Government to Introduce Biometric ID in India

Posted on by

“While Brits are longing for less surveillance in their electronic snoop state, the government in India seems to want to take Bharat Mata farther down that road. Nandan Nilekani, co-chairman of India’s tech giant, Infosys, and now the head of the Government’s Unique ID project, is proposing an
Indian biometric ID.

What’s incredible is he thinks it’s feasible to extend this to the whole population. Apart from the logistics, the level of technology, and the cost (1.5 lakh crores – a number I’ll translate later), there’s the vulnerability to abuse, considerations which deterred Britain from going ahead with its own biometric ID scheme.

They don’t seem to bother Nikelani – one of “Flat Earth” globalist Tom Friedman’s favorite people. He discussed the objections in an interview with CNN-IBN’s Karan Thapar, published in the Hindu.

Here’s a short excerpt:

“Karan Thapar: You said a moment ago that you would create checks and balances. I put it to you that you can never create sufficient and the reason say is this — In the UK, in the US and in Australia, because the authorities couldn’t respond to public concerns about misuse, they have effectively put on the backburner consideration of similar schemes for those countries. Now if developed countries cannot tackle the problem of misuse, then how can India, where 35 per cent of the people are illiterate and 22 per cent live below the poverty line? How can India claim that we can tackle these problems?

Nandan Nilekani: What these developed countries have put on hold is giving national ID cards to people. But both the countries, US and UK have a number. For example in the US, you have the social security number, in the UK there is the national insurance number. They already have a numbering system, which is what we are going to propose.

Karan Thapar: Except for the fact that is is nowhere near as extensive or as complete in terms of the biometeric details as what you are proposing in India. The national insurance in Britain has been around and developing slowly but it doesn’t have any details that could lead to an invasion of privacy. It doesn’t have any details that can be misused for profiling. Yours could have both?

Nandan Nilekani: As I said, these are legitimate concerns and I think we have to address them in the public as well as in the laws and so on. But notwithstanding these concerns, the social benefit, the inclusivity that this project will provide for the 700 million people in this country who are outside the system is immense enough to justify doing this project…”

My Comment

Notice, once more, that’s it’s “social uplift” that’s the excuse for the expansion of the state, the same reasoning given for the sale of IMF gold. And as suspect in this case as it is in that. It seems as if public officials hardly get a wink of sleep cooking up schemes to help the poor.

Consider that the British biometric scheme was put on the backburner because it cost too much. The London School of Economics calculated that it would cost between 10 and 20 billion pounds, and Britian is about 1/20 the size of India. Now figure how mind-boggling the Indian scheme is likely to be be…..in every respect.

New Labor Turns Brits into Libertarians?

Posted on by

From The Guardian:

“A poll run by PoliticsHome this week revealed a fascinating result to the question: “Do you think in general, the state has too much or too little of a say in what people can and cannot do?” Nearly four-fifths of the sample (79%) answered that the state had too much of a say, while only 8% believe the state has too little say.
If the poll is an accurate reflection of the nation’s mood this is an important finding. For some time I have been aware of sharp change in the public’s attitudes to surveillance, as well as a general feeling that the government is too quick to seize personal data and tell people how to lead their lives.”

China’s Gold Rush..

Posted on by

From Adrian Ash at Bullion Vault, via goldseek:

“The International Monetary Fund confirmed on Friday that it will sell 403 tonnes from its hoard to finance development projects in poorer countries, offering gold to central banks before considering steady, pre-announced open-market sales.
“China has no need at all to Buy Gold from the international markets,” counters Lila Lu, chief precious metals trader at Minsheng Bank Corp. in Beijing, speaking to Reuters.
“Because China is a large gold producer, it can source gold directly from its domestic makers, most of which are state-run enterprises.”
Off-market purchases direct from domestic Gold Mining firms enabled South Africa – then the world’s No.1 producer – to double its gold reserves during the late 1960s.
“Why should we use US Dollars to Buy Gold?” Lu added today. “We can use Yuan instead to purchase gold from domestic producers.”
Early Tuesday the state-owned China Investment Corp. announced taking a 15% stake in Singapore-listed commodities trading house Noble Group at a cost of $850 million.
Physical gold demand from private Chinese households rose 9% in the first half of this year, trade marketing-group the World Gold Council said today, announcing an “unprecedented” sales push across rural China.”

