Saturday, July 14, 2018

How might dark matter interact with ordinary matter?









July 13, 2018

University of California - Riverside

Scientists have imposed conditions on how dark matter may interact with ordinary matter. In the search for direct detection of dark matter, the experimental focus has been on WIMPs, or weakly interacting massive particles, the hypothetical particles thought to make up dark matter. But the research team invokes a different theory to challenge the WIMP paradigm: the self-interacting dark matter model, or SIDM.




An international team of scientists that includes University of California, Riverside, physicist Hai-Bo Yu has imposed conditions on how dark matter may interact with ordinary matter -- constraints that can help identify the elusive dark matter particle and detect it on Earth.

Dark matter -- nonluminous material in space -- is understood to constitute 85 percent of the matter in the universe. Unlike normal matter, it does not absorb, reflect, or emit light, making it difficult to detect.

Physicists are certain dark matter exists, having inferred this existence from the gravitational effect dark matter has on visible matter. What they are less certain of is how dark matter interacts with ordinary matter -- or even if it does.

In the search for direct detection of dark matter, the experimental focus has been on WIMPs, or weakly interacting massive particles, the hypothetical particles thought to make up dark matter.

But Yu's international research team invokes a different theory to challenge the WIMP paradigm: the self-interacting dark matter model, or SIDM, a well-motivated framework that can explain the full range of diversity observed in the galactic rotation curves. First proposed in 2000 by a pair of eminent astrophysicists, SIDM has regained popularity in both the particle physics and the astrophysics communities since around 2009, aided, in part, by work Yu and his collaborators did.

Yu, a theorist in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at UCR, and Yong Yang, an experimentalist at Shanghai Jiaotong University in China, co-led the team analyzing and interpreting the latest data collected in 2016 and 2017 at PandaX-II, a xenon-based dark matter direct detection experiment in China (PandaX refers to Particle and Astrophysical Xenon Detector; PandaX-II refers to the experiment). Should a dark matter particle collide with PandaX-II's liquefied xenon, the result would be two simultaneous signals: one of photons and the other of electrons.

Yu explained that PandaX-II assumes dark matter "talks to" normal matter -- that is, interacts with protons and neutrons -- by means other than gravitational interaction (just gravitational interaction is not enough). The researchers then search for a signal that identifies this interaction. In addition, the PandaX-II collaboration assumes the "mediator particle," mediating interactions between dark matter and normal matter, has far less mass than the mediator particle in the WIMP paradigm.

"The WIMP paradigm assumes this mediator particle is very heavy -- 100 to 1000 times the mass of a proton -- or about the mass of the dark matter particle," Yu said. "This paradigm has dominated the field for more than 30 years. In astrophysical observations, we don't, however, see all its predictions. The SIDM model, on the other hand, assumes the mediator particle is about 0.001 times the mass of the dark matter particle, inferred from astrophysical observations from dwarf galaxies to galaxy clusters. The presence of such a light mediator could lead to smoking-gun signatures of SIDM in dark matter direct detection, as we suggested in an earlier theory paper. Now, we believe PandaX-II, one of the world's most sensitive direct detection experiments, is poised to validate the SIDM model when a dark matter particle is detected."

The international team of researchers reports July 12 in Physical Review Letters the strongest limit on the interaction strength between dark matter and visible matter with a light mediator. The journal has selected the research paper as a highlight, a significant honor.

"This is a particle physics constraint on a theory that has been used to understand astrophysical properties of dark matter," said Flip Tanedo, a dark matter expert at UCR, who was not involved in the research. "The study highlights the complementary ways in which very different experiments are needed to search for dark matter. It also shows why theoretical physics plays a critical role to translate between these different kinds of searches. The study by Hai-Bo Yu and his colleagues interprets new experimental data in terms of a framework that makes it easy to connect to other types of experiments, especially astrophysical observations, and a much broader range of theories."

PandaX-II is located at the China Jinping Underground Laboratory, Sichuan Province, where pandas are abundant. The laboratory is the deepest underground laboratory in the world. PandaX-II had generated the largest dataset for dark matter detection when the analysis was performed. One of only three xenon-based dark matter direct detection experiments in the world, PandaX-II is one of the frontier facilities to search for extremely rare events where scientists hope to observe a dark matter particle interacting with ordinary matter and thus better understand the fundamental particle properties of dark matter.

Particle physicists' attempts to understand dark matter have yet to yield definitive evidence for dark matter in the lab.

"The discovery of a dark matter particle interacting with ordinary matter is one of the holy grails of modern physics and represents the best hope to understand the fundamental, particle properties of dark matter," Tanedo said.

For the past decade, Yu, a world expert on SIDM, has led an effort to bridge particle physics and cosmology by looking for ways to understand dark matter's particle properties from astrophysical data. He and his collaborators have discovered a class of dark matter theories with a new dark force that may explain unexpected features seen in the systems across a wide range, from dwarf galaxies to galaxy clusters. More importantly, this new SIDM framework serves as a crutch for particle physicists to convert astronomical data into particle physics parameters of dark matter models. In this way, the SIDM framework is a translator for two different scientific communities to understand each other's results.

Now with the PandaX-II experimental collaboration, Yu has shown how self-interacting dark matter theories may be distinguished at the PandaX-II experiment.

