Some things to remember when looking for cheap sports car insurance:

Shop around the internet for insurance rates

Some of the cheaper sports car insurance rates can be found on the internet. Several insurance companies offer deals and discounts. There are also car insurance companies that offer free insurance estimates online.

Factors in determining cost

Sports cars that are driven in places that are considered to have high crime rates cost more to insure. Sports cars are known to be more often stolen than a non-sports vehicle. Their cost for repairs is relatively higher. This is why the insurance premium for sports vehicles are higher than average.

But if a sports car is equipped with safety features such as car alarm, detachable stereo, and steering wheel lock - the cost to have it insured will be reduced.

Compare prices

Shop around for the cheapest sports car insurance policy. This way you will be able to compare the different deals and offers car insurance companies are offering.

Customers would also know if they are being treated fairly, since they have a basis of comparison from different sources.

It is also a factor how many individuals are to be covered by a particular insurance company. This is why it is imperative to look into different sources for the best deal. Different insurance companies offer different terms and agreements.

There are numerous car insurance companies out that are less expensive sports car insurance.

The key is to find those that are offering discounts and special deals for the specific model of car and one that cover the buyer's needs and specifications. This way the owning a sports car will be an exhilarating experience.

The topic of discussion today is not a subject you usually find on business blogs. Being sensitive is commonly associated with weakness and insecurity in business. I do not believe this however, I believe this is an essential personal characteristic, specially one that entrepreneurs must possess. Understanding this, is the result of interactions with my mentors, who have constantly impressed upon me the importance of being sensitive to your team members, customers and suppliers. I have seen and experienced this in my own interactions of working with several teams over the last couple of years. Being sensitive to the feelings of others, situations and circumstances allows you to focus on larger issues in a more comprehensive manner.

Being a team member will inevitably result in times when the situation requires compromise and taking action in ways you may not always be comfortable with. Reactions to such situations can often be the 'make or break' factor for some teams. The key factor in all of this, boils down to balance. Being either overly sensitive or insensitive, bring their own share of difficulties. Maintaining a balance between both extremes requires discipline, an open mind and flexibility. I have worked with several people who have had trouble maintaining this composure, it has invariably led to difficult situations. 

Highly effective team members understand the need for sensitivity when dealing with issues which impact the entire team. Some areas requiring sensitivity are:

1. Dealing with conflict: The manner of handling conflict is a telling sign of whether balance can be maintained between extremes. For example, an individual is in a conflict with another team mate for not contributing adequately to the team. If you were the person who brought up this issue with your team member, your tone, rationale and way of handling this issue is critical.

2. Dealing with change: Whenever an organization undergoes a structural change process, substantial friction is created. This could be when individuals are required to move out of their comfort zone. As an effective team member, it is our responsibility to ensure that everyone on the team is given enough support during this transitional period. Focusing selfishly on yourself or how this change process will impact you alone, is not a winning attitude.

3. Dealing with loss: Every organization has its share of ups and downs. It is during down periods that a team is required to come together and figure out how to fix the situation. I have learnt, dealing with organizational loss tends to bring out the ugly side of people. The fact is, no one likes to lose, but it is a part of life. The success of a team comes down to, how we react to such situations and whether we are able to handle it well collectively as a team.

I agree entirely that some people are more sensitive than others. It is important however, that everyone on the team does their best in dealing with difficult situations and individuals, with an open mind. This attitude will not only help create stronger bonds between all team members, it will also make you stronger as a person. The next time you find yourself in a difficult situation, do your best to understand where the other person is coming from as well. Always remember to treat others in the same manner you would like to be treated yourself.

This has the rightnes of the situation. My business is prosperous - and thus, I must attend to it, and to the responsibilities entailed. I have let this other business take too much energy, too much attention, for far too long.

Today will be busy as I pay due diligence to the office and to my customers. They have been loyal, forthright, and deserving of better. Starting today, they get it. So, onward! Of course, I may stumble and trip - I've dug myself a big hole emotionally - but I will recover, I will strive forward, and I will be better now that I've ever been.

Commodity Prices and Inflation: What's the Connection?

Frank Shostak | July 1, 2008

The latest data show that the yearly rate of growth of the US consumer price index (CPI) climbed to 4.1% in May from 3.9% in the month before. Most economists and Federal Reserve policy makers attribute this to sharp increases in commodity prices.

In his speech at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Fed Chairman Bernanke said,

Inflation has remained high, largely reflecting sharp increases in the prices of globally traded commodities.[1]

There is almost complete unanimity among economists and various commentators that inflation consists in general increases in the prices of goods and services. From this it is established that anything that contributes to price increases sets inflation in motion. A decrease in unemployment or an increase in economic activity is seen as a potential inflationary trigger. Some other triggers, such as increases in commodity prices or workers wages, are also regarded as potential threats.

If inflation is just a general increase in prices, as popular thinking has it, then why is it regarded as bad news? What kind of damage does it do?

Mainstream economists maintain that inflation causes speculative buying, which generates waste. Inflation, it is maintained, also erodes the real incomes of pensioners and low-income earners and causes a misallocation of resources. Inflation, it is argued, also undermines real economic growth.

Why should a general increase in prices hurt some groups of people and not others? And how does inflation lead to the misallocation of resources? Why should a general increase in prices weaken real economic growth? If inflation is triggered by other factors, then surely it is just a symptom and can't cause anything as such.

We know that a price of a good is the amount of money paid for the good. From this we can infer that for any given amount of goods, a general increase in prices can only take place in response to the increase or inflation of the money supply.

Most economists, when discussing the issue of general increases in prices, which they label inflation, never mention the word money. The reason for that is the lack of a good statistical correlation between changes in money and changes in various price indexes such as the CPI. Whether changes in money cause changes in prices cannot be established by means of statistical correlation. We suggest that a statistical correlation, or lack of it, between two variables shouldn't be the determining factor in establishing causality. One must figure out by means of reasoning the structure of causality.

The Essence of Inflation

Historically, inflation originated when a king would force his citizens to give him all their gold coins under the pretext that a new gold coin was going to replace the old one. In the process the king would falsify the content of the gold coins by mixing it with some other metal and return to the citizens diluted gold coins. On this Rothbard wrote,

More characteristically, the mint melted and recoined all the coins of the realm, giving the subjects back the same number of "pounds" or "marks," but of a lighter weight. The leftover ounces of gold or silver were pocketed by the King and used to pay his expenses.[2]

Because of the dilution of the gold coins, the ruler could now mint a greater number of coins for his own use. (He could now divert real resources to himself.) What was now passing as a pure gold coin was in fact a diluted gold coin.

The expansion in the diluted coins that masquerade as pure gold coins is what inflation is all about. As a result of the increase in the amount of coins, prices in terms of coins now go up (more coins are being exchanged for a given amount of goods). What we have here is inflation, i.e., an expansion of coins. As a result of inflation, the ruler can engage in an exchange of nothing for something. Also note that the increase in prices in terms of coins results from the coin inflation.

Under the gold standard, the technique of abusing the medium of exchange became much more advanced through the issuance of paper money unbacked by gold. Inflation therefore means here an increase in the amount of paper receipts resulting from the increase in receipts that are not backed by gold yet masquerade as the true representatives of money proper: gold.

The holder of unbacked receipts can now engage in an exchange of nothing for something. As a result of the increase in the number of receipts (inflation of receipts) we now also have a general increase in prices. Observe that the rise in prices develops here because of the increase in paper receipts that are not backed by gold. Also, what we have is a situation where the issuers of the unbacked paper receipts divert to themselves real goods without making any contribution to the production of goods.

