text:
Varieties of Keynesianism
Here's something interesting from Axel Leijonhufvud. It's a response to Luigi Pasinetti's book on Keynes, but really it's an assessment of the Keynesian revolution in general.
There really was a revolution, according to Pasinetti, and it can be dated precisely, to 1932. Leijonhufvud:
By the Spring of that year, Keynes had concluded that the Treatise could not be salvaged by a revised edition. He still gave his "Pure Theory of Money" lecture series which was largely based on it but members of his 'Circus' attended and gave him trouble. The summer of that year appears to have been a critical period. In the Fall, Keynes announced a new series of lectures with the title "The Monetary Theory of Production". The new title signaled a break with his previous work and a break with tradition. From this point onward, Keynes felt himself to be doing work that was revolutionary in nature.
What was revolutionary about these lectures was that they weren't about extending or modifying the established framework of economics, but about adopting a new starting point. A paradigm in economics can be thought of as defined by the minimal model — the model that (in Pasinetti's words) "contains those analytical features, and only those features, which the theory cannot do without." Or as I've suggested here, the minimal model is the benchmark of simplicity in terms of which Occam's razor is applied.
For the orthodox economics of Keynes's day (and ours), the minimal model was one of "real exchange" in which a given endowment of goods and a given set of preferences yielded a vector of relative prices. Money, production, time, etc. can then be introduced as extensions of this minimal model. In Keynes' "monetary production" model, on the other hand, the "analytical features which the theory cannot do without" are a set of income flows generated in production, and a set of expenditure flows out of income. The minimal model does not include any prices or quantities. Nor does it necessarily include exchange — it's natural to think of the income flows as consisting of profits and wages and the expenditure flows as consumption and investment, but they can just as naturally include taxes, interest payments, asset sales, and so on.
I don't want to suggest that the monetary production paradigm has ever been as well-defined as the real exchange paradigm. One of Leijonhufvud's main points is that there has never been a consensus on the content of the Keynesian revolution. There are many smart people who will tell you what "Keynes really meant." With due respect (and I mean it) I'm not convinced by any of them. I don't think anyone knows what Keynes really meant —including Keynes himself. The truth is, the Hicks-Patinkin-Samuelson version of Keynes is no bastard; its legitimate paternity is amply documented in the General Theory. Pasinetti quotes Joan Robinson: "There were moments when we had some trouble in getting Maynard to see what the point of his revolution really was." Which doesn't, of course, means that Hicks-Patinkin-Samuelson is the only legitimate Keynes — here even more than in most questions of theory, we have to tolerate ambiguity and cultivate the ability to hold more than one reading in mind at once.
One basic ambiguity is in that term, "monetary production." Which of those words is the important one?
For Pasinetti, the critical divide is between Keynes' theory of production and the orthodox theory of exchange. Pasinetti's production-based Keynesianism
starts from the technological imperatives stemming from the division and specialization of labor. In this context, exchange is derivative, stemming from specialization in production. How it is institutionalized and organized is a matter that the minimal production paradigm leaves open (whereas the exchange paradigm necessarily starts by assuming at least private property and often also organized markets). Prices in the production paradigm are indices of technologically determined resource costs and, as such, leave open the question whether the system does or does not have a tendency towards the full utilization of scarce resources and, in particular, of labor. …
The exchange paradigm relies on individual self-interest, on consumer's sovereignty, and on markets and private property as the principal institutions needed to bring about a socially desirable and harmonious outcome. In putting the division of labor and specialization at center stage, the pure production model, in contrast, highlights the "necessarily cooperative aspects of any organized society…
To an unsympathetic audience, I admit, this could come across as a bunch of commencement-speech pieties. For a rigorous statement of the pure production paradigm we need to turn to Sraffa. In Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities he starts from the pure engineering facts — the input-output matrices governing production at current levels using current technology. There's nothing about prices, demand, distribution. His system "does not explain anything about the allocation of resources. Instead, the focus is altogether on finding a logical basis for objective measurement. It is a system for coherent, internally coherent macroeconomic accounting."
In other words: We cannot reduce the heterogeneous material of productive activity to a single objective quantity of need-satisfaction. There is no such thing. Mengers, Jevons, Walras and their successors set off after the will-o-the-wisp of utility and, to coin a phrase, vanished into a swamp, never to be heard from by positive social science again.
The question then is, how can we consistently describe economic activity using only objective, observable data? (This was also the classical question.) Sraffa answers in terms of a "snapshot" of production at a given moment. Or as Sen puts it, in a perceptive essay, he is showing how one can do economics without the use of counterfactuals.
For Pasinetti, Keynes' revolution and Sraffa's anti-subjectivist revival of classical economics — his effort to ground economics in engineering data — were part of the same project, of throwing out subjectivism in favor of engineering. Leijonhufvud is not convinced. "Keynes was above all a monetary economist," he notes, "and there are good reasons to believe" that it was monetary and not production that was the key term in the "theory of monetary production." Keynes made no use of the theory of imperfect competition, despite its development by members of his inner circle (Richard Kahn and Joan Robinson). Or consider his famous reversal on wages — in the General Theory, he assumed they were equal to the marginal product of labor, which declined with the level of output. But after this claim was challenged Dunlop, Tarshis and others, he admitted there was no real evidence for it and good reason to think it was not true. [1] The fact that JMK didn't think anything important in his theory hinged on how wages were set, at least suggests that production side of economy was not central to his project.
The important point for us is that there is one strand of Cambridge that rejects orthodoxy on the grounds that it misrepresents a system of production based on objective relationships between inputs and outputs, as a system of exchange based on subjective preferences. But this is not the only vantage point from which one can criticize the Walrasian system and it's not clear it's the one occupied by Keynes or by Keynesianism — whatever that may be.
The alternative standpoint is still monetary production, but with the stress on the first word rather than the second. Leijonhufvud doesn't talk much about this here, since this is an essay about Pasinetti. But it's evidently something along the lines of Mehrling's "money view" or "finance view." [2] It seems to me this view has three overlapping elements: 1. The atomic units of the economy are money flows (and commitments to future money flows), as opposed to prices and quantities. 2. Quantities are quantities of money; productive activity is not measurable except insofar as it involves money payments. 3. The active agents of the economy are seeking to maximize money income or wealth, not to end up with some preferred consumption basket. Beside Mehrling, I would include Minsky, Paul Davidson and Wynne Godley here, among others.
I'm not going to try to summarize this work here. Let me just say how I'm coming at this.
As I wrote in comments to an earlier post, what I want is to think more systematically about the relationship between the network of financial assets and liabilities recorded on balance sheets, on the one hand, and the concrete social activities of production and consumption, on the other. What we have now, it seems to me, is either a "real" view that collapses these two domains into one, with changes in ownership and debt commitments treated as if they were decisions about production and consumption; or else a "finance" view that treats balance-sheet transactions as a closed system. I think the finance view is more correct, in the sense that at least it sees half of the problem clearly. The "real" view is a hopeless muddle because it tries to treat the concrete social activity of production and consumption as if it were a set of fungible quantities like money, and to treat money commitments as if they were decisions about production and consumption. The strength of the finance view is that it recognizes the system of contingent money payments recorded on balance sheets as a distinct social activity, and not simply a reflection of the allocation of goods and services. To be clear: The purpose of recognizing finance as a distinct thing isn't to study it in isolation, but rather to explore the specific ways in which it interacts with other kinds of social activity. This is the agenda that Fisher dynamics, disgorge the cash, functional finance and the other projects I'm working on are intended to contribute to.
[1] It's a bit embarrassing that this "First Classical Postulate," which Keynes himself said "is the portion of my book which most needs to be revised," is the first positive claim in the book.
[2] Mehrling prefers to trace his intellectual lineage to the independent tradition of American monetary economics of Young, Hansen and Shaw. But I think the essential content is similar.
Labels: history of thought, it's pronounced lay-on-HOOF-udd, Keynes, Minsky, the money moment, things worth reading
MisterMR July 1, 2014 at 7:06 AM
I did recently read "Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities". You say that
"For a rigorous statement of the pure production paradigm we need to turn to Sraffa. In Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities he starts from the pure engineering facts — the input-output matrices governing production at current levels using current technology. There's nothing about prices, demand, distribution."
I think that this isn't 100% correct. It is true that Sraffa assumes that relationships between base commodities (that, in the sense used by Sraffa, basically means capital goods) can be expressed as a set mof proportions caused by technical reasons. It is also true that the output ratio of this system can be described without reference to distribution between wages and profits. However Sraffa then goes on to calculate the price of the various commodities using these two assumptions:
1) the wage rate (or if you prefer the cost of labor) is constant throgout the system;
2) the profit rate is constant throgout the system.
Assumption 1 implies a very efficient labor market;
Assumption 2 implies an efficient "real capital" market.
So I don't think that there is nothing about prices and demand, rather, Sraffa is assuming that the market is in equilibrium, like Marx with the LTV.
In fact, it seems to me that Sraffa's book is an attempt to solve the "transformation problem", and I think that Sraffa's model should be regarded as a LTV model (I did read some articles on blogs about the relationship between Marx and Sraffa, but generally found those articles unsatisfacting or unconvincing, because they speak of the differences between Marx's and Sraffa's models and wether Sraffa proves Marx right or proves Marx wrong, whereas from my point of view it is exactly the same model, Sraffa just explained some details much better and ignored others).
It is true tough that Sraffa's approach completely ignores money and credit. It is also true that his model shows that the output ratio of the system is independent from non base commodities, where non base commodities actually are consumption goods - so if by "consumer preferencies" we mean choice between consumption goods, the real profit rate is not dependent on it (although this works only if we don't take in account subsistence wages as a minimum fllor for the wage rate).
In my opinion, if we want a bridge between a Sraffian "real economy" model, and a Keynesian/monetarist model, the direction should be this:
1) In a Sraffian model, the "output ratio" of the model is fixed by technological constraints and doesn't depend on the wage share of output, hence it is independent by the real profit rate. However this "output" can be split between "consumption" and reproduction of the system on an increased scale. However I wonder - how realistic is it that we can increase production dy diverting resources from consumption? It seems to me that there are limits to this. In particular, consumption can never fall in absolute terms, because this would make new capital goods (and some of the present capital goods) useless.
2) If consumption must never fall, then in some situation it might happen that an increase in lending is necessarious to keep consumption at a minimum level. In this situation lending ultimately subsidizes consumption, but this doesn't divert resources from production to consumption; it just prevents resources to be wasted.
3) But an increase in lending means the creation of new "financial capital" and there is no reason (IMHO) to think that this financial capital has a "real" counterpart.
4) various financial and monetary phenomena can influence this "financial capital" stuff.
5) but the crux of the problem is still wether all the consumption goods are consumed or not, and I think this is mostly a distributional problem.
Steve Roth July 1, 2014 at 8:49 AM
"The strength of the finance view is that it recognizes the system of contingent money payments recorded on balance sheets as a distinct social activity, and not simply a reflection of the allocation of goods and services."
I'm so with you. One important way to get at that, I think, is to make a crucial distinction that Piketty (and pretty much everyone else) fails to make: between wealth and real capital. (He explicitly uses wealth and capital synonymously.) Wealth consists of *claims* on real capital -- financial assets (which are nothing more than legal claims).
The ratio of W to K can vary enormously over very long periods, depending on how much of K is indebted. And the distribution of W can vary and change significantly relative to the distribution of K. Think, for just one example: the runup in student loan debt -- claims against those former students real human capital.
"Financial capital" is an oxymoron.
JW Mason July 1, 2014 at 9:09 AM
Yes. Although I would go a step further. There is no such thing as a scalar quantity "K", independent of financial claims. Over here, there is the whole range of human productive activity, making use of a variety of means of production. We can summarize changes in productive activity in various ways -- industrialization, etc. -- but in itself it cannot be reduced to some homogeneous quantity. Then, over there, there is a network of money claims and payments. Some of these claims and payments are associated with productive activity, many others are not. Where the money system comes into contact with productive activity, the various components of production are assigned money values and become quantitatively comparable -- but only insofar as they give rise to money payments. It is true, and important, that the social activity of, say, writing software is not the same as the legal title to money payments that result from that activity. But only the latter is a measurable quantity.
So in one sense, I agree that "financial capital" is an oxymoron. But in another sense, it's the only kind of capital there is.
Steve Roth July 1, 2014 at 3:43 PM
> only the latter is a measurable quantity.
Amazing how much I agree with most of the above. The above statement is absolutely right. But I disagree completely.
Just because something cannot be measured, does not mean it doesn't exist. That's what I think you're asserting: Capital can't be measured, summed up, in financial/dollar terms, so it doesn't exist.
