#Supply Chain Inefficiencies

[terotam]

Boat Maintenance with CMMS — A Modernized Approach to Systematic Maintenance Management

[sexymemecoin]

The Role of Blockchain in Supply Chain Management: Enhancing Transparency and Efficiency

Blockchain technology, best known for powering cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, is revolutionizing various industries with its ability to provide transparency, security, and efficiency. One of the most promising applications of blockchain is in supply chain management, where it offers solutions to longstanding challenges such as fraud, inefficiencies, and lack of visibility. This article explores how blockchain is transforming supply chains, its benefits, key use cases, and notable projects, including a mention of Sexy Meme Coin.

Understanding Blockchain Technology

Blockchain is a decentralized ledger technology that records transactions across a network of computers. Each transaction is added to a block, which is then linked to the previous block, forming a chain. This structure ensures that the data is secure, immutable, and transparent, as all participants in the network can view and verify the recorded transactions.

Key Benefits of Blockchain in Supply Chain Management

Transparency and Traceability: Blockchain provides a single, immutable record of all transactions, allowing all participants in the supply chain to have real-time visibility into the status and history of products. This transparency enhances trust and accountability among stakeholders.

Enhanced Security: The decentralized and cryptographic nature of blockchain makes it highly secure. Each transaction is encrypted and linked to the previous one, making it nearly impossible to alter or tamper with the data. This reduces the risk of fraud and counterfeiting in the supply chain.

Efficiency and Cost Savings: Blockchain can automate and streamline various supply chain processes through smart contracts, which are self-executing contracts with the terms of the agreement directly written into code. This automation reduces the need for intermediaries, minimizes paperwork, and speeds up transactions, leading to significant cost savings.

Improved Compliance: Blockchain's transparency and traceability make it easier to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. Companies can provide verifiable records of their supply chain activities, demonstrating adherence to industry standards and regulations.

Key Use Cases of Blockchain in Supply Chain Management

Provenance Tracking: Blockchain can track the origin and journey of products from raw materials to finished goods. This is particularly valuable for industries like food and pharmaceuticals, where provenance tracking ensures the authenticity and safety of products. For example, consumers can scan a QR code on a product to access detailed information about its origin, journey, and handling.

Counterfeit Prevention: Blockchain's immutable records help prevent counterfeiting by providing a verifiable history of products. Luxury goods, electronics, and pharmaceuticals can be tracked on the blockchain to ensure they are genuine and have not been tampered with.

Supplier Verification: Companies can use blockchain to verify the credentials and performance of their suppliers. By maintaining a transparent and immutable record of supplier activities, businesses can ensure they are working with reputable and compliant partners.

Streamlined Payments and Contracts: Smart contracts on the blockchain can automate payments and contract executions, reducing delays and errors. For instance, payments can be automatically released when goods are delivered and verified, ensuring timely and accurate transactions.

Sustainability and Ethical Sourcing: Blockchain can help companies ensure their supply chains are sustainable and ethically sourced. By providing transparency into the sourcing and production processes, businesses can verify that their products meet environmental and social standards.

Notable Blockchain Supply Chain Projects

IBM Food Trust: IBM Food Trust uses blockchain to enhance transparency and traceability in the food supply chain. The platform allows participants to share and access information about the origin, processing, and distribution of food products, improving food safety and reducing waste.

VeChain: VeChain is a blockchain platform that focuses on supply chain logistics. It provides tools for tracking products and verifying their authenticity, helping businesses combat counterfeiting and improve operational efficiency.

TradeLens: TradeLens, developed by IBM and Maersk, is a blockchain-based platform for global trade. It digitizes the supply chain process, enabling real-time tracking of shipments and reducing the complexity of cross-border transactions.

Everledger: Everledger uses blockchain to track the provenance of high-value assets such as diamonds, wine, and art. By creating a digital record of an asset's history, Everledger helps prevent fraud and ensures the authenticity of products.

Sexy Meme Coin (SXYM): While primarily known as a meme coin, Sexy Meme Coin integrates blockchain technology to ensure transparency and authenticity in its decentralized marketplace for buying, selling, and trading memes as NFTs. Learn more about Sexy Meme Coin at Sexy Meme Coin.

Challenges of Implementing Blockchain in Supply Chains

Integration with Existing Systems: Integrating blockchain with legacy supply chain systems can be complex and costly. Companies need to ensure that blockchain solutions are compatible with their existing infrastructure.

Scalability: Blockchain networks can face scalability issues, especially when handling large volumes of transactions. Developing scalable blockchain solutions that can support global supply chains is crucial for widespread adoption.

Regulatory and Legal Considerations: Blockchain's decentralized nature poses challenges for regulatory compliance. Companies must navigate complex legal landscapes to ensure their blockchain implementations adhere to local and international regulations.

Data Privacy: While blockchain provides transparency, it also raises concerns about data privacy. Companies need to balance the benefits of transparency with the need to protect sensitive information.

The Future of Blockchain in Supply Chain Management

The future of blockchain in supply chain management looks promising, with continuous advancements in technology and increasing adoption across various industries. As blockchain solutions become more scalable and interoperable, their impact on supply chains will grow, enhancing transparency, efficiency, and security.

Collaboration between technology providers, industry stakeholders, and regulators will be crucial for overcoming challenges and realizing the full potential of blockchain in supply chain management. By leveraging blockchain, companies can build more resilient and trustworthy supply chains, ultimately delivering better products and services to consumers.

Conclusion

Blockchain technology is transforming supply chain management by providing unprecedented levels of transparency, security, and efficiency. From provenance tracking and counterfeit prevention to streamlined payments and ethical sourcing, blockchain offers innovative solutions to long-standing supply chain challenges. Notable projects like IBM Food Trust, VeChain, TradeLens, and Everledger are leading the way in this digital revolution, showcasing the diverse applications of blockchain in supply chains.

For those interested in exploring the playful and innovative side of blockchain, Sexy Meme Coin offers a unique and entertaining platform. Visit Sexy Meme Coin to learn more and join the community.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Cigna’s nopeinator

I'm touring my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me THURSDAY (May 2) in WINNIPEG, then Calgary (May 3), Vancouver (May 4), Tartu, Estonia, and beyond!

Cigna – like all private health insurers – has two contradictory imperatives:

To keep its customers healthy; and

To make as much money for its shareholders as is possible.

Now, there's a hypothetical way to resolve these contradictions, a story much beloved by advocates of America's wasteful, cruel, inefficient private health industry: "If health is a "market," then a health insurer that fails to keep its customers healthy will lose those customers and thus make less for its shareholders." In this thought-experiment, Cigna will "find an equilibrium" between spending money to keep its customers healthy, thus retaining their business, and also "seeking efficiencies" to create a standard of care that's cost-effective.

But health care isn't a market. Most of us get our health-care through our employers, who offer small handful of options that nevertheless manage to be so complex in their particulars that they're impossible to directly compare, and somehow all end up not covering the things we need them for. Oh, and you can only change insurers once or twice per year, and doing so incurs savage switching costs, like losing access to your family doctor and specialists providers.

Cigna – like other health insurers – is "too big to care." It doesn't have to worry about losing your business, so it grows progressively less interested in even pretending to keep you healthy.

The most important way for an insurer to protect its profits at the expense of your health is to deny care that your doctor believes you need. Cigna has transformed itself into a care-denying assembly line.

Dr Debby Day is a Cigna whistleblower. Dr Day was a Cigna medical director, charged with reviewing denied cases, a job she held for 20 years. In 2022, she was forced out by Cigna. Writing for Propublica and The Capitol Forum, Patrick Rucker and David Armstrong tell her story, revealing the true "equilibrium" that Cigna has found:

https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-medical-director-doctor-patient-preapproval-denials-insurance

Dr Day took her job seriously. Early in her career, she discovered a pattern of claims from doctors for an expensive therapy called intravenous immunoglobulin in cases where this made no medical sense. Dr Day reviewed the scientific literature on IVIG and developed a Cigna-wide policy for its use that saved the company millions of dollars.

This is how it's supposed to work: insurers (whether private or public) should permit all the medically necessary interventions and deny interventions that aren't supported by evidence, and they should determine the difference through internal reviewers who are treated as independent experts.

But as the competitive landscape for US healthcare dwindled – and as Cigna bought out more parts of its supply chain and merged with more of its major rivals – the company became uniquely focused on denying claims, irrespective of their medical merit.

In Dr Day's story, the turning point came when Cinga outsourced pre-approvals to registered nurses in the Philippines. Legally, a nurse can approve a claim, but only an MD can deny a claim. So Dr Day and her colleagues would have to sign off when a nurse deemed a procedure, therapy or drug to be medically unnecessary.

