Tag Archives: von der leyen

May 21, 2023 · 23:53

The perception of others

This is a case, this is often a case and in this case. I am one of the others. You see the ‘news’ is no longer that, it is often filtered information. Information that is accepted by shareholders, stake holders and advertisers, as such the people are seen and treated more often than not as a distant fourth. This setting came to the forefront when I saw ‘G7 takes stand against China’s “economic coercion”’ (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-65662720) where we are given “And in not one but two statements, the leaders of the world’s richest democracies made clear to Beijing their stance on divisive issues such as the Indo-Pacific and Taiwan. But the most important part of their message centred on what they called “economic coercion”” Now here we need to pause. These people do not lie (at least I hope they do not), but lets take a look at the evidence. The first is the ‘world’s richest democracies’, these nations are

1. Canada, debt around $ 2,100,000,000,000
2. France, debt around € 3,000,000,000,000
3. Germany, debt around € 2,600,000,000,000
4. Italy, debt around $ 3,000,000,000,000
5. Japan, debt around $ 9,300,000,000,000
6. UK, debt around £ 2,500,000,000,000
7. USA, debt around $ 32,500,000,000,000

Yes, they are really rich (in debt). To give a little consideration “As of April 2023 it costs $460 billion to maintain the debt, which is 13% of the total federal spending” for the US, their interest is $460,000,000,000 to pay for the interest and 13% of the entire budget is to pay for the interest. So all this talk about debt ceilings is close to null and void. Not unlike a Ponzi scheme the US government is taking out new loans to pay for the INTEREST of old loans. When did that ever go good? But that is not what this is about. The next stage is about ‘economic coercion’ something America and others have done for decades. Economic coercion is a political tool that the US pushed all over the middle east, and now that Saudi Arabia and other are pulling their contract with the US and giving options to China it is coercion? I mentioned it a few days ago (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2023/05/19/the-stupidity-of-some/) in ‘The stupidity of some’, I made mention of some elements then and several other articles before that. One should not bite the hands that feeds you and I reckon that is why other players were invited to this party as well (no matter what they say). The US is broke and needs others to do some of the heavy lifting. This is OK, or at least that is why allies stick together, but the bulk is deeply in debt with Canada and Australia in a much better position. Germany had industrial revenues so it is not that bad off either. But this is not bout that, it becomes clear when we see “Now, they worry they are being held hostage. In recent years, Beijing has been unafraid to slap trade sanctions on countries that have displeased them. This includes South Korea, when Seoul installed a US missile defence system, and Australia during a recent period of chilly relations.” They worry? So are they being held hostage, or are they not. Lets be clear all these players have engaged with some form of economic coercion in the past, it is a valid political tool, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, the US is worried. It is losing its grip on the Middle East and as Saudi Arabia is uniting its nations and leagues with the added Syria, Egypt and now optionally Iran as well, the stage changes for the west in the Middle East. China has been invited there now and that worries all players of team G7. You see with them losing 5%-10% revenue to China due to all kinds of reasons they are now scared that someone (the big banks like the Rothschilds) will cancel THEIR credit card and that has them scared silly. I would be to, I really would. This is just a few reasons why I tried to sell my IP to Saudi Arabia and Kingdom Holdings (optionally the UAE too). Amazon and Google were asleep and not caring (perhaps they didn’t like my IP) and Microsoft is not invited to that party and optionally Tencent Technologies is.

You see, the stage, several stages are turning to China as an option. Does China have any less debt? I cannot tell, but they are drilling into new business like nothing we see and that has the G7 scared.

