Tag Archives: United Kingdom

November 2, 2014 · 00:20

When we lose the plot

That is actually the first thought I had when I read the thoughts of Ed Miliband in today’s Guardian. The view ‘House of Lords not representative of much of the country’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/31/miliband-devolution-elected-second-chamber-regions), of course, as the statement is made on Halloween, or All Hallows’ Eve if we go by the old title is a moment when we see the brain dead zombies walk the street and Ed Miliband’s statement fits right alongside with it! OK, I apologise Ed that was not very nice of me. You are entitled to your view, I should not attack it, but I can disagree with it.

So why all the zombie references?

Well, you see, as we see nations being less and less about proper long term planning, we see short term stopgaps that lead nowhere and they all cost a bundle. If you are in the UK and you stare towards the setting sun, you might, if you live westwards enough you get to see the Atlantic river, on the other side is a former colony that is ALL about short term resolutions that go nowhere. They are allowed to do that of course, yet, overall it costs much for all, many will never be helped and few are around filling their pockets with cash whilst not solving anything. Let’s call that colony ‘little Britain’ (not Ireland mind you, which is another place all together). Now, if you go on towards the west as far as you can, past those hills called ‘the Rockies’ you see another river called the Pacific river, and yours truly (that would be me), is living on the other side of it on an island called Australia!

Now, we have the same issue the Americans of Little Britain have. More and more of this is getting to be about short term solutions that are not really solutions. We need a long term solution in government, like the UK has; it is called the House of Lords!

Many tried to do away with it and some just called it ‘change’, but so far the verdict is: “However, no consensus on the future of the upper chamber emerged“.

You see, the House of Lords seems to be up, up and removed, but the future of the UK is decently stable and safe because they look out for all Brits, those who pay tax and those who don’t. You see, as I see it, the basement of Parliament (also known as the House of Commons), want change, they want it quicker and quicker. But as they are planning their political agendas, as they are too eager in securing an extremely comfortable future by enabling commerce too easy, too much and too often, the House of Lords stops them when needed so that the other people, those who are in the eyes of commerce and retail revenue ‘not that valuable’, yet they too are British and deserve protection, the Lords looks after all of them.

I understand the frustration from Miliband at times too well, but many forget the expression “Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished“, life is improved in small steps, the Lords will look after all Britons.

This is at the foundation and Australia misses out, just as America does. However, for Australia there is hope and a solution, which I will address down later on.

I particularly liked the following quote: “In a speech on Saturday Miliband will highlight figures showing that the House of Lords is failing to represent large parts of Britain. “When people say that they are turned off from politics and that it doesn’t represent them, we have to do something about it”“.

Eddie, my dear fellow, please explain to me the words you had during the Scottish referendum and now, I read “The Tories want to go further on the handover of tax levying powers than Labour do“, so why are you not on board? The reasons might be very valid, but what are they? So here we see that in past referendum times, devolution seems to be not all that de-evolved, it must make them tartan fellows mighty happy that you are on the case, is it not?

You see, as I see it, Scotland remains a factor for Labour and so it should, but as certain issues move over to Scotland Miliband is set having to fight on two fronts and as such, he does not have the reserves, the energy and the battle plan, so now we see this (this is all purely conjecture on my side).

You see, all these parties are for the better part short term, one perhaps two rounds after that usually the other takes over. The House of Lords is all about long term. Anyone stating that long term is not for now is basically deceiving you, because short term is about the now, the commissions, the bonuses and so on. Like some half-baked sales person in software solutions selling now what they can as they need the revenue, the forecast and the bonus. It is never long term and whatever long term they claim to make is nothing more than the final push for the end of quarter sale, end of year sale and then the new quarter goals. It is a limiting vision that is in the end doomed to falter. It is particularly interesting how these people all need +15-20%, without ever expecting saturation, almost like the well that never dries. Go to a well increase the drain of water by +20% each year and see how long until there is no more water. Then what will you do? The house of Lords is there to see that when faced with these short sighted people, that someone will arrange for options of additional depth or extra irrigation towards the well.

