Given there are already who had benefited from them despite of their spam-like ability to wind up in our e-mail inboxes, are Paid to Click Sites an economically viable way to earn extra income?
By: Ringo Bones
Aside from those notorious Viagra and Cialis ads and the odd Nigerian prince or two in need of your help, Paid to Click Sites or PTC Sites are probably already well known for supplementing the income of some and the quitting of their day-jobs of the lucky few. Despite their spam-like ability to wind up in your e-mail inboxes – probably their only inconvenient quirk – the messages and adverts are replete with testimonials of early adapters who are now using PTC Sites as a source of extra money / extra income. Some of the lucky few have already quit their day-jobs to work on their work-at-home PTC Sites business schemes full time. But are PTC Sites really an economically viable source of extra cash?
Paid to Click or PTC Sites are companies that pay you for viewing their websites. These companies get paid for showing the pages to their members. Usually, these sites often pay almost 100% of that money to their members. A typical Paid to Click Site work as a method of earning money online by clicking on the “paid” link – i.e. “paid” link is a link sent along with the advertisement which pays the members money or points – which can later be redeemed for their monetary value – by clicking advertisements that are purchased by the program advertisers. The value of money and points that a member earns vary from program to program.
During the early days of PTC Sites, early adapters almost couldn’t believe the amount of money they are earning given the relatively light workload required. As the members / signees of these PTC Sites increased, a point of “diminishing returns” manifested itself to the members via reduced earnings for a given workload or online advertisements being clicked.
Back then, some members / signees even resorted to the use of botnets and related auto-click malware programs / cheating programs to “automate” their click workload and thus increasing their PTC earnings. This form of cheating / online computer fraud worked so well I the early days of PTC Sites where botnet detection programs were still in its infancy. Even today, PTC members / signees still resort to “sophisticated” botnets since they can manage to earn several hundreds, even several thousands of US dollars, before they get caught and their PTC Site accounts are terminated. Though these days, PTC Site operators will sue you for online computer fraud if they caught you resorting to using botnets on their PTC Sites – assuming that you gave them your true home address and home phone number.
Fortunately, you can also boost your PTC Site earnings in a legally acceptable manner. One of the legitimate methods often used to boost one’s PTC Site income and earnings is by visiting the forum sites. Basically, all PTC Sites have forums where you can find precious info, tips and to be able to ask questions. A PTC Site’s forum site is also a way of making sure that the PTC Site you are signing into is legit. Also, don’t forget to make sure to regularly switch your earnings between PTC sites. Withdraw your money / earnings from PTC sites that are not giving you a good earning rate or referral click ratio and send it to better sites to buy more referrals on those instead. Remember PTC Sites based work-at-home business schemes still need the same hard work and dedication as a typical CFD work-at-home business schemes.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Are Rare Earth Metals Mines Still Economically Viable?
Given that they tend to elude accurate valuation by conventional and established mine valuation methods, are rare earth metals mines truly economically viable?
By: Ringo Bones
Even though Mainland China had more or less resumed its import quotas to Japan and the rest of the globe back in November 24, 2010, Beijing’s current unrivaled monopoly of the commercial mining and production of rare earth metals can easily make anyone wonder why the United States or any other nation in the world can’t seem to be able to start their very own economically viable rare earth metals industry. But is the reason just down to economics or do we have to look back why in the previous 20 or so years how America and some other nations managed to make a profit in the commercial mining and production of rare earth metals.
It is no coincidence why America’s very own home-grown rare earth metals mining industry was abruptly shut down 20 years ago – right about the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the then Soviet Union. America’s rare earth metals industry was subsidized by the uranium industry – or more accurately the nuclear fission power generation and the nuclear weapons industry. It is now common knowledge that most uranium ores also contain commercially viable amounts of rare earth metals. Nuclear weapons used to safeguard the United States against the then Soviet Union so the nuclear weapons industry was the primarily subsidizing America’s rare earth metals industry before their closure around 1989 and 1990 since construction of new civilian nuclear fission power plants on American soil was frozen by the US congress after the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident of 1979.
Compared to mainland China’s relatively low labor costs, America’s rare earth metals industry looks like a losing proposition when this factor is taken into account in a typical mine valuation calculation. Typically, the ability of a mining property to earn is a measure of its value. Many factors including the natural resources and the plant and the equipment must be taken into account. Consideration must also be given to operating efficiency, labor costs, taxes, and to the critical factors of supply and demand and the purchasing power of money – i.e. the currently prevailing economic conditions. In order to determine the commercial viability of a certain mining operation, the present worth and the prospective possibilities must be determined; the risks must be recognized and evaluated. Such determinations are made to the maximum extent possible on the basis of the factual information that can be assembled as amended and weighed in the judgment and experience of the examining mining engineer.
