3 Noticias economicas ingles

Reducing bond buying sooner could provide more flexibility to raise interest rates if inflation stays high and unemployment falls rapidly.

The £3bn global smaller companies investment trust run by Terry Smith’s Fundsmith has posted its first half-year of underperformance since launching three years ago.

The veteran stockpicker says the pandemic has reinforced his conviction in his investment principles, as he marks 35 years of running money.

Pandemic has accelerated the adoption of machine learning as a tool for education

Pandemic has accelerated the adoption of machine learning as a tool for education

Pandemic has accelerated the adoption of machine learning as a tool for education

In 2019, my business partner and I attended a “virtual reality meal” at James Beard House. At the time, we wrote it off as a novelty. While these kinds of events offered innovative one-off experiences, it wasn’t yet clear how emerging technologies would add consistent value to the wider arts industry. Mass adaptation felt a long way off.

We didn’t know then, of course, that the demand for experiential tech was about to explode as people found themselves locked down at home and desperate to access cultural experiences as distractions, comforts, and life rafts amid the chaotic isolation of 2020.

Emerging tech became a lifeline for the arts, and for people seeking connection and distraction.

But now, as the IRL (in real life) world starts to reopen, albeit haltingly, arts organizations face a choice: Will reopening return them to the old normal’s status quo, or will they commit, for the long term, to use emerging tech and digital experiences as a connecting lifeline to audiences who previously weren’t able to access them?

Window on the world

With the closure of museums, events spaces, and restaurants, the arts industry faced an undeniably steep challenge—the effects of which were felt most keenly by working artists. But amid the wreckage, we also witnessed promising innovations from savvy brands and organizations. Well-designed digital offerings not only kept their content accessible to their core audience but also expanded their reach and impact exponentially.

Virtual experiences became a desperately needed window on the world, and to stave off isolation, everyone—from grandmas to toddlers—had to become technologically literate in a very short amount of time.

So while brick-and-mortar doors stayed shut through lockdown, virtual doors flung wide open: You could visit the Louvre from your living room or attend a performance of Hamilton anywhere in the world. Britain’s National Theatre welcomed audiences around the globe to view its cinematically recorded NT Live archive for free during England’s first lockdown, ultimately leading to the launch of a subscription service that will serve those far-flung viewers for years to come.

Virtual reality and augmented reality finally found the direction they were lacking in those halcyon novelty days: Frieze offered users a chance to hang famous paintings on their wall through an augmented reality app, and Spanish artist Felipe Pantone created an Instagram exhibition using a VR graffiti simulator.

Of course, none of this means that live experiences are dead. Just a couple of weeks ago, I took my kids to an Olaf Breuning show, and their wonder at seeing art up close in situ was completely life-affirming. After two years cooped up at home, it was clearer to me than ever before just how powerful and crucial experiencing the arts in real life can be.

Going forward, it shouldn’t be about pitting digital and in-person experiences against each other. Smart organizations will have a foot in each stream. We’ll forevermore need to think about virtual and in-person experiences as two halves of a whole.

London’s Serpentine Galleries and Washington, D.C.’s AFI Docs Festival have taken this new truth to heart: Both are moving forward into the “new normal” with robust hybrid programming strategies to ensure audiences can connect comfortably with their exhibitions in a variety of ways.

Opening doors

Thinking about virtual and IRL experiences isn’t just a matter of abiding by restrictions and playing to audiences’ new preferences and comfort levels—it’s so much more important than that. It’s about inclusivity, diversity, and accessibility, for consumers as well as for creators.

A thoughtfully designed digital offering can level previously steep playing fields, making a range of experiences available to audiences who previously couldn’t afford or physically attend location-based experiences. The knock-on effect here could potentially open doors too long shut to minority creators.

Arts and culture organizations could learn from the wider creative industries in this regard; as a result of the long-standing accessibility challenges highlighted by COVID-19, design and advertising coalitions have launched programs like .movtogether and the Design Community Hub to address the disparity.

