By Thomás O Cléirigh
If you look carefully on the Irish water bill below,you will see that the Bill charges for water supplied AND waste water removed! The amount of waste water removed is the same as the amount of water supplied BUT this is NOT the case as there is more waste water leaving the house because of RAIN WATER coming of the roof!
Now in Germany they have assessed homes by the size of the roof and the amount of rain water coming on to the roof through the local weather stations! This is fact as I personally have seen these bills for myself and this is why IRISH WATER have this distinction on the bills I expect they will enforce this part of the bill after the next general election and you can expect average bills of 800 euro and upwards! This is also to catch people who claim that they have their own water wells!
THIS IS ON THE WAY! We must fight this ! paying for the rain !
I have a rain barrel that can hold 220 liters and when empty ,if it rains it will fill up in the first ten minutes during a normal shower so imagine the amount of rain water coming off your roof you will need a new mortgage by the time you get you bill from Irish water!
By Thomás O Cléirigh
Huge well done to campaigners in America – the senate just voted no to TTIP!
But the battle isn’t over !
UP Date : Now just over the wires!
BREAKING: Senate Democrats have reversed themselves and reached a deal with Republicans to pass TPP fast-track. They will vote tomorrow at 12:00. We have less than 24 hours to stop TPP! SHARE this now and call these 10 Senators and tell them you will vote against any member of Congress, Democratic or Republican, that sends jobs overseas!http://politi.co/1IBhl8W
With the “dollar” off the ledger as far as a menacing factor, perceptions have begun to shift toward different if still-confused rhetoric. Figuring out fixed income isn’t always straightforward to begin with, but as the “unexpected” flirtation with deflation over the past few months threw a huge wrench into the economic boom supposedly forming the world over, the temptation now to revisit that idea is proving too much. Setting aside, apparently, that some of the most vital and relevant figures are persisting as delirium for even April, the stretch of oil prices in particular is alluring. That idea itself showcases the questionable foundation for all of this, as it was oil prices that were supposedly not very meaningful on the way down but everything on the way up (whether they last in that position is for someone else to worry about).
The question is how to read the various signals as they are being redefined by the next stage after the “dollar” ran into March 18:
“You’re in the midst of a reflation trade,” said Brent Schutte, senior investment strategist at BMO Global Asset Management in Chicago. The firm manages about $240 billion. “People are beginning to think that global growth may improve toward the end of the year, or at least the deflationary forces that are artificially driving things down are now ebbing.”
That is a sentiment that is gaining across economic forecasting, despite the rather obvious contradictions that remain. It is easy to dismiss those, however, when falling into past bad habits.
“There is more inflation being built into the steeper yield, and a steeper yield curve has been a missing component of the financial sector backdrop for years,” Joe Quinlan, New York-based chief market strategist at U.S. Trust, which oversees about $391 billion, said by phone. “The U.S. economy saved the rest of the world in the second half of last year and now the rest of the world will return the favor to the U.S.”
I raised this issue a few weeks ago as inflation breakevens in particular have stood out since January 15. Whereas it is simply enough to think of inflation breakevens forecasting something of market expectations for inflation, the history under QE/ZIRP more than suggests that TIPS hedging is being used against monetary policy instead. I don’t think that is especially controversial of a claim, as the ups and downs in breakevens match very closely the ins and outs of the QE’s. The timing of this latest uptick echoes signals from the swaps market that looks more and more like “money curve” investors are hedging in that same direction – not of inflation but of the next QE.
It is true that the yield curve shape has taken on more steepening in this recent bond selloff, but again that doesn’t necessarily have to have much to do with “inflation.” When the curve last did so starting in the middle of 2012, both breakevens and yield steepening were taking place just as economic growth and the CPI/PCE deflator started in the opposite direction. That yield curve movement was, however, perfectly timed for expectations about what central banks were doing or were about to do.
And I think, as I said, that is the first part of the contradictions at the center of any idea about “reflation” as it relates to anything in the real economy. The most recent data on incomes, which are the basis for all orthodox treatment and associations for “inflation”, bely the notion of any pickup now or even for the near future. You could make the case, as is noted in the quotes above, that the second half of the year will be much more favorable, but again the persistence of economic weakness right now is proving highly contradictory to both economists’ abilities in forecasting and how the first half might unfold in the expected nonthreatening “slump.”
