#Policy implications for businesses

[greenthestral]

Navigating Global Economic Recovery Amidst Turbulent Times

Understanding the Complexities of Global Economic Recovery

The world is currently grappling with a multitude of challenges that are hindering global economic recovery. As we strive to move past the unprecedented impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, new waves of infections continue to pose significant threats to economies worldwide. In addition, rising inflation rates, supply chain disruptions, policy uncertainties, and labor market challenges further compound the complexities. This article explores the interplay of these factors and delves into the measures required to overcome these hurdles and steer towards a resilient economic future.

The Ongoing Battle with COVID-19

Despite progress in vaccination efforts, COVID-19 remains a potent adversary to economic recovery. As new waves of infections emerge, countries are forced to grapple with imposing restrictions and lockdowns to curb the spread. Such measures, though essential for public health, have profound consequences for businesses and industries. Disruptions in workforce continuity, temporary closures, and reduced consumer demand impact economic growth.

The uncertainty surrounding the duration and intensity of these waves adds further strain to businesses' ability to plan and invest in the future. Moreover, as variants of the virus continue to evolve, adapting strategies to combat the virus becomes an ongoing challenge for governments and businesses alike.

Inflation: The Silent Eroder of Purchasing Power

Rising inflation rates present another obstacle to global economic recovery. The pandemic's economic fallout, coupled with supply chain disruptions, has caused an increase in the prices of goods and services. This phenomenon erodes consumers' purchasing power, as their income struggles to keep pace with the soaring costs of essential items.

Central banks and governments face the delicate task of balancing inflation control measures while simultaneously promoting economic growth. Tackling inflation requires a careful calibration of monetary policies and fiscal stimulus to prevent the economy from slipping into stagflation – a state of stagnant growth with soaring prices.

Supply Chain Disruptions: Bottlenecks in the Path to Recovery

The pandemic exposed the vulnerabilities of global supply chains. As nations went into lockdowns, the movement of goods and raw materials was severely impeded, causing bottlenecks and delays. While economies have gradually reopened, the challenges persist. Shortages of critical components and delays in production have far-reaching implications for various industries, from manufacturing to retail.

Efforts are being made to diversify and localize supply chains to enhance resilience. However, transforming complex global supply networks is no small feat and requires time and substantial investments.

Policy Uncertainties: A Hurdle for Investors

Policy uncertainties amplify the challenges faced during economic recovery. Governments worldwide have implemented various measures to tackle the pandemic's impact, often requiring businesses to adapt swiftly. However, the changing policy landscape introduces uncertainty for investors, deterring them from making long-term commitments.

Clarity and consistency in government policies are crucial to instill confidence in businesses and encourage investments that fuel economic growth. Transparent communication and collaboration between policymakers and industries can foster a conducive environment for economic recovery.

Labor Market Challenges: Finding the Right Balance

The labor market also faces its own set of challenges. Many sectors, particularly those heavily reliant on physical presence, were severely affected during the pandemic. As businesses resume operations, there is a demand for skilled workers to fill positions that have remained vacant for extended periods.

Simultaneously, the shift towards remote work and technological advancements has led to a mismatch in the skills demanded and those available in the labor pool. Addressing this gap requires retraining and upskilling the workforce to ensure a seamless transition into the post-pandemic job market.

Charting the Course for Economic Resilience

Navigating the complexities of global economic recovery requires a coordinated effort from governments, businesses, and individuals. To build economic resilience, several key strategies can be adopted:

Strengthening Healthcare Systems and Vaccination

Prioritizing public health is fundamental to economic recovery. Governments must focus on bolstering healthcare infrastructure, ensuring sufficient medical supplies, and accelerating vaccination campaigns. A healthy workforce will instill confidence in employees and consumers, ultimately fostering economic growth.

Targeted Fiscal Support

Governments can offer targeted fiscal support to industries most impacted by the pandemic. Financial aid and incentives can help businesses recover and protect jobs. By tailoring support to specific sectors, governments can maximize the impact of their interventions.

Enhancing Supply Chain Resilience

Diversifying and strengthening supply chains will mitigate the risks posed by disruptions. Businesses can explore alternative sourcing options and collaborate with partners to build redundancy and flexibility into their supply networks.

Transparency and Consistency in Policies

Transparent communication from policymakers, coupled with consistent and predictable policies, will encourage businesses to plan for the future confidently. This stability fosters a conducive environment for investments and economic growth.

Investment in Skills Development

Investing in workforce skills development is crucial to bridge the labor market gap. Governments, educational institutions, and businesses can collaborate to provide training programs that equip individuals with the skills needed for evolving job opportunities.

Embracing Technology and Innovation

Technological advancements offer transformative solutions for businesses to adapt to the changing landscape. Embracing innovation can streamline operations, enhance productivity, and open new avenues for growth.

In conclusion, global economic recovery is indeed hampered by various challenges arising from new COVID-19 waves, inflation, supply chain disruptions, policy uncertainties, and labor market adjustments. However, by adopting comprehensive strategies and fostering collaborative efforts, nations can navigate these turbulent times and chart a course towards a more resilient and prosperous future. The road ahead may be challenging, but with determination and cooperation, we can overcome these hurdles and emerge stronger than ever before.

What's In It For Me? (WIIFM)

In this blog article, you will gain valuable insights into the critical factors obstructing global economic recovery. Discover how new waves of COVID-19, rising inflation, supply chain disruptions, policy uncertainties, and labor market challenges intertwine to create a complex web of obstacles. Learn about the impact these challenges have on businesses, economies, and individuals worldwide. Most importantly, find out how you can contribute to and navigate through these challenging times, ensuring a resilient economic future.

Call to Action (CTA)

Ready to equip yourself with essential knowledge about the challenges hindering global economic recovery? Click here to read the full blog article and gain a comprehensive understanding of how new waves of COVID-19, rising inflation, supply chain disruptions, policy uncertainties, and labor market challenges are shaping the economic landscape. Let's work together to build a stronger, more sustainable global economy.

Blog Excerpt

The road to global economic recovery is far from smooth. As the world attempts to overcome the far-reaching impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, new waves of infections continue to emerge, necessitating ongoing restrictions and lockdowns. Alongside this, rising inflation and supply chain disruptions add to the complexities, impacting the prices of goods and the smooth flow of essential resources. Policy uncertainties further exacerbate the challenges, creating an environment of hesitation for investors and businesses. To add to the mix, labor market adjustments bring their own set of obstacles. This blog delves into the intricate web of these issues and explores potential solutions for a resilient global economic recovery.

Meta Description (320 characters)

Discover the hurdles obstructing global economic recovery: COVID-19 waves, inflation, supply chain disruptions, policy uncertainties, and labor challenges. Gain insights and solutions for a stronger future.

[peccatulum-b-gone]

*a box has been left outside. looks to hold a larger animal, with an index seal on the top*

*inside is... Snakehead? but you're snakehead. in fact there's three of you in there, all with the same purple haze around them.*

I take it back, this delivery is pretty impressive. I wonder if these are somehow related to the mirror identities.

Hey, @7association-was-here, do you have any intel on identities with distinctly purple-ness to them ? I´ve got some which look sort of like me, but given that I haven´t run into any mirror versions of myself (let alone multiple versions that are somewhat purple), so these might be different thing.

You are free to come check them out. I will put the cage... somewhere where they won´t pose immediate threat if they broke out, I suppose.

[writers-potion]

I'm writing a sci-fi story about a space freight hauler with a heavy focus on the economy. Any tips for writing a complex fictional economy and all of it's intricacies and inner-workings?

Constructing a Fictional Economy

The economy is all about: How is the limited financial/natural/human resources distributed between various parties?

So, the most important question you should be able to answer are:

Who are the "have"s and "have-not"s?

What's "expensive" and what's "commonplace"?

What are the rules(laws, taxes, trade) of this game?

Building Blocks of the Economic System

Type of economic system. Even if your fictional economy is made up, it will need to be based on the existing systems: capitalism, socialism, mixed economies, feudalism, barter, etc.

Currency and monetary systems: the currency can be in various forms like gols, silver, digital, fiat, other commodity, etc. Estalish a central bank (or equivalent) responsible for monetary policy

Exchange rates

Inflation

Domestic and International trade: Trade policies and treaties. Transportation, communication infrastructure

Labour and employment: labor force trends, employment opportunities, workers rights. Consider the role of education, training and skill development in the labour market

The government's role: Fiscal policy(tax rate?), market regulation, social welfare, pension plans, etc.

