Tag Archives: UK

June 29, 2014 · 11:05

What’s in a health system?

Another day, another view on the failings of an NHS system in the UK is presented through the newspapers. The interesting part is not that we read it or that we know about it, for the most it seems to be about a level of blind acceptance that the NHS system might soon be no more. We see more discussions (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/28/cameron-warned-nhs-in-danger-of-collapse). One quote is “the NHS needed an extra £15bn from the Treasury over the next five years ‘if you don’t want the system to collapse during the course of the next parliament’“. Now, that comes down to an additional 220 pounds for every person in the UK. The additional quote “The grim analysis is backed by some of the country’s top health experts“, Really? Is that the actual solution? Perhaps the UK has the ‘wrong’ experts in the field. First we see a 10 billion pound IT system that never works, then we get another failed infusion of 3 billion pounds. Could the issue perhaps be that throwing money at it is no longer a solution? In addition, in a greying economy, healthcare will be the most important thing over the next 10-15 years, so perhaps sitting down and designing a completely new NHS, then seeing how the old system could be migrated might be a much better idea (especially as the other ideas are not working).

“The quality of patient care will be compromised by not having enough doctors and nurses on the wards and in surgeries and clinics. The well-publicised failures of care at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation were caused by precisely this kind of cost cutting, with tragic consequences for the families concerned.” Is a quote that is in the article and I have a few issues with it. First of all, let’s take a look at the issue (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/28/mid-staffordshire-nhs-trust-fined-gillian-astbury), it is without any doubt a terrible event for the family. The quote “Mistakes were made as her ward underwent as many as eight shift changes and 11 drugs rounds per day. The system for handovers, when nurses arriving for the next shift should be informed of the needs of the patients, was ’inconsistent and sometimes non-existent’, the trust admitted.” So we can agree that there was a shortage, the point is, was it avoidable? This is where the issue starts. Throwing more money at it is NOT a solution, having 1 nurse per 5 patients is also a non-workable solution. The more people go into all this, the more time we see spend on handovers, with two sets of nurses getting/giving updates, not to mention the absolute fortune this setup will cost. I found the following (at http://straightstatistics.org/article/alcohol-related-hospital-admissions-set-tumble), it is about ‘Alcohol-related hospital admissions‘, the quote “If we limit the numbers to admissions wholly attributable to alcohol, the numbers have risen from 45,000 to 68,500, an increase of 52.2 per cent“. Really? Is that what doctors and nurses spend their time on? How about we change the approach to alcohol (and drugs for that matter) and take a page from the quotes of Ebenezer Scrooge “‘If they would rather die,’ said Scrooge, ‘they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.’”

It seems harsh doesn’t it? Does it? Now consider the possibility that Gillian Astbury aged 66, might be alive if something is actually dome about the alcohol cases. We see a little more clarity (at http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/Resources/Documents/s/ss/SSPCTAlcoholneedsassessmentforStaffscountyJan08.pdf), where we find the quote “Trend data published by the West Midlands Public Health Observatory for selected alcohol admissions show that between 1999/00 and 2004/05 there was an increase in hospital admission rates by 40% for men and 30% for women across Staffordshire County“.

 

How about actually change people? So let’s do the following, a drunk in need is no longer given medical aid. If some youngling wants to be heroic and binge drink himself into a coma, then let his body fight it off in some cage (of course if they have money for private care, then that will be OK). If the body is unsuccessful, it will die. Plain and simple! We will call their mother telling them they should have raised them better and the case is closed. Consider the benefit of lower costs to the NHS, unemployment numbers will go down and we might even see an increase in rental options.

I know this is not a pretty picture, but these so called health experts need to see that the current course is no longer an option. We could do the same for the drug addicted population and get an even healthier commonwealth. The issue is not just the approach of certain people; it is the entire look that non-action gives all. Consider the PDF I added the linked to, in Table 9 (on page 26), we see a changed trend of 272%. So, almost three times as many go for the bottle in a group? The fact that this is not dealt with is a plain joke, especially as the NHS gets to clean up that mess in addition to dealing with the ‘actual‘ sick. There are alternatives! One is that all alcoholic beverages are raised by 23% taxation, which all goes to the NHS, which seems unfair to the population that can actually temper their alcohol use. The UK could instigate a Swedish approach to alcohol (also expensive), but you can only get hard liquor on an identity card, which gets registered and you cannot buy more than 2 bottles a month. Or we let the alcohol abusers die. You see, we can go in all directions, but most people, weak as they are, are unable to make the hard decisions and will force a situation where more money is given. This is fair enough, but then we add taxation, including to the lowest income bracket, to get more money for the NHS. Now, these same experts will tell you that this is not a solution either.

There is no choice; hard options will have to be selected in one way or another. It seems that steering clear of some zero tolerance options have been ignored for too long and those who are actually trying to get healthy so that they can contribute to family and society are dying, like Gillian Astbury. This part is however not shown to such a degree by the journalists at large. There is one more table to consider in that PDF. In table 19 we see that the total of the alcohol misusers cause a massive £1,701,900,000 to the UK health economy. So if we need cut backs, then here is one point seven billion in savings. Mr Prime minister! (I think I just earned my knighthood and a small cottage in saffron Walden) I think that the total savings in damages that these drinkers are causing is considerable larger than just to the health economy.

I am all for a better NHS, I am all for giving doctors and nurses a better tomorrow and if just throwing money at it would make that difference, then I would be all in favour of it, but there is almost 10 years of data disproving that, we see an NHS system that is rattled by big business (pharmacy and IT for example) and politicians and the approach as it is at present can no longer be maintained. Perhaps we need to make additional changes to the patients as well. The healthcare is all about keeping track of data and details, what if the patient becomes the data carrier? What if the nurse has a tablet with details and patient numbers, which is transferred to the new nurse and as they go over it, they can verify with the patient chip? When I go into ANY hospital, I see a multitude of papers, folders and more papers and people entering reports in computers and then printing it all. What if we take the next generation in solutions and take away 30% of that workload?

When people ask which company will do this, the answer should be ‘None!’. The UK is filled with universities, some of them regarded as the most prestigious and brightest on the planet. Consider that most IT people, might claim experience, yet their drama skills are the only ones that improved for the most, is it not up to the Universities, those who are introduced to the newest ideas, design a solution that would make the work of the doctors and nurses at the NHS better, slightly more efficient and a truckload of less hassle! Is that such a tall order?

We will get to the solutions if we are willing to navigate other options. We have seen that the current path is not a success; new methods might not be a failure. It is a road that politicians should be willing to go, if only to make sure that a possible solution was not overlooked.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Politics, Science

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

June 22, 2014 · 20:00

The Illusion of control

It is three days after writing ‘Concerning the Commonwealth!‘, I stand by my piece. I think that the Commonwealth is facing increasing issues all over the field and as the numbers go up and up and up, healthcare will take a centre seat in a diminishing population of workers, which by the way include issues that will hit Australian shores too. Today (at http://news.sky.com/story/1287088/government-has-lost-control-of-the-nhs) we get to see more about the NHS, the mention of a 3 billion pound fiasco, which gets attached to the name Andrew Lansley, who is currently Leader of the House of Commons. He is also behind the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which is regarded to be highly controversial. However, before we go into any controversial parts, try finding a document called ‘ABPI UK NHS medicines bill projection 2012 – 2015‘, it is a PDF file (the Google link was too messy). There is a massive revelation on page 5, which diminishes a bible chapter with a similar name to a mere Paddington bear story.

As we ignore earlier mentions of a shake-up gone awry at 3 billion and mentions of an IT structure at the price of 10 billion that never worked, here we see that over the term 2013-2015 the use of brands go up from 14.2 to 15.5 billion, yet generic medication needs only rises from 3.2 to 3.9 billion. The interesting part is that even though there is still a brand growth, the bio-similar mention (generics) go up from 134 to 328, so there is more than 100% growth in change to generic medication, whilst the cost is still growing steadily on both sides (generic versus brands), what would the brand side have done if the generic side did not exist?

Three days ago I was extremely outspoken in regards to the need to get the NHS costs down. It seems that the search for generic alternatives is taking a backseat to other options. In an age of finding ways to make ends meet, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 has no space reserved in regards to the need for a stronger presence of generic medication.

When we look at:

233 General duties
(1) In exercising its functions NICE must have regard to—
               (a) the broad balance between the benefits and costs of the provision of health services or of social care in
               England,
               (b) the degree of need of persons for health services or social care in England, and
               (c) the desirability of promoting innovation in the provision of health services or of social care in England.

Why was the following not added?

                (d) the choice of generic medication where possibility for a responsible health care alternative warrants it.

Now, I will be the first one to admit that my choice of words is not the best one, but it seems where it is known that generic medication is such an important part for the survival of the NHS, that no mention at all (as far as I could tell) seems to raise a few more questions. Key message 4 on page 11 of the PDF shows exactly the part that matters: “Nine of the current top 20 selling brands lose patent exclusivity between 2012 and 2015” and when we consider the growth through bio-similars, we see that the right path seems to be taken as we read the numbers from the office of health economics. So, there is a path to better growth through managed costs (to some degree), the question becomes, why is this report quoting Jane Ellison as secretly taped? More important, why is Sky News not giving proper light to the NHS issues as they are (to a small extent) resolved? Why are they not taking a look a Professor Adrian Towse, Jon Sussex, Lesley Cockcroft or Martina Garau. I would think that the latter two as statistician and economist might be able to light a candle in the tunnel of ambiguous ‘tell tailing’ darkness ‘some’ are sailing.

