Tag Archives: UK

December 13, 2019 · 12:21

Rise of the corporatocracy

Yes, there is a lot wrong in the UK, no one can deny this and an election does not tend to be the place to find out what is wrong, we all know that. The politician that kisses the baby on election week might be the one person who hates babies, it is almost a given, even as I illuminated the short sighted blunders of UK Labour, there is no doubt that all parties (i never investigated all of them) have shortcomings and they will all make carefully phrased promises that they can get out of the day after the election. It is not rocket science, they all entertain such paths and we basically live with it hoping that we over time make the right choice. I have always been a tory, yet I had no issues giving my congratulations to Chuka Umanna Yesterday on his LibDems standing which is pretty good. Yet for the most it is a better system that we have in Europe, so as I saw ‘‘Brutal, packed with untruths, uninspiring’: European press on UK election‘ an article (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/12/brutal-packed-with-untruths-uninsipring-european-press-on-uk-election) I saw more, more than the headline and I hope others see it too.

France

France gave us the quote “Boris Johnson: the liar weakening Europe“, Interesting is it not? ‘the liar weakening Europe‘ is a very distinct setting, a setting that happened BEFORE Boris took his present position, a setting that was decided on by voters and ‘weakening Europe’? Yes that is the worry of the corporations. You see With the UK leaving the EU the debt issues will rise to the top of nearly every nation in Europe, the UK has a much larger role to play and it wanted out. The stupidity of Mario Draghi will continue for at least 2 decades and the media is not ready to unite and state that these procedures and choices were a mistake, not or years. And for the longest time the EU was in a play where delay upon delay could keep the UK in the EU and that is now at an end and France will feel the pain of this decision, all European nations barr Germany, but they will all feel the impact and they are all scared and with them all corporations with European interests, now that the smoke is settling the plays become clear.

Germany

Germany is setting sights on Brexit, they are hoping for a Labour win because Labour is all about remaining in the EU, even as it is voiced as “A Labour victory would be a blessing for the economy. Because in the case of a victory, Corbyn wants to negotiate a ‘soft’ Brexit deal with the EU … which should be better for the economy than Johnson’s comparatively hard Brexit” I foresee a soft brexit claim, then a 180 degree on the exit and then a remain setting.

Spain

Spanish voices for the most seem to take the UK in an age of Trumpism and that is fine, it is not entirely incorrect, here we see the quote “Rafael Ramos, the London correspondent for La Vanguardia, filed a report from Tony Blair’s former constituency, Sedgefield. There he found Labour’s once impregnable “red wall” looking vulnerable, ” I had a similar view on ‘The speculative numbers‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/12/10/the-speculative-numbers/) three days ago. and at present the news is coming by that Boris Johnson will attain supremacy (not unexpected), yet also they give ‘Jeremy Corbyn’s election performance will be the worst by a Labour leader for more than 40 years. He will have done worse than‘, I made a similar prediction, although I never made any mention that it would be the worst in 40 years.

However, the BBC forecast seems to think that it will be CON 368 – LAB 191 – SNP 55 – LD 13. They have much better predictive models, but I am at odds on the results for the LD, Chuka Umana might be the exemption, but I expected the LD to do much better, Yes I predicted a rough exodus of Labour members, yet I expected most of them to go towards an LD environment, not ending up in the CON field. People do not tend to go from Labour to Conservatives and visa versa, in this they would take an alternative and I expected the Greens to be the alternative choice in many cases, yet the numbers do not reflect that at present, and perhaps there will be an alternative reasoning, yet the view that I personally see is not the one that is shaping and of course, I need to ask questions of me and make alterations to me views after that fact. That is what happens, but I do not usually get it this wrong and even as the winner was never really in doubt, neither was the loser, but there is a midsection that (until the full picture) emerges over time and that one I saw change in a wrongful way, I admit that and now I have questions.

Russia

The Russian side is all about the collapse of the EU, they saw that coming and so did a few others, so the quote “Zhirinovsky was probably trolling, but the sentiment is real. Russia has largely welcomed the UK’s exit from the EU as proof that the European project is coming apart at the seams” is not that much of a surprise, we all saw the writing on the walls in Strasbourg

Italy

Here we see ““Socialism or Brexit? This is the Hamlet-like dilemma of the vote in the UK,” wrote Enrico Franceschini in La Repubblica on Thursday“, it is an important view, the Guardian is right, I never looked at it that way, but the danger of a two pronged solution and a polarisation of socialism versus reality is pretty much the core for the UK in the next 4-7 years. i voice it that way because the UK coffers are empty, there is a near immediate collapse of the NHS and the consequence is a struggle with socialistic views versus the reality that will bite everyone, there is no denying it and it will bite for at least 2-3 years, the fact that it will end the EU will also make for new truths to bare out, the EU is in a worse state and when that gets out the UK path will make sense and the EU will be in denial for a long time, its laws not ready to deal with Greece, with the debts of Italy and a few other things will surface, that reality will show the power of Brexit and corporations are afraid, their numbers and predictions will go straight out of the window, at that point the debts of the US and Japan will become very real. Their cushy jobs and fat paychecks end, it scares any board of directors based in the US, their life within the land of ‘milk and honey’ will become the sustenance of ‘water and bread’ that they pushed upon many others with the greatest of ease.

Netherlands

The Dutch view is echoes via the NRC, who has a flair for the dramatic, so when we see their quote ““poor on substance and rich in empty rhetoric” for an election that “could change the course of Brexit, and the country”” we see an actual truth, it is the reality TV of politics and it has been blazing for 12 weeks 24:7, I am not surprised to see this. I just now see the message (8 minutes ago) that Jo Swinson will lose her seat to the SNP representative, OK, it shows the growth for the SNP, yet I feel a little sad for Jo Swinson, she achieved a great deal for the LD in such a short time. We also see here that the LD will win 13 seats, that is more like it! I expected the LD to be a much larger winner, yet it could be a stepping stone for the LD for the next election, Labour is unlikely to fall into any line within the next three years, the could still remain the larger loser in the next elections, they only have Jeremy Corbyn to blame and he will get blamed, make no mistake on that.

Scandinavia

They (the Guardian) and I might have left Scandinavia for last but they do bring an interesting point to the table. With “Sweden’s Svenska Dagbladet described a country hopelessly split, and in multiple directions, leaving many voters facing “an impossible choice. How is a Conservative who wants to stay in the EU supposed to vote? Or a social democrat who believes Jeremy Corbyn is a leftwing extremist?”“, it was a fair point to bring, as a conservative I had no issues, it would all result in a stronger win for the Tories, yet I expected that some of those views would be the stuff for the LD to hunt for and bring those people into the LD field, apparently not enough was done there. Basically they all agree that the views in the UK are polarised, yet none of them take a deeper look at why they are polarised. The Greek setting changed EVERYTHING, without it Nigel Farage would never have sought the limelight, the EU through indecision only had itself to thank for that, the irresponsible spending by Mario Draghi (€ 3 trillion) is a much larger setting and whilst the EU went into managed bad news forms, we see a much larger failing in the EU, Farage started something that the people accepted, the EU is a waste of too many resources and the corporations paid to fuel it all are now in a desperate setting to avoid what comes next. Or did you think that a gravy train fuels itself?

The UK is in a stage where it is almost desperate to seek its voice whilst the choir of 27 other voices are drowning out national needs. And when the UK does move, you will see a changing picture overnight of EU nations with towering debts, when the UK is no longer part of that, the debt stage will change and it will impact everything, that is the part that others seem to ignore, debt was, debt has been, there is no debt tomorrow, that is the wrong thought, debt must be repaid and when the UK leaves the debt picture changes and some banks will seek early payment on several debts. that is the reality of what they face.

All this whilst the votes are still being counted in the UK.

