First the fun...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/24/mars-rover-penis-nasa_n_3144656.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.smh.com.au/world/strangebuttrue/thieves-steal-55-tonnes-of-nutella-20130409-2hiqg.html
http://www.npr.org/2012/12/01/166293306/the-onion-so-funny-it-makes-us-cry
http://www.theonion.com/articles/kim-jongun-named-the-onions-sexiest-man-alive-for,30379/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/10019755/Is-this-man-too-sexy-for-Saudi-Arabia.html
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/29/7_things_north_korea_is_really_good_at
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/0515/KFC-smugglers-bring-buckets-of-chicken-through-Gaza-tunnels
http://www.thelocal.es/20130604/spanish-town-mails-dog-poo-back-to-owners
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/the-trouble-with-being-kevin-rudd/story-e6frg6n6-1226664160314
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/weird/my-erection-wouldnt-deflate-for-240-days/story-fni0cre6-1226664275998
Now the bugs...
Sega's/Sports Interactive's Football Manager 2009
- look around you'll find further details. Apparently, a known but unfixed bug. Seems as though there may be some hard limits built into the program. Even if you have more than sufficient physical RAM you'll still get into trouble. A few dialog boxes with the following text,"Football Manager 2009 is running dangerously low on memory. Please quit and free up some memory." and "Football Manager 2009 has run out of memory and will now quit."
- need a better way to change contract offer during negotiations especially if another club makes a bid
OpenOffice/LibreOffice
- sometimes not preserving cross references for chapters in text
- consistent issues autocompletion/autoformatting across the board. Example of this is following hyperlink.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2013\02\17\story_17-2-2013_pg4_7 -->
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2013\02\17\story_17-2-2013
Squid
- requires modification in "init.d" script. Notice lack of whitespace between "squidCreating"?
user@system:/media/sdc1$ sudo squid restart
user@system:/media/sdc1$ sudo service squid restart
Restarting Squid HTTP proxy: squidCreating squid cache structure ... (warning).
2013/02/16 23:59:42| Creating Swap Directories
Indian Express Website
- too technology dependent. Linking to other pages works fine JavaScript on but when off end up with permission problems (I'm using NoScript add-on)...
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-close-to-ok-on-arming-syrian-rebels-reports/1127205/ ->
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-close-to-ok-on-arming-syrian-rebels-reports/1127205/2
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /news/us-close-to-ok-on-arming-syrian-rebels-
reports/1127205/2 on this server.
Wget
- not really a bug but it clearly requires a more informative error message. If file system doesn't support greater than 4GB (FAT32) you end up with the following...
wget
user@system:/media/location/Downloads/CentOS$ wget -c "http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/centos/6.4/isos/x86_64/CentOS-6.4-x86_64-bin-DVD1.iso"
...
Cannot write to `CentOS-6.4-x86_64-bin-DVD1.iso' (No such file or directory).
Commonwealth Bank ATM
- this was bizarre one. I actually came across an ATM with an IE scripting error problem a while back. I didn't quite believe my eyes so I took a picture of it. Perhaps I'll show it someday?
Google News
- sometimes branching is slow to replicate across their network. Means you end up with orphan/non-existent links from time to time. First time I've encountered this with Google News...
Google Maps
- after Apple's recent problems with their maps service someone in the
media said that we shouldn't become overly reliant on such services. I
concur. I recently went on a trip to a distant area and had some minor
problems. Luckily, i carried a map with me...
Google Translate
- didn't realise it wasn't able to deal with HTTPS well. Ended up with URL invalid errors. Apparently, it's a known problem though...
http://ubuntuincident.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/patch-to-google-translate-https-pages/
Curious why they don't just run it via a proxy such as the following?
http://www.proxyssl.org/
Don't think it would be too hard to replicate given the right modifications?
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Europe's Road Towards Regrowth - Part 4
This post is obviously a continuation of some work in my 'Convergence' report as well as some other blog posts.
- one of the things which really seperated/distinguished Europe from other countries which I noticed when I was younger was that is somehow able to meld it's history/culture with technological progress. Over time though, it became clear that the technological gap was slowly disappearing, it's edge was somewhat lost and there was not enough progress in other areas. Basic things like healthcare, aged care, social welfare, malfunctioning legal system (across many countries), running a business, even living were needlessly and hopelessly difficult when compared to other countries (including Australia). The overlay of European policy on top of state policy made things even more nonsensical. I think it's about time we push the concept of "power sharing" even further within Europe. This means that we will abolish local (or else European) policies when possible/applicable. We regulate to ensure a safe and fair environment but not enough to inhibit the lives of ordinary citizens and businesses.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130613/opinion/The-lessons-from-Greece.473645
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/world/europe/greece.html?ref=world
http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/17611265/eurozone-officials-endorse-3-3-billion-euro-tranche-for-greece-sources/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c045be3a-cb6a-11e2-b1c8-00144feab7de.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-the-agricultural-revolution--uk-pushes-europe-to-embrace-gm-crops-8654595.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jun/12/gm-crops-environment-secretary-relaxation-rules
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/06/auditors-slam-red-tape-at-eu-sci.html
http://phys.org/news/2013-06-eu-cars-dial-case.html
http://phys.org/news/2013-04-aeroplane-lorries-europe.html
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/merkel-says-eu-commission-should-not-get-more-powers-29314248.html
- the same policy should apply to internal state operation as well. If we can gain benefits from mergers, breakups, privatisation, nationalisation, or even complete abolition of departments then we should consider them
- projects like Concorde, Eurotunnel, Airbus A380/A350, ESA's Arianne rocket, CERN's LHC, all prove that Europe can compete with every single other nation on planet with regards to innovation, science, engineering. What's clear though is that that doesn't necessarily translate to real world profitability in a lot of cases. Think about stealth technology, the Internet, even the concepts behind Google and you immediately think about the United States. However, it was clear that Europeans (and other nations) were right in the thick of it from the very beginning...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massimo_Marchiori
http://www.webpronews.com/volunia-google-italian-2012-02
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-13/france-wants-the-profits-from-french-innovation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
Several things need to occur if Europe is to profit from it's intellectual prowess; life has to be easier for those who want to start or run a business, got to be easier to find funding in Europe, they need to be willing to take a chance (there have been some serious problems with some major defense projects but it's clear that this occurs with all nations not just Europe. Europe just needs to learn and push on where/when the benefits possibly outweigh the risks in the medium to long term), etc...
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130613/opinion/The-lessons-from-Greece.473645
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/world/europe/greece.html?ref=world
http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/17611265/eurozone-officials-endorse-3-3-billion-euro-tranche-for-greece-sources/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c045be3a-cb6a-11e2-b1c8-00144feab7de.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-the-agricultural-revolution--uk-pushes-europe-to-embrace-gm-crops-8654595.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jun/12/gm-crops-environment-secretary-relaxation-rules
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/06/auditors-slam-red-tape-at-eu-sci.html
http://phys.org/news/2013-06-eu-cars-dial-case.html
http://phys.org/news/2013-04-aeroplane-lorries-europe.html
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/merkel-says-eu-commission-should-not-get-more-powers-29314248.html
- the same policy should apply to internal state operation as well. If we can gain benefits from mergers, breakups, privatisation, nationalisation, or even complete abolition of departments then we should consider them
- projects like Concorde, Eurotunnel, Airbus A380/A350, ESA's Arianne rocket, CERN's LHC, all prove that Europe can compete with every single other nation on planet with regards to innovation, science, engineering. What's clear though is that that doesn't necessarily translate to real world profitability in a lot of cases. Think about stealth technology, the Internet, even the concepts behind Google and you immediately think about the United States. However, it was clear that Europeans (and other nations) were right in the thick of it from the very beginning...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massimo_Marchiori
http://www.webpronews.com/volunia-google-italian-2012-02
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-13/france-wants-the-profits-from-french-innovation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
Several things need to occur if Europe is to profit from it's intellectual prowess; life has to be easier for those who want to start or run a business, got to be easier to find funding in Europe, they need to be willing to take a chance (there have been some serious problems with some major defense projects but it's clear that this occurs with all nations not just Europe. Europe just needs to learn and push on where/when the benefits possibly outweigh the risks in the medium to long term), etc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229
http://www.rudebaguette.com/2013/01/23/3-myths-busted-about-european-vs-us-venture-capital-success/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e80e9b4c-7415-11e1-bcec-00144feab49a.html#axzz2WCMCOopD
- when I meant closer co-operation of European states I meant on many levels. Part of this involved logistics, transporation, education, control of supply/demand, as well as energy. Basically, if/when possible we should subsidise businesess to move within states so that they can be located closer to the sources of their components (manufacturing in particular). This would reduce the cost of transporation, etc... and hopefully drive down the costs of the product resulting in a more competitive option for consumers. It also means that states will need to figure out their place within the union and play their part as part of a co-ordinated European economic trade union. One in which, certain states would specialise in particular areas while others would supplement them via supply chain, raw materials, or else act as a consumer for them. If they can not compete then obviously their status could be challenged by other states who believe that they could do a better job
- as indicated previously, one of the things I've found interesting is how much more dependent on emerging markets (and fringe, smaller, newer European states as well) European states have become for growth. Another thing that I've found curious is the apparent differentcebetween the GDP on many of the poorer states as opposed to those in the stronger states. What I'm wondering is whether or not we should fund investment in these weaker countries instaed of simply outsourcing to Asia/Africa as seems to be the current thinking (is the wage gap large enough to be profitable? are the benefits of the union and reduced transporation/logistical difficulty enough? Should we have a policy of preferecning local, Europe, then rest of globe whenever/ever possible and competitive?). In the longer term, if the weaker states become stronger there would obviously be a larger consumer market within the union as well...
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/07/business/diageo-walsh-uk-eu/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/latvia-eurozone-membership-economic-growth
http://www.tirebusiness.com/article/20130610/NEWS/130619988/michelin-to-invest-1b-in-france
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229
http://www.rudebaguette.com/2013/01/23/3-myths-busted-about-european-vs-us-venture-capital-success/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e80e9b4c-7415-11e1-bcec-00144feab49a.html#axzz2WCMCOopD
- when I meant closer co-operation of European states I meant on many levels. Part of this involved logistics, transporation, education, control of supply/demand, as well as energy. Basically, if/when possible we should subsidise businesess to move within states so that they can be located closer to the sources of their components (manufacturing in particular). This would reduce the cost of transporation, etc... and hopefully drive down the costs of the product resulting in a more competitive option for consumers. It also means that states will need to figure out their place within the union and play their part as part of a co-ordinated European economic trade union. One in which, certain states would specialise in particular areas while others would supplement them via supply chain, raw materials, or else act as a consumer for them. If they can not compete then obviously their status could be challenged by other states who believe that they could do a better job
- as indicated previously, one of the things I've found interesting is how much more dependent on emerging markets (and fringe, smaller, newer European states as well) European states have become for growth. Another thing that I've found curious is the apparent differentcebetween the GDP on many of the poorer states as opposed to those in the stronger states. What I'm wondering is whether or not we should fund investment in these weaker countries instaed of simply outsourcing to Asia/Africa as seems to be the current thinking (is the wage gap large enough to be profitable? are the benefits of the union and reduced transporation/logistical difficulty enough? Should we have a policy of preferecning local, Europe, then rest of globe whenever/ever possible and competitive?). In the longer term, if the weaker states become stronger there would obviously be a larger consumer market within the union as well...
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/07/business/diageo-walsh-uk-eu/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/latvia-eurozone-membership-economic-growth
http://www.tirebusiness.com/article/20130610/NEWS/130619988/michelin-to-invest-1b-in-france
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/10102008/Emerging-markets-displace-Europe-as-fulcrum-of-world-risk.html
The other obvious issue here is if if reducing trade barriers to possible growth markets (or even expansion of the union itself) is one way to achieving growth then the obvious option is to simply expand the union (to increase the size of the possible markets that they can access), else pursue "win-win" trade agreements as they have been doing with the United States, Canada, and so on...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/13/us-usa-eu-financialservices-idUSBRE95C14420130613
- I think that one thing we all need to face is that Europe has sort of meandered for a while now. Is it that the EU has become less relevant? Are the products/services that they produce simply less competitive?
Table 5: Extra EU-27 trade by main trading partners, EU-27, 2001-2011 (1)
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/International_trade_in_goods
- for the immediate future the state of the EU will continue to remain the same. It's clear that a "European Superstate" is likely to only occur if countries are willing to take responsibility of their own affairs, others will only help to a limited extent, there continues to remain economic and other stability issues. Moreover with the diverging interests of many countries within the union, it's likely going to be a long time before we see a genuine political union. I suspect it will be a few decades before we may see this and the only way that it is likely to occur is if we go with a flexible, multi-tiered architecture. Already there are 30 odd countries in the union and we've seen in the United States that depending on the circumstances deadlock can result depending on the nature of the political union and the players involved. Yes, we can change the structure but it this will likely involve many compromises for members on a regular basis. The other choice is a change in the structure.
- structure allows for choice between level of "Europeaness". At this current moment in time so many countries with divergent perspectives. Moreover, it is clear that while many European citizens believe in the benefits of the trade union they aren't necessarily in favour of a "superstate". This will provide the structure for a modern union which provides for greater flexibility while also maintaining the benefits of the union itself (tiers can of course be added or removed at will if need be)
Tier 1 - EMU including political union, basically a superstate (economics, military, foreign affairs, etc...) which is similar to the way in which the "United States" is currently setup.
