Manchester Protest Against NHS Privatisation and Austerity.

On the 29th September 2013 a protest took place in Manchester against ConDem policies which include Bedroom Tax and general benefit cuts. But the biggest issue on the minds of many of 55,000 people who attended was what is now happening to the National Health Service.

The changes to the NHS are still irritatingly being called NHS reforms buy much of the main stream media including the BBC. Many of those who were at the protest will be aware that parts of the NHS service will inevitably be taken away from many of those on low income over the next months and years. Whilst many may still trust the news service provided by the BBC, the TV company has misled the the people on what is really happening. The BBC is still attempting to create an illusion that it believes the NHS will be better or none the worse for the so called 'changes' being made.......

.........But what is actually happening is a scandalous assault which will leave many ill people without a hospital bed, whilst many comparatively less needy people will spend days in those same beds, because whilst the patient spends time in a private hospital, their hospital bill will be paid by their health insurance provider, or out of the patients personal wealth.

Private businesses which will still be allowed to carry the NHS logo will have an incentive to find wealthy people who may or may not be particularly ill. But at the same time keeping people on lower incomes away from the privately run 'NHS' logo'd services.

It sounds like a crazy assumption to make doesn't it?

A government wouldn't do this to it's people would it?

Unfortunately privatized health services have a track record that will cause concern to many.

The questionable track record of privatized health services has been most clearly emphasized by the health service in the United States.

.....Incidentally the British Government has been sending over representatives from the UK to learn and gain knowledge from the U.S. health service. However, I have to question the reasoning behind this. The problem is the U.S. health service combined with health insurance costs more than twice per capita in the U.S. compared with the U.K! This is the total national and private health insurance bill, deducting costs of care where covered by insurance. Any healthcare not covered by insurance then added to total..

So then...Why do British politicians need to go to the U.S. to learn about their Health Service. When ours,though severely damaged by starving of funds by the current government and the PFI scandal, is
still more far more efficient than the U.S. equivalent, at least when total cost is taken into account ?

The U.S. has by far the highest health service costs. Doubling the cost of most countries.

The truth is likely to be that the politicians arranging the fact finding visits to the U.S. are not interested in making an efficient low cost service for the public. They seem to be preoccupied with making changes that will involve the finance industry becoming a permanent cost of this and other industries. Because of the U.S. and the U.K.s dependents on their finance industries, they have let's say 'a bigger than average' incentive to load people, businesses, services, major events, transport projects, etc with 'investment' or debt........It is this bias towards the finance industry that was surely a major player when the finance industry 'invested' in the national health trusts. The result is that many are at the point of collapse due to rising irresponsible debt.
..........Britain and the U.S. have historically been successful at attracting investment through, banking, pension funds, stock market flotations from all over the world.
                ...................Both countries therefore have a need to create reasons to load things and people with debt.......
..........If they didn't do this, their growing amount of investors money from around the world would have nothing to invest in. There fore it wouldn't be possible for a business or an individual to provide a return on the investment..............But if there is no return on investment........the money being sucked in from around the world will stop being attracted to U.S. and U.K. shores. (It is this that has maintained the U.S. and U.K.s position amongst the apparently wealthiest countries in the world even though their industry has been reduced radically over the previous decades.
................. Privatization provides a vehicle for this investment whilst also placing many billions of dollars or pounds into the hands of the governments for a service that had been paid for by their public.

The visits to the U.S. by British representatives are most likely to be focused on attracting investment from established private health care providers who may be financed by British banks or by the U.S.'s more successful investment banks. You see, Privatization is more about getting banks and other financiers like private equity firms and hedge funds onto the payrolls of the businesses and services that are privatized at the same time as providing a load of cash for the government which may or may not be used to contribute to running the country.

But the illusion that seems to be being created by the BBC, that protesters needn't be worrying about privatization will continue whilst we have the same Lords in control of the BBC whilst at the same time having a similar amount of their influence on how the NHS is being run. The BBC therefore has a vested interest in misleading the public. This is the reason why the majority of the U.K. are still in the dark where the NHS is concerned and privatization in general. We are being misled. You will find that the same conflict of interests also exists in the U.S. The U.S. and U.K.s media therefore would appear to work as a team which reinforces the lack of understanding of what is going on in the business and finance world of these two countries.

