Panama Papers - The Finale

Yesterday, we had another predictable step in the winding-down of the Panama Papers - the enacting of new rules, aka, the Silver Bullet.

These new rules will be a "hammer blow" against tax evasion. Yay!

Let's see...

Will it put comrade Juncker on the spot for Luxembourg's sweet deals? Ah, no. OK...

Will it take care of the EU fiscal-bargain zones? Ah, again, no.

Will it, at least, have any sort of impact whatsoever on the UK territories and on the US (places like, say, Delaware)? I'll leave the answer as an exercise for the reader.

And there we have it. Ladies and Gentlemen, this was the Panama Papers, I hope you've enjoyed it.

I expect a few more innocuous names, some more lip service, and then we'll forget about this.

Until the next leak, where every pundit and his 3rd-cousin-twice-removed will go "Who could've predicted that?"

Oh, you probably didn't notice it, but yesterday Oxfam published another one of their report thingies... yeah, I know. How boring can you get, right?

Panama - Update #2

The "business as usual" is definitely setting in.

• The Panama Papers do not reveal a problem with the global finance system or tax evasion. No, the problem is government corruption.

• Likewise, there is no problem with the system because the countries that actually respect the rules don't show up on the leak - e.g., USA.

• We're still getting plenty of people from the "Them" club. The last I saw mentioned Azerbaijan.

• From the "Us" club, we get plenty of "celebrities" I've never heard of, and those that are actually, you know, celebrities, are inconsequential.

• All the banks that were/are used to get "Them" to move "their" money to "our side" have, obviously, denied any wrong-doing. And since they say so, it must be true.

I particularly enjoy the argument in point 2, as it uses a tactic that I've known for a long time - the Conspiracy Theory. You see, if you suspect something (e.g., no one "respects the rules"), but can't prove it's actually true, therefore it must be False (perfect "logic", obviously). And if you raise the point that "unknown" is not the same as "false", you're just one of those fellows conspurcating the Wonderful World Around Us with your Filthy Conspiracy Theories.

It's pointless debating with someone who goes for this tactic, because they know two things:

1. They have no arguments.
2. They are Right(TM).

And don't bother mentioning Snowden, Volkswagen, or horsemeat, unless you want to hear some Non-Filthy Conspiracy Theories that the Anti-Conspiracy Theorist just knows is True.

Anyway, as far as the Panama Papers are concerned, I expect this will be it. Plenty of smoke, and nothing else.

Our destiny is Trump - Part 1

Yeah, I know. Maybe I should have written "fate" instead of "destiny".

Scale makes us focus on DT. The scale of his unexpected ascension. The scale of his "eccentricity". The scale of the consequences of his victory.

This last point is important. We already have, at least, two victorious Trumps in Europe (Hungary, Poland), but we don't focus on these. And if we consider these are already ruling and making decisions, that's not very rational of us. But then, rationality is a fairy tale we like to tell ourselves in order to feel better.

To their credit, there is a difference between our European Trumps and the US "certified original" - our Trumps tend to do this peculiar thing, before opening their mouths, called "thinking". Still, DT's results will show us how important this "thinking" business actually is.

Right now, everyone is looking for someone to blame for the Trump phenomenon. We're in a deluge of brain-dead media articles telling us who's to blame (hint: If the title begins with "Everything you need to know..." or contains the words "Here's why", you might be better off giving it a miss). Funnily enough, the media often blames Trump on... the media. But, naturally, on the "other" media, because "our" media is caring and responsible, and would never contribute to this Harbinger of Hatred, right?

Yeah, right...

I'm not a man of many certainties, but there is one thing I have little doubt about: Our destiny is Trump. Probably not this Trump. Probably a more credible, nuanced Trump. But some sort of Trump, nonetheless.

There have been many comparisons between Trump and Hitler. In most such comparisons there's usually one useful detail that's lost in all the noisy "Dooooooom" hype - the possible (probable) effect of the rise of inequality throughout the world. I, too, will be comparing these "fine" specimens of Mankind, but I will be more interested in the context, rather than the actual persons involved; it's the context that matters, not if we're comparing DT to Hitler or Donald Duck.

Context, then...

When we talk about the currently rising inequality, someone always mentions there are more and more people being pulled out of poverty. True. However, when you earn next-to-nothing, getting to earn second-next-to-nothing is not as much of an achievement as it is made to appear. And that's what we're talking about, in most cases - people who earn their salaries by working in factories with a wide assortment of working conditions (yes, it's an euphemism), with no financial safety net at all, and who won't be able to create such a safety net, based on their low income. We're definitely not talking about people coming out of poverty into a sustainable long-term middle-class; and I'm definitely including the so-called "Developed/First-World Nations" in this description, even though, for these nations, I do put things in perspective - as bad as we are getting, we're still in a different world, compared to countries like China or Bangladesh.