In the final analysis, every mine valuation is a considered estimate as opposed to an exact appraisal. It would be a rare accident of coincidence if the actual outcome of operations was in accord with the predicted result of prior examination. Despite the certainty that the results of examination will be inaccurate, the greatest possible care must be exercised in making an evaluation in order to measure the degree of risk. The determination of value of a certain mine starts when the examination has been completed to provide ore-reverse data, mining costs and profits, financial requirements, and future prospects, mathematical calculations may be made to establish the present dollar-and-cents value of the ore deposits.
These computations are made on a gross basis so that the result is a single figure. This one sum represents a compounding of the capital required to equip the mine, the realization from sale of product less cost of sales, and amortization of plant as well as interest on invested capital. The remainder is the profit or true value and must be reduced to present worth by giving effect to the time period in which the profit is revealed. A variety of formulas have been developed for use in the valuation of this kind. The present value of the annual dividend to be paid out over the “estimated” 20-year life of a specified mine can be determined by use of one or the other number of mine valuation formulas.
It is somewhat evident that the 20-year lifetime assumed for a typical rare earth metals mine could be changed but a number of factors bear on establishing mining rate. These include the additional proven ore reserves that can be established – which is a little difficult since the difference of the percentage concentration of an economically viable rare earth metals mine and the one that’s not is not that large. Then there are equipment costs which increase with the size of the plant, the mechanical efficiency of the plant, the market for the product – which could be depressed by overproduction – and the security of the investment. Shares of a mine with a long life typically are more preferred by investors.
Given that there are no new nuclear fission power plants being constructed in the US since the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear fission power plant accident and the most recent Will Lyman narrated science documentary about nuclear fission power plants that mentions dysprosium and holmium nuclear poisons was probably produced between 1992 and 1995, it seems that the civilian nuclear power generation industry and the US DoD’s nuclear weapons program are no longer subsidizing America’s rare earth metals mining industry to make them economically viable enough to continue operating in the austere fiscal environment of a post Cold War world.
And given that the current main use of rare earth metals is in the consumer electronics industry and low carbon energy generation from renewable sources, it seems that the high labor costs and lack of government sourced subsidies spelled the death knell of America’s rare earth metals mining industry in the post Cold War world. Even the profitability of the Mainland China’s rare earth metals mining industry is walking on a thin line indeed when valuated using established mine valuation methods.
By: Ringo Bones
Even though Mainland China had more or less resumed its import quotas to Japan and the rest of the globe back in November 24, 2010, Beijing’s current unrivaled monopoly of the commercial mining and production of rare earth metals can easily make anyone wonder why the United States or any other nation in the world can’t seem to be able to start their very own economically viable rare earth metals industry. But is the reason just down to economics or do we have to look back why in the previous 20 or so years how America and some other nations managed to make a profit in the commercial mining and production of rare earth metals.
It is no coincidence why America’s very own home-grown rare earth metals mining industry was abruptly shut down 20 years ago – right about the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the then Soviet Union. America’s rare earth metals industry was subsidized by the uranium industry – or more accurately the nuclear fission power generation and the nuclear weapons industry. It is now common knowledge that most uranium ores also contain commercially viable amounts of rare earth metals. Nuclear weapons used to safeguard the United States against the then Soviet Union so the nuclear weapons industry was the primarily subsidizing America’s rare earth metals industry before their closure around 1989 and 1990 since construction of new civilian nuclear fission power plants on American soil was frozen by the US congress after the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident of 1979.
Compared to mainland China’s relatively low labor costs, America’s rare earth metals industry looks like a losing proposition when this factor is taken into account in a typical mine valuation calculation. Typically, the ability of a mining property to earn is a measure of its value. Many factors including the natural resources and the plant and the equipment must be taken into account. Consideration must also be given to operating efficiency, labor costs, taxes, and to the critical factors of supply and demand and the purchasing power of money – i.e. the currently prevailing economic conditions. In order to determine the commercial viability of a certain mining operation, the present worth and the prospective possibilities must be determined; the risks must be recognized and evaluated. Such determinations are made to the maximum extent possible on the basis of the factual information that can be assembled as amended and weighed in the judgment and experience of the examining mining engineer.
In the final analysis, every mine valuation is a considered estimate as opposed to an exact appraisal. It would be a rare accident of coincidence if the actual outcome of operations was in accord with the predicted result of prior examination. Despite the certainty that the results of examination will be inaccurate, the greatest possible care must be exercised in making an evaluation in order to measure the degree of risk. The determination of value of a certain mine starts when the examination has been completed to provide ore-reverse data, mining costs and profits, financial requirements, and future prospects, mathematical calculations may be made to establish the present dollar-and-cents value of the ore deposits.
