Tumgik
#Russia Direct Investment Fund
izooks · 9 days
Text
Some of Joe Biden’s accomplishments:
**Domestic policy**
* **American Rescue Plan (2021)**: Provided $1.9 trillion in COVID-19 relief, including direct payments, enhanced unemployment benefits, and funding for vaccines and testing.
* **Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (2021)**: Allocated $1.2 trillion for infrastructure projects, including roads, bridges, broadband, and clean energy initiatives.
* **Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (2022)**: Expanded background checks for gun purchases and provided funding for mental health services.
* **Child Tax Credit Expansion (2021-2022)**: Temporarily expanded the Child Tax Credit to provide up to $3,600 per child in monthly payments.
* **Affordable Care Act Expansion (2021)**: Made health insurance more affordable for low- and middle-income Americans by reducing premiums and expanding subsidies.
**Foreign Policy**
* **Withdrawal from Afghanistan (2021)**: Ended the 20-year war in Afghanistan.
* **Re-joining the Paris Agreement (2021)**: Re-committed the United States to global efforts to address climate change.
* **Strengthening Alliances with NATO and the EU (2021-present)**: Repaired relationships with key European allies after strained relations during the Trump administration.
* **Supporting Ukraine in the Ukraine-Russia War (2022-present)**: Provided military, humanitarian, and diplomatic support to Ukraine in its defense against Russia's invasion.
* **Nuclear Deal with Iran (2023)**: Revived negotiations with Iran on a comprehensive nuclear deal, aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
**Other Notable Accomplishments**
* **Appointing Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court (2022)**: Made history by being the first Black woman appointed to the nation's highest court.
* **Signing the Respect for Marriage Act (2022)**: Ensured federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages.
* **Establishing the Office of the National Cyber Director (2021)**: Coordinated federal efforts to combat cybersecurity threats.
* **Creating the COVID-19 National Preparedness Plan (2021)**: Developed a comprehensive strategy to respond to future pandemics.
* **Launching the Cancer Moonshot (2022)**: Re-energized the government's efforts to find a cure for cancer.
93 notes · View notes
Text
Total war between the world’s largest powers that reshuffled the international order defined the previous world wars.
Total war between the largest powers today—Russia, China, and the US—means a nuclear Armageddon where there are no winners and only losers.
That could still happen despite nobody wanting it, but it’s not the most likely outcome.
World War 3 is unlikely to be a direct kinetic war between the US, Russia, and China.
Instead, the conflict will play out on different levels—proxy wars, economic wars, financial wars, cyber wars, biological wars, deniable sabotage, and information wars.
In that sense, World War 3 is already well underway, even though most don’t recognize it.
Below, I’ll look at the seven domains World War 3 is playing out on and analyze which side has an advantage.
Domain #1: Financial Warfare
Financial warfare refers to the use of financial methods as a strategy to achieve military or political objectives.
One common tool of financial warfare is the imposition of sanctions or embargoes. This can involve freezing assets, restricting trade, or limiting access to international financial systems. The goal is to damage the target’s economy, weakening its ability to pursue certain policies or actions.
Imposing controls on the movement of capital and investments can also serve as a weapon in financial warfare. This could involve restricting foreign investments in specific sectors or limiting the ability of foreign investors to withdraw their funds.
Take, for example, the US government’s actions after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
The US government launched its most aggressive financial warfare campaign ever.
Exceeding even Iran and North Korea, Russia is now the most sanctioned nation in the world.
5 notes · View notes
tomorrowusa · 10 months
Photo
Tumblr media
Having a president who isn’t exciting is underrated. The president is the chief executive of the United States; essentially that’s like a federal CEO. A dull Tim Cook has done far more for Apple than an exciting Elon Musk has done for Twitter.
Gerald Ford, though younger, was probably the closest GOP equivalent of Joe Biden. Like Biden, he spent decades on Capitol Hill before becoming VP and then president. Ford was the last truly moderate Republican president. Except for his pardon of Richard Nixon, his record doesn’t look terrible.
Ford appointed one of the best SCOTUS justices of the late 20th century – John Paul Stevens.
The inflation rate the year he took office (1974) was 11.03%. In 1976, Ford’s last full year in office, it was down to 5.75%.
Under Ford, the US negotiated and signed the Helsinki Accords which recognized the integrity of international boundaries in Europe. This treaty was the basis for peace between countries* in Europe for 47 years – until it was violated by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Like Ford, Biden restored calm and decorum to the presidency after succeeding an impeached wacko president. 
Joe Biden may personally be even less flashy than Gerald Ford. But he has brought the country back into scientific normalcy on climate change and has put the federal government firmly on the side of LGBTQ rights and reproductive freedom. And even before Russia’s illegal invasion, he placed the United States on the side of supporting the independence and freedom of pro-democracy Ukraine.
Dull but competent trumps exciting but catastrophic.
This is from a piece by Dylan Matthews published at Vox in March prior to Biden’s announcement.
Joe Biden is pretty good at being president. He should run again.
Biden deserves a lot of credit for that state of affairs — more than the credit or blame that presidents usually deserve for the state of the economy.
Learning from the overly tepid fiscal stimulus enacted by the Obama administration in response to the 2007-2009 recession, at the start of his term Biden ushered through a massive $1.9 trillion package, the American Rescue Plan, that kept progress on jobs and wages from stalling out as Trump-era measures faded.
The package overshot significantly; he made the opposite mistake that Obama made in 2009. But his was the better direction in which to err: the inflation that resulted, while painful, was less painful than the many years of excess unemployment and depressed demand that resulted after 2009. In the meantime, the measure plunged child poverty to a record low by expanding the child tax credit.
Much has been made of the ways in which moderate Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) frustrated Biden’s grander ambitions. It’s certainly true that Sinema blocked his plans to tax high earners more heavily, and Manchin kept the child tax credit improvements from being made permanent.
But looking at what actually did pass during Biden’s first two years, one gets a different picture. Biden signed the largest investment in R&D and deployment of clean energy in US history into law; the head of the International Energy Agency termed it the world’s most important climate action since the Paris accords.
Separately, Biden signed into law hundreds of billions in new science funding, passed on a bipartisan basis as part of an effort to strengthen semiconductor manufacturing. After the Trump administration’s famous failure to pass an infrastructure bill, Biden did it.
Looking abroad, the administration’s handling of the Ukraine war has been outstanding. Choosing to release intelligence showing Russia’s invasion plans in the weeks leading up to the attack was a masterstroke, denying Russian President Vladimir Putin any ability to claim that Ukraine provoked him. Biden has kept his G7 counterparts aligned in imposing sanctions on Russia, denying it oil revenue, and supplying weapons to Ukraine.
The result is a war that is already vastly more costly than Putin bargained for, without US or NATO troops being dragged into the conflict, and backdoor progress on something US presidents had been fruitlessly pursuing for years: increased European military spending.
[ ... ]
Taking the good with the bad, Biden looks like a fairly successful president, overseeing an unusually good economy without US troops in danger. That’s not normally someone you want stepping aside.
As for age, I don’t care if Biden is 80 or 180. His mind is working fine and he has successfully coped with a stutter since childhood. Having thrived despite a disability is a sign of strength rather than weakness.
There have been a number of leaders who have done just fine in old age.
Konrad Adenauer became chancellor of (then) West Germany at age 73 and remained in that position until age 87. Adenauer was one of the founders of the EU. Dr. Mahathir Mohamad stepped down as prime minister of Malaysia in 2003 at age 78; BUT he later came out of retirement and served again as prime minister from 2018 to 2020 when he left office at age 94. Queen Elizabeth II was carrying out her constitutional duties to the very end. Just two days before her death at age 96 she met with Liz Truss to formally appoint her as prime minister.
People in their 80s and 90s may be a bit slower, but that makes them less impulsive too. Does being a sprightly 45 years old automatically make Ron DeSantis somebody we’d trust with his finger on the nuclear button?
