Entertailment Page

Entertainment






👁 :1
Roman Abramovich could owe UK £1bn over tax dodge that helped bankroll Chelsea FC
Catagory:News
Author:James Oliver, Harriet Agerholm and Will Dahlgreen BBC News and File on 4 Investigate
Posted Date:01/29/2025
Posted By:utopia online

Sanctioned Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich could owe the UK up to £1bn after a botched attempt to avoid tax on hedge fund investments, evidence seen by the BBC suggests. Leaked papers reveal investments worth $6bn (£4.7bn) were routed through companies in the British Virgin Islands (BVI). But evidence suggests they were managed from the UK, so should have been taxed there. Some of the money that funded Chelsea FC when Mr Abramovich owned it can be traced back to companies involved in the scheme, the BBC and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) also found. The oligarch's lawyers said he "always obtained independent expert professional tax and legal advice" and "acted in accordance with that advice". He denies having any knowledge or being personally responsible for any unpaid tax.Joe Powell, a Labour MP who leads a Parliamentary group on fair taxation, called on HM Revenue and Customs to "urgently" investigate the case to recover what could be "very significant amounts of money that could be invested in public services". At the heart of the scheme was Eugene Shvidler, a former Chelsea FC director and a billionaire businessman in his own right, who is currently challenging the UK government's decision to sanction him for his close links to Mr Abramovich. Mr Shvidler moved to the USA after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but from 2004 until 2022 he lived in the UK, with properties in London and Surrey. A tax expert told the BBC that evidence Mr Shvidler had been making strategic decisions on the investments while based in the UK, and not in the BVI, was "a pretty big smoking gun", suggesting the companies should have been paying UK tax. Lawyers for Mr Shvidler said the BBC was basing its reporting on "confidential business documents that present an incomplete picture" and had "drawn strong and erroneous conclusions as to Mr Shvidler's conduct". They said "the structure of investments" was "the subject of very careful and detailed tax planning, undertaken and advised on by leading tax advisors". The scheme involving Mr Abramovich's hedge fund investments was revealed in a huge leak of data that the BBC and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism have been examining for over a year - thousands of files and emails from a Cyprus-based company that administered Mr Abramovich's global empire.The leaked data shows how Mr Abramovich invested a large part of the wealth he acquired in the 1990s through a corrupt deal - ploughing it into a company in the BVI called Keygrove Holdings Ltd. A network of British Virgin Islands companies owned by Keygrove invested this money - up to $6bn (£4.8bn) between the late 1990s and early 2020s - into Western hedge funds, according to the leaked files. These investments made the oligarch an estimated $3.8bn (£3.1bn) in profits over almost two decades. By making the investments through companies in the BVI, which does not levy tax on corporate profits, the scheme appears to be set up to ensure as little tax as possible was paid.It is not unusual for businesses to legally avoid paying tax on their profits by making their investments from companies in tax havens. But the companies involved must be managed and controlled offshore where they are incorporated. If an offshore company's strategic decisions are being taken by someone in the UK, its profits could be taxed as if it were a UK company. The leaked documents show how the directors of the BVI investment companies handed sweeping powers over them to Mr Shvidler, who was living in the UK and gained British citizenship in 2010. The BBC has seen "general power of attorney" documents dated between 2004 and 2008, that gave him the "broadest possible powers" and "full power to do everything and anything" to investment companies in the BVI.From 2008, Mr Shvidler appears to have acquired the power to direct the investments of Keygrove, which owned the BVI companies, through another company. Millennium Capital Ventures Ltd, which was owned indirectly by Mr Shvidler's wife and appointed him as a director in 2000, became Keygrove's investment manager. It was assigned "full power and authority to supervise and direct" the investment of the assets, "all without prior consultation with client".Further evidence of Mr Shvidler's crucial role in the investment decisions of the BVI companies emerged in a court case brought in September 2023 by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against a New York firm called Concord Management. The SEC filing says that Concord had only one client, since identified as Mr Abramovich. The company advised on investment decisions for the oligarch's BVI companies. It identifies a "longtime close associate" of Mr Abramovich, referred to as "Person B", who "made investment decisions" for Mr Abramovich. It says he was "the point of contact for receiving investment advice" and "for either deciding or communicating the decision whether to go forward with recommended transactions". Using the leaked documents, the BBC was able to identify "Person B" as Eugene Shvidler. The evidence suggests Mr Shvidler was making the decisions described by the SEC, managing and controlling Mr Abramovich's investments, from the UK rather than the BVI.Tax expert Rita de le Feria told the BBC that evidence a UK resident, such as Mr Shvidler, was taking "strategic big decisions" on the hedge fund investments was a "clear indication" the huge profits should have been taxed by the UK. "I think this is a pretty big smoking gun. That would be, again, strong evidence that the effective management of the company was not taking place in the BVI," she said. Mr Shvidler's lawyers said there can be "no question of Mr Shvidler, either knowingly or negligently, being involved in an unlawful scheme to avoid paying tax". Lawyers for Mr Abramovich said that in addition to the advice he obtained over his tax affairs, he "expects that similar advice was sought" by those with responsibility for running companies related to him. The leaked documents also reveal how large amounts of the untaxed profits from Mr Abramovich's hedge fund investments passed through a network of the oligarch's companies before flowing into Chelsea FC. The hedge fund investments flowed back into his companies in the BVI and then into Keygrove, their parent company. Keygrove then loaned out money to other companies in Mr Abramovich's network, which in turn lent money to Camberley International Investments Ltd - a company set up to bankroll Chelsea FC. By 2021, when Chelsea won the Champions League, Club World Cup and UEFA Super Cup, hundreds of millions of dollars in loans to the club could be traced back to companies benefiting from Mr Abramovich's untaxed hedge fund investments.If HMRC were to investigate, how much could Mr Abramovich or the companies concerned owe? We have assessed the profits made by the investment companies in the BVI from 1999 to 2018. The leaked documents only contain complete accounts for the companies investing in hedge funds from 2013 to 2018. But we can estimate how much money the companies involved were likely to have made over the entire period by looking at their "revenue reserves". These are profits kept in the businesses, rather than being paid out to shareholders. By the end of 2018 this amounted to $3.8bn. Applying historical UK corporation tax and currency conversion rates to the revenue reserves up to 2012, and the yearly profits to 2018, amounts to a potential tax bill of more than £500m owed to HMRCBut in the event of an enquiry into unpaid tax, HMRC can also impose late payment interest and penalties for failure to notify the authorities. If tax has gone unpaid, then depending on whether an investigation concluded those responsible knew but did not tell HMRC, or whether they did not know, the total amount due could range from almost £700m to over £1bn. There is a possibility that some tax on the profits could not be recovered, as HMRC investigations can only go back a maximum of 20 years. However, our calculations are also likely to be an underestimate, because we have applied the lowest rate of corporation tax that existed between 1999 and 2012, and it is possible profits had been extracted from the companies in that period that we have not included in our sums. In any event, Mr Abramovich's tax bill could dwarf the £653m bill imposed on Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone in 2023. Frozen funds Following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the British government allowed Roman Abramovich to sell Chelsea FC to Todd Boehly. It did so on the condition that £2.5bn from the proceeds would be donated to charities supporting victims of the war in Ukraine. Nearly three years later, the money still sits in a frozen Barclays bank account, reportedly due to disagreement over how it should be spent, with Mr Abramovich wanting the money to go to "all the victims" of the war, and the UK government insisting it should be spent solely on humanitarian aid in Ukraine. The BBC's investigation suggests that, just as Ukrainians are waiting for money from the former Chelsea boss, so is the British taxpayer.