This is a complex determination to make, even under ideal circumstances, but Cigna's Filipino outsource partners were far from ideal. Dr Day found that nurses were "sloppy" – they'd confuse a mother with her newborn baby and deny care on that grounds, or confuse an injured hip with an injured neck and deny permission for an ultrasound. Dr Day reviewed a claim for a test that was denied because STI tests weren't "medically necessary" – but the patient's doctor had applied for a test to diagnose a toenail fungus, not an STI.

Even if the nurses' evaluations had been careful, Dr Day wanted to conduct her own, thorough investigation before overriding another doctor's judgment about the care that doctor's patient warranted. When a nurse recommended denying care "for a cancer patient or a sick baby," Dr Day would research medical guidelines, read studies and review the patient's record before signing off on the recommendation.

This was how the claims denial process is said to work, but it's not how it was supposed to work. Dr Day was markedly slower than her peers, who would "click and close" claims by pasting the nurses' own rationale for denying the claim into the relevant form, acting as a rubber-stamp rather than a skilled reviewer.

Dr Day knew she was slower than her peers. Cigna made sure of that, producing a "productivity dashboard" that scored doctors based on "handle time," which Cigna describes as the average time its doctors spend on different kinds of claims. But Dr Day and other Cigna sources say that this was a maximum, not an average – a way of disciplining doctors.

These were not long times. If a doctor asked Cigna not to discharge their patient from hospital care and a nurse denied that claim, the doctor reviewing that claim was supposed to spend not more than 4.5 minutes on their review. Other timelines were even more aggressive: many denials of prescription drugs were meant to be resolved in fewer than two minutes.

Cigna told Propublica and The Capitol Forum that its productivity scores weren't based on a simple calculation about whether its MD reviewers were hitting these brutal processing time targets, describing the scores as a proprietary mix of factors that reflected a nuanced view of care. But when Propublica and The Capitol Forum created a crude algorithm to generate scores by comparing a doctor's performance relative to the company's targets, they found the results fit very neatly into the actual scores that Cigna assigned to its docs:

The newsrooms’ formula accurately reproduced the scores of 87% of the Cigna doctors listed; the scores of all but one of the rest fell within 1 to 2 percentage points of the number generated by this formula. When asked about this formula, Cigna said it may be inaccurate but didn’t elaborate.

As Dr Day slipped lower on the productivity chart, her bosses pressured her bring her score up (Day recorded her phone calls and saved her emails, and the reporters verified them). Among other things, Dr Day's boss made it clear that her annual bonus and stock options were contingent on her making quota.

Cigna denies all of this. They smeared Dr Day as a "disgruntled former employee" (as though that has any bearing on the truthfulness of her account), and declined to explain the discrepancies between Dr Day's accusations and Cigna's bland denials.

This isn't new for Cigna. Last year, Propublica and Capitol Forum revealed the existence of an algorithmic claims denial system that allowed its doctors to bulk-deny claims in as little as 1.2 seconds:

https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health-insurance-rejection-claims

Cigna insisted that this was a mischaracterization, saying the system existed to speed up the approval of claims, despite the first-hand accounts of Cigna's own doctors and the doctors whose care recommendations were blocked by the system. One Cigna doctor used this system to "review" and deny 60,000 claims in one month.

Beyond serving as an indictment of the US for-profit health industry, and of Cigna's business practices, this is also a cautionary tale about the idea that critical AI applications can be resolved with "humans in the loop."

AI pitchmen claim that even unreliable AI can be fixed by adding a "human in the loop" that reviews the AI's judgments:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/23/maximal-plausibility/#reverse-centaurs

In this world, the AI is an assistant to the human. For example, a radiologist might have an AI double-check their assessments of chest X-rays, and revisit those X-rays where the AI's assessment didn't match their own. This robot-assisted-human configuration is called a "centaur."

In reality, "human in the loop" is almost always a reverse-centaur. If the hospital buys an AI, fires half its radiologists and orders the remainder to review the AI's superhuman assessments of chest X-rays, that's not an AI assisted radiologist, that's a radiologist-assisted AI. Accuracy goes down, but so do costs. That's the bet that AI investors are making.

Many AI applications turn out not to even be "AI" – they're just low-waged workers in an overseas call-center pretending to be an algorithm (some Indian techies joke that AI stands for "absent Indians"). That was the case with Amazon's Grab and Go stores where, supposedly, AI-enabled cameras counted up all the things you put in your shopping basket and automatically billed you for them. In reality, the cameras were connected to Indian call-centers where low-waged workers made those assessments:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/29/pay-no-attention/#to-the-little-man-behind-the-curtain

This Potemkin AI represents an intermediate step between outsourcing and AI. Over the past three decades, the growth of cheap telecommunications and logistics systems let corporations outsource customer service to low-waged offshore workers. The corporations used the excuse that these subcontractors were far from the firm and its customers to deny them any agency, giving them rigid scripts and procedures to follow.

This was a very usefully dysfunctional system. As a customer with a complaint, you would call the customer service line, wait for a long time on hold, spend an interminable time working through a proscribed claims-handling process with a rep who was prohibited from diverging from that process. That process nearly always ended with you being told that nothing could be done.

At that point, a large number of customers would have given up on getting a refund, exchange or credit. The money paid out to the few customers who were stubborn or angry enough to karen their way to a supervisor and get something out of the company amounted to pennies, relative to the sums the company reaped by ripping off the rest.

The Amazon Grab and Go workers were humans in robot suits, but these customer service reps were robots in human suits. The software told them what to say, and they said it, and all they were allowed to say was what appeared on their screens. They were reverse centaurs, serving as the human faces of the intransigent robots programmed by monopolists that were too big to care.

AI is the final stage of this progression: robots without the human suits. The AI turns its "human in the loop" into a "moral crumple zone," which Madeleine Clare Elish describes as "a component that bears the brunt of the moral and legal responsibilities when the overall system malfunctions":

https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/260

The Filipino nurses in the Cigna system are an avoidable expense. As Cigna's own dabbling in algorithmic claim-denial shows, they can be jettisoned in favor of a system that uses productivity dashboards and other bossware to push doctors to robosign hundreds or thousands of denials per day, on the pretense that these denials were "reviewed" by a licensed physician.

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

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/29/what-part-of-no/#dont-you-understand

[sweetlikesummerhoney]

burn with me

human mafia boss! megatron x gender neutral reader

implieid mafia! au. possessive megatron. slight blood kink? its biting and marking buddy. penetrative sex.

the atmosphere feels heavy with every step you take, the dim lights overcasting shadows that smear across the wall. if you were to squint hard enough, you may even find strange splotches and red markings throughout the interior.

every person you pass gives you a once over, and a nod. their eyes take no more than a few seconds to glance over you before disappearing into the intricate detailing of the floor.

you can hear hushed voices as you pass, some whispering to each other about the current affairs of the higher ups, and others hoping that today wouldn't be filled with a river of bloodshed.

as you approach the doorway at the end of the hallway, you can hear the voices from beneath. megatron's low rasp is barely heard as you can hear starscream arguing with him.

you almost feel suffocated with the pure rage and frustration emitting from the room in front. you take a moment to stop and stand, ears listening in rapid attention.

"the military is cracking down on supply chains. my contacts may no longer be of assistance." starscream growls, and you can practically imagine him waving his slender hands around in exasperation.

"I have provided you with more than enough resources to proceed with these trades. or does your galavanting through the ranks not get you more than the scraps of the bottom of the barrel?"

his voice is rough, barking against the door as you feel the tension rise. you take a deep breath before giving two sharp knocks against the door. their voices immediately hush, and a gruff 'come in' is heard.

you heed no mind to the way starscream straightens at your presence, while megatron simply gives you a once over. his eyes linger on your frame appreciatively as he leans forward in his chair.

his eyes gleam ominously as a sharp smirk graces his face.

"ah, just in time." you take a moment to stride across the room, eyes roving across the messy desk full of maps and papers strewn across the surface. his ash tray is full of ash and stubbed cigars. not a good sign.

you can feel his eyes rove across you, the dark and deep red drawing you in as you return his gaze. you come to stand besides his chair, cocking your head at starscream.

he stiffens and clears his throat.

"none of our contacts have enough resources to continue fueling these little skirmishes. there have been far too many injured, and knockout has been chewing us out for all the work."

megatron rolls his eye as he leans back, one hand firmly grasping a glass filled with smooth ice and a beautiful amber color.