I expect the managed bad news cycles to continue in Europe for a few days, the UK will have to lick its wounds, the Tories are up 51 seats (a lot more than I predicted), Labour is down 71 seats (I expected less worse) yet the confounding truth is that LD did not do as well as I expected. The stage is changing even further, as the WP gave us ‘Trump caves again to corporate lobbying pressure as he flip-flops on flavored e-cigarettes‘ (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2019/11/18/daily-202-trump-caves-again-to-corporate-lobbying-pressure-as-he-flip-flops-on-flavored-e-cigarettes/5dd2377d88e0fa10ffd20edd/), we see that corporations are stronger than ever, even as it is given in the age of Trump, ther power came from the last 3 administrations, those corporations are in the know in how much dangers they are as their votes are on consumerism and debt, debt they need to see continuing and that is now in danger, the UK elections is polarising that part of all this right now. And the part where we see this come to light was given to us almost two weeks ago when we were given ‘12 EU states reject move to expose companies’ tax avoidance‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/28/12-eu-states-reject-move-to-expose-companies-tax-avoidance), the article mentioned Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Cyprus, Latvia, Slovenia, Estonia, Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Sweden and Croatia. And only mentioned Sweden’s express view “its government feared that the directive might water down their higher standards on transparency“, which entirely different from Ireland where we saw that the IFAC (Irish Fiscal Advisory Council) warning its government “the country’s economy has become so reliant on taxes paid by multinationals that half of all of corporate taxes paid in the nation come from just 10 global companies“, 10 companies setting the taste of 50% of all corporate taxation, so for those doubting the stage I had on Corporatocracy, consider the 12 countries blocking the view we would get and why. Although in this instance the 11 (taking out Sweden) is almost 50% of the entire EU, and corporations have a lot of power, also in the 15 not mentioned. Do you still think that the entire UK exit from the EU was a simple clear cut problem? I never claimed that, but I did make the claim that the UK is better out the EU than in and this election is the first step in completing that part, corporations be damned!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as Austria, BBC, Boris Johnson, Chuka Umana, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Eu, Eussia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Jeremy Corbyn, Jo Swison, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Mario Draghi, Netherlands, Nigel Farage, NRC, reland, Scandinavia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the Guardian, UK, Washingron Post, Zhirinovsky

December 12, 2019 · 13:49

Creation of the non-Humanitarian

It is a simple thing, according to many religions there are gods, in some cases they refer to the same being, yet there are two groups, the agnosts, they believe that there is something larger than all of us in the universe, but they are not sure about the name, the shape and where he or she is at. Then there are atheists, they categorically deny the existence of a stronger power and they have their reasoning in this. This happens and we shrug on people who are one or the other and we go on with our lives.

Now what happens when these two groups enter humanitarian sides?

There are then two groups, those who believe that there are humanitarian values to be found in some way but they have no idea what shape it takes and they will evolve into homo sapiens, the people that believe in self and ‘self’ alone. Weirdly enough these groups are created by human rights organisations. The article (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/11/bae-systems-accused-of-being-party-to-alleged-war-crimes) give a visible rise to all this. Companies like the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) are creating these two new waves.

Apart from the denial of the reality of what is happening, we see that they are groups that are just flaky, the fact that they attack one arms dealer and then go in denial of what is actually happening is just too weird. How can we believe in some humanitarian approach of being in denial, whilst we know that an alternative is available next door? It is a one sided approach to being in denial, others can buy weapons wherever they like, except from us. What these people don’t understand is the fact that dealing with a nation like Saudi Arabia would open doors for talks, would open doors for optional resolutions. When we look at the War in Yemen we see two things:

At almost every turn we see the Saudi Coalition painted as a negative force
At almost every turn the actions of Hezbollah and Iran in the Yemen region was not reported on and ignored.

These two points do not make good bedfellows, they have polarised views and to up all that I placed an image (that came from the Guardian article at https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jun/20/uk-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia-for-use-in-yemen-declared-unlawful) with the view of the CAAT that I saw mattered, the view of two suspected teachers and two grandmothers, none of them with a proper global view, all just out there to stop UK Economy and having no idea why they are there in the first place.

It seems like a harsh view, yet the problem that everyone ignored is that the weapons that Houthis fired came from Iran, forces came from Hezbollah and both are Iranian fueled, they get there weapons most likely from Russian sources (partial speculation).

So in all this, when we see people with such blinded agenda’s and no idea on the hard that they are instilling, how can we remain Humanitarian when we see such stupidity? I get it that there are people that are against the arms trade, yet at that point they are against ALL arms trade, that is fine, I get it some people hate weapons, so I am OK with that sentiment, yet the reality of Yemen is a lot more and to blatantly believe in #StopArmingSaudi without knowing what Iran and Hezbollah are up to is just stupid, it is like saying to the boy in the street, you should not defend yourself whilst he is being attacked by two bullies. I personally believe it to be a shortsighted view of pacifism. And I do not oppose Pacifism, The movie Mel Gibson ‘Hacksaw Ridge‘ shows us a real pacifist, he did not stay at home, he went to war as a medic and he did so without brandishing a weapon because of his views. A role beautifully played by Andrew Garfield. Now the world is no longer that simple, no longer that Black and White, Yet I wonder how those two teachers and those two grandmothers survive giving aid in Sanaa, even as they stopped BAE Systems, even as the achieved #StopArmingSaudi, when we see that Houthi forces are given new rockets and guns by Iran, whilst they are restocked by Hezbollah, will they survive with their narrow views? As we see that Houthi rebels are attacking aid workers, killing plenty in the process, none of those troops were supported by BAE Systems were they?

How can we live in such ways with a limited mind?

So whilst we read “BAE Systems is cited in the complaint because the British arms giant is the principal supplier of Eurofighter Tornado and Typhoon jet aircraft to the Royal Saudi Air Force, which has conducted a string of deadly strikes Yemen, as is the UK arm of Raytheon, which manufactures Paveway IV guided missiles used in the conflict“, the question becomes are these Humanitarians meely humanitarians or are they opposing Saudi Arabia, are the anti-Muslim? And when we see “It also references Airbus companies in Spain and Germany, France’s Dassault and Thales, Italian group Leonardo, the Italian arm of Germany’s Rheinmetall and units of European missile manufacturer MBDA in France and Britain. Dassault supplies fighter aircraft to the UAE” I get a chill wondering whether these people are merely there to give Iran a free pass to prolong the suffering in Yemen, because that is what they are achieving. So whilst we get emotional over “A child injured in a deadly Saudi-led coalition airstrike in 2018“, all whilst we ignore the dozens of images that we see regarding the atrocities committed by Houthi forces all over Yemen, and that is not even the larger number of casualties committed by Houthi forces as they stopped humanitarian aid to civilian victims, that number goes towards 50.000 alone and will double by years end, in all this we seem to think that #StopArmingSaudi was the answer, all whilst the parties are ignoring the part that Iran plays in all this, any Humanitarian that is this short sighted is not a Humanitarian, they are merely part of the problem, that is the realisation that they need to make. I know they put on blinders and go with: ‘But what if we stop one, then the next, then the next‘ it is the ‘What If’ group of people that are the danger, this mess is a lot more complex than anything we know and there might be cause to interfere, but why not by having an international naval fleet who sinks ANY ship sailing towards Yemen carrying weapons? That too would have stopped the suffering to go on this long years ago. But that was not done, was it?

The reality of the matter is that BAE Systems was not a bad organisation, the Saudi Government was not evil, and the mess we see in Yemen is caused through an uprising supported by Iran whilst the legitimate government asked Saudi Arabia, their neighbour to intervene, Iran is not even on that entire landmass, and Hezbollah is 4 countries away and a terrorist organisation. Is it not interesting how all those elements were overlooked by Humanitarian organisations?

There are even more factors visible, but I believe that they will muddy the view, the important factors are out there now, including the idea that places like CAAT are a reason to stop having any humanitarian views at all, what we do not realise is the mere fact is that the Humanitarian ideals are supposed to be: “having concern for or helping to improve the welfare and happiness of people. of or relating to ethical or theological humanitarianism“, what we see here is merely driving Corporatocratic ideals. Of course the people at CAAT will deny that this is so, yet their actions are very much driving corporatocratic ideals, just not in the UK. And when we see the one quote in the article when we read “arms made by 10 companies “contributed to the capacity” of the Saudi-led coalition in the conflict“, a stage where there is complete denial of the Iranian side of the matter, denial of the Hezbollah side of the matter, a stage that prolongs the armed conflict, we see the aside that opposes Humanitarian needs, we see a different side and the people all remain in denial, mainly because those two grandmothers looked so cute, two nana’s trying to #StopArmingSaudi.

It is nice to know that Iran and Hezbollah did not get mentioned in that ordeal, you cannot have a one sided humanitarian approach, that is perhaps the strongest side of all and the 50,000 cadavers in Yemen are proof of that.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as BAE Systems, CAAT, Campaign Against the Arms Trade, Hacksaw Ridge, Hezbollah, Houthi, Iran, Leonardo, MBDA, Mel Gibson, Paveway IV, Rheinmetall, Saudi Arabia, the Guardian, UAE, UK, UK Economy, Yemen

December 11, 2019 · 16:15

The List

What happens when we demand certain action by the media, yet that same media might not think it is in their interest to pursue such actions, will the people win, or will the media win. It is a direct question as we are being told (via the media) that we have been kept in the dark for years now and we need the media to step up, will they do it?