And let me be frank, this is not just about Labour or Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives will have a similar short-sightedness in this regards, which is why we need a solution like the House of Lords. I rechecked the roll today, and yes, my name is not there between Lord Vallance of Tummel and Lord Verjee. My first thought was, ‘good grief’, once I am elected as an official Law lord, I will be placed between two Liberal Democrats. Well, there goes the neighbourhood! 🙂

Yes, we must keep a sense of humour about it all. Anyway, short sightedness, in the UK there is a solution, but here in Australia there is not. I do believe we need a long term option here, You see, Australians have a Senate, yet, unlike Canada who designed it to be like the House of Lords, someone here on this island thought it was a good idea to take the American model. I respectfully disagree, however the Australian model seems stronger than the American one (seems, is used as I never did an in depth study of both next to one another).

Yet, we were talking about long term plans. I believe that true long term plans might come from a Mayoral party, a group of Lord Mayors that decide on long term plans. A Mayor often needs to think long term and as such, a different course of actions might work for Australia. Now, I am not on the side of our Lord Mayor Clover-Moore, I think she overspends by a lot, there are other issues I disagree with and as such I did not vote for her, but I admit that her Sustainable Sydney 2030, is a balsy plan. Getting the roads more and more to be ready for bicycles is one way to get Sydney moving, now they are getting light-rail over George street and when the busses are a mere past tense on George street we will see true change. It is visionary, no doubt about it. It is long term and could change the life of people in Sydney for the better, I should know because as I grew up in Europe, the use of a bicycle is one I am very familiar with.

So is my idea out in never never land? Not sure, I am willing to admit that it is and perhaps the Senate does think long term, but I do not remember seeing too much of that happening, which made me think of a solution that is not at the top of a pinnacle, but at the very base of it and are our lord Mayors not at the foundation of any city and our lives?

So my advice to Ed Miliband: let it be dude! (Yes, I called him dude)

Let us all find solution together and let the future be long term, short term thinking might get us to the next crossing again and again, whilst we learn after 10 crossings that we could have saved a massive amount by turning left, right, right and left and avoid a dozen of them crossings. And in many occasions it is not about getting to the road at the end faster, but to get there without too many obstructions, the rest we will figure out in the course of the day.

Yet, I am not done yet with Mr Miliband. There are two more quotes to look at.

“And it cannot be right that those peers who do live outside London are less likely to be from great cities like Birmingham, Liverpool and Bristol than they are to be living in less-populated rural areas” and “We will make the second chamber of parliament truly a senate of the regions and nations of our whole country“. Really? How is that in any way a guarantee for a better quality of politics? When we see that not the best in this field, but the best one from Shropshire is chosen, then we will truly see how bad some choices are. As such, I cannot identify for one iota with the idea of Ed Miliband. Yet, in the end, perhaps I am the one who lost the plot. I will let the reader decide and I hope that they will vote for whatever solution is the best, not the cheapest or the most comfortable.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

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

October 11, 2014 · 12:02

Intentionally not that bright?

On average, why do you not give your $2 (or £1) to the junk sitting at the entrance to the underground? Why are you hesitant to give the same to the drunk half passed out on the street? This is not a question of morale, or on the idea that you might have a ‘Samaritan’ bone in your body. This is purely human nature, we all do ‘good’ things at times, we give to the red cross, the Salvo’s, yet when we know that the money will go into health endangering acts, like money so the junk can buy more drugs, how do we feel then?

I tend to not give any!

