Call me Madam: New US Ambassador to Luxembourg

I asked the question on

facebook:

WHOIZZIT?

Cynthia Stroum

Founding Chairman

Seattle, Washington

Cynthia Stroum received her Bachelor of Arts degree in public relations/journalism cum laude from the University of Southern California. After graduation, Cynthia stayed in Los Angeles and worked in the film industry, eventually producing national television commercials. Returning home to Seattle, she became involved in community service, establishing two philanthropic foundations as well as handling her personal investments in start-up businesses (Starbuck’s being one of them). Cynthia was a Tony nominated producer for the 2004 Broadway production of A Raisin in the Sun. After recently completing her maximum term as a trustee of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, she was appointed a member of the Senior Council. She has served on the boards of Pacific Northwest Ballet, Northwest School for Hearing-Impaired Children, Channel 9/KCTS (Public Television), the Jewish Television Network, University Prep (a private school in Seattle), The Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, A Contemporary Theatre and The Shoah Foundation (founded by Steven Spielberg). She was a Washington State Arts Commissioner and also served on Senator Patty Murray’s (D-WA) and Senator Maria Cantwell’s (D-WA) executive finance and planning committees. Cynthia continues to be politically active and is on the Obama for America National Finance Committee. Since her father’s diagnosis of pancreatic cancer in 2000 and subsequent death a year later, Cynthia has helped to bring greater visibility to the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN) as the founding Chairman of the Board. In addition to raising critical funding for research to fund a cure, she has played an important role in helping to move PanCAN’s legislative agenda through Congress. She also tirelessly speaks to families all over the country who are battling pancreatic cancer.

WHAT does she do?

http://download.rtl.lu/COM-CStroum.doc

Embassy of the United States of America
LUXEMBOURG
22, blvd Emmanuel Servais – L-2535 Luxembourg
Public Affairs Section – Tel. +352 46 01 23 – Fax +352 26 27 04 37
Press Release

Ms. Cynthia Stroum
Nominated next Ambassador of the United States of America
to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.


September 12, 2009

On September 11, 2009 President Barack Obama announced the nomination of Ms. Cynthia Stroum as the next Ambassador of the United States of America to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Following is the text of President Obama’s statement regarding Ambassador-designate Stroum:

“Cynthia Stroum, Nominee for Ambassador to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
A native of Seattle, (in the state of Washington) Cynthia Stroum has been an angel investor in over twenty successful technology, biotechnology and retail start-up companies, including Starbucks Coffee Company. Over the last 30 years, Ms. Stroum has also been active in civic and charitable activities focusing on philanthropy and community service, establishing two non-profit foundations, with a particular focus on cancer research. Ms. Stroum has helped to bring greater visibility to pancreatic cancer, serving on the board of The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and as the Founding Chairman of the Board of the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN). She has also served on the board of the Shoah Foundation. Previous to her business and philanthropic ventures, Ms. Stroum worked in the television and film industries and continues her commitment to the arts. Ms. Stroum made her Broadway producing debut in 2004 with the acclaimed Broadway production of A Raisin in the Sun, earning her a Tony nomination. Ms. Stroum holds a BA in Public Relations and Journalism from the University of Southern California.”

In the near future, Ambassador-designate Stroum will testify before a Senate panel; her nomination must be confirmed by the United States Senate before she will come to Luxembourg. She is expected to arrive sometime this Fall to present her credentials to Grand Duke Henri and begin her work as President Obama’s personal representative in the Grand Duchy.

