Mother Nature Network has the article Parallel worlds exist and interact with our world, say physicists.

Wiseman and colleagues have proposed that there exists “a universal force of repulsion between ‘nearby’ (i.e. similar) worlds, which tends to make them more dissimilar.” Quantum effects can be explained by factoring in this force, they propose.

Whether or not the math holds true will be the ultimate test for this theory. Does it or does it not properly predict quantum effects mathematically? But the theory is certain to provide plenty of fodder for the imagination.

Many a fanciful theory has fallen flat on the test of whether or not the math holds true. Many scientists would probably not publish a theory where they have not already shown that whatever math they had tried so far has been proven to hold true.

It is an intriguing theory which these scientists have admitted has been around since 1957. It would be nice if such a theory could explain the mysteries of quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement has been experimentally shown to exist, but so far I don’t think scientists have the foggiest idea of the mechanism that makes it work.

The Guardian has the article Mystery of why arteries harden may have been solved, say scientists.

Stiffening can also occur as calcium becomes deposited in fatty plaques in the arteries – a condition called atherosclerosis.

Interesting finding. I also wonder how excess Vitamin D impacts calcification. Doctors are so worried about vitamin D deficiency, that they may be too successful in getting people to boost their levels of Vitamin D.

Medshadow.org has the article Vitamin D: Pros and Cons from 2014.

How much is too much? Observational studies suggest that shooting for blood levels above 50 ng/mL may be associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer, cardiovascular disease and an increased risk of death. Dr. Manson says, “Some vitamin D is good, but more is not necessarily better. People should understand that there is limited research on long-term intakes above 2,000 IU daily. If they are regularly taking 3,000-4,000 IU per day, even if those levels may not have been linked to adverse events, we do not know if the benefits outweigh the risks long-term because we don’t have the evidence.”

Massive doses of 10,000 IU daily or more can put you at risk of developing high calcium levels in the blood, or in the urine, which could cause calcification of blood vessels, kidney problems and kidney stones, especially if calcium intake is also high.

In my case, I did have recurring kidney stones. What made me question the Vitamin D problem is that I was diagnosed with an abdominal calcification that could not be operated on because of its location. Doctors were pushing high doses of Vitamin D on me because I had low blood levels of Vitamin D. When my urologist discovered the doses of Vitamin D I was taking, he said “No wonder you have kidney stones.” I stopped taking Vitamin D altogether. My kidney stones are not recurring in the time frame they did before. My abdominal calcification is also shrinking of its own accord.

I am certainly not extrapolating from my one case to anything other people should or should not do. I may be completely wrong about cause and effect. However, as long as it seems to be working for me, I will keep doing what I am doing.

I also might mention that I have had heart bypass surgery involving 4 arteries.

Politico has the article Five NBC and MSNBC stars will moderate first Democratic debate.

The network announced Tuesday “NBC Nightly News” anchor Lester Holt, “Today” co-anchor Savannah Guthrie, “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd, MSNBC prime-time host Rachel Maddow, and “Noticias Telemundo” and “NBC Nightly News Saturday” anchor José Díaz-Balart will moderate the debate in Miami on June 26 and 27.

Here is the music to listen to while reading the article.

EpicLivestresm.com has an explanation of the live stream to save net neutrality.

One year ago, Big Cable’s dream came true: they killed net neutrality, giving ISPs like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T control over what we see and do online. Millions of people demanded that Congress restore net neutrality. In response, the House of Representatives passed the landmark Save the Internet Act. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — who has taken over $1 million in campaign donations from Big Cable — is refusing to allow his branch of Congress to vote on this popular bill. So on June 11th, net neutrality supporters in the Senate will try to force a vote using a procedure called “Unanimous Consent.”

The frame below will be the livestream (so I am told) on June 11,2019.

Naked Capitalism has the article Richard Murphy: For MMT (Long and Wonkish). While it is a mostly good article, it does say something that always irks the heck out of me.

The state will not enfeeble the private sector. That’s already feeble. What it will do is provide it with the contracts and work it needs to survive because it can’t think of what to do for itself.

Doesn’t anybody remember John Maynard Keynes? It is not that the private sector cannot think of what to do. It is that the private sector is behaving perfectly rationally in the face of low demand and high risk. Few individuals in the private sector can afford to take the risk of using their free cash to manufacture stuff that people can’t afford to buy. An individual could bankrupt herself or himself by tying up all their money in producing goods that it might take years for the economy to recover enough to buy.