I do my share, the daffodil, the heart foundation, starlight, legacy; the list goes on for a while. I do not give a boatload, but I definitely spend dollars on good causes. These causes make sense and I feel that there is a moral obligation to do things for those less fortunate than me. Yet, knowing a junk will buy more drugs stops me from giving, and yes there are no exceptions. I do not think my way of thinking is out there, many follow my lead. So why do I read ‘Poor nations ‘pushed into new debt crisis’‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/10/poor-nations-debt-crisis-developing-countries), how moronic (read: overly simplified silly) is the act of giving loans to a group that cannot control a budget? When we see “Jubilee Debt Campaign says as many as two-thirds of 43 developing countries it analysed are at risk over next decade” as well as “Coinciding with the World Bank’s annual meeting in Washington, the anti-poverty campaigners accuse the international lender and other public bodies of “leading the lending boom” to poor countries without checking how repaying debts will divert resources from cutting poverty“. I would change that in how can we make international lender accountable for their own bad choices?

Not unlike Wonga ruling (at http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/oct/03/payday-lenders-repay-loans-wonga), these nations should get those loans expunged and the international lenders will just lose their money. They will of course disagree, but the entire loan issue is getting massively out of hand and those enabling them get paid no matter what. This needs to stop.

Sarah-Jayne Clifton, director of the Jubilee Debt Campaign, makes a good case, yet overall she is not willing to far enough on one side and is treading where she should not on the other side. Let me explain this. At the end, the quote is “As such, the campaigners are urging the UK government to push for policies that support developing countries in increasing their tax revenues by clamping down on tax avoidance and evasion“.

No, no, no, no, no! That is not a good idea!

Pushing for policies tends to be a slippery slope (even though the approach is not that bad), in addition, the issue with developing countries and their tax push is only one side, which is the wrong side. These developing countries need to take a hard look on what they are spending these loans on and WHO they are enabling in the first place.

Let’s take a look at a few quotes from the past years and see how they fit in: “Ana Olivera took office on Friday promising to streamline the overweight administration of Uruguay’s capital“. Seems like a good approach. It must sting the Americans to no end that the elected official is a communist. OK, Ana Olivera is only mayor of Montevideo, but that village contains well over 50% of the population of that entire nation, which gives the mayor loads of political power. Uruguay is sometimes called the Netherlands of Latin America, because of its social approach, yet Uruguay is almost 5 times the size of the Netherlands and a mere ferry ride away from Buenos Aires (in case you want to have some cosmopolitan fun). There is method to my madness and here it comes. When we see the news in the International Business Times (at http://www.ibtimes.com/uruguays-economy-will-struggle-unemployment-inflation-it-will-grow-4-percent-2014-1540214), an article from last January where we see that some nations can get a decent grip on their debts, although inflation remains a worry for now. Bloomberg had some additional issues (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-19/uruguay-s-growth-pushing-inflation-above-target-bergara-says.html), “Uruguay, a nation of 3.3 million people wedged between South America’s two largest economies, has since become less dependent on trade with Argentina“, it gives rise to worry about inflation, yet it seems that they are staying on top of it for now.

This links back to the other ‘poor’ nations. These players seem to be given an unofficial charter of bad financial management. If it were just one or two issues, no! When we see the report that two thirds is in the high risk zone of getting a new debt crises, even though most of them got their debts written off, we can clearly see the proverbial pattern of junkies. This of course makes for the analogy that it turns the international lender as a debt dealer at best and as a debt pusher at worst. So, here we see my part of disagreeing with Sarah-Jayne Clifton. We need to put into place clear policies on how loans are to be allowed in the first place. How these nations are currently held to account (and accountable)! If we see a structural failing, then we have a duty to deal with that weakness and deal with the implied ‘pain’ from such irresponsible actions. Yet, governments and ‘overseers’ of these lending institutions seem not to be willing to do just that, we can assume we know the reason, but that is just listening to gossip ;-).

However, as I go for the expression of being artistic, there is this story about being black and that story is played by a pot and a kettle. How can we push for responsible, budgeted governing when the big players involved seem to be unable to do just that (USA, United Kingdom and Australia, but to name a few). Is it truly conspiracy theory inclined to claim that governments are over enabling banks and financial institutions? I am very willing to accept that I am wrong here, but the numbers all speak into my favour (towards my train of thought), so what is the link?