I have been playing with this idea for a while now and I think it has become a largely visible issue now. I am taking the action as per ‘Greenland’s ice sheet melting seven times faster than in 1990s‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/10/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-seven-times-faster-than-in-1990s), and it is time to recognise the players.

The first fact is that this particular issue has been playing for well over 20 years, so we now have a timeline. Even as the media now alerts us through “Scale and speed of loss much higher than predicted, threatening inundation for hundreds of millions of people”, the issue has been playing for well over a decade, so we now can demand a list.

The list needs to show ANY scientist who have been hiding or trivialising facts. These scientists are NEVER EVER to be considered for government jobs or for environmental jobs, they are to be named and any of them attached to big business will find their presence to be a nullifying factor in assessing a company’s environmental value. When we are given the value “Glaciers calving icebergs in south-west Greenland, which has lost 3.8tn tonnes of ice since 1992, and the rate of ice loss has risen from 33bn tonnes a year in the 1990s to 254bn tonnes a year in the past decade“, we need to see the dangers that some scientists have presented us with. So any scientist who altered their views to please governments will alo be marked and in that stage we will see a fading view of intentional misrepresentation. Scientists have been protected by cushy jobs for the longest of times, by smearing the truth in different directions by marking these people governments will have to face the issues thrown at them, not set them to lay by.

Even now as we see: “That means sea level rises are likely to reach 67cm by 2100, about 7cm more than the IPCC’s main prediction. Such a rate of rise will put 400 million people at risk of flooding every year, instead of the 360 million predicted by the IPCC, by the end of the century” we see an issue that could have been a reason for illumination years ago, but in the age of 1996-2006 the world was swallowed by the need of greed. Even now, we see blatant misrepresentation ‘Fossil fuel firms ‘could be sued’ for climate change‘, is that so? So we want to shove that bill to the Middle East? How about shoving it off to the US, they wanted a car driven population. So as I see ‘Filipino human rights committee finds world’s biggest oil companies have legal and moral responsibilities to act‘, which sounds partly fine when we see the international actions by the Royal Dutch Shell, yet in the end it is an economy that pushed for $29 plane seats, as such that the economy suddenly had cash to burn (almost literally), yet no one sets the value of such drives to the test. So as we are treated to “The head of a Philippines Commission on Human Rights panel, which has been investigating climate change for three years, revealed its conclusions on Monday that major fossil fuel firms may be held legally responsible for the impacts of their carbon emissions” (at https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cop25-madrid-climate-change-greta-thunberg-fossil-fuel-lawsuit-a9239601.html) we see an absolute absence of the economies that pushed for those solutions, all to ignore a stage of economy no one wants to hear about in our times of debt and debt driven economies. Even now as we see the stories from half a dozen sources go on about how tree planting jobs could be yours, whilst NASA Engineer Mark Rober (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7nJBFjKqAY) showed a working solution that was modern and could be implemented months ago. he even gave visibility at https://teamtrees.org/, where we see that in 6 weeks he got to 17,756,768 of their required goal of 20,000,000 trees. A clear solution that is (obviously) being ignored by mainstream media. Even as the Independent (at https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/brexit-tree-planting-michael-gove-eu-conservatives-a9205371.html) gives us “‘It’s nonsense’: Michael Gove criticised after blaming EU for government missing tree-planting target” on November 16th 2019, way after the Mark Rober solution was presented, and whilst he presented it, it is clear that this working format was already in existence, so whilst Greenpiece and Michael Gove are butting heads, neither of them make mention of the solution that a NASA Engineer gave visibility to and tried (via viral ways) to entice people to help him get to the 20 million tree target. As I see it, the government, Greenpiece and several journo’s all missed the point that was out there to see for all. I wonder how many scientists have been overlooking certain solutions.

So whilst we get another clear view via “Successive Conservative governments have already ensured we will miss one tree-planting target in 2020, and we’re on track to miss the one in 2022. Now they’ve set themselves a new target for 2025 and people will be wondering whether this is raising the ambition or just moving the goalposts yet again“, we do not see the names of the people who have been pushing for these changes, I think that we are entitled to that, those people should not be allowed to hide behind the media, we are allowed to see the emphasis of all who agree of changed goalposts. And even as UK Labour will find some picture (like a baby in a hospital) to hide behind, lets face the truth that the sliding environmental values started in the 90’s, that measn that both sides of the isle is guilty of environmental rape.

So whilst we see “Parties across the political spectrum have been boasting about the tree-planting efforts they would undertake if they won the general election” we should add the need to invalidate their right to govern for no less than 3 administrations should they FAIL to keep their word, especially when a happily flaky NASA engineer was able to show the opposite in a clear video, all with examples on how to tackle merely some of the issues we face on how to quickly plant trees (in an affordable way).

This all loosely relates an article in the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/07/oceans-losing-oxygen-at-unprecedented-rate-experts-warn) ‘Oceans losing oxygen at unprecedented rate, experts warn‘, the fact that we see “Dead zones – where oxygen is effectively absent – have quadrupled in extent in the last half-century, and there are also at least 700 areas where oxygen is at dangerously low levels, up from 45 when research was undertaken in the 1960s“, so where were all the alert signs a decade ago? Two decades ago? Were we all asleep? Was it hidden in the news papers on page 35 below the fold? The numbers give us that 650 oxygen deprivation areas were added in half a century, I reckon it would have been news two decades ago, so who aided people to hide these truths? As I see it those people are equally dangerous as mass murderers and any scientist on that stack of choices gets to be put on a list. So any scientist that is considering the ‘befehl ist befehl‘ excuse that some Germans used in November 1945, they better realise that the people had no qualms about hanging those people as well. In light of some information we can optionally agree with “the most profound impact on the marine environment has come from fishing. Ending overfishing is a quick, deliverable action which will restore fish populations“, if that is true, then why is there no global agreement on the actions of overfishing? Why do we see the laughingly inactions by Australian law groups in the Great Barrier reef? Why are poachers not arrested, their boats set up for action in another state (to prevent reacquisition) to limit poaching? There are dozens of other options and actions not being seen and the inactions against criminals acting against the environment is an almost global problem, as such the inactions of governments is becoming more and more debatable.

As such I wonder when the media will look at an actual list and give the people a clear view on who is misrepresenting the factual parts, I wonder what we see those scientists say. And lets not forget the number one action that governments use when the data does not meet the question, at that point some will merely rephrase the question, have you considered how often this solution has been an option for governments in environmental questions?

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as Airlines, environment, Fossil fuel, Great Barrier Reef, Greenland, Human rights, Indepedent, IPCC, Mark Rober, Michael Gove, NASA, Royal Dutch Shell, TeamTrees, the Guardian, UK, Youtube

December 9, 2019 · 16:50

Is it progress?

We have at times a fair feeling of what costs are required in any business, we are at times a little off, we are at times a little bemused, but what is the feeling that people got two days ago when the Financial Times gave us ‘Europe’s banks slash 60,000 jobs as outlook turns negative‘? The story (at https://www.ft.com/content/e17ee0f2-183b-11ea-9ee4-11f260415385) seems to hand over another part of a story, but not the one that is out in the lighters. When we are confronted with ‘European bosses have been left with little option but to slash tens of thousands more jobs to try to address their chronically poor profitability‘, we might think that banks are unprofitable, yet the entire debt issues seemingly takes that out of the equation. When you look around in your area, are there more banks or less banks? There is another side, any debt driven errors and system malfunctions are now clearly in the hands of the banks, this means that THEY must give rise to repairs, to paying for the issues at hand and they are not allowed to pass these costs onto the customers. You see 60,000 jobs are ‘suddenly’ regarded as ‘poor profitability‘. It seems that the data dimensionality of banks is almost literally set to ‘profit through inactions‘ and as such they must pay for the blowback because inaction is never a cause of non stop profit.

