Monsanto Colonises Ukraine

Monsanto in Ukraine: IMF loan for Ukraine may give GMO giant a backdoor into EU http://on.rt.com/z0ekxl Published time: August 30, 2014 15:33 Ukraine’s bid for closer ties with the west could come at a cost. With the IMF set to loan the country $17 billion, the deal could also see GMO crops grown in some of the most fertile lands on the continent, warns Frederic Mousseau. Very few, not least the Ukrainian population are aware of these details, but according to Mousseau, who is a Policy Director at The Oakland Institute, in return for the cash, Ukraine could very well become a test ground for GMO crops in Europe, something the rest of the European Union has been looking to prevent. RT caught up with the Frenchman, who voiced his concerns at what may lay ahead. RT: When this $17 billion deal is approved by the IMF and the Ukrainian ban on GM crops is lifted, does that mean it is just a matter of time before Ukrainian farmers grow modified crops? Frederic Mousseau: This is very likely because there is a lot of pressure from the bio-technological industry, such as Monsanto, to have these approved in Ukraine. It is also part of the EU Association Agreement, which has a particular article which calls for the expansion of bio-technology and GMOs in Ukraine. RT: If it was one of the pre-conditions of the multi-billion dollar loan, do you think it is fair to say that Monsanto has considerable influence over the IMF and the World Bank and even dictates terms to them? FM: We saw in 2013 that Monsanto invested $140 million in new seed plans in Ukraine. It is clearly the bread basket of Europe and it is a key target for a company like Monsanto, which sees this huge potential for production and this huge market. Europe has been quite resistant in allowing GMOs, but if they are successful in Ukraine then there might be a domino effect in Europe. RT: Was it a coincidence or a pre-planned action back in December 2013, when the ban on GM goods was lifted in Ukraine, just weeks before the IMF was supposed to give that county a loan? FM: It can’t be a coincidence because we have seen a very strong mobilization of the industry and the agro business in lobbying the government and the EU to have these changes in the legislation. Also we have seen this investment coming in prior to any adoption of GMOs. So clearly this pressure was there and to have such a clause in the EU Association Agreement means that the lobbyists in the industry must have been at work for months before that. RT: The president of the US-Ukraine Business Council has said that it is necessary to get the Ukrainian government out of the agriculture business and transform it into a private sector industry. Can we say that America has set its sights on the vast fields that could be a gold mine for agriculture? FM: There are these seed businesses like Monsanto and pesticide companies, but there is also the land of Ukraine, which has so far been under the control of the Ukrainian government and has not been available for sale. There will be a big push to privatize this land and make it a valuable commodity, which can be acquired by foreign corporations. What we have seen in recent years is that even if the land could not be purchased, it has been leased on a massive scale. Already 1.6 million hectares have been acquired by foreign entities and it is very likely that if the reform programs continue, there will be more companies, more interest and they will be looking to strike deals for Ukrainian land. RT: There is considerable anti-GMO sentiment around the world. If you take this into account, how beneficial would it be for Ukraine to rely on the US-based GMO crops industry? FM: It comes as part of an agreement with the EU and we know that European citizens and farmers are against GMOs, but still we have a deal with the European Union, who have worked out a deal with Ukraine to expand the use of GMOs. It seems like it has been something that has been arranged by the lobbyists of corporations and the civil servants within the European Commission. We have seen all over the world that this is not beneficial for farmers, it is not beneficial to citizens. It is just in the interest of the corporations who are taking over control of seeds used by farmers around the world. The food that is produced does not become better or cheaper. RT: How harmful potentially do you think growing GMO crops could be for those rich fertile Ukrainian soils? FM: We have seen in the US, where GMO crops have been cultivated for a couple of decades now. We have concerns about the quality of soil because the use of GMOs comes with a high level of the use of fertilizers and this destroys a lot of the organic materials in the soils. There is also a very high risk of contamination for those farmers who choose not to use GMOs and we have seen this very clearly in North America where there has been a lot of contamination. SOURCE - RT News - here.

Good article, worth reading.

Found it anger provoking.

Big American business is behind what's going on in Ukraine.

And check out the power these people have:  laws were changed before the IMF came through with the bail-out.