None of these matters are coming to light at any stage. Even the Guardian on April fool’s day, did little more then http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/01/health-service-biggest-challenge-history-nhs-boss. I will admit that the article of the Guardian was decent, yet the quote “the NHS is facing a perfect storm of rising demand, funding pressures and worryingly low staff morale“, no matter how true, seems to be about the hardships (which remain true). Yet the information that the Office of health economics seem to have is escaping these Journo’s of bad news writings. Slide 13 of the initial PDF shows an even stronger view on how the UK is getting by, whilst the US is facing an overall hike from 176% to 281% compared to the UK index, Only Spain, Finland and France were barely better off. That part remains in question when we consider their population, if the results was correctly weighted (small oops on that slide), then the pressures for patent change from American shows just how desperate the American position is, which is shown even stronger on slide 6 when we see just how hard medication hits both Japan and USA as they spend well over 2% of GDP there, whilst the population of Japan is twice that of UK and the population of the USA is set at well over 400%. These slides will also leave is with other questions in several regards, yet the initial positive view is not reverberated over the press sites, or by the UK journalists. It seems to me that the information by certain newsgroups, especially in the LACKING sight on the importance of generic medication leaves us with questions. However, the Guardian was all over the business side of Pfizer trying to take over AstraZeneca. Did no one properly wonder why they were willing to dish over 69 billion? When did a US company EVER spend such an amount unless they knew that they would end up with double the amount? When we consider those events, we should wonder why the papers aren’t a lot more outspoken in regards to informing the public.

Even if this was all not true, don’t you think that the press would (should is a better word) have been all over the members of the Office of health economics I mentioned asking them the questions I am voicing and a few more after that? Is the silence of the press not deafening? The late April article in regards to Pfizer – Astranezeca headlines as ‘Pfizer refuses to guarantee UK jobs if AstraZeneca takeover goes through‘, which should make us wonder whether this is about income, jobs or patents. Would that takeover stopped any patents, or at least delayed them? If many patents have 1-2 years left, why pay that many billions, which information was kept hidden from us? It is the quote from Pfizer CEO Ian Read that states “The combination of Pfizer and AstraZeneca could further enhance the ability to create value for shareholders of both companies and bring an expanded portfolio of important treatments to patients.” This is a fair, honest (to some degree) and clear message. It is about the shareholders and the message that these billion will come back to ‘us’ and then some. This is clear business, I do not object, yet the overview for the UK? What will it cost them besides jobs? We saw little of that and the NHS has been played like a piñata donkey for a little too long. This is not me stating that the NHS is okay. Actually it is far from that, it is about getting the proper illumination on events, which does not seem to be happening either.

In the end, the quote in the Sky News article “A spokesman for the Department of Health told Sky News: ‘Giving operational control for the day-to-day running of services to doctors was the right decision but we’ve always been clear that ministers are responsible for the NHS’” might have been a correct one, the added information could have been a lot more insightful. When you Google ‘Office of health economics‘ you will not find any links to any newspaper, which is puzzling when you go to the Office of health economics and look at some of their publications. If I would add one more ‘light‘ remark then it would be that the members of the editorial and the policy board of the Office of health economics seem to have more degrees then a Kelvin scale, making them in my mind an essential source of health information for any journalist.

So where are these articles informing the public?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics, Science

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

June 21, 2014 · 20:48

Legally and Criminally Insane?

There is an issue that had been on my mind for a long time. First of all, I do not have a car. I had a motorcycle for a while, but not at present. I never cared for cars that much. When you live in the big city, a car tends to be an expensive asset and it rarely gives you additional time. I learned that if one manages their time correctly you get heaps done without a car. It does not always work that way, I can admit that and for almost half a century, I have only desperately needed a car around 10 times. So, for me, a car is really not that needed.

You might wonder where this is going!

I just read an article, basically the second driver in a series of thoughts (at http://news.sky.com/story/1286644/brakes-slammed-on-over-zealous-spy-cars). The first one is a number of articles all pointing back to speed cameras (at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/10613388/Motorway-speed-cameras-to-be-rolled-out-to-stop-those-driving-faster-than-70mph.html) and a third topic in this matter can be found at http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/trending-news/parking-fines-by-councils-reach-nearly-255-million-in-2013-with-tables-of-the-top-finers-by-local-authority/.

So, why these issues? We have traffic laws (UK, Australia and heaps of other nations). They are not like the three rules I got explained for driving a car in Egypt (in 1982), where it seemed that:

1. If you did not honk your horn, you are at fault.
2. The heaviest car has right of way.
3. A non-Egyptian is always at fault.

They seem simple and pretty much fit the bill.

In most Commonwealth countries we have set rules on speeding and parking. So, I do not get the problem when people start bitching over speeding tickets. Was there a speed limit? There always is and there is always a reason why it did not apply to that person. I reckon 1 out of 250 will have the actual honest defence that they missed the speed limit sign, which gives us 249 people who should keep quiet and just pay up, or should they?

Now, I will admit that I am slightly on the fence towards the topic with the title “Brakes Slammed On ‘Over-Zealous Spy Cars’“. Is that really a wrong approach?

Even though the heart of the matter quoted “These measures will deliver a fairer deal for motorists, ensuring that parking enforcement is proportionate, that school children are protected and buses can move freely, and that key routes are kept clear“, which is fair enough. My issue is that these people parked illegally, so why is that an issue?

The quote “CCTV spy cars can be seen lurking on every street raking in cash for greedy councils and breaking the rules that clearly state that fines should not be used to generate profit for town halls” remains funny as most town halls will never ever make profit, even if we fine roughly 87.2254% of the London motorists, London would still come up short by a sizeable amount.

It is in the area of the parking fines article we see this quote “The capital is extremely congested so we’d expect to see a higher number of restrictions in place and penalties being issued. However, there is a fine line between fair and opportunistic that councils shouldn’t be tempted to cross.” Here I wonder how to react. You see, if the council revokes a driver’s licence after 3-4 fines for no less than one year, it seems to me that the congestion problem will solve itself overnight. I agree that these transgressions are not in the league of Manslaughter or Grievous bodily harm, but laws are laws and are traffic laws any less? (Well, less than murder, yes!) There will always be excuses and some will remain valid.
‘L or P plates correctly displayed at start of journey‘, which in all honesty could happen. There is ‘on medical grounds‘, where the driver was helping a victim into a hospital. There will always be a grey area that we in all honesty must deal with. These are the parking fines and there are a few more valid reasons, but some are just out there. I felt a lot less lenient when it comes to speeding. You see, there is always that joker who thinks he is in control and when speeding goes wrong, he refuses to die for the sake of it, but will have killed someone else. When we read that: “X (name removed) was jailed for eight months for causing death by careless driving“, I wonder why that person is not spending life in jail for murder. the quote “Believing they were walking ‘deliberately slowly’, she engaged the clutch and revved the engine of her Honda Civic to scare them off the road while her car was still moving at around the 30mph speed limit” gives additional feelings of anger. These pedestrians were at a pedestrian crossing? 8 months jail and a two year ban is all she had to do, which in my book seems just wrong.

It is the quote “We are opposed to speed cameras in general. The evidence of their success in promoting safety is not good and in reality what is happening now is that the police are using speed cameras to fund their other activities through speed awareness courses.” by Roger Lawson, a spokesman for the Alliance of British Drivers (ABD) that gives additional concern. Perhaps these measures do not go far enough?

It is currently stated that if you are caught speeding then you will be handed an absolute minimum punishment of three penalty points and a fine of £100. How about making that four penalty points and a fine of £200? Also during special times, like Easter, Christmas and so on, the demerits double, making the driver extra careful. Next we see that ‘if you accrue 12 points on your licence within a three-year period‘, should then in honesty become ‘if you accrue 24 points on your licence within a two-year period‘ the driving ban should be no less than 24 months, no matter how essential your driving license is. If someone states that this is too draconian, then I personally agree as well, but many acts do not change the mind of the driver now, so why not give them something to fear. It seems that public transportation frightens them a lot.

What do we get from this?

That is indeed the question. It seems that a total disregard for parking and speeding rules is getting out of hand, and whilst it seems unfair to some, this is also a possible way to stop congestion. It also stops a little pollution, so we do get a double whammy on this front.

This all gets me to Law and Morality by John Gardner (at http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lawf0081/pdfs/lawmoralityedited.pdf). It should seem clear that my approach is ‘aim to serve the common good (Finnis 1980: 276)‘ and ‘aim to justify coercion (Dworkin 1986: 93)‘. There is no denial that this is about coercing the driver to abide by the rules. We should at that point also consider how unjust the laws of traffic are (if that is the raised issue). But is it?

How often could you not park because someone had taken the spot that was rightfully yours? How often have you or someone you directly known to be in almost direct danger because of someone speeding? When a population above a certain level states yes to both (as it currently seemed to be the case), should these laws not change to something more draconian?