There is a likelihood that media companies will find themselves as a target for protests like the one against NHS privatization unless we can encourage the media companies to start telling the truth.

The Verizon Buyout of Vodafone's 45% Share in ......'Verizon'.....& the Media Circus..........It's Not Such a Great Deal !... In Fact Far From it !!

The United States' biggest mobile phone company has just agreed to acquire a proportion of the 'Verizon' business which is Verizon Wireless, currently owned by the U.K.'s Vodafone, which is 45% of Verizon.
.

It has been portrayed as the third biggest buyout in history by much of the media. But when you look at the details of the deal, it raises questions as to why so much of the main stream media is getting so excited over it.

Verizon Wireless was formed when Vodafone merged with Bell Atlantic in1999. This is when the Verizon name first appeared.

To begin with, here are a few of the generally publicized details of the acquisition....

Much of the media is claiming the deal is worth $130 Billion in total.

According to the 'Washington Post'
Verizon will pay $58.9 billion in "cash", $60.2 billion in "stock" and $5 billion in "notes". Verizon also raised $61 billion in finance.

The Washington Post goes on to say that the buyout will, "give Verizon complete ownership over it's cellular company and marking the third largest such deal in U.S. history."

It also says, " The Verizon-Vodafone deal ends a 14 year partnership in the United States."

So......

.... Verizon is to buy a 45% stake of the 'Verizon ' business which is owned by Vodafone

....But in payment for this....Verizon will give Vodafone $60.2 Billion worth of 'stock' or shares in the new enlarged post buyout version of Verizon........(Stock means shares)..

This means....... Verizon will be giving back shares in Verizon to Vodafone. Almost half this deal is no more than a straight swap of shares...........In fact, part of the same company is actually being given straight back, to Vodafone............So calling it a straight swap of shares in two companies in this particular part of the deal  would be making it more of a deal than it really is.......
Any way, this basically removes all most half this deal from the buyout spectrum (..if you was to bring this deal from the fanasy world of banking into the realms of reality where most of us live !....).
So...$60.2 Billion of this deal is no more than a swap of shares, and even that statement would be at a stretch of the imagination.

...Also in payment for this so called buyout or acquisition, Verizon will give Vodafone $5 billion in 'notes'.

Notes in the finance world are a type of bond......

These notes are investments. They are effectively debt. Or a bit like a large scale I.O.U. The holder receives regular interest payments on the debt, but the actual debt will not usually be paid until the maturity date, which may be ten years. However there is no guarantee that the original debt will ever be paid (or all the interest) back to the investor......
It basically means that Vodafone are lending Verizon $5 billion for the buyout !.....(or put it this way....this part of the deal means Verizon owe Vodafone $5 billion......Which needs interest paying until the 'maturity' date when the original $5 billion must be paid).

Verizon I Phone Ad.

...These bonds could be put at risk if Verizon was to get into difficulties, by getting into vast amounts of debt, for example !

The final part of this deal is the one that raises most questions, in view of the fact Verizon pays out not a penny of cash in the two afore mentioned parts of the transaction.....

.....Investment banks are lending Verizon $61 billion to cover costs of this acquisition. The biggest part being the $58.9 billion 'in cash'. 

This reference to 'cash', I think many people will find misleading.The kind of people who take a passing interest in the financial pages so they can just fantasize over how well their pension scheme or share investments might be doing.  I think this wording is intended to mislead. It's often used with reference to these deals....But these references to 'cash' virtually always are actually referring to borrowed money. But you will notice that the financial media avoid talk about businesses getting into debt whilst share prices and asset values are at a vulnerable point......But as they are reporting what you are told is the business news, they should report it in full......Which in general, does not happen.

The average reader is likely to think that Verizon is swimming in cash and has this sort of money laying around. Unfortunately, this is clearly not true, because Verizon wouldn't need to borrow the $61 billion !

But the big question is;
If Verizon are not putting up any of the money for what is, we are told one of the biggest buyouts in history, how the hell are they getting finance of $61 billion???

