mendeleev

Moscow Times reported in April that Aeroflot suspended international air travel until August.  There have been periodic flights since then, for repatriation purposes.
 
We've seen occasional JFK -> SVO flights (or the opposite) and believe they were solely for repatriation purposes.  If one gets to Moscow, one may not be able to move beyond the city until finishing a quarantine -- if then.  We have heard of a person who wanted to return to the USA and arrived from Siberia to Moscow but had to stay in that city for two months before traveling on to the USA.
 
Moscow at least begins to loosen their very rigorous "stay home" requirements.

I'm planning on checking the "Intend" box and writing,
"I intend to provide full support for my wife, <name not written here>, for as long as we are married."
This is also essentially the same as I wrote, upon advice of the attorney guiding me at that time, when we did our K1.

And let's keep in mind that the USS Vincennes was also illegally operating in Iranian territorial waters when they shot down an airplane in Iranian airspace.
The USA never really accepted responsibility and never apologized.
It is interesting to see us, once again, holding those we define as our opponents in the world to a standard very different than one to which we hold ourselves.

This has been a really interesting thread that I've come to late.
Gary, unfortunately, makes hash of elementary thermodynamics and unfortunately tries to cover up by claiming authority. (Well, I'm a Ph.D. physical chemist with more than passingly adequate training in thermodynamics. So there's my claim to authority, in case it matters. Probably shouldn't.)
Ice, in the belly, melts. As it melts, it first warms to zero degrees Celcius and then stays at zero degrees while the phase transition to liquid water occurs. A lot of heat transfer into the ice cube from its surrounds (the belly) is required to conduct this phase transformation. The heat, flowing from the surroundings into the ice cube, results in a decrease in the temperature of the surroundings. A lot of us who actually consume ice have experienced this. On a hot summer day, it can be rather nice. Outside on a cold winter day, not so nice. The physical chemistry is the same in both seasons, though. Once the former ice cube is melted, it is warmed by its surroundings to 37C, which is the temperature, more or less, that we humans keeps our bodies at when we're healthy.
Where does this heat come from? Either the body or the surroundings of the body or both. In the first event, though, the body. So, the body, or a portion of it, is cooled. That is, its temperature goes down, for a while at least.
If it goes down too much, the body may compensate, through normal metabolic pathways that involve chemical transformation of, for the most part, sugars in the body to CO2 and water. This is respiration but it is often called "burning calories". The word "burning" here is, strictly speaking chemically, an analogy to the combustion process we also often call burning. The analogy is a very good one. The oxidation process associated with sugar metabolism and the oxidation associated with burning sugar in a flame produces very similar final products, CO2 and water. (Flames are often less efficient combustion processes and make soot, carbon monoxide, and lots of other stuff. The body's combustion apparatus is very efficient, though. That's why I used the weasel words "very similar"). The body doesn't necessarily have to compensate, though, through metabolic pathways. If its really hot outside the body, then the ice cube within can save the body from having to sweat so much for a while and heat can be transferred into the body from the hot room. In that fashion, the ice can actually decrease the amount of calories the body burns.
Most of us know this intuitively. 'Tis a pity that someone with a little bit of knowledge, perhaps sufficient to confuse some, comes in with information that is between misleading and wrong and tries to compensate bolster hisclaims by an inappropriate assertion of expert authority.

