should be seen as the ‘tainted’ picture. The problem is that too many CEO’s and others are all about this tainted picture (and as such the perception of what comes next), the science/engineering side gets too often ignored, or just briefly listened to and after that they get shut down and pushed forward to meet the deadline.

In that regard I still see the game ‘Assassins Creed 4’ (yes that pirate game), which could have been truly great and ended up being less than that (at least in my personal view)! The same can be said for business based ideas. If we consider this message (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25859360), where Google Chrome might be considered an eavesdropping risk, then what is safe to users?

The quote “The malicious site you visited can continue listening in on you long after you have left it said Mr Ater. As long as Chrome is still running nothing said next to your computer is private.” gives ample reason for worry. The danger from our side is that this could be a topic for conspiracy theory. Was this really ‘accidental’? I am not saying it was not or was not. It is however interesting how we as computer users have been exposed to a massive amount of security flaws in the last year alone.

In my mind, is this due to shoddy programming, or is their local marketing so set on certain deadlines and as such proper testing is no longer done? I personally think it is a combination of the latter two. As additional ‘evidence’ in my train of thought, my recent Yahoo experience comes to mind.

I have been a faithful Yahoo user since the early 90’s, for me it always sufficed. The e-mail was robust, it gave me the space I needed and as such I never regretted it. Yet, since the ‘remake’ of Yahoo it changed by a lot. The amount of failures I viewed are on a new low level of customer experience and as such, at present I am seriously considering leaving Yahoo mail and move to Google permanently.

The feedback does not have any options for filing bugs or complaints. It is all about ‘submit an idea‘ and ‘send public feedback‘. To me this all seems like the marketing image left by someone who should be lobotomised and left somewhere far away from any IT endeavour (preferably forever). Yahoo mail now exposes us to additional dangers as we no longer see a status bar in certain places. So, we no longer see ‘the’ link, which I consider a bad thing. The new system also ‘assumes’ spam, so I now have to scan my spam even more often. I can no longer sort by sender, which means that organising my inbox take a massive amount of time longer. The list goes on and on. Is it marketing at the expense of functionality? To be honest, I would need a little more evidence before I can state that as a fact to some level, but the deadline push has been visible with too many corporations and for far too long.

These issues go a lot further when you consider the article called ‘Android’s biggest security flaws‘ at ZDNet (at http://www.zdnet.com/androids-biggest-security-flaws-1339338283/). As they mention the dangers of inexperienced and malicious developers, they actually forgot about the third group, the ‘callous developer’. These firms (not the individual programmer), who are all driven to meet certain deadlines and as such might not properly test or secure their application.

It is important to note that I do not see the inexperienced developer as a real threat. Yes, they offer the same level of danger, but they are not out to harm you. You, the user, who wants applications for free (as many do) should not blame that new person for trying to get a foothold. If that developer is to be held for one thing, then in my mind it would be that too many of these freebies should bare the mark ‘Beta’ or ‘Trial’, to add an extra warning level for user downloading their new endeavour.

The big issue becomes: ‘What to do about Android?’

As the influence of android increases and interacts with all manner of devices in other ways (like with a person’s Sony-id account, so that a gamer keeps online with friends and achievements when they are not at home), gives way that security flaws become more and more harmful. More important, as we become more and more oblivious of the interaction, we might be spreading all our personal details all over the internet and that danger could grow exponentially with every additional application.

These events also shine an interesting light on an article that was in the Guardian last Friday (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/24/justify-gchq-mass-surveillance-european-court-human-rights). When we consider the issues I listed on application security, we should take a second look at the quote in the article “Nick Pickles of Big Brother Watch said: ‘This legal challenge is an essential part of getting to the bottom of why the public and parliament have not been properly informed about the scale of surveillance and why our privacy has been subverted on an industrial scale.’”

Perhaps the quote could also be read as “Speed and disregard of proper development has allowed for open access to many computers and devices, which allows for almost complete collection and stored and such storage can only be done by just a few. This open level of availability allows the NSA and GCHQ (amongst others) to collect open source intelligence, hoping to gain the upper hand in the war on terror.”

I am not stating this is the case, but it could be seen as such. In that regard I call for the issue I mentioned in a previous blog called ‘Internet Privacy?‘ on December 27th, where we see the dangers of some applications (at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/dec/27/snapchat-may-be-exposed-hackers). If we consider the dangers consumes are exposed to for whatever reason, it seems odd that Big Brother watch is not more outspoken on the industrial subversion of privacy by software designers.

So here we get back to the beginning of this blog where I wrote “I designed a new way for a mobile business system.” As Microsoft has moved into a field of computers utilising an approach in the air of “With our computers you do not need to use the brain you never had in the first place“. An automated system that assumes all the time to cover 95% of its users, loaded with gaps and security flaws.