Real capital exists even if we cannot measure it (very accurately) -- by market/financial-asset value, indebtedness, or any other means.
This is exactly the logical flaw that lies at the heart of modern price theory, since it abandoned any consideration of cardinal/absolute utility and reduced the conversation to "preferences," ordinal utility.
Since absolute utility can't be measured, it doesn't exist.
Steve Waldman as always said it much better than I in his latest brilliant series:
"When economics tried to put itself on a scientific basis by recasting utility in strictly ordinal terms, it threatened to perfect itself to uselessness."
Just to add: Price theory's refusal to consider absolute utility is at the very core of modern economics' regressive political stance. Buying into that is logical suicide for a Marxist/progressive thinker.
Also, I don't think it's useful to speak of capital as a flow thing, as you seem to do here. Any concept of "capital" must be a stock, increased and decreased by flows of production and decay etc.
Sure, you can confute the two realms you talk about here, equating the *value* of real capital as a function of future (measurable?) production from that capital. So the future flow determines the value of the present stock. But that doesn't make the actual stuff, the real capital, a flow.
A thing's existence is not a function of its measurability.
JW Mason July 2, 2014 at 12:44 AM
I can't see how you get that from what I wrote. But let's set aside what I'm saying, I want to figure out what you're saying.
What does it mean to say that capital exists independently of its value? And is this the quantity of this physical capital imprecisely measurable, or not measurable at all?
Just so I understand what you're saying: I had dinner with some friends on Friday. On Sunday, I took my kid to the park. Both experiences made me happy. Now, are you saying there exists, out in the world, an objective quantity of happiness that was increased by, say 75% more by the trip to the park than by dinner? Is this quantity measurable in some way? Are you saying there's an objective scale on which all human experiences can be assessed in terms of goodness or badness? Or that we should be constructing such a scale? or pretending that there is one? What does "absolute/cardinal utility" means operationally?
What value do you see in the idea of utility, ordinal or otherwise? Why not just throw out the whole concept?
Also, just as a historical matter, it's wrong to say that utility was "recast" in ordinal terms. The concept was introduced into economics in order to found value on incommensurable subjective preferences. It's been ordinal since day one.
"What does it mean to say that capital exists independently of its value?"
If I build a drill press or a house, it exists. If I learn a skill, it exists. Its existence is utterly independent, conceptually, from its value.
"And is this the quantity of this physical capital imprecisely measurable, or not measurable at all?"
I would say somewhere in between, depends on the thing, but in aggregate somewhat closer to the latter.
"Now, are you saying there exists, out in the world, an objective quantity of happiness that was increased by, say 75% more by the trip to the park than by dinner?"
Let's try another example. You buy an operation for your mother, or your daughter, that causes them to live some decades longer. Larry Ellison buys a fourth Maserati for his collection.
Is there "an objective quantity of happiness that was increased" more by your purchase than by his, even though you each revealed equal "willingness to pay"?
I would say yes, absolutely. I can't really imagine a convincing counterargument.
Is that difference measurable, in monetary/dollar terms, or any other fixable unit of measurement? I can't think how. Does that mean the difference doesn't exist? I can't see how it can mean that.
"Objective" ≠ "Measurable".
"Or that we should be constructing such a scale?"
That is exactly what we are doing whenever we do politics, create laws and institutional rules.
By pretending to objectivity and positivism by eschewing/ignoring cardinal utility, economics positions and imprisons itself in a very particular (and powerful!) quadrant of that political debate -- a quadrant where Ellison's Maserati must have the same value as your daughter's operation.
"it's wrong to say that utility was "recast" in ordinal terms"
I said "strictly" ordinal terms. Discussion of cardinal utility was banned from the lexicon as non-positivist, non-empirical, and non-worthy of discussion in academic economics arguments. That was not true prior to mid-20th-century formulation of modern price theory, certainly not in the days of classical economics.
>"Why not just throw out the whole concept?"
Because it's a useful concept, and could actually even be studied and roughly quantified if economists would adopt the appropriate empirical tools of social science. Surveys and experiments and such, cleverly designed, could give real, objective insights into the operation-vs.-Maserati question. Perfect quantification? Of course not. Some rough measures and valuations that would at least demonstrate the obvious? Sure.
Just to be clear, those were necessary operations, without which the patient would die -- not imaginary life-extension treatments.
Some ideas that came to me because of this and the previous post (in various comments because it is long):
Using K for physical capital (factories, raw material, tools etc.) and W for wages, and C as total capital (C=K+W).
If we assume that the rate of profit is somewhat uniform across all industries, we mean that the rate of profit for C is the same, not that the rate of profit for K is the same, unless all industries have the same "capital intensity".
We know that different industries have different "capital intensity", and that this is a technological ratio.
For example, suppose that a company uses trucks for long haul delivery business, whereas another company uses scooters for suburban delivery;
The first company will have a more or less fixed ratio of truck drivers to truck (say, 2 drivers per truck). Changes in the wage of truck drivers cannot change this ratio that much (you will never have 50 drivers per truck, or 1 driver per 50 trucks).
The second company will have also a somewhat fixed ratio of one driver per scooter.
If we assume that wages are more or less the same for scooter drivers and for truck drivers, and that we can say that a truck represents more capital than a scooter, and that this is reflected in the price of scooter and trucks, we will have something like:
[assuming a rate of profit of 10%]
Company 1:
W (10 drivers) = 50$ (5$ per driver)
K (5 trucks) = 100$ (20$ per truck)
Profit = 10% * (K+W) = 15$
W (20 drivers) = 100$
K (20 scooters) = 50 (2.5$ per scooter)
Now, if we think that profits are produced by "K", we have this weird situation where 50$ of capital in the second industry produce the same profit than 100$ of capital in the first industry. Note that this is exactly the same thing as the so called "trasformation problem" of the LTV:
In Marx's story, as a first appoximation all profits are produced by W, but then you have to explain how is this that the first company workers are so much more productive than second company workers.
Thus the same problem arises whether we use an LTV or if we say that all workers get their marginal productivity as wages (which implies that all profits are the productivity of K). The problem only arises when we assume that in different industries there are hard technical relationships between the quantity of workers employed and the quantity of capital used.
Sraffa's model, which as far as I can undersand is an attempt to solve the "trasformation probem", is as a consequence also an attempt to solve this "K vs C" problem, and in fact starts from this kind of hard technical relationships.
An absolute measurement of capital - the ricardian way
In a comment above you say: "Where the money system comes into contact with productive activity, the various components of production are assigned money values and become quantitatively comparable -- but only insofar as they give rise to money payments."
I think that this sentence mixes three different problems: on one hand, you have a "forward looking" concept of capital as, basically, the price of a future cashflow. On the other, you have the idea that different kinds of productive activity and stuff can only be compared through prices . Third there is the idea that a large part of productive activity simply falls out of the economy.
With regard of the second problem, if really we can only compare economic quantities only as "prices":
Let's see the problem of capital intensity with the example of my two companies above. Let's define capital intensity as the ratio K/C.
Company 1 has 100K and 50 W, so its capital intensity is:
100/(100+50) = 67%.
Company 2 has 50 K and 100 W, so its capital intensity is:
50/(50+100) = 33%.
Suppose that wages fall from 5$/h to 4$/h, and suppose that the cost of trucks and scooters stays the same. The new capital intensities would be:
1): 100/(100+40) = 71%
2): 50/(50+80) = 38%
First we see that the "capital intensity" is just an apparent quantity if measured in prices, second we see that if the wage rate falls different firms have different increases in the capital intensities. However we still are assuming the technical relationships of one man per scooter, two men per truck.
But in the real world, if the wage rate falls, then likely also the price of scooters and truck will fall.
If we assume that the fall in wages is not just nominal but is in real (or, better, relative) terms, we can describe it as a fall in the wage share of total production.
This leads us directly to Sraffa's model, and in short, while Sraffa build a very complex model where the price of the capital goods is dependent on the total net of relationships between the various capital goods and labor, in general when the wage share falls, this "apparent capital intensity" decreases (though it decreases differently for various types of capital).
But, can't we speak of an "absolute" measure of capital intensity?
We could pick a certain level of the wage share as a baseline and calculate all intensities at that level. If we pick a wage share of production of 100%, If I understand Sraffa correctly, all prices become proportional to the quantity of "labor embodied", and thus we can calculate absolute capital intensity in terms of labor values, as per Marx.
I think we could also define the absolute capital intensity of the whole system (in Marxian/Ricardian terms) not just as the average of the various capital intensities, but seing the system as a self reproducing process and calculating the output to capital ratio. But I'm not sure of this because I'm not sure I understand Sraffa correctly.
On the second problem, the difference between a "future looking" view of capital as the price of future expected cashflows, and a "cost of production" view of capital as the cost of producing gapital goods, plus the cost of wages.
In Sraffa's model, the price of stuff can be said to depend on the past labor, discounted by time (so older labor costs less than present labor) depending on the profit rate.
However, Sraffa's model assumes equilibrium, both in the labor market and in the capital market (same wage rate and profit rate throghout the economy).
But markets do not possess infinite calculation powers, so we must assume that they reach this equilibrium through successive iterations (I learnt this nice term reading about Okishio in wikipedia), while verious businesses and workers try to get the higest wages and profits that they can get. The equilibrium changes in time as technology changes or the wage share changes.
Thus, while if the market was in equilibrium the "future looking" evaluation of the price of capital and the "price of production" evaluation of capital are equal, in reality the actual market price is the "future looking" one, that bounces around the "cost of production" one.
My gut feeling is that during this iterative bouncing, the wage share tends to fall (which in itself changes the equilibrium point).
There are a few things that influence the cashflows, and thus the "future looking" evaluation of capital, that IMHO are not captured in Sraffa's model:
1) Monopoly power - how do we integrate monopoly power in a "cost of production" view of capital? Monopoly power in my opinion comes from 4 sources:
a) Ownership of scarce resources (eg: land);
b) Legally enforced restrictions (such as patents), assimilable to land;
c) Growing efficiencies of scale, that shut out competitors from the market. What happens if in a certain market there is a certain number of competitors, but because of scale efficiency, a smaller number of producers could produce the same quantity of stuff at lower prices? Does the variation of the apparent capital intensity as the wage rate changes influence this?
d) Monopoly power due to large shares in distribuition.
2) The "realisation problem", that is, the fact that at the end of the day, most of the consumption goods produced must be sold, or an underconsumption crisis will ensue, and the fact that, as far as I can understand, an increase of debt will generally increase aggregate demand for consumption goods (which has to be constant or rising).
3) The "non-realisation problem", that is, assuming that some people are accumulating wealth, but not consuming the consumption goods (I suppose that this is balanced by the consumption "subsidised" by the increase of debt), the amount of this "financial wealth" can in theory increase indefinitely as long as the financial wealthowners recycle their interest by adding to principal (assuming that all financial wealth can be treated as credit/debt). When does this process stop?
A lot to respond to here! I will try to reply in a bit. But I have to admit, I have not read Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities since my first year of grad school, when I wasn't prepared to make use of it. (My summary here was based on Leijonhufvud, Pasinetti and Sen, not my own reading.) A friend and I are planning to work through the book seriously later this summer, and if that happens I should have more to say about it here on the blog.
MisterMR July 2, 2014 at 11:26 AM
Mwahahaha!
I did read Sraffa with the purpose of looking intelligent, and, at a first approximation, it worked!
However, when in my comment over there i said "in general when the wage share falls, this "apparent capital intensity" decreases" I just misspoke, actually when the wage share falls "apparent capital intensity" rises (as results from my example).
JW Mason July 11, 2014 at 12:35 AM
Steve-
As you may or may not know, Marx begins Capital with a discussion of exactly these issues. We are surrounded by commodities, which have a strange double nature. On the one hand, they have all their own distinct qualities: the house is located at a certain address, has so many rooms, is made of certain materials; the drill press is heavy, needs electricity and ... makes holes? squashes things? (I'm not very handy.) These qualities allow them to satisfy various human needs, but in themselves don't seem to have any quantitative aspect. Looking purely at the physical objects, asking "how many drill presses equal a house?" is a nonsense question. but all these objects also have a second property, which is that they carry an invisible -- but very consequential -- social label indicating how much they cost (and who currently owns them). Figuring out what exactly is the relationship between these two natures of commodities -- use value and exchange value -- is the starting point of Marx's analysis.
I don't bring this up because I expect you to defer to Marx's authority, but just to try to clarify what the problem is here that I am trying to think about. We actually live in a world governed by money values, and I want to understand how those values arise and how they interact with the rest of social reality. In other words: There really is a quadrant in which Ellison's Maserati is worth more than my (hypothetical) daughter's operation. In fact, we live in that quadrant. I want to get out of it. But to do that, we have to map it accurately, we have to understand its contours, its boundaries, where it is solid and where there are gaps or weak points. Like the fly in the bottle.
Where Do Interest Rates Come From?
Mehrling on Black on Capital
Chekhov on Data
How Not to Think about Negative Rates
Three Ways of Looking at alpha = r k