These computations are made on a gross basis so that the result is a single figure. This one sum represents a compounding of the capital required to equip the mine, the realization from sale of product less cost of sales, and amortization of plant as well as interest on invested capital. The remainder is the profit or true value and must be reduced to present worth by giving effect to the time period in which the profit is revealed. A variety of formulas have been developed for use in the valuation of this kind. The present value of the annual dividend to be paid out over the “estimated” 20-year life of a specified mine can be determined by use of one or the other number of mine valuation formulas.
It is somewhat evident that the 20-year lifetime assumed for a typical rare earth metals mine could be changed but a number of factors bear on establishing mining rate. These include the additional proven ore reserves that can be established – which is a little difficult since the difference of the percentage concentration of an economically viable rare earth metals mine and the one that’s not is not that large. Then there are equipment costs which increase with the size of the plant, the mechanical efficiency of the plant, the market for the product – which could be depressed by overproduction – and the security of the investment. Shares of a mine with a long life typically are more preferred by investors.
Given that there are no new nuclear fission power plants being constructed in the US since the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear fission power plant accident and the most recent Will Lyman narrated science documentary about nuclear fission power plants that mentions dysprosium and holmium nuclear poisons was probably produced between 1992 and 1995, it seems that the civilian nuclear power generation industry and the US DoD’s nuclear weapons program are no longer subsidizing America’s rare earth metals mining industry to make them economically viable enough to continue operating in the austere fiscal environment of a post Cold War world.
And given that the current main use of rare earth metals is in the consumer electronics industry and low carbon energy generation from renewable sources, it seems that the high labor costs and lack of government sourced subsidies spelled the death knell of America’s rare earth metals mining industry in the post Cold War world. Even the profitability of the Mainland China’s rare earth metals mining industry is walking on a thin line indeed when valuated using established mine valuation methods.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Urban Mining: Economically Viable Source of Rare Earth Metals?
Ever since Mainland China reduced its export quotas of rare earth minerals, will “urban mining” e-wastes soon become an economically viable source of rare earth metals?
By: Ringo Bones
The People’s Republic of China soon started reducing its export quota of rare earth minerals to the world market and none more so to Japan when a Mainland Chinese trawler captain was arrested by the Japanese navy for illegally fishing in waters both claimed by the two countries in the North China Sea back in September 7, 2010. As a country with a virtual monopoly on the commerce of rare earth metals – it produces over 90% of the worlds rare earth metals supply - Mainland China has since flex its geopolitical muscles by reducing the amount it sells to the global market and Japan. Given that all things that make our modern life possible – mobile phones, laptops, hybrid cars and even wind turbines use rare earth metals, will a shortage of this raw materials soon endanger our modern way of life?
As the country hardest hit by Beijing’s decision to reduce its rare earth export quota, Japan has pioneered a rather novel way of filling their manufacturing industry’s rare earth shortage. Dubbed “Urban Mining”, the scheme involves the reprocessing of e-wastes and obsolete consumer electronic gear to harvest the precious rare earth metals contained in them. Late 1990s era Sega Megadrives, electric typewriters, audiophile grade cassette tape decks, cathode ray tube type computer monitors and even hard disk drives of obsolete computers are recycled and processed for the extraction of the precious rare earth metals.
A Japanese company called Highbridge Computers now makes a profit harvesting rare earth metals from obsolete computer gear and other e-wastes that contain significant amounts of rare earth magnets. As amore long term solution, Kazuhiko Hono of Japan’s National Institute of Material Science have recently experimented with using lasers to dissect rare earth magnets atom-by-atom to analyze their magnetic structure and to explore the possibility of making rare earth magnets that use reduced quantities of precious rare earth metals.
Will urban mining – the recycling of e-wastes and obsolete consumer electronic equipment ever becomes a commercially viable source of rare earth metals? Shigeo Nakamura of Advanced Material Japan Corporation – one of the largest processor of rare earth ores from Mainland China for use in the manufacture of high tech goods – says that Japan’s stockpiles of rare earths are fast dwindling. If Mainland China continues to use its rare earth metal monopoly as a tool for geopolitical hegemony, it will only be a matter of time that recycling e-wastes and obsolete electronic equipment could soon become not only a commercially viable source of rare earth metals due to lesser chemical processes and energy involved in harvesting it from such source, but also a more environmentally-friendly source of rare earth metals as well. At least it is an economically viable way to recycle obsolete electronic and computer gear.
