#Australian Financial Review

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Sophie Lawton at MMFA:

Project 2025 director Paul Dans told the Australian Financial Review that he thinks a second Trump administration “will adopt” many of the initiative’s radical right-wing proposals. He also suggested that even if Donald Trump loses, Project 2025’s ideas would live on through the conservative establishment. 

Project 2025 is an effort by conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation to plan policy ideas and staffing for the next conservative presidential administration

Project 2025 director Paul Dans told the Australian Financial Review that a 2nd Trump Administration would likely adopt a majority of Project 2025's policy recommendations in some form. Also, Dans noted that even if Trump loses, its influence in determining conservative policymaking will remain.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

It’s not every day you see a CEO arguing for a worse economy. But that’s what Tim Gurner, founder and CEO of Australian luxury real estate company the Gurner Group, tried to do at an Australian Financial Review conference on Tuesday.

“Employees feel the employer is extremely lucky to have them, as opposed to the other way around,” Gurner told the audience. “We’ve got to kill that attitude, and that has to come through hurting the economy,” he continued.

“We need to see pain in the economy. We need to remind people that they work for the employer, not the other way around,” he said. The real estate CEO also suggested that Australian unemployment needed to jump by as much as 50%.

Gurner also complained about “tradies”—workers who practice a trade, like electricians, plumbers and carpenters—and claimed they had “pulled back on productivity.”

Gurner’s remarks have since rocketed out of the Australian context to catch the attention of commentators around the world, including U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

“Major CEOs have skyrocketed their own pay so much that the ratio of CEO-to-worker pay is now at some of the highest levels *ever* recorded,” the congresswoman wrote on X, responding to a video of Gurner’s comments.

WHO IS TIM GURNER?

Gurner is the head of the Gurner Group, a real estate company founded in 2013. According to the company’s website, the firm has a development and management portfolio worth about 9.5 billion Australian dollars (or just over $6 billion). The firm primarily focuses on luxury homes and property management, but also dabbles in private social clubs, with one offering anti-aging services.

The Australian Financial Review estimates Gurner’s net worth to be $584 million.

It’s not the first time Gurner has courted controversy with his opinions.

Back in 2017, Gurner took to Australia’s “60 Minutes” news program to talk about housing affordability.

The real estate millionaire complained that poor spending habits—particularly on avocado toast and other small luxuries—were the reason why younger Australians were struggling to afford homes.

“When I was trying to buy my first home, I wasn’t buying smashed avocado for [19 Australian dollars] and four coffees at [4 Australian dollars] each,” he said.

“The people that own homes today worked very, very hard for it, saved every dollar,” while younger Australians “want to eat out every day, they want to travel to Europe every year,” he said.

In spite of his rhetoric, Gurner reportedly got help when he started out. According to the Australian Financial Review, after Gurner’s comments went viral, the real estate founder got help from his former boss and his grandfather as he was starting his business.

COMPLAINING BOSSES

Gurmen’s blunt complaints about arrogant workers may win sympathy from other business leaders.

In April, the CEO of office equipment company MillerKnoll, Andi Owen, told employees to stop worrying about bonuses in an internal meeting.

“Spend your time and your effort thinking about the $26 million we need, and not thinking about what you’re going to do if you don’t get a bonus, alright?,” she said, while also suggesting that employees “leave Pity City.”

Owen apologized for her comments after they went viral on social media. She later told Fortune CEO Alan Murray that social media allowed “a few negative people to amplify and take things out of context,” and that the experience reinforced her view of bringing people back together in person.

Then in May, Tesla CEO Elon Musk complained that workers who wanted remote work needed to “get off their goddamn moral high horse.” In an interview with CNBC, Musk argued that remote employees enjoyed unfair privileges that other workers didn’t yet. “You’re going to make people who make your food that gets delivered—they can’t work from home?” Musk asked.

Despite the loud rhetoric from some CEOs, the remote work debate between bosses and workers may be settling into a truce. Over 80% of Fortune 500 companies tracked by remote work platform Scoop are settling into a hybrid work system.

“A lot of the coverage and discussion is on the CEOs who are pushing really hard on full time in office, and there are a lot of readers interested in that,” Scoop CEO Rob Sadow tells Fortune. “But in reality, employees and employers are less far apart than it may seem.”

[whats-in-a-sentence]

In an interview with The Australian Financial Review on 11 March 1992, Frank Conroy, by then Westpac managing director, had said:

What AGC did was two things wrong. They were traditionalists . . . a consumer finance company, leasing and personal loans . . . They also used to do smaller type development projects. For example, they would lend to a builder who would buy five acres of land and build a lot of houses, and provide virtually the bridging finance, and they did that well for years. And then suddenly in the late 1980s, from about 1987 onwards, they took two steps. First of all they went into these individual large company loans, $1 billion at a time, really big stuff . . . big, big stuff, big pending, they had never done before. And the second thing they did wrong was the joint ventures where they went in for part of the development and actually selling them. Well, that went wrong because you can't sell them.