Pastor Ron calls for prayer day and night for 40 days!
Why are we praying? This summer is shaping up to be a monumental milestone in the life of our church. God has been moving among us and we need to be spiritually ready for God is taking us. Pray that God will prepare our church so we are ready.
What are the 8s? In Luke 18, Jesus tells us to pray day and night. So, lets pray together at 8AM and 8PM every day! Set an alarm on your phone to remind yourself to stop everything for prayer.
Why 40 days? Okay, It is a good Biblical number. It is a marathon of sorts. Pace yourself and stay faithfully consistent!


Even a flea preventative isn't an absolute guarantee your dog won't pick up fleas. Your dog may have become infested playing in their own yard, during a walk in the park, or they may have been spread by another pet. Fleas are hardy, multiply quickly, and are great at hiding but you shouldn't have any trouble getting rid of fleas on dogs in your household with fast action.
Want to know how to get rid of fleas on dogs? Start with a flea shampoo, spray, or powder. Start your pet on a preventative treatment that kills and repels fleas like an oral medication or topical product then treat the rest of your home to kill eggs and larvae.
Here's everything you need to know about getting rid of fleas on dogs once and for all.
Killing fleas on dogs is the easiest part about handling a flea infestation in your home. There are many treatment solutions that can kill adult fleas, larvae, and eggs on your pet without harming your dog. The most important thing to do is avoid using too many chemical products at once. Some insecticides can be dangerous, even those marketed for use on dogs. If you use chemicals, only use one at first. You should also avoid Propoxur and TCVP products if you are concerned about your dog's health.
A flea shampoo is one of the best and most affordable ways to immediately treat a flea infestation. With a flea bath, you can be sure you are removing fleas from your dog's coat while improving their comfort by soothing skin irritated by a flea allergy. I recommend the Vet's Best Flea & Tick Shampoo (see on Amazon) which kills ticks, adult fleas, eggs, and larvae on contact. This shampoo uses natural ingredients and no added fragrances to deodorize your dog's coat and prevent skin irritation.
To use a flea shampoo, you will need to apply the shampoo to your dog's entire wet coat and work into a lather. Massage the shampoo into your dog's coat or allow it to sit for at least 10 minutes before rinsing.
A flea spray is an affordable way to treat fleas on your dog although it isn't the most effective. I recommend using a flea spray only between baths or to treat items in your home like your dog's bedding. You will need to spray the product over your dog's entire coat, including the neck, around the ears, and along the tail. To treat their head and face, spray the product on a washcloth and rub gently.
Flea powders work like sprays to kill fleas and ticks. Most flea powders repel fleas but also kill them on contact. Most powders are safe to apply directly to your pet but I feel they are best used to treat flea-infested pet beds, carpets, and other objects. When applied to your pet, you are unlikely to achieve even-enough coverage to kill all fleas because they must touch the powder to be killed.
Flea collars are primarily designed to repel fleas but a collar can also kill fleas already on your dog, depending on the ingredient. The Bayer Seresto dog flea collar is my top choice for a dog flea collar because it contains imidacloprid and flumethrin. This combination has been found to kill fleas within hours. It against adult fleas, larvae, and eggs to completely break the lifecycle. You can check out other recommended flea collars here.
Topical treatments are in liquid form and applied between your dog's shoulder blades. Topical treatments are effective at preventing current flea infestations and repelling fleas in the future. Topical flea solutions like K9 Advantix II usually come in 4- or 6-packs and each application provides 30 days of protection.
Pyrethroids. These organic compounds can be listed under many names and they're often used in natural flea treatment products. Pyrethroids should only be used on dogs, not cats, and never in a household with cats. This ingredient kills fleas, mites, and ticks.
Imidacloprid. This active ingredient kills adult fleas and larvae on contact by interfering with the nervous system.
Fipronil. This ingredient damages the nervous system of fleas and ticks to paralyze them. It is released over time, usually providing 30 days of protection.
Oral flea medications are effective and fast-acting. Treatments like Frontline Plus include a medication that travels through your dog's blood and to the skin to kill fleas when they bite. You can also use a combination treatment like Trifexis to prevent heartworms and other parasites but heartworm medications require a prescription from a vet.
Spinosad kills adult fleas by overstimulating the nervous system. This ingredient is also used to treat human head lice but it shouldn't be used on dogs with epilepsy.
Lufenuron does not kill adult fleas or ticks but it does kill flea larvae. This type of oral medication won't kill fleas already on your dog but it can be used after a flea bath.
Nitenpyram kills adult fleas in as little as 30 minutes. This ingredient is a good choice for treating a current flea infestation but it won't offer long-term results. Vets often use nitenpyram for killing fleas on dogs quickly. Dog & Cat MD Maximum Defense QuickTabs (see on Amazon) use nitenpyram as an active ingredient.
According to a study published in Veterinary Parasitology, oral flea medications are 99.9% effective while topical treatments are only 88.4% effective, possibly in part due to incorrect use and room for error.
After killing fleas on dogs in your home, you will need to treat your home as well. Fleas don't just remain on pets; they lay eggs on bedding, flooring, and other surfaces. Before long, the eggs will hatch and the flea larvae will find their way back onto your dogs, cats, and even your bed.
Once an adult flea bites your dog, it will lay up to 50 eggs per day, most of which fall on the floor and hatch into larvae. Flea larvae can grow in bedding, carpets, and dark areas of your home, feeding on debris for about 10 days until they transform into an adult flea that's ready to find a host.
To combat your flea problem and prevent your dog from being reinfested, take the time to get rid of fleas on dog bedding, carpet, your bedding, and other surfaces in your home.
Washing your bedding with detergent is a simple way to kill fleas at all life stages, including eggs. Your dog may have brought fleas into your bed if you notice flea bites above your knees. Carefully scoop up your bedding into a sealed plastic bag and dump directly in your washer, washing on the hottest setting. While the bedding is being cleaned, use any of the solutions below to treat the rest of your bedroom and home.
Vacuum your carpets, bare floors, and upholstered furniture thoroughly. Seal and throw away the vacuum bag when you're done.
Use a flea spray to kill adult fleas on contact. These sprays can be applied to carpets and furniture. They're also effective to get rid of fleas on dog beds. Vet's Best Flea and Tick Spray is a good choice if you want a natural, chemical-free product that can also be used on your dog. After spraying, you can see the fleas coming up from your pet's coat and dying.
Flea carpet powder is an alternative to a spray that can kill and repel fleas on carpets, upholstery, pet bedding, and even pets.
What Kills Fleas on Dogs Instantly?
There are two effective solutions for getting rid of fleas on dogs almost instantly: a imidacloprid/flumethrin flea collar and flea baths. Collars are designed to kill fleas within 24-48 hours but research shows this chemical combination can be immediately lethal. A thorough flea bath is a better option for making sure all fleas on your dog are killed after 10 minutes of exposure.
What Is the Very Best Flea Treatment for Dogs?
The best flea treatment for your dog involves a multi-faceted approach. No product will completely prevent fleas from returning so it's recommended to use a combination of options. Do not use multiple chemical products, however. Use a flea collar, oral medication, or topical product along with changes to your landscaping and vigilance to guard against fleas.
What Do You Do When Your Dog Gets Fleas?
Fleas lay up to 50 eggs per day so fast action is important. Start with a flea and tick shampoo to kill fleas currently on your dog. Use a medicated treatment to kill any remaining eggs, nymphs, and adults that may be on your dog. A preventative flea treatment like a monthly topical can keep fleas from returning. Don't forget to treat your home with a flea treatment.
PrevPreviousHow Effective Are Dog Flea Collars?


