Milton Friedman famously said, “Inflation was always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” But Friedman didn’t live through the QE years here in the U.S. and blatantly ignored the twenty plus years of Japanese deflation despite QE and insane levels of money printing during the latter years of his life.
Because Friedman, like a lot of modern economists, adhered strictly to the Quantity Theory of Money (QTM).
And as an Austrian economics kinda guy I somewhat agree with the QTM. I agree with Ludwig von Mises on this, as you would expect. So, how do we square the QTM with the evidence that QE in all of its guises has resulted in deflation, as expressed by the general price level, where ever it has been tried?
Martin Armstrong asks this question all the time and is openly hostile to the QTM. And his arguments have some merit, because, as he rightly points out the QTM only looks at the supply side of the money equation.
It cares not about the demand side. He’s right about that. What he’s wrong about is that the Austrians, like von Mises, haven’t considered this either.
Demand for money is just as important as the supply of it. And during a crisis, the demand side of the equation for any particular currency may, in fact, be more important.
This is what the Fed has struggled with for the past twelve years. The demand for the U.S. dollar has far outstripped the increase in supply, causing a far lower aggregate price rise than anticipated by the QTM.
But money, like all commodities, goes to where it is most demanded by thos that obtain it. And Bernanke’s QE post-2008 crisis didn’t go to the people, it went to the banks and the banks and the government who did what they thought was best with it.
In trying to prop up asset values the Fed, however, blew bubbles in not only equities but also home prices, cars, education, health care, government regulation etc.
Offsetting that has been the destruction of price in things like food and energy, which are now far cheaper in real terms (and as a percentage of disposable income) than they’ve been in decades.
And this dynamic couldn’t change in the post-Lehman years under Bernanke if the Fed, like the Bank of Japan before them and the other major central banks today, allowed the money printed to actually circulate.
The QTM seems to fail because the money never circulated.
Bernanke ‘sterilized’ the new money, paying banks not to lend but rather hold the money on reserve with the Fed paying a nominal interest rather than engaging in traditional lending.
Because if he had done that the QTM would have risen up to bite him in the ass.
Bernanke understood that he had a demand problem. There was too much demand for dollars to service non-performing debt. But if he had let those trillions circulate it would have touched off an inflationary spiral as most of the money wouldn’t have gone to debt service but to bid up the price of base commodities.
So he chose to slowly bleed out the excesses of the previous credit-induced boom through time and attrition, just like the Bank of Japan, and slowly build the unavoidable inflation through the expansion of the money supply while demand returned to normal.
While the QTM ignores the demand side of the money equation, when the definition of the money supply and, more importantly inflation itself, doesn’t accurately describe reality the QTM becomes a hindrance to understanding what’s going on.
This is summed up in the question, “If Bernanke printed all these trillions, why is there no inflation?” To which Gary North, writing for Lew Rockwell all those years ago answered, “IOER.”
IOER = Interest on Excess Reserves.
To Bernanke he beat the QTM by paying IOER. Previous to Bernanke, excess reserves hovered around zero. The market always paid a better return than the Fed’s 0.25%.
The Federal Reserve can re-ignite monetary inflation at any time by charging banks a fee to keep excess reserves with the FED.
Anyone who predicts an inevitable price deflation does not understand that the present scenario is the product of legitimately terrified bankers and the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. At any time, the FED can get all of the banks’ money lent. But the FED knows that this will double the money supply within weeks. This will create mass price inflation.
Bernanke paid the banks not to lend and therefore most of the money printed didn’t circulate. It wasn’t part of the supply and therefore couldn’t cause inflation.
Moreover, credit money was contracting at that time. The top of Exter’s Pyramid was collapsing and Bernanke was trying to widen the base of the Pyramid by printing trillions in base money.
John Exter’s Money Pyramid
Back then it was there was a fight pitting the inflationists led by Peter Schiff versus the deflationists led by Harry S. Dent, and to a lesser extent Martin Armstrong.
Some of that money circulated through the growth in government spending and the returns generated as second-order effects of rising stock prices, the so-called ‘wealth effect.’
In the end we got what the Austrians would expect. Asset bubbles in the things people buy on time at zero-bound rates — cars, houses, medical bills, college degrees, military weapons, war — and deflation in legacy maturing financial assets and high depreciation cost assets like infrastructure through capital starvation, waste and fraud.
The Yellen and Powell years were marked by them hoping to withdraw these ‘temporary’ funds from the banking system by raising rates and doing QT – Quantitative Tightening.
It didn’t work at all, precipitating a credit collapse last year thereby, again, invoking the threat of the QTM. Because now the world was used to these assets at zero-cost of carry, zero-bound rates, which inflated their prices..
And those prices were way too high relative to that old supply of money. Withdraw the funds and watch the money markets seize up.
This is why we Austrian types kept saying the “Fed was trapped!” There was no way to go back to the way things were because while the Fed may have run out the clock on the 2008 toxic asset pile, it created an all-new even bigger pile of toxic-assets-in-waiting by the time we get to 2020…
… exactly as predicted.
Worse than that the Fed internationalized that pile, spreading the cancer out the world over, by turning the dollar into the ultimate carry-trade currency.
The real pandemic we should be scared of in 2020 isn’t COVID-19, it’s the immense pile of un-payable loans of all types, commercial or otherwise. With the rise of MMT now we’re just openly admitting the debts aren’t payable.
And the Fed has done nothing so far to say that it has any cures for this disease other than mo’ money.
It may be the first bit of honesty we’ve ever gotten from them.
So, color me not shocked when I see the latest proposal to come out of the Fed to stave off the deflationary vortex, directly pump money into everyone’s bank account.
The response was striking: they two propose creating a monetary tool that they call recession insurance bonds, which draw on some of the advances in digital payments, which will be wired instantly to Americans.
As Coronado explains the details, Congress would grant the Federal Reserve an additional tool for providing support—say, a percent of GDP [in a lump sum that would be divided equally and distributed] to households in a recession. Recession insurance bonds would be zero-coupon securities, a contingent asset of households that would basically lie in wait. The trigger could be reaching the zero lower bound on interest rates or, as economist Claudia Sahm has proposed, a 0.5 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate. The Fed would then activate the securities and deposit the funds digitally in households’ apps.
As Potter then elucidates, “it took Congress too long to get money to people, and it’s too clunky. We need a separate infrastructure. The Fed could buy the bonds quickly without going to the private market. On March 15 they could have said interest rates are now at zero, we’re activating X amount of the bonds, and we’ll be tracking the unemployment rate—if it increases above this level, we’ll buy more. The bonds will be on the asset side of the Fed’s balance sheet; the digital dollars in people’s accounts will be on the liability side.”
Bringing us right back to Milton Friedman and, more importantly, von Mises and the QTM. Because now the Fed is not talking about injecting sterilized reserves into the money supply to create fictions of bank balance sheets.
Because, as Mises pointed out, once there are no more vacancies at the debt hotel now the QTM can be fully expressed. More supply equates to more inflation.
Now Friedman will be proven prophetic.
Because the Fed would be injecting money directly into the economy to stimulate aggregate demand because there are no more places to hide it and get any kind of future return.
Most of the world’s debt trades at a negative yield. IOER is 0.10%. National budgets are running at 20% to GDP deficits. Pension systems are trillions in arrears.
Now we’re at that moment where the old thought exercise of what happens when you inflate the money supply by 10% prices occurs. The answer is prices will go up by 10%.
Critics of the QTM, like Armstrong, argue that the Fed et.al. are obsessed with creating 2% price inflation in a deflationary environment. That’s not completely true. Because if they charge those excess reserves they can create whatever inflation rate they want in a heartbeat.
What they are obsessed with is doing that and bailing out the banks at the same time.
That they can’t do without destroying confidence which is a nice way of saying they are scared of the QTM calling their bluff.
Because no matter how you try to hand wave the arguments away, more money chasing the same number of goods is inflationary. One look at home, car, health care and education costs tells you exactly where all the inflation went.
Bernanke dreaded that scenario just like Dr. North said which is why he paid IOER while destroying the middle class through rising prices for real goods and wage stagnation.
He created trillions in latent inflation based on the U.S.’s capacity as the world’s reserve currency, stuffing the world with reserves it didn’t need to maintain asset prices it couldn’t sustain.
He undermined the validity of every other currency in the process to save the dollar. They’ve had to deal with the QTM biting them, but we only care about ourselves.
In an environment where most people’s time preference is short because they are literally fighting for their economic lives, this new stimulus money will go right into the things people needs right now — food, clothing, shelter.
Things are so bad for so many Americans now that they saved their first stimulus checks and only spent them on the bare necessities, forgoing any thought of paying down debt.
They used what’s left of their credit rating to feed themselves now on someone else’s dime and let the bank choke on their mortgage when the credit card is maxed.
This next round of stimulus money will circulate. The Fed will finally do what Bernanke tried desperately to avoid, print helicopter money.
Zerohedge is right, the Fed finally admitted that QE is deflationary because it signals to the markets that conditions are still too fragile after 12 years to invest in the future because there is no future.
Therefore the money given to the banks is hoarded as excess reserves because the potential return on investment is lower than IOER. Today Jay Powell stopped paying IOER, it’s 0.10% lower than Bernanke’s 0.25% and he still can’t get the money moving.
Excess reserves are rising again. Same playbook, worse results.
That was the first phase of this crisis.
Now that we’re past that part and if the Fed adopts this policy, it will hand us money to keep asset prices from falling by creating fake demand. All that will do is undermine the confidence anyone holding dollars abroad has in the U.S., the dollar and our leadership.
And then the QTM will be our problem, not theirs. Because demand for dollars will collapse and the circulating supply will rise. Gold is sniffing this out now.
Then, and only then, will the Fed achieve its inflation target… and beyond. And Milton Friedman will look down and say, “I was right.”
And Mises will look back at him and say, “Yes, eventually.”
Move over carbon, the nanotube family just got bigger
Tokyo, Japan – Researchers from Tokyo Metropolitan University have engineered a range of new single-walled transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD) nanotubes…
Tokyo, Japan – Researchers from Tokyo Metropolitan University have engineered a range of new single-walled transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD) nanotubes with different compositions, chirality, and diameters by templating off boron-nitride nanotubes. They also realized ultra-thin nanotubes grown inside the template, and successfully tailored compositions to create a family of new nanotubes. The ability to synthesize a diverse range of structures offers unique insights into their growth mechanism and novel optical properties.
Credit: Tokyo Metropolitan University
Tokyo, Japan – Researchers from Tokyo Metropolitan University have engineered a range of new single-walled transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD) nanotubes with different compositions, chirality, and diameters by templating off boron-nitride nanotubes. They also realized ultra-thin nanotubes grown inside the template, and successfully tailored compositions to create a family of new nanotubes. The ability to synthesize a diverse range of structures offers unique insights into their growth mechanism and novel optical properties.
The carbon nanotube is a wonder of nanotechnology. Made by rolling up an atomically thin sheet of carbon atoms, it has exceptional mechanical strength and electrical conductivity amongst a range of other exotic optoelectronic properties, with potential applications in semiconductors beyond the silicon age.
The key features of carbon nanotubes come from subtle aspects of their structure. For example, like a piece of paper rolled up at an angle, nanotubes often have a chirality, a “handedness” in their structure that makes them different from their mirror image. That is also why scientists are looking ahead to materials beyond carbon, which might enable a wider range of structures. One spotlight is on transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD) compounds, made of transition metals and Group 16 elements. Not only is there a whole family of them, TMDs have features which are not seen in carbon nanotubes, such as superconductivity and photovoltaic properties, where exposure to light generates a voltage or current.
To get to grips with the full potential of TMDs, however, scientists need to be able to make single-walled nanotubes in a variety of compositions, diameters, and chirality in a way that lets us study their individual properties. This has proven challenging: TMD nanotubes usually form in concentric multi-walled structures, where each layer might have different chirality. This makes it tricky to find out, for example, what kind of chirality gives rise to specific properties.
Now, a team led by Assistant Professor Yusuke Nakanishi from Tokyo Metropolitan University has come up with a way to do just that. By using boron-nitride nanotubes as a template, they could successfully grow a range of single-walled TMD nanotubes by adding the required elements through exposure to vapor. In previous work, they made single-walled molybdenum sulfide nanotubes. On looking at individual nanotubes in more detail, they have now distinguished a whole plethora of single-walled tubes of different diameters and chirality. Specifically, they measured the “chiral angles” of individual tubes which, taken together with their diameters, determine unique chiral structures. They discovered, for the first time, that the chiral angles of their nanotubes were randomly distributed: this means they have access to the whole range of possible angles, promising new insights into the relationship between chirality and electronic states, a key unsolved question in the field. There were also ultra-thin tubes only a few nanometers across grown inside the template, not outside, a unique platform for observing quantum mechanical effects.
By tweaking their recipe, the team has now also succeeded in switching both the metal and the chalcogen, making molybdenum selenide, tungsten selenide, and molybdenum tungsten sulfide alloy nanotubes. They even made nanotubes with one element on the outside, another on the inside, “Janus”-type nanotubes named after the two-faced god of Roman mythology. The team’s diverse new entries into the nanotube family promise bold new strides in not only our understanding of TMD nanotubes, but how exotic properties arise from their structures.
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grants (Grant Numbers JP23H01807, JP20H02572, JP21H05232, JP21H05234, JP22K04886, JP22H05468, JP22H01911, JP22H02573, JP21H05017, JP22H05469, JP23H00259, JP23K13635, JP23H00097, JP22H05441, JP21H05235, JPJSJRP20221202), the JST CREST Program (Grant Numbers JPMJCR17I5 and JPMJCR20B1) and the JST FOREST Program (Grant Number JPMJFR213X).
Journal
Advanced Materials
DOI
10.1002/adma.202306631
Article Title
Structural Diversity of Single-Walled Transition Metal Dichalcogenide Nanotubes Grown via Template Reaction
China's Birth Rate Plummets 10% To Lowest On Record
China's birthrate fell 10% last year to its lowest level on record, a significant drop in spite of extensive efforts by the CCP to encourage people to get busy.
The country had just 9.56 million births in 2022, the lowest figure since they began keeping records in 1949, according to a report by the National Health Commission.
The high costs of child care and education, growing unemployment and job insecurity as well as gender discrimination have all helped to deter many young couples from having more than one child or even having children at all. -NBC News
China's population also fell for the first time in six decades, dropping to 1.41 billion people - a demographic shift that's caused officials to worry that the country will 'get old before it gets rich' - with a slowing economy and declining tax receipts amid increases in government debt due to soaring health and welfare costs.
According to the report, the demographic downturn is largely thanks to China's one-child policy imposed between 1980 and 2015. Nearly 40% of Chinese babies last year were the second child of a married couple, while 15% were from families with three or more children.
The sharp decline in births comes despite Beijing's efforts to increase child care and provide other financial incentives. In May, President Xi Jinping presided over a panel to study the topic.
Not just China
As we noted in June, Japan's birth rate has also plummeted to a record low for the seventh straight year, with the number of babies born falling below 800,000 this year, health ministry data showed on June 2.
The number of newborns in Japan fell to 770,747 this year, down 40,875 from the previous year and the lowest since the country began record-keeping in 1899, Kyodo News reported, citing health ministry data.
Japan’s fertility rate—the average number of children born to a woman in her lifetime—fell from 1.30 in 2021 to 1.26 last year, equivalent to the previous low recorded in 2005. The number is far below the 2.07 rate necessary to sustain a stable population.
The decline in Japan’s birth rate is attributed to people delaying parenthood due to the economic impact brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the prevailing trend among couples to delay marriage, according to the report.
The US birthrate has also been in decline, falling slightly in 2022 compared to 2021, with roughly 3.7 million babies born nationwide. It still hasn't recovered to pre-pandemic levels according to the CDC.
When the COVID pandemic led to widespread economic shutdowns and stay-at-home orders in the spring of 2020, many media outlets and pundits speculated this might lead to a baby boom. But it appears the opposite has happened: birth rates declined in many high-income countries amid the crisis, a new study shows.
Arnstein Aassve, a professor of social and political sciences at Bocconi University in Italy, and his colleagues looked at birth rates in 22 high-income countries, including the U.S., from 2016 through the beginning of 2021. They found that seven of these countries had statistically significant declines in birth rates in the final months of 2020 and first months of 2021, compared with the same period in previous years. Hungary, Italy, Spain and Portugal had some of the largest drops: reductions of 8.5, 9.1, 8.4 and 6.6 percent, respectively. The U.S. saw a decline of 3.8 percent, but this was not statistically significant—perhaps because the pandemic’s effects were more spread out in the country and because the study only had U.S. data through December 2020, Aassve says. The findings were published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.
Birth rates fluctuate seasonally within a year, and many of the countries in the study had experienced falling rates for years before the pandemic. But the declines that began nine months after the World Health Organization declared a public health emergency on January 30, 2020, were even more stark. “We are very confident that the effect for those countries is real,” Aassve says. “Even though they might have had a bit of a mild downward trend [before], we’re pretty sure about the fact that there was an impact of the pandemic.”
Covid Accelerated the Existing Trend
Covid accelerated the already declining birth rates.
Given the 16-year lag between births and the civilian noninstitutional population coupled with the aging of the workforce there will be fewer and fewer workers supporting retired workers on Social Security.
Notice the relatively steep decline in the birth rate starting in 2008 and continuing through today.
That impact will start showing up in 2024 and last a minimum of 12 years.
How long depends on whether the birth rate picks up after Covid. I highly doubt the birth rate will pick up.
Deflationary and Inflationary Impacts
Inflationary: Shortage of workers increases wage pressures
Deflationary: Fewer workers support an increasing number of retirees
Deflationary: Older workers need more assistance, buy fewer things, travel less.
Deflationary: More government debt and deficits. Government spending has a negative impact on real GDP.
Few directors in Hollywood have more power than Martin Scorsese, the Oscar-winning director of box office hits such as "Goodfellas," "Casino," "The Departed," and "The Wolf of Wall Street."
But even the legendary filmmaker lacked the clout to save the fate of his movie "Kundun" (1997) when the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) came knocking on Disney’s door.
The film is probably one that most readers have never heard of, even though it was nominated for four Academy Awards and included the legendary Mr. Scorsese. A historical drama written by Melissa Mathison, "Kundun" explores the life of the young Dalai Lama, who in 1950 saw his homeland of Tibet invaded by the CCP.
Ms. Mathison conceived the project after meeting the Dalai Lama in 1990, and although she had concerns that Hollywood wouldn't be interested in such a film, she caught a break when she convinced Mr. Scorsese to direct the film.
“I’m not saying he wants to do it, but I know he’s going to get it,” Ms. Mathison recalled thinking. “I knew he’d understand the society, the moral code, the journey, and the spirituality of it,” she said in the documentary "In Search of Kundun with Martin Scorsese."
Disney eventually agreed to distribute the film, which was given a $28 million budget. But China had other ideas.
Tibet, along with Taiwan and Tiananmen, is among the forbidden Three Ts—the issues considered most contentious by the CCP. So with China becoming an emerging global power in the 1990s, the CCP decided to flex its muscle and attempted to nix the project.
Two days into the production of "Kundun" in 1996, a representative from the Chinese Embassy approached Disney's chief strategic officer, Lawrence Murphy.
“You started shooting a film in Morocco about the Dalai Lama called 'Kundun,'” the diplomat said before explaining that Beijing had concerns with the film’s subject matter.
'Play by China’s Rules' ... or Else
At the time, Mr. Murphy hadn’t even heard of the film. But it would soon become clear that the CCP wanted the shooting of "Kundun" shut down. Why Beijing would want the movie censored is obvious. "Kundun" describes atrocities that China’s communist regime committed in the 1950s following its invasion of the Himalayan country.
“The Chinese have bombed the monastery of Lithang. It has been destroyed,” an adviser tells the Dalai Lama at one point in the movie. “Nuns and monks are made to fornicate in the streets. They put guns in the hands of Khumba children and force the child to kill the parents.”
While the description is horrifying, even more moving is the scene in which an elderly Tibetan woman tearfully and frantically insists that she's “happy and prosperous under the Chinese Communist Party.”
This isn't exactly flattering stuff for the CCP, any more than "Schindler’s List" is for the Nazis. Yet history isn't always pretty.
In any event, the CCP’s decision to lean on the film left Disney CEO Michael Eisner in a pickle.
If Mr. Eisner shut down the film, he’d anger Mr. Scorsese and look weak for caving to the CCP. If he proceeded with production, he risked losing Disney’s commercial and manufacturing foothold in China, as well as the 1.4 billion potential consumers.
So Mr. Eisner opted for a third way. He allowed the shooting of "Kundun" to proceed, but he limited the film’s distribution and marketing. "Kundun" was released on Christmas Day in 1997—in two theaters nationwide.
In other words, in the contest over truth and creative freedom versus government censorship, Disney blinked, and film producer Matt Tabor describes what Disney’s decision meant going forward.
“If foreign companies wanted access to [China’s] market, they were going to play by China’s rules,” Mr. Tabor noted in a recent production by the Foundation for Economic Education on the showdown. “'Kundun' marked the first opportunity for China to flex that muscle in the movie business.”
It was a watershed moment. And if there was any doubt that Disney caved to China, which officially considered the film “an interference in China’s internal affairs,” one need only read the groveling message that Disney sent to China after the dust had settled a year later.
The Apology: ‘We Made a Stupid Mistake’
Despite “sending 'Kundun' quietly to the gulag,” Disney found itself kicked out of China’s burgeoning market, along with other U.S. film studios.
“These films are full of inaccuracies,” a Chinese official told The Washington Post. “That’s why they are not popular within China.”
“We made a stupid mistake in releasing 'Kundun.' This film was a form of insult to our friends. The bad news is that the film was made; the good news is that nobody watched it. Here I want to apologize, and in the future, we should prevent this sort of thing, which insults our friends, from happening. In short, we’re a family entertainment company, a company that uses silly ways to amuse people.”
Mr. Eisner’s complete capitulation would have a profound impact on the global entertainment landscape for years to come. It explains why "Kundun" can’t be streamed on Amazon or Netflix even today. It explains why NBA executives go apoplectic when a single general manager tweets his support of protesters in Hong Kong.
One can appreciate the tough situation that Mr. Eisner was in without agreeing with his decision to banish "Kundun" to Siberia. Companies have commercial interests, and balancing those against doing the right thing or supporting creative expression isn't always easy. Indeed, this balancing act existed before Disney banished "Kundun," evidenced by one executive’s stated reason for passing on the film.
“I don’t need to have my spirits and wine business thrown out of China,” Edgar Bronfman Jr.—the CEO of Seagram, which briefly owned Universal Pictures—replied when pitched on "Kundun."
Yet, the message of Disney’s showdown with China isn’t really about the ethics of dealing with a powerful communist regime. The real lesson is that we should prevent governments from amassing such dictatorial power in the first place, and remind ourselves that governments are hardly arbiters of truth. Indeed, if the past few years have taught us anything, it’s that government officials have no business deciding what's true and what's false—even though it’s a power they clearly desire.
The reality is that those who wish to censor speech are usually far more interested in power than truth—the CCP’s attempt to censor "Kundun" reinforces that idea—and reminds us that sometimes the best way to exercise freedom is to watch a movie they don’t want you to see.
Matt Tabor contributed to this article.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.