Author: admin

Authored by Garikai Dzoma via TechZim.co.zw,

Last month there was widespread looting and chaos in South Africa as alleged supporters of former president Jacob Zuma protested against his incarceration over contempt of court charges. The protests disintegrated into chaos as people started looting shops and blowing up ATMs. Among the popular items stolen were smart TVs.

A looter loading a stolen TV into his car

Samsung South Africa has now announced that they would be remotely blocking all TVs looted from shops during this period. They will do this using a security feature known as Television Block Function which is found in all modern Samsung Television sets. The block will be activated on all Television sets looted from their warehouses in Durban last month.

TV block is Samsung’s remote security feature which detects Samsung TVs that have been activated illegally and not by their rightful owners. The feature allows Samsung to remotely disable all functions on the affected Television set rendering it useless. Essentially it turns your stolen smart TV into nothing more than a heap of plastic with a screen.

A major weakness of the feature is that it only comes into effect when the culprit device connects to the internet.

As soon as the TV connects to the internet its firmware contacts Samsung’s servers to check if there is a block on the TV. The TV sends its serial number to the servers and if there is a block in effect the TV automatically disables itself.

In the event that your TV is blocked by mistake, you have to inform Samsung. You can do this by sending a valid proof of purchase to their support email address. This can be a major issue if you are in Zimbabwe and no longer have a receipt for a TV you purchased in South Africa.

Most people get their TV sets from the Gulf Complex or other small Facebook vendors. It’s unlikely Samsung will accept receipts issued by these vendors as valid proof of payment. This means that just like you need to stay away from dye stained Rands you also need to be careful when buying a new TV.

With Chinese stocks still reeling from Beijing’s ongoing push to bring Big Tech to heel, the beleaguered ride-sharing app Didi has reportedly suspended plans to launch in Britain and Continental Europe, an expansion the company has been planning for years.

The Telegraph reports that while Didi has secured licenses to operate in a handful of British cities. Didi secured licenses to operate in Manchester, Sheffield, Salford and Wolverhampton as part of its effort to challenge Uber directly in the UK.

Beijing’s crackdown on the company, and the subsequent plunge in its share price – which, remember, reportedly prompted Didi to consider going private just a month after its IPO (the biggest involving a Chinese firm in the US since Alibaba listed in 2014) – may have inspired the decision to pull back, as Didi works to preserve its position and defend against encroachment both in China (where Beijing has tacitly encouraged rivals to step up) and the 15 other markets Didi presently operates in.

Those markets include Australia, and parts of Africa and South America.

The decision to pull back from the UK is particularly bad news for the Didi employees who were hired to focus on that market. The company no longer advertises any open jobs in the UK, and the Telegraph’s sources say cuts are coming in Europe within the next month (although some workers will be allowed to continue in other roles).

When approached for comment by the Telegraph, a Didi spokeswoman shared the following statement:

A Didi spokesman said: “We continue to explore additional new markets, liaising with relevant stakeholders in each and being thoughtful about when to introduce our services. As soon as we have news on additional new markets, we look forward to sharing it.”

“We have established an international talent hub in the UK, recognising the exceptional quality of people in the market. Beyond that, any personnel matters remain strictly confidential. We seek to fully comply with all laws and regulations in all markets in which we operate.”

Didi’s app remains un-downloadable across China (though nearly 1 billion Chinese consumers had already downloaded the app when it was forced off line over data privacy concerns). We still haven’t heard anything about the investigation in China, or how it’s going. But as far as its shares are concerned, one thing seems likely: China stocks will likely remain in the doghouse for some time.

Authored by Francis Lee via The Saker blog,

Germany has been the keystone of the failing EU. Does it intend to remain so, or is it time to pursue its own interests?

Germany has been and still is the most important economy in Europe, the export-driven colossus and if not yet the most important imperial power; that designation belongs to France with its Force de Frappe (Nuclear Strike Force), and additionally the UK which is also a member of the nuclear club but has since left the EU remains as a loyal – and oh so loyal! – member of NATO. However, Germany is without question the most dominant country in Europe and still the main creditor and funder of euro states. Looking back to the rise of (West) Germany was a key presence in the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951. These various states pooled the coal and steel resources of six European countries: France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg which became known by the acronym – BENELUX. These states would be collectively known as “the Six”. It was argued that the pooling of coal and steel resources greatly reduced the threat of war between France and (West) Germany.