To follow Ms. Stroum’s nomination process, please visit the U.S. Embassy Luxembourg website or Facebook page:
http://luxembourg.usembassy.gov/
http://www.facebook.com/

WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Patron Samuel Stroum,

known to many as godfather

of giving,

dies at 79

By Carole Beers

Seattle Times staff reporter

Samuel J. Stroum, a monumental and largely self-made figure in Seattle arts, business and Jewish affairs, whose philanthropy helped individuals as well as health and educational institutions, and entire arts companies, leaves an incalculable legacy.Mr. Stroum died Friday (March 9) after an 11-month battle with pancreatic cancer. He was 79.Considered by many to be the godfather of Seattle giving, who almost single-handedly saved the Seattle Symphony from bankruptcy, and whose money and persuasiveness helped build Benaroya Hall, he got others to give partly because he gave so willingly."We cannot imagine the world without him because he was such a force," said Cynthia Stroum, his daughter and principal of Sam Stroum Enterprises. "He inspired many generations to give of themselves. We've received phenomenal e-mails and letters. People weren't afraid to tell him that they loved him."Mr. Stroum's wealth seemed to grow exponentially from his one-time holdings in Schuck's auto-parts stores and other concerns. But the stocky, white-haired patriarch, an early owner of the Seattle Seahawks, said he wanted only to provide for his family and community."I don't want to wait until I am dead," Stroum liked to say. "It's too much fun giving while I am alive, and I can see the results."He typically gave away $2 million or more per year, notably since his retirement from the active business world in the mid-1980s. Each year he also helped raise millions more.Gifts from his and his wife's foundations have touched some 300 organizations including the Jewish Federation of Seattle, the University of Washington, the Seattle Art Museum, Medic One, the Northwest School for the Hearing Impaired and various hospitals.In 1990 he offered to buy the bankrupt Paramount Theatre for the symphony for $5 million, but the theater owner backed out."(Sam) takes vast pleasure in giving away money," former UW President William Gerberding told The Times in 1990. "And he gives away far more than he can deduct.""It's a mission for him. An absolute mission," Paul Skinner, president of Skinner Corp. and son of the late philanthropist Ned Skinner, said for the same article.Although Mr. Stroum did not go beyond high school, he was a longtime board member of Seafirst Bank and a two-term former chairman of the UW Medical Center board. He also was a past-president of the UW Board of Regents."I think that Sam was one of the people who was instrumental in me looking at philanthropy seriously," said Herman Sarkowsky, a Seattle developer and philanthropist."As far back as the 1970s, he started talking to me about philanthropy in general and got me interested in things I hadn't really paid that much attention to. I sort of used him as my guide."Mr. Stroum rose from a job as a wholesale sundries salesman after World War II to found an electronics distribution company, ALMAC/Stroum Electronics. In the '60s, he bought the region's most popular auto-parts chain, Schuck's Auto Supply.He sold ALMAC in the '70s. In 1984, with son-in-law and Schuck's President Stuart Sloan, he sold the expanded Schuck's chain for $70 million in an ill-fated deal with Pay 'n Save.Savvy in venture-capital projects as well, he was a hunch investor in biotech firms such as Imre and Procyte, and an early investor in Advanced Technology Laboratories, Egghead Discount Software and many small technology start-ups.Local legend has it that 20 years ago, when Mary Gates worried that her son, Bill Gates III, was dropping out of Harvard to focus on his fledgling software company, she sat her son down with Mr. Stroum for some advice over lunch. Mrs. Gates was a UW regent and civic activist who first worked with Mr. Stroum on a United Way campaign.Mr. Stroum encouraged young Gates to forget Harvard and continue with his plans for what has become Microsoft.Money was never his motivation, said his daughter Cynthia Stroum. Her father loved the art of business and strategic thinking, and he loved helping people. He had such an impact on the 12th-floor staff at Swedish Medical Center that the nurses visited him on their days off, she said.Mr. Stroum, an avid Husky football fan, put in 50-hour weeks in the business