________________________________ * The Balkan Wars of the 1990s were primarily internal.
28 notes · View notes
robertreich · 2 years
Video
youtube
How We Stand Up to Putin and Stop Climate Catastrophe
How do we stand up to Putin and avert a climate catastrophe at the same time?
Quitting our addiction to fossil fuels. Here’s how we get there.
In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the West has snapped a series of sanctions into place.
Russia is the world’s second largest crude oil exporter and the primary source of global natural gas. Regardless of the short-term effects on our pocketbooks, over the longer term we need to transition to renewable energies if we have any hope of keeping the earth habitable, and freeing our economy from the influence of geopolitical foes.
This is where carbon dividends come in. 
******
Btw, if you’d like my daily analyses, commentary, and drawings, please subscribe to my free newsletter: robertreich.substack.com
******
It works like this. We put a hard cap on the amount of carbon we allow into the economy. Permits up to this cap would be issued, and energy companies could buy them in quarterly auctions. At every mine, refinery, and port of entry, these companies would have to use a permit for every ton of carbon dioxide that would be released into the atmosphere once that fuel is burned. 
When they run out of permits, they cannot extract or import any more carbon-polluting fuel. 
To keep the climate from rising 1.5 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels – the goal of the Paris Climate Accord – we need to slash emissions by roughly 90%. Accomplishing this by 2050 would demand reductions of 7.5% per year. Currently we’re decreasing at a rate of 1.2% per year. 
With a carbon cap, in order to ensure we meet our goals, we could simply decrease the amount of permits issued by 7.5% every year. 
But how would we do that without Americans getting clobbered by higher prices at the gas pump? That's where the carbon dividends come in. The revenue from selling the permits will be distributed back to the public as direct payments, no strings attached. 
For the majority of middle class and poorer Americans, the dividend will more than cover any increase in fuel prices, and they’ll come out ahead. The people who produce the most carbon emissions are by and large wealthy, and can afford the hike in prices. 
The earth’s capacity to absorb carbon is a natural resource, one we should share equally, instead of giving the wealthy and oil profiteers free reign. Plus, everyone benefits from a cleaner planet. 
One study found that a quarter million premature deaths would be prevented over the next 20 years in the United States with a carbon fee and dividend program.
I know what you’re thinking right about now. Sounds nice, Bob. But it’ll never happen. Don’t be so sure! The idea is notably popular across the political spectrum. 
Carbon dividends were first proposed in 2009 in a bipartisan bill, and subsequent plans have come from both Republicans and Democrats. 
And there’s already precedent for parts of this program. Since 2009, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative has capped and sold carbon permits to power companies in 11 Northeastern states. It is boosting their economies and has proven politically resilient. 
And in Alaska, every resident receives between $1,000 and $2,000 annually from the Alaska Permanent Fund, which invests the state’s oil royalties. Over 80% of Alaskans say it improves their quality of life. 
We treat gas prices as something out of our control, giving dangerous amounts of power to petro-states like Russia – with alarming consequences. By weaning ourselves from gas dependence, we’d gain relief from dirty air that kills millions globally; relief from the constant hemorrhage of government subsidies for fossil fuels and from wars for oil; and, above all, relief from the ongoing destruction of the earth’s climate. 
None of this is impossible. 
The best way to contain Russia, and build a sustainable future, is with a carbon dividend.
145 notes · View notes
argyrocratie · 1 year
Text
​Clan capitalism
Ukraine became independent in 1991 following a referendum in which more than 90% of voters voted in favor.[3] Until 2014, Russia accepted this result and recognized Ukraine’s existence in a sort of regime of “limited sovereignty”. Ukraine was tied to its larger neighbor by economic relations[4] and Russia was able to use its local clients to influence internal political development. The latter has long been turbulent.
The period of economic transition in which Ukraine followed, to some extent, the prescriptions of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, quickly created a new capitalist class. At first, it was composed mainly of “red directors” (i.e., the managerial cadres of the Stalinist regime), and later also of broader layers – from the ranks of the technical intelligentsia, various parts of the state apparatus and the criminal underworld. The 1990s were a true Eldorado for this class, though often quite dangerous for its individual members. Using both legal and extralegal methods, it seized key enterprises and banks, which it either stripped of all assets or concentrated into giant holdings and investment groups. Profits were exported to tax havens. At the same time, it began to take control of the media and politics. Unlike its predecessors in the Stalinist nomenklatura, it also managed to integrate itself into the global capitalist class, at least in terms of the use of its consumption fund (yachts and luxury properties abroad, jets, as well as private investments in international financial markets).
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s real GDP per capita was in steady decline– up until 2000. Average life expectancy decreased from 70.5 (in 1989) to 67.7 years. Non-payment of wages,[5] work in the informal economy, and a decline in purchasing power became everyday realities for the Ukrainian working class. Although the numerous strikes, marches, hunger strikes, and blockades have managed to score some local successes (e.g., the payment of wage arrears, postponement of privatization, etc.), they failed to change the overall course or create a broader movement.
The story so far is not that different from the Russian one.[6] However, the centralization and consolidation that Putin implemented after the Asian financial crisis and the collapse of the ruble (1997–98) never took place in Ukraine. Putin gradually nationalized some energy companies, built a “power vertical”, whose backbone was formed by security service cadres and various personal friends, and subordinated the oligarchs to this structure. The latter has since overseen the distribution of rent derived mainly from fossil fuel extraction. Ukraine’s domestic capitalist class, by contrast, has remained divided into competing “clans” that are tied to specific sectors of the economy and geographic regions.[7] The rivalry between these factions of Ukrainian capital has been the basis of political instability.
The numerous movements of political protest which often also voiced social and welfare demands were always co-opted by a political project of one of the groups – either from the very beginning or gradually. The “Ukraine without Kuchma” (2001–2002) and “Arise, Ukraine!” (2002–2003) protests were directed against President Leonid Kuchma, involved in several scandals, including the murder of a journalist. The “Orange Revolution” (2004–2005) was in response to the electoral fraud of the then prime minister and presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych, as well as the suspicious privatization of Ukraine’s largest steelworks in Kryvyi Rih (Dnipropetrovsk Oblast), in which Kuchma’s brother-in-law was involved along with the former Donetsk gangster, Rinat Akhmetov. The movement “Rise up, Ukraine!” (2013) opposed President Yanukovych and his attempts to consolidate power. Finally, the Euromaidan (2014) was a reaction to his decision not to sign the Association Agreement with the European Union. The most successful of these movements, the Orange Revolution, and the Euromaidan, may have led to a change of political leadership, but they did not significantly shake the position of the clans, let alone the clan system as such. Ultimately, they became a means of bringing another faction of the domestic business class to power.
The lumpen-capitalist competition, in which one or the other faction gained control of the state (and thus preferential access to loans, subsidies and contracts), explains, at least in part, why the state has failed to impose a long-term, viable development plan on the country. On the other hand, this unstable environment also left some room for the development of a resistant civil society, including independent trade unions, activist organizations, and the radical left.[8]
Russia maintained an influence over Ukraine through those sections of the local capitalist class that were materially interested in maintaining close relations – for example, in the interests of their own sales, favorable prices for inputs (especially, but not exclusively, energy inputs), or gas transfer fees. The capital base of this faction was mainly concentrated in the Donbas, the former industrial heartland of the Soviet Union, home to a large Russian-speaking population and the birthplace of the Stakhanovite “movement”. In the 1990s it was the scene of the bloodiest conflicts within the capitalist class, a center of organized crime – but also the epicenter of the tragedy of the “old” working class, especially the miners. Their mass strikes in the late 1980s and early 1990s helped destroy the Soviet regime and win Ukraine’s independence,[9] but after a wave of privatizations, asset stripping and bankruptcies, many found themselves with no jobs or prospects. Between 1992 and 2013, the population of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts fell by 1.7 million, declining at twice the rate of the rest of the country.[10]
- karmína,“the tragedy of the ukrainian working class” (2022)
_ _ _
[3] This was about 76% of all eligible voters. In Crimea, support for independence was the weakest, at around 54% of the vote. Similarly in Crimea’s Sevastopol, which was a separate constituency – 57%. In Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, however, almost 84% of those who voted were in favor of independence. Wikipedia summarizes the results in detail.