Impact of Technology: Examine the role of tech in productivity, automation and job displacement. How does the digital economy and e-commerce shape the world?

Economic history: what are some historical events (like The Great Depresion and the 2008 Housing Crisis) that left lasting impacts on the psychologial workings of your economy?

For a comprehensive economic system, you'll need to consider ideally all of the above. However, depending on the characteristics of your country, you will need to concentrate on some more than others. i.e. a country heavily dependent on exports will care a lot more about the exchange rate and how to keep it stable.

For Fantasy Economies:

Social status: The haves and have-nots in fantasy world will be much more clear-cut, often with little room for movement up and down the socioeconoic ladder.

Scaricity. What is a resource that is hard to come by?

Geographical Characteristics: The setting will play a huge role in deciding what your country has and doesn't. Mountains and seas will determine time and cost of trade. Climatic conditions will determine shelf life of food items.

Impact of Magic: Magic can determine the cost of obtaining certain commodities. How does teleportation magic impact trade?

For Sci-Fi Economies Related to Space Exploration

Thankfully, space exploitation is slowly becoming a reality, we can now identify the factors we'll need to consider:

Economics of space waste: How large is the space waste problem? Is it recycled or resold? Any regulations about disposing of space wste?

New Energy: Is there any new clean energy? Is energy scarce?

Investors: Who/which country are the giants of space travel?

Ownership: Who "owns" space? How do you draw the borders between territories in space?

New class of workers: How are people working in space treated? Skilled or unskilled?

Relationship between space and Earth: Are resources mined in space and brought back to Earth, or is there a plan to live in space permanently?

What are some new professional niches?

What's the military implication of space exploitation? What new weapons, networks and spying techniques?

Also, consider:

Impact of space travel on food security, gender equality, racial equality

Impact of space travel on education.

Impact of space travel on the entertainment industry. Perhaps shooting monters in space isn't just a virtual thing anymore?

What are some indsutries that decline due to space travel?

I suggest reading up the Economic Impact Report from NASA, and futuristic reports from business consultants like McKinsey.

If space exploitation is a relatiely new technology that not everyone has access to, the workings of the economy will be skewed to benefit large investors and tech giants. As more regulations appear and prices go down, it will be further be integrated into the various industries, eventually becoming a new style of living.

[mariacallous]

In the last two months, more than 50,000 U.S. government employees have been fired, put on leave, or told to halt work—most of them by the writ of billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But some cuts, such as the one gutting Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), came directly from the pen of President Donald Trump. In an executive order signed last month, Trump ordered widespread cuts to the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), a congressionally funded organization that oversees several journalistic outlets, including RFE/RL, Radio Free Asia, and Voice of America.

RFE/RL fought back, swiftly filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration. It yielded almost immediate success—at least on paper—when the administration said it would reinstate its approximately $77 million funding grant. But most of that money is still “sitting in somebody’s bank account,” RFE/RL President and CEO Stephen Capus said in an interview with Foreign Policy. As of this week, USAGM has been ordered by a federal judge to provide RFE/RL with a new grant agreement.

Speaking from the outlet’s offices in the Czech capital of Prague on April 8, Capus—who previously spent two decades as a journalist and an executive at NBC—detailed the motivations and mechanics of RFE/RL’s legal battle with Trump, the expressions of support they’ve gotten from European leaders, and the lessons for U.S. media.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Foreign Policy: You got the Trump administration to publicly back down in its efforts to shut down your organization. What’s next?

Stephen Capus: We went to court exactly three weeks ago, which was three days after USAGM tried to terminate our grant agreement. We moved very quickly in the courts because we believe this is an unlawful act, that they had not presented any reason, any grounds for termination, and that they had given us no justification for withholding congressionally appropriated funds. So, at that time, we requested a temporary restraining order to prevent them from doing the grants termination, and then we requested a preliminary injunction around their continued efforts to withhold the $77 million of congressionally appropriated funds.

We need the funds to keep going. The court has sided with us so far, and we believe we have a strong case to make. The court strategy is one of many things that we’re doing right now. But it is the quickest way to get access to our funds.

Today [April 8], we received $2.8 million from them, which was for a very brief phase. So we still are owed $74.2 million. I don’t know why they decided to give us those funds now, but we’re still waiting for April. It’s now more than a week delayed. The funds that are sitting in somebody’s bank account doing no good for anyone could be used to keep us within operation through the end of the fiscal year as Congress intended.

We’re not even jumping up and down demanding our money. Congress has spoken—the will of Congress is very clear. There’s a line in the U.S. budget that says we shall receive this amount of money with our name. All of this could help a great deal.

We have a multinational workforce from people who grew up in some very, very difficult areas, like Afghanistan, Iran, Belarus, and Russia. If we go out of business as they [the Trump administration] are trying to do, then what happens to those people? Are they supposed to just simply go back to Iran? Or Kyrgyzstan? Or any of these other places that now call us foreign agents?

I’m really looking for a sign that the people at USAGM understand the implications of their move. I haven’t heard a single expression of support. Instead, I hear them disparaging us, using childish language to describe us. It’s a real blow to the people who risk everything to come and work for us because they believe in the mission.

FP: You mentioned that the courts are just one of the strategies you’re looking at. What are the others? Are you looking at other funding sources or backing from European governments?

SC: We’ve not exhausted all the possibilities with the United States. We’re still in court—nothing that I do will put that at risk.

We also have bipartisan support inside Congress. The United States options are what we’ve relied on for 75 years, and this is what we’re going to continue to aggressively explore.

But something happened the day that [then-USAGM senior advisor] Kari Lake announced that she was going to close our grant agreement—unceremoniously, no advance warning, no indication to us that this was going to happen. I immediately started getting calls of support from various European leaders. The Czech minister of foreign affairs was the first one, and very quickly, high-ranking European officials stepped forward. And almost to a person, they said to me: “This is deeply meaningful to me personally and my family. This was a lifeline to us any number of different times, including recently when we wanted to know what was happening in Ukraine.” We have journalists there who’ve risked everything to try to make sure that the world still knows what’s going on there. So they came forward and they said: “We believe in this mission. We don’t want to see it go away. Tell us how we can support.”

This is not the time for me to say to them: “OK, give us this, and everything will be OK.” It’s not the right time for that. But believe me, having that overwhelming response from the world community has been very, very gratifying, and it’s a little bit different than what we’ve heard from Washington.

What it turns into long term? It’s premature to say anything because we are a nonprofit corporation headquartered in the great state of Delaware, and that doesn’t change tomorrow. It doesn’t change the next day.

Get us our operating funds. If you want to cut us loose at that point, then let’s have a conversation.

Thank goodness, though, for those European leaders, those brave leaders, to step up and say: “We get it, we feel it, we understand it. We are terrified at the thought of Russia having all of this information space to themselves.” It’s not like we’re the only ones doing it, but we’re the most successful. We’ve got the biggest audiences. We’ve got 75 years of brand equity and relationships with our audiences. You know, we’re reaching 9 percent of the Russian audience on average every week. We’re reaching 10 percent of the Iranian audience on average every week.

We’re reaching close to 40 percent of the Ukrainian audience every week. Why is that? We’re doing something different in Ukraine. We’re covering Russian atrocities, we’re covering Russian war crimes, and we’re keeping the [Ukrainian] government accountable in the anti-corruption space.

FP: RFE/RL was set up to counter hostility to free speech and a free press in authoritarian nations. How do you view that same type of hostility now being shown by the U.S. government?

SC: Well, I don’t know what’s motivating them right now to take these actions. We’ve all seen what Elon Musk is up to in DOGE and the desire to save money—OK, I’m a proud American taxpayer, I like government efficiency, too, but I also have a healthy respect for our people who are doing this kind of work.

Generally speaking, I’m going to support the countries that want to have a free press and want to have access. Notions of a free press help keep societies healthier. It’s part of the reason that when we do our programming in some of the places that I listed before, I know we’re a thorn in their sides. I know that they don’t want the kind of coverage that we give to these regimes, and they go to great lengths to try to shut down our websites, block our feeds, beat up our journalists, and throw them in jail.

The head of Russia’s RT went on the air recently gloating that they’ve been trying to do this sort of thing to us for years, and she [basically] said: “We didn’t succeed, but thanks to the United States, it’s happening for us. Thank you, President Trump.”

