#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.

[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,

[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.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Daniel Villareal at LGBTQ Nation:

Anyone with eyes in their head can see that the American government and media both have a clear pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian bias. Neither one officially recognizes Palestine as a state, and any criticisms against the Israeli government or in favor of Palestinian civilians are automatically labeled (at best) as ignorant, misinformed, and over-idealistic or as hateful, antisemitic, and pro-terrorist. The goal of these denunciations seems to have only one aim: to silence any criticism of Israel. I’m sick of it… and I’m not alone.

In numerous conversations, when I have argued that perhaps the Israeli government is becoming increasingly right-wing, I have been told that Israel is a queer oasis in the bigoted Middle East and that all of Israel’s neighboring countries are rabidly anti-LGBTQ+ and will gladly kill their own queer citizens. When I mention that Israel’s military-enforced policies of forced displacement and segregation against Palestinian citizens could violate their dignity and human rights, I’m reminded of the Holocaust — as if I somehow forgot — and am told that Hamas wants to exterminate Israel and all Jews and that all of Israel’s neighboring countries have threatened to wipe Israel off the map as well. If I mention any recent news report about Israeli forces killing Palestinian journalists or civilians, I’m informed that I do not know my history and that Palestine’s government has repeatedly allowed terrorists from its region to infiltrate Israel and commit atrocities against innocent Israelis. [...]

When any politician or activist publicly criticizes Israel in the media, they’re denounced, and we’re told that we must defend Israel at all costs to protect stability and U.S. interests in the Middle East and to offer a shining beacon of Western democracy to the people living in the otherwise barbaric region. These talking points are reinforced by American media, which commonly depict Israel as a bustling modern nation and depict all other Middle Eastern countries as war-torn deserts consisting of mostly huts, murderers, and goats. These things have all been pretty uniform throughout my entire life: Israel can do no wrong. To imply otherwise is to show your own stupidity or align with Nazis and terrorists. End of conversation. As if numerous progressive Jews and international human rights organizations, like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, haven’t asked the same questions or reached the conclusion that Israel is hardly above reproach. The other not-so-subtle implication is that anyone who wants to criticize Israel openly should either be Jewish themselves or at least have university degrees in Israeli history, Middle Eastern studies, and international political science.

[...] The October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians and recent reports that an estimated 35,000 Palestinians have died in Gaza since Israel’s military destroyed Palestinian homes, schools, hospitals, and vital infrastructure. I’ve been thinking about it as more and more voters vote “uncommitted” in the Democratic primaries, signaling to President Joe Biden that America’s mostly unconditional support of Israel could cost him the election. I’ve been thinking about it as bipartisan politicians urge mayors, police, and the National Guard to violently disband pro-Palestinian student encampments on university campuses rather than engage in good-faith discussions about the institutions’ investments in businesses that benefit from Israel’s conflict.

As a journalist, I would normally turn to trust U.S. news sources to learn more about what’s happening on the ground in Gaza. But journalists and aid workers are being killed there, media outlets that criticize Israel run the risk of driving advertisers away, and pro-Palestinian journalists sometimes get hate mail and death threats. As a result, I hear even less in the news about Palestine than I do about Africa. I want to be clear: I denounce all terrorist actions and the murder of civilians, regardless of nationality. I support Israel and Palestine’s right to exist and the right of all people to peacefully practice their religion without any threats of violent persecution. I acknowledge that antisemitism is real, that hateful attacks on Jewish people and neo-Nazi activity have increased over recent years, and that some of Israel’s critics are bigoted. I also know that some white Christian nationalists and Republicans who support Israel don’t actually approve of anyone who doesn’t embrace Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savior. Rather, they support Israel because of Biblical prophecies that say its existence will bring about Jesus’s return and the end of the world.

Daniel Villarreal wrote in LGBTQ Nation on how America needs to speak up on the abuses the Israel Apartheid government have heaped on Palestinians and the effects of silencing criticism of Israel has had adverse effects on discourse.

[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.

[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 !

[mariacallous]

The United States Federal Trade Commission is taking action against two American data brokers accused of unlawfully trafficking in people’s sensitive location data. The data was used, the agency says, to track Americans in and around churches, military bases, and doctors’ offices, among other protected sites. It was sold not only for advertising purposes but also for political campaigns and government uses, including immigration enforcement.

Mobilewalla, a Georgia-based data broker that’s said to have digitally tracked the residents of domestic abuse shelters, is accused by the agency of purposefully tracking protesters in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in 2020. In a court filing, the FTC says Mobilewalla attempted to unmask the protesters’ racial identities by tracking their mobile devices to, for example, Hindu temples and Black churches.