"Prior to this line of work, these types of laboratory-based dark matter experiments primarily focused on dark matter candidates that did not have self-interactions," Tanedo said. "This work has shown how dark forces affect the laboratory signals of dark matter."

Yu noted that this is the first direct detection result for SIDM reported by an experimental collaboration.

"With more data, we will continue to probe the dark matter interactions with a light mediator and the self-interacting nature of dark matter," he said.


Story Source:

Materials provided by University of California - Riverside. Original written by Iqbal Pittalwala. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.


Journal Reference:

Xiangxiang Ren, Li Zhao, Abdusalam Abdukerim, Xun Chen, Yunhua Chen, Xiangyi Cui, Deqing Fang, Changbo Fu, Karl Giboni, Franco Giuliani, Linhui Gu, Xuyuan Guo, Ke Han, Changda He, Di Huang, Shengming He, Xingtao Huang, Zhou Huang, Xiangdong Ji, Yonglin Ju, Yao Li, Heng Lin, Huaxuan Liu, Jianglai Liu, Yugang Ma, Yajun Mao, Kaixiang Ni, Jinhua Ning, Andi Tan, Hongwei Wang, Meng Wang, Qiuhong Wang, Siguang Wang, Xiuli Wang, Shiyong Wu, Jingkai Xia, Mengjiao Xiao, Pengwei Xie, Binbin Yan, Jijun Yang, Yong Yang, Hai-Bo Yu, Jianfeng Yue, Tao Zhang, Jifang Zhou, Ning Zhou, Qibin Zheng, Xiaopeng Zhou. Constraining Dark Matter Models with a Light Mediator at the PandaX-II Experiment. Physical Review Letters, 2018; 121 (2) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.021304





































Sunk cost fallacy in mice, rats and humans










July 13, 2018

University of Minnesota Medical School

New research has shown that mice, rats, and humans all commit the sunk cost fallacy.




The behavior of people who remain committed to a choice, even when it is clear that an alternate choice would be a better option, has been a perplexing phenomenon to psychologists and economists. For example, people will continue to wait in the slow line at a grocery store, stick out an unhealthy relationship, or refuse to abandon an expensive, wasteful project -- all because such individuals have already invested time, effort, or money. This well-known cognitive phenomenon termed the "sunk cost fallacy" has long been considered a problem unique to humans. New research has discovered that humans are not the only species that share these economically irrational flaws.

New research from the University of Minnesota published in the journal Science discovered that mice, rats, and humans all commit the sunk cost fallacy.

"The key to this research was that all three species learned to play the same economic game," says Brian Sweis, the paper's lead author, an MD/PhD student at the University of Minnesota. Mice and rats spent time from a limited budget foraging for flavored food pieces while humans similarly spent a limited time budget foraging for what humans these days seek -- entertaining videos on the web.

Rats and mice ran around a maze that contained four food-delivery-locations ("restaurants"). On entry into each restaurant, the animal was informed of how long it would be before food would be delivered by an auditory tone. They had one hour to gather food and thus each entry meant they had to answer a question like, "Am I willing to spend 20 seconds from my time budget waiting for my cherry-flavored food pellet?" with a delay lasting anywhere from 1 to 30 seconds.

Similarly, humans saw a series of web galleries and were informed of the delay by a download bar. This meant humans had to answer an equivalent question: "Am I willing to spend 20 seconds from my time budget waiting for my kitten video?" In this way, each subject from each species revealed their own subjective preferences for individual food flavors or video galleries.

In this task, every entry required two decisions, a first decision when the delay was revealed, but did not count down, and then a second decision if the offer was accepted when subjects could quit and change their minds during the countdown. Remarkably, the authors found that all three species become more reluctant to quit the longer they waited -- demonstrating the sunk cost fallacy.

Strikingly, subjects hesitated before accepting or rejecting offers during the initial decision before the countdown. "It's as if they knew they didn't want to get in line until they were sure," says Sweis. Even more surprising, neither mice, rats, nor humans took into account the sunk costs spent while deliberating. This suggests that the process of deliberation and the process of changing one's mind after an initial commitment depend on different economic factors, and that these factors are conserved across species.

"This project depended on the collaborative nature of science today," says senior author David Redish, a professor in the University of Minnesota Medical School's Neuroscience Department. "This was a collaboration between three laboratories and required working back and forth to ensure that we could ask similar questions across different species on these parallel tasks."

As such, this project builds on a number of breakthrough discoveries recently published by these laboratories, which find that mice, rats, and humans use similar neural systems to make these different types of decisions, that mice and rats also show regret after making mistakes, and that even mice can learn to avoid those mistakes by deliberating first, as revealed in a recent paper by these authors in PLOS Biology.

"These tasks reveal complex decision processes underlying the conflict between really wanting something on the one hand versus knowing better on the other," says Sweis.

"This is a conflict between different neural decision systems, and that means we can separately manipulate those systems," says Redish.

In other publications recently appearing in Nature Communicationsand the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, these authors have found that both the effect of different drugs (cocaine, morphine) and different changes to neural circuits affect these two systems differently, which suggests that different forms of addiction would likely benefit from individualized treatments tailored to dysfunctions in distinct brain circuits.