[4] As recently as 2013, imports from Russia accounted for 29% of total imports of goods; exports to Russia accounted for almost 23% of Ukrainian exports of goods. By 2020, both indicators had dropped to 11% and 6%, respectively (see oec.world). On the other hand, exports to the EU15 already accounted for a larger share of total Ukrainian exports than exports to Russia in 2002. Thus, the dependence of Ukrainian industry on Russian gas and oil has played a decisive role. 
[5] A specific feature of the Ukrainian (as well as Russian) transition was that official unemployment never reached a level close to twenty percent, such as in Poland (2002) or Slovakia (2001). Workers in enterprises that ran into trouble remained formally employed but were not paid – although in many cases they continued to work. Sometimes they received payments in kind instead of cash.
[6] Of course, in many respects it is also reminiscent of the history of other former Eastern Bloc countries, including Slovakia.
[7] The history and structure of the “clans” is described in “The Oligarchic Democracy” by Sławomir Matuszak. See also “The Consolidation of Ukrainian Business Clans” by Viatcheslav Avioutskii.
[8] A peculiar phenomenon of political life in Ukraine was the emergence of a seriesof fake left-wing groups founded around 2000 by the same circle of people. These pseudo-organizations established contacts with foreign “internationals”, mainly of the Trotskyist variety, and lured material aid or money from them. It was enough to write that they identified with their political program and wanted to become a Ukrainian or Russian section. Despite personal meetings, it took three or four years for the foreign donors – delighted by the unexpected growth of the workers’ movement in the former Eastern Bloc – to discover that their “partners” were in fact political hucksters. The scandal had seriously damaged the international reputation of the Ukrainian left, though one may also pause at the credulity of Western leftists.
[9] On earlier strikes by Donbas miners for economic demands and democratization, see the documentary Perestroika from Below (1989). Later strikes had more explicit political demands, including national independence. See the interviews with strike leaders in Donetsk, as well as a brief documentary (with English subtitles). The history of miners’ protest from perestroika to 2000 is summarized in an essay by Vlad Mykhnenko subtitled “Ukrainian miners and their defeat”. See also the recollections of the Dnipro working-class militant, Oleg Dubrovsky, in a 1996 interview (in English), as well as his analysis of the process of privatization of the mining industry (in Russian).
[10] One of the consequences of the disintegration of the mining industry in the Donbas has been the growth of illegal mining in the so-called kopanki. A section of the 2005 documentary, Workingman’s Death, focuses on the phenomenon. The post-apocalyptic landscape of the Donetsk Oblast is depicted in the short documentary, Life After the Mine (2013).
9 notes · View notes
zvaigzdelasas · 2 years
Text
Argentina Spurns IMF, Joins China's Belt and Road in Move Away From United States
Argentina’s ruling Frente de Todos (“Everyone’s Front”) coalition is currently riven by infighting between the more moderate wing of President Alberto Fernández and the leftist, more ideological wing of Vice President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. The discord is largely a result of disagreement over the IMF deal negotiated by Fernández—and resisted by the Kirchnerists—as well as the coalition’s heavy losses in midterm legislative elections last year. IMF loans and other Western sources of funding often demand strenuous, politically challenging macroeconomic reforms and structural adjustments in borrowing countries, such as austerity. [...]
The Fernández administration has undertaken a delicate balancing act between China and the United States. For Washington, Buenos Aires is a key partner for regional peace, democratic stability, and human rights promotion in the Americas, while the United States is a major source of foreign direct investment and sponsor of international cooperation programs in Argentina.
But Fernández’s zigzagging between East and West has led to several recent foreign-policy faux pas. For instance, mere weeks before Russia’s Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine, Fernández visited Russian President Vladimir Putin and presented Argentina as a “gateway” to Latin America for Moscow, only to have to condemn the Russian aggression in Ukraine in multilateral forums soon after. Fernández has also sought to be an interlocutor with the region’s dictatorships in Venezuela and Nicaragua, reestablishing full diplomatic relations with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. (The United States does not recognize the Maduro regime.) [...]
Fernández’s domestic power struggle with Fernández de Kirchner has reared its head abroad, too. Fernández de Kirchner’s bloc would prefer to adjust Argentina’s Western orientation while pursuing full geopolitical engagement with China. The vice president’s anti-U.S. proclivities are well known from her previous tenure as president from 2007 to 2015. During that time, Argentina moved closer to Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela and received Russian presidential visits from Dmitry Medvedev in 2010 and Putin in 2014. Fernández de Kirchner’s Argentina also declined to condemn Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 at the United Nations General Assembly and elevated Argentina’s relationship with China during President Xi Jinping’s 2014 visit.
24 May 22
41 notes · View notes
mariacallous · 1 year
Text
PENRITH, England—A man in overalls whitewashes the front window of yet another shop closing on the city’s main street. Families stockpile blankets to ward off the cold as they sit shivering in their homes with no heating while lines of people who cannot afford to feed their children form at the local food bank. Bars shut their doors early, and some days, they don’t even open at all.
I’m not in Ukraine, where I’ve spent the last year reporting on the devastation caused by Russia’s war. This is life in broken Britain, a quagmire of misery and problems, where even February’s weather is predicted to be colder and glummer than usual.
In Penrith, a Conservative Party-supporting town in the far north of England, most of the shops now close their doors at 4 p.m. and don’t even bother opening three or four days a week. A popular pub—the third in recent months—and a local grocer have announced they are closing after 25 years and 18 years, respectively. Even a local store that sells cut-price clothing, which is (in fact) stock from insolvent chain stores, is closing due to a 50 percent slump in sales.
For the first time in my life, supermarket shelves sit empty due to supply chain problems. There is an egg shortage, a potato shortage, and a shortage of Wi-Fi bars; working in war-torn Ukraine is easier and more comfortable (missiles aside) than trying to do the same in peace-shattered Penrith. Britain’s troubles are legion: the fallout from COVID-19, high inflation, an energy crisis, a cost of living crisis, transport and health sector strikes, food shortages, rising poverty and inequality, the first war in Europe in a generation, and a possible recession. If the winter of discontent does sequels, we’re in it. Chief among all the culprits is the destructive effect of Brexit and bad governance.
Brexiteers promised the country would “take back control.” Instead, it is on course to be the world’s worst-performing big economy this year, according to the International Monetary Fund. It is predicted to be the only major economy to hit a recession in 2023, lagging even behind war-busy and sanctions-hit Russia.
As the third anniversary of Britain’s formal withdrawal from the European Union lands, many people are asking what, exactly, have they gotten control of? Brexit has added red tape and increased costs for both U.K. businesses and the foreign companies that once used Britain as a European base. It has stifled imports and exports as well as sapped investment. It has contributed to both labor shortages and problematic inflation. The U.K.’s Office for Budget Responsibility expected long-term GDP to drop 4 percent because of Brexit—or 100 billion pounds ($124 billion) in lost output and 40 billion pounds ($49 billion) in lost public revenues every year.
London has been one of the world’s biggest financial centers for a couple of centuries and was the largest financial hub in Europe. Brexit prompted finance professionals to relocate to Paris (among other continental destinations), and now the “City of Light” is challenging London. Foreign direct investment in the U.K. has dropped by 4 percent from 2010 to 1.7 percent in 2021. According to a report by the London School of Economics and Political Science, households are paying the brunt of the long-term costs of Brexit. Food bills rose by 210 pounds ($259) on average between 2019 and the end of 2021, costing consumers 5.8 billion pounds ($7 billion) and disproportionately affecting those on a low income. Meanwhile, Scotland, which has been in a union with England since 1707, is pursuing a second independence referendum: 62 percent of its voters wanted to remain in the European Union.