Added value

The bridging of digital and physical experiences may be relatively new to mainstream cultural organizations, but retailers have been greasing the wheels on this transformational approach for years now. Think Ikea’s augmented reality Home app, or HP Reveal’s contribution to bridging the gap between home and school for students. An American Institute of Graphic Arts report on design futures aptly observes that in these cases, digital elements add value to the overall experience, rather than simply funneling audiences to some main live event.

And now we’re seeing this same “add-on” approach emerge from more high-end brands. Celebrated fashion designer Thom Browne launched his 2021 collection in a virtual 3D showroom—and while the experience was developed due to COVID-19 restrictions, it certainly doesn’t feel like a forced substitute. Never before have audiences at a runway show had such in-depth access to the details of Browne’s work. In this iteration, viewers can take their sweet time experiencing each piece in 360-degree, high-definition glory. Browne now intends to include a virtual element in future launches, as a valuable component alongside live showings.

Building a bridge

But well-designed digital experiences don’t necessarily have to be slick and expensive. Yes, emerging VR and AR tech has a new, more urgent lease on life, and luxury brands are leading the way for many exciting and important innovations. But organizations without the budget or resources for flashy experiences needn’t feel like they’re doomed to the “old normal.”

One of the biggest successes in digital experience innovations during COVID-19 was the Frick Collection’s Cocktails With a Curator series. Low-tech videos filmed inside curators’ homes generated millions of views, proving, as The New York Times observed, that “online audiences don’t expect a simulation of a gallery visit on-screen. They want a museum experience native to the web—and that can be a little faster, a little less polished, a little more direct.”

At the end of the day, arts and culture organizations need to keep their focus where it’s always been: human connection. And they need to design their experiences—online or in person—with that humanity at the core.

What we have now is an opportunity to expand the definition of what connection with the arts means and who gets to participate in it. We have a chance to design the future of the industry in a way that makes a notable difference for the mental and emotional health of our global community—a priority that should have taken center stage a long time ago.

Amy Globus is the cofounder and creative director at Team, working with clients like Pfizer, the Bronx Museum, and Red Bull Arts.

Did greed just save the day? That’s what British Prime Minister Boris Johnson claimed recently. “The reason we have the vaccine success,” he said in a private call to Conservative members of Parliament, “is because of capitalism, because of greed.”

Despite later backpedaling, Johnson’s remark reflects a widely influential but wildly incoherent view of innovation: that greed—the unfettered pursuit of profit above all else—is a necessary driver of technological progress. Call it the need-greed theory.

Among the pandemic’s many lessons, however, is that greed can easily work against the common good. We rightly celebrate the near-miraculous development of effective vaccines, which have been widely deployed in rich nations. But the global picture reveals not even a semblance of justice: As of May, low-income nations received just 0.3 percent of the global vaccine supply. At this rate it would take 57 years for them to achieve full vaccination.

This disparity has been dubbed “vaccine apartheid,” and it’s exacerbated by greed. A year after the launch of the World Health Organization’s COVID-19 Technology Access Pool—a program aimed at encouraging the collaborative exchange of intellectual property, knowledge, and data—”not a single company has donated its technical knowhow,” wrote politicians from India, Kenya, and Bolivia in a June essay for The Guardian. As of that month, the U.N.-backed COVAX initiative, a vaccine sharing scheme established to provide developing countries equitable access, had delivered only about 90 million out of a promised 2 billion doses. Currently, pharmaceutical companies, lobbyists, and conservative lawmakers continue to oppose proposals for patent waivers that would allow local drug makers to manufacture the vaccines without legal jeopardy. They claim the waivers would slow down existing production, “foster the proliferation of counterfeit vaccines,” and, as North Carolina Republican Sen. Richard Burr said, “undermine the very innovation we are relying on to bring this pandemic to an end.”

All these views echo the idea that patents and high drug prices are necessary motivators for biomedical innovation. But examine that logic closely, and it quickly begins to fall apart.