By: Ringo Bones
The People’s Republic of China soon started reducing its export quota of rare earth minerals to the world market and none more so to Japan when a Mainland Chinese trawler captain was arrested by the Japanese navy for illegally fishing in waters both claimed by the two countries in the North China Sea back in September 7, 2010. As a country with a virtual monopoly on the commerce of rare earth metals – it produces over 90% of the worlds rare earth metals supply - Mainland China has since flex its geopolitical muscles by reducing the amount it sells to the global market and Japan. Given that all things that make our modern life possible – mobile phones, laptops, hybrid cars and even wind turbines use rare earth metals, will a shortage of this raw materials soon endanger our modern way of life?
As the country hardest hit by Beijing’s decision to reduce its rare earth export quota, Japan has pioneered a rather novel way of filling their manufacturing industry’s rare earth shortage. Dubbed “Urban Mining”, the scheme involves the reprocessing of e-wastes and obsolete consumer electronic gear to harvest the precious rare earth metals contained in them. Late 1990s era Sega Megadrives, electric typewriters, audiophile grade cassette tape decks, cathode ray tube type computer monitors and even hard disk drives of obsolete computers are recycled and processed for the extraction of the precious rare earth metals.
A Japanese company called Highbridge Computers now makes a profit harvesting rare earth metals from obsolete computer gear and other e-wastes that contain significant amounts of rare earth magnets. As amore long term solution, Kazuhiko Hono of Japan’s National Institute of Material Science have recently experimented with using lasers to dissect rare earth magnets atom-by-atom to analyze their magnetic structure and to explore the possibility of making rare earth magnets that use reduced quantities of precious rare earth metals.
Will urban mining – the recycling of e-wastes and obsolete consumer electronic equipment ever becomes a commercially viable source of rare earth metals? Shigeo Nakamura of Advanced Material Japan Corporation – one of the largest processor of rare earth ores from Mainland China for use in the manufacture of high tech goods – says that Japan’s stockpiles of rare earths are fast dwindling. If Mainland China continues to use its rare earth metal monopoly as a tool for geopolitical hegemony, it will only be a matter of time that recycling e-wastes and obsolete electronic equipment could soon become not only a commercially viable source of rare earth metals due to lesser chemical processes and energy involved in harvesting it from such source, but also a more environmentally-friendly source of rare earth metals as well. At least it is an economically viable way to recycle obsolete electronic and computer gear.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Lithium: Contentious Commodity Du Jour?
As the primary component of those rechargeable lithium ion batteries mainly used in laptop computers and hybrid cars, is lithium now the commodities traders’ contentious commodity du jour?
By: Ringo Bones
Ironically during the height of the Cold War when the only major use for lithium was in H-Bombs and pharmaceuticals for the treatment of manic-depressive disorders, it never became the commodities traders’ commodities trading of contention, not to mention the flood of venture capital investment stocks and penny-stocks vying for us to invest in them. A few decades later where our 21st Century society is currently preoccupied with the pursuit of instant information at one’s fingertips and eco-friendly power and mobility, lithium – as the primary component used in rechargeable lithium ion batteries – has now become one of the commodities of geopolitical primacy. But isn’t there enough lithium to go around?
Even though it is relatively widespread, lithium comprises only 0.0065% of the Earth’s crust. Lithium is primarily obtained from the minerals spodumene – a lithium aluminum silicate; lepidolite – a basic lithium silicate known as lithium mica and amblygonite – a lithium aluminum fluorophosphate. Nearly 50 other minerals and many mineral waters contain varying amounts of lithium and traces of the element have been found in meteorites, soils, sugar beets, tobacco, cereal grains, coffee, seaweed, blood, milk, and even in muscular and lung tissue.
During the height of the Cold War, the world’s leading producer of lithium was the country then known as Rhodesia which - since 1980 - is called Zimbabwe. At present, the world’s strategic supply of lithium can be found in the dry lakes of Bolivia in the form of lithium carbonate. According to Bolivia’s Mining Minister Jose Pimentel, Bolivia is estimated to contain 40% of the world’s commercially viable lithium supply. As one of the poorest countries in South America, the Bolivian government wants a mining deal from multinational firms that would benefit Bolivia’s poor and because of this almost all multinational mining firms are currently reluctant to make a deal with the government of President Evo Morales.
Our current high demand for mobile phones, laptops and batteries for hybrid cars just to mention a few have made lithium into a commodity of strategic importance not seen since the height of the cold war. Like crude oil, commercially viable deposits of it are found in places that have a falling out with globalized capitalism. And since the form we use it requires that the naturally occurring lithium be chemically processed into something useful for the fabrication of rechargeable lithium ion batteries, lithium – like the rare earth metals - might well be our current lucrative commodity that also raises geopolitical contention.
