According to a new study by the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute, a universal basic income could permanently make U.S. economy trillions of dollars larger. While such socialistic policies sound great in theory, history, and data, show it isn’t the economic savior it is touted to be.
What Is A Universal Basic Income (UBI)
To understand why the theory of universal basic incomes (UBI) is heavily flawed, we need to understand what UBI is.
“Basic income, also called universal basic income (UBI), is a public governmental program for a periodic payment delivered to all citizens of a given population without a means test or work requirement. Basic income can be implemented nationally, regionally, or locally, and is an unconditional income sufficient to meet a person’s basic needs (i.e., at or above the poverty line).“
The idea of guaranteed income is not a new thing. According to Wikipedia:
“The concept of a state-run basic income dates back to the early 16th century when Sir Thomas More’s “Utopia” depicted a society where every person receives a guaranteed income.
In the late 18th century, English radical Thomas Spence, and American revolutionary Thomas Paine, declared their support for a welfare system that guaranteed an assured basic income. Nineteenth-century debate on basic income was limited, but during the early part of the 20th century, a basic income called a “state bonus” was widely discussed.
In 1946, the United Kingdom implemented unconditional family allowances for every family’s second and subsequent children. In the 1960s and 1970s, the United States and Canada conducted several experiments with negative income taxation, a related welfare system. From the 1980s and onward, the debate in Europe took off more broadly, and since then, it has expanded to many countries around the world. “
While the idea of a UBI sounds good in theory, as discussed previously, they fail to work in reality.
UBI Won’t Increase Economic Growth
“More money in people’s pockets will lead to stronger economic growth.” – J.M. Keynes
Such is the underlying sentiment behind a universal basic income and its impact on economic growth. Unfortunately, it simply isn’t true.
Let’s run a hypothetical example using GDP from 2007 to the present. (I am using estimates of -4.3% for 2020 GDP growth) In 2008, in response to the “Financial Crisis,” Congress passes a bill providing $1000/month ($12,000 annually) to 190 million families in the U.S.
The chart below shows the economy’s annual GDP growth trend assuming the entire UBI program shows up in economic growth. For those supporting programs like UBI, it certainly appears as if GDP is permanently elevated to a higher level.
When you look at the annual rate of change in economic growth, which is how we measure GDP for economic purposes, a different picture emerges. In 2008, when the $12,000 arrives at households, GDP spikes, printing a 17% growth rate versus the actual 1.81% rate.
However, beginning in 2009, the benefit disappears. The reason is that after UBI is injected into the system, the economy normalizes to the new level after the first year. Also, notice that GDP grows at a slightly slower rate as dollar changes to GDP at higher levels print a lower growth rate.
UBI’s Dark Side
Of course, the money to provide the $12,000 UBI benefit had to come from somewhere.
According to the Center On Budget & Policy Priorities, in 2019, roughly 75% of every tax dollar went to non-productive spending.
“In the fiscal year 2019, the Federal Government spent $4.4 trillion, amounting to 21 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). Of that $4.4 trillion, federal revenues financed only $3.5 trillion. The remaining $984 billion came from debt issuance. As the chart below shows, three major areas of spending make up most of the budget.”
Think about that for a minute. In 2019, 75% of all expenditures went to social welfare and interest on the debt. Those payments required $3.3 Trillion of the $3.5 Trillion (or 95%) of the total revenue collected.
That was BEFORE the shutdown of the economy due to COVID-19. Given the subsequent decline in economic activity occurring this year, those numbers become markedly worse. Given this bit of data, all universal basic income payments would have had to come solely from debt.
The table below shows the increase in total Federal Debt adjusting for the annual UBI payment.
The chart below takes our hypothetical example and compares the impact of the additional debt on the Federal deficit from the implementation of UBI.
While the “theoretical models” assume that UBI will create enough economic growth and prosperity to “offset” the increase in debt, 40-years of history suggest otherwise.
UBI Won’t Increase Economic Growth
As discussed previously, there is a high correlation between debts, deficits, and economic prosperity.
“The relevance of debt growth versus economic growth is all too evident, as shown below. Since 1980, the overall increase in debt has surged to levels that currently usurp the entirety of economic growth. The growth in debt continues to divert more tax dollars away from productive investments into the service of debt and social welfare.”
However, simply looking at Federal debt levels is misleading.
It is the total debt that weighs on the economy.