Type:Social
👁 :315
MONEY AND GOODS
Catagory:Reading
Author:Henry Ford Samuel Crowther
Posted Date:01/28/2025
Posted By:utopia online

The primary object of a manufacturing business is to produce, and if that objective is always kept, finance becomes a wholly secondary matter that has largely to do with bookkeeping. My own financial operations have been very simple. I started with the policy of buying and selling for cash, keeping a large fund of cash always on hand, taking full advantage of all discounts, and collecting interest on bank balances. I regard a bank principally as a place in which it is safe and convenient to keep money. The minutes we spend on a competitor's business we lose on our own. The minutes we spend in becoming expert in finance we lose in production. The place to finance a manufacturing business is the shop, and not the bank. I would not say that a man in business needs to know nothing at all about finance, but he is better off knowing too little than too much, for if he becomes too expert he will get into the way of thinking that he can borrow money instead of earning it and then he will borrow more money to pay back what he has borrowed, and instead of being a business man he will be a note juggler, trying to keep in the air a regular flock of bonds and notes. If he is a really expert juggler, he may keep going quite a long time in this fashion, but some day he is bound to make a miss and the whole collection will come tumbling down around him. Manufacturing is not to be confused with banking, and I think that there is a tendency for too many business men to mix up in banking and for too many bankers to mix up in business. The tendency is to distort the true purposes of both business and banking and that hurts both of them. The money has to come out of the shop, not out of the bank, and I have found that the shop will answer every possible requirement, and in one case, when it was believed that the company was rather seriously in need of funds, the shop when called on raised a larger sum than any bank in this country could loan. We have been thrown into finance mostly in the way of denial. Some years back we had to keep standing a denial that the Ford Motor Company was owned by the Standard Oil Company and with that denial, for convenience's sake, we coupled a denial that we were connected with any other concern or that we intended to sell cars by mail. Last year the best-liked rumour was that we were down in Wall Street hunting for money. I did not bother to deny that. It takes too much time to deny everything. Instead, we demonstrated that we did not need any money. Since then I have heard nothing more about being financed by Wall Street. We are not against borrowing money and we are not against bankers. We are against trying to make borrowed money take the place of work. We are against the kind of banker who regards a business as a melon to be cut. The thing is to keep money and borrowing and finance generally in their proper place, and in order to do that one has to consider exactly for what the money is needed and how it is going to be paid off. Money is only a tool in business. It is just a part of the machinery. You might as well borrow 100,000 lathes as $100,000 if the trouble is inside your business. More lathes will not cure it; neither will more money. Only heavier doses of brains and thought and wise courage can cure. A business that misuses what it has will continue to misuse what it can get. The point is—cure the misuse. When that is done, the business will begin to make its own money, just as a repaired human body begins to make sufficient pure blood. Borrowing may easily become an excuse for not boring into the trouble. Borrowing may easily become a sop for laziness and pride. Some business men are too lazy to get into overalls and go down to see what is the matter. Or they are too proud to permit the thought that anything they have originated could go wrong. But the laws of business are like the law of gravity, and the man who opposes them feels their power. Borrowing for expansion is one thing; borrowing to make up for mismanagement and waste is quite another. You do not want money for the latter—for the reason that money cannot do the job. Waste is corrected by economy; mismanagement is corrected by brains. Neither of these correctives has anything to do with money. Indeed, money under certain circumstances is their enemy. And many a business man thanks his stars for the pinch which showed him that his best capital was in his own brains and not in bank loans. Borrowing under certain circumstances is just like a drunkard taking another drink to cure the effect of the last one. It does not do what it is expected to do. It simply increases the difficulty. Tightening up the loose places in a business is much more profitable than any amount of new capital at 7 per cent. The internal ailments of business are the ones that require most attention. "Business" in the sense of trading with the people is largely a matter of filling the wants of the people. If you make what they need, and sell it at a price which makes possession a help and not a hardship, then you will do business as long as there is business to do. People buy what helps them just as naturally as they drink water. But the process of making the article will require constant care. Machinery wears out and needs to be restored. Men grow uppish, lazy, or careless. A business is men and machines united in the production of a commodity, and both the man and the machines need repairs and replacements. Sometimes it is the men "higher up" who most need revamping—and they themselves are always the last to recognize it. When a business becomes congested with bad methods; when a business becomes ill through lack of attention to one or more of its functions; when executives sit comfortably back in their chairs as if the plans they inaugurated are going to keep them going forever; when business becomes a mere plantation on which to live, and not a big work which one has to do—then you may expect trouble. You will wake up some fine morning and find yourself doing more business than you have ever done before—and getting less out of it. You find yourself short of money. You can borrow money. And you can do it, oh, so easily. People will crowd money on you. It is the most subtle temptation the young business man has. But if you do borrow money you are simply giving a stimulant to whatever may be wrong. You feed the disease. Is a man more wise with borrowed money than he is with his own? Not as a usual thing. To borrow under such conditions is to mortgage a declining property. The time for a business man to borrow money, if ever, is when he does not need it. That is, when he does not need it as a substitute for the things he ought himself to do. If a man's business is in excellent condition and in need of expansion, it is comparatively safe to borrow. But if a business is in need of money through mismanagement, then the thing to do is to get into the business and correct the trouble from the inside—not poultice it with loans from the outside. My financial policy is the result of my sales policy. I hold that it is better to sell a large number of articles at a small profit than to sell a few at a large profit. This enables a larger number of people to buy and it gives a larger number of men employment at good wages. It permits the planning of production, the elimination of dull seasons, and the waste of carrying an idle plant. Thus results a suitable, continuous business, and if you will think it over, you will discover that most so-called urgent financing is made necessary because of a lack of planned, continuous business. Reducing prices is taken by the short-sighted to be the same as reducing the income of a business. It is very difficult to deal with that sort of a mind because it is so totally lacking in even the background knowledge of what business is. For instance, I was once asked, when contemplating a reduction of eighty dollars a car, whether on a production of five hundred thousand cars this would not reduce the income of the company by forty million dollars. Of course if one sold only five hundred thousand cars at the new price, the income would be reduced forty million dollars—which is an interesting mathematical calculation that has nothing whatsoever to do with business, because unless you reduce the price of an article the sales do not continuously increase and therefore the business has no stability. If a business is not increasing, it is bound to be decreasing, and a decreasing business always needs a lot of financing. Old-time business went on the doctrine that prices should always be kept up to the highest point at which people will buy. Really modern business has to take the opposite view. Bankers and lawyers can rarely appreciate this fact. They confuse inertia with stability. It is perfectly beyond their comprehension that the price should ever voluntarily be reduced. That is why putting the usual type of banker or lawyer into the management of a business is courting disaster. Reducing prices increases the volume and disposes of finance, provided one regards the inevitable profit as a trust fund with which to conduct more and better business. Our profit, because of the rapidity of the turnover in the business and the great volume of sales, has, no matter what the price at which the product was sold, always been large. We have had a small profit per article but a large aggregate profit. The profit is not constant. After cutting the prices, the profits for a time run low, but then the inevitable economies begin to get in their work and the profits go high again. But they are not distributed as dividends. I have always insisted on the payment of small dividends and the company has to-day no stockholders who wanted a different policy. I regard business profits above a small percentage as belonging more to the business than to the stockholders. The stockholders, to my way of thinking, ought to be only those who are active in the business and who will regard the company as an instrument of service rather than as a machine for making money. If large profits are made—and working to serve forces them to be large—then they should be in part turned back into the business so that it may be still better fitted to serve, and in part passed on to the purchaser. During one year our profits were so much larger than we expected them to be that we voluntarily returned fifty dollars to each purchaser of a car. We felt that unwittingly we had overcharged the purchaser by that much. My price policy and hence my financial policy came up in a suit brought against the company several years ago to compel the payment of larger dividends. On the witness stand I gave the policy then in force and which is still in force. It is this: In the first place, I hold that it is better to sell a large number of cars at a reasonably small margin than to sell fewer cars at a large margin of profit. I hold this because it enables a large number of people to buy and enjoy the use of a car and because it gives a larger number of men employment at good wages. Those are aims I have in life. But I would not be counted a success; I would be, in fact, a flat failure if I could not accomplish that and at the same time make a fair amount of profit for myself and the men associated with me in business. This policy I hold is good business policy because it works—because with each succeeding year we have been able to put our car within the reach of greater and greater numbers, give employment to more and more men, and, at the same time, through the