The dangers posed by hackers are much too dangerous and merit much more serious responses than expelling diplomats

Sir, when you consider the potentially so much more dangerous threats hackers can pose than hacking some Democratic National Committee files, like for instance hitting nuclear energy facilities, how can you argue “expelling 35 Russian “spies”, closing two properties and imposing sanctions on Russian agencies” represents a smart and “A sharp US riposte to Moscow’s cyber breach” December 31.

Why does this type of hacking get so much front road attention? Could it be because I fact it has little to do with hacking and more with other issues?

Daily I get about 30 emails from all over the US political spectrum asking for contributions. Since I am not a US citizen, I have ignored them all. But perhaps the possibilities that behind any of these solicitations could be a Russian hacker might be even a stronger reason for me to not contribute to anyone. 

I trust, or at least I pray, that beneath the surface of this public discourse, much more important measures are taken to defend us from malevolent hackers, here, there and everywhere.

@PerKurowski

Do Gillian Tett and other really believe that ever-growing offshore cash piles, is cash stashed away under mattresses?

Sir, Gillian Tett writes: “overseas profit piles have swelled — to more than $2tn”; and from there she jumps to: “in the real world introducing a repatriation deal — even at a mere 10 per cent — would almost certainly be better than the dismal status quo: a world of ever-growing offshore cash piles, transatlantic tax battles and lousy infrastructure does not suit anybody.” “The clampdown on tax inversions is only a start” April 8.

But Vanessa Houlder informs: “Over $1tn of cash has been booked offshore, even if the money is held in US banks or Treasury bonds.” “Tax havens seen as ‘grease on wheels’ of cross-border trade” April 8.

All those “overseas profit piles” have, in some way or another, already been deployed and so, to redeploy these, means having to liquidate their current positions.

What if the “more than $2tn” had all been invested in public debt and you repatriated all of it and the government got a 10 percent cut on it?

Then of course governments would owe ‘more than $200bn’ less, but if they for instance wanted to better any “lousy infrastructure”, then they would have to sell fresh public debt in the market. And, since the stockpile-holders have been diminished, that would most certainly imply having to pay higher interest rates. That is of course, unless governments are not assisted by banks holding it against zero capital requirements, or central banks buying up public debt for the governments own “stockpiles of cash”.

It is amazing the kind of demagoguery that is floating around. It is dangerously divisive. At the end of the day what it really comes down to, is who is going to decide on how any accumulated wealth is to be redeployed, whether the private or some government bureaucrats.

I truly believe that current governments waste, represents much more lost value than what is inappropriately or illegally diverted into these oh-so-horrible “stockpiles of cash”. And so I would like to see the expected repatriation profiteers kept at bay. Perhaps all citizens in some Universal Basic Income/Wealth scheme could share the governments’ cut of any repatriated assets?

And by the way, what are we to do with Putin’s “stockpiles of cash”, those that might be fully invested in the US? Send it back to Russia to Mr Putin?

Do these comments mean that I condone what distorts or what is illegal? Of course not! All tax systems should be improved and all taxes should be paid! There are occasions though in which I find it quite relevant to ask: How much failed nation or tyrannical government is needed for citizens’ capital to be granted immediate asylum?

Unbelievable that with so much history, Europe, instead of with a “Bang!”, could be going down with a whimper.

Sir, Robert D Kaplan, in “America is growing impatient with Europe’s appeasement”, April 7, states as a matter of fact “Gutsy is not a word one would use to describe Europe’s political class”. Sadly, very sadly, it is very hard to debate that.

And right below, giving credence to such an affirmation, we find Martin Wolf writing in “China will struggle to keep its momentum”, that “The world must pray the Chinese authorities manage this transition successfully. The alternative is not to be contemplated”; which basically reads like an anxious European convinced that his future is all-dependent on China’s.

Really, if Europe thinks it will be better off accommodating to Putin’s Russia; or if it thinks that its economy will be better off depending on China’s; (or if it feels that its bankers should earn their returns on equity solely with what is perceived as safe), then sadly it would seem that Europe is lost before the fight has even begun.

But hidden, somewhere in its gutters, there must be a reserve of European elites who can understand that it is time to stand firm… since it seems unbelievable that with so much history Europe, more than going out with a Bang! could be going down with a whimper.

Aren’t there any Bravehearts or Churchills in Europe anymore?

And, having observed the growing nanny mentality in America, its elite should be careful too. When drones are viewed as more convenient than boots on the ground, many strange things can happen.

@PerKurowski

More than about the euro, Europeans needs to worry about their own future.

Sir, on the eve of the euro I published an OpEd in which I expressed doubts about its long term viability quite similar to those expressed by Gideon Rachman in “A Greek deal cannot fix the euro’s flaws”, February 24.

The title of my OpEd was though “Burning the bridges in Europe” by which I implied that once launched, the euro was not that easy to roll back, especially since there was not a word about how to proceed in such a case.

Of course, as Rachman argues, there are big differences between the north and the south Europe, but let us also be aware there are a lot of similarities too.

For instance, all small business and entrepreneurs, on account of incredibly being perceived by regulators as risky for the banks’ stability, are being just as discriminated from having fair access in Germany than they are in Greece.

And in that respect, more than worried about the euro, I believe Europeans should be worried about their own tomorrow, and this not only because of Putin.

