The Trader has written timely pieces on the imploding Spanish economy. Here is an authentic piece from one of our readers, living in Spain as an expat. Courtesy Anna Billqvist.

Spain is now suffering severe cut packages, in order to save money, but very few ideas that will get us back on feet. The Spanish people feel that there is very little we can do. Perhaps we need something different, a change of mentality.

Why not try quality rather Read more.....

The Trader has written timely pieces on the imploding Spanish economy. Here is an authentic piece from one of our readers, living in Spain as an expat. Courtesy Anna Billqvist.

Spain is now suffering severe cut packages, in order to save money, but very few ideas that will get us back on feet. The Spanish people feel that there is very little we can do. Perhaps we need something different, a change of mentality.

Why not try quality rather than quantity at work? Who says we need to work more hours to achieve better results? What if we organize ourselves and use our time more efficiently? Written procedures, so that things can be done even if the key person is not there. More confidence between boss and employee, so they feel that they work together towards the same goal, instead of continously suspecting that they are being used by the other. Nine-to-five working hours, not the split working days that we are used to; loosing time driving to work and back twice a day, coming home at nine in the evening and totally dependent on nannies and family if we have children. That would make us more productive at work and at home.

Police fight black economy – by fining teachers who put up notes for private lessons and arresting africans selling illegal CDs. Meanwhile prostitution sales reach 50 million euros each day. Young people from poorer countries are exploited and abused, brothel owners call themselves hotel owners and claim that they only rent rooms to prostitutes. Nobody cares, because judges, lawyers and politicians are among the customers.

Drugtrade is a another huge market. Nobody cares for that either, for the same reasons. Spain is one of the biggest consumers of cocaine in the world. A a recent political scandal revealed that millions of euros from a fund for unemployed were spent on cocaine. By politicians. Then they apply to tax payers´conscience in order to collect more taxes.

In school – aren´t we a little blind when we accept our new so called “billingüal schools”, without questioning them at all? We´re happy that our pupils will be experts in english, but we don´t see that their teachers´knowledge in english is not good enough to teach chemistry or history in that language. The children don´t understand them and don´t dare to ask, because it has to be in english. Nobody asks why children in central and northen Europe have better skills in language, without bilingüal schools.
Is it productive that pupils use two hours to do their homework every day, because they have to copy all the questions? Or is it a waste of time,energy and paper? Why do our pupils have longer school days than the average in Europe, but have among the worst results, accordning to the PISA report?

Spain has hardly any resources to spend on environment right now. But couldn´t we just pick up the trash from our own pick-nicks? Or stop trowing cans from the car window? Meadows and lakes are full of trash – at the same time we spend huge sums of the taxpayers´money promoting rural tourism. Everybody sweep outside their own house, shine their facades and polish their cars. But “nature” is too far to care about.

There are still things that can be done, without spending money. Recessions come and go, but society seems to remain the same, no matter what ecomomical measures are taken by politicians.

For a quick review of the EZ crisis click here. 

Chart Trading Economics

Submitted by gojam of The Needle blog,

Thucydides was probably born about 460BC and was for a time a General on the side of democratic Athens against aristocratic Sparta in what is known as the Peloponnesian War in which most of Greece took a side. After being exiled he wrote his famous history. The passage that I’ve quoted in full below is, in my opinion, one of the finest p Read more.....

Submitted by gojam of The Needle blog,

Thucydides was probably born about 460BC and was for a time a General on the side of democratic Athens against aristocratic Sparta in what is known as the Peloponnesian War in which most of Greece took a side. After being exiled he wrote his famous history. The passage that I’ve quoted in full below is, in my opinion, one of the finest passages of classical antiquity. I was somewhat surprised not to be able to find it elsewhere quoted online. It descibes the breakdown of civil society and in doing so it perfectly describes every civil war and revolution that has taken place in the almost two and half thousands years since it was written including the English Civil War, French Revolution, American Civil War, Russian Revolution, and Spanish Civil War. Human nature, it seems is immutable.

I bring it to attention in the vain hope that those who have blindly pursued the policies which have brought Greece to the brink and risks plunging the whole of Europe into the abyss, might consider more keenly the consequences of their actions and change course before it’s too late.