That should give everybody pause. Everybody should be nervous if people like that are celebrating. Look at some of the rhetoric from China and Iran. It makes me personally ill to see that.

FP: What would your advice be to the American media that is trying to cover the Trump administration and its more authoritarian behavior?

SC: I think that the issues are somewhat different. We view this as an existential threat. I don’t think that the American media is facing an existential threat when the president chooses to criticize The Associated Press for the reasons that we’ve all seen, so it’s a little bit different.

I would just say that I know that this mission is respected, is valued, and is needed to keep everyone safe.

I like the work I did at NBC—The Today Show, Nightly News, Meet the Press—that was important. Is it the kind of thing that Americans at home are kept safe by? I don’t think it’s at the same degree. This work that we’re doing now is of vital importance. And it is something that we operate in concert with the national security interests of people all over the free world.

I think all democratic values are worth safeguarding and jealously protecting at all costs.

I’m not looking to get involved in the U.S. internal politics. I’m not saying that there were political reasons behind these moves. I don’t know what the motivation has been—it might simply be part of the DOGE efforts. But regardless of the intent, the inescapable conclusion is the world is not going to be as safe of a place without us. That’s what we hear from our supporters in Congress, that’s what I hear from government leaders all across Europe, and that’s why people come and do the kind of work that they do, at great personal risk in many cases.

FP: And what would your message be to other U.S. government agencies facing these cuts from the Trump administration that you have fought back against?

SC: I’m really reluctant to get in the middle of the U.S. political process right now, and I’ve got my hands full just with this case.

If anybody wants to take away some important things from our success thus far, it is: Act quickly, be prepared as much as possible, and if you have something worth fighting for, keep going.

FP: Radio Free Europe was, of course, created to go behind the Iron Curtain. How do you feel about the way Trump and the Trump administration have been dealing with Russia, and how are you seeing it in the regions where you broadcast?

SC: It’s not my place to weigh in on the political moves of the president. But what I would point out, and I do point out every time I’m in Washington, especially with members of Congress, [is that] our people who are based in Ukraine—which include Ukrainian journalists, which include people speaking in Russian for Russian audiences—all those people have told the world under no uncertain terms what’s going on there, including the outright commitment of war crimes that have happened in Ukraine, targeting a civilian population, looking at those schoolkids who were bombed to smithereens by Russian missiles.

But it doesn’t just stop there. At the same time, we’re holding the Ukrainian government accountable for all of this money that has poured in there. Everybody wants to follow the money. Everybody wants to know how true to anti-corruption measures are the Ukrainians being. We do this all day, every day. And what I would say to President Trump or what I’d say to our stakeholders in Congress: That’s the kind of work that should be supported. It helps the world, and [Ukrainian] President [Volodymyr] Zelensky understands the importance of it. We’ve spoken face to face about it, and I believe it’s all true.

We document the war crimes. We follow the money. Ukraine is a beautiful country with wonderful people who are not just living in their evacuation shelters. They are resilient. They are proud. They are independent.

We’ve had to reduce the size of the staff, to slow our rate of spend. But you know what? Every single language service is existing right now. In some cases, people are volunteering. We program for 23 countries, 27 different languages—every single one of those services is still operating right now, even though they told us weeks and weeks ago that we needed to stop. We’re not going anywhere.

[flippinpancakes64]

Hey i don’t know if you are still taking requests for your twilight stuff but if love to see how the cullen’s would react to a trans woman partner

The Cullens with a Transfem! Partner

I am not a trans woman, I’m cis but I do have trans friends so maybe this will be accurate? Hopefully?

Thank you for requesting and I hope you enjoy!

Edward:

Now I don’t want to immediately say that he’s transphobic

But he is the one who’s sort of the most stuck in the past

He’s confused by anything to do with the LGBT community

So you’re gonna have to break it down for him

He may not understand fully, but that’s okay

If he loves you, he loves YOU

And by reading your mind, he can see that there really is that sort of disconnect between you and your body

So even if he doesn’t quite get it, he accepts it

And that means he will go to bat for you any day of the week

He never really cared what people thought about him anyway

He doesn’t care about the social implications

He’s a Cullen

And a vampire

So of course if someone is picking on you in school or out in the world he will put them in their place

Alice:

She’s much more up to date with current things

She knows all about the LGBT

And is fully an ally

Completely understanding and supportive

She will do your hair, dress you up, anything to make you feel more affirmed

Again, she will put anyone willing to mess with you in their place

Absolute no tolerance policy

And she absolutely has no cares at all about the fact that you’re trans

To her, you are just like any other human

And she is always down to help you with hair or makeup or clothes or anything

Jasper:

Now he’s also old fashioned

But he’s much more open minded

He doesn’t really care much what anyone wants to do with their life

Tbh he probably wouldn’t notice at first

And if he ever had any doubts about you or your identity, that’s quickly squashed when he reads your feelings

Every time you get misgendered or get gender dysmorphia, he can feel how sad you get

So maybe he gives you a little boost from time to time

That’s his business

For him to know and you to preferably not find out

He won’t be as verbal when it comes to defending you

He’s a quiet guy

But he will always comfort you the best he can

Rosalie:

You’re gonna have to break it down

She comes from a time period where people were pretty judgemental

Not to mention she was part of the upper part of society

So she might have a bit of internalized stuff going on

Just break it down for her and explain your mind and she’ll get it

After learning everything and doing her own research, she is your ride or die

Will not hesitate to smack someone who talks bad about you

And of course, she will do your hair whenever you ask

Even if you don’t ask

Emmett:

Honestly

He didn’t notice

You could be the best passing trans person or the worst and he wouldn’t notice

It doesn’t help that when you explain it to him he just kinda

Looks at you

Blankly

He doesn’t know what that means

You can explain all you want, but I doubt he’ll really grasp it

Regardless, he loves you

You could be a worm and he wouldn’t think any different of you or treat you any different

And again, he will beat up anyone who dares to say smthn to you

And he’ll always be there to give the best cuddles whenever you want them

Esme:

Another one who doesn’t really get it

But she’s not judgemental

She needs a bit of explanation and then she’s on board

She takes you with her to the salon when she goes for hair appointments

And date night consist of painting nails and going on shopping sprees

(With Carlisle’s money of course)

She’s not the confrontational type

So she won’t tell off anyone who makes fun of you

But she’s a great comforter

Carlisle:

He’s around people all the time

So he knows pretty much everything that’s going on in the modern world

And he’s well aware of the LGBT

And of course he’s an ally

If you want any surgery or hormones or anything

He’s your guy

Free of charge

He would do anything to make you more comfortable in your skin

And again

He’s a great person to vent to or to get advice from

Vampire! Bella:

She’s the most modern out of all of them

But that doesn’t mean she’s the most progressive

She’s from the early 2000s

So… yeah

She’ll need some time to come to terms with it and understand

But if she truly loves you, she’ll get over it

She’s super curious and will ask you a bunch of questions

And she won’t hesitate to beat someone up

You’re in good hands

[hyperlexichypatia]

I think the way nonprofits and public agencies are funded leads us to adopt some of the worst aspects of a capitalist mindset towards our service users.

In a business, the goal is clear: Generate profit. Sell more product, to generate more profit. Recruit more customers, to generate more profit. Upsell customers to a more expensive product, to generate more profit. Convince customers to keep coming back and buying more things, to generate more profit.

Manipulation is built into the process, and it's understood by all parties. When a business does something "for you," it's in the hopes that you'll buy (or keep buying, or buy more of, or persuade other people to buy) their product. When a company offers free ice cream with your insurance quote, it's not because they like you and and want you to have ice cream; it's because they want you to come for the ice cream, stay for the insurance quote, and buy their insurance policy before you leave, so they can get your money. Everybody knows this.

Nonprofits and public agencies theoretically don't have this motive. Theoretically, the services we offer are for you, the service user. Theoretically, there is no profit motive, and thus no motive for manipulation. Theoretically, whether or not people choose to use the services we offer has no effect on us, so our only goal in promoting or raising awareness of our services is so that potential users can know about them and decide whether or not to use them.

Theoretically.

But in reality, public agencies and nonprofits are funded by governments, foundations, and donors. They demand "data" to justify their funding, and a major source of "data" is the number of service users. Markers of success have to be measurable and numerical, even if that metric doesn't really make sense. So even if there's not directly a profit motive for recruiting service users as "paying customers," there can still be a financial incentive for recruiting as many service users as possible, including using "sales" techniques like giveaways and gimmicks.

