MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT BALANCE OF PAYMENT DEFICITS

Quite often I speak to people and they try to relate a country’s balance of payment to its standard of living, or more generally people try to think that a country with a balance of payment deficit is having economic troubles. Balance of payments is always a hot topic in economic and political discussions and many people seem to have the concept that deficits are unambiguously bad.

Well firstly balance of payments are always balanced because they are calculated based on double entry accounting, it is a specific category of the balance of payment that can either be in a surplus or a deficit e.g. the current account. In general people mean a current account deficit when they talk about balance of payment deficit. The current account is the part of balance of payments that records the value of trade in merchandise, services, income (from investments) and unilateral transfers.

Given what is recorded in the current account i.e. Exports, imports and investment incomes it is not surprising why it is the most important or may be the most talked about account in the balance of payment. Export and Imports are specifically very important because they make up most of the current account value. Exports bring foreign exchange (money) into the country and hence they are credits in the CA, Imports flow foreign exchange out of a country and they are debit transactions in the CA. A current account deficit occurs when debits are more than credits, which means that a country owes the rest of the World than it is owed by the rest of the World, in other words the country is a net debtor to the rest of the World.

Knowing what is recorded in the CA, we can now easily tell what causes a balance of payments deficit. For instance, since Exports bring money into a country and Imports move money out of a country, we often hear argument for policies aimed at increasing Exports and reducing Imports. The last sentence lead me to the title of this blog, we need to know what caused a BOP deficit before we can make any conclusions about whether it is bad or good.

Consider this; How about if a country is running a current account deficit (Imports more than exports) because it is importing capital and technology for developmental purposes? Of course this country might need the capital and technology in order for it to increase its future long-term exports and run BOP surpluses. From this we can see that short term BOP deficits are not always bad & they are sometimes an intermediate step towards future BOP surpluses. Sometimes nations also run short term BOP deficits because of high imports of intermediate goods to be processed into finished final goods for export.

Husted & Melvin give a simple hypothetical example about BOP deficits; Consider country A and B, A is a wealthy creditor that has extended loans to poor country B. For country B to repay these loans, B must run trade surpluses with A to earn the income required for repayment. Would you rather live in rich country A and experience trade deficits or in poor country B and experience trade surpluses? Perhaps this is a simplistic example; there are real World analogues of rich creditor countries with trade deficits and poor debtor nations with trade surpluses. For Example the U.S has had a trade deficit every year since 1971 (except 1973 & 1975). If you follow the last US election you might have realised that the US trade deficit was a hot topic, the US trade deficit is of a great concern because its causes are largely due to high consumption, which is not good because this means people (and firms) are spending more than they are earning. We see that if the cause of a BOP deficit is rooted in consumption it is unambiguously bad.

“Sometimes governments simply spend more than they earn simply due to ill-advised economic planning. Money may be spent on expensive imports while domestic production lags behind or it may be deemed a priority for a government to spend on the military rather than domestic production.”

In a nutshell it is not generally obvious if a country is better off or worse off running payment surpluses rather than deficits.

When discussing the BOP or the current account it is important for people to understand that it is practically impossible for every country to run a surplus, since one country’s imports is another  country’s exports, therefore a deficit in one country’s current account is surplus in another country’s current account.

KEY:

CA: Current Account

BOP: Balance of Payment

The Student.

Obamanation or Obamabarter?

After reading the US president Barack Obama’s public announcement of his support for Gay (same sex) marriage last month, I said to myself; is he giving away his personal conscience for the votes (Obamanation) or is he selling votes for votes (Obamabarter), hence the title of the blog.

Now if the president just made such public announcements for purely political reasons, then that will just substantiate my personal (sometimes) cynical believe that most politicians are selfish, which will be what I would like to call in this case “Obamanation”.

On the other hand if the president did made such statement’s out of true conscience and as he claimed with influence from his family, friends and neighbours, then it will be what I would like to call "Obamabarter".

Trade by Barter means exchanging goods for goods in the ancient days before money as the means of exchange was introduced. As predicted by the political pundits Obama is going to loose votes on the religious and anti-gay marriage category whilst he is going to gain votes on the gay marriage activists and among gay people category. In fact some statistics goes to show how on average he will either loose or gain votes (in general) for his statement.

