Kadancha

"Please note I (Kadancha) do not respect the clown named Mark Carney." https://www.cityam.com/central-banks-running-low-on-ammunition-to-fight-recession-mark-carney-warns/ Central banks running low on ammunition to fight recession, Mark Carney warns Anna Menin Central banks may not be able to fight off a sharp economic downturn because their monetary policy arsenals are still depleted following the global financial crisis, outgoing Bank of England Governor Mark Carney has warned. “It’s generally true that there’s much less ammunition for all the major central banks than they previously had and I’m of the opinion that this situation will persist for some time,” Carney said in an interview with the Financial Times. “If there were to be a deeper downturn, [that requires] more stimulus than a conventional recession, then it’s not clear that monetary policy would have sufficient space.” The BoE has raised interest rates to 0.75 per cent – slightly above their emergency levels during the global financial crisis a decade ago. Carney – who has just over two months left in office – has previously raised concerns about the risk of a “liquidity trap”, in which central banks run out of the ammunition needed to combat a downturn because demand is so weak. Financial Conduct Authority head Andrew Bailey is due to take over from Carney as BoE governor in March. Carney will take up a role as a special United Nations envoy for climate action and finance. In a wide-ranging interview, the central banker also reiterated his view that the UK should not align its financial regulations with the EU post-Brexit. “It is not desirable at all to align our approaches, to tie our hands and to outsource regulation and effectively supervision of the world’s leading complex financial system to another jurisdiction,” Carney told the FT. He also predicted that the City could benefit from financing the transition to a low-carbon economy in place of some EU activity once Britain leaves the bloc. “This happens to be a huge commercial opportunity for the City of London and the UK financial sector writ large.” However Carney said that the financial sector could not combat climate change alone, adding: “I don’t think the financial sector should be or will be a substitute for climate policy.” “I don’t think that climate policy should be run by stealth though capital ratios or other use of prudential policy to shift incentives,” he said.

