Thousands came out on to the streets again in Dublin today to show the world the people of |Ireland will not be forced to pay for their water for a third time ! We will not pay this new austerity tax so the bankers can get their gambling debts paid by the Irish people! We are been forced to pay an “ODIOUS debt” by the Gangsters in EUROPE as our corrupt politicians have prostituted themselves along with the rest of our country to the PIMPS in the ECB! WE are a small country and we are been bulled into financial slavery! We will not just lie down and comply ! Revolution is coming!
Max and |Stacy are saying everything I have been saying for thew past 6 years and yet we do have all those ” We must pay ” OUR “Debts Brigade! Mostly these Brigade members are well placed supporters of the establishment and they have infested every fasset of opposition to the banker dictatorship and their collaborators! WE are now been forced either to sit back and allow this enslavement of an entire nation or the “enlightened few” will go into open revolt then all bets are off because a terrible price will be paid by the puppets of the ECB/ Troika dictatorship !
Irish citizens rights been eroded bit by bit as we sleep walk deeper into the clutches of a corporate dictatorship who have bought there way into the heart of our democracy and we now become consumers instead of citizens of an independent nation! The Judiciary have also collected their 30 pieces of silver it would seem!
Great article thanks !
Originally posted on Awaken Longford:
Another day in the Four Courts in Dublin, the “new” Court of Appeal specifically, provided further evidence of the continuing erosion of civil rights, access to a fair hearing and due process in general.Today, I saw the effect of the new Court of Appeal on the ability of a litigant to access the Irish Court system to the fullest extent. I was witness to legal counsel for the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland reduce the term “due process” to a new low by describing appeals of a lower Court’s decision as “another bite of the cherry”, what a totally disingenuous description of a persons right to seek further examination of Judicial decisions which do not appear correct.Article 40.1 of the Irish Constitution holds:“All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.”Unless of course, you are a lay litigant before the Civil…
View original 2,224 more words
Per S&P release: “The downgrade reflects our expectation that a default on foreign currency central government debt is a virtual certainty.” S&P also warned that any ‘exchange offer’ – an offer mandated under the IMF latest loan package to Ukraine (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/03/16315-ukraines-government-debt.html) – will constitute default. “Once the distressed exchange offer has been confirmed, we would likely lower the foreign currency ratings on Ukraine to SD and the affected issue rating(s) to D”.
Per S&P: “The Ukraine ministry of finance’s debt operation is guided by the following objectives: (i) generate $15 billion in public-sector financing during the program period; (ii) bring the public and publicly guaranteed debt-to-GDP ratio under 71% of GDP by 2020; and (iii) keep the budget’s gross financing needs at an average of 10% of GDP (maximum of 12% of GDP annually) in 2019–2025… The treatment of the eurobond owed to Russia (maturing in December 2015) is likely to complicate matters. The Ukrainian government insists it will be part of the talks, while the Russian government insists that the bond, although issued under international law, should be classified as “official” rather than “commercial” debt given the favorable interest rate and the fact that it was purchased by a government entity. …if Ukraine has to pay the $3 billion in debt redemption this year, it will make it very difficult for Ukraine to find the $5 billion in expected debt relief in 2015 that underpins the IMF’s 2015 external financing assumptions.”
Forbes labeled the new rating for Ukraine as “super-duper junk” (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/04/10/ukraine-debt-rating-now-super-duper-junk/)
Beyond the restructuring threat, there is economic performance that is not yielding much consolation: “The negative outlook reflects the deteriorating macroeconomic environment and growing pressure on the financial sector, as well as our view that default on Ukraine’s foreign currency debt is virtually inevitable,”
S&P forecast is for the economy to shrink 7.5% in 2015, following the decline of 6.8% in 2014. The S&P forecasts Ukrainian GDP to grow by 2% in 2016, 3.5% in 2017 and 4% in 2018. Inflation is expected to peak at 35% this year from 12.2% in 2014 and fall to 12% in 2016 and 8% in 2017. Government debt is set to rise from 40.2% of GDP in 2013 to 70.7% of GDP in 2015 and to 93% of GDP this year, declining to 82.6% in 2018.
