The US media would like us to believe that the talks are starting more or less positively, with the news items titled, for example, "China strikes conciliatory note".
Nothing could be further than the truth. The Chinese leadership realises its weak position, and wants to do nothing that will upset the applecart. The US leadership does not understand this, and has done nothing to push China towards any real move that will either benefit the US or the people of China.
1. For example, China has "vowed to spur domestic demand" but China has been vowing to do this ever since the crisis started some 2 years ago. Result so far: zero.
2. China has indulged in more or less equally long-standing talk of the yuan being reformed provided it is done in a way that is " independent, controllable and gradual". ("Indpendent is Chinese code for "don't push us". "Controllable" is Chinese code for "provided it doesn't lessen the hold of the Communist Party in China". And "gradual" is Chinese code for "Don't expect any substantial change").
3. Similarly, when China says that it is working to resolve the concerns of foreign companies about its "indigenous innovation" program that basically cuts foreign companies out of doing technology innovation-related business in China, that is code for "keep looking, because you will look for a long time to see any resolution".
4. What China wants is high-tech exports from the US, on the pretext that this would help balance the US trade deficit - but the correction in the deficit would be relatively small, and it would come at the cost of selling out any possibility of long-term advantage for the US economy over the Chinese economy - in other words, the short-term benefit would come at the cost of permanent long-term disadvantage to the US economy.
5. Neither, it appears, will the US get any movement out of China on North Korea, in spite of the North Koreans sinking a submarine belonging to South Korea.
&. To Beijing's statement that Taiwan is a part of China and that the US should not be selling arms to Taiwan, the Obama administration provided no riposte - at least not in public.
So far, I make that 6 to China, 0 to the USA.
Sphere: Related Content
Monday, May 24, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Obama on track for financial reform
Now that the Financial Oversight Bill has been voted through the U.S. Senate, it is time to consider the situation.
Of course there exist TWO versions of US financial reform, the version that was passed by the Senate last week and the version that was passed earlier by the House.
President Obama's administration can cherry-pick which bits they like of which Bill, through the U.S. process that attempts to smooth the differences between the two Bills and present a single version.
Apparently, the President's administration prefers the Senate's version for its treatment of consumer protection, of the too-big-to-fail syndrome, and of the management of systemic risk.
The Obama administration does not like a provision in the House's Bill that seeks to exempt auto dealers from the supervision of the consumer protection agency. Republican senators have a touching concern for the red tape that a consumer protection bureau would create too much red tape - clearly, Republicans are more concerned by the red tape that would result than they are concerned about the protection of consumers. Naturally, it would be better to have consumer protection without red tape. There are simple means of doing so (e.g. banning loans for simple consumption, allowing loans only for investment) but neither of the US parties seems interested in simple solutions. So, as the choice is between consumer protection with red tape, or no consumer protection at all, every sensible person will prefer, even at the cost of red tape, the protection of consumers.
On the other hand, the administration prefers the way the Senate version requires banks to spin off their derivatives trading - though the Treasury has indicated that it is open to a compromise that would permit banks to trade in derivatives as long as those activities were kept separate from deposit-insured banks. How this can be done is difficult to imagine. So XYZ Bank will keep its deposit-taking activities separate from its derivative trading activities, let's say by having two different legal entities within the same overall house - let's call that XYZ House.
Now, will the market/share price of XYZ House be dependent only on its deposit-taking activities? Clearly, the market would not be that stupid, and the market/share price would also be dependent on XYZ's derivative trading activities. Since the volumes and margins involved in derivatives trading are usually many times those involved in deposit-taking, clearly the market- and share-price of XYZ House would be much more dependent on its derivatives trading subsidiary. In effect, therefore XYZ House would be an investment bank with a small deposit-taking function. The investment bank would make huge losses or profits (that's the nature of investment banking), while the deposit-taking function would profit a much smaller steady income. Since the whole matter of whether or not to separate the functions of investment banking and deposit-taking was being discussed as a result of the crisis, which made it clear that one factor causing the crisis was the merging of investment banking and deposit taking, it is not clear how the "division" of the two activities within the same house sorts out the problem. In fact, a glance at European companies, which DO separate the activites should show that the division is not, and has not been, a solution at all.
Summary: the Obama administration has chosen the right options - those that are moral, ethical, just and humane.
Let's hope that the President's administration has the gumption now to drive these through. Sphere: Related Content
Of course there exist TWO versions of US financial reform, the version that was passed by the Senate last week and the version that was passed earlier by the House.
President Obama's administration can cherry-pick which bits they like of which Bill, through the U.S. process that attempts to smooth the differences between the two Bills and present a single version.
Apparently, the President's administration prefers the Senate's version for its treatment of consumer protection, of the too-big-to-fail syndrome, and of the management of systemic risk.
The Obama administration does not like a provision in the House's Bill that seeks to exempt auto dealers from the supervision of the consumer protection agency. Republican senators have a touching concern for the red tape that a consumer protection bureau would create too much red tape - clearly, Republicans are more concerned by the red tape that would result than they are concerned about the protection of consumers. Naturally, it would be better to have consumer protection without red tape. There are simple means of doing so (e.g. banning loans for simple consumption, allowing loans only for investment) but neither of the US parties seems interested in simple solutions. So, as the choice is between consumer protection with red tape, or no consumer protection at all, every sensible person will prefer, even at the cost of red tape, the protection of consumers.
On the other hand, the administration prefers the way the Senate version requires banks to spin off their derivatives trading - though the Treasury has indicated that it is open to a compromise that would permit banks to trade in derivatives as long as those activities were kept separate from deposit-insured banks. How this can be done is difficult to imagine. So XYZ Bank will keep its deposit-taking activities separate from its derivative trading activities, let's say by having two different legal entities within the same overall house - let's call that XYZ House.
Now, will the market/share price of XYZ House be dependent only on its deposit-taking activities? Clearly, the market would not be that stupid, and the market/share price would also be dependent on XYZ's derivative trading activities. Since the volumes and margins involved in derivatives trading are usually many times those involved in deposit-taking, clearly the market- and share-price of XYZ House would be much more dependent on its derivatives trading subsidiary. In effect, therefore XYZ House would be an investment bank with a small deposit-taking function. The investment bank would make huge losses or profits (that's the nature of investment banking), while the deposit-taking function would profit a much smaller steady income. Since the whole matter of whether or not to separate the functions of investment banking and deposit-taking was being discussed as a result of the crisis, which made it clear that one factor causing the crisis was the merging of investment banking and deposit taking, it is not clear how the "division" of the two activities within the same house sorts out the problem. In fact, a glance at European companies, which DO separate the activites should show that the division is not, and has not been, a solution at all.
