I tend to avoid the Middle East as it crosses too many lines of faith/belief and rapidly leaves the realm of rational thought and dives in to the emotional.
That being said with the regime change in Tunisia-funny how that story has dropped from the headlines-and now the ongoing turmoil in Egypt suddenly the region has taken on even greater significance in the minds of geopolitical strategists.
What is most striking to me is how quickly the western media leaps to the conclusion that it is the voices of liberty and a desire for democracy that has been the driving force. I think that the great mass of the population, be it in Tunisia or Egypt is much more concerned with the state of the economy and the cost of food.
That is not to say that there are not aspects of a desire for liberal democracy involved in the demonstrations, but we in the west should be wary of projecting our values, hopes and desires on to the rest of the world.
What I think is missing in the discussion is what is actually in the interests of the Egyptian people, and frankly speaking, I doubt it is how Egypt fits in to the designs of geopolitical concerns.
Hillary Clinton's comments suggesting a desire to keep Mubarak in place suits the geopolitical vision of the US and by extension Israel, and quite possibly Iran. Egypt is the most populous of the Middle Eastern states and unlike Iran is overwhelmingly Sunni as opposed to Shia.
If Egypt were to experience a revolution resulting in the creation of an Islamic Republic this would be a major counterweight to the Shia Islamic power of Iran. This does not mean necessarily that the Iranians are active in any meaningful manner on either side of the Egyptian divide.
It does mean that everyone is watching.
The transition from a monarchy/British "directed" Egypt to a secular Military dictatorship under Nasser, then Sadat and now Mubarak was a form of progress, even if the British didn't see it that way.
A shift to an Islamist Egypt would unwind the U.S. strategy in place since the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and the shift by Sadat to move out of his alliance with the Soviet Union and into the American sphere of influence. Presumably an Islamist Egypt would eventually threaten Israel and could be cataclysmic to the region.
I think what the Egyptian population is really desiring is a stable economy able to provide food and stability to the country. It is not for nothing that the Chinese have removed all references to Egypt and social unrest there from the internet traffic of their citizenry.
The fact is that inflation in general, and spiralling food and energy prices specifically have historically gone hand in hand with social and political turmoil.
Whoever offers this, and delivers, will run the show.
Monday 31 January 2011
Wednesday 26 January 2011
State of the (Political) Union
Given that I am sitting in the UK I read President Obama's State of the Union Address this morning, and Representative Paul Ryan's response.
In my reading of President Obama's speech I picked up what I considered to be his 10 point program, and my understanding of his underlying message. The 10 points: Innovation; Education; Energy Policy; Illegal Immigration; Infrastructure; Tax Code; Exports; Health Care; Debt/Deficit; and Bipartisanship. The underlying message-"We have great challenges; we are a resilient people; and we can do this as one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I also tried to pick out 10 points from Mr Ryan's speech, and to summarize his underlying message. The former was difficult, and the latter crystal. So his 10 points were: Deficit/Debt; Overspending; Failed Stimulus; Failed Health Care; Limited Government; Self-Government; Comparing the USA to Greece, Ireland and the UK(!);and Poor Decisions made in Washington and Wall Street- and yes I know-I only found 8 points.
And the underlying message. It's all somebody else's fault.
I appreciate that both gentleman are positioning for the 2012 election so of course there would be political messages. I am also fully aware that Obama is an optimist bordering on the evangelical and so his speech was always intended to be uplifting.
What I hadn't realised was that it appears that the Republican leadership intends to continue with their negative approach despite the fact that they now command a majority in the House.
But I can overlook all that. What I can't ignore is his comparison of the US with Greece, Ireland, or even the UK. Are any of these nations about to overtake the US as the leading world economic power? Are they competing with us for global hegemony? I think not.
President Obama speaks of the need to work together for a successful American future. To rebuild at home and turn our energy towards combating our external challenges.
Representative Ryan speaks of cutting taxes and, frankly, cutting taxes. And ignoring the fact that our geopolitical rivals have stolen a march on us, and somehow, it's somebody else's problem.
In my reading of President Obama's speech I picked up what I considered to be his 10 point program, and my understanding of his underlying message. The 10 points: Innovation; Education; Energy Policy; Illegal Immigration; Infrastructure; Tax Code; Exports; Health Care; Debt/Deficit; and Bipartisanship. The underlying message-"We have great challenges; we are a resilient people; and we can do this as one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I also tried to pick out 10 points from Mr Ryan's speech, and to summarize his underlying message. The former was difficult, and the latter crystal. So his 10 points were: Deficit/Debt; Overspending; Failed Stimulus; Failed Health Care; Limited Government; Self-Government; Comparing the USA to Greece, Ireland and the UK(!);and Poor Decisions made in Washington and Wall Street- and yes I know-I only found 8 points.
