#Consumer Financial Protection Act

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Shifting $677m from the banks to the people, every year, forever

I'll be in TUCSON, AZ from November 8-10: I'm the GUEST OF HONOR at the TUSCON SCIENCE FICTION CONVENTION.

"Switching costs" are one of the great underappreciated evils in our world: the more it costs you to change from one product or service to another, the worse the vendor, provider, or service you're using today can treat you without risking your business.

Businesses set out to keep switching costs as high as possible. Literally. Mark Zuckerberg's capos send him memos chortling about how Facebook's new photos feature will punish anyone who leaves for a rival service with the loss of all their family photos – meaning Zuck can torment those users for profit and they'll still stick around so long as the abuse is less bad than the loss of all their cherished memories:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/facebooks-secret-war-switching-costs

It's often hard to quantify switching costs. We can tell when they're high, say, if your landlord ties your internet service to your lease (splitting the profits with a shitty ISP that overcharges and underdelivers), the switching cost of getting a new internet provider is the cost of moving house. We can tell when they're low, too: you can switch from one podcatcher program to another just by exporting your list of subscriptions from the old one and importing it into the new one:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/16/keep-it-really-simple-stupid/#read-receipts-are-you-kidding-me-seriously-fuck-that-noise

But sometimes, economists can get a rough idea of the dollar value of high switching costs. For example, a group of economists working for the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau calculated that the hassle of changing banks is costing Americans at least $677m per year (see page 526):

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_personal-financial-data-rights-final-rule_2024-10.pdf

The CFPB economists used a very conservative methodology, so the number is likely higher, but let's stick with that figure for now. The switching costs of changing banks – determining which bank has the best deal for you, then transfering over your account histories, cards, payees, and automated bill payments – are costing everyday Americans more than half a billion dollars, every year.

Now, the CFPB wasn't gathering this data just to make you mad. They wanted to do something about all this money – to find a way to lower switching costs, and, in so doing, transfer all that money from bank shareholders and executives to the American public.

And that's just what they did. A newly finalized Personal Financial Data Rights rule will allow you to authorize third parties – other banks, comparison shopping sites, brokers, anyone who offers you a better deal, or help you find one – to request your account data from your bank. Your bank will be required to provide that data.

I loved this rule when they first proposed it:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/10/getting-things-done/#deliverism

And I like the final rule even better. They've really nailed this one, even down to the fine-grained details where interop wonks like me get very deep into the weeds. For example, a thorny problem with interop rules like this one is "who gets to decide how the interoperability works?" Where will the data-formats come from? How will we know they're fit for purpose?

This is a super-hard problem. If we put the monopolies whose power we're trying to undermine in charge of this, they can easily cheat by delivering data in uselessly obfuscated formats. For example, when I used California's privacy law to force Mailchimp to provide list of all the mailing lists I've been signed up for without my permission, they sent me thousands of folders containing more than 5,900 spreadsheets listing their internal serial numbers for the lists I'm on, with no way to find out what these lists are called or how to get off of them:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/22/degoogled/#kafka-as-a-service

So if we're not going to let the companies decide on data formats, who should be in charge of this? One possibility is to require the use of a standard, but again, which standard? We can ask a standards body to make a new standard, which they're often very good at, but not when the stakes are high like this. Standards bodies are very weak institutions that large companies are very good at capturing:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/30/weak-institutions/

Here's how the CFPB solved this: they listed out the characteristics of a good standards body, listed out the data types that the standard would have to encompass, and then told banks that so long as they used a standard from a good standards body that covered all the data-types, they'd be in the clear.

Once the rule is in effect, you'll be able to go to a comparison shopping site and authorize it to go to your bank for your transaction history, and then tell you which bank – out of all the banks in America – will pay you the most for your deposits and charge you the least for your debts. Then, after you open a new account, you can authorize the new bank to go back to your old bank and get all your data: payees, scheduled payments, payment history, all of it. Switching banks will be as easy as switching mobile phone carriers – just a few clicks and a few minutes' work to get your old number working on a phone with a new provider.

This will save Americans at least $677 million, every year. Which is to say, it will cost the banks at least $670 million every year.

Naturally, America's largest banks are suing to block the rule:

https://www.americanbanker.com/news/cfpbs-open-banking-rule-faces-suit-from-bank-policy-institute

Of course, the banks claim that they're only suing to protect you, and the $677m annual transfer from their investors to the public has nothing to do with it. The banks claim to be worried about bank-fraud, which is a real thing that we should be worried about. They say that an interoperability rule could make it easier for scammers to get at your data and even transfer your account to a sleazy fly-by-night operation without your consent. This is also true!

It is obviously true that a bad interop rule would be bad. But it doesn't follow that every interop rule is bad, or that it's impossible to make a good one. The CFPB has made a very good one.

For starters, you can't just authorize anyone to get your data. Eligible third parties have to meet stringent criteria and vetting. These third parties are only allowed to ask for the narrowest slice of your data needed to perform the task you've set for them. They aren't allowed to use that data for anything else, and as soon as they've finished, they must delete your data. You can also revoke their access to your data at any time, for any reason, with one click – none of this "call a customer service rep and wait on hold" nonsense.

What's more, if your bank has any doubts about a request for your data, they are empowered to (temporarily) refuse to provide it, until they confirm with you that everything is on the up-and-up.

I wrote about the lawsuit this week for @eff@mastodon.social's Deeplinks blog:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/10/no-matter-what-bank-says-its-your-money-your-data-and-your-choice

In that article, I point out the tedious, obvious ruses of securitywashing and privacywashing, where a company insists that its most abusive, exploitative, invasive conduct can't be challenged because that would expose their customers to security and privacy risks. This is such bullshit.

It's bullshit when printer companies say they can't let you use third party ink – for your own good:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/hp-ceo-blocking-third-party-ink-from-printers-fights-viruses/

It's bullshit when car companies say they can't let you use third party mechanics – for your own good:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/03/rip-david-graeber/#rolling-surveillance-platforms

It's bullshit when Apple says they can't let you use third party app stores – for your own good:

https://www.eff.org/document/letter-bruce-schneier-senate-judiciary-regarding-app-store-security

It's bullshit when Facebook says you can't independently monitor the paid disinformation in your feed – for your own good:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/08/05/comprehensive-sex-ed/#quis-custodiet-ipsos-zuck

And it's bullshit when the banks say you can't change to a bank that charges you less, and pays you more – for your own good.

CFPB boss Rohit Chopra is part of a cohort of Biden enforcers who've hit upon a devastatingly effective tactic for fighting corporate power: they read the law and found out what they're allowed to do, and then did it:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/23/getting-stuff-done/#praxis

The CFPB was created in 2010 with the passage of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, which specifically empowers the CFPB to make this kind of data-sharing rule. Back when the CFPA was in Congress, the banks howled about this rule, whining that they were being forced to share their data with their competitors.

But your account data isn't your bank's data. It's your data. And the CFPB is gonna let you have it, and they're gonna save you and your fellow Americans at least $677m/year – forever.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/01/bankshot/#personal-financial-data-rights

[nationallawreview]

CFPB Imposes $95 Million Fine on Large Credit Union for Overdraft Fee Practices

On November 7, 2024, the CFPB ordered one of the largest credit unions in the nation to pay over $95 million for its practices related to the imposition of overdraft fees. The enforcement action addresses practices from 2017 to 2022 where the credit union charged overdraft fees on transactions that appeared to have sufficient funds, affecting consumers including those in the military community,…

[batboyblog]

Things the Biden-Harris Administration Did This Week #36

September 27-October 4 2024

President Biden and Vice-President Harris have lead the federal response to Hurricane Helene. President Biden's leadership earned praise from the Republican Governors of South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Georgia, as well as the Democratic Governor of North Carolina and local leaders. Thousands of federal workers are on the ground in effected communities having given out to date over 8 million meals, over 7 million letters of water. Both President Biden and Vice-President Harris have been on the ground in resent days meeting with effected families. During her trip to Georgia Vice-President Harris announced that the federal government will reimburse state and local government 100% of the costs from Hurricane Helene.

A strike by the International Longshoremen’s Association that briefly shut down ports on the East Cost and Gulf ended in a tentative deal. Both sides thanked Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su and Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg for helping push the deal through. President Biden and Vice-President Harris had expressed solidarity with the works when the strike was announced and President Biden directed Secretary Buttigieg to take the lead in pressuring management to make a deal with the Longshoremen. The ILA got a 62% raise as part of the agreement.

Vice President Harris announced new actions to help those struggling with medical debt. This actions include new standards from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on debt collection. the CFPB plans on requiring debt collectors to confirm debts are valid and accurate before engaging in collection actions. As well as cracking down on debt collectors that collect on debt that is not owed by patients. Other actions included an announcement by the DoD that it was reducing pricing for civilians who get medical treatment at DoD hospitals and a track down on tax-exempt hospitals who are required by law to offer financial assistance but often do not. These steps come after Vice President Harris in June announced plans to remove medical debt from credit scores. Following the Vice President's call to action North Carolina moved forward a plan to eliminate medical debt for 2 million people in the state. President Biden's American Rescue Plan funds have been used by state and local Democrats to eliminate $7 billion dollars in medical debt.

The Department of Transportation announced $62 Billion in infrastructure funding for 2025. Thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed by President Biden this will be $18 billion dollars more than was spent in 2021. The Biden-Harris Admin has helped support over 60,000 infrastructure projects across all 50 states, rebuilding roads and bridges, breaking ground on America's first high speed rail, updating ports and airports, and breaking high speed internet to rural communities.