"Decisions depend on neural circuits, which means that manipulating those circuits changes the decision process," says Mark Thomas, another of the study's senior authors and a professor in the Medical School's Neuroscience Department.

"There was a day when we asked ourselves, 'Rats forage for food, what do undergrads forage for?'" remembers author Samantha Abram, now a postdoctoral psychology fellow at the San Francisco VA Medical Center, who led the human component as a graduate student in the University of Minnesota Clinical Science and Psychopathology Research Program with her advisor Angus MacDonald, a professor in the Psychology Department of the University of Minnesota College of Liberal Arts.

By having all three species play the same economic game, these authors have revealed a new insight into how different parts of the brain make different types of decisions and that there is an evolutionary history to the flaws that make us human.


Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Minnesota Medical School. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.


Journal References:

Brian M. Sweis, Samantha V. Abram, Brandy J. Schmidt, Kelsey D. Seeland, Angus W. Macdonald Iii, Mark J. Thomas, A. David Redish. Sensitivity to “sunk costs” in mice, rats, and humans. Science, 13 Jul 2018: Vol. 361, Issue 6398, pp. 178-181 DOI: 10.1126/science.aar8644

Brian M. Sweis, Mark J. Thomas, A. David Redish. Mice learn to avoid regret. PLOS Biology, 2018; 16 (6): e2005853 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005853





















Trump’s Real NATO Agenda? More Money for War








https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=195&v=eMLNvThfqcg






















































AARON MATE: It’s The Real News. I’m Aaron Mate.

Heading into this week’s NATO summit, the prevailing fear among prominent U.S. media and political figures was that President Trump could possibly destroy the decades-old military alliance. But Trump went in a different direction. He ended the summit Thursday claiming he has gotten NATO members to agree to a longtime U.S. demand: that they spend more on their militaries.

DONALD TRUMP: Tremendous progress has been made. Everyone’s agreed to substantially up their commitment. They’re going to up it at at levels that they’ve never thought of before. Prior to last year where I attended my first meeting, it was going down; the amount of money being spent by countries was going down, and down very substantially. And now it’s going up very substantially, and commitments were made. Only five of 29 countries were making their commitment, and that’s now changed. The commitment was at 2 percent. Ultimately that will be going up quite a bit higher than that.

AARON MATE: Now, some NATO members are already disputing Trump’s claim that they’ve committed more. But regardless, lost in the anxiety over Trump’s commitment to NATO is whether or not this military spending he’s bragging about would be a positive thing, and how that money could be spent otherwise.

Well, joining me to discuss is Bill Hartung, director of the Arms Security Project at the Center for International Policy. Welcome, Bill. If we could start just by your thoughts on this question of does NATO need to be spending so much money on the military, as President Trump claims?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Yeah. As usual, Trump’s numbers are all off. But as you said, the real question is: does NATO need to spend more? And the answer is a resounding no.
If you look at the Stockholm Peace Research Institute stats, NATO’s spent $900 a year to about $66 billion by Russia. And even if you take out the United States, the top four European spenders outspend Russia two to one. So if it’s about money plenty, there’s of money sloshing around in NATO. There’s no need to increase it.

But even beyond that, we’re not in the Cold War anymore. It’s not an issue of blocking Soviet tanks coming across the border, or having, you know, aerial dogfights, or so in the sense that there’s competition, it’s a political; perhaps there’s some cyber issues. Nothing to justify a huge increase in military expenditure. And if Trump wants to save money, what he really needs to do is end the U.S. wars around the world, because that’s where the money is going. If that’s his concern, it’s not about getting NATO to spend more; it’s about the United States spending less on this global militarized foreign policy.

AARON MATE: In terms of Russia, just to throw out some more figures, the recent Pentagon budget that was pushed through Congress, the, its increase from last year is more than the total Russian military budget combined. Right? And Russia, meanwhile, has been reducing its military spending in recent years, if I have that correct.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Yes, that is correct. I mean, there’s questions that can be debated about Russia’s role in Ukraine, and its connections with right-wing parties in Europe, and so forth. But as I said, if there was a spending race, Russia is far behind. It doesn’t even seem to be trying to compete. So you could pour all that money into Europe. It would probably mean more purchases of U.S. weapons, like the F-35. It would probably mean that Russia, perhaps, would decide to increase its spending, or spend more on nuclear missiles, or otherwise respond to what it might perceive as a new threat. But it certainly wouldn’t make anybody safer.

AARON MATE: In terms of the U.S. spending on the military, as I mentioned, the latest budget was an increase over last year. What are some of the things that we could be doing with that money instead?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, just the increase alone from 2017 to the new proposed budget this year, that would be enough to buy two whole State Departments. So you could double the budget of the State Department. You’d still have $40 billion left over to invest in nutrition, and transit, and cultural programs. If you cut it by a third, you could meet all of the infrastructure needs that America. Transit, roads, alternative energy over the next 10 years. So it’s a huge amount of money that’s being wasted. And you know, people forget that Donald Trump claimed he was going to be the infrastructure president. He’s put no money into that. He hasn’t fought for it. His infrastructure program basically is pumping up the Pentagon, which is the least effective way to build your economy.