"that is his job."

you pipe up, heart hammering in your chest as you watch megatron chuckle to himself. starscream fiddles with his fingers as he speaks once again.

"we have been in contact with optimus and ratchet as of late. they have proposed something rather appealing in the moment." megatron's eyes narrow as he slams his glass onto the desk, and you watch as starscream tries not to jump out of his skin at the gesture.

"and what would that old rust bucket want?" starscream stutters out, flailing wildly to cool the heating anger.

"a ceasefire. this would allow us plenty of time to gain more contacts, resources, and recover. our morale is low and we're at risk to losing more than we gain continuing to fight."

just as megatron opened his mouth, you lay a gentle hand on his shoulder. the heat radiates off his body as he quiets for you to speak. you clear your throat and gently trace invisible lines into his shoulders.

he slowly relaxes again.

"that would be wise. there is no need to expand our territory at the moment. running ourselves into the ground and wearing thin would prove to be inefficient." megatron hums, watching as starscream waits eagerly for an answer.

"and how would this ceasefire... allow us to gain more control?" you drape yourself over his shoulders, feeling his hand creep to the back of your neck and gently squeezing it. his calloused hand sends shivers up your spine as you continue.

"as starscream stated, his connections in the military might be a bust. we can regain control through the redistribution of synth en. make it a bit easier to get, get people hooked."

you continue, feeling his grip slowly tighten.

"this would gain us an advantage, especially knowing that those on the other side won't be able to stop circulation completely. it would debilitate the autobots. they'll be too busy trying to track the sources and finding a solution towards the addiction and side effects."

you glance at starscream, feeling his gaze settle on the two of you. his lips are firmly pressed into a thin line as he shifts uncomfortably where he stands.

"shockwave can always find or manufactor more weapons through his company. we all know his extensive history in blackmarket connections and complicated technological advancements."

megatron nods slowly, his hair sweeping across his face as he leans forward.

"starscream." starscream jumps to attention.

"yes sir!"

"I will make my decision about the ceasefire no later than tomorrow." starscream rapidly nods his head as he shifts, a nervous smile on his face as he wrings his hands together.

"until then. get. out." starscream doesn't have to be told as he bolts out the door and slams it behind him.

his grasp on your neck slowly slides down to your jaw as he jerks you forward, giving him a good look at your face as he narrows his eyes.

"and here you are, batting for the other team."

"it is most logical to have a ceasefire. we are losing too much." megatron huffs,

"stop hanging out with shockwave. you're sounding too much like him."

"and if not shockwave, I'd have to accompany starscream, knockout and his strange experiments, or breakdown and his debauchery."

you can feel his fingertips digging into the sensitive flesh of your jaw as you grunt, giving a firm glare to megatron as he growls.

"you shall do no such thing." you easily allow him to manipulate you, bending to his whims as he settles you onto his lap, facing him. for once, you're taller than him.

red eyes pool into you as you shudder, subtly leaning into the heat radiating off his frame.

you purse plush lips as you pout.

"a ceasefire would lessen the work we have to do." you ghost your fingers across his neck and trailing down the fancy suit he's wearing.

"and would free up lots of time..." you flutter your eyes as you look up through your lashes, ghosting a hand over the bulge in his pants.

you press your palm against his bulge, feeling him twitch through the expensive fabric.

"wouldn't that be desirable?" "I know something you desire." he gently grinds against your hand, grasping your hips to press you closer.

his mouth presses against you, and you slightly grimace at the bitter taste of smoke and liquor invades your senses. he gives you no choice but to lean in as he guides his lips against yours.

heat pulses in your stomach as you press against him, feeling hard muscle flex beneath you as he guides you to grind against his clothed cock.

a string of saliva connects the two of you as you gasp for air, shuddering as his hands roam across your figure. ghosting over your lower back to appreciatively grope at your ass.

his hand finds purchase in your hair as he yanks, bearing your throat to his whims. you whimper and whine as you feel him suck marks into your skin, ghosting sharp teeth against sensitive skin. his tongue lavishes against your flesh, sucking harshly to mark.

you're not surprised by the way he bites into you, sinking into you like a predator consuming its prey. pain jolts across your neck as he nips and bites, drawing small pinpricks of blood. you mewl against him, squirming at the unpleasant sensation.

his arms pin you against him, forcing your figure close to his. you can feel your heart pounding in sync with his as his eyes darken.

red dots his lips as he eagerly licks up droplets of blood.

"on the desk." he lets go and you obediently splay yourself across the desk, paying no mind to the papers beneath you. if they were important, he would've gotten rid of them by now.

no traces.

you spread your legs as he pulls clothing from your form, eyes narrowing at unmarked skin before him. you hear the clunk of his belt as he draws himself from his underwear.

his cock is heavy and red, the head beading with precum that slowly slides down the mushroom head. it's long and thick, something you'll never quite get used to taking.

he settles against your plush thighs, grinding his cock into your core with fever. his grip is bruising as he mouths at your neck, grazing sharp teeth against you as he slowly presses into you.

his cock brushes against your entrance, slick and wet as he teases your entrance.

"this could be all yours." he grunts before withdrawing. he shoves his fingers into your face as he commands.

"suck." you obediently suck his digits into your mouth, gently sucking and swirling your tongue against his long fingers. you bob your head a bit, fluttering your eyelashes up at him as he sneers at you.

it takes no time for him to press himself knuckle deep into your entrance, smirking as he feels you pulse and tighten around his thick fingers.

his palm presses against your pelvis as he grinds and thrusts his fingers into your walls, curling his fingers in such a way that has you keening and arching your back.

he smirks as he removes his fingers, leaving you whining at the sudden loss. he shows you his hand, where his fingers and wrist is glistening in your slick.

"greedy thing." you watch as he sucks his fingers into his mouth, taking his sweet time to lap up your juices and suck his fingers free of your mess.

your core throbs at the sight, and you whine sadly, giving him big, watery eyes.

"please." you beg, whimpering as you wiggle your hips. megatron huffs before pressing against you.

his cock brushes against your entrance and finally, he slowly presses in. his thick head slowly pressed against your tightening walls as you tried to relax.

despite how many times you've taken him, it always seems that no amount of preparation would prepare you for him.

the two of you grunt in sync as your hips jolt at the sudden intrusion, followed by small grinding movements that slowly inched him closer to you.

his cock pulses against your walls as you mewl, back arching and walls clenching as his hips pressed flush against yours. you felt impossibly full as you clench against him, eyes fluttering as you pant.

megatron lifted your jaw, forcing half lidded, watery eyes to meet the burning, intense gaze of him.

his eyes are dark, like his soul. it reminds you of the corruption that lays deep in his soul, that even his soft side would still be jagged and guarded.

with his calloused, bruised fists or with his haunting schemes that would shatter any hope of survival. bruises and blood that trails behind him like a carpet, leading further into the murky darkness of his empire.

he is a king.

yet here he is, at your fingertips.

you utter his name in a winded fashion as his pace began to slowly quicken. each roll of his hips had you bracing against the desk, hands desperately clenching onto nothing as you squirmed.

he presses his chest against yours, fondly nipping and marking your skin as your stomach wound itself into tight knots. sensitive nipples rub against the soft fabric of his shirt as you jolt. he seems to know all too well the way to play your body like an instrument. you are but a puppet whom strings have been pulled.

your mouths meet in another intense kiss, and for once, he allows his hand to interlace with yours. his form presses against you, hiding you from view and carving into your very being.

he doesn't stop when you clench and keen, walls fluttering as you cum. your hips jerk away from his tight hold, trying desperately to escape the his battering pace. a deep growl reverberates in his chest.

"stay still." he growls, and you moan loudly at the way he seems to swell inside you. one final, deep thrust has the two of you pressed against each other, panting.

you squeeze his hand and he grunts, hips jerking against yours as he grinds into you.

his deep, red eyes bore into yours.

"now, about that ceasefire."

you roll your eyes and huff. only after he's fragged you into oblivion does he want to talk business.

[warsofasoiaf]

What do you think of the Longshoreman union strike? I'm all for higher wages and better benefits, but limiting automation, when our ports are some of the least productive in the developed world, and that could make things actually safer, I think is a bridge too far. Maybe it is just a negotiating tactic though.

It's not a negotiating tactic. The ILA and their sister organization on the West Coast the ILWU have had a long-standing opposition to automation, even to the point of the ILWU causing an illegal shutdown when the port switched from clipboards to barcodes. This has been a position held for decades.