And the underlying message. It's all somebody else's fault.
I appreciate that both gentleman are positioning for the 2012 election so of course there would be political messages. I am also fully aware that Obama is an optimist bordering on the evangelical and so his speech was always intended to be uplifting.
What I hadn't realised was that it appears that the Republican leadership intends to continue with their negative approach despite the fact that they now command a majority in the House.
But I can overlook all that. What I can't ignore is his comparison of the US with Greece, Ireland, or even the UK. Are any of these nations about to overtake the US as the leading world economic power? Are they competing with us for global hegemony? I think not.
President Obama speaks of the need to work together for a successful American future. To rebuild at home and turn our energy towards combating our external challenges.
Representative Ryan speaks of cutting taxes and, frankly, cutting taxes. And ignoring the fact that our geopolitical rivals have stolen a march on us, and somehow, it's somebody else's problem.
Tuesday 25 January 2011
With a Broad Brush towards a Police State.
Monday morning before the attack on Moscow's Domodedovo airport I had read an article on the jihadist movement and the marginalisation of al Qaeda as the driver being marginalised on the physical battlefield and being replaced by regional and grassroots groups.
The writers were trying to explain that the decline of al Qaeda as a unifying force meant that the war against global terrorism was being won. They meant this in the sense that jihadist movements no longer presented a strategic threat, but certainly maintained a tactical threat.
Indeed, they suggested that the regionalisation/grassroots aspect of the movement could result in an increase in attacks which would be harder to detect.
The attack on the airport yesterday afternoon was a perfect example of this. Disturbingly it has opened the door to ever stricter security measures which will inhibit our freedoms without really solving the problem.
In the past security operations at airports were concerned with keeping weapons/explosives off of planes. This attack was at the arrivals area which is a very soft target. The Russian response appears to be to put scanners at the entrance to the airports, as well as at train stations and other such buildings. This will presumably stop attacks inside the buildings, but will just move them to the queues outside. We have already seen this in Iraq where job applicants lined up to enter a compound are attacked.
In the German news there were muted questions as to the rapidity with which Mr Medvedev assigned responsibility to militants from the Caucasus. This is an area which has been devastated by Russia centered around Grozny.
Interestingly, it was also an area fiercely fought over in the Second World War for the oil reserves there. In any event, there will undoubtedly be a much higher security presence on the streets in Moscow and other major Russian cities.
Without legitimatising them I do think that we should look into the grievances of some of these groups. Although there have been attempts to color militancy in Chechnya and Dagastan in terms of Islamic extremism, this hides the traditional nationalistic tendency in the region.
There is a common predisposition for major powers to view the world within a framework which reflects their desires. In Viet-Nam the Americans consistently approached the problems in Indo-China within the construct of global communism overlooking the nationalist/independence aspect of the VC/North Vietnamese.
The Russians are happy to pigeonhole the problems in the Caucasus within the framework of the jihadist movement. It puts them on the "good" side of the war on terror and fits quite neatly into a state security structure intent on squashing any dissent under the "terror" umbrella.
The writers were trying to explain that the decline of al Qaeda as a unifying force meant that the war against global terrorism was being won. They meant this in the sense that jihadist movements no longer presented a strategic threat, but certainly maintained a tactical threat.
Indeed, they suggested that the regionalisation/grassroots aspect of the movement could result in an increase in attacks which would be harder to detect.
The attack on the airport yesterday afternoon was a perfect example of this. Disturbingly it has opened the door to ever stricter security measures which will inhibit our freedoms without really solving the problem.
In the past security operations at airports were concerned with keeping weapons/explosives off of planes. This attack was at the arrivals area which is a very soft target. The Russian response appears to be to put scanners at the entrance to the airports, as well as at train stations and other such buildings. This will presumably stop attacks inside the buildings, but will just move them to the queues outside. We have already seen this in Iraq where job applicants lined up to enter a compound are attacked.
In the German news there were muted questions as to the rapidity with which Mr Medvedev assigned responsibility to militants from the Caucasus. This is an area which has been devastated by Russia centered around Grozny.
Interestingly, it was also an area fiercely fought over in the Second World War for the oil reserves there. In any event, there will undoubtedly be a much higher security presence on the streets in Moscow and other major Russian cities.
Without legitimatising them I do think that we should look into the grievances of some of these groups. Although there have been attempts to color militancy in Chechnya and Dagastan in terms of Islamic extremism, this hides the traditional nationalistic tendency in the region.
There is a common predisposition for major powers to view the world within a framework which reflects their desires. In Viet-Nam the Americans consistently approached the problems in Indo-China within the construct of global communism overlooking the nationalist/independence aspect of the VC/North Vietnamese.