“So revolutions broke out in city after city, and in places where the revolutions occured late the knowledge of what had happened previously in other places caused still new extravagances of revolutionary zeal, expressed by an elaboration in the methods of seizing power and by unheard-of atrocities in revenge. To fit in with the change of events, words, too, had to change their meanings. What used to be described as a thoughtless act of aggression was now regarded as the courage one might expect to find in a party member; to think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one’s unmanly character; ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action. Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was perfectly legitimate self-defence. Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted and anyone who objected to them became suspect. To plot successfully was a sign intelligence, but it was still cleverer to see that a plot was hatching. If one attempted to provide against having to do either, one was disrupting the unity of the party and acting out of fear of the opposition. In short, it was equally praiseworthy to get one’s blow in first against someone who was going to do wrong, and to denounce someone who had no intention of doing any wrong at all. Family relations were a weaker tie than party membership, since party members were more ready to go to any extreme for any reason whatever. These parties were not formed to enjoy the benefits of established laws, but to aquire power by overthrowing the existing regime; and the members of these parties felt confidence in each other not because of any fellowship in a religious communion, but because they were partners in crime. If an opponent made a reasonable speech, the party in power, so far from giving it a generous reception, took every precaution to see that it had no practical effect.

 

Revenge was more important than self-preservation, And if pacts of mutual security were made, they were entered into by the two parties only in order to meet some temporary difficulty, and remained in force only so long as there was no other weapon available. When the chance came, the one who seized it boldly, catching the enemy off his guard, enjoyed a revenge that was all the sweeter from having taken, not openly, but because of a breach of faith. It was safer that way, it was considered, and at the same time a victory won by treachery gave one a title for superior intelligence. And indeed most people are more ready to call villainy cleverness than simple-mindedness honesty. They are proud of the first quality and ashamed of the second.

 

Love of power, operating through greed and through personal ambition, was the cause of all these evils. To this must be added violent fanaticism which came into play once the struggle had broken out. Leaders of parties in the cities had programmes which appeared admirable – on one side political equality for the masses, on the other the safe and sound government of the aristocracy – but in professing to serve the public interest they were seeking to win the prizes for themselves. In their struggle for ascendancy nothing was barred; terrible indeed were the actions to which they committed themselves, and in taking revenge they went farther still. Here they were deterred neither by claims of justice nor by the interests of the state; their one standard was the pleasure of their own party at that particular moment, and so, either by means of condemning their enemies on an illegal vote or by violently usurping power over them, they were always ready to satisfy the hatreds of the hour. Thus neither side had any use for conscientious motives; more interest was shown in those who could produce attractive arguments to justify some disgraceful action. As for the citizens who held moderate views, they were destroyed by both extreme parties, either for not taking part in the struggle or in envy at the possibility that they might survive.

 

As the result of these revolutions, there was a general deterioration of character throughout the Greek world. The simple way of looking at things, which is so much the mark of a noble nature, was regarded as a ridiculous quality and soon ceased to exist. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each side viewed the other with suspicion. As for ending this state off affairs, no guarentee could be given that would be trusted, no oath sworn that people would fear to break; everyone had come to the conclusion that it was hopeless to expect a permanent settlement and so, instead of being able to feel confident in others, they devoted their energies to providing against being injured themselves. As a rule those who were the least remarkable for intelligence showed the greater powers of survival. Such people recognised their own deficiencies and the superior intelligence of their opponents; fearing that they might lose a debate or find themselves out-manoeuvred in intrigue by their quick-witted enemies, they boldly launched straight into action; while their opponents, overconfident in the belief that they would see what was happening in advance, and not thinking it necessary to seize by force what they could secure by policy, were the more easily destroyed because they were off guard.

 

Certainly it was in Corcyra that there occured the first examples of the breakdown of law and order. There was the revenge taken in their hour of triumph by those who had in the past been arrogantly oppressed instead of wisely governed; there were the wicked resolutions taken by those who, particularly under the pressure of misfortune, wished to escape from their usual poverty and coveted the property of their neighbours; there were the savage and pitiless actions into which men were carried not so much for the sake of gain as because they were swept away into internecine struggle by their ungovernable passions. Then, with the ordinary conventions of civilised life thrown into confusion, human nature, always ready to offend even where laws exist, showed itself proudly in its true colours, as something incapable of controlling passion, insubordinate to the idea of justice, the enemy to anything superior to itself; for, if it had not been for the pernicious powers of envy, men would not so have exalted vengeance above innocence and profit above justice. Indeed, it is true that in these acts of revenge on others men take it upon themselves to begin the process of repealing those general laws of humanity which are there to give a hope of salvation to all who are in distress, instead of leaving those laws in existence, remembering that there may be a time when they, too, will be in danger and will need their protection.”