This has been a really interesting thread that I've come to late.
Gary, unfortunately, makes hash of elementary thermodynamics and unfortunately tries to cover up by claiming authority. (Well, I'm a Ph.D. physical chemist with more than passingly adequate training in thermodynamics. So there's my claim to authority, in case it matters. Probably shouldn't.)
Ice, in the belly, melts. As it melts, it first warms to zero degrees Celcius and then stays at zero degrees while the phase transition to liquid water occurs. A lot of heat transfer into the ice cube from its surrounds (the belly) is required to conduct this phase transformation. The heat, flowing from the surroundings into the ice cube, results in a decrease in the temperature of the surroundings. A lot of us who actually consume ice have experienced this. On a hot summer day, it can be rather nice. Outside on a cold winter day, not so nice. The physical chemistry is the same in both seasons, though. Once the former ice cube is melted, it is warmed by its surroundings to 37C, which is the temperature, more or less, that we humans keeps our bodies at when we're healthy.
Where does this heat come from? Either the body or the surroundings of the body or both. In the first event, though, the body. So, the body, or a portion of it, is cooled. That is, its temperature goes down, for a while at least.
If it goes down too much, the body may compensate, through normal metabolic pathways that involve chemical transformation of, for the most part, sugars in the body to CO2 and water. This is respiration but it is often called "burning calories". The word "burning" here is, strictly speaking chemically, an analogy to the combustion process we also often call burning. The analogy is a very good one. The oxidation process associated with sugar metabolism and the oxidation associated with burning sugar in a flame produces very similar final products, CO2 and water. (Flames are often less efficient combustion processes and make soot, carbon monoxide, and lots of other stuff. The body's combustion apparatus is very efficient, though. That's why I used the weasel words "very similar"). The body doesn't necessarily have to compensate, though, through metabolic pathways. If its really hot outside the body, then the ice cube within can save the body from having to sweat so much for a while and heat can be transferred into the body from the hot room. In that fashion, the ice can actually decrease the amount of calories the body burns.
Most of us know this intuitively. 'Tis a pity that someone with a little bit of knowledge, perhaps sufficient to confuse some, comes in with information that is between misleading and wrong and tries to compensate bolster hisclaims by an inappropriate assertion of expert authority.

This has been a really interesting thread that I've come to late.
Gary, unfortunately, makes hash of elementary thermodynamics and unfortunately tries to cover up by claiming authority. (Well, I'm a Ph.D. physical chemist with more than passingly adequate training in thermodynamics. So there's my claim to authority, in case it matters. Probably shouldn't.)
Ice, in the belly, melts. As it melts, it first warms to zero degrees Celcius and then stays at zero degrees while the phase transition to liquid water occurs. A lot of heat transfer into the ice cube from its surrounds (the belly) is required to conduct this phase transformation. The heat, flowing from the surroundings into the ice cube, results in a decrease in the temperature of the surroundings. A lot of us who actually consume ice have experienced this. On a hot summer day, it can be rather nice. Outside on a cold winter day, not so nice. The physical chemistry is the same in both seasons, though. Once the former ice cube is melted, it is warmed by its surroundings to 37C, which is the temperature, more or less, that we humans keeps our bodies at when we're healthy.
Where does this heat come from? Either the body or the surroundings of the body or both. In the first event, though, the body. So, the body, or a portion of it, is cooled. That is, its temperature goes down, for a while at least.
If it goes down too much, the body may compensate, through normal metabolic pathways that involve chemical transformation of, for the most part, sugars in the body to CO2 and water. This is respiration but it is often called "burning calories". The word "burning" here is, strictly speaking chemically, an analogy to the combustion process we also often call burning. The analogy is a very good one. The oxidation process associated with sugar metabolism and the oxidation associated with burning sugar in a flame produces very similar final products, CO2 and water. (Flames are often less efficient combustion processes and make soot, carbon monoxide, and lots of other stuff. The body's combustion apparatus is very efficient, though. That's why I used the weasel words "very similar"). The body doesn't necessarily have to compensate, though, through metabolic pathways. If its really hot outside the body, then the ice cube within can save the body from having to sweat so much for a while and heat can be transferred into the body from the hot room. In that fashion, the ice can actually decrease the amount of calories the body burns.
Most of us know this intuitively. 'Tis a pity that someone with a little bit of knowledge, perhaps sufficient to confuse some, comes in with information that is between misleading and wrong and tries to compensate bolster hisclaims by an inappropriate assertion of expert authority.