My Comment

There are several terribly important things going on in the capital markets and in international politics.

I’ll start with what most investors are probably watching anxiously – the teetering of the dollar at the lower end of the long term band of support (76-80), below which it plunged only a year ago. After showing some strength yesterday, the dollar is down again and gold is back up strongly over 1010. The reason seems to be the whispering in the markets that China will be buying IMF gold to supplement what are said to be meager reserves.

Rumors like these could be seen as a threat by the Chinese, for they expose China’s weakness in relation to other countries, especially those that possess better gold reserves. I suspect the comments by Lu are intended to diffuse that threat.

Another reason for dollar weakness is that the relative strengths of currencies are on the table at the G20 meeting, which is scheduled to take place in Thursday in Pittburgh, Pennsylvania and trade deficits are going to be considered – which is likely to be dollar negative.

The IMF sales are pretty interesting, although it’s hard to tell exactly what’s involved. It seems the gold will be sold to central banks (which ones?) and the proceeds will go to supplement and improve the financing now available to low-income countries (how?).

Question: Why should these professed good intentions be taken at face value, given all we know about the IMF?

At present, the IMF also allocates SDRs (or Special Drawing Rights) to each member country based on its contribution to the IMF (this is supposed to be a way to improve members’ liquidity in the international markets).

The SDR’s are based on a basket of currencies – currently, the US dollar, the euro, the sterling, and the yen – that can be traded for other currencies or used directly.

The IMF will use the gold sale proceeds to invest in other things. The interest from those investments will then benefit low-income countries. At least, that’s what I took away from my reading.

It all sounds suspiciously convoluted and opaque. My fear is that this is all an elaborate charade to leave some countries/institutions holding the “paper” bag, while real value is siphoned off by other countries/institutions.

I’ll leave you to decide who the winners and the losers will be….

Meanwhile, this is only my suspicion. I’ll need to go and do some more digging. But I’m putting my suspicions out here to fuel some leg work in the blogosphere.

Here’s a link to some relevant information on gold market manipulation at the website of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA), the leading activist group on gold price manipulation.

Especially read through the events surrounding the sale of Britain’s gold by then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown. Unlike other countries, UK gold sales are under the authority of the politicians. Brown sold British gold at a price lower than the market price at the time. The timing was extremely suspicious and followed on Robert Rubin’s unsuccessful attempts to get the IMF to sell its gold. The ostensible reason was to “help poor countries” – the same reason being given now. But the actual reason was a simpler one and one I’ve discussed a number of times. It was to keep the gold price low to support the dollar, disguise the rate of monetary debasement, and pump up the stock market. That in turn helped the derivative market, which Rubin and Greenspan had also helped to keep out of regulation. This was in the late 1990s….

Now, a decade later, the IMF hasn’t been weakened by the revelations of its sins. Instead, it’s been strengthened. And now, again, the IMF is selling gold – and again, the excuse is “helping the poor.”

Vulture Funds Prey on Third World Debt..

Posted on by

Johann Hari has a critical piece on “vulture funds” at The Independent that is sure to be polarising:

“Would you ever march up to a destitute African who is shivering with Aids and demand he “pay back” tens of thousands of pounds he didn’t borrow – with interest? I only ask because this is in effect happening, here, in British and American courts, time after time. Some of the richest people in the world are making profit margins of 500 per cent by shaking money out of the poorest people in the world – for debt they did not incur.

Here’s how it works. In the mid-1990s, a Republican businessman called Paul Singer invented a new type of hedge fund, quickly dubbed a “vulture fund.” They buy debts racked up years ago by the poorest countries on earth, almost always when they were run by kleptocratic dictators, before most of the current population was born. They buy it for small sums – as little as 10 per cent of its paper value – from the original holder and then take the poor country to court in Britain or the US to demand 100 per cent of the debt is repaid immediately, plus interest built up over years, and court costs.”

My Comment

I’ve been interested in these lucrative public-private philanthropic ventures for some time. “Doing good” has become the avenue for “doing well.” This is touted by some people as the “markets working for people.” But the markets work for…and against..people all on their own. They don’t need the bells and whistles of public philanthropy added.

And when philanthropy been added, as my earlier post on Jeffrey Levitt indicates, it’s usually been added for an ulterior motive. Thus Hari’s activism against vulture funds.

Having made that point, I have a few problems of my own with Hari’s post that I’ll come back later.