A great deal of difficult, innovative work is done in industries and fields that lack patents. Has the lack of patent protections for recipes led to any dearth of innovation in restaurants? An irritating irony here is that economists who espouse the need-greed theory themselves innovate for comparative peanuts. For instance, in 2018, the median compensation for economists was about $104,000. The typical pharmaceutical CEO, meanwhile, earned a whopping $5.7 million in total compensation that year. (The hands-on innovators aren’t the need-greeders here; the median compensation for pharmaceutical employees—including benefits—was about $177,000 in 2018.) Even in Silicon Valley, writes ever-astute technology insider Tim O’Reilly, “the notion that entrepreneurs will stop innovating if they aren’t rewarded with billions is a pernicious fantasy.”

To be sure, it was not greed but rather a vast collaborative effort—funded largely with public dollars—that generated effective coronavirus vaccines. The technology behind mRNA vaccines such as those produced by Pfizer and Moderna took decades of work by University of Pennsylvania scientists you’ve likely never heard of. According to The New York Times, one of those scientists, Katalin Kariko, “never made more than $60,000 a year” while doing her innovative foundational research. The researchers at Oxford University who developed the technology behind AstraZeneca’s vaccine, which was mostly publicly funded, initially set out with the intention of “non-exclusive, royalty-free” licensing for their vaccine. Only after pressure from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation did they renege and license the technology solely to AstraZeneca.

It was astonishing, then, when Pascal Soriot, AstraZeneca’s CEO, said that intellectual property, or IP, “is a fundamental part of our industry and if you don’t protect IP, then essentially there is no incentive for anybody to innovate.” The Oxford scientists whose work AstraZeneca licensed literally just innovated without the incentives Soriot claimed are essential. Why do journalists present need-greeder claims, such as Soriot’s, without holding the specific role of profit seeking to account?

It’s no secret that innovators (and people generally) often aren’t necessarily greed-driven. For instance, as Walter Isaacson notes in his book about superstar biochemist Jennifer Doudna’s work on Crispr gene manipulation technology, she was never motivated primarily by money. In fact, he reports that corporate maneuvering over her work made her “physically ill.” Countless cases like hers show that innovations in science and technology typically aren’t the result of genius lightning strikes but rather of field-wide efforts with multiple teams circling the same goal. If anyone withdraws for lack of greed-gratifying incentives, no problem: They’re welcome to write themselves out of history. Others will gladly grasp the glory. And we, the public, lose nothing.

Perhaps Soriot meant, more generally, that reduced revenues would cut AstraZeneca’s overall research and development (R&D) spending. But even that claim is detectably dubious. When drug makers claim that high prices are essential for innovation, they are “flat out lying” financial expert Yves Smith wrote in 2019. Smith cited data published with the Institute for New Economic Thinking showing that, between 2009 and 2018, 18 drug makers listed in the S&P 500 spent 14 percent more on stock buybacks and dividends than they did on R&D. These companies could easily ramp up investments in innovative drugs, the authors wrote, simply by reining in distributions to shareholders. (Don’t forget that share buybacks were effectively classified as illegal market manipulation until the Securities and Exchange Commission, under Reagan, relaxed the rules in 1982.)

Of the money that drug companies do invest in R&D, a significant amount for many goes not toward innovative research but to “finding ways to suppress generic and biosimilar competition while continuing to raise prices,” according to a recent report from the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform. In these cases, executive and investor greed demonstrably impede innovation. A recent Congressional hearing dramatized this issue when Rep. Katie Porter, a California Democrat, grilled the CEO of AbbVie, a biopharmaceutical company which she said spent $2.45 billion on research and development, $4.71 billion a year on marketing and advertising, and $50 billion on shareholder payouts between 2013 and 2018. She characterized the idea that R&D justified astronomical prices as “the Big Pharma fairy tale.”