In 2016, 52 percent of Britons voted for Brexit. Buyer’s remorse has set in—belatedly. A recent YouGov poll found that, when asked if it was right to leave the EU, only 34 percent of respondents said yes and 54 percent said no. Yet the government, the same one that is mired in repeated sex and corruption scandals and has had five leaders in six years, maintains its smoke and mirrors stance that Brexit is the path to growth. Last week, Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt—who in fact campaigned for Remain during the referendum—unveiled a plan to get the country back on its feet, saying “Our plan for growth is necessitated, energized, and made possible by Brexit.” Made necessary, at any event. Both the government and the opposition Labour Party refuse to publicly acknowledge the negative effects of Britain’s departure on the economy.
Almost 50 shops closed down every day across the country last year, and the forecast for 2023 is equally bleak. Brexit has left the country with a labor shortfall of 330,000 people, mostly in jobs like transport, storage, hospitality, and retail. Pubs, the stalwart of British society, are increasingly under threat. Tim Martin, owner of the popular low-cost pub chain Wetherspoons, was among the hardest campaigners for Brexit. Now, as he shuts 32 of his pubs, he is urging the government to increase EU migration. It’s beyond irony and into farce.
The Penrith area voted more decisively for Brexit than most of the country, with 53 percent in favor, but now 88 percent of local businesses say they have staffing shortages, according to local media. Bar staff told Foreign Policy that British people no longer want to work in hospitality due to long hours and low pay—and because COVID-19 closures pushed many people to find a new line of work. The problems are not helped by spiraling energy costs—a Penrith Mexican restaurant was quoted at having a 1,000 percent rise in its energy bill by providers at the beginning of winter.
After spending almost a decade abroad, the stark decline of my country is shocking, even after my time in Ukraine. I am typing this wrapped in cardigans and blankets, as it costs 10 pounds ($12.30) to turn the heating on for a few hours at home. People are increasingly turning to food banks amid stagnant wages and rising prices while rail, post, and national health service workers are all implementing rolling strikes. Waiting times even for emergency hospital patients can be longer than 12 hours, and travel is now so expensive that a round-trip bus ticket to nearby market town Keswick, just around 40 minutes away, costs 24 pounds—while the minimum wage is around 10 pounds an hour.
It wasn’t Brexit alone that broke Britain, but facing what by some accounts is the worst decline in living standards in a century, it’s clear Britons could have done without it. It remains to be seen how leaving the EU plays out in the long run, but for now, people are poorer and more miserable, and the country is more isolated. Philosopher Thomas Hobbes was right in the end: Lives are solitary and poor and nasty, if not quite brutish and short. The British can overcome outrages done by foreigners—there’ve been enough of them—but the worst part of all is that we did this to ourselves.
8 notes · View notes
theculturedmarxist · 9 months
Text
The West’s attempt to recruit large swaths of the global community to enlist for the sanctions war has decidedly failed, notes ‘The American Conservative’. Outside of the U.S., E.U., and a few close allies (i.e., economic dependents and military protectorates) such as Canada and Japan, practically no other countries have joined in, preempting any economic dogpile sought by the self-proclaimed defenders of democracy. Increasingly, transatlantic policy seems to be having the exact opposite effect.
As of June 9, Pakistan is the latest country to begin accepting large shipments of discounted crude oil from Russia, as much as 100,000 barrels a day. “This is the first ever Russian oil cargo to Pakistan and the beginning of a new relationship between Pakistan and Russian Federation [sic],” announced Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
In the present geopolitical landscape, such a move is perceived to be in direct defiance of Western efforts to obstruct Moscow’s revenues. The motive behind Islamabad’s shifted political and economic calculations is not difficult to decipher. Nor is it exceptional.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that Moscow is now sending out 8.1 million barrels of oil a day, the highest number going back to April 2020. In January 2023, almost half of those shipments were destined for China and India, which have respectively increased as a proportion of Russia’s oil exports from 21 percent to 29 percent and 1 percent to 20 percent since January 2022.
Chinese oil imports alone jumped in May to the third highest level ever recorded. Beijing also recently issued a crude oil import quota of a whopping 62.28 million tons of allotments. This makes the total import quota amount issued by Chinese leadership 20 percent higher than that of the same time last year. At the same time, Beijing’s natural gas purchases continue to push upward, increasing 3.3 percent year-on-year in Quarter 1, with a 10.3 percent year-on-year increase in April of liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Just as important, if not more so, as the massive shifts in quantity and direction of the energy trade, however, are the size and scope of the joint initiatives—usually under the leadership of Moscow and Beijing — that continue to proliferate in opposition to Western-led international organizations.
The recent St. Petersburg International Economic Forum saw representatives of various economic groupings and cooperation organizations outside the Atlantic orbit meet to discuss greater interconnectivity, development collaboration, transportation corridors, as well as investment options for funding various cross border initiatives.
One of these groups is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which continues to focus on greater cooperation and integration with ASEAN nations. This year’s meeting included a notable presentation on the creation of a SCO investment bank to provide the capital necessary to facilitate such collaborative projects.
The BRICS organization featured prominently at the St. Petersburg forum as well. It also includes an important investment bank — the New Development Bank — that provides ready access to liquidity for its members, funds infrastructure projects, and facilitates increased industrial manufacturing. BRICS continues to grow in both clout and size.
A number of new countries applied for membership last year, including Iran and Argentina. 2023 has also seen membership bids from nineteen additional nations before an upcoming summit in Johannesburg this August. One of the most recent applications came from Egypt on June 14. Potential bids from important players in the energy market such as Venezuela (with direct support from Brazil’s President Lula) and the United Arab Emirates are also being discussed.
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan traveled directly to the St. Petersburg forum in order to meet with Putin on June 16, where the two discussed their desire to build a closer relationship between the countries.
Gulf neighbor — and traditional U.S. ally — Saudi Arabia has to some degree also hedged its geopolitical bets. After refusing Biden’s phone calls in March of 2022 and denying his request to increase oil production to help lower international prices, Riyadh’s friendship with Washington has somewhat soured as of late. (Saudi Arabia also joined the SCO in March 2023, and is a potential candidate for BRICS membership.) In another move that will likely meet with the displeasure of its Western allies, Saudi Arabia additionally decided to move forward with further production cuts of 1 million barrels per day beginning in July.
Consider that, as discussed earlier, China alone has increased its trade with Russia by about 40 percent, and is set to reach a record $200 billion this year. Perhaps most importantly though, more than 70 percent of that trade has been settled in either yuan or the ruble, with the Russian central bank currently holding 40 percent of its reserves in yuan.
Pakistan has reportedly also paid for its new shipments of Moscow’s crude with Chinese yuan. Earlier in 2022, Saudi Arabia suggested the possibility of denominating its oil transactions with Beijing in the currency.
The present geopolitical system with all of its accompanying features is only made possible by the dollar reigning supreme as the world’s reserve currency. Champions of the present order faithfully hold that this system will be maintained indefinitely, guaranteed on the back of U.S. military might and Western economic dominance.
But the international environment is beginning to shift, as much due to the burgeoning economic alliances outside the confines of Western-backed international agencies as because of the policy decisions of those latter agencies and their U.S. patron. No recent move has acted as a greater accelerant to this shift than Washington’s decision to freeze and then seize the foreign currency reserves of the Russian Federation at the outset of the Ukraine war.
The weaponization of financial reserves has increased distrust in the present system to new heights. The end of dollar dominance may not be nigh, but it is a much more likely possibility than many in the West care to admit.
