BEIJING (AFP) -  China has appointed a top official of the ruling party's propaganda department as president of the Xinhua news agency, the key mouthpiece of the Communist state.

The appointment of Cai Mingzhao, a vice director of the propaganda department, is the latest of several replacements in the party's key information and media agencies over the past year.

Cai, 59, replaced Li Congjun, who turned 65 in October and reached the age limit for ministerial-level posts, the agency said in a statement on Wednesday.  Cai is "politically sober and firm, keeps an appropriate grasp in guiding public opinion and conscientiously aligns himself with the party's central committee", the statement quoted Pan Ligang, a deputy head of the party's Organisation Department, as saying.  Cai was previously head of the information office of the State Council, China's cabinet.  He worked for Xinhua for 23 years from 1978, reports said, first as a journalist and later promoted to managerial level. On Sunday, Luo Shugang, a vice director of the Propaganda Department, took over from Cai Wu as culture minister.

In April, Yang Zhenwu was appointed the new president of the People's Daily, the party's flagship newspaper.   Xinhua was founded in 1931 and started using its current name in 1937. It is headquartered in Beijing and has more than 180 outlets overseas, according to the agency's website.

The agency has a virtual monopoly on the distribution of information for the Chinese domestic market.

Global consumption of crude oil grew from around 83.2 million barrels a day to 90.4 million in the 10-years from 2004 to 2013, according to the EIA. With the exceptions of 2008 and 2009, when the global financial crisis stifled economic growth in much of the world, oil consumption has been rising, but about 65% of the increase is from the developing economies of China and India. China consumed about 6.44 million barrels a day in 2004 and 10.12 million barrels a day in 2013, while India added about a million barrels a day of consumption in the same period.

About 80% of world oil consumption is attributable to transportation by road, rail, sea and air. As a transportation fuel, products derived from oil are difficult to replace due to their high energy content, their transportability and their relative safety.

As a fuel for generating electricity, oil’s role has largely been relegated to one of meeting peak demand for short periods, but there are some exceptions. Saudi Arabia, for instance, currently generates 100% its electricity by burning oil or natural gas. Japan, following its nuclear disaster in 2011, is another temporary exception.

Among many developed countries, oil consumption is falling, due in part to slow economic growth that tamps down demand for crude. Another contributor to slowing demand is more fuel-efficient motor vehicles. As for future demand projections, it is too early to know how much of the decline in consumption is due to structural changes like more fuel-efficient vehicles and how much to a weak global economy. The answer to those questions will indicate both the direction and the strength of crude oil demand in the years to come.

Now that the Bank of England has openly admitted that Commercial Banks create money out of thin air when they make loans - they lend money that they don't have - I thought it would be worth pointing out clearly what this means in the case of soveriegn debt. You have probably heard the story that Commercial Banks are supposed to have a certain amount of capital to back up their loans. You often hear that Banks can only generate about 10 times as much in loans as they have deposits....Well, this is quite clearly wrong.  Take a look at the 192 page document published by the Bank for International Settlements on "Minimum Capital Requirements".  Starting on page 19  you can find the details of how credit risk is calculated. First we learn that there are two different systems in use. "The Committee permits banks a choice between two broad methodologies for calculating their capital requirements for credit risk. One alternative, the Standardized   Approach, will be to measure credit risk in a standardised manner, supported by external credit assessments. The other alternative, the Internal Ratings-based Approach, which is subject to the explicit approval of the bank’s supervisor, would allow banks to use their internal rating  systems for credit risk." Then we get to hear how how the standardised approach works. Here's a table showing how the risk weighting works for lending to governments.

Yes, you have read that correctly. When a Government has a rating between AAA and AA-, the risk weighting is 0%. Here is a map of Standard & Poors credit ratings for European Countries (you can find similar graphs for Fitch's and Moody's.