First, here’s a response from the object of Hari’s criticism –  one Michael Sheehan, the founder of Debt Advisory International (DAI) (which manages several vulture funds) and a Republican donor to George Bush’s campaigns.  Sheehan’s letter is cited by Felix Salmon at his Reuter’s blog. The crux is at the end:

“At the end of the day, then, the anti-vulture legislation will accomplish exactly the opposite of what it set out to do. It will have increased the debt burden of all HIPC countries, increased the cost of credit for all HIPC countries, increased the barriers to foreign direct investment for all HIPC countries and increased the amount that will be demanded from the OECD countries in support of aid budgets for all HIPC countries. There won’t be any savings. The costs will be in the billions and will be annual costs you won’t get rid of.
You will, of course, in the process have increased the power and leverage of the development set, but then that was the intention all along, wasn’t it.”

There’s more on Sheehan and the creator of the concept – Paul Singer – in this piece, which also sheds some light on just how influential vulture funds are:

“Debt Advisory International are very generous to their lobbyists in Washington. They have been paying $240,000 a year to the lobby firm Greenberg Traurig – although recently they jumped ship to another firm after Greenberg Traurig’s top lobbyist was put in jail.

Paul Singer has more direct political connections. He was the biggest donor to George Bush and the Republican cause in New York City – giving $1.7m since Bush started his first presidential campaign.”

Many of the debt purchases are also corrupt, as this BBC piece indicates:

“The Zambian deal with Donegal for instance involved an official in former President Frederick Chiluba’s administration who was later found – along with the president – to have stolen £23m from Zambia.”

From Third World Traveler come further details:

“The debt, originally owed to Romania for agricultural machinery and services, was accrued during the cold war. The amount claimed by Donegal was far more than Zambia is due to receive this year in debt relief – as agreed at the G8 meeting in Gleneagles in 2005. It is equivalent to more than six months of Zambia’s health budget.

Since qualifying for debt relief, Zambia has introduced free primary rural healthcare and announced plans to employ 4,500 teachers and hundreds of nurses. But one in three children in Zambia still does not go to primary school, nearly 80% do not receive secondary education and the average income is barely $1 a day. Donegal International’s claim threatens to undermine Zambia’s plans for poverty reduction.”

My Comment:

The vulture funds are, of course, behaving unconscionably. But moral outrage after the fact is less effective in stopping such things as not providing the incentives that entice unscrupulous people in the first place.

And these incentives are usually put in place by the state…in this case, by the global financial organizations, the IMF and World Bank, which were behind the economic policies that turned the once relatively prosperous country of Zambia into a basket-case, where half the population is malnourished.

So yes, the vulture funds are predators – but their predation is secondary and far smaller than the predation of the scavengers of the first order – the global managers whose “aid” has a strange way of devastating its recipients...

Sun-Life Financial Review of “Mobs”

Posted on by

Kevin Press has a short (but sweet) review of “Mobs, Messiahs, and Markets” at his Today’s Economy blog at Sun-Life Financial, where he gives the book a thumbs up for prescience, a slight tut-tut for being a wee bit too contrarian, and another thumbs up for a lot of sound advice on investment. You can see it here.


Mobs, Messiahs and Markets
September 21, 2009

Talk about timing the market. When William Bonner and Lila Rajiva decided to collaborate on a book about the behaviour of crowds in politics and economics, they did so with the understanding that Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point had generated a level of interest in the subject that they could capitalize on. What they didn’t know, even as the book went to press in 2007, was that the real estate bubble they were watching with such great interest was about to pop.

The best-selling result of their timely partnership, Mobs, Messiahs and Markets, was released in paperback last month.

“We look at the biological evidence behind human behaviour,” Rajiva told me. “People are basically driven by fear and libido. We want to consume. Why do we want to consume? Because we want status. Why do we want status? Because we want to mate well, we want to propagate.”

Behaviour, of course, isn’t all just fun and games. “People do make sacrifices,” said Rajiva. “They’re generous and kind, and they want to help each other. There’s no one explanation for crowd behaviour, at the biological level at any rate.”

The book is far from a Gladwell knock-off. Rajiva is a well-regarded political journalist. Bonner is a successful publisher of financial newsletters and a website called The Daily Reckoning.

To say they are contrarian is to put it mildly. Despite its light-hearted style, there is a strong anti-establishment tenor to the book. Too much so in my judgment, but there is good advice here.