volume of business, increase our own profits beyond anything we had hoped for or even dreamed of when we started. Bear in mind, every time you reduce the price of the car without reducing the quality, you increase the possible number of purchasers. There are many men who will pay $360 for a car who would not pay $440. We had in round numbers 500,000 buyers of cars on the $440 basis, and I figure that on the $360 basis we can increase the sales to possibly 800,000 cars for the year—less profit on each car, but more cars, more employment of labour, and in the end we shall get all the total profit we ought to make. And let me say right here, that I do not believe that we should make such an awful profit on our cars. A reasonable profit is right, but not too much. So it has been my policy to force the price of the car down as fast as production would permit, and give the benefits to users and labourers—with resulting surprisingly enormous benefits to ourselves. This policy does not agree with the general opinion that a business is to be managed to the end that the stockholders can take out the largest possible amount of cash. Therefore I do not want stockholders in the ordinary sense of the term—they do not help forward the ability to serve. My ambition is to employ more and more men and to spread, in so far as I am able, the benefits of the industrial system that we are working to found; we want to help build lives and homes. This requires that the largest share of the profits be put back into productive enterprise. Hence we have no place for the non-working stockholders. The working stockholder is more anxious to increase his opportunity to serve than to bank dividends. If it at any time became a question between lowering wages or abolishing dividends, I would abolish dividends. That time is not apt to come, for, as I have pointed out, there is no economy in low wages. It is bad financial policy to reduce wages because it also reduces buying power. If one believes that leadership brings responsibility, then a part of that responsibility is in seeing that those whom one leads shall have an adequate opportunity to earn a living. Finance concerns not merely the profit or solvency of a company; it also comprehends the amount of money that the company turns back to the community through wages. There is no charity in this. There is no charity in proper wages. It is simply that no company can be said to be stable which is not so well managed that it can afford a man an opportunity to do a great deal of work and therefore to earn a good wage. There is something sacred about wages—they represent homes and families and domestic destinies. People ought to tread very carefully when approaching wages. On the cost sheet, wages are mere figures; out in the world, wages are bread boxes and coal bins, babies' cradles and children's education—family comforts and contentment. On the other hand, there is something just as sacred about capital which is used to provide the means by which work can be made productive. Nobody is helped if our industries are sucked dry of their life-blood. There is something just as sacred about a shop that employs thousands of men as there is about a home. The shop is the mainstay of all the finer things which the home represents. If we want the home to be happy, we must contrive to keep the shop busy. The whole justification of the profits made by the shop is that they are used to make doubly secure the homes dependent on that shop, and to create more jobs for other men. If profits go to swell a personal fortune, that is one thing; if they go to provide a sounder basis for business, better working conditions, better wages, more extended employment—that is quite another thing. Capital thus employed should not be carelessly tampered with. It is for the service of all, though it may be under the direction of one. Profits belong in three places: they belong to the business—to keep it steady, progressive, and sound. They belong to the men who helped produce them. And they belong also, in part, to the public. A successful business is profitable to all three of these interests—planner, producer, and purchaser. People whose profits are excessive when measured by any sound standard should be the first to cut prices. But they never are. They pass all their extra costs down the line until the whole burden is borne by the consumer; and besides doing that, they charge the consumer a percentage on the increased charges. Their whole business philosophy is: "Get while the getting is good." They are the speculators, the exploiters, the no-good element that is always injuring legitimate business. There is nothing to be expected from them. They have no vision. They cannot see beyond their own cash registers. These people can talk more easily about a 10 or 20 per cent. cut in wages than they can about a 10 or 20 per cent. cut in profits. But a business man, surveying the whole community in all its interests and wishing to serve that community, ought to be able to make his contribution to stability. It has been our policy always to keep on hand a large amount of cash—the cash balance in recent years has usually been in excess of fifty million dollars. This is deposited in banks all over the country, we do not borrow but we have established lines of credit, so that if we so cared we might raise a very large amount of money by bank borrowing. But keeping the cash reserve makes borrowing unnecessary—our provision is only to be prepared to meet an emergency. I have no prejudice against proper borrowing. It is merely that I do not want to run the danger of having the control of the business and hence the particular idea of service to which I am devoted taken into other hands. A considerable part of finance is in the overcoming of seasonal operation. The flow of money ought to be nearly continuous. One must work steadily in order to work profitably. Shutting down involves great waste. It brings the waste of unemployment of men, the waste of unemployment of equipment, and the waste of restricted future sales through the higher prices of interrupted production. That has been one of the problems we had to meet. We could not manufacture cars to stock during the winter months when purchases are less than in spring or summer. Where or how could any one store half a million cars? And if stored, how could they be shipped in the rush season? And who would find the money to carry such a stock of cars even if they could be stored? Seasonal work is hard on the working force. Good mechanics will not accept jobs that are good for only part of the year. To work in full force twelve months of the year guarantees workmen of ability, builds up a permanent manufacturing organization, and continually improves the product—the men in the factory, through uninterrupted service, become more familiar with the operations. The factory must build, the sales department must sell, and the dealer must buy cars all the year through, if each would enjoy the maximum profit to be derived from the business. If the retail buyer will not consider purchasing except in "seasons," a campaign of education needs to be waged, proving the all-the-year-around value of a car rather than the limited-season value. And while the educating is being done, the manufacturer must build, and the dealer must buy, in anticipation of business. We were the first to meet the problem in the automobile business. The selling of Ford cars is a merchandising proposition. In the days when every car was built to order and 50 cars a month a big output, it was reasonable to wait for the sale before ordering. The manufacturer waited for the order before building. We very shortly found that we could not do business on order. The factory could not be built large enough—even were it desirable—to make between March and August all the cars that were ordered during those months. Therefore, years ago began the campaign of education to demonstrate that a Ford was not a summer luxury but a year-round necessity. Coupled with that came the education of the dealer into the knowledge that even if he could not sell so many cars in winter as in summer it would pay him to stock in winter for the summer and thus be able to make instant delivery. Both plans have worked out; in most parts of the country cars are used almost as much in winter as in summer. It has been found that they will run in snow, ice, or mud—in anything. Hence the winter sales are constantly growing larger and the seasonal demand is in part lifted from the dealer. And he finds it profitable to buy ahead in anticipation of needs. Thus we have no seasons in the plant; the production, up until the last couple of years, has been continuous excepting for the annual shut downs for inventory. We have had an interruption during the period of extreme depression but it was an interruption made necessary in the process of readjusting ourselves to the market conditions. In order to attain continuous production and hence a continuous turning over of money we have had to plan our operations with extreme care. The plan of production is worked out very carefully each month between the sales and production departments, with the object of producing enough cars so that those in transit will take care of the orders in hand. Formerly, when we assembled and shipped cars, this was of the highest importance because we had no place in which to store finished cars. Now we ship parts instead of cars and assemble only those required for the Detroit district. That makes the planning no less important, for if the production stream and the order stream are not approximately equal we should be either jammed with unsold parts or behind in our orders. When you are turning out the parts to make 4,000 cars a day, just a very little carelessness in overestimating orders will pile up a finished inventory running into the millions. That makes the balancing of operations an exceedingly delicate matter. In order to earn the proper profit on our narrow margin we must have a rapid turnover. We make cars to sell, not to store, and a month's unsold production would turn into a sum the interest on which alone would be enormous. The production is planned a year ahead and the number of cars to be made in each month of the year is scheduled, for of course it is a big problem to have the raw materials and such parts as we still buy from the outside flowing in consonance with production. We can no more afford to carry large stocks of finished than we can of raw material. Everything has to move in and move out. And we have had some narrow escapes. Some years ago the plant of the Diamond Manufacturing Company burned down. They were making radiator parts for us and the brass parts—tubings and castings. We had to move quickly or take a big loss. We got together the heads of all our departments, the pattern-makers and the draughtsmen. They worked from twenty-four to forty-eight hours on a stretch. They made new patterns; the Diamond Company leased a plant and got some machinery in by express. We furnished the other equipment for them and in twenty days they were shipping again. We had enough stock on hand to carry us over, say, for seven or eight days, but that fire prevented us shipping cars for ten or fifteen days. Except for our having stock ahead it would have held us up for twenty days—and our expenses would have gone right on. To repeat. The place in which to finance is the shop. It has never failed us, and once, when it was thought that we were hard up for money, it served rather conclusively to demonstrate how much better finance can be conducted from the inside than from the outside.


