Wednesday 21st March 2018

Might not be possible to catch both more irony and ignorance in one photo. Note the shirt...

In 480 BC, the Persian king Xerxes demanded that the Spartans give up their weapons. King Leonidas responded with the phrase molon labe which meant “Come and take them.” This led to the Battle of Thermopylae, in which a small group of Greek warriors held off a far superior group of Persians for three days.

Similarly, in 1831, the Mexican army gave a small piece of field artillery to settlers in Gonzales, Texas, to help them fend off Indian attacks. At the onset of the Texas Revolution, the Mexican army asked for the cannon back. In response, the settlers raised a homemade flag with an image of the weapon and the words “Come and Take It” emblazoned across it.

The twin phrases “molon labe” and “Come and Take It” have become synonymous with the promotion of the Second Amendment and other fundamental liberties. They are antithetical to the idea of unilateral disarmament.

Today, snowflakes across the country walked out of class to protest “gun violence” and demand new confiscatory gun laws. The poorly informed young woman in the photo was part of today’s Tide Pod Walkout. Note the slogan (and date) on her shirt, and the protest sign in her hands.

Seriously--this is the most ironic photo I’ve seen in a long time.

I saw a great video on Facebook of a youngster failing several times then succeeding at a box jump. It prompted me to think:

In order to succeed, one has to intend to succeed.
One has to be prepared to try and fail, perhaps often.
Trying build muscular strength.
If you let it, failure builds character.
With intention, strength and a strong character, much is possible.
Perhaps anything is.

Very interesting perspective!

The above is a well researched article. Below is a comment explaining the vital necessity for a population to be able to protect itself from a tyrannical government.

Wrong target! Read this: “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined” (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -- (Thomas Jefferson)

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” (George Washington)

“Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.” (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697])

“You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you....There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”)

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.” [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

Tom’s comment: Good people with guns are required to stop people with guns doing bad things. Read the news. They often do.

The government want a monopoly on force.

America’s Founding Fathers knew first hand that there can be a tyrannical government, which is why they envisaged an armed population able to stop ALL people with guns, even the government, doing bad things.

You cannot stop a tyrannical government, armed with sophisticated weapons, if all you have is a pea shooter. Not datums of comparable magnitude.

Tyrannical goivernments want a disarmed populace.

Look at your history. Over 100 million people killed last century BY GOVERNMENTS! Most of them first disarmed their population. Even Russian President Putin decried the call for Americans to disarm their population.

Are you ready to sell your business?

This is a potentially useful article from my accountant, Tony Cammarata at Prudential Partners.

Would you pay top dollar for a car that doesn’t have registration papers, a service history, keys, an ignition that works or a motor that runs smoothly? We doubt it.

On the flip side, you’d likely pay extra for a car if the owner went to the trouble of cleaning it out and polishing its paintwork on the day of sale.

It’s no different for businesses. Why would anyone pay top dollar for a business that has not been serviced or tidied up before being put on the market?

Before putting your business on the market, you need to put your thinking cap on. If you were a potential purchaser, what would you criticise about your business?

Now you need to do as much as you can to resolve those issues. If you don’t resolve them, don’t be surprised if they come up in negotiations as the basis for a purchaser offering a lower price.

Here’s where we can help! We have a ’shopping list’ of common mistakes that business owners make when selling a business. This article shares our insights with you so that you don’t fall into the usual traps.

1. Corporate records are incomplete

Having poorly maintained or incomplete corporate/entity records is a classic way to put off purchasers (or their advisors).

We’re talking about things like member’s registers, director/member resolutions and share transfers. Sometimes they are missing, maybe they were never signed. This can make purchasers uneasy, and it demonstrates bad business ’housekeeping’. It leaves purchasers wondering what else hasn’t been properly documented.

If you operate your business through a trust structure, then pay attention. Incomplete records are a common problem for businesses that involve trusts (especially unit trusts). A trust may hold some of the business assets or be the main operating entity. There is no central register for trusts like the ASIC register for companies, so trusts are only as good as their internal records. If the records are out of date or incomplete, the details of the current trustee or the recorded unit holdings may be altogether wrong.

We suggest that you undertake an audit of the corporate/ entity records for your business early. Certainly before putting your business up for sale. This will give you time to locate and collate documents that already exist and to reconstruct missing documents as appropriate.

2. Missing (or badly drafted) employment contracts

For most businesses, their team represents a great deal of the value. Often a purchaser wouldn’t consider taking on a business without the staff that know how to run it. Yet we see so many vendors –probably more than half – try to sell a business without having any employment contracts in place.