of philanthropy - sitting on boards, cutting civic deals and raising money.In 1982, when the Eastside Jewish Community Center faced bankruptcy, he led a campaign that pulled in $4.2 million in two months - prompting the center's board to rename it the Samuel and Althea Stroum Jewish Community Center.In 1990 he showed his clout working with Seafirst Chairman Richard Cooley to raise $340,000 in a week to balance the symphony budget, sweetening the pot with $100,000 of his own money before for putting the touch on others.He was considered a visionary, not a detail or numbers man, although he was eminently familiar with accounts and spreadsheets."Sam doesn't like to deal with numbers very often, but he is very capable of it," his investment manager, Harvey Gillis, told The Times in 1990."A lot of people look at their feet. Sam is always looking out at the horizon, out one, two or three years, asking, `Where is this thing going?' "In 1984, within days of talking with Michael Darland, founder of Digital Systems International - a Redmond telecommunications company - Mr. Stroum wrote him a check for $1.5 million. When the company went public with a successful initial public offering in 1990, the founders and early investors became multimillionaires.Estimates of several years ago placed Mr. Stroum's wealth at between $50 million and $100 million.One of seven children born in Boston to Russian immigrants, Mr. Stroum witnessed the failure of his father's furniture business and the slow death of his father from lung cancer."He saw what failure did, the consequences of failure," Stroum's sister, Gertrude Berman, once told The Times. So did his mother, who volunteered time for community causes while raising a big family.Jobs were scarce in 1939 when he graduated from high school in the Boston area, so he joined the Army Air Corps.But in the fall of 1941, months before the U.S. entered World War II, Mr. Stroum took a leave to attend a sister's wedding, and while he was gone, his squad shipped out to the Philippines. Mr. Stroum became a crew chief and flight engineer, and came to Seattle to ferry Boeing B-17 bombers throughout the nation.When he first arrived in Seattle, Mr. Stroum lived with the other aviators at the Sorrento Hotel. He met his future wife at the nearby Jewish USO center. They were married Aug. 9, 1942, and Mrs. Stroum paid for the $3 marriage license. They were the first couple married by Temple De Hirsch-Sinai's new rabbi Raphael Levine, who became one of Seattle's great religious leaders.Briefly living in Portland, he sold different items including auto parts.He settled in Seattle in the late 1940s and formed several sales companies to representing automotive- and radio-parts makers. In the mid-1950s he became an electronics distributor.He named his main company ALMAC/Stroum Electronics, combining the names of his wife, Althea, and his two daughters, Marsha and Cynthia.He also began distributing parts for Erna Jorgensen and Harry Schuck, who had founded Schuck's Auto Supply. In 1967, when the pair retired, Mr. Stroum bought their business with their help and oversaw expansion of the chain to seven stores.Stroum sold ALMAC in 1974 for some $2 million. He then made his first major charitable gift: $600,000 to the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle. He sold Schuck's to Pay n' Save in 1984 for $70 million, beginning a new career of giving.Her father left incredibly large shoes to fill, said Cynthia Stroum."He was given a 90-day prognosis, and he lived 11 months," said Cynthia Stroum, whose experience with her father's battle with pancreatic cancer has led her to serve on the board of the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network."He had such a passion for living that he didn't give up to the very end. He believed that he was given a gift, and I want to carry on that legacy."Survivors include his wife of 58 years, Althea Stroum; daughters Cynthia Stroum and Marsha S. Glazer; siblings Herman Stroum of Florida, Gertrude Berman of Florida and Joseph Stroum of Seattle; grandchildren Adam and Tamara Sloan of New York, Scott J. Sloan of Los Angeles and Courtney Stroum Meagher of Seattle.Services are at 2 p.m. today at Temple De Hirsch-Sinai, 1511 E. Pike St., Seattle.Donations may go to the Swedish Hospital Tumor Institute, the Stroum Jewish Community Center or the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN, P.O. Box 4809, Palos Verdes, CA 90274).Seattle Times staff reporter Keiko Morris contributed to this story.