The FTC also accused Gravy Analytics and its subsidiary Venntel of harvesting and exploiting consumers’ location data without consent, alleging that the company used that data to unfairly infer health decisions and religious beliefs.

According to the FTC, Gravy Analytics collected over 17 billion location signals from approximately a billion mobile devices daily. It has reportedly sold access to that data to federal law enforcement agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Gravy Analytics could not be immediately reached for comment.

A spokesperson for Mobilewalla says the company's privacy policies are constantly evolving, adding: “While we disagree with many of the FTC’s allegations and implications that Mobilewalla tracks and targets individuals based on sensitive categories, we are satisfied that the resolution will allow us to continue providing valuable insights to businesses in a manner that respects and protects consumer privacy.”

“This data can be used to identify and target consumers based on their religion,” the FTC says. The location data collected by the two companies makes it possible, the agency says, to “identify where individual consumers lived, worked, and worshipped, thus suggesting the mobile device user’s religion and routine and identifying the user’s friends and families.”

According to the two settlements, which must be finalized in court before they would go into effect, Gravy Analytics and Mobilewalla are barred from collecting sensitive location data from consumers and must delete the historical data they gathered on millions of Americans. Mobilewalla would be banned from acquiring location data and other sensitive information from online auctions known as real-time bidding exchanges, marketplaces where advertisers compete to instantaneously deliver ads to targeted consumers. This case marks the first time the FTC has moved to police the collection of data directly from an ad exchange.

In another first, the proposed Gravy Analytics settlement would introduce military installations to the list of “sensitive locations” where the FTC bans location tracking. Under the terms, the company would be prohibited from selling, disclosing, or using data drawn from these locations, which include mental health clinics, substance abuse centers, and child care service providers.

In November, a collaborative investigation by WIRED, Bayerischer Rundfunk, and Netzpolitik.org revealed that over 3 billion phone location data points, collected by a US-based data broker, exposed the movements of US military and intelligence personnel in Germany. These movements included visits to nuclear vaults and brothels. In that story, WIRED first reported on FTC chair Lina Khan’s efforts to shield US military and intelligence personnel from data brokers.

US senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who first urged the FTC to take action against Mobilewalla in 2020, praised the announcements, calling the companies’ actions “outrageous violations of Americans’ privacy.”

“These companies enabled US government agencies to surveil Americans without a warrant and enabled foreign countries to spy on service members with just a credit card,” says Wyden, who also previously investigated Venntel with other members of Congress.

While the FTC’s orders don’t directly tackle the issue of government agencies purchasing Americans’ location data—information for which a warrant is normally required—Wyden says the cases nevertheless undermine the government’s case for allowing the purchases. The orders make clear, he says, that federal agencies are hiding behind a “flimsy claim that Americans consented to the sale of their data.”

In a statement, FTC commissioner Alvaro Bedoya notes that while surveillance conducted by private companies won't raise the same constitutional issues as surveillance by government, the difference between the two is “porous if not irrelevant” to the people being watched. "Governments have long relied on private citizens for work that would be impractical or illegal for law enforcement," he says.

Whether the orders against Gravy Analytics and Mobilewalla will be enforced remains to be seen. Major changes are coming to the agency under the future Trump administration—most expected to undermine years of work by Khan and her staff. Many of Donald Trump's allies have been vocally critical of Khan's aggressive pro-consumer approach, including Republican megadonor Elon Musk, who has taken command of an ad hoc office that will purportedly advise the White House on improving “government efficiency.”

FTC commissioner Andrew Ferguson, whose name was floated last month as a potential Khan replacement, partially concurred with the agency’s decision to bring cases against the two data brokers on Tuesday. He agreed the companies had taken insufficient steps to ensure consumer data was properly anonymized, adding that they’d failed to obtain the “meaningfully informed consent” of the consumers they targeted.

Unlike Khan, however, Ferguson argues that the companies did not run afoul of the law by “categorizing consumers based on sensitive characteristics,” such as whether they attend church or political meetings. “These are all public acts that people carry out in the sight of their fellow citizens every day,” he says.

Ferguson likewise chastised the agency for attempting to restrict the power of data brokers to target protesters specifically. “Treating attendance at a political protest as uniquely private and sensitive is an oxymoron,” he says.

In a separate action Tuesday morning, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced it was taking steps to crack down on predatory data brokers that traffic in people’s financial information, calling the practice a gateway for “scamming, stalking, and spying.”

Musk, who donated more than $100 million toward Trump’s reelection, called publicly last week for the bureau to be “deleted.”

