government investment
Nigeria among most improved countries in World Bank's Ease of Doing Business list

Nigeria was among the 10 economies showing the most notable improvement in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business list published on Tuesday.

Kenya’s attractiveness to investors improved 12 places, the World Bank said in its latest ranking, which also shows that slow registration of property and issuance of construction permits remain the biggest drags on the economy.

East Africa’s largest economy finished 80th in the 2017 ease of doing business index that surveyed 190 economies compared to last year’s position 92.

The new ranking, the highest since 2008 when the country finished in 84th position, means Kenya is the third most competitive economy in Africa after Mauritius (25th) and Rwanda (41st).


The Future Of Energy Isn’t Fossil Fuels Or Renewables, It’s Nuclear Fusion

“Nuclear fusion as a power source has never been given the necessary funding to develop it to fruition, but it’s the one physically possible solution to our energy needs with no obvious downsides. If we can get the idea that “nuclear” means “potential for disaster” out of our heads, people from all across the political spectrum just might be able to come together and solve our energy and environmental needs in one single blow. If you think the government should be investing in science with national and global payoffs, you can’t do better than the ROI that would come from successful fusion research. The physics works out beautifully; we now just need the investment and the engineering breakthroughs.”

Climate science is a hotly debated area, with many disputing the robustness and ethical motivations of the scientists in the field. But even if you throw everything we know about carbon dioxide, global warming, and climate change away, there’s still an energy crisis coming in the long term. The fact is, fossil fuels will someday, hundreds of years from now, run out if we extract and burn them all. Meanwhile, solar, wind, hydroelectric and other renewables will forever be inconsistent, and the infrastructure needed for using both generates large amounts of pollutants. But there is one power option that could satisfy everybody, while eliminating both pollution and the risks of running out of fuel or power inconsistency: nuclear fusion. While nuclear fission does have substantial downsides, there’s no risk of a meltdown with fusion.

All we need to do is reach the breakeven point, and we have four different approaches currently in progress. Come get the science today!

Hot Chocolate

requested. long.
Kang Daniel caught flirting with someone else.

English, Japanese, Korean

Keep reading

Anyway, the issue with capitalism is we as a country waste £7 million worth of food every year. Fresh fruit and vegetables get thrown out because they aren’t aesthetically pleasing. While this food waste is happening more and more people are going to food banks but nobody can figure out how to reduce £7M worth of food waste and people going to food banks. Hmmm. If only we could stop wasting food and stop people from being hungry at the same time. If only there was food that supermarkets weren’t willing to buy that could be sold at a heavily reduced price that people who can’t afford to buy aesthetically pleasing food could buy. The money from the sales could be reinvested in the scheme along with government and charity investment, rolling it out throughout the entire country. And by heavily reduced I mean 10% of the original price. There’s nothing wrong with the food, it’s usually just misshapen and supermarkets don’t like it cause it doesn’t look good on their shelves.

anonymous asked:

Did the USSR have a colonial relationship with outer SSRs under Lenin and Stalin?


One of the staple errors of the Bolshevik line when it came to self-determination of oppressed peoples under tsarism was the lack of struggle or attempting to correct Great Russian Chauvinism (Lenin himself was guilty of this, and Stalin, as an ethnic Georgian, had even less influence to counter it), resulting in situations such as the Tashkent Soviet where the Bolsheviks established a Revolutionary Government with almost no participation from the local population/workers. However when these [workers] tried to set up their own [Muslim] Bolshevik branch, they were heavily repressed by the Bolsheviks.

While you could argue the following (from an otherwise anti-communist source):

“... the regime’s economic policy as a whole does not discriminate against  the minority areas and their economic development in favor of the Great  Russians. Soviet industrialization was, of course, based on forced  savings, which the government extracted for investment at the cost of  popular consumption. But the minorities were not asked to bear a  disproportionate share of the resulting hardships of a depressed living  standard. The burden fell on all; in fact, it might be argued that the  Great Russian majority initially made the greater sacrifice in order to  permit the development of the capital-hungry, economically backward  areas.

One economist has estimated, for example, that while the all-Union   living standard fell markedly during the 1930’s, in the four republics   of Central Asia (not counting Kazakhstan), it may actually have improved  to a slight degree. At the time the local economy was undergoing rapid  change, as indicated by the fact that industrial output, which had been  negligible, multiplied between six and nine times over between 1928 and  1937. Such an increase could only have been accomplished by the  substantial investment of capital drawn from other parts of the country  and by the application of new technology. Such help was even more  important to the agriculture of the region.