Meanwhile, ever cheerful IMF is projecting Ukrainian GDP to shrink by ‘only’ 5.5% in 2015, and grow at the rates similar to those forecast by S&P between 2016 and 2018. IMF sees inflation rising to 33.5% this year. Government debt projections by the IMF are only marginally more conservative than those by the S&P.
Meanwhile, lenders to Ukraine have already pushed out a tough position on talks with the Government:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-09/ukraine-creditors-fire-opening-salvos-before-restructuring-talks
As I noted before, this an extraordinary 10th IMF-assisted lending programme to Ukraine since 1991. None of the previous nine programmes achieved any significant reforms or delivered a sustainable economic growth path. In fact, the IMF presided, prior to the current programme over nine restrcturings of the Ukrainian economy that produced more oligarchs, more corruption at the top of the political food chain and less economic prosperity, time after time.
Meanwhile, over the same period of time, world’s worst defaulter, Argentina, has managed to have just three IMF-supported lending programmes. Argentine bag of reforms has been mixed, but generally-speaking, the country is now in a better shape than it was in the 1990s and is most certainly better off than Ukraine, as the relative performance chart of two economies over time, based on IMF WEO (April 2015) data, indicates:
Somewhere, probably in the basement of the 700 19th St NW, Washington DC, there exists a data wonk that truly believes that Ukrainian debt is ‘sustainable’ and that this time, things with ‘structural reforms’ will be different from the previous nine times. I would not be surprised if the lad collects Area 51 newspapers clippings for a hobby. He’s free to do so, of course. But the Ukrainian economy is not free when it comes to paying for the IMF’s bouts of optimism. And with it, neither are the Ukrainian people.
What the Ukrainian economy really needs right now is a combination of pragmatic political reforms to bring about real stabilisation, root-and-branch clearing out of corrupt elites, including business elites and not withstanding the currently empowered elites, assistance to genuine (as opposed to corrupt rent-seeking) entrepreneurs, all supported by assisted and properly structured FDI, direct development aid and a real debt writedown. The IMF-led package does not deliver much on any of these objectives. If anything, by passing the cost of reforms onto ordinary residents, it does the opposite – drains investment, saving and demand capacity from the economy, imperilling its ability to create new growth and enterprises.
BERLIN — Great crises often produce enduring images. For the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this has often been a terrified child cowering behind protective parents; for 9/11 it was brave firemen rushing headlong into collapsing buildings. Last month saw what could become one of the lasting images of Europe’s unending crisis: the sight ofburning cars and buildings after riots outside the European Central Bank.
While such carnage seems — and indeed is — pointless, it makes sense at another level. While protesters in other countries stage rallies and speeches outside of their national parliaments, Europe’s central bank is increasingly its main seat of power. It was the bank, not Europe’s political institutions, that seemed to snuff out the existential threat to the eurozone with a mere sentence by its president in July 2012 —we will do whatever it takes to save the euro.
It was again the bank that offered hope to a stagnating eurozone economy in March this year by embarking on an extensive bond-buying program. In the face of national complacency and disagreement, this is the institution that is increasingly making Europe’s political and economic weather.
There is thus some irony in the fact that this body is also the most unaccountable of the EU’s institutions. While a lack of accountability has often been a complaint leveled at the EU, particularly from the recalcitrant U.K., the EU’s decision-making structure has been significantly democratized in the last decade. By contrast, the ECB is both unelected and highly independent. Its autonomy from political censure is greater even than analogous institutions in other countries. Unlike the U.S. Federal Reserve, Europe’s Parliament plays little role in selecting bank members; its deliberations and documents meanwhile are not publicly available.
“The ECB is both unelected and highly independent. Its autonomy from political censure is greater even than analogous institutions in other countries.”