Frankly, I have no sympathy for the ILA - their anti-automation position is a tax they place on the public to subsidize their inefficiency. The cost in the ports is passed on to the end consumer and ends up causing higher prices for everyone. Moreover, this opposition to automation is unfounded. Rotterdam is the most heavily automated port in the world and saw little loss of human employment and a massive boost in efficiency. And I'm not even sympathetic to higher wages and better benefits - they are already highly-paid for terrible productivity. Plenty of their members make $200,000 a year so that the US can enjoy ports that are the least productive of the developed world. We aren't getting our money's worth.

They have a legal monopoly on a critical supply chain and are now extorting the public. Longshoreman's unions already have a nasty reputation for corruption (On the Waterfront and Goodfellas showed us that), and many of their senior leadership faces racketeering charges, and this just cements it for me.

So I have a quite negative opinion of the strike and the corruption that has enabled it.

Thanks for the question, Bruin.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[vren-diagram]

What are the great positive effects of automated freight handling that longshoremen are denying you? What would become so much cheaper?

https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/transport/why-ports-matter-global-economy

Efficient port infrastructure has also been identified as a key contributor to overall port competitiveness and international trade costs. Unfortunately, ports and terminals, particularly for containers, are too often main sources of shipment delays, supply chain disruptions, additional costs, and reduced competitiveness. The result far too often is that instead of facilitating trade, the port increases the cost of imports and exports, reduces competitiveness, and inhibits economic growth and poverty reduction. The effect on a country or the countries served by the port can be severe. Inefficient ports can slow the circular system of container shipping, thereby reducing capacity, and reducing costs. Ships have to wait unnecessarily incurring additional fuel costs, additional emissions, and additional costs.

Improving container port performance lowers the cost of trade, contributes to food security, improves resilience, and reduces unnecessary emissions from vessels. The role of ports as the linchpin in the global economy is a major reason why the World Bank and S&P Global Markets are tracking port performance for nearly 350 global ports in the Container Ports Performance Index (CPPI).

When the cost of things goes up, that makes almost everyone worse off. I don't know how this could be clearer. You don't like it when you pay more money for things. Almost nobody likes paying more money to get the same things.

The US currently has some of the worst performing ports in the world. Because of resistance to modernization and make-work programs. Driven by dockworkers unions that use their monopolization of government-granted monopolies on infrastructure to....extract large amounts of money for themselves. This literally causes everything to be a little more expensive than it has to be. This to benefit dudes doing the equivalent of digging up holes just to fill them in again.

[apas-95]

The US military would be the very last thing to fall in a serious challenge to the US state. All other inefficiencies in the execution of bourgeois rule, wherever possible, would be stripped first.

In the case of the current economic difficulty, amidst a massive recession and waning imperial economic power, the method to deal with a nonexistent economy is martial production. Military equipment in the US is already, as much as feasible, manufactured through state-owned prison slave labour, and the military maintains, as much as feasible, its own end-to-end supply lines. Nationalising a few key producers at the ends of the chain that are, due to a purchasing monopoly, effectively already arms of the state, and removing them from market troubles by removing them from the market, would be a straightforward move that would insulate the most important arm of the bourgeois state.

Notably, this is broadly in line with historical fascist practice, especially that of prisoner slave labour - Nazi Germany used forced labour in its concentration camps, along with select nationalisation and cartelisation, to secure its war industry during an economic bleedout. The capitalist ideological framing of Nazi military equipment as being technological wonders stems from exactly this state of affairs. Nazi equipment was, in reality, overcomplicated and unreliable - but the military equipment of the liberal democracies even moreso. Private military contractors are incentivised to offer up the most bloated, overcomplicated, and unreliable equipment possible; so as to increase its price, loop in as many subcontractors as possible, and ensure a steady need for replacements and repairs. Fascist cartelisation alleviates this slightly, and for that, they're worshipped.

Notably, the USSR never received this adulation - quite the opposite. Could Leningrad have survived such a siege if every factory, every truck, every foundry demanded to make a profit, siphon off wealth? The designs of Nazi tanks needed to be revised so often that factories almost spent more time retooling than actually producing - while the T-34, recounted with fear by Nazi commanders that encountered it, had its design integrated into its logistical and manufacturing context to the fullest extent. The fact that these inefficiencies in production were done away with is presented, instead, as the stereotype of 'horde tactics'. While capitalism may be pushed, inexorably by history, to quantitatively strive to reach the effectiveness of socialism, it can never cross the qualitative divide between them, of class character, and it abhors everything on the other side. Fascism is its final stop before that cliff.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from RMI:

As new clean technologies grow up S-curves, the incumbent technologies get pushed out in inverse S-curves.This creates an X pattern that is standard in technology history; we saw this for example in the shift from cast iron to steel and from horses to cars. 

The energy transition can be summarized in three Xs: renewables, electrification, and efficiency.

Solar and wind push out fossil-fueled electricity Solar and wind are the new superior energy sources: they are cheap and getting cheaper, available everywhere, and captured locally. They eliminate combustion and pollution from electricity generation. They are rapidly taking over electricity supply. In 2000, solar and wind produced just 0.2 percent of global electricity. By 2010, this figure had increased to 2 percent, and by 2023, it had reached 13 percent. By 2030, they will be producing over a third of global electricity generation.

Obedient electrons push out fiery molecules Electricity is the newly dominant energy carrier, transcending the inefficiencies and pollution resulting from setting fossil molecules on fire. Over the past century, electricity has quietly risen to become the largest supplier of useful energy. According to Rystad Energy, in 1965 electricity accounted for 10 percent of useful energy, rising to 30 percent in 2022. This century-long trend is about to accelerate as renewables make electricity cleaner, cheaper, more secure, and more efficient. By 2050, electricity is likely to supply around 70 percent of useful energy.

Efficiency pushes out waste The efficiency of the energy system is set to structurally rise in the decades ahead, enabling more wealth creation per unit of energy. Old fossil energy is incredibly inefficient: about two-thirds of primary energy goes up in smoke as it is converted to useful purposes. But renewable electrification removes combustion from the energy chain, meaning we lose much less energy to unused heat. Further considering design and digitalization can give us more energy services from far less primary energy. And greater efficiency means the supply-side takeover of renewables and electricity happens even faster.

[canmom]

a few critical comments on "The Busy Worker's Handbook to the Apocalypse"

so i read this one very doomer medium article The Busy Worker's Handbook to the Apocalypse the other day, which attempts to argue that with the amount of GHGs already in the atmosphere, collapse of human society is inevitable and imminent, in a way that the scientific establishment such as the IPCC is instutionally unable to admit. I will warn, if you're prone to anxiety, don't read it, because the article is bleak as hell and quite effective rhetoric. it opens with a largely correct overview of climate science which lends it credibility, before jumping to the worst imaginable conclusions about various feedbacks and tipping points.

and like... it got me a bit. immediately after I read it, I was left with a horrifying feeling that this is as good as it will ever get, that the end of it all was only years away, that all my hopes for what I'd do for the next few decades and what is prefigured by this or that social development were utter delusions, and all there was left to do was just try and make the best of the last few years before we all die in the big cascading-failure famine.

but... ok Bryn, hold your fucking horses, let's do some research eh?

to begin with, I found one critique video that points out a number of places where the author makes scientific errors, misunderstands his sources, or doesn't justify his conclusions. for example, the author argues that a 'blue sea event' where the polar ice melts would lead to immediate, catastrophic warming as the latent heat of fusion no longer absorbs any incoming radiation, and also that the success of measures to reduce air pollution will accelerate warming; these seem to both be straight up wrong. but that doesn't cover everything I had questions about.

for example, one scenario discussed in the 'handbook' is 'multi breadbasket failure'. the idea is that, given that most of the world's food is produced in a few specific regions, this is a scenario where two or more of the major food-producing regions suffer very low yields in the same year due to climate shit. and this isn't farfetched, there is mainstream scientific discussion of this concept. for an accessible analysis, I found this article by some major capitalist consulting company (assess bias accordingly) which gives some actual numbers, including estimates of which crops are more likely to fail as the climate changes (rice, corn and soy are in trouble, but wheat, oddly enough, could actually do better in a warmer world).

however, while the author of the guide to the apocalypse suggests that, thanks to 'just in time' supply chains, there are almost no reserves of food and everything is on ships... the mckinsey article quotes a figure of 30% 'stock-to-use ratio', meaning there is a fair chunk of food in the granaries. they seem to predict that if two 'breadbaskets' fail in the same year, causing a 15% drop in yield, that ratio would drop to about 20%. the immediate result would be food price spikes (which means a lot of people would starve) but it's not a complete 'global megafamine' collapse.

