Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

‘We’re Aligned With US Policy’: Bolsonaro Refuses to Supply Fuel to Iranian Cargo Ships

teleSUR | July 25, 2019

Since the beginning of June, two Iranian commercial ships have been stranded at the port of Paranagua, in the state of Parana, in Brazil because the state-owned company, Petrobras has so far refused to supply fuel to them, in line with sanctions imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump on Iran, according to comments made by President Jair Bolsonaro to reports earlier this week.

“You know we are aligned with the U.S. policy. That is why we do what we have to do,” replied Brazil’s far-right President Jair Bolsonaro when questioned about this unusual case, which happens despite the fact that the U.S. sanctions on Iran contemplate exceptions for the sale of food and medicine.

The vessels Bavand and Termeh entered Brazilian territory to load corn two months ago. In fact, one of them is already loaded with about 50,000 tons of corn that could be completely spoiled in a short time.

According to the Latin American news outlet Pagina 12, a third of all Brazilian corn exports go to Iran and a good part of the urea used in the Brazilian fertilizer industry comes from Iran. Iran also imports Brazilian soy and meat.

Both ships belong to Sepid Shipping, an Iranian company blacklisted by Washington. However, the fuel for the vessels was acquired by Eleva, a Brazilian urea importer. Throughout this commercial process, therefore, the diesel was not acquired by Iranian money.

However, Petrobras claims that the urea is one of the U.S. banned products, an argument that does not stand given the fact that the Eleva transaction occurred before May and was authorized from Washington.

On July 13, Iran’s ambassador to Brazil Seyed Ali Saghaeyan went to the foreign minister in Brasilia to request information on the situation of the stranded ships. “He left without hearing anything concrete. The issue must reach the Supreme Court,” Pagina 12 reported.

During his visit, the Iranian ambassador told officials that if the federal government refuses to supply diesel to the vessels, his country could easily find new suppliers of corn, soy and meat.

Although this possibility could mean “bad news” for the Brazilian agriculture industry, “there are no signs” that the Iranian ships impasse will affect bilateral trade relations, according to Bolsonaro’s Foreign Trade Secretary Lucas Ferraz.

Meanwhile, on Thursday morning, Brazilian Supreme Court President Dias Toffoli ruled that Petrobras must provide fuel to Iranian ships. The Bolsonaro government has yet to react to the ruling.

Historically Brazil has maintained a favorable trade balance in its relations with Iran. For instance, in the first half of 2019, Iran imported about 2.5 million tons of Brazilian corn, while the South American country exported goods to Iran for US$1.299 million and bought Iranian products for US$27 million, which means Brazil obtained a favorable trade balance of US$1,272 million

July 26, 2019 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

UK court rejects Iran claims for £20m interest on old defense deals

Press TV – July 26, 2019

A top court in Britain has dismissed a complaint lodged by Iran seeking at least £20 million in interest for a debt related to a series of defense deals signed before the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Judge Stephen Phillips from the High Court in London ruled on Friday that the UK does not have to pay the sum that Iran believes has accrued on £387 million owed to Tehran over the failed delivery of more than 1,500 Chieftain tanks and armored vehicles based on contracts signed as of 1971.

The judge said the interest was accumulated over a 10-year period when Iran was under sanctions. The ruling also asserted that there was still ambiguity for the UK to decide to which Iranian government body it should pay the main debt so that it could avoid current sanctions.

The ruling deals a fresh blow to efforts meant to reduce tensions between Iran and Britain as the two countries are locked in several disputes, including two recent ship seizure incidents and a high-profile legal case related to the imprisonment of several dual nationals.

Britain has repeatedly refrained from paying the debt it acknowledges it owes to Iran, citing illegal sanctions imposed by the United States on Tehran.

Newly-appointed Prime Minister Boris Johnson once briefed the journalists in February 2018 after a trip to Tehran as foreign minister that the money will be paid back.

However, the payment never took place to the irritation of Tehran which thinks London is trying to use the case to solve other problems, including the much-publicized imprisonment of Nazanin Zaghari Ratcliffe, an Iranian-British national who is in jail in Iran for espionage convictions.

The court ruling also comes amid renewed tensions in the Persian Gulf where Iran has refused to release a British tanker since it was seized last Friday for violation of maritime rules.

The incident came two weeks after British marine forces boarded a supertanker laden with Iranian oil near the UK overseas territory of Gibraltar.

July 26, 2019 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Researchers Debunk Heart-Healthy Supplement Trend, Most Diets

teleSUR | July 23, 2019

After 277 randomized, clinical trials, researchers from the John Hopkins Institute determined that occasional dieting, or broad vitamin, mineral, and nutrient supplements do not ensure a longer life or protection from heart disease.

Through 24 different interventions, medical researchers discovered that although there was no harm in temporary dieting or using supplements that include a wide range of vitamins, the only real health benefit came from long-term low-salt diets, omega-3 fatty acid supplements, and— in certain cases—a folic acid supplement.

The study’s senior author, Erin D. Michos, M.D., M.H.S., said, “The panacea or magic bullet that people keep searching for in dietary supplements isn’t there.”

Researchers reviewed the following diets: the Mediterranean, the reduced saturated fat, the modified dietary fat intake, reduced fat, reduced salt diet (for the healthy and those with high blood pressure), and increased omega-6 fatty acid.

These vitamin supplements were also tested: vitamin A, vitamin B3/niacin, vitamin B6, vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin D alone, calcium alone, calcium and vitamin D together, folic acid, iron, omega-3 fatty acid (fish oil), antioxidants, ?-carotene, vitamin B-complex, multivitamins and selenium.