"Westpac: The Bank That Broke the Bank" - Edna Carew

[socialjusticeinamerica]

Tim Gurner wants you to be miserable. Yes, you.

Speaking at the Australian Financial Review’s “property summit,” the property developer and CEO — net worth $584 million — complained that the country’s 3.7% unemployment rate was, in fact, a problem. “We need to see unemployment rise. Unemployment has to jump 40, 50%,” said Gurner, because “arrogant” workers aren’t productive enough for his liking. “We need to see pain in the economy. We need to remind people that they work for the employer, not the other way around.”

[tozettastone]

I didn't explain this earlier when I was enthusing about taking some of my long service leave. I think it is just Australia and Aotearoa NZ that has it? But there might be other Commonwealth countries, too, I'm not aware of all of them. The basic idea is that if you work at a single place of employment for 10 years, you get 3 months of extra leave to take. It is my understanding that the historical basis was more or less implicitly colonial: here, it was first done in the 1860s so people could get on a ship and go back to Europe, from whence it was presumed they came and had family remaining.

Nowadays in my state you can access LSL on a pro-rata basis after you've worked somewhere for 7 years instead of 10 years. And unlike sick leave or annual leave or whatever, you accrue it regardless of if you're a casual employee. And if you've been working there long enough to have access to it, your employers have to pay it out at the end of your tenure!

I really like this concept and I'm glad it's been in federal legislation here for ages because... can you imagine trying to get that passed today? The brains trust at the Australian Financial Review would be carrying on like pork chops.

Australia usually loses out compared to European countries when we compare leave entitlements for employees. But I'm glad that at least there's, like, this idea embedded that if you give some company seven years of your life, they HAVE to give you this valuable thing, y'know? And sure, they could fire you at 6 years and 11 months... but if they've needed your work for the last six years, they'll probably need it again.

[yayornaypolls]

Roald Dahl books

"Dahl has received criticism for anti-Semitic comments and his use of racial and sexual stereotypes. Reviewing Australian author Tony Clifton's God Cried, a picture book about the siege of West Beirut during the 1982 Lebanon War, Dahl used several antisemitic tropes, including claiming that the United States was "dominated by Jewish financial institutions". Following Dahl's death in 1990, multiple works of his were examined further, including Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Witches, and Dahl's short story collection Switch Bitch. Dahl's comments received renewed attention in the years leading up to the controversy, with his family issuing an apology for his comments in 2020." - Wikipedia

Op is currently away, and will not see your messages until they are back on July 27❤❤❤

[evidence-based-activism]

This has been on my mind a lot lately, but I couldn't find anything about this. I saw a data that says young people regardless of gender feel more lonely especially after covid. But articles everywhere describe the phenomenon as male loneliness epidemic. Is it true that loneliness affect men more than women?

Yes, I've noticed this as well! (It's definitely frustrating!)

In short, no, women and men experience similar amounts of loneliness. (Therefore, it should simply be a "loneliness epidemic" not a "male loneliness epidemic".)

First:

A pre-covid meta-analysis [1] concluded that "across the lifespan mean levels of loneliness are similar for males and females". This is a robust finding because a meta-analysis synthesizes the results from many different studies; this one covered 39 years, 45 countries, and a wide range of other demographic factors from a total of 575 reports (751 effect sizes).

An interesting longitudinal study [2] used both indirect and direct measures of loneliness and (essentially) found no significant effect of sex. (But there were some interesting interaction effects between sex and age or sex and loneliness measure, if you want to look at the study!)

This literature review [3] states that "sex differences in loneliness are dependent on what type of loneliness is measured and how" and it's possible sex only "correlates with other factors that then impact loneliness directly". The first quote here is referring to similar sex-age/sex-measurement interactions found in [2].

During/after the COVID-19 pandemic however:

The earlier review [3] stated that "most studies found that women were lonelier or experienced higher increases in loneliness than men with both direct and indirect measures", but this may be a result of participant selection bias during the pandemic.

That being said, both a rapid review [4] and a systematic review and meta-analysis [5] found that women were either more or equally likely to report loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition, the Pew Research Center has collected some relevant data:

Prior to the pandemic, 10% of both men and women in the USA reported feeling lonely all or most of the time [6].

And while this doesn't measure loneliness directly, 48% of women and 32% of men in the USA reported high levels of psychological distress at least once during the pandemic [7].