So, what's the point behind all this? If you look at Hitler's path to power, you'll see two note-worthy details:

1. The first step along that path was achieved by democratic election, not a coup or a German Spring.

2. The Nazi Party went from 2.6% (810,127 votes) in 1928 to 18.25% (6,379,672) in 1930. I'll let you figure out on your own what was the Big Event between 1928 and 1930.

So, you see, the problem isn't someone shouting at the top of his lungs "Jews are evil". The problem is when a significant part of the population falls on hard times and someone says "I can solve your problems! Oh, and by the way, not only are Jews evil, but they're also the cause of your problems".

We won't get leaders like Trump because people are actively racist/chauvinist/whatever, anymore than we got Hitler because people were actively anti-Semitic. We will get leaders like these when enough people fall on hard times and someone comes along and says "I can solve your problems". Regardless of whatever else they say.

And, right now, this is what an ever-growing part of the population perceives as its major problem - inequality. Not so much that there are a few people getting richer, but that there are a whole lot more getting poorer. Yes, I know, there's a lot of sound bites to counter this "conspiracy theory":

• Trickle-down. I won't even address this BS, other than to ask "Is this still a thing?!"
• We're taking untold millions from abject poverty. Riiight... and where exactly are we putting them, pray tell?
• The times are changing, life has become more precarious, and people have to get used to change. Oh, they will get used to change. We all will, in fact. I just think that, sooner or later, we'll all regret the change that "people" will choose.

When we mention "inequality", the first thing that comes to mind is income inequality. But there's more to it than that.

Legislative inequality

This one is easy. The push to rise the minimum wage is met with cries of "Doooooom". The push to lower corporate tax is lauded by pretty much every pundit and "independent" financial institution/watchdog. Even "better", the tax evas..., er, I mean, "avoidance" schemes are considered "good management".

Executive inequality

A major bank is on the brink of collapse and the taxpayers "volunteer" to step in with a bailout. All the usual suspects applaud.

The government says "Well, the State will now take over the bank's management, since we're paying for it". All hell breaks loose, with "reasonable" statements such as "The State cannot interfere with the management of a private corporation".

Judicial inequality

There's no need to say much here, as it's obvious from the current cost of "Justice" that it's completely skewed to favour those who can afford it.

At the end of the day, all this means is that more and more people are being pushed into precarious situations, more and more people are getting out-priced - or even scared out - of what should be ordinary life choices, all the while watching the "chosen few" living it out.

In fact, we can make a final comparison to illustrate this uncertainty gap:

• Entrepreneurs (whatever that means) and business owners will usually cry out for fiscal stability, demanding to know the "rules of the game", which usually means "rules that suit them".

• However, when it comes to those who work for them, they'll parrot out the "Times are uncertain" line, and push people into precarity, denying them the same stability they so vocally demand for themselves.

This, I believe, is the main reason why some sort of Trump is our future. Not the only reason, but definitely the main reason.

More about this next time.

Panama - Update #1

So, we're now entering day #2 of our Panama roller coaster, and damage control is definitely ramping up.

• Yesterday, I saw on TV some big name in the EU structure (too lazy to look it up, sorry) saying that his Panama company has been shut down for years. And I'm sure there was a legitimate reason for opening it in the first place.

• Our good friend, the Newly-Elected-Argentinian-President (did I mention I was feeling too lazy today?) said there was nothing illicit in his Panama activities. Ah, OK, thanks for clearing that up. I'm sure if there was anything illicit, you'd immediately disclose it.

• All the usual suspects are scrambling to assure everyone there are plenty of legitimate reasons for using offshores, such as "confidential dealings between parties", "paying less taxes using totally legal mechanisms", and... I guess that's it, really.

• Some of the more "creative" usual suspects have put forth a refreshingly new angle - we should not demonize those who use offshores to avoid paying taxes because we all do it anyway (pay as little tax as we can, not use offshores), and so there is a fundamental difference between, say, a drug dealer and a footballer, or a leader from a slavic country located to the East of Europe and a leader from a latin country in South America.

This last point takes on an amusing twist, when the argument becomes "if we demonize these tax-minimizers, then we will be demonizing everyone" and "the Big Bad State" will swallow us all as criminals.

So, for now, my prognostic is - nothing will change.

And not necessarily because of Panama, or our good old Cayman comrades.

It's more because of Switzerland, and Luxembourg, and Holland, and Austria, and Ireland. Mind you, the first two are seen as prosperous European nations, examples to follow.