The results were rated by strength from high to very low risk impact. Although no real benefits could be traced, the analysis did show that combining calcium and vitamin D could increase the risk of a stroke. In the three studies of 3,518 people total on a low-salt diet, there was a 10 percent decrease in the risk of death, which the researchers classified as a moderate associated impact.

“People should focus on getting their nutrients from a heart-healthy diet, because the data increasingly show that the majority of healthy adults don’t need to take supplements,” Michos said, who also works as an associate professor of medicine at the John Hopkins University School of Medicine and as the associate director of preventive cardiology at the Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.

Safi U. Khan, M.D., lead study author and an assistant professor of Medicine at West Virginia University, said, “Our analysis carries a simple message that although there may be some evidence that a few interventions have an impact on death and cardiovascular health, the vast majority of multivitamins, minerals and different types of diets had no measurable effect on survival or cardiovascular disease risk reduction.”

Over 50 percent of U.S. residents take a daily dose of either one vitamin or dietary/nutritional supplement, Center for Disease Control and Prevention surveys show. Patients there also spend a total of US$31 billion a year in over-the-counter products.

July 24, 2019 Posted by | Economics, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Wind Farm Back-of-the-Envelope Economic Analysis

By Larry F. Brown, PhD | Watts Up With That? | July 21, 2019

We visited a wind farm in southern Utah recently. I’ve always been curious about the costs, profitability, and physical size of these things as well as the footprint and environmental impact. I had 3 meetings with the man in charge of maintenance of the wind farm, a landowner who leases land accommodating 4 of the turbines, and a man who works in the industry in Colorado – and did some internet/newspaper research.

The maintenance superintendent told me they have 27 towers, that the installation cost was about $2 million each, and that each turbine is rated at 2.3 megawatts/hr but produces an average of 1.3 megawatts/hr (= 1,300 kW/hr). The blades are 187 ft long so the total height is nearly 400 feet high, and the tower at the base is about 13 ft in diameter encapsulated in huge quantity of concrete. The project pays about $1 million in taxes to the community each year and has a 20-year lease.

A nearly 400-foot-tall propeller-tower is a very imposing structure, especially in close proximity. They are huge. They make a whooshing noise and the turbine itself makes a little noise. The propellers appear to be moving very slowly but the tips of the blades normally travel at 180 to 200 mph. The blades can ice up, which requires deicing (with electricity) and can throw ice a significant distance – hence each tower has a flying ice danger zone clearly labeled with signage.

I pay about $.11/kWh for my electricity here in western Colorado. So, beginning the process of calculating the profitability of these things, each tower @ 1,300 kW/hr could produce an average of $143/hr = which would be $3,400/day = $1,253,000 of electricity/year. Sounds good – so far.

[Note – Germany boasts about their renewable energy effort but Germans pay about $.35/kWh on average – 3.3 times more than we do here in Grand Junction – and their rates can get as high as $.50/kWh.]

The $.11/kWhr I pay includes all the distribution costs, etc. The wind farm is not paid $.11/kWhr for their electricity. According to the ISO Wholesale Power Market Prices, the electric company sells electricity for about $.03/kWhr so instead of grossing $1.253 million, they might gross about $342,000 per year per turbine. Still sounds good – so far.

[The landowner indicated he gets a royalty for each tower that comes to an average of approximately $1,000/tower/month and gets paid separately for the power line easement across his land.]

“BUT WAIT!” (- as they say on late night TV when giving you the hard sell).

All of that income happens only if the machines produce 24/7/365. They don’t. They need to be down for periodic maintenance and for when the wind does not blow the right speed. I don’t know what percent of the time these particular turbines produce electricity, but studies show the wind only blows the right speed (the wind can blow both too soft and too hard) 18 to 19% of the time on average across the country. 18 to 19 % of $342,000/year = $65,000. MMmmm, all of a sudden, the economics don’t look very good. $65,000/year/tower is nowhere near enough to even pay the interest on a 5% loan to construct the $2 million tower.

It gets lots more complicated when you consider that the wind farms are being subsidized by the government with the Production Tax Credit (PTC). A tax credit should not be confused with a tax deduction. A deduction reduces the amount of income you pay taxes on. is paying taxes on. A credit is money back. And the PTC is a “Refundable Tax Credit” which means the company does not just get to pay fewer taxes but actually gets paid by the government even if it does not owe any taxes.

The PTC subsidy has been in effect now for 27 years. Congress has adjusted the PTC many times through the years but today the subsidy is about $.02/kWhr. So, the power company gets money back in the form of a subsidy for roughly 67% of what they produce – i.e., the company gets money back to the tune of $.02/kWhr after it sells the electricity for $.03/kWhr. If the company sells $3 million of electricity they get the $3 million plus a PTC subsidy of $2 million. That is a huge subsidy! In fact, I think it is the biggest subsidy ever given for anything.

T. Boone Pickens and Warren Buffett both have huge investments in these things and both have openly said that wind farms would not be economic without the PTC.

Note: Now, if I were the company and using the above example, I would report a gross income of $5 million. But, as a taxpayer, it’s more honest to say the wind farm has a gross income of $3 million. It would be dishonest to include a subsidy as profit. So, my back of the envelope calculations will go on from here without considering the subsidy as income.

Note: I would be surprised if these wind farms pay any income taxes. Potential taxable income can be written off against the investment for many years – probably the life of the project – without even dipping into the PTC.

Then, I don’t know for sure, but I think the turbine manufacturers also are subsidized by the government.

