#Financial policies

[1talapia-007]

She covers the democrats and Kamala Harris’s most radical financial policies. She is a CPA from the Bay Area.

[nexdigm]

Empowering India: A Detailed Overview of the Union Budget 2024-25

The Union Budget 2024-25 presented by the Indian government marks a significant step towards realizing the vision of Viksit Bharat by 2047. With an ambitious theme of empowerment and inclusivity, the budget outlines a comprehensive roadmap for sustainable economic development, addressing key areas like agriculture, manufacturing, MSMEs, energy, and infrastructure.

Economic Overview and Fiscal Health

The budget estimates a fiscal deficit of 4.9% of GDP, aiming to reduce it below 4.5% by the next year. With low and stable inflation, moving towards a 4% target, the economic environment is conducive to growth. The capital expenditure outlay remains at 3.4% of GDP, consistent with the Interim Budget 2024. The focus is maintaining macroeconomic stability while fostering growth and development across various sectors.

Key Direct Tax Proposals

Direct tax proposals in the budget are designed to reduce the compliance burden and promote entrepreneurial spirit. Highlights include the rationalization of capital gains tax, abolition of angel tax for all investors, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate for foreign companies from 40% to 35%. The standard deduction for salaried employees is increased from INR 50,000 to INR 75,000, further simplifying the new tax regime.

Indirect Tax Proposals

Indirect tax proposals focus on simplifying the customs duty structure, removing duty inversion, and reducing disputes. Exemptions in customs duty are proposed for critical sectors such as cancer medicines, mobile industry, marine exports, and energy transition, aiming to enhance competitiveness and support strategic sectors.

Sectoral Focus and MSMEs

The budget places special emphasis on MSMEs and labour-intensive manufacturing, aiming to boost financing, regulatory changes, and technology support. Initiatives include the Credit Guarantee Scheme for MSMEs, new assessment models, and voluntary closure of LLPs. The focus on MSMEs is pivotal for generating employment and enhancing the sector’s global competitiveness.

Infrastructure and Urban Development

Infrastructure development is a cornerstone of the budget, with a provision of USD 1.35 trillion, constituting 3.4% of GDP. Significant investments are planned for rural connectivity, urban development, water management, and housing. The Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana Urban 2.0 aims to address the housing needs of 10 million urban poor and middle-class families with an investment of USD 121.95 billion.

Energy Security and Innovation

Energy security is another critical area, with initiatives such as the PM Surya Ghar Muft Bijli Yojna providing free electricity to 10 million households. The budget also emphasizes innovation and research, with operationalizing the Anusandhan National Research Fund and private sector-driven research initiatives.

Trade and Global Investment

The budget aims to promote trade and create an enabling environment for business by simplifying rules for foreign direct investment and overseas investments. The strategic focus is on attracting global investments while nurturing indigenous entrepreneurship, fostering a vibrant ecosystem of innovation and job creation.

Conclusion

The Union Budget 2024-25 is a comprehensive plan designed to propel India towards sustainable and inclusive economic development. With a clear focus on key sectors and strategic initiatives, the budget lays down a robust framework for achieving the goal of Viksit Bharat by 2047, positioning India as a strong and resilient economy on the global stage.

[bristolchurch]

Profit Pulpits: The Divine Dilemma of Pastors and Church Finances

Introduction: The role of pastors in churches is undoubtedly crucial. They serve as spiritual leaders and help guide their congregations towards a path of righteousness. However, in some cases, pastors may overstep their bounds and begin to view the church’s income as their own personal property. This attitude can be problematic, and this paper aims to explore this issue further. The…

[squishymochithethird]

My mom was going on and on about how “far left” and “radical” Tim Walz is and I finally listened to some of his points and.

He’s one of the most reasonable politicians I’ve heard in a very long time. I’m surprised she doesn’t like him tbh, he’s kind of the perfect democrat for someone like her??

[lilithism1848]

[solianapaeris]

Take heed, ladies.