Even if greed makes sense for some for-profit ventures, it would be unwise for us to rely only on for-profit enterprise to harness innovation for social goals. There are many things that we must do whether they are profitable or not, and the horrific fiasco over vaccine patents has shown us that biotech executives and other members of the “thinkerati” are not above putting profits ahead of saving lives. As White House adviser Anthony Fauci noted to The Hill earlier this year, America has a “moral obligation” to “make sure that the rest of the world does not suffer and die” from something that we can help to prevent. Our government is failing in its duty to act in the public interest if it allows “your money or your life” to pass as an acceptable business model.

As an open letter signed by more than a hundred intellectual property scholars recently stated, IP rights (which includes patents) “are not, and have never been, absolute rights and are granted and recognized under the condition that they serve the public interest.” The scholars noted precedents like last year’s use of the Defense Production Act to increase production of medical supplies, and the U.S.’s commandeering of penicillin production during World War II. If COVID-19 vaccine makers refuse to make life-saving technology publicly available, governments should enact mandatory licensing or similar measures.

There are also compelling reasons to develop a standing, publicly operated rapid-response vaccine manufacturing capability. Pfizer’s CFO suggested that prices on vaccines will go up once we are out of the “pandemic-pricing environment,” noting that the company can charge nearly nine times more than they have been (“$150, $175 per dose,” the CFO said, versus the $19.50 Pfizer is charging the U.S. in one supply deal). Even if those who haven’t received a single dose of the vaccine never do, that could mean roughly a $30 billion bonanza from U.S. booster shots alone. Patient advocates estimate that it would cost just $4 billion for the U.S. to set up a public-private operation capable of manufacturing enough mRNA vaccines to immunize the whole planet, with each shot costing $2. This would be a great way for America to show global leadership, and would surely be way cheaper, both individually and collectively, than being annually “Pfizered.” Plus, the usefulness of such a facility would long outlast the current pandemic, with climate change making zoonotic spillover events more likely (not to mention the risks of weaponized viruses). COVID-19 was our “starter pandemic,” as Ed Yong usefully dubbed it.

If greed-driven companies fail to exercise their powers responsibly, they should face competition from the public sector. President Biden let the cat out of the bag when he said that “capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism; it’s exploitation.” While many people applauded his sentiment, stop and think about the implication: The president was, in essence, saying that we expect corporations to exploit us if given half a chance.

We pay a huge price in blood and treasure when we give the need-greeders free rein to lie to and exploit the public with impunity. We must be clear-eyed about exactly when greed can help our collective interests and when it hinders them. During a crisis as dire as a global pandemic, greed won’t save us.

Jag Bhalla is a writer and entrepreneur.

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Oil and mining stocks dragged the FTSE 100 lower as fears of further lockdowns and restrictions concerned investors as the the Covid-19 delta variant continues to spread through Asia.

The Taliban’s defeat of the US will be a boost to jihadis across the globe

The Taliban’s defeat of the US will be a boost to jihadis across the globe

BHP, the world’s biggest mining company, is in talks about selling its oil-and-gas business to Australia’s Woodside Petroleum, in a deal that would land BHP shareholders Woodside stock.

Food and grocery delivery services boomed during the pandemic as our purchase habits and expectations changed. And now 7-Eleven is getting in on the home delivery trend by launching a pilot program in select states that will see beer, wine, and even Slurpees delivered to your door within 30 to 60 minutes.

The company has announced a collaboration with Minibar Delivery, an independent marketplace for alcohol delivery, that will see select stores in Florida, Texas, and Virginia offer beer and wine delivery direct to customers’ homes. In addition to alcoholic beverages, the new pilot program will also allow 7-Eleven customers to order snack hits such as Slurpees, Big Bite Hot Dogs, chips, and pizza.

7-Eleven says 600 stores will take part in its alcohol delivery pilot. That includes stores in Orlando, Tampa, Fort Myers, and Miami in Florida; San Antonio, Dallas, Austin, and Fort Worth in Texas, and Virginia Beach, Richmond, Norfolk, and Alexandria in Virginia, with additional markets to come later this year. Alcoholic deliveries will, of course, be limited to those 21 years old and above.