Summary: the Obama administration has chosen the right options - those that are moral, ethical, just and humane.
Let's hope that the President's administration has the gumption now to drive these through. Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Stupid research on the Internet and Happiness
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1989244,00.html
This makes me think of another piece of research:
people who drink moderately are happier than people who don't drink at all; but people who drink to excess are much happier than people who drink moderately; and happiest of all are people who are permanently drunk. Sphere: Related Content
This makes me think of another piece of research:
people who drink moderately are happier than people who don't drink at all; but people who drink to excess are much happier than people who drink moderately; and happiest of all are people who are permanently drunk. Sphere: Related Content
Explanations for the generation-long over-optimism on the part of equity analysts :
According to Harvard Business Review's "The Daily Stat", reporting research by McKinsey, equity analysts have been over-optimistic for a generation:
"For the past quarter century, equity analysts' earnings-growth estimates have been almost 100% too high. Their overoptimistic projections have generally ranged from 10% to 12% annually, compared with actual growth of 6% (excluding the spike in growth from 1998–2001).... Only in strong-growth years such as 2003 to 2006 did forecasts hit the mark".
Neither McKinsey nor HBR explore why this may be so.
I suggest three possibilities:
1. That there is something personally wrong with most equity analysts (only over-optimistic people are attracted to the profession)
2. That there is something the matter with the way they are educated (their education programmes them to be over-optimistic)
3. That there is something awry with the way they are compensated (they are paid for being optimistic, and penalised for being pessimistic or even realistic).
Any other explanations, anyone? Sphere: Related Content
"For the past quarter century, equity analysts' earnings-growth estimates have been almost 100% too high. Their overoptimistic projections have generally ranged from 10% to 12% annually, compared with actual growth of 6% (excluding the spike in growth from 1998–2001).... Only in strong-growth years such as 2003 to 2006 did forecasts hit the mark".
Neither McKinsey nor HBR explore why this may be so.
I suggest three possibilities:
1. That there is something personally wrong with most equity analysts (only over-optimistic people are attracted to the profession)
2. That there is something the matter with the way they are educated (their education programmes them to be over-optimistic)
3. That there is something awry with the way they are compensated (they are paid for being optimistic, and penalised for being pessimistic or even realistic).
Any other explanations, anyone? Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Crunch point in the US debate on financial reform
So the Democrats in the US Senate failed yesterday to muster enough votes from their own party to cut the long-lasting debate and move to voting on the final bill itself.
Is that a good thing or a bad one?
Neither.
It simply means that we are at crunch point regarding what sort of bill will eventually be put to the vote.
In other words, whether all the debates of the last year or so, will produce a reform that is worthwhile or will have been simply a lot of huffing and puffing with no worthwhile change.
On one hand, the delay gives more time for banks to continue lobbying senators; on the other hand, it provides an opportunity for the bill to be toughened .
The most significant toughening lies in Senator Cantwell's amendment that would reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, so that commercial banking is once again separated from investment banking - which would once again prevent the sort of gambling that took place with ordinary people's pension and other money as well as with the national money of countries such as Greece and Iceland, and with the money of hundreds of municipalities and American and other states that are now therefore either insolvent or on the brink of bankruptcy. Sphere: Related Content
Is that a good thing or a bad one?
Neither.
It simply means that we are at crunch point regarding what sort of bill will eventually be put to the vote.
In other words, whether all the debates of the last year or so, will produce a reform that is worthwhile or will have been simply a lot of huffing and puffing with no worthwhile change.
On one hand, the delay gives more time for banks to continue lobbying senators; on the other hand, it provides an opportunity for the bill to be toughened .
The most significant toughening lies in Senator Cantwell's amendment that would reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, so that commercial banking is once again separated from investment banking - which would once again prevent the sort of gambling that took place with ordinary people's pension and other money as well as with the national money of countries such as Greece and Iceland, and with the money of hundreds of municipalities and American and other states that are now therefore either insolvent or on the brink of bankruptcy. Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Meeting distortion with distortion
At the Annual Dinner organised by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the UK Chancellor (Finance Minister) George Osborne is reported to have declared that the aim of the new UK government "is to create the most competitive corporate tax regime in the G20, while protecting manufacturing industries.”
Here we go again! Which nation will devalue its currency most? Which government will give away the most as subsidies? Which government will tax least? Has the stupidity of such moves not become apparent to all people with common sense yet?!
As long as these "national competitive" policies are followed, we will continue to program the global economy for the sorts of crises that we have seen increasingly since the commencemnet of a global economy (which I date from the fall of the Berlin Wall).
What we need is a global level playing field devoid of subsidies, with much greater currency competition (including many more complementary currencies), with equal taxation and the same provisions for financial regulation, health, safety, environmental responsibility, and minimum guaranteed standards of living for human beings (which I put forward for discussion as: one square meal a day, two sets of clothing suitable for the weather concerned, and minimum adequate shelter).
It is only then that we will have a genuinely free global market. Those who argue for anything less are not real free marketers at all. Sphere: Related Content
Here we go again! Which nation will devalue its currency most? Which government will give away the most as subsidies? Which government will tax least? Has the stupidity of such moves not become apparent to all people with common sense yet?!
As long as these "national competitive" policies are followed, we will continue to program the global economy for the sorts of crises that we have seen increasingly since the commencemnet of a global economy (which I date from the fall of the Berlin Wall).
What we need is a global level playing field devoid of subsidies, with much greater currency competition (including many more complementary currencies), with equal taxation and the same provisions for financial regulation, health, safety, environmental responsibility, and minimum guaranteed standards of living for human beings (which I put forward for discussion as: one square meal a day, two sets of clothing suitable for the weather concerned, and minimum adequate shelter).
It is only then that we will have a genuinely free global market. Those who argue for anything less are not real free marketers at all. Sphere: Related Content
Bravo Merkel!
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's move to ban financial gambling (betting on shares and bonds that are not owned, also called "naked short selling") is absolutely the right step.