This has been a really interesting thread that I've come to late.
Gary, unfortunately, makes hash of elementary thermodynamics and unfortunately tries to cover up by claiming authority. (Well, I'm a Ph.D. physical chemist with more than passingly adequate training in thermodynamics. So there's my claim to authority, in case it matters. Probably shouldn't.)
Ice, in the belly, melts. As it melts, it first warms to zero degrees Celcius and then stays at zero degrees while the phase transition to liquid water occurs. A lot of heat transfer into the ice cube from its surrounds (the belly) is required to conduct this phase transformation. The heat, flowing from the surroundings into the ice cube, results in a decrease in the temperature of the surroundings. A lot of us who actually consume ice have experienced this. On a hot summer day, it can be rather nice. Outside on a cold winter day, not so nice. The physical chemistry is the same in both seasons, though. Once the former ice cube is melted, it is warmed by its surroundings to 37C, which is the temperature, more or less, that we humans keeps our bodies at when we're healthy.
Where does this heat come from? Either the body or the surroundings of the body or both. In the first event, though, the body. So, the body, or a portion of it, is cooled. That is, its temperature goes down, for a while at least.
If it goes down too much, the body may compensate, through normal metabolic pathways that involve chemical transformation of, for the most part, sugars in the body to CO2 and water. This is respiration but it is often called "burning calories". The word "burning" here is, strictly speaking chemically, an analogy to the combustion process we also often call burning. The analogy is a very good one. The oxidation process associated with sugar metabolism and the oxidation associated with burning sugar in a flame produces very similar final products, CO2 and water. (Flames are often less efficient combustion processes and make soot, carbon monoxide, and lots of other stuff. The body's combustion apparatus is very efficient, though. That's why I used the weasel words "very similar"). The body doesn't necessarily have to compensate, though, through metabolic pathways. If its really hot outside the body, then the ice cube within can save the body from having to sweat so much for a while and heat can be transferred into the body from the hot room. In that fashion, the ice can actually decrease the amount of calories the body burns.
Most of us know this intuitively. 'Tis a pity that someone with a little bit of knowledge, perhaps sufficient to confuse some, comes in with information that is between misleading and wrong and tries to compensate bolster hisclaims by an inappropriate assertion of expert authority.

This has been a really interesting thread that I've come to late.
Gary, unfortunately, makes hash of elementary thermodynamics and unfortunately tries to cover up by claiming authority. (Well, I'm a Ph.D. physical chemist with more than passingly adequate training in thermodynamics. So there's my claim to authority, in case it matters. Probably shouldn't.)
Ice, in the belly, melts. As it melts, it first warms to zero degrees Celcius and then stays at zero degrees while the phase transition to liquid water occurs. A lot of heat transfer into the ice cube from its surrounds (the belly) is required to conduct this phase transformation. The heat, flowing from the surroundings into the ice cube, results in a decrease in the temperature of the surroundings. A lot of us who actually consume ice have experienced this. On a hot summer day, it can be rather nice. Outside on a cold winter day, not so nice. The physical chemistry is the same in both seasons, though. Once the former ice cube is melted, it is warmed by its surroundings to 37C, which is the temperature, more or less, that we humans keeps our bodies at when we're healthy.
Where does this heat come from? Either the body or the surroundings of the body or both. In the first event, though, the body. So, the body, or a portion of it, is cooled. That is, its temperature goes down, for a while at least.
If it goes down too much, the body may compensate, through normal metabolic pathways that involve chemical transformation of, for the most part, sugars in the body to CO2 and water. This is respiration but it is often called "burning calories". The word "burning" here is, strictly speaking chemically, an analogy to the combustion process we also often call burning. The analogy is a very good one. The oxidation process associated with sugar metabolism and the oxidation associated with burning sugar in a flame produces very similar final products, CO2 and water. (Flames are often less efficient combustion processes and make soot, carbon monoxide, and lots of other stuff. The body's combustion apparatus is very efficient, though. That's why I used the weasel words "very similar"). The body doesn't necessarily have to compensate, though, through metabolic pathways. If its really hot outside the body, then the ice cube within can save the body from having to sweat so much for a while and heat can be transferred into the body from the hot room. In that fashion, the ice can actually decrease the amount of calories the body burns.
Most of us know this intuitively. 'Tis a pity that someone with a little bit of knowledge, perhaps sufficient to confuse some, comes in with information that is between misleading and wrong and tries to compensate bolster hisclaims by an inappropriate assertion of expert authority.