Looks like they've got friends in the EU as well.

And check out the land grab. 

The whole thing's sickening.

ARGENTINA - TAKING U.S. TO THE HAGUE

Cry for Argentina: Fiscal Mismanagement or Pillage? Posted on Aug 15, 2014 By Ellen Brown, Web of Debt This piece first appeared at Web of Debt. Argentina has now taken the U.S. to The Hague for blocking the country’s 2005 settlement with the bulk of its creditors. The issue underscores the need for an international mechanism for nations to go bankrupt. Better yet would be a sustainable global monetary scheme that avoids the need for sovereign bankruptcy. Argentina was the richest country in Latin America before decades of neoliberal and IMF-imposed economic policies drowned it in debt. A severe crisis in 2001 plunged it into the largest sovereign debt default in history. In 2005, it renegotiated its debt with most of its creditors at a 70% “haircut.” But the opportunist “vulture funds,” which had bought Argentine debt at distressed prices, held out for 100 cents on the dollar. Paul Singer’s Elliott Management has spent over a decade aggressively trying to force Argentina to pay down nearly $1.3 billion in sovereign debt. Elliott would get about $300 million for bonds that Argentina claims it picked up for $48 million. Where most creditors have accepted payment at a 70% loss, Elliott Management would thus get a 600% return. In June 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a New York court’s order blocking payment to the other creditors until the vulture funds had been paid. That action propelled Argentina into default for the second time in this century—and the eighth time since 1827. On August 7, 2014, Argentina asked the International Court of Justice in the Hague to take action against the United States over the dispute. [...] Blame has also been laid at the feet of the IMF and the international banking system for failing to come up with a fair resolution mechanism for countries that go bankrupt. And at a more fundamental level, blame lies with a global debt-based monetary scheme that forces bankruptcy on some nations as a mathematical necessity. As in a game of musical chairs, some players must default. Most money today comes into circulation in the form of bank credit or debt. Debt at interest always grows faster than the money supply, since more is always owed back than was created in the original loan. There is never enough money to go around without adding to the debt burden. As economist Michael Hudson points out, the debt overhang grows exponentially until it becomes impossible to repay. The country is then forced to default. [...] Fiscal Mismanagement or Odious Debt? Besides impossibility of performance, there is another defense Argentina could raise in international court – that of “odious debt.” Also known as illegitimate debt, this legal theory holds that national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation should not be enforceable. The defense has been used successfully by a number of countries, including Ecuador in December 2008, when President Rafael Correa declared that its debt had been contracted by corrupt and despotic prior regimes. The odious-debt defense allowed Ecuador to reduce the sum owed by 70%. [...]         EXTRACT ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/cry_for_argentina_fiscal_mismanagement_or_pillage_20140814

This is a really fantastic article. Only an extract. Recommend linking to full article.

Blown away by how greedy the vulture hedge fund is, holding out for a 600% return - over a decade of fighting.

It should be interesting to see how Argentina goes fighting this.

