Crisis

Folly of The Economissed

1112BF95-7829-4171-92B5-D4197936EB30.jpeg

On a flight back to Tokyo this week a copy of The Economist was in the magazine rack. A subscription had long been cancelled for its plunge into yet another group think rag. A long time ago, the magazine was regarded as the go to for objective journalism from economics, geopolitics through to specials. Now it is little more than a cheerleader. A chance was given to see if things had changed. If anything it has gotten worse. This article on the peace deal only reinforces the pathetic bias and wish that Trump losing is preferable to any alternative including world peace.

For no sooner had Trump sent a letter calling the peace talks with North Korea off, The Economist was writing about humiliation. They’ve got to be kidding?

While even the blind can see any postponement is a setback, it is not without reason. Trump has made absolutely clear from the beginning – ‘peace or business as usual. Your move Kim.’ 

This started when Kim Jong-Un fired angry remarks when long scheduled war games were  commenced by the South. If one wanted to gift the upper hand to the North Koreans in the negotiations then stopping annual war games would be a great way to do it. It was tactical.

Glass jaw or not, firing salvos at Vice President Pence or standing up US envoys is not conduct becoming peace talks. Trump’s letter sounded somewhat childish with respect to comparing arsenals again but the point being made to Kim is clear – “we’re not playing. Put up or shut up!

This is exactly what you’d want Trump to do. Not some Obama era red line which crossed carries no consequences. This is exactly why there is so much geopolitical instability thanks to 8 years of utter weakness in foreign policy. This isn’t about humiliation at all. This about a world leader who is using clear military and economic strengths at the negotiating table with a dictator who 6 months ago threatened to nuke Guam. We should not want Trump to appease at any cost which we’ve seen throughout history carry devastation.

The reason Kim was drawn to the negotiating table was because China realized the new sheriff wasn’t bluffing. Why was Beijing Kim’s first state visit before shaking hands on the 38th parallel with President Moon?? He was seeking assurances from the other dictator on staying in power lest booking a plot of land in exile in Sichuan province if things require him to step down.

Kim needs to realize that the ‘throwing toys out of the cot strategy’ of decades past no longer works. He was hoping to get an apology from Trump along with better concessions ahead of the negotiations. Trump essentially told him the ‘art of the deal’ in that the status quo remains if he doesn’t wake up to harsh realities. Sending home three American hostages was a token.

It will be China sending Kim back to the meeting table with Trump because it will ultimately be managing the protectorate after any peace is signed for its own geopolitical aims. China does NOT want US friendly forces on its border. Best keep the buffer by getting Kim to accept a lesser deal where he gets to keep his life. For a man in his early 30s he can either choose to go down fighting or see out his days with the embezzled billions and bevy of beauties in his concubine.

To take The Economist at its journalistic integrity, it will be secretly happy if North Korea doesn’t sue for peace because any victory for Trump is something it can’t swallow. For the magazine to have that level of disingenuous editorial speaks volumes about turning a once prestigious brand into a tabloid. Reading through the blurb of The Economist’s 2017 Annual Report and the trends tell the story.

ABC goes bananas but slips up on cold truths that split the narrative

02CD0689-EB3B-4276-BC19-15CA5633D0AA.jpeg

On March 18,  CM wrote about the gross inefficiencies at the ABC, which have rapidly deteriorated over time. We said,

Since 2008, the average salary of ABC’s staff has risen 25% from $86,908 to $108,408. Total staff numbers have risen from 4499 to 4769. Therefore salaries as a percentage of the ABC revenues have risen from 37.1% of the budget to 50%. The ABC’s ability to generate sales from content has fallen from A$140mn to A$70mn last year. The multicultural SBS has seen its budget grow from A$259mn in 2008 to A$412mn in 2017. SBS staff numbers have grown from 844 to 1,466 over the same period with average salaries rising from A$82,689 to A$88,267 or 7.2%. Which begs the question why is the SBS able to operate at 31% of the budget in salaries while the ABC is at 50%? Surely the ABC’s economies of scale should work in its favour? Clearly not.