[sussex-newswire]

"Earlier today, 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."

[octuscle]

How times are changing….

2024, The Russian Tea Room: Lunchtime with the Masters of the Universe. John and Richard were at the peak of their powers. The sky was the limit. Whatever money could buy, these two had it. And they had a lot of it. And as soon as Trump was back in power, there would be much, much more.

John: Good afternoon, Richard. It’s been too long since our last lunch.

Richard: Good afternoon, John. Yes, it has. How have you been?

John: Very well, thank you. Busy as always, but things are moving in the right direction. How about you and your family?

Richard: We’re doing well, thank you. My son, Alexander, has just received his acceptance letter from Yale.

John: That’s excellent news! Congratulations to Alexander and to you. Yale is a fantastic institution. He must be thrilled.

Richard: He certainly is. We are all extremely proud of him. Yale offers unparalleled opportunities and will undoubtedly shape his future in the best possible way.

John: Absolutely. With a Yale education, Alexander will be well-prepared for any challenges he faces. Have you thought about how the current political climate might affect his future prospects?

Richard: Yes, quite a bit. We’re hopeful that the new government will adopt more protectionist policies and take a stronger stance on immigration. These changes could significantly impact the economic landscape.

John: I agree. A more protectionist approach could provide substantial benefits to our domestic industries. If the government prioritizes national interests over international ones, we could see a thriving local market.

Richard: Exactly. Limiting immigration and focusing on domestic employment could create a more favorable environment for our economy. This would be particularly advantageous for someone like Alexander, who will have the skills and knowledge to navigate such a market.

John: With fewer immigrants, there could be more opportunities for domestic workers, potentially leading to higher wages and better job prospects for citizens. This aligns well with our economic goals.

Richard: Precisely. Alexander is considering majoring in economics with a focus on international trade and policy. If the government shifts towards protectionism and stricter immigration controls, his expertise will be highly valuable.

John: That’s a smart move. Understanding the implications of protectionist policies on trade and the economy will be crucial. He could be at the forefront of developing strategies that align with national interests.

Richard: We’re certainly encouraging him to build strong connections at Yale, particularly with professors and industry experts. These relationships will be invaluable as he navigates his career.

John: Networking is essential, especially in such a dynamic environment. With potential policy changes, those connections could provide critical insights and opportunities.

Richard: Absolutely. It's an exciting yet uncertain time. However, with the right preparation and strategic thinking, Alexander could thrive in this new landscape.

John: Have you considered the political approaches of other countries, like Russia? They have implemented stringent immigration policies and strong protectionist measures with notable success.

Richard: Yes, we have. Russia’s policies have indeed bolstered their national industries and maintained a tighter control over their labor market. Their approach offers valuable lessons on how to prioritize national over international interests.

John: Exactly. If our government could adopt some of those measures, it could significantly strengthen our domestic economy. Alexander’s timing couldn’t be better.

Richard: I completely agree. It’s a critical moment, and with the right guidance and education, I believe Alexander will navigate it successfully.

John: I have no doubt about that. He has a solid foundation and your support. The future looks very promising for him.

Richard: Thank you, John. That means a lot. Here’s to hoping the new government’s policies will pave the way for greater opportunities and a stronger economy.

John: Cheers to that, Richard. To Alexander’s success and the promising times ahead.

2027, Brownsville Social Welfare Office: Alex and Mike were destined to follow in their fathers' footsteps. Oil barons and investment banking gods. But things don't always turn out the way you want them to…

Alexander: Hey there, Mike. Ain’t seen you in a coon’s age. What’s got you waitin’ at the social office today?

Mike: Hey, Alex. Just tryin’ to get some more assistance. Amy’s knocked up again, so I gotta sort things out. What about you?

Alexander: Same ol' crap. Need to see if they can help me get some dentures. Got my teeth busted in a brawl last month. Ain't lookin' too pretty.

Mike: Dang, man. That’s rough. Sorry to hear it. How’s things otherwise?

Alexander: Not too hot. After the market took a dive, had to drop outta Yale. Now I’m bustin’ my hump as a day laborer for that agribusiness. You know, the one that got snatched up by that Russian fella?

Mike: Yup, I know the one. Same deal here. Never thought we’d end up like this. Six kids now and no real job. That crash sure did us in.

Alexander: Tell me ‘bout it. I was this close to finishin’ my degree. Now instead of workin' in finance, I’m haulin' corn and doin' grunt work. Feels like some kinda bad joke.

Mike: I hear ya. I was studyin' to be an engineer. Now, I’m just tryin’ to get by. And since the Russian took over, it’s been even worse. Cut our hours and benefits to the bone.