People need to get licensed to get a gun, drive a car, a boat or a plane. Yet, the dangers that computers expose us to are currently not dealt with in any serious way. I reckon that in the next two years identity theft and identity fraud will be regularly in the back of our minds, as it grows into the very visible danger it already is. If we look at some of the numbers then I could speculate that 90% of the people will directly know one victim of identity fraud or identity theft. Lexis Nexis, in their paper ‘2013 LexisNexis® True Cost of Fraud Study‘ state numbers that should scare us all. In 2013, 58% of the merchants were confronted with credit card fraud and 36% of the 2013 population was confronted with lost or stolen merchandise. These numbers by themselves are not that useful as such (at http://www.lexisnexis.com/risk/downloads/assets/true-cost-fraud-2013.pdf). Yet consider that 12.6 million U.S. adult victims of identity fraud had to deal on average with $1,653 of damage per fraud victim. The total amount becomes a staggering one and this is just the US! As technology is not properly attuned to a better level of security, but to set to please a growing marketable population these dangers will only increase. This is the true danger ahead, not what the government can see. In that regard Foreign Secretary William Hague is quite correct when he states “law-biding members of the public have nothing to fear“.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Politics, Science

Tagged as Android, Asus, BBC, Big Brother Watch, GCHQ, google, Google Chrome, IBM, IT, LexisNexis, Marketing, Microsoft, Mr Ater, Nick Pickles, NSA, security flaws, Sony, the Guardian, William Hague, Yahoo, Yahoo mail, ZDNet

January 15, 2014 · 02:44

My £13,000,000 invoice!

I got a ‘nice’ wakeup call just now, as I was reading an article in the guardian. It is at www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/14/ministry-of-defence-failed-computer-system. The title “Ministry of Defence ‘wasted millions on failed computer system’” got my attention. The UK is riddled with IT people trying to get a decent job. This article implied with quotes like “The recruitment partnering project, a £1.3bn scheme intended to enable the army to recruit online, is almost two years behind schedule and will not be fully operational until April 2015 at the earliest, the Times said.”

Now, I understand that the MoD does things a little different and that this online approach takes a little time and money, but the fact that the cost of this system is more than the personnel costs of an entire regiment for 50 years (take into account that most IT solutions are usually set for a lifetime span of no more than 10 years) gives weight to the issue that it is time to go public. The additional quote “the problems are so serious that defence secretary Philip Hammond is considering spending nearly £50m on a new solution.” gives weight to my response “You pay me 10% of that and I will assist in getting the issue sorted”

You see, any IT project is basically simple.

What must be done and by what date?
What must it cover?
What are you willing to spend?
Document the agreement and sign it by all parties!

The rest is usually political manoeuvring. (I apologise for oversimplifying the problem)

The fact that the article implied that the costs were a billion plus, gives the impression that the entire military network system got overhauled. This leaves us with the thought that there is a decent chance that Sir Iain Lobban of GCHQ is laughing himself to death reading about these events, so perhaps the loud honing laughter will move Defence to take a harsh look at themselves in the cold light of these events.

Do not get me wrong. I know that IT solutions tend to cost, and things get delayed, but this is about recruiting people, the price is implied to be set at thirteen hundred million pounds and it is already 2 years late. So, why was any amount paid in regards to a failed system? It is of course likely that those who delivered had a quality ironclad contract in place, yet the mentioned amount is extremely out of proportion compared to the non-working delivery.

The next quote is also one that opens debate “If the ICT hosting solution is not put in place then the MoD risks not gaining the appropriate number of recruits needed. Given recent criticism of army recruitment … and the use of reserves, this would lead to further negative media reporting and reputational damage for MoD.” So, the 2 year delay was not a clear indication of issues? I reckon that the spending of well over a billion on a non-working system is more than enough for laughter, ridicule and reputation damage for the MoD for a long time to come.

To put this all in perspective take a look at this quote from the Guardian made in August 2013 (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/aug/01/gchq-spy-agency-nsa-edward-snowden). The quote is “GCHQ now has liaison officers working inside MI5, MI6 and the Soca, the serious and organised crime agency. It takes the lion’s share of the £1.9bn budget for Britain’s intelligence services” so basically, the MoD blew on a non-working recruitment option, the amount that GCHQ needs to keep it completely operational (for a year).

Seems a little out of whack, does it not?