In the initial stage of European colonial development, substantial   capital was invested in the colonies, but often only in order to create a  one-crop economy that in the long run was economically disadvantageous  to the local people. There was an element of this approach in the Soviet  regime’s insistence on the expansion of cotton acreage in Central Asia,  usually at the expense of existing wheat crops. But the area was not  treated simply as a vast cotton plantation for the rest of the Soviet  Union. On the contrary, existing resources of other kinds were widely  developed. A hydro-electric power industry was developed, the output of  which increased 8.5 times over in the period 1928-37. Earlier virtually  all cotton had been shipped to Russia to be made into textiles, which in  turn had to be shipped back, but in the 1930’s a substantial textile  industry was established in Tashkent. Leather shoe-making was  established to utilize the hides from the region’s extensive herds.  These efforts make it evident that capital was retained in the area and  not syphoned off for accumulation at the center. The data already cited  on the growth of education and other cultural and social facilities  similarly indicate that a goodly share of the returns accrued from  exploitation of the region’s natural wealth was reinvested in raising  standards in the region.

Although the central Asian case may be one of the more outstanding   examples, it reflects the general pattern of Soviet policy in the   economic development of backward areas. The allocation of investment   during the process of economic expansion has not in any significant   degree been guided by considerations of nationality, but rather by those  of economic efficiency or the defense needs of the country. And the   benefits—as well as the burdens—which have resulted from economic   development have been more or less equally shared by all peoples of the Soviet Union.

(Alex Inkeles, “Nationalities in the USSR.” Problems of Communism Vol. 9 No. 3 (May 1960). pp. 33-34.)

The study of Soviet history gives you ample evidence that Great Russian colonialism was present until the dissolution of the Soviet Union (further intensifying during the decentralisation of the Soviet economy during Khrushchev), and this is noticeable on the expectations raised by the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic regarding other Soviet republics and their society, culture, etc.

Our overall opinion falls on that the USSR, as an alliance of Soviet Republics, had an important role in developing backward feudal societies into industrialised ones, revitalising their cultures, and providing material conditions for millions of workers, as well as promoting the liberation of women and their importance within a socialist society.

But this alliance was a deeply flawed one, and riddled with serious contradictions that remain unresolved even today as consequence of the colonial relationship between western Soviet republics and the eastern Soviet Republics – the continuous export of resources from the latter to the industry of the former, the concentration of industry in western Soviet republics, and the uneven development that kept eastern Soviet republics almost entirely agrarian save for a few specific industries.

Minister: Canada will build up its military as the U.S. pulls back from world stage

By Alan Freeman, Washington Post, June 6, 2017

OTTAWA–Canada intends to make “a substantial investment” in its military because it can no longer rely on the United States for leadership in the face of threats posed by terrorist groups or countries like Russia and North Korea, the Canadian foreign minister said Tuesday.

Echoing complaints made recently by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Chrystia Freeland told Canada’s House of Commons that Washington is no longer committed to its position of world leadership, forcing Canada to invest in its own armed forces to defend liberal democracy.

“The fact that our friend and ally has come to question the very worth of its mantle of global leadership, puts into sharper focus the need for the rest of us to set our own clear and sovereign course,” Freeland said, never mentioning President Trump by name. But she said many of the voters in last November’s U.S. presidential election cast ballots “animated in part by a desire to shrug off the burden of world leadership.”

While setting out several areas where Canada has taken a different tack from Washington, Freeland conceded that Canada has not been pulling its weight in terms of its military spending. It’s a criticism that Trump has made of several NATO members, without singling out Canada. She promised that in the future Canada will do its “fair share.”

In 2016, Canada spent just over 1 percent of its gross domestic product on its military, half of the 2 percent level that is the goal of the NATO alliance. In fact, Canada ranks 20th of 28 NATO members in military spending. The United States is No. 1 at 3.6 percent of GDP.

“On the military front, Canada’s geography has meant that we have always been able to count on American self-interest to provide a protective umbrella beneath which we have found indirect shelter,” Freeland said. But she added that to depend totally on U.S. protection would make Canada a “client state.”

“To put it plainly, Canadian diplomacy and development sometimes require the backing of hard power,” she said.

“We will make the necessary investments in our military, to not only address years of neglect and underfunding, but also to place the Canadian armed forces on a new footing,” she added, without providing any figures. Freeland’s speech is to be followed Wednesday with an announcement of a new defense policy review.