Only a government that is sovereign in its own currency, etc. and can never go bankrupt has the deep enough pockets to fund the economy into recovery.

It is so simple, so logical, and so true, that I cannot understand how economists can fail to understand this or to remember this. How come all those people in the FDR administration could be so smart, and now people cannot even look back in history to read their explanation of what they did and why it worked?

You might wonder why the rich oligarchs’ don’t want us to remember how the government can help get us out of a recession or depression. When the economy tanks, the oligarchs are the ones with enough money that they can scoop up the nation’s assets at fire sale prices. It is much more profitable to use their money to gain control than it is to risk their money in the messy process of creating more production capacity than there is a current need for. In other words, the rich withhold their money from the economy until it is so starved that people will sell off their assets cheaply. There is a price that is low enough that there is not much risk in paying it, if you have the money. That’s called “buy low, and sell high.”

The Real News Network has the article D-Day: How the US Supported Hitler’s Rise to Power.

On June 6, 1944, Allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy, France, opening a second front against German fascism. The largest contingents of fighters were British, American, and Canadian. This battle has been depicted in movies and books as the decisive turning point of World War II, a ferocious struggle against a superior enemy. But as The Real News Network’s Paul Jay and author Peter Kuznick discuss, D-Day was also the moment where the United States’ opposition to communism could no longer outweigh its tacit acceptance of Nazism, and the U.S. industrialists who helped rearm Germany after World War I could no longer profit from Hitler’s Germany.

Is there anything that we know about the history of the USA that is even remotely true? If there is a lesson here, it may be that whatever the USA military/industrial/elitist complex wants, it must be bad for people.

The anti-communist fixation that our capitalists have had over the years has caused continued disaster for the USA and countries all over the world. We need to seek immediate psychiatric help.

In a message to the members of the Massachusetts House and Senate, Rep. Connolly introduces “Housing For All” legislative agenda

Our Commonwealth is facing an ongoing emergency in the shortage of affordable housing, extreme rent burden, foreclosure, and homelessness.

While we can all be proud of the work we did last session to enact the $1.8 billion Housing Bond Bill, and while there are many promising pieces of legislation on the table this session, as a lifelong tenant and as someone who grew up in public housing that was built by the Commonwealth, I believe we must broaden our ambitions and work toward a program of guaranteed Housing For All.

All of these bills deserve close scrutiny as to their workability, but they all deserve to be recognized as creative proposals worth discussing.

It does not make sense to let “the market” be totally responsible for providing some basic human needs when meeting those needs cannot make a profit. The public can pay the private sector to provide some of these needs, but ownership needs to be in public hands. Contracts with private companies to provide service must be relatively short term – no more than 1 year. Before there can be a contract renewal, the previous contract performance must be evaluated, and it must meet at least some minimum standards spelled out in the contract.

The Atlantic has the article What Democratic Contenders Are Missing in the Race to Revive Antitrust. There is not enough emphasis in the article of this excerpt.

By the 2000s, the ideas of the conservative Chicago School had become mainstream in antitrust circles. Robinson-Patman, a law intended to protect small businesses, was an easy target for Chicago School critics narrowly focused on efficiency and low consumer prices. Their attacks found a receptive audience in the federal judiciary. Among insiders, Robinson-Patman is now known as “zombie law.” It remains on the books, but regulators no longer bother trying to enforce it.

The naivete of this view of ant-trust is just astounding. The trusts and monopolies can get away with whatever they want if consumer prices are not raised. Corporations have figured out that if they hammer on suppliers and employees from their position of power, the courts won’t blink an eye. Never mind that monoply practice has always been to drive competitors out by lowering prices, only to raise them after they have driven all the competitors out. Big pharma is using that tactic today in obviously obscene ways. Where are the courts if they still belioeve that raising consumer prices is the one harm worthwhile stopping?

Roots Action handed out a flyer at the recent California Democratic State Convention. Joe Biden: “I don’t think 500 billionaires are the reason why we’re in trouble.”

I have extracted the text into one file that may be easier to print if you want to hand this out yourself. Click on the border to view the flyer in its own window.

New Economic Perspectives has an article that answers the question JAPAN DOES MMT? Whether you are for MMT or against it, the answer might surprise you.

Not that the size of the deficit—by itself—is important. What is important is whether government budget policy helps in the pursuit of the public and private interests. The deficit will always adjust to be “just the right size” to balance the other two sectoral balances. But that equality can be consistent with any growth rate—including a rate that is too low (deflationary) or too high (inflationary).

You’ll have to read the article to see the answer to the original question.