Greece and the Referendum

Papandreou's decision to ask for a public referendum vote was a cold, calculated political move that may backfire for him and for Greece.  It's nothing new, it's an old maneuver.  Everything his government has tried over the past two years, hasn't worked.  The people don't want the austerity measures, the international financiers are not happy with the results of his actions, the opposition is crucifying him every day, so he pulled the oldest trick in the book - if you are being criticized for a problem, then make those who criticize you part of the process and thus part of the problem.

The EU powers, Germany, France,... are worried about the outcome of this.  Can you imagine if Portugal and Spain followed the example of Greece and had a referendum every 3 months to decide if they will accept a new monetary solution offered to them?  Chaos!

Nothing wrong with referendums, but you can't have it both ways.  If you believe that when the populous elects you in general elections, they provide you with the mandate of leading the country and representing them, than that's the only referendum you need.  If you are not sure, then you need to have a referendum vote early on, not after your actions have led the country and its people to the abyss, and after you've turned EU and the international community upside down trying to find a solution for you, and have agreed to the solution they finally come up with.

German people were NOT happy about bailing out Greece, they have been saying that for the last 2 years.  They claim Greeks are lazy, they don't want to work and always complain.  So, what should Merkel do?  Have a referendum to see if Germans wanted to bail out Greece?  No, as a leader she did what she know was good for the country and the country's leading position in EU, knowing that Germans would not like that and she might pay for her actions in the next elections.  That's what leaders that are interested in the good of their country (and not always in political benefit) do!

What will happen now?  What if indeed the Greek people reject the "deal" the international economic community has put together and Papandreou accepted at 4:00 last Saturday?  Is it back to the Drachma, with all Greek debt (~ 500 bn) in Euros?  The Drachma will have to be devalued by 50% or more, the minute it is established, in order to increase the economic viability of Greece.  So now, they will owe the equivalent of 1 trillion euros (in Drachmas).  How do they get out of that one?

The whole world is watching.  Somehow, Greece has managed to be the center of the storm, and in the headlines many times in the past few years. A glimpse of their past, where their actions influenced humanity?  I doubt it.

Buying/Selling Stock Logic, or NOT

I am not a big investor, heck I am not even a small investor, but I like to believe that if I were one, my decisions on when to invest and when to bail, would be a lot more logical.  Sure, I understand that investment decisions are not always about logic, sometimes they are about how one feels about an investment, it sort of becomes "personal" for most investors.

But here is one thing I never understood.  Someone buys a stock at $10 a share.  They hold it for 5 years, and then something happens and the stock tanks within a very short period of time, let's say within a couple of months.  SO, the peron finds themselves holding a stock that paif $10 for, being worth only $0.75.  So what should thry do?

(a) for most of them, it's hard to seel it, because that's like admitting failure and and giving up hope that the stock may go up again (all humans need to have that hope).

(b) some rationalize that they have to seel it so that they can at least write off all the losses from their investment (though deep inside, they are sad they are selling it, because they are giving up on the hope of the stock coming back up).

Why couldn't they think about logically and,

(1) Sell the stock for $0.75, this way taking the full loss write-off and,

(2) taking the proceeds of teh sale and purchasing  "SIMILAR" stock (one that was about $10 and has lost its value being about $0.75 now).

The get the best of both worlds.  They get the write-off ans still have a stock that may perform well, if the economy recovers, thus making a profit.

What am I missing here?

Should Greece Fail?

A day hasn't gone by, in the last 2-3 months, that we don't see dozens of articles about Greece's economic fate, the first, second, third loan bail-out, the revolt of the people in the streets, etc.  Really, though, why are these Greek people in the street whining?  Why do they think that the Eurozone or the IMF "owes" it to them to lend them the money they need?  Or, are they right?  The general thinking is that massive overspending on social programs; years of capitulation to union labor’s unreasonable demands; mind bending corruption at every level; and tax evasion on a grand scale is what had brought Greece to its knees.  No-one can argue with all that, but the problem is much deeper than that.  For example, why were the Greeks given all that money to spend (borrowed money) in the first place?  Who helped them make all those investments in "junk" bonds, that made money for the "consultants", and why?    BTW, parenthetically, Greece is NOT the only country that is in dire economic conditions, for the same exact reasons.  Many other European countries, and the USA, are right there besides Greece. The culprit is called "deficit spending"!   That's how they all got in trouble.

Back in 1967, Greenspan - a great economists before he became part of the establishment, said, "Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process.It stands as a protector of property rights".  And, that was only about 5 years before USA abandoned the gold standard, a sad day in its economic history.

Anyway, back to Greece.  It should NOT have adopted the euro, ten or so years ago.  Once they did that, control over their economy was handed over to the European regulators and they lost the freedom to deflate their currency, when needed, to increase tourism and improve their economic picture.  Having said that, talk about dropping the euro now and moving back to drachma, is just that, talk - it doesn't make much sense.  Their debt would still be in expensive euros, the drachma would de-valuate the day after they adopted it, based on their economic state, and thus their real debt would double overnight.

Plus, the European leaders would not allow that to happen, because it would signal that other countries in economic trouble could do the same thing.  So, what is going to happen?  Or, what should happen?  Should Greece refuse the new aid package, that would force new austerity measures, and just go bankrupt?

The Europen Union will NOT allow that to happen.  Once again, if they allowed Greece to default, that would signal that everyone in economic trouble could just default and face no consequences.

