I am currently reading the book “The Pentagons Brain, An Uncensored History of DARPA" based upon the things that DARPA and ARPA created and how the developments came to light 20 years later. It is entirely possible that the US government created crypto currencies to pay for nefarious activities by the CIA in foreign countries. I have not been able to validate the following paper and I leave it up to you to make your own assessment. .....Aivars
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
I have observed in Europe, where Roundup use is prohibited, that Americans who claim intolerance to gluten are able to eat the bread without any side effects. I wonder if this is actually poisoning of Americans by the farmers using Round Up as opposed to Gluten intolerance? On a personal trip to Italy the mayor of a city in Piedmonte told me that cancer rates were through the roof 20 years ago and they assumed a direct link with Roundup. They banned the use and went back to traditional methods of weed control such as ploughing the weeds back into the soil. Not surprisingly there is a study being promoted in Italy to study the cancerous effect of round up..... Aivars.
By Dr. Mercola
In recent years, concerns over the health effects of glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup and other weed killer formulations — has risen exponentially. Researchers have discovered it not only may be carcinogenic,1 but may also affect your body’s ability to produce fully functioning proteins, inhibit the shikimate pathway (found in gut bacteria) and interfere with the function of cytochrome P450 enzymes(required for activation of vitamin D and the creation of nitric oxide and cholesterol sulfate).
Glyphosate also chelates important minerals, disrupts sulfate synthesis and transport, interferes with the synthesis of aromatic amino acids and methionine, resulting in folate and neurotransmitter shortages, disrupts your microbiome by acting as an antibiotic, impairs methylation pathways, and inhibits pituitary release of thyroid stimulating hormone, which can lead to hypothyroidism.2,3
Now, government researchers warn the Roundup formula is far more toxic than glyphosate alone. As reported by investigative journalist Carey Gillam:4
“The tests5 are part of the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) first-ever examination of herbicide formulations made with the active ingredient glyphosate, but that also include other chemicals. While regulators have previously required extensive testing of glyphosate in isolation, government scientists have not fully examined the toxicity of the more complex products sold to consumers, farmers and others.”
Toxicology Testing Long Overdue
The NTP testing was done by request from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) following the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reclassification of glyphosate as a Class 2A probable carcinogen three years ago.6 At the time, the IARC noted concerns about glyphosate formulations possibly having increased toxicity due to synergistic interactions.
As it turns out, that’s exactly what the NTP testing found. According to the NTP’s summary of the results, glyphosate formulations “significantly altered” the viability of human cells by disrupting the functionality of cell membranes. Mike DeVito, acting chief of the NTP Laboratory, told Gillam, “We see the formulations are much more toxic. The formulations were killing the cells. The glyphosate really didn’t do it.”
While first-phase results do not indicate that weed killers like Roundup are carcinogenic, it does show that the formulations are more toxic than glyphosate in isolation (for which evidence of carcinogenic potential does exist), and that they have the ability to kill human cells.
Jennifer Sass, who works as a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, added, “This testing is important, because the EPA has only been looking at the active ingredient. But it’s the formulations that people are exposed to on their lawns and gardens, where they play and in their food.”
Despite public assurances that Roundup is harmless, internal documents from Monsanto, obtained through previous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, reveal the company itself is unclear about the toxicity of Roundup as it has not been thoroughly studied. Internal discussions also reveal Monsanto employees have not been convinced the product is harmless. For example, in a 2002 email, Monsanto executive William Heydens said, “Glyphosate is OK but the formulated product … does the damage.”7
A 2003 company email8 from Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer, Ph.D., states, “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement. The testing on the formulations are not anywhere near the level of the active ingredient.”
Farmer also adds that, “We cannot support the statement about ‘no adverse effects whatsoever on flora, or fauna or on the human body.’ Adverse effects are seen on flora (glyphosate is meant to kill vegetation), adverse effects on fauna — in studies with laboratory animals — even death is seen (LDS0 studies for example) …” Yet another company email sent in 2010 said,9 “With regards to the carcinogenicity of our formulations we don’t have such testing on them directly.”