Now for some other fun facts! Recruitment is all about creating interest. Now consider that the cost to make a multiplatform next-gen video game is £15-£25 million pound. So, the youthful player could get introduced to all kinds of positions, challenges, military functions and so on. The development is when compared to what is wasted less than 2% of those costs. More interesting, it could be sold at the newsagent for £5. The MoD could break even, or even make some money too (which would definitely be a nice change). It is a game and it might not have all of the information, but together with an information website loaded with PDF’s, application information and a registration bank should never have exceeded £80 million, from what I envision at present (including the game development). Why was this solution not hosted via GCHQ? The people at the MoD might know of the place, it is in Cheltenham and it looks like a massive donut (Yummy!). It has better security and more options for facilitation than most secure banks can dream of (GCHQ is not to be confused with the NSA, where you can copy all data to a USB stick at your own convenience).

So, do I have a case here? Actually, it was not me, but The Times, who started it, and the Guardian for giving it the visibility that goes far beyond the UK borders.

I must try to be neutral in these matters and very likely the article is missing key elements considering the amount involved, but seeing how 1 in 7 in the UK lives below poverty on one side, whilst on the other side a billion plus is wasted to this degree is extremely upsetting. I have proudly worked in IT since 1981 and seeing events like these, just do not cut it with me and it should not cut it with you, the reader either.

There is however a little more. “This leaked report points to the latest series of catastrophic failures at the Ministry of Defence on David Cameron’s watch.” is a quote I have an issue with. The fact that it is 2 years late means that this was supposed to be finished late 2011. When was the project started? Who were the people starting this, who was involved? It is of course possible that this was all on the conservative watch, yet, that must still be verified. The mention in the article of “after failing in 2011 to challenge a MoD policy” on the article gives rise to the thought that this has for a large part been an internal MoD failing. In addition “The project management team was inexperienced and under-resourced and the army failed to take charge when delays started and put in a suitable contingency plan.” gives way to my four step issue. The first two steps, as I mentioned it, also cover resources, the fact that this was not met means that the failing was on more than one level. Who at the MoD was involved? Was this person aware of the required skillset?

All questions that should have risen with any senior decision maker before the project was accepted and the checklists should have tripped several ‘alarms’ as the project was going forward. The fact that the large amount had been ‘lost’ indicates that none of these issues were factually dealt with.

The article raises a few more questions, but the horror should be clear. It will keep on costing more for now and before Labour starts ‘calling’ for botched jobs, they should take a look at the issues we saw in 2010 (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labours-computer-blunders-cost-16326bn-1871967.html). From that part we get the clear idea that infrastructure and policies alone are not getting IT choices done. Knowledge is likely to fix that; you just need to make sure the right person is on the job.

With the amount that has been spent, I feel comfortable sending them with my 13 million pound invoice.
(Payment within 30 days for this consult would be appreciated, as I have to pay my bar bill).

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Military, Politics

Tagged as Cheltenham, David Cameron, GCHQ, Ministry of Defence, MoD, NSA, Philip Hammond, Sir Iain Lobban, the Guardian, The Independent, The Times

January 10, 2014 · 00:06

Independent Crete

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as Angela Merkel, Crete, economy, George Soros, Greece, Laurie McIlwee, NY Times, Spain, the Guardian

January 9, 2014 · 12:45

A healthier population

The Guardian notified me of another issue ‘rising’ in the UK (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/08/government-dancing-tune-drinks-industry-doctors). It is a nice article on setting the minimum price of alcohol. Is it a bad idea? Nah, I do not think so, there is ample believe that setting a higher minimum price might (I state might) dissuade a few people from drinking alcohol, but the amount of people that alcohol abuse is impacted will for the most not be hit by such changes.

I found the issue that lobbyists were meeting with politicians a little laughable. Is that not their function? In the end, the fact that these lobbyists had such easy access is noticeable. Is it about the 130 meetings, or perhaps the implied 130 free lunches these politicians might have had?

The one passage that did get my attention was “In an open letter, 21 senior doctors and campaigners, including Prof Sir Ian Gilmore, special adviser on alcohol for the Royal College of Physicians, raised fears that ‘big business is trumping public health concerns in Westminster’.”

This is a matter of concern. The question becomes on what might be a solution that would actually work? I do not pretend to have the answer, or the wisdom to answer the issue as it could be resolved. The Daily Mail (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-19699/Alcohol-abuse-costing-Britain-6bn-year.html, not the best source of academic like information) stated that it costs the government 6 million pounds (the BBC stated much higher numbers in Feb 2013), as well as a cost to the NHS of 207 million pounds.

Perhaps we should consider another method. Something more like the subtle message we see on cigarette packages in Australia. How about these people get a standard letter as their details are recorded? The letter should go something like this.

Dear drinker,

Thank you for soon drinking yourself to death. Even though you are (for now) still alive, the pressing shortage of houses and jobs will be slowly resolved as you die from alcohol abuse. At present, as the damage is voluntarily self-inflicted, you have no right to any medical support other than the one you can pay for through the use of cash or credit card, which must be paid for before you receive this aid.