With banks instructed to stay away from financing the future because that is deemed riskier than refinancing the past, no one has a future, whether he is German or Greek.

“Capitalism for hyenas” might be a more accurate description than “capitalism for friends”

Sir, I refer to Chrystia Freeland’s “Puttin’s populist bluster belies the loneliness of the cynic” December 29.

If for instance Andres Schipani would like to write an up to date report on Venezuela and Maduro, he would have to change almost nothing except for some names and regional references… especially now when even Cuba, as was to be expected, has also turned out to be a fair-weather ally.

But, when referring to the crony capitalists that flock around the leaders, I would perhaps disagree with the term “capitalism for friends”. In Venezuela at least, it is really not friends who are sharing those oil revenues which now represent 97 percent of all this nation's exports… it is much more something like “capitalism for hyenas”

Martin Wolf, a neighbor, Russia, can become dangerous by Europe’s and US’ own weakening.

Sir, Martin Wolf is absolutely right when he writes “For Europe and, I believe, the US, there is no greater foreign policy question than how to deal with today’s Russia”, “Russia is our most dangerous neighbor” September 17.

But that said let us not never ignore the dangers with a neighbor becoming more dangerous, only because ones’ own country is becoming weaker. And in this respect something is happening both in Europe and in the US. 

Only as an example I cannot shake off the impression it made on me seeing the image of Britain’s David Cameron, Germany’s Angela Merkel, Holland’s Mark Rutte and Sweden’s Fredrik Reinfeldt, in a row boat, in a little lake, probably surrounded by thousands of life guards… wearing life vests… exactly where, perhaps in the same boat, 50 years earlier, we had seen Tage Erlander of Sweden and Nikita Khrushchev, rowing… without life vests.

What I said to those around me was “Never ever would Winston Churchill (or Putin) have allowed to be photographed in a little row boat, on a small lake, close to the shore, wearing a life vest!”

And with respect to the US, I just heard on the radio of a soccer team being sued because one of the players hurt his head while playing… come on... in the "home of the brave"?

And of course I do not refer here to any silly bare-chested testosterone showing-off, like Putin often does… but, of course, I do refer here to that de-testosteroning of our banks, which risk adverse regulators are causing with their credit-risk-weighted capital requirements.

PS. By the way, in order not to become dangerously cocky, we should never forget that one of the reasons for the fall of Russia was the low oil price at that time.

Believing too much in “the power of peace” can be hazardous to the health of your nation.

Sir, I refer to Simon Kuper’s “The surprising power of peace”, March 29.

It is always better to be skeptical and pleasantly surprised by “the power of peace” than naïve and unpleasantly surprised by its weakness. Most Venezuelans, including most of those who strongly protested the previous ways of Venezuela, and thereby perhaps unwittingly helped to open the way for Hugo Chavez, stand today in utter disbelief watching how everything has degenerated. I cannot but reflect on how much better off we could have been if we had believed much much less in “the power of peace”.

And I say this also in reference to George Osborne and Wolfgang Schäuble now recommending a “balanced and proportionate” response to Russia. That sounds a bit like believing too much in “the power of peace”.

On responding to Russia and on Europe’s decline, Churchill and von Bismarck might have differed from Osborne and Schäuble.

Sir George Osborne and Wolfgang Schäuble write about responding to Russia in a “balanced and proportionate way”, “The eurozone cannot dictate Europe´s rules alone” March 28. Is that really enough? Might it not be so that history shows that Europe must respond to Russia in an unbalanced and disproportionate way?

And these two European gentlemen also write that “No one should assume that European decline is inevitable”. No… but it can happen! As long as regulators, with their risk weighted capital requirements allow banks to earn higher risk-adjusted returns on equity when lending to what is perceived as “safe” than when lending to what is perceived as “risky”, its decline is inevitable. In order to have a future Europe must risk continuing opening those risky doors behind which its luck might be hiding.

Sir, do you believe Winston Churchill and Otto von Bismarck would have cosigned George Osborne´ and Wolfgang Schäuble´s article?

“Inalienable sovereign rights” is most often just a wonderful exploitable excuse to screw your own citizens

Sir, François Heisbourg writes “It is clear… that the new great powers, including a reinvigorated Russia are deeply averse to interference in what they see as inalienable sovereign rights – an attitude explained in many instances by their former colonial or dependent status”, “The west is accelerating its own strategic decline”, September 5.

I think there is a need for a clarification. 99 percent, at least, of the demand for the respect of inalienable sovereign rights, comes from those wanting to use that as a shelter in order to violate what should be the even much more inalienable human and economic and democratic rights of their citizens.

To oversell the importance of “inalienable sovereign rights” is only to play into the hands of dictatorships, even those who dressed up as popular democracies, are quite often, de facto, nothing but dictatorships.

Gazprom in a public-private partnership?

Sir, in your “Putin’s piste”, July 7, you sort of allude that there might be a public-private partnership between Russia and Gazprom. Nonsense. That is just a public-public partnership that uses private sector flexibility to avoid the constraints that reason imposes on public spending. If Gazprom is anywhere like the Venezuelan PDVSA that I know, then whatever it does beyond their basic oil and gas exploration, production and refining business, is just a way to non-transparently lose or distribute some of their oil and gas profits previuosly made.