Even when there are contracts, they are often outdated, inadequate or just plain unlawful. There is no faster way to scare off a purchaser than having them think they are inheriting claims for unpaid employment entitlements or underpayment.

We recommend having your employment contracts (or at least those for your key staff) reviewed before putting the business up for sale. Any issues can be fixed up before potential purchasers are on the scene. Post-employment restraint and non-compete provisions could be included where appropriate to give the purchaser more comfort – and get you more money.

3. The lease expired (or worse, no lease)

If you value the location of your business, it is likely purchasers will, too. If your lease isn’t in good shape with plenty of time left on the clock, you likely won’t get top-dollar for your business.

The first thing to do is to make sure you actually have a lease in place. If you have a good relationship with your landlord or have been in the same premises for a long time, you may find that your last lease expired years ago. It’s a common oversight. Generally, the time to negotiate a new lease is before the landlord catches wind that you are thinking about selling, as they may not offer such favourable terms to someone else (i.e. your purchaser).

If you don’t have a lease, now is the time to insist on one. You might have been willing to rely on a handshake, but your purchaser won’t be. Ideally, the lease should be for a relatively short initial term (i.e. 2-3 years), with a few rights to renew for a similar period. This will give your purchaser the most flexibility. And more flexibility for your purchaser means more money for you!

4. Intellectual property ownership

You can’t expect a purchaser to pay big bucks for your business/product name or logo if you don’t own the registered rights to it. You need to make sure all your intellectual property ducks are in a row. This is where registered trademarks come in.

Registering your name or logo as a trademark with IP Australia ensures that you have undisputed ownership rights to that branding. The certainty of ownership equals value to a potential purchaser. And really all you are doing is making the most of what you have already got – you’ve already put the hard work in by developing and promoting the branding.

We’ve seen some awkward situations where the purchaser uncovers that the seller hasn’t actually owned the intellectual property rights it was trying to sell! Either the IP is owned by the individual personally or by a related entity that was not intended to form part of the sale. This can cause all sorts of headaches – and it is worse the closer to the settlement that the ownership issue is identified. We recommend that the entity structure (including relevant asset ownership) be mapped from the outset, preferably via an easy-to-read diagram. Bonus: you can provide the diagram to your purchaser and their advisors during the due diligence period as an easy way to explain your structure.

Think of this process as a ’tune-up’ for your business. Yes, it will take some planning and effort, but it will pay off by attracting more purchasers that can see immediate value. And that feeds directly into your ultimate goals: Getting the highest purchase price possible and taking a well-earned break!

In a new study published in the peer reviewed Public Library of Science (PLOS), researchers emphasize that there is sufficient evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments carry complete genes that can enter into the human circulation system through an unknown mechanism. (0) I wonder if the scientists at these biotech corporations have already identified this method?

The terms of reference that Malcolm Turnbull gave to the Banking Royal Commission only allow it to examine specific failings of regulators in relation to banking misconduct. It is not allowed to examine “macro-prudential policy”, which is the regulatory structure of the financial system, and the policies of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), the bank regulator. Issued with the approval of the banks and regulators, Turnbull’s terms of reference are clearly intended to hobble the Royal Commission and protect the banks. Here are the top reasons why Australians should demand that the Royal Commission be allowed to investigate APRA and the regulatory structure of the banking system.

1. APRA is the supervisor of the banks, and their atrocious abuses occurred under its supervision. Numerous experts and bank victims who have interacted with APRA accuse it of protecting the banks, not policing them.

2. APRA is a major cause of the rampant mortgage control fraud which the Royal Commission is investigating. APRA manipulated its prudential standards—the rules banks must follow—to make mortgages far more profitable than other lending. This encouraged the banks to lure as many people as possible into mortgages, not just to buy homes to live in, but also to buy multiple investment properties and to invest in the stock market. Many of the borrowers couldn’t afford these loans, so banks forged documents to overstate their incomes and understate their living expenses to justify the loans anyway. The Royal Commission is investigating this fraud, but the investigation is incomplete unless APRA’s role is also examined.

