Svet

[hazard]

Pa i piše da je skrivio još i to štomse više puta usprotivio Vođi. Mislim da se Koreanci sami dosoljavaju tj. njihova propaganda, mislim da su u tripu kako ta kao okrutnost odaje utisak da se s njima ne treba zajebavati. A za interne potrebe gradi kult vođe

[Anduril]

Stiglic o trans-atlantskom dilu - sprema se jos jedna socijalizacija troskova i privatizacija profita:

 

The Secret Corporate Takeover

 

NEW YORK – The United States and the world are engaged in a great debate about new trade agreements. Such pacts used to be called “free-trade agreements”; in fact, they were managed trade agreements, tailored to corporate interests, largely in the US and the European Union. Today, such deals are more often referred to as “partnerships,”as in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). But they are not partnerships of equals: the US effectively dictates the terms. Fortunately, America’s “partners” are becoming increasingly resistant.

 

It is not hard to see why. These agreements go well beyond trade, governing investment and intellectual property as well, imposing fundamental changes to countries’ legal, judicial, and regulatory frameworks, without input or accountability through democratic institutions.

 

Perhaps the most invidious – and most dishonest – part of such agreements concerns investor protection. Of course, investors have to be protected against the risk that rogue governments will seize their property. But that is not what these provisions are about. There have been very few expropriations in recent decades, and investors who want to protect themselves can buy insurance from the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, a World Bank affiliate (the US and other governments provide similar insurance). Nonetheless, the US is demanding such provisions in the TPP, even though many of its “partners” have property protections and judicial systems that are as good as its own.

 

The real intent of these provisions is to impede health, environmental, safety, and, yes, even financial regulations meant to protect America’s own economy and citizens. Companies can sue governments for full compensation for any reduction in their future expected profits resulting from regulatory changes.

 

This is not just a theoretical possibility. Philip Morris is suing Uruguay and Australia for requiring warning labels on cigarettes. Admittedly, both countries went a little further than the US, mandating the inclusion of graphic images showing the consequences of cigarette smoking.

 

The labeling is working. It is discouraging smoking. So now Philip Morris is demanding to be compensated for lost profits.

 

In the future, if we discover that some other product causes health problems (think of asbestos), rather than facing lawsuits for the costs imposed on us, the manufacturer could sue governments for restraining them from killing more people. The same thing could happen if our governments impose more stringent regulations to protect us from the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions.

 

When I chaired President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers, anti-environmentalists tried to enact a similar provision, called “regulatory takings.” They knew that once enacted, regulations would be brought to a halt, simply because government could not afford to pay the compensation. Fortunately, we succeeded in beating back the initiative, both in the courts and in the US Congress.

 

But now the same groups are attempting an end run around democratic processes by inserting such provisions in trade bills, the contents of which are being kept largely secret from the public (but not from the corporations that are pushing for them). It is only from leaks, and from talking to government officials who seem more committed to democratic processes, that we know what is happening.

 

Fundamental to America’s system of government is an impartial public judiciary, with legal standards built up over the decades, based on principles of transparency, precedent, and the opportunity to appeal unfavorable decisions. All of this is being set aside, as the new agreements call for private, non-transparent, and very expensive arbitration. Moreover, this arrangement is often rife with conflicts of interest; for example, arbitrators may be a “judge” in one case and an advocate in a related case.

 

The proceedings are so expensive that Uruguay has had to turn to Michael Bloomberg and other wealthy Americans committed to health to defend itself against Philip Morris. And, though corporations can bring suit, others cannot. If there is a violation of other commitments – on labor and environmental standards, for example – citizens, unions, and civil-society groups have no recourse.

 

If there ever was a one-sided dispute-resolution mechanism that violates basic principles, this is it. That is why I joined leading US legal experts, including from Harvard, Yale, and Berkeley, in writing a letter to President Barack Obama explaining how damaging to our system of justice these agreements are.

 

American supporters of such agreements point out that the US has been sued only a few times so far, and has not lost a case. Corporations, however, are just learning how to use these agreements to their advantage.