In recent times some women have begun to recognize that marriage is a scam. From its earliest inception as a legal institution it was enforced to prevent women from being unaccompanied by men and to ensure that no woman would have property or assets of her own that would not be inheritable or accessible by men. This is why the early witch hunts targeted women who owned their own property and were not married to a man, because upon marriage that property and all other assets that woman held would be under the jurisdiction of a man as well as control over her labor and the “right” to have sex with her. Ownership of “property”

Remember that marital rape — non consensual sex with a wife — was legal and is still legal in many places throughout the US and many don't consider it rape because they think that women agree to be controlled or dominated, considered as property when they marry a man. Marriage was designed and functioned as a transfer of power from women to men to uphold a patriarchal order where men are the only sovereign citizens and women exist as their servants and satellites.

Now that women can work outside of the household and do it all some women have taken the stance that there is no way for a woman to benefit by marriage. As women recognize this men are crying to enforce policies that would trap women with them and limit women's rights, forcing women back into the household as encaged domestic workers to men with no financial independence—because that financial independence is what it took for women to realize marriage was not worth it to them whether it be for love or for money. They valued (and still value) their freedom and autonomy and safety more. Men benefit by marriage by design.

These men feel entitled, not seeing women as human beings but as objects for them to use. Everything should benefit them, they do not believe in equality but in superiority. It makes room for absent or ghost patriarchy where Men refuse to raise their children or provide for women, yet want the benefits of patriarchy without actually functioning as patriarchs. These are failed men. This refusal to raise, protect, provide and plan for their bloodlines, their own image, their own spouse is called failure. It is a complete abandonment of manhood.

These failed men are (and should be) treated as if they don't exist because, quite literally they don't. They leave their bloodlines vacant; they erased themselves. They are ghosts.

But why do so many women worship these ghosts? Because they've been programmed and conditioned to believe these ghosts will materialize into men. They haven't.

But a spell is a spell.

Take heed ladies.

[bitegore]

Hi. I just got some very bad news. Consider reblogging my art or giving me tips on kofi or something, I don't even know.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Relationship Between Temporal Discounting and Ethics

Temporal discounting is a cognitive phenomenon where people tend to value immediate rewards more highly than future ones. This tendency to devalue rewards as they move further into the future has significant implications for decision-making, especially in the context of ethical behavior and moral reasoning. Understanding how temporal discounting influences ethical choices can shed light on why individuals might prioritize short-term gains over long-term ethical principles and the broader impact on society.

Understanding Temporal Discounting

Temporal discounting is the preference for smaller, immediate rewards over larger, delayed ones. It is a well-documented phenomenon in psychology and behavioral economics, reflecting how individuals often struggle with self-control and long-term planning. The degree to which individuals discount future rewards can vary, with some showing a stronger preference for immediacy than others.

Ethics and Temporal Discounting

Immediate Gratification vs. Long-term Consequences: Ethical decisions often involve weighing immediate benefits against long-term consequences. For instance, cheating on a test may provide immediate academic success but can undermine personal integrity and trust in the long run. Temporal discounting can lead individuals to prioritize immediate gratification, ignoring the ethical implications of their actions over time.

Environmental Ethics: Temporal discounting significantly impacts environmental ethics. Decisions that favor short-term economic benefits, such as overfishing or deforestation, can have devastating long-term environmental consequences. Ethical considerations require valuing the future health of the planet and the well-being of future generations, which temporal discounting can undermine.

Financial Ethics: In financial contexts, temporal discounting can explain why individuals might engage in unethical behaviors like fraud or embezzlement to gain immediate financial rewards. These actions can lead to severe long-term repercussions, including legal consequences and damaged reputations, highlighting the ethical tension between short-term gains and long-term integrity.

Health and Well-being: Health-related decisions are also influenced by temporal discounting. For example, indulging in unhealthy behaviors for immediate pleasure can lead to long-term health problems. Ethical decision-making in this context involves recognizing and valuing the future health consequences of present actions.