The Russians are happy to pigeonhole the problems in the Caucasus within the framework of the jihadist movement. It puts them on the "good" side of the war on terror and fits quite neatly into a state security structure intent on squashing any dissent under the "terror" umbrella.
Monday 24 January 2011
Malthus Back on the Table
Reverend Thomas Malthus first wrote his paper "An Essay on the Principle of Population" in 1796. In it he postulated that "the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man".
An Anglican clergyman, Malthus saw this situation as divinely imposed to teach virtuous behaviour.
But before I get sidetracked by 18th century questions of virtue, let me speak for a moment on Malthus' theory. He maintained, that regardless of the technological advances made in the creation of food, sooner or later the world population, if unchecked, will reach a tipping point after which famines will break out, probably accompanied by disease and war.
Today Professor John Beddington, Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government and Professor of Applied Population Biology at Imperial College London presented the results of a detailed analysis of the global food situation. The report was developed by a team of over 400 scientists from 35 countries. The results of the research declared that over a billion people are hungry, another billion malnourished, and that unless action is taken there will not be enough food for the planet.
The report essentially stated that the solution to this problem was genetically modified food.
Prof. Beddington's argument looks at the supply side of the equation, focusing on poor agricultural practices, issues of waste and under-investment. He plays lip service to organic farming on the fringes and the idea that farming techniques could be improved, but the solution is greater capital investment in search of a significant and sustainable intensification of agriculture. Basically, science and cash will solve the problem.
Over two hundred years ago Malthus foresaw that world population would overtake food production. He even came up with two ways to control population growth: positive checks, which raise the death rate; and preventative ones, which lower the birth rate. The positive checks include hunger, disease and war; the preventative checks, abortion, birth control, prostitution, postponement of marriage and celibacy.
Let's ignore the positive checks approach and look at the preventative ones. When Prof. Beddington was asked why he didn't consider population control as part of the solution his response was alarming.
He says that for the first time in world history we are nearing a global peak in population, so the problem is not population, but rather poverty. He explains that GM is a political problem, not a technical one. He goes on to say that stopping population growth doesn't help because lower levels of population growth only create a new set of problems.
Well since he doesn't believe the answer is in the preventative checks we can only hope that science is the answer-otherwise I think Malthus' positive checks are on the horizon.
An Anglican clergyman, Malthus saw this situation as divinely imposed to teach virtuous behaviour.
But before I get sidetracked by 18th century questions of virtue, let me speak for a moment on Malthus' theory. He maintained, that regardless of the technological advances made in the creation of food, sooner or later the world population, if unchecked, will reach a tipping point after which famines will break out, probably accompanied by disease and war.
Today Professor John Beddington, Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government and Professor of Applied Population Biology at Imperial College London presented the results of a detailed analysis of the global food situation. The report was developed by a team of over 400 scientists from 35 countries. The results of the research declared that over a billion people are hungry, another billion malnourished, and that unless action is taken there will not be enough food for the planet.
The report essentially stated that the solution to this problem was genetically modified food.
Prof. Beddington's argument looks at the supply side of the equation, focusing on poor agricultural practices, issues of waste and under-investment. He plays lip service to organic farming on the fringes and the idea that farming techniques could be improved, but the solution is greater capital investment in search of a significant and sustainable intensification of agriculture. Basically, science and cash will solve the problem.
Over two hundred years ago Malthus foresaw that world population would overtake food production. He even came up with two ways to control population growth: positive checks, which raise the death rate; and preventative ones, which lower the birth rate. The positive checks include hunger, disease and war; the preventative checks, abortion, birth control, prostitution, postponement of marriage and celibacy.
Let's ignore the positive checks approach and look at the preventative ones. When Prof. Beddington was asked why he didn't consider population control as part of the solution his response was alarming.
He says that for the first time in world history we are nearing a global peak in population, so the problem is not population, but rather poverty. He explains that GM is a political problem, not a technical one. He goes on to say that stopping population growth doesn't help because lower levels of population growth only create a new set of problems.
Well since he doesn't believe the answer is in the preventative checks we can only hope that science is the answer-otherwise I think Malthus' positive checks are on the horizon.
Friday 21 January 2011
A Rock and a Hard Place
Two days ago German Chancellor Angela Merkel came out strongly in support of the Eurozone. This plays reasonably well to the international audience, but doesn't go down well to the folks back home.
Germany has benefited handsomely from the Euro. About 43% of its exports are to the Eurozone. The single currency union means that the other members can't devalue their currencies to compete with Germany. And now, in this time of fiscal crisis, given that Germany is essentially the paymaster, their political clout within the EU has risen accordingly, and,for the first time, they are using it.