Even though it would have been better to take the whole of the Eurozone with her, when it became clear that the Eurozone as a whole would not move, Chancellor Merkel has bravely walked ahead alone.
Let others gamble if they want to - and suffer the consequences.
Let those who do not want gambling of the sort that led us into the current crisis join Germany in banning this kind of casinoism.
Though why is the ban on only the 10 most important stocks/Eurozone sovereign bonds and CDS? Why not on all of them? And what about gambling on commodities?
Let those who really believe that prices are going to go up or down buy or sell the actual stocks or bonds or commodities, and not simply gamble on them in financial casinos. Sphere: Related Content
Even though it would have been better to take the whole of the Eurozone with her, when it became clear that the Eurozone as a whole would not move, Chancellor Merkel has bravely walked ahead alone.
Let others gamble if they want to - and suffer the consequences.
Let those who do not want gambling of the sort that led us into the current crisis join Germany in banning this kind of casinoism.
Though why is the ban on only the 10 most important stocks/Eurozone sovereign bonds and CDS? Why not on all of them? And what about gambling on commodities?
Let those who really believe that prices are going to go up or down buy or sell the actual stocks or bonds or commodities, and not simply gamble on them in financial casinos. Sphere: Related Content
Why the Iranian deal with Turkey and Brazil is and should be welcome
Though the US has announced new multinational sanctions against Iran, which I also welcome given the lack of transparency in Iran, that is a separate matter from the Iran-Turkey-Brazil (ITB) deal.
Under the ITB agreement, Tehran will ship 1,200 kilos (just over half of its supposed uranium stockpile) to Turkey, where it will be enriched under internationally-transparent arrangements to the level necessary for use in radiation therapy and other medical applications.
Iran usually touts, as an explanation for the huge amount of uranium enrichment it carries out, the need for such nuclear medical and other “peaceful research”.
However, if all of Iran's intentions were peaceful, why would it so fiercely resist international inspection? Sphere: Related Content
Under the ITB agreement, Tehran will ship 1,200 kilos (just over half of its supposed uranium stockpile) to Turkey, where it will be enriched under internationally-transparent arrangements to the level necessary for use in radiation therapy and other medical applications.
Iran usually touts, as an explanation for the huge amount of uranium enrichment it carries out, the need for such nuclear medical and other “peaceful research”.
However, if all of Iran's intentions were peaceful, why would it so fiercely resist international inspection? Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Another round to common sense
The decision by the new UK Chancellor (or Finance Minister), George Osborne, to avoid tangling with the new EU-wide rules for regulating hedge funds and private equity firms is another victory for common sense.
Though not all is looking rosy on the US front (which needs to be watched closely), the next round in the EU will be the debate in June over plans to create an regulatory system for EU financial services as a whole.
My view continues to be that a patchwork of national or regional (EU) regulatory systems does not make sense, and that we ought to move to a global regulatory system.
However, national and regional systems may be a necessary step in that direction.
Meanwhile, without transparency, the best-designed regulatory systems will fail. So the essential battle continues to be whether or not we will have accounting systems that provide transparency (see my review of the book Unified Financial Analysis by Dr W. Brammertz and others).
I agree of course that rules and regulatory systems (and even transparency) by themselves will not prevent people who are determined to do so from obfuscating and cheating, and that therefore the renewal of morality, and the evaluation of the moral standards of the key players in the financial system remains key to everything.
Which is why it is so distressing that financial services providers continue to resist integrating ethical evaluations even for new recruits.
As I pointed out elsewhere, someone who recently completed his doctoral dissertation on a topic related with this broad field wrote to me as follows:
"Though I was able to graduate, the story of my dissertation is largely the story of research that never took place.... I approached (more than two dozen) banks and investment funds with a proposal to do ethics related research, and was consistently turned down. In my dissertation defense, I compared myself to a fly trying to get through a glass windowpane, (but) the financial world remained forever on the other side."
The parentheses above are mine.
As far as I can work out, his research started at the height of the boom, and he persisted with his efforts to do the research till well after the bust.
Was the refusal of the banks and funds to co-operate with the research mere cussedness, or did the banks and funds know that they should not be letting any research get done on the ethics in their companies? Well, that was then...
Now we are in a new world of transparency and re-regulation. Is this not the right time for ethical testing to be introduced into recruitment for all companies? Sphere: Related Content
Though not all is looking rosy on the US front (which needs to be watched closely), the next round in the EU will be the debate in June over plans to create an regulatory system for EU financial services as a whole.
My view continues to be that a patchwork of national or regional (EU) regulatory systems does not make sense, and that we ought to move to a global regulatory system.
However, national and regional systems may be a necessary step in that direction.
Meanwhile, without transparency, the best-designed regulatory systems will fail. So the essential battle continues to be whether or not we will have accounting systems that provide transparency (see my review of the book Unified Financial Analysis by Dr W. Brammertz and others).
I agree of course that rules and regulatory systems (and even transparency) by themselves will not prevent people who are determined to do so from obfuscating and cheating, and that therefore the renewal of morality, and the evaluation of the moral standards of the key players in the financial system remains key to everything.
Which is why it is so distressing that financial services providers continue to resist integrating ethical evaluations even for new recruits.
As I pointed out elsewhere, someone who recently completed his doctoral dissertation on a topic related with this broad field wrote to me as follows:
"Though I was able to graduate, the story of my dissertation is largely the story of research that never took place.... I approached (more than two dozen) banks and investment funds with a proposal to do ethics related research, and was consistently turned down. In my dissertation defense, I compared myself to a fly trying to get through a glass windowpane, (but) the financial world remained forever on the other side."
The parentheses above are mine.
As far as I can work out, his research started at the height of the boom, and he persisted with his efforts to do the research till well after the bust.
Was the refusal of the banks and funds to co-operate with the research mere cussedness, or did the banks and funds know that they should not be letting any research get done on the ethics in their companies? Well, that was then...