By: Ringo Bones
Ironically during the height of the Cold War when the only major use for lithium was in H-Bombs and pharmaceuticals for the treatment of manic-depressive disorders, it never became the commodities traders’ commodities trading of contention, not to mention the flood of venture capital investment stocks and penny-stocks vying for us to invest in them. A few decades later where our 21st Century society is currently preoccupied with the pursuit of instant information at one’s fingertips and eco-friendly power and mobility, lithium – as the primary component used in rechargeable lithium ion batteries – has now become one of the commodities of geopolitical primacy. But isn’t there enough lithium to go around?
Even though it is relatively widespread, lithium comprises only 0.0065% of the Earth’s crust. Lithium is primarily obtained from the minerals spodumene – a lithium aluminum silicate; lepidolite – a basic lithium silicate known as lithium mica and amblygonite – a lithium aluminum fluorophosphate. Nearly 50 other minerals and many mineral waters contain varying amounts of lithium and traces of the element have been found in meteorites, soils, sugar beets, tobacco, cereal grains, coffee, seaweed, blood, milk, and even in muscular and lung tissue.
During the height of the Cold War, the world’s leading producer of lithium was the country then known as Rhodesia which - since 1980 - is called Zimbabwe. At present, the world’s strategic supply of lithium can be found in the dry lakes of Bolivia in the form of lithium carbonate. According to Bolivia’s Mining Minister Jose Pimentel, Bolivia is estimated to contain 40% of the world’s commercially viable lithium supply. As one of the poorest countries in South America, the Bolivian government wants a mining deal from multinational firms that would benefit Bolivia’s poor and because of this almost all multinational mining firms are currently reluctant to make a deal with the government of President Evo Morales.
Our current high demand for mobile phones, laptops and batteries for hybrid cars just to mention a few have made lithium into a commodity of strategic importance not seen since the height of the cold war. Like crude oil, commercially viable deposits of it are found in places that have a falling out with globalized capitalism. And since the form we use it requires that the naturally occurring lithium be chemically processed into something useful for the fabrication of rechargeable lithium ion batteries, lithium – like the rare earth metals - might well be our current lucrative commodity that also raises geopolitical contention.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
The Beijing Rare Earth Embargo: Threat or Menace?
As the only commercial producer of rare earth metals, will Beijing’s decision to reduce export quotas of the valuable materials endanger the global economy?
By: Ringo Bones
It started over a diplomatic row when Chinese fisherman were caught illegally fishing in Japanese territorial waters back in September 2010. In protest, the Beijing government swiftly stopped selling rare earth metals to Japan, endangering the countries ability to manufacture hybrid cars. Thus making the press and the rest of the world take notice back in October 21 2010 the importance of rare earth minerals, but will Beijing’s decision to curb their rare earth metal exports eventually endanger the global economy?
Even though rare earth metals has recently became the commodities traders’ investment (or is it speculation?) hotspot du jour, from the perspective of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry or IUPAC, the elements often referred to as “rare earths” are neither rare nor earths. The rare earth family of elements are in fact composed of soft, malleable metals – and most of them are not at all in short supply. Cerium, the most abundant, is more plentiful than tin or lead – while thulium, the scarcest, is only slightly rarer than iodine. The rare earth misnomer came about because the oxides of the elements – with its earth-like consistency – were at first mistaken for the elements themselves.
All of the 15 rare earth elements have two outer electrons and eight or nine in the second shell in. They only vary in their electron compliment in the third innermost shell. But among the rare earth atomic structure, the third-shell electron difference is very slight indeed, which make the 15 elements belonging to this group a very close-knit family indeed. A typical mineral containing a single rare earth element more often than not also contains all the others.
The rare earth elements are so nearly identical in their chemical properties that separating them can easily involve thousands of steps. Because of this quirk, the individual rare earth elements in their chemically pure form did not become available in commercial quantities until the late 1950s. Nevertheless, the rare earth family in their less than chemically pure form has been used industrially since the early 1900s in the form of their mineralogical mixtures that occur naturally. Purer forms go into the making of powerful ceramic rare earth magnets like the samarium cobalt magnets used in the electric motors of today’s hybrid cars.
For much of the 20th Century, more than a million pounds of rare earth elements I their low purity form still go annually into the production of an alloy called “misch metal” – German for mixed metal. Combined with iron, misch metal products are used in cigarette-lighter flints. But the main use of low purity rare earths is in iron and steel-making where it is used to absorb impurities and improves the steel’s texture and workability.
A mixture of rare earths combined with carbon produces the intense carbon arc lights once used to light up Hollywood before being replaced by more energy efficient light sources. And a large number of rare earth compounds go into the making high-quality glass for computer monitor use by making the glass completely colorless. Or in other applications, by adding deep color depending on the combination used.
