My point is rather this.

Everything is possible. Many things are probable. And only some things actually are.

Yes, we may mark this connection, we might speculate on it, but unless anybody asks some direct questions (and, lamentably, I personally am not sufficiently pissed off by anything to do things like that right now), pointing this out is really the only thing that is worth doing. All that the further speculations are doing is just fuelling one's own perceptions without providing any reality check.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Speculating is just about all we can do - even on the answers of well put direct questions.
You are right about reality checks, of course - mostly we are (ha ha) self regulating, and should we choose to be open to others' offered reality checks, we are also free to pick and choose whose we accept.
I do wonder, however, about the soundness of accepting the current LV-media (okay, we can discuss this) zeitgeist (see my earlier semi-pompous baloney) reality check on the intelligence/sanity/value of embarking on certain speculations concerning, for example Allison, the CFR (etc), and our own good ex-banker, ex Economics Minister - that's the point I would make.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Wellll... yes. What are the options?

Really, the amount of people who are both fit and ready to do any serious job in government is shockingly small.

I would take a risk for minister of economics to be connected to economic establishment (which is by itself not a crime), if he has an education in economics (hah) any day over, say, an actor whose pretensions are limited to insulting everybody else publicly (cf. Artuss Kaimiņš).

In this particular case of the Citadele bank, it is very hard to distinguish between rubbish and information as well. The official information does not include any waft of wrongdoing. The unofficial is subject to influence by all kinds of groups, part of whom might well be interested in bank further remaining in state ownership.

Yes, we can speculate, but, if we do, I believe, we should speculate much much more than just whether Pavļuts is a cats-paw for an American professor. We should speculate on behalf of all interest groups, but to do that we need at least some conclusive information: should (in the interests of the nation) Citadele be sold or should it not?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re your point about those being fit and ready for government work, it's interesting to note that Pavļuts kungs actually doesn't seem to have any graduate or post-graduate education in economics (Cultural Management and Public Administration). I'm not quite sure how he got the position of head of corporate affairs at Swedbank. On the one hand, I would assume that he has the usual neo-classical schooling, which very importantly considers banks as having a neutral role in the economy -i.e, they assume the banks lend from deposits, be it on a fractional reserve basis. They don't readily admit to banks when acting in concert being able to create new deposits - that is create new money via the Central Bank reserve system - quite convenient, in my humble opinion.

As for Kaimiņš, well I think he is playing a very necessary role - 'sapurināt' man liekas ir pareiz vārds (slinkums tagad skatīties vārdnīcā) the establishment. In fact we could make a direct comparison between the two men. Kaimiņš with his 'tauta sāka' attack (surprisingly well-researched at times btw) is very popular in ex-pats in Ireland. These people are predominately my and your generation - who left (and I am certain about this) in the main because post crisis (Parex et al), they could not earn enough to pay their mortgages to banks (who let us not forget were creating money to do this), face losing their homes, and still being 'in hock' for the huge negative equity (all the bigger for the fact that most were paying interest before the sum for the property). Who had a top position in one of the guilty establishments? Why, our educated respected cultured multi-lingual, soon-to-be Economics Minister.

In light of this, I take a sceptical view of those who say 'ah, so what if this well-connected CFR erm ...I think the term is 'Globalist', but... njaa' who is the main 'investor' in the 'good Bank' part of Parex is a Professor in the Kennedy School of Government (Jesus) where Pavļuts studied (from where he went to Swedbank and thence to his ministerial position).

Don't you think some direct questions should be asked? Do you really think it is insignificant? Okay, I know you don't, your more concerned with tainted research motivations.

That is for another post (got work to do), but let me just say this. Even if you consider the banking system as well.. necessary and not so bad (which I don't), this Parex/Citadele business stinks as badly as the dog shit I stepped in this morning.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

already spotted two typos
'your more concerned' being the gravest :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)