I had an interesting experience during the late summer and fall. For about 10 weeks, I was unemployed. I’m guessing that there are others in the VJ community who find themselves, either at this moment or recently, unexpectedly and undesirably unemployed. I cannot find a recent string on this topic, so I thought I’d open one to see what others in this situation experience and what they doing about it.
I had been working for an advanced biofuel company that was having difficulties, largely created by its own management, compounded by the financial crisis, the difficulty of the technology problem, and the fact that the Department of Energy is less than optimally efficient (to be polite).
Before I lost my job, the company had executed four reductions in force in the preceding 18 months. Needless to say, I had been looking for a job for a year or so, but not incredibly hard because I was working 50+ hour weeks trying to help the company succeed.
In August, the company had their fifth RIF that eliminated another 20% of the company and I finally found myself on the wrong side of that line. Since I was the last scientist in the company with skills critical to implementing stated objectives, an informed observer could make certain assessments about that company’s prospects. Whether the Department of Energy, who was considering another application for federal support of the company, catches on remains to be seen. But that’s another story whose ending is still unknown.
So, my full-time job morphed into looking for a full-time job. One thing I did was completely suspect VJ activities. While fun, it can be a way to spend a lot of time suboptimally. I needed to focus. I let my network know about my changed status, started working to use that network to reach further into the job markets, and broadened my acceptable job options very considerably. I fully expected to move. That was a prospect I didn’t relish: we love the Denver area and a lot of the chemical industry is located in places that are either really expensive (New Jersey), hot (Houston), or isolated and undesirable. Nonetheless, we considered a number of not-so-palatable opportunities, some of whom made job offers.
In ten weeks, I won five on-site interviews in three states and received four job offers. Most of those interviews resulted from knowing someone, although I got an interview through headhunters and, toward the end, was getting phone interviews by answering job postings. (Some of those might have turned into offers, but I got a job first.) On the whole, I found employers to be much less respectful than was the case before the crisis. I never heard of a prospective employer bringing a candidate half-way across the country for an interview and then refusing to reimburse customary meal, travel, and hotel expenses, but that happened to me. (When that prospect made a job offer, I evaluated it accordingly.) Several made offers with compensation considerably lower than I had received in my last job. I experienced a level of disrespect from both technical and HR professionals in candidate companies that were completely different from what my organizations practiced when we were recruiting in good times. It is unambiguously the case that employers are taking inappropriate advantage of current market conditions and this is already starting to hurt some of them as they continues their searches. My job market isn't that big, and reputation, on both sides of the table, matters. Although it was nerve wracking, I persisted in looking for the offer that provided fair (in my assessment) compensation and interesting work and, ultimately, I was rewarded.
I’ve been working in my new job for six weeks now and, by and large, am quite happy with this new position. The people and the chemistry (broadly defined) is good. I’m still in the renewable sector, which I hadn’t expected. Given what I read of news accounts of the unemployment situation, I count myself very lucky. The fact that I was unemployed for such a short period of time probably owes quite a bit to using effective job-hunting methods I quickly heard of from peers who had become unemployed earlier in the crisis. Orville Pearson and his approaches deserves special mention in this connection. I had never been unemployed before, although I’d been in the job market for over 30 years. It was a very interesting, at times frightening, experience that taught me a lot.

Isn't it great to see American conservative organizations stand up for traditional American values, like Freedom of Religion?