Now, this isn't inherently a bad thing -- after all, people in the nonprofit sector want people to use our services, so we want to get the word out about what we have to offer. I'm not saying it's inherently wrong for a nonprofit to use a raffle or a giveaway or a pizza party or whatever to get the word out and recruit new service users.

But since the services we offer are supposed to be for the service users' own benefit, sometimes the attitude around promoting them slips into the idea that the people we're ostensibly trying to serve have to be manipulated or bribed or tricked into accepting services for their own good, because they don't know or care what's good for them.

This can get into some really unfortunate implications territory in the context of the demographics of people who tend to work at nonprofits and public agencies, compared to the demographics of people those agencies tend to serve.

Attitudes can quickly morph into "Those People don't care about their children's health/education/etc., so we have to trick and manipulate and bribe them with food and prizes."

There's a difference between "Giveaways are a fun way to get the word out about our services" and "Those People don't care about their children's diabetes risk unless we make them sit through a lecture before we give them food." And way too many public agency and nonprofit workers, in private, in what they think is a sympathetic audience, are way too open about saying the latter.

[warrioreowynofrohan]

This is one of the best articles I’ve seen yet on Trump, Trumpism, and the upcoming election. It’s directed at the right and centre-right (whereas most tumblr posts on this are directed at the left), but it’s saying – with detailed analysis and evidence – exactly what needs to be said, to everyone. This is not a normal election. How you vote this November determines whether you ever get the chance to vote in a democratic election again. This is not a game. Fascism is not a buzzword or a rhetorical device to hurl at anyone and everyone you disagree with. It is real, it is dangerous, and Trump is openly running on a fascist platform.

There are only two sides in this election: those who want the United States to be a fascist dictatorship and those who do not.

I live in Canada. I do not want to live next to a fascist state (especially since the Comservatives here are way ahead in the polls and their leader gives every sign of wanting to cozy up to Trump).

Please, stop this while you still have a chance.

Today we’re going to look at definitions of fascism and ask the question – you may have guessed – if Donald Trump is running for President as a fascist. Worry not, this isn’t me shifting to full-time political pundit, nor is this the formal end of the hiatus (which will happen on Nov 1, when I hope to have a post answering some history questions from the ACOUP Senate to start off on), but this was an essay I had in me that I had to get out, and working on the book I haven’t the time to get it out in any other forum but this one. And I’ll be frank, some of Donald Trump’s recent statements and promises have raised the urgency of writing this; the political science suggests that politicians do, broadly, attempt to do the things they promise to do – and the things Trump is promising are dark indeed.

Now I want to be clear what we’re doing here. I am not asking if the Republican Party is fascist (I think, broadly speaking, it isn’t) and certainly not if you are fascist (I certainly hope not). But I want to employ the concept of fascism as an ideology with more precision than its normal use (‘thing I don’t like’) and in that context ask if Donald Trump fits the definition of a fascist based on his own statements and if so, what does that mean. And I want to do it in a long-form context where we can get beyond slogans or tweet-length arguments and into some detail.

Now the response from some folks is going to be anger that I am even asking this question and demands for me to ‘stay in my lane.’ To which I must remind them that the purpose of history and historians is, as Thucydides put it, is to offer “an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the understanding of the future, which in the course of human affairs must resemble if it does not reflect it” (Thuc. 1.22.4). This is my lane. Goodness knows, I’d much rather be discussing the historical implications of tax policy or long-term interstate strategy, but that isn’t the election we’re having. And if hearing about these things that happened is unpleasant, well, Polybius offers the solution: “men have no more ready corrective of conduct than knowledge of the past” (Plb. 1.1.1). We must correct our conduct.

The author, Bret Devereaux, lays out the history of the rise to power of Hitler and Mussolini and draws out the lessons

What I want to note here are two key commonalities: First, fascists were only able to take power because of the gullibility of those who thought they could ‘use’ the fascists against some other enemy (usually communists). Traditional conservative politicians (your Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham types) and conservative business leaders (your Elon Musks) fooled themselves into believing that, because the would-be tyrant seemed foolish, buffoonish, and uneducated that such an individual could be controlled to their ends, shaped in more productive, more ‘moderate,’ more ‘business friendly’ directions. They were wrong; many of them paid for their foolish error with their lives (Victor Emmanuel III paid for it with his crown). Mussolini and Hitler would not be ‘shaped,’ – they would be exactly the violent, tyrannical dictators they had promised to be – to the total and utter ruin of their countries.

Note that these men were not exactly subtle about what they wanted to do. Mein Kampf is not a subtle book. But they both knew how to promise violence to their followers while prevaricating to their temporary allies; be wary of the fascist who promises violence in his rally speeches but assures you that, if you just give him power, he won’t hurt anyone (except the people you don’t like) – because it is a lie, of course.

Second: once these fascist leaders were in power it was already too late to stop them. Precisely because fascists had no respect for democratic processes and the rule of law – things they had declared openly in seeking power – once in power, they were unconstrained by them and swiftly set about converting all of the powers of the government into a machine to keep them in power. And the conversion from democracy to dictatorship was remarkably swift, in Italy, Mussolini marched in October of ’22, rewrote the election rules in November of ’23 and by December of ’24 had effectively dropped even the pretense of democracy; just two years. Hitler was faster: appointed chancellor in January 1933, by March of that year he had suspended constitutional protections and ruled by fiat; just three months.

The time to stop an authoritarian takeover of a democratic system is before the authoritarian is in office, because once they are in power, they will use that power, to stay in power and it becomes almost impossible to remove them without considerable violence (and difficult to do even with considerable violence).

That, however, creates a tricky situation. With most political ideologies, voters can adopt a strategy of judging by outputs: “if you don’t like the current government’s policies, let these other fellows here have a go at it and see if they do better. If not, you can always vote them out next time.” But with fascists and other authoritarians there may not be a next time and this strategy fails: by the time the actions of the fascists make it clear they are dangerous, it is too late to vote them out.

This is why it is important to listen carefully to what fascists say and what they promise and most importantly to take their threats of political violence and authoritarianism seriously.

Which is not to say that everything on the right is fascism (just as not everything on the left is its own authoritarian variant, communism). Ronald Reagan was not a fascist, nor was George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush or John McCain or Mitt Romney. They were conservatives within the liberal tradition (again, ‘liberal’ here in the old Jefferson-Locke-and-Washington sense). Most Republicans today are not fascists, although a distressing number appear ready to repeat Franz von Papen’s mistake of assuming they can achieve their goals through an alliance with fascists. Only the devil wins such a devil’s bargain.

How is one to tell the difference? Listen to the things they promise to do and understand that they make speak out of both sides of their mouth: promising violence to one audience and then toning down their rhetoric to another. But politicians speaking from within the tradition of liberty don’t need to speak that way because they don’t promise violence in the first place.

Listen for the promises of violence, the promises to suspend press freedoms, the promises to persecute political adversaries and when you hear them believe them.

I strongly recommend reading the whole article, as the author goes on to lay out two of the more common definitions of fascism and analyze, point-by-point, how Trumpism fits them.

There is a reason why some Republicans, even some of the people who were in Trump’s inner circle in 2016-2020, have jumped ship now. The Republicans who are willing to vote for Kamala aren’t doing it because she’s conservative – they’re doing it because they’re anti-fascist. It would be deeply ironic if people on the left who have been calling themselves anti-fascists for the last eight years proved to be less so than those Republicans. This may be one of the most crucial moments in American history. Take it seriously.