According to The Australian, in response to the budget cuts coming over the following three years,  the ABC responded today with,

The ABC says there is “no more fat to cut” following the federal government’s announcement to slash $84 million in funding from the public broadcaster…News director Gaven Morris has hit back at the three-year funding freeze announced in Tuesday’s federal budget, which maintains more than $1 billion a year for the broadcaster.

“Make no mistake, there is no more fat to cut at the ABC. Any more cuts to the ABC cut into the muscle of the organisation…We’re as efficient as we’ve ever been…We’re the most minutely scrutinised media organisation in Australia…$84 million over three years, there is simply no way we can achieve that without looking at content creation and certainly looking at jobs within the organisation.”

Well perhaps if the ABC stop airing radical feminists who demand that parents seek approval from their babies when changing nappies or called conservative politicians who served in the military as “c*nts” perhaps it might justify for more budget.

It is a pretty simple. Online media pretty much allows such a wide array of choice that we do not need a taxpayer funded media (which readily breaches its code of conduct with regards to political bias) to provide so much content.

We have multiple ABC TV & radio stations plus multiple websites. One could argue for one each. We certainly do not need to give the ABC more money to expand its platforms to make up for a shortfall in quality content to arrest declining market shares.

Get consent from your infants you thoughtless parents

4D0294A4-6533-426B-BBD9-70463B9ECA44.jpeg

It shouldn’t surprise us with the left’s lunatic thinking that a child knows that it is responsible for soiling it’s own diaper. Of course only our national broadcaster, the ABC, would host such people on their programmes. Is it any wonder the ABC has had a budget freeze for the next three years. It should be heavily slashed given it wastes tax payers money on such inane stupidity. No wonder it’s viewership continues to decline.

We work with parents from birth… just about how to set up a culture of  consent in their home so, “I’m going to change your nappy now. Is that okay?” Of course the baby’s not going to respond, “Yes mum, that’s awesome. I’d love to have my nappy changed.” But if you leave a space and wait for body language and wait to make eye contact, then you’re letting that child know that they’re responsible…”

You can find the ABC’s budget malaise here.

Red card your superiors

3B0A8BFD-1457-4FF6-88F9-E4B9C3022772.jpeg

News in the U.K. that a corporal training troops  went way too far with his treatment of a particular female recruit. The U.K. top brass has expressed its horror and anger, threatening to court martial the offending trainer. Didn’t Colonel Jessup answer the question of ordering a Code Red as, “you’re damn right I did!

Regardless of gender, isn’t the point of drill sergeants one that ensures that discipline is literally beaten into fighting forces? Isn’t the point of meeting minimum basic standards all about creating an effective fighting force?

If the cadet in question burst into tears after being berated for wimpishly bayoneting the sandbag should we feel sympathy? One can be sure the said corporal probably screams obscenities at all the people put in his charge, regardless of gender, religion or race. While it might not sound savory, will an enemy cut the opposing army some slack if they see tears? Will they roll over? Drop their weapons for the sake of equality?

While a leaked video is embarrassing, CM sincerely hopes those that join the armed forces are more than prepared to follow orders and accept the harsh discipline that is expected  of a soldier. The military is no place for social experiments. Yet more and more the army is pushing diversity ahead of capability. At least when the body count surges we can proudly posthumously award the dead with equality medals. The armed forces should strive for ability above all regardless of gender, sexual orientation or skin colour.

IOC, FIFA, Nobel Academy…#WETOO?

C559EA5E-81C1-405F-AFB4-4C96AF4A931E.jpeg

The problem with private organizations such as the IOC, FIFA and Nobel is that they become so drugged by the power of the prestige they provide that they think rules don’t apply to them. FIFA’s Sepp Blatter and some other committee members were found guilty of money laundering and bribery. Blatter was given an 8 (later reduced to 6) year ban from FIFA after an independent ethic committee proposed it. In 2017 Blatter was accused of sexual harassing US soccer star, Hope Solo, at an awards ceremony in 2013. All class.