Last year -- wanting to find a new way to express nerdiness, I guess -- I compiled four kinds of weather records for Denver, Colorado: record high, record low, record low high (like, say, 45F for a summer day), and record high low for each date of the year. It was pretty easy, the records themselves in disaggregated form are readily available at the National Weather Service website. I then bined the data into decades and made frequency plots.
The frequency of all time lows was just about the same since records began for Denver in the 1870s. That is, we were about as likely to have an all-time low in the first decade of this century as in the 1880s.
But the all-time highs showed a very strong increasing trend. Beginning in the 1970s, the frequency of all-time high temperatures started to increase. It was higher in the 1980s, even higher in the 1990s, and highest in the first decade of this century. The frequency if record low highs and record high lows did not show a trend with time.
The dataset doesn't say anything at all about whether average temperatures in Denver are increasing. It does show that variability is increasing here, due to more frequent record hot events. This is consistent with prevailing theories of global change. It was an amusing exercise. I started similar analyses for Chicago and Tulsa -- the results looked similar but I got bored and moved on. Subsequently, I saw an abstract for a paper from folks at the National Weather Service who conducted the same sort of analysis for the nation. The trend I saw in Denver is robust throughout the western part of the United States, according to that abstract.
All this is consistent with the observations of original post: the frequency of extremely hot events is increasing.

luckytxn, and I agree with you and apparently with Lord Infamous that firm action will need to be taken regarding the deficit in the coming few years. The chief questions are when and how.
This string involves scaremongering that allowing the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy to die, as they should die, would kill the recovery. This is unlikely. In fact, those tax cuts should expire and the sooner the better. As I mentioned above, the large increase in money supply that has gone almost exclusively to the banks and to the rich is doing the real economy no good at all, because they are hoarding that money rather than putting it to work in investments that would speed the recovery. Increasing tax on that idle money will be a good step toward economic recovery. For sure, additional steps need to be taken.
It is most relevant here to point out that we have nearly 30 years of experimental data in this country that shows that cutting taxes to decrease the debt load of government does not work. The ratio of debt to GDP increased very substantially under Reagan and Bush I, then decreased under Clinton (who raised taxes in his first year of office) and then exploded again under Bush II who cut taxes and put together huge spending programs that were not paid for.
Here's something of an aside: It is a strange fact that, in the past 80 years of US economic history, amongst Presidents who served two terms, those who raised taxes in the first two years of their first term saw much better economic results (in terms of overall GDP growth, especially, but also in terms of lower unemployment and GDP per capita) than President's who cut taxes. This is a peculiar fact because no economic theory that I know of explains it. The blogger who showed this correlation (I'm regrettably to tired to find him now -- if it turns out to be a point of interest, I'll dig up some links in the next couple days) suggests that the increase in taxes serves as an indicator regarding the tolerance of that Presidency to tolerate corporate corruption. Now, we know that there was a big explosion of corporate corruption under Bush II but I don't know how robust the trend is if we go back and look at Reagan, Nixon/Ford, and Eisenhower. But this is an intriguing suggestion.
But this fact also might encourage Obama to allow those tax cuts to expire and to get his first tax increase on the books.