Should these events result in your death, then your belongings must be collected from your apartment within 48 hours, or they are regarded as forfeit! We, the government are grateful that you vacated your job and housing for a person who wants to make life better for themselves and those around them.

Kind regards,

Your local politician (insert name here).

That letter might actually have two interesting effects. The first would be that the person scares him/herself into a state of perpetual soberness. The second one is that his/her direct family might also deal with this situation, which could help the drinker get a hold of him/her self.

Why this way?

Consider when we see the damage of alcohol and we keep on having this ‘soft’ approach on a group that will continuously binge drink themselves. The BBC in February 2013 (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21586566) stated an even grimmer picture, so clearly something is not working. Consider how much a person pays to drink and the additional damage a country receives. Why must this go to the taxpayer?

The current drop in legal aid funds in several nations (most notably in the UK). The drops in assigned budgets which are currently stopping mental health workers to continue do their job. It is also notable that people with a mental health issue (the non-alcoholics) are cut twice. On one side they lose out on legal aid, the other side they get cut on mental health assistance. The third side is added as the NHS has no money left.

I personally do not see the levels of alcohol abuse as a mental health issue. (Alcoholism is without question a mental health issue). The people who drink more because they can’t get laid, they are ignoring their temporary issues or they are just in a party race of who can drink the most are a massive part of the current cost of alcohol abuse as we see it happen. So, if they are left to die, less are there to compete in fast drinking, which solves that part. Less are alive to get noticed, so those alive might get laid (resolving the second issue) and when many people see that an issue gets them killed they work it out themselves which takes care of item three.

Seems like a nice simple package!

The reality is that this issue is not that simple, but the crux is that these money costing issues have to be resolved. The treasury coffers are empty and these transgressors need to be made aware that when you get in a state such as they get in, they might no longer get any support getting over it.

The time of ‘Whatever! Have another drink‘ is gone, not only do we need to be held accountable for our actions, a change is needed on the levels of support that is given to some as they abuse themselves and others. Consider that a refugee cannot get any legal aid when it has to deal with what is now known as a ‘rogue landlord’, then consider that the same landlord drinking his kidney using rogue rent cash into failure gets all the assistance he/she needs to do it again.

We as a population and politicians as a deciding group have been focusing on the wrong sides of the equation. With coffers empty, economy at long time low and groups of people burdening a system that can no longer support it, we must look into new directions.

They might work, they might not, but not changing anything is no solution, that part has clearly been proven.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics

Tagged as alcohol abuse, BBC, legal aid, mental health, mental health issue, NHS, rogue landlords, Royal College of Physicians, Sir Ian Gilmore, the Guardian

January 6, 2014 · 22:24

The Governors act

In amongst the 82.4 things (roughly) I have to do on a daily basis, the fleeting moments I have to myself are fleeting indeed. Whether I keep myself busy, keep myself occupied or keep myself distracted does not matter. My mind does not stop working. It was during these activities that an article on Steven Seagal crossed my eyesight. The article was part of the ‘problem’. It was a minimal associated press message on how the Actor Steven Seagal is considering to be running for the position of Governor of Arizona (at http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/jan/05/steven-seagal-arizona-governor).

A mere 140 word article, surrounded by 8,000 characters of ‘notifications’! Is that all that the Guardian was capable of? The Independent made a much better job of it adding a few things (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/marked-for-governor-steven-seagal-hints-at-arizona-election-bid-9039937.html), my response to that is well done Tim Walker!

So what is the beef I have? Well, many of us, and to some degree me too when I was a lot younger did not take the idea of an actor going into politics very seriously. But is that not at the heart of our own folly? Let’s face it, especially in America; the elected official is a spokesperson for the people who elected him/her.

Even nowadays, many actors become so after getting a University Master’s degree that that tend to include Communication and Media.

Ronald Reagan as the former 40th President of the United Stated will likely remain the most famous of them all. Yet, the other names are not without distinction. Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California and one of the more interesting names would be Jesse “The Body” Ventura, who was a professional wrestler, actor and became Governor of Minnesota. The rumour that the bears were so afraid of this governor that they left for the Dakota’s is still unconfirmed. 😉

Finally there is John Lodge who after a decent actor (playing with stars like Shirley Temple and Marlene Dietrich), who would serve in WW2 in the US Navy and become Governor of Connecticut.

There are also several actors who decided on other governmental roles like Alan Autry, Clint Eastwood and Jack Kelly. They became Mayors and several actors went to the House of Representatives.

So many took up arms, did their bit and after making loads of money (in acting) decided to do something for their nation. Is there any worthier cause then to represent the people around you?

So, when that flimsy report of 140 words came on a Guardian page, I thought it was time to take another look at a few things.