However, the economics get worse – much worse. The maintenance man said the towers cost about $2 million each – i.e., about $54 million for the 27 towers. Each tower probably does cost $2 million to install, but there are many other development costs associated such as land and right-of-way leases, power line construction, road construction, fencing, runoff control, revegetation, etc. Newspaper articles reported that this particular wind farm cost about $130 million, which is about $4.8 million per turbine. That means the income of $65,000/yr/turbine won’t even come close to paying the interest on a $4.8 million investment.

Note – According to the Wind Technologies Market Report, US wind turbine market prices in 2016 were just under $1,000 per kilowatt, or about $2.3 million for a 2.3-megawatt turbine (about $1,000 / kilowatt). These turbines installed cost about $4.8 million for a 2.3-megawatt turbine ($2,087 / kilowatt). An offshore turbine project recently approved off the coast of Virginia is projected to cost $25 million per megawatt ($25,000 per kilowatt). Wow.

In addition, the turbines are very technologically sophisticated and require constant maintenance. For example, the oils used in the turbines are very temperature sensitive and, when the turbines are not generating power, they must be heated – with electricity. Various articles point out that, although they produce electricity intermittently, they consume it continuously. Whether the wind is blowing in the desired range or not, they need power to keep the generator magnetized, to keep the blade and generator assembly facing the wind, to periodically spin that assembly to unwind the cables in the tower and to balance the pressure on the shaft, to heat the blades in icy conditions, to start the blades turning when the wind is not blowing fast enough to keep them going, to keep the blades pitched to spin at a regular rate, and to run the lights, internal control and communication systems.

One article I read indicated that in a worst case analysis, these large wind turbines might use as much electricity as they produce. I don’t assume the worst case and just lump electrical usage in with the many other maintenance costs.

I assume the maintenance cost for this wind farm (manpower on call 24 hours, office rental, trucks/fuel, electric consumption, security, snow removal, replacement parts, etc.) to be at least $750,000/year. Additional expenses of this particular wind farm (mentioned earlier) are the $1 million paid in taxes to the local government and the $1,000/tower/month) rent to the landowners. Together these 3 expenses add up to $2,074,000/year = about $77,000/turbine/year, so the income goes down from the $65,000 to a negative $12,000/turbine/year. For simplicities sake, let’s just call it $0/turbine/year. Said another way, this project, according to this back-of-the-envelope calculation, makes no money.

Note: I tried two times to get the company to review these calculations. They did not respond.

And, all those materials (and permits and land leases) have a life expectancy of 20 years. What happens after 20 years? There is a wind farm in northern Colorado that is no longer producing, purportedly because the maintenance cost is too high to rehabilitate the turbines. The wind farm sits abandoned. All mining companies are required to bond for reclamation of a site when mining is done. I do not think this is true for wind farms.

Another interesting thing is that the dynamics of the power market are shifting. It used to be that peak power prices occurred during the day. Now they occur at night when solar is not producing. Thus, renewables are now generating when the prices are lowest in the diurnal power price curve.

The bottom line back-of-the-envelope conclusion of this economic evaluation is that these things are not even close to being economic.

And, environmentally, they kill birds and bats – millions of them. I used to wonder how this could be happening. The propellers seem to be turning so slow. But the propeller blades are so long they only appear to be moving slowly. The tips of the blades are actually moving at 180 to 200 mph. No wonder a bird can’t see them coming. And, apparently bats don’t even have to be hit by the blade to die. The way bats are killed is that the passing blade creates a vacuum and the bat’s lungs explode even if he doesn’t come into contact with the blade. And, yes, I know that cars and windows and cats kill birds but cars and windows and cats don’t kill eagles and falcons and other protected birds and endangered species, and cars, windows, and cats don’t kill bats.

And, the stupidest, most injudicious, most reckless thing of all is that the Obama administration granted permits to wind farms to kill birds and bats, including endangered species. All other industries are fined big dollars for killing birds – not wind power. Double Standard? How crazy is this?

Then, the coup d’état – The craziest part of this whole thing is that we must keep 100% of the fossil fuel plants operating to generate electricity during the 80+ % of the time the wind is not blowing at the right speed. Wow. So, what do we save?

We continue to build thousands of these things at a cost to the taxpayer of $ billions/year. Why in the world are we doing this? I’m dumbfounded.

As indicated, each tower in this farm cost about $4.8 million. Assuming a 5% loan, each tower would have to produce $240 thousand per year to break even – i.e., even pay the interest on the loan. And, any normal investment would have to have some percent profit per year. I assume such an enterprise would have to earn at least another 5% per year as profit after taxes and interest to be a decent investment. That would mean that each tower would have to make $480,000 per year. My calculation indicates they don’t make any real money. My calculations might well be wrong. They might even be wrong by a factor of 2. But I doubt very much if my calculations are off by $480,000/turbine/year.

My conclusion: Companies are making money on these things, but the source of the profit is only (or at least mainly) coming from the Production Tax Credit – the subsidy paid by our government with our tax money for these projects. It’s obvious that T. Boone Pickens and Warren Buffett were right. Without the PTC (for the past 27 years) these things would not exist.

To make it worse, laws and regs have mandated electrical companies to produce x % of their electricity from renewable sources by such and such deadline. The renewables can’t make money so the electrical companies raise the overall price of electricity to cover these higher cost renewables. How silly is this? It’s very silly because the technology does not exist to store this electricity. Regardless of what Governor Brown or Governor Polis say or mandate, without storage, renewables will never replace other forms of electrical production.