So, if you are in countries like the UK, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, commercial banks can create unlimited amounts of "money" to make their loans - WITH NO CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS AT ALL.
And then, those Banks can sit back and collect the interest on that loan made with non existent money. Those interest payments have cost a fortune - as you can see in the table I compiled last year.
Even when the Banks create money to lend to countries that are rock-solid like Germany, they still get to rake in a fortune in interest. German taxpayers have handed over €1,174 billion since 1995. Italian taxpayers have handed over €1,433 billion. French taxpayers have handed over €835 billion. And so on.  Isn't this the most incredible racket you have ever heard of? By comparison, Mafia mobsters going round local shops and demanding money for "protection" is nothing.
Here we have the Banks lending unlimited amounts of inexistant money to governments with ZERO risk, and "earning" interest. And of course, if any government was to complain, they would soon pay for it by discovering that all of a sudden, their interest payments went up from a couple of percent, to 27% (like it did for Greece in 2012). As I say, the Mafia are small fry compared with this.
This has to stop. It cannot be justified.

Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras (bottom right) and other opposition MPs applauded the result of the vote

Shortly after the vote, Mr Samaras announced that elections would take place on 25 January.

"The country has no time to waste," he said in a televised address.

Mr Dimas, a former European commissioner, secured the votes of only 168 MPs, the same number he had won during the second vote last week.

The government failed to attract the support of two smaller parties, Independent Greeks and Democratic Left, which it needed to win the vote.

The defeat is regarded as a major setback for the prime minister, as well as for eurozone countries that worked hard to bring Greece back from the brink in 2010.

Since then €240bn (£188bn; $290bn) has been spent helping Greece pay off its debts. In return for two major bailouts, the EU and IMF demanded stringent austerity measures.

Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras praised the vote as a "historic day for Greek democracy" and Independent Greeks leader Panos Kammenos said the era in which Mr Samaras and his coalition partners had "surrendered" Greece's sovereignty was now over.

A party colleague of Mr Samaras, Dora Bakoyiannis, bitterly accused Syriza of forcing the vote at the worst possible moment for the Greek economy.

Motivele Curtii de la Luxemburg pentru respingerea aderarii UE la CEDO tin de o serie intreaga de aspecte, printre care: La CEDO adera doar state, iar Uniunea Europeana "nu poate fi considerata ca fiind un stat".  "Aceasta aderare trebuie sa tina seama de caracteristicile particulare ale Uniunii, ceea ce este tocmai ceea ce impun conditiile pe care tratatele insele le-au prevazut in vederea aderarii".

 

• Aderarea este susceptibil sa aduca atingere caracteristicilor specifice si autonomiei dreptului Uniunii si nu previne riscul de a aduce atingere principiului increderii reciproce intre statele membre in dreptul Uniunii.
• Aderarea este susceptibila sa aduca atingere articolului 344 din Tratatul prifind Functionarea UE, deoarece nu exclude posibilitatea ca litigiile dintre statele membre sau dintre acestea si Uniune referitoare la aplicarea CEDO in domeniul de aplicare material al dreptului Uniunii sa fie deduse judecatii Curtii Europene a Drepturilor Omului.
• Acordul de aderare nu prevede modalitati de functionare a mecanismului coparatului si a procedurii implicarii prealabile a Curtii care sa permita conservarea caracteristicilor specifice ale Uniunii si ale dreptului sau.
• Acordul de aderare a UE la CEDO nu tine seama de caracteristicile specifice ale dreptului Uniunii in ceea ce priveste controlul jurisdictional al actelor, actiunilor sau omisiunilor in materie de Politica Externa si Securitate  Comuna (PESC), deoarece incredinteaza controlul jurisdictional al unora dintre aceste acte, actiuni sau omisiuni exclusiv unui organ extern Uniunii.
• CJUE subliniaza ca, in masura in care conventia CEDO confera partilor contractante posibilitatea de a prevedea standarde de protectie mai ridicate decat cele garantate de conventie, trebuie sa se asigure o coordonare intre CEDO si Carta drepturilor fndamentale a UE. Astfel, atunci cand drepturile recunoscute de carta UE corespund unor drepturi garantate de CEDO, "posibilitatea conferita de CEDO statelor membre trebuie sa ramana limitata la ceea ce este necesar pentru a evita compromiterea nivelului de protectie prevazut de carta, precum si suprematia, unitatea si caracterul efectiv al dreptului Uniunii". Curtea de Justitei a UE constata, insa, ca in proiectul acorduluid e a derare a UE la CEDO nu s-a prevazut nicio dispozitie pentru a asigura coordonarea intre Carta UE si conventia CEDO.