Type:Technology
👁 :220
WHY NOT ALWAYS HAVE GOOD BUSINESS?
Catagory:Reading
Author:Henry Ford Samuel Crowther
Posted Date:01/28/2025
Posted By:utopia online

The employer has to live by the year. The workman has to live by the year. But both of them, as a rule, work by the week. They get an order or a job when they can and at the price they can. During what is called a prosperous time, orders and jobs are plentiful. During a "dull" season they are scarce. Business is always either feasting or fasting and is always either "good" or "bad." Although there is never a time when everyone has too much of this world's goods—when everyone is too comfortable or too happy—there come periods when we have the astounding spectacle of a world hungry for goods and an industrial machine hungry for work and the two—the demand and the means of satisfying it—held apart by a money barrier. Both manufacturing and employment are in-and-out affairs. Instead of a steady progression we go ahead by fits and starts—now going too fast, now stopping altogether. When a great many people want to buy, there is said to be a shortage of goods. When nobody wants to buy, there is said to be an overproduction of goods. I know that we have always had a shortage of goods, but I do not believe we have ever had an overproduction. We may have, at a particular time, too much of the wrong kind of goods. That is not overproduction—that is merely headless production. We may also have great stocks of goods at too high prices. That is not overproduction—it is either bad manufacturing or bad financing. Is business good or bad according to the dictates of fate? Must we accept the conditions as inevitable? Business is good or bad as we make it so. The only reason for growing crops, for mining, or for manufacturing, is that people may eat, keep warm, have clothing to wear, and articles to use. There is no other possible reason, yet that reason is forced into the background and instead we have operations carried on, not to the end of service, but to the end of making money—and this because we have evolved a system of money that instead of being a convenient medium of exchange, is at times a barrier to exchange. Of this more later. We suffer frequent periods of so-called bad luck only because we manage so badly. If we had a vast crop failure, I can imagine the country going hungry, but I cannot conceive how it is that we tolerate hunger and poverty, when they grow solely out of bad management, and especially out of the bad management that is implicit in an unreasoned financial structure. Of course the war upset affairs in this country. It upset the whole world. There would have been no war had management been better. But the war alone is not to blame. The war showed up a great number of the defects of the financial system, but more than anything else it showed how insecure is business supported only by a money foundation. I do not know whether bad business is the result of bad financial methods or whether the wrong motive in business created bad financial methods, but I do know that, while it would be wholly undesirable to try to overturn the present financial system, it is wholly desirable to reshape business on the basis of service. Then a better financial system will have to come. The present system will drop out because it will have no reason for being. The process will have to be a gradual one. The start toward the stabilization of his own affairs may be made by any one. One cannot achieve perfect results acting alone, but as the example begins to sink in there will be followers, and thus in the course of time we can hope to put inflated business and its fellow, depressed business, into a class with small-pox—that is, into the class of preventable diseases. It is perfectly possible, with the reorganization of business and finance that is bound to come about, to take the ill effect of seasons, if not the seasons, out of industry, and also the periodic depressions. Farming is already in process of reorganization. When industry and farming are fully reorganized they will be complementary; they belong together, not apart. As an indication, take our valve plant. We established it eighteen miles out in the country so that the workers could also be farmers. By the use of machinery farming need not consume more than a fraction of the time it now consumes; the time nature requires to produce is much larger than that required for the human contribution of seeding, cultivating, and harvesting; in many industries where the parts are not bulky it does not make much difference where they are made. By the aid of water power they can well be made out in farming country. Thus we can, to a much larger degree than is commonly known, have farmer-industrialists who both farm and work under the most scientific and healthful conditions. That arrangement will care for some seasonal industries; others can arrange a succession of products according to the seasons and the equipment, and still others can, with more careful management, iron out their seasons. A complete study of any specific problem will show the way. The periodic depressions are more serious because they seem so vast as to be uncontrollable. Until the whole reorganization is brought about, they cannot be wholly controlled, but each man in business can easily do something for himself and while benefiting his own organization in a very material way, also help others. The Ford production has not reflected good times or bad times; it has kept right on regardless of conditions excepting from 1917 to 1919, when the factory was turned over to war work. The year 1912-1913 was supposed to be a dull one; although now some call it "normal"; we all but doubled our sales; 1913-1914 was dull; we increased our sales by more than a third. The year 1920-1921 is supposed to have been one of the most depressed in history; we sold a million and a quarter cars, or about five times as many as in 1913-1914—the "normal year." There is no particular secret in it. It is, as is everything else in our business, the inevitable result of the application of a principle which can be applied to any business. We now have a minimum wage of six dollars a day paid without reservation. The people are sufficiently used to high wages to make supervision unnecessary. The minimum wage is paid just as soon as a worker has qualified in his production—which is a matter that depends upon his own desire to work. We have put our estimate of profits into the wage and are now paying higher wages than during the boom times after the war. But we are, as always, paying them on the basis of work. And that the men do work is evidenced by the fact that although six dollars a day is the minimum wage, about 60 per cent. of the workers receive above the minimum. The six dollars is not a flat but a minimum wage. Consider first the fundamentals of prosperity. Progress is not made by pulling off a series of stunts. Each step has to be regulated. A man cannot expect to progress without thinking. Take prosperity. A truly prosperous time is when the largest number of people are getting all they can legitimately eat and wear, and are in every sense of the word comfortable. It is the degree of the comfort of the people at large—not the size of the manufacturer's bank balance—that evidences prosperity. The function of the manufacturer is to contribute to this comfort. He is an instrument of society and he can serve society only as he manages his enterprises so as to turn over to the public an increasingly better product at an ever-decreasing price, and at the same time to pay to all those who have a hand in his business an ever-increasing wage, based upon the work they do. In this way and in this way alone can a manufacturer or any one in business justify his existence. We are not much concerned with the statistics and the theories of the economists on the recurring cycles of prosperity and depression. They call the periods when prices are high "prosperous." A really prosperous period is not to be judged on the prices that manufacturers are quoting for articles. We are not concerned with combinations of words. If the prices of goods are above the incomes of the people, then get the prices down to the incomes. Ordinarily, business is conceived as starting with a manufacturing process and ending with a consumer. If that consumer does not want to buy what the manufacturer has to sell him and has not the money to buy it, then the manufacturer blames the consumer and says that business is bad, and thus, hitching the cart before the horse, he goes on his way lamenting. Isn't that nonsense? Does the manufacturer exist for the consumer or does the consumer exist for the manufacturer? If the consumer will not—says he cannot—buy what the manufacturer has to offer, is that the fault of the manufacturer or the consumer? Or is nobody at fault? If nobody is at fault then the manufacturer must go out of business. But what business ever started with the manufacturer and ended with the