US May Ground Civilian Drone Fleet Over China Spy Fears
US and Chinese economies are undergoing a great decoupling despite an optically pleasing Phase 1 trade deal. The Trump administration is preparing to ground the largest civilian drone program in the country because drones are made in China and could be susceptible to foreign hackers, reported the Financial Times.
The Department of the Interior is expected to ground nearly 1,000 drones in the near term, two sources told the Times. They said the drones are at high risk of being hacked by the Chinese.
The decision to ground the drones could be expensive – as there would need to be non-Chinese alternatives to fill the void. The Times reviewed internal documents from the agency that shows strong protests against banning of the drones. David Bernhardt, secretary of the Interior, has not signed the order to ban Chinese drones from the agency. Sources said he’s planning to ground the fleet, with several exceptions, including the use for natural disasters and training.
The drones in focus are made by Chinese company DJI, which is the world’s largest civilian drone maker. Congress has been debating a bill for some time that could ban all DJI products from federal agencies.
Western companies have admitted defeat to DJI, as the company controls 70% of the global civilian drone market share. The proposal by U.S. officials to ban DJI from the Interior and other agencies could be a ploy to encourage development among domestic brands.
If the Interior decides to ground DJI drones, it could then trigger a widespread banning across all agencies.
A DJI spokesperson said: “While we have not seen the new policy, we look forward to reviewing the findings of DOI’S comprehensive review of its drone program, given the lack of credible evidence to support a broad country-of-origin restriction on drone technology.”
The Fish and Wildlife Service warned that a ban on DJI products would undermine the agency’s ability to monitor controlled burns and wildfires.
The cost of economic decoupling the U.S. from China would squash innovation and drive up costs for the Interior.
When it comes to the country’s urban housing shortage, California gets all the headlines. Yet the situation is not much better in New York City, where surging employment growth is outpacing new construction, leading to longer commutes and higher housing costs.
Since 2008, the 22.6-million-person New York metro area has added 924,000 jobs. Despite this growth, the region has built only 457,000 units of housing, or about one new home for every two jobs. The ratio is even more skewed in New York City, where only one unit of housing has been built for every 3.55 new jobs, according to the city’s Department of Planning.
Northern New Jersey is responsible for the lion’s share of new residential development, building 40 percent of the metro’s post-recession housing despite having only 30 percent of its population and adding only 15 percent of its jobs since 2008. By comparison, New York City overall has added 70 percent of the region’s new jobs since 2008 but only 40 percent of its new housing units.
Much of this is policy-driven. New Jersey is relatively accommodating of new development, while New York City has failed to zone for enough housing to keep pace with growth. The New York suburbs, meanwhile, are positively hostile to new building.
The result is that more people are making longer commutes. The New York metro area has the fourth worst traffic in the country, and trains across the Hudson are as overcrowded as they are late. Workers seeking to avoid this drudgery by moving closer to their jobs in the city can expect to pay some of the highest rents in the country.
“Cities are labor markets,” says Michael Hendrix, an urban policy scholar with the Manhattan Institute. “If we fail to scale housing and transportation to job centers, then we are failing the basic function of a city.”
Hendrix warns that if New York continues to see commute times and housing costs grow, the economic dynamism of the region will decline. Far from embracing necessary reforms, he says policy makers are making things worse by doubling down on rent stabilization, which limits how much landlords can raise rental prices. “They’ve chosen to preserve units for people who’ve already lucked out in the housing lottery and lock out newcomers and outsiders,” he says.
New York’s housing situation has not reached California levels of dysfunction, but housing crises also aren’t created overnight. Not building enough today can mean serious problems tomorrow.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2QRSo4t
via IFTTT
When it comes to the country’s urban housing shortage, California gets all the headlines. Yet the situation is not much better in New York City, where surging employment growth is outpacing new construction, leading to longer commutes and higher housing costs.
Since 2008, the 22.6-million-person New York metro area has added 924,000 jobs. Despite this growth, the region has built only 457,000 units of housing, or about one new home for every two jobs. The ratio is even more skewed in New York City, where only one unit of housing has been built for every 3.55 new jobs, according to the city’s Department of Planning.
Northern New Jersey is responsible for the lion’s share of new residential development, building 40 percent of the metro’s post-recession housing despite having only 30 percent of its population and adding only 15 percent of its jobs since 2008. By comparison, New York City overall has added 70 percent of the region’s new jobs since 2008 but only 40 percent of its new housing units.
Much of this is policy-driven. New Jersey is relatively accommodating of new development, while New York City has failed to zone for enough housing to keep pace with growth. The New York suburbs, meanwhile, are positively hostile to new building.
The result is that more people are making longer commutes. The New York metro area has the fourth worst traffic in the country, and trains across the Hudson are as overcrowded as they are late. Workers seeking to avoid this drudgery by moving closer to their jobs in the city can expect to pay some of the highest rents in the country.