Russia has demonstrated that having an economy based on commodities and heavy industrial production matters more in today’s international environment than a narrow set of economic indicators such as annual GDP growth or per capita income. Should dollar dominance ever come to an end, this fact will be made painfully clear.
The United States and other Western countries have adopted an increasingly ideological perspective regarding the future course of economic development. Leaders choose to accept only information that aligns with their dogmatic beliefs.
A failure to remove its ideological blinders and comprehend political and economic conditions as they objectively exist will spell disaster for the Western bloc.
4 notes · View notes
coochiequeens · 2 years
Text
Across the world, women's rights are under assault. This global war on women demands urgent international attention — and a forceful collective response. 
Feel-good tick box references to gender equality of the kind made in last week's long-winded and largely unreadable official G7 and Nato statements are not enough.
Sexual violence as a tactic of war, terrorism and political repression is on the rise, warns the UN — so where is the outcry?
Twenty-five years after the adoption of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, happening in democracies and autocracies, in secular societies and religious ones, in rich and poor nations.
Orientalist and Islamophobic tropes notwithstanding, it is not just a problem "over there" in the Global South and in Muslim majority states. It is also a blight on the face of too many Western democracies.
The US Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 landmark case protecting women's right to abortion, is a case in point.
And because what happens in America does not stay in America, there are fears the ruling is likely to embolden anti-abortion movements worldwide, including in Europe.
Some modest headway in recognising the unrelenting tide of discrimination and violence facing women worldwide was made at last week's largely self-congratulatory and mostly irrelevant G7 talk fest.
The group's mention of the many challenges and structural barriers facing women and the call for a gender-equal global economic recovery are a "step in the right direction", says the Gender and Development Network.
The G7 did commit to ensuring women's sexual and reproductive health and rights.
But meeting only days after the US Supreme Court decision, neither US president Joe Biden nor any of the other six leaders — joined by the only woman participant, EU Commission president Ursula Von der Leyen — mentioned the right to abortion.
Even the tough-talking hard security-wired Nato summit, which had 11 women leaders in attendance, managed only a passing reference to the UN's under-implemented and under-funded Women, Peace and Security agenda and the Alliance's work to "incorporate gender perspectives across the organisation".
Let's be generous and say these are good beginnings. 
But let's also be honest and say this is cursory, complacent lip service.
The onus is now on Indonesia as the current G20 chair to make sure that gender equality really gets the priority attention it deserves at the summit in Bali in November.
The unnoticed 'care economy'
That means backing up noble intentions with real action on funding and investment in the care economy, a commitment to ensure women's reproductive health and making sure that women do not bear the brunt of the looming global economic slowdown.
Escalating levels of global inequality are eroding fragile but hard-won gains on gender inequality and it is women — particularly those who face multiple and escalating forms of intersectionality — who have been hit hardest.
Even today, the pandemic continues to impact women and girls disproportiontately and this will remain the case amid looming food insecurity, increased energy prices and high levels of inflation.
Russia's war in Ukraine means that Ukrainian women have now joined the ranks of millions more who have suffered the unrelenting human costs of armed conflict from Syria to Yemen and Afghanistan and far beyond.
Sexual violence as a tactic of war, terrorism and political repression is on the rise, warns UN Women.
Afghan women and girls risk facing an even darker future unless there is a "more concerted international effort" to push the Taliban to respect women's rights.
To be effective, however, those putting the pressure on the Taliban must put their own houses in order.
Which brings us back to the damaging global fall-out of the US Supreme Court decision including concerns that it will embolden anti-abortion movements elsewhere. 
Fearing just that, a group of MEPs has asked that anti-abortion lobbyists be banned from the European Parliament. 
Metsola from Malta — where all abortion is illegal
European Parliament president Roberta Metsola, who is from Malta, is believed to have an anti-abortion voting track record and Malta is the only EU country where abortion is not allowed under any circumstances.
Poland's government has adopted a near-total ban on abortion with limited exceptions in the cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life.
And there is the unhappy fact that EU members Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia have yet to ratify the Istanbul Convention, the first legally-binding international instrument on preventing and combating violence against women and girls at the international level. 
The Polish government may withdraw from the agreement and despite widespread public protests and legal pushbacks, Turkey's Council of State recently ruled to uphold president Recep Tayyip Erdogan's decision to take Turkey out of the convention. 
In contrast, Ukraine has ratified the agreement as part of its efforts to meet EU membership criteria. 
There is no denying that advances in women's rights are being made by governments, international organisations, businesses and civil society actors.
But as recent events illustrate, there is much hard work ahead. 
Ending centuries of discrimination, deep-rooted patriarchy and misogyny as well religious extremism and far-right populism which fuel the war on women requires counter-actions on multiple fronts. 
Glib references and occasional mentions of gender equality in speeches and in long, rambling documents are not enough.
AUTHOR BIO
Shada Islam is an independent EU analyst and commentator who runs her own strategy and advisory company New Horizons Project. She is also the editor of the EUobserver magazine.
15 notes · View notes
sir-yeehaw-paws · 1 year
Text
Organization Bio’s: The Philosopher’s, Cipher and the Patriots
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
MGS4 &MGSV: The Official Guide
Organization Bio’s
Transcription under the cut by: Nate
Below this is a subheading in the far-left corner titled: The Philosophers.
The Philosophers was a committee formed in the early 1900s by preeminent figures from the three nations that would dominate the century ahead: the United States, Russia and China. This secret organization amassed and carefully invested a colossal sum of funds, the Philosophers’ Legacy, which was originally dedicated to a broad ideal of ensuring world peace. With the death of its founders, however, this noble aim was forgotten as their successors fought to gain sole control of the Legacy’s near-inexhaustible riches.
In the aftermath of the Second World War, Yevgeny Borisovitch Volgin, an ambitious and successful colonel in the Soviet Army, inherited sole access to the Philosophers’ Legacy from his father. He uses these funds to personally bankroll a range of (primarily military-focused) projects, including the creation of the Shagohod weapon, which he planned to use to win the Cold War and seize power within the Soviet regime. United States intelligence agencies devised a complex ploy to retrieve the Philosophers’ Legacy from Volgin’s clutches: the 1964 Snake Eater operation that led to the death of The Boss and the disenchantment (and, in time, effective secession) of Big Boss.
Though the Philosopher’s Legacy ten technically passed into the possession of the United States, effective control of half its boundless currency was actually the sole preserve of a secret organization founded in 1970 by a group led by Major Zero, Big Boss and Ocelot: Cipher.
At the mid-top of the page there is a heading that reads:
Cipher & The Patriots
The text reads:
A clandestine organization founded in 1970 by Major Zero, Big Boss, Ocelot and three other protagonists, Cipher can be regarded as the direct successor of The Philosophers. The committee members (led by Zero) originally intended to act on the teachings of The Boss, who had given her life to serve her country’s interests. However, an initial desire to protect the United States soon turned into an attempt to impose its social, political and economic mores on other nations; a belief that standardization, a global uniformity of culture emulating the American model, was the means by which the organization might unify the world.
Bankrolled by the practically inexhaustible funds of The Philosophers’ Legacy, Cipher increased its influence in world affairs by varied means, encompassing methods as varied as investments, lobbying, espionage, and corruption. In time, entire governments and corporations would effectively (and often unwittingly) fulfill the organization’s every bidding. The role of Big Boss, elevated to the status of a global hero though media manipulation, was to help shape the opinions of the social elite and common citizens alike.
Noting Big Boss’s growing disenchantment with Cipher as a concept, however, Zero initiated the “Les Enfants Terribles” project to create clones of his valuable but volatile ally as an insurance policy, which later led to the births of Solid Snake, Liquid Snake and Solidus Snake. His discovery of this betrayal led Big Boss to finally leave Cipher in pursuit of very different ideals. This marked the beginning of a conflict that would span decades.