WANT TO KNOW EVEN MORE?

Sorry, not today.

Egide Thein

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!

And it is already tomorrow in Luxembourg. So here is that addendum:

Seattle-based investor new ambassador to Luxembourg

President Obama intends to name Cynthia Stroum, a Seattle-based investor and big donor to Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, D-Wash., as U.S. Ambassador to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. "Cynthia Stroum has been an angel investor in over 20 successful technology, biotechnology and retail start-up companies, including Starbucks Coffee Company," the White House said in a statement late Friday. In recent years, Stroum has contributed $10,000 to Cantwell and an equal amount to Murray, as well as making four-figure donations to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina. She gave to the successful 2006 campaign of Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana. Stroum was recently honored as a "Woman of Valor" at a closed-door Cantwell fundraising luncheon. The Luxembourg embassy has long been used to reward political donors, but also to break barriers. The country's most famous envoy to the Grand Duchy was Washington, D.C., "hostess with the mostest" Perle Mesta, a major capital social figure of the late 1940's and 1950's. During the Johnson Administration, Patricia Roberts Harris became the first African-American woman to serve as an ambassador. She later served as Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in the Clinton Administration. Over loud objections from Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina, meat packing heir James Hormel became in 1999 America's first openly gay ambassador sent to an overseas posting. The Grand Duchy, nestled between Belgium and Germany, is less than 1,000 square miles in size. It is, however, a longtime NATO member and an important host to European Union events. Stroum has both a business and show biz background. She made her Broadway debut in 2004 as producer of a production of A Raisin in the Sun, for which she earned a Tony nomination. She is a board member at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Posted by
document.writeln(showE2("joelconnelly","seattlepi.com","Joel Connelly"))
Joel Connelly at September 12, 2009 3:00 p.m.Categories: campaign money, Democrats,National politics *** Now you have almost all I have. But dear Joel Connelly, why denigrate the prize Ms Stroum is getting with "less than 1,000 sqm and "HOWEVER" is member of NATO. You hurt her and my feelings. Say rather: "is more than 2,500 sqkm" . No one in the US can figure how big that is. And say: "is a founding member of NATO, the UN and of the European Union." If you are really nice, you add that Luxembourg produced four Tour de France winners. And we drank coffee before Starbucks.

Egide Thein

Tax Justice Network: TJN letter to the Pittsburgh G-20 summit

Tax Justice Network: TJN letter to the Pittsburgh G-20 summit

I like to think that this letter reinforces the arguments in my post yesterday: Luxembourg banking: A lesson in democracy that will save democracy.

This is to be taken seriously by any financial center that wants to shed the stigma of tax haven, judicial haven, regulatory haven and corrupt money haven.

I believe that the concept of tax "avoision" will become a fixture in haven parlance.

Egide Thein

Luxembourg banking: A lesson in democracy that will save democracy.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

Worldwide there are multitudes of so-called "non-governmental organizations” or NGOs. They are all more or less active advocates for various causes. Among them there are two main NGOs campaigning for the cleanliness of the international financial system. “Transparency International” (TI) fights against corruption in the world, while "Tax Justice Network” (TJN) watches the networks of tax evasion. Generally, it is not good to appear on their radar screens. But generally, too, when Luxembourg surfaces in publications, it is in a context with other countries, included in statistics, which drowns the fish at least a little.

The other day, however, Luxembourg had the honor of being singled out and exposed by TJN for more than a boring story of tax evasion: for a democratic deficit? (1)

Luxembourg’s NGOs commit hara-kiri, and revisit Galileo

The story goes that an association of Luxembourg NGOs (2) has made a study about corruption that would impoverish the "developing world" and come and hide the ill gotten moneys in Luxembourg. The guardians of the Luxembourg financial center were outraged by such a sacrilege (not the corruption, but the allegation that the money would end up in Luxembourg). They have neutralized the accusers with a barrage of fire, and then dragged them, already guilty as hell, to stand before the governmental bodies that grant them subsidies to operate and fulfill their missions, especially to help third world development.

These Galileans who had caused the scandal to be known, have been admonished, then threatened with losing their knapsack filled with generous Government subsidies, the well advertised money Luxembourg spends on developing countries. They beat their mea culpa, swearing they wouldn’t do it again as long as the Sun revolves around Earth. They had to discard their beautiful study, which actually now has disappeared from almost all sites on the Internet.