Tier 2 - EMU (basically similar to what we have in the current setup), high number of EU policies required to be implemented per year (percentage based?). Have the right to say yes, no to policies when desired.
Tier 3 - EU trade union but retain currency, medium number of EU policies required to be implemented per year (percentage based?). Have the right to say yes, no to policies when desired.
Tier 4 - EU trade union but retain currency, only small number of EU policies required to be implemented per year (percentage based?). Have the right to say yes, no to policies when desired.
http://euobserver.com/institutional/120484
The other obvious issue here is if if reducing trade barriers to possible growth markets (or even expansion of the union itself) is one way to achieving growth then the obvious option is to simply expand the union (to increase the size of the possible markets that they can access), else pursue "win-win" trade agreements as they have been doing with the United States, Canada, and so on...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/13/us-usa-eu-financialservices-idUSBRE95C14420130613
- I think that one thing we all need to face is that Europe has sort of meandered for a while now. Is it that the EU has become less relevant? Are the products/services that they produce simply less competitive?
Table 5: Extra EU-27 trade by main trading partners, EU-27, 2001-2011 (1)
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/International_trade_in_goods
- for the immediate future the state of the EU will continue to remain the same. It's clear that a "European Superstate" is likely to only occur if countries are willing to take responsibility of their own affairs, others will only help to a limited extent, there continues to remain economic and other stability issues. Moreover with the diverging interests of many countries within the union, it's likely going to be a long time before we see a genuine political union. I suspect it will be a few decades before we may see this and the only way that it is likely to occur is if we go with a flexible, multi-tiered architecture. Already there are 30 odd countries in the union and we've seen in the United States that depending on the circumstances deadlock can result depending on the nature of the political union and the players involved. Yes, we can change the structure but it this will likely involve many compromises for members on a regular basis. The other choice is a change in the structure.
- structure allows for choice between level of "Europeaness". At this current moment in time so many countries with divergent perspectives. Moreover, it is clear that while many European citizens believe in the benefits of the trade union they aren't necessarily in favour of a "superstate". This will provide the structure for a modern union which provides for greater flexibility while also maintaining the benefits of the union itself (tiers can of course be added or removed at will if need be)
Tier 1 - EMU including political union, basically a superstate (economics, military, foreign affairs, etc...) which is similar to the way in which the "United States" is currently setup.
Tier 2 - EMU (basically similar to what we have in the current setup), high number of EU policies required to be implemented per year (percentage based?). Have the right to say yes, no to policies when desired.
Tier 3 - EU trade union but retain currency, medium number of EU policies required to be implemented per year (percentage based?). Have the right to say yes, no to policies when desired.
Tier 4 - EU trade union but retain currency, only small number of EU policies required to be implemented per year (percentage based?). Have the right to say yes, no to policies when desired.
http://euobserver.com/institutional/120484
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/05/31/hague-wants-commons-veto-on-eu-law
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/mesynon/2013/06/why-william-hagues-red-card-plan-wont-work/
http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/17417763/eu-exit-would-put-britain-on-par-with-norway-danny-alexander/
- I think the debate regarding executive wages is a bit too simplistic. While a cap on bonuses makes sense there are many ways around this as is already been seen/discovered. In my version I would have a formula that is based on a combination of a multiple of the wage of the lowest full time employee plus a variation/combination of factors with regards to overall health of the company. If we can agree bounds on either end (includes everything such as basic wage, salary, bonus, package, incentives...) then we can ensure that they are paid a fair wage while still remaining globally competitive. Moreover, by adding in a time based factor for both performance during his time and a short period after he leaves it gives them greater incentive to work for the longer term benefit for the firm, proper handover procedures, developing a sucession plan and so on... Would like to see an end to so called "golden handshakes" (underperforming executives are sometimes paid enormous amounts for having their employment terminated early). It doesn't make sense to reward incompetence, sub-standard performance, etc...
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/475363/20130606/banker-bonus-executive-compensation-barclays-rbs-hsbc.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-10/most-banks-expect-salary-increases-to-offset-eu-bonus-cap.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-04/european-parliament-to-delay-vote-on-fund-manager-bonus-rules.html
Would only allow abnormally high renumeration where performance warrants. To deal with issue of massive bias of "institutional voters" would weight votes in such a way that voting rights of both retail and wholesale investors have an equal say. In abscence of vote, abstain.
- as I've stated here and elsewhere I think we hold ourselves back a lot of the time. I'd like to Europe (and the rest of the world) truly chase after
- European leadership need to be clear on what they are presenting to their people and why the changes that they are making are for the "greater good" (if they can't explain why this is the case though I question whether or not they are pursuing the right policy)? At the same time, they need to be representative of their interests. If they are having trouble with passing difficult changes then possibly consider extending term lengths? Think about pursuing a mix of more short term/easy win policies with more difficult medium to longer term structural changes? Other things they need to consider is that their reign is unlikely to last forever. It's possible that some of the changes that they make will not take effect until after they leave office. They might as well as well try to do the "right thing" while they have the chance.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1777699/Comment--Rudd,-Gillard-or-Abbott---Do-leaders-really-matter-
Moreover, it's not just what they say but how they say it as well. Try to explain to them that there basically is not alternative apart from reform. The type/level of reform can of course be negotiated but the other choice is to basically let the state go bankrupt and have chaos ensue. Moreover, what Europeans need to understand is that without reform their countries and Europe will cease to become relevant. Trade is trending down between many EU nations as is...
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/double-dutch-loopholes-get-multinationals-off-tax-hook-1.1411926
It would also help if respsonsibility for the dealing with the problem was better targted (though this has changed of late)...
- the European leadership have probably done a poor job in commmunicating why some of the measures were required, why they were necessary in order to achieve stability within the Eurozone, why existing the Eurozone would have been so dangerous, etc... An example of this is explaining the purpose of taxes within society (especially int the context of Greece). If you've never paid tax then it is unlikely that you will wan to pay it. After all, if you don't make use of social services why would you have any reason to use them? The most amusing explanation of this that I've come across would be the notion of a "TV Collector Man". If for generations someone regularly took your TV from your home you would gradually come to accept it but if this were suddenly imposed upon you you would consider it a form of theivery.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/10099326/Theres-a-worse-crisis-on-the-way-unless-we-get-serious-about-tackling-debt.html#disqus_thread
I think a better way to explain it to them is that without taxes the whole public sector would basically collapse.
- for every person who criticises the European leadership/Troika over some of the policies that they have pursued they need to ask themselves just exactly what would they have done in the same circumstances. Very few people are trained/qualified to run a large company, fewer still countries, and possibly no one who has a career/history in dealing with bankrupt states.
- labour mobility has been an option outlined here an elsewhere as a means of dealing with the employment crisis. One thing I've been wondering is whether or not there should be "core languages" that should be taught across the union? Based on what I know many countries already teach secondary languages to students as part of their education systems so implementation shouldn't be too foreign to member states...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b210ec48-ca1d-11e2-af47-00144feab7de.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/06/12/eurozone_internal_migration.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/10097363/Come-to-Germany-to-work-and-find-love-British-are-told.html
- I think that while the protesters from the "Occupy/Blockupy" movements have clear grievances they'll never gain traction unless they clarify their message, attempt to come up with a solutions to the problems that they are describing, or possibly even attempt to change the system from within?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/europe-a-leaning-tower-of_b_3366506.html
http://www.thetrumpet.com/article/10697.19.0.0/economy/thousands-protest-austerity-in-europe
http://www.thetrumpet.com/article/10611.29392.0.0/world/government/europes-unemployed-an-army-waiting-for-a-leader
http://www.iol.co.za/business/international/all-the-people-in-europe-will-demonstrate-1.1525639
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10093485/Scuffles-as-Germany-pushes-back-against-austerity.html
- budget for European administration is huge. Should look at savings within union structure itself and devolve savings back into countries that are in trouble. Are we sure we need so many MEPs? Should we consider a freeze on wage increases/hiring? Consolidate to a single base in Brussels or else reduce the importance of other locations (savings of several hundred million per year possible apparently)? Increased savings through better use of technology to flesh out details of major European policy before meetings occur? Currently, discussions are getting strung out for too long...
http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/infocentre/faqs.html
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/0081ddfaa4/MEPs.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament
http://www.euractiv.com/future-eu/salaries-eu-officials-increase-n-news-516759
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/9696232/David-Cameron-Eurocrats-must-accept-cuts-to-pay-and-perks.html
http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/should-we-feel-sorry-for-underpaid-eu.html
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/content/20121211FCS04528/8/html/Would-you-prefer-to-be-EU-or-UK-civil-servant
- are they banks being realistic in attemping to get some bad assets off of their balance sheets? Even in better economic conditions it's clear that it will take some time before they can get rid of these assets. Should they just accept that they will take the a hit to their earnings in the short term? Should we give banks in the weaker countries more/less time to deal with their problems (basically giving them a temporary competitive ad/disadvantage/setting up a regulatory arbitrage situation)?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323734304578542262346050342.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/54e9beea-d0ef-11e2-be7b-00144feab7de.html
http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=29534
- I don't see the EU as just a trade block. I see it as much more than that. In the future I see a multi-polar world prevailing and it is likely that Europe become be a part of it (as long as it is able to deal with it's present problems). These trade blocks will form the basis for sharing of burdens and responsibilities for global issues and these blocks will act in the interests of all nations within that block as well as the interests of that particular block within the world. Basically, the notion of notion of nationally based superpowers will have far less of an impact if these blocks are able to maintain solidarity.
- it's clear that the Eurozone has sort of stablised (there's still clearly a lot of other clean up work occurring especially with regards to the banking sector).
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-europe-austerity-20130615,0,2953904.story
http://www.euronews.com/2013/06/14/growth-the-key-in-europe-says-portuguese-president/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/even-greece-sees-light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel/story-e6frg8zx-1226664130435
http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/cyprus-signs-100m-loan-agreement-eib/20130531
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Commentary+Italian+showdown+with+Germany+over+eurozone+looms/8517825/story.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-04/draghi-covets-bank-clean-up-as-ecb-weighs-fix-to-loan-dro.html
This means that instead of having to focus our resources on stabilising we can focus more on the process of using it to stimulate growth. From now on (whereever possible), I propose that every single dollar that can be saved at the European or nation level will be counter-blanced by funds for the direct funding growth initiatives such as developpment of businesses, better infrastructure (problem is that most infrastructure in Europe is reasonably modern and well integrated. Not too many projects that would be major game changers (energy sector and perhaps better integration of transportation/logistics with states that are newly entering the union to facilitate trade), etc... in troubled states? Would like to see greater input/discussion from various stakeholders on what they believe to be imperative to future of Europe...), etc...
http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/strategy/60283-will-maths-help-solve-melbourne%E2%80%99s-transport-problems?
http://www.dw.de/strikes-paralyze-rail-system-in-france/a-16877911
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130613/opinion/The-lessons-from-Greece.473645
http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/17462432/france-ireland-eyeing-submarine-power-cable-link/
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/energy-linkup-to-france-proposed-29315855.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-11/croatia-joins-greece-italy-to-push-for-europe-caspian-gas-link.html
- unrealistic that we abolish tax havens, etc... in the near term but we can at least reduce the spread (especially with regards to exceptionally low corporate tax rates). This will allow these countries to maintain their deposits/competitive advantage but we could use these funds/savings to help deal with some of the more troubled states where possible...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/opinion/a-chance-to-do-better-on-greece.html
- Europe really needs to look hard at itself. Figure out what it's citizens want with regards to welfare, what it can pay for, and how much they are willing to pay in order to get these particular services. I recall high income professionals in parts of Europe who were paying atrociously high tax rates to the point where I often wondered whether there was a point of diminishing returns...
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-an-abbott-government-may-run-the-economy-20130611-2o1yz.html
http://www.finance.gov.au/archive/archive-of-publications/ncoa/coaintro.htm
That's the basis from which I think we should be thinking about cuts, not necessarily just cutting without necessarily understanding the real world implications... which brings me to the next point. I think there may be a slight disconnect between what they are feeling and what is actually happening on the ground. Recently, a few local politicians tried living on welfare benefits for a short period of time to see what is was like. I challenge some members of the European leadership to do the same. Figure out just how far you can push without taking people "over the edge" and don't be afraid of rolling back changes if they don't have the desired effect.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/09/bedroom-tax-huge-problems-worse
http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/scotland-22886745
- I think sometimes European states think about the problem of dealing with their deficits too simplistically. Sometimes it seems as though they just think about cuts and revenue raising through increased taxes (aware that this is not always the case). Europe shouldn't be afraid fund businesses directly or help companies grow larger... if they are successful that means that the size of their tax base instantly increases (of course starting a business is never easy)
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Business_economy_-_size_class_analysis
http://www.euro2day.gr/ftcom_en/article-ft-en/1103190/uk-funding-for-lending-scheme-fails-to-spur-credit.html
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/germany-prepares-development-bank-aid-for-portugal-spain/28547
http://www.ibtimes.com/french-airport-strikes-could-expand-10-eu-nations-wednesday-1302811
http://www.euronews.com/2013/06/12/french-air-traffic-control-strike-2013-latest-news
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/chaos-across-europe-as-french-air-traffic-controllers-ground-flights-1.1426321
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/6/13/renewable-energy/europe-must-act-make-green-desert-project-work-desertec-head
- one of the things I've found interesting when looking at various statistics regarding Europe is how disperse the spread is with regards to the size of businesses and also the size of government spending/taxation in relation to overall GDP. What's noticeable is how healthier econonomies tend to spread the load more evenly across the private/public sector as well as across businesses of varying sizes...