Now we are in a new world of transparency and re-regulation. Is this not the right time for ethical testing to be introduced into recruitment for all companies? Sphere: Related Content
On US drone attacks and "American aggression"
On the Independent Institute (USA) website discussing this topic, there is the following:
"Have U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan put Islamic terrorist groups on the run--or have they instead weakened U.S. security by creating more enemies eager to attack American targets? John O. Brennan, the White House's chief counterterrorism advisor, recently defended the drone attacks, claiming that they have degraded the capability of anti-U.S. terrorist groups. In contrast, Independent Institute Senior Fellow Ivan Eland argues that the drone attacks have helped to radicalize Islamists, both strengthening them politically in Pakistan and increasing the likelihood of attacks against Americans in retaliation....It failed to dawn on Brennan that the terrorist attacks wouldn't be occurring in the first place without aggressive U.S. behavior in Islamic lands"
This is simple-minded. Of course there is US "aggression" in many places, some justified and some unjustified. But the question in this particular matter is: what is the definition of "US aggression" according to Islamists?
If it is, as appears to be the case, the existence of Israel, and the existence of US military bases in the Middle East (particularly Saudi Arabia), then it is clear that the US can never stop "aggressing", and that the US will therefore always be under attack by Islamists.
That is what is not understood by those who deride Huntington's thesis regarding the clash of civilisations.
The very ntion of free speech, for example, is anathema to Islamists, as is the very existence of secular states such as India, or Maoist states (such as Nepal) or pseudo-Marxist states such as China.
Islamists will always seek some particular example of excess or wrong on the part of the governments of these countries in order to gain our sympathy. But they will never be satisfied simply by the acknowledgement or correction of excess or wrong on the part of non-Islamists (whether notionally Muslim or otherwise).
What Islamists seek is the imposition of their version of civilisation on the whole of the world. So if universities stop teaching courses on Islam that do not follow the Islamist version, will that satisfy Islmists? No. If Israel stopped existing, would that satisfy Islamists? No. If the US withdrew all its military bases from Saudi Arabia and every other country outside the US, would that satisfy the Islamists? No. Islamists will be satisfied only when their version of Islam is imposed by force on the whole world.
If we do not understand that, we are living in a dream-world that has nothing to do with reality. Sphere: Related Content
"Have U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan put Islamic terrorist groups on the run--or have they instead weakened U.S. security by creating more enemies eager to attack American targets? John O. Brennan, the White House's chief counterterrorism advisor, recently defended the drone attacks, claiming that they have degraded the capability of anti-U.S. terrorist groups. In contrast, Independent Institute Senior Fellow Ivan Eland argues that the drone attacks have helped to radicalize Islamists, both strengthening them politically in Pakistan and increasing the likelihood of attacks against Americans in retaliation....It failed to dawn on Brennan that the terrorist attacks wouldn't be occurring in the first place without aggressive U.S. behavior in Islamic lands"
This is simple-minded. Of course there is US "aggression" in many places, some justified and some unjustified. But the question in this particular matter is: what is the definition of "US aggression" according to Islamists?
If it is, as appears to be the case, the existence of Israel, and the existence of US military bases in the Middle East (particularly Saudi Arabia), then it is clear that the US can never stop "aggressing", and that the US will therefore always be under attack by Islamists.
That is what is not understood by those who deride Huntington's thesis regarding the clash of civilisations.
The very ntion of free speech, for example, is anathema to Islamists, as is the very existence of secular states such as India, or Maoist states (such as Nepal) or pseudo-Marxist states such as China.
Islamists will always seek some particular example of excess or wrong on the part of the governments of these countries in order to gain our sympathy. But they will never be satisfied simply by the acknowledgement or correction of excess or wrong on the part of non-Islamists (whether notionally Muslim or otherwise).
What Islamists seek is the imposition of their version of civilisation on the whole of the world. So if universities stop teaching courses on Islam that do not follow the Islamist version, will that satisfy Islmists? No. If Israel stopped existing, would that satisfy Islamists? No. If the US withdrew all its military bases from Saudi Arabia and every other country outside the US, would that satisfy the Islamists? No. Islamists will be satisfied only when their version of Islam is imposed by force on the whole world.
If we do not understand that, we are living in a dream-world that has nothing to do with reality. Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, May 15, 2010
American versus Indian philanthropy
Bain & Co reports that, in spite of the number of the super-wealthy in these countries, charitable giving in India and China is just 0.6% and 0.1% of GDP respectively - of which only about 10% comes from individuals, with the rest provided by governments and foreign organizations.
In other words, the super-rich in India contribute only 0.06% of GDP as philanthropy.
Compared to China, where the super-rich give about six times less (only 0.01% of GDP), India looks very good.
But the world's greatest private giving comes from the U.S., where it is 2.2% of GDP. And nearly three-fourths, or 1.155% of GDP, is given by individuals!
In other words, comparatively, American individuals give away nearly 20 times more than we Indians give. Sphere: Related Content
In other words, the super-rich in India contribute only 0.06% of GDP as philanthropy.
Compared to China, where the super-rich give about six times less (only 0.01% of GDP), India looks very good.
But the world's greatest private giving comes from the U.S., where it is 2.2% of GDP. And nearly three-fourths, or 1.155% of GDP, is given by individuals!
In other words, comparatively, American individuals give away nearly 20 times more than we Indians give. Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, May 08, 2010
Rounds One and Two to the Public; Round Three to Big Finance
I am not sure whether a day of global mourning should be announced.
The Brown-Kaufman amendment, which would have limited the size and leverage of the largest banks, was defeated in the Senate.
What was galling was not merely the defeat but the size of the defeat: 33-61.
So that was Round Three.
In Round One, a 93-5 majority passed the bi-partisan Dodd Shelby Amendment which dropped the possibility of a $50 billion industry-supported fund to cover the cost of unwinding a firm and ensure shareholders and unsecured creditors bear losses when the government liquidates a business.
In Round Two, a 96-1 majority voted in the Boxer Amendment to bar use of taxpayer funds to rescue failing financial companies (as I have written earlier, what matters is the exact wording of these amendments, and I have not yet had the opportunity of looking at these).
So winning Rounds One and Two was good news; losing Round Three was bad news. Now there is nothing to stop the tendency of the largest players to gobble up smaller banks. There is already a trend toward oligopoly...
However, what is even more important is Round Four: the Kanjorski amendment, which allows the preemptive break up of large financial institutions that – for any reason – pose a threat to financial or economic stability in the United States. The only flaw in the Amendment is that it empowers regulators to do so, rather than instructing the immediate breakup of the six largest banks in the USA which do in fact right now pose such a threat.