It was perhaps entirely predictable that Germany with its system of Bismarckian style guided capitalism would emerge to poll position in this imperial club. At the time France had other, imperial and pressing commitments in Algeria and Indo-China, the British had commitments more or less everywhere East of Suez, and even little Belgium had problems in the Congo (Zaire). Germany had no such incumbrances on its economic development and was thus free to power ahead with its version of guided, bank-funded capitalism, and avoid the pitfalls of Anglo-American financialised capitalism. Under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and Economics Minister Ludwig Erhard Germany’s rebirth was dubbed the Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle). A far-reaching contract between business and labour unions allowed the rapid rebuilding of industry and strong growth, creating the foundations of an economic powerhouse.

THE GERMAN MODEL

The centrality of Germany and German economic policy in this shifting economic montage requires attention to the gradual increasing dominance of what is the de facto European economic dynamo. It was perhaps inevitable that Germany would – in economic terms at least – become the regional hegemon in this continental configuration. After all,

‘’ … it had a globally competitive industrial base, pivoting on automobiles, chemicals and machine tools. Its exports enabled it to command vast surpluses on current account thus providing the wherewithal to lend globally.’

The peculiarities of the Anglo-American financialised system has not been replicated in Germany. To be sure Germany has a large and growing service sector similar to the financialised Atlanticist models this much is true; but Germany has also systematically defended its industrial sector, not least by manipulating the exchange rate to protect its exports of which many go to the other member states of the EU. The German manufacturing sector enjoys high levels of productivity, is export-based with relatively strong labour unions in wage negotiations compared to the rest of the private sector. But this did give rise to a two-tier labour market. The ‘good’ jobs were to be found in the export industries and the not so good jobs tended to be located in the internal domestic service sector.

‘’What happened from 2003 onwards to enable German capitalism to exploit its workers more intensely than before? In 2003-2005 the Social-Democratic Party (SPD) government implemented a number of wide-ranging labour-market reforms, the so-called Hartz Reforms, after one Herr Peter Hartz. The first three parts of the reform package, Hartz I-iii, were mainly concerned with, (i) mainly creating new types of employment opportunities (ii) introducing additional wage subsidies, (iii) instructing the Federal Employment Agency. The final parts of Hartz (iv) was implemented in 2005 and resulted in a significant cut in the unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed. Between 2005 and 2008 the unemployment rate fell from almost 11% to 7.5%, barely increased during the Great Recession of 2008 and continued its downward trend reaching 5.5% at the end of 2012, although it is still higher than was the case during the global period of expansion in the 1960s.’’

GERMAN BANKING – FUNDS INDUSTRY AND DEVELOPMENT AT ALL LEVELS.

Perhaps what was more important has been the banking system in Germany and its relationship to German industry.

1.1 Savings banks (Sparkassen and Landesbanken)

German savings banks are usually owned by the cities and villages. Formerly, each city had its own savings bank. Over the past 20 years, many savings banks have merged due to the competitive situation. As opposed to the big private Banks – Deutsche Bank, Commerz Bank whose main interests are in housing and stock market investment – the small and medium banks operate with a local focus.

Although the savings banks have been losing customers for a number of years, they are still among the best-known. Often, the accounts are open, because the savings bank is “on the spot”. Later, when one has to deal with more finances, then there is often a change to another bank that is more cost-effective or offers better services. These banks provide funds to industry at good rates of interest, and this particularly applies to small start-up firms.

1.2 Volksbanken / Raiffeisen Banken (cooperative banks)

This is the next best-known bank organization in Germany. VR-banks – their abbreviation – are cooperative banks (Genossenschaftsbanken). They are organized similar to associations and are owned by their members. Members may only purchase very few shares of the bank so that no single person is enabled to have too much influence on the business of the bank.

Just like the savings banks, the Volksbanken have to deal with a loss of customers. Although they have many branch offices, they can often not keep up with the price and service of the modern direct banks. In Germany, there are several hundred different VR-banks. They belong to the cooperative banks. Another successful innovation and feature of German development was the technical education of the German labour force.

GERMAN TECHNICAL EDUCATION – SMEs AND THE MITTELSTAND

The success of the German economy is driven by its small and medium Enterprises ( SMEs), a group to which more than 99 per cent of all firms in Germany belong. These companies account for more than half of Germany’s economic output and almost 60 per cent of jobs. Approximately 82 per cent of apprentices in Germany do their vocational training in an SME.

These small and medium-sized companies (SMEs), also known as the ‘Mittelstand’, (4) are the country’s strongest driver of innovation and technology and are renowned across the world. Companies that want to keep their competitive edge must be at the forefront of new developments. A study on SMEs commissioned by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy shows that innovative SMEs will continue to drive the success behind the ‘Made in Germany’ trademark. Provided that they embrace new trends, particularly digitisation, and that they find ways of recruiting the skilled labour they need, even in times of a skills shortage, SMEs have every opportunity to remain successful in their chosen specialised niche markets.

The Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy wants Germany’s SMEs to embrace new challenges and remain vibrant, strong, and innovative. This is why the ministry is working on many levels to strengthen the Mittelstand’s competitiveness, its capacity to innovate, and its ability to create jobs.

SMALL, DIVERSE, DYNAMIC, PIONEERING

Germany’s small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) play a defining role in the country’s economy. Germany’s economic model derives its strength not from a small number of dominant players, industries, or industrial regions, but from the fact that Germany has a wide range of companies – small, medium-sized and large – that are based in locations all across Germany, specialise in all sorts of different sectors, and often form close networks with one another.

Germany’s Mittelstand, is extremely diverse. Family-owned companies that were established generations ago, trendy start-ups, traditional crafts firms, self-employed people and service providers, retailers and freelancers, pioneering high-tech companies, regional suppliers and global players. The size of these  SMEs ranges from one person to several hundred employed across the globe. The Mittelstand has many well-established brands, but also newcomers and lesser-known brands that still deliver the same standard of quality, precision and innovation. It is this high level of diversity that makes it so strong.

The Mittelstand also acts as a strong partner for large corporations, across the entire value chain. Mittelstand companies are often highly specialised and produce the type of up and downstream products that enable large corporations to create innovative and complex products, services and systems solutions

Moreover, the Mittelstand is global in its reach. Some 44 per cent of German companies export their capital goods or intermediate goods to other markets, thereby contributing to the success of the German economy. At least one in two German firms that turn over 2 million euros or more per year are exporting companies. Even small companies benefit from venturing on foreign markets. This is attested by the fact that even very small firms generate an average of over 20 per cent of their turnover from exports.

THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY AND THE DOUBLE WHAMMY

The German Economic model which had performed so well compared to its competitors – during the period from the Wirtshaftwunder until the 21st century – outmatched both European and North American rivals. But of course this golden age was to stutter in the late 1990s – the dot com bubble – and collapse completely during the 2008 and the property price debacle. For all its efficiency the German economy was, like the rest of the world, engulfed in the double whammy of the EU/euro crisis and the 2008 blow-out. Figures for growth make interesting reading.

(These are World Bank figures for declining growth rates in both the developed and developing economies for the period of 1960s through 2009.

• 1960s = 4.9%

• 1970s = 3.93%

• 1980s = 2.95%

• 1990s =2.7%

• 2000/09 = 2.58%

It should be by now common knowledge that the global economy has been on a downward path for decades as can be seen from the above figures. Moreover, with the possible exception of China and some other East Asian dynamos, these figures did not improve in the post-2008 era, quite the contrary.

Suffice it to say that the 2007/2008 explosion of the speculative bubble was avoided with massive injections (hmmm, sounds familiar) of ‘liquidity’ basically the extension of credit to the banking sector. Starting in 2008 the European Central Bank (ECB) lent the European banks money at an interest rate of 1%. (As did the Fed on the other side of the pond.) Predictably these same banks used that liquidity for speculation rather than lending to the productive sectors. In passing, we may say the Anglo-American financialised model – at least for Europe – didn’t work and given the objective situation shows no signs of working. In addition, the euro was stillborn with different rates of growth and trade between sometimes diverse member states. The euro was extended to other euro states, and particularly those in the southern bloc, which were far from enjoying the levels of productivity of the northern bloc. Europe’s weaker and less productive countries and thus of international competitiveness could not live with Germany’s productivity levels and low costs. The southern bloc could not devalue the euro – the centre-piece of the euro economy – and they ran up trade deficits with the German-dominated northern bloc which consistently ran up trade surpluses. Most commentators knew this apart from the brain-dead euro-elites who seemed impervious to the situation.

Given these fundamental geopolitical and economic changes Germany would be wise to now examine its options.

At the present time, another deeper and all-encompassing economic and financial crisis has occurred. The EU has, for better or worse, already had to swallow the departure of the UK from the EU; and it is not too difficult to imagine that this is only the beginning of a process of dissolution, particularly in light of the present and future possible political/economic developments. Moreover, the whole brouhaha which has already been instanced by the Nordstream-2 episode represented a win for one particular German faction – in this instance the business class – which now appears to be reorientating to a longer-term strategy of a pivot to Eurasia. It would appear to have won against the political class – including those lovely Greens who seem hot for a war against Russia. The German political and ideological class would appear to inhabit a different time-warp, circa 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall and moreover being hopelessly fixated with NATO, liberalism, globalism and everything American, including woke ideology.