Is it not so, that in my imaginary change, we are changing the premise that we all have a right to drive a car, into the premise that driving a car is becoming a privilege for those abiding by the set rules? Is this not deprivation of freedom? We are to some extent already imposing those rules to pilots, considering the lack of accidents there, should we not take the same approach with car drivers? Should we not pass a certain parameter to be considered a driver? We demand skills to many environments that are a lot less hazardous, so why not car drivers? You see, as I see it, the car industry had forever been an open field as it was so lucrative to sell to so many people. Now, with the saturation we see, cars are almost too available and gas prices go through the roof. What if it becomes a privilege? What if the car driving population goes down by 20%? Cars might not become cheaper, but gas certainly will as there is a 20% less need. Public transportation will suddenly get a massive boost and the chance that all this reflects on higher safety standards and less need for emergency aid is also a good thing. We will always need emergency services, but consider that they will have on the emergency services. Here is where I got surprised. When we consider the numbers (at http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB13040/acci-emer-focu-on-2013-rep-V2.pdf), we see that in the UK the response for ‘Road traffic accidents accounted for 1.4 per cent of type 1 department attendances in 2012/13‘. That was a number I did not expect to see, so am I looking in the wrong direction? When we look at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/255125/road-accidents-and-safety-quarterly-estimates-q2-2013.pdf, we see a rolling statistic of 1785 killed and 23,530 regarded as killed or seriously injured, which makes the Accident and Emergency (A&E) data in England a slight question. Especially as we regard page 17 of that PDF and the spread of the traffic cases on page 22. Well, No! The numbers make perfect sense; it just shows that the 23,000 are well spread over the timeline; it is just that these 23,000 are in the end only 1.4%. Yes, in case you wonder, I did notice they are not all from the same frame, but we see only a few percent change over these time frames, so that overall the picture is still usable for the most, just that the relief for Accident & Emergency would be minimal (alas). I had hoped that the traffic changes would lessen their work a lot more.

So, am I just trying to add morality to a traffic case? Gardner explains that at times morality needs law, just as law is in need of morality at times. So we are still with the question, is adding draconian measures to traffic laws morally considerable, or will the act result in a lack of morality for the law? That issue is brought to light when Gardner gets to item 4. “Does law have an inner morality?” There we have a nice consideration. Is morality not a setting of norms, hence in reflection is it not a form of discrimination? I am doing that by discriminating against the transgressors, but am I doing this in an unbalanced way? If we accept that morality is seen as a system of values and principles of conduct, and the bulk of people break speed limits, is the morality of speeding not one that should change? If almost all break the speed limit, is the law not unjust to being with and as such is this law, draconian or not a transgression of accepted morality and therefor a law that should not exist?

The facts now fit the statement that Roger Lawson gave us, is this about funding, or about safety? That is not easily answered and without knowing the true and complete course of the 1785 killed. How many got killed through speeding? If we accept that the UK has roughly 34.8 million cars in use, should 0.00525% decide the consequence of the rest? When we look at the deaths, that is what we see; we get 0.0676% if we include the wounded. So, when looking at this, no matter how we twist or turn the data, well over 99% suffers because of a few. There is no question that none of this changes for the victims of these events, but it shines a harsh light on certain aspects of traffic safety and the approach it has. Should the laws change however? There is growing evidence at this point that my Draconian approach is just not the way to go, it shows an increasing tendency to be unjust. We can all agree that unjust laws should not be followed. But in the second degree, are the current laws too harsh?

Here we have several other factors to consider. If congestion is the cause of many evil, then my draconian approach survives the test as it solves part of the problem, yet will it solve the situation? There is no real way to tell. We should however question whether we want to take away the car as a basic freedom, because that is what a car embodies and revoking freedoms is as we can all agree highly immoral.

It seems like we took an opposition approach and through this we learned that people like Eric Pickles and Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin have a clear case. The same could be said for Roger Lawson, which takes us to the question whether the UK should consider losing the speed limits all together. Would you believe that someone made that case? Norfolk Police Crime Commissioner Stephen Bett did this and makes a good argument for it, which gives wonder on what to do next? He stated “If we are going to do anything about speed and villages we ought to take down all the signs and say all villages are 30mph [48km/h] and you drive on roads like they do in Germany and Italy, as road conditions say”. So if this works in Germany and Italy, why should the UK not go that same way? It cannot just be the weather as the weather in Germany can be even more treacherous as it is in the UK. Is it not also the case that the simpler any traffic issue is, the less confusion we are likely to face? The Egyptian example at the beginning is an extreme one, but does show the effectiveness of simplicity (except for rule three which can be scrapped in Common Law on grounds of discrimination).

Perhaps some changes the UK could get by learning from its neighbours, who knows, perhaps after this the French, Dutch and others will follow the Italians and we might get a reasonable equal traffic system (one can only hope). The end of the article comes down on Stephen Bett stating “UK motoring organisations have dismissed Bett’s comments, with the Guild of Experienced Motorists describing them as ‘just nonsense’“. But is that so? The numbers seem to be in his favour, the evidence of simplicity as generic evidence has been proven again and again, so is it all nonsense or is Stephen Bett onto something? Even though he stepped aside as PCC while an investigation is carried out into his expenses (since yesterday), the points he made should be seriously investigated, especially if proof can be given that simplicity drives down the number of accidents and transgressions, which is a win/win for all people.

So as I see it, the act to add Draconian laws seems almost criminally insane, which is actually what is happening in Spain, but we will get to that in due time when we see the results of Spain implementing such harsh rules.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics, Science

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

June 21, 2014 · 11:58

The price of a passport!

We all have our moments; we all have that moment when we need to prove that we are the person we are claiming to be. Many of us have been through it more than once. When we turn 18 and we go traveling, when we need to apply for loans, mortgages and other financially linked issues. We must prove that we are who we say we are. It is at that time that we need to have a passport and even though, except for travel over national lines it is not essential, it will always be regarded as the most correct proof of identity.

It is the dream of an identity thief, the dream of a refugee trying to get to any level of a safe life. A passport will have that magical shield value. Whether you live in one of the Commonwealth nations, or in many of the western European nations, we seem to forget just how powerful a passport truly is. Those who got theirs seem to forget the hassle it is to get one for the first time. So when the article (at http://news.sky.com/story/1286601/passport-office-profiting-from-publics-pain) appeared, I was not that surprised, even though the term ‘profiting‘ seemed out of context.

Most passports are valid for 10 years and the freedom of a passport is often beyond most imaginations. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_passport#mediaviewer/File:Visa_requirements_for_British_citizens.png we see the freedom a British National has. It allows a person to pretty much go anywhere within the Blue and Green regions at the drop of a hat. We all take this level of freedom for granted at times. The Dutch passport can get you in all these places as well as in a limited way into additional Middle-Eastern places (1 or 2). So when we look at a passport, we often do not realise the power it holds. I myself got confronted with the notion in Crete, when I was having a coffee with a Russian Lady on vacation. She explained the hoops she had to go through to get to Crete. Her passport did not give her the tropical destinations at the drop of a hat and to go shopping in Saks on fifth was a joke she could not seriously entertain ever.

Now let’s take another look at that little trinket! Whether you have a thin one, or one with 12 additional pages, you will set yourself back for a decent amount of coin. You think that it is expensive, taken the time-frame, a passport is less than 8 euro’s a year and it is an essential document in your life. There is of course another side to this. As everyone wants that piece of paper, you want to keep a good check on it, and the application for it is a time consuming process. So much so that those behind it need to make sure that this document keeps its value. It was at this point I started to wonder about a few issues.

The article had a few quotes that give pause for us to think issues through.

“The figures showed there were 552,192 applications in January this year compared with 482,356 12 months earlier” is the first quote, “There are still 490,000 applications being dealt with and staff have had to work the equivalent of nearly £1m in overtime in one month” is the second one, “It is baffling why immediate action was not taken to alleviate the impending disaster that has now engulfed HMPO.” is the third one and “The Passport Office is ‘profiting from the public hardship’ by making a surplus of almost £13 on each application, the head of a government watchdog has said” is the fourth one, but the first one to be mentioned. This is all coming from Keith Vaz, Labour MP and funny enough, a person who started life as a Yemeni citizen.

It is nice to see such criticism, but how fair is it? Consider the UK has close to 64 million people. I have no clear number on how many are ACTUAL citizens, but for the fun of it, let us assume 100% (which is ridiculous I know), this means that if all is equally set, the HMPO would need to produce 6.4 million passports a year, which is a little over 533 thousand a month. So how are the numbers as quoted by Keith Vaz MP a surprise to anyone?

I reckon the HMPO should know that these numbers would need to be met to some degree. Here is the kicker! They are not surprised and I feel certain they are trying to deal with it. The problem is that hackers are getting better and that more and more systems are compromised, so before we go into that part, we should recognise that over the last 10 years the work of the HMPO has grown in complexity and they are relying on the part these systems that cannot get compromised by these hackers, mainly the printed documents and original papers (as are likely seen in those massive binders). The Honorable Mr Vaz seems to be ignoring those parts.

As for the 13 pounds, is this even a valid number? If we consider the amount of actions required, checks to be made and then the actual passport to be created, checked and handed to the right individual, a passport is a real deal at twice the price. The fact that 1 million in overtime is quoted; the 13 pounds profit would be non-existent by the time the actual costs are added up. The one part he does have a point the HMPO should have been a lot larger, but getting qualified staff there is not an easy task. Let us not forget that even though extremely important, this job does not have the Jetstar double zero seven appeal that a branch like GCHQ or Special Branch offers. The initial view many might have that this is the dream job for a CPA fantasizing about libraries, which is not the largest target area in any nation, but this work needs to be done!