My problem is that are there just so many people out there like me who don’t give a damn about who marries who? So long you don’t bother us with your marketing campaign about your sexuality! Will the American people just beat the odds and cast their votes based on who's political manifestos matches their beliefs and hope, rather than based on their personal views on who marries who?

After all President Obama has beaten the odds before and if he’s taught us something in the past it is that he is indeed genuine and a true believer and goes for what he believes in.

Remember he Started with “personally I think”, not “personally we think” or “They should”, I hope people are able to make a difference between the two.

Complexity of the law

I read this book called “Judge & Jury” by James Paterson and Andrew Gross. Even though the book was fictional, there was one question that led me to searching for answers since reading (about 10 months ago). Before stating the question I think it will be more helpful if I explain what led to the asking of this question in the book.

Judge & Jury by James Patterson and Andrew Gross is a thriller about a mafia boss on trial. Nick Pellisante was the FBI agent who tacked down Dominic Cavello (Mafia boss) for years.

Dominic Cavello has committed all sorts of gruesome crimes you could imagine; from murder, bribery, distortion, robbery, money laundry, drugs, rape to shooting and killing of two federal officers.

On the trial of Dominic Cavello, Nick pellisante’s biggest obstacle was to convince the Jury that Mr. Cavello was a criminal and the head behind numerous cold case killings. Pellisante in fact witness Cavello shoot and kill two of his federal agents, the problem for Pellisante though was to get witnesses to make sure Cavello gets what he deserved. But even though Cavello was in prison at the time he made sure all Pellisante’s material witnesses are taken down before they could testify against him, thanks to his mafia mob network who will do any thing to make sure the boss is not sent away, well at least not easily.

Pellisante had to later turn to Cavello’s own men who were earlier been sentenced for crimes committed while working for Cavello. Now, Nick Pellisante get this people to testify against the mafia boss by promising reduced sentence terms if they tell the truth about their boss, but the defense counsel will argue that this people are known criminals and liars, who themselves admit in front of the jury that lying was part of their job, even though at least now they are telling all but the truth.

At this point, Nick Pellisante was irritated by Cavello’s attempt’s to interrupt the trial by blowing up the jury bus, sending threat messages to the judge and killing of witnesses and their families through his mob network. Nick went to visit Cavello at prison, out of anger he personally abuse Cavello by physical means with counter threats that his (Cavello’s) threats won’t in anyway stop this trial.

After that Nick was sacked from leading the case, that he was too enthusiastic about the case and that he is taking it personal, he was transferred to a lower FBI department. Out of devastation knowing that he is loosing a case he thought he has already got, knowing that Cavello was guilty of all the charges, knowing that Cavello might get away with shooting and killing two of his closest FBI buddies, Nick decided to take an indefinite career break from the FBI and started teaching a law course at a University where he asked his student’s the following question, I quote;

Can anyone tell me why the law permits law enforcement agents to use deceit (concealing of truth) at the investigative stage, when they are not even sure of a Suspect's guilt, but strictly forbids them from lying during the testimonial stage, When they are absolutely sure that the accused is a Criminal?

One Student responded; “It’s the means to an end” Mapp and United States versus Russell allow the police to use deceptive procedures to obtain evidence, without it they might never make a case. It’s deception for the greater good.”

Nick Pellisante counter questioned; but what if the police have to lie about those procedures during testimony in order to protect their case?

At which point the book didn't go any further about what happens, indeed it’s a fiction or perhaps they leave it to the reader to figure out the rest. I will be very much interested though in finding the answer to this question, for that reason any knowledgeable opinion is very much welcomed!

Peace!

Why I Listen to Reggae Music

I am a great music lover, and I virtually listen to every kind of music depending on the mood. When I do listen to music I want to be entertained, but also to be informed and be able to take some positives out of it, which means I care about the lyrics. For me there is only one kind of music that is best at offering this: Reggae music. When you listen to Reggae music and other major types of music genres, you will agree with me that it doesn't take a genius to tell the difference between Reggae music and any other type of music in lyrical terms. However today I don’t wish to explore into these differences instead I just want to give you a taste of how powerful a Reggae lyrics can be with the lyrics for one of my favorite songs below:

Artist: Warrior King

Song Title: Don’t Give up

Release year: 2006

Lyrics:

When it seems like there is no hope and you can hardly cope

Don’t give up; don’t give up; never give in

When things are not going your way and you feel like running away

Don’t give up; don’t give up; never give in

Don’t give-up; never give in, even when you feel like your “heart is going to spin”*

Put your trust in the King (God) and he will make you win, win, win!