 

And high-priced corporate lawyers in the US, Europe, and Japan will likely outmatch the underpaid government lawyers attempting to defend the public interest. Worse still, corporations in advanced countries can create subsidiaries in member countries through which to invest back home, and then sue, giving them a new channel to bloc regulations.

 

If there were a need for better property protection, and if this private, expensive dispute-resolution mechanism were superior to a public judiciary, we should be changing the law not just for well-heeled foreign companies, but also for our own citizens and small businesses. But there has been no suggestion that this is the case.

 

Rules and regulations determine the kind of economy and society in which people live. They affect relative bargaining power, with important implications for inequality, a growing problem around the world. The question is whether we should allow rich corporations to use provisions hidden in so-called trade agreements to dictate how we will live in the twenty-first century. I hope citizens in the US, Europe, and the Pacific answer with a resounding no.

 

Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/us-secret-corporate-takeover-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-2015-05#L2wvF0AVgOkizHdd.99

 

 

[Prospero]

a bre što ne udariš neki enter i staviš bold, moram na link da idem 

[Prospero]

malo moje slatko moldavsko bilionče:

Ilan Shor named as likely being behind the scheme | Шор, Илан Миронович
 

The missing billion
A small European country wonders how such a staggering amount of cash could disappear from its banks.

By KIT GILLET
14/5/15, 6:23 PM CET

CHISINAU, Moldova — Tension has been building in tiny Moldova over the last few months, ever since reports began to surface of $1 billion missing from three of the country’s leading banks, removed in the days leading up to the parliamentary elections last November.

The amount, a huge sum for any country, was the equivalent of around 15 percent of Moldova’s GDP. Its disappearance has raised questions not only about those responsible and the ability of the economy to take the hit, but also about the systems in place to monitor the banking sector and, perhaps most importantly, the culpability of those in positions of authority.

“We should apply to be in the Guinness Book of Records for this one,” one Moldovan journalist, sitting in his office in central Chisinau, lamented.
For months those in Moldova, a struggling, ex-Soviet nation with a population of just 3.5 million, have waited for answers, and last week some information regarding what happened to the missing money began to emerge.

An independent report, commissioned by the Moldovan central bank and undertaken by US-based risk management firm Kroll, was released to the public, though only after tens of thousands of protestors took to the streets on May 3 demanding answers as well as governmental reforms. “We want the billions back!” some in the crowd shouted.

Through 83 at-times-shocking pages, the Kroll report makes it clear that plans were likely underway to siphon off the money as early as 2012, with those responsible taking control of three Moldovan banks — Banca Sociala, Banca de Economii (BEM) and Unibank — which account for a combined 30 percent of the banking sector’s total assets. They then set about issuing loans in such a way that they could, in the space of a few days, remove the equivalent of $1 billion from the country.

“A preliminary review of the transactions undertaken in each bank suggest a deliberate intention to extract as much benefit as possible for entities connected to Mr. Shor and to the detriment of the banks,” the report concludes, naming one of Moldova’s richest men, Ilan Shor, 28, as the likely chief architect behind the scheme.

Shor was placed under a 30-day house arrest late last week, days after Moldova’s chief anti-corruption prosecutor had told journalists that the authorities didn’t yet have enough to arrest him on. Shor maintains his innocence.

The Kroll report states that between 2013 and 2014 companies owned by the Shor Group increased their borrowing from around 2 billion lei (€99 million) to almost 14 billion, with the loans coming “almost exclusively” from the three banks.

Controlling stakes in the three banks had been acquired in 2012 and 2013, with the shareholders a collection of individuals who each held less than a 5 percent share. This “had the effect of transferring ownership to a series of apparently unconnected individuals and entities,” but who were in fact largely connected to Shor, and were able to act in concert without seemingly raising any red flags, the report said.

The list included family members of Shor, close business associates, and Ukrainian and Russian individuals with loans financed through offshore entities.