This. Is. TROIKA!!

Supply and Demand are what drive share prices in the stock market and Chrales Biderman of TrimTabs takes to task the plethora of complicating factors that are run in front of our eyes day after day on why we should be buying stocks. While he is short-term bullish, expecting a 2-3% jolt to stocks on post-Facebook IPO euphoria (as selling positions to fund the IPO allocation will fade), he remains medium-term bearish with an eye for being short stocks and long gold. His discuss Read more.....

Supply and Demand are what drive share prices in the stock market and Chrales Biderman of TrimTabs takes to task the plethora of complicating factors that are run in front of our eyes day after day on why we should be buying stocks. While he is short-term bullish, expecting a 2-3% jolt to stocks on post-Facebook IPO euphoria (as selling positions to fund the IPO allocation will fade), he remains medium-term bearish with an eye for being short stocks and long gold. His discussion of Stock Trading 101 is noteworthy and fits somewhat with our incessant annoyance at the money-on-the-sidelines ignorance that remains among so-called professionals who seem to remain ignorant of the closed-loop nature of buyers and sellers in the financial markets - leaving the important driver of market movements not earnings or macro-data explicitly but the buybacks (or lack thereof) of corporations (and money flow). An interesting alternate perspective.

Two months ago, Congress voted down the "Obama budget" by a vote of 414-0. Today, the Senate chimed in. The result was just as definitive. Final outcome, between the Congress and the Senate, a grand total of zero votes were cast for the Obama budget... and a mere 513 against.

From Washington Times:

Two months ago, Congress voted down the "Obama budget" by a vote of 414-0. Today, the Senate chimed in. The result was just as definitive. Final outcome, between the Congress and the Senate, a grand total of zero votes were cast for the Obama budget... and a mere 513 against.

From Washington Times:

President Obama's budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday, when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.

 

Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.

 

Republicans forced the vote by offering the president's plan on the Senate floor.

 

Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.

 

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them — a challenge no Democrats took up.

 

"A stunning development for the president of the United States in his fourth year in office," Mr. Sessions said of the unanimous opposition.

At this point what is even the point of commenting on these increasingly more surreal developments. When one encounters news like these, what can one say but... "Banana republic". In the meantime, America is in the second, or third year, frankly who is even counting anymore, without any formal budget. But it sure has a very much informal spending program...

After a day full of depressing news, what is the best way to unwind? By pretending one is former Goldman employee Mario Draghi and having to grapple with 4 make believe scenarios, of course. These are: deflation, price stabeeleetee, high inflation and hyperinflation. But instead of actually being in his shoes, and stuck in a damp Frankfurt basement with the manual for He Read more.....

After a day full of depressing news, what is the best way to unwind? By pretending one is former Goldman employee Mario Draghi and having to grapple with 4 make believe scenarios, of course. These are: deflation, price stabeeleetee, high inflation and hyperinflation. But instead of actually being in his shoes, and stuck in a damp Frankfurt basement with the manual for Heidelberg: Mainstream 80, Web-fed Rotary Printer, figuring out how to put it into overdrive, one can have fun from the comfort of one's own REOed and mortgage-free (thank you Congressional Politburo) home courtesy of the following ECB video game. Good luck, and may the printiest man win.

Department of Energy Pretends that Low Levels of Radiation Are Safe

Dr. Peter Karamoskos – a nuclear radiologist and a public representative on the radiation health committee of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency – wrote in the Sydey Herald last year:

Read more.....

Department of Energy Pretends that Low Levels of Radiation Are Safe

Dr. Peter Karamoskos – a nuclear radiologist and a public representative on the radiation health committee of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency – wrote in the Sydey Herald last year:

You have to hand it to the nuclear industry and its acolytes. In the middle of the second-worst nuclear power disaster in history at Fukushima, and with still no end in sight, you would think they would respond with contrition, humility and profuse mea culpas. Not on your life. The industry representatives and its acolytes came out swinging in full denial attire.