In the modern world, money proper is no longer gold but rather paper money; hence inflation in this case is an increase in the stock of paper money. Please note we don't say, as monetarists do, that the increase in the money supply causes inflation. What we are saying is that inflation is the increase in the money supply.

We have seen that increases in the money supply set in motion an exchange of nothing for something. They divert real funding away from wealth generators toward the holders of the newly created money. This is what sets in motion the misallocation of resources, not price increases as such.

Real incomes of wealth generators fall not because of a general rise in prices but because of increases in the money supply. When money is expanded — i.e., created out of "thin air" — the holders of the newly created money can divert to themselves goods without making any contribution to the production of goods. As a result, wealth generators who have contributed to the production of goods discover that the purchasing power of their money has fallen since there are now fewer goods left in the pool — they cannot fully exercise their claims over final goods since these goods are not there.

Once wealth generators have fewer real resources at their disposal, this will obviously hurt the formation of real wealth. As a result, real economic growth is going to come under pressure.

General increases in prices, which follow increases in money supply, only point to an erosion of real wealth. Price increases, however, didn't cause this erosion.

Likewise, it is monetary inflation, and not increases in prices, that erodes the real incomes of pensioners and low-income earners. As a rule, they are the last receivers of money — often called the "fixed-income groups."

According to Rothbard,

Particular sufferers will be those depending on fixed-money contracts — contracts made in the days before the inflationary rise in prices. Life- insurance beneficiaries and annuitants, retired persons living off pensions, landlords with long-term leases, bondholders and other creditors, those holding cash, all will bear the brunt of the inflation. They will be the ones who are "taxed."[3]

Can Increases in Commodity Prices Cause Inflation?

We have seen that, according to Bernanke and most economists, it is increases in commodity prices such as oil that are behind the recent strong increases in the prices of goods and services.

If the price of oil goes up, and if people continue to use the same amount of oil as before, people will be forced to allocate more money to oil. If people's money stock remains unchanged, less money is available for other goods and services, all other things being equal. This of course implies that the average price of other goods and services must come down. Remember: a price is the sum of money paid for a unit of a good. (The term "average" is used here in conceptual form. We are well aware that such an average cannot be computed.)

Note that the overall money spent on goods doesn't change; only the composition of spending has altered, with more on oil and less on other goods. Hence the average price of goods or money per unit of good remains unchanged.

Likewise, the rate of increase in the prices of goods and services in general is going to be constrained by the rate of growth of money supply, all other things being equal, and not by the rate of growth of the price of oil.

It is not possible for increases in the price of oil to set in motion a general increase in the prices of goods and services without corresponding support from the money supply.

Can Inflation Expectations Trigger a General Price Rise?

We have seen that as a rule a general increase in the prices of goods can emerge as a result of the increase in the amount of money paid for goods, all other things being equal. The key then for general increases in prices, which is labeled by popular thinking as inflation, is increases in the money supply, e.g., the supply of US dollars. But what about the situation when increases in commodity prices ignite inflation expectations, which in turn strengthens the rate of inflation? Surely then inflation expectations must be also an important driving factor of inflation? According to Bernanke inflation expectations are the key driving factor behind increases in general prices,

The latest round of increases in energy prices has added to the upside risks to inflation and inflation expectations. The Federal Open Market Committee will strongly resist an erosion of longer-term inflation expectations, as an unanchoring of those expectations would be destabilizing for growth as well as for inflation.[4]

Once people start to anticipate higher inflation in the future, they increase their demand for goods at present thus bidding the prices of goods higher. Also, according to popular thinking, workers expectations for higher inflation prompt them to demand higher wages. Increases in wages in turn lift the cost of producing goods and services and force businesses to pass these increases on to consumers by raising prices.

It is true that businesses set prices and it is also true that businessmen, while setting prices, take into account various costs of production. However, businesses are ultimately at the mercy of the consumer, who is the final arbiter.

The consumer determines whether the price set is "right," so to speak. Now, if the money stock did not increase, then consumers won't have more money to support the general increase in prices of goods and services.

Also, because of expectations for higher prices in the future, consumers will not be able to increase their demand for goods at present and bid the prices of goods higher without having more money. Consequently, the amount of money spent per unit of goods will stay unchanged.

So irrespective what people's expectations are, if the money supply hasn't increased, then people's monetary expenditure on goods cannot increase either. This means that no general strengthening in price increases can take place without an increase in the pace of monetary pumping.

Imagine that somehow the Fed did manage to convince people that central bank policies are aimed at stopping inflation and maintaining price stability, yet at the same time the central bank also increased the rate of growth of money supply. Even if inflationary expectations were stable, that destructive process would be set in motion, regardless of these expectations, because of the increase in the rate of growth of money. People's expectations and perceptions cannot offset this destructive process. It is not possible to alter the facts of reality by means of expectations. The damage that was done cannot be undone by means of expectations and perceptions.

Some economists, such as Milton Friedman, maintain that if inflation is "expected" by producers and consumers, then it produces very little damage.[5] The problem, according to Friedman, is with unexpected inflation, which causes a misallocation of resources and weakens the economy. According to Friedman, if a general increase in prices can be stabilized by means of a fixed rate of monetary injections, people will then adjust their conduct accordingly. Consequently, Friedman says, expected general price increases, which he calls expected inflation, will be harmless, with no real effect.

Observe that, for Friedman, bad side effects are not caused by increases in the money supply but by its outcome — increases in prices. Friedman regards money supply as a tool that can stabilize general increases in prices and thereby promote real economic growth. According to this way of thinking, all that is required is fixing the rate of money growth, and the rest will follow.

The fixing of the money supply's rate of growth does not alter the fact that money supply continues to expand. This, in turn, means that it will lead to the diversion of resources from wealth producers to non–wealth producers. The policy of stabilizing prices will therefore generate more instability through the misallocation of resources.

Can Inflation Emerge While Prices Stay Unchanged?

Now, if for a given stock of goods an increase in the money supply occurs, this would mean that more money is going to be exchanged for a given stock of goods. Obviously then the purchasing power of money is going to fall, i.e., the prices of goods are going to increase (more money per unit of a good). In this case the general increase in prices is associated with inflation.

But now consider the following case: the rate of growth in money is in line with the rate of growth in goods. Consequently, the prices of goods on average don't change. Do we have inflation here or don't we? For most economists, if an increase in the money supply is exactly matched by the increase in the production of goods, then this is fine, since no increase in general prices has taken place and therefore no inflation has emerged. We suggest that this way of thinking is false since inflation has taken place, i.e., the money supply has increased. This increase cannot be undone by the corresponding increase in the production of goods and services.

For instance, once a king has created more diluted gold coins that masquerade as pure gold coins he is now able to exchange nothing for something irrespective of the rate of growth of the production of goods. Regardless of what the production of goods is doing, the king is now engaging in an exchange of nothing for something, i.e., diverting resources to himself by paying nothing in return. This diversion is possible because of the increase in the number of diluted coins, i.e., the inflation of coins.

The same logic can be applied to paper-money inflation. The exchange of nothing for something that the expansion of money sets in motion cannot be undone by an increase in the production of goods. The increase in money supply — i.e., the increase in inflation — is going to set in motion all the negative side effects that money printing does, including the menace of the boom-bust cycle, regardless of the increase in the production of goods.