consumer? Where does the money to make the wheels go round come from? From the consumer, of course. And success in manufacture is based solely upon an ability to serve that consumer to his liking. He may be served by quality or he may be served by price. He is best served by the highest quality at the lowest price, and any man who can give to the consumer the highest quality at the lowest price is bound to be a leader in business, whatever the kind of an article he makes. There is no getting away from this. Then why flounder around waiting for good business? Get the costs down by better management. Get the prices down to the buying power. Cutting wages is the easiest and most slovenly way to handle the situation, not to speak of its being an inhuman way. It is, in effect, throwing upon labour the incompetency of the managers of the business. If we only knew it, every depression is a challenge to every manufacturer to put more brains into his business—to overcome by management what other people try to overcome by wage reduction. To tamper with wages before all else is changed, is to evade the real issue. And if the real issue is tackled first, no reduction of wages may be necessary. That has been my experience. The immediate practical point is that, in the process of adjustment, someone will have to take a loss. And who can take a loss except those who have something which they can afford to lose? But the expression, "take a loss," is rather misleading. Really no loss is taken at all. It is only a giving up of a certain part of the past profits in order to gain more in the future. I was talking not long since with a hardware merchant in a small town. He said: "I expect to take a loss of $10,000 on my stock. But of course, you know, it isn't really like losing that much. We hardware men have had pretty good times. Most of my stock was bought at high prices, but I have already sold several stocks and had the benefit of them. Besides, the ten thousand dollars which I say I will lose are not the same kind of dollars that I used to have. They are, in a way, speculative dollars. They are not the good dollars that bought 100 cents' worth. So, though my loss may sound big, it is not big. And at the same time I am making it possible for the people in my town to go on building their houses without being discouraged by the size of the hardware item." He is a wise merchant. He would rather take less profit and keep business moving than keep his stock at high prices and bar the progress of his community. A man like that is an asset to a town. He has a clear head. He is better able to swing the adjustment through his inventory than through cutting down the wages of his delivery men—through cutting down their ability to buy. He did not sit around holding on to his prices and waiting for something to turn up. He realized what seems to have been quite generally forgotten—that it is part of proprietorship every now and again to lose money. We had to take our loss. Our sales eventually fell off as all other sales fell off. We had a large inventory and, taking the materials and parts in that inventory at their cost price, we could not turn out a car at a price lower than we were asking, but that was a price which on the turn of business was higher than people could or wanted to pay. We closed down to get our bearings. We were faced with making a cut of $17,000,000 in the inventory or taking a much larger loss than that by not doing business. So there was no choice at all. That is always the choice that a man in business has. He can take the direct loss on his books and go ahead and do business or he can stop doing business and take the loss of idleness. The loss of not doing business is commonly a loss greater than the actual money involved, for during the period of idleness fear will consume initiative and, if the shutdown is long enough, there will be no energy left over to start up with again. There is no use waiting around for business to improve. If a manufacturer wants to perform his function, he must get his price down to what people will pay. There is always, no matter what the condition, a price that people can and will pay for a necessity, and always, if the will is there, that price can be met. It cannot be met by lowering quality or by shortsighted economy, which results only in a dissatisfied working force. It cannot be met by fussing or buzzing around. It can be met only by increasing the efficiency of production and, viewed in this fashion, each business depression, so-called, ought to be regarded as a challenge to the brains of the business community. Concentrating on prices instead of on service is a sure indication of the kind of business man who can give no justification for his existence as a proprietor. This is only another way of saying that sales should be made on the natural basis of real value, which is the cost of transmuting human energy into articles of trade and commerce. But that simple formula is not considered business-like. It is not complex enough. We have "business" which takes the most honest of all human activities and makes them subject to the speculative shrewdness of men who can produce false shortages of food and other commodities, and thus excite in society anxiety of demand. We have false stimulation and then false numbness. Economic justice is being constantly and quite often innocently violated. You may say that it is the economic condition which makes mankind what it is; or you may say that it is mankind that makes the economic condition what it is. You will find many claiming that it is the economic system which makes men what they are. They blame our industrial system for all the faults which we behold in mankind generally. And you will find other men who say that man creates his own conditions; that if the economic, industrial, or social system is bad, it is but a reflection of what man himself is. What is wrong in our industrial system is a reflection of what is wrong in man himself. Manufacturers hesitate to admit that the mistakes of the present industrial methods are, in part at least, their own mistakes, systematized and extended. But take the question outside of a man's immediate concerns, and he sees the point readily enough. No doubt, with a less faulty human nature a less faulty social system would have grown up. Or, if human nature were worse than it is, a worse system would have grown up—though probably a worse system would not have lasted as long as the present one has. But few will claim that mankind deliberately set out to create a faulty social system. Granting without reserve that all faults of the social system are in man himself, it does not follow that he deliberately organized his imperfections and established them. We shall have to charge a great deal up to ignorance. We shall have to charge a great deal up to innocence. Take the beginnings of our present industrial system. There was no indication of how it would grow. Every new advance was hailed with joy. No one ever thought of "capital" and "labour" as hostile interests. No one ever dreamed that the very fact of success would bring insidious dangers with it. And yet with growth every imperfection latent in the system came out. A man's business grew to such proportions that he had to have more helpers than he knew by their first names; but that fact was not regretted; it was rather hailed with joy. And yet it has since led to an impersonal system wherein the workman has become something less than a person—a mere part of the system. No one believes, of course, that this dehumanizing process was deliberately invented. It just grew. It was latent in the whole early system, but no one saw it and no one could foresee it. Only prodigious and unheard-of development could bring it to light. Take the industrial idea; what is it? The true industrial idea is not to make money. The industrial idea is to express a serviceable idea, to duplicate a useful idea, by as many thousands as there are people who need it. To produce, produce; to get a system that will reduce production to a fine art; to put production on such a basis as will provide means for expansion and the building of still more shops, the production of still more thousands of useful things—that is the real industrial idea. The negation of the industrial idea is the effort to make a profit out of speculation instead of out of work. There are short-sighted men who cannot see that business is bigger than any one man's interests. Business is a process of give and take, live and let live. It is cooperation among many forces and interests. Whenever you find a man who believes that business is a river whose beneficial flow ought to stop as soon as it reaches him you find a man who thinks he can keep business alive by stopping its circulation. He would produce wealth by this stopping of the production of wealth. The principles of service cannot fail to cure bad business. Which leads us into the practical application of the principles of service and finance.