The German folks back on the farm however, are not so enthusiastic about the Euro. They went through an austerity program of their own before the credit crisis. They don't understand why they have to cajole member states from the periphery to enact the budgetary measures they did on their own. They also don't understand why they should have to pay for it.
Frau Merkel can't be to aggressive in singing the Euro's praises to her domestic audience. If she clearly outlines to them the extent to which Germany benefits from the Eurozone she risks alienating fellow EU members whose populace is already bristling at the price of being bailed out-austerity measures a la Allemagne.
There are elections in four of the German states between February 20 and March 27 and another three later in the year. If Frau Merkel and her coalition are to stay in power she is going to have to figure out how to talk to two very different audiences.
That's a tricky proposition.
Germany has benefited handsomely from the Euro. About 43% of its exports are to the Eurozone. The single currency union means that the other members can't devalue their currencies to compete with Germany. And now, in this time of fiscal crisis, given that Germany is essentially the paymaster, their political clout within the EU has risen accordingly, and,for the first time, they are using it.
The German folks back on the farm however, are not so enthusiastic about the Euro. They went through an austerity program of their own before the credit crisis. They don't understand why they have to cajole member states from the periphery to enact the budgetary measures they did on their own. They also don't understand why they should have to pay for it.
Frau Merkel can't be to aggressive in singing the Euro's praises to her domestic audience. If she clearly outlines to them the extent to which Germany benefits from the Eurozone she risks alienating fellow EU members whose populace is already bristling at the price of being bailed out-austerity measures a la Allemagne.
There are elections in four of the German states between February 20 and March 27 and another three later in the year. If Frau Merkel and her coalition are to stay in power she is going to have to figure out how to talk to two very different audiences.
That's a tricky proposition.
Wednesday 19 January 2011
Thugs to the Left of Me, Thugs to the Right.
Last night on German TV there were discussions on the merits, and the dangers of Communism as a response to the austerity programs being instituted in Germany.
In Germany the most left-wing of the parties is Die Linke or The Left. They are a combination of remnants of the former Communist Party (the German Socialist Unity Party or SED which morphed into the Party for Democratic Socialism PDS) from the former East Germany, the left wing of the German Socialist Party (SPD) and a smaller left wing group.
The original communist party in Germany, the Communist Party of Germany (KDP) was banned in West Germany in 1956. Many former members of the KPD, which was heavily influenced by the Soviet Union went underground until 1969 when the German Communist Party (DKP) was formed.
This close association of communism with Russia which was not only a fearful enemy from the Second World War but an occupier of East Germany resulted in massive crackdowns on the communist movement.
In contrast, the right-wing National Democratic Party of Germany or NPD, which many critics describe as the NSDAP (the German initials for the National Socialist German Workers Party better known as the Nazis) without the SA-who were the Storm Troopers-was formed in 1964.
In the 60's and 70's there were still publicly held meetings of former Waffen SS Divisions despite the fact that the SS had been declared a criminal organisation. Their reunions were always accompanied by strong police protection who dealt aggressively with any protestors. Parallel to this every time a demonstration from Left was held it would tend to be met with harsh police action to suppress it.
After German Reunification in 1989 the appearance of the old SED in the form of the PDS changed the landscape and in 2006 Die Linked was formerly announced. It won 8.7% of the vote thereby clearing the 5% hurdle and gained representation in the Bundestag.
But Die Linke have been very careful not to use the word communism-until recently. Then, Gesine Loetzsch, co-Chairperson of the Linke, writing in Junge Welt under the title "Ways to Communism" said “We can only find the route to communism if we make a start and try it out, whether in opposition or in government”.
Ms Loetzsch is from East Germany. She joined the SED in 1984,the PDS in 1990 and Die Linke in 2007. She has been an outspoken in her suggestions that former Statssicherheit (Stasi) members should be allowed to serve in parliaments and governments and has been criticised for being a revisionist.
Following the publication by Ms Loetzsch a group of former East Germans held a small and peaceful demonstration outside of a meeting held by Die Linke. They were protesting the use of the term communism and the inclusion of former Stasi members in the government They were attacked quite brutally by security men of the party.
That might be the problem with Communism-it doesn't take kindly to dissent. Funny that. Neither does the Far Right.
In Germany the most left-wing of the parties is Die Linke or The Left. They are a combination of remnants of the former Communist Party (the German Socialist Unity Party or SED which morphed into the Party for Democratic Socialism PDS) from the former East Germany, the left wing of the German Socialist Party (SPD) and a smaller left wing group.
The original communist party in Germany, the Communist Party of Germany (KDP) was banned in West Germany in 1956. Many former members of the KPD, which was heavily influenced by the Soviet Union went underground until 1969 when the German Communist Party (DKP) was formed.