According to Rothbard,

The fact that general prices were more or less stable during the 1920s told most economists that there was no inflationary threat, and therefore the events of the great depression caught them completely unaware.[6]

Conclusion

Contrary to the popular definition, inflation is not about a general rise in prices but about increases in money supply. The general increase in prices as a rule develops because of the increase in money. The harm that most people attribute to increasing prices is in fact due to increases in money supply. Policies that are aimed at fighting inflation without identifying what it is all about only make things much worse.

When inflation is seen as a general increase in prices, then anything that contributes to price increases is called inflationary. It is no longer the central bank and fractional-reserve banking that are the sources of inflation, but rather various other causes.

In this framework, not only does the central bank have nothing to do with inflation but, on the contrary, the bank is regarded as an inflation fighter. On this Mises wrote,

To avoid being blamed for the nefarious consequences of inflation, the government and its henchmen resort to a semantic trick. They try to change the meaning of the terms. They call "inflation" the inevitable consequence of inflation, namely, the rise in prices. They are anxious to relegate into oblivion the fact that this rise is produced by an increase in the amount of money and money substitutes. They never mention this increase. They put the responsibility for the rising cost of living on business. This is a classical case of the thief crying "catch the thief." The government, which produced the inflation by multiplying the supply of money, incriminates the manufacturers and merchants and glories in the role of being a champion of low prices.[7]

Notes

[1] Ben S. Bernanke. "Outstanding Issues in the Analysis of Inflation." Speech at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston June 9, 2008.

[2] Murray N. Rothbard. What Has Government Done to Our Money?

[3] Murray N. Rothbard. What Has Government Done to Our Money?

[4] Ben S. Bernanke. "Outstanding Issues in the Analysis of Inflation." Speech at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston June 9, 2008.

[5] See Friedman's Dollars and Deficits, Prentice Hall, 1968, pp.47–48.

[6] Murray N. Rothbard. America's Great Depression. 153.

[7] Ludwig von Mises. Economic Freedom and Interventionism. 94.

This weekend , Kent Couch, a 48-year-old gas station owner flew a lawn chair rigged with helium-filled balloons  200 miles across the Oregon desert. 

This story played everywhere, on all major networks. 

Yes the guy really did it. But that is not the stupid thing. What makes matters worse  is that he did not have a Corporate Logo blasted all over the chair. A  Company surely would have paid upwards of $100,000, or more,  for the Logo placement.

Kent, come on! Next time you fly the magic balloon lawn chair, get paid for it!

How far have we got in our plans?

• We have a name, which will be unveiled once we've completed the registration
• We've registered our parent company, which should be confirmed end next week
• We have capital and ideas to start looking at
• We have all the necssary legal docs in place to allow us to function
• We've identified and got agreements from two people to join us on a board of directors
• We have a location to work from, as well as all the necessary contracts
• We have a blog set up but not yet launched (until we reveal the name) and a website domain

It's coming together, which is great as we start August 1st. Post India, where I'll be heading at some point next week, I'll give an update. Please keep praying for us in this venture.

https://cid-1aa26630dccde52d.skydrive.live.com/

Human-pig hybrid embryos given go ahead

Roger Highfield | July 1, 2008

A licence to create human-pig embryos to study heart disease has been issued by the fertility watchdog.

This marks the third animal-human hybrid embryo licence to be issued by Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the first since the Commons voted in favour of this controversial research last month.

An HFEA spokesman said it had approved an application from the Clinical Sciences Research Institute, University of Warwick, for the creation of hybrid embryos. The centre has been offered a 12 month licence with effect from today, July 1.

The effort at the University of Warwick is led by Professor Justin St John. "This new license allows us to attempt to make human pig clones to produce embryonic stem cells," he said, where embryonic stem cells are able to turn into the 200 plus types in the body.

"We will take skin cells from patients who have a mutation for certain kinds of heart disease (cardiomyopathy, which makes the heart lose its pumping strength) and put them into pig eggs after their chromosomes have been removed. We will then make embryos so that we can attempt to derive embryonic stem cells which will allow us to study some of the molecular mechanisms associated with these heart diseases.

"Ultimately they will help us to understand where some of the problems associated with these diseases arise and they could also provide models for the pharmaceutical industry to test new drugs. We will effectively be creating and studying these diseases in a dish.

"But it's important to say that we're at the very early stages of this research and it will take a considerable amount of time. There is still a great deal to learn about these techniques and much of our early work will involve understanding how we can make the hybrid cloning process as efficient as possible."

The study is aimed at understanding the way power-producing structures in cells, called mitochondria, are passed from egg to embryo. In the hybrid, the mitochondria mostly come from the egg, initially making up around half of the DNA by weight, and the team will do experiments in order to ensure that the trace of human mitochondrial DNA takes over, not least because it is designed to work with human nuclear DNA.

"The key thing we are doing is trying to create stem cells without any animal DNA in them. So even though these hybrid embryos normally have a small percentage of animal DNA , we are hoping to create cells that would have human chromosomes and human mitochondrial DNA." The reason is that, as the team puts it, "mixing of these two diverse populations of mitochondria can be detrimental to cellular function."

Dr Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat science spokesman, commenting on the HFEA decision to issue a license to the University of Warwick to create hybrid embryos combining human skin cells with enucleated pig eggs, said: "This application is a further indication of the interest in this sort of research by UK scientists, the decision of the HFEA to issue a license following stringent checks demonstrates that it is considered both necessary and ethical."

"While this approval comes under the existing 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, both houses of Parliament have recently voted by large majorities to allow it into the future," said Prof Robin Lovell-Badge, of the MRC National Institute For Medical Research.

"It is good news that this license has been issued at a time when parliament has expressed overwhelming support for this research after an excellent public debate. I suspect other similar applications will follow and hopefully this research can now progress without the hype."

Teams in Newcastle and London are already creating hybrids. The former have already created hybrids with cow eggs to study the basics of how the use of genes changes in early development, the latter a range of species to generate stem cells from people with neurodegenerative disorders.

Recycle America, a subsidiary of Wast Management, is beginning to accept Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. They have been recycling Nos. 1 and 2 for years. They want to slowly get the word out that they're accepting different types now due to the complexities involved in operations and marketing. Overseas markets such as China are interested in utilizing recycled plastics in goods they can sell their consumers.

Perhaps if we decrease the number of plastics we throw away, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch can be reduced in size or even eliminated.

Check out the article (1st link) to see the list of items that could be accepted.

The stock market: how bad can it get?
Share prices have fallen by a fifth since their peak a year ago, and the majority of City analysts believe worse is still to come.

Nick Clark | July 4, 2008

The roar of the bear is shaking the London stock market once again. The FTSE 100 Index of leading shares fell as low as 5,358 yesterday morning, taking the total loss since last June's peak of 6,732 to a shade over 20 per cent – the technical definition of a bear market.

Although the blue-chip index recovered later in the day, City analysts believe the respite is almost certain to be temporary, with no prospect of interest rate cuts to boost the economy while domestic inflation fears remain and global commodity prices continue to soar. The bear has not been sighted in Britain since 2002, although the US moved into bear market territory some weeks ago. Our jury of economists, fund managers and stockbrokers is almost unananimous: he's back and he's only just beginning to sharpen his claws.