Type:Technology
👁 :92
OUR KNOWLEDGE OF EXTERNAL OBJECTS IS ONLY SENSATIONS
Catagory:Reading
Author:Alfred Binet
Posted Date:01/28/2025
Posted By:utopia online

Of late years numerous studies have been published on the conception of matter, especially by physicists, chemists, and mathematicians. Among these recent contributions to science I will quote the articles of Duhem on the Evolution of Mechanics published in 1903 in the Revue générale des Sciences, and other articles by the same author, in 1904, in the Revue de Philosophie. Duhem's views have attracted much attention, and have dealt a serious blow at the whole theory of the mechanics of matter. Let me also quote that excellent work of Dastre, La Vie et la Mort, wherein the author makes so interesting an application to biology of the new theories on energetics; the discussion between Ostwald and Brillouin on matter, in which two rival conceptions find themselves engaged in a veritable hand-to-hand struggle (Revue générale des Sciences, Nov. and Dec. 1895); the curious work of Dantec on les Lois Naturelles, in which the author ingeniously points out the different[11] sensorial districts into which science is divided, although, through a defect in logic, he accepts mechanics as the final explanation of things. And last, it is impossible to pass over, in silence, the rare works of Lord Kelvin, so full, for French readers, of unexpected suggestions, for they show us the entirely practical and empirical value which the English attach to mechanical models. My object is not to go through these great studies in detail. It is the part of mathematical and physical philosophers to develop their ideas on the inmost nature of matter, while seeking to establish theories capable of giving a satisfactory explanation of physical phenomena. This is the point of view they take up by preference, and no doubt they are right in so doing. The proper rôle of the natural sciences is to look at phenomena taken by themselves and apart from the observer. My own intention, in setting forth these same theories on matter, is to give prominence to a totally different point of view. Instead of considering physical phenomena in themselves, we shall seek to know what idea one ought to form of their nature when one takes into account that they are observed phenomena. While the physicist withdraws from consideration the part of the observer in the verification of physical phenomena, our rôle is to renounce this abstrac[12]tion, to re-establish things in their original complexity, and to ascertain in what the conception of matter consists when it is borne in mind that all material phenomena are known only in their relation to ourselves, to our bodies, our nerves, and our intelligence. This at once leads us to follow, in the exposition of the facts, an order which the physicist abandons. Since we seek to know what is the physical phenomenon we perceive, we must first enunciate this proposition, which will govern the whole of our discussion: to wit— Of the outer world we know nothing except our sensations. Before demonstrating this proposition, let us develop it by an example which will at least give us some idea of its import. Let us take as example one of those investigations in which, with the least possible recourse to reasoning, the most perfected processes of observation are employed, and in which one imagines that one is penetrating almost into the very heart of nature. We are, let us suppose, dissecting an animal. After killing it, we lay bare its viscera, examine their colour, form, dimensions, and connections; then we dissect the organs in order to ascertain their internal nature, their texture, structure, and function; then, not content with ocular anatomy, we have recourse to the perfected pro[13]cesses of histology: we take a fragment of the tissues weighing a few milligrammes, we fix it, we mount it, we make it into strips of no more than a thousandth of a millimetre thick, we colour it and place it under the microscope, we examine it with the most powerful lenses, we sketch it, and we explain it. All this work of complicated and refined observation, sometimes lasting months and years, results in a monograph containing minute descriptions of organs, of cells, and of intra-cellular structures, the whole represented and defined in words and pictures. Now, these descriptions and drawings are the display of the various sensations which the zoologist has experienced in the course of his labours; to those sensations are added the very numerous interpretations derived from the memory, reasoning, and often, also, from the imagination on the part of the scholar, the last a source at once of errors and of discoveries. But everything properly experimental in the work of the zoologist proceeds from the sensations he has felt or might have felt, and in the particular case treated of, these sensations are almost solely visual. This observation might be repeated with regard to all objects of the outer world which enter into relation with us. Whether the knowledge of them be of the common-place or of a scientific order matters little. Sensation is its limit, and[14] all objects are known to us by the sensations they produce in us, and are known to us solely in this manner. A landscape is nothing but a cluster of sensations. The outward form of a body is simply sensation; and the innermost and most delicate material structure, the last visible elements of a cell, for example, are all, in so far as we observe them with the microscope, nothing but sensation. This being understood, the question is, why we have just admitted—with the majority of authors—that we cannot really know a single object as it is in itself, and in its own nature, otherwise than by the intermediary of the sensations it provokes in us? This comes back to saying that we here require explanations on the two following points: why do we admit that we do not really perceive the objects, but only something intermediate between them and us; and why do we call this something intermediate a sensation? On this second point I will offer, for the time being, one simple remark: we use the term sensation for lack of any other to express the intermediate character of our perception of objects; and this use does not, on our part, imply any hypothesis. Especially do we leave completely in suspense the question whether sensation is a material phenomenon or a state of being of the mind. These are questions we will deal with later. For the present it must be[15] understood that the word sensation is simply a term for the something intermediate between the object and our faculty of cognition.[3] We have, therefore, simply to state why we have admitted that the external perception of objects is produced mediately or by procuration. There are a few philosophers, and those not of the lowest rank, who have thought that this intermediate character of all perception was so evident that there was no need to insist further upon it. John Stuart Mill, who was certainly and perhaps more than anything a careful logician, commences an exposition of the idealist thesis to which he was so much attached, by carelessly saying: "It goes without saying that objects are known to us through the intermediary of our senses.... The senses are equivalent to our sensations;"[4] and on those propositions he rears his whole system, "It goes without saying ..." is a trifle thoughtless. I certainly think he was wrong in not testing more carefully the solidity of his starting point. In the first place, this limit set to our knowledge of the objects which stimulate our sensations is only accepted without difficulty by well-informed [16]persons; it much astonishes the uninstructed when first explained to them. And this astonishment, although it may seem so, is not a point that can be neglected, for it proves that, in the first and simple state of our knowledge, we believe we directly perceive objects as they are. Now, if we, the cultured class, have, for the most part,[5] abandoned this primitive belief, we have only done so on certain implicit conditions, of which we must take cognisance. This is what I shall now demonstrate as clearly as I can. Take the case of an unlearned person. To prove to him that he knows sensations alone and not the bodies which excite them, a very striking argument may be employed which requires no subtle reasoning and which appeals to his observation. This is to inform him, supposing he is not aware of the fact, that, every time he has the perception of an exterior object, there is something interposed between the object and himself, and that that something is his nervous system.