So as the is dealing with this passport issue, we need to take into account that this problem can only be solved with reliable systems (which is becoming increasingly difficult), millions of people are victims of identity fraud, which makes checking of some details increasingly harder and as paper trails are slowly diminishing, the HMPO will have to add more effort in making sure that the created passport is for the right person and whether the requested person was the actual person. IK know it seems weird, but the moment someone has YOUR passport you will learn the hard way on those consequences.

Now it is time to revisit my remark on Mr Vaz’s original nationality. This was not some cheap shot and even though it is at times fun to have a go at labour even just for the hell of it, I do have respect for Mr Vaz on entering public life and his decision to support the British system. He has my sympathies and respect in that regard. No, it is about what a person from Yemen was able to reach. In that regard Mr Vaz needs to be reminded on where his Yemeni passport got him (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Yemeni_citizens). As you can see his VISA free options were not that impressive. As a Yemeni citizen, he can see less than 10% of the world his British passport (or EEC equivalent) allows him to see without a VISA. This directly links back to the power a passport (his British one) grants him. So, the UK is dealing with a backlog and this backlog must be dealt with carefully if the HMPO wants to keep the value of the British passport high.

If not, the consequences of devaluation will hit anyone with a British passport, which could impact hundreds of innovators, who now travel the world seeking new ideas.

Still Mr Vaz did make valid points by shedding light on this; the problem is on how to solve it. Theresa May is announcing additional measures (at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/additional-measures-to-meet-high-passport-demand). These measures seem good, but are they? They are an essential patch, but the numbers as they are shown to us, give way to the thought that a better and more permanent solution must be found. As for additional jobs, here is a possible option for matured interns to take a centre seat. I grant that oversight is needed, but the UK is filled with retiree’s and ex-servicemen who are very trustworthy, all just hoping to get a decent job. If initially 100 could be added to get some of the grunt work out of the way, would that not speed things up? So the lowest staff member of the HMPO would now become a small manager, each receiving the files from up to a dozen new interns. Yes, issues will rise, yes some will not be complete, but they now will get a surplus of gathered facts. Instead of going through 1-2, they will go through 11-20 of them. In the beginning, 80% will get send back to the intern, but as the initial week progresses, the processed files will get to 70%-80%, giving the one HMPO officer close to 10 times the processed files. A staggered approach to this will raise the numbers of passports dealt with and the mountain of outstanding passports will soon diminish to some degree.

In many ways, several nations will have to change their way of thinking, in this situation we add to the working pool, we see an outstanding issue resolved to some degree. This is just one solution that would not cost the government millions, which is always a good side.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

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

June 19, 2014 · 21:22

Concerning the Commonwealth!

There is no easy news. The Commonwealth is having several issues that are not easily solved. There is always blame, but who to blame and more important, will it get us anywhere to begin with? I also believe that the Commonwealth has its share of solutions, but in that regard we will have to make some drastic changes. Some will be good, many will not be good and a lot of them will have to be different.

It is the last one that is likely the strongest salvation we might hope for, but we can no longer think the way we are, as we currently end up planning to go nowhere.

First of all, one member will need to step up to the plate and the others must protect this part. They started being regarded as a simple land, this land became a colony and later part of what would be known as the British Empire. It became independent and it is now a Commonwealth nation. Now, India must step up to the plate and become a Commonwealth leader. We (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and United Kingdom) must stand firmly and strongly next to India.

India has basically become the world leader in generic pharmacy and many are so eager to take up the Trans Pacific Partnership that we ignore the part that this US and Japanese conclave is not just about ‘trade‘ or ‘fairness‘, the indications are that it will give even more power to the US companies. A level of power they should not have to this degree.

They were complacent; they were lazy and became the facilitator for flaccid economists (yes, that was a Viagra joke).

If we accept a Canadian source, we see the following: “One proposed TPP provision would require governments to grant new 20-year patents for modifications of existing medicines, such as a new forms, uses or methods, even without improvement of therapeutic efficacy for patients. Another provision would make it more expensive and cumbersome to challenge undeserved or invalid patents; and yet another would add additional years to a patent term to compensate for administrative processes. Taken together, these and other provisions will add up to more years of high-priced medicines at the expense of people needing treatment, who then must wait longer for access to affordable generics. Meanwhile, provisions in the proposed investment chapter would give pharmaceutical companies the right to sue governments for instituting any regulation that reduces their expected profits, using private tribunals that circumvent a country’s judicial process.” (at http://www.msf.ca/en/article/negotiators-must-fix-most-harmful-trade-pact-ever-access-medicines).

This is not what we signed up for in any way shape or form (nor should we ever). It had been stated in several sources that Australia was one of the least objecting partners. The fact that this would be done and through this ensure the consequence that a large part of the Commonwealth will then have another decade of expensive medication to look forward to is just too absurd. when we read the additional quote “U.S. pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly is using similar provisions in NAFTA to demand $100 million from the Canadian government for invalidating one of its patents, claiming, among other things, that the company’s expected profits were “expropriated” when the patent was overturned“, we see a pattern where the use of such a partnership is not a partnership at all, it feels more that America is applying republican dictatorship, through arranged courts in order to thwart almost two decades of laziness and stupidity. Them overspending their treasury by well over 17 trillion is not helping them either and is at the centre of the current push we see.

India is proving slowly to be the leading authority on generic medication, even now in the last two years we see players like Kroger, Axium, Pfizer and Wyeth in multi-billion dollar mergers. They are setting up shop to have their own corners, which will grant them stability and income for the next decade. Guess what! We cannot afford that. The UK NHS is in shambles, healthcare all over Europe is unaffordable and the other Commonwealth nations see the cost of medication go up and up and up. These costs forced upon governments are the new way to get the maximum revenue, whilst in the end not being taxed on it (or for the ultimate minimum). India as a Commonwealth leader in generic medication can step up to the plate. We will not go to India, no, it seems that under these conditions India comes to the UK, Australia and Canada to build their places for generic medication to be produced. India would become a leader here. I wonder if President Pranab Mukherjee had ever envisioned that, to visit the other nations, including the UK as a leader, paving the way for a solution to the other heads of states of the Commonwealth.

If you think that this is ludicrous, then think again. In the Independent we see at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-accused-of-losing-grip-on-nhs-as-58-failing-trusts-now-have-241m-debt-9544181.html the following headline “Government accused of ‘losing grip on NHS’ as 58 failing trusts now have £241m debt“. Australia is feeling the pinch of healthcare hard and Canadian healthcare will soon be a sizeable chunk of a 2.2 trillion dollar debt. This must change!

We need to pull our resources. We need to think of other ways. Medication from India is only a first step. How about the option for healthcare graduates to work off their debts in a few years overseas in the UK or Canada? They’ll have a place to live, some income and over a period of 5-10 years (depending on the degree) their debt is settled. These are but a few of the options we can resort to. The old ways are not working and the few that do are drowned into costs of a faltering IT system. We need to group ourselves together and build a new system on different scopes. The old way has not worked and the more we delay the deeper the debt becomes and the less solvable the problem becomes.

This is no longer Labour versus Conservatives; this is now finding a way to avoid deaths through inaction. I agree that simply starting something new is not the way to go, the Labour IT systems of the NHS have proven that ten billion pound invoice, and yet doing nothing is another non-option. The heads of the Commonwealth must come together and find surpluses on one side to stop drainage in other sides. We are one commonwealth and we must save us! From there we will have the stability to come to the European aide, especially with affordable medication.

This side was ignored by the USA as the cash was flowing so nicely. Guess what, we are all broke and we need to find WORKABLE alternatives. The ones we claim to have at present do not work!

Let me also take a step back. This is not an anti-American thing, they are welcome to be part of this (even as a non-Commonwealth nation) and the issue is that they have been blocking affordable solutions through the FDA for a long time. What was good for Canadian was apparently not good enough for Americans and cheaper medication. The information from RxRights.org stated: “Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (PROTECT IP Act). This new act moves far beyond COICA’s blacklist of pharmacy websites. It would categorize all non-U.S. based online pharmacies as a risk to public health. It would require that Internet service providers and search engines block these sites that credit card companies stop their payments. Even worse, under this new law, Canadian and international pharmacies would be prohibited from defending themselves against those who shut them down“. This situation is even more ridiculous as this is instigated by a president claiming to bring ‘affordable‘ healthcare. If that were true, then why not let people find the cheapest option? Is a Canadian less than an American? No, it is all about a Democratic party with minus 17 trillion and they are firmly in the pockets of big pharmacy! That is the part and the Commonwealth cannot afford this shallow minded greed based approach. We must entertain the best option for the Commonwealth. As General Motors left Australia for cheaper options in China, so we must find our cheaper options in India and the TPP will not help us here. Signing it would be a massive mistake. By the way, all them Americans spamming my email for cheap Viagra was legal? Interesting double standard the FDA has.

We can see more in regards to Indian patents (at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/stoi/all-that-matters/Changes-to-Indias-patent-law-will-impact-prices-of-life-saving-drugs/articleshow/32519848.cms), of course, as it is the Indian Times, it would be all in favour of India, but are the facts incorrect? That part is in debate on several issues. One question that has not been answered over a term of at least two years is “Access to Medicines – Will the Trans-Pacific Partnership FTA allow governments to produce and/or obtain affordable, generic medications for sick people?”