Although Freeland was careful to say that Canada was “grateful” for the “outsized role” that the United States has played in the world, there was an undertone of disappointment throughout the speech, something seldom heard recently in Canada-U.S. relations.

Laura Dawson, director of the Canada Institute at Washington’s Woodrow Wilson Center, said she saw the speech as less a “shot against the U.S.” as an effort by Canada to reassert its voice on the international stage while continuing to be seen as a helpful ally to Washington.

She said she expects Trudeau’s government to invest significantly in new military equipment and boost defense spending but says the nation will probably not attain the 2 percent GDP threshold set by NATO. “I would be quite surprised to see a doubling of Canadian military spending,” she said.

anonymous asked:

I lived in Cuba until 03 & my suffering was mostly 1) government corruption (people w ties to the party had more access to & better food) 2) crumbling infrastructure (the government doesn't invest in busing or fixing buildings that we've had since colonial times (& which are falling apart) & racism (Cuba pretends that social policies have erased anti-blackness but lol no (and governmentowned news etc dont report). Im still a communist but tired of critics being reduced to u must have been bougie

I get you. These are all major issues in Chicago as well lol.

Jeremy Corbyn letter to the Prime Minister regarding the independent public inquiry into the fire at Grenfell Tower

Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Labour Party, has today written to the Prime Minister regarding the decision to hold a full and independent public inquiry into the fire at Grenfell Tower.

Jeremy Corbyn said:

“Whilst the inquiry should be limited to the awful events at Grenfell Tower, it must be empowered to consider all the steps that were, or were not, taken leading up to and contributing to this most terrible incident. It must also identify the urgent steps that need to be taken in relation to fire safety standards for other buildings of this nature.

“In addition to finding facts, the inquiry must be empowered to make recommendations for the avoidance of any similar future disaster – and in so doing, to consider recommendations arising from previous similar fire-related deaths.”

The full text of the letter is below.

Theresa May                                                                                     16 June 2017

The Prime Minister

10 Downing Street



Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing to note your decision to hold a full and independent public inquiry into the fire at Grenfell Tower and to seek your assurance that the inquiry you establish will be held under the provisions of the 2005 Inquiries Act.

On the assumption that it is your intention to establish a 2005 Act Inquiry, I want to share my view that it is vital that the Terms of Reference be drawn with sufficient scope for the inquiry to establish all the relevant facts and to ensure that all necessary lessons are learned. Whilst the inquiry should be limited to the awful events at Grenfell Tower, it must be empowered to consider all the steps that were, or were not, taken leading up to and contributing to this most terrible incident. It must also identify the urgent steps that need to be taken in relation to fire safety standards for other buildings of this nature.

In addition to finding facts, the inquiry must be empowered to make recommendations for the avoidance of any similar future disaster – and in so doing, to consider recommendations arising from previous similar fire-related deaths.

It is very important that the Terms of Reference are drawn with sufficient scope to require the participation of all those with a legitimate interest – this should undoubtedly include the bereaved families, survivors and also individuals and organisations with a legitimate interest such as the residents’ campaign and representative organisations who were involved in the period leading up to these events. Their views and experiences are as important, if not more so, as the expert opinions of state actors and their service providing contractors.

I am also very concerned to ensure that this public inquiry is not used to delay any parallel actions which might be taken by interested parties. It is important that justice is served in as comprehensive and timely way possible. This must include, of course, ensuring that legal funding is available to support those involved in the inquiry and any inquests.  I would also like to support the request of the Mayor of London for an interim report to be produced which I believe is important for the community to feel as if justice is being done in a timely manner.

Whilst I believe that the policies and priorities of your government in the arenas of social housing and public safety are legitimate targets for my criticism, I hope we both share a determination to discover the truths underpinning this tragedy so to avoid any repetition.  For these reasons, in support of my hope to publicly welcome your decision, I would appreciate early consultation on your government’s proposed inquiry Terms of Reference.

In response to my question yesterday, the Minister of State for Policing and the Fire Service made it very clear that survivors made homeless would be appropriately and locally rehoused. This is imperative in order that they be enabled to re-build their lives and have some hope of recovery from these devastating events. It now appears that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea may not be as committed to ensuring that all are re-housed locally. Your public re-commitment to this is imperative as part of an unequivocal, wider statement that the government will do all it can to provide timely practical support to those who have suffered so much. In this context, I note the announcement of the first government investment of £5million. Given the magnitude and scale of the crisis, this will clearly not be sufficient and I therefore await information regarding further funding plans.