Tom Elliott, Strategist, JP Morgan Asset Management

The situation is liable to get worse for the broad economy in 2008. The full-year estimates of GDP growth imply a significant slowdown in the second half of the year. The declines will be driven by a slowdown of spending in the consumer sector, which makes up 70 per cent of GDP in the UK. Food and fuel costs and mortgage payments are rising while house prises are falling. This will probably lead to people increasingly looking to save and trying to de-lever their housing debt. Discretionary spending stocks have suffered, while traditionally defensive ones are up. It is nice to see the market working as it should.

On the plus side, we think inflation fears are overdone, as there has not been much of a rise where it matters – wages. Wage growth is slowing, which should help, and means the Bank of England might not lift interest rates.

Jean-Michel Six, Chief economist, Standard and Poor's

It is challenging to detect bright spots in the current market. We are in the eye of the storm and the summer will only be tougher. There was hope that the Bear Stearns rescue would signal that the worst of the credit crunch was behind us, but we are only beginning to see it move into the real economy. The second half of the year will probably be much gloomier than the first. It looks as if consumers are being overwhelmed by falling markets, rising costs and stagnating incomes.

This will last at least until the start of 2009 as the risk of a consumer-led recession remains very much present in the UK, driven by the housing market downturn. One light at the end of the tunnel – although it is very long tunnel – is the possibility that oil prices might ease in the fourth quarter, especially if the dollar strengthens. While there are structural reasons that it is so expensive, cyclical factors could see it drop $20 a barrel.

Philip Shaw, Chief economist, Investec

There are likely to be further falls before the end of the year. The market is taking far too bullish a view on domestic cyclical stocks like general and food retailers, and the leisure sector – basically, all those dependent on consumer spending. Resource stocks are also looking well overvalued. Whether we are in a technical bear market or not, the falls we have seen this year are still worryingly large.

The UK economy is pretty close to recession, and there is a 50:50 chance of it hitting a technical recession by the end of the year. So far, the market hasn't been factoring in that possibility, but if it does happen there will be further falls to come.

Ian Stewart, Director, Deloitte

What is clearly happening is that problems in the banking sector are being increasingly transmitted to companies because the supply of credit is tighter and interest rates are higher. Banks are searching for liquidity and looking to offload their debts. That has translated into a hit on the corporate sector, especially the consumer-facing groups.

The wider economy is slowing, while inflation is rising and the potential for higher interest rates is real. The brief rally in May has now played out. Historically, asset bubbles take a long time to deflate, they don't actually burst overnight. Judging by that, the signs aren't great.

Khuram Chaudhry, Quantitative strategist, Merrill Lynch

Fundamentally, I am quite negative on the economy and the direction of the stock market. Although there will be some bounces along the way, there won't be the return of a bull market any time soon. The key is to enter back into the market when sentiment becomes depressed; it appears there could be some lift in the near future. I can see a near-term bounce as company directors have increased share-buying. It is quite a good indicator.

As the fears of rising inflation have grown, the market became more complacent about the downside risks of growth. Now investors are starting to address those risks. Still, this is not a good situation. Growth is slowing, inflation is rising and profit expectations are falling, which will have an adverse effect on the stock markets. However, the real global risks are coming next year. Analysts' estimates for 2009 appear too high, because Asia and the emerging markets will begin to slow more rapidly, having a knock-on effect in Europe.

Roger Bootle, Chief economist, Capital Economics

I suspect the market will remain rather weak and will get worse towards the end of the year. The market hasn't yet factored in the seriousness of the situation it faces, with weakness in the retailers, banks and housebuilders. It will remain subdued for a year or two. Next year will be the worst, but there should be the start of a slow recovery by 2010.

Howard Archer, Chief economist, Global Insight

We are cutting our growth forecasts further, and we now have the British economy on a "stagnant" rating. Consumer spending is slowing. In the first quarter of the year the numbers were resilient and then there was a rise in May, which was a surprise. There is likely to be a correction in June, as consumers reign in their spending this year.

It also looks as if many companies are cutting back on their investment plans. This is not surprising as credit conditions tighten and the outlook weakens. There were hopes that the weakening pound might help make exports more competitive but, at the same time, demand from the key markets in the US and the eurozone is falling. It is hard to see where growth is going to come from.

krista: Andrew, I just got a call from the guys who are leasing us our space for the launch party.

me: so?

krista: They called to tell me that they demolished the location.

me: WHAT?!?!?

krista: Apparently they were planning on renovating and somehow the message didn't get through from the guy who promised it to us.

me: So what are they going to do about it?

krista: well they offered us a place a few blocks away instead but... it doesn't have electricity or toilets.
Suffice to say, we spent the next couple of hours figuring out an alternative to that... but the incident got me thinking about all of the crazy things that have happened with our startup over the last two years. So here's the beginning of my list, it's going to be a work in progress...

1. my co-founder, Dan, was hit by lightning while programming our Alpha. I found out that he was in the hospital and couldn't really see. After somewhere around 18 hours his vision came back. Apparently programming during a lightning storm is not a good idea.

2. Our launch party location was demolished as covered above

3. hmm ok maybe there aren't as many as I thought. Will get back to this list in a few

Bush-Cheney Crony Got Iraq Oil Deal

Jason Leopold | July 6, 2008

Ray Hunt, the Texas oil man who landed a controversial oil production deal with Iraq’s Kurdistan regional government, has enjoyed close political and business ties with Vice President Dick Cheney dating back a decade – and to the Bush family since the 1970s.

Despite those longstanding connections – and Hunt’s work for George W. Bush as a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board – the Bush administration expressed surprise when Hunt Oil signed the agreement last September.

At that time, administration officials said Hunt Oil’s deal with the Kurds jeopardized delicate negotiations among competing Iraqi sects and regions for sharing oil revenues, talks seen as vital for achieving national reconciliation.

“I know nothing about the deal,” President Bush said. “To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil revenue sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously if it undermines it I’m concerned.”

However, on July 2, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released documents showing that senior administration officials were aware that Hunt was negotiating with the Kurdistan government and even offered him encouragement.

Hunt also personally alerted Bush’s PFIAB about his oil company’s confidential contacts with Kurdish representatives.

In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, committee chairman, complained that the administration’s comments last year were “misleading.”

“Documents obtained by the Committee indicate that contrary to the denials of Administration officials, advisors to the President and officials in the State and Commerce Departments knew about Hunt Oil’s interest in the Kurdish region months before the contract was executed,” Waxman wrote.

Waxman said the Hunt-Kurdish case also raised questions about the veracity of similar administration denials about its role in arranging more recent contracts between Iraq and major U.S. and multinational oil companies, including Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP and Chevron.

Plus, there’s the longstanding suspicion that oil was a principal, though unstated, motive behind the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq, which sits on the world’s second-largest oil reserves.

Administration officials – and much of the mainstream U.S. media – have ridiculed the oil motive charge as a conspiracy theory.

Oil Deals

But many of the oil companies now stepping forward to benefit from Iraqi oil were instrumental in both supporting Bush’s political career and giving advice to Cheney’s secretive energy task force in 2001.

For instance, Ray Hunt’s personal relationship with the Bush family dates back to the 1970s as Hunt, the chief of Dallas-based Hunt Oil, helped build the Texas Republican Party as it served as a power base for the Bushes rise to national prominence.

The Hunt family donated more than $500,000 to Republican campaigns in Texas, while Hunt Oil employees and their spouses gave more than $1 million to Republican causes since 1995, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Ray Hunt also had strong ties to Dick Cheney during his years at the helm of Halliburton, the Houston-based oil-services giant. In 1998, Cheney tapped Hunt to serve on Halliburton’s board of directors, where Hunt became a compensation committee member setting Cheney’s salary and stock options.