When the news of the People’s Republic of China’s decision to reduce its rare earth metal exports reached the press back in October 21, 2010, the global consumer electronics industry and hybrid car makers almost panicked since they are today’s primary users of rare earth metals in the manufacture of their goods. Unmanned drones and smart bombs made indispensable in America’s “War on Terror” can’t function without rare earth metals.
Even though the United States’ rare earth metal deposits are as abundant as the ones in the People’s Republic of China, the U.S. had since closed its rare earth mines and related processing facilities since 1990 because these can never economically compete with Mainland China due to stricter Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rules. Not to mention tougher Environmental Protection Agency guidelines and unlike Mainland China, U.S. miners won’t work for slave wages. Only Mainland China’s wanton disregard of worker safety and environmental protection had allowed it to produce and sell rare earth metals to the global markets at literally rock-bottom prices and restarting the United States' dormant rare earth metal mining industry is not very economically viable at this time.
By: Ringo Bones
It started over a diplomatic row when Chinese fisherman were caught illegally fishing in Japanese territorial waters back in September 2010. In protest, the Beijing government swiftly stopped selling rare earth metals to Japan, endangering the countries ability to manufacture hybrid cars. Thus making the press and the rest of the world take notice back in October 21 2010 the importance of rare earth minerals, but will Beijing’s decision to curb their rare earth metal exports eventually endanger the global economy?
Even though rare earth metals has recently became the commodities traders’ investment (or is it speculation?) hotspot du jour, from the perspective of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry or IUPAC, the elements often referred to as “rare earths” are neither rare nor earths. The rare earth family of elements are in fact composed of soft, malleable metals – and most of them are not at all in short supply. Cerium, the most abundant, is more plentiful than tin or lead – while thulium, the scarcest, is only slightly rarer than iodine. The rare earth misnomer came about because the oxides of the elements – with its earth-like consistency – were at first mistaken for the elements themselves.
All of the 15 rare earth elements have two outer electrons and eight or nine in the second shell in. They only vary in their electron compliment in the third innermost shell. But among the rare earth atomic structure, the third-shell electron difference is very slight indeed, which make the 15 elements belonging to this group a very close-knit family indeed. A typical mineral containing a single rare earth element more often than not also contains all the others.
The rare earth elements are so nearly identical in their chemical properties that separating them can easily involve thousands of steps. Because of this quirk, the individual rare earth elements in their chemically pure form did not become available in commercial quantities until the late 1950s. Nevertheless, the rare earth family in their less than chemically pure form has been used industrially since the early 1900s in the form of their mineralogical mixtures that occur naturally. Purer forms go into the making of powerful ceramic rare earth magnets like the samarium cobalt magnets used in the electric motors of today’s hybrid cars.
For much of the 20th Century, more than a million pounds of rare earth elements I their low purity form still go annually into the production of an alloy called “misch metal” – German for mixed metal. Combined with iron, misch metal products are used in cigarette-lighter flints. But the main use of low purity rare earths is in iron and steel-making where it is used to absorb impurities and improves the steel’s texture and workability.
A mixture of rare earths combined with carbon produces the intense carbon arc lights once used to light up Hollywood before being replaced by more energy efficient light sources. And a large number of rare earth compounds go into the making high-quality glass for computer monitor use by making the glass completely colorless. Or in other applications, by adding deep color depending on the combination used.
When the news of the People’s Republic of China’s decision to reduce its rare earth metal exports reached the press back in October 21, 2010, the global consumer electronics industry and hybrid car makers almost panicked since they are today’s primary users of rare earth metals in the manufacture of their goods. Unmanned drones and smart bombs made indispensable in America’s “War on Terror” can’t function without rare earth metals.
Even though the United States’ rare earth metal deposits are as abundant as the ones in the People’s Republic of China, the U.S. had since closed its rare earth mines and related processing facilities since 1990 because these can never economically compete with Mainland China due to stricter Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rules. Not to mention tougher Environmental Protection Agency guidelines and unlike Mainland China, U.S. miners won’t work for slave wages. Only Mainland China’s wanton disregard of worker safety and environmental protection had allowed it to produce and sell rare earth metals to the global markets at literally rock-bottom prices and restarting the United States' dormant rare earth metal mining industry is not very economically viable at this time.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Much Ado About America’s Jobless Recovery
With the DOW Industrial Average now hovering around the 11,000-point mark with the unemployment rate approaching 10%, is the American economy currently experiencing a jobless recovery?