[collapsedsquid]

97% of firms in India, 96% of firms in Indonesia, and 91% of firms in Mexico have fewer than 10 employees. Of these, most are just a single owner-operator, or perhaps a household enterprise. 55% of employment in developing countries is self-employment, rising to a staggering 77% in sub-Saharan Africa. These individuals operate firms, producing goods or providing services. Indeed they operate most firms. If we want to enable firms to grow, how should we think about these self-employed people? One possibility is that self-employed people are “micro-entrepreneurs.” They would like to grow their enterprises, but don’t have the resources to do so. This is the premise of microfinance, the most popular development intervention of the 2000s. Microfinance is the practice of giving households small loans that they can use to set up or grow a home business. If self-employed people are really microentrepreneurs, then the key to firm growth is giving them more access to capital. However, many different lines of evidence suggest that this view of self-employed people is inaccurate, and that it is more accurate to think of them as workers looking for wage employment than as entrepreneurs.  In developing countries, self-employed people transition to wage employment at similar rates as unemployed people — and earn similar wages when they do. This isn’t what we would expect to see if self-employed people intended to grow their businesses as “microentrepreneurs.” In that case, they would be reluctant to quit their enterprise and take a wage job. This is exactly the behavior we see in rich countries, where self-employed people transition to wage employment much less frequently than unemployed people, and do it for higher wages.  Microfinance studies also reveal that microloans have very little average impact on household or business outcomes. Most businesses run by an individual or a household are just not designed to scale. All of these facts point to self-employed people behaving more like unemployed workers than like entrepreneurs — which is to say, looking for jobs rather than aiming to create them. If self-employed people act more like unemployed workers than business owners, that implies that we should not design policy to bolster the growth of microenterprises. These microenterprises are desperate measures in the absence of wage employment, and will melt away if and when formal-sector firm growth creates more jobs. Formal-sector firm growth is key to making developing countries grow. Another urgent implication of this fact is that there is an unemployment crisis in developing countries that isn’t captured by official statistics. The typical approach to measuring unemployment is to ask whether people want to work but are unable to find any opportunities to do so — including self-employment. By this measure, the official unemployment rate in developing countries is 5% and 6% — around the same as in developed countries. However, if self-employed people are unemployed “in disguise,” this number could be much higher. One study estimated that at least 24% of self-employment during India’s agricultural lean season occurs solely because workers cannot find jobs. If we (loosely!) extrapolate this to a sub-Saharan African country with 77% of workers being self-employed, then the true unemployment rate jumps from 6% to 25%! Even if only 50% of workers are self-employed, then the true unemployment rate is still 18%. That level of unemployment is a catastrophic failure, and a crisis that cuts against both poverty alleviation for individuals and aggregate growth. 

[dailyhistoryposts]

A Rundown of Henry Kissinger's Life

“Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands. You will never again be able to open a newspaper and read about that treacherous, prevaricating, murderous scumbag sitting down for a nice chat with Charlie Rose or attending some black-tie affair for a new glossy magazine without choking. Witness what Henry did in Cambodia – the fruits of his genius for statesmanship – and you will never understand why he’s not sitting in the dock at The Hague next to Milošević. While Henry continues to nibble nori rolls and remaki at A-list parties, Cambodia, the neutral nation he secretly and illegally bombed, invaded, undermined, and then threw to the dogs, is still trying to raise itself up on its one remaining leg.”

--Anthony Bourdain (2018)

It's difficult to be precise, but all told Henry Kissinger killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in pursuit of American business interests.

EARLY LIFE

Henry Kissinger was born in 1923 as Heinz Kissinger in Fürth, Bavaria, Germany, to a German-Jewish family. Throughout his youth, he was relentlessly and violently harassed and discriminated against by members of the Hitler Youth and authorities. At the age of 15, Kissinger and his family fled Nazi Germany, settling in New York City. He finished high school at George Washington High School in NYC and began studying accounting at the City College of New York, but his undergraduate studies were interrupted in 1943 when he was drafted into the US army.

In the army, fluent German speakers were in short supply, so Kissinger was quickly assigned to military intelligence. During the American invasion of Germany, he worked to set up civilian administration of conquered cities and tracked down Gestapo officers as a Special Agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps. He received the Bronze Star Medal

After his time in the army, Kissinger returned to his studies. He graduated summa cum laude in political science from Harvard College, as well as his Masters and PhD. He taught at Harvard, and his studies focused on international 'legitimacy', when an international order is widely accepted by international leaders, without regard to public opinion or morality.

POLITICS

Beginning in the 1950s, Kissinger began to be more active on the political stage. He was a consultant for the National Security Council and a study director for the Council of Foreign Relations. He notably was against Eisenhower's massive retaliation nuclear doctrine, where the United States would respond to a nuclear attack with a much, much greater nuclear attack. Instead, Kissinger advocated the use of tactical nuclear weapons on a regular basis in more wars.

In the 1960s, Kissinger began working with Republicans running for office as an advisor in foreign affairs. He contributed to the Nixon campaign, and when Nixon took office in 1969, Kissinger was appointed as National Security Advisor, and later Secretary of State. As a diplomat, Kissinger heavily used Realpolitik, the in-fashion Cold War approach focusing on pragmatism and realistic outcomes rather than ideological or moral purity. In international politics, it largely has to do with obtaining and maintaining power on the world stage.

Kissinger focused on relaxing US tensions with the USSR and China, leading an American foreign policy that supported Taiwan on the face but in the shadows removed all support for Taiwan and essentially waited for it to fall apart.

In 1974, he directed the National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200), sometimes called the "Kissinger Report" the official United States policy for many years, though it remained classified until the 1990s. The Kissinger Report advocated for population control in undeveloped nations to ensure easy resource extraction and protect American business interests abroad. Projects were designed to reduce fertility while keeping up the appearance of improving quality of life--the plan specifically attempted to avoid an appearance of "economic or racial imperialism". Birth rate was particularly noted due to concerns about an adequate global food supply and because young people more readily fight back against corruption and imperialism. The Report also brought up increasing abortion rates as a method of obtaining this goal.

In 1975, policies based on the Report went into affect. The National Security Council would recommend withholding food and using military force to prevent population growth, prioritizing aid for small families, and even paying people to get sterilized. Thirteen countries were named as particularly problematic to US interests. Of note, Nigeria lost development and the United States took control of Nigerian resources, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was responsible for some of the 300,000 forced sterilizations in Peru--largely impoverished or indigenous women--during the Fujimori administration. The Fujimori government has been accused of crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court for these abuses, and today the Peruvian economy suffers due to the low population resulting from these sterilizations.

ACTIONS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

The Vietnam War had started back in 1955. Kissinger had originally supported it, but as time dragged on began to view it as harming American prestige. Kissinger leaked information about peace talks to get into power at Nixon's side, and then failed to end the war in 1972, leading to the Christmas bombings. A very similar agreement was signed the next month, leading to a ceasefire (that would collapse) and the withdrawal of American troops--bitterly seen as a betrayal by South Vietnam. When Kissinger and Vietnamese diplomat Lê Đức Thọ were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for this, Thọ declined to accept it and two members of the Nobel Committee left it in protest.

It was in the middle of the Vietnam War, and during the Cambodian Civil War, that Operation Menu and Operational Freedom Deal went into play. From March 1969 to May 1970, the United States Strategic Air Command carried out a series of first tactical and then carpet bombings in eastern Cambodia. Then, from May 1970 to August 1973, the United States provided close air support and widespread bombing. Part of a 'secret' war to support the Kingdom of Cambodia/Khmer Republic against communist rebels, it ultimately failed and the communists would take power in 1975.

In the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971, Nixon and Kissinger supported the Pakistani president Yahya Khan. It was in this that the strongest dissent in the history of the U.S. Foreign Service, the Blood Telegram (named after sender Archer Blood), was sent. It reports the US was about to lose, describes systemic abuses, and uses the word 'genocide' to describe the actions by US-supported Pakistan. It said the US government was morally bankrupt. Blood was recalled early from Bangladesh, and US interests were lost when Bangladeshi Independence was secured within the year.

MIDDLE EASTERN POLICY

Kissinger was originally excluded from any policy-making on Israel, as part of Nixon's orders to exclude all Jewish-Americans from such work. Still, in 1973, when Kissinger became Secretary of State, he was included in all US Middle Eastern policy. This means he was largely responsible for the handling of the Yom Kippur War--this handling included not noticing precipitating factors leading up to it (he was so engrossed in Paris peace talks he didn't notice the Egyptian President Sadat ready to move on Sinai), delaying telling Nixon about and stalled negotiating a ceasefire, hoping Israel would push across and fully obtain the Suez Canal.

Kissinger's diplomacy included giving equipment to Israel, but not as much as he'd promised, and selling weapons to Saudi Arabia at the same time, in exchange for access to Saudi Arabian oil. By largely handling to event and not involving France or the United Kingdom, and by minimizing the power of the Soviet Union, Kissinger took large steps in giving US power over much of the Middle East.

It should be noted that this was done purely to protect US interests rather than any form of Jewish security. When questioned about the persecution of Soviet Jews at the same time, Kissinger said

"The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy, and if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern."