The bottom line? A total waste of money – a total boondoggle – profitable to companies only because we, the taxpayer, are subsidizing them – and why are we subsidizing them? – because it’s green and it makes us feel good. And because a few “politicized scientists”, a whole bunch of liberal politicians, and the United Nations espouse that the burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

Well, we are indeed adding CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels but CO2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas. CO2 has increased from 0.028% to 0.041% of the atmosphere (an increase of 0.013% percentage points) in the past 140 years. The theory says man’s 3% contribution to the 0.013% increase is causing global warming. How could only 3% of that minuscule 0.013% (i.e., a component comprising 0.00039% of the atmosphere) cause global warming? It can’t. Even more absurd, we are supposed to believe that taxing and selling carbon credits for that 0.00039% of the atmosphere will curtail the warming, slow the ocean level rise (as Obama promised), and save the planet?

It’s nonsensical. CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a fundamental requirement for life and the added CO2 is actually greening the planet – vegetation worldwide is growing about 20% faster and using less water than it was because CO2 is a fertilizer for plant growth.

I think we should stop building these wind farms — tomorrow.

UPDATE:

Revision to: Wind Farm Back-of-the-Envelope Economic Analysis

July 21, 2019 Posted by | Economics, Environmentalism, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Iran’s seizes UK tanker in counter-escalation

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | July 21, 2019

The seizure of a British oil tanker by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on July 20 in the Strait of Hormuz has all the hallmarks of a retaliatory act in the downstream of the seizure of an Iranian tanker by the British Navy exactly two weeks ago on July 4 off Gibralter.

On July 16, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had warned, “Iran will respond to the vicious Britain’s piracy. Iran’s response will come at the right time and the right place.” Four days alter, IRGC struck. An IRGC statement gave a detailed account of what happened. Footage of the incident has also been released — just as Britain did.

Iran is taunting Britain and making it look foolish. Britain is now left with no option but to negotiate. And the outcome of any negotiations can be easily foretold — Britain will have to unceremoniously set free the Iranian tanker.

Quite obviously, the seizure of the Iranian tanker by Britain was done in tandem with the hardliners in Washington and it is by now clear that the EU distanced itself from it. Britain’s dilemma now will be that all its ships in the Strait of Hormuz are in Iran’s crosshairs.

Yesterday’s incident was a calculated act by the IRGC, enacted right under the nose of a British warship, which was escorting the tanker. When the warship threatened to open fire, IRGC retorted that it would also retaliate with fire. Thereupon, an Iranian helicopter dropped masked men on the British tanker and took control of it. The intention is to make the Brits look impotent and stupid. (See the Press TV commentary The Royal Navy: From Piracy to Impotence.)

In a broader perspective, therefore, it appears that Iran may have underscored that its earlier threat must be taken very seriously — that if its oil exports ever got intercepted or blocked, then no one will be allowed to export oil via the Strait of Hormuz.

****

On July 17, Iran’s semi-official news agency Fars News had carried an interview with me (in Persian) on the seizure of the Iranian oil tanker by Britain and its likely consequences as well as the related issues of the Iran-EU cogitations over the mechanism known as INSTEX, which Brussels has put in place to circumvent US sanctions against Iran.

In the context of yesterday’s incident in the Straits of Hormuz, my interview with the Fars correspondent Mahdi Khodabakhsh may be of interest. The English translation of the interview follows:  

‘Indian diplomat: British action against Iran on behalf of the United States.’

QUESTION: As you know, some days ago UK royal navy seized a Tanker containing Iranian crude oil off Gibraltar. UK claimed it was bound to Syria which is under sanctions. Do you think UK’s move was legal? What does the international law say about it?

ANSWER: As far as I can gather from media reports, the legality of the British action is highly questionable. Syria is not under any UN sanctions and under international law, there is no embargo on oil supplies to that country.

QUESTION: How do you see the development and what effect it can have on Iran relations with EU? (also considering recent JCPOA tensions)

ANSWER: This is an act of blatant provocation with a view to inciting an Iranian reaction that could in turn be used as an alibi for some other downstream action by the US. I cannot see how the EU can endorse the British action because the group has no such policy to enforce a naval blockade of Syria. At least, I have not seen any EU country endorsing the British action so far. There are also signs that UK is seeking some sort of a patch-up with Iran, while saving face, because the international opinion did not support the British action.

QUESTION: In your opinion would it be proper for Iran – in this tense situation – to react to the UK’s move and do something retaliatory? If No, why is that; and if Yes what could the response be?

ANSWER: I have no doubt that Iran views the British belligerence with utmost seriousness and there will be consequences. Having said that, in my opinion, it is only proper that Iran has refused to be provoked into any knee-jerk response but is taking its own time. There could be a range of responses that Iran could consider, but importantly, Iran should only give a measured response that does not provide excuses for the US for doing something reckless or aggressive. The US or the so-called B Team, to my mind, has most likely instigated the British action. This is a surcharged atmosphere and Iran has so far acted with restraint and dignity — and rationally.

QUESTION: As we know, Iran started taking a second step in reducing its obligations under JCPOA from yesterday due to Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the deal and of course because Iran did not benefit from economic relief. So how do you think the EU and other remaining parties in JCPOA will react to these steps by Iran? Are they going to trigger the dispute mechanism and snap-back lifted UN sanctions?

ANSWER: The EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on Monday reportedly took the decision that the situation does not warrant any move to trigger the dispute mechanism or to demand snap-back sanctions.

QUESTION: Yesterday EU ministers held a meeting in Brussels with a focus on the Deal however many of the diplomats including French, Britain, German, Dutch, Finnish Foreign Ministers and even Mogherini called on Iran to stay committed unilaterally to the JCPOA but say nothing about  US withdrawal. Do you think with this trend,the  JCPOA will survive? Considering the European partners’ inaction against US sanctions on Iran and its unilateral withdrawal from the deal, despite the 14 month period Iran given to them for some efforts; do you think that the EU really wants the JCPOA? Are they sincere in what they say about the Iran deal? The UK, Britain and France tried to put together a mechanism to evade US sanctions for trading with Iran called INSTEX. However Tehran says it was not fruitful. How do you elaborate its effectiveness to benefit Iran from JCPOA economic relief? Is the US capable of sanctioning the whole INSTEX?