If you are a US citizen or know any of the Senators, write and encourage them to do the right thing: approve the Kanjorski amendment, preferably in the tighter form referred to in the preceding para. Sphere: Related Content
The Brown-Kaufman amendment, which would have limited the size and leverage of the largest banks, was defeated in the Senate.
What was galling was not merely the defeat but the size of the defeat: 33-61.
So that was Round Three.
In Round One, a 93-5 majority passed the bi-partisan Dodd Shelby Amendment which dropped the possibility of a $50 billion industry-supported fund to cover the cost of unwinding a firm and ensure shareholders and unsecured creditors bear losses when the government liquidates a business.
In Round Two, a 96-1 majority voted in the Boxer Amendment to bar use of taxpayer funds to rescue failing financial companies (as I have written earlier, what matters is the exact wording of these amendments, and I have not yet had the opportunity of looking at these).
So winning Rounds One and Two was good news; losing Round Three was bad news. Now there is nothing to stop the tendency of the largest players to gobble up smaller banks. There is already a trend toward oligopoly...
However, what is even more important is Round Four: the Kanjorski amendment, which allows the preemptive break up of large financial institutions that – for any reason – pose a threat to financial or economic stability in the United States. The only flaw in the Amendment is that it empowers regulators to do so, rather than instructing the immediate breakup of the six largest banks in the USA which do in fact right now pose such a threat.
If you are a US citizen or know any of the Senators, write and encourage them to do the right thing: approve the Kanjorski amendment, preferably in the tighter form referred to in the preceding para. Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
The battle now underway in the US Senate
So the finance reform bill is being debated, with voting expected to start today on certain non-controversial clauses.
The main bill is apparently nearly 1,600-pages (I haven't seen them yet!) but it was developed over six months of negotiation between the Democrats and the Republicans.
The very first amendment is expected to be proposed by Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer.
She wants to add a clause or phrase saying that no "taxpayer funds" can be used in future to bail out financial institutions.
This is an idea likely to gain support from both parties.
But the key question is going to be the definition of "taxpayer funds", since money paid by taxpayers is only a very small part of government funding (even if that part provides the base for everything else that the government does).
There are numerous ways which do not involve the direct use of taxpayer funds (e.g. bonds, derivatives, government guarantees/ directives/ nods and winks - as in China!) which would have an effect similar to the actions that were taken by governments to rescue banks at the height of the crisis.
The specific words and the definitions are the therefore the things to watch, in order to determine whether the legislation will be full of holes or (more or less) solid. Sphere: Related Content
The main bill is apparently nearly 1,600-pages (I haven't seen them yet!) but it was developed over six months of negotiation between the Democrats and the Republicans.
The very first amendment is expected to be proposed by Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer.
She wants to add a clause or phrase saying that no "taxpayer funds" can be used in future to bail out financial institutions.
This is an idea likely to gain support from both parties.
But the key question is going to be the definition of "taxpayer funds", since money paid by taxpayers is only a very small part of government funding (even if that part provides the base for everything else that the government does).
There are numerous ways which do not involve the direct use of taxpayer funds (e.g. bonds, derivatives, government guarantees/ directives/ nods and winks - as in China!) which would have an effect similar to the actions that were taken by governments to rescue banks at the height of the crisis.
The specific words and the definitions are the therefore the things to watch, in order to determine whether the legislation will be full of holes or (more or less) solid. Sphere: Related Content
Monday, May 03, 2010
Pssst...want an organ transplant?
Apparently, organ transplants are available in a number of Chinese government military hospitals.
There are no receipts and no medical paperwork.
One gets a call from China when an organ is available. One must go immediately. One is picked up in a van from the airport....
The cost is approximately £70,000.
Who do the organs come from?
Why the secrecy?
Why the lack of paperwork?
People who need the transplants do not ask questions.
But do not some questions need to be asked on behalf of those who have provided the organs by dying - or being killed? Sphere: Related Content
There are no receipts and no medical paperwork.
One gets a call from China when an organ is available. One must go immediately. One is picked up in a van from the airport....
The cost is approximately £70,000.
Who do the organs come from?
Why the secrecy?
Why the lack of paperwork?
People who need the transplants do not ask questions.
But do not some questions need to be asked on behalf of those who have provided the organs by dying - or being killed? Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
IMF proposes two new taxes on all banks and financial services companies
In view of the "too big to fail" syndrome, whether taxes are really the right way to organise the financial sector is a different question, but I will comment on one aspect of the IMF's proposal (two global taxes on financial institutions: a financial-stability contribution on bank LIABILITIES (except deposits, which come under the purview of deposit insurance schemes and are already taxed) in addition to a levy on bank EQUITY).
The IMF has proposed that the tax might be charged initially at a flat rate, changing over time to a charge according to the riskiness and size of the institution concerned.
The flat rate will either be so small as to bother no institution or, more likely, will bother smaller organisations (and therefore disproportionately institutions in smaller countries) more than larger ones.
Conversely, whenever the IMF wants to change the system to a variable rate, the larger organisations are more likely to protest and to seek to obstruct the move to a variable rate.
So the flat tax may be a political calculation that if the wedge is very thin right now, no one is going to protest too much, and the contributions can be ramped up over time.
The contribution should be looked at as a sort of insurance fee. Though in my view it would be much better to leave the job entirely to insurance or reinsurance companies (with insurance and reinsurance companies insuring each other), I recognise that it is the State which is the insurer of last resort and so it is right for the insurance fee to go to the State, provided the State keeps the money in a separate fund, with the adequacy of the contribution being evaluated from time to time either by a quango or by outside advisers.
The good thing is that the IMF wants the taxes to apply to the entire financial sector so as to avoid tempting organisations to change legal form in order to escape the net. Sphere: Related Content
The IMF has proposed that the tax might be charged initially at a flat rate, changing over time to a charge according to the riskiness and size of the institution concerned.
The flat rate will either be so small as to bother no institution or, more likely, will bother smaller organisations (and therefore disproportionately institutions in smaller countries) more than larger ones.
Conversely, whenever the IMF wants to change the system to a variable rate, the larger organisations are more likely to protest and to seek to obstruct the move to a variable rate.
So the flat tax may be a political calculation that if the wedge is very thin right now, no one is going to protest too much, and the contributions can be ramped up over time.