So, what will happen?  It's not very clear, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Libya, War #3

So, we are now involved in a third war, Libya, regardless of what our elected officials tell us.  I mean, you must have heard it, "Exit Strategy", No Boots on the Ground", "Only establishing a no-fly zone",... and all the other malarkie...

Why are we doing this?  Even the casual browser of the history of that area can tell that this is a no-win situation for the USA (and for other countries involved in this allied intervention.  A no fly zone will NOT achieve anything other that prolong the pain and suffering and postpone resolution of the situation.  But, they told us, Libya has a strategic importance to the USA (and the World) because of its oil.  Come on, give me a break, it supplies 2% of the world's oil!  Important?  Maybe... Strategic?  Go sell it to someone else.

Some bring up the example of how we used no-fly zones to give an opportunity to the Kurds of Northern Iraq who were being persecuted by Husein.  Day and night!!  Thu Kurds were a distinct group, different than the rest of the Iraqis and when isolated they could pool together their resources, and better themselves.  This has nothing to do with the tribal system of Libya, which, by the way, none of our politicians understand :-(  So, let's say the Quadhafi leaves, is overthrown, etc.  Who takes over?  What structure or group is ready and poised to take over?  There is none, because of the country's tribal structure.  This is a civil was, with multiple faction (you'll see them sprout as this progresses) fighting each other and we now game them a common enemy, the USA.

And what about the coalition?  What a joke.  The French are in today, well sort of, and may be out tomorrow, the Germans were i, but they don't want to play any longer, the British are in (don;t know how wholeheartedly), the Chinese and the Germans tried to block the coalition, and so on...  I can see the writing on the wall.  At the end, we may have to go this one alone, as well.

But our leaders keep telling us no boots on the ground, they have an exit strategy :-(

Japanese Accident and the US Media

I have been following the news on the Japanese Nuclear problem very closely (well, as closely as I can) and I am disappointed in the media coverage of what is happening (yeah, I know, I shouldn't expect any better).  What I cannot understand is "why?".  I saw a half a dozen interviews on the major TV station (CNN, FOX, etc.) over the last couple of days, before I gave up and I think I finally realized that news is no longer news, it's opinion and agendas, whatever they might be.   There is no other explanation, for example, for them having Jim Walsh as an nuclear expert commentator!  Please, give us a break, PhD from MIT (in Political science), BS from Brown (in Philosophy), providing expert opinion on one of the most intricate engineering problems?  They must take us for fools, but you know, most viewers probably saw "MIT" and that was enough for them, his opinion all of a sudden became "expert" opinion - very sad.  No, I am not an expert, but I don;t pretend to be one, either.


Then, I've been reading the Drudgereport, NPR, BBC on-line, and just in case, some of other sites that may have an inkling of what's going on, like the National Energy Institute, IAEA's site, etc.


BBC (and Drudgereport) post that 500 bone marrow centers in the EU are on alert to receive Japanese exposed to radiation.  What??  500 centers on alert?  So, they expect hundreds of people to get doses higher than 0.7 Gray?  And, most of them to get the dose to the whole bod and to get it all in a matter of minutes, so they can develop acute radiation sickness and need a bone marrow transplant?    (Check out the CDC site for Acute Radiation Syndrome, that's what one should do).  Don't these "reporters" realize that when the site is reporting, lets say, 400 mSv levels at the plant, those are at radiation monitor levels, usually right next to the plant?  And, if that is a direct dose, all one needs is to be a few tens of feet away, for that level to be reduced by factors of 10 to 100? Spending 10 minutes on line, I was able to fond that!


And Drudgereport (well, Yahoo news) reports,  

RADIATION LEVELS SOAR AFTER 3RD NUKE EXPLOSION... 

which starts with:

 "

By ERIC TALMADGE and SHINO YUASA, Associated Press – 8 mins ago

SOMA, Japan – Dangerous levels of radiation leaking from a crippled nuclear plant forced Japan..." 

As soon as I saw this, I checked the NEI site, which says: 

"UPDATE AS OF 10:20 A.M. EDT, TUESDAY, MARCH 15:

The level of radioactivity at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has been decreasing, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

At 8 p.m. EDT March 15, a dose rate of 1,190 millirem per hour was observed. Six hours later, the dose rate was 60 millirem per hour, IAEA said.

About 150 residents near the Fukushima Daiichi site have been checked for radiation and 23 have been decontaminated.

At this point, I guess I just need to give up, rather than expecting any Yahoo, or BBC, or CNN reporter to understand the issue even just well enough to ask the right people to comment, or to make sure their information is corroborated.  Silly me :-(

Bravo to the Resilient Japanese

A 9.0 earthquake, a 30-ft tsunami, 4 unstable nuclear plants!

The Japanese have been hit hard, but one has to applaud their resolve.  Waiting patiently in long lines for food, water, etc. 140,000+ people orderly evacuating a 30 km radius!  Not screaming in the streets, killing each other, looting and demanding that the government "gives" them something that's owed to them. Compare that to what we saw on TV during Katrina :-(  What has happened to our country?

And no, I am not putting all the blame on the people, it also has to do with "how" governments treat their citizens, but now matter how I look at it, I come away with nothing but respect for the Japanese, and bitterness knowing that's now how we would respond (or have responded) to similar calamities.

I hope all of us take a page from their book!!