ANSWER: The EU is walking a fine line. It is unrealistic to expect the US’ European allies — make no mistake, there are still allies — to publicly condemn Washington even if they disagree fundamentally on the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the JCPOA. Clearly, the EU is keen that the JCPOA survives and there should be no doubt on that score. One can see that the EU is on the defensive, as it realises that the EU and the E3 have not been able to fulfil their obligations under the JCPOA. What they are trying to do, in my opinion, is to mitigate to some extent Iran’s losses. As of now, there is a visible shortfall. The issue is not about sincerity but about politics, which is the art of the possible.

The INSTEX has just become operational. The EU foreign policy chief Mogherini is on record that the mechanism is fleshing out some business proposals already. She also said that certain non-EU third parties have shown interest in the INSTEX. These are encouraging signs. To my mind, these are early days and it is difficult to pass final judgment. Mogherini claimed that the E3 are also discussing the feasibility of oil trade being included in the INSTEX mechanism.

As things stand, the US may see the INSTEX as contravening its sanctions and the ‘maximum pressure’ policy. But then, on the other hand, the US is also interested that the JCPOA survives (according to Mogherini.) Therefore, a pragmatic US attitude toward INSTEX cannot be ruled out, either. As I said earlier, this is an evolving situation.

July 20, 2019 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

Facebook’s Libra Can Become West’s New Tool for Political Pressure – Chainside Co-Founder

By Anastasia Levchenko |  Sputnik | July 19, 2019

One month ago, Facebook shocked economists and politicians around the world by announcing its plan to launch a digital currency in 2020. Its ambitious goal is to enable people who “remain outside of the traditional financial system” and have no access to a traditional bank to use a “simple global currency”.

Libra, a cryptocurrency that Facebook seeks to launch as early as next year, could become another powerful tool of political pressure used by Western economies to adjust local markets in other countries as well as the global financial system as a whole to serve their own interests, according to Federico Tenga, a co-founder of Chainside, a company helping businesses to accept Bitcoin payments, and adviser on blockchain to the Italian Ministry of Economic Development.

POLITICISED CURRENCY

Libra is going to use permissioned blockchain technology, which means that all transactions will need to be monitored by some authority, tentatively set as the Libra Association Council. This idea contradicts the very notion of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology, which was invented as a free peer-to-peer network.

The council will comprise a group of the world’s top corporations, including Mastercard, PayPal, Visa Inc., eBay, Booking Holdings, Farfetch, Spotify, Uber, Vodafone and Facebook’s Calibra, a subsidiary set up to ensure separation between social and financial data. The association is open for membership in case a candidate entity meets certain financial requirements. However, these are the founding members who will serve as Libra’s initial validator nodes, which makes Libra more a private digital currency regulated by western corporations than a cryptocurrency.

“All the members of the Libra [association council] are mostly companies from the Western countries, which makes it very politicised. So, I think it will be hard for it to be adopted in, for example, East Asia, because the governments there will be reluctant to adopt something that is controlled by Western companies”, Tenga said.

According to the Chainside co-founder, Facebook seems to have “a certain political bias” since it is attempting to promote a political agenda to its own advantage.

“Libra is just another tool that they can use … Even to destabilise some countries. If Libra, let’s say, is adopted everywhere, and some country [does something against Libra], like Facebook is not allowed in China, this can be used as a tool to pressure the country to open the market and make concessions for Facebook and members of Libra”, Tenga argued.

If such an attempt is successful, then Libra could become another powerful tool to increase influence “on local politics and in general on the world economy,” he added.

“If Libra starts to be used in a country with which [the Western economies] have tension, like today Iran for example, then the political pressure on members of Libra federation can lead to applying sanctions. So this currency can be used as a political instrument to put pressure on local economies of other countries”, Tenga said.

BACKED BY US DOLLAR

Libra is due to be backed by a basket of government bonds and major fiat currencies, including the US dollar, euro, UK pound, and Japanese yen. If indeed launched in developing countries next year, Libra will be contributing to the global dominance of the US dollar, at least in the short term, before it itself becomes a competitor to the dollar.

“Instead of using local currencies, users will be using something that is backed by the US dollar, so they will be indirectly financing the US government”, Tenga said.

Moreover, the reserve basket of the most stable currencies of the world paradoxically makes Libra a coin that is stable everywhere and nowhere at the same time, Tenga noted.

“If I am in Europe, I am in an economy that is dominated by the euro, and, say, I start using this form of money, Libra. It will always have some minor fluctuations. I have one sum today, and maybe some 3 percent less tomorrow because there was some change in the US dollar to euro and so on. I used to have an equivalent of 5 euros, and now I have 4.9”, Tenga said.

PERMISSIONLESS BLOCKCHAIN HARDLY POSSIBLE

According to the Libra’s white paper, in five years, the cryptocurrency will try to move to a permissionless blockchain. However, the co-founder of Chainside did not believe this transition would ever take place.

“I do not think they will become permissionless for real, I think they are just saying it, but actually have no idea. If they are successful and they have control of this thing, why should they then give up this control?” Tenga said, adding that this process might be difficult from a technical point of view.

A natural concern that arises from here is users’ privacy and data collection. Facebook already has a questionable record on observing users’ privacy, and simply establishing a separate subsidiary to deal with financial issues — Facebook’s subsidiary Calibra, which is one of the members of the council — is unlikely to erase it.