So when we see: “lenders across Germany, UK, France, Spain and Switzerland have collectively announced more than 60,000 jobs cuts this year” and we investigate the stage, we would come to very different conclusions. Yet the picture is not that clear, the graphics that the article show, an image that include those trading below book value and those above book value gives a different picture, it shows a remarkable group of European and Rest of World banks trading below book value, so they are trading at a loss, which is of course debatable at the best of times. In that group we find ING, HSBC, Deutsche bank, Santander and a few others, the question becomes, why were they allowed to trade below book values in the first place? and it opens up a can of worms on several sides. As such we see a repetition of the Dutch bad bank issues when we are confronted with “resulting in 18,000 job losses and the creation of a new “bad bank” to dispose of €288bn of unwanted assets” Yet what happened to the commissions of hundreds of staff members as close to a third of a trillion is not returned? We merely see banks that wanted to look good whilst there was no reason to see them as good, so as such “chief executive Christian Sewing announced a retreat from investment banking over the summer, resulting in 18,000 job losses” makes me wonder about the levels of stupidity allowed at Deutsche Banks, does that not count for you? I wonder if we get an article on just how much the bunglings of Christian Sewing got him paid, in base income and bonuses. The fact that Deutsche Bank is losing one in five jobs is a larger issue, the idea that one in five jobs are lost in a bank shows that they have been playing the numbers and in all this europe will see another wave of bank responsibility whilst it is done AFTER the fact, so why was the EU not on top of this? And people complain about me mentioning the entire EU gravy train, I reckon that this example should set the straight, the EU have been facilitating to a much larger degree and the taxpayer gets to pay the bill, or did you think that shoving ‘a new “bad bank” to dispose of €288bn of unwanted assets‘ was done for corporate responsibilities.

It gets to be a lot worse, Moody’s which does not have the greatest reputation when we look at financial meltdowns is stated to have said “Moody’s, which this week changed its outlook for global banks to negative from stable, warns that the “profitability gap between euro-area banks and global peers will widen further” in the medium term despite the large headcount reductions” yet when we mull over the numbers (Deutsche Bank with one in five jobs lost) gives out a whole different stage when we are confronted with “this week changed its outlook for global banks to negative from stable“, all whilst the numbers show that this was a flaw in the making, months in the making, as such it makes Moody’s a joke, not a reporting entity.

So all in al it is not consolidation, but a lack of oversight that is causing additional pain to the industry, I wonder how long it will take the other newspapers to catch on, and this is not limited to banks, this will take on a larger role all over Europe. Yet the gravy train will ignore the pains and it will support its own interests through recommendations.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media

Tagged as Banks, Christian Sewing, Deutsche Bank, Eu, Europe, Financial Times, France, Germany, HSBC, ING, Santander, Spain, Switzerland, UK

November 24, 2019 · 13:51

The fake promise

Even as the media relies on fake news to get things done, politicians rely on fake promises, that is visible in the elections in that, UK Labour thinks it can rally 3 million elderly votes and as such is makes that so called promise to ‘Labour pledges £58bn for women caught in pension trap‘ there is just one problem both sides whilst in government have spent too much, Labour lost (through stupidity) £11.2 billion on an IT system that never worked. The conservatives made different mistakes and both of them gutted social housing. The Guardian voiced it as “More than 3 million women who believe they have been left thousands of pounds out of pocket after steep increases to the state pension age are being promised compensation by Labour as part of a £58bn scheme designed to end a “historic injustice”” In addition they give us “Labour would introduce a universal scheme that would see the women affected given a maximum payment of £31,300, with an average payment of £15,380“, so here is the problem, first of all until they get elected they cannot make a guarantee, if they get into office they will have to deal with terms like ‘universal scheme‘ and with ‘the women affected‘, If they are setting apart £58 billion, they have more pronounced numbers (and better statements), would they not?

The article (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/23/labour-fifty-eight-billion-pound-pledge-women-pension-age-trap) comes hand in hand with (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/nov/23/station-pension-age-women-labour-compensation), yet they all are forgetting about the fact that in a world with same incomes, also comes same laws and as such both genders have to retire at the same point, do they not? So as we see ‘The Tories stole my state pension when I was 60, now I want it back‘, in addition, the Tories stole nothing, both sides of the isle overspend by way too much and the political ruling administration had to sacrifice, people do not seem to get that money that is spent from a place where it does not exists, will have to come from a place where is optionally is, as you can see in the image (which Tejvan Pettinger uploaded on May 1^st 2017) for those not completely aware of him, he is an Economics teacher (A Level students) at Greenes College and formerly with Cherwell College, Oxford.

He shows that during Labour reign, government spending close to doubled, can you name at least one place where that you as a person benefitted from that? I doubt you can, and that is part of the problem, austerity and government austerity was essential for well over 10 years, when Tories get back we see a rise, but a rise that is less than 1% per year and in an age of 3%-4% cost rise that is a pretty amazing result, yet Labour DOUBLED their government spending, so what did they spend it on? So when we see John McDonnell state “We’ll raise the money in the appropriate way” I wonder what he means because it is not an answer and the government coffers are empty, leave it to labour to give an empty statement like ‘We’ll raise the money in the appropriate way‘, we see a whole lot of that and no real answers. You did not actually think that labour has answers for the money they are ‘stately’ boasting to spend, are you?

One day earlier we see: (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/nov/22/unforgivable-jo-swinson-confronted-student-lib-dems-record-austerity-video) another attack, but one on the LibDems. Here we see Jo Swinson getting attacked with no option to respond, but there you have it, people are starving in Glasgow that is what I got out of it. The issue is not Jo Swinson, it is the attack and part of this is the Scottish political wing, for over 5 years the political wing has (seemingly mind you) not done enough to bolster its economy, now Scotland is part of the UK and that makes it also a UK need, yet in the all the political dealings we see that Scotland does not have its eggs in the same basket on the same route and that is a larger failing, some might watch “The party has tried, by portraying its leader, Jo Swinson, as a potential prime minister, although this is an unlikely possibility, given its position third in the polls“, but Labour is dealing with several issues and the LibDems are pushing for those results. the Anti-Semitic attacks on labour alone could cost them somewhere between 5%-10% of the votes, it might merely result in 15 seats, but those seats are coming straight from the Labour angle (and those people are more likely to swing towards the LibDems than the Tories, which is fair), and it is a very small step from third to second in that race, even as the Tories are bound to get the largest swing in votes, the LibDems are back and together with the Tories they are bound to get a few wins in for their party (Brexit not being one of them).

That will be the party Achilles heel, the entire Brexit mess is exasperated by large corporations to find delay on delay to maximise their profits in 2019-2020, too many CEO’s have too much riding on that and the quote “a slogan criticised for underestimating the amount of time and effort required to negotiate a new trade deal with the EU” is on the money, but the people are seemingly not asking whose money was that anyway? In all respects the Tories have a large advantage and Labour is more likely than not getting the hot breath of the LibDems on their heels, Labour will lose a few places to the Tories, but they will lose a whole lot to the LibDems and that changes the race considerably.

So, why my attack on Shadow chancellor John McDonnell? Jeremy Corbyn did the same thing last election, at that point he made promises towards nurses, doctors and police forces that he would never be able to keep, the coffers of Britannia are empty, they will remain on empty whilst the UK is part of the EU, in addition there are a whole range of issues playing and yes, there will be an end to those elements, but not with the EU dictating budgets, they are keeping budgets their state coffers cannot write and it forces them all to become Corporatocratic nations to the largest extend, that must be prevented in the UK. There is a reason that corporation fear monarchies, they fear them because a monarchy takes into consideration all lives, the poor as well, you merely have to look into the US to see their rights dwindle, the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and those other nations see a much larger picture, one that does not fit the spreadsheet of a corporation, we much protect that part of life, even as other governments are willing to adjust their views to fit corporations to a much larger degree.