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Business_economy_-_size_class_analysis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.CON.GOVT.ZS
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/13/coalitions-austerity-reality-british-politics
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130613/opinion/The-lessons-from-Greece.473645
- capitalism and other social models in my mind are simply a highly evolved version of Darwinism within the framework of human behaviour which is then overlaid upon a series of theoretical manifestations which allow us to live in a relatively harmonious fashion. However, over time it's become clear that huge abberations/distortions have occurred which have led to a skew in the overall ecosystem which have meant that system needs to be altered. We've hit the point at which MNC/TNC powers have almost superceded that of countries and perhaps even continents. Clearly, this can skew government decision making since we've become so dependent on them for employment and income from them. The biggest problem is this. If our governments are basically being run by people who are looking after the interests of business rather that of their citizens then everybody loses. If governments are inefficient or even bankrupt we have political/social unrest, if businesses hold too much sway then eventually they may one day end up running many government services. Something which is often unprofitable and probably wouldn't be the workeable in the long term. This is what everyone should keep in mind if we continue down the pure corporate path that some nations seems to be taking (I highly doubt an executive at a software company is going to be interested/skilled in running government and vice-versa). Everyone has a role to play...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/spain-esm-idUSL5N0EO2OV20130612
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e5df7096-d3f8-11e2-8639-00144feab7de.html
http://www.omfif.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monetary_and_Financial_Institutions_Forum
This is about getting what's best for everyone while still being able to maintain our belief and values that we work within a meritocracy. as long as they control our world what do we have to look forward to?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/13/ineffectual-g8-protests-stagnant-politics
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/06/01/306653/germany-prosperity-relies-on-rest-of-eu/
- If you can't change their behaviour change the system. The thing that needs to be explained here is that we don't really care how much a company makes as long as they pay a fair share of tax. They are dependent on us to make their income just as we are reliant on them for employment
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10117682/David-Cameron-must-intervene-in-Google-tax-row-says-Margaret-Hodge.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/04/david-cameron-tax-crackdown-g8
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/comment/318926
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/ben-bernanke-endorses-a-73-percent-tax-rate/
http://www.epi.org/publication/raising-income-taxes/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57587335-37/apple-owes-france-$6.5-million-in-unpaid-taxes/
http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/17510588/france-targets-multinationals-with-tax-rules-shake-up/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10040464/IMF-tells-Greece-to-step-up-fight-on-tax-evasion.html
- the problem is that "protected" industries don't learn to adapt and change to suit the circumstances. For instance, for a long while now local car companies have insisted on making large cars even though the trend is clearly moving towards smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. The concern is that the more "protection" you have the more likely it is that you become complacent, don't adapt to modernisation, global best practices, or become overly dependent on government subsidies
http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=874831
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carmaker-knew-end-had-come-two-years-ago/story-fn59niix-1226658124392
- focus on 'real value' in products. Not just incremental changes but substantial improvements over current science technology. Incremental improvements provide easy sales when there is a relatively solid, known market. To make real gains you need to be bold and innovative
- states don't need to take advice from the European administration but they need to heed the warnings and realise that in many cases there is a lot of expertise and help available from within the union should they require. Moreover, it's clear much of Europe looking at similar problems with regards to dealing with excessive debt... States could learn from one another's experiences... To deal with the credibility issue, have three levels national review, European review, and private review (similar to the methodolgy envisaged for bank supervision by Mario Draghi)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_property_bubble
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/13/hollande-french-pensions-system-overhaul
http://www.hrreporter.com/articleview/18214-workers-in-france-should-pay-into-pensions-for-longer-panel
http://www.thelocal.fr/20130614/eu-orders-france-to-reform-pensions-and-jobs-market
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324688404578545692498519664.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-12/hollande-to-ask-french-to-work-more-as-pension-deficit-balloons.html
Too strict/loose with regards to healthcare contributions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensions_in_France
http://www.cleiss.fr/docs/regimes/regime_france/an_3.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_in_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France
If you look hard enough you'll notice that the solutions are already provided by those who are already in the industry already. Need to factor in the zoom in/zoom out issue. All you have to do is ask the people in question what is wrong with the system and it's more than likely that they'll already have the answer for you
- it seems as though there is endless complaints about how slow the change takes to complete within the union. This is true but they also need to realise that it still isn't a "superstate" as yet and is unlikely to be so in the near future unless structural of philosophical changes occur
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-06-04/draghi-covets-bank-clean-up-as-ecb-weighs-fix-to-loan-drought
http://www.breakingviews.com/hugo-dixon-why-draghi-likes-london/21087903.article
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/colm-mccarthy-us-puts-europe-to-shame-in-dealing-with-recession-29313937.html
- someday I'd love to have a future in which money is no longer relevant and we can basically do whatever we want with our lives but as it stands we have to make do with what we have. Altering the system to suit our needs rather than working with a system that serves only a small minority must surely be in the best interests of everyone?
http://www.social-europe.eu/2013/03/germany-has-created-an-accidental-empire/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/13/us-g8-russia-putin-idUSBRE95C18N20130613
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/singapore-censures-20-banks-for-attempts-to-rig-benchmark-rates.html
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/world-business/why-abenomics-will-work-20130411-2hmvh.html
http://www.icij.org/offshore/secret-files-expose-offshores-global-impact
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/05/frances-message-to-science-help-.html
http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21578656-germanys-vaunted-dual-education-system-its-latest-export-hit-ein-neuer-deal
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335479/Germany-recruit-British-apprentices-Work-study-offer-lure-brightest-youngsters.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10097303/Black-market-is-10pc-of-UK-economy-says-IEA.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/3/our-uncompetitive-economy/
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/407173/We-just-can-t-afford-the-welfare-bill-for-eurozone-migrants
http://manifest-europa.eu/allgemein/wir-sind-europa?lang=en
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21579456-if-europes-economies-are-recover-germany-must-start-lead-reluctant-hegemon
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/jun/12/european-union-laws-extractive-industries-payments
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Tourism_trends
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Tourism_statistics_at_regional_level
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/12/bond-bubble-threatens-financial-system
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/financial-services/eu-countries-disguising-true-financial-position-1.1427130
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Population_and_population_change_statistics
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/libor-scandal/10102025/London-threatened-by-plans-to-move-Libor-regulation-to-Paris.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-03/spain-s-crisis-fades-as-exports-lead-the-way.html
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/International_trade_by_enterprise_characteristics
http://www.social-europe.eu/2013/03/germany-has-created-an-accidental-empire/
http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-koo-the-entire-crisis-in-europe-started-with-a-big-ecb-bailout-of-germany-2012-6#ixzz1yIahXEli
http://www.social-europe.eu/2013/06/schroder-tells-france-to-assume-germanys-role-of-exploding-the-euro-area/
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/economy/europe-showdown-will-germany-affirm-ecbs-super-solution.html/?a=viewall
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/09/eurozone-crisis-debt-income-ratios
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/01/germany-champion-europe
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-01/van-rompuy-direction-of-budget-reforms-more-important.html
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/european-union-to-pave-way-for-class-actions-against-cartels/articleshow/20467305.cmshttp://theprodigalgreek.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/honey-i-shrunk-the-greeks/
http://qz.com/91617/portugal-is-poorer-today-than-at-the-start-of-the-century/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/06/how-much-blame-does-mervyn-king-deserve-for-britains-broken-economy/
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/mesynon/2013/06/why-william-hagues-red-card-plan-wont-work/
http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/17417763/eu-exit-would-put-britain-on-par-with-norway-danny-alexander/
- I think the debate regarding executive wages is a bit too simplistic. While a cap on bonuses makes sense there are many ways around this as is already been seen/discovered. In my version I would have a formula that is based on a combination of a multiple of the wage of the lowest full time employee plus a variation/combination of factors with regards to overall health of the company. If we can agree bounds on either end (includes everything such as basic wage, salary, bonus, package, incentives...) then we can ensure that they are paid a fair wage while still remaining globally competitive. Moreover, by adding in a time based factor for both performance during his time and a short period after he leaves it gives them greater incentive to work for the longer term benefit for the firm, proper handover procedures, developing a sucession plan and so on... Would like to see an end to so called "golden handshakes" (underperforming executives are sometimes paid enormous amounts for having their employment terminated early). It doesn't make sense to reward incompetence, sub-standard performance, etc...
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/475363/20130606/banker-bonus-executive-compensation-barclays-rbs-hsbc.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-10/most-banks-expect-salary-increases-to-offset-eu-bonus-cap.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-04/european-parliament-to-delay-vote-on-fund-manager-bonus-rules.html
Would only allow abnormally high renumeration where performance warrants. To deal with issue of massive bias of "institutional voters" would weight votes in such a way that voting rights of both retail and wholesale investors have an equal say. In abscence of vote, abstain.
- as I've stated here and elsewhere I think we hold ourselves back a lot of the time. I'd like to Europe (and the rest of the world) truly chase after
- European leadership need to be clear on what they are presenting to their people and why the changes that they are making are for the "greater good" (if they can't explain why this is the case though I question whether or not they are pursuing the right policy)? At the same time, they need to be representative of their interests. If they are having trouble with passing difficult changes then possibly consider extending term lengths? Think about pursuing a mix of more short term/easy win policies with more difficult medium to longer term structural changes? Other things they need to consider is that their reign is unlikely to last forever. It's possible that some of the changes that they make will not take effect until after they leave office. They might as well as well try to do the "right thing" while they have the chance.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1777699/Comment--Rudd,-Gillard-or-Abbott---Do-leaders-really-matter-
Moreover, it's not just what they say but how they say it as well. Try to explain to them that there basically is not alternative apart from reform. The type/level of reform can of course be negotiated but the other choice is to basically let the state go bankrupt and have chaos ensue. Moreover, what Europeans need to understand is that without reform their countries and Europe will cease to become relevant. Trade is trending down between many EU nations as is...
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/double-dutch-loopholes-get-multinationals-off-tax-hook-1.1411926
It would also help if respsonsibility for the dealing with the problem was better targted (though this has changed of late)...
- the European leadership have probably done a poor job in commmunicating why some of the measures were required, why they were necessary in order to achieve stability within the Eurozone, why existing the Eurozone would have been so dangerous, etc... An example of this is explaining the purpose of taxes within society (especially int the context of Greece). If you've never paid tax then it is unlikely that you will wan to pay it. After all, if you don't make use of social services why would you have any reason to use them? The most amusing explanation of this that I've come across would be the notion of a "TV Collector Man". If for generations someone regularly took your TV from your home you would gradually come to accept it but if this were suddenly imposed upon you you would consider it a form of theivery.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/10099326/Theres-a-worse-crisis-on-the-way-unless-we-get-serious-about-tackling-debt.html#disqus_thread
I think a better way to explain it to them is that without taxes the whole public sector would basically collapse.
- for every person who criticises the European leadership/Troika over some of the policies that they have pursued they need to ask themselves just exactly what would they have done in the same circumstances. Very few people are trained/qualified to run a large company, fewer still countries, and possibly no one who has a career/history in dealing with bankrupt states.
- labour mobility has been an option outlined here an elsewhere as a means of dealing with the employment crisis. One thing I've been wondering is whether or not there should be "core languages" that should be taught across the union? Based on what I know many countries already teach secondary languages to students as part of their education systems so implementation shouldn't be too foreign to member states...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b210ec48-ca1d-11e2-af47-00144feab7de.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/06/12/eurozone_internal_migration.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/10097363/Come-to-Germany-to-work-and-find-love-British-are-told.html
- I think that while the protesters from the "Occupy/Blockupy" movements have clear grievances they'll never gain traction unless they clarify their message, attempt to come up with a solutions to the problems that they are describing, or possibly even attempt to change the system from within?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/europe-a-leaning-tower-of_b_3366506.html
http://www.thetrumpet.com/article/10697.19.0.0/economy/thousands-protest-austerity-in-europe
http://www.thetrumpet.com/article/10611.29392.0.0/world/government/europes-unemployed-an-army-waiting-for-a-leader
http://www.iol.co.za/business/international/all-the-people-in-europe-will-demonstrate-1.1525639
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10093485/Scuffles-as-Germany-pushes-back-against-austerity.html
- budget for European administration is huge. Should look at savings within union structure itself and devolve savings back into countries that are in trouble. Are we sure we need so many MEPs? Should we consider a freeze on wage increases/hiring? Consolidate to a single base in Brussels or else reduce the importance of other locations (savings of several hundred million per year possible apparently)? Increased savings through better use of technology to flesh out details of major European policy before meetings occur? Currently, discussions are getting strung out for too long...
http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/infocentre/faqs.html
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/0081ddfaa4/MEPs.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament
http://www.euractiv.com/future-eu/salaries-eu-officials-increase-n-news-516759
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/9696232/David-Cameron-Eurocrats-must-accept-cuts-to-pay-and-perks.html
http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/should-we-feel-sorry-for-underpaid-eu.html
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/content/20121211FCS04528/8/html/Would-you-prefer-to-be-EU-or-UK-civil-servant
- are they banks being realistic in attemping to get some bad assets off of their balance sheets? Even in better economic conditions it's clear that it will take some time before they can get rid of these assets. Should they just accept that they will take the a hit to their earnings in the short term? Should we give banks in the weaker countries more/less time to deal with their problems (basically giving them a temporary competitive ad/disadvantage/setting up a regulatory arbitrage situation)?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323734304578542262346050342.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/54e9beea-d0ef-11e2-be7b-00144feab7de.html
http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=29534
- I don't see the EU as just a trade block. I see it as much more than that. In the future I see a multi-polar world prevailing and it is likely that Europe become be a part of it (as long as it is able to deal with it's present problems). These trade blocks will form the basis for sharing of burdens and responsibilities for global issues and these blocks will act in the interests of all nations within that block as well as the interests of that particular block within the world. Basically, the notion of notion of nationally based superpowers will have far less of an impact if these blocks are able to maintain solidarity.