References below the cut:

Maes, M., Qualter, P., Vanhalst, J., Van Den Noortgate, W., & Goossens, L. (2019). Gender differences in loneliness across the lifespan: A meta–analysis. European Journal of Personality, 33(6), 642–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2220

Von Soest, T., Luhmann, M., Hansen, T., & Gerstorf, D. (2020). Development of loneliness in midlife and old age: Its nature and correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(2), 388–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000219

Barjaková, M., Garnero, A., & d’Hombres, B. (2023). Risk factors for loneliness: A literature review. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 334, 116163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116163

Pai, N., & Vella, S.-L. (2021). COVID-19 and loneliness: A rapid systematic review. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 55(12), 1144–1156. https://doi.org/10.1177/00048674211031489

Ernst, M., Niederer, D., Werner, A. M., Czaja, S. J., Mikton, C., Ong, A. D., Rosen, T., Brähler, E., & Beutel, M. E. (2022). Loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review with meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 77(5), 660–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001005

Bialik, K. (2018, December 3). Americans unhappy with family, social or financial life are more likely to say they feel lonely. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/12/03/americans-unhappy-with-family-social-or-financial-life-are-more-likely-to-say-they-feel-lonely/

Gramlich, J. (2023, March 2). Mental health and the pandemic: What U.S. surveys have found. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/03/02/mental-health-and-the-pandemic-what-u-s-surveys-have-found/

[torrtimandi]

By Pascal Teixeira for Australian Financial Review

[mariacallous]

If you want to understand how China abuses its power on the world stage, consider the lobsters. After the Australian prime minister called in April 2020 for an international investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese ambassador to Australia, Chen Jingye, ominously hinted at the economic backlash. “Maybe the ordinary [Chinese] people will say, ‘Why should we drink Australian wine? Eat Australian beef?’” he told the Australian Financial Review. It and other outraged statements from the Chinese government had all the subtlety of a mafia capo wandering into the neighborhood deli and saying, “Nice little business you got here—shame if anything happened to it.”

In the weeks and months that followed, China instituted onerous import inspections on Australian rock lobsters and instituted new bans on timber and barley shipments from Australia. Given that in 2018 and 2019, China had accounted for about 94 percent of the Australian rock lobster market, the new trade restrictions were clearly meant to devastate the country’s lobster industry.

China also invoked punishing tariffs on Australian wine—tariffs that in some cases reached 212 percent—and exports stopped almost overnight. One winemaker, Jaressa Estates in the South Australian wine growing region of McLaren Vale, had been selling about 7 million bottles a year to China, some 96 percent of its total business, and saw that number drop to zero. “The country’s biggest overseas market vanished almost immediately. Sales to China plummeted 97 percent that first year. Storage tanks overflowed with unsold vintages of shiraz and cabernet sauvignon, pressuring red grape prices,” the New York Times reported. “Now that its economy is entrenched as the world’s second largest, the threat of losing access to China’s 1.4 billion consumers is a stick that few countries or industries can afford to provoke.”

It was a brutal lesson for Australia. As one winemaker told CNN, perhaps Australia shouldn’t be so quick to cross China in the future—and it should have approached questions about COVID-19’s origins with more delicacy. “Australia’s only a little nation. We should have absolutely supported it, but we didn’t need to lead the charge,” the vintner said. All told, Australia saw some $13 billion worth of exports targeted.

Outside the egregious Australian case, China has begun to wield the economic stick more regularly. For example, it halted salmon imports from Norway after the Nobel Peace Prize went to Chinese dissident Lio Xiaobo, punished Taiwan in 2022 with new restrictions on exporting pineapples, apples, and fish, and went after Lithuania when the Baltic country tried to strengthen ties with Taiwan. The wide-ranging Chinese move against Lithuania was unprecedented—extending not to just to obvious products like milk or peat but also against products manufactured with semiconductor chips made in Lithuania. As the New York Times wrote at the time, “China’s drive to punish Lithuania is a new level of vindictiveness.” The consequences for Lithuania were so dire that the German-Baltic Chamber of Commerce reported that the country’s high-tech industry faced an “existential” threat.

The most powerful voices in the global trade discussion largely stayed silent during these attacks. The European Union filed a perfunctory World Trade Organization complaint on Lithuania’s behalf but, as the New York Times reported, “otherwise largely left one of its smallest and weakest members to fend for itself,” and behind the scenes its officials urged Vilnius officials to appease China. “To use a Chinese phrase, they are killing the chicken to scare the monkey, particularly the big German monkey,” one European think tank leader said publicly. “Many European leaders look at Lithuania and say, ‘My God, we are not going to do anything to upset China.’”