Under the current economic situation, it currently requires nearly $4.00 of debt to create $1 of economic growth. However, if you added UBI into the equation, it would require roughly $5 per $1 of growth. (Unfortunately, at the current spending rate, the U.S. will be approaching the $5 mark by the end of 2020)
If you don’t understand the implications of debt on economic growth, let me rephrase the analysis for you.
For instance, in the 30-years from 1952 to 1982, the economy ran at a surplus. That surplus fostered rising economic prosperity in the U.S. which averaged roughly 8%.
Since 1980, the economic deficit has continued to erode economic prosperity. As shown, there has been no organic growth without increases in debt. Due to the need to increase debt to fund it, UBI would only succeed in exacerbating the situation.
The UBI Test Has Already Failed
The United States already has a semi-UBI plan. It is an effectively bankrupt system called “Social Security.”
The collapse in economic growth has resulted in a collapse in Federal Tax revenue needed to pay for the massive social welfare schemes in the U.S.
It now requires more than of 100% of tax receipts just to meet the mandatory spending of social welfare and interest on the debt. In other words, we are now going into debt more just to provide social assistance.
How bad is it?
Social Security will be insolvent and unable to pay the full value of promised benefits by 2035. Social Security’s costs will exceed its income by 2020, according to a new report published Monday by the program’s trustees.
At the end of 2018, Social Security was providing income to about 67 million Americans. About 47 million of them were over age 65, and the majority of the rest were disabled. If nothing changes, the Social Security Trust Fund will be fully depleted by 2035. If such occurs, the program will impose across-the-board cuts of 20 percent to all beneficiaries.”
That report, dire in its warning already, was issued before the “Pandemic” and “economic shutdown.”
Meanwhile, demographics are blowing up the basic premise of the funding of Social Security. There were 2.8 workers for every Social Security recipient in 2017. That’s down from 3.3 in 2007, and that’s way down from the 5.1 workers per beneficiary that existed in 1960.
Furthermore, the two programs function mostly as a giant conveyor belt to transfer wealth from the young and relatively poor to the old and relatively rich. Such allows the average person (who now lives to be 78) more than a decade of taxpayer-funded retirement.
Welfare now makes up the highest percentage of disposable personal incomes in history despite record low unemployment, rising wage growth, and the longest economic expansion in U.S. history.
During the “Great Depression,” the economically devastated masses would form “breadlines.” Today, those “breadlines” form at the mailbox. Without government largesse, many individuals would be living on the street.
The chart above shows all the government “welfare” programs and current levels to date. The black line represents the sum of the underlying sub-components. Since the onset of the “pandemic,” both unemployment insurance and “other benefits” have surged by $3 trillion. Those increases are in excess of the continued increases in all other benefits, like social security, Medicaid, and Veterans’ benefits.
Importantly, for the average person, these social benefits are critical to their survival. Government assistance now makes up ~38% of real disposable personal incomes. With more than 1/3rd of incomes dependent on Federal assistance, it should not be surprising the economy continues to struggle. Recycled tax dollars used for consumptive purposes, has virtually no impact on increasing economic activity.
In its essential framework, a universal basic income sounds excellent. Everyone has their basic needs covered. Then they can go out and produce and not worry about covering critical bills. In reality, the additional income is quickly absorbed into the economy as prices rise (inflation) to compensate for the extra spending. After the first year, the UBI has to be increased or no longer has any benefit.
Therein lies the trap with all socialistic programs.
While UBI, along with free healthcare, education, childcare, etc., sounds great, they are NOT productive investments that have a higher return than the carrying cost of the debt. In actuality, history suggests these welfare supports have a negative multiplier effect in the economy.
Most telling is the inability of the current economists, who maintain our monetary and fiscal policies, to realize the problem of trying to “cure a debt problem with more debt.”
The Keynesian view that “more money in people’s pockets” will drive up consumer spending, with a boost to GDP being the result, has been wrong. It hasn’t happened in 40 years.
We fear that these socialistic programs, which promises “free everything” with no consequences, instead delivers inflation, generates further income inequality, and ultimately higher social instability and populism. Such has been the result in every other country which has run such programs of unbridled debts and deficits.
While UBI sounds excellent at the conversational level, so does “communism” and “socialism.” In practice, the outcomes have been vastly different than the theory.
As Dr. Woody Brock aptly argues:
“It is truly ‘American Gridlock’ as the real crisis lies between the choices of ‘austerity’ and continued government ‘largesse.’ One choice leads to long-term economic prosperity for all; the other doesn’t.”
Take your pick.
The post #MacroView: Universal Basic Income Is Not An Economic Savior appeared first on RIA.