The same German business elite, however, seeks parallel factions together with other similar groupings in other financially strong and reliable countries, who wish to seek the expansion of Germany toward China and Russia. There are obvious reasons for this move. Both these countries have immense reserves of raw materials. Secondly, the level of Chinese economic growth and the size of its market is way above those of the EU. Thirdly, Germany’s relative technological superiority is an ideal for the inter-trade appropriation of Chinese surplus value. Fourthly, if bilateral trading relations continue at the current pace, Beijing will become Germany’s main trading partner by early 2023 at the earliest. Fifthly, for China, Germany, is the optimal country for the best investment opportunities.

So this is the current situation with the Nordstream-2 instalment concentrating the minds of those who have read the runes of Germany’s future development with newer and dynamic trading partners east of the Oder-Neisse line. We shall wait and we shall see for such developments.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Below are my thoughts on academic work claiming that the Second Amendment is a relic of slavery. The reframing of the debate follows a familiar pattern in academia. Indeed, the same type of sweeping (and unchallenged) generalities was used recently to declare Olympic surfing a relic of American imperialism. The framing of such claims often precede any search for the facts. However, academics know that there is an eager and unquestioning audience for such publications. Conversely, those academics challenging such claims risk isolation and shunning in today’s intolerant environment. What is most striking about this latest claim is that it is directly and comprehensively contradicted by historical sources. Yet, there are relatively few academics who have publicly challenged the claims as media heralds the theory as a type of breakthrough publication. As discussed earlier, the theory is neither new nor well-founded.

Racism seems to be the most common denominator of today’s political controversies.

Issues long debated over other grounds — the Senate’s filibuster rule, voter ID laws, even standardized testing, math, statistics and meritocracy — have all been reframed as a choice between racism and equality.

The reframing of such issues in racial terms removes any need to respond to other issues — and it relieves advocates of defending the racism charge. It may be the ultimate conversation stopper — but that advantage is precisely its weakness, particularly when racist roots are less than evident.

The latest example comes from the American Civil Liberties Union, which posted a discussion of how the Second Amendment is a product of racism. Supporting commentary explained how “Anti-Blackness determined the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and has informed the unequal and racist application of gun laws.”

Some media and legal commentators have fawned over a new book, “The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America,” by Dr. Carol Anderson, chair of Emory University’s Black Studies Department. Anderson claims the Second Amendment “was designed and has consistently been constructed to keep African Americans powerless and vulnerable.” In interviews with media outlets like CNN and NPR, her theory was not challenged on the Second Amendment’s history or purpose, despite overwhelming (and largely ignored) evidence to the contrary. Instead, NPR breathlessly billed its interview as “Historian Carol Anderson Uncovers The Racist Roots Of The Second Amendment.”

Slavery was a matter discussed both at the Declaration of Independence and during the Constitutional debates. However, the suggestion that it was a primary motivation for the Second Amendment is utter nonsense.

States opposed to slavery, like Vermont, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New York and Rhode Island, had precursor state constitutional provisions recognizing the right to bear arms. In his famous 1770 defense of Capt. Thomas Preston in the Boston Massacre trial, John Adams declared that British soldiers had a right to defend themselves since “here every private person is authorized to arm himself.” His second cousin and co-Founding Father, Samuel Adams, was vehemently anti-slavery and equally supportive of the right to bear arms.

Guns were viewed as essential in much of America, which was then a frontier nation, needed for food — but also to protect a free people from tyranny and other threats. (The Minutemen at Concord, after all, were not running to a Klan meeting in 1775.) Law enforcement was relatively scarce at the time, even in the more populous states — but, of course, some writers today claim the first police departments were products of slavery, too, used to enforce that system and to recapture escaped slaves.

The latest claim is reminiscent of the controversy over “The 1619 Project” produced by New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, who claimed the American Revolution was motivated in large part to preserve slavery. Hannah-Jones clearly came up with her framing before looking at the facts, which directly contradict her claim. While at least one historian objected during the fact-checking process, it was published and only later corrected, along with other errors.

The Second Amendment claim is equally unfounded, but the argument allows for advocates to argue that this original “antiblackness” continues to shape “the unequal and racist application of gun laws.” This argument is maintained despite the fact that a quarter of African Americans are gun owners (compared with 36 percent of whites) and gun sales have been increasing in the African American community. Some African Americans have long viewed guns as an equalizer, including escaped slave and famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass, who, in an editorial, heralded the power of “a good revolver, a steady hand.” Gun ownership has a long, fiercely defended tradition in the Black community. Indeed, Ida B. Wells, one of the most prominent anti-lynching activists, declared: “The Winchester Rifle deserves a place of honor in every Black home.”

