The United Nations yesterday voted in favor of granting Palestine status as a non-member observer state.(non-member observer state is the same status Vatican City holds)
"The U.S. and Israel denounced the vote as an "unilateral" move.." -WSJ
Curious about this unilateral, rogue, anarchist vote in favor of a Palestinian state; I felt compelled to find the exact tally of who voted and how they voted (the link can be found above). Finding this tally was not as easy as it should have been for some reason...
Here is a synopsis of the tally:
138 vote YES
9 vote NO
41 abstentions =====> (abstention means the country refused to vote either yes or no)
No wonder the U.S. and Israel are so pissed...73% of the U.N. directly opposes them and 22% are 'too scared' to vote no (probably not wanting to piss us off) leaving only 5% of the U.N voting with us.
Since only 9 people voted no I might as well list them:
Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama, and United States of America.
(It turns out that Nauru and Palau were only raising their hands to ask the question "Where the hell is Nauru and Palau?!?! And how were we given a vote?")
In light of the statement that the vote represented unilateral interests....it seems that the U.S. and Israel opposition for a Palestinian state is the true unilateral interest. (P.S. Unilateral interests = interests which only consider the interests of one side; where multilateral interests = interests where all sides are considered)
So what interests do we have in preventing a Palestinian state that the rest of the world does not share?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UN Watch "Results of U.N. vote to grant PLO non-member state status" November 30th, 2012.
<http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2012/11/30/results-of-u-n-vote-to-grant-palestine-non-member-observer-state-status>
The Wall Street Journal "U.N. Gives Palestinians 'State' Status" November 30th, 2012 Pg. A7
-Jay Lauria, Josh Mitnik, Jay Solomon
Friday, November 30, 2012
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Breaking U.S. sanctions is a Win-Win
The Wall Street Journal, November 29th,2012; C3
"Standard Chartered Nears Iran Settlement" -Liz Rappaport
Standard Chartered is an U.K. parented bank with broad foreign operations. The U.K. is a member of the United Nations. Iran is currently under U.N. sanctions; these sanctions make it illegal, under international law, for a U.K. bank (or any institution whose host country is a U.N. member) to provide services to the Iranian government or multinationals.
Ok, now that that is clear.....
Investigations have shown that Standard Chartered illegally made over $250 billion worth of transactions with Iran. Court proceedings are coming close to a compromise, with S.C. bank expected to pay roughly $300 million dollars in fines. Now, let's do some math....
-$250 billion dollars worth of transactions with Iran
-Thanks to Yahoo! Finance, I have found that Standard Chartered's return on assets is 0.88%...that means that for every $100 of assets S.C. Bank makes only 88cents..bummer!.
-.88% sounds worse than it is, especially when you consider the volume of business.
BUT, people will argue this measure should not be used, so....let's use the avg. LIBOR rate for the past 3 years: roughly .30%.
$250,000,000,000 in transactions with Iran
@ .30%
-------------------------------------------------
$750,000,000
*I personally do not believe that it is an outrageous assumption that, at least, this spread (LIBOR) was achieved in dealing with Iran. In Fact, I would argue that an even higher spread could have easily been attained given Iran sanctions and lack of access to capital, (they are not in a good position to negotiate for lower terms, being cut off from the rest of the world and all...)
Let's finish this math,
$750,000,000 in potential profit
-$300,000,000 in fines
----------------------------------
$450,000,000 net after fines
So why not deal with Iran....Banks need only to adjust the premium on loans to Iran to account for the risk of fines equaling roughly $300 million, now that precedent is set. If you are familiar with our legal system then you are familiar with the principle of precedent. Because S.C. was fined $300 million, similar allegations will not bring about charges much farther from this amount.
So, when we are told that the U.N. has placed sanctions on Iran, I picture a metaphorical "Road-Block" complete with orange barricades, barbed wire fences, and do not enter signs preventing access to capital for Iran.
Upon reading this, I see a different picture; not a barricade, but a toll booth. $300 million is not damaging enough to dissuade these types of dealings. But, if our government sets a precedent making it very detrimental to be caught in similar allegations then we would stop seeing so many $300 million dollar checks for "damages"...