In 1999, when Texas Gov. George W. Bush was running for the Republican presidential nomination, Bush turned to Hunt to help fund his presidential campaign efforts in Iowa, according to Robert Bryce’s book, Cronies: Oil, The Bushes, And The Rise Of Texas, America's Superstate.

“By the summer of 1999, Bush had already raised $37 million but he wanted to conserve his campaign cash so he turned to a Texas crony, Ray Hunt, to help fund the Iowa effort,” Bryce wrote. “In July of 1999, Hunt was among a handful of Bush supporters who each donated $10,000 to the Iowa Republican party.”

In May 2000, Bush appointed Hunt finance chairman of the Republican National Committee. Hunt also donated $5,000 to the Florida recount battle and spent $100,000 on Bush’s inaugural party.

Bush Presidency

When Bush became President in 2001, Hunt emerged as an advisor to Cheney’s energy task force, according to highly placed executives at Hunt Oil whom I have been in contact with over the past seven years.

Bush also appointed Hunt to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and to the PFIAB, giving him access to highly classified information.

Hunt’s son, Hunter, a vice president at Hunt Oil, became another top energy advisor to the new administration, the company’s Web site said.

One of the topics before Cheney’s task force was the hoped-for opportunity for American oil companies to regain access to Iraq’s underdeveloped oil fields as a way to meet increasing U.S. energy demands.

That opportunity opened up after the U.S.-led invasion and conquest of Iraq in March and April of 2003, although a stubborn insurgency and political disarray slowed efforts to modernize the Iraqi oil industry.

Further bolstering Hunt Oil’s influence in the region in November 2003, Bush named James Oberwetter, a Hunt Oil vice president, to be U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

Hunt Oil finally nailed down a major oil agreement with the semi-autonomous Kurdish region on Sept. 7, 2007. But the deal outraged many Iraqi officials because it was enacted before a national law could be adopted on the distribution of oil revenues. Bush administration officials also criticized the deal.

At the time, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, questioned whether Ray Hunt benefited from inside information from Bush, Cheney and/or other White House officials about Iraq’s stalled national oil law.

"As I have said for five years, this war is about oil,” Kucinich said. “The Bush administration desires private control of Iraqi oil, but we have no right to force Iraq to give up their oil. … The constitution of Iraq designates that the oil of Iraq is the property of all Iraqi people."

Amazon Pipeline

The production-sharing agreement Hunt Oil signed with the Kurds is not the company’s first controversial energy project. Nor is it the first time the company has received help from the Bush administration for its work overseas, as documents obtained by Waxman’s investigators show.

In August 2003, the Bush administration threw its support behind the Camisea gas-pipeline project in the Amazon jungle in Peru that drew international criticism because it threatened to destroy a pristine stretch of rainforest and jeopardized the lives of indigenous people.

The London Independent reported that the beneficiaries of the project “would be two Texas energy companies with close ties to the White House, Hunt Oil and Kellogg Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Vice President Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton.” [Independent, Aug. 4, 2003]

When the pipeline deal went through, Hunt hired Halliburton to conduct the engineering work on the project as well as to build a $1 billion export terminal on the coast.

“Bush Pioneer Jose Fourquet played a pivotal role in the financing of a massive Peruvian natural gas project that benefited Hunt Oil Co., whose chairman, Ray L. Hunt, signed up to be a Pioneer and is a longtime ally of the president,” the Washington Post reported on May 17, 2004.

“Fourquet, the Treasury Department's U.S. representative to the Inter-American Development Bank, rebuffed the official written and oral recommendation from other U.S. officials to vote ‘no’ on the project.

“Instead, he abstained on $135 million in financing for the project, allowing it to proceed. Opposition from the United States, a primary funder of the IDB bank, would have jeopardized the deal,” the Washington Post reported.

Wink and Nod

Now, the new evidence suggests that Hunt Oil at least benefited from the administration’s wink and nod in striking the Kurdish oil deal.

In a July 12, 2007, letter to PFIAB, Hunt disclosed that Hunt Oil was “approached a month or so ago by representatives of a private group in Kurdistan as to the possibility of our becoming interested in that region.”

Hunt described a visit of a Hunt Oil survey team and stated, “we were encouraged by what we saw. We have a larger team going back to Kurdistan this week.”

In a second letter to PFIAB, dated Aug. 30, 2007, Hunt revealed that he would travel to Kurdistan in early September for meetings with the Kurdistan regional government, including its president, prime minister and oil minister.

Those meetings led to the oil agreement between Hunt Oil and the Kurdish leaders -- and now have raised questions about Bush’s denial that he had any advanced knowledge about the deal.

“State Department officials similarly disavowed involvement in the contract,” Waxman said in the letter to Rice. “Department officials claimed that to the extent they were aware of any negotiations, they actively warned Hunt Oil not to enter into a contract because it was contrary to U.S. national security interests.

“Documents obtained by the Committee indicate that contrary to the denials of Administration officials, advisors to the President and officials in the State and Commerce Departments knew about Hunt Oil’s interest in the Kurdish region months before the contract was executed.”

Waxman asked Rice to cooperate with the committee’s investigation. Hunt Oil declined to comment on Ray Hunt’s relationship with Bush or his administration.

To save the relationship, like in the real world, start conversating.

ISPs still considering tracking Web use

Peter Svensson | June 25, 2008

Although a large Internet service provider has backed away from technology that tracks subscribers' Web use in order to deliver personalized advertising, two other broadband companies said Wednesday they are still considering whether to deploy it.

Phone companies Embarq Corp. and CenturyTel Inc. have both completed trials of the same tracking system, from online advertising company NebuAd Inc., and are now considering whether to proceed.

The largest U.S. Internet provider that had been actively looking at Web tracking, Charter Communications Inc., announced Tuesday that it had canceled its planned test because customers had raised concerns.

The technology gathers data on the interests of Web surfers by looking at the sites they visit. It passes the information to online advertising companies, without revealing a surfer's identity, so they can display more relevant ads on Web sites. For instance, a surfer who visits sites about dogs might see more banner ads for dog food.

The system has been criticized by privacy advocates and legislators. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, wrote to Charter asking it to put the test on hold to give time for discussions. Markey chairs the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

"We are not currently using behavioral targeting tools and have not decided whether to move forward with them, either through NebuAd or with any other vendor," said Debra Peterson, spokeswoman at Embarq.

The Overland Park, Kan., company is the country's ninth-largest ISP, with 1.34 million broadband lines at the end of March.

Tony Davis, the head of investor relations at CenturyTel, said it was his understanding that the reaction to Charter's proposed test had to do with cable-industry regulations that don't apply to a phone company.

"So at this point it's not affecting our thinking," Davis said.

Monroe, La.-based CenturyTel had 586,000 broadband customers at the end of the first quarter.

Big Pharma Is in a Frenzy to Bring Cannabis-Based Medicines to Market

Paul Armentano | July 5, 2008.

The US government's longstanding denial of medical marijuana research and use is an irrational and morally bankrupt public policy. On this point, few Americans disagree. As for the question of "why" federal officials maintain this inflexible and inhumane policy, well that's another story.

One of the more popular theories seeking to explain the Feds' seemingly inexplicable ban on medical pot goes like this: Neither the US government nor the pharmaceutical industry will allow for the use of medical marijuana because they can't patent it or profit from it.

It's an appealing theory, yet I've found it to be neither accurate nor persuasive. Here's why.