It is merely my point of view, but so far that view has shown to be correct. I’ll let you figure it out on your own terms; you are entitled to do that.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as Belgium, Brexit, ccorporations, Cherwell College, Conservatives, Corporatocracy, Eu, Greenes College, Jeremy Corbyn, Jo Swinson, John McDonnell, Labour, LibDems, Monarchy, Netherlands, Oxford, Sweden, Tejvan Pettinger, the Guardian, Tories, UK, UK Labour

November 22, 2019 · 12:46

Same competition with a typo

National Defence Magazine gave out an article a few hours ago where we see that the Middle East is expanding even further, the headline ‘UAE Looking to Expand Defense Industrial Base‘ is merely the introduction to a larger issue, an Emirati official gives that “The United Arab Emirates Ministry of Defence is making a push to beef up the nation’s defense industrial base“, in this Maj. Gen. Abdullah Al Sayyed Al Hashemi hands out a truth, he believes “It is not only important for the UAE, it is important for every single country that has … industry“, it is a truth, an undeniable one, even after we get the holistic fanfare in opposition by nations under the corporatocratic yoke (the EU) and the nations that already have one where they all claim that it is more bad than good, it is more diversifying that unifying, they all lie, plain and simple. A nation is only as good as its ability to have no opposition, or who is able to defend itself. Julius Caesar proved that point a little over two thousand years ago, we still see evidence of that every day when we are not averting our eyes, the State of Israel (with enemies of their state on at least two borders) have also shown that part, more important it showed the world what happens if those in denial get their way. We see evidence in two books that Julius wrote, the first is the conquest of Gaul, the second one was the Civil War, two kinds of wars yet his first rule of warfare applied both times. The Middle East is upgrading and with oil waning as a dependent force, the circle is set to defence, a first handheld against those in denial of what Iran is willing and able to do, even as there are larger tears in the statement “Al Hashemi said during a press conference that investments in defense technologies will help the UAE diversify its economy“, we need to acknowledge that these tears are surviving because of the truth in them, it might partially be seen in “UAE-based company Halcon received a $980 million contract award for a variety of ammunition“, yet we realise that one billion an economy does not make. Yet “As the UAE works to improve its industrial base, it will also need to ensure it sustains its current and future equipment adequately, he said, noting that contracts awarded during the show included a mix of spare parts and sustainment in addition to weapons sales” shows a much larger consultancy and service minded task is ahead of the UAE, it needs to be service minded and there is the facet that will drive home an additional 4-7 billion over the next 5 years alone, with optional entrenchment of various services down the road. The corporatocratic foundation of the EU is in denial, but they will soon see that the EU is about to lost 2-4 billion in revenue to Middle Eastern partners in the near future. I state here the word ‘partners’ as Saudi Arabia has been on a similar track for a few years now and they are both optionally in a stage to be in each other’s fairway soon enough. Even as we see that Saudi Arabia is more about manufacturing, we see the statement that Al Hashemi makes with “We have to keep that availability of services available to be able to maintain the same capability”

If National Defence Magazine (at https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/11/21/uae-looking-to-expand-its-defense-industrial-base) is correct with “The last day of the air show wrapped up with about $4.9 billion worth of contract awards over the course of the week“, we see that the UAE is heading for a lucrative next few years, it might not be enough, but it is a first version out of the oil industry and there is more on consultancy and services soon enough. Here we see the versions that matter; it was given by Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord: “meetings would be held with industrial partners to discuss challenges. Saudi Arabia is focused on jobs and localizing production and manufacturing, she said, whereas the UAE is putting a premium on technology transfers“, yet ‘technology transfer‘ is basically a loaded canon, it should and will include consultancy and services, services on goods and people, making for a much larger stage, in addition, with 5G it is a larger manifest, the larger settings of armed forces and communications whilst 5G is not contemplated in the past seeks a much larger tenure of mobile hardware than we sought possible. People forget that the military have been pushing mobile technologies in the past and this will be pushed more and more. Not mobile industries that we rely on, but military point to point technologies on a 5G speed stream, it is not completely understood, some might run to the Raytheon pages and rely on “Lewis predicted that 5G will be foundational for new military technologies such as “robots, artificial intelligence and a number of advanced sensing devices.” Fast, reliable and strong communications are crucial to executing high-stakes military operations. The Trump Administration recently ordered a national spectrum policy to keep the U.S. in the lead when it comes to advanced wireless communications“, yet larger issues remain with limiting access to mobile technology and point to point systems, which in the case of rural warfare makes all the difference and even as we decide not to talk about it, we see that others (basically not the EU and not the US) are behind, they are lagging in 5G communication to a much larger degree and the UAE has figured out (well it was a known strategy really) that being ahead in services and consultancy solutions in armed response would be the ticket to go, did you really think that armed response is limited to weapons?

Raytheon was on that horse in 2016 when it applied for licensing to test “U.S. defense contractor Raytheon Missile Systems wants a special temporary authorization (STA) from the FCC so that it can test a new broadband technology and see if it meets both the demands of a U.S. Department of Defense customer and the commercial marketplace“, some focussed on the delays and feedback we see “General John Hyten, commander of Air Force Space Command, called the GPS Operational Control System project a “disaster” due to escalating costs and delays. Raytheon told Reuters that it was still fully committed to delivering the modernized GPS ground controls envisioned and required by the Air Force” yet the story behind this (at https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=69216&RequestTimeout=1000) is larger than you think. The size of the article is not what was used, not what is required, it is that their advantage has been smaller than anyone expected, basically there are indications (not evidence) that Huawei surpassed these applications or better stated, Chinese defence has a much better system more advanced out there and it did so no later than Q2 2017 (partial speculation), so not testing, but actively being used and the UAE is seeking a services based organisation allowing for access and servicing such equipment, or at least make a push in that direction. In that part some might recall the article by Liu Zhen, last January (at https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/2184493/why-5g-battleground-us-and-china-also-fight-military-supremacy), there we see (read: read about) Zhou Zhaoxiong, a senior engineer at China Mobile IoT Company giving us “Military equipment embedded with communication devices can also form the internet of things, he added. The communication can take place from device to device, without satellites or early-warning planes, saving those limited resources for other uses and significantly lowering the cost of a military operation, according to a 2017 report in China Defence News, a mouthpiece of China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA)” it was not the stage of what was to come, but on what was achieved and it scared the US into all kinds of messes, we do know that communication in any war is essential and it seems that the Chinese have a larger advantage there.

This is the engine that the UAE will be trying to tap into, it is also the one direction that the US is really unwilling to give into, so there will be a much larger battle to come regarding what Americans will allow what others are allowed to do, and that is where they strike out in the Middle East, they are seeing opportunity in a defence setting where they optionally end up have the advantage, the EU cannot compete with the UAE because of their tight links to the US and their corporations and when we see the people that have links to the degree they have with the US, China is seeing a lager advantage to partner up with the UAE and the KSA, that is the larger fight we will see in the foreseeable future, and even as the US is showing a larger fight with Huawei, it is not the real fight and more people are starting to get on board with the larger stage, the US can no longer compete in more than one field and that is what is biting the US to a larger degree.

How does this matter?

Well that is simple, the UAE (and the KSA) have larger military needs towards manufacturing and servicing, as they ally to a larger degree there is a larger need serviced in military needs and that means two things, the escalation in the Middle East (regarding military hardware requirements) can be addressed on a near global base, giving both players a larger handheld on the global scene that is not oil based, beyond that it allows for a larger growth in the near future, with new optional partners over time we see a larger growth in the Middle East soon enough, it might ‘just’ be arms and weapons initially, but there is a larger foot for growth and it will push the Middle East (except Iran of course) to a much larger degree than expected. Yet there is also momentum to be considered, even as both the KSA and the UAE have strong ties to the US markets, there is a rift visible, the US internally created it and if it does not address this there is every indication that it will cost the US a lot more than it bargained for in the near future to come, I will let you consider those details, yet do not take too long, there are at least 4 markets where it applies to and in that regard I will leave you with one hint It was given out yesterday and the list is seen (at http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2019-11-21-Raytheon-honors-54-suppliers-for-excellent-performance), can you see which two mentions should optionally not be there?

In some ways American ego does not falter in our view, it seems to have short term needs and that is where we see the first failure and that is where they should have though a little further than their noses (but that is merely my interpretation on the situation).

So have a great weekend! The weekend ends in 59 hours (for me at least) #JustSaying

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Abdullah Al Sayyed Al Hashemi, advanced wireless communications, Al Hashemi, China, China Defence News, China Mobile IoT, Ellen Lord, Emirati official, Eu, General John Hyten, Huawei, Iran, Julius Caesar, KSA, Liu Zhen, National Defence Magazine, Pla, Raytheon Missile Systems, SAMI, Saudi Arabia, State of Israel, UAE, UK, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, United Arab Emirates Ministry of Defence, USA, Zhou Zhaoxiong

November 20, 2019 · 12:09

Will the punishment fit the crime?

There are crimes out there, some are small, some are not called crimes, they are labelled as an ‘improper offense‘, these offenses are offenses, yet so small that the CPA might decide not to look into the matter.