On a related matter, I believe that an attitude of generosity and compassion in relation to the costs of funeral expenses and ensuring that it is possible for families living outside the UK to travel here to attend funerals, as well as participate in the inquiry, is also warranted in such a tragic situation. This is particularly the case given the circumstances of many of the Grenfell Tower residents, including the number of bereaved families who may be resident overseas and the costs of burial and cremation. As was also raised at yesterday’s brief discussion in the Grand Committee, I would expect that the Home Office guarantees the replacement, as a matter of urgent priority, of all documentation for those affected.

Finally, on behalf of all those in the Labour Party, may I express our admiration for those in the emergency services who responded with the utmost courage and professionalism and share our deepest sorrow at these harrowing events – and commit that we will do all in our power to ensure that this be the last such tragedy of its kind in our country.

Yours sincerely,

Jeremy Corbyn

At the bottom of the interventionist argument there is always the idea that the government or the state is an entity outside and above the social process of production, that it owns something which is not derived from taxing its subjects, and that it can spend this mythical something for definite purposes. This is the Santa Claus fable raised by Lord Keynes to the dignity of an economic doctrine and enthusiastically endorsed by all those who expect personal advantage from government spending. As against these popular fallacies there is need to emphasize the truism that a government can spend or invest only what it takes away from its citizens and that its additional spending and investment curtails the citizens’ spending and investment to the full extent of its quantity.
—  Ludwig von Mises
With Just $10 "You're Wealthier Than 25% Of Americans"

Last week Credit Suisse released its annual Global Wealth Report.

The big headline grabber was their analysis showing that the top 1% of people now own 50% of the world’s wealth.

That is true and rather astonishing.

However, the report had another finding that was even more astonishing and largely overlooked.

What they found was that, as a percentage of the world’s population, there are now more poor people in the United States and Europe than there are in China.

Shown here, along the left side of the graph you can see that 10% and 20% of the world’s poorest are in North America and Europe.

Here, they aren’t talking about income. They define poor as lacking ‘wealth’, i.e. taking into account assets and liabilities like cash and debt.

Credit Suisse estimates that half of the world has a net worth less than $3,210. And a large chunk of Americans and Europeans can’t make that cut because their net worth is negative.

That’s especially the case for young people these days, who graduate from university with an incredibly expensive degree and an average of $35,000 in student debt.

Of course, plenty of people are in debt up to their eyeballs in the Land of the Free, and not just student debt.

Debt has become the American Way. People go deeply into debt that they can’t afford to buy stuff they don’t need to impress people they don’t know, simply because everyone is doing it.

And it’s just so damn easy.

Keep reading

IPKKND3: Episode 10 (July 14, 2017)

I’m gonna keep this short: tonight’s episode was possibly the most BS episode of IPK I’ve seen in its 400+ episodes history. And that’s saying something. 100s of actors/technicians/crew members worked on this episode, and not ONE of them questioned its ridiculousness? Baffling.

How bizarre was the episode? Here goes:
→ The lady who incited a mob against Advay’s parents, she’s a widow now. She’s at the “widhwa daan” function. And Advay conveniently notices her “chaandi ki payal.” So this lady has been wearing the same effing payal for 16 years. Sure.
→ Turns out she’s also Indrani’s blackmailer. Amazing. One of the show’s central plots gets resolved in 10 episodes. Kya baat hai!
→ Oh, and Indrani has a pet snake. She is straight up Lord Voldemort in disguise. And she gets Nagini…umm…I mean, her pet snake to attack the widow. I’m guessing she spoke to the snake in parseltongue and told it exactly where and how to attack this lady? Got it.