Are Cold War Treaties Beginning To Crumble?
Are Cold War Treaties Beginning To Crumble?
Authored by RFE/RL Staff via OilPrice.com,
The CTBT, signed in 1996, aimed to reduce the threat…
The CTBT, signed in 1996, aimed to reduce the threat of nuclear war and the spread of radioactive material.
Despite the US not ratifying it, most signatories, including Russia and the US, have adhered to its terms.
Tensions and increased weapon development hint at Russia's potential decision to withdraw, further eroding international arms control frameworks.
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The Treaty on Open Skies. New START.
For years, the pillars of international arms control have been crumbling: agreements signed by Washington, Moscow, and others during and after the Cold War aimed at reducing the threat of nuclear war, costly arms races, or overall military tensions.
The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty may be the next to go.
Signed in 1996, the treaty was a major step to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons technology and keeping a lid on the arsenals of the world's biggest nuclear powers. Along with earlier treaties, the agreement, known as the CTBT, also aimed to reduce the spread of radioactive material that was blasted into the atmosphere and the oceans during the frenzied days of the Cold War.
Here's the problem: The treaty never went into effect because a number of countries, including the United States, never ratified it.
Still, most signatories -- including Russia and the United States, whose arsenals are by far the biggest in the world -- have abided by the ban.
Now, however, Russia is making noises about backing out and "de-ratifying" the treaty.
Here's what you need to know about the CTBT and its potential unraveling:
How'd It Come About?
The United States and the Soviet Union, as well as Britain, conducted hundreds of nuclear tests between 1945, when the world's first atomic bomb was detonated in the U.S. state of New Mexico and 1961, when Soviet officials detonated the world's most powerful weapon, the Tsar Bomba. France joined the nuclear testing club in 1960; China, in 1964.
The fallout, literal and figurative, from the testing led to a partial ban on atmospheric, oceanic, and space tests in 1963; underground tests continued to be allowed.
In 1974, India tested its first nuclear device, further expanding the nuclear club. A 1980 test by China became the last atmospheric test by any country anywhere.
Moscow's final test -- underground -- occurred in October 1990 on the remote Arctic archipelago called Novaya Zemlya. Britain, the United States, France, and China all conducted their final tests in the years that followed, prior to 1996, mainly underground.
What's It Do?
The CTBT basically bans all tests that result in a fission chain reaction, essentially a nuclear explosion.
Signed in 1996, the treaty was sent out to 187 signatory countries for ratification, but it has never come into effect because of a group of holdout countries.
Russia signed and ratified the treaty in 2000. The United States signed, but the U.S. Senate refused to ratify, citing concerns about verifying other countries' compliance with the ban. Despite nonratification, the United States has complied with the moratorium. China signed but didn't ratify.
Neither India, nor Pakistan, nor North Korea -- all of which have conducted open nuclear tests since 1996 -- is a member.
The treaty does allow for states to conduct subcritical, or zero-yield tests. Those involve explosives and nuclear materials but do not result in a fission reaction, the reaction that gives atomic weapons their terrible power. Both the United States and Russia are known to have conducted such tests.
Despite not ratifying the treaty, the United States does provide $33 million annually in funding for a system set up to monitor possible nuclear tests, as well as the Vienna-based organization charged with overseeing it.
What's The Problem Now?
As relations between Washington and Moscow have worsened, major treaties between them have also frayed or collapsed entirely.
Washington unilaterally pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty in 2002, angering Moscow. Washington for years accused Moscow of trying to cheat on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty until it effectively collapsed in 2019. In 2021, Russia withdrew from the Treaty on Open Skies, which allows countries to conduct surveillance flights over one another's territories in order to observe weapons and military sites.
Both countries have adhered to New START, which capped the number of warheads and "delivery vehicles" each could possess.
New START's extension, by both Russia and the United States in early 2021, was a lone bright spot in the continuing erosion of arms control.
But the agreement expires in 2026 and cannot be extended. Unless a successor treaty can be agreed upon and ratified, there will be no limits on the countries' arsenals after that year. Tensions over Ukraine have kept the two sides from even sending inspectors to one another's countries, as stipulated for in New START.
Both countries have also moved to modernize and upgrade their arsenals. But in a sign of deepening distrust, the U.S. State Department suggested in a 2022 report that Russia had not adhered to the standard of "zero-yield" testing.
So Russia Wants To Pull Out Then?