AARON MATE: So in terms of spending money on weapons, President Trump is in Britain right now, meeting with Prime Minister Theresa May. After he leaves next week there’s going to be a military trade show called The Farm Bureau air show in the UK, and Trump is sending not defense officials, as far as I understand, but actually his top trade official. And I’m wondering your thoughts on the significance of that.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well usually there’s at least a little bit of cover for the fact that they used these trade shows as an attempt to sell U.S. weaponry. There’ll be some defense officials, there’ll be some discussions with foreign militaries. Buy Trump’s sending Peter Navarro, who’s his trade adviser, who’s behind all the different economic policies, including the tariff policies. And so that’s just a signal to say we’re only about selling. And that’s what we’re here to do. And security, other issues related we’re not really interested in. I think that’s the main signal that is sent. And of course at the NATO meeting, as he always does, Trump was bragging about the superiority of U.S. weapons. He talked about arms sales when he met with the Saudi crown prince in the White House. He talked about it when he visited Japan. So among other things, Trump is America’s number one arms salesman.

And so sending Navarro, I think, is part and parcel of that. But it means that there’ll be very little discussion of any kind of broader issues of security, or even economic policy. It’s going to be sell sell sell.

AARON MATE: OK. So speaking of economic policy and sell sell sell, at the same time as he is trying to ramp up U.S. military sales around the world, he is engaged in this trade war; imposing tariffs on many countries, including key U.S. allies who he wants to sell weapons to. Is there a major contradiction there?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Yes. I think he, if you’re going to insult countries and undercut their economies, it’s going to be harder for them to turn around and buy your weapons systems. Or anything else, for that matter. And we’ve seen on a small scale what’s happened here before this round of tariffs. There was a dispute with Canada over sales of civil aircraft, and they tried to slap big tariffs on Bombardier planes. Canada turned around and canceled a $5 billion purchase of U.S. F-18 combat aircraft. So you may see more of that as this trade war escalates. You know, U.S. companies put a lot of money into building these weapons. They’re also related to building defense relationships with the United States. So it’s going to be a tension in the policy. In some cases it may diminish Trump’s ability to sell arms. In other cases the deals may go through. I mean, certainly places like Saudi Arabia are going to still buy in huge amounts, as the United States backs them in their brutal war in Yemen.

AARON MATE: Bill Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. Thank You.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Thank you.

AARON MATE: And thank you for joining us on The Real News.





























Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Opposes Corporate Democrats






http://www.progressivecongress.org/#about-us


















https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=N4lILDzN6NQ



















































New U.S. Sanctions Fuel Protests and Economic Mayhem in Iran (1/3)






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWJvaILpBQ8












































SHARMINI PERIES: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Sharmini Peries, coming to you from Baltimore.

After withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, the Trump administration has vowed to escalate sanctions against Iran, disregarding Iran’s cooperation with the deal. It is important to also remind ourselves that there are other parties to the agreement here, the Five Plus One, which includes China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as the European Union and Iran. It is only just a short time ago on July 14, 2015 that this agreement was signed. It is an agreement to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful.

And yet the U.S. has unilaterally withdrawn from this agreement, even though most everyone involved who are party to the agreement has stated that Iran is in compliance. So why is the U.S. taking this unilateral and aggressive move to once again impose sanctions on Iran? Further, U.S. and Israel are openly calling for regime change in Iran, adding fuel to the fire. Some speculate this is economic warfare to isolate Iran, to create a blockade on Iran’s economy through not only direct U.S. sanctions, but also secondary sanctions, and to strangle Iran’s economy and propel it into chaos to create a crisis so deep that it can be intervened on, and also where war might become necessary. And so this is all creating a huge controversy, not only between Iran and the U.S., but in the entire region.

Now, today we’re going to take up and take a closer look at how the U.S.’s withdrawal from the JCOPA and threats of further sanctions against Iran is affecting Iran’s domestic economy. The mere fear of more sanctions has caused a rapid devaluation of the Iranian currency, the riyal. It has lost over 50 percent of its value in just a few months. Now, although the riyal is pegged to the U.S. dollar, actual U.S. dollars are traded in the black market for twice the value in Iran. Now, major importers of Iranian oil who are also U.S. allies like Japan and South Korea, and of course as well as China, but China might be able to withstand these kinds of sanctions that other countries aren’t able to do. Even on Thursday, just this week, the spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hua Chinying, sharply criticized the unilateral U.S. sanctions. Let’s listen.

HUA CHINYING: There is still a long way to go in terms of safeguarding and implementing the Iranian nuclear deal. China will continue making efforts to safeguard the results of multilateralism. China will never accept any unilateral sanctions that are not based on international laws, and will firmly uphold its own legitimate rights and interests.

SHARMINI PERIES: Now, meanwhile, domestically, protests have erupted in all parts of Iran since January over the soaring prices of imported goods, levels of poverty and inequality. Now, the domestic economic situation can be largely attributed to the sanctions and the falling of the riyal, but also to the economic policies of the government that favors the ruling elite over the people. And not only the ruling elite, the agencies within the government as well, like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

On to talk about all of this with me, I’m being joined by Dr. Ali Fathollah-Nejad. He’s an independent scholar based in Doha and Berlin, with a focus on Iran, West Asia, and North Africa. He’s a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center. Ali, good to have you back on The Real News.