'course, the question then is what happens if it happens again a few years later? but at least theoretically the 'multi breadbasket failure' scenario could be drastically mitigated by 1. producing food in more different places so the eggs are in fewer baskets 2. storing more food when times are good (something discussed in the mckinsey article) and 3. the world broadly eating less meat (since most crops are grown to feed animals, which adds a trophic level of inefficiency), so less grain is needed to feed everyone. i don't know if that's actually gonna happen, but it's not prima facie impossible.

on the other hand, the author of the Handbook argues that a world renewable energy transition is not just infeasible but physically impossible, because it demands reserves of metal that do not exist to roll out all the wires, turbines, etc etc. I was already fairly pessimistic about whether the renewable energy transition could happen in time (since there is little evidence that the current renewable deployment is making any sort of dent in GHG emissions, which remain resolutely coupled to economic activity); I was also conscious that the amount of mining to produce all the batteries and so on would have its own devastating impacts. but the argument that it is impossible even in principle is new to me.

so is that actually true? the Handbook bases this point entirely on the work of Dr Simon Michaux of the Finnish Geological Survey, who presents the calculation in this hour-long presentation based on this report (summary). this is honestly an excellent presentation, explaining the methodology really clearly - it reminds me of SEWTHA back in the day, a book I found very formative. And actually McKay also raised the question of materials:

To create 48 kWh per day of offshore wind per person in the UK would require 60 million tons of concrete and steel – one ton per person. Annual world steel production is about 1200 million tons, which is 0.2 tons per person in the world. During the second world war, American shipyards built 2751 Liberty ships, each containing 7000 tons of steel – that’s a total of 19 million tons of steel, or 0.1 tons per American. So the building of 60 million tons of wind turbines is not off the scale of achievability; but don’t kid yourself into thinking that it’s easy. Making this many windmills is as big a feat as building the Liberty ships.

McKay's analysis was based only on the UK; the figure of 48kWh/d comes from McKay's estimate of plausible maximum wind capacity for the UK only. He also takes into account some modest reductions in energy use. So my sense was that a completely renewable energy system would be an unprecedented megaproject, but not utterly implausible.

By comparison, Michaux's analysis (which I took a bunch of notes on, I'll post in a minute) has a worldwide scope, and rather than using back of the envelope physical calculations, relies on data on existing systems which largely did not exist when McKay was alive. It is nevertheless a rough estimate, and crucially, focuses on the question of completely replacing current fossil fuel use. Where good data did not exist, like the amount of steel and concrete used in a wind turbine, it was not included in the analysis, since the purpose was to get a lower bound.

The report covers a number of different minerals, many of which existing reserves fall short and it would take thousands of years to produce enough at current production levels. Copper is the big one: he estimates some 4.5 billion tones would be needed, where only 0.88 billion tonnes of reserved are publicly known to exist, and the rate of new discoveries has tailed off to near zero. I see no error in his calculation (though I haven't checked the numbers in detail, the method is sound).

However, there is a major caveat. The vast, vast majority of this copper would go to millions of battery banks used to provide just four weeks of storage to make it through the wind production lulls in the winter. This covers about 4.2 billion tonnes; by comparison the amount of copper used for one generation everything else (wind turbines, EV batteries etc.) is a still-hefty 0.3 billion tonnes. So that raises the question of whether there's an alternative to all those batteries, mature enough to be deployed at a scale to provide 0.55PWh of energy storage (or likely, more) in a decade or two. My understanding is most other tech (flywheels etc.) is still on the 'tiny pilot plant' sort of scale.

Anyway, as far as like the future of humanity goes, I already agree with Michaux's main point that maintaining current rates of energy consumption is just not viable; the future is necessarily going to be much lower energy. (I also don't really think 'decoupling' economic activity from energy use to somehow preserve capitalism's exponential curve is really plausible.)

However, the way the author of the Handbook uses Michaux's estimates is not supported. Michaux proved that a 1:1 replacement of fossil fuel energy consumption with renewables is not possible; that necessarily implies that (since fossil fuels are just starting to run dry and becoming less viable) we have to get by on less energy. And yeah, that obviously implies substantial changes to how people live in rich countries, crushing the super-rich etc.; it's fair to say the whole system must become less complex, in ecological terms.

I do still agree it's more than understandable to be pessimistic about whether that will happen without everything collapsing first - to put it mildly, there is a lot of inertia in a system this complex! - but it's not physically impossible that humans could accomplish a renewable energy transition, contract and rationalise how we use what energy we can get, and still have everyone live relatively comfortably. (After all, life on Earth has managed to live sustainably on solar power for billions of years, indefinitely recycling carbon, nitrogen etc. between high and low energy forms and dumping all the unusable high-entropy energy into space; I stand by the belief that there is no intrinsic reason that human society, even with complex technologies like computers, could not eventually assume a similar equilibrium if we survive. Though could does not mean is likely to....)

So I'm not convinced that we're a few years away from the first domino falling in the apocalypse. The situation is very very bad, don't get me wrong, I do basically agree the current socioeconomic world system is not capable of adapting fast enough as it stands, and I do find it increasingly hard to imagine the prospect of it being overturned, so I don't think the gigadeaths future is out of the question or even unlikely. But it's at least not the imminent near-certainty this essay makes out. If it comes, it will be more drawn-out than that. We don't need to live as if we will certainly die in a year or five.

So... now back to not thinking about it and fiddling while the world burns, I guess? :/

[khalid-albeshri]

Top Construction Project Challenges:

1. Cost Overruns: Due to inaccurate estimates and scope changes.

2. Schedule Delays: Caused by weather, material delays, and labor shortages.

3. Labor Shortages: Lead to delays and higher costs.

4. Design Errors: Result in rework and increased costs.

5. Regulatory Issues: Cause delays and legal complications.

6. Safety Risks: Lead to injuries and project delays.

7. Environmental Concerns: Require redesigns and delay projects.

8. Supply Chain Disruptions: Delay projects and raise costs.

9. Stakeholder Conflicts: Lead to disputes and delays.

10. Technology Integration: Resistance causes inefficiencies.

11. Risk Management: Poor planning leads to project failures.

12. Quality Control: Results in rework and legal issues.

13. Scope Creep: Causes budget overruns and delays.

14. Communication Breakdown: Leads to mistakes and conflicts.

15. Financial Management: Poor cash flow causes project stoppages.

- Mitigation: Effective planning, communication, risk management, and quality control are essential.

#KhalidAlbeshri #خالدالبشري

[dailyanarchistposts]

Down On The Farm

The foot and mouth ‘epidemic’ in Britain was a massive abuse of animals and the land, caused by the pursuit of profit. Infected swill from schools, probably arising from the cheap imported meat schools use (cost-cutting before children’s health), was fed to pigs. Infected and disease-free animals were taken to large agri-business holding stations. The weak or unwanted were sold in local markets, spreading infection. The rest were transported hundreds of miles to fattening stations and mixed with other animals even though it is well known that livestock transported long distances are very susceptible to disease. Some were exported to Europe (after being infected), others sold after fattening to the abattoirs and then into the food chain. This industrial agriculture is forced upon farmers by a capitalism that must offer ever-cheaper goods to survive and the greed of the supermarkets for profit and market share. What is truly amazing is that foot and mouth disease cannot infect humans and does no more harm to animals than minor sores and milk that can’t be used. It wears off after a few weeks. In the 19th Century and abroad farmers simply let the disease burn itself out after killing very few animals. Why is it different in these islands? Because the supermarkets will not buy infected meat and farmers will not pay to feed a cow that even temporarily produces no milk. Foot and mouth was not a natural disaster, it was an economic disease, killing profits but of no harm to animals or humans. One million healthy, disease-free sheep were killed to protect the profits of the supermarkets and large agribusinesses, the ultimate indictment of capitalist profit motive and methods of organization. Globalisation and free trade are forcing intensive farming methods on farmers with disastrous consequences. In 1999 200,000 farmers in Europe gave up the unequal struggle and big business moved in. 10 companies worldwide control 60% of the international food chain. Four of them control the world supply of corn, wheat, tea, rice and timber. Massive subsidies, paid for by taxes on wages and non-agricultural businesses, swell the profits of the biggest farms and agricultural businesses, usually owned by large multi-national corporations – in the US, a total of $22bn. While western capitalism demands subsidy worth $362bn per year, the farmers of the rest of the world share just $18bn – if they can’t compete, they are accused of inefficiency by western ‘experts�� and legislated out of existence or driven to the wall by ‘free and fair’ competition.