For decades, the meaning of the Second Amendment wallowed in a debate over whether the right to bear arms is an individual right. Gun-control advocates lost that debate before the Supreme Court in 2008. Now, however, critics can dispense with such long-standing arguments by claiming the amendment is a relic of slavery and a tool of racism. That instantly converts any Second Amendment defenders into advocates not of freedom but of anti-blackness and oppression. It simplifies the argument and silences opposing views.

Indeed, in today’s standard, it is not enough to be non-racist, you must prove yourself to be anti-racist.

Yet it is hard to establish yourself as anti-racist if you are defending rules or amendments or countries already decried as being racist.

Moreover, if you are trained to view everything through an anti-racist lens, it can become the only discernible option — like the old military adage that “if you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”

It is even dangerous today to observe that any given legal problem is not a problem of racism. Some are; many are not. But if everything is a product or relic of racism, the “racism” label becomes less notable or less imperative to address.

There is no need to rewrite history. Racism permeates our history, including a war in which hundreds of thousands of many races died to end slavery in this country.

We have continued that struggle through the Civil Rights period and into the current day. But those efforts are hampered, not advanced, by converting all political disputes into zero-sum fights over racism, which leaves little room for debate and even less room for persuasion.

The resulting silence is not evidence of consensus but of intimidation. Racism is real, but it cannot be defeated if it is reduced to a political trump card.

NASA is postponing a spacewalk at the International Space Station (ISS) on Tuesday “due to a minor medical issue” involving one astronaut. This comes as China conducted the second spacewalk on the country’s new space station on Friday as the superpower rivalry intensifies beyond this world. 

NASA said Tuesday’s spacewalk outside the ISS with US astronaut Mark Vande Hei and JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) astronaut Akihiko Hoshide had been delayed due to a “minor medical” issue involving Vande Hei. The extent of the health issue was not revealed by the space agency but said it’s “not a medical emergency.” 

Both astronauts were expected to install brackets on the ISS to support new solar arrays. 

Meanwhile, on Friday, the Chinese conducted their second spacewalk outside their new space station’s core module, called Tianhe (“Harmony of the Heavens”). 

Tianhe is part of communist China’s space program to dominate low Earth orbit and possibly surpass the US in military and scientific capabilities in outer space in the coming decades. 

We see the next battleground of superpower rivalry between the US and China in space. Tensions beyond Earth will increase as both countries are in a race to launch imaging, telecoms, and 6G satellites, along with conducting probing missions of moons and planets for rare metals and other valuable raw materials. 

The US spacewalk is rescheduled after the SpaceX CRS-23 cargo resupply mission is completed this weekend and two Russian spacewalks on Sept. 2 and 8. 

While NASA’s ISS is more than two decades old and nearing its lifespan, the Russians have said they will withdraw from the ISS by 2025. This means that China is building an advanced space station as the US is still using the 23-year old ISS that is rapidly aging, posing a danger for astronauts. ISS crew recently had to hunt for a mystery air leak. 

Authored by Lu Xiao via The Epoch Times,

Astronomers researched a planetary system only 35 light-years away that contains rocky exoplanets, and they found that it may have a planet in the habitable zone, the area around a star where conditions are suitable for liquid water to exist.

An artist’s impression of L 98-59b, one of the planets in the L 98-59 system 35 light-years away. The system contains four confirmed rocky planets with a potential fifth, the furthest from the star, being unconfirmed. (ESO/M. Kornmesser)

Using the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope in Chile, a team of astronomers studied the planets around the nearby star L 98-59, which has planets resembling those in the inner solar system.

Among their findings is a planet with half the mass of Venus, which is the lightest exoplanet ever measured with the radial velocity technique, according to a statement. They also discovered a planet that could be an ocean world as well as a possible planet in the habitable zone.

“The planet in the habitable zone may have an atmosphere that could protect and support life,” María Rosa Zapatero Osorio, an astronomer at the Centre for Astrobiology in Madrid, Spain, and one of the authors of the study, said in the statement.

The new findings mark a milestone in scientists’ quest to find life on other planets.

The findings include a technical breakthrough, since the team used the radial velocity method to discover the small mass of the innermost planet in the system.

This method measures the tiny gravitational pull of an orbiting planet on the host star. Based on how much the star moves, astronomers can estimate the exoplanet’s mass.

Then, given the mass and size of the exoplanet, scientists can calculate its density, which helps determine its composition: Denser ones are likely rocky, while fluffier ones are gaseous.