-Henry Kissinger (1973)

Also in the region., Kissinger supported Iran against Iraq.

TURKISH INVASION OF CYPRUS

In 1974, the Greek military regime and Turkiye invaded the island of Cyprus. The military regime had been supported by Kissinger, and anti-Kissinger sentiment was strong among young people. Cyprus is now an independent island country, though its northeast portion is de facto separate, making up the self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Kissinger considers his own handling of the Cyprus Issue unfavorably.

LATIN AMERICA

With Kissinger's influence, the United States maintained relations with non-left-wing governments regardless of commitment to democracy. It was with Kissinger's input that the CIA encouraged a military coup against Chilean president-elect Salvador Allende due to his socialist ideals.

Operation Condor, a US-backed program of political repression by right-wing dictatorships of southern South America, was also Kissinger's work. It included assassinations, the Dirty War in Argentina, and supporting Brazil's nuclear weapons program because it would benefit the U.S. private nuclear industry.

SOME OTHER STUFF

Kissinger's policy on post-WWII decolonization was mixed, based on what would benefit the U.S. He helped transition Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) away from White minority rule, expressed moderate support for the Portuguese Colonial Empire, and helped Indonesia occupy East Timor.

After Watergate forced Nixon to resign, Kissinger stayed on under President Ford but left office when Democrat Jimmy Carter came into power. He was offered an endowed chair at Columbia University, which was canceled due to student opposition, but was appointed to Georgetown University instead. He ran a consulting firm, supported the Chinese government in the Tiananmen Square massacre, and served on the 2000 Commission of the International Olympic Committee. He was supposed to help President Bush respond to the 9/11 attacks but stepped down because he refused to reveal if he had a business conflict of interest.

In 2010, he took a strong stance urging world governments to destroy all nuclear weapons. In the 2014 Ukrainian crisis, he said that Crimea should remain under Ukrainian sovereignty, but in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine said that Crimea and Donbas should be given to Russia.

Kissinger was a board member of Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes' biotech scam.

In response to the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, and seeing pro-Palestinian protestors in Germany, Kissinger called Muslim immigration into Germany "a grave mistake".

DEATH

Kissinger died peacefully in his home in Connecticut on November 29th, 2023,

[sagistrology]

𝖍𝖔𝖜 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖕𝖑𝖚𝖙𝖔 𝖎𝖓 𝖆𝖖𝖚𝖆𝖗𝖎𝖚𝖘 𝖙𝖗𝖆𝖓𝖘𝖎𝖙 𝖒𝖎𝖌𝖍𝖙 𝖎𝖒𝖕𝖆𝖈𝖙 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖌𝖊𝖓𝖊𝖗𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖘 (𝖘𝖈𝖔𝖗𝖕𝖎𝖔, 𝖘𝖆𝖌𝖎𝖙𝖙𝖆𝖗𝖎𝖚𝖘, 𝖈𝖆𝖕𝖗𝖎𝖈𝖔𝖗𝖓)

(these observations are general and do not cover all aspects)

♇ the significance of pluto lies in its association with disruption - 'death' in both a symbolic and literal sense, regeneration, and rebirth. in each respective sign, pluto demands collective change through the sign's principles, without compromise. as an outer planet its personal implications can be more subtle, yet they intrinsically affect you.

♇ think of pluto as the wound of perception, subconsciously impacting us through trauma - whether individually or collectively.

♇ pluto dismantles and doesn't console, but rather pushes you to the edge in order for you to evolve and reclaim your power.

collective impact - pluto in aquarius

♇ in the ‘humanitarian’ sign, combined with pluto’s implications, we’re likely to see the previously established overturned and reformed. fragile structures, ‘unjust’ power, and inauthenticity can be expected to be dismantled on a large scale. authority and its ability will be questioned, along with blatant lies being exposed. this can be a time of societal values centring on communities, a collective, factual questioning of the status quo, and a critical eye on institutions, as well as the power held by them. think of uncompromising idealism, protests in reaction to crises and human rights violations, and redefining morality - centred on equality. discernment is invaluable.

♇ we're likely to see an influx of information and graphic exposure to humanity's deepest wounds, demonstrating the fragility of our existence.

♇ seeing these vulnerabilities (pluto) in relation to global structures (uranus) this might affect technology at large - highlighting its flaws and shortcomings. in a situational context, this could mean exponential advancements in tech - both positive and negative, e.g. more surveillance, an increase in cyber-attacks, data being deleted, power outages, further implementation of ai, plagiarism, etc.

pluto in scorpio

♇ wound of sorrow and cyclical loss, purging of trauma and ancestral wounds, purification, the occult, pain, rage, and anger.

♇ a gen deeply attuned to crises and disillusioned about the state of the world, sensing the potency of global struggles.

♇ may bring forward hidden information on corporations, political figures or governments through whistleblowers or officials. also paying more attention to their privacy and how their data is being processed.

♇ perhaps seeking positions of mentoring - helping to build a foundation. questioning and reevaluating social circles, looking for connections that align with them and preferring solitude to company that isn't beneficial.

pluto in sagittarius

♇ philosophy, religion, 'meaning', wound of seeking, inquiring, and investigating constrained by structure - often experiencing alienation due to a misalignment with cultural and societal norms.

♇ it will be invaluable to practice groundedness in order to implement idealism, setting an intention but also planning how to achieve this desired state globally, esp. when it comes to activism. can be eccentric, optimism has to be backed by strategies.

♇ themes can include the questioning of authority esp. in academic settings, seeking education outside institutions, and diverse qualifications rather than convention.

♇ may lead to a surge of entrepreneurs, startups, value-based businesses, more autonomy, less traditional employment etc. (working hours or location)

pluto in capricorn

♇ wound of responsibility - pragmatism, endurance, authority, implementation of new baselines, philosophies become policies - tradition and identity, social responsibility, emotional withdrawal, prone to anxiety and depression.

♇ with capricorn being a cardinal sign, there’s an emphasis on death and renewal – signifying new standards, demanding change rather than petitioning for it. these norms may create a sense of detachment from previous generations.

♇ different values and a deep sense of urgency and responsibility, no sugarcoating and radical action, centred on benefitting the masses and pushing boundaries.

[berniesrevolution]

DISSENT MAGAZINE

On March 27, President Donald Trump summarily overturned decades of federal labor relations policy and stripped more than 700,000 government workers of their union rights with a stroke of his sharpie. His executive order Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs, which effectively voided union contracts at dozens of departments and agencies, constitutes by far the largest and most aggressive single act of union-busting in U.S. history.

The stated rationale for Trump’s order—that the targeted workers are in agencies that affect national security and they therefore are ineligible for union representation—is flimsily transparent. Even the White House can’t sustain the lie. The administration’s own fact sheet points to the president’s real motivation. His order targets agencies whose unions “have declared war on President Trump’s agenda.” How have these unions “declared war”? Apparently, simply by attempting to enforce labor contracts and represent members in grievance proceedings. As the fact sheet notes, Veterans Affairs (VA) workers are losing their rights because their unions had the temerity to file “70 national and local grievances over President Trump’s policies since the inauguration.”

It is obvious that Trump is exacting revenge on unions that are challenging the draconian cuts and closures inflicted by Elon Musk’s renegade Department of Government Efficiency. Tellingly, unions believed to be sympathetic to the Trump agenda, such as those that represent federal law enforcement workers (whose work is more closely related to national security than that of, say, VA nurses or employees of the General Services Administration), have been exempted from his sweeping action.

The Radicalism of Trump’s Union-Busting

With his radical and blatantly political order, Trump, like a deranged Samson, is straining to pull down the solid pillars that have undergirded a remarkably stable system of federal labor relations for decades. If he succeeds, his action threatens many millions more than the federal employees directly affected by his executive order. As the nation’s largest employer, what the government does to labor inevitably ripples through the entire economy.

The only event in U.S. history comparable to Trump’s action is Ronald Reagan’s firing of some 11,500 striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Reagan’s crushing of the controllers’ union, PATCO, brought to a screeching halt the rapid expansion of public-sector unionization in the 1970s and catalyzed a wave of strikebreaking by private employers that set back the entire labor movement. In some ways, labor still struggles with the fallout of that fateful conflict. If Trump’s current action stands, its destructive force promises to be many orders of magnitude larger than the PATCO affair.