This close association of communism with Russia which was not only a fearful enemy from the Second World War but an occupier of East Germany resulted in massive crackdowns on the communist movement.
In contrast, the right-wing National Democratic Party of Germany or NPD, which many critics describe as the NSDAP (the German initials for the National Socialist German Workers Party better known as the Nazis) without the SA-who were the Storm Troopers-was formed in 1964.
In the 60's and 70's there were still publicly held meetings of former Waffen SS Divisions despite the fact that the SS had been declared a criminal organisation. Their reunions were always accompanied by strong police protection who dealt aggressively with any protestors. Parallel to this every time a demonstration from Left was held it would tend to be met with harsh police action to suppress it.
After German Reunification in 1989 the appearance of the old SED in the form of the PDS changed the landscape and in 2006 Die Linked was formerly announced. It won 8.7% of the vote thereby clearing the 5% hurdle and gained representation in the Bundestag.
But Die Linke have been very careful not to use the word communism-until recently. Then, Gesine Loetzsch, co-Chairperson of the Linke, writing in Junge Welt under the title "Ways to Communism" said “We can only find the route to communism if we make a start and try it out, whether in opposition or in government”.
Ms Loetzsch is from East Germany. She joined the SED in 1984,the PDS in 1990 and Die Linke in 2007. She has been an outspoken in her suggestions that former Statssicherheit (Stasi) members should be allowed to serve in parliaments and governments and has been criticised for being a revisionist.
Following the publication by Ms Loetzsch a group of former East Germans held a small and peaceful demonstration outside of a meeting held by Die Linke. They were protesting the use of the term communism and the inclusion of former Stasi members in the government They were attacked quite brutally by security men of the party.
That might be the problem with Communism-it doesn't take kindly to dissent. Funny that. Neither does the Far Right.
Monday 17 January 2011
How to Misuse a Term.
There has been a lively debate in the US as to the potential causes leading up to the shooting of Ms Gabrielle Giffords.
One of the more disturbing responses to accusations that the polemics from the Right Wing were at the root of the shooting was Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel"
I have to give credit where credit is due, she has a decent speech writer. Unfortunately for the writer I don't think Ms Palin understands the meaning of the term. Yes some use it to mean false accusations of murder-but this is incorrect.
It was originally used by Jews to describe anti-Semitic accusations which were intended to incite mobs to violently attack and even kill Jews. If Ms Palin understood the concept of irony it would almost be an interesting use of the term, , but that would give her far more nuance than I believe she has.
No, I believe she has been intentionally positioned to twist its use such that she becomes the victim and turns her accusers into the very howling, violent mob that she herself has been breeding. And using such a potent term certainly appeals to the anti-Semitism lurking in more than one reptilian brain.
Strangely however, I am less concerned with her use of the term specifically, but much more with the way people invoke ideas and terms which have no real relevance to the situation they are reflecting.
The other day some demonstrators were frog-marched away by policemen, all on camera, firmly yet civily. Later when they were interviewed they told of their ordeal of being hauled off by the Gestapo. Oh really?
Or how the term genocide is used to explain anything from serious attempts to exterminate a people to moving villagers to make way for a highway.
No, I yearn for a time when people actually reflected on what they were saying, before they said it, recognising the power of speech. This goes for Sarah Palin as well. Maybe she should follow her own advice and take responsiblity for what she says.
One of the more disturbing responses to accusations that the polemics from the Right Wing were at the root of the shooting was Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel"
I have to give credit where credit is due, she has a decent speech writer. Unfortunately for the writer I don't think Ms Palin understands the meaning of the term. Yes some use it to mean false accusations of murder-but this is incorrect.
It was originally used by Jews to describe anti-Semitic accusations which were intended to incite mobs to violently attack and even kill Jews. If Ms Palin understood the concept of irony it would almost be an interesting use of the term, , but that would give her far more nuance than I believe she has.
No, I believe she has been intentionally positioned to twist its use such that she becomes the victim and turns her accusers into the very howling, violent mob that she herself has been breeding. And using such a potent term certainly appeals to the anti-Semitism lurking in more than one reptilian brain.
Strangely however, I am less concerned with her use of the term specifically, but much more with the way people invoke ideas and terms which have no real relevance to the situation they are reflecting.
The other day some demonstrators were frog-marched away by policemen, all on camera, firmly yet civily. Later when they were interviewed they told of their ordeal of being hauled off by the Gestapo. Oh really?
Or how the term genocide is used to explain anything from serious attempts to exterminate a people to moving villagers to make way for a highway.