Obstacles in your way jump over them, don’t be afraid of bad minded people them, don’t be a follower always set the trend, any problem Jah (God) will solve it.

When it seems like there is no hope and you can hardly cope

Don’t give up; don’t give up; never give in

When things are not going your way and you feel like running away

Don’t give up; don’t give up; never give in

Don’t be a victim of the system like those others, committing crimes and inciting** all those murders

Taking out the anger on the brothers and the sisters, that could never be rite, that could never make things better

Keep your head above the water’s; keep your head above the seas

Stand firm on your feet and maintain your sanity, put your faith and trust in the Almighty.

When it seems there is no hope and you can hardly cope

Don’t give up; don’t give up; never give in

When things are not going your way and you feel like running away

Don’t give up; don’t give up; never give in

And when you feeling kind of stressed,

And you feeling so depressed,

Look around you, you not the least, not the last, you are blessed, you blessed.

....................continues to repeat previous verses and chorus.

This surely isn’t a lyric that goes like; my gun, my girlfriend, my money, my swag, amma shoot you in the head.

* Am not sure if that’s what he actually said in this part.

** Not sure if inciting was the actual word he used, couldn’t think of any other word other than that after listening to it a 1000 times (josh).

Anyway if you know (or think you do) what he said in this two places, drop it for me in the comments, will appreciate it.

WHY DO FIRMS STAY IN BUSINESS EVEN IF THEY ARE MAKING A LOSS?

If you are a regular news watcher, you will be familiar with the idea of businesses reporting their profits (or loss) for past periods. One intriguing result of such reports is that some firms will report a loss for the past period or sometimes consecutive periods, but will still not shut down rather than incur loss. I think its worth pointing out what we mean by a loss; A loss in business is a negative profit, a situation where a business spends more than it earns (expenses are greater than revenues), which means the extra expenses is financed from some where else, perhaps from savings or a loan.

So why don’t businesses just shut down when they are making a loss and make zero profits rather than operating at a loss? One obvious answer might be prospective profits; that firms operate believing that the loss is for short-term and that the future is bright, however a seconds thought will tell you that if this was the case, then all firms in same industry will pretty much stay operating if they are making a loss, but this is not the case, In fact even firms in same industry quit at different time periods if they continue incurring losses.

It turns out that Variable costs are the determinants of exit decisions for firms. Costs in business are divided into two; fixed and variable costs. Fixed costs are costs that are fixed, regardless of the level of production, e.g. rent, which you pay whether you produce a single unit or nothing, Variable costs are costs that directly vary with output, e.g. wages and raw materials cost, this costs changes as the level of output changes.

When firms make decisions about whether to stay in business or shut-down, they only consider their variable cost’s and ignore the fixed costs. Here is why you see some firms making a loss but still stay in business in the short-run; If a firm is making a loss, but it’s profits are more than it’s variable cost’s, then the firm is better off operating at that loss level than shutting down, on the other hand if a firm is making a loss that it’s profits are less than it’s variable cost, then the firm is better-off by totally shutting down. The technique behind the analysis here is the fact that firms have to pay the fixed cost in the short run regardless of either they produce or shut down, so if they shutdown their business in the short-run they make a loss equal to their fixed cost, now if they are making a profit that is more than their variable cost, then they can pay the difference towards reducing their fixed cost (which they would have to pay for in full otherwise). Here is the trick, firms pay their fixed cost regardless of whether they produce or not, so it makes business sense when ever a business is making a profit more than its variable cost to stay operating in order to minimise lost.

The idea of firm decision making is better explained with an example; consider a Sole trader who operates’s a convenient store in downtown New York with the following costs;

One year property lease @ $2000/month

Wages of two employees @ $1500/month each

If the traders monthly revenues are $4000

Then the Traders monthly profit/loss statement will be as follows:

Total Revenue	4000
Minus Expenses:
Variable Costs:
Wages employee A	1500
Wages employee B	1500
Profit Before Fixed Cost	1000
Less Fixed Cost:
Rent	2000
Net Profit:	-1000

Now this trader is definitely making a monthly loss of $1000, the interesting question is should s/he shut down? And the answer is no! The trader should operate at a loss of $1000 in the short run. If he chose to shut down, here is what is going to happen, he will be  paying the rent of $2000 because this is fixed regardless of whether he sell or not, remember he signed a one year lease contract, normally businesses pay their rent in advance. However the firm should just shut down anytime the revenue goes below $3000, because his profit won’t even cover his variable cost, it’s left to the reader to change the total revenue to any amount less than $3000 and observe what happen to the profit/loss at that level. At any level of total revenue less than $3000 the trader will be making a loss more than his rent of $2000/ month, hence it’s better for him to stop trading and only pay the rent in the short run than incur a cost more than $2000 when he could do better.