For more than a decade, the Kremlin has increased spending not only on conventional weapons and force strength but also on modernizing and expanding its strategic arsenal.
In 2018, Putin boasted that Russia was developing new weapons like an unmanned, nuclear-capable, underwater torpedo, and a hypersonic "glide" missile. He also bragged of the development of a nuclear-powered cruise missile -- the Burevestnik, which has had major problems.
In recent years, researchers have been monitoring a surge of activity on the Novaya Zemlya archipelago: satellite imagery showing an uptick of construction at one or possibly two settlements that researchers had identified as sites for a possible test of a nuclear device or the trouble-plagued Burevestnik.
A top Russian nuclear researcher called for Russia to resume testing, and on October 5 Putin announced a successful test of the Burevestnik, though he provided no details.
Putin also opened to the door to Russia resuming nuclear testing, saying it could "de-ratify" the CTBT. A week later, on October 12, the speaker of the State Duma, the lower house of parliament, introduced legislation to withdraw ratification.
The prospect of Russia withdrawing prompted alarm bells, including from the CTBTO, the Vienna-based organization charged with monitoring compliance.
What Happens Next?
Even if "de-ratification" ends up happening, as is likely in the Kremlin-controlled parliament, that does not necessarily mean Russia will start blowing up uranium or plutonium again, on Novaya Zemlya or otherwise.
"I think that withdrawal of ratification is a strictly political step -- leveling status with the U.S.," said Nikolai Sokov, a former Russian Foreign Ministry official and arms control expert.
"I think the main motive is the perception that 'Russia tried too hard in the past and made too many concessions' and now 'We're not interested in arms control more than other countries.'"
Leonid Slutsky, head of the Duma's foreign affairs committee, emphasized that Russia would not be withdrawing its signature under the treaty or "withdrawing from the voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing."
"We are withdrawing the ratification, thus restoring legislative parity with the U.S. Congress," he told the newspaper Kommersant.
"It was especially important for [the CTBTO] to hear that revoking ratification does not mean that Russia intends to resume nuclear tests and implies that Russia will continue to fully participate in the work being done for the Treaty's entry into force," Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia's ambassador in Vienna, told the state news agency RIA Novosti.
Still, it's not a good sign, experts say -- all the more so, given the demise of other treaties.
Russia or any major nuclear power backing out of the CTBT "would be a huge blow to the [global nonproliferation] regime and would undoubtedly lead to a cascade of nuke testing by other states," Lynn Rusten, a former U.S. arms control negotiator, told RFE/RL.
There could also be other nonproliferation or arms control treaties that are at risk, since, according to Sokov, the Kremlin has initiated a review of all similar agreements.
One strong candidate for "de-ratification" or a downgrading of Russia's involvement, he said, is the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention, which obligates members to destroy their stocks of chemical weapons.
Russia's compliance with that treaty has been in question since the near-fatal poisonings of former Russian intelligence agent Sergei Skripal in England in 2018 and opposition activist Aleksei Navalny in Siberia in 2020.
In both cases, Western scientists identified a powerful Soviet-era nerve agent and suggested that Russia had maintained a secret, undeclared chemical weapons program.
CHF/JPY further potential up move reinforced by CHF safe haven status
CHF was the top-performing currency among the USD pairs in the past five days. An uptick in geopolitical risk premium has reinforced CHF’s safe haven…
- CHF was the top-performing currency among the USD pairs in the past five days.
- An uptick in geopolitical risk premium has reinforced CHF’s safe haven status.
- CHF/JPY short-term and major uptrend phases remain intact with the next intermediate resistance coming in at 167.90/168.30.
This is a follow-up analysis of our prior report, “CHF/JPY Technical: Continuation of potential bullish impulsive up move” published on 10 October 2023. Click here for a recap.
The CHF/JPY has staged the expected impulsive up move sequence and met the 165.20/165.60 intermediate resistance zone as highlighted in our previous analysis; the cross-pair printed an intraday high of 166.12 last Friday, US session, 13 October.
The current short-term uptrend phase in place since the 3 October 2023 low of 160.01 has been driven by the momentum factor supporting the CHF/JPY’s major uptrend phase since the 13 January 2023 low of 137.44.
Also, the rising geopolitical risk premium trigged by the current Israel-Hamas conflict has not abated, and now with the latest attacks orchestrated over the weekend by Hezbollah, a militant group backed by Iran on Israeli army posts in the north may have caused a further rift among key stakeholders in the Middle East region which in turn can further escalate the turmoil in the current “fragile state” of international relations affairs.