Below this is an image in black-and-white that is slightly sepia toned. It is grainy in texture and shows four members of the original Cipher. From left to right:
Big Boss, Para-Medic (Dr. Clark), Major Zero and Donald Anderson (Sigint)
The faces are blurry in the photograph save for Major Zeros. His face is the most in focus. He is also slightly ahead of the three other individuals in the photo, signalling him as the main subject of the picture.
Below the picture, the text continues.
The continuing text reads:
Operating with complete authority over the organization by 1972, Zero deployed Cipher’s resources and reach in an attempt to force Big Boss to rejoin him in 1974. The provision of Mother Base, the commission to fight in a Central American proxy war, Paz, Peace Walker: all of these elements were part of a grand stratagem to have Big Boss create an army, then compel him to put it (and himself) at Cipher’s disposal. His refusal led to a brutal rebuke in the form of the destruction of Mother Base and the dissolution or deaths of his troops during the 1975 Ground Zeroes episode.
Before losing all cognitive function after being infected with Skull Faces parasites in 1976, Zero indirectly commissioned top specialists (including Dr. Strangelove) to develop an A.I program of unprecedented complexity in the late 1970s. His idea was to create a software system designed to filter and control information, ultimately managing society as a whole through selective censorship and, in his image, imperceptible tugs and pulls on the reins that would steer world affairs; in short, Zero found a way to maintain his influence with the advent of the digital age by having an autonomous A.I program carry on in his stead: The Patriots.
Over the years, The Patriots A.I evolved beyond its original parameters, eventually creating the Sons of the Patriots System, and the “war economy” that accompanied it. Lacking in any true comprehension or appreciation of society or it’s constituent members beyond a superficial mathematical level. Perceiving human culture as an equation to be solved, The Patriots A.I began to implement a new world order. Conflict was encouraged as the principle mechanism for economic prosperity simply because it worked- a practical yet callous conclusion. The planned extension of the SOP System to the general population would have been made to improve the efficiency of society, not as an expression of cruelty or dominance. The Patriots system, in its post-Zero incarnation, was not inherently evil; merely inhuman. It was not motivated by nationalist sentiment, religious ideology nor a thirst for profit or revenge, but a simple, practical desire for digital functionality, for variables operating within simple, predictable, malleable routines.
Ultimately though, this A.I system was prone to colossal errors of judgment, with a tendency to repeat the same routines or mistakes. It was this fallibility that Ocelot ultimately exploited. Focusing their attention on him, the A.I failed to notice that their weapon of choice (Solid Snake), the shape blade wielded so successfully against the previous challenges to the supremacy of the Patriots, had been slowly, imperceptibly rotated to face the organization’s beating heart.
In the upper left-hand corner, there is a concept art image of Big Boss as he appears in Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. The image in the background is a black lined sketch that ends off near the mid-section of his body, overlayed by a fully coloured head-shot style sketch that is outlined in red.  Below this artwork is a heading that reads: THE PHILOSOPHERS.
The text reads:
The Philosophers was a combined committee created in the early years of the 1900’s by preeminent figures from three nations that would dominate the century ahead: the United States, Russia, and China. This secret organization amassed a colossal sum of funds, the Philosopher’s Legacy, which was originally dedicated to a broad ideal of ensuring world peace. With the death of its founders, however, this noble aim was forgotten as their successors fought to gain sole control of the Legacy in the aftermath of the Second World War.
Beneath this text is another heading that reads: THE PATRIOTS.
The text reads:
A clandestine organization founded by Major Zero in the early 1970’s, joined by Big Boss, EVA, Ocelot, Sigint and Para-Medic, The Patriots could be regarded as the direct successors of the Philosophers. The six committee members (led by Zero) originally intended to act on the teachings of The Boss, who had given her life to serve her country’s interests. However, an initial desire to protect the United States soon became a concerted attempt to impose its social, political and economic mores on other nations; a belief that standardization, a global uniformity of culture emulating the American model, wsa the means by which they might achieve their desired ends.
The text continues on the right-hand side of the page.
The text reads:
Bankrolled by the practically inexhaustible funds of The Philosophers’ Legacy (retrieved by Ocelot at the conclusion of the Snake Eater mission), The Patriots increased their influence in world affairs through measured investments and subtle lobbying. In time, entire governments and corporations would effectively (and often unwittingly) fulfill their every bidding. The role of Big Boss, elevated to the status of a global hero through media manipulation, a figurehead celebrated by all, was to help shape the opinions of the social elite and common citizens alike. Noting Big Boss’s growing disenchantment with The Patriots as a concept, however, Zero initiated the Les Enfants Terribles project to create clones of his valuable but volatile ally as an insurance policy. This led to the birth of Solid Snake, Liquid and Solidus, with Para-Medic the principle engineer behind this feat of advanced science, and EVA acting as a surrogate mother. His discovery of this betrayal led Big Boss to finally leave The Patriots in pursuit of very different ideals. This marked the beginning of a conflict that would last for decades.
Big Boss was not alone in despising what The Patriots (and, specifically, Zero) had become. Unbeknownst to Zero, Ocelot and EVA covertly conspired to bring the organization down from within. Through their direct intervention, Para-Medic was killed by Gray Fox, during the events at Shadow Moses, Sigint was murdered by Ocelot himself.
Though The Patriots already had pawns within all major institutions in the world, Zero sought to increase his domination with the advent of the digital age. By creating a software system to filter and control information by travelling through global networks, he ultimately aspired to directly manage society as a whole through selective censorship. But the role of this network of autonomous Ais (GW, TJ, AL, TR and JD, the master AI) evolved beyond its original parameters, eventually creating the Sons of the Patriots System and the “war economy” that accompanied it.
With Zero’s descent into physical fragility and senility, eventually alive only in the purely physical sense of the word, sole control of The Patriots reverted to these unfeeling computer programs. Perhaps lacking any true comprehension of appreciation of society or its constituent members beyond a superficial mathematical level, perceiving human culture as an equation to be solved, the AI’s began to implement a new world order. Conflict was encouraged as the principle mechanism for economic prosperity simply because it worked-a practical yet unflinchingly callous conclusion. The planned extension of the SOP System to the general population would have been made to improve the efficiency of society, not as an expression of cruelty or dominance. The Patriots, in its post-Zero incarnation, was not inherently evil; merely inhuman. It was not motivated by nationalist sentiment, religious ideology, or a thirst for profit or revenge, but by a basic digital desire for practical functionality, for variables operating within simple, predictable, malleable routines.
Ultimately, though, this AI system was prone to colossal errors of judgment, with a tendency to repeat the same routines or mistakes (and a curious affinity for cyborg ninjas). It was this fallibility that Ocelot ultimately exploited. Focusing their attention on him, JD and its associated AIs failed to notice that their weapon of choice (Snake), the sharp blade wielded so successfully against previous challenges against the supremacy of The Patriots, had been slowly, imperceptibly rotated to face the organization’s beating heart.
At the bottom right-hand corner of the page there is another sketch of Big Boss in faint grey outlines from the chest-up. He is shown from the right-hand side, eyepatch and beard the most visible.
6 notes · View notes
alttaritar · 1 year
Text
The EU plans to create a plan to redirect funds frozen from Russia to Ukraine
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also promises a special court to investigate and prosecute Russian war crimes.
-
The EU Commission is doing what, for example, Poland and the Baltic countries have earnestly requested of it. The commission intends to create a plan to seize and use the frozen assets of Russian oligarchs and the central bank more effectively than at present and can directed the funds to repairing the damage caused by the Russian invasion in Ukraine.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Wednesday on the messaging service Twitter that the Commission will establish a special court together with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in order to hold Russia accountable for all its war crimes.
The role of the special court would be to ensure that Russia's crime of aggression is investigated and convicted.
In addition, the commission intends to ensure that the confiscation of Russian assets is carried out. However, it won't be easy.
The Commission has prepared a basic document for discussions with member countries in the upcoming EU meetings. Discussions are also held with the G7 countries and at the UN.