And while some U.S. officials held performative tastings of Australian wine, the United States failed to step in to stabilize or support Australia, Norway, Taiwan, or Lithuania. There were no high-profile “Berlin Airlifts” of pineapples to U.S. grocery stores, tanker convoys of Australian Shiraz rolling up the Capital Beltway, or “Buy Baltic” public service announcements to encourage consumers and corporate leaders to look to Lithuanian suppliers. There was no coordinated effort to build a coalition to implement an emergency adjustment of tariffs on Australian wine or lobster, let alone to help the affected industries find new commercial buyers.

Perhaps it’s easy to write off such American reluctance as our own strain of protectionism—maybe the government didn’t want to be accused of undercutting Hawaiian pineapples or promoting foreign competitors to California Zinfadels—but the truth is that even at home the United States has failed to stand up for our industries when China targeted them. We didn’t support American airlines and hospitality companies when China pressured them to remove Taiwan’s name from their maps; nor did the United States government stand up meaningfully for the free speech of NBA players who criticized China.

China is learning, again and again, that bullying works, mastering the 21st-century toolkit of economic statecraft and warfare. As Bethany Allen, a journalist who has covered China for a decade, writes in her book, Beijing Rules: How China Weaponized Its Economy to Confront the World, “If we speak the language of markets … then China hasn’t just learned that language. It has learned to speak it louder than anyone else.” The Chinese Communist Party’s “authoritarian style of state capitalism,” Allen argues, means it “is willing to draw on its full arsenal of leverage, influence, charm, deception, and coercion.” And China has begun to deploy those tools all too frequently—leading to very real questions about whether anyone, companies or nation-states, can afford to be economically reliant on China.

The United States needs to do better—for ourselves and our allies. Strong allies are not going to help only out of self-interest, they’re going to do it because they want to follow their values and principles—and we have to make it easier for countries who want to help us counter China. We need to create an umbrella that shields countries, companies, and individuals when they take on China’s attempts at hegemonic thought and action.

Critical to any global strategy to counter China is building and securing the series of bilateral relationships and multilateral institutions and alliances that helped the West win Cold War I. We have to make it easy for our allies—and desired potential allies—to say yes to such alliances. China is surrounded by many relatively small and weak countries that need real reassurances, both security and economic, that if they side with the United States in a regional coalition they won’t be out in the cold.

Even countries like South Korea, Japan, and Australia that are G-20 countries with advanced economies and trillion-dollar-plus GDPs are small compared to the behemoths like China and the United States, especially if they’re left geopolitically isolated.

Beyond ad hoc responses to pressure on our friends when they stand up to China—especially but not only when they’re acting at our request—the United States needs to figure out a new alliance framework to deter such actions from China in the future. China needs to know that bullying won’t work.

On the security front, there’s little value in the Indo-Pacific in a replacement for SEATO, the 20-year attempt to build a Southeast Asia alliance like NATO that ended in 1977 after never achieving a working military structure. (One British diplomat called the alliance a “zoo of paper tigers.”) Today, too many of the countries across the Indo-Pacific are already protected by bilateral security pacts with the United States to bother joining a larger formal security alliance. For example, given that both Japan and the Philippines have their own security pacts with the United States, it’s not entirely clear what domestic political appetite there would be for, say, the Philippines to be treaty-bound to defend Japan if it’s attacked.

Instead of a military security alliance in the Indo-Pacific, we should be looking to build a new—and global—economic security alliance. America should lead the way in creating a new organization—call it something like the Treaty of Allied Market Economies (TAME), an “economic NATO” alliance of European and Indo-Pacific nations with open-market economies. Together, the partners in this alliance would respond as a unified block to political and economic pressure from China—or any other economic aggressor, for that matter—through a combination of trade barriers, sanctions, and export controls.

In some ways, this alliance would look similar to the coordinated but independent action that the West took in levying unprecedented sanctions against Russia after its Ukraine invasion. As an additional carrot to joining such an alliance, like-minded members could all share increased trade benefits in the form of tariff cuts, regulatory cooperation, and enhanced investment terms.

Beyond formal joint economic punishment of an aggressor, such an alliance could also plan for and commit to repairing and replacing real economic harms that member countries face when hit with retaliatory tariffs or trade wars. Such “trade diversion” often occurs in the market anyway. As one market closes, another opens—and we know that, in part, because of China’s actions against Australia. Markets are adaptable and most goods can flow elsewhere, especially if protectionist tariffs don’t stand in the way. It’s why Australia, for instance, weathered some of China’s aggressive moves better than anticipated. In particular, the Australian coal industry—which was also hit with punishing bans—turned out just fine because coal is such a fungible and high-demand product. “Once China banned imports of Australian coal in mid-2020, Chinese utilities had to turn to Russian and Indonesian suppliers instead. This, in turn, took Russian and Indonesian coal off the market, creating demand gaps in India, Japan, and South Korea—which Australia’s stranded coal was able to fill,” Foreign Policy noted. “The result of decoupling for one of Australia’s core industries was therefore just a game of musical chairs—a rearrangement of who traded with whom, not a material injury.”