The Guardian had an opinion piece on the Arms trade two days ago called ‘Is the government turning a deaf ear to arms deal bribes?‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/18/attorney-general-geoffrey-cox-gpt-arms-deal-corruption), now this is an article on bribery, one would consider it to be an improper act, optionally a crme, yet the facts do not bear this out. The setting is not that someone enriched themselves, no, they stated that they spend less than an addition 1%, almost 30% less than one percent to secure a contract: “to win a £2bn contract to provide communications and electronic warfare equipment to the Saudi national guard“, the so called former employee of GPT “Ian Foxley. When he was about to blow the whistle, he fled Saudi Arabia overnight fearing that his life was in danger“, the fact that we overlook ‘the fact that he was merely allegedly fearing that his life was in danger‘ is the first part, the fact that the bribery was there would be an issue for the Saudi Government to pursue (one would imagine), we see in the cold light of day that someone spend 1% extra to make sure that the order was accepted, OK, by law it would be an offense, it would be an ‘Improper offense‘, it might be a crime in Saudi Arabia as well, but they are seemingly not pursuing the matter are they? When we look at the black letter law we see that there is optionally a case to go after GPT Special Project Management, a UK-based subsidiary of the European aerospace group Airbus, yet in light of the thousands of cases not touched, and the fact that there is no actual victim here, should we pursue? Don’t get me wrong, corruption is nothing less than the proverbial blight on life, yet the EU gravy train is not stopped is it? Corporations are not being pursued in light of their activities to self-enrich themselves, are they? Yet there are a lot of eyes on anything accomplished in the Middle East, in this case in Saudi Arabia, I wonder if Ian Foxley would have shown the same candour if the buyer was the US, and they have the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. And there actually have been cases on that combination. Siemens (2008), Marubeni Corporation (2012), Biomet Inc. (2012), Goodyear (2015), and there have been plenty more, yet why is this one case important?

It is not seen immediate, or not until you take a longer look at the UK Bribery Act 2010, The BA 2010 received Royal Assent on 8 April 2010 and entered into force on 1 July 2011 in the UK, a guardian article spent a little time on it in 2013 (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/10/whistleblowers-snowden-truth-sets-free) there we see: “In 2010, Ian Foxley was working as the programme director for a British subsidiary of defence giant EADS on a £1.96bn contract to modernise the communications systems for the Saudi Arabian National Guard. When he came across evidence of corruption and bribery he fled the country and reported it to British officials“. There is an overlap, the UK Bribery Act 2010 was not part of law at that point. The act was not entered into law until 1^st July 2011 in the UK, this does not make the act of Bribery all right, it merely states that an act that is privy to the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, and there we will learn that he agent might optionally be held to the dock, but it will not apply as the one bribed was allegedly part of Saudi Arabia, hence not part of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland. It is the little things that make life satisfying, and the Guardian hiding behind “The delay in making a decision speaks to a deep malaise: suggesting that Britain is simply unwilling to prosecute major companies that are accused of paying bribes to foreign politicians and officials” is both unfair and incorrect, an alleged event took place in the time when the law was being adjusted, is it not interesting on how this one case, a case that should be in the hands of Saudi Arabia to consider prosecution (for the most) seems to get such attention, it seems that Anti-Muslim issues are rearing its ugly head, you see that statement is also alleged, yet I see no such news prosecution regarding Smith & Nephew paid US$22.2 million to the DOJ and SEC in 2012 regarding a deferred prosecution agreement. The idea of “possible improper payments to government-employed doctors” seems to hit people in general, but there is no real overwhelming amount of news there, is it? It seems to me that we are in a larger caser of ignorance when it comes to non-Muslim considerations, oh and that was in the US, how many prosecutions and investigations did Stephen and Nephew face in the UK? I am not telling, I am asking, the news does not seem to make mention of that.

There is also the case CAS-Global Ltd. and the Private Nigerian Coast Guard Fleet (at https://sites.tufts.edu/corruptarmsdeals/cas-global-ltd-and-the-private-nigerian-coast-guard-fleet/), the Independent was seemingly the only paper taking a look at that (at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/two-british-businessmen-arrested-on-suspicion-of-involvement-in-sale-of-naval-vessels-to-nigerian-9991217.html), as I see it, the Guardian might not be guilty, it does have a few explanations to hand out, it will seemingly lash out at Saudi Arabia, but not much beyond that, Nigeria is loving it, I wonder how Saudi Arabia feels about being singled out and let’s face it, I personally perceive the GPT issue what could be set as an ‘Improper Offense‘, so I leave it up to the powers that be to decide, that was Jeremy Wright, trying it again and having Geoffrey Cox decide on it is a little childish, but OK, such are the rules, yet no one is asking questions too loudly on the Nigerian private security company setting up some similar form of payment for services whilst this involved selling 6 Norwegian former naval vessels to a privately owned security firm? And why does it matter, because like me two British business subjects thought it would be lucrative to enter the arms dealer world. It is a whole different level is it not? Robe Evans and David Pegg did write a good piece, and it is an opinion piece and we are and should be asking questions, yet I wonder if the writer intended the questions that are on the mind are the ones he wanted us to have on the mind.

The fact that in this day and age, whilst the UK STILL has not figured out its tax laws on properly taxing corporations filling its pockets in the UK whilst paying so little tax, it should be regard as an insult, are given all the space they need and the laws we see enable them and seemingly set the stage where other cases are not ignored for a decade, all whilst that one case had no real UK victims. OK, I admit that this is the wrong direction to go, but there are cases with an abundance of UK victims that seemingly do not get the attention or the jurisprudence it deserves, should that not be a first for the UK?

It is just one part in all this that we should consider before we consider anything else. And when we compare the Norwegian Navel issue towards private companies and one deal going towards the Saudi Government, where was our focus? That is before we see the elements in the Smith & Nephew deal, so they paid for it in the US, yet how much investigations was done regarding their actions in the UK?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Airbus, Biomet Inc., David Pegg, DoJ, EADS, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Global Ltd, Goodyear, GPT, GPT Special Project Management, Ian Foxley, Improper Offense, Independent, Marubeni Corporation, Nigeria, Nigerian Coast Guard Fleet, Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, Robe Evans, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabian National Guard, SEC, Siemens, Smith & Nephew, the Guardian, UK, UK Bribery Act 2010

November 18, 2019 · 12:03

IP in the balance

This weekend, roughly 25 hours ago, the Washington Post released a story regarding the F-35, now there are a few stories about that crazy bird in circulation, yet this one was particularly fetching. The article (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/11/16/power-struggle-over-f-fighter-jet-comes-head-lawmaker-threatens-hold-up-contract/) called ‘A power struggle over the F-35 fighter jet comes to a head as lawmaker threatens to hold up contract‘ starts with “the complicated IT system supporting the fleet’s maintenance infrastructure still falls far short of expectations” is an eye opener, but it is not the IT systems (no matter how defunct they are) that is the issue, it is the ownership of certain IP systems in the plane, the patents themselves that are now the issue. It is not “some lawmakers criticized the terms of Lockheed’s arrangement with the government, saying overly generous intellectual property agreements threaten to lock Lockheed into a wasteful long-term profit machine with limited accountability” even though it is certainly an issue that is the setting, no it is “Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) threatened to hold up a multibillion-dollar contract if fundamental questions aren’t resolved” that is the issue, yes having multi billion dollars in sales held up is one part way to go, for some of these buyers with a few billion in their pocket, looking at alternatives will be the coarse course they could be sailing, this gives additional problems for Lockheed Martin and the US government is setting the stage as it has the inner lane in this skating race, the problem for Lockheed Martin is that the opposition they face are Russians (who are coming with the Su-35 and the Su-57), apparently NATO sees the Sukhoi Su-57 as a bit of a felon, so anything can happen. China is coming with the J-31, according to some it is a copy of the F-35 (source: Business Insider) yet it comes without IP and Patent battles, so the copy will be out without a politician stopping production on elemental questions not being answered. In addition, its unit cost is $70 million, whilst the F-35 is between $77 million and $108 million, the cost price of the more expensive version implicitly states ‘including engine‘, so there is that to consider as well.