Consider the impact of Neoliberalism. Consider how the term changed usage and to a certain effect the value and application from the 1930’s, the 1980’s and it seems that the concept is changing again. In the 30’s it came from a desire to avoid repetitive economic failures that were visible up to the early 1930s, this resulted in the gesture of blame towards economic policy of ‘classical’ liberalism. Then later on it had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to the radical and privately held transactions between parties, set in a ‘free’ (read: unaccountable) environment, free from intrusive government restrictions, tariffs, and subsidised capitalist set of ideas. Is it not interesting how this version as we see it now, is all about what it was with added non taxability and non-accountability? It is a new form of Neoliberalism with a twist that is all about enabling the wealth driven and the wealth begotten, yet in that view neo liberalism is not just a ‘new’ kind of liberalism, it is not just based on ‘old’ values of civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and free trade. It is enabling non-accountability, non-taxation and even non-prosecutable to a certain extent. So the freedom they have been given are evolving into a total form of freedom where they obscure, device and decide, whilst the people get saddled with the bill of their appointed exploitation.

How is that liberal in any way, shape or form?

There is none more part we can look at. It comes from the paper ‘Neoliberalism and the Global Financial Crisis’ by Sharon Beder (at http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/GFC.html).

The paper has a very fitting part where the topic headline reads ‘Financial Market Coercion‘ and we see “Whilst the IMF and the World Bank enforced the Washington Consensus on poorer countries in desperate need of capital, other more affluent countries were forced into adopting the same formula by the world’s financial markets. Their vulnerability to these markets was facilitated by financial deregulation“. This is what we see in action. Additional we see: “Financial deregulation was demanded by business interests, particularly large financial firms and transnational corporations that wanted to be free to move their money around. The economic argument for financial deregulation, supplied by free market think tanks and economic advisors, was that the free and unregulated movement of capital is more efficient, because capital can move to where it gets the best returns (Helleiner 1996, 194, Bell 1997, 103-4).”

Yet in that part, it does not state the one issue that is massively in play for governments on a global level. This is read in the part “free and unregulated movement of capital is more efficient, because capital can move to where it gets the best returns“, but what is does not state, which it should “free and unregulated movement of capital is more efficient, because capital can move to where it gets the best returns, absolvent of taxation and financial duties“. Now we get back to these ‘poor’ nations. Yes, they are getting pushed into new debt crises, as the facilitating business branches are all about getting money out and not paying for taxation which was enabled by neoliberalism (their altered version of) as I see it.

Is it not an interesting part that we now see the scary view that a Uruguayan communist shows more social responsibility then the ‘free west’ has shown in the last decade?

As I stated it before, when you make banks and big business the facilitator for the future, you will see that their only future you end up with is their own selfish needs. This is why the push for policies by Sarah-Jayne Clifton worried me; she might end up giving the keys to that group of people that should never have access to the keys in the first place, not if a nation wants to do anything for its people. Is there a better solution? It seems that either we go the Uruguayan way and deal with inflation dangers, yet the other way is equally drenched in risks and dangers. The first order is to set up the right policies that keep large corporations tax accountable. They might ‘threaten’ to walk away and to go to Paris or something like that, yet a nation has a multi-million consumers market. If a firm cannot do business, in the end, they stop from being a business and someone else steps in. We need to stop the greed that these investors represent. I am however at a loss to give a clear answer of what will actually work. There are too many variables and not enough people ready to stand up for that what must be decided upon, so we stay in an impasse, a status quo that had stopped being just that years ago, we just do not see clearly how much we lose every day, so we continue the status quo as is.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

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

October 5, 2014 · 22:41

The cost of doing Business

It is the guardian again, not in anything specific; however generically speaking there is an issue that requires visibility.

Let’s take a look at the following headlines: “Ebola is in America – and within range of Big Pharma“, “How bet365 profits from Chinese punters who risk jail for gambling” and “Brutal competition batters supermarkets the world over“, here is the cost of doing business.

