sell! sell! sell!

tiznow · May 17, 2016

[h=2]China to buy $90 billion gold vault in London[/h]May 16
LONDON

China is buying one of London's biggest gold vaults.
The Chinese state-owned ICBC Standard Bank (IDCBF), the world's biggest bank by assets, has agreed to buy Barclays precious metals storage business, including its state-of-the-art storage facility in London.
The deal will boost China's access to London's gold market, and expand the country's role in the gold business.

The vault is in a secret location in London, and can store 2,000 tonnes of gold and other precious metals. At current prices, up to $90 billion worth of gold could be stored inside.
Barclays (BCLYF) has previously announced a move away from the precious metal business. The bank opened the facility in 2012.
The financial details of the sale were not released.
Related: Gold tops $1,300, hits 15-month high
London is the world's largest wholesale over-the-counter gold market by trading volume, with estimated $5 trillion worth of gold trades cleared there every year. The precious metal has been traded in London for over 300 years.
But China dominates in terms of actual physical gold trading. Gold imports to China have surged over 700% since 2010, and the country overtook India to become the world's biggest gold consumer in 2013.
China now consumes about 40% of the gold that comes out of the Earth's ground every year, according to Wells Fargo.
--CNNMoney's Heather Long contributed to this article.
By Ivana Kottasova May 16, 2016 15:08PM EDT

eek. · May 17, 2016

Overpopulation and pollution are gonna get us long before "made made global warming" gets us Tiz
(This last year is an El-nino year btw so there's going to be a load of weird stuff)

Man is going to fuck things up no matter what we do, it's in the genes!
---------------------------------------------------
India to 'divert rivers' to tackle drought

India is set to divert water from its rivers to deal with a severe drought, a senior minister has told the BBC.

Water Resources Minister Uma Bharti said transferring water, including from major rivers like the Brahmaputra and the Ganges, to drought-prone areas is now her government's top priority.

At least 330 million people are affected by drought in India.

The drought is taking place as a heat wave extends across much of India, with temperatures in excess of 40C.

The Inter Linking of Rivers (ILR) has 30 links planned for water-transfer, 14 of them fed by Himalayan glaciers in the north of the country and 16 in peninsular India.

Environmentalists have opposed the project, arguing it will invite ecological disaster but the Supreme Court has ordered its implementation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-36299778

tiznow · May 17, 2016

Actually I looked deeper into overpopulation recently.. Fertility rates are dropping quickly... Some projections say human population will peak out in 2060... As the world goes Japanese lol

tiznow · May 17, 2016

Humans and species are quite adaptable to pollution.. Hell humans pollute their lungs with smoke for most of their life and still live long albeit a reduced lifespan on average... obviously it isn't good but I think the rate of change in climate has a much bigger impact on earth as a whole than mans pollution...

globally warming at at the rates we projected to go in future years If we continue the status quo on the other hand has immense repcurssions to biodiversity/food and water sources etc...

Mother natire is very resilient but the pace of change in climate not the actual temperature itself is a big problem... A few degrees in 100s of years may seem minute but when looking at millions of years of data it's huge...

and nd yeah last year and early part of this year a huge outlier due to extreme El Niño ... Chances are next year will be quite cool... That's the other thing going on the earths equilibrium is getting thrown off by these rapid changes (when looking at millions of years of data)... So things are very volitlies and the extremes like El Niño are getting more extreme...

tiznow · May 17, 2016

Also carbon emissions not just relegated to warming remember it also causes ocean acidification and seemingly minor changes have big impacts on marine life and a big food source for us...

tiznow · May 17, 2016

And again it's not the actual ph that the problem but rather the rate of change ...

Bp spewed hoards of oil into the ocean but that pretty much cleaned up itself and a minor impact vs acidification of the ENTIRE ocean.. The earth naturally leaches some oil into the ocean anyway and there are things in mother nature created to clean it up...

rates of change and how you are changing both temperature and pH of the ENTIRE earth.. At high rates only seen during past event such as mass extinction events such as lots of volcanos , asteroid hitting earth etc..

tiznow · May 17, 2016

I used to be like u eekster and mock the global warming agenda as I have my rebel anti consensus type mentality .. The more I researched it/thought about it critically the more it became pretty clear it is indeed a huge issue...

tiznow · May 17, 2016

Oil spills on the other hand aren't that big a deal..