It’s due to this reason that you see that some firms leave the industry so quick once loss hits whiles others in same industry continue operating while still making a loss. The nature of a firms cost determines when to exit the business and this is at any point where profit is less than variable cost.

I have be talking about short-term all along this article, but what do I actually mean by short-term? In economics short term is referred to as the time period within which at least one input of production is fixed and cannot be changed (In order words no specific time period attached to it). These is a very important definition with regards to firms exit decisions, because once all inputs are variable and can be changed, then it doesn’t make any sense for a firm to  operate a business at a continuous loss. Let’s revisit our previous sole trader example, if this guy can re-transfer his Lease (re-rent) to a third party, then it is no more a fixed cost and then he will be better off by just shutting down and make zero profits, however in general we don’t expect such processes to be very immediate, hence the name short-term.

If firms are making a loss, but their revenue is greater than their Variable cost, they will continue to operate until they can get rid of their fixed cost, this take different times for different firms, since every firm have different cost structures, that’s why we witness the shut down of Blockbuster  happened so quick when sales dwindle. 

“An Economist is a man who states the obvious in terms of the incomprehensible”

Alfred A Knopf.

Dangers of the single story

I found this speech by Chimamanda Adichie on Ted quite inspiring and fascinating and thought it's worth sharing.

Enjoy!

Credits:

Chimamanda Adichie

Ted Talks.

THE ENGLISH PREMIER LEAGUE AND THE QUESTION OF THE BEST LEAGUE IN THE WORLD.

....

The English Premier league is one of the best leagues in the World, if not the best.  Of course I’m a keen follower of the EPL and that perhaps might have an influence on my discussion of this subject, that’s why you are welcome to disagree with me, but I can safely assume that most of you won’t, because all what I say is what is supposed to be said "the truth".

The answer to which Football league is the “best” league in the World depends on your definition best, is it skill, domination of Champions league, entertainment, tactics, depth, competitiveness, or media coverage? Whatever the answer is the response will always certainly  be a divided opinion, at the end of the day everyone is entitle to their opinion.

But one thing that is certain is that the EPL is the most competitive of all the big leagues in the World. The debate about the most competitive league in the World is a two horse race between La Liga and the EPL. But seriously La Liga is a joke in it’s competiveness as the gap between Barcelona and Real Madrid and the rest is absurd, not even Valencia, Seville, or Athletico Madrid stand a chance, I love the unpredictable nature of the EPL where every game is sensational, like Tottenham loosing to QPR one week, beating Arsenal the next and Newcastle and Stoke City shattering havoc to all the big clubs.

Obviously there aren’t many leagues in the World were you don’t have a superior team and a second and third class teams. May be the MLS can claim parity, but that’s why it is not the most watched league in the World. But the current state of the two team domination in Spain is just brutal, Example the point difference between the Second position Barcelona and Third Position Valencia is a staggering 29, not to mention the ridiculous 71 goal difference, that’s no competition for me. You see La Liga is like a depiction of the Scottish Premier League where Celtic and Rangers put teams together to vanquish minnows.

Of course it’s true that only three teams have won the premier league with the exception of Blackburn Rovers (94/95 season) and the top four teams have almost been the same during this period until 09/10 when Spurs and Manchester City start challenging for a top four finish, but Everton, Newcastle, and Leeds United have all break into the top four prior to 2009. The Spanish League has been pretty much the same during same period. From 1992 to 2004 Valencia, Deportivo and Athletico Madrid have all been Champions in Spain; however from 2005 to date the two team domination has been the same. At least in England we could say it’s not been a two horse race and the Runner-up's haven’t been the same over the period, which we cannot say of La Liga since 2005.