→ Then blackmailer widow’s dead body gets dumped somewhere. Of course, Advay just happens to walk past it. Coincidence.
→ The townspeople (extras) in this scene literally repeat, ”Hai! Bechaari widhwa thi. Kya hua tha iske saath?“ 4 times. Because that’s how people react when they see a dead body? They repeat the same sentence in unison? What are they? Robots? The director couldn’t even be bothered to give his extras reasonable lines. Sahi hai.
→ And don’t even get me started on the shenanigans involved in opening the mandir’s doors. The sun’s rays hit the Shiv murti at 45 degrees, which casts a shadow of the murti on the mandir’s back door. And this only happens once in 16 years. Riiiight. 
→ And there’s some sound detector inside of the mandir that gets activated through the vibrations of mantras that only Chandni’s dad knows. Chandni compares this to voice locks you see on digital devices. Uhhhh…..
→ Only a combination of these two events can open the mandir’s door. These people have clearly not heard of artificial lights. -____-
→ At this point, as outrageous as this was, I was still willing to suspend disbelief and play along.
→ But there was more BS in store.
→ Turns out, it’s monsooning on maha aarti day. Torrential rains. Which means no sun, no shadow, no door opening. Maybe lady luck is on Advay’s team?
→ Nope. Advay is Professor Dumbledore in disguise. He can control the weather!!  
→ In addition to Math, he also has expertise in cloud seeding. I. KID. YOU. NOT. 
→ First off, cloud seeing (weather modification) is hella expensive. It’s the kind of operation that governments undertake. Governments invest millions of dollars in R&D of such technologies because the short/long term benefits of these projects outweigh the costs involved. And by "benefits” I mean: combatting severe drought, removing radioactive particles from clouds, countering environmental hazards, increasing snowfall for worldwide sporting events etc. “I hate my ex girlfriend and want revenge” is usually not a good enough reason.

→ And Advay is doing all of this from his handy, dandy macbook. Wah! 
→ And if this wasn’t outrageous enough, there’s also a side plot of Veer making chirkut of Shikha. I guess this was supposed to be comic relief? But it provided this episode’s dose of cringe. Really not a fan of this actress. I’m trying, but it’s getting harder. 
→ At one point, they also used the BG score from Ishqbaaaz. Didn’t have time to edit/sound mix? Thought we wouldn’t notice? 
→ The only saving grace in today’s episode is Ritu Shivpuri’s breakdown at the mandir. She’s heartbroken that the mandir’s doors won’t open and that it’s going to destroy her family. It was sincere, relatable and touching. Indrani begins the episode by killing an unsuspecting widow. And yet, by the end of this episode, she manages manages to pull on your heart strings and get you to sympathize with her. That’s pretty incredible.  Ritu Shivpuri, you’re the bees knees!

→ I’m not expecting House of Cards level of prescience and writing with this show. I think my expectations are pretty reasonable. But to defy 5th grader logic, make a mockery of basic science and insult audience intelligence to this extent is a little TOO much. TOO MUCH!
→ The audience deserves better. And these actors sure as hell deserve better. 

→ Chandni sneaks into Advay’s room. 
→ Sidenote: Chandni is so cute. 

Can people use telepathy in your setting?

How, exactly, does telepathy work?
>Does the telepath hear the thoughts as though they were spoken?
>Do they see the words as though they were written?
>Do they glean the gist of the thoughts, but not the exact phrasing?
>Can a telepath be blind or deaf?
>>Do they get the thoughts in another way, or are they incapable of being telepaths?
>>If they are incapable of being telepaths, has anyone ever intentionally blinded or deafened a telepath in order to get rid of their ability?
>Can telepaths only get current thoughts, or can they look/listen through past thoughts as well?
>Is there anything a person can do to prevent a telepath from hearing their thoughts?
>Can telepaths interact with peoples’ minds other than just hearing them?
>>Can they put thoughts in another’s head?
>>>Would the other person hear these in a different voice, or would it come to them in the tone they think in naturally?
>>Can they manipulate, destroy, or add memories?
>Does telepathy come naturally to telepaths, or is it something that needs to be worked at and honed?
>Is there anything a telepath can do to keep from hearing others’ thoughts?
>Is their ability always “on”, or do they have to expend efforts to hear/read thoughts?

Does the government have any invested interest in using telepaths for any purposes?
>Against the telepath’s will, or as gainful employment?
>Do they wish to create a literal thought-police department?

What are the public’s thoughts and feelings about telepaths and telepathy in general?
‘Living within our means’ makes no economic sense. Labour is right to oppose it | Ha-Joon Chang
It may sound like common sense, but this platitude has no place in 21st-century economics – as John McDonnell appears to understand
By Ha-Joon Chang

He has to start by doing another U-turn on the statement: “We accept we are going to have to live within our means, and we always will do – full stop.

Because this is simply wrong. This view assumes that our means are given, and we cannot spend beyond them. However, our means in the future are partly determined by what we do today. And if our means are not fixed, then the very idea of living within them loses its meaning.

For example, if you borrow money to do a degree or get a technical qualification, you will be spending beyond your means today. But your new qualification will increase your future earning power. Your future means will be greater than they would have been if you hadn’t taken out the loan. In this case, living beyond your means is the right thing to do.