Sovereign Debt & Global Mega-Bank Vultures Threat

Sovereign debt for territory: A new global elite swap strategy Adrian Salbuchi is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina. Published time: August 12, 2014 13:07 In recent decades, dozens of sovereign nations have fallen into ever-deepening trouble by becoming indebted with the “private megabank over-world” for amounts far, far in excess of what they can ever pay back. [...] Recurrent sovereign debt crises reflect neither “over-lending mistakes” by bankers and investors, nor “innocence” on the part of successive governments in deeply indebted nations. Rather, it all ties in with a global model for domination driven by a system of perpetual national debt which I have called “The Shylock Model”. As with the tango which requires rhythm and bravado, Argentina is again dancing centre-stage to global mega-bankers’ financial tunes after falling into a new “technical default”. Not just because the country is unable to pay off its massive public debt by heeding the “rules of the game” as written and continuously re-vamped by global usurers, but now with added legal immorality and judicial indecency on the part of New York’s Second District Manhattan Court presided by Judge Daniel Griesa. Griesa has shown no qualms in putting US law at the service of immoral parasitic “bankers and investors” such as Paul Singer of the Elliott/NML Fund and Mark Brodsky of the Aurelius Fund. The mainstream media inside and outside Argentina refer to these parasitic money “sloshers” as “vulture funds”; a conceptual mistake because one might then be led to believe that other funds and bankers - Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, George Soros, Rothschild, Warburg - are not “vultures” when, in fact, the very foundations of today’s global banking system lie on parasitic pro-vulture rules and laws coupled with an overpowering lack of moral values. Sovereign debt Sovereign debts are a major problem in just about every country in the world, including the US, UK and EU nations. So much so, those debts have become a Damocles’ Swords threatening the livelihood of untold billions of workers around the world. One often wonders why governments indebt themselves for so much more than they can ever hope to pay… Here, Western economists, bankers, traders, Ivy League academics and professors, Nobel laureates and the mainstream media have a quick and monolithic reply: because all nations need “investment and investors” if they wish to build highways, power plants, schools, airports, hospitals, raise armies, service infrastructures and a long list of et ceteras, economic and national activities are all about. But more and more people are starting to ask a fundamental common-sense question: why should governments indebt themselves in hard currencies, decades into the future with global mega-bankers, when they could just as well finance these projects and needs far more safely by issuing the proper amounts of their own local sovereign currency instead? Here is where all the above “experts” go berserk & ballistic, shouting back: “Issue currency? Are you crazy?? That’s against the “rules & laws” of economics!!! Issuing national sovereign currency to finance the real economy’s monetary needs leads to inflation and lost jobs and chaos and… (puts us nice mega-bankers out of a job…)!!.” That’s when they all gang-up into noisy “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!!” mode. Then you ask them: What happens when countries default on their unpayable sovereign debts - as they invariably and repeatedly do - not just in Argentina, but in Brazil, Spain, Venezuela, France, Costa Rica, Peru, El Salvador, Portugal, Russia, Bolivia, Iceland, Turkey, Greece, Cyprus, Thailand, Nigeria, Mexico, and Indonesia? Again the voice of the “experts”: “Then countries must “restructure” their debts kicking them forwards 20, 40 or more years into the future, so that your great, great, great grandchildren can continue paying them”. Oh, I see! The truth is that countries need public spending to maintain their economies resilient and buoyant, their citizens working, prospering and happy; their nation-states sovereign, strong and secure. OK: happy, secure and working populations cannot be defined as a formula that can be readily integrated into “expert” economists’ spreadsheets. However, there’s a basic truth that should be obvious by now: Finance (which is the virtual world of bankers, investments, speculation and usury) should always be fully subordinated to the Real Economy (which is the world of work, production, buildings, milk & bread and services). All this begs the obvious question: Since governments have a natural tendency to overspend and end up getting themselves into too much debt, which is the better option then: - that their “red