Alexander: Yeah, I noticed. They don’t give a rat’s ass 'bout us. Just squeezin' every penny they can. It’s tough.

Mike: Sure is. And with another mouth to feed, it’s stressin’ me out. Amy’s worryin’ herself sick, and I ain’t got a clue how we’ll make it.

Alexander: Wish there was a way outta this mess. What’re we supposed to do? Every time I think I’m gettin’ ahead, somethin’ knocks me back down.

Mike: Same here. Feels like we’re stuck in mud. I keep hopin’ things’ll get better, but it’s like we’re just spinnin' our wheels.

Alexander: Worst part is knowin’ we had so much potential, ya know? We were supposed to have these big careers, and now we’re just tryin’ to make it day by day.

Mike: Sometimes I low-key ponder the insane what ifs if the freaking crash hadn't ruined everything. Like, imagine where we'd be RN. Rolling in that sweet juicy success, probs. We'd be slaying life, swagging out and straight up crushing it. Just living our best lives and probably having our dicks in…

Alexander: Yo, bruh, like legit, we'd be in a whole different stratosphere if we weren't chilling at this social welfare spot right now. But hey, we gotta keep on keepin' on, for the youngins and for us too. And if that lil' monster in your pants is acting up, hit me up anytime, I got your back!

Mike: Yo, bro! I was seriously starting to think you were never gonna bring it up... My urges are off the charts, I'm dying for some primo bootay to slam once more.

Alexander: Yo, like seriously, I gotta wait for a freaking eternity, like thirteen freaking numbers long. Dude, in that never-ending time span, you might as well give me a good ol' romp and suck fest, ya feel me?

Mike: Oh man, like seriously, watch out, but like, make sure you don't end up with a bun in the oven, okay? 'Cause, like, I'm totally the supreme stud around here when it comes to spreading my seed, ya dig?

Alexander: Yo, quit yapping and just slide through already! I'm totally gonna take this wild risk, no cap! Let's get this party started, fam!

[bouncinghedgehog]

We just asked Elon Musk’s new artificial intelligence chatbot(Grok) “who is the bigger liar out of Musk and Trump?”… and this is what it responded:

“The question of who is a "bigger liar," Donald Trump or Elon Musk, involves subjective judgment and depends on the criteria one uses to define lying, such as frequency, significance of the lies, or public impact. Here are some considerations from both perspectives:

**Donald Trump:**

- **Frequency and Documentation:** Numerous sources, including fact-checking organizations like The Washington Post, have documented thousands of false or misleading claims made by Donald Trump during his presidency. For instance, it's been reported that he averaged about 21 false or misleading claims per day over his term.

- **Public Statements:** Trump's statements have often been scrutinized for their veracity, ranging from personal boasts about his wealth, business dealings, to political claims about election integrity and policy impacts.

- **Political Impact:** His assertions have had significant political implications, contributing to polarization and affecting public trust in media and institutions.

**Elon Musk:**

- **Public Statements and Promises:** Elon Musk has been known for making bold claims about future technologies, timelines for SpaceX and Tesla projects, which sometimes do not materialize as promised. Critics argue this could be seen as misleading, though others might view it as optimistic forecasting typical in tech entrepreneurship.

- **Misinformation on Social Media:** Since acquiring X (formerly Twitter), Musk has been criticized for allowing or promoting content that some consider misinformation, particularly around political issues like election integrity and immigration. There have been instances where Musk's posts or retweets spread unverified or false information.

- **Business Claims:** Musk's statements about Tesla's production capabilities, the readiness of Tesla's Autopilot and Full Self-Driving technology, or even his involvement in political discussions have also been controversial.

- **Nature of Lies:** Trump's lies often pertain to personal embellishments, political rhetoric, and policy impacts, whereas Musk's might lean more towards future projections or business-related claims, though both have ventured into misinformation in various forms.

- **Scale and Impact:** Trump's lies have arguably had a broader political and societal impact, influencing elections, policy decisions, and public trust. Musk's statements, while significant in the tech and business community, might not carry the same immediate political weight, though his influence on public discourse through X is notable.

**Conclusion:**

Ultimately, defining who is the "bigger liar" involves personal judgment on what constitutes a lie versus an exaggerated claim or a failed prediction. Both individuals have a record of statements that have been challenged for their truthfulness, but the contexts and consequences of these statements differ significantly. If forced to conclude based on documented frequency and political impact, many might argue Trump has a higher volume of noted falsehoods, but this doesn't preclude Musk's contributions to misinformation, especially in recent years with his social media platform influence.“

Which one of the two do YOU think is the bigger liar?