 

***

 

But more insidious and objectionable is the creeping misinformation that the nuclear industry has fed into the public sphere over the years. There seems to be a never-ending cabal of paid industry scientific ”consultants” who are more than willing to state the fringe view that low doses of ionising radiation do not cause cancer and, indeed, that low doses are actually good for you and lessen the incidence of cancer.

It is not only the nuclear companies who are pushing this junk science.

The Department of Energy is responsible for the design, testing and production of all U.S. nuclear weapons.  DOE also promotes nuclear energy as one of its core functions.  As such, it might not be surprising that DOE has been covering up nuclear accidents for decades.

DOE is also trying to replace the widely-accepted model of the dangers of low dose radiation based on voodoo science. Specifically, DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley Labs recently used a mutant line of human cells in a petri dish which was able to repair damage from low doses of radiation, and extrapolated to the unsupported conclusion that everyone is immune to low doses of radiation:

Another DOE-funded study published yesterday – which is being widely publicized in both the mainstream and alternative media – found that mice exposed to low-level radiation suffered no “apparent” genetic damage.  Sounds impressive, until you realize a 3 basic facts.

First, the mice were only studied for 5 weeks.  The whole danger of low-level radiation is from repeated exposure over a long period.   A 5-week study is therefore scientifically meaningless.

Second, the study didn’t distinguish between radiation coming from outside the body and particles of radiation ingested into the body: what are known as “internal emitters”.   Internal emitters – say airborne radioactive dust which we breathe in or radioactive fish which we eat – are much more dangerous than general exposures to radiation. See this and this.

For example, the head of a Tokyo-area medical clinic – Dr. Junro Fuse, Internist and head of Kosugi Medical Clinic- said this month:

Risk from internal exposure is 200-600 times greater than risk from external exposure.

Third, the researchers only:

Tested for several types of DNA damage, using the most sensitive techniques available.

However, DNA damage is only 1 of the 2 main ways in which low level radiation causes damage.  The second – and perhaps more important – way that low level radiation causes damage is through the creation of free radicals.  Specifically, several studies have shown that radiolysis of water, formation of reactive oxygen species and lipid peroxidation in the body are the main culprits for the damaging effect of low-level radiation.   The DOE-funded study didn’t test for free radical creation.

As such, the new study is garbage and junk science.

Real Scientists: Low Levels of Radiation Can Cause Cancer, Genetic Damage and Other Serious Illness

The overwhelming consensus among radiation scientists is that repeated exposure to low doses of radiation can cause cancer, genetic mutations and other severe health problems.

A major new study of atomic bomb data by the official joint U.S.-Japanese government study of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors found that low dose radiation causes cancer and genetic damage, and debunks the radiation “hormesis” claim (the ridiculous claim that a little radiation is good for you) once and for all:

As Dr. Karamoskos notes:

Ionising radiation is a known carcinogen. This is based on almost 100 years of cumulative research including 60 years of follow-up of the Japanese atom bomb survivors. The International Agency for Research in Cancer (IARC, linked to the World Health Organisation) classifies it as a Class 1 carcinogen, the highest classification indicative of certainty of its carcinogenic effects.In 2006, the US National Academy of Sciences released its Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation (VII) report, which focused on the health effects of radiation doses at below 100 millisieverts. This was a consensus review that assessed the world’s scientific literature on the subject at that time. It concluded: “. . . there is a linear dose-response relationship between exposure to ionising radiation and the development of solid cancers in humans. It is unlikely that there is a threshold below which cancers are not induced.”

 

The most comprehensive study of nuclear workers by the IARC, involving 600,000 workers exposed to an average cumulative dose of 19mSv, showed a cancer risk consistent with that of the A-bomb survivors.

 

***

 

IARC states that ”by 2065, predictions based on these models indicate that about 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation from the accident and that about 16,000 deaths from these cancers may occur”. Whether we will be able to detect them when there will also be more than 1 million other cases of cancer over this period is debatable. But every one of these excess cancers is a tragedy for each victim and their family, and is no less so simply because cancer is a common disease.