“If you say something on Facebook, maybe you do not really mean it. But if you buy something, this is actually your money, so it is a much more relevant data on your profile. It can be a way for Facebook and other companies to get more data on users, including other users, also outside of the platform. That can be the issue. People are becoming more and more aware of the privacy problem”, Tenga said.

This is precisely one of the main reasons why the project is facing fierce opposition in the US Congress. During hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday, members of the House Financial Services Committee said they could not trust Facebook, citing the social networking giant’s record of privacy breaches and scandals.

They questioned David Marcus, the former president of PayPal, who now oversees the Libra project on Facebook, over data privacy, consumer protections and money laundering controls. It was proposed that Libra first be tested with a pilot program with one million users, under the supervision of US financial regulators. Marcus did not directly agree but said Libra would not be launched until regulatory concerns were addressed. In any case, the draft legislation to ban Facebook and other tech firms from entering the financial services sector has already been circulated.

BETTER FORM OF MONEY

Even with all its drawbacks, Libra has a chance to become a positive experiment in the monetary system in the current digital age, Tenga opined.

“I think in general the idea of private money competing with each other is good because it overcomes the idea of money as the monopoly of the government. So, more competition from private currency can eventually lead us to a better form of money”, he said.

According to the co-founder of Chainside, “apart from the fact that it is completely controlled by a few private corporations” it is still “an improvement” compared to the fiat paper money status quo.

Nevertheless, as long as this competition represents a fight for financial and political power between tech giants and governments within a single country, humanity is unlikely to see either a better form of money or billions of empowered people who are currently left outside of the traditional banking system.

July 19, 2019 Posted by | Economics | | Leave a comment

Interview 1462 – David K. Levine is Against Intellectual Monopoly

Corbett • 07/17/2019

David K. Levine is an economist at the European University Institute and at Washington University in St. Louis. He is the author with Michele Boldrin of Against Intellectual Monopoly, an empirical study of the economics of intellectual property that concludes that IP is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty.

Watch this video on BitChute / DTube / YouTube or Download the mp4

SHOW NOTES
dklevine.com

Against Intellectual Monopoly

Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk

July 17, 2019 Posted by | Book Review, Economics, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

The New York Times Can’t Even Talk About Publicly Funded Drug Research

By Dean Baker | CEPR | July 16, 2019

Austin Frakt had a peculiar piece in the NYT Upshot section, which told readers, “there is no single, best policy for drug prices.” The piece is peculiar because for some reason Frakt opts not to even consider the policy of direct public funding for research, which would then allow all new drugs to be sold at generic prices.

While there are problems with any system, direct funding, which could be done through various mechanisms, would permanently end the problem of high-priced drugs. With the research costs paid upfront, the price of the drugs would simply cover the manufacturing cost with normal profits. In nearly all cases, this would mean prices would be low, generally less than 10 percent of current prices for patent-protected drugs and in some cases less than 1 percent.

This is also not a far-out idea. It has long been pushed by several prominent economists, most notably Joe Stiglitz. The idea of delinking drug prices from research costs has also been pushed in international forums by China, India, and many other developing countries. In fact, if Trump were pursuing his trade war with China in the interest of working people, instead of the rich, such a shift in funding for drug research could well be an outcome.

In any case, it is bizarre that a piece that purports to be an overview of ways to lower drug prices would not even mention this issue.

July 16, 2019 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Ending myth of ‘Millionaire Mullah’ – Part 3

By Ramin Mazaheri | Press TV | July 9, 2019

Part 1 of this article discussed why the recent US sanctions on Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei provoked laughter in Iran and derision even from Iranophobic Western mainstream media.

Part 2 proved that – between zakat, khums, the bonyads, generalized Iranophobia and a desire to denigrate any economic thought which is not far-right neoliberal capitalism – it is easily understandable how we have arrived at Western nonsense like “Millionaire Mullahs”.

Part 3 will show how this propaganda is unrelenting.

Like the 2013 Reuters report on Setad, a bonyad headed by the Leader post, “Khamenei controls massive financial empire built on property seizures.”

Uhhh… yes, confiscating the ill-gotten property of the king and his 1% was undoubtedly the democratic choice of Iran. Iran is a rare country to have done that, but it was not the first. Economically right-wing Reuters, of course, opposes every such occasion where this has happened.

Reuters’ report spends just ten miserly words to describe for their readers both bonyads and khums, which is certainly not enough to give a sympathetic, much less objective, rendering of these rather vital parts of the Iranian economy. Reuters makes apparent its total disinterest in admitting Setad’s universally-known, multi-billion charitable functions with the brief and dismissive “It’s unclear how much of its revenue goes to philanthropy.” It’s a report which openly airs the grievances of lawyers based in Beverly Hills, California, because talking about the economically-redistributive concepts at work in the Iranian economy are expressly against Reuters’ editorial policy.

As Reuters admitted, with a brief sentence that indicates their maximum disappointment: “Reuters found no evidence that Khamenei is tapping Setad to enrich himself.” Exactly. All Iran already knew that. Reuters buried a sentence which has been a headline in Iran.

Beyond the role of Islamic charity, the usury-banning role of Islamic finance, and the unique (revolutionary) economic principles installed after 1979, the widest-view statement I can give about the Iranian economy is this: because it is (Islamic) socialist-inspired when it comes to handling the economy, the Iranian state controls the Iranian economy even more completely than today’s “hosting-tourists-is-ok” Cuba. Both nations control their economies in a patriotic way, though Iran has, thankfully, far more oil wealth; both nations reject foreign control (neoliberal/globalist capitalism); and both nations have been incredibly successful at improving the lives of their average citizens despite decades of murderous sanctions by the US and Europe.