“Cities are labor markets,” says Michael Hendrix, an urban policy scholar with the Manhattan Institute. “If we fail to scale housing and transportation to job centers, then we are failing the basic function of a city.”
Hendrix warns that if New York continues to see commute times and housing costs grow, the economic dynamism of the region will decline. Far from embracing necessary reforms, he says policy makers are making things worse by doubling down on rent stabilization, which limits how much landlords can raise rental prices. “They’ve chosen to preserve units for people who’ve already lucked out in the housing lottery and lock out newcomers and outsiders,” he says.
New York’s housing situation has not reached California levels of dysfunction, but housing crises also aren’t created overnight. Not building enough today can mean serious problems tomorrow.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2QRSo4t
via IFTTT
Liusdan Martínez Lescaille, 12, has been bullied repeatedly for wearing a kippah to school in Nuevitas, Cuba. Education officials have reacted by banning him and his brother from wearing the kippah to school. His parents, who are Sephardic Jews, say prosecutors warned them they could lose their guardianship to their children if they violate the ban.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2QNh7Xp
via IFTTT
Throughout 2019 I posted numerous articles on the subject of central bank digital currency (CBDC’s) and how simultaneous reforms of payment systems throughout the world are being undertaken in preparation for the full digitisation of money.
I have demonstrated through the words of central bankers themselves how the goal of introducing digital currency is an integral part of their plans over the next decade. It is on record that global planners want to ‘reset‘ the current financial system and replace it with a new set up underpinned by intangible assets. Global elites refer to this as either the rise of the Fourth Industrial Revolution or a ‘new world order‘ of finance. What is a carefully preordained agenda has been fashioned to appear as nothing more than the innocent evolution of technology. It is a deception that can be challenged using the communications issued by central banks.
Rather than rely on supposition, let’s allow those within the central banking community to speak for themselves.
In November 2019 Johannes Beermann, a member of the German Bundesbank responsible for cash management, gave a speech in China called ‘Cash and digital currencies from a central bank’s perspective.’ Beermann confirmed that cash circulation in Germany is on the rise, with the Bundesbank having issued over half the total value of euro banknotes now in circulation. ‘There may be less cash around‘, said Beermann, ‘but we are far from being cashless.’
Beermann went on to say that new methods of payments ‘tend to evolve in stages‘, and that ‘the transition towards a society with less cash has to be driven by the user and not the supplier.’ But even though a large proportion of German citizens are still demanding banknotes, it has not prevented the Bundesbank from openly discussing the possibility of a central bank digital currency superseding cash in the future.
Publicly, the Bundesbank remain at the stage of viewing blockchain and distributed ledger technology as ‘promising‘, with ‘central banks open to them in principle.’ The ‘transformation‘ of the payment landscape, therefore, remains in flux and ‘anything but complete.’
As mentioned by Beermann, what has propelled the issue of central bank digital currency to the forefront of debate is the prospect of Libra, a new global payment system proposed by Facebook which would be built upon blockchain technology. It has prompted discussions on the need for a ‘pan-European digital payment solution‘. Prior to the announcement of Libra and subsequent criticism by central bank officials, digital currency was largely a niche concept within the mainstream. Only now has it begun to take a more prominent role, and given central banks the platform to shape the narrative on the future of money.
Near term, however, public issuance of central bank digital currency is not on the horizon. ‘We should go one step at a time‘, cautioned Beermann, who believes that cash will ‘continue to enjoy great popularity in the euro area.’
Following on from Beermann was Benoit Coeure, who later this month will step down as a member of the executive board of the European Central Bank to head up the Bank for International Settlement’s Innovation BIS 2025 initiative. In discussing ‘a European strategy‘ for ‘the retail payments of tomorrow‘, Coeure brought up the subject of CBDC’s and payment systems. As with Beermann, he stressed the need for a ‘pan-European market-led solution‘, one that transcends national boundaries and becomes the accepted standard throughout the entire European continent. But as we have come to expect from global planners, ambitions on this scale are advanced gradually. Which is probably why Coeure remarked that ‘global acceptance should be a long-term goal.’
The ECB, according to Coeure, will ‘continue to monitor how new technologies change payment behaviour in the euro area‘. This is predominately in response to a decline in the demand for physical money. The key takeaway from Coeure’s speech was in declaring that the implementation of central bank digital currency would ensure that ‘citizens remain able to use central bank money even if cash is eventually no longer used.’
This is why the notion of central banks being opposed to digital currency and seeing it as a threat to their supremacy is nonsense. With cash comes anonymity, and with that an inability to track and trace the economic behaviour of individuals. It was Mark Carney who back in 2018 declared data to be ‘the new oil‘. What central banks want is for every citizen to become entirely dependent on an all digitised system that the banking elites control. For instance, the growth of contactless payment technology is just one element which has greatly assisted them in this endeavour.