Type:Event
👁 :1
Microsoft in talks to buy TikTok, Trump says
Catagory:News
Author:Nick Marsh BBC News
Posted Date:01/28/2025
Posted By:utopia online

US President Donald Trump has said Microsoft is in discussions to acquire TikTok and that he would like to see a "bidding war" over the sale of the social media app. When asked by reporters whether the US tech giant was preparing a bid, Trump replied: "I would say yes" - before adding that there was "great interest in TikTok" from several companies. Both Trump and his predecessor Joe Biden have been trying for years to force TikTok's Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to sell its US operations on national security grounds. It comes as Trump signed an executive order last week to delay a Biden Administration ban on TikTok that briefly took the app offline for its 170m users in the United States.Despite granting TikTok a 75-day reprieve from the ban, Trump had been the first president to start pressuring ByteDance to sell its app. In August 2020, ByteDance approached Microsoft as a possible buyer - something which the US company's chief executive later described as "the strangest thing". Later, TikTok chose rival Oracle as a potential partner - although that deal also never happened. Trump has previously said that he was in discussions with several parties about purchasing TikTok and expects to make a decision on the app's future within the next 30 days. A spokesperson for Microsoft said the company had "nothing to share at this time". The BBC has also reached out to TikTok for comment. Earlier on Monday, the US president had addressed a gathering of Republican politicians in Florida and spoke about the proposed sale of TikTok. "We'll see what happens. We're going to have a lot of people bidding on it," he said. "If we can save all that voice and all the jobs, and China won't be involved, we don't want China involved, but we'll see what happens," he added. Previous names linked with buying TikTok include billionaire Frank McCourt and the Canadian businessman Kevin O'Leary - a celebrity investor on Shark Tank, the US version of Dragon's Den. The biggest YouTuber in the world Jimmy Donaldson - AKA MrBeast - has also claimed he is in the running after a number of investors contacted him following an earlier tweet signalling his interest


Type:Technology
👁 :
China's Deep Seek AI shakes industry and dents America's swagger
Catagory:News
Author:BBC
Posted Date:01/28/2025
Posted By:utopia online

he speed at which the new Chinese AI app DeepSeek has shaken the technology industry, the markets and the bullish sense of American superiority in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) has been nothing short of stunning. Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen may have said it best. "DeepSeek-R1 is AI's Sputnik moment," he posted to X on Sunday, referring to the satellite which kicked off the space race. DeepSeek was the most downloaded free app on Apple's US App Store over the weekend. By Monday, the new AI chatbot had triggered a massive sell-off of major tech stocks which were in freefall as fears mounted over America's leadership in the sector. Shares of AI chip designer and recent Wall Street darling Nvidia, for example, had plunged by 17% by the time US markets closed on Monday. Or to put it in even starker terms, it lost nearly $600bn in market value which, according to Bloomberg, is the biggest drop in the history of the US stock market. This extraordinary, historic spooking can largely be attributed to something as simple as cost. And a claim by DeepSeek's developers which prompted serious questions in Silicon Valley. While ChatGPT-maker OpenAI has been haemorrhaging money - spending $5bn last year alone - DeepSeek's developers say it built this latest model for a mere $5.6m. That is a tiny fraction of the cost that AI giants like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic have relied on to develop their own models.As this dramatic moment for the sector played out, there was a palpable silence in many corners of Silicon Valley when I contacted those who are usually happy to talk. Many observers, investors, and analysts appeared stunned. Some wondered if this marked a buying opportunity. Others questioned the information DeepSeek was providing. "I still think the truth is below the surface when it comes to actually what's going on," veteran analyst Gene Munster told me on Monday. He questioned the financials DeepSeek is citing, and wondered if the startup was being subsidised or whether its numbers were correct. The chatbot is "surprisingly good, which just makes it hard to believe", he said. Regardless, DeepSeek's sudden arrival is a "flex" by China and a "black eye for US tech," to use his own words. It was just last week, after all, that OpenAI's Sam Altman and Oracle's Larry Ellison joined President Donald Trump for a news conference that really could have been a press release. The event represented peak American bullishness on AI.They announced Stargate, a joint venture that promises up to $500bn in private investment for AI infrastructure: data centers in Texas and beyond, along with a promised 100,000 new jobs. The US seemed to think its abundant data centers and control over the highest-end chips gave it a commanding lead in AI, despite China's dominance in rare-earth metals and engineering talent. Some have even seen it as a foregone conclusion that America would dominate the AI race, despite some high-profile warnings from top executives who said the country's advantages should not be taken for granted. The US may still go on to command the sector, but there is a sense that DeepSeek has shaken some of that swagger. Trump's words after the Chinese app's sudden emergence in recent days were probably cold comfort to the likes of Altman and Ellison. He called this moment a "wake-up call" for the American tech industry, and said finding a way to do cheaper AI is ultimately a "good thing". It is also worth noting that it was not just tech stocks that took a beating on Monday. Energy stocks did too. DeepSeek's arrival on the scene has upended many assumptions we have long held about what it takes to develop AI. Maybe that nuclear renaissance - including firing up America's Three Mile Island energy plant once again - won't be needed. Maybe it does not take so much capital, compute, and power after all. For now, the future of semiconductor giants like Nvidia remains unclear.DeepSeek says its model was developed with existing technology along with open source software that can be used and shared by anybody for free. But WIRED reports that for years, DeepSeek founder Liang Wenfung's hedge fund High-Flyer has been stockpiling the chips that form the backbone of AI – known as GPUs, or graphics processing units. The company has said its models deployed H800 chips made by Nvidia. US policy restricting sales of higher-powered chips to China might get a second-look under the new Trump administration. OpenAI's Sam Altman was mostly quiet on X Monday. But very late in the day, he wrote that DeepSeek was "impressive… particularly around what they're able to deliver for the price". "We will obviously deliver much better models and also it's legit invigorating to have a new competitor!" he wrote. It was Sputnik that truly ushered in the space age. There, too, the US was caught off guard. How its tech sector responds to this apparent surprise from a Chinese company will be interesting - and it may have added serious fuel to the AI race.


Type:Technology
👁 :85
5 Planets with Extreme (and Weird) Weather Patterns in Our Solar System
Catagory:Education
Author:-
Posted Date:01/27/2025
Posted By:utopia online