The revolutionary Iranian economy is thus most succinctly described (this is “daily journalism,” after all) as “Iranian Islamic Socialism” because it is exactly that, and in exactly that order of importance: first come the patriotic needs of Iran, then adherence to the principles of Islam as much as possible, and then the clear rejection of capitalism-imperialism and neoliberalism/globalism. Importantly — at least to those who believe Iranians have a democratic right to choose their own path — Forbes, Reuters, and Washington are resolutely dead-set against the success of all of these principles, and their actions and stances show that they view tolerance, accommodation, and limited cooperation as impossible.

But this — the enormously anti-neoliberal aspects and the enormously successful redistributive aspects of the Iranian economy — is something the West can never admit because… they might be copied! Indeed, when Washington talks about Iran’s “destabilising behaviors,” there is nothing more destabilising to US and Israeli hegemony in the Muslim world than the very example of Iranian democratic success.

What works usually is copied, but Iranian economic solutions do not “work” for the aristocratic readers of Forbes. Therefore, “Millionaire mullahs” has been the Western editorial line, and they are sticking to it.

It should be clear: it is a well-known reality that Ayatollah Khamenei does not personally have much to sanction at all; the Iranian economy is so unique (revolutionary) that it is easily distorted and rarely attempted to be understood; the guiding economic concepts democratically installed after the Iranian Islamic Revolution will always be the subject of massive Western propaganda.

Therefore, pity Trump and his New York City slumlord/Pentagon gun-runner advisors — by foolishly sanctioning Ayatollah Khamenei, all they did was insult him, and insult his tens of millions of often-ardent supporters, and show their total ignorance of how the Iranian economy actually works!

How did they get so misled? Simple: they read too much Western propaganda, which since 1979 has had an editorial line of “100% fake news, 24/7” when it comes to Iran. Such an editorial line is designed by their 1%-owners to push Trump, and others, to wrongly assume that Iran is some sort of dystopian, totalitarian regime where the top leader owns everything and can liquidate anything at any time for their personal profit.

Such a system only exists in comic books… and in the Arab monarchies. And are sanctions on these Arab despots arriving next? LOL, not likely. Forbes and the neoliberal-loving, English-Canadian Reuters are likely in the middle of preparing their latest puff-piece on yet another Arab monarch-dictator.

It is ironic that the only type of “millionaires” these rabidly capitalist media seem to have a problem with are of the Iranian clerical variety, a variety which Forbes was the first to ever claim even existed. But the phenomenon they allege does not exist, and Ayatollah Khamenei is often held up as a standard of good and moral leadership in many nations for very justified reasons.

What is certain is that Washington’s ignorance of and opposition to the nature of the Iranian economy will cost them dearly — sanctions on Ayatollah Khamenei will be totally ineffective in reaching their totally unjust aims. Such sanctions are amusing… but that is actually a sad commentary: the decades of murderous sanctions on Iran, Cuba, Korea, and others shouldn’t be funny at all.

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea, and elsewhere. He is the author of “I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China.”

July 15, 2019 Posted by | Economics | | Leave a comment

Ending the myth of the ‘Millionaire Mullah’ – Part 2

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei waves to tens of thousands of Basij members from Tehran province at Azadi Stadium, Oct. 4, 2018. (Photo by Khamenei.ir)
By Ramin Mazaheri – Press TV – July 5, 2019

Part 1 of this article discussed why the recent US sanctions on Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei provoked laughter in Iran, and derision even from Iranophobic Western mainstream media.

Beyond Ayatollah Khamenei, I can very briefly explain how and why the West can persist with its “Millionaire Mullah” mythology:

There are many economic principles that guide the Iranian economy which have no basis in the West – they are, after all, “revolutionary”. Many are based on the principles of Islamic charity and of Islamic finance; many are also based on the anti-capitalist principles which were obviously drawn from the 20th century socialism. There are almost too many to list, but in Part 2 of this 3-part article I will pick a few key ones which specifically relate to the clergy, and which – when added with Iranophobia – create such widespread and ignorant propaganda.

One of the five pillars of Islam is to give to charity (zakat), but one of the five additional pillars of Shia theology is that businessmen must give 20% of their profits to charity (khums). Thus, it should be clear why some say that Iran has an “alms-based economy”. That’s an exaggeration, because there are state taxes as well, but this money goes directly to religious authorities and has gone there for over 1,000 years.

For example, Ayatollah Khamenei was raised in a family (lower middle class clerics on both sides of his parents) which would have never received this money directly – they would have been the recipients of this charity from the much higher-ranking clergy.

Ayatollah Khamenei, through hard work, sacrifice and other virtues, is now a “Marja’” (top religious authority). He now heads various religious foundations which receive – and redistribute downwards – this zakat and khums money.

Of course, he heads these foundations, but this money cannot (and is not) be used by him to buy a Ferrari for his favourite nephew, for example. The Iranian press would die of happiness at the sales prospects caused by such a sensational, unheard-of event! These are “religious foundations” not “The Clinton Foundation”: These foundations serve the poor – they do not trade high-level political access and favours in return for funding a jet-set lifestyle. Of course, most Western media cynically assume that everyone – even a Marja’ as publicly present as Ayatollah Khamenei – secretly operates on shameless Western capitalist principles.

Let’s clarify two key issues: zakat and khums are individual choices – they are not compelled to go to Ayatollah Khamenei. Iranians can send their charity to a Marja’ in Iraq if they like, and many do. Secondly, drastically changing this historic process of zakat and khums would certainly constitute a major revolution in Iran – however, for many it would constitute a rather “un-Islamic Revolution”, and there is no doubt that the democratic majority wanted an “Islamic Revolution”.