Despite such internal discussions and doubts, in its “Benefits and Safety of Glyphosate” report published last year,10 Monsanto continues to claim that “Glyphosate-based herbicides are supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health and environmental effects databases ever compiled for a pesticide product. Comprehensive toxicological and environmental fate studies conducted over the last 40 years have time and again demonstrated the strong safety profile of this widely used herbicide.”
Ramazzini Institute Seeking Donations for Global Safety Study
The highly respected Ramazzini Institute in Italy — which recently confirmed the link between cellphone radiation and Schwann cell tumors found by NTP researchers11,12,13 — is now raising funds14 to perform a comprehensive, global glyphosate study. Stage 1 would investigate the chemical’s carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity potential. The Institute explains its decision to look for public funding:
“Aiming to produce independent and solid scientific evidence, the Ramazzini Institute has decided not to accept any funding for the study from the industry that produces glyphosate-based herbicides or from the organic farming or food industry — to avoid all conflicts of interest.
Do you want to know if glyphosate is safe for you and your family? If you do, you can now help fund a study that you can trust. This is the most comprehensive independent study ever on the World’s most used herbicide, the study that you and your family deserve!”
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
Hang on what did they say? In this article it talks about how the sea level was 210 feet lower 60,000 years ago allowing aborigines to migrate to Australia easily! How many cars were there then? Why did the sea level rise? Aivars
Monday, May 21, 2018
He bet against it, I wrote about it - the collapse of CDO’s. We are both in agreement about crypto currencies. The underlying blockchain and the use of tokens for electronic contracts is where the merit lies. Eliminating rafts of unnecessary brokers, processes and providing transparency and visibility in originating transactions is where value will be created....... Aivars
About time that people are focusing on quality of food vs the farmer like Gargiulo who creates tasteless products. He focuses on benefiting his own bottom line having created tasteless non nutritious products that look fantastic and do not bruise, consequently educating whole generations of bland palettes..... Aivars
Science is already bringing us more sustainable, flavorful cuisine in the form of engineered seeds, plant-based proteins and electronically traceable seafood. But producers, chefs and restaurateurs are still struggling with how to bring these novel—and often pricey—foods to Americans who live outside coastal cities.
Instead of the industry working to convince the average consumer to forgo meat, food experts at the Future of Everything Festival offered another solution: make affordable, healthy, delicious and convenient alternatives.
“Animals as a food production system are the most destructive food technology on earth,” said Patrick Brown, founder and CEO of Impossible Foods, maker of a plant-protein burger designed to taste (and bleed) like beef. “The only way to solve the problem is by beating that technology in the marketplace.”
To that end, the Impossible Burger will soon be available at the Cheesecake Factory which has 214 locations across the U.S. and Canada, according to its website, as well as at about 400 White Castle locations nationwide, up from 140 last month, Mr. Brown said.
To that end, the Impossible Burger will soon be available at all 199 U.S. locations of the Cheesecake Factory, Mr. Brown said. The burger is also served at 140 White Castle locations nationwide, and the company hopes to eventually expand into all 400 White Castles.
Others are tackling the issue at seed level. At Row7 Seed Company, chef Dan Barber and breeder Michael Mazourek are deploying plant genealogy, computer modeling and field sensors to create flavor-packed vegetables served beyond the white-cloth-covered tables of Blue Hill at Stone Barns, Mr. Barber’s restaurant in Pocantico Hills, N.Y.
Even as more eaters demand quality food, “stores will charge a bit more for whole wheat pasta [because] whoever’s buying it will pay a premium,” said Sam Kass, former White House chef and founder of Trove, an advisory firm.
For restaurateur Kimbal Musk, the goal is to serve “real food” at a price point competitive with Chili’s or Applebee’s. He is working with local farmers and using automation to keep costs down, he said. A tech-enabled oven, for example, can sear and braise pork, enabling cooks with much less training to make the dish.
By Wall Street Journal Tech
Tuesday, May 8, 2018
I have been talking about potential unfunded pension liabilities for some time now. I have watched unsustainable acquisitions being made by many different entities over the last 5 years. Multiples of up to 20 times EBITDA are being paid with high multiples of debt, all at a time when a significant number of industries are under attack from new business models such as Amazon. When will these pension funds have to become liquid in order to pay their retirees and will that cause the next stock market crash? ...Aivars
Public pension fund projections don’t always match actual experience
The value of investments by public pension funds declined last quarter, widening the gap between what these funds say they will earn and what they actually earn.
Pension funds across the U.S. must each year estimate how much they expect to earn on investments—a projection that determines the amount the government that is affiliated with the pension fund must pay into it. Robust returns reduce the need for government support.
But forecasts don’t always square with funds’ actual experience. Retirement plans across the country still project their investments will grow at a median rate of 7.25%, according to Wilshire Consulting, an adviser to pension funds. Yearly returns on public pension plans have returned a median 6.79% over the past decade and 6.49% over the past 20 years, according to Wilshire Trust Universe Comparison Service, a database.
Unlike corporations, public pensions have wide latitude in projecting investment returns.
In the first quarter, public plans lost a median 0.23%, according to Wilshire Trust Universe Comparison Service. Such a lackluster return will serve as a stark reminder to the public officials who manage billions of dollars in pensions for America’s firefighters, police and other public workers of the daunting shortfalls many funds face.
“With all of the major asset classes falling it was pretty tough for investors to have any positive returns. They didn’t have much of a chance to make money,” said Robert J. Waid, managing director at Wilshire Associates.
Public retirement systems had an average 72% of assets they need to pay for retirement promises in 2016, according to the latest data available in the Public Plans Database, which tracks about 170 pension funds. The figure a decade earlier was 85%.
Before the first quarter, pension plans had experienced nine quarters of positive returns. That rise had brightened the picture for public retirement systems and closed some of the gap between expectations and reality.
These pension funds have also steadily narrowed this gap on their own. Three quarters of the 129 state pension plans monitored by the National Association of State Retirement Administrators have reduced their investment return assumption since fiscal year 2014.
But government officials seeking to make their investment targets more conservative have a powerful disincentive: High returns assumptions appeal to elected leaders because they reduce the amount governments need to set aside to cover pension promises. For some, pensions have already caused budget pressure.
Companies don’t have the same flexibility to set return expectations on their pension plans. Pension plans sponsored by S&P 1500 companies have an average 87% of assets needed to cover their pensions promises, according to Mercer, a consultancy.
California and its school districts will have to pay a projected $15 billion or more into the state’s public worker pension plan over the next 20 years after the plan, known as Calpers, in 2016 decided to reduce its investment target to 7% from 7.5% over a three-year period.
Other governments—loathe to cut services or increase taxes—have made a riskier choice, putting more of their money into riskier investments with higher expected returns, such as real estate, commodities, hedge funds and private-equity holdings.
These so-called alternative investments rose to 26% of holdings at about 150 of the biggest U.S. funds in 2016, according to the Public Plans Database, compared with 7% more than a decade earlier.
“They’re taking a lot risk in their plans with high allocations to equity and other return seeking assets,” said Ed Bartholomew, a consultant. “Someone is bearing that risk and the question should always be ‘who is bearing that risk?’”
Birmingham, Alabama, even raised its target rate on one of its pension funds to 7.5% from 7% in 2016 after moving some of the money out of fixed-income investments and into equities. The move made the city’s annual contribution to the Retirement and Relief System less costly than it otherwise would have been.
“Why Birmingham changed the investment rate return…is a bit questionable,” said Richard Ciccarone, president and chief executive of Merritt Research Services LLC, a research firm.
A city finance official said in an email that the state had reduced the amount of fixed-income investments the fund was required to hold and now “allows greater flexibility for investment management.” He said the change was made with the advice of an actuary and an investment consultant.
But Tom Aaron, senior analyst, Moody’s Investors Service said the temporary budget relief comes at a price.
“You’re supplanting a budgetary contribution with increased risk taking. If those (investment) assumptions don’t pan out that’s going to result in higher than expected budgetary contributions down the road.”
By Heather Gillers - Wall Street Journal
Monday, May 7, 2018
So the trader gets the blame. High frequency trading in effect does the same and yet that is legal. That seems to me like hypocrisy. Aivars
Mark Johnson was convicted of misusing confidential information about a client’s $3.5 billion currency trade to make millions for the bank
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
I remember a conversation with the ex head of the Tata Group India when I lived in Hong Kong in the middle of the 90’s. I thought democracy would make India grow quicker than China. He said “NO” it is democracy that will hold India back and that China will thrive because of authoritarianism and sure enough time has proven him to be correct! Aivars
The democratic cause is on the defensive today, and China’s pragmatic authoritarianism now offers a serious rival model, based on economic progress and national dignity.
In his 1992 book “The End of History and the Last Man,” Francis Fukuyama famously declared the triumph of liberal democracy as the model of governance toward which all of humankind was heading. It was a victory on two fronts. The Western democracies held the clear advantage over their ideological rivals in material terms, thanks to their proven ability to deliver general prosperity and a rising standard of living for most citizens. At the same time, to live in a modern democracy was to be given certain guarantees that you would be respected as a person. Everyone got to have a say, so democracy delivered personal dignity as well.
Results plus respect is a formidable political mix. The word “dignity” appears 118 times in “The End of History,” slightly more often than the words “peace” and “prosperity” combined. For Mr. Fukuyama, that is what made democracy unassailable: Only it could meet the basic human need for material comfort and the basic human desire for what he called “recognition” (a concept borrowed from Hegel, emphasizing the social dimension of respect and dignity). Set against the lumbering, oppressive, impoverished regimes of the Soviet era, it was no contest.
Yet today, barely two decades into the 21st century, the contest has been renewed. It is no longer a clash of ideologies, as during the Cold War. Western democracy is now confronted by a form of authoritarianism that is far more pragmatic than its communist predecessors. A new generation of autocrats, most notably in China, have sought to learn the lessons of the 20th century just like everyone else. They too are in the business of trying to offer results plus respect. It is the familiar package, only now it comes in a nondemocratic form.
Since the 1980s, the Chinese regime has had remarkable success in raising the material condition of its population. Over that period, nondemocratic China has made strikingly greater progress in reducing poverty and increasing life expectancy than democratic India: People in China live on average nearly a decade longer than their Indian counterparts and per capita GDP is four times higher. The poverty rate in China is now well below 10% and still falling fast, whereas in India it remains at around 20%. The benefits of rapid economic growth have been made tangible for many hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens, and the regime understands that its survival depends on the economic success story continuing.
But China’s rise has been underpinned by more than just improved living standards. There has been a simultaneous drive for greater dignity for the Chinese people. This is not, however, the dignity of the individual citizen as we’ve come to know it in the West. It is collective national dignity, and it comes in the form of demanding greater respect for China itself: Make China great again! The self-assertion of the nation, not the individual, is what completes the other half of the pragmatic authoritarian package.
Chinese citizens do not have the same opportunities for democratic self-expression as do citizens in the West or India. Personal political dignity is hard to come by in a society that stifles freedom of speech and allows for the arbitrary exercise of power. Nationalism is offered as some compensation, but this only works for individuals who are Han Chinese, the majority national group. It does not help in Tibet or among Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang.
Democracies, because they give everyone a say, are bound to be fickle.
On the material side of the equation, China’s pragmatic authoritarians have certain advantages. They can target and manage the benefits of breakneck growth to ensure that they are relatively widely shared. Like other developed economies, China is experiencing rising inequality between the very richest and the rest. But the rest are never far from their rulers’ minds. The Chinese middle class is continuing to expand at a dramatic pace. In the West, by contrast, it is the middle class, whose wages and standard of living have been squeezed in recent decades, who feel like they are being left behind.
The material benefits of democracy are much more haphazardly distributed. At any given moment, plenty of people feel excluded from them, and the constant changing of course in democratic politics—“We zig and we zag,” as Barack Obama said after Donald Trump’s victory—is a reflection of these persistent frustrations. Democracies, because they give everyone a say, are bound to be fickle. Pragmatic authoritarianism has shown itself more capable of planning for the long-term.
This is revealed not only by the massive recent Chinese investment in infrastructure projects—in transport, in industrial production, in new cities that spring up seemingly from nowhere—but also by the growing concern of China’s rulers with environmental sustainability. China is now the world’s leading greenhouse gas emitter, but it is also at the forefront of attempts to tackle the issue. Only in China would it be possible to double solar capacity in a single year, as happened in 2016.
Western visitors often come back from China astonished by the pace of change and the lack of obstacles in its path. Things appear to get done almost overnight. That is what happens when you don’t have to worry about the democratic dignity of anyone who might stand in the way.
Beijing’s reliance on the continuation of rapid economic growth comes with significant risks. The great long-term strength of modern democracies is precisely their ability to change course when things go wrong. They are flexible. The danger of the pragmatic authoritarian alternative is that when the immediate benefits start to dry up, it may be difficult to find another basis for political legitimacy. Pragmatism may not be enough. Nor, in the end, will national self-assertion, if it increases the dangers of geopolitical instability.
The central political contests of the 20th century were between rival and bitterly opposed worldviews. In the 21st century, the contest is between competing versions of the same fundamental underlying goals. Both sides promise economic growth and widespread prosperity—tangible results in terms of material well-being. But they differ on the question of dignity: The West offers it to individual citizens, while China offers it more diffusely, to the nation as a whole.
The remarkable rise of China shows that this constitutes a genuine alternative. But is it a genuine rival in the West? Might democratic voters be tempted by this offer?
One of the striking features of the last century’s battle of ideologies was that the rivals to liberal democracy always had their vocal supporters within democratic states. Marxism-Leninism had its fellow-travelers right to the bitter end, and such people can still be found in Western politics ( Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, potentially the next prime minister and finance minister of the United Kingdom, have never given up the struggle). By contrast, the Chinese approach has almost no one in the West actively advocating its merits. That does not mean, however, that it is without appeal.
Mr. Trump’s electoral pitch in 2016 came straight out of the pragmatic authoritarian playbook. He promised to deliver collective dignity, at least for the majority group of white Americans: Make America great again! Stop letting other people push us around! At the same time, he promised to use the state much more directly and forcefully to improve the material circumstances of his supporters. He would bring the jobs back, triple the growth rate and protect everyone’s welfare benefits. What Mr. Trump did not offer was much by way of personal dignity: not in his own conduct, not in his treatment of the people around him, and not in his contemptuous attitude toward the basic democratic values of tolerance and respect.
But there are serious limits in the West to the appeal of the Chinese model. First, unlike his counterparts in Beijing, Mr. Trump has shown little capacity to deliver real benefits to the Americans who elected him. He is hamstrung by his own lack of pragmatism and impulse control. He has also been constrained by the checks and balances that democratic politics puts in his way. For now, he looks more like a familiar type of democratic huckster than a harbinger of future authoritarianism in the U.S.: He has over-promised and under-delivered.
More fundamentally, it is still very hard to imagine the citizens of Western democracies acquiescing in the loss of personal dignity that would come with abandoning their rights of democratic dissent. We are far too attached to our continuing capacity to throw the scoundrels out of office when we get the chance. Voters in Europe and the U.S. have been attracted lately by novel-sounding promises to kick over the traces of mainstream democracy, but they have not endorsed anyone threatening to take away their democratic rights. The authoritarian reflex has been limited to threats to take away the rights of others—people who supposedly “don’t belong.”