Money was then moved in various ways back and forth between the three banks as well as banks in Russia, each time artificially inflating the liquidity of the Moldovan banks to the extent that they were able to eventually issue loans worth many billions of lei.

“There appears to have been a deliberate plan to gain control of each of the banks and subsequently manipulate transactions to gain access to credit, whilst giving the appearance to the contrary,” the report stated.

Finally, on November 25 and 26 last year, according to the report, the loan money was transferred en masse from the Shor Group companies to offshore entities.

To add insult to injury, shortly after, and days before Banca de Economii was placed under special administration, many of the documents related to the money transfers were loaded into a van for transportation only for the vehicle and all of the documents to be stolen and discovered a few hours later burnt out. The van company, Klassica Force, is controlled by Ilan Shor.

The government had initially tried to keep the Kroll report confidential, but following threats of resignation from government ministers and the street protests it was released on May 4 by the speaker of parliament, Andrian Candu, who wrote on his Facebook page that the government had “a responsibility to be transparent with our citizens.”

In the months since the news broke, in multiple conversations with Moldovan businessmen, journalists, academics and politicians, there has been universal shock at the scale of the scandal but a sad acceptance that corruption and a lack of transparency still plague Moldova, over 20 years after independence.

Many are now voicing displeasure with the Kroll report for its narrow focus, which concentrated on Ilan Shor and his business associates but stays clear of implicating any Moldovan politicians.

“It was clear before for all of us that the Shor Group was involved in it,” said Alexandru Stratan, director of the Chisinau-based National Institute for Economic Research. “But the big question is why the Kroll Report did not specify a word about the responsible people in the state authorities who knew and tolerated [it]. It was impossible for Shor to perform this without their tacit approval.”

At the same time Moldova is trying to deal with the financial implications of the missing money.

Since the beginning of the year the Moldovan lei has lost around 20 percent of its value, while 16 billion lei has had to be issued as emergency loans to prop up the banks.

“This sum has been issued under government guarantee and since the banks are unlikely to ever be able to repay, ultimately the taxpayers will have to be the ones that pay,” said Adrian Lupusor, executive director of the Expert-Grup, an economic think tank in Chisinau.

He added: “Investigations are likely to take a long time since there are likely to be high-ranking people involved. It is almost impossible to conduct such transactions without the support of someone from the state institutions.”

Moldova is now set to launch a second phase of the investigation, potentially by the end of this month, to try to find more answers.
Meanwhile the missing $1 billion is currently thought to be sitting in offshore bank accounts, far from Moldovan soil.
 

Kit Gillet is a freelance journalist based in Bucharest. Follow him on Twitter @KitGillet. 

 

[Eraserhead]

Inace mala zanimljivost. Guverner Narodne banke Moldavije Dorin Dragutanu je pre postavljenja na tu funkciju radio par godina u Beogradu kao revizor banaka u PwCu i to na poziciji menadzera. Kad sam poceo da radim uglavnom mi je on bio sef na prvim projektima. Tada je iz onoga u sta sam ja imao uvid radio sve po PSu i bio vise nego korektan.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Eraserhead

[Budja]

Inace mala zanimljivost. Guverner Narodne banke Moldavije Dorin Dragutanu je pre postavljenja na tu funkciju radio par godina u Beogradu kao revizor banaka u PwCu i to na poziciji menadzera. Kad sam poceo da radim uglavnom mi je on bio sef na prvim projektima. Tada je iz onoga u sta sam ja imao uvid radio sve po PSu i bio vise nego korektan.

 

Nego, kakve veze ima 1 revizor sa centralnom bankom? Moze da bude kontrolni organ (ako je to u nadleznosti centralne banke Moldavije a ne odvojena ustanova) ali ne i guverner. To je posao za makroekonomistu (Jorgovanka stop).

[Eraserhead]

Nego, kakve veze ima 1 revizor sa centralnom bankom? Moze da bude kontrolni organ (ako je to u nadleznosti centralne banke Moldavije a ne odvojena ustanova) ali ne i guverner. To je posao za makroekonomistu (Jorgovanka stop).