Farmers are made more dependent on the multinationals by the fact that seed varieties (along with all forms of life) can now be patented and by being patented turned into private property. If farmers buy Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soya beans they have to sign a contract committing themselves to use only Monsanto chemicals, not to save any seed for replanting (one of the basics of sustainable agriculture) and be prepared to allow representatives of the company on to their farms for up to 3 years after the purchase to check this. In order to enforce these ‘Technology Use Agreements’ in the US, Monsanto have employed the Pinkerton private detective agency (famous for their violent strike breaking activities on behalf of US capital), they have named and shamed ‘guilty’ farmers in local radio station adverts and even opened a telephone hotline for people to dob in offenders. The fact that 475 farmers in the US and Canada broke their Technology Use Agreements and were sued by Monsanto is probably one of the reasons it developed ‘terminator’ technology, a technique where genes are inserted into a plant which render its seed non-viable; from the corporations point of view a great improvement — from ‘economic sterility’ to biological sterility. Monsanto is suing one farmer from Canada for growing seed without a license, when what actually happened was that his oilseed rape crop had been contaminated by pollen from GM crops on nearby farms. Of course the real aim of terminator technology is the untold sums of money to be made from stopping ‘Third World’ farmers from saving and sharing their seeds and making them dependent on high tech seed from the multinationals.

Nothing in the preceding paragraph should be taken to mean that we see large capitalist farmers in the US and Canada as being somehow victims of the corporations. Like large scale industrial farmers everywhere they are part of the corporate food production system of which GM is the latest stage: they exploit wage labour (although labour on farms is drastically reduced by the industrialisation process large scale industrial farming exploits wage labour massively in the chemical industry, machine production, transportation etc) and happily produce for the global market and act as a market for every new agro-chemical or GM seed produced. But already complaints of crop damage due to herbicide drift are starting to increase as the sprays farmers growing Roundup Ready GM use drifts onto the crops of farmers growing ordinary plants.

[analogyx]

Revolutionize Your Automotive Aftermarket Business with Epicor

Welcome to the world of Epicor, where cutting-edge solutions drive the automotive aftermarket industry forward. Epicor software, data analytics, product content, e-commerce, and service solutions can help you achieve faster, more profitable growth in one of the world’s most dynamic industries.

Whether you make, sell, or install parts, tires, and other products for automotive and commercial vehicle applications, Epicor offers best-of-breed solutions to accelerate revenue growth, eliminate inefficiencies, and strengthen customer loyalty.

Epicor specializes in: -

Parts Manufacturing

Parts Distribution

Vehicle Service and Repair

Automotive Dealership

Leverage the aftermarket’s premier data network, delivering market, vehicle, part, tire, and repair intelligence that fosters growth at every level of the aftermarket.

Master the industry’s unique compliance, supply chain, and process requirements with solutions designed to help you thrive.

Think big and grow faster with solutions curated specifically for automotive and commercial vehicle businesses.

At Analogyx, we take pride in being an Epicor Authorized Partner. We have a dedicated and specialized Epicor Support staff focused on Epicor services. We are committed to your success and strive to be your trusted partner in optimizing your Epicor ERP system to achieve your business goals.

Contact us today to explore how our Epicor services can transform your business operations and drive growth. --- Visit our website: https://analogyx.com/

Check our Blog: https://analogyx.com/revolutionizing-automotive-management-with-erp/

[mostlysignssomeportents]

What comes after neoliberalism?

In his American Prospect editorial, “What Comes After Neoliberalism?”, Robert Kuttner declares “we’ve just about won the battle of ideas. Reality has been a helpful ally…Neoliberalism has been a splendid success for the top 1 percent, and an abject failure for everyone else”:

https://prospect.org/economy/2023-03-28-what-comes-after-neoliberalism/

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

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/28/imagine-a-horse/#perfectly-spherical-cows-of-uniform-density-on-a-frictionless-plane

Kuttner’s op-ed is a report on the Hewlett Foundation’s recent “New Common Sense” event, where Kuttner was relieved to learn that the idea that “the economy would thrive if government just got out of the way has been demolished by the events of the past three decades.”

We can call this neoliberalism, but another word for it is economism: the belief that politics are a messy, irrational business that should be sidelined in favor of a technocratic management by a certain kind of economist — the kind of economist who uses mathematical models to demonstrate the best way to do anything:

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

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

Those economists — or, if you prefer, economismists — are still around, of course, pronouncing that the “new common sense” is nonsense, and they have the models to prove it. For example, if you’re cheering on the idea of “reshoring” key industries like semiconductors and solar panels, these economismists want you to know that you’ve been sadly misled:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/03/24/economy-trade-united-states-china-industry-manufacturing-supply-chains-biden/

Indeed, you’re “doomed to fail”:

https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-and-investment-policy-watch/high-taxpayer-cost-saving-us-jobs-through-made-america

Why? Because onshoring is “inefficient.” Other countries, you see, have cheaper labor, weaker environmental controls, lower taxes, and the other necessities of “innovation,” and so onshored goods will be more expensive and thus worse.

Parts of this position are indeed inarguable. If you define “efficiency” as “lower prices,” then it doesn’t make sense to produce anything in America, or, indeed, any country where there are taxes, environmental regulations or labor protections. Greater efficiencies are to be had in places where children can be maimed in heavy machinery and the water and land poisoned for a millions years.

In economism, this line of reasoning is a cardinal sin — the sin of caring about distributional outcomes. According to economism, the most important factor isn’t how much of the pie you’re getting, but how big the pie is.

That’s the kind of reasoning that allows economismists to declare the entertainment industry of the past 40 years to be a success. We increased the individual property rights of creators by expanding copyright law so it lasts longer, covers more works, has higher statutory damages and requires less evidence to get a payout:

https://chokepointcapitalism.com/

At the same time, we weakened antitrust law and stripped away limits on abusive contractual clauses, which let (for example) three companies acquire 70% of all the sound recording copyrights in existence, whose duration is effectively infinite (the market for sound recordings older than 90 is immeasurably small).

This allowed the Big Three labels to force Spotify to take them on as co-owners, whereupon they demanded lower royalties for the artists in their catalog, to reduce Spotify’s costs and make it more valuable, which meant more billions when it IPOed:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/12/streaming-doesnt-pay/#stunt-publishing

Monopoly also means that all those expanded copyrights we gave to creators are immediately bargained away as a condition of passing through Big Content’s chokepoints — giving artists the right to control sampling is just a slightly delayed way of giving labels the right to control sampling, and charge artists for the samples they use:

https://doctorow.medium.com/united-we-stand-61e16ec707e2

(In the same way that giving creators the right to decide who can train a “Generative AI” with their work will simply transfer that right to the oligopolists who have the means, motive and opportunity to stop paying artists by training models on their output:)

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/09/ai-monkeys-paw/#bullied-schoolkids

After 40 years of deregulation, union busting, and consolidation, the entertainment industry as a whole is larger and more profitable than ever — and the share of those profits accruing to creative workers is smaller, both in real terms and proportionally, and it’s continuing to fall.

Economismists think that you’re stupid if you care about this, though. If you’re keeping score on “free markets” based on who gets how much money, or how much inequality they produce, you’re committing the sin of caring about “distributional effects.”

Smart economismists care about the size of the pie, not who gets which slice. Unsurprisingly, the greatest advocates for economism are the people to whom this philosophy allocates the biggest slices. It’s easy not to care about distributional effects when your slice of the pie is growing.

Economism is a philosophy grounded in “efficiency” — and in the philosophical sleight-of-hand that pretends that there is an objective metric called “efficiency” that everyone can agree with. If you disagree with economismists about their definition of “efficiency” then you’re doing “politics” and can be safely ignored.

The “efficiency” of economism is defined by very simple metrics, like whether prices are going down. If Walmart can force wage-cuts on its suppliers to bring you cheaper food, that’s “efficient.” It works well.

But it fails very, very badly. The high cost of low prices includes the political dislocation of downwardly mobile farmers and ag workers, which is a classic precursor to fascist uprisings. More prosaically, if your wages fall faster than prices, then you are experiencing a net price increase.

The failure modes of this efficiency are endless, and we keep smashing into them in ghastly and brutal ways, which goes a long way to explaining the “new commons sense” Kuttner mentions (“Reality has been a helpful ally.”) For example, offshoring high-tech manufacturing to distant lands works well, but fails in the face of covid lockdowns:

https://locusmag.com/2020/07/cory-doctorow-full-employment/

Allowing all the world’s shipping to be gathered into the hands of three cartels is “efficient” right up to the point where they self-regulate their way into “efficient” ships that get stuck in the Suez canal:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/03/29/efficient-markets-hypothesis/#too-big-to-sail

It’s easy to improve efficiency if you don’t care about how a system fails. I can improve the fuel-efficiency of every airplane in the sky right now: just have them drop their landing gear. It’ll work brilliantly, but you don’t want to be around when it starts to fail, brother.