To grasp the enormous implications of Trump’s order, consider the elements of the time-tested structure that he is busy pulling down. The first pillar of the system was put in place in 1883 with the Pendleton Act, which created the federal civil service to professionalize those who worked in government and to end the spoils system that allowed the party in power to oust the personnel of federal agencies and install its supporters no matter their qualifications. Under the U.S. Civil Service Commission, federal workers freed themselves not only from fealty to corrupt political bosses but also from the status of at-will employees who can be fired for any lawful reason, or no reason—the condition under which most American workers, who lack union representation, operate to this day. As the civil service emerged, one of its central ideas was that its competent workers could not be fired without cause.

The second pillar of the system was put in place by the executive actions of a bipartisan line of presidents—Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Richard Nixon—each of whom played a role in expanding federal workers’ collective bargaining rights with the government. The first step was taken by Roosevelt. In addition to signing the Wagner Act, which finally guaranteed most private-sector workers the right to unionize in 1935, he allowed a few federal agencies such as the Tennessee Valley Authority to bargain collectively with unions representing their tradesmen. Roosevelt’s experiment was seized upon and expanded by Kennedy. As Cold War imperatives made it unseemly for a government that claimed to lead the free world to deny its own employees any voice over the terms and conditions of their labor, Kennedy institutionalized collective bargaining for most federal workers by executive order in 1962. Seven years later, Nixon signed an executive order that further strengthened federal union rights and simplified the process through which workers chose union representatives.

(Continue Reading)

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Nicole Narea at Vox:

President Donald Trump is going after a pair of major law firms — and attacking the First Amendment in the process. Trump issued an executive order on Thursday that took aim at Perkins Coie, a law firm that represented Hillary Clinton when she ran against Trump in 2016. Notably, Perkins Coie hired a research firm that produced the infamous “Steele dossier,” which alleged the president colluded with Russia to steal the election. Trump’s order aims to strip the firm’s attorneys of their security clearances and asks the government to review all contracts with the firm with the intention of terminating any they can. Trump issued a similar memorandum last month, going after some attorneys at the law firm of Covington & Burling. The memorandum aims to strip security clearances from Peter Koski, a partner at the firm based in Washington, DC, and any other individuals who helped Smith while he served as special counsel.

Canceled contracts promise to cost the firms revenue while stripping security clearances hurts them by putting certain areas of federal business off-limits. But the issue is far bigger than harm to a pair of well-off law firms.

Legal experts say that Trump’s executive actions challenge the First Amendment right to free expression — and aim to send a signal to would-be opponents from well beyond just the legal profession. (The White House did not respond to a request for comment.) “No one is going to cry for a big law firm,” said Katie Fallow, deputy director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “But the idea of the government punishing a private entity based on the political positions it’s taken, or the speech it’s engaged in, or who it’s associated with, is terrible from a free speech and association standpoint.”

What the executive orders say

Thursday’s executive order accuses Perkins Coie of trying to “judicially overturn popular, necessary, and democratically enacted election laws, including those requiring voter identification,” as well as discriminating against applicants and staff by promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. In addition to demanding that firm attorneys be stripped of their security clearances on that basis, it also orders government contractors to end their business relationships with the firm to the extent permitted by law and blocks the government from hiring firm employees. The earlier memorandum concerning Covington & Burling similarly accused anyone at the firm who assisted Smith of “weaponization of the judicial process,” ordering the termination of their security clearances and government contracts with the firm. Trump’s executive actions are not normal: Under President George W. Bush, a senior Pentagon official encouraged clients to cut their ties with law firms representing prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. But a month after his remarks, the official resigned and publicly apologized, asserting that he believed “that a foundational principle of our legal system is that the system works best when both sides are represented by competent legal counsel.”

[...]

Why Trump’s targeting of law firms raise key constitutional concerns

Legal scholars say that Trump’s targeting of law firms likely violates the First Amendment and other constitutional protections. The executive order seems to be taking aim at specific positions that Perkins Coie has taken on behalf of its clients, its views about employee management policies (including DEI programs), and its association with Democrats.

Trump’s attacks on Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling are a threat to the 1st Amendment.

[eugenedebs1920]

One of the beautiful things about how our representative democratic constitutional republic works is the varying opinions. The array of views and theories, the proposals and approaches, from the patchwork of ideology America has attracted, gives us the opportunity to select the peak ideas of so many backgrounds and cultures. Many of the founders, Washington in particular, were against the formation of political parties. Because of such contrasting views this was unavoidable.

There used to be a dozen or more political parties in the U.S. Wigs, federalist, socialists, labor and others brought their perspectives and that of their constituency to Congress. This enabled a more zoomed in viewpoint of the issues across the nation.

Our Population in this country, and the planet as a whole, has BOOMED! With it, so have perspectives, concerns and opinions. It becomes harder and harder to address everyone’s needs when the diversity and size of those you’re representing is so vast. This becomes even more burdensome when there’s red and blue to choose from. The puppet on the left or the puppet on the right.

I’ll have to do more research into why exactly but some time between the beginning on the twentieth century and 1940’s the cluster of political parties that had existed before pretty much consolidated in the two that dominate now. Sure, there are other parties out there, but not with much influence, or power as there was before the Second World War.

From a business perspective this makes sense, you buy out your rival for less competition so you can set market value to your liking. But this is not a business, some will argue the federal government is the largest business on earth. It goes beyond the financial side to the personal level. These are policies and practices that have real world implications. That affect real people lives in droves.

This “big tent” approach sounds wonderful in theory, but when you start looking at the details it becomes much more complicated. The extremes of both sides tend to be the loudest voices while representing the smallest fraction of the party.

It has proven to be detrimental to the functioning or our democracy! With just the two sides, when one side is unhealthy, unhappy and unwilling to compromise the system bogs. This last House term being an excellent example. These MAGA obstructionist sinking the ship. Making an ass out of themselves and the entire Republican Party. A party that used to be a proud, noble group, resorted to lacking leadership for months, failed vote counts and the title as the least productive Congress in this century. The “big tent” approach for the Republican Party has the loudest voices being heard while the mature, responsible, more centered Republicans are lumped in with them.

The same can be true of the left to an extent. Dems will kick those with unacceptable behavior words or conduct to the curb though, which is a huge difference. Yet there are extremes on the left that don’t necessarily reflect the views of most Democrats.

This, winner take all grasp for power has lessened the effectiveness and stature of the political spheres in this country. So it’s down to the puppet on the left or the puppet in the right. A brown paper bag with a name on it.

So we have the two parties with the two extremes. One party despite its downfalls wants to govern. Wants to see progress. Wants to enact change.

The other is fighting culture wars, denying science, and tiptoeing a line on bigotry that is stepped over habitually. Their method as the “party of no” which they labeled themselves during the Obama years does NOTHING for the citizens of this country. The obstructionist approach of saying no because the other side proposed it is not helpful, if you’d call it governing at all! The “war on woke” and this owning the libs thing is some childish, useless sh*t! Cutting off your nose to spite your face. Can we have representatives who actually work together and find compromise to accomplish SOMETHING!!!?

Anyway… There’s only one healthy party in America right now. And it sure ain’t the Republican MAGA Party…

[thatssosussex]

The Duke of Sussex participated in a powerful one-on-one interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin at the New York Times’ annual DealBook Summit. The conversation took place in front of an influential audience of leaders at the intersection of policy, finance, business, and culture.

The Duke shared his personal experiences navigating media scrutiny, the mental health challenges that arise from relentless media attention, and the global implications of distorted narratives on society. He discussed the importance of tackling the mental health crisis exacerbated by misleading information and the role media plays in shaping public discourse.

Throughout the interview, The Duke emphasized the responsibility that platforms distributing information—including both legacy and social media companies—bear in keeping users safe. He called for accountability in how algorithms shape the narratives we encounter online and underscored the profound impact time online is currently having on youth and the wider public.

The conversation also touched on the importance of empowerment and mobilizing change—urging those in positions of power to take tangible actions that promote a healthier media environment, stronger safeguards against harmful content, and a future where truth, empathy, and responsibility lead the way.

[mariacallous]

“I can look into it,” Elon Musk posted on X on March 1. He was responding to a comedian named Terrence K. Williams who had written, “ELON MUSK!!! I’m begging you! Please ask President Trump to get rid of this ridiculous BOI rule that Biden Created It’s targeting conservatives and small businesses!” As part of the post, Williams claimed that he had received an email saying he needed to fill out a beneficial ownership report or be fined more than $500 per day and risk prison time.