ALI FATHOLLAH-NEJAD: Thank you for having me.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right. Ali, let’s start with discussing why U.S.’s withdrawal and threats of more sanctions are having such a profound impact on the domestic economy in Iran.

ALI FATHOLLAH-NEJAD: The Trump administration’s decision to unilaterally withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, as you have alluded to, has of course deepened the economic crisis in Iran, but this economic crisis preceded this decision. But when it comes to the immediate impact, of course there are a lot of companies, Europeans and, European and others, will because of this threat of the reimposition of U.S. secondary sanctions, where those companies can be punished for continuing any kind of Iran-related trade, have stopped their Iran business ties, commercial ties. So that also, you know, the prospect of further investments in the Iranian economy has now been shelved.

So of course, so this decision of the reimposition of U.S. sanctions will have quite a profound impact on the future trajectory of the Iranian economy. There is, there will be, basically, Iran will not be able to export oil from November onwards, because it’s according to a timeline set by Washington. So all this is important, and has, as I said, helps exacerbate the economic and financial crisis. But the economic problems of Iran do not have only, do not only have a relation with the United States. Because what’s basically the problem in the Islamic Republic of Iran is that we have a monopolization of economic and political power at the hands of the very same elite groups. And when it comes to the economy, you have a parallel structure. You have a shadow economy that is basically outside of much of the influence of the government. So the government, despite its problematic economic policies, cannot do really much about it.

The bulk of the Iranian economy is in the hands of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is basically the most powerful military force in Iran. But that actually has an economic empire. There is a huge social, political, and economic conglomerate that is in control of basically the majority of the Iranian economy. In addition to that, you have the so-called religious foundations that are basically economic empires that are exempted from tax, from paying taxes. Plus other semi-state and state entities that are in control of much of the country’s GDP. So you do have the domination of those semi-state and state entities, and you have a very marginalized private sector that is very weak and almost nonexistent. And because of that, you have the combination of mismanagement, corruption. And this is, those are the structural problems that have faced the Iranian economy even before Trump.

And so this is, so those structural deficiencies have been there, and because of sanctions they get exacerbated. Because what sanctions actually do, in a nutshell, is that they illegalize legal trade. As we’ve seen during the crippling sanctions regime era during the Bush and Obama administrations is that these same entities, the Revolutionary Guards and others, the semi-state and state entities, have been able to benefit from the imposition of sanctions because they could monopolize many imports, and thus extend their political, economic power over other sectors of the economy.

So at the end of the day, despite, you know, rhetoric to the contrary by many Western politicians as to the real effects of sanctions being imposed, not society is basically emboldened, but the authoritarian elements within that system, so that back then in that era of the crippling sanctions, we’ve seen the extension of the power gap between the authoritarian state, on one hand, and civil society on the other. You know, on a societal level it is also quite important because, you know, for many, political activism will become more difficult because they have to strive for just surviving. But it doesn’t mean that political activism has stopped, as we’ve seen from, you know, during the past months after the rebellion that has shaken Iran at the turn of the year. We’ve seen the continuation of protests, despite this deteriorating economic situation. So it doesn’t mean that the imposition of sanctions and these kind of hawkish policies from Washington will necessarily produce and generate a rallying around the flag effect in Iran.

People are, basically, very upset about the performance of their state. This is their main target of criticism; not so much any foreign power that might be, might be pursuing counterproductive policies with no doubt. But the blame is mostly put, also as in other countries as well, at their own government.

SHARMINI PERIES: So then, Ali, it’s not just the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement, but also the secondary sanctions that is affecting companies that work in Iran, but based in France, and Germany, and other European nations who do business with Iran. And these secondary sanctions are having a profound effect as well.

ALI FATHOLLAH-NEJAD: So basically we see the same dynamic that we witnessed during the crippling sanctions era, which is to be understood against the backdrop that the United States has dominance over the international financial system, because of the U.S. dollar being the world’s currency. This puts a lot of pressure on any other countries. And this, you know, shows the effectiveness of U.S. secondary sanctions.

So basically what is happening is that when the U.S. imposes secondary sanctions, companies in Germany and elsewhere who also do a lot of trade with the United States, who export a lot of their goods to the U.S. and therefore are, you know, dependent on having this kind of access to the U.S. marketplace, will have to decide whether it is more smart for them to continue their Iran business or the U.S. business. And since if you look at the figures you cannot really compare the two, although Iran has been hailed as an economic bonanza after the fall of the Soviet Union, a huge market of 80 million people with huge potential for also consumer goods and industry and so forth, these companies in most cases will decide to stop their Iran business in order not to endanger their U.S. business, and not to be punished by the U.S. Treasury.

And so this is there the reality of the economic world. And this is why we’ve seen also a lot of German companies and other European companies announcing that they will slowly but surely retreat from their Iran business. So this is, so this is an independent dynamic from the political arena. In the political arena we see that there are European state leaders of states who have repeatedly as, for example, recently at the JCPOA meeting in Vienna pledged to continue Iran business. So whatever politicians might say on this regard, that despite the pressure from the United States they want to keep ongoing doing business with Iran, this is of no great relevancy to the economic operations on the ground, because you know, companies will decide on their own, according to the logic that I have said before.