The EPL just have a lot of depth and talent from almost every notable country in the World, spread throughout the league. While the German league can argue fun of parity, most of the German national squad players could be found at Bayern Munich. And Perhaps Spain won the last World Cup in style, but indeed almost all of their first team players play for one of the two teams at the top of the table every year in La Liga. In my opinion England’s Squad has the most number of varied players from bottom, middle to the top of the table.

Most people tend to use domination of the UEFA Champions league as a determinant for the best league in the World, but just as mentioned earlier “best” is too general a word and for me it depends on one’s own perception, but even if we use the champions league as a justification for competitiveness of a league, then the competitiveness of the EPL has shine over the last five years, because the EPL teams have been dominant in the Champions league in the Past eight years excluding the current season.

What amuses me about La Liga is the substitute bench of Barcelona and Real Madrid, it makes me sick looking at the bench of those two teams- players who would (and should) be starting in any team in the World. Individual teams may do very well in the champions League just depending on how deep and talented they are, but the competitiveness of La Liga (Currently) as a league is very low. It might be fun in one way Watching Barcelona hammer Real Vallecano 7-0, but it’s more of a display than a football match and as good as it might be that is not a substitute for competition.

I believe that most true football fans will rather have a league that didn’t have all the big players in a couple of teams who go round humiliating everyone else, for some marketing men they might rather prefer that, or should I just say it’s much more profitable for them, but for a legitimate football fan it is very dull to watch one team outclass everyone else, again what is the point of watching a game anyway if you're almost certain of who will win even before kick-off?

Predictions of TV pundits about who will win the League as early as August has been accurate and consistent for so long a time, it’s time fans buy their season tickets going into a new season knowing that their teams have a chance. In England in the last two years we witness the start of an Era where the so called traditional big four are being challenged to the limit, whether this will continue is another question, but I think it is too early to make a firm conclusion about the trend.

So, those that make the English premier league the best league in the World? Who cares? It makes it the more competitive and enjoyable league to watch, after all it is my favourite league and that is good enough for me.

Peace.

IS ROY HODGSON THE RIGHT MAN FOR THE ENGLAND JOB?

Is Roy Hodgson the right man for the England Football manager’s job? I don’t know, what I do know is that anyone who accepts the offer of managing the current England team knows he has great challenges to overcome both on and off the pitch and there is no exception to Roy Hodgson. Only time will tell if the English FA have made the right decision by appointing Hodgson ahead of the European Championship.

One thing we do know is that Mr Hodgson is within the category of the FA’s preferred candidates; an English manager. Since Fabio Capello’s departure there seem to be consensus among English fans, players, pundits and the FA that England’s next manager should be English. Now what intrigues me about Hodgson’s appointment is whether he is the best candidate in that category. In fact the run for the job seem to be a one man race until when the FA declared that they have approached Roy Hodgson for the post.

Harry Redknapp was the clear favourite, not only by the pundits and the fans but also by the people he will be working with; the players. Now I don’t know  the FA’s motive behind appointing Roy Hodgson, there are speculations that it is financially motivated because Roy is out of contract at West Bromwich while Harry is still in contract with Tottenham, but if the FA’s decision is not financially motivated as they claim, then I think they have appointed the wrong man.

Harry Redknapp may not be the most appropriate person for the current England job, but among the category of the current English Managers, he is indeed by far the most appropriate. Harry has done a phenomenal job at Tottenham and previously at Portsmouth. Harry has work with some great players and has managed in the World’s greatest football competition, The Champions league, a Year ago. The best that can happen to any manager of the current England team full of problems both on and off the pitch is the support of the men you will be managing, Harry Redknapp has got the endorsement of all the big names in that England squad. I mean I don’t know what the English FA are thinking but for me it was an easy decision. If all the pundits and players should stand out and say that Harry Redknapp will be a perfect choice, I don’t get it why the FA try to play surprise! Surprise! And appoint someone else.

Moreover even Roy Hodgson himself has said that Harry Redknapp is the perfect and the favourite candidate for the job when asked by Journalists in one of his press Conferences. You see Roy might have done a great job with Fulham and Westbrom with limited budgets, have some international experience (In the 1980’s anyway), but his Liverpool experience tells us that this is no guarantee for success with the England national team. What Harry has got and Roy is lacking is experience of working with key England players. Harry Redknapp has worked with key figures in the England Squad like Rio Ferdinand, Frank Lampard, Peter Crouch, and Glen Johnson and is currently managing players like Jermaine Defoe, Scott Parker, Aaron Lenon, Ledley King, and Michael Dawson who are all important England players.