While such secrecy and autonomy were well suited to an era when the bank merely set interest rates or printed notes, the current bank has greater political responsibilities. As part of the infamous “Troika” monitoring the debt of southern EU states, it played a significant role in the recent standoff between Germany and the newly elected Greek government over whether to re-negotiate Greece’s onerous “bailout” program. Its bond-buying program meanwhile — likely to significantly alter the debt burdens of struggling southern states — has significant distributive implications (and as such, has been heavily resisted by the German government). The bank has economic power, but also increasing political influence.
(NaturalNews) Just how bad was the radiation fallout from the near-complete destruction of three nuclear reactors at the Fukushima power station following a massive earthquake-generated tsunami in March 2011? The answer is, most people simply don’t know – because the media coverage of the damage and fallout, at the time of the accident and in the four years since, has been grossly inadequate, according to a new study.
As noted by American University sociology Prof. Celine Marie Pascale, there has especially been a dearth of U.S. media coverage, the disaster long disappearing from the headlines of domestic newspapers and cable news networks, despite the fact that the crippled plant dumps three hundred tons of radioactive water into the ocean daily, and the region surrounding the plant remains uninhabitable – probably forever.
Further, her new analysis found that U.S. news media coverage of Fukushima “largely minimized health risks to the general population,” says a press release from the university.
The release further states:
Pascale analyzed more than 2,000 news articles from four major U.S. outlets following the disaster’s occurrence March 11, 2011 through the second anniversary on March 11, 2013. Only 6 percent of the coverage – 129 articles – focused on health risks to the public in Japan or elsewhere. Human risks were framed, instead, in terms of workers in the disabled nuclear plant.
‘Articles discuss instead how dangerous cosmic radiation is’
“It’s shocking to see how few articles discussed risk to the general population, and when they did, they typically characterized risk as low,” said Pascale, who studies the social construction of risk and meanings of risk in the current century.
“We see articles in prestigious news outlets claiming that radioactivity from cosmic rays and rocks is more dangerous than the radiation emanating from the collapsing Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant,” she added.
The sociology prof examined news articles, editorials and letters from two major U.S. papers – The New York Times and The Washington Post – and two additional, prominent online news sites – Politico and The Huffington Post. The four outlets are not only among the largest, most influential in the U.S., they are also the most-cited by television news and talk shows, as well as other newspapers and blogs. Also, they are talked up in social media often, says Pascale. So, in that sense, she says, seeing how risk is presented in national prominent media can provide data on how the issue is framed nationally, in public conversations.
The press release further discussed Pascale’s analytical method and variables:
Pascale’s analysis identified three primary ways in which the news outlets minimized the risk posed by radioactive contamination to the general population. Articles made comparisons to mundane, low-level forms of radiation; defined the risks as unknowable, given the lack of long-term studies; and largely excluded concerns expressed by experts and residents who challenged the dominant narrative.
The results, she says, demonstrates that corporations and government agencies provided disproportionate information and data regarding the impact of the disaster – on the environment, the long-term effects of massive radiation contamination (which are well-known), the oceanic ecosystems, the migration of the radiation globally, and on the exposed human populations.
‘The media did little to report on health risks’
“Even years after the disaster,” the university press release said, “government and corporate spokespersons constituted the majority of voices published. News accounts about local impact – for example, parents organizing to protect their children from radiation in school lunches – were also scarce.”
The professor believes her findings reveal the need for the general public to be much more critical consumers of news. She notes that expert knowledge can be employed to generate misinformation, propaganda and uncertainty, especially in information vacuums created after disasters.
“The mainstream media – in print and online – did little to report on health risks to the general population or to challenge the narratives of public officials and their experts,” Pascale said. “Discourses of the risks surrounding disasters are political struggles to control the presence and meaning of events and their consequences.
“How knowledge about disasters is reported can have more to do with relations of power than it does with the material consequences to people’s lives,” she concluded.