numbers” (aka sovereign debt) should be owed to themselves; their own nation-states (debt in local currency that in the last instance can be written off, even if a bad bout of inflation cannot be stopped, countries can always revamp their currencies as Argentina repeatedly did over the past forty years), whereby the whole “debt crisis” basically becomes a short-term internal affair (albeit painful!), or… - to convert those “red numbers” into foreign currency debt (US Dollars or Euro) fully controlled by powerful far-away, well-organized creditor-technocrats and global mega-bankers sitting at the FED and IMF in Washington DC; the European Central Bank in Frankfurt; or perched in eager expectation in their Wall Street vulture nests? [...] Argentina’s recurrent defaults and debt restructuring go back many decades. For brevity’s sake, let’s just point to 1956 right after President Juan Domingo Perón was ousted by a very bloody 1955 US-UK (and mega-banker) sponsored military coup. Perón was hated for his insistence on not indebting Argentina with the mega-bankers: in 1946 he rejected joining the International Monetary Fund (IMF); in 1953 he fully paid off all of Argentina’s sovereign debt. So, once the mega-bankers got rid of him in 1956, they shoved Argentina into the IMF and created the “Paris Club” to engineer decades-worth of sovereign debt for vanquished Argentina, something they’ve been doing until today. But each sovereign-debt crisis cycle became shorter, more virulent and more toxic. By December 2001, Argentina had collapsed financially sinking into the largest sovereign debt default in history. Immediately, the IMF’s deputy manager Anne Krueger proposed some “new and creative ideas” on what to do about Argentina. She published them in 2002 in an article on the IMF’s website: “Should Countries like Argentina be able to declare themselves bankrupt?”, in which she said that “the lesson is clear: we need better incentives to bring debtors and creditors together before manageable problems turn into full-blown crises”, adding that the IMF believes “this could be done by learning from corporate bankruptcy regimes like Chapter 11 in the US”. She pointed this out as “a possible new approach”, adding that “of course many practical and political obstacles to getting such an approach up and running” needed to be overcome, the “key features would need the force of law throughout the world”, creating “a predictable (global) legal framework”. From the stance of global mega-bankers’ geopolitical long-term planners, Ms Krueger’s proposal consisted of first gradually driving countries into receivership, and then sequentially into full-fledged bankruptcy. Then as if nations were private corporations like Enron or WorldCom - they could be broken up into as many “digestible” pieces as possible, to be gobbled up by international creditors in some global vulture-fest banquet. [...] The specialized and mainstream media - Financial Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Economist - are also recommending Judge Griesa and his vulture chicks to show more restraint because in today’s delicate post-2008 banking system, a new and less controllable sovereign debt crisis could thwart the global elite’s plans for an “orderly transition towards a new global legal architecture” that will allow orderly liquidation of financially-failed states like Argentina. Especially if such debt were to be collateralized by its national territory (what else is left!?) Will yet another sovereign debt bond mega-swap be imposed upon Argentina, this time with large swathes of its national territory – especially Patagonia – being used as collateral guarantee? That would mean that in a few years’ time the Shylocks in Wall Street and London will do everything they can to yet again push Argentina into default, since that would pave the way for them to “legally” take over its territory cashing in on their collateral as “compensation”. [...]  If we tie this all in with what the unfolding of “Act III” in the on-going Israel-Palestine crisis whereby re-settling millions of Israeli civilians into southern Argentina might be on the drawing board, we can then begin to understand how nicely Argentina’s next debt crisis will tie in: The global Rothschild’s, Warburg’s, Lazard’s, Soros, Rockefellers will be able to “legally” take over Patagonia, and then “legally” hand it over to whomever they wish without a single shot being fired! If this is what’s really happening behind-the-curtains regarding Argentina, does anybody believe it will stop there? Beware Greece, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Mexico, Korea, Japan, Ukraine, Brazil, South Africa – the world government is marching in! EXTRACTS ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://rt.com/op-edge/179772-sovereign-debt-for-territory/