Earth isn't the only planet with extreme weather. From Venus' scorching heat to Neptune's extreme cold, here are the weirdest weather patterns in our solar system Earth has one of the most interesting weather systems. Its atmosphere is ideal for moving hot and cold air around, and a hydrological cycle allows for precipitation. But throughout our solar system, there are other planets that have more extreme and also fascinating weather patterns worth exploring. 1. Mars Mars has weather and in certain ways, it’s similar to that of Earth. For example, it has seasons and it has winds. But in other ways, it’s very different. The orbit of the planet causes the mostly carbon atmosphere to go from freezing to much warmer and it serves to kick up a global dust storm that periodically sends the Red Planet into a tizzy. The temperatures on Mars are also much more extreme than on Earth. NASA's Mars Perseverance rover, for example, has recorded temperatures ranging from negative 14 degrees Fahrenheit to negative 120 degrees Fahrenheit in a single da 2. Titan Titan is Saturn's largest moon, but it also boasts some crazy weather patterns. For starters, it has a similar hydrological cycle to Earth. But instead of water, Titan has methane. The natural gas freezes, liquifies, and turns to gas, says Jason Steffen, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “Instead of having the triple point of water, it has the triple point of methane.” Titan has a lot of the same kinds of weather patterns and erosion as Earth, with methane clouds that drop methane down to the surface of the moon and freeze into a solid. 3. Jupiter Storms on Jupiter come and go, but Jupiter’s Great Red Spot has been there for at least 400 years. “We know it because Galileo saw it,” says Steffen. It’s a long-lived high-pressure storm that’s largely a mystery. The largest and most powerful storms ever recorded on Earth are around 1,000 miles across with winds of 200 MPH. The Great Red Spot is much larger: twice the size of Earth with winds of 400 MPH. While we don’t know why it’s red or what it’s made of, we do know that a storm that size on planet Earth would be difficult to escape, hurricane warnings be damned. 4. Neptune Neptune is extremely cold, with an average temperature of negative 353 degrees Fahrenheit, and it also has among the most extreme weather in the solar system. Its winds are super strong, nine times stronger than that of Earth, averaging 1,200 MPH. In 1989, a storm was documented on Neptune and named the Great Dark Spot. It was large enough to envelop the Earth in its center. Though the storm is no longer present, others have sprung up since then in its place. 5. Venus When you’re thinking extreme, you have to think of Venus, which is the hottest planet in our solar system despite not being the closest to the sun, says Sumangala Rao, an astronomer at San Diego State University. The surface temperature on Venus is 869 degrees Fahrenheit. “It’s so hot that lead would melt on its surface,” says Rao. Nicknamed the “hellish inferno,” it’s super toasty because it has an atmosphere that’s 100 times thicker than Earth that’s dominated by carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that’s known on Earth for holding heat. Clouds made of sulfuric acid blanket Venus and rain down on its surface, but because it’s so hot, liquid evaporates long before it hits the ground. There are also no temperature variations throughout the day. Day and night are one and the same: hot, hot, hot. While no life could survive on Venus, there is some research exploring whether it could survive in the planet’s sulfuric acid clouds, says Rao. Reference Article Sources Our writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editor’s review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article: • NASA. Is There Weather on Mars? We Asked a NASA Technologist: Episode 4 • Professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Jason Steffen • NASA. Jupiter’s Great Red Spot: A Swirling Mystery • NASA. Neptune Facts • Astronomer at San Diego State University. Sumangala Rao ________________________________________ Sara Novak is a science journalist based in South Carolina. In addition to writing for Discover, her work appears in Scientific American, Popular Science, New Scientist, Sierra Magazine, Astronomy Magazine, and many more. She graduated with a bachelor’s degree in Journalism from the Grady School of Journalism at the University of Georgia. She's also a candidate for a master’s degree in science writing from Johns Hopkins University, (expected graduation 2023). • solar system • nasa


Type:Technology
👁 :65
The Iron Man
Catagory:Biography
Author:Andrew Carnegie
Posted Date:01/27/2025
Posted By:utopia online

I was born in Dunfermline, in the attic of the small one-story house, corner of Moodie Street and Priory Lane, on the 25th of November, 1835, and, as the saying is, "of poor but honest parents, of good kith and kin." Dunfermline had long been noted as the center of the damask trade in Scotland. My father, William Carnegie, was a damask weaver, the son of Andrew Carnegie after whom I was named. My Grandfather Carnegie was well known throughout the district for his wit and humor, his genial nature and irrepressible spirits. He was head of the lively ones of his day, and known far and near as the chief of their joyous club—"Patiemuir College." Upon my return to Dunfermline, after an absence of fourteen years, I remember being approached by an old man who had been told that I was the grandson of the "Professor," my grandfather's title among his cronies. He was the very picture of palsied. THE Keystone Works have always been my pet as being the parent of all the other works. But they had not been long in existence before the advantage of wrought- over cast-iron became manifest. Accordingly, to insure uniform quality, and also to make certain shapes which were not then to be obtained, we determined to embark in the manufacture of iron. My brother and I became interested with Thomas N. Miller, Henry Phipps, and Andrew Kloman in a small iron mill. Miller was the first to embark with Kloman and he brought Phipps in, lending him eight hundred dollars to buy a one-sixth interest, in November, 1861. I must not fail to record that Mr. Miller was the pioneer of our iron manufacturing projects. We were all indebted to Tom, who still lives (July 20, 1911) and sheds upon us the sweetness and light of a most lovable nature, a friend who grows more precious as the years roll by. He has softened by age, and even his outbursts against theology as antagonistic to true religion are in his fine old age much less alarming. We are all prone to grow philosophic in age, and perhaps this is well. [In re-reading this—July 19, 1912—in our retreat upon the high moors at Aultnagar, I drop a tear for my bosom friend, dear Tom Miller, who died in Pittsburgh last winter. Mrs. Carnegie and I attended his funeral. Henceforth life lacks something, lacks much—my first partner in early years, my dearest friend in old age. May I go where he is, wherever that may be. Andrew Kloman had a small steel-hammer in Allegheny City. As a superintendent of the Pennsylvania Railroad I had found that he made the best axles. He was a great mechanic—one who had discovered, what was then unknown in Pittsburgh, that whatever was worth doing with machinery was worth doing well. His German mind made him thorough. What he constructed cost enormously, but when once started it did the work it was intended to do from year's end to year's end. In those early days it was a question with axles generally whether they would run any specified time or break. There was no analysis of material, no scientific treatment of it. How much this German created! He was the first man to introduce the cold saw that cut cold iron the exact lengths. He invented upsetting machines to make bridge links, and also built the first "universal" mill in America. All these were erected at our works. When Captain Eads could not obtain the couplings for the St. Louis Bridge arches (the contractors failing to make them) and matters were at a standstill, Kloman told us that he could make them and why the others had failed. He succeeded in making them. Up to that date they were the largest semicircles that had ever been rolled. Our confidence in Mr. Kloman may be judged from the fact that when he said he could make them we unhesitatingly contracted to furnish them. I was now plunged at once into the company of coarse men, for the office was temporarily only a portion of the shops and the headquarters for the freight conductors, brakemen, and firemen. All of them had access to the same room with Superintendent Scott and myself, and they availed themselves of it. This was a different world, indeed, from that to which I had been accustomed. I was not happy about it. I ate, necessarily, of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil for the first time. But there were still the sweet and pure surroundings of home, where nothing coarse or wicked ever entered, and besides, there was the world in which I dwelt with my companions, all of them refined young men, striving to improve themselves and become respected citizens. I passed through this phase of my life detesting what was foreign to my nature and my early education. The experience with coarse men was probably beneficial because it gave me a "scunner" (disgust), to use a Scotism, at chewing or smoking tobacco, also at swearing or the use of improper language, which fortunately remained with me through life. LOOKING back to-day it seems incredible that only forty years ago (1870) chemistry in the United States was an almost unknown agent in connection with the manufacture of pig iron. It was the agency, above all others, most needful in the manufacture of iron and steel. The blast-furnace manager of that day was usually a rude bully, generally a foreigner, who in addition to his other acquirements was able to knock down a man now and then as a lesson to the other unruly spirits under him. He was supposed to diagnose the condition of the furnace by instinct, to possess some almost supernatural power of divination, like his congener in the country districts who was reputed to be able to locate an oil well or water supply by means of a hazel rod. He was a veritable quack doctor who applied whatever remedies occurred to him for the troubles of his patient. The Lucy Furnace was out of one trouble and into another, owing to the great variety of ores, limestone, and coke which were then supplied with little or no regard to their component parts. This state of affairs became intolerable to us. We finally decided to dispense with the rule-of-thumb-and-intuition manager, and to place a young man in charge of the furnace. We had a young shipping clerk, Henry M. Curry, who had distinguished himself, and it was resolved to make him manager.


Type:Social

Page 17 of 99