No, I yearn for a time when people actually reflected on what they were saying, before they said it, recognising the power of speech. This goes for Sarah Palin as well. Maybe she should follow her own advice and take responsiblity for what she says.
Thursday 13 January 2011
Basel III Throws Down the Gauntlet!
The Basel III Committee on Banking Supervision decided last year to stop counting most hybrid securities as Tier 1 capital. They claimed it was because they didn't provide a buffer for losses in 2008. They meant to say it was because they shouldn't be counted as Tier 1 capital because that was a ruse.
Basel III is concerned with the banking securities known as Trust-Preferred Securities because they were treated as capital (equity/own funds) rather than debt for regulatory purposes. This gave the banks favorable tax, accounting and credit treatment, without providing any real capital to the bank.
This is because except from a regulatory point of view they were treated as debt which essentially meant that they were taxed like debt obligations i.e. interest payments are deductible. If they had been treated as true capital they would have to pay dividends, which are taxable. There are other advantages-all of which accrue to the issuing banks.
About the only disadvantage to the banks is that they are more expensive to issue as they are subordinated to all of the issuer's other debt. Because of the willingness of the rating agencies to play along with the concept investors bought them in droves. It was another example of being offered something that looked too cheap to be true which was half correct.
They didn't have the risk of equity and were supposed to fit neatly into a debt
portfolio investment. In 2008 they traded more like equity than debt. Now under Basel III these securities will be required to include triggers that force bank to convert hybrids into common stock, or write them off to avert collapse.
The intention is to have securities which are defined as capital actually function as capital. The immediate, and expected response of the bank lobby is that these triggers, which will be enforceable by national authorities will "politicise" the products meaning that the pricing of these instruments will have to incorporate politics!
First of all every investment has a political risk component. It's part of the uncertainty accompanying an investment decision. Playing the politics card in this instance is an insult. The banks have been happily bailed out-by political decisions-Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley even became banks to benefit. Now the governments are looking to ensure they don't have to do it again.
In today's announcement the committee noted that “All classes of capital instruments” must “fully absorb losses at the point of non-viability before taxpayers are exposed to loss".
The underlying message would seem to foreshadow that in the future bondholders too will be held to account.
Touche
Basel III is concerned with the banking securities known as Trust-Preferred Securities because they were treated as capital (equity/own funds) rather than debt for regulatory purposes. This gave the banks favorable tax, accounting and credit treatment, without providing any real capital to the bank.
This is because except from a regulatory point of view they were treated as debt which essentially meant that they were taxed like debt obligations i.e. interest payments are deductible. If they had been treated as true capital they would have to pay dividends, which are taxable. There are other advantages-all of which accrue to the issuing banks.
About the only disadvantage to the banks is that they are more expensive to issue as they are subordinated to all of the issuer's other debt. Because of the willingness of the rating agencies to play along with the concept investors bought them in droves. It was another example of being offered something that looked too cheap to be true which was half correct.
They didn't have the risk of equity and were supposed to fit neatly into a debt
portfolio investment. In 2008 they traded more like equity than debt. Now under Basel III these securities will be required to include triggers that force bank to convert hybrids into common stock, or write them off to avert collapse.
The intention is to have securities which are defined as capital actually function as capital. The immediate, and expected response of the bank lobby is that these triggers, which will be enforceable by national authorities will "politicise" the products meaning that the pricing of these instruments will have to incorporate politics!
First of all every investment has a political risk component. It's part of the uncertainty accompanying an investment decision. Playing the politics card in this instance is an insult. The banks have been happily bailed out-by political decisions-Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley even became banks to benefit. Now the governments are looking to ensure they don't have to do it again.
In today's announcement the committee noted that “All classes of capital instruments” must “fully absorb losses at the point of non-viability before taxpayers are exposed to loss".
The underlying message would seem to foreshadow that in the future bondholders too will be held to account.
Touche
Wednesday 12 January 2011
When Will They Ever Learn?
Last summer I read the book "War" by Sebastian Junger which has been made into a film called "Restrepo". I followed "War" with David Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest".
Over Christmas we watched the film "Restrepo". I found it difficult to watch as it seemed to encapsulate the futility of our actions in Afghanistan, regardless of one's opinion as to why we are there.
I don't get it. Reading Halberstam's book is like driving with a drunk-you know it's going to end badly, and yet it is difficult get out of the car. What I find most disturbing is how we as a nation have apparently forgotten the origins of our nations and the war, or more importantly the kind of war we waged in gaining our independence from the British.
We were brought up to ridicule the Redcoats marching in formation. Our guerrilla tactics of harassment played to all of our strengths while essentially negating the training and weaponry of an external army operating in our backyard.