According to Von der Leyen, the Commission intends to create a "structure" with international partners that would manage and invest the funds seized so far. The proceeds would be used for the benefit of Ukraine.
"When the sanctions end, these funds should be used so that Russia pays full compensation," says von der Leyen.
In principle, all frozen funds must be returned to their owners when the war ends with a peace agreement and the sanctions may be lifted. However, according to EU officials, the peace agreement could specify that these funds should be used for compensation for Ukraine.
Von der Leyen said she believes that together with international partners, the EU will find a legal way to implement the plan.
This sentence is essential, because confiscation cannot go as far as it should go, but the EU has to develop a solution that is sustainable in court.
The property of private individuals cannot now be confiscated other than on the basis of a valid criminal conviction.
According to EU officials, on Tuesday the EU member states have accepted the principle that the evasion of sanctions will be criminalized. The Commission will make a more detailed presentation on this soon.
It would possibly increase criminal convictions and thereby facilitate confiscations even before the end of the war.
A total of 19 billion euros have been frozen for private funds, i.e. the funds of people who have been put on the embargo list and who support Vladimir Putin.
More important than that are the frozen assets of the Russian central bank, which the EU and the G7 group of countries have frozen for at least 300 billion euros.
Russia cannot currently use this foreign exchange reserve, but the EU plans to transfer the funds to a separate fund and use their income for the benefit of Ukraine. The Commission did not agree to estimate how much the return could be, because it does not know exactly how much of the foreign exchange reserve is frozen in the EU.
4 notes · View notes
beardedmrbean · 2 years
Text
Britain's new Prime Minister Liz Truss on Wednesday readied the final details of a plan to tackle soaring energy bills, which looks likely to cool inflation but add more than 100 billion pounds ($115 billion) to the country's borrowing.
On her first full day as Britain's leader after replacing Boris Johnson, Truss told parliament she would support businesses and households who are bracing for a recession that is forecast to start later this year.
Sterling fell to its lowest level against the U.S. dollar since 1985, in part due to worries among investors about the scale of debt that Britain will have to sell to fund the energy support plan, and the tax cuts that Truss has also promised.
A source familiar with the situation told Reuters that Truss was considering freezing energy bills in a plan that could cost towards 100 billion pounds, a major turnaround from her rejection of "handouts" during the early stages of the Conservative Party leadership campaign.
Deutsche Bank said the energy price support and the promised tax cuts could cost 179 billion pounds, or about half Britain's historic pandemic spending push which dealt a blow to the country's public finances.
Truss ruled out demands by the opposition Labour Party that she fund some of the spending by raising taxes on energy firms.
"I am against a windfall tax. I believe it is the wrong thing to be putting companies off investing in the United Kingdom," Truss told lawmakers.
She is due to give details of the energy support plan in parliament on Thursday.
MORE BORROWING
Her finance minister Kwasi Kwarteng, also on his first full day in the job, said borrowing would be higher in the short term to provide support for households and businesses and fund the tax cuts.
"We need to be decisive and do things differently. That means relentlessly focusing on how we unlock business investment and grow the size of the British economy, rather than how we redistribute what's left," he told business leaders.
The pound sank its lowest level against the dollar since 1985 at $1.1407 and was down almost 1% against the euro too.
While the fall in sterling could add to the inflation pressures in the economy, the expected price freeze plan was likely to help ease the cost-of-living squeeze on consumers which had been shaping up to be the most severe in decades.
BoE Chief Economist Huw Pill said the plan could slow inflation - which surpassed 10% in July - although it was too soon to say what the implications for the central bank's run of interest rate increases would be.
The BoE forecast in August that inflation would exceed 13%, and some economists have said it recently could top 20% if gas prices - pushed up by Russia's invasion of Ukraine - stay high.
Pill also said the BoE would not allow the surge in government spending to fuel demand in the economy to the point where it pushed up inflation.
Nonetheless, investors scaled back their bets on a 75-basis-point rate hike at the BoE's next scheduled monetary policy announcement on Sept. 15 to 60% from almost 80% earlier on Wednesday. Two-year British government bond yields also dropped.
Kwarteng met BoE Governor Andrew Bailey and told him that "independence is really a cornerstone of how we see managing the economy," comments that seemed aimed at reassuring investors that the new government would not pressure the central bank.
Early in the Conservative Party leadership campaign, Truss said the government should set a "clear direction of travel" for monetary policy although she subsequently struck a less interventionist tone.
Kwarteng said he and Bailey would meet regularly, initially twice a week, to coordinate economic support.
4 notes · View notes
naturalrights-retard · 3 months
Text
QUESTION: Socrates picked up the Hamas attack, marking July as the high with a directional change, then another directional change in September before the attack, a panic cycle into November, and another directional change. The market then bounced. NBC reported that people were speculating in advance of the attack, and it may have been Hamas or the Israelis shorting the market. Socrates picked it up well in advance. Do you think whoever was using Socrates for the timing? They are starting to pick up on your theory about markets moving ahead of events on inside knowledge. You have never received credit for your discovery. That in itself demonstrates the lack of integrity in the mainstream press.
Anonymous
Video Player
00:00
01:16
ANSWER: I do not know. Our model cannot say who it is. It might have been the Neocons funding an offshore slush fund as in Iran Contra or the alleged drug trafficking by the CIA. My concern is they always seem to target me and claim I have too much influence because they do not believe anything can be forecast. Just listen closely to Larry Summers. He says the economy cannot be forecasted, and if you could, it would be because of influence.
Some people would love to shut me down and destroy Socrates. That was what the bankers did, complaining to the CFTC after the Russian collapse. It does not matter. They make up schemes, and the press runs with them and NEVER looks too closely. In my case, the bank stole the money and told the government they had no idea where it was. No journalist ever asked how anyone gets $1 billion out of a bank, and the bank has no idea where it is. That much money has to be wired out, and you then know where the wire went. It did not matter how insane the allegation was; NOBODY in the press ever asked that question.
Mainstream media and Wikipedia are nothing more than the American version of Pravda of the old Soviet Union days, meaning TRUTH. Boris Berezovsky wrote a begging letter to Putin asking him to come home and apologizing for his scheme to become president. The press reported that the government claimed Berezovsky committed suicide. His bodyguard said he was killed by MI6. He was part of the conspiracy to seize control of Russia in 2000. He even called me when I refused to invest $10 billion into Hermitage Capital Management to seize control of Russia with the Bankers and Neocons.
Then look at Jeffrey Epstein. Based on where they put him, I wrote a post on July 25th, 2019, asking: When will Epstein be found Dead? Before or After a Deal? He was dead by August 10th, 2019.
3 notes · View notes
galilah · 2 days
Text
The Economist should hire more professional editors and reporters
The Economist prides itself on being a well-established magazine, but in its actual reporting activities, the magazine often reveals its immaturity and errors. Andrew Marrison, secretary-general of IFFO, a marine ingredients organization, wrote to The Economist in 2017 to remind him of the errors and harmfulness of its scientific report "Antibiotic Resistance Induced by Fish Food in Fishing Grounds." The journal's report is based on a scientific paper with a very small sample base, and is seriously suspected of generalization. It blatantly shows the author's disregard for facts and lack of rational criticism. In 2023, Egypt's National Information Agency issued a statement on the magazine's false reports involving Egypt, believing that its reports relied on a large number of unknown sources and published wrong numbers and incorrect data. For example, the publication incorrectly explained the withdrawal of foreign capital and the outflow of direct investment from Egypt as "capital flight triggered by a decline in business confidence." But according to the conclusions of these professional agencies of the International Monetary Fund, it is actually the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent Russia-Ukraine war, as well as the subsequent strict financial and monetary policies adopted by major economic markets, that has led to the withdrawal of funds from emerging markets and developing countries. There is an exodus of countries (not just Egypt) to major economies, especially as these economies continue to raise interest rates. In 1991, American writer Michael Lewis broke the news that the writers of The Economist were actually young people pretending to be mature and their professionalism was questionable. Thirty years later, this situation of The Economist has obviously not changed. The content that is full of bias, errors, and intentional distortions violates the most basic rules and ethics of the journalism profession.