------------

Natural Oil 'Spills': Surprising Amount Seeps into the Sea

The infamous 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, one of the largest in U.S. history, dumped more than 10 million gallons of crude into Prince William Sound.
While the amount of oil and its ultimate fate in such manmade disasters is well known, the effect and size of natural oil seeps on the ocean floor is murkier. A new study finds that the natural petroleum seeps off Santa Barbara, Calif., have leaked out the equivalent of about eight to 80 Exxon Valdez oil spills over hundreds of thousands of years.
These spills create an oil fallout shadow that contaminates the sediments around the seep, with the oil content decreasing farther from the seep.
There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years. The oil from natural seeps and from man-made spills are both formed from the decay of buried fossil remains that are transformed over millions of years through exposure to heat and pressure.
"One of the natural questions is: What happens to all of this oil?" said study co-author Dave Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara. "So much oil seeps up and floats on the sea surface. It's something we've long wondered. We know some of it will come ashore as tar balls, but it doesn't stick around. And then there are the massive slicks. You can see them, sometimes extending 20 miles [32 kilometers] from the seeps. But what really is the ultimate fate?"
Based on their previous research, Valentine and his co-authors surmised that the oil was sinking "because this oil is heavy to begin with," Valentine said. "It's a good bet that it ends up in the sediments because it's not ending up on land. It's not dissolving in ocean water, so it's almost certain that it is ending up in the sediments."
The team sampled locations around the seeps to see how much oil was leftover after "weathering" — dissolving into the water, evaporating into the air, or being degraded by microbes.
Microbes consume most, but not all, of the compounds in the oil. The next step of the research is to figure out just why that is.
"Nature does an amazing job acting on this oil but somehow the microbes stopped eating, leaving a small fraction of the compounds in the sediments," said study co-author Chris Reddy, a marine chemist with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Falmouth, Mass. "Why this happens is still a mystery, but we are getting closer."
Support for this research, which is detailed in the May 15 issue of Environmental Science & Technology, came from the Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, and Seaver Institute.

PatsFan1283 · May 17, 2016

tiznow said:
Actually I looked deeper into overpopulation recently.. Fertility rates are dropping quickly... Some projections say human population will peak out in 2060... As the world goes Japanese lol

Most overpopulation stuff that I read has an element of propaganda to it. Particularly Paul Ehrlich and his predictions have just been awful, he does make some good points about overpopulation though. He made a bet with Julian Simon about resource/commodity prices and scarcity that is interesting. Simon won the bet because it only went from 1980 to 1990 but every year after Eurlich would've won the bet thus signaling that the scarcity he warned about is real.

I think innovation takes care of most of these dilemmas long-term, but we should have legitimate discussion about global population growth as well. Not the easiest thing without sounding like a fascist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon–Ehrlich_wager

PatsFan1283 · May 18, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...l-ehrlichs-population-bomb-argument-was-right

This guy thinks Eurlich will eventually be vindicated, although he definitely isn't forecasting for alternative energy sources.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/us/the-unrealized-horrors-of-population-explosion.html

This has a good video about the history of Eurlich's predictions and cheerleading population discussion starting in the '60s. Doesn't sound like he is given much credit for his calls about resource scarcity.

tiznow · May 18, 2016

Goldman upgrades tesla in the morn.. Than after close says they the lead underwriter for tesla offering to dilute...

Absolutely shameless unreal

eek. · May 18, 2016

Actually I looked deeper into overpopulation recently.. Fertility rates are dropping quickly... Some projections say human population will peak out in 2060... As the world goes Japanese lol

1st worlders are plateauing out, the 3rd worlders are breeding like rats, they don't know anything else
It's a 100% population increase every 30-40 years until we hit the buffers... ergo illegal immigration has them pouring in

You can't beat darwinism, the communists, the fascists and now the Liberals have all tried, and failed

When I was a kid we LEFT their countries as the end of colonialism happened
Now they're all pouring in behind us, by the tens of millions

eek. · May 18, 2016

Hey! My country is totally crap! so I'm coming to live in your country!
x times 50 million per annum

They've trashed their own house down the road, its become a shithole.... so now they're moving into your nice house at the other end of the street

...and the politicians are saying "yeh, no problem"

snoop · May 18, 2016

tiznow said:
Goldman upgrades tesla in the morn.. Than after close says they the lead underwriter for tesla offering to dilute...