https://wolfstreet.com/2019/12/25/how-amazon-gains-control-domination/ How Amazon Gains Control & Domination by Wolf Richter • Dec 25, 2019 Amazon takes over the last mile and everything else. By Wolf Richter. This is the transcript from my podcast last Sunday, THE WOLF STREET REPORT: Amazon just gave us an update on how rapidly its own delivery system is replacing UPS, the US Postal Service, FedEx, and other carriers in delivering packages from an Amazon fulfillment center to the door of Amazon’s customer. The numbers show how big this system is already after practically no time of starting it up, how big the package volume is already, and how many drivers are already working in this system. This has huge consequences for the US logistics business, the companies that slug it out in it, such as UPS and FedEx, and that keep raising their published rates despite the dynamics of the market, which is facing Amazon’s creation, the mushrooming companies that Amazon is building up to get around the established carriers. Its purpose is twofold: One, bring down delivery costs. And two, gain control. Delivery costs have always been a primary issue in ecommerce. And gaining control became a primary issue for Amazon in the 2013 holiday season. The flood of Amazon orders was such that it overwhelmed UPS and FedEx, and packages were delivered after Christmas, which created a huge debacle for Amazon. So, to gain control and bring down costs, it has to become the number 1 gorilla in the logistics business and surround itself by thousands of small logistics companies that it totally controls and that are eating the lunch of today’s giants, UPS and FedEx. And that’s what’s happening at an astounding speed. Amazon didn’t invent ecommerce. But from day one, it has been pushing the envelope in every direction to make itself the dominant player in just about all related fields, some high-tech, some low-tech, from cloud computing to delivery, to bring down costs and gain control. To do this, Amazon is helping create thousands of smaller companies. It’s enticing potential entrepreneurs with attractive entry deals. These companies have non-unionized drivers, and they have no fancy corporate headquarters and overhead, and they can operate for less, especially if they can use Amazon’s purchasing power for vehicles and insurance, which Amazon has set up for them to do. The first time I noticed it enough to where I chatted up a delivery driver was in early 2017. Amazon packages used to be delivered to our building in San Francisco by the US Postal Service, by UPS, or by FedEx. But then I noticed that Amazon packages were being delivered by people in regular clothes. Some of them came in unmarked vehicles. Others were marked with Amazon logos. One of them pulled up in a small white van with an Amazon logo. And he wore a vest with an Amazon logo. So, I asked him if he worked for Amazon. He said he worked for a delivery company with about 20 vans in Oakland that’s delivering for Amazon. At the time, Amazon was setting up two programs in select cities, for which it was actively recruiting gig workers and “entrepreneurs.” One program was “Amazon Flex”: Amazon billed it as a way to “make $18 to $25 per hour delivering packages with Amazon.” It was app-based and allowed gig workers to choose a block of time during a day in which to pick up and deliver packages. The pick-up location could be an Amazon facility or “a store or even a restaurant,” it said. Gig workers could use their car or bicycle or whatever. And they were contractors, paid by Amazon. The other program was dubbed Amazon Delivery Providers. “Whether you have one van or a fleet, our volume and your business could be a great match,” Amazon said at the time. They’d pick up at a local Amazon facility. They’d use Amazon’s routing technology. And off you go, making gobs of money, or so you hope, delivering packages for Amazon. The entrepreneurs, so the owners of these little delivery companies, contracted with Amazon, and received their revenues from Amazon. And they paid their own drivers – like the guy I’d chatted up. All of them were doing the work that employees of the US Postal Service, FedEx, and UPS used to do. A year later, in June 2018, Amazon announced a new program, now called, Delivery Service Partners. At the time, Amazon said that this program would help “entrepreneurs build their own companies delivering Amazon packages.” “Amazon will take an active role in helping interested entrepreneurs start, set up, and manage their own delivery business,” it said in the announcement at the time. “Successful owners can earn as much as $300,000 in annual profit operating a fleet of up to 40 delivery vehicles,” Amazon said. “Individual owners can build their business knowing they will have delivery volume from Amazon, access to the company’s sophisticated delivery technology, hands-on training, and discounts on a suite of assets and services, including vehicle leases and comprehensive insurance,” Amazon said. “Over time, Amazon will empower hundreds of new, small business owners to hire tens of thousands of delivery drivers across the US,” it said. Start-up costs would be as low as $10,000, Amazon said, given all the support from Amazon – the training, the software technologies, the operational support, the special deals and leases on Amazon-branded customized vans, special deals on branded uniforms, special deals on fuel, comprehensive insurance coverage, etc. The entrepreneurs would not have to do any marketing – Amazon would be their only customer, and Amazon would give them the volume of packages to support their business. So Amazon said, “individuals with little to no logistics experience have the opportunity to run their own delivery business.” This has apparently taken off in a massive way. Amazon announced a few days ago that its dedicated last-mile delivery network is on track to deliver 3.5 billion customer packages globally this year. Up from zero a few years ago. By comparison, UPS delivered 5.2 billion packages and documents globally last year. At the growth rate of Amazon’s delivery system, if will blow past UPS in a couple of years globally. Amazon said that in the US, its delivery system already handles the largest share of its customers’ orders, ahead of the share of each, the US Postal Service, UPS, and FedEx. It said it has 150 delivery stations across the United States that employ over 90,000 Amazon “logistics associates,” as it calls them. These are Amazon employees who make a wage of at least $15 an hour plus get some benefits, it said. They get the packages ready to be picked up by the drivers of the small logistics companies that Amazon has helped set up – namely the Amazon Delivery Service Partners. It now had over 800 of these Amazon Delivery Service Partners in the last-mile network, it said, and these companies were employing 75,000 drivers in the United States. So, 75,000 drivers at 800 companies, means that the average delivery company now has 94 drivers. And these companies didn’t even exist a few years ago. For these 800 companies and their 75,000 drivers that Amazon helped create, Amazon is everything: It controls the business volume, namely the packages to be delivered, and the revenues, via the rates it is paying. It provides special deals on leasing the delivery vans, getting insurance, and even on getting fuel. It provides the app-based technology to design the most efficient routes every day. In a situation like this, as a delivery business, where you have one giant customer that helped create your business and that controls everything, including your revenues to the last penny, how you run your business, and what services you use, there is one thing to remember: Your business thrives or dies by the grace of Amazon. And once Amazon has the system up and running to the full extent, the squeeze invariably begins. It will start in small items here and there, paying for services that used to be free, and the special deals will get less special, and the amount Amazon pays for deliveries will get squeezed – because now that it has control, Amazon will proceed with the goal: bringing down delivery costs of ecommerce. And the way to do this is by squeezing the delivery network. The merchants that use Amazon’s platform and that have built thriving businesses relying on the platform, they’ve been finding out the same principle: the squeeze is on and it’s eating into their business and profits, and if they don’t like it, they have trouble moving on. Giants like Nike, they can, and do, pull their merchandise off Amazon and use their own established websites and sales channels to continue, but mom-and-pop merchants, whose business has become dependent on the Amazon platform, they’re sitting ducks, waiting to be squeezed. This is now playing out in full force. For the little delivery companies, this is still in the future – the recognition that at Amazon it’s all about gaining control and cutting the costs of ecommerce. Without Amazon, ecommerce would still be in the stone age of ecommerce. Amazon has been pushing the envelope in every direction from day one. It has upended brick-and-mortar retail. It has upended cloud computing that ecommerce is based on. It is muscling in on online advertising. It is leading in placing its spy-devices into homes, such as its Alexa smart speaker. It is now upending the established logistics system. None of this happened overnight. Each took many years to reach critical mass. But Amazon’s last-mile delivery system has reached critical mass in just three or four years and appears to be progressing faster than any of its other initiatives. And it’s a logical expansion of Amazon’s drive to cut costs and gain control. You can listen to and subscribe to my podcast on YouTube. Enjoy reading WOLF STREET and want to support it? Using ad blockers – I totally get why – but want to support the site? You can donate. I appreciate it immensely. Click on the beer and iced-tea mug to find out how:

https://mises.org/wire/fearful-fed-keeps-pouring-money-repo-market A Fearful Fed Keeps Pouring Money into the Repo Market 01/09/2020 Ryan McMaken The Fed announced on Thursday it is adding another $83 billion in "in temporary liquidity to financial markets." And, in a development that will surprise no cynic anywhere, the Fed also noted that it "may keep adding temporary money to markets for longer than policy makers had expected in September." Specifically, this was another move to shore up and bail out the repo market, which has required the Fed's ongoing revival of quantitative easing (but don't call it that!), which has been going on since September. Thursday's move adds even more to the Fed's balance sheet. The Fed's total assets had been falling since early 2015, but last September the Federal Reserve again began buying assets in an effort to funnel money to the repo market. As Reuters reported at the time: Cash available to banks for their short-term funding needs all but dried up earlier this week, and interest rates in U.S. money markets shot up to as high as 10% for some overnight loans … That forced the Fed to make an emergency injection of more than $125 billion … its first major market intervention since the financial crisis more than a decade ago, to prevent borrowing costs from spiraling even higher. According to Caitlin Long, this tremor in the repo market was likely triggered by the fact that Somebody — probably a big bank — need[ed] cash so badly that it [was] willing to pay a shockingly high cost to obtain it. This happened in spite of the fact that repo loans are supposed to be among the loans with the lowest interest rates, because they are secured by supposedly low-risk collateral like US Treasurys. Repo loans involve a borrower temporarily trading an asset (usually government debt) in exchange for cash. Since the borrower is trading a low-risk asset, the interest paid to the lender is low as well. But, in spite of all this alleged low risk and alleged high demand for US Treasurys, repo-market lenders decided they were unwilling to make loans at the usual rock-bottom interest rates. Given the Fed's ongoing intervention, it looks like the interest rate that would prevail in the marketplace — were the Fed to stay out of it — is much higher than monetary policymakers are willing to tolerate in their pursuit of ensuring easy money. Thus, the Fed has decided to buy up more government debt itself so as to inject more money into the system and bring interest rates back down. There are at least two reasons why this could be happening — and why another flare-up in the market is likely. The first is that demand for government debt may not be as high as people think. As the Congressional Budget Office reported Wednesday, the "deficit increased 12% over last year during the first quarter of fiscal 2020, jumping $39 billion to $358 billion." This is 12 percent above 2019's already-sky-high deficit levels in a year where just the deficit topped a trillion dollars during an expansion. This was quite a fear, and illustrated just how immense current deficit spending is in historical context. That sort of deficit spending requires a lot of new government debt. And with all that new debt coming into the system, it may be that not everyone is willing to trade cash for it at quite the same rate as in the past. This adds to the stress on those who rely on easy and low-interest loans through the repo market. According to Bryan Chappatta at Bloomberg back in September: The chaos in repo markets was a long time coming given the widening U.S. budget deficits and the lenders that are financing that shortfall. … Deficits, while nothing new, add up over time. And while they declined each year from 2011 through 2015, both overall and as a percentage of gross domestic product, the gap has widened again under President Donald Trump. Put it all together, and the amount of U.S. Treasury securities outstanding has roughly tripled since the financial crisis: This growth was mostly under control in the years after the financial crisis because the Fed had been buying up large chunks of the Treasury market through its quantitative easing programs. Naturally, this helps prop up demand for government debt. Foreigners, however, have grown less enthusiastic. According to Reuters, Foreign investors sold a record amount of U.S. Treasury bonds and notes for the month of December. … December’s outflow was the largest since the U.S. government agency started recording Treasury debt transactions in January 1978. It would likely be wrong to say that foreign holders of debt are dumping US debt, or that demand looks like it's about to collapse. After all, benchmark US ten-year Treasury yields actually fell in December. Nonetheless, it appears doubtful that foreign demand can keep up with the constant waves of new debt being demanded by US lawmakers for ever more deficit spending. Chappatta continues, There are simply too many bonds (or, in the language of the repo market, “collateral”) sloshing around in the financial system and not enough cash on the other side of the trade. … Without the Fed helping to finance deficits by accumulating Treasuries, the financial system seems doomed to seize up. Someone has to take what the Treasury is offering. After a few years of the Fed easing up on asset purchases, it wouldn't be shocking if the ongoing tsunami of new debt led to a cash problem in the repo markets. In fact, a December report from the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) made a connection between a heavy load of Treasurys and a lack of dollars, especially in light of growing needs for funding at highly leveraged hedge funds: US repo markets currently rely heavily on four banks as marginal lenders. As the composition of their liquid assets became more skewed towards US Treasuries, their ability to supply funding at short notice in repo markets was diminished. At the same time, increased demand for funding from leveraged financial institutions (eg hedge funds) via Treasury repos appears to have compounded the strains of the temporary factors. It makes sense now to pursue more cash and fewer Treasurys. The BIS report also suggests these large amounts of government debt in the banks' portfolios really only made sense during the Fed's ongoing quantitative easing. But in mid-2019 — with the Fed no longer buying up assets — Treasurys were increasingly becoming a problem. A higher demand for dollars ensued, and the repo market seized up. The Hidden Risks behind Government Debt There's another problem with Treasurys. It turns out they're not as low-risk as many assume, but not in the way many think. Long writes: But US Treasuries are not risk-free. Far from it. (By this, I’m not referring to the US potentially defaulting on its debt obligations. Rather, I’m referring to the practice in the repo market that allows more people to believe they own US Treasuries than actually do. It’s called “rehypothecation.”) … For every US Treasury security outstanding, roughly three parties believe they own it. That’s right. Multiple parties report that they own the very same asset, when only one of them truly does. To wit, the IMF has estimated that the same collateral was reused 2.2 times in 2018, which means both the original owner plus 2.2 subsequent re-users believe they own the same collateral (often a US Treasury security). … This is the real reason why the repo market periodically seizes up. It’s akin to musical chairs — no one knows how many players will be without a chair until the music stops. Every player knows there aren’t enough chairs. Everyone knows someone will eventually lose. Financial regulators can’t publicly admit to this, but big banks know it’s true — and that’s why they hunker down (and stop lending) when they sense one of their kin is in trouble. Financial markets are complex things, so it's unlikely that the repo market's ongoing need for easy Fed money is due to any single cause. But as Thursday's announcement of additional cash injections from the Fed suggests, financial institutions are happy to trade in Treasurys for cash. The Fed is providing the cash, but it's unclear how many others are willing or able to do so. Author: Contact Ryan McMaken Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for Mises Wire and The Austrian, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado, and was the economist for the Colorado Division of Housing from 2009 to 2014. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