Even within the stock market itself, the run over the past few months in certain sectors is highly suggestive of that certain stratification:
It’s happening in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, where banks and insurers have rallied for five of the last six weeks as drugmakers and household product manufacturers were left behind. Dividend-paying companies such as utilities and property owners, normally considered havens in times of turbulence, have suffered some of the worst losses in years.
full article at source:http://www.alhambrapartners.com/2015/05/11/reflation-or-economic-zombie-trading/
Greece paid off the IMF yesterday with its IMF reserves. Is that a big deal? Whatever you may want to read into this, it’s been obvious for years that Greece needs major debt restructuring if it wants to move forward and have a future as a country -let alone a member of the eurozone-. Instead, the EU/troika anno 2010 decided to bail out German and French and Wall Street banks (I know there’s an overlap)- instead of restructuring the debts they incurred with insane bets on Greece and its EU membership- and put the costs squarely on the shoulders of the Greek population.
This, as I said many times before, was not an economic decision; it was always entirely political. It’s also, by the way, therefore a decision the ECB should have fiercely protested, since it’s independent and a-political and it can’t afford to be dragged into such situations. But the ECB didn’t protest. And ever since the deed was done, Brussels presents it as if it were as unavoidable as Noah building the Ark. It’s not. It’s still just another decision to put banks before people.
And in this case the people have come out on the very short end of a very long stick. That’s what the Greek discussions have been about ever since Syriza was elected, with a substantial majority, to be the government in Athens. And no matter how many times how many people may claim Greece lived above its means for years, it’s obvious that the unemployed and the hungry children and the elderly without health care did not.
The troika says they bailed out the Greek people. The Greek people say only 8-9% of that bailout ever went to them, with the rest going to cover the losses of international systemic banks, and to the utterly corrupt previous Greek political and economic elites, which, coincidentally, the troika was only too happy to strike deals with, so much so that on the eve of the election Greeks were urged to vote the same elites into power once more, even if they were demonstrably to blame for the downfall of the Greek economy.
The troika wants the Syriza government to execute things that run counter to their election promises. No matter how many people point out the failures of austerity measures as they are currently being implemented in various countries, the troika insists on more austerity. Even as they know full well Syriza can’t give them that because of its mandate. Let alone its morals.
It’s a power game. It’s a political game. It always was. But still it has invariably been presented by both the – international- press and the troika as an economic problem. Which has us wondering why this statement by ECB member and Austrian central bank head Ewald Nowotny yesterday, hasn’t invited more attention and scrutiny:
The Greek problem is more a political question than an economic one, a member of the European Central Bank said Monday. Discussions with political parties such as Greece’s left-wing Syriza and Spain’s Podemos may be refreshing by bringing in new ideas, “but at the end of the day, they must [end in] results,” ECB member Ewald Nowotny said, adding discussions are “not about playing games.”
The central banker declined to speculate on how to solve Greece’s financial problem saying the issue “is much more a political question than an economic question.” Mr. Nowotny also doesn’t see the ECB’s role as creating a federalized financial government inside the euro zone. “We cannot substitute the political sphere,” he said.
That seems, from where we’re located, to change the discussion quite a bit. Starting with the role of the ECB itself. Because, for one thing, and this doesn’t seem to be clear yet, if the Greek problem is all politics, as the central bank member himself says, there is no role for a central bank in the discussions. If Greece is a political question, the ECB should take its hands off the whole Greek issue, because as a central bank, it’s independent and that means it’s a-political.
The ECB should provide money for Greece when it asks for it, since there is no other central bank to provide the lender of last resort function for the country. Until perhaps Brussels calls a stop to this, but that in itself is problematic because it would be a political decision forced on an independent central bank once again. It would be better if the ‘union’, i.e. the other members, would make available what Greece needs, but they -seem to- think they’re just not that much of a union.
In their view, they’re a union only when times are good. And/or when all major banks have been bailed out; the people can then fight over the leftover scraps.
The IMF has stated they don’t want to be part of a third Greek bailout. Hardly anyone seems to notice anymore, but that makes the IMF a party to political decisions too. Lagarde et al claim they can’t loan to countries that don’t take the ‘right’ measures, but who decides which measures are the right ones? What’s more, how does the IMF, in that vein, explain the recent loans to Ukraine? Is Kiev doing better than Athens from an economic point of view? Or is this just us sinking into a deepening political quagmire?
Moreover, if we take Mr. Nowotny on his word, why are there still finance ministers and economists involved in the Greek issue negotiations? Doesn’t that only simply lead to confusion and delay? Every single news outlet in the world has taken over German FinMin Schäuble’s comment that Greece should have a referendum if they want, and that maybe that would clarify matters.
full article at source: http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2015/05/greece-is-now-just-a-political-issue/