The Department of Transportation announced $1 Billion dollars of investment in America's passenger rail future. This comes on top of $8.2 billion in investments announced in December 2023. The funds will help expand and modernize intercity passenger rail nationwide.

The Departments of Energy and Agriculture announced a $2.8 billion joint project to bring 100% carbon pollution-free energy to the rural midwest. The DoE is investing $1.5 billion into helping bring the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan back on-line. Shut down in 2022 plans to refit and reopen it to allow the plant to keep generating clean energy till 2051. Once back online the Palisades Nuclear Plant will help stop an anticipated 4.47 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions a year, or 111 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions over its lifetime. The USDA is investing $1.3 billion in two rural electric cooperatives, Wolverine Power Cooperative and Hoosier Energy, which cover rural communities in Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana. This investment will help Wolverine and Hoosier connect to the Palisades Plant, reduce prices for customers, and reduce climate pollution, putting Wolverine Power on the path to be 100 percent carbon-free energy before 2030.

The Treasury and the IRS announced that 30 million Americans, across 24 states will qualify for free direct filing of their taxes in 2025. The IRS says that the average American spends $270 dollars and 13 hours filing their taxes. Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, passed by President Biden with Vice President Harris' tie breaking vote, Americans will be able to file their taxes quickly and for free directly with the IRS. Tax payers in Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming will in 2025 be able to use direct file.

The USDA announced $7.7 billion in funding for Climate-Smart Practices on Agricultural Lands. This represents the single biggest investment in these programs in USDA history. Since implementation began in 2023 this conservation assistance has helped over 28,500 farmers and ranchers apply conservation to 361 million acres of land.

The Department of Energy announced $1.5 billion in investments in transmission infrastructure to help ensure our grid is reliable and resilient. This will help support nearly 1,000 miles of new transmission lines across Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. These lines will bring 7,100 MW of new capacity and create 9,000 good paying union jobs. Studies find to keep up with growth and meet our climate goals of carbon free energy the US will need to triple the 2020 transmission capacity by 2050. This is an important step to meeting that goal.

[mfi-miami]

CFPB Opinion Says Google May Be Violating Section 8 Of RESPA

CFPB Opinion Says Lenders Using Google Ads May Be In Violation Section 8 Of RESPA For Fee Splitting The CFPB has issued an opinion about mortgage comparison site platforms. The agency says these sites could be violating the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) section 8. The CFPB points out that mortgage comparison sites are steering consumers to certain lenders based on compensation.…

[probablyasocialecologist]

Libraries have traditionally operated on a basic premise: Once they purchase a book, they can lend it out to patrons as much (or as little) as they like. Library copies often come from publishers, but they can also come from donations, used book sales, or other libraries. However the library obtains the book, once the library legally owns it, it is theirs to lend as they see fit.  Not so for digital books. To make licensed e-books available to patrons, libraries have to pay publishers multiple times over. First, they must subscribe (for a fee) to aggregator platforms such as Overdrive. Aggregators, like streaming services such as HBO’s Max, have total control over adding or removing content from their catalogue. Content can be removed at any time, for any reason, without input from your local library. The decision happens not at the community level but at the corporate one, thousands of miles from the patrons affected.  Then libraries must purchase each individual copy of each individual title that they want to offer as an e-book. These e-book copies are not only priced at a steep markup—up to 300% over consumer retail—but are also time- and loan-limited, meaning the files self-destruct after a certain number of loans. The library then needs to repurchase the same book, at a new price, in order to keep it in stock.  This upending of the traditional order puts massive financial strain on libraries and the taxpayers that fund them. It also opens up a world of privacy concerns; while libraries are restricted in the reader data they can collect and share, private companies are under no such obligation. Some libraries have turned to another solution: controlled digital lending, or CDL, a process by which a library scans the physical books it already has in its collection, makes secure digital copies, and lends those out on a one-to-one “owned to loaned” ratio.  The Internet Archive was an early pioneer of this technique. When the digital copy is loaned, the physical copy is sequestered from borrowing; when the physical copy is checked out, the digital copy becomes unavailable. The benefits to libraries are obvious; delicate books can be circulated without fear of damage, volumes can be moved off-site for facilities work without interrupting patron access, and older and endangered works become searchable and can get a second chance at life. Library patrons, who fund their local library’s purchases with their tax dollars, also benefit from the ability to freely access the books. Publishers are, unfortunately, not a fan of this model, and in 2020 four of them sued the Internet Archive over its CDL program. The suit ultimately focused on the Internet Archive’s lending of 127 books that were already commercially available through licensed aggregators. The publisher plaintiffs accused the Internet Archive of mass copyright infringement, while the Internet Archive argued that its digitization and lending program was a fair use. The trial court sided with the publishers, and on September 4, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reaffirmed that decision with some alterations to the underlying reasoning.  This decision harms libraries. It locks them into an e-book ecosystem designed to extract as much money as possible while harvesting (and reselling) reader data en masse. It leaves local communities’ reading habits at the mercy of curatorial decisions made by four dominant publishing companies thousands of miles away. It steers Americans away from one of the few remaining bastions of privacy protection and funnels them into a surveillance ecosystem that, like Big Tech, becomes more dangerous with each passing data breach. And by increasing the price for access to knowledge, it puts up even more barriers between underserved communities and the American dream.

11 September 2024

[nayziiz]

Witness | CL16

Summary: In the shadowy world of Monaco's elite, the Leclerc family reigns supreme. Charles Leclerc, the charming middle son, maintains their pristine public image—until one rainy night, during a fit of rage, Charles does the unthinkable. A young woman witnesses his actions, and her terrified eyes haunt him. Consumed by guilt and fear of exposure, Charles embarks on a desperate search to find her before she can destroy his family’s legacy. As he delves deeper into Monaco's underbelly, Charles must confront his own darkness and the lengths he will go to protect his family.

Pairing: Charles Leclerc x OC (name to be revealed)

Warnings: Violence, blood, angst

Masterlist

Chapter 2

It was never her intention to stay in Monaco for as long as she did. The decision was made on a whim, a spontaneous deviation from their original plan. She and her best friend, Diana, had pooled all their savings to backpack through Europe, a final adventure before heading off to university the following year. They had dreams of exploring ancient cities, savoring exotic cuisines, and collecting stories to last a lifetime.

Except, they never made it out of Monaco. Halfway through their adventure, they ran out of money. The glitz and glamour of the principality had drained their funds faster than they anticipated. In a desperate bid to keep their dream alive, they decided to find work in Monaco until they had enough money to continue their journey or return home.

But they stayed. For her best friend, the decision was driven by an insatiable hunger for adventure and the thrill of the unknown. Monaco, with its opulent casinos, stunning coastline, and vibrant nightlife, was an irresistible playground. Every day brought new experiences, new faces, and the promise of excitement just around the corner.

For her, staying was about something deeper, something more poignant. She was trying to find a place to call home after the devastating loss of her parents. The memories of her past were wrapped in sorrow, her hometown a landscape of grief she wasn’t ready to face. If she had to return, it would be to a cold, empty apartment filled with silent reminders of a life she once cherished. The photographs on the walls, the worn furniture, the lingering scent of her parents’ presence—all of it was too much to bear.

Selling the apartment didn’t feel right either. It was her last tangible connection to her family, a physical space where she could still feel their presence. Despite her financial struggles, she couldn’t bring herself to part with it. It was her sanctuary, her link to a past that, while painful, was also filled with love and warmth. The idea of someone else living there, of it becoming just another property on the market, was unthinkable.

So she chose to stay in Monaco, finding solace in its cobblestone streets and the endless blue of the Mediterranean. She worked various jobs, from waiting tables to cleaning hotel rooms, anything that would allow her to survive and maybe, just maybe, thrive. Monaco became a place of healing, a backdrop to her search for a new beginning. It offered a sense of anonymity and escape, a way to redefine herself away from the shadows of her past.

Every day was a balancing act between the need to move forward and the pull of her memories. She built a new life in the bustling, vibrant city, finding moments of joy amidst the challenges. Monaco's beauty and chaos gave her the distraction she needed, and the transient nature of the city’s inhabitants meant she could reinvent herself as often as she needed to.

As they gained experience and confidence, their opportunities expanded. Waitressing in the casino was the next step—a more upscale, lucrative option that introduced them to a different side of Monaco's glittering facade. The casino, with its opulent decor and high-stakes atmosphere, was a realm of its own. She found herself fascinated by the people who frequented it: the wealthy, the desperate, the lucky, and the reckless. Each night brought new stories, new interactions, and a deeper understanding of the world she had plunged into.

Now, she manages the blackjack tables at one of the more popular casinos in the city. It's a position of responsibility and respect, one that she has earned through hard work and dedication. Her calm demeanour and sharp mind make her a natural at handling the complexities of the job. She ensured the games ran smoothly, the customers were satisfied, and the house always had the upper hand. It was a far cry from the uncertain young woman who arrived in Monaco, and she took pride in the journey she had made.

Diana's lust for adventure meant she took a different path. Drawn by the allure of the open sea and the promise of new experiences, she ended up working as a stewardess on one of the locals' yachts. It was a job that took her beyond Monaco's borders, allowing her to travel to Italy, France, and Spain. Each trip was a new chapter, filled with sun-soaked days, glamorous parties, and the thrill of the unknown. She revelled in the freedom and excitement, her heart set on exploring as much of the world as she could.

Their paths diverged, but their bond remained strong. They shared stories of their adventures and challenges, finding comfort in each other’s experiences. She would listen to tales of Mediterranean coastlines and opulent yachts, while Diana would hear about the intrigues and dramas unfolding at the blackjack tables. They were both carving out their own versions of success, driven by different motivations but united by their shared past and the dreams that brought them to Monaco.

In the midst of their bustling lives, she couldn’t shake the feeling that Monaco had become more than just a stop on their journey. It had become a place where she could redefine herself, a place where she could heal.

For her, the days following the incident were a nightmare. She tried to stay indoors as much as she could, avoiding the outside world and the risk of bumping into the murderer. The image of Charles, his hands covered in blood and his eyes wild with panic, was seared into her mind. She didn’t know if he would harm her too and if she was in danger simply because she had witnessed his crime.

She was violently ill, throwing up every day as the memory crossed her mind. The nausea wasn’t just physical; it was a visceral reaction to the terror and helplessness she felt that night. Her once safe and vibrant life in Monaco now felt like a trap, with shadows lurking around every corner. The fear was suffocating, pressing down on her with every heartbeat.

When she finally returned to work, she took a different route, meticulously planning her path to avoid that alley. The thought of walking past the place where she saw the life drain from a man's eyes was unbearable. She couldn’t face it, couldn’t let the reminder of that night haunt her more than it already did. The new route was longer, more cumbersome, but it provided a small measure of psychological relief.

Her colleagues at the casino noticed the change in her demeanour. She was quieter, more withdrawn, her usual spark dimmed by the weight of her secret. Managing the blackjack tables required her to maintain a calm and composed exterior, but inside, she was constantly on edge. Every new customer, every unexpected movement, set her nerves alight with anxiety.

Despite her efforts to avoid the memory, it lingered. The dark alley, the rain-soaked streets, the brutal fight—they were always there, lurking just beneath the surface of her consciousness. She found herself jumpy, easily startled, her senses heightened by a perpetual state of fear. The once vibrant city had become a maze of potential threats, each day a challenge to her sanity.

Diana, busy with her own adventures on the yachts, noticed something was wrong but couldn’t quite understand the depth of her trauma. She tried to be supportive, offering distractions and comforting words, but the horror of that night was something words couldn’t soothe. She couldn’t share the full truth, couldn’t burden her friend with the gruesome reality of what she had witnessed.

She was trapped in a silent nightmare, each day a struggle to maintain a semblance of normalcy while the weight of her secret threatened to crush her. And in the midst of this, Charles was searching for her, driven by his own fears and need for redemption. Their paths, once accidentally crossed, were now inexorably linked, setting the stage for a confrontation that would force them both to face the darkness within and around them.

She contemplated reporting the incident, but fear held her back. She knew he had seen her face, and had gotten a good enough look to identify her. The uncertainty of who he was or what he was capable of paralyzed her. The thought of police protection felt like a distant hope. She was a foreigner, a transient figure in Monaco, and doubted the Monegasque police would prioritise her safety over the influence and power someone like him might wield.

The universe seemed to be playing a sick game of cat and mouse with her and Charles, with each of them constantly missing the other by just a few minutes or a turn of a corner. Their paths continued to intertwine in frustratingly close calls—Charles arriving at a café just as she left, her taking a different route home just minutes before he passed by. The tension built with each near encounter, the stakes rising as both their lives remained suspended in this cruel game.

She tried to maintain a semblance of normalcy, but every creak of her apartment, every unexpected knock, sent her heart racing. She kept the lights off, the curtains drawn, as if hiding from the world would somehow keep her safe. She longed for her friend’s carefree spirit, for the days when her biggest worry was earning enough to continue their adventure. Now, every moment was tinged with the fear of being found.

As the days passed, she realised she couldn’t keep living in fear. The incident had fractured her sense of security, but she was determined not to let it break her completely. She started to devise a plan, thinking of ways to leave Monaco, to start over once again. But the thought of running, of abandoning the life she had built, filled her with a deep sense of loss.

Unbeknownst to her, Charles was closing in. His determination to find her, to make things right, was relentless. He scoured the city, desperate for any clue that would lead him to her. The closer he got, the more his anxiety grew, knowing that confronting her would mean facing his own demons and the possible unravelling of his family’s carefully constructed empire.

In the heart of Monaco, their fates were on a collision course, bound by a night of violence and a web of secrets. The question remained: when they finally met, would it bring redemption or ruin for both of them?

-------------------------------------------

Taglist: @annie115 @snzleclerc

[reality-detective]

Wake Up! Everything You Believe Is a Carefully Crafted Lie by a Hidden Elite That Owns Your Governments, Banks, and Minds!

The world is under the control of a hidden, powerful elite that has manipulated humanity for thousands of years. Governments, banks, corporations, and even religions are all part of a massive, interconnected system designed to keep the masses in line. You are living in a controlled simulation where every move is calculated, every narrative crafted, and every dissent crushed.

Ancient Rome never fell; it just changed its face. The Vatican is the continuation of the Roman Empire, pulling the strings of global power from the shadows. The Pope is not a religious leader but the CEO of the world’s largest covert operation. Global leaders bow to Rome; every major decision made in Europe, America, and beyond has its roots in this ancient power structure. The so-called “democracies” are just fronts, and the real rulers operate far from the public eye.

The financial system is a tool of enslavement, but its grip is weakening. Central banks, the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, and the IMF have long kept nations in debt and citizens in economic chains. However, their reign is about to end. The Global Economic Security and Reformation Act (GESARA) is poised to trigger the biggest wealth transfer in history, redistributing stolen wealth back to the people.

This is a total overhaul designed to dismantle the corrupt systems that have enslaved humanity for centuries. Trillions of dollars hoarded by the elite will be seized and returned to the people, restoring economic power where it belongs.

This act will expose the financial fraud perpetuated by these institutions, wiping out debts and releasing new technologies that have been suppressed to keep the populace in poverty. The days of the financial overlords are numbered, and GESARA is the catalyst that will break their chains for good, restoring wealth and freedom to the masses.

Education and media are the propaganda arms of this hidden empire. From kindergarten to university, you are fed lies designed to shape your worldview to fit the agenda of the elite. Critical thinking is discouraged because an informed population is a threat. The news you watch, the books you read, and the information you consume are all curated to keep you ignorant, divided, and powerless.

Governments are puppets. Elections are rigged shows to give you the illusion of choice. Presidents, prime ministers, and kings answer to the same hidden masters. Policies, wars, economic collapses—they’re all orchestrated from behind closed doors by a small group of individuals who have no allegiance to any nation but only to their own interests. They decide who wins, who loses, and how the game is played.

Laws are tools of oppression, not justice. The legal system is designed to protect the elite and keep you in line. Roman law still influences modern legal codes, and its principles are used to maintain control over the masses. The courtrooms are theaters where the outcome is predetermined, and the real power lies in the unseen hands that pull the strings.

Corporations are not independent entities—they are branches of the same control network. They push products, policies, and narratives that serve their masters’ agenda. From the food you eat to the technology you use, everything is designed to monitor, influence, and control you. You are not a customer; you are a data point, a resource to be exploited.

The world is not what it seems. Every institution you trust, every leader you admire, every belief you hold has been carefully constructed to keep you obedient and blind to the truth. You are not free; you are a pawn in a game that was rigged long before you were born.

The only way out is to see the truth: that the world is run by a small, powerful group that considers itself above the rest of humanity. They are the masters, and we are the slaves. This is the reality they don’t want you to see. Wake up, or remain a willing participant in your own enslavement.

Escape the Matrix 🤔

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Supreme Court poised to appoint federal judges to run the US economy.

January 18, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

JAN 17, 2024

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on two cases that provide the Court with the opportunity to overturn the “Chevron deference doctrine.” Based on comments from the Justices, it seems likely that the justices will overturn judicial precedent that has been settled for forty years. If they do, their decision will reshape the balance of power between the three branches of government by appointing federal judges as regulators of the world’s largest economy, supplanting the expertise of federal agencies (a.k.a. the “administrative state”).

Although the Chevron doctrine seems like an arcane area of the law, it strikes at the heart of the US economy. If the Court were to invalidate the doctrine, it would do so in service of the conservative billionaires who have bought and paid for four of the justices on the Court. The losers would be the American people, who rely on the expertise of federal regulators to protect their water, food, working conditions, financial systems, public markets, transportation, product safety, health care services, and more.

The potential overruling of the Chevron doctrine is a proxy for a broader effort by the reactionary majority to pare the power of the executive branch and Congress while empowering the courts. Let’s take a moment to examine the context of that effort.

But I will not bury the lead (or the lede): The reactionary majority on the Court is out of control. In disregarding precedent that conflicts with the conservative legal agenda of its Federalist Society overlords, the Court is acting in a lawless manner. It is squandering hard-earned legitimacy. It is time to expand the Court—the only solution that requires a simple majority in two chambers of Congress and the signature of the president.

The “administrative state” sounds bad. Is it?

No. The administrative state is good. It refers to the collective body of federal employees, regulators, and experts who help maintain an orderly US economy. Conservatives use the term “administrative state” to denigrate federal regulation and expertise. They want corporations to operate free of all federal restraint—free to pollute, free to defraud, free to impose dangerous and unfair working conditions, free to release dangerous products into the marketplace, and free to engage in deceptive practices in public markets.

The US economy is the largest, most robust economy in the world because federal regulators impose standards for safety, honesty, transparency, and accountability. Not only is the US economy the largest in the world (as measured by nominal GDP), but its GDP per capita ($76,398) overshadows that of the second largest economy, China ($12,270). The US dollar is the reserve currency for the world and its markets are a haven for foreign investment and capital formation. See The Top 25 Economies in the World (investopedia.com)

US consumers, banks, investment firms, and foreign investors are attracted to the US economy because it is regulated. US corporations want all the benefits of regulations—until regulations get in the way of making more money. It is at that point that the “administrative state” is seen as “the enemy” by conservatives who value profit maximization above human health, safety, and solvency.

It is difficult to comprehend how big the US economy is. To paraphrase Douglas Adams’s quote about space, “It’s big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is.” Suffice to say, the US economy is so big it cannot be regulated by several hundred federal judges with dockets filled with criminal cases and major business disputes.

Nor can Congress pass enough legislation to keep pace with ever changing technological and financial developments. Congress can’t pass a budget on time; the notion that it would be able to keep up with regulations necessary to regulate Bitcoin trading in public markets is risible.

What is the Chevron deference doctrine?

Managing the US economy requires hundreds of thousands of subject matter experts—a.k.a. “regulators”—who bring order, transparency, and honesty to the US economy. Those experts must make millions of judgments each year in creating, implementing and applying federal regulations.

And this is where the “Chevron deference doctrine” comes in. When federal experts and regulators interpret federal regulations in esoteric areas such as maintaining healthy fisheries, their decisions should be entitled to a certain amount of deference. And they have received such deference since 1984, when the US Supreme Court created a rule of judicial deference to decisions by federal regulators in the case of Chevron v. NRDC.

What happened at oral argument?

In a pair of cases, the US Supreme Court heard argument on Tuesday as to whether the Chevron deference doctrine should continue—or whether the Court should overturn the doctrine and effectively throw out 17,000 federal court decisions applying the doctrine. According to Court observers, including Mark Joseph Stern of Slate, the answer is “Yes, the Court is poised to appoint federal judges as regulators of the US economy.” See Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, The Supreme Court is seizing more power from Democratic presidents. (slate.com)

I recommend Stern’s article for a description of the grim atmosphere at the oral argument—kind of “pre-demise” wake for the Chevron deference doctrine. Stern does a superb job of explaining the effects of overruling Chevron:

Here’s the bottom line: Without Chevron deference, it’ll be open season on each and every regulation, with underinformed courts playing pretend scientist, economist, and policymaker all at once. Securities fraud, banking secrecy, mercury pollution, asylum applications, health care funding, plus all manner of civil rights laws: They are ultravulnerable to judicial attack in Chevron’s absence. That’s why the medical establishment has lined up in support of Chevron, explaining that its demise would mark a “tremendous disruption” for patients and providers; just rinse and repeat for every other area of law to see the convulsive disruptions on the horizon.

The Kochs and the Federalist Society have bought and paid for this sad outcome. The chaos that will follow will hurt consumers, travelers, investors, patients and—ultimately—American businesses, who will no longer be able to rely on federal regulators for guidance as to the meaning of federal regulations. Instead, businesses will get an answer to their questions after lengthy, expensive litigation before overworked and ill-prepared judges implement a political agenda.

Expand the Court. Disband the reactionary majority by relegating it to an irrelevant minority. If we win control of both chambers of Congress in 2024 and reelect Joe Biden, expanding the Court should be the first order of business.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[betheckart]

Solomon Sallow Theory

Hello !

First post, I'm going to heat things up regarding a game that a lot of people love and about a character that many hate.

Solomon Sallow in Hogwart Legacy.

This theory about him has been running through my head for some time, because of his behavior and his past and present actions, there is something that bothers me, that disturbs my Ravenclaw instinct.

So, let's update the character's situation. A retired auror, the latter finds himself forced to take under his guardianship the children of his brother who died in an unfortunate accident, Anne and Sebastian. We do not know much about the period that follows until the children's schooling where his burden is increased by a little extra in the person of Ominis Gaunt.

Then comes the famous incident and the situation escalates to the point of unforgivability.

I know, Solomon is not very popular among the Hogwart Legacy audience. Rightly so, many find him to be an idiot, a gruff and inflexible character but I keep telling myself that there is something wrong with this story, something illogical about his behavior as a as an adult having to watch over the well-being of his nephew and his niece in addition to that of their best friend who still comes from a prestigious wizarding family.

So let’s get back to the beginning…

I would like to point out that, as despicable as the Gaunts' reputation is, I don't think they would have left one of their children to an incapable person. I know that the little we hear about them is hardly glorious however, Ominis remains an heir of Slytherin, which is far from being a forgetable detail, and the Gaunts protect their blood so he would never have left a child to a man for whom they would not have a minimum of confidence, at least that is what I suppose. Naturally, we can also suspect them of having preferred to leave him with the Sallows to relieve themselves financially.

However, bare in mind that Solomon must share the core traits of his family - he is far from stupid, he knows what sport the Gaunt family plays and he must well suspect that Ominis was obliged to use an unforgivable curse. Simply, like us, he put things aside, Ominis was only a child whose actions were dictated by fear and who was consumed with guilt unlike Sebastian who did not have the slightest regret and who would have used any other spell. However, he did not hesitate to accept this possibly problematic kid under his roof even though he only had limited means. Sorry for his detractors but it must be admitted that it is an act of great benevolence, nothing obliged him to take the heir of Slytherin under his wing but he did it, only to preserve him from the dark traditions of his family , he saw the pure being that is our favorite blondie. (And clearly, given the Sallow house, the Gaunts didn't give it a damn!)

I would like now to point out something about the brilliant Sebastian Sallow. At Hogwarts his talent as a duelist is more than recognized, everyone knows it and everyone puts the emphasis again and again on how surprising our victory over him is. But I think his talent is in no way natural. I would like to point out that the rare times we get to see Anne who remains under her curse, she fights with a similar talent and it is the same with Ominis who spent his summers with them. I think these three are doing so well for one reason and that is Solomon Sallow.

Let me explain, as a former Auror, I would not be surprised if when the children began to learn magic, he was naturally able to assist them in the use of defense spells against the dark arts. Remember, the training dummies are behind the Sallow house, I don't think that's a coincidence. During the holidays I am convinced that he helped the three children develop their skills. Of course, some might object to the ban on using magic outside of school, but didn't Ominis use magic outside of school well before and without consequences? In my opinion the ministry was much more flexible on this subject at the time, in fact it was not even a subject.

So …

From the few things we got to see Anne is gifted, even under the influence of a curse. She defends herself admirably and from as little as we know about this whole thing, Ominis manages excellently despite his disability. However, without adequate training, he would never have reached such a level even with the academic support that Hogwarts offers. Sebastian is very talented, of course, but I think his uncle was very harsh with him because he is precisely a boy, the one who had to protect his sister with him. Solomon is the patriarch and naturally Sebastian would one day take over, so he had to prepare him properly. Sebastian's hard work with his uncle will have paid off - coming back to Hogwarts would have given him a certain arrogance.

Then came the incident and Anne's curse.

And, ladies and gents, here comes my theory.

Solomon is a good wizard, by that I mean a good fighter. Certainly, the condition of his niece was quite worrying but nothing would have stopped him from capturing a goblin and extracting information from him to find out who had cursed her and cure her. However, he did nothing. Why ? Why didn't he do anything? He raised his brother's children, protected Ominis and did nothing to help Anne even though he had the ability to do so? What gives ?!

Why would he act like that ? Unless… he knew the truth?

Solomon Sallow is a former Auror, which definitely means he knows how to lead an investigation and like the rest of his family  knows how to use his brain. I think he searched for the person responsible for his niece’s curse and unfortunately found the answer. Victor Rockwood, a formidable bandit of unprecedented danger. A man who would not hesitate to kill him. Naturally, he had to quietly try to bring justice by keeping his nephew and niece out of the public eye. As he points out to our character, it is no use giving hope when it is useless . As long as he could not guarantee Anne's recovery, it was better not to let the truth be known.

Unfortunately and you know it, Rockwood emphasized it very well during his dialogues with Ranrock, he has connections, friends very high up in the ministry and this is largely proven by the inaction of the ministry concerning the misdeeds of the scoundrel In the region. There is no justice, Victor Rockwood is protected, unreachable and far too dangerous. And Solomon Sallow saw himself being powerless in the face of the corruption of the magical world -  unable to face these dangerous people. Certainly, some might point out a certain cowardice but put yourself or walk a mile in his shoes! He was all that remained for Anne, Sebastian and also Ominis, the only adult who could protect them, watch over them! They don't have anyone else!

Solomon was therefore forced to make a terrible choice. The problem at hand being none other than his nephew. Sebastian. As he pointed out, he is his father's son but also his uncle's nephew. He grew up with his brother and raised Sebastian, he knows him by heart whether he likes it or not. Sebastian's intelligence becoming a danger, the elder Sallow would then have manipulated his nephew to make him focus on a single problem. How to cure Anne rather than the real curse caster. Just imagine for a split second :  if Sebastian had known the truth, he would have launched a guerrilla war against Rockwood, certainly Ominis going with him, which would have been a disaster. The two boys would have thrown themselves headlong into the battle when they were only fourteen years old and they could have been seriously injured, died or worse! Expelled! (Oh wait...)

 In short, by diverting Sebastian's attention, he protected him and by manipulating him to dissuade him from continuing his quest, he tried to keep him away from the truth so that he would not put himself in danger. We all know though that Sebastian is quite the stubborn kind and that he would definitely dive into anything he’s told not to.

Anne's curse was manageable at first, so he may have thought she would be able to live with it, but we know the situation only got worse. Anne was forced to drop out of school and return to Feldcroft. The guilt that Solomon would have developed would have pushed him to overprotect Anne. Unable to help him and knowing the truth, he would have unconsciously harbored anger towards Sebastian who naively tried to find a solution to something that did not exist. Managing him was certainly complex but at least, in a way, he was guided in a relatively wise way and Ominis was there to watch. In the game, the students talk about Sebastian but ultimately only the heir of Slytherin is considered his friend, a true friend.

But something disrupted his plan.

Us.

Many have highlighted his behavior towards our character. Let’s face it, we were the disruption. Without our presence, Ominis would never have given in for the Scriptorium, Sebastian would never have had access to Salazar Slytherin's book and he would never have been able to cross the catacombs to find the relic. Solomon had given him a quest with no outcome but our character provided assistance to which Sebastian should not have had access. When we think about this, we can understand pretty easily why - from our first dialogue ever with him - Solomon tries to impose his opinion on us regarding Anne's healing. Why he wanted us to dissuade his nephew from venturing down a dark path and unfortunately, we’ve been the downfall of them both.

When Sebastian finally uses the Imperio, Solomon understands that our presence has affected his nephew's quest and worse, it has encouraged him to cross lines he did not want him to cross. While the talented Slytherin is on the verge of becoming a man, the former Auror had just witnessed an act that he could not accept. It was proof of his failure, of his inability to protect his brother's son, that he had failed to keep him away from black magic. His hasty decision to leave Feldcroft would then have been a last-ditch move to desperately try to protect the twins.

By moving Anne away from Sebastian, the latter would no longer have to witness the deterioration of her condition and Anne would have been able to benefit from a healthy, stress-free environment which would have brought her a certain peace of mind. Everything he wanted and to offer her - offer them indeed. Solomon would have feared that beyond his quest for a cure and with the assistance of our character, his nephew would have ended up getting closer to the castle and that he would have made the connection, discovered the truth and launched this war that the Auror feared so much. He couldn't endanger the lives of his family and the new student.

I know, it's a bit exaggerated given our strike force in the game but Solomon doesn't know that. All he sees is another teenager putting themself in danger and worse, dragging his nephew along on their journey. Worse for our case, we have just started manipulating magic, how can such a character be trusted ?

In short, one can agree that if my theory is correct, it would explain a lot of things about Solomon Sallow's behavior.

I am now waiting for your opinions, hoping that I have managed to express myself well.

Théorie en version française !

Bonjour !

Première publication, je vais faire chauffer les choses concernant un jeu que pas mal de gens aiment et sur un personnage que beaucoup déteste.

Solomon Sallow dans Hogwart Legacy.

Cette théorie le concernant me trotte dans la tête depuis un certain temps, du fait de son comportement et de ses actions passées et présentes, il y a un truc qui me chagrine, qui trouble mon instinct de Serdaigle.

Donc, mettons la situation du personnage à jour. Ancien auror à la retraite, ce dernier se retrouve contraint de prendre sous sa tutelle les enfants de son frère décédé dans un malheureux accident, Anne et Sebastian. On ne sait pas grand-chose de la période qui suit jusqu’à la scolarité des enfants où sa charge s’alourdit d’un petit supplément en la personne d’Ominis Gaunt.

Vient ensuite le fameux incident et la situation dégénère jusqu’à l’impardonnable.

Je sais, Solomon n’est pas très aimé parmi le public de Hogwart Legacy. A juste titre, beaucoup trouve que c’est un con, un personnage bourru et inflexible mais je n’arrête pas de me dire qu’il y a quelque chose qui cloche dans cette histoire, quelque chose d’illogique concernant son comportement en tant qu’adulte devant veiller aux bien-être de son neveu et de sa nièce en plus de celui de leur meilleur ami tout de même issu d’une prestigieuse famille de sorcier.

Donc commençons par le commencement…

J’aimerais souligner, qu’aussi ignoble que soit la réputation des Gaunt, je ne pense pas qu’ils auraient laissé l’un de leur enfant à une personne incapable. Je sais que le peu qu’on entend à leur sujet n’est guère glorieux cependant, Ominis reste un héritier de Serpentard, ce n’est pas rien et les Gaunt protègent leur sang donc jamais ils n’auraient laissé un enfant à un homme pour lequel ils n’auraient pas un minimum de confiance, tout du moins c’est ce que je suppose. Naturellement, on peut aussi les suspecter d’avoir préféré le laisser avec les Sallow pour se soulager financièrement.

Pour autant, notons que Solomon doit être dans la même ligne que sa famille. Il est loin d’être idiot, il sait quel sport pratique la famille Gaunt et il doit bien se douter que Ominis ait été dans l’obligation de faire usage d’un sort impardonnable. Simplement, comme nous-même, il a fait la part des choses, Ominis n’était qu’un enfant dicté par la peur et qui est rongé de culpabilité contrairement à Sebastian qui n’a pas eu le moindre regret et qui aurait pu faire usage de n’importe quel autre sort. Pour autant, il n’a pas hésité à accepter ce gosse possiblement problématique sous son toit alors qu’il n’avait que des moyens limités. Navré pour ses détracteurs mais il faut avouer que c’est un acte de grande bienveillance, rien ne l’obligeait à prendre l’héritier de Serpentard sous son aile mais il l’a fait, uniquement pour le préserver des sombres traditions de sa famille, il a vu l’être pur qu’est notre petit blond favori. (Et clairement, vu la maison des Sallow, les Gaunt ne lui ont pas donné un rond !)

J’aimerais maintenant souligner un fait concernant le si brillant Sebastian Sallow. A Poudlard son talent de duelliste est plus que reconnu, tout le monde le sait et tous soulignent encore et encore à quel point notre victoire sur lui est surprenante. Mais je pense que son talent n’est en rien naturel. J’aimerais souligner que les rares fois où nous pouvons voir Anne qui reste sous le coup de sa malédiction, elle se bat avec un talent similaire et il en est de même avec Ominis qui a passé ses étés avec eux. Je pense que si ces trois-là se débrouillent aussi bien c’est pour une seule et unique raison, Solomon Sallow.

Je m’explique, en tant qu’ancien auror, je ne serais pas surprise que lorsque les enfants ont commencé à apprendre la magie, il a naturellement pu les assister dans l’usage des sorts de défense contre les forces du mal. Souvenez-vous, les mannequins d’entraînement sont derrière la maison des Sallow, je ne pense pas que ce soit un hasard. Durant les vacances je suis persuadé qu’il a aidé les trois enfants à développer leurs compétences. Certes, certains pourraient rebondir sur l’interdictions de faire usage de la magie en dehors de l’école mais Ominis n’a-t-il pas fait usage de la magie en dehors de l’école bien avant et sans conséquences ? A mon avis le ministère était bien plus souple à ce sujet à l’époque, voire ce n’était même pas un sujet.

Bref…

Du peu que nous avons pu voir, Anne est douée, même sous le coup d’une malédiction, elle se défend admirablement et du peu que nous avons pu voir, Ominis se débrouiller excellement malgré son handicap, sans un entraiment adéquat, il n’aurait jamais atteint un tel niveau même avec l’encadrement scolaire qu’offre Poudlard. En parallèle, Sebastian est très talentueux, certes, mais je pense que son oncle a été très sévère avec lui parce qu’il est justement un garçon, celui qui devait avec lui protéger sa sœur. Solomon est le patriarche et naturellement Sebastian reprendrait un jour le relai, de ce fait, il devait le préparer convenablement. Le travail acharné de Sebastian avec son oncle aura fini par payer et en revenant à Poudlard, tout cela lui aurait donné une certaine arrogance.

Puis vint l’incident et la malédiction d’Anne.

Et là, vient ma théorie.

Solomon est un bon sorcier, je veux dire un bon combattant. Certes, l’état de sa nièce était des plus préoccupant mais rien ne l’aurait empêché de capturer un gobelin et lui soustraire des informations pour savoir qui l’avait maudite et la guérir. Pourtant, il n’en a rien fait. Pourquoi ? Pourquoi il n’a rien fait ? Il a élevé les enfants de son frère, protégé Ominis et il n’a rien fait pour aider Anne alors qu’il en avait la capacité ? Pourquoi ?!

Pourquoi ? Si ce n’est qu’il savait la vérité ?

Solomon Sallow est un ancien auror, il sait mener une enquête et à l’image de sa famille, il sait faire usage de son cerveau. Je pense qu’il a cherché qui avait maudit sa nièce et que malheureusement, il a trouvé la réponse. Victor Rockwood, un bandit redoutable d’une dangerosité sans précédent. Un homme qui n’hésiterait pas à le tuer. Naturellement, il a dû tenter de faire discrètement justice en gardant son neveu et sa nièce dans l’ignorance. Comme il le souligne à notre personnage, il n’est pas utile de donner de l’espoir lorsque c’est inutile et tant qu’il ne pouvait pas garantir la guérison d’Anne, il ne valait mieux pas faire savoir la vérité.

Malheureusement et vous le savez, Rockwood l’a très bien souligné lors de ses dialogues avec Ranrock, il a des connexions, des amis très haut-placés dans le ministère et cela est largement prouvé par l’inaction du ministère concernant les méfaits du gredin dans la région. Il n’y a pas de justice, Victor Rockwood est protégé, inatteignable et bien trop dangereux. Et Solomon Sallow s’est vu impuissant face à la corruption du monde magique, incapable de faire face à ce dangereux personnages. Certes, certains pourrait souligner une certaine lâcheté mais mettez-vous à sa place ! Il était tout ce qu’il restait à Anne, Sebastian et aussi Ominis, le seul adulte pouvant les protéger, veiller sur eux ! Ils n’ont personne d’autre !

Solomon s’est donc vu dans l’obligation de faire un choix terrible. Le problème se posant n’étant rien d’autre que son neveu. Sebastian. Comme il l’a souligné, il est le fils de son père mais aussi le neveu de son oncle. Il a grandi avec son frère et a élevé Sebastian, il le connait par cœur que cela plaise ou non à ce dernier. L’intelligence de Sebastian devenant un danger, le doyen des Sallow aurait alors manipulé son neveu pour le centrer sur un seul problème. Comment guérir Anne plutôt que sur le réel lanceur de malédiction. Imaginez ! Si Sebastian avait su la vérité, il aurait lancé une guérilla contre Rockwood en embarquant Ominis. Les deux garçons se seraient lancés à corps perdu dans la bataille alors qu’ils n’avaient que quatorze ans et ils auraient pu se blesser gravement, mourir voire pire ! Être expulsé ! Attendez… Bref, en détournant l’attention de Sebastian, il l’aurait protégé et en le manipulant pour le dissuader de continuer sa quête, l’aurait détourné de la vérité pour qu’il ne se mette pas en danger. Et Sebastian est un adolescent têtu à qui il suffit d’interdire de faire quelque chose pour garantir qu’il y plongera à pied joint sans jamais s’en détourner.

La malédiction d’Anne étant gérable dans un premier temps, il a peut-être cru qu’elle parviendrait à vivre avec mais nous le savons la situation n’a fait que s’empirer. Anne a été contrainte à se déscolariser et revenir à Feldcroft. La culpabilité que Solomon aurait développée l’aurait poussé à surprotéger Anne. Incapable de l’aider et en sachant la vérité, il aurait inconsciemment nourri une colère envers Sebastian qui naïvement essayait de trouver une solution à quelque chose qui n’existait pas. Le gérer était certes complexe mais au moins, d’une certaine façon, il était encadré dans une voie relativement sage et Ominis était là pour veiller. Dans le jeu, les élèves parlent de Sebastian mais finalement seul l’héritier de Serpentard est considéré comme son ami, un vrai ami.

Mais quelque chose à perturbé son plan.

Nous.

Beaucoup ont souligné son comportement vis-à-vis de notre personnage. Avouons-le, nous étions la perturbation. Sans notre présence, jamais Ominis n’aurait cédé pour le Scriptorium, jamais Sebastian n’aurait eu accès au livre de Salazar Serpentard et jamais il n’aurait pu franchir les catacombes pour y trouver la relique. Solomon lui avait donné une quête sans issus mais notre personnage a apporté une assistance à laquelle Sebastian n’aurait pas dû avoir accès. Quand on réfléchit à cela, on comprend alors pourquoi dès notre premier dialogue, Solomon tente de nous imposer son avis concernant la guérison d’Anne, pourquoi il voulait que nous dissuadions son neveu de s’aventurer sur un chemin obscur et malheureusement, nous avons été leur perte à tous les deux.

Lorsque finalement Sebastian fait usage de l’Imperio, Solomon comprend que notre présence a affecté la quête de son neveu et pire que cela l’a encouragé à franchir des lignes qu’il ne souhaitait pas le voir franchir. Alors que le talentueux Serpentard est en passe de devenir un homme, l’ancien auror venait d’être témoin d’un acte qu’il ne pouvait accepter. C’était la preuve de son échec, de son incapacité à protéger le fils de son frère, qu’il n’avait pas réussi à le tenir hors de la magie noire. Sa décision précipitée de quitter Feldcroft aurait alors été un dernier geste pour désespérément essayer de protéger les jumeaux.

En éloignant Anne de Sebastian, ce dernier n’aurait plus été témoin de la dégradation de son état et Anne aurait pu bénéficier d’un environnement sain et sans stress qui lui aurait apporté une certaine quiétude. Tout ce qu’il souhaitait et pouvait lui offrir, leur offrir. Solomon aurait craint qu’au-delà de sa quête d’un remède et avec l’assistance de notre personnage, son neveu aurait fini par se rapprocher du château et qu’il aurait fait le lien, découvert la vérité et lancé cette guerre que l’auror craignait tant. Il ne pouvait mettre en danger la vie de sa famille et du nouvel élève.

Je sais, c’est un peu exagéré au vu de notre force de frappe dans le jeu mais ça, Solomon l’ignore. Tout ce qu’il voit, c’est un autre adolescent qui se met en danger et pire qui entraîne son neveu dans ses périples. Pire pour notre cas, nous venons de commencer à manipuler la magie, comment avoir confiance en un tel personnage ?

Bref, je trouve que si ma théorie est juste, elle expliquerait bien des choses sur le comportement de Solomon Sallow.

J’attend vos avis en espérant avoir réussi à bien m’exprimer.

[wonder-worker]

"[The isle of Voorne] constituted an important part of Margaret of York’s dower lands because of its financial revenues, its economic possibilities and its endless stock of salted herring. For the administration of the isle, the duchess used a number of experienced officers from her own and that of Maximilian’s household, as well as from regional and local institutions. Margaret maintained a close relationship with her administrators of Voorne; offices, emoluments and gifts were given in exchange for loyalty and service. In this way she managed to establish durable links between her court, her dower land, and the administrative apparatus in The Hague.

Margaret’s relationship with the town of Brielle was expressed through an exchange of financial and material gifts and favours. The town administration offered her and her retinue prestigious consumable goods and money. Not all gifts were donated spontaneously, but were more often than not the result of a process of negotiation: new privileges in exchange for money. At the same time the dowager could appeal to the town for financial loans which were financed by selling annuities. Brielle benefited from Margaret’s protection because it was not obliged to provide new subsidies. And yet, Margaret was not able to stop the decline of the port of Brielle that was losing ships and trade to Rotterdam and Schiedam.

However, we should be cautious when explaining the relationship between Margaret and Voorne merely in economic terms. Margaret showed sincere compassion for the poor and the needy in her town of Brielle. Although the financial implications resulting from this concern were small in comparison with gifts for her trustees or her expenditure for stained glass windows on the island, her financial controllers were very strict with her spontaneous acts of charity. There was a continuous tension between the application of financial rules and her princely urge for largesse.

The representation of Margaret in the glass windows was partly inspired by local efforts to remind the duchess of her duties. On the other hand, the iconography of the two windows in Brielle and Dirksland show that Margaret was genuinely interested in being commemorated and in being represented with her late husband. Thus Margaret contributed in a material way to the celebration of the liturgy and the maintenance of the building. At the same time she publicly showed her devotion and appealed to the citizens of Voorne to be loyal towards her."

-Mario Damen, "Charity against the odds. Margaret of York and the isle of Voorne (1477-1503)" Women at the Burgundian Court: Presence and Influence (Turnhout 2010) 

[mariacallous]

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today proposed a rule that would remove medical bills from most credit reports, increase privacy protections, help to increase credit scores and loan approvals, and prevent debt collectors from using the credit reporting system to coerce people to pay. The proposal would stop credit reporting companies from sharing medical debts with lenders and prohibit lenders from making lending decisions based on medical information. The proposed rule is part of the CFPB’s efforts to address the burden of medical debt and coercive credit reporting practices.

"The CFPB is seeking to end the senseless practice of weaponizing the credit reporting system to coerce patients into paying medical bills that they do not owe,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. "Medical bills on credit reports too often are inaccurate and have little to no predictive value when it comes to repaying other loans."

In 2003, Congress restricted lenders from obtaining or using medical information, including information about debts, through the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. However, federal agencies subsequently issued a special regulatory exception to allow creditors to use medical debts in their credit decisions.

The CFPB is proposing to close the regulatory loophole that has kept vast amounts of medical debt information in the credit reporting system. The proposed rule would help ensure that medical information does not unjustly damage credit scores, and would help keep debt collectors from coercing payments for inaccurate or false medical bills.

The CFPB’s research reveals that a medical bill on a person’s credit report is not a good predicter of whether they will repay a loan. In fact, the CFPB’s analysis shows that medical debts penalize consumers by making underwriting decisions less accurate and leading to thousands of denied applications on mortgages that consumers would repay. Since these are loans people will repay, the CFPB expects lenders will also benefit from improved underwriting and increased volume of safe loan approvals. In terms of mortgages, the CFPB expects the proposed rule would lead to the approval of approximately 22,000 additional, safe mortgages every year.

In December 2014, the CFPB released a report showing that medical debts provide less predictive value to lenders than other debts on credit reports. Then in March 2022, the CFPB released a report estimating that medical bills made up $88 billion of reported debts on credit reports. In that report, the CFPB announced that it would assess whether credit reports should include data on unpaid medical bills.

Since the March 2022 report, the three nationwide credit reporting conglomerates – Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion – announced that they would take many of those bills off credit reports, and FICO and VantageScore, the two major credit scoring companies, have decreased the degree to which medical bills impact a consumer’s score.

Despite these voluntary industry changes, 15 million Americans still have $49 billion in outstanding medical bills in collections appearing in the credit reporting system. The complex nature of medical billing, insurance coverage and reimbursement, and collections means that medical debts that continue to be reported are often inaccurate or inflated. Additionally, the changes by FICO and VantageScore have not eliminated the credit score difference between people with and without medical debt on their credit reports. We expect that Americans with medical debt on their credit reports will see their credit scores rise by 20 points, on average, if today’s proposed rule is finalized.

Under the current system, debt collectors improperly use the credit reporting system to coerce people to pay debts they may not owe. Many debt collectors engage in a practice known as “debt parking,” where they purchase medical debt then place it on credit reports, often without the consumer’s knowledge. When consumers apply for credit, they may discover that a medical bill is hindering their ability to get a loan. Consumers may then feel forced to pay the medical bill in order to improve their credit score and be approved for a loan, regardless of the debt’s validity.

Specifically, the proposed rule, if finalized would:

Eliminate the special medical debt exception: The proposed rule would remove the exception that broadly permits lenders to obtain and use information about medical debt to make credit eligibility determinations. Lenders would continue to be able to consider medical information related to disability income and similar benefits, as well as medical information relevant to the purpose of the loan, so long as certain conditions are met.

Establish guardrails for credit reporting companies: The proposed rule would prohibit credit reporting companies from including medical debt on credit reports sent to creditors when creditors are prohibited from considering it.

Ban repossession of medical devices: The proposed rule would prohibit lenders from taking medical devices as collateral for a loan, and bans lenders from repossessing medical devices, like wheelchairs or prosthetic limbs, if people are unable to repay the loan.

The CFPB began today’s rulemaking in September 2023 with the goals of ending coercive debt collection practices and limiting the role of medical debt in the credit reporting system. The CFPB additionally published in 2022 a report describing the extensive and debilitating effects of medical debt along with a bulletin on the No Surprises Act to remind credit reporting companies and debt collectors of their legal responsibilities under that legislation.

Read today’s proposed rule, Prohibition on Creditors and Consumer Reporting Agencies Concerning Medical Information (Regulation V).

Read the Unofficial Redline of the Prohibition on Creditors and Consumer Reporting Agencies Concerning Medical Information (Regulation V).

Comments must be received on or before August 12, 2024.

Learn more about Credit Reporting Requirements and the CFPB’s work on medical debt.

Consumers can submit credit reporting complaints, or complaints about financial products or services, by visiting the CFPB’s website or by calling (855) 411-CFPB (2372).

Employees who believe their company has violated federal consumer financial protection laws are encouraged to send information about what they know to whistleblower@cfpb.gov.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

For 40 years, Big Meat has openly colluded to rig prices

On October 7–8, I'm in Milan to keynote Wired Nextfest.

Noted socialist agitator Adam Smith once wrote, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

Smith was articulating a basic truth: when an industry grows concentrated, it grows cozy. Cultural differences between dominant firms are homogenized as top executives move from company to company, cross-pollinating attitudes and approaches. Ambituous, firm-hopping workaholic top brass make all their friends at the office, and so their former colleagues from one or two jobs back remain in their social circles.

Once an industry consists of half a dozen firms, the people running those companies constitute an incestuous financial polycule. They are executors of one anothers' estates, best men and maids of honor at one anothers' weddings, godparents to each others' kids. They play on the same softball teams and take family vacations together.

It would be heartwarming if it wasn't so costly to the rest of us. Remember Smith's maxim: "the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices." Class solidarity among corporate executives forms a united front to screw us in every conceivable way, from corrupting our politicians to maiming and cheating workers to gouging buyers.

That's the basis of American antitrust law. When Robert Sherman was stumping for the passage of the Sherman Act, America's first major antitrust law, he thundered "If we will not endure a King as a political power we should not endure a King over the production, transportation, and sale of the necessaries of life. If we would not submit to an emperor we should not submit to an autocrat of trade with power to prevent competition and to fix the price of any commodity":

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/20/we-should-not-endure-a-king/

Or rather, that was the basis of American antitrust law – until the Reagan era, when the fringe theories of the Nixonite criminal Robert Bork were elevated to a new orthodoxy. Under Bork's conception of antitrust, monopolies were evidence of excellence. If a company puts all its competitors out of business, that must mean that it is "efficient."

In Bork's fantasy world, the only way a company could attain dominance is by being so beloved by its customers that every competitor withers away. Governments that bust monopolies aren't protecting the public from "autocrats of trade"; they're overthrowing the winners of an election where you "vote with your wallet" to pick the best company.

But Bork and his co-fantasists couldn't quite manage all that with a straight face. They grudgingly admitted that a certain kind of bad monopolist could hypothetically exist, one that used its "market power" to raise prices or lower quality. Only when these offenses against our "consumer welfare" occurred should the state step in to protect its people.

This may sound good in theory, but in practice, it was a dead letter. The consumer welfare test isn't as simple as "If prices go up after a merger, punish the company." Instead, the government had to prove that the price raises came from "market power," and not from an increase in energy or labor costs, or some other "exogenous factor," like Mercury being in retrograde:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/10/you-had-one-job/#thats-just-the-as

And wouldn't you know it, it turns out that the mathematical models prescribed to distinguish greed from unavoidable circumstance inevitably "prove" that the monopolist wasn't at fault. Surely, it's just just a coincidence that the priesthood that understood how to make and interpret these models were Chicago School Economists who sold model-making as a service to companies that wanted to raise prices.

Pro-monopoly economists insist that this isn't true, and that their theory still has room to prosecute bad monopolies and cartels where they occur – more, they say this is already happening. In particular, they insist that "greedflation" can't be real, because it would require the kind of conspiracy that Smith warned of, and that their sickly antitrust enforcement is sufficient to prevent:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/11/price-over-volume/#pepsi-pricing-power

This strains credulity. After all, the CEOs of giant companies in concentrated industries openly boast to their shareholders about how they've used the covid and Ukraine invasion shocks to hike prices to increase their profit margins – not just cover their additional costs:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/23/cant-make-an-omelet/#keep-calm-and-crack-on

While excuseflation is new, open, naked price-fixing by industry cartels is not. Take the meat-packing industry, dominated by a tiny handful of giant corporations whose executives literally ran a betting pool on how many of their workers would get covid each week while working in their cramped, unventilated factories:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55009228

These companies have seen their margins soar – up 300% over the lockdown – while their payments to ranchers and growers cratered:

https://www.reuters.com/business/meat-packers-profit-margins-jumped-300-during-pandemic-white-house-economics-2021-12-10/

All this might leave one wondering whether there isn't something a little, you know, "conspiracy against the publick"-y going on in Big Meat?

Let me tell you about Agri Stats. Agri Stats has been around since 1985. Every large meat packer pays to be a "member" of Agri Stats, and they each submit weekly, detailed statistics about every aspect of their business: all their costs, all their margins, broken out by category. Agri Stats compiles this into phone-book-thick books that each member gets every week, telling them everything about how all of their competitors are running their businesses:

https://www.agristats.com/history

The companies whose data appears in this book are anonymized, but it's trivial to re-identify each supplier. Tyson execs hold regular "naming process" meetings where they go through new books and de-anonymize the data. A Butterball exec confirmed that he "can pick the companies for rankings with 100% certainty."

As David Dayen writes in The American Prospect, these books are incredibly detailed: "bird weights, freezer inventory, and 'head killed per operating hour.'" Within the cozy meat cartels, Agri Stats acts as a clearinghouse that allows every business in the industry to act in concert, running the entire meat-packing sector as a single company:

https://prospect.org/power/2023-10-03-lawsuit-highlights-why-meat-overpriced/

As interesting as the list of Agri Stats members is, the groups that don't get to see Agri Stats' "books" is just as important: "farmers, workers, or retailers." Agri Stats also offers consulting services to its members. As an exec at pork processor Smithfield put it, Agri Stats advice boils down to four words "Just raise your price."

Agri Stats ranks its members based on how high their prices are – they literally publish a league table with the highest prices at the top. Meat packers pay bonuses to their execs based on how high the company's rank is on that table. Agri Stats meets with its members throughout the year to discuss "price opportunities" and to advise them to "exercise restraint" by restricting supply to keep prices up. When one Agri Stats member considered leaving the cartel, Agri Stats wooed them back by telling them how to make an additional $100k by raising bacon prices.

The reason Dayen is writing about Agri Stats now is that the DoJ Antitrust Division has brought an antitrust suit against them. This is part of a wave of antitrust actions brought by Biden's DoJ and FTC, who, along with his NLRB, are shaping up to be the most pugnacious, public-interest force against corporate power since the Reagan administration:

https://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/29124-doj-sues-agri-stats-for-complicity-in-meat-market-manipulation

All this enforcement isn't a coincidence. It comes from an explicit rejection of neoliberalism's core tenets: inequality reflects merit, monopolies are efficient, and government can't do anything. In Biden's DoJ, FTC and NLRB, they're partying like it's 1979:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/party-its-1979-og-antitrust-back-baby

What's amazing about the Agri Stats conspiracy to raise prices is that it's been going since the Reagan administration. It's a smoking gun proof that "consumer welfare" never cared about price-fixing and robbing the public (can a gun still smoke after 40 years?). There was never a time when consumer welfare antitrust cared about consumer welfare. It was always and forever a front for "a conspiracy against the publick," a "contrivance to raise prices."

Big Meat has been robbing America for two generations. Some of those stolen funds were used to corrupt our political process. The meat sector gets $50 billion in public subsidies and still gouges us on prices and rips off its suppliers:

https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2022/02/usda-livestock-subsidies-near-50-billion-ewg-analysis-finds

Which means that it's possible that we're simultaneously being ripped off with meat prices and that meat prices are artificially low. Try and wrap your head around that one!

The do-nothing, pro-monopoly neoliberal antitrust is a virus that spread around the world. The EU's antitrust laws were reshaped to mirror American laws after the war through the Marshall Plan, but since the late 1970s, European lawmakers and enforcers have ignored their own laws (just like their American counterparts) and encouraged monopolies as "efficient."