How is it relevant?

That is the first part, this is not about relevance, and also, these issues are not linked (as far as I can tell), but they do have something in common (other than that they were all in the Guardian on October 5th 2014). Let’s take a look at big pharma. The article comes from Julia Kollewe and is a good read, from the article I got the following parts:

“Unfortunately, the standard economic model for drug development, in which industry takes all of the risk in R&D and gets a return on investment from successful products, does not work for diseases that primarily impact low-income countries and developing healthcare systems” and “GSK is developing a malaria vaccine that could be ready late next year and is expected to be sold on a not-for-profit basis. Its success rate was only about 30% in infants but better in toddlers, although final clinical results and data on the effect of a booster are still due“, last there is “Turner says two commissions are looking at alternative financial models. One idea is that governments could underpin the economic cost of drug development by committing early to buy the first 2m doses of a new vaccine, for example“. How is any of this ‘just accepted’? Let’s take a look at GlaxoSmithKline. It made 25 billion in 2013 with a net income of well over 5 billion (20% net income is amazingly good). Is that not enough? Is the issue not on how they come up with something, how it becomes a solution and then they make a fortune. So, why must they get ‘a set government incentive’? Why are we allowing for governments to bank on failure? Is their continued existence not based upon proven success? Now let’s take a look at the BBC article from May 10th 2012 (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-17993945) where we see: “The programme obtained confidential tax agreements detailing plans to move profits off-shore to avoid what was a 28% corporate tax rate at the time. Those involved include pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)“. So, not only are they ‘avoiding’ certain due invoices to the Coffers of Osborne, they want pre-ordered and ordained solutions? An anointed decree of set maximised profits. It reads like these boards of directors have a spine no stronger than a paperback, one that is comprised of balance sheets I might add.

So, as we say goodbye on how big pharma will find new ways to get loads of cash on possible medicinal solutions, we should take a look at number two.

‘Brutal competition batters supermarkets the world over’, the article states ‘observer writers’ yet gives us no names. When we look at certain parts we see a view that is incomplete, but seemingly not inaccurate “Aldi has made huge gains in market share in Australia, from about 3% in 2005 to 10% this year“, this means that the two running the show (Coles and Woolworths), will get a third to deal with. There is more to the entire situation, as we look at the price of milk in Australia “The battle for the hearts and dollars of Australian consumers has distressed the dairy industry, threatened small shopkeepers and prompted a Senate inquiry“, yet is that it? Consider that the dairy market is suddenly downgraded in revenue in excess of 20%, how can that be fair or even good to the supplier and when that is no longer an option, how will the consumer pay for milk when offers will dwindle to 2 suppliers? Then what will the market do?

Last there is ‘Revealed: how bet365 profits from Chinese punters who risk jail for gambling online’, which is an interesting article by Simon Goodley. It is the subtitle that gets us the first part “Bookmaker ‘rotates website addresses to keep ahead of authorities’, says employee“, which already implies that the cost of doing business and ethics are no longer in synch with one another. Ethicality has become a nuisance, especially when a business is actively ‘keeping ahead of the authorities‘.

Then we read “The gambling group says its legal advice is that it has broken no law by taking bets from the country“, is a local law the only part of legality?

When we consider Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (UK), we see at sections 44 through to 46, three inchoate offences of intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence; encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed; and encouraging or assisting offences believing one or more will be committed. Is that not the implied part of the ‘alleged’ crime when we see the term ‘keeping ahead of the authorities’?

When we look at section 48(3) we see that a person can only be found guilty of the offence under section 46 (encouraging or assisting offences believing that one or more will be committed) if the offence or offences that the jury find the defendant believed would be committed are specified in the indictment. Yet, this is not enough, for the most, it is not clear to me whether this applies to crimes outside the UK, however In Part 1 section 4 we see “For the purposes of section 1(1)(a), a person has been involved in serious crime elsewhere than in England and Wales if he;

(a) has committed a serious offence in a country outside England and Wales;
(b) has facilitated the commission by another person of a serious offence in a country outside England and Wales; or
(c) has conducted himself in a way that was likely to facilitate the commission by himself or another person of a serious offence in a country outside England and Wales (whether or not such an offence was committed).”