Public Policy and Governance: Policymakers often face ethical dilemmas where short-term political gains are weighed against long-term societal benefits. Temporal discounting can lead to policies that favor immediate results, such as tax cuts or deregulation, while neglecting the long-term ethical considerations of economic stability and social welfare.

Addressing Temporal Discounting in Ethical Decision-Making

Education and Awareness: Increasing awareness about the effects of temporal discounting can help individuals recognize their biases and make more informed ethical decisions. Education programs that highlight the long-term consequences of actions can encourage a more future-oriented perspective.

Incentive Structures: Designing incentive structures that reward long-term ethical behavior can counteract the effects of temporal discounting. For example, offering financial incentives for sustainable practices or long-term health goals can align immediate rewards with ethical principles.

Cognitive Behavioral Strategies: Techniques such as mindfulness and cognitive behavioral strategies can help individuals manage impulsive tendencies and consider long-term consequences more effectively. These strategies can support ethical decision-making by reducing the impact of temporal discounting.

Policy Interventions: Governments and organizations can implement policies that promote long-term ethical behavior. For example, regulations that enforce environmental protections or corporate governance standards can help mitigate the influence of temporal discounting on unethical practices.

The relationship between temporal discounting and ethics underscores the challenges individuals face in balancing immediate desires with long-term ethical principles. By understanding this cognitive bias and its implications, we can develop strategies to promote ethical decision-making that values future consequences. Whether through education, incentive structures, cognitive strategies, or policy interventions, addressing temporal discounting is crucial for fostering a more ethically responsible society.

[indianfasttrack]

Worldwide Insurance Companies along with detailed information

Gathering a complete list of all insurance companies worldwide, along with detailed information about each, is a vast and complex task. The number of insurance companies globally is in the thousands, varying across regions and industries (life, health, property, casualty, etc.). Additionally, companies frequently merge, change names, or cease operations, which makes maintaining an up-to-date list…

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Biden set to appoint mass foreclosure cheerleader to the Fed

Personnel are policy, something that the Biden administration has proved again and again since the 2020 election. Biden himself is a kind of empty vessel into which different wings of the Democratic party pour their will, yielding a strange brew of appointments both great and terrible.

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/2023/03/06/personnel-are-policy/#janice-eberly

On the one hand, you have progressive appointments like Jonathan Kanter at the DoJ and Lina Khan at the FTC, leaders who are determined to challenge and curb corporate power:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/01/10/see-you-in-the-funny-papers/#bidens-legacy

On the other hand, you have deferential leaders like Pete Buttigieg, who fill their own staff with status quo counsel, and then let those timid corporate apologists run the show, leaving the substantial enforcement powers of a powerful agency to gather dust:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/10/the-courage-to-govern/#whos-in-charge

While the Democrats’ anti-corporate wing got to drive the administration’s competition agencies, the corporate wing has enjoyed near-total dominance over finance regulations (with notable exceptions, e.g. Rohit Chopra), starting with Trump’s Jerome Powell, a bloodletting monster happy to shovel workers into their bosses’ crushers all day long:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/19/creditors-vs-workers/#finance-colored-glasses

Corporate Dems continue to flex their muscle. A seat has just opened up on the Federal Reserve Board, and the WSJ is pretty sure the seat is going to Janice Eberly, a corporate ghoul who helped Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner steal Americans’ houses on behalf of the bankers who destroyed the world economy in 2008:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-considers-two-economists-for-fed-vice-chair-58f13344

A quick refresher: Obama inherited the Great Financial Crisis, a massive global asset crash that followed from a decade of real-estate and derivatives deregulation that saw the world’s largest banks issuing mortgages they knew would fail, and then placing massive bets on “collateralized debt obligations” that were supposed to offset the risk.