3. APRA looked the other way as banks lowered lending standards and committed fraud. In 2007 APRA chairman John Laker suppressed an internal report which showed that lowered lending standards, approved by APRA a few years earlier, had resulted in a bubble of more than three times the amount of lending for mortgages than would have been the case under the previous, higher standards. The report warned the delinquency rate could rise to 7.5 per cent, and trigger a housing market crash that would plunge Australia into recession. Instead of acting on the report, APRA buried it, encouraged even more reckless mortgage lending that further expanded the housing bubble, and ignored the mounting evidence of mortgage control fraud. The suppressed internal APRA report was only revealed nine years later in January 2016, by ABC reporter Stephen Long. Current APRA chairman Wayne Byres said in 1 March 2018 testimony to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee that APRA hasn’t really examined mortgage fraud, and has found no evidence of illegal activity by banks.

4. APRA supervised the Commonwealth Bank as it committed numerous abuses and crimes, and is now attempting to cover up those crimes. The three-person panel APRA appointed last year to inquire into CBA’s “culture”, following allegations of large-scale drug- and terrorism-related money laundering, is headed up by long-time APRA chairman John Laker, on whose watch in 2003-14 CBA got away with a litany of crimes and abuses—i.e. Laker is effectively investigating himself. Current APRA chairman Wayne Byres admitted to a parliamentary committee hearing on 13 September 2017 that the purpose of APRA’s inquiry was to help CBA restore community trust and its badly damaged “reputation”, with no mention of holding CBA to account.

5. APRA abuses its extreme secrecy restrictions to suppress important information about its policies, and the banking system. APRA’s secrecy restrictions are only intended to protect the private account information of bank customers, but APRA has weaponised these restrictions to keep its employees ignorant about its activities outside of their own departments, and to keep information from the public, such as the 2007 report on the consequences of lowered lending standards, cited above.

6. While formally an Australian government authority, APRA actually operates as an agency for the supranational financial regulation apparatus centred in the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) headquartered in Basel, Switzerland. Known as the “central bank of central banks”, the BIS enforces a neoliberal ideology of financial self-regulation that constrains governments more than banks, and enabled the banks to rush headlong into the extreme financial speculation and derivatives gambling that snowballed into the global financial crisis in 2008. Current APRA chairman Wayne Byres was the chair of the Secretariat of the BIS’s Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in 2012 when it issued its “Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision”, which demanded that there must be “no government or industry interference that compromises the operational independence of the supervisor”, i.e. supervisors like APRA must be a law unto themselves.

7. APRA is covering up its “bail-in” agenda, which is to use the savings of Australians to prop up banks that fail as a result of the reckless financial gambling that APRA allows them to engage in. In his 1 March Senate Estimates testimony, Wayne Byres denied APRA has bail-in powers, yet APRA lobbied for the recent Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Act 2018, which allows it to forcibly convert or write off bank hybrid securities, in which Australian mums and dads have invested $43 billion of savings, or “any other instruments”, which is wording that is deliberately broad so as not to exclude bank deposits. This law is drawn from the BIS-based Financial Stability Board’s “Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes”, which includes “bail-in” of “unsecured, uninsured creditors”, meaning depositors. Australian authorities started planning for bail-in powers as early as the 2010-11 financial year, when Treasury paid for legal advice on bail-in powers. In September 2012 Treasury issued a discussion paper on measures for “Strengthening APRA’s Crisis Management Powers”, which included bail-in; in November 2012 the IMF noted that Australia is “exploring bail-in options”; and in April 2013 the FSB reported that “bail-in … legislation is in train in some jurisdictions … including Australia”—the crisis resolution powers law passed in February is the bail-in legislation to which the FSB referred.

What you can do:

Meet, phone or email your federal MP and Senators to demand they force the Turnbull government to expand the terms of reference for the Royal Commission, so it can properly investigate APRA’s policies and the structure of banking, which have enabled the banks to exploit their customers and to get away with it.

Email the Royal Commission on FSRCenquiries@royalcommission.gov.au to ask Commissioner Kenneth Hayne to expand his investigation to include the structure of banking (vertical integration) and the prudential policies of APRA.

Until next time,
dream big dreams,
plan out how to achieve them,
be continually executing your plans,
enlist people to your causes,
travel and/or read widely, preferably both,
all the while observing what you observe
rather than thinking what you are told to think,
think well of your fellow man,
take time to help your fellow man,
he sorely needs it and it will help you too,
eat food that is good for your body,
exercise your body,
take time to destress,
and do the important things
that make a difference -
they are rarely the urgent ones!

Most of the content herein has been copied from someone else. Especially the images. My goodness some people are talented at creating aesthetics! The small bits that are of my creation are Copyright 2014-2018 © by Tom Grimshaw - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Back Issues | Feedback | Subscribe | Unsubscribe

Software Development
Festival Management Software
Healthy Snacks
How to Live The Healthiest Life