“If we want to know what a planet is made of, the minimum that we need is its mass and its radius,” explained Olivier Demangeon, a researcher at the Instituto de Astrofísica e Ciências do Espaço, University of Porto in Portugal, and lead author of the study, in the statement.

The above-described type of measurement, however, is very hard to achieve. The team made use of the Echelle SPectrograph for Rocky Exoplanets and Stable Spectroscopic Observations (ESPRESSO) instrument on board the Very Large Telescope.

“Without the precision and stability provided by ESPRESSO this measurement would have not been possible,” Osorio said in the statement.

“This is a step forward in our ability to measure the masses of the smallest planets beyond the Solar System.”

The detection of biosignatures on exoplanets relies on the study of the planets’ atmospheres, but today’s telescopes are not powerful enough to achieve this with small rocky planets. According to the statement, the L 98-59 planetary system is a potential target for future studies of exoplanets’ atmospheres.

Based on the data analyses, the team inferred that three of the planets in this system may contain water. The two planets closest to the central star may have small amounts of water, while the third planet’s mass could be up to 30 percent water.

Hidden exoplanets not previously found may exist in this planetary system. The team discovered a fourth planet and even suspect there is a fifth planet in the zone where liquid water may exist on its surface.

“We have hints of the presence of a terrestrial planet in the habitable zone of this system,” Demangeon said in the statement.

The fifth exoplanet, if confirmed, may have a mass of 2.46 Earth mass, with an orbital period of about 23 days. Although this is quite close to the host star, since L 98-59 is a red dwarf, which is much cooler than the sun, this distance is perfect for creating temperatures similar to Earth’s.

“This system announces what is to come,” added Demangeon.

“We, as a society, have been chasing terrestrial planets since the birth of astronomy and now we are finally getting closer and closer to the detection of a terrestrial planet in the habitable zone of its star, of which we could study the atmosphere.”

The new research is published in a paper in a forthcoming volume of Astronomy & Astrophysics.

In April, President Biden announced the American Families Plan (AFP) that promises billions of dollars as “an investment in our kids, our families, and our economic future.” But deep within the proposal, it describes gains on property transfers would be considered a taxable event. 

Conservative news outlet The Center Square called out the Biden administration on Thursday for attempting to “destroy Iowa family farms” through the proposed AFP property transfer tax. 

AFP describes gains on property transferred at death or by gift would exclude up to $1 million per taxpayer. The exclusion would be indexed for inflation after 2022.

Craig Hill, the president of Iowa Farm Bureau, calls the proposed transfer tax a “major threat” for family farms in the corn-growing state who pass along significant sums of farmland to the next generation to work. 

AFP can be compared with Biden’s Rural Plan that calls for “partners with rural communities to invest in their unique assets, with the goal of giving young people more options to live, work, and raise the next generation in rural America – making sure the wealth created in rural America stays in rural America.”

The Rural Plan says it will “make it easier to pass farms and ranches onto the next generation.”

However, Hill told The Center Square that is not the case. He said the transfer tax could devastate some families who don’t have enough money to pay the tax because land values have been artificially inflated with cheap money from the Federal Reserve. 

Crunching numbers, the planned exemption for a married couple is a million dollars. Anything above, the couple would be taxed at 40%. Given typical Iowa farm size is 359 acres on average at $7,559 per acre, that would leave the couple with $1.7 million exposed to taxes. After the exemption, this means they might owe $680,000. 

Given that farmers have already experienced a decade of depressed farm income and razor-thin margins, the ability to pay a hefty tax on a land transfer could force lower-income farmers to sell.  

Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas serves as the top Republican on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, said the “land swap tax would dry up the farmland market, create barriers to entry for new or beginning farmers, and stunt agriculture business growth and reinvestment in much of rural America.”

So what’s the real agenda of the Biden administration pushing the tax proposal ahead that could wreck small farmers and force them to sell? Well, we can only speculate vultures like Bill Gates and big Wall Street private equity firms circling the Midwest waiting for distressed farm sales. 

Authored by Adam Andrzejewski via Forbes.com,

The U.S. provided an estimated $83 billion worth of training and equipment to Afghan security forces since 2001. This year, alone, the U.S. military aid to Afghan forces was $3 billion.

Putting price tags on American military equipment still in Afghanistan isn’t an easy task. In the fog of war – or withdrawal – Afghanistan has always been a black box with little sunshine.

Not helping transparency, the Biden Administration is now hiding key audits on Afghan military equipment. This week, our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com reposted two key reports on the U.S. war chest of military gear in Afghanistan that had disappeared from federal websites.

#1. Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit of U.S. provided military gear in Afghanistan (August 2017): reposted report (dead link: report).