A couple of examples:

* “[T]he less you know for sure, the more important it is to have rules and principles you can follow. So, as we become more ignorant about what is actually going on, we become more stubborn in our opinions about what should be.”
* “A real investor buys a stock as though it were a can of tuna fish. He knows what it is worth to him and buys it when it is a bargain. But how do you know what a business is worth? How do you know when the perfect market has slipped up? Traditionally and sensibly, the investment value of a business is measured by how much money it will return to the investor. This seems only self-evident, but few investors actually figure it out and invest accordingly.”
* “The more someone wants to sell you an investment, the more you don’t want to buy it … The owner of an investment usually knows the asset better than the buyer does. If it were such a good business, why would the owner want to sell it to complete strangers? If it could earn a decent return on equity, why share it?”

Prince of Peace Loses With Christian Neocons

Posted on by

From the Lew Rockwell blog:

“The Christian neocons voted for Huckabee for president at their Value Voters Summit today in Dee-Cee. There was a virtual four-way tie for second: Romney, Pawlenty, Palin, and Pence. No reports in the media on Ron Paul’s votes, but given that the VVs booed him during the presidential campaign for saying that he worshipped the Prince of Peace, who could be surprised?”

Sandinista General: Kleptocrats ‘R Us – So What?

Posted on by

“Ortega defends the Sandinista Front’s rise to economic power, which started during the 1980s and has accelerated in recent years. Since President Daniel Ortega returned to power, opponents have criticized him and his party for essentially privatizing Venezuelan aid, which last year totaled $457 million, according to the Central Bank.

The Sandinista government has created a series of privately managed companies under the auspicious of the Venezuela-bankrolled Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA). Those companies, which represent more than $530 million in energy contracts, tourism holdings, and cattle farms, are linked to the presidential couple and managed by the family and Sandinista party treasurer, Francisco López…….

Ortega said one can be a self-identified leftist and still be rich….”

More here at The Nica Times.

In other words Nicaragua’s dear “leaders” are in bed with every rich speculator/developer from abroad. And aid to the country is being siphoned off by them. Great news for the foreign speculators/flippers in the country, making their capital gains and throwing chump change to the kiddies to feed their conscience.

Bad news for ordinary folks who make their living working and producing for the predator class.

Ah, but the new rich are kind too. A few bones are being tossed to the underclasses to buy respectability. The usual formula of crony capitalism – predation + charity.

I steal whatever I can get away with. Then I go to mass and toss your dying children some old toys. I get to be richer than everyone…and better too. I cheat, lie, defraud, and stomp on a thousand faceless individuals to get what I have. Then I toss some tiny part back to some one else and absolve myself.

It’s the Jeffrey Levitt model of absolution. More than twenty years ago, Tony Korneiser wrote a piece in The Washington Post on the man who “stole Baltimore.”

Back then, Kornheiser presciently put his finger on the moral and social attitudes that would metastasize in twenty years to give us the bank that “stole America.”

“Today’s businessmen seem to have hung a sign that says: We Will Lie, Cheat and Steal Unless You Stop Us. They renounce their responsibility to behave ethically, and dare the government regulators to seal off the border.

The sin isn’t cheating, but getting caught. If Jeffrey hadn’t been caught, he and Karol might still be the toasts of Baltimore. They wouldn’t be seen as gluttons, but as eccentrics and damned entitled to be so.

A few years ago Jeffrey hired a public relations firm to retool his image. The trick, and Jeffrey understood it, was philanthropy. Rockefeller, Ford, du Pont, Morgan — they all gave some away. That’s how they bought respectability. Now their great-grandsons are running for president. Instead of being known as a slumlord, which he was before he got into banking, Jeffrey would be known as a philanthropist. Through Jeffrey’s and Karol’s good charitable deeds, the Levitt name would stand for kindness and compassion. What Jeffrey neglected to tell the public relations firm was that it wasn’t his own money he was giving away. “

To “slum-lord,” add con man, gangster, penny-stock pumper, bid-rigger, racketeer, briber, stock fraudster, blackmailer, thief, extortionist, pimp, charlatan – which is what the word financier really stands for today.

Kind of takes away the glamor…

Tagore on Freedom

Posted on by

“Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by
narrow domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms toward perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the
dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by Thee into ever-widening
thought and action;
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country
awake!”

RABINDRANATH TAGORE