If you live in one of the markets the pilot program is rolling out in, you can order from your local 7-Eleven via the Minibar Delivery’s app (iOS/Android) or on the web at www.minibardelivery.com. And if it’s your first order from 7-Eleven, you can get $7.11 off your first purchase by using the promo code 7ELEVEN when you checkout.

Edward Price argues central bank independence is too theoretical for any appointment to make a difference.

Deal likely to add to concerns about the hollowing-out of UK listed defence sector and loss of control over sensitive IP

Project comes as internet infrastructure becomes geopolitical flashpoint between US and China

Project comes as internet infrastructure becomes geopolitical flashpoint between US and China

Project comes as internet infrastructure becomes geopolitical flashpoint between US and China

This fall was supposed to be spectacular. After a year and a half of dealing with the trauma, anxiety, and exhaustion of the pandemic, the vaccines arrived, and it seemed like normalcy was around the corner. I was planning to throw house parties and enormous dinner gatherings to catch up with friends, and host Halloween and Thanksgiving shindigs. But the highly transmissible delta variant changed all of that.

With COVID-19 cases surging around the country, many of us are headed back indoors with our pod-mates. It’s a depressing thought. But to make it (slightly) more bearable, why not invest in a few things to liven up your home? We’ve selected some of our favorite design-forward home goods to inspire you as you spruce up your living space for the months to come.

A Splash of Color for Your Walls

MoMA Design Store, $325

Ronan Bouroullec is a celebrated furniture designer who is also known for beautiful abstract paintings. This one, featured in MoMA’s collection, is bound to put a smile on your face with its burst of colors. MoMA Design Store sells a print on embossed paper, which mimics the artist’s technique of using felt-tip pens on glossy paper. You won’t have to go through the trouble of framing it, because it comes in a wax oak molding and Plexiglass.

Make Your Own Artwork

Areaware, $17

If the Bouroullec painting got your creative juices flowing, maybe it’s time to make some abstract art of your own. These Doodle Crayons were developed by artist and designer Nikolas Bentel, who loves helping people reimagine everyday objects. The shape of the crayons spur you to use them in different ways—by pulling them along their sides or pushing them around flat. Then proudly display your scribbles and doodles on your fridge or walls.

A Rug With Many Lives

Revival Rugs, $839

If you’re looking for a touch of warmth in your home, consider updating your rugs. Rather than buying a brand-new, factory-made one,  you could get a vintage rug that has had many lives. Revival Rugs curates vintage rugs from around the world then cleans and refurbishes them. This particular one-of-a-kind rug was made in Malatya, Turkey, and it features geometric patterns that are unique to that region. The company allows you to search for a rug by size and color, so you can find one that is perfectly suited to your space.

Turn Your Bathroom Into a Museum

Design Milk Store, $62

We start and end our days in the bathroom. Shouldn’t it be a gorgeous spot in the house? Design Milk has a range of bathroom products, from shower curtains to bath rugs, that feature modern art. I’m particularly taken by this one, called the Mendocino Moon Jelly rug, because it is inspired by the quiet town in California known for its beautiful mountain views. It’s designed in the Turkish kilim style and is made from quick-drying cotton.

Take In The Light

Goodee, $265

As the days get darker, you’ll want to brighten up your home. This meditative lamp, called the Reflection Oblo Table Lamp, was designed by David Weeks, an industrial designer from New York, and features a mouth-blown bulb and a base made of semi-translucent, hand-thrown porcelain that has a reflective glaze for enhancing the bulb’s light.

A Throw Blanket To Regale The Eyes

MoMA Design Store, $200

If you’re in the market for a throw blanket as the cooler months arrive, you might consider this lively, colorful one by the Japanese designer Osamu Mita. It’s inspired by Japanese vending machines that dispense capsules full of surprise toys. There are 15 patterns on display, each inside a circle meant to represent a toy capsule. Mita’s art has been featured in MoMA’s collection and these particular designs were part of a 1998 exhibit, Structure and Surface: Contemporary Japanese Textiles.