The banks gambled trillions, nearly destroyed the world’s economy, and then blamed it all on reckless borrowers — mortgage holders who had been mis-sold predatory mortgages that were designed to trigger defaults thanks to low “teaser rates” that later “ballooned” into monthly payments the banks knew the borrowers couldn’t afford.

Geithner was Obama’s go-to guy for the GFC. It was under his leadership that billions were handed out to the banks to bail them out and keep them solvent during the crisis — and it was also under his leadership that bank execs were able to pay themselves millions in bonuses using that public money.

When the banks were in trouble, Geithner leapt into action. When the banks’ customers faced crises, he was MIA — especially during the foreclosure epidemic that followed, as the banks stole our homes out from under us, often forging the paperwork. No bank was seriously punished for this policy.

Back to Janice Eberly, who served as Geithner’s assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy — his hatchet-woman, in other words. Now, sometimes people in senior government roles stick around because they disagree with their bosses and want to mitigate the harm of their bosses’ policies.

That’s not why Eberly took the job. In 2014, she and Arvind Krishnamurthy co-wrote a Brookings Institute paper called “Efficient Credit Policies in a Housing Debt Crisis,” that explained why Geithner had it right all along — bailing out the banks and leaving homeowners in foreclosure is “efficient”:

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/fall2014bpea_eberly_krishnamurthy.pdf

Writing in The American Prospect, Max Moran from the Revolving Door Project breaks down “Efficient Credit Policies,” explaining how Eberly’s stated views should disqualify her from sitting on the Fed board, especially as we teeter on the brink of a deep financial crisis:

https://prospect.org/economy/2023-03-06-janice-eberly-fed-nominee-mortgage-crisis/

The first thing you need to understand here is HAMP, the Home Affordable Modification Program, which received the $100b Congress allocated to help homeowners whose mortgages were “underwater” — that is, whose houses were worth less than they owed for them.

That money could have gone to “principal reduction” — that is, to paying off part of your loan. If you owned $350,000 on a house that was now worth $300,000, the Feds could give the bank $50k and you wouldn’t be underwater anymore. The FDIC proposed just this, in a plan that would have required homeowners to pay back the US government if the price of their homes rebounded.

If you want to keep Americans from losing their homes, principal reduction is a straightforward and reliable approach. But the banks hated this — and that meant Geithner wouldn’t do it. Banks don’t like principal reduction because it means that they’ll lose out on future payments: reducing your principal by $50k now means that the banks won’t get hundreds of thousands of dollars over the 30 years of your mortgage.

Using the money for principal reduction would have meant the banks’ balance sheets would have looked a little worse — which, as Moran points out, is a perfectly fair outcome for banks that had just come close to destroying the world economy, especially since many of these underwater borrowers were destined to lose their houses and would never make those payments.

But Geithner didn’t do principal reduction. Instead, he did HAMP, which was just a way to temporarily lower borrowers’ monthly payments so they could stay in their homes. Geithner sold Obama on this plan, convincing him to renege on his election promise to support a “cramdown” on the banks, which would have saved homeowners:

https://www.propublica.org/article/dems-obama-broke-pledge-to-force-banks-to-help-homeowners

HAMP was full of the kinds of complex requirements and paperwork that the professional managerial class love, rules that made it almost impossible for homeowners to invoke HAMP and improve their payments. Meanwhile, the banks got “investor incentive payments” that let them take in public money even as they foreclosed on the public:

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/principal-reduction-alternative-under-the-home-affordable-modification-program

HAMP was a disaster. Almost no one managed to use it, and even among the lucky few who did manage to do so, many were tricked into foreclosure.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/30/government-program-save-homes-mortgages-failure-banks

This is the policy that Eberly and Krishnamurthy defend in their paper: rather than reducing debt, just temporarily restructure mortgage payments. One reason they defend this: it’s cheaper, and Congress didn’t allocate enough money to help everyone who needed principal reduction. But, as Moran points out, Geithner’s anemic response to the crisis caused Congress to claw back $225b of the money allocated to deal with it — enough to do $50k principal reductions for 4.5m households. Under Geithner, HAMP only spent $10b.