One of the reasons that NATO has never had to invoke Article 5 against another nation-state attack—the only time it’s ever been used was after Sept. 11 against al Qaeda—is precisely because of how strong all other countries know the response from the combined NATO force would be.

The same should be true on the economic front. As Daleep Singh, a National Security Council official who helped coordinate the U.S. response to Ukraine, said, “The best sanctions are the ones that never have to get used.” China might very well think twice before weaponizing its trading strength if it understood the combined—and severe—penalties it might face in taking such action and that even if it did launch a trade war, it wouldn’t necessarily inflict much economic harm to begin with.

There’s enough evidence of China’s willingness to inflict economic pain for political gain across Asia and Europe that a well-crafted TAME organization would likely attract a long line of participants—many countries across the globe are becoming increasingly concerned about Chinese belligerent behavior, and there is safety in numbers. While it is unlikely that some large countries with significant economic dependence on China, such as France and Germany, would rush to join this new alliance, states that have already found themselves on the receiving end of Chinese coercion in the past—such as Australia, Norway, Sweden, Japan, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, the Philippines, and Taiwan itself, among others—are prime candidates for initial membership. Over time, as TAME membership grows in numbers, combined economic power, and market size, it will become a magnet too attractive for other market economies to avoid, especially if China continues to engage in brutish bullying tactics around the world.

[tolkiens]

new justice interview dropped for the australian financial review omggggg tour is happening guys (delusional)

[dialogue-queered]

“The American poet Wallace Stevens suggested there were 13 ways of looking at a blackbird but with Leonard Bernstein (1918-1990) that barely scrapes the surface. He was conductor, composer, pianist, writer of popular musicals, educator and celebrity. One might devote entire volumes to his identity as a Jew, a homosexual, or a political activist….Like so many creative giants he is clearly bipolar, subject to crushing depressions, bouts of self-hatred and sadness When the pendulum swings the other way, he becomes a social and artistic juggernaut overpowering everything in his path. While Bernstein was clearly homosexual, we can’t dismiss his marriage to Felicia as a cover story…[Nonetheless]….Cooper and his co-writer, Josh singer with help from cinematographer Matthew Libatique have chosen to view their subject through the lense of his sexual proclivities….Instead of seeing Bernstein as a great man or an artistic genius, we take these things for granted and look at the ferment beneath the carapace of fame….A great part of the bond between Felicia and Lenny is her belief in his talent….Apart from the concert sequences, the music is all by Bernstein, so we are subliminally absorbing his creative efforts while we watch the whirlwind of his life play itself out. Maestro’s patchwork narrative will polarise audiences, but…this restless montage…so perfectly echoes the personality of its subject”.

Source: John MacDonald (2023), ‘Maestro Is a Masterwork’, Australian Financial Review Weekend, 16-17 December, p39 (originally from the Washington Post).

[sprout-pink]

How to Determine If a Forex or Cryptocurrency Platform Is Legitimate

The rise of Forex and cryptocurrency trading has led to a significant increase in the number of platforms available to traders. However, not all of these platforms are reputable or trustworthy. Knowing how to differentiate a legitimate trading platform from a fraudulent one is crucial for protecting one's investments. This article provides a comprehensive guide on how to evaluate the legitimacy of a Forex or cryptocurrency platform, covering key areas such as regulatory information, legal disclosures, company registration details, online reputation, and social media presence.

1. Check Regulatory Information

The first and most important step in determining the legitimacy of a Forex or cryptocurrency platform is to check its regulatory status. Reputable platforms are usually regulated by recognized financial authorities, such as the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), or similar bodies in other jurisdictions.

1.1 How to Verify Regulation Status

Visit the Regulator's Official Website: To verify if a platform is genuinely regulated, visit the official website of the regulatory body mentioned by the platform. Use the regulator’s search tool to look up the platform's name or registration number. Ensure that every detail matches exactly, as fraudulent platforms often provide misleading or incorrect information.

Confirm with the Platform: Cross-check the information on the regulatory body’s website with the details provided on the platform’s own website. Any discrepancies between the two could be a red flag.

1.2 Why Regulation Matters

Regulation ensures that a platform adheres to strict financial rules, operates transparently, and is subject to regular audits. It also provides a certain level of protection for investors, as regulatory bodies can intervene in cases of misconduct.

2. Review Legal Information on the Company’s Website

A legitimate Forex or cryptocurrency platform will have a well-documented legal section on its website. This section should include terms and conditions, privacy policies, and risk disclosures.

2.1 Key Legal Disclosures to Look For

Terms and Conditions: These outline the contractual obligations between the user and the platform. They should be clear, comprehensive, and not contain any ambiguous language that could be exploited.