The contribution should be looked at as a sort of insurance fee. Though in my view it would be much better to leave the job entirely to insurance or reinsurance companies (with insurance and reinsurance companies insuring each other), I recognise that it is the State which is the insurer of last resort and so it is right for the insurance fee to go to the State, provided the State keeps the money in a separate fund, with the adequacy of the contribution being evaluated from time to time either by a quango or by outside advisers.
The good thing is that the IMF wants the taxes to apply to the entire financial sector so as to avoid tempting organisations to change legal form in order to escape the net. Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Western Centres for Islam and Democracy
I am most puzzled to find one Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy included in a list of organisations that stand for Democratic Capitalism.
"Islamic democracy" is of course an oxymoron but this is not understood in the West, and Western individuals, organisations and govrnments unfortunately do not merely tolerate but actually promote and even finance such organisations!
Islam cannot accommodate democracy, since it has always been and will always be a theocracy modelled by the Prophet Mohammad and controlled by the Ulema (religious scholars). No real Muslim will accept the principles of democracy since that would allow a Kaffir (unbeliever) to hold political power - an anathema to Islam.
A "liberal muslim" is by definition not a "real muslim" since s/he rejects the model provided by the Prophet Mohammad as well as the essential teaching that Islam makes no distinction between the State and the "Church" of Islam.
The objective of Islam is always to take control of politics in order to re-arrange society in accordance with Islamic precepts including the lower level assigned to women and the even lower level assigned to unbelievers (e.g. not being able to serve in the defence forces or in high civil, business or political office) as well as having to pay a special tax.
As I am from the second-largest Muslim country in the world (India), I am well acquainted with "very good Muslims" who are caught between their desire to be "very good Muslims" and seeing the way their minority is treated in a more truly secular democracy (India) versus the way that Islamic societies conduct themselves as a whole as well as the way that minorities are treated in Islamic societies.
I am not saying that India treats Muslims and other minorities perfectly, merely that inspite of its inadequacies India makes a better job of treating its minorities according to its ideals and that, if India did treat minorities fully in accordance with democratic capitalist ideals, no one would have anything to complain about; whereas the more that Muslim societies treat minorities according to Islamic principles, the more genuine democratic capitalists will be offended and shout for the removal of those principles.
However, I should say that the same criticism applies, though perhaps nowadays not quite as strongly, to the Roman Catholic Church, since that is in principle also theocratic, because Roman Catholicism was at least as deeply shaped by Islam ss it was by the some of the teachings of Jesus: the Pope is like the Caliph, and the equivalent of the Ulema is the College of Bishops - though the political sway of Roman Catholicism extends only to the Vatican while the political sway of Islam reaches to many countries (that is compensated of course by the religious influence of Romanism which reaches many more people, even though Roman Catholics may not realise that Romanism has never repudiated its right to have an army, for instance). In Romanism, as in Islam, there is plenty of contradiction between the ideals that are professed for public consumption versus the principles on which the religion is really run - and therefore the realities of the religion.
Nazism was, in its structure, quite like the Roman and Islamic religions - and many modern Hindu and Buddhist organisations are, regretfully, developing towards similar structures.
The alternative remains truly democratic and secular societies - which are threatened by the sort of debased capitalism that we have seen in the last 30 years. Sphere: Related Content
"Islamic democracy" is of course an oxymoron but this is not understood in the West, and Western individuals, organisations and govrnments unfortunately do not merely tolerate but actually promote and even finance such organisations!
Islam cannot accommodate democracy, since it has always been and will always be a theocracy modelled by the Prophet Mohammad and controlled by the Ulema (religious scholars). No real Muslim will accept the principles of democracy since that would allow a Kaffir (unbeliever) to hold political power - an anathema to Islam.
A "liberal muslim" is by definition not a "real muslim" since s/he rejects the model provided by the Prophet Mohammad as well as the essential teaching that Islam makes no distinction between the State and the "Church" of Islam.
The objective of Islam is always to take control of politics in order to re-arrange society in accordance with Islamic precepts including the lower level assigned to women and the even lower level assigned to unbelievers (e.g. not being able to serve in the defence forces or in high civil, business or political office) as well as having to pay a special tax.
As I am from the second-largest Muslim country in the world (India), I am well acquainted with "very good Muslims" who are caught between their desire to be "very good Muslims" and seeing the way their minority is treated in a more truly secular democracy (India) versus the way that Islamic societies conduct themselves as a whole as well as the way that minorities are treated in Islamic societies.
I am not saying that India treats Muslims and other minorities perfectly, merely that inspite of its inadequacies India makes a better job of treating its minorities according to its ideals and that, if India did treat minorities fully in accordance with democratic capitalist ideals, no one would have anything to complain about; whereas the more that Muslim societies treat minorities according to Islamic principles, the more genuine democratic capitalists will be offended and shout for the removal of those principles.
However, I should say that the same criticism applies, though perhaps nowadays not quite as strongly, to the Roman Catholic Church, since that is in principle also theocratic, because Roman Catholicism was at least as deeply shaped by Islam ss it was by the some of the teachings of Jesus: the Pope is like the Caliph, and the equivalent of the Ulema is the College of Bishops - though the political sway of Roman Catholicism extends only to the Vatican while the political sway of Islam reaches to many countries (that is compensated of course by the religious influence of Romanism which reaches many more people, even though Roman Catholics may not realise that Romanism has never repudiated its right to have an army, for instance). In Romanism, as in Islam, there is plenty of contradiction between the ideals that are professed for public consumption versus the principles on which the religion is really run - and therefore the realities of the religion.
Nazism was, in its structure, quite like the Roman and Islamic religions - and many modern Hindu and Buddhist organisations are, regretfully, developing towards similar structures.
The alternative remains truly democratic and secular societies - which are threatened by the sort of debased capitalism that we have seen in the last 30 years. Sphere: Related Content
Why people of faith should stay away from the "Christian Equity Index"
First what the Index is, and then my comments on it.
There are many financial indexes of this sort, some claiming to be ethical, some claiming to be Islamic, this one claiming to be Christian, and so on.
Are such indexes having an impact? Yes, though perhaps not yet as much of an impact as the originators of these indexes hope. But it is early days yet. The first major such indexes started only in the 90s, though there is an older tradition of them, going back at least to the days of apartheid.