First of all, some of the negative responses we see thrown at Steven Seagal are not without ‘reason’. The man has not played the upscale roles Al Pacino played. Is that his fault? When movies go well we all want a piece of the glory, when they are mediocre or bad it is always the fault of the actor, it seems unfair as the movie comes from a ‘vision’ of some director, limited by the funds of the producer. I know that there is more to all this. What is known is the fact that he was the centre part in half a dozen blockbusters that made loads of money. The interesting part is that although these movies were not successful, Seagal made several movies aimed to instil environmental consciousness into the viewers of the big screen.

With numerous acts of activism in protection of environment and animals, it seemed to me that this person deserved more than a mere 140 words. In addition, with what we have seen in the last 20 years, how the quality of all goes up as the spokesperson achieves better goals for them, is it so strange that Actors see this as an option when they leave the tinsel town stage? Let us not forget that the roles these wealthy stars occupy in choices from deputy sheriff to governor go from $48,000 to $125,000 a year (average incomes). For these actors, in many cases it is less than peanuts as they have millions stashed away from their previous careers. Before you think it is easy money, consider that a mid-level banker lacking accountability makes somewhere 200% and 24,000% of the average income of a US governor, depending on which bank that banker ends up with.

The biggest issue I have is that all these papers (LA Times, Washington Post, Guardian and so on) they all just used the Associated press part, with a mere 140 words to mention the name of a possible new governor, all of them ending with the line ‘he wants to increase border security‘.

It was only at www.bizpacreview.com where the following was quoted: “During the interview with ABC15, Seagal said he’s had discussions with Arpaio about a potential run, but does have other priorities to consider. When asked what the country’s number one problem was, Seagal’s response was ‘open borders.’ I think that our biggest problem is open borders,” he said. “I think that across these borders, any kind of terrorism can come, and does come. I think this is a tremendous oversight by the current administration.”

Actually, he only has a partial point in my humble opinion. This issue has played for a long time and the non-actions have been visible all the way back to former President Bush. With its 1950 miles it is the most open incursion area for the United States. The rumour on Al Qaeda getting ‘assistance for a fee’ from Mexican drug cartels has been just that, a rumour.

Linked to this is a statement from Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler, who said on C-SPAN’s ‘Washington Journal’ April 17, 2013: “We know al Qaeda has camps over with the drug cartels on the other side of the Mexican border. We know that people are now being trained to come in and act like Hispanic when they’re radical Islamists. We know these things are happening and… it’s just insane not to protect ourselves.”

Here is the kicker, actual evidence has not yet be shown, which is also no evidence that it is not true. The issue for the possible future Governor of Arizona is that his/her 370 mile stretch is almost 20% of that entire borderline. Even if that border was strengthened by a wall, it would not stop the other 80% of the border getting any safer. My issue is that Steven talks a good talk, but the US budgets, the way it is in now clearly indicates that there will never ever be enough money to get these borders secure enough. Whatever the solution it is he wants to implement, it will cost, and it will cost a lot. Until economic prosperity gets back into Arizona, his hands will be tied. Let’s not forget that on the number one spot employer in Arizona is Wal-Mart (the same one where they have mastered the art to pay below the poverty line).

So, whoever ends up in the governor’s chair, his or her goose is slightly cooked. There is of course a creative alternative. He/She could bestow most of Pima County (the southern part or Arizona) to the Navajo, with the only duty that they keep their southern border secure. It is not the worst idea to see these terrorists return to the eternal hunting grounds as a slightly more scalped edition? Is it?

So in the end, should this job go to an actor? Whatever he is labelled as, he has proven to be a fighter, a humanitarian and a philanthropist. Here is where the fight gets interesting. He will go up against Jan Brewer. As a Republican she had increased tax earlier stating that she was forced to ask for the increase due to the state’s $4 billion state budget deficit. In addition, she had been rated as one of the worst governors in America. As such Seagal has more than just a fighting chance. If he can do something about the income of the 30,000 at Wal-Mart in his future state, he could be getting a landslide victory.

This gets us to the actual people in power, meaning those behind a governor advising him/her. Here is where it gets interesting. Those people need funding and sponsors, which makes it interesting for big business to get the right person in power. This means that whatever Steven will try to improve, the places like Wal-Mart will have every intention to get the person elected who serve their purpose. You can read more about that part at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-norman/walmart-lobbyists_b_3632526.html. One of the quotes that come out strong is “the contributions of the Wal-Mart Stores political action committee to federal candidates and other political committees has grown rapidly during the past decade.”