எம்மை கறிவேப்பிலையாக பாவிக்க கூடிய நிலையில் இல்லை என்பதே யதார்த்தமாக இருக்க கூடிய அதிக வாய்ப்புகள் உள்ளது. ஏனெனில், சீனாவின் நலனும், மேற்றுகின் நலனும் நிரந்தரமானவை. இப்படி சிங்களம் எதிர்பார்ப்பது போல் மேற்கு முற்றாக மனிதஉரிமை மற்றும் போர்க்குற்றங்களை முற்றாக நீக்கியா பின் சிங்களம் பெப்பே காட்டாது என்பதற்கு ஒரு உத்தரவாதமும் இல்லை. சிங்களத்தின் இனப்படுகொலைக்கு ஒத்துழைத்து, பெப்பே காட்டியது தேள் கொட்டியதாக உள்ளது. வல்லரசுகள் பொதுவாக இன்னொரு வல்லரசை காட்டி தமது நலனை பேரம் பேசுவதை ஏற்றுக்கொள்வதில்லை.

முப்படைகளின் தலைமையகம் கட்டுவதில், மகிந்த, கோத்தா, பசில் ஆகியோர், அந்த நிலத்தின் உண்மையான விலையை குறைத்து மதிப்பிட்டு, BOOK PRICE ஆக எழுதி, மிகுதியை தமக்கு கட்டுமான கம்பெனி ஊடக எடுத்து, அந்த பணத்தில் தங்காலையில், 750 மில்லியன் பெறுமதி உள்ள luxury resort ஐ வாங்கியதாக, சம்பிக்கவே முதலில் வெளியில் கொண்டு வந்தது. இதுவே இந்த கைதுக்கான உண்மையான கரணம் என்று ஊகிக்க முடிகிறது.