 FED - US Federal Reserve System (informal = FED) = central banking system of US.


Thought this article was very interesting.

Had no idea about Peron US-UK mega-banker sponsored coup.

Is Argentina likely to lose territory?

My guess is:  yes.

It lost the Falklands over sovereign debt.

The stuff about Israeli civilian resettlement in southern Argentina is puzzling.

................................................................................

Something called the 'The Andinia Plan' is probably what the resettlement is about.

This is refuted as anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, or something like that:

http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/The-Dreyfus-revival

UKRAINE - WALL STREET & IMF OWNED

❌ G O O G L E SUCKS UKRAINE WHO'S YOUR DADDY? ▼ UKRAINE ❌ G O O G L E SUCKS ▼ ▼  Outrageous Censorship  ▼ GOOGLE SUCKS ❌ From the names of the files, I would say that this was an image of the US military in Ukraine, followed by an image of Petro Poroshenko made up like a painted whore ... along with an image of the Yankee dollar & Poroshenko cupping his lips, calling out something like: "Yoo-hoo, Yankee, love you long time!" Big Finger to the CIA Coup in Ukraine Finger to Poroshenko Finger to Google Censorship ❌ G O O G L E SUCKS

US AID TO PAKISTAN - PAKISTAN STAND ON FOOD SECURITY - WTO TRADE FACILITATION AGREEMENT

US ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE and MILITARY AID TO PAKISTAN Commenced shortly after the country’s creation in 1947 US obligated nearly $67 billion (in constant 2011 dollars) to Pakistan between 1951 and 2011 2009 US renewed commitment to Pakistan US approved the Enhanced Partnership for Pakistan Act  (commonly known as the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, or KLB) Act authorized a tripling of US economic and development-related assistance to Pakistan, or $7.5 billion over five years (FY2010 to FY2014). Between FY2002 and FY2009, only 30 percent of US foreign assistance to Pakistan was appropriated for economic-related needs; the remaining 70 percent was allocated to security-related assistance. Since the KLB authorization (FY2010 through the FY2014 budget request), 41 percent of assistance has been allocated for economic-related assistance. [So that would mean military assistance exceeds economic] US aid pledged to Pakistan remains significant compared to funding for other development initiatives.  US $1.16 billion request for foreign assistance to Pakistan exceeds requests for: Global Hunger and Food Security initiative ($1.06 billion); Millennium Challenge Corporation ($0.90 billion); Global Climate Change initiative ($0.48 billion).  US $1.6 billion request for foreign assistance to Pakistan: not far behind the requested $1.36 billion for the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) which makes loans and grants to the world’s 81 poorest countries and is the single largest source of development finance in these locations. Source:  Greenbook - obtained from site:  CGDEV.ORG Pakistan is the fourth largest recipient of US assistance, trailing Israel, Afghanistan, and Egypt.  US has pledged seven times more aid to Pakistan than to Bangladesh, a neighboring country with a comparable population size and similar development needs. US largest contributor, nearly a third of total Official Development Assistance (ODA) to Pakistan (30 projects total commitment $5 billion), followed by: World Bank’s International Development Association (21 percent of total ODA); Japan (14 percent); United Kingdom (8 percent); and EU Institutions (4 percent). Asian Development Bank (ADB) is Pakistan’s biggest multilateral partner, providing assistance of $4.4 billion from 2009 through 2012. IMF disbursed credit worth $5.2 billion to Pakistan from FY2008 to FY2010 following the 2008 economic crises.  In 2011 the Government of Pakistan decided to end the IMF program, but following the country’s civilian election in May 2013 the new government, led by the Pakistani Muslim League (Nawaz), has entered into a new provisional agreement with the Fund worth $6.6 billion for a bailout package for FY2013-2016.  Although the IMF and Pakistan have an ‘unhappy history’, the new government is said to have little choice due to its balance of payments crisis and sharply declining foreign exchange reserves. Extracts Only -  Source -   http://www.cgdev.org/page/aid-pakistan-numbers

In an earlier post - here - it was noted that a World Trade Organisation (WTO) 'Trade Facilitation Agreement', freeing up trade to bring TRILLIONS into the world economy, is being negotiated.

India, Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela are seeking to increase public stockholding for food security.

WTO stipulates no more than 10%' value of food/grains production to be allocated to 'public stockholdings'.

However, this is based on calculations dating back to 1986-1988 and therefore not in step with inflation figures.

While India is staying strong in the negotiations, asking for a permanent solution on food security, US Secretary of State, John Kerry is unsympathetic and playing games with peoples lives:

Secretary of state John Kerry, before starting for India on Wednesday morning, had expressed the hope that India’s opposition to TFA would wither away, adding that this was a test case for the country’s commitment to advance liberalisation of global trade and investment.  [source - here]

Hmmmm ... let's see, 'test case' for 'liberalisation of global trade' VERSUS 'food security' ... and John Kerry's hoping these countries' food needs are just going to 'wither away'?

Never mind food.  Let's make PROFIT and let's sell WEAPONS.

China and Pakistan, also parties to the proposed agreement, are ready to sign the WTO trade agreement set before them.

China, I figured, is cashed up.  Oddly, it's not very community minded for a communist nation (or are they no longer communists?).

What's Pakistan's story?

Pakistan looks like it's 'owned' by 'US and company', judging by the amount of US financial support it has received and continues to receive, as well as financial support from US allies and the IMF.


What I found shocking is that the amount of US support Pakistan has received is almost as much as the US contribution request for World Bank's allocation to 81 of the world's poorest countries!

Apparently, large portions of the US aid in Pakistan go on military spending.

The guess is that the US supplies Pakistan with arms, so the money would go from the US public purse back to back to US private military manufacturing companies.

What I'm unclear about is what is a freebie and what is repayable by Pakistan.

It looks like there may be non-reimbursable portions of US aid, which is what?  Is that non-repayable?