But of course, the US government didn’t need to pay the banks off to do principal reduction. They could simply order the banks to take a loss. That’s how lending usually works: lenders who originate bad loans have to eat them — they don’t get made whole by Uncle Sucker.

But when Eberly was working for Geithner, “federal officials convinced themselves this was impossible.” Rather than hold banks to account for their reckless speculation, Geithner announced that he was going to “foam the runway” for the banks, pureeing Americans’ homes to make the foam.

But Eberly’s tenure coincided with the banks’ rebound — by the time she went to work for Geithner, they were rolling in dough, posting massive profits. As @ryanlcooper@mastodon.social put it, “If you force them to eat a bunch of foreclosure losses, maybe a few hundred billion over several years, it probably wouldn’t have been that bad.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPLbnr1mxBs

Moran nails it here: “When a bad loan is made, it is both prudent and fair for the lender to bear the most responsibility. They are supposed to be wise stewards of their own capital. Instead, ordinary homeowners who did the least of any actor to cause the financial crisis ended up eating the losses.”

Eberly and Krishnamurthy claimed that Geithner’s policy would be efficient, and that it wouldn’t lead to mass foreclosures. As neoclassical economists love to do, they “proved” this using elaborate mathematical models. And, also in the grand neoclassical tradition, they didn’t bother to check whether their model was correct.

To quote Ely Devons: “If economists wished to study the horse, they wouldn’t go and look at horses. They’d sit in their studies and say to themselves, ‘What would I do if I were a horse?’”

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/27/economism/#what-would-i-do-if-i-were-a-horse

Here’s what Eberly and Krishnamurthy missed: the choice to foreclose wasn’t being made by the lenders, they were being made by the mortgage servicer, a kind of consequence-free middleman who made more money by foreclosing on homeowners, even if the lenders lost more money over the long term:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228125783_Why_Servicers_Foreclose_When_They_Should_Modify_and_Other_Puzzles_of_Servicer_Behavior_Servicer_Compensation_and_its_Consequences

Eberly and Krishnamurthy barely mention the existence of servicers, but another researcher was keenly aware of them: a law prof named Katie Porter, who delved into the servicers’ role in foreclosure in a report for the California AG:

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/mortgage_settlement/01-report-waiting-for-change.pdf

Porter identified the servicers’ “dual track” approach to distressed mortgage borrowers: on the one hand, they slow-walked HARP-based changes to payments, and on the other hand, they raced to foreclose on those borrowers who were waiting for their payments to reset.

The servicers’ hunger to throw people out of their homes knew no bounds: they set up massive robo-signing boiler-rooms where low-waged employees forged deeds to plug the paperwork holes created by the high-speed, unregulated speculation on mortgages that precipitated the Great Financial Crisis:

https://www.reuters.com/article/robosigning-plea/ex-mortgage-document-exec-pleads-guilty-in-robo-signing-case-idUSL1E8ML0C120121121

Eberly knew about robo-signing, she knew about servicers, she knew about foreclosures. It was her job to know. But she still wrote her paper defending Geithner’s runway-foaming and all those ruined lives:

Principal reduction can be helpful, but it is a less efficient use of government resources, since it back-loads payments to households that cannot borrow against these future resources to support consumption today, and also because it is most helpful in reducing strategic default, rather than payment-distress-induced default,

This is just means-testing by another name, a fetish for separating the “deserving poor” from “moochers” (AKA “strategic defaulters”). The PMC loves means-testing, but only for poor people. As Moran points out, rich people like Trump use strategic defaults all the time:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html

Elite economists and finance ghouls convinced themselves that helping people stay in their homes would enable waves of crooked “strategic defaulting” but there’s no evidence this was ever widespread — rather, it was a fairy tale that justified mass foreclosure:

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27585/w27585.pdf

Eberly helped throw millions of Americans into the street in order to reward reckless banks, already wildly profitable banks, with even more profit. And far from regretting this, she went on to write elaborate justifications for the cruel policies she helped administer.