மேற்குலகால் தாங்கி கோலா முடியாதிருப்பது, வாங்கியதை ஆராய்ந்து அதில் இருந்து சொந்தமாக தயாரிப்பதை விட, அப்படி சுயமாக விமானந்தாங்கியை கடி முடிப்பதற்கு எடுத்த காலம், இவர்களின் எதிர்பார்ப்பை எல்லாம் உடைத்து விட்டது என்பதனால், அதாவது மிக குறுகிய காலத்திற்குள். இப்பொது டொலர் இற்கும் CHECK வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. கீழே உள்ள இணைப்பை பார்க்கவும். https://www.forbes.com/sites/tatianakoffman/2019/12/17/how-china-will-take-over-the-world/#7db996564c1f How China Will Take Over The World. Tatiana Koffman Contributor Crypto & Blockchain I write about financial and digital innovation. Sincere thank you to Chi Nnadi, Founder of Sela, for his contribution to this article, and for always pushing me to think outside the box. There is a new cold war on the horizon. But instead of oil, the space race, or nuclear weapons, this one is being fought through the penetration of currencies, specifically the US Dollar against the Renminbi, also frequently referred to as the Chinese Yuan. Adobe Stock. Since Facebook announced its new stablecoin project Libra, in June of 2019, Mark Zuckerberg has been tried in the court of public opinion. Both Congressional and House Financial Services Committee hearings have essentially made a mockery of our government and showed just how technologically outmoded many of our politicians are. But while Congressional Representative Katie Porter was commenting on Zuckerberg’s haircut and Congressman Warren Davidson was asking about “shitcoins,” China has been enjoying the spectacle from afar and making its own move. Namely, The People’s Bank of China (PBOC) is only a few months away from launching the digital version of the Chinese Yuan, making China the first country in the world to have a digital central bank currency. This historical move has been 80 years in the making, and is the ultimate checkmate in the game of economic expansion. Post-War Economics The single most transformational economic event over the last century was World War II (1939-1945). As governments overprinted and overspent money on defense, many European nations were faced with financial bankruptcy and saw their currencies significantly devalued. And when the war was finally over, their balance sheets were far too weak to rebuild infrastructure or meaningfully participate in international trade. In 1944, in an effort to stabilize the global economy, many of the world's leaders came together at a gathering in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to introduce the Gold Standard. It was decided that most of the world’s currencies would become tied to the US Dollar at a fixed exchange rate, which in turn would be backed by gold held in vaults. A new entity, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was created to police these exchange rates, while all participating countries would ship their gold to the U.S. The IMF then created the Special Drawing Right (SDR) which, rather than representing a currency per se, was designed to represent a unit of account or exchange. For example, at the time of writing, 1 SDR = 1.38 USD. Today, the SDR is based on a basket of currencies which includes the US Dollar, the Euro, Japanese Yen, the Pound Sterling, and most recently, the Chinese Yuan. After the Gold Standard was introduced, the post-war period between 1945 and 1970 was perhaps the greatest period of economic stability and prosperity of the last century. Countries were investing heavily in infrastructure and manufacturing, which provided well-paying jobs, giving rise to the middle class popularized by suburban America. It was during this time that the U.S. assumed its world dominance in the political sphere, largely due to the lingering weakness of recovering European economies and their lack of infrastructure and manufacturing capacity. In 1971, Nixon abolished the Gold Standard to continue funding war efforts in Vietnam, and the world has not been the same since. The US Dollar remained widely regarded as the global reserve currency. But beginning in 1995, many European countries started using the Euro instead, which was meant to unify the European region through trade. China started working on its own currency ascension plan to stimulate its trade and economic growth between 1994 and 2005, when it pegged the Yuan to the US Dollar. Widely regarded as an economic miracle, China embraced widespread centralized economic reforms, averaging a GDP growth of 10% annually and lifting half of its 1.3 billion people out of poverty. China is projected to surpass the United States as the world’s largest economy in the next decade. In 2016, the Chinese Yuan was the first emerging market currency to be allowed into the IMF SDR basket and by 2019 became the 8th most traded currency in the world. The New Cold War The growing might of China has put Western powers on high alert. But, the next cold war will not be fought by exerting dominance in the physical world, but rather in the digital one. Data has become more valuable than oil. Modern societies are now powered using oceans of data, with Facebook and Google at the forefront, and companies like Palantir in the background. These companies have more knowledge and power than governments have ever had, but lack the same level of responsibility to its ‘citizens’. They are our new multinational multilaterals. In the physical world, the U.S. is known for weaponizing its currency, using sanctions (12 countries today and counting) to alter global behavior. But in the digital world, it simultaneously wages war on its own tech companies with regulations, effectively and unwittingly disabling the very tools that could help it achieve lasting global dominance. One such effort is the proposed Democrat house bill “Keep Big Tech out of Finance Act.” This bill directly targets companies such as Facebook, Amazon, and Google to prevent them from creating their own ‘corpo-currencies’. A similar effort to fight U.S. big tech was undertaken in Europe with the GDPR. While our governments increasingly make attempts to regulate data, they haven’t quite figured out how to regulate money that isn’t tied to borders. Governments can forbid the usage of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, as