A self-trained muralist and graphic artist, James created beautiful things in the Metro Detroit area for 25 years. An accomplished airbrush artist, he is also highly skilled with traditional artists brushes.
Labadie murals have adorned all manner of interior and exterior surfaces, from bathroom walls to storefronts, from garage floors to gymnasium ceilings.
Subject matter is no issue, either. From abstracts to portraits, James can paint just about anything.
Framed paintings and other objects d'art can capture your attention,... draw you in. As you look at them, your mind wanders into the fantasy.
When a mural surrounds you, you don't have to look at it. You are in the world of the art. You cannot help but be affected. It's similar to the way the overall color of a room has a tendency to calm, excite, or otherwise influence your mood. Even if you are not focused on the image(s), you notice on a subconscious level, and act accordingly.
Links at the left side of this page will take you to murals by James Labadie, including exterior murals, sports murals, animal murals, kids room murals, bedroom murals and other subjects and settings.
Get involved in a beautiful thing today!
you may never realize how much of a difference you make with your gift, no matter how small it may seem to you.


text:
You are here: Home > Union Flag
Tag Archives | Union Flag
Half mast for HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
By ChiefVexillologist on 9 April 2021 in Flags in the News
Following the very sad news of the death of HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, flags will be flown at half-mast from now until, and including, the day of the funeral, unless Her Majesty The Queen issues special commands. The funeral arrangements will be announced by Buckingham Palace and published on the Royal website. […]
Continue Reading •
Wales: no change to Union Flag
By ChiefExecutive on 26 September 2014 in FI News, Flags in the News
In an interview for BBC Wales this morning Charles Ashburner, a Welshman and the Flag Institute's Chief Executive, has gone on record as saying that moves to change the flag of the United Kingdom to include Wales are "unlikely to be successful for the foreseeable future." Mr Ashburner suggested that whilst such a change might […]
Statement: Flag Institute President
By ChiefExecutive on 19 September 2014 in FI News
Statement by the Malcolm Farrow, President of the Flag Institute "I would like to endorse most strongly the words of Andrew Rosindell MP – Chairman of the all party Flags and Heraldry Committee. It has been a privilege to work with the Committee for the last six years, during which we have together raised the […]
Scotland votes NO but UK cannot stand still
By ChiefExecutive on 19 September 2014 in Flags in the News
Citizens throughout England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are waking up this morning in a United Kingdom which is both unchanged and never to be the same again. Whilst the government in Westminster (and indeed many of us in what very nearly became 'the remainder of the UK') breathe a collective sigh of relief, politicians of […]
Will Australia's flag change if Union is redrawn?
The Australian National Flag, was chosen in a government approved public competition in 1901 and is registered under law as the chief national symbol of Australia. The Commonwealth Parliament approved and passed into law the FLAGS ACT 1953. With the passing of the Flags (Protection of Australian Flags) Amendment Bill 2008 (C2008B00208) the current design […]
UK Flag design: comments
As Scotland's vote on independence fast approaches officers of the Flag Institute are being kept very busy answering press enquiries from around the World. Our role as the UK's national flag charity is to inform any public debate about flags, so we do our best to answer all such enquiries. Here is the result of […]
Talks at 10 Downing Street
By ChiefExecutive on 20 March 2014 in FI News
The Flag Institute today held high level ministerial talks at 10 Downing Street, relating to the future of the Union flag. The talks were organised by Andrew Rosindell MP and Lord West of Spithead of the Flags and Heraldry Committee, and hosted by John Hayes MP in the library of 10 Downing Street. Malcolm Farrow […]
Chief Vexillologist on Voice of Russia panel
In a current and very interesting Voice of Russia broadcast on Tuesday, 11 March 2014, Flag Institute Chief Vexillologist, Graham Bartram, joined host Brendan Cole on a discussion panel also including: Liam Clarke, Political editor of the Belfast Telegraph; David Vines White, the Somerset Herald from the College of Arms in London; Professor Paul Ward, […]
Union Flag or Union Jack? The answer
Controversy persists about whether the British national flag should be called "the Union Flag" or "the Union Jack". Though the general public almost universally uses "Union Jack", some are convinced that "Union Flag" is the correct term and that "Union Jack" should be used only when the flag is flown from the jack-staff in the […]
"We are not encouraging a change to the flag"
By ChiefExecutive on 5 March 2014 in FI News, Flags in the News
Source: The Atlantic The Flag Institute, the U.K.'s national flag charity and the largest membership-based vexillological organization in the world, recently polled its members and found that nearly 65 percent of respondents felt the Union Jack should be changed if Scotland becomes independent. And after the poll, the organization found itself flooded with suggested replacements […]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
The Lost Ships of Pisa: A Sea Adventure
Archeologists have recently unearthed 10 Roman ships, many complete with cargoes, that sank almost 2,000 years ago in a rediscovered harbour in Pisa, Italy. What happened all those years ago to entomb an entire port? What could have happened in Pisa more than 1,500 years ago to entomb an entire port? What secrets of Roman life, on land and on sea, are being revealed by this graveyard of ships? Merchant vessels, a warship and a ceremonial boat are being excavated, along with hundreds of thousands of artifacts, from coins to lamps to ceramic jugs called amphorae. The ships, buried in the damp earth with little oxygen to promote decay, are remarkably well preserved. In addition to the field of ships, which Italian authorities are calling "The Pompeii of maritime archaeology," the discovery of the ancient port, which was in use from about the fifth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D., is a major discovery in its own right. Join Michael Sedge on his quest to reveal the mysteries behind THE LOST SHIPS OF PISA.