By: Ringo Bones
The DOW Industrial Average is now “safely” entrenched in the 11,000-point mark and yet the current jobless rate in the U.S. has now crept closer to 10% - comparable to the record unemployment rate spikes of the past 30 years. And yet, there are obvious signs that America’s economic health had already recovered since the 2008 global credit crunch – like the slowly creeping price rise of crude oil and other indicators. Given the current economic data, is the U.S. now currently experiencing a jobless economic recovery?
In an October 22, 2010 interview on the Bloomberg channel, Professor Alan Blinder of Princeton University says that basing on current economic data America won’t be experiencing a long-term jobless economic recovery because America’s current jobless rate is a cyclical jobless rate as opposed to a structural jobless rate. That is, America’s current jobless rate – being cyclical in nature – could easily go down once the economy improves, as opposed in a structural jobless rate where the unemployment rate stays at a fixed rate – and at a rather high percentage rate – even if the economy improves.
Most U.S. economists – including Professor Blinder – safely concludes that the current U.S. unemployment data is overwhelmingly cyclical, as opposed to structural, and could return to the previous natural unemployment rate of slightly below 5% once the U.S. economy further improves. Which could spells further good news for the U.S. economy since 70% of the U.S. GDP is due to retail purchases.
But what if the unemployment problem in the U.S. turns out to be a markedly structural jobless rate rather than a cyclical jobless rate? Well, given that the economic nerve centers in the U.S. are now computerized and largely robotic, America could well experience a true jobless recovery with a structural unemployment rate framing the backdrop of an economic prosperity with a 10% or more jobless rate.
Worse still, in an economic climate marked by structural jobless rates, the U.S. economy might become too dependent on the markedly dubious wealth manipulation industry in the murky world of investment banking. Like superfast high-frequency trading which – from time to time – is still prone to market meltdown and market crashes like the recent one that happened back in May 6, 2010.
By: Ringo Bones
The DOW Industrial Average is now “safely” entrenched in the 11,000-point mark and yet the current jobless rate in the U.S. has now crept closer to 10% - comparable to the record unemployment rate spikes of the past 30 years. And yet, there are obvious signs that America’s economic health had already recovered since the 2008 global credit crunch – like the slowly creeping price rise of crude oil and other indicators. Given the current economic data, is the U.S. now currently experiencing a jobless economic recovery?
In an October 22, 2010 interview on the Bloomberg channel, Professor Alan Blinder of Princeton University says that basing on current economic data America won’t be experiencing a long-term jobless economic recovery because America’s current jobless rate is a cyclical jobless rate as opposed to a structural jobless rate. That is, America’s current jobless rate – being cyclical in nature – could easily go down once the economy improves, as opposed in a structural jobless rate where the unemployment rate stays at a fixed rate – and at a rather high percentage rate – even if the economy improves.
Most U.S. economists – including Professor Blinder – safely concludes that the current U.S. unemployment data is overwhelmingly cyclical, as opposed to structural, and could return to the previous natural unemployment rate of slightly below 5% once the U.S. economy further improves. Which could spells further good news for the U.S. economy since 70% of the U.S. GDP is due to retail purchases.
But what if the unemployment problem in the U.S. turns out to be a markedly structural jobless rate rather than a cyclical jobless rate? Well, given that the economic nerve centers in the U.S. are now computerized and largely robotic, America could well experience a true jobless recovery with a structural unemployment rate framing the backdrop of an economic prosperity with a 10% or more jobless rate.
Worse still, in an economic climate marked by structural jobless rates, the U.S. economy might become too dependent on the markedly dubious wealth manipulation industry in the murky world of investment banking. Like superfast high-frequency trading which – from time to time – is still prone to market meltdown and market crashes like the recent one that happened back in May 6, 2010.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Is Currency Intervention Legal?
Even though countries fortunate enough not to resort to one often look down at countries that do in order to get out of a bind, is the act of currency intervention even legal?
By: Ringo Bones
So far there’s still no legal precedent of any country subjected to punitive UN Security Council sanctions whenever they resort to high-level currency intervention in order to get out of a current economic bind. The world’s leading economists recently criticized the wisdom and sustainability of the Bank of Japan’s latest attempt at currency intervention, primarily done in order to lower the value of their super-strong yen in order to make Japanese exports globally competitive again. To those still unfamiliar with currency intervention, it goes as follows.
Currency intervention is the action taken by of one or more governments, central banks, or currency speculators for the purpose of increasing or reducing the value of a particular currency against another currency. Most economists have a consensus view that currency intervention – more often than not – fizzle out quite quickly since the funds used to make a particular currency artificially low or high in value is ultimately limited in comparison to the level of international trade that floats it as its true arbiter of value.