Many studies have shown that repeated exposures to low levels of ionizing radiation from CT scans and x-rays can cause cancer. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.  (Remember, the radiation from CT scans and x-rays are external emitters – the radiation emanates from outside the body.)

Research from the University of Iowa cconcluded:

 Cumulative radon exposure is a significant risk factor for lung cancer in women.

And see these studies on the health effects cumulative doses of radioactive cesium.

As the European Committee on Radiation Risk notes:

Cumulative impacts of chronic irradiation in low doses are … important for the comprehension, assessment and prognosis of the late effects of irradiation on human beings …

And see this.

A military briefing written by the U.S. Army for commanders in Iraq states:

Hazards from low level radiation are long-term, not acute effects… Every exposure increases risk of cancer.

(Military briefings for commanders often contain less propaganda than literature aimed at civilians, as the commanders have to know the basic facts to be able to assess risk to their soldiers.)

The briefing states that doses are cumulative, citing the following military studies and reports:

• ACE Directive 80-63, ACE Policy for Defensive Measures against Low Level Radiological Hazards during Military Operations, 2 AUG 96

• AR 11-9, The Army Radiation Program, 28 MAY 99

• FM 4-02.283, Treatment of Nuclear and Radiological Casualties, 20 DEC 01

• JP 3-11, Joint Doctrine for Operations in NBC Environments, 11 JUL 00

• NATO STANAG 2473, Command Guidance on Low Level Radiation Exposure in Military Operations, 3 MAY 00

• USACHPPM TG 244, The NBC Battle Book, AUG 02

Why was the military advising commanders on radiation in Iraq? Presumably because the American military used depleted uranium in Iraq (see this, this, this, this, this and this).

Indeed, the top government radiation experts – like Karl Morgan, John Goffman and Arthur Tamplin – and scientific luminaries such as Ernest Sternglass and Alice Stewart, concluded that low level radiation can cause serious health effects.

Low levels of radiation cause not only cancer, but heart disease, stroke and other serious illness.

And its not just humans:  scientists have found that animals receiving low doses of radiation from Chernobyl are sick as well.

Nuclear Cheerleaders Just Trying to “Keep People Calm While They’re Being Poisoned”?

This is actually part of the trend of governments worldwide raising acceptable radiation levels based upon politics.

No wonder one medical doctor asks whether acceptable radiation levels are being raised “to keep people calm while they’re being poisoned”.

Indeed, while counter-intuitive, many preeminent scientists believe that repeated doses to low level radiation can cause more illness than short, high-dose exposures.  And see this.

There was a time when retail investors were mocked and derided by all: after all whenever the big boys needed to unload they jest blew the whistle, and like obedient lap dogs retail would buy at the very peak of the market because "stocks are a once in a lifetime buy", leading to what some call distribution, and others, a plunge. Not any more. In spite of the recent 20% surge in stocks, following a pattern absolutely identical to the one from September 2010 to March 2011, for the ent Read more.....

There was a time when retail investors were mocked and derided by all: after all whenever the big boys needed to unload they jest blew the whistle, and like obedient lap dogs retail would buy at the very peak of the market because "stocks are a once in a lifetime buy", leading to what some call distribution, and others, a plunge. Not any more. In spite of the recent 20% surge in stocks, following a pattern absolutely identical to the one from September 2010 to March 2011, for the entire 32 week duration of the artificial central bank induced rally beginning October 5, there were a total of 3 weeks of inflows into the market, totaling a whopping $2.8 billion. The outflows: 29 weeks for a total of $96.6 billion, with $2.4 billion pulled out in the most recent week. And as speculated that in the absence of the traditional greater fool (that would be you dear reader hidden behind your E-Trade platform) stepping in, the prop desks, prime brokers, and hedge funds had no other choice... but to sell to each other, in the process exposing sophisticated 'Qualified Institutional Buyers' as nothing more than glorified, stock-peddling Pied Pipers who are good at only one thing: manipulating the less sophisticated crowd. Which works until it doesn't.

Several years years ago, various media organizations tried to starve the banks by telling their followers and readers to pull their money from the banks. They failed. This time around, nobody is forcing Joe Sixpack investor to pull his money out of the stock market - he is doing it on his own, having realized the true nature of the rigged casino. And in the process may be inflicting a more crushing blow to the banks than withdrawing a few billion in checking accounts ever could.