I encourage them to stand up, however, and insist on the validity of their study on behalf of the truth, for their right to freedom of speech and to highlight the arbitrariness to which they were subjected in a challenge to the very democratic principles. Their private donors are certainly in solidarity with them. I told them: "Don’t be afraid that this magical haversack filled with subsidies might get confiscated. Without you, Luxembourg does not have the means to execute its ambitious aid programs for which it would be world champion all categories, if there were not theseover-zealous Swedes ahead of us.” In fact, in order to maintain its position that it pursues with much ambition to be a leading donor country, it cannot do without the NGOs. Without them, the Government of Luxembourg would have to send checks directly to the potentates and other suspicious democrats in the Third World. Those exactly who for so long have managed to remain what they are: kidnappers of their own people and hijackers of whole countries which as a result continue to be developing countries, forever. No doubt many of these gentlemen (women are scarce in this business) would then take these checks and deposit them on personal accounts in Luxembourg, or Switzerland or elsewhere. Precisely what the Luxembourg and other donors want to avoid, thanks to the help and intervention of the NGOs who are dedicated, unselfish and vigilant in the field.


Bribery money in the world
As for that famous study, there is little to refute regarding principles:

1. The frustrating fact is that a few dozen countries in the developing world, despite receiving billions in aid, have never developed as expected. This is an indication that these billions were squandered in part or stolen by the political systems and cliques in power, to be stashed away in a jurisdiction that ensures confidentiality and security. Historical examples abound. Not to mention other ungenerous practices that hamper the development, such as "transfer pricing”, a tax strategy that multinationals often use to artificially minimize their tax debt in developing countries.

2. The International Monetary Fund estimates the total amount of money laundered globally at $800 - $ 2,000 billion per year. Sorry for the lack of precision. The IMF couldn’t do better. This shows how difficult it is to measure the overall impact of these hidden activities.

3. Transparency International and Kroll consider that international corruption, on contracts only, generates at least $500 billion annually, or 10% of those contracts. (3)

There would be no corruption money in Luxembourg?
Considering these facts and figures, it is statistically plausible to estimate that dirty money is spread across financial centers worldwide on a pro rata base to other deposits. Maybe a little more in those centers that never catch anyone. The bad guys are learning fast.

Here is a good question for a radio quiz: Who is the biggest money launderer on earth then? Answer, a little bit further down the lines.

The answer is simple to calculate. Ernst & Young estimates the total deposits in private banks in the world to be over $ 15.500 billion. It suffices to estimate the percentage held by institutions in Luxembourg, say 10% for ease of calculation, which is realistic, especially in adding all the other forms of deposits. There is a great risk therefore there are also 10% of worldwide bribes (or $ 50 billion) and 10% of global money laundering (or $ 80 - $ 200 billion). Sorry again for the lack of precision. I am only an individual who is making those estimates. But an individual who certainly knows that it is not impossible.

Recognizing these realities, it would seem that the only crime the Conference of NGOs committed was that it vexed the guardians of the fortress by over estimating the amount of money from corruption being parked in Luxembourg. But what about the lower estimates and also zero estimates? Sorry for the lack of precision. These are only estimates either by the NGOs or by those who believe differently.

Also, according to Ernst & Young only 2% of the dirty money worldwide would be detected and confiscated. So, we know nothing about the remaining 98% of the problem. I do not know if Luxembourg confiscates its share of 2% which would be $ 2.6 to $ 6.6 billion per year. I hope so. This would help to cover budget deficits.

For our own comfort, let’s get back to our quiz. If one considers the sums of money at various stages and layers of money laundering around the world, including a total of 98% that are never detected, the Federal Reserve of the United States is necessarily the institution that sees the most laundered money milling through it without never detecting it, given that the currency used to pay for worldwide crime is most often the U.S. dollar. That's the bonus of the day: now we feel much better and less guilty already in Luxembourg.

The consequences for Luxembourg

With such a charge against the Federal Reserve, we can leave the well-intentioned people at the NGOs alone. They are right after all about the great laundering machine: And yet it revolves!

The rebuff these NGOs were subjected to in front of the whole world to see, was certainly not a lesson in democracy. These organizations, in conscience decided to be the whistleblowers about what they witness on the ground, every day. Democracy got no help here, neither at home or with those presidents for life of any color, from A for Afghanistan to Z for Zimbabwe, who feel that their kleptocracy has been indirectly reinforced and protected by Luxembourg. Luxembourg in turn, in order to silence the troublemakers, I might say got its inspiration perhaps directly from those convincing methods of undemocratic, un-developing regimes. This is not Luxembourg.