The exchange seems to have been the impetus for a major change in U.S. anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) policy. The shift has caused regulatory chaos, especially for small businesses in the United States.

Less than 24 hours after Musk made his promise to Williams, the U.S. Treasury Department sent out a series of five X posts stating that the agency would not enforce any “penalties or fines against U.S. citizens or domestic reporting companies or their beneficial owners” with regards to adherence to the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). The act, passed during the first Trump administration with overwhelming bipartisan support as part of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, requires companies to identify who ultimately owns and/or controls them and bans the formation of anonymous shell companies in the United States. Shortly after the Treasury posts, President Donald Trump jumped on Truth Social to say:

Exciting news! The Treasury Department has announced that they are suspending all enforcement of the outrageous and invasive Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting requirement for U.S. Citizens. This Biden rule has been an absolute disaster for Small Businesses Nationwide. Furthermore, Treasury is now finalizing an Emergency Regulation to formally suspend this rule for American businesses. The economic menace of BOI reporting will soon be no more.

The CTA is one of the most important AML/CFT laws passed in decades, and while experts are still parsing out the full implications of its rollback, so far at least four key issues stand out.

First, lifting the enforcement of this law undermines anti-money laundering efforts, puts the United States out of compliance with international anti-money laundering standards, and even undermines some of Trump’s other executive orders.

While the rules governing the CTA were indeed written during the Biden administration, the law itself was passed after Congress overrode Trump’s veto. Its passage had been a priority for law enforcement groups such as the Fraternal Order of Police and good governance advocates for decades. Trump’s first treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin, testified to the House in 2019 in favor of the CTA, and then-Sen. Marco Rubio (now Trump’s secretary of state) spoke in strong support of it in 2018. The ability to form anonymous shell companies has been a major reason why the United States was long considered the easiest place in the world to launder money.

Getting the CTA passed had been a bipartisan—but nonetheless decades-long—endeavor. The war on drugs and the fight against terrorism finance, especially after the 9/11 attacks, had shown a spotlight on the role that shell companies could play in undermining U.S. national security. Meanwhile, leaks of documents from auditing and law firms including the 2014 Luxembourg Leaks, 2016 Panama Papers, and 2021 Pandora Papers further highlighted the role that anonymous shell companies played in a host of illicit activities that were facilitating drug trafficking, sanctions evasion, corruption, and myriad other crimes. A 2012 study found that U.S. corporate service providers offered some of the easiest ways to set up anonymous shell companies, even when those seeking to open shell companies displayed significant red flags for possible ties to terrorism. By 2016, the United States—formerly a leader in anti-money laundering legislation—was out of compliance with international standards. Countering lobbying from the National Association of Secretaries of State and various business lobbies, law enforcement bodies such as district attorneys and police organizations tipped the balance of support toward enacting the legislation, with the CTA finally passed on Jan. 1, 2021.

U.S. efforts at beneficial ownership legislation largely mimicked European efforts, albeit with a lag. The European Union as well as more than 100 other countries either require or are implementing beneficial ownership registries for businesses. Yet, despite its national security importance and international AML/CFT standards, the CTA never entirely shook off its detractors. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, in its Treasury Department chapter, advocates for the law’s repeal and a review of all AML/CFT legislation and rules. As the comedian Williams pointed out, there were also concerns over the cost and time to input company beneficial ownership information, plus privacy concerns. In a standard limited liability company, however, providing basic information on a company beneficial owner is a simple matter and requires basic information such as the names of the owners and that of the business, the address, and the owners’ dates of birth. The Treasury Department estimated that it would only take 90 minutes to register companies with simple beneficial ownership structures; I was able to register the beneficial ownership of my own limited liability company in about 15 minutes.

Moreover, until a few days prior, the Trump administration had still been defending the CTA in court, with the National Small Business Association filing a series of lawsuits against it. To say that this freeze on nearly all CTA enforcement is a surprise is thus an understatement.

Freezing the CTA puts the United States grossly out of compliance with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards. The United States is due to be evaluated for its compliance in early 2026, and failing could land it on the FATF gray list as a jurisdiction requiring additional AML/CFT monitoring. Should the United States join countries such as Syria, Venezuela, and Mali on the gray list, American individuals and businesses will find it harder to do international transactions, especially banking.

Not only is this change in policy undermining the U.S. fight against money laundering, but it is also undermining the Trump administration’s own executive orders. For example, a Feb. 4 order about sanctions on Iran called for the FATF to evaluate beneficial ownership thresholds to constrain Iran from using shell companies and similar financial machinations used to avoid sanctions. But how can that happen if the United States—the country that incorporates the most companies in the world—will no longer gather hardly any beneficial ownership information? This rule undermines a host of other Trump priorities, such as fighting fentanyl trafficking, since narcotraffickers often use anonymous shell companies to launder their funds. It is also out of keeping with the feelings of Trump’s voter base: A recent survey by a conservative polling firm found that 81 percent of respondents agreed that small businesses doing 20 minutes of beneficial ownership paperwork was acceptable in order to fight “drug trafficking, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes.”

It is the executive branch’s job to enforce the laws, but the Trump administration has increasingly decided not to. The Treasury Department on March 2 announced a new rulemaking whereby only foreign reporting companies will be required to declare their beneficial owners. This “interim final rule” came into effect on March 26 concurrently with the public comment period on the new rule. But Congress specifically legislated that nearly all companies—foreign and domestic—must declare their beneficial owners. Assuming the interim final rule continues to hold, more than 99 percent of companies will continue to be exempt from the CTA statute.

Another law within a similar subject area—the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)—is likewise not being enforced, at least in theory. Nonetheless, despite the enforcement freeze, jury selection has begun for two executives charged under the FCPA for paying bribes to Indian officials, making an already confusing legal situation even more chaotic. Individuals and businesses are increasingly finding themselves in a no-win situation.

The full ramification of this bizarre policy shift is still being sorted out, but the resulting havoc will continue.

[moonshynecybin]

you had a fantasy au forever ago… how does marc find out vale loves him

i for one. always believe rosquez is just as horny as it is tortured and just as stupid as it is horny. i think it’s this fraught thing where after a LONG saga of trying to keep marc safe and worrying about him (marc is captain of the guard/general!!! it’s his whole job to keep VALE safe but vale thinks about any scenario where marc sacrifices his life to save him and it feels like open HEART SURGERY…) and after trying to ease him into a more bureaucratic role as “advisor” (luca voice comma dryly. pecco already does all that. you are teaching him things a consort knows. you do realize that. it’s important to me that you’ve realized that.) by involving him on strategy and policy he i think. entirely without thinking through the emotional implications wherein. decides marc needs to get married to him. truly the only way he can make marc safe the only way he can physically keep him off the battlefield the only way he can. marriage is a political and transactional enterprise to him and he SHANT fall in love anyways so whatever. get married to marc present his most cogent military mind as unequivocally allied with him and keep marc from killing himself 8000x problem solved. the small ruthless part of him also is like. marc cannot leave me and stage a coup with our neighbors to the west if he is legally bound to me :) forever :)

(i would say they have a break up in this universe because vale is a lil insecure about marc’s ability to rule slash uccio meddlings but. it all brings glory to vale here. it’s all under his banner. that’s part of what he liked about marc to begin with… now if marc came from another noble house?? late stage royal parentage reveal??? then shit would get cwazy)

and he lays this all out to our capricorn moon queen marc marquez who sees the logic here and despite KNOWING it’s a bad idea because he is ass over teakettle in love with vale he ALSO sees this as like. the ultimate way to keep vale safe. he can contribute the same way he does now and he knows he’ll never have all of vale but at least he’ll have SOME of him… be able to produce an heir… so he says yes and vale’s like cool. chill. married as work associates. cool.

it’s all this emotional distancing/repression/denial that plays out into what they THINK is a business transaction until it’s the NIGHT OF. and they have to go in there and consummate their MARRIAGE. and vale lays marc out on their fine silken marriage bed and kisses his scarred arm and asks him if it’s okay and watches the way marc’s eyes squeeze shut when he pushes inside of him and the way he shivers when vale’s presses his mouth to the junction of his shoulder and his neck. the flex of his stomach the splay of his thighs the way he’s looking at vale like he’s something new. something that no one has ever seen before… feeling things no one has ever felt before (marc marquez may very well believe valentino rossi invented the prostate orgasm here) and THATS when vale thinks. uh oh !