Well if 'reimbursable' is repayable, non-reimbursable must be non-repayable. 

Until 1990, the United States provided military aid to Pakistan to modernize its conventional defensive capability. The United States allocated about 40% of its assistance package to non-reimbursable credits for military purchases, the third-largest program behind Israel and Egypt.

The remainder of the aid program was devoted to economic assistance.

Sanctions put in place in 1990 denied Pakistan further military assistance due to the discovery of its program to develop nuclear weapons. Sanctions were tightened following Pakistan's nuclear tests in response to India's May 1998 tests and the military coup of 1999. The events of September 11, 2001 and Pakistan's quick agreement to support the United States led to a waiving of the sanctions, and military assistance resumed to provide spare parts and equipment to enhance Pakistan's capacity to police its western border. In 2003, President Bush announced that the United States would provide Pakistan with $3 billion in economic and military aid over 5 years. This assistance package commenced during FY 2005. [source - US Dept of State - http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/pakistan/47936.htm]

Receipt of non-repayable money sounds pretty good.  Send some my way.  LOL.
 
As for the Nuclear weapons?  We're all doomed! 

Anyway, that's a bit of a fill-in on Pakistan, which might be handy if you're anything like me and clueless about what's going on.  LOL.

Venezuela - Economic Hassles Puzzle

Venezuela

• Top end South America
• (officially called the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Do *not confuse with Bolivia)
• Colonised by Spain 1500s
• First to declare independence (1811 ... secured 1821)
• One of the most urbanised countries of Latin America
• ... world's largest oil reserves and [has] been one of the world's leading exporters of oil.
• Previously an underdeveloped exporter of agricultural commodities such as coffee and cocoa, oil quickly came to dominate exports and government revenues.
• 1980s oil glut = external debt crisis + long-running economic crisis
• (inflation peak @ 100% 1996)

[Source - Wikipedia - here]

------------------------------------------

Forbes Article - here.

Noticed high inflation in Venezuela, and having discovered 'hyperinflation' in the little tutorial, thought I'd check out Venezuela.

So their economy ... is what?  Either a depressed economy or a war economy, judging by tutorial? 

Background:

President Hugo Chavez (Socialist) died 2013. 

Venezuela is described as a 'South American oil giant' and the article indicates this isn't the worst economic period it's experienced. 

IMF makes an appearance. Inflation 'running rampant', according to IMF. Low economy growth. Economy shrinkage.

... devaluation of the currency in the case of Venezuela represents a reallocation of resources from the private to the public sector, which is practically the only exporter thanks to oil giant PDVSA.

If IMF has something to say, then there's most likely an IMF debt involved.

Moving onto the 2010 Article -  

Economist - 'Towards State Socialism' - here:

Article's dated, but it seemed to have good information.

GDP 'contracting' (less production); 'currency supply problem' mentioned. 

 Possible 'deepening' of recession mentioned. 

So, Venezuela's is a depressed economy.

Article indicates:  Decline in oil shipments associated with decline in oil export. There's also a decline in oil prices.  

[Don't understand how you can sit on oil but have a decline.]

The Economist

Chavez the socialist president (1999-2013) had progressively been nationalising everything:

... seizing everything from steel companies and bottle makers to housing schemes. When workers have protested, he has deployed the national guard against them. The government has justified the confiscations by saying that it was breaking up monopolies or stopping breaches of labour or environmental rules. But the aim appears to be to move decisively against what Mr Chávez calls “the oligarchy”...

2007/2008 Chavez government took over the private oil sector (and more) -- or what there was of it.

Economist reports that:

any bank which declined to “co-operate with national development” by assigning credit according to government priorities would also be taken over.

[Don't suppose they attract much investment, then?  Wouldn't most businesses shut shop?]

Country appears partly 'nationalised' (ie national/state property vs private property) -  some industry in govt hands and rest private hands. 

Govt portion GDP did nothing since the late 1990s .

Oil boom 2004-2008.

Nationalised companies are producing less than when they were in private hands.

To gain 'food sovereignty', most of the food industry has been nationalised, but (the Economist reports) there's been a steep increase in imports.

Couple of exceptions: milk company and telecommunications company ... have done well.