The Luxembourg counter offensive cannot wait
In the interest of democratic principles, let’s all make a U-turn, because the NGO initiative has at least unveiled an incredible opportunity. If I understand correctly, some would say that my remarks above are filled with errors. If they are right, which is highly unlikely, it would mean that there is no corrupt money in Luxembourg. Luxembourg officials, from the financial world and from government alike have protested the NGOs' allegations. And those have publicly recognized their mistake and have retracted.

For Luxembourg, the virgin when it comes to corruption, it's time now to attack those who made our summer miserable, because of a few meager accounts from tax evaders. But now we can get back to our accusers, because they are the former colonial powers: London, Paris, Frankfurt, New York and other G20 members who maintain puppet regimes in their former colonies. And for sure, they must hide the shameful accounts of the corrupt regimes they support. It's time for Luxembourg to move heaven and earth, as the sun rotates around it, at the UN, OECD and in Brussels to fight these appalling bribery havens. Luxembourg will be the champion of democracy on Earth! What a great contrast with the tax haven that we used to be!

Egide Thein
egidethein.blogspot.com

(1) http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/2009/09/luxembourg-tax-haven-attacks-its-own.html
(2) Cooperation Circle of Development NGOs in Luxembourg asbl
(3) http://www.allbusiness.com/crime-law/crime-prevention-financial/12369951-1.html

Luxembourg: New Obama limo moves the President forward on Goodyear tires, made in Luxembourg.

http://motorage.search-autoparts.com/motorage/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=576707

According to the Luxembourg Business Journal, New York, (Spring Edition 2009), "these tires were developed in the Goodyear Technical Center of Goodyear in Luxembourg (GTC*L) and also built in the Tire Plant next to the R&D Center."

Note: Should there be any Presidential flat tires in the future, this article will be pulled from the blog of course.

Egide Thein

Tax Justice Network: Luxembourg: a tax haven attacks its own citizens

Tax Justice Network: Luxembourg: a tax haven attacks its own citizens

Luxembourg and the two wars of Switzerland (for now)

This article and especially the link to the New York Times is required reading for all those who thought that peace had broken out about tax havens with the signing of 12 pieces of paper, otherwise known as the standard OECD double taxation agreement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/business/global/31iht-tax.html

While the ink on the Franco-Swiss piece of paper called double taxation agreement isn’t yet even dry, the French rooster is scratching everything that is crawling and scribbling by the tax havens’ side. It has three thousand names of French customers in Swiss banks, but did not say which ones. All the children of the fatherland, who are hiding things in Switzerland, are invited to go and denounce themselves to the "regularization cell”. It will close on December 31, 2009. What comes then is the tax audit. Of course, the 3,000 names will not be made public. Those who know they are hiding something in Switzerland do not know if the French tax inspectors know. Therefore, to report or not to report, that is the question. The answer, I guess, is very French: double it or quits.

To all defenders of bank secrecy there are of course 2 immediate issues.

1. How did the French authorities get these names?

Official responses:
a. It is the fruit of a long tax investigation
b. Two financial institutions have submitted their names "spontaneously"
c. By “non- anonymous informants” who were not paid.

So bank secrecy has been defeated by three different methods at least. The first one is probably a mixture of cooperation with the intelligence services that have "paid someone anonymous" or that simply intercepted electronic communications of any kind. Amazing and interesting at the same time. Nobody in Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Austria and in the islands knows what services throughout the world know, ready to act. This is called "actionable" intelligence.

2. How can we guarantee bank secrecy in these conditions?
Simply, we cannot. Why defend it then? Is it really worth defending the indefensible because it is an open invitation to tax evasion that in addition doesn’t even keep its promise of absolute confidentiality? How can one ever compensate the foreign customer, caught in the scheme? Shouldn’t we be suspicious of a customer who would come along anyway and tempt fate? He probably has more to hide than he says. And how are we dealing with institutions that violate the banking secrecy "spontaneously"? Several doing this at the same time would be the equivalent of a spontaneous implosion of the system.