So, when we consider the power Wal-Mart has, we should also wonder who they prefer, Jan Brewer or Steven Seagal. Because behind the power of Wal-Mart hides a fistful of billions, which makes for one mighty punch.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Alan Autry, Arizona, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Clint Eastwood, Governor of Arizona, Governor of California, Governor of Connecticut, Huffington Post, Jack Kelly, Jan Brewer, Jesse Ventura, John Lodge, LA Times, Louie Gohmert, Marlene Dietrich, Minnesota, Pima County, President Bush, Ronald Reagan, Shirley Temple, Steven Seagal, the Guardian, The Independent, Tim Walker, US Governor, Wal-Mart, Washington Post

January 1, 2014 · 19:50

the upcoming currency

We have seen many events this last year. For the most, in many nations it had all been about hardship, bills, Economic downfall and more hardship. Even though the UK said the hard times are over, it is clear that many see and feel that the hard times are far from over and even though the economy is slowly returning, that moment of less personal pressure is nowhere near at the moment. The same could be said for the US. They are worse off (source at http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/17/news/economy/poverty-income/ ). This means that in the US, one in 7 is now in poverty. I thought that this was a unique number, but it seems that 1983 and 1993 had similar numbers; I actually had not known that. What makes this worse is that in 1993 the US debt was just over 4 trillion and in 1983 it was a third of that ($1.3T). So when someone tells you that it was like this in the past and it will all be better, then he/she will be lying to you.

Why does it matter?

The issue I have is that the LA Times reported this (at http://www.latimes.com/business/money/#axzz2p7uudgwk) ‘Dow finishes year up 26.5% in record year for stocks‘

Now, many of you (me included) have made the same mistake, a good Dow does not make for a good economy. If so, then one in seven would not be in poverty and the US would not be down well over 17 trillion dollars. This statement is one that I cannot stand behind, because the evidence is strongly overwhelming. Consider what many might have seen on the news (Sky News, Fox News, CNN, BBC World). It seems that staff at Wal-Mart is not doing too good. (at http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/20/news/la-ol-walmart-thanksgiving-living-wage-poverty-20131120). So we read that “its Canton, Ohio, store decided to organize a Thanksgiving food drive for fellow workers.” It was also nice that a celebrity like Ashton Kutcher is outraged over this. So, we see that Dow is up, because Wal-Mart is paying below the poverty line. How is this any representation of a fair America?

Under these conditions, the only fair thing Americans can do is to avoid Wal-Mart and shop at their local shops. It is quite simple, when Wal-Mart loses a massive size of their $17 billion revenue, when this money goes to local shops, they will be hiring staff. It might be a win/win situation for those currently on poverty. The MSNBC article (at http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/leaked-document-shows-what-walmart-really-pay) shows a grim situation. Is it enough to see it as exploitation at best or slave labour in a slightly more realistic setting?

There is however more. It seems that McDonald’s is on that same horse. (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/10/us-fast-food-protests-wages). Whether this is just a US problem remains to be seen. There are all kinds of jokes one could make on slave labor and an African American president, but you get the idea. There is no way that this does not hit him in any way as this happened on his watch! The question becomes how awake has he been whilst this was happening? When at least 6% of the Dow is created due to slave labour, it seems to me that questions should be asked on all matter of levels (which they are not). It is in that light that I find the Dow results very distasteful and wholly unacceptable.

When places like Coca-Cola pay 9% above the market rate and they are doing fine, why can’t others follow that same example? I must admit that 9% is indeed really good, but it is possible that Coca-Cola has evidence that this yields better and more loyal results. ‘Good for Coke!‘ I say (that slogan is likely to do very well in New York, L.A. and Amsterdam).

So, how is it all related to an upcoming currency? Well, is it that hard to believe that Wall Street will soon introduce the Dow Dollar? I am not talking about the Dow Jones FXCM Dollar Index, no I am talking about an actual physical currency. When (not if) America faces a total collapse, as any bankrupt nation is likely to face, then what will happen to the coinage on a global scale? Do not for one second think that Wall Street is waiting for that to happen, it might be that they have backup plans in place at this very moment. There will be a debate whether that coinage currently has an actual name. If you think that this is not happening, then think again. Do you think that a group of power players controlling Wall Street, who decide the fate of Trillions (of which hundreds of millions are theirs) do not have an alternative in place?

The sad part is that these Trillions are likely gained through tax shelters and tax havens. This is for now all perfectly legal, but when one in seven is in poverty, it shows a massive imbalance between the have’s and the have not’s. In addition, consider that the 442 billionaires the US have, several members are there because of their share of Wal-Mart. In opposition we see the owners of Coca Cola and Mars (the candy) and they made the list whilst paying their staff really well, so apparently slave labour versus a good product shows that a good product gets you there too!

Back to the coinage!

So this new dollar, which by the way is unlikely to be some ‘Bit-coin’!

I have had my issues with this on several levels as I wrote in the Wall Street Journal last July, where I wrote “until we can see some level of genuine foundation the fear remains that bitcoin has a danger to become the new detergent to launder all kinds of currencies. If that does happen, when the bitcoin is regarded by governments as devalued at 94%, what would be left?”