And because of the nations that also do it, but don't appear often in the headlines, such as the UK or the USA.

And because of everyone who has money and power to decide.

Yes, I said "everyone". I'm most definitely not buying the "legitimate reasons" excuse.

After all, I'm sure there are "legitimate reasons" to gather up untold numbers of human beings and putting them in camps where they can't leave, without a trial to determine why they should be put there. I just can't think of one.

Hype? What do you think is the result of all these assholes stuffing their money on offshores? Destroyed lives. The drug dealer destroys the life of the young man who is addicted, and the tax evader destroys the life of the old man who waits months or years for an NHS exam, because "there is no money" and "there is no alternative".

Panama Papers

Let's see what these next few weeks will bring us.

While the headlines talk about "the celebrities and the powerful", so far I've only seen mentions of Putin, the Arab Spring "notables", and other members of the "Them" group. Then we get David Cameron's dad, if I understood correctly (and my apologies to the gentleman in question if I didn't), as the oddball of the bunch. Let's see how many more names from the "Us" group will we get.

The Fonseca comrades (funny that we should get a Portuguese-sounding name here; should I feel proud?) are already full gear into damage control mode, casting doubt on the papers, albeit in a rather... how shall I put it... ham-fisted manner. But it's still early days, I'm expecting more subtle and effective plans to cast doubt and create deniability.

And I'll leave you with one of my favorite sentences:

Who could've predicted this?

Congratulations are in order

I'd like to congratulate Turkey for a fine display of true European ideals. The blackm... er, negotiation, carried out this week shows an admirable perception of the lessons put forth by Angela Und Wheely Boy.

I, for one, withdraw my previous objections to providing full EU membership to Turkey. The totally remarkable way in which human life was used by both sides in these negotiations shows Turkey is clearly "one of us".

Gentlemen, welcome to the EU.

European disappointment

1. Mother Merkel is disappointed with the European response to the migrant crisis. She also believes the refugees will return home, after the war is over.

Where to begin...?

- The "European response to the migrant crisis" is the same "European response" to pretty much everything in these last few years - Me, me, me, me, what's in it for me, who cares about you? In fact, Merkel and Wheely Boy Schauble are the main responsible parties for this mindset in the first place. They enjoyed it when it suited them. As can be seen with Portugal now, they still push it unabashedly (more on this below). I fail to see where's the cause for disappointment. As the saying goes, you reap what you sow.

- Return home? To go through the hardship of rebuilding a destroyed shell, in a land that will remain dangerous and that can become outright deadly again with a flick of the switch? When they just have to stay put and enjoy a much less dangerous life? Tough decision, hey? I don't know, I could be wrong, but this seems like a very long shot. I'd say we just have to wait and see, but... just see the next bullet.

- "After the was is over"? Are you serious? Do you really expect this to ever be over? Those with power have been killing each other for more power for as long as I can remember, all the while using the Shoe and the Gourd as a pretext to stirr up the mindless mobs. Where does the "over" step in?

Of course, when the most powerful individual in Europe is allowed to say "after the war is over" and the result isn't collective laughter from the Atlantic Ocean to the Black Sea, it just goes to show that we're no less mindless. I'd like to hear Mother Merkel mention some details of this brilliant plan to get the war from "raging" to "over" before she gets to the point of telling me all about the "happy ending".

2. Portugal is on the brink of destruction. "Says who", you ask?

- Rating agencies, with their remarkable competence-backed predictions.

- The European Comission/Eurogroup/IMF, the minds behind the remarkable austerity programs and all the remarkable recoveries these engendered.

- The remarkable geniuses who ruled Portugal for the last 4 years, and whose Budgets have been as criticized as the current budget, by all the above-mentioned parties, with a remarkable difference - the sky wasn't ready to fall then.

We can forget the rating agencies, these are unsupervised entities whose past record of sucess clearly shows it's not competence that guarantees their continued survival.

Our ex-Dear Leader and his cohorts are equally dismissable here, as we would not expect any sort of honest behavior from them. That is something they have in common with our current Dear Leader and his cohorts, obviously.

As for the IMF... heh, I've talked about their "remarkability", already. They haven't stopped being a dogma-spouting organization, so no news here.

Now, as for our European Overlords, here lies the interesting part of this story. Remember when they presented a united front against Greece, last year? The issue was not the money, just like the issue with Portugal now is not the money.

The issue is always the same - There can be no alternative. This is especially true now, with Spain hanging on the balance. Greece served as an example to Portugal, and Portugal will be used as an added example to Spain.

It's Berlin's way, or the highway (paid with European subsidies, I expect).

I've been choosing the latter with my vote (minus the subsidies), and will continue to do so. Who knows? Maybe someday we will win.