CHF maintains safe haven status but not JPY
Fig 1: USD major pairs rolling 5-day performance as of 16 Oct 2023 (Source: TradingView, click to enlarge chart)
In in state of rising geopolitical tensions, the safe-haven proxy currencies, the Japanese yen (JPY) and Swiss franc (CHF) tend to be the likely outperformers in the foreign exchange market. Based on a five-day rolling performance basis as of 16 October 2023, the CHF has indeed climbed up against the US dollar where the USD/CHF rate is the worst performer among the US dollar major pairs that recorded a loss of -0.48% at this time of the writing.
However, the JPY has lost its safe haven status this time round as the USD/JPY rate has been firmed above 148.25 (the intermediate support in place since 5 October 2023) due to a “hesitant” Bank of Japan (BoJ) that does not give any clear indication of bringing forward its plans in the removal of negative interest rates policy.
Major uptrend supported by bullish momentum
Fig 2: CHF/JPY major & medium-term trends as of 16 Oct 2023 (Source: TradingView, click to enlarge chart)
After the appearance of the weekly bullish reversal “Hammer” candlestick sighted for the week ended 6 October 2023, the price actions of the CHF/JPY had a positive follow-through that led to the formation of a weekly bullish long-bodied candlestick that ended on 13 October that surpassed the highs of the prior weekly candlesticks seen in the past three weeks.
These observations coupled with an uptick seen in the daily RSI momentum indicator that has yet to reach its overbought zone (above the 70 level) suggest that medium-term bullish momentum remains intact and has increased the odds of a clearance above the 166.60 intermediate resistance (22/30 August 2023 swing highs).
164.75 is the key support to watch in the short-term
Fig 3: CHF/JPY minor short-term trend as of 16 Oct 2023 (Source: TradingView, click to enlarge chart)
Watch the 164.75 key short-term pivotal support (also the 50-day moving) on the 1-hour chart of CHF/JPY to maintain its current bullish impulsive up move sequence within its short-term uptrend phase in place since the 3 October 2023 low.
A clearance above 166.60 sees the next intermediate resistance coming in at 167.90/168.30 (a Fibonacci extension cluster).
However, a break below 164.75 negates the bullish tone for a deeper pull-back towards the next support of 163.60 (20-day moving average, 9 October 2023 minor swing low & 38.2% Fibonacci retracement of the current up move from 3 October 2023 low to 13 October 2023 high).
currencies us dollar army interest rates iran japan
Wolf protection in Europe has become deeply political – Spain’s experience tells us why
Some European countries view wolf protection differently to others. A look at Spain’s experience may explain why.
Wolves are staging a comeback in many areas of Europe after centuries of persecution. Over the past decade alone, they have expanded their range on the continent by more than 25%.
This resurgence was brought into sharp focus in September 2023 following a controversial statement by Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission. She said: “The concentration of wolf packs in some European regions has become a real danger for livestock and potentially also for humans. I urge local and national authorities to take action where necessary.”
But what is the right action to take? Recent decisions by EU member states do not reflect a consensus on the matter.
The Swiss senate has voted to ease restrictions on culling their roughly 200 wolves to safeguard livestock that roam freely in the Alps. Spain, which is home to more than 2,000 wolves and boasts extensive livestock grazing systems, has adopted a contrasting stance.
In 2021, the Spanish government declared wolves strictly protected. It aims to increase the wolf population by 18% and encourage farmers to implement livestock protection measures like installing fences or keeping guard dogs.
An examination of Spain’s motivations for protection may provide some insight into what motivates countries to adopt such different approaches to coexistence.
What does coexistence mean?
In new research that I carried out with several colleagues, we investigated how people in Spain interpret and experience coexistence with wolves. Our findings revealed three distinct and, to some extent, conflicting views of what coexistence means and how it should be achieved.
“Traditionalists” cared deeply about the landscapes, livelihoods and biodiversity that evolved together throughout millennia of free-range pastoralism. They saw people as a part of nature and interpreted coexistence as a state where the wolf was controlled to not disrupt pastoral activities.
“Protectionists” wanted to restore “wild” nature (with minimal human influence) and believed that the wolf would catalyse this process. They saw coexistence as a state where human activities were controlled so that wolves could roam free.
“Pragmatists” were less fixated on a certain type of nature and more on the relationships and context within each location. They regarded coexistence as a state where the needs of different groups (including wolves) were balanced.