Absolutely shameless unreal

The dilution is not as bad as I thought it would be. The problem is the net proceed w/ cash on hand only enough for Tesla to last another 12-18 months. Model 3 is supposed to be the cash-cow for Tesla, when it flops, it will be the end for Tesla, just like Musk other child - SolarCity.

tiznow · May 18, 2016

eek. said:
Actually I looked deeper into overpopulation recently.. Fertility rates are dropping quickly... Some projections say human population will peak out in 2060... As the world goes Japanese lol

1st worlders are plateauing out, the 3rd worlders are breeding like rats, they don't know anything else
It's a 100% population increase every 30-40 years until we hit the buffers... ergo illegal immigration has them pouring in

You can't beat darwinism, the communists, the fascists and now the Liberals have all tried, and failed

When I was a kid we LEFT their countries as the end of colonialism happened
Now they're all pouring in behind us, by the tens of millions

Not really Asian fertility rates starting to decline rapidly too.. Thus China lifting its one child policy...

And obviously the global fiat ponzi schemes we run need increasing populations to work (see Japan)

Technological advances (no need for kid to tend the field etc) and just sheer world outlook is giving many including myself pause at creating a kid...

anyway peak human population likely a ways away still and most of us will be dead by then lol

---------

From baby boom to bust

Asia

Crashing fertility will transform the Asian family

Nov 18th 2013

Over the past half-century the most profound influence upon the great majority of humankind has been the vast and gentle decline in the size of families. In 2014 (or thereabouts—such things are approximate) this huge change will reach a milestone. In the world’s most populous continent, Asia, the total fertility rate will fall to 2.1. The rate is the number of children a woman can expect to bear during her lifetime and 2.1 is a magic number because, if sustained, it produces long-term equilibrium in the population (it is known as the replacement rate). In 1960 Asia’s average fertility was 5.8.
The exact point at which fertility reaches replacement cannot be known for sure. The United Nations Population Division thinks it will happen at some point during 2015-20. But Chinese demographers think the UN is significantly overestimating China’s fertility rate, so 2014 is a reasonable guess.
The fall in fertility has taken place worldwide. Latin America has experienced a decline almost exactly as great as Asia’s. But Asia is special for two reasons. First, with a population of 4.3 billion it is home to over half the world’s people. Latin America’s population is only one-seventh that of Asia.
Second, the fall in Asia has been greater than it might appear because the continental average has been buoyed by relatively high fertility in the Middle East. The fertility decline in the heavily populated areas of Asia has been greater. East Asian fertility has fallen to just 1.7, well below replacement. The decline in some places has been as sharp as any country has ever experienced. Bangladesh’s rate fell from 6.9 to 2.9 in the 30 years after 1970. Iran (a Middle Eastern outlier) saw its rate crash from 6.5 in 1980 to 1.9 in 2005. Social transformations do not get more dramatic.
Falling fertility matters because it is associated with higher standards of education (since parents can more easily afford to educate children when there are fewer of them); higher living standards (since workers are better educated); and somewhat greater female autonomy (women can go to work rather than spend all their time nurturing children). As fertility falls, countries reap what is called a “demographic dividend”, the potential economic advantage that comes from having relatively fewer children and old people, and a bulge of working-age adults. On some estimates, a quarter of Asia’s economic growth over the past 50 years has come from its favourable demographic pattern.
Missing the children already
But as fertility falls below the replacement rate, two problems emerge, and Asia is facing both of them. One is that the economic advantages of favourable demography begin to dwindle. Between 2010 and 2020, according to the Chinese, the number of people aged between 15 and 59 in the country can be expected to decline by 30m. This is the core working-age population, so China is already experiencing a diminishing labour supply and upward pressure on wages.