The value of the yen recently became too strong for its own good because many speculators and some governments – like the Peoples Republic of China – has used it as a safe haven investment. The Bank of Japan’s funds being used to reduce the value of the yen back to just make Japanese export products competitive is ultimately limited in comparison to the war-chest of the various global currency speculators and the Beijing government; Making the Bank of Japan’s first currency intervention since March 2004 ultimately an exercise in economic futility.
The Mainland Chinese currency – the yuan – has a value ultimately determined by the country’s volume of trade with the international market, as do most floating currencies these days. While the US government - especially US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner - is still irked by the Beijing government’s “suspected” subsidizing of the yuan in order to keep its value artificially low in order to make China’s exports unfairly competitive.
As the US government is already in the process of legislating laws to charge punitive tariffs against Chinese goods imported into the US if Beijing doesn’t intervene to strengthen the value of the yuan. Even though this move reeks of protectionism, the legal gray area that currency intervention has carved itself a niche into is by no means free of moral hazards.
George Soros, the most famous billionaire who single-handedly performed his own successfully executed currency intervention back Black Wednesday of 1992 never spent a time in jail despite of famously known for “breaking the Bank of England”. With an estimated current net worth of around 11-billion US dollars, Soros is ranked by Forbes as the 29th richest person in the world - and probably the most notorious single-proprietorship currency speculator.
With such wealth and influence, Soros can for all intents and purposes practically make up his own “moral sensibilities” as he goes. In 1997, he managed to bring the economy of South-East Asia to its knees by performing his “one-man” currency speculation that triggered the Asian financial crisis of 1997 just because Soros is pissed when the Association of South-East Asian Nations or ASEAN welcomed Myanmar – and the country’s despotic regime - as a member.
So is currency intervention legal? I’m afraid so, but within the legal gray area of a niche that it has managed to carve itself into I just hope that central banks, currency speculators and eccentric billionaires that use it consider the moral hazards that inevitably and inextricably come with it. After all, an overwhelming majority of us still resort to crummy jobs just to earn money.
By: Ringo Bones
So far there’s still no legal precedent of any country subjected to punitive UN Security Council sanctions whenever they resort to high-level currency intervention in order to get out of a current economic bind. The world’s leading economists recently criticized the wisdom and sustainability of the Bank of Japan’s latest attempt at currency intervention, primarily done in order to lower the value of their super-strong yen in order to make Japanese exports globally competitive again. To those still unfamiliar with currency intervention, it goes as follows.
Currency intervention is the action taken by of one or more governments, central banks, or currency speculators for the purpose of increasing or reducing the value of a particular currency against another currency. Most economists have a consensus view that currency intervention – more often than not – fizzle out quite quickly since the funds used to make a particular currency artificially low or high in value is ultimately limited in comparison to the level of international trade that floats it as its true arbiter of value.
The value of the yen recently became too strong for its own good because many speculators and some governments – like the Peoples Republic of China – has used it as a safe haven investment. The Bank of Japan’s funds being used to reduce the value of the yen back to just make Japanese export products competitive is ultimately limited in comparison to the war-chest of the various global currency speculators and the Beijing government; Making the Bank of Japan’s first currency intervention since March 2004 ultimately an exercise in economic futility.
The Mainland Chinese currency – the yuan – has a value ultimately determined by the country’s volume of trade with the international market, as do most floating currencies these days. While the US government - especially US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner - is still irked by the Beijing government’s “suspected” subsidizing of the yuan in order to keep its value artificially low in order to make China’s exports unfairly competitive.
As the US government is already in the process of legislating laws to charge punitive tariffs against Chinese goods imported into the US if Beijing doesn’t intervene to strengthen the value of the yuan. Even though this move reeks of protectionism, the legal gray area that currency intervention has carved itself a niche into is by no means free of moral hazards.
George Soros, the most famous billionaire who single-handedly performed his own successfully executed currency intervention back Black Wednesday of 1992 never spent a time in jail despite of famously known for “breaking the Bank of England”. With an estimated current net worth of around 11-billion US dollars, Soros is ranked by Forbes as the 29th richest person in the world - and probably the most notorious single-proprietorship currency speculator.
With such wealth and influence, Soros can for all intents and purposes practically make up his own “moral sensibilities” as he goes. In 1997, he managed to bring the economy of South-East Asia to its knees by performing his “one-man” currency speculation that triggered the Asian financial crisis of 1997 just because Soros is pissed when the Association of South-East Asian Nations or ASEAN welcomed Myanmar – and the country’s despotic regime - as a member.
So is currency intervention legal? I’m afraid so, but within the legal gray area of a niche that it has managed to carve itself into I just hope that central banks, currency speculators and eccentric billionaires that use it consider the moral hazards that inevitably and inextricably come with it. After all, an overwhelming majority of us still resort to crummy jobs just to earn money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