What tends to happen:

... once companies are in state hands their staffing levels rise, prices fall and they become dependent on government subsidies.

Construction industry damaged by slump in materials production since nationalisation.

'Housing schemes' slowed or stopped.  

Govt won't allow developers to ask for prices in line with inflation rises (as at 2010 article @ 30% -- now over 60%).

Govt took over what was already largely govt controlled oil industry:  production of crude and refined products dropped.

Article closes:

Polls suggest that most Venezuelans disapprove of the nationalisations and firmly support private property. But Mr Chávez seems to be following the advice of Alan Woods, a Welsh Trotskyist who has become an informal adviser. Mr Woods, who is better known in Caracas than Cardiff, publicly urged the president to respond to his electoral setback by “accelerating the revolutionary process”, expropriating land, banks and the main industries. Venezuelans had better brace themselves for more nationalisation, scarcity and economic decline.

So what is driving the the inflation rate?

I'd like to apply the inflation lesson, but I'm not sure I've got it.

Cost of production has risen - more employees; less efficiency; government subsidy of industry; so it's like bleeding out money and it costs more to produce the goods because bleeding out the money eats into the profits? Also, less goods are being produced. *NB also money going out on *imports*.

Checking out what the go is with the oil not moving, came across this article - Bloomberg Feb 2014 - here.

Bloomberg says:

Venezuela’s plummeting oil sales to the U.S., its biggest export market, are exacerbating a collapse in the nation’s debt securities. 

Bonds released by Venezuela 'sank'.  Sank doesn't sound too good. Don't know enough about bonds to judge why they 'sank'.  No idea what this is about.

Article goes on:

The tumble in oil exports, Venezuela’s biggest source of dollars, comes as President Nicolas Maduro faces a shortage of U.S. currency that’s caused consumer prices to soar 56 percent and foreign reserves to plunge to a decade-low of $21 billion. Petroleos de Venezuela SA, the state-run oil producer known as PDVSA, is sending hundreds of thousands of barrels a day to China to repay loans totaling more than $40 billion since 2008, at a time when its production is shrinking. 

When they're not producing as much oil, they're sending it to China to repay a debt and they're losing out on US trade they otherwise would have had (?) -- and on US currency (or is that just income, as opposed to a specific currency?) because of lost sales of oil to the US, which is driving the inflation.

Think I might need to do a bit more reading on Venezuela and on bonds, foreign reserves etc. because  have no idea.  LOL.

So far, it's been fun trying to figure it out.

USA - War or Bluff?

Former Kremlin advisor gives Russia's view of the crisis in Ukraine Chris Uhlmann reported this story on Tuesday, April 15, 2014 07:19:43 [ Alexander Nekrassov, a former adviser to the Kremlin -] ... the economic situation in the European Union and America. Now, if you look at the G7 countries, they are all insolvent. They are all bankrupt. Their total debt is about $30 trillion and growing. And of course we understand that when countries are in a desperate economic situation and they don't really know what to do with it, they try to stage all sorts of spectacular foreign policy stunts, which we are witnessing now. Now America is facing default in two years time, and America is very aggressive across the world and in Europe as well. Now, the cynics in Russia are saying that America needs a big war. I think that the best possible way to solve this situation is for everyone to take a step back, because all this rhetoric does not help, all this aggressive rhetoric does not help anyone. http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2014/s3985549.htm

G7 Canada Prime Minister Stephen Harper France President François Hollande Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel Italy Prime Minister Matteo Renzi Japan Prime Minister Shinzō Abe United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron United States President Barack Obama European Union (2014 Chair) Council President Herman Van Rompuy Commission President José Manuel Barroso The European Union is also represented within the G7. The G7 are the seven wealthiest major developed nations by national net wealth, representing more than 63% of the net global wealth ... (2013). The IMF's Managing Director usually participates. [source - wikipedia - here]

Although this dates back to April 2014, it's useful to bear in mind the economics mentioned.

How's the remark about US need for a 'big war'?

Some blog I was on said it was a toss between Japan, China or Russia. 

Not sure why Japan was mentioned, as it's got very close ties to the US (as I understand).

I'm guessing Russia is 'it', although the US looks to be a 'challenger' in the Pacific region, given it's reportedly planning on focusing it's aircraft carrier naval fleet (I think it was) in the region over the next decade.