It's difficult to answer that.....Maybe if you know the the advisers and people involved in this deal....You might like to know what the incentives of the banks providing this finance were...

Vodafone's advisers were led by Goldman Sachs deal maker, Karen Cook and UBS...Simon Shaw...These two alone are potentially going to collect £76 Million.

Verizon's advisers have been Bank of America, Guggenheim, Morgan Stanley and J P Morgan who will receive a total of £80 Million.
                    .........................These are fees for only 'advising'.........And you can bet your bottom dollar that the advice given by these advisers involves placing a business in rafts of unjustified debt !

If this buyout gets the go ahead, which they generally do, Barclays, Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase will be providing the finance.

As mentioned above, the financial media don't like to give details on current debts or debt about to be taken on by a business during a merger or buyout.......But as the BBC won't tell you....Verizon will be $120 billion in debt after the merger as they are already in a mass of debt.

To recover this money they are attempting to issue around $50 billion in bonds. 

I won't be investing and neither should you.
I'm Out !

Angela Merkel Renews Pressure for Regulation of Hedge Funds.

Angela Merkel in the past week, announced on her weekly televised message that she was to push for faster progress in financial market regulations, regarding hedge funds. This talk has actually been going on for some years, but Britain under the current government and similarly under the last labour government was opposed to new regulations in the finance industry.

You can rest assured that the current government won't budge on this matter unless Europe was to threaten something extreme like air strikes. I reckon the government may threaten to leave the European Union if radical changes in regulations are forced on them by our neighbours. But it wouldn't be the first time our government (or more specifically, David Cameron) has threatened to leave the European Union even though we, the people were never consulted on the matter.

The reason why our politicians are reluctant to changes within the financial system is because Britain is so dependent on financial services which include banking, hedge funds, asset management companies and private equity companies........
...............But the reason why we are so dependent on these businesses is.............

 We still have dominance in financial services in Europe and much of the world !
-This doesn't mean we have the biggest banks.  Financial services are businesses which are mostly related to investments. But they have a dominating affect on the world because banks from all over the world will invest in the financial service businesses which are the most successful.......The most successful of these businesses are currently in the U.S. and the U.K. These include hedge funds, asset managers and private equity companies.

Because of our lax regulations in the financial industry........ which were deregulated by Margaret Thatcher in the seventies. After her deregulations, Britain's finance industry grew rapidly. Because she made it easier for people from around the world to move their financial related business in to London, and gave all these businesses an easier time whilst also taxing these businesses lightly. The U.S. has had to relax it's regulations since then as London was leaving the U.S. behind, and the U.K.would be dominating the world in finance if the U.S. had not made changes.

The problem is deregulation is good for people in the finance industry but those out side the industry will suffer for it....Regardless of the misconception of the financial media (& Sky, BBC etc) But as the financial industry controls not just their own money, but all of ours.......and now....many peoples' round the world........There is an endless stream of cash for manipulation of both the media and governments.....This is the reason why our financial industry is possibly still the most unregulated in the world, and why it is difficult for people like Angela Merkel who want to make changes. Also because in the world of finance, borders mean very little. When the 'climate' changes as far as making easy money is concerned, you simply move your money to where the climate is more to your liking........ But where ever the profits are easiest......The probability is the less good your money is actually doing for the world.

In her TV announcement, Angela Merkel said, "Germany will, along with other countries exert pressure so that we not let up regulation of financial markets."

It is isn't clear exactly who this is directed at, but my mind reading skills tell me that she is thinking most about U.K.....She is just being much more tactful in her approach than our politicians would be......For Europe to have any influence on the UK,..... we need to remain in the European Union!

One of her proposed controls of Hedge funds is to add extra charges to them to restrict the profits they can make. .....
......Unfortunately the profits them selves are not the problem, and I think those running the European Union are only to aware of this. It's how they make those profits, which is where the real focus of these regulations should lie............................If they were doing useful things with our money, we would tolerate the profits they are making. But more and more people are now realizing that hedge funds make money at the cost of us all................. It is only the manipulation of the governments and the media which is keeping the truth hidden from the majority.................................................
                                                  .... But for how long?