This seems to give enough to warrant it all (if the Jury would agree on this). So why is there such an abundance of acts and actions?

You see, the three articles are unrelated, but together they show a massive change in morale and ethics, the kind that people tend not to get back from. This might be the UK (to some extent), but it is clear that these events have been a fact in the US and are starting to get a more stringent grip to the acts of people in both Canada and Australia.

Now for the part that is linking these three views together. Let’s be clear, that this is a personal link, and as such it is debatable on many levels and also that is up to you to agree and disagree. I am not here to path the road for you, I merely speak of where the next place is, and how you get there is up to you. The press seems to favour emotion over logic (to a certain degree), you see, logic is all about reasoning and emotion is about (rashly) acting. The press gets more signals from the emotional reader, so as we react to soaps and reality TV, the press is having a field day cashing in on a league of events, all informative (in their viewpoint), yet overall not that result driven. Is it for that reason that we see a growing calendar on ‘human events’?

As we look at the big pharma piece we see a growing lack of ethicality. They state one thing, whilst pressing other avenues. The statement of moving in one direction, yet not willing to go the entire distance is something entirely unacceptable. We see the stories on how it is all so expensive to create a drug, yet the other side is not told, on how the top 20 are making in excess of half a trillion dollars, whilst in addition their net revenue is around 25%, which is one of the strongest profit margins. At this point we need to take a look at the initial premise of ‘pre-ordaining’ 2 million vaccines. How unbalanced is all this and with margins that large, why are they allowed these tax breaks?

The Bet365 issue could be regarded as an act, likely to be recklessly criminal. If there was no crime, these places could live on a static IP and we would not see the phrase ‘keeping ahead of the authorities‘. We have entered a stage of living where morality is not just taking a backseat, it is leaving the room, add to that a rapidly declining system of ethics and we end up with a change into chaos. You would wonder how a government would allow for that. Well, that is where the issue becomes murky. I think that for some time now, we have been living under a false pretence. Not unlike Sweden, where in 1917 the King’s powers were considerably reduced, becoming a figurehead with only limited political authority. A change that was done in that case for the good of the Swedish people, yet in many other nations big business made a similar change, only they did not remove power of those elected, as a long term strategy they placed themselves ABOVE the law. This is shown in several of my blogs and the acts BBC showed involving GlaxoSmithKline is only the smallest of examples. I discussed this in my blog ‘The Sanctimonious pretender‘ on August 30th where I stated: ‘Big firms consider leaving the Netherlands, says KPMG report‘, the quote “Some of the Netherlands’ biggest companies are considering leaving the country because of the worsening climate for entrepreneurs, according to a new report by consultants group KPMG“. Well, this is not about worsening climates, this is because nations with a monarchy require a fair bit of accountability, which is why the Netherlands and the United Kingdom has seen much stronger measures for the protection of the people and less so in favour of Big Business.

It is important that we seek solutions that require accountability for all, not just those who are not too rich. It is a tall order, but it can be done if we work together. We accept that there is a cost of doing business, but the view as agreed upon seems to differ as to what big business accepts as a valid cost and what everyone else thinks is a valid cost.

In a world of rapid degeneration of values like Ethics, Morality and Accountability we need to make sure that we see a stronger focus in these three values, if not, standing up to big business might no longer be an option.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

June 12, 2013 · 16:05

Has the case of UKIP been made stronger?