That is not just the question which is not answered; it is one if the questions that seem to be actively avoided whilst the TPP is continued behind closed doors. The response from Doctors without borders is “Governments have a responsibility to ensure that public health interests are not trampled by commercial interests, and must resist pressures to erode hard-fought legal safeguards for public health that represent a lifeline for people in developing countries.”

This is at the heart of the issues for the Commonwealth, because if these steps stop affordable medication, then there will be no healthcare at all, the Commonwealth nations will be broke as they are decimated through age and sickness, after that what will be left of Western Europe?

It is only a first step; if we look at the NHS, then staffing and expertise are also a worry, which is by the way a worry in many Commonwealth Nations. Most of these nations have well over 5% unemployed; can some not be re-schooled in the healthcare sector? In the UK many IT trained staff are without a job, can they not help rebuild the NHS IT systems? Too many issues that are overlapping and someone threw away 10 billion. It is time to rewrite the tactical guide and start building a solution that will work. Sitting at home will not help anyone, not even one’s self.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Politics, Science

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

June 12, 2014 · 11:44

Golden age of Journalism?

There is a speech on Sky News. In this video, we see John Ryley stating that the Golden Age is now. He talks about the pessimists, but is he correct? Well, in all honesty, he is not wrong. Yet, the dangers are not really shown in his speech. The statement for some journalists that ‘the golden age is now’ is indeed a statement that is laced with truth. As in the past journalists going into the news were hoping and praying for their ‘live’ moment, that golden age is indeed now, they can ALL be live in a matter of seconds. It is the quote he makes in the video (at http://news.sky.com/story/1280339/sky-news-head-golden-era-for-journalism ) it is at 1:43 where he mentions that all news is available on-demand, live all the time is also laced with a danger he does not mention ‘the key to exploiting these multiple opportunities‘ is the quote we see next. Here is the danger we need to understand. Yes, we have more news and as John Ryley states, there is a growing abundance of analytics, facts, snippets and other streamed information being added to our field of vision, yet what about the quality? In the past journalists grew into a job, now we see all graduates rush to get the headlines that get them the job to go forward. In this changing view, levels of quality are no longer pursued (just perused at best).

We have to accept that we do not get the best numbers at times. When something happens, we are often given a few facts linked to the events, yet, when we start adding analytics that are meant to be part of the same news cycle, how reliable are these numbers? I am not talking about business news here. In those cases the journalists have decades of numbers at their back and call. No, I am talking about dumping false data at the mere press of a finger. In that regard, I think Australia outdid itself when a girl in May 2009 gave false testimony on TV and gained the reputation of the ‘Chk Chk Boom’ girl. It is not the most extreme example, but it illustrates the dangers. There is no blame to the journalist, yet the impact was there, even though people laughed it off to some extent. Now consider that what is laughingly regarded by some as journalism. It was the Daily Telegraph quoting “Flight MH370 ‘suicide mission’” on page one, PAGE ONE no less! Now, almost three months later, there is still no sight of the plane and no actual evidence that there was a suicide mission. These two parts give the indication. No matter how much journalists are entering the Golden age of direct media opportunities, the growing need for ethics and quality checks in an age of immediate publication is growing at an almost exponential rate.

This all gets another flavour when we consider certain parts of the Leveson report. “A free press, free of the censorship and restrictions imposed by the powerful, … serves the public interest by its investigative and communicative role. Both roles are necessary.” (at volume,page1:64). Yes, I am all for freedom of the press, but not for freedom of non-accountability. In case of the ‘Chk Chk Boom’ girl, the press was not guilty, they were talking to a ‘witness’ and that got reported, in case of the Daily Mail, serious questions about the journalist could be made (as well as its chief editor). Here we see the danger, we cannot avoid issue one in a time pressed event, yet when the journalist shapes the story, by intentionally adding non verified data, we get issue number two and here we see, what in my mind adds up to intentional inflicted harm (to the family of victims) for the greater ‘need’ of some headline, which then results in tiers of damage control and carefully ‘phrased’ denials. None of those events could or would be regarded as journalism. John Ryley does not dig into that danger (as far as I know).

 

The last danger is the one John Ryley was not going to talk about (assumption on my side) and as I see it, he should not have to. Yet, the dangers that his Golden age of Journalism brings is the added hype of trial by social media. When given form, events will more and more shout out for witch-hunts via social media. This is not started or at times intentionally instigated by the journalists, which must be stated quite clearly, yet the dangers we all face as someone emotionally responds to any news event is always there. Yet the dangers that any news that spreads online will be accompanied by the dangers of social media “hang ’em high judges” should not be underestimated, giving the increased need for quality checks and verification in an age when doing just that out-dates the news instantly. There is no real good solution here and it must be said that a journalist cannot be blamed for any social media prosecution hype, yet, when proven that the news that sparked the witch-hunt was irresponsible, (like the MH370 story by the Daily Telegraph), should the journalist bringing the story be held accountable for the consequences? In that case I say ‘Yes!’. So, even though if we are to believe that journalism is entering a Golden Age, we must also look at the consequences of their acts and hold journalists accountable for some of their actions as such.

A view, I have had for a long time, but was raised by Sir Christopher Meyer on the 19th of February 2009 (long before I started my accountability act crusade).it can be found on the Leveson report (4:1539) “I am afraid that we also require some reassurance about the credentials of those carrying out the inquiry. In addition to the inaccuracies … the report does not appear to have been written by anyone with much understanding of self-regulation or the relationship between the PCC and the law. More fundamentally, we have to ask ourselves whether this enterprise is being undertaken in good faith…” (from pp1-5, Stephen Abell, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Exhibit-SA-T1125.pdf).

I will add one more part to this all. I wrote a blog on March 19th called ‘Any sport implies corruption!‘. Yesterday’s news (at http://news.sky.com/story/1280406/qatar-corruption-claims-coca-cola-concerned), directly links to this. My issue is that the quote “Mr Quincey’s comments are significant because Coca-Cola is one of Fifa’s leading sponsors along with Adidas, Budweiser, Sony and Visa and, as such, a major provider of revenues to the organisation, contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to Fifa’s coffers.” is not entirely complete as I see it. Moreover, there are still serious issues with the claims of corruption to begin with.

The end of that quote “contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to Fifa’s coffers” should in my view be changed into ‘contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to Fifa’s coffers for as long as it favours the business views and other financial obligations these large companies have set in motion.‘

My reasoning here is that Qatar was selected, and it was not long until the intense heat that the players faced would become a visible issue. The best source of quality information in this case is the Washington Post (at http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/dcunited/fifa-prosecutor-probe-already-had-qatar-evidence/2014/06/11/ffcef57a-f199-11e3-b140-bd7309109588_story.html).

I actually do not know whether the Qatar bribery issues are real. It seems that FIFA prosecutor Michael Garcia is on top of this, yet the Sky News quote ‘Yet this inflamed the situation and led to calls on Tuesday from a succession of European football chiefs for Mr Blatter to step down‘, is adding to the fire and I wonder what actually is in play. We know that the Qatar World cup would, due to a date shift have consequences. This can be best seen in the BBC article (at http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/24401699), The quote “However, that could lead to a potential clash with other big sporting events, notably the Winter Olympics and American football’s Super Bowl, as well as domestic football leagues and the Champions League“, which makes me wonder whether these ‘secret’ documents are about the sport, or about the advertisers. When we consider the list of ‘sponsors’ that Sky News mentioned, namely Coca-Cola, Adidas, Budweiser, Sony and Visa we see a different picture, is it about corruption or about the fear that these big corporations are confronted with up to 40% of diminished advertisement power? I do believe that Qatar will do whatever it can to not overlap the winter Olympics, yet the fact that there will be an overlap with US sports and likely the European soccer season is almost unavoidable. If we are fair then we accept this, especially as this is such a rare event. The rest should be ignored, for the simple reason that this is about the sport, not about the ‘comfort‘ of those sponsors who basically tend to be at EVERY event.

So here we see the direct consequence of what John Ryley calls the golden Age of Journalism. When we look at these headlines “Qatar DID buy the World Cup, email reveals” (The Daily Mail), we have to wonder how much danger people will be placed in when social media turns an irresponsible article into a witch-hunt. If the golden age of Journalism is now, then so is its accountability, which is at the heart of the published Leveson report. Consider the Leveson header ‘The importance of a free press: free communication‘, is that the case here? I wonder how much pressure certain articles are receiving from advertisers/sponsors. The concluded report will give us reason to lash out, so until that happens (in roughly a month) we will have to wait when I write my follow up.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

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

June 7, 2014 · 09:59

A Spruiker’s deal

I got caught out a few days ago. There was something about the spruikers deal and me with my European education thought it was some kind of a Dutch deal. Now I am learning it is nothing of the sort and the entire spruikers issue is a real and a very dangerous one.

It seems there are two methods (at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-24/wa-lead-charge-on-property-spruikers/5280420), one is the rent-to-buy the other is the Vendor finance with a delayed settlement. To be honest, I do not see the initial deal with the objection to this. Consider that I end up being renter to buy, with basically the rent becoming the mortgage. What is wrong about that?