CONCLUSION:
S.C. makes (>/=) $450 million (theoretically)
U.S. gets a check for $300 million
*Let's keep it up and we can all make a lot of money!
*I encourage someone to add commentary to contradict my claims here. I know there are people smarter than me and I would love insight into why the way this was analyzed here is wrong or missing a major point. SO LET ME KNOW!
"Standard Chartered Nears Iran Settlement" -Liz Rappaport
Standard Chartered is an U.K. parented bank with broad foreign operations. The U.K. is a member of the United Nations. Iran is currently under U.N. sanctions; these sanctions make it illegal, under international law, for a U.K. bank (or any institution whose host country is a U.N. member) to provide services to the Iranian government or multinationals.
Ok, now that that is clear.....
Investigations have shown that Standard Chartered illegally made over $250 billion worth of transactions with Iran. Court proceedings are coming close to a compromise, with S.C. bank expected to pay roughly $300 million dollars in fines. Now, let's do some math....
-$250 billion dollars worth of transactions with Iran
-Thanks to Yahoo! Finance, I have found that Standard Chartered's return on assets is 0.88%...that means that for every $100 of assets S.C. Bank makes only 88cents..bummer!.
-.88% sounds worse than it is, especially when you consider the volume of business.
BUT, people will argue this measure should not be used, so....let's use the avg. LIBOR rate for the past 3 years: roughly .30%.
$250,000,000,000 in transactions with Iran
@ .30%
-------------------------------------------------
$750,000,000
*I personally do not believe that it is an outrageous assumption that, at least, this spread (LIBOR) was achieved in dealing with Iran. In Fact, I would argue that an even higher spread could have easily been attained given Iran sanctions and lack of access to capital, (they are not in a good position to negotiate for lower terms, being cut off from the rest of the world and all...)
Let's finish this math,
$750,000,000 in potential profit
-$300,000,000 in fines
----------------------------------
$450,000,000 net after fines
So why not deal with Iran....Banks need only to adjust the premium on loans to Iran to account for the risk of fines equaling roughly $300 million, now that precedent is set. If you are familiar with our legal system then you are familiar with the principle of precedent. Because S.C. was fined $300 million, similar allegations will not bring about charges much farther from this amount.
So, when we are told that the U.N. has placed sanctions on Iran, I picture a metaphorical "Road-Block" complete with orange barricades, barbed wire fences, and do not enter signs preventing access to capital for Iran.
Upon reading this, I see a different picture; not a barricade, but a toll booth. $300 million is not damaging enough to dissuade these types of dealings. But, if our government sets a precedent making it very detrimental to be caught in similar allegations then we would stop seeing so many $300 million dollar checks for "damages"...
CONCLUSION:
S.C. makes (>/=) $450 million (theoretically)
U.S. gets a check for $300 million
*Let's keep it up and we can all make a lot of money!
*I encourage someone to add commentary to contradict my claims here. I know there are people smarter than me and I would love insight into why the way this was analyzed here is wrong or missing a major point. SO LET ME KNOW!
Define Global Warming....
The Wall Street Journal, November 29th, 2012; A12
"Climate Change; U.N. Says 2012 to be Among the Warmest on Record" -Alex Delmar-Morgan
United Nations reports that 2012 is set to be the warmest year recorded in history. More alarming is a study found that an area the size of India has melted in excess of the average yearly ice melt from 1979-Present. This means that when you analyze the average amount of ice that melts a year, this year an area the size of India melted in excess of the average.....seems pretty substantial, wandering why the article is only 3 sentences long (they are rather long compound sentences, but still).
"Climate Change; U.N. Says 2012 to be Among the Warmest on Record" -Alex Delmar-Morgan
United Nations reports that 2012 is set to be the warmest year recorded in history. More alarming is a study found that an area the size of India has melted in excess of the average yearly ice melt from 1979-Present. This means that when you analyze the average amount of ice that melts a year, this year an area the size of India melted in excess of the average.....seems pretty substantial, wandering why the article is only 3 sentences long (they are rather long compound sentences, but still).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)