First, let me state the obvious. Big Pharma is busily applying for -- and has already received -- multiple patents for the medical properties of pot. These include patents for synthetic pot derivatives (such as the oral THC pill Marinol), cannabinoid agonists (synthetic agents that bind to the brain's endocannabinoid receptors) like HU-210 and cannabis antagonists such as Rimonabant. This trend was most recently summarized in the NIH paper (pdf), "The endocannabinoid system as an emerging target of pharmacotherapy," which concluded, "The growing interest in the underlying science has been matched by a growth in the number of cannabinoid drugs in pharmaceutical development from two in 1995 to 27 in 2004." In other words, at the same time the American Medical Association is proclaiming that pot has no medical value, Big Pharma is in a frenzy to bring dozens of new, cannabis-based medicines to market.

Not all of these medicines will be synthetic pills either. Most notably, GW Pharmaceutical's oral marijuana spray, Sativex, is a patented standardized dose of natural cannabis extracts. (The extracts, primarily THC and the non-psychoactive, anxiolytic compound CBD, are taken directly from marijuana plants grown at an undisclosed, company warehouse.)

Does Big Pharma's sudden and growing interest in the research and development of pot-based medicines mean that the industry is proactively supporting marijuana prohibition? Not if they know what's good for them. Let me explain.

First, any and all cannabis-based medicines must be granted approval from federal regulatory bodies such as the US Food and Drug Administration -- a process that remains as much based on politics as it is on scientific merit. Chances are that a government that is unreasonably hostile toward the marijuana plant will also be unreasonably hostile toward sanctioning cannabis-based pharmaceuticals.

A recent example of this may be found in the Medicine and Health Products Regulatory Agency's recent denial of Sativex as a prescription drug in the United Kingdom. (Sativex's parent company, GW Pharmaceuticals, is based in London.) In recent years, British politicians have taken an atypically hard-line against the recreational use of marijuana -- culminating in Prime Minister Gordon Brown's declaration that today's pot is now of "lethal quality." (Shortly thereafter, Parliament elected to stiffen criminal penalties on the possession of the drug from a verbal warning to up to five years in jail.) In such an environment is it any wonder that British regulators have steadfastly refused to legalize a pot-based medicine, even one with an impeccable safety record like Sativex? Conversely, Canadian health regulators -- who take a much more liberal view toward the use of natural cannabis and oversee its distribution to authorized patients -- recently approved Sativex as a prescription drug.

Of course, gaining regulatory approval is only half the battle. The real hurdle for Big Pharma is finding customers for its product. Here again, a culture that is familiar with and educated to the use therapeutic cannabis is likely going to be far more open to the use of pot-based medicines than a population still stuck in the grip of "Reefer Madness."

Will those patients who already have first-hand experience with the use of medical pot switch to a cannabis-based pharmaceutical if one becomes legally available? Maybe not, but these individuals comprise only a fraction of the US population. Certainly many others will -- including many older patients who would never the desire to try or the access to obtain natural cannabis. Bottom line: regardless of whether pot is legal or not, cannabis-based pharmaceuticals will no doubt have a broad appeal.

But wouldn't the legal availability of pot encourage patients to use fewer pharmaceuticals overall? Perhaps, though likely not to any degree that adversely impacts Big Pharma's bottom line. Certainly most individuals in the Netherlands, Canada, and in California -- three regions where medical pot is both legal and easily accessible on the open market -- use prescription drugs, not cannabis for their ailments. Further, despite the availability of numerous legal healing herbs and traditional medicines such as Echinacea, Witch Hazel, and Eastern hemlock most Americans continue to turn to pharmaceutical preparations as their remedies of choice.

Should the advent of legal, alternative pot-based medicines ever warrant or justify the criminalization of patients who find superior relief from natural cannabis? Certainly not. But, as the private sector continues to move forward with research into the safety and efficacy of marijuana-based pharmaceuticals, it will become harder and harder for the government and law enforcement to maintain their absurd and illogical policy of total pot prohibition.

Of course, were it not for advocates having worked for four decades to legalize medical cannabis, it's unlikely that anyone -- most especially the pharmaceutical industry -- would be turning their attention toward the development and marketing of cannabis-based therapeutics. That said, I won't be holding my breath waiting for any royalty checks.

Oh yeah, and as for those who claim that the US government can't patent medical pot, check out the assignee for US Patent #6630507.

Iran: War or Privatization: All Out War or “Economic Conquest”?

Michel Chossudovsky | July 5, 2008

Is the war on hold?

Tehran is to allow foreign investors, in what might be interpreted as an overture to the West, to acquire full ownership of Iran’s State enterprises in the context of a far-reaching “free market” style privatization program.

With the price of crude oil at 140 dollars a barrel, the Iranian State is not in a financial straightjacket as in the case of most indebted developing countries, which are obliged by their creditors to sell their State assets to pay off a mounting external debt. What are the political motivations behind this measure?

Several Western companies have already been approached. Tehran will allow foreign capital  “to purchase unlimited shares of state-run enterprises which are in the process of being sold off”.

While Iran’s privatization program was launched during the government of Mohammed Khatami  in the late 1990s, the recent sell-off of shares in key state enterprises points to a new economic design. The underlying measure is far-reaching. It goes beyond the prevailing privatization framework applied in many developing countries within America’s sphere of influence:

“The move is designed to attract greater foreign investment and is part of the country’s sweeping economic liberalization program.

Iran will no longer make a distinction between domestic and foreign firms that wish to purchase state-run companies as long as the combined foreign ownership in any particular industry does not exceed 35%. … As an example, a foreign firm may purchase an Iranian steel company but it would not be allowed to buy every business enterprise in Iran’s steel industry.

Among the new incentive measures announced, foreign firms may also transfer their annual profit from their Iranian company out of the country in any currency they wish.”

It is important to carefully analyze this decision. The timing of the announcement by Iran’s Privatization Organization (IPO) coincides with mounting US-Israeli threats to wage an all out war against Iran.

Moreover, the divestment program is compliant with the demands of the “Washington Consensus”. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has confirmed, with some reservations, that Tehran is committed to a “continued transition toward a viable and efficient market economy” while also implying .that the building of “investor confidence” requires an acceleration of  the privatization program.

In its May 2008 Review (Art. 4 Consultations), the IMF praised Tehran for its divestment program, which essentially transfers the ownership of State assets into private hands, while also underscoring that the program was being carried out in a speedily and efficient fashion.

Under the threat of war, is this renewed initiative by Tehran to privatize key industries intended to meet the demands of the Bush Administration?

The Bretton Woods institutions are known to directly serve US interests. They are not only in liaison with Wall Street and the US Treasury, they are also in contact with the US State Department, the Pentagon and NATO. The IMF-World Bank are often consulted prior to the onslaught of a major war. In the war’s aftermath, they are involved in providing “post conflict reconstruction” loans.  In this regard, the World Bank is a key player in channelling “foreign aid” to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The privatization measures suggest that Iran is prepared to allow foreign capital to gain control over important key sectors of the Iranian economy.

According to the chairman of the Iranian Privatization Organization (IPO) Gholamreza Kord-Zanganeh some 230 state-run companies are slated to be privatized by end of the Iranian year (March 2009). The shares of some 177 State companies were offered in Tehran Stock Exchange in the last Iranian year (ending March 2008).