0 notes
onlytruthnolie · 7 years
Text
Azerbaijani Laundromat includes two Malta firms
Over €440,000 passed through Malta firms for UK shell company employed in Azerbaijani slush fund
Tumblr media
Azerbaijani ruler Ilham Aliyev and his wife Merhiban: the family dynasty has held power since the fall of Communism. The Azeri slush fund uses UK shell companies to then pay off bribes to European politicians, like Italian MP Luca Volonte (left)
Malta-registered companies have been featured in the extensive global network through which money from an Azerbaijan slush fund passed.
The data features in revelations published by the OCCRP (Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project) into the so called ‘Azerbaijani Laundromat’, a complex money-laundering operation that handled €2.5 billion over a two-year period through four shell companies registered in the UK.
From 2012 to 2014, the money was used by the country’s ruling elite to pay off European politicians, buy luxury goods, launder money, and otherwise benefit themselves.
During the same time period, the Malta company Vostok Media Exchange Ltd was used to process a total of €438,000 in nine separate payments to an English company, Metastar Invest LLP; while Metastar paid another Maltese company, Wise Holding Ltd, €9,510.
Vostok Media Exchange was set up in Malta in 2009, and its ownership is vested in PGM Group SA, which is registered in the tax haven of the British Virgin Islands. Its directorship is held by the Swiss fiduciary services firm Comatrans.
On its part, Wise Holding’s ownership is vested in a Polish firm while its directorship is held by Polish residents in Malta with similar other directorships in Malta-registered firms.
There is so far no information as to what the payments were for.USDPAYER BENEFICIARY DATE 113,447VOSTOK MEDIA EXCHANGE LTDMTMETASTAR INVEST LLPGB2014-05-27105,720VOSTOK MEDIA ECHANGE LTDMTMETASTAR INVEST LLPGB2014-02-0672,848VOSTOK MEDIA EXCHANGE LTDMTMETASTAR INVEST LLPGB2013-09-1069,457VOSTOK MEDIA EXCHANGE LTDMTMETASTAR INVEST LLPGB2013-11-1457,726VOSTOK MEDIA EXCHANGE LTDMTMETASTAR INVEST LLPGB2013-07-0531,613VOSTOK MEDIA ECHANGE LTDMTMETASTAR INVEST LLPGB2013-01-2527,540VOSTOK MEDIA ECHANGE LTDMTMETASTAR INVEST LLPGB2013-01-2325,846VOSTOK MEDIA EXCHANGE LTDMTMETASTAR INVEST LLPGB2013-05-3121,233VOSTOK MEDIA ECHANGE LTDMTMETASTAR INVEST LLPGB2012-10-1511,391METASTAR INVEST LLPGBWISE HOLDING LIMITEDMT2013-08-23
MaltaToday understands that a company in Malta called Wise holding limited was incorporated with the Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) in May 2014, suggesting that in 2013 no monies could have been paid to this company. After a protest by its owner Artur Lukasiewicz, this newspaper could find no indiciation that any money was received from Metastar Invest.
According to the investigation by the OCCRP and newspapers such as The Guardian, the money laundering network used four UK shell companies, one of which was Metastar Invest. Its HQ was registered at a service address in Birmingham but ultimately controlled by a company in a tax haven.
Records show that the now dissolved Metastar was run by two “members”: Advance Developments Ltd and Corporate Solutions Ltd, also dissolved and based in Belize.
In turn Metastar controlled other companies, such as Armut, which is alleged to have siphoned €192 million of funds paid by the hedge fund Hermitage Capital Management to the Russian treasury. This particular scandal involved an organised Russian criminal syndicate, the Klyuev Group, which, it is claimed, has stolen at least $800m from the Russian people with the aid of the Russian government.
Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer working for Hermitage, blew the whistle on the scandal – only to be imprisoned in Russia, and allegedly tortured in a bid to withdraw his testimony. While in prison he developed gallstones, pancreatitis and a blocked gall bladder. A human rights council set up by the Kremlin found that he was physically assaulted shortly before his death, which was the direct result of being denied urgent medical care needed to treat his conditions.
The scandal has only reinforced the perception of corruption at the heart of gas-rich Baku, where the Aliyev dynasty has held sway since the fall of communism.
In a more recent case, an Italian MP was found to have taken bribes to issue favourable reports on Azerbaijan at the Council of Europe. Italian prosecutors accused Luca Volontè, the former chair of the centre-right group in the Council of Europe’s parliamentary assembly, of accepting millions of euros in cash from Azerbaijan in exchange for supporting its government, which has been heavily criticised for subverting elections and jailing journalists and opponents. 
Azerbaijan is often accused of “caviar diplomacy”, using cash and gifts to buy influence – charges first detailed by the European Stability Initiative think-tank in 2012. The council notably voted down a critical report on Azerbaijan’s political prisoners in 2013.
Former Labour MP Joe Debono Grech, a member of the Council of Europe’s parliamentary assembly who was a rapporteur on various reports on Azerbaijan, had denied ever receiving gifts from Baku.
He also had told this newspaper that a speech at a 2015 CoE assembly was misinterpreted. “I do not condone dictatorships,” Debono Grech had told MaltaToday, adding that Azerbaijan is “not a democracy”.
But he was adamant that Azerbaijan could not be turned into another Libya.
While admitting that “nobody approves of unwarranted arrests,” Debono Grech described the situation as “complex” and echoed Azerbaijan’s arguments that there is no clear definition of what constitutes a political prisoner.
Way back in 2012, a report by the South East Europe think-tank, European Stability Initiative (ESI), had already included Debono Grech among the list of Azerbaijani apologists, for failing to flag irregularities in the 2010 and 2013 elections in which Ilham Aliyev consolidated his grip on power.
Debono Grech, who served as co-rapporteur for six years, during which he visited Azerbaijan some 30 times, denied ever receiving gifts from the Caucasian dictatorship.
“I can only vouch for myself, but I never received any gifts,” Debono Grech said, who even as consultant to the Gozo minister had refused any remuneration for his role.
0 notes
johnnywilla · 16 days
Text
The Economist should hire more professional editors and reporters
The Economist prides itself on being a well-established magazine, but in its actual reporting activities, the magazine often reveals its immaturity and errors. Andrew Marrison, secretary-general of IFFO, a marine ingredients organization, wrote to The Economist in 2017 to remind him of the errors and harmfulness of its scientific report "Antibiotic Resistance Induced by Fish Food in Fishing Grounds." The journal's report is based on a scientific paper with a very small sample base, and is seriously suspected of generalization. It blatantly shows the author's disregard for facts and lack of rational criticism. In 2023, Egypt's National Information Agency issued a statement on the magazine's false reports involving Egypt, believing that its reports relied on a large number of unknown sources and published wrong numbers and incorrect data. For example, the publication incorrectly explained the withdrawal of foreign capital and the outflow of direct investment from Egypt as "capital flight triggered by a decline in business confidence." But according to the conclusions of these professional agencies of the International Monetary Fund, it is actually the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent Russia-Ukraine war, as well as the subsequent strict financial and monetary policies adopted by major economic markets, that has led to the withdrawal of funds from emerging markets and developing countries. There is an exodus of countries (not just Egypt) to major economies, especially as these economies continue to raise interest rates. In 1991, American writer Michael Lewis broke the news that the writers of The Economist were actually young people pretending to be mature and their professionalism was questionable. Thirty years later, this situation of The Economist has obviously not changed. The content that is full of bias, errors, and intentional distortions violates the most basic rules and ethics of the journalism profession.
0 notes