#2. Special Inspector General For Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) audit of $174 million in lost ScanEagle drones (July 2020): reposted report (dead link: report).

U.S. taxpayers paid for these audits and the U.S.-provided equipment and should be able to follow the money.

After publication, the GAO spokesman responded to our request for comment, “the State Department requested we temporarily remove and review reports on Afghanistan to protect recipients of US assistance that may be identified through our reports and thus subject to retribution.” However, these reports only have numbers and no recipient information.

Furthermore, unless noted, when estimating “acquisition value,” our source is the Department Logistics Agency (DLA) and their comprehensive databases of military equipment.

Vehicles and airplanes

Between 2003 and 2016, the U.S. purchased and provided 75,898 vehicles and 208 aircraft, to the Afghan army and security forces, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

Quantities and examples of key U.S.-funded Military Vehicles for Afghanistan.  OPENTHEBOOKS.COM

Here is a breakdown of estimated vehicle costs:

• Armored personnel carriers such as the M113A2 cost $170,000 each and recent purchases of the M577A2 post carrier cost $333,333 each. 

• Mine resistant vehicles ranges from $412,000 to $767,000. The total cost could range between $382 million to $711 million.

• Recovery vehicles such as the ‘truck, wrecker’ cost between for the base model $168,960 and $880,674 for super strength versions.

• Medium range tactical vehicles include 5-ton cargo and general transport trucks were priced at $67,139. However, the family of MTV heavy vehicles had prices ranging from $235,500 to $724,820 each. Cargo trucks to transport airplanes cost $800,865.

• Humvees – ambulance type (range from $37,943 to $142,918 with most at $96,466); cargo type, priced at $104,682. Utility Humvees were typically priced at $91,429. However, the 12,000 lb. troop transport version cost up to $329,000.

• Light tactical vehicles: Fast attack combat vehicles ($69,400); and passenger motor vehicles ($65,500). All terrain 4-wheel vehicles go up to $42,273 in the military databases.

U.S.-Funded Aircraft For the Afghan Forces  OPENTHEBOOKS.COM

This month, the Taliban seized Black Hawk helicopters and A-29 Super Tucano attack aircraft. As late as last month, Afghanistan’s Ministry of Defense posted photos on social media of seven newly arrived helicopters from the U.S., Reuters reported.

Black Hawk helicopters can cost up to $21 million. In 2013, the U.S. placed an order for 20 A-29 Super Tucano attack aircraft for $427 million – that’s $21.3 million for each plane. Other specialized helicopters can cost up to $37 million each.

The Afghan air force contracted for C-208 light attack airplanes in March 2018: seven planes for $84.6 million, or $12.1 million each. The airplanes are very sophisticated and carry HELLFIRE missiles, anti-tank missiles and other weaponry.

The PC-12 intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance airplanes use the latest in technology. Having these planes fall into Taliban control is disconcerting. Civilian models sell new for approximately $5 million each and the military planes could sell for many times that price.

Basic fixed-wing airplanes range in price from $3.1 million to $22 million in the DLA database.

Of course, helicopter prices also range widely depending on the technology, purpose, and equipment. For example, according to the DLA, general purpose helicopters range in price from $92,000 to $922,000. Observation helicopters can cost $92,000 and utility helicopters up to $922,000.

Even if the Taliban can’t fly our planes, the parts are very valuable. For example, just the control stick for certain military planes has an acquisition value of $17,808 and a fuel tank sells for up to $35,000.

Lost drones

In 2017, the U.S. military lost $174 million in drones that were part of the attempt to help the Afghan National Army (ANA) defend itself. But the ANA didn’t immediately use the drones and then lost track of them.

This week, the SIGAR audit on the $174 million drone loss disappeared from its website.

Weapons, communications equipment, and night vision googles

Since 2003 the U.S. gave Afghan forces at least 600,000 infantry weapons, including M16 rifles, 162,000 pieces of communication equipment, and 16,000 night-vision goggle devices, according to the GAO report.

Key Weaponry funded by U.S. into Afghanistan  OPENTHEBOOKS.COM

The howitzer is the modern cannon for the U.S. military and each unit can cost up to $500,000; however most are in the $200,000 price range. At the higher end, there’s GPS guidance on fired shells.

A common price of a M16 rifle is $749, according to DLA. Adding a grenade launcher can push the price of the M16 to $12,032. M4 carbine rifles are slightly more expensive with unit prices as high as $1,278.

Just the sights on night-vision sniper rifle scopes can run as high as $35,000, however, most vary in price between $5,000 and $10,000.

Here are the costs of other types of weaponry provided to Afghan forces:

• Machine guns, i.e. the M240 model, were priced between $6,600 and $9,000 each.