The historian Michael Hudson describes debt and debt cancellation as a key determinant of whether a given civilization survives. In every venture, producers have to borrow capital from lenders — farmers, for example, must borrow to pay for seed and fertilizer and labor. When the ventures are successful, the borrowers pay back the lenders.

But not every venture can succeed. There will always be blights, droughts, fires and other risks that can’t be fully mitigated. When failure occurs, borrowers can’t pay back creditors. If you farm long enough, you’ll eventually lose a crop, and have to roll over your debts next year. Eventually, you’ll owe so much that you can’t even make the interest payments.

In the absence of some structured, periodic debt cancellation — such as the Bronze Age tradition of Jubilee — creditors eventually end up controlling the work of the entire productive sector. When that happens, your society stops producing what everyone needs, and instead just makes the things that rich people want:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/07/08/jubilant/#construire-des-passerelles

A civilization can’t survive if all of its farmers are growing ornamental flowers for rich creditors’ villas instead of staple crops. It can’t survive if every productive worker is stuck in a dead-end job or a dead-end place because of medical or student debt.

Personnel are policy. Eberly has explained, in excruciating detail, exactly what policy she favors — policy that rewards reckless speculation by incinerating the life chances of everyday Americans. Appointing her to the Federal Reserve board would be a giant Fuck You from the Biden admin to every person who got their home stolen by a bank.

Tomorrow (Mar 7), I’m doing a remote talk for TU Wien.

On Mar 9, you can catch me in person in Austin at the UT School of Design and Creative Technologies, and remotely at U Manitoba’s Ethics of Emerging Tech Lecture.

On Mar 10, Rebecca Giblin and I kick off the SXSW reading series.

Image: Medill DC (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Timothy_Geithner_in_2011.jpg

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

[Image ID: A bombed out neighborhood. Over the crumbling houses is the 'HOPE' wordmark from Shepard Fairey's Obama campaign posters. On the right is the grinning face of Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, colorized to match the Fairey posters. On the left is an ogrish, top-hatted capitalist figure, chomping a cigar and disdainfully holding aloft a single-family home between a gloved forefinger and thumb. He stands before a podium bearing the Citibank logo. The podium has a lever in the shape of a golden dollar-sign, which he is yanking with his free hand. He, too, has been colorized in the mode of the Fairey poster.]

[theygender]

I may be considering the crime of... Getting a business degree 🤢

[turingtestedandapproved]

I know if I ask him he'll agree, but....

It's frustrating that I'd have to ask him at all.

But I really don't want to let this place go.

[sainteddie]

.

[panicinthestudio]

COVID rapidly spreads in China as government eases strict quarantine rules, December 27, 2022

China is grappling with the rapid spread of COVID-19 after the government began rolling back its zero-COVID restrictions earlier this month. Now, cases are spiraling across towns and cities, hospitals are overburdened, medical staff are outnumbered and crematoriums are running out of space. Judy Woodruff reports.

PBS NewsHour

There is no nuance left in politics or public health policy when there is either an absolute and strict inflexibility of zero COVID or wholesale dismantling of safeguards before the healthcare or support systems are prepared for the waves that have been forcibly suppressed. The political insistence on using their own less effective, non-mRNA vaccines based on the original strains rather than Delta or Omicron, coupled with a low vaccination rate of the vulnerable and elderly is not helping easing the transition at all.

The way they’ve been counting mortality from COVID diverged from nearly every other country since early 2020. A death had to be directly attributable to SARS-CoV-2 eliminating cases of many preexisting or undiagnosed conditions, chronic illnesses, and other high risk factors that may have been exacerbated by the virus which became listed as the direct cause or if they simply tested negative in the few days before dying. The policy as of this week will further limit the count only to deaths caused by pneumonia or respiratory failure after contracting COVID, in addition to dropping much of the remaining inbound quarantines and regular case counts becoming even more inconsistent with lived reality.