That part is seen when we look at the following two quotes: “Some of them are doing very legal things and they’re giving advice and they’re qualified to do so, but then there are those who promise things to those who look for hope, who have perhaps not been able to afford their own home in the past or not been able to enter the market of investment” and “They’re the type of people we target as collectively, ministers for consumer affairs, to make sure that the advice that’s being given is both legal and ethical“. So basically, the entire spruikers deal is about hunting down the unethical exploiters and the damage that they cause.

When looking into these losses, I learned that this is not a new issue. The Spruikers deal and negative gearing has been around for some time and the news has been mentioning issues of exploitation going back to far beyond 2011. This is not a new deal, so why does this remain an issue?

In my mind, the world (Australia too) is filled with idiots who think that there is a quick deal, that makes you rich. The old saying ‘if you buy a diamond for a dime, you end up owning a diamond not worth a dime‘ is the most fitting expression that applies here. Some sales people rely on greed the others on desperation. The big thing is that some are actually on the up and up and as such, this is why the entire spruikers deal stays around for so long.

I see that at times desperation is at the centre of it all. The Age had an interesting quote on April 18th 2013 “ASIC reviewed 100 investor files relating to the establishment of an SMSF. The files were not selected randomly. Most of the DIY funds had a fund balance of less than $150,000. Industry professionals often cite $300,000 as being the minimum needed to make the costs of running a DIY fund worthwhile“. Here is a truth we can work with. A group of people with an insufficient super to make it through retirement is getting targeted to invest in what should be seen as way too risky, especially when the investment would likely deplete your investment to ZERO. This is at the centre of it and this should give a clear signal to the UK that what has been happening in Australia could easily happen in the UK (and is already happening to some extent). Consider the housing boom that the UK is now having (because of regulatory investment options), how long until less scrupulous real estate agents start playing that card? Our collective retirement options are not that great; keeping the retirement options safe for these people should be on the minds of watchdogs in both the UK and Australia.

Yet, I am still smitten with the rent-to-buy option in both the UK and Australia. For the governments to invest in those places allowing people the rent-to-buy option will have two distinct bonuses. One, people will take increasingly care of these places, giving a better long term value to areas that are now often ‘written off’. In addition, the entire community will get an increased economic boost as rent is no longer a down the drain issue, but the start of a future. I see this as a possibility in some places where at present a non-future is regarded to be the norm.

Should the government get involved?

This is a valid question and even though there is validity in both answer options, my answer to this is ‘Yes!‘. In my view, in Australia (and to some extent in the UK as well), the government has remained massively absent when it comes to the creation of affordable housing. The issue of less than 1% rental availability in Sydney alone for well over a decade is clear evidence of that. NSW housing is dealing with a backlog of well over a decade. This is evidence of a faltering system. A government rent-to-buy option could make a change, but it is important to act firmly with some caution, to avoid some quick scheme that will backfire on both the tenant owner and the government in equal measure.

Yes, I think we can all agree that these options are not meant for villages like London and Sydney, but there are plenty of places where it could make a real difference, lowering rental tensions all over the nation(s). Another view of the dangers of spruikers can be seen in the Sydney Morning Herald, an article that was published in August 2013 (at http://www.smh.com.au/business/property-spruikers-scent-big-opportunity-in-super-20130830-2swcq.html).

It clearly shows the issues about all the good and none of the risks being disclosed and it also mentions the real life dangers (read risks) that these investors face making it all a high risk endeavour. In that article another link (as statement) is added “Large funds trying to bridge gap with flexible investment options“. So are spruikers the undefined link between funds (trying again to get high risk yields by dumping the consequence on unsuspecting consumers) and flexible and quick dumped options, leaving the trustee (you, the investor) with a bag of smelly poo no one wants? That is the question that should be raised as well.

This is at the centre of the Spruikers deal and as long as some people are desperate to assure themselves of a decent retirement, spruikers will remain a danger. It is at the end of the Sydney Morning Herald article where we see the jewel we need to keep in our hearts. It was stated by Pauline Vamos, chief executive of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia. She says “anybody giving advice – even if they say they are only providing ‘information‘ – about any investment into an SMSF should be licensed. That would start to ‘turn the tide‘ against property spruikers, she says. ‘It would help fill consumer protection gaps.’”

In my view she is entirely correct. Yet, at this point, the government should intervene to another extent. Whether it is in the way South Australia did a few years ago by handing $1 (or at least a really low amount) leases of land to new builders, or to get the rent-to-buy going in other directions, rental properties are not here and there is no light at the end of the tunnel for a long time to come. Only when those issues are dealt with, new progress can be made and these spruikers are likely to seek other shores for a quick profit.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

May 9, 2014 · 17:20

Public naming

The title seems clear, but hat is linked to all this is not that clear. It all started this morning when we all (those who watched) got confronted with another round of bad news events and all linked to banks. Barclays is scrapping another 20,000 jobs between now and the end of 2016, which might be not that great. However, today we heard that the actual number for 2014 will 14000. That is an entirely different kettle of fish. In addition, the issues with co-op are going on and on which means that the drastic changes there could mean that we see an additional but different change, which will impact many. Although no one is likely to shed a tear when all but one member of the board of directors join the non working class. Lets get back to Barclays though. Here we were told that another change is happening too.  Sky News kindly informed us that Barclays might split up in a bad bank and Barclays, moving over 100 billion in assets into that bad bank deal option. So, when a company goes south, they shed the skin, just like a snake and they dump what is undesirable. Is it good business?

This is a thought that, as a non-economist, is harder to answer for me. Is this about top-level bonuses as well as the dividend for the shareholders? If their dividend is not good enough, make a drastic change. That in itself is not bad business, however, the fact that the top people get a deal after the bad bank deal and they still end up with a huge bonus whilst well over 10000 lose their job is not something anyone should consider as an acceptable act, not to mention the issue of where the bad bank invoice ends up getting paid. So again it is a factor of non accountability, the bad choices will not affect these high end bonus getting executives, it seems all nice to those people.

All this was seems to be just a prelude for the small text the people would see, if they read the text-bar under the interviews. The text “the euro commission expects 17 out of 18 euro zone economies to grow“. Really? I had already predicted that the economy would slowly get better, but not until 2015. Yes, the economies might make a little over 0%, yet the damage that still is (like unemployment), would not see any improvement until 2015 at the earliest and the people will not see any real improvements until late 2015, perhaps even 2016. This would of course depend on the nation where it was happening. The only bright light in that segment was the interview with Roger Bootle. He seems to have a handle on the events and as such, his new book ‘the problem with Europe‘ should be an interesting read.

Where is my issue? Well, that is as always a fair question. You see, Euro zone or not, there are levels of interaction here, so as some nations will start seeing improvements to their economy, others would not see those improvements to any extent this year, which is just the way things tend to be. This entire enterprise of 17 out of 18 economies going positive implies that this implies to be management on several scales, as well as the fact that there seems to be a level of ‘bad’ reporting. I will add to this stating that we all should demand the public naming of those commissioners who signed off on such a brash statement when this prediction does not pan out. If these people are so stating that 17 of 18 economies will grow, then we all should know the names of the people stating that as well as get insight into the raw data and the sources. Those involved, when the prediction fails should all get FIRED!

Reasoning? Well, we know where Greece is at, and as such, their economy will be only barely be getting by as austerity measures will keep on having a hold on them for some time. In addition, as many in Europe are in a bad shape, tourism will remain down for some time, which means that this will also remain a non-factor for Greece. Next to that Spain is dealing with a 25% unemployment rate. That would drag down ANY economy. The issues in Italy are still not that good and France is only slowly getting up, but they have unresolved issues. That is just three of the players, which already brings us down to 15 out of 18. The UK and Germany are above the nil line, but as we see the bank issues evolve, that nil line might remain a close call for now. If you think that one bank is not that big a deal, then consider the effect that 15000 seeking a job is going to have and it is not just one bank (or two for that matter). There is a work culling going on all over Europe. When we inspect the newspapers, we see that many are slinking down and many of them are not getting able to get a new job immediately.

Oddly enough, this all reminded me of the title of a science fiction story called ‘How much for just the planet?’. This is at the heart of what we face. It seems that the economies are taking out the people as a factor. In my view, the almighty need for every player to see the economy in a sterile place is like legalising slave labour. How can any economy exist in a vacuum without people? Never mind the 20,000 at Barclays! Spain where we see one in four people without a job and Greece as a nation still scrapping jobs and having hundreds of billions in debts.

Barclays is not the first one to play the bad bank approach, but these elements, these devaluated parts as we saw in 2013 with SNS/Reaal, these all have an impact and writing off these parts without impact is not just bad, it should be wholly criminal. Consider you as a reader own personal situation. Just dump your pet (preferably dog) in the street and walk away, leave your child as it did not read as fast as all the other kids at day-care and never return, or walk away from your mortgage as the house had devaluated for over 15% and the bank wants a huge payment down on the lost value. Do you think you can do any of these matters and not get held to account? So, why are the banks not held to account, moreover, those high bosses walking away in the past usually did so with a 7 figure bonus in their pocket.

So why are we not demanding the same for the euro commissioners, the bank directors as well as, to some extent, the shareholders? They made a ‘bet’, they relied on dividend, but alas, there will be no dividend this year. Adding a bad bank solution, so that they can still get some coin is just not acceptable. If there is a bad bank and it has the write-offs of Barclays, then we should see a diminished value of the bank value and as such, the shareholders, will alas lose out on this quarter (and perhaps additional quarters) dividend.

Why?