• Grenade launchers cost between $1,000 and $5,000 each; however, in 2020, the manufacture sold 53 for $15,000 each.

• Army shotguns were acquired for only $150 each, according to DLA.

• Military pistols cost $320 each, such as the .40 caliber Glock Generation 3.

Key U.S.-Funded Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Equipment into Afghanistan  OPENTHEBOOKS.COM

Each Aerostat surveillance balloon costs $8.9 million. Each ScanEagle drone costs approximately $1.4 million according to recent procurement news. Even as late at 2021, U.S. appropriations for the Wolfhounds radio monitoring systems approached $874,000.

Night vision devices: The total cost for the 16,000 night-vision goggles alone could run as high as $80 million. Individually, the high-tech goggles were priced between $2,742 and $5,000 by the DLA. Other equipment like image intensifiers are commonly priced at $10,747 each; however, sophisticated models run as high as $66,000 each.

Radio equipment: the cost of equipment adds up – receiver-transmitters ($210,651); sophisticated radio sets ($61,966); amplifiers ($28,165); repeater sets ($28,527); and deployment sets to identify frequencies run up to $18,908.

However, if the Taliban doesn’t have the expertise or technologies to program the equipment, it will become obsolete quickly. Or it could be sold off to other countries who wanted to acquire U.S. technology.

And there’s more… years 2017 through 2019

From 2017 to 2019, the U.S. also gave Afghan forces 7,035 machine guns, 4,702 Humvees, 20,040 hand grenades, 2,520 bombs and 1,394 grenade launchers, according to the since removed 2020 SIGAR report, reported by The Hill.

An unnamed official told Reuters that current intelligence assessment was that the Taliban took control of more than 2,000 armored vehicles, including American Humvees, and as many as 40 aircraft that may include UH-60 Black Hawks, scout attack helicopters and ScanEagle military drones.

Crucial quote

“We don’t have a complete picture, obviously, of where every article of defense materials has gone, but certainly a fair amount of it has fallen into the hands of the Taliban,” White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said Tuesday, The Hill reported.

“And obviously, we don’t have a sense that they are going to readily hand it over to us at the airport.”

Critic

Republican Senators have demanded that there be a full count of U.S. military equipment left in Afghanistan.

In a letter to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, the lawmakers said they were “horrified” to see photos of Taliban militants taking hold of military equipment, including Black Hawk helicopters.

“It is unconscionable that high-tech military equipment paid for by U.S. taxpayers has fallen into the hands of the Taliban and their terrorist allies,” the lawmakers said in the letter.

“Securing U.S. assets should have been among the top priorities for the U.S. Department of Defense prior to announcing the withdrawal from Afghanistan.”

*  *  *

Further reading

Planes, guns, night-vision goggles: The Taliban’s new U.S.-made war chest

Billions in US weaponry seized by Taliban

US military equipment left in Afghanistan needs full accounting, GOP senators say

Billions spent on Afghan army ultimately benefited Taliban

Note:

Procurement prices can vary widely over a 20-year period. Factors influencing prices include when the item was purchased, quantities, and other acquisition details.

As Australians take to the streets to protest the country’s lockdown measures – most recently clashing with police over the weekend, Aussie truck drivers are planning to shut down every major highway across the country and have advised people to ‘stock up on groceries.’

One driver, according to the Daily Mail, declared in a video that truck drivers are ‘planning to shut down the country’ to ‘remove the shit government’ on August 31 beginning at 9 a.m.

“It’s on. The truckies are doing it. The truckies are going to shut down the country,” the man says, adding “What that means is you need to go shopping now, get what you can for the next week or two, load your fridge, freezers.”

He said supply chains would soon be interrupted and urged Aussies to stock up on groceries to get them through the next couple of weeks. 

A GoFundMe page has since been launched to support the truckies financially as they prepare to strike from 9am on Tuesday August 31, which will involve ‘blocking every highway entering into every state at the same time’. -Daily Mail

According to the man, truck drivers have been in discussion with people from around ‘the world,’ and have been working with war veterans to carry out the protest.

“The truckies are in, the VETS are in, I’m in. I’m willing to go to jail to save my country and children,” said the man.

It is unknown how many truck drivers are involved in the demonstration, however truck drivers from around the globe have been posting advice online on how to impede efforts by authorities to tow their vehicles.

A GoFundMe page which appears to have been taken down had raised nearly $4,000 for the effort.

If the protest proceeds, it won’t be the first time truckies have blocked roads in protest of pandemic restrictions. Last month, several trucks protested the temporary closure of construction in Sydney by parking their vehicles on the freeway and blaring their horns.