Alien, you need to be careful when you try to refute someone. You claim, erroneously, that the fact that consumer spending rose by 1.6% last quarter contradicts my assertion that consumer spending is leading this recovery. I would be embarrassed if my refutations were as consistently wrong as yours. But then, we seem to be different in many regards.
Consumer spending rose in Q2, not by much, but it rose. This is consistent with what I wrote. The consumer is in fact leading this expansion and business -- more specifically, business investment -- remains on strike. It is true that many consumers are paying off debt, and this inhibits their ability to spend more. As more of us get our balance sheets under control, things will get better. Regrettably, this will be a very slow recovery, largely due to the fact that the stimulus in January '09 was much too small compared with the size of the problem. I think everyone is surprised at the magnitude and consequences of this financial crisis that was caused by government adherence to horribly misguided orthodox Republican economic policy. Should they regain control this fall, much worse will probably befall the economy. This is the biggest domestic risk, going forward.
The fact that business investment is on strike is probably a manifestation of the liquidity trap into which the nation is falling. Even though banks and the wealthy are awash with dollars created by the Fed as a part of their brave quantitative easing policies, those banks and wealthy individuals who got a hold of those dollars are hoarding them and not putting them to work. The Japanese experience shows us that liquidity traps are really hard to get out of, especially when governments are too timid, as Obama, intimidated by an effective Republican minority, is intimidated, into not engaging in effective fiscal policy that might lead out of the trap.
Now, to review some basic things you should have learned in college. (I assume you went to college -- maybe you didn't and inadequate educational opportunities is part of the problem here.) Many of us learned, in college, that the economy is very fruitfully modeled as having three spending streams. Consumer spending, business investment, and government spending. GDP = C + I + G. Consumers are doing what they can in the face of excessive indebtedness and high unemployment. Their spending is increasing. Fortunately, we have sufficiently intelligent government that G has increased very substantially in the short term. Later on, it will need to come into balance -- and this could be done in a good way by spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthy. Investment spending remains very depressed. There are plenty of investment opportunities in this country, especially those related to creating a clean energy economy, that go unfunded because banks and investors remain on strike. It is a real pity. Later, perhaps, they will remember why they exist and start to serve their social function that also goes right to their own financial self-interest. By now they seem, as a whole, do be a bunch of sorry little girls afraid of the dark -- or something like that.
It is true that corporations are reporting very strong earnings. This further shows that business has a lot of capital that they could invest. But they are not doing so. The "I" part of the GDP identity remains far too close to zero. And, because of that timidity, the recovery will be a lot weaker than it would be if business exercise courage. But we don't expect that, do we: it is only something we expect from the long-term unemployed who are supposed to move from wherever they are where they can't find a job to some other place that also doesn't have jobs.
As reported in yesterday's NYTimes: "So far, the recovery is remarkably normal for a postfinancial-crisis recovery," said Kenneth S. Rogoff, a professor at Harvard and co-author, with Carmen M. Reinhart, of "This Time Is Different," an economic history of financial crises." What Rogoff refers to is that the consumer leads, in an anemic way for sure but nevertheless leads, the recovery and that business remains on strike. This is a typical consequence of financial crises.

Mawlison, you can believe as you wish, but one mistake Obama is *not* making is keeping the financing of the wars off budget. They are in the budget -- as they should be in any honest budging exercise. And that's part of the reason that the budget deficit forecasts have increased so much -- because the war expenditures are explicitly in his budget estimates.

Ummm, to quote a famous president, "Facts are stupid things". But the fact is that total GDP growth in the 2000-2008 was not particularly good compared with the previous 20 or 25 years. On average, it was the worst performance in that time frame. Things weren't moving for the economy as a whole or for the middle class. (The source for my GDP data is the St. Louis Fed, an unimpeachable source.)

Alien, perhaps, represents one of those with reading or contextual challenges.
He seems to think that anyone who comments on US politics does so from the inside. Wolf is by no means inside the US political dialogue. That's part of the point of the post.
Wolf, a Brit with pretty moderate tendencies, given their polity, makes observations across 30 years of Republican delusion. It is concerning that delusion that Wolf asks, where, if anywhere, is he wrong.
It would be refreshing if Alien and his ilk could address the criticism head-on.
I don't expect it -- I don't expect the ability for intellectual engagement -- I'm just hoping.
Alien: take up the challenge if you can. Read Wolf's post carefully and tell us where, if anywhere, he is wrong.

Alien, perhaps, represents one of those with reading or contextual challenges.
He seems to think that anyone who comments on US politics does so from the inside. Wolf is by no means inside the US political dialogue. That's part of the point of the post.
Wolf, a Brit with pretty moderate tendencies, given their polity, makes observations across 30 years of Republican delusion. It is concerning that delusion that Wolf asks, where, if anywhere, is he wrong.
It would be refreshing if Alien and his ilk could address the criticism head-on.
I don't expect it -- I don't expect the ability for intellectual engagement -- I'm just hoping.
Alien: take up the challenge if you can. Read Wolf's post carefully and tell us where, if anywhere, he is wrong.