text:
Nitpicking Flash Gaming Summit
The first-ever Flash Gaming Summit featured a lot of prominent members of the Flash community, but it ultimately left the audience with information that was incomplete and often downright misleading.
Greg McClanahan
I commend Mochi for hosting the first of what I hope will become the annual Flash Gaming Summit. It clearly took a ton of work to put together, and I lost track of the number of developers I spoke with who traveled all the way out to California for the single-day event without even bothering to attend GDC.
But ultimately, much of it felt like a missed opportunity. While a good portion of the speakers shared some really useful and important information, others, well, not so much. But I can understand a few bad panelists. What bothers me more is the amount of crucial information that was completely skipped over, or summarized in such an oversimplified manner that it's no longer accurate.
Here are a few important points about the Flash industry that someone likely never would have figured out purely from a visit to the Flash Gaming Summit:
1. Distribution is not all that important. There was a whole panel on Flash game distribution. John Cooney of Armor Games hit the nail on the head early on, then several people throughout the whole event spent far more time directly contradicting his word of truth. When asked how distribution is handled, John said, "Viral, viral, viral."
I recalled Warlords: Call to Arms, Kongregate's most successful sponsorship to date, with over 40 million views across the web. It hit 100,000 click referrals (not views) within days of being uploaded onto Kongregate — technically during its weeklong "exclusivity period" (usually I don't bother with site-locks, instead requesting that developers wait a week before actively spreading a game). Ben Olding had a similar experience with Achilles.
Time and time again throughout the summit, emphasis was placed on how hard you need to work to distribute your game. But that's overlooking a huge point: If you need to work hard to distribute your game, then it is likely not successful. Your time is better spent working on another one. Spend a couple of hours submitting your game to the top portals — Kongregate, Newgrounds, Addicting Games, Armor Games, etc. Encourage other portals to host the game, either in the game description or within the game itself ("add this game to your site"). If the smaller sites don't start picking it up on their own and hosting it without any work from you, then it's likely time to move on. It is not time to spend 2 weeks uploading it to every site you can imagine, then ranting about how much work distribution is.
For example, working your ass off to distribute a game might get you 300k total views instead of 100k. Sure, that's three times as many, but it's still not going to pay the rent, and you're not creating any viral spread here. Most Flash games have an initial spike, a drop, then a long tail, but the spike and drop is accentuated with games that are heavily distributed by the developer, and the tail is usually unaffected.
It is not terribly uncommon for a game to hit a million views across the web within a week after simply being uploaded onto Kongregate and Newgrounds, as it's grabbed by hundreds of smaller sites and rehosted. And that is where the real traffic lies. That's the traffic that doesn't go away when you stop working on distribution.
2. For successful games, in-game advertisements are your #3 source of revenue. Why did the summit spend so much time talking about in-game advertising? For games that cross the sponsorship-worthy barrier, sponsorships and site-locked, non-exclusive licenses pay magnitudes more than in-game advertising networks. (Contract work pays more than all 3, but in this case you're building a game for someone else rather than creating your own — plus, you actually have to land those jobs first.)
I could probably count on one hand the number of times the words "sponsorship" and "licensing" were used during the entire summit. If you want to make significant money from your game, you need to understand how these work before you release your game to the public. FlashGameLicense.com is an excellent cure for the misguided belief that making a game and simply releasing it with in-game advertising is the path to becoming a full-time indie Flash developer who can afford to eat (though there's certainly nothing wrong with taking advantage of this additional revenue stream, assuming your sponsorship terms allow it).
Chris Hughes of Flash Game License briefly raised the point that your game isn't worth as much to a sponsor after it is released, due to the standard traffic pattern (big spike at the beginning, followed by a long tail). He is correct, but his point deserves further emphasis — your game is actually worthless to a sponsor after it is released to the public. This is one of the most common points of confusion among Flash developers, and it needs to be explicitly explained: You will lose out on your #1 source of revenue if your game is released prematurely. Even if sponsorship branding is added to your game before the bulk of its traffic has occurred, it is nearly impossible for a version with sponsorship advertising to compete against an older version of the same game with no outside links that's also floating around the web. It would be like baking a batch of delicious chocolate chip cookies, setting it on a table, then baking a second batch of the same cookies with raisins, setting it next to the original batch, and hoping that everyone suddenly has a craving for dried grapes rather than delicious chocolate.
3. Seriously, you can make a living off of your own Flash games. It's really hard; make no mistake about that. But it's not impossible, and dozens of people and small studios around the world are doing it without having to sacrifice their IP (or work with someone else's) to a giant corporation. One panelist actually said that it is impossible. I was sitting next to John Cooney at the time, and I asked him if this meant that he didn't exist. I was wondering if he might start fading away, Back to the Future-style. (While he is an employee of Armor Games, think for a moment about why hiring him on full-time made any business sense.)
So no, it is not impossible. It's just impossible if you rely on the only revenue stream actually discussed in the panel about monetization. If you take full advantage of the resources available to you by aggressively pursuing sponsorships and non-exclusive, site-locked licenses (be sure that these are allowed under your sponsorship terms!), then the revenue from in-game advertising will most likely become an afterthought (in the case of performance-based sponsorship models, it may even be a detriment). It is only with games that end up making just a few hundred dollars that in-game advertising will be the primary source of revenue.
4. So what does make a game successful, anyway? And what is successful? The panel about what makes a successful game was by far the most entertaining, and also the most informative (I must confess that I missed most of the very first panel, but I heard that that one was also pretty good). If only we had actual developers on the monetization panel as well!
The whole idea of top-down vs. bottom-up game design was alluded to quite a bit, but never explicitly explained. Brad Borne did a great job of explaining why Fancy Pants is so successful. He took a simple, fun mechanic and built on it. This is the definition of bottom-up game development, and it's a common theme throughout the best casual game developers out there, from Popcap to Paul Preece. Edmund McMillen spent a bit of time riling up the panel with the debate of games for art vs. games for profit, but it's worth noting that his most successful game, Meat Boy, has really fun basic mechanics. The same is true for Aether, a game he cites as his personal favorite. Art and fun/success need not conflict.
Top-down design (starting with the overall idea, then fleshing out the basic mechanics later) is tremendously difficult for Flash games because it means you're basically forfeiting your greatest asset and trying to compete with consoles, which your players likely already have sitting in their living room. It is demeaning and inaccurate to say that Flash games are merely the poor man's console games; many players actually prefer Flash games because they can get a new and interesting experience as often as they want. Plus, graphics and production values don't automatically equate to fun. (Even if players don't prefer Flash games over consoles, they'll still often play both.) But don't pretend that your players don't have Mario Galaxy and Halo 3 sitting 10 feet away. You can entertain and addict them, but you will probably not impress them.
Tyler Glaiel is an incredibly talented Flash developer with a lot of industry experience, and he took the opportunity to ask a panel why it was that the games he spent the least amount of time on did really well, while the games he spent the most amount of time on were a little more disappointing. He never got a straight answer, but I believe it all ties back to the bottom-up vs. top-down game design philosophies. Tyler started developing successful games at a relatively young age, back when most of us were struggling with basic algebra. His early games are definitely not nearly as impressive as his newer ones, but a lot of them have fun little mechanics at their core. I still remember my college roommate ignoring our collection of console games to play Magnetism for hours on end.
By contrast, Blockside 2 clearly took a ton of time to develop, and a lot of talent and thought went into it, but its problem is that it's all top-down design. There's no fun little hook at its core like there is with many of his quicker games, including Aether.
Another question from another developer that never got a direct answer was whether 1.4 million gameplays in a month was good. The answer is yes, it's pretty good, but it's not quite the big hit that sponsors are usually chasing after. There seemed to be avoidance of giving actual numbers on the monetization panel (unless they were talking about in-game advertising CPMs), but I'll take the plunge and estimate that the game was probably worth roughly $4k or so from a sponsorship. Revenue from licensing is much more difficult to predict, but there would likely be several buyers in the $500-$1k range (note that licensing revenue is more difficult to acquire for smaller games than in-game advertising or sponsorship revenue, but for more successful games, its value scales much faster).
Oh, and the finger puppets in the gift bags were really, really awesome.


text:
Q: Object creation in for loop I have this piece of code:
var items = [0,1];

for (var i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
  var obj = new function() {
    this.item = items[i];
  }
  window.setTimeout(function() { console.log(obj.item); }, 1000);
}

And the result is:
1
1

But I would have expected this:
0
1

I am a little bit puzzled. What is the best way to obtain this result?
I think this question is actually different than Javascript closure inside loops
because I can already do this:
var items = [0,1];
var objs = [];

for (var i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
  var obj = new function() {
    this.item = items[i];
  }
  objs.push(obj);
  window.setTimeout(function() { console.log(obj.item); }, 1000);
}

for (var i = 0; i < 2; i++)
  console.log(objs[i].item);

And the result of the second loop will be:
0
1

The problem is to call the right obj from the setTimeout.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Вильяр-дель-Рей ()  —  муниципалитет в Испании, входит в провинцию Бадахос в составе автономного сообщества Эстремадура. Муниципалитет находится в составе района (комарки) Лос-Бальдиос.  Население — 2387 человек (на 2010 год).