That part is supported by an article last month (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/18/bitcoin-senate-hearings-regulation), the Guardian also published this in addition at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/10/apple-blocks-bitcoin-payments-on-secure-messaging-app-gliph. So, there is an issue with a virtual currency! In all fairness, when a ‘bank’ changes value of a coin, where $400 in Bit-coin rises to $250,000 to those same coins within a few years, something is definitely wrong. Money doesn’t grow and yes we need money to make money, but it will never grow to this extent. This looks like all the makings of a new marketed pyramid scheme and after these fortunate ones are done, we will see a massive collapse, because it is all virtual currency. Then what? Who will then be held accountable? Currency not supported by any valued mint (like Gold as currency used to be set against) is likely to yield a catastrophic result to the owners.

This brings us back to that Dow Dollar. At present, the US bankruptcy remains a reality and when that happens, where will currency go? Let us not forget that the US debt ceiling becomes a reality again in February 2014. Nothing was ever resolved and the US is still no closer to getting its own house in order. The moment this escalates and fear of the future becomes a reality, stocks will go down quicker than the German Deutschmark in 1923. Can it all be prevented?

First of all, when an economy is getting better, being tax accountable is a first, the fact that through economic and international lawyering this is no longer a case remains to be fixed. There have been too many delays on that path. In my (debatable) solution all members of the Dow 30 will make an annual 1% contribution to the US treasury. If you as a member get this prestige, you get to pay for it! It is a founding principle that actually came from the United States. On the other side, the government with that accepts responsibility to become more than just budget neutral. Overspending should end and the US must not be allowed to spend above the amount of taxation collected. So no 100.01%, when this budget is reached, IT SHUTS DOWN COMPLETELY!

This means also means that politicians would officially be held accountable for their budgets and will serve time in prison when they fail (that should make an immediate rise to able personnel instead of these ‘friend of the senator’ positions). Lastly, that 1% contribution goes towards paying off the deficit. These funds are not allowed in any way to be used towards some payment or budgeting scheme.

You see, when people behind Wal-Mart and McDonalds make so much money that they get to be on the billionaires list, whilst their staff members are in poverty; we need to shake their houses in order. Sending invoices are a first step on that path. If they do not comply, they go to jail and their companies become nationalised. I know, it is extreme, but consider the validity of justice when a billionaire actually goes to jail (something that seems to only happen in Russia), it might make them clean up their act and it also gives rise a first anti-greed wave. This is something that had been long overdue.

So will this so called ‘Dow Dollar’ become reality? Yes! It will happen 0.021 seconds (roughly) after imminent bankruptcy is declared by the US treasurer (which is likely to be done from a plane or an airport location).

Have a nice 2014 and keep an eye on your savings!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as Ashton Kutcher, BBC World, Billionaires, bit-coin, CNN, Coca Cola, Dow, Dow Dollar, Dow Jones FXCM Dollar Index, LA Times, Mars, McDonald, MSNBC, poverty, Sky News, the Guardian, Wal-Mart, Wall Street

October 10, 2013 · 00:47

Economic management through newscasts

When you think of the title, you might think that there is no real issue. You might think that certain events always take place and that the news covers it. However, when you monitor the news in several nations, you might see a different line of information.

So, let’s go through the motions and reveal that part that several did not consider, perhaps you should reconsider this in all sincerity.

The first red light was lit when I observed the Dutch news at the NOS. The message was innocent enough. The Dutch Bank has a new president. The man Klaas Knot was voiced on Dutch TV stating [translated] “although the numbers are not here yet, my feeling is telling me that we have passed the recession, and we are now at the start of economic recovery“.

In light of several numbers in the past that were in my personal view clear attempts to manage bad news, numbers that were used as proverbial straws to minimise actions are now surpassed that the economy is on recovery. As I stated before, we are more than a year away from that. So, why are people getting this news? The facts and numbers are a month away. Is it perhaps all about the US deficit ceiling? That 17 trillion dollar debt, oh what a feeling!

Klaas Knot is working from the information on growth from foreign nations. As they left the recession, the Dutch should follow. Another factor mentioned is that real estate prices are not falling any further. In that regard I wonder if that would be an actual possibility. If the houses fall any further, it would only mean that people stopped selling until the prices go up again. However, the NOS did report in summary that growth is not directly visible, especially considering that unemployment rates will go up further this year. I reckon that they might not improve until late second quarter 2014. There is also the actual growth to consider. I reckon that the growth in the first year is unlikely to grow beyond 0.5%, which would already be a good achievement.

So why do I without the economic degree oppose the president of the Dutch Bank who is likely to have a few economic degrees?