Relaxing or increasing wolf protection has come to represent these different visions of the future. Each of these visions offers advantages to some people and wildlife and presents challenges for others. As a result, the topic has become deeply political.
The politics of wolf conservation
In Spain, the proposal to protect wolves was put forward by protectionists, and aligned with the agenda of the incumbent left-wing government. Podemos, one of the left coalition parties, submitted a proposition for strict wolf protection in 2016 (when they were in opposition) in collaboration with pro-wolf advocacy groups.
By contrast, Spain’s right-wing political parties were firmly opposed. These parties tend to target rural voters, for whom the return of carnivores has come to symbolise the demise of pastoral cultures.
The proposal was ultimately endorsed by the government based on wolves’ “scientific, ecological and cultural value” – largely subjective criteria. For instance, one could argue that the fox, which is not protected, possesses similar values. These criteria do not consider how stringent wolf protection measures might affect other cultural or ecological values, like pastoral farming systems.
Spain’s decision was also influenced by the protectionists’ view of the wolf’s conservation status. A species that is classified as having a “favourable” status (adequate to guarantee its long-term survival) in the EU Habitats Directive can, in some instances, be hunted. However, conservationists disagree about the criteria and data on which this status is based.
For example, an assessment submitted to the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List in 2018 indicates that the Iberian wolf population is large, stable and slowly expanding. By contrast, a report published by a pro-wolf advocacy group in 2017 claimed that more wolves were killed than born in Spain during that year.
The latter has been accused of being biased and unscientific. However, it did not stop the Spanish Environment Ministry from using the report to reclassify the conservation status of wolves from “favourable” (as it was in previous reports) to “unfavourable”. In other words, information was interpreted, selected and presented in a way that justified increased protection.
The Swedish government, which has been led by a right-wing coalition since 2022, seeks to achieve the opposite. It has ordered the Environment Protection Agency to review if the established threshold for favourable status, set to a minimum of 300 in 2019, can be lowered to enable increased culling.
This nature or that nature?
To bridge the political divide between protection and persecution, as well as between the restoration of “wild” versus pastoral landscapes, a reevaluation of how decisions are made and what evidence is considered is needed.
Science plays a crucial role in evaluating various policy options and their consequences, such as the effect of an increased wolf population on sheep or deer behaviour. But it cannot determine the “correct” course of action. That choice depends on what people, livestock and wildlife in a particular place need to live well. In other words: context matters.
In most cases, the question is not a matter of choosing between “this or that”, but rather, how we get “a little bit of everything”. Reconciling different interests and finding a way forward requires public participation and, usually, professional mediation. These are the actions that the European Commission should encourage among member states.
With this in mind, it is concerning that the pragmatic interpretation is largely overlooked in the debate. Ultimately, the sustainable coexistence of humans and wolves does not hinge on whether wolves are hunted or protected, or even on the size of the wolf population. Rather, it hinges on how these decisions are made.
Hanna Pettersson received funding from Leeds-York Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) Doctoral Training Partnership (DTP) SPHERES under grant NE/L002574/.senate european europe spain eu
Visualizing All Attempted & Successful Moon Landings
Week Ahead: Softness in US Real Sector, Key UK and Canadian Data, and China’s Q3 GDP
Russia Denies Talks Of A Gas Cartel
Undeniable Toxic Ingredients In HPV Vaccines
‘No Regrets’: Former CIA Director Repeats Debunked Russian Disinfo Claims About Hunter’s Laptop
Rent Control Is A Disaster – Don’t Let It Spread Across The Nation
Nigerian gov supports AI initiatives with $290K in grants
Tesla Japanese rivals debut concept vehicles in latest challenge
Don’t Mess With Texas: Senate Passes Bill Allowing Local, State Police To Arrest Illegal Immigrants
This new McDonald’s China menu item is a meat lover’s dream
Uncategorized7 hours ago
South Korean exchange Upbit gets initial license nod from Singapore
Uncategorized2 hours ago
EtherHiding: Hackers create novel way to hide malicious code in blockchains
Uncategorized46 mins ago
VIX surges while SPX remains steady: What’s behind the anomaly?
International20 hours ago
Tesla Japanese rivals debut concept vehicles in latest challenge
Government12 hours ago
Court Rules No Evidence Georgia’s Voting Law Discriminates Against Black Voters
Uncategorized16 hours ago
Striking While The Iron Is HOT!
International19 hours ago
Beyond Bankruptcy: Essential retailers face huge store closures
Uncategorized9 hours ago
Crypto exchanges to fall under TradFi licensing — Australian Treasury proposal