Население

Примечания

Ссылки
 Официальная страница

Муниципалитеты Бадахоса

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Codebridge has launched a storytelling challenge in which eight teams will use elements of activism, journalism, data and tech to "tell innovative stories and address issues of social change in South Africa".
The Re-Imagine Storytelling challenge, the organisers say in their online explanation, "goes beyond just reporting issues of social justice to actively trying to solve them".
"We have moved into the digital and information age. This means that the way we tell stories has evolved from simply spreading the news to getting the reader involved. This is what Re-imagine Storytelling is all about," Codebridge says.
This evening, 6 September 2016, Codebridge is hosting an open pitch session to give potential contestants the chance to pin down their story ideas, or come up with an idea as well as find members to join a team. "You'll also get to test out your pitch, see what others think and meet some of the people at Codebridge who will be helping out the eight competing teams throughout the challenge," the civic tech incubator says.
Each competing team will receive a small budget to help make their story and project innovation happen. "This will cover things like travel, equipment and material costs. Teams will be encouraged to crowdsource financial resources and skills that cannot be covered by your budget, or which team members are unable to fulfil," says Codebridge.
Competing teams will have to attend workshops and training sessions in either Cape Town or Durban (depending on where you are based) in mid-September. These will cover things such as solutions-based and citizen journalism, information-gathering, and some helpful tools you can use to do this. Finalists will use these sessions to refine and strengthen their proposals, as well as develop implementation plans and budgets ahead of final judging.
These projects will go beyond just telling a story and will also be about sustainable implementation. Teams will be encouraged to use as many platforms and networking opportunities as they have access to, as well as those offered by Codebridge, to gain added support for their story-projects. Many of these stories will be published in national media, but will need to be promoted beyond this by participants.
Check out the Re-Imagine Storytelling webpage to see the kind of tools Codebridge has already created, and won journalism awards for, to get some inspiration.


If you're a dispensary owner we can help to vault your website up higher in the search results both locally and nationally and deliver you a ton more "qualified" traffic. This gives you long lasting returns on your investment.
Our proven online marketing is safe for your rankings and is the best way to get your site more qualified leads and conversions.
We use our online marketing knowledge to drive your site higher in the search engines and send you a ton more qualified convertible traffic. These article placements make you money!
Our expert content creators know the cannabis industry and will create multiple articles and marketed to a network of cannabis niche sites needing content. These articles will have a reference link in them sending qualified clients straight to your website!
Our team of experts use a suite of powerful tools to get the data we need to target the right niche market and send people wanting your product to your website.
*We cannot guarantee returns on article placements.


After an intense dance class, I dragged myself home in the dark: a drenched, and sore, dishrag. It was almost too much to take a shower.
And then, the magic! My husband cooked a delicious dinner.
While the aromas of one of my favorite meals wafted alluringly through each room of the house, I started to feel a little more perky. But nothing could have compared with the unforgettable experience of eating that lovingly cooked meal alongside my family. I found myself grinning uncontrollably: with gratitude, with pleasure, with revivification.
It may seem commonplace. And yet, what could be more vitalizing than being fed, having one of our primal needs fulfilled by someone else's thoughtfulness, effort, creativity? It really is astonishing to go from flat out exhausted and ravenous to energized and satiated due to someone else's generosity….especially when the food is tasty, thereby also feeding our souls.
Whether the cook is someone we know or someone we'll never meet, his or her gift of a meal is truly amazing–nourishing us, mind, body and soul.
This entry was posted in Cooking/Food, Creativity, Inspiration, Kindness/Generosity, possibility and expansiveness and tagged amazing, astonishment, caring, cooking, cooking for others, energizing, expansiveness, Food, Generosity, gratitude, humanity, Inspiration, Love, quotes. Bookmark the permalink.
Perfect example to go with Mary Oliver's "Sometimes." I could feel what a lovely surprise blessing it was.
I was astonished today when I was with three women friends, We were 70, 79, 81, 94. We were discussing wrinkles and I looked at our 94 year old friend and realize how beautiful she is. She has lovely bright white hair, blue blue eyes that sparkle, an beautiful sweet smile, and a soft glow about her. Though her face is a mass of wrinkles everywhere, that is never what you notice first or most times at all. That is true beauty and it is astonishing.


The Running Trims on this page come in set lengths. Their patterns will repeat perfectly when 2 pieces are butted together, or you can trim to fit. Shorter sections are illustrated below.
Available in 48" lengths in 4 heights.
2-1/2", 3-3/8", 5", and 7"
7" tall x 48" long. Cut from a single board.
See Usage Drawing as Bargeboard.
Please indicate if you would like your Running Trim with an optional Top Rail.