It is also interesting to realize how tomorrow’s news were announced on feierwon.blogspot.com over the last few weeks. As they are coming true faster than expected, let’s reread those old news of tomorrow as they are amazingly fresh.

Egide Thein
htpp://feierwon.blogspot.com

Luxembourg, le secret bancaire et une nouvelle approche

Un ami a posté la vidéo suivante, en luxembourgeois et en français, avec l’essentiel du message en français :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KvnR_to3D4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efacebook%2Ecom%2Fhome%2Ephp&feature=player_embedded#t=40

C’est un intéressant tour de la question du secret bancaire en effet, car Astrid Lulling semble abandonner la langue de bois qui handicape tant de politiciens qui pensent qu’ils ont un secret bancaire à défendre. Elle semble le penser aussi, mais la députée européenne ouvre les esprits et montre l’urgence de savoir et de définir enfin ce que c’est ce qu’il faut défendre et comment.

A mon avis il y a dans son message 2 sages conclusions, 2 erreurs qui ne manqueront pas d’être relevées par ceux d’en face et 2 omissions.

Les 2 sages conclusions sont les éléments innovateurs dans le discours politique luxembourgeois

1. Il ne peut y avoir de tabou dans les discussions. Bien ! Cela veut dire hélas, à Bruxelles seulement. A Washington il n’y aura pas de discussion. Ce qui viendra de Washington sera in diktat.
2. Le débat sera plus politique que technique. Bien aussi ! Et il faut savoir que c’est rare que le plus petit gagne. Le dernier était David.

Les 2 erreurs qui sont des coups de poing dans le vide
1. A moins d’être incompétent, tout le monde est d’accord que le secret bancaire n’a pas causé la crise. Personne de sérieux n’utilisera cet argument. Il faut donc se garder de dépenser trop d’énergies sur cela. On n’entend cet argument d’ailleurs plus que du côté luxembourgeois. Comme si c’était une création et une astuce luxembourgeoise pour divertir les discussions. Ou pire : quelqu’un aurait mal compris ? Cela me rappelle « atmosphère, atmosphère, ai-je l’air d’une atmosphère ! »
2. L’échange automatique ne fonctionnerait pas ? Hélas si, au même titre qu’aujourd’hui tous les rapports obligatoires que les institutions financières doivent faire fonctionnent (comme les STR pour suspicion, les transferts de fonds d’un certain montant) Ce sera même plus facile techniquement de traiter tous les clients de la même façon que d’appliquer des critères sélectifs. La seule question à décider est le routing de ces informations.
Par contre le Luxembourg pourrait plus efficacement invoquer des problèmes de protection des données pour opposer l’échange automatique d’informations personnelles d’institutions privées vers des administrations étrangères.

Les 2 omissions ou la politique de l'autruche
1. Le secret bancaire est surtout attaqué parce qu’il est l’outil de l’évasion fiscale et d’autres crimes financiers. C’est une omission capitale. Le secret bancaire ne survivra pas.
Le discours luxembourgeois a très difficile de s’en accommoder. Il faudra sans doute un peu plus de temps pour le deuil. Pourquoi ne pas invoquer plutôt la protection des données ?
2. Dans le même souffle que Bruxelles, il faut ajouter surtout Washington quand on parle des problèmes à venir. A Bruxelles, le Luxembourg est assis à la table de négociation, à Washington sur le banc des accusés.

Avertissement : la météo pour la place financière

L’autre discussion, qui n’est pas encore sur les écrans radar, est escamotée par le Luxembourg et bien d’autres pour le moment. Il s’agit de la discussion émergente sur les paradis judiciaires et réglementaires.
La règle générale ? Sera considéré paradis judiciaire et réglementaire toute juridiction qui applique des standards en matière financière qui sont inferieurs à ceux des Etats-Unis. Les entreprises et particuliers qui seront en relation avec ces paradis subiront quelque chose de mauvais. Barney Frank mijote encore les conséquences qu’il voudrait réserver à ceux-là.

Tout cela, en détail sur http://feierwon.blogspot.com bien sûr.