- it's clear that the Eurozone has sort of stablised (there's still clearly a lot of other clean up work occurring especially with regards to the banking sector).
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-europe-austerity-20130615,0,2953904.story
http://www.euronews.com/2013/06/14/growth-the-key-in-europe-says-portuguese-president/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/even-greece-sees-light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel/story-e6frg8zx-1226664130435
http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/cyprus-signs-100m-loan-agreement-eib/20130531
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Commentary+Italian+showdown+with+Germany+over+eurozone+looms/8517825/story.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-04/draghi-covets-bank-clean-up-as-ecb-weighs-fix-to-loan-dro.html
This means that instead of having to focus our resources on stabilising we can focus more on the process of using it to stimulate growth. From now on (whereever possible), I propose that every single dollar that can be saved at the European or nation level will be counter-blanced by funds for the direct funding growth initiatives such as developpment of businesses, better infrastructure (problem is that most infrastructure in Europe is reasonably modern and well integrated. Not too many projects that would be major game changers (energy sector and perhaps better integration of transportation/logistics with states that are newly entering the union to facilitate trade), etc... in troubled states? Would like to see greater input/discussion from various stakeholders on what they believe to be imperative to future of Europe...), etc...
http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/strategy/60283-will-maths-help-solve-melbourne%E2%80%99s-transport-problems?
http://www.dw.de/strikes-paralyze-rail-system-in-france/a-16877911
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130613/opinion/The-lessons-from-Greece.473645
http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/17462432/france-ireland-eyeing-submarine-power-cable-link/
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/energy-linkup-to-france-proposed-29315855.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-11/croatia-joins-greece-italy-to-push-for-europe-caspian-gas-link.html
- unrealistic that we abolish tax havens, etc... in the near term but we can at least reduce the spread (especially with regards to exceptionally low corporate tax rates). This will allow these countries to maintain their deposits/competitive advantage but we could use these funds/savings to help deal with some of the more troubled states where possible...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/opinion/a-chance-to-do-better-on-greece.html
- Europe really needs to look hard at itself. Figure out what it's citizens want with regards to welfare, what it can pay for, and how much they are willing to pay in order to get these particular services. I recall high income professionals in parts of Europe who were paying atrociously high tax rates to the point where I often wondered whether there was a point of diminishing returns...
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-an-abbott-government-may-run-the-economy-20130611-2o1yz.html
http://www.finance.gov.au/archive/archive-of-publications/ncoa/coaintro.htm
That's the basis from which I think we should be thinking about cuts, not necessarily just cutting without necessarily understanding the real world implications... which brings me to the next point. I think there may be a slight disconnect between what they are feeling and what is actually happening on the ground. Recently, a few local politicians tried living on welfare benefits for a short period of time to see what is was like. I challenge some members of the European leadership to do the same. Figure out just how far you can push without taking people "over the edge" and don't be afraid of rolling back changes if they don't have the desired effect.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/09/bedroom-tax-huge-problems-worse
http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/scotland-22886745
- I think sometimes European states think about the problem of dealing with their deficits too simplistically. Sometimes it seems as though they just think about cuts and revenue raising through increased taxes (aware that this is not always the case). Europe shouldn't be afraid fund businesses directly or help companies grow larger... if they are successful that means that the size of their tax base instantly increases (of course starting a business is never easy)
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Business_economy_-_size_class_analysis
http://www.euro2day.gr/ftcom_en/article-ft-en/1103190/uk-funding-for-lending-scheme-fails-to-spur-credit.html
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/germany-prepares-development-bank-aid-for-portugal-spain/28547
http://www.ibtimes.com/french-airport-strikes-could-expand-10-eu-nations-wednesday-1302811
http://www.euronews.com/2013/06/12/french-air-traffic-control-strike-2013-latest-news
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/chaos-across-europe-as-french-air-traffic-controllers-ground-flights-1.1426321
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/6/13/renewable-energy/europe-must-act-make-green-desert-project-work-desertec-head
- one of the things I've found interesting when looking at various statistics regarding Europe is how disperse the spread is with regards to the size of businesses and also the size of government spending/taxation in relation to overall GDP. What's noticeable is how healthier econonomies tend to spread the load more evenly across the private/public sector as well as across businesses of varying sizes...
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Business_economy_-_size_class_analysis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.CON.GOVT.ZS
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/13/coalitions-austerity-reality-british-politics
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130613/opinion/The-lessons-from-Greece.473645
- capitalism and other social models in my mind are simply a highly evolved version of Darwinism within the framework of human behaviour which is then overlaid upon a series of theoretical manifestations which allow us to live in a relatively harmonious fashion. However, over time it's become clear that huge abberations/distortions have occurred which have led to a skew in the overall ecosystem which have meant that system needs to be altered. We've hit the point at which MNC/TNC powers have almost superceded that of countries and perhaps even continents. Clearly, this can skew government decision making since we've become so dependent on them for employment and income from them. The biggest problem is this. If our governments are basically being run by people who are looking after the interests of business rather that of their citizens then everybody loses. If governments are inefficient or even bankrupt we have political/social unrest, if businesses hold too much sway then eventually they may one day end up running many government services. Something which is often unprofitable and probably wouldn't be the workeable in the long term. This is what everyone should keep in mind if we continue down the pure corporate path that some nations seems to be taking (I highly doubt an executive at a software company is going to be interested/skilled in running government and vice-versa). Everyone has a role to play...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/spain-esm-idUSL5N0EO2OV20130612
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e5df7096-d3f8-11e2-8639-00144feab7de.html
http://www.omfif.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monetary_and_Financial_Institutions_Forum
This is about getting what's best for everyone while still being able to maintain our belief and values that we work within a meritocracy. as long as they control our world what do we have to look forward to?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/13/ineffectual-g8-protests-stagnant-politics
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/06/01/306653/germany-prosperity-relies-on-rest-of-eu/
- If you can't change their behaviour change the system. The thing that needs to be explained here is that we don't really care how much a company makes as long as they pay a fair share of tax. They are dependent on us to make their income just as we are reliant on them for employment
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10117682/David-Cameron-must-intervene-in-Google-tax-row-says-Margaret-Hodge.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/04/david-cameron-tax-crackdown-g8
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/comment/318926
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/ben-bernanke-endorses-a-73-percent-tax-rate/
http://www.epi.org/publication/raising-income-taxes/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57587335-37/apple-owes-france-$6.5-million-in-unpaid-taxes/
http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/17510588/france-targets-multinationals-with-tax-rules-shake-up/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10040464/IMF-tells-Greece-to-step-up-fight-on-tax-evasion.html
- the problem is that "protected" industries don't learn to adapt and change to suit the circumstances. For instance, for a long while now local car companies have insisted on making large cars even though the trend is clearly moving towards smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. The concern is that the more "protection" you have the more likely it is that you become complacent, don't adapt to modernisation, global best practices, or become overly dependent on government subsidies
http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=874831
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carmaker-knew-end-had-come-two-years-ago/story-fn59niix-1226658124392
- focus on 'real value' in products. Not just incremental changes but substantial improvements over current science technology. Incremental improvements provide easy sales when there is a relatively solid, known market. To make real gains you need to be bold and innovative
- states don't need to take advice from the European administration but they need to heed the warnings and realise that in many cases there is a lot of expertise and help available from within the union should they require. Moreover, it's clear much of Europe looking at similar problems with regards to dealing with excessive debt... States could learn from one another's experiences... To deal with the credibility issue, have three levels national review, European review, and private review (similar to the methodolgy envisaged for bank supervision by Mario Draghi)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_property_bubble
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/13/hollande-french-pensions-system-overhaul
http://www.hrreporter.com/articleview/18214-workers-in-france-should-pay-into-pensions-for-longer-panel
http://www.thelocal.fr/20130614/eu-orders-france-to-reform-pensions-and-jobs-market
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324688404578545692498519664.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-12/hollande-to-ask-french-to-work-more-as-pension-deficit-balloons.html
Too strict/loose with regards to healthcare contributions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensions_in_France
http://www.cleiss.fr/docs/regimes/regime_france/an_3.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_in_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France
If you look hard enough you'll notice that the solutions are already provided by those who are already in the industry already. Need to factor in the zoom in/zoom out issue. All you have to do is ask the people in question what is wrong with the system and it's more than likely that they'll already have the answer for you
- it seems as though there is endless complaints about how slow the change takes to complete within the union. This is true but they also need to realise that it still isn't a "superstate" as yet and is unlikely to be so in the near future unless structural of philosophical changes occur
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-06-04/draghi-covets-bank-clean-up-as-ecb-weighs-fix-to-loan-drought
http://www.breakingviews.com/hugo-dixon-why-draghi-likes-london/21087903.article
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/colm-mccarthy-us-puts-europe-to-shame-in-dealing-with-recession-29313937.html
- someday I'd love to have a future in which money is no longer relevant and we can basically do whatever we want with our lives but as it stands we have to make do with what we have. Altering the system to suit our needs rather than working with a system that serves only a small minority must surely be in the best interests of everyone?
http://www.social-europe.eu/2013/03/germany-has-created-an-accidental-empire/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/13/us-g8-russia-putin-idUSBRE95C18N20130613
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/singapore-censures-20-banks-for-attempts-to-rig-benchmark-rates.html
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/world-business/why-abenomics-will-work-20130411-2hmvh.html
http://www.icij.org/offshore/secret-files-expose-offshores-global-impact
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/05/frances-message-to-science-help-.html
http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21578656-germanys-vaunted-dual-education-system-its-latest-export-hit-ein-neuer-deal
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335479/Germany-recruit-British-apprentices-Work-study-offer-lure-brightest-youngsters.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10097303/Black-market-is-10pc-of-UK-economy-says-IEA.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/3/our-uncompetitive-economy/
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/407173/We-just-can-t-afford-the-welfare-bill-for-eurozone-migrants
http://manifest-europa.eu/allgemein/wir-sind-europa?lang=en
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21579456-if-europes-economies-are-recover-germany-must-start-lead-reluctant-hegemon
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/jun/12/european-union-laws-extractive-industries-payments
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Tourism_trends
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Tourism_statistics_at_regional_level
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/12/bond-bubble-threatens-financial-system
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/financial-services/eu-countries-disguising-true-financial-position-1.1427130
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Population_and_population_change_statistics
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/libor-scandal/10102025/London-threatened-by-plans-to-move-Libor-regulation-to-Paris.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-03/spain-s-crisis-fades-as-exports-lead-the-way.html
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/International_trade_by_enterprise_characteristics
http://www.social-europe.eu/2013/03/germany-has-created-an-accidental-empire/
http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-koo-the-entire-crisis-in-europe-started-with-a-big-ecb-bailout-of-germany-2012-6#ixzz1yIahXEli
http://www.social-europe.eu/2013/06/schroder-tells-france-to-assume-germanys-role-of-exploding-the-euro-area/
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/economy/europe-showdown-will-germany-affirm-ecbs-super-solution.html/?a=viewall
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/09/eurozone-crisis-debt-income-ratios
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/01/germany-champion-europe
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-01/van-rompuy-direction-of-budget-reforms-more-important.html
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/european-union-to-pave-way-for-class-actions-against-cartels/articleshow/20467305.cmshttp://theprodigalgreek.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/honey-i-shrunk-the-greeks/
http://qz.com/91617/portugal-is-poorer-today-than-at-the-start-of-the-century/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/06/how-much-blame-does-mervyn-king-deserve-for-britains-broken-economy/
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Europe's Road Towards Regrowth - Part 3
This post is obviously a continuation of some work in my 'Convergence' report as well as some other blog posts.
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/europes-road-towards-regrowth.html
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/bailing-in-european-style-part-2.html
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/europes-road-towards-regrowth-continued.html
It's clear that things have stabilised but we need to get things back into growth mode. Let's examine some of the options:
- let's start to tax companies/individuals properly. This means that we either create incentives to keep money onshore or else change laws so that they they apply on-shore. Long term incentives for us to do this internaionally especially with the advent of globalisation, low/tax free havens, and the increasingly important role of online commerce.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/23/have-u-s-states-figured-out-a-way-to-avoid-a-global-race-to-the-bottom-on-taxes/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-apples-us-revenue-should-be-taxed/2013/05/28/97ca9fa4-c7c6-11e2-9245-773c0123c027_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/130527/the-fight-against-poverty-and-inequality-we-are-all-to
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/gates-on-tax-giving-his-kids-only-10m--and-still-doing-the-dishes-20130528-2n9od.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/business/global/european-union-leaders-meet-on-tax-avoidance.html?_r=0
http://www.smh.com.au/business/island-allure-the-tax-secrets-of-big-business-20130524-2k6u6.html
Make life easier for everyone by making tax laws simpler particularly for larger firms. Maintain tax neutral position when compared to now if possible.
http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/technology/60062-apple%E2%80%99s-tim-cook-opens-up-%E2%80%93-a-little-%E2%80%93-at-conference
- it's clear that banks either don't want to loan, don't have the ability to loan, etc... I've been considering a joint temporary (or even permanent) venture overseen by ECB but with joint funding by both the private sector as well as the ECB? It would allow the ECB to figure out the logistics of setting up and running the SSM and would also allow basically allow people to start afresh if they want to (without the burden of existing bank loans/assets). It would focus in on 'bang for buck' projects and loans specifically to in relation to the SME sector.