text:
Tax-Smart Strategies for Your Retirement
Smart tax planning can help you save more for retirement and keep more of what you've already saved. Consider these tax-efficient retirement planning strategies.
Consider these strategies to help you reduce your taxable income, generate tax-advantaged growth potential in your retirement accounts and keep more of what you've worked so hard to save.
Manage your Wealth
Find a Financial Advisor, Branch and Private Wealth Advisor near you
Enter zipcode Enter Zip Code
*Invalid zipcode
Max Out Your IRA Contributions
The deadline to make a contribution to an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) for any given tax year is the due date of your federal income tax return—typically on or around April 15—of the following calendar year for most individual taxpayers (April 18, 2023 for tax year 2022). Note the two primary types of IRAs:
Traditional IRAs, contributions to which may be tax deductible; or
Roth IRAs, for potential tax-free distributions if certain conditions are met.1 Roth IRAs are funded with after-tax contributions.
For the 2022 tax year, the maximum contribution to a Traditional or Roth IRA is the lesser of (a) your taxable compensation for 2022, or (b) $6,000 (or $7,000 if you are age 50 or older at any time during the calendar year). In 2023, those limits increase to $6,500 and $7,500 respectively for the 2023 tax year. These limits apply to all your Traditional and Roth IRAs combined.2
If you are self-employed or a small business owner, consider establishing a Simplified Employee Pension Plan (SEP IRA) (which is an IRA-based retirement plan) and funding a SEP IRA with employer contributions made under that plan. Note that if your business employs any employees, the SEP IRA will likely have to cover the employees as well if they qualify. For 2022, the maximum employer contribution to a SEP IRA (or to your own SEP IRA) is the lesser of (a) 25% of your employees' eligible compensation (or, if you are self-employed, 20% of your net earnings from self-employment), or (b) $61,000 for 2022 (in 2023, this amount increases to $66,000 for the 2023 tax year), and the deadline to contribute is the due date of the federal income tax return for your business, which typically has the same due date as your individual federal income tax return.3
Consider a Roth IRA Conversion
Some individuals can't contribute directly to Roth IRAs if their income exceeds certain limits set by the tax code, but they may be able to convert a Traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. The taxable amount converted (including the tax-deductible contributions as well as tax-deferred earnings) is subject to ordinary federal income tax for the year the conversion is made, but any potential future appreciation on the converted amount is federal income tax-free if certain requirements are satisfied. Keep in mind, however, that such a conversion in 2023 may increase your 2023 adjusted gross income and your commensurate 2023 tax liability. If you are considering a Roth conversion, speak with your tax advisor about the appropriate time to execute this strategy. It may be prudent to execute a Roth conversion (utilizing an in-kind transfer of securities) when those securities have a relatively lower market value as opposed to a higher or appreciated market value, such that the conversion generates less ordinary federal income tax.
Why our Financial Advisors are Different.
A Simple Six-Step Retirement Checkup
Your 5 Biggest Retirement Challenges
The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 ("SECURE 2.0"), which was signed into law on December 29, 2022, increases the age at which required minimum distributions ("RMDs") from retirement plans must commence from age 72 to age 73 in 2023 and to age 75 in 2033 ("RMD Age"). Specifically, the RMD Age is (a) age 70 ½ for individuals born before July 1, 1949, (b) age 72 for individuals born after June 30, 1949, but before 1951, (c) age 73 for individuals born after 1950, but before 1960, or (d) age 75 for all others – note, there is an apparent drafting error in the statutory language, which makes it unclear when age 75 starts to apply in lieu of age 73, but it appears age 75 is intended to apply if born after 1959. These new RMD requirements are effective for distributions made after December 31, 2022, for individuals who attain age 72 after that date. Speak with your Financial Advisor and your tax advisor about how you should approach taking RMDs in the context of your overall retirement plan.
Give Your Distribution to Charity
The rules around Qualified Charitable Distributions (QCDs) generally allow individuals age 70½ or older to make a QCD of up to $100,000 per year directly from their IRAs (including Inherited IRAs) to an eligible charitable organization. Further, SECURE 2.0 recently expanded an individual's ability to make a qualified charitable distribution from their IRA to a charitable organization by allowing a one-time distribution up to $50,000 (as indexed for inflation) to certain split interest entities, including charitable remainder annuity trusts, charitable remainder unitrusts and charitable gift annuities.4
QCDs can count toward satisfying RMDs for the year if certain rules are met. However, if an individual makes a tax-deductible contribution after age 70 ½, the amount the individual can exclude from their taxable income as a QCD will generally be reduced. Keep in mind that, for an IRA distribution to qualify as a QCD, it must satisfy certain requirements (e.g., must be paid directly from your IRA to an eligible charitable organization). Make sure to work with your tax advisor to ensure that you satisfy all the QCD requirements and that you have correctly reported QCDs have on your tax return.
Consider a Smart Gift With Your Distribution
You can choose to take a distribution to fund a 529 education savings plan for grandchildren or other family members. While your distribution will generally be subject to federal income tax, once you invest the funds in a 529 plan they can potentially grow tax-free. Any withdrawal used for qualified higher education expenses (as defined by the IRS) will generally be tax-free.5
Morgan Stanley now offers the Morgan Stanley National Advisory 529 Plan, the first 529 plan of its kind, available nationwide, exclusively to Morgan Stanley clients. You can select from goals-based asset allocation portfolios, guided by Morgan Stanley thought leaders, that align with your unique time frame, risk profile and goals, while gaining access to institutional caliber fund managers and pricing.
Subject to certain conditions, SECURE 2.0 permits penalty tax-free rollovers of certain assets held in 529 qualified tuition plans to a Roth IRA maintained for the benefit of a beneficiary of such 529 plan beginning in 2024. Such rollovers are subject to annual Roth IRA contribution limits and an overarching $35,000 lifetime limit. Further, the 529 plan must be established and maintained for at least fifteen (15) years and require the IRA owner have compensation equal or above the amount of the rollover.
Save More in a Variable Annuity
If you've contributed the maximum allowable to your 401(k)s, IRAs and/or other tax-qualified retirement accounts, consider putting additional savings into variable annuities. Assets in a variable annuity maintain tax-deferred growth potential until they are withdrawn by the contract owner. When you retire, depending on your annuity contract, you may be able to elect to receive regular income payments for a specified period or spread over your lifetime. Many annuities also offer a variety of living and death benefit options, usually for additional fees.
If you have complex tax planning needs, your Morgan Stanley Financial Advisor can connect you to experienced tax professionals at leading U.S.-based providers across the country to help ensure your tax strategy is optimized.
1 Restrictions, income taxes and additional taxes for early distributions may apply. For a distribution to be a federal income-tax-free qualified distribution, it must be made (a) on or after you reach age 59½, due to death or qualifying disability, or for a qualified first-time homebuyer purchase ($10,000 maximum), and (b) after the five tax year holding period, which begins on January 1st of the first year for which you made a regular contribution (or in which you made a conversion or rollover contribution) to any Roth IRA established for you as owner.
2 Other limitations may apply. Note that age restrictions for Traditional IRA contributions were eliminated for contributions starting in tax year 2020 and thereafter. Also, note that Traditional IRA contributions may not be fully deductible, depending on your modified adjusted gross income and your (and your spouse's) participation in an employer-sponsored plan.
3 A SEP IRA contribution for any given tax year may be made through the filing extension deadline, typically in October, of the following calendar year, provided the client or their tax advisor has obtained an extension to file the federal income tax return for the business.
4 Certain IRAs are not eligible for QCDs. Roth IRA owners are allowed to make QCDs, but they will not see any federal tax benefit to the extent the Roth IRA distribution is a qualified distribution or a nontaxable return of the owner's after-tax contributions.
5 Note, SECURE 2.0 builds upon and modifies the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act of 2019 signed into law Friday, December 20, 2019 (the "SECURE Act"), which previously expanded the definition of qualified higher education expenses for federal income tax purposes to include certain costs associated with qualifying apprenticeship programs and up to $10,000 (lifetime limit per individual) in amounts paid towards qualified student loans of the 529 plan designated beneficiary (or such beneficiary's sibling). Note, however, using 529 plan distributions to repay qualified student loans may impact the deductibility of student loan interest. This provision of the SECURE Act applies to 529 plan distributions made after December 31, 2018. The state tax treatment of 529 plans (including the state tax treatment of contributions and distributions) may be different from the federal tax treatment and may vary based on the particular 529 plan in which you participate and your state of residence. If the applicable state tax law does not conform with the federal tax law, 529 plan distributions used to pay certain expenses, such as principal and interest on qualified student loans and/or qualifying apprenticeship costs, may not be considered qualified expenses for state tax purposes and may result in adverse state tax consequences to the account owner or designated beneficiary.
When Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, its affiliates and Morgan Stanley Financial Advisors and Private Wealth Advisors (collectively, "Morgan Stanley") provide "investment advice" regarding a retirement or welfare benefit plan account, an individual retirement account or a Coverdell education savings account ("Retirement Account"), Morgan Stanley is a "fiduciary" as those terms are defined under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code"), as applicable. When Morgan Stanley provides investment education, takes orders on an unsolicited basis or otherwise does not provide "investment advice", Morgan Stanley will not be considered a "fiduciary" under ERISA and/or the Code. For more information regarding Morgan Stanley's role with respect to a Retirement Account, please visit www.morganstanley.com/disclosures/dol. Tax laws are complex and subject to change. Morgan Stanley does not provide tax or legal advice. Individuals are encouraged to consult their tax and legal advisors (a) before establishing a Retirement Account, and (b) regarding any potential tax, ERISA and related consequences of any investments or other transactions made with respect to a Retirement Account.
This material does not provide individually tailored investment advice. It has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. The strategies and/or investments discussed in this material may not be appropriate for all investors. Morgan Stanley recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies and encourages investors to seek the advice of a Financial Advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor's individual circumstances and objectives.
This material does not reflect the impact of state and local income taxes. The state and local income tax treatment of your retirement account and the distributions from it may vary based on your state of residence. You should consult with and rely on your own independent tax advisor with respect to such.
Eligibility to contribute to a Roth IRA is dependent on your taxable compensation, tax filing status and modified adjusted gross income for the year.
A Roth IRA Conversion may not be right for everyone. There are a number of factors taxpayers should consider before converting, including (but not limited to) whether or not the cost of paying taxes today outweighs the benefit of income tax-free qualified distributions in the future. Before converting, taxpayers should consult their tax and legal advisors based on their specific facts and circumstances.
Annuities are offered in conjunction with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC's licensed insurance agency affiliates.
Variable annuities are sold by prospectus only. The prospectus contains the investment objectives, risks, fees, charges and expenses, and other information regarding the variable annuity contract and the underlying investments, which should be considered carefully before investing. To obtain a prospectus, please contact your Financial Advisor. Please read the prospectus carefully before investing.
Variable annuities are long-term investments designed for retirement purposes and may be subject to market fluctuations, investment risk, and possible loss of principal.
Taxable distributions (and certain deemed distributions) from an annuity are subject to ordinary income tax and, if taken prior to age 59½, may be subject to a 10% federal income tax penalty.
Optional riders may not be able to be purchased in combination and are available at an additional cost. Some optional riders must be elected at time of purchase. Optional riders may be subject to specific limitations, restrictions, holding periods, costs, and expenses as specified by the insurance company in the annuity contract.
If you are investing in a variable annuity through a tax-advantaged retirement plan such as an IRA, you will get no additional tax advantage from the variable annuity. Under these circumstances, you should only consider buying a variable annuity because of its other features, such as lifetime income payments and death benefits protection.
Contribution limits vary by state. Before investing in a 529 plan, investors should consider whether tax or other benefits are only available for investments in the investor's home state 529 education savings plan.
Investors should carefully read the Program Disclosure statement, which contains more information on investment options, risk factors, fees and expenses, and possible tax consequences before purchasing a 529 plan. You can obtain a copy of the Program Disclosure Statement from the 529 plan sponsor or your Financial Advisor.
For more information on the Morgan Stanley National Advisory 529 Plan clients need to see the applicable ADV brochure available at www.morganstanley.com/ADV.
© 2023 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, Member SIPC.
CRC# 5429281 (02/2023)
Have a Morgan Stanley Online Account?
Review my Account
Your Guide to Tax-Efficient Planning
The tax decisions you make today can help you save for years to come. Consider these smart tax strategies for your financial plan.
Develop Your Retirement Roadmap
The path to your ideal retirement may have some twists and turns, but smart planning can help you reach your destination. Where are you in your retirement journey?
Tax-Smart Ways to Sell Securities
How investors can tap their portfolios in tax-savvy ways.
Ready to Start a Conversation?
Find a Financial Advisor Near You.
Filter by investment need, ZIP code or view all Financial Advisors.
Select Investment Need Charitable Giving Estate Planning General Investment Advice Help with Special Needs or Disabilities LGBT Financial Planning Liability Management Navigating Divorce Finances Pre-Liquidity Event Retirement Planning Socially and Environmentally Responsible Investing Tax Planning Wealth Transfer Planning / Inheritance Internationally Based Investor / Family Ultra High Net Worth Investing Institution, Government Entity, Foundation or Endowment
Check the background of Our Firm and Investment Professionals on FINRA's Broker/Check.
View All Advisors
Please be advised that the selection of the Financial Advisors presented to you is done randomly and is based solely upon areas of focus that have been selected by the Financial Advisors themselves and upon their stated preferences or interests. Morgan Stanley makes no representation as to an individual Financial Advisor�s experience and/or knowledge in the stated preferences or interests they have chosen. The preferences and interests that they have chosen have not been vetted by Morgan Stanley. Individuals are encouraged to consider their own unique needs and/or specific circumstances when selecting a Financial Advisor.