Already the state-owned Telecommunication Company of Iran (TCI) has indicated that “a number of foreign telcos have expressed an interest in acquiring its shares when the government sells off part of its interest in a month’s time. Local press reports did not name the potential investors. TCI has a monopoly in Iran’s fixed line market and is also the country’s largest cellular operator via its subsidiary MCI.” France’s Alcatel, the MTN Group of South Africa and Germany’s Siemens already have sizeable interests in Iran’s telecom industry.

Other key sectors of the economy including aluminum, copper, the iron and steel industry have recently been put up for privatization, with the shares of State companies floated on the Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE)

More than Meets the Eye

Is this decision by Tehran to implement a far-reaching privatization program, in any way connected with continuous US saber rattling and diplomatic arm twisting?

At first sight it appears that Tehran is caving into Washington’s demands so as to avoid an all war.

Iran’s assets would be handed over on a silver platter to Western foreign investors, without the need for America to conquer new economic frontiers through military means?

But there is more than meets the eye.

Washington has no interest in the imposition of a privatization program on Iran, as an “alternative” to an all out war. In fact quite the opposite. There are indications that the Bush adminstration’s main objective is to stall the privatization program.

Rather than being applauded by Washington as a move in the right direction, Tehran’s privatization program coincides with the launching (May 2008) of a far-reaching resolution in the US Congress (H.CON. RES 362), calling for the imposition of Worldwide financial sanctions directed against Iran:

“[H. CON. RES. 362] urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran, … international banks which continue to conduct financial transactions with proscribed Iranian banks; … energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; and all companies which continue to do business with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.” (See full text of H.CON RES 362) (emphasis added)

The resolution further demands that “the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran …. prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.”(emphasis added)

Were these economic sanctions to be carried out and enforced, they would paralyze trade and monetary transactions. Needless to say they would also undermine Iran’s privatization program and foreclose the transfer of Iranian State assets into foreign hands.

Economic Warfare

Now why on earth would the Bush administration be opposed to the adoption of a neoliberal-style divestment program, which would strip the Islamic Republic of some of its most profitable assets?

If “economic conquest” is the ultimate objective of a profit driven military agenda, what then is the purpose of bombing Iran, when Iran actually accepts to hand over its assets at rock-bottom prices to foreign investors, in much the same way as in other compliant developing countries including Indonesia, the Philippines, Brazil,  etc?

The largest foreign investors in Iran are China and Russia.

While US companies are notoriously absent from the list of foreign direct investors, Germany, Italy and Japan have significant investment interests in oil and gas, the petrochemical industry, power generation and construction as well as in banking. Together with China and Russia, they are the main beneficiaries of the privatization program.

One of the main objectives of the proposed economic sanctions under H. RES CON 362 is to prevent foreign companies (including those from the European Union and Japan) , from acquiring a greater stake in the Iranian economy under Tehran’s divestment program.

Other countries with major foreign investment interests in Iran include France, India, Norway, South Korea, Sweden and Switzerland. Sweden’s Svedala Industri has major interests in Iran’s copper mines.

France, Japan and Korea have interests in the automobile industry, in the form of licensing agreements with Iranian auto manufacturers.

Italy’s ENI Oil Company is involved in the development of phases 4 and 5 of the South Pars oil field amounting to 3.8 billion dollars.(See Iranian Privatisation Organization, 2008 report) Total and the Anglo-Dutch conglomerate Shell are involved in natural gas.

While the privatization process does not allow for the divestment of Iran’s State oil company, it creates an environment which favors foreign investment by a number of countries including China, Russia, Italy, Malaysia, etc. in oil refinery, the petrochemical industry, the oil services economy as well as oil and gas infrastructure including exploration and oil-gas pipelines.

There is, however, no preferential treatment for US companies, no colonial style arrangement which would favor the transfer of Iranian assets into the pockets of a handful of US corporations as in the case of occupied Iraq.

In other words, the privatization program does not serve US economic and strategic interests. It tends to favor countries which have longstanding trade and investment relations with Islamic Republic. .

It favors Chinese, Russian, European and Japanese investors at the expense of the USA. It undermines and weakens American hegemony. It goes against Washington’s design to foster a “unipolar” New World Order through both economic and military means.

And that is why Washington wants to shunt this program through an economic sanctions regime which would, if implemented, paralyze trade, investment and monetary flows with Iran.

The economic sanctions’ regime as defined in H. CON 362 is intended to isolate Iran and prevent the transfer of Iranian assets into the hands of competing economic powers including China, Russia, the European Union and Japan.  It is tantamount to a declaration of war.

In a bitter irony, H CON 362 serves to undermine the economic interests of several of America’s allies, it would prevent them from positioning themselves in the Middle East, despite the fact that these allies (e.g. France and Germany) are also involved through NATO in the planning of the war on Iran.

War and Financial Manipulation

The Bush administration has opted for an all out war on Iran in alliance with Israel, with a view to establishing an exclusive America’s sphere of influence in the Middle East.

A US-Israel sponsored military operation directed against Iran, would largely backlash on the economic and financial interests of America’s allies, including Germany, Italy, France, and Japan.

More broadly speaking, a war on Iran would hit corporate interests involved in the civilian economy as opposed to those more directly linked to the military industrial complex. It would undermine local and regional economies, the consumer manufacturing and services economy, the automobile industry, the airlines, the tourist and leisure economy, etc.

Moreover, an all out war feeds the profit driven agenda of global banking, including the institutional speculators in the energy market, the powerful Anglo-American oil giants and America’s weapons producers, the big five defense contractors plus British Aerospace Systrems Corporation  which play a major role in the formulation of US foreign policy and the Pentagon’s military agenda, not to mention the gamut of mercenary companies and military contractors.

A small number of global corporations and financial institutions feed on war and destruction to the detriment of  important sectors of economic activity, Broadly speaking, the bulk of the civilian economy is threatened.

What we are dealing with are conflicts and rivalries within the upper echelons of the global capitalist system, largely opposing those corporate players which have a direct interest in the war to the broader capitalist economy which ultimately depends on the continued development of civilian consumer and investment demand.

These vested interests in a profit driven war also feed on economic recession and financial dislocation. The process of economic collapse which results, for instance, from the speculative hikes in oil and food prices, triggers bankruptcies on a large scale, which ultimately enable a handful of global corporations and financial institutions to “pick up the pieces” and consolidate their global control over the real economy as well as over the international monetary system.

Financial manipulation is intimately related to military decision-making. Major banks and financial institutions have links to the military and intelligence apparatus. Advanced knowledge or inside information by these institutional speculators regarding specific “false flag” terrorist attacks, or military operations in the Middle East is the source of tremendous speculative gains.

Both the war agenda and the proposed economic sanctions regime trigger, quite deliberately, a global atmosphere of insecurity and economic chaos.

In turn, the institutional speculators in London, Chicago and New York not only feed on economic chaos and uncertainty, their manipulative actions in the energy and commodity markets contribute to spearheading large sectors of the civilian economy into bankruptcy.

The economic and financial dislocations resulting from the hikes in the prices of crude oil and food staples are the source of financial gains by a handful of global actors. Speculators are not concerned with the far-reaching consequences of a broader Middle East war, which could evolve into a World War Three scenario.

The pro-Israeli lobby in the US indirectly serves these powerful financial interests.  In the current context, Israel is an ally with significant military capabilities which serves America’s broader objective in the Middle East. Washington, however, has little concern for the security of Israel, which in the case of a war on Iran would be the first target of retaliatory military action by Tehran.

The broader US objective consists in establishing, through military and economic means, an exclusive US sphere of influence throughout the Middle East.