Because, as the bank drops it’s ‘assets’, the government (and as such us the poor taxpayers), should not be confronted with the fuck up of others (please pardon my French here). Here I see where what I partially proclaimed in the past, and what the book of Roger Bootle seems to instil is that the UK stepping out of the EEC might not be a bad thing. He does state that it will be a risky thing, but is that not what economies are about? A risk paying out brings wealth and the other does not. I have spoken out against the plans of UKIP in the past, but when we consider these brash statements by the Euro commission, perhaps this path should be explored in all seriousness. Those players are all about keeping THEIR Status Quo, but at what expense? That is at the centre of the issues no one seems to be able to explain. I wonder what happens when we tally the collection of these bad bank acts (all over the EEC) and we take a line of the values and in the end, who had to pay for it all, then take another look at the costs for all those without a job and see then how well these EEC economies are doing. My guess is that 7 (not 17) out of 18 positive economies would still be a really good result.

In this article I made an earlier mention of ‘legalised slave labour‘, I think it is fair that I explain that part. We cannot just make a rambling accusation like that and let it slide.  If you are in the EEC and you have a job, then consider the work as you have been doing it for the last 5-8 years. How many of you are now structurally working overtime and not getting paid for it? I am not talking about the odd job where we put in an extra hour. No I am talking about on average working around 45 hours a week whilst only getting paid for 40. The boss is not giving you part of Friday or Monday to make it square with you. No, you hear the remarks on how the job must be saved and if the job is not complete another firm will get it, often enough those bosses end up having long lunch meetings to offset the hours they make. In this economic environment, pretty much everyone is accepting those odds, as they are afraid to lose their jobs. It is simple and plain slave labour. It is also likely that these people have been on frozen incomes for some time. So when we look at indexes like the DOW and see it rising whilst the unemployment rates remain too high, you better believe that legalised slave labour is a real factor. It goes far beyond the banks, when you look at the news all over the UK, the number of messages where a few hundred jobs were shed by almost a dozen companies in 2014 alone is staggering. This is not me judging whether these lost jobs are valid (it is their choice to do so), but the impact on the UK economy is far above negligible, which keeps the UK economy fragile for now.

Those claiming that the workforce got a whole lot more efficient should re-examine themselves. I wonder if those weeks when they are investigated are ‘suddenly’ less efficient later on. Whether these ‘enterprisers’ rely on part time people for half a day, so that those people will not get a coffee break or lunch break, or that the full workday people end up working a little late regularly is of no consequence to the bosses. As the humanity factors have left the workplace, the statement that the economy is growing just more then an incorrect statement, it is flat out wrong!

Any economy depends on people as consumers, as service providers and as result creators. As we look at the implementation of “how much for just the economy?” we now see an incomplete and inaccurate picture.

By the way, if Barclays has used bad banks to write off the value of these assets to NIL, can I please get one of those divisions? Even at 0.1%, the division should be able to make well over 10,000,000 pounds, which is more then I have ever made in half a century. Growing big in small strides is not beyond me and it would allow me to settle comfortably.

Opportunity is where you find it, which is also part of any economy!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

May 3, 2014 · 14:18

Lessons not learned

As I look back at the end of a lifetime and I wonder whether I am just nuts (which is always a fair assumption), or that others are just unwilling to see the implied fact that we have stopped evolving. Many lives are basically based upon bread and games, a term that goes back to the Roman Empire and seems to be at the very core of what is happening at present in many areas when we compare ourselves to people in the Ukraine. The ‘free’ west seems to be focused on sustenance (a basic need for surviving) and TV. The TV is even showing some gladiatorial show, where people do some kinetic steeplechase for the glory of fame and fortune. I have nothing against the game. I have seen it; it was fun to watch up to a point; and when we switch to some cable channel we are likely to see a TV series that we saw before, a series that is rerun again and again, whilst not showing the latest seasons, but leaving us 2 or more seasons short (depending on the station and the series). We get to see those episodes, whilst the rerun is not giving us the last 3 seasons of NCIS, the last 4 seasons of the Big Bang Theory and so on (it is a very long list).

The top of this consumer pyramid scheme (politicians, board of directors and so on) goes on planning for additional wealth, whilst the rest is getting outdated TV and they are just trying to make due.

That view is getting stronger and stronger as we are confronted with the escalations in the Ukraine. There are two sides that propagated these thoughts. The first was something President Obama stated when he addressed the press. The quote “this week to implement the IMF plan to stabalise the Ukrainian economy“. That part got to me. The US is getting all huffy and puffy about more and more sanctions and actions to get the Ukrainian ball rolling, so that the IMF can spend billions upon billions in some way. WHY?

Chancellor Merkel, like many European spokespeople are trying a softer approach. This is not about which method is better, but about the fact that this is more about the IMF and that what we might laughingly regard as the Ukrainian economy then about anything else. Does anyone remember a place called Syria, where even today people die by the dozen in a civil massacre between the forces of President Assad and their opponents? The ‘crossed‘ red line, even after the second chemical attack is not getting too much visibility is it? Did the powers that want to control forget about those events?

Even more important, the fact that the separatists took out 2 helicopters with missiles (not clear which exactly), is not a reason for stronger concern? I am not accusing Russia at present, but where did these separatists get the weapons to shoot down two helicopters? As I see it, pushing billions into an area that has no stability is just a really bad idea. It seems to me that these issues are not really focussed on. In addition, the NOS news showed us small video bytes of news moments where we see members of US Congress, where they seem to advocate stronger measures and stronger responses. More sanctions, against whom? It seems that the people outside of that circus are ignoring an economical and political play which could hinder their own futures for at least another decade. The fact that Europe will go for another round of dealings for cheap Russian gas seems to elude many people. The US might really like the idea that Russia Gas is turned off, it will give the US the economic option of selling gas to Europe, which will hike the power costs of Europeans by a likely 15%-20%, did the people on both sides of the Atlantic River realise that these events could have long lasting consequences.

Getting back to the Ukrainian issue, I have stated before that the Crimean people were the pushing power to the annexation of Crimea back to Russia. In my mind the Ukrainian government only had itself to blame there. This view is not one I have when we look at the issues in Eastern Ukraine. I cannot deny that Russia is playing a game here, but what game are they playing? Whoever is playing out these events in Eastern Ukraine is doing so on a few levels. First, these are not just all Russians or Pro-Russian separatists. There is equipment, there are droves of people in their support and the events in Kharkov (where a mayor got shot and we see a change of those in charge) also imply that there are levels of orchestration in play, but those behind the screens are not shown.

So why is it so important to get the IMF in there at this point? I am not stating that the Ukraine should not get support, but the EEC and the IMF are so busy getting in there as quick as they could, that we should consider the history on Greece and Cyprus as well. The IMF came in after the fact (which is fair enough). It seems to me that the Ukraine is about something more then ‘just’ the Ukraine and as such questions should be asked. This will all take several other cycles of information crunching when we see that Serbia is also voicing on their upcoming EEC membership. How is Serbia’s economy and how are their balance books?

Is this all about the economy or are the political power controllers in the US not telling us all (the use of political controllers was intentional for those who missed out on a few events). I have stated in the past that from my viewpoint, the US is past its point of bankruptcy (but what do I know), the link here is that the analysts and power brokers downplayed UKIP in the UK and Front Nationale in France. This economic nightmare that Wall Street said could not happen is currently no longer that unthinkable, which makes me wonder why those analysts are on a high 6 figure income. The Farage party is still a strong contender at present and Front Nationale has already made a first sweep in France and the party under President Hollande is now seriously worried. When these two do achieve the drastic change they want, the bang that will sweep the European economy will have a massive impact on the US as well. Perhaps they want to add Ukraine and a few others as soon as possible to soften the blow and to keep alive what will then soon thereafter be known as a puppet currency, which requires the IMF to step in, in as many places it can, so that whatever crash the economy makes then, it will be supervised by one voice that is not the US, the IMF (with the US having the most powerful voice within it).

So in my view, these events are not directly linked, but they have bearing on each other. Is this why Eastern Ukraine is so adamant about no longer being part of the Ukraine? That last part is pure speculation on my side as I have not read any quality reading on why the Easters Ukraine is so militant at present, but it is not just about someone else running Kiev parliament. The reasons are far too militantly played for that. This does not mean that Russia is innocent here, but considering just how much intelligence is gathered on several levels for so many years and on how ‘silent’ the CIA and other players are in that regard. We see the news and we see all those references to keyhole satellites and even as we all knew that Syria was such a powder keg, no one saw anything in Syria. Now we see these escalations in regards to Eastern Ukraine and again, no one seems to see anything here either. So what are those keyhole satellites doing and why are they staying silent. Did no one consider asking that 143 billion dollar funding question?

So why do I care so much about this?