The British were masters of this type of misjudgement essentially failing in every war they entered where the enemy didn't play by the same rules of warfare. Perhaps the only exception to this was the Boer War-and that was a war in which the British fought a scorched earth policy and used internment on such a massive scale resulting in the death of around 15% of the Boer population.
So what is it that has driven the US to such follies as the Vietnam War, the 2nd Iraq War, and the War in Afghanistan?
Why have we felt compelled to enter into conflicts which in the first instance are held to be winnable by American arms without any real understanding of the domestic realities of said conflicts?
Why have we established a pattern in which we use our overwhelming air power at the beginning of a conflict resulting in indications of early victories only to find that we need to reinforce the air power with ground troops to maintain our position? These troops also often meet initial success and yet this almost inevitably proves to be short-lived. The ground war then grinds into a nightmare of attrition against an enemy that is impossible to differentiate from the general populace and is extremely effective in causing death and mayhem for as long as it takes.
So why do we do this? If it's because of some geopolitical realpolitik it has to be reviewed as it is simply not working. If it is the military-industrial complex driving these adventures then we need to determine a better use of those resources.
Whatever it is, I believe it is a reflection of a nation badly in need of redefining its role in the world.
Over Christmas we watched the film "Restrepo". I found it difficult to watch as it seemed to encapsulate the futility of our actions in Afghanistan, regardless of one's opinion as to why we are there.
I don't get it. Reading Halberstam's book is like driving with a drunk-you know it's going to end badly, and yet it is difficult get out of the car. What I find most disturbing is how we as a nation have apparently forgotten the origins of our nations and the war, or more importantly the kind of war we waged in gaining our independence from the British.
We were brought up to ridicule the Redcoats marching in formation. Our guerrilla tactics of harassment played to all of our strengths while essentially negating the training and weaponry of an external army operating in our backyard.
The British were masters of this type of misjudgement essentially failing in every war they entered where the enemy didn't play by the same rules of warfare. Perhaps the only exception to this was the Boer War-and that was a war in which the British fought a scorched earth policy and used internment on such a massive scale resulting in the death of around 15% of the Boer population.
So what is it that has driven the US to such follies as the Vietnam War, the 2nd Iraq War, and the War in Afghanistan?
Why have we felt compelled to enter into conflicts which in the first instance are held to be winnable by American arms without any real understanding of the domestic realities of said conflicts?
Why have we established a pattern in which we use our overwhelming air power at the beginning of a conflict resulting in indications of early victories only to find that we need to reinforce the air power with ground troops to maintain our position? These troops also often meet initial success and yet this almost inevitably proves to be short-lived. The ground war then grinds into a nightmare of attrition against an enemy that is impossible to differentiate from the general populace and is extremely effective in causing death and mayhem for as long as it takes.
So why do we do this? If it's because of some geopolitical realpolitik it has to be reviewed as it is simply not working. If it is the military-industrial complex driving these adventures then we need to determine a better use of those resources.
Whatever it is, I believe it is a reflection of a nation badly in need of redefining its role in the world.
Monday 10 January 2011
Were Those Glen Beck's Chickens in Tuscon?
Give that the tone of the rhetoric from the Right as personified by Glen Beck borders on the edge of inciting to riot I am not totally surprised by the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford.
Mr Beck is not alone however. The re-incarnation of Joseph McCarthy in the form of Sarah Palin and the heavy handedness of her political action committee in denouncing anyone who disagrees with her is like giving matches to children.
I have ridiculed members of the Tea Party for their inability to comprehend the hypocrisy of most of their positions. I have worried that they were the fulfilment of H.L. Mencken's comments that political leaders are the reflection of the electorate which is to explain why so many politicians are downright morons. This leaves me somewhat terrified of monster in our midst.
Although I am not totally convinced by the argument that civilizations follow the same stages of development as humans, there is something to be said for the description of the US as a male adolescent on steroids allowed to vent his hormonal imbalances in a base, violent manner. The problem is that although in a nation it can be catastrophic, in a person it can be equally devastating.
I am aware that there are those that want to isolate Ms Gifford's assailant Jared Loughner and put him into the "just basically crazy" box. These are the same people
who want to brand him a leftist because he is apparently fond of "Mein Kampf" and Karl Marx.
No,these are the apologists for the Right Wing who don't understand that if you repeatedly suggest violence, whether in- or explicitly there is a reservoir of unstable and basically dangerous people in America who will take you at your word.
Gifford's tea party-backed opponent, Jesse Kelly, held a fundraiser at a shooting range in which he invited supporters to "help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office" while shooting an M-16 rifle.
During the midterm election Sarah Palin posted a map on her website that used cross hairs to mark each congressional Democrat she wanted to defeat, in addition to her frequent use of shooting metaphors on the campaign trail.