Privacy Policy: A legitimate platform will have a detailed privacy policy explaining how user data is collected, used, and protected. Look for specifics about data encryption and user confidentiality.

Risk Disclosure Statements: Trading in Forex and cryptocurrencies involves significant risk. Platforms should provide risk disclosure statements outlining the potential for loss and advising users on the risks associated with trading.

2.2 Assessing the Legality of Documents

Carefully read through these documents to ensure they are professionally written and free from grammatical errors or inconsistencies. Poorly written or vague legal documents can be an indication of a scam platform.

3. Verify Company Registration Information

A legitimate platform should provide clear details about its corporate identity, including its registered company name, registration number, and office address.

3.1 How to Verify Registration Details

Check the Company’s Name and Registration Number: These details should be available on the platform's website. Verify them with the official company registry in the platform's home country.

Confirm Office Address: Ensure the company’s physical address is real and not just a P.O. box. A quick Google Maps search can provide insights into whether the address is a legitimate office space or a residential area.

3.2 Importance of Registration Verification

Verifying registration information helps confirm that the company is a legitimate entity and not a fly-by-night operation. Registered companies are more likely to adhere to financial regulations and are accountable to the law.

4. Check Website Registration Details

Beyond corporate registration, it is also essential to check the domain registration details of the platform’s website. This can provide further clues about the legitimacy of the platform.

4.1 Steps to Check Domain Registration

Use WHOIS Lookup Tools: Websites like WHOIS.net or ICANN WHOIS can provide information about the domain’s registration date, owner, and contact details. A domain registered recently, especially within the last six months, could be a warning sign.

Look for Transparency: Legitimate platforms often have their domain registered under their company name, with contact details that match their corporate information. Be wary of domains registered under privacy protection services or those that hide their registrant details.

4.2 Domain Registration Red Flags

Domains with private registration or those that have been recently created may indicate a lack of transparency and could be associated with fraudulent activities.

5. Check Online Reputation

The online reputation of a Forex or cryptocurrency platform can provide significant insights into its legitimacy.

5.1 Use Review Websites and Forums

Read User Reviews: Websites like Trustpilot, Forex Peace Army, and similar forums can provide user reviews and feedback about the platform. Pay attention to common complaints, especially those related to withdrawals, platform stability, or customer service issues.

Look for Patterns: Isolated negative reviews are common for any business, but consistent patterns of complaints could indicate systemic issues or fraudulent behavior.

5.2 Assessing Credibility of Reviews

Be cautious of overly positive reviews that seem generic or promotional. These could be fake reviews posted by the platform itself or by paid reviewers.

6. Verify Social Media and Other Online Information

A legitimate Forex or cryptocurrency platform should have a robust social media presence. Their social media channels can offer insights into their customer service quality and overall reputation.

6.1 Evaluate Social Media Profiles

Check Activity Levels: Active social media profiles with regular updates, transparent communication, and engagement with users are positive indicators of legitimacy.

Look for Red Flags: Be wary of platforms with inactive social media accounts or those filled with complaints and no responses. Also, avoid platforms that disable comments on their social media posts, as this could be an attempt to hide negative feedback.

6.2 Cross-Check Information

Ensure that the information on social media matches what is on the platform’s website and in official communications. Discrepancies could be a warning sign.

7. Compare Regulatory Bodies with Provided Information

Ensure the regulatory bodies listed by the platform match exactly with what is stated on their official website. Even a single incorrect letter could indicate deception. Some fraudulent platforms may list legitimate regulatory bodies but slightly alter the names or registration numbers.

7.1 Common Deceptive Practices

Fraudulent platforms may use names that closely resemble well-known regulatory bodies, such as “Financial Services Authority” instead of the actual “Financial Conduct Authority.” Always verify directly with the official regulator.

8. Conclusion

Determining the legitimacy of a Forex or cryptocurrency platform requires diligence and attention to detail. By thoroughly checking regulatory information, legal disclosures, company and website registration details, online reputation, and social media presence, one can reduce the risk of falling victim to scams. Remember, if anything seems suspicious or too good to be true, it probably is.

FAQs

1. What should I do if a platform claims to be regulated but I cannot find it on the regulator's website?

If a platform claims to be regulated but does not appear on the regulator’s website, it is best to avoid it. Contact the regulatory body directly to verify any information provided by the platform.

2. Why is checking the company's registration details important?

Verifying a company's registration details ensures that it is a legally recognized entity. This reduces the risk of dealing with a fraudulent or non-existent company.

3. Can I trust user reviews on Forex or cryptocurrency platforms?

User reviews can be helpful, but they should be approached with caution. Look for patterns in reviews and be wary of overly positive or promotional reviews that may be fake.