Give Your Pandemic Puppy A Designer Bed

Minna, $225

You got a furry friend to help you get through the pandemic. As the two of you spend more time indoors, why not create a designer sanctuary for the little guy with this beautiful pet bed? The Penny Dog Bed is made by pedal loom weavers in San Antonio Palopó, Guatamala, and features striped fabric in a range of colors that will spruce up a room. If you don’t have a pet but you love the product, buy it anyway: It doubles as a floor pillow.

Splurge On Your Cozy Corner

Blu Dot, $1,299

If you’re going to spend a lot of time reading a book in a cozy corner of your home, you could do worse than this beautifully crafted full-grain leather chair that will last a lifetime. The Heyday Lounge Chair, designed by Blu Dot, is meant to make you feel like you’re suspended in mid-air. Bonus: The chair ships fully assembled.

A Broom You Can Believe In

Sunhouse Craft, $35

You might think there’s nothing duller than a broom. But that’s because you haven’t explored the universe of artisanal brooms. These Rainbow Brooms are by designer Cynthia Main, who wanted to create home goods inspired by traditional Appalachian crafts. Each broom is sustainably made in Berea, Kentucky, and the brooms are hand woven from locally sourced wood. They’ll bring a smile to your face as you’re going about your chores and sweeping your home.

If you want to try some, cultured meat still isn’t easy to find: So far, only one form of cultured chicken has regulatory approval, and only in Singapore. But more is coming, and your pets won’t have to wait long either. Soon there will be cultured meat for pet food, which could help cut the 64 million tons of carbon pollution that comes from producing meat for dog and cat food.

The biotech startup Because, Animals is the first to focus on pet food, and hopes to launch its first products—including a “mouse cookie” snack for cats—by 2022. “The ultimate goal of most cultured meat companies is to create a product that will allow animals to be taken out of the food supply chain,” Shannon Falconer, CEO and cofounder of Because, Animals, said in an email. “And, given that humans are the largest consumers of traditional meat, it makes sense to focus on humans when making a cultured meat product. However, something that most people are unaware of is that, in addition to humans, there is another hugely significant population driving the animal agriculture industry forward: our pets.”

More than a quarter of the environmental impact of animal agriculture, by one estimate, comes from feeding pets meat. Pet food often uses rendered meat, the grisly ingredients that people don’t want (like viscera, heads, bones, and blood) or meat that can’t legally be sold because the livestock was diseased or dying. The volume of this rendered meat is so large that if farmers couldn’t sell it, they couldn’t afford to dispose of it as biohazardous waste; Falconer argues that pet food helps prop up the entire industry.

While some companies make plant-based pet food, dogs and cats are arguably healthier when they eat meat, particularly cats, which need certain proteins that can only be found in meat. When the startup started product development for its first cat food, it decided to begin not with beef or chicken but mouse. “Cats evolved as predatory animals, with their food sources being mice, rats, rabbits, lizards, and insects,” says Falconer. “Although chicken, beef, and fish are the main sources of meat in pet foods, studies have shown that these proteins are also among the leading food allergens in cats and dogs.” The only reason that these meats are used in pet food, she says, is because they’re already being produced for humans.

The first snack, called Cultured Mouse Cookies for Cats, has been tested by cats and is ready for production, though the company is still working on how to fully scale up its process. Like cultured meat under development for humans, the process starts by harvesting cells from an animal—in this case, a mouse (the mouse isn’t harmed)—and then feeding those cells nutrients inside a bioreactor, where they grow and turn into real meat that is animal-free. Cultured rabbit for dogs will come next.

The final challenge, as with cultured meat for humans, is regulatory approval. “Regulatory approval will look different depending on the country,” Falconer says. “But the fundamental question that any and every regulatory authority will ask is: How do we know it’s safe? There isn’t a single experiment that Because, Animals conducts that doesn’t place the health and safety of our cultured meat as our highest priority. We’re incredibly thorough, so we don’t expect to have any hiccups around regulatory approval aside from the inherently lengthy review process.”