Now the Nobel Literature prize is being withheld over sexual harassment allegations made by 18 women against French photographer Jean-Claude Arnault who is married to a Nobel Academy member. He has also been accused of leaking the winners of the literature prize to the media.

One doesn’t have to dig too deep to find allegations made against the IOC ahead of Olympic bids. Imagine if audits were conducted by the cities that bid, breaking down specific payments to specific accounts.

Why are we surprised by these scandals? The opacity and often ‘untouchable nature’ only makes it easier to conduct nefarious activity. Perhaps governments should have whistleblower protection for people working in these committees bidding millions of taxpayer dollars for such events. Then again the governments are up to their own eyeballs in greed and prestige that turning a blind eye is easier.

Compelled speech in kindergarten. Use of “best friend” banned

7889AAD9-6392-48D4-8862-A9DD879CBA1F.jpeg

This is probably the stupidest thing I’ve seen from the left. It is utterly bonkers. It is a race to the bottom in who can introduce compelled speech from as early an age as possible. CM is waiting for the kindergarten  that wants to waterboard kids for disobedience. From Rasmussen Reports,

“A Massachusetts preschool has banned students from using the term “best friend,” saying it can make others feel excluded. But most Americans balk at prohibiting the use of “best friends” and think parents are far more influential in a child’s future than anyone else anyway.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 11% of American Adults favor schools prohibiting students from designating someone else as their best friend. Seventy-seven percent (77%) oppose it, but 12% are undecided“

People on the left howled at Betsy DeVos’s appointment as Education Secretary. Will they protest the cultural  Marxist that proposed banning kids from being kids? Perhaps they can have their friends preselected? “Tommy I see you’re missing a gender queer Hispanic friend in this sand pit. You are on detention. Prinipal’s office, NOW!” How are these educators within 100ft of a classroom?

It smacks of the same idiocy of a pre-school in Melbourne, Australia that tried to ban the celebration of Mother’s Day and Father’s Day because it might offend LGBTQ-iinfinity parents. So the 99.9% are required to roll over for the 0.1%. No scientific studies on whether offence might be caused. Ban it anyway. On the off chance it might. Once again, in the push for diversity and inclusiveness we happily dismantle common sense and tradition in the process.

If only Elon Musk could summon institutional questions

4381FCA6-4C35-4719-80C2-84CDEEEC1135.jpeg

Elon Musk has apparently terminated the question of a Bernstein analyst ((followed by the rest of the institutional queue) on the basis of it being “uncool”. He said, “We’re going to YouTube [for retail investors]. These questions are so dry. They’re killing me!” If only the Tesla CEO could summon the right type of questions that deflected criticism of the company as easily as maneuvering a parked Model S from a tight parking spot.

While he urged non-believers to sell the stock, there is little to be gained pushing a line of  opacity for a company with production issues, continuing losses and $10.6bn in debt. Earnings results are not about having fun but for investors/analysts to probe and qualify assumptions in the interest of making rational investment decisions.

CM has made constant reference to Musk’s amazing ability to sell. He is coming up to the pointy end of having to deliver. There are countless distractions which perculate below the surface – copyright infringement trial launched by Nikola Motor, the NTSB autopilot probe, countless resignations and recent calls to cut the staff canteen cookies. By blowing off the main investor pool that feeds him, the question of CEO capability becomes a bigger factor than the dreadful earnings themselves.

There is no better disinfectant than sunlight but Musk continues to deflect. Cash flow continues to decline  The production shutdown in April will thump Q2 earnings, not to mention the capex spend should rise plus the write off of equipment that has proven to be surplus to requirements. Here he is talking of 10,000 units a week down the line to fill the hearts of the faithful followers. Perhaps his comments about not needing to raise capital are best addressed by the fact he’s raised 7x since that statement.

Today’s results meeting is more telling in that snake oil salesman tactics of talking up the situation was replaced by silence and stonewalling. Telling.