So the reality is that we will see a decline of European-Iranian business on one side. On the other side, when it comes to the export of Iranian oil, we’ll see on one hand that Iran will resort to the same kind of tactics that it had during the crippling sanctions era. That is, it might offer a reduction of its oil purchases by others; for example, to India. You know, Iran exports the bulk, the majority, the great majority of its oil exports to Eastern Asia and other Asian states. But for example, the South Koreans, who are also a top buyer of Iranian oil, have already now stopped purchasing Iranian oil while seeking waivers from the U.S. Treasury. But this is, you know, uncertain if the Treasury will give them this kind of exemption from the sanctions. China is quite independent from the United States, so China can basically continue, you know, doing business with Iran. And nevertheless, as a whole it is also quite bad for the Iranian economy. Because the sanctions, in practice or in theory, offer the kind of legitimacy to those buyers of Iranian oil to exchange their imports of oil with goods that they can, they can export to Iran. And in the Chinese case this has been, you know, quite cheap Chinese products that were flooding the Iranian market, and therefore also destroying domestic production in Iran.

So those are the various effects of sanctions. So that, geopolitically and economically speaking, the reimposition of U.S. sanctions will push Iran into more authoritarian waters when it comes to its alliances. So it will be pushed more towards Russia and China. And if you look at those two powers’ kind of political relations in Iran, they’re much closer to the hardline elements than to the moderate ones. So those sanctions have very bad effects on the Iranian economy, on the development of the political economy of the country, and also on the, on the politics of the country, because in all cases the more hardline elements will benefit.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right, Ali, let’s take a break here and flow into Segment 2, where we will take up more discussion about the domestic economic situation. Of course, the impact that the reimposition of the sanctions will have on the domestic economy. So I thank you for joining me for now, and please stay tuned for Part Two.




















Inside the Koch Family’s 60-Year Anti-Union Campaign That Gave Us Janus













THURSDAY, JUL 12, 2018, 9:48 AM





With last month’s monumental Janus decision by the Supreme Court, the Koch family won a major victory in their multi-generational attack on unions.

The ruling spreads to the entire public sector one of the laws the Koch fortune first helped push through in Kansas 60 years ago: “right-to-work.” And in doing so it enshrines the union-busting agenda their fossil fuel money has helped advance for decades. 

Through a single vote, the Court’s 5-4 Janus decision reverses decades of legal precedent that had obstructed part of the Koch’s pro-corporate agenda. That vote was secured with the Kochs’ help in bankrolling efforts that include: helping to maintain a GOP Senate majority; helping the Senate block President Obama from filling the February 2016 Supreme Court vacancy; and helping to win the confirmation of right-wing corporate activist Neil Gorsuch.

Janus helps cement the nation’s highest court as the Koch Court, and Charles Koch wants to keep it that way.

As Documented first detailed in partnership with the Intercept, for months the Kochs had been investing heavily in anticipation of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement from the Court, which was announced on June 27, the same day as Janus. Earlier this year, the Koch group “Americans for Prosperity” (AFP) hired Sarah Field from the Koch-funded Federalist Society to spearhead its campaign to extend the Koch hold on the Court for perhaps a generation or more.

Despite claims by AFP that helping to seat Gorsuch was their “first” foray into Supreme Court nominations, the Koch effort to influence who becomes a judge and how they interpret the law goes back much further.

In fact, the Kochs have been investing in reshaping the law to suit their personal agenda for decades. For example, the Koch group Citizens for a Sound Economy, AFP’s predecessor, backed Clarence Thomas’ controversial confirmation to the Court more than 25 years ago.

The Kochs’ long-term agenda to remake the United States in their image is a multi-pronged effort that includes changing both the law and who makes or interprets the laws, including the anti-union Janus decision.

The seeds of Janus

The effort to roll back union rights actually began almost a century ago, as wealthy industrialists objected to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, known as the Wagner Act, which enshrined the right to collective bargaining in the United States.

Many tycoons of the time, like Alfred Sloan, head of General Motors, opposed those rights along with other business reforms of FDR’s New Deal.

Fred Koch, co-founder of the corporation that later became Koch Industries, harshly criticized American workers under New Deal policies in 1938. He extolled the economic policies of Emperor Hirohito and fascists Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini:

Although nobody agrees with me, I am of the opinion that the only sound countries in the world are Germany, Italy, and Japan, simply because they are all working and working hard… The laboring people in those countries are proportionately much better off than they are any place else in the world. When you contrast the state of mind of Germany today with what it was in 1925 you begin to think that perhaps this course of idleness, feeding at the public trough, dependence on government, etc., with which we are afflicted is not permanent and can be overcome.

Only recently, through the investigative work of Jane Mayer, has the public learned that the Koch fortune was actually built in part on directly aiding Hitler by building the oil-cracking factory that became “a key component in the Nazi war machine.” As Mayer noted in her 2016 book Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, that factory refined high-octane fuel needed for the Luftwaffe, which targeted, terrorized, and killed many thousands of innocent civilians. Fred Koch’s praise of Germany came after Hitler’s air bombers helped murder 136 men, women, and children in Guernica in the Basque region, a tragedy made famous by the mural painted by Pablo Picasso.  