Therefore, Islamic charity is a reality of modern economics and finance in Iran. It is not something which non-Muslims can easily comprehend, perhaps, but the failure to do so will help fuel nonsense like “Millionaire Mullahs”. Unlike neoliberalism in the West, these financial principles have the virtue of being democratically-supported, and I can easily argue that they have the additional virtue of far more efficiently increasing economic equality than neoliberalism does.

Ayatollah Khamenei, as the Supreme Leader, is also often listed as the head of companies simply out of respect by the company’s founders. It is often purely honorary. Ayatollah Khamenei is not, for example, giving ideas on product improvement or production strategies to such companies (now the rare ex-president Rafsanjani – rare because he was an Iranian Islamic Revolutionary cleric from a rich, business-oriented background – might have gotten involved, but Ayatollah Khamenei has evinced no such interest)and he is absolutely not in any control of the companies’ assets. He is there in name only as a sign of respect for him, Islam, Iran, etc. Of course, this is distorted/misunderstood by Western pro-capitalist papers.

The Iranian Islamic Revolution also did something which no doubt enrages Western imperialist-capitalists, and about which they have no desire to spread honest information: the revolution took a huge chunk of the factories and industries owned by the Shah and his tiny coterie and gave them to charity.

These are called the bonyads, and they are an estimated 15-20% of the entire Iranian economy. A staggeringly revolutionary concept, no?

The bonyads are thus different from the Islamic charity I have described, and the Islamic foundations which administer that charity, because the bonyads were expressly charged with getting involved in economic production.

The bonyads are not designed for capitalist profit, but are cooperatives which exist to create low-cost goods and jobs for Iranians. This planned” inefficiency” – in attaining maximum profit, but not in social cohesion and equality – is falsely branded as“corruption” by raging Western capitalists, sadly.

Ayatollah Khamenei heads some bonyads, and this gives him economic influence, of course, because the popular, democratic, openly-debated decision to award a significant chunk of the Iranian economy to the administration of religious authorities was a popular, democratic, openly-debated decision of the Iranian people. Oppose decisions arrived at in this manner, and you oppose democracy for Iran.

Bonyads are not specifically proscribed in the Qur’an, unlike zakat and the ubiquitous concepts of charity and anti-usury (high interest/compound interest), but if one tries to overturn them, well, all I can say is – prepare for a serious fight. If you think the millions of bonyad workers and recipients of bonyad lower-cost goods want all that to be replaced by (mostly-Western) stockholders, good luck with your efforts.

Very obvious, but of course not perfect, parallels can be made elsewhere: the lower class supporters of Chavismo’s collectivos have won an unprecedented number of votes (and street battles) to preserve similar anti-neoliberal economic concepts and structures. Iran is not nearly as susceptible to Washington’s meddling, in large part because such gains have been consolidating democratic support for the government for a generation longer than in Venezuela. Cuba adopted similar (though not Islamic-influenced) concepts a generation earlier than Iran did. China is a generation up on Cuba, and aren’t they doing rather well? China doesn’t have bonyads, of course, but Beijing and Tehran have such a strong and long-term alliance because they obviously have much in common.

The common threat here is modern economic solutions designed to fight imperialism, and also those forms of capitalism which are rapacious and undemocratic.

So, between zakat, khums, the bonyads, generalized Iranophobia and a desire to denigrate any economic thought which is not far-right neoliberal capitalism, this is how we have arrived at Western nonsense like “Millionaire Mullahs”, and the propaganda is unrelenting.

Like, for example, the 2013 Reuters report on Setad, a bonyad headed by the Leader, was absurdly titled, “Khamenei controls massive financial empire built on property seizures”.

Part 3 will examine this report, which is still being cited today despite its obvious bias, misrepresentations and clear goal of spreading Iranophobic and Islamophobic propaganda.

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of “I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China”.

July 14, 2019 Posted by | Economics, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Iran judiciary chief opposes Paris Agreement on climate protection

Press TV – July 13, 2019

Head of Iran’s judiciary has dismissed an international deal signed in 2015 in France to reduce carbon emissions, echoing concerns that the pact, known as the Paris Agreement, would harm Iran’s long-term plans for development of its energy sector.

Ayatollah Seyyed Ebrahim Raisi said on Saturday that Iran is still keen to be part of international efforts to protect the environment although insisting that the Paris Agreement would not add anything new to the country’s own commitments to save the planet.

“Having these (national) documents, we absolutely don’t need pacts like Paris (Agreement),” said Raisi while meeting a group of environmental activists in Tehran.

“Of course we are in need of international cooperation,” he said.

The comments are the first to come from a top Iranian official as the country has yet to ratify the Paris Agreement four years after it joined the initiative.

Reports in the media have suggested that Iran’s Guardian Council, the body supervising the parliament, has refused to endorse an initial bill which would allow the government to commit to the carbon emission targets set out in the Paris Agreement.

The Council is reportedly waiting for more clarification on the issue from Environment Protection Organization of Iran (EPOI). Sources within the parliament have said that the EPOI has failed to submit the required documents for the ratification of the Paris Agreement, including an appendix which details how and to what extent the government should commit to carbon emissions standards.

Expert believe Iran would end up as a loser if it fully implements the Paris Agreement as the pact would prevent the country from tapping into its massive hydrocarbon resources and puts at risk its long-term energy security.

Countries like the United States have already withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, saying it would favor China and India as they have been exempted from certain emission targets under the deal.

July 13, 2019 Posted by | Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »