Strategies & Market Trendsahhaha's ahs

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: da_cheif™ who wrote (20603)2/16/2012 5:13:19 PM
From: SGJ
of 24722

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: sixty2nds2/17/2012 10:44:33 AM
of 24722 police seize $6 trillion of fake U.S. T-bonds Reuters – 37 minutes ago

POTENZA, Italy (Reuters) - Italian police said on Friday they had seized about $6 trillion of fake U.S. Treasury bonds in Switzerland, and issued arrest warrants for eight people accused of international fraud and other financial crimes.

The operation, co-ordinated by prosecutors from the southern Italian city of Potenza, was carried out by Italian and Swiss authorities after a year-long investigation, an Italian police source said.

The fake securities, more than a third of U.S. national debt, were seized in January from a Swiss trust company where they were held in three large trunks.

The eight alleged fraudsters are accused of counterfeiting bonds, credit card forgery, and usury in the Italian regions of Lombardy, Piedmont, Lazio and Basilicata, police said.

The Swiss Federal Prosecutor's office said Zurich state prosecutors had worked on the investigation at the request of the Italian prosecutor. The Swiss handed over their findings in July of last year.

In 2009, Italian financial police seized $742 billion of fake U.S. bearer bonds in the northern Italian town of Chiasso, near the Swiss border.

(Reporting by Elisa Forte; Writing by Gavin Jones; Editing by Louise Ireland)

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: DMaA who wrote (20600)2/17/2012 10:46:47 AM
From: sixty2nds
of 24722
DMaA, Thanks for posting that article. eom

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: DMaA who wrote (20600)2/17/2012 5:53:14 PM
From: frankw1900
of 24722
Henrik Svensmark There was a lot of discussion on this thread about Svensmark's work a while back. It's part of the picture.

Our host certainly would agree that our climate change is driven by astronomical phenomena. He posted this a while ago as a good read on the subject:

Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: sixty2nds2/18/2012 1:07:09 PM
of 24722

China Cuts Bank Reserve Reqs; Exports ’Grim’
By Bloomberg News - Feb 18, 2012 10:13 AM CT

Jan. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Jim O'Neill, chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, talks about the growth outlook for China and the impact on the global economy. O'Neill, speaking with Erik Schatzker and Stephanie Ruhle, also discusses the European sovereign debt turmoil and currency markets. (Source: Bloomberg)

China cut the amount of cash that banks must set aside as reservesfor the second time in three months to spur lending as Europe’s debt crisis and a cooling property market threaten economic growth.

Reserve ratios will fall 50 basis points, effective Feb. 24, the People’s Bank of China said on its website yesterday evening. The level for the nation’s largest lenders will decline to 20.5 percent, based on previous statements.

China follows Japan in expanding monetary easing even as global equity markets are buoyed by signs of strength in the U.S. economyand optimism that Europe’s fiscal crisis will be contained. Governor Zhou Xiaochuan’s officials moved on the same day that a report showed home prices slid in most of the nation’s major cities in January.

“Chinese policy makers are very much concerned about a possible deeper slowdown in domestic growth,” said Yao Wei, a Hong Kong-based economist with Societe Generale SA.

A 50 basis-point cut may add 400 billion yuan ($63 billion) to the financial system, Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. (ANZ)estimates. UBS AG says 350 billion yuan. The previous reduction was the first since the global financial crisis.

Tight interbank liquidity may have triggered the latest move, according to UBS economist Wang Tao in Hong Kong.

In the U.S., the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has climbed to near the highest level since 2008 after America’s jobless rate fell and Greece moved closed to securing another bailout. The Shanghai Composite Index rose for a fifth week last week on speculation that China would ease monetary policy.

No ‘Hard Landing’While China’s commerce ministry describes the trade outlook as “grim,” Vice President Xi Jinping said there will be no “hard landing” for the world’s second-biggest economy.

Home prices in 47 of 70 cities fell in January, while the remaining 23 were unchanged from December. Volkswagen AG (VOW), Europe’s largest carmaker, says sales in China, the company’s biggest market, fell 4.5 percent last month.

China’s gross domestic product grew 8.9 percent in the fourth quarter from a year earlier, the slowest pace since the first half of 2009. Exports and imports fell for the first time in two years in January and new lending was the lowest for that month in five years.

In a Feb. 16 interview in Beijing, Fan Jianping, chief economist at the government-run State Information Center, said that the nation may set a 7 percent or 7.5 percent target for growth this year, the least since 2004.

IMF CautionThe International Monetary Fund said this month that China’s expansion may be cut almost in half if Europe’s debt crisis worsens, demanding “significant” fiscal stimulus.

Lu Zhengwei, a Shanghai-based economist at Industrial Bank, said yesterday there’s “no possibility” that China will cut interest rates soon, partly because of inflation concerns. Consumer-price gains unexpectedly rebounded to 4.5 percent in January, accelerating for the first time in six months, as a week-long lunar festival boosted spending.

Japan unexpectedly added to monetary easing last week by expanding an asset-purchase program, while the U.S. Federal Reserve said last month that it would keep interest rates low through at least late 2014 and indicated that it may make asset purchases.

Before yesterday’s announcement, Ken Peng, a Beijing-based economist at BNP Paribas SA, said the Chinese government needs to be “careful not to overshoot monetary loosening, as it did in the financial crisis.”

Credit BoomLingering effects of record lending in 2009 and 2010 include the risk for banks that local government financing vehicles will default, saddling lenders with bad loans.

The central bank said Feb. 15 that it will improve the use of differentiated reserve ratios, where requirements are calculated according to individual banks’ capital adequacy levels and lending growth.

The bank also said that M2, the broadest measure of money supply, will probably grow 14 percent this year, a target that Zhu Haibin, a Hong Kong-based economist for JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), says may imply three to four cuts in reserve ratios this year.

Home prices have declined in cities from Beijing to Wenzhou as the government cracks down on speculation and implements a program to build low-cost housing.

Jim O’Neill, the economist who coined the term BRIC for developing nations Brazil, Russia, India and China, said Jan. 17 that Chinese officials had moved to avoid the “wild housing bubbles” that many Western nations had experienced. O’Neill, chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, said he doesn’t see a “hard landing” for China.

To contact Bloomberg News staff for this story: Zheng Lifei in Beijing at

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Paul Panckhurst at

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: sixty2nds who wrote (20608)2/21/2012 5:47:11 AM
From: frankw1900
of 24722
It's not just Europe that concerns the Chinese. There are internal problems as was discussed here in November. There is an interesting post here

Further Thoughts on Real Estate’s Impact on GDP
January 20, 2012


If investment actually declines — which is hardly unthinkable based on other property booms and busts — the picture is even worse. For instance, if property investment falls 10% (in real terms) in 2012, GDP growth drops to 5.3%. Even if investment grows at 10% (half last year’s growth rate, in real terms), GDP still drops to 7.9% — below the magic 8%. You can plug in any numbers you like, and see what you get. The point is, real estate has been a huge driver of growth, and even a modest real estate slowdown matters — it can’t just be brushed aside as though it were of minimal consequence for the broader Chinese economy.

Looking at the Chinese English language sites, there does seem to be quite a preoccupation with property markets and the wider implications of distress:

I spotted hre and there some talk about the government trying to create more emphasis on developing affordable housing and shaping policy to that end. This might allow property development and associated construction to continue.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: sixty2nds2/21/2012 9:05:12 AM
of 24722

Transistor Made Using a Single Atom May Help Beat Moore's Law
Reg Gale, ©2012 Bloomberg News

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Moore's law states that the number of transistors that can be placed on an integrated circuit doubles every 18 months to two years, and it's predicted to reach its limit with existing technology in 2020. Cutting the size of a transistor to a single atom may defeat that concept.

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Scientists have taken a first early step toward escaping the limits of a technological principle called Moore's Law by creating a working transistor using a single phosphorus atom.

The atom was etched into a silicon bed with "gates" to control electrical flow and metallic contacts to apply voltage, researchers reported in the journal Nature Nanotechnology. It is the first such device to be precisely positioned using a repeatable technology, they said, and may one day help ease the way toward creation of a so-called quantum computer that would be significantly smaller and faster than existing technology.

"We really decided 10 years ago to start this program to try and make single-atom devices as fast as we could, and beat that law," said Michelle Simmons, director of ARC Center for Quantum Computation and Communication Technology at the University of New South Wales, Australia. "So here we are in 2012, and we've made a single-atom transistor roughly 8 to 10 years ahead of where the industry is going to be."

Moore's Law is named for Gordon Moore, the co-founder of Santa Clara, California-based Intel Corp., the world's largest chipmaker. He first described the phenomenon in a 1965 report that was later cited by others with his name attached to it.

Finding Limitation

There is a limitation to the latest finding: The atom must be kept at minus-391 degrees Fahrenheit to keep it from migrating out of its channel, the report said. Because of this, the result should be seen as a proof of principle rather than an initial step in a manufacturing process, the researchers said.

"These results demonstrate that single-atom devices can in principle be built and controlled with atomically thin wires, where the active component represents the ultimate physical limit of Moore's Law," the researchers wrote in the report.

Simmons's group, which included scientists from the University of Melbourne and from Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, isn't the first to create a single-atom transistor. Previous efforts, though, came about as the result of chance and carried a significant margin of error, the researchers said.

The New South Wales scientists used a device called a scanning tunneling microscope to manipulate the atoms on the surface of the crystal in a way that allowed them to precisely pair one up with the electrode needed to control it.

'Lots' of Atoms

"If you want to make a practical computer in the long term, you need to be able to put lots of individual atoms in," Simmons said in a video supplied by the university. "And there you find that the separation of the atoms is quite critical."

So-called quantum computers would operate by controlling the movement of electrons in an atom. While the latest finding brings science closer to determining whether quantum computing may be successful at a large-scale level, it remains an open question.

--Editors: Kevin Miller, Reg Gale

To contact the reporter on this story: Reg Gale in New York at

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Reg Gale in New York at

Read more:

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: ahhaha who wrote (20579)2/22/2012 12:27:52 AM
From: gladman
of 24722
I read a great line I had to share "Jim Cramer is like the Jar Jar Binks of CNBC"

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: DMaA who wrote (20600)2/22/2012 8:56:29 AM
From: sixty2nds
of 24722

Concerned Scientists Reply on Global WarmingThe authors of the Jan. 27 Wall Street Journal op-ed, 'No Need to Panic about Global Warming,' respond to their critics.

Article Video Comments (566)

Editor's Note: The authors of the following letter, listed below, are also the signatories of "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," an op-ed that appeared in the Journal on January 27. This letter responds to criticisms of the op-ed made by Kevin Trenberth and 37 others in a letter published Feb. 1, and by Robert Byer of the American Physical Society in a letter published Feb. 6.

The interest generated by our Wall Street Journal op-ed of Jan. 27, "No Need to Panic about Global Warming," is gratifying but so extensive that we will limit our response to the letter to the editor the Journal published on Feb. 1, 2012 by Kevin Trenberth and 37 other signatories, and to the Feb. 6 letter by Robert Byer, President of the American Physical Society. (We, of course, thank the writers of supportive letters.)

We agree with Mr. Trenberth et al. that expertise is important in medical care, as it is in any matter of importance to humans or our environment. Consider then that by eliminating fossil fuels, the recipient of medical care (all of us) is being asked to submit to what amounts to an economic heart transplant. According to most patient bills of rights, the patient has a strong say in the treatment decision. Natural questions from the patient are whether a heart transplant is really needed, and how successful the diagnostic team has been in the past.

In this respect, an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is "falsified" and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.

These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant.

Enlarge Image

From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.

The Trenberth letter tells us that "computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean." The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of "missing heat" hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean?

Given this dubious track record of prediction, it is entirely reasonable to ask for a second opinion. We have offered ours. With apologies for any immodesty, we all have enjoyed distinguished careers in climate science or in key science and engineering disciplines (such as physics, aeronautics, geology, biology, forecasting) on which climate science is based.

Trenberth et al. tell us that the managements of major national academies of science have said that "the science is clear, the world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible." Apparently every generation of humanity needs to relearn that Mother Nature tells us what the science is, not authoritarian academy bureaucrats or computer models.

One reason to be on guard, as we explained in our original op-ed, is that motives other than objective science are at work in much of the scientific establishment. All of us are members of major academies and scientific societies, but we urge Journal readers not to depend on pompous academy pronouncements—on what we say—but to follow the motto of the Royal Society of Great Britain, one of the oldest learned societies in the world: nullius in verba—take nobody's word for it. As we said in our op-ed, everyone should look at certain stubborn facts that don't fit the theory espoused in the Trenberth letter, for example—the graph of surface temperature above, and similar data for the temperature of the lower atmosphere and the upper oceans.

What are we to make of the letter's claim: "Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record." We don't see any warming trend after the year 2000 in the graph. It is true that the years 2000-2010 were perhaps 0.2 C warmer than the preceding 10 years. But the record indicates that long before CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere began to increase, the earth began to warm in fits and starts at the end of the Little Ice Age—hundreds of years ago. This long term-trend is quite likely to produce several warm years in a row. The question is how much of the warming comes from CO2 and how much is due to other, both natural and anthropogenic, factors?

Related Video

Heartland Institute President Joe Bast on why global warming activist Peter Gleick stole and forged documents from his organization.

There have been many times in the past when there were warmer decades. It may have been warmer in medieval times, when the Vikings settled Greenland, and when wine was exported from England. Many proxy indicators show that the Medieval Warming was global in extent. And there were even warmer periods a few thousand years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum. The fact is that there are very powerful influences on the earth's climate that have nothing to do with human-generated CO2. The graph strongly suggests that the IPCC has greatly underestimated the natural sources of warming (and cooling) and has greatly exaggerated the warming from CO2.

The Trenberth letter states: "Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused." However, the claim of 97% support is deceptive. The surveys contained trivial polling questions that even we would agree with. Thus, these surveys find that large majorities agree that temperatures have increased since 1800 and that human activities have some impact.

But what is being disputed is the size and nature of the human contribution to global warming. To claim, as the Trenberth letter apparently does, that disputing this constitutes "extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert" is peculiar indeed.

One might infer from the Trenberth letter that scientific facts are determined by majority vote. Some postmodern philosophers have made such claims. But scientific facts come from observations, experiments and careful analysis, not from the near-unanimous vote of some group of people.

The continued efforts of the climate establishment to eliminate "extreme views" can acquire a seriously threatening nature when efforts are directed at silencing scientific opposition. In our op-ed we mentioned the campaign circa 2003 to have Dr. Chris de Freitas removed not only from his position as editor of the journal Climate Research, but from his university job as well. Much of that campaign is documented in Climategate emails, where one of the signatories of the Trenberth et al. letter writes: "I believe that a boycott against publishing, reviewing for, or even citing articles from Climate Research [then edited by Dr. de Freitas] is certainly warranted, but perhaps the minimum action that should be taken."

Or consider the resignation last year of Wolfgang Wagner, editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing. In a fulsome resignation editorial eerily reminiscent of past recantations by political and religious heretics, Mr. Wagner confessed to his "sin" of publishing a properly peer-reviewed paper by University of Alabama scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell containing the finding that IPCC models exaggerate the warming caused by increasing CO2.

Enlarge Image

Getty Images/Ikon Images

The Trenberth letter tells us that decarbonization of the world's economy would "drive decades of economic growth." This is not a scientific statement nor is there evidence it is true. A premature global-scale transition from hydrocarbon fuels would require massive government intervention to support the deployment of more expensive energy technology. If there were economic advantages to investing in technology that depends on taxpayer support, companies like Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Solar Millenium, SpectraWatt, Solyndra, Ener1 and the Renewable Energy Development Corporation would be prospering instead of filing for bankruptcy in only the past few months.

The European experience with green technologies has also been discouraging. A study found that every new "green job" in Spain destroyed more than two existing jobs and diverted capital that would have created new jobs elsewhere in the economy. More recently, European governments have been cutting subsidies for expensive CO2-emissionless energy technologies, not what one would expect if such subsidies were stimulating otherwise languid economies. And as we pointed out in our op-ed, it is unlikely that there will be any environmental benefit from the reduced CO2 emissions associated with green technologies, which are based on the demonization of CO2.

Turning to the letter of the president of the American Physical Society (APS), Robert Byer, we read, "The statement [on climate] does not declare, as the signatories of the letter [our op-ed] suggest, that the human contribution to climate change is incontrovertible." This seems to suggest that APS does not in fact consider the science on this key question to be settled.

Yet here is the critical paragraph from the statement that caused the resignation of Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever and many other long-time members of the APS: "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." No reasonable person can read this and avoid the conclusion that APS is declaring the human impact "incontrovertible." Otherwise there would be no logical link from "global warming" to the shrill call for mitigation.

The APS response to the concerns of its membership was better than that of any other scientific society, but it was not democratic. The management of APS took months to review the statement quoted above, and it eventually declared that not a word needed to be changed, though some 750 words were added to try to explain what the original 157 words really meant. APS members were permitted to send in comments but the comments were never made public.

In spite of the obstinacy of some in APS management, APS members of good will are supporting the establishment of a politics-free, climate physics study group within the Society. If successful, it will facilitate much needed discussion, debate, and independent research in the physics of climate.

In summary, science progresses by testing predictions against real world data obtained from direct observations and rigorous experiments. The stakes in the global-warming debate are much too high to ignore this observational evidence and declare the science settled. Though there are many more scientists who are extremely well qualified and have reached the same conclusions we have, we stress again that science is not a democratic exercise and our conclusions must be based on observational evidence.

The computer-model predictions of alarming global warming have seriously exaggerated the warming by CO2 and have underestimated other causes. Since CO2 is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture, and since its warming potential has been greatly exaggerated, it is time for the world to rethink its frenzied pursuit of decarbonization at any cost.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antoninio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: sixty2nds who wrote (20610)2/23/2012 8:17:25 AM
From: dvdw©
of 24722
If you like this kinda stuff, you may enjoy the audio archives that resulted from this conference at Cambridge....they are way complicated, as they bring together disparate subject matter..(better than listening to mouthpieces spinning news)..the purpose of this gathering is to examine the potential for setting course and direction, participants have combinatorial skill sets, one of the many objectives and intuitions, is that room temperature super conductors already exist...that quantum computers, can and will originate out of a biological soup.The Objective of the whole conference is creation of devices that can mimic plant worlds energy efficiencies.Unless your interested in delving into the doing, the MIT guests presentation about Goldilocks is worth a spin.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.