If the Commonwealth is to remain a top economic player, then we must see, acknowledge and consider the options we have and as the UK was never part of the Euro, their currency is safe, but their economic position less so. The UK cannot keep on paying these outrageous amounts, whilst for the most; the EEC members do not keep their budgets in order (they overspend close to 600 billion too much in 2013 alone, this is including the UK). When the Euro tumbles and the Dollar gets the pounding of a lifetime, we must consider what is right, correct and the best for us. Within the Commonwealth those options might be limited to some extent. I always believed that if we as Commonwealth nations (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and the United Kingdom) as the top economic nations of the Commonwealth pull together, we can weather all these economic storms and help ourselves to a larger and faster recovery to something better then it is at present. Should Nigel Farage pull of the referendum the way he wants it to end, these levels of cooperation would become vital to the UK. I speculated in the past that the crumbling of the US as a super power would instigate a new coalition of perhaps Russia, China and India (purely speculative on my side), then the Commonwealth link would become even more important. These events go further then just some super power game. The US remains so eager to push the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership), in there the changes they were considering to Patent Law and Intellectual Properties in general are a concern to many. The face that Australia seems to have blindly accepted it, whilst New Zealand asked the questions and had the reservations both should have had to begin with are also a fact. America fears the abilities that India now has in Generic medication. India sits on a goldmine in an age of faltering health care and the overwhelming need for lower cost solutions in an ageing population. The US pharmacy was dormant for too long, new solutions are delayed again and again. Not unlike the IT where American superiority was boasted and whilst the American Industry embraced iterative evolution, was equalled and now to some extent even surpassed by Asian engineers, the Pharmacy field is in a similar, but not the same predicament. So whilst they focussed on the erectile need of Wall Street, India grew its generic enabling markets. Now America has a problem and the 14 year patent edge will no longer suffice and in the time several players went for the greed driven iterative plan, now slowly are finding themselves on the outside looking in.

This is exactly why the US is in such a state to drive these issues. I reckon that they never expected to be so linked to the Euro and their consequences. I personally feel that not keeping their financial house in order was at the centre of these reasons and like Crimea, it returning to the Russian fold is the worry of the US as the Euro could ‘collapse’ when nations decide to reject the Euro and return to their original local coin. The UK kept the Pound, but when France moves back to the French Franc, the currency that is no longer supported by two major economies will entice others to follow suit. The Dutch PVV has had several investigations to dump the Euro and return to the Dutch Guilder, when that happens party of Geert Wilders (even though the Dutch economy is small in comparison to the large four), the German corner could end up panicking and could move out to preserve itself, is that all such a long leap of faith?

This all will hurt the US in many ways. Now, it no longer aligns it’s maximum borrowing power to one currency, but to well over half a dozen, which should collapse their spending spree for at least two decades, more if the US defaults on even one loan. Consider in the second degree what happens when S&P will have to return to the comparison approach it employed before the Euro was adapted by many European nations, the impact could be massive.

So as the bulk of the people are asleep, relying on bread and games, the powers that would like to remain in control are playing high stakes poker as it is others peoples money and they will not pay the bill when the deal goes sour. We all must do what is best for us. The UK, the Netherlands, the Ukraine and the US. They all have to make their own decisions, whether they are valid for others or not. That is what many forgot as they all were trying to play a game on a global scale, with them all having themselves in focus. Crimea did what they consider to be best for Crimea. Most people forgot about that part, even Kiev forgot about that side of the equation, which makes the entire escalation part even sadder. So, should you consider my view to be invalid (which might be fair enough), consider the amount of actions, many debatable on both sides of the Ukrainian aspect. Consider the amount of NON-actions that were taken during 3 years of Syrian slaughter (on both sides). In my view, just focussing on one part of getting chemicals out of Syria (which is essential), whilst a second chemical attack took place (which had almost no coverage) looks like a joke to me.

Even now today (less then an hour ago), we see Ukrainians acting out against Ukrainian tanks, does that remind you of other similar events?

What lessons are we not learning?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics

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

March 12, 2014 · 17:18

Who runs America?

This is a question that has been in the back of my mind for some time. When we consider the economic events from 2008 onwards and how slow (almost 2 administrations) it has taken for any economic legislation to take shape for the (at present) ineffective halting of moving tax dollars off shore. Even now, several economic boffins are slowly and casually mentioning that current measures are not going far enough.

The entire issue took a new foothold as we see the Ukrainian events unfold. We see how some politicians are acting so….outspokenly against certain acts. Now, I am not speaking out against these people, I believe in the freedom of speech and as such, we need to hear all sides. The issue was shown the most visible in the UK when some stated on how economic sanctions against Russia would be taken, like getting gas from a different source.

It was at that point when I saw just how hollow their boasts were. In my view those politicians would soon be dragged to a separate room where several high powered industrials would add these politicians to the Christian choir of ‘Mare Castratum’, see this as a slightly more efficient form of gagging a politician.

Why this view?

Consider that politicians would make that rash decision and also consider the fact that in the UK (amongst most EEC nations), the energy prices are way above normal. So in a place where like the US, 1 in 7 lives below the poverty line, where these people can hardly pay their bills, get confronted with a 10%-15% raise on energy bills. What do you expect to happen?

I expect something similar to happen in the US, as I see it there are two elements in play here. The first is the claim (at http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=957624)

The two quotes are “The Senate on Tuesday expressed its support for Ukraine by passing strongly worded resolutions, using tough language against Russia and urging it be suspended from the Group of 8 world powers.” and “The House of Representatives also passed a resolution to condemn what House Speaker John Boehner called ‘Russia’s hostile acts of aggression’”

I understand the second quote and I reckon that House Speaker John Boehner was quite correct to pass such a resolution. It is the first one that is an issue, I understand that governments want to stand in support of the Ukraine, there is no way that any objection to that is valid, consider however what the G8 stands for. If we accept the following ‘G8 nations comprise 50.1% of 2012 global nominal GDP‘, then without Russia, will the G8 be a valid office of existence and what to do to keep its validity? Replace it with China?

That part would make sense as in many ways, the Chinese economy would be much more interesting to America then Russia is for the mere fact that China imports almost 3 times more than Russia does (based on 2012 numbers). Yet, if this happens, then what will be the long term consequences? Consider that the Ukraine is in an even less prosperous situation then most EEC countries. Now consider the information (at http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2014/03/05/in-ukraine-crisis-russias-natural-gas-tactics-could-backfire/), basically the Ukraine was getting gas at a 36% discount. If that fell away, then what will the Ukraine do? The quote seen here “The UK National Balancing Point (NBP) futures for natural gas jumped nearly 10% to $10.28 per MMBtu, according to Bloomberg. Prices have since moderated as the political situation appears to be calming down” gives validity to my claims of the energy prices; if futures would take that must a blast, then I reckon the people could face a charge at nearly twice that percentage. There was a side in all this that I had not reckoned on. When we see the quote “The U.S. wants to become a large LNG exporter later this decade and a portion of that would be bound for Europe” we see two dangers. The first is that this is not just government, but this is definitely a ‘Big Business’ push. Yet, consider the amount of customers could be the issue as the amount needed would far outstrip what could be delivered. That part is implied in the Dutch article (at https://decorrespondent.nl/299/eerst-het-gas-dan-de-moraal/32952491-c7e501ab) called ‘Eerst het gas, dan de moraal‘, which could be loosely translated and paraphrased as: “Business before morality“, which is basically at the heart of all these events. The article states that the Russian pipeline is supplying well over 26 million households, which is well over twice the size of California (in households). There should be no illusions that Gazprom has its powerful claws firmly in the EEC.

Let’s make sure that I am not stating that the politicians are acting purely or mostly out of economic reasons. I am to a lesser extent implying that it is possible that the Natural Gas lobbyists in Washington have been speaking with politicians over a lunch or two (which is how things are done in the US and UK). That latter part was discussed in the Guardian in October 2013, as UK Labour leader Ed Miliband mentioned that these lobby groups are not getting the proper levels of scrutiny (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/07/energy-firm-lobbyists-scrutiny-ed-miliband). So it is IMHO Big Business that is the second danger element in these cases. If the politicians represent the people, yet big business has the funds, ability and know-how to override the views of the people, then what use are the people at the end of all this?

This all goes a few steps further than just the energy groups. I started all this with a mention of economic sanctions. So how does this connect? Well, it does not directly connect, yet the elements all have their political influence. Consider the needs of Apple in Russia (at http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/03/07/russias-megafon-deal-with-apple-inc-guarantees-sales-of-750k-iphones-over-3-years). This was less than a week ago. So we consider the value of a little over 20,000 iPhones a month for the next three years and we should expect that this sparks the sale of iPad and iPod and other Apple articles. Do you think that the members in charge of Apple are hindered by morality? They have parked billions in taxable dollars away from the collecting hands of the IRS (and other taxing governments). The commission these people get from their deals in Russia will not stop them in any way. Whether there will be some ‘illusive’ distributor in India, Japan or China will not matter, the show (read sale) will go on. The same could be said for Dell. You think that they stop selling to Russia and leave their market share to ASUS? I think not! These are just two examples of the dozens of massively large companies doing business with Russian one form or another, not just from the USA, but also from Europe. In that same regard, there is not export without import, so as we see the boasts of economic sanctions to Russia by politicians, remember that when we see that when Russians show off their latest Apple gadgets on TV, the question ‘who runs America?‘ should remain firmly on your mind. In the end you should also remember that the entire situation is a lot more complex then I make it out to be.

As we focus on ‘Business before Morality‘ then remember the bills most of you have in your drawer still awaiting payment. We are nearly all of us overdue to the smallest or a larger extent and as some are more fortunate not to be one of the seven people living below poverty, consider that most of us are in the same place where 45% of us are, most of these people are all a little below getting by, which comes down to one step from a total nightmare life.

I am not stating it is a good place or an acceptable place; it is merely a realistic place. It is in this realistic place the question gets the volume it needs to have: ‘Who runs America?‘

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

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