Another voice that is prominent on the subject of digital currency is Francois Villeroy de Galhau, governor of the Bank of France. Speaking in December last year (Central bank digital currency and innovative payments), de Galhau talked about the emergence of ‘new players‘ in the field of payments and how they have taken the initiative to transform the payment industry. De Galhau sees this as a challenge for banks, and potentially even a ‘threat to European sovereignty‘ if these players are based outside of Europe (most notably China).
As you might expect, de Galhau proposed a two fold response to this ‘threat‘. First, central banks should increase the speed on new payment solutions, and second they should consider the viability of introducing central bank digital currency.
In de Galhau’s own words:
We first have to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the digital revolution to develop a genuine pan European payment solution.
We as central banks must and want to take up this call for innovation at a time when private initiatives – especially payments between financial players – and technologies are accelerating, and public and political demand is increasing.
This stance is exactly in line with those of Johannes Beermann and Benoit Coeure, and reinforces the coordinated nature of central bank communications. The innovations of private developers are not so much a threat as more an opportunity to position central banks as the lynch pin of a future all digital system. It is why the likes of the Fed and the Bank of England are engaged in reforming their payment systems. The plan seems to be that the private sector spearheads the technological side, whilst the central banks act as the gatekeepers on aspects such as coverage and regulation. It is they who will ultimately determine who gains access to the next generation of payment systems and who does not, through a swathe of new regulatory requirements.
2020 is the year when the encroachment towards CBDC’s will kick up a notch. In France, de Galhau wants to begin experimenting with the technology over the next few months. It will amount to a test bed for the Euro system as a whole, and for de Galhau will ‘make looking into the possibility of an ‘e-euro’ one of its next focuses.’ The Bank of France will also take part in the BIS Innovation Hub, which will be led by Benoit Coeure. As shown in previous articles, the BIS are at the forefront of the central bank digital currency agenda.
But where will banks start with their experimentation? CBDC’s can be classified on two levels – wholesale and retail. Wholesale refers to payments made exclusively between financial sector firms, whereas the retail variant would be for general consumption at the public level. De Galhau believes that there would be ‘some advantage in moving rapidly to issue at least a wholesale CBDC.’ This would benefit central banks given that a limited release would enable them to iron out deficiencies before moving towards a full scale release that in the end would be at the expense of banknotes.
Finishing out 2019 was a speech by Mark Carney at a farewell dinner in honour of Benoit Coeure. Here, Carney explained the necessity behind central banks and private innovators working together to build a new financial system. The goal is to ‘provide the best-in-class payment infrastructure that can enable private innovators to deliver the payment products and services our citizens need.’ Infrastructure that is of course controlled by the central banking system. From the Bank of England’s perspective, they plan to ‘allow new entrants access to the same resources as incumbents, while holding similar risks to similar standards.’
Central banks are making every attempt to convince those interested that innovations in the field of payments will result in broader competition and the growth of a decentralised network of operators. If the extent to which global industry is scrupulously monopolised by a handful of corporations is anything to go by, I highly doubt a CBDC future will be decentralised. An indication of this is in how developers and central bank officials have spoken of endorsing ‘permissioned‘ blockchain systems over ‘unpermissioned‘. The developers behind Libra want to use a permissioned network, meaning access is restricted to participants. On the opposite side today you have Bitcoin which uses unpermissioned blockchain. This is one of the reasons why central banks have cited Bitcoin as both an unstable asset and a risk to financial stability. But whilst they may speak out against Bitcoin, what they have not done is ostracise the technology behind it.
So far in 2020 we have heard from Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann and ECB governor Christine Lagarde on the prospect of digital currency. In light of Facebook’s Libra, Weidmann was asked in an interview whether the ECB should counter it with it’s own digital currency. ‘I don’t believe in always calling for the state right away,’ said Weidmann.
Whilst central banks continue to quietly advance their digital currency objectives, a narrative playing out within the financial media is that private innovations such as Libra represent a threat to the financial system due to a lack of regulatory oversight. This has created a sense of distrust with private led innovations. Important to recognise is how CBDC’s are a medium to long term goal. When banks are ready to launch digital currency, they will want it to be in an environment where people are increasingly looking to global institutions to provide stability in an increasingly unstable financial system.
As with fellow central bank officials, Weidmann pledged that central banks ‘will provide cash as long as citizens want it to.’ My concern is that as digital payment options become ever more convenient and cash usage falls, citizens will overlook the obvious dangers of entrusting their life assets to a digital only construct.
In a separate interview, Christine Lagarde was quizzed on whether creating a cryptocurrency was ‘a legitimate task for the ECB‘.