- there are a lot of international deadlocks over various issues particularly in the trading area. Try to get them settled (whether through private negotiations, holding off temporarily) or work your way around them.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g_4kx4e4b1U3j5zOcO7ChObzExLQ?docId=CNG.7424e56f0d6977f7f54c608f1068f396.1f1
- continue to try to spread the load so that we are no longer so dependent on banks and the ECB to return to growth. Something else that we should consider is increasing the size of the (access allowed to both retail and wholesale investors) corporate loan/bond market to share greater burden for capital raising. We may need to consider foreign ownership/takeover rules here? as it's likely that at least in the short to medium term those who provide the capital are going to come from overseas
- figure out how much further debt can be forgiven realistically and and will produce the intended impact or otherwise
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1466511-markets-ignore-eurozone-s-only-choice-and-growth-isn-t-it
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/keynes-never-met-the-euro-zone/article12108450/?cmpid=rss1
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h7qaTR9LkOJoSl2rvbbz50_WjZIw?docId=CNG.d09f12ec48d5105b6215da9848f6ec95.191
- continue work on banking union and bank resolution/consolidations (recapitalisation those that are able to continue and are relatively healthy, wind up those that are have little chance of medium/longer term surivial, divide them, etc...). Attempt to increase standardisation of banking practices (risk management/mitigation, etc...)? Does the ECB come up with measures? clear that they already have systems in place? Use them as the basis to work with industry and create new standards?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/business/global/risk-of-bank-failures-rising-in-europe-ecb-warns.html
http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/study_exposes_major_flaws_in_case_against_chinese_solar_duties_2356
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/mikeshedlock/2013/05/14/paul-krugman-was-right-n1594150
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-08/eu-said-to-plan-tariffs-of-up-to-67-dot-9-percent-on-chinese-solar-panels
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/tough-reforms-a-must-says-draghi-if-eurozone-is-to-recover/story-fnawdwo8-1226636454132
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/euro-zone-banks-assets-to-undergo-evaluation-20130507-01035
http://www.euractiv.com/euro-finance/eu-leaders-prepare-tackle-tax-ha-news-519618
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/04/15/let-banks-fail-to-save-taxpayers-merkel/
- continue to/crack down harder on crime and money laundering (aware of the difficulty of this)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/29/net-us-cybercrime-libertyreserve-charges-idUSBRE94R0KQ20130529
- try to look for opportunities or areas where bringing back work to Europe actually makes more sense. Outsourcing makes sense but only up to a particular point. Logistical, transportation, geographical, and other issues all play an important part.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/01/is-u-s-manufacturing-set-for-a-comeback-or-is-it-all-hype/
- consider limited Quantitative Easing? Problem always seems to be how and when to exit smoothly, whether to exit at all, whether you are merely creating an asset bubble and so on?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/29/oecd-eurozone-idUSL5N0EA12N20130529
- massive stimulus just the the Japanese recently announced? Problem is that you could just ending up debt on top of more debt without it having any impact. It should be obvious that the thing that I'm trying to achieve with some of the measures here (and in some of my previous posts) is basically ensuring that any stimulus that is injected into the economy actually makes an impact and has an impact quickly.
- I don't support Tobin tax in current form as it basically penalises the financial sector for simply existing. Other options may be coming down harder on insider trading and market manipulation. This would include both individuals as well as organisations where these individuals actually. If not substantial fines then equity in the company which can be sold off, etc... Something else that I've been considering is something called I call a, 'considered risk tax'. Basically, it is generally accepted that rates of return are generally directly correlated to the level of risk with regards to the investment in question. If there are excessive profits or losses this means that in all likelihood they would have taken on some extra risk. This should form the basis/crux for the new tax. It avoids penalising the sector, maintains liquidity, but it also means that people will have to think twice before taking on likely speculative investments.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f8c32b06-c2de-11e2-9bcb-00144feab7de.html
Need to avoid taking the bottom out of venture capital market though where massive gains/losses are possible.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/livingsocial-cuts-operating-losses-in-half-from-a-year-ago/2013/04/26/73d19200-ae7c-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story.html?tid=pm_pop
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/05/save-the-bankers/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=save-the-bankers
If they still want to try it though, try in on a small group of voluntary countries to see the impact?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10023202/Financial-Transaction-Tax-may-add-to-eurozones-debt-woes.html
- Eurobonds/debt sharing once the banking union/supervisor is in place?
http://www.euractiv.com/euro-finance/merkel-eurobonds-lifetime-news-513581
http://www.gulf-times.com/opinion/189/details/352340/a-debt-pooling-scheme-key-to-eurozone%E2%80%99s-survival
- something I've been interested in for a while now is watching the spread between retail interest rate and the official interest rate from the central bank. What I'm curious about is whether or not we can somehoe change our laws so that we can basically force banks to pass on the saving more effectively or less so. Essentially a rule which says that if the official rate is x% the minimum that you should pass on the end client (x+y)% If we can change the amount of y% across the union we effectively have different levels of interest rates? Obvious questions relating to legality, interference, whether this would make some bank operations unprofitable, etc... Need more thought on this...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/breaking-news/accc-lowers-wholesale-broadband-prices/story-e6frg90f-1226653922669
This is obviously a means of manufacturing competitiveness within the union. Other ways could involve regulatory arbitrage, creative use of capital controls, trade barriers/controls, etc...
- in the past I've been thinking about regaining growth in the EU region by thinking about it in terms of competitiveness. Basically, if a country is more competitive than another then it has a better chance of exporting it's way out of trouble. To a certain extent we are seeing this trend come true. One of the things that has been noticeable is how some of the struggling EU countries have basically found that much of their growth has come down to trading with countries in 'emerging markets'. One of the questions that has recently been posed is how do you measure competitiveness though? Attempts have been made but should be obvious that price comes first, quality and reliability play a role, product support, and uniqueness of product/service offering as well all come into play. Ultimately, this means that as a consequence of national reforms (which may take time to filter down), or else stronger exports, over time price will play less and less of role which means that ultimately EU countries are going to become more competitive amongst one another and will increase trade within the region.
http://www.ibtimes.com/euro-zone-deficits-are-narrowing-thanks-lack-borrowing-sources-exports-north-america-asia-1274497
Internal devaluation, alteration of workplace relations, and other trade policies will largely achieve the same things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_devaluation
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/notes-on-internal-devaluation-wonkish/
http://www.social-europe.eu/2013/01/internal-devaluation-and-the-crisis-in-europe/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100020411/can-the-euro-be-saved-through-internal-devaluation-alone-and-at-what-political-cost/
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/employment/internal-devaluation-fails-to-have-desired-effect-on-prices-and-growth-1.3931
- would like to see if we can something about the intellectual property rights, counterfeiting, etc... in certain Asian countries. It's one thing for them to copy shirts, it's another to see a what seem to be near copies of military equipment, telecommunications equipment, etc... rolling off the production line. Take the issue to the WTO or else implement measures so that local companies are better protected. Ironically, both sides lose somewhat in this equation. The people who engage in counterfeiting often don't learn many of the lessons that can only be gained through trial and error, research and development, etc...
- said it before and I'll say it again the EU needs to be more pro-active with regards to the problems that they face. Part of the problem is that some countries don't seem to realise the seriousness of the situations that they face until it's too late. Compounded by the nature of the discussions/negotiations that often occur until the very last minute decisions sometimes end up being non-optimal. Break the job up into pieces if need be but just try to get the it done more swiftly, optimally...
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/eurozone-bank-deposits-shrink-in-possible-greek-cyprus-effect-ecb.aspx?pageID=238&nID=47883&NewsCatID=344
- be pro-active with regards to private debt. If you've spent enough time in the private sector you'll realise how lacking some businesses are with regards to managing their finances. I am aware of a program currently being run in Ireland which deals with exactly this particular issue (mainly to do with private property loans) and basically allows banks/individuals to renegotiate the deal so that the bank can recover as much as possible and the individual can afford the loan.
- something I've been asking myself for a while now (in the context of the Greek situation) is whether or not under the right circumstances low taxes are workeable over the long term. If people are basically taking care of themselves in a cash economy than technically it should work provided they never introduce too large of a burden on the state, the state never over-borrows, etc... I guess it's a question of macro-economic management/planning. It may also mean that during times of low employment and stress any problems are magnified though. For instance, welfare would have to support a larger group of unemployed people or else you would have to reduce the number of people who were eligible for welfare. You'd likely have to store some money away for 'rainy day' but obviously, the since the tax base would be so much smaller you may have to raise it on those individuals/organisations that do actually pay proper amounts of tax.
- one of things I've learnt while working on my 'Cloud and Internet Security' report (a few weeks should do it) is how certain countries under sanction have managed to harden their economies and have become self sufficient to a certain extent. Let's assume that the union is able to basically sustain itself without too much external input then technically if they are still relatively competitive globally they can partially shut down external trade and trade themselves out of trouble internally. This will allow them to eventually open up down the line and gain the benefits of globalisation without necessarily having to deal with a 'massive shock' that they would otherwise incur. One area in particular where they could/should think about this is with regards to their energy infrastructure. If there were a massive grid within the EU the countries in a stronger position could basically use their better positions to invest in greener (or even standard) power generation technologies (with subsidies from the weaker countries). Energy could be shared (especially during off peak times) to supplement those countries with less advanced infrastructure. Else, simply trade energy like other commodities. A switchable network that will purchase power from the cheapest/most available power network within the union to another... This will reduce costs of manufacturing through reduced cost of energy production.
- one of the things I've noticed about the EU is that a lot of work is done which is probably non-critical and probably costs more than it should if it were done at a national level. Hold off on non-critical work and shut it down and divolve these powers in these circumstances?
- have been thinking about the parallel currency thing for a while. Have been thinking that if several entering nations are re-considering their desire or holding off on joining the Eurozone, want to be part of the EU, but want to be part of a monetary union they possibly start one with the other members who are in the same situation entering the Eurozone especially if we can't get the Eurozone stablished and growing once more within a reasonable time frame...
- interesting studies/articles on the logistics of leaving the union
http://blogs.reuters.com/macroscope/2013/05/28/why-a-german-exit-from-the-euro-zone-would-be-disastrous-even-for-germany/
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49885367
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/14cbb94e-1ebb-11e2-b906-00144feabdc0.html
http://research.nordeamarkets.com/en/files/Euroskenaariot_10102012.pdf
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49885367
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100714306
- we need multiple plans for growth and to provide us with a better idea of where the EU is headed. Possibly multiple plans one short (1-3), another medium (4-7), another longer (8-?)... The reason why I'm saying is that it's clear that the impact of some measures will take longer to filter down (education/training, direct stimulus to hire younger people, population growth, etc...) Moreover, it's fairly clear that some people are willing to work less or for lower wages, while others want a long term career in more advanced industries. I think we need to figure out just exactly where Europeans want to head with regards to this at both a continental as well as a national level. Thereafter, figure out how to achieve this and split our spending accordingly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/world/17109982/ebrd-considers-lifelines-for-small-business-in-emerging-europe/
http://global.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/world/europe/enrico-letta-italys-new-premier-puts-stimulus-first.html?ref=globalh
http://www.france24.com/en/20130529-eu-commission-tough-demands-french-economic-reform-spending
http://www.euractiv.com/future-eu/hollande-merkel-bid-bridge-divid-news-528143
- something which is already being done by banks is packaging lower quality loans and selling it. Need a demand/market for it though... Any way to encourage International investors to take the risk? or is it more likely that they will only take the bet if they believe that the union's issues have been resolved (which is generally the case. The way the union is currently structured doesn't allow for rapid decision making during crisis periods though...)?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578446713186211992.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-30/merkel-tells-hollande-reform-is-price-of-eu-deficit-extension.html
- would like to see greater pro-active work with regards to helping European nations out of their problems. I've previously stated that I'd like a closer examination of each state (SWOT style analysis which is actually done to a certain extent already by various bodies/consultancies) so that we could basically figure out where/how they fit into the union. Something else I'd like to see more work done on is a break down of exactly how they fit in with other union countries and the rest of the world. This would be similar to a risk analysis (and subsequent asset allocation) that is often conducted between private investors and financial advisors. In this case, it would occur at the national level. Depending on the state of their economy and the governments need/desire to maintain stability/grow we can then set about determining the best way forward with regards to controlled risk/investments. Curious to know what is the spending breakdown of a truly healthy economy is though?
