The JP Morgan Chase 13 billion US Dollar Fine: Way Excessive Mea Culpa?

With a very punitive 13 billion US dollar fine to be paid by JP Morgan Chase for making millions of Americans loose their life savings does the punishment truly fit the crime? 

 By: Ringo Bones 

The US Government finally made JP Morgan Chase to pay a 13 billion US dollar fine after misleading millions of retail investors out of their “life savings” via mortgage back securities that eventually resulted to the 2008 global credit crunch and the September 15, 2008 “financial chaos” of the United States. Given that the action of JP Morgan Chase is clearly morally reprehensible from a corporate social responsibility standpoint, but is the 13 billion US dollar fine rather way too excessive and over the top? 

Back in 2012, JP Morgan Chase earned a profit of 20 billion US dollars and will likely to do better before the end of 2013 – which during at that time, the US government reached the decision to make JP Morgan Chase pay the 13 billion US dollar fine. And during the last quarter of 2013, JP Morgan Chase share prices where in a 10-year high so the fine may be commensurate with the financial companies earnings. And JP Morgan Chase is still currently under investigation for LIBOR Rate manipulation, global FOREX rate fixing and conducting business with firms in Mainland China that are in unfriendly terms with the United States government. But has JP Morgan Chase always conducted its business in a morally deplorable manner? 

When Hitler’s NAZI Germany started its military adventurism in the Sudetenland in order to bring back the territories that historically belonged to Germany, JP Morgan (a few decades before they merged with Chase Manhattan) continued to deal with the Third Reich that also bolstered Adolf Hitler’s ability to underwrite his military adventurism across Europe. It wasn’t until then US President Franklin D. Roosevelt forbade JP Morgan from dealing with the then NAZI Germany that the financial institution stopped dealing with the evil regime. 

Google’s Pornography Advert Ban: Not Economically Viable?

Given that pornography is already a multi-billion US dollar industry in America alone, is Google shooting themselves in the foot in implementing a pornography advert ban?

By: Ringo bones 

Ever since the then US President Ronald Reagan cracked down on America’s pornography industry during the 1980s, the move only inadvertently made it bigger and thus turning it into a multi-billion corporate colossus today that can gamely compete with the aerospace and defense industries. But with the recent decision for an online pornography advert ban, are the powers-that-be at Google shooting themselves in the corporate foot? 

If you follow closely on the goings-on at Google, you couldn’t be blamed if you conclude that Google’s recent decision to ban pornography themed online adverts are driven both politically and emotionally – rather than an economically driven move. After all, the “Meese Report” – As in that big, blue 1,960-page July 1986 Ronald Reagan Pornography Final Report that almost nobody ever reads anymore - has already shown that pornography is not at all harmful to normal level-headed individuals. Could it be that other factors are making the top-tier policymakers at Google decide to implement a pornography advert ban? 

The “alleged” murder of Google executive Forrest Hayes by a high-end prostitute named Alix Tichelman during one of their “heroin orgies” cold be a probably explanation on why Google – a company that chose to run their business in a largely “Bohemian” manner suddenly “turned Republican” almost overnight. This seems like the most plausible explanation of Google suddenly “going GOP” almost overnight. Only time will tell if the “Do No Evil” Google’s recent move could inadvertently transform it into a “Conservative Evil Empire” relatively overnight. 

Could Malaysia Airlines Go Bankrupt?

With two very high profile tragic accidents in less than six months, could Malaysia Airlines go bankrupt within 3 years?

By: Ringo Bones 

With passenger compensation that could probably total in the hundreds of millions of dollars due to two very high profile tragic accidents less than six months apart, the long-term economic viability of Malaysian Airlines seems now in doubt. With the still unexplained disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 Boeing 777 that vanished over the southern Indian Ocean last March 8, 2014 and the recent Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 Boeing 777 shootdown over the pro-Russia separatist controlled part of Ukraine back in July 18, 2014 many in the airline business wonder if Malaysia Airlines would sill be around in the next 5 years. After all, Pan Am went bankrupt and closed its doors back in 1991, three years after the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. 

According to IATA, Malaysia Airlines only has 15 Boeing 777 that it has recently acquired to its fleet of planes. And in less than 6 months two of them had been involved in very high profile tragic accidents involving the death of all hands on board and the expected compensation payouts that could reach in the hundreds of millions of US dollars. It is safe to say that the future economic viability of Malaysia Airlines is now in doubt. And the airline company’s latest tragic incident had inadvertently diverted press coverage of the 2014 Farnborough International Air Show in southern England where there are new planes on offer that promise lower fuel consumption, lower operating cost – as in more profits for airline companies. It would probably take an extraordinary revamp on how Malaysia Airlines is run could save it from permanently closing its doors in a few years time.  

Was Janet Yellen’s Appointment Into Heading the FED Happened at a Very Bad time?

Even though she was the first woman ever to head the US Federal Reserve or FED in its 100-year history is Janet Yellen’s appointment to head the FED happed at a very bad time?

By: Ringo Bones

Even though it was established back in December 13, 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act in response to the series of financial panics – particularly the severe “panic of 1907”. In its 100-year history, no women had ever assumed command in leading the FED until now. Though the announcement came back in January 6, 2014 by President Obama that Ben Bernanke will be replaced by Janet Yellen – the first woman ever to head the US Federal Reserve – in its 100-year history Although she won’t be doing her duties until sworn in on February 3, 2014 after it was earlier announced, was Janet Yellen appointed into what will be a very bad time for the FED?