Most such indexes take the top-performing companies and subject them to some sort of "screen" in order to eliminate those deemed unsuitable on the basis of certain criteria, for example: pornography, weapons, tobacco, gambling, usury and/ or environmental damage. In other words, only the most profitable of the largest companies avoiding these sorts of things are allowed to be included in the Index.
So investors are saved the trouble of having to screen each company themselves. They simply decide which of the above criteria are important for them, find which of the indexes shares their criteria, then investors can simply lean on the the work done by the screeners who produce that particular index.
However, there is a danger in leaning too heavily on such Indexes: one needs to be vigilant regarding whether the criteria are in fact being followed. For example, most so-called "Islamic" companies do not really eschew usury, they simply find one way or another around it. In the case of the so-called "Stoxx Europe Christian Index", its major difference from the criteria mentioned above is that it adds birth control to the list. In view of that, it is astonishing to find GlaxoSmithKline on the list of companies approved by what is really a Roman Catholic Index, given that GlaxoSmithKline Lamictal, Elogen, Yaz and perhaps other birth control pills.
But why do I say that "people of faith should stay away" from this Index, whether it is Christian or Roman Catholic? Because the Index claims that it includes only those companies whose revenues derive from sources approved "according to the values and principles of the Christian religion".
Leaving aside what is meant by "the" Christian religion (there is no such thing, as Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Mormons, and various others all claim to represent "the" Christian religion), there is the question of what the "values and principles" of the religion are, and whether these are adequately represented by the criteria of this particular Index.
In my view, the "Christian Index" is a trivialisation and a travesty, because it leaves out what the Bible calls "the larger matters" of social justice and environmental care.
Most important of all, in typical Roman Catholic fashion, the Index simply "baptizes" the existing economic order and financial system, without any clear standard on the basis of which the system as a whole can be evaluated. For example, the Index bypasses the requirement of relationships which, if nothing else, is central to the teaching of the Bible from the very first chapters of Genesis right to the end of Revelations.
For a much more Biblical approach to the matter of investing, see resources from the Jubilee Foundation, for example "Beyond Capitalism: Towards a Relational economy" http://www.jubilee-centre.org/document.php?id=346&topicID=3. See also: http://www.citylifeltd.org and http://www.creditaction.org.uk.
I conclude that an Index that can reliably be used by people of faith has yet to be invented.
Meanwhile, the best thing to do is to investigate the many businesses that you know personally which are being run by people of faith, and invest in those of them that do meet, in your view, whatever criteria you deem appropriate for an ethical business. Sphere: Related Content
There are many financial indexes of this sort, some claiming to be ethical, some claiming to be Islamic, this one claiming to be Christian, and so on.
Are such indexes having an impact? Yes, though perhaps not yet as much of an impact as the originators of these indexes hope. But it is early days yet. The first major such indexes started only in the 90s, though there is an older tradition of them, going back at least to the days of apartheid.
Most such indexes take the top-performing companies and subject them to some sort of "screen" in order to eliminate those deemed unsuitable on the basis of certain criteria, for example: pornography, weapons, tobacco, gambling, usury and/ or environmental damage. In other words, only the most profitable of the largest companies avoiding these sorts of things are allowed to be included in the Index.
So investors are saved the trouble of having to screen each company themselves. They simply decide which of the above criteria are important for them, find which of the indexes shares their criteria, then investors can simply lean on the the work done by the screeners who produce that particular index.
However, there is a danger in leaning too heavily on such Indexes: one needs to be vigilant regarding whether the criteria are in fact being followed. For example, most so-called "Islamic" companies do not really eschew usury, they simply find one way or another around it. In the case of the so-called "Stoxx Europe Christian Index", its major difference from the criteria mentioned above is that it adds birth control to the list. In view of that, it is astonishing to find GlaxoSmithKline on the list of companies approved by what is really a Roman Catholic Index, given that GlaxoSmithKline Lamictal, Elogen, Yaz and perhaps other birth control pills.
But why do I say that "people of faith should stay away" from this Index, whether it is Christian or Roman Catholic? Because the Index claims that it includes only those companies whose revenues derive from sources approved "according to the values and principles of the Christian religion".
Leaving aside what is meant by "the" Christian religion (there is no such thing, as Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Mormons, and various others all claim to represent "the" Christian religion), there is the question of what the "values and principles" of the religion are, and whether these are adequately represented by the criteria of this particular Index.
In my view, the "Christian Index" is a trivialisation and a travesty, because it leaves out what the Bible calls "the larger matters" of social justice and environmental care.
Most important of all, in typical Roman Catholic fashion, the Index simply "baptizes" the existing economic order and financial system, without any clear standard on the basis of which the system as a whole can be evaluated. For example, the Index bypasses the requirement of relationships which, if nothing else, is central to the teaching of the Bible from the very first chapters of Genesis right to the end of Revelations.
For a much more Biblical approach to the matter of investing, see resources from the Jubilee Foundation, for example "Beyond Capitalism: Towards a Relational economy" http://www.jubilee-centre.org/document.php?id=346&topicID=3. See also: http://www.citylifeltd.org and http://www.creditaction.org.uk.
I conclude that an Index that can reliably be used by people of faith has yet to be invented.
Meanwhile, the best thing to do is to investigate the many businesses that you know personally which are being run by people of faith, and invest in those of them that do meet, in your view, whatever criteria you deem appropriate for an ethical business. Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, April 24, 2010
My twins' novels now in Dutch (Nederlands)
My 21-year old twins' series of three fantasy novels, set in their created world called Calaspia, has been translated from the original English and is now being published in Dutch (or Nederlands, as the language is called) by Wereldbibliotheek.
The first volume, DE SAMENZWERING VAN CALASPIA, should be available from next week (see below). The 2nd novel should be available in Dutch in about six months, and then the 3rd.
The first novel is available also in German and Italin; volume 2 is already available in German, vol 3 will be published in German in the Autumn.
Other translations are being considered/ sought.
The twins are now at work on their SECOND SERIES, which will be based in India, and their Agent is looking for the main publisher for that, we hope in the UK and/or USA.
The twins' website is: www.twins.guptara.net
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Today the Dutch edition of CONSPIRACY OF CALASPIA has arrived at our publishing house! The books are beautiful, we will send you two copies a.s.a.p.
We are also finishing our website. We hope you like it!