There is however a more serious note to the F-35 and the Washington Post gets there when we see: “Carolyn Nelson, a Lockheed Martin spokeswoman, said the government is working on a new technical data package that was not a part of the initial F-35 contract, as well as a separate “performance-based” contract for logistics support“, you see the issue we see here is not merely IP and patents, it is the situation where government is yielding the floor to local business. If we accept the mess that the US has made in regards to 5G and Huawei, whilst we accept the words of Alex Younger (MI-6) “Alex is giving us the national need and the premise that another government should not have ownership of infrastructure this important“, something I mentioned in ‘Tic Toc Ruination‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/12/06/tic-toc-ruination/) almost a year ago. That setting is crucial, as such when you have a national product called ‘Defence‘ why on earth would you let that reside with a global player like Lockheed Martin? I get the idea that the avionics are a bit of a call, yet the IT systems are a larger debate, basically America has large needs with Lockheed Martin, so what happens when the well dries when the US debt becomes a noose around the nations neck? Do you think Lockheed Martin is sitting still? I do not expect that Russia or China ever having a piece of Lockheed Martin, but the UAE, Saudi Arabia? If we take premise to the situation ‘the premise that another government should not have ownership of infrastructure this important‘ the point of view I am taking is a lot less theoretical, is it?

And when we consider: “Air Force estimates that most of a given aircraft’s long-term cost actually comes from keeping it flight worthy. Manufacturers are keenly aware of this, with companies such as Boeing launching whole business units focused on maintenance and repair” we should be wondering why the Air force is striking out, not out like in ‘too bad, let’s try again‘ but in the way that the batsman asks ‘where on earth is the playing field‘, I get it, some jobs are too specific, but is that not the Air force focal point? That in light of the procurement: “the Pentagon has been buying jets in greater quantities in order to get the average price down. They recently finalized a $34 billion agreement that defense officials described as “the largest procurement in the Department’s history.” The deal brought the F-35’s price per plane below $80 million ahead of schedule“, so when you consider that buying 2400 planes (at the very least) got the price down, what math was done on fixing and maintaining these birds? 2400 planes imply 100-250 squadrons, it implies no less than 200-500 repair and maintenance teams, it implies that these people need to be schooled and as they come up short, the move of Boeing starts making sense in a real way, so how much additional costs are involved there? Let’s not forget that the US is currently at minus $23,000 billion (-$23 trillion), we might see the victorious ‘Yohza’ on them reducing the price of a bird, but how much debt, interests and cost of maintenance was seemingly overlooked?

In all this, the Government Accountability Office was seemingly not heard clearly enough, we get this when we consider “the program is having trouble keeping the F-35’s mission-capable, an odd problem for a brand new fleet. The overall F-35 fleet was capable of performing all of its tasked missions only about a third of the time” and that is before we consider the maintenance staff, their training and the setting of spending money before the elements are all adjusted for. So as the article ends with ““if we are missing parts and can’t get our jets airborne, our ability to deliver combat effects on this aircraft is significantly diminished,” said Lt. Gen. Eric Fick, the Pentagon’s F-35 program executive“, I merely wonder what other options were overlooked, that’s fair is it not?

You see when we are considering the upgrades and the adjustment to technical flaws in the hardware, the IT systems become a very real part of it all, oh and any person telling you that the IT is OK and there are not issues, will be my reason to introduce you to a liar. For that you merely have to look at DELL and their setting of laptops, I have had two laptops, both delivered on the same day, and both needing separate upgrades before I got them delivered to their respected users, not different systems, no identical systems! So when we see “we are missing parts and can’t get our jets airborne” in light of software glitches, it becomes a very real thing, the F-35 might be the final straw of short sighted management, whilst asking for the moon. Even as in the past operators like Boeing and Saab decided not to play along in light of bias towards the F-35, we see an evolving matter where they will grasp the events that surround the F-35 as a way to show nations that they have what it takes, in addition, there are outstanding offers from France (Dassault Aviation), it was the initial offer to a much larger degree to train technicians in the fields of service, training and operations that might swing previous missed hits, and no matter how we slice it, Lockheed Martin might be looking at the US as a sole customer soon enough, what a change IP and IT systems can make, even in two-seater planes.

I believe that the over grasp in the 2004-2014 era is now coming back to bite the eager who signed certain agreements. In light of the fact that the F-35 fleet is mission capable only 30% of the time should worry Lt. Gen. Eric Fick a little.

And even as the F-35 might be the odd duck out, the words of Loren Thompson stating “The struggle over IP between the government and defense contractors is likely to go on indefinitely. If you own the information, you can largely shape the future of the system” might be valid in the commercial world, but Lockheed Martin is in the defence world, the rules are a little different there, feel free not to believe me, but in light of The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) and their push to “prevent a future situation like the one now facing the F-35 program — and by extension, American service members and taxpayers“, here we see that the letter to congress by POGO executive director Danielle Brian might become a swing and a Jack, so whilst POGO seeks the optional “It would also allow the government to seek alternative suppliers should the original contractor fail to live up to expectations“, we see more than a victory, the entire Huawei issue might push for this solution, which would make several nations queasy on the F-35 solution they heralded.

The F-35 is showing me the one solution that mattered to the wrong people, it was greed overjoyed and that is about to gain the sunlight and limelight others wanted to keep out of consideration.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Alex Younger, Boeing, Carolyn Nelson, Danielle Brian, Dassault, Dassault Aviation, Eric Fick, F-35, France, GAO, Government Accountability office, Huawei, J-31, John Garamendi, Lockheed Martin, Loren Thompson, MI-6, pentagon, POGO, Saab, Saudi Arabia, SU-35, SU-57, Sukhoi, The Project on Government Oversight, UAE, UK, US, Washington Post

November 17, 2019 · 13:18

A day of fun

Some people are just too funny; yes this is about yesterday’s blog. I have been accused of having moments of grandeur, well yes, we all have those, but the setting I described is not new, and it is happening right now (not by me alas), there are people who take all that feigned ability for ‘no guns to Saudi Arabia‘ and turn that into a business in their need for green, in this 4 places were historically plentiful, I mentioned three but I left Guernsey out of consideration, it has a few benefits, but it is still a commonwealth nation. So it cannot indiscriminately deal with everyone from there, even in transit law application.

It is also why I laugh at places like ‘Campaign Against Arms Trade‘, the government stops dealing directly and starts dealing indirectly, the only thing that places like CAAT guarantee is that the government gets a smaller piece of the pie, It is a laughing situation and the people are not getting informed because the media will not inform them. Do I want to be a part of it?

Of course!

This is an industry that gets the top dog $100M plus (annual) and his disciples (hopefully at some point me) will get around $25M a year for all the hard work, which is about 50% less work then I do for $65.800, so presently there is all the reason to be of service to people in that business. Let’s be fair, with their work and these invoices, when you get the chance between $66K and $25M, what will you choose?

And that is merely when you look at 1-3 customers, there are close to 3 dozen customers and you could get the up and up for up to 2 years, so you won’t get a job afterwards but you retire with an amount that could be up to $55,000,000 (and a house, and a boat, and a model and a car) which is by the way $54,000,000 more then you ever would have made in any other way and more importantly you are not breaking (bending extraneously most likely) any laws. Transit laws are all about location, location, location and location. So you optionally get to redo it three times afterwards, park the money in a nice account and live the life of non-stop being lazy eating 5 star meals.

That is your life in a republic, monarchy and a corporatocracy. Their laws tend to be the same in all nations and the nice part is that it pretty much always works, so why I am not doing it? Without a first contracts and a first contact there is no starting this solution.

So moving to a place like Monaco without any contacts and business on your way, you will end up having no options. You have better options in Lichtenstein and Andorra, whilst living expenses are a lot lower, the amount of contacts will also be close to zero. Guernsey is the one out of bounds, it has commonwealth laws, and even as it has tax benefits, it does have a few setbacks in the arms trade, not for traders initially.

Then there are a few other places where you can trade like there is no tomorrow, yet you need to have your lawyer on standby 24:7 (which is tedious, let me tell you). Still Monaco is a great place for all this, as long there is no transit VIA Monaco you are doing fine, in the past the Netherlands were a great transit nation, but I am not sure if their laws have been adjusted in the last two decades. There is a lot to get through, and that is at times part of the joy to get to the juicy bone. You see, it is not only the Middle East that needs help, there are a whole range of issues with American arms dealers, There are Russian oligarchs that cannot show their face in certain places and they all need dealers, the money will remain good for a long time, because they end up making a lot more and that is the central nail in the coffin, as long as they make good money, you get to make scraps (in their eyes $25 million a year is a scrap). As such you can have the lifestyle you want providing you can swallow that BS agreement called morality. Consider CAAT your destination for the data. They have (at https://www.caat.org.uk/resources/export-licences-eu/licence.en.html) for 2017 $159 billion, now a lot of that is normal arms trade yet there is nothing stopping you from being an in between for 2017 $295 Million, 2018 $260 million and 2019 $305 million (expected). You are basically in a place where you could get 0.1%-0.2% of the arms trade agreements and that is slightly optimistic, you’ll end up with $55M-$65M in 2019, would you not do that? I would!