Russia and China recently did, but since the transactions are designed to disintermediate central authority, the ban has only made its citizens more drawn to it. China’s answer was not just to ban bitcoin, but to give its people an alternative - the DCEP (Digital Currency Electronic Payment). China becoming the first country to create a central bank backed digital currency shouldn’t come as a surprise. After all, this is a country that has a wider penetration of digital payments than any other region in the world. WeChat, a popular Chinese chat and peer-to-peer payment app, has surpassed 1 billion users and accounts for 34% of total mobile traffic in China. The app appears to be popular among non-Chinese users as well, particularly in Asia and Africa. Consumers can pay for their every day expenses and make peer-to-peer payments with WeChat. As one of the 5 entities committed to using the DCEP, it is already accepted by most merchants, with paper bills rarely used. Even the homeless proudly display their QR codes in the streets. statistic_id258749_most-popular-global-mobile-messenger-apps-2019 https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-statistics/ China has already penetrated the global market by manufacturing the majority of the world’s consumer products. What happens when it creates the most efficient (and legal) payment system in the world and forces us to use it when buying its goods? And just like that, the U.S. faces a real threat of no longer being the global reserve currency. Digital Payments in Emerging Markets Enter Facebook, a company with 2.4 billion users and a reputation for misusing user data. The giant also owns a popular messaging app, WhatsApp, with 1.5 billion users. The company has proposed its own solution to unite the world - a digital stablecoin which, upon closer inspection, seems to be modelled after the SDR. Libra’s basket is said to be based on 50% USD, and the rest in Euro, Japanese Yen, Pound Sterling, and the Singapore Dollar, as well as other stable non-currency assets. Facebook has made a point of excluding the Chinese Yuan, drawing a noticeable line in the sand. Zuckerberg has acknowledged that Facebook may not have been the best candidate to bring forth a new international currency given its recent issues with privacy and the Cambridge Analytica scandal. But the necessity of such a currency still remains if we hope to slow down the Chinese global footprint. As far as the U.S. is concerned, the DCEP will be a much greater threat to the ‘western hegemony’ than a Libra coin. A western-led digital currency like Libra would have kept the majority of the planet that lives outside of China’s firewall aligned. But Zuckerberg’s team made two crucial mistakes. First, it did not fully align with the U.S. government before launch, the way WeChat no doubt is aligned with the Communist Party of China, and second, perhaps more crucially, it did not take full advantage of Libra’s impact story in emerging markets. One had to delve into the Libra white paper to discover the problem Libra was actually trying to solve - “1.7 billion adults globally remain outside of the financial system with no access to a traditional bank, even though one billion have a mobile phone and nearly half a billion have internet access.” This is a valuable statistic, but it is missing a much more important point. Many people who do have access to a traditional bank account, don’t want to use it. Workers in the developing world routinely line up at bank terminals to cash their paycheck the day it arrives, either because they do not trust their institutions or they find that their banks have predatory fees. Many rural communities are still cash-based, with ATMs located hours away. Libra would have allowed for liquidity in these communities, in a stable method of exchange, increasing the overall velocity of capital. Libra could have solved these issues and more. For example, many U.S. immigrants run businesses back in their home countries using WhatsApp. Libra would have allowed workers, suppliers, and managers to receive payments straight to their mobile phone and then spend it within their communities using the same app. Libra could have made global financing accessible for small businesses and farmers in the developing world. One area of impact is Nigeria, which has the highest concentration of arable land in Africa and remains underdeveloped because of struggles with financing. For example, a young woman needs a small loan to launch her chicken farming business to support her family. There are several government programs in place, but they cannot effectively and securely deploy the capital to reach her. She has family in the U.S. and the U.K., but they cannot efficiently send her capital. Non-profit grants exist but they also cannot effectively reach her. And so, her capital options are limited, and are likely to result in letting go of her dream towards self-reliance. Ignoring impact stories such as these was a crucial oversight by Facebook. And if we are unable to rally behind Libra, capital and liquidity issues in emerging markets will be solved through WeChat, extending the economic influence of the Chinese Yuan. Emerging markets will likely become the battleground for the next cold war. And as such, the U.S. government will need to ask itself what it fears more, a home-grown technology giant or a world led by China. Tatiana Koffman Hi there and thanks for reading! If you stumble upon my articles, you will notice that I mostly write about blockchain-focused financial innovation, with the goal to increase adoption of this new technology. I hold a JD/MBA and spent the formative years of my career in capital markets working on swaps and derivatives, before becoming disenchanted with the traditional financial system (I bet, I’m not the only one!) and moving into consumer technology. I believe it is our duty to find solutions for the growing wealth divide and to create equality of opportunity for the next generation. I’ve also been fairly outspoken about empowering women to pursue careers in the financial sector, and launched Crypto for Girls, a financial education platform for young females. You can tweet me @tatianakoffman .