The most glaring failure of “efficiency” is the climate emergency, where the relative ease of extracting and burning hydrocarbons was pursued irrespective of the incredible costs this imposes on the world and our species. For years, economism’s position was that we shouldn’t worry about the fact that we were all trapped in a bus barreling full speed for a cliff, because technology would inevitably figure out how to build wings for the bus before we reached the cliff’s edge:

https://locusmag.com/2022/07/cory-doctorow-the-swerve/

Today, many economismists will grudgingly admit that putting wings on the bus isn’t quite a solved problem, but they still firmly reject the idea of directly regulating the bus, because a swerve might cause it to roll and someone (in the first class seats) might break a leg.

Instead, they insist that the problem is that markets “mispriced” carbon. But as Kuttner points out: “It wasn’t just impersonal markets that priced carbon wrong. It was politically powerful executives who further enriched themselves by blocking a green transition decades ago when climate risks and self-reinforcing negative externalities were already well known.”

If you do economics without doing politics, you’re just imagining a perfectly spherical cow on a frictionless plane — it’s a cute way to model things, but it’s got limited real-world applicability. Yes, politics are squishy and hard to model, but that doesn’t mean you can just incinerate them and do math on the dubious quantitative residue:

https://locusmag.com/2021/05/cory-doctorow-qualia/

As Kuttner writes, the problem of ignoring “distributional” questions in the fossil fuel market is how “financial executives who further enriched themselves by creating toxic securities [used] political allies in both parties to block salutary regulation.”

Deep down, economismists know that “neoliberalism is not about impersonal market forces. It’s about power.” That’s why they’re so invested in the idea that — as Margaret Thatcher endlessly repeated — “there is no alternative”:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/11/08/tina-v-tapas/#its-pronounced-tape-ass

Inevitabilism is a cheap rhetorical trick. “There is no alternative” is a demand disguised as a truth. It really means “Stop trying to think of an alternative.”

But the human race is blessed with a boundless imagination, one that can escape the prison of economism and its insistence that we only care about how things work and ignore how they fail. Today, the world is turning towards electrification, a project of unimaginable ambition and scale that, nevertheless, we are actively imagining.

As Robin Sloan put it, “Skeptics of solar feasi­bility pantomime a kind of technical realism, but I think the really technical people are like, oh, we’re going to rip out and replace the plumbing of human life on this planet? Right, I remember that from last time. Let’s gooo!”

https://www.robinsloan.com/newsletters/room-for-everybody/

Sloan is citing Deb Chachra, “Every place in the world has sun, wind, waves, flowing water, and warmth or coolness below ground, in some combination. Renewable energy sources are a step up, not a step down; instead of scarce, expensive, and polluting, they have the potential to be abundant, cheap, and globally distributed”:

https://tinyletter.com/metafoundry/letters/metafoundry-75-resilience-abundance-decentralization

The new common sense is, at core, a profound liberation of the imagination. It rejects the dogma that says that building public goods is a mystic art lost along with the secrets of the pyramids. We built national parks, Medicare, Medicaid, the public education system, public libraries — bold and ambitious national infrastructure programs.

We did that through democratically accountable, muscular states that weren’t afraid to act. These states understood that the more national capacity the state produced, the more things it could do, by directing that national capacity in times of great urgency. Self-sufficiency isn’t a mere fearful retreat from the world stage — it’s an insurance policy for an uncertain future.

Kuttner closes his editorial by asking what we call whatever we do next. “Post-neoliberalism” is pretty thin gruel. Personally, I like “pluralism” (but I’m biased).

Have you ever wanted to say thank you for these posts? Here's how you can do that: I'm kickstarting the audiobook for my next novel, a post-cyberpunk anti-finance finance thriller about Silicon Valley scams called Red Team Blues. Amazon's Audible refuses to carry my audiobooks because they're DRM free, but crowdfunding makes them possible.

http://redteamblues.com

[Image ID: Air Force One in flight; dropping away from it are a parachute and its landing gear.]

[gigglystudent]

Understanding Trade Policies: A Master Level Economics Homework Answer

In the realm of Economics Homework Help, one question that often arises at the master's level is the intricacies surrounding trade policies. Let's delve into a question that encapsulates the complexity of this subject and provide a comprehensive answer.

Question: Discuss the impact of protectionist trade policies on domestic industries and overall economic welfare.

Answer: Trade policies, particularly protectionist measures, have long been a subject of debate among economists and policymakers alike due to their profound implications on domestic industries and overall economic welfare. Protectionist policies, such as tariffs, quotas, and subsidies, are implemented by governments to shield domestic industries from foreign competition. While these policies may offer short-term benefits to the protected industries, their long-term consequences often outweigh the initial advantages.

One of the primary effects of protectionist trade policies is the distortion of market forces. By imposing tariffs or quotas on imported goods, governments artificially inflate the prices of foreign products, making them less competitive compared to domestic alternatives. This protectionism may temporarily safeguard domestic industries from foreign competition, allowing them to capture a larger market share. However, in the long run, it fosters inefficiency and complacency within these industries, hindering their ability to innovate and compete globally.

Moreover, protectionist measures often trigger retaliatory actions from trading partners, leading to trade wars and escalating tensions in the global economy. As countries retaliate against each other's protectionist policies by imposing their own tariffs and restrictions, international trade becomes increasingly restricted, disrupting supply chains and reducing overall economic efficiency. This tit-for-tat escalation can have severe consequences, ultimately harming all participating economies involved.

Furthermore, protectionist trade policies tend to impose significant costs on consumers. By artificially inflating prices through tariffs or quotas, consumers are forced to pay more for goods and services, leading to a decrease in their purchasing power. This, in turn, diminishes consumer welfare and dampens overall economic growth. Additionally, protectionism often results in reduced choices and product variety for consumers, as domestic industries may struggle to match the diversity offered by international markets.

In terms of employment, while protectionist policies may initially preserve jobs in the protected industries, they often do so at the expense of other sectors of the economy. Resources that could have been allocated more efficiently in other industries are diverted to support less competitive sectors, leading to a misallocation of resources and inhibiting overall economic productivity. Moreover, the increased costs imposed by protectionism can ultimately lead to job losses in industries that rely heavily on imported inputs or exports, further exacerbating unemployment levels.

Overall, while protectionist trade policies may offer temporary relief to domestic industries facing foreign competition, their long-term consequences are detrimental to economic welfare. By distorting market forces, triggering trade conflicts, imposing costs on consumers, and distorting resource allocation, protectionism ultimately undermines economic efficiency and prosperity. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of the implications of protectionist measures is essential for formulating effective trade policies that promote sustainable economic growth and global cooperation.

In conclusion, the impact of protectionist trade policies on domestic industries and overall economic welfare is complex and multifaceted. While these policies may provide short-term benefits to certain sectors, their long-term consequences pose significant challenges to economic efficiency and prosperity. It is imperative for policymakers to carefully weigh the trade-offs involved and pursue policies that prioritize openness, competition, and innovation in the global marketplace

[elsa16744]

Maximizing Value in Private Equity – How Comprehensive Support Services Drive Operational Excellence 

Top private equity (PE) firms are known to be experts at finding undervalued companies and bringing strategic improvements to them for business enrichment. Later, PE firms sell those remarkably transformed organizations for a higher value. However, this approach has little to do with the “buying low and selling high” principle. 

Instead, it depends on the actual creation of operational improvement that is real and sustainable within the portfolio companies to empower and enable them to succeed. This post aims to explain in detail how comprehensive support services drive operational excellence by maximizing value in private equity investments.  

The Need for Operational Excellence in Private Equity 

Operational excellence means the ability of a company to deliver products or services in a way that is highly efficiency, least waste-generating, and quality standard compliant. Even though operational excellence is non-negotiable in unlocking value for private equity players, the competitive marketplace now suggests that PE firms must go beyond conventional financial engineering and risk forecasting to achieve results. 

Private equity firms often focus on improving the operational efficiency of their portfolio companies via significant management overhauls and automated workflows for strategy-driven initiatives. Refinements in operations by private equity outsourcing services enhance every company’s overall profitability and scalability. It essentially makes the value of the business go up, which would ultimately result in better returns after selling. 