- I believe in the benefits of globalisation (lower costs, better product, a unique solution, etc...) but only to a certain extent. I believe that there are certain industries that are critical to the functioning of every country and should be maintained locally (up until a certain point). These include food/agriculture, advanced research and development, manufacturing, construction, health, and defense. Some of these have to do with security, others quite simply because once you lose them it's likely going to take heavy subsidies to bring them back up once they are shut down. It also acts as a hedge (by providing stability) against international problems should they arise even if it may come at the cost of slightly lower growth rates over the medium/long term.
- further thought with regards to multi-tiered EU?
http://www.euractiv.com/euro-finance/barroso-lays-ambitious-vision-eu-news-516327
- been thinking about the workplace relations a bit. If you've ever been involved in a slow job market then you'll realise that there is sometimes very little choice in what you can do. Moreover, workers more often than not come off second best in any form of arbitration so I think our target should be to create as many jobs as we possibly can (I recall stories of my parents being able to get multiple job offers in a single day when they first arrived in Australia. This is almost un-imaginable now) so that workers have the chance to leave if they want to. Obviously, that's the ideal situation but otherwise it's a case of finding a balance between job security and worker rights.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/05/09/11/26/abbott-to-reveal-workplace-policy-today
- a local first policy? Part of the problem is that there just isn't the demand. Chicken and egg problem... Would banks be more willing to lend if there was a guarantee of local work though?
- ultimately, we need to realise that there is only so much that we can do. Even though the EU is a huge trade block it operates within the context of a very big world and is therefore subject to the same problems that the rest of the world has to deal with.
- I think the EU needs to take a better look at some of the industries that we are subsidising. The EU needs to make a genuine review/assessment of whether its geuninely worth defending/protecting, stopping, or else supporting expansion/export if the local market is too small for it to be genuinely profitable.
- I think it should be clear that a lot of what I'm trying to achieve here is attempting to spread the burden/risk of solving the problem of EU growth across as many sectors as possible. Basically, doing everything I possibly can to maximise the impact of any stimulus that we do spend so that it can result in 'real' (as opposed to growth that will only last as long as there is a supply of stimulus available).
- I think that something we should never lose sight of is that Europe should never lose it's character. Despite it's difficulties it should never lose sight of it's history, culture, identity and the way in which it fits in with the rest of the world. It truly is unique and I don't want it to see it end up being beholden to financial markets. Let's hope that we can achieve our goals of a prosperous and flourishing EU soon.
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/05/24/euro-zone-bonds-move-back-into-lock-step/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/business/global/the-city-of-london-as-savior-of-eu-finance.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/france-must-lead-breakup-of-euro.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/28/business/oecd-austerity-investment-trade/
http://www.dw.de/opinion-its-time-to-act-on-unemployment/a-16842196
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/28/us-germany-merkel-specialreport-idUSBRE94R07920130528
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/13/francois-hollande-tax-iphones-laptops
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/business/global/risk-of-bank-failures-rising-in-europe-ecb-warns.html
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-29/five-myths-about-europes-youth-unemployment-crisis
http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/business-it/knowledge-economy-needs-immigrants-20130412-2hq23.html
http://european-solidarity.eu/index.php
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/17275871/fed-reserve-suggests-quant-easing-for-eu-zone/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cfc2320-c154-11e2-9767-00144feab7de.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/brussels/2013/05/10/van-rompuy-follow-my-lead/
http://www.benzinga.com/news/13/05/3618606/eurozone-crisis-hinges-on-structural-reforms-says-draghi-and-weidmann
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/23/ecb-draghi-europe-banking-reform-must-include-agency-to-wind-down-busted-banks/
http://www.thelocal.de/national/20130525-49911.html
http://www.cyprus-mail.com/committee-inquiry/sarris-our-credibility-was-below-zero/20130516
http://www.france24.com/en/20130526-france-leads-doubters-eu-us-free-trade-deal
http://www.dailyprogress.com/opinion/guest_columnists/general-welfare-spending-out-of-control-in-united-states/article_dfaff72c-c4b7-11e2-90ae-001a4bcf6878.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10056809/UK-faces-12bn-cost-for-totally-useless-EU-bank-crisis-fund.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10077166/Europe-needs-Britain-says-ECB-president-Mario-Draghi.html
http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/columns/fullermoney-markets/13000/bloomberg-part-1-save-europe-split-the-euro--13000.html
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/17333796/single-bank-watchdog-becomes-mammoth-project-for-ecb/
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/html/index.en.html
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/fsr/html/index.en.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/15/us-eu-trade-deal-monsanto-crops
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-china-doesnt-need-the-world-2013-05-14
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/europes-road-towards-regrowth.html
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/bailing-in-european-style-part-2.html
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/europes-road-towards-regrowth-continued.html
It's clear that things have stabilised but we need to get things back into growth mode. Let's examine some of the options:
- let's start to tax companies/individuals properly. This means that we either create incentives to keep money onshore or else change laws so that they they apply on-shore. Long term incentives for us to do this internaionally especially with the advent of globalisation, low/tax free havens, and the increasingly important role of online commerce.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/23/have-u-s-states-figured-out-a-way-to-avoid-a-global-race-to-the-bottom-on-taxes/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-apples-us-revenue-should-be-taxed/2013/05/28/97ca9fa4-c7c6-11e2-9245-773c0123c027_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/130527/the-fight-against-poverty-and-inequality-we-are-all-to
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/gates-on-tax-giving-his-kids-only-10m--and-still-doing-the-dishes-20130528-2n9od.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/business/global/european-union-leaders-meet-on-tax-avoidance.html?_r=0
http://www.smh.com.au/business/island-allure-the-tax-secrets-of-big-business-20130524-2k6u6.html
Make life easier for everyone by making tax laws simpler particularly for larger firms. Maintain tax neutral position when compared to now if possible.
http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/technology/60062-apple%E2%80%99s-tim-cook-opens-up-%E2%80%93-a-little-%E2%80%93-at-conference
- it's clear that banks either don't want to loan, don't have the ability to loan, etc... I've been considering a joint temporary (or even permanent) venture overseen by ECB but with joint funding by both the private sector as well as the ECB? It would allow the ECB to figure out the logistics of setting up and running the SSM and would also allow basically allow people to start afresh if they want to (without the burden of existing bank loans/assets). It would focus in on 'bang for buck' projects and loans specifically to in relation to the SME sector.
- there are a lot of international deadlocks over various issues particularly in the trading area. Try to get them settled (whether through private negotiations, holding off temporarily) or work your way around them.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g_4kx4e4b1U3j5zOcO7ChObzExLQ?docId=CNG.7424e56f0d6977f7f54c608f1068f396.1f1
- continue to try to spread the load so that we are no longer so dependent on banks and the ECB to return to growth. Something else that we should consider is increasing the size of the (access allowed to both retail and wholesale investors) corporate loan/bond market to share greater burden for capital raising. We may need to consider foreign ownership/takeover rules here? as it's likely that at least in the short to medium term those who provide the capital are going to come from overseas
- figure out how much further debt can be forgiven realistically and and will produce the intended impact or otherwise
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1466511-markets-ignore-eurozone-s-only-choice-and-growth-isn-t-it
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/keynes-never-met-the-euro-zone/article12108450/?cmpid=rss1
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h7qaTR9LkOJoSl2rvbbz50_WjZIw?docId=CNG.d09f12ec48d5105b6215da9848f6ec95.191
- continue work on banking union and bank resolution/consolidations (recapitalisation those that are able to continue and are relatively healthy, wind up those that are have little chance of medium/longer term surivial, divide them, etc...). Attempt to increase standardisation of banking practices (risk management/mitigation, etc...)? Does the ECB come up with measures? clear that they already have systems in place? Use them as the basis to work with industry and create new standards?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/business/global/risk-of-bank-failures-rising-in-europe-ecb-warns.html
http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/study_exposes_major_flaws_in_case_against_chinese_solar_duties_2356
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/mikeshedlock/2013/05/14/paul-krugman-was-right-n1594150
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-08/eu-said-to-plan-tariffs-of-up-to-67-dot-9-percent-on-chinese-solar-panels
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/tough-reforms-a-must-says-draghi-if-eurozone-is-to-recover/story-fnawdwo8-1226636454132
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/euro-zone-banks-assets-to-undergo-evaluation-20130507-01035
http://www.euractiv.com/euro-finance/eu-leaders-prepare-tackle-tax-ha-news-519618
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/04/15/let-banks-fail-to-save-taxpayers-merkel/
- continue to/crack down harder on crime and money laundering (aware of the difficulty of this)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/29/net-us-cybercrime-libertyreserve-charges-idUSBRE94R0KQ20130529
- try to look for opportunities or areas where bringing back work to Europe actually makes more sense. Outsourcing makes sense but only up to a particular point. Logistical, transportation, geographical, and other issues all play an important part.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/01/is-u-s-manufacturing-set-for-a-comeback-or-is-it-all-hype/
- consider limited Quantitative Easing? Problem always seems to be how and when to exit smoothly, whether to exit at all, whether you are merely creating an asset bubble and so on?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/29/oecd-eurozone-idUSL5N0EA12N20130529
- massive stimulus just the the Japanese recently announced? Problem is that you could just ending up debt on top of more debt without it having any impact. It should be obvious that the thing that I'm trying to achieve with some of the measures here (and in some of my previous posts) is basically ensuring that any stimulus that is injected into the economy actually makes an impact and has an impact quickly.
- I don't support Tobin tax in current form as it basically penalises the financial sector for simply existing. Other options may be coming down harder on insider trading and market manipulation. This would include both individuals as well as organisations where these individuals actually. If not substantial fines then equity in the company which can be sold off, etc... Something else that I've been considering is something called I call a, 'considered risk tax'. Basically, it is generally accepted that rates of return are generally directly correlated to the level of risk with regards to the investment in question. If there are excessive profits or losses this means that in all likelihood they would have taken on some extra risk. This should form the basis/crux for the new tax. It avoids penalising the sector, maintains liquidity, but it also means that people will have to think twice before taking on likely speculative investments.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f8c32b06-c2de-11e2-9bcb-00144feab7de.html
Need to avoid taking the bottom out of venture capital market though where massive gains/losses are possible.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/livingsocial-cuts-operating-losses-in-half-from-a-year-ago/2013/04/26/73d19200-ae7c-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story.html?tid=pm_pop
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/05/save-the-bankers/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=save-the-bankers
If they still want to try it though, try in on a small group of voluntary countries to see the impact?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10023202/Financial-Transaction-Tax-may-add-to-eurozones-debt-woes.html
- Eurobonds/debt sharing once the banking union/supervisor is in place?
http://www.euractiv.com/euro-finance/merkel-eurobonds-lifetime-news-513581
http://www.gulf-times.com/opinion/189/details/352340/a-debt-pooling-scheme-key-to-eurozone%E2%80%99s-survival
- something I've been interested in for a while now is watching the spread between retail interest rate and the official interest rate from the central bank. What I'm curious about is whether or not we can somehoe change our laws so that we can basically force banks to pass on the saving more effectively or less so. Essentially a rule which says that if the official rate is x% the minimum that you should pass on the end client (x+y)% If we can change the amount of y% across the union we effectively have different levels of interest rates? Obvious questions relating to legality, interference, whether this would make some bank operations unprofitable, etc... Need more thought on this...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/breaking-news/accc-lowers-wholesale-broadband-prices/story-e6frg90f-1226653922669
This is obviously a means of manufacturing competitiveness within the union. Other ways could involve regulatory arbitrage, creative use of capital controls, trade barriers/controls, etc...
- in the past I've been thinking about regaining growth in the EU region by thinking about it in terms of competitiveness. Basically, if a country is more competitive than another then it has a better chance of exporting it's way out of trouble. To a certain extent we are seeing this trend come true. One of the things that has been noticeable is how some of the struggling EU countries have basically found that much of their growth has come down to trading with countries in 'emerging markets'. One of the questions that has recently been posed is how do you measure competitiveness though? Attempts have been made but should be obvious that price comes first, quality and reliability play a role, product support, and uniqueness of product/service offering as well all come into play. Ultimately, this means that as a consequence of national reforms (which may take time to filter down), or else stronger exports, over time price will play less and less of role which means that ultimately EU countries are going to become more competitive amongst one another and will increase trade within the region.
http://www.ibtimes.com/euro-zone-deficits-are-narrowing-thanks-lack-borrowing-sources-exports-north-america-asia-1274497
Internal devaluation, alteration of workplace relations, and other trade policies will largely achieve the same things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_devaluation
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/notes-on-internal-devaluation-wonkish/
http://www.social-europe.eu/2013/01/internal-devaluation-and-the-crisis-in-europe/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100020411/can-the-euro-be-saved-through-internal-devaluation-alone-and-at-what-political-cost/
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/employment/internal-devaluation-fails-to-have-desired-effect-on-prices-and-growth-1.3931
- would like to see if we can something about the intellectual property rights, counterfeiting, etc... in certain Asian countries. It's one thing for them to copy shirts, it's another to see a what seem to be near copies of military equipment, telecommunications equipment, etc... rolling off the production line. Take the issue to the WTO or else implement measures so that local companies are better protected. Ironically, both sides lose somewhat in this equation. The people who engage in counterfeiting often don't learn many of the lessons that can only be gained through trial and error, research and development, etc...
- said it before and I'll say it again the EU needs to be more pro-active with regards to the problems that they face. Part of the problem is that some countries don't seem to realise the seriousness of the situations that they face until it's too late. Compounded by the nature of the discussions/negotiations that often occur until the very last minute decisions sometimes end up being non-optimal. Break the job up into pieces if need be but just try to get the it done more swiftly, optimally...