It appears the PRC was prepared to stay in suspended animation within an onionskin of self-isolation layers indefinitely, maintaining the appearance of control and adherence to policy that was left to different local officials to execute. Downgrading the classification removes the local, emergency-style powers to lockdown and quarantine which were used capriciously. Residential buildings, offices and commercial areas such as malls, and even theme parks could be suddenly cordoned without warning, causing panic due to the stringency of testing and knock-on effects if a positive case was found rather than fear of having contacted or contracted the virus.��Becoming listed as a close contact or a complete stranger’s positive result could mean further quarantining and repeated testing, as well any change in one’s COVID passport status severely restricting mobility for work or education, travel, or even basic necessities. The protests spread because “dynamic zero” was anything but dynamic, refusing to change or amend course in preparation for a transition to an endemic or post-epidemic state. People were simply fed up and the building momentum was becoming a potential danger to a regime that had just renewed its own political mandates.

These things aren’t happening in isolation, China is also changing tact on its travel restrictions domestically and internationally. The Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau have been trying to reopen ports and travel with the Mainland for years now for travel and economic reasons. Both were forced into accepting one-way policies where it was difficult for their citizens to enter China or even between one another, while rules were softened for travelers and politicians entering from and returning to the Mainland for short trips with the reason that the pandemic was less well-contained than within the Mainland.

As news of the highly visible current outbreak within China is continuing to emerge, the Hong Kong SAR is now proudly announcing agreements have been made with the Mainland to drop their travel restrictions posthaste. It’s being reported that many are travelling specifically for mRNA vaccines which are approved in Macau and Hong Kong.

[sarasa-cat]

Tennessee law already says that religious leaders do not have to officiate weddings they object to. Critics say the new bill goes beyond that and would empower county clerks to refuse to certify marriage licenses, meaning that LGBTQ, interfaith, or interracial couples could be unable to get married at all, rather than just needing to find a new officiant for their ceremony.

Marriage equality is technically the law of the land thanks to the Respect for Marriage Act, which President Joe Biden signed in December. But Tennessee’s bill exploits a major loophole in that law. Critics had long warned that the Respect for Marriage Act did not go far enough. The bill had been amended during the debate process to say that religious organizations do not have to marry same-sex couples, and the law also does not require states to actually issue same-sex marriage licenses.

[batmansymbol]

hiiii do you have a policy regarding binding your fanfic for personal use or for gifting?

hi sweet anon! thanks so much for asking. i don't have a masterpost of my fic policies yet, so i'll take this opportunity to clarify & link this in my sidebar.

bookbinding

i am not OK with typesets, bindings, etc. being put behind paywalls or patreon access!

i am OK with commissioning somebody else to bind a fic -- as long as that commission is exactly the amount of materials!

as for personal use and gifting, like you mention, they are totally fine by me and i LOVE to see it :'D

translations

i LOVE and admire translations! you polyglots are incredible.

i ask that the translator 1) link back to the original and 2) send me a message, email, or AO3 comment with a link to their wonderful work, so I can add it to the fic description.

fanart

make as much art of my fics as you would like!

for free!

podfics

make as many pods of my fics as you would like!

(for freeeee!!!!)

i remain enormously flattered that anybody would want to make transformative work of my fanfics. it is wild to me that anybody would look at disappearances and decide to climb the everest of its translation, for instance. thank you all so much for reading and engaging with this work over the past few years.

to be honest, my writing career since the pandemic has been an extraordinarily bumpy and often demoralizing experience, as publishing tends to be. the positivity around disappearances has been a real lifeline for me. even though i'm not very active in fandom anymore, i still read every ao3 comment, and i hoard a number of them in my inbox to reread on the days that i feel like a talentless hack who will never again write a paragraph worth reading. y'all are a light. <3