Meanwhile, industrialists like Sloan pursued efforts to undo New Deal reforms. In 1947, Congress amended the Wagner Act with the Taft-Hartley Act. It gave states the power to pass “right-to-work” laws that undermined collective bargaining by not requiring workers who benefit from bargained rights to pay dues to the unions that secured and enforced them.

How the Kochs fertilized “right-to-work”

As Mayer noted:

[Fred Koch] was an early and active member of the Wichita-based DeMille Foundation for Political Freedom, an anti-labor group [founded in 1945] that was a forerunner of the National Right to Work Defense Foundation. In a revealing private letter, one of its staff members explained the group's ‘Astroturf’ strategy. In reality, he said, big-business industrialists would run the group, serving as its ‘anonymous quarterbacks,’ and ‘call the turns.’ But he said they needed to sell the ‘yarn’ that the group was ‘composed of housewives, farmers, small businessmen, professional people, wage earners-not big business industrialists.’ Otherwise, he admitted, the movement was ‘almost certainly doomed to failure.’

By 1954, an engineer from Wichita, Kan., Reed Larson, took a leave from his job at the Coleman Company, to launch Kansans-for-the-Right-to-Work. The following year, former Rep. Fred Hartley, Jr., (R-N.J.) co-founded the National Right to Work Committee (NRTWC). By 1958, the NRTWC was targeting six states to adopt right-to-work laws but it failed in every place, except Kansas.

“Fred [Koch] co-led a referendum drive to alter the state constitution in order to make it harder for unions to take root in Kansas,” Duke University Professor Nancy MacLean noted

On Nov. 9, 1958, the New York Times reported that right-to-work won in Kansas because anti-union views had taken hold, noting:

More campaign efforts and more money were expended on the emotion-provoking issue than on the campaigns of all Republican and Democratic state and Congressional candidates combined. ... For the last 10 days or so before Election Day an organization called Kansans-for-the-Right-to-Work flooded newspapers, television channels and other advertising media with appeals to ‘vote yes.’ These by far outnumbered the ‘vote no’ advertisements of unions opposing the amending.

A month later, Fred Koch joined Robert Welch and ten other men in Indianapolis to found the extreme rightwing group dubbed the “John Birch Society” (JBS).

As the Washington Post noted in its 1961 profile of JBS:

At the top of the Society’s structure in Wichita are several very wealthy industrialists. Oil engineer Fred Koch is president of the Rock Island Oil and Refining Co. A millionaire several times over, he is on the Society’s national council. … Wichita is the John Birch Society’s center of strength in Kansas, and one of its greatest in the country. ... The leadership of the Birch Society overlaps heavily with the leadership of the organizations that successfully campaigned in 1958 for a right to work amendment to the State’s Constitution.

As detailed by Group Research Inc. in its 1962 history of JBS, Koch worked with both NRTWC and the Christian Crusade in arguing against union dues like those at issue in the Janus case.

A history of hostility

In 1959, Fred Koch joined the Executive Committee to plan the JBS strategy to push back against what it viewed as communism in nearly every American institution.

In 1960, Koch published his polemic “A Business Man Looks at Communism” and distributed it to JBS chapters across the country. That pamphlet makes a variety of hysterical claims against unions, including:

Labor Unions have long been a Communist goal. How far they have been penetrated by Communists I have no idea, but it must be very far indeed, judging the hatred and venom poured out in some labor papers….

Koch also accused the U.S. Supreme Court under former Gov. Earl Warren (R-CA) of issuing pro-Communist decisions, the universities of having thousands of Communist professors, the United Nations of being subversive, and former GOP President Dwight Eisenhower of being soft on Communism.

Similar sentiments were expressed in numerous other publications the JBS also pushed. The organization pitched a screed against the union workers who organized against Kohler fixtures in Wisconsin. It pushed attacks on the UAW’s Walter Reuther, who was posthumously awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

It published and peddled right-wing writer Rosalie Gordon’s attack on the U.S. Supreme Court for decisions enforcing collective bargaining rights as protecting the “labor-union monopoly,” along with what she called the “plague” of desegregation caused by Brown v. Board of Education.

The JBS also pushed reprints of tomes by Ludwig von Mises attacking unions as illegitimate intervenors in the “free market,” artificial inflators of wages for workers, and thieves of the profits of tycoons. It promoted F.A. Hayek’s vilification of government regulation of corporations as leading to fascism and Hilaire du Berrier’s conspiracy theories that American labor unions were supposedly using union dues to finance communist terrorist violence abroad.

Fred Koch’s son Charles urged visitors to the John Birch Society bookstore in Wichita to read copies of JBS pamphlets, including those by anti-labor writers from the Austrian School of Economics, like Mises.

Indeed, as the present author first documented for the Center for Media and Democracy, Charles Koch became active in JBS after returning home to Wichita to help with the family business. Charles was a leader and fundraiser for JBS, including underwriting its publications and national radio network, while it attacked collective bargaining and leaders of the civil rights movement such as the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks.  

Charles Koch in action

Though he left JBS in 1968, Charles Koch never abandoned its core anti-union agenda and the lessons of his father’s commitment to right-to-work. He did try to shed some of the rhetoric around communist conspiracies, though of late he was painted by Koch political strategist Richard Fink as a martyr against “collectivism,” in audio obtained by the Undercurrent, which also included outlandish claims linking fascism and the minimum wage. 