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/eurozone-bank-deposits-shrink-in-possible-greek-cyprus-effect-ecb.aspx?pageID=238&nID=47883&NewsCatID=344
- be pro-active with regards to private debt. If you've spent enough time in the private sector you'll realise how lacking some businesses are with regards to managing their finances. I am aware of a program currently being run in Ireland which deals with exactly this particular issue (mainly to do with private property loans) and basically allows banks/individuals to renegotiate the deal so that the bank can recover as much as possible and the individual can afford the loan.
- something I've been asking myself for a while now (in the context of the Greek situation) is whether or not under the right circumstances low taxes are workeable over the long term. If people are basically taking care of themselves in a cash economy than technically it should work provided they never introduce too large of a burden on the state, the state never over-borrows, etc... I guess it's a question of macro-economic management/planning. It may also mean that during times of low employment and stress any problems are magnified though. For instance, welfare would have to support a larger group of unemployed people or else you would have to reduce the number of people who were eligible for welfare. You'd likely have to store some money away for 'rainy day' but obviously, the since the tax base would be so much smaller you may have to raise it on those individuals/organisations that do actually pay proper amounts of tax.
- one of things I've learnt while working on my 'Cloud and Internet Security' report (a few weeks should do it) is how certain countries under sanction have managed to harden their economies and have become self sufficient to a certain extent. Let's assume that the union is able to basically sustain itself without too much external input then technically if they are still relatively competitive globally they can partially shut down external trade and trade themselves out of trouble internally. This will allow them to eventually open up down the line and gain the benefits of globalisation without necessarily having to deal with a 'massive shock' that they would otherwise incur. One area in particular where they could/should think about this is with regards to their energy infrastructure. If there were a massive grid within the EU the countries in a stronger position could basically use their better positions to invest in greener (or even standard) power generation technologies (with subsidies from the weaker countries). Energy could be shared (especially during off peak times) to supplement those countries with less advanced infrastructure. Else, simply trade energy like other commodities. A switchable network that will purchase power from the cheapest/most available power network within the union to another... This will reduce costs of manufacturing through reduced cost of energy production.
- one of the things I've noticed about the EU is that a lot of work is done which is probably non-critical and probably costs more than it should if it were done at a national level. Hold off on non-critical work and shut it down and divolve these powers in these circumstances?
- have been thinking about the parallel currency thing for a while. Have been thinking that if several entering nations are re-considering their desire or holding off on joining the Eurozone, want to be part of the EU, but want to be part of a monetary union they possibly start one with the other members who are in the same situation entering the Eurozone especially if we can't get the Eurozone stablished and growing once more within a reasonable time frame...
- interesting studies/articles on the logistics of leaving the union
http://blogs.reuters.com/macroscope/2013/05/28/why-a-german-exit-from-the-euro-zone-would-be-disastrous-even-for-germany/
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49885367
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/14cbb94e-1ebb-11e2-b906-00144feabdc0.html
http://research.nordeamarkets.com/en/files/Euroskenaariot_10102012.pdf
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49885367
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100714306
- we need multiple plans for growth and to provide us with a better idea of where the EU is headed. Possibly multiple plans one short (1-3), another medium (4-7), another longer (8-?)... The reason why I'm saying is that it's clear that the impact of some measures will take longer to filter down (education/training, direct stimulus to hire younger people, population growth, etc...) Moreover, it's fairly clear that some people are willing to work less or for lower wages, while others want a long term career in more advanced industries. I think we need to figure out just exactly where Europeans want to head with regards to this at both a continental as well as a national level. Thereafter, figure out how to achieve this and split our spending accordingly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/world/17109982/ebrd-considers-lifelines-for-small-business-in-emerging-europe/
http://global.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/world/europe/enrico-letta-italys-new-premier-puts-stimulus-first.html?ref=globalh
http://www.france24.com/en/20130529-eu-commission-tough-demands-french-economic-reform-spending
http://www.euractiv.com/future-eu/hollande-merkel-bid-bridge-divid-news-528143
- something which is already being done by banks is packaging lower quality loans and selling it. Need a demand/market for it though... Any way to encourage International investors to take the risk? or is it more likely that they will only take the bet if they believe that the union's issues have been resolved (which is generally the case. The way the union is currently structured doesn't allow for rapid decision making during crisis periods though...)?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578446713186211992.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-30/merkel-tells-hollande-reform-is-price-of-eu-deficit-extension.html
- would like to see greater pro-active work with regards to helping European nations out of their problems. I've previously stated that I'd like a closer examination of each state (SWOT style analysis which is actually done to a certain extent already by various bodies/consultancies) so that we could basically figure out where/how they fit into the union. Something else I'd like to see more work done on is a break down of exactly how they fit in with other union countries and the rest of the world. This would be similar to a risk analysis (and subsequent asset allocation) that is often conducted between private investors and financial advisors. In this case, it would occur at the national level. Depending on the state of their economy and the governments need/desire to maintain stability/grow we can then set about determining the best way forward with regards to controlled risk/investments. Curious to know what is the spending breakdown of a truly healthy economy is though?
- I believe in the benefits of globalisation (lower costs, better product, a unique solution, etc...) but only to a certain extent. I believe that there are certain industries that are critical to the functioning of every country and should be maintained locally (up until a certain point). These include food/agriculture, advanced research and development, manufacturing, construction, health, and defense. Some of these have to do with security, others quite simply because once you lose them it's likely going to take heavy subsidies to bring them back up once they are shut down. It also acts as a hedge (by providing stability) against international problems should they arise even if it may come at the cost of slightly lower growth rates over the medium/long term.
- further thought with regards to multi-tiered EU?
http://www.euractiv.com/euro-finance/barroso-lays-ambitious-vision-eu-news-516327
- been thinking about the workplace relations a bit. If you've ever been involved in a slow job market then you'll realise that there is sometimes very little choice in what you can do. Moreover, workers more often than not come off second best in any form of arbitration so I think our target should be to create as many jobs as we possibly can (I recall stories of my parents being able to get multiple job offers in a single day when they first arrived in Australia. This is almost un-imaginable now) so that workers have the chance to leave if they want to. Obviously, that's the ideal situation but otherwise it's a case of finding a balance between job security and worker rights.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/05/09/11/26/abbott-to-reveal-workplace-policy-today
- a local first policy? Part of the problem is that there just isn't the demand. Chicken and egg problem... Would banks be more willing to lend if there was a guarantee of local work though?
- ultimately, we need to realise that there is only so much that we can do. Even though the EU is a huge trade block it operates within the context of a very big world and is therefore subject to the same problems that the rest of the world has to deal with.
- I think the EU needs to take a better look at some of the industries that we are subsidising. The EU needs to make a genuine review/assessment of whether its geuninely worth defending/protecting, stopping, or else supporting expansion/export if the local market is too small for it to be genuinely profitable.
- I think it should be clear that a lot of what I'm trying to achieve here is attempting to spread the burden/risk of solving the problem of EU growth across as many sectors as possible. Basically, doing everything I possibly can to maximise the impact of any stimulus that we do spend so that it can result in 'real' (as opposed to growth that will only last as long as there is a supply of stimulus available).
- I think that something we should never lose sight of is that Europe should never lose it's character. Despite it's difficulties it should never lose sight of it's history, culture, identity and the way in which it fits in with the rest of the world. It truly is unique and I don't want it to see it end up being beholden to financial markets. Let's hope that we can achieve our goals of a prosperous and flourishing EU soon.
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/05/24/euro-zone-bonds-move-back-into-lock-step/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/business/global/the-city-of-london-as-savior-of-eu-finance.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/france-must-lead-breakup-of-euro.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/28/business/oecd-austerity-investment-trade/
http://www.dw.de/opinion-its-time-to-act-on-unemployment/a-16842196
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/28/us-germany-merkel-specialreport-idUSBRE94R07920130528
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/13/francois-hollande-tax-iphones-laptops
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/business/global/risk-of-bank-failures-rising-in-europe-ecb-warns.html
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-29/five-myths-about-europes-youth-unemployment-crisis
http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/business-it/knowledge-economy-needs-immigrants-20130412-2hq23.html
http://european-solidarity.eu/index.php
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/17275871/fed-reserve-suggests-quant-easing-for-eu-zone/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cfc2320-c154-11e2-9767-00144feab7de.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/brussels/2013/05/10/van-rompuy-follow-my-lead/
http://www.benzinga.com/news/13/05/3618606/eurozone-crisis-hinges-on-structural-reforms-says-draghi-and-weidmann
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/23/ecb-draghi-europe-banking-reform-must-include-agency-to-wind-down-busted-banks/
http://www.thelocal.de/national/20130525-49911.html
http://www.cyprus-mail.com/committee-inquiry/sarris-our-credibility-was-below-zero/20130516
http://www.france24.com/en/20130526-france-leads-doubters-eu-us-free-trade-deal
http://www.dailyprogress.com/opinion/guest_columnists/general-welfare-spending-out-of-control-in-united-states/article_dfaff72c-c4b7-11e2-90ae-001a4bcf6878.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10056809/UK-faces-12bn-cost-for-totally-useless-EU-bank-crisis-fund.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10077166/Europe-needs-Britain-says-ECB-president-Mario-Draghi.html
http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/columns/fullermoney-markets/13000/bloomberg-part-1-save-europe-split-the-euro--13000.html
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/17333796/single-bank-watchdog-becomes-mammoth-project-for-ecb/
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/html/index.en.html
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/fsr/html/index.en.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/15/us-eu-trade-deal-monsanto-crops
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-china-doesnt-need-the-world-2013-05-14
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Syrian Options
The Syrian uprising has ballooned into a catasrophe on many levels after several years of fighting and it shows no signs of abating. Let's explore some of the options available to us:
- attempt to negotiate a ceasefire. It's clear that this is unlikely to hold though. It also feels as though a lot of previous attempts have been disengenuous or have been used to stall, seeking better terms, etc... Believe that only if there is greater force applied will be hold (more on this later).
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/14/syria-wants-details-about-us-russian-initiative-before-deciding-whether-to/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/world/middleeast/syria-developments.html?_r=0
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2013/05/15/Is-it-a-peace-or-war-plan-for-Syria-.html
http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Syria/FinalCommuniqueActionGroupforSyria.pdf
- increased support for the rebellion. It's not entirely clear just what exactly we're supporting here (if concerned about longer term spread of weapons from conflict develop/consider stronger but limited lifetime weapons). It was previously a peaceful uprising but it has since turned into violence with the problem excerbated by foreign combantants and groups who share links with terrorist groups and have other interests besides that of the Syrian people. Violations and various atrocities (from both sides) need to be dealt with as well.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/syria-oppn-condemns-heart-eating-video/story-fn3dxix6-1226642510509http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/14/18244907-sheer-savagery-syrian-rebel-rips-out-soldiers-heart-human-rights-watch-says?lite
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/May-15/217157-syria-rebels-vow-to-punish-those-committing-atrocities.ashx
- attempt to negotiate a ceasefire. It's clear that this is unlikely to hold though. It also feels as though a lot of previous attempts have been disengenuous or have been used to stall, seeking better terms, etc... Believe that only if there is greater force applied will be hold (more on this later).
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/14/syria-wants-details-about-us-russian-initiative-before-deciding-whether-to/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/world/middleeast/syria-developments.html?_r=0
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2013/05/15/Is-it-a-peace-or-war-plan-for-Syria-.html
http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Syria/FinalCommuniqueActionGroupforSyria.pdf
- increased support for the rebellion. It's not entirely clear just what exactly we're supporting here (if concerned about longer term spread of weapons from conflict develop/consider stronger but limited lifetime weapons). It was previously a peaceful uprising but it has since turned into violence with the problem excerbated by foreign combantants and groups who share links with terrorist groups and have other interests besides that of the Syrian people. Violations and various atrocities (from both sides) need to be dealt with as well.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/syria-oppn-condemns-heart-eating-video/story-fn3dxix6-1226642510509http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/14/18244907-sheer-savagery-syrian-rebel-rips-out-soldiers-heart-human-rights-watch-says?lite
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/May-15/217157-syria-rebels-vow-to-punish-those-committing-atrocities.ashx
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/28/syrian-nerve-gas-claims-eyewitness
http://original.antiwar.com/srichman/2013/05/14/no-intervention-in-syria/
- direct and full intervention/invasion. We've seen Iraq/Afghanistan weren't clear cut and this one is probably going to be just as difficult if more so (how could we possibly make it any worse than it currently is?). It's also becoming clear that surrounding countries are already getting dragged in with regards to both the humantarian problem as well as the conflict itself with many of them being used as launchpads or support for military action in Syria itself. Invasion should be considered an option but only if all other options have been exhausted and have been proven to be unworthwhile.http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/05/15/turkey-hopes-to-convince-us-to-act-in-syria
- de-militarise the conflict. This means that no more (ANY) weapons whether are to be supplied to either side whether that means re-supply, fulfilling existing contracts, etc...
http://world.time.com/2013/05/14/putin-netanyahu-meet-to-discuss-syria/
Hopefully, this will also make both sides more amenable to genuine peace talks (clearly, will not work if one side continues to arm though).