Such specific strategies for idea implementation ensure the proper and time-bound transformation of a business and require the best team possessing specialized knowledge and tools. As a result, hunting for the best talent equipped with excellent financial technology credentials becomes mandatory. Still, if you struggle with talent acquisition, it might be time to seek reliable, comprehensive support services to conduct business enrichment campaigns in a well-planned manner. 

What Are Comprehensive Support Services in Private Equity? 

Today, you will encounter a broad range of comprehensive support services, which are distinguished by specific functions within portfolio companies with a potential for impressive operational excellence. Such services can be provided in-house by a diverse, multidisciplinary team or through third-party providers, such as external consultants. 

Most comprehensive PE assistance programs typically comprise strategy determination, human resource management, digital transformation, multipronged investment research, supply chain optimization, sales tracking, and marketing effectiveness. 

How Do Comprehensive Support Services Drive Operational Excellence by Maximizing Private Equity Value? 

1| Identification of Operational Inefficiencies   

Intricate PE and business enrichment support will enable private equity firms to conduct a more detailed analysis of their portfolio companies. The analysis may involve financial audits and operational diagnostics that identify cost-saving ideas, process optimization opportunities, and productivity gain hacks. 

2| Tailor-Made Improvement Plans 

In private equity firms, once inefficiencies are diagnosed, they use comprehensive support services tailored to each company’s specific needs, market circumstances, and fundamental activities that contribute the most to its future performance. Whether it is technology systems, supply chain optimization, or improving customer service, the aim of such arrangements is to bring about sustainable improvements in value creation over time. 

3| Accelerating Value in Operations 

In the high-velocity private equity environment, time is money. Comprehensive support services allow private equity firms to fast-track the deployment of operational modification endeavors, reducing the period between policy revisions, company-wide implementation, and value capture. 

At the same time, third-party consultants may be hired to analyze and quickly transform the way a firm “buys within the firms,” meaning acquiring other commercial entities, with the intention of immediately reaping cost savings. 

4| Innovation and Digital Transformation 

To foster innovation and digital transformation, many private equity firms are embracing comprehensive support services as an operational excellence catalyst. It is not surprising because many support providers nourish many uniquely skilled fintech veterans and strategy experts. 

They can be called in to assist portfolio companies in the digitalization of anything and everything. Their innovative tech also ranges from predictive data analytics to customer engagement tracking tools. Using them will make companies much more agile and responsive. Therefore, they will be better equipped to face future challenges due to industry disruptions. 

Conclusion 

The days when standard statistical models and generic job responsibilities would be enough to deliver above-the-average returns in private equity are over. As a result, private equity firms must drive operational excellence within portfolio companies, maximizing value via novel fintech adoption campaigns. Otherwise, they cannot achieve consistent results and recreate past successes. 

Comprehensive support services play a critical role in creating value within acquired or partnered organizations, whether through optimized supply chains, instituting digital transformation committees, or executive position changes. 

Ultimately, modern private equity firms are best positioned to optimize enterprise operations to enhance profitability and achieve superior returns for investors, expecting a holistic business enrichment approach for true value creation that lasts for decades and unprecedented gains. 

[unpluggedfinancial]

Bitcoin: The Renaissance of Money

I. Introduction Bitcoin is more than just a digital currency; it is a revolutionary force, akin to the great cultural movements in history like the Renaissance. Just as the Renaissance transformed art, science, and human perspective, Bitcoin is reshaping the very fabric of money, finance, and trust. This transformation challenges the status quo and introduces a paradigm shift in how we think about value and freedom.

II. The Historical Context of Money Throughout history, money has continually evolved. From the early barter systems, to the use of precious metals as coins, and eventually the introduction of paper money, the story of money is one of constant change. Each shift has responded to the needs and technologies of its time, but these systems have always relied on central authorities. With the advent of Bitcoin, a new chapter in the history of money is being written—one that removes the need for centralized control and hands power back to individuals.

III. Bitcoin: A New Dawn Bitcoin represents a new dawn in the evolution of money. It is decentralized, meaning that no single entity, government, or organization has control over it. This is in stark contrast to traditional fiat currencies, which are controlled by central banks and governments, subject to manipulation and inflation. Bitcoin offers an alternative: a peer-to-peer network that is open, secure, and verifiable by anyone, providing a financial system that belongs to everyone.

IV. Cultural Movement of Bitcoin Bitcoin is more than just a currency; it is a cultural movement. It embodies the ideals of freedom, sovereignty, and the democratization of wealth. For many, Bitcoin represents the ability to take back control of their finances—away from banks and traditional financial institutions that often operate without transparency. It aligns with values of fairness and empowerment, giving people the opportunity to participate in a global economy without intermediaries or unnecessary barriers.

V. Financial Sovereignty and Trust One of the core promises of Bitcoin is financial sovereignty. By holding Bitcoin, individuals gain full control over their money, free from the risks of bank failures, currency devaluation, or government interference. The blockchain, Bitcoin’s underlying technology, plays a key role in building this trust. Every transaction is recorded on a public ledger that is immutable and transparent, ensuring that the system remains trustworthy and accountable.

VI. Inducing a Moral Shift Bitcoin’s principles of sound money have the power to induce a moral shift in society. When money is fair, transparent, and unmanipulated, people’s behavior changes in response. Bitcoin encourages values such as delayed gratification, responsibility, and the creation of real value. By moving away from an inflationary fiat system—prone to manipulation and benefitting a select few—Bitcoin inspires a societal shift towards greater honesty, accountability, and long-term thinking. It fosters an environment where hard work and responsible stewardship of resources are rewarded, rather than undermined by inflation and financial manipulation.

VII. Blockchain: A Foundation for Honesty and Transparency The blockchain technology that underpins Bitcoin extends beyond currency—it is a foundation for honesty and transparency in numerous sectors. Blockchain can be applied to industries like supply chain management, where it provides end-to-end visibility and ensures the authenticity of goods. It can also be used for decentralized data management and verifiable public records, eliminating the need for blind trust in opaque institutions. At a time when public confidence in traditional systems is at an all-time low, blockchain offers a powerful solution for transparency and integrity, allowing individuals to verify information for themselves.

VIII. Breaking the Chains of Traditional Finance The traditional banking system is riddled with inefficiencies, high fees, and a lack of transparency. It often operates to the benefit of a few, leaving many underserved. Bitcoin addresses these issues by offering faster, cheaper, and more transparent transactions. It removes intermediaries, reduces costs, and creates a more inclusive financial environment. Bitcoin empowers individuals to take control of their financial destiny, bypassing the limitations and bureaucracy of traditional finance.

IX. Impact on the Future Looking ahead, Bitcoin has the potential to play a significant role in a more sustainable, fair, and decentralized economy. The integration of Bitcoin with clean energy solutions can create a harmonious relationship between financial innovation and environmental stewardship. Bitcoin mining can drive investments in renewable energy, transforming how we produce and consume power. A future built on Bitcoin is one where financial systems are fairer, more transparent, and aligned with sustainable practices.

X. Conclusion Bitcoin is more than a technological innovation; it is a transformative movement that has the power to reshape our understanding of money, value, and trust. Just as the Renaissance challenged old paradigms and ignited new possibilities, Bitcoin is doing the same for the financial world. It invites us to rethink what is possible and to be part of a revolution that champions fairness, transparency, and individual empowerment. Join the movement and help shape the future of money.

Take Action Towards Financial Independence

If this article has sparked your interest in the transformative potential of Bitcoin, there's so much more to explore! Dive deeper into the world of financial independence and revolutionize your understanding of money by following my blog and subscribing to my YouTube channel.

🌐 Blog: Unplugged Financial Blog Stay updated with insightful articles, detailed analyses, and practical advice on navigating the evolving financial landscape. Learn about the history of money, the flaws in our current financial systems, and how Bitcoin can offer a path to a more secure and independent financial future.

📺 YouTube Channel: Unplugged Financial Subscribe to our YouTube channel for engaging video content that breaks down complex financial topics into easy-to-understand segments. From in-depth discussions on monetary policies to the latest trends in cryptocurrency, our videos will equip you with the knowledge you need to make informed financial decisions.

👍 Like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell to stay updated with our latest content. Whether you're a seasoned investor, a curious newcomer, or someone concerned about the future of your financial health, our community is here to support you on your journey to financial independence.

Support the Cause

If you enjoyed what you read and believe in the mission of spreading awareness about Bitcoin, I would greatly appreciate your support. Every little bit helps keep the content going and allows me to continue educating others about the future of finance.

Donate Bitcoin: bc1qpn98s4gtlvy686jne0sr8ccvfaxz646kk2tl8lu38zz4dvyyvflqgddylk