It’s no secret that Rio Ferdinand and John Terry feud is a problem any England manager has to sort out before partnering those two players in your centre back, the FA knows that than anyone else does, Personally I will think Harry is more suitable to solving that problem (Or may be minimising it’s impact on the pitch) because I don’t think there is any clear cut solution to that feud given the fact that John Terry has shown us what he is really made of over the years and Rio Ferdinand being a no nonsense man. But given Harry’s relationship with Rio and Frank Lampard (who is a close friend of John Terry I’m assuming) I believe he can get the best out of those two players on the pitch without ever bothering much about their off-field saga.

I wish Roy Hodgson the best of luck in his new role either way.  He is a great manager and has done an amazing job at Fulham and West Bromwich Albion, whether he can take the success he enjoyed at this two clubs to the England national team remains to be seen, I hope he does.

Peace..............

SOCIAL NETWORKING; THE ELEMENT OF MISPLACED POWER WITHIN

To start with I haven’t posted anything here since my first blog, this is not undesirable, it was my decision to stop blogging just after starting because I thought I couldn’t keep up given the level of concentration required by my other endeavours. But the last few past months has been a learning period for me, which influenced me to keep up with this blog. First I was inspired by some blogger who I follow, who I undoubtedly believe has got a much more hectic schedule than me and still keep up with his blog. Secondly I realized that there is an element of misplaced power in the advent of social networking; which led to the title of this blog.

The advent of social networking has made communication ever easier and affordable. With sites such as Facebook and twitter family, friends and love ones are just a click away. Isn’t this a wonderful thing? Yes of course it undoubtedly is, but there is something else to the advent of social networking; the element of misplaced power. Over the past months I have seen some of the  most bizarre updates and comments over the World’s most popular social networking site; Facebook. What is more surprising is that most of such appalling updates come from my own compatriots or may be it is because most of my Facebook friends are Gambians. I mean for example during the build-up to the elections in Gambia a comment to a post by one of my friends goes like “If you don’t like Yahya Jammeh, then he has done something to your family member or a friend”. I can’t put into context the meaning of such comments, well one thing is for sure, from her previous comments I believe the lady consider herself a fan of President Jammeh, but whether that is a compliment or criticism is debatable.

Ironically it might sound easy to say I don’t read such comments or befriend such people, but the problem with Facebook is that any comments to posts by your friends is visible on your news feed. Now the best option might be regarded as responding to any comment you didn’t go along with, but the problem is that you don’t have control over your own words over someone else’s post because they have the ability to delete your comment. I mean sometimes I get to the extreme of trying to delete my Facebook account because of such shocking comments and update’s that show up on my feed which I seem not to have much control over, Example, off late I experience getting updates on my page about friends posts to some groups even though am not a member of this groups and not interested in their updates, but here is where it get even more interesting, when I try to restrict my privacy settings from getting such group updates I found my self in the Facebook FAQ’s where it clearly states that you can get updates from some groups you are not a member of due to the fact that this groups are Public, now that’s rapt up . 

Furthermore anyone can open a Facebook account, create a group and post whatever they desire, what is the element of misplace power in this one may question. The element of misplaced power is that this people have access to a wide range of audience most of whom don’t intend to listen to them in the first place, this happens through friends or even friends friends connections. Even with Facebook’s privacy settings you have limited control over what is shown on your wall (with the exception of deleting it after it is already been posted), well that will seem too much to ask of Facebook given the fact that anyone who can see your picture on Facebook can also download them with just a right click of a mouse, creepy!

The element of misplaced power in social networking is that people can abuse the principles of freedom of speech by saying anything they wish without any bound to the law.  Much focus has been on Facebook because it is the most widely used social network platform currently, but perhaps another engine of misplaced power in the social networking platform is “YouTube” where users can post videos of racial, religious, sex, and disability discriminatory nature like this one here .To see that there is an element of misplaced power in the current use of social networking just try registering some association like one of those groups on Facebook or try directly quoting the message in  this YouTube Video  on BBC or CNN.

Bless.

AUTHORS NOTE:  The contents of this article are my opinions about the privacy settings of these companies from my personal experience of using them and it doesn’t represent the actual privacy policy of the companies mentioned. Contact the relevant company if in doubt.