It seems that the EU is starting to hand out slightly less restricting measures. Commissioner Olli Rehn is removing for a short time the 3% deficit limit. This is a slippery slope to say the least. Yes, it is correct that the economy is a fact that needs to be fought. Yet all (including the UK) are spending money that they do not have. UKIP is riding on the waves of these fears, where we the taxpayers will end up footing that bill no matter what. And in the European picture the ‘we’ is simply any citizen paying tax. Governments writing checks, for which they have no money. However the difference of that small point that they can no longer cut is still amounting to billions. In the UK with a vastly over the 1 trillion pound deficit such sliding numbers will really add up. Like me, Nigel Farage saw this coming from a mile away and now he is ready to play his move to start walking towards a landslide victory.

If these driving reasons are not dealt with then both Labour and Conservatives who are currently nowhere near changing the economy are heading to a legendary defeat. There is however a comical side to this. (One should always find reason to smile) It would be the first time in history that the opposition could get crowded by both Labour and Conservatives, with day one likely becoming quite the show. How would that fall in the House of Lords? In that case Black Rod (the Usher) will have a field day! A role currently assigned to Mr David Leakey, former Lieutenant General in command of European Union Military Staff. He was awarded ‘Companion of the order of St. Michael and St. George’. Take it from me that when the members of Club Carlton and the Reform Club are on the same side of the isle, the Usher might need a little back-up to break up slight differences of opinion and he better bring a bigger Dragon then the one St. George slew to aid him.

Yet, the shortage is the issue. How to stem the tides? It is clear that spending more and more is not making it happen. I personally think that it is time to join hands together (not singing Kumbaja). As Commonwealth nations we have a duty to stand together. We have always seen the US as a brother, yet when it comes to accountability, their actions have a massive bearing on our situations, yet they just shun accountability, they have remained absent in stemming the tide of the economical Tsunami, they themselves are creating. My suggestion is that we the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand start uniting economic solutions together. Being parked in London, Sydney or Melbourne is no longer an option. All three have to deal with shortages on one hand and unemployment rates on the other. What if we seriously start to change that? What if we push for a preferred partner in solutions? I myself experienced last week the answer from Canada, that they (one consultancy firm), when it comes to foreign workers limit themselves to US citizens. Perhaps our English is not good enough? There might have been a very valid reason in this, yet I cannot stop to wonder whether we are ignoring possible options to make the Commonwealth economically great again.

We are under such pressures to adhere to ‘corporate’ standards, and the bulk of all those companies are American. This is not about pointing fingers, but to restart an economy. If we look at the gaming industry nowadays, then that war, which was a former war of innovation, which is now diminished to a war between Microsoft who is about to hurt low income gamers and Sony, who is true to the gamers. The interesting side is that they for the most come with the same titles. There is still Nintendo, yet they seem to be lagging way behind. This is a multi-billion dollar industry and the shares are almost 40-40-20 with Nintendo in the 20% group. What is stopping us to take the Google OUYA Android Gaming Console into that market and start growing a market that is now, but has massive potential. Let’s face it, getting 10% of that market is still serious money and the economic downturn to people will remain at least another 3-4 years. So with a play to a cheaper solution is one they would love. It also forces the other three to become innovative and competitive again.  Smaller playable games at less than £ 5 makes it possible for starting developers to make many millions. Consider that families can afford 4-5 games instead of 1 Microsoft game with a £5 surcharge. It does not end there.

Europe is outsourcing customer care centres, technical care centres and we cannot find a way to get 100,000 a job? We need to rethink corporate thinking that is smaller based, makes money and pays taxation. That makes those places 3 times a winner for all parties involved. It does not matter who gets to be in office, in the end we need to fight to make sure that this office survives!

And as we go back to that multi-billion dollar gaming industry, when these people get a pre-owned game surcharge where will that be taxed? It is time to put a stand and make these chargeable items taxed in the gamer’s nation, not in a virtual server location where no taxation is due. When these companies move into the nations of the world, demand rights, protection and support, yet walk away from taxation that is due as they receive all those rights, then we should look at the abundance of non-accountability and make it an accounting matter.

We need to start moving. It is nice and essential to fight over the GCSE A-levels, but without an economy they have no future, and we must fight for both!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, Politics

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