இதில் kidnap என்பதே சரியாக இருப்பதற்கு அதிக இடமுண்டு . காரணம், kidnap, abduction இரண்டிற்கும் சட்டக் கருத்தும், வலுவும் வேறு வேறானவை. நடந்த சம்பவமும், தெரிந்த சூழ்நிலைகளில், தெரியாதோரால் வலோற்காரமாக கடத்தப்பட்டது என்பதால். சொறி சிங்களா வில் எப்படியோ தெரியாது.

kidnap - தெரியாதவரை வலோற்காரமாகவோ, அச்சுறுத்தியோ, ஏமாற்றியோ கடத்துவது. abduction - பொதுவாக தெரிந்த சூழ்நிலைகளில், நபரை இணங்க வைத்தோ அல்லது வலோற்காரமாகவோ, அச்சுறுத்தியோ, ஏமாற்றியோ கடத்துவது. உறவினர்கள், நண்பர்கள் மற்றும் தெரிந்த குடும்பம் அல்லது சமூக சூழ்நிலைகளில்.

கைது செய்யப்பட்டு விட்டார் என்பதே பிந்திய செய்திகள்.

திட்டம், இவரை கைது செய்து விட்டு, பின் கைதிகள் பரிமாற்றம் மற்றும் விடுவிப்பதற்கு, நிசாந்தவை நாடு கடத்தும் படி பேரம் பேசுவது.

பிரித்தானியாவை பொறுத்தவரை, இலங்கை தீவு பற்றிய கொள்கை மாறவில்லை. கட்சிகளின் விஞ்ஞாபனமும், அந்த கொள்கைகளுக்கு வளைந்து கொடுக்கும் அளவிலேயே உள்ளது. ஆங்கில இலக்கணப்படி, இரு தேசம் என்ற கான்செர்வ்டிவ் இன் விஞ்ஞாபனமும் மத்திய கிழக்கிற்கே பொருந்தும். இதை முன்பே இங்கு வேறு திரியில் சொல்லிவிட்டேன். மாறாக, கான்செர்வ்டிவ் இற்கு, இலங்கை பிரித்தனியாரிடம் இருந்த போது, இலங்கையை விட்டு பிரித்தானியர் போகும் தறுவாயில் பிரித்தானியாவில் காலூன்றிய சிங்களவர்கள் ( இவர்கள் எல்லோருமே பிரித்தானியாவின், மற்றும் ஆங்கிலேயரின் தயவில் இலங்கையின் புதிய பொருளாதாரத்தில் கடை முதலாளித்துவ மற்றும் உயர் நடுத்தர குழாமாக வந்தவர்கள்), மற்றும் அந்த சிங்களவர்களின் சந்ததிகளின் ஆதரவும், இப்போதைய சிங்களவர்களின் ஆதரவும் உண்டு. இரு தேசம் என்று விஞ்ஞாபனத்தில் வந்ததை பார்த்து, இந்த சிங்களவர்கள் எல்லோரும் விஞ்ஞாபன வசனத்தை மாற்றுவதற்கு கடும் பிரயத்தனம் செய்தார்கள். ஆயினும், கான்செர்வ்டிவ்வ் கட்சி அதற்கு இணங்காமல், அவர்களின் முயற்சியை புறம் தள்ளி விட்டது. ஆனாலும், முன்பு நான் வேறு திரியில் கூறியது போல, ஸ்ரீ லங்கா, மத்திய கிழக்கு மற்றும் சைப்ரஸ் உடன் வகைப்படுத்தப்பட்டதற்கு காரணம், இறுதி தீர்வுகள் இவற்றிற்கு ஒரே வடிவத்திலேயே இருக்கும் என்பதால் என்பது கான்செர்வ்டிவ் கட்சியில் உள்ள தீவிர செல்வாக்கும், நிலையும் உள்ளவரால் சொல்லப்பட்டது. இது ஓர் சிறு பகுதிக்கே பொருந்தும்.