Iran: Oil unlikely to surge to $250

Tehran Times | Print Date: July 13, 2008

A senior official from the world’s fourth-largest oil exporter says crude prices will not hit $250 a barrel in the near future.

“I think there is no real prospect of crude skyrocketing to $250 a barrel this year,” said the Director of International Affairs at the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Hojjatollah Ghanimifard.

“When experts study oil hikes and declines, they first evaluate which factors should be taken into consideration and whether the processed information spans enough time,” the Iranian official argued.

“Figures [that suggest a surge to $250] are perhaps predictions with no scientific basis,” he told Mehr News Agency in a Friday interview.

Oil prices on Thursday surged to an all-time high of over $146 a barrel. Brent peaked at $146.69 before falling back to $146.08; US crude jumped $1.72 to $145.29 after having hit $145.85.

Chief executive of the Russian energy giant Gazprom Alexei Miller warned on June 10 that oil prices could hit as high as $250 a barrel by next year.

“Today we are witnessing a very great change for hydrocarbons. The

[oil price] is very high and we think it will reach $250 a barrel,” Miller said.

The US sometimes seems to have a will to fail. From the article:

Over the last 25 years, opportunities to head off the current crisis were ignored, missed or deliberately blocked, according to analysts, politicians and veterans of the oil and automobile industries. What's more, for all the surprise at just how high oil prices have climbed, and fears for the future, this is one crisis we were warned about. Ever since the oil shortages of the 1970s, one report after another has cautioned against America's oil addiction.

Even as politicians heatedly debate opening new regions to drilling, corralling energy speculators, or starting an Apollo-like effort to find renewable energy supplies, analysts say the real source of the problem is closer to home. In fact, it's parked in our driveways.

Nearly 70 percent of the 21 million barrels of oil the United States consumes every day goes for transportation, with the bulk of that burned by individual drivers, according to the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan research group that advises Congress.

So despite the fierce debate over what's behind the recent spike in prices, no one differs on what's really responsible for all that underlying demand here for black gold: the automobile, fueled not only by gasoline but also by Americans' famous propensity for voracious consumption.

Read the entire article---it's fascinating, in a way. Like watching a trainwreck.

An NHS whistleblower, who revealed that nurses caught viewing child porn had been allowed to continue treating patients, claims ministers disregarded her warnings that the disciplinary panel charged with rooting out rogue staff was failing.

Moi Ali, who was on the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), which deals with complaints against nurses and midwives, said she had tried for four years to pursue concerns about child protection. She resigned from her post as vice-president of the council last week.

She said the council was riven by in-fighting, with up to eight members of staff pursuing internal grievances and thousands of pounds spent on lawyers. But when she attempted to warn ministers that the council was being dangerously distracted from its job of protecting the public, she was repeatedly told they could not intervene.

When an official inquiry into the regulator concluded last month that the council had 'serious weaknesses' - including delays in responding to child abuse concerns - jeopardising its ability to protect patients, Ali believed she had been vindicated.

Instead, she found herself and the other two senior members of the committee pressured to resign by the junior health minister, Ben Bradshaw.

It never seems to matter which country or culture we're discussing. Blowing the whistle on corruption and criminal behavior must be one of the most courageous decisions in Earth.

Inevitably, the affected bureacracy closes ranks and tries to stonewall any investigation. The whistleblower gets fired and blacklisted. The thugs whose sleazy behavior provoked the incident gets kicked upstairs or wrapped in a golden parachute.

Disgusting!

Palm Reading has been around since the birth of Christ and probably before. However, texts have been written to tell of the future from the body messages of high counsel.  Thus, there has been a lot of information and importance with a long time of palm reading.

A bit of fortune telling:

1. The lines on the pinky side of your left hand tell how many children you will have.  The lines are close to the pinky and should be distinguisable before making a judgement call.

2. The four elements:  Measure your palm horizontally and then you have to measure if you have long/short fingers (measure your palm vertically and then measure you middle finger length. Length of middle finger is less than 7/8 of palm it is short.)
Water: Rectangular palm and long fingers
Fire: Rectangular palm and short fingers
Earth: Square palm and short fingers
Air: Square palm and long fingers

3. Remember: The good aspect to palm reading is there are certain lines that will contain their life line/marriage line/sex line.  You do not need to know everthing about the palm to be successful at reading someone else's.  Go out and enjoy impressing.

So, the Sotheby's Contemporary Evening sale that occurred last week on 1 July.  Not surprisingly, the beautiful yet small Study for the Head of George Dyer, 1967, by Francis Bacon exceeded the £8m - £10m estimate (that was available on request) to sell for £13.8m ($27.5m).  Because it is such a small (14 in x 12 in) painting and a study, I wasn't expecting a crazy price like Abramovich paid for the large Triptych.  However, with the beautiful colors and movement and intimacy and strong brush strokes, I had no doubt that it would go over estimate.

I was, however, surprised to see how well Murakami's work did at the sale.  DOB Flower, 2000, sold for £825,250 ($1.6m).  Mushroom-1, 2000, went for £481,250 ($959,709) and a statue of his character Kiki from a 2000 edition of 5 came in at £361,250 ($720,405).  While Kiki came in underestimate, the two paintings surpassed their high-end estimates.  I'm surprised by this because they're very impersonal Murakamis, I haven't researched them but I assume they were produced in the studio.  However, they did both come through Galerie Perrotin in Paris where they were exhibited in 2001.  Also, they both show iconic characters often produced by Murakami.  Still, despite my surprise, I'm happy - helps me in proving my dissertation hypothesis!

The U2 Basquiat did alright, selling for £5.1m ($10.2m), under the high-end estimate of £6m, but still a nice little packet for the band to split.

And Gormley's maquette for Angel of the North, 1996, sold for £2.3m ($4.6m), well above the £600,000 - £800,00 estimate.

The sale total was £94.7m ($188.9m), just exceeding the pre-estimate of £92.6m.   It does seem to be a bit of a bear market at the moment.  But I'm not yet sure how much of this is a result of the overall financial situation, or how much of this is just contemporary art prices re-adjusting themselves from the excessive highs they have been at lately.  I'm rather inclined to think it's simply a bit of both.

NB - all sale results include Buyer's Premium

Documentation is required for a company to move forward in the development of critical systems and business processes. RUP, UML and SDLC can all come into play here for larger projects so it is good to have a solid analytical and proven methodology for providing quality systems and business documents.

Corporations invest time and money to learn these methodologies and sometimes the benefits and monetary gains are intangible.

Let us say you have a team with expertise in the critical systems and business processes. Their knowledge of the critical systems and processes are accurate and exceeds expectations. The team’s technology skills consist of word processing, spreadsheets and some graphic illustration. From the technical communicator’s point of view, this may very well be a team of SMEs (Subject Matter Experts). The technical communicator with graphic illustration and writing skills can meet with your SMEs and start producing system and business process diagrams after each meeting is completed.

But let us take a closer look at your team. Do they have the time to produce the diagrams? Is there an easy to learn graphics illustration package in-house that a team member can use to illustrate and document the critical paths? If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then this may be a technical communicator project that you can do in-house. If the answer is no, consider a freelance writer to document your critical systems and business path, using the SMEs with a clear understanding of the critical paths.

Clients allocate months for projects that may only need a few weeks if enough thought is put into constructing a documentation solution for a project.

Save time and money by looking at all of your options first.

Sometimes the answers are right in front of your nose!

Email
Website