- direct but limited intervention. One option that I've been considering is destroying all air-fields/military bases/large clusters of heavy weapons/artillery/munitions and so on, shutting down all borders inbound to Syria (not easy). This will result in a stalemate situation (especially if the neither side are continued to be supplied with weapons).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/13/six-ways-assad-has-turned-the-tide-in-syria/
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/30/179855633/c-j-chivers-on-the-ground-in-syria
Hopefully, this will also make both sides more amenable to genuine peace talks (clearly, will not work if one side continues to arm though). Another option that has been widely considered is targeted, direct action against regime leadership. There will of course be repercussions should this avenue be pursued...
- a pure peace keeping intervention? Long range strikes (as outlined in previous point) combined with an international, armed peace keeping ground force (rules of engagement mean that they their primary job will be to defend non combatants, themselves, and finally to maintain peace)? Peace keeping force must have clear agenda and provide prior warning. If there is any untoward activity they have a go ahead to use force to stop it whether that pertains to rebel or regime activity. It can not be stressed enough that this peace keeping force is not about joining in the conflict. It is about stopping it and getting back to normality as quickly as possible. Obvious problem is whether or not the fighting will simply start up again the minute the peace keeping force leaves?
- let them continue to fight it out until it's conclusion. Cynical but it also means that one side is likely to be a more complete victor which may result in a more stable long term situation.
- offer the current regime safe passage out. Unlikely to be accepted given some of the messages that have been sent out.
- don't bother trying to implement a ceasefire prior to creating a transition plan or running an election? If both sides can just maintain peace on their side of the conflict (clear lines of demarcation and buffer zones so that we can minimise break outs of fighting) while elections (obvious problems here especially vote those relating to 'tampering') are running perhaps we can figure out just exactly what the Syrian people actually want (this will also mean that we can disavow everyone of all possible doubt over what the desire of the actual Syrian population is). Who's in charge of running election? A combination of existing regime/rebels/neighbours with international observers? How can you when so many people are displaced (people in refugee camps in particular)? Require identification for them to participate while existing people can simply show up at polling booths. How much will displaced people skew the results of any potential election. Obvious questions are, whether they want existing regime or rebels to succeed? What should be the timeline going forward? How is normal life going to be restored? etc...
- break up of the country should be considered if it means a cessation of hostilities in spite of warnings.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/14/303424/iran-warns-against-syria-disintegration/
- half baked measures so far have proven unlikely to turn the tide. If there is intervention (in any form whether diplomatic, military, etc...) there must be far greater force behind it to simply get it over and done with so that everyone can get on with their lives.
- don't go into talks with any pre-conditions. Push hard but give peace a genuine chance. Not sure how some people can be so optimistic that UN June 12 plan has a genuine chance given the fact that the conflict has continued unabated and esclated for several years (I've said before and I'll say it again defense, intelligence, and defense should work together and only be pressing harder will be able to force a cessation of hostilities.).
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/analysis/2013/05/14/Arabs-Turkey-see-no-role-for-Assad-in-future-Syria-.html
http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Syria/FinalCommuniqueActionGroupforSyria.pdf
- provide flares and other camouflage options because it's clear that most of the weapons involved are fairly simple/non-guidance based. Likelihood that they will resort to carpet/cluster bombing even though they are already using makeshift weapons?
Key questions/issues:
- can you honestly say that Assad is fit and do the Syrian people want him to lead Syria?
- if there is intervention and there is a power vacuum is this worse than what would occur if we didn't intervene?
- the style/size of the intervention. Direct, continued covert, etc...
- even if we aren't directly involved what are the indirect impacts of continued conflict in Syria?
- will any leadership be better/worse than the previous one?
- what other moves are other stakeholders likely to make should further direct/indirect action occur?
- even if there is a transition is it going to be representative and will it hold?
http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/17146065/france-sees-snags-in-plans-for-syria-peace-talks/
http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/82916-france-warns-syria-conference-will-be-very-difficult
http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-cameron-hold-syria-war-summit-in-washington-more-weapons-for-al-qaeda/5334993
- if there is intervention does the International community support or lead?
- are current peace talk offers genuine?
- limited public support/appetite for intervention.
- the longer the fight goes on the more desperate people have become. Concern is that either solution breaks down because new leadership may be just as bad or worse than previously or else it breaks down simply because they aren't strong enough to deal with the issues that continue to stem from this conflict.
- is this a situation that needs to be 'managed' because it can't be fixed completely in future without long term commitment?
- something which needs to be kept in mind is that many International bodies need reform or are simply losing their relevance. I think that the after several recent incidents the United Nations is beginning to fall into this category as well. In which case, I think the question we should all be asking ourselves is whether some the power plays that are occurring are really worth it. At some point this isn't a question of interests, it's a question of humanity. It's a question of being able to distinguish between right and wrong, between human and primitive animal. If the United Nations doesn't give us the ability to do what is required, what is right in order to end this situation then the International community must surely see fit to either change the existing frameworks stopping us from doing so or find a way of working around them.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/13/jonathan-kay-forget-red-lines-for-assad-its-time-to-start-saving-innocent-syrian-civilians/
http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Syria/FinalCommuniqueActionGroupforSyria.pdf
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/assembly-expected-approve-syria-resolution-19181298
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/05/14/learning-the-wrong-lessons-from-israels-intervention-in-syria/
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/no-fly-zone-is-best-of-bad-options-for-syria-1.1393250
http://www.news.com.au/world-news/australian-aid-may-be-propping-up-syrian-regime/story-fndir2ev-1226642141799
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/05/15/world/syria-forum-prompts-guarded-optimism/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/13/syria-post-superpower-era-obama-indecision
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/assad-forces-gaining-ground-in-syria/2013/05/11/79147c34-b99c-11e2-b568-6917f6ac6d9d_story.html
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-05/14/c_132379592.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/opinion/ill-considered-advice-on-syria.html?_r=0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iraq-history-at-bush-center-shows-need-for-caution-on-syria/2013/04/29/ea124816-ae80-11e2-98ef-d1072ed3cc27_story.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june13/syria2_04-29.html
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/syria-weapons-2/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-cameron-hold-syria-war-summit-in-washington-more-weapons-for-al-qaeda/5334993
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/world/middleeast/syria-developments.html?_r=0
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/349997/putin-netanyahu-set-for-talks-on-syria
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/russia-plays-the-missile-card/article4712306.ece
http://original.antiwar.com/srichman/2013/05/14/no-intervention-in-syria/
- direct and full intervention/invasion. We've seen Iraq/Afghanistan weren't clear cut and this one is probably going to be just as difficult if more so (how could we possibly make it any worse than it currently is?). It's also becoming clear that surrounding countries are already getting dragged in with regards to both the humantarian problem as well as the conflict itself with many of them being used as launchpads or support for military action in Syria itself. Invasion should be considered an option but only if all other options have been exhausted and have been proven to be unworthwhile.http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/05/15/turkey-hopes-to-convince-us-to-act-in-syria
- de-militarise the conflict. This means that no more (ANY) weapons whether are to be supplied to either side whether that means re-supply, fulfilling existing contracts, etc...
http://world.time.com/2013/05/14/putin-netanyahu-meet-to-discuss-syria/
Hopefully, this will also make both sides more amenable to genuine peace talks (clearly, will not work if one side continues to arm though).
- direct but limited intervention. One option that I've been considering is destroying all air-fields/military bases/large clusters of heavy weapons/artillery/munitions and so on, shutting down all borders inbound to Syria (not easy). This will result in a stalemate situation (especially if the neither side are continued to be supplied with weapons).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/13/six-ways-assad-has-turned-the-tide-in-syria/
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/30/179855633/c-j-chivers-on-the-ground-in-syria
Hopefully, this will also make both sides more amenable to genuine peace talks (clearly, will not work if one side continues to arm though). Another option that has been widely considered is targeted, direct action against regime leadership. There will of course be repercussions should this avenue be pursued...
- a pure peace keeping intervention? Long range strikes (as outlined in previous point) combined with an international, armed peace keeping ground force (rules of engagement mean that they their primary job will be to defend non combatants, themselves, and finally to maintain peace)? Peace keeping force must have clear agenda and provide prior warning. If there is any untoward activity they have a go ahead to use force to stop it whether that pertains to rebel or regime activity. It can not be stressed enough that this peace keeping force is not about joining in the conflict. It is about stopping it and getting back to normality as quickly as possible. Obvious problem is whether or not the fighting will simply start up again the minute the peace keeping force leaves?
- let them continue to fight it out until it's conclusion. Cynical but it also means that one side is likely to be a more complete victor which may result in a more stable long term situation.
- offer the current regime safe passage out. Unlikely to be accepted given some of the messages that have been sent out.
- don't bother trying to implement a ceasefire prior to creating a transition plan or running an election? If both sides can just maintain peace on their side of the conflict (clear lines of demarcation and buffer zones so that we can minimise break outs of fighting) while elections (obvious problems here especially vote those relating to 'tampering') are running perhaps we can figure out just exactly what the Syrian people actually want (this will also mean that we can disavow everyone of all possible doubt over what the desire of the actual Syrian population is). Who's in charge of running election? A combination of existing regime/rebels/neighbours with international observers? How can you when so many people are displaced (people in refugee camps in particular)? Require identification for them to participate while existing people can simply show up at polling booths. How much will displaced people skew the results of any potential election. Obvious questions are, whether they want existing regime or rebels to succeed? What should be the timeline going forward? How is normal life going to be restored? etc...
- break up of the country should be considered if it means a cessation of hostilities in spite of warnings.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/14/303424/iran-warns-against-syria-disintegration/
- half baked measures so far have proven unlikely to turn the tide. If there is intervention (in any form whether diplomatic, military, etc...) there must be far greater force behind it to simply get it over and done with so that everyone can get on with their lives.
- don't go into talks with any pre-conditions. Push hard but give peace a genuine chance. Not sure how some people can be so optimistic that UN June 12 plan has a genuine chance given the fact that the conflict has continued unabated and esclated for several years (I've said before and I'll say it again defense, intelligence, and defense should work together and only be pressing harder will be able to force a cessation of hostilities.).
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/analysis/2013/05/14/Arabs-Turkey-see-no-role-for-Assad-in-future-Syria-.html
http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Syria/FinalCommuniqueActionGroupforSyria.pdf
- provide flares and other camouflage options because it's clear that most of the weapons involved are fairly simple/non-guidance based. Likelihood that they will resort to carpet/cluster bombing even though they are already using makeshift weapons?
Key questions/issues:
- can you honestly say that Assad is fit and do the Syrian people want him to lead Syria?
- if there is intervention and there is a power vacuum is this worse than what would occur if we didn't intervene?
- the style/size of the intervention. Direct, continued covert, etc...
- even if we aren't directly involved what are the indirect impacts of continued conflict in Syria?
- will any leadership be better/worse than the previous one?
- what other moves are other stakeholders likely to make should further direct/indirect action occur?
- even if there is a transition is it going to be representative and will it hold?
http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/17146065/france-sees-snags-in-plans-for-syria-peace-talks/
http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/82916-france-warns-syria-conference-will-be-very-difficult
http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-cameron-hold-syria-war-summit-in-washington-more-weapons-for-al-qaeda/5334993
- if there is intervention does the International community support or lead?
- are current peace talk offers genuine?
- limited public support/appetite for intervention.
- the longer the fight goes on the more desperate people have become. Concern is that either solution breaks down because new leadership may be just as bad or worse than previously or else it breaks down simply because they aren't strong enough to deal with the issues that continue to stem from this conflict.
- is this a situation that needs to be 'managed' because it can't be fixed completely in future without long term commitment?
- something which needs to be kept in mind is that many International bodies need reform or are simply losing their relevance. I think that the after several recent incidents the United Nations is beginning to fall into this category as well. In which case, I think the question we should all be asking ourselves is whether some the power plays that are occurring are really worth it. At some point this isn't a question of interests, it's a question of humanity. It's a question of being able to distinguish between right and wrong, between human and primitive animal. If the United Nations doesn't give us the ability to do what is required, what is right in order to end this situation then the International community must surely see fit to either change the existing frameworks stopping us from doing so or find a way of working around them.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/13/jonathan-kay-forget-red-lines-for-assad-its-time-to-start-saving-innocent-syrian-civilians/
http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Syria/FinalCommuniqueActionGroupforSyria.pdf
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/assembly-expected-approve-syria-resolution-19181298
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/05/14/learning-the-wrong-lessons-from-israels-intervention-in-syria/
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/no-fly-zone-is-best-of-bad-options-for-syria-1.1393250
http://www.news.com.au/world-news/australian-aid-may-be-propping-up-syrian-regime/story-fndir2ev-1226642141799
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/05/15/world/syria-forum-prompts-guarded-optimism/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/13/syria-post-superpower-era-obama-indecision
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/assad-forces-gaining-ground-in-syria/2013/05/11/79147c34-b99c-11e2-b568-6917f6ac6d9d_story.html
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-05/14/c_132379592.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/opinion/ill-considered-advice-on-syria.html?_r=0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iraq-history-at-bush-center-shows-need-for-caution-on-syria/2013/04/29/ea124816-ae80-11e2-98ef-d1072ed3cc27_story.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june13/syria2_04-29.html
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/syria-weapons-2/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-cameron-hold-syria-war-summit-in-washington-more-weapons-for-al-qaeda/5334993
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/world/middleeast/syria-developments.html?_r=0
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/349997/putin-netanyahu-set-for-talks-on-syria
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/russia-plays-the-missile-card/article4712306.ece
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