Even though a majority of senators approve of the president’s appointment of Yellen because she’s an advocate of the quantitative easing that started back in 2008 that prevented the collapse of America’s major financial institutions, Yellen plans to taper back the stimulus from 85 billion US dollars a month to 75 billion US dollars a month. Sadly, this is the very measure that made her appointment to head the FED “at a very bad time”.

From 2010 to 2013, the net worth of the word’s bond borrowing market was worth 999 billion US dollars when the FED’s economic stimulus package was still in full swing. When Janet Yellen takes over the FED by February 1, 2014 and the economic stimulus tapered down, this would mean that the net worth of the world’s bond borrowing market will start to worth a little less over time. Sadly, tapering down the FED’s stimulus package by 10-billion US dollars is no financially trivial matter devoid of consequences

Emerging market policymakers are now starting to blame the FED because its economic stimulus package had made their respective economies addicted to cheap borrowing costs – i.e. low interest rates – that an abrupt tapering off would result in an economic hard landing for emerging economies around the world. And thus emerging market policymakers started blaming the US Federal Reserve for its short-sightedness that made them too dependent on cheap borrowing costs.

But International Monetary Fund managing director Christine Lagarde says that emerging markets should have “first put their houses in order” and plan for the future given that cheap borrowing costs from the FED will someday end. Because of this the FED’s tapering of their economic stimulus – however gradual – will surely have an impact on the currencies of emerging markets - primarily affecting the purchasing power of the low to middle class citizens.  

Since the FED’s economic stimulus began, established companies in the United States and the European Union had been heavily using this cheap money to invest in emerging economies and those “poorer countries” neighboring those emerging economies. And this reached its peak back during 2010 to 2013. Looks like Janet Yellen – like President Obama – had assumed her post at a really bad time indeed, despite Yellen being the first woman ever to head the FED in its 100-year history. Hopefully, Yellen has been known to “thrive in adversity” when she was still serving as the vice chair of the FED under Bernanke from 2010 to 2014.    

A Growing Mainland Chinese Middle Class: A Threat To The Global Economy?

Even though they are something for The People’s Republic of China to be proud of but is the growing Mainland Chinese middle class a threat to the global economy? 

By: Ringo Bones 

The growing Mainland Chinese middle class might be the envy of the rest of the world’s tenured economists as their taskmasters henpeck them on why their respective countries mimic the economic growth of Mainland China. But is the growing Mainland Chinese middle class eventually destabilize the global economy? 

Economist tenured by the BBC may have this all recently figured out on why a growing Mainland Chinese middle class could eventually trigger an economic contraction of their countries very own economy if not of the rest of the world. The growing Mainland Chinese middle class seems to be spending most of their disposable income on food and endangered species related products, instead of American and EU made luxury goods. The increased demand on food by the growing Mainland Chinese middle class had been inexorably hiking up food prices around the world and sadly on the loosing side are the middle class of the crude oil producing Middle Eastern states with weakening purchasing power. 

Though there’s not yet a repeat of the 2008 Egyptian bread riots, any more hikes in the price of basic foodstuffs could trigger political instability in the wider crude oil producing regions of the Middle East. Political instability in the Middle East more often than not results in higher crude oil prices thus more expensive gasoline in the retail pumps in Europe and America. And as gasoline becomes more expensive in America and the EU – the world’s two main purchasers of Mainland Chinese manufactured goods – American’s and Europeans will soon have less disposable income to spend on Mainland Chinese manufactured goods and thus causing a contraction of the Mainland Chinese economy. Based on this overall economic picture, could a growing Mainland Chinese middle class and their increased demand on the global food supply eventually cause a global economic contraction?  

Gross Domestic Product Turns 80 Today

First formulated during the American Great Depression, does the Gross Domestic Product or GDP truly is the measure of human progress? 

By: Ringo Bones 

Our global economic system today is forever thankful of famed economist Simon Kuznets for formulating the term Gross Domestic Product or GDP (almost quite but not to be confused with Gross National Product or GNP) back in January 3, 1934 - so today is the GDP's 80th Birthday or 80th Anniversary - as a mathematical quantifiable measurement of human progress of a nation-state via its economic health. Thanks to Kuznets’ monumental work in economics during his tenure at the Johns Hopkins University during the 1930s and the 1940s, his GDP has since been widely recognized as the keystone – both conceptually and statistically – of modern gross national income measurement; By the way, Simon Kuznets was born on April 30, 1901 and then won the 1971 Nobel Economics Prize (which was first established in 1968 and awarded its first Economics Prize in 1969). Luckily, Kuznets’ monumental work in economics during the 1930s that lead to the GDP had him awarded a Nobel in 1971 before he passed away in July 8, 1985 – which is fortunate since the Nobel Committee decided not to give away their Prizes posthumously around the start of the 1970s. Although there are detractors to the reliability of Kuznets’ GDP measurement as the true benchmark of human progress of a certain nation-state?

Back in 1972, the King of Bhutan adopted the concept of Gross National Happiness as the true benchmark of human progress – at least it more or less still holds true in the remote corner of his kingdom. And back in 1990, the United Nations formulated the UN Human Development Index where gender equality factors serve as the primary benchmark for human progress. Is Kuznets’ GDP in its current incarnation just too “inefficient” to be used as a true and reliable benchmark for human progress?