What Beanstalk Triggers and Actions are Supported?
New Comment - Triggers when you add a new comment.
New Changeset - Triggers when a new changeset occurs.
New Public Key - Triggers when a new public key is added.
New User - Triggers when you add a new user.
New Repository - Triggers when you add a new repository.
New Invitation - Triggers when you add a new invitation.
Release - Triggers when a new release occurs.
New Server Environment - Triggers when you add a new Server Environment.
New Release Server - Triggers when you add a new Release Server.
Send an Invitation - Sends a new invitation.
To get started with Beanstalk, first click to add a Beanstalk account to Zapier to be used in your zap.
Next, you'll be asked for your Beanstalk account domain, username, and password.
To find your account URL, you'll want to log into your account and click on "Account" near the top-right of the page.
Once you've entered your credentials and clicked continue, we'll test your account to make sure the connection works. If it does, you're all set!
A fast and secure way to handle a team's code, Beanstalk supports SVN and Git.


text:
Home › Press › Press releases › BAM Ritchies scoops three wins at Ground Engineering Awards
BAM Ritchies scoops three wins at Ground Engineering Awards
1 December 2021 14:54 - BAM Ritchies
Glasgow, 30 November 2021 - BAM Ritchies, BAM's ground engineering specialists, scooped three awards and was highly commended for another at the Ground Engineering awards 2021. The Ground Engineering Awards bring together the leaders of the industry to celebrate the achievements of projects, people and businesses across the ground engineering sector.
The first award, Contractor of the Year Award, recognised the team's many achievements, including the completion of £107 million worth of work, such as Hinkley Point C Deep Dig and Rothera Wharf in Antarctica. Their commitment to upskilling employees as well as the progress made in addressing the gender imbalance both in BAM and industry-wide were also recognised.
The team also won the Technical Excellence Award, for work carried out at Rothera Wharf for the Antarctic Infrastructure Modernisation Programme (AIMP), on behalf of the British Antarctica Survey. The team used an innovative grout infill for the construction of mid-wall (elephant) footing instead of using typical underwater concrete that would require sands and gravels to be imported onto the continent. This helped protect the environment's sensitive biosecurity.
Jim Shields, Operational Manager Ground Engineering, won the Equality, Diversity & Inclusion Champion award in recognition of his efforts to bridge the gap between degree-qualified professionals and those who hold vocational qualifications. The award also recognises his contribution to helping his colleagues gain industry recognition for their skills and expertise, providing them with opportunities to reach their full potential and progress in their careers.
The Ritchies team were highly commended in the International Project of the Year award, which was also in recognition for their work at Rothera for AIMP. The extreme environmental, sustainability and logistical constraints that working in Antarctica presented meant that the preferred solutions could not be used, and innovative solutions had to be implemented.
The Transpennine West Alliance, which both BAM Nuttall and BAM Ritchies contribute towards, won Geotechnical Team of the Year.
Ian Parish, Managing Director, BAM Nuttall commented: 'Congratulations to the BAM Ritchies team for their well-deserved accolade. This has been an impressive year all-round for our ground engineering colleagues and these successes are a justified tribute to their hard work and commitment to quality, consistency, and innovation. Thank you to everyone who has contributed towards this success.'


text:
Jeanne Cooper Net Worth
How rich was Jeanne Cooper?
Jeanne Cooper net worth was
Jenny Jones Net Worth
Paul Johansson Net Worth
Dave Dameshek Net Worth
Amy Weber Net Worth
Jeanne Cooper Net Worth 2018, Biography/Wiki, Married/Wedding
?php include('/var/www/domains/celebnetworth.wiki/banners/single_post_banner_300x250.php'); ?>
Jeanne Cooper is an American celebrity with an estimated net worth of $8 million dollars. Born in Taft, California, Jeanne Cooper began her professional on-camera career in the early 50s, playing leading or supporting characters in a steady string of films, including "The Redhead from Wyoming", "The Man from the Alamo", "Five Steps to Danger", "Red Nightmare", "The Intruder", "Tony Rome", "The Boston Strangler", and "Kansas City Bomber".
Jeanne Cooper Net Worth $8 Million Dollars
In 1973, Jeanne Cooper was cast in the character that could bring her the most widespread fame, as Katherine Chancellor on "The Young and the Restless". She's appeared on the soap opera since then, which makes her the longest continuous cast member. She also played the character of Marge Cotrook within the span of four seasons of the show. Besides her work on "Y&R", she has also guest-starred on such television shows as, "Daniel Boone", "Perry Mason", "The Untouchables", "Guiding Light", and "The Nanny".
Death date: May 8, 2013, Los Angeles, California, United States
Birth place: Camarillo, California, U.S.
Profession: Actress
Spouse: Harry Bernsen (m. 1954–1977)
Children: Corbin Bernsen, Caren Bernsen, Collin Bernsen
Books: Not Young, Still Restless
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?curid=196400
The Girls in the Band 1976
Is Jeanne Cooper's Net Worth Deserved?
Jeanne Cooper tags
$8 Million 1928 2013 5 ft 2 in (1.6 m) actor Actors Beau Kazer California Caren Bernsen CBS Collin Bernsen Cooper Corbin Bernsen Daniel Goddard (actor) English-language films General Hospital Harry Bernsen Harry Bernsen (m. 1954–1977) Hart to Hart Jeanne Jeanne Cooper Jeanne Cooper Net Worth. American films Jeannie Cooper Jill Foster Abbott Katherine Chancellor Los Angeles May 8 Net Not Young October 25 Richard Boone Still Restless Taft Television The Man from the Alamo The Young and the Restless The Young and the Restless characters (1970s) Thousand Oaks United States United States of America Wilma Jeanne Cooper
Jerry Brown Net Worth
Adrian Pasdar Net Worth
Sydney Pollack Net Worth
Piolo Pascual Net Worth
Chris Pratt Net Worth
Samantha Harris Net Worth
Joel Madden Net Worth
James Durbin Net Worth
Marina Abramovic Net Worth
Loretta Swit Net Worth


Läs mer, tele2 Kids 50 kr rabatt p abonnemang till barnen. Kommer du att ringa mer eller mindre som pensionär? Eller av Allmänna reklamationsnämnden. P internet eller telefon) s har Kunden under viss tid rätt att ngra sitt köp,.k.
source of inspiration for Danish Designer Ilse Jacobsen's work and creativity. Book Now, genoa-Tunis 1 adult foot passenger in a seat. The Ilse Jacobsen Hornbk universe gives you the opportunity to experience the relaxed luxury lifestyle of Ilse Jacobsen. But what if there was a better way? Pets On Board, i can go on holiday together with my owner! Go to main content, enable Cookies, to use this site your browser needs to accept cookies. The story of THE thief, robbers, vandals, celebrities and royalty.
Hundratals artiklar om olika kryssningsfartyg. Kryssningar - nyheter, bra tips och. Exclusive Caribbean Sale: Get Exclusive Balcony Rates from 699 when you Book.
WWE660 TDos Wifi, vaskemaskiner, w1 Frontbetjent vaskemaskine med TwinDos og CapDosing til perfekt vask. Ultra tabs Multi 3x20 da, no,sv.00MieleInternet catalog 02 VG Danmark (VG p Ultra tabs Multi 3x20 da, no,sv Forbrugsvarer UltraTabs Multi, 60 stk. In our shops you will find a wide selection of well-known brands to satisfy the needs of most different travellers. Discover all GNV services. Classic C1Complete C2C3 s den opsugede stv forbliver sikkert inde i stvsugerposen. The newer cruise ships are like floating cities, with everything you need onboard. New network begins early September, a world of international trading information at your fingertips - on a country-by-country basis. Picture an alternative scenario: In nine months the whole family is going on vacation, so after doing some research you find an amazing cruise around the Caribbean, or maybe Hawaii, perhaps even New Zealand. Learn more, animals, we all love to travel on GNV ships! 2.550.353.003 23, nordic Choice Club, benefits, bonus points. A swift simple tool, providing information on routes, services and sailing dates. Tallink and Silja Line ships are like big department stores at sea.


text:
Author(s): William S. Burroughs
Since its original publication in Paris in 1959, Naked Lunch has become one of the most important novels of the twentieth century. Exerting its influence on the relationship of art and obscenity, it is one of the books that redefined not just literature but American culture. For the Burroughs enthusiast and the neophyte, this volume—that contains final-draft typescripts, numerous unpublished contemporaneous writings by Burroughs, his own later introductions to the book, and his essay on psychoactive drugs—is a valuable and fresh experience of a novel that has lost none of its relevance or satirical bite.
William S. Burroughs was born on February 5, 1914 in St Louis. In work and in life Burroughs expressed a lifelong subversion of the morality, politics and economics of modern America. To escape those conditions, and in particular his treatment as a homosexual and a drug-user, Burroughs left his homeland in 1950, and soon after began writing. By the time of his death he was widely recognised as one of the most politically trenchant, culturally influential, and innovative artists of the twentieth century. His numerous books include Naked Lunch, Junky, Queer, Nova Express, Interzone, The Wild Boys, The Ticket That Exploded and The Soft Machine. After living in Mexico City, Tangier, Paris, and London, Burroughs finally returned to America in 1974. He died in 1997.
Dimensions : 19.80 cmmm X 12.90 cmmm X 1.70 cmmm
Author : William S. Burroughs
Dewey classification : 813/.54


Ultimaker ABS is one of the basic materials that Ultimaker offers. ABS is most known in its form of LEGO. After being printed, ABS has the ability to be very solid. ABS is a material that is best used by an experienced user, since it does not print as easily as PLA.


text:
Star Sound
BBC Radio 2, 25 September 1971 20.30
with Sean Kelly
Producer RICHARD WILLCOX
Unknown: Sean Kelly
Producer: Richard Willcox
BBC Radio 2 is a radio service which began broadcasting on 30 September 1967. It replaced Light Programme.
Feedback about Star Sound, BBC Radio 2, 20.30, 25 September 1971
Please leave this link here so we can find the programme you're referring to: http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/690be23186ea4b6dbca4cef5f1766f63