So when we get to “They called for “de-risking”- a policy that Ms von der Leyen, who is attending the summit, has championed. This is a more moderate version of the US’ idea of “decoupling” from China, where they would talk tougher in diplomacy, diversify trade sources, and protect trade and technology.” We see the larger stage, the ‘west’ will diversify trade sources, so that new and emerging economies can only do business with them if they do not do business with China. Almost like Sony did with retailers in 1998/1999. Those who were showing the SEGA Dreamcast would not be getting the PS2. It scared a lot of retailers because PS2 was a winning system and it did. The same was done much earlier with VHS pushing out Betamax (which was superior). A tool used again and again. Yet the larger stage is not these emerging economies, they are a factor, it is what will Saudi Arabia and the UAE do, they are now aligning the next decade and they were the big spenders all over the place and that setting is now heading for China (not sure if it is a done deal) and in this Egypt is important. With them championing Huawei and their G5, Egypt aligns with Saudi Arabia and a lot of commerce and Egypt then becomes a 5G beachhead all over the mediterranean and Africa. This will benefit China a lot. And as we get to “The US is already doing this with its ban on exports of chips and chip technology to China, which Japan and the Netherlands have joined. The G7 is making clear such efforts would not only continue, but ramp up, despite Beijing’s protestations.” This is the stage that is evolving and it is a dangerous move to make. I get why it is done. In the first I am not stating that China is innocent, I am stating that they all used these tools and the debts are drowning their actions. The danger is that if there are any innovative people in China, they will come with an alternative. I have no idea what, but I recall a nice example. The US created a specific ballpoint pen that could be used in space, they spend millions on that solution somehow and Russia? They used a pencil. We saw the Huawei block by Google and now Huawei is rocking the Harmony OS which is available in 77 languages. It is different from both Google and Apple, so what happens when Harmony becomes the tool of choice in the Middle East? You can ban and block, but the danger is that someone finds another way just like Toshiba in Russia decades ago and there was no alternative, as such Toshiba grew and grew with an entire market where they had no competition. Will it happen again? I am certain of it, when one resource closes people look for another resource, it is a natural continuation. Only really stupid people think that no one can get around them and I wonder what will come next. As such I have issues and the BBC did nothing wrong here, they reported, they used quotes and they adhered to something (not sure what). I am showing you that what is said is not merely dangerous it is deceptive. It these are the richest democratic economies, why is there a 50 trillion dollar debt (actually it is decently higher at present). A debt of 50,000 billion and no one is asking questions. I get it (to some degree) Russia is now a problem, the Ukraine is dealing with it, but it can only do so much. It needs support and I agree they do need it and I believe they deserve all the help we can give them, yet across the waters there is no one dealing with the actual debt, they are merely prolonging a complete collapse that will have too many deep in debt for decades. Retirement plans will collapse, health care will collapse and we will all blame someone, but no one is looking at how we all let this happen and now those with the option will look towards the Middle East (including me), a lot are looking at China as an option and a global brain drain will be the consequence. All settings that the G7 will have to consider, because they all have a lot to lose.

Enjoy the start of Monday up to 12 hours (for some) from now.

The shoddy essay

I actively dislike certain people, especially as they use their position to merely lash out at others. This is seen (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/saudi-arabia-yemen-un-human-rights-investigation-incentives-and-therats) when we see Stephanie Kirchgaessner have another go at Saudi Arabia. I honestly think that is all she does. So here is my take. The article ‘Saudis used ‘incentives and threats’ to shut down UN investigation in Yemen’ Of course my first reaction was ‘What UN investigation in Yemen?’ And the article starts off with “Political officials and diplomatic and activist sources describe stealth campaign”. I go into the article and I am treated to “according to sources with close knowledge of the matter”, “Riyadh is alleged to have warned Indonesia”, and lets not forget ““You could see the whole thing shift, and that was a shock,” said one person familiar with the matter”, so what people were familiar to the matter? What actually happened? It is a fair question, especially when we are given “The resolution was defeated by a simple majority of 21-18, with seven countries abstaining”, it is in this case that I am apparently a much better investigator. So, lets take a look.

First lets look at some headlines ‘UN calls on Yemen’s Houthis to release detained staff’, ‘UN: Houthi rebels impeding aid flow in Yemen’, ‘Yemen: Houthi Terrorism Designation Threatens Aid’, and these are just three headlines from dozens in the last two years. In this, the UN and other parties (like essay writers) have been really active in silencing any actions that included Houthi and Iranian forces in Yemen. The article has two mentions on Houthi, one in a photo and none (read: Zero) mentions of Iran. We see one mention of all in “committed by all sides”. The article is that one sided and that much of a hack job. The situation in Yemen is large, much larger then this essay writer makes it out to be.