The book looks even better in "real time", because the "yellow" letters are actually gold and shiny.
DE SAMENZWERING VAN CALASPIA will be in the book stores by next week.
All the best & have a nice weekend!
Eveline & all the other collegues at Wereldbibliotheek Sphere: Related Content
The first volume, DE SAMENZWERING VAN CALASPIA, should be available from next week (see below). The 2nd novel should be available in Dutch in about six months, and then the 3rd.
The first novel is available also in German and Italin; volume 2 is already available in German, vol 3 will be published in German in the Autumn.
Other translations are being considered/ sought.
The twins are now at work on their SECOND SERIES, which will be based in India, and their Agent is looking for the main publisher for that, we hope in the UK and/or USA.
The twins' website is: www.twins.guptara.net
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Today the Dutch edition of CONSPIRACY OF CALASPIA has arrived at our publishing house! The books are beautiful, we will send you two copies a.s.a.p.
We are also finishing our website. We hope you like it!
The book looks even better in "real time", because the "yellow" letters are actually gold and shiny.
DE SAMENZWERING VAN CALASPIA will be in the book stores by next week.
All the best & have a nice weekend!
Eveline & all the other collegues at Wereldbibliotheek Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Lecture in Dubai, 5th of May, "The Global Economic Crisis: Is it Past? And what of the Future?"
I argue that the crisis is not past; it is simply that a floor has been put under it by the extraordinary measures that were undertaken. The floor itself comes under threat, and then further measures have to be taken. Meanwhile, the very existence of the floor builds up its own pressures. The future is uncertain, and will feature even greater uncertainty from Europe and the USA right around to China. However, it is still possible to put sensible solutions in place that will produce a global framework for finance and industra, for ecology and humane development. And I put forward key proposals for discussion.
From 7.30 pm to 9.30 pm, at Traders Hotel, on the corner of Abu Baker, Al Siddique & Salah Al Din Road
The event is kindly sponsored by The International Indian magazine/ Expat Media International, and is therefore free of charge. However, you need a (free) ticket to get in. Please ring 265 9888. Sphere: Related Content
From 7.30 pm to 9.30 pm, at Traders Hotel, on the corner of Abu Baker, Al Siddique & Salah Al Din Road
The event is kindly sponsored by The International Indian magazine/ Expat Media International, and is therefore free of charge. However, you need a (free) ticket to get in. Please ring 265 9888. Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, April 17, 2010
The Milesa nd More Frequent Traveller Programme of the Star Alliance Airlines Group
I suggested to Miles and More that it was unnecessary, and embarrassing for members of their frequent flyer programme, to have the experience of being turned away, as I was, at the SAS Lounge in Copenhagen, because of differences in the rules applied by Lounges belonging to different members of the Star Alliance. In other words, according to the rules, I am to be admitted to Lounges run by Austrian, Lufthansa, and Swiss but I am NOT to be admitted to Lounges run by other members of the same Star Alliance, such as SAS.
The following is the response that I received:
Dear Professor Guptara,
Thank you for your email.
As a Miles & More Frequent Traveller card holder you have access to the Lufthansa Business Lounges on production of a valid boarding pass issued on Lufthansa, a Star Alliance partner or a Lufthansa airline partner for the same date and airport of departure.
For SWISS Business Class Lounges and Austrian Airways Business Lounges you need to produce a valid boarding pass issued by our Star Alliance partners for the same date and airport of departure.
However, please understand that we have no influence on the rules and regulations set by other airlines, e.g Scandinavian Airlines, regarding the access to their lounges.
The latest information concerning the benefits of the Miles & More Frequent Traveller status can be found on our website www.miles-and-more.com > The programme > Status and Privileges > Miles & More status levels > The main benefits in brief.
Sincerely,
Your Miles & More Service Team
Here is the response that I have sent to them:
Dear Members of the Miles and More Service Team
Many thanks for your message.
However, I had not asked for information regarding the rules for the use of Lufthansa and Swiss Business Lounges.
What I asked was that you take action to harmonise the different rules and regulations set by your so-called "Partner Airlines", as these differences lead to embarrassment to your passengers. If you have no influence on the rules and regulations set by "other" airlines, why do you have them as Partners in the Star Alliance system? Clearly, the "Alli ance" is meaningless if everyone is free to set their own rules, regulations and standards!
I understand that the Miles and More Service feels unable to do anything about this because this is a matter that is beyond the competence of the Service Team.
However, it is not beyond the competence of the Service Team to raise this matter with the top management of the Alliance.
So my question is: have you, as the Service Team, raised this matter with the top management of the Star Alliance?
Yours sincerely
Prabhu Guptara Sphere: Related Content
The following is the response that I received:
Dear Professor Guptara,
Thank you for your email.
As a Miles & More Frequent Traveller card holder you have access to the Lufthansa Business Lounges on production of a valid boarding pass issued on Lufthansa, a Star Alliance partner or a Lufthansa airline partner for the same date and airport of departure.
For SWISS Business Class Lounges and Austrian Airways Business Lounges you need to produce a valid boarding pass issued by our Star Alliance partners for the same date and airport of departure.
However, please understand that we have no influence on the rules and regulations set by other airlines, e.g Scandinavian Airlines, regarding the access to their lounges.
The latest information concerning the benefits of the Miles & More Frequent Traveller status can be found on our website www.miles-and-more.com > The programme > Status and Privileges > Miles & More status levels > The main benefits in brief.
Sincerely,
Your Miles & More Service Team
Here is the response that I have sent to them:
Dear Members of the Miles and More Service Team
Many thanks for your message.
However, I had not asked for information regarding the rules for the use of Lufthansa and Swiss Business Lounges.
What I asked was that you take action to harmonise the different rules and regulations set by your so-called "Partner Airlines", as these differences lead to embarrassment to your passengers. If you have no influence on the rules and regulations set by "other" airlines, why do you have them as Partners in the Star Alliance system? Clearly, the "Alli ance" is meaningless if everyone is free to set their own rules, regulations and standards!
I understand that the Miles and More Service feels unable to do anything about this because this is a matter that is beyond the competence of the Service Team.
However, it is not beyond the competence of the Service Team to raise this matter with the top management of the Alliance.
So my question is: have you, as the Service Team, raised this matter with the top management of the Star Alliance?
Yours sincerely
Prabhu Guptara Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)