This Made-in-Europe oligopoly, combined with energy and grain shocks from Russian invasion of Ukraine, created the perfect storm for European greedflation. As food prices spiked across the EU, Austrian hacktivist Mario Zechner set out to investigate Austrian grocers' pricing. Using the grocers' own APIs, he was able to compile and analyze a dataset of prices at Austrian grocers:

https://www.wired.com/story/heisse-preise-food-prices/

When Zechner open-sourced his project, collaborators showed up to expand the project across other EU countries, and an anonymous party donated a huge database of prices stretching back to 2017. The data reveals clear collusion among the grocers, who raise prices in near-lockstep, and use gimmicks like cyclic price drops to hide their collusion:

https://github.com/badlogic/heissepreise

Not every grocer has an API, and even the ones that do have APIs could easily block Zechner and co from accessing their data. When that happens, they could – and should – turn to scraping to continue their project. They should also scrape grocers elsewhere, including in Canada, where grocers rigged the price of bread:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/25/deep-scrape/#steering-with-the-windshield-wipers

Because Big Meat's "conspiracy against the publick" isn't unique to meat. It's in all our food, it's in all our goods, it's in all our services. The fact that the meat industry was able to rob American buyers, ranchers and farmers for two generations under a 200' tall neon sign that blinked "AGRI STATS AGRI STATS AGRI STATS" night and day is frankly astonishing.

But there's never just one ant. If the meatheads running Big Meat were able to do this in broad daylight since the NES years, imagine what all the other industries were able to get up to in the shadows.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/04/dont-let-your-meat-loaf/#meaty-beaty-big-and-bouncy

My next novel is The Lost Cause, a hopeful novel of the climate emergency. Amazon won't sell the audiobook, so I made my own and I'm pre-selling it on Kickstarter!

[nationallawreview]

Lawsuit Challenges CFPB’s ‘Buy Now, Pay Later’ Rule

On Oct. 18, 2024, fintech trade group Financial Technology Association (FTA) filed a lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) final interpretative rule on “Buy Now, Pay Later” (BNPL) products. Released in May 2024, the CFPB’s interpretative rule classifies BNPL products as “credit cards” and their providers as “card issuers” and “creditors” for purposes of the Truth…

[mfi-miami]

Successfully Fighting Foreclosures: How To Do It Right!

Successfully Fighting Foreclosures Requires The Strategies Most Foreclosure Defense Attorneys Get Wrong Or Don’t Even Bother Pursuing Homeowners are successfully fighting foreclosures in record numbers since the housing collapse in 2008. Why? Homeowners are realizing they can successfully fight foreclosure actions brought on by unscrupulous mortgage servicers. Or in a worse case, fight the…

[saddiedotdk]

Kamala Harris accomplishments as VP:

Cast tie-breaking vote for the American Rescue Plan of 2021.

Passed the American Rescue Plan, resulting in $1.9 trillion in economic stimulus.

Extended the Child Tax Credit through the American Rescue Plan.

Extended unemployment benefits through the American Rescue Plan.

Passed the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill.

Secured funding for electric school buses in the infrastructure bill.

Secured funding to combat wildfires and droughts in the infrastructure bill.

Secured funding for replacing lead water service lines.

Engaged with lawmakers at least 150 times for infrastructure investment.

Led diplomatic mission to Guatemala and Mexico to address migration issues.

Launched the "Central America Forward" initiative.

Secured $4.2 billion in private sector commitments for Central America.

Visited Paris to strengthen US-France relations.

Visited Singapore and Vietnam to bolster economic and strategic ties.

Visited Poland to support NATO allies during the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Visited Romania to support NATO allies during the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Launched the "Fight for Reproductive Freedoms" tour.

Visited a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota.

Passed the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act.

Promoted racial equity in pandemic response through specific initiatives.

Chaired the National Space Council.

Visited NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center to promote space policies.

Passed the Freedom to Vote Act in the House.

Passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act in the House.

Built coalitions for voting rights protections.

Supported the Affordable Care Act through specific policy measures.

Expanded healthcare coverage through policy initiatives.

Passed initiatives for debt-free college education.

Hosted a STEM event for women and girls at the White House.

Championed criminal justice reform through specific legislation.

Secured passage of the bipartisan assault weapons ban.

Expanded background checks for gun purchases through legislation.

Increased the minimum wage through specific policy actions.

Implemented economic justice policies.

Expanded healthcare coverage through policy initiatives.

Secured funding for affordable housing.

Secured funding for affordable education initiatives.

Launched the "Justice is Coming Home" campaign for veterans' mental health.

Proposed legislation for easier legal actions against financial institutions.

Strengthened the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Secured investment in early childhood education.

Launched maternal health initiatives.

Launched the "Call to Action to Reduce Maternal Mortality and Morbidity".

Made Black maternal health a national priority through policy actions.

Increased diversity in government appointments.

Passed legislation for renewable energy production.

Secured funding for combating climate change.

Passed infrastructure development initiatives.

Secured transportation funding through the infrastructure bill.

Developed a plan to combat climate change.

Reduced illegal immigration through policy actions.

Equitable vaccine distribution through specific policy measures.

Supported small businesses through pandemic recovery funds.

Secured educational resources during the pandemic.

Promoted international cooperation on climate initiatives.

Secured international agreements on climate change.

Passed economic policies benefiting the middle class.

Criticized policies benefiting the wealthy at the expense of the working class.

Promoted racial equity in healthcare through specific actions.

Promoted racial equity in economic policies.

Reduced racial disparities in education through specific initiatives.

Increased mental health resources for underserved communities.

Secured funding for affordable childcare.

Secured federal funding for community colleges.

Increased funding for HBCUs.

Increased vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Secured policies for pandemic preparedness.

Ensured equitable vaccine distribution through policy actions.

Secured international cooperation for COVID-19 responses.

Reduced economic disparities exacerbated by the pandemic.

Passed digital equity initiatives for broadband access.

Expanded rural broadband through specific policies.

Secured cybersecurity policies through legislation.

Protected election integrity through specific actions.

Secured fair and secure elections through policy measures.

Strengthened international alliances through diplomacy.

Supported the Paris Climate Agreement through policy actions.

Led U.S. climate negotiations through international initiatives.

Passed initiatives for clean energy jobs.

Secured policies for energy efficiency.

Reduced carbon emissions through specific legislation.

Secured international climate finance.

Promoted public health policies through specific initiatives.

Passed reproductive health services policies.

Supported LGBTQ+ rights through specific actions.

Secured initiatives to reduce homelessness.

Increased veterans' benefits through legislation.

Secured affordable healthcare for veterans.

Passed policies to support military families.

Secured initiatives for veteran employment.

Increased mental health resources for veterans.

Passed disability rights legislation.

Secured policies for accessible infrastructure.

Increased funding for workforce development.

Implemented economic mobility policies.

Secured consumer protection policies through legislation.

Engaged in community outreach through public events.

Organized public engagement efforts.

Participated in over 720 official events, averaging three per day since taking office.

Supported efforts to modernize public health data systems.

[fyeah-olivia-colman]

Olivia Colman has dressed as a latex-wearing oil executive called Oblivia Coalmine in a new campaign video highlighting the role of pension funds in fossil fuel projects.

The Academy Award-winning actress’s character thanks pension savers for allowing oil and gas companies to “dig, drill and destroy more of the planet than ever before” and spills an oily black liquid over her face while toasting with a champagne glass.

Created on behalf of the group Make My Money Matter, the advert encourages people to tell their pension schemes to remove their investments in fossil fuel projects.

Research from the campaign group found £88 billion of UK pension savers’ money goes to fossil fuel companies, £20 billion of which is to Shell alone.

Ms Colman said: “Fracking hell, Oblivia Coalmine really is a nasty piece of work. But the scariest thing about her is that she represents something very real.

“That’s why this is such an important campaign. I hope everyone who sees this ad realises the shocking, but unintended, impacts of our pensions and makes their money matter. It really is one of the most powerful things we can all do to protect the planet.”

The advert, created by Lucky Generals and directed by Raine Allen-Miller, coincides with recent polling that suggests 19 per cent of pension savers support their money going towards oil and gas and 66 per cent want it to go to renewables.

David Hayman, the campaign’s director, said pension funds invest in fossil fuels because it has typically provided a good return, but this is likely to change with the global energy transition, which is putting the money increasingly at risk.

He said: “Pension funds are investing billions each year in companies developing new oil and gas, this is bad for people and bad for the planet.

“If we are to stay below 1.5C of warming, fossil fuel expansion must stop, and our pensions can play a big role in this.

“These companies face the risk of stranded assets, government regulation and customer pushback, so continuing to sink our money into these companies is hugely risky.

“It’s time for pension funds to think beyond the short term and really consider what type of world their members will be retiring into in the future.”

Countries have committed to stop the Earth’s average temperature rising 34.7F (1.5C) above pre-industrial levels, considered the limit of a safe environment, and will gather in Dubai next week at Cop28 to discuss progress on this.

Research from the UN has found there to be only a 14 per cent chance of achieving this goal with current policies, predicting that the Earth will warm by 37.4F (3C) by the end of the century.

Mr Hayman said that not one major UK pension scheme has committed to stopping fossil fuel financing and that those people who want their savings removed should email their pension schemes.

He said: “The most powerful thing any of us can do is contact our pension scheme and tell them to stop using our money to finance new oil and gas.

“Our campaign has shown that consumer power can work in pushing big financial institutions to act on climate change, and the more people show they care, the more the pensions industry will have to listen.” (X)