4. What does it mean if a platform has a new domain registration?

A new domain registration could indicate that the platform is a recent entrant, which may lack a proven track record. It could also be a red flag for a potentially fraudulent operation.

5. How can social media help in assessing a platform's legitimacy?

Social media can provide insights into a platform’s customer service, engagement, and reputation. Platforms that are active and responsive on social media are generally more reliable.

6. Is regulation the only factor that determines a platform's legitimacy?

While regulation is a key factor, it is not the only one. Other factors like legal disclosures, company registration, online reputation, and transparency also play crucial roles in determining a platform's legitimacy.

Reference:

TraderKnows

Wikipedia

[spiderdreamer-blog]

The Rescuers Down Under (1990)

Movie sequels are a funny thing. Done well, they can be clever, meaningful expansions of the original film or give artists chances to take the creative impulse in a different direction; compare Ridley Scott's Alien to James Cameron's Aliens. Done poorly, they seem like cheap cash-ins with lazy writing and not an ounce of true artistic passion. Nowhere can this divide be more apparent than in the decade-plus of direct-to-video Disney sequels that kicked off with 1994's Aladdin follow-up The Retun of Jafar. As I've said in other posts, it's not ALWAYS true that these or the TV spinoffs were bad. In addition to my previously published review of 101 Dalmatians II and Atlantis: Milo's Return, I swear by Aladdin and the King of Thieves for being a solid adventure film. And Cinderella III: A Twist in Time fills in characterizations for characters that often came off as ciphers in the original, as well as being a clever story in its own right. Some could even be downright inspired, like how The Lion King 1 1/2 takes a page from both MST3K and Tom Stoppard's play Rosencrantz and Guildernstern Are Dead compared to the original's Hamlet influences. But many fumbled in trying to justify further stories for characters that weren't necessarily built for them or did lazy reversal rehashes. Curiously, though, a built-for-the-theaters sequel beat this crowd to it, in the form of 1990's The Rescuers Down Under, coming to us in the midst of the Disney Renaissance. How does that one stack up?

A sequel to the 1977 film The Rescuers, Down Under reunites us with Miss Bianca and Bernard (Eva Gabor and Bob Newhart, reprising their roles), two mice who are agents of the Rescue Aid Society, which dedicates itself to helping lost or kidnapped children. Their case this time is Cody (Adam Ryen, who, in a fun fact, dubbed his own part in the Norwegian dub), an Australian boy captured by the evil poacher McLeach (George C. Scott) and his sidekick goanna Joanna (Frank Welker) in pursuit of the great golden eagle Marahute. Bianca and Bernard catch a flight with Wilbur the albatross (John Candy), taking over from his brother Orville from the original, and catch up with local hero Jake (Tristan Rogers, the only natively Australian actor in the film) to track down McLeach.

The most immediately striking thing about the film compared to its predecessor is its look. The original Rescuers was made in the heyday of Xerography, the process wherein Xerox machines could print animators' drawings directly onto cels and save a shitload of money/time in terms of hand-inking and painting. Starting with 101 Dalmatians (which necessitated the process both for the logistics of all those puppies and because the gorgeously rendered, lovingly hand-painted over years of production Sleeping Beauty had been a financial failure), this gave Disney's films a scratchier, more graphic look through the next couple decades. It's not a BAD way to make a film, and I would say the results often looked quite good, especially for moody, atmospheric scenes such as the swamplands in the original film.

Down Under, however, took a different approach, being the first Disney animated film to be fully inked-and-painted digitally in Disney's CAPS (Computer Animation Production System) pipeline. This has a number of advantages, such as better integration of the CGI elements like McLeach's Truck Of Doom, but not the least of which is the bright, vibrant colors. The Outback truly feels like an epic stage for the adventures, with the justly famous Marahute flight showing off its grand scope and beauty. Even the urban night-time New York scenes feel freshened up compared to the muddier vision of before. Even beyond that, the filmmaking has evolved. The original's director, Wolfgang "Woolie" Reitherman, was a fine talent (I'm especially partial to his Robin Hood), but the 1977 film feels awfully slow-paced for what's supposed to be exciting and propulsive. Down Under's directors Hendel Butoy and Mike Gabriel use tighter angles and much brisker editing to lend a real sense of Spielbergian action mechanics, such as in a scene where the mice try and board the Truck Of Doom or the nervy climax.