Like individuals, of course, a government can increase its means in the long run by borrowing to invest in things that will make the economy more productive, and thus increase the tax revenue. If a government invests in improving the transport system, it will make the country’s logistics industry more efficient. Or if it invests in healthcare and education, that will make the workers more productive.

this is from a while back but the fundamentals are what you need to know if you are to counter the ‘common sense’ notion that a government has to balance it’s books like a household. pertinent now with labour’s manifesto being released.

anonymous asked:

In your opinion what should the european countries do about all these terrorism attacks and security?

i’m not european so i don’t know how things work there.
but something i’ve noticed in west european countries is that they’re too lenient and forgiving. some people can’t be rehabilitated and simply hate the west so trying to give them a good life (most of the time) won’t change their attitudes. and when you’re easy on criminals they get the idea that they can get away with anything thus they engage in more crimes.
i don’t think a change of administration would do much since it’s usually the same people just with different faces. but having patriotic governments that are more invested in protecting their citizens would be a good start.
also they should have stricter borders and stop letting whoever in. they’re powerful enough to deport and make the home countries take back their citizens. for example, if Germany want to deport illegal immigrants then Tunisia will have to take them back. mass immigration never ended up to be a good thing anywhere in the world, anyway.
another thing and i think it’s the most important one, europeans should name the enemy. and it’s (radical) Islam. you can’t ignore the elephant in the room anymore. the mainstream media should stop tip toeing around the matter. and this may come off harsh but i personally think everyone (mostly politicians) who care more about the feelings of foreigners over the safety of their people should be punished, if not executed. if this happened where somewhere else, no one (patriotic) would be hesitant to call them traitors because that’s what they are.

sorry this is messy but i hope it answered the question!


Queen Maxima’s foreign visits → Turkey, 2007

3 years after her last visit to Turkey, Maxima returned to the country for a full State Visit alongside her husband and Queen Beatrix. She repeated many of the same activities, including visits to the Ataturk Mausoleum and the Blue Mosque, and a cruise on the Bosphorus River. Although it may have seemed premature to make a repeat visit to a country, the two nations have strong connections. There is a large Turkish community in the Netherlands, Turkey is the Netherlands’ fourth largest trading partner outside of Europe, and the Dutch government has invested heavily in Turkey. The itinerary was designed to promote relations but it was quite low key, as Maxima was close to 7 months pregnant with her third child at the time. With that in mind she spent most of her time participating in sit down meetings with young people promoting inter-cultural dialogue, politicians, CEOs of Dutch businesses in the country, and members of the Dutch community in Turkey. 

VICE Exclusive: How a Former SEC Official Manipulated the System for His Clients and His Own Financial Benefit

Two years ago, Spencer C. Barasch, a former high-ranking Securities and Exchange Commission official based in Fort Worth, Texas, paid a $50,000 fine to settle civil charges brought against him by the United States Justice Department for allegedly violating federal conflict-of-interest laws. The Department of Justice had alleged that Barasch, as a private attorney, had represented R. Allen Stanford, a Houston-based financier who was later found to have masterminded a $7 billion Ponzi scheme. Barasch had done so even though he’d played a central role at the SEC for years in overruling colleagues who wanted to investigate Stanford’s massive fraud. Federal law prohibits former SEC officials from representing anyone as a private attorney if they played a substantial or material role in overseeing actions regarding them while in government.

In part because of that episode, Barasch, rightfully or wrongfully, has served as an example for critics of the SEC who say that it—and the US government as a whole—has done too little to hold accountable those financial institutions responsible for the 2008 financial crisis and other corporate wrongdoers. James Kidney, a respected trial attorney for the SEC, drew attention recently when he asserted in his retirement speech that the agency’s pervasive “revolving door” has led to a paucity of enforcement actions against seemingly untouchable Wall Street executives. More than two dozen current and former SEC officials that I have interviewed about these matters largely agree with Kidney on the takeaway: Quite simply, American investors can no longer expect the protection they once did, and that powerful Wall Street executives who have violated the law will continue to go unchecked.

A three-month investigation by VICE has uncovered evidence of numerous similar instances of misconduct and potential violation of federal conflict of interest regulations and law by Barasch since he left the SEC. And while Barasch’s legal representation of Stanford might have been the single most consequential and egregious example of such misconduct, the new information shows that Barasch’s actions in representing Stanford were hardly an anomaly. The new disclosures serve as further ammunition for those who argue that the SEC has been tepid in its enforcement of such regulations and its punishment of those who would violate them.