So what's going to happen?  Is the US going to go to war?  Will it be with Russia or with China?

Most likely Russia, I reckon.  China's where US probably produces their cheap goods, so they're probably not bent on disrupting that.

Russia is singled out for constant Ma-look-what-he-did! (but got no proof) accusations, vilification as an 'aggressor', singled out for sanctions, singled out for a press smear, singled out for 'shunning' and so on -- so it's 'henpecked' by the US-NATO mob as well as the EU arm of this 'thing' that seems to call the shots on a collective, bullying basis.

It's like a form of international 'mobbing' behaviour, that's usually confined to toxic organisations and workplaces.

So is this all bluff or is Russia 'it'?

UKRAINE - IMF bailout - 2nd instalment

IMF in talks with Ukraine leaders on bailout plan Saturday, 26 July 2014 BUSINESS RECORDER

According to the above article Christine Lagarde of International Monetary Fund (IMF), had a chat to Ukraine's Poreshenko and exiting prime minister Yatsenyuk.

The discussion involved implementation of the authorities' reform program and policy package agreed to 'with IMF staff'.

Unsure of what the authorities' reference was about.

Which multiple authorities they are referring to? 

Or is this a reference to joint IMF and Ukraine implementation of the loan program (which goes hand in hand with a tighten-your-belts slash-program)?

Anyway, IMF's giving Ukraine a little lovin' -

$17.0 billion - 2yr 'financial lifeline' to Ukraine .......................   - approved by IMF  ...................... (2014, late April)

1. $3.19 billion - First Instalment of 'aid' to Ukraine........   - disbursed by IMF ...................... (2014, early May)
2. $1.40 billion  - Second Instalment of 'aid' to Ukraine ..  - preliminary approval by IMF ...... (2014, late July)

 Ukraine's received 'preliminary approval' from IMF for a second instalment advance of $1.4 billion.

The IMF 'aid program' (which I assume is the loan program) is conditional upon economic reforms demanded by IMF being met by Ukraine.

According to the article, IMF did caution earlier that Ukraine's economy would contract faster than predicted, due to unrest in the east of the country resulting in:

• revenue shortfalls from disrupted industry; and
• higher spending on military.

 

Sovereignty, Democracy & IMF - Finance Today is War By Non-military Means

ARTICLE - Sri Lankan Guardian - here.

Published On:Thursday, July 10, 2014

Posted by Sri Lanka Guardian

At Issue Is Who Shall Rule The World

Interview With Michael Hudson

 

( July 10, 2014, Moscow, Sri Lanka Guardian) RT: Could you summarize for us the tried and tested steps that will lead from IMF loans, to Ukraine's best assets ending up in private Western hands - the IMF's 'knee-breaker' role as you memorably described it as?

 

Michael Hudson: The basic principle to bear in mind is that finance today is war by non-military means. The aim of getting a country in debt is to obtain its economic surplus, ending up with its property. The main property to obtain is that which can produce exports and generate foreign exchange. For Ukraine, this means mainly the Eastern manufacturing and mining companies, which presently are held in the hands of the oligarchs. For foreign investors, the problem is how to transfer these assets and their revenue into foreign hands – in an economy whose international payments are in chronic deficit as a result of the failed post-1991 restructuring. That is where the IMF comes in.

The IMF was not set up to finance domestic government budget deficits. Its loans are earmarked to pay foreign creditors, mainly to maintain a country’s exchange rate. The effect usually is to subsidize flight capital out of the country ..

...

RT: Anything else you would like to add?

MH: What is at issue is whether economies throughout the world will let financial leverage dismantle the power of elected governments, and hence of democracy. Governments are sovereign. No government actually needs to pay foreign debts or submit to policies that negate the three definitions of a state: to create its own money, to levy taxes, and to declare war.

At issue is who shall rule the world: the emerging 1% as a financial oligarchy, or elected governments. The two sets of aims are antithetical: rising living standards and national independence, or a renting economy, austerity and international dependency.

PART only -- FULL article here.
-------------------------------------

COMMENT

Full article well worth a read ... too long to post here & poster's too ditzy to summarise.  :)