They always say that the Saudis are trying to end US fracking, which requires $70/barrel on average to be sustainable, but I'd say they are also trying to deal a severe blow to Russian oil, which requires about $45/barrel to be sustainable. Saudi Arabian oil only requires $25/barrel to be sustainable. It may not be to hurt Putin directly but rather to exploit the fact that Russian oil companies can't get financing (due to sanctions) to pay off loans, fund new operations, and expand. Saudi's 2 biggest competitors are USA and Russia, so this strikes 2 birds with 1 stone. At least the USA will also substantially benefit from cheap oil (the vast majority of its economy will benefit). For Russia, Venezuela, and others this could cause severe macroeconomic problems as oil sales make up a huge part of their economies....In 2012 a Citigroup report warned that Saudi would run out of oil to export by 2030. The Saudis use a lot of their oil to produce electricity, and demand is growing. Saudi Arabia is supposedly accepting lower prices to maintain its market share. Why sell oil at $20 a barrel when it is a finite resource? Rationing supply to keep prices as high as possible would seem to deliver more value, which has always been the Saudi strategy. It would appear that OPEC's ability to fix prices is a thing of the past. They may be hurting rival producers like Iran, Russia and the US. They are also killing themselves....While this is obviously welcome as a consumer, I can't help think that this is all going to end badly, for guess who, yes you and I. With the dollar in a precarious decline and inevitably coming towards the end of its life a s the global reserve currency, with the absolutely dire condition of the US/European economies, it's going to come crashing down again... even call me Dave said so about a month ago (The "warning lights on the dashboard of the global economy" speech), possibly the only accurate thing he's said for a couple of years. Make hay, don't keep cash in banks, choose your preferred commodity and hold your nose as we head over the edge (once again) some time soon.

Source - The Telegraph.uk...

Victor Spirescu, the first Romanian to arrive in London when border controls were eased a year ago, says life in the capital is difficult and he would not encourage his friends to join him.

“I don’t tell them to come here. It is very hard,” the 30-year-old said. “It is hard work to grow in this country, to save money. It is only if you have some luck.”  But Mr Spirescu, who became a minor celebrity when he was greeted at the airport in January 2014 by journalists, photographers and even MP Keith Vaz, is adamant he did not come to Britain for benefits. He does not think others would either.  “I came here to work. I came here to make money. Not for benefits,” he said.

Around 47,000 Romanians and Bulgarians came to the UK last year after restrictions on migrant workers were lifted on Jan 1, according to the latest statistics. But the numbers were not the feared spike in arrivals: the figure was similar to the numbers who came in 2013 and 2012. Mr Spirescu thinks the panic was unfair, and hit out in particular at Ukip leader Nigel Farage, who he met in his first month here.   “He has a problem with immigrants – but he has an immigrant wife,” he said. “He speaks lots of stupid things. I think maybe he smokes too much…” he said.

After starting by washing cars for £30 a day, Mr Spirescu now earns £250 a day in a construction job in east London.  His parents are looking after the money he sends back to Romania. He split up with his girlfriend, Catalina, when she joined him in London but left soon after, finding the city too intense.  His parents don’t need the money for themselves, he said: “I don’t tell my mum the PIN.”

Instead, he is saving up to return to his village in Romania in the next couple of years and live a “beautiful life”.  He said: “I want to try to make a small construction company. If not, I go back and live like a king. It is a lot of money in Romania. I want to go back and live in my village. I have a house there.”   He said he never wanted to stay in London forever.

“It is a busy town. This is the problem,” he said.