Alien, perhaps, represents one of those with reading or contextual challenges.
He seems to think that anyone who comments on US politics does so from the inside. Wolf is by no means inside the US political dialogue. That's part of the point of the post.
Wolf, a Brit with pretty moderate tendencies, given their polity, makes observations across 30 years of Republican delusion. It is concerning that delusion that Wolf asks, where, if anywhere, is he wrong.
It would be refreshing if Alien and his ilk could address the criticism head-on.
I don't expect it -- I don't expect the ability for intellectual engagement -- I'm just hoping.
Alien: take up the challenge if you can. Read Wolf's post carefully and tell us where, if anywhere, he is wrong.

Good luck. The real money is in rare earth refining ... and that's probably the reason the Chinese are restricting their exports of crude product. The separations are tough, so purified compounds and elements draw a premium.

They do, but it doesn't have to be that way.
The Chinese do produce the vast majority of rare earth elements these days. This was not the case 15 years ago. Indeed, Unocal operated a large mine in California that they shut down in spite of the fact that it was profitable. It just wasn't profitable enough for an oil company, who wanted to deploy their capital elsewhere.
North America has plenty of undeveloped rare earth -- and the deposits, by and large, are not in environmentally sensitive places. There just isn't a will amongst American capital, apparently, to develop and continue to utilize domestic resources.
My (former) company switched to Chinese rare earth sources when Unocal shut down their otherwise profitable mine.

Mawlison demonstrates, again, that he doesn't know what he talks about. He is under the delusion that lithium is a rare earth mineral. Anyone who took even high school chemistry and was paying attention is aware that the rare earth elements range from lanthanum thru ytterbium. Some chemists include lutetium and yttrium because they occur in many rare earth deposits.
For several years, the Chinese have produced the vast majority of rare earth elements and compounds sold into world markets. There are moderate deposits in California (Unocal shut that mine down several years ago but it should reopen soon), Estonia, India, and some other places. Afghanistan may have some rare earth deposits but they are not mined yet.
For several years, I had responsiblity for sourcing rare earth compounds that my company used -- and the markets changed radically as Chinese production increased markedly about 10 years ago, depressing prices and greatly helping out consuming companies like mine.
In point of fact, China does provide over 95% (and one can find the figure 97% all over the place) of rare earths globally. This has been the case for about ten years.
Mawlison, besides elementary economics, you need to learn some chemistry.

peejay, I am convinced that there is righteousness here, just as there is bigotry. The situation is rather analogous to that of States a century ago that sought to deny validity of certain marriages under the gise of denouncing miscegenation.
And it remains to be seen whether the USA is a nation of laws, or a nation where bigots prevail.

Alien, sorry to break it to you, but its a fact. Times are changing. It is legal in several states for couples of the same sex to marry. It remains for the Constitution to be upheld and for those marriages (which are, in fact, under civil law, contracts) to be held valid in States under the sway of bigotry.
Either that, or we are not a nation of laws, but something else. As I indicated above, the Constitution is quite clear on this point.

Oh. Yeah. Right...
Anyway, what the Argentines did is great.
And it would be great if marriage were not treated as some sort of inferior contract, not endowed with Constitutional protection. Some States, overcome by bigotry, believe themselves empower to impair obligations of marriages of which they disapprove. Decades ago, many of these states did the same regard miscegenation. Perhaps Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution should not apply to these sort of contracts, the bigots seem to believe. And bigots have believed this for a long time.

Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, not particularly known for being an out-of-touch liberal, said the following in recent testimony to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, “nemployment benefit insurance here is essentially restrictive
because it’s been our perception that we don’t want to create incentives for people not to take
jobs. But when you’re in period of job weakness where it is not a choice on the part of people
whether or not they’re employed or unemployed, then, obviously, you want to be temporarily
generous. And that’s what we’ve done in the past, and I think it’s worked well.”
Greenspan was famous, while chairman, for making Delphic statements no one could understand. But this statement is pretty clear, and it recommends an extention of benefits.