I am not making some claim that Saudi Arabia is innocent, but I can tell you it is definitely not that guilty either. Houthi and Iranian forces have at least part of that blame (well over 50%) and we seem to forget that all this started by Houthi forces, The Saudi coalition was asked to come and no one seems to notice that. So whilst the Guardian hides behind “the Saudis appear to have influenced officials”, I merely wonder if there isn’t a much larger picture. We see mention by John Fisher giving us “It was a very tight vote. We understand that Saudi Arabia and their coalition allies and Yemen were working at a high level for some time to persuade states in capitals through a mixture of threats and incentives, to back their bids to terminate the mandate of this international monitoring mechanism”, here we see the stage, but we ignore the lighting. In addition to that stage, what evidence is there for “through a mixture of threats and incentive”, you see Iran and Houthi Yemen do not want any monitoring for a few reasons, and they are non-mentioned parties, why is that? Shovelling BS all on one pile is nice at times and we love to see all that BS piled up at Strasbourg, but that will not happen either will it?

You think that this I the end, but it is time to add flavour to it all, because in all fairness, Stephanie Kirchgaessner is not in this alone, the stakes against Saudi Arabia are much larger. That is seen when we add the Conversation (at https://theconversation.com/jobs-are-no-excuse-canada-must-stop-arming-saudi-arabia-171792) where we see “Jobs are no excuse — Canada must stop arming Saudi Arabia”, and I would state ‘Yes, handing more revenue to China is the way to go!’ I would love to get a larger billion dollar stake holding a 3.75% bonus setting. Even as we are given “The bulk of Canadian arms exports to the Saudis are light armoured vehicles, known as LAVs”, We see the attack using ‘Human Rights’ all whilst Saudi Arabia is under actual attack, Houthi (apparently Iranian operated drones) are attacking civil targets in South Saudi Arabia, so whilst we are given “Canada has twice been named by the United Nations Group of Eminent Experts on Yemen as one of several world powers helping to perpetuate the conflict by continuing to supply weapons to Saudi Arabia”, and we are not given the clear involvement of Iranian and Houthi settings, it is all a one sided attack and it matters, these people attack one sided for a larger need, an ego driven need and the media is helping them do this. But feel free to state I am wrong, and I am happy to be wrong, especially if $12,000,000,000 going to China might fetch me a nice 450 million dollars (I can dream, can’t I?). when the numbers are this high 3.75% makes a very nice number. And the world is making this happen, so when we see project after project fail in Europe and the US because the moral high ground came at a price, consider the names of people who made that happen. Hunger on the moral high ground is not rare, it usually is linked to all kinds of revenue that they never got. This is not a perfect world, I never claimed it to be, but a commerce world needs to sell all kinds of stuff, also stuff that seems to be wrong, there is no denying that. And when it comes to that side, these two articles leave Houthi and Iranian actions in the dark. You should wonder why that is, because a nation does not spend 12 billion in any one sided event. If it was truly one sided one billion would have been more than enough. Did you consider that?

The US and the EU have at presently dropped 48 billion in revenue, revenue that they desperately needed and now that von der Leyen revealed the ‘300 billion euro answer to China’s Belt and Road’, how will that be paid for? Not from the revenue that Saudi Arabia required to defend its borders. That revenue will support China’s Belt and Road projects, a nice pickle they got themselves in and no one is wondering how this farce can go on, because soon there will be no money left, the overdrawn credit cards from the US, the EU, France, Germany and the UK makes any economic action close to impossible. And soon (in about 3-5 weeks) when the US has another debt ceiling, consider all the things that the US could have done to stop the new stress settings; the EU and the UK as well, now that these funds are going to China, the stage changed, the electricity bill can no longer be paid and there is no fighting ring, there is no event to watch, it is just a dark room in a dark location and that I the setting we all had to avoid. But rejoice, you then know one element that Yemeni people face, they have no electricity either, the Houthi forces made sure of that.