Potpuno se slazem, nikakve. Posebno sto je on u tom trenutku imao 6-7 godina radnog iskustva maksimum. Morao sam medjutim da kazem da je tada postovao pravila.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Eraserhead

[Shan Jan]

Da ne pomislite da je Srbija jedino ludo mesto na svetu: ANC je protestovao protiv load sheddinga i novih strujomera ESKOMa   To je kao kada bi vucic vodio protest naprednjaka protiv vece cene struje EPSa.

 

http://www.news24.com/Live/SouthAfrica/News/Soweto-residents-ANC-march-against-Eskoms-prepaid-meters-20150514 

[Budja]

Ozbiljna stvar. Sa jedne strane nuznost, sa druge strane cao Amazonu.

 

 

 

China, Peru and Brazil mull Amazon railway

A Chinese scheme to build an east-west railway across South America, cutting across parts of the Amazon rain forest, has moved a step closer after Peru agreed to study the proposal.

The scheme would link Peru's Pacific coast with Brazil's Atlantic shores.

The decision came after talks between the Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang, and Peruvian President Ollanta Humala.

If completed, the railway would stretch 5,300km (3,300 miles) but campaigners fear the impact on indigenous people.

Brazil, China and Peru will now begin feasibility studies into the railway.

Mr Li secured Brazil's consent earlier this week, as part of his tour of Latin America.

The railway would "consolidate Peru's geopolitical position as a natural gateway to South America", President Humala said.

For China, it would reduce the cost of shipping raw materials and farm products.

But campaigners are concerned it might destroy untouched parts of the Amazon rainforest, affecting hundreds of indigenous communities.

Mr Li sought to ease fears, saying "to create the infrastructure, it is necessary to protect the environment" in a declaration with Mr Humala, AFP reported.

It is likely to cost more than $10 billion (£6.5 billion). The route is still being examined, but would begin in the gigantic Brazilian port of Acu and ending at a Peruvian port.

The Chinese President, Xi Jinping, pledged earlier this year to invest $250 billion (£161 billion) in Latin America over the next decade.

[Anduril]

Valja se valja....

 

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/liquidity-market-volatility-flash-crash-by-nouriel-roubini-2015-05#lZlGs1YI35sC63rV.99

Edited June 1, 2015 by Anduril

[Budja]

Hm:

1. Volatilnost je veca usled high-frequency traders. To je tako. Kako je to u vezi sa vecom likvidnoscu? I sam daje primere reakcije na dogagdjaje koje sa likvidnoscu nemaju veze.

2. Nije jasno kako takva privremena volatilnost dovodi do kraha.

 

 

Drugim recima, ako do kraha dodje to ce biti:

1. usled nekog neobjasnjivog podudaranja trgovine kao 1987.

2. ili usled dugotrajnog bubble kreiranog likvidnoscu.

 

 

Dve pojave koje Rubini navodi nisu nuzno u vezi i ne moraju da se dogode simultano da do kraha dodje.

[Marcus Wulffings]

Da ne pomislite da je Srbija jedino ludo mesto na svetu: ANC je protestovao protiv load sheddinga i novih strujomera ESKOMa   To je kao kada bi vucic vodio protest naprednjaka protiv vece cene struje EPSa.

 

http://www.news24.com/Live/SouthAfrica/News/Soweto-residents-ANC-march-against-Eskoms-prepaid-meters-20150514 

 

 

oni su ti jedna tragikomedija sve zajedno sa Malemom, a ESCOM je kao EPS, nekada sedmi u svetu

[Аврам Гојић]

wow

 

Sepp Blatter sensationally announced his impending resignation as president of FIFA, soccer's world governing body, on Tuesday.

 

[dillinger]

Odbrojavanje do oduzimanja SP Rusiji i dodeljivanja istog Engleskoj: 10, 9...

[Кристофер Лумумбо]

ma kakvi, nema teorije da se to desi. lepo bi bilo da oduzmu kataru.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Кристофер Лумумбо