It was Charles Koch’s investment in lifting up the work of Mises and Hayek, who made similar claims, that helped preserve and extend their legacy. As Stephen Moore noted in a 2006 profile on Charles for the Wall Street Journal:

The authors who have had the most profound influence on his own political philosophy include F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Joseph Schumpeter, Julian Simon, Paul Johnson and Charles Murray. Mr. Koch says that he experienced an intellectual epiphany in the early 1960s, when he attended a conference on free-market capitalism hosted by the late, great Leonard Reed.

Charles brought Mises to Wichita to speak and deployed F.A. “Baldy” Harper’s Institute for Humane Studies (IHS) to promote Mises and his protégé Hayek. As lauded by Reed’s Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), Hayek argued that unions violated the very idea of the “rule of law” and that the Wagner Act was central to that violation, a sentiment he promoted in numerous writings.

Charles Koch is deeply devoted to an alternative universe in which collective bargaining undermines the rule of law and is not a major cause of increased wages. Moore noted in his interview:

As we continue, Mr. Koch becomes increasingly animated. He discusses another seminal work in his collection, F.A. Harper’s 1957 Why Wages Rise.
The book demonstrates ‘that wages rise not because of unions or government action, but because of marginal productivity gains -- people get more money when they produce more value for other people.’ Then he confides, “I was so thrilled by this revelation that I had what Maslow called a ‘peak experience.’'"

Koch has also supported the NRTWC, which “sought to put a new face on the anti-union campaign by building its rhetoric on the arguments of Hayek, Mises, and otherswith a ‘respectable’ pedigree.” The NRTWC argues that:

Compulsory unionism itself violates the dignity of the individual worker, regardless of how the forced union tribute is spent. As the late Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich A. von Hayek wrote: “[T]he coercion which unions have been permitted to exercise … is primarily the coercion of fellow workers.

Deep devotion and investment

Hayek and Mises are not the only two virulently anti-union economists Charles Koch backed. As Nancy MacLean documented in Democracy in Chains, one of the key architects of the Koch agenda domestically and internationally, James Buchanan, also railed against the so-called “union monopolies” for distorting “free market” wages.

And, as UnKoch My Campus has detailed, Koch money has funded scores of academics to push their agenda at universities, buying control over content and personnel with restrictive dictates attached to their donations.

Many of the rightwing groups Charles Koch is known to have made a major investment in since the 1970s have pushed right-to-work or attacked collective bargaining rights. These include Reason magazine, the Cato InstituteAmericans for Prosperity, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the State Policy Network and many more.

During David Koch’s 1980 bid to become vice president, running on the ticket of Libertarian Ed Clark—which was pushed by Charles and fueled with Koch cash—the campaign platform included making right-to-work the law of the land:

[W]e urge repeal of the National Labor Relations Act, and all state Right to Work Laws, which prohibit employers from making voluntary contracts with unions. We oppose all government back-to-work orders as imposing a form of forced labor.

That is, there would be no need for state right-to-work laws if there were no NLRA that protects collective bargaining rights. As a result, right-to-work would be effectively nationalized at the determination of the employer.

After badly losing that election, the Kochs have invested heavily in changing the culture—and courts of America—to make their anti-union vision a reality.

Right-to-work is part of that vision.

Millions spent

A leak of the Kochs’ summer retreat in 2010 revealed that they featured NRTWC leaders at their gathering of billionaires to plot plans for that year’s midterm elections.

In 2012, before most of America even knew that the Kochs had branded their billionaire conclave as “Freedom Partners,” that group injected $1 million directly into the NRTWC among the more than $200 million of its known spending that cycle.

In 2016, they focused much of their known political spending on keeping a GOP majority in the Senate, and they influenced the make-up of the U.S. Supreme Court by helping to block Judge Merrick Garland’s confirmation.

For the 2018 election, they’ve pledged to spend more than $400 million through the Seminar Network, the latest rebranding of their network of tycoons.

To be clear, the Koch family fortune is not the only one that has been expended pushing right-to-work laws to try to weaken the power of ordinary people to negotiate through unions. A major funder of right-to-work effort has been the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, along with Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, which Mother Jones has dubbed “the ATM” of the right wing.

Collective bargaining has provided women with greater economic opportunities and job security. Right-to-work laws also have a disproportionate impact on people of color, who are union members at a higher rate than whites. Black women will likely be the group most adversely affected by the Janus case. Notably, workers in right-to-work states also have lower wages than in states that have rejected this agenda.

Undermining progressives too

The spread of right to work through Janus also will affect our elections.
As In These Times has documented with the Center for Media and Democracy, the national push for right-to-work is designed to undermine the power of unions and to “defang and defund” them as a way to weaken the chances for progressives to win in politics and policy.

The Koch investment in making right-to-work a national reality represents one of the longest and deepest commitments to this agenda, aside from NRTWC itself.

And this year marks the 60th anniversary of Fred Koch’s victory of making right-to-work legally binding in Kansas.

Now, six decades later, Charles Koch has helped make his father’s wish binding on the rest of America through helping to make the Janus ruling a reality.