No, I think you reap what you sow...and the Right Wing is planting a lot of violence.
Mr Beck is not alone however. The re-incarnation of Joseph McCarthy in the form of Sarah Palin and the heavy handedness of her political action committee in denouncing anyone who disagrees with her is like giving matches to children.
I have ridiculed members of the Tea Party for their inability to comprehend the hypocrisy of most of their positions. I have worried that they were the fulfilment of H.L. Mencken's comments that political leaders are the reflection of the electorate which is to explain why so many politicians are downright morons. This leaves me somewhat terrified of monster in our midst.
Although I am not totally convinced by the argument that civilizations follow the same stages of development as humans, there is something to be said for the description of the US as a male adolescent on steroids allowed to vent his hormonal imbalances in a base, violent manner. The problem is that although in a nation it can be catastrophic, in a person it can be equally devastating.
I am aware that there are those that want to isolate Ms Gifford's assailant Jared Loughner and put him into the "just basically crazy" box. These are the same people
who want to brand him a leftist because he is apparently fond of "Mein Kampf" and Karl Marx.
No,these are the apologists for the Right Wing who don't understand that if you repeatedly suggest violence, whether in- or explicitly there is a reservoir of unstable and basically dangerous people in America who will take you at your word.
Gifford's tea party-backed opponent, Jesse Kelly, held a fundraiser at a shooting range in which he invited supporters to "help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office" while shooting an M-16 rifle.
During the midterm election Sarah Palin posted a map on her website that used cross hairs to mark each congressional Democrat she wanted to defeat, in addition to her frequent use of shooting metaphors on the campaign trail.
No, I think you reap what you sow...and the Right Wing is planting a lot of violence.
Tuesday 4 January 2011
Removing Moral Hazard
The entry of Estonia into the Euro after a year of massive turbulence in the Euro framework and the European Union (EU) in general shows either great foresight-or a complete lack of it. Personally I am pleased that at a time of continuing concerns surrounding the Euro Estonia has chosen to join-for all the right reasons.
Since winning independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Estonia’s tight control on spending has given it the lowest level of government debt in the 27-member European Union and the second-smallest budget deficit in the euro zone.
This is not a country looking to join the club so it can ride on its coattails.
Andres Lipstok, Estonia’s central bank governor became a voting member of the ECB council when the Baltic nation joined Europe’s currency bloc on January 1.
Under his guidance, despite the fact that the Estonian economy shrank 13.9% in 2009Estonia raised sales, alcohol and fuel taxes, froze payments into workers’ pension funds and cut salaries. The measures helped reduce the budget deficit to 1.7 percent of gross domestic product.
Ireland and Greece in contrast had deficits of more than 14 percent of GDP, in spite of the fact that under the Maastrict Treaty the EU imposed a 3 percent limit.
Mr Lipstok will throw his weight into the "German" camp of fiscal rectitude and austerity. In so doing Estonia will be aligning itself with Germany, Austria, Finland and some other smaller EU members.
He will be joining a group led by Bundesbank President Axel Weber and ECB Chief Economist Juergen Stark. This group of policy makers led by Mr Weber are demanding politicians take greater responsibility for their own profligacy. Last month Stark said that every euro-area country must be responsible for its own debt.
It would seem that the goal of ending moral hazard and perhaps pushing the responsibility and some of the losses back to those who created the mess in the first place has taken another baby step.
Since winning independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Estonia’s tight control on spending has given it the lowest level of government debt in the 27-member European Union and the second-smallest budget deficit in the euro zone.
This is not a country looking to join the club so it can ride on its coattails.
Andres Lipstok, Estonia’s central bank governor became a voting member of the ECB council when the Baltic nation joined Europe’s currency bloc on January 1.
Under his guidance, despite the fact that the Estonian economy shrank 13.9% in 2009Estonia raised sales, alcohol and fuel taxes, froze payments into workers’ pension funds and cut salaries. The measures helped reduce the budget deficit to 1.7 percent of gross domestic product.
Ireland and Greece in contrast had deficits of more than 14 percent of GDP, in spite of the fact that under the Maastrict Treaty the EU imposed a 3 percent limit.
Mr Lipstok will throw his weight into the "German" camp of fiscal rectitude and austerity. In so doing Estonia will be aligning itself with Germany, Austria, Finland and some other smaller EU members.
He will be joining a group led by Bundesbank President Axel Weber and ECB Chief Economist Juergen Stark. This group of policy makers led by Mr Weber are demanding politicians take greater responsibility for their own profligacy. Last month Stark said that every euro-area country must be responsible for its own debt.
It would seem that the goal of ending moral hazard and perhaps pushing the responsibility and some of the losses back to those who created the mess in the first place has taken another baby step.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)