The character animation is excellent as usual, with the obvious standout being Glen Keane's Marahute. Bird anatomy is perhaps the hardest to do in animation outside of horses, and Keane gives the eagle both a sense of realism and character without anthropomorphizing her to the same degree as the rest of the cast. Mark Henn, meanwhile, does a solid job of grounding Bianca and Bernard as a duo and separately; they never reach too far for effect and seem more or less like normal people doing their best. The great Ruben Aquino, whose resume is more diverse than he gets credit for (Ursula, Adult Simba, and Pleakley are among his characters), gives Jake a full dashing-rogue bearing. Nik Ranieri does honestly some underrated work with Wilbur on the anatomy front, and Duncan Marjoribanks and David Cutler attack the duo of McLeach and Joanna with gusto. The way the latter moves in particular is hilarious, such as in a scene where she tries to steal eggs from a pondering McLeach.

Story-wise are where things get interesting. In addition to the original being well-suited to a sequel (literally having the "you've got another case!" ending), we smartly get things rolling fast. The first film is about the same runtime length-wise, but it spends a long-ass time getting anywhere, or at least feels that way. Whereas this is like "yup, we're off to the races, kids, iconic eagle flight in the first 10 dang minutes". Thus, while Bianca and Bernard don't enter the film for a hot minute, we don't feel like our time's being wasted in the first act as we set up the situation. I like also how the potential triangle between Bernard, Bianca, and Jake is handled with remarkable subtlety. Bianca barely seems to notice, while Jake is certainly puffed-up but never outright cruel to Bernard, and the latter gets a great chance to step up to prove himself when the time comes. The only possible negative effect is that the film is ultimately on the short end, and the plot is fairly simple as a result. Thus we get some goofy comedy padding with Wilbur being subjected to unhelpful medical practices to straighten out his back, as well as a pair of scenes with Cody and some Marketable Animal Friends as they try to escape McLeach. Hardly bad, but a little perfunctory.

I also like Cody a little better as a kid protagonist, tbh. The original film tries to get a lot of pathos out of the plight of Penny, who's not just an orphan, but a KIDNAPPED orphan. It's not bad in and of itself, with an effective scene where the villainous Madame Medusa insults her passive-aggressively to try and get her under her thumb. And it anticipates where Don Bluth, who worked on the film as a directing animator, would go in terms of his own child protagonists like Fievel or Littlefoot. But a little of it goes a long way, even if my heart's not fully made of stone. Down Under trades things up for Cody in terms of being well-adjusted with a single mother and tenacious enough both to save Marahute upfront, as well as seeing right through McLeach's transparent attempt at bullshitting him (though a later manipulation DOES succeed).

The audio end is a good marriage here too, starting with Bruce Broughton giving us an absolutely iconic adventure score. There's lots of distinct themes here that all weave together fantastically, never feeling overly like a "cartoon" score. In terms of the voice cast, Ryen gives a nicely natural performance, kid-like without ever being too cutesy, and brave, but not SO brave that it feels out of place. Gabor and Newhart, the highlight of the earlier film, reach a nice equilibrium between "society lady who takes nobody's shit" and "nice normal guy who can nonetheless keep up with her". Rogers is one of my favorites here, his Aussie twang lending some authenticity to the proceedings, and his soap opera experience (he's a longtime fixture on General Hospital) lets him access the slightly broader cartoon acting necessary. Candy, of course, was a comedy legend, and he adjusts well here in terms of making Wilbur a distinct chatterbug with a noble streak rather than simply recycling his genteel screen presence. My favorite performance, though, is undoubtedly George C. Scott as McLeach. Always an intense, thoughtful actor (he's my favorite Ebenezer Scrooge on film), he makes what could've been a generic "evil hunter" type into something really memorable by snacking on the scenery and giving him a real cruel streak. And I'd be remiss without mentioning Welker's Joanna, who nearly sounds like an anticipation of Andy Serkis' Gollum in her slobbery growls and chuckles.

I'll be honest, I can't be TOTALLY objective about this movie. It was one of the first Disney films I owned on VHS, and many a rewind was had because I couldn't get enough. It's a little rougher around the edges now that I'm an adult, true, but when Marahute starts to fly as the music swells? Every time, I get transported back to a living room in Peachtree City, Georgia, inches away from the TV. That still means something, and thankfully, most of the movie still backs that kid up.

[briskwinits]

Article in Businessinsider about Risk Of Artificial Intelligence

For more such articles follow us on our Social Media

Visit: https://briskwinit.com/

[tozettastone]

Today Jonathan Kearns' article in the Australian Financial Review taught me that "cruel" could be a verb: "This is a sharp turnaround from earlier expectations of rate cuts; homeowners’ hopes were cruelled by higher-than-expected inflation."

I said, "there's no way that's a real way to use that word," and then I looked it up. Apparently you use it (specifically in Australian English) as a verb to mean, like, spoilt or ruined. Wiktionary link: [×]

Every day's a school day, I guess. ಠ⁠﹏⁠ಠ

[nottooldtodream]

Troye in the August Australian Financial Review Showing part of new line of Fragrance and home decor, Tsu Lange Yor.