Innovation in the area of payments is racing ahead in response to the urgent demand for quicker and cheaper payments, especially cross-border ones. The Eurosystem in general and the ECB in particular want to play an active role in this field, rather than just acting as observers of a changing world.
I think we can safely take that as a yes.
When you combine all the comments raised there is one overarching message. Central banks are more than prepared for the digital revolution, primarily because they are the leading architects behind its inception.
“He Sells Troops” – Amash Blasts Trump’s Boast That Saudis Paying $1BN For Protection
Independent firebrand Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.), a longtime critic of the president, has charged Trump with using the US military as private mercenaries. “He sells troops,” Amash commented provocatively of Trump’s Friday night interview with Fox’s Laura Ingraham.
“Saudi Arabia is paying us for [our troops]. We have a very good relationship with Saudi Arabia,” Trump said. “I said, listen, you’re a very rich country. You want more troops? I’m going to send them to you, but you’ve got to pay us. They’re paying us. They’ve already deposited $1 billion in the bank.”
He sells troops.
“We have a very good relationship with Saudi Arabia—I said, listen, you’re a very rich country. You want more troops? I’m going to send them to you, but you’ve got to pay us. They’re paying us. They’ve already deposited $1B in the bank.” pic.twitter.com/rc1f7heyCP
Following the Sept.14 Aramco facility attacks, which the US blamed on Iran, the US has sent up to 3,000 troops to Saudi Arabia, with likely more to follow after Iran has vowed to continue avenging the death of Qasem Soleimani.
It’s unclear in what capacity or with what intent the Saudis may have “deposited $1 billion in the bank” according to Trump’s claim. And then there’s the question of what bank and under what authorization this supposed exchange happened.
In the same interview Trump went on to describe a similar quid pro quo scenario in play with US troops stationed in South Korea.
It’s crude to pay the US directly to fight your wars for you, the socially accepted process is to fund thinktanks to convince them to https://t.co/B9f9RJaI3y
He boasts that South Korea pays $500 million to host the tens of thousands of American troops defending the country from North Korea.
Other outlandish moments from the interview included the president again boasting on Syria that, “I took the oil.”
Interestingly, he was attempting to deflect widespread criticism that he’s turned hawk after on the campaign trail winning over his base by promises of getting out of the Middle East and “bringing the troops home”.
“And then they say ‘he left troops in Syria’, you know what I did? I left troops to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil. They’re protecting the oil. I took over the oil,” Trump boasted.
Liusdan Martínez Lescaille, 12, has been bullied repeatedly for wearing a kippah to school in Nuevitas, Cuba. Education officials have reacted by banning him and his brother from wearing the kippah to school. His parents, who are Sephardic Jews, say prosecutors warned them they could lose their guardianship to their children if they violate the ban.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2QNh7Xp
via IFTTT
According to the first Briton to go into space, Dr. Helen Sharman, extraterrestrials do exist, and it could even be possible that they are among us here on Earth. Sharman recently spoke with Observer Magazine about her beliefs on the possibility of other intelligent life in the universe, and had some very surprising things to say.
She seemed extremely confident in her beliefs, saying with certainty:
“Aliens exist, there’s no two ways about it.“
“There are so many billions of stars out there in the universe that there must be all sorts of different forms of life,” she added.
Sharman surmised that aliens could even walk among us, but perhaps they are just invisible to our senses.
“Will they be like you and me, made up of carbon and nitrogen? Maybe not. It’s possible they’re here right now and we simply can’t see them,” Sharman explained.
Aliens were not actually the primary focus of the interview, but rather, it was a discussion about her career and experiences as the first Briton in space. Sharman also noted her frustration about the media regularly referring to her as “the first British woman in space,” instead of simply “the first Briton.”
“It’s telling that we would otherwise assume it was a man. When Tim Peake went into space, some people simply forgot about me. A man going first would be the norm, so I’m thrilled that I got to upset that order,” she said.
Sharman is currently a chemist, who works at Imperial College in London, and was recognized in the 2018 New Year’s honors list last year. And in May of 1991, Sharman traveled to the Soviet space station Mir, becoming the first Briton to take the trip into space.
Others who were connected with previous space programs have also come forward with similar claims in recent years.
Former NASA scientist Gilbert Levin has recently published an opinion piece on his long-held belief that evidence of alien life was discovered on Mars in the 1970s. Gilbert Levin worked with NASA on the Viking missions to Mars, and he claims that evidence of life was found on the Red Planet during those missions.
Samples taken from the soil on Mars during these missions were later found to contain organic compounds. NASA scientists even suspected that carbon dioxide was contained in the samples, which they believed was being “regenerated, possibly by microorganisms as on Earth.”
Levin says that NASA should have followed up and conducted more research on this incredible finding, but the space agency ultimately concluded that they only found a “substance mimicking life, but not life.”