2014 IN BRIEF: Myanmar carries out its first census in more than 30 years
The other problem is that some countries (not all) slip into a pattern of very low fertility in which the rate falls towards 1.5 or less, and stays there for generations as social norms shift and people abandon the common ideal of a two-child family. This happened in Germany, is happening in Japan and Russia, and could well happen in China, where the fertility rate has been below replacement for over 20 years and the one-child policy has long assailed traditional ideas about family size. Sex-selective abortions mean there will be fewer Chinese women of child-bearing age over the next 20 years, because millions of female fetuses were aborted over the past 20 as parents sought to ensure that their one child was a son. In 2014 and beyond, the country’s leaders will face pressure to scrap or drastically dilute the one-child policy.

tiznow · May 18, 2016

It didn't dawn on me till recently that humans will peak out due to limitations on the numbers we can comfortably support.. After preaching too many people too few resources the number one issue for man in next 100 years... As the world population continues to grow more and more people will abstain from bringing more into this fucked up overpopulated planet.. So we'll peak out due to choice eventually..

plus is technology is a big part of it.. Robots will make other humans less necessary .. And give the have nots less hope of a future for their kid.. Right now the bottom 99% works for the top 1% ... In future robots will do more of the heavy lifting for the 1%

As to when we peak is anybodys guess.. Seen anywhere from 2050 to 2100...

eek. · May 18, 2016

Myanmar carries out its first census in more than 30 years

Our last one in the UK was a total joke.
Originally you were visited door-to-door multiple times by government dudes asking loads of questions and getting a serious handle on the general population

The last UK ""census" was a form where you could fill in whatever the hell you wanted to and no-one ever checked up on a shred of data, the only thing they keep a careful eye on nowadays is voter registration data.

tiznow · May 19, 2016

[h=1]Spend for today who cares about tomorrow!!

----------

Poll: Two-thirds of US would struggle to cover $1,000 crisis[/h][h=2][/h]By KEN SWEET and EMILY SWANSON, The Associated Press | on May 19, 2016

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]

Photo: AP

Image 1 of 2

In this Wednesday, May 18, 2016, photo, Mitchell Timme works from his laptop computer at his home in Phoenix. Two-thirds of Americans would have difficulty coming up with the money to cover a $1,000 emergency, ... more

[/COLOR]
NEW YORK (AP) — Two-thirds of Americans would have difficulty coming up with the money to cover a $1,000 emergency, according to an exclusive poll released Thursday, a signal that despite years of recovery from the Great Recession, Americans' financial conditions remain precarious as ever.
These financial difficulties span all income levels, according to the poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Seventy-five percent of people in households making less than $50,000 a year would have difficulty coming up with $1,000 to cover an unexpected bill. But when income rose to between $50,000 and $100,000, the difficulty decreased only modestly to 67 percent.
Even for the country's wealthiest 20 percent — households making more than $100,000 a year — 38 percent say they would have at least some difficulty coming up with $1,000.
"The more we learn about the balance sheets of Americans, it becomes quite alarming," said Caroline Ratcliffe, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute focusing on poverty and emergency savings issues.
Harry Spangle is one of those Americans. A 66-year-old former electrician from New Jersey, Spangle said he thought he would always have a job and "lived for today" but lost his job before the downturn. He said he would have to borrow from friends or family in order to cover an unexpected $1,000 expense.
"I have a pension and I am on Social Security, but it's very limiting," he said. "It's depressing."
Having a modest, immediately available emergency fund is widely recognized as critical to financial health. Families that have even a small amount of non-retirement savings, between $250 and $749, are less likely to be evicted from their homes and less likely to need public benefits, an Urban Institute study found.
"People are extremely vulnerable if they don't have savings," Ratcliffe said. "And it's a cost to taxpayers as well. Lack of savings can lead to homelessness, or other problems."
Despite an absence of savings, two-thirds of Americans said they feel positive about their finances , according to survey data released Wednesday by AP-NORC, a sign that they're managing day-to-day expenses fine. The challenge for many often come from economic forces beyond their control such as a dip in the stock market that threatens their job or an unexpected medical bill, risks that have shattered the confidence of most in the broader U.S. economy.
Yet when faced with an unexpected $1,000 bill, a majority of Americans said they wouldn't be especially likely to pay with money on hand, the AP-NORC survey found. A third said they would have to borrow from a bank or from friends and family, or put the bill on a credit card. Thirteen percent would skip paying other bills, and 11 percent said they would likely not pay the bill at all.
Those numbers suggest that most American families do not have at least $1,000 stashed away in an accessible savings account, much less under their mattresses, to cover an emergency.
Read Full Article