Down the drain?

Consider the two faced approach to the EU. The stage where we see on the BBC ‘Ursula von der Leyen speaks of Europe’s moment’, which is fair enough. So when we see “A recovery fund worth €750,000,000,000 to help tackle a crises” we would not react, in all this we also see how some of this is divided and initially we see that Germany gets €30,000,000,000 and France gets €39,000,000,000, so far it all seems fine and it would be, however the EU can never align or agree on anything, we see that in the Corona numbers where we see

	Sick	Dead
France	182,913	28,596
Germany	181,895	8,533

Now remember one does not mean the other, yet when we see optional misreporting to this degree and the media shoves it under the carpet hiding behind all kinds of reasons (elderly and so on) we see that there is a lot missing. Now the amounts might be needed, I am not debating that, yet the stage of who gets how much and why is now open for debate. The involved players have a lot to explain and they might, yet the situation of reporting is missing a few rounds and the fact that this stage is missing in Strasbourg also implies that the funds are set to what certain captains of industry reports, now what governments are setting to stage. Even as we give weight to ‘France reports less than 100 coronavirus deaths for seventh day’, all whilst we see another matter evolve. Places like theconversation.com give a flim flam explanation of extended testing, and better response rates, yet the larger truth is that Germany not unlike France has an extensive rural population, as such the explanation does not hold water (as I made a note of almost 2 months ago), yet in all the article we do not see the one stage that matters. There is no vaccine, no cure and as such the numbers do not make sense and now their economic impact is taking away 30 billion. So why is it down the drain?

Germany ‘suffers’ just like all the others, yet in a stage of misreporting there is much larger stage in play (as I personally see it) and as we go forward from there, we wonder how numbers are derived and in all that the question on what governments need, as well as what captains of industry need is a much larger debate in al this. Even as some hide behind “The increased critical care capacity is also playing a role in reducing fatalities in Germany” becomes a farce, optionally one that was written by government allies. So if one is a farce, the other becomes very debatable. In a stage where a recession was already on the books, the Coronavirus merely hurried it along, last years numbers were very indicative of it and the EU who had to sit on its wallet has a reason to hand out an additional €750,000,000,000, yet the issue is not resolved, the reporting stage is out in the open andas it seems, media is assisting in hiding that part, there is enough evidence for several weeks that implies that there is either no interest or no follow through and all that is indicative of a stage of ‘playing along’.

This is a much more important and a much harder stage, and as we wonder what game von der leyen is playing but the questions that need to be out in the open are not and it beckons, Why Not?

Now, there is still the debate, am I merely a conspiracy theorist? The data proves me right, you see once you get sick, the mortality rate sets in and it is set to roughly to 6% (all the way up from the initial 3.4%), and Germany is staged at 4.6% which is almost 50% lower, and it is up for debate, because France seemingly has mortality rate of 15.6%. The numbers do not add up, they haven’t added up for a long time and it is not merely Germany and France, they merely bring it to the surface much better, and when these numbers do not add up, what else is faulty? That is implied in the comment “Many including Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Lithuania, won’t commit either way until they read the small print” and even as one states that the devil is in the details, I merely wonder what details are getting obfuscated in other ways? So whilst some set the stage towards “the feeling here is it will need a face-to-face meeting between leaders to forge a compromise” in all this, a compromise was needed? Okay, I will go along, yet the stage where 750 billion was a compromise, what numbers were out in the open, and more immediate, the fact that Spain and Italy required well over 75 billion, gives rise to another set of consideration, especially in light of the fact that Romania and Portugal getting less than 20 billion, this whilst Romania is 6th on the EU population scale and Portugal is 11th. Now I accept that the numbers are set around dwindling economies, but if one set of numbers is incorrect, unreliable and debatable, what else is up for debate?

In light of all this, the people who are setting the stage for all this have other concerns, that is my personal belief, I am merely wondering what other concerns there are?

Tag Archives: von der leyen

The perception of others

The shoddy essay

Down the drain?

Recent Posts

Archives