ICJ, ICC அல்ல.

இவர்களுக்கு குடி உரிமை வழங்கப்பட்டாலும், இவர்களை சமூகத்தில் இருந்து பிரித்தே வைத்திருப்பதற்கு அரசு முற்ப்படும். இந்த சட்ட சிக்கல்களை தவிர்பதற்காகவே, குடி உரிமையை அரசு நிராகரித்தது. அந்நிலையில், இவர்கள் முன்னேறுவது மிகவும் கடினம். உயிருக்கு உத்தரவாதம் இருந்தால், இவர்களுக்கு மிகவும் வசதியான, வாய்ப்பான இடம், குறிப்பாக வடக்கு மற்றும் கிழக்கே, அவரவரின் சொந்த இடங்கள். ஆனால், ஐரோப்பா, கனடா இல் உள்ள தமிழர்களின் நிலை இவர்களை விட எத்தனையோ மடங்கு மேலானது, நிரந்தர குடி உரிமை இல்லாவிட்டாலும்.

எந்த un பதவியானாலும்,, இந்த செய்தியை, தனிமைப்பட்டு, ரணிலுக்கு மட்டுமே உரித்தான செய்தியாக நோக்கப்படக்கூடாது. ரணிலும், மங்கள சமரவீரவும் தமது வரலாற்றுக் கடமைகளை, சிங்கள அரசுக்கு, ஆகக் குறைந்தது 42 பெயர்களை ஆகக் குறைந்தது போர்குற்றத்தில் ஈடுபட்டவர்கள் என்பதை UNHRC பிரகடனம் செய்வதை தடுத்ததுடன், அதற்கான விசநரணையை உள்நாட்டுக்கு கொண்டவந்து விட்டதன் மூலம் ஆற்றி உள்ளனர். இந்த திட்டபப்டி, இப்பொது அந்த 42 நபர்களும், கோத்தாவின் அதிர் பதவி உடன் அரசாங்கத்திற்குள் வந்த விட்டார்கள். கோத்தாவை கைது செய்வதற்கு, எத்தனையோ சட்ட இடை வெளிகள், வாய்ப்புக்கள் இருந்தும், john kerry (us vice president) நேரடியாக ரணிலுக்கு உதவி செய்வதற்கு முனைப்புடன் இருந்தும், ரணில் அதை செய்யவில்லை. கோத்தாவும், ரணிலின் இந்த கடனை தீர்ப்பதற்கு, பாராளுமன்ரத்தை கலைத்து, அடுத்த நாள் தொடங்கவிருந்த பிணைமுறி ஊழல் பற்றிய பாராளுமன்றக் குழுவின் விசாரணையை நிறுத்தியதுடன், அந்த குழு கலைக்கப்பட்டது. இந்த பாராளுமன்ற குழு 2007 இல் இருந்து நடந்த ஊழல்களை விசாரிப்பதற்கு ஆணை கொண்டது. கோத்த, இனி 19ம் சட்டத்தை நீக்கி, ரஃஜபக்ச குடும்பம் நீண்ட கால ஆட்சியில் இருபதற்கு வலி சமைப்பார். ரணில் இந்த பதவி மூலம், சொறி சிங்களத்துக்கு un இல் என்ன நடைபெறுகிறது, மற்றும் செல்வாக்கை கட்டி எழுப்புதல் மூலம், unhrc in சொறி சிங்களத்துக்கான நிகழ்ச்சி நிரலை குறைபாடு, குலைப்பது, மற்றும் நீர்த்து போகச் செய்யும் முயற்சிக்கு உகந்த பதவி, US dollar வருமானத்துடன்.

கட்டுரையில், இப்போதைய நிலையில் இறையாண்மை எதை குறிக்கிறது என்பதை அடித்தளமான கருத்தாக கொண்டே வாதங்கள் வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. உண்மையில் , இறையாண்மை, இறை ஆணையில் இருந்து பிறந்தது. லத்தீன் இல் இருந்து நேரடி கருத்தும் divine mandate. மன்னர் ஆட்சி காலத்தில், இறையாண்மை என்பது, அதாவது இறைவனால் மட்டுமே மன்னர் ஆணையிடப்படக்கூடியவர், அந்த ஆணை மூலம் மன்னரே இறையாண்மை உள்ளவர் என்பது. இதனால் தான் இறையாண்மையை மீறி, எதுவும் இருக்க முடியாது எனும் வாதமும் காண்கிறோம் . தேச-அரசு எனும் கருப்பொருளின் தோற்றத்துடன், இறையாண்மை மக்கள் கைக்கு மாறியது .