First of all, I am willing to doubt my view, however, after we have seen the Dutch predicaments as they cannot find the ability to cut 6 billion and as they struggle with minority groups to get anything done at present in that pesky regard of cut-backs. In addition, on July 11th I wrote a blog on the Dutch pension system and how they would cut 3 billion a year (in ‘Boosting Pensions’), that did not pass the Dutch First Room comparable to the House of Lords in the UK). The only question remains whether those 3 billion were part of the 6 billion euro package or not. If not then fine, if yes, then matters blow up in many faces. However, not to go for the worst scenario, the cut backs do mean that at present the purchasing power of Dutch citizens will decline more, so economic growth will remain out of the people’s reach until 2015. That does not mean that Klaas Knot is wrong, I do however belief that this optimism is linked to another event and should be slightly less optimistic.

The odd thing was that Klaas Knot was stating towards NOS news that it was important for political Netherlands to quickly come to an agreement on controlling government finances, also for 2014. That was a weird quote to be placed as a statement and not in answer to a direct question. So was he aiming for the budget agreements, opening the fountain of Dutch pension accounts or both? The latter seem to be in my mind. However, the NOS newsroom phrased that this was about the 6 billion in cut backs. Yet, if this is a play to get things rolling, it is good that it was followed by the statement from the Prime Minister to not get too optimistic. So why were we seeing these two parts?

The second red light did not become visible until the day after. The same day I get the news on a diplomatic escalation in the Netherlands, sky News UK comes with an entirely different matter. Two elements seemed to be in play. The IMF suddenly lifted the economic growth for the UK by 1.4% for 2013 and for 1.9% for 2014. Those are numbers that are beyond remarkable. Sky News showed Olivier Blanchard the Chief economist of the IMF to make this statement. It was interesting that the IMF calls on Christine Lagarde to give the bad news and Olivier gets to give the good news. There was a shimmer of hope for realism as Ed Conway, economic Editor at Sky News was happy to not reject the notion that the IMF have been lousy forecasters in the past to say the least.

In my view these two red lights are all about managing bad news. This is the preamble to the rising risk that if the US debt ceiling is not raised, we would end up receiving a spill of utter recession that will go on for a long spell. ‘Suddenly’ there was good news, a week before the debt ceiling needs to be raided, whilst the US is still in shutdown mode. Let us not forget that Greece, who also suddenly had ‘good’ news last week is still beyond broke, in addition France and Italy are still not in good shape. The biggest issue is that the UK forecast, which was +0.6%, which was a pretty good achievement to +1.4%. That boils down to a miscalculation of almost $18 Billion! That is a massive miscalculation. There is no indication that such errors were made. Consider that the IMF had high criticism towards the tactics by Chancellor George Osborne, UK’s faithful exchequer.

Three sudden good news moments are too much for just some level of chance. This reeks more and more towards managing impending moments of Doom. In that same newscast President Obama kept on chastising the Republicans. Yet, also to my surprise, several players in the media are giving little or no visibility to the republican side of things. The Democrats are so willing to raise debts again and again, yet the overspending as it is could sink us all and no one seems to be reacting to that part.

So is this raising of credit rates just so that a paper loan for the US can be parked on top of the 2 Trillion dollar debt the UK has? That part is speculation on my side, but it is clear that the recession is nowhere near solved until mid-2014 and only after that will we see decent levels of recovery. In that regard I do consider that those who are managing these numbers are playing a very dangerous game, I admit that this last part is my personal view, but I reckon that many in the UK, Netherlands and Greece can clearly see that improvements are pure speculative and there is no evidence that it will actually happen before 2015 (if they are lucky). The Greek situation was partially confirmed that Greece will need another 10-11 billion Euro bailout mid-2014, as reported by Jennifer Rankin (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/sep/13/greek-bailout-back-on-agenda-as-eurozone-finance-ministers-meet-live), so a nation that is in recovery still needs 1000 euro for every Greek?

The reality of this global game will not be known for another week, but in the mindset of a Lemming it is likely that the quality of life we used to know, for now, only remains in the mind of the terminally ill and only if they do not expect to live past June 2014.

I sincerely hope I am wrong in this case, but the numbers are to some extent there, it seems to me that when coming to some conclusions the weighted events are considered. This is not an abnormal thing to do, however when we deal with several outliers in data, the weighted results tend to throw away those numbers and as such the bad news is never a correct, which does the trick for some, but it leaves Joe Public with a nasty long term invoice at the end of the journey.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as Chancellor George Osborne, Christine Lagarde, De Nederlandse Bank, Dutch Bank, Ed Conway, Greece, Jennifer Rankin, Klaas Knot, Netherlands, NOS, Olivier Blanchard, Sky News, The Dutch Bank, the Guardian, UK

Tag Archives: the Guardian

Recent Posts

Archives