All of these movements in the West are populist distortions of democracy, not alternatives to it. Democratic authoritarians like the recently re-elected Viktor Orban in Hungary, who describes himself as an “illiberal democrat,” take their inspiration from Vladimir Putin rather than from the Chinese Communist Party. Pragmatism in countries like Hungary and Russia comes a distant second place to scapegoating and elaborate conspiracy theories. Democracy is still talked up, but stripped of its commitment to democratic rights. Elections take place, but the choice is often an empty one.
Chinese politics is far from immune to scapegoating and conspiracy theories. Its leaders pose as strongmen, and Xi Jinping has recently cemented his tight hold on power by being installed as leader for life. But as a viable alternative to democracy, Beijing has something to offer that Moscow and Budapest, to say nothing of today’s Washington, can only gesture toward: Consistent, practical results for the majority.
The ongoing appeal of the Chinese model will vary from place to place. It may just stretch to include the edges of our own politics, though it will struggle to reach its heart. It is more immediately appealing in those parts of Africa and Asia where breakneck economic growth is both a realistic prospect and a pressing need. Rapid economic development, coupled with national self-assertion, has an obvious attraction for states that need to deliver results in a relatively short period of time. In these places, democracy often looks like the riskier bet.
The triumph of liberal democracy appears a lot more contingent than it did three decades ago.
In Western societies, the Chinese alternative is unlikely to capture voters’ imaginations, even as it shows them what they might be missing. Still, the triumph of liberal democracy appears a lot more contingent than it did three decades ago. The temptations to try something different are real, even if the most successful current alternative remains a distant prospect for most voters.
There’s reason to worry about the weaknesses of our democracies. The kind of respect they provide may prove insufficient for 21st-century citizens. The premium that democracy places on personal dignity has traditionally been expressed through extensions of the franchise. Giving people the vote is the best way to let them know that they count. But when almost all adults are able to vote—in theory, if not in practice—citizens inevitably look for fresh ways to secure greater respect.
The rise of identity politics in the West is an indication that the right to take part in elections is not enough anymore. Individuals seek the dignity that comes with being recognized for who they are. They don’t just want to be listened to; they want to be heard. Social networks have provided a new forum through which these demands can be voiced. Democracies are struggling to work out how to meet them.
Elected politicians increasingly tiptoe around the minefield of identity politics, unsure which way to turn, terrified of giving offense, except when they deliberately court it. At the same time, they have grown dependent on technical knowledge—from bankers, scientists, doctors, software engineers—to deliver continuing practical benefits. As citizens find less personal dignity in politics and politicians become less able to manage prosperity, the attraction that has held democracy together for so long will start to dissipate. Respect plus results is a formidable combination. When they come apart, democracy loses its unique advantage.
The Chinese model faces serious challenges, too. There, personal dignity remains the unrealized option, and the untried temptation is to extend rights of political expression and choice. The use by the Chinese state of social networks to manage and monitor its citizens represents a concerted attempt to resist the pull of democratic dignity and to hold fast to the appeal of pragmatic authoritarian control. Just as the strains in the Western trade-off between dignity and material benefits may not be sustainable over time, the same is true of the Chinese version.
That sweet spot, where the two come together, which Mr. Fukuyama identified as the end of history, looks increasingly remote. No one has the monopoly on respect plus results any more.
Appeared in the April 28, 2018, print edition as 'China’s Challenge To Democracy.'
Thursday, March 22, 2018
In order to grow GDP countries look at immigration however if you bring in people that have a different belief system this potentially puts your nation at risk. The need to drive GDP is what should be questioned. Is it right to use GDP to measure the success of a nation or should we have other metrics in an advanced economy other than GDP growth? ....Aivars Lode