And in all this, the top 6 recipients are Saudi Arabia, the UAE, India, the US, Egypt and the UK, all decently rules nations, all with a normal seat of power, all needing to defend their borders, that is the Wacky part of CAAT, even as India, the UK and the US are allowed to defend their borders, the UAE and Saudi Arabia are not?

That’s just dealing in double standards. Oh and when it comes to double standards, in that list Iran has less than 1 billion and Lebanon was the destination of 2.2 billion, so what about all the rockets they fire at Israel? As far as I can see it, CAAT has no records of them, is that not interesting as well. OK, I am not counting the 350 missiles they send a week ago as this charter has no 2019 data, but Gaza has been firing rockets on Israel for years now and they cannot build these themselves, so the data is already flawed. That is the problem with CAAT, their idealism is out of whack, for people like me that is a good thing down the road (If I ever get hired) for the arms makers it sucks a little as I am getting part of their profit share, yet in the long run, those board directors would have spent it on blow and hookers (suggested speculation) so it’s good that they lost it (for me in more ways than one).

When you travel the field of import and export and you can handle transit laws the road might seem bumpy yet it still leads to a road giving you 100,000 times the amount you could have ever earned. And this field is not over, because even as we check out the need for arms, we see that several nations have a much larger need for pharmaceuticals. To be the small independent trader seems to be an interesting time, all because we had morals, you tell me how good morals are when you knowingly are not stopping anything, you only indirectly hurt the national product.

Yes it is a fun day.

Oh and Oman, Lithuania, Kenya and Pakistan need hardware too, my day is looking up already (when I get any of these calls that is).

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Andorra, Arms deals, Barhrain, CAAT, Egypt, Guernsey, India, Lichtenstein, Monaco, Netherlands, Oman, Pakistan, Transit laws, UK, US

November 11, 2019 · 12:57

The deal

There is a deal out there, at least in the UK. There are all kind of deals out there, the consideration is all in the eye of the beholder, yet what is the deal?

The independent has a few views, the first one is ‘Labour and the Tories are both desperate for a taxpayer-funded spending spree – I don’t trust either of them‘ (at https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/labour-conservatives-general-election-spending-plans-economy-a9195736.html), yet its by-line has an interesting thought ‘makes me wonder who is actually monitoring the books? Who is in charge of the economy?‘ Yet that is he issue and it has been n issue for close to a decade. Another article is focussing on ‘Which chancellor would you prefer to ruin your life? Sajid Javid or John McDonnell?‘ (at https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sajid-javid-john-mcdonnell-general-election-chancellor-brexit-labour-a9192161.html), yet in the guardian we see: ‘Labour derides £1.2tn Tory costing claims as ‘work of fiction’‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/10/labour-derides-12tn-tory-costing-claims-as-work-of-fiction-corbyn) there is a larger issue at play, there is no doubt that both sides have parts that make sense, yet both are as the Guardian states ‘Both parties have promised significant increases in public investment, funded by government borrowing‘, this is however not a great time.

The dangers that are out there is the fact that Austerity is a path that is slow and cannot be fast, there is still a decade of austerity at the very minimum and this spending spree will add half a decade. The Guardian also gives us “The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said the Conservatives’ investment plans would amount to an extra £20bn a year, and Labour’s to £55bn a year” whilst tempering this with “Javid declined to say whether the Conservatives would implement promises made by Boris Johnson during his campaign to become leader, which included an increase in the threshold for higher-rate tax to £80,000 a year“, the problem with that part can be seen through the numbers giving by the government (at https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/financialyearending2017), and that is merely two years ago, so when we look at the chart, how much of that collected money will give any kind of relief towards austerity?

The problem is that the people are sick and tired of austerity, but that was going to be the controlling majority to deal with debt, we can call it ‘austerity’ or we can call it ‘debt control’ the UK cannot continue the spending it had done for the longest case, not if they do not want to be vassals of banks, and the problem is that the largest collection of banks are those out of the UK, the only way is to fall below that spending spree and that is not a popular solution to listen to. Yet the numbers are clear and I get to laugh out loud for almost a year as Labour made these promises whilst the budget just didn’t allow for it, and the funnier part was that the proper taxation was key, not merely the richer people all people and more important corporations, yet Labour did not really give any of us the view that corporations were to properly taxed, were they? And the one chart I gave you shows that taxing the right will not give us anywhere near the funds required, so why is Labour connecting to its members with fairy tales and a conundrum of stories that could be minimised to a level that gives them the reality of a magical roundabout (the one with Eric Thompson doing the narration). The situation is that bad and we are just not catching on, why is that?

In that case the Libdems get closest to it by “The Liberal Democrats’ central spending pledge is a radical increase in childcare, which they said would be free for all working parents from when their child turns nine months old, at a cost of almost £15bn a year. They said they would fund it by reversing corporation tax cuts and increasing capital gains tax“, I wonder how much you can tax capital gains tax, and I have questions on how you will ‘reversing corporation tax cuts‘ but they do have the right idea in part, as I see it ‘reversing corporation tax cuts‘ is the better stage, and what do you think will happen? Apple will suddenly decide to reduce new locations from 15 to 10 (no great loss there) and others will follow suit, when the going is less profitable they will all vacate towards ‘bonus share’ percentages and all of it out of the UK, I personally believe that it is time to stop giving into the need of corporations, but that is just me. And the most important part remains, you cannot do any of the spending until taxation is clearly established, All parties need to learn that inescapable truth, because it is already too late for alternatives, the UK, the US, Japan and the EU have been playing the spend card for too long and whilst collections have been delayed and outstanding the world has no reserves left, this generation is the first one handing out money that was means for the grandchildren, and we all let them do it. And whilst we read ‘Javid has adopted a considerably more relaxed approach to balancing the books‘ with empty persuasion we forget that they already ended up spending the money that was meant for our children and now they are busy spending the funds meant for the grandchildren and I wonder what excuse they will use to let that continue?

There is a larger inequality and that inequality is not addressed, why is that?

And when it comes to excuses “The Brexit minister Kwasi Kwarteng also sought to defend the Conservatives’ calculations on Sunday, but refused to give an equivalent for his own party’s spending plans. “I’m not going to bandy around figures,”” The question is what is worse, not being into the act of bandy, or giving us fairy tale figures? I honestly cannot decide, omission or denial, both seem to be keeping the voters away from having a judged informed decision and as far as I can tell, none have any idea of where they will get the money from to fund whatever they need to get elected. At present the UK has a debt that amounts to 86% of GDP, whilst Germany has one that is a mere 62% of GDP, now there is an additional side, Germany has a much larger GDP as they are supplying for the need of many, the UK does not have that option, As such it amounts to £2.265 trillion and that amount grows well over £5,000 per second, as such the debt might seem a mere £62,500 per taxpayer, but when we look at a debt of £36,400 per citizen do you think I was kidding when we are currently spending the money that was meant for the grandchildren? With a debt of £2.265 trillion, the interest cannot be below £225 billion a year, so when you look at the total collected taxation, did you think that the previous chart gets anywhere near that amount? Oh and for Germany (in comparison) €1,990 trillion Euro, yet their debt is diminishing, it has been that case from 2010 onward when it was at €2.035 trillion Euro. Germany is ahead of the UK there, and for now it might be €48,000 per taxpayer and €24,000 per person they are merely seemingly in a worse place, yet their total debt is still going down every second, the UK debt is still increasing and until that comes around the UK has no cause for cheering or for some debatable spending spree.

The rich cannot fill that gap, anyone who says differently is lying to you, it is time to fill the gaps, reversion tax gaps is one part and making corporations accountable for whatever scheme they have next is another part, it is time to let corporations pay for their mistakes, as we need to hold the ruling parties accountable, the clear path seen is the fact that whatever is available for your grandchildren is diminishing and your vote is a clear path in stopping that. So make sure you follow the right party, I’ll let you figure out who that is.

Oh and one small consideration, when the entire EU, the UK, the US and Japan, Russia and China all have debts in the trillions, where do you believe the wealth of the world is?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Conservatives, Eu, GDP, Germany, IFS, Independent, Institute for Fiscal Studies, Japan, John McDonnell, Kwasi Kwarteng, Labour, LibDems, Sajid Javid, the Guardian, Tories, UK, US

Tag Archives: UK

Recent Posts

Archives